Thursday, December 31, 2009

Top Ten Good News Stories Of 2009

Yes, despite the $56B deficit, despite the CCMV by-election fiasco and the grim news from the south (yes I'm talking about the Osamacare bill,) there are still a few good news stories:
1) 12-Year-Old Stuns Pro-Choice Teacher and School with Pro-Life Presentation

12-year-old "Lia" of Toronto become a star at her school and on Youtube with her five-minute pro-life speech, crafted for a school competition. A video of her speech has been watched over 800,000 times on Youtube.

2) List of Bishops Opposing the Notre Dame Invitation and Award to President Obama

83 U.S. bishops spoke out against Notre Dame's decision to honour the "most pro-abortion president in history." The widespread and public outrage from the country's bishops was considered by many to be an encouraging sign about the current direction of the U.S. Catholic Church on the life and family issues.
No, unfortunately we can't say yet that the tide is turning, but, if we put more effort, we can look forward for more good news stories in 2010.

Happy new year, fellow Social Conservatives!

Crisis Pregnancy Centers — Working Hard To Save Lives

Here's quite an inspiring story:
In Baltimore recently, the city council passed the first legislation in the country that requires crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) to post signs outside their buildings that state that they do not provide or refer for abortions. Failure to do so will result in a fine of $150 a day.

The law seems to be a response to CPC’s success in counseling women with crisis pregnancies not to abort their children. CPC’s have been aided by ultrasound imaging, which has been instrumental in revealing the unborn child as a living and sensing person. By giving mothers and fathers an enhanced picture of what -- of who -- is being destroyed during an abortion, such technology has been perhaps the pro-life cause’s most valuable tool to impede the ever encroaching culture of death.

Studies show that 80 to 90 percent of women who see an ultrasound of their unborn child choose not to abort. The widespread use of ultrasound has been a major reason why abortions have decreased by 25 percent, to 1.2 million in 2005, from an all-time high of 1.6 million in 1990, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute.
That shows who's got the truth on his side, doesn't it? No wonder the pro-aborts do all they can to hide the truth. Including - preventing one who had an abortion from telling her story:
As the protesters link arms and surround the huge GAP display, I pray and wonder how this new protesting dynamic will affect our outreach. I am desperate for them to know that abortion not only kills children, but also destroys moms and dads. They don’t understand, so I must tell them.

I have a story to tell. My story. They have no idea what “choice” really is. They’ve been lied to. I pray they will listen and really hear, they will see and really see, and they will never forget. So many lives are at stake.
The Crisis Pregnancy Center is there to help anyone. Including women who had abortions. Yes, it maybe too late for those particular babies. But the CPC can help those women cope with their grief and share their experience with others - so that at least other women don't make the same tragic mistake.

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Permissive Abortion Laws May Be Hazardous To Mothers' Health

No, abortions on demand don't save women's lives; rather the opposite:
Abortion advocates have attempted to push an international "right to abortion," claiming that restrictive laws force women to seek unsafe abortion, which in turn leads to high maternal mortality. In October, the Guttmacher Institute released a report on global abortion calling on states to "expand access to legal abortion and ensure that safe, legal abortion services are available to women in need." Sharon Camp, president of the Guttmacher Institute, asserted that "in much of the developing world, abortion remains highly restricted, and unsafe abortion is common and continues to damage women's health and threaten their survival."

An examination and comparison of several countries included in the WEF survey show that legal abortion does not mean lower maternal mortality rates. 

Both Ireland and Poland, favorite targets of the abortion lobby for their strong restrictions on abortion, have better maternal mortality ratios than the United States. Ireland ranks first in the survey with 1 death for every 100,000 live births. In recent years Poland has tightened its abortion law and ranks number 27 on the list with 8 deaths per 100,000. In the United States where there are virtually no restrictions on abortion, the maternal mortality ratio is 17 out of 100,000 live births.
And we should not forget about the multiple side-effects of abortion, some of which (such as breast cancer) could be lethal. So, in reality, permissive abortion laws result in deaths of more women than this research shows.

P.S. I know that I must have already posted a link to this article someplace, but I believe, it deserves a separate blog post.

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

German Physicists Trash Global Warming “Theory”

For the umpteenth time - the science isn't "settled":
For any non-scientist interested in the climate debate, there is nothing better than a ready primer to guide you through the complexities of atmospheric physics – the “hardest” science of climatology. Here we outline the essential points made by Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

Before going further, it’s worth bearing in mind that no climatologist ever completed any university course in climatology–that’s how new this branch of science really is. Like any new science the fall-back position of a cornered AGW proponent is the dreaded “appeal to authority” where the flustered debater, out of his or her depth, will say, “Well, professor so-and-so says it’s true – so it must be true.” Don’t fall for that proxy tree-ring counter’s gambit any longer. Here is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.

In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.
But who cares about the laws of thermodynamics when money is at stake? Why would the politicians want to let go of an opportunity to introduce a tax which not many would dare to resist? No wonder they try their best to hide the facts that contradict their theory.

