The story so far…
By vetoing the Keystone pipeline, Obama thinks he has Canada on the ropes and has gained a voter base.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16
TransCanada Corp may build a US$2-billion southern portion of its Keystone XL oil pipeline first following the initial rejection of the full-blown project, which would mesh with one of U.S. President Barack Obama’s goals but put it in direct competition with another major proposal.
Harper? Kenney? McKay? Let’s hear the rest of the story about our would-be major oil-importers versus our natural ally to the south (currently crazied by eco-nitwits and $oro$ and Obamunism), before we give in any more to folks who are stealing, buying, lying, and seeking to enslave us to their geopolitical future.It would be more than disappointing if Chinese Canadians– feeling a certain loyalty to their homeland, or a worry over racism– were to merely dismiss such concerns. The first issue is Truth, and Canadian economic and political freedoms. They, in particular, know the inside of their local mini-culture, the presence of organized crime, or possible eco-industrials spies.
Is he right because he is Binks or is he Binks because he is right?
By supporting tyrants across the Middle East, Russia accomplishes multiple objectives. It takes a stand against the spread of democracy protests, thus immunizing its own domestic scene against such outbursts. It destabilizes the Middle East, roiling oil markets and helping to fill Russian coffers with cash as the price of crude soars. And it undermines American influence, sending a clear message that if the United States does not play ball, it will face increased terrorism and uncertainty abroad.
Russia has always positioned itself in opposition to the United States, even after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Now, it would gladly weaken the stability the US brings to the globe, something Obama cannot entirely achieve single-handedly.
In China, under the massive violation of human rights known as the one-child policy, abortion is rampant. The sex selection problem has produced frightening imbalances. A 2009 paper by Therese Hesketh estimated that there are 32 million more men than women under the age of 20 in China. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences has estimated that by 2020 some 24 million Chinese men will not be able to find wives. Forced prostitution, or sex slavery, is on the rise. Elderly people, often reliant upon their daughters for care, are more frequently abandoned. It is a social catastrophe that will soon have severe economic consequences.
Yet all this has been known for a long while. The world has more or less gotten used to it, and it is almost never raised as a matter of international concern. Particularly notable for their lack of interest is the abortion-rights community in the West, which seems willing to sacrifice literally millions of little girls in service of the abortion licence.
The editorial that sparked this week’s debate was written by Dr. Rajendra Kale, interim editor-in-chief of the Canadian Medical Association Journal. His editorials are expansive in scope. He has called on all doctors to support stiffer penalties for head injuries in hockey. He has argued that parking fees at hospitals are the equivalent of user fees for medical service, and therefore contrary to the Canada Health Act. He will find that he is likely to make more progress on head injuries and free parking than on sex selection and abortion. The world has known about it a long time. It just doesn’t care.
You’ll have to wade through the usual retarded crap (everything from the Church is murderous to the burning witches at the stake to women as seen as lesser beings and some amazingly "pro-choice" historical revisionist crap about Canada's founding) about the Catholic Church before you get to this little gem:
I'm no fan of the Catholic Church but I find it rather disappointing that so many posters here are more concerned with the fact that a Catholic priest wrote the article than the actual arguments he makes. In civilized debate it is normally expected that one will avoid ad hominum attacks and focus on the points being made.
That being said, the issue of sex-selective abortion puts pro-choice people in a tough place logically. If they argue that female fetuses shouldn't be targeted like this, as some feminists might argue, then they are coming awfully close to acknowledging that some fetuses (female ones at least) have a right to life. This of course is exactly what pro-lifers have argued all along although they would include male fetuses.
If on the other hand, they argue that women should have the final say as to whether the female fetuses live or die, then they are practically admitting that female fetuses have less right to live than male ones because they are less useful to the parents who abort them. I doubt that many feminists would be happy with that concept.
Why tackle the barbarity of abortion, backward misogynistic practices, the failure of multiculturalism or even sticking to limits of the debate when you can just attack the guy who wrote because he is a priest? That’s why this response is priceless. It addresses the troglodytes’ rabid anti-Catholicism and their failure to address the content in the article and then proceeds to give or her opinion. But, please, antediluvian wags, focus on the man with the collar. Apparently this article is all about him.
Watch this smackdown:
There is no defending Gingrich’s personal peccadilloes but what he did in the past is not even the point. Such an initial question serves the purpose of painting a prospective presidential candidate in the worst possible light not because the electorate is truly bothered by it but because the incumbent is an incredibly weak one. This is the same tactic used on Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum and now Newt Gingrich. It's deplorable and the popular press knows it.
The Catholic Bishops of the United States called “literally unconscionable” a decision by the Obama Administration to continue to demand that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans. Today’s announcement means that this mandate and its very narrow exemption will not change at all; instead there will only be a delay in enforcement against some employers.“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The cardinal-designate continued, “To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable. It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty.”
The HHS rule requires that sterilization and contraception — including controversial abortifacients — be included among “preventive services” coverage in almost every healthcare plan available to Americans. “The government should not force Americans to act as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented at all costs,” added Cardinal-designate Dolan.
Now, if the Puritans who hate Christmas, Catholics and children would just put those things aside for a minute and explain why the Obama administration is demanding the inclusion of eugenics programs in healthcare plans.
Today the wealthiest nations in human history build cruise ships rather than battleships, vast floating palaces dedicated to the good life – to the proposition that, in the plump and complacent West, life itself is a cruise, sailing (as the Concordia's name suggests) on a placid lake of peace and harmony. Since the economic downturn of 2008, the Titanic metaphor – of a Western world steaming for the iceberg but unable to correct course – has become a little overworked, the easiest cliché for any politician attempting to project urgency. But let's assume they're correct, and we're heading full steam for the big 'berg. When we hit, what's the likelihood? That our response will be as ordered and civilized as those on the Titanic? Or that we will descend into the hell of the Concordia?
The contempt for "women and children first" is not a small loss. For soft cultures in good times, dispensing with social norms is easy. In hard times, you may have need of them.