Saturday, January 31, 2009

Watch Your Wireless Connection!

Because if you leave your wireless network unprotected and someone uses it to post provocative messages on discussion forums that are being investigated by the CHRC - the Privacy commission won't really care. Even if the evidence is clear, they'll find all sorts of excuses not to notice it, claiming that it might be just a coincidence...
For the Privacy Commission to conclude that there is “no evidence” of using Mr. Hechme’s connection is absurd IF one is interested in the testimony given at the CHRT last year. During the March 25, 2008 hearing, Dean Steacy admitted to being logged on to the “Jadewarr” account at the same time that Hechme’s IP address showed up on Stormfront’s logs. And not only that, but he indirectly refers to the Bell representative’s testimony about Hechme’s account to help him place the date and time when he logged in to Stormfront discussion board! (And we even have hard evidence from another case that indeed Steacy had logged in on December 8, 2006. See also Part A, Section 3C-5B of The Blogosphere Cross Examination.)
Looks like the Privacy commission simply doesn't want to disrupt the CHRC agents from doing their "noble" job of "fighting hate". So what if the person whose internet connection has been used may end up getting reprimanded by the ISP for violating the acceptable use policy? So what if by using someone else's connection, the HRC agents expose an innocent person to possible retaliation from the discussion forum owners (that may suspect the provocation) as well as from all sorts of "anti-hate" activists which may take the provocative message for real? So what if the owner of the unprotected network may eventually become a target of a "human rights" complaint for a message he's never written - unless the agent who posted the message admits his authorship? The most important is that we fight "hate speech" and enforce tolerance, isn't it?

Ladies and gentlemen, watch your wireless networks. Make sure nobody can connect without a password or a WEP key. And if you're not sure - contact your ISP.

Friday, January 30, 2009

Even O Canada Is No Longer Politically Correct

Singing O Canada is no longer a daily morning event at Belleisle Elementary School, in Springfield, Kings County, NB. Some students apparently feel "excluded". Or maybe its their parents that feel so on their behalf.
Erik Millett, the school's principal, said he made the decision partly to accommodate parents who didn't want their children taking part in the daily anthem. He would not say why the parents didn't want their kids taking part, citing privacy reasons.

"We try to balance the needs of every student, and we want every student to feel welcome in our school," Millett said.

"If we need to make some accommodations or exceptions, then we'll try to put those in place regardless of what the issue is."

Nearly all elementary students in the district sing the anthem every day. But that decision is up to each school.

For his school, Millett said this change was part of a package of reforms designed to make the school feel more inclusive and to allow the school to run more smoothly.
I wonder what exactly did they find wrong with O Canada that, in their opinion, makes our national anthem not "inclusive" enough. Was that some hardcore atheist objecting to "God keep our land"? Or maybe, some radical feminist got all upset because O Canada mentions "sons" but not "daughters"? Or what else could they find that would lead to O Canada being banished from the classrooms?

Originally there used to be four verses in O Canada. When O Canada was adopted as Canada's national anthem in 1980, it was reduced to just one verse. Later it became a tradition to sing O Canada half in English, half in French (even though the lyrics are not identical). Now, our kids are not going to get even that.

Unless we get them out of public schools. I'd rather see my children being raised "non-inclusive" than being ashamed of their homeland and its national anthem.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Thoughts On The Budget — It Could Have Been Worse

Compared to what's going on in the US and in Europe - it could have been much worse. So, a Liberal-Conservative budget with ballooning program spending, minuscule tax cuts and a $34B deficit (2.15% of the GDP) is probably the best we could have for the time being. The only other alternative would be a Liberal-NDP budget; one that would have come with a similar deficit, except there would have been tax hikes for businesses and maybe - a GST hike to pay for much more wasteful spending.

Still, it's quite frustrating to witness dozens of special interest groups getting themselves sheltered from the recession at our expense:
  • $200 million over two years for the Canadian Television Fund.

  • I'm betting most of you have never heard of the Canadian Television Fund (though you probably suspected some such boondoggle existed). Read about it here. Suffice to say it "supports the production and broadcast of high-quality Canadian television programs." Because Canadians won't make high-quality television programs unless the government pays them to.

  • Over $335 million in support for culture and the arts — recognizing the importance of our artistic institutions and the role they play in Canadians’ lives.

  • They should just hire a guy with a flag, who could wave it at Quebec and yell: "Yoo-hoo, Quebec? Over here! $335 mill for the arts! See, we DO care. We LOVE the arts. Can't live WITHOUT it! Especially that stuff on Quebec TV. Hoo-boy, how did you guys get so TALENTED?
    Yep, those guys are really talented. At least when it comes to selling dollar store items for millions as "art" and then successfully lobbying the government for even more handouts. We can only look forward for next year, hoping that the economy recovers faster than expected so that government could trim some of those spending in its attempt to get the country out of deficit a little faster than 2013.

    Update: The CHP describes the Budget as disappointing:
    Deficit spending-anything that increases the National Debt-is stealing from future generations; it is theft! "Our government would have solved the liquidity crisis by creating the needed money, interest free, through the Bank of Canada, instead of borrowing it from the chartered banks. We wouldn't have had to steal the "stimulus" money from our children and their children," Hnatiuk said.

    Canada has faced similar challenges before and successfully overcome them without borrowing money. In 1945, with the prospect of two million soldiers returning from overseas, the Liberal government of MacKenzie King was concerned about the economic stability of our nation. Unlike yesterday's budget, King's government made a bold move. He instructed the Bank of Canada to create money to make loans that were virtually interest-free to provinces, municipalities and other local public authorities, for infrastructure projects. This bold move kicked off an unprecedented economic boom.
    Jim Hnatiuk is right. It is disappointing to see the government borrowing at a private market instead of using the government owned Bank of Canada and a Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC). It's even more disappointing to see the government using borrowed money to bankroll special interest groups. Still, with the conservatives lacking some 12 seats to majority and with not a single CHP MP to balance out the left-wing opposition, this disappointing budget is unfortunately the best we can get :(

    Wednesday, January 28, 2009

    "Human Rights" Complaint Against CHP Dismissed

    It almost looks like another small victory on the "human rights" front. Canadian "Human Rights" Commission chose to dismiss the allegations of "hate" against the Christian Heritage Party, against one of its Riding Associations and against its former leader Ron Gray. I wish I could say that the CHP is off the hook, but in fact - it isn't. Because being a target in a "human rights" complaint is in itself - a punishment.
    Gray was critical of the CHRC’s procedures, and the effect its proceedings can have of “chilling” public discussion of important policy issues.
    “But the CHRC’s method of operation is both slipshod and unjust. The complainant bore no costs at all for filing a frivolous and groundless complaint; as Ezra Levant has said, ‘The process is the punishment’–whether the respondent is innocent or guilty.
    “The idea of protecting people and groups from ‘hate speech’ that incites to violence is still sound,” Gray said. “But such incitement is already a criminal offence, and the defense against it belongs in criminal court, where the normal rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence apply. In a real court, these ridiculous charges would never have been admitted.”
    Unlike the complainer who got all expenses paid by taxpayers, the CHP had to spend $50,000 to defend themselves. That money became a de-facto fine for not being politically correct enough in the first place; for daring to defend their point of view in a manner that eventually led to a "human rights" complaint, no matter how groundless or unfounded the complaint was.

