Tuesday, June 29, 2010

The Summits And The Abortion Debate

The summits are over. And, as the Globe and Mail reports, abortion funding wasn't even mentioned. It looks like the government has actually got away with not committing extra funds for abortions in the third world. Way to go!

The opposition however tried to push the issue up until the last moment:
Former Canadian prime minister Paul Martin talks to TheMark.com about abortion and maternal health. He starts off well enough clarifying a matter that many people do not understand: abortions in the developing world are not done in safe conditions because few are performed in hospitals or by doctors. In that sense, it is like any surgery that is performed in unhygienic conditions with few modern technologies and medicines, even when done by trained medical professionals. However, whereas pro-lifers would suggest that it is precisely because of the absence of that health care infrastructure, foreign aid directed to maternal health should focus on cost-effective, manageable interventions such as vaccinations, clean water, nutrition, and safe deliveries.

Considering the lack of medical infrastructure and trained medical professionals, increasing funding for abortion is effectively increasing funding for unsafe abortions. Many will be relatively safer, but they will still be unsafe.
And then again, why would anyone recommend killing children to lower child mortality?
President Bush, you may recall, refused to fund UNPFA because it promotes abortion, including coerced abortion in China, although President Obama restored the funding. So when UNFPA mentions "reproductive health," it is code for abortion.

This is corroborated by analyzing the "global action plan on women's and children's health," which calls to:
Fully integrate the following into all primary health-care facilities: family planning, HIV/AIDS services, abortion-related care (where legal), and maternal, newborn and child care.
It is insane to advocate killing children as a solution to childhood mortality.
Jill Stanek is right as always.

Now, once the G8/G20 and the issue of abortion funding in the third world is behind us, let's see if there's anything the that could be done (and that the government would be willing to do) to reduce the number of abortions on demand here in Canada.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Percentage Quotas In Universities

Yes, they still exist, just under a different name. Applicants with the same test scores but different ethnic backgrounds have different acceptance rates. Here's some statistic data from the Association of American Medical Colleges: One of the commenters at Carpe Diem blog actually confirms that these stats are correct; that it's more difficult for him to get to medical school, in spite of the higher MCAT score, because he doesn't happen to be a member of a designated "disadvantaged" group and the quotas are apparently too tight.

How many more students were denied acceptance only because they didn't fit the percentage quota? How many skilled professionals do we lose because they just can't get the education they need? And, how many hard-working Black and Hispanic doctors, those who could have qualified fair and square, will be looked at as if they too were fast-tracked because of their background?

Saying "we don't want any of your kind" - that's discrimination, no questions asked. But why would one believe that "we don't want any more of your kind" is any different, let alone - better?

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Calgary Pro-Life Group Regains Club Status

They are still fighting the "academic misconduct" charges, brought forward by the university officials, but at least the Campus Pro-Life Club has succeeded in regaining its official club status:
The group's standing at the university was reinstated this week after the Students' Union Club Committee had originally moved to revoke it.

"I'm really happy about it," said Campus Pro-Life Club president Alanna Campbell. "We're planning to continue as normally as we have in the past couple of years with various activities, and we'll put the Genocide Awareness Project in the fall."

The controversial anti-abortion display shows images of dead fetuses and compares abortion to genocide casualties and Holocaust victims.

In recent years, the group was told by university officials to turn the posters inward, but didn't comply.

The dispute led to legal charges, followed by a backlash from free-speech groups that said the university had gone to far in trying to stifle a particular side of the abortion debate.
Way to go Campus Pro-Life! Great job proving yet again that common sense just can't be silenced. Especially if the people devoted to the common sense cause (such as the right to life) ready to go to the court to defend their freedom of speech.

About a month ago, another pro-life group, this one at the University of Victoria, succeeded in getting its club status reinstated. That, too, only happened once the students made it clear that they're ready to go all the way to the court, if that's what it takes to fight the student union tyranny. Again - great job! Hopefully, that shows "student unions" from coast to coast that silencing pro-life groups or imposing ridiculous restrictions - is not the way to win arguments.

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Anarchist Riots And Pogroms In Toronto — A Few Quotes

G20 protesters, on the other hand, come here with no other purpose than hell and destruction. My city is under siege, and I am resentful.

I don’t want Obama here in Toronto, but only because I think he’s unqualified to be president - not because I hate America. I don’t want a security fence in my downtown core, but only because I have no patience for anarchists. And I certainly don’t want my civil rights suspended just because I walk in the wrong place at the wrong time - but again, those decisions can be traced back to the anarchists.
Smashing store windows and setting police cars aflame with Molotov cocktails isn't the way to woo us to your 'cause'.

My question: how do you 'anarchists' pass the time in between summits, when the eyes of the world aren't upon you? It must be really boring to be you most of the time.

My other question: by 'anarchists,' you really mean violent thugs, malcontents and degenerates, don't you?
Disgrace. Shame. Obscene. The police demonstrated in Toronto on Saturday that they are simply incapable of keeping the city safe and unwilling to impose law and order. Cruisers set on fire, bricks and stones thrown at will, windows smashed, property destroyed. Why is it that a law-abiding citizen can be stopped on his way to work for fifteen minutes by two or three cops and fined and humiliated because he drove a few miles an hour over some contrived limit or turned left on a empty road that had a cop car hiding but genuine and graphic violence is allowed to occur without challenge?

