Tuesday, February 16, 2010

How a Newspaper Can Gut a Letter

I sent a letter to the National Post on February 15, 2010. Below is the original letter I wrote and below that is the letter the National Post published.

Letter to Editor

National Post

February 15, 2010

Dear Editor, re: your article headlined, “Smitherman, husband approved for adoption,” National Post, February 15, 2010. I believe this adoption by two men is wrong. A child should have a mother and a father. No matter how those in our politically correct society try to describe this adoption, I believe, it is not normal for the child. As to your description of one man being the “husband” of the other man in this article, one can only say, nobody in possession of their senses would describe any man as the “husband” of another man. Still, I guess I should not be surprised at this perversion of words by the National Post, was it not your “newspaper” that described the pride parade, where men and women have been known to parade naked as a “family friendly” affair?



Not pleased by gay adoption

National Post

Re: Smitherman, Husband Approved For Adoption, Feb. 15.

I believe any adoption by two men is wrong. A child should have a mother and a father. No matter how those in our politically correct society try to describe this adoption, I believe it is not normal for the child.

This article also describes one man as being the "husband" of the other man. I guess I should not be surprised at this perversion of words by the National Post. Did your newspaper not also describe the Gay Pride Parade as a "family-friendly" affair?


Friday, February 12, 2010

Abortion: Today’s Plague

Note: I wrote this over 9 years ago. SJG

"In the 1300’s, a form of bubonic plague called The Black Death destroyed a fourth of the population of Europe."( The World Book Encyclopedia )

We have our own plague today killings millions of lives worldwide. It is called abortion and it is being spread deliberately throughout the world. This plague could rightly be called today’s “final solution.”

It was the so called "advanced" countries, like the United States and Canada that made abortion "legitimate" in North America. Court decisions like Roe v Wade (1973) in the United States and the Morgentaler decision (1988) in Canada loosed this judicial plague upon the populace. Judges had now given credibility to the crimes of the abortionists. The child in the womb was considered a danger "to security of the person." The law had become a voice for lawbreakers. The plague dog of abortion was legally set loose and the killings began in greater numbers.

There are approximately 46 million abortions annually across the world.


There have been: " Over 40 million abortions in U.S. since 1973" (www.nrlc.org/abortion)

There have been: 1,829,761 abortions in Canada from 1970 to 1995(www.abortionfacts.com)

Since the Morgentaler decision in 1988 the abortion numbers continue to rise. The latest figures for Canada show there are over 100,000 abortions yearly.

An article in the Globe and Mail (Sept. 26) entitled, "Where have all the babies gone," said "Canada’s fertility rate hit a record low in 2000, driven down by the 10th straight annual decline in the number of births." It doesn’t take a mathematical genius to know where all the babies have gone. The article stated there were "327,882" births in the year 2000 and we know there are now over 100,000 abortions a year in Canada.

The problems from abortion are not limited to North America. Europe is also suffering from this plague of killing by choice.

"Today in seventeen European countries, there are more burials than births, more coffins than cradles."

Pat Buchanan in his book, "The Death Of The West" page 9.

Russia has a high incidence of abortion and "two of every three pregnancies in Russia are terminated before birth." (The Death of The West, page 18.)

Great Britain is another country with a declining population: " The English are not having enough children to reproduce themselves."

(syndicated columnist Paul Craig Roberts quoted in The Death Of The West, page19.)

According to legend, animals called Lemmings head to the sea and drown themselves in large numbers. We have become like the Lemmings. Only we head to the abortion chambers. We are committing societal mass murder by killing off our young.

This has resulted in a growing elderly population. Which will inevitably lead to cries for some sort of "solution." Witness the push for euthanasia or the killing of the aged. What started with the slogan "choice" begets another slogan "death with dignity." Holland has already gone down this path of death and many of its old people are killed in hospitals.

We have a scarcity of young people, and the media call this "low fertility. Though if they were being honest they would look at the huge numbers of abortions. The media use the code words "low fertility" to disguise this fact. The "final solution" -- death -- brought about by abortion is allowed very little discussion in our "investigative media," except to promote that banal slogan "freedom of choice" in an attempt to hide the killing.

