Show #122, audio only:
Show #120, audio only:
by Ron Gray
The essence of democracy is that all public business, including justice (indeed, especially justice), must be done in the open, where nothing can be hidden. That’s the reasoning behind “freedom of the press” in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms: the news media are supposed to be the eyes and ears of the public.
But what happens when those eyes and ears are captured by propagandists? Then the public is rendered blind and deaf to important facts that affect their lives and their families; they can easily be duped, and robbed blind.
And that is exactly what has happened, alas, all over Canada!
Consider the close links that have been forged between the so-called “mainstream media” (what RoadKill Radio.com calls “the downstream media”) and militant ‘gay’ activists and propagandists.
Do the media ever show the blatant nudity and pornographic displays that mark “Gay Pride” parades? Do they ever ask whether school projects by militant ‘gay’ activists might be harmful to children?
No. And why not?
Perhaps it’s because the sponsors of the parades include the media themselves: CBC, CTV, Global TV, The Beat (94.5 FM) 24 Hours, KVOS-TV, CKNW, Co-op Radio, the Tyee, AM 730, CITR (101.9 FM), The Vancouver Courier and The West Ender are all sponsors, alongside Viagra and Trojan condoms, of Vancouver’s Pride Parade.
And major advertising accounts vital to the economic survival of all major media, like the Vancouver Sun and Province, include “Gay Pride” sponsors like VanCity and Coast Capital credit unions; Home Depot; TD, Royal and CIBC banks; Safeway, Mariott, Holiday Inn Hotels and Sandman Hotels. Volunteer sponsors include The Real Canadian Superstore and Pacific Centre.
When the media and their big advertisers are so closely tied to “Pride” events, how can their audience trust their “news” reports about such events? Would they ever expose the corruption in own pet projects and those of the advertisers on whom their survival depends?
To ask the question is to answer it.
The huge, multimillion-dollar homosexual propaganda apparatus (Pride Parades, Pride Education Network, the Queer Film Festival, Out in Schools, EGALE) and the media—the so-called “eyes and ears” of the public—are all huddled together under one blanket; and so the public is kept in the dark.
Perhaps that’s why, when the National Post recently ran two full-page ads paid for by the Institute for Canadian Values (see below), just a few days later the Post ran a Page 2 “apology”, and said they would donate the proceeds of those two ads to “gay rights” organizations.
An apology for what? For allowing a citizens’ organization to tell the public the truth? Since when does a “news” medium need to apologize for that?
Indeed, the Post should have apologized for waiting until an educational organization, supported by private donations, exposed the draconian, fascist brainwashing of students who are a captive audience in the public schools. That’s the job of the news desk, not the advertising department!
But in Canada, the “news” media have long since stopped doing the job that earns them “freedom of the press”. And our press, bound by golden shackles, is no longer free—or trustworthy.
—Ron Gray
Ron Gray is News Director and co-host of RoadKillRadio.com. He began his career as a newspaperman under the late, great Jack Webster, who was then City Editor of the Vancouver Sun. He has written for the Sun, the Chilliwack Progress, the Richmond Review, the Fiji Times and the CBC. He has also worked in media relations for Fraser Valley College (now University of the Fraser Valley) and Trinity Western University.
On September 28, 2011, Senator Gerry St. Germain cited the case of Katrina Effert, a young Canadian woman who killed her baby son Rodney and ultimately received a suspended sentence for infanticide, in his plea for the Canadian government to step up and take an official stand on infanticide and abortion.
Two other newsy items!
7:30 – 8:15 pm: PHILIP SLAYTON, lawyer and author of Lawyers Gone Bad: Money, Sex and Madness in Canada’s Legal Profession, will talk about his latest book Mighty Judgment: How the Supreme Court of Canada Runs Your Life. This is a Hot Topic people! Listen in, become informed!
8:15 – 8:40 pm: Conservatives are coming out in force! This week’s focus is on LINK BYFIELD, candidate for the Wildrose Alliance in the riding of Barrhead-Westlock-Morinville. Yeppers, Alberta seems to have fallen in love with a political party…OK a rose with deepening, penetrating political roots!
8:45 – 9:30 pm: DAVID BERNER, talks about the growing – and costly – problems associated with the drug addiction industry. David has courageously championed the view of civil, commonsense Canadians on this subject. Check out his commentary on Vancouver’s tax-payer funded, so-called “Safe Injection Site”, aka “Insite.” Should we as tax-payers “Reject the Inject” …!?
By Terry O’Neill – The Tri-City News
Once upon a time, there was a people — an entire country, moreover — that professed a great love of all things natural. Except, that is, for one of the most important natural processes of all.
