Wednesday, December 23, 2015


On June 28th, 2015, CBC’s nationwide Sunday call-in show was about whether Canada should receive more refugees and migrants than it already does. The discussion soon turned into a conversation about immigrants generally. Before addressing what I heard on this episode, I will offer a little number-crunching commentary. Keep in mind, that in light of Trudeau’s plan to flood our country with Muslim refugees of dubious virtue, this topic remains extremely relevant, and will become more relevant as the months and years pass. 

Under just one program (the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program) Canada employs about 25,000 migrants per year presently. Each migrant may stay in the country for up to eight months at a time; many migrants come back year after year; and some of them come back regularly for decades. You could say that, practically speaking in many ways, migrants are just immigrants by another name. Then we have the refugees. Canada accommodates more than 20,000 refugees per year. These numbers are comparatively paltry beside the broader fact that this nation has been absorbing about 250,000 immigrants per year for many years now. Do we really need to bring in 50,000 poorly screened refugees from the middle-east? They should stay where they are and build themselves a democracy.  

For a country of just 36 million or so and that has a low birth rate, 250,000 immigrants per year is an astonishing number. It does not take a stats guru or a professor of sociology to figure out that a quota like that will radically change the face of the country before long. Canada’s face has already noticeably changed. We all experience the evidence of this when we can’t understand what the new bureaucrat on the other end of the phone is trying to articulate. If we can’t understand her English, has she been assimilated? Is she not changing the face of Canada? Should she have that job if she can’t speak the language properly? How much money was spent on this woman to get her to the point of getting a government job, the salary for which, by the way, will be forked over by the taxpayer? The figures over at Immigration Watch peg the cost of immigration at over 23 billion dollars annually. That’s a lot of money to spend on people you import to take your jobs! Ask my friend’s son if he can get a job in Calgary. Go and look at your local fast food joint and count the number of visible immigrants you see at the counter there. They are standing in the place of your teenager who can’t find work. They are standing in the place of your college student who needs seasonable or nighttime employment. They are costing us, not only money and jobs, but hope. They are causing many of us, in particular our youth seeking entry level employment, to border on despair. These immigration figures need to be reduced dramatically. When a small country that is not growing much by birth rate imports that many foreigners annually who will not properly assimilate, erosion of whatever Canadian culture we have left inevitably results. Lack of assimilation resulting in the erosion of Canadian culture is why Muslim ‘honor’ killings are happening here now, which killings are not only dishonorable but deserving of the death penalty. Lack of assimilation resulting in the erosion of Canadian culture is why the CBC is always wondering and puzzling about what defines Canada. They don’t know what defines it anymore because multiculturalism has made it to mean anything. The Swedes have been puzzling over their new identity as well. Every nation that does not assimilate its immigrants will struggle with an identity crisis. About 375,000 babies are born in Canada yearly. That is not much more than the number of immigrants who are added to our population. And it needs to be noted that many of these babies are the babies of immigrants, for immigrants reproduce at a higher rate than the rest of the population. As our older folks die off, the pace at which immigrants encroach quickens, and the cultural change effected by them increases. If the immigration rate is not cut back, especially in light of the favoritism that our agencies extend to immigrants, more dyed-in-the-wool Canadians will be dismissed at the employment lines, more ‘over-qualified’ Canadian resumes will be regulated to the trash without due consideration, and more turbans and veils will stand in the place of your bright-eyed girls and your earnest boys. It doesn’t matter how skilled and diligent a person is, when, regardless of merit, the job he applies for has already been reserved for a visible minority. 

Visible minorities are favored in this country, which means that others are treated unfairly. Some of us are getting irate about holding the dirty end of that stick. An immigrant does not even have to be seen to be favored. He can be favored by the ear as well as the eye. Back to Cross-Country Check-Up’s coast to coast call-in show. “Should Canada receive more refugees and migrants?” That was the question. I remember beginning to wonder why all the callers were saying ‘yes’ to the question. Then it dawned on me that the callers all sounded alike. They all sounded like first generation immigrants from second and third world countries—countries like Syria, Turkey, and Eritrea. Not surprisingly, such callers wanted no limits put on immigration at all. Then I recalled how Cross-Country Check-Up screens its callers. For example, during their ‘recommend a book’ episode, I called in to recommend a classic Christian tome on the nature of God. Upon the reception of my call, the screener water-boarded me with questions that were more suitable to be posed to a terrorist; then I was put on hold until my line went conveniently dead a couple of minutes later. Is it a coincidence that every single caller during hour one of the refugee/migrant episode sounded like a visible minority? It is not unjust to suppose, given CBC’s treatment of me in the past, that objectors to the question were screened out. Calls from a few objectors were received in hour two; but I think that this was allowed in order for the bias to not be so obvious. People tend to remember what they heard last. So the impression of bias is lessened by this maneuver of letting objectors get through near the end. Not only was CBC biased in the callers they accepted, but they stacked the deck with guests too. It would have been easy to find guests who would take issue with the open door policy that CBC was peddling. But CBC is not our public broadcaster; CBC is our biased broadcaster. It speaks for certain segments of the public; it does not, and will not, speak for all persons equally, even though ‘equality’ is its pretended idol. 

When an objector was permitted to speak, the usual line was thrown at him by the host: “We’re a nation of immigrants.” This line is calculated to silence any opposition to what would amount to open borders for all. It reminds me of how leftist Americans try to silence righteous critics of Obama’s dictatorial ways by crying racism every time that president’s policies and orders are justly criticized. Immigrants are not the same as they once were; and we do not treat them as we once did. Comparing hard-working immigrants of old to newfangled immigrants who are on-the-take is hardly a fair comparison. It is like comparing a basket of good apples with the odd bad one in it, to a basket of spoiled apples with the odd shiny one in it. When you spoil immigrants as soon as they get off the boat or plane, you are more likely to end up with whiners than workers, or users than helpers. I once saw a turban-attired man wheel his shopping cart through the check-out without paying for the jugs of milk that he had stowed underneath. It took me off guard, and the sight of his kids threw me off some more, and by the time I had decided to say something, it was too late. This is what I am talking about. The man was a cold-hearted taker. He was a thief. There is no justification for it. My guess is that had I gone outside, I would have witnessed him getting into a late model car. Immigrants have an aversion to cars that don’t look new. Have you ever noticed that? Try to spot one driving a beater. The beaters are for your sons and daughters who can’t find jobs. Since that incident at the supermarket, I have steeled myself to never overlook theft again. The passivity and hesitation that got the better of me that day still nag me, and I am thankful for it. It means that I’m leaning on the right side even though I don’t always respond in the right way. This immigrant was no doubt helped by government agencies and programs that the rest of us don’t even know exist, and what thanks does he extend? He steals from the citizens of the country that was kind enough to adopt him and to nurture him with all manner of perks and goodness! Because he won’t get his hand cut off for stealing, he reaches forth his hand to steal. 

We are not a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of pilgrim descendants, with immigrants thrown in. There is an answer, too, regarding the line that the Indians were here first. If you believe that the Indians have a claim to your land and property on the basis of having been here first, give them all you have, and you, you move to somewhere like Iraq. You don’t like that idea? Then consider the truth: our pilgrim fathers occupied this land that was being used for almost nothing but savages killing each other, which they are still doing on reserves. Almost every Indian who is murdered in Canada is murdered by a fellow Indian. The Indians forfeited this land by their behavior on it.             

The most memorable moment of this episode (the low point for the host) was when an Indian called in and said ‘no’ to more immigrants. “We’re all refugees,” the Indian said, “except Indians.” Her meaning was that no one belongs in Canada except the Indians. This was an uncomfortable moment for the host because the CBC favors both immigrants and Indians. To a CBC host, a choice between an Indian and an immigrant is like choosing between a bag of gold and a big shiny diamond. To reasonable Canadians, however, the choice between the two is like a choice between a trumped up liability and a cooked up debt. To make matters even more pathetic, the Indian went on to say that we should help Indians only, even though her first point was that we should all emigrate! Most callers who were allowed to say their piece could not think beyond the basic fact that Canada is a large country geographically. There is lots of space in Canada. Therefore let everyone in who wants in. That was as far as the analytical part of their minds could go, as if the only criterion to consider in the matter of mass immigration were geography! No talk of all the logistical costs, or of government assistance, or housing, or health care, or lawsuits by pouting, unsatisfied immigrants; no talk of how, when, and for how long the taxpayers will be paying for the placement of all these immigrants across the broad spaces of our great land. Just bring them in; there’s lots of room!   

