Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Global Warming, Climate Change- Fact or Fiction?

No matter whether you believe in global warming or you do not, this is something you NEED to watch!!!

Saturday, October 20, 2018

Press Prejudice

A Sad State of Balance

CNN finished July 2018 as the No. 7 basic cable network during the 24-hour total day, and the No. 10 basic cable network in prime time.

Fox News Channel Watched by More People~
Fox News is attacked because radical leftists do not like the fact that FNC is watched by more people than any other channel. Fox News is NOT "rightest" but they DO have more balance so that both sides can express their thoughts.
For those who think that "Fox News lies ...." I ran a little test once with a BC. I asked him to pick a video which was lying and send me the link. He may have looked at it or maybe he just relied on his leftist sources, but he told me that one of the videos was NOT of a scene in Wisconsin but of another scene somewhere in California.

He forgot to listen to the video as the video said that some scenes that were presented were simply examples of crowds similar to Wisconsin as they did not have someone in Wisconsin to take a video. So they just used "examples" of other videos showing similar demonstrators AND THEY TOLD THE TRUTH THAT THAT IS WHAT THEY HAD DONE!

That is the sad story of so many intelligent people who want to be part of a "big news" group which is slanted against FNC which is more fair and balanced and the leftists want you to think that they lie when they do not. So that makes the other sources liars because I have never seen any evidence of FNC lying. Sadly in repeating the lie that "Fox News lies" the person against FNC is lying himself! Sad!

He is a flawed human being like the rest of us, but when you use extreme leftist radicals as sources, everything you see and think may well be a lie! 

Where are the good old days with Edward R Murrow and Walter Kronkite who gave us the NEWS not someone's VIEWS?
 Sadly they are gone as our civilization has started to reverse the standards and ethics which took generations to build that the vast majority accepted. We are now a civilization without the "civil", a civilization in decline.

Top 10 for July 2018 – Total Day
  1. FNC (1,368,000)
  2. Nickelodeon (936,000)
  3. MSNBC (921,000)
  4. HGTV (763,000)
  5. Investigation Discovery (725,000)
  6. Hallmark Channel (644,000)
  7. CNN (638,000)
  8. USA (612,000)
  9. History (562,000)
  10. TNT (544,000)

Leftists Manoevres

Christine Blasey Ford

Is she a truthful person?

Germany's Renewable's Disaster - Prof Fritz Vahrenholt

Germany's Renewable's Disaster - Prof Fritz Vahrenholt

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

This article is reprinted here as it gives information which may be used for research, reference, criticism or information under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.Feb 18, 2012

Spread the love
Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University.

 He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):
"Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?
…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me."
In a more recent talk, entitled, Nanotech and Jesus Christ, given on 1 November 2012 at Georgia Tech, Professor Tour went further, and declared that no scientist that he has spoken to understands macroevolution – and that includes Nobel Prize winners! Here’s what he said when a student in the audience asked him about evolution:
… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, “I don’t understand this”? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.

Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.”

These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.

I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things.

I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?”

We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”

If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I’m not going to try to change you – not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have.
But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.

The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they challenged the Atheist Society, “Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy, and talk to him.” 

Nobody has come! Now remember, because I’m just going to ask, when I stop understanding what you’re talking about, I will ask. So I sincerely want to know. I would like to believe it. But I just can’t.
Now, I understand microevolution, I really do. We do this all the time in the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time – not just one line – concerted

lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment … this is very hard to fathom.
I was in Israel not too long ago, talking with a bio-engineer, and [he was] describing to me the ear, and he was studying the different changes in the modulus of the ear, and I said, “How does this come about?”

