Sunday, September 30, 2007

NDP Blunders into International Affairs

By Rod Taylor

True to form, the NDP has again put political mischief above Canadian interests on the world stage. NDP defence critic Dawn Black has outraged Afghan officials by suggesting they had to rely on Canadians to author Afghan President Hamid Karzai's speech to the Canadian Parliament.

NDP Leader Jack Layton used the spin that his meeting with Karzai last year had included discussions on the need for negotiations but since Karzai did not mention that in his speech there must be pressure from the PMO not to allude to that in his comments.

Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad, says an apology is in order and that the NDP "does not understand how diplomatic relations, bilateral relations and arrangements for a visit work".

For cheap political points, the NDP has insulted our allies and tried to smear Canadian Defence staff. I guess that's why they call them "the Opposition". If only they would work as hard at undermining terrorists as they do undermining the efforts of our troops! Instead they encourage terrorists by bringing their petty political attacks onto the world stage. Anyone who entrusts them with confidential information about Canada's strategies and intentions is throwing gasoline on the fire of international terrorism, suicide bombings and brutal tyranny.

Saturday, September 29, 2007

Free Speech Under Attack at Memorial University of Newfoundland

MUN Students’ Union disallows pro-life group

PRESS RELEASE Friday, September 28, 2007 issued by:
Memorial University of Newfoundland Students for Life
Telephone: 709-579-1500 Toll Free: 877-997-LIFE Fax: 709-579-3818 Email:

On Wednesday, September 26, the Memorial University of Newfoundland Students’ Union Board of
Directors (MUNSU) met for its regularly scheduled meeting. One of the highlights of the agenda was
the proposal to ratify, or give official club status to, Memorial University of Newfoundland Students for
Life (MUN for LIFE). When it came to this point the meeting, everyone was hesitant to speak. The
chair asked for a motion to approve and one was not tabled. A motion to deny was put forth and the
flood gates holding back the conversation opened wide. Every speaker, except for one, identified
themselves as pro-choice and echoed the comments of the previous speakers. The motion to deny
ratification passed nearly unanimous. MUSNU signaled the death of free speech on a university
The dominate arguments brought by MUNSU personalities to deny MUN for LIFE their rights were 1)
MUNSU is a local of the pro-choice Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) 2) MUNSU could not
ratify a group in opposition to its beliefs.
If MUNSU only ratifies groups that it agrees with, why is it that an assortment groups with competing
ideologies are listed on their website. For example, there are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Pagan
groups. There are Progressive Conservative, Liberal, and New Democratic groups. Surely, MUNSU can
not agree with every one of these groups. If MUNSU can grant ratification to these groups, it should be
able to allow MUN for LIFE its democratic and university rights to free speech.
If CFS is an obstacle, why it is that a number of other CFS locals have pro-life groups? A small
example of these would be the Universities of British Columbia, Toronto, Dalhousie, Carleton, and
Saskatchewan. Once again, MUNSU is grasping at straws for excuses to silence the voice of the pro-life
movement. MUN for LIFE members have paid CFS and MUNSU union dues and must now be granted
their rights to free speech and association.
In November 2006 the Carleton University Students’ Association passed a motion to silence pro-life
student groups on their campus. As a result, Carleton Lifeline’s ratification was placed in jeopardy. A
heated debate, which attracted national media coverage, ended in Carleton Lifeline’s membership
increasing and work continuing.
Patrick Hanlon, the President of MUN for LIFE, is encouraging his fellow union members and all
concerned individuals, regardless of their position on life issues, to demand MUNSU to immediately
reverse the decision made at the September 26 meeting. If this decision is not reversed, a dangerous
precedent is set in place for MUNSU, and other Student Unions in Canada, which would allow the
silencing of any other group that a union wishes not to have democratic and university rights.
Patrick Hanlon
MUN for LIFE President
P.O. Box 5427, St. John’s, NL A1C 5W2
Affirming the Dignity of the Human Person
To respectfully contact the MUNSU executive and voice your opposition to the decision:
James Farrell, External Director,
Bradley Russell, Student Life Director,
Stella Magalios, Campaigns Director,
Stephanie Power, Advocacy Director,
Nick Eisnor, Finance Director,
Phone: 709-737-7633
Fax: 709-737-4743
Mail: MUNSU, Suite 2000 - University Centre, MUN, St. John's, NL A1C 5S7
To respectfully express your concerns to the university administration:
Dr. Axel Meisen, President and Vice Chancellor of MUN,
Dr. Lilly Walker, Dean of Student Affairs and Services,
You may carbon copy or send best wises to:
Patrick Hanlon, MUN for LIFE President,
Please forward this message to others who appreciate life, democracy, or free speech

Friday, September 28, 2007

Will Ottawa Now Reduce Income Taxes?!?

