Sunday, January 30, 2011

Legal Euthanasia Under-Reported, Open To Abuse

EU experience shows that "what if we only allow..." approach doesn't work. Euthanasia guidelines are open to abuse, expanding the wholesale killing of innocent people even further:
A study published in the Oct. 5 British Medical Journal found that nearly half of all euthanasia deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium were not reported. This study combined with the recent study that was published in the CMAJ in May 2010 that indicated that 32 per cent of all euthanasia deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium were without request or consent suggests that the Belgium euthanasia model is out-of-control.
The authors of the BMJ study analysed the death certificates in the Flanders Region of Belgium. After determining that the death was related to euthanasia, the authors of the study sent a five page questionnaire to the treating physician. The physicians were guaranteed total anonymity and asked to respond to the questionnaire.

The study determined that euthanasia deaths were reported 52.8 per cent of the time, even though reporting is a requirement of the law. The most recent study in the Netherlands from that country’s Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport indicated that the euthanasia deaths were reported 80.2 per cent of the time.
Euthanasia bill was defeated in the House of Commons, but there are still attempts to sneak it through the back door on a provincial level; especially in Quebec. The above mentioned study clearly demonstrates what there is to expect if direct actions that intentionally cause another person's death are made legal.

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Please, No More CPP Premium Hikes!

Mr. Flaherty, please don't sell us out! Don't bring us another tax hike just to postpone an election by a mere year...
In a new memo prepared by the NDP, the party costs its main requests. The NDP wants the budget to include $700-million to raise the Guaranteed Income Supplement for low-income seniors; a doubling of the Canada Pension Plan benefit through higher premiums; a $700-million proposal to cut the GST on home heating fuels; $200-million to revive the home energy retrofit incentive, and longer-term pledges to improve health care.

Mr. Flaherty’s office has already rejected the NDP proposal on CPP. Changing the CPP requires the support of two-thirds of the provinces representing two-thirds of the population. Recent federal-provincial meetings have shown there is not currently enough support to move ahead with even a less expensive version of the NDP plan, which was originally advocated by the Canadian Labour Congress. The Conservatives are on record, however, as supporting further talks on increasing CPP benefits.
So, it's just the matter of getting the provinces on board? The governing party (the one with the word "Conservative" in its name) has absolutely no principle objections to the plan?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The CPP with its "pay as you go" principle is one of the least efficient retirement savings vehicles. We've already seen the premiums going up from 3.6% in 1986 to 5.6% in 1996 and to 9.9% in 2003, (employee and employer share combined,) just to maintain the benefits at their current level. If your financial adviser recommended you to nearly triple your contributions with absolutely no increase in benefits to say the least - would you agree? Well, with the CPP, we have no choice. Now, they want to boost the premiums even higher, under a vague promise of higher benefits. Do you believe them? I don't. I'd rather have my retirement savings in a privately-managed account over which I could have direct control.

So here's my suggestion: Instead of throwing even more of our money into this bottomless pit otherwise known as CPP, let people put more of their money into retirement savings. Currently, the RRSP limit is 18% (up to $22450) - make it at least 25%, preferably - 30%. Fix the rules concerning retirement allowances, so that people could roll them over to their RRSPs with no hassle. Give people more opportunities to save for retirement - that will work much better than raising premiums of an inefficient forced saving plan.

Friday, January 28, 2011

Trudeau's Weapon Against Personal Responsibility

Yes, Lorne Gunter is talking about the Charter - and all the "human rights" industry that ends up robbing Canadians of their rights rather than protecting them.
The Charter as Trudeau conceived it was always doomed to expand group power at the expense of individual rights, because concurrent with the adoption of the Charter, Trudeau created an enormous state apparatus — human rights commissions, activist courts, government-subsidized special interest groups — that would leverage the Charter to re-engineer Canadian society. If Trudeau had genuinely seen the state as such a threat to individual liberty, why would he have subordinated individual rights to such giant institutional structures? Talk about putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse.
Perhaps it was his training in civil law, whereby rights are granted by the state — unlike in the common law tradition, whereby rights are seen as something natural that pre-existed the state. If you believe the state is the original granter of rights, I suppose it also makes some sense to believe you can put the state in charge of protecting rights.

In any event, the result of this vision, in the Canadian post-Charter context, has been that we have given up personal responsibility for safeguarding our own rights in favour of whining to government to make others give us what we want.
And, as if that wasn't enough, Ontario has moved to subordinate their education sector to those freedom-snatching commissions. Again, socially twisted lefties, in the name of "equality" and "tolerance", chose to put special interest and designated victim groups and their grievances ahead of the children's best interest (not to mention the parents').

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Name That Killer Already!..

