Monday, August 31, 2009

Anthem-Banning Principal Wants An Apology

Erik Millett, now ex-principal of Belleisle Elementary School, did receive an apology and a $500 compensation from a frustrated parent who threatened to "beat him senseless". (The parent, Brad Howland, was given a conditional discharge and placed on probation for eight months.) Now, Millet demands an apology from his other critics, among them - another concerned parent, Susan Boyd and Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson:
Thompson criticized the anthem decision in an interview with the Telegraph-Journal in January. He told the newspaper Millett lacks sensitivity on some issues and embarrassed himself by curtailing the singing of the anthem.

Millett has given Thompson one week to apologize and said if he doesn't, he will call on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to fire him.

If Thompson isn't fired, Millett said he will sue Thompson for defamation of character.

Thompson said he is standing by the comments he made in the newspaper story.

"I stand by everything I said in that story. Period," Thompson said after hearing of Millett's ultimatum Friday.

Millett also threatened to file a lawsuit against parent Susan Boyd unless he receives an apology from her within a week.

Boyd was one of the most vocal parents fighting for restoration of the daily playing of the anthem. She could not be reached for comment.
If anything - it's Millett himself who owes parents an apology - for trying to advance his radical left, internazi-green views in a taxpayer-funded institution, that was originally supposed to be about education, not about indoctrination.

Luckily - he's no longer the principal. But he's still teaching - in a high school. Somehow, there is a high school that still believes that a "green internationalist" who draws his political influences and inspiration from Che Guevera, Noam Chomsky and Malcolm X, can actually teach its students something decent.

Compare this to the story of a BC teacher, Chris Kempling, who lost his teaching license for merely running as a CHP candidate in a federal election. (Unlike Millet, Chris Kempling didn't try to advance his religious and political views in a public school, but the BC College of Teachers couldn't care less.) That shows how neutral and non-sectarian our public school system is, doesn't it?

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Technology That Is No Longer There

Remember those days of yore - you turn on your trusted PC XT (one with 4.7Mhz processor and 640KB of RAM,) and insert a floppy disk into drive A: That single floppy has everything you need to start the computer. In fact, you only needed 3 files to get your PC going - IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS and COMMAND.COM. But obviously, there was also AUTOEXEC.BAT and, probably, the good old Norton Commander. Believe it or, all that used to fit on just one 360KB ("double density") 5.25" floppy. I almost miss those times nowadays, when I have to go through hundreds of different files in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32 or /usr/bin folders, trying to locate the one which has gone corrupt.

Well, J R Raphael has come up with a list of 40 other things and activities that have either disappeared from our lives or nearing extinction. 1.44MB floppies (let alone the 360KB ones) are there. And they have quite a big company:
1. Playing Video Games at an Arcade

Status: On life support

Once a favorite activity of geeks worldwide, going to the arcade to play video games began fading away in the mid-1990s, just as going to the arcade to play pinball had done a decade before. A few arcades survive, but the days of gamers lining up to toss quarters into Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat are long gone. It's easy to see why: The advent of advanced gaming systems allows you to experience the same action at home, minus the dungeon-like lighting, the deafening game noise, and the premature exhaustion of your lunch money for the week.

2. Running Out of Hard-Drive Space

Status: Deceased

With terabyte-size drives now selling for less than $70, hard drives that exceed your storage needs aren't exactly hard to come by these days. But remember when an 80MB drive was the pinnacle of luxury and a 1GB drive would have seemed as spacious as Carlsbad Caverns?
By the way, believe it or not, but you can still start your computer from a disk - thanks to the Live CD technology and such "all-in-one" Linux-based operating systems as Knoppix or Austrumi. But even that may soon give way to booting from flash drive. After all, a flash drive fits in a pocket much better than a mini-CD, not to mention a full-sized 12-cm CD.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Pro-Life Red Envelope Campaign Resumes In New Brunswick

Unlike the provincial government, New Brunswick pro-lifers aren't ready to lay down arms. Attached to the latest NBRL newsletter was an empty red envelope, addressed to the New Brunswick Health Minister, Mary Schryer. The campaign is to raise awareness not just of the abortions that take place in Morgentaler's facility in Fredericton, but also - of hundreds of abortions that are performed in New Brunswick hospitals each year, because the province's definition of "medically necessary" could easily be stretched to include abortions on demand.
As you can tell from our Newsletter, pages 1-2, what is taking place in two of our New Brunswick hospitals is deeply disturbing. It's bad enough when Henry Morgentaler tries to force New Brunswickers to pay for dead-babies-on-demand at his private clinic (see Newsletter, p.10). Thanks goodness the government has been fighting then. But how can the same government pay for the very same thing in our hospitals! Shame on them!

I am very frustrated that up to now there has been no political leadership on this terrible problem. We have aborted 25,000 New Brunswick children since 1969 - and two-thirds were in our hospitals! Why have we collectively still not woken up& Why are we so reluctant to welcome and protect every child in our hospitals? How can we turn a blind eye to the death of hundreds of innocent children every year?

As pro-lifers we absolutely must hold our elected representatives to account. That's why we have initiated the Red Envelope Campaign.

Please use the enclosed red envelope. Send it (empty) to our new Minister of Health, Mary Schryer (who, incidentally, attended our last March for Life). Let's hope and pray it touches her heart.
If you haven't received an envelope, but still wish to participate, you can easily make one yourself. Seal it (empty) and write the following text on the back:
This envelope represents one New Brunswick child who died from an abortion. It is empty because that little boy or girl was never able to offer anything to the world. Please save our children!
Address the envelope to:

The Hon. Mary Schryer
Minister of Health
POBox 5100 Fredericton NB E3B 5G8

Make sure you put your name and address and don't forget to put a postage stamp. (You can only mail to the federal MPs postage-free.)

Apart from the Red Envelope campaign, New Brunswick is about to stage its first 40 Days For Life vigil from September 23rd to November 1st. And let's not forget the Life Chain that will take place on Sunday, October 4th in hundreds of locations all across North America, including at least four New Brunswick cities.

Friday, August 28, 2009

Senate Reform, Balanced Budgets — Can We Look Forward For Some Progress?

Two interesting news stories came almost at once. First - Stephen Harper is planning to fill the 9 vacant Senate seats and - he has chosen John Williamson, a former national director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, to be his new director of communications.

When it comes to the Senate appointments - the media claims that Harper plans to "put friends in Senate" while the Liberals blast the appointments as "Harpocrisy". But before they start crying foul over Harper's allegedly broken election promise, maybe they should ask themselves - what have they done to advance the Senate reform which would make the Senate appointment process more democratic?

If anything - their contribution is negative. Stephen Harper - at least he tried to pass those Senate reform bills despite the never ending filibustering. The opposition (especially the Liberals) - they are the ones behind the filibustering. They have successfully blocked any attempts to legislate Senate elections or even term limits. They wanted to keep the status-quo - they got just that, so they better not complain. If they were looking forward for Michael Ignatieff to fill those seats with Liberals - tough luck. After all - there's no law that says that only Liberals are eligible for Senate appointments.

