In vitro fertilisation leads to more birth defects

Just another proof that when humans abuse God's law, there are negative consequences.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111804.html

More persecution of Christians by homosexual movement

A disturbing story about a group of Christians being physically and sexually assaulted by a homosexual mob during a prayer service. Read the article and watch the videos.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111816.html

.
.
.

Homosexual violence continues

Have you heard about the ongoing violence in the United States being perpetrated by the homosexual movement? You probably haven't, because the mainstream media is being very quiet about it.

People have been assaulted, churches attacked and death threats been made. All this because the people of America voted against same-sex marriage and in favour of traditional marriage during various referendums held on the same day as the Presidential election.

If the homosexual movement had been on the receiving end of these attacks, do you think they would have received some coverage? Yeah, big time.

What ever happened to those arguments about "tolerance" and "inclusiveness"? The true hypocrisy is now evident. They don't care about tolerance, inclusiveness or free speech. They just want State-imposed legitimacy. They want to push their rights at the expense of yours and mine.

The following article will give you an example of the persecution that many Americans are currently suffering at the expense of the fascist homosexual movement. The article also contains links to other incidents, if you would like to read more.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111711.html

Bad day for the CHRC

Those poor folks at the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). Their kingdom is gradually collapsing around them. Do I feel sorry for them? Not a chance! :)

Some time ago, when the CHRC was besieged with criticism from all sides, it commissioned a review by University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon.

Professor Moon just released his review. Here is the juiciest portion of the report:

"The principal recommendation of this report is that Section 13 [of the
Canadian Human Rights Act] be repealed so that censorship of Internet hate
speech is dealt with exclusively by the criminal law."

"The use of censorship by the government should be confined to a narrow category of extreme expression -- that which threatens, advocates or justifies violence against the members of an identifiable group."

This is a tremendous victory. Professor Moon is essentially saying that the CHRC has no business censoring public debate and acting like a free-speec police in a totalitarian country.

Significantly, both of Canada's national newspapers published articles on their cover page about this review. This means that the mainstream media has not forgotten about the abuses of the CHRC, even though the organization has been keeping a low profile lately.

Is anybody in Harper's government paying attention? This is a no-brainer with little political cost.

Read more:

National Post: Ottawa urged to scrap hate speech law

Globe and Mail: Let police investigate hate speech, report says

SoCon or Bust: Victory for the blogosphere against the CHRC

Student associations are crazy: Part 2-- White men can't be helped at Carleton

The Carleton University Students Association (CUSA) just decided that they will stop fundraising for the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. What do you think prompted such action? You'll never guess. Never.

CUSA executives decided that cystic fibrosis was a disease that only affected white men. As a result, any fundraising for this cause wouldn't be "diverse" enough. How silly is that?

Leaving aside the false assumption about cystic fibrosis being concentrated in white men, why on earth would you choose a charitable cause based on gender or skin colour?

Should we stop funding breast cancer research because it only affects women? Or perhaps ban prostate cancer research because it only concerns men? Or what about funding to stop malaria, because it only benefits Africans?

This is so ridiculous. And so politically correct. As if we had to be ashamed of being white. No race or gender should be singled out in this fashion.

Here's another angle: Do you think they would have ever banned fundraising for AIDS because a disproportionate number of victims are living a homosexual lifestyle? Not a chance. That wouldn't be politically correct.

One good thing will come out of this: since the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation supports embryonic stem cell research (which destroys human embryos), the decline in funding should save little babies from being used as lab rats. I would never donate to an organization funding such unethical research.

Read CTV's coverage: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081125/carleton_fundraiser_081125/20081125?hub=TopStories

Student associations are crazy: Part 1-- Vigilantes at Queen's

Having studied for 5 years at university, I had a chance to see first hand how awful student associations can be.

These associations were founded with noble goals of protecting student interests. Unfortunately, they have now become political organizations. It makes me want to spit.

It's all the more troublesome when you see how immature these students are. They know so little about life and are ill positioned to be taking stands on political issues. I'll admit that I was immature as an 18 year old. But I wouldn't try to give an interview to the CBC on some important issue of the day.

Today, I'd like to talk about the vigilante system being implemented at Queen's University, one of the most prestigious institutions in Canada.

The vigilantes are officially called "dialogue facilitators". Their purpose is to roam around the campus, listen in on conversations among students and intervene if they hear something "offensive" that is not consistent with "diversity".

As we know, "diversity" is code for promoting social engineering, such as pushing the homosexual lifestyle, abortion, contraception, etc.

There you have it: the State, through a university, is infiltrating private conversations in order to push a particular ideology.

Be afraid.

Read more: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111907.html

eHarmony forced to cater to couples living homosexual lifestyle

The popular dating website called eHarmony (which was founded by Christians) has reached a settlement with homosexual activists who were demanding that the dating service accommodate individuals with same-sex attractions. Currently, clients of the service can only be matched with people of the opposite sex. eHarmony has essentially caved-in to the pressure from the homosexual activists.

I am disappointed. eHarmony says that the legal battle was becoming a financial burden on the company. However, a true Christian would not give in to bullying. A true Christian must hold his/her ground, even if it means being put to death.

Moreover, eHarmony fails to see the bigger picture. They need to realize that unless they fight this aggressive intolerance towards Christian beliefs, Christian freedoms will continue to be scaled back.

Read more here: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08112104.html

Poll: Majority of Canadians support limits on abortion

Interesting article.

This is nothing new. For many years, polls have shown that a majority of Canadians support limits on abortion. Read here:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08112102.html

Why won't any politician have the guts to implement the wishes of the people?

Continued corruption at "Human Rights" Commissions

"Human Rights Commissions" in Canada have again showed their bias and cowardice, as well as proving that their agenda is 100% political.

Ezra Levant, a prominent critic of Human Rights Commissions in Canada, has been acquitted by the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC). And he's ticked off about it.

Mr. Levant recently published on his blog a letter written by Alberta pastor Steve Boissoin. The letter expressed Pastor Boissoin's strong conviction that homosexual behaviour was morally unacceptable. Following a complaint to the AHRC, the pastor was found guilty of hate speech in late 2007. In addition to having to spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyer's fees, the pastor was consequently fined $7000, ordered to apologize to the complainant in the case , and ordered to never again publicly speak about his views on homosexuality.

This is Official State censorship of free speech.

Mr. Levant is a smart guy. He is also a tenacious activist. In order to prove the bias of Canada's various human rights commissions, he published the same letter on his blog.

Not surprisingly, a homosexual activist filed a complaint against Mr. Levant before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This is exactly what Mr. Levant wanted.

Not surprisingly, the Commission dismissed the case and let Mr. Levant off the hook.

This would normall leave most rational people scratching their heads. But those of us who have followed the disgusting behaviour of these commissions are not surprised.

So why did this letter earn a hate crimes conviction to Pastor Boissoin but not to Mr. Levant? The official ruling stated: "The Commission is of the view that the Respondent is posting this article with the goal of furthering a public debate on freedom of expression."

This is false, of course. On his blog, Mr. Levant once again republished Rev. Boissoin's letter, making clear that in doing so he has no intention of furthering any public debate, but rather that he is doing so "as a personal insult to (Canadian Human Rights Commission Chief Commissioner) Jennifer Lynch."

The real reason he was acquitted is this: Mr. Levant is a well-funded, well-publicised and well-supported activist. Had he been convicted, he would have raised quite a stink. Mr. Levant's previous encounters with human rights commissions earned him much well deserved press coverage and earned the human rights commissions some well-deserved scorn from the main-stream media. They could ill afford to be humiliated again. So they preferred to let Mr. Levant off the hook.

This confirms that the human rights commissions are not operating based on objective principles. They are political organizations that are pushing a left-wing, anti-family agenda. They are also cowards that won't stand up for anything.

As Mr. Levant points out, "In the entire history of section 13, stretching back to 1977, not one single Jew, Muslim or gay has been taken before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal by the CHRC... It's legal for a Jew like me to publish [Boissoin's letter]. It's illegal for a Christian like Rev. Boissoin to publish it. That's sick."

Read more here: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08112108.html

And be scared for your freedoms.
.
.

Study: Homosexual Lifestyle Strongly Linked to Depression, Suicide

Interesting results from a new study. Read about it here:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091704.html

.

Analysis: Dion plays Harper like a fiddle on C-484

Poor Stephen Harper. Apparently he thinks he's really smart. But Stéphane Dion played him like a fiddle last month with respect to the unborn victim of crime bill.

In case you aren't aware, bill C-484 was a private member's bill that sought to make it a separate crime to harm a pregnant woman's unborn baby. The author of the bill, Ken Epp, went to great lengths to make sure that the bill did not have any effect on a women's right to have an abortion. It was certainly not a pro-life bill. With the election call and the dissolution of Parliament, the bill is now dead.

Several polls indicated that the bill had the support of 70-75% of Canadians, with slightly higher support among women. Rarely will you find such a consensus on any topic.

Nevertheless, pro-abortion fanatics, including Stéphane Dion, misconstrued this bill as an attack against abortion rights. Dion voted against the bill in the House of Commons and spoke openly against it, but the bill still passed first and second reading.

With an election call looming, Dion devised a clever tactic to kill C-484. The media have often portrayed Harper and the Conservatives as having a "hidden agenda" of wanting to ban abortion. In early August, Dion capitalized on this media bias by publicly demanding that Harper clearly state his intentions regarding abortion in Canada.

Such a statement came out of the blue, since Harper had not spoken about abortion in ages. In response, Harper made his usual statement about how his government had no intention of introducing any legislation on the abortion issue.

Whatever Harper's views on abortion or any other issue, there is one consideration that trumps everything: power. Harper wants a majority government and he's ready to sell his soul in order to get it.

Fearing that his statement on abortion may not have appeased all pro-aborts, particularly in light of the ongoing controversy surrounding bill C-484, Harper and his justice minister, Rob Nicholson, announced that they would table their own bill that would simply increase penalties for attacks on pregnant women, without making it a separate criminal offense (as in C-484).

The goal was to effectively undercut bill C-484 and make it appear unnecessary and redundant. MPs who supported C-484 because of the obvious need to protect pregnant women would now have a less controversial alternative that pro-aborts could accept.

Unfortunately, the new bill was grossly inadequate, because pregnancy is already considered an aggrevating factor in sentencing and because the new bill denies the reality of the loss of a baby that the victimized mom experiences.

But Harper couldn't let such trivial considerations as justice and fairness get in the way of his quest for power. So he played into Dion's hands and undercut C-484. I have no doubt that if Parliament had not been dissolved, C-484 would have been defeated and the government's lame-duck alternative would have passed. These days, very few MPs have real leadership. They prefer avoiding controversy in the hopes of getting re-elected.

It was a setup. A clever design by Stéphane Dion. Harper fell for it.

What has Harper gained through this? Nothing, in my opinion. The radical pro-aborts will still not vote for Harper. Meanwhile, he might lose votes to the frustrated and disillusioned groups that wanted to protect pregnant women through C-484. Folks like me are looking for a new place to park their vote.

Bad move Stephen.

Prominent Feminist Admits "Abortion is Murder" but "I Am a Firm Supporter"

Interesting article on the mind games that pro-aborts play on themselves. At least one pro-abort is honest enough to admit that "abortion is murder".

.

Shock: Prominent Feminist Admits "Abortion is Murder" but "I Am a Firm Supporter"

By Tim Waggoner

WASHINGTON, September 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an article focusing on newly appointed vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, prominent feminist Camille Paglia admits that, much like Gov. Palin, she also believes abortion involves the murder of an innocent life - but unlike Palin, Paglia says she is a "firm supporter" of abortion.

(...)

"Let's take the issue of abortion rights, of which I am a firm supporter. As an atheist and libertarian, I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body," said Paglia, voicing the commonest argument put forward by feminist supporters of abortion.

Unlike her fellow pro-abortion colleagues, however, Paglia continued on to - as she termed it - "face the ethical consequences" of embracing abortion. "I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful," she said.

Paglia then admitted that in order to rationalize and accept abortion, one would have to not only accept, but logically condone other atrocities against life - that is, one would have to accept murder for the sake of protecting a particular, more important "right", as she does. The author criticizes those on the social left who parrot the scientifically untenable position that the fetus is just a "lump of tissue", saying that those who do so are simply afraid to face the consequences of their pro-abortion position.

"Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue," explained Paglia. "The gigantic, instantaneous coast-to-coast rage directed at Sarah Palin when she was identified as pro-life was, I submit, a psychological response by loyal liberals who on some level do not want to open themselves to deep questioning about abortion and its human consequences."

(...)

Paglia's professed willingness to sanction murder in order to protect a woman's "right to choose" is comparable to the argument put forward in a recent article published in the highly respected New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The authors of the article, writing on the notion of "brain death" and organ donation, note that the frequently used criteria of death known as "brain death" is inadequate for determining if a potential organ donor has truly died. However, instead of calling into question the idea of vital organ donation, the authors of the piece instead suggest that the criteria for dead donors should be eradicated altogether - thus sanctioning killing a potential organ donor in order to harvest his/her organs.

Dion's wife implying that pro-lifers are terrorists?

More bullying and intimidation from pro-aborts who realize that they have no real arguments to support abortion. This time, the brainless argument comes from Stéphane Dion's wife, Janine Krieber. Read below.

**********

Wife of Liberal Leader says Abortion Debate Next Terrorist Threat
By Hilary White

PETERBOROUGH, ON, June 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The wife of Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion has said that the next most serious domestic terrorist threat in Canada could be the return of the abortion debate, reports the Peterborough Examiner. She indicated that the factor that has introduced this threat is Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, brought forward by Conservative MP Ken Epp.

Janine Krieber, an expert in international relations, military strategy and terrorism, was speaking to a small audience at Fleming College in Peterborough, Ontario, yesterday. In her speech she identified any area in society that creates "social division" as a "potential threat either high or low".

