Archive for January, 2007

I have too much on my plate right now. Not sure if this is burn-out because of my rather accelerated pace over the past few years. But I don’t have the energy any more to keep it up…at least not under present circumstances.

So consider this an extended sabbatical. Not sure how long it will last.

Just need to recharge the ol’ batteries and spend more time in prayer.

Too much activity without a corresponding healthy prayer life is not a good thing. In fact, it can be a waste of time.

So I am going to spend more time with my family and in prayer and less time shuffling words on my blog trying to impress people. Check back in March or April. Not sure if I will have come out of my cave by then, but maybe.
See ya.

Yours faithfully,

John Pacheco

p.s. Please keep me in your prayers.

Comments No Comments »

Meet George. George Tiller. George is an abortionist. Not just any run-o’- da-(abortion) mill abortionist. Oh No. Not George. George specializes, you see. He specializes in what one may call “late term abortions”. For those of us who are not symantically challenged, the apt and honest phrase is “virtual infanticide”.

That’s why George is appropriately called “Tiller the Killer“. Because that is what Geoge does for a living. He kills unborn children who would otherwise live.

George Tiller. Tiller the Killer.

Anyway, George, not wanting to have his abortion business grow stagnant, even has a website promoting his “practice”. The various pictures on the website make it look like he was a bona fide doctor in the practice of delivering babies. The people in it look so darn happy, it makes you want to puke when you really know what’s going on inside those pastel walls.

This is what he says on his website (my comments in red):

Women’s Health Care Services is a professional organization dedicated to providing expert, confidential, and respectful abortion care. We have a national and international reputation for providing the highest quality abortion services in a safe and caring environment. Kindness, courtesy, justice, love and respect are the cornerstones of our patient-provider relationships. Well, why didn’t you say so in the first place? I always put kindness and courtesy on the top of my list when trying to pick a doctor to mangle a baby. You should ensure that you broadcast these wonderful qualities of your clinic more often, George. I can tell you that most people would be completely unaware and very surprised indeed that such qualities would be present in your fine medical facility. Maybe it’s the bad rap the industry has, but, hey, with some slick marketing, I think your image would sell. For sure.

We have an unparalleled record of safey in late abortion services and we have more experience in late abortion services over 24 weeks than anyone else currently practicing in the Western Hemisphere, Europe and Australia.

So what you are trying to tell us is that you are a specialist even among abortionists? You must be proud. This is what a 24 week fetus looks like:

So tell us, George, do you ever hear a baby crying in her mother’s womb when you apply the tools of your trade in destroying it?

At Women’s Health Care Services, we specialize in “late” abortion care. We are able to perform elective abortions to the time in the pregnancy when the fetus is viable. Viability is not a set point in time. Viability is determined by the attending physician and is based on sonogram results, physical examination and last menstrual period date (if known).

Of course. Viability is whatever you want it to be, George. You and your patient will determine viability all by yourselves. After all, it’s nobody’s decision except a woman and her “doctor”.

This little booklet is required reading apparently. See the pictures George? Do you not, even in times of quiet reflection, even just once, question what you are doing?

K.S.A. 65-6701, known as the “Women’s Right-to-Know Act,” requires that women seeking abortion services in Kansas receive the following booklet. “If You Are Pregnant” at least 24 hours prior to an abortion procedure. The booklet is provided here in electronic format.

For Staff and other pics, visit:

Interpreters are available for non-English speaking patients when requested in advance.

Of course, they want to be caring and nurturing when they exterminate the child. In truth, however, abortion is the universal language of despair and hatred.

Safety & Comfort Our #1 Concern: Administrative and medical staff have been carefully chosen for their skill, training, knowledge, compassion, and commitment to patient confidentiality.

Skill in what? Crushing skulls and burning the remains in an incinerator?

Here is a conference of how to kill a live baby:

Looks like a pre-natal course except, of course, the only think that George will be delivering is dismembered body parts not actual babies. As long as it’s all sterile with bright colours and comfy couches, who cares, right? No fuss. No muss. Will that be cash or credit?

Chaplaincy Program: The Chaplaincy program is designed to bring spiritual resources to those who come to the Clinic for help and assistance. Spiritually, abortion is acceptable in ten of the world’s religions and in Christianity many denominations affirm and uphold the right of a woman to make the choice of abortion. The Chaplaincy program works with people from all religious backgrounds as well as those who are not a part of a spiritual tradition. The program offers individual counseling, group counseling and the celebration of spiritual sacraments such as baptism of the still born fetus and blessings for the aborted fetus. The program works with many different religions and is prepared to do, or arrange for, religious services from any spiritual religion.

Kill and then baptize? Words can hardly express just how low these abortionists and their disciples will go to paper over their atrocities. Have a hang-up about that religious thing and God? No problem, we’ll furnish you with some spiritual consolation. Sorry we had to end your life little one, it just had to be. God will understand. Really He will.

Comments No Comments »

Archbishop Donald Wuerl goes on record: he will take no action to prevent Nancy Pelosi from receiving Communion despite her obstinate support of abortion and same-sex marriageArchbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., who has come under fire for failing to speak out against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s attendance Jan. 3 at a Mass at her alma mater, Trinity University, came to San Diego’s Kona Kai Resort the weekend of January 13-14 to speak at an international Communion and Liberation conference.