The truth is that a lot of the immigrants who want to come over have been responsible for changing their own countries into failed states. Is it wise to receive Iraqi men, for instance, who were part of that well-furnished, US-trained military that fled before terrorists who came to town with a few guns on the backs of trucks? What honorable citizens they would make! Will cowards make good citizens? Prospective immigrants to Canada ought to be screened with as much vigor as CBC screened my call. My call was screened in order to deny Christianity; each prospective immigrant needs to be screened in order to deny violent religions like Islam, persons who can’t speak English, those who remain committed to their old countries, those whom we suspect will import violent cultural values, and those whose work ethic is suspicious. Yes, we should be merciful enough to accept some refugees who cannot presently help themselves. But even these must be screened in order to weed out potential offenders, malingerers, and activists. Immigrants fall into several groups: workers, malingerers, agitators, offenders, and terrorists. Some fit into more groups than one, and the importation of each group needs to be scaled back, even the workers group. If we do not begin to slam down the engine break on our multicultural motor, we are going to have Muslim thugs burning cars in Canada, not just France; we are going to have Muslim thugs raping girls in Canada, not just Sweden. The Swedes have been told to integrate into the ‘new’ Sweden because it is contrary to the spirit of political correctness and multiculturalism to ask the immigrants to do the integrating! (See I am Swedish, but I live in ‘Absurdistan’ on YouTube.) Mass importation of persons from the Middle-East and Africa is causing Europe to drink a cup of wrath straight from the uncivilized edicts of the Koran. We do not love our own citizens when we accept persons to live alongside them who are comfortable with Sharia Law and theocracy in the name of Allah. Those who have an ideology of non-negotiable violent totalitarianism in their mind as the ideal society to strive after cannot integrate, assimilate, and live in peace with persons who believe in capitalism, democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. These people who are mired in civil wars, tribal conflicts, and guerilla warfare must be witnessed to from afar and must be left to their own devices in the hope that revolutions will sort them out or that their share of iniquity will soon be as full as that of the Amorites had to be before their land was taken over (Genesis 15.16.) It may be that the people we import from zones of strife will be the means to our punishment for polluting our land with the blood of babes. But it is better, as David did, to hope for God to judge us by plagues instead of barbarians (2 Samuel 24.)                

The Bible says to love thy neighbor. Is that not proof that we should open our borders to all? Who are our neighbors? Our neighbors begin with those who are nearest. And each Canadian neighbor is in debt. So if we have federal, provincial, and regional debts, we should take care of those debts before we attempt to care for hundreds of thousands of immigrants year after year. By reducing the immigration rate and by reserving immigration for those who are philosophically sound, if not financially secure also, we can more easily climb out of our deficit, begin to pay down the debt, and thereby help our neighbors closest to us. And who are our closest neighbors? Our closest neighbors are our fellow taxpayers who come from the ranks of our relatives, our friends, our next-door chums, and our rising generations. The first thing that a soldier does during a chemical attack is put on his own mask. Then he is fit to help others put on theirs. In the same way, it is by protecting ourselves first that we are better equipped to help others. We will make life better for the immigrants that we let in by first putting our house in order. We love our distant neighbors best when we first become good neighbors locally. Imagine a country that is austere enough to pay down its debt and avoid future deficits; then imagine the good that it can do for its citizens, its carefully selected immigrants, and even those who must remain abroad. If we love ourselves, our neighbors, and the world, that must be our ideal with respect to immigration. We must aim to make this nation a place most longed for by foreigners, not based on the freebies it hands out, but on the basis of its freedom from debt, violence, and dictatorial factions like the Muslim Brotherhood. This can only be accomplished by implementing a sensible, wise, cautious, and what many would falsely label, ‘draconian,’ approach to immigration. Once we plumb the meaning of draconian, we soon learn that it would be most draconian to import Muslims unthinkingly, for the Muslims are the ones who own that religion which is most in line with Draco’s ways: for Draco, as legend has it, prescribed the death penalty for even petty offences, which is precisely the kind of injustice that passes for justice in countries ruled in the name of Allah.    

Friday, December 11, 2015


I heard something on CBC Radio on July 8th, 2015, which demonstrates how dishonest the feminists are. I do not know why the CBC even reported on the story because it brings to light certain embarrassing disparities between the genders. So the CBC reported the following facts about a chess competition that was set to culminate in Greece: 83% of the competitors were boys; and most of the girls who were in the competition were in categories that were less competitive. The following observations ought to be drawn from this news: (1) even though girls are being pushed into domains that they have no desire to be part of, their numbers are low; (2) when they do enter these domains, they do rather poorly. 

The CBC’s rationalizing counterattack came in the words of a girl. This girl said that it’s not that the boys are smarter, it’s about who works at it more. At best, if we are to believe this opinion, we have to admit that girls are lazier, for they do not work at it as much. The truth is, they are not lazier than boys; their interest in chess is just lacking; and it is lacking because girls are less disposed than boys to play at games of an intellectual nature. Another girl was more humble, and did the right thing by saying that we should never mind focusing on boys versus girls. The CBC and radical feminists will never quit stirring up conflict between the genders, though. Even if women ended up excelling men in every arena, the feminists would hammer away against men anyway, for they resent their own hearts for pining after men no matter what they do to convince themselves that men are no longer desirable or necessary. 

Men are more inclined to do brain work. They are better thinkers. It comes down to this: men are smarter. There is no game that puts brain power to the test more than chess does. When it comes to competing in that game, boys and men outclass girls and women. It should be okay to state facts. The CBC is ashamed to do that. Now that girls and women have had a leg up for a few decades and have been given so many more advantages than boys and men, it is becoming obvious that we have little reason to bewail the lack of opportunities that girls and women have had throughout history in fields requiring intellectual brawn. It has always been right to train boys up for pursuits that are mentally demanding, and to reserve girls for the more domestic and supportive pursuits. Eve was created as Adam’s helper, not his leader, not his competitor, not his intellectual equal. We should be thankful that for the better part of history, we have operated according to this part of the Genesis pattern. The best writers have been men; the best painters have been men; the best scientists have been men; the best composers have been men; and not one good preacher has ever been a woman. If we had operated according to a feminist pattern, imagine the dark ages that we would now be living in! 

Now that women have more liberty than ever to compete—now that they are favored for positions of power based on their gender rather than the merits of their work, what do we see? Men are still outpacing women intellectually in virtually every arena that one can think of or check out. Women are weaker; women are not as smart; women are more easily deceived. The Bible has revealed all of this long ago. God is not afraid of the facts. We should imitate his example. Women are better at giving birth, nursing babies, and cleaning house. So it must be admitted that they surpass men in some things. Occasionally, women excel even at writing. When that happens, they write something like this: “Woman was made for man’s delight;/Charm, O woman, be not afraid!/His shadow by day, his moon by night,/Woman was made” (Christina Rossetti, A Helpmeet for Him.) Feminists hate poetry like that, especially when it comes from a woman’s pen, in this case, Christina Rossetti’s 19th century, Victorian quill. 

Why do feminists scorn such truth? Why are they so dishonest about the disparate abilities of boys and girls and men and women? They are dishonest because they are wicked, unsaved sinners. That is the root cause of their bitter, rationalizing ways. What occasions their dishonesty is the large pool of facts that they do not like. They are always avoiding facts, falsifying data, and rationalizing every detail or story that does not support their hope that women are greater, better human beings than men are. They are always pitting men against women, as if the genders ought to be continuously at war with each other. 

The more wicked citizens among us have just elected a Liberal band of debased persons to govern the affairs of this country. The gullible greenhorn at the helm, so submissive to women and fringe groups is he, made sure that his cabinet conformed to gender parity and minority favoritism. That makes him, not a fair man who hires persons based on merit, but a sexist and a racist. Boys and men will continue to be unfairly treated in order to arrive at the perverted feminist vision. Indeed, this unfair treatment will go on overdrive now. 

A lot of damage will be done by the unbiblical Liberal setup, and we will all suffer, not just boys and men. Those who will suffer the most are the boys and girls who are being brainwashed to believe that the differences between the genders ought to be denied and erased. The years of Liberal rule will cost us much more than a Conservative mandate would. It will cost us more money because of the deficits and useless inquiries that are promised. It will cost us more lives because abortion will have less conservatism to curb it and because medical suicide will be legalized and abused. It will cost us more love because only hatred can be promoted by such policies. 