Monday, December 28, 2009

Abortion - A Tragic Mistake

Recent comments on the SoCon or Bust blog:
anonymous says:
December 23, 2009 at 2:44 am
I had an abortion 10 days ago. I want to go back and stop myself from doing it. The trauma is unbearable. I want to put the baby back in my belly so bad. I am in such grief it is killing me. I hate myself. I can’t sleep because the dreams are to real. I’m ashamed and feel like I should sit in jail for murder. I have been drinking and taking pills just to cope and numb myself. I wish I could go back. I am certain god will not forgive me. I have no purpose anymore. none.
Pacheco says:
December 23, 2009 at 1:18 pm

Listen carefully to me. What you did was wrong. There’s no point in sugar-coating that. BUT. And please pay attention to the “BUT”: But all hope is not lost. There is forgiveness and hope for you. Christ promised forgiveness to all those who seek Him through faith and seek to amend their lives. There are also groups of women who have gone through abortions and offer counselling and support.

Please do not despair. Christ still loves you. Turn to Him now and begin the journey of healing and restoration and redemption.


John Pacheco
Innocent babies are mourned - 2000 years ago - and now...

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Kill Your Pets — Save The Planet?

Terry O'Neill makes a great point in his National Post article. How long do you think will it take for the Gaia-worshiping freaks to add pets to the list of things that must be gone for the planet's sake?
According to a recent Ipsos Reid study, an estimated 56% of all Canadian households have at least one dog or cat. Similarly, a federal government report found that Canadians own eight million of the critters -- the vast majority of which, it must be stated, serve little practical purpose.

You know where this is going: Eco-conscious Canadians could lower their households' carbon footprint by eliminating, as it were, their pets' carbon paw-print.

An argument for this can be found in the provocatively entitled book, Time to Eat the Dog? The Real Guide to Sustainable Living, published earlier this year by Robert and Brenda Vale of New Zealand. The couple (who may well be under police protection by now, as far as I know), declare that simply feeding an average-sized dog has the ecofootprint of building and fueling a Toyota Land Cruiser. A cat's ecopaw-print is somewhat less: about the same as a Volkswagen Golf.
Some of that is already there. Environmentalists are already warning us about the damage caused by cows that produce too much methane. It's just a matter of time until they start telling us that, for the sake of the wilderness, we better stop having pets.

Update as of Dec. 30: Just days after Terry O'Neill had published his article, "No apologies" posted a link to a book review by The American Spectator. The book, titled "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living", by Robert and Brenda Vale, claims just that - that the annual carbon pawprint of a typical dog is double that of a gas-guzzling SUV. And it recommends a vegetarian diet as a way to reduce the dog's carbon pawprint. Yep, that's a recommendation one would be eager to follow ...if he wants to end up just like the secret police agent Bretschneider - eaten by his own dogs.

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Let's Remember That Christmas Is About Christ

Here's a great article by Michael Coren:
Last Christmas in the Sun I wrote a column that provoked thousands of responses. They were divided fairly evenly. I thought it worth re-publishing that column on my new blog. Merry Christmas.

It may have been in June and the winter might have been chosen because there was already a popular pagan festival in December. Completely irrelevant. What matters is that Jesus was born.
And here's some Christmas fun: a video which explains the difference between Jesus and Santa. Sure, it may look like they have a lot in common. But the difference is more important than one may think... Enjoy and have a Merry Christmas!

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

19th Little Miracle...

...Just in time for the Christmas season. (Although somewhat prematurely for the mother.) The Duggar family had their 19th (nineteenth) child, little Josie Brooklyn, born on December 10th.
Josie Brooklyn was at 25 weeks gestation when the decision to deliver her was made due to the fact that Michelle had preeclampsia, which can cause serious complications for both the baby and mother.
Josie is currently in stable condition in UAMS' Neonatal Intensive Care Unit; she weighs 1 pound and 6 ounces. Babies born at 25 weeks have a 4 out of 5 chance of survival.
According to the Examiner's recent update, little Josie Brooklyn is in stable condition and she's able to consume breast milk. Her mother, Michelle Duggar has already been released from the hospital. Hopefully the baby will soon be able to join her 18 brothers and sisters at their home in Arkansas.

And another thing: little Josie Brooklyn has a two month old niece. Yes, Duggar's first grandchild, Mackynzie Renee Duggar, daughter of Josh and Anna Duggar, was born on October 8th - about 9 weeks before her newborn aunt. A niece older than her aunt - that's not something that happens often nowadays; not in the secularized Western world, that's for sure.

Best wishes to the Duggar family and let's keep them (especially Michelle and little Josie Brooklyn) in our prayers - before Christmas, on Christmas and after Christmas.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Beware Of Earth Worshipping, Population Control And Nihilism

Another overview of the environmentalist religion that is worth a separate blog post,
by the President of the Vatican Bank, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi:
"Nihilistic thought, with its rejection of any objective truth and values causes serious damage when applied to economics," wrote Ettore Gotti Tedeschi. He recalled as an example the "disastrous consequences" of Malthus' argument that population growth causes poverty, as well as the theory that the economy is morally autonomous, which he said has led to an "overly consumerist and materialistic" mentality.

However, he said that, when applied to environmental issues, nihilism produces "even more serious damage." In this case it leads to the attempt "to solve climate problems - where much confusion reigns - through lowering the birth rate and de-industrialization, rather than through the promotion of values that lead the individual to his original dignity."