Michael Coren has a simple question for us. Talking about the recent explosion in Moscow airport, Michael challenges us to think - who carried out this anti-human crime? To make it even easier for us to name those killers, Michael makes it a multiple choice question: Were those Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Jews or maybe - Mormons? One could think the answer is obvious, but, as it turns out, some are unable to find it:
Perry Castiglione says:
January 25, 2011 at 9:05 am

8. All of the above.
I must have missed something. Did any of the survivors testify that they'd heard the bomber reciting the Hail Mary or the Shema Israel before connecting the wires?.. Oh, wait! I get it! All religions are evil, isn't that so, Perry? And, if they are evil, then it doesn't matter if you blow up dozens of innocent bystanders or merely recite the Lord's prayer before going to bed - that's equally bad, isn't it?

Another moral relativist believes he's found a counter argument:
David G says:
January 25, 2011 at 9:44 am

And of course Russian brutality in Chechnya has nothing to do with this attack. That’s a leftie red herring, right?
Of course, it's the Russians that are to blame; they shouldn't have cracked down on a savage regime, that had outpaced Nazi Germany in atrocities. They should have left the terrorist-run district alone, let them raid hospitals, kidnap schoolchildren or sell women to slavery, because those poor Chechens had their grievances, got it? It's a sad diagnosis, but Stockholm Syndrome has become far greater a threat to our civilization than the Black death used to be back in the 14th century.

And yet it can get even worse:
Steven says:
January 25, 2011 at 10:12 am

The question you pose is disgusting. I will not dignify it with an answer and I hope everyone else doesn’t.
Way to go Steven, bury your head in the sand; if you don't see the threat - then it's not there, right? Nobody can kick you in the butt and nobody would even think about breaking your neck while you cowardly keep your foolish head buried in the sand. Whoever commented half an hour later knew what he was talking about, naming extreme liberalism a mental defect - it sure is.

Some try to point out that militant Islam is not the only source of terrorism, mentioning Mcveigh and others. Yes, some 30-40 years ago, most terror attacks were carried out by radical communists, maoists and other left-wing radicals (yet even those often had Muslims involved.) Yes, there's still a handful of crazed pinko commies who don't mind resorting to murders in an attempt to reshape the society according to their wishes. But nowadays they are no match to radical Islam. And we better have the courage to say that.

The Russians are starting to shake off the yoke of political correctness and to see the state-mandated "tolerance" for what it is. We better do the same without waiting for a similar attack on our airports.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

On "Social Justice"...

The concept which is seen as supreme by many but, the way it's understood today, has little to do with justice or actually helping the society... If the end doesn't justify the means, the opposite is also true. Supporting an organization just because it has some charitable agenda, with no regard to the values for which this organization stand, makes the supporting church directly responsible for the abuse which is made possible thanks to these funds. Not to mention that by supporting organizations with radical anti-Christian agenda, the social justice clergymen practically finance the fight against the very churches they represent.

Monday, January 24, 2011

Defending Free Speech From Mob Rule

Heritage Minister James Moore should be commended for standing up for free speech:
Free speech has lost a few battles in the war against censorship lately. Banning songs from the airwaves after a single complaint, shutting up G20 protesters and the blocking of right-wing speakers on university campuses have all served to create a bleak impression of the state of open discourse. That's why we were pleasantly surprised by Heritage Minister James Moore's strong stand against those who this week attempted to force the cancellation of a screening of a film that warns of the dangers of Iran's nuclear program.
Apparently, the new screening date is February 6. It's a shame however that the National Archives cancelled the screening in the first place:
It’s a Canadian government institution, owned by the federal government and funded by taxpayers.

And they actually took instructions from a foreign tyrant.
The Library had a contract with Ottawa’s Free Thinking Film Society to screen a movie called Iranium, about Iran’s nuclear threat.

No wonder Iran wanted to censor it.

That’s not the surprising part. The surprising part is the Library complied.
Lorne Gunter looks further into this phenomenon and figures out that it becomes much easier for the violent mob to get their way when those in charge of the building hosting the event tend to share the protestors' views:
It used to be there actually had to be a violent protest before public institutions caved in and cancelled controversial events. ... Now, though, it seems the mere whiff of protest is enough for officialdom to bow to would-be protestors’ demands.
But mostly I also think political correctness has so infested the minds of most officials that they can’t bring themselves to say “no” to protestors. When pro-Palestinian protestors seek to shut down pro-Israeli events on university campuses, I think administrators give in because heeding the mob’s blackmail is the easiest way to avoid violence. But I also think they give in quickly because they share the protestors’ ideological and political stands. It’s hard to defend one’s opponents’ free-speech rights and harder still to tell those you agree with to settle down and go home.
When officials at the National Archives shut down their building Tuesday night, so that a showing of Iranium would have to be cancelled, I doubt they did so because they agree with the regime in Tehran. But they probably have more sympathy with the worldview of potential protestors than with the organizers, the Free Thinking Film Society. So it was not hard for them to hide behind the threat of violence and cancel an event they likely had little sympathy for in the first place.
I'm glad to see James Moore standing up to the mob rule and practically ordering the National Archives to honor their own words and to hold the screening. It's a pity however that there would be apparently no compensations to those who traveled to Ottawa looking forward to watch the documentary, just to find the doors shut, for those who then had to reschedule their time off at work, cancel and rebook their tickets and their hotel reservations. If those responsible for canceling the event were supposed to reimburse the audience their expenses - that would make them think twice before siding with the violent mob.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Why Can't They Just Stop Minting Them?

