Ms. Stronach has made it official, she has backed out of the leadership debate scheduled for Feb 11 on CBC's Newsworld. Formal invititations had been sent some time ago to all three candidates. Stephen Harper and Tony Clement will take part. CBC's Don Newman is the moderator. It is vital that party members and the public get to see and hear all the leadership hopefuls debating the issues.

The question is: "How much longer will Ms. Stronach keep running away?" If she is not prepared to debate today, how then can she possibly presume to lead this Party come March?

Patrick Lynch

Responding to France's ban on the Islamic veil, the new head of the Muslim Brotherhood asserted Islam ultimately will triumph over the United States and Europe.

"I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission," said Muhammad Mahdi Othman 'Akef, who recently took over the Egyptian-based movement after the death of leader Mamoun Al-Hudhaybi.

In an interview with the website alwihdah.com, translated by (http://www.memri.org/) the Middle East Media Research Institute, 'Akef said he is convinced "the Europeans and the Americans will come into the bosom of Islam out of conviction."

"In 1993, I went to America and I published a book, 'Political Pluralism and the Woman,' that was distributed in the mosque," he said. "Thirty [American] women converted immediately to Islam as soon as they read it. These are people who become convinced of the right path – but who will guide them there?"

Founded in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood has been banned in Egypt since 1954, although it renounced violence in the 1970s. The movement, which has thousands of supporters and branches in other Arab nations, seeks to establish a strict Islamic state in Egypt.

[. . . .] A bill presented to France's National Assembly yesterday by Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin bars Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses from public classrooms.

'Akef said he asked Chirac to understand the hijab is a "divine commandment."

"I know that among the brothers in France, or the so-called Union of Islamic Organizations, there are smart people who can stand against this vile stream in the war on the hijab, represented by the stream of Turkey and Tunisia," he said. "With Allah's help, our brothers in France will be able to handle this matter however they see fit."

In an interview with the Egyptian weekly Al-Arabi, 'Akef called the U.S. a "Satan that abuses the region, lacking all morality and law."

'Akef criticized Washington's claims that the U.S. is acting to spread democracy in the Arab world.

"These are [futile] words and false propaganda," he said. "It is not logical that the U.S. – which destroyed Afghanistan, supports Israel's daily ongoing aggression against the Palestinian people and occupies Iraq and steals its treasures – is acting to spread democracy in the Arab world."

The Muslim leader said he expects the U.S. to collapse in the near future.

Five missionary nuns in Mozambique say they've been threatened with death since telling authorities about an organ-trafficking scheme that allegedly kidnaps and kills children and youths, reports Catholic news service Zenit.

Quoting the Spanish Catholic agency Veritas, Zenit reported the women have escaped four ambush attacks after revealing information about "kidnappings and multiple killings of persons, many times children, victims of an organ trafficking network."

The news agency says the story was corroborated by a missionary who asked to be identified only as "D.J."

The women – four from Spain and one from Brazil – have been missionaries in the southeastern African nation for 30 years.

According to the report, the women were able to collect the information because their convent is located between the property where the victims allegedly were taken and the airport where the organs were flown out at night.

The report said the victims are taken to the property of a "white couple," where their organs are removed. Since October 2002, dozens of area children and youth, especially street children, have disappeared mysteriously, Zenit reported.

The nuns said they have testimonies from people who escaped from the traffickers' property. One of them, a minor, fled and sought refuge in the convent. He then recounted what he had seen and what he was told would be done to him as well as to other children locked in a house on the property, reported the news service.

Janet Jackson did the country a favor. Her so-called "costume reveal" during Sunday's Super Bowl halftime show made America finally sit up and take note of just how sleazy our culture has become.

For those who hadn't noticed — and apparently that includes television executives and the Federal Communications Commission — television has become increasingly sexualized and raunchy in recent years as media executives push the limits of decency in search of fat profits.

Jackson's flash-seen-'round-the-world didn't happen during a Mickey Mouse Club number. The entire halftime show oozed raw sexuality, from singer Nelly's crotch-grabbing to Jackson's simulated intercourse on stage with Justin Timberlake.

[. . . .] Television has been heading in an ugly direction. Crude reality shows, sexualized commercials, bad language and general smut have seeped into cable channels and networks. Sometimes it takes crossing the line to see just how far the line has moved.

Corruption and /or incompetence in government contracting goes as far back as records are kept and if history tells us anything of these situations, it is that eternal vigilance is simply an integral part of the cost of purchasing goods and services.

The subject is modern armor for our troops – something that has been in short supply for a while now and has become increasingly valuable in tactical, political and financial terms. For decades, there has been an increasing trend in the military to provide protection to people on the pointy end of our spear via body armor and vehicle armor.