The police either were not present when rioting was taking place or chose not to act. The rioters were mostly middle-class brats who would run at the first sign of determined resistance but were allowed to have their fun and because of this will repeat the violence over and over again. Police cruisers were abandoned by cops and left to burn – public money going up in smoke of course. There were thousands of armed police present with body armour, weapons and the like. Why, then, was so little done?
Where there's left there's violence. Where there's "social justice" (as they see it) - there's violence. I wish there was a way to force all those organizations responsible for the violence and destruction to foot the bill for all the damage they've caused. And for all the extra security expenses as well...

"Hooligans coddled for too long" — a transcript of Rex Murphy’s Point of View commentary from Sunday’s broadcast of The National on CBC Television.

Canadian Civil Liberties Association hypocrisy astounding re G20 vs. Caledonia — Mark Vandermaas, the founder of Caledonia Victims Project, comments on association's swift reaction to alleged police violence against the self-nominated "anarchist" thugs and compares it to CCLA's absolute lack of concern for the non-native victims in Caledonia. Is there "good violence" and "bad violence"? Or - how could these double standards be explained?

Friday, June 25, 2010

Don't Get Excited About "Green Jobs"

It turns out that they are not as environmentally sound and economically viable as the greens of all stripes want us to believe:
As predicted was inevitable, today the Spanish newspaper La Gaceta runs with a full-page article fessing up to the truth about Spain’s “green jobs” boondoggle, which happens to be the one naively cited by President Obama no less than eight times as his model for the United States. It is now out there as a bust, a costly disaster that has come undone in Spain to the point that even the Socialists admit it, with the media now in full pursuit.
La Gaceta boldly exposes the failure of the Spanish renewable policy and how Obama has been following it. The headline screams: “Spain admits that the green economy as sold to Obama is a disaster.”
The words like "disaster" or "una ruina" speak for themselves. And so are the numbers: as the study shows, each green job created costs more than 2.2 traditional jobs.

The reaction of the green energy proponents in the government and in the corporate world clearly shows that they have no scientific and economic arguments in defense of their "green" programs. Instead of challenging Dr. Calzada's study in an open debate, the government tries to pressure the university into ousting him, while the green energy company, (in mafia's best traditions,) threatens Dr. Calzada with a dismantled bomb:
The bomb threat is just the latest intimidation Dr. Calzada has faced since releasing his report and following up with articles in Expansion (a Spanish paper similar to the Financial Times). A minister from Spain’s Socialist government called the rector of King Juan Carlos University — Dr. Calzada’s employer — seeking Calzada’s ouster. Calzada was not fired, but he was stripped of half of his classes at the university. The school then dropped its accreditation of a summer university program with which Calzada’s think tank — Instituto Juan de Mariana — was associated.

Additionally, the head of Spain’s renewable energy association and the head of its communist trade union wrote opinion pieces in top Spanish newspapers accusing Calzada of being “unpatriotic” — they did not charge him with being incorrect, but of undermining Spain by daring to write the report.

Their reasoning? If the skepticism that Calzada’s revelations prompted were to prevail in the U.S., Spanish industry would face collapse should U.S. subsidies and mandates dry up.
So much about the settled science and the "green economy".

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Study: Abortion More Than Tripled Breast Cancer Risk

Motherhood and prolonged breastfeeding, on the other hand, tend to reduce the risk:
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, June 22, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new study out of Sri Lanka has found that women who had abortions more than tripled their risk of breast cancer.

The study focused on analyzing the association between the duration of breastfeeding and the risk of breast cancer. But the researchers also reported other “significant” risk factors for breast cancer, such as passive smoking and being post-menopausal. The highest of the reported risk factors was abortion.

The study, entitled "Prolonged breastfeeding reduces risk of breast cancer in Sri Lankan women: A case-control study," was led by Malintha De Silva and colleagues from the University of Colombo.
It's been known for decades, that abortion leaves one dead and one wounded; that making abortion legal doesn't make it safe. This is just one of many studies that confirms it. Could it help break the conspiracy of silence over the link between abortion and breast cancer? Only if we work hard enough to make these facts known.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

As Long As Union Membership Is Mandatory...

Unions should have no right to direct funds, raised through compulsory membership dues, to advocacy groups unrelated to workplace needs.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Studies said Canada's union laws making union membership mandatory for those joining a unionized workplace, or forcing employees to pay dues even if they choose not to join the union are "markedly different" from virtually all western nations.
"The mandatory nature of the relationship between workers and trade unions in certain industries can be an invitation for abuse," the paper said.

"Modernizing legislation in order to protect workers from potential abuse at the hands of their unions that can result from these extraordinary powers is both sensible, and long overdue." Trade unions should be publicly required to disclose their financial activities and unions should be prevented from diverting mandatory dues to causes that are unrelated to the needs of their members, it said.

The rules could be imposed by changing sections 95 and 110 of the Canada Labour Code, the think-tank added.

The centre claims that such proposals would gain the backing of most unionized workers, citing a 2008 Nanos Research poll that found more than 80% of workers oppose union leaders giving dues to political parties or advertising during elections.

Nearly 70% of unionized workers opposed giving dues to advocacy groups unrelated to workplace needs, it said.
The actual report could be downloaded here.