    So, even though the party ended up being acquitted, the ordeal itself sends a clear message to Canadians, warning them to avoid discussing issues which the governing elite and the special interest groups have designated "controversial". And, as long as Canada's "human rights" committees have the power to review "hate speech" complaints, the malicious practice of "chilling" public discussion on important social issues will continue.

    That's why I say - it almost looks like a small victory, but it's not a real victory yet. There will be no real victory until the section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is repealed.

    Tuesday, January 27, 2009

    US Democrats Have A Prescription For The Economy — More Birth Control

    Looks like a $34B deficit is not as bad as it could get. Just look at our neighbours to the south. As if having a 3-4 times higher deficit (in comparison to GDP) wasn't enough, the Congress is planning to direct some of that "stimulus" money towards funding... contraception. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi apparently believes that babies are somehow a burden on the treasury, so she recommends subsidizing demographic winter as a way to reduce cost.
    STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

    PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

    PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.
    I wonder if Pelosi also believes that boosting handouts for planned parenthood may actually reduce the costs of turning schools into nursing homes and playgrounds - into graveyards.

    Monday, January 26, 2009

    Great Arguments For Those Willing To Listen

    Jennifer Fulwiler has came up with a great essay titled "Eight Responses to the Pro-Choice Mindset by Former Atheist/Former Die-Hard Pro-Abortion Woman", in which she gives us suggestions on how to respond to the most common arguments in defense of abortion:
    ...Our culture has assured abortion supporters that the heartbeat stopped during abortion belongs only to a fetus, a sub-human organism. Terminology is key in the pro-abortion mentality: Dehumanizing words like "fetus" or "clump of cells" or "mass of tissue" allow people to tell themselves that abortion is not the taking of human life.

    Encourage abortion supporters to consider that even the youngest zygote meets the biological definition of being alive, contains a unique genetic code that has never existed before and will never exist again, and gets half of its genetic material from each of its parents. At conception, an extraordinary semi-replica of the mother and the father has been created...
    That's something the "die-hard pro-aborts" are well aware of. But they believe their personal convenience prevails over unborn babies' right to life. Some try to appeal to the infamous Supreme Court rulings which, they believe, justify their position. Others just make it loud and clear - they know that unborn baby is alive, but they don't care. (Some may even go as far as calling the unborn "a parasite".)

    Same with other arguments:
    The mentality that "women should be able to choose" assumes that the only women we should be concerned about are those who are already born. A good response to this question is, "Which women?" The ones in the womb, or the ones who are pregnant?
    That is common sense for the vast majority of people, including those who consider themselves pro-"choice". But die-hard pro-aborts would rather let thousands of unborn girls be slaughtered in the womb for merely being girls, than support a measure which may restrict second trimester abortions.

    Jennifer's arguments may convince many people that are "middle of the road"; those who just don't know that status-quo means unrestricted abortions up until birth. Unfortunately, they are unlikely to convince those for whom abortion is a sacrament that should be offered no matter what.

    Sunday, January 25, 2009

    Secular Humanism: Getting The Bible Out One "Human Rights Complaint" At A Time

    Following a "human rights" complaint, Canada Post management in Cornwall, ON no longer allows mail carriers to say the traditional blessing "Merçi Seigneur pour la belle journée" ("Thank you Lord for the beautiful day") as they begin their routes. The 25 year-old tradition, which had never been obligatory for all, was found to be "discriminatory" by some activist who filed the complaint and now, to avoid any further complaints, it's been banned altogether. Insisting on saying the traditional blessing may result in suspension.

    Behold yet another achievement of Canada's phony "human rights" industry. And yet another milestone for secular humanism. The latter becomes nothing more but an expansive pagan cult, that seeks to eradicate any public evidence of Christian faith.
    Homosexuals are permitted to flaunt perversion, sicken others by their public displays of sexuality and sometimes engage in the criminal behaviour of public nudity (cf. Toronto Gay Pride parades), but Christians aren't permitted to thank God for a beautiful day.
    So, is "injecting" religion into the workplace supposed to be a violation of the constitution? Perhaps, but I didn't know that North Korea's constitution was binding in Canada!

    It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with wild-eyed zealots who hate Christianity. Are these same people demanding that Jewish workers remove their Yarmulkes? Are they taking stands against burka-wearing female Islamic employees? Or those who wear turbans? Or those who want to stop in the middle of the work day to pray towards Mecca? Or the woman who wants time off to go and have her unborn baby killed?

    Besides, no part of life exists in a religious vacuum. If you ban Christianity, it is replaced by another religion, and for the most part in Canada today, that religion is Secular Humanism, a state-ist totalitarian religion that is at war with the religion of genuine liberty, Christianity.
    That latter paragraph also explains the influx of atheist ads, the ones suggesting that there's "probably no God". (But I thought atheists weren't proselytizing.) Secular fundamentalists are looking forward to fill the spiritual void with their own ideology. Just like their Soviet counterparts they may eventually succeed in wiping out Canada's Christian heritage. But, just like their Soviet counterparts, Canadian secularists are unlikely to be able to replace Canada's founding religion and culture with anything meaningful.

    Saturday, January 24, 2009

    Once You Get Past The Rhetoric Of "Choice"...

    It's easy to talk about the so called "right to choose". But not everyone is ready to see what hides behind those fancy words.
    The November 23rd issue of the Washington Post Magazine told the story of a medical student named Lesley Wojick. She plans to specialize in obstetrics and gynecology and is unapologetically “pro-choice.” She even helped organize a “day-long abortion seminar” at her medical school.

    At the seminar, a medical director for Planned Parenthood of Maryland asked the attendees, “How pro-choice are you?” She asked them what their families and neighbors would think of their performing abortions.

    Wojick was determined to “walk the talk,” to make her “actions to be consistent with [her] words.” She thought that if “pro-choice” doctors like her didn’t do this, “the right to abortion might be rendered meaningless.”

    Wojick then attempted to “walk the walk.” But not for long. During her obstetrics rotation, she realized that “vacuuming out a uterus and counting the parts of the fetus” wasn’t for her. “Somebody else . . . would become an abortion provider. But it wouldn’t be her.”

    It’s not surprising. Once you get past the rhetoric of choice, what’s left is a bloody and, for most people, disreputable business. As Wojick discovered, even people who insist that it’s a right want little to do with the actual practice or the practitioners.
    No wonder the pro-aborts are opposed to the Genocide Awareness Project. Pictures of tiny human remains don't go well with their claims that abortion merely removes some unneeded "tissue".

    Friday, January 23, 2009

    The Call To Dunkirk — Time To Ditch Public Schools

    "From kindergarten to 12th grade children spend 14,000 seat hours in school. Whoever controls those 14,000 hours, controls our children's worldview."
    Too bad, Exodus Mandate doesn't allow embedding the movie on websites. Here's one more quote. This time - from our opponents:
    "What can theistic Sunday School, meeting for an hour once a week, do to stem the tide of a five day program of humanistic teaching?"
    (Charles Francis Potter.)
    And, before you suggest that "humanistic teaching" is good, check out this article. This is what secular humanism looks like nowadays:
    I've been a supply teacher for 20 years in every subject area, K-12 in over 200 schools and in over 1000 classrooms in a large Canadian city. I can report that the education system has been taken over by feminists and lesbians who preach a daily diet of hate, violence and discrimination against males despite pretenses of “tolerance” “non violence” and “inclusiveness.”