In a feminist-friendly environment, Christians can take comfort in the fact that the Bible has prophesied that, by and large, men will rule over women until the end of time. That’s the teaching of Genesis 3.16: man shall rule over woman. Whatever evil things balky women are devising to do in the name of feminism, no one less than God himself is standing in the way of the fullness of evil that they want to implement. To this fact, a hearty Amen should be stirred up in every Christian heart.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015


So the CBC wants to know why the Muslim turnout is low on voting day. They’re concerned, you see, because Muslim votes would be liberal votes, would they not? Why not do a call-in show over the radio to see what the problem is? What happens then? 

I took some notes as the broadcast proceeded. This was an episode of Ontario Today some time shortly before the federal election in the fall of 2015. The host had a guest drop in to help cheer on the Muslims and to encourage them all the way to the voting booth. She popped into the discussion every time a Muslim was less than exuberant about voting, which was often. Ten callers were received during the one hour program. Nine of them were Muslim; one was a virtually unknown liberal candidate. 

Here is how it all went down. The first caller was against voting because Canada was at war with Isis. The second caller voiced the same concern, though it was stated more generally. The third caller was the liberal candidate, who said he agreed with the first two callers. The fourth caller admitted to voting variously, but was careful to affirm a hatred for Harper and an approval of the war against Isis. The fifth caller said he was a voter, but that he found Harper to be anti-Muslim. Caller number six was a voter, but against ‘warmonger Harper.’ This caller was concerned about the language barrier that Muslims face in Canada. The barrier was a roadblock to voting, the caller complained. Caller seven admitted to being a voter, but was quick to add that Islam forbids Muslims to vote in a system that is not Islamic. The eighth caller was a voter, but stated that he believed the barrier to be that Muslims falsely believe that it is wrong for Muslims to vote. The ninth caller was a voter who railed against Harper’s foreign policy and was upset about his position on the niqab and his hard words against jihadi terrorists. The tenth and final caller was a voter as well. This one stated that Muslims are more engaged in policies abroad, by which he meant that they are more attached to their countries of origin, which are Muslim.

The liberal candidate being against any hard sentiment toward jihadi Muslims is no surprise. No further comment necessary on that. In summary, only one Muslim out of nine approved an aggressive stance against Isis. Five did not approve. That is, of course, scary, because if you’re a Muslim who is not against Isis, should that not make us wonder if you’re a Muslim who is for Isis? Barbarians are out to cut off the heads of anyone who is not Muslim or not Muslim enough. If it is not just to go to war against such people, then I guess nothing would qualify as a just war in the minds of some people. Another interesting gleaning concerns the complaint about the language barrier. If the free language programs that we offer to immigrants are not making immigrants fluent enough to cast a ballot, then we should wonder if these programs are not just make-work projects for teachers who get paid for poor results. Such programs might be a tax burden that benefits Canada very little. Isn’t it right to expect immigrants to learn the language of the people whose country they want to profit from? If your English is so broken and halting that you cannot get through the process of casting a ballet, you have not been assimilated; assimilation should be mandatory for all immigrants who want to be Canadian citizens, should it not? Maybe the most interesting comments were the ones about it not being lawful for a Muslim to vote. When you come from a country that dictates who your leader will be and when the Koran is your guidebook, voting in a democracy will seem strange and improper. Observe the following difference: the New Testament assumes that a Christian will reside where the magistrate will not be Christian and it urges Christians to pray for peace and justice to reign; the Koran commands its followers to obtain power in the name of Allah by violent means and to maintain power by suppression. 

If one letter represents ten opinions or perhaps even a hundred or more, the same might be the case regarding callers. Well, five Muslim callers out of nine opposed any opposition to Isis. How many Isis sympathizers do we have in Canada, do you think? I think, many.

Here is a blend of deductions from the foregoing information and my opinions based on other research that I’ve done. Many of our Muslim citizens are okay with Isis and they secretly approve of, or support, terrorism. Many of them are too attached to their dictatorial origins to want to learn our language or to cast a vote. Many of them prefer Sharia Law to democracy, coups to elections, and Imams to politicians. Many of them are quiet regarding any position on Isis and terrorism in general. When insurgencies begin to come on strong, they cheer: on the inside when standing before ‘old stock’ Canadians, and on the outside when standing before ‘Allahu Akbar’ devotees. ‘Warfare is ordained for you,’ it says in Surah 2.216 of the Koran. Fighting, to the informed adherent of Islam, is the passageway to a better world. So it says in Surah 4.74. Islam is a religion of war; war, to Muslims, is regarded as a gateway to Allah’s paradise. Many Muslim citizens of Canada, as ignorant as they are about their Islamic heritage and their unholy book, have learned at least that much. They are so steeped in the primitive Islamic mindset that they hesitate to say a disparaging word about the most violent groups of human beings that the world has ever been cursed to support. Some Canadian Muslims are afraid to speak out against their bloodthirsty brethren, though they would like to. But many others are in love with the prospect of Islamic power in Canada, even it means that Canada could become a war-torn state just like the one they came to Canada to escape from. 

Liberals want change because deficit, corruption, and the progress of immorality are attributes that they’re most comfortable with. Muslims want change because they’ve never been able to get comfortable with the idea of a peaceful society. Liberals and Muslims deserve each other, and conservatives are stuck with both of them. Liberals kiss Muslims to court their vote and donations from Arabia; Muslims kiss their own and give others the Judas kiss. Are these hard words? If you are a Muslim, why not disprove me by renouncing your Koran that calls for tyranny? Coming to Canada, or to any democracy, as a Muslim, is hypocritical. Either stay in a country that implements your Koranic laws, or renounce your faith and come on over. You can’t be a practicing Muslim and democratic at the same time; the Koran forbids it. Be true to your faith, or give it up for something better.

Some Muslims like it when they get here because it strikes them as a sudden relief to not fear rape moment by moment and to not have to dodge bullets daily. But after they’ve been at peace for a while, with no one to rob them, molest them, intimidate them, or kill one of their family members, they begin to yearn for the old comfortable ways of oppression, lashings, blood feuds, and beheadings. 

Thursday, December 3, 2015


The Current’s Anna Maria Tremonti went to France to do some pre-suppositional journalism after the massacre took place in November. While there she interviewed some Parisians. I am glad that she interviewed the young hipster Parisians because they were the principal targets on that now infamous night of terror.

When asked about the attacks on their fellows and on Parisian society, these postmodern hippies had little to say. But what they did say revealed a lot. A hippie is a person who rejects the notion of absolute truth, authoritative norms, and social conventions. A hippie also advocates nonviolence. So I mean it when I call these tidy, dainty, soft-spoken French citizens hippies. They do not look like the hippies of the sixties. But their hearts and philosophies are one. 

They call themselves Freethinkers and ‘Progressists.’ What do they mean by these appellations? Freethinkers are those who have discarded Revelation. Traditionally, this has meant the discarding of biblical doctrines, ethics, and certainties. Nowadays it means the discarding of any text that might be put forward by anyone as authoritative. And what does ‘Progressist’ mean? ‘Progressist’ is a French malapropism. What these French youth mean to say when they confess it, is that they see themselves as ‘Progressives.’ What is a ‘Progressive’? The word ‘Progressive’ is virtually synonymous with ‘Freethinker.’ A Progressive is for emancipation from oppressive superstition. To the Progressive, oppressive superstition is whatever purports to be authoritative, in particular the Bible and its patriarchal structure. 

How progressive and freethinking are these well-kept, genteel French youth? Are these postmodern hippies emancipating themselves from oppressive superstition? Do they really regard nothing as authoritative? Au contraire, they believe what they are taught to believe; they say what they are drilled to say; they act as they are trained to act. Their teachers, professors, media, celebrities, and politicians have so thoroughly pacified them into submission by systematic indoctrination that they are nothing but docile and resigned when terror strikes. Are they emancipated from the powers that be? No, not at all; they are so submissive to the establishment that they fall in with it step by step, cowering to Islamic oppression and the encroaching edicts of the Koran. Like the establishment has taught them, they refuse to identify the enemy. What do they call Isis? Islamic terrorists? Bloody barbarians? No, they call Isis ‘Daesh.’ I have read that Daesh is an Arabic acronym for Isis. That seems correct, for I have heard it used by Middle-Easterners in their native tongue to do exactly that. Some pundit said that ‘Daesh’ sounds insulting to members of Isis. If ‘Daesh’ is just an acronym for Isis, there is no reason to believe that the word is insulting, however. It is likely no more insulting than the word ‘Isis.’ The only reason the word ‘Daesh’ is being used by Europeans to identify Isis is because it makes it easier to live in denial of who the enemy is. It makes it easier to deny that the enemy has something to do with Islam. The word ‘Isis’ is too easily fathomed, you see. It has become common knowledge that Isis refers to an Islamic State of some sort. The word even sounds like Islam just a bit. Using the word ‘Daesh,’ on the other hand, allows you to identify the enemy as nothing but a boogeyman. You would not go to war against a boogeyman, would you? You would not change your routine for a boogeyman. Using the word ‘Daesh’ allows you to stay in your cocoon—until Isis strikes a blow so hard that your cocoon is completely blasted and becomes irreparable, that is. ‘Daesh’ is a meaningless, inoffensive sound for postmodern hippies to utter when they are asked probing, uncomfortable questions about what’s going on. 

