Sunday, February 28, 2010

Euthanasia Supporters: Caring For The Elderly Is "Counter-Intuitive"

These are their own words. These are the messages they post on their discussion forums. That's the kind of future they envision for all of us:
OLD PEOPLE: Social Security and Medicare are by far the biggest Parasites to the system and it's not an investment in them, in fact it's worse than sunk costs. We spend money(medicare) to keep these people alive so that we can pay them Social security? It's counter intuitive.

The sickest, the one's who would want to die, are the biggest Cash Windfall for the medical professionals. They get to prescribe endless amounts of drugs and countless repeat visits to get another refill (pain meds), all the while billing and billing and billing the tax payer to get there $250k+/year pay checks and 100K/year nurse arm candy, while getting hand fed their lunch by a 100k/year hooker with a pharmaceutical name badge on and some free pens.

Let's get Euthanasia in place so that it becomes far more acceptable (even en vogue) by the time the fricking Baby Boomers start getting the free ride and sap what little there's left. Those pie chart segments are only going to get wider for them and narrower for the others, the future.
That's the culture of death at a glance. A war veteran, a retired worker, a parent and a grandparent, in their eyes those are mere parasites who are there to take away from their precious fun.

But there is an alternative - the culture of life. There is another way to address the aging crisis - encouraging more births, defending life from conception to natural death. Sure, our opponents are likely to dismiss the pro-life proposals as "uncertain in their impact, not to mention politically controversial". But we've just seen the kind of solution they propose, haven't we?

Saturday, February 27, 2010

The Top Ten Liberal Superstitions

Believe it or not, that's what our socially "progressive" opponents actually believe in. (H/t The Politics of the Cross Resurrected.)
10. Anthropogenic Global Warming - the idea that the earth's current warming cycle is not natural but caused by human activity since the Industrial Revolution. There is no scientific consensus despite the best efforts of activists, leftist UN employees and certain climate scientists to gin one up by a plethora of unseemly methods.

9. Condoms Lower the Rate at Which the AIDS Virus Spreads - this is the idea that despite creating a false sense of security, which is likely to lead to more sexual activity with multiple partners, condoms will reduce the number of people who get infected in a given country if enough of them are distributed. Liberals have a weakness for anything that involves replacing the need for personal moral restraint with technology.

8. Abstinence Education Doesn't Work - this idea that teaching young people the benefits of saving sex for marriage couldn't possible result in a higher average age of first intercourse or a lower incidence of sexual activity among teens. This reluctance to believe that teens cannot react in a rational manner to information demeans all of us.
And here's some more weekend humor - the Democrat Dictionary by Patrick Archbold ("Creative Minority Report"):
Taxsperity - The uniquely moronic notion that prosperity can be achieved through increases in taxation.

Biparthenasia - The art of killing the opposition party by encouraging them to join your foolhardy efforts.

Stimuslush - Urgently passing a bill under the pretense of saving us from depression only to hold on to the money for eighteen months in order to spend it as close to an election as possible.

Filibluster - The blatantly false threat of removing the 60 vote cloture requirement in the US Senate. Even if they could, they never would because they know minority status is in their (near) future.

Reconcilicide - The suicidal results of continued threats to push through massively unpopular legislation to take over one sixth of the economy through the parliamentary trick of reconciliation. If actually accomplished, results in immediate death of the party.
I bet Syme would love to add these words to his Eleventh edition of the Newspeak Dictionary :)

Friday, February 26, 2010

The Meltdown of Global Warming Alarmism

Here are some shocking revelations from a former director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia:
Nonetheless, in the interview Jones:
  1. admitted that he did not believe that “the debate on climate change is over” and that he didn’t “believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this” (Al Gore, Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, did you hear that? Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Union of Concerned Scientists, did you hear that? Ed Begley, Robert Kennedy, Richard Cizik, Jim Ball, did you hear that?);

  2. admitted that there was no statistically significant difference between rates of warming from 1860-1880 and 1910-1940 and the rate from 1975-1998, though he and other DAGW believers had for years said the rate in the last period was unprecedented and therefore couldn’t be natural but must be manmade;

  3. admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming for the last 15 years (though he personally believes this is only a temporary pause in manmade warming);
And here's another article that is worth reading. Some warm-mongers still cling to their myths. But the facts are against them:
First of all, the increasing public distrust of scientists is not because of a little argument over emails. The emails themselves simply demonstrate an agenda-driven warm-mongering mindset amongst so-called climate scientists. The real devil is in the manipulated data and outright junk science: the infamous “fudge factor”, the totally discredited hockey stick graph that ignored the medieval warm period and helped win Al Gore his Nobel prize, the little “Hide the Decline” trick, the CRU’s magical climate change tree, Glaciergate, Africagate, and so on…
Mistakes — another understatement. No, Mr. Cicerone, the junk science published by the IPCC cannot be dismissed as simple “mistakes.” Your private little club of activists, calling themselves climate scientists, told us the science was settled. You said we had to act immediately to save the planet. You belittled, shunned, and discredited actual scientists who had concerns over the alarmist nature of your “scientific” claims.

Phil Jones, the disgraced head of the CRU, confirmed recently what the real scientists have been saying all along: the science is not settled; there has been no significant warming between 1998-2009; and the Medieval warm period may have actually been warmer. Jones, a scientist, based his debunked scientific findings solely on faulty assumptions from climate modeling.
When will we finally hear that the science is settled - that there's no such thing as man-made global warming? (Or man-made climate change for that matter...)

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Euthanasia — "There Will Be Casualties"

And plenty of them if the people buy into the euthanasia supporters' twisted arguments; if the society embraces the implied "right to die", instead of standing up for the right to life. Check out this Mercator net article by Michael Cook:
Australian euthanasia activist Dr Philip Nitschke loves publicity. But whenever he opens his mouth, even the most progressive journalists avert their eyes in squeamish embarrassment. This week’s gaffe was to defend his barely legal promotion of a suicide drug for the elderly and terminally ill. It turns out that nearly two-thirds of the Australians who died after quaffing Nembutal – at least 51 over the past 10 years -- were under 60, and quite a few were in the 20s and 30s. This suggests that mental illness or depression, not unbearable pain, was the reason for the suicide. So how did Nitschke respond?