While in San Diego, Wuerl told California Catholic Daily reporter Allyson Smith that he has no plans to discipline the newly elected Democratic Speaker, who is now the most powerful Catholic in Congress — and an ardent supporter of abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and pro-homosexual legislation.

Smith: “Did you make any statement last week about Nancy Pelosi going to Mass at Trinity University?”

Wuerl: “That was a matter between the university and Nancy. They were offering their location, and the Mass was celebrated by a priest with faculties, and there was no reason to make any comment.”

Smith: “Do you intend to discipline her at all for being persistent and obstinate about her support for abortion and same-sex marriage?”

Wuerl: “I will not be using the faculty in the manner you have described.”

Smith: “Will you make a statement to your priests and deacons to warn her not to allow her to receive if she presents herself for Communion?”

Wuerl: “You’re talking about a whole different style of pastoral ministry. No.”



You know, if this wasn’t as serious as it is, it would almost be comical. A different style of pastoral ministry, your Grace?

How about just enforcing canon law and doing your job? Canon 915 says that those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.” Abortion is a grave sin. The politicans who are the fortunate recipients of your lax, and indeed gravely negligent, “style of pastoral ministry” are enabling (and even promoting) the mass butchery of 1 million unborn children every year. And that is in your own country alone.

And if you are not inclined to enforce canon law, then have the good decency to think about the scandal you are causing to allow public figures to show contempt for the Catholic faith.

A million unborn children are butchered every year and you won’t lift one Episcopal finger to make the politicians who enable this annual holocaust accountable for their actions or their positions. That’s outrageous.

What’s the problem, here? Are you afraid of them? Are you afraid that the Catholic Church would be looked down upon by the political elite in Washington, if you stand up and witness to the unborn even if it costs you something? You can’t run from the cross forever, Your Grace.

Instead of giving Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy the holy Eucharist, may I respectfully suggest turning around and giving them your back. That would be the more measured style of pastoral ministry that would be in keeping with individuals who insist on crucifying unborn children.

Comments No Comments »

Former Ottawa mayor pushed to challenge new environment minister

OTTAWA — Liberal organizers are encouraging former Ottawa mayor Bob Chiarelli to run against long-time nemesis John Baird in the federal riding of Ottawa West-Nepean, setting the stage for one of the most bitter political grudge matches in the national capital’s recent history.

The party’s riding association has had preliminary discussions with Chiarelli about becoming the Liberal candidate, riding president Joseph Thornley said Friday.

“We have several people who are pursuing the nomination at this point, and Bob is one of them, and obviously we’re delighted,” he said. “My sense is that he’s interested but not committed.”

Chiarelli and Baird have jousted since their days in Ontario provincial politics, but the rivalry intensified this fall when Baird waded into the Ottawa municipal election campaign to question the wisdom of Chiarelli’s cherished light-rail transit project.



I received 905 votes during the last federal election. Baird won by over 5000 votes. But that was under ideal circumstances.

1) The Liberal Party had been proven corrupt many times over.
2) The Liberal Party were in power way too long.
3) The Liberal Party ran a weak candidate.

While No. 1 won’t likely change, No. 2 & 3 will not be a factor…and nor will No. 1 by the time the next election rolls around, to be honest. And remember, Ottawa West Nepean has been a traditionally a LIBERAL riding for decades.

Throw in a well-known mayor who actually lives in Ottawa West Nepean, the whole O-Train Drama, their mutual animosity against each other and who knows what can happen.

One thing is for sure, though, John Baird won’t win by 5000 votes.

Ya think my 905 votes becomes more of a bat in the next election?


Comments No Comments »

I received this disturbing e-mail from a friend in Windsor…

Dear Friends in ChristThis am on the Windsor news am800 was the report about a talk at the Baptist Church on Campbell with a former Muslim giving his testimony. He was interrupted by members from the Muslim community who came in, shouting, disrupting the meeting.Is this one example of what is coming in Windsor from this time? Muslims can strive locally to convert Christians but not Christians trying to convert Muslims?

The real face of Islam is not what is being portrayed on the CBC comedy : Little Mosque on the Prairie ” but what was seen at the Baptist church yesterday. That was not an example of religious tolerance.


It’s common knowledge by now that the Muslim community which this year had the second largest number of immigrants to Windsor and reported to now have between 20-40,000 fellow Muslims in Windsor whose children attend the public and separate schools,..have been purchasing all the closed former Catholic schools, St.Clair, Sacred Heart, St.Andrew, St. Joseph HS, the former Catholic School Board Complex and report of an upcoming purchase of Concorde School in Riverside. Sure that may be their business. Have you heard of any other group doing the same in Windsor,Ontario, Canada? Speculation for future investments? That’s a freedom they have.


Ironcially, many ethnic groups have difficulties with on going fund raising to manage one community center or church facility yet the Muslim community has the financial means for all these purchases and people across the city are asking..for what purpose?Is Windsor becoming an base for future Muslim immigration to this border city near Dearborn?..and a center to promote Islam?In the least, members of the Muslim Community should have the courtesy to not interrupt speakers in Christian Churches.……If as the am 800 News Broadcaster stated, this hurts relations between Muslims and Christians in Windsor, I have not heard of any Christians doing the same in a local mosque.