While killing by abortion always existed, it was, in saner times, considered a horrific act and subject to criminal penalties. People who did them were outcasts. Now we call this act a "choice" even though the child in the womb has no choice and is poisoned by a saline solution or cut to pieces. Sometimes the child survives the abortion but is left to die.

What kind of society puts on a voluntary blindfold and pretends that abortion is anything other than the killing of the child in the mother’s womb? One wonders where are our "human rights" advocates, the justice system and most of our "choice" supporting media?

With today’s technology we can see the child in the womb, and we can operate on him or her, yet the politicians, the judges and the media continue to propagate the big lie of "freedom of choice."

The November 11, 2002, Canadian edition of "Time" magazine had on its front page a picture of the child in the womb. The headline was "Inside The Womb." The article inside tells us: "The List Of Potential Threats To embryonic life is long. It includes not only what the mother eats, drinks or inhales..." The article goes on to say: "But of all the long-term health threats, maternal undernourishment- which stunts growth...may top the list." Ah, the politically correct media are at it again. No mention of abortion as a "threat" and abortion surely "stunts growth;" it should definitely be on the "list."

This societal plague called abortion has not only infected numerous countries but has infected the brain cells of our so called "intellectuals." Why else would the cover up of this abominable crime continue to be sanctioned?

Abortion is big business and a whole industry "lives" off it. Except of course the child in the womb who is slaughtered by it, under the banner of “choice.” The consequences of killing the child in the womb are starting to show up in our society. An aging population, a disrespect for life, talk of human cloning, experimentation on human embryos and euthanasia. We are reaping what we have sown. No one is safe and nothing is sacred. Life is a commodity to be used and abused. The plague is upon us, a societal plague called abortion.

Stephen J. Gray

November 21, 2002.

See the victims slaughtered by abortion at: http://www.AbortionNo.org

Friday, February 5, 2010

Are Some of the Media Hypocrites?

CHBC a TV station in Kelowna, B.C. has refused to show a pro-life ad after originally accepting it. The excuse for their refusal was that the ad was too graphic. CHBC is an affiliate of Global TV which in turn is part of the Canwest Global Communications, which states on its website: “Canwest Global Communications Corp. is Canada's largest media company. In addition to owning the Global Television Network, Canwest is Canada's largest publisher of paid English language daily newspapers…” [1]
Its newspapers includes the National Post.

The National Post of January 15, 2010 had this to say about “graphic images from Haiti.”
“Some readers may be offended by our use on the front page of Friday's print edition a picture showing the body of a victim of the Haitian earthquake, or by another picture inside showing piles of corpses in the streets of Port-au-Prince.

“We recognize that these pictures are disturbing. But we think that they are also a necessary — indeed, a central — part of telling this story completely. (emphasis added ) They communicate in a powerful manner the true horror of what has taken place in that country.” [1]

Yet here in this country, one of their corporate affiliates CHBC refuses to show the horror of a baby’s severed hand by an abortionist. A picture is worth a thousand words, as the saying goes, and let’s people see the atrocities suffered by many victims. Unless of course it is a picture of an aborted baby-- or the hand of an aborted baby that was in the pro-life ad censored by CHBC TV. These TV stations and other media have shown the bloodstained bodies of victims killed in wars and terrorist attacks, but when it comes to the showing of pictures of the innocents slaughtered by abortionists these so-called “searchers for truth” suppress the evidence, and say it is too “graphic.” Why is this, is it because so many of them have been promoting the big lie of, “freedom of choice” for so long, that to show the truth would make a lie of the propaganda parroted on abortion by “investigative journalism?”

Journalism is supposed to be about the search for truth. Instead it is engaged in suppressing the truth about abortion. The refusal of CHBC to show the pro-life ad shows the hypocrisy of most of the big corporate media. Yet some of these media consider themselves the “nations most trusted and well-respected.” Which raises the question, if the CHBC is part of a media conglomerate that claims to be“most trusted and well respected,” why would they suppress an ad that shows the truth about the horror called abortion? Dare we call them hypocrites?

Stephen J. Gray
February 5, 2010.

