* Police struggle to keep ahead of pot growers -- 'Disturbing trends': Deadly traps being used to protect huge marijuana crops

* OMG: Police attack motorcyle gangs' PR efforts -- OMG's want to be viewed as "businessmen" and "good for business" -- Aug. 22 2004

* B.C.'s H**** Ang***: Rich and Powerful -- Canada is a haven for the outlaw motorcycle gang, with more members per capita than any other country. B.C's Angels have mounted an effective public-relations campaign that portrays them as harmless motorcycle enthusiasts, but they maintain a fearsome reputation in the criminal underworld -- Sept. 11, 2004

* I had no choice but to kill -- A former member of the 'Indo-Canadian mafia' in B.C. admits he had a hit put out on his boss -- "Bal Buttar, now a 28-year-old blind quadriplegic" has "found God", is talking, but not giving the necessary details -- figures not much more can be done to him -- Sept. 17, 2004

* Gang violence hits home -- The Times Colonist and the Vancouver Sun are investigating organized crime in B.C. in a series of stories. Today we examine the threat of Indo-Canadian gangs -- Sept. 18, 2004

* Thought Provoking: Safe strolls and brothels would reduce risks for prostitutes -- Sept. 17, 2004

* Pot laws need thorough overhaul -- Coleman should be pushing Ottawa for change, not harassing B.C.'s municipal politicians -- Sept. 13, 04

[. . . . ] Which is the correct court for this type of lawsuit? Where do I get the paperwork that has to be filled out and submitted? Can I do this to avoid going over the stature [sic] of limitations without having an attorney on board? [. . . . ]

'Throw television out!' Better yet, take it out and shoot it! That way, no one else can pick it up and carry it off. The reason I am saying this is because I am beginning to understand the insidious nature of it. ... There are major changes occurring and the images that are flashed on the screen are doing work that is positively destructive ... touching the spiritual nature of man in a way that I can only call demonic."

Dr. White's point is not just that the content of television is depraved (though much of it is); his point is also that watching television destroys the ability to read, think, and comprehend.

A book requires exposition, plot, development, resolution -- but not television. Dr. White tells of a colleague who tried to teach David Copperfield to a Grade 9 high school class. "Students couldn't remember who the characters were or lock on to a sequence of events. They say: 'Nobody's blown up. Nothing's happening. This is boring.' And of course the vocabulary of the great books is now beyond them."

[. . . . ] "This is what he's like," his mother says of her younger son. "He's 7, but he might as well be 2½. He's been 2½ for five years."

[. . . . ] The younger boy, at 7, is severely autistic, more prone to communicating with shrieks and moans than words. His autistic nine-year-old brother, diagnosed with pervasive development disorder as a preschooler, is far less dysfunctional but struggles with anxiety, a spastic lack of co-ordination that makes riding a bike impossible, and a social backwardness.

Their parents are not the first to enlist the courts in the battle for autism therapies. But their case marks the first time a public institution such as a school board has been hauled before a child-welfare judge, whose bottom line under Ontario's child-protection law must be the children's best interests. (Because the case falls under child-welfare law, neither the children nor their parents can be identified.) The case could turn the child-welfare system on its ear. While the law suggests that child abuse happens when those "having charge of" children inflict harm, if the judge can be persuaded that school boards have charge of the students in classrooms as parents do at home, a brand-new frontier will open for child-protection workers.

[. . . . ] Rates of autism -- a mysterious, lifelong neurological dysfunction that impairs social behaviour and communication -- are soaring as awareness of the disorder grows. For every 1,000 babies born in Canada, it is estimated that two will be diagnosed with autism or a related disorder.

Across the country, parents of autistic children are fighting in court for services in schools and public funds for costly behavioural therapies that governments have been loath to provide beyond the age of 5. Parents like the Pickering couple want a therapy known as intensive behavioural intervention, a one-on-one treatment involving repetition and imitation that is widely credited with turning aberrant, anti-social beings into children able to function almost normally.

[. . . . ] The school board insists it has provided appropriate educational services for the boys. It says school is the wrong place to look for intensive autism treatment.

"Our position would be that it's a medical therapy; it's not an educational program," says Don McLean, the board's superintendent of special education. [. . . . ]

[. . . . ] "If Canada works for us, then fine. If it doesn't, we'll look at other arrangements along the lines of the European Common Union. If they come after more money from us, and last year we committed something like $3,000 for every man woman and child to the rest of the country, Albertans are going to push their government to look at different arrangements," Taylor warns.

Damned straight, echoes Premier Ralph Klein, who is a diehard federalist with a combative territorial streak. "We don't mind paying our fair share, but we don't want to get screwed. I'm going to be very protective of our good fortune. It wasn't all just windfall profits from oil and gas. There was a lot of hard work going back to 1993," he says.