''There will be some casualties,” he said with the tenderness of General Haig sending troops over the top at the Somme, “but this has to be balanced with the growing pool of older people who feel immense well-being from having access to this information,'' [about suicide drugs].
So much about the declared goals of euthanasia supporters such as easing the suffering of the terminally ill, those who are in pain etc. And, considering the aging crisis that the Western nations are facing; considering the subsequent budget and pension crisis, it's obvious that once euthanasia becomes legal, it will become mandatory (officially or unofficially) in just a few years time.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Canada Faces Aging Crisis

While our opponents (not just the pro-aborts but also some Libertarians) claim that "abortion and family planning enable countries to improve their economies and reduce social costs", economists discover just the opposite. The demographic changes, resulting from 40+ years of legal abortion and contraception, have put Canada on the verge of a serious budget crisis:
NEVER MIND the economic downturn. The stark mathematics arising from a greying population and a falling birth rate mean Ottawa, in decades ahead, faces a serious — and growing — structural budget imbalance that can only be cured through tax increases, spending cuts, or both.

That’s the message of parliamentary budget watchdog Kevin Page, who last week released a report looking at the long-term implications of Canada’s shifting demographics — as the baby boomers retire and the labour force shrinks — for federal government finances over the next 75 years.

The report’s calculus is undeniable.

Since health care costs go up as one gets older, as the extra-large demographic cohort known as the boomers move beyond 65 years of age, health care spending will inevitably increase. So, too, will the cost of supplying the various government support programs, such as Old Age Security, collected by seniors.

At the same time, the projected shrinking of the labour force will put a crimp in government tax revenues, leaving a fiscal gap that must be closed, one way or another. Otherwise, government debt relative to GDP will skyrocket.
We've already seen a sharp increase in CPP premiums - from 1.8% in 1986 to 4.95% in 2003. But, judging from the report, which predicts a fiscal gap of $20B to $40B, we should brace ourselves for many more tax hikes.

It's extremely unlikely that the government (no matter what party forms it) ever dares to increase the retirement age. After all, as Canada's median age drifts towards 45, seniors will become the largest group of voters. The typical solution, proposed by the establishment is more immigration. Those who propose it ignore the fact that increased immigration will increase social costs and not just on the short run.

Only 40-45% of immigrants are skilled workers. But even if all of them were - how many of them would like the idea of paying more than a third of their salary to support Canada's many seniors - Canadian born and those that came in the 1970s, 80s and 90s? How sure can we be that at a certain point we won't have a milti-million strong community saying that they no longer agree to pay old age pensions to those who hasn't bother to raise their own children?

The only remaining solution is - trying to encourage more births and fewer abortions. This will require admitting that condoms are killing Canada in every possible way. This will require teaching abstinence and fetal rights at schools, instead of sex education and "social justice". This will require revamping the CPP and the EI premium structure, offering lower rates to those who have more than two children and forcing childless contributors to pay double or triple rate - for themselves and for the children they're unwilling to have.

And of course, this will require reinstating restrictions on abortions and abortion funding, as well as disallowing public hospitals to perform abortions except in medical emergencies. (New Brunswick definition of "medically necessary" is extremely lax, yet even that could reduce Canada's abortion rate by half, saving ~50,000 babies a year, if applied from coast to coast.) But these are the measures that no major party is ready to consider. They would rather get the entire nation broke than let go of the ideology which they consider to be "progressive".

Monday, February 22, 2010

5-Month Unborn Baby Under Threat Of Abortion

Received in the e-mail. Please keep that girl and her baby in your prayers...
Critical situation in need of prayer

Dear Friends,

We received this message below from Saturday from one of our contacts. Please, if you would, lift up in your prayers this poor young mother, her 5 month old babe-in-the-womb, and her misguided parents.

Thank you.
Peter Ryan
New Brunswick Right to Life Association
Please, please pray, pray, pray!! I found out yesterday there is a 18 year old girl who is 5 MONTHS pregnant whose parents found out and are sending her to Montreal for an abortion as New Brunswick does not do abortions for women who are 5 months pregnant. That baby is fully developed!! It is absolute murder and the girl and her parents need prayers to change their minds. I believe they are going next week. I have been sick since just thinking about it. We will call her "Mary".

Thank you!
That's what a 5-month unborn baby looks like. Click here to see more pictures of unborn babies at this gestational age. If the baby was wanted, but prematurely born, there's a big chance the baby would survive. An unwanted baby however, could be put to death upon the first demand; no medical conditions necessary. All it takes is a drive to the nearest big city.

Let's keep the young girl and her baby in our prayers. If there's no 40-Days For Life vigil site nearby, the least we can do is pray that "Mary" and her baby be spared from the tragedy of abortion. That the poor baby lives to see daylight.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

The Socialist Temptation

Craig Carter, the author of The Politics of the Cross Resurrected blog has published a series of articles on socialism. Check them out and see what exactly is wrong with the concept of socialism, as well as with the modern understanding of "social justice".
  • The Socialist Temptation: Introduction
    Socialism is bad and Christians should oppose it in the name of justice for everyone, including the poor.

  • Socialism, the Poor and the Will to Power
    Instead of being beneficial to the poor, socialism actually hurts the poor and that this has been proven everywhere socialism has been tried.

  • Should the US Become a Social Democracy?
    Is turning the US into a social democracy a good idea? Would it increase or decrease social justice? Would it be good for the poor?

  • Israel, Kingship and Socialism
    The prophets, as the Evangelical Left often points out, cry out about injustice, poverty and mis-treatment of orphans and widows. And various measures of mercy for widows, orphans and aliens were indeed built into the Law of Moses.