Australia and New Zealand eliminated their 1-coins long ago. The Senate committee suggests that it's time for Canada to follow suit. More than half of Canadians agree - myself included. Except - I don't think we should start by demonetizing the penny.

That's unfortunately the common approach. Pat Martin's private member bill proposes that 1 cent coins cease to be legal tender at the end of the calendar year in which the bill passes. The Senate committee recommends a 12-month advance warning with a 12-month call-in period, after which the coins could still be redeemed in banks, but will no longer be legal tender. I believe that the best way to approach this is to just stop minting those coins.

That will save about $130M in production, storage and distribution costs. And at the same time, those who wish to keep using the penny, could be easily accommodated by the billions of pennies that are currently in circulation. Eventually, the coin will fall into disuse even if it remains officially a legal tender - without rush, without deadlines, without people lining up to cash in their penny jars... All it takes is just a brief note to the Royal Canadian Mint: "There's no need for 750 million pennies to be minted each year; we have more than enough of them in circulation already."

Friday, January 21, 2011

Ask Them What They Mean By Saying "Choice"

Obviously, they'll insist that they don't really mean this: Or this.
Choice. It is a great slogan to use for marketing or for politics because everyone supports having one. No one wants to be accused of being anti-choice.

It’s no surprise, then, that to justify legal abortion, abortion advocates have used the word as their mantra. They argue that abortion is a personal decision that women make about their bodies, and that we should not take away that choice. Yet when examining these arguments, it’s clear that they’ve made important assumptions that need to be explained.
Now abortion advocates may say abortion deals with a personal decision a woman makes about her body, and therefore it should be a private choice.
And so, abortion advocates need to prove the unborn child is part of the woman’s body and not simply assume it.
Which, of course, is something they'll never be able to do. Facts are stubborn things: A new body forms at conception; since that very moment, the baby has his own unique DNA. Heart starts beating in less than three weeks - whose heart is it? Take a look at this footprint - whose foot is it? Here's what a baby looks like when most abortions take place. At that stage, nobody could credibly argue that a preborn baby is a part of the mother's body. Neither could one argue that the baby uses his mother's body unjustly. So, why turning this baby into this is commonly referred to as "choice"?

Thursday, January 20, 2011

For The Umpteenth Time - Kowtowing To Pro-Aborts Doesn't Help

In spite of all the promises never to reopen the abortion debate, (including the most recent one, when Harper pledged not to touch the issue even if he wins majority,) the opposition parties still insist that Stephen Harper is not pro-abortion enough:
Opposition parties, the Bloc included, have spent the last number of elections attempting to paint Harper as a closet pro-life activist ready to restrict abortion or perhaps outlaw it altogether as soon as a Conservative majority would enable it. (The power of the mainstream media is such that many pro-life Canadians actually believed it.) That game plan was successful with Harper’s predecessor Stockwell Day, who was in fact pro-life, and the game plan has never changed since then.

However, given Harper’s pro-abortion political moves, the strategy at this point seems loony to any objective observer. Nevertheless, Liberal House leader David McGuinty opined in response to Harper’s CBC interview, “I don’t think Mr. Harper can be trusted on significant issues like abortion.”

NDP leader Jack Layton also stoked the conspiracy theory fires saying of Harper: “He was very careful in the way he chose his words there. And I wouldn’t derive a lot of comfort if I were concerned about what he might do,” on abortion.
So, once again, Harper has distanced himself from the pro-life movement for nothing. But there is still an important message in what he said:
I say to people, if you want to diminish the number of abortions, you've got to change hearts and not laws.
Bingo! Obviously, the tide can't be turned without the women themselves turning their backs on abortion. And, let's not forget - Harper is a politician. For him the main motivator is public support. Unless there is a strong public support for the unborn, no politician will dare to touch the issue with a ten-foot pole. Especially - not the one whose quest for majority means winning no less than 60% of the seats, available to Federalist candidates.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

If Only They Cared That Much About Canadians...

Religious leaders, including Catholic bishops, have expressed their concerns about the proposed measures to crack down on illegitimate refugees.
Late last year the bishops – along with leaders of the United Church, the Anglican Church, the Christian Reformed Church in North America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Council of the Muslim Community – complained that the Tories’ planned law would deny the rights of refugee claimants. The legislation proposes to build detention centres where claimants could be housed for as long as a year without a hearing. It would permit them to be detained for longer than 12 months, so long as they get a chance to plead their case for release before a refugee panel.
What about Linda Gibbons who's been detained for two years without trial for merely praying outside of an abortion mill? How come the bishops haven't said a word about her fate? Where's an open letter from the leading clergymen expressing their concerns about the blatant violation of Linda's rights? Or, maybe they consider Linda's actions to be a greater crime than making a deal with human traffickers and sneaking into Canada in defiance of all laws?

