Pro-abortion nasty media please shut up already

I am really really tired of listening to the sanctimonious, moronic, self absorbed abortion pushers natter on endlessly about Andrew Scheer's social conservative values.

Neil Macdonald:

"The key, he seems to think, is to claim his views on such matters are strictly personal – he is a religious man – and swear that as prime minister, he would never try bringing the land's laws more into alignment with his faith. 

As though "faith," a term treasured by social conservatives for its virtuous connotation, confers some sort of shield that licenses bigotry. 

Following that logic, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church who desires running for public office could say, "Yes, I believe GOD HATES FAGS, but that's a matter of my deeply held faith, you see, and I promise that as president I would govern for all Americans and that I would not re-open the debate on same-sex marriage."

Who exactly is the bigot here Neil?

Full disclosure. I have never met Andrew Scheer nor do I know him personally. His office did help me once when he was speaker of the house. I called his office because I was really p'd off when my rude pro-abortion MP refused to read my my pro-life petition in the House. He abruptly hung up the phone on me when I insisted--since he was supposed to represent me--that he read it in the House. So Scheer's office found another MP to read my petition on my behalf. For that I am very thankful to Scheer.

I can't speak for Andrew Scheer. But what I can do, is tell you that I am also a practicing Catholic who takes my Catholic faith very seriously. Probably like Scheer does. I believe abortion is evil. I do not believe in same sex marriage. I also believe that lying is a sin. All these values (and others) are formed from my Catholic faith.

As far as gay sex and women who have abortions go--I don't agree with either of those things. But my Catholic faith has taught me to love and respect all people, and I take that command very very seriously. My loving and respecting people has absolutely nothing to do with how I feel about their personal life situation. They are two separate things.

"And why stubbornly refuse to walk in a Gay Pride parade? Even Doug Ford has walked in a Pride parade, for heaven's sake."

It is a well known fact that there is a lot of lewdness and naked people running around at these parades. So why on earth should Scheer prance around with people engaging in obscene acts and or making fun of Andrew Scheer's own Catholic faith?

So Neil Macdonald, why doesn't Justin Trudeau march in the March for Life each year "for heaven's sake"? What's good for the goose is good for the gander n'est pas?

The anti social conservative twits who love to pounce on anyone--and especially Andrew Scheer--for his values should learn to keep their judgments to themselves. Real Catholics adhere to real Catholic values and beliefs. From everything I have learned about Andrew Scheer, he is a real Catholic.

And saying that the abortion issue in Canada is settled is total nonsense. Last time I checked Canada was still a democracy. My values are just as sacrosanct as your values.

If I were the leader of the opposition and I had to endure this stupid infantile non stop harassment about my social conservative values this is what I'd say to you:

"These are my values. They may be different than your values. If I tell you that I will not reopen the abortion debate, I will not reopen the abortion debate. I don't lie. You may not believe me. But if you don't believe me, that's your problem, not mine. I stand behind my word. I will not discuss this with you again or with anyone else. Next question please."

A word of advice for Catholics for the 2019 election

A word of advice from Fr. Mark Goring to Catholics.

"Dear Catholics don't be stupid. If you vote for a political leader who allows harm to be done to the most innocent person, you are complicit in the death of the innocent person. You have blood on your hands. You might spend all of eternity in Hell because you did not obey God's clear commandment--Thou shalt not kill."

How we can support pro-life MPs until GAP is gone

Joyce Arthur and company want people to write to the MPs who bravely attended the March for Life.

I took their advice and wrote my own letter. ARCC even compiled the email addresses for me to use. Bonus. You can do the same.

dave.vankesteren@parl.gc.ca
arnold.viersen@parl.gc.ca
brad.trost@parl.gc.ca
kevin.sorenson@parl.gc.ca
bev.shipley@parl.gc.ca
phil.mccoleman@parl.gc.ca
dane.lloyd@parl.gc.ca
Glen.Motz@parl.gc.ca
rachael.harder@parl.gc.ca
ted.falk@parl.gc.ca
harold.albrecht@parl.gc.ca
david.anderson@parl.gc.ca

And don't forget to cc these MPs:
Maryam.Monsef@parl.gc.ca
justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca
andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca

Dear MPs who attended this year's March for Life in Ottawa,

Unlike our good friends over at the Abortion Rights Coalition who think you are evil scum of the earth, I am very proud that you chose to stand up for life at this year's annual March for life. I know this can be a very unpopular position to take.

I know it's not always common to do the right thing. But so what? Do it anyway, is my motto.

Contrary to the pro-abortions, I was delighted by your participation in this year's March for Life pro-life rally.

