Archive for May, 2007

How did we ever come to this muddled way of thinking? Did you notice how a good number of the people interviewed said “it depends”. In other words, the abortion decision is not right or wrong in and of itself. It would be OK if the woman was raped, but not if she was “rich” or used it for “birth control”.

What this shows is that

1) people think about the issue almost entirely through what will happen to the mother’s “freedom.” That is why there is this appeal to situational ethics. Rarely do the respondents mention the humanity of the unborn child….

2) people have not been properly educated about just what precisely is being aborted, what the consequences are to the woman, child, and to the greater culture.

We do not define a child in and out of existence merely because of the financial circumstances of its mother or the situation surrounding its birth.

Undergirding all of this is an underlying foundation of fear and a false view of freedom.

Freedom to kill an unborn child is not authentic freedom. The act remains intrinsically evil and the consequences of abortion (and there are many) remain with the woman for the rest of her life. She may be “rid of” the responsibility of rearing a child, but she can never escape what evil had to be committed to purchase this so-called freedom. In point of fact, she has not purchased freedom at all, but rather only enslavement to the serious health and emotional consequences which will continue to exact payment from her all her life. Some freedom that is.

Killing another human being does not bring relief or freedom. It brings the opposite.

That is why we need a national, transparent debate in this nation about this issue. We need to hear from women who have had abortions. We need to read and hear about the advances in fetal development.

Since we won’t get it from the Catholic Bashing Corporation or the Pseudo Conservative Party, we must find other means of pushing the envelope and forcing the discussion out of the dark ages of the sixties.

Comments No Comments »

This is way too funny. The CBC, that paragon of useless Canadian inclusivity and tolerance, has accidentally gone and made abortion a prominent topic of discussion on their little FaceBook entry called “The Great Canadian Wish List”. After willfully ignoring and misrepresenting the abortion issue year-after-year, this lame excuse for a public broadcaster has inadvertently stoked the fires of this controversy by reviving an issue that simply will never go away.

It turns out that the number one vote getter right now is…drum roll please….the end to abortion! Yes, folks, you too can join the swelling ranks of pro-lifers and skeptical agnostics as they rebel against the enforced silence and the so-called “settled issue forever and ever amen” brigade by participating in the CBC’s Great Canadian Wish List. Here is the text of the wish:

I wish that there was an end to abortion in Canada.

The intentional killing of an innocent human being is wrong. Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. Therefore abortion is wrong.

From the moment of conception a unique, individual human being is created with separate DNA from his/her mother. They also could have a different blood type and/or gender if the preborn child is a male.

By the law of biogenesis, to find out what a living thing is, we look to see what the parent’s are. Clearly, a woman’s offspring must be human. The term “foetus” is from Latin and means “offspring” or “young one”. It is a stage in development for the newly created human, just like toddler. Stages of development change, but we are always human.

The law governs many other things people deem wrong, ie. Child abuse and rape. People can choose to do these, but laws are in place against them because they harm other human beings.

With no protection for the preborn child, until they take their first breath, today in Canada over 100,000 lives are ended each year. There is also no informed consent law for women making this important decision. Many women become depressed, and/or infertile, among other things. Infection is the most common physical harm which can lead to hemorrhaging and can lead to death. Abortion is not safe for women.

This wish aims to redeem the humanity of the preborn child. It also recognizes that there needs to be necessary social changes in place to support women in crisis pregnancies.

To lend your support for this wish, please follow the instruction which my friend and fellow pro-life blogger, Suzanne, has detailed below. Take a few moments to register your account and jump on the pro-life bandwagon to end the scourge of abortion and exploitation of women.

There is something happening in this country regarding the issue of abortion. What has seemed for 40 years to be something so entrenched and accepted is, in reality, only hanging by a thread. A mild but firm wind will cut the thread that has choked millions of unborn children these past 40 years, while enslaving and ruining the lives of millions of women. The “mantra of choice” has not led to an emancipation at all, but rather to an enslavement in the desert of depression, despair, and death.

And while our political leaders wring their hands and lament foreign holocausts of previous generations, they are blinded to the national holocaust of our own children these past 40 years. And they won’t lift a finger, but actually do their utmost, to squash any debate on the unquestionable destructive effects of abortion - not only to the direct victims of abortion (women and their babies), but also on the collective soul of our nation and the societal and cultural consequences of 3,000,000+ dead Canadian babies, dead Canadian workers, dead Canadian democrats, dead Canadian moms, dead Canadian dads, and eventually, a dead Canada.

We are a nation of cowards who elect politicians who sell us smooth lies and feed us what we want to hear. They keep us from the truth and refuse to challenge us. They don’t lead. They follow. Because they love power more than the truth, they seek to squash debate on fundamental questions of human existence – not the least of which is the very capacity to transmit an authentic Canadian culture to future generations. But there is less and less of Canadian culture to transmit and there are fewer and fewer of us to do the transmitting.

Canada? What’s that? A patchwork nation of individuals held together by a shared committment to unfettered and sterile orgasms, some spending money, and a welfare state on the edge of collapse and ruin. That’s about it. That about sums up our common Canadian values.

We are a nation which is very sick and very fearful of its own future. We refuse to face our criminal past in dealing with the real crimes against our own humanity.

Being so self-absorbed in our own self-righteous denunciations about ethnic cleansing in so many parts of the world, we dare not look in the mirror and remove the planks from our own eyes. Those planks are large indeed.

We Canadians are a very industrious people, after all. We are the experts at evacuating and cleansing ourselves of a humanity we would prefer not to discuss, and exporting this destruction to every corner of the globe. Canada has become a curse to the world instead of the blessing it should be.

And what is worse in this whole tragedy is that it doesn’t have to be this way. Education and discussion are a way out of this entanglement, but our so-called democratic politicians refuse to allow the discussion to go forward. So we have the very odd situation where the country at large is very willing to discuss this issue and is very open to applying some kind of restrictions on abortions, but our politicians, especially the ones stylying themselves as “conservative”, simply refuse to allow the trojan horse into Parliament. Why? Because they have become little dictators on the question, having sold out Canada’s future for some fleeting and temporal power – a kind of political orgasm reminiscent of this sex drenched society which wants a quick hit and “to hell with the future” sentiment.

“The Conservative government won’t be initiating or supporting abortion legislation, and I’ll use whatever influence I have in Parliament to be sure that such a matter doesn’t come to a vote,” Harper told reporters in Quebec today, according to a CBC report. “I will use whatever influence I have to keep that off of the agenda, and I don’t see any likelihood of that in the next Parliament,” he said.

