Archive for February, 2008

Latest speaker added to the Rally for Free Speech….

Douglas Farrow

Douglas Farrow is an associate professor at McGill University. He has written for the National Post, the Globe and Mail, and several other Canadian newspapers and journals, as well as appearing on the CBC, BNN, Global National, and various other syndicated broadcasts on both sides of the border.

His books and articles on religion and public policy have addressed problems associated with civil religion, public education, the marriage issue, reasonable accommodation, and civil rights.

His most recent book is Nation of Bastards (2007), described by F. C. DeCoste, professor of law at the University of Alberta, as “an act of faith and of resistance to the insidious claims of the post-Christian and post-liberal state.”

His eye-opening speech at the March for Marriage can be heard at the end of this blog entry.

Comments 2 Comments »

 Contraception in the News

Study Confirms Estrogen in Water from the Pill Devastating to Fish Populations

ST. JOHN, New Brunswick, February 18, 2008 ( – A study by Dr. Karen Kidd, of the University of New Brunswick and the Canadian Rivers Institute, found that estrogen from birth control pills flooding into the water system through sewage adversely affects fish populations. The researchers added estrogen to an experimental lake at a level commonly found in the treated wastewater from cities with about 200,000 people. The researchers discovered that one consequence is that exposed male fish become feminized, producing a protein normally found in females. Chronic exposure to estrogen led to the near extinction of the lake’s fathead minnow population, as well as significant declines in larger fish, such as pearl dace and lake trout. “We’ve known for some time that estrogen can adversely affect the reproductive health of fish, but ours was the first study to show the long-term impact on the sustainability of wild fish populations,” explains Kidd. “What we demonstrated is that estrogen can wipe out entire populations of small fish – a key food source for larger fish whose survival could in turn be threatened over the longer term.” Kidd also noted that once the estrogen levels in the water were lowered, fish populations rebounded after three years. “Once you take the stressor out the system, we now have ample evidence that suggests affected fish populations will recover,” she said. Kidd is preparing a report for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) titled, “From Kitchen Sinks to Ocean Basins: Emerging Chemical Contaminants and Human Health”. In the 1980′s and 90′s, municipalities in Canada and elsewhere began stencilling pictures of fish next to storm drains to remind citizens that toxic chemicals – such as paint and motor oil – poured into the sewers would harm the environment and wildlife. In 1998, a trendy industrial designer in San Francisco won an award for creating storm drain grates shaped like fish. Health authorities estimate that 100 million women worldwide take some form of hormonal contraceptives; but there is still little media attention given to the growing concerns of scientists about its environmental impact. However, studies are leaking out into the mainstream press more frequently as public interest in the environment grows. The Pill, along with numerous other commonly used chemicals, end up in the water system as estrogen. At a conference on breast cancer in Toronto in 1998, author and cancer surgeon Dr. Susan Love said, “Pollutants are metabolized in our bodies as estrogen. And it is lifetime exposure to estrogen that has increased world cancer rates by 26% since 1980….We live in a toxic soup of chemicals”. Studies are also showing significant evidence for a link between environmental estrogens and estrogen-like chemical pollutants and the earlier onset of puberty in girls. The phenomenon of early-onset puberty in American girls is so pervasive, that the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society urged changing the definition of abnormal development. Ten years ago, breast development at age 8 was considered abnormally early, but a study in 1997 said that among 17,000 girls in North Carolina, almost half of blacks and 15 percent of whites had begun breast development by age 8. Studies from the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand have shown similar results. The new definition for abnormally early breast development ought to be, the society says, 7 for white girls and 6 for black girls. Marcia Herman-Giddens, adjunct professor at the School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina, said, “My fear is that medical groups could take the data and say ‘This is normal. We don’t have to worry about it.’ My feeling is that it is not normal. It’s a response to an abnormal environment.” Conclusive studies are difficult to conduct, however, because of the all-pervasive nature of the environmental contamination. With all the estrogen-like elements in the environment, Herman-Giddens said, “it’s virtually impossible to study. There’s no place to find an unexposed population.”

