It's the newest cry of the liberal world; Human Rights...in a democracy! Ok, now maybe I am just your 'typical' right-wing nut-job whose had too much read meat and is perpetually ready to jump down the throat of the nearest Left-wing wacko and choke him from the inside, but WHY do we need to worry about 'human rights' in a democracy?? The reason we have a democracy is BECAUSE we respect human rights. Where then do some wack-jobs go about 'demanding' human rights?
Ok, no democracy is perfect and there is always the risk of dictatorship if one is not careful. It has happened before in democracies of the past, namely Weimar Germany and even post-Imperial Russia during the Bolshevik Coup in November, 1917. But they are hardly exemplary and the circumstances surrounding their fall into totalitarianism are more exceptions to the rule than the rule itself.
Indeed, a Human Rights Tribuneral or a 'commission,' as it is sometimes called, would hardly have prevented this from happening as these bodies, in order to operate, would require a level of indulgence by the governing authorities. Totalitarian regimes would never allow this as it would undermine their authority and their political underpinnings. They might 'sign on' to the UN Charter on Human Rights, as virtually all police states then extant did when it was proposed in the late 70's - early 80's. But that is far different than actually allowing Official Human Rights observers to enter and operate within the territory they control.
So, ironically, in countries like Communist China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Syria, and any number of Islamic states (including erstwhile allies Saudi Arabia), where human rights are clearly a joke and where a Human Rights Tribuneral/Commission might actually do some good, they can't even operate. But in free democratic states, where they CAN and DO operate, they are, essentially, redundant since human rights and liberties are guaranteed by any number of constitutional or legal provisions.
The other problem is scope. In totalitarian or close societies, the people who operate these bodies and organizations are aiming to either work with and/or modify the policies that genuinely violate what has been determined as 'human rights.' They have too, because any suggestion of toppling or overthrowing the host regime or the regime they are criticizing, will lead to charges of "meddling in domestic affairs or stability." That could result in consequences as grave and unpleasant as gave rise to the criticism of that regime's human rights record in the first place.
In western democracies, however, where human rights groups are given virtual free reign, if not legitimized by legislation, the scope of their activities changes. Now instead of battling for BASIC human rights, such as personal privacy, freedom of speech and expression, freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure, as well as due process before legitimate courts of law, and the right to elect their government via secret ballot, they have engaged in social engineering!
Take the so-called Human Rights Commission in Canada. According to its website, http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/default-en.asp, "The Canadian Human Rights Commission administers the Canadian Human Rights Act and is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Employment Equity Act. Both laws ensure that the principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination are followed in all areas of federal jurisdiction."
The Human Rights Act itself, at http://canada.justice.gc.ca/chra/en/consultation.html, says "The Canadian Human Rights Act works with other laws to protect human rights. The Act applies to federal private businesses as well as the Government of Canada. In contrast, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also prohibits discrimination and protects rights, but only applies to governments. Each province and territory also has a human rights act that covers businesses and organizations within their jurisdiction. For example, discrimination in housing and other types of accommodation would be brought to a provincial or territorial human rights commission.
The Act creates the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The Commission is an independent body. Its primary responsibility is to investigate and resolve individual complaints of discrimination and to educate the public. The Act also creates an independent Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. If the Commission cannot resolve a complaint, it may send the matter to the Tribunal.
A Tribunal has the power to conduct a hearing, review evidence and make a decision on whether or not discrimination occurred. The Tribunal has the power to.3 order compensation such as, money, reinstatement and preventative measures for the future."
After reading through this politically-charged gobble-de-goop, I have personally come to despise the whole 'Human Rights Commission' process, and consider it nothing more that a sop to degenerate, politically-correct activists and self-serving Leftist groups, professional whiners, and hypocrites (sorry, my 'warm and fuzzy' side just showed up).
IN an 'earlier life' (i.e. when I was a reporter) I dealt with plenty of these sorts people and found them to be some of the most shallow, self-centered, myopic, creeps you can imagine. They love flattery, love agreeableness, and believe they are the 'light' in some kind of perpetual neo-Fascist darkness. They also feel it is their God-given mission to educate dumb-guys like you and me, with what I have always felt was some kind of Socialist 'nobless oblige.'
Patronizing, dogmatic, ideological, and sure of their own importance, these poster-boys and girls for social engineering are a perfect example of "affirmative action" run amuck. Many of those who sit on these "commissions" (every province has one) are not even qualified for the positions they ASSume and appear to have achieved their status on them through some kind politically-correct chicanery to demonstrate our government's commitment to 'diversity' to the rest of us.
One person of this ilk that comes immediately to mind (though I hope she never sits on a Human Rights Commission), is Sunera Thobani, the Marxist theologian and one-time head the National Action Committee on the Status of Women in Canada, a group that draws tax dollars from your pocket and mine, in order to denigrate the society they live in. Professor/Dr. Thobani wasn't even a Canadian citizen when she ASSumed leadership of that body in 1993, although it was 'hailed' as a tremendous leap in progress for women, for the sole fact, it appears, that she is/was 'woman of colour.'