So, once the 9 new Conservative Senators are summoned to the Upper Chamber, the Conservatives will have 46 seats, versus 53 for the Liberals, with the remaining 6 seats held by the Independent, non-aligned and "Progressive Conservative" Senators. 4 more upcoming retirements will narrow the gap to 46:50, with 5 "others". Yes, that's still 6-7 seats short of a majority, but now the government can count on the opposition Senators' poor attendance to pass some of the bills, maybe even - bill S-7, that would limit Senate terms to 8 years. Finally, it looks like we may have some progress on Senate reform - as long as the government actually survives the fall session.

Which I hope it will. A former CTF director as a new top spokesman - it looks like a long-awaited move in the right direction. Hopefully, with a man like John Williamson on board, the government could come up not just with a better communication strategy, but also - with a short- and long- term strategy to balance the budget, to slash wasteful spending, keeping the program expenses frozen for at least 3-5 years and to offer broad-based tax cuts for families and businesses.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Vox Populi On Khadr

CTV headline reads "'Mean-spirited' government punishing Khadr" - a headline that's more suitable for a left-wing blog than for a media outlet with pretense for neutrality and nation-wide appeal. The lion share of the article is written from the position of Khadr's lawyer and his supporters, leaving little room for the other side. But what didn't make it to the article, could be found in the comments. And judging from the thumbs up those comments receive - that's what most Canadians agree with.
Amidst the chorus of left-wing weenies who wrongly believe that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should and must serve the interests of a young man who not only turned his back on his country but also fought against it and, in so doing, allegedly killed an allied soldier, our federal government is properly demonstrating its resolve.

When you, essentially, wage war in your "homeland" against your chosen country of citizenship, the standing moral code of civilized society suggests that you thereby forfeit the benefit of the protections inherently afforded by that country you embrace only for its ability to serve any treasonous ambitions you may have.

The foreign and American elements of this case, combined with the stated evaluation of the facts and circumstances surrounding Kadr's detention (as directed by the Obama Administration), give legitimate cause for our government to believe the entire matter belongs with the Americans, and that the Charter does not directly serve Khadr in this special case.
Prof. Pye Chartt
574 Thumbs up (76%)
177 Thumbs down (24%)

Honestly, can Canadians really afford to bring him back?

I mean really, just recently our government brought a woman back from Africa, where she was being held, no sooner did she touch down on Canadian soil, she launches a lawsuit against us for 2.5 MILLION dollars! Some kind of gratitude to your home country!

I can only IMAGINE the costs we will have to pay Khadr since he has been detained for seven years.
David Sawkiw [Saskatchewan farmer]
809 Thumbs up (73%)
301 Thumbs down (27%)

The unelected activist judges have ORDERED the government to act. I guess these imbeciles have just declared the votes of millions of Canadians null and void in favor of this despicable murderer. To all you brave souls fighting in Afghanistan, toss your rifles, come home. These unelected judges once again have proven beyond a reasonable doubt... this place isn't worth spilling your blood for. They care about Khadr, not you.
823 Thumbs up (62%)
515 Thumbs down (38%)
As much as the last comment may seem harsh - we all know what's going to happen should Khadr be brought back to Canada. (Just read the comment by Allan Meadows.) So even if it's hard to fully agree with 'Edb', one thing is certain: the brave men who fight terrorism overseas, have once again been back-stabbed by a bunch of bleeding-heart Liberals who dominate Canada's judiciary.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Khadr Is NOT Canadian. Time To Fix The Citizenship Laws.

It's obvious now that even if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case - it will only win the government some time. But those few months can actually make a difference - if the government has the courage to act.

What's needed is a legislation that would allow the government to strip people like Khadr of the citizenship which they don't deserve. The law must be clear - anyone who joins the army of a hostile nation (not to mention - a militant terrorist organization) should therefore lose his Canadian citizenship, with all the benefits and protections it offers. Since the bill would apply equally to both born and naturalized citizens - the courts won't be able to strike it down as "discriminatory". (Or - at the least - they'd have a hard time doing so, and using the non-withstanding clause in this case would be justified.)

If the government had the courage to enact such a law during their more than 3 years in power, they wouldn't have to spend time and taxpayers' money in a desperate attempt to explain those bleeding-heart-Liberals in the Supreme Court why Khadr, a jihadi combatant with a Canadian passport, should stay in Guantanamo, instead of being brought to Canada and awarded hefty compensation for the "undue hardship" that he suffered under "those evil American imperialists".

But there's still some time left. The bill that puts an end to Khadr khrap can still be introduced. The government can even go as far as making it a matter of confidence to ensure that it passes within reasonable time-frame. Judging from the thumbs-up and thumbs-down, received by the pro- and anti-Khadr commenters, the opposition (especially - the Liberals) just won't dare to trigger an election over the bill that rids Canada of Khadr and other militant jihadis alike once and for all.

So, if the government is serious about stopping foreign combatants from using their Canadian passports of convenience to avoid prosecution for their crimes - let them act as soon as the Parliament reconvenes from the summer recess. Or let them concede defeat. Because the time of half-measures is running out.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

The Abortion Distortion — Forget About "Safe" Or "Rare" As Long As It's Legal

Andrea Mrozek and Rebecca Walberg comment on Quebec's recent attempt to apply uniform health standards to abortion clinics. (Shall I mention this was a failed attempt?)
"Safe, legal and rare" is the mantra of consensus-seeking pro-choice feminists, and one that at least acknowledges that abortion is not a desirable outcome for any pregnancy. But today in Quebec, abortion activists are rebranding. Try this newly truncated motto on for size: "just keep it legal."

Bill 34 in Quebec was an attempt to legislate the same standards for all out-patient medical clinics. The bill, it's worth noting, never mentioned abortion, but that didn't stop abortion activists from shifting into high-gear apoplexy. Those who purportedly stand for women's rights jumped to demand lower standards for their exclusively female patients. And on Aug. 17, they won. Quebec's beleaguered Health Minister Yves Bolduc retreated, and will now wait for the Quebec College of Physicians to create new guidelines.

Now Bolduc made it clear he's not pro-life. Bill 34 wasn't an end-run attempt to curtail access to abortions. That's a laughable idea in Quebec of all places, the province with the country's highest abortion rate. This was an attempt to apply uniform standards to all medical clinics. Who knew something so anodyne could cause such animus? But behind the hysteria lies the phenomenon known to pro-lifers everywhere as "the abortion distortion." (We first learned the term from Rachel MacNair, a pro-life feminist and psychologist.) The abortion distortion dictates that where abortion is mentioned, or even just implied as in this case, a double standard comes into play. Even where women's health is at stake.