 And he says, “Oh, Jim, you know, we all believe in evolution, but we have no idea how it happened.” Now there’s a good Jewish professor for you. I mean, that’s what it is. So that’s where I am. Have I answered the question? (52:00 to 56:44)
Professor Tour’s online talk is absolutely fascinating as well as being deeply moving on a personal level, and I would strongly urge readers to listen to his talk in its entirety – including the questions after the talk. You won’t regret it, I promise you. One interesting little gem of information which I’ll reveal is that it was Professor Tour who was largely instrumental in getting Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley, winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, to reject Darwinian evolution and accept Old Earth creationism, shortly before he died in 2005. It was Tour who persuaded Smalley to delve into the question of origins. After reading the books “Origins of Life” and “Who Was Adam?”, written by Dr. Hugh Ross (an astrophysicist) and Dr. Fazale Rana (a biochemist).. Dr. Smalley explained his change of heart as follows:
Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading “Origins of Life”, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, “Who Was Adam?”, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death.
Strong words indeed, for a Nobel scientist. Readers can find out more about Professor Richard Smalley’s change of views here.
Why should we believe macroevolution, if nobody understands it?
Now that Professor Tour has informed the world that even Nobel Prize-winning scientists privately admit that they don’t understand macroevolution, a layperson is surely entitled to ask: “Well, if even they don’t understand it, then why should we believe it? How can we possibly be obliged to believe in a theory which nobody understands?”

That’s a good question. And it’s no use for Darwinists to trot out the standard “party line” that “even if we don’t yet understand how it happened, we still have enough evidence to infer that it happened.”

 At the very most, all that the current scientific evidence could establish is the common descent of living organisms.

 But that’s not macroevolution. Macroevolution requires more than a common ancestry for living organisms: it requires a natural mechanism which can generate the diversity of life-forms we see on Earth today from a common stock, without the need for any direction by an Intelligent Agent. But the mechanism is precisely what we don’t have evidence for.

  So the question remains: why should we believe in macroevolution?
The decline of academic freedom
Given the massive uncertainty about the “how” of macroevolution among scientists working in the field, you might think that a wide variety of views would be tolerated in the scientific arena – including the view that there is no such process as macroevolution.

 However, you would be sadly mistaken. As Professor Tour notes in his online article on evolution and creation, an alarming academic trend has emerged in recent years: a growing intolerance of dissent from Darwinism. 

This trend is so pronounced that Professor Tour now advises his students not to voice their doubts about Darwinism in public, if they want a successful career:
In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macro-evolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) 

I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys…
But my recent advice to my graduate students has been direct and revealing: If you disagree with Darwinian Theory, keep it to yourselves if you value your careers, unless, of course, you’re one of those champions for proclamation; I know that that fire exists in some, so be ready for lead-ridden limbs. But if the scientific community has taken these shots at senior faculty, it will not be comfortable for the young non-conformist. When the power-holders permit no contrary discussion, can a vibrant academy be maintained?

 Is there a University (unity in diversity)? For the United States, I pray that the scientific community and the National Academy in particular will investigate the disenfranchisement that is manifest upon some of their own, and thereby address the inequity.
It remains to be seen if other countries will allow their young scientists to think freely about the origin of life, and of the various species of organisms that we find on Earth today.

What I will say, though, is that countries which restrict academic freedom will eventually be overtaken by countries which allow it to prosper. 

There is still time for America and Europe to throw off the dead hand of Darwinism in academic circles, and let their young people breathe the unaccustomed air of free speech once again.

(UPDATE: Here’s a link to my follow-up post, Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details. It amply refutes the simplistic charge, made by some skeptics, that Professor Tour was conflating macroevolution with the question of the origin of life.)

Reference: https://uncommondescent.com

Dr. David Berlinski: The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Is an Ice Age Coming?

Whatever happened to Al Gore, David Suzuki and Global Warming?

Imaginary Climate Change

Here are some facts that warming alarmists really should face. 

This video should ONLY be viewed by those with an open mind. If you already believe in "global warming", and do not want to see facts because your mind is made up, then PLEASE DO NOT view this video as we would not want to UPSET your faith.

2017 The Fakest Year On Record At NASA And NOAA! 



A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Global Warming

Sunday, March 4, 2018

Underestimating Trump ... Again!

