Viewing An Example of Biased Journalism

We have a strong political divide and it’s not healthy. But this is not about politics. It is about journalism. Having said that, journalism has become political. Nothing has exposed this as well as the Trump election and his failure to be re-elected. This piece points out not only bias, but complete loss of journalistic objectivity.

When it is only acceptable to write one view, then journalism becomes suspect.

When it is only acceptable to write one view, then journalism becomes suspect. It trespasses the high journalistic standard–the code of objectivity–which is ultimately the foundation of public journalistic trust.

You’ve all seen them–the articles covering Trump’s claim of American election fraud. Maybe the election was stolen. Maybe it wasn’t. But one thing I know. It’s not up to journalists to print a verdict before the evidence is examined and tried in court. However, this is what happened, right out of the election gate, and we all witnessed it.

I’m not American. I hope the election wasn’t stolen. But how can I know, if nobody is willing to examine the evidence, much less give it credibility?

From the perspective of the media, election fraud is completely preposterous. The obvious bias of journalists, supported by–probably encouraged by–the news outlets, is almost laughable, but for the implications. Journalism that is influenced can be corrupted. When the public feels that journalism is influenced, it loses confidence in the reporting of news. In recent years there has been a shocking erosion of public trust in media.

I’ve taken an article printed on various new sites such as The Guardian, the Business Insider and The Washington Times for my illustration of media bias. The articles look much the same and there are numerous similar articles in print, with different angles, regarding the US election.

The article headline is Steve Scalise, No 2 House Republican, refuses to say election was not stolen. Below is the complete article with my personal observations in bold.

In a television interview aired Sunday, Oct. 10, 2021, Scalise, the House’s second-ranking Republican, stood by Trump’s lie (should be “claim”) that Democrat Joe Biden won the White House because of mass voter fraud.
By Hope Yen – Associated Press – Sunday, October 10, 2021

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House’s second-ranking Republican, Rep. Steve Scalise, repeatedly refused to say on Sunday that the 2020 election wasn’t stolen, standing by Donald Trump’s lie (should be “claim”) that Democrat Joe Biden won the White House because of mass voter fraud.
More than 11 months after Americans picked their president and almost nine months since Biden was inaugurated, Scalise was unwilling during a national television interview to acknowledge the legitimacy of the vote, instead sticking to his belief that the election results should not have been certified by Congress.


“I’ve been very clear from the beginning,” he said. “If you look at a number of states, they didn’t follow their state-passed laws that govern the election for president. That is what the United States Constitution says. They don’t say the states determine what the rules are. They say the state legislatures determine the rules,” the Louisiana congressman said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Pressed by moderator Chris Wallace on whether the election went beyond a few irregularities to be considered “stolen,” Scalise responded: “It’s not just irregularities. It’s states that did not follow the laws set which the Constitution says they’re supposed to follow.”
Trump left office in January a few weeks after a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol in a violent riot in an attempt to prevent Congress from formally declaring Biden the winner. (placed here for effect)

As Trump mulls a 2024 presidential bid, he has been intensifying efforts to shame – and potentially remove – members of his party who are seen as disloyal to his bogus claims (should leave out bogus) that last year’s election was illegitimate. House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy of California, who is vying to become speaker if the GOP takes control after the 2022 midterm election, continues to defend Trump and his false assertions (should leave out false).
At a rally Saturday in Iowa, Trump spent almost 30 minutes arguing falsely (should leave out falsely because this is inserting a belief of the author) that he had won Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds stood by and welcomed his return to their state.

In fact, no election was stolen (appropriate wording would be, “According to….no election was stolen”) from Trump. His former attorney general, William P. Barr, found no evidence of widespread election corruption. Allegations of massive voting fraud also have been dismissed by a succession of judges and refuted by state election officials and an arm of the Homeland Security Department during the Trump administration. (A good journalist would dig into this and also include information from those bringing the allegations. There is a story here.)

Scalise on Sunday appeared to be referring to the legal argument, made in several lawsuits backed by Trump before and after last November’s election, that the Constitution gives the power of election administration exclusively to state lawmakers. (What exactly does the Constitution say? Why not a quote here?) The suits sought to invalidate a number of pandemic-era accommodations including expanded mail voting that were put in place by governors, state election officials and judges. (Did Trump have a case, based on the Constitution? Was there any question of legality here? We need more information. We rely on journalists for this information.)