Here is how these freethinking kids are so easily instructed to submit instead of emancipate. Some propaganda is put out there by the ‘Progressist’ Media that the youth are regularly indoctrinated by; the youth come to the media with open uncritical minds, calmly fall to their knees, close their eyes, open their mouths, and receive the ‘Progressist’ wafer. 

Here is the kind of wafer that these progressive youth consume without freely thinking. On The Current, Piya set up this little propaganda vignette to close her hour with on November 23rd. The vignette was about WW2 slogans. As the story goes, in 1939 some slogans were commissioned by the British government to boost morale and to motivate. The two slogans that were actually issued were about courage and freedom. What is emphasized in the vignette, however, is a third slogan. It was commissioned, but never issued. Over two million copies of the slogan were commissioned; that is, made. But not one of them was issued; that is, used. The slogan was shelved. The slogan went like this: “Keep calm and carry on.” To romanticize the passive slogan, the story is told about a copy of it being found, over fifty years after the commission, in an obscure bookstore. “Tsk, tsk,” we are supposed to think, “how sad that it was never used! and yet how wonderful that it was rediscovered!” 

What message are Piya and her team sending by this vignette? “Never mind courage and freedom; just calmly carry on as usual; there is no Isis; there is no trouble; there is no reason whatsoever to be concerned about the present Islamic Crusade that is being waged; there is no reason to worry about this ghastly terrorism that is threatening the civilized world; it’s all just a boogeyman. Even though 130 of your fellow citizens were more coarsely killed than common pigs are slaughtered by a farmer, just calmly carry on and everything will work itself out. Some crazy thing called ‘Daesh’ is responsible; you don’t have to understand it; you don’t have to oppose it; you don’t have to do anything but go about your normal routine. Don’t let the boogeyman scare you.” 

That is the message and that is exactly what these French youth are doing. They are just calmly carrying on. No doubt on the inside they are in turmoil and confusion, questioning everything; at least we hope so. I’m not saying that these French youth even heard this piece of propaganda. My point is that this charming, deceptive, palliative vignette is the kind of thing that is being pitched to gullible youngsters and it is the kind of thing that they readily and uncritically accept, in spite of their profession of faith in progressive, freethinking philosophy. They may not be submitting to the Revelation that they have been brainwashed to think is oppressive. But they are submitting to their Leftist Masters, and thereby presenting their soft necks to their Muslim Overlords. They have avoided the peaceful Revelation of Jesus Christ; but they are being chained, link by link and step by step, to the most violent false religion of our time—maybe the most vicious, hideous form of religion that the world has ever seen. They are being chained into compliance with Islam and Sharia Law, not by force like the slaves were chained, but merely by propaganda vignettes that any ten year old child, properly brought up, would be able to deconstruct. That is what makes this postmodern form of progressive freethought so pitiful. 

Western progressives are more powerful than their Middle-Eastern oppressors, but yet they are willingly oppressed, not by a religion that merely tells you not to sleep around, but by a religion that will kill you for doing so. Formerly, the church just asked women to cover their heads during a church service. How oppressive! The progressives will not put up with that! But as progressive as they are, they willingly come under the yoke of a religion that demands women to be covered head to toe no matter where they go. Exchanging the bad old Christian patriarchy for Islamic oppression is like exchanging a father who cautiously gives you freedom to go out with your friends for a tyrant who will kill you for having a drink with your friends after work. Freethinking, progressive thought, because it has scorned God and has refused his kind, reasonable word, ends up in bondage to fanatical religion of the most unreasonable, cruel kind. 

It is a judgment, is it not? Do you want to keep on sinning, sleeping around, and drinking to excess? You do not want to receive the message of repentance, faith, and decent living that the Christian religion is about? What if God decides not to draw you to his message on account of your stubborn determination to keep on sinning? What if God is so sick of you slandering his name by the term ‘patriarchy,’ that instead of drawing you to himself for mercy, he draws murderous Muslims to you in order to punish you for your continued obstinacy and disobedience? Commenting on Psalm 103.8, where the mercy, patience, and kindness of God are extolled, George Webbe has this to say: “And thou [God] dost sustain many wrongs of the sons of men, being crushed with their sins as a cart is laden with sheaves: but if still they continue to load thee, thou wilt ease thyself of that burden, and cast it on the ground of confusion.” This is the spiritual side of what happened in Paris. Many souls were cast on the ground of confusion by God so that the rest will pay attention. People want to continue sinning and continue to have fun doing it, but how long will God put up with that? How long will he put up with sinners who will not appropriate the Saviour sent down from heaven to save them from their sins? Did Jesus carry sin on the cross for nothing? Is repentance not commanded after that? It is commanded, not much by pastors these days, and not by the Unholy Church of Rome; but by the word of God it is commanded. It is one thing to throw off the oppressive Catholic religion. It is another thing to reject the truths that that church has perverted and to become a freethinker who will not think for himself any more than a person could under the yoke of Medieval Rome.     

That is what happens when you discard the Bible as your Revelation. You inevitably come under other forms of authority. You become the willing victims of Satan, sin, false teachers, and terrorism. Follow the Bible, however, and God grants you authority, through faith in Jesus, over Satan by prayer, over sin by sanctification, over false teachers by the word, and over terrorists by the mandate of self-defense contained in that word.  

It may be that some freethinking folks will turn to God’s biblical revelation on account of Islam’s many assaults. Listen to this from Enoch Mellor: “When society has become drugged with the Circean [dangerously bewitching] cup of worldliness, and the voices that come from eternity are unheeded, if not unheard, even terror has its merciful mission.”  

Monday, November 30, 2015


Whether it’s The Current, Cross-Country Check-Up, or The Sunday Edition—whether it’s this host, that host, or a substitute host, CBC Radio’s focus on Islamic terrorism is always distorted in the same way. When CBC Radio hosts look at the Islamic Crusade that’s going on, they see evil where they should see good, and good where they should see evil. 

On The Current, for example, the massacre in Paris is called a ‘tragedy,’ as if a no-fault plane crash had occurred. The concern then turns to a bomb that landed in Aleppo, Syria, wounding six and killing one. It is not stated that the casualties were innocent bystanders; therefore we may assume that they must have been terrorists. So dozens and dozens of people are mowed down in Paris by Muslims, and The Current’s concern is that a few terrorists were in the way of a bomb in Syria! 

Then when the subject of drones is delved into, they speak as if a drone that mistakenly kills a Syrian bystander, is parallel with a terrorist targeting a Parisian civilian! This is said, even though it is admitted that there is no data to support the notion that a Western drone ever killed anyone in Syria! Some guy who used to operate drones has PTSD and second thoughts, and where does he turn up? On CBC Radio, of course. Drones are the most cowardly weapon, he sniffles. Mark that: not suicide vests targeting casual citizens, but drones that aim for diabolical terrorists! And drones are ‘causally’ related to what happened in Paris, he whines. What is causally related to Muslim terrorism in Paris? What is the cause, really? The cause is not drone strikes, but hatred—hatred taken right from the Koran and unleashed by an Imam to devout, practicing Muslims. 

Listen to the Koran’s call for murder: “We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners” (Surah 3.151.) What is this about? It’s about terrorizing those who believe that God has ‘Partners.’ Who are these partners? These partners are Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. So the meaning is that followers of the Koran, in the names of Allah and Muhammad, will terrorize Christians because Christians believe in the trinity. 

To Muslims, Europe and North America are Christian parts of the world. They do not care about, nor do they know about, the enlightenment, deism, humanism, atheism, agnosticism, or postmodernism; they do not care for such distinctions; they do not differentiate between secular humanists and Baptist Christians. To the uninformed, ignorant, backward Muslim, whatever Western country is industrialized, that nation is Christian, that nation is the enemy, that nation must have its head chopped off. 