How about other human rights abuses? When was the last time a high-profile clergyman spoke out against the abuse of power and the perversion of justice done by the "human rights" commissions? How come they fight so fiercely for the rights of those who've been denied freedoms in their home countries, but fail to notice that Canadian citizens on Canadian soil are being denied such fundamental freedoms as the freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial? Before positioning ourselves as defenders of human rights on the world stage, shouldn't we clean up our own house? So why practically not one of them bothers to notice that?

Then - what about those 100,000 or so babies a year, all of them - would be Canadian citizens, that get slaughtered before they get a chance to see daylight? The law generously offers citizenship to anyone who was lucky to take his first breath on Canadian soil (regardless of whether or not his parents are here legally,) but denies not just citizenship but even personhood to babies that are weeks (days, hours, minutes) away from their first breath. Where's the clergy? Where are the bishops? Where are other religious leaders? Sure there is a handful of them that dare to speak up, but what about the rest?!

Finally - let's look at the proposed measures, maybe they're not as inhumane as the bishops and other signatories claim:
The bill would increase the penalties on those – such as refugee-boat captains – who smuggle in illegitimate refugees. And it would greatly reduce the number and length of appeals allowed claimants whose initial applications are rejected. Currently, it can take as long as 12 years and as many as nine appeals before unsuccessful refugee claimants may be deported.

Perhaps the most controversial provision is the one permitting the Immigration department to review even a successful refugee’s case again five years after his grant of refugee status. For their first five years in Canada, successful claimants – those who a refugee determination board decide have legitimate claims for asylum – could be denied permanent residence status. The logic behind this is that the conditions that force people to flee for their lives often change; the threats that make people leave their homelands sometimes disappear.
There is justification for this. Recall the way Lebanese with Canadians passports demanded rescue by Canadians at Canadian expense in 2006 when fighting broke out in southern Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah. Most of these Lebanese were only nominally Canadian citizens. They had fled here in the 1980s and 1990s during Lebanon’s civil war, been given citizenship, then scurried back to Lebanon the moment hostilities eased. For a decade or more they had been living back in Lebanon. They were Canadians of convenience.
To that I may add that if a refugee, who sought asylum from sharia law in his home country, wishes to establish the very same sharia law here in Canada, his case better be reopened and his claim better be investigated for fraud. I can understand why the "council of the Muslim community" opposes the changes, but it's a pity that the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops goes along with this phony "social justice" crowd, while turning a blind eye on real human rights abuses that take place here in Canada. It's time they realize that CCCB and CCCP don't come from the same root.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

"Human Rights" Jackboots Defy Court Of Law

The court of law has dismissed the charges - so what? The Orwellian tribunal convicts the defendant anyway. It doesn't matter that the defendant was provoked by the plaintiffs who had nearly run over his child (in a situation like that, the reckless driver better be happy to get away with mere insults). Also, it doesn't matter that the couple has been a menace on the community, pursuing lawsuits and complaints against neighbors whom they believe have looked at them the wrong way (that reminds us of someone, doesn't it?) For the quasi-judiciary tribunal, hurt feelings of a member of a designated victim group - that's all that matters.
Lusk, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Canadian military, was acquitted of charges of “homophobic comments,” death threats and threatening assault in a provincial court over the incident involving the two homosexuals who were alleged to have driven recklessly down their street, endangering the lives of children, including Mr. Lusk’s son, who were playing road hockey.

A witness of the incident testified at the court of law hearing that Thibault had run a stop sign and almost hit one of the children. The same witness testified that in an earlier incident Thibault had run over a tennis ball with which the children were playing road hockey.

Mr. Lusk maintained at the hearing in 2006 that when he was informed of the incident he went to speak with his neighbors but denied uttering death threats or threatening assault.
The National Post, however, reported that the homosexual couple was recently required to provide a written apology to another neighbor stating their complaints were “baseless,” after that neighbor, who they had accused of “homophobic” harassment, was acquitted in a court of law.

Mr. Lusk’s lawyer, Stephen Angers, questioned the tribunal’s ruling, wondering how a human rights tribunal can ignore the ruling of a court of law and stating that they appear to be “in another world.”

“It makes no sense that Mr. Lusk could be acquitted in a Quebec court and then found liable for moral and punitive damages in front of a human rights tribunal,” Mr. Angers said according to the National Post. “These tribunals are just in another world.”
Yet another human rights abuse done by an unelected, unaccountable, extra-judiciary body that has "human rights" in its name. Yet another reason why these freedom-snatching tribunals should be abolished.