Yet it was this was the same twit, however, that virtually blamed the US for the attacks of 9/11 and accused them of spreading imperialism and evil throughout the world. In her speech (the full text of which can be seen at http://www.casac.ca/conference01/conf01_thobani.htm), Thobani said "US foreign policy is soaked in blood. And other countries of the West including shamefully Canada, cannot line up fast enough behind it. All want to sign up now as Americans and I think it is the responsibility of the women's movement in this country to stop that, to fight against it. These policies are hell-bent on the West maintaining its control over the world's resources. At whatever cost to the people.... Pursuing American corporate interest should not be Canada's national interest. This new fight, this new war against terrorism, that is being launched, it's very old. And it is a very old fight of the West against the rest."
Blah blah blah. Heck, with a bit more time and effort I could have written the speech for her, and with better and more credible language too! The problem is that, like all Leftists, Thobani aims for a higher moral ground while stepping on the people who might actually help her reach it. In other words, she is not interested in the agenda of 'the people' that she claims to support (or to actually represent), but in her OWN.
The same, I fear, is also true of the Human Rights Commission and other such groups. Wrapped up in their own importance and shielded, in Canada's case, by laws that have turned them into a virtual Thought Gestapo, they have ceased to protect the right granted us by our forefathers and have, instead, gone to work to impose a near-Marxist Utopian World view on us.
That said, I'm sure Human Rights Commissions in democratic states have 'some' merit (of course even Communism and Fascism had 'some' merit too) but not enough, in my eyes, to continue to fund these commissions when the only thing they do is waste our money on politically-motivated witch hunts. In-efficient, and rife with bleeding-heart Leftists and doped-out morons best left in the 60's and forgotten, even when they DO make a ruling, it is hardly the end of the matter and often requires a resort to the proper legal system in order for proper redress (read JUSTICE) to be attained.
So what then is their use? What then is the purpose in funding such bodies? In a free and truly democratic society, such as ours, very little; unless, of course, one wants to justify passing legislation that appeals to the very small and self-centered minority that they truly represent. In a totalitarian or closed society, they cannot even operate, nor act effectively. Yet, by allowing these nests of Leftists to have a well-funded perch in our free and democratic societies, by allowing them blab off and adjudicate so-called 'human rights issues' based on some clearly drug-induced Marxist-Utopian notions instead of those reasonable and conservative processes that have marked the development of our democracy, they virtually guarantee it's overthrow FROM WITHIN; the way Weimar Germany's and post-Imperial Russia's nascent democracies were.
This is the final and sickest irony. In a society without human rights, groups and bodies are vital, but cannot operate. In free democracies like ours, they are legal and freely operate, thus undermining their need to exist in the first place. And while it is immensely desirable that the citizens of totalitarian/closed societies to experience genuine freedom and liberty, even to the overthrow of their oppressive regimes, that is not the case within an already existent legitimately democratic society such as ours; that's what our legal system and constitutions are for and guarantee.
Infact, it is to the establishment and stability of such regimes that human rights groups should and must work towards. Once achieved, however, they become redundant and must either step aside or pushed aside, not entrenched in law the way they are in Canada and other misguided societies like ours.
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
Monday, August 13, 2007
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Socialism, Jack Layton, and Left-Wing Defeatists
Perhaps the heat and boredom the Canadian summer has finally fried the few remaining brain cells in the head of reputed NDP Leader Jack Layton's head. How else can he (or any other alleged homosapien) explain his comment that he wants to see the upcomoing five byeelections in Canada as a 'referendum' on our continuing military presence in Afghanistan ("Layton wants byelections to focus on Afghan mission" - Calgary Herald July 4 2007).
In case Mr Layton has forgotten, the reason why Canada got invovled in that part of the world is because of the the events of 9/11. This is not Iraq, nor is it "George W. Bush's War," it's Canada's contribution to the NATO Alliance's decision, for the first time in its history, to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which states: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
Hence the decision to put Canadian soldiers into combat was a result of a NATO decision to, effectively, declare war on Taliban-ruled Afghanistan and the Al Qaeda terrorist network that vile regime was sheltering. This made complete sense because the terrorist attacks represented not just a tragic losss of life in North America alone, but because the perpetrators of those attacks are still at large and continue to pose a threat to all allied democratic states.
Like Germany's attack on Poland in 1939, which sparked World War II, 9/11 represented more than just hatred from one group of fanatics against the greatest military power on earth. It actually represented the start of a world war against all that we value and cherish; freedom, peace, and respect for different values and beliefs.
To my knowledge, this war has not been won yet; both the Taliban and Osama bin Laden are still active in that poor and tragic country. Until they are crushed, until the freedom and stability of the Afghan people are fully secured, ours won't be either.