*This article came from the Financial Post and is reprinted only for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. We believe that this item may be very useful for research if Trump is elected again or not! He has surprised the media pundits and his opponents in the last election and could very well surprise them again. Something historical could happen again. Let's wait and see!

Think Trump’s about to be stopped? Prepare to be surprised. Again

Lawrence Solomon March 2, 2018

“Democrats are on a roll in the run-up to the midterms,” announced a Washington Post headline, Wednesday. “Democrats keep winning special elections. A ‘Blue Wave’ may be coming this fall,” agreed The Boston Globe. “Dems surge in generic ballot as economy fades from spotlight,” echoed The Hill.

It looks bleak for President Donald Trump and the Republican party, anti-Trump pundits enthuse. Once Democrats regain control over the House of Representatives and maybe also the Senate, Trump’s populist agenda can be fully blocked and impeachment proceedings can begin.

The pundits should instead ponder a likelier scenario: Republicans not only retaining both houses of Congress, but increasing their lead, possibly by enough to give the Republicans total control over Congress in November. And enough to give Trump an open field to push through the most radical populist agenda in history.

For those who haven’t been paying attention, Trump’s popularity has been climbing, especially among those who especially count — voters. Last week, according to the Rasmussen poll of likely voters — one of the few polling companies that recognized Trump could win the 2016 presidency — Trump became popular with 50 per cent of the electorate, higher than Barack Obama’s 45 per cent standing at the same stage of his presidency.

Trump’s rising stock with the American public should puzzle no one: he has delivered and Americans are feeling good about themselves. The Conference Board puts consumer confidence at a 17-year high; the Labor Department puts unemployment at 17-year low. For the first time in decades, median incomes of Americans are rising, putting a spring in their step. “Americans’ optimism about finding a quality job averaged 56 per cent in 2017, the highest annual average in 17 years of Gallup polling and a sharp increase from 42 per cent in 2016,” Gallup reports.
Trump... has miraculously made believers out of many of the diehard Never Trumpers
Trump’s base is especially optimistic: He has proven wrong those who claimed manufacturing jobs are gone for good. The Institute for Supply Management reports robust growth, explaining the fastest return of manufacturing jobs in 13 years. Trump is likewise delivering on his vow to reduce illegal immigration. Illegal border crossings are at a 17-year low.

Trump’s stellar performance has not only turned much of the general public’s opinion around, it has miraculously made believers out of many of the diehard Never Trumpers, creating a unified Republican party solidly behind the president. At last week’s gathering of the Conservative Political Action Conference, the largest annual gathering of conservatives, Trump earned a 93-per-cent approval rating — this from purists who before his election scoffed at claims that he was a conservative.

The expectation that Republicans will lose the House of Representatives is largely based on precedent. In almost 90 per cent of the midterms in modern U.S. history, the party that won the presidency lost House seats. That norm, coupled with a highly motivated anti-Trump movement, provides Democrats with an expectation of unusually high turnouts at the voting booth. Democrats have every reason to be hopeful.

But so do Republicans. Trump’s growing popularity and his ability to rally his base blunt these Democratic advantages. Independents are trending to Trump, particularly since Democrats are leaderless and the rift between their moderate and far-left factions prevent them from unifying on anything except hatred of Trump. Even if Republicans do lose some seats in the House of Representatives, they can afford to. The Republicans have a 45-seat edge, letting them retain the House despite some Democratic gains.

Republicans have even more reasons to be hopeful over the Senate. Of the 34 Senate seats being contested, only eight are held by Republicans, seven of them in states Trump won. In contrast, Democrats must defend 26 seats, 10 of them in states Trump won, five by double digits. If Republicans take nine of those 10 Trump-state seats — an entirely plausible outcome — while retaining the eight Republican incumbent seats, Republicans would have a filibuster-proof Senate, enough to overcome any Democratic objections.