As you know, abortion has fatal consequences for the pre-born child in any and all circumstances. So much so, that death by abortion is 100% guaranteed to kill the pre-born child.

I am for the protection of those who are in the womb. And I would hope that my elected officials would hold these same basic principles, even though many do not. But you do. Awesome.

Contrary to what the Honourable Maryam Monsef (Minister for Women and Gender Equality) put it in her open letter to you; fundamental human rights should be guaranteed for all human beings and since the pre-born child is a human being, they have the same human rights as you and I do.

It's simple logic really, and it shouldn't be too hard to understand--even though Ms. Monsef is apparently ignorant of this important fundamental truth. Too bad for her.

I, as a Canadian woman, am asking you and your party leader to re-affirm Canadians right to protect human rights for all Canadians, including those still in the womb and unable to protect themselves.

Hopefully this Liberal government will soon be a distant memory come October and we can forget that the Governing Abortion Party (GAP) who will be but a distant nightmare that will finally end.

Fingers crossed.

I sincerely hope to hear back from you regarding this matter.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

I love this one. My body my choice. Not your body. Not your choice. Imagine making swag with a lie on it?

To feminist Justin Trudeau from a real feminist

I received a copy of another letter to Justin Trudeau on the SOW nonsense.

Hello Mr. Trudeau, MP and Prime Minister,  

I can not address you in the normal way that one addresses the Prime Minister of Canada.  You are neither right, nor are you honourable. 

You have more than once referred to abortion as a "woman's right" or a "charter right".  Perhaps you need to check your source on that. The Canadian Charter of Rights does not include a woman's right to abortion. Saying so many times, even by the Prime Minister, does not make it so. Just cause something is not illegal does not make it a right -- you get that, don't you? Then, stop. 

But then again, why would I be surprised at your lack of knowledge on that aspect of abortion? Your knowledge on so many topics that are crucial to Canadians is dust-deep.  I said it during your election campaign and you have been good enough to confirm it repeatedly. 

Particularly not honourable, Mr. Trudeau, was the recent shunning of the Conservative MP because of her pro-life values. From the party who purports to be "inclusive" and "feminist"​?​http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberals-ndp-walk-out-after-tories-nominate-pro-life-mp-to-head-status-of-women-committee

A life long feminist myself, during my 30 year military career both in the ranks and as a commissioned officer holding an Honours History degree from the Royal Military College of Canada, I was known as the one to see issues from a perspective of "how does this affect the serving women?" and to raise the points many preferred not to. On retirement, I worked for three+ years as the Shelter Manager in a women's shelter where my understanding of feminism was greatly increased because everything we did was based on feminism. You will be surprised to learn, Mr. Trudeau, that feminism places equal value on input from everyone, not just those who agree with you.  What your MPs did to Rachael Harder who has the courage to stand by her principles was non-inclusive to say the least and certainly not how a feminist organization would deal with those in the group who held differing viewpoint. 

Sometimes, you are good enough to make me laugh, Mr. Trudeau.  Like when you appoint a cabinet of 50% females even though 50% of the MPs are not female "because it's 2015". One unfortunate fall-out of selection based on gender is that no female cabinet member knows if she was selected for her education, knowledge and experience or just because she was female.  From this female, thanks but no thanks; I got where I got based on my own merits, not on a misguided effort to promote because of gender.  I've said it before and I'll say it again ~~ you just don't get it.  

Mr. Trudeau, I know that my opinion means very little to you.  And I'm quite certain that any email expressing a difference of opinion will swiftly hit the ol' trash can.  And I'm good with that. Cause the reverse is also true. 2019 can't come fast enough.

Have a happy Thanksgiving, Mr. Trudeau.  We Canadians have much to be thankful for; we live in a land of bounty. On this Thanksgiving weekend, I remain truly thankful that I live in a country where this kind of communication is possible, albeit maybe not welcome.  

Sincerely,

Status of Women committee and the law of unintended consequences

John Ivison and Andrew Coyne in today's National post.

Even the Globe and Mail is standing up for Rachael Harder, and point out the ludicrous behaviour of Justin Trudeau and his feminists friends:

"Think of it this way: Were Rachael Harder, the Alberta MP in question, fired from a job in a private company, or from the public service, for the same reason, she would be the victim of a violation of her Charter rights."

They really don't have a clue do they. As someone pointed out to me, making an issue of this just shines a bright light on how dumb a move this was:

"It is highly ironic that by storming out of the committee meeting and making a federal case of it, that these women may have transformed Rachel Harder into a martyr of sorts for the prolife cause, talk about the law of unintended consequences. If the committee had debated the motion for her leadership, and quietly voted against it would anyone have even known about it? Look at all the media coverage during the last several days."