Tedeschi criticized the Copenhagen climate conference for applying such nihilistic thinking to the environment, an approach that he says causes "more conflicts than solutions."
Too bad that Tedeschi's entire article hasn't been translated to English. This would be something worthy of reading for all those who still regard the Gaia worshipers as a bunch of concerned idealists that merely want cleaner air and chemical-free water for plants and animals...

Monday, December 21, 2009

Copenhagen Accord — Is There Anything Beside The Money Grab?

Here are the key "achievements", as listed by the CTV:
Obama's last-minute plan resulted in a three-page document that pledges:
  • US$30 billion over the next three years for developing nations.
  • A goal of pumping US$100 billion each year into the fund by 2020.
  • Aims to limit global warming to a change of 2 degrees Celsius, which is stronger than previous declarations.
Something that the article doesn't mention - those developing nations will only get the money if they agree to open their books to international scrutiny. In other words, all those who kept saying that this gathering in Copenhagen was nothing but a step towards a global climate tax and a global government, were right: The agreement does in fact tax industrialized nations, while setting the stage for another supranational body that will interfere into individual nations' internal affairs under the guise of transparency (at first). As for the environmental goals - considering that global temperatures are actually going down, they might as well have pledged to prevent the CN Tower from getting 2 meters taller.

So, unlike all those radical environmentalists, I'm glad that Canada is no longer taking an active role in sustaining the global warming hysteria. If anything, I'd rather see my nation ignoring those "climate talks" altogether, rather than merely being a backseat driver. Because when you're in the back seat - that means someone else is driving. And, with the eco-crooks still in the driver seat, nobody can promise that we're going to like the place where they take us. I wish our leaders were courageous enough to say an outright no to the Earth-worshipers and their misanthropic beliefs:
Contrary to what you may have heard, the science of “man-made Global Warming” was never settled. Now that these e-mails have exposed the duplicity of that theory’s chief backers, perhaps we can begin trying to understand what, if anything, is really happening with the earth’s climate.
The e-mails do prove one thing, however. They make abundantly clear that much of what was presented as objective “scientific research” by the Global Warmers was nothing more than cleverly disguised advocacy for the radical environmentalist, radical anti-people belief that man is slowly destroying his planet.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

We Say Merry Christmas Around Here

Christmas song for the non-politically correct, by Mark D. Conklin.
Don't like it? Then you better check out the non-denominational holiday record :)

Saturday, December 19, 2009

A Pastor Who Stood Against Ceausescu Regime

He rejected political correctness, he stood up for truth, he didn't fear persecution and he won:
Exactly 20 years ago, on December 15, 1989, a small crowd of parishioners of the Hungarian Reformed Church in Timisoara gathered in front of the church flat where their pastor lived. The occasion was the eviction orders to their pastor set for that day by a Romanian civil court. The group formed a human chain around the flat. When the police arrived to remove the pastor from the flat, the crowd had grown to several hundred strong; they were singing hymns in the brutally cold weather and from their words the police guards understood that the people were determined to stay and prevent the eviction of their pastor. The police guards returned with agents of the dreaded Communist secret police Securitate, but to no avail, the crowd refused to let them pass. For the first time in the history of Communist Romania someone was refusing to obey Securitate.

On the next day the mayor of Timisoara – the second largest city in Romania – arrived and tried to persuade the crowd to disperse. He arrived with the pastor’s family doctor to persuade the pregnant wife of the pastor to come with them to the hospital. She refused. By that time the crowd had grown beyond the numbers of the congregation, with young ethnic Romanians joining the Hungarian Reformed believers in the vigil and the human chain in the cold December day. The mayor then left, threatening to return with police watercannons.

On December 17, instead of police watercannons, Army troops took positions against the now significant demonstrations that had grown from the humble crowd of Reformed parishioners. They fired into the crowd. This did not stop the demonstrators. On December 18 tens of thousands of industrial workers in Timisoara left their jobs to join the demonstrations. By December 20 the city was out of the control of the Communist government. The insurrection spread to other cities in Romania, and on December 22 the most brutal and maniacal Communist dictatorship in Eastern Europe – that of Nicolae Ceausescu – fell. The fall of the bloodiest and most inhumane Communist dictatorship in Eastern Europe started there, in the small humble church of the 37-year old Pastor László Tökés. Dr. Joseph Pungur of the University of Alberta in Canada writes about him:
Hopefully, more people read this story in Canada and follow Pastor László Tökés' example. Let's speak up against the freedom-snatching commissions and against the political correctness which they enforce. Our job is easier - despite all the legal abuse, the HRCs don't yet have as much power as the Securitate used to. But if we do nothing - they will.

Friday, December 18, 2009

"Choice" or Murder? See For Yourself

Here's what such "reproductive choice" looks like in Virginia:
“In the state of Virginia as long as the umbilical cord is attached and the placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive the mother can do whatever she wants to with that baby to kill it,“ said Investigator Tracy Emerson. “She could shoot the baby, stab the baby. As long as it’s still attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something it’s no crime in the state of Virginia.“

The Campbell County Sheriff’s Office and Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office worked unsuccessfully to get the law changed after another baby died in the county in a similar case. Emerson said they asked two delegates and one state senator to take the issue up in the General Assembly. He says the three lawmakers refused because they felt the issue was too close to the abortion issue.

