Patrick Craine

News

Canadian conservative leaders react to Obama re-election

Patrick Craine
Image

WASHINGTON, D.C., Nov. 9th, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – President Obama’s re-election on Tuesday night has sparked a flood of reaction on what it portends for the future of America’s pro-life and conservative movements. But the election will also have a significant impact internationally, not least on America’s closest ally and cultural counterpart – Canada.

Richard Bastien, editor of Canadian Observer magazine and an associate fellow at the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, says he believes the re-election of the United States’ most pro-abortion and anti-family president “will help consolidate the secularist and statist agenda of our federal and provincial political parties.”

“Religious freedom being under attack, particularly in Quebec’s and Ontario’s educational systems, there is a real risk that the implicit endorsement of the HHS mandate will bolster the efforts of Canadian politicians seeking to limit religious influence on school curricula,” he said.

The election, he added, “will most likely result in an escalation of the culture war being waged in Canada between a culture of death and a culture of life.” “Obama’s support for unfettered access to abortion will significantly weaken the prospects of regulating the provision of abortion services in Canada,” he suggested.

Gwen Landolt, national vice-president of REAL Women, said she finds it unlikely that America could push Canada further to the left on life and family issues, but also noted that another four years of Obama will likely bolster the left-wing movement in Canada.

“The Americans will be catching up to us. It’ll just make it all the more politically challenging because both countries will be on the same wavelength,” she said. “It may make left-wing views more socially acceptable.”

Obama is “the antithesis of anything anyone would want from the Christian perspective,” she said. “He’s going to do an enormous damage, not just the economy but socially. He doesn’t care anymore because it’s his last term. He was bad enough in his first term, but now he’ll have a free hand.”

Peter Stockland, director of media services for Cardus and publisher of Convivium magazine, said, on the other hand, that the election would have made little difference one way or the other.

“In the immortal words of Rhett Butler, frankly I don’t give a damn whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney is the president,” he said. “The deep cultural work that has to be done to reinvigorate the culture of life and renew social architecture in North America isn’t something that will be won by an election campaign costing six billion dollars.”

“If anything, Obama’s election should be a positive occasion for everyone involved in renewing social architecture and reviving the culture of life to examine their strategies, tactics and commitment for the years ahead,” he added. “But that might - might - have been only slightly less the case had ‘Moderate Mitt’ been elected. We’re in this deep and long. Stuffed suits in a chair don’t matter a damn.”

Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition, noted that Obama is so popular in Canada that he would have probably won 90% of the vote were he running here. “We’ve got the young people in Canada thinking that Obama is some sort of an answer,” he said.

The election result was “discouraging,” he said, because Obama is “one of the most pro-abortion if not the worst pro-abortion president the US has ever had. I think he is a very real danger to the democratic rights of ordinary people, especially pro-life and pro-family people.”

Hughes said, however, that “in the end it won’t be a setback,” because having Obama in office will “toughen up” and “smarten up” the pro-life movement.

Brad Trost, Conservative MP for Saskatoon-Humboldt, said he expects “very little effect” in Canada because it was basically a “status quo” election with Obama maintaining the presidency, the Democrats control of the Senate, and the Republicans control of the House. But he did note that a big concern for social conservatives in the years ahead will be Obama’s appointments to the Supreme Court.

According to Joseph Ben-Ami, president of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, the election is “a wake up call for conservatives, especially social conservatives.”

He emphasized the real challenge of mobilizing the conservative base because it appears to be shrinking, or at least not keeping pace with the growth of those who are unengaged on issues important to conservatives.

“How do we connect with this constituency, and how do we counter the immense appeal to them of a progressive agenda that offers the promise of an easy, pain-free and stress-free life?” he asked. “We conservatives have to stop talking to ourselves and start marketing our vision to those whose support we need if we are to succeed electorally,” he added. “As I often say to my friends in government up here, to win the argument, you first have to make it, sensibly and effectively.”



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

Blogs,

Please, enough with the cult of pop stars. Our kids need real heroes.

