Stand Your Ground

A press release in which Campaign Life Coalition outlines its arguments against the Mixed-Member Proportional system suggests that Ontario pro-lifers better don't hold their breath on winning seats, let alone making a difference in the Parliament.

Some pro-lifers believe that proportional representation will result in the appointment of Family Coalition Party members at the provincial level and Christian Heritage Party candidates at the federal level. Sadly, neither party has reached the minimum 3% level of province-wide support that most proportional representation systems require to garner seats in parliament. Until there is a sea change in their support, the number of FCP/CHP elected officials would be negligible to effect change.
(Source)

One may add that the threshold was set to 3% precisely because no small party was able to get that many votes in decades. We know that the Green Party of Ontario came quite close to 3% in the past election. But not many remember that Family Coalition Party too came very close to a 3% threshold, winning 2.76% of the vote in the 1990 election.

People voted FCP despite the perception that it draws votes away from the PC and makes it easier for a Liberal or NDP candidate to win the riding. There were only 68 FCP candidates running in the 1990 election, thus nearly half of Ontario voters (those in the remaining 62 ridings) didn't even have a Family Coalition Party candidate on the ballot. Yet FCP still won over 110,000 votes.

If the Mixed-Member Proportional system had been used back then; if the Family Coalition Party name had been listed on each ballot among with other parties; if the voters had been able to make their choice without worrying about vote splitting, those numbers could have doubled. Winning 220,000 - 250,000 votes (5.5% to 6% province-wide) would have entitled FCP to 7 or 8 seats. Even if it hadn't been enough seats for the official party status, it would have been enough voices to make a difference in a minority Parliament.

Yes, since 1990 many FCP supporters chose to vote strategically. Even in the 2003 election many of them still considered the Progressive Conservatives to be far lesser evil than the Liberals. But now, when John Tory's leadership made the Ontario PCs virtually indistinguishable from the Liberals (not just socially but also fiscally) and with the left of centre vote being split three ways (Liberals, NDP, Green), I won't be surprised if at least one of the FCP candidates manages to win a local seat in this upcoming election.

It's rare for me to disagree with the Campaign Life Coalition, but this is the case when our opinions differ. I support the Mixed-Member Proportional system proposed for Ontario, while the CLC proposes another solution:

What we need is not electoral reform but political reform. We don't need a better system of choosing our elected officials; we need more informed and engaged voters and more honest and open debate in order to elect better politicians. We need fewer backroom deals and more public discussion of the important issues. We need less centralized control by party leaders and party elites.
...
The answer to this is to open up parliament or provincial government by empowering parliamentary committees, removing the privilege of patronage from prime ministers and premiers, and making it easier to introduce, debate and pass private members bills. This will lead to more accountability, the ability to consider a wider variety of issues, and decreasing the role of government leaders and their unelected staffs.
More >>>

How can that be achieved if we keep electing the same old politicians? Theoretically the first past the post system is supposed to let the voters choose the best candidate, which would be personally accountable to his constituents. In reality, every candidate except those endorsed by the two leading parties ends up in a catch 22: People are reluctant to vote for him because he doesn't have much support and he doesn't get much support because so many people are afraid to split the vote.

The CLC is concerned that party lists from which the 39 top-up MPPs are going to be selected will be drawn up by party elites. Yes, it would be much better if voters were able choose between the list candidates of a party that they support (which could still be implemented once the system is adopted).

But at the same time - who is deciding on the local candidate nominations? The same party elites or at the very best - those who represent the party elite at the local constituency associations. If they don't like the candidate - they won't allow him to run for nomination, no matter what. If they want the guy to win - they'll overlook any irregularity there is even if he buys a dozen membership cards for his cat.

So if we want less influence of the party elites we better have an electoral system that lets the newbies in. Adopting a system that would make it easier for smaller parties to challenge the established leaders will accomplish much more in terms of democratic reforms than a handful of independents or "third party" groups that are allowed (under severe restrictions from the electoral office) to endorse and denounce candidates during the campaign.

And if a party still submits a lists which ignores voters' preferences - that's when the MMP advantage comes into play. If you don't like the way the party list is compiled - you can simply vote for another party with absolutely no concerns about splitting the vote. Your local vote doesn't oblige you to support the party to which your local candidate belongs. So if you like the local candidate but don't like the party list - you can still vote for that candidate and choose some other party to support on a party list vote. And vice versa - you can always vote for an independent candidate on a local ballot and then support a party of your choice on a list vote.

The Mixed Member Proportional system proposed for Ontario would allow voters more freedom to vote their conscience. That's why I believe it's worth supporting.

Omaha blogger Jeff Baker have successfully managed to prevent a culture of death speaker from giving a lecture at women's event hosted by a Catholic university.

On Sunday, August 26 the Catholic blog Defend Us In Battle.org publicized the fact that Creighton University of Omaha, Nebraska, a Catholic institution, had scheduled abortion and euthanasia activist Ann Lamott to give the keynote address at a 2007 Center for Health Policy & Ethics lecture for women on September 19th.
...

The blog, authored by Omaha resident Jeff Baker, encouraged readers to contact the Director of the Creighton Center while 'cc'ing the President of the University and the Archbishop of Omaha. Apparently, Baker's readers did just that.

Within 36 hours of Baker's posting, Creighton published a statement on their website announcing that the University and Ms. Lamott had "mutually agreed upon cancellation" of the September lecture. The statement reads in part, "After careful review of Ms. Lamott's most recent writings (which postdated her contract agreement), we have concluded that key points are in opposition to Catholic teaching which, in our judgment, makes her an inappropriate choice for the Women and Health Lecture Series."
More >>>

I bet there were many other students at Creighton University of Omaha who didn't like the idea of a Catholic university inviting someone like Ann Lamott to give a keynote address at women's event. Once they read the blog post, they did their best e-mailing to whoever was in charge. But they needed someone to act first. Someone who didn't hide behind the "I'm just one man" excuse, but just got the job done.

From sea unto sea - for Life!

From New Brunswick Right To Life website:

On behalf of Droit à la Vie Moncton Right to Life and in cooperation with LifeCanada, New Brunswick Right to Life and Campaign Life Coalition, I extend a warm invitation to you to attend the 2007 National Pro Life Conference to be held October 25-27, 2007 in Moncton, New Brunswick.