Newspapers are supposed to report the news, not be the news. Yet we became the story yesterday when CBC Radio aired an item critical of the way we cover the Middle East. The unfair criticism deserves a response.

The chief complaint is that this newspaper freely uses the word "terrorist" to describe certain groups and acts. The CBC and some wire services prefer terms such as "activist," "militant" or "gunmen." These media organizations argue that "terrorist" is a subjective term, laden with too much emotion, and that the imperative to be impartial prohibits journalists from using it.

We reject the argument. Terrorism is a technical term. It describes a modus operandi, a tactic. We side with security professionals who define terrorism as the deliberate targeting of civilians in pursuit of a political goal. Those who bombed the nightclub in Bali were terrorists. Suicide bombers who strap explosives to their bodies and blow up people eating in a pizza parlour are terrorists. The men and women who took a school full of hostages in Beslan, Russia, and shot some of the children in the back as they tried to flee to safety were terrorists. We as journalists do not violate our impartiality by describing them as such. [. . . . ]

[. . . . ] Gay marriage, they assure us, is the merest amendment to traditional marriage, and once we’ve done that we’ll pull up the drawbridge.

Sorry, but it’s not going to work like that. If you can get ‘em past the don’t-be-so-ridiculous stage, the gays point out that there are no constituencies clamoring for polygamy and bestiality. That’s true in the latter case. . . . .

But there’s a very obvious constituency for polygamy and it says something about the monumental self-absorption of the gay marriage crowd that they seem unaware of it. Indeed, it’s already here. Earlier this summer, Le Monde leaked a government report revealing that polygamy was routinely practiced in Muslim ghettoes in France. Anecdotal evidence suggests things aren’t so very different in the Islamic communities of Ontario: as The Christian Science Monitor airily put it, polygamous unions “are being performed by the same religious figures adjudicating matters under sharia” – ie, under the province’s Muslim-friendly Arbitration Act.

Another clue to what’s going on comes in the invaluable British publication Pensions News, which had an interesting item about a hitherto arcane point of law. Contracting marriage with more than one spouse simultaneously is a crime in the United Kingdom. However, if a polygamous marriage is entered into abroad in a jurisdiction permitting polygamy, that marriage is regarded as valid under English law. Hence, the interest of Pensions News. Previously, spousal inheritance was a relatively simple matter: you kick the bucket and your wife gets a big payout. Now it’s relatively less simple, relative-wise: trustees of pensions funds were concerned that, under new anti-discrimination regulations . . . .

Robert Spencer quotes Bernard Lewis in an article about disturbing developments in Europe: “Europe Will Be Islamic by the End of the Century.”

How quickly is Europe being Islamized? So quickly that even historian Bernard Lewis, who has continued throughout his honor-laden career to be strangely disingenuous about certain realities of Islamic radicalism and terrorism, told the German newspaper Die Welt forthrightly that “Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century.”

Or maybe sooner. Consider some indicators from Scandinavia this past week:

Sweden’s third-largest city, Malmo, according to the Swedish Aftonbladet, has become an outpost of the Middle East in Scandinavia: “The police now publicly admit what many Scandinavians have known for a long time: They no longer control the situation in the nations’s third largest city. It is effectively ruled by violent gangs of Muslim immigrants. Some of the Muslims have lived in the area of Rosengard, Malmo, for twenty years, and still don’t know how to read or write Swedish. Ambulance personnel are attacked by stones or weapons, and refuse to help anybody in the area without police escort. The immigrants also spit at them when they come to help. Recently, an Albanian youth was stabbed by an Arab, and was left bleeding to death on the ground while the ambulance waited for the police to arrive. The police themselves hesitate to enter parts of their own city unless they have several patrols, and need to have guards to watch their cars, otherwise they will be vandalized.”

The Nordgardsskolen in Aarhus, Denmark, has become the first Dane-free Danish school. The students now come entirely from Denmark’s fastest-growing constituency: Muslim immigrants.

Also in Denmark, the Qur’an is now required reading for all upper-secondary school students. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, but it is unlikely, given the current ascendancy of political correctness on the Continent, that critical perspectives will be included.

Pakistani Muslim leader Qazi Hussain Ahmed gave an address at the Islamic Cultural Center in Oslo. He was readily allowed into the country despite that fact that, according to Norway’s Aftenposten, he “has earlier make flattering comments about Osama bin Laden, and his party, Jamaat-e-Islami, also has hailed al-Qaeda members as heroes.”<>/span In Norway, he declined to answer questions about whether or not he thought homosexuals should be killed.

It is long past time to accept reality. Not only Europe, but the entire Western World, including the United States, will become Islamic. As we have neither the courage nor the will to take the measures necessary to prevent the Islamic conquest, we should begin now to try to make that conquest as easy and nonviolent as possible.