If Stephen Harper cares about Canada, regardless of his own personal convictions on the issue of abortion, he should show himself to be an authentic democrat and allow his colleagues in the Conservative Party to bring forward legislation on abortion.

The muzzle must be put down, Mr. Harper. The voices of the unborn need to be heard. Now.
To register for an account on Facebook:

Right now, there is the Great Canadian Wish List. When you have your facebook account, go here:

Join that group. The link is on the right side.

Then go to “Abolish Abortion”

We really have a shot at wining this contest, and doing this will help keep up the momentum. We really put abortion on the CBC’s radar.

There’s a blog for this on the CBC website– it was blogged about three times:

Comments 5 Comments »

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) – Many adults in Canada appear to question the ideological dimension of their governing party, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 41 per cent of respondents think no current federal political party truly represents conservatism in Canada

In April, former National Citizens Coalition vice-president Gerry Nicholls expressed dissatisfaction with the current government in an op-ed, writing, “They have failed to cut back on the size of government, failed to control spending and failed to introduce broad-based tax cuts for both individuals and businesses.”

Do you agree or disagree with this statement? – No current federal political party truly represents conservatism in Canada.

Agree 41%
Disagree 27%
Not sure 31%


This is NOT a good sign for the Conservative Party. They campaigned on being conservative and that is why they got elected. Now a good number of Canadians think otherwise, and that can only spell disaster for the Conservative Party. Being a hairs-breath right of the Liberals is a disaster waiting to happen, not unlike what befell Kim Campbell. Don’t blink, it can happen again.

Comments No Comments »

Ask yourself this question. What would happen, do you think, to a man who admitted to leaving a newborn infant head down in a toilet?

Is there really any doubt? Such a monster — and that’s what he’d be called — would be charged immediately with attempted murder.

If he were an adult, his name would be released and he would more than likely be paraded in front of the media so we could all get a really good look at “the kind of person who could do such a thing.”

Contrast that reality with what has happened to the woman who gave birth to a baby boy in a Wal-Mart washroom in Prince Albert, Sask., on May 21 and it’s clear that when it comes to equality before the law, women tend to get off easy in comparison to men.

The baby boy was found, not breathing head down in a bloody toilet bowl by the store manager, who managed to resuscitate the boy by performing CPR until paramedics arrived.

Because of moronic privacy laws in Saskatchewan, the communications people at Royal University Hospital in Saskatoon, to where Baby John Doe was transferred, can’t even release the medical condition of the newborn, though police said yesterday the baby was released to children’s services.

It wouldn’t be surprising if the baby has suffered some brain and lung damage, thanks to his first breaths being toilet water rather than air.


And this is surprising? Oh come now. Let’s not get too uptight.

The indictment does not fall against this woman. She’s just acting out what society says is fine. The only thing she slipped up on was the location. If she simply had the foresight to do her deed in Everywoman’s Clinic instead of Walmart, everybody would have been just groovy with it.

Comments 1 Comment »

I’m a social conservative. When the mullahs take over, I’ll grow my beard a little fuller, get a couple of extra wives, and keep my head down. It’s the feminists and gays who’ll have a tougher time. If, say, three of the five judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court are Muslim, what are the chances of them approving “gay marriage”? (Source: America Alone, Mark Steyn, p. xxvii)

It is truly a remarkable sight to see the useful idiots of western democracies who style themselves “progressives” and the Islamists joining forces to stamp out any vestiges of traditional western morality and classic democratic principles.

What a great irony that those things the Left so clamors for now will be completely eradicated under Islam when the Mullahs take over. And you know what? I very much doubt they will care. Their hatred for Christianity and the West is even greater than their love for their distorted view of freedom.

That is why we should not hold our breath and expect them to see sense when our common way of life becomes seriously compromised.

Comments 1 Comment »

As part of my one hour spent with the Lord in Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, I have begun reading The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis once again. Every week or so, I post an entry from his rich work for edification and spiritual reflection….

Imitation of Christ (1.3.6)
When people desire anything to an excessive degree, they immediately lose their peace of soul. The proud and avaricious are always perturbed; while the humble and the poor in spirit live in peace and contentment.

Comments 2 Comments »

I’m a social conservative. When the mullahs take over, I’ll grow my beard a little fuller, get a couple of extra wives, and keep my head down. It’s the feminists and gays who’ll have a tougher time. If, say, three of the five judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court are Muslim, what are the chances of them approving “gay marriage”? (Mark Steyn, America Alone, p. xxvii )Appeasement is a vote to live in the present tense, to hold the comforts of the moment. To fight for king and country is to fight for the future. But a barren society has no future, and so what’s to fight for?” (Mark Steyn, America Alone, p.37)

The Left, for its part, offers an appeal to moral virtue: it’s better to pay more in taxes and to share the burdens as a community. It’s kinder, gentler, more compassionate, more equitable. Unfortunately, as recent European elections results demonstrate, nothing makes a citizen more selfish than socially equitable communitarianism: once a fellow’s enjoying the fruits of government health care and all the rest, he couldn’t give a hoot about the general social interest; he’s got his, and if it’s going to bankrupt the state a generation hence, well, as long as they keep the checks coming till he’s dead, it’s fine by him. (Mark Steyn, America Alone, p.45)

This is why countries that fall into this model don’t care about defense and care even less about having children. National Defense means losing comforts. It means sacrificing part of the huge social programs they have come to expect, to be entitled to. And children? Too expensive. Too much of a drag. (Mark Steyn, America Alone, p45-55)

Her Majesty’s chilly Dominion is the land where straights live in comon-law partnerships and the gays get maried. And the upshot is: America’s fertility rate is 2.11; Canada’s is 1.48. And where does that lead? Canucks are aging faster than the Yanks. In 2000, oldsters formed 16.3% of America’s population and 17% of Canada’s-close enough. In 2040, they’ll form 26% of America’s population and 33.3% of Canada’s. (Mark Steyn, America Alone, p.55)

“Looking at it another way”, wrote Frank Gaffney in his book War Footing, “Saudi Arabia-which currently exports about ten mbd [million barrels of oil a day]-receives an extra half billion dollars every day.” Where does that extra half-bil go? It goes to the mosques and madrassas tha the Saudis export, ideology is-petroleum merely bankrolls it. (Mark Steyn, Americal Alone, p. 69)