Emerson said there is a double standard with the law. If someone other than the mother harms a baby still attached to the mother, that person can be charged.
And Canada is not far behind. Here, if a mother kills her newborn baby, she does get charged, but the courts usually let her off with a symbolic sentence. After all, what's the big deal? If in the eyes of the abortion activists in the courts and legislatures, a baby, seconds before birth, is still "a blob of tissue" and still "one body" with his mother, why would they mind treating a newborn exactly the same way? It's not like someone is really going to mourn that newborn baby, is it?

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Clinton Wants To Spend $1 Trillion On "Climate Change"

If anyone still has any doubts that those "climate deals" are nothing but commie "wealth transfer" schemes - check this out:
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said her country is offering to help raise $100 billion a year for the next decade to help the most vulnerable nations cope with a warming planet.
Last time I heard, the US had anything but a $100 billion budgetary surplus. If anything, it looked more like a ~ $1 trillion deficit, with the total debt exceeding $12,000,000,000,000. Maybe, in the eyes of Hillary Clinton and her colleagues, an extra $100B in deficit, and an extra trillion on top of the mammoth public debt won't make much of a difference. But I hope that voters have a different opinion on that, when they go to the polls next November (and then - in 2012).

Meanwhile, according to the National Post, fewer people consider global warming among their chief concerns, both in the US (18% as opposed to 26% last year) and in Canada - here, the number is 26%, down from 34% last year.

No wonder that 73% of Canadians favour delay on signing Copenhagen agreement. While the number of those realistic folks that oppose the deal under any circumstances is quite low (only 14%, compared to 25% that want to sign the deal no matter what,) majority of Canadians (51%) would rather put the global treaty on hold either until it's certain that our economy can handle it or until all those theories that attribute "global warming" to human activities are proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The latter would be quite a difficult task, considering that this winter starts with record snowfalls and record cold temperatures. Hopefully, it's cold enough in Copenhagen to get the global climate tax and wealth transfer treaty frozen.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Eco-Religion Vs Facts — Tyranny Against Reason

Here's Lord Christopher Monckton interviewing a faith-driven environmentalist protester. It's a 10-minute conversation. Lord Monckton asks questions - the protester can only guess the answers. When Lord Monckton tells her what the answers really are - she just can't believe it...

And here's the way the green fanatics tend to argue with someone they don't agree with:
Couldn't be any more informative, could it? At least, you can figure out right away, what kind of organization you're dealing with...

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Eco Fascist D. Francis — She Doesn't Understand Science But She Wants Population Control

Those are her own words. In a televised interview with Laura Ingraham, she says that she doesn't understand "the science argument" (behind the global warming theory,) but she believes in population control. Later she adds that even though she may disagree with the way China enforces its one-child policy, but the end (which is conservation and population control) apparently justifies the means.

So what happened to "the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation"? And what happened to the rights for reproductive choice? (And this time - we're actually talking about reproductive choice, rather than about an implied "choice" to kill a baby while he's still too little to be noticed.) In the interview, D. Francis called herself a feminists. Real feminists, (those who are pro-women and pro-life,) were outraged:
Right. So I was wrong about Diane Francis, very, very wrong. Far be it from me to not admit when I’ve made a mistake. I said she wasn’t an idiot, but in this interview with Laura Ingraham she displays a good dose of idiocy with a splash of just plain ole’ sad.
Yes, there are feminists and there are feminazis. D. Francis appears to be the latter.

Here are a few more articles and media responses to her NP column: And of course, there's this page, which makes it perfectly clear: overpopulation is a myth.

Monday, December 14, 2009

Some Hope In Copenhagen...

Some hope that the global climate tax deal falls apart. Developing countries don't want to let go of the carbon credit cash cow; China doesn't want to impede its economic growth with go-nowhere "cap-and-trade" measures and carbon taxes. And then we have some good news from Canada as well:
COPENHAGEN -- Delegations from Ontario and Quebec wasted no time before differentiating their position from the federal government's after arriving Sunday at the climate change conference in Copenhagen -- declaring they weren't going to carry higher emission-reduction burdens for the sake of oil sands expansion in the Western provinces.
Way to go, Ontario and Quebec. Let's leave no room for a compromise. Because any compromise means bankrolling a bunch of eco-parasites with our hard-earned tax dollars.

So what will it be, Mr. Harper? Are you going to turn your back at your voter base in the West by overtaxing (if not halting) the oil sands development? Are you going to spread the carbon tax on oil sands across the country even if it means enraging voters in Ontario and Quebec - and kissing your chances to win majority goodbye? Or are you going to act like a true national leader and slam the door behind you?

Hopefully, Stephen Harper chooses the latter and, if he can't just walk out, then at least he could sabotage the deal so it falls apart sooner. Because why would we need such a "climate treaty" anyway?
Consider this, in addition to being required to cut their own emissions of greenhouse gasses by 25 to 40 percent by 2020, developed countries must make immediate payments to developing countries for their past emissions of greenhouse gases. In addition, the agreement also says (page 16, sect. 33), “Annex I Parties [developed countries] shall provide new and additional financial resources to meet the full costs incurred by developing country Parties” for any undertakings to curb emissions in the developing world. This is in addition to any aid money currently given or promised for the future and in addition to any credits bought by developed countries. Just as with Kyoto, it appears that the Copenhagen deal will allow industrial nations to buy credits rather than cut emissions, such as Canada paying Costa Rica not to cut down its own forests, rather than the government requiring more fuel-efficient cars on Canadian roads.
If we want to protect the environment - let's start with reducing air and water pollution. Slapping billion-dollar taxes on individuals and businesses to bankroll failed Marxist governments in the third world won't make the air any cleaner.