Note: The Pro-life ad can be seen at: http://www.prolifekelowna.com/

[1] http://www.canada.com/aboutus/index.html

[2] http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/editors/archive/2010/01/15/381547.aspx

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Will You Vote For This Evil Called “Choice?”

[Note: I wrote the article below in 2008, Michael Ignatieff is now the leader of the Liberal Party and here is their position on abortion: “Thank you for your correspondence concerning Canada’s abortion laws. It is the longstanding view of the Liberal Party of Canada that women must have the right to choose, and this party will take no step that limits, or opens the door to limiting, access to safe medical services for women across Canada.”
The Office of Michael Ignatieff, M.P. Leader of the Opposition]

Will You Vote For This Evil Called “Choice?”

Surely, the most evil act in Canada today is the killing of the unborn child under the depraved slogan, “freedom to choose.” These words are a corruption of language.

“Where the speech is corrupted, the mind is also.” -Seneca

We are in the midst of another federal election and we will be hearing numerous speeches from the leaders of the main political parties. All of these leaders are in favor of “freedom of choice,” which is a slogan that has corrupted our language in an attempt to disguise the killing of the innocent child in the womb. This evil act called “choice,” kills off at least 100,000 innocent lives yearly in Canada, and the leaders of the main political parties and many of the politicians are supporters of this bloody butchery. Here are the main political leaders’ words on this issue:

Stephen Harper: “Let me be very clear on the positions I’ve have taken on that. I want there to be no misunderstanding. I’ve said repeatedly, that I will not, that my Conservative government will not be tabling any legislation impacting in any way a woman’s right to choose” (June 27, 2006 LifeSiteNews.com http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jun/060627a.html).

Jack Layton: He supports freedom of choice on abortion and had this to say about Canada’s foremost abortionist: “On behalf of the New Democratic Party of Canada, I salute Dr. Henry Morgentaler as one of the 2008 recipients of the Order of Canada.” (July 2, 2008 http://www.ndp.ca/page/6561)

Gilles Duceppe: “Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe has vowed to bring down any Conservative minority government if it attempts to abolish abortion. [He said that] ‘the position of the Bloc is that we cannot ignore the rights of women in order to keep our seats… I will not accept that the Conservatives abolish the right to abortion.’” (CTV News Jun. 13 2004. (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20040613/bloc_abortion_040613?s_name=&no_ads=)

And before you conclude from Duceppe’s comments that the Conservatives will abolish abortion, note this: “Conservative spokesman Yaroslav Baran was quick to point out his party's official position on the issue in the face of accusations of his party having a hidden social agenda.”
“‘It is certainly not our position that the government should legislate against a woman's right to choose, but it's good to see that other parties are agreeing with our position,’ Baran told Canadian Press”
(CTV News Jun. 13 2004. (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20040613/bloc_abortion_040613?s_name=&no_ads=)

Elizabeth May of the Green Party: "What we’re saying as a party, and what I’m saying as an individual leader, is that any civilized society must provide safe legal access to any woman who needs or wants an abortion... I would never change a thing about the current abortion laws; we must have them." June 7, 2007. MacLeans


Stephane Dion: “… I believe in the rights of women to choose…” (National Post, August 22, 2008 http://www.nationalpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=740563)

“A woman’s right to choose” rolling off the tongues of politicians makes this heinous act of slaughtering vulnerable unborn human beings sound like something on a menu. So what does it really mean? Well, what the politicians don’t like to do is go into detail about is this. But the reality is, supporting “choice” on abortion actually means cutting the unborn to pieces, suctioning their bodies apart, or injecting potassium chloride into their hearts. Other unborn children are murdered by having their skulls pierced by sharp scissors and their brains suctioned out (partial birth abortion). Some have been born alive but are left to die. Barbarity is being practiced and human sacrifices are made. This is the heinous atrocity disguised under the political slogan of a “woman’s right to choose.”

Now these “right to choose” politicians want you to make a political choice to support their party in the federal election. Can any decent, principled, or moral person in good conscience vote for anyone or any party that supports and condones the killing of the unborn child?

Note: to learn more about what these aforementioned politicians speak of when they talk about choice, go to http://www.AbortionNo.org

Stephen J. Gray
September 12, 2008