Herbert Asquith is not the most famous British prime minister to American ears, but he’s the one who took his ocuntry into the Great War, which is the one that ended the Caliphate and delivered the Arab world into British hands. His great-granddaughter, Emma Clark, is now a Muslim. She’s a landscape artist and has designed an “Islamic garden” at the home of the Prince of Wales. The Honorable Jonathan Birt, sone of Lord Birt, the former director general of the BBC, is also a Muslim and is known as Yahya Birt. The Early of Yarborough is a Muslim, and oes by the name Abdul Mateen, though whether he can get served in the House of Lords tea room under that moniker is unclear. (Mark Steyn, America Alone, p.92)

Americans take for granted all the it’s about the future of our children” hooey that would ring so hollow in a European election. In the 2005 German campaign, voters were offered what would be regarded in the United States as a statistically improbable choice: a chidless man (Herr Schroder) vs. a childless woman (Frau Merkel). Statist Europe signed on to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s alleged African prover-”It takes a village to raise a child”-only to discover they got it backward: on the Continent, the lack of children will raze the village. And most of the villagers still refuse to recognize the contradictions: you can’t breed at the lethargic rate of most Europeans and then bitch and whine about letting the Turks into the European Union. Demographically, they’re the kids you couldn’t be bothered to have. (Mark Steyn, America Alone, p.109)

In eastern Germany, rural communities are dying and one consequence is that village sewer systems are having a tough time adjusting to the lack of use. Populations have fallen so dramatically that there are too few people flushing to keep the waste moving. Traditionally, government infrastructures expenditure arises from increased demand. In this case, the sewer lines are having to be narrowed at great cost in order to cope with dramatically decreased demand. (Mark Steyn, America Alone, p.114)

There’s no precedent for managed decline in societies as advanced as Europe’s, but the early indication are that it’s going to be expensive…For purposes of comparison, by 2050 public pension expenditures are expected to be 6.5% of GDP in the U.S., 16.9% in Germany, 17.3% in Spain, and 24.8% in Greece. In Europe, we’re talking not about the prospect of having to reduce benefits but about so long, farewell, auf wiedersehn, adieu, adieu, adieu to yieu and yieu and yieu.” (Mark Steyn, America Alone, p.114)

Abortion is one manifestation of what John Paul II called the reduction of sexuality into an ‘instrument for self-assertion’. Mr Reade might respond, ‘Yeah, that’s what’s so great about it!” But whatever one’s tastes in this area, as the pope understood, sex as mere self-assertion is a dead end. If the progressives either abort or decline to conceive their progeny, the progeny of the rednec knuckle draggers will be the only fellows around. (Mark Steyn, America Alone, p.179)

For many nations, it’s already too late. As Romania and other Communist countries belatedly discovered, even a repressive dictatorship has a hard job coercing the populace into breeding once they’ve lost the habit. When I’ve mentioned the birth dearth in newspaper columns on abortion, pro-”choice” readers have insisted it’s due to other factors [editor’s interruption here – of course, the mysterious “other factors” to avoid having to deal with their easy sex lives) – the generally declining fertility rates that affect all materially prosperous societies, or the high taxes that make large families prohibitively expensive in materially prosperous societies. But this is a bit like arguing over which came first, the chicken or the egg – or, in this case, which came first, the lack of eggs or the scraggy old chicken necked women desperate for one designer baby at the age of 48. Whether or not Russia, Japan, and Europe’s fertility woes derive from abortion, what should be obvious is that the way abortion issue is posited-as an issue of personal choice-is in and of itself- symptomatic of the existential crisis of the dying West.” (Mark Steyn, America Alone, p.189)

The chief characteristic of our age is “deferred adulthood”. All over North America and Europe there are millions of people going to college for no good reason. Certainly, there’s no reason why the sum of knowledge the average American has accumulated by the time he’s completed a bachelor’s degree should take twenty years to inculcate. We need to redirect the system to telescope education into a much shorter period. Instead, we’ve implicitly accepted that our bodies mature much earlier than our great-grandparents’ but that our minds don’t. We enter adolescence much sooner and leave it much later – in some cases, not until middle age. We’ve created a world where a thirty-one year old European male can stroll into a nightclub, tell the babes he lives at his mom and dad’s place in the same bedroom he’s slept in since he was in diapers-and he can still walk out with a hot-looking date. This guy would have been a laughing stock at any other point in human history. (Mark Steyn, America Alone, p.191)

The Islamic crescent flying over 10 Downing Street? You’d be surprised how quickly the question of what flag should fly over government buildings can become an issue. In 2005, Anne Owers, her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, banned the flying of the English national flag in English prisons on the grounds that it shows the cross of St. George, which was used by the Crusaders and so is offensive to Muslims. The Drivers and Vehicles Licensing Agency has also banned the English flg from its offices. So has Heathrow Airport. (Mark Steyn, America Alone, p.197)

If it were just terrorists bombing buildings and public transit, it would be easier: even the febblest Eurowimp jurisdiction is obliged to act when the streeet is piled with corpses. But there’s an old technique will understood by the smarter bullies. If you want to break a man, don’t attack him dead on, don’t brutalize him: pain and torture can awaken a stubborn resistance in all but the weakest. But jsut make him slightly uncomfortable, disrupt his life at the margin, and he’ll look for the easiest path to re-normalization. (Mark Steyn, America Alone, p.198)

Comments No Comments »

Here is a list of 5 areas which are easy winners for any political party which promotes them.

Inset: A 24 week old unborn child. No protection for him from the barbarians of our age.

At about 24 weeks, after retinal development is complete, babies open and close their eyes intermittently. This helps a baby to perfect the blinking reflex, which will protect his eyes once he’s born. (Source)

1. Informed Consent – An informed consent law so that women have all the information about the health consequences of abortion to both themselves and the child. Yes, call me a radical, but all women (and men for that matter) should have their eyes wide open before they make the poor choice called abortion. If it’s really a choice, then everyone should have all of the information presented to them — not just the “Feminist’s Guide to Sex and then Abortion with absolutely no consequences – trust us!” mantra that has been the only official literature available to us thusfar. Abortion is a defeat for humanity and the greatest destoyer of peace and respect for human life. If we insist on flushing ourselves down the toilet, we should make sure we do it with full and complete knowledge.

2. Health Assistance – A federally funded medical and psychological assistance program made available to women who have undergone an abortion. Source of funding, you ask? The Pig, of course. SOW’s millions of dollars in funding it receives in federal “Conservative” funding and other ludicrous make work feminist projects. It’s time to direct this dead money into something useful — like actually helping women cope for the choice foisted upon them by deadbeat boyfriend number 8.

