International
Euthanasia advocates use deception to affect public’s perception of assisted suicide
From LifeSiteNews
Politicians claim that moral opposition to assisted suicide (or suicide in general) and euthanasia is religiously motivated and then make the leap to insisting that this means such opposition should be ignored.
Euthanasia activists are currently doing what they do best: the bait and switch.
As the debate heats up in the U.K., all of the familiar tactics are on display. First, of course, there is the relentless lying. Despite the case study of Canada, the Netherlands, and Belgium – and despite disability activists, judges, palliative physicians, and the secretaries of health and justice warning that no “safeguards” will hold – U.K. euthanasia activists are insisting that this time everything will be different.
The response to these critiques has been predictable but infuriating. Euthanasia activists insist that all of this is about religion – that those nasty Christians are, once again, seeking to impose their suffering-based theology on the country. (This despite the fact that even Ann Furedi, who heads up the U.K.’s second largest abortion provider, opposes the proposed assisted suicide law.) One good microcosmic example of this tactic comes from UK writer Julie Street, who posted to X (formerly Twitter):
Just walked out of Mass bloody fuming – our priest used the homily to read a letter from the Catholic bishops telling people to oppose the Assisted Dying Bill then handed out cards with our local MP’s details on to lobby them. Religion has no place in politics or women’s rights.
There is much to say in response, of course. Why is Street so surprised to discover that her Catholic priest and bishops are, in fact, Catholic? Is she ignorant of the religion that she at least appears to practice? How airtight does one’s mind have to be not to see assisted suicide and euthanasia as religious issues? Indeed, “euthanasia” is Greek for “good death” – the theological premises are baked right into the term. Or does Street think that religious people should shut their mouths in the political arena and voluntarily disenfranchise themselves as the fates of the weak are decided?
Is Street also ignorant of the fact that it was largely due to the Catholic Church’s public opposition that Adolf Hitler moved the Nazi’s euthanasia operation underground? (We now know, of course, that the Nazis only claimed to have disbanded the T-4 program.) I thought progressives wanted a Church that stood up for the weak, vulnerable, and dispossessed – and who qualifies more than the sick, elderly, and those with disabilities? Christians are accused of not being loving enough, and then rebuked when they stand up for the victims the political class deems expendable – first the unborn, now those on the other end of life’s spectrum.
But there’s more to this tactic than grating ignorance. Progressives like to play both sides of the fence. Take abortion, for example. Politicians like to claim that it is a religious issue, and that thus they cannot legislate against it due to the fact that we live in pluralistic societies. Many religious leaders are quite happy to follow this logic, claiming that since abortion is a political issue, it cannot be discussed in church. And all the while, the countless corpses of the aborted unborn pile up in the No Man’s Land between.
The assisted suicide debate is unfolding along similar lines. Politicians claim that moral opposition to assisted suicide (or suicide in general) and euthanasia is religiously motivated and then make the leap to insisting that this means such opposition should be ignored. Meanwhile, because politicians are debating the issue, folks like Street can claim that because this is now a political issue, priests and pastors should keep their traps shut. See what they did there? It’s a neat trick, and despite how farcical and illogical it is, it seems to work with maddening regularity.
In fact, the priest Julie Street had the good fortune to hear was standing in the tradition of the clergy who stood up against Adolf Hitler and his eugenicist gang – and fighting the same evil being advanced under many of the same premises, to boot. She should be grateful. If she can’t manage that, she should at least be better educated.
International
Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy Outline Sweeping Plan to Cut Federal Regulations And Staffing
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy published an op-ed Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal that revealed their huge plans for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Civil service protections won’t shield federal workers from mass layoffs, according to the op-ed. Musk and Ramaswamy outlined a sweeping plan to cut federal regulations and staffing, marking the most detailed glimpse yet into Trump’s downsizing strategy.
The pair, acting as “outside volunteers,” pledged to collaborate with Trump’s transition team to assemble a “lean team of small-government crusaders.” This team, they said, would work closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget to implement their vision.
The initiative focuses on three core objectives: cutting regulations, reducing administrative overhead, and achieving cost savings. Legal experts and advanced technology will help identify regulations that overstep congressional authority. These rules would be presented to Trump, who could halt enforcement and begin the repeal process through executive action.
BREAKING: Donald Trump has officially announced Elon Musk & Vivek Ramaswamy will lead Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) pic.twitter.com/9WNn5FojN1
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) November 13, 2024
“A drastic reduction in federal regulations provides sound industrial logic for mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy. DOGE intends to work with embedded appointees in agencies to identify the minimum number of employees required at an agency for it to perform its constitutionally permissible and statutorily mandated functions,” the op-ed revealed.
Musk and Ramaswamy acknowledged the impact of their plan and said displaced workers should be treated with dignity, proposing incentives like early retirement packages and severance pay to ease their transition into private-sector roles. Despite common assumptions, civil service protections won’t prevent these layoffs, they contended, as long as the terminations are framed as reductions in force rather than targeting specific employees.
Musk and Ramaswamy also advocated for relocating federal agencies out of Washington, D.C., and encouraging voluntary resignations from remote workers unwilling to return to the office full-time. “If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home,” they said.
Ramaswamy said Tuesday that federal employees must return to the office full-time. He noted on X, previously known as Twitter, that unions are hastily revising agreements to prevent job losses, claiming the prospect of a five-day office schedule has left some “in tears.”
Trump announced that Musk and Ramaswamy will co-lead a newly created DOGE during his second term. The duo will work with the White House Office of Management and Budget to streamline federal agencies, reduce wasteful spending, and eliminate excessive regulations.
