Freedom of religion.

I believe in freedom of religion providing there are no mutilations of the human body or any violence whatsoever. Anyone who would immigrate to this country that believes in this kind of violence should stay in whatever country they originated from. I am a Canadian. I was born here and I follow the laws of my country. I can’t understand why the government of this country allows immigrants to do what we Canadians are not allowed to do. By this I mean under the guise of religious freedom.

I was listening to my favorite radio station (C.F.R.A. - the Lowell Green talk show). The talk show was about the mutilation of a woman's vagina. This is kind of sickening to hear and anyone here in Canada who would do this kind of barbaric thing should be sentenced to at least 10 years in the penitentiary.

This kind of barbaric act is the result of  multiculturism that was brought in by a certain Prime Minister who left this world a long time ago. I guess at that time, he did not realize that he was giving our country away along with some of our laws.

Yes, we Canadians are good people and even the government will ignore when some of these immigrants do what is not allowed in this country under normal circumstances. And they get away with it. I have no problems with anyone that wants to immigrate here but so long as they leave their barbaric practices wherever they are from. Obviously not all immigrants do these sorts of things. Most probably don't. But the kind of culture that some immigrants practice is not needed here.  So if they insist on following that kind of culture then they should be exempt from becoming legal immigrants here and sent back to whichever country they want to leave. This is Canada and we don’t cater to any kind of torture or any sadistic behavior in any religion or cult.

I would gladly vote for any party that would do away with this multiculturalism garbage and take our country back and restore it to its rightful owners - us Canadians.

That’s my beef for today.

The 5th amendment.

IRS department head Learner recently plead the 5th amendment so as not to incriminate herself while testifying before a Congressional hearing on the IRS targeting Tea Party groups for special negative treatment. 

Why would anyone plead the 5th amendment in a court setting, especially when working with a bunch of people where e-mails are going back and forth? Knowing that others in the department are aware of what is going on? I was thinking of Ms. L. Learner when writing about this legal maneuver . She gets brought into the hearing for questioning regarding the IRS targeting scandal and she pleads the 5th.  Doesn’t that prove that she has something to hide or is at least guilty to some degree in whatever happened? Yes, legally she may not have to testify against herself but it sure makes her look guilty.  

To me if a person pleads the 5th that would be either to protect someone (including themselves) or in her case perhaps having been offered a promotion to another department in exchange for her silence. Perhaps she could end up with more take home pay and with more power over other people and an opportunity to advance to a higher post in the government. By taking the 5th she is showing that she knows more than what she is willing to divulge to protect herself and whoever else that was involved in what she did. She did make a bad mistake by saying “I am not guilty of anything” and only then taking the 5th since she has already made a statement.  According to the laws of the USA she can’t take the 5th in that situation.

Myself, I would of offered her immunity just to get at the truth and then investigate if what she said was in fact the truth. While investigating her statements, I would have let her go to work and at the first opportunity find an excuse to fire her. If what she said when making her statements was found to be lies then she could have been sent to jail for a long time because her lies would have been perjury, because her statements would have been made by swearing to tell the truth.

Open letter to Governor Chris Christie.

Governor Christie,

I thought that you were a smart man and straight-shooting person. But after what I have read in the news about you lately, regarding a tax on e-cigarettes I have changed my mind. Anyone that would put a tax on something that would be a benefit to the health of people just to get a few million dollars in additional taxes is being inconsiderate of people's health.

I would say, a smart person would sit back and think of how a tax could be put on something that would bring in the few millions that would be needed to replace the loss of taxes on tobacco sales.

Well Sir, I would not consider myself to be smarter than the ordinary Joe, but I am smart enough to figure out a way to put a tax on something that would benefit people's health, and at the same time, reduce the amount of criminality in a state. All you need to do is find a certain product that affects health negatively and also affects some people's thinking and causes some of them to act out of character. For example, alcohol. This product is the cause of a lot of people being in jail for crimes that they would otherwise not have committed without using it.

Here are a few examples of what alcohol can cause people to do. Domestic violence (a wife being beaten by a drunken husband), rape (either those consuming it acting more aggressively and violently or else being intoxicated to the point of not being sober enough to give proper consent themselves), kids going hungry because the person responsible for their well being cannot control their consumption of alcohol (and spending), armed robberies, drunk driving and whatever else you can think of what abusing of alcohol does. In fact alcohol is worse for health and the conduct of some people than even smoking regular cigarette tobacco. So why not add a tax to that to try to discourage consumption rather than taxing something that may help people from developing cancerÉ

Oh yes, it just dawned on me. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to put a tax on something that would result in not giving you enough votes in the next election now would you? Or is it a case of "to hell with peoples health and actions, I just want to balance the state budget and get re-elected?"

Regards,

Bob in Canada

Confessional

Why is it as a Catholic that to confess your sins you have to go to a confessional? And who is sitting there waiting? It’s a man and he’s called a priest.

Why is it that they keep saying "pray to God, He can hear you"? If that is so, then why can’t you confess your sins to Him directly? I would think that if He can hear your prayers, He can also hear you when you confess to Him, without going through another human being.

Now as a good Catholic Christian, you go into a church to a confessional, to cleanse yourself of the things that offended God, without knowing what kind of priest that is sitting there listening to your jibber jabber. This priest that is waiting there to give you absolution for the sins you have confessed, might have himself done worse things that your admitting to having done. It has proven to be that way in the past by the conduct of some priests. Would this type of priest be in good enough standing with the Lord to forgive you?