3. Statistical Disclosure – Full and complete disclosure of abortion related statistics (age of fetus, mother’s age, circumstances of the abortion, etc.) to help formulate public policy to reduce the occurrences of unwanted pregnancies. We want to know how many nine month old babies are being butchered in the womb and the conditions which led to it. A couple of dozen or 200? We don’t know. All we know is that the barbarians have kept us in the dark for far too long on their practices. Time to shed some light on what’s really going on. It’s not just the homosexuals
who need to come out of the closet.

4. Private Members’ Bills – Complete freedom of MPs to bring forward private members bills on moral and social issues. We need to be free of Harper’s muzzle! Right now, the Conservative Party is the best thing that could happen to Henry Morgentaller’s vision for Canada. Even the Liberal Party isn’t as left on this issue. What a national disgrace the CPC is on this issue. They are nothing more than the lapdogs of the pro-abort left and have thrown out any kind of common sense on this issue along with their respect for democracy.

5. National Public Debate – In light of Canada’s (and the West’s) demographic crisis and imminent death watch, a national debate should be hosted by the nation’s public broadcaster on the consequences of abortion on Canada. Oh, I know, it’s a revolutionary thought. Can you imagine the CBC being a forum for REAL public debate? What a gas that would be. Imagine the ratings such a program would get!

These are all modest proposals that are easily supported by the vast majority of Canadians who have consistently shown that they want some restriction on abortion. None of the above proposals ban or even restrict abortion at all. They simply insist that full disclosure, debate, and post abortion services are made available to Canadian women.

Comments 1 Comment »

I will be posting sporadically this week since I will be engaged in some rather important SUPER DUPER SECRET CONFIDENTIAL activism.

If I succeed, it will be a very unfortunate development for the “death and dismemberment squad”, otherwise known as the pro-aborts.

[Gleefully rubbing hands] Muhahahahahah.

Please keep my efforts in your prayers.

Comments No Comments »

I am proud to announce the publication of my book, The Vocation of Business: Social Justice in the Marketplace, by Continuum International.

The overriding theme of this book is that the original unity of distributive and corrective justice that prevailed in both economics and moral discourse until the 16th and seventeenth centuries was shattered by the rise of an individualistic capitalism that relied on corrective justice (justice in exchange) alone. But an economics that lacks a distributive principle will attain neither equity nor equilibrium and will be inherently unstable and increasingly reliant on both government power (Keynesianism) and consumer credit (usury) to correct the imbalances. Catholic social teaching, by contrast, emphasis a greater equity in the distribution of land and other means of production, and the just wage, and thereby leads more naturally to economic equilibrium and social justice. Finally, the book shows many examples of functioning systems, both large scale and small, that operate on the principles taught by the Church and produce a high degree of both equity and equilibrium.

I am also proud to have two very nice “blurbs.”

‘In this remarkable book John Médaille succeeds in showing how the more radical elements in Catholic Social teaching can be turned into really practical projects for building an alternative to capitalism. He shows that the key is to alter the culture of the business and the corporation in order to ensure that political and economic purposes, distributive and corrective justice become once again integrated, as classical philosophy and Christian theology alike demand. *The Vocation of business* supplies us at last with some keys for the turning of Christian critique of liberalism into a new from of effective practice.’

John Milbank University of Nottingham

“John Médaille has produced a tour de force – a book that manages to give the reader just enough insight into the various thinkers and subjects treated without overloading the reader and without missing anything important out. The careful yet unequivocal judgement on neoconservatism and the chapter on Distributism are particuarly good.”

Helen Alford OP, Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences, The Angelicum

Take a look inside this book at ( ). You may contact me at

John C. Médaille


Got the above email in my inbox. I have always believed that while Catholicism has been at the forefront of engaging the culture of death, one thing that has been lacking is a comprehensive and workable economic theory which is compatible with Catholic social teaching.

Socialism is a sin. We all know that. But so is unbridled capitalism. We need to foster an education system that allows Catholics and other Christians to come up with a workable model.

Comments No Comments »

Our country desperately needs a coalition of populists and social conservatives. Day after day this Conservative government becomes more and more indistinguishable from its Liberal counterparts.

Politics is the same thing as any other human endeavour. It starts out very noble and idealistic, but given some time and space, it forgets what it was established for and exists only to sustain itself.

That’s what has become of the Conservative Party.

The base doesn’t care if you are in a minority situation for the next 10 years, guys.

Just don’t sell out.

Comments No Comments »

Yawn. Pass the condoms, please.

Ya think we will wake up and figure out that contraception and abortion actually do matter to the survival of a nation?

Likely not.

Comments No Comments »

Subject: New Political Avenue
Headers: Show All Headers


My name is John Pacheco. I am social conservative activist here in Ottawa.

As you may have been reading in the press lately, there is a growing movement within the Conservative Party for reform. The two major constituents in this movement are the populist-reform wing and the social conservative wing.

Both of our groups are currently in the process of exploring what avenues are available to us in this new coalition. One route is organizing within the Party. The other approach is to form a new political party.

The purpose of this email is to inquire whether the CHP and its supporters would consider supporting this initiative if certain conditions could be met, and if so, what conditions they would be.

Yours very truly,

John Pacheco
Social Conservatives United

Comments No Comments »

Pro-abort thugs demonstrate how to put down dissent.

Even the NY Times reported this story. Don’t hold your breath on any Canadian MSM doing the same.

Comments No Comments »

Comments No Comments »

The social conservative and populist (reform) wings of the Conservative Party are being more and more marginalized as Stephen Harper seeks to win more of the middle ground in Ontario and Quebec. In many ways, Harper is merely rebranding the Liberal Party’s policies with a tory trademark.

The problem for the social conservative and populist wings of the Party is that there has not been a mechanism to hold Harper and his red tory puppet masters to account. Starting a new conventional party is an enormous waste of time, and will simply put a far worse liberal in power. This is not a solution. Starting an organized conservative movement, on the other hand, is a foundational exercise which is necessary but will take years, if not decades, to bear real fruit. Unfortunately, this latter option suffers from the need for hard work and patience. While conservatives are not afraid to do so, we want some action now not in 10 years.

So I’ve been thinking about how we could work within the existing Conservative Party to effect real change. The answer is so obvious that it should be tried.

The solution, in my humble opinion, is what I call “participatory democracy”. In essence, the idea of participatory democracy is to strip politicians of their ability to water down or pass legislation at odds with the policies or principles of the party and its membership. In other words, it is a radical departure from the current status quo, power seeking system which politicians today operate under. It renders the politician (and particularly the prime minister) virtually powerless, except in rare circumstances where immediate decisions must be made (i.e. national security issues).

