“Just the Facts, Ma’am; Just the Facts”: Rod Taylor

Posted on by
Reply

By Rod Taylor, Deputy Leader of the CHP

With a nod to Joe Friday, the classic characterization of a police detective from the early radio and TV show, Dragnet, I’d like to approach a few modern mysteries with the line of questioning frequently attributed to him. (Apparently the oft-quoted phrase above was a truncated version of his original “All we want are the facts, ma’am”).  It would be so refreshing if some of today’s news services (?) would remember that simple bit of advice. It seems everyone is pushing an agenda and when the “facts” can be used to support that agenda, they use them. When the facts seem to contradict the agenda’s premise, they ignore them. The really frustrating use of facts is when they are thrown in , “bait-and-switch” style to support conclusions for which they provide no real evidence.

There are many examples of this but I refer directly to the unproven theories (bandied about as facts) of the origins of life, the development of species and the periods of time during which certain deduced events are hypothetically surmised to have occurred. In a world where supposed journalistic high-achievers such as writers for the New York Times  and other widely-read papers and magazines cannot seem to agree on the origin of an individual human life, (ignoring all the medical and scientific discoveries and high-tech imaging now available) these writers and pontificators seem bound by an inner compulsion they cannot disobey to declare unequivocally that they now know—beyond a reasonable doubt—how and when a dinosaur, which no living human has ever seen, nurtured its young.

I remember as a boy being fascinated by the depictions and deductions of scientist-writers in the prestigious National Geographic. The unearthing of a few stone artifacts and bits of bone were the backdrop for detailed discussions of stone-age life. Since no photographs were available of early villages and raids or of mastodon hunts and sabre-toothed tiger depredations, these were recreated by “artist’s rendition” for the pages of NG and mingled with other stories and real photos of real people and animals living today. The quality of the photos from around the world and the credentials of the contributors lent a credibility to the theories that invited a respectful confidence in the veracity of the conclusions.

In those early days, though, the articles often included the words “may have”, “might have”, “possibly”, “some scientists believe” and other caveats that at least hinted to the reader that the latest discoveries would be supplanted by others and the latest theories were still—at best—theories. Today’s pseudo-journalist feel no such compunction. After all, Believing is Seeing! Why introduce doubt when readers, young and old alike can be persuaded to conclude that theories are proven facts and prehistoric dates of millions of years can be verified simply by reading it in a journal of record.

Just this week, January 23, 2012 to be exact (as determined by the latest radioactive dating methods) CBC News, in its online version, published details of a recent fossil find and—in a stunning show of confidence for the conclusions of the scientists who made the discovery, spouted their theories as if proven in a court of law.

“A Canadian-led team of international researchers has unearthed the 190-million-year-old nesting site of the prosauropod dinosaur Massospondylus — predating previously known nesting grounds by 100 million years — at an excavation site in South Africa.” This was the bold pronouncement of the CBC post. No reference to “some scientists say” or “according to some paleontologists”; the 190-million year date fixed for these particular eggs is stated as if it was recorded by a scribe whose job it was to preserve these “facts” for the benefit of 21st Century mankind. Every one knows (at least they used to know) that there are differences of opinion about the accuracy of various fossil-dating techniques. To make a categorical statement about an event presumed to have taken place 190 million years ago is to pretend that all scientists agree. That is to substitute theory for fact. It is unacceptable in a court of law and it is unacceptable in the pages of a supposed non-biased publication.

Now I want to give due credit to the amazing work of these bone-diggers. After seeing the photographic evidence I am absolutely convinced that they have made an interesting and an important find. Those are facts and I was happy to learn a little bit more about the amazing world in which we live and some of the amazing creatures that once walked upon it. But please! Every thinking reader knows that the intent of declaring unknowable and exceedingly large time frames to be facts is to try to make our universe more compatible to Darwin’s theories and our populace more willing to place its trust in unthinking evolution and random chance. To mix facts and fancy in a “scientific” story is to use propaganda tactics and to insult the intelligence of readers. It also insults the intelligence of the Intelligent Designer, the only One who knows when the mysterious Massospondylus actually laid its eggs.

People have strong feelings about the origins of the universe, the origins of life and the origins of man. The effort to induce people to subscribe to one’s pet theory by padding a few discoveries with a lot of speculation and calling it “science” is, at best , misguided and, at worst, devious. CBC, National Geographic, the New York Times, the Knowledge Network, etc. should know better than that. “All we want is the facts”.