Look at the treatment of Christians in Muslim lands and the negation of their basic freedom, kidnappings, churches bombed, trials from false charges, beheadings. Islam as a world religion is opposed to Christianity and so to the treatment of non Muslims in Muslim countries.………..Muslims are adapting to their new life in Canada and we wish them the best but please learn to be more accepting of the freedoms we all enjoy while not the same as Islam’s priviledged position in your home country.


Canada is a welcoming country for all people, cultures & religions, but no one group has the legal right to do what the few Muslims did yesterday in disrupting a Christian talk in a local Baptist Church and they should be the ones to offer an apology. Students who convert to Islam give their public testimony during Club days at the Student Center on the campus of the University. No one interrupts them.

One of the basic freedoms we have is freedom of worship and to change one’s religion without being harassed or persecuted as is common in Muslim countries where conversion from Islam is never accepted but met with severe consequences.

It’s now obvious with this incident yesterday at the local Baptist Church that Windsor Muslims monitor the lives of Muslims & former Muslims.

Should not our city officials inform them about the freedoms that Muslims now have in Canada denied them in the Muslim countries from which they have immigrated?

On her morning talk show Lisa Martin will often pick up on news that is reported and this is something Windsor needs to talk about.

Dr.Donald McKay needs to be commended for having a former Muslim give his testimony to Jesus Christ .


It just goes to show that it’s the Christians who will be front and center in protecting our nation’s right to freedom of speech and assembly. Where are the secularists? Militant Islam won’t touch them until they have first run over us.

I’m beginning to wonder whether this idea of “religious freedom” is simply the beginning of our Western demise.

Where the common good and public order is threatened by certain religionists so that basic human rights are trampled over, then it becomes incumbent on the State to move in to protect the Christian minority.

As for you, Mr. Secuarlist. Please wipe that smile off your face. First it’s us, then comes you. Hope you like Sharia.

Comments No Comments »

Apparently, the folks over at Faithmouse, a rather popular America Pro-Life Blog Site, have created a cartoon on the whole Y108 fiasco.

Hat tip again to Robert Jason and the “Bloggin Busters” who went to work on preserving free speech and sticking up for the unborn.

Methinks that we’ll have to saddle up the posse again some time soon.

Comments No Comments »

Deirdre McMurdy, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, January 11, 2007
Jim Shaw is ticked off.
The CEO of Shaw Communications is tired of subsidizing the CBC. He’s frustrated by spending five per cent of his company’s annual revenues on television programs no one watches. He refuses to pay broadcasters a fee-for-carriage of their signals as well as part of the freight on their production costs. And he’s prepared to blatantly breach CRTC regulations to make his point.

As the result of a typically blunt letter written by the burly, Harley-riding cable executive on Dec. 20, there are an awful lot of people scuttling about in the private and public sectors: Their fear is that Mr. Shaw’s aggressive stance may set a precedent for other disgruntled cable companies.

The letter, obtained by the Citizen, expresses Mr. Shaw’s “dissatisfaction” with the “performance, operations and governance” of the Canadian Television Fund.

That dissatisfaction has a steep price tag: about $56 million a year.

As the largest private sector contributor to the fund (all cable operators are required to contribute five per cent of their revenues to the fund, less the amount they spend on community initiatives), Shaw Communications is refusing to pay another nickel unless there is an immediate restructuring.

Noting that “over the past 10 years, Shaw has contributed over $350 million in direct subsidies to the Canadian production industry,” Mr. Shaw observes the fund “has become nothing more than a means of subsidizing broadcasters, pay and specialty services and independent producers to produce Canadian television programming that few watch and has no commercial or exportable value.”

He is particularly rankled that a full 37 per cent of the fund’s revenues are set aside annually for the CBC/SRC — something he declares “should be ended immediately” in light of the fact that the “CBC already receives over $1.2 billion from Canadian taxpayers in the form of grants and mandatory subscriber fees.”

On the regulatory front, Mr. Shaw already incurred the wrath of the CRTC’s newly-minted interim chairman, Michel Arpin, at the television policy hearings last fall.

Mr. Arpin publicly censured him for taking out newspaper advertisements urging Canadians to directly contact the regulator to express their outrage over the proposal that cable operators pay broadcasters a fee-for-carriage of their signals.

By refusing to make further contributions to the Canadian Television Fund, Mr. Shaw is openly flouting a CRTC regulation — although the CRTC has not yet been formally apprised of this action.



Keep on flouting, Mr. Shaw. Bring the whole leftist cabal down. Use the money they are extorting from you to fund your legal defense. Hold out for a couple of years and your competitors will join you to squeeze the marshmellows to powder. They won’t have any money and the whole thing will collapse.

Vroom, vroom.

Comments No Comments »
FNC GRETA 1,473,000
FNC BRIT HUME 1,319,000
FNC SHEP 1,315,000

CNN DOBBS 1,106,000
CNN COOPER 658,000
CNN ZAHN 611,000,

KING 544,000

Comments No Comments »

Ms. Carpenter,

Thank you for your response. It will save us both a lot of time, effort, money, and grief.