Moncton is called “the hub of the Maritimes” because of its central location at the heart of all three Maritime Provinces. We have a very friendly city; in fact we have many call centers and shopping malls here because of our warm and courteous ways. We have been voted many times by international and national magazines as a top tourist destination and place to do business. Our complimentary brochure on Moncton and it’s surrounding area will surely entice you on making this a place to not just attend our conference but also spend some holidays.

New Brunswick is also a key battleground in the ongoing struggles between the cultures of life and death. The two main hospitals that used to perform abortions have both stopped (has that happened in any other province?) – and the other side is fighting back hard, with international backing. NB’s Morgentaler facility is at the center of a national debate over whether the Charter of Rights and Canada Health Act require the public funding of abortion on demand at private clinics. Our government has been on the right side of that one. Meanwhile one of our pro-life supporters has been arrested and awaits formal criminal charges for “corrupting morals” and “obscenity”. Her supposed crime? Displaying an image of an aborted child outside a place where the unborn are violently put to death! (Get more information on these and other current issues at the NBRL website www.nbrighttolife.ca)

Your visit would be a gracious act of solidarity with pro-lifers here. I sense the conference could also be an important moment for galvanizing our Canada-wide effort to build a culture of life “from sea unto sea.” Our New Brunswick motto is “Spem reduxit” – “Hope restored.” May the 2007 gathering in Moncton be an occasion for restoring all of our hopes that our country can indeed choose life.

We hope that you will be moved to attend. It will not just be informative but also entertaining. It will also give many of you the opportunity to network with other leaders in this movement. If you want more up to date information about the conference or to see what we are up to just visit our site www.dvmrl.knows.it

Yours for Life,

Maurice Arsenault,
Moncton Right To Life.

2007 National Pro-Life Conference brochure.

Supplementary info (missing from the brochure).

Fun and Special Events.

The idea of a society committing suicide for environment's sake becomes quite popular among radical environmentalist groups.

Paul Watson, president of the Sea Shepherd organization (and former Sierra Club board member), posts regular diatribes against population on his web site. In a May 4th editorial, he insists that human beings act "in the same manner as an invasive virus" on the earth. "I was once severely criticized for describing human beings as being the 'AIDS of the Earth,'" he went on. "I make no apologies for that statement."
More >>>

The so called "sierra club", a group which considers itself environmentalist is somehow preoccupied mostly with the population control issues.

"Over 250,000 women need publicly supported contraceptive services in Minnesota," the section's first sentence urges. It goes on to complain that "the President's budget slashes funding for international family planning by $111 million, nearly one fourth of the FY 2007 funding level," and criticizes Bush’s support for abstinence education.

One could even picture a quarter-million women lining up for public contraception service. Another group that calls itself a "Clean Water Action Council of Northeastern Wisconsin" (yet has nothing to do with pipes and water towers) goes even further:

"Human population growth is the number one threat to the world's environment" ... "we need to limit our growth voluntarily, and promote contraceptive use, before Nature controls our population for us with famines, drought and plagues. Our children's future depends on us."

I wonder what children are they talking about? Those that they want us not to have? I wonder if this self-proclaimed "clean water council" ever heard about the environmental damage caused by widespread use of chemical contraceptives. Apparently for them the end justifies the means so they keep promoting chemicals that pollute our lakes and rivers more than all industrial waste put together.

A pair of environmentalist professors, Paul R. Kleindorfer, and Ulku Oktem, said as much in a series of lectures quoted in an online article entitled "Guilt is Good: A New Approach to Environmental Problems". The two professors go on lecture tours extolling the power of guilt in pushing the environmentalist agenda.

But what do those who have been made to feel guilty about the space that they take up on the planet do? They not only restrict their own fertility, they busily set about restricting the fertility--and the freedoms--of others as well. As Joseph D'Agostino so aptly put it in his Weekly Briefing of February 2nd, they want everyone to become "eunuchs for the green kingdom."

Wonder what would it look like? Just ask any refugee from China.

This country is the envy of the world because of our Christian foundation, says the Calgary Sun Columnist Licia Corbella.

Look around the world. Make a list of all the countries people want to immigrate to. What is the one common denominator of those countries? It is not culture, language, climate, or riches. There is only one. It is Christianity.
More >>>

There's no denying that no matter how hard our "progressive" politicians try to get rid of Canada's Christian heritage. They may do their worst erasing any reference to Christianity from public offices, national symbols and school textbooks. But once they remove the solid foundation of the Judeo-Christian ethics on which Canada was founded - what are they going to be left with?

The former Pope and the francophone anthem is right.

This country's valour is steeped in faith -- the Christian faith. It protects our homes and our rights.

If we continue to chip away at this foundation by denying our history and heritage then we risk losing our freedoms.

Well said!

As the Prime Minister is preparing to start a new legislative session, The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has a suggestion for him. Stephen Harper needs to seize the policy initiative unless he wants the opposition parties to keep advancing their agendas in spite of the 2006 election results. Mr. Harper’s immediate challenge is to identify taxpayer-friendly goals that resonate with voters, CTF article suggests:

Agenda item one for the Conservatives should be to cut spending. Item two should be to dedicate savings to debt reduction. Canada’s debt currently stands at $472-billion. Since 1961, debt interest and service charges have cost taxpayers almost $1-trillion. Canadians would welcome a plan to pay off the debt. It can be achieved if Parliament passes a debt repayment law with annual payments of 5% of total revenues. Each year, Ottawa squanders $34-billion paying interest. As the debt is reduced, significant savings will be realized through lower interest payments.

The third policy item is to cut income taxes, since Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is not taxing to collect money to fund programs, but rather finding ways to spend money government collects. Two years ago the federal surplus totaled $13.2-billion. Last year it was $9.2-billion. The spending of surplus dollars is responsible for Ottawa’s 14% expansion.
More >>>

The article concludes by saying that taxpayers are unlikely to be motivated by a political party that they see as being little different than the alternative. Hopefully the Conservative government listens to CTF message and proves by its actions that there's at least one federal political party that puts taxpayers' interests first.