Condom Debate “Hijacked” and Drifting from “Evidence Based” Science

EDMONTON, January 25, 2008 ( – The British Medical Journal is running a pair of articles this week offering two opposed views on the question, “Are condoms the answer to rising rates of non-HIV sexually transmitted infections?” Drs. Markus J Steiner and Willard Cates, of Family Health International, of North Carolina and Dr. Stephen Genuis, associate clinical professor at the University of Alberta, have written on either side of the issue. The former, Drs. Steiner and Cates argue that condoms “can and should play a central role in halting the rising rates of sexually transmitted infection other than HIV”. Dr. Stephen Genuis, however, warns that the debate has been “highjacked” by an argument between two “mutually exclusive perspectives on sexual morality” and has moved away from “evidence based” science. On the one hand, Genuis writes, those promoting “safe sex (or safer sex) are accused of corrupting youth with amoral values”, while their “opponents are perceived as zealots who disregard scientific fact in imposing their fanaticism on society”. The idea that condoms are the first, last and usually only recommended protection against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) is one of the most widely accepted in the field of public health. But the message of the life and family movement that abstinence before marriage and chaste fidelity within are the only sure means of avoiding STDs is starting to be heard. Cates and Steiner argue that “strong evidence from laboratory studies and mounting clinical studies” show that condoms reduce the risk of infections including HIV, gonorrhoea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, and hepatitis B. Condoms also reduce the risk of infections that are transmitted primarily through skin such as genital herpes, syphilis, chancroid, and human papillomavirus infection. They admit, however, that clinical studies have shown “inconsistent protective effects for most sexually transmitted infections other than HIV.” But they attribute this to “limitations in study design”. They also admit that their studies did not measure “critical factors such as exposure to infected partners, consistent and correct condom use, or incident infection”. They dismissed the promotion of abstinence as “difficult to achieve”.  Dr. Genuis answered that it is consistent use of condoms that has proved “difficult to achieve” and calls for a more “comprehensive” approach than simply encouraging those “who choose to be sexually active” to use a condom. He says that condoms cannot be “the definitive answer” to STDs because they “provide insufficient protection” against many common diseases transmitted through “‘skin to skin’ and ‘skin to sore’” contact. These include human papillomavirus, herpes simplex virus, and syphilis, which, he says, are often transmitted despite condom use. But the greatest problem with condoms, he writes, is that people, particularly “aroused youth,” do not use them consistently, “regardless of knowledge or education”. “In theory, condoms offer some protection against sexually transmitted infection; practically, however, epidemiological research repeatedly shows that condom familiarity and risk awareness do not result in sustained safer sex choices in real life.” The use of condoms has been adopted as the central pillar of the fight against STDs in general, and HIV in particular, by most international health organizations. In recent years the slogan, “Abstinence, be faithful, use a condom,” also known as the “ABC strategy”, has been adopted as a means of appeasing “faith-based” organisations such as the UK’s Catholic overseas aid agency CAFOD that has adopted condoms as a key part of its programmes. Dr. Genuis writes, “The relentless rise of sexually transmitted infection in the face of unprecedented education about and promotion of condoms is testament to the lack of success of this approach”. He cites numerous large studies that have shown this failure even in countries such as Canada, Sweden and Switzerland that have “advanced sex education programmes.” “The ongoing assertion that condoms are ‘the’ answer to this escalating pandemic reminds me of Einstein’s words, ‘The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’.”