This week, Trump took the unusual step of announcing his 2020 campaign manager, political newbie Brad Parscale, whose first exposure to political campaigns came as a one-man shop running Trump’s early digital operations, and who is widely credited with rewriting the rules on how political campaigns will be fought. The Trump announcement wasn’t made this early because Parscale (dubbed Trump’s “secret weapon” by 60 Minutes) needs time to ramp up for 2020. It was made now because Trump will deploy Pascale in the 2018 races to capture the Congressional seats the president needs to secure a Congress free of Democratic obstruction.

The Democrats now salivating at the prospect of taking back Congress in November, and then ousting Trump, need to take a deep breath. Their nightmare could be just beginning.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe. LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

Saturday, January 20, 2018

Al Gore 2 /Conrad Black: No Real Justice When Everyone is a Victim!

Inconvenient Truth? 2

Conrad Black: There can be no real justice when everyone is a victim!

January 19, 2018

Margaret Atwood is the latest to have been hit by the tidal wave of political correctness that has inundated Canadian life, sweeping away resisters

Renowned Canadian author and feminist Margaret Atwood, seen at a press conference for "Alias Grace" on Sept. 12, 2017, is the latest to have run afoul of the political correctness movement.

It is becoming steadily more difficult to maintain morale in the face of the tidal wave of political correctness that inundates Canadian life, drowns resisters, and sweeps away any trace of them. Sen. Lynn Beyak is a perennial lightning rod, and the last bolt to strike detached and evicted her from the Conservative Senate caucus for posting correspondence on her website. The party leader, Andrew Scheer, is a very reasonable and tolerant person, who understands that there are real problems with native affairs policy, and he is not given to flying off the handle. He is as he appears — an affable and thoughtful and civilized individual. He was a popular speaker of the House of Commons, and though he won the Conservative leadership narrowly over Maxime Bernier, because each constituency had equal weight in the selection process regardless of the likelihood of the Conservatives winning the constituency in a general election or the numbers of paid up Conservative association members in each constituency, he won by a significant margin among those who voted in the leadership process.

Yet he gunned Beyak out of the Senate Conservative caucus with a stern assertion that his party would not abide racism. This is commendable, but Beyak is not a racist. The objection was that her website carried extensive correspondence with acquaintances of hers on the subject of native people and their public policy issues, and that some of it was racist. Beyak’s perceived offence was not anything she herself said or wrote, but some of the comments she aired on her site. In an email to me, the Senator described some of these reflections as ”a little edgy and opinionated, well researched by ordinary citizens, (and) filled with compassion and valid observations from history.”

We need to jettison the phoney guilt complex
Beyak has a long and distinguished history of working with native groups in her home region of western Ontario. Her problem arises from her conviction, acquired from experience and observation, not from any ethnic or cultural prejudices, that the core of the native problem is not the past, colonization or residential schools, though they certainly caused problems, but what she calls “the bloated Indian industry in Ottawa,” where billions of dollars are thrown out of the windows over the failed programs of the past in the expectation that they would somehow produce improved results. Not only does the status quo cruise majestically on, but it does so on a high tide of confected and orchestrated public guilt about past treatment of the natives, fanned by the fiction that Canada tried to exterminate native culture in an official campaign of “cultural genocide.” I have written here before that no such concept exists and the phrase is deliberately provocative and in this case thoroughly unjust.