That, unfortunately, may take years and cost the lives of both our soldiers and many civilians as well. I guess, though, that that's why they call it a "war"and not a garden party, something Mr. Layton just might have missed. It's tragic and it's unfortunte, but so was WWII and every war before or since. Yet Canadians fought in those conflicts and, though we paid a great price, we also secured both our liberty and the liberty of generatoins then yet unborn; including mine and Jack Laytons' also.
For him to now even suggest that we turn out backs on our allies and the poor unfortunate people of Afghanistan, just because he fears 'an escalating war' (or, more accurately, because he just doesn't like President Bush) won't bring us peace or liberty. It will only prolong the suffering of the Afghan people, and encourage our enemies even more. It will also represent a betrayal of all the good that Canada stands for.
I pray, then, that those people voting in these upcomming byelections will see through the latest batch of Left-wing hogwash being spewed out by Layton and elect those people who support not 'war' per se but understand the reason we are fighting it in the first place. I hate war too and grieve over the loss of life, both Canadians, Afghans and allies. But I grieve even more that people like Jack Layton have learned nothing from the events of 1939.
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
In case Mr Layton has forgotten, the reason why Canada got invovled in that part of the world is because of the the events of 9/11. This is not Iraq, nor is it "George W. Bush's War," it's Canada's contribution to the NATO Alliance's decision, for the first time in its history, to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which states: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
Hence the decision to put Canadian soldiers into combat was a result of a NATO decision to, effectively, declare war on Taliban-ruled Afghanistan and the Al Qaeda terrorist network that vile regime was sheltering. This made complete sense because the terrorist attacks represented not just a tragic losss of life in North America alone, but because the perpetrators of those attacks are still at large and continue to pose a threat to all allied democratic states.
Like Germany's attack on Poland in 1939, which sparked World War II, 9/11 represented more than just hatred from one group of fanatics against the greatest military power on earth. It actually represented the start of a world war against all that we value and cherish; freedom, peace, and respect for different values and beliefs.
To my knowledge, this war has not been won yet; both the Taliban and Osama bin Laden are still active in that poor and tragic country. Until they are crushed, until the freedom and stability of the Afghan people are fully secured, ours won't be either.
That, unfortunately, may take years and cost the lives of both our soldiers and many civilians as well. I guess, though, that that's why they call it a "war"and not a garden party, something Mr. Layton just might have missed. It's tragic and it's unfortunte, but so was WWII and every war before or since. Yet Canadians fought in those conflicts and, though we paid a great price, we also secured both our liberty and the liberty of generatoins then yet unborn; including mine and Jack Laytons' also.
For him to now even suggest that we turn out backs on our allies and the poor unfortunate people of Afghanistan, just because he fears 'an escalating war' (or, more accurately, because he just doesn't like President Bush) won't bring us peace or liberty. It will only prolong the suffering of the Afghan people, and encourage our enemies even more. It will also represent a betrayal of all the good that Canada stands for.
I pray, then, that those people voting in these upcomming byelections will see through the latest batch of Left-wing hogwash being spewed out by Layton and elect those people who support not 'war' per se but understand the reason we are fighting it in the first place. I hate war too and grieve over the loss of life, both Canadians, Afghans and allies. But I grieve even more that people like Jack Layton have learned nothing from the events of 1939.
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Jesus and the Pharisees - Hypocrisy in Their Age and Ours
Let's be clear about one thing: Jesus Christ didn't criticize the Pharisees during His earthly ministry because they were 'stuck' on the law. He criticized them because they were HYPOCRITES.
That's the same charge I generally lay at the feet of the Left, in both Canada and the United States. Hypocrisy, infact, is the HALLMARK of the Left and it always was. The sad thing, however, is that they can get away with it because they stand for little more than personal/self-realized freedom, which consists of 'doing what you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.'
That's the drugged-out mantra of the 60's Hippie generation and it is still being used today. Because it recognizes no higher power than the 'self' as the ultimate moral guide, it can accept no consequences of mutually condoned behaviour.
The concept of "Sin", then, is relativistic in its understanding. Since the 'self' is the sole moral guide, as long as what is done is mutually agreed too and ultimately pleasurable and gratifying, it can and should be done even more.
The true Right/Conservative, on the other hand, has no such notion to fall back on. Since "sin" is clearly defined (for us) in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, any violation of that code represents a clear failure of character. Likewise the espousing of such values and the failure to live up to them adds the onus of hypocrisy upon us as well.
This, I believe, is PERFECTLY right and correct. Jesus knew this too and frequently castigated the Pharisees for their FAILURE to apply the standards to themselves as they applied them to others. As guardians of the law and proper behaviour, the onus was on them to show a better example and lead Godly lives, not to force others to do so while they, themselves, could or would not.
Sincere failure to live up to the Law leads one to the understanding of his or her own weaknesses and failings as human beings. It creates, or should create, in a character of mercy and understanding, not hypocrisy. Ultimately it leads to Christ since a poor sinful wretch, having failed to live up to the Law, is forced to confess his sins before a just and perfect Lord and seek His forgiveness; a forgiveness which only the blood of Jesus Christ makes possible.