To be honest, you can hardly tell a Christian from a secular Joe nowadays anyway. So it’s becoming hard to blame the Muslim for treating them as one.  

CBC Radio is farther from being Christian than the meanest Muslim. But to the Muslim, CBC is part of the Christian problem that Islamists want to eradicate; to the Muslim, CBC is so Christian that it might as well be baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost after each broadcast. Do not think that Muslim terrorists will spare the progressives who defend Islam. They did not spare the progressives in Lebanon in the ‘70s and ‘80s. They did not spare the progressives in New York on 9/11. They did not spare the progressives in Madrid in 2004. They did not spare the progressives in London in 2005. They did not spare the progressives in Paris in 2015. They will not refrain from bombing, shooting, and head-chopping the CBC. Whoever happens to be in the way of a Muslim terrorist, that person is not spared. That’s Allah’s way; that’s Muhammad’s way; that’s the way of the Koran; that’s the practicing Muslims’ way.

Thursday, November 26, 2015


Cross-country Check-Up pretends to be a call-in show that is representative of what Canadians ‘from coast to coast to coast’ think on whatever subject it chooses to talk about each weekend. It does not represent the Canadian mindset any more than a few species of fish represent what’s in the ocean, for only certain kinds of people follow what CBC Radio is up to; moreover, while many liberal Marxist types follow CBC Radio religiously, the few social conservatives who follow it are often screened out when they call in. Still, what can we glean from Cross-Country Check-Up’s call-in show about the massacre in Paris?

The show ended up being about two things: our reactions to the slaughter in Paris, and our reactions to the prospect of taking in 25,000 Syrian refugees by the New Year.

The host was the visible minority woman called Piya; she’s about as pro-socialism as anyone I’ve ever heard in my whole life. You could easily tell that she was not happy when doubts were raised about the screening of these 25,000 refugees that Trudeau has promised to welcome by the New Year. Piya had two guests on to help her steer the show. Thankfully, only one of the guests expressed the willfully blind opinion that, in spite of what just happened in Paris, we have little cause to fear the refugees that are about to pour into our country. The other guest just stuck to the facts. 

About these oncoming refugees, several callers stated that they want them to come over very badly and as soon as possible; basically, these ‘rose-tinted glasses’ types want whatever Trudeau wants. The quintessential caller on the refugee question was an immigrant from Egypt. She informed the listeners that it took three years for the officials to screen her before they were satisfied that she was not a threat. Obviously, this woman understood the problem and burden of screening 25,000 people from Syria in just a few weeks. Ezra Levant says that it takes about ten months to screen a prospective citizen. That may be the norm, which means that the woman’s case from Egypt is an exception to the rule. That there are exceptions to the rule leads us to believe, does it not, that at least some of these 25,000 ought to be held back for three years as well? But even the most concerning characters will not be held back for the usual ten months! The truth is, most of the screening will have nothing to do with official documents and background checks; the screening will be reduced to verbal statements and maybe promises. That is the only way we’ll get so many refugees through the door by 2016.   
About the attacks in Paris, now, what were the reactions? Some phoned in to express revulsion at the massacre and to declare sympathy for the victims; two were eye-witnesses to the horror; another one admitted that all the bloodshed going on in the world had desensitized him; three called for war; and about as many called for status quo passivism. 

The rest of the callers, about half a dozen, wanted status quo passivism as well, even though they did not say so. You can tell by their comments. Two callers virtually justified the attacks by Isis, based on the foolish notion that Muslim terrorists lash out on account of poverty; one of these callers spoke on the authority of her service to outcast folks on the Downtown East Side in Vancouver, if you can believe it! At least one caller had to remind us that Islam is peaceful. Another did not like us calling the killers ‘Muslim terrorists.’ And another caller did not like us calling the killers ‘barbarians.’ 
What do we conclude from these gleanings? The best part of the conclusion that may be drawn is that even among listeners to socialist, pacifist CBC, opposition to the refugee plan may be heard, as well as shouts for war against Isis. The worst part of the conclusion that may be drawn is that Isis sympathizers are walking amongst us, for who else would object to mass murderers being called ‘terrorists’ or ‘barbarians’? We are so tolerant and inoffensive in Canada that Isis sympathizers feel comfortable defending the name of Isis on a public, coast to coast broadcast! A nation as sinfully tolerant as we are will get its collective head chopped off by zealous followers of Allah. It’s good that some sympathizers are out of the closet enough to speak so boldly in favor of Isis barbarians, for such people can be easily traced and profiled; the bad news is that profiling, to us, is ‘impolite.’ Better to be slaughtered than to be impolite to Isis cheerleaders—that’s the Canadian way.    

Few of us follow the Bible anymore. But most Canadians would agree that we should love our neighbors, foreigners, and even our enemies. How can we do these three things at once? Well, we fail to love our neighbors as we ought if we welcome foreigners who will put our neighbors at risk. Our neighbors will indeed be at risk if this refugee plan is pushed through ‘as is.’ Some of our neighbors will be killed if Trudeau follows through on his risky campaign promise. But if we alter the refugee plan in order to protect and love our neighbors, how may we love the foreigners? We may love them by taking time to screen them properly; then the ones we let in will have a safer place to live than they could by the sham screening that is taking place. We may love them by adopting the right ones: the ones who do not follow a book that calls for jihad. We may love them by providing them safe harbor in their homeland. We may love them by killing their enemies and ours. And how may we love our enemies? We may love our enemies by dropping leaflets to them from the sky—leaflets wherein is written what they must do to avoid being overrun by a strong coalition of air force, navy, and ground troops. We may love them by dropping tracts that deconstruct the falsehoods of the Koran and that point Muslims to a better way of worship. If we end up killing our enemies, can it be said that we loved them? Yes, we can say that we loved them when we gave them a space of time to repent before we killed them. Yes, we can say that we loved them even when we killed them, because by killing them we prevent them from killing others and from suffering more anguish in hell for doing so. 

When you follow the Bible, you can love everybody and there are answers to the toughest questions. When you go by liberal philosophy, you cannot even love your loved ones in a good measure. Indeed, if you go by liberal philosophy, you end up hating your enemies by allowing them to sin more and be punished more hereafter; you end up hating your foreign neighbors by not making proper distinctions between the good guys and the bad guys among them; and, as I said, you cannot love your closest neighbors as you ought when you welcome Muslims into your country without due distinction, for obvious reasons. 

There is a good kind of discrimination: which simply means to distinguish between two things or two persons. We are foolish to the point of hazarding our lives when we refuse to discriminate between extremely dangerous Muslims and moderately dangerous Muslims and between savage, violent Islam and all other religions.

Monday, November 23, 2015


Over 100 people were murdered and hundreds more were injured this November in Paris by Islamic Fundamentalists. I’ve been listening to CBC Radio’s take on the terror that Muslims have unleashed in Paris, usually via the morning program called The Current. I inform myself regularly on what the Left is thinking and saying because our country seems always to be veering to the Left, more or less, depending on what political party is governing the country from Ottawa. 

Many Parisian Muslims were interviewed by The Current about the recent events and situation in Paris. One of them communicated that Islam has nothing to do with these attacks. It’s a government problem, he said, by which he meant: the government is to blame. Another Muslim agreed with this statement, but added some information on the attacks being a government problem. He said that these attacks have something to do with Muslims in France having no opportunity to access information and cinemas. It is one thing to hope that we will believe that Muslims have no opportunity to access information, but quite another to hope that we will swallow the lie that they are not allowed access to cinemas! And as if this forbidden access ought to convince us that the attacks were therefore justified! It is a well-known fact that Muslims are not big readers. This is why they use such laughable arguments. They do not improve their intelligence by the acquisition of knowledge. The second Muslim even admitted that his brethren hang out at Macdonald’s, not libraries. European countries bend over backwards to accommodate Muslims. We adopt the same posture in North America. The attacks had nothing to do with Muslims being shut out or shunned in any way. 