In the past, we elected our members of Parliament and Prime Minister to govern the country according to their abilities and principles of the party. The party membership was neither able to react swiftly enough, nor did it have the mechanism to let its collective will be known in a prompt and efficient manner when its leaders started to stray from its principles. That is why politicians, once elected by the membership and the constituents of a riding, could effectively abandon party principles in pursuit of that ever elusive majority government.

Today, however, with virtual instant communication, memberships of political parties no longer have such a barrier. With the internet and other mass communication devices, the membership
can expect and demand that its leaders follow its directives.

How does this system work?

As stated above, the idea of participatory democracy is to make politicians true servants of the people – as in, “we tell you want to do and you do it – no more and no less.”

This is how I envision this system working:

The membership of the party elects a certain number of members to a “Policy Committee”. This committee is directly responsible to the membership in ensuring that the policies adopted by the Party are implemented. Each member of this Policy Committee is elected for a one year term to ensure that they are responsive to the membership. The leader of the Party may not advance legislation without the approval of the policy committee. Should the leader of the Party attempt to do so, the Policy Committee can call for a leadership review.

The Policy Committee and the leader of the Party must set forth an agenda of proposed legislation. The proposed legislation will be summarized in layman’s terms and electronicially broadcast to the membership for a vote. Only the legislation which is met with 50% or 60%? approval may be acted upon. Other legislation will not be permitted to move forward.

There may be instances where direct membership involvement is not practical. In those instances, one would expect that since the Policy committee must be very responsive to their membership’s concerns (since they only have a one year term), they will be reflecting the current will of the membership. Consequently, if the leader of the Party attempts to suggest some legislation which is in contradiction to the membership’s will, the policy committee will veto such an attempt. If they do not, the membership will remove them from their place on the committee within a year’s time when elections are due.

This simple system (which needs to be refined, admittedly), allows for a check on the leader of the Party (or Prime Minster as the case may be) by the policy committee. The policy committee in turn is directly responsible to the membership, and the membership has a direct role in proposing and passing the legislation.

I’m still thinking of refinements and possible drawbacks to such a system so any input would be greatly appreciated….

Participatory Democracy. Can we make this work?

Thread Discussion on FD

Comments No Comments »

1) Oral contraceptives are linked to breast cancer. In an NCI-sponsored study published in 2003, researchers examined risk factors for breast cancer among women ages 20 to 34 compared with women ages 35 to 54. Researchers analyzed data from 2,202 women who were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1990 and 1992, and 2,209 women who did not have breast cancer. The results indicated that the risk of breast cancer was significantly increased for women ages 20 to 34 who had used OCs for at least 6 months. The risk associated with OC use was strongest for women who had used OCs within 5 years of breast cancer diagnosis. Although also elevated, the risk was weaker for women over age 35 and those who used OCs for longer periods of time. (Source: National Cancer Institute). To read more evidence of this oral contraceptive-breast cancer link, click here.


2) It leads to other adverse health consequences. Hormonal contraceptives, besides being abortifacient, have horrific side effects for the women who use them. From high blood pressure to blood clots [Demulen 1993). Physicians Desk Reference, 2254], to heart attacks [Thorogood M, Mann J, Murphy M, Vessey M (1991)]. Is oral contraceptive use still associated with an increased riskof fatal myocardial infarcation? Report of a case control study. [Br J Ob Gyn 98, 1245-1253], to migraine headaches, to menstrual problems after you quit taking the drug, hormonal contraceptives (the pill, Norplant, and Depo-Provera etc) can wreak havoc on a woman’s body. It is no coincidence that the rise in breast cancer followed ten to fifteen years after hormonal contraceptives first became readily available [RCGP Breast Cancer and oral contraceptives: Findings in Royal College of General Practitioners' study.' BMJ 1981; 282:2089-93]. It is also no coincidence that many women who have been on the pill for years and now want children, find they are now infertile [Rowland, R. Living Laboratories. Lime Tree, London 1992]. Infertility has become a national epidemic, with couples spending hundreds of thousands of dollars trying desperately to conceive. Unethical doctors continue to become wealthy prescribing contraceptives and then treating the side effects. [Source]. For further reading on other health complications: for women, click here and for men, click here and here.



3) It leads to the acceptance of pornography. According to New York Times Magazine’s cover story on May 18 called “Naked Capitalists: There’s No Business Like Porn Business”, pornography rakes in big bucks–with $10 billion to $14 billion in annual sales. The author of the article, Frank Rich, suggests that pornography is bigger than any of the major league sports, perhaps bigger than Hollywood. Porn is “no longer a sideshow to the mainstream…it is the mainstream,” he says. Which is why, disregarding for the moment the billions of dollars the pharmaceutical companies earn on contraceptives, the porn business has a lot to lose if contraception falls out of favour among the American public. The effects of pornography, of course, are well known as being a primary destroyer of family, marriages, and children, among many other adverse and tragic social consequences. Without contraception, there would be no pornography and no multi-billion dollar pornography industry. The laws recognized the connection between the two. The “actors” in the porn industry would not be able to function without contraceptive devices to ensure – or at least considerably minimize – the chances of pregnancy. This fact reveals much about the relationship between contraception and pornography. The fact that such an industry would rely so heavily on these devices for its very survival says more about how Westeners view sex than it does about the pornography industry itself. In other words, contraception is the sacramental of porn. Pornography could never exist without recourse to contraception.