But that doesn't make the Law wrong. In fact it doesn't make the Law any less Holy but more so. Indeed, is shows how PERFECT the Law of God really is for it BRINGS the sincere-hearted person to Salvation. As Scripture says, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."(Gal. 3:24).
Thus I glory in the Law, for unless the Law came and showed me how desperately wicked a man I was, I would not then have sought Christ for my redemption. But also having understood now my own failings, it becomes incombant upon me to try as hard as I can, to apply the same message of mercy to those who seek mercy. What I won't do, however, is open the floodgates to every perverted notion and idea (such as 'gay marriage') that the Left does.
Liberality, for me, then, is the Liberty of living in freedom to serve God, ON HIS TERMS, not mine. When I look into the PERFECT Law, I know God's terms and they are without argument or private interpretation.
Blogger James Krehbiel (http://leavingthebubble.blogspot.com/2007/06/is-christian-right-right.html) in his article, "IS THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT "RIGHT"?, says "The spirit of the law represents acceptance, tolerance, love, open-mindedness and personal responsibility. This is the spiritual revolution that we students were talking about so many years ago at Berkeley." Indeed the Law does say that, for the Father of the Law is Love and His commandment is that we love one another as Christ loved us. But HIS law, however, is not something that can be trampled on in the quest to seek it's 'spirit,' for the same God also says in 1 Samauel 15:22 "... Hath the LORD [as great] delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey [is] better than sacrifice, [and] to hearken than the fat of rams."
Indeed Peter himself says, "And we are his witnesses of these things; and [so is] also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him." (Act 5:32). It is OBEYING the Laws of God that keeps Christians away from the charges of hypocrisy.
If I then say that homosexuality is wrong, and I engage in homosexuality, does that make it incumbant upon my fellow-Christians and Conservatives to accept that? No, indeed! It, rather, makes it incumbant upon them to point out my hypocrisy and take me to the Law of God (not 'the spirit of the law' but the ACTUAL LAW) and show me where I failed, that I might repent and be redeemed.
Our failure, as men and Christians to do that, even amongst ourselves, is what leaves us open to legitimate charges of hypocrisy. If we then criticise the Left for their sins, we must be sure we do not engage in thems ourselves. If we do, we leave ourselves open to charges of being "Pharisees" and RIGHTLY SO I must say.
Mercy and love is not the sole property of the Left and we must not allow it to become that. We must, indeed, rescue both those terms from their hands and restore them to the hand of God from which they came. If we don't, they will continually be used as a license to immorality and lever upon which people from gays, to pedophiles (ie. NAMBLA), to all those who practice those things which God despises.
This is not 'liberty' but tyranny and bondage to debauchery. It opens the door to the worst in our societies, causing more legislation and thus LESS freedom. It is the Soviet system perfected and perpetuated; the Left triumphant at last.
The only true liberty, then, is one based on a moral standard apart from the 'self' and that standard is God's. As Paul says in Galatians 5:1 "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."
That 'bondage' is sinfulness and all that is attendent to it. Those who practice it serve, then, not just their 'self' but their real master, the devil himself. As Peter says about about them, "While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." (2 Peter 2:19).
Christians are NOT servants to corruption but to a liberating God. That is the difference between 'us' and 'them.' This distinction must always be remembered for it defines both our faith and our liberty, with one stemming from the other. As Paul says in Romans 6:22, "But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life."
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
That's the same charge I generally lay at the feet of the Left, in both Canada and the United States. Hypocrisy, infact, is the HALLMARK of the Left and it always was. The sad thing, however, is that they can get away with it because they stand for little more than personal/self-realized freedom, which consists of 'doing what you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.'
That's the drugged-out mantra of the 60's Hippie generation and it is still being used today. Because it recognizes no higher power than the 'self' as the ultimate moral guide, it can accept no consequences of mutually condoned behaviour.
The concept of "Sin", then, is relativistic in its understanding. Since the 'self' is the sole moral guide, as long as what is done is mutually agreed too and ultimately pleasurable and gratifying, it can and should be done even more.
The true Right/Conservative, on the other hand, has no such notion to fall back on. Since "sin" is clearly defined (for us) in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, any violation of that code represents a clear failure of character. Likewise the espousing of such values and the failure to live up to them adds the onus of hypocrisy upon us as well.
This, I believe, is PERFECTLY right and correct. Jesus knew this too and frequently castigated the Pharisees for their FAILURE to apply the standards to themselves as they applied them to others. As guardians of the law and proper behaviour, the onus was on them to show a better example and lead Godly lives, not to force others to do so while they, themselves, could or would not.
Sincere failure to live up to the Law leads one to the understanding of his or her own weaknesses and failings as human beings. It creates, or should create, in a character of mercy and understanding, not hypocrisy. Ultimately it leads to Christ since a poor sinful wretch, having failed to live up to the Law, is forced to confess his sins before a just and perfect Lord and seek His forgiveness; a forgiveness which only the blood of Jesus Christ makes possible.
