These people are not honourable

John Robson can't vote Conservative and neither can I.

"...Harper wrote his 1991 master’s thesis on “public choice” theory that, as his abstract put it, “policymakers are motivated by political goals, in particular electoral goals, rather than the social optima assumed by traditional macroeconomic policy prescriptions.” As a Reform MP and National Citizens’ Coalition president, he understood this to be a warning. Now he treats it as an operating manual. 

Power has corrupted him and his party. I wrote nearly two years ago that Harper is unfit for office because he lied to Parliament over the Wright-Duffy affair, insolently telling incompatible tales five days apart in October 2013, and lying about having contradicted himself. 

Instead of recoiling from this cynical deceit, his party enthusiastically embraced it. If they think him worthy of public trust, they aren’t either. 

It doesn’t matter where you look. The Tories talk tough in foreign affairs and praise the military. But they gut defence to fund cynical handouts. They rope in the rubes by feigning concern about traditional marriage, abortion and God. But they do nothing. Indeed, when Health Canada approved the abortion drug RU-486, this administration, which takes credit for every sparrow that takes wing in Canada, suddenly hid under the bed. 

Justice Minister Peter MacKay told reporters to talk to Health Minister Rona Ambrose. Ambrose passed the buck to Health Canada. Jason Kenney said nothing. (MP David Anderson condemned the decision but declined to be interviewed.) 

These people are not honourable. Indeed, they laugh at honour. They cherish the low blow, the devious tactic, the unprincipled bribe, in a relentless, sneering, partisan tone. People I know and like retweet Pierre Poilievre with vicious glee. I weep for them and my country..."

I'm hoping for a Christian Heritage candidate in my riding. Because also like Robson, I also can't vote Liberal and I can't vote NDP.

CHP Leader Calls on Harper to Protect Children From Radical Bureaucrats

Thu, July 30, 2015   |   Author: Rod Taylor   |     

Responding to yesterday’s announcement that Health Canada has approved the controversial abortifacient drug RU-486 (mifepristone), Christian Heritage Party leader, Rod Taylor, says it’s time for Prime Minister Harper and Health Minister Rona Ambrose to rein in bureaucrats who are implementing a radical social agenda with the apparent consent or approval of the government.

“This is just the latest breach of public trust that puts children at risk”, said Taylor, “in this case, pre-born infants, who are already under siege in Canada where there is no law to protect them right up to the moment of birth. The PM and the Health Minister surely knew this announcement was coming and if not they should have known. The debate over RU-486, which not only kills tiny babies but carries significant health risks for the unsuspecting women who use it, has been raging long and loud. For Health Canada to make this announcement on the eve of a federal election must be seen as a calculated move by this government to cater to the poor-choice lobby in hopes of retaining their collapsing grip on power. It won’t work of course; it never does. Those who compromise principles for power and sacrifice lives for personal advantage will find no respect, even from those they seek to please.”

The CHP leader said the Health Minister and the PM “certainly have a duty to protect children—born and pre-born—from anything which puts their lives and health at risk”. He expressed agreement with Mike Schouten, Director of WeNeedALaw, that the Health Minister should immediately issue an Interim Order suspending the decision of Health Canada. Taylor said that pro-lifers must hold the government to account if it will not act:

“The Minister cannot hide behind an arms-length approach. She has a solemn responsibility to protect children. The fact that 14 women have died in the US as a result of using RU-486 gives even more reason for Canadians to be alarmed and incensed that a government department designed to promote health should instead be used to implement death. Pregnancy is not a disease and RU-486 is not a cure. It is another money-grab by Big Pharma at the expense of innocent and trusting Canadians. We ask the PM and the Health Minister to act responsibly and prevent the tragic loss of life that will surely result from the public distribution of RU-486 in Canada”.

Taylor also called on incumbent Conservative MPs and aspiring Conservative candidates to use their influence—publicly and privately—to have Health Canada’s RU-486 approval put on hold. “Now is no time to remain silent”, he said. “Across the country, government ministers and MPs are busy making very showy displays of handing out taxpayer money to a variety of causes and projects in hopes of generating voter support at the polls. For government MPs and Conservative candidates to turn a blind eye to this blatant abuse of power would be shameful. Speak up! Now is the time to take a stand in defence of life and justice!”

