Friday, March 13, 2015

JR Gives Premier Prentice Advise

Will the Premier take JR's oil advice?
Hilarious!

Monday, March 9, 2015

Early Feminists Were Prolife

 Image result for early feminists


 March happens to be Womens History month and yesterday was International  Womens Day.  Feminism started out as women fighting for suffrage. In other words they were fighting for the right to vote. Today's feminist movement has more or less degraded into an anti-male/gender equality and pro abortion movement,  all the rights of a man without accountability.  I thought if you were a feminist, you were a strong, take no guff, independent woman. It's basically about victim hood.

Did you know that some of the early feminists of the 1800s were actually prolife? 

Elizabeth Cady Stanton
 There must be a remedy for such a crying evil as this. But where shall it be found, at least begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and elevation of women?
  Sarah F. Norton
 Here is an excerpt from an article in which she referred to a case where a woman died after her partner gave her poison to abort their child:
Here we find that a husband has been procuring poison for his wife and prospective offspring! Not with any wish to kill the wife perhaps, but as the chances are 5 to 1 against every woman who attempts abortion, he could not fail to realize the danger. Had this scheme been successful in destroying only the life aimed at, what could’ve been the man’s crime – and what should be his punishment if, as accessory to one murder he commits two?
  Victoria Woodhull
  Wives deliberately permit themselves to become pregnant of children and then, to prevent becoming mothers, as deliberately murder them while yet in their wombs. Can there be a more demoralized condition than this?… We are aware that many women attempt to excuse themselves for procuring abortions, upon the ground that it is not murder. But the fact of resort to so weak an argument only shows the more palpably that they fully realize the enormity of the crime .
  Maddie H. Brinckerhoff
 When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society – so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged.
Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell 
Look at the first faint gleam of life, the life of the embryo, the commencement of human existence. We see a tiny cell, so small it may be easily overlooked;…  it is a living cell; it contains a power progressive growth, according to laws, according, towards a definite type, that we can only regard with reverent admiration.Leave it in its natural home, tended by the rich life of the healthy maternal organism, and it will grow steadily into the human type; in no other by any possibility.
So as you can see these women fought for women's rights but without infringing on the rights of the unborn child.


Thursday, March 5, 2015

Premeir Prentice Blames Albertans for Financial Problems

Embedded image permalink

Premier Jim Prentice blames us for the financial problems in Alberta? 
  Premier Jim Prentice says Albertans should “look in the mirror” when it comes to the financial woes now squeezing the province — and defends his decision to reject corporate tax hikes while his government eyes higher levies and deep spending cuts.
Huh?  A new boss and he doesn't even get it.  The problems lie right with the PC government and their mismanagement of the public purse.   They've grown government exponentially, give themselves perks, wasted countless taxpayer money on projects for political gain and he blames us.

Maybe in a way he's right.  We've kept electing them in for the last forty-two years.    

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Creation vs Evolution

CBC is all up in arms for a Conservative MP defending an Ontario MPP  for stating on twitter he doesn't believe in evolution.
James Lunney, a federal Conservative MP, is using his Twitter account to come to the defence of an Ontario Progressive Conservative who told reporters last week that he doesn't believe in evolution.
The British Columbia chiropractor, first elected as a member of Parliament in 2000, has jumped into a fray that started last week in the Ontario Legislature.
Ontario Progressive Conservative MPP Rick Nicholls, who represents the province's Chatham-Kent-Essex riding, was heckling the provincial education minister on Wednesday when the matter of human origins came up.
Education Minister Liz Sandals was responding to PC criticism of her government’s new sex-education curriculum when she quipped that a PC government "could opt out of teaching about evolution, too."
"Not a bad idea," said Nicholls, who later clarified his position to reporters in the lobby.
"For myself, I don’t believe in evolution," he said, adding that his views were "a personal stance" rather than party policy.



Oh the horror, someone who doesn't believe evolution!  Must be a backwards neanderthal hick!
Even some scientists have discovered that The Big Bang may not have been the origin of life as what was once thought.
If a new theory turns out to be true, the universe may not have started with a bang.
In the new formulation, the universe was never a singularity, or an infinitely small and infinitely dense point of matter. In fact, the universe may have no beginning at all.
"Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite," said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.