These comments by two Muslims are a fair representation of what Muslims communicate when asked about Islamic terrorism in Europe. The staff at The Current just accepts what the Muslims say because what they say is what the CBC wants to hear; why press for facts when you deny them as well? The Current put a quote from one of these Muslims up on its page for all to see because his line of thought is exactly the same as the CBC’s. “In France it is very, very difficult,” he said, “to be Muslim because there are so many people that have bad information about Islam.” The CBC and the Muslims contend that Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. Both the CBC and the Muslims have no doubt heard that the Koran commands violence, though; and they must be intelligent enough to make a simple deduction. Just google ‘calls to violence in the Koran’ or a similar phrase and the proof will cover your screen in a millisecond. Take this verse: “O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near you, and let them find hardness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)” (Surah 9.123.) What is the deduction? It is this: Islam commands violence, and so it is not, by definition, a religion of peace. So-called moderate Muslims and liberal media like the CBC assert that Islam is not violent, only peaceful. Strangely, only orthodox Muslims and conservative Westerners admit that the Koran commands Muslims to kill the ‘infidels.’

The CBC is always careful to bolster its propaganda with guests who toe the Multicultural-Marxist line. One such guest is Michael Privot, Director of European Network Against Racism. He does admit that some radicals are not poor, but university educated. But he falls in line with the lie about terrorism being caused by discrimination and ethnic profiling. The man’s job description is to ‘focus on radicalization within Muslim communities.’ His ‘focus,’ though, seems eerily similar to that of Islamic radicals, you know, the Muslims who actually practice their violent faith. From what he says, it is easy to believe, and not wrong to suppose, that Islamic terrorism, to him, is not so bad. If austerity continues, he says pugnaciously, let casualties continue. He says it as if a continuation of terrorism would be a decent outcome. If the word ‘austerity’ is being used by him as it is commonly used in Europe nowadays, his meaning is that if more money does not flow to the Muslims, let casualties continue, which means: let massacres continue. This is the same attitude, if not hope, that a Muslim expressed a day later on the same program.   

The next guest was Ratna Omidvar, Chair of Lifeline in Syria. She urges us to trust the government concerning the screening of these refugees that are coming to Canada based on what the government has done before. If you follow politics, however, you will have learned that you should never trust the government based on what it has done before. You should always mistrust it. And do not trust a pundit when she tells you that you should receive refugees just because you have lots of room. Who has lots of room for refugees who are mostly Muslims of fighting age during an Islamic Crusade? We should have no room except for those whose religion is peaceful. Why shouldn’t the liberals use their gun control reasoning when it comes to refugees? Why not be consistent? If denying all refugees saves just one life, would it not be worth it? Canada is not assimilationist, Ratna says. Who does she speak for? She does not speak for all of us. Many of us think that those who come here should assimilate and adopt Canadian customs. Many of us think that if your religion calls for murder, you should not be granted access to our country, our people, and our generosity. Multiculturalism is not the great idea that we were told it was; it is especially bad when one culture out of the many has a book to follow that commands the other cultures to be annihilated.

The next guest was Gar Pardy, a former Canadian ambassador. He should be considered infamous for being an apologist for Omar Khadr and Maher Arar, Arabic media darlings of dubious virtue. Gar Pardy says this about the present problems with Islam: “Getting refugees to Canada, I think, is part of that larger fight of trying to do away with this scourge in the Middle-East and the problems that Europe is having as a result.” Gar is about as dubious for problem-solving as his two Muslim darlings are dubious for virtue. So inviting Muslim refugees to Canada who cannot be properly screened will help to do away with the scourge of terrorism that is going on overseas? All it will do is transfer some of the terrorism to Canada. Well, Canada’s a large country. We can absorb some terrorism, can’t we? We have treated the Sikhs well even though Sikhs were responsible for the Air India bombing in 1985, he argues. And that has worked out for us, he continues, for we have sixteen Sikhs in parliament now. Several things need to be said about this remark of his. (1) The file on this bombing is still open. (2) Having Sikhs in parliament should not be spoken of as a positive thing until these new parliamentarians prove their merit. (3) The Sikhs are not engaged in a worldwide jihad against ‘infidels.’

Both the host (Anna Maria Tremonti) and Gar Pardy put forward the same argument during the same broadcast, which leads me to believe that it is an official Leftist talking point. Reasonable people want the prime minister to never mind adopting 25,000 Syrian refugees; at the very least they want him to postpone the plan. Bringing that many refugees in by the New Year is extremely dangerous because they cannot all be screened by then. And how do you screen the refugees who have no documents? Tremonti and Pardy make the following point to those who fear Trudeau’s insane refugee plan: citizens of France and Belgium were involved in the attacks in Paris. The deduction they want us to make from this is that French or Belgian citizens are just as risky for us to receive as people from Syria. We would not refuse someone on the basis of being French or Belgian, so why should we refuse Syrians? That’s their point. They do not mention that the French and Belgian terrorists were Muslim, though. They were French and Belgian citizens, but they also were Muslims. We should refuse Muslims, no matter what country they come from or what country they are harbored in, for the terrorists of our day are Muslims, and the Muslim book is a book that calls for the mass murder of anyone who is not Muslim. Here is a prudent syllabus for screening refugees: let’s receive people who are not Muslim, and let’s focus on the most vulnerable and weak among them: babies, toddlers, kids, women, and the aged. 

When a Saskatchewan premier and a mayor of a city as liberal as Quebec warn us to oppose the present refugee plan that Trudeau is shoving through, we best pay attention and put the pressure on. I usually don’t make predictions, but this one is easy and foolproof: if we receive 25,000 Syrian refugees by 2016, we will have acts of terrorism done to us by some of these refugees by 2017. Tremonti thought it strange to see a goat’s head in that part of Paris where she was interviewing Muslims. It is not strange to see a variety of heads where Muslims congregate. Some of these cut-off-heads might soon be Canadian heads. Tremonti’s head is so thick that she would find that hard to believe even if the first heads to roll were talking heads from her own studio.

I will summarize the CBC’s interpretation of Muslim terrorism: this terrorism has nothing to do with Islam; the Muslims who lash out do so because they are hard done by and discriminated against; if casualties continue, it is our fault for not giving Muslims more benefits and money; we should just trust the liberal government to screen everyone properly and safely; we should not expect immigrants to assimilate; Syrian-Islamic refugees are no more dangerous to make citizens out of than French or Belgian people; and receiving Muslims from Syria will go a long way to dissolving the present scourge of terrorism going on overseas. And here is the common sense interpretation of Muslim terrorism: this terrorism must have a lot to do with Islam, for the Islamic book commands the very terrorism that is presently being waged by Islamists; Muslims do not lash out because of discrimination or poverty, but because they have a mandate to kill ‘infidels’ in the book they worship by, and Muslim terrorists even testify that this is the case; we would continue to be casualties even if we gave the Muslims more money because their mandate to murder is the issue, not poverty; we should not trust the liberal government to give 25,000 Syrian Muslims a proper screening that will ensure our safety, especially since they have to do a rush job in order to meet their deadline; every immigrant should assimilate, not segregate; Muslims are more dangerous to our welfare than French people or Belgian people, unless these French or Belgian citizens happen to be Muslim. Most importantly, receiving Muslims from Syria will not contribute to solving the scourge of Islamic Fundamentalism; instead it will spread terrorism around, and it will cost Canadian lives.    
In the event that Trudeau will not relent, my prayer is that those who voted Trudeau in will be the ones who are victimized and traumatized the most, if not exclusively, by the Muslim murderers. It is a righteous prayer to ask God to punish those who are most guilty for the harmful policies that our administration puts into practice. It is God’s way, too, to ordain people to die by their own devices, especially when they have scorned and rejected the gospel of God that has been available to them all their lives. 

Psalm 119.119: “Thou puttest away all the wicked of the earth like dross: therefore I love thy testimonies.” The wicked of the earth are like dross. What is dross? The dross that Albertans will be familiar with is the stuff that tailings ponds are made of. Just as the oilman separates the impurities that cling to oil and sweeps them into a tailings pond, God separates the wicked from the righteous and brushes these wicked persons off the face of the earth and into hell. He does this on a daily basis, whether we realize it or not and whether we like it or not, because the Bible says so. God’s justice on display is one reason why Christians love the testimonies of God. That is what this verse teaches. Most Christians today are just pretend Christians, ignorant hypocrites who think that God is love and nothing else; they don’t love God’s word when God judges wicked people. When God judges wicked people, hypocritical churchgoers are quick to assert that the Bible has nothing to say about this and that God has nothing to do with it. But what about real Christians who love all of God’s word and every one of God’s attributes? They, like David, love God’s testimonies when wicked persons are taken away because the punishment validates the word of God that they trust. They have a right to love God’s word when it is vindicated. They have a duty to love God’s word when it is vindicated. It is a good thing when wicked people are swept aside like dross, no matter how sad it is. It is good for the word of God. It is good for the world. Yes, it is good for the world to see some of its wicked characters dispatched into hell, for the judgment makes at least some of the remaining sinners examine what they are about and what they believe. Being rid of persons of iniquity is especially relieving to members of the true Church. “In these evil days,” said Spurgeon when commenting on this verse over a century ago, “when God’s punishment of sinners has become the butt of proud skeptical contentions, we may regard as a mark of the true man of God that he loves the Lord none the less, but a great deal more because of his condign [appropriate] judgment of the ungodly.” 