4) It is a degradation of the sexual act and and destroyer of mutual respect. By introducingforeign elements into the conjugal act, spouses frustrate God’s design by altering the whole unitive and procreative meaning of the sexual act. As a man continues to engage in such disordered acts, he begins to treat his wife as a means of self-gratification which, in turn, causes him to objectify her. She becomes an object to him instead of the subject of his devotion. Failing to understand her as a human person, he therefore becomes less and less patient with her failings and refuses to pardon them. He does this because his whole sexual relationship with her has become one of utility and function. Their relationship becomes one of mutual objectivization of their persons.He refuses to respect her created and natural image which too is created in the image and likeness of God. He sees one of the fundamental aspects of her person, her fertility, as something to be conquered and rendered harmless to him in order to abandon his duty to sacrifice for her and his offspring. He becomes an agent of masturbation and his wife is his instrument for doing so. His relationship to his wife, like his relationship to God, becomes sterile and eventually dies. Without the sacrificial component of the sexual act where both men and women give themselves up for the other, indeed completely abandon themselves in the other’s very person as he or she has been created, the sexual act becomes empty of its intended significance. And the fruit of this empty sex life is divorce, broken lives, and ruined families. Therefore, if the woman gets pregnant, the very act which was saying “no” is now faced with the biological reality of “yes”. And so there is disunity and strife between the act and will of the couple during sex on the one hand and the result on the other. There is no unity between the act (contra-life) and the fruit of that act (life). Creation is superseded and the results are usually disastrous. While not always true, abortion is the logical answer to failed contraception. The “no” in sex does not usually give way nine months later to the “yes” in birth. Within the contraceptive act, the couple is lying to one another about who they are. Instead of communicating themselves to one another as they were created, they are communicating to each other in a way they are NOT. In other words, the man is not giving himself over to his wife the way God had intended. He is giving himself over to his wife the way he wants to i.e. without his fertility. And just as few marriages can survive with one spouse continually telling the other spouse lies, neither can a man continually lie about who he is within the sexual act with no adverse consequences resulting within the relationship with his wife. Is it any wonder that divorce rates in Canada ballooned shortly after contraception was legalized? That is no mere coincidence, but rather an acknowledgement that few relationships can survive without respecting the truth of the human body as God has created it.Opposed to this, the Church teaches that we must respect the natural sexual order of fertility because She believes that God created us in His image which includes the power to pro-create; that is, to participate in His creation. As long as one respects the human body and its fertility as it was created by God, then one can choose to have sex when and how one wills, provided, of course, an openness to human life is present. Because contraception strikes at the heart of the conjugal act as God created it and because it strikes at the Trinitarian conception of who God is, the recourse to contraception is, in fact, an attack on the very image of God Himself and has therefore been rightly condemned as a grievous sin since the very beginning of Creation itself.


5) It increases pre-marital sex and ends up detroying marriage. In the 1950s, less than 25 percent of Americans thought premarital sex was acceptable; by the 1970s, more than 75 percent found it acceptable. Between 1960 and 1980, the marriage rate dropped by about 25 percent; the average age of marriage for both men and women rose steadily; and the number of divorced men and women jumped by 200 percent. All told, according to a study by Adweek magazine, single people as a percentage of the total American adult population rose from 28 percent in 1970 to 41 percent in 1993. (Source) Says Alex McKay, research co-ordinator at the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada, “The long-term trend since the 1970s is a gradual increase in the number of adolescents engaging in sexual activity.”…What’s more, an international sex survey conducted in 1999 by the condom manufacturer Durex revealed that the age at which Canadian youths become sexually active is among the lowest in the world: an average of 15, down from 16.6 in 1998. By the end of Grade 11, about half of all teenagers have had sex at least once, says Ruth Miller, a sexual-health educator with the public health department in Toronto. (Source)Only four years after contraceptives were first tested, researchers found that marriages in which contraceptives were used were twice as likely to end in divorce than marriages in which there was no contraceptive use[Grant, Ellen MD, "Sexual Chemistry: Understanding Our Hormones, The Pill, and HRT" Mandarin Paperbacks, London, 1994].In his letter to families in Familiaris Consortio, the late John Paul the Great explains the reason for this marital breakdown: “When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate [the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning] that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as “arbiters” of the divine plan and they “manipulate” and degrade human sexuality — and with it themselves and their married partner — by altering its value of “total” self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other (32).


6) It is inherently linked to abortion. Despite what the pro-abortion idealogues at the U.N.P.F.A and Planned Parenthood say, widespread availability of contraceptives leads to more abortions and not less. The statistics do not lie although they have been suppressed and ignored by the main stream liberal media. The reason for this connection between contraception and abortion is quite simple.

* Common mentality: When a couple engage in sexual intercourse and they use unnatural means to prevent pregnancy, they have consciously decided to act outside of nature and therefore outside of God’s created order and His will for them. In effect, they have arrogated the ultimate transmission of life to themselves. In doing so, they have fostered a mentality of no to human life. This mentality, being ingrained in their act and psyche throughout the sexual act, remains with them even when they discover that, despite their use of contraceptives, a pregnancy results. When a couple consciously chooses to reject life in the sexual act, it becomes easier for the mentality of no to take root afterwards. In more extreme cases, this destructive mentality follows its logical conclusion towards the destruction of their child through abortion. In other words, the mentality of no is consumated through abortion.


* Sociologically Similar: The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research division of Planned Parenthood, indicates the following as the main reasons women offer for their abortions. “On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner” (Source). These are the same reasons given for the use of contraception.


* Same Legal Foundation: Both in the U.S. and in Canada, contraception was either legalized before or at the same time as abortion. In other words, they are ideologically inseparable and that inseparability plays out in law and jurisprudence. In the U.S., the so-called “right to privacy theory” which helped form the basis of the the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion was itself first established by the repeal of the Comstock law ban on contraception. Although court opinions began to undermine this aspect of the Comstock Act in the 1930s, Congress did not actually delete references to contraception until 1971, two years before the Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion. In 1992, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe in its Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision, and explained that they could not remove the “right” to abortion from “people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail” (505 U.S. 833, 835). In Canada, the association between contraception and abortion could not have been any more apparent. On May 14, 1969, Omnibus Bill C-150, the legislation decriminalizing contraception, abortion, and homosexuality, passed as law in Canadian Parliament (Votes: 149-55).


* Identical Results (in some cases): In some cases, oral contraceptives act as abortifaicients. Several oral contraceptives are, in fact, abortifacients. The Pill as an abortifacient…


All oral contraceptives, Norplant, Depo-Provera, and IUDs can cause abortions before a woman even knows she’s pregnant.