Structural over-taxation results in $14.2-billion surplus in 2006/07.

by John Williamson Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Interest savings of $725-million go to future tax relief, but broad-based income tax reductions not on Conservative agenda.
OTTAWA: The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) reacted today to the announcement the federal government posted a $14.2-billion surplus in the 2006 fiscal year, considerably higher than its two earlier projections. The 2006 Budget (tabled in May, 2006) originally low-balled the surplus at $3.6-billion and the 2007 Budget (tabled March, 2007) increased that estimate to $9.2-billion. Ottawa missed its original target by almost 400% and its second estimate by more than 50%.

The surplus of $14.2-billion will be used to reduce Canada's debt, bringing it down to $467.3-billion. Today's debt reduction payment will save approximately $725-million in annual interest savings. Under the federal government's new tax-back guarantee law the savings will be used to reduce personal income taxes. To date, the Conservative government has not lowered personal income tax rates, instead it has targeted income tax relief with a number of "boutique" tax reductions that favour some, but not all taxpayers.

"Canadians prefer that governments pass surplus budgets rather than deficit budgets, but this level of surplus is ridiculous. A $14.2-billion surplus means Ottawa is over-taxing Canadians by $14.2-billion. There is no excuse left, except political rhetoric, for Ottawa not to provide personal and business tax relief," said CTF federal director John Williamson. "Annual surpluses represent over-taxation by government and the money should go back to taxpayers by way of income tax relief."

For the Record - Surprise, Surprise:

Last year, when the Conservative government reported the 2005/06 surplus was $13.2-billion, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said, "We're going to budget much closer to the line...No more so-called surprise surpluses at the end of the fiscal year."

"The government has shot its credibility on the surplus and is budgeting like the former Liberal government," concluded Williamson. "The Conservatives downplay their ability to cut taxes, like the Liberals did. They sell massive surpluses as good news, just like the Liberals did. Canadians aren't buying it any more and they recognize they are being gouged by Ottawa."

Fiscal Outlook:

The CTF anticipates the surplus for the current fiscal year (2007/08) will again exceed $12-billion. The 2007 budget estimated it will be $3.3-billion.

For further information contact:
John Williamson, Federal Director, CTF - Ottawa
Ph: 1-613-234-6554

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Giuseppe Gori Interviewed by Steve Paikin

Thinking About the Future

by Ron Gray

During the last federal election campaign, at an all-candidates’ meeting, Conservative MP Chuck Strahl told the audience in Chilliwack, BC:

“We’ve got to accept the fact that the abortion laws aren’t going to change.”

He was wrong. Dead wrong.

But you see, Chuck speaks for a party that is too cowardly and short-sighted to recognize the nation’s urgent need to grasp this difficult issue and deal with it.

A recent report from Statistics Canada warns that Canada’s population is aging much too rapidly. Unless we deal with this issue—soon—Canada faces a bleak future.

But every party now sitting in Parliament is morally crippled by the same lack of courage and vision as the Harper Tories.

It’s ironic that in almost every city in North America, you can rent a car equipped with a GPS locator that will talk to you, and tell you how to find your way to your destination; and we’re on the verge of making cars that will run on hydrogen, so that nothing comes out the exhaust pipe but water vapour. Yet our technologically-advanced society can’t seem to find a more humane way of dealing with unanticipated pregnancies than to butcher babies in the womb!

We’re technological giants—and moral midgets. And our so-called “leaders” are too timid to even discuss the issue. So we kill 110,000 babies a year for the “crime” of being conceived at an inconvenient time—and you and I pay the hired killers with our taxes.

We’re smarter than that. We’re better than that. We must be—or we’ll perish. When our economy comes crashing down around our ears because there are no longer enough young people to sustain it, we’ll richly deserve our fate. That day is coming soon, unless we start electing MPs who have the courage and the common sense to see that those babies represent Canada’s future... to see that we’re killing our future.

So please—think about the things your MPs are afraid to think about. If you believe in God, pray that He’ll give you the courage to do what your MPs are terrified to even think of doing.

Then do what’s right: Join the CHP; support the CHP; vote for the CHP.

The future of Canada depends on people with the courage to face difficult decisions, and not cave in to Political Correctness.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Hillary Care, 2.0

by Colin Mason Population Research Institute
In 1993, Hillary Rodham Clinton, then First Lady of the United States, had a plan to revolutionize health care in this country. To that end, husband Bill named her chairwoman of the "Task Force on National Health Care Reform," a heretofore unprecedented level of official power to be given to any First Lady.
Mrs. Clinton's plan was drastic medicine: the United States government would mandate health insurance for everyone. Those who couldn't pay would have their premiums paid for by the government, that is to say, by the rest of us.
The goal of this heavy-handed manuever was to eliminate America's millions of uninsured. To be fair, it would have probably accomplished this goal, albeit at an astronomical cost to taxpayers and their rights. It also would have eliminated free clinics, the medical services provided at no cost to indigents by the thousands of county hospitals across the United States, and countless charitable activities carried on by private individuals.

Karl Mark and Freidrich Engels:Intellectual revolutionaries, masterminds of socialism, and the spiritual fathers of HillaryCare.