From Resource Works
Heather-Exner Pirot of the Business Council of Canada and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute spoke with Resource Works about the transition to Donald Trump’s energy policy, hopes for Keystone XL’s revival, EVs, and more.
Do you think it is accurate to say that Trump’s energy policy will be the complete opposite of Joe Biden’s? Or will it be more nuanced than that?
It’s more nuanced than that. US oil and gas production did grow under Biden, as it did under Obama. It’s actually at record levels right now. The US is producing the most oil and gas per day that any nation has ever produced in the history of the world.
That said, the federal government in the US has imposed relatively little control over production. In the absence of restrictive emissions and climate policies that we have in Canada, most of the oil production decisions have been made based on market forces. With prices where they’re at currently, there’s not a lot of shareholder appetite to grow that significantly.
The few areas you can expect change: leasing more federal lands and off shore areas for oil and gas development; rescinding the pause in LNG export permits; eliminating the new methane fee; and removing Biden’s ambitious vehicle fuel efficiency standards, which would subsequently maintain gas demand.
I would say on nuclear energy, there won’t be a reversal, as that file has earned bipartisan support. If anything, a Trump Admin would push regulators to approve SMRs models and projects faster. They want more of all kinds of energy.
Is Keystone XL a dead letter, or is there enough planning and infrastructure still in-place to restart that project?
I haven’t heard any appetite in the private sector to restart that in the short term. I know Alberta is pushing it. I do think it makes sense for North American energy security – energy dominance, as the Trump Admin calls – and I believe there is a market for more Canadian oil in the USA; it makes economic sense. But it’s still looked at as too politically risky for investors.
To have it move forward I think you would need some government support to derisk it. A TMX model, even. And clear evidence of social license and bipartisan support so it can survive the next election on both sides of the border.
Frankly, Northern Gateway is the better project for Canada to restart, under a Conservative government.
Keystone XL was cancelled by Biden prior to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Do you think that the reshoring/friendshoring of the energy supply is a far bigger priority now?
It absolutely is a bigger priority. But it’s also a smaller threat. You need to appreciate that North America has become much more energy independent and secure than it has ever been. Both US and Canada are producing at record levels. Combined, we now produce more than the Middle East (41 million boe/d vs 38 million boe/d). And Canada has taken a growing share of US imports (now 60%) even as their import levels have declined.
But there are two risks on the horizon: the first is that oil is a non renewable resource and the US is expected to reach a peak in shale oil production in the next few years. No one wants to go back to the days when OPEC + had dominant market power. I think there will be a lot of demand for Canadian oil to fill the gap left by any decline in US oil production. And Norway’s production is expected to peak imminently as well.
The second is the need from our allies for LNG. Europe is still dependent on Russia for natural gas, energy demand is growing in Asia, and high industrial energy costs are weighing on both. More and cheaper LNG from North America is highly important for the energy security of our allies, and thus the western alliance as it faces a challenge from Russia, China and Iran.
Canada has little choice but to follow the US lead on many issues such as EVs and tariffs on China. Regarding energy policy, does Canada’s relative strength in the oil and gas sector give it a stronger hand when it comes to having an independent energy policy?
I don’t think we want an independent energy policy. I would argue we both benefit from alignment and interdependence. And we’ve built up that interdependence on the infrastructure side over decades: pipelines, refineries, transmission, everything.
That interdependence gives us a stronger hand in other areas of the economy. Any tariffs on Canadian energy would absolutely not be in American’s interests in terms of their energy dominance agenda. Trump wants to drop energy costs, not hike them.
I think we can leverage tariff exemptions in energy to other sectors, such as manufacturing, which is more vulnerable. But you have to make the case for why that makes sense for US, not just Canada. And that’s because we need as much industrial capacity in the west as we can muster to counter China and Russia. America First is fine, but this is not the time for America Alone.
Do you see provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan being more on-side with the US than the federal government when it comes to energy?
Of course. The North American capital that is threatening their economic interests is not Washington DC; it’s Ottawa.
I think you are seeing some recognition – much belated and fast on the heels of an emissions cap that could shut in over 2 million boe of production! – that what makes Canada important to the United States and in the world is our oil and gas and uranium and critical minerals and agricultural products.
We’ve spent almost a decade constraining those sectors. There is no doubt a Trump Admin will be complicated, but at the very least it’s clarified how important those sectors are to our soft and hard power.
It’s not too late for Canada to flex its muscles on the world stage and use its resources to advance our national interests, and our allies’ interests. In fact, it’s absolutely critical that we do so.
Alberta activates contingency mail delivery plan
“I know three families that have gone to Canada.”: Locals Say Haitians Are Hoofing It Out Of Springfield After Trump Win
MAiD In Alberta: Province surveying Albertans about assisted suicide policies
Mounties Should Probe Criminal Obstruction in Bill Blair’s Office Warrant Delay, Says Former Senior CSIS and RCMP Officer
-
ESG20 hours agoCan’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
-
Brownstone Institute1 day agoThe Most Devastating Report So Far
-
MAiD1 day agoOver 40% of people euthanized in Ontario lived in poorest parts of the province: government data
-
Business2 days agoOttawa’s avalanche of spending hasn’t helped First Nations
-
COVID-191 day agoDr. McCullough praises RFK Jr., urges him to pull COVID shots from the market
-
Aristotle Foundation12 hours agoToronto cancels history, again: The irony and injustice of renaming Yonge-Dundas Square to Sankofa Square
-
Health2 days agoCanada’s public health agency still working to adopt WHO pandemic treaty: report
-
Business1 day agoCarbon tax bureaucracy costs taxpayers $800 million