I am very happy you made the correct decision.


John Pacheco
Social Conservatives United


Thank you for your email. We wanted to confirm that last Friday afternoon, Y108 did communicate to the Niagara Right to Life that we would honour their campaign in full as you will see in the correspondence below.


Suzanne Carpenter
General Manager


—–Original Message—–

From: Suzanne Carpenter
Sent: Fri 1/5/2007 8:00 PM

Dear Jakki,

Thank you for your letter dated January 5th. The remainder of the
Niagara Region Right to Life ads will run and your contract will be
honoured in full.


Suzanne Carpenter
General Manager

Comments 1 Comment »

In other news….

International Right to Life Leaders Call World Leaders to Revisit “Prophetic” Warnings of Humanae Vitae

MANILA, January 8, 2007 ( – International Right to Life Federation (IRLF) leaders meeting in Manila have issued a statement calling on “citizens throughout the world to study the prophetic message of Humanae Vitae”, Catholic church teaching on the regulation of births published in 1968.

The document published under Pope Paul VI, warns of dire consequences which would stem from artificial methods of birth regulation. “Careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law,” warned the encyclical. “Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone,” it added.

Dr Jack Willke, President of International Right to Life Federation, said: “Worldwide, we are witnessing the sexualization of our children – in particular, the sexual indoctrination of children with a view to subsequent provision of abortion and birth control drugs and devices to them without parental knowledge and consent, including in faith schools. We are also witnessing growing pressure from United Nations bodies on developing countries to legalise abortion.”

The IRLF statement says: “We call on citizens throughout the world to demand that innocent human life, from conception until natural death, be protected from intentional killing in their nations’ laws; we call on citizens throughout the world to demand that only marriage between a man and a woman be recognized in their nations’ laws; we call on citizens throughout the world to demand that the inalienable rights of parents as primary educators and protectors be respected in their nations’ laws.”

The statement from the pro-life leaders concluded: “We consider that the depth of the crisis is so great we call on government leaders, politicians and citizens throughout the world to study the prophetic message of Humanae Vitae, as its 40th anniversary approaches in July 2008, in the light of worldwide experience”.

International Right to Life is meeting at the Shangri-la Hotel in Manila and their board members are also speaking at the international conference on bioethics and the family, addressed by Bishop Sgreccia, President of the Pontifical Academy for life, and organized by the Catholic bishops’ conference of the Philippines on 9th and 10th January.

Comments No Comments »



(Our Blessed Mother was accompanied by angels and appeared at 1:30 A.M. She wore a golden sash around her waist and a bright golden light surrounded her.)

She said:

“My dear children. I am the Mother of Love, Peace and Joy and the Immaculate Conception. I thank God for allowing me once again to be on this humble mountain. I greet you, my child, on your special day. It is so nice to see you all here praying together with the saints and angels in Heaven.It is a gift and act of God’s supreme love; He gave me these special graces to come down from Heaven from generation to generation, and to speak, and be able to be seen by many of His chosen messengers. I am asking my children to be prepared and to be purified for His second coming. The words in the scriptures must be fulfilled. The world is in crisis because many of my children are not praying anymore and they are focused more on worldly pleasures. It is important today, my children, to keep praying more and more for your brothers and sisters. The time left for prayers and conversion is getting short.

I want to thank my children who are here praying together in union with my saints and angels. You are here because of your faith, love, trust and hope in my Son, Jesus. I am very pleased and grateful to see my three little priests who opened their hearts, here on this humble mountain. Please pray for my priests, children, because they need your prayers and you need them to receive the body and blood of my Son. Your prayers must be simple, but from your minds and hearts.

You are my children that I love. I will always be with you in prayers together with the saints and angels. You are all my beautiful flowers in my garden. I, with my saints, will bring all your prayer requests and petitions to Heaven. I love you my dear children.

Thank you so much for listening to my message.”

(The Blessed Mother and the angels disappeared.)


Confirmation of the apparitions of the Blessed Mother is the sole domain of the Catholic Church who has the authority to render judgements on alleged apparitions.

A statistical analysis of the Marian apparition directory reveals the following results. During the twentieth century, there have been 386 cases of Marian apparitions. The Church has made “no decision” about the supernatural character regarding 299 of the 386 cases. The Church has made a “negative decision” about the supernatural character in 79 of the 386 cases. Out of the 386 apparitions, the Church has decided that “yes” there is a supernatural character only in 8 cases: Fatima (Portugal), Beauraing (Belgium), Banneux (Belgium), Akita (Japan), Syracuse (Italy), Zeitoun (Egypt), Manila (Philippines) (according to some sources), and Betania (Venezuela). Local bishops have approved of the faith expression at the sites where these 8 apparitions occurred. Besides the 8 approved apparitions, there have been 11 (out of the 386 apparitions) which have not been approved with a “supernatural character”, but which have received a “yes” to indicate the local bishop’s “approval of faith expression (prayer and devotion) at the site”. (Source)

Comments 19 Comments »

