What Now Since the Sun Has Set

 

 It's been a week now since Sunnews network has gone dark.  I miss it but it looks like there will be sunny days again soon.  Ezra Levant is starting The Rebel Media. 


Faith Goldy another SNN alumni has started something with True North Report.

Brian Lilley now has a podcast.

 We can't keep conservative voices silenced.  We need these other voices and opinions other than the usual lefty drivel from the usual boring CBC, CTV and Global.   Support Ezra, Faith and Brian. 

Are We Creating A Culture of Death?

 

Who are we to decide when someone dies?  Is life not sacred anymore?  We kill babies in the womb everyday on a whim. Today the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the ban on assisted suicide.

In a unanimous decision, The Supreme Court Friday struck down as unconstitutional the nation’s contentious century-old law against assisted suicide.

I don't know where you stand but I believe in the sanctity of  life, all life.   Campaign Life Coalition.
has a point.

Today the Supreme Court of Canada ignored it's own jurisprudence from 1993 and attempted to legislate from the bench by declaring Canada's criminal code prohibitions on euthanasia and assisted suicide to be "unconstitutional". The fact that the Court ignored its own legal precedent, abondoning the important legal principle of stare decisis (let the decision stand), is disturbing enough. It moves us into an era where case law may now be superceded by the personal opinions of nine judges.
Even more disturbing is the fact that the court justified its unanimous ruling with the ludicrous claim that prohibiting the killing of patients by doctors somehow violates section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That section states: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof". By what mental gymnastics can one interpret the right to not be deprived of life, as a positive right to be lethally injected by your doctor?
This shameful ruling essentially orders parliament to scrap the existing law, and craft a new one which grants doctors the right to kill their patients. The court even goes so far as to dictate to parliament what elements the law should contain, including granting euthanasia to people with "permanent and intolerable, physical or mental suffering".This can be interpreted to mean that people who are not even dying but just have chronic pain, must be helped to kill themselves. It is also frightening to realize that "mental suffering" can be interpreted to include those who are not even physically ill, but merely depressed. 

We murder babies in the womb at all stage of development, now this. When did we as a society start to become a culture of death? Since when do we have a right to decide when someone dies?
.
Like everyone else, I don't wish to see anyone suffer.  Sure we can do more but palliative care is a better way. That's where the emphasis should be. God is the giver of life not man. God should be the one to decide when we die not man.

Life is precious, let's treat it as such.

Update:  Interesting take from James Lunney CPC MP from Nanimo-Alberni

Palliative care, end of life specialists, and caregivers like California- based Rachel Naomi Remen will tell you that there is a lot we don’t know about death and dying,; that perhaps there are aspects that are beyond our instruments ability to measure or analyze. Perhaps we ought to treat the process of dying with an abundance of care and respect.

That, of course, was the Gold Standard established by the ancient and revered Greek physician, Hippocrates. His famous Oath has been “customized” in recent decades. The original (medicinenet.com) reads in part:

                     “…I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my art.”

Doctors themselves will have to grapple with this issue. Will they side with “The Father of Medicine”, or embrace the brave new world that physicians disavowed for millennia?

Andrew Coyne:

But it is not in the administration of the law that I fear we will see the “slippery slope” at work so much as it is in its interpretation. Perhaps the Court’s confidence that “safeguards” can be devised that will prevent the spread of euthanasia beyond the competently adult and the clearly consenting is well placed. But there can be no safeguard against the Court’s own future decisions.
Some day, someone is going to bring a case before the Court arguing that children with an incurable disease and in “intolerable” pain should also have the right to assisted suicide, perhaps with their parents’ consent. Is the Court really going to condemn them to endure years of excruciating pain until they are of age? Likewise, is it really prepared to leave the mentally incompetent to suffer unbearably, when with the signature of a legal guardian they could be released? Or if personal autonomy is all, why should a “grievous and irremediable medical condition” be required? Isn’t it enough that you want to be dead, but need someone to help?
At that point the Court will be caught, helpless before its own logic. And by then, so will we.

Ezra Levant-Doctors Killing Their Patients


 :

Farewell John Baird

I was just as shocked as many others were to hear that the now former Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird was going to announce he was stepping aside from politics.   He has been one of my favorites along with the late former Finance Minister Jim Flaherty in PM Harper's cabinet.  He was the best Foreign Ministers in my lifetime.  For those who missed it or would like to see again John Baird's great farewell speech.



 

Thank you for your service to Canada John Baird, you did a great job and you will be missed! God's speed in whatever you decide to do next in your life! 

Does Justin Trudeau Have a "Secret Agenda?"

 I meant to post this a few days ago but life got in the way.  I had a dental appointment and then I had to go and help out with my two beautiful little granddaughters so better late than never.  

You know how the Liberals and most on the left have always accused Stephen Harper of having a  hidden agenda?  Well, oh, oh, it seems like Liberal leader Justin Trudeau might have a "hidden agenda."  Scott Brison spilled the beans.

The Liberals have made clear that they view a national program to rebuild roads, bridges and transit as a key means of stimulating job-creation and economic growth. Although they have attached no firm figure to the plan,  the party approved a resolution in March calling for spending of up to 1% of GDP a year, or about $20 billion.  Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, an ally of federal leader Justin Trudeau, this week argued for combined federal and provincial spending of $100 billion a year.

 The challenge is where to find the money, without pushing the country deep into deficit again. Mr. Brison hinted at the party’s thinking when he told Mr. Berthiaume much of the work could be done “off the government balance sheet” by tapping funds from pension plans, including the Canada Pension Plan, into which all working Canadians contribute.

 “There are other ways of working with the pension funds to do something really big on infrastructure and at the same time create a more competitive economy,” Mr. Brison said.

 “If you look at the CPP [investment board], Omers, Teachers, AIMCO – pension funds in Canadare building infrastructure around the world. Is there the potential to engage them, and to engage global pension funds, in helping us to rebuild our infrastructure in Canada? I believe there is that potential.”

That's right folks,Justin would raid your pension funds to pay for their spending.  How do you like that?

And by the way if you haven't seen this yet please do.  Gives you an indication how the Liberal's chosen one is not up to the job of becoming Prime Minister.     Really stunning!

Stephen Harper A Real Leader: "We will kill them"

How about that for strong leadership?

 OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper made it clear that if ISIS terrorists fire at Canadian troops, "we're going to kill them."

 Compared to the leader of the third party.

After talking domestic issues for a few minutes Lawton turned to foreign affairs and asked Trudeau about his views of the fight against ISIS. Trudeau said he disagreed with Prime Minister Harper's take on the issue. Nothing new there, we know that.
Then Lawton asked, "So under what circumstances as prime minister would that be warranted in your eyes?"
This is where Trudeau got into trouble.
"I think it's warranted if there is a reasonable chance of success, if there's a way that Canada can offer expertise the rest of the world is unable to provide," the Liberal leader said.
Lawton interrupted and asked if Trudeau really thought Canada and its coalition partners couldn't beat ISIS. Trudeau fumbled time and again to answer that and the larger question of when any combat mission would be warranted.