But that doesn't make the Law wrong. In fact it doesn't make the Law any less Holy but more so. Indeed, is shows how PERFECT the Law of God really is for it BRINGS the sincere-hearted person to Salvation. As Scripture says, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."(Gal. 3:24).
Thus I glory in the Law, for unless the Law came and showed me how desperately wicked a man I was, I would not then have sought Christ for my redemption. But also having understood now my own failings, it becomes incombant upon me to try as hard as I can, to apply the same message of mercy to those who seek mercy. What I won't do, however, is open the floodgates to every perverted notion and idea (such as 'gay marriage') that the Left does.
Liberality, for me, then, is the Liberty of living in freedom to serve God, ON HIS TERMS, not mine. When I look into the PERFECT Law, I know God's terms and they are without argument or private interpretation.
Blogger James Krehbiel (http://leavingthebubble.blogspot.com/2007/06/is-christian-right-right.html) in his article, "IS THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT "RIGHT"?, says "The spirit of the law represents acceptance, tolerance, love, open-mindedness and personal responsibility. This is the spiritual revolution that we students were talking about so many years ago at Berkeley." Indeed the Law does say that, for the Father of the Law is Love and His commandment is that we love one another as Christ loved us. But HIS law, however, is not something that can be trampled on in the quest to seek it's 'spirit,' for the same God also says in 1 Samauel 15:22 "... Hath the LORD [as great] delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey [is] better than sacrifice, [and] to hearken than the fat of rams."
Indeed Peter himself says, "And we are his witnesses of these things; and [so is] also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him." (Act 5:32). It is OBEYING the Laws of God that keeps Christians away from the charges of hypocrisy.
If I then say that homosexuality is wrong, and I engage in homosexuality, does that make it incumbant upon my fellow-Christians and Conservatives to accept that? No, indeed! It, rather, makes it incumbant upon them to point out my hypocrisy and take me to the Law of God (not 'the spirit of the law' but the ACTUAL LAW) and show me where I failed, that I might repent and be redeemed.
Our failure, as men and Christians to do that, even amongst ourselves, is what leaves us open to legitimate charges of hypocrisy. If we then criticise the Left for their sins, we must be sure we do not engage in thems ourselves. If we do, we leave ourselves open to charges of being "Pharisees" and RIGHTLY SO I must say.
Mercy and love is not the sole property of the Left and we must not allow it to become that. We must, indeed, rescue both those terms from their hands and restore them to the hand of God from which they came. If we don't, they will continually be used as a license to immorality and lever upon which people from gays, to pedophiles (ie. NAMBLA), to all those who practice those things which God despises.
This is not 'liberty' but tyranny and bondage to debauchery. It opens the door to the worst in our societies, causing more legislation and thus LESS freedom. It is the Soviet system perfected and perpetuated; the Left triumphant at last.
The only true liberty, then, is one based on a moral standard apart from the 'self' and that standard is God's. As Paul says in Galatians 5:1 "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."
That 'bondage' is sinfulness and all that is attendent to it. Those who practice it serve, then, not just their 'self' but their real master, the devil himself. As Peter says about about them, "While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." (2 Peter 2:19).
Christians are NOT servants to corruption but to a liberating God. That is the difference between 'us' and 'them.' This distinction must always be remembered for it defines both our faith and our liberty, with one stemming from the other. As Paul says in Romans 6:22, "But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life."
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Mit Romney, Reagan Republican or Conservative Kerry?
As a Canadian and a Conservative, I am quite curious about the political dynamic posed by Mitt Romney. Obviously Mr. Romney presents the GOP with a very unique set of circumstances and raises many intriguing questions about his policies. On the one hand he seems to have solid conservative credentials, on the other, he seems to have been a bit over the map, and now styles himself a "Reagan Republican." What I think Americans, and even Canadians Conservatives like myself need to understand is what is in this candidate 'for us.' I don't mean 'us' (in terms of Canada) I mean 'us' in terms of the Conservative movement altogether as our Canuck Conservatives tend to follow in the coattails of American Conservatives (who follow in the footsteps of Southern Conservatives).
Right now that banner is held high by George W. Bush who, despite his missteps, has done a fair job of keeping the Right on the right track by cutting taxes and holding the line against Liberal encroachments. With the House and Senate now in the hands of arch-liberals like Nancy Pelosi (aka Hillary Clinton part duhhh!) it will take a strong and credible Conservative hand to steer control of both back into the correct and proper Conservative mainstream that the Republican Revolution in 1994 did much to inaugurate.
Perhaps Mitt Romney is that man, but perhaps he is not. The dilemma can best be summed up in a joke in the old Soviet Union: "What is the difference between Dubcek and Grobachev? The difference is that there isn't a difference." Brought forward today the question can be and must be reasonably asked is "what is the difference between John F. Kerry and Mitt Romney? The difference is that there isn't a difference."