"The problem I see, for the moment, coming next is that we bring back abortion discussions into society," said Krieber. "We had problems before and if we bring that back too severely it will bring conflict."

Krieber told the Peterborough Examiner in an interview that her response was provoked by a demonstration in Montreal by pro-aborts protesting Epp's proposed Unborn Victims of Crime Act Bill, C-484.

The bill proposes to make it an offence to "injure, cause the death of, or attempt to cause the death of a child before or during its birth while committing, or attempting to commit, an offence against the mother." Despite the bill's provision to protect legal abortion, abortion advocates have accused the government of introducing abortion restrictions by the back-door.

"When we forecast terrorism we have to look at what are the controversial topics in a society," Krieber said.

Although Krieber made no specific call to have the bill withdrawn, others have decried her statement as an attempt to create a climate of fear over the possibility of bringing back any discussion about abortion.

Terry O'Neill, a commentator at the Western Standard blog, wrote, "I can't help but wonder how long it will be before a pro-abortion activist starts demanding that the bill (C-484) be killed on the grounds that it could lead to violence - even, of course, if that violence were, as Krieber suggests, to originate with fellow pro-abortion activists."

Why pro-choicers really fear bill C-484

Read this insightful article written in the Ottawa Citizen last week.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=f58747bf-2888-4b8f-ba14-2f8c0e7be1c6

Take care.

The Birth Control Pill already is the Abortion Pill

Magnificent analysis by John Pacheco:

The Birth Control Pill already is the Abortion Pill

Take care.

Vancouver Drug Injection Site Must be Shut Down

by REAL Women of Canada

"Womens Rights Not at the Expense of Human Rights"

NGO in SPECIAL consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations

May 13, 2008

The Vancouver Drug Injection Site Must be Shut Down

The supervised drug injection site in Vancouver was established as a "pilot project" by the Liberal government in 2003 for a three-year period. It was intended to be a precursor for sites in other major cities across Canada. Fortunately, this plan died when the Conservatives took over the government.

In September 2006, Health Minister Tony Clement gave the injection centre an 18-month extension to June 2008.

In the meantime, in October 2006, Mr. Clement appointed an Expert Advisory Committee to summarize evidence-based research on drug injection sites, with particular reference to the Insite in Vancouver. On April 11, 2008, Mr. Clement released the final report of the Expert Advisory Committee. The Task Force found that:

• Only 5% of injections take place at this site and 95% of drug injections take place outside the site;
• The site prevented only one death from overdose last year. (According to the Government of British Columbia Selected Vital Statistics and Health Status Indicators, Annual Report, 2005, the number of deaths from drug overdose has increased each year since the site was opened, going from 49 in 2002, to 50 in 2003, to 64 in 2004 and to 77 in 2005).
• There is no evidence that this site has reduced rates of HIV or other infections.
• There is no evidence that the crime rate has decreased in the downtown east side of Vancouver where the site is located.
• There is no evidence that the site has reduced the rate of drug addiction.
  

The main argument used by those who support the injection site is that so-called "scientific" research has found that the drug injection site is worthwhile and that the Conservative government is ignoring this "scientific" research for ideological reasons. In fact, these so called "scientific" findings, although published in reputable journals, have been found to be deeply flawed and are not an accurate portrayal of the impact of the injection site.

Other scientific papers published in reputable journals have disputed the findings and have found that they are based on the ideology of the supporters of the injection site, rather than hard scientific fact.

The supporters of the injection site believe in harm reduction policy, which supports normalization of drug use. They also believe that since drug users are going to use drugs anyways, then they should do so in a government supervised clean, medically supervised environment. Hence, the drug injection site. This excludes, in practice, the possibility of addicts receiving treatment and being rehabilitated so as to live a productive stable life.

The Vancouver injection site must be shut down. Please write to Prime Minister Harper and to Health Minister Mr. Clement insisting that the site be closed down when its license expires at the end of June. Their addresses are as follows:

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa ON K1A 0A2
pm@pm.gc.ca
Fax: 613-941-6900

The Honourable Tony Clement
Minister of Health
Minister's Office - Health Canada
Brooke Claxton Building, Tunney's Pasture
Postal Locator: 0906C
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K9
Email: minister_ministre@hc-sc.g.ca
Fax: 613 - 952-1154

Gay Sex is hazardous for your health

The following is an excellent article written by Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA's policy director for cultural issues. The article exposes the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle. Out of concern for their health and well-being, we need to convince them to abandon these unhealthy lifestyle choices.

.

"Gay" Sex Kills

"In light of the irrefutable medical facts, it should be considered criminally reckless for educators to teach children that homosexual conduct is a normal, safe and perfectly acceptable alternative form of sexual expression (or 'sexual orientation'). "

Commentary by J. Matt Barber

April 21, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Can you imagine officials at a middle school, junior high or high school setting aside a day to promote "tolerance" for heavy smoking and drinking among children? How about a day where teachers encourage kids to "embrace who they are," pick up that crack pipe and give it a stiff toke?

Neither can I. The public would go ballistic, and for good reason.

But that hasn't stopped officials in thousands of schools across the country from promoting other politically correct and socially "in-vogue" behaviors that - both statistically and manifestly - are every bit as dangerous as the aforementioned frowned-upon behaviors.

That's exactly what the homosexual activist "Day of Silence" is all about - advancing, through clever, feel-good propaganda, full acceptance among children of the homosexual lifestyle.

Just the Facts Ma'am

By recently admitting that "HIV is a gay disease," Matt Foreman, outgoing Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, acknowledged what the medical community has known for decades: the homosexual lifestyle is extremely high-risk and often leads to disease and even death.

In fact, multiple studies have established that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one's health than a lifetime of chain smoking.

To the consternation of "gay" activist flat-earthers and homosexual AIDS holocaust deniers everywhere, one such study - conducted by pro-"gay" researchers in Canada - was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997. (see the study here: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/657.pdf )

While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual's life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of "gays" by an astounding "8 to 20 years" - more than twice that of smoking.

"[U]nder even the most liberal assumptions," concluded the study, "gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. ... [L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men."

This morose reality makes a strong case for a fitting redefinition of so-called "homophobia," that being "Homophobia: The rational fear that 'gay sex' will kill you!"

The fact that we don't have mandatory surgeon general warnings on the side of condom wrappers is a testament to the power and influence wielded by the radical homosexual lobby. (Warning: Male-male anal sodomy has been proven to shorten your lifespan by up to 20 years.)

Not surprisingly, that same homosexual lobby and its codependent enablers in the mainstream media moved quickly to sweep the IJE study under the rug. Under tremendous pressure, the researchers who conducted the study even jumped into the political damage control fray issuing a statement which read, "[W]e do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group."

Yeah, so?

Of course, that's all just worthless fluff. All the political spin in the world doesn't change reality, nor does it eliminate the study's disturbing conclusions or practical implications. The research left ZERO wiggle room for anyone who would argue that homosexuality is a "perfectly normal and healthy alternative sexual orientation."

The risks associated with homosexual conduct are so drastic, in fact, that U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have had sex with MSM, from even donating blood. [The same is true in Canada]

Consider that, according to the Food and Drug Administration, MSM, "have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

Adults and children who engage in homosexual conduct, especially males, are also susceptible, at an astronomical rate, to nearly all other forms of sexually transmitted disease (STD). For example, the Hepatitis B virus is about five to six times more prevalent among "gays," and Hepatitis C is twice as common.

But perhaps most shocking are today's syphilis rates among homosexual men and adolescents. A recent study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that although homosexuals comprise only a fraction of the population (one to two percent), they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

The "Day of Silence"

In light of the irrefutable medical facts, it should be considered criminally reckless for educators to teach children that homosexual conduct is a normal, safe and perfectly acceptable alternative form of sexual expression (or "sexual orientation").

But instead, the "gay" lifestyle is vigorously promoted in our public schools. Sexually confused children who suffer from gender identity disorder and same-sex attractions are told to "embrace who they are," and are encouraged to entertain deviant and dangerous sexual temptations. "But always use a condom!" liberal educators bellow. (Forget that condoms have a perilously high failure rate and are incapable of preventing numerous STDs such as the HPV virus.)

On April 25, 2008, the pro-homosexual indoctrination of your children comes to a boil. Homosexual activists and like-minded liberal educators will be pushing the so-called "Day of Silence" on kids in thousands of schools across the country.

The "Day of Silence" (DOS) is organized by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), one of the most militant and well-funded of the powerful homosexual pressure groups. DOS purports to confront the alleged systematic harassment and bullying of children who self-identify as homosexual, bisexual or "transgender." (For a sampling of the kinds of things GLSEN teaches children, click here: http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=2580&department=CFI&categoryid=papers#fistgate; Be warned, though. It's pretty graphic.)

To be sure, bullying and harassment should not be tolerated against anyone, anywhere for any reason, and those who engage in such activities should be firmly disciplined. However, DOS has very little to do with "bullying" and has everything to do with propaganda.

During DOS, children and teachers are encouraged to disrupt the school day by refusing to speak, in a show of support to self-described "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual" and "transgender" students. Kids are additionally taught that Biblical truth, which holds that human sexuality is a gift from God shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage, is "homophobic," "hateful" and "discriminatory."

Our schools are supposed to be places of learning, not places of political indoctrination. It's the height of impropriety and cynicism for "gay" activists and school officials to use good-hearted but misguided children as pawns in their attempt to further a deceptive, highly controversial and polarizing political agenda.

DOS is pure, unadulterated propaganda and, based on the medical science, amounts to nothing short of educational malpractice. With liberal school officials in tow, these militant homosexual activists are brazenly circumventing and abusing parental authority to further this dangerous political agenda. DOS is also a slap in the face to the many students with traditional moral values.

So, it's time for the "Day of Silence" to finally live up to its name. It's time for these radical adult activists to be silent in our children's schools.

And you can to do something to help.

At DOS-participating schools all over the country, parents are joining with dozens of pro-family organizations, such as Concerned Women for America (CWA), in a "Day of Silence Walkout." They're keeping their kids home from school on DOS as a show of protest. (For more information visit http://www.missionamerica.com/ ).

Parents and children are also strongly encouraged to participate in the Alliance Defense Fund's non-disruptive "Day of Truth," which will follow DOS on Monday, April 28, 2008. (For more information visit http://www.dayoftruth.org/ ).

Children are impressionable. Their young minds are fresh clay ready for molding, and these adult homosexual activists know it. Your child's spiritual, emotional and physical well-being belongs in your hands, not in the hands of liberal activists and elitist educators with a deceptive and destructive political agenda.

It's time to shatter the silence with truth.

Birth Control Pill Linked to Hardening of the Arteries

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

BELGIUM, April 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Researchers at the University of Ghent, conducting a long-term study on 1,300 healthy women aged 35 to 55 living in a small town in Belgium, have observed that those women who take oral contraceptives may have more plaque (a hard, fatty deposit) buildup in their arteries.

Atherosclerotic plaque is comprised of cholesterol, bacteria and calcium which adheres to the inner lining of arteries.

Approximately 81 percent of participants had taken birth control pills for at least a year at some point in their lives, and 27 percent were currently taking the contraceptives.

The researchers conducted ultrasound examinations of the participants' leg and neck arteries to measure levels of plaque buildup. Every 10 years of oral contraceptive use was correlated with a 20 to 30 percent increase in plaque buildup.

According to lead researcher Ernst Rietzschel, this amount of plaque buildup is cause for concern because of increased risk of heart disease and stroke, and the study indicates a need to conduct new investigation into the safety of oral contraceptives.

"It's incredible that a drug which has been taken by 80 percent of women ... is almost bereft of any long-term outcome safety data," Rietzschel said in a NaturalNews report.

Birth control pills are taken by about 100 million women worldwide. Previous studies have shown that synthetic hormones used for birth control greatly increased the risk of blood clotting. This new Belgian study adds the increased risk of atherosclerotic plaque formation, in relatively young women, to the risk of clot formation. Clots typically form in the legs and can cause serious injury and death if they travel to the heart, lungs or brain.

Two years ago, pharmaceutical giant Johnson and Johnson, recalled the Ortho Evra birth-control patch after lawsuits revealed definitive proof that women on the patch were dying of strokes and blot clots three times more frequently than the general population.

The lawsuits charged that Johnson and Johnson failed to properly investigate the product's safety and stated that the company deceived the public about the severity of potential side effects, which include strokes and severe blood clots.
FDA records show that seventeen patch users between the ages of 17 and 30 suffered fatal heart attacks, blood clots and possible strokes between August 2002 and November 2005.

Women have previously been considered much less likely than men to have strokes or heart attacks due to cholesterol build-up in their arteries. However, women on the pill approach the level of risk of men for plaque formation, according to this study.

The link between chemical birth control and breast cancer, though widely studied, documented and published in medical journals, is still ignored by the major media and as a result women taking oral contraceptives seem to be largely unaware of the risks.

Dr. Andrew Penman, CEO of the Cancer Council of NSW (New South Wales, Australia), said that although he still believed the risk of breast cancer in women younger than 50 was minimal, most women were unaware of the possible risks of taking the pill.

"The problem with the pill is that it is such a money spinner that the money gets in the way of the risks," Dr. Penman said.

Read previous LifeSiteNews.com articles on harmful effects of oral contraceptives:

New Study Shows Double Cervical Cancer Risk for Oral Contraceptive Usershttp://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07111406.html

Canadian MP says Cancer Society Withholding Pill/Cancer Linkhttp://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/mar/06031707.html

43 More Women Sue over Birth Control Patch Dangershttp://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/nov/06110206.html

Woman Sues "Birth Control" Patch Manufacturer for Pulmonary Embolismhttp://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/sep/05091303.html

Abortion-Causing Birth Control Patch Manufacturer Faces Class-Action Lawsuithttp://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jul/05072703.html

18 Year-Old New York Student Dies Suddenly from Birth Control Complicationshttp://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/apr/04040606.html;

The Harper Dictatorship continues

Stephen Harper has been the biggest hypocrite in Canada with respect to the "democratic deficit". After his numerous promises while leader of the opposition, it turns out that the Prime Minister has concentrated more power in his Office than previous governments.

