Sunday, January 29, 2012

Canada: Our Home And UN Land

Check out this article by Brian Lilley:
Earlier this week Canada kicked out a Rwandan man accused of helping instigate the genocide in his homeland almost 20 years ago, but if were up to the mandarins at the United Nations, Leon Mugesera would still be on Canadian soil.

Despite being found inadmissible to Canada in 1995 by a Liberal cabinet minister, deemed inadmissible by the Supreme Court in 2005 and having lost all of his appeals, the UN stepped in to protect the accused war criminal.

The international body wanted its decisions to supersede Canadian law and courts, and have their people determine when and if we could boot him back to Kigali.

I think most Canadians would find it ridiculous that the UN, the body that told its peacekeepers to stand by and let the Rwandan genocide happen, would intervene to protect a man accused of instigating the mass slaughter.

This isn't the first time the UN has tried to take control of Canadian decision-making.
Interestingly enough, all those who cry foul about Harper allegedly "selling out Canada to the US", tend to turn a blind eye at all the "progressive" politicians who want to cede Canadian sovereignty to the UN and the UN-run international bodies, such as the IPCC.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Video: MultiCult Explained

The whole insane concept of multiculturalism and moral relativism explained in just 3 minuts:

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Why Do We Need Student Unions? For Censorship

The "student union" has already decertified Carleton Lifeline as a university club. Now they want to outright ban pro-life students from the university:
January 12, 2012. OTTAWA, ON—This week, the CFS National Deputy Chairperson Shelly Melanson proposed a referendum question to the Carleton University Student’s Association (CUSA) which is creating a firestorm of controversy. The proposed question involves censoring certain groups: “Are you in favour of banning groups such as Lifeline, the Genocide Awareness Project, Campaign for Life Coalition and other organizations that use inaccurate information and violent images to discourage women from exploring all options in the event of pregnancy from Carleton University?”

The question has been added to CUSA’s Write of Referenda for 2012, which indicates that the referenda will be held concurrently with the 2012 General Elections.
In addition to banning pro-lifers, the "union" also proposes banning all groups "that promote guns and gun violence" (want to open a student chapter of the National Firearms Association? Forget it!) and to force "a binding socially responsible investment policy" on Carleton University, that would require it to divest from a number of companies, blacklisted by the "union". Among other suggestions: a student levy hike to raise funds for a committee that sponsors refugee students and "a mandatory universal transit pass for full-time undergraduate students" at a prescribed price.

No, I'm not making this up. Apparently, the "student union" is planning a vote on a mandatory transit pass for all students - including those who have cars as well as those who live close enough to cycle or even walk to the campus. Not to mention, that they believe they can arbitrarily set the price of the transit pass (the actual cost of the OC Transpo Student Semester Pass is $255, not $180) and to limit annual price increases to some prescribed maximum. (Who, do they think, is going to pay the difference? The university? The government? Or maybe, the students themselves, through increased tuition?)

So, that's what these "student unions" are all about. Now, if the "student union" membership was made voluntary (on an "opt-in" base, rather than "opt-out") how many students would actually choose to rejoin this modern-day version of the Hitlerjugend?

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Fetal Cells Heal Mother For Life

Much to the dismay of those who keep using the term "maternal health" to describe abortion (implying that pregnancy is harmful and portraying the baby in the womb as some sort of a foreign body that leaches on the poor woman who carries him) - here's another study that proves them wrong:
Science has been studying the phenomena of fetal cell microchimerism for more than 30 years, after researchers at Stanford University were shocked in 1979 to discover a pregnant mother’s blood containing cells with Y sex chromosomes. Since women only have X chromosomes, they concluded that the cells must have entered into her body from the male baby she carried within her.

Drawing on studies in biology, reproductive genetics, and epigenetics, Pincott outlined in her book what science has learned since the Stanford discovery.

“During pregnancy,” she wrote, “cells sneak across the placenta in both directions. The fetus’s cells enter his mother, and the mother’s cells enter the fetus.”

Scientists have discovered, she said, that a baby’s fetal cells show up more often in a mother’s healthy breast tissue and less often in a woman who has breast cancer (43 versus 14 percent).

Pinctott pointed out that as the quantity of fetal cells in a mother’s body increase the activity of autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis decreases. She called the evidence “tantalizing” that fetal cells may offer the mother increased resistance to certain diseases.

One kind of fetal cells that enter into the mother’s body is the baby’s stem cells. Stem cells have what Pinctott calls “magical properties” in that they can “morph” into other types of cells through a process called differentiation. The baby’s fetal stem cells can actually become the mother’s own cells that make up her liver, heart, or brain.

In what any ethicist might declare to be legitimate ‘embryonic stem cell therapy,’ the baby’s fetal stem cells migrate to the mother’s injured sites and offer themselves as a healing remedy, becoming part of the mother’s very body. Pinctott writes that such cells have been found in “diseased thyroid and liver tissue and have turned themselves into thyroid and liver cells respectively.”

Pinctott calls the evidence “striking” that a baby’s fetal cells “repair and rejuvenate moms.”
It's known that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, while carrying pregnancy to term reduces it. Now, this study shows us the science behind these facts.

