Mighty Host

Misty Edwards and the Hope we have that comes from embracing the Fear of the Lord

2011-03-22T12:11:00.000-07:00

2011-03-06T17:32:00.000-08:00

Can They Kick Christ Out of Narnia?

2010-12-17T16:37:00.000-08:00

by LEE DUIGON

Lee Duigon is a Christian freelance writer whose work can be seen at:
http://chalcedon.edu

View all blogs by Lee Duigon...

Actor Liam Neeson has made one of the stupidest comments of the year:

He said: “Aslan symbolizes a Christ-like figure but he also symbolizes for me Mohammed, Buddha, and all the great spiritual leaders and prophets over the centuries.”

Aslan is the great Lion at the heart of C. S. Lewis’ Narnia stories. Neeson is the actor who provides Aslan’s voice in the current crop of Narnia movies.

If you have read the Narnia books, you know the following facts about Aslan: 1) he created the world of Narnia and gave it life; 2) he died in place of a sinner, when he himself was without sin; 3) after he died, he came to life again, in the flesh; 4) he is king over all kings, not just in Narnia but in all worlds; 5) he is in our world, too, but here he has another name.

These characteristics describe Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ. They do not describe Mohammed or Buddha or L. Ron Hubbard or anybody else.

Mr. Neeson is supposedly a practicing Catholic. Maybe he needs to practice harder. Maybe he needs a better coach.

What does he mean, Aslan “also symbolizes for me Mohammed, Buddha,” etc.? But those two words, “for me,” are the key to understanding this idiocy.

If I say, “For me, two and two make three,” I am an idiot. If I say, “For me, Liberace was the first president of the United States,” I am an idiot. And if I make a habit of saying things like that, I’m not only an idiot, but crazy, too. Meanwhile, if I say such things, people answer, “Why should we care what anything is for you? Who are you, that we should care?” But they don’t say that to Mr. Neeson because he’s a big-deal Hollywood movie actor.

The Narnia books, and by extension the movies based on them, are explicitly Christian. They were written to convey a Christian message and no other kind of message. And yet here is the actor who does Aslan’s voice trying to water down that message until there’s nothing left but water. Why?

Probably for the same reason that some professed Christians catch themselves saying “happy holiday” instead of “Merry Christmas”: something inhibits them from mentioning Christ’s name, even to denote a holiday purposely created to proclaim Christ's birth. Maybe they’re afraid of some really cool media or academic type looking askance at them and saying, “Oh--you’re one of those.”

In the vast, overwhelming majority of our movies, television shows, popular songs, novels, comic books, video games, and every other form of story-telling--which is what all these assorted entertainment options are--we can find no trace of Jesus Christ or God the Father. The average person consumes thousands, or tens of thousands, of these stories in his life. Each time he does, he visits a world in which God does not exist. (We aren’t counting the stories that are overtly anti-God or anti-Christian.) The fact that that world is imaginary seems irrelevant.

The great thing about a godless universe is that there’s no one in it who can tell us what to do, no one to say, “Thou shalt not.” In this universe, we are the gods--well, some of us, at least: the ones who can say “for me” and make it stick for everybody else. The only bad thing about the godless universe is that it isn’t real.

We live in the real universe created by God and governed by his law, whether we like it or not. We ourselves are his creation. But many of us choose to believe in the universe that they’ve imagined, where there is no God and we make up the law as we go along. Our towering mass of godless fiction feeds our folly.

To say that “Jesus equals Mohammed equals Buddha equals Zeus and Baal and Ra-Horakhte” is to make them all equal to nothing, and to attempt to deprive Christ the King of having anything to say about what goes on in the world. But come Judgment Day, He will have plenty to say about it.

Meanwhile, it seems that we can’t even let one movie bear a Christian message without trying to drain Jesus out of it. Our secular pooh-bahs are acutely afraid of Jesus Christ.

And well they should be. They can say, “For me, Christ is not the Lord”; but their own unquenchable fear of him knows better.

http://www.chronwatch-america.com:80/blogs/1798/Can-They-Kick-Christ-Out-of-Narnia.html

Canadian Taxpayers on the Cost of Processing Refugees

2010-08-17T21:53:00.000-07:00

NO Mosque at Ground Zero

2010-08-08T07:12:00.000-07:00

Gaza Briefing Call re. the Flotilla Incident

2010-06-04T17:17:00.000-07:00

Click on link below to listen to interview with Israeli Public Affairs Minister re the situation in Israel this past week.

http://4mycanada.ca/Audio/IsraelGazaBriefingCall.mp3

We Con the World

2010-06-04T13:47:00.001-07:00

Tom Brokaw Describes Canada for Americans

2010-02-24T07:29:00.000-08:00

Ron Gray on the Fair Tax

2009-10-01T07:08:00.000-07:00

Obama Turns Back the Clock

2009-03-25T18:51:00.000-07:00

by Colin Mason Population Research Institute

At a time when highly significant—even historic—breakthroughs in adult stem cell research have become almost daily occurrences and almost to the point of being mundane, President Obama has chosen to turn back the clock, and starting today, will force taxpayers to subsidize the unethical over the ethical, the unworkable over what works, and hype and hyperbole over hope.

Human embryo destroying stem cell research is not only unethical, unworkable, and unreliable, it is now demonstrably unnecessary.

--Congressman Christopher Smith (R-NJ), March 9, 2009

This speech, at which were present so-called “snowflake babies” (former frozen embryos, implanted and carried to term), was made in response to President Obama’s March 9th executive order, which sweepingly legalized embryonic stem-cell research in an attempt to remove “limitations on scientific inquiry.”

“Rather than furthering discovery,” said Obama in his March 9th statement immediately preceding the signing of the order, “our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering.”

While most pro-lifers are vigorously opposed to embryonic stem-cell research, many have difficulty defending their stance because of supposed medical advances which the research has made possible. Many would be surprised to learn that any and all medical breakthroughs made regarding stem cells have been made without using embryos. Work with these cells has produced promising research and may lead to dramatic cures of all manner of diseases. As Michaela Kingston writes, in an article entitled “Pardon Me, Your Ideology is Showing”:

ESCs may have the potential to cure many diseases. But after ten years and billions of dollars, they still have not realised their potential. In the meantime, stem cells isolated from adults have proven to be quite effective in relieving human suffering. Even better, if you’re on the ESC bandwagon, are "induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells", which behave almost exactly like ESCs but do not involve embryo destruction. These iPS cells do not involve costly embryo manipulation and can be made from a patient’s own cells, avoiding immune rejection.

So, in other words, Obama has not only signed off on a procedure which would be morally unacceptable no matter what its scientific advantages, he has done so in the face of all medical and scientific evidence. In addition to this, Obama also rescinded Bush’s Executive Order 13435, which poured funding into research involving adult stem cells. In short, Obama has effectively worked to kill adult stem cell research (i.e., the only stem cell research that has produced results) to pour money into a dead-end, highly controversial research instead.

The president’s supposed desire to “work to ease human suffering” rings hollow when it is clear that the procedures he espouses have proven scientifically fruitless. In addition to this, morally concerned scientists have not only identified the moral hazard, but they have even offered a workable solution.

But it is to no avail.

Obama’s ideological bone-tossing apparently extends to forced abortion, as well. The FY2009 Omnibus Bill, signed into law by the president on March 11th, contains a loophole that allows funding to go the UNFPA, regardless of whether or not they are involved in forced abortion or sterilization. The Reagan-era Kemp-Kasten amendment, clearly dictates that American tax dollars cannot be used to fund coercive abortion or sterilization overseas. Even when House pro-lifers proposed an amendment that would essentially force the UNFPA to be regulated under Kemp-Kasten like everyone else, it was overturned.

The message that this sends is very clear: Obama wants his programs funded, regardless of the costs. He is perfectly willing to cut a swathe through both legal and moral concerns to achieve this goal. However, not only is he willing to cast aside concerns, he is even willing to disregard the basic cold logic of the matter, the logic upon which delicate, bi-partisan agreements are made.

This logic dictates that, while we may not agree on abortion, we agree that women should never be forced to have abortions; that, shelving the moral controversies, embryonic stem cell research is a sterile science and should be abandoned in favor of more productive investigations. This logic dictates that Americans are split on the subject of abortion, and it is thus irresponsible to use their tax dollars equally to fund something that so many of them find morally repugnant.

In the words of Kingston, far from promoting “responsiblility,” Obama has only paved the way for “pressure on scientists from media hype, special interest groups, lobbyists and a poorly informed but well-meaning public to pursue dead-end research.”

Simply speaking, Obama really is willing to turn back the clock—to turn it back to a time when the people had little say in government, and when government took little interest in the scientific or moral conundrums placed before it.

God save us from “change” like this.

Firearm Ownership is Your RIGHT

2009-02-26T08:52:00.000-08:00

by Jim Hnatiuk CHP National Leader

Canadian gun owners are discovering that the CHP promotes and champions the right to own a firearm and the right to own and enjoy their private property. The CHP also believes these rights must be embedded in our Constitution.

Trappers, seal hunters, fishermen, elk and wild boar farmers, like all Canadians, need an assurance that the hard-earned reward of their labour is protected under the law inasmuch as they have a right to own their property. Currently, there is no such assurance, since the right to private property was intentionally left out of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The CHP policy 6.7.7 clearly states: “We assert that the federal government must not restrict the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms, whether for sporting use or for self-defence.”

CHP policy 7.1.6 states: “We believe the ‘Charter of Rights’ should be amended to include the right to private ownership and enjoyment of property.”

CHP Canada is willing to take a stand on behalf of gun owners, gun retailers, and recreational shooting ranges.

Canadian governments have tried to make Canada a safer country by enacting tighter firearms control. The results:
 A gross misuse of Canadian taxpayer’s dollars
 More Canadians feel unsafe in their homes, offices, and streets than at any other time in our history

The newly developed Canadian Firearms Institute (https://www.cfi-icaf.ca/) recently reported that Canada's Gun Registry has cost Canadians one half million dollars per day, and two billion dollars over 10 years. The useful information gleaned is that only 2.27% of the guns used in homicides are registered. How does this information help to prevent crime or make us safer? The truth is that it doesn’t.

Gary Mauser, a leading Canadian criminologist says, “the track record of 'gun control' actually reducing criminal violence is not good. No government in the world can boast that the introduction of stricter firearms laws has actually reduced criminal violence. Firearms have been banned in Jamaica, Hong Kong, New York City, and Washington, DC, without leading to decreases in homicides.” So what we have in Canada are successive governments spending a lot of your money - for little or no return! And a reduction in individual liberty.

The CHP's "Better Solution" is...not to restrict the liberty of law abiding Canadian citizens but rather to appropriately punish criminals who attack our society. CHP Canada understands that this is where the deterrent should be applied. How many police officers and other effective resources could this money fund?
In every other area of public activity – training is implemented to achieve greater safety. Why can’t our government understand that this is also true with firearms? The CHP does! Instead of the gun registry, a better solution is to invest in providing the best of training for our citizens, and to provide the technical expertise, facilities and instructions through certified education programs. This would develop and encourage the sport, enhance safety, and allow people to be aware of their obligations and responsibilities.

Better Solutions begin at www.chp.ca

12-year-old steals day with pro-life speech

2009-02-26T08:02:00.000-08:00

David Macdonald---telling it like it is

2009-02-26T07:57:00.000-08:00

David Macdonald has been through it all. He has been an activist in the world of same-sex attraction and has experienced the highs and lows of that lifestyle. You can read his story in his words here.

Vicki Gunn---Prolife Profile in the Big Blue Wave

2009-01-09T12:00:00.000-08:00

Suzanne Fortin's popular prolife blog, Big Blue Wave, is doing a series on Pro-Lifers in Their Own Words. Here's Suzanne's story on Vicki Gunn...

"Vicki Gunn is the Executive Director of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada. She also operates the CHP's Canadian Viewpoints message board. She was a federal candidate in the most recent elections, and I had the pleasure of working with her during the 2007 Ontario provincial election, during which she ran as a candidate in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell."

Here is her story:

My first awareness of abortion was when I started working in Toronto in the mid 1970s. I was stopped at Bloor and Yonge and asked to sign a petition for a Dr. Henry Morgentaler to be granted the right to perform abortions...

They Should be Happy Now---the Tank is Half Empty

2008-12-31T06:15:00.000-08:00

by Rod Taylor Deputy Leader of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada
For several years now, the "coalition" parties have been calling for a slowing of development, less industry, less consumption of manufactured goods---all in the name of "saving the environment". Based on faulty science and propelled by hype, the bogus claim that CO2 is responsible for yet-unproven global warming has been the justification for policies worldwide more likely to usher in oppressive world government than to produce cleaner air or more sustainable forests and ice floes.

Now that a confluence of political and economic forces has resulted in a series of financial crises and we have the results so sought-after by the confused (less development, less industry, less consumption), one would expect the leaders of the movement to be ecstatic. Instead, they are racing around looking for ways to stimulate the economy, support the big auto business and protect the "rights" of political parties to feed from the public trough.

While conspiring to overthrow the government, they talk about "working together". While opposing corporate tax cuts, they insist on multi-billion dollar corporate bailouts. Happy with half-truths, they use the term "pay equity" to energize their base, rather than "equal pay for equal work", a concept we could all agree on. They use "death with dignity" to justify the killing of the aged and the infirm. George Orwell, in "1984" exposed this insidious abuse of language as a prop for the acceptance of evil. Public deception at public expense is a public disgrace.

Isn't it interesting...

2008-12-12T05:41:00.000-08:00

by Elaine Taylor

Isn't it interesting.

If we take CHP into the public square, we are too religious.

We let liars speak in the public square. We are so tolerant.

We let wreckers speak in the public square. We are so tolerant.

We let God-haters speak in the public square. We are tolerantly dumb.

We pay, with our taxes, liars, wreckers, censors, & God-haters (whether misguided or intentional, the result is the same), to indoctrinate us. (national broadcasting, public education).

If we take CHP into the church, we are too political.

We say we believe in absolutes. Some things are wrong.

We say we believe absolute truth can only be based in God's Truth.

Do we really believe this?

Do we have convictions, or do we have mere preferences?

Do we have boldness or do we have timidity?

You may believe our "true North (is) strong & free", but why are you whispering?

Are church leaders more afraid of losing their tax exempt status than their freedom?

They will lose their tax-exempt status eventually anyway, and then their freedom, because both will be taken away. Better to lose it on principle, standing for what is right, than simply concede defeat to secular
oppressors.

What part of Christian Heritage Party is so scary or irrelevant or inappropriate or unscriptural that it cannot be presented with equal opportunity when we are faced with fulfilling our civic duty, that is, participating in the democratic privilege of helping to choose our country's leaders?

The secularists (our state religion) have no qualms about using the state's institutions to promote their Godless agenda. They are true to what they believe, while we won't even talk about the issues in the congregation lest we offend someone who disagrees.

We're taught throughout scripture & in church that the man of integrity has a walk consistent with his talk. The unbeliever's biggest complaint against Christians that I have heard over the years is this hypocrisy. Granted, with the world we're damned if we do & damned if we don't. But for which would you rather be criticised?

Do we really believe our faith should affect all areas of our lives? Well what about our politics? Does it make sense - is it consistent - to acknowledge as a legal & viable contender for Canada's leadership, a political party that upholds the very value system and democracy that derives from JudeoChristian foundations? No other party can claim that.

If 'viable' is a word that chokes you up, you must be fair and consider this: Our eda has about 60,000 eligible voters, with appr. 40,000 of those turning out to vote. 40,000 voters have the opportunity, the freedom, to vote for a CHP candidate. Every single one has that one vote with which to do the right thing, or to throw away to someone with whom they only agree somewhat. So how can you say CHP doesn't have a chance? Where does chance come into it? Do Christians go into the voter's cubicle blindfolded & play pin the X on the donkey? Or spin a wheel of fortune? It sounds like CHP would have better odds of winning that way than counting on Christians who prefer to play with a stacked deck, having already replaced the King with a jack.

If you & each of your friends & each of their friends simply voted on principle, and trusted God for the results, we could begin to reclaim the territory the secularists have stolen from our grandchildren. Since when does strategy qualify as faith? If we believe God is in control, then we'd better be caught doing what is right & good & true & acting in faith, for surely He is faithful, whatever the results. We know that in this life we won't always see the results of our making good choices - sometimes the right choice is even to our own hurt - at the time, anyway. But God is the ultimate judge, & we do not need to strategise for Him. We obey. He is faithful. Blessed is the nation whose God is The Lord.

A Letter to Canadians from the CHP National Leader

2008-12-05T22:07:00.000-08:00

December 4, 2008 by Jim Hnatiuk

Fundamental to good government is honesty, integrity and transparency. Regrettably, it is the total departure from these attributes that has brought instability, vain conceit and disingenuous motives to our nation's capital.

