Kari Simpson speaks with Jonathon Van Maren of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. Mr. Van Maren's organization has engaged in a long-term campaign to inform the public about the true facts of abortion and the killing of innocent human babies. Hundreds of thousands of babies each year, murdered because they are "inconvenient" while hundreds of thousands of childless couples would cherish raising these children. While many proclaim that this Canadian Holocaust is a "woman's right", growing numbers are seeing this senseless slaughter for what it is.
Ron Gray shoots a warning flare about the Canadian government's continued intrusion into the raising of your children, removing even more parental rights. Also, a clear lesson on the comparative ethics of earning and spending money versus taking tax and redistributing it.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Drive For Justice: Prologue
Our new Monday night series is called Drive For Justice, and here is the opening salvo. Judicial heads will roll as Kari Simpson takes on the corrupt (and often treasonous) actions of Canada’s runaway legal courts!
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
The David Berner Show with Kari Simpson
This episode of The David Berner Show was temporarily pulled from distribution due to protests from sex activists. But the delightful Mr. Berner will not be censored, so the episode has returned for all of us to see. Two subjects: political indoctrination in public schools, and a botched (ignored) fraud case by the Vancouver Police Department. Informative, entertaining – a must see!
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
RoadKill Radio News: Save My Analog!
RoadKill Radio presents a brief – but very important – suggestion on why you should care about allowing a Smart Meter to be attached to your house, and how you can go about preventing it.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
The Mark Hasiuk Show: Herbert Grubel on Canada’s Immigration Laws
Join Mark Hasiuk as he interviews Professor Herbert Grubel about the many shades of Canadian immigration policy. What’s wrong with it, what’s right, and how can it be improved? Is Canadian Culture at risk, and if so, should we care?
Friday, June 1, 2012
The National Absurder: Why I Hate G.E.
Jim Lawter exposes the true (evil) genius of Thomas Edison, who DID NOT invent the light bulb, but who did create General Electric as the ultimate money-grabbing machine.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Family Freedom Fighters: Whose Children Are They? Plus: Your Gold Medal Performance
Ron Gray shoots a warning flare about the Canadian government’s continued intrusion into the raising of your children, removing even more parental rights. Also, a clear lesson on the comparative ethics of earning and spending money versus taking tax and redistributing it.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
The Prophets War: How to Bully with Impunity
Vulture Guard has a madman amongst its already evil lot of instigators. In this latest intercepted directive, General Decay gleefully lauds the recent bully tactics of Dan Savage and offers them as a lesson to follow. We must expose this threat in order to weaken it! Stay strong – Plan to Survive.
Flash Drive with Ron Gray: The Sham “Ethics” of Campaign Finance
Watching the hearings by the Commons Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is a bizarre sort of entertainment—almost as much fun as a root canal. The partisan jousting between the MPs makes a mockery of the idea that this is any sort of objective “enquiry”.
A example: NDP MP Pat Martin misquoted witness David Marler (a Conservative candidate) as having said the Tory “in-and-out” funding of television advertising “didn’t pass the smell test.”
“That’s not what I said,” retorted Marler, who then explained that he said he refused to sign because, as a first-time candidate, he didn’t understand what was being proposed—and as a lawyer, he refuses to sign anything he doesn’t understand. “If my Mom proposed it, I wouldn’t—well, maybe I’d sign it for my Mom, because I respect her,” he added. “But not even for a brother would I sign something I didn’t understand.”
Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro then skewered Martin nicely by pointing out that a shared national media purchase, partly reported as a local advertising expense, was exactly what the NDP had done for Olivia Chow in Toronto’s Trinity/Spadina riding.
What makes this “ethics” investigation so painful is that no one questions the ethics of the four parties in Parliament voting themselves $30 million a year of taxpayers’ money, while strangling the fund-raising of other parties.
Clearly, those already in the House want to pull up the drawbridge behind them, to block new parties and new ideas. The formula for funding the four parties in Parliament—tied to the number of votes they gained in the last election—is a formula for preserving the status quo: those who got the most votes get more money to campaign for reelection.
But left out in the cold by this equation is the indefeasible right of voters to have access to adequate information about all the options available to them.
The honorable Members sitting around the table seem only to care about holding onto their sinecures by bolstering their parties’ partisan advantages.
The CHP has several times proposed a plan by which each taxpayer—from whom the lion’s share of the money for election campaigns now comes, after all—should have the right to designate which party gets their money.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, 200 years ago: “It is tyrannical to compel a man to pay for the promulgation of ideas with which he does not agree.” For example, like most pro-Life Canadians, I disagree strongly with the anti-life policies of the four parties that dominate the House of Commons. Why, then, should I be compelled to finance their immoral policies?