He also flaunts the democratic process by forbidding popular candidates from even running for the Conservative nomination in some ridings. What a disgrace.


Yet Another Social Conservative Forbidden from Running for the Conservative Party of Canada

By John-Henry Westen BURNABY, BC, March 19, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A revolt is brewing in the Conservative riding of Burnaby-New Westminster where the Party candidate in the last election - a strong social conservative - has been denied the opportunity to seek the nomination again despite massive local support.

Last week directors from the local constituency association held a forum discussing their concern at the Conservative Party's decision to disqualify Marc Dalton, the Conservative Candidate of Record for 2006. Prominent social conservative John Pacheco was similarly denied the opportunity to contest the Conservative Party nomination in 2005 which resulted in a firestorm of criticism for the Party.

The Liberal Party has also engaged in such tactics but felt the sting of electoral loss as a result. Liberal Leader Stephane Dion quashed the nomination of a local Liberal Party favorite David Orchard. Prior to taking action, Dion was warned that forcing another candidate would cost the Party a solid Liberal seat - which it did.

No reason was given for the Conservative Party's current decision on Dalton despite repeated requests to the National Council by board members and Dalton himself. Mr. Dalton filed his application papers over one year ago and has hundreds of supporters. He was well-positioned to win the nomination to be held March 29th.

He received notification of his disqualification last week just as the cut-off for signing up new members approached.

"This is unfair and unjust!" said Senna Ip, President of the Riding Association. "I support the right of all three of our candidates to run and would fight for each one of them to stay in the race. Mr. Dalton worked very hard in the last election and has been very busy strengthening our Party and building our membership. For the Party to disqualify him at the last moment with no reason is shameful and heavy-handed".

Thirteen directors and members of the Executive are asking the Conservative Party to allow Mr. Dalton the right to re-enter the nomination race. Members of the group met with National Councilors this week. The Councilors said that it was the local Nomination Committee's decision, yet the local committee said it was the National Committee's decision.

"They're just playing games with us", strongly contests Ip. "The local committee is supposed to reflect the wishes of the Board and the membership. They are not doing that!"

Mr. Dalton was invited to attend the forum. He said that he feels he has an obligation to speak up on behalf of the 400 people who support him, including most of the Conservative riding association long-term membership, young people and people who supported other parties.

Dalton, a public school teacher, said "what type of message are we sending to these young people who are participating in the democratic process for the first time? This type of action breeds cynicism and mistrust. It erodes and demoralizes our base. How will this help our Party build public trust and move us into majority territory?" He added, "On the one hand, our Conservative Party disregards members' desire to choose a candidate, and on the other hand, they become part of an aggressive fund-raising database. This is just not fair, especially towards our new members!" Over twelve thousand people voted for him as the Conservative candidate in the last election.

Dalton remarked that the disqualification may be permissible according to Party regulations, but these unfair practices are not acceptable to the public and run contrary to the principles of accountability and justice that the Conservative Party advocates.

Senna Ip and the other board members hope that Conservative voters and members everywhere will voice their opinion on this matter to the Conservative Party and in public. She contends that the Party must be seen as responsive to the people, especially its grassroots members.

To express concerns contact

Conservative Party Leader
Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Harper.S@parl.gc.ca
613-992-4211

Conservative Party President
Don Plett
donplett@conservative.ca

Religious Believers Happier than Atheists and Agnostics: Study

By Hilary White

LONDON, March 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Another study has found that sincere and active religious belief makes people happy, the Daily Mail reports.

Statistical analysis has shown repeatedly that church attendance, family life and stable marriages are the building blocks of a happy life.

Prof. Andrew Clark of the Paris School of Economics, and Dr. Orsolya Lelkes of the European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research presented their research at the conference of the Royal Economic Society in Coventry. They said that religious believers are happier overall than atheists or agnostics. More than this, regular church attendance and an active prayer life make people even happier than passive belief alone.

Data gleaned from thousands of Europeans and British people say that religion can help people cope with life's disappointments and difficulties including the most stressful, such as the death of loved ones, divorce and unemployment. Religious believers have higher levels of satisfaction and suffer less psychological damage from life's troubles.

Meanwhile, church attendance in Britain and elsewhere continues its decades-long decline. Recent figures show a 500,000 fall in typical Sunday attendance in Britain since the last comparable research in 1998. Although these numbers can be seen most clearly in attendance at the Church of England and despite what is being called the "anomalous" and probably temporary rise in attendance at Catholic churches caused by an influx of eastern European immigrants to the UK, Catholic church attendance has also plummeted since the high point of the early 1960's.

But the numbers of people who believe is falling even faster than attendance at weekly church services. People who identified themselves as members of the official state religion have dropped by 40 per cent since 1983. A 2005 study said that only 50 per cent of children are likely to retain the religious faith of their upbringing. The report suggested that the decline in religious belief through the generations is already too far gone for any reversal.

The author one study, Dr. David Voas, said the loss of faith in Britain "is not temporary or accidental, it is a generational phenomenon - the decline has continued year on year. The fact that children are only half as likely to believe as their parents indicates that, as a society, we are at an advanced stage of secularisation." In 2000, a survey found that half of all adults in the UK say they have no religious affiliation, a 13 percent increase from 1983.

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Research Reveals Legislators Should Support Religion for Social Stability: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/dec/06122002.html

Feminist double-standard

In Canadian law, women only became "persons" in 1929. Before that, women in Canada were not recognized as persons. So what happened in 1929 that caused this change? Was there a fundamental transformation in women's DNA that suddenly made them deserving of being called persons? Of course not. Since the beginning of humanity, women have been equal to men but it took the Canadian justice system until 1929 to figure that out. Before 1929, the system was out of touch with reality. A similar story could be told about the fate of visible minorities.

What can we learn from this? Obviously, the law can be dead wrong when it comes to morality or equal rights.

This lesson has important implications today. In 2008, Canadian unborn babies are still not recognized as persons. We live in an era where modern science has proved without a doubt that an unborn child is a living human being. The only difference between them and us is that they are at an earlier stage of development. Aside from that, we're the same. The unborn baby has her own heart beat, arms, legs, head, etc. You can see these parts in an ultrasound or through other more modern methods that allow 3D pictures of the baby. We can even perform surgery on a child while it is still in the womb.

The old argument that "a woman has a right to control her body" is based on science from the Middle Ages. Today we know better. The unborn child is not part of her mother. The unborn child has her own distinct DNA, different from mommy, which is an unmistakable sign that she is not part of her body.

A little side note: a baby's heart starts beating at about 20 days after conception, before most women even realize that they are pregnant. So when you see a billboard that says "Abortion stops a beating heart", remember that it's not just a slogan; it's a scientific fact.

Despite the mountain of scientific evidence, Canadian law does not recognize the unborn child as a "person", which means abortion is legal up until the moment of birth. Sounds like 1929 all over again. The law has not yet caught up to reality.

The tragedy is that the people who benefited from the ruling in 1929, i.e. women, are also leading the charge to deny that same right to the unborn. Feminists, who get hysterical about the abortion issue, are fighting to make sure that the unborn remain an inferior being with no rights.

But that will eventually change. It is inevitable. The preponderance of the evidence is too strong. And when change does come, all those pro-choicers are going to be hiding their faces just like the people in the early 1900s who used to advocate that women weren't people. Their shame will know no boundaries.

Great article denouncing extreme feminists

Here is a great article by Barbara Kay from the National Post.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=368477&p=1

Enjoy!

Deciding not to fund porn is not government censorship

An excellent article from the Calgary Herald last week.


Deciding not to fund porn is not government censorship
It's called fiscal responsibility

Susan Martinuk For The Calgary Herald

Published: Friday, March 07, 2008


"The sky is falling. The sky is falling."

That's the cry of all the Chicken Littles in Canada's film and television industry. Given their job descriptions, it should be no surprise that their response to a pending change in legislation is overly dramatic.

The industry is alarmed over proposed amendments to Bill C-10 that would ostensibly deny tax credits to TV and film productions containing extreme violence, graphic sex or other content that would be deemed offensive by a majority of Canadians.

Accordingly, those in the 'biz' have stirred public controversy with calls of "censorship" and claims that it will curtail freedom of speech-expression and singularly eliminate all artistic freedom in the Canadian film industry. Some commentators have taken the bait, and the game is on to name popular movies that "would NEVER have been made" under the restrictions of the new bill. One pundit claimed filmmakers like David Cronenberg (known for scenes of sex, destruction and death . . . all at the same time) would be forced to shoot remakes of Anne of Green Gables.

It makes for a good soundbite, but Bill C-10 has nothing to do with censorship. No films are banned; no films will be taken away by force and destroyed. They can fill them with as much sex, violence and controversy as they want. But there is no longer a blind guarantee of government money for films that feature porn stars and go on to premier at events like the FREAKZONE International Festival of Trash Cinema.

When opponents of the bill cry "censorship," they are really bemoaning the fact they no longer have a free pass for government subsidies in the form of tax credits.

Other industries have always had to meet strict requirements and regulations to gain tax credits or subsidies; such scrutiny hasn't been applied to artistic endeavours, but there is no reason for it to fall by the wayside just for the sake of artistic integrity.

Most Canadians would support that notion and that's why opponents have reached into the depths to float the idea that the Conservative government intends to use this "power" over film content to cleanse Canadian culture and transform it into some kind of conservative utopia.
If only. Instead, this outrageous claim stems partly from the suggestion that these amendments are the work of one man with a religious agenda who supposedly lobbied Conservatives for the restrictions. Key Conservatives deny it, but any kind of connection is now being used as proof the Conservatives have appointed themselves as the determiners (and guardians) of decency for all Canadians.

Frankly, I doubt that one man has that much power over the Conservative government, legislators from all other parties who voted for the bill, and members of the Senate where a Liberal majority will pass the final legislation. But if those who oppose him choose to grant him that power . . . who am I to argue?

The above arguments are rooted in rhetoric and fear. The reality is that the Conservative government's agenda to protect taxpayers' money and limit government spending on wasteful projects isn't exactly "hidden." It's called fiscal responsibility, it's one of the most prominent features of the conservative platform and it's exactly what Canadians expect from the federal government.


http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=70edcddd-b3d9-401c-b21e-b2748150836b

We need C-484 really bad!

Here's a question for all you women out there. Imagine that you were pregnant and wanted to keep your baby. Your boyfriend disagrees and wants you to abort. According to "pro-choice" principles, it should be your decision, right? After all, you're the one carrying the baby.

Now imagine that your boyfriend secretly feeds you a pill that causes you to have a miscarriage. It starts off as stomach cramps, but when you get to the emergency ward you lose the baby. Your boyfriend killed the baby that you wanted so dearly.

Now suppose that the courts had no regard for the fact that you lost your baby. They don't care about your baby or about your feelings. Your boyfriend is simply charged with aggravated assault and administering a toxic substance. No consideration is given to your child.

Would you call that a pro-choice society that respects your choice to keep your baby?

As you probably guessed, this is not an imaginary scenario. It happenend in Montreal just a few years ago. Read the story yourself at CBC's website: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/05/19/misarriage_justice0140519.html

This wouldn't happen if we had a law like Bill C-484 that would make it a separate crime for an abusive boyfriend to take away your unborn baby.

Tell your MP that Canada needs this law in order to advance women's rights.

Don't listen to those pseudo-feminists out there who claim that Bill C-484 will imperil a woman's right to have an abortion. This is not about abortion. It's about a woman's right to choose to keep her baby. Ignore those fanatics and tell your MP to support C-484.

Bill C-484 brings out worst in pro-aborts

Pro-aborts in Canada is getting worked up about bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act. This bill seeks to make it a separate crime to kill an unborn baby. Sounds like a reasonable proposition for a civilized society, right? After all, science has proven without a doubt that an unborn baby is a live human being that is distinct from her mother. Among the piles of evidence, which could fill volumes of medical journals, we need only cite the fact that the unborn child has a distinct DNA from her mother, which is an unmistakable sign that she is not part of her body. Case closed.

But pro-aborts will not tolerate this bill. The "right to choose" does not apply to women who choose to keep their babies and pursue their pregnancy. So if some brute comes along and assaults an expectant mother, thus killing the baby in her tummy, too bad so sad. Get over it girl. It was just a "clump of cells" in your belly.

Case in point: this month, Alan Bryan of Nova Scotia was sentenced to 15 years in jail for his brutal attack on his then-pregnant girlfriend Charlene Knapp. The crimes? Attempted murder of Charlene, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and possession of a dangerous weapon. No murder charge for killing the baby by stabbing it with a sword.

Charlene was 8 months pregnant. "I lost my son (who) was my future," she said.

But the pro-aborts have little sympathy for Charlene. They have launched a campaign against the bill called "One body. One person. One count."

Nice catchy phrase, but so erroneus you'd think they were still reading medical textbooks from the Middle Ages. Modern science has destroyed the "one body" myth. That "clump of cells" in the ultrasound sure looks a lot like a human. What a coincidence that the clump lines up that way, eh? Not only does an unborn child have her own distinct DNA, she also has her own heart beat, arms, legs, head, etc. Gee, do pregnant women temporarily grow an extra heart and a few spare limbs? Those spare parts could sure come in handy, especially the brain, which seems dramatically deficient in some pro-aborts.

Grow up. We're not in the Middle Ages anymore.

The pro-aborts, in their typical exemplary altruism, are barking that the grief of women like Charlene must be ignored. In fact, they despise Charlene's tears and the media attention she gets because it draws Canadians' attention to a gaping hole in our justice system.