Conservatives dubbed the measure "HillaryCare" and declared that it would socialize medicine. Liberals didn't call it that, but a good number of them believed that it would seriously curtail the freedom to choose one's provider. Pro-lifers saw it as a Trojan Horse for the introduction of taxpayer funded abortions, and the means by which all physicians would be required to either perform, or refer for, abortions.
These grouped joined together to attack the plan. So strong was their collective resistance that not only did HillaryCare 1.0 die an ignominious political death but, through this struggle, the Republicans gained the impetus they needed to take back Congress and eventually the White House.
Over a decade has passed, and now Hillary is running an aggressive campaign to become America's first female president. Once again, government health care is at the top of her agenda. How does HillaryCare 2.0, as it has come to be called, differ from the previous version?
The National Health Service is costly and inefficient, characterized by long waiting periods and outdated treatments.
Mrs. Clinton says she wears the "scars" from her 1993 health care debacle like badges of honor. She claims to have learned a lot from her mistakes. She has adopted a rhetoric of "choice," and speaks of putting the "consumer in the driver's seat." The reality, however, is that HillaryCare 2.0 is the same old plan.
If adopted, the plan will still make health insurance mandatory for all American citizens. It will still destroy the legitimate competition that keeps insurance prices relatively low. And it will still, if Hillary has her way, open the door to government-funded abortions for all.

Moreover, it will cost even more money this time around. Hillary says $110 billion, but this is surely a gross underestimate. Where will the money for this new Clintonian enterprise come from? The pockets of America's middle class, of course.
One has only to look at Great Britain, which has had centralized health care since 1947, to understand where HillaryCare 2.0 will lead us. The National Health Service is costly and inefficient, characterized by long waiting periods and outdated treatments.
Most importantly, from our point of view at PRI, is the danger that this new plan would entail for Life. Hillary is a hard-line pro-abort. A government-run health care system in her hands would surely spell disaster for babies, and put tremendous pressure on conscientious doctors and pharmacists to cooperate with abortions.
Greg Clovis, who heads Family Life International-U.K., PRI's sister organization in London, has this to say: "The British government-run insurance plan finances around 80% of the country's abortions, in addition to paying for such services as sex-change operations. British Medical Service abortionists perform most of the country's abortions."
If "HillaryCare" becomes law, we have no reason not to expect the same to occur here. Certainly Hillary makes no secret of her adamant support for "reproductive rights," and her intention to include such "rights" in any legislation she introduces, including health care. She reportedly told the head of Planned Parenthood here in Washington, D.C. that Americans need to "includ[e] ... issues related to reproductive health in any debate about health care reform ... changing our laws and changing the attitudes here in Washington, so that you can do the job you try to do and do so well."
This is agenda-based health care, not choice-based health care. Those who are concerned about the Life issues should oppose it.
Colin Mason is the Director for Media Production at PRI.

Sign up for the Weekly Briefing Here
Media Contact: Colin Mason
Email: 622-5240, ext. 209_________
(c) 2007 Population Research Institute. Permission to reprint granted.Redistribute widely. Credit required._________PRI is a 501(c)(3) educational organization. If you would like to make a tax-deductible donation to PRI,please go to our Donations Page. All donations (of any size) are welcomed and appreciated.

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Suzanne Fortin, Prominent ProLife Blogger, Runs for FCP in Ontario

One of the blogging wonders of the Western World, Suzanne Fortin has been chosen by the Family Coalition Party of Ontarion to represent them in the upcoming provincial election on October 10th. She will be running in the provincial riding of Nepean-Carleton.

Suzanne has distinguished herself as a person of rare commitment and energy by her tireless advocacy for the not-yet-born. Through her frequent posts on her blog, Big Blue Wave , Suzanne has raised awareness in the blogosphere of many of the issues surrounding abortion that have been ignored by MSM (MainStream Media). A central theme of her posts is the personhood of the unborn child and the human rights inherent with personhood.

Suzanne is a 33-year old wife and mother of three young children. She is also a poet, historian and a regional director for the FCP in the Ottawa area. Her strong voice in defense of the vulnerable is powered by her faith and her posts often refer to issues of faith and family values.

Consistent with FCP policy, Suzanne has taken a strong position in support of MMPR (Mixed Member Proportional Representation), a proposed change in Ontario electoral policy. MMPR, if chosen by the required 60% of Ontario voters in the Oct 10 referedum, would replace the FPTP (First Past the Post) system now used by all Canadian provinces and in Canadian federal elections. Many people feel MMPR would give better representation of Canadian values, such as strong prolife values which often get short shrift when ballots are tallied. It is generally acknowledged that with our current system, governments often have deceivingly high majorities due to the electorate's fear of "splitting the vote". Another advocate of MMPR is the federal CHP (Christian Heritage Party). CHP leader Ron Gray has repeatedly pointed out that "splitting the vote" is the essence of democracy. The vote, however, should be split along lines that reflect the values and opinions of all Canadians, not the narrow partisan objectives of the power-hungry party elites who now rule by fiat, often against the wishes of the public.

Suzanne Fortin has earned a place at the table when it comes to discussions that will affect our children and grandchildren. We wish her well in her pursuit of Justice for the unborn.