The high court ultimately turned away the cases, declining to rule on the matter. There’s no indication in any of the suits (not one example is given of a suit…bad journalism) that changing the COVID-19 accommodations would have altered a state’s election results.

Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., who is serving on a House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, on Sunday slammed Scalise for spreading Trump’s “Big Lie.”

“Millions of Americans have been sold a fraud that the election was stolen,” Cheney tweeted. “Republicans have a duty to tell the American people that this is not true. Perpetuating the Big Lie is an attack on the core of our constitutional republic.”

END OF ARTICLE

It is the responsibility of journalists to present evidence and then to trust the public to have the intelligence and insight to come to a reasonable conclusion.

“Journalists and the news outlets have the responsibility to tell the American people what to believe.” –False

The beauty of the article is that the last two paragraphs reveal the logic of the writer. We might rephrase, “Journalists and the news outlets have the responsibility to tell the American people what to believe.” This, of course, is false. It is not the role of journalism, in a democratic society, to push a certain narrative. We see this happening in totalitarian states where news sites and journalists are the propaganda arm of the government and must tout the party line, or face consequences.

Readers want information. We want to be able to trust journalists to give us both sides. We want to examine the evidence for ourselves. We don’t want to be told what to believe. And we would like to see journalists’ opinions reserved for Commentary and Opinion columns.

How Will the New Rules Impact My Thanksgiving Dinner?

My eighty-five year old mother, who was hospitalized with covid-19 and recovered, does not want the vaccine. We have had a difficult time getting her to take any medication at any time. Now the Manitoba provincial government is telling her she cannot have her children over for Thanksgiving. If our politicians were up on the latest discoveries they would know that she has less of a risk of getting, and therefore spreading covid, than a vaccinated person. So is this really about health care?

This Thanksgiving, you may have to ask your guests to bring their vaccine cards along with cranberry sauce….Private indoor gatherings will be restricted to two households if any person at the gathering has chosen not to get vaccinated.

CBC: These new pandemic rules apply to all Manitobans

We are now seeing stats where countries with higher vaccination rates are actually experiencing higher case rates of covid than countries with lower vaccination rates.

Meanwhile VAERS, to date, shows in excess of 10,000 deaths within weeks of the vaccine and possibly 15,000 vaccine-related deaths in the USA. Mortality rates rose consistently in countries during vaccination periods. This is brushed aside because, as one doctor stated, the only time a vaccine can be noted on a death certificate as a cause of death is if the patient dies within an hour or two of receiving the vaccine. I read a series of VAERS reports and the correlation to the administration of the vaccine seemed apparent to me. We have seen a few incidents reported in the news. It appears they are not as rare as we are led to believe with women reporting injuries more frequently than men.

We were told the vaccine is safe, but then I noticed the wording changed to, “as safe as other vaccines.” Well, apparently, if you look at the data, this is the most unsafe vaccine ever to have been administered.

We were told the vaccine prevents people from getting covid, but this was quickly down-graded to preventing severe illness.

We were told that the vaccine reduces transmissibility, but then we learned that the viral load of vaccinated people was just as high as the unvaccinated in the initial stages of the disease.

Maybe we can believe that it reduces the infection rate. Maybe not. Reports out of Israel are now saying that the vaccine is only 39% effective against the Delta variant. This explains the extent of covid in Israel which was supposed to be Pfizer’s model country.

My mother is a stoic woman who takes her blows, but I don’t know how this will affect her. She lives in Manitoba, Canada, where 3 million dollars of fines have already been handed out for violations around covid restrictions.

Many nurses and doctors are quitting their jobs due to the recently imposed vaccine mandates for health care workers. Their “fine,” if they don’t quit, will be the erasure of their income–“leave without pay.” We will see the impact of this by mid-November in Canada. We cannot afford to lose a single nurse or doctor.

My whole issue with the lockdowns has always been that hospitals were over-crowded and short-staffed before the coronavirus. Lockdowns were imposed to protect the hospitals from being overwhelmed, and I get the logic. But we should have provided extra facilities for covid patients if we wanted to be pro-active. This was never done. In my province of British Columbia we have about 400 ICU beds, total. One can easily imagine that just the flu season would overwhelm the hospitals. So add a few hundred cases…and then we go into lockdown, affecting the mental health and financial future of hundreds of thousands. I know the first argument is about grandma in the care home, but let’s just say that was handled very, very poorly.