Do you like the Simpsons? Have you ever wondered what you'd look like if you were a Simpsons' character? Here's a funny website that would allow you to Simpsonize your picture. I tried that on my profile picture and here's what I got.

So how do you like this episode: "A weirdo with accent in the city"? What's that? You say there's no such episode in Simpsons? Are you sure, cause I got the stills right here. What was that? Worst episode ever? Well, go ahead, create your own Simpsons character, let's see what yours will be like.

There are plenty of cool options out there. The applet allows you to be creative with your character, so apart from the setting you can choose plenty of other things, from beards and glasses to eyes and nose. They even got a few hats in there for us to choose. So you if you got a few pics of your friends and half-an-hour to spare you could be really creative. Just like this Russian fellow.

John Tory, the Ontario PC leader, proposes to extend education funding to private religious schools. He suggests that since Ontario subsidizes Catholic schools in return for the taxes paid by Catholics, it would be only fair to extend the same deal to religious schools of other faiths and denominations. After all, parents of those children are taxpayers too.

The Premier Dalton McGuinty (a Liberal) denounces the proposal. He suggests that all those children should be brought into the public system which, in his opinion would encourage integration, rather than segregation. So it may even seem like the two parties actually disagree on the issue of education funding. Until you check out the details.

Here's the catch: John Tory doesn't hide that the primary objective of his plan is to bring 50,000 children now being taught in unfunded and unregulated faith-based schools into the public system through a common curriculum. Which among other things includes teaching evolution, sex education and other subjects that the parents find objectionable. Just as I wrote a couple months ago, public funding will cost independent religious schools their identity.

So the only difference between the Tory plan and the Liberal government policy is that John Tory would allow the schools to keep their religious affiliation - although in name only. Parents would still believe they are sending their kids to independent religious schools. But the values taught in those schools would be indistinguishable from the values taught in any public school in Ontario. Dalton McGuinty with his suggestion that all those children better attend regular public schools turns out to be much more honest.

But there is an alternative to both. The Family Coalition Party of Ontario proposes a voucher system which will establish parental choice in education and ensure fair funding for every school while allowing independent schools to maintain their autonomy. In fact, Family Coalition Party is the only political party in Ontario that proposes actual reforms in the education system rather than suggesting to just throw in more cash.

Bill C288, also known as the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act is a private member bill. It can not force the government to slap carbon taxes or spend billions buying useless emission credits from the third world. C288 however obliges the government to develop a "climate change plan" (which is not a plan to actually change the climate but a set of actions believed to prevent climate change from happening). It authorizes the government to use any legal measures available in order to achieve Kyoto targets and it requires any progress (or lack of thereof) to be reported to the Parliament. The first report was due in 60 days since C288 was assented into law.

The government did just that - it came up with a report within the prescribed 60 days. The report said what's already known to everyone except Kyoto fans:

... Environment Minister John Baird released a report Tuesday which reiterated the government's position that it could not honour Canada's commitments under the Kyoto Protocol without provoking a major recession at home or shipping massive amounts of money overseas with no guarantees of positive results.
More >>>

The government proposes its own compromised plan; one that would consider population growth and would provide the government with more time - to make up for years of previous governments' inaction. But environmental fanatics want nothing less than Kyoto - even if it results in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. So they are planning to sue the government for "ignoring" the new Kyoto law.

Meanwhile the opposition party leaders are looking for other legislative options. Jack Layton counts on the C30, the used-to-be Clean Air Act, which was amended by the opposition to include such measures as carbon taxes. Gilles Duceppe suggests that if Stephen Harper prorogues the Parliament (thus killing all the pending bills) the Bloc should try to vote Kyoto into the Throne Speech, making it a confidence issue.

Will Duceppe actually try that, considering that the Bloc is the only party that lost significant number of supporters since the last election? Not sure. But if Kyoto actually becomes the election issue, it may give the government the opportunity to denounce Kyoto scam once and for all.

Last fall, unlicensed evangelical schools in Quebec were given an ultimatum: unless they accept the provincial curriculum in its entirety (which included teaching evolution and "sex education") the province was going to shut them down. A small Mennonite community in Roxton Falls, Quebec was among the first to find out that this wasn't an idle threat. Their small community school that teaches 11 children aged 6 to 13 was declared illegal by the provincial government. The province threatens legal action if the school is not shut down.

This leaves over a dozen Mennonite families with no other choice but to leave Quebec and relocate to one of the provinces where parents are still allowed to make decisions over their children's education.

"We hoped to grow old here," a tearful Ron Goosen, one of the Mennonites, told CBC News on Thursday. "We have our burial plots and we hoped to be buried here, but it doesn't look that way."
More >>>

The people of Roxton Falls don't want the Mennonites to leave. The mayor of Roxton Falls and seven other local mayors have written to the education minister to try to get a reprieve.

Only 1,308 people live in Roxton Falls, so the loss of a dozen families would leave a big void, he said.
"These are good people," Mayor Jean-Marie Laplante told Radio-Canada in French. "They integrated with us. They've helped us."

Hopefully the mayor could convince the bureaucrats in the ministry of education to leave the Mennonites alone. But if the Mennonites have to uproot themselves, I'd suggest they choose New Brunswick. It's bilingual, it's close to their old hometown and the rules on homeschooling or private schooling are nowhere near being that strict.

From a translated article posted on Big Blue Wave:

I do not understand why a person holding public office or engaged in political activity is obligated to renounce his Catholic identity because his party, either in the US or elsewhere in the world, imposes a moral choice based on the party's platform.
More >>>

I don't understand it either. Do we expect Bloc MPs to support a federalist cause? Or do we see many NDP MPs choosing to remain just "personally opposed" to corporate tax cuts? We don't have any Green party MPs yet but could anyone imagine Green party MPs (or MLAs) choosing to keep their passion for the environment to themselves and voting as someone else tells them to? So why should Catholics (or any other Social Conservatives for that matter) be the only ones that are expected to put their views aside when it comes to voting?

Amnesty International officially reaffirmed its pro-abortion policy last weekend. Its press release dated August 17 states that the organization is now committed to support "sexual and reproductive rights", rather than maintaining their neutrality on the issue.