The government should listen to the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies more often. Even though, this may look like they're calling for more government regulation - in this case, the regulation is justified. The way the situation is now, the only way to stop the union from directing your money to causes you don't support (let alone - openly oppose) is to quit your job and look for work in a non-unionized environment. For many (like nurses or teachers) that would essentially mean a career change.

People should not be forced to choose between their job, their career and their views, their moral principles, their religious beliefs. The rules must be changed, so that unions could no longer use the funds, raised from mandatory membership dues, to support causes and ideologies that have nothing to do with the actual workplace needs. Or, if the unions wish to maintain their right to spend members' money as they please, then we should allow those 70-80% who don't agree with the way their dues are handled, to quit and form their own unions; ones that would actually put their members' needs first.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Living With Dignity — Quebec's Grassroots Network Against Euthanasia

"Living with Dignity", a new grassroots network, is born in Quebec. It will work at stopping euthanasia and assisted suicide from being smuggled into the public health care system under the guise of medical treatment. It will also promote palliative care as an alternative to euthanasia.

Citizens are invited to sign its Manifesto for a natural and dignified end-of-life and promotion of quality health care in Quebec.
  • We believe that a human being possesses an inherent and inviolable dignity nothing can destroy.

  • We believe that a civilized and humane society carries the responsibility of protecting all of its citizens, beginning with those who are weakest and most vulnerable.

  • We believe that everyone should have access to compassionate care at the end of life, and we therefore reject euthanasia and assisted suicide as well as disproportionate treatment of patients.
Take that Francine Lalonde and all those anti-life politicians from Quebec and from the rest of Canada. Common sense Quebeckers choose life.

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Secular Fundamentalists And Their Anti-Catholic Strategy

Here's their vision of what the church should be like:
...on May 28 Le Devoir published an op-ed written by a sociologue who calls for the dissolution of the Church and its transformation in Quebec into a network of cooperatives :“This cooperative network, based on modern values of equality and non-segregation of the sexes, of anti-racism and the rejection of homophobia, would permit us to experience together, socially and ceremoniously, the great moments of life between birth and death. This project of modernization of the Catholic institution seems to me, moreover, completely compatible with the fundamental secularity of the state which is indispensable to social peace.”
In other words, they want the church to morph into some sort of a hybrid of a community-run charity, a civil registry and a banquet hall that adapts to its clientele, because the customer is always right. They wouldn't mind a little bit of ceremonious flavor, but just a little bit and, of course, in the most inclusive manner. Let's say the first reading should be from the Greek mythology, the second - from the Bhagavad Gita and the third one... oh, well, we might as well let it be from the Gospel, as long as it's politically correct. None of that "made them male and female" or "what God has joined together let no man separate" stuff, pppplease!

It would be funny, if they weren't so serious about destroying the moral authority of the Catholic church in an attempt to reshape the Church as they see fit:
It struck me that what the media wants is for the Church to feel so ashamed of its activities that it will not speak up against any evil or injustice. It doesn't matter if any of the accusations against the church are true. All that matters is that the Church is silenced. I've actually seen this strategy many times before. When the Church speaks out on any issue whatsoever, someone is bound to bring up sex abuse allegations as some sort of proof that the Church should just but out.

I am starting to realize one of the main goals of the media coverage of the Church - to remove in people's minds its moral authority. Obviously this is totally absurd. There has been abuse in the church, but the vast majority of people in the Church, such as priests and nuns, are innocent. They have valid points to make and deserve to be heard.

The media and many individuals do not like hearing what the Church has to say. They only want approval for their actions. The Church speaks the Truth, and people are trying hard to silence the Truth.

Imagine a school where there are 50 teachers. One teacher is accused of sexual abuse. Now, imagine someone saying that no one should listen to any of the teachers in the school because of this. The school has no authority to teach anything because of what this teacher did. That would be absurd.
And we must stand up to those who resort to that kind of absurd in their attempt to silence the Church.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

What "Sex Ed" Is Really Like. Yes THAT'S What They Teach Our Children

On May 12, 2010, N.B. School District 16 bussed grade 9 students from Miramichi area schools to hear a very controversial presentation on teen sexuality. Thanks to a concerned citizen who took the trouble to record the presentation, we could take a glimpse at what the children are exposed to at such sessions.

The memo to the parents, (which the students weren't even required to bring home, let alone - return signed,) talked about a presentation on sexual health, delivered by an expert. Well, page 3 of the attached PDF contains some excerpts from that speech, which I'm too disgusted to quote. Judging from them, it seems like this "expert" on teen sexuality was more of a sex-obsessed vulgar stand-up comedian, whom any concerned parent would rather see in a rehabilitation clinic, than with their children. The memo to the parents appears on page 1. Judge for yourself if the school officials had told the truth about what the students were to be exposed to.

Read this. Forward this. Don't forget to write your MLA and to the Premier. And, if you have even the slightest opportunity to pull your children out of public school - do so.
Dear Friends,

We are part of a growing group of Christian citizens who are concerned about children who attend the New Brunswick public school system. The attached document gives information about the recent “sex assembly” which was presented to the Grade 9 students on May 12, 2010 in Miramichi District 16. Please read the documentation, and then please forward this email with the two attachments to your pastor, relatives, and friends, particularly those who would share our Christian values for life and family. Notice also the sample letter of concern to the Premier.

