Sunday, November 30, 2008

University Of Calgary Won't Arrest Pro-Lifers

A partial victory for Calgary pro-lifers. The University of Calgary officials chose not to follow through with its threats of arrest, suspension, expulsion, and other measures they could think of to silence pro-lifers. But the university may still pursue legal actions against pro-life students - unless they agree to turn their signs inwards.

The university doesn't want casual passers-by to notice the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) display. They regard pictures of aborted babies as "offensive". They like abortion; they like it so much that they applaud Canada's highest civilian honor being awarded to the chief abortionist. But they don't like seeing what abortion truly is.
University students display pictures of aborted babies, the product of Henry Morgentaler’s lifetime work.

They are ostracized and threatened with fines for showing what he does.

He is awarded the Order of Canada for doing what they show.

The inconsistency of a lie.

The disregard of Truth.

The elimination of Freedom.

The fall of higher education.

The indoctrination of the masses.

The collapse of Canadian honour.

All, the result of our assent to leftist ideology, denying our inalienable gifts from God: Life and freedom.

Indeed, denying God himself.

Saturday, November 29, 2008

A Coalition? I Still Doubt It.

A Liberal/NDP coalition is regarded as the most possible outcome. It almost looks like such move was planned in advance. That explains why every prominent Liberal and New Democrat started mentioning some "other constitutional options" as soon as the fiscal update was unveiled, rejecting the possibility of a snap election. But are we actually going to end up being governed by a weak Liberal/NDP coalition for the next 200 days or so? I doubt it, and here's why.

First of all - there are still speculations over the leadership. While some sources suggest that the Liberal motion has already won the approval of both prospective partners, there are other sources reporting that the NDP and the Bloc may refuse to support the coalition if it means installing Dion as Prime Minister.

The Liberal motion means just that. While it doesn't specify who is going to lead the "viable alternative government" which "can be formed within the present House of Commons", it's obvious that if Harper fails to win confidence in the Parliament, Dion is the next in line. With the leadership question not fully settled, there's still a possibility of an opposition party trying to amend the motion in an attempt to block Dion from becoming the next Prime Minister.

But what if an alternative leader is found? Will Dion agree to step down? Obviously not. If Dion wasn't ready to step down in mid-October, when all signs were pointing to yet another 2-3 years of Conservative rule - why would he step down now, when his party has a real chance of forming the government? And let's not forget the Liberal leadership contestants, none of whom is willing to see their rival (or any prominent Liberal MP) becoming an interim Prime Minister.

But what if the opposition parties agree on Dion's premiership? What if we do end up with a weak Liberal/NDP coalition, supported by the Bloc? That would be dream come true for Dion and the worst nightmare for whoever succeeds him as a Liberal leader.

Dion is a lame duck. He's got nothing to lose and he's looking at a few months of opposition-free rule. By the time Dion and his Cabinet Ministers are sworn in, the Parliament will have been prorogued for Christmas break. Up until mid-February, Dion and his cabinet could rule unopposed. Then there's another Parliamentary session with another Throne speech - an address of a lame-duck Prime Minister to a stillborn Parliament. What kind of priorities could such a throne speech contain, except for the tax-and spend budget? This budget, which is all but guaranteed to include either tax hikes or multi-billion dollar deficits for both 2008/09 and 2009/10 (if not both) will become Dion's only legacy. Then, once the new Liberal leader is elected, Dion will step down, leaving it up to his successor to clean up the mess. "You wanted to get rid of me? You got it, buddies!"

Any coalition between the three opposition parties is going to hurt the Liberals on the long run. The NDP and the Bloc will be campaigning on their actual achievements. For them, being a part of the governing coalition alone is a great success. But what is a success for them - is regarded as a failure for the Liberals. They'll be the ones taking the blame for everything that will have gone wrong under Dion's short-lived premiership. And of course they'll be hammered from every side. From their used-to be coalition partners - for not doing enough. From the Conservatives - for doing too much wrong. And from the Greens - for ditching an environment-friendly, pro-carbon tax leader.

To make things worse - it would be the second election campaign in just 8-months time. Many voters would still remember that it all began with the Liberals leading the rebellion over a $1.95 per vote subsidy. And as if that wasn't bad enough - even with the subsidy intact, the Liberals just won't have the money to finance another campaign. But a governing coalition that is 41 seat short of a majority would be just too weak to last any longer.

So no matter what the Liberal leadership hopefuls say out loud - they wouldn't want to install a lame-duck interim Prime Minister that would share power (officially and unofficially) with two left-wing parties. Especially when Canada is on a verge of a recession. Especially when another election is expected just weeks after the country's first deficit budget in a decade. Of course, they won't openly rebel against Dion. But they won't stand idly by and watch Dion taking the party on a suicide mission either. So when the Liberal motion is voted on - there's no doubt that Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff will be in their seats. But some 20 of their backbench supporters - most likely won't.

Friday, November 28, 2008

Family Size and the New Evangelization

Chris Beneteau outlines the challenges of having a big family in a society where contraception and "family planning" have become the norm.
As proud parents of seven children, my wife and I are often amazed at the comments we receive when people discover the size of our family. Because it is hard to stand out in this day and age, more traditional rebellious behaviors have become mainstream, while traditional family activities and attitudes have become counter-cultural.
As a father of so many, one of the most popular topics of conversations with friends, co-workers, and even relatives concerns my family’s size. You would think that after the third or fourth child, family and friends would stop expressing shock and disbelief after learning about another pregnancy. Most of the time, however, the opposite reaction occurs. It seems that they are just waiting for my wife and me to make the big announcement: “Well, that’s it. We are ‘done’. Now we can have our life back.”
Try asking a woman something like "have you thought about getting married" or "when are you going to have children". You'll be branded a male chauvinist pig. Try asking a homosexual couple "just what do you two do in that bedroom anyway" - and you are an ignorant narrow-minded knuckle-dragging bigot. But it turns out that people don't see anything wrong with asking a parent something like "are you going to get snipped", let alone "are you done yet". No wonder our society is aging. And... you know what happens after aging, don't you?

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Another Election? Another "King-Byng Affair"? Or What The Options Are?

It's hard to believe that the opposition is actually going to force an election just weeks after the last one. And yet all three parties are suggesting that they'll be voting against the fiscal update. Unless at least 20 opposition MPs simply don't show up for vote - the government is outnumbered. And what happens then?

There has been several hints of "another constitutional options" that are "open" in such cases. The most outspoken on the subject is Don Newman. He was quick to ask that question to every opposition MP he was interviewing - could there be an arrangement between the Liberals and the NDP, similar to the one which allowed Ontario Liberals to form a coalition government with the NDP back in 1987? The answers sounded more like "no" rather than "yes". And yet there were all those hints about "other options, rather than going to the polls". So what are those options?

A three-party deal between the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc? Extremely unlikely. So is the Liberal-Bloc coalition, supported by the NDP. A Liberal-NDP coalition then? That's only 114 seats, less the Speaker. Unless at least 32 Bloc MPs (nearly 2/3 of their caucus) agree to support them, Dion/Layton government will last even less than Arthur Meighen's government did back in 1926.