For the pro-aborts, Charlene is just too emotion. No murder was committed. Just an assault on a woman with an inflated belly. Perhaps she was just overweight? At most she only had a cumbersome "clump of cells" in her womb that doesn't count. But certainly no baby in there. In fact, you should be happy, Charlene, because it will be easier to fasten your seatbelt now. You'll also be able to fit into your old clothes again. Your ex did you a favour. We sent him a Hallmark on your behalf.

Pro-aborts are so determined to cling to their license to kill their unwanted babies that they won't let the wanted babies be safe either.

An Environics poll released in late 2007 showed that 72% of Canadians and 75% of women support a law that would make it a separate crime to kill a fetus during an attack on a pregnant woman. That's an overwhelming majority. You'll rarely find such a consensus on any subject in this country.

If democracy is to be served, this bill must be passed. Make sure your MP knows your opinion.

McGuinty is ashamed to be an Ontarian

I am very disappointed by Premier McGuinty's suggestion of removing the Lord's Prayer from legislative business.

Ontario has a Christian heritage. The most recent available data from Statistics Canada says that 75% of Ontarians identify themselves as Christians. No other group comes close.

I understand that Ontario also has other small religious communities. They are most welcome in our province. However, that doesn't mean that we should deny who we are.

The Premier's proposal sounds like he is ashamed to be an Ontarian. He is so insecure about our cultural and religious heritage that he feels that we need to be apologizing to other religious groups who don't even feel offended.

If we follow the Premier's logic, we should start speaking Chinese or Arab in the Legislature just to be more "accomodating." After all, only 71% of Ontarians identify English as their mother tongue, a smaller percentage than the share of Christians.

So if we're going to ban a Christian prayer in the Legislature, why not ban English? Why should everybody speak English? Isn't that intolerant too? Why not a free for all?

McGuinty's proposal has no logic and just anti-Christian bigotry. Period.

He can claim he's a Christian, but he isn't. Everything he says and does proves it.

He's like a polar bear who paints himself in black and yellow and then claims to be a penguin. Nice try, Dalton, but you ain't foolin' anybody.

Pro-Aborts Don't Seem To Care About Anybody But #1

Pro-aborts in Canada is getting worked up about bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act. This bill seeks to make it a separate crime to kill an unborn baby.

Sounds like a reasonable proposition for a civilized society, right? After all, science has proven without a doubt that an unborn baby is a live human being that is distinct from her mother. Among the piles of evidence, which could fill volumes of medical journals, we need only cite the fact that the unborn child has a distinct DNA from her mother, which is an unmistakable sign that she is not part of her body. Case closed.

But pro-aborts will not tolerate this bill. The "right to choose" does not apply to women who choose to keep their babies and pursue their pregnancy. So if some brute comes along and assaults an expectant mother, thus killing the baby in her tummy, too bad so sad. Get over it girl. It was just a "clump of cells" in your belly.

Case in point: last week, Alan Bryan of Nova Scotia was sentenced to 15 years in jail for his brutal attack on his then-pregnant girlfriend Charlene Knapp. The crimes? Attempted murder of Charlene, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and possession of a dangerous weapon. No murder charge for killing the baby by stabbing it with a sword.

Charlene was 8 months pregnant. "I lost my son (who) was my future," she said.

But the pro-aborts have no sympathy for Charlene. They have launched a campaign against the bill called "One body. One person. One count." Nice catchy phrase, but so erroneus you'd think they were still reading medical textbooks from the Middle Ages, when lobotomies were the latest breakthrough.

Reminds me of smoking. Back in the 1950s, we didn't know that smoking was bad for our health. Today, anybody with a semblance of a brain knows that cigarettes are toxic.

Likewise, modern science has destroyed the "one body" myth. That "clump of cells" in the ultrasound sure looks a lot like a human. What a coincidence that the clump lines up that way, eh?

Not only does an unborn child have her own distinct DNA, she also has her own heart beat, arms, legs, head, etc. Gee, do pregnant women temporarily grow an extra heart and a few spare limbs? Those spare parts could sure come in handy, especially the brain, which seems dramatically deficient in some pro-aborts.

Grow up. We're not in the Middle Ages anymore.

The pro-aborts, in their typical exemplary altruism, are barking that the grief of women like Charlene must be ignored. In fact, they despise Charlene's tears and the media attention she gets because it draws Canadians' attention to a gaping hole in our justice system.

For the pro-aborts, Charlene is just too emotion. No murder was committed. Just an assault on a woman with an inflated belly. Perhaps she was just overweight? At most she only had a cumbersome "clump of cells" in her womb that doesn't count. But certainly no baby in there. In fact, you should be happy, Charlene, because it will be easier to fasten your seatbelt now. You'll also be able to fit into your old clothes again. Your ex did you a favour. We sent him a Hallmark on your behalf.

Once again, the pro-aborts are showing their true colors. They are so determined to cling to their license to kill their unwanted babies that they won't let the wanted babies be safe either.

The most tragic part of the story is that our political leaders are unlikely to support this bill because their IQ is even lower than the pro-aborts. Unless Canadians put some pressure on them.

That's not asking much. An Environics poll released in late 2007 showed that 72% of Canadians and 75% of women support a law that would make it a separate crime to kill a fetus during an attack on a pregnant woman. That's an overwhelming majority.

But where will those Canadians be when the politicians are voting on the issue? Will Canadians demand a change to legislation? What will YOU do about?

Make a move. It could be your baby that is killed with impunity someday.

Canadian Only Sentenced for Attempted Murder Despite Killing Unborn Child

By John-Henry Westen

DARTMOUTH, February 15, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Alan Bryan, 43, of Nova Scotia, was sentenced to 15 years in jail Thursday for his brutal attack on his then-pregnant girlfriend Charlene Knapp. Knapp, 28, was four months pregnant on July 31 when Bryan stabbed her up to 15 times with a sword. Knapp survived the attack, but the child in her womb was killed.

Despite his killing the unborn child, Bryan was never charged with murder, since a child in utero is not considered a human being in Canadian law. A bill before the legislature seeks to remedy that situation. Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime act would make it a separate crime to kill an unborn child during an act of violence against the mother. It is scheduled to be voted on in the Commons on March 5th.

Knapp, who was due to give birth this month, told Canwest News Service, "I just had to be here to see him go away, to know that he will never take anything else from me again."
Knapp still suffers from the attack and walks with a cane. "I lost my son (who) was my future," she said.

Bryan pleaded guilty to attempted murder, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and possession of a dangerous weapon.

"The case of Charlene Knapp, who was stabbed multiple times last summer, clearly demonstrates the need for a legislation like Bill C-484," said Marie Christine Houle, Executive Director of Women for Women's Health, an organization that has worked with families of victims of similar incidents to lobby for the legislation.

"Knapp was targeted BECAUSE she was pregnant. She was stripped of her right to hold and care for her child" said Houle.

"The Canadian government should acknowledge the tremendous loss that is the death of a desired unborn baby because of a violent and in this case vicious attack. We urge the Members of Parliaments to ponder what type of message they are sending about the importance of motherhood should they chose to vote against this bill on March 5th."

Healthy Chocolate To Support Pro-Life Causes!

Do you like chocolate? I LOVE it!

Did you know that pure chocolate is very healthy? It was a real revelation for me.

Now I'm selling healthy chocolates and donating the proceeds to pro-life causes.

Check it out at this site! You'll be improving your health while supporting pro-life causes!

No more guilt when you eat chocolate!

Whimpy Harper doesn't care about free speech

Stephen Harper is proving to be a merciless political opportunist.

Canadians are having their freedom of speech threatened (see article below), but the Prime Minster has ordered his party to remain silent on the issue, probably out of fear of losing some "left-wing" votes. In the process, he is alienating "right-wing" voters. In the end, Harper may end up losing both sides.

Harper has frequently abandoned policies that appeal to the Right because he figures that conservatives have nowhere else to park their vote. Well Stephen, watch out in the next election. Some of us will stay home on election night rather than vote for a PM that takes us for granted.

Read this awesome article that appeared in today's National Post by Kathy Shaidle.


Gag me with a memo

Free speech is being undermined by 'human rights.' Why is Stephen Harper averting his gaze?

By Kathy Shaidle, National Post
Published: Wednesday, February 13, 2008

The federal Justice Minister's Irony Detector must be in the shop for a tune-up. How else to explain the memo issued by Rob Nicholson's office to every Conservative MP last week?

According to Al Siebring at NoApologies.ca, who leaked the confidential memo entitled Talking Points re: CHRA & CHRC, "it basically instructs MPs to keep a very low profile on any discussion surrounding Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act."

[Quick note: "Talking Points" are pre-written lines that politicians are supposed to use when asked about thorny issues.]

I suppose those bloggers who've been running netroots "free speech" campaigns since late last year can look at it this way: That "Talking Points" memo shows that the government has indeed been getting all our calls, faxes and e-mails.

Too bad the PMO's response to citizens' concerns about the erosion of their free speech rights is to issue a (secret) document, telling our elected representatives to keep quiet or change the subject.

Sounds more like a "(Stop) Talking Points" memo. Let's review:

Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant, along with Maclean's magazine and columnist Mark Steyn, are being hauled before various Canadian human rights commissions (CHRCs): the former for publishing the controversial "Muhammad" cartoons, the latter for excerpting Steyn's bestselling book America Alone.

Self-styled representatives of the Muslim community accuse Levant and Maclean's of violating the Canadian Human Rights Act, because what they published is allegedly, in the words of Section 13.1, "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt."

Note that magic word "likely." No need to prove that these publications inspired actual hate crimes, like arson or assault. Rather, appointed CHRC bureaucrats need merely deem it "likely" that the Western Standard or Maclean's magazine might inspire persons unknown to commit offenses of some sort or other between now and the end of the world.

It's "thought crime" meets "future crime," but without the cool flying cars you'd at least get in a dystopian sci-fi flick.

[Quick note: the burden of proof in CHRC hearings is much lower than in a regular court trial. You don't need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". Often, the hearings are not presided by a judge or even a lawyer, but rather some bureaucrat. The plaintiff never pays his/her legal fees (they're paid through your taxes) while the defendant always pays his/her legal fees, even if found innocent. Typically, the plaintiff always wins.]

As word of this Orwellian state of affairs spread beyond Canadian bloggers into the mainstream media, it was a Liberal MP, Dr. Keith Martin, who introduced private members motion M-446, which reads: "That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act."

In fact, as Ezra Levant himself observed on his website yesterday, Liberals like Martin, not to mention the Alberta Liberal party, have displayed more vocal, principled opposition to CHRC abuses than their Conservative counterparts.

Sure enough, the Justice Minister's "Talking Points" memo consists mostly of empty calorie cliches.

If asked about the Levant and Steyn cases by journalists or constituents, Conservative MPs are instructed to stress that the Harper government "is committed to the protection and promotion of human rights," and add that "Canada's record on human rights is second to none."

Then, if "asked about the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and its processes," the memo advises, "refer [the] letter writer to the CHRC's website."

[Quick note: Regular people would call this "avoiding the question"]

Sounds like that twist ending to many a horror film, when the lone survivor is finally "rescued" -- and driven right back to the zombie compound.

Finally, MPs are told to steer the subject away from Keith Martin's call to amend Section 13, and to focus instead on the "government's ongoing efforts" -- which many "free speech" frontliners are hearing about for the first time-- "to repeal Section 67 of the Act." This is the provision that, as the memo explains, exempts First Nations "from receiving the same legal protection against discrimination that is afforded to all other Canadians."

A worthy goal, but please: One normally has to attend a high school talent show to witness such amateur sleight of hand.

When bloggers first heard of the accusations against Steyn and Levant, and began mounting campaigns to "stop the CHRCs" from further stifling freedom of speech, many were encouraged by a rediscovered, then widely circulated, quotation from future Prime Minister Stephen Harper, circa 1999:

"Human Rights Commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society … It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."

Looks like Stephen Harper lost a few things during his move to 24 Sussex Drive. Namely, a principle or two.

- Kathy Shaidle blogs at FiveFeetOfFury.com.

The myth of condoms for disease prevention

(Largely taken from an article of Zenit.org by Father John Flynn, LC)

The simplistic assumption that condoms are the solution to sexually transmitted diseases is increasingly being proved false. Let's forget morality issues for a moment and just focus on matters that can be proven by scientific facts.

In its Jan. 26 issue, the British Medical Journal published a forum on condoms, with contrasting articles for and against on the topic. Even the article in favor of condoms, by Markus Steiner and Willard Cates, admitted that in addition to condoms there is a need for "risk avoidance and risk reduction approaches." Such measures, they explained, include delayed initiation of sexual intercourse, and mutual faithfulness.

In his article putting forward the "no" case, Stephen Genuis clearly stated: "Firstly, condoms cannot be the definitive answer to sexually transmitted infection because they provide insufficient protection against transmission of many common diseases." Genius also pointed out that: "Epidemiological research repeatedly shows that condom familiarity and risk awareness do not result in sustained safer sex choices in real life."

Faced with such arguments about the failure of condoms and sex education campaigns, the reaction is often to call for more of the same. A typical example was the recent news from Australia, where it was found that 60% of Australian women who have unplanned pregnancies were using contraceptive pills or condoms. According to the Jan. 30 report by the Melbourne-based Age newspaper, family planning groups responded by calling for more sexual education programs. Similarly, in the days preceding Brazil's Carnival celebrations authorities announced they would be handing out 19.5 million free condoms, reported Reuters on Jan. 28.

Nevertheless, in his British Medical Journal article Genius pointed out the fallacy of such arguments. In relation to condom and "safe sex" campaigns, he said: "The relentless rise of sexually transmitted infection in the face of unprecedented education about and promotion of condoms is testament to the lack of success of this approach.

"In numerous large studies, concerted efforts to promote use of condoms has consistently failed to control rates of sexually transmitted infection -- even in countries with advanced sex education programs such as Canada, Sweden and Switzerland."

