Greetings.

The House of Commons has now come to resemble a new business with two opposite partners: the doors are closed to business because they’re busy arguing inside while being paid by the public to do so.

From what I’m told, where Mr. Harper is supposed to be a strong Christian (if it’s so - good for him) and Mr. Dion, the one who offers the other cheek.  But Mr. Harper throws punches.  Why must you always destroy someone when a new construction is never made of recycled material?  All things new.  Why must the politicians ride on each other’s back to justify their chairs?  Everything is about accountability and since Mr. Harper is supposed to be a good Christian (if it is, praise him, whatever he is) now he puts everything up in the air because the people talk about the air.  And now, funny little joke: years ago, I saw a bumper sticker that said, “Remember when the air was clean and sex was dirty?”  So now, Mr. Harper, you have dirty air and dirty sex.  Quite a job for a Christian!

But what is the difference between a Christian, Muslim, a Catholic and all these other names?  What‘s the difference between all others?  (By the way, Catholic means ‘universal’.)  Is there universality?  And everyone speaks of moral value in the face of their god but the country is covered with immorality; where Mr. Harper himself defending the definition of marriage but never showed up at the meeting that he organized:  that he promised that he would have a vote on the same sex marriage.  Is he going the other way? We‘ll never know.  They all have so many sides.

So now to the people in Ottawa, this article is on behalf of the people of Canada that have what is called a house representative in Ottawa.  What should we call Parliament?  You see, there are bad houses where there is prostitution that they call a ‘common bawdy house’.  And now we have the House of Commons, where immorality is no longer important.  Everything is about the air, the green trees.  Now let’s go to a great man who spoke about the air to the people who were in effect, in the air.  Some men asked this beautiful man, “When will we know what we are at the end of the troubles upon earth?”  What did he answer?  Let’s say he would answer to the politicians of today, he would stay to Stephen Harper this: “Isn’t this strange that you’re so good at telling everything of the weather and in the air but you can’t see all that’s in front of you, all the trouble that you are in?”

On the last ruling of a court in Ontario, now two women are mothers.  And a man is the father of that child.  So the court ruled that way.  Could the man have slept with the two women and the one child is born of the two at the same time?  (Kind of hard to tell.)  So maybe we should bring King Solomon in here with his sword.  And tell him to cut the child in two.  They each get half.  I wonder who the real mother would be because of the immorality of today.

The Supreme Court of Canada needs a lot of shaping up, especially in defining what is a mother.  And if they come out with anything other than the one that gave birth to the child, we’re going to ask them to prove it in a tangible way.  In the case of Ontario, the judge has misinterpreted in his judgment the role of mother because he has defined it as anyone that looks after a child.  No wonder they used to call these children ‘bastards’. 

If we were to challenge in court the very judge where in his long statement has proven the falsification of human thinking, because after the program was aired lawyers were asked to speak.  And strangely a woman said, “There’s a problem existing now that we cannot tackle until it exists.”  So somebody asked, how could a problem exist and not exist at the same time?  And she replied, “If the two women went each their own way, whether they were married as lesbians or co-habiting as lesbians, the fact that they are both declared mothers then the court would have to define where the child goes?” and it knows very well today it could not definite it but at the same time that it has to rule this way.  How far behind are we on the definition of marriage?

In agriculture, the marrying of different plants takes place this way: you take the stem cells of the two plants that you want to marry; you split them lengthwise and you tie them together; and then you put wax around it to keep it from coming apart and they will produce a new brand of flower.  It is called ‘marriage’.  Isn’t this what happens between humans?  So marriage is:  becoming one, without losing your identity but taking a new one, inpartnership with someone in the one person, the child.  So that’s why you could both walk on either side of the child and you each have one hand to hold and the marriage is in your hand.

So unless you have lived this miracle, you could never say that you ever were married, because if it was just physical, the marriage never took place.  It was an accidental life; so don’t play with nature because nature is natural.

Thank you for reading.