The distortion happens when a perfectly valid study showing poor mental health effects for women after abortion is ignored, or worse still, torn apart as was done with the credible work of New Zealand psychologist David Fergusson. It happens when physical side effects post-abortion are kept under wraps, such as the credible link to subsequent pre-term deliveries after an abortion. It happens when pro-life women and men are summarily dismissed as "misogynists" in part because a liberal elite is fearful of losing the abortion-on-demand status quo.

And the abortion distortion happens when abortion clinics are exempt from the rules that apply to other medical clinics, as they now will be in Quebec. The abortion distortion is magnified when this is trumpeted as a victory for "women's rights."
The reality in Quebec is that the province has the dubious distinction of possessing Canada's highest abortion rate at more than 40 abortions for every 100 live births. It's legal, to be sure. It's not rare. Now, who knows whether it will be safe? But who cares? They have unfettered access. Those who typically advocate for increased regulation as a defense against misuse of power are demanding they be permitted to fly below the radar.
For the umpteenth time - it's all about money. That's why the chief campaigner for taxpayer-funded clinic abortions in New Brunswick is Morgentaler himself - the owner of an abortion franchise in Fredericton. That's why they cry foul over lost profit when a legislation requires abortion facilities to abide by the basic safety standards; the same standards that, if applied to any other clinic, would be regarded as nothing but common sense.

Russian writer Michael Veller once described Soviet abortion facilities as a place where women get disemboweled like hens. Abortion facilities in the Western world (including Canada) aren't any different.
She went into the abortion doctor’s office for the interview in Toronto balling her eyes out. The “doctor” said “Toughen up, why are you here? If you can’t handle it get out!” She “toughened up” and stayed.
Afterwards she wanted to die. She cut herself with razor blades all over her body and ended up in a psych ward. The walls were blank but she saw children running all around on the walls and she was in incredible turmoil.
But who cares as long as Morgentaler, Planned Parenthood and others make their millions and as long as the pro-aborts have their cherished "procedure" available with no restrictions throughout all 9 months of pregnancy?

Monday, August 24, 2009

They Know - It's A Baby. And They Don't Want To Kill Him.

From the No Apologies news release:
“Most Canadian ob/gyns don’t perform abortions,” reported the Medical Post yesterday. The results were based on a request sent out to 562 ob/gyns to complete an Internet-based survey which generated responses from 170 people (a 30% response rate). Of those 170 ob/gyns, 60.6% said they do not kill babies (”perform abortions”). Why not? Well, 50.5% said it was because of their personal beliefs, much to the dismay of Canada’s pro-abortion activists.

The Quebec researcher, Dr. Caroline Laroche of Saint-Luc Hospital in Montreal, said she found the results “troubling.” She seems to hold out hope that abortion advocacy among medical students might lead to more ob/gyns willing to kill babies, despite the greater access today to the scientific evidence corroborating the humanity of unborn children. The Medical Post reported: “She said there is a need for more dialogue and training for medical students and residents, which may sway those inclined to provide such services to continue to do so.” Interestingly of the eight different reasons respondents gave for not killing unborn babies, the reason which generated the smallest response was “training.” Perhaps Ms. Laroche is grasping at straws.
3 out of 5 ob/gyns know the scientific facts and act accordingly. What about the remaining 2 out of 5? Were they practicing double-think when their college-mates studied fetal development?

Saturday, August 22, 2009

The Truth Truck — Signs And Pictures That Save Lives

...even if they make some feel uncomfortable. Exposing "reproductive choice". Helping to make abortion unthinkable.
P.S. If we don't mind graphic pictures that show the results of not wearing seat belts - what's wrong with the graphic pictures that show what hides behind the euphemism "reproductive choice"?

The Truth Truck shows the pro-abortion folks what they have to defend; the pictures don't lie; and it shows those who are "moderately" pro-life (not to mention those who are "on the fence") what they've been tolerating all this time.

Friday, August 21, 2009

The Freedom-Lynching Jennifer Went To Dublin To Complain...

J-Ly is begging Canada's layers for help. (Apparently, hinting that they may lose business if the freedom-snatching commissions are abolished.) Here's a great comment from the Blazing Cat Fur:
Jennifer Lynch went to Dublin on your dime to complain that you, the Canadian public hates the Thought Control Stasi she runs - the CHRC. Here we are in a middle of recession and Canada's own Marie Antoinette is off galivanting at huge public expense to complain that we - the ignorant masses, have gone all uppity on her.

Public outrage at Jennifer Lynch's stunt is palpable. This latest outburst isn't the first time J-Ly has displayed her distaste for the Canadians of all political stripes who have expressed their disgust at her efforts to undermine our fundamental rights. Jennifer Lynch is a woman so desperate to retain her position as Canada's Thought Control Czarina, a woman so contemptuous of her critics that she ignored the recommendations of Richard Moon - the man she hand picked to provide her with an expected whitewash report of the odious Section 13(1). Ah but J-Ly's anticipated whitewash didn't go according to plan - Richard Moon did the unexpected, he told the truth - Section 13 (1) is bad law and recommended that the CHRC get out of the thought crime business. J-Ly is now clearly spinning out of control and has become a public embarassment to Canada, her open contempt for her critics reveals her to be an out of touch power mad bureaucrat on a Kamikaze Mission to protect her cushy sinecure.

The freedom-lynching Jennifer wants Canada's academic experts, law school deans, and senior lawyers to speak up in defense of Canada's star chambers. She believes that as "Canada's most trusted sources of information", it will be easier for them to convince Canadians that Orwellian tribunals with "human rights" in their name, actually have something to do with protecting human rights. Well, if those lawyers and academics listen to her pleas and start praising the tribunals that trample our freedom of speech and our right to a fair trial (to say the least) - they'll soon cease to be the "most trusted sources of information", that's for sure.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Is New Brunswick Caving In To Abortionists?

NB government has decided not to appeal the provincial court ruling which grants Morgentaler the right to sue the province over abortion funding. But, they say, the province is ready to fight the lawsuit itself.
The Liberal government will not appeal the New Brunswick Court of Appeal decision that paves the way for Dr. Henry Morgentaler to sue the province to pay for abortions at his Fredericton clinic.

Health Minister Mary Schryer announced on Tuesday afternoon that the province will accept the court's decision that Morgentaler has legal standing to sue the province over abortion funding.
The New Brunswick government had argued he didn't have the right to take the case to court because unlike the women who have abortions at the clinic, he was not directly affected.

In January, after a judge ruled in Morgentaler's favour, the province appealed the decision. In May, three appeal judges also ruled in Morgentaler's favour.

The province could have taken the case to the Supreme Court of Canada but Schryer said in a statement that the government respects the process and the province is ready to fight the lawsuit.