7) It leads to the legitimization of homosexual acts and same-sex “marriage”. Contraception is the foundation for all of the social ills and problems our culture is experiencing since it ends up providing the beachhead for the war on the family. Along with abortion and pornography, same-sex “marriage” did not mysteriously appear. It found its footing in contraception since homosexual acts are also contraceptive in nature. Once the culture accepted the principle that heterosexual contraception was licit, it was only a matter of time before homosexual acts which are the logical extension of heterosexual contraception would also be accepted. Man cannot live in a contradiction for long. Either he will accept further evil to remain consistent with the first evil or he will revert back to his original view. But there cannot be two opposing rules for too long. If a heterosexual can have contraceptive sex, well, then, so can homosexuals. Both acts are unnatural and both acts are closed to life. It took same-sex “marriage” nearly forty years to enter Canadian society after contraception was legalized, but it happened. Indeed, if there has been a coherent and direct explanation of how same-sex “marriage” appeared virtually over night, it has not been explained very much or very convincingly to the Canadian public by those who believe contraception is benign.How can we say that contraception has led to the recognition of homo-erotic sex? Contraception removes what makes a woman who she is – her fertility. And when one removes fertility from a woman during sex, one makes her – in a certain sense – another man. That is how, psychologically and morally, our culture has been able to slide into accepting same-sex “marriage”, as its collective attitude and consciousness toward homosexuality was weakened by its acceptance of contraception. A male sex partner is basically a sterilized woman. Contraception and sodomy are essentially the same thing since they both involve ejaculation in an environment that is CLOSED TO LIFE. And that is the reason that God condemns both acts. For the great majority of couples who contracept, of course, they do not consider it sodomy. But that does not change the fact that it is sodomy. A man having anal sex with a woman is not all that different from a man having anal sex with a man. The receptacle is an anus. Both acts are sodomy. And if the vagina is made a defacto place not all that different from her anus? What then? Is this not sodomy which goes by another name? A man having sex with a sterilized woman is, in fact, not having sex with a woman as God created her. He is having sex with a woman who has manipulated her fertility, or more to the point, had her fertility manipulated by a man – and created something else. And so, just as the devil apes God’s miracles, so does contraceptive sex ape real sex. It looks like real sex, but it’s not real. It is a lie with our bodies, just like pornography looks real but is a lie as well.


8 ) It is environmentally irresponsible. Widespread use of birth control pills are harming the environment through estrogen overload. Millions of women in the United States ingest excess estrogen every day in the form of birth control pills. Within 24 hours, the effluent from those 12 million doses ends up in our sewage systems. And then? The April 17 Scientific American reported results of a study warning that “many streams, rivers and lakes already bear warning signs that the fish caught within them may also be carrying enough chemicals that mimic the female hormone estrogen to cause breast cancer cells to grow.” “Fish are really a sentinel, just like canaries in the coal mine 100 years ago,” says Conrad Volz, co-director of exposure assessment at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute’s Center for Environmental Ecology. “We need to pay attention to chemicals that are estrogenic in nature, because they find their way back into the water we all use.” According to the Freshwater Institute’s Fisheries and Oceans section, “The potent synthetic estrogens excreted by women taking hormone replacement therapy or birth control pills are not completely broken down in the sewage treatment process and are discharged into waterways.” While cautioning that the exact process of hormonal confusion is not yet clear, the Scientific American article continued, “But the [estrogenic] effects on the fish themselves were clear: the gender of nine of the fish [tested] could not be determined.” “Increased estrogenic active substances in the water are changing males so that they are indistinguishable from females,” Volz found. “There are eggs in male gonads as well as males are secreting a yolk sac protein. Males aren’t supposed to be making egg stuff.” (Source)




BOULDER, Colo. — When EPA-funded scientists at the University of Colorado studied fish in a pristine mountain stream known as Boulder Creek two years ago, they were shocked. Randomly netting 123 trout and other fish downstream from the city’s sewer plant, they found that 101 were female, 12 were male, and 10 were strange “intersex” fish with male and female features. It’s “the first thing that I’ve seen as a scientist that really scared me,” said then 59-year-old University of Colorado biologist John Woodling, speaking to the Denver Post in 2005. They studied the fish and decided the main culprits were estrogens and other steroid hormones from birth control pills and patches, excreted in urine into the city’s sewage system and then into the creek….Since their findings, stories have been emerging everywhere. Scientists in western Washington found that synthetic estrogen — a common ingredient in oral contraceptives — drastically reduces the fertility of male rainbow trout….“It’s going to start looking funny,” Harden said. “The radical environmentalist won’t eat a corn chip if the corn contacted a pesticide. But they view it a sacred right and obligation to consume synthetic chemicals that alter a woman’s natural biological functions, even if this practice threatens innocent aquatic life downstream.” (Source)

9) It is responsible for the demographic collapse of the West. As widely reported in the international media and even admitted to by certain organs of that oooba-liberal organization known as the U.N., much of the world is going into demographic shock. With the exception of the United States, most of the Western nations except Malta and a good part of the rest of the world is opting for senility rather than fertility.”And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they’re running out a lot faster than the oil is. “Replacement” fertility rate–i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller–is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common? Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you’ll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada’s fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That’s to say, Spain’s population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy’s population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria’s by 36%, Estonia’s by 52%. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: In the 2004 election, John Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates; George W. Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans–and mostly red-state Americans.As fertility shrivels, societies get older–and Japan and much of Europe are set to get older than any functioning societies have ever been. And we know what comes after old age. These countries are going out of business–unless they can find the will to change their ways. Is that likely? I don’t think so. (Source: It’s the Demography, Stupid The real reason the West is in danger of extinction by Mark Steyn, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 4, 2006)


Other news reports on the demographic bust are reported below.



The Left prefers not to deal with this uncomfortable reality since they are, by and large, not the ones reproducing anyhow. Cramps the lifestyle, don’t you know. So the job of acknowedging reality and taking responsibility for it falls on conservatives, as it always does. Somebody has to take responsibility and rarely is that a liberal.


But, while the talking heads in so-called conservative circles are admitting the problem, they just can’t bring themselves to acknowledge the elephant in the room. How many popular conservative commentators have fingered the problem? The frank answer is that not one of them have. None of them have the guts because they themselves practice it. It’s hard to point the finger at the REAL problem when a change in your own sexual proclivities are in order.

Find out when contraception was introduced. Track the number of births over the last 40 years. See a correlation?

Contraception -> fewer kids

Contraception -> abortion -> fewer kids

Contraception -> pornography -> fewer kids

Contraception -> divorce -> fewer kids

Contraception -> homosexual “marriage” -> fewer kids

Fewer kids under replacement level? -> End of civilization.

Any questions?

10) It leads to child abuse though so-called “sex education programs”. Exhibit A: New Brunswick Parents Incensed with Sex Ed for Kids
MARYSVILLE, New Brunswick, November 10, 2004 ( – Parents of grade 6 to 8 schoolchildren being subjected to explicit sexual education curricula attended a church hall meeting Monday night to express their concerns over the program. According to a Daily Gleaner report, seventy-five parents attended the forum, upset that the curriculum will arguably stimulate greater interest in sex among their children, rather than the intended consequence of reducing teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases through so-called safe-sex education. Christian Action Federation of New Brunswick executive director Mary Thurrott made a presentation, emphasizing that the curriculum needs to discuss abstinence. “There is no idea of restraint taught to children,” Thurrott said, as reported by The Daily Gleaner. “It creates unhealthy curiosity. It is over-exposure. Too much too soon.”T hurrott described how sex education for young children was an idea that sprung from notorious sex researcher Alfred Kinsey’s 1940s and 50s substandard research, in which he claimed that “children are sexual beings.” She also blamed Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s ideas, who promoted so-called sexual health by advocating for abortion and contraception among schoolchildren. “We are concerned about the safety of children,” Thurrott said. She said the new sex ed program aims to recreate the child’s belief structure around sexual intercourse, rather than simply presenting the facts of life.The province claims the program resulted from a survey of 4,000 parents who said they wanted expanded sexual education for their children. Thurrott said the survey’s definitions of abstinence and sexual education were vague and misleading. “We question the bias of that survey,” she said.