Serge Régnier (as some readers may remember) is a 47-year old Belgian with three wives and thirty children. In 1986 Régnier married Christine Wuest (who is now 38). They have fifteen children, between 19 years and 11 months old. A couple of years later, Christine’s homeless sister Karine Wuest (now 35 years old) came to live with the couple. Soon she fell in love with Serge. Christine consented in her husband taking her sister as a second wife. Serge and Karine have six children, between 10 years and 10 months old.All that time, Serge had been meeting his former girlfriend Judith De Leenheer (now 38 years old). When Judith’s marriage broke up – which was not altogether surprising since all her children were Serge’s rather than her husband’s – Serge asked his two wives whether they would mind taking her in. They did not mind. Serge and Judith have nine children, between 18 years and 10 months old. They all live together in Serge’s house in Marcinelle, a town in Wallonia, the French-speaking South of Belgium.

The Belgians call Régnier, a stocky, balding man with a fringe of beard, the “Marcinelle bull.” Non-Belgians wonder perhaps how he provides for his large family. Here is the answer.

Régnier applied for and received the status of an invalid from Wallonia’s generous welfare authorities. He consequently receives a welfare check of over €1,000 a month. His three wives are all unemployed. Hence, they each get €800 in unemployment benefits. On top of this the family receives €4,000 in child allowances. This makes a grand total of more than €7,400 a month ($9,700 or £4,960) – all of it provided by Belgium’s taxpayers. All the money matters in the household are taken care of by Serge. His wives are only interested in children. They have told the press that they each hope to have another baby in 2007.

Indeed, last Tuesday the Belgian paper Gazet van Antwerpen wrote that there are marital problems in the Régnier household. His three wives complain that their husband is often away from home, while they do not know where he is. They suspect there is a fourth woman. “We are partners, friends. There is no jealousy here, at least not between us three,” they told the paper. But while four is a marriage, five is a crowd. The wives are also increasingly frustrated because Serge does not seem prepared to give them another baby yet. “Judith, Karine and I each want three more children,” says Christine. “So did Serge a few months ago, but suddenly no more. What must we make of that?” she asks. Régnier, however, denies he is cheating on his wives. “They will get their children, but not for the moment,” he says.

The wives are also cross because Régnier often withdraws into his room, locking the door. He is the only one to have a room of his own in the house. There he has a television set and a small fridge. The women complain he sits there watching football and drinking beer, while they cook, wash and iron and take care of the children. Régnier ignores their complaints, and tells the journalist: “I do not know whether you are married but if you have one wife you can imagine what it is like to have three.”



So let me get this straight. Follow me now, folks, because this is going to be rather earth shattering for our feminist friends.

What is the difference between Serge and a sperm donor? I can’t see much of a difference, except that the wives in Serge’s life have an available sperm donor living in their own home.

What’s the problem?

Polygamy — artificial insemination. Can you see a difference? I can’t see a difference.

Comments No Comments »

The Globe & Mail
Once again, The Globe & Mail is demonstrating that it is the official flyer of left-wing politics in Canada. The Globe published an article on January 3, 2007, entitled New Poll Suggests Conservatives, Liberals in dead heat. The article reports the results of a Decima Research poll showing the Conservatives with 34% of public support and the Liberals with 31%. Given that the margin of error of the poll is 3.1 percentage points, The Globe assumes that both parties can be considered to have equal public support.

It’s true that the race is close between the two parties, but that doesn’t mean that their support is equal. That’s not how you interpret margins of error in polls. The Globe should know better. If they don’t, then they should get out of the business of reporting poll results.

When a poll has a margin of error of 3.1%, that means that the estimates of 34% for the Conservatives and 31% for the Liberals could each be up or down by about 3%. In other words, support for the Conservatives ranges between 31% and 37%, while support for the Liberals is between 28% and 34%. Notice how the Conservatives’ range is higher, on average, than the Liberals’ range. That’s because the “point estimate” (to use the technical term) is higher for the Conservatives (34% vs. 31%).

So that puts the Conservatives ahead in this poll, period. That’s how you interpret margins of error in polls. To do otherwise is to embark on a subjective interpretation, possibly for political purposes. We’ve seen The Globe do this many times in the past, so I can’t say I’m surprised.

We all know that many people will not bother reading the details of the article, but simply glance over the title declaring a “dead heat” and move on. Mission accomplished for the manipulators at The Globe. There is no “dead heat” at all, but rather a healthy lead (even if it is on the lower end) for the Conservative Party. The only thing dead here is the truth with this shameless and, presumably, unpaid advertising for the Liberal Party of Canada.

It is clear that The Globe’s approach is often subtle, but the trend is unmistakable. The Globe loves to manipulate public opinion to push a left-leaning agenda. The only difference this time is that we aren’t taking it any more. We’re pushing back.

Submitted by: Steve G.
Date: January 8, 2007.

Comments No Comments »

Got word from Robert Jason this afternoon that Y108 is going to be airing the pro-life ads after all.

See my last blog entry on this whole fiasco here.

Reminder to all of the socon bloggers and facilitators who put the heat on Y108: put another notch in belt.

Good job, Kimosabes.