    It's moderately common to find girls wearing anti-male, hate clothing. Slogans on T-Shirts include: “Stupid Factory: Where Boys are Made;” “BOYS ARE STUPID, THROW ROCKS AT THEM!” and (prefixed by the profile view of a handgun) “He had it comin'”
    Nice environment for children, isn't it? I guess, protecting kids from that alone is worth all the effort put into homeschooling. Even if it requires taking extra days off work.

    Thursday, January 22, 2009

    Linda Gibbons Arrested Again

    Looks like the Ontario Provincial Police has adopted the old Soviet principle: "when there is a man, there is a criminal charge". Just days after a pro-life heroine Linda Gibbons had been acquitted of disobeying a court order, they found another reason to arrest her: This time it's for "mischief to property". The "mischief" involves nothing but standing outside of an abortuary with a placard saying "Why mom, when I have so much love to give?"
    The two officers were joined by three more policemen and a sherriff’s deputy - five cops to arrest the diminutive grandmother. Police read her a statement - apparently the 15 year old “temporary” injunction against protests at that clinic - and she was taken into custody without incident.

    The charge is the same as before; “obstructing a peace officer”. There’s also a new charge of “mischief to property.”

    Gibbons has twice been released on the obstruction; last September, a judge specifically said that her policy of peaceful and non-violent resistance could in no way to construed as obstruction of law enforcement officers. The eyewitness told LifeSite News it was hard to fathom the “mischief to property” charge, because Gibbons perpetrated no damage or vandalism of any kind.
    If it takes 5 police officers and a deputy sheriff to arrest a harmless woman who doesn't actually do anything wrong - I wonder how many Ontario policemen does it take to arrest a gang member. If they actually go as far as arresting gang members, rather than just letting them off with another warning...

    And another thing: if the OPP had it priorities straightened out, if they didn't put that much effort into tormenting peaceful pro-life protesters, doing their best to fight violent criminals instead - there wouldn't be that many shooting incidents in Toronto.

    Wednesday, January 21, 2009

    It's "Diversity" OR "Tolerance". NOT Both.

    This conversation proves it - diversity excludes tolerance. Unless of course you're one of those who believe that tolerance is one way street; that we must be tolerant towards others but it's ok for others not to be tolerant towards us.
    Notice one of the policemen saying "Everything was fine until you guys came over on this side". Oh, really? I wonder where he was just days ago when Saudi-funded Islamic extremists were rallying on the streets of Canadian cities, including Toronto? Didn't he notice them? Or maybe he did, but found them to be just "fine"? (And what about this display of "free expression"? Does it also pass as "everything's fine"?)

    And - would it be ok for me to say that everything was fine until these jihadi fanatics started coming to my country in tens of thousands?

    Tuesday, January 20, 2009

    All Hail President Kang!

    Rejoice America! You now have a president who is more popular in the world than in his home country. (If America is his home country.) Who is going to be especially popular among jihadi combatants soon to be released from Guantanamo.

    Welcome a national leader who is planning to begin his term by signing "FOCA" ("Freedom Of Child-killing Act",) lifting every possible restriction on abortion. Behold America's first black president ever, one who happens to be a strong supporter of an organization, established for the purpose of reducing America's black population through abortions and birth control. (Yes, I'm talking about Planned Parenthood.)

    Say hello to a man who's going to get the US economy out of trouble. The one, who talks about "sharing the wealth" with the third world in the midst of a severe economic crisis. Who plans to spend extra $845 billion on foreign aid when US debt clock is running out of digits... ...Don't blame me! I voted rooted for Kodos!

    Monday, January 19, 2009

    Use Of Protest For The Sake Of Protest

    Here's a great essay by Mike S. Adams. While it's titled "Letter to a Handcuffed Feminist", it's not really about feminism. It's about all those protesters who use protest simply for the sake of protest; whose goal is not to win the argument, but to silence someone they don't agree with, drawing as much attention as possible to themselves.
    Protestors of my speech at The University of New Hampshire broke into glass cases and spray-painted swastikas on my picture. Then, when my speech was over, the protestors asked really pointed questions like “Do you want to bring back slavery?” and “Do you think it’s OK to beat a gay person with a baseball bat?” Remarkably, after the liberals had vandalized my posters, one liberal asked if I could learn to be a little more civil in my discourse. He went through the line three times to ask me that same question.

    Like I said, the protestors have no idea what they are protesting – the speech wasn’t about legalizing slavery and the assault of gays. But the protestors do manage to draw a lot of attention. Indeed, UNH provided five armed police officers and a police escort (which I refused) to take me back to my hotel.

    Protestors of my speech at Appalachian State University couldn’t think of a single objection to the substance of my points so (in the middle of the Q & A) they ran out of the room after shutting off the lights in the auditorium. The audience just sat there in the dark wondering why the un-bathed protestors were angry.

    Sunday, January 18, 2009

    Why Socialism Never Works

    Great quote from Dr. Roy's blog:
    • You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift.

    • You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.

    • You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

    • You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

    • You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.

    • You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.

    • You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.

    • You cannot establish security on borrowed money.

    • You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.

    • You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
    These statements were wrongly attributed to Lincoln, but the actual author is Rev. William J. H. Boetcker.

    Saturday, January 17, 2009

    Government Establishes Justice Committee To Look At Section 13

    A year after a Liberal MP Keith Martin introduced his motion to remove subsection 13(1) from the Canadian Human Rights Act, after countless petitions and a near-unanimous convention vote, the government is finally doing something to address the issue:
    At the request of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice has created a departmental committee to examine section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This is the section which bans hate messages distributed by the Internet. Members include lawyers from various branches of the department of Justice, including constitutional, human rights, criminal and Industry Canada branches.
    Can we hope that Stephen Harper is beginning to realize that "progressive", "open-minded" and "politically correct" crowd is not going to vote for him no matter how "middle of the road" he tries to look? Can we look forward for our Conservative Prime Minister to finally stop wasting time and effort trying to appease the left and start appealing to his own party electorate for a change?

    Friday, January 16, 2009

    Comfortable With The Status-Quo Without Knowing What It Is

    Next time the poor-choicers claim that "Majority is comfortable with unrestricted abortions", ask them if the majority is even aware that Canada no longer has any abortion restrictions whatsoever.
    January 12, 2009 ( - An Angus Reid poll has found that a vast majority of Canadians do not know that under the country’s current legal situation the killing of an unborn child is permitted at any time from conception up to the moment of birth.

    The poll results have been made public on the heels of a late-December declaration by Dimitri Soudas, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, that the Conservative government has no intention of reopening the abortion debate in Canada.

    The Angus Reid poll found that 92 percent of the respondents did not know abortion was available to a woman throughout the full nine months of gestation.