Since Amnesty considered embracing abortion, Catholic bishops, lay organizations and Vatican representative Cardinal Renato Martino have all strongly urged the organization to change its abortion stance or else Catholics would have to withdraw their support. Cardinal Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, warned earlier in June, "I believe that, if in fact Amnesty International persists in this course of action, individuals and Catholic organizations must withdraw their support, because, in deciding to promote abortion rights, AI has betrayed its mission."
More >>>

Looks like AI leadership, just like Canadian politicians, believed that "there's no political cost to ignoring pro-lifers". They were wrong. Even some of their long term members, like the Catholic Bishop Michael Evans, who's been a member of Amnesty for 31 years, are already resigning. With many more to follow.

Dean Steacy, the top investigator for the CHRC, was clear: Freedom of speech is not a Canadian concept. When asked by Barbara Kulaszka, a counsel speaking on behalf of a website being charged with "hate crimes", what value does he give to free speech when investigating a "human rights" complaint, Mr. Steacy's answer was: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value". (No Apoligies, Aug.17 broadcast, 5:10) Then he reiterated: "It's not my job to give value to an American concept." (5:22)

Free speech is given no value in an organization that names itself a "human rights commission". Sounds somewhat Orwellian, doesn't it? But what about people's constutional guarantee that the government won't be able to silence them just because someone like Steacy says so? The last time I looked at our beloved Charter, freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication was still there.

Apparently the answer to that is "forget it", since the truth-bashers like Steacy, those who don't give a darn about our freedom of speech, have the authority to asses fines of up to $50,000 and incarcerate would-be-haters. (6:10)

Meanwhile, instead of a "human rights complaint" against Free Dominion, which was dropped, there's a complaint against Jewish National Fund, filed to CHRC by a group of anti-Israeli extremists. They believe that the idea of a Jewish fund buying lands for the Jews (rather than "for everybody") is discriminatory. I wonder what's next - suing Catholic schools for not teaching Islam?

"Alberta should host international conference to question climate change", reads the headline of a Wildrose Party of Alberta press release. The text below suggests that the former premier Peter Lougheed hasn't joined the Wildrose Party yet - but may have to the way the Stelmach government is going.

Looks like a great start for the Wildrose Party of Alberta. The party platform hasn't been developed yet, but a great idea like this sounds quite promising. It's nice to see a new party raising to challenge the status-quo. Hopefully they get enough support in the next provincial election so this proposal could be implemented.

Christina Dunigan from the Real Choice blog gives us 4 examples of women who died on August 16 of four different years. All of them died from complications caused by abortion. But only one of those abortions was illegal. Other three were performed legally and were presumed safe - which they weren't.

I fail to see how Cheryl, Dorothy, and Marla benefitted from having access to "safe and legal" abortion. Please, if anybody does, enlighten me.
More >>>

Yes, I know that not every single abortion ends that way. So I tried to look up the abortion mortality statistics for Canada. Stats Canada tables don't list abortion as leading cause of death, so all the abortion-related deaths are probably included in the "Unintentional Injuries" or someplace similar. But Real Women Of Canada have the access to more detailed information, so I could find the numbers on their website:

In Statistics Canada’s Causes of Death publication for 1995, under those categories in which medical coders have admitted to tabulating abortion-related deaths, there are 1,026 deaths of women between the ages of 10 to 50.
More >>>

Thus nearly 1% of the 106,458 surgical abortions performed in Canada in 1995 resulted in mother's death.

We often say that abortion leaves one dead and one wounded, referring to the emotional suffering which it brings. Yet sometimes that means - mortally wounded.

Oswald Czolgosz didn't have a wealthy organization with a charitable status behind him. He spent $3000 of his own money on a billboard that makes others, those who don't read the blogs, aware that the hysteria over the "man-made global warming" is a scam.

You don't need to search the web for the recent scientific data to find out that Oswald is right. Simply read the newspapers. If the summers now were actually warmer than decades ago, then newspaper headlines would inform us of yet another record high temperatures every summer or at the least - every second or third summer. Yet it doesn't happen. Moreover, when Moncton was hit by a heat wave about three weeks ago, it turned out that the warmest fourth week of July was in 1962, not sometime in 1990s or 2000s. If we look back all the way to 1880, there's more proof that there's no such thing as man-made global warming:

In many cases, the changes are statistically minor, but their potential impact on the rhetoric surrounding global warming is huge.

The hottest year since 1880 becomes 1934 instead of 1998, which is now just second; 1921 is third.

Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade. Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression.

The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.
More >>>

Too bad however that governments of all levels still funnel millions into the Suzuki foundation and other warm-monger groups, while Oswald Czolgosz had to use his own savings to make others aware of the truth. I think it's time for all of us who oppose the global warming lies to establish the Oswald foundation. One that would benefit from the same charitable status and that would demand the same level of funding as its Suzuki counterpart.

Few bleeding-heart lawyers, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association want the government to bring Omar Khadr "back home". Those calls are supported by some other activists that call on Canada to "act like a country" by bringing "home" a foreign combatant with a Canadian passport of convenience - whom they consider to be "our kid".

Well, there's only one thing on which I agree with those guys - Canada needs to start acting like a country. A country that doesn't afraid to take control of immigration, ensuring that only those who are able and willing to become Canadians (not something-Canadians and not Canadian passport holders living someplace else) are allowed to set foot on Canadian soil.

I'd like Canada to act like a country. One that not only grants newcomers the right to vote and the advantage of a visa-free travel but demands some responsibilities in return. Among them - a responsibility to provide for themselves and to obey the laws, which usually includes the responsibility not to engage in an armed combat against peacekeeping forces from one's new country.

We're deporting Nazi war criminals and taking their citizenship away because they obtained it fraudulently. The Khadr family is even worse because they're not in their 80s or 90s; they can still do a lot of damage.

As for Omar, he is a killer, not a "child soldier" (like those in Sri Lanka); he knew exactly what he was doing.
More >>>

Those bleeding-heart whackos who feel sorry for Khadr & Co better remember that becoming a Canadian citizen is a privilege, not a right to which everyone is "entitled". It's time for Canada to act like a country and take away this privilege from those who chose to abuse it.