"The legal case will continue to move forward. The position of the province of New Brunswick has not changed in respect to this issue. As the larger legal matter remains before the courts, I will not make further comments," Schryer's statement said.
Too bad the government has chosen not to appeal. A lengthy process could have bought them some more time. And, as a pro-life taxpayer, I'd rather pay an extra $100 to fund the legal defense for fetal rights, than contribute a rusty penny to abortions on demand. Hopefully, the hearing of the law suit itself consumes as much time as it took to decide whether or not Morgentaler can represent the women of New Brunswick. Meanwhile we, the people of New Brunswick, should pressure both provincial political parties to use the non-withstanding clause should the court side with the pro-aborts.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Abortions — Even A Poor-Choicer Wouldn't Like To Witness One

A US journalist went to interview a late-term abortionist and she discovered that there's something disturbing about abortion. Something you wouldn't have when witnessing any other medical procedure.
While to her the first-term abortions "looked like an extended, more invasive version of a standard ob-gyn exam," "there was a discomfort I hadn't expected," she says, "my emotional reaction to watching abortions."

She describes several examples that made her react: a married couple in their mid-30s; a single mother with a 10-year-old daughter, who began to cry when they discussed abortion; and a 23-year-old who was 16 weeks pregnant.

Upon her return from Nebraska, Kliff was surprised by the reactions of her pro-abortion friends. "Friends who supported legal abortion bristled slightly when I told them where I'd been and what I'd watched," she says. "Acquaintances at a party looked a bit regretful to have asked about my most recent assignment."

Finally, she says, she continues to struggle with her reaction. "I had (and still have) difficulty understanding my own reaction," she says, "both relieved to have watched a minimally invasive surgery and distressed by the emotionality of the process. Abortion involves weighty choices that, depending on how you view it, involve a life, or the potential for life."
Yes, it's sure easy to defend abortion without knowing what abortion does to women, let alone their babies. That's why they're so opposed to graphic pictures - they'd rather stick to their assumption that abortion means merely "emptying the contents of the uterus", than admitting that abortion destroys life. No, it's not a "future child" what abortion destroys. It's a child that would otherwise have future.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Carbon Dioxide Irrelevant In Climate Debate. No Statistically-Significant "Global Warming" For Almost 15 Years.

A few inconvenient facts for Earth-worshipers of all stripes:
Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”
The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming” for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.

More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400 fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale.
If for no other reason than this: the IPCC assumes that the concentration of CO2 in 2100 will be 836 ppmv (parts per million volume). However, current graphs based on real data show that CO2 concentrations will only be 570 ppmv in 2100, cutting the IPCC’s estimates in half right there.

Another nail in the coffin of Global Warming is the observed rate of temperature change from 1980, which is observed to be 1.5 degrees C per century. The IPCC modeling calls for a range of 2.4 to 5.3 degree increase per century, which is far above what is observed in real data collected between 1980 and 2009.
There are only a couple of conclusions to be made of this. Either the world has been misled by scientists working for the UN and IPCC due to faulty science, or faulty science has been deliberately used in a global scheme to generate tax revenues for the Governments instituting Cap and Trade Taxation policies.

Either way, the world has been the victim of some very bad science. The results of which can be seen in drastically reduced GDP in countries with the Cap and Trade laws in place, as well a a 5 - 10% decrease in standard of living for those citizens living there (Taxing Carbon designed to fail.), all with little or no effect on emissions globally.
I doubt that a mere scientific mistake would ever be allowed to go this far. So the only reasonable conclusion is that "global warming" alarmists are subverting science to achieve their own political and financial goals.
I accuse the United Nations environmental program in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular of creating a huge hoax, "global warming", in order to reduce energy use and to create a phony market for so-called "carbon credits," based on the lie that carbon dioxide plays a role in the alleged warming process.

The Earth is not warming. It is cooling. Meteorologists, climatologists, and solar physicists agree that it has been cooling for at least a decade and predict the cooling will continue for several decades to come.
I accuse the Environmental Protection Agency of falsely asserting that carbon dioxide is a "pollutant" that must be regulated when it is essential to all life on the planet. It is vital for all plant life and plays no role in climate change except to react to it.
And let's not forget all those radical enviro-fascist groups that cry foul over what they call "carbon footprint" of newborn babies, pushing for more abortions, contraception, euthanasia, sterilizations, and population control. They're not on Alan Caruba's list of those accused of using the "global warming" scare to their own advantage, but that's exactly where they belong.

Monday, August 17, 2009

Children Are Worth Having

Check out this Mercator-net article by Barbara Lilley. It's a great rebuttal to Maclean's Magazine article, "No Kids, No Grief". In response to 40 reasons not to have children, Barbara outlines 20 reasons why children are worth having.
Corinne Maier and the men and women like her, who claim that being a parent is just too much work and that we should all just focus on ourselves, are the truly selfish ones in our society. Not by any stretch of the imagination would I claim that everyone should aim to have children; parenthood is not for the faint of heart. But for those of us who know, in our heart of hearts, that having children was the best choice to make, here is my list of reasons for why you should have children (or at least consider it).
  • Children keep you honest
  • Children don't care if you're the perfect height or weight, just as long as you love them
  • Children keep you young
  • A hug from a child can warm your heart
  • Children show you your own negative qualities that need to be changed
  • A child's laugh makes you smile too (and sometimes even join in)
  • Children remind you how much fun colouring can be
  • One day, your child will be toilet-trained, your dog will forever need you to pick up after it
  • Children don't leave wet furballs lying around for you to step in
  • Breastfeeding brings you closer to your baby-it is not slavery. Scratch that-feeding your baby brings you closer to your baby-whether breast or bottle-fed
  • Children only kill desire in a marriage if you let them – get creative
  • Riding the merry-go-round with your children reminds you how to be a kid again
  • Little faces that light up when you walk through the door-whether you've been gone for five hours or five minutes
  • Snuggling in bed reading together
  • Crayon drawings on the refrigerator door
  • Swelling with pride at your child's accomplishments-whether it's learning to ride a bike or graduating from high school
  • Having someone to pass on family traditions to – or creating new ones
  • Mother's Day cards that say, “You're the best Mom in the whole world!”
  • Father's Day cards that read, “To the world's greatest Dad!”
  • Hugs and kisses, just because
And I bet every loving parent could easily come up with the remaining 20 reasons :)

Sunday, August 16, 2009

For Them Stephen Harper Is Scary No Matter What

From the SoCon prospective, Harper is at best a social moderate. He won't push through with more Liberal social engineering, but when it comes to undoing what's already there - he won't touch any of that with a ten foot pole. Abortion, family values, freedom of speech - Harper won't even allow a debate on those issues - just so that the opposition couldn't accuse him of being a "right-wing extremist". For the socially "progressive" crowd, that however is not enough:
Principal of University College at the University of Toronto ... argues the Harper conservatives are closer to organized anti-feminism than any regime in the country’s history and will need to reach out to left-leaning women’s groups in order to win a majority. Dr. Bashevkin states:
“In terms of the willingness of pragmatists to win out over ideologues, if pragmatists are going to prevail in the Conservative Party, it seems to me there will be a much more clear focus on drawing in much more activists to the party, who are from all kinds of backgrounds, be they aboriginal, or new Canadians, or women, or so on and, of course, women in each of those other categories and youth.”
The progressive academic fails to acknowledge, however, more often than not, it is social conservative female voices who are more often ignored by the political and media mainstream than minority women’s groups.
I doubt that there's anything Stephen Harper can do to win the support of left-leaning women's groups. Even if he leads a shameful "pride" parade, on foot, all the way from Vancouver to Halifax, or drags his own wife to an abortion clinic kicking and screaming, or triples the handouts for SOW, Quebec artists and the CBC - I doubt any of that will help. That will alienate what's left of his old Reform/Alliance base, reducing the party back to 16% and 2 seats - that's for sure. But I doubt there will be many left-leaning women's groups willing to throw their support behind Stephen Harper.