To begin this process, we should:

1. Withdraw all military forces from the Muslim world.

2. Cease all support for Israel and support the replacement of Israel by a Palestinian state.

3. Begin the introduction of Sharia law in the United States. [emphasis mine]

[. . . . ] "Meanwhile, financial pressures are increasing as our population ages, as medical knowledge...expands, and as beneficial but expensive new treatments become available," he told a top-level meeting designed to rescue medicare.

Martin, joined at the table by the premiers of Canada's 10 provinces, faces a horet's nest of problems as he tries to fix the health system. Medicare is jointly funded by the federal and provincial governments but run solely by the latter, an arrangement that causes plenty of rancor.

Medicare eats up C$85 billion ($66 billion) a year in public funds alone and the provinces continually demand more money, with no strings attached. Ottawa says it is prepared to contribute more but insists the provinces agree to benchmarks to ensure the funds are being spent properly.

As the politicians bicker, Canadians spend more time waiting in line. A study by the right-wing Fraser Institute this month said that average waiting time for treatment in 2003 rose to 17.7 weeks from 16.5 weeks in 2002.

"This grim portrait is the legacy of a medical system offering low expectations cloaked in lofty rhetoric," the study said, criticizing the fact that governments and not doctors are responsible for allocating resources. [. . . . ]

[. . . . ] Why the dearth of technology, the shortage of physicians and the long waits for care? These extraordinary failures are the result of medicare's command-and-control structure. For the better part of 30 years, politicians have attempted to micro-manage Canadian health care. To that end, they have restricted the supply of doctors, outlawed private insurance, banned any attempt at patient cost-sharing, slapped price controls on pharmaceuticals, banished private services, centralized decision making and introduced a slew of regulations and restrictions. All the time, they have collectively poured more and more money into the flawed system. Canadian medicare started as an exercise in compassion and has ended up as an exercise in central planning. Some may bristle at this analysis. What else to conclude, though, when your neighbourhood family doctor has become a luxury item? [. . . . ]

The Ontario government's power picture is one of looming crisis, and the government must act immediately if it wants to use nuclear generation to avert an electricity shortage, Murray Elston, president of the Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA), said yesterday.

Mr. Elston, who will speak to the Economic Club of Toronto this morning, called nuclear power the only viable alternative to power from the coal plants Dalton McGuinty, Ontario's Premier, aims to retire in the next three years. Nuclear power has long been dogged in the province by massive cost overruns and, more recently, opposition from environmentalists.

"Everyone [in government] is looking for short cuts ... but you can't make short cuts in the electricity market, you've got to make sure it's extremely stable. And right now you don't know exactly what [the Ontario government] is going to do," Mr. Elston said.

A nuclear plant takes eight years to build, from the first regulatory steps to the commercial atom, according to the CNA, an industry-funded body.

Mr. Elston says there are no hydroelectric sites close enough to Southern Ontario to develop, and the price of natural gas is prohibitively high.

If the Ontario government makes good on its promise to eliminate coal by 2007, it will lose nearly one quarter of its electrical supply.

In addition to the need to replace coal-fired electricity, Mr. Elston said there will remain an urgent need "in the next four or five years" to refurbish Ontario's five nuclear plants, which currently meet about 45% of the province's power needs.

While the province has undertaken to refurbish one reactor at Pickering A (which houses four reactors), and has initiated talks with industry to bring two units at Bruce Power A back into service, these efforts alone are insufficient, Mr. Elston said.

"Even with their renewal, the gap between demand and supply of electricity begins to widen a decade from now." [. . . . ]

[. . . . ] First and foremost, let’s crystallize that in this symposium we are not talking about feminists, but leftist feminists. There are obviously feminists who are not radicals.

So let’s start with the heart of the matter:

Why do leftist feminists support a society where they themselves would be oppressed?

[. . . . ]There is something very mind-boggling here, and it is connected to the radical feminist who shows up almost nude at an anti-war demonstration taking the side of militant Islam, when the fact is that if she even showed her face under some of the regimes she supports she would be mutilated or raped or killed or burned alive. What is behind this dementia? Is it a death wish?