Prime Minister Harper must bear much of the blame for this crisis; the Conservative Party is after all the instigator. Leaders must lead, but equally important is the need to serve the people. The failure to provide conciliatory leadership during a minority government has resulted in today's chaos. Most Canadians do believe that the issue that precipitated this conflict was the Prime Minister's threat to cut subsidies to political parties.

Eliminating such subsidies is not an attack on democracy as the coalition members decry, but would represent a return to democracy. While the CHP would applaud the policy, it was unfortunately, recklessly proposed by the PM.

It should be pointed out to Canadians, that contrary to what they hear in the media, not all political parties benefit from such a funding scheme. The CHP has never received such funding, but is 100% member supported and funded.

The NDP and Liberals may never admit it, but the selfish ambition of the coalition is obvious and their attempts to convince Canadians to the contrary are pitiable. Driven together through greed, they saw an unprecedented opportunity to gain leverage and power, so they selfishly put partisanship aside and entered into negotiations for power with the Bloc.

While the Canadian economy is not collapsing, the economic signals are worrisome. Indeed, according to most analysts, Canada is one of the healthiest of the G8. It is also untrue, that the Conservative government has done nothing. On the contrary, they have acted with prudence in the face of the global economic crisis. There have been tax reductions at both the personal and the corporate levels which in themselves will act to modestly stimulate the economy. The question is, can we do more, and where should we put our focus?

Should we bail out the ailing auto industry? This requires careful analysis, not a quick fix by throwing millions of taxpayer's dollars at a patient that may not survive.
It needs to be pointed out that Canada is in desperate need of infrastructure renewal, and this has been the case for some time. Cities for successive elections have begged Ottawa to do something to help them cope with the problem. This is an issue on which all of the parties in the House of Commons have failed Canada.

The CHP has proposed for some time, an infrastructure policy that has already been used successfully in Canada. It's a simple, non-inflationary policy that was applied in Canada at the end of WWII. Implemented by the Liberals under C.D. Howe, McKenzie King's minister of reconstruction, it worked very well.

The Bank of Canada would issue interest-free loans to cities, municipalities, provinces and Crown corporations for infrastructure projects, such as water and sewage treatment systems, airports, bridges etc... which are in dire need of revamping. The builder, the province, would collect revenues from increased economic activity, which would be used to pay back the interest free loan and the money would then be withdrawn from the economy, so it wouldn't have an inflationary consequence. But the improved infrastructure would remain.

This policy has been used successfully in our nation's history, and should be implemented again to enable communities to meet urgent, current needs.

In addition, Canada would benefit greatly if out of this crisis emerged a truly democratic parliament with proportional representation, where the vote of every citizen would count, and political parties succeeded or failed depending on their own grassroots support, rather than feeding at the public trough. Such improvements to our democracy would benefit our nation by empowering the grassroots political involvement of citizens, leading to a more active electorate and increased voter turnout.

The CHP is a federal party that continues to offer Canada stability, honesty and loyalty. The CHP will only seek to lead through service, according to principle, for the good of the country, not just for the good of our political party.

Now that the Governor General has prorogued parliament, we hope that cooler heads will prevail in the coming months.

We know that during these times the focus should be on Canadian families and not the corporate sector. Before any policy is implemented, the question must be asked, "Is this good for Canadian families?"

Canadians should also note that all other parties have failed to put integrity and respect for human life ahead of power and finances. This abandonment of historic moral principles leaves all of them without a defence in claiming the moral high ground.

Historically, it has never been more important, that our nation's leaders recognize the constitutional requirement that Canada be governed in light of principles that recognizes the supremacy of God and the rule of law. Those principles made Canada the most desirable place in the world to live; and only the CHP is committed to restoring those principles for all Canadians.

Some Highlights of the CHP Leadership Convention

2008-11-16T17:22:00.000-08:00

by Pastor Eric Pennings CHP Prayer/Ethics/Personnel (PEP) Director

A week has passed now since the Leadership Convention has come to a close. We are very excited about the events of the convention. Allow me to highlight just some of the events:

1) Farewell Tribute to Party Leader Ron Gray – At the opening session of the convention, we dedicated an entire evening to celebrate the 13 years of leadership which he provided for the party. He and his wife, Janet, have sacrificed much for the advancement of the Christian Heritage Party through the years. This event was hosted by past deputy leader, Ian Knight, and his wife Leslie. Many members participated in giving tribute to Ron & Janet.

2) New Party Leader Elected - Three candidates for Party Leadership were presented. It was exciting to hear the presentations and participate in several Q&A sessions with the candidates. Jim Hnatiuk, former deputy leader, was elected as our new Party Leader on the first ballot, suggesting a strong mandate among the convention delegates. Please see attached media file for more information on him. The other two nominees for the leadership position made passionate presentations and presented visions that we will be able to capitalize on. Both are on the board in leadership positions. We have a strong and enthusiastic board with a clear vision for advancing the CHP over the next few years. The need to build membership has been acknowledged to be the most important challenge facing us. This will require the participation and commitment of every CHP member to the goal of providing a candidate in all 308 electoral districts across our country.

3) Youth Come Out With a Strong Voice – We had a higher percentage of youth at the convention that we have ever had at previous conventions. Not only were they present, but they participated vigorously in the debates on the resolutions. What a joy to see these youth represent the present face of the CHP and provide a promising future for the CHP. Along with attending all events planned for the convention, they met together in additional sessions. We anticipate that we will hear more from them as they strengthen in numbers and vision for youth involvement across Canada.

4) Twenty-one Resolutions Debated – Our chairman, former board president Mr. Tom Kroesbergen, chaired the plenary sessions and effectively led us through a heavy agenda of resolutions that were presented for debate. We trust that the Lord led our decisions and that each decision will bring glory to Him.

5) Special Sessions - We enjoyed a presentation by William Gairdner on Thursday night. This was attended by both members and non members. To guide us in our policy discussions, we heard from Ida Mutoigo, from CRWRC, on food sovereignty Thursday afternoon. Friday morning, Nadeem Esmail, from the Fraser Institute, provided us with information and a Q & A session on health care. The Mudde Family entertained us Friday evening.

6) Candidate Appreciation Brunch – On Saturday morning we held a celebratory brunch to honour 241 men and women who have served the party as candidates in seven federal elections since 1988. Of these candidates two were highlighted. Baird Judson served in all seven elections as a candidate in PEI. Former Party Leader Ron Gray has led the way as a candidate six elections and five by-elections).

7) New Board Presented – The new board was presented as follows:

National Executive: Party Leader: Jim Hnatiuk

Deputy Leader: Rod Taylor

Executive Director: Vicki Gunn

President: Larry Spencer

Vice-President: Leslie Bartley

Treasurer: Luke Kwantes

Secretary: Marcia Kroesbergen

PEP Director: Eric Pennings

Provincial Presidents: BC – Harold Ludwig

AB – Sya Strydhorst

SK – Harold Stephan

MB – David Reimer

ON – Dave Bylsma

QC – Thomas Sabourin

NS – Louise McKeen

Please pray for the positive transition the CHP is going through. Give thanks for Ron Gray's leadership of 13 years. Pray for wisdom for Party Leader Jim Hnatiuk. Pray that the Lord will lead us, His representatives in the public arena, to further growth and vision as a federal political party. All glory and honour to Him.

Jim Hnatiuk Elected New CHP Leader!!

2008-11-16T17:07:00.001-08:00

Media Release---London, Ontario November 07, 2008

At its convention in London, Ontario this week, the Christian Heritage Party elected Jim Hnatiuk of Nova Scotia to be its new leader. The leadership race was the central event of the convention. Ron Gray, CHP Leader for the past 13 years, is passing the torch to Mr. Hnatiuk, a zealous candidate, party recruiter and former Deputy Leader.

CHP delegates gave their resounding support to Mr. Hnatiuk with a first ballot win in a 3-way race. The other two candidates were Harold Ludwig of Abbotsford and Rod Taylor of Smithers, British Columbia. Mr. Ludwig is the CHP's BC President and Mr. Taylor has now been appointed Deputy Leader of the party.

Jim Hnatiuk has been a dynamic member of the CHP ever since he first joined in 2002. He became the Interim Nova Scotia President prior to being named the Deputy Leader at the party's 2005 convention in Winnipeg. The party's only candidate in Atlantic Canada in the 2004 election (against incumbent Scott Brison) and 2006 election (against incumbent Gerald Keddy), he has worked tirelessly to expand the CHP's presence in Eastern Canada. As a result, the party ran five candidates in Nova Scotia in the recent election.

"I am absolutely encouraged by the overwhelming support I received," Jim Hnatiuk said. "It gives me the confidence to move forward with the goals and focus that I brought forward in my campaign."

Hnatiuk is looking forward to strengthening the party and building membership across Canada. He also wants to develop new policies to deal with concerns of the poor and low-income Canadians.

Hnatiuk was thrilled to see the increased number of delegates at this convention. "Many of the delegates here are young people," he said, "and they are the ones at the microphones, debating the resolutions."

Hnatiuk has been married to Ellen for 35 years They have two children and two grandchildren. He operates the largest hunting, fishing and taxidermy business in Nova Scotia. He retired from the Canadian Forces in 1995 after 25 years of service having attained the rank of Chief Petty Officer 1st Class.

Mighty Host Blogging Interrupted

2008-09-07T07:25:00.000-07:00

Due to the non-surprise announcement today of the federal election, I find myself in two campaigns---one for the Electoral District of Skeena-Bulkley Valley (BC) and one for the leadership of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada.

Although the federal election was engineered by the Prime Minister contrary to his own legislation of fixed election dates, it is an election no Canadian can ignore. Protection of innocent human life, restoration of justice, personal freedom and respect for traditional marriage and families are at stake.

I will be kept busy over the next few weeks and will not have time to post to this site. You can review past articles here or track election info and leadership postings at the two links above. The CHP Leadership Convention will be held in London, Ontario, November 5-8.

You can write me at:
rodtaylor@skeenabulkley.ca

Harper Throws Unborn Victims to the Wolves

2008-08-28T05:16:00.000-07:00

by Rod Taylor
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Justice Minister Rob Nicholson have shown once again their penchant for cold and calculating strategy by abandoning Bill C-484 (the Unborn Victims of Crime Bill) and its author, fellow-Conservative MP Ken Epp. In a move designed to ensure that they cannot be accused of defending innocent human life, Mr. Nicholson announced his intention to introduce legislation this fall which would effectively scuttle C-484. Mr. Epp, by contrast, has been heroic in his efforts to establish legal protection for the unborn child in the case of a violent attack on its expectant mother where her right to choose life is violated.

The alternate legislation proposed by the Conservative insiders, besides being redundant, suggests only that pregnancy be considered as a factor in sentencing. It does nothing to recognize the loss of a wanted human life, as in the case of Olivia Talbot and her unborn son, Lane, who both died as the result of a gunshot to her abdomen. The attacker in her case testified that he wanted to "get the baby". Olivia's mother is left grieving for her daughter as well as the grandson she will never know. No charges can be laid in the death of the child because no legal recognition exists.

Mr. Harper's motives are clear enough. He is expected to force an election soon and doesn't want the voters to think that he shares Mr. Epp's views on the sanctity of human life. Although C-484 was never about abortion and contains language clearly excluding abortion from its purview, the Justice Minister took the bait offered by its pro-abort attackers and declared (once again): "Our government will not reopen the debate about abortion." I have news for him---the debate has never been closed. Abandoning the most vulnerable members of society cannot be confused with leadership and throwing your friends overboard for crass political advantage does not elicit trust.

Bill C-51 should be scrapped, not ‘amended’

2008-08-14T18:03:00.000-07:00

Ron Gray – Leader of the Christian Heritage Party

Health Minister Tony Clement is engaging in sleightof-
hand with his proposed “amendments” to Bill C-51 (an act to
amend the Food and Drug Act and to make consequent
amendment to several other acts). Modifying a definition doesn’t
really amend the draconian powers the proposed new Act gives
the government over health foods and natural medicines.
A bit of background is necessary:
The dominant form of medical care in North America,
allopathic medicine, was primarily adopted because of the
influence of one man—and he was not a doctor—who in 1913
was given the authority by John D. Rockefeller to administer the
profits of the newly-created Rockefeller Foundation. That
foundation, created to shelter part of the huge Rockefeller
empire from America’s new Income Tax Act; the Foundation’s
profits from sheltered shares in Standard Oil (now Exxon) were
to be used for two purposes: education in the poorer regions of
the American South; and medical research.
The administrator of the funds visited Leipzig, in
Germany, to learn how medicine was being practiced there. He
found doctors commited to surgery and pharmaceuticals, so that
was the kind of medicine to which he committed the Rockefeller
funds. The only North American school teaching that kind of
medicine at the time was Johns-Hopkins; so they got all the
money. It didn’t take long for other university medical schools to
learn how to access the Rockefeller millions: they quickly
adopted the Leipzig model. The graduates of those schools
became the founders of the American Medical Association.
Thus did allopathic medicine come to dominate health
care in North America. The irony is that John D. Rockerfeller’s
personal physician was a homeopath—as is Queen Elizabeth’s
personal physician today.
Bill C-51 is, at its core, an attempt to force natural and
traditional medications into the same regulatory framework as
pharmaceuticals. If Vitamin C, for example, is declared a “drug”
and required to have a DIN (Drug Identification Number), only
Big Pharma can afford the laboratory research necessary.
Of course the government agencies have a role to play
in protecting the public; but the way to do that is not by handing
the protection role over to Big Pharma and the food
conglomerates, as this government has been doing. The CHP
would instruct Health Canada to make the public and the
medical profession aware of dangerous or mis-labeled products,
so Canadians can make informed choices about their own health
care; and to prosecute manufacturers who make or import mislabeled
or dangerous products.
But Bill C-51 is a veiled attempt to hand control over
traditional and natural health products to Big Pharma and the
Health Canada bureaucracy.
The Conservatives have had a very friendly relationship
with Big Pharma. One example is Ken Boessenkool, Stephen
Harper's close friend and policy advisor for years, who is now a
registered lobbyist working on behalf of Merck Frosst Canada.
Remember how this government handed $300 million to Merck
for a campaign to make young girls in Canada guinea pigs in
tests of an HPV vaccine? Lifesite News reports that in the USA,
that campaign has been associated with at least five deaths in
just over a year—not to mention thousands of reports of adverse
effects, hundreds that were deemed serious, and many that
required hospitalization.
That’s not the regime that should regulate Canadians’
health care, and they should certainly not be handed a monopoly
on vitamins and natural health products. It’s worth noting that
thousands of people die every year from the use (or mis-applied
use) of potent pharmaceuticals. But as far as I’ve been able to
find out, no one has ever died from natural health products.
Bill C-51 should be scrapped, not “amended” as the
Tories propose; because even as amended, it still gives the
government the hidden power to define vitamins and health
foods as “drugs”, and impose excessively draconian regulations
on them.

PO Box 4958, Station E Ottawa ON K1S 5J1
Vol 15, No 31 This Communiqué may be copied August 12, 2008

Mark Penninga Brings ARPA's Vision to the Bulkley Valley

2008-08-01T05:42:00.000-07:00

by Rod Taylor
On July 27 and 28, ARPA's Executive Director, Mark Penninga addressed gatherings in Smithers and Houston, BC about the role ARPA (Association for Reformed Political Action) can play in the struggle to return Canada's public policies and institutions to to a biblical worldview.

Being born and raised in the Bulkley Valley, and well known by his audience, Mark brought his message comfortably but very compellingly. His sincere desire was evident---to convey to his listeners his conviction that all family-oriented citizens and especially those who hold a Christian view of life have a responsibilty to work for change and to seek the transformation of our culture.

Mark has been setting a good example since taking on the position of Executive Director. The ARPA website
has been attracting lots of traffic and contains a lot of research on family issues. Local ARPA groups are being motivated across Canada, including the Bulkley Valley ARPA.

Innovative projects, such as the "hay bales and crosses" display in Southern Alberta have drawn public attention to the annual Canadian deaths by abortion of approximately 110,000 innocent human lives.

Mark spoke of "Sphere Sovereignty" and explained that God has ordained authority and responsibility for each of us within several distinct "spheres" such as family, state, church, labour, etc. and that one of our challenges is the encroachment by the state on the other areas of our life, distorting our understanding and limiting our success in achieving the noble and lofty standards established for us by God.

He also correctly identified a humanistic worldview as a form of religion and said "The question isn't WHETHER religion should be mixed with politics but WHICH religion?" Secular humanists want to direct policy-making while pretending to reflect a "non-biased, scientific" point of view. Nothing could be further from the truth. The narrow and intolerant opinions of those who reject God and His just requirements are every bit as "religious" as the tenets of biblical Christianity and are really nothing more than strong feelings.

We are pleased that Mark was able to present his creative vision for the role of ARPA in the Bulkley Valley and we expect to hear much more from this talented young man. We also expect to see BV ARPA taking on some important projects in these "interesting times."