I agree. Trudeau's actions have back fired. How nice.

And then there's Joyce Arthur and her merry band of radical pro-abortion groups who also spoke out against Rachael Harder. Just shows their own intolerance and extreme position on everything related to abortion even when it isn't about abortion. They even have the nerve to mention the Charter. Do these people ever listen to themselves?

Liberals and NDPs acting out - Part 3

Another letter to the SOW committee.

"Dear Members of the Status of Women Committee, 

Rachael Harder, like all Canadians--and all Parliamentarians--has a right to be treated with respect. Walking out on her for holding views about abortion that are contrary to the views of a majority who sit on your Committee, is not only disrespectful to her as a person, but it is disrespectful to all women.  

It is disrespectful to all women because it sends the message that women are not allowed to think for themselves, that they must conform to the views of the majority and those who hold power, and if they do not, then they shouldn't bother getting involved in political life. "Group think" is not healthy for society. I would have hoped that by the 21st Century, we would have adopted the view that disagreements--especially in Parliament-- can be settled with respectful discussion and dialogue.  

As a woman, I would have especially hoped that women would be treating other women with the kind of respect they themselves have fought hard for. Is not the "Status of Women" Committee meant to represent all Canadian women? Is not Parliament meant to represent all Canadian women? 

Like Rachael Harder--and importantly, like the Supreme Court in the 1988 Morgentaler decision--I too believe that preborn human life should receive some protection. While I do not agree with everything the Supreme Court said in 1988, I do agree with the unanimous opinion expressed by the seven SCC justices that Parliament has an interest in the protection of fetal life. And I am very concerned that some Parliamentarians (including our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau) continue to misrepresent what the Supreme Court actually said in 1988. The Supreme Court did NOT recognize a constitutional right to abortion, as even pro-choice academics have acknowledged (see  http://www.morgentalerdecision.ca/notable-quotes/ ). And so it makes it all the more unfathomable why Members of your committee would display such disrespect and contempt for those who don't support an unrestricted "right to abortion." 

While some of you, or maybe even most of you, may believe that the "right to abortion" is fundamental to women's rights, it is nonetheless an opinion. It is not a fact. Some women, including myself, don't hold that opinion. And Parliament is a place where our elected representatives should be able to work collegially together and debate the diversity of views Canadians hold. And they should be able to do so as respectful adults, not as schoolyard children who pick up their toys and walk away because they don't get their own way. 

Can we not treat our elected MPs, and by extension, the Canadians they serve, with the dignity and respect we all would want for ourselves? 

Walking out of the Status of Women committee meeting to protest Rachael Harder's nomination as Chair was not becoming of a Parliamentarian in the year 2017. And it was not becoming of a woman. 

I sincerely hope that the Members of the Status of Women Committee who walked out will apologize not only to Rachael Harder but to all the Canadian women who were made to feel like second-class citizens by your actions." 

BM

Well it seems the bullies got their way. Today the SOW committee elected Conservative Karen Vecchio as chair. Vecchio didn't want to be chair. What a pathetic bunch of Liberals and one NDP.

I wonder if these women teach their children to be bullies also?

Liberals and NDPs acting out - Part 2

I received this comment further to this post on Rachael Harder and the pathetic behaviour of the Status of Women committee.

"We hear a lot of talk from the government about how diverse and inclusive Canada is, and that diversity is our strength. If that is true then why are prolifers barred from the Liberal party and kicked off university campuses? Since Canada is a large and diverse nation with people from many backgrounds and cultures it is reasonable to expect differences of opinions on many issues including abortion, shouldn't those views be reflected on the SWC committee? This incident makes a total mockery of the inclusiveness and diversity rhetoric being espoused. Aren't there feminists who disagree with abortion? If Harder is kicked off the committee then how can the feminist movement claim that they represent all women. 

Does the SWC represent the views of all Canadian women or it is a left wing clique as its critics have claimed? This is a valid argument, ever since the REAL Women controversy in the 1980's. Why is this POV being given a total monopoly and $110M in annual funding? If the SWC does not represent the views of all Canadian women, shouldn't other groups from across the spectrum be allowed to cash in on funding and representation as well.....this goes back to diversity of opinion. According to the ipolitics article, 27% of Canadians support the status quo and 5% are pro-lifers, if that is true then neither group should have a monopoly on opinion and a variety of views on abortion must be included, it also means that 73% of Canadians are critical of the current (undemocratic) status quo. Can we assume that there is debate and discussion on the SWC committee on issues besides abortion, due to the nature of our multiparty system. If that is the case then why is one view on abortion permitted? It is very arrogant to presume that women share the same views on abortion or any other subject for that matter."

