Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal”, Eco-Communism & Identity Politics


(Ocasio-Cortez, explaining the Green New Deal)


(Australian YouTuber Daisy Cousens)


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter).

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
Challenge to UN Global Migration Compact dismissed in Calgary.


CLICK HERE, for the Green New Deal FAQ.
CLICK HERE, for House Resolution 109, Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for the Forbes article referenced in the FAQ.
CLICK HERE, for the Huffington Post article referenced in the FAQ.

Newly elected US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has announced an extremely ambitious “Green New Deal”. It will not only save the world, help eco-systems, dramatically boost the US economy, phase out carbon industries, but it will provide economic security for everyone — even those not willing to work.

Of course, don’t bother asking how much this will cost. The only question that matters (apparently) is the cost if nothing is done. That will be the end of the world as we know it.

Many still question this economics graduate, just because she doesn’t know how economics work. But that is just being divisive.

Additionally, it will pander to every imaginable group who is oppressed. The world may be ending, but it doesn’t mean we have to put aside such issues as gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc….

Please don’t be selfish here. Wondering about (a) your job security; (b) your lifestyle; (c) your private property; (d) your civil rights, etc are inconsequential. All that matters is saving the world.

Some may wonder what will happen if they “refuse” to go along with this massive, sweeping, government program. Afterall, many are resistant to change. But we will have to see what the penalties will be later. Perhaps some amendments will be added. Daisy Cousens (in the above video), makes the valid point that in order to see this deal go through, government force will be required.

From The FAQ Section
“What is the Green New Deal?

The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to create a greenhouse gas neutral society that creates unprecedented levels of prosperity and wealth for all while ensuring economic and environmental justice and security.

The Green New Deal achieves this through a World War 2 scale mobilization that focuses the robust and creative economic engine of the United States on reversing climate change by fully rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, restoring our natural ecosystems, dramatically expanding renewable power generation, overhauling our entire transportation system, upgrading all our buildings, jumpstarting US clean manufacturing, transforming US agriculture, and putting our nation’s people to work doing what they do best: making the impossible possible.”

1/ The first part says that it is to create a greenhouse gas neutral society, yet also promises unprecedented levels of wealth and prosperity.
2/ Logistical question: how do you ensure economic justice when implementing such a drastic plan? It sounds expensive.
3/ So fighting climate change is like fighting Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? Okay.
4/ To dramatically expand renewable power, wouldn’t that involve developing on those lands you want to restore?
5/ Upgrade all buildings? Does that include all homes? How is such a thing possible, and will people be put up in hotels while their homes are being upgraded?
6/ Jumpstarting US clean manufacturing? Will private or public funds be poured into that? Also, won’t you also be putting a lot of other people out of work? Look at Ontario or BC to see how those “clean initiatives” have played out.
7/ If this enviro shift will lead to unprecedented levels of prosperity, why is it no private companies have attempted anything like this (even on a small scale)? Aren’t they all greedy capitalists?
8/ About this crumbling infrastructure, will it all be demolished and new ones built, or is it geared towards massive renovations?
9/ What will happen to people who refuse to go along with it?

Any large-scale transformation of society can create the risk of some people slipping through the cracks. That’s why the Green New Deal also calls for an upgrade to the basic economic securities enjoyed by all people in the US to ensure everybody benefits from the newly created wealth. It guarantees to everyone:

-A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
-High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
-High-quality health care
-Clean air and water
-Healthy food
-Safe, affordable, adequate housing
-An economic environment free of monopolies
-Economic security to all who are unable or UNWILLING TO WORK

(my emphasis above). That’s right. It guarantees everyone “unwilling” to work economic security. Not those unable to work, but anyone “unwilling”. This is doomed to fail, since there will be absolutely no incentive to work.

People will figure out very quickly it makes no sense to work and pay taxes for non-workers, when they can just be one of those non-workers, and get money for free. It will kill any incentive to be productive.

“Why is such a large-scale mobilization necessary right now?
A recent IPCC report declared that global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate. This calls for global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions of 40 to 60 percent by 2030. The U.S. contributes 20% of global emissions. To hit these global targets, the US must not only get to a greenhouse gas emissions neutral society by 2030, but it must also lead this change abroad to avert climate catastrophe.”