Two Canadian Women Die from Use of Contraceptive Patch; Sixteen More Suffer Blood Clots

TORONTO, January 11, 2007 ( – Two Canadian women have died and sixteen more have reported serious blood clotting in connection with the use of Evra, a hormonal contraceptive patch that releases estrogen directly into the bloodstream through the skin. Health Canada released safety information for the drug in late 2006, but the warnings about increased possibility of blood clots in the legs and lungs have not been enough to prevent women from using the patch. Two Canadian women who used the drug died from complications induced by the patch in 2006. One of the deaths was caused by a heart attack, which the manufacturers blamed the woman’s smoking habit for. Multiple other women, however, have complained of dangerous blood clotting caused by the patch, conditions that may lead to a stroke or even death. Siskinds, an Ontario-based law firm specializing in business law and class actions, has filed a class suit against Janssen-Ortho Inc., the manufacturers of the patch. A hearing has been scheduled in Toronto to determine whether the case can continue through the court system as a class action suit. The patch, controversial since its release to the market, has faced class action in the United States, where women suffered from blood clotting in their lungs after using the patch. While some of those women have asserted that the drug is not worth the risk, advocates of the patch claim that there is no problem, since women are warned of possible blood clotting on the patch’s label.”Everybody who you start on this product – whether it’s a pill or a patch or a ring – gets the same warning,” said Dr. Melissa Mirosh, former fellow of the contraception research fellowship program at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. “What I tell people is that any estrogen-containing birth control product will slightly raise your risk of having a blood clot in your leg or in your lung. But it does not raise it nearly as much as being pregnant or having a baby. And that risk is a very small increase.” Some doctors refused to prescribe the patch after its bad publicity, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration required Janssen-Ortho to include the warnings about blood clots and possible stroke on the product’s label.

The Homily that Caused an Outcry and the Priest to be Dismissed: Homily on NFP provokes congregation member to stand up and shout at priest “When are you going to stop?”