Doctors are doing their best to help their patients but are being told by our health authorities how they can and cannot treat patients with covid, what they can and cannot say to them. Anything that does not support the vaccination effort is off limits.

I just read that Bolivia asked a Canadian company to manufacture the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, but due to patent issues, months later they are not getting vaccines produced. Are we really wanting to help people or is this all about money? I’m not the first person to ask the question.

Merck has come out with a new med that is supposed to cost $700 per treatment for covid, Molnupiravir. Watch Dr. John Campbell compare Merck’s Ivermectin, which costs about $.50 per treatment with the new medication. Dr. Campbell goes into a detailed comparison of how the two drugs perform in the body, as presented in a report by another specialized doctor. He speculates that the two meds could be used in conjunction with each other for greater efficacy. Yet we have seen Ivermectin maliciously maligned, continuously, despite evidence of its effectiveness. If you look at these two articles then you will see what I’m talking about. Read carefully for bias and manipulation of facts in this article. Compare it with the chart below, from this article.

Prime Minister Trudeau has made it his mission to ensure that nobody slips through the cracks in terms of vaccine requirements for federal employees.

Trudeau and Freeland both mentioned “personal conviction” as insufficient to gain a religious exemption — which is interesting, because that’s exactly what courts look for when considering a request for religious accommodation. “Religion is about freely and deeply held personal convictions or beliefs connected to an individual’s spiritual faith and integrally linked to one’s self-definition and spiritual fulfilment,” the Supreme Court wrote in one landmark freedom-of-religion case.

National Post: Chris Selley

Meanwhile people who get vaccines have reported vaccine injuries in the hundreds of thousands, aside from deaths. Some reports say millions. I speak from experience, having suffered several serious side effects. Thankfully, for me they have somewhat subsided, although I still have concerns, but this is not the case for everyone. When I mentioned my side effects to a doctor, because the injection site would not vaccinate me after I described what happened after my first dose, the doctor would not entertain the possibility of giving me an exemption. He did not inquire further about symptoms but just focused on whether I should get the same vaccine or a different one. Would it be a “booster” or a “new vaccine” if I switched to a different vaccine?

As far as I am able to detect, in a certain percentage of people the spike protein mRNA ends up circulating in the blood system, as opposed to staying in the muscle tissue to do its job and this is what causes reactions. There is also the possibility that the delivery system, the nanoparticles, cause some problems related to where they end up accumulating in the body. What surprises me even more than the fact that this information is being suppressed is learning of two Facebook sites, dedicated to people with adverse reactions, being shut down. We are not allowed to talk about this.

Meanwhile Pfizer has put out a request to inoculate children as young as five years old.

By requiring vaccine passports to enter certain premises the government has also forced these businesses to vaccinate all of their staff. It never had to be a “mandate.” It saddens me to think of people sitting in a restaurant, for instance, and seeing their friends or relatives outside, unable to come it. I think there must be some hardening of heart in order for people to think this is OK.

I firmly believe people should be able to make their personal health choices without retribution. Now that we know the vaccine is not the cure we’ve been told, I feel even more strongly that it should not be forced on people.

If You Think They are Messing With Our Minds…They Are

The Great British Baking Show

I was going to write about how the vaccine mandate is putting Canadian health care in an unprecedented state of crisis, with services being shut down due to staff shortages and the BC Nurses Union president resigning in objection to the mandate. The last date for vaccination, to get full vaccination before the October deadline, passed on September 27 and that is the date one ER in particular had to close. Those vaccinated against covid appear to be living in great fear of getting covid and they are the ones imposing further restrictions, even on themselves. Of course there are exceptions when it comes to big business and big entertainment such as major sports leagues and the movie industry which have avoided significant disruption throughout the pandemic. I drove by a closed gurdwara (Sikh Temple) at the height of the pandemic lockdowns, only to see trailers and tents of a movie set on the parking lot. Gurdwaras are attended daily and also provide food for the needy, when they are allowed to be open.

Evenings we sit quietly at home, vaccinated, but not supporting mandates and special privileges for special groups. And during recent quiet evenings we’ve watched the latest series of The Great British Baking Show, filmed during the pandemic, everyone quarantined, of course, but it still does give pause for thought when you read the credits. Yes, taking advantage of the very activity I criticized. Well, now I have to pay for it, literally.

