Abortion Assisted Suicide Science Social Issues

We are become Death

Dave 07A few days ago it was reported that as doctor assisted suicide becomes more popular, it will save Canada’s health care system millions of dollars a year. So I had a bit of an online discussion about it, and pointed out that in Belgium and the Netherlands the assistance has not always been requested by the patient, and is therefore, technically, murder. But apparently it’s okay. Nobody is arrested, and it does save money on health care.

I also suggested that the elderly and infirm will increasingly be pressured to check out early and make their beds available for others. If you don’t think that’s coming, you’re naïve.

Now there’s a new Global TV series called: “Mary kills People.” Mary’s a very good ER doctor, but she also has a sideline; helping people commit suicide. The concerning thing is that the show apparently presents the issue in both a serious and lighthearted manner. For example, entertainment writer Bill Harris describes the following scene.

“Mary and her partner in crime Des are helping a terminally ill ex-football player take his own life. Rather than receiving an injection he is given a drug cocktail to drink so that he is the one who technically is committing the act.”

Harris describes the scene further: “But there’s a sharp change in tone that occurs quite quickly. Suddenly it’s almost slapstick. The ex-football player’s wife comes home unexpectedly and the frazzled Mary and Des scurry out onto the balcony to avoid detection, as if it were a caper comedy.”

So that’s the strategy. Make assisted suicide a joke and people will get used to the idea. After all, only a stick in the mud would get upset about a joke.

We’ve seen this same bait and switch strategy throughout the abortion debate. The fetus is part of the woman’s body. Desperate women are already having abortions, so why not make them legal? Doctors can be counted on to provide abortions only to those women who had been raped, or to save the life of the mother. And, abortions will be rare.

Part of the woman’s body? We now know, scientifically speaking that from conception on, the baby has a separate DNA. Within a few weeks, it has a heartbeat. It has its own blood type. At no time in the continuum of pregnancy is the fetus a part of the woman’s body. It is nourished by the woman’s body, and evolution or creation has obviously planned that it’s to be protected by the woman’s body, but it a separate individual.

Rare? Since the famous 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe V Wade, over 50 million abortions have been performed in the United States, and a disproportionate number of them were performed on African-Americans. Black lives matter?

In Québec, which is struggling with a birth rate well below population replacement levels, about 30,000 unborn little Quebecois’ are terminated, each year. In total, Canada aborts around 100,000 annually.

cecile-richards-ppNecessary? It’s estimated that less than 10% of abortions are performed because of rape or medical necessity. If you don’t believe me watch from minute 7 to 9 of this interview in which Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards describes her own abortion, which she says clearly, was for convenience.

In 2013 I blogged about gender selective abortions. Where are the missing girls?

I doubt that either assisted suicide, or abortion, will ever be eliminated from human society. But by any measure, a decent society will ensure that it is indeed rare; at least, arguably necessary; and above all, taken seriously. Could we please have the conversation?


Dave Reesor

Conservatarians Politics Social Issues Socialism The left Uncategorized US Politics

That Hopey Changey Thing

Dave 07In a December interview, Michelle Obama bemoaned the upcoming Trump presidency, and, as she saw it, the end of hope. She said: “Hope is necessary. It’s a necessary concept and Barack didn’t just talk about hope because he thought it was just a nice slogan to get votes. He and I and so many believe that.”

And then she asked, rhetorically: “What else do you have if you don’t have hope.”

Well, change maybe? Wasn’t that really what Obama was supposed to be about; “change that you can believe in”?

There was change all right. Libya has become a failed state thanks to the Obama/Clinton State Department; an emboldened Vladimir Putin threatens former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe; “Junior Varsity” ISIS  – as characterized by Obama – spreads terror around the world; hundreds of thousands have died in Syria, and Europe is overwhelmed with refugees. That’s the international scene.

There was change at home as well. Millions more now have healthcare, but they’re offset by the millions losing their health care; murderous mayhem rages in the cities with the tightest gun control regulations; race relations have worsened, and there’s a cool 10 trillion in new US federal debt. You’re welcome Millennial’s. You’ll be paying that off for the rest of your lives.