It’s this kind of nonsense of contradictory statements, and the conduct of some priests, that drives people away from their faith.

I would simply say just obey the Ten Commandments and you can’t go wrong. In closing I will say the morning you wake up is your day, but tomorrow belongs to the Lord so be prepared just in case He decides that tomorrow is His day and not yours. Just remember the Good Lord said “I will come as a thief in the night.”

That is my rant of the day.

The Queen is gone

Yes, the Queen of the separatists in the Province of Québec is gone. In the recent provincial election, she even lost her seat in her own riding. Now as citizens of Quebec we are stuck with the Liberals once again.

Now what I’m asking myself is why there aren't a Conservative and NDP party on a ballot in the provincial elections of Québec. The last election we did away with the Liberals by voting for the Parti Quebecois. As we did not want the Liberals anymore. Now this time we voted for the Liberals to do away with the PQ. We had other choices but little was known about these other parties. I don’t know why we do not have them as we are part of Canada just like other provinces.

The people here have shown that if a group of politicians here start talking about separation you can be sure that on the following elections they will be gone. The citizens here realize that this province could not survive as a country by itself and many also realize that bill C101 is not doing the province much good either. This country has two languages -- French and English. If the English language is not accepted here in this province, how can we expect anyone from Ontario (at least) to come over to open a business? New businesses would profit the province and also prop up the economy.  So why discourage that?

No one knows the truth about food

No one knows the truth, the whole truth, about what is done to the food that we ingest every day. This is the same for the producers of pharmaceutical products. Some of it is known but not all of it. Not enough of it is known.

In today’s world, no one can be believed when they talk about the product's they are selling. That's because business is business and to them it doesn't matter what is added to some of their products, just as long as they taste or look good and they can’t be sued for the garbage that was added. That's the extent to which a business cares about what it makes. Health-wise, who cares? Just as long as the customer likes it, and buys it, the side effects only matter so long as they don't get in trouble for it. So businesses add things - preservatives, colouring, other additives, all in the name of cost, convenience or appeal. Maximizing the money that can be made out of selling them is the main purpose of the business.

Now I`m not saying that businesses making money is wrong, but to expect them to care about your health is just not realistic. Not unless it becomes financially important for them to do so.

Now here come the dietitians. They tell you what is good for you and what you should eat.  They tell you  to watch out for certain kinds of fat and this and that, and it never ends.  It would be impossible to eat  exactly what you’re told to eat as a diet.  Even if it were possible, what is considered good  changes every time a new study comes out.  Imagine how much food you would waste trying to keep up with that ever-changing list of do`s and don`ts.  These dietitians might have good intentions in telling us what and what not to eat to have good health, but at the same time, they should be a little more focused.  They should try to find out exactly what has been added or taken out of certain foods before advising people on what to eat and what not to eat. Try and find out what kind of pesticides were used on some certain fruits and vegetables, because some of them are porous and will absorb pesticides which you can’t wash off.

I don`t have an answer on a perfect solution, but I do have my rant of the day about something that needs fixing.

How to become a dictator in 10 steps

Hey, let me ask you this:  Do you want to take over a country? It's actually very easy if you are a good talker and show intelligence and manage to get your name on a ballot. Here is what you do, just like Hitler did. 

(1) Get elected (I know this isn't an easy step, but I'm focused on the take over here, so I'll skip the getting elected part).

(2) After you succeeded in getting elected, surround yourself with Yes Men.

(3)  Try to get the media on your side.  Then you can lie as much as you want when questions are asked for which you don’t want to give a truthful answer. You can instead invent some kind of a lie and also coach your cohorts to do the same. In fact you can have the media feed you the questions ahead of time so you can prepare answers.

(4) Whether you promised transparency to the public or not, get rid of it.  Don't be transparent.

(5) Make each citizen is required to have an I.D. card. 

(6) Make sure that they know that they must have it ready to produce whenever asked. In movies about Hitler's Germany people were always being asked for "papers".  Nowadays you could use a driver's license but not everybody drives.  So how about a national healthcare system that requires a photo I.D. card, or eventually will?  That would work.  Especially since all of the information about a person could be electronically coded on that card.

(7) Start ignoring parts of the Constitution that don't allow you to do what you want to do. If no one stops you, keep going.

(8) Disarm all citizens of their weapons using gun control laws. That takes time, but without guns all people can do to fight your control is to use their free speech.

(9) Do away with free speech and has much as possible erode personal privacy to the point where there is no more privacy. Use agencies to spy on people's calls and emails to make sure you know what people are saying.  Then use rhetoric to shame people into not disagreeing with you.  If someones says something counter to your ideas, ignore it and say they have no ideas at all.  Later, you can start actually restricting their free speech with new laws.

(10) Make sure to get real friendly with the military so they will be on your side when you decide to take over. This step should be done as an on-going effort starting with step 2, but you have to make sure that when you are ready to take over at step 10, they are on board with you.

That’s basically how Hitler did it. He was elected by being a good speaker. Then Hitler got greedy for power and the results ended in a WWII. People elected president Obama because he was a good talker and he conned the people into electing him. If you look at that list, there is a disturbing number of steps in there that he has also taken.  It`s a little scary.