ROCKFORD, Illinois, January 7, 2008 ( – This past December 9, at St. James’ parish in Rockford Illinois, a very normal Mass suddenly became a very unusual Mass when a parishioner stood up in the middle of the homily, interrupted the priest, shouting at him “When are you going to stop?”, and then left, with her homosexual partner in tow.  A few other parishioners also stood up and left the church.  A few days later, the priest was dismissed from his duties at the parish by his bishop. Catholics know that there are some things that you just don’t hear preached from the pulpit any more. The most conspicuous of these unpreachables is sexual ethics, especially the idea that using contraception might be immoral, and contrary to a Culture of Life.  Most priests know that these are unpopular subjects, and emphatically avoid them. But Fr. Tom Bartolomeo, who until several weeks ago was the associate pastor at St. James parish, is not your typical priest. To begin with, Fr. Bartolomeo was ordained only just over a year ago. This, of course, is not exactly extraordinary in itself, except for the fact that he is now seventy years old. At an age when many other priests are retiring, therefore, he is only getting his feet wet. Perhaps, says the elderly priest in an interview with, his newness to the ministry and late vocation explains his almost youth-like zeal for his priestly duties. “I’m going to die with my boots on,” he says. “Who knows how many years I have left? That kind of puts pressure on me to preach the Gospel message. My days are numbered.” About a month ago, however, Fr. Bartolomeo’s enthusiasm for the Gospel message brought an unexpected turn into his life, when he gave what he thought was a normal Advent homily. The homily was the second of a projected series of four homilies dealing with life and family issues, designed to coincide with the four Sundays of Advent – the season leading up to the birth of Jesus. This particular homily had to do with contraception and natural family planning. The Catholic Church teaches that the use of contraception is intrinsically and gravely immoral. Church teaching does, however, allow married couples to use the natural rhythms of the female body to knowingly space children, if there is a sufficiently grave reason to do so. These fundamental moral teachings formed the basis of Fr. Bartolomeo’s homily. “New births, anniversaries and funerals, separations of any kind, a photograph from the past – give us pause and remind us whom we are bound to,” he said in his homily, a copy of which he provided for LifeSiteNews. “Our human sexuality – father, mother, brother, sister – reveals our deepest relationships. We call God our father, and his Son our brother.” “Contraception, contra-conception, trivializes the sacred value of human sexuality – a danger humanity did not have to face a century ago before the advent of modern chemistry and technology, the pill (before or after) and a host of plastic devices.” “Contracept, take God’s plan off the table, and you have mayhem,” he said. “The most important thing in your lives, bearing children, is no longer discussed. It has been permanently removed from the conversation. Done deal. The pill, the IUD, the diaphragm, the sponge, the condom – who is making money here? – have shut down not only the body but the brain. And wives and husbands wonder why they grow apart? When a man and woman, a husband and wife, share daily this most wonderful mystery of their human sexuality they are bonding as nature and God intended.” In the middle of this homily however, say witnesses, one congregation member stood up and began to argue with the priest, yelling “When are you going to stop?”  Gerald Weber, who has been a parishioner at St. James for 47 years, was at that Mass. “It was embarrassing, the noticeable argumentative tone with which she stopped him in his homily,” he told LifeSiteNews. “Father treated her nicely for the way she was acting, but she continued yelling. She finally sat down, but then stood up again, and took her friend with her and made a show of leaving the church. With that there were some other people who objected to the subject matter.”  While Weber suggests that the homily may have been somewhat “graphic” for a Sunday Mass, insofar as it touched on some of the science of NFP, he points out that nothing in the homily was contrary to Catholic teaching. The fact that Fr. Bartolomeo was dismissed from the parish Weber calls “drastic.”  “I think it’s rather drastic, without knowing all the facts, to come down on a man in this way.”  Another parishioner, Heidi Martinez, who was also at the Mass in question, disagrees that the homily was graphic, saying that she can’t even recall what might have been considered objectionable in that way. Martinez says she distinctly remembers the date and time of the homily, because she gave birth to her first-born child that same day, shortly after she left the church; she calls her new-born child her “miracle baby,” since she had previously gone through three miscarriages.  She also says that she has something of a different perspective on the homily, being as she is recently married. The message that Fr. Bartolomeo preached was extremely pertinent and necessary, she says. “The Catholic Church pushes all the time–don’t use contraceptives, use NFP, and all that, but a lot of people don’t know why. And if you don’t hear it from the Church that pushes it, where are you going to get it from?” “You’re certainly not going to get it in the Catholic schools.” Weber also revealed to Fr. Bartolomeo, and LifeSiteNews, that the parishioner who had created the scene was a publicly practicing lesbian. She and her partner had recently been told that they could no longer lector or distribute Communion at the parish. “They [the lesbian couple] may have had an edge,” says Weber, “because they have recently been kind of, not reprimanded, but not allowed to participate like they had been participating.” The priest, however, is quick to defend his bishop. “Bishop Doran’s orthodox Catholic reputation is well established,” he points out. “Our diocesan Respect Life Office under the leadership of Bishop Doran is continuously advancing the pro-life cause.” “I’m not being punished,” Fr. Bartolomeo clarifies, pointing out that Bishop Doran agreed that his homily was perfectly in keeping with Catholic teaching. “I wasn’t accused of doing anything wrong. I think the implication was that I was imprudent.” The Rockford Diocese’s media relations official, Penny Wiegert, told LifeSiteNews that the diocese would not comment on Fr. Bartolomeo’s dismissal, saying “The reasons for these moves are between the individual priest and his bishop and is considered a personnel issue that our diocese does not discuss in the press out of respect for both the individual priest and his bishop.” Wiegert also defended the Rockford Diocese’s pro-NFP stance, saying “The Rockford Diocese is in the forefront of supporting Natural Family Planning and educating the faithful on its physical and spiritual benefits especially in its marriage preparation programs, seminars for married couples and in informational classes….The aforementioned forums are considered to be the most appropriate for educating and promoting the benefits and details of NFP.” Fr. Bartolomeo, however, clearly does not agree that he was imprudent. “The Church is really under attack, and I think we flinch at the slight objections and I don’t think that’s the proper way to react to our enemies,” he says. “Rather than dissuading me, all of this is drawing me more and more into that truth, into the Gospel. I have no idea where this is going to take me.” He says that now he is beginning to read everything he can get on the life and family issues, and is looking into the possibility of pursuing advocacy in those areas.  He also disagrees that his homily was “graphic,” observing that even the youngest children routinely encounter much more explicit material in their day-to-day encounters with television, the internet, and sex-ed at school. The priest says that he was surprised at the adverse reactions to his homily, but is also learning that many of the Church’s teachings on sexuality are not well-known, and are often considered optional by some Catholics. “The fact is, I suspect that most Catholics do not practice NFP,” he says. “I think for many people there’s a visceral reaction to that, particularly if they haven’t heard it before. And tweaking of consciences can be painful.” But, he adds, “There’s nothing more central to the malaise and disease in the church than contracepting Catholic couples, and not realizing the wonderful strengthening of faith that can be found in NFP. All you have to do is meet a family and their children to see that they have found the proper way to relate to each other. It’s so demonstrably wonderful to see this natural, loving union of children. You don’t ordinarily see that in families.”