Mich Obama.pngI doubt if that’s change you can believe in but it’s change that happened. Of course Ms. Obama was actually bemoaning the death of  her hopes for an uninterrupted left wing agenda. I suspect that for the next four years at least, that is indeed a forlorn hope.

But for the millions of Deplorables  who voted for Donald Trump, it appears that hope has been rekindled, and is very much alive. It’s a fool’s game to analyze the Trump Administration  five days in, but I’d say it’s quite sane to predict that there will be “yuge” change. Let’s hope that the change this time is positive; commonsensical and sustainable. Everyone should believe in that!

I encourage you to Like, and Share us on Facebook, and Follow us on Twitter.

And if you believe, as I do, that the common sense conservative message is often ineffectively communicated, especially to our children and grandchildren, then let’s do it better. We’re still getting set up to produce very brief but relevant videos, to be delivered to you and your Millennials,  via the Internet and social media. As you can imagine, there is ongoing expense involved.

So please JOIN us, and become a member of the Let’s Do It Ourselves community. If you’re one of the 350,000 Albertans who voted Wildrose two years ago, this community is for you. If you  voted for the Conservative Party of Canada in 2015, or voted Republican last November, the LDIO™ community is for you and your Millennials!

We’re strictly membership-based, and the cost is just $5 a month, or less. With just 500 more members, we will be able to produce at least one video per week. Someday, your children and grandchildren will thank you!

Best to each of you!

Dave Reesor

Big Government Self reliance Social Issues The left Uncategorized

Left – Right – Left – Right

Dave 07When discussing politics we often frame the conversation in terms of left and right, progressive and conservative, socialist and capitalist. What do we mean by those terms? It’s important, because unless we more or less agree on the definition of something, there’s no way we can have a meaningful conversation.

A friend told me that Karl Marx created the word “socialism” to describe just one of the stages of communism. He insists that at present there are no socialist, and certainly no communist governments in Canada, the United States, or Europe; only Social Democrat governments that do not attempt to own the means of production, but try to direct the economy through regulation and taxation. If Alberta’s NDP is Social Democratic, they sure do!

Socialist governments, on the other hand, actually nationalize industries, and then, in theory at least, distribute the resulting wealth equitably to all the citizens. The economic chaos in Venezuela illustrates  just how well that works. As Hungarian economist Janos Kornai observed; shortages are the chronic problem with socialism.

Communists just take over and imprison or liquidate anyone who objects, including 70 million or so in the last century.

Communism, Socialism, and Social Democracies are all parts of “The Left.” And by the way, so were the Nazis. The word, Nazi, comes from National Socialist, and the Nazis actively coerced businesses, and citizens, into supporting the objectives of the state.

Conservatives in all their iterations are referred to as “The Right.” Conservatives believe that individuals have the first responsibility, and the right, to decide how to look after themselves, their families, the less fortunate, and their own interests. They also believe in sensibly regulated capitalism, and free enterprise.

True conservatives are in agreement with the left in their opposition to crony capitalism, and corporate welfare.

On social issues, Leftists believe that government appointed “experts” must be allowed to intervene to help citizens run their lives. In practice, it leads to the slavery of dependency, and it distracts governments from doing well, those things which only governments can, and must do.

The left seems to believe that an economy is a zero-sum game. If someone gains, someone else must lose. But in the past 30 years, capitalism and cheap energy from fossil fuels have added so much new wealth to developing countries that extreme poverty has dropped from 35% to under 10%. That sounds like a win win to me.

On the social side, most conservatives do not nonchalantly abandon long-established customs, unless those customs interfere with another persons human rights. We are certainly born with a predetermined colour, sex, etc., but how we live out that reality is based on our choices. It requires a remarkable level of hubris to demand that our choices should override another persons fundamental rights and freedoms; property rights, assembly, speech, and religion.

Left and Right have fundamentally different and opposing world views. The right believes that the individual, family and community are preeminent; the left believes that a citizens first allegiance is to the the state. When we talk to each other, we need to remember that difference.

Being of the Right, I would tend to agree with Winston Churchill who famously suggested that Christopher Columbus was probably the first socialist. “He left not knowing where he was going; didn’t know where he was when he arrived; and he did it all on borrowed money.”