In countries such as Thailand and Cambodia, where sexually transmitted infections have diminished, Genius argued that a careful scrutiny of the data reveals that the changes resulted not from condom use, but from changes in sexual behavior.

Excessive reliance on condoms to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa was criticized in a book published last year. Helen Epstein, in "The Invisible Cure: Africa, The West, And the Fight Against Aids," (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux), also had reservations about sexual abstinence campaigns, but did admit the importance of changing sexual behavior.

In trying to find the causes of the high degree of infections in Africa, researchers found that a relatively high proportion of African men and women had simultaneous sexual relations with two or three partners. Compared to serial monogamy more common in Western countries, the concurrent relationships greatly increase the risk of a rapid diffusion of sexual diseases.

Epstein was highly critical of the AIDS campaigns run by Western groups. Organizations such as Population Services International, Family Health International and Marie Stopes International were first active in population control efforts, she noted. In more recent years their activity in campaigns promoting condom use resulted in publicity that in effect promoted sexual activity, and in some cases "bordered on the misogynistic," Epstein added. The message was that casual sex was nothing to worry about, so long as you used a condom. Apart from promoting behavior that only fueled infections, Epstein also commented that often the campaigns clashed with local sensibilities concerning decency and self-respect.

Epstein also criticized the organizations and the United Nations for playing down the role of infidelity in the spread of HIV/AIDS. She recounted her experience at an international AIDS conference in Bangkok, where researchers presenting evidence about the importance of fidelity in preventing infection were "practically booed off the stage."

Another book published last year, "The AIDS Pandemic: The Collision of Epidemiology With Political Correctness" (Radcliffe Publishing), also pointed out the need to change sexual behavior, instead of a wholesale reliance on condoms.

The positive contribution that religion can make in changing sexual behavior was recognized in a RAND Corporation study published last year. People who are HIV-positive and say religion is an important part of their lives are likely to have fewer sexual partners and are less likely to spread the virus, according to the study: "Religiosity, Denominational Affiliation and Sexual Behaviors Among People with HIV in the U.S."

"Religiosity is an untapped resource in the whole struggle against HIV and AIDS, and should be looked at more thoroughly," commented Frank Galvan, lead author of the study in the April 3 press release accompanying the report.

Christianity and sexuality

Authentic Christianity does not teach that sex is bad. On the contrary, sex is so awesome and sacred that it deserves special attention and consideration.

The Church's view about condoms does not base itself on to what extent it may help resolve health problems. Sexuality, explains No. 2332 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, affects all of the human person, body and soul. It's not some sort of sport or passtime. It concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and procreate, and forming communion with others. It is a very deep experience.e

Sexuality is truly human and personal when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, a relationship that is a complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman, the Catechism observes (No. 2337).

Benedict XVI addressed the HIV/AIDS issue in a couple of recent speeches made when receiving the credentials of new ambassadors. On Dec. 13, in his address to Peter Hitjitevi Katjavivi from Namibia, the Pope recognized the urgent need to halt the spread of infections.
"I assure the people of your country that the Church will continue to assist those who suffer from AIDS and to support their families," the Pope stated.

The Church's contribution to the goal of eradicating AIDS, the Pontiff continued, "cannot but draw its inspiration from the Christian conception of human love and sexuality." This vision sees marriage as a total, reciprocal and exclusive communion of love between a man and a woman, Benedict XVI explained.

The same day, in a speech to Elizabeth Ya Eli Harding, Gambia's new ambassador to the Holy See, the Pope stated that while medicine and education have a part to play in combating HIV/AIDS: "Promiscuous sexual conduct is a root cause of many moral and physical ills and must be overcome by promoting a culture of marital faithfulness and moral integrity."

David Suzuki: Environmental Dictator

From LifeSiteNews.com

By John Jalsevac

MONTREAL, Quebec, February 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - There are very few Canadians who would not immediately recognize the face of David Suzuki, Canada's environmentalist extraordinaire.

In Canada the name of Suzuki is almost synonymous with environmentalism, with his fame and reputation having been solidified by years of successful lecturing, activism, and internationally syndicated television programs, including the famous The Nature of Things. He is often described with the words "prophet" or "guru," and is widely hailed for his "wisdom." Besides having been awarded the highest award possible for a Canadian citizen - the Order of Canada - Suzuki has been the recipient of twenty-two honorary degrees.

Hence, when Suzuki speaks, Canada listens. And a week and a half ago Canada listened as the sixty-one year old scientist and activist called, again, for the imprisonment of politicians who deny climate change.

Suzuki made the remarks during a speech at McGill University.

"What I would challenge you to do," said Suzuki to the gathered students, during the section of his speech dealing with climate change, and those who deny its existence, "is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act."

"It's an intergenerational crime in the face of all the knowledge and science from over 20 years."
The packed room of 600 listeners burst into applause. Some attendees at the speech reported that the line about throwing politicians in jail was the biggest applause-line of the night, almost bringing the crowd to its feet.

Subsequent to the speech, however, Suzuki's spokesman, Dan Maceluch, attempted to downplay Suzuki's remarks, saying that they were not meant to be taken literally."He's not advocating locking people up, but he is pulling his hair out," said Maceluch.

This is not, however, the first time that Suzuki has called for the imprisonment of those who don't buy into the climate change hype. While Suzuki's high-profile McGill speech has received the widest amount of media coverage, last month, in a University of Toronto speech, Suzuki made similar remarks. "[Governments] should go to jail for what they're not dong right now," said Suzuki on the occasion. "What our government is not doing, is a criminal act."

Despite Suzuki's spokesman's attempts to dissuade the environmentalist's listeners from a literal interpretation of his words, those who attended the speech have said that Suzuki did not seem to be joking, or even speaking hyperbolically."He sounded serious," said McGill Tribune news editor Vincci Tsui, as reported by the National Post. "I think he wanted to send home the message that this is very crucial issue.

Suzuki is well known to pro-life and pro-family advocates in Canada for his recurrent emphasis on so-called "sustainable development" and his ongoing preaching of the idea of over-population.
In Suzuki's world-view, human beings are nothing more than another species of animal - and indeed, in his own words, a "cancerous" animal - that has developed a superiority complex, leading humans to believe that they hold a privileged place in the cosmos.

Conservative commentators have reacted strongly to Suzuki's remarks as being further evidence of the ongoing whittling away of human rights in Canada, where those who disagree with the establishment, particularly those on the political and social right, are being increasingly persecuted.

As journalist Terry O'Neill wrote in an article published on Feb. 7 in the National Post, "We should also not be surprised at the intolerance that permeates Suzuki's 'lock 'em up' rhetoric. After all, despite the multicultural mantra that we 'celebrate our differences,' there's a disturbingly illiberal tendency these days (as shown in the recent 'human-rights' prosecutions of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, for example) to censor those with whom one doesn't agree. It's only a very small step to try to throw such disagreeable persons into prison, too." See related

LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

David Suzuki's gloomy world of nothingness
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/1999/dec/991215a.html

Environmentalist Guru Suzuki Denounces Stephen Harper at Campaign Stop
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07030110.html

Call for Action - Save Lauren Richardson!

Another innocent person is on the verge of being starved to death: a young American woman named Lauren Richardson.

Read the story here.

Please do something. At a minimum, you can pray.

Canadian hospital planning to starve a man to death

A man is on the verge of being put to death by starvation in a Winnipeg hospital. Sounds like something out of a horror movie. Read below and take action before it's too late.

It's not often that an opportunity arises where we can contribute to the saving of a life. This is one such opportunity.

Samuel Golubchuk is an elderly resident of Winnipeg. Four years ago he became disabled after a fall. He became confined to a wheelchair and had difficulty communicating. Despite these impairments, Sam he led an active life under the loving care of his devoted family, friends, and the staff of the home where he lived.

In October 2007, Sam contracted pneumonia. He was brought to Winnipeg's Grace Hospital where, with treatment, he overcame his illness. Due to his weakened condition, however, Sam has not been able to return to his home and has remained in hospital where he is being fed through a tube and breathing with the on-again, off-again help of a respirator.

In November doctors decided that they should not have to continue providing Sam with basic medical care, citing his age and his diminished capacity as their reasons. They decided that his life was not worth living and they could unilaterally kill him by stopping all feeding.

Naturally, Sam's children refused to give their consent. However, the doctors opted to ignore the wishes of Sam's family. On November 30, the family sought and obtained a temporary Court Order prohibiting the hospital from killing Sam. The hospital is now fighting to have this Order overturned.

Sam's family is accumulating potentially ruinous legal fees defending their father's right to live. They need your help, not just to save Sam's life, but to help save the lives of so many other elderly or disabled who will be endangered by the legal precedent that could be established in this case. Please take a minute and visit Sam's website where you will find easy instructions on specific things that you can do to have an impact. The website is www.samuelgolubchuk.com.

Abortion's dirty secrets

A few weeks ago, a Spanish TV network called Intereconomia TV broadcast an investigative report that showed an undercover reporter posing as a physician in order to infiltrate an abortion clinic in Spain.

The video revealed illegal practices in the clinic. It also illustrated the gory reality of how abortion is the killing of a small human being. The video contained graphic images of live abortions.

The original report was only available in Spanish. However, several Spanish-speaking individuals combined their efforts to produce a version with English subtitles.

This video is available on YouTube at the following link or by clicking on the TV image below.

Regardless of your position on abortion, this video is a must-see. It's a real eye-opener.

WARNING: The video contains graphic images and may not be suitable for minors. Viewer discretion is advised.

Ultrasound Deemed Too Emotional by Pro-Abortionists

Read this awesome editorial on how pro-abortionists want to hide information from women so that they are not able to make a truly informed choice about whether to have an abortion. Are they really pro-women? Are they really pro-choice?



.

Dangers of homosexual lifestyle - Part 1

The homosexual lifestyle has been gaining legitimacy in the Western world over the past 20-30 years. The previous Liberal government contributed massively to this trend. With the legalization of same-sex marriage and the amendment of the hate-crimes legislation, the Liberal government sent a powerful message that the homosexual lifestyle should be regarded as "main stream" and must be endorsed by everybody. Stéphane Dion is a strong supporter of this position.

I think Canadians need to take a fresh look at this issue. This post is the first of a series of articles that will leave moral and religious considerations on the sidelines, in order to focus on the medical evidence and research regarding the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle. I will be presenting the straight facts, as reported by world-class researchers and rigorous scientific journals.

I am not seeking to condemn homosexuals. However, I recognize the fact that everybody has the power to choose their lifestyle. As such, I want Canadians to realize the risks involved with the homosexual lifestyle and the monumental mistake made by the Liberals in trying to legitimize this lifestyle. For the sake of the common good of our country, we should not be legitimizing behaviour that is very unhealthy.

For example, Canadian society is now aware of the health risks of smoking. We have many programs to help people quit and the government runs hard-hitting ads to convince people to kick the habit. As we will see, medical research has revealed that the homosexual lifestyle is even more dangerous to health than smoking. So why are we legitimizing this behaviour?

No doubt people will accuse me of being intolerant, hateful, homophobic and closed-minded. By doing so, they will in fact prove that they are the closed-minded ones, because they are unwilling to consider solid scientific evidence and reconsider some of their beliefs.


Exhibit #1: Study finds homosexual lifestyle to be more dangerous than smoking

Studies have shown that years of smoking shortens the lifespan of the smoker from 1 to 7 years. Recent analysis of the age of death in Norway and Denmark for gays who are legally married suggests that engaging in homosexual behavior reduces the lifespan by 24 years. These results were presented by Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron at the annual convention of the Eastern Psychological Association on March 23, 2007.

• According to their data for Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74 years, while the partnered gays died at an average age of 51. In Norway, married heterosexual men died at an average age of 77, compared to 52 years old for the married gay men in the study.

• With respect to women, Danish heterosexual married women died at an average age of 78 years, compared to 56 years for the lesbians studied. In Norway, women married to men died at an average age of 81, compared to 56 years for lesbians.

According to Dr. Cameron, "The consistency of reduced lifespan for those engaging in homosexuality is significant. The same pattern of early death turned up whether we looked at obituaries in the U.S. or deaths in marriage. Given the greatly reduced lifespan for homosexuals, school children should be strongly and consistently warned about the dangers of homosexuality even more so than smoking. Those school districts which are introducing pro-gay curricula need to rethink their priorities."

This has important implications for the debate on homosexual adoption. If the parents are likely to die young, is it advisable to allow them to adopt children? Is this in the best interests of the child?

New Blogs Aggregator

There is a new Christian blog aggregator on the Net, called Canadian Cross-Bloggers. Check it out!


.

Abortion when the woman's life is in danger

Some people ask: "Why don't pro-lifers accept abortion when the woman's life is in danger? Are they anti-woman?"

First of all, I would like to extend my sincerest sympathies to any couple which is faced with a pregnancy where the mother's life is in danger. That's a very difficult situation. My heart and prayers go out to them.

Obviously, when the life of the mother is at risk, it is justifiable to intervene, even if the baby dies. That is what pro-lifers believe. Only a thin veil separates pro-lifers and pro-choicers when the health of the mother is in danger. The nuance between the two is this: pro-lifers recognize that the standard abortion procedure is not the appropriate surgical intervention to be made in such a case. Another approach should be used that doesn't seek to kill the unborn baby so directly. Yes, it may have the same result of killing the baby (as a secondary effect), but you wouldn't use the standard abortion procedure (which is simply a seek-and-destroy mission against the unborn child). For pro-lifers, the intention is not to kill the baby but to allow surgeons to access fix the mother's health problem. If anything could possibly be done to save the mother while also saving the baby, it would be done. But if the two are mutually exclusive, it is justifiable to take an action that would save the mom and have a secondary effect of killing the baby.

Intentions and the means of action are important in a civilized society. For example, intention makes all the difference between first degree murder and self-defense. Likewise, if you need to put your sick dog to sleep, you would choose a means of action that results in the least amount of suffering possible for your dog. I'll say it again: intentions and the means of action are important in a civilized society.