With the advent of a guerrilla-style campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan, our military purchasing planners once again have been overcome with an excess of reality as the number of people they envisioned having the tactical need for armor has undergone an exponential upward shift – kind of like today's pressing need for ammunition – as five years ago when today's ammo and armor acquisitions were laid out under Clinton's watch, the possibility of a war was simply not factored in. How silly, they thought – “We” don't “do” wars.

[. . . .] A number of years ago, we adopted an armored version of the HUMVEE, the M-1114 and thought to provide them to units we thought could make good use of them – mostly military police units. But, as happens in war, we found that some gear is far more useful due to the changes in enemy tactics we have adapted to. There is also the fact that the M-1114 is one very expensive item, having had to be redesigned, mechanically upgraded and strengthened almost from the ground up because its armor is so heavy.

Overloading a vehicle causes it to break down much more frequently, as well as diminish its combat usefulness, as less equipment and troops can be carried in each one. In a recent presentation on an internal analysis of vehicle and equipment morbidity in Iraq, the Army cites overall weight and environmental conditions as the significant factors in a widespread failure to maintain our vehicles in operational condition.

Homosexual-rights groups are mobilizing support for a landmark United Nations resolution that would classify abuse on the basis of sexual orientation as a human rights violation.

U.N. Human Rights Commission meeting

Last year, when the resolution first was introduced to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the San Francisco-based International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, or IGLHRC, called it "a historic opportunity to advance [homosexual] issues in international human-rights law."

The IGLHRC said the U.N. Commission on Human Rights Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Human Rights is the "first one in the history of the United Nations that specifically, and unambiguously, spells out that abuses on the basis of sexual orientation are human rights violations."

The Human Rights Commission is scheduled to meet March 15 to April 25 in Geneva, Switzerland.

"This resolution would be the first United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution to connect the full range of human rights to sexual orientation, and to condemn discrimination on its basis," said Paula Ettelbrick, IGLHRC's executive director said.

IGLHRC called last April's introduction of the resolution by Brazil "unexpected."

After prolonged debate, the 53-member commission, chaired by Libya, voted to postpone further discussion on the resolution to this year's session.

At the 2003 session, Pakistan distributed a memo to commission members on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference which stated the "resolution directly contradicts the tenets of Islam and other religions," and its approval would be "a direct insult to the 1.2 billion Muslims around the world."

Last year's resolution, according to the IGLHRC, had the support of Canada, New Zealand and several European Union countries.

This year, key countries the homosexual-rights groups are urged to lobby include South Africa, India, Costa Rica and the United States.

[. . . .] "In their quest to legitimize homosexuality, many of these countries have actually limited some of our most fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech," Loveless said.

In Canada, provincial human-rights commissions already have penalized people for discrimination based on sexual orientation. A court in Saskatchewan upheld a 2001 ruling that fined a man for submitting a newspaper ad containing citations of four Bible verses that address homosexuality. Three years ago, the Ontario Human Rights Commission penalized printer Scott Brockie $5,000 for refusing to print letterhead for a homosexual advocacy group. Brockie argued that his Christian beliefs compelled him to reject the group's request.

Prime Minister Paul Martin sowed the seeds of a potential confrontation with the Quebec government yesterday, announcing sweeping plans to spend federal money in several areas of provincial jurisdiction including health, municipalities and education.

While Martin sweetened the pill by saying repeatedly he will do it in co-operation with the provinces, he said jurisdiction shouldn't get in the way of improving the lives of Canadians.

"Jurisdiction must be respected. But Canadians do not go about their daily lives worried about which jurisdiction does this or that," Martin said.

"They expect, rightly, that their governments will co-operate in common purpose for the common good - each working from its strength. They expect them to just get on with the job."

Benoît Pelletier, Quebec's intergovernmental-affairs minister, called the speech "unacceptable" for Quebec.

[. . . .]Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson had barely finished delivering the 23-page Throne Speech when Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe went on the attack, accusing Martin of cutting funding to the provinces and taking advantage of it to invade Quebec's jurisdiction.

[. . . .]Other promises

Aboriginals: To resolve jurisdictional wrangling regarding urban aboriginals, which includes many Métis, by expanding the federal Urban Aboriginal Strategy and to work with other levels of government and Métis leadership "on the place of the Metis and its policies." The speech described current conditions in aboriginal communities as "shameful" and called for improvements in education, health and local economies.

Security: Public Security Minister Anne McLellan will spearhead an effort to outline Canada's first comprehensive security policy, a document that will state national objectives from counter-terrorism to food safety. The commitment will include consultations with such "domestic partners" as provincial governments, civil defence agencies and other federal departments.