Next week, Red vs. Redneck; an online debate.

Like and Share us on Facebook, and Follow us on Twitter. And JOIN US, and become a member of the Let’s Do It Ourselves community. If you believe, as I do, that the common sense conservative message is often poorly communicated, especially to our children and grandchildren, then let’s do it better.

We want to encapsulate basic conservative ideas in short, and relevant videos, and deliver them on social media. As you can imagine, that requires money; not much, but a little. Here’s the link to a video we produced just to give you an idea of what I mean.

Thank you!

Dave Reesor

Canadian Politics Social Issues

The Politics of the Niqab

Dave 07

It’s hard to believe that a head covering can become an issue in an election campaign, but the Niqab has managed to do it.

Newspapers carry a couple of articles each day, usually opposing the Conservatives in their opposition to wearing the Niqab during the Canadian citizenship ceremony, and it comes up in every party leader’s debate.

Earlier this week, Barbara Kay wrote an excellent National Post article on 10 reasons to ban the Niqab, and I agree with most of them. However I’d like to propose an overriding principle that suggests we should allow the Niqab, and that principle is tolerance.

I wrote a blog last Canada Day called: “Pursuing Tolerance, or why I believe in the Niqab. A few months of reflection has made me realize that the second phrase should have read: “or why I’m prepared to put up with the Niqab.” I am quite aware that that stance will still put me offside with the vast majority of Canadians, including a whole lot of Muslims. So be it.

Many people in our society understand tolerance to mean affirmation of an idea or practice, when in fact it simply means putting up with them. As a Canadian, I’m prepared to put up with, or tolerate, many ideas or practices that I find stupid, ill advised, indefensible, obnoxious, or even, intolerant. I view wearing the Niqab and Burqa to be all of the above.

And as such, I believe they are a valuable reminder to all Canadians of the inferiority of Muslim societies to Canadian society. That’s why most Muslims move here.

But that’s not the main reason I support allowing a woman to wear a face covering during the citizenship ceremony, provided, that she is identified, open face, by a court official prior to the ceremony, as is the current practice.

It’s because I too have some beliefs and associations that some would and do find obnoxious, and some actually find intolerable. Here’s just one illustration.

Most of our eight grandchildren have, at one time or another attended a Christian Charter school. I support that, and I also support public education dollars following the students to those schools.

Our children pay provincial education tax, exactly like the family next door. Yet some people – including some politicians – insist that our children must pay education taxes to support the public school system, plus pay the full cost of educating their own children. That’s discrimination built on a foundation of intolerance.

Christian schools approach education from a particular philosophical worldview, but then, all schools do. The schools our grandchildren attended are open to all students of any or no religion, and they adhere to the provincial curriculum. Studies also show that most faith based schools produce at least as well educated and socialized students as regular (secular) schools.

Unfortunately, there are many more glaring examples of intolerance in Canadian society. Think of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s barring – by fiat – all those who do not agree with his pro-abortion stance, from running as Liberal candidates. Canadian universities now routinely bar speakers whose views do not accord with the (usually) left-wing stance of the administration or the student council; and some Canadian law societies feel they have the right to dictate the social values of law schools.

I’m not prepared to spend moral capital by refusing to tolerate the Niqab when there are far more fundamental battles to be fought.

NiqabSo far in Canada, the Niqab has been little more than an eyesore. But I want to be perfectly clear, that the moment that a Niqab or Burqa is used as a disguise in the commission of a major violent crime, or a terrorist act, the game will have changed.

By having tolerated the Niqab for 30 seconds during a citizenship ceremony, Canadian society will have amassed the moral capital to ban it outright should it be found to present a danger to society.

And finally, we don’t need to provide the radical fringe with martyrs. Forcing a tiny minority of Muslim women who choose to wear a religiously unnecessary bag over their heads, to uncover, is a waste of our time.

Let’s tolerate them, but throw our open and strong support behind the vast majority of Muslims who are just patriotic Canadians.