    Significantly, a June 2008 poll by Angus Reid Strategies found that 46 percent of Canadians approve of the Canadian legal status quo, even if—as the more recent poll shows—they do not actually understand what the status quo is.
    Ignorance is power, isn't it? No wonder Ginette Petitpas-Taylor, the Chairperson of the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status Of Women, was complaining about the "abortion/have we gone too far" ads during the last year's campaign. Obviously she doesn't want people to be aware that the length of time abortion is allowed in Canada is 9 months. Because once the people find out what the status-quo is - they're no longer comfortable with it.

    The CRY In St.John's

    It’s not a concert. It is not a conference. It’s a CRY.
    This February 21st, Christians from all across Canada will come to St. John’s to lift a CRY to God for Canada. The CRY is not a ministry, it is a grass roots interdenominational and intergenerational movement of those who are passionate for God, believe in the power of prayer and fasting and who want to see Canada come into all He has for it. You are The CRY.

    [Why St. John’s?] St. John's, Nfld-Labrador is where Canada all began. It is the historical foundation point of our nation where the first explorers touched down on Canadian soil for the first time. It is also the historical finishing point of our nation as Newfoundland was the last province to enter into confederation. It is the beginning and the end for Canada. For that reason alone, it is very significant that we will gather here to CRY out to God for Canada. From this place of foundations (where the first explorers set foot) and finishings (where Canada was completed when St. John’s came into Confederation) we believe God wants to launch a new page for Canada through prayer.

    This is no ordinary event. Some things only come once in a lifetime. This is one of those things. We hope you can be there with us!
    Then, just 4 days later, it's the start of a 40 Days For Life Vigil. Not sure if I could come St.John's for the Cry, but I'll make to come to the nearest vigil site; hopefully - more than once.

    Thursday, January 15, 2009

    Homeschooling Is On The Rise

    More and more parents prefer to take control over their children's education, rather than trusting them to a public school system.
    NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--A new report by the U.S. Department of Education finds that the number of homeschooled children in America has risen steadily over the past five years and stood at about 1.5 million in 2007.

    Homeschooling experts, though, place the number closer to 2 million and say the discrepancy can be attributed to homeschooling parents being less inclined to respond to government surveys.

    The report from the National Center for Education Statistics, a division of the federal government's education department, said in December the number of homeschooled children was up 74 percent from 1999 to 2007 and 36 percent since 2003.
    Too bad, there are no numbers for Canada, but the trend is the same. There are more than enough Canadian parents out there that are concerned with the kind of values the kids are being taught at public schools. And there are even more that are concerned with the quality of education, which is going down continuously. Homeschooling is a great option for those who don't trust the public system, but can't afford public schools:
    When a family homeschools, this reciprocal relationship is magnified. Homeschooling participants are affected by more than just the person who sit at the homeschool table. All generations create and reinforce the bond between family members. Home schooling families spend their time laughing, learning, playing and living with each other 24/7.

    You can choose the best curriculum
    to promote an intrinsic love of lifelong learning. The homeschool curriculum is flexible. The parameters are determined by the best teachers available, the parents, who know and love their children.

    Learning never stops in the homeschool environment. The parents are not just lecturers or observers. They are active participants who expand, explain and encourage their children to be inquisitive and explore the specific areas that interest them without the constraints of arbitrary rules set up by an outside source.

    Another benefit to homeschooling is that the parents model and reinforce valuable behavior and deemphasize undesirable behavior in a natural manner.
    Sounds much better than a system which has become more about indoctrination (or at the very least - about merely keeping the kids busy from 9 to 3) than about education, doesn't it? Back in 1999, the CBC aired a short report on homeschooling in the National. I don't recall the exact number they mentioned, but there were between 20,000 and 25,000 homeschooled children in Canada back then. Since then we had the courts ruling that excluding books about homosexual cohabition from elementary school libraries is "discriminatory"; that a perverse graduate should be allowed to bring his partner in perversity to the high-school prom - even if it's a Catholic school.

    Since then we had the BC government allowing militant homosexuals to monitor all the school curriculum to ensure it's "gay friendly". We had Quebec government introducing a mandatory "Chinese buffet" course in "world religions" which is nothing but a virtual indoctrination into social and moral relativism. How many parents have since resorted to homeschooling as the only way to save the children from becoming guinea-pigs in lefty's social experiments? I dare to assume it's in the 6 digits now.

    Great Way To Help Life Site News

    Just change your default search page to GoodSearch, integrate it with your browser (no additional software is needed if you use Firefox or IE 7,) and your web searches will earn commissions for Life Site News. is a new Yahoo-powered search engine that donates half of its advertising revenue, about a penny per search, to the charities its users designate. Use it just as you would any search engine, get quality search results from Yahoo, and watch the donations add up!

    Although this may not sound like a lot of money, if only 1000 of our supporters use just 5 times per day for the year, would receive over $18,000 towards its mission of spreading the truth about the Culture of Life!

    It’s easy. Just go to and select as the charity you want your search earnings to go to. Even better, add to your toolbar. Click here for instructions:

    So please, make a commitment to browsing the Internet with, with as your designated charity. Set it as your homepage, or bookmark it so using it becomes a habit.
    By simply surfing the web with and shopping with you can raise much-needed funds for!

    Questions? Email
    So far, Life Site News has already raised over $200 through GoodSearch. With our help, that could add up to $2000, $20,000 or even more than that.

    Wednesday, January 14, 2009

    An Opportunity For The Family Coalition Party

    It's dream come true the seatless leader of the Ontario PCs. One of his MPPs, Laurie Scott, has agreed to step aside, so that the party's too progressive claiming to be conservative chief could finally have a seat in the provincial Parliament. For John Tory this is an opportunity to strengthen his leadership over the party; to get another chance to lead the party into a general election - and lose again. But this by-election could also be an opportunity for Ontario's only real Conservative party - the Family Coalition Party. Sure, the skeptics may say that it's unlikely for an FCP candidate to defeat a known politician and a would be opposition leader. But unlikely doesn't mean impossible.

    First of all - Haliburton — Kawartha Lakes — Brock is a Conservative stronghold, but not necessarily a "Progressive Conservative". When a strong right-wing alternative had emerged on a Federal level, splitting the Conservative vote in the riding, the lion share of the votes actually went to the Reform/Alliance candidate that was continuously outperforming the candidate from the leftover Federal PCs. A right person, running for a party which is both fiscally and socially Conservative, against a politician that is neither, could make this happen on a Provincial level.

    Secondly - it's a by-election, not a general election. There are no more concerns about who is going to form the government - we already know that it's a Liberal majority and so it will remain no matter what the by-election results are. Vote splitting isn't a great concern either - could a Liberal candidate be much worse than John Tory, whom Toronto Star endorses as "progressive", "open minded" and "urbane", whatever the latter means? If anything, there's a chance that a Liberal candidate (yet to be announced) may actually be somewhat more moderate on social issues than unabashedly pro-homosexual, pro-abortion John Tory.

    Finally - by-election gives more weight to activists on both sides, because voter turnout is usually lower. The NDP and the Green voters will be there to cast their ballots, but there will be fewer Liberals voting. A strong FCP candidate could recreate a similar scenario on the right, with the energized FCP supporters coming to cast their ballots while the apathetic PCs staying home. With the NDP and the Greens about to take at least half of the left-of center vote, a 50-50 split on the right would reduce the margin of victory to mere 25-30%. Number-wise, with the expected turnout of 25,000-30,000 voters (out of 81,000), that means only 7500-9000 votes.