Thank you for caring.

Parents, Friends, and Members of Miramichi Right to Life
And another thing: NB is going to have a general election just 3 months from now. Make sure you raise that issue during the campaign, at every possible occasion - at nomination meetings, all-candidates debates or q&a sessions with individual candidates... Let's even try getting this to the party leaders' televised debates. Let's see what they have to say about what New Brunswick children are being exposed to under the guise of "sexual health" instruction.

Friday, June 18, 2010

Abortion — A Scientific Question

The Canadian Centre for Policy Studies has posted a great French language essay by Richard Bastien. The essay is titled "L'Avortement - c'est une question scientifique" ("Abortion - it's a scientific question") and it presents quite a strong case for fetal rights, without resorting to religious considerations:
Although many pro-life activists have strong religious convictions, [it's not because of] their religion that they oppose abortion in the public space. The pro-life position is based entirely and exclusively on scientifically established facts, namely that human life begins at conception, and a moral principle, namely that all human beings have the right to life.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled [little more than twenty years ago], [that] under the law, the unborn child becomes a human being once removed from the body of his mother. The provisions of the Criminal Code now agree with that assessment. The fact remains that, from a strictly scientific point of view, the unborn child is a human being.
The idea that the life of an unborn child is subject to the will of his mother (or father's pressure on it) is far from liberal. The word "liberal" derives from the notion of ["liberalism"], [which], according to Webster, means charity, generosity, liberality, magnificence. We are told that the unborn child should be wanted. But the idea of getting rid of unwanted people is neither charitable nor generous, nor wide. It contradicts the first [right] recognized in the charters of rights - the right to life.
And, talking about the fetal rights battle - here's some good news, for a change:
The University of Victoria’s pro-life club has won a surprising victory in its freedom of speech battle with the student society, reports Steve Weatherbe. The newly elected student society’s board has decided to reverse the rulings of two previous boards since 2008 to withhold Youth Protecting Youth’s funding. As well as paying $719 in club grants withheld since 2008, the board removed several amendments to the society’s anti-harassment policies made by the outgoing board, designed to ban prolife advocacy from the campus.
Finally, logic, common sense and scientific reasoning have won out over the ideology. (Yet, it still took a law suit for the "student society" to reconsider its policies towards a pro-life club on campus.) Way to go Youth Protecting Youth.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Our Role In Public Debt

The welcoming attitude towards government - offered freebies turns out to be quite costly:
In Canada and throughout the world, people are demanding that their leaders provide more and more services even in the midst of tough financial times. But this kind of spending has consequences. Public debt is fast-becoming the number one problem facing many countries in the world today. Consider these figures:
  • Canadian household debt is over $1.4 trillion (averaging $41,740 for every person)
  • Our federal government debt climbed over $500 billion this year.
  • In the past year alone, our federal government had a budget deficit of $47 Billion
  • Canada (you and I) pays $84 million per day on interest payments for our debt.
When numbers are in the billions and trillions it is hard to put it in perspective. It helps to stop looking at the big figure and instead look at how much a public expense will cost you personally. For example, Ontario’s plan to fund full day and junior kindergarten is projected to cost about $1.8 billion. If that money were given directly to parents instead, it would work out to about $10,000 per child.
That's also the approximate cost of public school education per child per year. Private schools tend to do better jobs at lower price. Switching to voucher system, (instead of allowing all-pervasive public sector to expand further,) could save taxpayers billions of dollars. And that's just one of the examples.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

How About A Killing-Free Zone?

The Morgentaler abortuary in Fredericton now has new signs in its windows - "blame-free zone", "shame-free zone"... Well, how about a killing-free zone? They also have a sign by their front entrance, just 10-15 meters next to the one of the Mother and Child Welcome Center. In the best Orwellian traditions, the sign promotes "reproductive health" options, which actually mean no reproduction and no health. Their new signs have a flower motif, but those flowers and fancy colors can't change the self-evident fact: Only half the patients who enter an abortion clinic come out alive. Yesterday was no exception.

I've been to Fredericton before - at the Marches for Life, at the 40 Days vigil and at some other occasions as well, but never - on Tuesdays, when the abortuary is open and accepts patients. It's one thing to know that this is the place where babies die, but to see all those cars pulling into the parking lot, to see the poor women escorted into the abortuary - that's really disturbing... The location of the abortuary is quite symbolical. Not that far away from them there is a school and an old cemetery. A school or a cemetery - that's pretty much what the "choice" is all about. For one in four Canadian babies - it's the cemetery.

The patients kept coming. Often, it was possible to see the women's faces through the car window. Some - if not tearful, then biting back tears. It was such a relief to see one of those cars actually driving past the place - to the school parking lot. And it was so depressing to see them coming back a few minutes later when they apparently realized that they'd missed their destination. The car pulls into the fenced parking lot, the escorts wearing greenish-yellow vests surround the woman the moment she steps out of the vehicle and literally convoy her in, while their colleagues at the front entrance look around with a triumphant grin - too late now, eh? Sidewalk counselors have no chance here.

All we could do is to pray. That was probably the only thing that could keep me from just screaming "Stop! What in God's name are you doing?! It's a baby in there! A human being, for God's sake!..." How many Hail Marys could a man say in about two and a half hours, if he just keeps saying them practically non-stop? Would there be enough to honor each of the 300 or so Canadian babies that died in abortions that same day? I didn't count; I just kept saying them over and over, much to the amusement of the escorts across the street.

