Neal.F.

1) United States not directly threatened by Liberia or Taylor. Nor were they funding terrorists. 2) US troops going in as peacekeeper 3) To protect the lives of all, and to reduce the possibility of walking into a hornets nest, a de-facto ceasefire had to be in place, as well as the leader of one side had to be castrated figuratively so he coule not be a rallying point.

The biggest winners in the Iraq war were the majority of Iraqi citizens who lived in abject terror for 35 years watching friends and loved ones being taken away in the middle of the night to be tortured or killed, oftentimes for not yelling loud enough at state organized demonstrations, or even for no reason at all, just to make an example. That regime slaughtered hundreds of thousands of its own citizens. They also have proven that they will attack neighbouring countries. They did it twice, unprovoked (Iran and Kuwait)

Get you head out of the sand and smell the smell of twin towers burning! The US does not "meddle" They take the steps they deem neccessary to protect the lives and livelihoods of their citizens, and often in so doing save and protect the lives of oppressed and persecuted peoples! The US can buy whatever it wants. they don't need to take countries over. They have given freedom to millions the world over. If not for the US, the bloody French would still be under Hitler's Jackboot, or would be Stalin's slaves, same with the damn Germans and Belgians and all the other cowards of old Europe. I agree with their boycotting the french bastards who seem to forget or ignore what lies below the countless white crosses on the shores of Normandy. I wouldn't take french wine if you gave it to me. It deserves to be flushed. Without the United States, this world would be a living hell under the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and others of that ilk.

As Leonard Cohen put it in his song "Democracy": "It's comin' to America first, cradle of the best , and the worst"... The United States is the only country that does not put a cap on how high someone can rise through his own effort. it is the land of the second chance.. and the third... and the fourth. As long a you get up , perhaps battered and bloodied, and fight again. You can get the education you want there. If you show ability, and drive, you will get whetever degree you're after. Companies will back up solid talent that they want. Universities will let them in just to have them there. You also have the option of not going to university.... and still making it big. many of the most successful Americans had little or no formal education. Just a solid work ethic. In socialist countries (almost everywhere except the USA) you are tested when you're twelve years old, and those tests determine in what stream of education you are placed. This is your life. Cookie-cutter nanny states. The United States is the place where you can earn whatever your ability and drive can get you, but provides no guarantee that you'll keep it... but if you lose it you try again. And if you're a lazy sod, you can live in a trailer park. Nobody's stopping you... But nobody's going to reward you for sitting on your ass either. That is why people hate the United States. Because Americans do not enshrine or reward mediocrity. Only excellence. And that's why I'm going there one day.....soon.

What is truly astonishing is that there is such a strong demand for babies among childless couples, that they are willing to pay over $20 000.00 to go to China, India and Romania to adopt! Yet in Canada, 106 000 babies are slaughtered every year in the name of "choice" out of hedonism, for no other reason than they were "inconvenient". Don't tell me these children are "unwanted" .

But Mickey Mouse already is on the ballot! he leads the Liberal Party!

One reason why they keep getting voted back in is that the electoral system is so heavily stacked in favour of the big established parties. Which is another reason so many people stay home on election day. the last Federal election was the worst turn-out ever, and its because people feel so disenfranchised. As it exists, the parties that currently have official status in Parliament hold all the aces. For example, most Canadians are not aware of the fact that every Member of Parliament, once elected, receives 50% of their total election expenses refunded to them out of the public purse. If a major party candidate spent the maximum allowable, which is approximately $60 000.00, then they would have received $30 000.00 back. To wit, when the next election is called they are sitting in the catbird seat, with $30 000.00 (plus interest) already in their war chest....at taxpayers expense. This means that all taxpayers are contributing to the next Liberal,CA, NDP, BQ or PC campaigns, without getting a say in the matter. The only solution to this is to pass a law which requires parties to be responsible for all their own fundraising, and receive no refund whatsoever of election expenses except the $1000.00 deposit each candidate must post, and is currently refundable only upon filing their audited election expense report with Elections Canada. Another example of the corruption that helps maintain the status quo is the allocation of broadcast time during an election. This is calculated in proportion to the number of seats each party held in the last Parliament. While I agree with the concept that free time should be made available so that the electorate may be informed of the options available to them, as of now, the current system is a sham as it is stacked in favour of the party in power which gets most of the time. Free time should be equally available to all officially registered political parties so that voters will benefit from a free market of ideas. As far as paid time advertising goes, it should be available freely to whomever wishes to, and is able to purchase the time. And finally we need to bring in some kind of proportional representation system. Preferably one which allows ridings/regions to elect a local voice, and at the same time guarantees all parties seats in proportion to the popular vote they receive. Before anyone screams blue murder about riding associations losing their say about who represents them, I point out that as things currently stand, in many cases, the associations are overruled by Party apparatus which often parachutes a "star" into the ridings. One example is none other than Paul Martin, who does not live in LaSalle-Emard. It's a part of town the likes of him would not normally frequent. I can go on all day about that. Suffice it to say, if some of the seats were elected from slates based on PR, the so-called "stars" could run on the slate, allowing ridings to focus on picking a truly representive local candidate.