So if the terrorists must strike, Christians may pray that some wicked persons will be treated like dross when that happens, for the event will cause the testimonies of God to be more loved than they already are by the real Christians among us. We should pray for Prime Minister Trudeau to be humbled at the possibility of being the agency by which Muslim terrorists murder citizens that he is responsible to keep safe. Since Trudeau is a Roman Catholic, he probably calls himself a Christian. We should pray that he will begin to yearn for refugees who call themselves Christian and who, unlike the Muslims, have virtually nowhere in the Middle-East to flee for refuge. We should pray for the Muslims to repent, of course; we may also pray, in the meantime, in case they don’t repent, that they will be divided amongst themselves and that they will keep themselves busy by engaging in mutually destructive warfare in their old countries far away.   

Canada needs to be punished, and it will be punished for its many sins. It must be punished for its ongoing mass murder of babies in the act of abortion and it must be punished for its continual blasphemies. In imitation of David (2 Samuel 24) when God asked him to choose what kind of judgment to receive for his act of disobedience, we should ask God to punish us by plagues instead of swords. We should pray like so: “If we must be punished, O God, give us breast cancer and prostate cancer for our sins of abortion; send a new strain of Aids for the increase of LGBT sins; give us new strains of VD for our sins of adultery and fornication; send throat cancer for all the blasphemies we spew; but whatever you do, spare us the gory sword of Muhammad’s false god, Amen.”

Monday, November 16, 2015


France woke up on November 14th, 2015 to a new state of things. The night of November 13th was their 9/11. On that night the City of Lights was obscured and eclipsed by an evil entity called Muslim Terror. France must now wake up to face what full-blown multiculturalism looks like and feels like. It must wake up to realize that importing thousands of Muslims who follow a book that calls for the death of ‘infidels’ is an invitation to violence, bloodshed, and war. France must now acquaint itself with what the Islamic mandate is and it must no longer pretend that Islam is a religion of peace. The Koran calls for war; Muslims call for war; Muslims are bringing war; war is on French soil now. How much deadly proof will be needed before France will decisively deal with the Muslimization of its country? My guess is that it will take much more than this one night of grisly terror. Every Muslim must be regarded as suspicious. Every Muslim must be profiled. For this to be effectively done, political correctness must be discarded and the Muslim population must be reduced. Muslims endorse, either ignorantly or informedly, an ideological book that commands Muslims to kill non-Muslims and to replace civilization with a caliphate. You are just as naïve as an empty-headed liberal socialite if you believe that there are no Muslim citizens of France who are cheering this Muslim reign of terror. You are naïve to your own hurt if you believe that no Muslim citizens of France have helped to pull this deed of terror off. It is time for France to export, not import. It is time for France to go to war, not be terrorized. Importing Muslims is an invitation to terrorism.  

France is not the only nation that invites terrorism. Most nations in Europe are doing it; the USA is doing it; Canada is doing it. How do we invite terrorism? We invite terrorism by our political principles. We invite terrorism by our personal behavior. In other words, we invite terrorism by our public vote; and we invite terrorism by our lifestyle.  

Canada lost 158 soldiers in the war in Afghanistan. Paris just lost almost as many civilians in one night of terror. The terrorists are, of course, Koran-loving Muslims. Read the Koran and see for yourself whether or not the Muslim murderers are obeying the Koran when they kill. Or, you may learn this the easy way by ordering a little book called ‘A Peek at the Koran’ from Amazon. I can thoughtfully endorse the book because I wrote it. 

We invite terrorism in two ways. Here is the first way that we do it. We do it by voting for politicians who are politically correct and weak in the face of arrogant, disdainful, warring Islam. These politicians are protected from danger by armed agents and they are whisked away at the first sign of danger. They don’t want their citizens to have the same privilege, however. So when you’re at a public event and the Muslims come to mow you down, the politicians are surrounded by defense and taken care of, while you are left standing there hoping that the cops will get to the Muslims before the Muslims get to you. That’s what just happened in France. The president was protected right away; the civilians, not so fast. 

We invite terrorism when we vote for politicians who wave in more and more Muslims in spite of all the mayhem that the Muslims have caused in our country already. Muslim brutes have been terrorizing France for years, for instance, like when they were burning hundreds of cars a few years ago; pretty much with impunity, the Muslims did this. We in Canada find what’s happening in France so exciting and glamorous that we have just voted in a socialist teenage-like prime minister who has pledged to invite thousands of Muslims who will no doubt bless us with the same kind of Islamic pandemonium that France is enduring. You are not allowed to bear arms in France or Canada, though, not in public, and not even on your property without legal fallout. When a government decides (no matter what stripe that government is) that you are not allowed to defend yourself—that is socialism at work. Socialism says this: don’t worry about anything; government will take care of it all; leave it up to government. Yes, leave it up to government; that is the political paradigm that just facilitated the barbaric deaths of over 120 defenseless French citizens. 

President Barack Hussein Islam-loving Obama assured the public that Isis is contained. He said this on the morning of the attacks in France, not even one whole day before Isis waged war on the streets of Paris. You have heard of a hero and an anti-hero, or of prophets true and false. Obama is an anti-prophet. Whatever he promises, you can count on getting the opposite. One of the terrorists responsible for the attacks in France has informed authorities that the carnage just inflicted upon French citizens was done in the name of Allah, courtesy of Isis. Obama needs to believe and convince that Isis is contained in order to appear like a successful peacemaker. He needs to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay in order to seal his legacy with a facade of peace. We invite terrorism by voting for politicians who deny facts and reality in order to further their political dreams.  

We invite terrorism in another way. We invite it by our conduct generally. This is well illustrated by the event where the main brunt of the terror was borne in these coordinated Muslim attacks in Paris. Most of the people who were killed were killed in the Bataclan Theater. They had gone there to listen to an obscene rock band called ‘Eagles of Death Metal.’ In a decent society, a band called ‘Eagles of Death Metal’ would be so unpopular that it would not be given a hearing. Our societies are not decent, though. We like obscenities; we like playing with death. We like dancing obscenely; we like dancing before a band called death. Every so often, God calls us on what we like. He patiently puts up with our celebration of obscenity and death, and he adds something to it. He gives us actual death at the hands of obscene people. Going out on the town to whoop it up with a band called ‘Eagles of Death Metal’ resulted in death by metal guns for many. This is not only eerie, but synchronicities like this are ordained by God to make us notice and to reconsider our ways of life.   

I had never heard of this band before this mass murder by Muslims took place. It turns out that it is very popular. The views that their songs have accumulated on YouTube are considerable. In a song called ‘Complexity’ the band members are holding a skull in order to show us what the band is about. In a song called ‘Save a Prayer’ (originally by ‘Duran Duran’) the message goes like this: “don’t say a prayer for me now/save it till the morning after…some call it a one night stand/but we can call it paradise.” In a song called ‘I want you so hard’ we are secretly warned against the band and their message by the song’s own lyrics. “Just leave him alone ‘cause the boy’s bad news”—this phrase is repeated over and over again as if to mesmerize us into being cautious about what we’re getting into. But this phrase will only mesmerize folks in a good way if these folks are already on their guard against evil—it will only warn folks who have eyes to see and ears to hear, as the Bible says. I repeat: “Just leave him alone ‘cause the boy’s bad news”—this phrase is repeated over and over again by this band as if to mesmerize us into being cautious. Those who are in the habit of grooving to unclean songs and extolling death will be mesmerized in a bad way by those words, though, because to them, boys that are bad news are not to be left alone, but to be listened to, followed, idolized, and fawned over. Those who have eyes to see, ears to hear, and hearts to discern will have been thunderstruck at the sight of the first responders climbing the ladders where the ‘Eagles’ billboard appeared as a backdrop. The image was like a bright white presentation of the darkness that the victims were engaged in when they were gunned down. In the Bible bad is bad and good is good. Those who treat good as if it were bad and bad as if it were good are given this warning: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5.20.) To sing about a one night stand, and to declare that sin to be paradise, is to call evil good. To adopt the moniker of death or to wear a t-shirt in praise of death is to put a bitter thing forward as if it were a sweet thing. What can the consequence of this sort of behavior be but a bad one? If you hold to these delusions you will reap the whirlwind. You might reap it on your death bed at an old age. You might reap it by an accident. Or you might reap it by a terrorist strike while you are in the very act of enjoying the praises of sin and death. And you might reap it while you are in the bloom of youth. The Bible says this: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting” (Galatians 6.7, 8.) 