  • Socialism as a Christian Heresy
    Jesus said to Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world. Many from the Social Gospel movement, Liberation Theology and the Evangelical Left do not believe him.
Here's another article from the same blog: The Ambiguous Meaning of the Word "Socialism". Not sure if it's a preface to The Socialist Temptation series or a stand-alone article, but it's sure worth reading. And, finally, here's another quote:
Efforts to achieve justice through the force of human law cannot succeed, the Pope says. The radical impulse to eliminate all oppressive structures, hoping thereby to bring a just and equal society, is doomed. The Pontiff explains: “Injustice, the fruit of evil, does not have exclusively external roots; its origin lies in the human heart, where the seeds are found of a mysterious cooperation with evil.”
That explains why socialists have always considered church and organized religion to be their enemies, doesn't it?

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Remember Canada's Last WWI Veteran

John Babcock, Canada's last First World War veteran, has died at age 109.
When John Babcock celebrated his 107th birthday in 2007, he received greetings from around the world. The Queen sent a letter of congratulations and Prime Minister Stephen Harper gave him a tie decorated with red poppies.

They were small tokens of appreciation for the man believed to be the last surviving Canadian veteran of the First World War.
Almost 650,000 Canadians served, and more than 200,000 were killed or wounded, in the First World War. In many ways, the identity of the young country was forged on the bloody battlefields such as Vimy Ridge, Passchendaele and the Somme. Babcock, born on an Ontario farm in 1900, enlisted to join the fray at the tender age of 16. He lied about his age to join the Canadian Expeditionary Force in Sydenham, Ont., and arrived in England a few months later.
On Thursday night, Harper issued a statement in Ottawa mourning his death.

"As a nation, we honour his service and mourn his passing," Harper said. "The passing of Mr. Babcock marks the end of an era."

Babcock was the last link to the 650,000 Canadian men and women who served in the First World War, Harper noted.
Farewell, John. I thank you and all the other men who fought for Canada in that war. You're gone, but not forgotten. May you rest in peace. God bless you.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

It's A Person — New Pro-Life Campaign

Only 20% of Canadians are aware of the fact that Canada has absolutely no legal restriction on abortion. A pro-life group from Orillia, ON is working hard to change that:
A unique effort is underway by a few pro-life individuals to spread the truth about abortion directly to households. The message is not new but the method has never been tried in a large way. Over 5,000 flyers have already been distributed to households in Canada. There are another 11 Million households in Canada, and ten times as many in the United States that still need to receive the message – and this new group, called “Workers for Life” is ready to meet the challenge.
The method being used by Workers for Life is to deliver “Unaddressed Admail” to homes in a given area via standard postal service. The method is relatively inexpensive and a household can be covered for about the cost of a single colour brochure. Not only that, Workers for Life will do all the work in assembling and managing the mailings. The four-page full-colour flyer, which is called “It’s a Person”, shows the wonder of unborn life as well as the tragedy of unborn life after abortion.

The internet site created for this project is Workers for Life has also included support functions for those who see the flyer. Recognizing that people who receive the flyer in their mailbox may want to voice their opinion, comments are welcomed at Not only that, for those who have been personally affected by a previous abortion, or by the images in the flyer, Workers for Life welcomes contact via their mailing address in Orillia, Ontario, or via Responses to mail will be dealt with in a caring and non-judgmental manner by concerned individuals working with Workers for Life.
The flyer could be found here. Some people may condemn it as "graphic" and "inappropriate". From my point of view - there's a lot more "graphic" and "inappropriate" stuff on prime time TV than on those flyers. Not to mention that what's really inappropriate - is the legal vacuum which permits the wholesale slaughter on demand of ~100,000 innocent unborn babies a year.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Woman Who Threatened Pro-Lifers With Knife at Abortion Center Keeps Baby

H/t Big Blue Wave:
Duluth, MN ( — A woman who faces assault charges after she pulled a knife on two pro-life advocates who encouraged her not to have an abortion has decided against having the planned abortion. Mechelle Tallulah Hall has pleaded guilty to second-degree assault but she has also decided to keep her baby.

Leah Winandy and other pro-life advocates were gathered outside the abortion business in Duluth when Hall approached the Building For Women abortion center.

Winandy told Hall she cared about her unborn child but the woman responded by reportedly brandishing a knife and held it to Winandy's throat.
Now, once her anger is gone, she realized that pro-life protesters were right and that her unborn baby deserves to live. This shows once again that pro-lifers are there for a reason. That fetal rights are self-evident; all it takes is just an unbiased look. And - that pro-life prayers are never in vain. Hopefully, it's not the only good news we can expect during the Lenten 40 Days For Life Vigil, which has started today.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Mandatory Indoctrination — "Not About Parental Rights"

That's what the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board suggests:
Public school children in Hamilton, Ontario will not be permitted to withdraw from classes that promote homosexuality, according to the Hamilton Mountain News. At the same time, according to a leaked document obtained by a local journalist, teachers are being instructed to tell parents who object to the curriculum that “this is not about parent rights.”

At the end of January, the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB) hosted a professional development day dedicated to “equity” training, where they distributed a sheet to teachers with “quick responses” they can offer to parents who object to the school board's “anti-homophobia” curriculum.

That document was obtained by journalist Mark Cripps, and posted on the website of the Hamilton Mountain News. Cripps observes that the handout “basically indicates parents have no rights when it comes to their child’s education at the HWDSB.”

In addition, Cripps reports that, “The board says no child will be excused from the class when topics of homosexuality are brought into the classroom.”