The Greatest Threat to Our World

2008-07-26T08:38:00.000-07:00

by Ron Gray National Leader of the CHP

What's the greatest threat in the world today? Global warming? Islamic terrorism? Big business? George W. Bush? Barack Obama?

No, it's none of those. The greatest threat to our world is cowardice: the fear of being scorned threatens to dismantle civilization and leave us unprotected in a dog-eat-dog world. Most journalists, politicians and academics are so bound by this irrational fear they're no longer able to think.

Consider what's being done to our economy in the name of discredited theories about "global warming": British Columbia's Liberal government has imposed a ruinous carbon tax that will accelerate inflation. The federal Liberals propose a similar tax. Both Liberals claim the taxes will be "revenue neutral" because they plan to give us a rebate to offset the tax we pay on gasoline and heating fuel. But that tiny rebate won't even begin to offset the inflated costs of everything that has to be moved by ship, rail or truck—almost everything we buy. And it won't offset the damage done to the economy.

The NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party are all in lock-step with the Liberals, afraid to confront a global agency promoting global hysteria over a phony global "problem" that will require a global authority—in short, a propaganda campaign pushing a power grab.

The federal Conservatives lack the courage to declare that the whole hysteria is based on discredited fake "science"; that the so-called "greenhouse gases" are actually beneficial; that the money poured down the "global warming" rat-hole could provide clean drinking water for the Third World; that the very survival of people in poor nations is put at risk because no one in the developed world has the courage to say, "It's a crock!"

And no one seems to have the courage to say that the 400 babies we killed today are precious members of the human family—and we need every one of them. No one seems to have the courage to say it's wrong to teach children that sexual perversions which shorten life expectancy are a "right". No one seems to have the courage to tell the governor of Colorado that decency demands public washrooms be segregated. No one seems to have the courage to say that criminals, in the act of committing a crime, give up some of their "rights"; or that law-abiding citizens have a right and an obligation to defend their homes and their families.

The list of public absurdities goes on and on and on… because the very people who should be leading us are terrified that someone will say something nasty about them if they defend common-sense morality.

The greatest threat to the world is cowardice. And it's growing.

Short Movie Describes Bill C-484

2008-07-26T08:37:00.001-07:00

Shifting Baselines, Shifting Sands

2008-07-08T22:16:00.001-07:00

by Rod Taylor, CHP Environment Critic

Every culture and every discipline uses tools to evaluate progress and to define the normal and natural state of affairs. People assess new developments and new behaviours based on their current understanding of existing conditions, policies and practices.

In 1995, Daniel Pauly, a fisheries biologist at UBC, coined the phrase “shifting baselines” to describe the incremental lowering of standards as succeeding generations compare existing conditions with those that existed previously but only with those they can remember, those within their own lifetimes. He specifically applied the phrase to environmental conditions and primarily fish stocks. He and researchers following in his path, including Randy Olson, a marine biologist from USC, have made a strong case that degraded levels of fish stocks and other environmental conditions fail to arouse appropriate public concern or action because people are only comparing recent developments with conditions which were already unsatisfactory.

Randy Olson gives this example:
The number of salmon in the Columbia River system today is twice that recorded in the 1930s. This sounds very good. However, the number of salmon in that system in the 1930s was only 10% of the number recorded in the 1800s. If we use the level of stocks found in the 1930s as our baseline for evaluating change, we and future generations will be unable to assess the health of salmon stocks in that system. We would be basing our assessment on a baseline that had shifted.

This concept has been applied to a number of issues and would certainly apply to the conditions surrounding Canadian families today. The cost of homes, the cost of gasoline, annual earnings and the percentage of Canadian families on farms are all items that could be measured and compared with those numbers in former years. More importantly, rates of divorce, incidences of STDs, percentages of single-parent homes, frequency of church attendance, societal norms regarding sexual orientation and the killing of preborn children, attacks on personal freedoms---these are all trends which may be shocking in the short term but are positively appalling when examined over the history of our nation. Indeed, public memory sometimes appears to be very short. In 1999, Parliament voted overwhelmingly against same-sex marriage but for many Canadians the baseline has become the 2003 parliamentary approval of same-sex marriage following the misleading rulings by courts in three provinces. Children who were in grade three in 1999 are graduating this year in a nation where sexual deviancy is protected by the courts and promoted as normal in many public school classrooms. Children in grade three today have never known a Canada where traditional marriage values were considered the baseline.

The sports analogy of “moving the goalposts” has often been used to describe the changing of rules, the redefining of normative behaviour and the departure from traditional societal patterns and expectations. “Shifting baselines” could be applied to sports as well, using the analogy of baseball. Imagine a baseball player trying to reach third base only to discover that third base had moved. If the umpire and the fans were to judge that player’s performance based on the new baseline rather than on the original baseline, he would not only be ruled “out” but would likely be ridiculed for his apparent failure to follow the rules. So it is with today’s attacks on Christian values---attacks in the courts, in the media and in the bureaucratic institutions we call government. Today we have schoolteachers being punished for challenging the sexual indoctrination of children, commissioners of oaths being fined and dismissed for refusing to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples, something that was illegal until 2003, pastors being ordered not to preach and teach biblical views about homosexuality and grandmothers being arrested for praying too close to abortion clinics.

The tendency of people and societies to forget the distant past could also be described by the analogy of “shifting sands”. Those peoples who live in sandy deserts know that the relentless winds can quickly cover their tracks. As they seek to find their way home or to a life-sustaining oasis, they must have other landmarks because the shifting sands of the desert hide the past and obliterate their path.

We do have other landmarks. We have the Bible and the clear instructions it contains for moral living, family structure and personal holiness. Our baseline must not become the standards of the fallen society around us but the unchanging standards of Almighty God. We have a plumbline that does not fail and does not change. We need to hold fast to the Word of God. Only then can we hope to set a standard for this generation and shine a light on the path of those who will follow us.

Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. Proverbs 22:28

Chicken Little and Global Warming

2008-06-29T08:05:00.000-07:00

by Rod Taylor, CHP Environmental Policy Critic

Do you remember the children’s story about Chicken Little? The tiny chick was struck on the head by a falling acorn and decided that the sky must be falling. The little bird kept repeating the story so convincingly that soon all the other barnyard fowl were in a panic and they ran off to warn the king. In the earliest version of this fable, they met a fox on the way who took advantage of their hysterical state and gobbled them up. In the more modern versions, (revisionism everywhere) they managed to escape the fox and Chicken Little received an umbrella from the king to prevent being struck by another acorn.

Today this fairytale has come to life. Many well-meaning people, including NDP Environment critic Nathan Cullen have been taken in by Al Gore’s powerful propaganda movie “An Inconvenient Truth”. Politicians of all stripes are hurriedly implementing carbon taxes and “cap and trade” schemes to soothe the afflicted consciences of Canadians who desperately want to help save Planet Earth. These carbon taxes will never be “revenue neutral” but are already playing a role in the skyrocketing price of oil and gasoline. “Cap and trade” and “carbon offsets” do nothing to solve environmental problems but do add another level of taxpayer-funded bureaucracy, leaving even less money in the hands of Canadians to pay for their transportation and heating needs.

MP Cullen continues to promote this outlandish fairytale in spite of the growing mountain of data that conflicts with the “Global Warming” hoax. To date, over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition to “cease and desist” from aggressive carbon-focused policies and treaties like Kyoto, which they say will damage our economy and impede our efforts to curb real pollution.
Every responsible citizen wants to reduce man-made chemical toxins in our environment but water vapour and carbon dioxide are not toxins. They are beneficial gases needed for life and plant growth. There is NO evidence that miniscule increases in CO2 levels are contributing to global warming. Natural cycles have always existed and sunspot activity is most likely at the core of any real climate change. Unlike Al Gore’s “hockeystick” graph, historical evidence suggests that increases in CO2 levels follow periods of global warming, rather than preceding them. There is also evidence today that the planet may be entering a cooling phase.

Fear and panic are tools used to manipulate and control people and to wring more money out of them for ever-expanding government. Chicken Little and the alarmist flock may be making a flap in Parliament but it’s taxpayers who will have to pay when the chickens come home to roost. Let’s take our finger off the panic button and focus on the things we can change: reducing real pollution, ensuring clean drinking water for ourselves and our children (that includes protecting the Sacred Headwaters, something Nathan and I agree on) and pursuing realistic energy alternatives for the future.

Sacred Headwaters---Nigeria North?

2008-06-13T12:02:00.000-07:00

Poland in an Uproar after Coercive Abortion Pressure Put on 14-Year-Old by Planned Parenthood

2008-06-11T10:02:00.000-07:00

By John-Henry Westen LifeSiteNews.com

WARSAW, June 10, 2008 () - Polish media is awash with the case of a 14-year old girl who is being pressured into abortion by the country's most prominent abortion activist, Wanda Nowicka of the Polish branch of Planned Parenthood.

The girl, who appears in the media under the nickname "Agata", found out she was pregnant by her boyfriend three months ago. However, rather than supporting her, her family directed her to Planned Parenthood to arrange for legal permission for an abortion.

Currently Polish law does not penalize abortion when the pregnancy is a result of crime. In such cases abortion is permitted till the twelfth week of pregnancy. Agata's case was qualified for non-punishable abortion since it involved sexual relations under the age of 15. She is now 10 or 11 weeks pregnant.

While permission was being secured by Planned Parenthood, the girl complained to a teacher that she did not want to abort her child. Hospitals in her home town refused to kill her unborn child, saying that the girl seemed to be pressured into the abortion by her mother and abortion activists. A priest friend and some pro-life activists offered support to the girl and all the help necessary to carry the baby to term.

Nevertheless, Agata was brought to a Warsaw hospital that agreed to abort her baby. There she spoke to a child psychologist who advised doctors to give the girl some more time to think. Despite that, Agata was told to prepare for the procedure the following day.

At that time, the girl gave conflicting testimony. In face to face conversations with friends, she would admit to being pressured into abortion. At other times she said she wanted an abortion.

In the meantime pro-life groups and prayer groups mobilized to save the girl and her baby from tragedy. The hospital received emails from pro-life advocates urging that the girl not be forced to abort. In addition, one pro-life activist filed an official complaint with the police accusing pro-abortion activist Wanda Nowicka of pressuring the teenager into abortion. Police began an investigation and the media picked up the story.

A court in the girl's hometown issued an order to place her in the custody of a priest at a juvenile center, where she would not be harassed by abortion advocates.

Mariusz Dzierzawski of Warsaw-based pro-life Pro Foundation said that the case demonstrated how the sexual revolution takes its toll on the young, causing a chain of tragedy in their lives. "Sex educators encourage kids to get involved in 'safe sex'. When kids get pregnant as a result, they are offered 'safe abortion'. This is how they destroy the life of the unborn child and of children who become parents too early," Dzierzawski said.

Pro-life activist Jacek Sapa commented: "It's time to break the social taboo and start talking about coerced abortion. Most abortions are forced on women by irresponsible partners, parents or abortion activists. If we are witnessing coercion into abortion, we must act. Sometimes a simple gesture of support and understanding is enough to save a mother and child from the tragedy of abortion."

Agata is now safe and offers of support are flowing in from all over Poland. However abortion advocates have not given up their efforts to convince the girl to change her mind and have the abortion. Reportedly, they are arranging for an abortion for the girl outside Poland.

The pro-abortion Polish major daily "Gazeta Wyborcza", advocated for Planned Parenthood with its coverage claiming that the girl had been raped and wanted an abortion, but was harassed by pro-lifers, who "gave her hell". The misinformation was picked up by far left politicians from a minor post-communist party who attempted to garner support to legalize abortion.

Pro-life women's rights activist Inga Kaluzynska said the case also highlights the harm of clauses in Polish abortion law which remove the penalties for abortion in cases of rape. "Why are we assuming that abortion is a solution for a pregnant woman in a crisis situation? Abortion is always against women," she said. "A victim of rape deserves our help, support and care, not another trauma. Besides, it is the criminal who should pay for the rape, not the innocent baby and its mother. To allow killing the baby conceived in rape is an act of utmost discrimination based on the person's parentage," Kaluzynska concluded.

Polish pro-lifers, especially the priest involved in the case, have come under attack, having received hate mail and death threats.

The case is being seen as the latest example of an scheme often used by pro-abortion activists to have pro-life countries legalize abortion. The scheme involves seeking out the youngest pregnant girl, preferably a rape victim and using her as a poster child to legalize abortion. Similar campaigns have been organized by pro-abortion groups in Nicaragua and Colombia.

To express your thoughts on the case contact:

Poland Minister of Health
Ewa Kopacz
Phone number: (+48 prefix 22) 831 23 24
Fax: (+48 prefix 22) 634 92 13
email: kancelaria@mz.gov.pl

Polish Embassy in the USA

The Embassy of The Republic of Poland in Washington D.C.
2640 16-th Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20009
phone: (202) 234-3800 ext. 2140
Email: polemb.info@earthlink.net

Polish embassy in Canada

Embassy of the Republic of Poland in Canada
443 Daly Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6H3
Tel. (613) 789-0468
Fax. (613) 789-1218
Email: ottawa@ottawa.polemb.net

Polish Embassy in the UK

Ambasada Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej
47 Portland Place
Londyn W1B 1JH
Tel.: 0 044 870 774 2700
Fax: 0 044 207 291 35 75 lub 0 044 207 291 35 76
E-mail: polishembassy@polishembassy.org.uk

MINORITY TARGETING: Planned Parenthood Goes after Native Americans

2008-06-09T11:59:00.000-07:00

by Colin Mason Population Research Institute

The American abortion lobby claims to be an equal-opportunity abortion provider, looking out for the needs and wants of all women. Not so. Big Abortion devotes an inordinate amount of attention to Blacks, Hispanics, and Alaska Natives who, in proportion to their population, have the highest abortion rates in America. Now, eager to add another scalp to its collection, it is turning its sights on Native Americans.

The story begins with the Hyde amendment, which restricts abortion coverage in federal health programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Indian Health Services, although leaving open the typical exceptions: rape, incest, and life of the mother. In other words, the amendment recognizes that a huge portion of American taxpayers oppose abortion, and it respects that opposition by insisting that abortions not be covered by tax-funded health care programs. The Hyde amendment was attached to the Department of Health and Human Services appropriations bill, and passed in 1976.

Although the abortion lobby has attempted to use legal loopholes to avoid these restrictions, the amendment has been able to keep federal funds from actively paying for abortions throughout the years. However, since it needs to be renewed each year with the annual appropriations bill, there is always the chance that the amendment could be weakened or even thrown out entirely. This is what the pro-abortion lobby intends to do with the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. This is what the Vitter amendment, proposed by Senator David Vitter (R-LA), aims to prevent.

The Vitter amendment, approved by the Senate on February 26th, is an amendment to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act that prohibits the "improvements" to Indian health from including funding for abortion. This measure, bitterly opposed by House Democrats, would effectively codify the Hyde amendment into Federal law, making it removable only by an act of Congress.

The abortion lobby, with typical upside-down logic, insists that it is inherently "racist" to deny Native American women the right to abortion. As usual, they have recruited Native American front woman to back them up. "It's a very racist amendment," insists Charon Asetoyer, executive director of the Native American Women's Health Education Resource Center, in a statement to the Washington Independent. "it puts another layer of restrictions on the only race of people whose health care is governed primarily by the federal government. All women are subject to the Hyde amendment, so why would they put another set of conditions on us?"

Planned Parenthood is predictably indignant, basing its opposition to the Vitter amendment in the fact that "under current policy, the Hyde Amendment forbids federal funding for abortion in almost all cases. IHS already delivers basic health care services in a manner consistent with the Hyde Amendment. In fact, 25 U.S.C. 1676 subjects IHS funds to restrictions by the Hyde Amendment. Sen. Vitter's amendment is simply a redundancy of current law and would not change current policy."

If this is the case, then what is the big deal? If all that Vitter's amendment does is codify existing law, (and in this case, only in terms of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act), then why is it such a hot point of contention? Why doesn't the abortion lobby oppose all legislation restricting federal abortion funding, not singling out legislation that deals with a minority group like the Native Americans?

In other words, this looks suspiciously like racial profiling. The abortion lobby is quick to label Vitter's amendment "racist," but they are not so quick to notice that they are essentially promoting federally funded abortion for one tiny ethnic group, and nobody else.

But not all Native Americans are fooled by the abortion lobby's rhetoric, contrary to what Planned Parenthood would have us believe. Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver, CO, a long-time opponent of abortion, continues to urge voters in his archdiocese to vote against pro-choice legislation and candidates. As he said in a 2007 statement, "it's hard to have a future 'for our children and our children's children' without children, and Planned Parenthood specializes in the business of preventing them."

