October 5, 2010
May 30, 2008
And just what the heck is hippocrisy, you ask? Why, it’s hypocrisy the size of a hippopotamus, of course. 😛 And it can be damned amusing stuff.
Things like this remind me of Abe Lincoln. What the hell does Lincoln have to do with anything in present-day Canada? That’s easy: Lincoln once quipped that “Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.” I feel the same way about censorship; nothing improves my mood like seeing some totalitarian little bastard getting some of his own medicine rammed down his throat. A good example of this is one dorkette by the name of Gilary Massa. You can get a look at her here, on an episode of TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin titled “Today’s Young Muslim Woman.”
What caught my attention (tip o’ the chapeau to Damian for this one) wasn’t her being a Muslim woman, however. To be honest, the first few times I read about her, the way the articles were worded, I thought she was a dude. No, what got my attention was the say she found her own guns pointed at her. Let’s start with the way that York U has stifled the debate on abortion by violating the rights of the pro-life side by banning all their groups:
Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students, said student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space, as long as they do it “within a pro-choice realm,” and that all clubs will be investigated to ensure compliance.
“You have to recognize that a woman has a choice over her own body,” Ms. Massa said. “We think that these pro-life, these anti-choice groups, they’re sexist in nature … The way that they speak about women who decide to have abortions is demoralizing. They call them murderers, all of them do … Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women’s rights.“
Hmm… A hijab-wearing Muslim woman who argues in favour of abortion. Didn’t see that one coming. 😯 A hijab-wearing Muslim woman who believes that the coercive power of the system should be used to shut up people she disagrees with? That’s a lot easier to picture.
Like Damian said; the minute somebody says “it’s not about free speech,” you can bet your ass it’s about free speech. And li’l Gilary obviously doesn’t like the idea of people being able to voice their opinions. Unless, of course, they happen to be her opinions; in which case, she becomes a free-speecher in one hell of a hurry!
Earlier this year, the McMaster University administration banned “anti-Zionist” organizations from using the term “Israeli Apartheid” in posters and banners on the campus. They gave their reasons, some I agree with and some I don’t. Do some digging and see for yourself.
But guess what? Massa got her bhurka all in a knot at the thought of being given a taste of her own medicine:
â€œWe think what has happened at McMaster is an attack on freedom of speech and the right for students to be able to organize,â€ […] â€œWe find it appalling that a university administration would strip students away of those fundamental rights without any consultation whatsoever. We think it sets a very scary precedent that other universities might follow.â€ […] â€œPeople should be allowed to have different opinions and try to convince each other and have a dialogue in a respectful manner. As student union representatives, we think that creating a safe space on campus means allowing people to use their freedom of speech, of course without being hateful or discriminatory. But they should also be able to use these words without fear of being clamped down on.â€
Yeah, right. Hypocritical bitch.
Whenever I hear anyone arguing for censorship, I feel a strong impulse to see her gagged with her own hijab.
March 7, 2008
Not a whole lot of time for shooting my mouth off this morning so, instead, I’ll just point you over to a damned good post by Hunter over at Climbing Out Of The Dark that I just tripped over.
Ever since the passing of Bill C-484, the usual feminazi, pro-infanticide suspects have been screeching about how the Big Bad Toriesâ„¢ are wrecking Canada’s abortion laws (as if we had any). Well, Hunter takes these assholes to task. And for the record: Hunter’s a chick, so you can take your little Patriarchy Oppressionâ„¢ argumentum ad hominem and put it back in your pants…
Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act had some help in passing into committee, Liberals 27, NDP 1, Bloq 0, Ind 1, Conservatives 120. Not one of those Liberals, NDP or Independents were female, NOT ONE!
ALL Liberal, Bloq and NDP Females voted AGAINST, and one Conservative female. SHAME! They cry about having more women as MP’s, well if this is what we get, no thanks.
Click the link and keep on reading. It’s worth it.