Population Control Freaks Demand Global One-Child Policy

Diane Francis, who happens to be a Financial Post columnists, wants to reduce the worlds population by 1 billion by 2050 and by 2 more billion (to 3.43 billion) by 2075. And she calls for a "planetary law", such as China's one-child policy to reduce the birth rate which she considers to be "disastrous" and to get rid of nearly half of the world's population in 65 years. For the planet's sake, of course.

She doesn't specify the actual birth rate which she considers to be "disastrous", but for Canada, that rate is ~1.5 - which is way below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. She claims that having multiple children impedes development; the economists however predict quite a grim future, first and foremost - to the underpopulated Maritime region, not to mention the imminent collapse of the pension system in the developed world, including Canada. (Why do you think, the CPP premiums went up from 1.8% in 1986 to 4.95% in 2003?)

And when it comes to ethical aspect of the tyrannical "one-child" policy, D.Francis summarizes it with just one word "dramatic". Well, let's see what her "dramatic" really means:
But just as disturbing is Ms. Francis’ sanitized view of China’s one-child policy, which she recommends. This policy has been thoroughly documented as being a forced abortion policy, with all the outrageous abuses against women that one might expect from such a policy. China is facing a serious gender imbalance because of its massive slaughter of unborn girls, due to parents’ preference for boys.

If the Chinese hadn’t been limited to only one child, they wouldn’t have felt the need to make this deadly choice. This one-child policy also led to a number of high-profile refugee situations as a few brave women, threatened with the killing of their children, sought to flee China. And some are trying to fight the brutality from within the country.
But for a population control fascist like D.Francis, it's not really a big deal, as long as "its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the ... human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet". And she is very upset that Copenhagen gathering of eco-crooks will only be discussing how to tax us out of our hard-earned relative prosperity, without considering any measures that would force human beings (whom D. Francis regards as mere "rational animals") to abort and contracept themselves out of existence.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Planned Parenthood Caught Lying To Women

Don't expect a $1-billion abortion racket to tell women the truth about pre-natal development; informed consent laws or no informed consent laws:
APPLETON, WI – Live Action films just released a new video featuring Planned Parenthood employees lying about pre-natal development and encouraging a young woman to obtain an abortion because “women die having babies.” In an undercover video, filmed in an Appleton, WI, Planned Parenthood abortion facility, a counselor says that a 10-week old unborn child has no heart beat, only “heart tones,” which she says begin at 7 weeks. In fact, heartbeats begin at roughly 3 weeks.
In the movie, both the counselor and an abortionist use a variety of circumlocutions to avoid referring to an unborn child as a baby, referring to the baby variously as a “fetus,” “what’s in the uterus right now,” “the embryo that’s developing inside,” “something growing inside your uterus.” They continually assure the woman, whom they believe to be pregnant, that the pre-born child is not a baby and variously tell her that it only becomes a baby at 6-7 months of pregnancy or at birth.

The doctor also tells her that she should not wait, “because the sooner you do an abortion the easier it is and the quicker it is.”
At 10 weeks, the baby not only has a beating heart, but he also has his vital organs (the liver, kidneys, intestines, brain, and lungs) fully formed and functional. His fingers and toes have already formed with a unique fingerprint already engraved; his brain waves can already be detected. At 10 weeks, the baby can already feel pain.

And yet those crooks refer to that baby as "something growing" - as if they were talking about mold, if not carcinoma. No wonder their pitch often ends with the claim that "women die having babies". In reality, however, mortality from "safe" legal abortions is a lot higher. That too is a consequence of deliberate misinformation, manipulation and lies that come from the abortion providers.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Can We Beat A "Human Rights" Commission?

Ezra Levant weighs in on the recent outcome of Rev. Stephen Boissoin's appeal. Which could have been a victory, if the process itself hadn't been the punishment:
So we know that there are two ways to beat an HRC. The first is to embarrass the hell out of them, like I did. That's the only reason they dropped their case against me.

The other way is to fight it all the way to a real court -- seven years -- spending money that you don't have, to finally get justice.

I've read the ruling. I don't propose to go through it line by line, though it's wonderful (I recommend this great exegesis by young Rebekah). It's great: it mocks the HRC's procedure; mocks their utter lack of legal smarts; mocks their disregard for trifles like evidence; mocks their arrogant attempt to be real police and real courts; mocks their bizarre and illegal punishments.
So the ruling by Justice Wilson is a slam dunk for Rev. Boissoin.

Except: so what?

These HRCs do not abide by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so why the hell should they abide by some Queen's Bench judge?
That shows what kind of establishment we're dealing with, doesn't it? The only way for the people to beat the Orwellian tribunals and to win back their freedoms is to pressure all levels of government until those freedom-snatching commissions are disbanded and their mandate is transferred to the court of law - where truth is a defense, where rules of evidence apply and where one has the right to a fair trial.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

They'll Tolerate A Nativity Scene As Long As The Word "Life" Isn't There

A plaque commemorating a pro-life priest was regarded as a "political" / "anti-abortion" message by the city of Toronto. Which ordered it to be removed from the nativity scene in front of Old City Hall:
Baby Jesus can stay, but the anti-abortion message has to go.