The Christian Heritage Party of Canada is the only federal party committed to the “protection of innocent human life from conception until natural death”.

What Feminism and Liberalism have done for women

Lucinda Creighton was Fine Gael TD in Ireland. Up until today that is.

(TD stands for Teachta Dála, and is a member of Dáil Éireann, the lower house of the Oireachtas, the Irish Parliament).

She said:

"When a politician in good conscience promises matter and on such a fundamental issue, she could not in conscience support what was proposed."

Ms. Creighton voted against a section of her party's Bill, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy. The section was on the risk of loss of life from suicide. She was automatically expelled from her party. She had been a member of Fine Gael since she was 18. She is now 33.

She had an amazing speech before the vote that is well worth the read. Here is only a small part of that speech:

"...I have never regarded myself as a pro-life campaigner. I was not motivated to become active in politics because of the abortion issue. In fact I have spoken previously about the fact that I held a very different view on this matter when I was a student.

However, after much reflection, my views have evolved over the years; as I learned more about the topic, as I came in contact with friends and family affected by abortion, and as I matured and developed my own independent analysis of this most sensitive topic.

Crucially for me I stepped outside the “groupthink” which I genuinely believe dominates this debate in Ireland. It seems that if you do not succumb to the accepted view that abortion is a “liberal issue”, a “women’s rights issue”, a cornerstone of the “progressive agenda”, then you are deemed to be a backward, illiberal, Neanderthal fundamentalist who belongs to a different era. The distinct irony of this prevailing view, is that it is so illiberal in its intolerance of any alternative outlook.

Yet, when one steps back from the stifling groupthink, and reflects, I think one arrives at a different view. I am a woman and I am happy to say that I am also very much in favour of women’s rights. But by that I mean all women. Not just adults or adolescents or children – I mean babies too.

The sad reality, as we look around the globe at how women’s rights are advocated, promoted and defended, it is clear to me that abortion is in fact, often a tool for the oppression of women.

Look at China, India, Korea and indeed some parts of Europe and the United States. The societal preference for boys over girls has led to the obliteration of tens of millions of baby girls who were simply never born. A famous feature carried by the Economist magazine in 2010 showed just how females are discriminated against in this age of abortion.

One paragraph from that edition of the Economist jumped out at me and frightened me:

Until the 1980s people in poor countries could do little about this preference: before birth, nature took its course. But in that decade, ultrasound scanning and other methods of detecting the sex of a child before birth began to make their appearance. These technologies changed everything. Doctors in India started advertising ultrasound scans with the slogan “Pay 5,000 rupees ($110) today and save 50,000 rupees tomorrow” (the saving was on the cost of a daughter’s dowry). Parents who wanted a son, but balked at killing baby daughters, chose abortion in their millions.

It would be bizarre if we, as legislators and hopefully, as thinkers, did not ask the obvious question “What is the net difference” between such screening followed by intentional gender-based abortion, and the intentional killing of that baby after delivery? The answer is of course none.

The net effect is exactly the same, which is to say that an innocent baby, is simply wiped out. The scale of this exercise is such that in China, by the year 2020, there will be 30-40 million less women than men walking the earth, growing up, having families, going to work and generally contributing to society . 30-40 million less women is hardly a triumph for feminism or liberalism..."

The woman lost her high-profile political job, because she had to be true to her beliefs.

Here is her statement after losing her job:

“I am deeply disappointed to have to vote against the Government’s abortion Bill today. I never wished or expected to be expelled from the Fine Gael parliamentary party. This is the party I have worked for unstintingly since I was 18 years old. I will, of course, continue to be a Fine Gael member.

I feel deeply and strongly that aspects of this Bill are based on flawed logic and absolutely zero medical evidence. I could not vote for it, particularly in light of Fine Gael’s clear commitment not to introduce abortion prior to the last election. Promises matter in politics, but particularly in relation to matters of life and death. This is a promise I could not renege on in any circumstances.

I believe that I have made the correct decision."

Quite the courageous person. Quite the courageous, young female political person, who also just happened to be a Minister. What a great example for Canadian female MPs.

How Canadians can ban late-term abortions

LiveAction goes undercover again, this time in America's late-term abortion industry.

Notice how the abortion doctor continually calls the unborn child "the pregnancy". And she seems to have no problem in going ahead and aborting the 27 week old baby.