1/ So it’s not that the world will end in 12 years, but that there “may” be a rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, (which was 1700s)
2/ IPCC has a very lengthy history of making wrong predictions. Does that matter to you?
3/ Also, if greenhouse emissions were such a critical factor, wouldn’t all this industrialization you’re calling for make the problem worse?
4/ Wouldn’t planting a lot more trees take a lot of this impact away? Just hire poor highly-indebted college students.

“How will you pay for the Green New Deal?
The Green New Deal is a massive investment program, not an expenditure. The question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what is the cost of inaction, and what will we do with our new shared prosperity created by the investments in the Green New Deal.
We will finance the investments for the Green New Deal the same way we paid for the original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, and decades of war – with public money appropriated by Congress. Further, government can take an equity stake in Green New Deal projects so the public gets a return on its investment. We already know that investments in infrastructure create huge returns on investment. The interstate highway system returned more than $6 in economic productivity for every $1 it cost. Similarly, investments in upgrading and transforming industry are a chance to grow the wealth of our nation dramatically.”

This completely dodges the question. Leftists tend to refer to all spending as “investments” in order to deflect attention. No responsible government would simply commit to open-ended spending of this sort. The US is already $22 trillion (yes, trillion) in debt. Where would this money come from? And will people be “forced” to pay for and go along with this scheme?

The Huffington Post article echoes that mentality.

“We must give up our obsession with trying to ‘pay for’ everything with new revenue or spending cuts.”

“Will this hurt communities that rely on fossil fuels jobs?
The Green New Deal will prioritize creating high-quality, family wage-supporting union jobs in communities that rely on fossil fuel industries. It will ensure that all communities have a better alternative for high-wage work before they transition away from fossil fuel industry based work.”

This is wishful thinking. Pumping almost endless amounts of money into an open-ended, and largely unquantifiable “World War II” agenda “may” lead to a job boom. But once the borrowed money runs out (hint: it will), it would lead to a regional collapse as those new jobs disappear.

“Is this an environmental plan? Why do you have things like universal health care and other social safety net measures in here?
The Green New Deal is a plan to make a full-scale transition of our economy that puts jobs and justice first. This plan will require a strong social safety net so that every U.S. person can make this transition comfortably and nobody falls through the cracks in the process. If we want to be able to mobilize our economy fully, we can’t afford to have employees stuck in their current jobs because they are afraid to lose health care or workers unable to participate because they can’t afford the education and training programs. We also need to be sure that workers currently employed in fossil fuel industries have higher-wage and better jobs available to them to be able to make this transition, and a federal jobs guarantee ensures that no worker is left behind. We believe that the economic securities and programs for justice and equity laid out in this Green New Deal resolution are a bare minimum of what we need to do to successfully execute the Green New Deal.”

1/ So, this is to dismantle the US economy altogether and replace it with a new one?
2/ We can’t afford to have people stuck in those low paying jobs, yet you are going to shut down entire industries.
3/ Your plan for a new infrastructure involves pumping money in indefinitely. Until these systems are operational, they won’t be running, or able to produce anything else.
4/ This will involve creating a whole separate economy to build up all these new energy efficient systems, and overhauling existing buildings.
5/ Where will all this money come from? Wait, not supposed to ask.
6/ What will happen to transportation when all air travel is phased out?
7/ How does any of this “reduce” carbon emissions?
8/ Can we assume that “going along” with this plan will be voluntary? Or will it be forced?

Okay, now we get to the House Resolution itself, and the introduction of incessant identity politics.

First, here comes the fear mongering, and the costs of doing nothing. Take everything will a grain of salt.

“(3) global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—
(A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;
(B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;
(C) wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;
(D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;
(E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050; and
(F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States; and
(4) global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require—
(A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and
(B) net-zero global emissions by 2050;”

3A/ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez supports open borders and mass migration. She openly calls to abolish immigration control entirely in the US. So how will mass migration to a high-consumption society “reduce” carbon emissions?
B/ $500B in lost economic output, yet we are not supposed to ask about money when funding this new deal?
C/ A source would be nice.
D/ These are the same scientists who say the north pole would disappear.
E/ 350M more people exposed to heat stress? I thought temperatures were only going to raise 1.5 degrees Celcius?!
F/ A risk to $1 trillion worth of public infrastructure by a temperature raise of 1.5 degrees Celcius? And I thought money was no issue.
4/ “Pre-industrialised periods” means before 1800s.
A/ 40-60% cut? Yet you want to phase out carbon entirely.
B/ Plant more trees. Problem solved.

“Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);”

The references to identity politics are rampant throughout the bill.

“(2) a 4-decade trend of wage stagnation, deindustrialization, and antilabor policies that has led to—
(A) hourly wages overall stagnating since the 1970s despite increased worker productivity;
(B) the third-worst level of socioeconomic mobility in the developed world before the Great Recession;
(C) the erosion of the earning and bargaining power of workers in the United States; and
(D) inadequate resources for public sector workers to confront the challenges of climate change at local, State, and Federal levels; and”

It’s an interesting double standard here. Ocasio-Cortez keeps bringing up wages, finances and economic situations when it comes to getting support for the bill. Yet she continuously avoids financial discussion when it comes for paying for this green new deal. Can’t have it both ways.

“(3) the greatest income inequality since the 1920s, with—
(A) the top 1 percent of earners accruing 91 percent of gains in the first few years of economic recovery after the Great Recession;
(B) a large racial wealth divide amounting to a difference of 20 times more wealth between the average white family and the average black family; and
(C) a gender earnings gap that results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much as men, at the median;”

A/ Having an economic disparity by itself is not evidence of injustice. People who are highly driven tend to far out earn their unproductive counterparts. But remember, you wanted to create a system which paid people a living wage for refusing to work.
B/ Is this an apples-to-oranges comparison? Would Ocasio-Cortez be comparing European living standards to African living standards? Or is she suggesting this gap is all within America?
Remember, the 1% is very small.
So, if an average black family earned $30,000/year, does it mean the average white family earned $600,00/year? That doesn’t add up
C/ The gender pay gap is simply the earnings difference between men and women overall. Women tend to earn less since they take more time off to raise children, and often choose lower paying jobs.

If you could get the same work from a woman as a man, and just pay her less, then wouldn’t there be an incentive to fire all the men and only hire women?

“(3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses; and”

Sorry to rain on the parade, but what happens if large segments of these groups DON’T want the deal, and the burdens it imposes on them? Will their will be ignored?

Now, let’s talk about how this will be implemented. Again, the Resolution doesn’t take into account what will happen if people say no.

“(4) to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects—
(A) providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization;
(B) ensuring that the Federal Government takes into account the complete environmental and social costs and impacts of emissions through—
(i) existing laws;
(ii) new policies and programs; and
(iii) ensuring that frontline and vulnerable communities shall not be adversely affected;
(C) providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization;
(D) making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries;
(E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;
(F) ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level;
(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;
(H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;
(I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;
(J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors;
(K) enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections—
(i) to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and
(ii) to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States;
(L) ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused;
(M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples;
(N) ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and
(O) providing all people of the United States with—
(i) high-quality health care;
(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;
(iii) economic security; and
(iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.”

While this may be well intentioned, it is clearly not realistic
A/ Financing is important, but you need to provide “way” more detail on this.
B/ Take the societal impacts into account? Okay. What happens if your own studies say that your program is impractical?
C/ High education to everyone? Government controlled, or free market?
D/ Making investment in research? Okay, but how long will the research take to complete? Remember, this is only a 10 year plan
E/ Directing investments? Great, though again, we need more detail.
F/ Ensuring the democratic process? That “sounds” great, but this can only be achieved by “taking away” people’s rights.
G/ Guaranteed jobs and training?
H/ More guaranteed jobs.
I/ Strengthening their rights, yet this deal can only be achieved by “removing” rights and imposing it.
J/ Strengthening H&S laws? Normally I would be totally on board with this, but it context of everything else, it is chilling what the details will look like.
K/ This may be poor wording, but how does one “transfer pollution”? Also, why would you worry about borders? Don’t you want to abolish ICE?
L/ Protecting public lands? Actually a good one.
M/ Consent from Indigenous Peoples? Okay, will you still go ahead if they say no?
N/ Prevent unfair competition? But don’t you “ensure” it, with this government monopoly?
O/ Guaranteed health care, housing, jobs, necessities

Final Thoughts
While this all sounds great, the details (and lack of) are scary. Not only that, the authors seem totally unaware of how self-contradictory the GND is.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly RELIES ON financial incentives to sell the program, yet AVOIDS any talk of how this will be paid for.