Ron Gray, one of Canada's finest conservative spokesmen, has again summed up the situation in Canada very well, and brings home the truly precarious situation in which democracy finds itself in this country. A sad comentary on my part is that I was told that pollsters have found that most Canadians place more trust in Judges about whom they know nothing ,and can't even name, than their elected politicians. What is truly amazing is that they keep voting them back in. more later. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Canada's civil war by Ron Gray, CHP National Leader Canada is engaged in the first stages of a civil war. It’s a very Canadian sort of war, fought quietly and politely, using words instead of bullets. The prize is Canada’s children... and our nation’s future. The issue is the same as the cause of England's civil war of 1688: whether Parliament has the sole authority to make laws. On one side are the élitists — the 'nobility' of the courts, and those who would use the courts' power to obtain privileges they cannot gain through democratic means; on the other side are the people and Canada's Constitution. In between — unaware and undecided, distracted and confused — sits our federal Parliament. The courts, given unrestrained power in 1982 by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, now tell elected legislatures what laws they may pass. The federal government even asks the Supreme Court's permission for laws, sending draft bills to the high court for approval before submitting them to the House! The Supreme Court has repeatedly violated Canada's Constitution, and lesser courts follow their lead. Thus we have the spectacle of provincial court judges making ultimatums to Parliament — and the federal government supinely acquiescing. Almost a quarter of a century ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Canada’s Constitution consists of two equally important parts: the written document, and the tradition surrounding our Common Law heritage. A vital part of that tradition is the division of powers to create checks and balances: the elected legislatures write the laws; their cabinets and the civil service administer the laws; and the judiciary settles disputes according to the law as it finds it written. But in 1995, our Supremes amended the Constitution — the highest law in the land — and did it unconstitutionally. Canada’s Constitution provides a formula for amendments. Minor amendments must have the approval of the federal Parliament and seven of the ten provincial legislatures, representing at least half the population. Major amendments require the approval of all eleven legislatures. But without any reference to any of the legislatures, the Supreme Court changed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — which, remember, is part of the Constitution — by insisting that the phrase "sexual orientation" must be “read into” the list of protected categories in Section 15 of the Charter — thus overturning the deliberate decision of Parliament and the provincial legislatures to leave it out. With that act, Canada ceased to be a democracy and became a judicial dictatorship. There are only three ways this constitutional dilemma can now be resolved. • Canadians can choose to remain in subjection to unconstitutional authority; the result of this would alienate our children from everything that has made Western Civilization worth preserving. • We could have a violent revolution to overthrow the usurpers if they refuse to surrender their illicit powers — that's what happened in England in 1688, and in America in 1776. • Parliament could find the spine to reclaim exclusive authority to make laws, thus restoring the checks and balances of democratic governance. Parliament must create a Standing Committee on the Judiciary, and give it authority to review any court decision for constitutionality; if a decision is found to be unconstitutional, the Committee would then present a bill in Parliament to amend it. This Committee on the Judiciary should also have the power to approve or reject appointments to the Supreme Court; and the legislation creating the Committee should be sheltered under Section 33, the "notwithstanding" clause. This proposal would restore the right of appeal beyond the Supreme Court, which Canadians enjoyed from the time of Confederation. And the Supreme Court, now accountable to no one, would become accountable to the Standing Committee; the Committee to Parliament; and Parliament to the people. Will Parliament have the courage to take the steps necessary to restore democratic government to Canada? The chances are slim. No party now sitting in the House has shown any interest in these issues at the core of the survival of democracy. But the people of Canada could demand such action. Ultimately, saving democracy always depends on the people. If our choices are self-centred, focusing only on our own comfort and prosperity, we’ll continue to be the serfs in a judicial aristocracy; but if we desire justice for all, we can be led out of our bondage. It’s time to decide.