Big Government Bullies Bureaucracy Politics Social Issues The left Uncategorized

Pursuing Tolerance, or, Why I believe in the Niqab

July 1, 2015

Dave 07Today is Canada Day, formerly known as Dominion Day. Many people from around the world choose July 1 to take the oath of Canadian citizenship. I thought it might be appropriate to rerun and expand a bit on the following Facebook post from last February.

A story that’s been in the news a lot lately is about the Muslim woman who wishes to wear a Niqab during the citizenship swearing-in ceremony. The Niqab covers the face completely, leaving only a slit for the eyes. The Burqa goes even further and puts the woman behind a fine mesh screen so that she is in semidarkness all the time.

The Hijab on the other hand, is a simple scarf similar to the one worn by Hutterites or by my Mennonite ancestors, and it leaves the face exposed.

I have to confess I’m torn on this one. I do find it offensive that someone would insist on covering their face during a citizenship ceremony. As a Canadian I even find it offensive when I see women wearing the Niqab or Burqa on the street. It is antithetical to the open Canadian culture where we look at each other’s face when we speak. The Hijab on the other hand doesn’t bother me at all – some are very beautiful – nor do Hutterite women wearing their scarves.

NiqabBut if those who wish to have their faces covered during the ceremony are prepared to prove their identity in a private room before the ceremony, then I have to come down on the side of letting them offend me, and even offend Canada. Because if giving offense is sufficient reason to ban something, then it certainly won’t be long until things that we do or believe in are going to offend someone else. In fact we’re already there, and doing or saying some of those things can get you taken before a human rights commission, or worse. That is what totalitarianism looks like, and it has happened here.

As a Christian, I am deeply offended by some of the comments or articles we read in the papers, or art that’s denigrates my faith. But I am entirely prepared to tolerate it. We’ve gone way too far down the road toward having the rights of selected individuals or groups to not be offended, becoming enshrined in law. That road ends in totalitarianism.

I actually got a lot of positive response to that blog. But here’s the problem. Our society is becoming more totalitarian day by day, and unless we do something about it, the trend will continue.

It’s not just universal free speech that’s a thing of the past.

Property rights are opposed by most politicians and most bureaucrats. You might think you own property and have an exclusive right to it, but if the government, or an environmental group, or some other favoured group needs access to it, or decides that some species need saving, kiss your rights goodbye. You’ll be lucky if they even discuss it with you before they walk over you. And if you oppose what they do, you will be accused of being a selfish, wealthy, not in my back yard-ist. “Toe the line!”

A bureaucrat in India recently made the comment that the big story of the 20th century was not the nationalization of industry, but the nationalization of the family. Children used to be the right and responsibility of the parent. Now, bureaucrats – appointed by politicians we elected, either actively by voting for them, or passively by not getting involved – have decided that they are “co-parents.” (That’s a new word, coined in the last couple of years by an Ontario bureaucrat.)

And the nanny statists are extremely intolerant of any opposition to what they are teaching your children. Depending on the subject, if you voice an objection you will be labelled a racist, a homophobe, intolerant, bigoted, or some other pejorative suitable to their purpose, which is to silence you.

To the nanny-statists, if you own a gun you are potentially a danger to society. Any day now, you might go out and kill someone, so your guns should be taken away. If you object you are obviously a gun nut, and have just proved their point.

If you oppose spending billions to combat climate change because you know from history that the climate has always changed, you are called a DENIER, which puts you in the same class as a contemptible Holocaust denier.

If you say out loud that Canada should have some sort of regulation on abortion – in surveys, most Canadians do – you are branded a woman hater and anti-choice. Is it possible to be pro-choice; just not unlimited choice?

The radical left has an agenda, and since the 1930s it’s been perfectly clear what it is, because they have stated what it is. Their agenda was to take “a long slow march through the institutions of the West”, and completely change those institutions so that Marxism / Socialism could achieve peacefully what was done through violence in Russia, China, and elsewhere during the 20 century.

So that’s why I’m concerned about fighting for tolerance. Because when the long slow march is complete, tolerance for those who don’t subscribe to what the state prescribes will become nonexistent. Think Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or Communist China.