The school board is developing a new equity policy, as required of all boards under the Ontario Ministry of Education's equity strategy, announced last year. Among other things, the Ministry is requiring all boards, Catholic and public, to develop a plan for combating “homophobia.”
So, here you have it. Objecting to mandatory socially perverse indoctrination - "is not about parent rights". And notice that Catholic school boards aren't exempt. While they're still allowed to keep the word "Catholic" in their name (for how much longer?) they have become de-facto part of the general public school network - with all the funding, yes, but also with all the obligations, including the obligation to act as their bureaucrat bosses dictate.

Ironically, the news leaked on February 15, which is "Family Day" in Ontario and some other provinces. Well, that's a nice Family Day gift, isn't it? I wonder how many families actually find the courage to reject the anti-family gift from a bunch radical Marxists that run the local school board and simply stop sending their children to public schools? At least - in those days for which the socially perverse lectures are scheduled...

Family Day Irony

A holiday that has the word "family" in its name was established by a Premier whose whole activity was (and still is) aimed at distorting, degrading and defacing traditional family values and traditional families. Not only it was under his leadership that the legislature cleared Ontario laws of words like "wife" and "husband", "bride" and "groom", "mother" and "father", but the bill which replaced all references to traditional families and marriages with gender-neutral language, had been rammed through the Parliament several months before the new definition of "marriage for civil purposes" was mandated on a Federal level. Ironic, isn't it?

Looks like the provincial Liberals were in such a hurry to offer Ontarians another vote-buying treat, that they just didn't have the time to think of a name for their new public holiday between New Year's Day and Good Friday, so they just copied the name used in Alberta. But, since it's there - let's make a Family Day wish. And I wish Ontarians, that a year from now, by the next Family day, each of Ontario's 107 provincial ridings gets a Family Coalition Party constituency association. So, once the next provincial election comes, there would be an FCP candidate on every ballot. And I wish Ontarians that by the Family Day of 2012, there would be some FCP MPPs representing them; hopefully - more than just one or two.

Monday, February 15, 2010

GST Hike — Bad Idea

Even if the GST cut wasn't the best option, (those 2 percentage points could have been slashed off the income tax instead,) reversing it now is a bad idea:
Hiking the GST is a bad idea supported by a vocal few who can afford to pay higher taxes. It would be bad for the economy and would serve merely to fuel the federal government’s already dangerous spending addiction.

Tax hikes for budget balancing is the easy path too often taken by politicians. Compare how often politicians name a program that should be reduced or eliminated versus how often they talk about a tax that should be raised.

The federal government needs more tax revenue like Tiger Woods needs another girlfriend. There’s more than enough already. The problem isn’t that we need more. The problem is not being mindful of what we already have.

To put the argument that “this deficit is only due to a drop in revenue” to the test, today’s level of program spending should be put up against what that level would otherwise be if it had only increased by the combined rates of inflation and population growth – 2.5 per cent. Doing so from a base year of 2003/04 would yield a difference of $65.2 billion today, leaving a surplus of more than $10 billion. A similar analysis solely for the Harper government, from when it came to power in 2006/07, reveals the deficit today would be less than 9 per cent of what it is today; coming in at only $4.9 billion.

Importantly, this much smaller deficit would be truly cyclical, and not structural.
It's a bad idea even if marketed as a temporary measure. Because there is nothing so permanent as a temporary tax hike.

Sure, it will allow balancing the books in 2012/13 without even bothering to slow down the program spending growth. But what will happen a couple years later, when the extra 2 percentage points on the GST result in some $12B in annual surplus? Do you think we'll get the 5% GST back? Or maybe the government will slash income tax instead, to benefit those who save, rather than those who spend? Even that somehow seems unlikely. Most likely we'll be told that it would be more beneficial for us to receive an equivalent amount in extra government programs: McDaycare, "affordable" ghetto housing, subsidized court challenges for special interest and many more. How do you like this kind of a trade-off?

Politicians are great in spending money that's not theirs. If we can't have them confined to zero-based budgeting, at least let's keep them on a tight leash by making it clear that we'll accept no tax hikes. They have the tax base they need to balance the books in 2012, if they agree to cap their operating expenses - and they better do just that.

Update: Quebec is planning to raise the QST to 8.5% on January 1, 2011 to combat the runaway deficit. Any plans to bring it back to 7.5% once the economy catches up? Well, what do you think? How likely is that to happen?

Sunday, February 14, 2010

It's Time For A Sexual Counter-Revolution

Without that there's no way people change their attitude towards human life. Jennifer Hartline explains why:
The sanctity of human life from the moment of conception, throughout all of life up to and including a natural death, is the only foundation our society will ever be able to stand upon if we hope to flourish as a truly free people. It's quite obvious our foundation is crumbling. To repair it, we must go back to square one and correct our ideas about sex.

Unless we give sexual intercourse its due reverence, we'll never give human life its due reverence. The two can never be separated, as Pope Paul VI tried to tell the world in his prophetic encyclical, Humanae Vitae. If we don't regard all life as sacred -- and thus the creative act of sex -- then we will always find ways to rationalize and justify the murder of a child as a "right."

I'm not naively suggesting that prior to 1973 people were living chaste and faithful lives and that sex was held in the highest esteem by all, always expressed within the bond of marriage. I am saying that the decision to legalize the killing of our preborn children cemented a poisonous shift in our mentality, and that poison has corroded every aspect of our society, especially our treatment of sex. We replaced responsibility with "rights" and its been a downhill race toward insatiable debauchery ever since.

One criticism I hear often from people is that I and other Pro-Life folks ignore the real cause of abortions: unexpected/unwanted pregnancies. What needs to be addressed, they say, is the “tragedy of unexpected and unwanted pregnancies.” Do you see what I mean? Pregnancy is a “tragedy” – not a miracle of life. There’s that poisonous shift in our thinking. The creation of a new human being is a tragedy if we didn’t expect it or want it. The tragedy isn’t the new life; it’s our self-centered, warped perspective.
Judeo-Christian family values are self-evident. Sure, there will be plenty of those disagreeing. But what alternative can they propose? Trading commitment for pleasure? Pumping the woman you love with chemicals to suppress her fertility - despite the well known side effects? We have our ideals. They have theirs. See for yourself, which ones you like better.