On my last post I wrote about the CBC’s drop in ratings. The CBC is Canada’s government-sponsored television and radio conglomerate that receives a base of $1.2 billion in funding annually from the Canadian government. Divide that by approximately 35 million citizens–not households–to figure out our compelled subscription rates.

This week as my husband and I came to the second last episode we paused it, to be continued the next day. To understand the popularity of the show on CBC Gem programming, the Toronto Sun reported recently that, “In the week of Sept. 6-12, just three CBC programs showed up in the top 30 shows watched by Canadians – the English language leaders’ debate, Coronation Street and The Great British Baking Show.”

As my husband and I tuned in the next day, we unexpectedly found we couldn’t access the episode we had paused. We couldn’t press ‘resume. We couldn’t even get into the show we watched the night before. Overnight, the two remaining shows, including the one we started watching, had been placed behind a paywall!

A little red flag on the last two episodes read, Try Premium. My husband kept going back and forth between the subscription requirement and the show, thinking there must be some mistake. I was less surprised.

Not only is our government-sponsored news and entertainment source now asking for premium subscriptions, but the CBC was recently also blasted for introducing paid advertising. To add insult to injury, the Trudeau Liberals promised an extra $100 million, annually, to the CBC in this month’s federal election.

Although the CBC is supposed to represent Canadians, it leans strongly to the left in its content, and is not particularly representative, given that the Liberal party, in the last two elections, lost the popular vote to Conservatives. This sheds light on the drop in ratings. Adding a $4.99 premium subscription requirement in the middle of a series, for the final two episodes, won’t help, even if the first month is free. Incidentally, the new age of consent seems to be 13, as that is the required age for a subscription.

P.S. On Oct 12 we discovered the paywall was removed. I suspect the CBC heard about this matter from a few unhappy viewers.

News Commentary – September 28, 2021

I am beginning a little experiment. Every day, like so many other people, I read and hear a lot of news reports. Like not as many others, I try to keep track of these reports. Now I’ve decided to share a commentary, my thoughts on what is happening around me, drawing out a few highlights.

Proverbs 5 warns against committing adultery and you may ask what this has to do with my commentary today. It goes on to say, “For your ways are in full view of the LORD, and he examines your paths.” I believe that the only way out of the predicaments in which we find ourselves today is by taking a good look at how God views our lifestyle.

We are in trouble. I’ve wanted to be positive and say that things aren’t so bad. But they are bad.

I believe the only way out is by paying attention. Pay attention to how we, as individuals, are living our lives. Pay attention to our physical, mental and emotional health. Pay attention to our relationships. Pay attention to our need to provide for ourselves, and our need to stay strong and not give up. To keep walking forward. To stay above water and not drown. Maintain the faith that you can do this, and that, with God’s help, you can do it well.

In my previous article I wrote that writers are needed. You may have a message burning in your heart that we need to hear. You have a unique perspective and a way of saying things that is yours alone. It needs to be added to all the other voices.

I want to share something personal before I dive into my commentary. I edited my ‘About’ page and gave a summary of things which have affected my writing in recent years. I’ve been distracted by what is going on in the world around me. I’ve been busy trying to expose myself to information and to make sense of things. In the process, I have not always been understood. I’ve had the impression that what I was doing was not appreciated by everyone. I believed, and still believe, that the truth will come to light. And I believe I have a responsibility to be faithful in what I feel I am called to do, in the face of opposition.

Since this is a new endeavour, I may be tweaking things as I go along. For now I will just dive in.

The backdrop, to the news I want to discuss, is a book I am reading which came off the press recently, entitled, Willful Blindness, by Sam Cooper. It is a must-read, much more fascinating than a fictional crime thriller. On the back cover Calvin Chrustie, RCMP, summarizes the contents this way, “Canada is a haven for nefarious national security and trans national organized crime networks, and our democracy is at risk.”

The most recent big news in Canada is the release of Meng Wanzhou. Here is the initial CBC article. A Global News article clarifies, “In a statement, Canada’s Department of Justice said that there was “no basis” for proceedings to continue after the U.S. extradition request was dropped.” It adds, “Speaking Friday evening shortly after Meng’s departure, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed that both Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were on their way back to Canada after spending over 1,000 days in detention in China.”