So what other options do they have? It happened once (in 1968) when a lost vote on a money bill didn't trigger an election. Both major parties agreed to treat it as if it had been just an ordinary vote and then voted together for an amended version of the bill. Even if that could be the option - who is going to compromise? We have at least two "in your face" issues - handouts to political parties and a 2-year moratorium on public service strikes. The former threatens to bankrupt the Liberals and inconveniences the Bloc (no more free lunch for the separatists). The latter is unacceptable to the NDP. Backing down on either issue would be a serious "loss of face" for the Conservatives, frustrating most of their supporters.

What else then? An opposition motion for the Governor General not to grant a Royal Recommendation or to refuse Royal Assent for the Conservative money bill? If that goes anywhere beyond the non-binding House motion - that brings us back to a modernized version of a King-Byng Affair. Elected Prime Minister against unelected unaccountable Governor General. Reformers of all stripes will be jumping with joy. The actual King Byng affair led to the Statute of Westminster (1931) which granted the Dominions a de-facto independence from Great Britain. Another crisis of such extent could ruin the system altogether with the dominions becoming independent de-jure. Is Michael Jean willing to take the risk?

What would it be then? An election? That's the way it's always been in those situations. And in fact - there are at least two political parties willing to do just that. The Bloc is looking forward to cash in on the collapsing right-wing vote in Quebec while the NDP has just received the best campaign issue the party could wish for. So when the ways-and-means motion is voted on tomorrow (or - when the actual bill comes to the second reading vote next week) - expect all their MPs to be there and to vote against it. The Conservatives - that's obvious, they'll be there to vote for the motion and to introduce the actual bill if the motion passes. While they could handle another campaign - it's the last thing they'd want now.

And then we have the Liberals. A party that is preparing to elect a new leader. A party which has no cash to finance another campaign and which is unlikely to get any new loans, because they're about to lose their major source of income. A party that will be vilified by the average voters, most of whom believe the per-vote handouts should be abolished. A party that will be attacked from both the right and the left. The Conservatives will campaign on their fiscal plan which gives us perfectly balanced budgets in tough times. The NDP has just got a perfect campaign issue, so they'll be campaigning for the civil servants' vote, hammering the Liberals from the left. What will the Liberals campaign on? Carbon tax? Multi-billion bailouts that would bring us back into chronic deficits?

Here's what I believe is most likely to happen. When it comes to the actual vote, some 20 Liberal MPs simply won't be there. Some of them will probably be stuck in traffic, others will stay home because of some mysterious flu... But the ways-and-means motion will pass. And so will the money bill that is to be introduced following the motion. The opposition then may pass its own motion, calling on the Governor General not to grant the Royal Recommendation to the bill and not to assent it into law. There will be lots of filibustering in the Senate. But there will be neither a snap election, nor another King-Byng affair.

No More Per-Vote Handouts To Political Parties?

Is the government planning to abolish per-vote allowance to political parties?
By Julian Beltrame, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - Symbolic cuts to politicians' perks, temporary relief for pension plans and a political grenade - ending the $30 million public subsidy to parties - are expected highlights of Thursday's federal economic statement.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will ask the five political parties to give up the $1.95-per-vote subsidy they get to pay for staff and expenses.
An annual allowance of $1.75 (now $1.95) per vote was introduced in late 2003, when the outgoing Chretien government moved to get the big money out of politics, banning corporate and union donations. The same bill also raised the percentage of election expenses that are reimbursed to political parties from 22.5% to 50% (60% for 2004 election), thereby ensuring that no major party ever runs out of campaign funds. (Nobody back then expected the Green party to pass the 2% threshold and become eligible for a slice of the pie.)

I believe it's time to make the next step and to get the federal funds out of politics. The status-quo allows major political parties to run an election campaign with little or no fundraising. The greatest example is the Bloc Quebecois, which has been operating almost entirely on its $2.5M - $3M annual allowance for the past few years. Its fundraising amounts to mere $30-$50 thousand per quarter, but the Bloc doesn't really need any fundraising. The allowance (combined with 50% election expense reimbursement) provides the separatist party with more than enough funds to run a fully paid campaign in Quebec.

So I applaud the measure that would force all political parties (not just those that receive less than 2% of the votes) to rely solely on supporters. If there aren't enough ordinary Canadians willing to donate to their cause - there's absolutely no reason why taxpayers should be forced to pitch in.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Constitutional Law Expert Richard Moon: Repeal Section 13

It wasn't a blogger this time. Not even a backbench MP or a policy convention delegate. This time it's a constitutional law expert Dr. Richard Moon who has recommended that section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be repealed and that all complaints related to hate speech should be heard in the court of law.

Ironically, it was the CHRC that picked Dr. Moon to prepare the report on section 13, expecting him to speak in defense of the existing practices. Dr. Moon however chose not to deny the obvious fact, that the Kangaroo courts have gone too far.
Any time a hate speech complaint is investigated, the respondent’s freedom of expression right is compromised, even if the complaint is dismissed by the CHRC at the end of the investigation process. In addition, the operation of section 13 may have what is sometimes called a "chilling effect" on freedom of expression. An individual may be reluctant to publish material that should not and probably would not be caught by section 13 because she or he fears becoming entangled in the section 13 process.
Isn't that something we've all being saying for quite a while now?
Moon’s report is not without its flaws. But it does restate some basic truths to which the CHRC, especially its chief commissioner, Jennifer Lynch, have become blind.
The CHRC is currently seeking public input on the recommendations contained in the Moon Report, as it prepares its own report on "hate speech" and Section 13, which will be tabled in Parliament by mid-2009. Let's make sure they hear from us too.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Budget Deficit — "Essential"?

So much for the "hard decisions" mentioned in the last week's Throne speech. Now we have Stephen Harper hinting that "budgetary deficits are essential", referring to the upcoming fiscal update and to the fiscal stimulus package the government is preparing. But isn't there a way to balance the books and stimulate the economy without borrowing back some of the funds that went to debt reduction just months ago?

Judging from the recent projections, all that's needed is to cut back $5.3B over two years. That's not much, compared to overall program spending which is predicted to hit $218B in 2009/10. Bring that down to $214B, cut the 2010/11 program spending from $225B to $223B - and you got two perfectly balanced budgets. That could be accomplished by merely bringing the non-essential spending back to where it used to be several years ago. Looming financial crisis is a good excuse to do just that.

But what about the economic stimulus? There's much better way to provide that than multi-billion dollar "bailouts" at taxpayer's expense:
Revive a stimulus idea that was very effectively used by the government of MacKenzie King in 1945, and continued by Louis St. Laurent through the 1950s.

As background, it's important to note that in the 1940s and 1950s, about half of Canada's money was Government-Created Money (GCM) created directly by the Bank of Canada, rather than Bank-Created Money (BCM) "rented" from the banks. Today, all Canada's money is BCM, created as interest-bearing debt. The compounding of that interest is primarily what has put Canada half a trillion dollars in the hole.