The prospect of a terrorist, self-infected with a deadly disease at a stage before it shows its symptoms, boarding an aeroplane to infect tens or hundreds of other passengers is what risk experts call a "low likelihood, high impact" threat.

Despite sounding as unlikely as the plot of a trashy novel, the threat was considered real enough on Saturday for the American government to refuse security clearances for six flights to America.

It is deemed "low likelihood" because of the difficulty terrorists would face in obtaining or manufacturing a viable biological agent, yet "high impact" because of the ease with which disease would spread in the confined space of an airliner, eventually to infect millions.

[. . . .] Modern airliners use a 50-50 blend of fresh and old air simply because it is cheaper. Air conditioning units siphon power from the jet engines; less ventilation means lower fuel consumption.

With the increased carbon dioxide levels comes a greater circulation of particles, organisms and disease.

Potentially the biggest threat in these circumstances would be a terrorist infected with smallpox.

A single sneeze would be enough to put hundreds of thousands of saliva droplets carrying the variola virus into circulation, which would be fatal to three out of 10 people not vaccinated against the disease.

[. . . .]Experts believe smallpox, anthrax, botulism and plague are the most likely pathogens to be used.

HOUSTON - Three former immigration officers received sentences ranging from almost three years to more than six years in prison Monday for failing to provide timely medical care to an illegal immigrant during a 2001 raid.

Serafin Olvera-Carrera's neck was broken during the raid and he eventually died because of the injury.

U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal sentenced 37-year-old Richard Henry Gonzales to 78 months and a $12,500 fine Monday for willfully denying Olvera-Carrera medical care. Louis Rey Gomez, 37, was sentenced to 41 months in prison and 43-year-old Carlos Reyna to 33 months. Gomez and Reyna were also ordered to each pay a $7,500 fine.

[. . . .]The trio "would not listen, did not listen" to Olvera-Carrera's pleas for help, Rosenthal said. She said nothing was done to secure medical help as quickly as possible.

[. . . .]Mike McCrum, Gonzales' attorney, said he believes all three men were scapegoats and that other higher ranking individuals must share the blame.

"We disagree with the conclusion that Mr. Gonzales made the decisions out there at the scene," he said. "Mr. Gonzales has apprehended thousands of (illegal immigrants) and there was not one incident of abuse."

Gonzales said he "honestly believed" that Olvera-Carrera was faking paralysis after his injury in a March 25, 2001, raid at the Bryan home he shared with other illegal immigrants.

Do Liberals believe the filth that comes out of their own mouth, or are they actively aware of their own lies and their specious meanderings? Probably a little bit a both; the former being more prevalent in the public, rather than in the organized Liberal and left-wing organizations, in which case the latter is more likely true.

In Canada, the left-wing has utilized the wide-spread and superfluous attention to political correctness as a way of exaggerating false notions about the right-wing or conservative movements and organizations in this country. These notions go far, so far as to make average Canadian citizen view the ‘right’ in a very egregious and often extreme manner. These notions spread political and socioeconomic topics ranging from the belief that conservatives believe in the elimination of the public healthcare system to the suggestion that conservatives would be partial to a criminalization of non-heterosexual activities wholly or in part.

[. . . .]I highly encourage anybody who is interested in politics and carrying such preconceived notions of the conservative movement to in fact try to use real evidence, rather than liberal heresy to prove that ANY of the following statements are true:

1) Conservatives generally believe that homosexuality should be illegal.
2) Conservatives believe that all healthcare should be privatized.
3) Conservatives are all racist.
4) Conservatives are all extremely religious and wish to use politics as a vehicle in which to perpetuate their beliefs onto others.
5) Conservatives are generally rich.
6) Conservatives only purpose is to support “big business” and to line the pockets of rich people.

These are of course all very common perceptions of conservatives by liberals, and I contest that none of them are true. If you believe that they are true, and as a liberal you probably do, I highly challenge you to present me compelling evidence that they are.

However, there are some rules that apply when it comes to presenting a case which is not simply heresy and is empirical:

1) Evidence cannot be the opinion of another. (e.g. from the editorial section of a newspaper)
2) If you are using the statement or action of a specific individual, and wish to use this persons devices as a way of showing a pattern behavior which you would characterize as prevalent on the part of conservatives, you must provide additional evidence to;
2a) Prove that the perceived beliefs of the person or persons in question is in an observable and therefore provable way, prevalent on the part of the conservatives.
3) Assumption is usually a product of bias, and the use of it as a premise or prediction about belief or intention without sufficient observables, make such things irrelevant and circumstantial.

[. . . .] The global warming theory is usually trotted out by its media boosters during the hottest days of summer, when people are sweating, and so more sympathetic to the claims. But that's as unfair as the media trick of complaining about gasoline prices on their way up, without reporting when gas prices come right back down again.