Monday, January 17, 2011

Climate Science Is About More Than Just Carbon Dioxide

When it's -15 outside (-27 with windchill,) this interview, which discuses "global warming" (or lack thereof) couldn't be any more timely. Michael Coren is not a climate scientist, but he interviews Lord Christopher Monckton, someone who knows what he's talking about and who can explain why all this global warming hysteria is not scientifically based. It may surprise some, but if we are to discuss global climate change - we must consider many other factors beside carbon dioxide:
Meanwhile, we have more news about climate data being cherry-picked by CRU to fit their warm-mongering theory. It turns out that only 25% of the climate stats provided by Russian meteorological stations was used by CRU, leaving over 40% of Russia's territory unrepresented. But why would someone worry about those remote parts of Russia? So what if it's a bigger land mass than all 10 Canadian provinces put together? The science is settled, isn't it?

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Want Your Children To Go To College - Homeschool Them

Don't trust the government to educate your children. Devoted parents turn out to be better teachers than the government-accredited, union-certified ones from public schools:
GRAY, Tenn., January 4, 2011 ( - As the modern-day homeschool movement confidently marches forward into its fourth decade, colleges and universities are opening wide their doors to welcome its mature, prepared graduates to their ranks. Homeschoolers score an average of 37 percentile points above the national average on standardized achievement tests and typically score above average on the SAT and ACT, statistics that apparently have caught the eye of college admissions personnel. Since 1999, the number of homeschoolers in the United States has increased by 74%, and today thousands of young men and women are graduating from high school—at home.
A number of institutions have appointed “homeschool liaison and recruitment specialists” to serve incoming freshmen and their families. In her 2009 article titled “‘We Love Homeschoolers!’ Prominent Colleges Jump on the Recruiting Bandwagon,” author Claire Novak, herself a homeschool grad, quoted one such specialist, who said, “As the number of homeschooled students grow, colleges are finding it’s a market you can’t ignore.”

Nearly 30% of Bob Jones University’s current students were educated at home.
Better academic achievements, no peer pressure, none (or the very minimum) of those government-mandated classes in politically correct "isms", much higher chances to be admitted into a post-secondary institution that opens the door to a well-paying career... It takes lots of time, effort and determination. But, as we can see, the results are definitely worth it.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Abortion Status Quo Is Getting Harder To Maintain

The pro-abort elite must resort to more censorship and oppression in a desperate attempt to keep the truth from being told.
LONDON, January 12, 2011 ( – A 39-year-old British Christian mental health worker is facing the sack for expressing her opinions in a private conversation with colleagues about the mental health problems faced by women who have had abortions.
Forrester told colleagues that she was concerned that women are not being given adequate information on the dangers of abortion to their long-term mental health. She showed co-workers a booklet on post-abortion syndrome that featured the personal testimonies of women who have suffered from it.

After this conversation, Forrester was called into a meeting with her manager and questioned about her views. At first she was suspended from her job, but then the Trust changed her status to a special leave with pay, during which she was required to sit in an office and not work.
How much sense does it make to require a skilled highly-paid professional to sit idly at work, especially, when the nation's finances are in disarray, when taxes are going up and when the government tries to cut back wherever possible?

On the other hand, what choice do they have? If they don't make an example of Margaret Forrester, if they let healthcare professionals discuss post-abortion syndrome, if women eventually get to know the truth, then the pro-aborts could no longer claim that abortion is harmless; they could no longer refer to their trade as "women's health"; they could no longer request funding for their businesses as part of the government's "maternal health" initiative...

Since the law prevents them from firing Margaret, they're isolating her from her patients. Giving Margaret her paycheck then becomes a small price to pay for the pro-aborts to protect their myths and their blood-tainted money.

Meanwhile, the abortion status-quo faces another threat; this one - in Canada. A provincial court judge has ruled that there is enough merit in a complaint by Linda Gibbons’s defence lawyer of abuse of process:
Greene’s decision means that the rare spectacle of Crown attorneys and other related personnel taking the witness stand to be cross-examined on their roles in the prosecution of Gibbons will take place during the three days in March at the College Park courthouse, Yonge and College Streets in downtown Toronto. That should come as some satisfaction to pro-life activists in southern Ontario, who have long witnessed questionable conduct on the part of Crown prosecutors in their handling of abortion-related cases for over a decade and a half.

Among the things they have seen Crown prosecutors do is consistently lay charges in such a way as to deny Gibbons a jury trial, press for prison sentences at the high end of the spectrum, never call abortion personnel as witnesses so as not to inconvenience them and always lay criminal charges, even though the injunction was decreed in a civil court and should have been pursued there.

The latter issue is now before the Supreme Court for possible consideration, with a decision on whether it will be heard expected by March. Gibbons will mark her second anniversary in prison by then - she has been held continuously behind bars since January 20, 2009 as the judicial processes on a charge of disobeying a court order have played out.
If even the judges start noticing that the pro-aborts have gone too far in persecuting those who dare to disagree with them, then things don't look good for them. Even if the court doesn't strike down the "bubble zone" injunction, the prosecution will have to tone down their efforts.

Friday, January 14, 2011

Planned Parenthood's Unplanned Pro-Life Advocate

Great review of Abby Johnson’s book, UnPlanned, by Jill Stanek:
I, like everyone else who has opened Abby Johnson's new book, "UnPlanned," couldn't put it down.