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Two things happen each time a significant pop culture figure dies: Christians attempt to dredge up some moderately conservative or traditional thing that figure said at some point during his long career, and mainstream media attempts to convince a society thoroughly bored with such things that the person in question was a ground-breaking radical. The two most recent examples are the androgynous David Bowie—a cringe-worthy and possibly blasphemous video of him dropping to his knees during a rock performance and uttering the Lord’s Prayer circulated just following his death--and the pop star Prince.

I’ve had to suppress my gag reflexes many times as I saw my Facebook newsfeed fill up with memes sporting quotes from Prince about his faith and articles announcing that the musician who “embraced gender fluidity before his time,” according to Slate and “will always be a gay icon” according to The Atlantic, was against gay marriage. Sure, maybe he was. But only a Christian community so shell-shocked by the rapid spread of the rainbow blitzkrieg and the catastrophic erosion of religious liberty would find this remarkable. After all, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton said the same thing barely one election cycle ago. As one obituary celebrating Prince’s paradigm-smashing sexual performances written by Dodai Stewart put it:

Dig, if you will, a picture: The year is 1980. Many states still have sodomy laws. The radio is playing feel-good ear candy like Captain and Tennille and KC and the Sunshine Band. TV hits include the sunny, toothy blond shows Three’s Company and Happy Days. There’s no real word for “gender non-conforming.” But here’s what you see: A man. Clearly a man. Hairy, mostly naked body…a satiny bikini bottom. But those eyes. Rimmed in black, like a fantasy belly dancer. The full, pouty lips of a pin-up girl. Long hair. A tiny, svelte thing. Ethnically ambiguous, radiating lust. What is this? A man. Clearly a man. No. Not just a man. A Prince.

Right. So let’s not get too carried away, shall we? I know Christians are desperate to justify their addictions to the pop culture trash that did so much to sweep away Christian values in the first place and I know that latching on to the occasional stray conservative belief that may manifest itself in pop culture figures makes many feel as if perhaps we are not so weird and countercultural, but this bad habit we have of claiming these figures upon their passing is downright damaging.

After all, parents should be teaching their children about real heroes, titans of the faith who changed the world. Heroes of the early church who stood down tyrants, halted gladiatorial combat, and crusaded against injustice in a world where death was all the rage. These men and women were real rebels who stood for real values. If we want to point our children to people they should emulate, we should be handing them books like Seven Men: And the Secret of Their Greatness by the brilliant writer Eric Metaxas rather than the pop albums Purple Rain or Lovesexy by Prince. If parents spend their time glorifying the predecessors of Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus instead of highlighting heroes like William Wilberforce, they can hardly be surprised when their children choose to emulate the former rather than the latter.

The mainstream media’s adulation of these pop stars is equally irritating. The unspoken truth of these obituaries is that the flamboyant antics of Prince and the rest of the so-called rebellious drag queens populating the rock n’ roll scene have been mainstream for a long time already. Want to see dozens of bizarre body piercings? Weird hairdos? Purple mohawks? Dudes with nail polish? Strange tattoos? Easy. Just go onto any university campus, or any public high school without a dress code. With headphones wedged firmly in their ear canals, they can pump the cleverly commercialized “counterculture” straight into their skulls 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

More than that, some of these courageous rebels have actually sued their employers to ensure that they can let their establishment-smashing freak flag fly at work, too. An Edmonton woman with 22 visible body piercings complained that her employer was unfair because apparently she was being discriminated against “based on body modifications.” Yeah! The Man must be told, after all. And if he doesn’t agree, we will lawyer up. I wonder what the shrieking rebels of the early days would think about the snivelling children of the current grievance culture.

So these days, the media’s eulogizing about aging culture warriors who went mainstream a long time ago rings a bit hollow. After all, most rock n’ roll stars these days look tame compared to what shows up in the children’s section at Pride Week. Freaky is normal now. Normal is radical. Welcome to 2016.