In 1945, with two million soldiers returning from overseas, Ottawa feared massive unemployment could plunge Canada into another Depression. C.D. Howe instructed the Bank of Canada to create (not borrow) money for virtually interest-free loans to provinces, municipalities, regional districts, ports and other local authorities for infrastructure projects. This economic activity created many well-paying jobs; it improved access to resources and markets; and it generated revenues for local authorities to repay the interest-free loans. When the money was repaid, it was retired from circulation (so it would not have an inflationary effect)--but the infrastructure and economic stimulus remained.
In fact - that was actually the very same stimulus idea that got Canada out of the Great Depression. William Lyon MacKenzie King knew what he was doing when he nationalized the Bank of Canada in 1935-38; when he started using it to revive Canada's economy, to finance the country's war effort and to ensure smooth transition to peacetime economy in late 40s. Even if it wasn't the only policy which provided for a 22-year-long uninterrupted Liberal rule - that was one of the key contributors.

Right now Stephen Harper has a choice between following MacKenzie King's footsteps and risking to follow Joe Clark's footsteps. If he chooses to run a deficit, instead of reducing spending and using the Bank of Canada to provide economic stimulus - the Joe Clark / Thirty Years After scenario would become quite possible.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Pro-Abort Violence

Fr. Frank Pavone, the National Director of Priests for Life, has been receiving death threats from an anonymous commenter at his blog. The commenter accuses pro-lifers of violence against abortion clinics, "predicts" that Fr. Pavone could become a "natural target" for vengeful pro-abortion "counterterrorists" and urges Fr. Pavone to leave the country.

Well, it's quite a common practice for the radical pro-aborts to accuse their opponents of violence - to which the pro-aborts themselves resort much more often.
We also know that any time a movement is as big as ours, there will be a handful of people - disconnected from the movement - who embrace violence as a tactic. The same was true of the civil rights movement and the abolitionist movement.

But of no movement is it more true than the pro-abortion movement. It's just that the public doesn't know of their fanatical violence. It starts in the womb, of course - the very action they promote as a "right" is in fact violence. "Typically, the skull is brought out in fragments rather than as a unified piece," abortionist Martin Haskell testified in court in 1999 regarding the legal "D and E" abortion procedure.

And their violence extends beyond the womb. Just visit to see that our movement has been able to document 8519 acts of violence (and counting) by the other side. Pro-abortion fanatics have attacked pro-life demonstrators, have kidnapped women to force them to abort, have murdered born babies, and much more.

So for the visitor to my blog to send that message just reinforces the truth about the "abortion-rights" fanatics. Violence is their way of life.
The "Pro Choice Violence" website has much more information about violence and vandalism waged by radical pro-aborts:
Deadly pro-abortion violence has been reported at least since 1965 and is escalating rapidly, with an incredible 269 homicides and other killings committed in just the last six years (since 2000). 2005 was the bloodiest year, with pro-abortionists murdering 77 people, including 28 pregnant women (and their 28 wanted preborn babies), two baby boys, one little boy and five little girls, four men and two women, and seven other wanted preborn babies. The pro-abortionists almost matched this bloody slaughter in 2002, with 58 deaths, and in 2003, with 53 deaths. In fact, pro-abortionists have averaged more murders per year since 1967 (that’s 39 years in a row) than so-called “pro-lifers” have in the history of the entire conflict over abortion!
Of course, none of that is ever mentioned in the mainstream media.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Bitter Taste Of A 100-Mile Diet

Some environmentalist groups recommend that in order to cut back on transportation needs (and - to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions) we should all try to eat food raised within 100 miles of where we lived. Ever wondered what such a diet would be like?
If I tried to feed my family a 100-mile diet in Edmonton, there would be plenty of meat (until some activist protested that the methane produced by flatulent livestock was just as harmful to the climate as trucking up mangos from Mexico). There would be some fish, until we realized shallow prairie lakes cannot sustain schools of walleye, pike or trout large enough to feed a population of nearly two million.

There would be no coffee, of course (here or anywhere else in the country). Mmm, smell the aroma of that lovely roasted poplar-bark beverage.
Here in New Brunswick the 100-mile diet wouldn't be much different. Except we'd have more fish than meat. And lots of potatoes. Would we have any sugar or would it be just honey and even that - mostly in the summer?

In fact, the very same "Gaia-conscious" couple from Edmonton, which tried to set an example by living on a 100-mile diet for a year, ended up seeking permissions to break their own rules. They needed salt, but the nearest source of salt is about 110 miles away. The green cult is sure merciless to its disciples.
With a diet of soybeans and a wigwam for shelter, individuals would leave a tiny carbon footprint. They would also have a life expectancy of less than 50 years, which is still the case in sub-Saharan Africa. There would be no ecological waste, just wasted lives.

Man not only has needs, he also has preferences. “Waste” has no meaning outside of these preferences. Merely surviving is not the goal. Most people want fun too.
Try telling that to an environmental fanatic. He'll respond with a lecture about sacrifices that must be made to avert a "man-made" climate change. But is are the recent climatic trends really man-made?
An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, "Man-made global warming is junk science," explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year "equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration ? This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number."

Other international scientists have called the manmade warming theory a "hoax," a "fraud" and simply "not credible."
For nearly 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, "variations in global temperatures since 1978 - cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide."

Moreover, while the chart above was not produced by Douglass and Christy, it was produced using their data and it clearly shows that in the past four years -- the period corresponding to reduced solar activity -- all of the rise in global temperatures since 1979 has disappeared.
So there's no need to confine ourselves to a 100-mile diet. All the money which the government is planning to waste on carbon scams better be spent on helping our troubled economy get back on its feet.

Doctor Solomon

Great essay by Smok Wawelski:
Doctor Solomon

A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: 'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 yr. old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together.'

So the doctor said: 'Ok, and what do you want me to do?'

She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.'

The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.'

She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.

Then he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.'

The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!'

'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be ok with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.' The doctor smiled,realizing that he had made his point.

He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the womb. The crime is the same!
Originally posted at "Canadian Viewpoints" forum.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Poll: Most Canadians Support Legal Protection For The Unborn

According to the recent Environics poll, about 60% of Canadians believe there should be legal protection for the unborn at certain point before birth. Only 33% support the status quo, with unrestricted abortions being allowed through all 9 months of pregnancy.

The feminists often try to portray pro-life views as "anti-women". The poll however shows that support for protection from conception is actually higher among women than among men - 33% versus 24%. The poll also shows strong support for informed consent laws and strong opposition to funding abortions on demand with taxpayers' money. But don't expect abortion funding to be cut in the next budget - even if that sinks the country into deficit:
“Despite years of polls consistently showing Canadians want changes in our abortion policy, elected officials in every party continue to ignore the issues or worse, shut down discussion and debate,” said Dr. Doherty. “This is a sad state for a democratic nation. It is past time for our political leaders to acknowledge and take action in line with the expressed will of their constituents. The issue is not going to go away!”
Well, if our elected members don't care about what we think - maybe we should start working on creating a viable pro-life alternative, at least for the key ridings?