Medical research has shown that there is no health condition of an expectant mother that absolutely requires the standard abortion procedures in order to save the woman's life. None. There is always another way to save the woman's life, a way that is more respectful of the unborn baby, even if the baby has to die as a secondary effect. That's the basic reasoning of pro-lifers. That's why pro-lifers believe that all forms of abortion can be banned without the risk of criminal prosecution in the case where a woman's life is in danger.

Pro-lifers are not anti-woman. We just want to make sure that no abusive measures are taken against the unborn child. So contrary to what some other bloggers may claim, pro-lifers accept that a mother's life may be saved, even if the unborn child dies. Moreover, abortion can be banned without having women worry about criminal prosecution if the pregnancy is ended because their life is in danger.

Big Blue Wave provides another intelligent and accurate discussion of this topic.

Take care.


.

Maine school teaches kids 'transgendering'

Further signs of a society gone mad. Cony High School in Augusta, Maine, held a "Diversity Day" on February 5th. This included a workshop for the youngest students on "transgendering", which featured a female student who is currently undergoing hormone therapy so that she can pretend to become boy.

More and more, the public school system is being ruled by so-called "progressive" activists who are determined to make kids believe that homosexuality and transgendering are a normal way of life. Unfortunately, they aren't. The normal way of life is the way that is determined by nature and by our biology. No wonder our adolescents are confused to the point of skyrocketing drop-out rates and suicide rates.

Read more about it here.

Liberal hypocrisy on environment knows no bounds

It's amazing the hypocrisy of those Liberals on Kyoto. After failing to reduce greenhouse emissions during their 13 years in power, they are now passing a bill requiring the Conservatives to meet the unrealistic target in about 4 years.

Here's a great post by Larry Borsato on the topic.



.

Income-splitting is about fairness

Income-splitting is a must for Canada. It is imperative that we remove the discrimination against stay-at-home parents that is currently built in the tax system. This not about giving them special treatment. It's about stopping the discrimination against them. The U.S. and many European countries already have income-splitting. Are we dumber than they are? What are we waiting for?

Currently, the tax system is set up so that each individual in a family files his/her own income tax return. Under this system, the percentage of your income going to taxes increases as your earnings increase. As a result, a family with two working parents each earning $30,000 will pay much less taxes than a family where one parent earns $60,000 and the other parent stays at home, despite the fact that total family income is the same in both cases.

This treatment is unfair. It discriminates against families that chose to have one parent stay at home with the kids (P.S.: it's better that your kids get raised by one of the parents rather than by an under-paid and over-worked day-care worker).

Income-splitting would fix this problem and put both types of families on equal footing.

Myths about income-splitting

1. It gives preferential treatment to "lazy" families where only one parent wants to work.

This is totally false and very insulting. As explained above, families with one earner do not get any preferential treatment. Rather, they are placed on an equal footing with double-earning families by ending the discrimination in the tax code. Moreover, it is extrememly arrogant to claim that stay-at-home parents are lazy. They work very hard and deserve that the tax system treat their family fairly.

2. Income-splitting only benefits the wealthy

This is a popular myth among left-leaning groups. They think it's their best argument but it's really just hot air. First, the truth is that every single-earning family will benefit from income-splitting. Rich or poor, all families will benefit. Even some double-income families will benefit if there is a significant gap between the earnings of the spouses.

Second, you have to remember that low-income individuals usually don't pay much tax. It's the middle-class and the wealthy that pay all the taxes in Canada. Consequently, any tax cut is only going to benefit people who pay taxes, i.e. middle-income and wealthy people. It's not a crime to reduce the tax burden of those groups, as long as low-income people aren't affected.

3. Instead of income-splitting, we need subsidized daycare.

This is a classic NDP argument. Unfortunately, it's not very consistent with their anti-rich ideology.

Think about it: which families are most likely to have the highest incomes, the families with two-income earners or the families with just one income-earner? You guessed it, two income-earners will typically be more wealthy. Families with two-incomes are also the ones that need daycare, because there's nobody home to look after the kids. So the NDP is essentially saying that we need to provide a subsidized program that will benefit the more wealthy families, while the poorer families with only one income should continue to be discriminated against by the tax system.

Call it a reverse-Robin Hood. That's not the Canada I want to live in.

In the end, it's a no-brainer. Income-splitting is the way to go.

Liberals opposed to crackdown on sexual exploitation of women

According to a press release issued today by the Liberals, all Opposition members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women voted against a Conservative motion to change the mandate of Status of Women Canada (SOW) so that it focuses on sexual exploitation of women.

Although the Liberals tried to put a positive spin on their press release, the message was clear: the exploitation of women is not their priority. The press release conceded that this type of exploitation is unacceptable, but that SOW has better things to do with its limited resources.

What could possibly be more important than the exploitation of women? Let's have a look at the mandate of the SOW, taken directly from it's web site:

"Status of Women Canada (SWC) is the federal government agency which promotes gender equality, and the full participation of women in the economic, social, cultural and political life of the country. SWC focuses its work in three areas: improving women's economic autonomy and well-being, eliminating systemic violence against women and children, and advancing women's human rights."

So the Liberals and other Opposition parties don't want to make women's exploitation the main priority (which would fall under the 2nd and 3rd areas of the SOW's mandate, as explained in the previous paragraph). That means they prefer focusing on economic, social, cultural and political issues (the 1st area).

Does that make sense to you? Every day, women are being sexually exploited on our streets, and some of them end up dead because they didn't produce enough cash for their pimp. Shouldn't this be the priority? Why does the Opposition prefer to focus on much more trivial issues? Is their head screwed on straight? Hello? Anybody home?

I've witnessed this abuse first hand, as I saw a prostitute crying as she exited the house of one of her clients. My friend and I tried to console her and we gave her a ride home.

It's no secret that many members of the Liberal Party are in favor of the legalization of prostitution. From the top of their ivory towers, they don't realize how much pain prostitution causes women and how abused and used they feel.

Once again, the Liberals are out of touch with reality.

Heart and Stroke Foundation funds embryonic stem cell research

The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada funds embryonic stem cell research as well as research on body parts of aborted babies.

Embryonic stem cell research involves the creation of human beings in laboratories and then destroying them to collect their cells.

This practice started in 2003 after it issued a "Human Stem Cell Research Policy Statement" in which it admitted the following: "In sum, the Foundation will fund research that derives stem cells from i) existing human embryos or, ii) human fetal material resulting from elective abortions".

Because of their contempt for life, pro-life groups are calling for a boycott of the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

Moreover, even abstracting from the destruction of human life, the Foundation is making a poor use of its donations because it focuses on the type of stem cell research that is least promising. Despite all the media hype surrounding embryonic stem cell research, not a single breakthrough leading to treatment on humans has been achieved. The real area with potential in this field is adult stem cell research, where cells are ethically extracted from adults or from blood from umbilical cords. Countless treatments for humans currently exist based on breakthroughs made with adult stem cells. Everyday people are already benefiting from adult stem cell research.

So not only is the Foundation engaging in unethical research, they are also wasting people's money by making research in the least promising area.

For these reasons, I support this boycott and will not be making donations to this organization.

"I call on Dion to cure cancer by 2012"

What hypocrisy and arrogance on the part of Stéphane Dion and the other opposition parties. Yesterday, the Liberals, Bloc and NDP voted in favour of a motion calling on the government to "meet Canada's Kyoto commitments".

They obviously still don't get it. 2012 is only five years away. It is absolutely impossible to reach the Kyoto targets without plunging Canada into a serious recession.

Their motion is as stupid as a motion calling on the government to find a cure to cancer.

Besides, Dion himself was Environment Minister while Canada's emissions kept growing and growing. So if he couldn't stop the hemorrage, how can he have the gall to ask the Conservatives to fix his problem?

Obviously, the Conservatives' record on the environment is less than stellar. But to ask them to do the impossible is just a silly, immature political ploy to score cheap points.

We need a realistic plan that is doable, not some infantile rhetoric. We need real commitment from this government, not absurd posturing by the opposition.

That's not real leadership, Mr. Dion.

Dion's hidden agenda includes NEP2

The cat is out of the bag. Liberal MP Mark Holland, the Liberals' natural resource critic has revealed the Liberals' hidden agenda on the environment. He stated clearly and unambiguously on the radio last week that a Dion government would intervene to restrict the expansion of oil sands development in Alberta in order to reduce green house gas emissions.

The stunning revelation came during an interview with Charles Adler on Chorus Radio. You can hear the key portion of the interview by clicking on this link (make sure your speakers are turned on).

This is bad policy for several reasons:

• Once again, the Liberals are willing to interfere in an area of provincial jurisdiction (just like in the old days of the National Energy Program in the 1970s);
• Reducing production will result in job losses, economic hardships for thousands of families and slower economic growth;
• The economic prosperity in Alberta will be reduced, which will have spillover effects in neighboring provinces that were supplying resources and workers to fuel the Alberta boom. That means less economic activity and fewer jobs in other parts of Canada.
• Dion is unlikely to target just the oil sands. Any oil producing province could be targetted. That includes B.C., Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador;
• Lower oil output will result in higher prices across the country for gasoline and heating oil;
• Canadians who own income trusts in the oil sector are going to take another hit in the wallet book, because share prices will tumble;
• If the Liberals are willing to step on Alberta's toes, then no other province is safe either (the auto industry in Ontario should be severely concerned about draconian measures to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions).

Unfortunately, Stéphane Dion does not have the guts to reveal this hidden agenda openly. Fortunately it slipped out, otherwise we'd have no idea what horrors the Liberals have in store.

Hidden agendas and no guts. Dion is definitely not a true leader.

Soconblogs.com is officially lauched

There's a new aggregator in the Canadian blogoshere. It's called Soconblogs.com and it gathers a bunch of blogs that are pro-life and pro-family.

Although this is an initiative of the Family Coalition Party of Ontario, you do not need to be a member of the party or even reside in Ontario to join the gang. Everyone who holds that life is sacred and wishes to uphold traditional marriage is welcome.

Drop by for a visit today!

UK government muscles out adoption groups

The UK government, in its continued mindless push towards the destruction of the family, is essentially banning Christian groups from offering adoption services.

Prime Minister Tony Blair recently stated that British Catholic adoption agencies could not expect an exemption from a new law prohibiting "discrimination" in the provision of goods and services. The so-called "discrimination" is that all adoption agencies must allow homosexual couples to adopt children, even Christian agencies who believe that such behaviour is immoral and detrimental to the child's development.

To their credit, Christian adoption agencies are not caving in to the strong-arm tactics of the UK government. They would prefer to cease operations rather than be forced to act in a manner contrary to their beliefs and the interests of the child. But the UK government probably knew that these groups would not cave in, so this new "anti-discrimination" legislation was just a sneaky way of running these groups out of the adoption business.

Well, Mr. Blair, whose going to take care of all those orphans once you've eliminated the Christian adoption agencies? And who will stand up for the interests of these poor children, that the social-engineering government wants to propel into homosexual families without regard for the obvious shortcomings of this environment for the child's development.

It's not that homosexuals are less caring than other people. Rather, the lessons of biology, sociology, experience and just plain common sense tell us that the best environment for the development of a child is a stable family with a loving mother and father. For the sake of the children, we shouldn't be allowing homosexual couples to adopt, just like we shouldn't let single parents to adopt either.

But our society is not really concerned about the interests of the child. It's all about the "rights" of homosexuals. The child is essentially an object that gets passed around like a piece of luggage.

Y108 finally comes to its senses

Y108 radio station, which reaches millions of listeners in the Golden Horseshoe area, has finally decided to allow the airing of pro-life ads paid for by the Niagara Region Right to Life group.

The move comes only days after listeners and pro-life groups complained vigorously to the station for censoring the ads (read about the original controversy here).

This once again proves that the main stream media can be responsive when challenged in the public sphere. They need to be held accountable.

Y108 in Niagara censors pro-life ads

The Y108 radio station, which broadcasts into Toronto, Burlington, Kitchener-Waterloo, Guelph, Brantford and all through Niagara, has decided to pull some pro-life ads purchased by the Niagara Region Right to Life group. The reason? The station received seven complaints! Seven! The decision was made by the station manager, Suzanne Carpenter.

Don't they realize that this action is a limitation of freedom of speech and positions Y108 as being hostile to any pro-life groups? I guess that makes Y108 offically pro-abortion, to the point of wanting to silence one side of the debate.

I have read the advertisements in question and they are anything but offensive. Here is the text of the four ads:

1) "When they say that abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, aren’t they forgetting someone? I did....and I regret my abortion."

2) "When they say that abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, aren’t they forgetting someone? I did....abortion harms more than just the baby."

3) "When they say that abortion will solve your problem...the truth is that it cost us everything. Our baby, our peace of mind and each other."

4) "When they say that abortion will solve your problems...the truth is that it can cause suicidal thoughts, depression, guilt and often infertility."

Trailer: This message comes to you from Niagara Region Right To Life.


Do you think those are offensive ads? They simply relate negative experiences of people that have had abortions. The only reason why some people complained is because they are staunchly pro-abortion and do not want to allow other views to be expressed, lest society finally wake up and realize that abortion is the murder of an innocent baby.

Moreover, I would think that in a region as populous as Y108's listening area, 7 complaints should be considered as a drop in the bucket. This is far from a massive outcry against the radio station. I can't believe they are letting 7 radical pro-abortion militants manage their radio station. Where is their backbone?

I hope that this decision will be reversed, otherwise Y108 will likely incur irreparable damage to its reputation as a tolerant and inclusive radio station.

New York Times finally issues a correction

The mighty New York Times has finally succumbed to weeks of pressure from various groups that were demanding that they admit that they made a huge (perhaps deliberate) error in reporting regarding abortion in El Salvador. Read more about their gaffe here.