Friday, February 12, 2010

Drawbacks Of Universal Childcare

For our opponents, universal McDaycare is a win-win solution. They get a nation-wide institution that allows them to get a hold of our children a year or two earlier, while those parents that oppose Liberal social engineering, end up being forced to pay twice: First they have to pay hefty amounts in extra taxes to sustain a state-run universal childcare system, which they could never trust and then they're paying out of pocket for an alternative system that actually respects views and values - with no opt-out credit and no support whatsoever from the government.

Let's not forget that under the current "progressive" income tax system, merely staying home with the children is also punishable by excess taxation: A single-income family, where one of the parents has to work for two, pays income taxes for three. And, talking about taxes - the estimated cost of the proposed McDaycare is $15B. That's more that the Liberals could look forward to raise by repealing the 2 percentage point GST cut. The real cost could probably amount to $20 Billion or more, resulting in many more tax hikes.

But maybe the benefits of early education justify the overtaxation? Not really. Ben Eisen, a policy analyst with the Winnipeg-based Frontier Centre for Public Policy, has published a report titled "Myths about Childcare Subsidies". Here are some of the findings:
1) Generally, the benefits of early childhood education (childcare) wear off by the time the child is in Grade 3, so that there is no meaningful cognitive advantage for children who went to preschool compared to those who did not.

2) Programs geared specifically toward poor and minority children, such as the HighScope Perry Preschool Project and Carolina Abecedarian Project, yield modest lifetime improvements in both social development and cognitive outcomes, but that such programs are not replicable in a broad, universal program for the middle class because of the intensity of the program (from teacher-child ratio to family engagement). Furthermore, poor children have more social disadvantages to begin with which an intensive preschool program might be able to address, but which are broadly unnecessary.

3) Middle class and affluent parents already have access to childcare and thus it is questionable whether scarce public resources should be used to subsidize such care, especially considering that there is little indication of long-term benefits, wheareas targeted subsidies for the poor might make some sense based on the marginal cognitive and social benefits seen in this subsection of the population.

4) There are numerous studies that show there are some problems related to enrolment in childcare, including negative social development such as “heightened aggression and anxiety” and increased incidents of various health problems.
More >>>
(Linked via The Interim)
So, it's not the children who need universal McDaycare. Grown-ups need it - for the obvious reasons: The slow motion suicide crowd wants to maintain their grip on the young generation and this is the best way for them to do so, while punishing those parents daring to oppose financially. As for the children - they're better off spending their pre-school years with mom and dad.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Preserving Ourselves Against The Slow Motion Suicide

Unless we want to lose our children to the culture of death, we better work hard to pass our faith and our values to them, suggests Matthew Archbold in his National Catholic Register article:
While there is much data to corroborate the assumption that children will often mirror their parent’s political and religious affiliations I worry that many of us continue handing our children over to be educated by the secularist progressives that dominate public schools and most colleges and universities.

I bring this up because a woman with five children said to me just yesterday that her oldest son just came out as agnostic. Now, mind you, this is a good Catholic woman who I see at Church all the time. I asked her where her son goes to college and she told me an Ivy League university. She said she wished she’d pushed him towards a Catholic university.

Now, this young man may very well return to the faith after a brief flirtation with his professor’s favorite philosopher but he may not. But the thing that got me was this woman said she figured she had to send him to the best school he got into to ensure his future. Best? It seems to me that “best” needs to be defined by matching it with a goal. And if the goal is to make a lot of money in the future I’m sure the young man’s college choice is a good one. But is that the goal? Should our view of your “future” be so limited to our time here?

It seems to me that the counter-cultural act of having children must be the first of a lifetime of counter-cultural acts that includes passing on the faith to our children in a way that the faith isn’t something they do on Sundays but it informs every decision they make - even their political ones and yes, even their college choice.
Yes, homeschooling (or paying out of pocket for a trusted religious school) requires making efforts and sacrifices. But what's more important - your money or your children? Your free time or your children? If we don't want to see our children being consumed by the culture of death - we better set our priorities straight.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Prorogation — It's Ok When Liberals Do It

November 10, 2003. Jean Chretien prorogues the Parliament (a majority Parliament, by the way) on the eve of the Liberal leadership convention - that's perfectly fine. Chretien extends Christmas break by 5 weeks, just so the Liberals could have a 3-day convention - nobody is eager to complain about that. Nobody is eager to gather at the gates of the locked Parliament building to protest the prolonged recess; nobody is eager to "make the Parliament work".

This was already a second prorogation for the 37th Parliament; the previous one had taken place just 14 months prior - still I don't recall anyone accusing Jean Chretien of padlocking the Parliament. The committees got disbanded - including the one that later reported on the Sponsorship scandal - did anyone complain about Jean Chretien undermining the power of elected representatives? Of course not! Jean Chretien was merely using his perfectly legal right via his democratically endowed powers as Prime Minister to reset the agenda, so that his successor could start a fresh new session at the Parliament Hill.

December 30, 2009. Stephen Harper prorogues the Parliament, (this time - a minority Parliament) until after the Olympics, extending Christmas break by 5 weeks. What a terrible thing to do! He's playing politics! He's undermining the power of elected representatives! He wants to silence the committees! We ought to protest this dictator-like behavior! Twit about it! Join the facebook group! Draw a cartoon - Parliament building with a huge padlock on it - that's what Harper's rule looks like! And let's all gather at the steps of the padlocked Parliament and make the Parliament work - without that evil dictator Harper. (He's evil I tell you!!! Evil!!!)