    So it's a matter of nominating the right candidate. Only one is needed this time, not 107. If the FCP is serious about electing its first MP (or at the least - coming as close as possible to electing one) - the party should work hard on getting their best and brightest man nominated. That must be someone who has all the charisma and name recognition, all the time and money and all the will to victory it takes to win the race. Someone who is ready to do whatever it takes to convince thousands of people to vote Conservative, not Tory.

    Tuesday, January 13, 2009

    New Brunswick Government Refuses To Give In To Abortionist

    The provincial government is appealing the court ruling which allows Morgentaler to represent women seeking public funding for abortions on demand. Just as the province's lawyer has stated, the conflict of interest is obvious: Morgentaler is the owner of the abortuary in Fredericton. (The only private abortion facility in New Brunswick.) If the province is forced to subsidize abortions on demand - he'll be the one getting all the cash. (Unless of course New Brunswick lawmakers show real leadership and use the non-withstanding clause.)
    "It is about payment, not whether you can have an abortion. It's about who pays when you do," she said.

    The Morgentaler clinic in Fredericton has been open since 1994, but women getting abortions there must pay for it themselves.

    The province will only pay for abortions that are approved in writing by two doctors and are done at an approved hospital.
    In fact, the province's funding restrictions have been watered down to such extent that as much as 40% of all abortions now pass as "medically necessary" and therefore - they are paid for by the province. That however is still not enough for the radical pro-aborts like Morgentaler & Co. They want this wholesale slaughter of innocent unborn babies to be 100% taxpayer-funded.

    Monday, January 12, 2009

    Pro-Life Heroine — Free At Last

    Linda Gibbons, a devoted pro-life heroine, has been acquitted of a charge of disobeying a court order. After spending over 3 months in jail for merely protesting outside of an abortion facility in Toronto, Linda is finally free to go. And hopefully, this time she remains free for much longer than mere 9 days.

    Yes, believe it or not, last time Linda was arrested just 9 days after she had been found not guilty of obstructing a peace officer. And, since she doesn't belong to any of the designated victim groups (those that better not be put in jail in proportions exceeding their share of the population,) since Linda bears no close resemblance to vandals, purse snatchers, drug dealers or anyone else whose crimes have "social roots", no such options as release until trial, probation or house arrest were even considered.

    Linda is not going to give up. But neither are the authorities. There is however one hope - after all those arrests and trials, it's been finally determined that violating a 15 year-old injunction which outlaws peaceful protests at abortion facilities, is not a crime, but a civil offense:
    Noting that the 1994 injunction was a civil proceeding, the judge said, "There are rules for civil matters and there are rules for criminal matters. They're separate and apart … The rules are clear and mutually exclusive."

    The latest development presents an interesting conundrum for those who have prosecuted Gibbons over the past 15 years. With judges having successively thrown out charges of obstructing a peace officer and disobeying a court order, the province and Crown attorney's office appear to be left with little option but to launch a civil proceeding against her, if they wish to pursue the matter at all. They have two years from the date of the alleged transgression to do so.

    However, a civil proceeding raises the spectre of a challenge to the legality of the injunction itself, which was supposed to be temporary but has now stretched to the unprecedented age of 15 years. Pro-life activists in Toronto will be watching carefully to see what path the authorities choose to follow.

    For her part, Gibbons had a few words as she was whisked away to a vehicle for a change of clothes and some nourishment after a long day in court: "The courts need to establish their credibility by acknowledging the rights of every human being, born or unborn."
    At the very least, I hope that any further disputes over the so called "bubble zone" violations could be settled without arrests and trimester-long detentions. Linda Gibbons has already spent a total of about 6 years behind bars, for nothing else but standing on a public sidewalk, praying or peacefully protesting beside an abortuary. It's time for Ontario police to realize that they have plenty of other things to do than arresting and jailing thought-criminals.

    Sunday, January 11, 2009

    It Is A Baby, And Dead...

    John Pacheco, the author of the SoCon or Bust blog, once asked where do the “doctors” at the abortuary deposit unborn children for “disposal”? The answer is... no, it's not blowing in the wind. But it could sometimes be found on our streets, when plastic bags with what's regarded as "medical waste" suddenly break, exposing their shocking contents to the public.
    "It is midsummer. You measure the climate, decide how you feel in relation to the heat and humidity. You walk toward the bus stop. Others, your neighbours, are waiting there. It is all so familiar. All at once you step on something soft. You feel it with your foot. Even through your shoe you have the sense of something unusual, something marked by a special `give.' It is a foreignness upon the pavement. Instinct pulls your foot away in an awkward little movement. You look down and see...a tiny naked body, its arms and legs flung apart, its head thrown back, its mouth agape, its face serious. A bird, you think, fallen from its nest. But there is no nest here on 73rd Street, no bird so big. It is rubber, then. A model, a...joke. Yes, that's it, a joke. And you bend to see. Because you must. And it is no joke. Such a gray softness can be but one thing. It is a baby, and dead.
    So how many more "streets of dead fetuses" will there be until we as a nation finally learn that a person is a person, no matter how small?

    Saturday, January 10, 2009

    The Dangers Of Hate-Hunting

    Lorne Gunter questions the concept of "hate crimes" in his National Post article:
    If you believe the Criminal Code should be amended to make it easier for police to charge suspects with hate crimes, then you must believe there exists a hierarchy of hate; all hate is equally bad, but some hate is equally worse than others.
    Take for instance the husband who murders his wife (or the wife who murders her husband) because he has come to hate everything about her. He is so thoroughly disgusted by the way she talks, the way she chews, by her family and her constant belittling of his lack of career success that his loathing drives him to kill her.

    Then consider the racist who has become so consumed by his hatred of Jews, Muslims, blacks, aboriginals or even whites that he bludgeons to death a member of the group he despises.

    Is the second murder worse than the first? Is the victim in the former less dead because the hatred that led to his or her killing was personal rather than political?
    Lorne Gunter's reasoning is similar to the one I used in my article on "hate crimes" over a year ago. And while Lorne's article concentrates more on a possibility of 'having human rights commissioners with guns, badges and the power to arrest and lay charges', he too notices the political motives behind the concept of "hate crimes", rightfully stating that it is third-party interests that hate-crimes laws serve the most.
    Victims and society can receive full justice if existing Criminal Code prohibitions against murder and assault are used to put criminals away for a long time. It is really only special interests who are unsatisfied unless and until the political component is punished, too.
    If Lorne looked further into the political aspect of the issue he would notice the inconsistence in this whole concept of hate crimes. First - this is the only kind of crimes for which the "progressive" crowd wants tougher penalties. And then - somehow the concept of "hate crimes" doesn't apply if the same hate-driven crimes are committed against people who don't happen to belong to any of the designated victims groups.
    Anyone heard of this serious hate crime that left a Christian pastor near death?
    A Christian pastor in Loma Linda, Calif., was beaten and left in critical condition while decorating his church.
    I see that FOX News's website today carries a story about a rape of a lesbian, in which a big deal is made of the hatefulness of this crime. But what about the near-murder of the man who was attacked for being Christian? Is this less newsworthy? Are homosexuals first-class and Chrsitians second-class?
    I wonder who the hateful vandals and attackers are? Will we be informed when they're caught? Will their sexual orientation be mentioned? It should be, because if a Christian was caught torching a gay bar, the media would certainly mention his religion, no doubt!
    Interesting isn't it? And with all the "hate speech" battles we had throughout the last year, with everything we've found out about freedom-snatching tribunals (ironically named as "human rights commissions") could there be any doubts that "hate crime" laws are there to enforce and perpetuate the radical leftist social engineering?

