Thursday, October 14, 2010

Are We Seeing Hypocrisy at the National Post?

The National Post of October 8, 2010 had the headline: “Do graphic anti-abortion posters cross a moral line?”
The article was raising questions about the use of graphic images by pro-life students at Carleton University. The article went on to state, “The incident raises serious questions about the use of horror and disturbing images as tools for protest and social change. Does one person’s right to free speech trump another person’s right to not be confronted by distasteful and disturbing images? Is it right, even moral, to use bodily remains to make a political point?” Oh really, this is the same National Post which states:

“Editor's note on graphic images from Haiti”

“Posted: January 15, 2010, 12:05 PM by Shane Dingman. 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. They communicate in a powerful manner the true horror of what has taken place in that country….” [1] (emphasis added)

The students at Carleton University were trying to show the “true horror” that is taking place in our country and others by showing the atrocities and slaughter committed by abortionists on the innocent victims who are exterminated by “choice.” Yet the National Post had the hypocrisy to talk about “crossing a moral line.” Surely, it is immoral to hide the evidence in any atrocity and any attempt to impose censorship on those who show the truth is surely hypocrisy.

I believe the hypocrisy of trying to make a case for censorship was alive and well in the National Post article of October 8, 2010. The writer of the article managed to find some “experts” who appeared to be in favor of censoring the graphic pictures of the slaughter of the voiceless innocents by abortion. I believe a more honest and truthful headline would have been, “Why does the media fail to show the slaughtered victims of abortion?” The article goes on to quote a “respected ethicist” who is against the showing of pictures of the atrocities. One would have thought that any “respected ethicist” would wish that the evidence be shown of the slaughter of the innocents.

The article then quotes, “John Haas, the president of the U.S. National Catholic Bioethics Center, a pro-life activist” who is quoted as saying, “…use of graphic images raises serious moral issues.” Somebody should tell Mr. Haas that the Catholic Church is full of graphic images of the crucified and bloodstained Jesus, nails driven through his hands and feet, blood pouring from his side and wearing a crown of thorns. Would Mr. Haas censor the atrocities committed on Jesus?

The article then quotes Tony Kerr, advertising program chair at the Ontario College of Art and Design in Toronto, who says this about the Carleton students using graphic images, “The students have chosen a low road…awareness is great, but does all this awareness save anyone? If I was their creative director I would tell them, ‘Awareness is not a business plan.’ ”

We are not talking “business plans” here, we are talking about the obscene business of killing by abortion. Still, one must say the writer of this article in the National Post managed to find “experts” who support the continued censoring of the slaughter of the innocents by abortion. The only other “expert” missing was Henry Morgentaler, Canada’s foremost abortionist and Order of Canada recipient, who I believe, would have concurred with the “ethicist”, the “pro-life activist”, and the “advertising program chair.”

Stephen J. Gray
October 14, 2010.

Note: See the innocents slaughtered by abortion at:


Sunday, October 10, 2010

The Dictators of Austerity

“…IMF-imposed austerity runs the real risk of plunging Ireland deeper into depression and deflation.” Financial Times, September 27, 2010.

Austerity measures are being imposed by governments of a number of countries on their populations at the behest of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF is an unelected, appointed cabal of bankers that is financed by the tax dollars of the people of various countries. The people of these countries supposedly elect democratic governments to run their systems. Therefore, the question has to be asked: Why are their governments taking orders from unelected bankers? Who are these bankers who seem to have power over the peoples elected representatives? Why are these representatives of the people punishing their own people on instructions from the dictators of austerity?

Austerity is being imposed on the people of Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Iceland and other countries on instructions from the IMF, which raises the question: why bother electing governments if the International Moneychangers are going to dictate policy? And just what is the policy of the IMF? Are they planning some kind of global governance?