I think Arnie will be a flash in the pan. A week after he declares and he's already trailing "Cheech" Bustamante? There was always the joke about CAliforni falling into the ocean .... If either of these two jokers is elected, the state of the economy will be such that it would seem that the old prophecy/joke will have come to pass..... The little business that remains there will move off to arizona, Nevada and New Mexico.

I would vote for Giuseppe Gori's Family Coalition party, to send Oilcan Ernie a message: You hang the social conservatives out to dry, they'll remind you that the PCs can't win without them. You'd have to have hold a knife at my children's throats to convince me to vote Liberal for any reason.... Vote Liberal as a protest & your vote will be interpreted as supporting the Liberals' culture of death social policies and their suicidal economic ones. A vote for Family Coalition, and you let the Tories know WHY you didn't vote for them.

And the public seems to be souring on gay unions too. These guys pushed to far, and the backlash, at least in the USA , is underway. I would like to see that a similar backlash is occurring in Canada. This artricle below shows the poll results and also backs up what I've said that gays will not leave the churches alone. At least Americans see through it all now... But do Canadians? ---------------------------- Poll: Public Souring on Gay Unions By Terry Phillips, correspondent Slide continues in public support for homosexual agenda. A new poll from the Washington Post indicates the decision within the Episcopal Church, USA to allow church blessings of same-sex unions is opposed by six out of 10 Americans. Same-sex unions, in general, got little support in the poll. While homosexual activists have tried to portray Christians as radicals, a poll of just over 1,000 people done last week for the Post shows that — whether they go to church or not — two out of three Americans don't support gay unions. Peter LaBarbera, senior analyst at the Culture and Family Institute, believes the opposition would be greater except that the mainstream media have sanitized the particulars of the gay lifestyle. "Americans are still very opposed to normalizing homosexual behavior, even if they don't know all the sordid facts about these relationships," LaBarbera said. "What it comes down to is there has been an affirmative action campaign by the media in favor of gay rights." The Washington Post survey shows that support for gay unions has slipped 12 percent since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Texas law against sodomy earlier this summer. Kelly Shackelford, executive director of the Free Market Foundation near Dallas, said the lack of public support is the reason why homosexual activists go to court to advance their agenda. "They're not trying to win this battle through the legislatures, where the people get their say," he said. "They trying to win it through activist judges forcing it on the people." In another survey, sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual activist group, only one-third of respondents said gay civil marriage would be OK, even if churches didn't have to be involved. LaBarbera warned that the proposition of asking the question this way is "bogus"; churches will never be exempted if gay activists have a say. "Gay activists are clearly on record against religion, so why would anybody trust them when they say, 'Oh, we would never force a church to perform so called gay 'marriage,'?" LaBarbera said. "That's preposterous." The Post article reporting the survey results twice claims a "sharp distinction" in how Americans view gay relationships being blessed by the church versus simple recognition in law. That, however, appears to be spin based on anecdotes. A telling statistic: One-half of churchgoers said they would find another church if theirs blessed same-sex unions.

Arnie has just brought another Dumbocrud on board his campaign train (Train wreck dead ahead!) who is none other than "West Wing" Star Rob Lowe. He sounds alot like his Dumbocrud friends.... pro-choice, pro gay rights.... for tax hikes.... His bubble will burst (Seems it already has. Terminator 3 is a box office flop) and hopefully a real conseravtive like Tom McClintock will move into the lead. Otherwise, California is doomed. A nice slum on the beach.