CHRC Agent Provocateur Won't Be Charged

The RCMP is not going to pursue charges against CHRC investigators that hacked an Ottawa woman's wireless internet connection to post anonymously on websites that were under investigation for "hate speech". There's still a parallel investigation of the same incident by the Privacy Commissioner. But the RCMP is giving up - the evidence is too far.
In a phone interview on Thursday, the woman said the RCMP told her they do not have proof her account was hacked, nor proof that it was not, and to investigate further would involve going after technical data from a website based in the United States,, which they said is not possible.
But wait! Hasn't Marc Lemire already provided all that technical data at the hearing which took place a few months ago? Sure, the server itself may still be located in the US. But Mr. Lemire is here in Canada. Just ask him and he'll provide all the information that's missing. It seems like the RCMP just doesn't want to make the extra effort to prosecute the CHRC agent provocateurs.
Even WITHOUT such evidence, we would have to believe that Stormfront “made up” an IP address which just so happened to belong to an innocent woman who

1) disavows any connection or knowledge to Stormfront before this fiasco engulfed her;

2) and who just happened to live within a couple of blocks of the CHRC offices (and within their hacking abilities);

3) and who just so happened to log in at the same time that CHRC employees admitted, under oath in two separate CHRT hearings, to also being logged into the jadewarr account on the Stormfront board (and yet no other IP fingerprint exists on those logs for their implied “separate connection”)

What reasonable person would believe this? Only someone who is so drunk on Koolaid that their coherency levels are shot, I should think.
Hopefully, we can still count on the Privacy Commissioner to show some more persistence.

Friday, November 21, 2008

Free Speech Motion M-446 Is Now M-153

Keith Martin, a Liberal MP for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has re-introduced his motion to delete subsection 13(1) from the Canadian Human Rights Act. The new motion, numbered M-153, replicates the original motion (M-446) which died on the order paper, following the recent election call.
M-153 — November 19, 2008 — Mr. Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) — That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act.
The Parliamentary website doesn't yet have an information regarding the Order of Precedence posted, so it's hard to say whether or not the motion will actually be debated and voted on.

10,000 Masses For Unborn Babies

Are you ready for yet another cross-continental pro-life prayer event?
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE (November 13th, 2008) - The Saint Michael the Archangel Organization, which coordinated the October 18th, 2008 WORLDWIDE ROSARY FOR UNBORN BABIES prayer event, is pleased to announce it is now coordinating the 10,000 MASSES FOR UNBORN BABIES effort which is scheduled to take place for nine consecutive days (January 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st). This Novena of Masses will be for the following intention: For the protection of unborn human persons.
I'll make sure to pass the word on to Moncton (and NB) pro-lifers. It would be great to have at least a couple of those masses here in Moncton. Or in Fredericton, at St. Dunstan's Church, right across the street from Morguentaler's abortuary.

And, let's not forget about the 40 Days For Life Vigil. The 2008 vigil is over, but there will be another one in just three months. Spring 2009 Pro-Life Vigil will take place between February 25 and April 5. Last vigil in Halifax was a great success. Hopefully, this time we can also organize a similar vigil in Fredericton.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Universities — Outposts Of Censorship

Trying to raise awareness of the wholesales slaughter of innocent unborn babies has apparently become a criminal offense for which one could be arrested.
CALGARY, Alberta, November 19, 2008 ( - The U of C is again attempting to censor student members of the campus pro-life club by threatening them with arrest and sanctions for non-academic misconduct (including the possibility of suspension and expulsion) if they do not comply with an order to turn Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) displays inward. GAP is a graphic exhibit which includes photographs of unborn babies who have been aborted.
University officials have also told the Calgary Police that the GAP display poses a threat of violence.

An editorial in the Calgary Herald yesterday, however, said that "the only violence here is that being done to the principles of free speech."
But threatening pro-lifers with arrests for "graphic" displays (even though "graphic" displays are still perfectly fine for animal rights activists or for those who protest the genocide in Darfur) isn't the only thing a university could come up with. Here's another "enlightened" initiative: Queens University in Kingston, ON is hiring six "dialog facilitators" to watch and intervene in student conversations in order to promote "diversity" and object with what they think is "offensive".
The six graduate students from diverse backgrounds have been hired to encourage discussion on race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity and other social issues, as well as step-in when they hear conversations that could be deemed "offensive." Each facilitator went through an 11-day training course to prepare them for their roles and have been granted free room and board as well as a yearly stipend as payment.
Bravo, Queens University! Could there be a better way to demonstrate how sustainable and logically sound their "progressive" ideology is? If a university discovers that despite all the non-stop brainwashing on campus, they still need a team of "speech inspectors" - what chances does their ideology have in a free debate?

Dear Dean of Queens University! I got an idea for you: How about calling those six students that have agreed to censor their coeds in exchange for free tuition, room and board, "team Goebbels"? Sorry if such a proposition offends you. But with all due respect - it wasn't me who created a situation when driving onto campus is like crossing the border from a democratic country where we have free speech to a dictatorship which suppresses speech.

Hard Decisions? I'd Like To Believe It This Time!

That's what is promised to us in the Speech from the Throne. Finally, the government is committing itself to ensuring sound budgeting and making the government more effective.
Our Government will review all program spending carefully to make sure that spending is as effective as possible and aligned with Canadians’ priorities.

Our Government will cut the red tape faced by the private and not-for-profit sectors when doing business with the government.
Start with the CHRC. If we can't simply abolish the institution - cut their operating funds and then just start laying off those jackboots one after the other.
Hard decisions will be needed to keep federal spending under control and focused on results. Grants, contributions and capital expenditures will be placed under the microscope of responsible spending. Departments will have the funding they need to deliver essential programs and services, and no more. Our Government will engage Parliament and encourage members to take a more active role in scrutinizing spending and suggesting areas for restraint.
Sounds great. But after 3 consecutive "spending spree" budgets and nearly 20% spending increase, I'd like to see some actions for a change. In the last budget, program spending for 2009/10 is expected to hit $218B. With no GDP increase beyond inflation expected for most of 2009, this number must be reduced to $213B to avoid deficit.

Looking for areas for restraint? How about suspending all the foreign aid payments? We got more than enough people to take care of here in Canada. (Including refugees from the very same developing countries.) Get rid of the phony "arts" and "multi-cult" programs. If all those artists and special interest groups can't sustain themselves - that means nobody is interested in their "arts" or in the cause they're fighting for. Film credits - if there's so much opposition to cutting tax credits to porn movies alone - how about abolishing them altogether? When I want to support a movie - I buy a ticket or rent a video. would be misguided to commit to a balanced budget in the short term at any cost, because that cost would ultimately be borne by Canadian families.
I could understand that if our budget had already been stripped to the bone, so any new cuts meant sacrificing essential services. But there is still lots of waste in program spending that could be eliminated without anyone (except for a few activists) even noticing. So I count on the above statement to be nothing but a precaution, in case things turn out even worse than expected. There's no excuse for running a deficit without eliminating cash-guzzling wasteful spending programs first.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

More "Tolerance" From Perverse Crowd

Tolerance is a one-way street. That's the way militant homosexuals and their supporters from the left see it.
At least eight Mormon buildings in Salt Lake City, the religion's headquarters, have also been vandalized with spray-painted epithets criticizing the church's support of Proposition 8.

Envelopes containing white powder were sent to Mormon temples in both Los Angeles and Salt Lake City on Thursday, forcing the buildings to be evacuated before an FBI hazardous material crew determined that the powder was innocuous.
A similar envelope, sent from California, arrived on the same day at a mailroom and printing plant at the Knights of Columbus headquarters in New Haven. Results on the powder's identity have not been confirmed. The Knights of Columbus have also been targeted for supporting Proposition 8, having raised slightly over 1 million dollars for the "Yes on 8" campaign.
Had it been Christians venting their anger at homosexuals back in 2003 (when the traditional definition of marriage was scrapped by unelected activist judges) - that would have been a "hate crime". But when angry homosexual perverts and their supporters from the radical left lash out at the people of faith - that's just a form of protest.
SAN FRANCISCO, November 18, 2008 ( - A mob of homosexuals sexually and physically assaulted a group of Christians praying together in the city's Castro District last week, in apparent retaliation for the recent defeat of homosexual marriage in California.