Canadians should write to their MPs and demand a change in the election financing formula. If taxpayers’ funds are to be doled out to politicians, let each taxpayer decide who gets their $2. Doesn’t that make more sense?
Does anyone other than a dwindling minority of Procrustean traditionalists recognize evil anymore—personal evil, that is? Oh, sure, there’s plenty of the geopolitical variety to go around these days, especially in North Africa. And there’s more than enough being identified on the national stage by perpetually outraged critics within this country too, most notably by those on the political left, who eagerly attach the E word to everything from corporate profits and free trade to the oil sands and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s piano playing.
But we rarely hear about individual Canadians doing “bad” things, exhibiting sinister behavior, acting wickedly, or carrying on immorally, let alone sinning.
Instead, there’s always some sort of exculpating explanation for bad behaviour. Shoplifters suffer from kleptomania; corrupt officials have succumbed to stress or have manifested a previously undiagnosed psychiatric disorder; prostitutes are victims of the patriarchy, poverty or both; juvenile delinquents are the recipients of inadequate parenting; inner-city gangsters are victims of racial discrimination; and thieves are impoverished or addicted, and, if the latter, are surely not responsible for the burden of the illness under which they are labouring. You get the picture.
Look at the website promoting the recent Pink Shirt Day/anti-bullying campaign—a cause that should easily give rise to descriptions of bullies acting wickedly, etc.—and you’ll see therapeutic twaddle aplenty along with much vigorous exhortation to get to the root of the problem, etc., but nothing about the plain and simple fact bullies are acting immorally.
Which brings me to Exhibit A, otherwise known as the spark that gave life to this particular column. You might have heard of a horrible hit-and-run accident in Coquitlam, B.C., two weeks ago which left two young women dead. In covering the aftermath of the crash, which included the laying of several charges against a suspect, including two counts of impaired driving causing death, a local newspaper turned to a clinical psychologist from Simon Fraser University for some “insight” into “what might lead someone to flee the scene” of a serious accident without giving help.
Dr. Joti Samra is quoted thusly: “Assuming that it’s a true accident, the reality is… even from the perspective of the person that caused the accident, it can be quite traumatic and cause an acute stress reaction.” Got that? Acute stress reaction.
The good doctor goes on to explain that the brain could be flooded with information and emotion that would cause a person to act unusually. “The fight or flight response is something we’re exposed to when we are faced with extreme traumatic events,” Dr. Samra concludes. “Our body kind of goes into a shock, it doesn’t know what to do.”
Notice the focus on the culprit’s body and not his mind? I suppose it’s true that this human-as-hormonal-machine answer is what you’d expect from a clinical psychologist, whose business, of course, is to produce exactly this sort of pseudo-scientific analysis. But there’s no excuse for the news media to limit their probing into human behaviour to “experts” such as Dr. Samra. Why not someone with some grasp of the profundity of human existence, someone like a novelist, a moral philosopher or a religious leader– someone who recognizes we’re more than just pre-programmed biological machines?
To my mind, it would be a welcome relief—and far more enlightening—to hear some real insights into moral character, the dark origins of personal cowardice, or the nature of evil in circumstances such as these. And so, for example, when asked why a driver might flee the scene of an accident in which he had struck two innocent people, a priest might comment that such a person had become alienated from God, had too easily succumbed to temptation, and had become a sinner in need of redemption.
This would be really useful information as far as I’m concerned, and might also help many readers reflect more deeply on their responsibility—indeed, their duty—to act in a moral fashion.
But, of course, in this secular, humanistic era of ours, we see very little serious discussion about evil in the public square. Perversely, one is more likely to find scintillatingly descriptive words, purring about the concept of evil, in advertisements attempting to induce a consumer to indulge in some sort of deliciously sinful wickedness for an affordable price. Moral inversion to sell chocolate pudding.
A recent full-page newspaper advertisement for Volvo is a perfect example of this lamentable trend. Emblazoned above an image of a shiny red S60 model, the ad copy informs us, “There’s more to life than a Volvo. Like raising a little hell with 300 horses, spanking corners with your all-new sport-tuned chassis. And feeling a little dangerous in a car tricked out with safety technology. That’s why you drive the all-new naughty Volvo S60.” (Emphasis added.)
A 16th-Century proverb holds, “Evil doers are evil dreaders.” Today, however, evil doers are either the next patient for the couch or a target market.