Other Native Americans would do well to follow Archbishop Chaput's example; rejecting the inflated rhetoric of the pro-abortion left and accepting these efforts for what they really are—an attempt to target an already vanishing minority. Native Americans take pride in their people; we hope that they learn to oppose these measures that strike at the very heart of their future: their children.

Colin Mason is Director of Media Production at Population Research Institute.

Sign up for the Weekly Briefing Here

Media Contact: Colin Mason
Email: colin@pop.org
(540) 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.
_________

The pro-life Population Research Institute is dedicated to ending human
rights abuses committed in the name of "family planning," and to ending
counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of
"overpopulation." Find us at www.pop.org.

PRI, PO Box 1559, Front Royal, VA 22630 USA Phone: 540-622-5240

How my mother's fanatical views tore us apart

2008-06-04T07:02:00.000-07:00

By Rebecca Walker

23rd May 2008 Read the whole story on Mail Online

She's revered as a trail-blazing feminist and author Alice Walker touched the lives of a generation of women. A champion of women's rights, she has always argued that motherhood is a form of servitude. But one woman didn't buy in to Alice's beliefs - her daughter, Rebecca, 38.

Here the writer describes what it was like to grow up as the daughter of a cultural icon, and why she feels so blessed to be the sort of woman 64-year-old Alice despises - a mother.

The other day I was vacuuming when my son came bounding into the room. 'Mummy, Mummy, let me help,' he cried. His little hands were grabbing me around the knees and his huge brown eyes were looking up at me. I was overwhelmed by a huge surge of happiness.

I love the way his head nestles in the crook of my neck. I love the way his face falls into a mask of eager concentration when I help him learn the alphabet. But most of all, I simply love hearing his little voice calling: 'Mummy, Mummy.'

It reminds me of just how blessed I am. The truth is that I very nearly missed out on becoming a mother - thanks to being brought up by a rabid feminist who thought motherhood was about the worst thing that could happen to a woman.

You see, my mum taught me that children enslave women. I grew up believing that children are millstones around your neck, and the idea that motherhood can make you blissfully happy is a complete fairytale.

In fact, having a child has been the most rewarding experience of my life. Far from 'enslaving' me, three-and-a-half-year-old Tenzin has opened my world. My only regret is that I discovered the joys of motherhood so late...

Read the whole story on Mail Online

The Harper Government wishes to silence the Auditor General

2008-05-09T06:38:00.001-07:00

by Ron Gray May 06, 2008

The Harper Government wishes to silence the Auditor General! Let’s see. Isn’t that the very department whose mandate is to keep the government accountable?

On 6 May, 2008 it was reported by the Canadian Press that there has been growing tension between the Harper Government and the Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser. Fraser said she received a notice that the government wanted to vet her public communications. Should the Conservative government be successful in this venture, we Canadians would then only have access to information which the government approves. How convenient for them!

The Office of the Auditor General of Canada audits federal government operations and provides Parliament with independent information, advice, and assurance regarding the federal government’s stewardship of public funds. Because the position of the Auditor General of Canada is committed to transparency, and the highest, ethical standards in financial administration, Parliament must use Fraser’s reports to improve government management and accountability. It is the auditor’s role to examine the government’s performance and report to the Canadian public via Parliament. How can the Conservative Government even suggest such an action? It was their campaign speeches after all, which loudly proclaimed that they were going to make parliament more ‘accountable’—and now they want to conceal her findings? Muzzle the watch dog? Suppress the truth? What do they want to hide?

The CHP insists that as an officer of Parliament, the Auditor General must be able to maintain her independent status, or her role becomes meaningless.

For what scandal should we be bracing ourselves next? Makes us wonder.

Maclean's Responds to the Ontario Human Rights Commissioner

2008-04-19T11:02:00.000-07:00

"Is it normal when declining a case (or, in this case, a complaint) for a commission, court or tribunal to then deliver a guilty verdict? For that's what the press statement, directly, or by forceful implication, did...."---CBC's Rex Murphy, quoted in the Maclean's editorial

Read the full editorial at Maclean's

Read Ezra Levant's Commentary on the same topic

Young People Glorify God on "American Idol"

2008-04-13T16:04:00.000-07:00

Scientist David Archibald Predicts Global Cooling Soon

2008-04-06T17:00:00.000-07:00

Addressing the "Greener Skies 2008" conference in Hong Kong, solar scientist David Archibald presented evidence that climate change is mostly dictated by solar cycles, not carbon dioxide levels. You can read his entire presentation here.
NOTE: Claims put forward in this paper are the opinion of the author. We thought it was interesting information and a useful backdrop to frantic global efforts to control carbon dioxide, population levels and other aspects of human social development.

Information gleaned from the WorldNetDaily

More Taxpayer-Funded Propaganda

2008-03-23T09:56:00.000-07:00

If you live in Skeena-Bulkley Valley, you’ve no doubt received the latest report from MP Nathan Cullen (Spring Report ’08), highlighting his service and accomplishments for the region. I hope you got one because you did pay for it. This piece of shameless partisan literature comes out four times each year and gives the sitting MP of whatever political stripe an opportunity to get his message into every household with a mailing address and costs him and his party nothing. While it purports to be an information package (and indeed it does contain some useful resource links) it has “NDP” emblazoned on the first three pages, is printed in NDP colours, uses the NDP logo and carries an NDP message. It is political propaganda, plain and simple.

It is extremely well done, mind you. Nathan and his team are efficient and talented. They recognize the value of this tool and make the most of the opportunity. It is well-written, well laid out and urges interaction from the voter, uh, I mean reader. It mentions what Nathan has done for you, what he can do for you in the future and invites you to contact him. I’m going to speculate that the direct and indirect costs of this brochure in Skeena-Bulkley Valley are in the neighbourhood of $8,000 each time or $32,000 per year. It could be more. This is pure speculation, mind you, based only on past experience with printing and postage. Ah, but Nathan may say, “There is no postage cost for correspondence between an MP and his constituents.” That would be NDP economics philosophy but in the real world, goods and services cost money and costs not paid in any other way come directly from the pocket of the long-suffering taxpayer. It’s not enough that the NDP receives direct deposits from the taxpayer each and every year to conduct expensive election campaigns. (Ottawa shells out about $30 million each year to the big four parties with members in the House.) On top of that, four times each year I am obliged to help pay the costs of this self-serving brochure which sounds so noble and leaves all the important things unsaid.

So, according to the brochure, what did Nathan do?

He spent taxpayers’ money---every time he says he “got” or “ensured” federal spending, he means that taxpayers paid for a project. Don’t get me wrong, some of these are good things. But government is about a lot more than doling out money and wringing it out of the taxpayer’s hide. Government’s primary role really should be to protect people, ensure their freedom and security and maintain a level playing field where they can prosper and succeed.

He promoted Al Gore’s version of reality. Nathan has busied himself making sure that every schoolchild has seen “An Inconvenient Truth”, Al Gore’s masterful misrepresentation of “climate change”. (The phrase “global warming” has already gone out of style because that pesky climate just doesn’t keep following Al’s creative predictions. With little real temperature change since 2001 and now the regrowth of Arctic ice, “climate change” has become a less risky concept. After all, that’s what climates do---change.)

He visited people around the electoral district. Well I guess…In Skeena-Bulkley Valley, what comes with the territory is---territory! It’s good that during slow periods in Ottawa, Nathan can gas up at taxpayer expense and visit the people who put him in office.

The details lacking in Nathan’s Spring Report are “What did he NOT do?”

For one, he FAILED to defend life. It was so simple. C-484 was designed with him in mind. He could have voted to protect the Unborn Victims of Crime. But he and his colleagues got jittery about recognizing the unborn person and sided with the violent attackers of women instead.

He FAILED to defend traditional marriage. When Stephen Harper put forward his pathetically weak motion, asking whether the House “wished to revisit the issue of same-sex marriage”, Nathan predictably said “No”.

He FAILED to defend democracy and freedom of speech. Since 2005, I’ve been waiting for Nathan to speak one word in defense of courageous truth-speakers like Ron Gray and Chris Kempling who are being attacked on phony “human rights” grounds. All is quiet because Nathan and his supporters oppose the truthful messages that Ron and Chris are speaking. And when the Supreme Court violates the Constitution (1995 Egan case), nary a peep!

He FAILED to defend taxpayers. How you spend taxpayers’ money is a moral issue. Every MP should be calling for government spending restraint and the paydown of national debt. Our massive interest payments today rob our children of resources for tomorrow.

He FAILED to defend the Constitution, which asserts “the supremacy of God”. If every MP would seek to write legislation consistent with our mandate to submit to divine order in our homes, businesses and government, Canada would know the blessing of God to a degree we’ve not yet seen!

So when the NDP or any other party puts out a brochure full of carefully selected items to win your hearts and then bills you for it through taxes---what do you do? The only thing you can do…first pay your taxes (“Render unto Caesar…”) and then go to work promoting the CHP---the ONLY pro-life, pro-family federal party and the ONLY one that supports the “supremacy of God” clause in Canada’s Constitution. Our freedoms are vanishing fast and they’re using YOUR money to promote a godless, self-centred, atheistic society for your children. Let’s hold them accountable for what they do and what they FAIL to do!

By Rod Taylor March 21, 2008

A Righteous Man Who Refuses to Give Up

2008-02-23T10:33:00.000-08:00

Video of Mike Huckabee in Plano Texas--Listen Up!

Ezra Levant Defends Himself Before the Kangaroo Court

2008-02-14T17:52:00.000-08:00

Gay Activists to Speak in Ontario Elementary Schools

2008-02-10T15:20:00.000-08:00

By Hilary White

OTTAWA, February 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ken O'Day, chairman of the Renfrew County Family Action Council, has sent a letter to Ontario Education Minister Kathleen Wynne, asking for the cancellation of a planned visit by homosexual activists to an Ottawa Valley school, Goulbourn Middle School, in Stittsville, Ontario. A school newsletter confirms that an Ottawa-based homosexual lobby organization will send speakers to the school this year to bring the group's "diversity training" to grade 7 and 8 students.

Mr. O'Day asked the minister to ensure that "gay agendas in our schools will be stopped."

"Parents, teachers and anyone else with a rational mind," he wrote, "are against any program that normalizes homosexual behaviour especially within the confines of our educational institutions. Our children attend school to receive an education in academic subjects and all topics, except for the biological and physiological aspects of sexual education, [which] belong to the parents only."

O'Day told LifeSiteNews.com that he has sent the emails also to George Smitherman, the Ontario Health Minister, who is a political homosexual activist. O'Day said the purpose of the circulars, which were sent additionally to local family supporters and MP Cheryl Gallant, was "so that parents could check with their school boards and see if similar things are going on."

"[Health Minister] Smitherman and [Education Minister] Wynne have a history of activism with the homosexual community and a lot of people aren't aware of that and should be aware that their views may be biased."

Mr. O'Day said that he has received "nothing but resistance" from school boards, including the Catholic school boards.

Kathleen Wynne is Ontario's first openly lesbian cabinet minister, having lived with another woman for over 25 years. Wynne helped found a community fundraising group that has donated over $50,000 to homosexual youth organizations. In 2001, Wynne helped pass a measure encouraging public schools to purchase pro-homosexual teaching materials.

The organization scheduled to appear in the school is the latest government-sponsored effort in "diversity" training for young people. Jer's Vision: Canada's Youth Diversity Initiative, is a registered charity that began as a scholarship funded by a Human Rights Commission settlement in a case brought against an Ontario school board.

The organization provides speakers for lectures and seminars in the Ottawa area on issues of "diversity training" and discrimination. University student volunteers are sent into high schools to "educate high school youth on diversity and respect."

Since establishing itself as one of Canada's foremost homosexual lobby groups, Jer's Vision has moved into new areas, including "education about religious discrimination".

Jer's Vision, a registered charity, was started by a high school homosexual activist, Jeremy Diaz, who attempted to force school officials to adopt a "Positive Space" policy at his school. After the board refused to cooperate a petition that ultimately garnered only 15 per cent of student support was circulated in the school.

When Sir James Dunn Collegiate and Vocational School in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario refused to cooperate with the programme that would have seen the active promotion of homosexuality as a legitimate "lifestyle", Diaz launched a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission against the school and the Algoma District School Board.

After three years, the Algoma District School Board offered a financial settlement, but refused to apologize or make changes in the district or the school.

Using the money from the settlement, Diaz, who is now a 21-year-old psychology and political science student at the University Of Ottawa, established a scholarship touted by his organization as "the first national LGBTQ scholarship for youth in Canada".

In 2006, the scholarship fund was changed to a national charity activist organization, of which Diaz is the executive director, that has since received support both from government and the homosexual activist community, including recently, a cheque for $1000.00 from Mr Leather Ottawa, an organization that holds an annual sado-masochistic sex show competition. In the same year, the City of Ottawa awarded Diaz its Youth Citizen of the Year award.

(c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).

NEWS TIPS to lsn@lifesitenews.com or call toll free 1-866-787-9947.

Donate to LifeSiteNews.com at http://www.lifesite.net/contribute/

Reporters Blow Whistle on Fox News

2008-01-22T22:21:00.000-08:00

YouTube video shows Fox covering up for Monsanto.

Kangaroo Court

2008-01-16T06:33:00.000-08:00

www.ezralevant.com

By Ezra Levant on January 11, 2008 5:04 PM

I have just returned home from my session at the kangaroo court, called the Alberta human rights commission. Here is my opening statement that I delivered at the interrogation. I will post more details about the interrogation soon.

Alberta Human Rights Commission Interrogation

Opening remarks by Ezra Levant, January 11, 2008 – Calgary

My name is Ezra Levant. Before this government interrogation begins, I will make a statement.

When the Western Standard magazine printed the Danish cartoons of Mohammed two years ago, I was the publisher. It was the proudest moment of my public life. I would do it again today. In fact, I did do it again today. Though the Western Standard, sadly, no longer publishes a print edition, I posted the cartoons this morning on my website, ezralevant.com.

I am here at this government interrogation under protest. It is my position that the government has no legal or moral authority to interrogate me or anyone else for publishing these words and pictures. That is a violation of my ancient and inalienable freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and in this case, religious freedom and the separation of mosque and state. It is especially perverted that a bureaucracy calling itself the Alberta human rights commission would be the government agency violating my human rights. So I will now call those bureaucrats “the commission” or “the hrc”, since to call the commission a “human rights commission” is to destroy the meaning of those words.

I believe that this commission has no proper authority over me. The commission was meant as a low-level, quasi-judicial body to arbitrate squabbles about housing, employment and other matters, where a complainant felt that their race or sex was the reason they were discriminated against. The commission was meant to deal with deeds, not words or ideas. Now the commission, which is funded by a secular government, from the pockets of taxpayers of all backgrounds, is taking it upon itself to be an enforcer of the views of radical Islam. So much for the separation of mosque and state.

I have read the past few years’ worth of decisions from this commission, and it is clear that it has become a dump for the junk that gets rejected from the real legal system. I read one case where a male hair salon student complained that he was called a “loser” by the girls in the class. The commission actually had a hearing about this. Another case was a kitchen manager with Hepatitis-C, who complained that it was against her rights to be fired. The commission actually agreed with her, and forced the restaurant to pay her $4,900. In other words, the commission is a joke – it’s the Alberta equivalent of a U.S. television pseudo-court like Judge Judy – except that Judge Judy actually was a judge, whereas none of the commission’s panellists are judges, and some aren’t even lawyers. And, unlike the commission, Judge Judy believes in freedom of speech.

It’s bad enough that this sick joke is being wreaked on hair salons and restaurants. But it’s even worse now that the commissions are attacking free speech. That’s my first point: the commissions have leapt out of the small cage they were confined to, and are now attacking our fundamental freedoms. As Alan Borovoy, Canada’s leading civil libertarian, a man who helped form these commissions in the 60’s and 70’s, wrote, in specific reference to our magazine, being a censor is, quote,“hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions. There should be no question of the right to publish the impugned cartoons.” Unquote. Since the commission is so obviously out of control, he said quote “It would be best, therefore, to change the provisions of the Human Rights Act to remove any such ambiguities of interpretation.” Unquote.

The commission has no legal authority to act as censor. It is not in their statutory authority. They’re just making it up – even Alan Borovoy says so.

But even if the commissions had some statutory fig leaf for their attempts at political and religious censorship, it would still be unlawful and unconstitutional.

We have a heritage of free speech that we inherited from Great Britain that goes back to the year 1215 and the Magna Carta. We have a heritage of eight hundred years of British common law protection for speech, augmented by 250 years of common law in Canada.

That common law has been restated in various fundamental documents, especially since the Second World War.

In 1948, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Canada is a party, declared that, quote:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

The 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights guaranteed, quote

1. “ human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed, quote:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Those were even called “fundamental freedoms” – to give them extra importance.

For a government bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a Universal Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights and a Charter of Rights. This commission is applying Saudi values, not Canadian values.