March 1, 2008
It’s a slur that the granola-grinding, tree-hugging, pot-smoking hippy crowd loves to fling at soldiers to this day. The one thing that you’ll never hear from these Leftbotâ„¢ screechers, however, is anything at all having anything to do with the real baby-killers of this world: abortionists and those who lend their so-called “moral support” to this grisly, murderous industry.
Those who read here regularly — or who have even just stopped by a couple of times and poked around — already know damned well what I think of the “pro-choice” crowd: they’re one step down the food chain from whale shit.
Sometimes, though, these assholes manage to astonish even me. Call me an idealist if you want, but I actually do think (or thought) that there are some sick mindsets that had managed to fade from prominence, at least in the western world. I guess I just couldn’t get my brain around just how vile these bastards are. So, when I tripped across Michael Coren’s column today (a weekly habit of mine), my first gut reaction was, “he can’t be serious, can he?” As it turns out, he can…
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a feminist pioneer and is regarded by the women’s movement and supporters of abortion and birth control in Canada as well as the U.S.A. as a hero.
In 1932 she called for, “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted.” She referred to black people and immigrants as “human weeds,” “reckless breeders” and “human beings who never should have been born.” She said that the purpose of birth control was, “to create a race of thoroughbreds” and advised her followers that, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”
I suppose you’re wondering what the hell got Mike on that track of thinking in the first place, eh? Well, it seems that a pro-life publication in the States called “The Advocate” went and did a little digging into Planned Parenthood’s mindset and what they found was just plain disgusting (but, in hindsight, shouldn’t have been surprising for n organization that shared its roots with the American Eugenics Society). They had an actor call a bunch of Planned Parenthood offices and… aw, hell, just read it for yourself:
[Caller]: “The abortion — I can give money specifically for a black baby, that would be the purpose?”
PP: “Absolutely. If you wanted to designate that your gift be used to help an African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure that the gift was earmarked for that purpose.”
Caller: “Great, because I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don’t want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids. I just had a baby; I want to put it in his name.”
PP: “Yes, absolutely.”
Caller: “And we don’t, you know we just think, the less black kids out there the better.”
PP: “Understandable, understandable.”
Yup, you got that right: too many blacks in this country, so can we thin the herd a bit? I’ll admit that at first, I was sondering for a few minutes if maybe Mike had gotten a little too deep in the Guinness the night before he wrote the column, so I did some digging. It took a little while (“the advocate” brings up a buttload of results on Google) but I managed to track it down. Their website is here and you can download the latest issue of the mag in .pdf format here.
Now you’d think that in a nice “progressive” organization like Planned Parenthood, there must be at least somebody floating around there who’d take an apparent utter prick like that to task, wouldn’t you? Nope. Not a damned one. Not one single Planned Parenthood office they called told this guy to take his racist bullshit and bugger off. And this from a bunch that decries shrieks their heads off about how anyone who doesn’t buy into their little death cult is some kind of intolerant, totalitarian, misogynistic, patriarchal, oppressive, knuckle-dragging neanderthal.
Take a look in the damned mirror, you sanctimonious pricks. Naturally, you can look for Planned Parenthood to hoot and howl that it’s all nothing but a pack of lies (see the blockquote below) made up by wild-eyed evangelists who want women chained to the stove with a line running to the bedroom. Such a thing could never really happen. Where’s the evidence??? Well…
Somehow, I just don’t think that they’re going to have too much luck sweeping this one under the rug. But that’s not gonna stop ’em from trying now, is it? Hell, no…
According to Planned Parenthood of Idaho, a recorded conversation released by a California-based anti-abortion group is not only misleading, but a race-based deceptive tactic.
“It’s an extremist, anti-choice group that has manipulated a 25-minute conversation,” said Rebecca Poedy, executive director Planned Parenthood of Idaho. “It’s not an accurate representation of the transcript.”
