Austin Ruse, President at C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute) sends us the following message about Melinda Gates and those with whom she associates - i.e., population controllers.

Have a read and, if you are in agreement, follow through and sign the open letter.

I did; # 8071 who had done so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

June 21, 2012

Dear Friend,

In just a few weeks billionaire Melinda Gates is hosting a Family Planning Summit in London. She is doing this with the largest abortion providers and promoters in the world, the UN Population Fund and International Planned Parenthood Federation.

They say they want to raise $4 billion to promote contraception among poor women. This is population control plain and simple, population control aimed at poor dark-skinned women.

We have tried to get pro-lifers registered for this summit so there can be a counter voice…

BUT WE ARE BEING SHUT OUT BY PLANNED PARENTHOOD!

Even though our voices will be shut out, we will not be silenced.

I ask you to read the OPEN LETTER TO MELINDA GATES and if you agree that this is a dangerous conference and if you agree that pro-lifers should not be shut out, sign the letter!

We hope to gather 100,000 signatures from all over the world and we will hand deliver them to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation headquarters in Seattle, Washington and/or directly on the steps of the Family Planning Summit in London on July 11th!

BUT WE HAVE ONLY TWO WEEKS TO DO IT. PLEASE ACT NOW!

Please read the OPEN LETTER TO MELINDA GATES, sign it, and then send this email to everyone in your address book. The only way this will be effective is if this email and this petition go viral all over the Internet.

So, help us say NO to Melinda Gates. No abortion. No abortion groups. No coerced family planning.

Sign the OPEN LETTER TO MELINDA GATES and send this email to all of your family and friends, TO YOUR ENTIRE ADDRESS BOOK.

We will deliver all signatures to Melinda Gates office in three weeks!

Yours sincerely,

Austin Ruse, President, C-FAM New York/Washington DC

PS We have only two weeks to get this done. Please act fast, act now, sign this letter and send this email to everyone you know!

Sued for "defamation" in late 2010 by "pro-choice" Quebec priest Father Raymond Gravel, pro-life group Campagne Québec-Vie (aka Quebec Life Coalition) has recently submitted its written defense at the Superior Court in Joliette Quebec, where Father Gravel is incardinated.

"We refuse to compromise our principles. It's our duty to defend human dignity, however that may irk Father Gravel" states Georges Buscemi, president of Campagne Québec-Vie (CQV). The Joliette priest accuses CQV of having damaged his "dignity, honour and reputation." The popular priest is claiming $500,000 in damages.

CQV, via its president, is calling on all Quebecers and Canadians at large who value human life from conception until natural death, as well as freedom to speak the truth about life and family, to contribute to its defense fund. Buscemi remarks that many people have been "let down" by the priest thoughout the many years he has been in the French media spotlight. "We're calling on all those people who have written to us to share how scandalized they were by Raymond Gravel to send us a donation so that we can fight this lawsuit on their behalf, but especially on behalf of the unborn and the vulnerable targeted for euthanasia." 

The following (French language) documents are publicly available: 

Father Raymond Gravel's original lawsuit (explaining why he's suing Campagne Québec-Vie / Quebec Life Coalition)

Campagne Québec-Vie's written defense, as submitted to the Quebec Superior Court in Joliette, QC. 

An executive summary of the defense of LifeSiteNews, which is also named in the original lawsuit (in English). 

Quebec Life Coalition thanks everyone who can donate whatever amount to its defense fund and help stop Gravel from intimidating pro-life groups in Quebec. For Life and Family !

Yesterday, Maryland became the eighth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley, who signed the bill, announced that "We are all one Maryland, and all of us at the end of the day want the same thing for our children." 

First of all, Governor O’Malley’s statement is not true, because we do not all want the same thing for our children. People of good will, generally-speaking, want what is best for their children…but some people deem it acceptable to kill their children in the womb (hello abortion) or even to euthanize their newborn baby after birth (see this previously posted article).

Secondly…how ironic that Governor O’Malley brings up the topic of children at a gay-marriage bill-signing celebration! The reality is, homosexuals cannot conceive. Abortion kills unwanted babies, while homosexuality eliminates the possibility of babies altogether.

Many may reply to this statement with the question, “Well, who cares anyways? Marriage shouldn’t just be about procreation.”

Well, there’s some truth to that…but nonetheless, marriage is mainly about procreation. Why? Marriage is the union of a man and a woman recognized by the state, whose children will be recognized by the state too (and for those of us who are religious, marriage is seen as a sacrament, blessed by the hands of God…but we’ll leave that topic for another day).

This is what my argument boils down to: Homosexual couples cannot naturally conceive a child. Their partnership is void of fertility. Then why are homosexuals so insistent on legalizing gay marriage? What benefits are they looking for in marriage?