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Public Schools - Keep Failing One Generation After Another

Check out this essay by Girl On The Right. It sounds so darn familiar...
Our class was overcrowded. Our teacher was awesome though; very animated when going through our class reader. She made it fun to learn.
I knew, at the tender age of six, that some of us were being held back from our potential while the ESL-ers struggled to come to grips with the language. Ok, I was doing fine on my own, but there were kids in my class - english-speaking kids - who struggled with dyslexia, dysgraphia, shyness, etc, and the fact that Mrs C had to slow us all down and spend precious time on the ESL-ers meant that those other kids got shortchanged.

And it meant that the advanced kids got completely screwed. Eventually three of us were moved out of reading hour entirely and sent to Mrs B’s art class to while the time away, lest we become disruptive.
Overcrowded class, moving at the pace of the, let's say, least intelligent kids, with the best and brightest being held back (if not worse, if not being branded "annoying" and "disruptive" for daring to ask questions...) Practically, an internment center, where kids are being kept under supervision during prescribed hours...

Now, a generation later, public schools haven't become any better, in spite of a disproportional increase in funding. They still keep failing students - even though they actually cost more than private schools:
"The parents surveyed reported lower incidences of bullying, fighting, drug use, and racism in inexpensive private schools compared to public schools. They also found their children did better academically and had improved social skills," said Claudia Hepburn, the study’s co-author and Fraser Institute director of education studies.
The study found that the average cost of tuition at inexpensive private schools was $4,398 per year, while the cost of providing public schooling per year was more than $8,000 per child in Ontario.
Not to mention that unlike government-run schools, private schools respect parent's values and parental authority.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Fetal Rights Debate Goes On - With Or Without Harper

Despite Harper's warning not to rock the boat, we have more MPs expressing their support to reopening the abortion debate:
Kitchener-Centre's Tory MP Stephen Woodworth said in a media release issued earlier this week that Canadian laws governing human rights and the unborn are outdated and need to be re-examined.

"I have to say, I support Steven Woodworth’s call for this kind of discussion," Watson said.

Watson said human rights for the unborn and abortion don't necessarily go hand-in-hand but said "there could be links between the two."

"I’d love to hear the debate on this. What are the various permutations and implications if human rights are extended to the unborn?" Watson said. "Parliament is exactly the place to have that discussion. If it doesn’t happen in Parliament, where do we have these discussions?"
It's even more surprising that the CBC actually chose to use the words rights of unborn in one sentence and without quotes. And then, just several days later, we heard Rona Ambrose, the minister for Status of Women speaking out against sex-selection abortions.

Harper, of course, was quick to distance himself from these statements, suggesting that while individual MPs can discuss whatever issues they want - that doesn't necessarily reflect the position of the government. Oh well, at least he admits that individual MPs (including those from his own party) actually have rights to bring controversial issues forward for discussion. Let them do just that. Let them keep the discussion going - you never know who's next to be convinced.

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Homophobia - A Rhetorical Weapon

Its primary purpose is to silence anyone who doesn't agree with homosexual activists:
As a rhetorical weapon, homophobia is unequaled. It serves first to define anyone who opposes the legitimization of homosexuality as a hate-filled bigot. The universal inclusion of all opponents as homophobic is of course not emphasized. Homosexual activists publicly associate this label with violent “gay bashers” and hateful fanatics. When they use the term they want people to think about the killers of Matthew Shepard, but in conventional practice they include every man, woman and child who believes homosexuality is abnormal or wrong. The way to expose this fact is to challenge the advocates of the “gay” position to state the difference between homophobia and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality. They will reveal that they accept no opposition to their agenda as legitimate...

Secondly, the term defines opposition to homosexuality as a mental illness. “Gay” activists take special delight in this since it was scant decades ago that homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry (the listing was removed by the political maneuvering of homosexual activists in a 1973 vote of the members of the American Psychiatric Association).

Thirdly, the term can be used as the semantic equivalent of “racist,” helping the “gay” movement further indoctrinate the public with the notion that opposition to homosexuality is equivalent to prejudice against racial minorities.
And, as if to confirm that for the homosexual activists there's no such thing as non-homophobic opposition - here's a related story. It turns out that merely answering NO to a question whether you support homosexuality, that too, is "homophobic".

At the same time, if we take the word "homophobia" literally - ("fear of homosexuals") we'll see that unfortunately, the term certainly applies to many in our society; especially those that are at the top - politicians, journalists, clergymen, that are afraid. Afraid of being harassed by militant homosexuals who refuse to tolerate even slightest disagreement.

Monday, January 2, 2012

Foreign Special Interests Against Canada's Northern Gateway Pipeline launches ad campaign that reveals foreign interests sabotaging Canada’s economy:
Public hearings into a proposal for an energy pipeline from the oil sands to Canada’s west coast are being manipulated by foreign special interests.

Foreign billionaires are hiring front groups to swamp the hearings to block the Northern Gateway pipeline project. Anti-oil sands groups claiming to speak for Canadians are actually backed by millions of dollars from foreign interests.

The pipeline promises thousands of jobs and billions of dollars for all Canadians. Whether we decide to go ahead with it or not, we get to make this important decision about our future — not outsiders.

Click on the anti-oil sands groups to the right; see all the money they’re being paid to fight against our national interest. They don’t answer to Canadians. They answer to their foreign paymasters.

It’s our pipeline. Our country. Our jobs. Our decision.
No, these are certainly not grassroots environmentalists. They are foreign, professional and well funded. Check out Ezra Levant's video report on the upcoming public hearing and who exactly are those willing to testify against the Northern Gateway Pipeline.