It is also deeply procedurally one-sided and unjust. The complainant – in this case, a radical Muslim imam, who was trained at an officially anti-Semitic university in Saudi Arabia, and who has called for sharia law to govern Canada – doesn’t have to pay a penny; Alberta taxpayers pay for the prosecution of the complaint against me. The victims of the complaints, like the Western Standard, have to pay for their own lawyers from their own pockets. Even if we win, we lose – the process has become the punishment. (At this point, I’d like to thank the magazine’s many donors who have given their own money to help us fight against the Saudi imam and his enablers in the Alberta government.)

It is procedurally unfair. Unlike real courts, there is no way to apply for a dismissal of nuisance lawsuits. Common law rules of evidence don’t apply. Rules of court don’t apply. It is a system that is part Kafka, and part Stalin. Even this interrogation today – at which I appear under duress – saw the commission tell me who I could or could not bring with me as my counsel and advisors.

I have no faith in this farcical commission. But I do have faith in the justice and good sense of my fellow Albertans and Canadians. I believe that the better they understand this case, the more shocked they will be. I am here under your compulsion to answer the commission’s questions. But it is not I who am on trial: it is the freedom of all Canadians.

You may start your interrogation.

What’s ahead in 2008?

2007-12-26T12:52:00.000-08:00

by Ron Gray

Let me say at the outset that I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet; but sometimes I can read some of the handwriting on the wall: There may well be a federal election this Spring.
The Liberals’ strategy of hiding in the bushes cannot continue forever. And the most likely strategy of the Ignatieff cabal is to precipitate a defeat under Stephan Dion’s leadership as the first stage in a palace revolt.

Will a Spring election give the Conservatives their majority? Probably not. As the Harper government gains support from disaffected Liberals by avoiding the moral issues, it is at the same time alienating its social conservative base. Many Christians—those who are pro-life and pro-family—will stay home if they think they don’t have an alternative place to park their vote.

For us in the CHP, that means we must build new Electoral District Associations and raise new candidates. Right now, we offer a moral alternative in about one-fifth of Canada’s federal ridings. That must increase—dramatically.

It’s interesting to re-read the words of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing a majority decision about the role of smaller political parties in our democracy: "The ability of a party to make a valuable contribution is not dependent upon its capacity to offer the electorate a genuine “government option”. Political parties have a much greater capacity than any one citizen to participate in debate and they act as a vehicle for the participation of individual citizens in the political life of the country. All political parties are capable of introducing unique interests and concerns into the political discourse and marginal or regional parties tend to raise issues not adopted by national parties."

Even without any elected MPs (yet), the CHP has had an impact on federal politics. And now that the Green Party calls itself “the smallest of the big parties”, the CHP is the biggest of the small parties. And growing!

More important, the CHP is the only federal party that brings these important policy issues into the national dialogue about what kind of nation we’ll leave for our children:
• The sanctity of life: only the CHP proposes adoption instead of abortion, and opposes euthanasia.
• The sanctity of marriage: only the CHP continues to oppose the Liberals’ illegitimate imposition of same-sex “marriage” on an unwilling nation.
• Only the CHP advocates Canada leading a global drive for abolition of slavery by limiting trade with nations that allow the use of slave and exploitative child labour.
• Only the CHP has a plan for defending democracy and the Constitution against judicial activism.
• Only the CHP has a child-care plan focused on strengthening families.
• Only the CHP has a plan for increased productivity through labour peace.
• Only the CHP has proposals for making home ownership accessible to more Canadian families.
• And among federal political parties, only the CHP has spoken against the STD vaccination program that makes guinea pigs of young girls. These are only the highlights of the many policy distinctives that set the CHP apart from the other 15 or so federal political parties. Behind them all is one dramatic difference:
• Only the CHP has shown it believes in the Constitutional statement that
“Canada was founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of
God and the rule of law.” That’s what will carry us forward into this coming year.

And I hope to see you at the CHP convention in Regina in November!

Tsawassen Treaty Establishes Third Order of Government

2007-12-26T12:49:00.000-08:00

by John Williamson, Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Who Pays and who gets to keep the money

Tsawwassen to its own members on taxes

Representative government is a two-way street that gives citizens authority to remove lawmakers. If citizens lose this right, but the state retains its ability to tax and spend the outcome is authoritarianism. When corruption is exposed in such dictatorships, its leaders insist self-rule trumps political accountability. Countries on this path tend to be governed by a self-appointed, well-heeled cabal and are often reliant on foreign money for survival. We call them banana republics and a parallel type of home rule is about to be ratified in Canada – call it the teepee republic.

British Columbia’s Aboriginal Relations Minister Michael de Jong was in Ottawa this week to trumpet the Tsawwassen treaty along with Canada’s Minister of Indian Affairs Chuck Strahl. It is a sweeping agreement that will transfer provincial and federal powers to the reserve’s council and create a third order of government.

The band will be handed over 700 hectares of land in Delta, south of Vancouver, 14-million dollars, and management over child protection, health services, education as well as control of land, resources, wildlife and the environment. Minister de Jong candidly calls it “powers of self-government.”

Along with the cash handout and new governing authority, governments that negotiated the treaty are telling B.C. voters that band members will begin to pay tax. True enough – the exemption on federal income taxes will be removed 12 years after the treaty is law. Left unsaid is that taxpaying natives will not be sharing the cost of things like health care and defence along with other Canadian taxpayers. This is because income tax collected from the reserve will go to the band, not Ottawa. Moreover, a side agreement is expected for a similar share of GST revenues. Most Canadians will instinctively find these tax schemes objectionable.

It is conceivable a sound argument could be made that bands such as this one need cash to develop economic infrastructure and help its members. And perhaps there is even value in the federal government diverting tax collected on reserves to band governments to establish the important principal that natives ought to pay taxes. But the tax requirements under this agreement are not limited to natives. Instead, federal taxes paid by non-natives living on the Tsawwassen reserve will also go the band government.

Incredibly, these same taxpayers will not be permitted to vote in band elections, which mean they will lose the mechanism to remove lawmakers that waste money. Non-native citizens will suddenly become disenfranchised legal aliens, permitted to stay but without a direct say in the management of their tax dollars. This is hardly an exaggeration – the term our government bureaucrats use in native agreements to describe these non-natives is “non-citizens.” It is a disgrace public servants engage in these linguistic gymnastics to placate the cant of native sovereignty.

Ottawa’s department of Indian affairs and B.C. treaty negotiators also suppose the ability to tax “serves as a means of government accountability.” They skip over the caveat that this statement is only true if citizens have an ability to remove government officials. Without that there is no real accountability – any despot can tax. A government is responsible only when it is answerable to the public.

The Tsawwassen agreement will instill little accountability on the band council. According to The Delta Optimist, the 2006 Census showed of the 674 people living on this reserve 506 were non-natives. The band is already salivating over the fact it will collect $3 from non-voting, non-citizens for every $1 it taxes from people it considers bona fide citizens (i.e. natives). This is not about self-sufficiency but skewering a new cash cow.

Conservative MP John Cummins (Delta-Richmond East) has reviewed the Tsawwassen tax agreements in advance of the treaty vote in Parliament. His findings have generated little interest. This treaty should be unacceptable to anyone committed to democracy, yet the Parliament of Canada is fixated on the Mulroney-Schreiber saga.

Winston Churchill once said democracy is the worse form of government, except for all the others. Does the federal government think he was wrong?

If you are supportive of this commentary, please consider becoming a supporter of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and add your voice to the campaign for lower taxes, less waste and more accountable government. Click here to become a supporter.

--30--

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

Next >

[ Back ]

Ron Gray Defends Freedom of Speech

2007-12-18T09:30:00.000-08:00

Ron Gray, National Leader of the Christian Heritage Party, appeared on the Miracle Channel's Insight program, hosted by Paul Arthur. on Wednesday. Ron explained the urgency of defending freedom of speech and talked about the current situation with the Human Rights Commission. As he said so well: "If an agency of the government can tell a political party what it may or may not say, we no longer live in a democracy."

Listen to the interview here---Audio only--plays instantly

Watch the complete broadcast on video---Takes about 5 minutes to download on High Speed

Ron Gray Legal Defence Fund
Money will be needed for court costs and legal expenses. We’re asking every Canadian who believes in freedom and Biblical morality to help. As in all cases of this nature, taxpayers are forced to fund the case for the complainant but those who wish to defend freedom in Canada must pay their own costs. All donations to Ron’s legal defence fund, of any size, are important.

Please send cheques to:

Ron Gray Legal Defence Fund
c/o Ronald McDonald Law Office
406 Stafford Dr.
Lethbridge, AB
T1J 2L2

How Much Do You Know About Roe?

2007-12-15T15:40:00.000-08:00

Take the Roe IQ Test
Sure, Roe v. Wade is American Law
but Canadian law is very close.

Sign a Petition to Eliminate the Human Rights Commissions

2007-12-12T21:49:00.000-08:00

John Pacheco at Socon or Bust has a petition to get rid of the useless, costly and dangerous human rights commissions. You can sign it or comment on it here.

CHP Leader to Discuss ‘Human Rights’ Cases on Miracle Channel Wednesday

2007-12-11T13:47:00.000-08:00

Does a registered federal political party have a right to promote the policies it has held for 20 years?

Does a Christian have a right to state publicly that he (or she) regards homosexuality as immoral, unnatural and unhealthy?

Ron Gray, National Leader of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, will be interviewed on these and other questions relating to the ‘gay rights’ conflict in Canada, Wednesday, Dec. 12, 2007 on the Miracle Channel’s Insight program, hosted by Paul Arthur. The main topic of the interview will be three human rights complaints brought against the CHP, one of its Electoral District Associations, and Mr. Gray .

The human rights allegations against the CHP bring into sharp focus the conflict between the rights of free speech, freedom of religious, freedom of conscience, and the political liberties guaranteed in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on the one hand; and the ‘equality rights’ for sexual orientation that were deliberately excluded from the Charter by Parliament, but later forced into the Charter—unconstitutionally, Mr. Gray contends—by the Supreme Court, bypassing the role of Parliament and the provincial legislatures in amending Canada’s Constitution (of which the Charter is a part).

Mr. Gray and the CHP are merely the latest in a long line of defendants subjected to ‘human rights’ allegations by militant homosexual activists. Earlier victims of the purge of free speech rights have included Toronto printer Scott Brockie; Hugh Owens of Saskatchewan, in whose case a judge declared that citing Bible verses made his newspaper advertisements “hate”; an elderly couple in PEI who had to close their Bed & Breakfast establishment because they did not want two unrelated men sleeping together in their home; Craig Chandler of Calgary, who wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate denouncing the ‘gay agenda’; Dr. Chris Kempling, a BC teacher with a doctorate in counselling psychology, who was punished by his employer for advocating CHP policies about homosexuality, when he sought the nomination as a CHP candidate; Rev. Stephen Boissoin of Calgary, convicted by an Alberta ‘human rights’ tribunal for writing a letter to the editor expressing his concerns about homosexuality. Other victims of the ‘human rights’ campaign against free speech have included Mark Harding of Toronto, accused of fomenting hatred when he published a booklet complaining that Christian prayers were not allowed at his daughters’ school, but a room was set aside for Muslim prayers. And now, internationally renowned columnist Mark Steyn has been accused before the Canadian Human Rights Commission of ‘Islamophobia’.

“If an agency of the government can tell a registered political party what it can and cannot say in advancing its policies,” notes Mr. Gray, “Canada has gone a long, long way down the road to totalitarianism—to becoming a one-party (militant Secularist) state. What the human rights commissions and others forget is that Secularism is also a religion—perhaps the most intolerant in the world; it seeks to drive every other faith out of the public square.”

The Miracle Channel is available coast-to-coast by satellite; or on the Internet by live streaming at www.miraclechannel.ca

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING HOURS AND TIME ZONES

as a follow up to the previous email 're chp on television'

*Wednesday, Dec. 12, 2007 on the Miracle Channel’s Insight program, hosted by Paul Arthur.

10:00 PACIFIC STANDARD TIME

11:00 MOUNTAIN STANDARD TIME

12:00 CENTRAL TIME

1:00 EST

2:00 ATLANTIC TIME

2:30 NEWFOUNDLAND TIME

Comments on the proposed Social Justice 12 Curriculum

2007-12-11T09:15:00.000-08:00

by Rod Taylor

Background: the BC Ministry of Education, in cooperation with Attorney General Wally Oppal, made a deal with two homosexual teachers (Corren and Corren), which gave the two men unprecedented influence over the development of new curricula for use in BC schools. The following commentary points out several obvious problem passages for family-values advocates.

The following comments on the proposed Social Justice 12 “Integrated Resource Package” (Curriculum) are merely specific points in regard to this blatant attempt by the BC government to introduce significant philosophical changes to current public school curricula.

These changes lack the warrant of proper public dialogue, and do not conform to the specific wording of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and fail the dictates of common sense.

These changes, initiated by the Corren Settlement Agreement, whereby two citizens have been given disproportionate influence over the curricula of the BC Education system, seem designed primarily to foster change in the sexual attitudes and lifestyle choices of young people.

P. 37 contains an attack on “religion” as a negative influence on public policies and practice; then encourages thinking based on this premise and lays a groundwork for the dismissal of policies “originating” from these beliefs.

P. 38 throws “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” into a list of other personal identification characteristics, and suggests that these newly-contrived aspects of personhood might lead to marginalization or oppression, thus eliciting from sincere students a desire to become “agents of change”.

P. 39 injects further “moral impetus” for students to work to create new protected categories, insinuated by the authors, such as “addictions, secular worldviews (merely another form of religion that denies a personal God) and the environment (clearly a call for students to jump on Al Gore’s bandwagon).”

P. 41 clearly places all gender-orientation issues (personal lifestyle choices) in the same category as race and gender in terms of potential discrimination. This is contrary to logic.

The endless appeal to victimhood is not justified by history.

P.42 is full of heavily propagandized language designed to move students towards a worldview different than that of their parents and the historical and cultural roots of our nation. Prostitution (“sex-trade”) and animals are loosely thrown into a discussion purported to be about human rights as protected under Canada’s Charter. The assumption that all lifestyle choices—such as prostitution—are of equal value, and that animals should be protected by the Charter, are imaginative positions inconsistent with logic and history.

The authors go far beyond any legitimate effort to encourage students’ thinking, and here show that their true intent is to tell students HOW and WHAT they should think.

Finally, the invitation for students to write a positive commentary on how the Civil Marriage Act (the 2005 endorsement of same-sex marriage forced upon Canadians by a partially ‘whipped’ vote [Cabinet ministers were not allowed to vote their conscience]) “promotes social justice.” This is clearly not meant to lead to an open-ended discussion of the Act, its pros and cons, but an endorsement of same-sex “marriage”. Note that the invivation is only for positive comments; the possibility that students might be aware of negative social consequences flowing from this Act is excluded. That exclusion typifies the one-sidedness of this IRP.

All the above, which barely scrapes the surface of this terrible piece of work, should be sufficient to send this draft curriculum AND the companion curriculum “Making Space, Giving Voice” the overbroad and under-thought K-12 equivalent, back to the drawing board.

Family-values advocates, who actually represent a large segment of BC’s population, should be involved in the draft FROM the BEGINNING (real input) not merely be given a token opportunity to respond after the damage is done.

Patrick Carroll's Research and the ABC Debate

2007-12-04T13:30:00.000-08:00

by Colin Mason Population Research Institute

Rates of breast cancer are skyrocketing in countries which have legalized abortion. But this suggestion--that abortion causes breast cancer--causes radical feminists, who are otherwise greatly concerned about breast cancer--to go into spasms of denial. This is why it is vitally important to the pro-life cause that the ABC link be investigated rationally, documented carefully, and presented convincingly. British statistician Patrick Carroll, who is Director of Research at Britain’s Pension and Population Research Institute, has done just that in his new study, "Assessing the Damage," which was just published on October 25th of this year.

Some years ago, Carroll recognized that the U.K., because of the all-pervasive British Medical System and the public funding of abortions, has some of the most complete data on abortion, breast cancer, and other illnesses available anywhere. He used this data, which spans the 40 years since the legalization of abortion in 1967, to see if it showed any connection between abortion and suiicide, mental illness, and breast cancer in each of the U.K.'s four regions: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. He also looked at other medical sequalae of abortion, such as the level of mental illness and subsequent suicide rates.

According to official figures, the modal age for abortions in England is 20, while the modal age for live births is 30. Women are marrying later, if at all, and the proportion of pregnancies among unmarried women continues to grow. Many of these women seek abortions. Of the 180,000 abortion in 2006, 100,000 were performed on women who had no prior abortions, while 80,000 were performed on women who have at least one prior abortion.

Carroll's study shows, as one might suspect, that mental illness is more common following first-time abortion. As the number of first-time abortions grows, so has antidepressant use. Thirty-one million prescriptions were written in England in 2006, a nearly 10 million increase over the 21.3 million written in 2001.