Adam Kolasinski wrote an article presenting the secular case against gay marriage. He writes:

Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Did you read that last sentence? It expresses the fact that marriage between homosexual couples is costly to the state and society. Over the past decades, we have seen the breakdown of the link between marriage and procreation in heterosexual relationships. The problem with homosexual marriage is that it will further widen the gap between marriage and children, leading to deeper societal issues.

It is my belief that dissociating marriage from the act of procreation builds an egocentric, selfish mentality of marital relationships. If marriage does not exist for the institution of family and building future generations, then why does it exist at all? Divorce, abuse, and declining birthrates all have negative impacts on economic and social development. Homosexual marriages will likely add to this confusion.

From the point of view of the child’s wellbeing, it has been shown that “children need both a male and female parent for proper development.” In other words, adoption or surrogate mothers would not be the way to go for homosexual couples because children develop better when they grow up with a biological mother and father.

Think about it: How many of you would be happy having had two mothers or two fathers instead of a mother and a father? I reckon most can testify that having a father and a mother provides the appropriate balance for a family. However, I want to emphasize that I do not think homosexuals are bad parents – rather, they simply cannot offer a parent unit that includes both a biological mother and father.

Finally, let us not forget that homosexual marriage could infringe upon our religious rights in much the same way as the current HHS mandate on contraception in the United States has. Here in Québec, the ERC course has wrought an atmosphere of moral relativism and religious indifference. Presenting homosexuality as a ‘personal choice’ and ethically neutral arrangement clashes with fundamental Christian teaching; it also prevents parents from overseeing their own children’s education. The state could take it a step even further and maybe, one day, force churches to offer homosexual marriage. Though this statement sounds outlandish, it is possible.

Currently it seems there are ten countries that have legalized same-sex marriage (Canada included). Please spread awareness of the dangers of homosexual marriage on the institute of family, child-rearing, religious freedom, and social stability. Help us build a culture of life!

Over the past few days a couple of articles have appeared stirring on Parliament Hill the embers of the abortion debate. These are:

1. On Tuesday the following story care out: "Canadian MP calls for debate in Parliament". Click here to read more about the views of Jeff Watson member of parliament for Essex, on this topic.
2. Also on Tuesday, we find the similar view in "Evangelical leaders call on Canadian Parliament to open abortion debate."

In addition to these are two others that treat the issue in Prince Edward Island.

 

1. "P.E.I. pro-life group kicks off 'show the truth' campaign" discusses the work that pro-lifers are doing to address misinformation on the topic.
2. And finally, a CBC report on the same topic is available here.

 

This is the third in a series examing the logical fallacies pro-choicers make when justifying their position. The previous two were:

1. Abortion frees a child from having to live in an abusive environment; and
2. "I'm opposed to abortion, but respect the woman's righ to choose."

A third justification is:

3. It is unfair to have a woman carry to term a child conceived as the result of a rape or incest.

This subject is the topic of a current news story. The latter profiles two rape victims - one advocating for the woman's right to choose while the second is pro-life. Yet there is an important difference in the two for the latter, unlike the first, conceived a child as a result of the rape.

Also, since the story appeared this past Friday, November 18, a string of thought-out comments on both sides of the issue have been posted. For example, Kris, an alias we learn, argues that she aborted following her rape because of the lack of support system available to her. Further she argues that it is unfair that to hold women to keep the child for the full term. 

Her comments are met by several writers who posit strong counter-arguments. "Beckwith24" and "Veritas" move the dialog away from the wishes of the mom to the violence done on the unborn. "DanielJ" brings up the topic of adoption, which meshes well with the lead story as this is what the second rape victim did and is glad for having done so.

The topic of adoption figures centrally in a study done by the Elliot Institute. In one of their publications - "Victims and Victors," it reports upon 192 woman who conceived following a rape or incest, 69% carried the child to term and 80% of these are happy for having done so.

Of those who aborted, nearly 80% reported that it was not the right solution and only increase the trauma they were experiencing.

Read more about the Elliot Institute's reseach here.

This past Tuesday evening - October 25, television host Michael Coran interviewed breast surgical oncologist Dr. Angela Lanfranchi on his show The Arena. Listen to the interview here to learn about "the biological and epidemiological evidence for the link between abortion and breast cancer."

Two things the Georgetown medical grad said were quite swaying. First, of 64 scientific studies, 53 show a positive link between abortion and breast cancer and of these, 25 are statisticaly significant. 

Second, medical facts - i.e., undisputed data in the medical field, note that for each year that a woman delays a full-term pregnancy after either an induced or spontaneous abortion, her risk of getting breast cancer increases - 5% for pre-menopausal cancer and 3% for post-menopausal cancer.

Lastly, an european actuarial study concluded that the greatest predictor of breast cancer in a country is its abortion registry.

Again, view the interview here.

This video is a bit lengthy but well worth the time spent viewing.

Enjoy.

 

Here in Montreal, we kicked off the fall 2011 "40 Days for Life" prayer vigil last night in Lahaie Park - Saint-Joseph Blvd., corner Saint-Laurent.