Think I’m exaggerating? Dr. David Suzuki who some Canadians regard as St. Suzuki, said in 2008 that politicians who do not believe in climate change the way he does should be put in jail. And he has refused to repudiate that comment. That’s not the spirit of scientific inquiry; that’s the spirit of Totalitarianism.

In the Afterword to his excellent book: “The Great Divide” William Gairdner says: “I hope it is not vain or overly optimistic to think that the quality of the divisive cultural climate in which we now live, might one day improve and rise, instead of continuing downward.”

I hope so too, because if we continue on this road to selective intolerance, a couple of generations from now I’m not sure Canada will be the kind of country to which people will want to emigrate, or in which to celebrate Canada Day.

Bullies Gay Rights Politics Religion US Politics

Indiana Pizza Parlor Remodels!

Dave 07Indiana passed a law last week, and since then, Indiana has been reviled, mocked, and boycotted. And what is the uproar about? According to Stanford law Professor Bernadette Meyer, the law appeared to be aimed at allowing companies to discriminate against same-sex couples or gay people. She said: “I am disturbed when that articulation of rights, as in the Indiana law, winds up trumping other people’s interests in equality.” Apparently Ms. Meyer believes that the interests of special interest groups trump the rights of ordinary people.

As soon as the Indiana law was passed, and in order to show how open and tolerant they are,  individuals, major corporations like Apple and Walmart, and even the governors of other states, widely and wildly condemned Indiana’s law, in spite of the fact that many other states including their own have similar laws. They said they feared that bigots would use the law to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

(By the way, in most cases, discrimination is a good thing. I’ve landed in my 70s through no choice of my own, yet if I now decided to fulfill a lifelong dream of becoming, say, an airline pilot, how far along in the process do you think I’d get? They’d take one look at my birth year, 1943, and politely show me the door. And perhaps, justifiably suggest I see a psychiatrist.)

Anyway, in order to get a juicy story, a TV news reporter went into a small pizza shop owned by Christian family in a very small Indiana town. She asked the owner’s daughter a hypothetical question about their response if a same-sex couple asked them to provide pizza at their wedding. The daughter of the owner said that, because of their religious faith, they would probably decline.

A vicious Twitter campaign was launched against the pizza shop, and the next day they closed down. But the campaign backfired massively. A woman who believes in freedom of religion started a counter campaign to raise funds for the owners of the pizza shop. In two days $842,000 was raised, about eight times the pizza joint’s annual sales. They now intend to remodel and reopen. Remember that story the next time you shake your head sadly and say: “But what can we do?”

Since 1963, I have been speaking out on behalf of the rights of gay people to live their lives without interference or oppression from the rest of society. But we’ve gone way too far. The radical gay lobby now insists that their choices override everyone else’s rights, including the right to peacefully practice your religion.

In the history of marriage, has there ever been an unfettered right to marry? There has not. The right to same sex marriage is assumed by its supporters and now conferred by the government. In that, a same sex marriage is different than any heterosexual marriage in history.

Only in the case of war, or civil emergency, has anyone ever had a right to force someone to participate in something that goes against their conscience. It has been done, but only by governments we generally regard as totalitarian. Are we prepared to accept this in Western Society?

Let us concede that most gays have no choice about their sexual orientation. But without question, gay or straight, we all have multiple choices regarding lifestyle, association, and whom to marry. And whether you’re a gay couple, or straight, it’s you who makes the choice about whom you’d like to perform your ceremony, or cater to your wedding. If your choice declines, make another choice.

Because it takes a boatload of chutzpah to insist that your choice to have your same-sex wedding catered to by whomever you choose overrides the rights of another individual to practice their religion as their conscience dictates, and that the government is obligated to back your choice.

We need to push back against this nonsense, and the fact that tens of thousands got together and did, and bailed out the pizza shop, goes to prove that when we work together we can successfully push back.

Remember that, because in the next few weeks I will be asking you to join the Let’s Do It Ourselves online community so we can do just that; push back, inexpensively, pro-actively, and effectively.

For a hilarious and satirical take on the Indiana issue, follow this link to where Rex Murphy deftly skewers the Pecksniffian pretensions of the Apple and Walmart CEOs.