Don't register with the Orlando Sentinel - They're Spammers

Hah! When I sent the email below the recipient's server (chicago tribune) rejected it as SPAM!

feedback@orlandosentinel.com

------------------------------


Dear Orlando Sentinel

I appreciate the service you provide, making your news articles available online. I registered in order to read your paper.

I do not appreciate receiving spam from advertisers who use your subscriber lists. I know they did, because their email said they had a special offer for subscribers to the Orlando Sentinel.

Our Free Press is part of the system of checks on Big Government that help maintain society's other freedoms. I expected that you, a member of America's media and beneficiary of the right to a free press, would respect my right to privacy and by extension, a SPAM FREE mail box. If the price to read your news articles is that I have to be spammed, you should have said so, and I'd have given you a throw-away email address for your throw-away mail.

Right now you rank down there with the purveyors of penis enlargers.

Sincerely,
Andrew (hamm172) Rondeau.

---------------------------

Paul Martin: anything but ballistic missiles?

Now that Canada is officially 'out' of the Ballistic Missile defense system, the Prime Minister has demanded that Canada be consulted before the Americans shoot down any incoming Ballistic missles over Canada. With virtually the same breath that he then claimed that Canada was still commited to Continental Defense and Norad.

???

Ding Ding Ding Ding!!! Whooop Whooop Whooop!!!
Moonbat alert!

How can you be both for and against continental defense at the same time?

As for demanding the Americans consult with Ottawa before shooting down a missile... What if it's a Sunday? Or the middle of the night? Or Canada day? Or after 4:30pm on a weekday? All the government offices will be closed.

Stockwell Day, the Conservative Party's Foreign Affairs Critic, laughed it off too...
"These missiles are coming in at 4 kilometers ( 2.5 miles) a second, and if the president calls the 1-800 line and gets: `Press 1 if you want English, press 2 if you want French, press 0 if nobody's there ...' I mean, it's crazy."

A poke in America's eye

A month before budget day, the Canadian media carried stories that implied George Bush was “bullying” Canada into participating in missile defense. It’s clear that Canada’s Prime Minister is taking his foreign policy cues from the peace-loving, anti-american fellow travelers at the CBC.

At a funeral yesterday, I got in an argument with a couple of friends who were against missile defense, but clearly didn’t understand what it was. When I questioned their reasons, they had only the vague notion that missiles and America were bad. It sounded to me like they were listening to the CBC again.

As for Paul Martin and his Government, they sound more and more like French surrender fairies every day. They rule not from principle, but by flapping in whichever wind the Liberal Party strategists think is flying today. And, poking their thumb in America's eye is the current trendy 'in' thing for liberals to do.

After 30 years of Liberal Party fiscal neglect the NYPD has more policemen that the Canadian army has soldiers of any rank. The morons running the show announced in this week's federal budget that the Canadian military's new spending priority will be more TRUCKS. The Defense minister, Pierre Petticoat Pettigrew was on the news yesterday and it was obvious he is one confused Quebecois. I think when the Prime Minister asked him to be Minister of Defense, he thought he said Minister of Sitting on de Fence. He didn't know the difference between being against nuclear proliferation (which most countries are) and missile proliferation (invented on the spot by Pierre Petticoat, who apparently thought it was the same thing).

I'm pissed. Now instead of ABM sites in the high Arctic shooting down incoming missiles over empty wilderness, the ABM sites will have to be placed along the 49th parallel. Any incoming missiles will be shot down over Canada's populated south. Fucking liberals.

Public School teacher allows students to send hate mail to soldiers

Mr. Xavier Costello,
Principal, JHS 51
350 - 5th Avenue,
Brooklyn, NY 11215
U.S.A.

Dear Sir,

I experienced disgust today whilst reading in the NY Post about how one of your teachers, Alex Kunhardt, allowed hate mail to be sent by nine of his students to American Soldiers serving in Korea. If it was inadvertent, he owes those young men and women in the service an abject, public apology. At the very least he was negligent in his duties as a citizen, and as a teacher to those misinformed kids.

If it was intentional, then he should be corrected. Corrected, you ask? For allowing the children in his care to think that free speech allows them the moral equivalent of yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre. What the hell kind of value system does your school’s mission statement refer to?