The true account of Abby's dramatic journey from Planned Parenthood abortion clinic director (Employee of the Year even) to pro-life activist in the span of a week was mesmerizing.

Long story short: Abby's traumatic participation in an ultrasound-guided abortion solidified a conversion that had begun forming when her bosses ordered her to increase profits by increasing abortions.

Abby's book contains several insights, but what I gained most from reading "UnPlanned" was a better understanding of the abortion worker's mind.
This is major reason I think Abby's book is a game-changer. Abby is a bridge. Abortionists, clinic owners and staff have come into our movement before, but Abby speaks to a new generation – on both sides.
My suggestion - make sure you order the book while there are still some copies left in stock.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Marriage Commissioners's Choice: Your Conscience Or Your Job

Once again, the court has denied Christian marriage commissioners their freedom of conscience, forcing them to choose between their values or their job. For Larry Bjerland, a marriage commissioner from Saskatchewan, it would rather be his job:
REGINA, Saskatchewan, January 12, 2011 ( – A Saskatchewan marriage commissioner says the government will have to fire him if it expects him to perform same-sex “marriages.”
Bjerland told CBC the decision might result in his losing his appointment. “I do not intend to marry any gay couples and so, therefore, I’m not going to resign,” said Bjerland, who has been a marriage commissioner for 10 years. “They’ll have to fire me.”
Dr. Maurice Vellacott, MP for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, agreed with Bjerland. In a letter to Saskatchewan Justice Minister Don Morgan on Monday, Vellacott expressed his concern with the court’s ruling.

“Some have suggested that marriage commissioners should resign if they won’t perform same-sex marriages. However, that approach violates the spirit and letter of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” said Vellacott.
Except that for the judicial activists that took over our courts, the spirit and letter of the Charter means advancing special interest groups in the name of equality, forcing their social engineering on the rest of the society (especially Christians) in the name of tolerance.

But here's another thing: do we even need the institution of civil marriage the way it has become? One of the options studied by the House committee back in 2001-02 was to get the government out of the marriage business. Maybe we should consider this as an interim solution? After all, those of us who still believe in the Sacrament of Marriage, could easily do without the government clerk and the piece of paper called "marriage license", in which the bride and the groom are referred to as mere "partner A" and "partner B".

Sure, there are many who reject religious marriage; but most of them don't even bother to have their relationships registered with the government. "Common law" status gives them all the rights and obligations that are available to married couples. And, as for the rest - they could be easily accommodated by lawyers and notary public. I doubt that drafting a typical contract and having the partners' signature witnessed would cost more than what the government charges for its license.

So if the government is to fire Christian marriage commissioners for refusing to issue phony "civil marriage" licenses and perform mock wedding ceremonies for perverse couples, then they might as well scrap what's left of the institution altogether and make the remaining marriage commissioners join their Christian colleagues on the job market. After all, it's their indifference and their unwillingness to defend the historic values upon which the marriage rests, that eventually led to the situation when the institution of civil marriage has become a shadow of its former self and Christian marriage commissioners are being forced to choose between their conscience and their job.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Abby Johnson’s Pro-Life Conversion In Her Own Words

Her book, titled "Unplanned", was released yesterday:
What if?

I had believed a lie! I had blindly promoted the “company line” for so long. Why? Why hadn’t I searched out the truth for myself? Why had I closed my ears to the arguments I’d heard? Oh, dear God, what had I done?

My hand was still on the patient’s belly, and I had the sense that I had just taken something away from her with that hand. I’d robbed her. And my hand started to hurt — I felt an actual physical pain. And right there, standing beside the table, my hand on the weeping woman’s belly, this thought came from deep within me:

Never again! Never again.
First chapter of the book has been published at Life Site News website. As LSN reports, Abby Johnson disclosed that she herself has undergone two abortions, which she describes as traumatic.

The webcast featuring Abby's book is available online. Follow the link to listen to Abby's testimony and don't forget to check out this commentary by Steve G from SoCon or Bust:
Abby also specified that there’s no room for anger and hatred on the sidewalk in front of an abortuary. There’s enough anger and hatred in the clinic, she says. What we need is a merciful and compassionate witness. Therein lies the key to converting expecting moms, workers at these clinics and unsuspecting passers-by who might get zapped by the grace of God.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Defunding Political Parties - Time For Another Attempt?

Looks like the issue could resurface - either as a part of the post-recession "belt-tightening" budget or even as an election issue should the government fall on a budget or any other confidence vote. Meanwhile, the question of handouts to political parties has received some attention from the major newspapers:
I already knew (as no doubt many of you did, too) that the Bloc is more dependent on the subsidies than any other party. The Tories rely on these per-vote payments for about 40% of their annual party operating funds, the NDP for not quite 60%, the Liberals for around 70% and the Bloc for between 85% and 90%.