Comments 1 Comment »

A society that accepts divorce is not too far from accepting abortion.

In marriage, the love between a man and a woman conceive a child through the conjugal act. Far from merely being a “one time” event, the child realizes that his call to existence was predicated on the love between his mother and father. But what happens when that union falls apart? What happens when there is no more love? Why do the stats show the incredibly negative consequences of divorce on a child’s self-esteem? The answer of course is that deep within his soul, he still depends on the unity of his parent’s marriage. He needs it because it provides him the spiritual and psychological security to develop into a balanced human being. It also shows him that he is not a temporary or arbitrary creation, but a permanent one. He is not some kind of fluke or mistake which was conceived in a convenient window of temporary harmony, but rather he was conceived within a purposeful and permanent sacrifice. If it was love that conceived him and made him a person, it is the same love that sustains him and keeps him whole.

Abortion is merely the logical extension of divorce, except that it is played out before birth. Both acts involve saying “no” to genuine love and sacrifice. Both acts operate under the principle of separation. In the case of divorce, it attacks the child after he is born by separating the union of his conception, thereby attacking his psychological and spiritual equilibrium. In the case of abortion, it acts out in the external world what divorce does in the internal one.

Britt Nicole – Believe

Comments 1 Comment »

Why they want to indoctrinate your kids

They see her six-year-old’s innocence, as they see all innocence, as a rebuke to their depravity. Hating that innocence, which must pain them whenever they encounter it, they want to extinguish it as soon and as thoroughly as possible. That’s why they want into the first grade classroom.

- Diogenes on the moral nihilism of sex educators and AIDS activists.

Bottom line: they want to turn love and marriage into a disease-riddled, emotionally empty, mechanical exercise of selfishness and physical activity. Who values sex more? Those who want to cherish it in the protected context of marriage and love and family or those who want to debase it and strip it of mystery and higher purpose?

But we’re the ones who are sexually repressed. (Source)

Sex is the most glorious reflection of God’s creative and unifying power. It is also the place where innocence is transformed into a profound revelation of the human person.   The attack on sex is an attack on God’s image.  It is the new heresy of the twenty-first century.

Comments 1 Comment »

It’s small but it’s something. Steady Eddy might be ready to move. Read about it here.

It’s very telling that it is the conservative publications in this country that are moving this debate forward.  The MSM is MIA.  That’s a big surprise, eh?

Comments 1 Comment »

Comments 1 Comment »

Comments 3 Comments »

The recent testimony by the CBC concerning their fraudulent and dishonest use of March for Life rallies has caused me to reflect on how they’ve treated the whole freedom of speech issue facing Canada right now.

The truth is that the only liberties the Main Stream Media believes in is taking them when it concerns the truth

Comments 1 Comment »

Comments 1 Comment »

Picking up on this story by Ezra Levant,  we all now have an appreciation of what we are up against.   We’re either fighting the real Taliban in Afghanistan or their speech brethren here in this country. They are not unrelated either.  They both seek to muzzle opinion that breeches their particular brittle religions which brook no dissent.  Although social liberalism and islamic talibanism appear at first glance to be miles apart, they are not.  They share this central belief:  no critical opinion is permitted and any that is offered is punished mercilessly by the State.  True, the Taliban may use means that are more vigorous, but it’s generally the same sentiment all around. 