That's what the city told the Roman Catholic group behind the nativity scene at the Old City Hall courthouse Wednesday. The Jesus, Mary and Joseph figures are a 13-year tradition, but not the new plaque paying tribute to a "Pro Life hero."

"You've got an overtly political group that's getting a city endorsement of their agenda," said Doug Macdonald, an East York resident who complained in writing to his councillor, Sandra Bussin, and to Mayor David Miller. "And here we are putting their political message in front of the courthouse."

Macdonald said in an interview he's not offended by a glass-enclosed, two-metre-high scene – but by Campaign Life Coalition's sponsorship plaque stating it was donated "in honour of Pro Life hero Fr. Ted Colleton."

Colleton, a retired priest and anti-abortion activist, was arrested more than a dozen times for civil disobedience – most famously for padlocking Henry Morgentaler's Harbord St. clinic in 1985.
Interestingly, Toronto Star refers to the plaque as "anti-abortion message", even though there was nothing there that actually mentioned abortion. Apparently, for those guys, anything that has "pro-life" in it, automatically becomes an "anti-abortion message" and it's automatically "political".

And another thing - this was just a plaque, not a billboard. Unless the complainer has a habit of carrying a binocular with him, he must have had to approach the nativity scene just to figure out that this was actually a plaque, not just a metal part of the structure and then he had to take a closer look at the plaque, to read what's there and to figure out that he finds the text offensive. The very first question is - did someone force this guy to do all that?

Obviously, he didn't come there because he adores the baby Jesus, Mary and Joseph. So what exactly prevented him from just walking by - as so many others did? If we try to analyze his behavior, the latter will remind us of yet another fierce fighter for political correctness that keeps a close eye on everything that his opponents write, looking for controversial opinions that would warrant a "human rights" complaint. Too bad, the secular humanist activists at the City Hall chose to side with him.

Now, he claims that "Christmas stays politics-free". Oh, really? How come he doesn't notice all those businesses and government offices that avoid mentioning Christmas in their posters, billboards and greeting cards, yet they consider it their duty to mention Kwanza or Ramadan? If the complainer truly wanted Christmas to be "politics-free" - maybe he should have started with them, instead of walking around the nativity scene in search of a would be controversy to complain about?

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Abortion Is Not Health Care

Something for those who want taxpayer-funded abortions on demand here in New Brunswick to think about:
The health care debate in the United States has become a debate about abortion. Some advocates of health care reform are blaming pro-lifers in general and the Catholic bishops in particular for delaying and perhaps even eventually scuttling the reform bill. It is true abortion politics might end up preventing the bill from passing but that is because abortion advocates in Congress are insistent that federally subsidized insurance programs cover abortion; the Senate version even mandates increased abortion subsidies.

Rep. Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat offered an amendment that would prevent taxpayer funding of abortion. Nancy Pelosi, the pro-abortion Speaker of House, initially refused a vote on the amendment until it was obvious that without the Stupak amendment, health care reform would not pass the House of Representatives. The same debate is on-going in the Senate.

Abortion is not health care and it does not belong in the health care bill. If the legislation goes down because it expands abortion access and funding, it deserves to be defeated.
Those who try to portray abortion as a medically necessary procedure often refer to it as "abortion care". But abortion has nothing to do with care. In the best Orwellian tradition, they refer to abortion as "reproductive health", even though abortion actually suppresses reproduction and it has nothing to do with health. Abortion is an elective procedure and, since the standard safety rules, mandatory for all clinics, don't apply to abortion facilities - then we shouldn't even call them clinics.

Finally, no matter how much they try to gloss over it, nothing will change the reality - that abortion kills a human being.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Eco Money Goes Towards Eco Fraud

The eco-money leads to activists, not industry:
Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called – without irony – the climate change “consensus.” To read some of the press accounts of these gifts-amounting to about 0.0027% of Exxon’s 2008 profits of $45 billion – you might think you’d hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere.

Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world’s leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data-facts that were laid bare by last week’s disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, or CRU. But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists’ follow-the-money methods right back at them.

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents leaked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he’d been awarded in the 1990s. Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?
Yep, the science is sure "settled". If those who act like a bunch of C-students that check the answer first and then twist the solution so they get that particular answer, could actually be called scientists.

And here's a great overview of the Climate-gate by Rex Murphy:

Couldn't agree more. It's time to take science away from politics. It's time to separate scientific research from the moldy-green ideology of Gaia-worshiping.

Monday, December 7, 2009

CHP Warns Government: Don't Surrender Canadian Sovereignty To The UN In Copenhagen

From the CHP e-mail communique:
OTTAWA, December 4, 2009 (CHP) -- Our Prime Minister is going to Copenhagen where the agenda is to place the United Nations in a superior position to our elected representatives.

If the Copenhagen Climate Treaty is signed by our Prime Minister, we will no longer be the free country we've long cherished and we'll be forced to pay a UN "Carbon Tax" to the World Bank on everything, from our power bills, gasoline, to even the number of children we have.