Click here to learn more about Rod Taylor.

Orange Crush Becomes NDP Crushed: David Krayden

Posted on by
Reply

By David Krayden

Members of the decidedly withering Bloc Quebecois caucus would probably be the first to acknowledge, with exuberant pride, their Gaullist ancestry, meaning a family tree with its roots in present-day France.  But what the BQ has never lacked – and what really has fuelled its political history – is just plain gall.  The report this week from La Presse, that former BQ leader and defeated Member of Parliament Gilles Duceppe paid his party’s general manager with House of Commons funds – up to $100,000 annually for seven years – is just another example of how this traitorous party has no business conducting the nation’s business; no reason to occupy seats in the House of Commons except to advance a separatist agenda while collecting a pay cheque and furnishing a pension that are provided by the very country that they are so desperately trying to destroy.

It is difficult to imagine another country where a separatist party can not only sit in the federal legislature but has the mind boggling nerve to spend public money on its private agenda.

There are still four of these misplaced Quebec MPPs taking up space in the House of Commons – one less member than required for official party status – so they will not be paying anyone 100 grand a year with public funds but we will be better off when the last of Bloc head is retired.

Writing the cheerless history of the Bloc is a journey through outrageous entitlement.  Let this latest installment in the BQ Story be the final chapter.

At least there was unanimous party condemnation of the arrangement, with the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP agreeing that this was not public money well spent.  When it comes to criticizing the Bloc, it has been difficult in the past to rouse any sort of emotion approaching outrage, disgust or disapproval from the NDP.  For left-thinking socialists, the trough of tolerance for “progressive,” language-embattled Quebec is deep.  The NDP reserves its contempt for anything or anybody standing in the way of its social reengineering project; it could never quite accept the existence of the Reform Party for instance, as if Preston Manning and his fellow MPs should never have shaken up the ideological status quo in Ottawa.

Perhaps the NDP has discovered a growing antagonism towards the BQ because the effervescence of the “Orange Crush” that seemed so perky in Quebec in the last election has gone flat.  According to a CROP poll this week, this post-election burp has reduced the NDP from 53 per cent support last June to just 29 per cent today.  Though the Conservatives are in second place with 24 per cent, the Bloc is not far behind with 22.  Thus the fight for the hard left vote in Quebec has been defined and, if these numbers remain relatively constant, the next election contest should prove to be a tightly contested four-way fight.

Surely, the NDP did not really believe that it could reelect the entirety of its Quebec caucus, this curious assortment of MPs, many of whom never dreamed of sitting in the House of Commons, and at least one of whom never even bothered to campaign. But it will certainly aspire to repeat this electoral phenomenon and it will strive to outdo the separatists in promising Quebec all manner of special status in Confederation and increased protection of its language, culture and way of life – one that includes massive government spending, higher unemployment than the rest of Canada, low productivity and the highest percentage of part-time workers and absentee employees on the continent.

Whether Quebec votes for soft or hard separatism, it is time that the province joined the rest of the country in the economic realities of the twenty-first century.  Many in Quebec are cognizant of this reality and some of the best conservative thinking resides in that province.  Listen to the economic thinking of Quebec MP  (and former foreign affairs minister) Maxime Bernier and you might be listening to one vying for the presidential nomination of the Republican Party.  Hopefully, in the next election, instead of sending 59 MPs to warm the seats in Parliament, they will choose free-enterprise alternatives who have come to Ottawa to get on with the nation’s business and work for a Quebec that is free, prosperous and equal with every other province.

David Krayden is the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, an independent, not-for-profit institution dedicated to the advancement of freedom and prosperity through the development and promotion of good public policy.

Devotional: The elderly are to be vibrant members of the Church

Posted on by
1

January 20, 2012

By Dr. Larry Bray

And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin, and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day. And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem. And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. (Luke 2:36-39)

What strikes me in this passage is that even at the age of 84, Anna the prophetess is serving the Lord with such veracity. Our culture tends to consider the elderly as a group that has done their work and are now just waiting to die. But the Scriptures give us a very different picture of the elderly. They are to be a vibrant part of the Church, serving Christ all the more with the wisdom that they’ve gained from their many years on earth. They are to serve Him with a singleness of heart that comes, as with Anna, when they are no longer encumbered with the cares of a spouse and children.