The people, let’s call them Canadians, praised the natural beauty of their great land. They looked in awe at the magnificent mechanisms of the natural world around them.
They passed laws against pollution, carbon emissions, and the dumping of toxic wastes in order to protect nature. They preserved great expanses of natural eco-systems.
Why, they even bought natural foods and natural remedies in copious quantities.
But these nature-loving Canadians had a blind spot. While they loved, adored or even worshipped the many natural things around them, they ignored a vital aspect of their own natural beings.
You see, nature has chosen to give we humans an equal number of baby girls and baby boys. It’s only natural, since one woman and one man come together to procreate.
One would think that Canadians, of all people, should recognize this essential, natural balance. Instead, they have willingly allowed a decidedly unnatural process to take place—the gender-based culling of unborn baby girls.
In fact, Canada has no law whatsoever regulating abortion, with the result that gender imbalances are beginning to show up in some communities, according to a 2006 report, “Canada’s Lost Daughters,” by investigative journalist Andrea Mrozek, now with the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.
The problem is more acute overseas, where hundreds of thousands of female fetuses are aborted every year in countries such as India and China, according to a recent Maclean’s cover story. Nevertheless, Canada has no official foreign policy opposing sex-based abortion.
My colleague on the other side of the page is ready to sacrifice these unwanted baby girls on the altar of feminism and choice, and also professes to see my opposition to the rampant purging of unborn girls as a none-too-subtle pro-life initiative.
I cannot claim to be without convictions in this matter. But I would rather be guilty of defending the natural goodness and intrinsic beauty of newly created human life than be responsible for abetting the destruction of a class of humanity because of prejudice, ignorance or misguided ideology.
by Ron Gray
For Canada Day – which used to be (and should still be) called ‘Dominion Day’* – Vancouver Sun religion columnist Doug Todd listed his suggestions for ten “Canadian values”:
I’d like to respond with a list of my own; that way, perhaps we can get a discussion going. But first, I need to establish some principles – principles are more enduring and immutable than “values”; values are merely what we ascribe value to, at the moment, and can change in an eye-blink; principles, like the laws of physics, don’t change. Ever.
Here are some principles for public life (which is what governments and politics are all about). Personal values and principles are just as important – maybe more important – but we’re talking about nationhood, here. Ultimately, the nation will assume a shape determined by the interplay of individual principles.
First of all, however, I have to confess that I have an advantage over poor Doug: my position doesn’t compel me to treat all faiths as though they were equal. And, indeed, that’s not possible: Judaism and Christianity and Islam say there’s only one God; Hinduism says there’s millions; Buddhism has no god. One = millions = zero is a logical absurdity. Some other tome, I’ll deal with why I’ve staked my eternal future on the Biblical faith; but for now, let’s get on with the national list of values principles.
Behind the principles that govern a nation’s identity must be a concept of governance. Ultimately, any form of government ending in “archy” or “cracy” isn’t really reliable; they depend on the personal integrity of the ruling authority. A monarchy depends on the monarch; a democracy depends on the people; a republic depends on both the Constitution (is it a good one?) and the people (will the people obey it?) Remember that Hitler came to power through a populist democracy; in the Messianic Age we’ll be governed by an absolute Monarch.
But the first principles of government must always derive from the concept of authority: what authority does a government have? and where does it come from?
There is – and always has been – only one Law-Giver; governments are not instituted to make laws, but to administer the Laws that have been given (at Sinai). William Blackstone, whose Commentaries on the English Law were for 200 years the primary textbook of every law school in the English-speaking world, wrote that “no enactment of man can be considered a law unless it accords with the Law of God.”
So, since we have passed statutes that are at variance with the Torah, those ideas cannot be considered part of our heritage. But other innovations, such as the idea that we will not allow anyone to perish for lack of medical care or funds, are consistent with that part of the Torah that commands us to, “Love your neighbour as yourself.”
So what are the guiding principles that should keep Canada on the right path?
For comparison’s sake, let’s discuss Doug Todd’s Ten:
1. Participatory democracy.
But democracy must not be idolized; it is always in danger of degenerating into mob rule, if we put it on a pedestal. When I was in school, we were taught that democracy meant rule by the majority, but stressed that the first obligation of the majority is to protect the rights of the minorities.
The only reason to defend democracy, really, is the knowledge that no fallen man or woman can be trusted with absolute power; therefore everyone in authority must be accountable to those under his or her authority.
2. Reasonable tolerance of diversity.
The operative word here is “reasonable”; we have fallen into the worship of a special brand of “diversity”, the hall-mark of which is intolerance for anyone who disagrees with it. The modern brand of “diversity” has no room for people who agree with Blackstone.
3. The rule of law.
The importance in this dictum is that it supersedes rule by persons.