February 9, 2010. Dalton McGuinty announces his plans to prorogue the Ontario Parliament (a majority Parliament,) until after the Olympics. Where are those Facebook groups? How about the rallies? I'm looking forward to reading the endless editorials taking Dalton to task. Yeah right.
“Prorogation has been an important and respected parliamentary tool for centuries. But it's important that you don't abuse that.”
Got it? It's ok as long as you don't abuse that. Dalton McGuinty doesn't - instead of giving MPPs a continuous break from Christmas until after the Olympics, he's summoning the Parliament for a brief session and only then he's going to let Ontario's legislators have their break. That makes a lot of difference, doesn't it?
“There will be a limited break. You can't introduce a throne speech unless you have a break,” he said.

“That's just the rule. But we will preserve every single one of our bills. Nothing will be lost.”
So, when the Liberals prorogue the Parliament - it's the rule. It's something that must be done, so that the government could reset its agenda and start over with the new Throne speech. When the Conservatives do it - that's playing politics and suppressing the opposition.

By the way - judging from the same Globe and Mail article, BC legislature too won't be sitting during the olympics. No, there will be no prorogation there, but the Legislature simply won't be sitting during the games. (Guess what party holds the majority of seats there.) I wonder if the opposition NDP MLAs are going to have a protest rally at the closed doors of the Legislative Assembly building.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

No, There's No Consensus For Abortion. There's Political Cowardice

In her open letter, published by the Ottawa Citizen, Marissa Poisson rebuts Ignatieff's claim that Canada has reached a consensus on abortion:
In the 1988, the very year I was born, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down our country's abortion law and Parliament has since failed to pass any bill at all on abortion.

Abortion on demand became legal and funded by taxpayer's dollars even up to the ninth month of pregnancy in Canada not because that is the will of all Canadians but rather because of political cowardice.

According to a new Angus Reid public opinion poll, only 20 per cent of Canadians are aware of the current status quo of abortion in Canada. When informed about existing regulations, only 30 per cent endorsed them. This hardly amounts to a consensus.
Well said.

And here's another letter to the editor: Jim Rabyniuk from Newmarket, Ont would like to ask Ignatieff what he thinks of sex-selective abortion and how this may help a woman's rights and/or health. I guess it's a rhetorical question.

Update: Mrs Ashe blogger has published an open letter to the Prime Minister, commending him for his stand on defunding "planned parenthood". It's a well-argumented letter, written by a pro-life woman, a mother, grandmother, and a member of the Canadian Federation of University Women.

Monday, February 8, 2010

The Deceits Of Social Justice

Craig Carter, the author of The Politics of the Cross Resurrected blog has taken his time to analyze the notion of "social justice", comparing it against the traditional Conservative theology:
So the question is “Is social justice compatible with conservative theology?” First, some definitions are in order.

1. Conservative Theology: This is not controversial, really. It is what Pope Benedict XVI, C. S. Lewis, Billy Graham and John R. W. Stott have in common. It is the "Great Tradition" common to Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. There are Evangelical distinctive and Roman Catholic distinctives, but basically it is what we hold in common. It is enshrined in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds and is expressed in many systematic theology textbooks including those of Tom Oden, Herman Bavinck and Millard Erickson. It is grounded in the Augustinian-Thomist tradition of the first Christian millennium.

2. Social Justice: By social justice I mean the following interconnected set of beliefs:
  1. equality is the highest goal of society
  2. equality is best defined in terms of equal economic opportunity
  3. natural inequality must be overcome by human will
  4. individual freedom must be sacrificed in the pursuit of equality
  5. the rule of law must be sacrificed in the pursuit of equality
  6. the state is responsible to create equality
That alone, pretty much, explains it all. No wonder why so many "left-leaning" / Liberal clergymen, that are preoccupied with what they believe is social justice, end up getting caught supporting organizations that openly oppose Christian social values.

Check out this video report - and see for yourself how some of them use poverty as an excuse to bankroll groups that promote socially perverse values, including abortion and homosexuality. Bishop Fulton Sheen knew what he was talking about when he called Judas Iscariot a patron saint of "social justice" - where people are concerned with humanity, but ignore the truths of God.

And here's another thing we shouldn't forget: any kind of "social justice", as described in the passage I quoted, will unavoidably lead to a tyranny of those seeking to implement it.

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Left-Wing Student Protesters — Rebels Without A Clue

It's known that today's student protesters have of their country's history, (let alone - world history,) preferring ideological cliches to facts. But, as Michael Coren has discovered - they have no knowledge of their own movement.
Last week, I was invited by a student group at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont., to speak on the issue of abortion.

What you think of the issue is up to you — we live in a free society where difference of opinion is respected. Or at least is supposed to be.

The organizers of the event were obliged to hire security guards after threats were made.

These were taken seriously as pro-life speakers have been shouted down, meetings broken up and people assaulted several times in recent years.

All that happened this time was a dozen people stood up holding posters, some reading that I was shameful. I could have told them that myself!

What was most apparent, however, was the contrast between the pro-life and the pro-abortion students. The former were attractive, bright-eyed, compassionate. The latter dull, angry, so lacking in humanity and, it has to be said, intelligence.

What surprised me was not opposition — these were, after all, publicly funded middle-class people with a lot of time on their hands — but their incredible ignorance.

They had not heard, for example, of Sinn Fein or the Irish Republican movement, not heard of pogroms, seemed to know nothing even of the left-wing world of which they claimed to be a part.
No wonder it's common for those guys to resort to violence. If they can't even describe what they stand for, there's no way they could ever win in a civilized debate or at the ballot box. And they know it.

