Archive for December, 2006
Posted on December 5th, 2006 by Paycheck in Feminism
Fellow Socon Blogger, Suzanne, over at Big Blue Wave writes:
The idea that when it comes to the woman or the baby, the woman is superior, much like the White man considered himself superior to the Black man in 19th century America. We can find a parallel in the Dred Scott ruling, in which the Supreme Court said that the Black man has no rights that a White Man is bound to respect. In the same way, Canadian pro-aborts say that the unborn child has no rights that a woman is bound to respect. They think that the fact a woman is older, more developed and is carrying the baby, she is not bound to acknowledge any rights on behalf of the unborn child. So the woman has the right of life or death over her child, just like the White Supremacist thought he had the right of life or death over slaves or over Black people in general. Just like the Supremacists of old used “States’ Rights” and wifebeaters used the classical liberal idea of what goes on in man’s home is none of the government’s business, so they use the notion that what goes on in a woman’s body is no one’s business, even if we’re talking about the DEATH of a CHILD.They will try, in every way, to convince people IT’S NOT A CHILD. Except that even hardcore feminists acknowledge IT’S A CHILD.
Apparently, Suzanne has been able to rattle the cages of the feminists by posing some humdinger arguments. Good for her!
The problem with the pro-abortion crowd is that they are not into reality or common sense. They are into delusion and self denial of reality. They like to define away basic concepts and ideas that have their basis in objective reality like the natural law. This covers a whole host of terms like “human”, “pregnancy”, “murder”, “life”, etc. When you cannot even agree with your opponent on a common language of understanding, you might as well be at the Tower of Babble. It’s really a fruitless exercise. And it has some very scary implications for us all.
The pro-aborts’ abuse of the language has been able to further their leftist lunacy in re-defining marriage. They will continue their semantic jihad and re-define freedom i.e. as in social conservatives don’t have any. Case in point: the disgrace going on right now at Carleton University and their Student’s Association trying to ban pro-life groups from having a fair say in the abortion debate.
In her post above, Suzanne makes a very good point. The pro-aborts are really closet fascists, even if they don’t realize it. They put a so-called “woman’s right” to murder her unborn child over the rights of that child to be born, in effect putting one class of person over another. This is the kind of dangerous thinking that allows the modern 21st century depraved slave trading in women and children in parts of Asia to be a booming business. Why? Because once we accept the idea that one person is of inherently lesser value than another, all bets are off on how that is applied. In Asia, we can see where that is leading in terms of the trafficking of their own gender. Here in North America, the holy secular jihad against persons of an “age-disability” will move quickly from the unborn to the elderly. In time, we’ll have a nice little eugenic society where anarchy and might will rule, translating into an oppressive totalitarianism that will operate openly in “owning” certain classes of persons.
No Comments »
Posted on December 5th, 2006 by Paycheck in Contraception
MONTREAL (CP) – Liberal Leader Stephane Dion indicated Sunday he’s readyto crack the whip at his caucus when it comes to this week’s vote onsame-sex marriage. “Indeed, to me it’s a matter of rights and you don’t pick and chooserights,” Dion told a news conference when asked about the first thornyissue to prick his newly minted control of the federal Liberal party. The federal Conservatives plan to introduce a motion revisiting thesame-sex marriage issue this week in the Commons. Coming at the tail-end of Parliament’s fall session with minimal debate,it appears the government hopes it will be cleared off the politicalagenda before Parliament breaks for the holidays – and before they haveto face voters again.
Yawn. We lost SSM when we accepted contraception. The rest is just necessary gravy.
If contraceptive sex is good for the goose, it’s good for the gander.
Take ye the splinter out of your own eye so that you can see better in having a logical basis to oppose same-sex “marriage”. If you’re practicising virtual sodomy i.e. contraception, then don’t complain that the laws are just adjusting themselves to be consistent.
No Comments »
Posted on December 4th, 2006 by Paycheck in Abortion
Got this email below forwarded to me this morning…
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR)
Date: Dec 4, 2006 1:21 AM
Subject: PRESS RELEASE: Threat of Lawsuit
To: firstname.lastname@example.orgPRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Stephanie Gray
THREAT OF LAWSUIT LOOMS OVER CARLETON UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ ASSOCIATION
Calgary, Alberta, December 4, 2006—The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) threatened to sue the Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) last Thursday because of slander. CUSA’s president Shawn Menard was quoted on CFRA radio in Ottawa on November 29 as saying,
“The Genocide Awareness Project, as you know, a group that talks about the fact that the Holocaust did not happen.”“Mr. Menard has made a slanderous statement and we demand an unambiguous retraction and apology,” said Stephanie Gray, executive director of the anti-abortion CCBR. “If Mr. Menard and CUSA do not make amends, we will file suit against them.”
The Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), a project of the CCBR, is a graphic display that visually compares aborted human beings to victims of other atrocities, such as Jews during the Holocaust.
“We most certainly acknowledge that the Holocaust happened and we unequivocally condemn the injustice,” said Gray. CCBR’s printed materials and website, www.unmaskingchoice.ca, consistently refer to the Holocaust as an atrocity of great magnitude.On November 30, Gray sent a letter to Menard demanding an apology and retraction. The following day, Menard sent a brief e-mail to her, writing that he realized afterwards he had made an incorrect statement. However, “Mr. Menard offered no apology,” said Gray. “We made it clear that he and CUSA had until Friday, December 8 to meet our expectations or we will take
CCBR expects the following: 1) an unambiguous retraction and apology to its satisfaction, 2) that the statement be submitted for broadcast on the CFRA radio station and in the form of a “Letter to the Editor” of The Charlatan newspaper, and 3) that the statement be placed on CUSA’s website, www.cusaonline.com, with a visible link to it from the home page, for the next sixty (60) days.
Gray’s colleague, Jose Ruba, was at Carleton University last month to debate abortion against representatives from Planned Parenthood Ottawa and Canadians for Choice. In his remarks he applauded the actions of a woman, Corrie ten Boom, who risked her life to hide Jews and others from the Nazis during World War II.
In fact, Ruba’s debate was the impetus for a controversial motion that could result in CUSA affirming a “woman’s right to choose” and disallowing CUSA “resources, space, recognition or funding [being] allocated for anti-choice purposes.” The controversial motion, first raised November 21, is undergoing some amendments and will be voted on this Tuesday.
For further information, contact: Stephanie Gray, Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, 403-668-0485 ###
Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR)
5-8720 Macleod Trail SE
Calgary, AB, T2H 0M4
See it. Believe it. Change it.
So, apart from:
1) Being wrong on the issue
2) Seeking to muzzle dissent on a moral issue,
Mr. Menard is facing a lawsuit which slandered a pro-life group.
What does this demonstrate? It demonstrates that Mr. Menard should not be placed in a position of responsibility of any organization, much less the Association of a Student’s university. Disagreeing with the pro-life position is par for the course in today’s upper echelons of Banana U. for sure, but spreading admitted false information is quite another.
Mr. Menard should do the honourable thing and resign while this whole controversy is swirling about him. I hope the rest of the CUSA executive is paying attention to Mr. Menard’s loose lips because 1) it might cost them a lot of money and 2) it reflects very badly on them as well.
It’s time to cut bait, CUSA, and let Mr. Menard float into the Sunset, bananas and all.
3 Comments »
Posted on December 3rd, 2006 by Paycheck in Religion
Pictured on the left is a photograph taken by a very good friend of mine last year. The picture was taken on the Mountain of Salvation in the Philippines, where a makeshift shrine has been created because of purported apparitions of the Blessed Mother and other heavenly witnesses including St. John the Apostle, St. Therese of Lisieux, and other saints. The light in the center of the photograph is not an artificial light but purportedly accompanies the Virgin when she appears. (A statue of the Blessed Virgin is located to the immediate left of the light.) My colleague also indicated instances of a strong scent of roses and gold dust appearing on people’s clothing as they descended from the Mountain after their pilgrimage. These and other remarkable phenomenon have been going on for some time, and my colleague has returned there for a two week visit.
Please pray for him as we believe Our Lady has a special plan for Canada and the Philippines concerning the pro-life movement. His first trip last year was one of the main inspirations for The Rosarium’s Humanae Vitae 2006 Conference. We believe the Philippines is going to play a pivotal role in Canada’s restoration. Don’t ask us why. We’re just going with the flow of God’s graces. Please keep us and The Rosarium in prayer.
1 Comment »
Posted on December 3rd, 2006 by Paycheck in Abortion
El Presidente of “Banana U.” known as the Carleton University Student Association, Mr. Shawn Menard, has responded to critics of the proposed motion to restrict funding for any pro-life group.
Below is his communication along with my own remarks in red.
ANTI-CHOICE MOTIONI also wanted to simply clarify some of the information that students hear about. Lately there have been a lot of posts on here talking about the issue of anti-choice groups on campus etc.
Uh, yeah. When you seek to muzzle dissent, ya kinda gotta expect people to be upset, especially in a setting that likes to pride itself on….on…on…what’s the word…oh yeah….tolerance.
First let me start by saying that this motion will be ammended to communicate more clearly its meaning.Does that include spelling “amended” correctly, Shawn?
CUSA council has a motion in front of it that is speaking specifically to respecting a womans right to choose.
Choose what Shawn? Decapitation of unborn children?
The second part would only affect a club whose primary goal it is to re-criminalize abortion (anti-choice) and thereby taking the choice away from that woman. This will not affect religious groups at all, this will not affect “pro-life” groups who wish to have a debate.