It is noteworthy that this calculated series of terrorist strikes was aimed at places where French youth congregate on a weekend night. Who votes for socialism more than brainwashed youth? It matters who and what you vote for. What and who you vote for can have deadly repercussions. Young immoral citizens are the ones who flock to rock concerts. Young immoral citizens are the ones who vote for socialist policies. Politicians are to blame for letting Muslim invaders have their way; they have paved the multicultural road that the Muslims are now painting with blood. They are the guiltiest ones of all. French youth have to be told that it is time to inform themselves; the alternative is brainwashing by teachers, media, and politicians, and moral corruption by the culture; brainwashing and corruption have no good end. Whooping it up in a brainwashed state may be fun for some time—maybe a long time. But then come the consequences. The consequence of treating evil as if it were good is the reaping of evil. You reap what you sow. To sow evil is to plant something that will grow up to consume what you hold dear. What is dearer to you than your own life or the lives of your loved ones? True, some decent people and some Christians may have died in these attacks. True, some citizens who hate socialist policies may have died in these attacks. But what I have said here applies to most of the victims, without a doubt. Even God allows for collateral damage; he may take a Christian to heaven through socialist policies that led to terrorism, even if the Christian opposed with all of his might, both terrorism and the socialism that invited it. Conversely, he may send souls to hell through their political views and moral corruption. You have no reason to hope for a peaceful night-out if you go out with the intention to make merry about solemn matters like sin and death. And you have less chance of getting away with it if you are responsible for the political decisions that have led to Muslim murderers skulking around town with AK-47s in the name of Allah.   

This monologue might seem harsh. But study the Bible, learn your theology, and know your history, especially your biblical history, and with God’s blessing of illumination, it will begin to dawn on you that sin is what’s harsh and that death is so harsh that it should never be treated as a theme to get down and jiggy with. Before you plan to rock ‘n roll with death, beware of the possibility that God might give you exactly what you rock ‘n roll about. 

I will paraphrase what Jesus said to a crowd concerning the mass murder of some of their brethren and I will apply it to this terrorist strike in France: “Do you suppose that these French citizens were bigger sinners than other French citizens just because they suffered such horrible deaths? No, they were not bigger sinners than average; you must repent before something just as bad happens to you.” No one who dies without first repenting of his sins is prepared to die. A new way of life is needed before death brings a sentence of hell upon your soul. Voting barbarians into your country and using your weekends to participate in the glorifying of sin and death are acts that testify to how ignorant you are, how unregenerate you are, how in need of salvation you are, how perilously close you are to tripping out of this world into an everlasting world of woe. Press for the peace of your people by righteous policies; and press into the kingdom of heaven through repentance toward God and faith in Christ.

This has been a Puritanical opinion on the Muslim reign of terror that was just waged in France in the name of Allah. 

Monday, October 26, 2015


A long time ago, like so many other uninformed, unobservant, ignorant fellows, I used to think that if only we could get more women into politics, the world would be a more peaceful place. Maybe I admired Margaret Thatcher at the time, and did not realize that she was an exception to the rule. The rule is: women don’t have the discernment and the backbone that it takes to employ the tough measures that lead to peace. Where do I get that rule from? I get it from the Bible, from passages like 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2—passages that feminists, including women in churches, hate the most. They hate these parts of Scripture the most, not because they misunderstand them, but because those verses are so plain that even dull feminists can make them out. What they see so plainly they hate most fully. What they see most plainly is that the Bible teaches that women are weaker discerners than men and that they have weaker resolve than men. They hate this rule most fully because they are like the pre-redeemed Eve, who was balky behind God’s back and who melted like hot wax before Satan. The rule is that women are more easily led into error than men and that they have less fortitude than men have. Experience and history support the truth of this rule, as I mean to now point out.   

Observe the contradiction here. On the one hand, feminists claim that they are, by nature, no different from men. On the other hand, they claim that there is something about women that could make the world a better, safer place. 

The city I live in has a woman for a mayor. She is supposed to be an evangelical Christian, but proclaimed in favor of gay pride week. Yes, proclaiming in favor of perversity appeases the gays in the short term. But the more you give in to gay demands, the more the gays demand next time, and this is how we have gotten to the point of having to proclaim a whole week for their celebrations of perverse behavior. At some point, the demands that gays make will be so ridiculous and extensive that there will be an impasse, and peace will be at an end between them and the rest of us. If your Bible states that a certain lifestyle is an abomination, is it not time, as a moral Christian mayor, to refuse to proclaim in favor of their abominable acts? Our mayor lacked both discernment and strength when she came face to face with the demands of the LGBT alphabet.  

The country I live in got its first female prime minister in 1993. No one remembers her for anything other than her absurd statement that an election is not a good time to discuss important issues. Her tenure should, all by itself, extinguish the desire in every girl to become a politician. 

Will more women in politics pave the way to world peace or at least greater peace? How peaceful was it at the US embassy in Libya after Secretary of State Clinton refused urgent appeals to beef up military security there? It was not very peaceful for the Americans who died as a result of her negligence. What is Hillary Clinton’s answer to this? “What difference does it make?” That’s her answer.  

Sweden has been manipulating elections for decades in its aim to reach fifty percent representation by women in parliament. Since the 1980s the number has been at thirty percent and higher. In 2002 the percentage was forty-five. In 2014 the percentage was forty-four. And how is Sweden doing at this thing called peace? Presently there are over fifty no-go zones in Sweden: sectors of cities where the police have ceded control to Muslim gangs. The police themselves issued the report. Largely due to these radical Muslims, Sweden has become the rape center of Europe. Indeed, only one or two countries in the whole world have more rapes per capita than Sweden has. That is what can be accomplished by the carefree, careless implementation of multiculturalism. Well, Sweden’s female politicians contributed to this multicultural nightmare, maybe? Sweden’s deputy prime minister is a woman; its minister for finance is a woman; its minister for strategic development is a woman; its minister for infrastructure is a woman; its minister for employment is a woman; its minister for foreign affairs is a woman; its minister for international development is a woman; its minister for social security is a woman; its minister for children, the elderly, and gender equality is a woman; its minister for education is a woman; its minister for higher education is a woman; its minister for culture is a woman. Have women politicians contributed to the Muslimization of Sweden? I think so, for many of these posts are highly relevant to that problem. Moreover, the Social Democratic Party, the party presently in power, not only has many influential female ministers in it, but boasts a feminist ideology. Feminism and multicultural madness go hand in hand; multiculturalism is at its maddest when Muslim gangs are permitted to commandeer and terrorize whole swaths of European cities. By their lack of wisdom and their emotional liabilities, these women politicians have contributed, and are contributing, to the less than peaceful goings-on in Sweden at this time.  

Germany has had a woman for its chancellor since 2005. Angela Merkel is that woman. She has decided to open Germany up to hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of refugees from failed states. Many of these refugees are young men who are steeped in the unbending, cruel dictates of Sharia Law. Will that make for a more peaceful Germany and a more peaceful Europe? How peaceful is Germany’s open door policy to German citizens? How peaceful is it to import thousands of Muslim men who are in their prime years of virility and who worship according to the violent codes of the unholy Koran? Is it not a sign of mental weakness to try to atone for the sins of the Nazis by being gracious to dangerous Muslims? It may be that God means to punish German citizens of today for the sins of their fathers, the Nazis. But is it wise to import Muslims by which to tempt God to actually make that happen? 

Women do no better politically than men do. If we take the Bible for our advisor and prophet, we must believe that they will do even worse, the truth of which is beginning to show. The Bible states that it’s a curse to be ruled by a woman (Isaiah 3.12.) In fact, part of the woman’s curse is that she will usually not be allowed to lead (Genesis 3.16.) At the least, when women are pushed into positions of political leadership, the results can be just as detrimental as it can be to have delinquent men for leaders. This is being demonstrated in many places on many levels, as I have just shown. 

This has been a Puritanical opinion about women politicians.