Further she talks about GIVING rights and discretions to groups and how they run their lives, yet implementing this will require TAKING rights away.

The deal mentions EQUALITY many times, but entire sections are devoted to divisive IDENTITY POLITICS and to pandering to specific groups.

The Green New Deal is to PROVIDE new opportunities and entitlements for everyone in America, yet involves SHUTTING DOWN entire sectors of the economy.

All of these promises are made that the social service needs of AMERICANS will be met. However, Ocasio-Cortez promotes OPEN BORDERS IMMIGRATION, which would see those services overrun.

For this deal to be implemented in any real form, any and all rights of citizens (to oppose) it would need to be taken away, and the deal imposed by force. Even then, it would bankrupt the USA long before it ever became reality.

The new face of the Democratic Party?

Toronto Star Hit-Piece Accidently Makes Alt-Right Seem More Appealing


(Toronto Star Op-Ed from Zachary Kamel, Martin Patriquin, Alheli Picazo)


(“Ensign Hour” Podcast. Judge for yourself.)


(People’s Party Founder Maxime Bernier)


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter).

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG


This hit-piece by the Toronto Star actually makes the Alt-Right seem very reasonable.

CLICK HERE, for the actual Toronto Star article. Here are some quotes with rebuttal

“Last Halloween, the hosts of a white nationalist podcast called The Ensign Hour discussed how to propel their ideology into the mainstream of Canadian politics. Although they pined for a “European homeland,” the co-hosts were all too aware of just how unappealing their movement remained to the political mainstream.”

As much as the multicultural crowd wants to rewrite history, Canada “was” founded and grown as a British colony, with strong French influence. As such, those powers had a very strong say in how the nation was formed. It is considered “unappealing” to point this out, since papers like the Toronto Star label truth “racist”. See the British North American Act of 1867. European roots is an actual party of Canadian identity.

“What the country’s tiny cadre of neo-Nazis and the broader alt-right movement needed was a politician who could bridge the gap between the mainstream and the far-right fringe — someone who was an unabashed supporter of “Western values,” who would clamp down on immigration and multiculturalism.

That person, they decided, was Maxime Bernier.

Last August, after the long-serving Conservative MP denounced Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s “extreme multiculturalism and cult of diversity,” the Ensign Hour hosts perked up. When Bernier declared “the death of political correctness in Canada” to his more than 65,000 Twitter followers, it was heard as a dog whistle. “

CLICK HERE, for a series of tweets Bernier made in August 2018. Calling for politicians to focus on what unites Canadians, rather than endlessly pandering to what makes us different is far right?

This is a bit confusing: Is Bernier a puppet of the far right? Or is Bernier an independent person who just happens to attract “far-right” views?

This is a dog whistle how exactly? And what is wrong with ending political correctness?

““This sets a precedent. This is a huge step forward. This opens the conversation for our people — the Europeans, the settler class — to give us permission to speak our minds,” said “Cracker Jack,” who later identified himself as Tyler Hall-Kuch on the show after the Star reached out to him for comment. “

So what’s the problem here? Legitimate discussion on Canadian identity and forced multiculturalism has long been silenced by the lunatic left. Cries of “racist, Nazism, white supremacy, etc…” are used whenever difficult topics such as this are brought up.

“In September, about a month after quitting the Conservative Party, Bernier founded the People’s Party of Canada. Pundits and rival politicians dismissed it as a vanity project, the product of Bernier’s bitterness after having lost the Conservative leadership to Andrew Scheer in 2017.”

I would actually agree, up to a point. There was a lot of resentment over the narrow 2017 loss, which saw allegations of phantom members casting ballots, and having those ballots destroyed before an audit could take place. Furthermore, many in the media “did” dismiss it as a vanity project.

Also worth noting is that Maxime Bernier quit over POLICY differences with Andrew Scheer and the CPC. Interestingly, Scheer himself avoids those issues and cites PERSONAL differences in the split. Watch both videos. They are night and day different.

“But in just four months, the PPC signed up more than 33,000 members and has become a thorn in the side of Scheer and the Conservative Party, which has been forced to protect its right flank on issues like immigration and identity. More importantly, the PPC now has electoral district associations in every one of the country’s 338 federal ridings. Considering the party was little more than an angry Twitter feed last fall, the speed of PPC’s rise is notable.”