The Christians, a group of Evangelical Protestants who regularly go to the predominantly homosexual Castro District to sing songs and pray with passers-by, say they were holding hands and singing "Amazing Grace" when a angry mob began to shove and kick them, steal their belongings, pour hot coffee on their faces, and sexually assault them.
If you believe that a Christian prayer group shouldn't have been there in the first place (because it's a "homosexual" neighborhood) - would you also agree that a similar rule should then apply to homosexuals; that they should not show up in the neighborhoods populated mostly by traditionalist Christians? If not - why do you think the "no go" areas should only apply to Christians?

If militant perverts have adopted a slogan "no more nice gay" - why can't we respond by saying "no more nice traditionalist"? Is there any reason why we as a society should allow a bunch of violent homosexual perverts to terrorize us every time we even try to refuse to compromise our values?

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Skyrocketing Healthcare Costs - A Price For Poor Lifestyle Choices

Canada's health-care spending is expected to reach its highest level ever - $171.9-billion this year, or $5,170 per person - growing faster than the economy and outpacing inflation and population growth, new figures show.

The Canadian Institute for Health Information study, released yesterday, found health spending is expected to reach 10.7 per cent of the country's gross domestic product, attaining highest-ever status in that category and leaving the country's beloved medicare vulnerable to cuts at a time of economic turmoil.
If you think that privatization, deregulation, centralization etc could be the solution - think again. The US, where most of the healthcare is privately owned and privately offered, spends an average of $6,714 (US) per person. To make things worse - no major political party (federal or provincial) is willing to consider an actual solution to the crisis. Their attempts to fix our healthcare system by throwing in more cash or by shutting down "surplus" hospitals amount to nothing but fighting the symptoms.

Imagine having a car that consumes more and more gas for the same mileage. Imagine one mechanic telling you to just keep pumping more gas, while the other suggesting that you remove the back seats to lighten up the car. That's what the "left-wing" and the implied "right-wing" ("Red Tory") approach to fixing healthcare could be compared to. So don't expect our healthcare costs to go down. Not until we start electing politicians that have the desire and the courage to fix what's actually broken - the social values and lifestyle choices embraced by the people nowadays:
...From no-fault divorce to abortion on demand, the government has institutionalized irresponsible behavior. The same is true with welfare, old age pensions and socialized health care that reward poor lifestyle choices by usurping responsibilities that previously fell upon the individual and the family. And yet we now wonder why our young people no longer grow into responsible citizens. The consequences of poor lifestyle choices are no longer poverty and social ostracism - conditions that in the past forced people to clean up their act and begin making responsible choices - but a lifetime meal card at the state's expense.
One of the consequences of poor lifestyle choices is that our society is aging. Well, we all know what comes after aging, don't we? Isn't it the time we stop rewarding irresponsible behavior and restore the rights and responsibilities of the traditional family?

Monday, November 17, 2008

Anti-Mormon, Anti-Marriage Violence Continues

A group of homosexual "anarchists" has trashed a Mormon Church in Olympia, WA. The reason is well known - Mormons were among those who led the campaign against redefinition of marriage in California. So, once Californian voters rejected the ridiculous notion that two males or two females could somehow form a married couple - radical homosexuals as well as their militant supporters of all kinds began venting their anger at the people of faith.

Interestingly enough, their "press release" states the following:
We as anarchists are opposed to marriage but we see that this blatantly anti-gay act as a threat to all us gay, lesbian, transgendered and queer folk.
Isn't that what we've been saying for years? That homosexuals (and their anti-family supporters) aren't really interested in marriage as a committed relationship which is unitive and procreative in nature. That all they want is to turn the institution of marriage into a mere registrar of sexual partners, devoid of all spiritual and social value; one that will eventually fall out of use as we have more and more couples living together without being officially registered...

They tried to subvert the democratic process by using judicial activism to force their agenda on the society. When the society said no - they've taken further steps to ensure that such electoral defeat never repeats itself:
And lastly to the radical gay guys, do you really believe that this kind of belligerent behavior is going to make Americans capitulate to your cause? Who came up with this strategy? Was it the same guys who thought that Clear Pepsi would be a real winner?
So far their strategy turns out to be quite effective: Militant perverts are attacking groups that are the least likely to retaliate; targeting them at their places of worship - where little or no resistance could be expected. They wage boycotts on businesses that have been blacklisted for contributing to the campaign in support of the traditional marriage. They are intimidating individual contributors, forcing them off their jobs...

Be afraid - that's the message those militant perverts are sending. Their point is clear: when they don't get what they want - they become violent. When the time comes for another vote on marriage (not necessarily in California) - they want churches, businesses and individuals to be scared silent.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Delegates Had Their Say. Will The Caucus Listen?

Resolution P-203, to strip the CHRC of its powers to adjudicate "hate speech" / "hurt feelings" complaints, has passed with nearly unanimous support - only 10 delegates out of over 2000 voted against it. A resolution in support of the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act (P-207) has also received a strong majority support.

Among other resolutions that passed, were proposals to crack down on violent criminals, to protect workers' rights not to associate with the unions, to simplify the tax code and to introduce income splitting for families with children. Finally, we have the Conservative party embracing real Conservative policies. But can we count on the Conservative caucus in the House of Commons to at least try to pass those policies into laws?
The resolutions are not binding on Prime Minister Harper or his Conservative caucus, but they allowed party faithful to reaffirm their right-of-centre policy leanings.

"While it forms the basis of our policy discussion, it can't hamstring us from addressing the issues as they develop," said MP Jay Hill, the Conservative House leader in the Commons.

That was a polite way of saying the Harper cabinet will very selectively pick and choose when it rolls out a new throne speech Wednesday for the coming session of Parliament.
I don't really mind the throne speech - which is a mere formality. But what I want to see is a Conservative government doing its best to pass at least the most supported resolutions into law. If not - they better don't complain when many more voters find a polite way of saying "I don't need a party that is Conservative in principle only" by staying home on election day.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Free Speech, Unborn Victims' Rights Pass The First Vote

Resolution P-203 that calls for a legislation to stop the CHRC tyranny has received overwhelming support at a plenary session. And so has Resolution P-207. Despite the objections from those who wanted the Conservative party to stay away from fetal rights, a resolution in support of protecting women's right to give birth, has also won a solid majority. Both resolutions still have to be voted on in full convention session tomorrow. Both have quite a bumpy road ahead:
There were 18 resolutions in this category - Social & Democratic Framework

12 of 18 were chosen. P-203 was amongst those 12.
Of those 12, the top 5 now must be chosen via vote. Those top 5 will carry forward tomorrow to the plenary session for a further vote.

This is where the wheat gets separated from the chaff!
Sounds quite complicated to me. But on the other hand - we're talking about amending the governing party policies...

Friday, November 14, 2008

Say Hello To Deficit Jim?