Throughout Canada’s 170 years as an autonomous jurisdiction in domestic matters, official policy was positively intended, even if it was often mistaken, ineffectual, or in a few individual instances, antagonistic and oppressive. What we need is to jettison the phoney guilt complex that the courts and the admittedly creative native leaders have fastened on our heads like a crown of thorns, and devise new methods to tackle these problems co-operatively with responsible native leaders and with reasonable standards of accountability. Beyak has worked with a group of 12 local native leaders to create a development program and they unsuccessfully requested an audience with Scheer. The whole concept of allocating funds to native leaders for 10 years at a time with inadequate procedures to monitor how they are dispensed, and of dealing with all these native groups as quasi-sovereign independent nations, and abiding by the judicial findings that practically half of Canada consists effectively of sacred native burial grounds, should be scrapped. We must be generous, imaginative, and respectful, but not stubbornly retentive of failed policy. (Being turfed out of the Conservative Senate caucus is no great burden — I’m an independent member of the U.K. House of Lords and in an appointed house, the whips are just a nuisance. One of Justin Trudeau’s better moves was to release all the Liberal senators to be independents.)

Atwood has been rounded upon as a turncoat for having the temerity to ask for due process
The fever of political correctness has assaulted much more challenging targets than Lynn Beyak. The great and redoubtable Margaret Atwood, who has few rivals as the greatest novelist in Canadian history, and has been an impeccable but reasonable feminist all her career, entirely consistent and often courageous, has been rounded upon as a turncoat for having the temerity to ask for due process before the University of British Columbia condemned and fired professor Steven Galloway for misbehaviour with publicly unspecified women, including a student of Galloway’s. The whole process was secretive and gave Galloway very curtailed rights to make his case and the verdict was initially opposed by distinguished native novelist Joseph Boyden, who recruited other writers, including Atwood. The more militant feminist community, forgetting or ignoring the fact that Margaret Atwood had carried water on both shoulders for their cause for nearly 50 years, attacked her as if she was a fellow traveller of male chauvinism, and a critic of no distinction.

Though it does not involve a result that is seriously unjust or such eminent personalities, the controversy over Lindsay Shepherd, a graduate student at Wilfrid Laurier University, illustrates the condition of freedom of expression. As has been amply publicized, Shepherd played a video of a debate between the formidable and politically incorrect academic Jordan Peterson with Professor Nicholas Matte over the obligatory use of gender neutral pronouns at the University of Toronto. She introduced the video, which had been played on TV Ontario, carefully, and was summoned to a meeting where she was told that there had been complaints that she had created a “toxic atmosphere” through an act equivalent to playing a speech of Hitler’s without giving context. Shepherd recorded the meeting without advising her interrogators of that, and released the recording and roused the interest of a number of commentators, including me. It soon emerged that there had been no complaints, that Shepherd’s conduct was exemplary, and the university and her professor publicly apologized. It ended well and Shepherd became an international personality; there were no apparent sanctions on the conveners of the Star Chamber which she recorded, but the enemies of rigid political correctness don’t want vengeance, they want a tolerant community where spontaneity and individualism are encouraged.

Conrad Black: Trudeau’s jolly progressivism and America’s revival will bring back the brain drain

Conrad Black: Was Canada 150 ‘a bust’? Heroic Canada actually has lots to celebrate

Canada is constantly officially apologizing and making reparations in all directions — natives, gays, militant women, trans-gender and sexually ambiguous people. Everyone wants justice but there can be no justice if everyone is a victim. Confession is good for the soul and the mind, when it is sincere and proportionate, but we are running the risk of being the first people in history to induce a state of profound moral complacency by the torment of endless self-accusation. Canada has less to apologize for than almost any other country. We should remember the comment of Dr. Johnson to the man who answered a series of questions: “So I humbly presume.” We “could stand more presumption and less humility.”

• Email: cbletters@gmail.com

Rex Murphy: Trudeau as Dictator of Canada?

Rex Murphy: No summer jobs for you! And other decrees from Bishop Trudeau
January 19, 2018
3:02 PM EST

What shallow hubris engenders the prime minister's view that he has the authority to undo citizens' religious and moral beliefs?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau greets a crowd during a reception marking the start of a Tamil festival in Toronto on Jan. 16,

Just because you vacation with an Aga Khan, however often, doesn’t make you one. You leave the idyllic island with no more religious authority than when you arrived. Come as a secular politician, leave as one. I think we may begin to wonder if Justin Trudeau understands this point.