Liberals and NDPs acting out

Date: Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 5:33 PM

Subject: Anti-democratic behaviour by some MPs

To: Pam.Damoff@parl.gc.ca, Sheila.Malcolmson@parl.gc.ca, Terry.Duguid@parl.gc.ca, Sean.Fraser@parl.gc.ca, Rachael.Harder@parl.gc.ca, Bernadette.Jordan@parl.gc.ca, Emmanuella.Lambropoulos@parl.gc.ca, Eva.Nassif@parl.gc.ca, Marc.Serre@parl.gc.ca, Martin.Shields@parl.gc.ca, Karen.Vecchio@parl.gc.ca
Cc: Mona.Fortier@parl.gc.ca, justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca, andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca

Dear members of the committee for the Status of Women,

Your decision to walk out of the meeting to elect the Chair and vow to not return until an alternate Chair was named tells me some interesting things.

First of all, this was rude and childish, not exactly an example of maturity. It was also the behaviour of a schoolyard bully.

Second, it is the behaviour of someone who doesn't adhere to our core principles of democracy. Every time we don't like the personal views of someone, do we react by walking out on them? What about having a conversation and exchanging ideas like adults?

Third, there are millions of pro-life women in this country. I am one of them and know many, many others. Who speaks for us when you are so willing to shut down a woman who shares our views? In the Liberal and NDP parties there are plenty of MPs who speak for the pro-choice people. We are also Canadian citizens yet we are not allowed to have any representation in Parliament who speak for us. Why is that?

Fourth, what kind of example does it set for young women who might aspire to politics? Why would they ever aspire to that calling, knowing they can be prevented from having views that are deemed unacceptable? Is this the example we want to share with our young women? I hope not.

Fifth, as a Canadian citizen who pays your salaries, I expect better from you. I expect you to represent all Canadian women, not only those who you agree with.

Sixth, remember the days when women were bullied by men? And now we are free to bully our own because we don't all share the same views? Is this what we've come to? We didn't learn much did we?

Finally, this behaviour is just down right embarrassing to me. It is embarrassing to me as a woman, as a Canadian citizen, as a tax payer, and as a lover of democracy.

I wonder. How would you feel if the same thing happened to you?

Thank you.

Sincerely

Patricia Maloney

Why was this column in the Toronto Star even published?

I don't get it. This article by Emma Teitel in the Star is based on the now proven to be false statement that Andrew Scheer referred to a same-sex marriage bill as “abhorrent.” In fact at the very top of the article the Star published a correction to the article whose entire premise begins with a false allegation.

"Correction – June 1, 2017: This column mistakenly states that Andrew Scheer referred to same-sex marriage bill as“abhorrent.” In fact, Scheer’s statement referred to the treatment of Roman Catholic Bishop Fred Henry being called before a Human Rights Tribunal for speaking out about the Catholic Church’s position on same-sex marriage. In his speech, Scheer said: “To think that a Catholic bishop must answer to a civil authority over matters of faith is abominable. It is abhorrent to me, to other Catholics and to every member of every faith community. It is abhorrent because the very essence of being a religious official is to teach the faith and instruct the faithful. There is an inherent right for religious officials to do so.”

So why did the Star publish the article at all? Is it because it's just too much fun to trash social conservatives?

Now I don't usually read the Star but Michael Coren--now a good friend of the Star--tweeted it. Coren thought it was a "very good column".

Can a column be very good when it's based on a falsehood? What am I missing here?

Michael Coren earns his liberal creds

By Patricia Maloney

Brian Lilley interviews the new Conservative leader Andrew Scheer. Scheer isn't scary. Really.

Unlike Justin Trudeau who bans pro-life people from his party, Andrew Scheer, and in fact all Conservatives, don't ban any group from their party. Social conservatives are welcome. Fiscal conservatives are welcome. Even Libertarian Maxime Bernier is welcome. Heck Bernier almost won. A real big tent party. Not the Liberals. They pretend they are inclusive when they're exclusive. The Liberals are inclusive only as long as you are not pro-life.

Of course I also expected our Liberal media to be all over Andrew Scheer since he is pro-life. And I wasn't disappointed. The first piece I read by our liberal media was Michael Coren, who has now made his transition complete to being a full fledged member of the liberal media.

You see, a lot more work comes your way when you belong to the pro-choice media.

Coren attempts to analyze Scheer 's becoming leader in light of the fact that he is a social conservative. This  of course gives Coren a nice sounding board to trash social conservatives who he says are neither "sensible" nor "informed". And of course Coren buys into the mandatory fable no good liberal can be without: "woman's right to control her own body". No Michael the unborn child is another person's body though I'm pretty sure you know that.