That day they were also joined by the Globe and Mail reporter who came all the way from Montreal to look into the New Brunswick abortion funding debate. Her colleague took a few minutes to take our pictures and to write down our names and, I heard that one of the protesters, Anita, who had the "I regret my abortions" sign, did get interviewed. But most of the time (some three hours or so,) they spent talking to the abortuary staff. (Well, what would you expect from the Globe?)

At one point, I could hear one of the escorts exclaiming "if this receives nationwide coverage..." What they consider to be worthy of nationwide coverage is of course not the fact that some 600 babies die in their abortuary every year, but that the government of New Brunswick refuses to pay for the slaughter with taxpayers' money.

Monday, June 14, 2010

Usurping Parents' Fundamental Rights

The Interim weighs in on the Ontario government's recent attempt to pervert young children in the name of "sexual health":
In 1967, Pierre Trudeau famously declared: “There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.” Forty years later, we now find the state in the bedroom’s of our children. Nor are these two moments unrelated. Indeed, Trudeau’s utopia for consenting adults requires such invasive indoctrination. Far from removing the state from the private sphere of individual life, Trudeau’s transformative social project requires the mobilization of the entire apparatus of the state to suppress the institutions which have created the status quo. Trudeau, thus, did not create a re-regulated forum for differing opinions about sexual mores, but instead, undermined religion as a valid source for social policy and moral truth. To create this new beginning, education had to become re-education; parents could not be trusted with toeing the party line. To reshape society to adhere to a progressive ideology, the liberal state must become involved in the indoctrination known as “sexual education.” Modern statist progressivism requires a deep disrespect for the role of parents and their sovereign right as primary educators.
If there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation, then maybe there should also be no place for individuals' bedrooms in the state-run institutions?

Sunday, June 13, 2010

As If All That Abuse In The Name Of "Human Rights" Wasn't Enough

...The homosexual lobby and their leftie friends want to enshrine so called "gender identity" and "gender expression" in the "human rights" act.
OTTAWA, Ontario, June 11, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A private members bill seeking to enshrine protections for "transsexuals" and "transgendered" individuals has passed a second reading in the Canadian House of Commons, to the shock of at least one pro-family leader.

The bill is being proposed by NDP Member of Parliament Bill Siksay, and seeks to add "gender identity" and "gender expression" as categories protected against discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. The bill also proposes to add the terms to the Criminal Code to be taken into consideration at sentencing for "hate crimes."
Daniel Petit, parliamentary secretary for the Minister of Justice, said Tuesday that the amendments proposed "are useless and unclear." "Transsexuals are already protected against discrimination based on sex under the Canada Human Rights Act, a federal law," he said, noting that "the courts have upheld the validity of discrimination complaints filed by transsexuals."
Further, because the terms in the bill are not defined, he said, "we cannot be sure of the meaning of 'gender expression' and how it might be interpreted by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and the courts."
Well, here's how the socially perverse crowd wants these terms to be interpreted. We've already seen some "human rights" complaints in which those perverts claimed that because of their "gender identity" they should have access to bathrooms, locker rooms and other gender-segregated facilities used by the opposite sex. And, some of the "human rights" jackboots actually agree with them. They actually believe that if a sexually deviant man believes he is a woman - then he should be treated as if he were a woman; that because his belief in himself being a woman is so strong and sincere, his dirty desires outweigh other women's right to privacy, dignity and decency.

So far, such complaints usually fail at one stage or another. The one against the women-only gym was eventually dropped. (Although, it still cost the owner about $100,000 in legal fees.) But if so called "gender identity" and "gender expression" get enshrined into law, then it could become virtually impossible to say no to a pervert seeking access to the opposite sex facilities.

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Homosexuals Can't Escape Reality...

...So they harass those who refuse to accept their myths as dogmas. In Canada, they use "human rights" tribunals to get back at those who dare to defend traditional family values. In the US they're trying to get the Supreme Court on board, in an attempt to have their scare tactics enshrined in law:
The Supreme Court is currently in the process of discovering a new Constitutional right — the right to publish the names and home addresses of anyone you disagree with politically, in hopes that they’ll be made to pay a high price for offending you. For once Justices Scalia and Ginsberg seem to be on the same side of an issue: they think this is just another way to exercise free speech. Scalia went so far as to say, “[R]unning a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage. And the First Amendment does not protect you from criticism or even nasty phone calls when you exercise your political rights to legislate, or to take part in the legislative process.”

The Supreme Court case has to do with “gay” activists wanting to publish the names and addresses of every citizen in the state of Washington who signed a petition for “Protect Marriage Washington.” The idea, of course, is to scare people off signing such petitions. Once it becomes widely known that you’ll receive threatening phone calls, or that your employer will be pressured to fire you if you sign a petition to reserve marriage to one man and one woman, people just might decide not to “take part in the legislative process” after all.
Without scaring the silent majority from supporting pro-family initiatives, how will they be able to force the society into conceding that homosexual behavior is "normal"? How else can they back their claims that gender differences are irrelevant, that two men or two women can actually form a married couple and that their relationship would be socially and biologically equal to a relationship of a unitive and procreative nature between a man and a woman? The science doesn't back any of their claims, that's for sure:
“Gender effects prove to be especially strong in our analysis... The assumption that these gender differences would gradually fade out, or even disappear as gender roles have become less rigidly enforced in Western societies is clearly not confirmed in this analysis of 16-year-olds.”
Yep. These are the kind of researches they conduct. They expect gender differences to "fade out" and then they discover that somehow it doesn't happen, that the X and Y chromosomes still fail to evolve into a gender-neutral chromosome-zero... No wonder homosexualists have a zealous hatred not just for science, but also for those who remind them of basic scientific truths. They know that they can never win an open scientific debate, so they try to win arguments by scaring their opponents into silence.