Comments No Comments »

E-mail received from my good friend, Dominic Tse…

Something we did against the 3 Parents court ruling. Please distribute it through your network. The video was hastely produced in Cantonese, Mandarin, and English. Viewers are encouraged to go to a petition site to register their vote. We will collect the petitions to present them to Dalton McGuinty.


Comments No Comments »

Cudos to LifeSiteNews’ valiant and, now, successful efforts to correct a so-called “reputable and credible” source like The New York Times magazine. It seems that the building momentum and outrage among El Salvador’s national press, along with LifeSiteNews’ readers and the blogosphere forced them to recant on their false abortion coverage in El Salvador.

While The Times did salvage some shred of integrity, one has to ask just what kind of credibility the general public can place in their reporting in the future or even in the past. After all, LifeSiteNews can’t cover all of their errors – especially the one’s we don’t even know about.

There is only one thing that liberal reporters hate more than social conservative views and that’s losing the credibility that they presume to have. What a cruel and self-delusional world that they live in.

Once again, hat tip to John Henry Westen and the LifeSiteNews crew. At least we have one news outlet in this country that Canadians can turn to for news items the main stream media refuses to report on.

And it also shows us that we should never, ever stop applying the pressure on our opponents when they trip up. The truth eventually vindicates us all. Sometimes it comes sooner rather than later, but one thing is for certain, it does arrive. In this case, the heat was too much even for the Goliath that is The New York Times. Five round stones or a keyboard, phone, and attitude can accomplish wonders. Don’t forget it.

By the way, the Main Stream Media Shakedown Awards is back on. I have placed this story by LifeSiteNews as the first entry in the contest.

To learn more about the contest, click here.

To learn read the entire list of reports on The New York Times debacle, click here.



NEW YORK, January 8, 2007 ( – Five weeks after they were notified by a article that they had made a grave error in reporting on abortion in El Salvador, and one week after the paper’s ombudsman published his corroboration of the evidence, the New York Times has issued a correction. On Sunday, the New York Times magazine issued an editor’s note admitting at least one of the errors in an April 9 story.With information from contacts in El Salvador, pointed out in late November that the cover article in the NYT magazine of April 9 claimed falsely that some women in El Salvador were imprisoned for thirty years for illegal abortions. LifeSiteNews published the full court ruling in the case which showed that rather than being jailed for a clandestine abortion – as the Times magazine asserted – the case study cited actually concerned infanticide of a full-term baby. (see coverage: )

The emotionally laden piece published by the magazine carried a photo of a young woman in prison by the name of Carmen Climaco. The caption stated she “was given 30 years for an abortion that was ruled a homicide.” Moreover, the article concluded, “She’d had a clandestine abortion at 18 weeks, not all that different from D.C.’s, something defined as absolutely legal in the United States. It’s just that she’d had an abortion in El Salvador.”

Complaints from readers prompted New York Times public editor (ombudsman) Byron Calame to investigate the Times magazine story in light of the court ruling. After verifying that the court ruling published by was authentic and did in fact contradict the assertions by the magazine, he corresponded with magazine editor and the standards editor, both of whom as of the December 31 publication of Mr. Calame’s article were refusing to admit their error and publish a correction. (see coverage: )

The story spread like wildfire on talk radio, blogs, and even in the mainstream press both in America and El Salvador. ( ) There were even assertions that the paper would remove it public editor position altogether ( )

The pro-abortion bias of the New York Times was aired to millions. Prominent attention was paid to the fact that Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. gave a speech to graduates of the State University of New York at New Paltz in May 2006 where he demonstrated his extreme pro-abortion and pro-same sex ‘marriage’ militancy. In his speech he “apologized” to the graduates saying, “You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, whether it’s the rights of immigrants to start a new life, or the rights of gays to marry; or the rights of women to choose.”

The editor’s note in the magazine’s corrections section yesterday stated: “The Times should have obtained the text of the ruling of the three-judge panel before the article was published, but did not vigorously pursue the document until details of the ruling were brought to the attention of editors in late November.”

The editor’s note adds: “Ms. Climaco was sentenced to 30 years in prison for a case that was initially thought to be an abortion but was later ruled to be a homicide; she was not given 30 years in prison for an abortion that was ruled a homicide.”

See the full editor’s note in the NYT magazine here:…

Comments No Comments »

I received an e-mail from Alliance for Life’s Ontario director, Jakki Jeffs. Here is the substantial text of Jakki’s e-mail:

January 5th 2007
From: Jakki Jeffs
Hello everyone, I am writing for your help. Following this message you will see the script of four ads that were contracted with Y108 radio station by Niagara Region Right to Life. This campaign was “pulled” by the station manager, Suzanne Carpenter because the station received 7 complaints! I have attached our formal letter to Ms Carpenter for your information and now ask for your assistance. I will not repeat what I have said in my letter but encourage you to read it and then send your comments to the following. Suzanne Carpenter, Station Manager Y108
Suite 900,
875, Main Street West
L8S 4R1
905 521 9900
John Cassaday, President Corus Entertainment
Corus Entertainment Inc.,
181, Bay Street, Suite 1630
Toronto, Ontario
M5J 2T3
416 642 3770
416 642-3779 fax
Heather Shaw, Executive Chair Corus Entertainment
Corus Entertainment Inc.,
630-3rd Avenue SW, Suite 510
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 4L4
403 444 4244
403 444-4242fax

Here are the so-called “offensive” radio 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.