This is actually true. The Conservative Party “has” had to protect its right flank. Seeing Bernier offer a conservative option while Scheer offered nothing has led to a big loss of support. Also true is the speed at which the People’s Party has actually been formed. Impressive considering how it was shrugged off as a lunatic fringe.

An angry Twitter feed? Am assuming this is a reference to Maclean’s writer Paul Wells commenting that Bernier’s followers “consisted of the stupidest people on Twitter”.

“But that public rejection seems to have done little to deter his alt-right supporters. The co-hosts of the Ensign Hour and others have called on members of the alt-right to infiltrate the PPC, whether the party is willing or not. As the extreme right has done elsewhere, they hope to move an adolescent political party, bit by bit, toward the political extreme, and thereby bring the political extreme toward the mainstream.”

The authors seem to conflate those wanting an all white ethno-state, with those concerned with the direction that mass migration and forced multiculturalism is leading towards. Promoting multiple identities eventually leads to parallel societies. Often, it leads to balkanization and eventual breakup of a country.

Quebec’s 1980 and 1995 sovereignty referendum were largely about protecting its own language and culture (which are forms of ethno-nationalism), but leftists don’t ever point that out. Furthermore, what 2 people choose to say on their own podcast is “their” choice.

Check out the list of 11 items in the box at the top of the article. These are the kinds of initiatives that crop up when globalism starts to creep in and nationalism is condemned. Globalism “has” creeped in at every level in Canada, but that rarely gets mentioned.

Nicola Hanson, who until recently served as the party’s Ontario organizer, disparaged Islam and Muslims in Twitter posts. “Islam is not Canadian. Canada was founded by Christianity. They do not assimilate because they don’t want to. They want to take Canada and every non Muslim country and kill non converters,” she tweeted in December 2017.

Seriously, what is untruthful here?
1/ Canada “was” founded as a Christian nation
2/ Muslims “don’t assimilate, and make endless demands.
Here demanding crosses be removed.
Here, demanding prayer rooms.
Here, demanding segregated swim times.
Here, demanding special rights to face coverings.
Here, demanding segregated lunch times.
These are just a handful. A quick search will reveal thousands more
3/ Muslims “do” want to take over.
See here, see Belgium, see Spain, see Ontario.

“Some in the alt-right see an opportunity in Bernier’s statements about immigration and multiculturalism and hope he may one day be in a position to make anti-immigration policies a reality.”

So is having concerns about immigration and multiculturalism wrong?

“The alt-right is a loose movement of white nationalists, white supremacists and neo-Nazis, self-styled militias and anti-government extremists; anti-immigration, closed-border activists and anti-Muslim fanatics; conspiracists, culture warriors, men’s rights activists, anti-feminists and societal traditionalists.”

A lot to unpack here
1/ So which is it? Is this a loose fractious movement, or is it working towards common goals?
2/ What is wrong with having societal traditions? How does a nation exist without them?
3/ Related to #2, what is wrong with having and maintaining a national culture? Lefties crow about minorities getting cultural rights, but what about there being a dominant culture? You don’t have a nation without it, just balkanization.
4/ Men’s rights activists are sneered at, but don’t you support equality? What exactly is so repulsive about this group? What in their agenda is so bad?
5/ Anti-feminists? Interesting to bring them up, since modern feminism is anti-men. It also promotes free endless abortion, and rails about the non-existent pay gap.
6/ Culture warriors? Again, what is wrong with preserving your culture? Or should it be abandoned in favour of accommodation “every other” culture?
7/ Conspiracists? Read the list of 11 points above. Not really a conspiracy theory when the UN is openly pushing this globalist, anti-national agenda.
8/ Anti Muslim fanatics? So reporting anti-Islam hoaxes? Reporting Islamic violence? Media covering up coordinated Islamic violence?
9/ Anti-immigration? This often cited poll says 1/2 of Canadians want less immigration.
10/ Anti-government extremists? Wanting new options to vote for, or rejecting “traditional” parties is not anti-government. Anti-establishment, yes.
11/ Neo-nazi? I don’t suppose you could name any, or even give an approximate figure?
11/ White nationalist? Okay, to play devil’s advocate here: given how rampant ethnic and cultural pandering are among “minorities” is it any wonder that some white may now do the same? Reap what you sow.