    Friday, January 9, 2009

    For The Umpteenth Time - We Told You So!

    Wasn't it obvious that redefining marriage as mere "union of two" would eventually lead to a question "why only two" - with a respective "human rights" challenge?
    VANCOUVER, January 8, 2009 ( – Canada’s anti-polygamy law will likely be facing a legal challenge now that the leaders of the controversial polygamous sect in Bountiful, near Cranbrook, British Columbia, have been arrested. Winston Blackmore, the “bishop” of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and James Oler are facing criminal charges for practicing polygamy.
    The two men are scheduled to make their first court appearance January 21. They are the first men to be charged with polygamy since the 1800s, even though police have known of the situation in Bountiful for more than 60 years.

    Up until now law-enforcement officials have been hesitant to arrest practitioners of polygamy under fears that the law would not survive a challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On at least two previous occasions the RCMP have recommended that arrests be made, but the Crown denied the recommendation, saying that the ban on polygamy would likely be struck down.
    And, as if that wasn't enough, the CBC/National has brought us a story about a couple of elderly sisters who wish to get registered as a "married" couple, so they could share their pensions and survivor benefits. They too claim discrimination - if two unrelated females can register their conjugal relationship as if it was a marriage and get all the benefits associated with it, how come two sisters can't do the same?

    And what counter-arguments (beside those "bigoted", "narrow-minded", "religious" and "reactionary") could one come up with? What would he say to anyone asking him - why not? If the institution of marriage is merely a registrar of conjugal partners, irregardless of their gender - why can't siblings be registered as conjugal partners? And why should the registration be limited to only 2 partners at a time? After all - if, according to our "progressive" courts, a child can have more than 2 "legal parents", why can't a "marriage for civil purposes" include more than 2 partners?

    Back during the marriage debate, we kept saying that this is exactly that would happen. Our arguments were ridiculed as "slippery slope alarmism". Now, when everything we were warning about is actually happening, are there many "tolerant" "open-minded" "progressives" out there ready to admit that they were wrong? Or are they already preparing to give in, picturing themselves in the front lines of a battle to "legalize" some other kind of "something-something-marriage"?

    Support Shire Network News

    In case you're still unfamiliar with Shire Network News - it's an unashamedly straight talking political podcast which does not shy away from the truth that mainstream media won't cover. It covers the effect of the blogosphere on the news with more than a hint of ironic humour, defending the Anglosphere through satire.

    Now, Shire Network News needs our support:
    In other developments, just as we've decided to raise funds for a major revamp of the podcast, including a marketing campaign, e-mail list, guest appearances on other people's podcasts and radio shows and a custom-designed website; the company which hosts the podcast, Blogmatrix, has announced it is closing down at the end of the month!

    It's a real shame, because Blogmatrix have hosted SNN since it's inception more than three years ago, and they've always provided exemplary service. I'd like to thank David Jane, the CEO, for his assistance and advice over the years.

    But this of course means SNN will have to look for another home, and quickly too.
    So far SNN has already raised $450 out of a total goal of $1250 (US). If you value a media outlet which doesn't resemble the Soviet "Pravda" newspaper - please consider pitching in.

    Thursday, January 8, 2009

    Why Can't They Just Leave Israel Alone?!

    I rarely comment on international affairs, but I just can't remain silent.
    Imagine a siren that gives you 30 seconds to find shelter before a Kassam rocket falls from the sky and explodes, spraying its lethal shrapnel in all directions. Now imagine this happens day after day, month after month, year after year.

    If you can imagine that, you can begin to understand the terror to which hundreds of thousands of Israelis have been subjected. Three years ago Israel withdrew from every square inch of Gaza. And since that withdrawal, our civilians have been targeted by more than 6,000 rockets and mortars fired from Gaza. In the face of this relentless bombardment, Israel has acted with a restraint that other countries, faced with a similar threat, would find hard to fathom. Israel's government has finally decided to respond.
    How would you like rockets being fired at your town? Now, if those were Mexican extremists firing rockets at Texas with Mexican government refusing to do anything about it - what would US do? And what would be left of the villages from which the rockets were fired just hours after explosions in Laredo and El-Paso?

    And, to all those who shout about "ending the occupation" - earth to morons. The "occupation" of the Arab-populated areas of Gaza ended in 1994. In 2005 Israel, in an unprecedented gesture of peace, agreed to depopulate all the Jewish villages in the area, forcibly relocating some 10,000 Israelis out of Gaza. Since September of 2005, Gaza is entirely under Arab self-government. They wanted independence - they got it. There was not a single Israeli soldier there. Not a single Israeli civilian. What else do the want?

    Why can't they just leave Israel alone and start building a self-sufficient state of their own? They got all they need, including water and electricity, which is still supplied by Israel and for which Israel receives nothing but rockets in return. How come the only industry that prospered under Gaza self-government was rocket building? How come the only non-military trade which is in high demand is tunnel digging - to smuggle even more weapons from Egypt? How come their only export is fierce Islamic extremism and their only import (beside smuggled weapons) is humanitarian aid?

    I guess the answer is obvious. And if you don't find it obvious enough, just check out these blog reports on anti-Israeli protests and see for yourself. Do you think any of them is ready to settle for a "Palestinian" Arab state leaving peacefully beside Israel? What about this swastika-"hijab"-wearing jihadi's concubine in the video? Does she look like one willing to settle for anything less than a "judenrein Palestine"?
    So, here you have it. There are all those Islamic extremists with European, Canadian and US passports who wish to destroy a Jewish state. There are plain old antisemites who count on most of the Jews to be murdered during the "liberation of Palestine" by the jihadists. And there are all those useful idiots from radical "internazi-sozis" who regard nation state as racist and dream about "bi-national workers' state" for Jews and Arabs to pot-smoking peaceniks who believe that if Israel showed more tolerance towards a jihadist enclave in its own backyard (in spite of the continuous rocket attacks) then terrorists would eventually repent, turn their rockets into computers and become a high-tech industrial giant like Hong-Kong or Singapore. Yeah, right...

    You know, guys, Jewish people have suffered enough from all sorts of social experiments. How about leaving them alone for a change? It may surprise you, but Jews nowadays are strong enough to beat all those cannibals who want them in the ovens. Just don't twist their arms. For once - treat Israel as any other nation that has a right to self-defense.