Will our Finance Minister become known as the Deficit Jim?
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says Canada may run a federal budget deficit in the 2009-2010 fiscal year.

"We're on track to run a small surplus," he told a group of business leaders in Toronto Wednesday. "For next year it's more challenging."
He said his government would "redouble" efforts to keep spending under control but warned that attempts to balance the budget at all costs were "misguided."

"What we will never do is engineer a surplus at any price, because that price would ultimately be paid by Canadian families," Mr. Flaherty said in late October.
Somehow it doesn't sound like Mr. Flaherty is willing to "redouble" his efforts to keep spending over control. Not sure if there's even anything to "redouble". Program spending has skyrocketed from $176B in 2004/05-2005/06 to $208B for 2008/09 with about $218B budgeted for 2009/10.

Canceling spending increases in non-essential programs would provide enough money to offset minor deficit - a move that would be welcomed by Canadians. Going further and slashing projected spendings by 5% (in fact - keeping them at 2008/09 level) would provide a solid safety cushion for Canada's finances. But is Mr. Flaherty ready to go that far? Is he ready to listen to the taxpayers?

I'm not even talking about eliminating wasteful spending completely and revising past spending increases elsewhere. Go as far as bringing program spending back to 1995/96 levels, adjusted to inflation and population growth, with wasteful spending eliminated - and there will be enough money to allow income splitting, to raise personal/spousal exemption to minimum annual wage ($18,000), to triple the child exemption and to direct 1% of the GDP towards debt repayment...

If we had a real leader in charge of the finances - we could look forward for some of those measures to appear in the next budget. But with a Red Tory in charge we could only expect more handouts to special interests, more pathetic attempts to buy votes - even if it results in a budget deficit, higher public debt and higher interest payments.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Professional Victims On The Offensive

Too bad I can't post the actual video. I found a way to post the actual video after all. Watch those poor mistreated people protesting peacefully against bigotry and intolerance. Watch those fragile artistic spirits being trampled upon by an 70-year-old bigoted right-wing hard-liner who approached them carrying the most notorious symbol of hate of all times - the cross. Watch those decent civilized people ("good as you") ready and willing to defend their opinion in a free marketplace of ideas...

And of course - you won't see that on the CBC or anywhere else in the mainstream media for that matter. Had it been let's say, the participants of the National Marriage Day rally attacking those four perverse girls who came to protest against us back in August of 2003 - the media would have been going nuts and the video of "bigoted" "intolerant" "hard-right" Christians trampling their pink and black banners would have been aired over and over on every newscast for days and weeks after. Here - a crowd of sodomites could assault an elderly women - nobody cares. Even if those perverts resort to ethnic slur - that's not a big deal. As an "identifiable group", sexual deviants are more "vulnerable" than black people, thus - they are more equal.

Several days later those militant perverts stormed a church in Michigan, disrupting Sunday service.
Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony. "Jesus was gay," they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss.

Their other props? I'll let them tell you in their own words... from another of their liberal blogs:
"(A) video camera, a megaphone, noise makers, condoms, glitter by the bucket load, confetti, pink fabric...yeh."
The video camera they put to good use as they attempted to provoke a violent reaction. The image of the pink-clad folks above is one of theirs, stating in a picture worth more than a thousand words the goals of the Michigan left.

The "open minded" and "tolerant" liberals ran down the aisles and across the pews, hoping against hope to catch a "right winger" on tape daring to push back (none did). And just in case their camera missed the target, they had a reporter in tow. According to a source inside the church yesterday there was a "journalist" from the Lansing City Pulse along for the ride, tipped off about the action and more interested in getting a story than in preventing the vandalism, the violence and anti-Christian hatred being spewed by the lefties. We'll see what he files and what his editors see fit to print.
Since those perverts didn't happen to run into anyone unwilling to tolerate their provocation, the liberal media didn't get the chance to get a shot of a bloodthirsty Christian fundamentalist violently assaulting poor oppressed misunderstood homosexuals. Well, they'll probably have another chance pretty soon - at another church. The American Thinker is right - those thugs do feel empowered with Obama's victory. So those pink-clad savages won't hesitate to violently assault anyone who shows even the slightest disapproval of their lifestyle choice - running to the reporters and playing victims every time there's someone courageous enough to stand up to their bullying.

Thanks to the Proud To Be Canadian Blog for providing a link to the video on YouTube. (Downloading it from there and reposting it on a blog a matter of a few mouse clicks.) Check out the PTBC article on this outbreak of violence, waged by militant homosexuals against Christians, Mormons and anyone else who dares to disagree with their agenda:
My advice to the MSM is this: If I were you, I’d cover it and condemn what the gays are doing to Christians and their Churches or it’s going to get worse—way worse.

And lastly to the radical gay guys, do you really believe that this kind of belligerent behavior is going to make Americans capitulate to your cause? Who came up with this strategy? Was it the same guys who thought that Clear Pepsi would be a real winner?

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

FD Flyer for Free Speech

Free Dominion team, with the help of a huge number of conservative bloggers and posters, have prepared a flyer in support of the resolution P-203. This flyer will be handed out to the delegates at the Conservative Party convention in Winnipeg.

While the resolution P-203 doesn't call for repeal of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights act, it proposes to modify the CHRC mandate, so that "star chambers" could not adjudicate "hate speech"/"hurt feelings" complaints. That's the smallest step that could be taken towards ending the persecution.
We strongly support those members of the Conservative Party of Canada who seek to repeal Sections 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Sections 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are a direct attack on the freedom of expression guaranteed to us under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The provisions of these sections allow the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to prosecute anyone alleged to have said or written something “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” whether there is a living, breathing victim or not.

Vague concepts such as speech or writing “liable to cause hatred or contempt" are the basis of expensive state-funded prosecution of individuals. The statute provides no objective legal test for “hate” or any objective means of determining what constitutes “contempt”. As a result, the CHRC is used by various groups and individuals, as a risk-free taxpayer funded method to silence their critics and those they disagree with. CHRC investigators have testified that “freedom of speech is an American concept” and therefore not valid in Canada. Such statements are contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but are standard operating procedure at the CHRC.

Commissioners of the Canadians Human Rights Tribunal, who are not judges and are often not even lawyers, have held that "truth" is not a defence against prosecution under Section 13. Intent or fair comment are also not defenses. In fact, there is not a single listed defence under Section 13! Because of the lack of any defenses, the Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate since 1978. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal routinely ignores the principles of fundamental justice, such as the rules of evidence, and these kangaroo courts, even allow hearsay evidence. The CHRA provides for each Tribunal to make up the rules as they go.

Every journalist, writer, Internet webmaster, publisher and private citizen in Canada can be the subject of a Human Rights complaint for expressing an opinion or telling the truth. Given the ambiguity of Section 13, it is virtually impossible for any individual to determine if they might be in violation of Section 13. Arbitrary censorship and punishment are wrong, and cannot be justified in a free society.
Great job everyone! And don't they dare to ignore our voice!

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Chief Jackboot At Remembrance Day Ceremony

OTTAWA, ONTARIO, Nov 10, 2008 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- This year, for the first time, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has the honour of laying a wreath at the National Remembrance Day Ceremony. The wreath will be placed by Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch, Q.C, to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Ironic, isn't it? A leader of an organization which denies people the freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial is going to participate in a Remembrance Day Ceremony. Honoring the memory of the soldiers, who fought to preserve the very same rights and freedoms, which the CHRC is taking away...