Why would they? They have finally got the man of their dream, an intellectual, socially "progressive" and (supposedly) fiscally responsible Michael Ignatieff crowned as a Liberal leader. All those "progressive" voters who switched to the NDP and the Greens last year, are now coming back to the Liberal party. So why would any of them want to relinquish their dreams of PM Ignatieff and support a man whom they've been bashing for nearly a decade?

Instead of wasting time and resources trying to win a handful of votes from the no longer disgruntled Liberals, the Conservative party must reach out to the non-voters. Over 40% of Canadians no longer bother to cast their ballot; mostly - because they don't find any of the major political parties worthy of their support. If the Conservatives succeed in convincing at least 1 in 4 non-voters to get out and vote Conservative - that will give them a majority government.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Liberal Abortion Laws Lead to Greater Maternal Death

What the pro-aborts refer to as "reproductive choice" turns out to be deadly not just for the babies, but also for their mothers:
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) The world's largest abortion provider, International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), has recently acknowledged an alarming "surge" in maternal deaths in South Africa, challenging the pro-abortion mantra that liberal abortion laws decrease maternal mortality. Maternal deaths increased by twenty per cent in the period 2005-2007 in South Africa, a country that since 1996 has had one of the most permissive abortion laws on the African continent.

While deaths attributable to HIV/AIDS account for the biggest portion of maternal deaths in South Africa, IPPF acknowledges that a portion of deaths are "due to complications of abortion" in a country where the procedure is legal and widely available.
And in case the pro-aborts try to scare us with their claims about back-alley abortions, let's remind them that 90% of those back-alley abortions were performed by trained physicians (basically - by the same people that perform them nowadays) and that the back-alley abortion death statistics that they use is fabricated. The real numbers are in fact several orders of magnitude lower:
We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority.

We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200 - 250 annually. The figure constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalization.
This manipulation with statistic hasn't stopped; even now some radical pro-aborts keep claiming that 12,000 women died each year from illegal abortions in Canada alone. While in reality, the average number of deaths each year, attributable to illegal abortions was... 16. All of those illegal abortions were performed in doctors' offices under medical supervision. Current death toll from Canada's 100,000 abortions a year is higher than it used to be back then.

Friday, August 14, 2009

FCP — Still The Only Real Conservative Party In Ontario

Yes, there was some hope that once the pervert-kissing Tory is out and a new leader is in, things would be different in the Ontario PC party. We've seen the leadership campaign with the two out of four contestants campaigning to scrap the OHRC and we could look forward for the party to come back to its Conservative roots... Looks like it was too much to expect from a "Progressive"-Conservative party:
The Toronto Star reported today that the Ontario Tories, under their brand new leader, Tim Hudack, are “actively wooing” Toronto Sun city hall columnist Sue-Ann Levy to run as their candidate in a St. Paul’s (Toronto) by-election. The Toronto Star reports: “Jewish and gay – she came out on the Sun’s front page to mark Pride Week in 2007 – Levy lives in the riding, which boasts a thriving Jewish community, with her new wife, Denise Alexander. … Insiders confide Levy is the kind of media-savvy candidate new PC Leader Tim Hudak wants. ‘We’re really excited about Sue-Ann,’ said one senior Tory, who hoped the news would be made official today …”

What kind of token will Hudack throw to the party’s social conservatives to compensate for this move? Maybe the socons are too small a rump for him to care.

Apparently, the renewed Ontario PC party hasn't changed its stand on family values. So what does it stand for? What exactly makes Sue-Ann Levy a perfect OPC candidate, beside her Jewish background and the fact that she is proud of her perverse attraction to another woman? Finally - what about the PC district association in St. Paul's? How do they like the idea of having a parachuted candidate, instead of being able to hold a full-scale nomination vote?

Luckily, Ontario still has the Family Coalition Party; the only pro-life and pro-family political party on the provincial level. The FCP did run a candidate in St. Paul's back in 2007 and they should run one this time. With the OPC preparing to nominate yet another "socially progressive, {sort of} fiscally responsible" candidate (virtually indistinguishable from her Liberal, NDP and Green counterparts,) there will be nobody to fill the void on the right — unless the Family Coalition Party of Ontario runs a candidate to represent the pro-life, pro-family Conservatives in the riding.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Quebec Government Sides With Abortion Lobby

Quebec government backs down on its plans to require abortion facilities to set up separate sterile operating rooms:
Faced with growing opposition and calls for his resignation, Quebec Health and Social Services Minister Yves Bolduc yesterday backed down on plans to impose strict new norms for private abortion clinics in the province as of Sept. 30.

In an interview on RadioCanada, Mr. Bolduc-- after saying on the weekend that the new rules are necessary and a matter of safety -- said he is revising his position. He is now ready to examine the idea of excluding private abortion clinics from the list of clinics covered by Bill 34 adopted last spring.

Bill 34, which was adopted by the national assembly in the spring, says abortion clinics must adhere to the same guidelines as specialized medical clinics that provide such procedures as cataract and knee surgeries.

That means they have to set up separate sterile operating rooms as opposed to simply sterilizing surgical equipment.
Abortion providers consider that requirement to be "excessive". They claim, abortion is a "minor surgery", which is "safe already". After all, no abortion "doctor" has ever died from infection contracted on the job, so why bother?
I see the abortion providers and their variety of useful idiots have provided us with yet another stellar example of how they carry the interest of women’s safety in their hearts. Remember the jingo, “Legal, Safe & Rare”? Well, they got the first one, but the industry really doesn’t care about the other two. Abortions are hardly rare and they never will be, provided they are legal and lucrative. After all, the pressure to abort remains intense on women in today’s culture. And as for abortion being “safe”, that’s the biggest lie going. More women are dying today from LEGAL abortions than they ever did from the back-alley kind. Abortionists are only concerned about the money.

A basic, sterile environment still costs money.