My goodness! The nerve! To think that groups on campus would actually want to challenge the status quo on abortion. Next thing you know, they’ll be wanting to graduate from university and even start applying for influential jobs in government and academia that might actually affect the law. Oh, no, no, no. We can’t have that!
What it does do is re-affirm the legality of abortions (1988, section 7 charter of rights and freedoms, security of the person) and says that CUSA stands behind that law.
Yo, Shawn. You probably haven’t stepped out into the real world yet (at least I hope not because if you have, you really need to pay attention more), but I gotta let you in on a little secret: laws change. If they didn’t, then many things in Canada would still be criminalized. Under your silly rubric, none of the students pushing for the relaxation of laws on issues you think are Canada’s sacraments (like abortion) would never have seen the light of day back in the swingin’ sixties. Methinks that you would be singing a different tune if the shoe were on the other foot.
The question is basically asking if students feel comfortable giving their money to a group whose primary goal it is to re-criminalize abortion. Some students may say “I’m not comfortable giving my money to half of the clubs that CUSA operates” but the difference there is that anti-choice groups would be the ONLY club that seeks to change the law and simultaneously discriminates against a choice / a womans right to choose.
Well, that sure clears things up, Shawn.
So you are basically telling us that being “anti-choice” has a special category that you have created for special consideration, discrimination, and punishment.
This is not about any one club. Pro-life is a different concept than anti-choice. The motion speaks to allowing every individual the right to choose what they want (If they choose to seek out other options that is their own opinion and they should not be shunned for that).
This man is obviously a Math major. Can you follow this calculus?
CUSA space is limited to a very small amount in the unicentre and this would not BAN any group from campus as some have suggested. In fact, if there were a group who wanted to talk about pro-life stances and options such as adoption etc. the motion would allow that and I’d encourage those groups as it is intellectually stimulating.
Uh huh. So let me get this straight. You are all for allowing stimulating debate on points you can control and are largely cosmetic, but not on points that score against the pro-abortion position? Shawn, you need to get yourself into a course called “Cogency 101″.
Freedom of speech has become a hot topic in this debate so here it is: Any person/individual is entitled to their freedom of speech in and around CUSA spaces. However, whether or not students choose to enhance the message by funding those initiatives is very different. For example, (although totally different situations, it speaks well to the enhancement of messaging) would students choose to give funds to a racist group to enhance their message?
That’s the problem when you have a culture that is so screwed up, there, Shawn. Student fees used to fund programs that most students agreed on when Canada was Christian nation. In this day and age, with the fragmentation of morality in Canadian society, there is a polarization of what students want funded. As you, yourself, indicated above when you commented on the reaction of many students towards CUSA: “I’m not comfortable giving my money to half of the clubs that CUSA operates”. Do we want racist groups funded? Hell no. But we don’t want pro-abortion groups funded either. They both belong in the gutter, as far as we are concerned. Why not just take the advice of students and completely get out of the moral patronization game you and CUSA are into. That will work for everyone. Or better yet, let people decide where their CUSA fees go. That’ll sure clean up your difficulties, Shawn. Our money, our say.
This motion has sparked debate and has been very difficult for me to deal with as of late. There have been threats (both legal and to my life).Legal threats? Should that be allowed? I mean, shouldn’t you get on your burro and transverse the country demanding these lawyers be quiet? Don’t they know that abortion is legal forever and ever AMEN?!
I am really looking forward to it being resolved. There is nothing illegal about this motion and in fact there is precedent in the country for similar policy (Memorial, U-Vic, Guelph).
Yes, we know. The beacons of tolerance, diversity, and free speech according to Josef Stalin used to spread like wild fire in other parts of the world too. Soon, we’ll all be free like the former Communist bloc countries were. After all, some of them did indeed have “Democratic” in their name. Isn’t that enough? What more could we ever possibly want?!
I hope this clears things up a bit.
It sure does, Shawn. I hope you succeed in your efforts. We’re much better underground anyway. It gives pro-life students more motivation. Keep pissing us off and you’ll see a reversal in the abortion law about a decade earlier than otherwise would have occurred.
Keep going, Shawn. You da man.
There’s a petition circulating to oppose the CUSA motion to ban pro-life groups. If you know any students from Carleton (or you’re a student at Carleton yourself) please contact Nicholas Mcleod email@example.com and he will make sure you get to sign it. We need signatures by Tuesday.
No Comments »
Posted on December 1st, 2006 by Paycheck in Media Distortions
One of the great things about the internet is that, besides being an incredible source for information, it has given the power to the people. Let me be more specific. It has taken away much of the power of some people and, instead, given it to many more. I am speaking, of course, about the power of the press. Before the internet age, liberal newsreporters could stifle legitimate news stories that they deemed unworthy. You know the ones I am talking about, I’m sure. It’s the ones you never saw because those particular stories would have made their liberal cousins in power look bad. After all, if it wasn’t for the bloggers, we’d still be hearing Dan Rather blather on about George Bush.