Or wait... The wreath from the CHRC is to commemorate the anniversary of a UN declaration. That appears to be more important for them than acknowledging the sacrifice made by the people who fought and died to keep Canada free.

If the CHRC jackboots truly want to honor fallen soldiers - they should disband.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Abortion Is Unnecessary

There are other life-preserving options, even in life-and-health-of-the-mother situations, suggests Dr. Donald Oliver, MD.
I want to tell you from a medical perspective that it is very, very rare that a physician would need to choose between the life of the mother and the life of the child. There is almost always something that can be done for both. This has always been traditional obstetric practice.

We now can do amazing things with fetal medicine. Diagnoses are being made earlier and earlier. Treatment interventions are being devised and implemented. Surgery is now being done on unborn babies while they are still in the womb, amazing. Why are all these incredible things being done? Because all life is precious and God given. All children deserve the life that God has planned for him in His infinite wisdom.
The overwhelming number of abortions done in South Dakota and across our nation are done for expediency or convenience. They are done on perfectly healthy babies and perfectly healthy mothers. They are not done for rape, not done for incest, not done for fetal anomalies, and not done to save the life of the mother. They are done because a pregnant woman feels hopeless or helpless. We as a society and especially a Christian community need to seek out these women and be instruments of God’s grace and compassion.
About 1000 abortions are performed in New Brunswick each year. Some 400 of them are deemed "medically necessary". How could we explain that? Could it be that New Brunswickers have much poorer health than South Dakotans? Or is it simply because the provincial definition of "medically necessary" has been set in such way that anyone willing to play along could get a hospital abortion at the province's expense?

What do you think?

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Conservative Party To Vote On Free Speech & Unborn Victims

Not yet in the Parliament. But at the upcoming policy convention. Among the proposed resolutions on social and democratic framework, there are proposals to enshrine the old M-446 and C-484 in the party policies.

Resolution P-203, proposed by Victoria and Kelowna - Lake Country, is titled "Modify HRC Jurisdiction". It doesn't fully replicate M-446, as it doesn't call for removal of the section 13 from the Canadian Human Rights Act. Instead, it expresses support for a legislation that would remove the authority of the HRCs to deal with complaints related to Section 13.

So we're not talking about letting hate-mongers run wild and free. (Section 13 stays and sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal code aren't even mentioned.) P-203 merely seeks to place the "hurt feelings"/"hate speech" complaints under the jurisdiction of the court of law, where truth is a defense, and where both parties would be treated equally.

Similarly, resolution P-207, "Protecting Pregnant Women", merely pledges support for a legislation similar to bills C-291 and C-484, which would make it a separate offense to harm an unborn baby while committing a crime against the mother. P-207 has nothing to do with restricting abortions, let alone - granting personhood to the unborn. The legal protection it offers to the unborn victims of crime is similar to the protection which the law offers to animals, declaring them as valuable objects and protecting them from cruelty without granting personhood.

So none of the proposed resolutions could be considered as "radical" or "far right". In fact - that's the very least the Conservatives can do to protect our freedom of speech as well as the unborn victims' rights. In the few days that are left before the vote, let's contact our riding associations, the delegates and of course - the National Council of the Conservative Party. Let's make sure that they are well aware that there's absolutely no excuse for them to reject any of those resolutions. Unless of course the Conservative party wants to abdicate from the very principles on which it was originally founded.

Saturday, November 8, 2008

New Leader For The CHP

Jim Hnatiuk has been elected leader of the Christian Heritage Party.
CHP delegates gave their resounding support with the first ballot win for Mr. Hnatiuk, who held the party's Deputy Leader position since 2005. Mr. Hnatiuk was one of three candidates to run for the leadership of the party. The party wants to thank Harold Ludwig and Rod Taylor for their candidacies.

Jim Hnatiuk has been a dynamic member of the CHP ever since he first joined in 2002. He became the Interim Nova Scotia President prior to being named the Deputy Leader. The party's only candidate in Atlantic Canada in the 2004 election (against incumbent Scott Brison) and 2006 election (against incumbent Gerald Keddy), he has worked tirelessly to expand the CHP's presence in Eastern Canada. As a result, the party ran five candidates in Nova Scotia in the recent election.
Hnatiuk, who has spent a great deal of time thinking about improving the quality of the CHP's image, experimenting with various strategies in his own campaigns, is looking forward to strengthening the party's recruiting methods and building the membership across Canada, from coast to coast to coast.
Building membership would require lots of effort. Especially when the party's founding principles are worded in the manner that not even every Christian denomination finds them acceptable. As a new leader, Jim Hnatiuk will have to address that. He'll need to find a way to reword the principles so they could be accepted by as many people as possible (including non-Christians), without compromising the party's backbone of Christian Heritage.

Building a positive image of the party is yet another challenge. And a tremendous one, as there are many people who view the party as "exclusive", if not "theocratic", implying that the party's goal is to discriminate against non-Christians or at the least - to force Christian prayers in public schools. Dispelling those myths requires lots of time and effort.

Then there's an issue of vote splitting - something that always works against minor parties. I understand that the CHP doesn't view itself as an ally of the existing Conservative party (especially since the CPC tries to distance itself from social issues) so their intention is to run full slate. Still, I believe that the CHP should have a list of target ridings and make sure they run a candidate in each of those ridings, before they nominate candidates anywhere else.

By targeting ridings with no pro-life, pro-family incumbents and by running key candidates in the constituencies where even a 50:50 split on the right won't result in a Liberal victory, the CHP could actually turn the effect of vote splitting to their advantage.

Friday, November 7, 2008

Gracious In Defeat? Yeah, Right!

Last US election wasn't all triumph for our opponents. Voters in three US states have rejected the ridiculous notion that two males (or two females) could somehow form a married couple. Even in California, where the Attorney General had reworded the title and description of the ballot proposition to encourage people to vote against it, the pro-marriage amendment passed with a narrow majority. Leaving the opponents upset. Really upset.
"Burn their f---ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers," wrote "World O Jeff" on the JoeMyGod blogspot today within hours of California officials declaring Proposition 8 had been approved by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. Confirmation on voter approval of amendments in Florida and Arizona came earlier.
On a blog website, "Tread" wrote, "I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives."

Another contributor to the JoeMyGod website said, "While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve."

A contributor identifying himself as "Joe" said, "I swear, I'd murder people with my bare hands this morning."
On the "Queerty" website, "Stenar" asked, "Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT."

"I'm going to give them something to be f---ing scared of. … I'm a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they've done," wrote "Jonathan."
Gracious in defeat, eh? And of course, there's no point asking what would have happened if the roles were reversed. It would be a rhetorical question.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Did You Know?