This comparison is one that Conservatives, north and south and IN the South cannot under estimate or under-appreciate. Kerry tried to be Liberal to the liberals and progressive to the progressives. He failed on both counts, underestimating the conservative streak that permeats American politics; women wear footwear during summer that stands as a walking joke to that man's political ambitions. And though Mitt Romney's Conservative credentials are far more impressive than Kerry's Liberal/Progressive credentials ever were, the Republicans cannot afford to take lightly any political resemblance or accusations of flip-flopping that would and could undermine an otherwise successful political campaign by an apparently well-qualified candidate, regardless of who it is. Conservatives, unlike Liberals and Democrats, don't have the luxury of being foolish or appearing stupid for the simple reason that we ARE Conservatives, American and Canadian alike. That's because people are politically-conditioned to expect less of those on the left than those on the right; they're the ones who get their pants dirty while standing up in the corridors of the White House, while we're the ones who get our pants dirty playing football, baseball, and road hockey. It's the natural order of things. The OTHER thing that Conservatives cannot afford to appear is wavering on the issues because that is what MAKES us Conservatives in the first place.
Perhaps Mitt Romney is that person but it's too early in the campaign to prove that, one way or another. Time will tell, at least on that score. Until it does it's best for him and others not to let people start drawing comparisons between them and Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a saint, the hem of whose garment no one can yet touch, on the left or the right. But even Reagan had his flaws and made mistakes. What he did not do was flip-flop or even appear to do that.
That's the difference between a successful campaign and a failed one. It's also the difference between Conservatives and Liberals. The candidate who learns this lesson will be the next presidential nominee and the President of the United States of America. The one who doesn't will be the Democratic nominee for president and should save time and begin preparing their concession speech even now.
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
Right now that banner is held high by George W. Bush who, despite his missteps, has done a fair job of keeping the Right on the right track by cutting taxes and holding the line against Liberal encroachments. With the House and Senate now in the hands of arch-liberals like Nancy Pelosi (aka Hillary Clinton part duhhh!) it will take a strong and credible Conservative hand to steer control of both back into the correct and proper Conservative mainstream that the Republican Revolution in 1994 did much to inaugurate.
Perhaps Mitt Romney is that man, but perhaps he is not. The dilemma can best be summed up in a joke in the old Soviet Union: "What is the difference between Dubcek and Grobachev? The difference is that there isn't a difference." Brought forward today the question can be and must be reasonably asked is "what is the difference between John F. Kerry and Mitt Romney? The difference is that there isn't a difference."
This comparison is one that Conservatives, north and south and IN the South cannot under estimate or under-appreciate. Kerry tried to be Liberal to the liberals and progressive to the progressives. He failed on both counts, underestimating the conservative streak that permeats American politics; women wear footwear during summer that stands as a walking joke to that man's political ambitions. And though Mitt Romney's Conservative credentials are far more impressive than Kerry's Liberal/Progressive credentials ever were, the Republicans cannot afford to take lightly any political resemblance or accusations of flip-flopping that would and could undermine an otherwise successful political campaign by an apparently well-qualified candidate, regardless of who it is. Conservatives, unlike Liberals and Democrats, don't have the luxury of being foolish or appearing stupid for the simple reason that we ARE Conservatives, American and Canadian alike. That's because people are politically-conditioned to expect less of those on the left than those on the right; they're the ones who get their pants dirty while standing up in the corridors of the White House, while we're the ones who get our pants dirty playing football, baseball, and road hockey. It's the natural order of things. The OTHER thing that Conservatives cannot afford to appear is wavering on the issues because that is what MAKES us Conservatives in the first place.
Perhaps Mitt Romney is that person but it's too early in the campaign to prove that, one way or another. Time will tell, at least on that score. Until it does it's best for him and others not to let people start drawing comparisons between them and Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a saint, the hem of whose garment no one can yet touch, on the left or the right. But even Reagan had his flaws and made mistakes. What he did not do was flip-flop or even appear to do that.
That's the difference between a successful campaign and a failed one. It's also the difference between Conservatives and Liberals. The candidate who learns this lesson will be the next presidential nominee and the President of the United States of America. The one who doesn't will be the Democratic nominee for president and should save time and begin preparing their concession speech even now.
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
Monday, February 26, 2007
IT IS TIME - To boycott the Arabs!
"IT IS TIME." These famous words were used by Arnold Schwarzenegger's character in the movie, "Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines" when he encounters a still-young John Connor. At that point there is still some tension as to whether or not he has come to destroy the hero of the future or to save him. Luckily, for both the franchise and his legion of fans, Terminator came for the latter and not the former.
Now though, IT IS TIME for "us" to make up our minds. IT IS TIME to quit taking jibes at the only truly democratic and freedom-loving state in the Middle East, Israel, pick up our Swords of Gideon (or Boycott), and point them at the vile Islamic states which surround her. IT IS TIME to boycott the Arabs!