Consider that Moses was 80 years old when he went to Egypt for the deliverance of the people of God. Aaron was 83 years old when he spoke to Pharaoh with Moses. Caleb was 85 years old when he drove out the Anakim from his land because he was still strong to fight the Lord’s battle. Abraham was 100 years old when he had Isaac, the son of promise. Anna was 84 years old, serving God in the Temple, and being a testimony to Christ after His birth to Mary.

No matter what our age, no matter what our physical limitations, let us strive to serve God by His power and bring much glory to Him all the days of our lives!

Rather than making excuses for not serving the Lord with a singleness of heart, we are encouraged to…

…not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. (2 Corinthians 4:16)

Run-on Sentencing: BC Court Delays Make a Mockery of Justice System: Rod Taylor

Posted on by
1

By Rod Taylor, Deputy Leader of the CHP

When things go out of control or are in short supply, long line-ups, frustration and disappointment cannot be far behind. When that which is out of control is that which is meant to restrain anarchy and retain civility, those line-ups can disintegrate into mobs and that frustration can boil over into lawlessness.

The court system in Canada is out of control and justice is in short supply. Canadians have come to expect legitimate grievances to go unresolved and heinous crimes to go unpunished. No upright citizen can feel satisfied with such a state of affairs but the bloated system crawls along and those inured to its shortcomings lament the obstinate and obvious spread of apathy and mistrust.

Take, for example, some statistics from BC. I have no doubt that the other provinces are in a similar dysfunctional state of affairs. CBC recently reported that there are at least 2,500 criminal cases in BC that have been before the courts for 18 months or more. A 2-day criminal trial will now take an average of 11.2 months to work its way through the courts. Not days, months! Judges simply gave up on 109 cases last year, staying charges rather than keep victims and accused in perpetual suspense.

My favourite statement of historical and sociological truth on this situation comes from Solomon, one of the wisest men who ever lived: “Because punishment is not administered promptly, men’s hearts become even more wicked”. Simply put, if there are no appropriate consequences and if they are not felt soon after the commission of a crime, men will continue to do worse things, expecting no retribution.

Of course, changes to our judicial system are difficult. We didn’t get here overnight. Precedent and complicated judgments arising out of sometimes convoluted interpretations of Charter rights have given rise to unreasonable expectations and a harmful focus on the rights of the accused over the rights of law-abiding citizens to enjoy safe streets, homes and schools.

However, if we are ever going to clear the backlog, institute meaningful deterrence and raise the level of citizen accountability, we will have to take steps to eliminate ridiculous excuses and painful and expensive delays.

Let’s assume for a minute that most policemen are trying to do their jobs and trying to protect the citizens in their communities. We need to thank them for it. But there are some bad cops out there and they should be brought to justice quickly, sentenced or acquitted like anyone else. I appreciate the work policemen do. But if they (or anyone) is accused of violating the trust of Canadians, exploiting their positions of authority, using gratuitous violence, then they should be suspended WITHOUT PAY, until their guilt or innocence can be established. This should not be a matter of years; perhaps a couple of months. If acquitted, they should get backpay with a modest compensation package for wrongful incarceration (perhaps twice their regular payrate and a paid ad in every provincial newspaper exonerating them. If convicted, they should be stripped of any honours and fired with no chance of return. This goes for politicians, CEOs, high-level bureaucrats, union bosses, teachers and all in any position of authority. Case in point: five police officers in Toronto are just now “going on trial” for charges dating back to 2003 and before. Their investigation alone has cost taxpayers $14 million (!) yet a couple of these men have been on “paid leave” for 4 to 8 years or more!!! This is disgusting and inexcusable.

Let’s get beyond the idea that we have to let people out on bail. Why? If they did something worthy of jail time, they should be in jail, not running around the country. Bail gives rich people an advantage over the poor who can’t afford bail. Again, if they’re found innocent, pay them twice their wage for time behind bars and make sure employers can’t fire them for being “unavailable for work”—until and unless they are convicted. But don’t postpone and delay their case for months or years. If they’re arrested on a Friday, they should be in court by the next Wednesday. Gather the evidence, call up a jury and deal with the evidence.

No probation or early release for violent offenders. If ANY criminal misbehaves while on parole / probation, the probation officer takes his place in jail until he’s recaptured (up to a maximum of two years). Once recaptured, double the sentence with NO parole.