That’s why they are against it. Otherwise, why would they be putting up such a stink about conforming to basic health and safety standards? And why are they not providing such an environment in the first place? It kind of tells you what abortionists think about women’s health. They even tell women where to go if they get emotional...
Poor-choicers often refer to abortion as "reproductive health". The true meaning of abortion however is - no reproduction and no health.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Secular Quebec Chooses Speedy Death

As if aborting and contracepting itself out of existence isn't enough, vast majority of Quebecers wish to accelerate the process of their own extinction by making euthanasia legal:
MONTREAL, August 11, 2009 ( - An Angus Reid-La Presse poll carried out on August 4 and 5 has found that more than three quarters of Quebecers agree that euthanasia should be legalized in Quebec.

Jaideep Mukerji, Vice President of Public Affairs at Angus Reid Strategies, said he was surprised by the results of the poll of 800 adults in Quebec.

"You'd be surprised how Quebecers are in favor of euthanasia and that their opinion on the subject is clear," Mukerji told La Presse, adding that support for the legalized killing was consistent across most social and economic strata.
Proposing that euthanasia be legalized "as part of appropriate care in certain particular circumstances," the College's task force on ethics concluded that Quebec society was ready for the intentional killing of the terminally ill who are in intense pain (85% of Quebecers in favor), people with an incurable disease (58% of Quebecers in favor), and patients in a coma who have left instructions to be euthanized if reduced to such a condition (86% of Quebecers in favor).
And then they complain that Quebec Francophone culture is being overwhelmed by the English-Canadian and American pop culture, that more "language protection laws" are needed to preserve Quebec's French language and cultural identity... Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too:
The Canadian province of Quebec started Canada onto the road to abortion and now it looks like it is going to lead Canada into the next level of death culture - euthanasia. The explanation for this development, however, is not that complicated. Quebecers, once one of the most Christian communities in the world, radically turned their back on God many years ago and so what value does life really have to those who now see only this world as their destiny and purpose.
And they reap what they sow. Their support for abortion back in mid-1970s (including the first PQ government's decision not to enforce Canada's abortion laws in Quebec,) cost them their sovereignty referendum in 1995. But instead of learning their lesson, Quebecers now push for euthanasia. Well, if native Quebecers become a minority in their own land within a generation - they better not complain, because it will be 100% their fault.

Monday, August 10, 2009

Unions — Do We Even Need Them?

Howard Levitt weighs in on the recent Toronto city workers' strike in his Financial Post article. His conclusion is - unions are no longer a necessary evil in Canadian workplace:
A client of mine, whose union was recently decertified, just bought a business from a unionized employer. At the time of the sale, the employer commented that my client would be better off if it learned to deal with unions. My client did not see it that way. It was happy to lose the adversarial environment that goes with having a union and be able to make its decisions in the interests of its business and employees without worrying about byzantine collective agreement provisions.

Increasingly, Canadian employees represented by unions are coming to the same conclusion. The rate of unionization in this country is in dramatic decline, particularly in the private sector.

Protective legislation for employees and a sympathetic judiciary provide non-union employees with as much, and in some cases, more protection than that enjoyed by organized labour. Unionized employees cannot even sue for wrongful dismissal and usually are limited in their severance to the minimum provisions of each province's employment standards act.
Well, there are still a few things the unions are good at. For example, they're good at taking your money; not just union dues, but also - initiation fees, departure fees and whatever other fees they charge that somehow don't count as union dues and therefore - are not tax deductible.

Then unions are good at staging all sort of campaigns against "heterosexism" and "Israeli apartheid". Every radical special interest group which regards ordinary Canadians as "class enemies" or "infidel dogs" or "racists", "homophobes", "misogynists", "cancer of the Earth" etc, can count on unions to support them. But God forbid if an event which goes against the unions' "progressive" ideology is allowed on premises! Even if they won't disrupt it, they'll do their best to encourage people not to show up.

If pro-life, pro-family Christian members still have any rights left within their unions, that's apparently the right to pay their union dues and shut up and try not to think about where their money goes. That's it. No right to opt out of forcibly supporting parasitic special interest groups. No right to opt out of union membership without actually leaving the job. Even voicing a dissenting opinion is not allowed, because the unions condemn it as "anti-choice" or "heterosexist" or otherwise discriminatory.

And let's not forget political lobbying - that's another thing the unions are good at. So, unions are still good for something. Except - none of that benefits the people which the unions claim to be representing.

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Abortion And Misanthropic Environmentalism Hand In Hand

Late-term abortionist refers to human beings as "malignant eco-tumor destroying the earth" in his works. found a 2008 edition of Hern's article published in the International Journal of Anthropology . While the term "eco-tumor" does not appear in this version as quoted by Esquire, it may have come from an earlier version of Hern's paper that was presented at the 16th International Seminar on Urban Form in Brazil on August, 29 2007.

"From the point of view of a physician, the expanding, invasive, colonizing urban form with highly irregular borders resembles a malignant lesion," wrote Hern. "Malignant neoplasms have at least four major characteristics: rapid, uncontrolled growth; invasion and destruction of adjacent normal tissues (ecosystems); metastasis (distant colonization); and de-differentiation."
Hern argued that expanding urban communities would "alter the biosphere to the point that it can no longer support large, oxygen-consuming organisms" reaching a point at which in "the point of view of human survival, the host organism will have died."
That guy must be wishing he was born some 70 years earlier. He would have fit in the swastika crowd just perfectly. And there would have been plenty of work for him in the very late term abortion field too.

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Whose Choice?

Check out this great pro-life essay by Raymond Schaefer:
For the sake of the convenience of the mother who chooses to abort her baby, every choice that child could ever make is taken away.

One thing that almost every person on this earth, rich or poor, has in common is the power to make choices in his or her life, choices between right and wrong, choices about marriage, sex, work, love, money, time, and thousands of decisions great and small. We all make thousands of choices in the course of our lives. We reap the consequences of those choices and we learn lessons from those choices.

All of that is taken away from a child that is killed before it is born.
Millions of Americans believe abortion is murder. If abortion is the taking of a human life, then they are right. So a key question is whether or not abortion is taking a human life.

There is an abundance of evidence that an unborn child is alive. Its genetic makeup and potential are unique and clearly defined at conception. The unborn child grows. It develops a heart beat. It develops brain waves. It develops the ability to move, to kick. It has all the characteristics of a living organism.

Abortions are sometimes performed by injecting a lethal substance into the unborn child's body, causing it to die. When the child dies, the mother's body rejects it. You cannot kill something that is not alive.

And it is human. It is not any other species but human. An unborn child in the womb is therefore a living human being, and killing before it is born for the convenience of the mother is murder.

The main change that occurs when a baby is born is that it gets oxygen from its lungs and food through its mouth instead of through an umbilical cord. But it is just as much alive before it passes through the birth canal as after.
Well said! The essay also touches Roe vs Wade and discusses the importance of reversing that ill-famous court ruling. And Raymond recommends some pro-life books - those are also worthy of reading.

And Then They Tell Us That Abortions Are Safe

A simple requirement for abortion facilities to have an operating room is enough to drive an abortuary out of business:
Quebec's new Law 34 requires clinics to have an operating room to do abortions. The Clinique l'Alternative considers this change too onerous and will not renew its contract with the government to do abortions.