And another thing:

Khadr, a member of a Toronto family that had strong links to the al-Qaeda movement, has been imprisoned at Guantanamo for the past five years — only one year less than the maximum possible sentence he could get for murder in a Canadian court.
(The Globe And Mail)

Six years is the maximum possible sentence for murder?! If so, let this Khadr stay in Guantanamo for the longest possible time. At least there he'll be kept behind bars with no regards to "special circumstances", "undue hardship" and other nonsense that would make Khadr eligible for an early release here.

Going against the crowd is never easy. Especially if the opponents are viewed as highly skilled professionals, ones that are believed to know how to do their jobs. Here's a great story of a man who had the courage to stand for what's right - and ended up successfully proving his point to others.

...The point was well taken, and she explained how this lesson would show students how quickly disease is spread. "Since we all shook hands, we all have the disease."
...
I apologized for any upset I might have caused earlier, congratulated the teacher on an excellent lesson that would impress the youth, and concluded by saying I had only one small point I wished to make. "Not all of us were infected, " I said. "One of us... abstained."
More >>>

Interesting lesson and a wonderful point isn't it?

The Pro-Life Walk Across Canada began on May 19th in Vancouver. The Crosswalkers crossed five provinces on foot to raise awareness about the plight of the unborn. On August 11, they arrived to Ottawa, concluding their 12-week journey.

Crosswalkers plan to do this every year. It would be nice to have a matching Pro-Life Walk from the East, across all four Atlantic provinces, as well as Quebec, so it becomes a true cross-Canada journey.

Quebec law won't permit newlywed Caroline Parent to take her husband's name. Adopted shortly after the creation of the Quebec charter of rights and designed to bring Quebec civil code in compliance with the equality provisions of the charter, the law restricts legal name changes to exceptional circumstances only, disallowing women to adopt their husband's name at marriage.

That doesn't leave much choice for Caroline, who wants to hold on to the tradition. She may either forfeit her dream of everyone in her family having the same last name or look for a loophole, such as seeking legal name change in another province or in the US, if not just moving out of Quebec altogether.

Caroline choose to stay and fight. Her first step was to send a letter to the Premier Jean Charest.

She hopes to spark a public debate on the issue, but before taking any other action, Parent is waiting to hear from the government. “I’ill wait and see. I don’t know what step will be next because I haven’t thought about it yet.”

“All I am asking for is that women have the choice to take the name they want,” she said.
More >>>

According to the family law professor Alain Roy, the law disallowing marital surnames was viewed as a highly symbolic gain for the feminist movement as it "translated equality into name attribution". As usually, such "progressive" reform came with no way to opt out.

The concept of fetal rights is sinking in. Even people who used to perform abortions, come to realize the error of their ways:

During "The Call" rally, former Planned Parenthood abortionist Dr. Patti Gibbink stood up and testified, confessing her sins and begging God to end abortion. She told the crowds, "Ten years ago, I did abortions for Planned Parenthood." Here she paused, overwhelmed with tears.
More >>>

Better late that never. Although it would have been better if those abortions had never been performed but... Looks like this destructive culture of selfishness and suicidal "choices" is the kind of disease that our society must overcome in order to become immune for the generations to come. Fortunately there are enough signs that the healing is near:

As the plaintiff in that infamous Supreme Court case Roe vs. Wade, my life has been inextricably tied to the abortion issue. I once told a reporter, "This issue is the only thing I live for. I live, eat, breathe, think everything about abortion."

Thirty-four years later, I am 100% pro-life.
More >>>

Norma McCorvey is Roe no more. If the trial took place today, she would be defending fetal rights together with Wade. The judges better take that in consideration when the future of Roe vs. Wade is decided upon.

Here in Canada we may not have that many politicians willing to discuss fetal rights. But the results of the Great Canadian Wish List Contest speak for themselves. 49% of the participants (9543 out of ~19,500) supported the wish to abolish abortion. Pro-abortion wish was supported by 41%. The remaining 10% that supported neither, could be regarded as "undecided". I think those numbers are quite representative, at least among the young generation.

The politicians like to be on the winning team. So it's just a matter of time until the abortion debate is reopened and the Parliament votes to protect life from conception, rather than just from the first breath. Yes, it won't happen next year and maybe not even after the next election. Sure, it will be way too late for over 3,000,000 unborn Canadians, but still - better late than never.

A great essay I found on the net. A few facts put together clearly show what our society have become.

Abortion has become the most common surgical procedure in America. Over 99% of all U.S. abortions have nothing to do with the life or health of the woman—they are done simply because of her desire for convenience, absence of distress, and her so-called happiness.
More >>>

Need I say more?

From recent CHP press release:

Actually, Gardasil only protects against four of the 30 kinds of HPV; and there are many other reasons for concern about this raid on the public treasury by Big Pharma:

• The drug has not been tested on pre-adolescent girls;

• Giving young children a vaccine for a disease that is only spread by sexual promiscuity sends a bad message: “We expect you to be promiscuous, but your government will protect you against the consequences of irresponsible behaviour.”

• HPV is a disease spread by behaviour, so even if Gardasil eliminates the four kinds of HPV against which it may provide immunity, the other 26 kinds will become epidemic if behaviour is not changed—or if promiscuous behaviour is stimulated.

• No one knows what side-effects this vaccine will have on these girls in future years: might it render them sterile?

• A few years ago, the company promoting Gardasil (Merck-Frosst) marketed an inadequately-tested analgesic, Vioxx, and suffered about $1.2 billion in liability judgements; it looks suspiciously as though Canadian taxpayers were being made to rescue Big Pharma from their legal woes—and that young girls are to be used as foils to con the taxpayers.

• The point man for the lobbyists working for Merck-Frosst to promote mandatory vaccination of young children with Gardasil is a former policy advisor to Prime Minister Harper. That relationship is just too close for comfort.

• No one knows how long the effect of a vaccination will last. The HPV epidemic could rebound, worse than ever.

• The plan to vaccinate children against 4 out of 30 forms of HPV is not like vaccinating people against diseases like polio: an un-vaccinated person can still transmit polio to others by casual contact; but HPV is only spread by sexual promiscuity. Like HIV, it is primarily a behavioural disease. A false sense of security actually increases risk.