Friday, June 11, 2010

Maternal Health — Pro-Abort Ideology Lacks Scientific Backing

After all the commotion on the Parliament Hill, after all those failed attempts to force the government to fund abortion as part of "women's health" initiative, it turns out that so called "family planning" doesn't really result in improved maternal health...
NEW YORK, June 9, 2010 (C-FAM) - Deep divisions with top United Nations (UN) officials and abortion activists on one side and maternal health researchers on the other became public this week during the Women Deliver 2 conference in Washington, DC. The dispute threatens to derail hopes of raising $30B for family planning at international development conferences in the coming months. These include the Group of Eight summit this month and the UN High Level Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Review in September.

The medical journal The Lancet published a study in April refuting UN research claiming that the 500,000+ annual maternal death statistic has remained unchanged for decades. The new study put the figure at 342,900 with 60,000 of those from HIV/AIDS, and said the number has been declining since 1980.

World Health Organization (WHO) executive director Margaret Chan told journalist Christiane Amanpour that legal abortion was a key factor in reducing maternal deaths, but the Lancet study she referred to never mentioned abortion.
Scientists flatly refused to back up the 20 year-old claim by UN agencies and activists that family planning improves maternal health. The Guttmacher Institute's president, Sharon Camp, asked Murray whether his study's finding linking declining global fertility rates to better maternal health supports the idea that more family planning will reduce maternal deaths. Murray replied that "there is no scientific way to prove that."
If anything, abortion and contraception only make things worse. The link between abortion and breast cancer is known, but the pill too is not as harmless as the anti-family crowd wants us to believe:
Undeniable medical evidence confirms that use of the pill increases a woman's risk and incident for Breast, Cervical, and Liver Cancer. Prior to the pill and the widespread use of contraception there were known to be 5 sexually transmitted diseases. Today there are more than 30. Will treatment be free for these 50+ million US men and women who are reported to have incurable genital herpes (Source - Sexual Transmitted Disease Surveillance and Statistics, The US Center for Disease Control and Prevention)? And what about the health of unsuspecting young girls who now use hormonal contraceptives for a minimum of 4 years prior to their first full term pregnancy? Is it also a "health benefit" that according to the Guttmacher Institute they will have a 52% higher risk of developing breast cancer (Mayo Clinic Proceedings)? I think not.
So that's what a bunch of UN functionaries and their pro-abort friends want to spend $30B on. The pro-aborts are upset because Canada is not going to fund at least some of these initiatives. If anything - the government should have defunded every single organization that peddles abortion or contraception. So that maternal health initiatives would be really about maternal health.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

And Yet They Call That "Choice"

A "choice" from which women apparently have no right to backtrack:
No means no, except maybe when you’re talking to abortionist Abraham Hodari.

The abortionist in Michigan is being sued for allegedly forcing an abortion after the woman changed her mind and asked him to stop. The abortionist even reportedly instructed assistants to hold the woman down while he completed the abortion.

A news report offers details:
That's also the very same "doctor" who believes that "doctors have a license to lie" and that lying to patients is actually in patients' best interest. Apparently, holding the woman down and covering her mouth is just his plan B, in case the woman doesn't buy into his lies. After all - he knows better what kind of "choice" she'd rather make, doesn't he?... I wonder if that's the reason why the pro-aborts are so opposed to bill C-510, that would criminalize coerced abortions.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

What Does Theocracy REALLY Mean?

Check out this great essay by Tim Bloedow:
For some reason, almost everyone who thinks Christian theocracy also thinks stoning of homosexuals as though the two are synonymous. Ms. McDonald pulled this stunt in her book with an unnecessary reference to the late Reconstructionist/theonomic/theocratic leader, Roussas J. Rushdoony. She’s hardly alone in doing so.

Talk about a great way to shut down legitimate debate on Christian theocracy! That’s what sophisticated, 21st Century intellectuals do, I guess. It must make them feel important.

Let’s put some perspective on the childish antics people use when they don’t have an argument.

The Bible bans murder, says it should even be a criminal offence. And historically, our laws came from a Judeo-Christian context. I guess we need to repeal Canada’s ban on murder in order to keep Canada from returning to a Christian theocratic form of government.

Stealing is also against the law, well, unless the government is doing it. It’s also against God’s law. Thou shalt not steal. We have to eliminate that vestige of theocracy by repealing all laws against stealing.
Well, that's exactly what they did with the institution of marriage, isn't it? Traditional institution of marriage was denounced as "theocratic" and anyone daring to speak out against equating biologically abnormal relationships with an actual marriage between a man and a woman, was quickly reminded of the "separation of church and state".