[. . . . ] While Israel stands head and shoulders above the Islamic regimes that surround it ethically, politically, and socially, it is still far from a feminist paradise. Women do not earn what men earn nor do they have equal rights religiously, militarily, or politically; the trafficking of women into brothels in Israel remains a serious problem, single mothers are over-burdened with child care. Nevertheless, contrary to myth, Israeli soldiers do not publicly gang-rape, torture, enslave, amputate, be-head, or ethnically cleanse those with whom they are at war. Arab armies routinely do all this and more, (to their own citizens as well), including hostage-taking and suicide bombings of innocent civilians. Israel is not praised for it’s higher ethical standards, the Arab armies are not condemned for their pre-medieval standards. [. . . . ]

Some years ago the Harvard sociologist Nathan Glazer declared that "we are all multiculturalists now." One's initial response to such an unwanted announcement is to say: "What do you mean, 'we'?" Yet, even if "we" do not subscribe to that sentiment, it cannot be denied that over the last twenty years multiculturalism has become the ruling idea of America, incarnated in every area of society ranging from educational curricula to the quasi-official establishment of foreign languages, to mandated racial proportionality schemes in private employment and university admissions, to the constant invocations by our political, business, and intellectual elites of "diversity" as the highest American value. How, so quickly and effortlessly, did this alien belief system take over our country? In this article, I look at multiculturalism as an ideology that has advanced itself by means of a set of propositions. My intent is to examine the false arguments of the multiculturalists themselves, and to see how they have used these arguments to fool an all-too-willing American majority to go along with them.

The Fraud of Inclusion

The first principle of multiculturalism is the equality of all cultures. According to its proponents, America is an assemblage of racially or ethnically defined subcultures, all of which have equal value and none of which can claim a privileged position.

It follows from this that the main goal of multiculturalism is inclusion. Multiculturalists argue that minority and non-Western cultures have been unjustly excluded in the past from full participation in our culture, and that in order to correct this historic wrong we must now include them on an equal basis. In other words, these minority cultures must be regarded as having the same public importance as America's historic majority culture. Moreover, we are told, this equal and public inclusion of different cultures does not threaten our culture, but "enriches" it. By this reasoning, if we became (say) an officially bilingual society, with Spanish appearing alongside English on every cereal box and street sign in the land (as is done with the two languages of Canada), our culture would not be harmed in the slightest. We would only be including something we once excluded. We would have become something more, not less. What could be more positive? How could any decent person object? [. . . . ]

Under the reign of multiculturalism, Americans have been undergoing for decades, if in slow motion, what the historian Thomas Molnar once described as "the collapse of the old order, the sudden realization that the universe of a given community has lost its center."(1) Molnar, a refugee from Communist Hungary, calls this phenomenon "verbal terror." The actual terrorist, by blowing up actual human beings, makes the members of a society feel that every assumption that has constituted their world, the very ability to walk down a street or ride in a bus, is vanishing, and thus weakens their will to resist the terrorists' political demands. The verbal terrorist, by smearing everything great and ordinary about a people and their institutions, makes them feel that nothing about themselves is legitimate. Once demoralized in this manner, they are ready (much like Louis XVI of France, who was subjected to a similar propaganda barrage) to yield to the Revolution.

The chief form this verbal terror takes in contemporary America is anti-racism. Now most people, when they hear about something called anti-racism, do not want to criticize it. After all, we would all agree that racism—acts and speech aimed at harming people of a particular race because of their race—is a morally bad thing. In the real world, however, anti-racism means something far more than the condemnation of discrete and morally objectionable acts and statements. It means the indictment of America as America, and of white people as white people. The anti-racist movement has advanced itself most prominently through the schools, as an extension of multicultural education. Multiculturalism tells us that America is a collection of equal cultures with no dominant culture, which means that America's purported dominant culture is really an illegitimate usurper over the "true," multicultural America. Anti-racism spells out these anti-majoritarian—i.e., these anti-white—implications more fully and puts them into practice. [. . . . ]

Multicultural brainwashing

Another sign of whites' readiness to surrender to those who hate them is the "sensitivity" trainings that have become a fixture in American institutions. These are essentially brainwashing sessions, structured experiences that takes participants through a series of stages from racist false consciousness to multicultural enlightenment. [. . . . ] Gradually they learn to embrace diversity, until at the final stage they agree with statements such as: . . . .

"We're all members of the same global community."

"Discrimination against any group has a negative impact on us all."(6)

Through such techniques whites are taught to view any lingering vestige of their American identity as an ugly thing, from which they can free themselves only by embracing diversity. [. . . . ]

Sure, I'm the heir to a dictator who controls a whole country of almost six million people. But what I really want to do is get into the movies: Saadi Gadhafi, the son of the Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, turned up at the Venice Film Festival last week, trying to get somebody interested in a feature film about his old man. And he even took a meeting, as they say, with Miramax biggie Harvey Weinstein. "It's all strange, but true," somebody who knows about Miramax told Jeannette Walls of MSNBC. "Harvey told him he'd be willing to make the film if Gadhafi would publicly recognize the state of Israel. Saadi said he'd check with his father and get back to Harvey." No response yet but hey, you never know!

While researching information for this site I came across a hardhitting radio broadcast by Rush Limbaugh.

The Original Rathergate

"The truth was uncovered by B.G. Burkett, a Vietnam veteran and author of Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of its Heroes and its History.

Listen to the whole show here.