Exhibit B: Scotland’s Cardinal Criticizes School Sex Ed Programs as “State-Sponsored Sexual Abuse”
EDINBURGH, September 2, 2004 ( – Scotland’s prelate, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, has lashed out at lawmakers for their public school sex education program, calling it “state-sponsored sexual abuse.” He described the new sexual health strategy as “one of the biggest challenges to the morality of our nation in a generation.” Included in a critique published in the Sunday Times, Cardinal O’Brien said the new guidelines would mean sex education would now be taught to children three and four years old, while contraceptives and abortion would be available to teenage girls without the knowledge or consent of their parents. Cardinal O’Brien predicts that the unveiling of the government’s sex-ed proposal in October will ignite a backlash from parents unlike any before. “I fear the passions ignited by the section 28 debate [backlash by parents against the overt promotion of homosexuality in public education] could be a mere flicker compared with the protests of parents determined to preserve their children’s innocence and protect their childhood,” the Cardinal wrote, as reported by The Guardian. “Parents are rightly appalled at the idea of prepubescent, far less pre-school children, being provided with graphic and intimate sexual instruction.”A government executive group has been working on a national sexual health strategy since 2002 to address skyrocketing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease rates – one of the highest in Europe.Scotland’s First Minister, Jack McConnell, has already promised the measures in question would not be implemented: “He mentions the morning-after pill being given to teenagers. But we have made it absolutely clear that must not happen in schools to those who are under the age of 16 and that is a policy that is being properly administered across Scotland. He also suggests we are going to have sex education for under-fives which I can absolutely guarantee is not going to happen. “The Moslem Association of Britain Saturday expressed their support for the Cardinals’s position. In May, as many as four hundred girls, some as young as 14, were sterilized by doctors in Scotland at public expense, without their parents’ knowledge. The program was part of an effort by public health officials to stem the growing number of teenage pregnancies.



Comments 15 Comments »

LifeSite did a good job in reporting the coverage from the March for Life. They posted a good story covering the fraudulent coverage of the MSM and showcasing the YouTube videos of the event. Yours truly is even cited.

I’ve added their reporting to the MSM Shakedown Awards. $500 bucks to the top contestant exposing bias in the Canadian media. It’s my little way of giving the Italian salute to the MSM in this country (and I’m not even Italian!), and encouraging social conservatives to counter the leftist propaganda by getting involved in “journalism”.

Even the Western Standard has ripped off my idea. Not sure they got my email when I first let them know about my little venture, but who cares who does it? As long as it gets done.

Check it out.

Let’s put these dinosaurs in their places. Namely the credibility grave.

We start first with those anti-Catholic bigots at the CBC.


Little Media Secret #1:

Gloria Galloway, the prominent reporter for The Globe & Mail, is married to a Liberal communications director, Mark Dunn. (Source).

But, but, but, the media only gives us the news….

Comments No Comments »

It is being reported that British Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to convert to the Catholic Faith after he leaves office. You can read the story here.

Normally, such an occasion would be a joyous event. However, in Tony’s case, I must withhold my enthusiasm.

This was the same man who jackbooted the Catholic Church into forcing her adoption agencies to give over children to homosexual couples. This was merely a few months ago too.

This is also the same man who celebrated the House of Lord’s March 21 vote in favour of the controversial Sexual Orientation Regulations by attending an Equality fundraising dinner the following evening, put on by the UK’s leading homosexual activist organization Stonewall. The SOR passed by a 168-122 vote in the House, ensuring the implementation of new “anti-discrimination” policies beginning April 30.In his speech at the Stonewall event, PM Blair said it was a “real honour” to be in attendance and thanked members of Stonewall, saying “we couldn’t have done it without you.” (Source)

March 21 folks. Today is May 18. See a problem here?

While we are all sinners needing Christ’s grace, there are some sinners more worthy than others, I am afraid. It is one thing to be a sinner. It is quite another thing to extol the sin and call what is evil a good. Normally, if someone stops being a homosexual propagandist like Tony Blair was in his public life, a certain period of reflection and repentance usually occurs. In Blair’s case, however, he was long rumored and coached into becoming Catholic. Ergo, he was well on the way to becoming Catholic during the period of time he was passing the most destructive and violent legislation against children and (soon-to-be) his own Church! I wonder if, when he is received into the Church, he is willing to put up with the persecution he himself has launched against his brothers and sisters in Christ. His actions really do stagger the mind and imagination.

I very much doubt that Tony had a Saulian conversion on the way to Damascus…which basically only shows us once again the false dichotomy of these so-called Catholic politicians who see no problem in attending Stonewall functions in the evening and singing “How Great Thou Art” on Sundays. Political schizos one and all.

And, once again, here we are watching what the Church is going to do. I think we all know.

“No problem. Just come right on in.”

What should be the Catholic response to Tony Blair? Very simply: you are not permitted into our Communion until you publicly repent of what you did to our Church when you were Prime Minister. Public sins, sir, require public repentance.

Comments No Comments »

Credit: Socon Blogger “Suzanne” from Big Blue Wave. Picture from 2006 March for Life.

Ruby Dhalla, Ont. Liberal MP
“You know, if they wanted the issue to go away, I don’t know why Vic Toews or the Prime Minister couldn’t issue a letter saying they weren’t aware of this. I mean, this is really reflective I think of the Conservative track record, where they have attacked the most vulnerable in our society, whether it’s women, whether it’s dealing with the aboriginal communities, or whether it’s dealing with those that are poor, this government has not stood up to be a strong voice. And when it comes to the issue of women Don, I have to say one of the first acts of this government of Stephen Harper was to remove the word “equality” of the status of women mandate and having, you know, the Government of Canada logo at this march is just a reflection of the government’s attitude.” (Source)

- “This must have been a bad dream, mommy. A pro-abort could not have said something so stupid when talking about abortion.”

Comments No Comments »