Germany, the UK and Austria have already swallowed Merck’s bitter pill; but in the USA, several states are resisting this campaign for mandatory vaccination of young girls with an inadequately-tested product. One is Massachusetts, where a citizens’ group called “Mass Resistance”—headed by a good friend of the CHP, Rev. Michael Carl—is organizing voters to stop the plan.
More >>>

The Newfoundland and Labrador Right To Life Association also opposes the vaccination program:

If the government was really concerned with the teenage STD infection rates, they would introduce an abstinence education program. The province’s current sex-ed curriculum may contain an abstinence element, but it is given only a fleeting mention, if any. The Right to Life Association has heard many complaints from parents, students, and teachers, that abstinence is not given enough attention in the school system. Many of those involved in the school system have asked for a comprehensive abstinence-ed curriculum.
More >>>

There are already proposals to make this vaccine mandatory. This shouldn't be allowed to happen. Please contact your MP (and your MLA, MNA or MPP—health care delivery is a matter of provincial jurisdiction) to express your concerns.

Here's an interesting research that compares the debate over abortion today and the debate slavery during the last years before the Civil War. Surprisingly, the arguments are all the same. "You can't legislate morality" - we hear that all the time in the abortion debate. "If you don't want a slave - don't own one", reverberates well with "if you don't want abortion - don't have one".

Just as we have politicians that are "personally opposed" to abortions, there used to be plenty of politicians, including president James Buchanan himself that were "personally opposed" to slavery but, as public officials, felt bound to sustain it where sanctioned by law. Just as some of our gutless politicians today, those "personally opposed to slavery" were more comfortable with someone else making the decision on their behalf.

So in 1857, when the Supreme court ruled on the Dred Scott case, president Buchanan (one that was "personally" against slavery) argued that the issue is settled and suggested concentrating on issues he believed are more important, like building roads. Today's pro-abortionists too argue that Roe versus Wade (in US) and Trudeau's "omnibus bill" (in Canada) are set in stone, so we better address other issues like taxes or healthcare.

Nobody says those issues are unimportant. But road construction couldn't proceed without figuring out who was going to do the job - workers or slaves. And when you discuss healthcare and taxes you can't avoid a question whether or not abortions on demand should be performed public hospitals, let alone - if they should be paid for by the taxpayers.

And another thing: what's not mentioned in the research is that by 1850s, the South was already losing the demographic battle and it was clear to everyone that slavery was its the way out. With accession of the new Northern and Pacific states (Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon), slave states lost their majority in the Senate.

There wasn't much space left south of the 36^o30' line where new slave states could be formed to balance out the new free states. But repeated attempts to expand slavery north of 36^o30' (Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 as well as an attempt to force a pro-slavery constitution in Kansas), led to more anti-slavery sentiment in the North and the raise of the Republican party. This in turn sparkled the secession movement, leading to the Civil War and the subsequent abolition of slavery.

Same thing may eventually happen with abortions. Pro-abortion side is already losing the demographic battle. Immigration too contributes to the change of the balance of power - just as it did 150 yeas ago in US. And, just as it was with the supporters of slavery, pro-abortion activists that keep defending "partial birth abortions" or those who insist that fetus is a "blob of tissue" despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, end up contributing to their own demise.

The Unrepentant Old Hippie believes she has a newsflash for me - her retirement, she says, is secured by her smart investment in RRSP as well as 40 years of paying CPP premiums. Well, when it comes to RRSP - great job for achieving that. As for the CPP contributions - well, here's a newsflash for JJ: our CPP is a "pay as you go" program.

Since its inception in 1966 and up until late 1990s, there was no savings component in the CPP. All the premiums collected went towards paying the benefits to those who were already retired. It was believed that once the existing contributors retire, there would be always enough young people to enter the workforce and start paying CPP premiums. That wasn't happening, so in 1987 the premiums started going up (from the original 1.8% - up by 0.1% every year). That's also when the plans to boost annual immigration levels to 1% of Canada's population (from 0.3-0.4% in 1970s-80s) were first announced.

10 years later, in 1996 or '97 it became clear that even doubling immigration levels and increasing the premiums won't be enough to sustain a "pay as you go" system. Only then it was decided to overcharge existing contributors (premiums were raised from 2.8% in 1996 to 4.95% in 2003) so the resulting program surplus could be used to sustain the CPP once it can't be supported by premiums alone.

So for a while the CPP has something that resembles a savings component. But just for a while, until the benefits outgrow the premiums - which is projected to happen in late 2010s. Then the saving component will disappear and CPP will be back to "pay as you go" with every single penny of the premium collected (plus the depleting surplus fund) going towards paying the benefits.

Like it or not, JJ, but lion share of your CPP benefits (let alone all of your OAS) will be paid by those to be employed in 2020s and 2030s. So if you can't respect a mother of 17 and her children as just mother and kids - respect them as taxpayers and CPP contributors.

Ever wondered why many secular activists who call themselves atheists get so angry when someone else even mentions God, let alone worshiping him? What difference does it make for the militant atheists if, as they say, God is something they don't believe in? Do we see anyone else going nuts about something he doesn't believe in?

How many adults believe in Santa? But do we see many of them condemning an elementary school teacher for asking the kids to write a letter to Santa? Do we see many of those who don't believe in magic and sorcery protesting against Harry Potter books? So why do we have so many atheists troubled with any reference to God or Christianity?

Logically speaking, if anyone should be opposed to "one nation under God" or "in God we trust" - those should be religious people who may view that as using the Lord's name in vain. But most of the opposition to mentioning God comes from those claiming not to believe that God even exists.

Atheism has nearly always been with us in one form or another, but the atheists we’ve been hearing the most from lately—chiefly Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris—are a new breed. Unlike the old-school humanists, the new atheists—or anti-theists, as some of them prefer to be called—don’t want to just deny the existence of God, they want to wipe religion off the map.
More >>>

So why does it happen? I think the explanation is that those people are not really atheists. They may claim they don't believe in God but deep down inside they are not sure of that. Some of them were baptized as infants and probably attended the services decades ago with their parents, others might have other ways to discover that those are their roots, no matter if they like it or not. Since then they have the inner voice questioning them whether becoming secular was the right thing to do.