4. Stewardship of the Earth.
A principle with which all (except the rapacious) can agree – it’s consistent with our Point #6.
5. No discrimination, including on gender or sexual orientation.
This idea, so prevalent today, is rooted in a misunderstanding of the word “discrimination”. It was once though to be the hallmark of civility to be discriminating – to have cultivated the ability to distinguish between what is good and what is bad, and to choose the good, whether doing so is of immediate personal benefit or not. We must restore the proper meaning of, and respect for “discrimination”. The word acquired a bad connotation when “discrimination based on race” was recognized as a social evil. But many forms of discrimination are good, and should be honoured.
6. Mixed economics: Market enterprise tempered by regulation.
The use of the word “tempered” tells me that Doug recognizes the evil implicit in both unrestrained avarice and unconstrained regulatory power. We would surely all agree.
7. Universal health care for core needs.
This is an expression of our Point #3, and is dependent on the limiting words “core needs”; but the socialist principle that prevents anyone from spending their money on any kind of health care, if it is not also available to all others, is excessively bureaucratic. And it must be recognized that abortion is never a “need”; it is the abuse of one person for the benefit of another; in this, it is akin to slavery and to the sacrifice of children to Moloch.
8. Readiness to pay taxes.
It’s a pity that Doug didn’t see fit to insert a modifying word here – like “reasonable taxes”. Christian economist Gary North has pointed out that when the government demands more than the ten percent that is God’s tithe, it has straying into idolatry.
9. Willingness to learn from “The Other.”
Yes; but there must be a standard against which everything we would learn must be measured. That standard is the Torah.
10. Commitment to the common good.
No quarrel here at all; but again, there must be a standard for defining “good”; we cannot hope to make the world “better” until we know what is meant by “good”. And again, that has been defined for us by the Creator.
* – A word about the word “Dominion”, as in “Dominion of Canada” and “Dominion Day”: As a teenager, I though the term meant that Canadians were under the thumb of Britain. I learned from the study of history that the Fathers or Confederation chose the term from the eighth verse of the 72nd Psalm: “He (meaning the returned Messiah) shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the great river to the ends of the earth.” Respect for His Torah, the foundation of all legitimate law, is implied in calling our nation a Dominion; and the term deserves to be restored.
Show #109, Part 2, audio only:
To watch the trailer: http://youtu.be/TIpp7Yjezbs (You MUST watch this!!)
For more info on the documentary: http://freedomofwhatcott.blogspot.com
Show #109, Part 3, audio only:
To watch the trailer: http://youtu.be/TIpp7Yjezbs (You MUST watch this!!)
For more info on the documentary: http://freedomofwhatcott.blogspot.com
Show #109, Part 3, audio only:
By Terry O’Neill – The Tri-City News
It figures that my big-government-loving colleague would now want to give the state life-and-death power over us. He would deny it, but this power would inevitably be created if doctor-assisted suicide were legalized in Canada.
Of course, any such Charter-based, court-mandated legalization — which is the target of a current B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) lawsuit — would never go so far as to actually declare that the government would have the power to decide who should live and die.
But growing evidence points strongly to the toxic effect that budget pressures from government medical-insurance-plans have on the care of terminally-ill patients in jurisdictions where doctor-assisted suicide has been legalized.
In Oregon, for example, the state’s health plan severely limits coverage for treatment of the seriously ill, steering them towards “voluntary” suicide, the cost of which it will, ironically, cover. The same pressures are bound to manifest themselves in Canada.
And in the Netherlands, it’s just as clear that informed-consent provisions are routinely broken, with the result that misguided doctors are making decisions on their own to euthanize elderly, chronically ill patients.
Recent news stories about the issue have centred on a Westbank woman’s decision to join the BCCLA suit. Most stories embraced the propagandistic language of the pro-death movement in describing how the woman, an ALS patient, sought the “right to die with dignity.”
But these words suggest persons cannot ‘die with dignity’ if they do not have the right to enlist a doctor’s assistance in killing themselves. If true, it must also be that everyone in Canada who now dies of natural causes dies without dignity. Balderdash.
Moreover, it can certainly be argued that the courage shown by someone who faces a looming death with courage and embraces a natural outcome is actually more deserving of the honour and respect associated with true dignity than someone who enlists the assistance a suicide doctor like the late Jack Kevorkian.
Ultimately, though, it all comes back to whether we want to give doctors the right to kill us. I say the risk is too great. As Dr. Margaret Cottle pointed out at a recent conference I attended, the evidence from every jurisdiction where physician-assisted suicide has been legalized shows that “assisted death is impossible to regulate and easy to abuse.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Submit your own Q≥A to jim@roadkillradio.com