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.