For three years we have waited for this issue to be resolved, while the two Michaels languished under trumped up charges, in a prison in China, in what China denies was a related ‘tit for tat’ arrest, although they were arrested on espionage charges days after the Huawei executive’s apprehension. Now China claims that the release of the two men was similarly unrelated to Meng’s release and Chinese officials state the men are out on bail due to health reasons and can be required to return at any time.

In a National Post write-up we read, “In a post on her Wechat account reported by state media, Meng called China her backbone and said her freedom was thanks to a powerful home nation.”

An article by yahoo!finance reflects on the significance of Biden dropping the charges, “The agreement opened U.S. President Joe Biden to criticism from Washington’s China hawks who argue his administration is capitulating to China and one of its top companies at the centre of a global technology rivalry between the two countries.”

The Guardian reports the view of some that “the intended victim, a global bank, knew the truth even as it was allegedly being lied to.”

Meanwhile, the headline in the Georgia Straight, a local Vancouver newspaper, reveals another detail, Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou loved Vancouver and has two homes worth at least $18.2 million.

Meng, as a “prisoner” in Canada was surrounded by security in her home and wore an ankle tracking bracelet, but was free to come and go as she pleased. The Canadian government even brought her family over to visit on one occasion. The Michaels did not have these luxuries and it was reported that the lights were left on 24/7 in their cells.

Yesterday we read this in a Global News article, Canada, China trade barbs at UN General Assembly over 2 Michaels, Meng Wanzhou. I don’t think this is the end of the story.

What do I conclude? I have no conclusions. I only know that the night before the releases I prayed that it was time. Did this have an impact? Maybe.

I think a shout out should go to Canada’s ambassador to China, Dominic Barton, who was responsible for ongoing negotiations that brought about these events.

Writers Needed

Now is the time to hone your writing skills. Now is the time to learn to express the important things on your mind and in your heart.

It may be your voice that is heard. It may be your voice that makes the difference.

This is the time to shine your light. This is the time to assess what is happening around you and to determine your role. What can you do to move things forward in a positive way?

I think the most important thing we can do right now is to work on building good, strong relationships. Learn from the best. Watch how others do it. It doesn’t come naturally to everyone. You may have to change your tone. Maybe your attitude, or your approach. Learn to listen well. Learn to hear people’s heart. Learn how to reflect back what people say, so you are sure you heard the right thing. Learn to respond with clarity and sincerity. Learn how to bite your tongue, sometimes.

Most of all, be a helper. That is what this is all about. As the beloved Mr. Rogers said, many years ago, “Look for the helpers.” Better yet, be a helper.

Help with your words. Find something encouraging to say. Find something enlightening. Put the pieces together and share what you discover.

Be ready. Don’t expect everyone to appreciate what you say. Find better ways of saying it, rather than giving up.

Leave a legacy. Leave something people can read, or listen too.

When Political Issues Divide Us

A person in my family will not entertain any conversation about Donald Trump and they have made it clear how they despise even the mention of his name. They, “Can’t stand him.”

This person has not observed any good in Trump. They have not conceded that he has done good for America on any level. Their mind is completely closed.

There is no point in talking to someone of this persuasion as they are not open to any possible insights. We continue to love one another, and do not allow this to cause dissension in our family. We simply don’t go there. There are plenty of other things to talk about.

In other words, we show mutual respect for difference of opinion. Although they know others don’t see things their way, they too are tolerant of differences, if not of discussion.

Mask wearing is another area where our family members’ opinions differ. There is a little more tolerance for discussion with these members so we have talked about the subject. But, once again, there is a line we don’t want to cross. We don’t want to allow a difference of viewpoint to destroy our relationship, so we let the subject drop before it does that. We stop trying to persuade.

Trump is not all bad. He has made some positive changes in America. Masks provide some protection, depending on the material and construction. A challenging exercise is trying to hold two opposing views at the same time, balancing them against each other.

Another topic of dissension is religion. Religion is not all bad. Jewish law teaches us not to lie, steal, kill and commit adultery. Christ taught us what is considered as the Golden Rule, to love our neighbours as ourselves. Members of our family are not accepting of the religion of others, but they still continue to love one another.

When we love others we give them a lot of room. We have to allow them to make mistakes, to be wrong. We might try to help them, but even with good intentions, we will not always do the right thing. It takes humility to admit this.

