Monday, July 17, 2006, 08:21 PM - Morality
Can it be that we may be looking at an election in the spring of 2007? According to the Globe and Mail's Gloria Galloway, this is very likely the earliest date for the next election.
It will be interesting to see what hits the agenda in the meantime. Rather than a free vote in the House of Commons regarding whether same sex marriage should be recognised as equal to traditional marriage, we look at having a vote, in the fall, regarding whether there should be discussion about whether SSM should be looked at again.
It's almost the same thing, isn't it?
Can looking at the title of a movie possibly compare to watching the movie? Looking at whether we should look at something that most of us wish we had never looked at in the first place, is not the same thing as saying, "This piece of legislation was pushed through regardless of the wishes of Canadians who protested this piece of legislation more than any other."
The contempt Stephen Harper is showing for all who voted for him, for all who have contacted him regarding the issue, for the democratic process is very similar to Paul Martin's contempt when he pushed this piece of legislation through, pandering to special interest groups and disregarding average Canadians.
Marriage is the foundation of society. Providing a stable home environment for children to be born and raised in is of paramount importance. Providing the role models of both father and mother to the next generation ensures the emotional health of the next generation.
Speaking of the next generation..... It seems that the Conservatives have still forgotten about protecting the next generation of Canadians. The most dangerous place in Canada is in the mother's womb. That's where the highest mortality rate among young Canadians is.
I hope the Liberals/Bloc will avoid responding like a bull to a red rag should the Conservatives seek to incite them to bring down the government and send us all to the polls again.
But either way the Christian Heritage Party will field candidates to allow Canadians to vote for traditional values in this country.... conservative values.
| permalink
Friday, June 30, 2006, 03:10 AM - Morality
Larry Spencer presented to us God, who is Love, as opposed to the god of this world which is tolerance.
The difference can easily be seen if a man says that he loves his wife as opposed to a man who says he tolerates his wife. Which would you rather hear from your loved one?
God sent his Son, who is Light, Life and the way to God. These are characteristics that are good for us. They give, to us, future life in Christ.
The son of Satan is political correctness. By acceptance of this son, the work of darkness can proceed without challenge. Political correctness takes away our right to speak freely and to worship freely. It stunts our ability to think.
If we have accepted political correctness, we need to repent. We are closing our eyes and directing society into the way of death.
We need to be bold and focussed on truth and life, not trembling in fear of speaking against the god, political correctness.
The Holy Spirit is the spirit of love, gentleness, meekness, power, boldness, confidence and security.
The god of tolerance, after sending his son, political correctness, sent a spirit of secular humanism. Secular humanism teaches that we do not need God. We have God’s attributes within ourselves. We can be what we want to be. But we need only look to the fruits of the secular humanist movement to know that it has not delivered on that promise.
The world has not become more loving under the control of secular humanism. We do not love each other more, we tolerate each other. We have become victims of an empty promise but we are too afraid to speak out.
Psalm 33:12 tells us “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people he chose for his inheritance.”
If Canada’s god is the god of tolerance, how can Creator God bless this nation? Judgement begins with the house of the Lord. Christians must become involved in church but they must also be doing what God wants them to do in the community. We are the salt of the world!
We have lost freedom of speech! If we may speak out only in a safe place but may not speak our beliefs in public then we have lost our freedom of speech. We see evidence of this lost freedom in the cases of Chris Kempling and Scott Brockie.
What is wrong with the Canadian Criminal Code that we need Human Rights Commissions? Our Human Rights Commission serves the same purpose as the Gestapo and the SS in Germany before World War 2. We gave them a nicer name in Canada. But there is no need for these organisations in a free democratic society.
Because same sex marriage is legalised we are seeing a greater difficulty in speaking against it. We are called bigots and homophobes if we speak our conscience. We are being told that to oppose an action is the same as hating the person committing the action.
We will see our children inundated with the idea that same sex relationships are good, healthy, right, and as normal as heterosexual relationships. This is an insidious form of child abuse.
Morals and principles matter! The CHP is found on principles. Christians cannot afford to be complacent! It is the job of the CHP in Canada to restore the vision of a moral, principled country.
| permalink
Monday, June 26, 2006, 11:26 AM - Miscellaneous
Rating minority governments
By Ron Gray Leader CHP
The Harper minority government has survived its first session of Parliament, and by all pundits’ estimations, has done better than expected. That’s not a surprise, really, because the left/liberal punditry (by and large) didn’t think anything even vaguely ‘conservative’ could survive in what social conservative Dean Ted Byfield calls ‘the New Canada’ – and Western Standard columnist Mark Steyn calls ‘the Diseased Dominion’.
But even the left-lib commentators of the CBC agree that the Harper minority government has survived, and has won a measure of public approval
But how did they rate on specific public-policy issues? Overall, not bad – but not as good as many pundits seem to think/
To be fair, the CHP rating of the Harper ‘Liberal Lite’ minority government ought to be compared against the record of the Martin minority government, issue by issue – and in that comparison, they positively seem to shine: the Harper government rates a C-, while the Martin government rated an E+.
Here are the ratings, and the explanations:
Budget: GST down 1%, personal taxes up about the same amount.
Martin Liberals C
Harper’s ‘Lib Lite’ D
[Explanation: taxation authorities state that reducing personal taxes benefits the economy much more than reducing consumption taxes; therefore the Liberals’ proposed over-taxation was at least better than the Tories’ ‘smoke-and-mirrors’ over-taxation. It’s interesting that the Liberals’ campaign promises totaled $61 billion of new taxes; the NDP’s $65 billion, and the Tories promises came to $71 billion. This is ‘conservative’?!?