"Most sensible and informed people in Canada believe in a woman’s right to control her own body and reproduction, and even those who may have some moral reservations about abortion accept the legal and political status quo.

And this:

"In other words, the argument is over."

Another pro-choice fallacy.

And what else are we according to Coren?

Fringe, irrelevant, eccentric, mostly ignored, zealots and hysterical.

He calls us "pro-lifers" in quotes. Is it because Coren thinks he's picking up a soiled piece of trash and has to hold his nose? And for the cherry on top Coren takes a pot shot at Roman Catholics (who he used to be) and Dutch Calvinist Churches.

"Members of this movement are usually Roman Catholic or from one of the various Dutch Calvinist churches; they are generally young, often with a home-schooled or private Christian education background; they are politically right wing on a number of causes; and they have jettisoned the moderation of some of their elders, and also learned lessons from “pro-lifers” south of the border."

Yep. Coren's transition is complete.

Pro-life and freedom of speech win

I think an important result of Parliamentary Speaker Andrew Scheer's ruling this week has been the civics lesson learned. It taught us how our Parliamentary system is supposed to work, but hasn't been:
"Andrew Scheer, the Speaker of the House of Commons, has made a potentially landmark ruling on MPs’ freedom of speech that could stem the flow of power from the backbench to party hierarchies, in defiance of the wishes his party leader, Stephen Harper...the Speaker brought down his ruling on the breach of privilege issue involving MP Mark Warawa’s right to talk about sex-selective abortion in a members’ statement."

I had never really understood that our MPs ability to freely speak up in the House of Commons, didn't actually exist. I had always thought they were free to speak--until this happened. I learned that it was actually the party whips who were controlling MP's ability to speak. Unlike the Parliamentary system in the UK, where MPs can speak freely, (as long as they stand up and are recognized by the Speaker) our MPs could not.

Our practice had begun when Speaker Jeanne Sauve started asking for lists of MP names from the parties, since she apparently couldn't remember the names of the MPs and their ridings. Seemed to make sense at the time, until the implications of that practice were fully realized with Mark Warawa's Motion.

For instance Maurice Vellacott, an outspoken pro-life advocate only spoke twice, while Quebec MP Jacques Gourde spoke 35 times in the House:
"Mr. Scheer "acknowledged that members who complain they are rarely on their party’s list have a “legitimate concern.” An analysis of members’ statements, for example, suggests that 10% of Conservative backbenchers delivered 28% of the members’ statements in the last year, with Quebec MP Jacques Gourde giving 35 statements (mostly pushing party messages) and Saskatchewan MP Maurice Vellacott delivering just two."

Justin Trudeau's then brought forward his own free speech Motion:
"That is why we are tabling this motion to open up Parliament and allow all MPs to speak freely on behalf of their communities.”

But it looks like this motion was purely for political reasons. While it seems like his Motion was about free speech, Mr. Trudeau had also stated to a CBC reporter that he was:
"Committed to giving MPs more freedom to represent Canadians, but MPs would be required to support Canadians’ fundamental rights. For me, a woman's right to choose is a fundamental right."

This sounds like his motion would exclude any abortion talk. I sent Mr. Trudeau an email asking him to "clarify for me whether or not, you would allow an MP to use their Member Statement (SO31) to speak out against abortion?"

Because, if Mr. Trudeau really believes that abortion is a constitutional right (which of course it isn't), then he must be excluding it from his free speech motion, right? Since he still hasn't replied to me, I can only conclude that abortion would be excluded. He can certainly correct me if I'm wrong.

The can't-talk-about-abortion-virus started with Mr. Harper, then spread into Parliament, then into most of the mainstream media, then into our democratic practices, then all the way over into one of the most right wing talk show hosts in this country, Lowell Green. Even Mr. Green won't let listeners discuss abortion on his show. We know the can't-talk-about-abortion-virus must be pretty deadly when Mr. Green--the man who says listeners can speak on any topic--won't allow abortion discussion.

The abortion debate is important yes, but freedom of speech is fundamental to its ultimate success. On this we have scored an important win.

If Mr. Harper hadn't insisted on not letting Mr. Warawa speak, none of this would have happened, and Mr. Harper's iron fist squeeze on MPs ability to speak freely would have been maintained. As it is, we learned a valuable civics lesson by all the attention Mr. Warawa's Motion has inspired and the resulting ruling by the Speaker.

We must thank Mr. Scheer for his principled ruling. And a very special thank you to Mr. Harper for making it all possible.