Well, how about separating secular humanist manifesto from state? How about separating the cult of Gaia worshiping from state? Or how about separating the blind faith in socialism, multiculturalism and all that other leftie nonsense that has never worked from state?
This reveals a very interesting characteristic of the Left. Even though it generally parades under the banner of atheism or “anti-religion,” the Left is profoundly and hopelessly religious to the core. It is deeply irrational when it comes to belief in its proposed messiahs. I say “religious,” but the word that properly describes it would probably rather be “superstitious.”
So, if these guys are allowed to bring their faith to the public square - Christians too should have that right.
God’s law and Christian governance are not approaches to law and politics designed only for Christians. Principles of general equity such as “equality before the law” and “the rule of law” are Christian principles. “Pluralistic” Christians, in trying to grapple with the fact of Christianity’s commitment to principles of general equity have gone off track by treating general equity as synonymous with modern notions of pluralism, multiculturalism and tolerance. As a result, they have also diluted God’s law with non-Christian ideas that superficially appear to be consistent and pluralistic. In many case, however, the longer term results have been the very opposite. Today some of these people provide moral cover for big government trends, censorship agendas and stifling bureaucracy, all of which compete with a genuine understanding of the dignity of man and with a clear vision of the Lordship of Christ.
Somehow, this vision of Christian governance turns out to be a lot more reasonable, a lot more fact-based, than the vision of secularist/environmentalist/socialist governance touted by the left.

Monday, June 7, 2010

It's Great To Have A Sense Of Humor (or "Peace Activists Cum In Sheep")

Here's a smart response to all those pro-terrorist anti-Israeli protests. A few guys with a sense of humor came to a leftie protest in Tel-Aviv with their own mock signs, such as "We believe in blah-blah-blah", "We'll make the world abandon reason", "We'll stab for peace"... It took quite a while for the people around them to realize what they were being laughed at. When they finally did - the counter-protesters were escorted out by the police. Most mainstream media outlets that reported on the protest, have removed those photos from their websites. But the pictures are still available on blogs. Check out the blog report of one of the guys who participated in the mock protest. The pictures are just hilarious :) And so are the observations:
People around us started looking back, reading our signs. Some were having a brain fart, didn't get the meaning of this, so they were joyfully taking our pictures. Others got it and were trying to go polemic. I was approached by some American activist (apparently one of those who come here during school breaks to protest against the Zionists). At first he was patient and interested, questioning me why do we carry those signs, why do we make a circus out of this, why don't we take things seriously. Eventually he started yelling that I ought to shave my head and that I probably feel superior to others because of my race, skin color and gender. I congratulated him for being able to read all that from the "blah blah blah" sign and apparently he forgot that he was in Israel, and I just kept trolling him furiously until he burst in screams.
Translating Russian language signs:
Top picture: "Facts? We don't give ... about facts!", "Peace? Da!" (Pronounced together sounds like a Russian swearword; also - mocking the known Israeli pissnik movement "peace now".) Further down: "Rachel Corrie - a human and a freighter" (Allusion to an often-mocked Soviet poem by Mayakovsky.)
Here are a few more pictures.

Finally - check out this funny song. No, it has nothing to do with the mock protest, but it has a lot to do with all those piss activists that cum in sheep :)

Sunday, June 6, 2010

No Such Thing As "Gay Gene". Nobody Born Homosexual

For the umpteenth time "born gay" is a hoax.
In the 1990s, homosexual activists believed that if they could convince the courts that they were "born gay" they would acquire protected-class status and could then legally challenge anti-sodomy laws in the United States.

Dean Hamer played an enormous role in this effort. In fact, on April 3, 1994, the The Washington Times reported that while Hamer was testifying against Colorado's Amendment 2 – which sought to keep men who have sex with men from winning minority-class status – Sen. Robert C. Smith, R-N.H., knew of Hamer's motives and accused the doctor of "actively pursuing a gay agenda."

Immediately after Hamer's "gay gene" study was published in 1993, a media explosion ensued. Hamer's results, however, were a fraud. The title of an article appearing on page 25 of the July 10, 1995, edition of the pro-gay magazine New York Native explains:
"Gay Gene" Research Doesn't Hold Under Scrutiny, Chicago Tribune's John Crewdson Uncovers Possible Scientific Misconduct by NCI Researcher.
In the end, even the author of the research had to concede that homosexuality is culturally transmitted, not inherited. But that didn't stop homosexual activists and all those who support them from claiming that homosexuals are "born that way". Neither did it stop the activist judges and lawmakers from redefining marriage and from criminalizing speech that homosexual activists find offensive.

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Down With The Pill!

The Birth Control Pill Documentary from T Herbert on Vimeo.

Sure, it's a controversial subject, even among the Conservatives. (Just take a look at this heated debate on Free Dominion.) Some even regard the pill as a "harmless" way to reduce the need for abortions. The truth is - it was the pill which created the illusion of "safe sex", the notion that "this baby shouldn't have been there in the first place", the attitude which brought us the unrestricted abortion on demand. So you just can't be pro-life, pro-family and pro-pill.
Remember, folks, the pill is...
...about war
...about abortion
...about eugenics
...about anti-Catholicism
And let's not forget some other damage caused by chemical contraception:
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 1, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – American Life League and 26 other pro-life organizations have joined together for “Protest the Pill Day: The Pill Kills the Environment” on June 5.
“Scientists are discovering ‘intersex’ fish in various areas around the world,” said Hahnenberg, The Pill Kills project director. “Studies in the United States, from California to Maryland (including the Potomac River), have revealed that some male fish have been feminized by the vast quantities of synthetic estrogen in the water.”
“It’s about time women were made aware that the birth control they are taking could have negative consequences on their health and on the environment,” said Judie Brown, president and cofounder of American Life League.”They deserve the truth – regardless of political pressure to conceal it.”…
So let's make every day a Kill Pill Day.