From an information card distributed by the Sussex Area Right To Life Association:
Did you Know...
  • Every surgical abortion kills a baby that already has a beating heart and detectable brain waves.
  • 41.6% (43,167) of abortions occur under 9 weeks gestation* when ultrasound imaging shows the child waving his or her arms and legs.
  • 47.8% (49,601) of abortions take place between 9 and 12 weeks* when the fully formed baby has fingerprints, urinates, squints, swallows, sleeps and wakes.
  • 7.2% (7,471) of abortions occur at 13 to 16 weeks* when Dilation Evacuation procedures are performed.
  • 3.2% (3,321) of abortions occur at 16 weeks to birth* when many of those babies can survive outside the womb.
  • Each year Canadians spend over 80 million of taxpayers' dollars to provide abortion on demand.
  • 1 in 3 (38.3%) women undergoing abortion have already had one or more.*
Did you Know...
  • In the absence of Canadian law, abortion is available on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy. This includes suction aspiration, D&E, saline, prostaglandin, chemical abortions and others.

  • 300 abortions occur in Canada each day.1
  • Abortions are most common among women in their 20's, who account for 53% of all abortions obtained in 2004.2
  • 17% of abortions are performed on girls between 10 and 19 years of age.3
  • One abortion increases a risk of breast cancer,4 depression and suicide.5

  • A study by the Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in 2000 found that of the 41,039 women who aborted that year during the three month period following their abortion, those women had a more than four times higher rate of hospitalizations for infections, a five times higher rate of "surgical events" and a nearly five times higher rate of hospitalization for psychiatric problems than the matching group of women who had not had abortions.

  • 60% of women aborting report being coerced by family, friends, boyfriend, husband or their doctors.6

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Ontario - A "Have Not" Province?

Ontario, long considered the economic engine of Canada, will receive a federal equalization payment for the first time in its history. But Newfoundland and Labrador no longer needs the money, prompting Premier Danny Williams to say the "Newfie joke" is over.

Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty confirmed Monday that Ontario would receive about $347 million. The grants are usually reserved for "have not" provinces.

"Does it worry me? Yes of course it worries me," Flaherty told reporters at a news conference Monday afternoon. "The reality is, Ontario is entitled to enter the program and will be receiving substantial funds. Regrettably I think Ontario will be in the equalization program for some time to come."
$347 million is not that big of a share of the $14B equalization budget and its impact on ~$210B program spending is minuscule. Still, the fact that over 70% of Canadians now live in so called "have not" provinces, shows that there is a need for a complete overhaul of the equalization program. Instead of merely transferring money from the richest provinces to the less successful ones, there must be a set action plan that would help poorer provinces bring their economies to the national average.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

40 Days For Life Vigil — Looking Back

Kudos to Ottawa pro-lifers. Well done! And that's just one of over 175 vigil sites. I wish I could post a similar video about the Halifax vigil...

Oh well, the important thing is that we were there. 40 days. Over 175 vigil sites. Hundreds (if not thousands) of prayer volunteers. And the most important - at least 440 babies saved.

Monday, November 3, 2008

If You Had Any Illusions About "Human Rights" Committees

If you used to have even a faint belief that those establishments might still have something to do with protecting human rights - forget it! Their purpose is to empower special interest groups, while abrogating basic rights and constitutional freedoms of everyone else.
In a nutshell, Quintin Johnson was browsing for CDs at Music World in Red Deer -- the same city Rev. Boissoin was from, actually. Johnson came across a band called "Deicide", whose album contained a song called "Kill the Christian".
Pretty hard to find any nuances there. Johnson also bought a CD by a band called Type O Negative, with the song "Kill All the White People". As you might expect, the lyrics were pretty much a repetition of the title:

Kill all the white people/Then we'll be free.


Johnson took Music World before the Alberta HRC, and lo and behold he drew Comrade Andreachuk as the head of the troika who heard his case. This was the same Comrade Andreachuk who fined Rev. Boissoin $7,000 and put a lifetime gag order on him, for publishing the Christian position on gay rights. Needless to say, Rev. Boissoin didn't call for anyone to kill anyone, or say "I will love watching you die".

As a white Christian, Johnson argued that he was discriminated against.

So what did Comrade Andreachuk say?
Of course Comrade Andreachuk was unwilling to find above-mentioned hate songs discriminatory, suggesting that Christian community isn't "vulnerable", thus by definition, a Christian cannot be the victim of hate speech. So don't expect hefty fines, let alone - a gag order on those "musicians", banning them from saying anything bad about Christians or white people.

If there is any silver lining in this story - is that it dispels any illusions about those Orwellian tribunals. All we need to do is to make more people aware of what hides behind the fancy name which has "human rights" in it. The more people realize that those quasi-judiciary tribunals are there to take away their rights, treating them as less equals, the sooner we'll have those freedom-snatching committees abolished.

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Social Conservatism - A Mainstream Value

Rebecca Walberg analyzes the election results in her Ottawa Citizen article, discovering quite an interesting trend: candidates that were open about about their conservative position on social issues tend to have stronger support than those who choose to distance themselves from "controversial" social issues. While the Conservative party tends to take the Social Conservative votes for granted, there are fewer SoCons willing to vote for someone who doesn't share their values just because the other front-runner is much worse:
When voters feel disenfranchised by a lack of candidates whose values they share, they tend to stay home, and this is part of the story of the 2008 election.

Overall voter turnout was 59 per cent, an unprecedented low for a federal election. The CPC lost 11 ridings by fewer than 1,500 votes, six of which had turnout below even this year's dismal average. Potential Conservative voters who stayed home rather than support a party that does not support them played a decisive role in these ridings, and doubtless in many others.

In a perfect world, parties would let their MPs and candidates express themselves freely as a matter of principle. An increasingly informed electorate expects to engage its potential representatives on all issues, not only those pre-approved by the federal government.
If principle won't sway the Conservative party to adopt this philosophy next election season, perhaps the "Bruinooge effect" will. There is largely untapped support among Canadian voters for social conservatism and for politicians who defend traditional morality and aren't ashamed to say so.

If the CPC won't court their vote, they will stay home until someone else does.
Let's see if the party's national council is willing to learn from its own mistakes. Let's see what direction the party chooses at its convention next week. If they choose not to appeal to their Socially Conservative base - they better don't complain when the CHP or some other group of disgruntled Conservatives takes those voters away from them. (Or - when they just stay home.)

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Abortion-Sympathetic "Professor" At Odds With Science

He came with his camera, looking forward to portray pro-lifers as a bunch of science-denying fundamentalists. He sure didn't expect one of the vigil keepers, David McDonald, to ask him a simple science question; a question which this "progressive", "environmentally conscious" "professor of science" simply couldn't answer:
Then I asked the scientist “You are a man who has strong opinions about the value of science, do you mind me asking ‘when does life begin?’”

He looked at me and said, “I don’t know.”

I said “really?”

He replied “do you know?”

I said “yes, and there is not one biologist on the planet who will disagree, it’s fertilization. Could it be the reason you don’t want to answer is because you, like Obama, don’t want to face the moral implications of that answer?”

He said, “I don’t want to get into this now and waste 10 minutes talking about it”

I said, “But you are willing to spend hours working on a video that portrays prolifers as a bunch of science denying fundamentalists, and you can’t even answer a simple science question found in any grade 7 biology book? Who is the one denying science?”

With that they sheepishly packed up their camera gear and walked away.
No wonder pro-aborts are so opposed to "reopening" the abortion debate. They know there's no way they could ever win. They may repeat their mantras all they want, claiming that life doesn't start until birth or that a mother and her baby are "one body". But it doesn't take a university professor to realize that none of the pro-aborts' claims has any scientific basis.