This is pretty good! I like the way she speaks about these issues.
Her pro-life argument delivered on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada:
And a recent video in which arguing against euthanasia:
And her first pro-life speech has nearly a million hits on YouTube:
Not bad at all! I’d like to know what she’s going to study in school to use this talent on a suitable challenge that will bear fruit for the pro-life side. She’s from Toronto, so maybe she’ll be Prime Minister of Canada some day.
Here’s an amazing post from Ed Morrisey of Hot Air. (H/T Muddling)
Excerpt:
Barack Obama likes to tell people that we should thank him for his interventionist economic policies, and that without them, unemployment would be much worse in the US than it is now. For instance, he told Racine that without his economic stimulus, we’d be at 12, 13, even 15% — even though Racine itself is at 14.2% unemployment. D’oh! Otherwise, this looks like a classic Churchill conundrum. Had the UK elected Winston Churchill as Prime Minister in 1936 and he fought Hitler early, forcing him from power, would Churchill have gotten credit for saving Western civilization? Or would he have been seen as a war monger, without the context of tens of millions of dead people in World War II?
Actually, we can test the hypothesis in this case, at least to some extent. The financial collapse also battered our northern neighbor, Canada, although not quite to the same extent it did us. (Canada has more conservative banking and lending policies, which shielded them from the worst of the problems.) Instead of using a blizzard of government spending to correct a downturn in unemployment, Canada tightened its belt and rode it out.
So how do the two compare?
Here’s Canada’s employment chart from their Statistics Canada web site – it shows how many thousands of people are employed.
Where’s the recession? There is no recession in Canada.
And they say:
Employment rose by 93,000 in June, pushing the unemployment rate down 0.2 percentage points to 7.9%. This is the first time the rate has been below the 8% mark since January 2009.
Employment has been on an upward trend since July 2009, increasing by 403,000 (+2.4%). These gains offset nearly all the employment losses observed during the labour market downturn which began in the fall of 2008. The June unemployment rate, however, remained well above the October 2008 rate of 6.2%, due to a large increase in the number of people in the labour force over this period.
Yeah – they actually delivered the sub-8% unemployment rate that Obama promised and failed to deliver. And Ed hazards a guess as to why that may be.
He writes:
For those who have trouble recognizing it, that’s what a recovery looks like. Canada’s job creation really has gone in the right direction, not simply plateaued at the nadir of the curve. Maybe Canada’s private sector has been hiring because it doesn’t have to worry about the price signals of the massive government interventions created by the Obama administration that the US private sector has to deal with.
We talked before about how businesses fear “bold experimentation” in economic policy from an interventionist government. That’s the kind of thing that causes depressions, by the way.
Canada’s unemployment rate started off HIGHER than ours, and it is not LOWER than ours. How can that be? Their economy is dependent on us! Well, they didn’t act to “stimulate” the economy with massive government spending, and they’ve been signing free trade deals with everybody and their mother in order to diversify their trading so that we don’t take them down with us. And it’s working. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is an F.A. Hayek conservative, not a J.M. Keynes liberal. He doesn’t believe in deficit spending.
Ah, the benefits of electing an economist to run your country, instead of a demagogue community organizer who sues banks and wants to “spread the wealth”.
Consider this piece of taxpayer-funded “research” that appeared in the prestigious journal Nature (H/T ECM), and you will know everything you need to know about Darwinism, and whether it is science or mythology.
Excerpt:
The loss of genes that guide the development of fins may help to explain how fish evolved into four-limbed vertebrates, according to a study.
Marie-Andrée Akimenko of the University of Ottawa in Canada and her colleagues may now be able to explain how our ancestors lost their fins: they have discovered a family of genes that code for the proteins that make up fins’ rigid fibres. The actinodin (and) genes are present in the laboratory model zebrafish and in ancient fish, but not in four-legged vertebrates (tetrapods), the team report today in the journal Nature. What’s more, the researchers found that dampening the expression of and genes in zebrafish also disrupts the expression of genes that regulate the growth of limbs and the number of digits in other animals.
These results hint that the loss of and genes is linked to the change from fins to limbs.
[…]But a causal connection is not certain. “The real question is: did we lose these genes because we lost the use of fins, or did we lose fins because we lost the genes?” says Denis Duboule, an evolutionary developmental biologist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL). “The problem is that when it’s an evolutionary question, you can’t do the experiment.”
You know what? You can’t do the experiment on the evolution of invisible pink unicorns, either. But you might be able to get your taxpayer-funded speculations about how invisible pink unicorns may have evolved published in Nature, as long as it somehow bashes the idea of intelligent design. To be able to explain evolution, you don’t actually have to test anything in an experiment… you just have to tell a fetching just-so story that may have happened. And then it gets published in the prestigious journal Nature. Because you arrived at the right conclusion, and that’s what matters. That’s science.
The Ottawa Citizen explains more about what the intelligent scientists designed using purposeful, non-random interventions during their lab experiments.
Excerpt:
This is a tough one to understand. How could a fish just grow legs? It mystifies us, and so this part of evolutionary theory is a common target for cheap attacks from creationists. Therefore, it’s extremely valuable that a scientist has now found a way in which a genetic tweaking makes a zebrafish embryo stop growing fins, and start growing an appendage that looks like a leg. If she can tweak a gene in the lab, maybe one of the many mutations that pop up in nature could do the same.
[…]To learn what a gene does, one method is to add a chemical that temporarily stops it from working, and see what happens to the animal. Akimenko’s team “knocked down” two of the four actinotrichia genes in a zebrafish embryo, and found that the fish appeared to stop growing fins.
Instead, it began growing features that look like the “buds” (or embryonic beginnings) of legs.
[…]Akimenko was using a chemical which doesn’t destroy the gene, but only stuns it for a short period, leaving the animal’s DNA intact. It’s like a chemical Taser. After three or four days the gene wakes up and does its normal job, and the fish embryo goes back to growing fins.
Got that? Non-functional “buds” are an important discovery for explaining how legs evolved from fins. Experimenter intervention producing an evolutionary dead-end is hailed as a masterful proof of evolution. Don’t even ask about whether non-functional buds convey an evolutionary advantage. Research that confirms Darwinism doesn’t need to be an actual factual account of what really happened. It doesn’t need to be testable or repeatable.
Notice also that no explanation is given about how the bud-enabled fish developed the ability to breathe oxygen, consume and digest food on land, or modify their excretory system to avoid losing water. None of that is necessary – because none of it is testable. It’s not about finding the truth, it’s about telling a story. A story that contradicts the idea that God exists, that there is objective right and wrong, and one day we will be held accountable for our priorities and decisions. And that’s why this is taxpayer-funded research that is published in Nature.
Is this science? Or religion?
WINTERY KNIGHT 