Love genuinely wants the best for the other person. Unfortunately, there are a few among us who care little about others, but even in these cases, we must be careful not to jump to conclusions. I recently came across this, “Do not assume malice when ignorance could explain the situation.”

Some people shut you out when your views differ from theirs. You become the detestable “other.” I favor Christianity because it does not leave room for this attitude. In fact, it teaches people to “love your enemies” and to “pray for those who persecute you.”

I had a vision this week. I saw the love of God encompassing the world. I can’t really explain it. It was like giant arms, like a cloud, or a vapor, encompassing the earth. I was in prayer and I asked God if he wasn’t angry with the world and all the evil in it. In the Bible I read that God is often angry with the wicked, so I wanted to know. The vision zoomed in to those individual, private moments when people are most vulnerable and I was impressed with the thought that this is what God sees. This is what he does not forget, even when evil tries to obscure it. He looks beyond. This is who he loves.

We need to be a little more like God, loving beyond those things that annoy us. Loving beyond our differences.

We can allow evil to tear us apart or we can choose to love.

There are evil forces at work seeking to destroy what is precious and what is truly precious is our relationships. We must watch that our views do not become the most important thing. What matters is the other person, their needs, their dreams and desires. We can love, even with differences. But it may take some help from the example of Christ, who laid down his life, rather than persisting against resistance. At this special Christmas season, let’s remember, “For God so loved the world….”

I think the source of tolerance is the family. It is where we learn to care deeply. It is where we learn to be tolerant of differences. It is where we learn it is safe to make mistakes and where we learn to forgive. It is so important to guard these early relationships that will follow us all of our lives.

Who Won the American Election?

Remarkably, opinion pieces of journalists, passing as news, flowed off the press and refuted claims of election fraud before any evidence was formally presented, much less investigated. In the absence of the kind of reflection and insight that might serve as a caution, journalists remained oblivious to their diminishing reputation and public credibility. Ratings for public news channels have never been so low.

Journalism has become a sad reflection of an element of society that cares less about investigative reporting and more about controlling the narrative. The currant narrative is clearly that there is no election fraud. Period. Even though, prior to the election, both Democrats and Republicans repeatedly questioned the integrity of election processes.

I’ve watched several hearings that presented claims of misdemeanours in elections— sending/receiving ballots from dead voters, voters with parking lot mailing addresses, voters who don’t exist. Whether this was intentional, is virtually impossible to prove. Intention would imply fraud. This is called “rigging” the election.

Of course, we want to believe that nobody would stoop to undermine the American election process by endorsing non-existent voters, or duplicate voters, or voting in place of others, or incentivized voting, or voting of non-citizens. If it happened, and these turned out to be predominantly Democrat voters, we are assured, by the same journalists who insisted there was no voter fraud, that it was on a small scale of only a few thousand, not enough to change the election outcome.

At the close of an article that vehemently denies evidence of election fraud, a journalist concedes that the level of fraud is at best insignificant. There were not enough irregularities to change the election result.

And so, with the consolation that the fraud that happened was insignificant, because it didn’t affect the outcome, public attention is steered away from the glaring truth of a compromised electoral system. The same journalists who declared there was no fraud a few weeks earlier, have moved us to the acceptance of “irrelevant” fraud.

As the hearings progressed, with their “irrelevant” allegations, the opinions of journalists progressed as well. When testimonies came forward presenting more substantial evidence, the witnesses themselves became “irrelevant” and the story was not about the allegations but about Giuliani’s hair dye running down his face. Lawyers who shied away from participating in the hearings were touted as evidence of a sinking ship, with no hint at other possibilities, like their livelihoods being threatened.

If I were in charge of Republican allegations of election fraud I would have gone about this differently. But of course it is too late now. I would have focused only on evidence that does not require witness corroboration and only on such evidence as would change the election outcome. Too much time has been wasted on proving that the election process can be manipulated. There was never a need to be prove this at all. The real question is, was the level of manipulation able to change the outcome? In other words, did the American vote count?

There is still another equally disturbing problem with journalism surrounding the election, besides misrepresentation and manipulation. This is silence. Silence when there is a real issue to report. Like the lawsuits filed by Sidney Powell. Silence when voters rally by tens or hundreds of thousands in support of the president. Silence about the actual significance of only Republican watchers not being allowed to observe ballot counting.