After welcoming remarks, I invited two of the fourteen people present to address the group. First, I asked Georges (Quebec Life Coalition President, Mr. Georges Buscemi) to say a few words. He spoke eloquently about the importance of the present vigil, not only that for Montreal but for each of the 300 other locations worldwide.

The vigil team is packed with many persons who have participated in each of the previous five campaigns - quite a dedication. I invited one of these to speak next. Charlotte (Ms. Charlotte l'Heureux - a.k.a., "La Memère Charlotte") is seen below sharing her thoughts, which are frequently punctuated with "rimettes" - i.e., an expression she has coined to mean a humourous rhyme.

After the two speakers, night prayer was recited, at the end of which we gathered near the banner that had been lain out on the grass next to the sidewalk. Stringing ourselves along and a few of us holding the banner, Gabriel led us in a few closing prayers. Jerry (seen below, third from the left) added to the evening, as he frequently does during the vigil, in a customary fashion, paying his harmonica (not shown).

The evening ended with refreshments in the community hall of a nearby convent.

The vigil continues through until Sunday, November 6. 

 

In the days leading up to the beginning of the prayer vigil, I hope to profile the fourteen other registered locations in Canada that will be holding 40-day vigils. Today, I present the second in the series - Moncton, New Brunswick.

The fall 2011, 40 Days for life campaign in Moncton, NB, is in its second edition. After having participated in the 40-day vigil a year ago in neighbouring Fredericton, N.B., Mario and Rosalie Graziani, with the aid of a few friends, coordinated their first one in Moncton this past spring.

Despite being new to organizing 40-day vigils, Rosalie informs me that they intend to have full 24-hour coverage at the vigil location for the duration of the forty days, which is quite remarkable considering that more established sites like Montreal provide a 12-hour presence per day.

Rosalie credits this feat to the broad community support that the vigil is attracting. She estimated that up to 220 people from various denominations came this past spring. Among the latter were Roman Catholics - including members of the Knights of Columbus, Baptists, and Pentecostals.

This Fall the same vigil location as this past spring has been selected. The Dr. Georges L Dumont Regional Hospital is located in downtown Moncton, in proximity to the Université de Moncton.

Further, Rosalie speaks about the positive effect of the first vigil. Awareness building is reaching the Moncton's youth. Many have been questioning why their classrooms are not as full as they had been in previous generations and why there are fewer children being born. They see increased levels of immigration to build up an otherwise diminishing Canadian population. As they come upon the vigilers praying for an end to abortion, they get it. They can connect the dots; ready access to abortion and hormonal contraceptives has had a devastating effect on their absent peers, insidiously cut short their lives at the very outset.

Rosalie also notes how a young woman, post-abortive, chose life when faced with a subsequent pregnancy and now encourages Rosalie and her team of prayers onward.

Yes, there are hecklers. The proximity of the univesity provides a stream of young adults, and a few teachers, who asperse them with derision. Yet we pray that the prayerful presence, in all weather, can soften their hearts and make them realize the tragedy which is befalling us all.

 

In the days leading up to the beginning of the prayer vigil, I hope to profile the fourteen other registered locations in Canada that will be holding 40-day vigils. Today, I begin this series with the eastern-most site - Halifax, Nova Scotia.

The 40 Days for Life prayer vigil campaign in Halifax N.S., is in its fourth edition. Ms. Julie Culshaw is coordinating the event along with Ms. Anne Ashford Hall.

Ms. Culshaw is finding good support for the project among the general populace. The site's log book, a register that persons coming to the vigil location to pray must sign, noted over 200 different entries during this past campaign, Spring 2011

The vigil has an ecumenical flavour to it. Both Roman Catholics and Christian evangelicals have responded to the call to protest the lost of innocent life and the harm being done to women inside the Victoria General Hospital. 

Two events will buttress the 40-day vigil. On the eve of the vigil, September 27, the ecumenical trait will be evident as the prayer warriors and others will gather for an inter-denominational service at St. Thomas Aquinas church.

The second event is a closing banquet. On Sunday, October 30, participants will gather in a Church hall to break bread and listen to guest speaker, Mr. Georges Buscemi! Yes, our own Quebec Life Coalition president.

In between both events, peaceful volunteers will gather outside the Victoria General Hospital. At least the prayers will be peaceful. Over the four vigils, Ms. Culshaw reports that she has seen an escalation in hostility towards the 40-days group, aside from the staple fare of slurs shouted at them by passers-by. For example, the first campaign was marked by a single incident of violence - a water-bombed hurled at the vigilers on the last day. On the other hand, on the first day of the last campaign this past spring 2011, an angry protestor violently grabbed and tore the signs belonging to the prayers. Further, a video of the incident was taken and then doctored to further discredit the vigilers; this was placed on U -tube. Fortunately, the Halifax Regional Police have provided professional service when called upon.

Photos and blog for the group may be found here.