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.