One can’t help but speculate that journalists who are willing to suppress the voices of half the population of America might also be willing to cooperate to suppress the votes of these same American citizens. Meaning, of course, the loss of a democratic election process. It will require a level of fearlessness journalism, and integrity we have not seen up to this point, to uncover what actually happened in the American election.

People Don’t Like to be Deceived

People don’t like being deceived. The reason we don’t like to be deceived is that we make decisions based on our knowledge and when we are deceived we make decisions based on a wrong premise. We would have made other decisions had we had full disclosure.

To no fault of our own, we end up making choices we regret when we learn the full story.

It’s everybody’s responsibility to get a complete and accurate picture, however, we cannot do so if we don’t have access to information. If information is withheld from us, or if it is misconstrued we cannot make an informed choice. We cannot make the best choice. We end up making the choice others decided we should make.

When we learn the truth we feel manipulated. We lose trust. This is why it is important to tell the truth, even if it hurts. This is how we maintain faith in people and in institutions.

A Psalm of David.

15 O Lord, who shall sojourn in your tent?
    Who shall dwell on your holy hill?

He who walks blamelessly and does what is right
    and speaks truth in his heart;
who does not slander with his tongue
    and does no evil to his neighbor,
    nor takes up a reproach against his friend;
in whose eyes a vile person is despised,
    but who honors those who fear the Lord;
who swears to his own hurt and does not change;
who does not put out his money at interest
    and does not take a bribe against the innocent.
He who does these things shall never be moved.

Why the Anti-Conversion Therapy Bill is a Very Bad Thing for Canada

In today’s news we read that the Conservative party is giving a reluctant nod to the Anti-Conversion Therapy Bill introduced by Liberals. Reluctant or not, this is extremely concerning. Some, by their agreement, hope for amendments to be made to a bill we do not need. Criminal behaviour and coercion is already prosecutable in courts.

The arguments for the bill of course are very forceful and emotional with statements on Twitter like this one by David Lametti, “It is a cruel practice, based on false beliefs, that has no place in our country.”

Are we supposed to believe that? What is cruel and what has no place in our society is the LGBT community interfering with how a mother and a father want to raise their children.

The bill “would criminalize the practice of forcing children or adults to undergo therapy aimed at altering their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

“Some Conservatives have expressed fears the bill would outlaw conversations between parents and their children or counsel from religious leaders.”

It would also outlaw professional counselling as we read here:

“Under Bill S-202, it would be illegal to advertise conversion therapy services and to obtain a financial or other material benefit for the provision of conversion therapy to anybody under the age of 18, and punishable by up to five years in prison.”

Note the reference to “under the age of 18.” These are our children and grandchildren we are talking about. We will not be able to seek counsel or give counsel to our own children.

Meanwhile, in Britain, “One woman is suing the British National Health Service for the decision to so quickly place her on puberty-blocking drugs, at age 16, after a “gender-affirming” clinic proclaimed she was a boy.”

If the bill is passed, as another article states, “those not wishing to transition and those wishing to “de-transition” one day will have nowhere to turn for professional help.”

This article in favor of the bill states: “Conversion therapy these days happens mostly informally in churches on a one-on-one basis rather than in larger, more organized groups, Hargreaves says, but he stresses that the impact on people is the same.” The bill targets any kind of intervention and makes it a criminal offense.

Freedom of speech is further eroded and now restrictions will apply to what we say in our homes and definitely in our churches, as we’ve just read.

The goal of the LGBT activists is control over our churches and our families. This is not about freedom of religion or parental rights. This is only about the Rights of the Child, as instituted by the U.N., and with ulterior motives, I might add. Continue reading.

The IGLA, an umbrella organization over 1200 plus LGBT organizations encourages advocates/lobbyists (in a 270 page document of recommendations to the United Nations) to show up at the United Nations Committees in Geneva in person and make a presentation for LGBTI children and adolescents. In their 2016 document of recommendations for the United Nations you will find this statement: “The Advocates are encouraged to focus on the right to identity within the Convention on the Rights of the Child in order to raise issues of gender identity and expression. CRC is also very experienced in discussing questions of children’s capacity to consent, as well as their right to health, which could be very useful in the context of accessing puberty blockers, for example.” The CRC refers to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. You will also read that enforcement through litigation is encouraged. I encourage you to take a look at this document.