The abortion clinics are negotiating with the government to make modifications favorable to their trade. But even if these negotiations are successful, the clinic will not come back on its decision.
Hmm... I wonder why do they think their facilities should be exempt from regulations that apply to any other clinics? Not to mention that even with the new regulations in place, abortion facilities are typically exempt from standard informed consent rules that apply to, let's say plastic surgeons. And then they tell us that abortions are safe? Yeah, right!

Friday, August 7, 2009

"Human Rights" Commissions — Silence Is Their Weapon

Neil Dykstra sheds some light on what hides behind the "confidentiality clause" in HRC-mediated settlements:
Imagine the following scenario. You are accused of a petty crime of which you are innocent. Without any more than a cursory investigation, you are compelled to meet with your accuser and a mediator. There, they tell you that you can either give them five thousand dollars in a settlement, or they will haul you into court and prosecute you for the crime. Even though you would most likely be proved innocent in a court of law, you are not eligible for legal aid and would be on the hook for over twenty thousand dollars in legal fees.

Trapped, you accept their demands. As they push the settlement document forward for your signature, there is a condition on the bottom stating that you are forbidden to talk about any aspect of this agreement. Nobody would ever know about the wrongs you have suffered. It’s the cherry on the top of a sundae of injustice.

Does this sound like third-world justice to you?

It’s not. Each one of Canada’s federal and provincial Human Rights bodies employs some variation of this mediation procedure. It is usually undertaken upon receipt of a complaint, before any investigation has taken place. A cursory screening process removes complaints only if they are beyond the scope of applicable human rights law, so factually baseless complaints can easily proceed to this mediation process. Once there, the deck is stacked against the defendant. If mediation is unsuccessful at finding a mutually acceptable agreement, the complaint moves forward to an investigation, during which defendants almost always find themselves hiring lawyers at their own expense. Meanwhile, the government covers all of the complainant’s costs and fees at every stage, which removes any deterrent for baseless or frivolous allegations.
That's how Liberal bureaucrats understand human rights. They trample your freedom of speech, they take away your right to a fair trial and they want you to shut up and never tell anyone about the injustice done to him.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Euthanasia — You Were A Human Being, Now You're A "Negative Economic Unit"

No, it's not something that may happen if... It's something that happens already, in some US states:
Doctor C.L. Gray and his Physicians for Reform group tell us of the horror story of Oregon’s government run healthcare plan that offered a cancer patient named Barbara all the suicide assisted funding she wanted, but not one penny for the medical care that could save her life.

As Doctor Gray put it, Barbara was no longer thought of by government as a patient but instead had become a “negative economic unit.” Oregon’s government run healthcare system wanted Barbara dead because keeping her alive was simply to costly.
As the population ages, as we have more retired people and fewer workers to support them, there will be more political powers and organizations interested in just that - eliminating those whom they regard as "negative economic units". They may hide their intentions behind fancy slogans like "dying with dignity" and using euphemisms to position murder as mercy. But that doesn't make a wholesale slaughter any less ugly.
The word “euthanasia” was designed from the beginning as a euphemism—as an attempt to draw the happy face over a profoundly ugly thing, and thereby slide over the moral depths—in the pioneering days of eugenics. The purpose of euphemism is to decorate a lie.
Euthanasia is the final “life issue,” the clincher for what the last pope called “the culture of death.” Even when legalizing abortion, we agreed only to the slaughter of human beings we could not see. It was still possible to look away, to pretend we were not killing “real people,” only “potential people.” But when we embrace so-called “mercy killing,” we embrace slaughter not only for the sick and old, but ultimately, the “option” of easy suicide for ourselves. It will be hard to go lower.
When people turn a blind eye on abortion, when they accept the notion of sacrificing unborn babies for the sake of one's personal convenience (relationship, career, financial well-being or whatever excuse they can come up with,) they shouldn't be surprised if their own lives too get sacrificed - for someone else's personal convenience.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

The Folly Of Hate-Crime Laws

Richard Cohen discusses the real purpose of "hate-crime" laws in his Washington Post article:
The real purpose of hate-crime laws is to reassure politically significant groups -- blacks, Hispanics, Jews, gays, etc. -- that someone cares about them and takes their fears seriously. That's nice. It does not change the fact, though, that what's being punished is thought or speech. Johns is dead no matter what von Brunn believes. The penalty for murder is severe, so it's not as if the crime is not being punished. The added "late hit" of a hate crime is without any real consequence, except as a precedent for the punishment of belief or speech. Slippery slopes are supposedly all around us, I know, but this one is the real McCoy.

Let us assume that the "community" is really affected by what we call a hate crime. I am Jewish. But even with von Brunn's attack, I am more affected by a mugging in my neighborhood that might keep me from taking a walk at night than I am by a shooting at the Holocaust museum. If there's a murder in a park, I'll stay out of it for months. If there's a rape, women will stay out of the park. If there's another and another, women will know that a real hater is loose. Rape, though, is not a hate crime. Why not?

I doubt that any group of drunken toughs is going to hesitate in their pummeling of a gay individual or an African American or a Jew on account of it being a hate crime. If they are not already deterred by the conventional penalties -- prison, etc. -- then why would additional penalties deter them? And if, in fact, they kept their mouths shut, refrained from the N-word or the F-word or the K-word, and simply made the beating or the killing seem one triggered by dissing or some other reason, then they would not be accused of hate -- merely of murder or some such trifle. If, though, they gave vent to their thoughts, they would be in for real trouble.

For the most part, hate-crime legislation is just a sop for politically influential interest groups -- yet another area in which liberals, traditionally sensitive to civil liberties issues, have chosen to mollify an entire population at the expense of the individual and endorse discredited reasoning about deterrence.
Well, we know how it works, don't we? When an ethnic gang declares their street a "no go zone" for anyone whose origin is different than theirs - they're just "unprivileged youths", lashing out at the society that has marginalized them. When a gang of radical homosexual perverts vandalizes a church or assaults the parishioners during service - it's the church and the parishioners that are to blame; they shouldn't have campaigned to defend traditional marriage. But if ordinary people dare to fight back or even - talk about getting together and fighting back - that's when "hate crime" laws kick in. Those laws are there to force Liberal/"Progressive" social engineering on our society and to suppress any opposition that may arise.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Monetary Reformers Unite Under CHP Banner

From the CHP e-mail Communiqué:
We are delighted to announce that the Leader of the Canadian Action Party of Canada, Dr. Andrew Moulden, has resigned his leadership position in order to give his full support to the Christian Heritage Party of Canada.

CAP, founded in 1997 by Trudeau's former Deputy Prime Minister the Hon. Paul Hellyer, included monetary reforms intended to prevent the kind of debt-fuelled economic collapse currently being experienced. The CHP also advocates a return to government-created money under the Bank of Canada as authorized by the Bank of Canada Act, rather than 98% bank-created money that we are currently using.