The Copenhagen conference on climate change this month includes an attempt by the United Nations to become the global authority for environmental regulation, with authority superseding all national sovereignties -- including Canada.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently been exposed for obscuring facts to advance its power-seeking agenda. What has come to be known as Climategate, e-mails among scientists in the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, revealed that those scientists, who have received $23 million from the IPCC, had been manipulating the data about the Earth's temperature. This is the group which the IPCC referred to as "the leading authority on global climate analysis." This is the group whose fallacious "science" was, in fact, used as the basis for all IPCC policy. Climategate's recent revelations are not "small" scientific misdemeanors.

Meanwhile, largely ignored are the almost 31,500 scientists (9,029 of them PhDs, and many climate scientists) who have signed a document asserting that the IPCC's agenda would in fact "harm the environment."

CHP Canada encourages all Canadians to contact the Prime Minister and their Member of Parliament to urge them to not surrender Canadian sovereignty to the UN or any of its agencies.
Just a year ago, Canadian voters overwhelmingly voted against Stephane Dion's Liberals and their carbon tax proposal. Stephen Harper better listens to the people that elected him; not to a bunch of climate change activists and eco-crooks in Copenhagen.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Quebec Plans To Open Euthanasia Debate

However, if they call it a debate on the "right-to-die" issue (just as the Montreal Gazette did,) and if other media outlets start repeating the "right to die" euphemism, instead of using the actual term - euthanasia, it won't be a debate, but a shameless pitch:
Quebec is going to open up the debate on the right-to-die issue. Acting on a pitch from the Parti Québécois opposition, the Liberal government yesterday agreed to create a non-partisan ad hoc commission that will seek out Quebecers’ opinions and the views of experts on the controversial issue of euthanasia. The green light follows recent polls indicating 84 per cent of Quebecers are ready for a public debate on the question, which is also before the House of Commons in the form of a proposed Bloc Québécois bill.

The Quebec Federation of Medical Specialists recently published a survey of its members indicating euthanasia – the medically assisted ending of life – is being practicsed quietly in Quebec right now.
That pretty much explains yet another delay of the euthanasia vote in the House of Commons. Apparently, Francine Lalonde and her supporters believe that after such a "debate", there will be more MPs willing to support the bill - either as it is, or on condition that the bill gets rewritten in the committee.

And, since we have the news that euthanasia is already being practiced quietly in Quebec - we can look forward for them to claim that euthanasia is already a "done deal". They'll be suggesting that if it's there already, then we better make it legal so that it could be "regulated" to prevent "abuse", "for the public's own good"... We must redouble our efforts to ensure that our MPs don't fall for any of those lies and that bill C-384 finally gets defeated on the second reading vote.

Saturday, December 5, 2009

An Inconvenient Truth Which The Feminists Can't Stand

In the end, Carl Urquhart, a Progressive Conservative MLA for York, was forced to apologize. The poorly-worded Facebook comment, that sparked the controversy, read as follows:
"Girls we need more babies or we will never be able to support our future"

Who would say that this isn't truth? After all, it's been just days since the recent study by the C.D. Howe Institute predicted quite a bleak future for the four Atlantic provinces. Among the grim projections - declining workforce, stagnant (or declining) population, rapid population aging and, as result - a serious economic hardship.

Even under their most optimistic scenario, old age dependency ratio is expected to surpass 40% which means - for every senior citizen, there will be just slightly more than 2 people in the workforce. Under a pessimistic scenario, Atlantic Canada is on the path to becoming one big retirement home, with mere 1.5 people in the workforce per senior citizen.

So, technically Carl Urquhart was right. Unless we reverse the trend and bring the fertility rate back to 2.1 children per woman or better - New Brunswick will either become a huge retirement home or it will become New anything but Brunswick. Except - the comment sure was poorly worded, which led to an outcry from some of his opponents:
"To suggest to New Brunswick's young women that their only role in society and their only contribution to the New Brunswick economy is to have babies is demeaning and outdated thinking which flies in the face of everything this government and previous governments have done to promote equality for women," MacAlpine-Stiles said.
Apparently Ms. MacAlpine-Stiles believes that placing "women" and "more babies" in one sentence automatically means that the author sees no other role for women in the society, beside motherhood. Interestingly, Ms. MacAlpine-Stiles' own example shows just the opposite - that having children doesn't prevent one from having a career. If anything, she could have used the statement to encourage the young generation to follow her example... But, apparently, when ideology gets on the way, common sense must step aside.

And another thing: among the proposals which didn't become part of the NB Liberal tax reform program, were also tax breaks for families with children - such as matching the Child Exemption Amount and the Universal Child Care Benefit, that are offered on the federal level. I wonder if any of our MLAs will remind Ms. MacAlpine-Stiles and her fellow NB Liberals of that.

Friday, December 4, 2009

Reverend Stephen Boissoin Wins Appeal Against "Human Rights" Commission

Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Justice E.C. Wilson has ruled that opposing homosexual propaganda in elementary schools is not a "hate crime". Accordingly, the Order against Reverend Boissoin, that he pay $5,000 to homosexual activist Darren Lund and that he refrain from making "disparaging remarks" about homosexuals, is no longer in force.