Let’s be clear. Giving under-age children hormone blockers, with or without parental consent, is the real criminal offense. This article explains the impact of these medications: “More than 26,000 of the events associated with the two hormone blockers, Leuprolide acetate and triptorelin (which includes Lupron and similar drugs used by clinics), were classified by the federal agency as “serious,” including 6,370 deaths. The drugs, which dramatically lower testosterone and estrogen levels in the body, are linked to life-threatening blood clots and other complaints, include brittle bones and joint pain.”

We are incurring permanent, life-altering damage on our children. That’s because we’ve lost our common sense. Planned Parenthood has extensive information on their website as to why your birth gender is not your actual gender. Look under Learn/Gender Identity. Planned Parenthood has now influenced the United Nations to mandate this SOGI education in our schools where children are taught to stimulate themselves as young as the age of six. I kid you not. See this article.

Planned Parenthood makes no apologies for doing their utmost to influence society as you can read about in this piece articulating their influence on Hollywood. LIfeSiteNews summarizes and states that “The article quotes other pro-abortion figures, such as Planned Parenthood senior vice president for communications & culture Melanie Roussell, as hailing pop culture’s “power to challenge abortion stigma,” citing how shows such as Will & Grace helped normalize homosexuality.” The sexualization of our children by these two entities seems to know no bounds. The movie industry recently crossed the line by marketting a child’s Troll doll with what “may be perceived as inappropriate”–a tickle button between her legs. The doll was taken off the market.

We are told the following: The new offences would not apply to those who provide support to individuals questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity, such as parents, friends, teachers, doctors, mental health professionals, school or pastoral counsellors and faith leaders.

If you read this carefully you will see that what is claimed to be a reassurance is no reassurance whatsoever. Assurances are only offered for those who PROVIDE SUPPORT. Who decides what is supportive and what is not supportive? And what are we supporting here, the child’s long-term wellbeing or their momentary inclination? Anyone who is a parent knows there is a serious difference.

Research shows that children, possibly as high as 80% of them, will change their mind about their gender as they age. Bill S-202 means we can’t even tell them this happens because the information could be considered as other than “supportive.” Can you imagine the Pandora’s box this will open? And the court cases that will ensue? Not to mention the trauma to well-meaning parents and support persons. See, that is the key here. Planned Parenthood and the LGBT activists along with their allies in our schools and social systems will be the ones to decide what is in the best interests of our children.

I, for one, have stood on the sidelines long enough. If we don’t speak up now, we can kiss our rights goodbye and give our children and grandchildren over to Child and Family Services who will take them from our homes under the guise of criminal child abuse because we affirm their biological birth gender.

This isn’t a one size fits all scenario. And in this case, this bill does not fit the family, although it fits the LGBT and Planned Parenthood agenda very well.

I know I will be labeled homophobic and transphobic. That is what anyone who objects to the LGBT ideology is called. I ask, what do you call someone who objects to a mother and father raising their children to be mothers and fathers? What do you call someone who wants to help others feel comfortable with their biological sex? We cannot allow the rights of one segment of society to trespass any further and violate the rights of all others.

We will pay dearly if we don’t stop this insanity. We have allowed our compassion to be hijacked. I am just an ordinary concerned citizen who feels the distinct need to draw a line in the sand.

One Week Away From Election Date

I am Canadian, and it has been quite a show south of the border. One week from Election Day. I think I can safely say that the media has done us no favours with its unconcealed bias against the American president. Even in Canada, it has not escaped my notice that our Liberal Prime Minister has taken frequent opportunity to slight the president.

I am waiting for President Biden to right all the wrongs that have been blamed on Trump, beginning with the stopping of flights from China when knowledge of the Coronavirus first emerged. My only question is why he is waiting to stop the rioting until he is president when apparently one word from him could put an end to the violent protests.

The resistance to Amy Barrett becoming a Supreme Court Judge has erased my innocence. I thought courts were impartial. I also thought, at one time, that you shouldn’t be able to tell how a journalist votes by the comments they make and the articles they write. Has anyone besides me noticed how journalists choke and are unable to report on a single positive move of current American leadership?

I grieve for the younger generations who have to witness the adults at each others’ throats. What has happened to civility? I think we have a bigger problem than systemic racism. It’s systemic hatred.

And how do we fix that? My Bible tells me that hating another is equivalent to murder and worthy of the same punishment. Maybe we could start with that thought.