That's why God and Christianity bothers pretended atheists so much. It reminds them of their roots. It makes them question their beliefs. When a militant secularist protests against mentioning God in a public school (which none of his children attend) he does it to reaffirm is own beliefs; to prove first and foremost to himself that no, he doesn't believe in God and that those days when his mother was bringing him to church are long over. That silences the inner voice for a few days or maybe weeks. But then there's something else that makes the individual think about religion and he hears the same voice asking him again "are you sure?"

It often happens that a convert lashes out at his old religion. Some may see that as an attempt to prove his new spiritual friends that his conversion was sincere. In fact, he's just trying to prove that to himself. Converts to militant secularism are not exempt. They call themselves atheists. The article names them anti-theists. I would call them theophobes, because in my opinion that's the best description of their emotional state. They are afraid that their old religion may call on them to come back.

Talking a woman out of an abortion: mortal sin.
Talking a woman out of having 17 kids: A-OK
More >>>

It looks like some lefties consider their civic duty to talk women out of motherhood. So when a woman doesn't listen - they blast her with cynical remarks and graphic language; one that would earn them a "human rights" complaint and a hefty fine at the very least, if they dared to say the same about homosexuals or visible minorities.

If Mark Morford is hysterical about Duggar kids because their parents are raising them Christian, one "unrepentant old hippie" (aka JJ) simply believes that having that many kids is "just not cool".

JJ claims there's "there's nothing natural about having 17 kids". Hmm... I wonder how many children would she consider "natural"? 1.48 kids per woman which is the average for Canada? Or maybe she believes, just like John Guillebaud, the head of so called "optimum population trust", that "children are bad for the planet" and that only those in the developing world should be allowed to have children because they consume less?

Thanks God we have the Duggar family, the Littleton family and many other families that don't believe in this suicidal ideology.

As for the lefties that hate Christian families with lots of kids, I wonder if they consider it fair that once those kids enter the workforce they'll have to contribute quite considerable part of their wages to pension fund, from which the lefties will receive their pensions and to taxes which will be used among other things to provide JJ and Mark Morford with their homecare, let alone healthcare.

Related article: Leftard Freaks Out Over Kids

Quebec folk-rock band Mes Aïeux wants LifeSite to take down its article, which describes their song "Dégénération" as anti-abortion. The group says that the song was "misinterpreted" and that referring to the song as one denouncing abortion without consulting the group is "moral kidnapping of the song". Well, let the words speak for themselves:

Ton arrière-arrière-grand-mère, elle a eu quatorze enfants
Ton arrière-grand-mère en a eu quasiment autant
Et pis ta grand-mère en a eu trois c'tait suffisant
Pis ta mère en voulais pas, toi t'étais un accident

Et pis toi, ma p'tite fille tu changes de partenaire tout l'temps
Quand tu fais des conneries, tu t'en sauves en avortant
Mais y'a des matins, tu te réveilles en pleurant
Quand tu rêves la nuit d'une grande table entourée d'enfants

Translated to English:

Your great-great-grandmother had 14 children
Your great-grandmother had almost as many
Your grandmother had 3, that was enough
And your mother didn't want any, you were an accident

And you, my little girl, you change partners all the time,
If you make stupid mistakes, you fix them by aborting
But there are mornings when you wake up crying
When you dream at night of a big table surrounded by children.

Reading a text like that it's hard to disagree with LifeSite, that the song laments abortion and the modern culture of sterility. By the way, LifeSite never referred to Mes Aïeux as a pro-life group. The group by itself may be pro-abortion but their song clearly refers to abortion as a traumatizing mistake for a woman.

How could that happen? I can only guess. Maybe the guy in charge of the lyrics asked his pro-life friend to do the job for him or maybe he simply didn't realize that his words could be read differently by someone who doesn't share his views on abortion. Either way, the group which, in their letter to LifeSite, describes itself as pro-abortion, came up with a song that denounces some of their beliefs.

Even if the authors didn't really mean it, comparing simple, yet fruitful lifestyle of the great-grandparents to the stress and sterility of the modern life by no means shows the modern life on the winning side. The song ended up showing how life becomes empty and unnatural when it is severed from one’s land and heritage. So I won't be surprised if "Dégénération" becomes sort of an anthem for the pro-life movement. And next time there's a big Social Conservative gathering in Quebec, there could be many people singing:

Ton arrière-arrière-grand-père, il a défriché la terre...

The mayor of Truro, NS decided not to fly perverts' flag at the town hall. His decision was supported by the town council which voted 6 to 1 that the town hall won't be participating in those shameful perverse "pride" events that local activists are planning for next week.

Of course the decision wasn't welcome by the activists and the mainstream media. CTV was quick to find a few people (mostly from the so called "pride coalition") who claimed that the decision to opt out of celebrating perversity gives the city a bad name for making perverts feel "unwelcome".

What's more interesting, one of those defending sodomy and related lifestyle choices was... a member of the Northern AIDS Connection Society, Bonnie Joldersma. If she's unaware that the lifestyle she defends is responsible for 7 out of 10 new infections - she's clearly unfit for her position. If however she knows the facts but purposely promotes a hazardous lifestyle so more infections bring more funding for her organization - she's fit for criminal charges.

The article ends with yet another argument denouncing the decision:

It makes us look bad. These conversations were going on 15 to 20 years ago -- I thought we were way past worrying about the flying of pride flags or gay rights parades.

In other words, the perverts and their supporters were so comfortable with the status-quo. It's been at least a decade since the courts made it mandatory for mayors and city councils to endorse those shameful "pride" events despite their own beliefs, let alone the views of their constituents. Suddenly, just when those activists thought they've got the green light to shove their lifestyle down our throats from coast to coast, there's a voice of protest to their "accept it or else" approach. That's what upsets them the most.

So I thank Bill Mills and Truro town councilors who voted with him for standing up for family values. For reminding us that politicians' right and duty to live up to their beliefs doesn't stop at the fiscal policy, but applies to social policy as well. For bringing back the debate on whether one's right to fly any flag he wants also includes the right not to fly a flag he doesn't like.

The mayor must be already getting plenty of hate mail for his courageous stand. Please email the Mayor and thank him for upholding family values. Let us not be silent!