“This restive and fractious bunch share the cause of self-preservation — namely, of Western (read: white) heritage, culture and demographics. They seek a return to “traditional” gender roles and the protection of this culture, which is invariably under attack by a host of alleged enemies: progressive politicians, leftist groups, successive waves of immigration, along with religious and sexual minorities.”

Let’s clear something up:
Those pushing for a greater unity, ETHNO-NATIONALIST, argue that who the people are matters, be it: heritage, culture, common language, traditions, way of life, and often ancestry/ethnicity, are the necessary elements for a cohesive society. EN is commonly thought to be a racial supremacist ideology, but that just isn’t the case.

Those pushing for greater freedom and individuality, CIVIC NATIONALIST, are much more likely to believe in the multicultural way of life. The cohesive unity that ethno-nationalists stress is not nearly as important as more abstract beliefs such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and acceptance rather than assimilation of newcomers.

1/ Ethno-nationalists push for a cohesive society, whereas civic nationalist want a freer society. They have very different goals.
2/ The article is surprisingly accurate about describing ethno-nationalism, but acts as if it is a bad thing.
3/ Progressive politicians “are” enemies. They let the culture go to hell in the name of appealing to everyone.
4/ Leftists groups (like the Toronto Star) lie and smear all the time.
5/ Mass immigration “does” change the fabric of society, especially when we are told to be “tolerant”, rather than newcomers to assimilate.
6/ Few people take issue with Buddhists or Pastafarians. The big problem is Islam, and having its ideology forced on other nations.
7/ Few people have a problem with LGBTQ people living their lives. It is pushing that agenda on young children and publicly forcing the issues on people that cause backlash.

“The alt-right found its stride with the election of Donald Trump, glomming onto the removal of Confederate statues in the southern United States as an example of widespread anti-white enmity. But although it had certain successes in broadening its appeal, the alt-right largely remained a street-level phenomenon, albeit one with a prolific online presence. “

Trump’s “America First” policy resonated with many Americans. However, you conflate putting your country first with open racism.

“The alt-right’s attempts to infiltrate mainstream politics is neither surprising nor particularly novel. The Ku Klux Klan did as much in the 1920s by soft-pedalling its violent past and eschewing the anti-Black rhetoric that had come to define the group. Instead, it blamed the “new” wave of immigration to the U.S. — Jews and Catholics from Europe, for the most part — for a host of perceived social ailments.

As with the Klan before them, today’s alt-right sees its future not on the street but within the corridors of power. “White supremacists had become savvy at outwardly masking their real beliefs and intentions while most wrote them off as political innocuous wackos. Having bided their time, they are re-emerging to try and capitalize on a racially recharged political climate,” wrote American sociologists Robert Futrell and Peter Simi in 2017 in the journal Contexts.”

What is left out of the article is that the KKK is a LEFT-WING organization. It started about 100 years ago as the military wing of the Democratic Party in the USA. The article also omits BLM (Black Lives Matter), another leftwing group which blames whites for all their problems.

““It’s going to be essential to the extreme right movement to continue to develop what they perceive as legitimate messaging so they can attract people into the movement that would otherwise be put off by violent force.””

Who is the extreme right? People who want their cultures, customs, language and traditions kept intact? As seen above, progressives rail against very reasonable interests of nationalists: protecting their nations.

“Yet the apparent PR push, not to mention Desveaux’s gentle reminder, has sometimes been undermined by Bernier himself. He regularly uses language favoured by the alt-right, calling Trudeau a “hypocritical virtue signaller” and denouncing feminism as “a radical left-wing ideology” like “cultural Marxism.”

Bernier’s shift to identity politics has left some of his former supporters aghast — including at least one of the advisers who worked on his Conservative leadership campaign in 2017. “For a long time a lot of us were sympathetic to Max … We went to work for the guy. We wanted him to win more than anything,” said a former member of Bernier’s leadership team, who didn’t want to be identified for fear of being targeted by Bernier’s supporters.”

Trudeau “does” go out of his way to virtue signal at every turn.
Feminism and cultural Marxism “are” radical ideologies.