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Ignatieff & Abortion Funding Controversy

Four years ago, Paul Martin proposed to enshrine unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortions on demand in the Charter, in a desperate attempt to present himself and his party as strong defenders of abortion - as opposed to Harper's Conservatives whom he accused of having a "hidden agenda". Still, he lost the election. Now we have another Liberal leader trying to play the hidden agenda card:
Stephen Harper’s government has been in power for more than four years now, without having disturbed any of the social issues that Liberals warned would be high on its (secret) agenda. ... But Michael Ignatieff isn’t one to let reality get in the way.
That to say the least. And they're getting quite agressive on the issue. Ignatieff won't propose any Charter initiatives yet, but he's ready to turn his party into a political wing of the so called abortion "rights" coalition, quoting their website in the Liberal party press releases.
Tory MP Rod Bruinooge, chairman of the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus, called the comments a distinct departure from Mr. Ignatieff's predecessors who tended to hold more ambivalent views about abortion. "Perhaps he and his advisors ... have come to the conclusion that they're prepared to take a far more aggressive position in relation to abortion than previous Liberal leaders."
Not all Liberal MPs however agree with that. Even Keith Martin, by no means a Social Conservative, has mentioned that there are other ways to improve maternal health than peddling abortion and contraception. And, much to the suprise of Mr Ignatieff, his party still has a handful of pro-life MPs who are not looking forward for the Liberal policy book to include the ARCC mission statement.
In comments to (LSN) earlier this week, Liberal MP Paul Szabo jumped into the fray, taking issue with the Liberal Leader’s statement that there is consensus on the matter of abortion within the Party. Disputing Ignatieff’s claim of consensus, Szabo said, “I am a pro-life MP and there are many of my colleagues in the Liberal caucus who will protect the unborn in their decisions as Parliamentarians, and should matters come before the House they will continue to act accordingly.”
As for the Conservatives - looks like the days when the party was bending backwards to convince the pro-aborts that their cherished sacrament is not being threatened, are finally coming to an end. Instead of affirming its allegiance to "progressive" social views, instead of repenting their sins by promptly reinstating the funding (at level much higher than before,) the Conservative spokesman gave a well reasoned response, reminding Ignatieff, that maternal health is about saving lives of vulnerable children and mothers in the developing world, which has nothing to do with the debate over abortion (or other social issues Ignatieff might want to raise) here in Canada. Well said.

Let's see what the voters have to say about it. I won't be surprised if, once the new opinion polls are out, the Liberals too start looking forward for after the Olympics - in the hope that the games get people's minds off their recent controversy.

Friday, February 5, 2010

Kelowna Local Television Station Cancels Pro-Life Ad

A dozen or so pro-aborts complaining - that's all it takes to have a pro-life ad cancelled:
KELOWNA, B.C., February 4, 2010 ( – CHBC, the Kelowna local television station that drew national coverage this week after agreeing to air a pro-life ad, has changed its mind, claiming that the ad is too graphic.

The ad was sponsored by Kelowna Right to Life (KRTL), who got the news of its cancellation yesterday. “The reason they gave is that it's simply too graphic for a television commercial,” said Marlon Bartram, KRTL's executive director. The station told Bartram that they had received between 12 and 18 complaints from people who demanded the ad not run.

“So a handful of abortion activists have persuaded a major media outlet to once again censor the truth of what is the most important social, moral and human rights issue of our time,” he said in a press release. “The bottom line here is that this outlet is compromising the fundamental purpose of media: to seek out the truth and present it in a fair, balanced, and thorough manner. Although Global TV has been very good about running our ads for some time now, it appears as though they have sided with abortion activists this time."
Before the ad was cancelled, Derek Hinchliffe, CHBC's news director, told The Province that it would be wrong for them to refuse the ad, as it was approved by the Television Bureau of Canada. "It has met with their approval, so if we were to say, ‘No, we're not going to run it,’ we would have been offensive," he said.
I knew this would happen eventually; the previous news of a pro-life ad approved by the Television Bureau of Canada, did sound too good to be true. Still, that is way too late for the pro-aborts. They got the ad cancelled by a local TV station, but now, in light of the controversy, there will be a lot more people watching the ad on YouTube - just to see what the dispute is all about.

Meanwhile, Kelowna Right to Life is not giving up. A petition in support of the pro-life ad has been launched. Let's see the mainstream media double standards in action: it takes 12-18 pro-aborts to cancel a pro-life ad and how many pro-lifers to bring it back? (Oh, I know it's a rhetorical question.) Kelowna Right to Life has also launched a Facebook group in support of the ad, which is starting to gather supporters.
“700 living, unborn, human children are violently killed by abortion every year in our community alone, and over 100,000 across Canada,” stated Bartram. “Its time the media does its due diligence, stop censoring the truth, and expose the horror of abortion for what it truly is.”

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

How About Separating Liberal Ideology From Healthcare?

And how about drawing a clear line between the Liberal party policies and Canada's long-standing traditions? I'm talking about the recent Liberal Party press release (linked here through No Apologies) that condemns the Conservative government for cutting funds to pro-abortion groups, including Planned Parenthood and its reincarnation as the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health:
Liberal MPs are calling on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to assure Canadians that he won’t change Canada’s long-standing tradition of recognizing women’s reproductive rights and access to contraception as part of his maternal health initiative, and will work in full partnership with the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).
Since when has this become Canada's long-standing tradition? Abortion and contraception were legalized in 1969 (slightly over 40 years ago) by a Liberal government. And, as the polls continuously show, we have roughly 30% of the population that oppose abortions and about the same number of people that would restrict them to medical emergencies or to the early stages of pregnancy. Isn't that too much opposition for a "long-standing tradition"?

Unrestricted abortion on demand at taxpayer expense may be the status-quo, that no government dares to challenge; it has obviously become the Liberal Party's long-standing policy, but it's definitely not Canada's long-standing tradition. Christian morals and legal protection for human life from conception to natural death had been Canada's tradition for much, much longer, until Pierre Trudeau's Liberals forced their social engineering on the nation.

By the way: notice that the Liberal party press release quotes the so called abortion "rights" coalition. Imagine what would happen if the Conservative party quoted Life Canada or Life Site News or any other pro-life organization in its statement? Not for nothing is Stephen Harper often referred to as "Mr. Muzzle" - he is well aware of the double standards and he knows that what is ok for a Liberal, is a mortal sin for a Conservative.