Related post by Suzanne (Big Blue Wave)

Fair and balanced reporting??? (CHP York-Simcoe)

Here's some friday night humor :)
A Royal Canadian Air Farce episode from 1993: Pierre Trudeau's interview with himself. In honour of Pierre's winning the title of the Worst Canadian.

Courtesy of the Big Blue Wave.

Posted on Free Dominion at 3:18PM EST

Moments ago, we received another letter from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, dated August 1, 2007, informing us that Marie-Line Gentes has withdrawn her complaint against Free Dominion and requested that the CRHC take no further action against us.
It is said that the best victory is in the battle you don't have to fight. This show of strength by people from across Canada - and from beyond our borders - has stopped this battle before it had to be fought. Because all things with the CHRC are political, either Ms. Gentes or the Commission, or both, have decided that an attack at this time on Free Dominion is a political bridge too far.

We have all won an important battle here today and we should take what we can from the lessons we have learned.

These above-the-law organizations are not omnipotent.

The glaring light of public exposure is toxic to these groups.

The internet gives people a means of defense because it can be used as a source of light.

There are many more lessons that could be listed, and I look forward to reading some of them while I pop a cold one. Very Happy

Congratulations to all!
(Source)

Need I say more? This is a great day for free speech and a great victory not just for the Conservative cause but for all Canadians.

And so their rights which they maintained,
We swear to yield them never!
Our watchword evermore shall be,
The Maple Leaf forever!

Logan Lavoie from the University of Victoria wants to challenge Free Dominion. His Facebook group named "Fight against bigotry and ignorance" calls on supporters to "populate" the forum and try to stir the discussion their own way. "This website is a bastion of evil and bigotry", one of the group descriptions reads, "It must be re-educated or destroyed. Please help."

To further expose the "dangers" of Free Dominion, Lavoie posted a copy of a banner ad displayed on the forum. This "offensive" banner from CraigRead.com which mentions the greatness of Western Civilization and calls for low taxes, small government and real Conservative values, should apparently show Lavoie's followers what kind of "bigots" and "ignorants" they are going to face on Free Dominion.

So far the group has 39 members. That's way too few to "re-educate" over 8000 users of a Conservative forum. If they still try to go ahead with their plan - Free Dominion is always open for a free debate. But they better get ready to defend their views since there will be no politically correct moderator to filter out "inconvenient" questions and arguments. If however their goal is not to build credibility for the left wing but to "destroy a right wing website with an influx of liberal thought" (by which Logan probably meant trolling) - that won't be tolerated. Spammers and trolls will be banned. Just like Logan Lavoie, the "leader and head troll" himself, whose trolling days on Free Dominion are long over.

Anti-family activists like using the word "choice". What they don't like is when someone chooses to ignore the "choices" they promote. If the story was about a woman having 16 abortions, every leftie journalist would be up in arms defending her. But when a mother chooses to have 16 babies instead, that drives some of them nuts.

Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist named his article "God does not want 16 kids". Ironically, a man who'd never set foot in a church thinks he knows best what God doesn't want. Morford doesn't bother to hide his hatred towards the Duggar family and their 16 children. He refers to parents as "homophobic neo-Christians". The children, as he sees them, are "über-white future Wal-Mart shoppers" and "rug rats", that are "hungry", "mewling", "attention-deprived", "with alarmingly bad hair".

If you replace "Christians", "right-wingers" etc with "Jews" and "progressive", "intellectual" etc - with "Germans" or "Aryan race", the article will look like a quote from the "Mein Kampf". Replace "spotless" and "über-white" with "black" or "African" - and you got yourself a hefty fine (if not worse) for racism and hate-mongering. Especially with all the graphic language and cynical remarks Morford makes, describing Michelle Duggar and her ability to give birth more than once or twice in a lifetime.

But why would the Duggar kids bother Morford so much? Here's why:

Where is, in other words, the funky tattooed intellectual poetess who, along with her genius anarchist husband, is popping out 16 funky progressive intellectually curious fashion-forward pagan offspring to answer the Duggar's squad of über-white future Wal-Mart shoppers? Where is the liberal, spiritualized, pro-sex flip side? Verily I say unto thee, it ain't lookin' good.

Morford pretends to believe that those on the left decide not to have children because of the environmental concerns. But I bet he knows that the actual reason has nothing to do with the environment. That his "funky tattooed intellectual poetess" simply wants nothing but pleasure for herself and so is her "genius anarchist" boyfriend (not even a husband). That they both view children as a financial burden and an obstacle to having their "fun". That even if the poetess miraculously becomes pregnant (despite all the pills and rubber) - she'll most likely "choose" to put the baby to death before he gets the chance to see daylight.

That's what makes him mad. Morford has figured out that the culture he promotes so vigorously has brought the society (and especially those in the "liberal, spiritualized, pro-sex" camp) to a biological dead end. Now he's frustrated that some families don't have those lemming instincts. But while he was out there yelling "stop them!", Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar are about to have another baby. Way to go Jim Bob and Michelle!

Related post by Suzanne

Update as of Aug.4 20:40 AST: Little Jennifer, Duggars' seventeenth child, was born on Thursday, August 2^nd. (Also: Yahoo news coverage.) My congratulations to Jim Bob and Michelle and I wish all the best to little Jennifer as well as her many brothers and sisters!

The popular conservative discussion board, FreeDominion.ca, is under attack by the so-called Canadian "Human Rights" Commission, for the alleged (and totally bogus) complaint of "hate speech".

Canadians are rising up against this encroachment on our basic human right to freedom of speech. Join the fight for your country!

The least we can do is sign the petition in support of Free Dominion and suggest our friends to do the same.

"If freedom of speech is taken away then, dumb and silent, we may be lead like sheep to the slaughter."

(George Washington)

Friday, August 31, 2007

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Monday, August 27, 2007

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Friday, August 24, 2007

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Monday, August 20, 2007

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Saturday, August 18, 2007

Friday, August 17, 2007

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Monday, August 13, 2007

Sunday, August 12, 2007

Saturday, August 11, 2007

Friday, August 10, 2007

Thursday, August 9, 2007

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Monday, August 6, 2007

Sunday, August 5, 2007

Saturday, August 4, 2007

Friday, August 3, 2007

Thursday, August 2, 2007

Wednesday, August 1, 2007