Unless Dalton (his own worst enemy) hands the election over to the PCs, (unlikely but not impossible), Eves is a dead man walking. The ideal outcome will be a castrated Liberal minority, that will last just long enough for the Tories to replace Eves with Flaherty, and purge the "progressive" wing, and get back to the common sense revolution, which can begin anew after the shelf life of @ 2 years for a minority govt. expires.

Now that the initial Schwarzenegger splash is wearing off, polls re now showing him neck & neck with Democratic Lieut. Gov. Cruz Bustamante (Who looks like an aging Cheech Marin , of Cheech & Chong fame) I think his cozying up with Dumbocruds whose policies have virtually destroyed California has cost him the support of true blue Republicans. Tom McClintock is in a respectable third place right now, withing range of arnie, and would make it a three way deadlock if his support was combined with that of Peter Ueberroth. he also had the stupidity of bringing on board Pete Wilson, who not counting Gray Davis is probably the most loathed politician in California. Sooner or alater something has to give, and the Republicans will need to decide who their candidate will be, and will have to line up behind one, or Bustamante will be the next governor, and the real winner of the election will be Arizona and New Mexico.

I TOTALLY agree, Alliance fanatic. My Father who fought in WWII agrees that the Liberals carrying Trudeau's torch have destroyed the country he fought for to the point where it is unrecognizeable, and in its current state, not worth fighting for. The Canada they fought for has been turned into a sissified weenie nanny state, and the labortaory of radical social engineers, that worships at the altar of political correctness. and we have that exquisite socialist bastard to thank for it. He began his revolution early with the omnibus bill that decriminalized abortion and sodomy. And ensured the mess we have today with the Charter of Rights in the 1982 Constitution, which never should have been ratified.

The headline is anti-catholic spin. They are lumping non believing, non racticing catholics in there, calling them catholics, the implication being that the Church is out of step with its members.... It won't matter a whit though, since the Christmas and Easter & non-practicing types are not the ones who show up every week and place a little envelope in the basket. The Article and its headline are clearly attempting to discredit the church as a voice and participant in civic life.

We were talking about "Sensitivity training" that is mandatory for all civil servants, and many private sector employees, courtesy of your friendly neighbourhood PC Police.

It'd be less deceptive if they'd be asking only those who attended mass regualrly, instead of those who call themselves Catholics and show up on Christmas and easter only, if at all.

You don't get it. What mandatory sensitivity training courses are is nothing more than corportate or government intimidation. If you want promotion, or to keep your job, you had better act publicly as you are instructed to with regard to these issues we consider important though they actually have nothing to do with doing your job effectively. No.. That's not intimidation...

The secretary you described should be spoken to, and if she was incapable of changeing her attitude, sack her & replace her with someone who fits into the organization better. There is such a thing as common sense, and it does not need to be dictated by "political officers"

Lost, I don't see what right the government, or a corporation has to impose its version of mind control on me. You see, what it all comes down to is whose agenda is going to pushed here. You would not want an employer that imposed a mandatory Bible study, and you would be right to oppose it. Therefore no employer has the right to mandate that one must attend "sensitivity training" "anger manangement" or any other pop-psych politically correct course they might want to offer.

Where does it end? I'll tell you. re-education camps. Not barbed wire fence, but actaul attempts at brainwashing. If you think I'm out in left field, in the Canadian civil service, you are required to attend "sensitivity training" as part of the job. And anyone who says the slightes tthing which a homosexual thinks belittles homosexuals in any way, back they go, for more "sensitivity training" How long before EGALE and their ilk insist on it for everyone? Some soineless companies in the private sector are now doing this.

Poland, unlike Canada, is a real country. It is a beacon of hope in Europe. One of the very few on that corrupt continent. And that Pole in Rome is also setting a great example for the world, as he stands for decency. Poland also has the toughest anti-abortion laws in the world. And the lowest abortion rate.

Thank you for posting this. The writer didn't even touch upon the charter of rights which turned us from democracy to judicial dictatorship....Nor did he even begin to touch on the radical social legislation that he spawned.... Trudeau's legacy is the castration of Canada.

And the MPs will have to answer to God for theoir actions as well.... More to the point, whose marching orders would they be following should they vote for this motion? That of the "country" or the political party to which they belong? I think it;s a question of loyalty to a political party (and those forces behind it) , or to the values taught by one's church.