““Bernier is essentially a libertarian, except that he knows that if you say you’re a libertarian you get about half a per cent of the votes, so he has to find legitimacy elsewhere,” said Quebec-based conservative pundit Jeff Plante. “It’s normal that the conservative movement would attract the anti-mass-immigration vote in the country. The problem is that Bernier isn’t legit in this. He has no past in it. It’s like he’s throwing ideas around to see what sticks.”

Logically, if you are a Libertarian, you would want little to no immigration. Your small-government ideology is threatened by importing large numbers of people who can eventually outvote you and demands bigger government.

So-called “conservatives” don’t actually conserve anything
A/ They are totally neutral on social issues
B/ They support mass immigration.
C/ They don’t see open borders as a big problem.
D/ They don’t see Canadian culture as worth protecting.
E/ They don’t see Canada’s European heritage as worth protecting.
F/ They don’t see Canada’s Christian roots as worth protecting.
G/ They don’t see the English language as worth protecting.
H/ They don’t see infant life as worth protecting.
I/ They don’t see greenspace or nature as worth protecting.
J/ They don’t see demographics as worth protecting.
K/ They don’t see the economic viability as worth protecting (huge debts).
L/ They don’t see free enterprise as worth protecting.
M/ They don’t see free speech as worth protecting.
N/ They don’t see true democracy as worth protecting.
O/ They don’t see our education as worth protecting.

But, hey, as long as Conservatives are “tolerant”, it’s okay.

“But if he is using identity politics to expand the constituency for the libertarian ideas he has long touted, he is playing a dangerous game, says Daniel Béland, director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada.

“[Bernier] would be aware that this kind of rhetoric could attract people who listen to some of the Hitler rhetoric [and] who are associated with the far right. It’s hard to imagine that he would be unaware of the ramifications of these comments,” Beland said. “Simply saying he’s against racism while at the same time attracting these people is … problematic and might turn against him over the next few months if it gets out of control.”

If you followed Bernier for any length of time, he “calls out” identity politics a lot. Important distinction that gets lost. And way to be taken seriously — just drop in the Hitler references.

“For their part, the Ensign Hour hosts have pleaded with Bernier to “drop the libertarian stuff,” as Hall-Kuch put it in a recent podcast, urging him instead to continue his criticism of immigration and multiculturalism.

“The reason why this party received any attention at all was because of its stance on immigration specifically. There was overtures to libertarian economic theory and models and ending supply management. But most people would agree that the reason why they care is because this new party’s alleged stance on immigration,” Garcia said on an Ensign Hour podcast in October.”

This is actually a valid criticism of Libertarianism: that they value “my freedom” over all else. The Nationalism point of view is that the society itself if what needs to be protected. See the above A-O list. It would be nice to see a leader address more of these issues.

This article is such nonsense that the first reaction is to write it off as a trolling piece. However, it seems the authors actually mean it.

Burnaby South Liberal MP Candidate Wants UN To Regulate Internet


(Original Liberal Burnaby South candidate, Karen Wang)


(Posted on HuffPost, Liberal Candidate Richard Lee)


(Debate highlight clips, see 7:25)


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter).

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG


CLICK HERE, for the Huffington Post article.

There is a Federal by-election scheduled for February 25, 2019.

One of the ridings is Burnaby South, BC

The Liberal candidate, Richard Lee, when asked about internet regulation, openly suggested that the United Nations should regulate internet use. The crowd booed.

A Liberal MP (candidate) openly proposing regulating and controlling internet content

Interestingly, Lee is the second candidate for the Liberals in the byelection. Karen Wang was forced to step down after making a blatantly racial appeal. Wang is of Chinese descent, as is about 1/3 of the riding. She advocated only voting for her, rather than the NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, who is of East Indian descent. See this article.

Open racial identity politics, UN censorship and internet regulation.

Canadian politics should be done better.

Communist Party of Canada: Complete Nonsense


(Recent article from the Communist Party of Canada)


(The Communist Party is an officially registed party)


(Women’s March Co-Chairs: Tamika Mallor; Bob Bland; Carmen Perez; Linda Sarsour)


(Anti-Semitism within the Women’s March Hierarchy)


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter).

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG


CLICK HERE, for the January 20, 2019 article which will be reviewed. Note: This review will not be a direct debunking of Communism itself, that will come another day. Rather, just a rebuttal of a recently published article.