    Wednesday, January 7, 2009

    Poor-Choicers Want Their License To Kill

    Looks like I was too quick to say that the pro-abort side couldn't find any new arguments against the pro-life essay which Suzanne had quoted on her blog. Believe it or not, they do have something else to say beside "my body, my choice" and "the Supreme Court said so, case closed". Here's some more input from the pro-abortion side:
    It's NOT A BABY, but even if it were, as long as it's inhabiting MY body, it's a parasite, and I will dispose of it as I see fit.
    The author of the comment, Gorgon, then elaborates:
    A parasite, like a weed, is anything that grows where it is not wanted, and where it sucks life energy from its host without giving any benefit in return.

    If I say it's a parasite, it's a parasite to me. You call it whatever you want, but you don't get to call it on my behalf.
    Wow! I don't recall hearing that one before. Oh, wait, I do! I've read that in history books. You see, some 70 years ago, there too, was lots of talk about certain people living where they weren't wanted, of which certain European nation wished to "dispose" as they saw fit. But I couldn't imagine anyone saying such things about their own children...

    Other pro-abortion commenters however don't find anything disturbing or immoral in the above comment. One of them, Joe Agnost, finds our opposition to euthanasia to be far more outrageous than referring to a child as "parasite" and wishing to "dispose of it".
    I see something TERRIBLY immoral about suzanne (for instance) wanting tracy latimer to continue to suffer so that suzanne can feel better about herself. It's disgusting and cruel.
    So it's all about "feeling better for ourselves", eh? What about such a simple notion that every one of us (including the elderly and the disabled and the unborn and the terminally ill) has the right to live as many years as God gave them? That if our courts won't sentence even a serial killer to death - how could one justify putting someone to death just because he wasn't lucky to be born as healthy as we are?

    They say it's to end their suffering. From their prospective, one would rather be dead than miserable. How could one determine who is miserable to such extent that his life is no longer worth living? How could one prove that he's not yet miserable enough to be put to death? Judging from the rest of the conversation, occasional smiles don't count; paraphrasing Russia's dark humor - if doctors and relatives say "to the morgue" then to the morgue you go...

    Interestingly enough, the very same Joe Agnost is actually on a long arduous quest for morality. Too bad he keeps looking in all the wrong places:
    Man - has anyone checked out that loony site (religion and morality)?? What a nice window into the views of bigoted christians!
    Just a vile, vile site....

    The only reason I checked it out was because I (wrongly) assumed (joking) that the site was dedicated to finding SOME (ANY?) morals in religion. I assumed they'd spend their lifetimes looking in vain.
    I'm not sure what kind of morals a pro-euthanasia guy who sees nothing immoral with regarding a baby as "parasite" could even look for. As for his description of the religion and morality blog — his own comments as well as the comments of his fellow poor-choicers too could be seen as a window into the views of bigoted atheists and agnostics. I took a peek, and I saw nothing but selfishness and crushing spiritual void.

    Tuesday, January 6, 2009

    Bitter Truth — Abortion Kills Somebody

    Great essay by Binks Webelf blogger:
    In Canada, 100 000 somebodies are ripped apart, chemically boiled, left to starve or choke every year– sometimes in the very same hospital setting where not far away, tens of thousands a day are being spent on younger preemie babies in a state of the art NICU unit. That is our current society. Unlike ancient Carthage or Phoenicia, we’re not incinerating our children as offerings to Ba’al, in fulfilment of a mistaken understanding of divinity and nature. Sad to say, our reasons are lust, fear, convenience, or even as a belated form of ‘birth control.’
    Well said! Just as one of the commenters suggested: I can't imagine more being said in fewer words. Interestingly enough, the other side couldn't come up with anything better than the "my body, my choice" mantra.

    Well, for once I'll agree with Joe Agnost. My body, my choice. Your body, your choice. But when it comes to the baby's body - guess what - that's his body, not yours. Therefore there's no way it could be your choice or my choice or anyone else's choice for that matter.

    You have a choice to keep your body under control and your pants - well zipped up. If you choose otherwise and there's a new life as result - destroying that life is not a legitimate choice. It's murder.

    Monday, January 5, 2009

    Sex-Selection Abortions - A Form Of "Good Discrimination"?

    Saying that boys are better than girls - that's sexist. Slaughtering an unborn girl in the womb just because she is a girl - that apparently is a part of the implied "right to choose". At least that's how abortion advocacy group Ipas sees it.
    Sex-selected abortion, or “gendercide,” as some feminist critics call it, is a practice whereby parents choose to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn child is not of the desired sex. It is generally carried out against baby girls. The practice has led to unnatural gender imbalances in some countries, mostly in Asia, where in some areas of China, for instance, as many as 150 boys are born for every 100 girls, creating a dramatic demographic crisis.

    In response, some governments have banned sex-detection tests and outlawed sex-selected abortion. Ipas claims that as a result of these policies, “tremendous pressure emerges to control and restrict all second-trimester abortions,” the time when most sex-selected abortions occur. Ipas argues that “providers, afraid of being accused of providing sex-selective abortions, may limit their services to the first trimester, even when second-trimester services are legal.”
    In other words, those guys would rather let thousands of unborn girls be aborted for merely being girls, than allow a situation in which a woman could be denied second trimester abortion. Apparently, from their prospective, gender discrimination is bad only as long as abortion doesn't come into play.

    Sunday, January 4, 2009

    This Time — Raise The Tax-Free Amount

    It's sure nice to find out that the government is finally considering tax cuts, rather than more bailouts for privileged industries or more handouts to parasitic special interest groups.
    “There are a couple of ways to stimulate the economy. One is spending on the infrastructure side and other ways. And tax reductions — leaving more money in people's pockets — is also stimulus to the economy,” Mr. Flaherty told reporters at a news conference.

    “We've been reviewing other (tax) options,” he added.
    Some are speculating about yet another GST cut. Hopefully, this won't be the case. A 1 percentage point reduction in GST comes with a price tag of over $6B a year. That's just too expensive for a penny-on-a-dollar discount. Plus - it does nothing to improve consumers' confidence, it merely makes shopping slightly cheaper.

    The same funds could instead be used to increase personal and spousal exemption by $1900, increasing the amount one could earn tax-free from $10,100 to $12,000. And there will be enough money left to nearly double the child exemption from $2089 to $4000. Those measures (totaling roughly the same amount as 1% GST cut) will result in $285 tax break for every individual, with an extra $287 per child tax break for every family.

    Sure, payroll clerks will be having a hard time, adjusting payroll deduction formulas and numbers. Still, having an extra $11 per paycheck for each family member including children, is far more encouraging and far more assuring (in terms of consumers' confidence) than a promise of a $10 discount on a $1000 purchase.

    And, how about trimming some wasteful program expenses? A deficit (even a "temporary" rather than "structural") could be a great excuse to slash spending to agencies whose primary function is Liberal social engineering - CBC, CHRC, SOW to name a few. It's a great excuse to tell all those "artists" whose art never sells to go, find a real job. And, finally, if Canada can't make ends meet then we should stop throwing billions into a bottomless pit named "foreign aid".

    Charity begins at home. If we are to go back into deficit, we better cut back on those utopian wealth redistribution projects. If we are to borrow back tens of billions of dollars (after paying off $37B in just 3 years,) then we better use those funds to provide additional tax breaks for overburdened Canadian families, rather than supply a bunch of corrupt officials overseas with easy cash.