“The Group of Twenty ("G-20") nations, the new Financial Stability Board ("FSB"), and the International Monetary Fund ("IMF") are progressing on two fronts: the monitoring and revision of national and regional economic plans to facilitate global economic governance…” [1]

Oh really, the G20 is allowing the IMF “to facilitate global economic governance.” One wonders, how does the taxpayers of all the different countries feel about being “governed” by unelected bankers? And were the people of the countries in the G20 ever asked whether they wanted this scheme for “global governance?” In fact, dare one ask the question: Is this a form of political treason being enacted by some politicians selling out their national sovereignty?
The Managing Director of the IMF is quoted as saying this:

‘I believe the world is ready for a shift to this more “systemic” vision of IMF surveillance.’ [2]

So there you have it an unelected banker believes we are all ready to accept “IMF surveillance.” Many people in the world are starting to believe it is perhaps the bankers who need to be under surveillance. After all, the present financial crisis was caused in part by bankers and financiers peddling useless financial paper and some are even calling it a financial fraud of massive proportions. Then the bankers got bailed out with tax-payers dollars. So if the IMF is into “surveillance” perhaps it should start with taking a hard look at the brotherhood of bankers and central bankers who are running the financial system.

Finally, if it wasn’t so serious, it would be laughable. Did you ever see a bigger financial farce than this? Taxpayers of various countries who finance the IMF and whose taxes pay the bankers wages are being punished by these same unelected dictators of austerity! We are already seeing riots in a number of countries, perhaps the time has come to declare the bankers bankrupt and impose austerity on them. Or as one writer put it bluntly in an article headlined, “IMF Article Predicts New World Order”: “The IMF…[has a] history of reducing middle classes around the world to ruin…” [3]

When one sees the ruin and devastation imposed on the populations of a number of countries one can only agree that these dictators of austerity need to be fired before they do any more damage.

Stephen J. Gray
October 10, 2010.





Saturday, October 9, 2010

The Hidden Slaughtered Victims

Note: I wrote the article below in 2005. It is still pertinent today. SJG.

“Things that cannot stand sunlight are not healthful” Harry Emerson Fosdick

An atrocity today that cannot stand the light and is not ‘healthful’ to the victims who are killed by it; is abortion. Anyone daring to show the bloody abused and slaughtered bodies of unborn babies killed by abortion or “choice” - as its proponents call it - are attacked and vilified for showing the truth. (they are even attacked by some so-called ethicists and supposed pro-lifers) We live in a society that pretends “choice” is wonderful and that there are no victims. There are two victims in this atrocity; the mother who is told that what is inside her is “tissue” and is “disposable” and the child who is the victim of “disposable choice.” Disguised as “choice” this “procedure” eliminates over 100,000 human lives a year in Canada. There is a wealth of information available on the humanity of the unborn baby, who can be seen on ultra sound, and is operated on to correct any health problems when the child is “wanted.” When not “wanted” the lie is continually perpetrated that the child is only “potential life.” And that “choice” is good.

The big lie of “choice” is spread by most of the media, and hailed by most politicians as a “right” to be protected, especially at election time. “Choice” is an election slogan, as witness our democratically challenged prime minister trumpeting it in the last election. Yet, “choice” kills. This “choice” propaganda is worthy of Josef Goebbels himself. He surely would have approved of these peddlers of propaganda. Tell the big lie often enough and it attains credibility. Yet, for a lie to remain as a “truth” the lie has to continue to be disseminated. This is why the media will not show the carved up and headless bodies of babies killed by abortion. They have already committed themselves as supporters of “choice” and so one lie begets another. There are no victims in abortion according to the powers that be. Therefore there is no evidence to be shown. Or to paraphrase an old saying lives deemed unworthy of living are called “choice.”

Yet some choices are bad. When somebody chose to kill bald eagles recently, the media gave this story big coverage and even showed the carved up carcases of the eagles. Questions were asked as to who was committing these atrocities and it was stated the police were investigating. The message was: Killing eagles is unacceptable and rightly so. But, in our local slaughterhouses, called abortion clinics, killing babies is acceptable. These places are described as promoting “healthcare choices.” When the language is perverted then anything is possible and permissible. After all “choice” is not horrific is it?

Most people are horrified when they see pictures on TV of baby seals being clubbed to death and the ice flows running red with their blood. Warnings are issued on TV before showing the pictures and we are told the images are gruesome. Imagine if these same TV cameras took us inside the local abortuary where babies are slaughtered, suctioned out, poisoned by a saline solution or in some cases born alive and left to die. The people would then be able to see these grisly medical butchers at work performing “choice” for the nation. Then the truth and the light would be shed on this abominable choice, and the babies killed and mutilated by abortion would no longer be the hidden slaughtered victims.

Note: To see the truth about abortion go to:
Stephen J. Gray
July 29, 2005.