Dr. Moulden said, "I remain committed to serving our fellow citizens and country with a political organization that best reflects the interests of our country, fellow beings, and the Golden Rule..."

Dr. Moulden holds a PhD in Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology with a subspecialty in cognitive neuroscience. He said that he sees the CHP as "An effective vehicle for interested citizens to reclaim the values, nationhood, and voice they genuinely need and must have."

The CHP national team is delighted by this news. Dr. Moulden's leadership experience and training, both politically and professionally, will be a real asset to our party.

With the help of the many new faces arriving, CHP Canada continues its advance as a political voice in Canada.

Let's take a look at some of the great news over the past few months. In March of this year the head of Prayer Canada, Arne Bryan, asked his own membership of five thousand to put their full support behind CHP Canada. Two months ago Social Credit Party leader, Wayne Cook, asked all his members to join the CHP. In April of this year Frank Hilliard, President of Boundary Pistol Club in Grand Forks BC, resigned as a Director of the Southern Interior Conservative Party Association to put his full support behind CHP Canada.
(CHP Communiqué Vol 16, No 29 Aug 04, 2009)
More >>>
Now, this is an interesting phenomenon. Despite having some of the former Social Credit Party members on board, Canadian Action Party has never associated itself with the Social Conservatives. Yes, the CAP website did mention free votes on social issues at some point. But at the same time, the CAP officially supported the redefinition of marriage. Not to mention that the CAP founder and former leader Paul Hellyer was willing to merge his party with the NDP and the merger proposal was apparently supported by most of the CAP membership...

So how could this happen? What prevented Dr. Andrew Moulden from turning his own party into an effective vehicle for concerned citizens, forcing him to quit his leadership position and join the CHP? We can only guess. Maybe, Andrew was looking forward to change his party for the better, but was prevented from doing so by the party executives. Or, I won't be surprised if it turns out that Andrew is a Social Conservative or at least - a Social moderate who has realized that it's the social views that shape the party's fiscal policy, not the other way around... It's hard to say with so little information.

But it is possible to notice quite an interesting trend - Monetary Reformers are joining Social Conservatives under the CHP banner. First we saw Wayne Cook and his team abandoning their plans to recreate the Federal Social Credit party and choosing to join the CHP instead. Now, we have Dr. Andrew Moulden following them. If the trend continues, if the CHP succeeds in organizing a team of economists that come up with a fiscally sound alternative to the current debt-driven economy - that could help the CHP to shed its image as a "theocratic", "single-issue" party, to attract new voters and to achieve a much needed electoral breakthrough.

Update: Terry Le Blanc, former organizational chair for CAP, has been researching and documenting Dr. Moulden's background on his web site The website contains documented evidence and testimonial from sources that, according to Terry Le Blanc, caused Dr. Moulden to leave CAP. Among them - an article from Dr. Carley who was going to testify at a National Executive meeting regarding Dr. Moulden's alleged theft of her intellectual property. Terry Le Blanc says that as soon as Dr. Moulden found out about this, he quit the party. (Which apparently had happened several weeks before Dr. Moulden joined the CHP.)

I can neither confirm nor disprove what Terry Le Blanc has posted on his website. It's a pity if Dr. Moulden's move turns out to be a mere attempt to avoid a scandal.

As for the original subject (Monetary reformers unite under the CHP banner) - we still have Wayne Cook and his Social Credit team, who have joined CHP for the policies - which include using the Bank of Canada to finance infrastructure projects. And we can still look forward for the CHP to unite the Social Conservatives and the Monetary Reformers under its banner.

Monday, August 3, 2009

Jason Kenney — Next Conservative Party Leader?

Interesting article by Jennifer Ditchburn:
But who might replace Stephen Harper once he leaves is the stuff of constant speculation behind the scenes -- and the chatter is getting louder about one rising star in particular: Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.
The 41-year-old workaholic has attracted attention for taking a pain-in-the-butt portfolio like immigration and making it seem like a tier-one department.

"What I like about Jason is he's working very hard, and he's earning people's respect, I think, by doing a lot of things very well," said one caucus colleague.

"And what is a leader? A person who can do a lot of things very well."
Actually, I like the idea. Jason, an MP since 1997, one of the founders of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, a pro-life, pro-family, pro-freedom MP who doesn't afraid to publicly express his views, sure outweighs Diane Finley who's only been in Parliament since 2004 and, so far, appears to be just "one out of many" in Stephen Harper's cabinet. Not to mention Peter MacKay, Jim Flaherty, John Baird (Red Tories? - no thanks) and Lisa Raitt (who the heck is Lisa Raitt?) So, if there's a leadership contest and Jason Kenney is running - he's got my vote.

Most of the voters on the CTV website, however have different view; according to the online poll results, Peter MacKay is the undisputed winner with 61% of the vote, while Jason Kenney ended up distant second, with only 14%. But then - not everyone who voted in this poll is a Conservative.

And let's not forget - Stephen Harper is not likely to step down any time soon. By the time he does - things will have changed so many times that most of today's speculations might just become irrelevant.

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Politically Incorrect, But Honest

A must read editorial by Leonard Stern. I can't believe, a major newspaper has actually dared to touch such a sensitive subject.
The downside of acknowledging these cultural connections is that doing so can unfairly tar an entire community and perpetuate stereotypes. I'm sure Wente got grief for her column.

But covering them up also incurs costs. First, it's dishonest. Politicians and social activists who pretend that these shootings are just expressions of generic "youth violence," when everyone knows otherwise, lose credibility. Secondly, it's impossible to fix a problem when you deny it exists.

Resources are finite, and need to be directed where most needed. A Caribbean-Canadian growing up at Jane and Finch in Toronto is more vulnerable to gang influences, and therefore in greater need of interventions, than a Korean-Canadian teenager in Markham. A young Muslim in Mississauga is more likely to encounter images of militant Islam than his Italian-Canadian counterpart living around Dufferin Street.

Of course bad people can incubate in any community, but cultural or ethnic groups have particular vulnerabilities. It shouldn't be forbidden to say so.
Well said. It's time to let go of the multi-cultural doublethink known as political correctness. Covering up the symptoms has never been the way to deal with the problem.

Saturday, August 1, 2009

Equals And More Equals

Check out this National Post editorial, titled "Selective support for fashionable causes":
Diversity. Tolerance. Multiculturalism. Anti-discrimination. These are the supposedly universal values that inform our secular cultural canon. The words sound nice. The problem is that they're not actually "universal." Western societies -- Canada included -- exhibit zero-tolerance attitudes toward the vilification of certain minority groups. But it's no-holds-barred when it comes to bashing less politically fashionable constituencies.
There isn't much new here, but at least we have a national newspaper that admits a simple fact: If tolerance, multiculturalism and anti-discrimination were supposed to mean equal treatment for everyone, special interest groups ended up becoming a lot more equal than ordinary Canadians.