Friday, June 4, 2010

Pro-Aborts Just Can't Stand The Truth

So they're protesting against a pro-life bus ad campaign:
An image in the campaign of a baby in the womb has prompted some people to protest the use of the ad on a bus.

"It's right there on city property," Shannon Tessier told CBC News Tuesday. "It's disturbing, it's disgusting and it shouldn't be anywhere where someone under the age of, say, 15 or 16 can see it."

She said the combination of the image and the word abortion in accompanying text makes the ad unacceptable to her.

"Obviously if you've had an abortion and you see a picture of that anywhere on the back of a bus or something like that, it's not something that you want to be reminded of that you've done."
The group behind the ad campaign says the image is not of an aborted fetus.

Bob Walldigger said the image is typical of what might be in a school textbook.
Like it or not, the fetus is nothing but a human being. The very word "fetus" which the pro-aborts use to distinguish between born and unborn babies, is merely a Latin word for "offspring" or "little one". No protest will ever change the scientific fact that life begins at conception, that the unborn baby is not just something that looks like a human, that it's not just a "developing human" or a "future human" but simply - a human.

Even those who are not willing to admit that, may eventually get tired of the pro-abort "newspeak" or just accidentally slip:
So what if a woman calls a fetus a baby? So what if I follow her lead and say the word baby too? I shouldn’t refrain from using words that the woman is most comfortable with. If after her abortion she feels that her baby died and became an angel, then why can’t I agree with her on that?
You sure can. Except - if you agree that it's a baby we're talking about then you better be ready to explain why do you believe that killing the very same baby before he gets a chance to see daylight is a "choice". No matter what excuses you make up, the fact is - abortion kills babies. Replacing the word "baby" with "fetus" or even "untermensch" is not going to change that.

And, talking about disturbing facts: for some, even the fact that Canada has no laws regulating abortion (which is therefore legal through all 9 months,) is something they've never heard about:
Although my friend has been a licensed practicing nurse for a few years, he was shocked to find out that in Canada an abortion can be legally procured throughout all three trimesters, up until the moment of birth. It took a few minutes to convince him that I was deadly serious (pardon the pun). I think my friend’s ignorance of the reality that is Canada’s refusal to protect its unborn citizens is indicative of the vast majority of Canadians’ understanding on this point.
That's why the pro-aborts are so upset about pro-life advertising. They know that once the public becomes more knowledgeable - there will be no room for the myth of "choice".

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Sex Ed Is Ok, But Not The Fetus Doll

That's the absurdity of the public school system. Those who run it, believe that it's ok to teach elementary school kids about "sexual orientation", "gender identity" and contraception. In some cases they'll make those lessons mandatory in spite of the parents' objections. But handing out fetus dolls and explaining that life begins long before birth - that could get the principal suspended:
The fact that so many people are taking a scientifically accurate fetus to be an anti-abortion message should tell you everything you need to know.

What the accompanying card said was all scientifically accurate. Imagine that, scientifically accurate description of human life is now off limits in school. Only liberal ideology is allowed, I guess.

What a country we live in.

Jill Stanek has more on this story.

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Finally — A Conservative Strategist Who Gets It

At least he understands why Harper & Co shouldn't take the Social Conservative voters for granted:
I know plenty of Conservative strategists, campaign workers, donors, MPs and candidates who say that it doesn’t matter if Harper crosses and double crosses social conservatives, which make up a large portion of the Conservative base, because, after all, who else are they going to vote for. Giorno is probably not one of those Conservatives; he’s too smart to make that mistake. If socially conservative voters become upset with the Tories because they capitulate on overseas abortion funding, they can vote for third parties like the Christian Heritage Party, support pro-life Liberals (in the few ridings where this is a possibility), spoil or refuse their ballot in protest, or stay home. Giorno does not need to think any of these alternatives are wise to understand that enough Conservative voters might consider them to hurt the party’s in a future election.
Can we look forward for a few more real Conservative initiatives from the government? Or, maybe we should just be thankful that they haven't yet backed down on the abortion funding issue, even though what started as a mere cost-cutting measure ended up igniting a full-scale social policy debate?

There's one thing however that is worth noticing: The article lists 4 options for the Social Conservatives which are no longer willing to support Harper and his party. These options are: vote CHP, support a pro-life candidate from another party or not to vote at all (either by spoiling the ballot or by staying home). How many Social Conservatives choose the latter even if there is a CHP candidate in their riding?

While the official Conservative party is working on its strategy, we need to work on ours. We need to find a way to convince people that if they are not going to support their local Conservative candidate anyway - they better still go out and vote CHP (or support a pro-life, pro-family Independent,) instead of just staying home and contributing to the myth that, as a "silent majority", Social Conservatives are worth ignoring.