Childcare
Martin Liberals F
Harper’s ‘Lib Lite’ D
[Explanation: neither plan offered any real social benefits, in terms of strengthening the family. But the Conservatives’ plan was the “least worst” offering.]
Abortion
Martin Liberals F
Harper’s ‘Lib Lite’ F
[Explanation: there’s not a dimes’ worth of difference between the two big parties – both are willing to throw pre-born children to the wolves in order to gain or hold power.]
Polygamy
Martin Liberals E
Harper’s ‘Lib Lite’ F
[Explanation: The Liberals wouldn’t admit it was an issue; the Harper government actually recognized some polygamous ‘marriages’, as secret documents obtained by Sun Media revealed, thus opening the door to official acceptance of other perversions.]
Same-sex ‘marriage’
Martin Liberals F
Harper’s ‘Lib Lite’ F
[Explanation: the Martin Liberals – after their party had pledged in 1999 to protect the traditional definition of marriage, collapsed on this front; the Harper Tories provide no leadership at all, but promise a free vote they know they will lose.]
Age of Consent Legislation
Martin Liberals E
Harper’s ‘Lib Lite’ B
[Explanation: At least the Tories raised it by two years, from 14 to 16; they should have pressed for 18, but lacked the courage. The Liberals, on the other hand, had worked with the NDP to bring it down to 14.]
Afghanistan mission
Martin Liberals C
Harper’s ‘Lib Lite’ B
[Explanation: The Liberals took us in without enough troops and with inadequate equipment; in a very political stance, the Tories extended the mission, but at least will provide the kind of equipment our troops need and deserve.]
Political appointments
Martin Liberals D
Harper’s ‘Lib Lite’ D
[Explanation: For the Liberals: Stronach, Martin and Brison; for the Tories, Emerson and Fortier. Both parties showed themselves to be cynical and dismissive of public concerns.]
Accountability
Martin Liberals F
Harper’s ‘Lib Lite’ B
[Explanation: The Chretien and Martin Liberals didn’t even know the meaning of the word; the Tories brought in flawed legislation, which brings us to:
Election Financing
Martin Liberals F
Harper’s ‘Lib Lite’ F
[Explanation: Both big parties want a pipeline into the taxpayers’ pockets; only the CHP has proposed a plan that would ensure that no party would get a penny of any taxpayer’s money without explicit approval from that taxpayer.]
Quebec rapprochement
Martin Liberals D
Harper’s ‘Lib Lite’ B
[Explanation: the sponsorship scandal deeply offended Quebec voters; the Tories have attempted to re-build the Mulroney consensus.]
Overall grade
Martin Liberals E+
Harper’s ‘Lib Lite’ C-
| permalink
Friday, June 16, 2006, 11:45 AM - Miscellaneous
| permalink
Thursday, June 8, 2006, 01:36 AM - Miscellaneous
In case you missed this on the events page.....
Meet our new Incoming Interim National President, Larry Spencer, on June 26, 2006, 7:30 p.m. at:
Timothy/Unity Christian School,
750 Essa Road,
Barrie, ON
L4N 9E9.
Mr. Larry Spencer has been appointed as our new Interim National President effective June 2, 2006 following the National Board meeting in Edmonton.
Mr. Spencer has an extensive background in politics and brings a wealth of knowledge to the position. In 2000 he was elected as a member of the 37th Parliament of Canada, serving the constituency of Regina–Lumsden–Lake Centre, Saskatchewan.
During his time in office, he served on a number of Parliamentary Committees including some time on the Justice, Human Resources Development Canada, Persons with Disabilities and Youth at Risk committees. He also served part of that time as the Family Issues Critic for the Canadian Alliance.
Larry was also invited to travel to South America and to Russia with the Christian Embassy of Canada; there he was able to give Christian witness to many of the government leaders of those countries.
Mr. Spencer has just released his book "Sacrificed? Truth or Politics".
Hosted by the York Simcoe and Simcoe Grey Electoral District Associations
| permalink
Wednesday, May 31, 2006, 07:50 PM - Child Care
The debate into child care has heated up again. The Provinces are not happy with the Conservative plan to provide tax credits and grants to encourage business and community groups to create new daycare spaces.
The Provinces see the plan as flawed because it doesn’t provide money for on-going operating costs of daycare spaces. It’s one thing to receive a grant and open a child care centre, it’s another thing to keep the centre up and running. The Provinces would like to see the $250 million per year redirected to them.
Human Resources Minister Diane Finley has said the federal incentive plan was an improvement over giving money to the provinces because it would cut down on administrative costs. If it’s a financially wise move, should the care of all of our children be transferred from parents to the federal government?
The provinces and territories have reminded us that they have jurisdictional responsibility to deliver child care.
In this back and forth over which level of government will provide best for our children one important consideration has been forgotten.... Childcare is ultimately the parent’s responsibility.
The Christian Heritage Party recognises parents as the people who are best able to decide what kind of care their children need.
That’s the wisdom of the CHP solution to childcare.
The CHP would provide $1,000 per month to stay at home parents. This would provide money enough to make a one income family viable, give parents the opportunity to raise their own child should they wish and increase our Gross Domestic Product through the increase of home based business’ and increased employment as others enter the work force.
That’s a win/win solution to an ongoing problem.
| permalink
Back Next