And of course, we need to immediately throw out the twisted thinking that overlooks violent crime if the perpetrator can be proven insane. The wretched shell of a man in BC who murdered his three children, leaving their bodies for his wife to discover was given two years and is now eligible for parole. Come on! You can’t make this stuff up. The only people crazier than some of these violent criminals are the people who want to release them back into society.

There also need to be some reasonable time limits on court cases themselves—the time actually spent in court. How long does it take to review the actual evidence from a murder scene and to interview the witnesses? For all but the most complicated multiple murders, why should it take more than a week? Shoplifting? Maybe an hour or two to hear witnesses and examine the evidence.

No more casual postponement of court dates. Lawyers who can’t show up (without a doctor’s note or a cancelled flight documents) will pay the court costs for rescheduling. The accused will be there because he / she will be brought from the jail cell. If the prosecution doesn’t have its evidence and witnesses lined up and loses the case they should have won…oh well, prisoner goes free. Prosecutor gets a negative review. If there is a consistently shabby performance, prosecuting attorney is fired, tries to find work as a private lawyer.

Does all this sound simplistic or harsh? Guess what? The judicial system is supposed to administer JUSTICE and protect society. We need more common sense and less wasting of time with proceedings and judgments that fail to punish the wicked and protect the just.

Join me in calling this nation back to a realistic framework for our courts. We will not only protect the innocent from crimes against them but we will help steer young people away from a life of crime, blaming the system and failing to make good choices for a productive and happy life. We owe them a just land and just laws. Our current system is a disgrace.

Click here to learn more about Rod Taylor.

Gender or Not, Abortion is About Selection: David Krayden

Posted on by
2

By David Krayden

Dr. Rajendra Kale is in hot water with many in Canada who support – no, worship – Canada’s unrestricted and abominable abortion law.  In an editorial for the Canadian Medical Journal, a well respected and influential medical periodical, Kale suggested that a baby’s sex be withheld from inquiring pregnant women because some are deciding to have an abortion if the fetus is female.

“Female feticide happens in India and China by the millions, but it also happens in North America in numbers large enough to distort the male-to-female ratio in some ethnic groups,” reads the editorial.

Kale has been summarily criticized for offering simplistic advice to a “complex issue” or, even worse, of advocating a “racist” policy that will stigmatize certain ethnic communities in Canada.

Let us stop being disingenuous about communities.  We are not speaking of the Glebe or West Vancouver, we are speaking of Asian immigrants and of these, largely Iindo-Canadians.

And please dispense with the racially-charged rhetoric, especially since the good doctor who raised this issue is a member of the ethnic community that he is criticizing and would not seem to be motivated by any white supremacist ideology..

What is interesting about this story is how the defenders of abortion have chosen to evade the primary moral questions of gender-selective abortion, that of whether a female child is worth less than a male child and whether that calculation can justify the eradication of that child’s life.  Instead, they have raised ridiculous irrelevancies such as racism to detract from the key issue.

But isn’t all abortion about one kind of selection or another?  Pro-abortionists like to call themselves pro-choice but isn’t that what gender selection is, a choice?  The decision to abort a fetus is based on the selection of competing options.  Retaining the fetus in the womb requires commitment.  There will be inconvenience at times.  When the baby is born, he or she will require even greater levels of support and will demand time, resources and love.  But in Canada, where abortion is unrestricted and free, the pregnant woman can make another selection.  She can choose to abort the child.  But if we believe that this fetus is a human life, then that is one very problematic choice to make.

The reason that gender-selective abortion has upset and yes, disgusted, so many this week is not just because it is a “woman’s issue” that illustrates how some perceive women to be of lower status than men.  This issue has hit the guts of many Canadians because it has forced us to examine abortion as more than a clinical procedure.  It has asked us to identify what a selection or a choice entails.  It has, for a brief moment, highlighted the life of the child that is so utterly affected by the choice that is made when the abort button is pushed.  Instead of being told by radical feminists that the abortion debate has been decided forever, or being cautioned by Stephen Harper that the abortion debate will not be reopened during his watch, gender selection reminds us of just who is the real loser , and what is the real loss, every time an abortion is performed in Canada.

David Krayden is the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, an independent, not-for-profit institution dedicated to the advancement of freedom and prosperity through the development and promotion of good public policy.