Here is a very good source for case for MP Lunney's creation belief is Ian Juby , a creation scientist from Canada who explains why it's mathematically impossible for evolution to have occured.   
You can also catch Ian Juby at IanJuby.org 




Another good source that supports James Lunney's  creation stance is Richard Fangrad and Calvin Smith from Creation Magazine. 
In this video they point out scientific evidence for a recent creation.   Please take the time to watch it.

 
I am on the same page as Dr. Lunney, I believe in creation. There had to be an intelligent designer.  Here is why I agree:
1. Fossils do not show evolution.
Many undisputed fossil lineups should show transitions between the unrelated creatures that evolutionists insist share common ancestry. But the few fossil forms claimed by some evolutionists to represent transitions between basic kinds are disputed by other evolutionists on scientific grounds.1
2. Living creatures do not evolve between kinds.
Experiments designed to detect evolution should have caught a glimpse by now, but they have not. When researchers simulated fruit fly evolution by systematically altering each portion of fruit fly DNA, they found only three resulting fruit fly categories, published in 1980: normal, mutant, or dead.2 A 2010 study found no net fruit fly evolution after 600 generations.3 Similarly, microbiologists watched 40,000 generations of E. coli bacteria become normal, mutant, or dead.4 None truly evolved.5
Big-picture evolution did not happen in the past, and it is not happening now. Other evidence excludes evolution from real science.
3. Genetic entropy rules out evolution.
Population geneticists count and describe genetic mutations over many generations in creatures like plants and people. Mutations are copying errors in the coded information carried by cells. The overwhelming majority of mutations have almost no effect on the body. Also, far more of these nearly neutral mutations slightly garble genetic information than any others that might construct new and useful information.6 Therefore, many more slightly harmful mutations accumulate than any other kind of mutation—a process called “genetic entropy.” Each individual carries his own mutations, plus those inherited from all prior generations.
Cells are left to interpret the damaged information like scholars who try to reconstruct text from tattered ancient scrolls. Ultimately, too little information remains, resulting in cell death and eventually extinction. Genetic entropy refutes evolution by ensuring that information is constantly garbled and by limiting the total generations to far fewer than evolutionary history requires.
4. All-or-nothing vital features refute evolution.
Finally, transitioning between basic kinds is not possible because it would disable vital creature features. For example, the reptile two-way lung could not morph into a bird’s unique one-way lung. The reptile lung would have to stop breathing while it waited for evolution to either construct or transfer function to the new bones, air sacs, and parabronchi required by the new bird system.7 Such a creature would suffocate in minutes, ending its evolution.
Similarly, to transition from an amphibian’s three-chambered heart to a mammal’s four-chambered heart would require either a new internal heart wall that would block vital blood flow, or new heart vessels that would fatally disrupt the amphibian’s vital blood flow.
These four observations show why the unbiblical evolutionary idea that creatures change without limits is unscientific. If creatures evolved through nature—and not God—then Scripture is not trustworthy, since from beginning to end it credits God as Creator.8 But science clearly confirms the Genesis creation account.

Friday, February 27, 2015

Debates, Should There Be More?

The Star reported the other day that the NDP and the Conservatives want to increase the amount of debates in this year's election from the normal two debates in the past, one in English and one in French.  The Star is saying that especially the CPC wants more debates to "trap" the media party's precious little Justin.  

 At Issue discussed last night on the National. (via Nationalnewswatch)


.



There is no doubt Justin Trudeau is a gaffe machine. The media party
knows it and are afraid the one they favor will screw.  I believe they
really don't want more debates because it will show Canadians how naive
and immature Justin really is.

I say the more debates the merrier.   One on one like Justin vs. Thomas Mulcair and PM Harper vs. Justin etc.  Bring them on.

I would also like to see a couple debates with the smaller parties.   Most Canadians don't even realize for instance there is a Christian Heritage Party or a Libertarian Party.  Rebel TV? Maybe you guys can take that on since the other media won't.

I would also like to see a couple debates with the smaller parties.   Most Canadians don't even realize for instance there is a Christian Heritage Party or a Libertarian Party.  Rebel TV? Maybe you guys can take that on since the other media won't, eh?