There’s an irony for you. The one party in Parliament committed to breaking up the country is also the most reliant on the generosity of hardworking Canadian taxpayers. (Perhaps that’s not an irony so much as it’s an outrage.)
Last year the Tories received $10.4 million from taxpayers through the scheme administered by Elections Canada. The Liberals were given $7.3 million, the New Democrats $5 million, the Bloc Quebecois $2.8 million and the Greens $1.9 million.
But let's not forget - per-vote subsidies to political parties is just the tip of the iceberg. There's also election expenses reimbursement (as much as 50% for parties and candidates that meet a certain threshold) and generous tax credits for political party contributions.

The CHP proposal to let each one specify on his tax return whether he wants to direct his $2 to a political party or to a special education fund administered by Elections Canada, is merely a cosmetic solution. In my opinion, handouts to political parties should end in every form there is. The government's role should be limited to setting and enforcing the rules, it must ensure that there are no cash-stuffed briefcases or donations from entities that use someone else's money involved. But the funding should come from individual contributors. Subsidizing incumbency, refunding election expenses and matching one's donation 3:1 - that better be stopped.

P.S. Here's a great article by Ezra Levant:
Fewer than one in 100 Canadians donate to a federal political party.

It’s not surprising, considering the low esteem in which most Canadians hold politicians. And a political party is not a charity, even though a political donation receives a more generous tax treatment than a charitable one does.

But no matter. In 2004, the Liberal Party amended the Elections Act to force all Canadians to donate to political parties through their taxes.
Sure beats having to go door-to-door earning support one cheque at a time.
The Conservatives lost control of the issue last time. They should take control this time and make abolishing the handout a central plank of their looming 2011 election platform.
What he said.

Sunday, January 9, 2011

Seeing The World Around You - Before Birth

Apparently there might be enough light in the womb for the baby to start learning to see before he's even born:
The New Scientist:
A FETUS might learn to see before it is born. So much light penetrates a pregnant woman's tummy that her fetus may develop vision in the final two months of pregnancy.
In bright sunlight, a fetus could receive light equivalent to that found in a typically lit house.
So it's not impossible that under the glare of hospital lights, a late-term fetus may actually see the long needle that the doctor injects into his heart to kill him.
First there was that video of a 13-week unborn baby trying to escape the needle. Now it might turn out that at later stages of pregnancy, the baby can even see the needle that kills him. Those who claim that preborn babies "lack self-consciousness entirely" and "have no interest in living", have once again been proven wrong.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

New Environment Minister - A Man Of Common Sense

First and foremost, he adopted the Ethical Oil framework, speaking up in defense of the oil sands:
The oil sands have a new defender: freshly minted Environment Minister Peter Kent, who calls Canada’s tarry resource an “ethical” source of energy that should take priority in the U.S over foreign producers with poor democratic track records.
But the minister’s characterization of the oil sands as “ethical” embraces a notion advanced by Calgary author Ezra Levant. Mr. Levant, a onetime aide to Stockwell Day, has helped popularize the argument that oil-sands petroleum is ethically superior to petroleum produced by countries such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Iran – all nations that also sell crude to the U.S. market or Asian markets. It’s an attempt to beat back efforts by U.S. politicians and activists who want a boycott of Canada’s oil sands owing to its greenhouse-gas-heavy extraction methods and ensuing environmental damage.

Mr. Kent’s staunch support for the oil sands represents an even more unapologetic stand by the Harper government as it works to comply with the international fight against climate change and ensure U.S. legislators don’t end up stymieing Canadian exports or investment in the sector.
Hopefully, his next steps include pointing out the fact that the "scientific consensus" about global warming turns out to have a lot more to do with manipulating the numbers. Then hopefully we can look forward for the Rona Ambrose's good old Clean Air Act to be reintroduced, so that, instead of wasting time and money on imaginary threats, the Parliament finally starts addressing the real issues, such as air and water pollution.

Thursday, January 6, 2011

That R-Word Again

Perversions come in different kinds. Engaging in constant self-flagellation over alleged "racism" and imaginary "advantages" is one of them. In response, the author of the Scary Fundamentalist blog has posted his Confessions of an Unrepentant Racist:
1. I am a racist, because I insist that any government of the people must treat its citizens according to the Rule of Law - that is, without consideration for race.

2. I am a racist, because I believe that merit should be the only standard for entry into public office, public employment, or public learning institutions.

3. I am a racist, because I believe that all people, regardless of race, have an equal right to decide how to dispense of their own property.
13. I am a racist, because I believe that all crimes are motivated by hate.
There are a few more in the comments. And then came the guy who had praised the self-flagellation essay on his blog (apparently, he's not a bleeding-heart masochist, but one of those who believe that the society is indebted to him if he happens to be a member of a designated victim group,) and left his own comment which could be summarized as follows:
Racist: The assumption that all people, regardless of race, are just as capable of getting to where I am without help.

Not racist: The assumption that members of particular races require assistance to achieve similar success to unassisted members of other races.
Judge for yourself who is the racist here.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

The Trap Of Public Funding - Again

Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. Whoever provides the funding for schools and daycares gets to decide what should and what shouldn't be taught there:
Quebec’s family minister, Yolande James, has banned all religious instruction in government-subsidized daycare centers. Since 1997, the province has subsidized 85% of daycare costs, with parents paying $7 per child per day.