Dear Ms. Carpenter,

I have been informed by Ms. Jakki Jeffs that you have pulled Alliance for Life’s radio ads. I find this very disturbing.

First of all, I consider it a crass assault on freedom of speech. You received a total of 7 complaints (6 of them by the brave and courageous form of e-mail) and, on that basis, you pulled the ads? My goodness, is this the measure of shutting down dissenting opinion in a country which is supposedly a model of democratic society? I hope you can see how absurd and ridiculous such an action is. If you don’t understand, I am sure the residents of Niagara and concerned citizens around the country will help you understand over the next week or so.

Secondly, your action is clearly a breach of contract. I will be encouraging Ms. Jeffs to take legal action against the station, and I will do my part to spread the news about your Station’s position outrageous action. You must understand that this is not merely about Alliance for Life and your station only. Indeed, your refusal to respect your contract is a grave affront and insult to our civil rights of freedom of speech and expression, especially considering the rather tame and factual nature of the ads. As a pro-life Canadian, I am furious and insulted at your Station’s wanton disregard for our rights.

Lastly, if your refusal to honour your contract has nothing to do with the abortion issue per se, but only because you received 7 complaints from your listeners, then I shall expect this policy to be applied universally and categorically across the board on any other ad of any nature which is aired on your station. Therefore, if you receive 7 complaints on any other ad (totally unrelated to the abortion controversy), I shall expect you to break your contract with your client as you have done with Alliance for Life Ontario. If you insist on continuing your breach of contract with Alliance for Life Ontario (or the Niagara Region Right to Life, as the case may be), please be prepared to receive many complaints on ads of your biggest clients. If you refuse to pull these particular ads which your listeners find offensive, we will take note to 1) show the public that you are a pro-abortion radio station and 2) that you are not abiding by a fair and impartial screening against other complaints leveled against ads aired on your station.

I respectfully suggest that you reconsider your actions.

Walmart listened to us when they realized the economic backlash of our efforts:

I suggest that you take their lead and reconsider. It’s your choice, of course, but this could get very ugly, very quickly. Do the honourable and fair thing and let the ads play.

Yours truly,

John Pacheco
Social Conservatives United

Comments No Comments »

LifeSite News is reporting that El Salvador’s Most Influential Daily Newspaper has picked up on The New York Times Botched Abortion Coverage.

And they say that El Salvador is a banana republic.


The fallout from the Nov. 28 LifeSiteNews story revealing a New York Times “Abortion-Promoting Whopper” continues to grow. In El Salvador, the country wrongly fingered by the Times for jailing a young woman who supposedly had an 18 week abortion, revelations by the NY Times Public Editor and LifeSiteNews garnered the front page and all of pages 2 and 3 in the country’s most influential paper….read more

Comments No Comments »

My letter to Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
cc: Scott H. Heekin-Canedy, President, General Manager:

Re: Botched Abortion Coverage and Disdain for Fairness in News reporting


Dear Mr. Sulzberger:

It is really remarkable that The New York Times, the great bastion of champagne liberalism in America, simply refuses to correct a glaring error in its reporting. Everyone knows that when they read The Times, they will expect to read the usual leftist mantra. Par for the course in our day. However, the line is crossed when we are not arguing over opinions and perspectives any more, but are trying to find out what exactly are the facts.

One of the great things about a classic liberal democracy is that all sides are bound to report the facts as best they understand them and then debate their position based on the facts. But when you can’t even rely on a news source to report the facts fairly and accurately (or correct their assertions when they have been shown to be false by their own employees, no less!), any good will and credibility that such a news organization like The Times has built up will be seriously undermined. And, as much as you and the rest of the hierarchy at The New York Times apparently despise being accountable to report the truth to the public, credibility is still a required prerequisite in the news business.

Well, at least it is for us bloggers…which kind of explains why The New York Times and the rest of the main stream media are fading into the distance. Everyone makes mistakes, sir. There is nothing culpable in that. But foolish obstinance to correct an error is something different altogether. Such obstinance only rears itself when the party in question seeks to prop up something which would otherwise not sell. In this particular case, the obstinancy is geared to salvaging the Times’ position on abortion which is increasingly becoming a hard sell to the American public.

In all honesty, however, I cannot say that I am all that surprised at the attitude of your paper because your editorial position on abortion and other social issues is as bankrupt as your ethics in news reporting.

Before this fiasco, the public could not rely on your editorial position on social issues. Now it appears that your facts aren’t even straight.

If The Times’ opinion is bunk and your facts are bunk, why waste any more trees? Do the environmentally ethical thing and close up shop.

Yours truly,

John Pacheco
Social Conservatives United


See article below:

NEW YORK, January 4, 2007 ( – The New York Times is seriously contemplating removing its public editor (ombudsman) position which was instituted in 2003 to be an independent voice for the public within the paper in order to maintain credibility. The new move comes in the wake of current public editor Byron Calame’s confirmation that was correct in asserting the Times made a major error in reporting on criminal penalties for abortion in El Salvador.The first recorded mention of the intention to axe the position was raised at a December 15 New York Times meeting where Times’ executive editor Bill Keller raised the idea. That meeting was held about a week after Calame began asking very uncomfortable questions of senior editors at the Times, and receiving in response terse replies rejecting his warnings that the NYT magazine had been caught in a serious error which deserved correction.