Liberals hate any kind of war even just wars because it makes them face up to the fact that people will die in the service of their family and their country.  It reminds them that life is not just one big orgasm and indeed sacrifice is required and has meaning. 

A soldier will die for his woman. He will die for his children and his family. He will die for his friends and his fellow citizens who are supporting and sacrificing for him.

For me, if it came to it, I would do the same because I have a family. 

But a liberal?

Liberals won’t die for anything because they know deep down in their souls that what they believe in is not worth dying for.

Comments 5 Comments »

From my good friend SUZANNE (is there any other?)

Subject: Important Pro-Life Alert

Ottawa’s News Talk radio CFRA ( will be covering the Unborn Victims of Crime bill twice more before the second hour of debate on Monday. You won’t want to miss these! Please call-in and make your views known! (Don’t forget, you can “listen live” from the CFRA website; I believe the number to call is 1-800-580-TALK)
1. Steve Madely will be interviewing Mr. Epp at 8:10 a.m. EST on Thursday, Feb. 28. Then he will be taking calls if there is enough interest. SO PLEASE CALL IN!
2. Gerry Cammy will be hosting a 2 hour- panel discussion on the Professor Gerry Cammy Show on Sunday evening, Mar. 2, 5:00 p.m. EST – 7:00 p.m. EST.  Ken Epp and Mary Talbot will be two of the guests, along with Joyce Arthur, co-ordinator of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, who has launched an intensive disinformation campaign to discredit the bill. The first hour of the show will be a panel discussion amongst the host and the guests (possibility of an additional guest, to be confirmed). The second hour will be open to callers from across the country. This show is very popular and has a huge listening audience.
This may be the last chance to make your views known publicly and to influence MPs before the second hour of debate which is set to take place at 11 a.m. Monday morning. Remember, the vote will occur next Wednesday, Mar. 5. Many, many MPs have still not made up their minds on how they will vote. It could go either way. Let’s make sure we send a loud and clear message to them! And please tell your family and friends.

Comments 4 Comments »

Comments No Comments »

The federal Conservatives have accused the CBC of political bias since before they formed the government, and two months ago, Conservative party national campaign director Doug Finley lambasted the broadcaster in a fundraising letter to party faithful, accusing it of being “anti-Conservative.”

CBC supporters have long suspected that the Harper government has a hidden agenda that would radically reduce the taxpayer contribution to CBC — currently at around $1.1 billion — which it will move rapidly to implement when and if they form a majority government.

Among the scenarios most feared by CBC supporters are a stripped-down CBC TV forced to compete regionally and nationally with little or no financial support from government.  (Source)

That’s what happens when you become a state sponsored political prostitute for the Liberal Party, guys.  You can’t be surprised that tax payers are going to rebel if you become downright ridiculous in your shilling for the Liberal Party.

The CBC pisses me off so much that its demise will rank up there with the happiest days of my life.

I know many conservatives will be whooping it up across the country.

If the CBC had a grave, I’d be stocking up on beer and pissing on it the whole night.

And I know that millions of Canadians share my sentiments too. 

What does this whole scenario tell you about the arrogance and elitism of the CBC?

It would threaten its very own existence instead of disciplining itself to report the news fairly.

O happy day, hasten your advance!!!

Comments No Comments »

Last October, the international media establishment was abuzz over a letter sent by 138 Islamic scholars representing the elite of the worldwide ulema to Pope Benedict, entitled “A Common Word between Us and You”, in response to his papal address at Regensburg in September 2006. The letter extols the common bonds between Muslims and Christians, and their common belief in the love towards neighbors. It further declares that “justice and freedom of religion are a crucial part of love of the neighbor.” Many Christian leaders have responded by welcoming this effort and affirming the Islamic scholars’ letter….There is one thing, however, amidst all the flowery overtures, theological discussion, and representations of religious pluralism that the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute and the 138 Islamic scholars forgot to mention: The Institute, which operates a website,, which it calls “the largest and greatest online collection of Qur’anic commentary, translation, recitation, and essential resources in the world,” includes in an “Ask the Mufti” section a number of fatwas on apostasy issued by the Institute’s chief scholar, Sheikh Hijjawi, that call for the death of Christian reverts (Christians converting to Islam and then returning to the Christian faith) and Muslim apostates. Further they state that if the Christian reverts and Muslim apostates are not killed, they should be deprived of all rights and accorded the status of non-persons.