“Not an accurate representation of the transcript???” What the hell, bitch?? It’s a Goddamn RECORDING, SHITHEAD! It doesn’t represent anything; it’s an audio reproduction of sounds picked up by the microphone. Period. Recordings don’t represent or misrepresent anything. Transcripts, on the other hand…
June 27, 2007
Yeah, I know I’ve been slacking off lately but, hey, it’s finally summer, Dominion Day is just around the corner and Edward just graduated. I’ve had other things to do. I don’t know if I’m going to have the time to post much in the next few days or not — of course, not having anything totally piss me off lately isn’t helping things, either 🙄 — but for now, check out this post over at
Relapsed Catholic Upper Canada Catholic; it’s totally worth the read. It’s a good example of the doublethink that goes on between the ears of the pro-infanticide crowd.
Damn. You know I’m gettin’ lazy when I’m not even bothering to plagiarize… 😯
November 3, 2006
Next Page »
Believe it or not, it takes a lot to disgust me. Really, I actually have a pretty high lose-my-lunch threshold. Sure, there are all kinds of things that annoy me, get on my nerves, and just piss me off in general, but there are actually very few things that are capable of outright utterly disgusting me. As you can probably guess, I’m about to tell you all about one of them.
The big lie that we get told over and over about abortion is that “abortion doesn’t really kill babies.” “It’s not a baby,” we hear; “it’s just tissue,” they say; and the biggest: “it’s the woman’s body and nobody else’s so it’s none of your business.” When backed into the dead end of their own arguments and cornered like rats in a trap over the question of just when the hell does human life begin, they almost always give the same answer: life begins at birth. The instant that a child is born, they say, it is now a person and fully entitled to the full protection of the law.
This cozy little theory makes them feel as if they comfortably occupy some sort of moral high ground. They aren’t killing unwanted babies, they’re performing a medical procedure, nothing more. No babies were harmed in the production of this atrocity.
Try telling that to Ximena Renaerts, who survived not only her own abortion but also the attempt to murder her that immedidately followed. And now, we have the sad tale of another child, born alive, who was not so lucky.
18-year old Sycloria Williams, told police that she had arrived at the facility July 20 for the second half of a late-term abortion. She says she gave birth to a living baby girl while sitting in a recliner in the facilityâ€™s recovery room. Ms. Williams told police that she had watched her daughter moving and gasping for air for approximately five minutes.
The warrant says that the staff â€œbegan screaming that the baby was alive.â€ Then, â€œMs. Belkis Gonzalez cut the umbilical cord, threw it into a red bag with black printing. Ms. Gonzalez then swept the baby, with her hands, into the same red bag along with the gauze used during the procedure.â€
Unlike Ximena, who was saved through the intervention of night nursing supervisor Joyce Hatherall, who refused to stand by and watch a helpless child perish*, the little girl born to Sycloria Williams had no “guardian angel” to come to her rescue. She died. This wasn’t a mistake; they murdered a baby, and they knew it:
Eight days later, police found the body of the child which Rojas had informed them had been treated with a caustic chemical and left in the heat of the Florida sun to accelerate decomposition in a possible attempt to dispose of the evidence.
Hialeah cops are treating the matter as a homicide investigation, as well they should. It’s cases like this that make me question my stance on capitol punishment. But we really shouldn’t be surprised by this. What kind of rabid state of denial does it take to convince oneself that someone that would gladly kill a child one minute, right before birth, would suddenly respect the life of that child a mere few moments later? When we allow our society to devalue human life, we cannot pretend to be surprised when we find that more and more individuals give it no value at all. No, we can’t.
* Mr. Berger states further, “We also had evidence that Dr. Jaroudi, called up to the ward, realized the baby had been delivered by Nadine Bourne, and realized it was viable, but nevertheless told the nurses not to resuscitate the baby (‘…let it go’). He was ignored by Joyce Hatherall.” – Taken from: Did Someone Try to Murder Ximena?, BC Report Newsmagazine, August 30, 1999