• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Support our truths

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Support our truths

    Support our truths
    Ted Byfield - Monday,22 May 2006
    Western Standard

    The Harper government is about to bring in legislation that is vital to the cause of social conservatism. It confers real power on the traditional family and is therefore being opposed by those who seek to diminish the family's role. Yet "pro-family" organizations seem woefully negligent in offering support for it.

    I refer, of course, to the government's plan to pay a day-care subsidy directly to parents, rather than use the money to set up state-run day-care centers to indoctrinate preschool children against the mistaken ideas of their parents. In short, the move will disrupt the grand plan of the left to create what they call "Canada as we know it," meaning a Canada that is increasingly unrecognizable to most Canadians.

    Ever since the sixties we have watched this grand plan being imposed upon us. We now see sexual aberrations, once criminal, being presented to our children as highly respectable alternate "lifestyles," so respectable that to even criticize them is now against the law. We see parents frightened of spanking their children because state officers may come and take the children away. We see children being taught their "rights" and urged to report their errant parents to state officials. We see forms of entertainment offered to our children on the electronic media that can be described only as diabolical. We see police required to patrol some schools. We see our kids absorbed by so-called "music" whose lyrics unabashedly celebrate criminal behaviour. We see the legal safeguards intended to reinforce the traditional family taken away one by one, so that marriage gradually comes to mean any combination of people living under the same roof.

    Now these innovations did not just happen. They were caused. People planned and pursued them, not as a dark conspiracy but quite openly. They were out to create a new society, and they said so. They soon discovered, however, that they could not gain general public approval for what they sought to do. They found a stubborn conservatism at the core of society, rooted principally in the family. Parental "bigotries," as they called them, passed from one generation to the other. There was no winning the public over. Referendums must be avoided.

    But then they realized there was no need to win the public over. The revolution could be worked through three institutions--the educational bureaucracy, the media and the courts. These they now almost fully control--this magazine being among the few exceptions--and thus they have largely gained control of the political process. Largely, but not entirely. Reversals happen, one of them being the election of the Harper government.

    Whatever other values Stephen Harper may or may not cherish, he and his wife certainly believe in parenthood. That is, they believe it is their job, not the state's, to bring up their children. The state can help them, of course, or it could possibly hinder them, but it is they, the parents, who have the primary authority, the right and the duty to decide. That's why Harper promised during the election campaign to pay the subsidy to the parents. What the parents do with it is up to them. They can put their kids in a private day care, a church day care, or they can educate their preschoolers themselves. The parent decides. Not the government. That's the principle Harper is fighting for.

    In doing this, he is flatly reversing the plans of the Martin administration. Ontario and Quebec had developed schemes for a comprehensive state-run system. The revolutionaries naturally want to get the children early enough to disabuse them of those dreadful parental bigotries--and the Martin government had promised federal assistance. Harper has withdrawn it, and the revolutionaries are yowling.

    The presidents of three public school teachers unions have denounced the Harper plan as "a hollow public relations exercise." Give us your kids sooner, they cry, so we can better mould them. The Globe and Mail, voice of the revolution, is going ape.

    But where are our people? Where is Focus on the Family? Where is Real Women? We should be shouting from the rooftops in favour of this legislation and we aren't. That is a mistake.

    #2
    "But where are our people? Where is Focus on the Family? Where is Real Women? We should be shouting from the rooftops in favour of this legislation and we aren't. That is a mistake."

    These two groups have SOME good points to make regarding the structure of our society. However, their ultra-right christian values are those of dogmatic 'male-dominated' religion. This is NOT acceptable to many people in this day and age.

    My wife was a 'women's libber' and she would snort when these two groups would started their spiels.

    Comment


      #3
      ""However, their ultra-right christian values are those of dogmatic 'male-dominated' religion.""

      Really?

      Comment


        #4
        Wilagro said “However, their ultra-right christian values are those of dogmatic 'male-dominated' religion. This is NOT acceptable to many people in this day and age.”

        I can only presume you are marginalizing people with namecalling because you disagree with them. Are we all supposed to agree with you because of your nasty descriptors like “ultra-right” “dogmatic’, and “male dominated”.

        Leftist dogmatism that’s meant to mislead rather that enlighten isn’t acceptable to many people in this day and age either.

        Comment


          #5
          By the way wilagrow, whats was it your wife wanted to be liberated from?

          Comment


            #6
            I don't think I would clssify myself as a social conservative...maybe more of a libertarian! I figure hey whatever works for you is just fine as long as it doesn't infringe on me!
            The state does NOT owe anyone a living? The state does NOT have a responsibility to raise your kids?
            However, there is a problem? In Canada, and most of the first world, people just won't reproduce without some incentives? Therefore we have to "import" our population! Is that a good thing?
            When I was a kid, you went to school and all the kids were white, spoke English, shared a common background. Today it is like going to the United Nations! Is that a good thing?
            Maybe I'm a rascist or something, but I sure like seeing my little blue eyed blond grandchildren. Maybe in the near future they will be a real oddity? I think anything the government can do to increase the birthrate of our young people is a good thing?

            Comment


              #7
              Cowman, when you were a kid, parents had to have children to take care of them when they got older. Under the socialist Trudeaupia, we were able to have the government do it for us. There was an incentive to have less children to raise our current standard of living and then let the government take care of our old age (by presumably taxing someone else’s kids). Because almost everyone had less children, this brainwave could only be maintained by large influxes of immigrants.
              The “population explosion” (remember that term?) was used as an excuse for not having kids. That, in combination with segregationist multiculturalism policies has been increasingly making an “us and them” mentality in Canada. Ironically, the world population exploded anyway, only in the less developed world, where we are now importing our people from to maintain our workforce (and tax base) to support the aging “white” citizens.
              Is this a problem? It is if the new immigrants and our young people get tired of paying high taxes to support this scenario.

              Comment


                #8
                Yes cowman...and in your school you most likely said the Lords Prayer.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Ivebinconned: Not only did we say the Lords Prayer but we sang God Save the Queen! Different times, my friend?...A better time...in my opinion?
                  Farm Ranger: I don't think my parents had seven kids because they were worried about being taken care of? They were a pretty independent pair of people. My mother at 85 still is! She told me once that they didn't really want that many kids...they just seemed to happen, as regular as clockwork...despite the effort at every birth control method known at the time! In fact my last sister made it into the world despite some of the first birth control pills available...and my mother and father were both 46 years old! So my youngest sister is quite a tail ender...and maybe the pick of the litter!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Pipples: I didn't write the original document, and only gave MY opinion judging from from what my wife and I saw on TV and magazines at the height of the campaign that these organizations carried forth many moons ago and presumably are still doing. I was not trying to sway YOU one way or the other.

                    Jeez, don't have a fit about all of this.

                    Comment

                    • Reply to this Thread
                    • Return to Topic List
                    Working...