The implications were apparently not lost on Sheikh Hijjawi or the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute either. Just hours after Rev. Durie’s blog post had appeared, the apostasy fatwas were promptly removed (the fatwas had appeared here). In fact, the entire website was down for most of the following day, perhaps in an effort to scrub the site of this damaging information. (Source)

The brutal reality – much as the liberals don’t want to admit it – is that indeed not all cultures are equal and not all religions are equal.  In fact, some cultures are downright backward and a threat to western civilization.  Same goes with some religions.  The whole multi cult program the West has bought into and continues to buy into is simply a scam.

The secularists don’t want to admit one religion is superior to another because that would mean overturning their belief in relativism.  Once you overturn relativism, you start venturing into the area of absolutes. And no liberal wants to go there because then their whole world view starts to collapse. And so the scam continues until the tipping point comes.

Now we’re not there yet.  There’s still a way to go. We’re still too comfortable in our opulence to notice that our freedoms are being stripped away. But the day is sure to come when this whole mirage is going to go up in smoke – quite literally.

Islam does not believe in religious freedom. That is obvious for anyone who has eyes to see.  And as Islam grows, religious and civil freedoms will continue to deteriorate.  And so, what shall our response be? Shall we continue to finance and tolerate our own destruction?

True religious freedom can only exist within a “Christian secularism” – that is, a secularism that does indeed acknowledge the powerful role of its Judeo Christian heritage while maintaining a healthy separation between Church and State.  The problem today in the West is that it has no bearing and no anchor. It is a ship floating aimlessly on the sea, and it’s taking in water at an alarming rate.

The West as we know it cannot survive without a resurgence of orthodox Christianity. It’s that simple.  If you don’t think so, then do the math.

If you are secularist, ask yourself these simple questions:  How many children do I have?  How many do my secular friends have?  What is it in our philosophy that makes its proponents refuse to reproduce?

Now fast forward 25 years.  What do you see? – A dead secularism, a dead democracy, and a dead West.

But before we get there, do you suppose that those of us who love our freedoms will give them up in a peaceful manner?

Like the title of my blog says:  it’s socon or bust because liberalism is killing us.

Comments 3 Comments »

Comments 1 Comment »

Comments 1 Comment »

So getting back to one of my original points I made here, I think we need to highlight once again how shallow and self-serving the pro-abort side is in the matter of the unborn victims Bill currently before Parliament.

If a woman decides to abort, this decision, the pro-abort says, cannot be interfered with by the State (even though they use the State to extort my tax dollars to pay for it). It is sacrosanct. It is the sacrament of “choice”.

So, let me get this straight:

If a pro-lifer were to try and stop the exercise of this “abortion right” by physical force, the pro-aborts would be screaming for the State to intervene and imprison the “felon”.

However, if the choice is not to abort, and a pro-abort were to attempt to kill the fetus, the pro-aborts say there should be no consequence to attacking the unborn child.  There should be no consequence to someone breaching the choice of a mother to carry her child to term. None whatsoever.

So what this shows us is that some choices are more important than others for the pro-aborts.

“More important” is even a misnomer.  Choice for abortion is a million more times significant than choice for life.

Now we all know where the pro-aborts place their priorities, don’t we?

Comments 1 Comment »

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]* * *(excerpt)Mr. Chris Warkentin:
Let’s talk about things that maybe aren’t so inadvertent.