    Saturday, January 3, 2009

    Born Alive And Well — Despite Fatal Diagnosis

    The doctor suggested that the baby would be terminally ill and recommended "immediate termination". His deadly prescription was wrong. And so was his diagnosis.
    Gaynor Purdy was warned her first child could have a fatal chromosome defect and a life threatening heart condition.

    But she rejected two suggestions to terminate the pregnancy and she and her husband Lee are celebrating life with their "perfect" ten-month-old son.

    Mrs Purdy, 28, a quality control inspector, said: "We refused to give up on him, and decided throughout the pregnancy that as long as he was fighting, we would continue fighting with him."
    Mrs Purdy added: "Doctors told us he was a little miracle baby. They said his heart must have been mending itself.

    "Last year we were still on a knife edge thinking things would go wrong. But now he's out of the woods we are delighted that 2009 will be Kai's year."
    Eugenic abortions are justified by many. Many believe that a child better be dead than miserable. But let's not forget - when a doctor prescribes abortion, he's handing down a death sentence a baby. And, unlike judicial death penalty, every such conviction is a wrongful conviction. Because every baby, regardless of his health conditions, has a right to live - just like every one of us.

    Friday, January 2, 2009

    Global Warming — A "Spiritual Issue"?

    That apparently is the alarmists' last ditch attempt to save the troubled cult. Just check out this video. The "spirituality" begins at 6:18 mark.
    Does Al promise to not fly to Copenhagen in a private jet? Nyaaah that’s for the little people who buy carbon credits off him.
    Meanwhile our famous carbon credit salesman is being sued by over 30,000 scientists for fraud. No surprise here especially since many eco-crooks don't even bother to hide their intentions to use the "global warming" scare as an excuse for redistribution of wealth. And it turns out that Goracle has lost one of his most prominent disciples:
    Another bit of embarrassment for the eco-fanatics who are pushing the idea of man-made “global warming”. One of Al Gore’s former right-hand men has gone to the other side. Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who was apparently fired by Gore’s people for not buying into the “Inconvenient Truth” hype several years ago, has now declared the whole notion of man-made global warming “mistaken”. You can read all about it at a blogsite associated with US Senator James Inhofe. Click here
    Well, if there are still people willing to follow those Goremons no matter what, no matter where - they're welcome to grab their shovels and come to PEI which has been recently hit by a snow storm. There they could take some time off preaching their alarmist myths and do something useful for a change.

    Separation Of Church And History

    Former PM Paul Martin was never ashamed of his Catholic roots. Yet a few Wikipedia enthusiasts are apparently ashamed on his behalf.
    Until a few days ago, former Prime Minister Paul Martin was still Catholic, Stephen Harper was affiliated with the Christian Missionary Alliance and the late MacKenzie King used to be a slightly unconventional Presbyterian. Then, this information mysteriously vanished from Wikipedia. A quick online search revealed that the sudden disappearance of information concerning the religious affiliations of Canadian politicians-both dead and alive-was a haphazard editorial decision taken after a brief online discussion between the likes of DoubleBlue, Ducio1234 and Skeezix1000, thus confirming the worst misgivings that so many have about Wikipedia.

    In a single swoop, denominational information concerning former prime ministers John Diefenbaker, Lester B. Pearson, Louis St. Laurent, R.B. Bennett, and all others starting from September 25, 1926–when Prime Minister Arthur Meighen left office for the second time–was removed. Perhaps this was a watershed moment in Canadian religious history that I had not known about, maybe DoubleBlue and friends discovered something entirely new about our country’s past, or perhaps they simply have not gotten around to deleting Meighen’s Presbyterianism yet.
    Interestingly enough, DoubleBlue & Co began their work by deleting religious affiliation of MacKenzie-King and R.B. Bennett, but they omitted Gilles Duceppe, Stephane Dion and Jack Layton. If it was all about removing information which, as those guys claim, is irrelevant to the actual political discourse, wouldn't it make more sense to start with existing political party leaders than going all the way to 1920s and hiding religious affiliation of the Prime Ministers who died long ago?

    But even if they started with today's politicians, removing their religious affiliations from Wikipedia "info boxes" - what would it achieve? One of the commenters at Small Dead Animals suggests - it's to prevent "character assassination". He brings Preston Manning and Stockwell Day as example. But does he believe that merely removing Stockwell Day's religious affiliation from the highlights of his Wikipedia biography would be enough? As far as I recall - back in 2000, Wikipedia wasn't even there, so there was no Wikipedia biography whatsoever. Did that prevent the "progressives" of all stripes from bashing Stockwell Day for being an Evangelical pastor?

    And vice-versa: unlike Stockwell Day's religious affiliation, the one of Stephane Dion is still there (for now). And it must have been there throughout most of his tenure as Liberal leader. Was Stephane Dion ever bashed for being Catholic?

    So it wasn't about preventing character assassination or removing irrelevant information from the info-boxes. (Especially since the information about politician's religious views (if any) often appears in the article itself.) What apparently mattered is someone's desire to purge Canada's history, to remove at least the most noticeable references to the fact that Canada's founding fathers and Canada's greatest Prime Ministers were Christian. If it's not an attempt to separate church from history - I don't know what is.

    Thursday, January 1, 2009

    Starting Points In Fetal Rights Debate

    I agree with Rob Bruinooge (and many other pro-lifers) that fetal rights debate is ongoing; that it had been "closed" only in the minds of radical pro-aborts. But when it comes to reviving the debate in the House of Commons - the starting points are obvious. One of them is - whether or not abortion should be legal right up until the moment of birth.

    That was the focus of the last year's campaign by Life Canada. A poster, issued to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the ill-famous Supreme Court ruling, exposed the very same fact: 9 months - the length of time an abortion is allowed in Canada. And the question is obvious: Abortion - have we gone too far?

    Let's not forget a private member bill C-338, that would have disallowed abortions after 20 weeks (which is more or less when a baby becomes "viable"). The bill didn't go anywhere beyond the first reading and Paul Steckle, a Liberal MP who introduced the bill, is now retired. But thanks to the new pro-life caucus we can expect the bill to be reintroduced; preferably - by an MP who is among the first in line for the order of precedence.

    Another starting point is the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act. The bill, which wasn't meant to be about abortions until the pro-abortion lobby made it so. While the bill would only go as far as offering wanted unborn babies the kind of protection our laws offer to pets or wildlife animals, the pro-aborts got scared with section 5 of the bill, which stated that "It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being".

    They feared that this section might effectively establish legal grounds to grant full personhood to unborn babies. Not sure why they're being so scared with that section (animals too aren't human beings, yet poaching and cruelty to animals are illegal,) but if they are - reintroducing and debating the bill would become yet another starting point for fetal rights debate.

    But what if the next Parliamentary session doesn't last longer than it takes to defeat the government on a budget vote? Well, with the pathetic Bonhomme Carnival no longer the leader of the opposition, we're likely to have an election campaign. Which is a great opportunity to get the debate going. And it would be a great opportunity to get some anti-life Conservatives (primarily — Rob Nicholson, Gordon O’Connor, Lawrence Cannon, Sylvie Boucher and Josée Verner) defeated.