There are many good reasons for doing that, 9/11 being but one. The other is that the whole premise behind the 'punish Israel' movement is led by morons following in the footsteps of fools. In the Bible Jesus asks "...Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?" (Luke 6:39). Yet this is precisely what the now-dead Yassir Arafat-head and his so-called "Palestinians" have been doing for the better part of the last 40 years.
The irony, of course, is that the only 'Palestinians' that existed prior to 1948 (the year of Israel's re-emergence as a state after almost 2,000 years) were the forebears of the present Israelis. What the world, thanks to Arafat, now calls "Palestinians" have only existed since 1967, when Israeli forces liberated all of Jerusalem from 1500 years of Mohammedian domination. Prior to that time, Arabs in the equally so-called "West Bank" were
Jordanians - they became "Palestinians" only when Israel took over. They NEVER existed as a 'nation' prior to that
point and never EVER as a 'state.'
How then this myth of 'Palestine' (which is a term meaning the Land of the pagan Philistines or "sojourners" - see Exodus 15:14, Isaiah 14:29, Isaiah 14:31 and Joel 3:4) that these Arabs so cling too? It's neither a state nor a nation. It's a myth, rather, created by the Egypt-born Arafat and used as excuse to murder and commit acts for terrorism by him and his followers for 40 years now.
The Division of Israel, which the foolish Oslo Accords of 1993 helped bring about, is little more than a modern-day repeat of the division of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Back then, despite British PM Neville Chamberlain's fond hopes, the destruction of that tiny country brought neither 'peace for our time' nor 'peace forever.' It brought, instead, a cataclysmic war and near world-wide annihilation.
In the decade and-a-half since the Oslo Accords, there has also been neither peace nor security either. Indeed, while the so-called West Bank was fully occupied by Israel, there was relatively MORE security and peace than there is
now. How much less, then, can the creation of a so-called "Palestinian State" (which will have neither sufficient
natural resources, arable land, nor even territorial contiguity with the Gaza Strip - the way Germany proper was divided from East Prussia by the Polish corridor between 1919-1939) be expected to bring stability to the region or
prosperity to it's own people?
It can't and it won't. It will be a pariah state that will become a bigger nest of terrorists and Jihadis than
Lebanon or Syria ever was. And it will lead to a new war, and a far greater one than can be imagined. The sad thing
is no one really understands this and no one really wants too.
That's why the people who want to "boycott Israel" have to be some of the biggest morons on earth; the true
heirs and children of the generation that pushed the world into war in 1939 and then left it to their children to
spend countless millions of dollars and lives in the more than 50 more years afterward trying to clean up that mess
too.
What the world really needs to do, instead, is boycott Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, as well as the nascent,
pariah "Palestinian State" which are the biggest nests terror in the world (I add Saudi Arabia to this list, for the sole
reason that they tortured a Canadian citizen on trumped-up charges, treating him worse than a dog, as well as for
being the home of Osama bin Laden). Once these pathetic, evil states are crushed and their vile rulers and
ideologies thrown out, only then can we have a hope for 'peace in our time.'
As for Israel, I hope they keep their guns loaded, their powder dry, and their bombers ready to fly at a moments notice. Chances are they will not only prevent the destruction of their own state but also keep alive the hope that, one day, some brilliant Israeli will develop a cure for the common cold. Either that or find a way to make Windows actually work better - but I'm reaching there.
In the meantime IT IS TIME to quit blaming Israel and the Jews for all the woes that have befallen the world. IT IS TIME, instead, to support this tiny freedom-loving state and the industrious people who live and work there. IT IS TIME to BOYCOTT THE ARABS and all those states which support and sponsor terrorists and terrorism.
IT IS TIME!
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
Now though, IT IS TIME for "us" to make up our minds. IT IS TIME to quit taking jibes at the only truly democratic and freedom-loving state in the Middle East, Israel, pick up our Swords of Gideon (or Boycott), and point them at the vile Islamic states which surround her. IT IS TIME to boycott the Arabs!
There are many good reasons for doing that, 9/11 being but one. The other is that the whole premise behind the 'punish Israel' movement is led by morons following in the footsteps of fools. In the Bible Jesus asks "...Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?" (Luke 6:39). Yet this is precisely what the now-dead Yassir Arafat-head and his so-called "Palestinians" have been doing for the better part of the last 40 years.
The irony, of course, is that the only 'Palestinians' that existed prior to 1948 (the year of Israel's re-emergence as a state after almost 2,000 years) were the forebears of the present Israelis. What the world, thanks to Arafat, now calls "Palestinians" have only existed since 1967, when Israeli forces liberated all of Jerusalem from 1500 years of Mohammedian domination. Prior to that time, Arabs in the equally so-called "West Bank" were
Jordanians - they became "Palestinians" only when Israel took over. They NEVER existed as a 'nation' prior to that
point and never EVER as a 'state.'
How then this myth of 'Palestine' (which is a term meaning the Land of the pagan Philistines or "sojourners" - see Exodus 15:14, Isaiah 14:29, Isaiah 14:31 and Joel 3:4) that these Arabs so cling too? It's neither a state nor a nation. It's a myth, rather, created by the Egypt-born Arafat and used as excuse to murder and commit acts for terrorism by him and his followers for 40 years now.