This however is only a partial victory for free speech:
“I am pleased that the Human Rights Panel Order against Reverend Boissoin has been overturned,” stated John Carpay, lawyer and Executive Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

“Unfortunately, the law that was used against Reverend Boissoin to subject him to expensive and stressful legal proceedings for more than seven years, is still on the books,” added Carpay.

“In spite of today’s court ruling, Albertans need to continue to exercise extreme caution when speaking about public policy issues, lest they offend someone who then files a human rights complaint. No citizen is safe from being subjected to a taxpayer-funded prosecution for having spoken or written something that a fellow citizen finds offensive,” continued Carpay.
So Albertans haven't yet won back their freedom of speech. But it's surely a step in the right direction.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Multi-Cult In The Classroom — A Dismal Failure

Hiding our Canadian identity to avoid hurting immigrants' feelings and bending backwards in an attempt to accommodate aggressive cultures simply doesn't work:
In 2001 Miriam started teaching at a school largely populated by children of refugees, mainly from Djibouti and Eritrea, countries where there are no Jews but where hatred of Jews is deeply entrenched in the culture.

During the academic year of 2002-2003 Miriam started to encounter anti-Semitic taunts from students, such as "Does someone see a Jew here, someone smell a Jew? It stinks here." When she reported this and similar insults to the principal, the principal did not follow up. Indeed, the principal seemed more concerned about the students' sensibilities than hers.

The principal instructed teachers not to offend their Muslim students; they were not to look students in the eye, they were not to gesture with the forefinger to bid them approach and they were not to interfere with male students who were physically aggressive to male teachers.
Ok. I get it; they used to hate Jews in their home countries and they want to keep hating Jews here in Canada. And, for the sake of inclusiveness and accommodation of minorities, we must let them; if we refuse - that's going to hurt their precious feelings. I get it all right. But what's that passage about male students being physically aggressive to male teachers? Don't tell me they used to behave like that in their home countries...

I don't think I need to explain what the rules are in a deeply patriarchal society and what happens there to a youngster who is not being polite enough (let alone - physically aggressive) to an adult. Also, I don't believe that it's customary in their countries to be rude and aggressive to a man who gives them refuge in his house. So how come they act like that here in Canada? Here's the answer:
During the invasion of Iraq, moments of silence were held in the classroom. Cultural presentations involved only Muslim culture and no Canadian content. Students were allowed to leave assembly during the playing of the national anthem.
So, should we be surprised? If we treat our own culture, our own heritage and our own national symbols as if we were ashamed of them - should we be surprised that newcomers believe that their culture is superior? Should we be surprised that they and act as if it was us seeking refuge in their country and not vice-versa?

And another thing: how come today's understanding of multiculturalism means having no Canadian content whatsoever? Shouldn't multiculturalism be about peaceful coexistence of different cultures, including ours? So how come it's believed nowadays that multicultural events should include no references to the nation's founding culture - for the sake of sensitivity, tolerance and other nonsense?

Canada didn't participate in the war in Iraq. There was no way Canadian content (including the national anthem) could have hurt Muslim refugees' feelings. The principal or whoever was in charge of the "multicultural" event in that school could have explained the students that they should be proud of their adopted country that participates in peace-keeping missions, but chose not to get involved in that particular war. Instead he chose to let those students opt out of being Canadian. And the result is obvious:
His polling reveals only 29% of students attending Sikh, Muslim and other (non-Christian) religious schools would choose to live in Canada. That compares to a national average among Canadian teenagers of 54%.
In other words, more than half of the non-Christian immigrants' children don't consider themselves Canadians. Considering everything mentioned above - should anyone wonder why?

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

"Season's Greetings" Or Lack Of Thereof

A store chain ironically named "Best Buy" finds Islamic holiday more important than Christmas:
Christmas. Who needs it? Not Best Buy, that’s for sure. After all, Best Buy is loathe to use that hateful word in its advertising. It’s so “religious” and tinged with racism, America, and tradition. It makes Best Buy shudder to think of using that foul word, Christmas. But, advertising for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha? Heck, why not? What could be more welcoming and tolerant?

And so, Best Buy has issued a Thanksgiving sales flyer wishing all good multi-cultural, Muslim loving Americans a happy Eid al-Adha this year.
According to the new Rasmussen poll, 72% of Americans still prefer "Merry Christmas", rather than "Happy Holidays". But that's the grim reality of today's politically correct world. You can't wish the public a merry Christmas, because it may offend those who don't celebrate Christmas. But when it comes to a Muslim holiday, nobody cares about those who don't celebrate it; no matter how culturally foreign this holiday may be for the vast majority of us, it must be publicly celebrated, so that a 2% minority could feel "included". Well, if that's their approach, then let the silent majority, that is being left out by those politically correct yet minority-friendly flyers, take their business elsewhere.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Action Alert: Tell The CRTC What You Think...

...About the way cable companies operate.

If you hate paying for the channels that you don't use - tell them: Stop the packaging system and end cable monopolies! Also, let's use the opportunity and tell them exactly what we think of the so called "local programming improvement fund" and of the proposed $10 TV tax, which is still being considered by the CRTC.

Please pass it on! You can use the convenient [Facebook] and [Twitter] button on the online consultation page to alert your social networking friends.

H/t Big Blue Wave.