Some people think the debate over global warming is over because the Kyoto Protocol is not in force, and likely never will be because of Russia's refusal to sign the treaty. But that ignores Paul Martin's repeated pledge to implement Kyoto-style energy rationing no matter what.

Martin was the Liberal environment critic in 1992, and he attended the Rio Earth Summit -- the prelude to Kyoto. He was ga-ga for anti-industrial laws even back then. Now he's prime minister -- and he has appointed Maurice Strong, the chairman of the Rio summit and the architect of the Kyoto Protocol, as his special policy advisor on the environment.

Strong is more than just a casual friend of Martin's. He gave Martin his first job during college. And he arranged the favourable sale of Canada Steamship Lines to Martin -- the source (along with nine-figure subsidies by unwitting taxpayers) of the Martin family fortune.

Strong isn't just a friend of Martin's. He's a godfather figure -- and a Rasputin-like policy guru, too.

If you want to know more about Strong, the best way to learn is to read his own autobiography, called Where on Earth Are We Going? In that book, Strong describes his radical environmental agenda and implies that the solution is to depopulate the Earth -- that mankind is the real environmental problem.

Poisoned Pill in Supreme Court Ruling -- Parents Should Know

While it was wonderful to see the Supreme Court uphold parent’s rights to discipline their children aged two to twelve, mothers and fathers must fear this ruling as they could go to jail and lose their children for spanking their child if he or she is under the age of two or over twelve years old.

Canada Family Action Coalition President, Dr. Charles McVety says "I applaud the effort to protect children however I do not want to see mothers go to jail for using a corrective, non-damaging tap on a 23 month old child who needs to learn to stay away from danger". The Court’s Citation gives "guidelines" to Canadian judges on how to rule in related cases. This Citation makes it very clear that the law has been changed and "immunity" from criminal prosecution will no longer be granted if a parent uses non-damaging physical corrective measures on a child under two years of age or over twelve or if an instrument is used at any age.

Suspiciously, none of these changes to the law were mentioned in the Supreme Court’s press release. Only after reading the lengthy full decision are Canadians realizing that parents are now in danger of criminal prosecution and having their children removed from their custody. These changes are as of January 30th, 2004 so parents must beware.

Dr. McVety says "This invasion of parenting is not only outrageous, it is also severely flawed". In the Court’s decision they make outlandish claims and quantum leaps of logic. Their stated basis for criminalizing spanking on children under two is their understanding that such children do not have the cognitive ability to learn from the corrective measure. Every parent knows that a 23-month-old child has incredible learning ability.

[. . . .] Canada Family Action Coalition is calling on all citizens to call Prime Minister Paul Martin and the local Member of Parliament requesting that they take their rightful place as exclusive federal legislators and use whatever measures possible to the un-elected members of the Court who have made laws that could send loving mothers and fathers to prison. Details will follow on www.commonsensevoters.com []

[. . . .]For further information contact: Dr. Charles McVety,

President, Canada Family Action Coalition email: charles@familyaction.org

President, Canada Christian College

50 Gervais Drive, Toronto, Ontario Tel 416.391.5000 or Cell Number 416.434.8261

Canada Family Action Coalition - You Can Make a Difference!
Visit our website at http://www.familyaction.org

Clergy from across the nation are deeply concerned that their religious freedom will be violated with the same "Edict" imposed upon the Marriage Commissioners of B.C. On behalf of Clergy nationwide Dr. Charles McVety, President of Canada Christian College and Canada Family Action Coalition calls for Prime Minister Paul Martin to fulfill his promise to protect the religious rights of those who perform marriages in Canada.

Dr. McVety has heard from Clergy across the country on this issue. "I have had numerous calls and visits from Pastors who are afraid they are next in line as the government invades the religious territory of marriage". The Director of the Evangelical Association seems to concur. Dr. Thomas stated "It is only a matter of time until the government decrees that others who perform marriages must Do them or quit".

Several Marriage Commissioners have expressed their dismay at the heavy-handed action of the B.C. Government. A private Marriage Commissioner who received this "Edict" states "I REFUSE to solemnize a relationship that counters my faith. I will have to resign because I can not afford to fight any battle."

Those who object have been stripped of their freedom of conscience and have lost their livelihood. Each Commissioner is paid $75 per marriage plus $.44 per km for travel expense. As of March 31st they will be forced to resign or in other words "fired" for their religious beliefs.

Dr. McVety believes that "the Government is sending the message to all those who perform marriages. If you do not abandon your religious convictions then you will not be permitted to solemnize marriages and in turn lose your position and livelihood".