Most importantly, however, his study clarifies why there has been a radical upswing in the incidence of British breast cancer since the legalization of abortion. Rates of breast cancer have risen by an incredible 80 per cent since the late seventies.

Carroll begins by noting that upper class women are more likely to develop breast cancer and more likely to have abortions. "The social gradient for female breast cancer is unlike that of other cancers with upper class women having a higher rate of incidence than those from lower social classes," Carroll writes. "As in other countries this is termed a negative or reverse social gradient for female breast cancer . . British official publications report on the social gradient but do not explain it in terms of known risk factors."

This reverse social gradient for breast cancer is far too steep to be explained by the fact that upper-class women are having children later in life, when the risk for breast cancer is more severe. Rather, Carroll explains, "upper class and upwardly mobile women are more likely to choose abortion when they are pregnant and this helps to explain this otherwise inexplicable social gradient. Upper class women tend to postpone childbearing and have a later age at first birth. Abortions before full-term pregnancies are the more carcinogenic nulliparous [first-time] abortions."

The results? After a judicious parsing of the data, Carroll concludes: "Breast cancer can be considered a long term sequel to abortion."

Although the causes of breast cancer are not completely understood, it is commonly accepted that hormonal changes play a large role. Pregnancy causes breast cells to grow and divide. An abortion interrupts this process, leaving large number of undifferentiated cells which are especially susceptible to cancer.

The media in the U.K., not surprisingly, have not been kind to Carroll's study and the British medical establishment has yet to comment. What can they say, after all? The data on abortions and breast cancer come from the government itself, and are not subject to "recall bias," or any of the other shortcomings that normally afflict survey data. The argument is clear and convincing.

While Carroll ends by calling for further study, he also makes it clear that he thinks the facts speak for themselves. "The correlation [between breast cancer and abortion] is much higher than for other known risk factors such as Childlessness, Age at First Birth and Fertility," he says. He goes on to point out that "Modelling using abortion and birth rates as explanatory variables has been used to make forecasts for eight countries for the future incidence of female breast cancer."

When you can not only explain the past, but offer predictions of the future, you are in possession of a very powerful theory indeed. We have long been convinced at PRI that the abortion breast cancer link is fact. Carroll's work should help convince all those who are not blinded by the ideology of choice.

Colin Mason is the Director for Media Production at PRI.

PRI, PO Box 1559, Front Royal, VA 22630 USA Phone: 540-622-5240

Divorce is Bad for the Environment

2007-12-03T17:47:00.000-08:00

A really inconvenient truth: Divorce is not green. Dec. 3, 2007

EAST LANSING, Mich. — The data are in. Divorce is bad for the environment.

A novel study that links divorce with the environment shows a global trend of soaring divorce rates has created more households with fewer people, has taken up more space and has gobbled up more energy and water. The findings of Jianguo “Jack” Liu and Eunice Yu at Michigan State University are published in this week’s online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences...

Posted on Solarion by RavenII Read the whole article

Parents Research Group Exposes Details of Corren Agreement

2007-11-24T15:05:00.000-08:00

1. A contract was given by the B.C. government to two homosexual activists in April 2006. The contract grants special privileges to the Corren's to review the re-writing of the B.C. school curriculum from Kindergarten to Grade 12.

2. The Corren's are two homosexual activists, living together, who combined their names to one surname---Corren.

3. The intent of the contract is to cause the entire B.C. school curriculum to reflect a favourable portrayal of homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle.

4. No other persons or groups were granted equal privileges.

5. The revised Social Justice Course (Grade 12) us already being taught in schools.

6. The Teachers Guide to teach the revised curriculum in all grades, (all subjects) is slated to be finalized for September 2008.

7. Parents rights are ignored. Will this teaching not contradict the religious, traditional, moral and cultural values of the parents?

8. Numerous reputable, established organizations are collaborating to protest the revising of the B.C. school curriculum..

9. To join the protest, contact PARENTS RESEARCH GROUP (Len Remple) lenremple@shaw.ca

Commie-Commission strikes again---Report from EPC

2007-11-23T21:06:00.000-08:00

Friday, November 23, 2007

Christian Heritage Party investigated for writings about homosexuality

Canada's Christian Heritage Party and its leader, Ron Gray, are being taken to the Canadian Human Rights Commission over commentary and opinion related to how the government and society should treat homosexuality. And Gray says he's been told directly by an employee of the Human Rights Commission that the Canadian Human Rights Act is "about censorship".

Complaint centres in part on re-posting of 5-year old WorldNetDaily.com news article

An Edmonton man, Rob Wells, has filed three complaints against Gray and his party. Two of them relate to the reposting of an item first published on WorldNetDaily.com back in April of 2002; an article written by Jon Dougherty entitled "Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays' - Research purports to reveal 'dark side' of homosexual culture". The third complaint is against Ron Gray personally for several commentaries he wrote and distributed to party members. One of those commentaries, entitled "Sitcom prophet", likened the current climate of debate about homosexuality in Canada to the "Cone of Silence" in the 1960's-era television situation comedy "Get Smart", where the two leading characters would isolate themselves in a room where no-one could hear them, but they couldn't hear one another either. Gray wrote in the commentary that: "The problem with Canada's 'Cone of Silence' over the issue of homosexuality is that, like the security device in 'Get Smart', the inevitable result is that no one can communicate anything - and even the truth gets silenced."

In an exclusive interview with noapologies.ca, Ron Gray says the complaints filed against him and his party allege they are "motivated by hate, and defaming homosexual persons."

Ron Gray: "Commission employee told me: 'Canadian Human Rights Act is about censorship.'"

And, he says, when he had a conversation with a Commission employee, mediator Bob Fagan, about the specifics of the allegation, he was astonished at what he heard. "I told him that it seemed to be an abuse of the Human Rights Act for someone to try and use it as an instrument of censorship. And when I said that, on the phone, there was a pause and then he said, in a somewhat astonished tone: 'But the Human Rights Act is about censorship'. Then it was my turn to be silent on my end, because I found that breath-taking. For the Human Rights Commission's own mediator to acknowledge that censorship was the purpose of their Act."

Gray: "Charge me under the Criminal Code; I'm perfectly willing to risk going to jail."

And Gray says as fas as the "hate motivation" is concerned, nothing could be further from the truth. "I would contend", he says, "that Christians are the best friends homosexuals have because we want to see them delivered from an addiction that will shorten their lives." Gray also says he'd be much happier fighting this battle in a regular court rather than before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, where the usual rules of evidence don't apply. "If (Mr. Wells) truly believes I am motivated by hate, his complaint should not be before the Human Rights Commission. He should charge me under Section 319 of the Criminal Code (of Canada). That carries with is the possiblity of two years in jail, but in defence of the (free speech) rights of Canadians I am perfectly willing to risk going to jail."

We'll have the full interview with Ron Gray on our "week in review" program this weekend.

To read more...

To listen on line...

Gifts of the Nation of Canada

2007-10-29T21:23:00.000-07:00

Pastor Charlie Carlick
Prince Rupert, BC

When I was in the Yukon doing some evangelistic work in the year 2000, I was suddenly awakened about 4:30 or 5:00 in the morning by a voice that was speaking into my spirit; and it proceeded as such:

He said son, “What does the Yukon mean to you”? And as if I knew the answer I replied, “Gold. The Yukon is known for its gold.” And He said “Yes, and what does gold mean to you?” I replied, “Purity.” And He said,” That’s right!”

And then He said, “Go on. What is the next province?” I said, “BC.“ And he said, “What does BC mean to you?” I said, “BC, as far as I know, is known for its huge timber.” And He said, “Yes. Go to the mountain and get timber to build my temple.”

And then he went on to say, “What’s next?” I said, “Alberta.” And I heard Him say. “Yes, go on, what is Alberta known for?” I said, ”Alberta is known for its oil!” And his response was, “That is correct. And what does oil mean to you?” I said, “It means the anointing of God.”

By now I was getting a picture in my mind’s eye of what He was feeding into my spirit.

He was saying, “Through the purity of God is built the temple of God and through the purity of the temple of God flows the anointing of God.”

Then he continued on by asking, “What is the next province?” And I said “Saskatchewan.” Then He asked me. “What does Saskatchewan, bring to your mind?” And I said, “The image that comes to mind is wheat.” And his response was, “That’s right, and what does wheat refer to?” And I replied, “Wheat refers to the bread basket of Canada and also the anointed word of God.”

So we went on to the next province, Manitoba, and he said, “What comes to your mind about Manitoba?” And I responded to his question, “I see in my mind an image of a buffalo on a flag.” “And what does the buffalo mean to you?” He asked. And I replied, “ It signifies the power of God and growth through the word of God.”

Then we proceeded on to the province where Canada is governed from, Ontario. And He said “What does Ontario mean to you?” And my spirit spoke and said, “It stands for the government of Canada, governed by the pure word of God. “That is correct”, He said.

Then we moved from the governing province on to Quebec and He questioned me again. “What does this province mean to you?” And the words rang out of my spirit that the French people are known for “love” and love speaks of God’s love for the lost through the word of God.

Then he asked, “What are the last three provinces?” And in return I said. “They are the Maritime provinces.” “And what do they mean to you?” He asked. I said what comes into my spirit is this: “They represent the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit at the Eastern gate.” (The gospel first came from the East to the West).

There was then a brief moment of silence and He said. “There is more.” Then it came into my spirit, and I replied, “Yes there is the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. He said. “Yes, and what does the Northwest Territories mean to you, and what significance does it have in relationship to God?” And again it came into my spirit first of all: “Didn’t they just find diamonds in the Northwest Territories?” And I said. “Yes, and it is now well known for its diamonds and the diamonds in the spirit refers to the sovereignty of God and all His glory.”

Last of all was Nunavat, the newest territory of Canada and all that could come to my mind was ice as in a desert place. And then I heard in my spirit, “What is ice made from?” And I said “Water?” He said, “That’s right! And what is happening up there now?” I said, “As far as I know the ice is melting.” And again He said, “That’s right, and what does water refer to in the word of God?” And my spirit said, “The flowing of the Holy Ghost through the word of God for Canada.”

Therefore He summed it up as such:

The Word of God over Canada.

Through the purity of God comes the temple of God.

Through the temple of God flows the anointing of God.

Through the anointing of God comes the Word of God.

Through the word of God comes the power of God.

Through the power of God comes the love of God through the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit through the Eastern gate.

And finally, the sovereignty of God hovering over Canada through the Holy Ghost.

Canada! “Be ye holy as I am holy.”

All this transpired in a very short time in the dim light of the morning. He spoke to me in a language that I could understand and I write it in the same manner---very simple!

I received this message in the year 2000 and the message rings clear as the day that it was birthed into my spirit on that cold dim morning in the Yukon Territory in the land of the midnight sun.

Pastor Charlie Carlick
530 6th Ave West
Prince Rupert, BC
V8J 1Z6

October 17, 2007

Friends of the Family Farm Meet in the Old Church in Smithers

2007-10-27T22:13:00.000-07:00

A group of concerned citizens calling itself Friends of the Family Farm met at the Old Church in Smithers, BC on Saturday, October 27 to discuss the future of the family farm in the wake of provincial legislation aimed at eliminating "Farm Gate" sales and uninspected abbatoir (slaughtering) operations.

The group, composed of market gardeners, livestock producers, human rights advocates, abbatoir operators, consumers and advocates of personal freedom are concerned that such a restrictive approach to commerce between neighbours will limit their ability to purchase food for their families from trusted local sources. Additional concerns focused on exorbitant costs and liabilities with farmers being forced to invest unrealistic amounts of money into equipment, transportation and staffing. These costs are seen as prohibitive to new producers and discouraging to those currently in the business. The group sees a reduction in local production as inevitable unless the current legislation is modified.

A cheerful and cooperative atmosphere accompanied the meeting and as it was noted, the participants came from a diversity of philosophical backgrounds and experience. The shared concerns highlighted the broad-based ideals of personal freedom, enterpreneurial indepedence and the health and well-being of the family .

After covering the issue from a variety of angles, the group agreed to pursue a cohesive thrust by helping to form a network with other organizations with similar objectives and concerns which have sprung up around the province. The group plans to encourage the provincial government to include limits of scale in the legislation, ensuring public safety in the large-scale operations which provide food for most BC urban dwellers while incorporating the freedom of consumers to purchase locally-grown meat and produce from trusted sources. The farm-gate sale of produce has not been legislated but attendees agreed that if meat regulations were allowed to stand, the regulation and mandatory inspection of green leafy vegetables would not be far behind.

Members of the public who wish to support this initiative to preserve consumer choice and protect the small-scale family farm are encouraged to contact Rod Taylor (847-3990) in Smithers. Letters to your MLA are also in order. A website will soon be established and educational materials will be made available. It is expected that once the public understands the implications of this legislation, widespread opposition will be evident in both urban and rural areas because of the loss of consumer choice.

Unicef Claims Afghan Children More at Risk

2007-10-25T23:22:00.000-07:00

by Rod Taylor
As reported by the CBC, Unicef spokesmen are raising the alarm over the dangers faced by Afghan children by bombing, suicide attacks and starvation. Strangely, for all their apparent concern for the safety of children, Unicef supports and promotes around the world the deliberate killing of children by abortion.

This schizophrenic approach to the issues of life and death has well-meaning schoolchildren in the US and Canada trick-or-treating for Unicef to help starving children, while the organization embraces brutal population control measures and promotes the taking of innocent human life.

Readers are encouraged to seek out other humanitarian organizations to support---ones which don't condone the killing of innocent children.

CHP Press Release: Sitting MPs Cling to Status Quo

2007-10-24T06:40:00.000-07:00

October 20, 2007

The second-largest of 12 federal political parties that have yet to elect an MP has accused the four parties already in Parliament of manipulating the Elections Act rules to keep newcomers out.

Ron Gray, leader of the Christian Heritage Party, told Broadcast Arbitrator Peter S. Grant that allocating broadcast time according to past election results violates principles in a Supreme Court decision.

That decision, in a successful suit by the Communist Party of Canada against the 50-candidate rule in the Elections Act four years ago, rested on an interpretation of Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, which protects political rights of citizens.

Two statements in the ruling, written by Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, emphasize voters’ rights to be reasonably informed, and candidates’ rights to a reasonable opportunity to present their platforms.

"It has become apparent," Gray said, "that the parties now in Parliament intend to continue to abuse the law-making authority given to them by the people of Canada, in order to retain power and privilege for
themselves."

The CHP and five other smaller parties noted that changes to election financing rules have made it much more difficult for parties outside Parliament to raise funds—and at the same time give the four parties now
in Parliament $30 million a year of taxpayers’ money to fund their re-election campaigns.

Recently an Ontario court rejected the 2% and 5% threshold rules for access to public funding injected into the Elections Act by the former Liberal government’s Bill C-24; but the Conservative government has
appealed that decision. Gray said that appeal reveals "a continuation of the ‘fortress mentality’ of the four parties already in the House."

The CHP has, for a decade, proposed an alternative mode of public funding that would place the disposition of public funds in the hands of the electorate. This plan was presented to Parliament by the former
Chief Elections Officer, but was rejected by the Standing Committee on Elections and Procedures.

"Similar distortions of fairness have also plagued access to broadcast advertising," said Gray. "However, the Elections Act gives a degree of flexibility to the Broadcast Arbitrator, and that flexibility has, in
the recent past, been exercised with a view to leveling, to the limited extent the Act allows, the playing field.

"But much more is required."

The CHP, supported by all but one of the other extra-parliamentary parties at the meeting, asked the Broadcast Arbitrator "to appeal past partisan interests to the better natures of Canada’s MPs, asking them to
place the public good above partisan advantage."

The broadcast provisions of the Elections Act and its election financing provisions must be amended, they said, giving priority to the voters’ right to information priority, rather than advantage for the parties in
the House.

"The primary objective of all the regulations that bear upon financing and media access must be this," Gray said:"Voters have an absolute right to have full access to adequate information about all the electoral options available to them."

Gore's Oscar Challenged

2007-10-14T08:00:00.000-07:00

as reported in the World Net Daily

Pressure is mounting to have Al Gore's Oscar taken back after a British High Court ruling found 11 serious inaccuracies in the movie "An Inconvenient Truth. "

British High Court judge Michael Burton ruled Wednesday Gore's documentary should be shown in British schools only with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination. The decision followed a lawsuit by a father, Stewart Dimmock, who claimed the film contained "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush."

Muriel Newman, director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, had this to say about Gore's Oscar: "The truth, as inconvenient as it is to Al Gore, is that his so-called documentary contained critical distortions that are quite contrary to the principles of good documentary journalism. Good documentaries should be factually correct. Clearly this documentary is not."