If it was intentional, then he needs to know that civil disobedience doesn’t extend to mental torture of his country’s soldiers who are presently putting their lives on the line in a foreign country. The Korean DMZ isn’t Iraq, but people die there today still. North Koreans don’t have the ability to indulge in civil disobedience and free speech, let alone a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Who’s to blame? Not the American Soldier, Comrade.

If it was intentional, then he also deserves ‘corporal punishment.’ Much as I'd like to suggest a good beating and time on the unemployment line, I won't. But a 12 month deployment to teach English in North Korea, followed by a 12 month teaching job in a school on an American military base somewhere might get through to him. Let him teach the orphaned children of some of your servicemen about free speech. They’ll teach him.

Sincerely,
Andrew (Hamm172) Rondeau

facts and objectivity

Hahahaha! Cox&Forkum did it again!

>

What was I saying in my last post?

CBC tells half the story in lesbian wedding case

More fallout from the homosexual marriage battle lines, this time in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is once again only reporting the facts that help drum up sympathy for it's favored causes. Just one more reason why this taxpayer-supported money sucking bureaucracy needs to be cut loose and privatized.

On January 24th a CBC story reported that two women who booked and paid for a Knights of Columbus hall, alledged they were then denied the use of the Hall because it was for a lesbian wedding reception. CBC also made sure to point out that the Lesbian couple had already paid for all the invitations. According to the CBC story, the women claim it's discriminatory to offer a facility to the public and then say a particular group can't use it.

The big meanies. So now the matter is before the unaccountable, quasi-judicial BC Human Rights tribunal, (whose rulings have Never been noted for their impartiality towards Christianity.)

Did the CBC report that the local KofC immediately refunded the Lesbian couple's money?
No.
Did the CBC report that the KofC booked and paid the rent for a different hall for the Lesbian couple?
Nooooo...
Did the CBC report that the KofC also paid for printing NEW INVITATIONS for the Lesbian couple?
Noooooooooooo...

Why not? The Toronto Globe and Mail got the story right. What's the CBC's problem? Well, for one, it would ruin a good story, that generates sympathy for a political cause the CBC management has no quams using our tax dollars to promote.

Bastards.

Canada’s Governing Liberals distorting the truth about pro-family groups

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler wants it both ways. No, he’s not claiming to be bi-sexual, but last week he denounced the Knights of Columbus as a U.S. based group that lacks a Canadian perspective on the homosexual marriage issue. At the same time, he wants the Christian voters who belong to the K of C, or who support Focus on the Family, to ignore their morals, shut up, and stop bothering the government MPs about homosexual marriage.

Both the government’s Cabinet ministers and big media like the Toronto Globe and Mail and the National Post are attempting to paint religious groups like the Knights of Columbus and Focus on the Family Canada as U.S. based groups that have no business commenting on a Canadian issue like the non-democratic ramrodding of homosexual marriage into Canadian law.

There are currently 229 thousand Knights of Columbus members in Canada who last year donated 23 million dollars and 9 million hours of volunteer time to Canadian charities. The first Canadian K of C lodge started in 1897, more than a century ago. Compare that to 38 of the current Members of Parliament (who will be among the elite few permitted to vote on this issue) who were born in foreign countries, and figuratively speaking, became Canadian citizens only yesterday.

I am a K of C member, and part of my family has been in Canada since the 1660's. The other part walked here over the Asian land bridge over 10 thousand years ago. I think as a citizen, me and my organization have the right to comment and lobby our elected officials on any Canadian subject we damn well please.

In a similar way, Focus on the Family Canada (FOTF) was unfairly labeled as an American group that was supposedly spending thousands of dollars to lobby the government. FOTF pointed out Friday, that it’s detractors were lumping in all the money spent on the resources and services for Parents on parenting, and it’s pro-family radio broadcasts.

Canada’s Justice minister is either misinformed, or he wants the Canadian Public to be misinformed. That could make him a liar and a propagandist for the homosexual lobby. If so, is that why the Liberal Caucus trying to demonize us in the press as un-Canadian? Is this an attempt to deny us our freedom of speech, or freedom to participate in the political process by marginalizing us in the eyes of the electorate? Is that Canadian?