With information from contacts in El Salvador, pointed out that the cover article in the NYT magazine of April 6 claimed falsely that some women in El Salvador were imprisoned for thirty years for illegal abortions. LifeSiteNews published the full court ruling in the case which showed that rather than being jailed for a clandestine abortion – as the Times magazine asserted – the case study cited actually concerned infanticide of a full-term baby. (see coverage: )

Calame describes his struggle with the editors of the Times in the pages of the paper saying, “After the English translation of the court ruling became available on Dec. 8, I asked Mr. Marzorati (NYT magazine editor) if he continued to have ‘no reason to doubt the accuracy of the facts’ in the article. His e-mail response seemed to ignore the ready availability of the court document containing the findings from the trial before the three-judge panel and its sentencing decision.”

Calame also struggled with the Times’ standards editor. “I asked Mr. Whitney if he intended to suggest that the office of the publisher bring the court’s findings to the attention of those readers who received the ‘no reason to doubt’ response, or that a correction be published,” writes Calame. He notes that no decision to issue a correction had been made despite the overwhelming evidence.

Soon after these exchanges the December 15 meeting occurred where the intent to eliminate the public editor position was raised. In his December 31 publication of the article exposing the NYT magazine story errors, Calame concludes, “One thing is clear to me, at this point, about the key example of Carmen Climaco. Accuracy and fairness were not pursued with the vigor Times readers have a right to expect.”

Calame told that his personal position at the Times was not in question since his “non-renewable, two-year contract to serve as public editor ends May 8, 2007.” contacted Times spokesman Abbe Serphos for comment, but she did not respond by press time.

Speaking with the New York Observer about the Times’ contemplation of removing the position, Calame said, “I have been critical of the newsroom. I’ve also praised the newsroom, and I think that Bill Keller has been-quite obviously-unhappy with some of the things I’ve written.”

“It seems to me that the high degree of independence that has been given to the public editor at The New York Times makes it a situation that inevitably causes criticism,” continued Calame.

He concluded his remarks to the Observer stating: “So it is not a surprise to me that The New York Times-that Bill Keller, the executive editor, and Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher-would want to sit down and think about whether they want to have a public editor.”


Comments No Comments »

TORONTO, Ontario, January 3, 2006 ( – The Ontario Court of Appeal, in another major Ontario judicial activist decision, has ruled that a five-year-old Ontario boy has three legal parents. The Appeals Court, overturning an emphatic lower court ruling, granted the boy’s father, biological mother and the mother’s lesbian partner equal rights and responsibilities under law, in a decision released yesterday.

A lower court ruling on the case in 2003 said the Ontario Children’s Law Reform Act could not be interpreted as recognizing more than two persons as parents by birth or adoption. In his ruling, Justice David Aston said at the time that allowing more than two parents ““might open the floodgates to similar claims from step-parents or members of the child’s extended family.”

“If a child can have three parents,” Aston wrote, “why not four or six or a dozen? What about all the adults in a commune or a religious organization or sect? Quite apart from social policy implications, the potential to create or exacerbate custody and access litigation should not be ignored.”

While the Appeal Court agreed, the Court also found that the existing law did not take into account changes to Canadian society which affected parenting, leaving a sufficiently serious “gap” to require the intervention of the court. The lower court ruling was overturned and all three persons in question were granted parental rights.



During the March4Marriage rally held on Parliament Hill (see pic at top of my blog), the last speaker to present was Dr. Douglas Farrow. Dr. Farrow is an associate Professor of Christian Thought at the Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University, and serves on the Steering Committee of Enshrine Marriage Canada.

He is also the co-author of Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada’s New Social Experiment…

Anyhow, I should have put him first on the speaker list and not last. I thought he would give a pretty boring speech for an academic, but he was fantastic and the crowd were very impressed by his solid reasoning and presentation. At that time (April 9, 2005), he predicted that children would become mere chattels of the State if same-sex “marriage” was passed into law and that our inalienable rights to our children would be reduced to mere “legal rights” and these so-called legal rights would eventually supercede the natural claims of biology.

After all, if marriage is not based on biology, why should the stewardship of your children be? One goes with the other. Either it’s biology for both or biology for neither, right? Right.

It is not implausible in the future that a biological father or mother could lose their rights to their children because some sick and perverse judge decides that a particular relationship a child has with another person supercedes “mere” biology. You know, “love” and “understanding” will be used to sever biology and nature from the law so that all relationships are reduced to the realm of the arbitrary, where mere “feelings” and “relationships” trump common sense and logic.

Click below to listen to Dr. Farrow’s speech. It’s about 7.5 minutes (a little long), but he does a very good job in predicting what is happening today – not yet 2 years after he gave this prophetic speech on Parliament Hill.

Dr. Farrow’s Speech at the National March4Marriage Rally held on Parliament Hill, April 9, 2005.

Comments 1 Comment »