The British judge ruled that when public school teachers show this highly political and highly controversial film to schoolchildren they must make it clear that the film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. They also must point out these eleven inaccuracies contained in the film.

The inaccuracies, according to the court, are:

The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The court found that the film was misleading: Over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr. Gore had misread the study: In fact four polar bears drowned, and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, throwing Europe into an ice age: The Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt, causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting; the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by seven meters, causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact, the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40 centimeters over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

CTV Gives Lopsided Coverage of Election Results

2007-10-10T19:00:00.000-07:00

by Rod Taylor
In a blatant snub of candidates running for the Family Coalition Party in the Ontario election, graphics designed to show the percentage of votes garnered by each party showed no colour whatsoever for the FCP candidates, even when they were leading over other candidates. Family-values politicians are used to being misquoted, ignored and maligned but the biased views of the CTV in this case were so blatant as to cause jaws to drop.
Check it out:

Early in the evening, FCP candidate David MacDonald had more than twice as many votes as Jean-Sarge Brisson but got no colour bar.

Before results began to come in, all candidates in Ottawa West-Nepean had a thin line of colour except for FCP candidate John Pacheco, shown in last place.

After he moved out of last place, he still had no colour. Why not? Bias.

FCP Party Leader, Giuseppe Gori had 1.5% of the vote early in the evening but got no colour recognition from CTV.

Big Blue Wave blogger and FTP candidate, Suzanne Fortin, got a number but no colour.

Before the numbers began rolling in, Bill Murphy was denied a colour bar and placed at the bottom of the list. He climbed to 1.9% but got no colour recognition.

The media snubs may not have affected the practical outcome but certainly contribute to a less-than-fair picture of poll results. When will the media begin playing fair? They rank second only to the courts when it comes to spinning reality according to their biases.

Slow Justice is No Justice

2007-10-04T08:55:00.000-07:00

by Rod Taylor CHP Candidate for Skeena-Bulkley Valley

“The wheels of Justice turn slowly,” says the adage. But are they turning at all? Or are they turning in the right direction?

Most Canadians recognize that there are holes in our court system, that victims are falling through the cracks and criminals are getting away with murder (literally). But what is at the root of this decay? What factors have led to our being handcuffed to a system that consistently disappoints?

All human beings long for justice, true justice. From schoolyard squabbles to ubiquitous divorce proceedings to high-profile murder cases, the desire to see the good-hearted citizen rewarded and the mean-spirited criminal punished is universal. Of course, there is a great deal of disagreement about who is the virtuous one and who is the guilty party. The ability to sort that out, based on evidence, is the essence of “judging” in any dispute. The ability to adequately judge depends on fair and unbiased assessment of:

Historical facts---what happened?
Motives---what was intended?
Existing law---is the situation under consideration specifically described in the Constitution or legislation?
Historical precedent----how does this case compare to similar cases and judgments?

Certain other rules have come to surround the process for the protection of personal rights, especially the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. These would include the following:

The right to trial by peers
The right to counsel
The right to security of the person---things like the requirement for a search warrant to prevent frivolous or malicious incrimination by police officers

Other encumbrances or encrustations have built up over time which have done little for the cause of justice but to have hindered its application. These could be characterized by:

Inordinate and inappropriate delays in the hearing of evidence and the rendering of judgment
The micro-selection of jurors by the defence so as to guarantee a biased jury
The inadmissability of critical evidence, even when it is obvious to all parties that the evidence is pertinent to the case
The routine reduction of time served compared to sentence

These factors have combined to create the impression and the reality that in many cases justice has not been the result , even after years have been eaten up and countless dollars expended in its pursuit.

Of all the impediments to true justice, the main culprit (in my opinion) is the glacial pace of proceedings. I was recently reminded of this by my friend’s painful experience at the murder trial of the man accused of killing his brother. The murder took place two years before the trial. All the evidence surrounding the killing was available within the first 24 hours. The only eye-witness of the shooting has since died of natural causes. Her taped call to 911 was disallowed as evidence because she was not able to support it with personal testimony. My question: Why did it take two years to convene a group of citizens to examine the evidence?

The man who pulled the trigger walked from the courtroom with no conviction, no sentence, no restriction. The grief-stricken family of the deceased were dumbfounded, shocked. They experienced waves of an overwhelming feeling of violation by the court system. It is one thing to be assaulted by mindless criminals, to experience the painful awakening to the depths of human cruelty, selfishness and malice. It is an altogether different sort of despair to suddenly realize that the very system meant to hold society accountable and to prevent these types of tragedies is itself complicit in their tragic repetition.

The ancient words of King Solomon ring true. “Because sentences against evil crimes are not carried out promptly, the hearts of the next generation of men become emboldened to commit more such crimes.” Eccles. 8:11

Let’s do something about the costly and unnecessary delays in administering justice in our land! Let’s demand that judges and judicial system bureaucrats stop making excuses for injustice and start to apply the law, equally, fairly and appropriately to reward good behaviour and punish wickedness. The future of our nation and the stability and security of future generations depend on it!

NDP Blunders into International Affairs

2007-09-30T16:37:00.000-07:00

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.

Free Speech Under Attack at Memorial University of Newfoundland

2007-09-29T08:31:00.000-07:00

MUN Students’ Union disallows pro-life group

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

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
campus.
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
709-579-1500 MUNforLIFE@gmail.com
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, munsu@munsu.ca
Bradley Russell, Student Life Director, studentlife@munsu.ca
Stella Magalios, Campaigns Director, campaigns@munsu.ca
Stephanie Power, Advocacy Director, advocacy@munsu.ca
Nick Eisnor, Finance Director, finance@munsu.ca
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, president@mun.ca
Dr. Lilly Walker, Dean of Student Affairs and Services, lwalker@mun.ca
You may carbon copy or send best wises to:
Patrick Hanlon, MUN for LIFE President, MUNforLIFE@gmail.com
Please forward this message to others who appreciate life, democracy, or free speech

Will Ottawa Now Reduce Income Taxes?!?

2007-09-28T06:44:00.000-07:00

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

Giuseppe Gori Interviewed by Steve Paikin

2007-09-25T21:16:00.000-07:00

Click To Play

Thinking About the Future

2007-09-25T19:24:00.000-07:00

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.

Hillary Care, 2.0

2007-09-24T20:18:00.000-07:00

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: colin@pop.org(540) 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.

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

2007-09-16T08:55:00.001-07:00

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.

Introducing SocialConservatives.ca by Ted Hewlett

2007-05-01T22:12:00.000-07:00

The following essay is an introduction to a new blog hosted / edited by Ted Hewlett, President of BC Parents and Teachers for Life. We wish him the best of success with his new site, SocialConservatives.ca.

During the Canadian federal election just past, political speakers made vigorous attacks on social conservatives. The intention seemed to be to denigrate those who have socially conservative views about the future of our country. The implications were made that a social conservative was a very dangerous sort of beast. Conservatism was one thing, but social conservatiism was beyond the pale--unworthy of consideration. That seemed to be the message inherent in the attacks. And that message was inherent also in statements about specific issues that were brought up. Abortion, they told us, should not even be discussed. "We thought it was a settled question." Belief in the traditional definiton of marriage defended by most Members of Parliament just a few years ago, and defended by many in the last session of parliament, now was pointed to as a mark of bias, even of hatred.

What is a social conservative? Surely in the Canadian context it means one who regards as still valuable the ideals that have traditionally been regarded as central to the welfare of our society. Those who are socially conservative in Canada might be regarded as radical were they to promote their ideas in another society, such as Saudi Arabia. It makes no sense to commit to social conservatism out of a belief that whatever is past is best. It makes a great deal of sense to commit to it out of conviction that we have had in our heritage traditional ideals which are still valuable and which can be implemented in our present-day society.

Social conservatism needs to be distinguished from mere fiscal conservatism. Social converatism will deplore the waste of public financial resources, but it will not make the achievement of national wealth an aim to be divorced from the goal of enabling that wealth to benefit the people as a whole.

The term "social conservative" might be used for one who holds to particular ideals but has no concept of promoting them in society at large. But on this website we are concerned primarily with those who see social conservatism as something which needs to be supported for the benefit of society as a whole. Thus we are concerned with the role of government, which is capable of either supporting or undermining the foundations on which society has been built.

Unfortunately, as we have noted in the election campaign for the last federal election, those who wished to eliminate certain foundational concepts which are part of our heritage have sought to change them, often, not so much by argument as by manipulative propaganda. This propaganda has persuaded many people that those traditional ideals are no longer of value to our nation. The success of these propagandists has had a lot to do with the fact that Canada has become a place where many politicians see as suicidal the public defence of the most basic principles of morality.

Politics, it has been said, is the art of the possible. Politicians are basically concerned with how much it is possible for them to accomplish. Some politicians, once elected, do little more than test the current winds of public opinion and cast their votes in parliament accordingly. Others act as leaders, and help to form public opinion. But in any case, the success of the elected member of parliament is limited by the state of the public mind. The state of public opinion is determined by a host of factors, such as the messages received from the news media and from a variety of influencers. In fact, we all function to a greater or lesser degree as formers of public opinion.

Those of us who are social conservatives have been inclined, often with some justification, to blame the politicians for the erosion of our societal foundations. But of course we cannot blame only the politicians, who, in a democracy, are limited in what they can achieve by the climate of public opinion that we all contribute to.

If Canada is to be saved from its current plight where one after another its moral foundations are eroded and swept away, those who are capable of inflencing public opinion must make the most of the means at hand to do so on behalf of the ideals of our social heritage. This brings us to the purpose of this website. We hope that this site may be part of the beginning of a campaign to promote social conservatism in Canada. If the public can be brought to see that the welfare of our country depends on the restoration of basic moral principles, then our political leaders will have the ability to restore the health of our nation.

We do not seek to establish some sort of theocracy, where an elite group of people dictate the details of personal lives. Rather we would like to see established a country which will honor principles that have been recognized over the centuries by people of many faiths. A nation whose people have that respect for those basic principles can be expected to choose leaders who will exercise the power of government in a way that supports those principles. May that be so in our nation of Canada! --Ted Hewlett, editor of SocialConservatives.ca

Rod Taylor Chosen to Represent Skeena-Bulkley Valley

2007-04-28T23:53:00.000-07:00

The Christian Heritage Party of Skeena-Bulkley Valley held its Annual General Meeting on April 13 in Smithers at the Aspen Motor Inn. After reviewing the work of the past year and electing five new board members, a nomination contest was conducted to select a candidate for the next federal election. Rod Taylor of Smithers was elected by ballot.

In his candidate’s speech, Mr. Taylor spoke on the topic of "Using Both Hands" a reference to the importance of complete commitment to the building of families, communities and nations. Mr. Taylor emphasized the importance of defending moral principles while we work to restore truth and justice in our society. He thanked the members for their sacrificial support for the restoration of family values and social justice and encouraged them to press on.

The new members elected to the board are: Nancy Duursma, Ben Mann, Glen Vandevelde, Alice Tuininga and Sjoerd Andringa.

International Day of the Unborn Child---March 25

2007-03-24T15:52:00.000-07:00

Mercy and Justice

2007-03-12T21:01:00.000-07:00

Without Mercy, Justice would be harsh,
But with her he is tender.
Without Justice, Mercy would be lost,
Having no defender.

So many in the courts today
And in the halls of power---
Throw all their hopes on Mercy
And from Justice do they cower.

They think by trading sword for shield
And banishing Truth’s blade
They’ll reap the fruit that virtues yield
Though virtue’s image fade.

They think in Mercy only
They’ll find an easy rest
Without Justice to provide them either
Measurement or test.

They hoist a flag uncoloured;
Pirates plunder fast their hold
But in shipwreck or surrender
Their hands will yet grow cold.

The shield of Mercy covers well;
Its edge is ever soft
And shelters many in its shade
When it is held aloft.

But it cannot turn the battle tide
Nor force the routed foe
The sword of Justice must be raised
While Mercy shields the blow.

So call forth now your banners!
Unfurl them one by one!
And call on deck your sleeping crew
And powder every gun!

The robbers of the open sea
Do seek our weak submission
But resolute and daring
We must meet them in collision.

Collusion is their frontispiece
And calumny their finis---
But we have taken sacred vows
And Justice lives within us!

Copyright March 2007 by Rod Taylor

Freedom to be Heard: An Open Letter to the Speaker of the House

2007-02-25T09:12:00.000-08:00

Mr Speaker:

Thank you for accepting the responsibility of maintaining order in the House of Commons. As in any house, it is understood that there are rules of decorum to ensure peace and order and to allow for positive interaction.

Every schoolchild in our great country has been taught certain rules of behaviour to ensure order in the classroom and to allow every other child an opportunity to speak and to be heard. The simplest of these rules, but the most difficult to practice, is the admonition not to interrupt when someone else is speaking. The practical corollary is that one must value the time and opinions of others and therefore must not occupy the floor indefinitely, giving both time and place for others to express themselves. These simple courtesies, like all ethical courtesies emanate from the Golden Rule regarding human interaction: “Love your neighbour as yourself”.

It is unthinkable, in the great House of Commons, whose honourable members are chosen by the great people of this great land, that those members should behave toward one another in a manner less courteous, less polite and less honourable than that expected of every schoolchild.

In our country, for which men and women have died, we place a high value on freedom of speech…and rightly so. That freedom, that privilege, that courtesy---predates Canada’s founding, and is in evidence in every truly civilized nation in the world. Freedom of speech must be accompanied by freedom to be heard. If the opinions of some speakers in the House of Commons are drowned out by hisses and catcalls, we have dishonoured the house and denied representation to those people whose chosen member has been denied the freedom to be heard. Technology has taken us from sound exposition to the soundbite. The decay of public morality and ethics has turned soundbites into biting sounds. It used to be said “His bark is worse than his bite.” Today, we may say that the bark is the bite. Mr. Speaker, if only the loudest voices, only the angriest, only the rudest are allowed to be heard, Canada will become a nation governed by the loud, the angry and the rude. That must not be.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that while the House sits you exercise that necessary level of oversight to ensure that every member of the House may be heard. By exercising the special authority granted to you over the affairs of the House, to encourage full and free debate, full of thoughtful considerations and free of snide contempt for those we address as “honourable”, without partisan pandering, you may be remembered as the Speaker who raised the level of respect and honour among the honourable members both within and without the chambers of the House of Commons.

Thank you,
Rod Taylor

Income Splitting and the Family-Friendly Tax Credit

2007-02-13T05:02:00.000-08:00

Two building blocks of a successful economic policy to support Canadian families have long been championed by the Christian Heritage Party of Canada---income splitting and the family-friendly tax credit.

Income splitting would allow the most generous tax regime for a household whether both spouses are working or not. This would level the playing field so that a married couple with one spouse earning a high income and the other spouse nurturing children and keeping the household sane would pay the same tax as a home where both parents work at a lower salary and earn the same combined household income. Over time, this arrangement would benefit parents with children and would tend to support the choice of raising the next generation of Canadians---an outcome very important in light of Canada's "birth dearth". (If not for immigration, Canada's population would be in decline today. This demographic shift is becoming more obvious every day as our nursing homes are crowded and our schools are closing down for lack of students)

The CHP's family-friendly tax credit, granting a $1,000 per month tax credit to families where one parent is at home, nurturing and guiding their school-age children, provides similar practical support for the embattled Canadian family. In the upheavals we know as modern society, any move to re-establish the home as the place of security and training for our youth is a welcome effort.

Some have wondered about the economic costs of such policies. Our view is that any increased burden on the taxpayer will be more than offset by reduced unemployment as more parents are able to stay home where they really want to be, opening up existing jobs for those currently out of work. Others will start home businesses, injecting creativity and cash back into their communities. The social and economic benefits to Canada of having more stable families and more children enjoying a parent's close contact would be felt early and last well into the next few generations.

Modern Inconveniences

2007-02-01T05:03:00.000-08:00

Last night we attended a showing of “An Inconvenient Truth”, the movie produced by former US Vice President, Al Gore. The movie is an incredibly powerful media production. The graphics are awesome, the story compelling and the interleaving of scientific data about CO2 levels and global warming with Mr. Gore’s own personal story is superbly executed. In rough summary, the movie posits that mankind has raised CO2 levels in the earth’s atmosphere far beyond any historical levels, that that condition has created an insulating blanket, trapping the sun’s rays and, if unchecked, will result in the melting of the polar ice caps, the raising of world sea levels by 20 feet, the flooding of all the world’s largest port cities, the destruction of wildlife species and other dire consequences too numerous to mention here.

Everyone should see the movie. Before seeing it though, it may be helpful to reflect on a few other “inconvenient truths” conveniently ignored.