This railroading of homosexual marriage into Canadian Society by your government is one more example of the democratic deficit Paul Martin so proudly spoke out against during his leadership campaign. Poll after poll, informal and scientific show most Canadians resent not having a say in this legislation. This legislation is an attempt to re-define a central component of our society, against the will of a majority I believe, and I pray we get to have an election over this issue before too long.

Beer frees man from avalanche.

I was thrilled to read the news story about a Slovak man who freed himself from an avalanche by drinking 60 bottles of beer and peeing on the snow to melt it. Trapped in his car, in Slovakia's Tatra mountains, he opened a beer to think about his predicament. Rescue teams found Richard Kral drunkenly staggering down a mountain road, four days later.

Wow. After the story was carried by a number of news services, (tribune.uk, sun.uk, ananova and others in India, New Zealand, and the U.S.) snopes.com debunked it.

And here I thought I had an excellent excuse to add beer to my car's emergency kit.

They want us silenced.

The front page headline in Friday’s local Canwest/Southam Newspaper read “GOVERNMENT TELLS CHURCH TO BUTT OUT.” Cabinet minister Pierre Pettigrew was quoted as saying that the invention of the concept of a separation of Church and state is really great, and the Catholic Bishops should butt out of political issues like the homosexual redefinition of marriage debate. He actually tried to say it was not a moral issue, but a strictly political one.

Over the past month, both Calgary’s Bishop Fred Henry and Edmonton’s Archbishop Tom Collins have published pastoral letters in defense of traditional marriage. Collins’ letter explained the basic flaws that make Gay marriage impossible, and both bishops called for their adherents to contact their MPs and make their views known. In response to Pettigrew’s remarks, Henry said marriage predates the Canadian State by thousands of years, and neither Parliament nor the Supreme Beings Court has the authority to redefine it.

Yeah!

For years I’ve been disappointed as our bishops hid behind the anonymity of the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops. Seemingly reluctant to speak out on their own, they missed what seemed to me to be opportunity after opportunity to provide their flocks leadership on moral issues before the voters- or moral issues that /should be/ before the voters.

But Canada’s Catholic Bishops seem to be growing some backbones of late. From the Northwest Territories, Bishop Croteau began writing a few years ago about the social cost of Government approved gambling. Then Calgary’s Bishop Fred Henry began commenting regularly on labour and social justice issues. Prior to the last Federal election, Bishop Henry wrote a pastoral letter asking Catholic voters to question the wisdom of voting for candidates that supported the culture of death, (pro-abortion, anti-family, anti-Christian agendas). This earned Henry a phone call from an anonymous Revenue Canada official (CCRA) threatening the Church’s tax free status.

This week, Edmonton Archbishop Tom Collins, who’s written a number of public statements about the wrongness and impossibility of homosexual marriage, encouraged his parish priests to use their pulpits Sunday to tell their parishioners to contact their MPs.

I didn’t hear Collins, but my parish priest, a young polish immigrant, gave the most direct call to democratic action in defense of marriage that I’ve ever heard in a Catholic church. Not that I’m the passive voter type, but today (Monday) my daughter and I wrote and sent letters in support of traditional marriage to Prime Minister Paul Martin, and liberal cabinet members Shirley McLelland (deputy Prime Minister,) Irwin Cotler (attorney general,) and Leon Benoit.

But I digress.

What really bothers the governing elites is that the Catholic Bishops are now doing their jobs as shepherds of their faith communities. They’re telling them to wake up from their slumber of apathy and be the activists called for in Vatican II.
Bothers the elites? It scares them shitless.

Canada’s Supreme Court in Contempt of Decency?

Friday was a day of absurdities in the newspapers from our rulers in Ottawa. Liberal politicians told the church not to comment on moral issues; Now the Supreme Beings Court has ruled that a man seen masturbating in his picture window, in view of passersby, his neighbors across the street and their kids, did not commit an indecent act in public.

One night 4 years ago, Daryl Clark's neighbors and their children were watching TV when they looked out their darkened window and saw him pleasuring himself in his living room, lights ablaze and curtains wide open.