“I want the young Quebecers who attend our daycare services to do so in a spirit of openness to others and diversity,” said Yolande James, Quebec’s family minister.

Under the new regulations, subsidized daycare centers are permitted to set up Christmas trees and Nativity scenes, but are forbidden to identify Jesus, Mary, and Joseph as figures in the scene, according to two Canadian newspaper reports. Christmas carols are also forbidden.

“At a Montreal daycare centre run by Catholic nuns, a parents association was so terrified at the prospect of losing governmental subsidies that it decided to apply the guidelines six months before they’ll be implemented,” according to Globe and Mail columnist Lysiane Gagnon. “So the week before Christmas, the little kids sang insipid Bing Crosby ballads instead of beautiful traditional carols such as ‘Silent Night.’”
That's how it works. It starts with the government offering financial relief and it ends with the very same government taking away our rights to make decisions on our children's education in exchange for our own money. That's also how the Ontario Catholic school system lost its autonomy. The landmark court case, filed by a perverse couple against a Catholic school some 7 or 8 years ago, made it clear that a school which receives public funds is not allowed to have other principles than those mandated by the government.

In Quebec, the government has already forced its vision of world religions and ethics on all school students, including those attending private schools and those that are home-schooled. Now, they're extending their indoctrination to pre-schoolers. And it's not much better in the rest of Canada. Even though Paul Martin's plans for a government-run mammoth daycare monopoly were scrapped following the 2006 election, we now see some provincial governments trying to implement these same plans on a provincial level.

Yes, unfortunately, the notion of the government footing the bill is way to attractive to quite a large group of people. But these people should be made aware that all those generous offers actually mean that the government is buying our rights and freedoms from us - with our own tax money.

And another thing: Quebec government is tripling the number of its daycare inspectors to help enforce those regulations. Talking about "low-cost" government-run daycare versus those "for-profit" ones, that are privately run.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Top Ten Failed Climate Change Predictions

It wasn't just about "global warming". There were other climate apocalypse theories too:
5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.
6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970. Remember before we were warned about global warming, we were told that the Earth was facing an Ice age.
And, of course, back then, the science too, had been settled, and, in spite of a handful of "deniers", the scientists had "solid experimental and historical evidence to support each of the following predictions".

Want to address the financial crisis, the run-away deficits and the consequences of the recent snow storm all at once? Abolish taxpayers' funding to every single "climate change" project and send all those "experts" to shovel snow.

Monday, January 3, 2011

Anti-Spanking Bill Debate – Why Now?

The Toronto Sun has published an article about Liberal Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette and her anti-spanking bill (S-204). Not much news here, except for one question: Why now?

Really - why now? The bill itself was reintroduced last April and it's been stuck at second reading debate ever since. The Parliament is once again on a long Christmas break (protests and padlocks anyone?) plus, the bill itself is still far from the top of the order of precedence, so it won't be debated (let alone - voted on) until mid February at the very least...

So why did the Toronto Sun find it important to raise awareness of the bill? Did they run out of stuff to fill the pages with on this dull New Year's Day weekend? Or is it the beginning of a new campaign against those wife-beating child-beating inbred redneck Conservatives? I guess we shall wait and see. Meanwhile, here's what some of the readers think about Senator Hervieux-Payette's initiative:
If you ever wonder what the Liberals want to do with Canada, just look at this woman. She's the same one this week who decided that she wants to mandate that half of the boards of directors of publicly traded companies must be female as well.

Have a business? Liberals want part. Have kids? Liberals want a part of that, too. Welcome to the leftist version of freedom.
(Sean Carnegie
January 2nd 2011, 10:39pm)

why stop there? why not just take our kids away from us at birth along with what's left of our pay cheqs if anyone needs to be educated it's smug, self righteous, left wing, social engineers who always know better than us dumb peons how to raise OUR kids, how to spend OUR money, etc. I can only pray liberals provincial & federal are spanked big time the next time they face the electorate
(Con Hockeye
January 3rd 2011, 6:47am)

More Comments >>>
Somehow parents don't seem to be excited about the proposed law. Hopefully, their opinion eventually prevails among the Senators. The Senate did pass a similar bill some 2-3 years ago, when the Liberals held 3:1 majority, but now, the bill is stuck at the second reading. And, hopefully, that's where it stays until Senator Hervieux-Payette retires.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

Time Magazine and Global Warming

Let's make fun of both.

A few alternative captions have been proposed:
  • "It's cold, it's hot, whatever; it's a crisis so panic for heaven's sake! (Craig Carter)
  • "The sun so hot, I froze to death, O Suzanna don't you cry" (Peter W. Dunn)
  • "Out of the frying pan, into the freezer"
    "Any evidence proves my point" (S Masson)
Think you can come up with a better caption than the "circular reasoning"? Go for it!