On Sunday, January 7th, 2007, the paper issued a "correction" to acknowledge their monumental blunder. Read about the correction here. However, the correction is very weakly worded and convoluted, which could lead a reader to believe that the issue was only a small technicality, when in fact it was a major blunder by the reporter.

The evidence suggests the the NYT only apologized to avoid further embarrassement and loss of credibility, not because they were genuinely sorry for an incompetent and biased piece of reporting. In fact, NYT Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. gave a in May 2006 in which he demonstrated his extreme pro-abortion and pro-same sex 'marriage' leanings.

When you consider the evidence, this seems like another instance where the main stream media was trying to push an agenda and only backed down after it realized how much egg it had on its face and how much of its credibility had been lost in the process.

That's why the blogoshere needs to be active in holding the main stream media accountable.
Chalk up another victory for LifeSiteNews.com and the bloggers against the main stream media.

Be on your toes journalists, because we're watching you closely.

Christian University Movement Making a Difference

The National Post recently reported on an event called Rise Up hosted by Catholic Christian Outreach (CCO) in Quebec City a few days ago.

CCO is a university-based movement designed to spread the Gospel on university campuses. You can read the National Post story here.

If you're a university-aged young adult and would like to get involved with CCO, please check out www.cco.ca.

New York Times proving it is not a real news source

The New York Times has been caught red-handed with distorting the facts by LifeSiteNews.com, a pro-life news agency.

The Public Editor (ombudsman) at the New York Times, in a 1,500 word article published on December 31, admits that LifeSiteNews.com was correct in exposing a grievous error in reporting by the New York Times Magazine.

In a nutshell, the Times was trying to portray an infanticide in El Salvador (where a live baby was deliberately strangled to death after birth) as an abortion that occurred at 18 weeks of pregnancy. The point was apparently to make El Salvador seem like an extremely right-wing country, where people get imprisoned for 30 years for an action that is legal in the US (i.e. abortion).

The author of the article, Jack Hitt, admits that he did not even read the final court ruling in the case, even though the ruling can be obtained very easily. That negligence and his total misrepresentation of the facts are sufficient to warrant a firing of Jack Hitt from the Times.

But it gets worse. Mr. Hitt's interview with the women convicted for the murder of her newborn was translated by an unpaid translator from the pro-abortion group IPAS. In addition to abortion advocacy, IPAS stands to profit financially from the legalization of abortion in El Salvador since it sells vacuum aspirators used for abortion and incomplete abortion. So Mr. Hitt wasn't smart enough to find an impartial translator. Again, gross negligence and awful reporting.

Read the full story here.

The latest disgusting twist in the story: The Times is considering abolishing the position of ombudsman that unmasked the Times' incompetence and pro-abortion bias!!! Read all about it here. To think that they would have the gall to abolish the position that is designed to ensure that reporting is accurate and fair.

Don't ever trust the New York Times again.

Folly: Ontario boy has 3 parents

Various news sources are reporting today about an absurd ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal that grants a boy three parents: the lesbian couple that is raising him (including his biological mom) and his biological dad, who donated the sperm.

Once again, the issue has been dealt with in a very narrow-minded fashion: only the interests of the parents count. Read through the reasons provided by the Court for their ruling and you'll see that they ignore the child's interests and only consider the parents interests.

WHAT ABOUT THE KID???!?!?!!?!!!!!

Hello? Is anybody paying attention? We have a young boy here who's future development is at stake.

Ga-zillions of studies have shown that a child develops best when raised by a mother and a father in a stable family. This ruling flies in the face of scientific research and common sense. The lesbian couple should never have been allowed to have this child.

It also shows once again how un-elected judges are taking the liberty to re-write the law. In the ruling, the judges gave themselves permission to "update" Ontario's laws to reflect new realities like same-sex couples and artificial insemination.

Society is going to keep going down hill until people wake up and realize that the child's interests also have to be taken into account.

The further we get from the traditional family, the more social problems and disturbed children we will have. Government has already redefined marriage to include same-sex couples. Now the Ontario court has redefined the family to include more than two parents. Where will it end? In the case of divorced couples where both parties get re-married (perhaps more than once), we could potentially have 4 or 6 parents. None of this is good for the child.

Unborn child is not just a "blob of tissue"

Some pro-abortion activists have been using the argument that a fetus is not a child, but rather a random blob of tissue. Fortunately, the development of ultra-sound technology is helping to put that myth to rest.

Here's a great video put together by Suzanne from Big Blue Wave that destroys the myth once and for all.

Carleton students go off deep end

It's finally done. The Carleton University Students' Association voted overwhelmingly on December 5th to deny resources, space, recognition or funding to "anti-choice" student groups, i.e. groups advocating an end to abortion.

They're trying to pretend that this is not limiting freedom of speech since pro-life students will still be able to gather on campus, but they won't be able to use facilities or resources of CUSA.

Not limiting freedom of speech, eh? Nice try. In the debating world, that's called an argument that commits suicide because the very essence of the argument contradicts what it is trying to prove.

Think for a second: Why did CUSA pass this motion in the first place? They say it was to end "discrimination", as they define it. According to CUSA, anybody who is advocating an end to abortion is acting in a discriminatory manner towards women. Therefore, these groups can't be tolerated and must be muzzled. Since CUSA does not possess all the necessary powers to enforce a strict suppression of these groups, it did the most that it could, by denying them any legitimacy, club status, resources or facilities. The point is precisely to shut down these groups. There is no other reason to pass this motion.

Supporters of the motion will claim that they've done nothing to restrain freedom of speech. That's baloney. They know that the purpose of denying club status to these groups was to make their life more difficult in the hopes of getting them out of their hair. Don't believe their rhetoric.

CUSA is so narrow-minded that it doesn't realize that abortion is one of the motion divisive issues of the last 50 years. CUSA is pretending as if the debate was settled and that it is somehow "common knowledge" that anybody with a contrary opinion is some sort of anti-woman bigot that can't be accepted on campus.

Having studied at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, I know how these student bodies get easily corrupted by the power game. Students are so young and imature that they readily seize any opportunity to impose their values on others. It's like having a child in a candy store. They can't resist.

It's hard to fathom the hypocrisy of a University in a democratic society allowing such a suppression of freedom of debate. It's mind-boggling.

Carleton, which was already struggling with an image of "Last Change U" is now clearly on the black list of flaky institutions. I would never study there and won't give a penny if they ask me to donate.

Why the vow of silence, Stephen?

What a shame that the Conservative Party is not allowing it's candidates or MPs to fill in questionnaires regarding their position on social issues such as abortion or same-sex marriage.

I thought Stephen Harper was supposed to end the "democratic deficit" that the Liberals were so fond of. I thought the Conservative Party was a "big tent" party that is open to diversity of views and discussion. I thought things would be different.

Stephen, you're alienating the social conservatives that helped you get elected. You're too soft, mushy and spineless.

Democracy is about allowing the people to chose the MPs that best represent their positions on key issues. So how the heck are we supposed to know the positions of the candidates if the Conservatives won't answer questions? Do they think we're so dumb that we'll vote blindly for them? Think again Stephen. You could be in for a big surprise come election time.

Carleton students get oppressive

As ridiculous as it sounds, a motion was presented at the council meeting of the Carleton University Students Association (CUSA) in order to prohibit any group opposed to abortion from attaining club status at the University. In other words, if your student club happens to believe that abortion is wrong, you're banned. The motion will be voted upon on December 5th.

The stupid motion was presented by Katy McIntyre, Vice President of CUSA Student Services. She calls it a "Motion to Amend Discrimination on Campus Policy". So here we have it. Being opposed to abortion is a form of discrimination. What's next? Are they going to screen students before admitting them to make sure that they conform to the ideology dictated by CUSA? How about gas chambers for pro-life students? Are we in the USSR or Nazi Germany?

What about freedom of expression and thought? What about tolerance of diversity? Universities are supposed to be places of open-mindedness, designed to widen students' horizons so that they gain a more comprehensive view of the world. That was certainly my experience during my five years of university studies. This "universal" vocation is at the very root of the word "university". Is anybody paying attention?

The CUSA motion is totally in opposition with these goals, by dictating a specific belief system onto students and prohibiting activities of anyone opposed to those beliefs.

Have you noticed that these left-leaning activists make a selective interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? They only quote it when it serves their purposes. That's because they're not really interested in freedom, but rather they want to impose their views. Well, here's a news flash for CUSA and Ms. McIntyre. The Charter states:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

Did you get that CUSA? Freedom of thought, belief, opinion, expression, peaceful assembly and association. Those are the fundamental rights you are trying to repress.

So far, the University authorities have refused to get involved, stating that they don't usually interfere with student activities. Well, I think they need to wake up before Carleton gets labelled as a closed-minded, repressive institution where opposing views are not welcome. In particular, the University's president, Dr. Samy Mahmoud, should realize how much is at stake.

Moreover, if the motion is defeated, Ms. McIntyre should be requested to resign her position for such an intolerant attitude.

If this motion of CUSA disturbs you, please let the president know about your concerns by dropping him an email:

Dr. Samy Mahmoud President and Vice-Chancellor Pro Tempore
presidents_office@carleton.ca

Elton John guilty of religious hatred and bigotry

Well, I can't say I'm surprised. I feel rather insulted and threatened. To be frank, I'm quite afraid that my freedoms will be suppressed. The homosexual lobby continues its attack on religious people of all stripes. The name calling and verbal-engineering never seem to stop. I'm starting to fear for my freedoms.

In a discussion published this week in The Observer Music Monthly, Elton John is quoted as saying:

"I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people. Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays. But there are so many Christian people I know who are gay and love their religion . . . From my point of view I would ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it. I love the idea of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the beautiful stories about it, which I loved in Sunday school and I collected all the little stickers and put them in my book. But the reality is that organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."

Now I clearly see the true face of the homosexual agenda and it frightens me. They are not truly interested in freedom of speech or human rights, because anytime someone voices an opinion that is opposed to the homosexual lifestyle, they want those views to be "banned". In other words, they will gladly suppress the human rights of other people with opposite views. They use savy rhetoric to make their opponents seem like intolerant, bigoted "hateful lemmings". Even if it's your 80-year-old grandmother that disagrees with their lifestyle, she deserves the same label as a hate-mongerer and threat to public security.

I wonder if Elton John thinks that Mother Teresa was also a "hateful lemming". How many dying and homeless people has he welcomed into his home? I am very saddened that he thinks that way.

It has become very clear now. It was never about human rights. It was only about getting social acceptance for their lifestyle and stamping out anybody who disagrees. Now that phase 1 is complete (i.e. gaining social acceptance), phase 2 has begun (stamping out freedom of speech for those opposed to their lifestyle). That's dictatorial and autocratic. I'm afraid that I might end up in jain someday for "thought crimes".

They don't even want scientific facts about the health risks of the homosexual lifestyle to be made public. It seems that scientific facts are also "homophobic" if they reveal anything negative about their lifestyle, such as higher rates of STDs, alcoholism, drug abuse, spousal abuse within homosexual couples, suicide, cancer, digestive problems... the list is very long. But they don't want you to know that. Some of these studies were conducted by homosexual researchers, so nobody can claim that they were biased.

That's very scary. Sound reason and scientific fact is being censured in order to defend the behaviour of a group that represents at most 2% of the population.

I don't hate people living a homosexual lifestyle. I want the best for them. I realize the harm that their lifestyle is causing them and society, and I wish that they would live a healthier lifestyle.

But apparently they don't want what's best for me. They'd rather I be banned. That's very frightening. The sad part is that there are very few politicians who will stand to protect our rights. We are being suppressed.

Is there nobody in the homosexual community who will reassure me? Nobody who will condemn Elton John's intolerance?

Embryonic stem-cell research meets X-Men 3

A couple of weeks ago, the Globe reported on a "devastating" experiment at the University of Rochester involving embryonic stem cells. Once again, researchers were unsuccessful in their attempt to use stem cells extracted from embryos to treat Parkinson's disease.

When will they ever learn. Embryonic stem cell research, which involves killing a human embryo in order to extract its stem cells, has been hailed as the magic solution for all diseases. So far it has proven to be nothing more than a charlatan's snake oil. After years of research and untold millions of dollars being pumped into the field, embryonic stem cell research has still not yielded a single useful treatment on human beings. Not one. Yet the researchers press on, killing embryos in the lab in order to get their stem cells.

Adult stem cell research involves extracting a stem cell from an adult, often through the blood, bone marrow, skin, muscle and fat. As such, it does not involve any unethical killing of embryos. And guess what? It actually yields productive results. Research has allowed successful bone marrow transplants and the treatment of Parkinson's disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Crohn's disease, myeloma and leukemia.

Adult stem cell research is not only ethical, but it works. So why do researchers insist on doing research with embryos? Probably because of the extra potential that these cells appear to possess as a result of their capability to transform into any kind of cell. But researchers have been unable to control this potential, and they're killing millions of embryos in their attempts.

Stem cells from embryos tend to be subject to random and uncontrollable growth. For example, cells implanted into the brain have sometimes grown into teeth or hair. Gross!!!

It reminds me of the movie X-Men 3. The good mutants discover that their colleague Jean has amazing powers, more than any other mutant. However, she is mentally disturbed and cannot control her powers for the good. She's like a wild animal doing tons of damage. In the end, the good mutants are forced to fight her and kill her in order to end her rampage of destruction and death.

It's time to pull the plug on embryonic stem cell research and focus on adult stem cells, where the real potential lies. Even if embryonic stem cell research were to yield any results someday, the fact that it requires the killing of innocent embryos would still make it unacceptable.

Abortion causes cancer

It's amazing how some people never let the truth get in the way of political correctness. The abortion-breast-cancer link is a classic example.

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that women who have abortions are at much much higher risk of developing breast cancer. But you won't hear that from leading cancer prevention organizations or from the government. The abortion lobby is all-powerful in Canada, didn't you know?