The Division of Israel, which the foolish Oslo Accords of 1993 helped bring about, is little more than a modern-day repeat of the division of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Back then, despite British PM Neville Chamberlain's fond hopes, the destruction of that tiny country brought neither 'peace for our time' nor 'peace forever.' It brought, instead, a cataclysmic war and near world-wide annihilation.
In the decade and-a-half since the Oslo Accords, there has also been neither peace nor security either. Indeed, while the so-called West Bank was fully occupied by Israel, there was relatively MORE security and peace than there is
now. How much less, then, can the creation of a so-called "Palestinian State" (which will have neither sufficient
natural resources, arable land, nor even territorial contiguity with the Gaza Strip - the way Germany proper was divided from East Prussia by the Polish corridor between 1919-1939) be expected to bring stability to the region or
prosperity to it's own people?
It can't and it won't. It will be a pariah state that will become a bigger nest of terrorists and Jihadis than
Lebanon or Syria ever was. And it will lead to a new war, and a far greater one than can be imagined. The sad thing
is no one really understands this and no one really wants too.
That's why the people who want to "boycott Israel" have to be some of the biggest morons on earth; the true
heirs and children of the generation that pushed the world into war in 1939 and then left it to their children to
spend countless millions of dollars and lives in the more than 50 more years afterward trying to clean up that mess
too.
What the world really needs to do, instead, is boycott Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, as well as the nascent,
pariah "Palestinian State" which are the biggest nests terror in the world (I add Saudi Arabia to this list, for the sole
reason that they tortured a Canadian citizen on trumped-up charges, treating him worse than a dog, as well as for
being the home of Osama bin Laden). Once these pathetic, evil states are crushed and their vile rulers and
ideologies thrown out, only then can we have a hope for 'peace in our time.'
As for Israel, I hope they keep their guns loaded, their powder dry, and their bombers ready to fly at a moments notice. Chances are they will not only prevent the destruction of their own state but also keep alive the hope that, one day, some brilliant Israeli will develop a cure for the common cold. Either that or find a way to make Windows actually work better - but I'm reaching there.
In the meantime IT IS TIME to quit blaming Israel and the Jews for all the woes that have befallen the world. IT IS TIME, instead, to support this tiny freedom-loving state and the industrious people who live and work there. IT IS TIME to BOYCOTT THE ARABS and all those states which support and sponsor terrorists and terrorism.
IT IS TIME!
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Ontario Leads the Way (AGAIN!)
Well once again it looks like Ontario leads the way. It's not enough that our kids have to wear helmets for biking, skating, or driving motorcycles. NOW, however, thanks Vaughan, Ontario, city councilor Sandra Yeung Racco, the once legislation-free sport of tobogganing is going to face the stern and enlightened hand of political leadership.
I just have one question: how does Ms. Racco expect to enforce this silly piece of legislation? Is the town of Vaughan now going to hire special constables to patrol snow-covered hills and slap fines on six- to -nine year-olds who dare go uncovered while sliding down their favorite hill? Will there be radar traps and police officers booking preschoolers on Krazy Karpets for speeding or not signaling before wiping out in a snow bank?
Good Grief Charlie Brown, what is this country coming to?! What's next? The mandatory wearing of hard hats while walking down the street to prevent damage from meteorites? Why not the mandatory requirement of umbrellas when its' raining, or fines for people dumb enough to be outside in January without a coat?
Although I can appreciate the desire of people like Ms. Racco to protect our young people, the sad fact is no one can legislate-away stupidity; which is essentially what she hopes to do.
Kids are kids and that means they get bumps, breaks, bruises, and even die doing something stupid. That’s not so much a tragedy, however, as nature's way of, essentially, "thinning the herd" and allowing only the smart ones to survive and pass on their genetic code.
Sure, I do feel sorry for those parents who've lost a child to some foolish accident. My question, though, isn't why it happened but HOW could it happen?
Unless the generation now growing up is innately stupid, or dumb, most people, including kids, intuitively understand that running into a tree head-on, at full speed, on a thin piece of plastic, wood or metal, is a BAD IDEA.
The same goes with sliding down a hill and into traffic. In my day that was called being an idiot, regardless of what your age was. These days it's referred to as being a victim, but apparently one not of your own making even though that's what you are.
Anyhow, if the kids, or their parents, can't figure out that doing something stupid can be dangerous or life-threatening, then there is something seriously wrong with them or their parenting skills. Forcing everyone, however, to wear helmets while participating in one of the greatest of Canadian traditions (tobogganing), though, isn't the solution. It is, rather, an indication of a much much deeper problem.
Personally, think it starts with dumb ideas like Ms. Racco's. But that's just me and the millions of other Ontario-born kids who not only tobogganed down hills at full speed withOUT wearing helmets, but also managed to live and tell our own kids about it too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