But (luckily) he still remembers what voters have sent him to Ottawa. So, finally, (once the runaway deficits have made this a pressing need, rather than mere political posturing) he is willing to go ahead and cut funding to the most odious groups at the least. Sure, the Liberals are furious - their proteges have been denied access to the pork barrel. But what other options are there? Cut funds to essential services and give the money to Planned Parenthood? Or - raise taxes so that the government could raise enough of taxpayers' money to promote abortion and contraception?

And I can assure you, that when it comes to organizations that actually promote reproductive rights and reproductive health - none of them is going to be affected by those funding cuts, because none of them has ever received any handouts from the government. As for the organizations that promote different ways to suppress reproduction (but use the word "reproductive" in their names or mission statements for some reason) - it's time to even the play field. If Life Canada, as well as most Pregnancy Resource Centers, can operate without getting a single penny from the government - there's no reason why this wouldn't be possible for the Planned Parenthood and its affiliates.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Stronger Team For Senate Reform

Not only the Conservatives now have a plurality in the Red Chamber, but they also have one of the strongest Senate reform supporter on the team. So, as long as the government survives the Throne Speech and the budget vote, we can finally expect some steps forward.

The bill to limit Senate tenure will be reintroduced again - for the third or fourth time. Except that this time, it actually has a chance to go beyond the second reading debate in the Senate. Sure, the opposition parties may try to derail the bill, once it goes to the House of Commons. Obviously we'll face fierce resistance from the Bloc and the NDP, who believe that the Upper Chamber should be abolished.

At the same time, it is likely for at least some of the Liberal MPs to support the bill. Especially, after Ignatieff expressed his support for 12-year term limits - which doesn't seem to go against "a term of between eight and 13 years", proposed by Harper. So, if the Parliament survives until 2011, we can expect fixed Senate terms to become mandatory, at least for those Senators that were appointed after 2006.

But, hopefully, the Senate reform doesn't stop there. Yes, the opposition, as well as several provinces are strongly opposed to directly elected Senate. But we have the province of Alberta, that keeps holding Senate Nominee elections without waiting for the "go ahead" from the feds. Their next Senate Nominee election is likely to take place this fall.

And they're soon to be joined by Saskatchewan, that has already passed its Senate Nominee Election bill, so it's just a matter of time until Saskatchewan has its very first Senate Nominee vote. (Which is likely to take place in 2012, when Senator Robert W. Peterson is scheduled to retire.) If a couple more provinces follow suit - we can succeed in making Senate elections stick from coast to coast.

Another way to overcome the opposition to directly elected Senate is by holding a referendum. Let the voters choose what kind of Senators they like - the ones they elect themselves or the ones appointed by "an arms-length committee tasked with vetting candidates", as proposed by Ignatieff? Let's see how many voters (not politicians) agree with Ignatieff's vision of yet another Star Chamber that would decide on who is entitled to represent us in the Senate.

A referendum could also be used to let the voters decide whether they want to keep the existing seat allocation in the Senate, whether they want each province to have equal number of seats or whether some other arrangement should be sought. And the government can go ahead and throw in the question on whether or not the Senate should be abolished, to get the NDP and the Bloc on their side.

Can we look forward for such a plebiscite to take place? Most likely, the government will have no resort to it sooner or later. If the politicians fail to reach an agreement on Senate reform, the government will have no choice but to take the Senate reform issue directly to the voters.

Monday, February 1, 2010

Pro-Life Ad Makes It To The Local TV

That's the good news - a TV station in Kelowna, BC is about to air a pro-life ad; and not just any pro-life ad, but the one below, that has the severed hand of an unborn baby in it.
It's amazing that such an ad wasn't objected by the Television Bureau of Canada, because, we've seen a similar advisory body banning a pro-life ad for merely depicting a sketch of an unborn baby.

Of course the pro-aborts are furious:
Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada said such ads are disturbing, offensive and frightening as they could incite violence against both women seeking abortions and the medical staff that provide them.

“When you portray abortion like this, as murder and killing, it portrays abortion staff as murderers and it can incite violence on some level,” Arthur said.
But wait! Doesn't abortion kill innocent babies? So why can't we portray abortion the way it truly is? After all, it is socially acceptable for the animal rights activists to portray seal hunt as murder and testing on animals - as torture. I've seen their displays several times; a picture of a clubbed baby seal or of a dissected kitten is no less "graphic" than a picture of a baby that has been aborted. So, maybe we should ban animal rights protests because they may incite violence against hunters or against scientists that perform tests on animals? If anything showing a graphic picture is far more civil method of arguing than throwing a pie at someone you disagree with. Not to mention that it also makes a lot more sense.

Moral relativism fans too have their objections:
Greg Smith, executive director of B.C.’s Options for Sexual Health, Canada’s largest non-profit provider of sexual health services, including pregnancy counselling and education, said such graphic ads distorted the issue and seldom changed opinions.

“With any ad against or in support of abortion rights you probably aren’t going to change the minds of most of the population. It is an intensely personal decision for women, and it’s not an easy decision for women to make,” Smith said.
How many of those "personal decisions" are made of the lack of knowledge; because the women believe (or have been convinced by others) that an unborn baby is just "a blob of tissue", with no heart and no life of its own, that could be surgically removed? How many women regret their abortion after finding out that this was a living baby, with a beating heart?

Graphic images don't influence decisions? Then what about all those abortion clinic workers, let alone ordinary women, who rejected their pro-abortion views after seeing an ultrasound image of an unborn baby? Earth to moral relativist vacuum!

Yes, the ad may be seen as controversial by some. Obviously, Kelowna TV station is going to be inundated with complaints as soon as the ad hits the airwaves and I won't be surprised if the ad ends up being taken off the air just days (if not hours) later. Still, during that short period of time, the ad will be seen by some, touching a few hearts and changing a few lives. And, once the ad is no longer there - the debate over it will keep going; not just in Kelowna, but from coast to coast.