The internet has helped conservatives keep the liberals honest – not an easy task for sure. If one mainstream media outlet won’t pick up the latest liberal boondoggle, then the bloggers will, and the only thing the MSM hates more than a conservative viewpoint is being scooped by a conservative!
So the internet has basically made the press more transparent in “text” media. Conservatives are no longer beholden to that national press to get our news. There are lots of alternative sources on the internet which provide more “fair and balanced” coverage, as Fox News likes to say. In the course of a conversation I had with the Editor of the National Post in 2005, he was surprised to hear that I don’t get the National Post. He was genuinely disturbed when I told him that it was too liberal a paper for me to waste money on.
And with the invention of YouTube, the MSM TV networks around the Western world might as well kiss their dominance in this area goodbye too. The advertising dollars are going where the action is and it ain’t on the BoobTube. It’s YouTube or bust. It’s only a matter of time, therefore, before every Tom, Dick, and Muhammed is going to have their own little TV station to broadcast their views.
Hasta la vista, baby.
But just to give you a little taste on how the MSM is taking their loss of influence on the greater culture, get a load of these comments by Steve Maich in his article in MacLean’s Magazine…
Conspiracy theories, conjecture and outright fabrications masquerade as fact on the Internet, and often, nobody seems to notice the difference. The problem is rooted equally in the nature of humans and the nature of cyberspace. The designers of the Internet put their deepest faith in the wisdom of the masses to establish truth and value by consensus. Google ranks search results based on how many others link to a particular site. Digg.com is a site organized according to users’ ratings on what’s interesting and what isn’t. And Wikipedia, of course, is based upon the notion that hundreds of thousands of anonymous contributors, all acting as freelance fact checkers, can produce a reliable reference document. Unfortunately, the masses have proven themselves truly unworthy of that trust.
Oh yes. Don’t you love that condescending crap? And, please tell us, Mr. Maich, why you think that 1 hell bent liberal with all of the power of persuasion and control is necessarily better than thousands of people who all have a say? And as for the “truth”, do you even acknowledge such a concept — other than of course that liberals have it and everyone else does not?
But, that’s not all, folks, he continues later on…
In the place of hard information, the Net has ushered in the era of the amateur commentator. Rather than reporting the news, the Internet actually excels at allowing millions to analyze the news of the day on their blogs and message boards. “It is no exaggeration to conclude that the Internet has achieved, and continues to achieve, the most participatory marketplace of mass speech that this country — and indeed the world — has yet seen,” George Will, Newsweek’s revered columnist, wrote a few years back. Sounds spectacular, but what’s the great value of a participatory marketplace of mass speech if so few have anything to say that’s worth buying? (Source)
Funny that. That’s what we peons have been saying about the liberal propaganda and shallow thinking that has dominated the Western press for forty years. At least now, we have a choice. And that is why you’re all hot and bothered, Steve. We have a choice and we are not choosing “professional commentators” like you, Steve. The Evening News with Dan Rather just doesn’t work for us anymore.
These comments by Lorrie Goldstein in the Toronto Sun really hit the nail on the head….
“The media are less a window on reality than a stage on which officials and journalists perform self-scripted, self-serving fictions.” Paul Weaver wrote that in a New York Times article called “Selling the Story” more than a dozen years ago. But doesn’t it sound like an accurate summation of almost any news conference today, where the advocates are in favour of, say, universal daycare, same-sex marriage, Kyoto, more social spending or greater “rights” for criminals? Indeed, do you sometimes find it hard to separate the lobbyists from the media at such events?I do. Especially when obvious questions about the claims being made by these advocates are never asked by the media, whom, it appears, either agree with the positions espoused or, worse, seem unaware there could possibly be any other positions. For example, if, as daycare advocates claim, Canadians overwhelmingly favour a national daycare program, why isn’t that reflected in credible polls on the subject? Why do they show that parents want a broad range of child-care options, only one of which is institutional daycare, which is often not even their first, second or third choice?
Why aren’t gay activists ever challenged by the media on their absurd claim that one cannot have an opinion on same-sex marriage other than celebratory approval, without being a bigot? Why don’t the media quiz them about their views on gay marriage with the same aggressiveness they do evangelical Christians?
One reason, as surveys of American journalists have shown, is that reporters tend to be more left-wing than the general population. Another is the destruction of critical thinking caused by what is laughably referred to as our “liberal” education system, which is actually all about learning to internalize a series of rigid, “progressive” liberal orthodoxies, such as support for universal daycare, same sex marriage, “rehabilitating” criminals, etc. (Source)
No Comments »
Posted on December 1st, 2006 by Paycheck in Canadian Politics
I’m supportin’ Morton.
No Comments »