The prime minister has recently, speaking as one should say ex cathedra, declared a doctrinal test for any who wish to make application for student summer job grants. If any church, charity or club wishes to apply for one — successfully — it is insisted they endorse and declare in writing their agreement with the Liberal party’s understanding on (a) abortion and (b) a whole raft of other progressive doctrines and dogmas on other sexual and gender issues.

It’s a strange turn. How does one get from students trying to work off their education debts to a government insisting its citizens declare themselves on issues of the deepest moral and religious sensitivity? From student jobs to the roiling tumult of abortion politics? I guess there is more than one way to spin a handperson’s tale:

“Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Roman Catholic Church?


“No summer jobs for you!”

Under the latest Trudeau encyclical, the priest, minister, imam, shaman or rabbi would have to publicly repudiate his faith
We return to the Bishop of 24 Sussex for explication. Suppose some parish council wants to do a cleanup of the town stream, and figures with a grant it could help half a dozen debt-hounded students by giving them summer jobs. Under the latest Trudeau encyclical, the town’s priest, minister, imam, shaman or rabbi would have to publicly repudiate his faith on an official document and maul his conscience with a lie (thus playing roulette with their immortal souls; religious people actually believe they have them) if the poor students are to be helped by said grants.

Does anyone think Mr. Trudeau, more a stumbler than a specialist on the ethics front, is overreaching here? Just a jot or a tittle? Has he really not read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a document on most occasions he treats as believers of old reverenced the Sinai tablets?

It has as central prime rights those of religion and conscience. Religion and conscience — rights that are as ancient as the concept of rights itself, the pivot on which all ancillary rights depend. They are not rights that depend on a calendar date, nor are they mere manifestations of a particular, transient political climate. In so far as any rights are eternal, these are.

The Liberal platform of the day is not a synonym writ large for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
What shallow hubris engenders the sense that Mr. Trudeau, as through this both petty and profound intrusion he has, has the authority to undo the balance of citizens’ religious and moral beliefs and the political dispensations of a particular government? The Liberal platform of the day is not, as this government wildly seems to think, a synonym writ large for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But hey, it’s only a jobs program. Well, once started, why stop? Why stop at the grant-applying organizations? Why not question the students who are to get the jobs? Why shouldn’t they be asked to sign on the dotted line, tick the right boxes? Why shouldn’t they be asked as well if they endorse the Liberal readings on abortion, the carbon tax, diversity, NAFTA, refugee intake, the return of ISIL fighters?

On the principle underwriting the summer jobs policy, there is absolutely no logical reason why they should not be so interrogated and obliged.

At the core of this affair is the blasé assumption of the secular progressive mind that religion, and most particularly the Christian religion, is “so over” so “not 2015” that the rights of the religious are not of the same stamina, not of the same worth and “truth,” as all our “modern” rights freshly blossomed out of fashionable ideological hothouses.

Traditional Christian rights are the rights of the backward part of the population, those who rarely make a noise, block a street, or besiege a parliamentary office. So fooling with them, forcing believers to make awkward or even impossible choices, is seen as either an amusing, politically costless game, or as a condescending prod towards their inevitable evolution to a higher plane. Their betters hurt them only to help them.

It’s an act of arrogance that comes very glibly to a crowd that requires no exertion to feel pleased with themselves — the same arrogance that skips blithely over the stated ethical standards of Parliament and Prime Minister, but in lordly fashion riffs in town halls and cabinet rooms what is right for everyone else to believe and what is not.

As for those dissenting, who sense their deepest convictions are being outraged, their consciences mocked, why they are just stirring up a mere “kerfuffle.” We will be long waiting for the day when an equal slur against a non-traditional religion or one on, say, gay rights, is so characterized.

Other Interesting Articles
Rex Murphy: Repressed memories of Oprah and her contributions to medicine

Rex Murphy: Too frigid for global warming? This is why they rebranded it ‘climate change’