-While the theory of “greenhouse gases” is widely believed and is generally credible, it is still a theory. Mr. Gore said there was basically “no” disagreement within the scientific community. This is false. Of course, this does not imply we should be complacent about pollution, CO2 emissions or the rampant over-consumption of non-renewable resources. If we care about the earth, our children and about living a life that’s pleasing to the Creator, we must diligently evaluate our lifestyles and our national policies regarding energy, pollution and recycling. As stewards of the earth, we have been entrusted by God to care for our environment. We are to respectfully share the goodness and richness of this fragile planet, not only with our neighbours but also with our grandchildren.

-Using ice-core samples and tiny trapped air bubbles, which Mr. Gore claims are 650,000years old, he says the atmospheric temperatures existing when the ice froze can be determined by the measurement of “isotopes”. I do not believe that scientists are able to determine with any accuracy either the age of those ice core samples or the average atmospheric temperatures of the year the ice was formed. I can tell you though, what the temperature was the day the water froze. It was zero degrees Celsius. I believe, of course, in a much younger planet than the one Mr. Gore describes. I believe about 4,000 years ago, our great-great-grandfather Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives were floating over the land masses which we now call continents in a large wooden boat we now call the ark. This was after the first rain, which turned out to be a real gully-washer.

-The Great Flood of Noah’s day, which destroyed all but eight of the world’s citizens and most of the animal life of that time, was a judgment of God the Creator. He wiped the slate because of the wickedness of man and the violence, greed and lust rampant in the earth. Because of Noah’s unique faithfulness, God spared him and commanded him to preserve a remnant of all the animal life we have today (as well as many which have since gone extinct). At that time ALL the earth’s species were endangered.

-Almighty God, the One who created the earth, and its atmosphere, the One who created the sun, the moon and the stars, the One who set the planets in motion and who is the source of all energy---He is able to save or destroy. He put the earth at a 23 ½ degree-tilt, thus creating the seasons. He created wind and water. He created oxygen and gave us lungs. He alone has the right and the authority to set standards for man’s moral behaviour. It is He who has said “Do not commit murder.” When He observes our social life today, He sees over 100,000 babies being killed each year in Canada alone and millions across the globe. He sees the greed and the lust and the violence we tolerate and encourage in this land, in our media and in our economy. If He once judged the earth for these things, why should He not do it again? My question is: Without discarding the science around greenhouse gases and global warming, perhaps our moral pollution is at least as great a cause of the climatic turmoil we are observing today.

-After the waters of the Great Flood dissipated, the earth’s surface dried and our ancestors emerged from the ark, bringing the entire animal kingdom with them, God made a covenant with Noah, his children (that includes us) and all living things. He promised to never again destroy the entire earth by flood. The sign of this covenant is the rainbow. God reinforces His promise with these words: “…neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” (Gen. 8)

-There is, however, a time coming in the future when “…the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” (II Peter 3)

Do these promises of God give us an excuse to treat the earth carelessly or take for granted the great privilege of living in this place of stunning beauty, together with the awesome biodiversity of plant and animal life? Does it mean we can burn up all the oil and coal and natural gas, polluting as we go, without regard for future generations, or pollute the lakes and rivers?

No, God forbid. Paul tells us to “use the world and not abuse it.” John tells us in Revelation that “the Lord will destroy those who destroy the earth.” (Rev. 11) Speaking through the prophet Ezekiel (ch 34), the Lord rebukes the powerful elite of that day using this illustration, comparing them with cattle: “Does it seem a small thing unto you to have eaten up the good pasture, but ye must tread down with your feet the residue of your pastures? and to have drunk of the deep waters, but ye must foul the residue with your feet?” Contained in that rebuke is the admonition to be respectful of creation, of the resources we’ve been given.

The fact that the creation is “groaning, waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God”---that we have distressing conditions in our waters, our forests and our air---should motivate us to become better stewards, better nurturers of this planet. It does not belong to us. It belongs to Him!

Likewise our own bodies, our social structures, our families, our justice system, unborn babies. We can not simply treat the human side of creation as our own invention, ignoring the instructions of our Creator. We must live in respectful awe of all that He has put within us---our sense of justice, respect for human life, our desire and responsibility to protect and nurture. We did not create the sun and the planets, nor can we by strength or intellect sustain them. Our intelligence (which is also a gift from God) has allowed us to explore the universe. But it is His wisdom that will allow us to enjoy His presence in the new heavens and the new earth He has promised. His recurring theme is to seek to know Him and to call on Him, to walk with Him. “If my people, which are called by My Name, shall humble themselves and seek My Face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” (II Chron 7:14)

Liberal Leader Finds BiPartisan Cooperation "Bizarre"

2007-01-06T08:04:00.000-08:00

In the wake of Wajid Khan's defection to the Conservatives, Liberal leader Stephane Dion commented that he always thought it "bizarre" that a Liberal MP could serve as a consultant to the Conservative prime minister.

This shows not only the narrowness of Mr. Dion's hopes and aspirations for Canada but also his failure to grasp the lessons of history. Sir Winston Churchill, one of recent history's most outstanding political leaders, who steered England and the world between the shoals of annihilation and tyranny, was a multiple floor-crosser and served his country in a variety of capacities from both sides of the house.

One would hope that most politicians, like the overwhelming majority of Canadians, would aspire to be participants in a governance style that embraces multi-party cooperation in the common interests of all Canadians.

I would like to thank Mr. Khan for his willingness to help the prime minister. Mr. Dion's failure to appreciate that contribution signals a shrinking world-view that grasps for power but shuns servanthood. Like Mr. Churchill, we should all look for the place where we can best serve our nation's interests.

To all those working so hard to protect Life and Family and to restore Justice and Truth in Canada:

2007-01-04T06:43:00.000-08:00

Thank you for your hard work and sacrifices. Almighty God is faithful and He declares that, even for a “cup of cold water” you shall never lose your reward.
However, I do wish, once again, to register my disappointment that, in the midst of our joint efforts, some of you continue to make excuses for the Conservative government of the Rt. Hon. Mr. Stephen Harper, based on its "minority" position. That minority position has not stopped Mr. Harper from taking strong and principled stands on other controversial subjects, like Kyoto, Israel, Afghanistan, income trusts, etc. Why then is it okay to "wimp out" on protection for the unborn and a true defense of the traditional family?
Review these facts:
· At the founding convention of the "new" Conservative Party, the members, with Mr. Harper's approval, passed a resolution stating that "a Conservative government will not support any legislation regulating abortion". Mr. Harper followed this up with his personal promise to do his best to keep legislation regarding abortion from coming to the floor of the House. He kept his promise by pressuring the committee to rule Leon Benoit's "Unborn Victims of Violence" bill "unvotable", thus killing the most meaningful and hopeful piece of legislation put forward so far to establish "personhood" for the unborn.
· Mr. Harper's government continues to apply legal pressure to New Brunswick to fund private abortion clinics.
· Mr. Harper's powerful core has dictated that Conservative candidates, including recent byelection candidate, Dianne Haskett, may not answer questionnaires from pro-life groups such as Campaign Life Coalition, preventing these candidates from giving a full and forceful defense of their pro-life positions.
· Mr. Harper's poorly-planned and poorly-defended motion re. reopening the debate on same-sex marriage was not only doomed to fail (a Royal Commission to study the matter with a complete vetting of the issue would have been much better) but the wording of the motion gave tacit support to same-sex civil unions and guaranteed the ongoing endorsement of the government for the 12,000 same-sex "marriages" that have been solemnized to date. The lack of a forceful approach to this critical issue has resulted in the humiliation of the pro-family position.
While I congratulate Mr. Harper for his successes and achievements, I continue to support the only truly pro-life, pro-family national party, the Christian Heritage Party. The CHP policies are rooted in the foundational statement in the Preamble to the Charter: "...Canada is founded upon principles which recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law..." All righteous legislation can be built around this concept enshrined in our Constitution. These principles do not change with the winds of political opportunism. It's interesting that the Conservative Party at its founding convention substituted the words "supremacy of democratic parliamentary institutions" for the Canadian Constitution's "supremacy of God".Thanks again for your good efforts. Let’s keep the Truth in the forefront as we seek to influence politicians and citizens of all parties to become defenders of Life, Family and Justice. All the best in 2007.

Harper's Day of Infamy

2006-12-08T20:46:00.000-08:00

December 7, 1941 is remembered as a Day of Infamy when Japan launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, attempting to put the US Pacific Fleet out of commission.

December 7, 2006 may also be remembered as a Day of Infamy when Stephen Harper betrayed his socially conservative supporters by allowing traditional marriage to be subjected to humiliating abuse as MPs voted on the government's limp-wristed motion that would have restored the traditional definition of marriage "...without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages."

After one day of debate, the motion was defeated. There was no free vote, no Royal Commission on Marriage, no attempt to engage the Canadian public. The original same-sex marriage bill, which passed in 2005, still poses significant threats for our youth and undermines freedom of religion, yet Mr. Harper considers the case closed.

Those who understand God's great love for mankind, His plan to redeem a fallen world and the significance He places on marriage know that the case is not closed. Like abortion, that ruthless killer of innocent human life, same-sex marriage is not a policy that social conservatives can accept. It must be opposed with vigour while we still have a semblance of freedom.

The Christian Heritage Party (one local site is: http://skeenabulkley.ca ) remains Canada’s ONLY national party that is unequivocally PROLIFE, PRO FAMILY and committed to Christian principles of morality, justice and virtue.
Rod Taylor

The Other Environment

2006-11-04T16:28:00.000-08:00

by Rod Taylor

Everyone seems to be talking about the environment. From air quality to wind currents, ocean levels and bio-plagues of epic proportions, our planet seems challenged daily by new assaults on the complex relationships between species and food sources, temperature and growth cycles. As we learn more about the complex and amazing world in which we live, we are awe-struck by the delicate conditions without which, we and our fellow-creatures would die in moments. We look for ways, not only to understand the forces at work in and around us---social, economic, and biological---but to counter them with proactive and creative policies to shape a more hopeful tomorrow.

Within our psyche as a nation, we also are entering another climate change of unknown proportion. Our collective conscience and consciousness groan for certainty and hope, while with frantic tuggings at the anchors and tiller, we seek familiar waters for our national soul. The complexities of this shift have thrown mankind and the creatures with whom we share this earth into cataclysmic reelings to and fro. The very foundations of all we've known seem to be moving...

The gropings and guessings with which we are daily tossed have also caused a climate change in our land. Our ability to establish and maintain a moral and social environment which will sustain a dignified human existence past our generation and into a caring and sustainable future hangs in the balance.

A few of the destructive forces at work :

Toddlers now spend their early years with someone else's parents and the ideas most repeated and reinforced come not from their primary caregivers and their biological link to past generations but from admen, intent on developing their consumer-identity and social idealogues who may never have children themselves.

Links in young minds between cause and effect are weakened by distance and softened by the constant fantasies portrayed in living colour by those with deadened hearts. While children may never have seen a headless chicken flap its last before becoming supper, they have seen thousands of young men and women die tortured deaths between the commercials.

Insecurities abound as violent offenders are loosed to re-offend and the deaths of millions of the most innocent are ignored by those who claim to bring us the "news".

We move heaven and earth to find miraculous cures for the most difficult cases, then deprive the living and breathing of the most basic needs---food and water.

We lurch along uncomfortably freeing the guilty, apologizing for things we didn't do and teaching the innocent that they should try things our parents knew were wrong. Later on we will feel new pangs of guilt and spend any amount of money to provide new drugs to offset the lethal diseases thus contracted. All the while, we put guilt itself on display in a museum along with sexual morality and patriotic sacrifice.

We attempt to hold in our minds a coalition of mutually exclusive ideas in the name of tolerance and punish those who point out the contradiction (also in the name of tolerance).
We consider life too sacred to admonish and too valueless to protect.

We worship the earth and reject the Creator of the earth. In this our poverty of mind becomes absolute and our attempts to preserve the greatest values ring hollow against the declarations of the eternal God:

"The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof; the world and they that dwell therein." Psalm 24:1

Crossing the Line

2006-10-28T11:59:00.000-07:00

Today's chaotic pace and the cacophony of mixed messages, both urgent and convincing, compel listeners / viewers / readers to focus on and analyze a myriad of inputs or block and delete---if only to maintain sanity.

The cries of "Injustice!" coming from left and right are so adamant and unapologetic as to dim the fact that sometimes the fastest way to get East is to go West.

While partisan camps endorse or oppose anything from the Big Box to the War on Terror to the War on the Unborn, many non-partisans are left to assume that all deep-thinking people will only join or vote for a certain party---they just can't agree on which party that is. The issues that divide a thinking populace are overlapping, not mutually exclusive. The information explosion, accompanied by the enhanced theatrics of an outraged advocate encourages complex people to make simple but unsatisfying choices, leaving the investigation of claims and counter-claims to the cadre of one's choice.

But some folks are not content to feast forever on pre-digested pablum but must have the real thing---meat that is savoury, fruits and vegetables that are vine-ripened. They acquire not only tastes but real choices. They are able to distinguish between information and peer pressure to conform.

Perhaps the greatest achievement of modern politics will be found, not in the passage of legislation embraced by the Left or the Right but by the release from bondage of a generation of creative thinkers who are able to stand on their own two feet and speak their minds. The proper and logical conclusion to many debates may be within our grasp if today's voters / editors / politicians give themselves permission to disagree with their high-profile leaders / readers and constituents. Blind allegiance to one's party imperils the ability to see the big picture. If there had ever been one group with no blind spots we would need only one nation, one party, one church, one university, one newspaper today. But diversity of thought, like fresh water flowing into a lake, brings nutrients, oxygen and cleansing for the mind. Think about it.

Engendering Confusion

2006-10-26T23:20:00.000-07:00

by Rod Taylor

Thomas Barker (Interior News, Oct 18, A5) has asked some good questions and I thank him for acknowledging, in a democracy, the importance of freedom of speech and conscience. However, faulty logic has resulted in a misrepresentation of pro-family advocates. He insinuates that people like me, who believe marriage is only possible between a man and a woman, must therefore be questioning the “personhood” of homosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth.

All men and women, regardless of their sexual behaviours deserve the protection of the law from violence and slander. All are persons and deserve to be treated with courtesy and respect. This is not a “rights” issue like the denial of voting rights or access to education. We are talking about marriage, the foundation of family life. A homosexual relationship cannot produce children and no amount of fanfare can give it the kind of generational impact exercised by the traditional family.

A man might similarly claim a “right” to bear children. Claiming that right would not make it possible. He is not designed that way.

Thomas is absolutely right to remind his readers that legislatures and courts have in the past wrongly denied the personhood of women, of First Nations people, of blacks in the US and Jews in Germany. This analogy fits the plight of the unborn child in Canada since the Supreme Court today claims the child is not a “person” until the head emerges from the birth canal---a preposterous assertion which results in the deaths of over 100,000 little people in Canada each year. But it is totally irrelevant to same-sex marriage since no groups are denying the personhood of homosexuals.

The goal of family values advocates is not to attack or demean people who are struggling with their sexual identities but to protect our children from the forced approbation of behaviours harmful to their health and well being.

Thomas quotes Nathan Cullen (Oct 18 page A9) as saying no further protection of freedom of conscience is needed since freedom of religion is mentioned in the Charter. Why then was Chris Kempling suspended for three months for writing a letter to the paper about same-sex marriage? Why was Scott Brockie fined $5,000 and ordered to pay $40,000 of costs for refusing, as a matter of conscience, to print materials promoting the homosexual movement? Mr. Cullen has shown no interest in defending their freedom of speech or conscience.

Mr Cullen also lamented the “weird mixing of church and state.” These words ignore that secular humanism is itself a religion and political correctness its creed. The “separation of church and state” is meant to protect the free exercise of religion from government control. Our Constitution begins with these words: “…Canada is founded upon principles which recognise the supremacy of God and the rule of law…” The so-called defenders of the Constitution seem willing to ignore its foundational premise, God’s supreme authority in all matters. To separate morality from public policy is to ignore our responsibility to future generations.

Entering the Blogosphere

2006-10-24T21:40:00.000-07:00

Opening the door...just a crack. The weighty doors groan on the ancient hinges...light pours in, dust motes drifting across the light beams...old armour stands at attention, rusty chain mail, once polished with action and bravado, now waits in silent anticipation for the thunder of hooves and the clang of sword on shield.

The creak of harness and the calling into array. Heavy shiftings of restless warhorses, stabled too long but eager for the dust of tumult...the banners furled are sought in dim and musty corners...a few minutes in the breeze and their flapping gives to snapping!

The green hills roll away to the West and bright flashings of the mounted are seen again in glintings of the fresh and splashing riffles, men and horses dashing on through streams...the long necks and snorting lips drink rivers freely and are refreshed for the days ahead...days of mountings and spurrings, of hurryings in the semi-dark...shouts of joy and cries of urgency.

The Mighty Host begin to crest the hill...banners and medallions, shields and long-since silently sheathed swords. All are awakening with prayers and dreaming in their sleep of brave acts and stout words to call to life a nation from the dim ranks of wistful warriors.