I’m wondering if you could explain to me the process through which stories are covered in Canada. Obviously, in any given day you have hundreds of stories that you could run on The National or CBC radio, and obviously there’s a decision-making process as to what will be brought forward as a news story.

I find it interesting, actually—I’ll just use it as an example, and you can go into your explanation as to how news stories are chosen for the day—that recently there was a sanctity-of-life rally on the Hill. In fact, I had the opportunity to walk by it, and I understand the numbers were about 7,000 people, so there were thousands and thousands of people here on the Hill. I understand there was even a press conference–one of my colleagues across the table was there–and I understand that CBC not only did not cover the rally, but they didn’t cover the news conference of the different parliamentarians who were bringing this issue forward.

I’m wondering how the decision is made not to carry a feature involving 7,000 people on Parliament Hill, as opposed to, you know, we see sometimes 20 protesters somewhere and all of a sudden that’s the news story that leads out. I’m wondering how you make the decision to ignore 7,000 people on Parliament Hill one day, and then the next day, if there are 20 protesters, the determination is made to make that the lead-out story.

Mr. Tony Burman:

Your second reference is hypothetical. I think the decision by the CBC in choosing stories is the same as any other news organization, where we evaluate the news value of a particular story against the news value of other stories that are available. I don’t have the particular details of that one story, in terms of how we handled it or didn’t.

Mr. Chris Warkentin:
I’m just curious, hypothetically, as to how you would ignore 7,000 people rallying on Parliament Hill. I’m just wondering what kind of contemplation might be gone through in terms of determining–

Mr. Tony Burman:
With respect, I don’t think I accept your characterization. There is no one who woke up that morning and said, “Let’s wilfully ignore a rally of 7,000 people”. I could quite happily go back…. You know, I’ll go back after this meeting and retrace that, but there is no day when there aren’t a multitude of groups–interest groups, groups of people–that feel their particular event deserves coverage on our airwaves more than something else. That’s part of the territory.

In fairness, I think probably a more accurate way of assessing it is whether a lot of these issues, including the one you’re referring to, have received incredible attention on the CBC in a multitude of ways. I don’t know what the staffing or the resource issue was that day with that story. We’re limited in Ottawa; we can’t cover the number of stories we want to in Ottawa. These are the kinds of choices that are made, and we stand by them, but I’ll go into that in detail if you want.

Mr. Chris Warkentin:
No, I just was curious. I thought it might be a pertinent example. I was just trying to discover how determinations are made, but I see you’re not sure as to how that is, so I appreciate that. (Source)

The arrogance of the CBC is really disturbing.  And it’s why a large minority want to see it dead. dead. dead.  They won’t give conservatives one bloody hour on their station.  That’s hardly “balanced” and that’s why it’s Canada’s version of Radio Marti.  First order of business in a CPC majority will be to seriously gut the programming and cut back on the CBC’s finances.

I found this remark above particularly meaningful:  “There is no one who woke up that morning and said, “Let’s wilfully ignore a rally of 7,000 people”. 

Except of course to film Cheryl Gallant and play it as a virtual Liberal political ad against those extreme ‘pro-lifers’.

Give me a break.

Comments 10 Comments »

Mr. McClintock, a magistrate with 18 years experience on the South Yorkshire bench, was forced to resign from the family courts panel when regulations came in place last year prohibiting “discrimination” against homosexuals in the provision of goods and services. He will continue to serve as a magistrate but will no longer be involved in family cases. 

The general trend, he said, is at its root a failure to understand the Christian foundation of the civil liberties, and civil freedoms of the western democracies. “They take the advantages of a Christian civilization for granted and don’t see the connections between the institutions the world values and see the Christianity at the bottom of it. All the values, like tolerance, come from Christianity. Now that Christianity is diluted, all the things that go along with it, including democratic freedoms, are also being diluted”.  (LifeSite News)

He’s says what I’ve been saying.  It’s social conservatism or bust. Christianity or bust.


Comments 2 Comments »

This explains a lot. Personally I think the HRC functionaries are all on pot anyway. It would explain much.

Comments No Comments »