When Christians are posting nostalgic tributes to the rebels who helped inoculate their children against the radical views of Christianity in the first place, you know that the victories of the counterculture are complete and Stockholm syndrome has set in.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Paul McKinnon / Shutterstock.com
Claire Chretien Claire Chretien

News,

Target boycott climbs to over 1 million

Claire Chretien Claire Chretien

April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Over 1 million people have signed a pledge to boycott Target over its new policy allowing men to access women’s bathrooms. 

The American Family Association’s Boycott Target petition gained traction immediately, reaching the one million mark in only nine days.

“Corporate America must stop bullying people who disagree with the radical left agenda to remake society into their progressive image,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “#BoycottTarget has resonated with Americans.  Target’s harmful policy poses a danger to women and children; nearly everyone has a mother, wife, daughter or friend who is put in jeopardy by this policy.  Predators and voyeurs would take advantage of the policy to prey on those who are vulnerable.  And it’s clear now that over one million customers agree.”

Target defended its policy in a statement saying that it believes everyone “deserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally” and earlier this week, a Target spokeswoman defended the policy as “inclusive.” 

The AFA said that unisex bathrooms are a common-sense alternative to allowing men unfettered access to women’s bathrooms.

“Target should keep separate facilities for men and women, but for the trans community and for those who simply like using the bathroom alone, a single occupancy unisex option should be provided,” the petition says. 

The AFA warned that Target’s new policy benefits sexual predators and poses a danger to women and children. 

“With Target publicly boasting that men can enter women's bathrooms, where do you think predators are going to go?” the petition asked. 

There have been numerous instances of predatory men accessing women’s bathrooms and intimate facilities in the wake of “transgender” bathroom policies allowing them to do so. 

“We want to make it very clear that AFA does not believe the transgender community poses this danger to the wider public,” said Wildmon. “Rather, this misguided and reckless policy provides a possible gateway for predators who are out there.”



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

News,

Amazing new video captures the flash of light the moment life begins

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

CHICAGO, April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Life begins with a spark – literally.

Researchers at Northwestern University have documented the striking event in a new video that accompanies a study published this week.

At the moment of conception, the egg releases massive amounts of zinc, which creates a spark that can be seen with the aid of a microscope.

“It was remarkable,” said Teresa Woodruff, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University's medical school. “To see the zinc radiate out in a burst from each human egg was breathtaking.”

The research team had noted the zinc sparks before in mice eggs but had never observed the process in human beings.

“All of biology starts at the time of fertilization,” Woodruff said, “yet we know next to nothing about the events that occur in the human.”

One of the researchers, Northwestern chemistry professor Thomas O'Halloran, explained the science behind the process in 2014.

“The egg first has to stockpile zinc and then must release some of the zinc to successfully navigate maturation, fertilization and the start of embryogenesis,” he said. “On cue, at the time of fertilization, we see the egg release thousands of packages, each dumping a million zinc atoms, and then it's quiet.”

“Each egg has four or five of these periodic sparks,” O'Halloran said. “It is beautiful to see, orchestrated much like a symphony.”

Since the amount of zinc in an egg correlates with successful implantation and birth, the Northwestern researchers are highlighting that their research may be used to assist in vitro fertilization.

But that raises concerns given the grave moral issues with IVF, which involves creating numerous embryos that are either killed or frozen. Moral theologians also emphasize that IVF is an injustice even for the children who are born as a result, as they are created in a lab rather than in the union of man and woman.

The study may have far-reaching consequences the research team did not intend, such as strengthening public belief in the longstanding scientific consensus that life begins at the moment of conception/fertilization.

Many of those who saw the Northwestern video said it testifies to the beauty of life and the shallow lies that buttress the argument of abortion-on-demand.

“I saw this, and I was blown away by it,” said Rush Limbaugh on his nationally syndicated radio program Thursday afternoon. “For anybody in the mainstream media to openly admit that life begins at conception” defies arguments that an unborn child is only “tissue mass.”

Researchers released a separate video of the zinc spark taking place in a mammalian egg more than a year ago:

The paper, which is entitled “The Zinc Spark is an Inorganic Signature of Human Egg Activation,” was published by Scientific Reports on April 26.



Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook