Thursday, February 15, 2007

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.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

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.

Thursday, February 08, 2007

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.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

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.

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

"I call on Dion to cure cancer by 2012"

What hypocrisy and arrogance on the part of St├ęphane 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.

Monday, February 05, 2007

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, St├ęphane 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.

Friday, February 02, 2007

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!

Thursday, February 01, 2007

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.