Yup.

The court said he was in the privacy of his own home, and didn’t intend to commit a public act.

Well, it was an act all right. But what the hell kind of act was it then?

I guess I’m just not sophisticated enough to understand that bit of legal sophistry.

What a pack of retards.

The Joy of a Welfare State

Here's a poke in the eye for you liberal nutjobs in favor of legalized prostitution.


Woman told: Work as a prostitute or we cancel your unemployment insurance.

2 years ago Germany legalized prostitution. Now a 25 year old IT worker who turned down a job in a brothel will have her unemployment insurance cut. Yesterday's London Telegraph reported that the Berlin woman had worked as a waitress in the past, and had put in her job profile that she'd also be willing to work in a bar, if necessary.

Under Germany's new welfare reforms, anyone under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can have their benefits cut if they refuse to take an available job - including in the sex trade. Job Centers must treat employers looking for a prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse. German unemployment stands at 4.5 million, the highest level since reunification in 1990.

In the name of liberal compassion (welfare) women will now be forced into the sex trade. Already, women who had worked in call centers have been told to take phone-sex jobs and one 23 year old Gotha woman was told she had to go to an interview as a nude model, and then report back to the job center.

Whoever drafted and voted for this legislation should be forced to put their daughters into the sex trade.

CBC Agenda

My taxpayer-funded, CBC Newsworld campaign against traditional marriage and the conservative party continued all day today on it's 24 hour news channel. I say 'my,' because the CBC news is an activist, arrogant, bloated, biased, bureaucracy masquerading as a national news network surviving on the taxes extorted from me and other working Canadians. Anyway, it seemed every time I passed through their channel my taxes were being used to tell Canadian families that resistance is futile.

Although the government passed legislation in support of traditional marriage in 1999, they refused to pass a motion in 2003 reinforcing the definition of traditional marriage. The prime minister promised a free vote in Parliament, then tried to weasel out of it by deferring to the Supreme Court. Homosexual marriage is the subject of day, but today as the government caucus met in Fredericton, CBC Newsworld seemed obsessed with an attack on the leader of the opposition.

What raised their ire was CPC leader Stephen Harper's appeal to ethnic communities for support for the traditional definition of marriage. Although ethnic groups traditionally vote liberal, they are also very supportive of traditional values. The conservatives may successfully make inroads among the traditionally liberal ethnic voters. This has obviously alarmed opponents of traditional marriage.

The CBC claims to support diversity, but apparently that's only if those diverse views are non-traditional. CBC's Newsworld anchors repeatedly argued with their interviewees could not restrain themselves from taking sides against conservatives.

C.P.C. MP Belinda Stronach, who opposes her party's support for traditional marriage, was attending the CPC caucus meeting in Victoria. Stronach was available to make her views known throughout most of the day, and my Newsworld happily allowed her the publicity.

In another interview, CBC Newsworld anchor Nancy Wilson repeatedly badgered the CPC Justice Critic, Vic Toews. Wilson interrupted him repeatedly when he attempted to answer her questions. The CBC Newsworld anchor also had to be corrected by Toews at least twice, as she kept incorrectly insisting that the Supreme Court had ruled the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional.

In the wake of several lower court rulings against the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, all the predictions from the wrong- left were that the Supreme Court would strike down the traditional definition of marriage. In fact, the Supreme Court did not strike down the traditional definition of marriage, but instead passed the buck back to parliament.

Nancy Wilson was not the only CBC staffer who didn't/couldn't read the Supreme Court ruling. Anchor David Grey also shared Wilson’s mistaken belief. Grey interviewed one of the only liberal M.P.'s openly supporting traditional marriage, Pat O’Brien. In 2003 O’Brien served as a member of a House of Commons committee, holding hearings on marriage in 15 cities across Canada. O’Brien was excluded from the liberal caucus meetings today in Fredericton. Throughout the interview David Grey attempted score points off O’Brien, arguing in favor of homosexual marriage with his interviewee.

Odd that the liberals, who claim to welcome diversity, excluded a dissident from their caucus meeting, but conservatives did not.