But there is something else noteworthy in this video. It is that two congresswomen stand up and speak out very openly and forcefully against abortion.

Republican Diane Black says:

"there is undisputed scientific evidence that babies over 20 weeks and over gestation can feel pain and that late-term abortion can impose severe health risks also for the mother...There is no federal law to protect pain capable unborn children or their mothers by restricting late-term abortions."

Republican Ann Wagner says:

"Everyone talks about the right to choose, but no-one discusses the implications of that choice."

Those are two gutsy women.

Why do we so infrequently have Canadian MPs speaking out against late-term abortion? Is it because our Prime Minister muzzles them? Is it because the pro-abortions will draw and quarter them? Or is it both these reasons?

We know what happened when Rona Ambrose spoke out in favour of Motion 312.

NDP MP Libies Davies actually said that Ms. Ambrose "betrayed the women of this country."

And Joyce Arthur said Ms. Ambrose "threw women under the bus".

One can easily see why our pro-life MPs (especially female ones) are very reticent in speaking out for women and their pre-born children. They know as soon as they say anything on the subject, they will be publicly humiliated by these extreme feminists.

Motion 312 was a Motion to call for a Parliamentary committee to study when a child becomes a human being. What part of that Motion exactly, betrays women and throws them under the bus I ask you?

Between 60 and 77% of Canadians believe late-term abortions should be banned.

There isn't a whole lot we can do about pro-abortion extremists except ignore them.

But there is something we can do about Mr. Harper.

It's time for the Conservatives to call a leadership review.

Putting the opposition in its place

This. Is disturbing. On a couple of levels:
“The concern about Mr. Warawa’s motion is that the opposition has positioned it as an issue about abortion so it becomes a very divisive issue. I haven’t decided but I will probably vote with the cabinet which is going to be voting against it, only because it has been set up that way.”

Minister Rona Ambrose said this regarding Mark Warawa's motion to condemn “discrimination against females, occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.”

The most obvious reason Ms. Ambrose's statement is troubling, is because how can anyone not condemn sex-selection abortion? Just yesterday Mr. Harper issued a press release that said:
"Our Government supports grassroots organizations across the country for community projects aimed at ending violence against women and girls. These include initiatives addressing violence against women in four key areas: violence committed in the name of so-called ‘honour’; the trafficking of women and girls; women and girls in high-risk neighbourhoods; and engaging men and boys..."

We also know that Mr. Harper has stated that his government will not support the Motion.

Yet our Government says they are against violence against women and girls, but can't bring themselves to condemn violence against girl babies before they are born. This makes no sense.

The second reason Ms. Ambrose statement is of concern is this part:
"The concern about Mr. Warawa’s motion is that the opposition has positioned it as an issue about abortion so it becomes a very divisive issue."

Of course the opposition has positioned the Motion as an issue about abortion, this is what the opposition does. Whenever they can make anything an issue about abortion, they do it. And it's divisive because we play into the opposition's fear mongering and allow them to bully us into feeling threatened by the motion, making the motion something that it clearly isn't. When the opposition goes into attack mode on any other issue in this country, do we then say: "Oh dear, I better not vote for something that makes perfect sense because the opposition won't like it"?

Is that how our Cabinet Ministers work in Parliament? Become afraid of voting a particular way because the opposition will make it "divisive"? No it isn't. At least it isn't for any other topic. Only topics that pertain to pre-born children, get this special treatment.

I hope that Ms. Ambrose and all of the cabinet, including Mr. Harper, will look at the Motion and vote with their conscience, and not vote in a way that kowtows to the shrillness of the opposition who imagines things that are not even there.

When some women think they speak for all women

There is a funny thing that goes on in this country, where the so-called feminists think they speak for all women, when clearly they don't, but that doesn't stop them from saying they do, and really, you know, it gets kind of boring.

So, Like Naomi Lakritz, who does a fine piece on  MP Rona Ambrose, I also:
"didn't ask [NDP deputy leader Libby] Davies to speak on my behalf, and I don't feel betrayed in any way, so I don't appreciate being lumped into the grey bloc conveniently labelled "Canadian women."

I am a Canadian woman and those women do not speak for me now, they didn't speak for me before, and they definitely won't speak for me later. They simply do not have a corner on speaking for Canadian women.

So please. Can you do us all a favour? Get over yourselves.