For those of us who truly care for women's well-being, it is imperative that women be informed of this danger. A web site called abortionbreastcancer.ca has been setup specifically for this purpose. I encourage you to read the results of the research yourself. It's presented in easy to understand language. It could save your life. It could save your spouse's life.

Two key quotes from the site:

"Since 1957, a total of 70 studies worldwide have been published with specific data on induced abortion and breast cancer. Of these, approximately 80% have provided evidence linking induced abortion to the later development of breast cancer."

"A November 1994 study by Dr. Janet Daling found that overall, women who abort their first pregnancy increase their chance of developing breast cancer by 50 per cent."

Now the pro-choice people will tell you that this is fear mongering. That's nonsense. It's a sure sign that you've made a good point when the opposition has nothing to reply except that you're fear mongering.

Some more sophisticated pro-choicers will say that the evidence is mixed. They'll quote from the 20% of the studies that didn't find a link between abortion and breast cancer, conveniently ignoring the 80% of studies that did find a link. It only takes common sense to know that you should follow the preponderance of the evidence.

Here's a quick science lesson for you. When researchers say that they "don't find a link", that is not the same as concluding that there is no link. I've done plenty of empirical research and I know how this works. In technical jargon, we call it "not rejecting the null hypothesis". Any competent researcher should know that if their study doesn't reject the null hypothesis, that does not confirm that the null hypothesis is true. It simply means that there wasn't enough evidence in their specific set of data to reject it. That's not the same thing as concluding that no link exists between abortion and breast cancer. It is possible that the link is not apparent in that specific data set due to random sampling issues or outright sampling bias (conscious or not). However, if a study concludes that there is a link ("the null hypothesis is rejected") then there is strong statistical evidence that there truly exists a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Consider this analogy. An avalanche buries part of a mountain-side town. The police arrives on the scene and begins to look for survivers under the snow. After 5 hours of searching, one team returns to headquarters and says "I didn't find anybody". Does that necessarily mean that there are no survivors? No. It simply means that they couldn't find any survivors in the area of snow that they searched. A couple of hours later, another team comes back saying "We found 3 survivors!" Does this prove that there were survivors under the snow? Yes it does, without a doubt.The truth is, militant pro-choicers don't really care about women's well-being. Read more here. They just want more abortions, either for ideological reasons or because they make millions of dollars of profits off of it.

If they really cared about women, they would inform them of all the risks.

Take care.

Having a Crisis Pregnancy?

If you or someone you know is going through a crisis pregnancy, please call one of the numbers below. You will be treated with warmth, respect and caring.

In Canada:

Canadian Pregnancy Help Line: 1-800-665-0570


In the United States:

OptionLine: 1-800-395-HELP or send an email



Take care.

.

.

Kill the babies? You've gotta be kidding

I was disturbed to read an editorial by Amanda Ash, a University of Alberta student, regarding Tatiana and Krista, the two girls who were recently born attached at the head. In a nutshell, Ms. Ash says that the problem had been diagnosed well in advance, thanks to pre-natal tests, and that the mother should have aborted the children.

Well, Ms. Ash, you're entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is erroneous. The mother made the right decision.

Ms. Ash clearly states that if the babies survive and have a disability, then it would have been better to spare them this pain by killing them in the womb. This is a crucial assumption that many pro-choice Canadians make. But they don't realize that this reasoning is actually very revealing about their own fears, anxieties and prejudices, rather than showing any sense of love or compassion for the disabled. Allow me to explain.

When a person makes that kind of reasoning, it reveals part of his subconscience. You discover that this person has a horrible fear of becoming disabled and cannot see himself living a happy life in that condition. He then projects his fear onto disabled persons and concludes that they would be happier if they had never been born.

The reality is that disabled people can live happy and fulfilling lives if they are treated with care and respect. I have met several of them. You wouldn’t believe how happy they can be, partly because they don’t get hung up on the stupid little things that irritate us “normal” people. Most people who think like Ms. Ash have probably never befriended a disabled person. That’s true of most Canadians.

In fact, although nobody is bold enough to say it, most Canadians have prejudices against disabled people, especially the mentally disabled. Don’t believe me? Picture yourself in a busy cafeteria having lunch with your friends. Suddenly, a mentally disabled person sits down next to you, making awkward and uncoordinated movements and slurring when they speak. How would you feel in that situation? Would you feel uneasiness, discomfort and repulsion? If so, you probably have a prejudice against the disabled, even though you won’t admit it. You’d prefer that they wouldn’t sit next to you. Their disability makes you feel uncomfortable. That’s the exact opposite of compassion. You’re reacting as if you were allergic to them.

With such a deep repulsion for the disabled rooted in their beings, it’s not surprising that many Canadians seek relief by buying into a utilitarian view of life that suggests that these people would be better off dead. It would alleviate their allergy if these people were eliminated. They would be happier if the disabled had never been born.

Humanity has dealt with this mentality before. It was called Nazism. Most people don’t know that before they starting killing Jews, Hitler and his gang decided to eliminate the disabled. Ms. Ash’s view of aborting disabled babies is certainly on the same wave-length.

As pointed out by Suzanne in her Big Blue Wage blog, Ms. Ash goes so far as to state that an abortion was in the interest of the babies. Yeah, right. Killing somebody is doing them a favor? If you think that way, maybe you need anti-depressants. As I explained above, the abortion would have been in the best interest of Ms. Ash, so that she wouldn't have to endure the sight of these disabled children.

We live in a utilitarian world where the value of your life is determined by what you can do. If you’re “normal”, then you have value. If you’re disabled, you’re a drag on society. Ms. Ash euphemistically refers to it as causing “emotional, financial and health problems”. This mentality implies that you'd better watch your back if ever you get ill or otherwise lose your independence. Society might get tired of having you around, hence the talk of euthanasia.

It’s time that we open our eyes and realize that the value of life is determined simply by the fact that you’re human. Period. Whether you can dunk a basketball like Michael Jordan or if you’re in a wheelchair, that doesn't affect your infinite value.

P.S.: You can go to the BBC web site and read about two women born in 1961 who were joined at the head and are still living happy lives today.

Poor Lorne Calvert

Lorne Calvert, the Premier of Saskatchewan, is on a mission these days. He’s fighting an uphill battle trying to convince Canadians that the Saskatchewan government deserves an extra $800 million in annual Equalization payments from Ottawa. The truth is, he doesn’t deserve a dime.

For those of you who aren’t too familiar with the platitudes of federal transfers, Equalization is a program by which the federal government makes payments each year to the poorest provinces, in order to enable them to provide reasonably comparable services as in the richer provinces at reasonably comparable tax rates.

During the last federal election, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives promised to exclude resource revenues from the Equalization formula. Concretely, that means that the hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues that Saskatchewan extracts each year from its oil and gas fields would not be counted as part of its “fiscal capacity” or relative wealth, thus making the province appear poorer and entitling it to larger Equalization payments in the order of an extra $800 million per year. That’s a lot of dough.

Now the Saskatchewan government is already one of the richest in Canada, mainly due to its lucrative energy reserves. They’re doing so well that this year will mark their 13th consecutive budgetary surplus, tied with rich Alberta for the longest current streak. They’re doing so well that Premier Calvert has decided to lower the provincial sales tax from 7% to 5%, at a cost of more than $300 million per year. The province’s debt burden is among the lowest in the country, as is the unemployment rate (only 4.3%, well below the national average of 6.4%).

Clearly, Saskatchewan is doing quite well, thank you very much. To give them an extra $800 million that could be used to help poorer provinces would be ridiculous. It’s like giving a winning lottery ticket to a multi-millionaire.

Premier Calvert insists that a promise is a promise and that the feds should cough up the cash. After all, he says, Newfoundland and Labrador as well as Nova Scotia already benefit from such a privileged treatment for their offshore oil and gas resources. It would only be fair to extend that same privilege to Saskatchewan.

Unfortunately, those two provinces aren’t even in the same galaxy as Saskatchewan when it comes to their relative economic and fiscal fortunes. Those two provinces have much higher debt burdens, much higher unemployment rates and face much more severe economic and fiscal challenges. A case could be made that those two provinces were in a real bind and needed an extra push to help them dig their way out of their respective holes. But Saskatchewan is certainly in no need of any help. Not even close.

Please, Premier Calvert, give up your fight. Don’t waste your taxpayers’ money with your misleading ad campaign and don’t try to deprive other poorer provinces from Equalization cash they deserve.

Are they really pro-choice?

The more I learn about the pro-choice movement, the more I realize that they are anything but "pro-choice". They are really "pro-abortion". I'm talking about the militants, not the average Canadian who thinks that abortion should be legal.

The book "Abortion Practice", by Dr. Warren M. Hern, is considered an exhaustive reference tool for abortion providers. Yet it contains some disturbing material for anyone who respects women enough to provide them with all the information necessary to make an enlightened decision. The book recommends devious strategies to keep women in the dark so that they can be better manipulated into having an abortion.

Don't believe me? Let's read through the book together.

The book explains that if the abortionist needs to check the heartbeat of the pre-born baby, it should be done with a device "inaudible to the patient". Why are they hiding the sound of the child's heartbeat from her mother? Could it be because she might realize that it's a live human being and therefore decide not to have her abortion?

The book also states that "most professionals in the field feel that it is not advisable for patients to view the products of conception, to be told the sex of the fetus, or to be informed of a multiple pregnancy." In other words, don't let the mother see the ultrasound pictures of her baby and don't give her any other information because the bare truth might lead her to change her mind about having the abortion.

The abortion procedure itself is described in gory detail in this book, but they would never let the mother know anything about it. For example, Dr. Hern explains how to soften "fetal tissues" in order to permit "easy dismemberment and removal". He goes on to describe that "a long curved Mayo scissors may be necessary to decapitate and dismember the fetus, since it may be impossible to apply forceps or to do so while avoiding the thinned-out cervix."

Kind of gross, eh? Well that's the reality of abortion.

Some people who used to work in abortion clinics explain that they would often lie to patients to pretend that the baby inside them was only "tissue". When the body parts were removed from the patient, however, the patient would not be allowed to see the dismembered hands, legs, head or torso of her baby, even if she requested it. Once again, no respect for the woman.

When debating the issue of abortion in the public sphere, Dr. Hern recommends abortionists "focus on the public issue involved (right to confidentiality and professional medical care, freedom of choice and so forth) and not on the specific details of abortion procedures." Gee, I wonder why. If people really understood the horror that goes on in the womb during an abortion, a lot of people might have second thoughts. I've seen ultrasound videos where the poor baby is squirming vigorously to avoid the incoming forceps that is moving towards its throat. Not the type of picture that abortionists would like to see in the public sphere, thus unmasking the cruelty of their practice.

Some women have recounted how they changed their mind about having an abortion, just at the moment when the procedure was about to begin. Instead of respecting her decision, the staff in the clinic restrained her and tied her down so that they could go ahead with the abortion against her will. This is not uncommon. It's like a gang rape but worse, because the woman looses the baby that she wanted to keep. Absolutely disgusting.

These strategies are common practice, not just for Dr. Hern, but for the abortion industry at large.

The truth is, abortion advocates are anything but pro-choice. They make millions in profits off of women's abortions and they don't want anything to hinder them, not even women's "right to choose". They have no real respect for women or their babies.

Oh, the arrogance!

I strongly believe in equality of men and women. Discrimination against women is unacceptable and must be opposed.

However, equality doesn't imply that men and women are identical. The two sexes are different physically, psychologically, emotionally and spiritually.

Don't believe me? Just go to any football game and observe how most of the fans are men. Go to any church and you'll see that the congregation almost inevitably has a lot more women. See how many more men subscribe to automobile and computer magazines, while women dominate the subscriptions to fashion and crafts magazines.

Notice also how women have an advantage over men when it comes to bonding with their children. When I child gets hurt and starts crying, who does the child call for first, Mommy or Daddy? There is a magnificent bond between mother and child that is irreplacable.

This isn't rocket science folks, it's just plain common sense. It's part of human nature. We need to take these differences into account before screaming "discrimination".

Unfortunately, some women in the radical feminist movement seem to believe that women cannot be happy unless they have lives identical to those of men. For instance, if a woman doesn't have a career, she's a failure. If she decides to stay at home and raise the kids, she's wasting her life and submitting to a dominating husband.

Moreover, some of these radicals don't seem to be satisfied unless women represent exactly 50% of every profession, as if women's tastes for employment were identical to men's (how many women do you know that are interested in working in the construction industry, joining the military or driving taxis?)

Radical feminists are a plague to society because they undermine the image that women have of themselves. Women must be women, not men. Whether that means having a career or staying at home, that's for each woman to decide given her particular circumstances. But she should not feel bullied into a lifestyle just because it seems to be the politically and socially correct thing to do.

By the way, there's nothing stopping men from staying at home and raising the children while the woman works. However, this would tend to go against the natural instincts of each sex and against that beautiful bond that mothers have with their children.

Do you think I'm exaggerating about radical feminists? You must be thinking: "Surely nobody is so blind as to deny the differences between the sexes". Well think again. Check out Suzanne's analysis on the Big Blue Wave blog:
http://bluewavecanada.blogspot.com/2006/10/so-con-stereotyping-by-bread-n-roses.html.

Not only do these radical feminists think women should be identical to men, but they also think that all women are identical. One of them made the following observation: "I've been out in the blogosphere. A really common refrain is that feminists claim to speak for all women, but the so-con [social conservative] women say we don't. But the plain truth is that we do." There you have it folks. The feminists claim to speak for all women, even when they read in the blogosphere that many women disagree with them. They seem to have this condescending attitude that they can read into other women's hearts and minds and know what they really believe.

Absolutely ridiculous.

If we are to put an end to real discrimination against women, we must stop this paranoia of seeing discrimination under every rock and instead focus on the true instances where women are being discriminated against. Let women be women.