The God bone’s connected to the Tebow: Tom Bartlett

Posted on by
2

By Tom Bartlett

I know everyone will agree with me that it is unseemly seeing inter-racial couples showing affection in public. Don’t get me wrong – I acknowledge that they have a right to get married, but do they need to rub it in the faces of the rest of society? Hand-holding and a peck on the cheek should be reserved for times when they are alone at home and such demonstrative behaviour is inappropriate.

For that matter, what’s with that Tim Tebow guy kneeling in prayer on the football field? Sure there are people absurd enough to believe in a God, but flaunting his faith in public forces his personal beliefs on the rest of us. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?

Okay, so maybe opposing simple shows of affection between mixed races isn’t that offensive. Let’s be honest: any rational human being would recognize such a complaint to be borne of ignorance and bigotry. So why is it that Tim Tebow’s expression of gratitude toward his God evokes outrage or is even controversial according to the self-appointed arbiters of tolerance?

I am no NFL fan, but am intimately acquainted with the Tim Tebow controversy. His long established pattern of expressing gratitude to his God by bending his knee in reverence has been met with hoots and rants from ardent non-believers and been the subject of talk shows which venture to determine whether such behaviour is unseemly, fatuous, or even acceptable. Many have offered mocking derision and condemnation based on their distaste for this silent show of piety.

A favoured attack is to accuse Tebow of showboating; twisting a sublime act of humility into a blatant show of arrogance. If so, what are we to make of the victory dances in the end zone that is the standard M.O. of so many of these players? They are clearly telegraphing their own superior performance and boasting of their athletic prowess. They turn the spotlight on themselves while Tim Tebow humbly directs attention to God. I maintain that this is precisely what fires up these malcontents.

For any crying foul for the comparison of Tebow’s public kneeling and inter-racial relationships, my premise is that both acts are innocuous, but the latter is not a subject of mainstream talk shows. Like Rush Limbaugh often says, the best way to illustrate absurdity is with absurdity. If my secular friends wish to make the case that Christians show their intolerance in the context of other social issues, I will be happy to expand my analogies. Before I do so, however, let’s put to rest the risible claim that aversion to inter-racial relationships has any basis in Christianity – a charge I have heard some secularists make.

So what about the issue of homosexual relationships? Well, I have yet to hear any organized Christian opposition to mild affection shown by homosexuals in public. I have heard opposition to crude and graphic content. Many justly criticise the hypocrisy and inappropriateness of public nudity and overtly sexual or anti-Christian displays at “Gay Pride” parades. Those making such legitimate complaints are attacked as “homophobic” as was Mayor Rob Ford for not attending. Christians have also fought against homosexual marriage and forced promotion of homosexuality in our public schools as they undermine the foundational underpinning of family and Christian values. Does this equate with a man praying during a football game?

Let’s look at abortion. Any pro-lifers I’ve had dealings with are filled with compassion for woman in a crisis pregnancy and/or grieve with and for women who have aborted just as we grieve the unborn. We silently protest and pray outside abortion clinics and provide services to women and men struggling with the thought or aftermath of abortion. We work against the tide to educate the public about the life issues and seek protections for the unborn. Weigh this against a man’s grateful public prayer.

I believe that Tim Tebow exposes the guilt and despair many secularists feel about their own lives. They know that Tebow is the genuine article and deep down they desire such an intimate relationship with a loving God. Their conflicted feelings cause many to to denigrate a godly man. Many doubtless indulged in schadenfraude at seeing the Bronco’s trounced after a great run up to the playoffs merely because of the quarterback’s zeal. They invented the storyline that his prayers were for victory and denounced any losses as proof that Christ was failing him.

Tebow is not just a bold Christian example, but an indictment of the entire secular pro-abortion mentality. Tim was born to a missionary couple and his mother suffered from amoebic dysentery and fell into a coma while pregnant with him. Doctors advised abortion, insisting that her son would be severely disabled. Tim’s mother was a woman of strong faith and rejected the dire predictions. Tim subsequently survived four near miscarriages. I would certainly feel deep gratitude to God that my parents weren’t “pro-choice.”

Tebow lives out his faith boldly ministering to others in prison’s hospitals, and in the Philippines – all aside from his witness on the field. This is why he is despised.

Click here to read Tom’s bio.