To any actual Commies reading this: if you are easily triggered, good. Perhaps this will knock some sense into you.

Also, in no way do I wish for the Commie party to be silenced. All parties have the right to be heard. That said, no parties are immune from having bad ideas challenged. Let’s begin:

“The third annual Women’s Marches across North America take place on January 19, and once again, millions will be in the streets. These marches are a powerful stand against gender inequality and misogyny, in direct response to the sharpening attacks against trade unions, women, Indigenous and racialized peoples, the LGBTQ2+ community and others targeted by Donald Trump’s regime and reaction in Canada. The Women’s marches are also an important day to unite against the divisive attempts by fundamentalists and transphobic bigots to derail the struggle for a truly inclusive women’s movement.”

First point: the marches themselves are divisive. It is a “women’s” march, and one of the founding principles was to unite women as a voting block? Gender based identity politics.

Second point: Anti-Semitism is rampant within the march itself (again the NYT article. Embracing publicly the Nation of Islam Founder, Louis Farrakhan, and point blank refusing to condemn his views led to a major rift, and eventual split.

Third point: While complaining about “racism”, sentiments within the march are very anti-white. Hypocritical, to say the least.

Fourth point: There is a very large anti-LGBTQ attitude within the founders. Again, backing people like Farrakhan directly undermines any claim of being “inclusive”.

The Communist Party of Canada promotes this march, without realising how much hate and intolerance are ingrained within it.

“In nearly every capitalist country, the corporate attack on women’s equality gains has become a central piece of the assault against the working class and its allies. Across the globe, with a few exceptions, progress to narrow the gender pay gap, expand reproductive rights, and overcome poverty has hit major roadblocks. This trend has been ignored by mainstream media and politicians, who tend to focus mainly on revelations of sexist comments and assaults by individual politicians or executives, rather than exposing the underlying patriarchal, sexist, homophobic and transphobic ideologies which drive the wider anti-women agenda.”

The identity politics were addressed above, but here, three more claims are made: 1/ Gender pay gap; 2/ Reproductive rights; 3/ Poverty. Okay, let’s address all three.

1/ The gender pay gap (aka “Wage Gap”) is due largely to personal lifestyle choices between men and women. Men, on average, tend to: (a) work more overtime; (b) work more physical jobs; (c) work more dangerous jobs; (d) take less time off for child care; and (e) not take arts/humanities in universities.

Question for all feminists If there truly was a “wage gap”, and you could get the same production from hiring only women, why don’t companies do it? Why act “against” their own financial self interests.

2/ Reproductive rights basically means abortion. The Commies want abortion on demand, funded by taxpayers.

If you want to kill your kids, pay for it yourself

Abortion supporters (the Pro-Deathers) champion that abortion is a woman’s right, but the rights of the child are never brought up (unless the Mother wants tax-payer funded child care). Once able to breathe, have a heart beat, and move muscles, it “is” a human life. But this line of thinking shows a disturbing attitude, that a child is “disposable” if inconvenient to the mother.

3/ Poverty. This is mostly caused by poor decisions, and is related to the above (1) and (2). Women who choose to get jobs that don’t pay well, or not work at all, tend to be worse off than women who succeed. Single women having children also adds to poverty (despite male taxpayers subsidising the kids). Being poor due to bad choices is unfortunate, but hardly worthy of a national rally.

“The Women’s March protests which began in 2017 can play a vital role in building stronger popular resistance. But a narrow focus on one-day annual protests is not enough. The tendency for top-down organizing and planning of these Marches also limits the scope of the emerging fight against the entire right-wing agenda of governments that protect the status quo and the corporate profits generated by women’s inequality.”

1 Day protesting isn’t enough? Okay.

Corporate profits are generated by women’s inequality? I thought they were generated by having expanding well-run companies. And what reason would men have for being anti-women? It would just hurt mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, etc …

Anyway, what prevents women from joining these corporations and trying to get in on the riches? Due to hiring quotas, it would actually be easier than for men.

So you hate right wingers altogether? Thanks for admitting it.

“Here in Canada, a crucial federal election is just months away. The defeat of the bitterly anti-equality Harper Conservatives in 2015 gave the so-called “feminist” Justin Trudeau an easy way to avoid real action on women’s equality issues. Despite Liberal rhetoric, the gender wage gap has barely budged, the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls has bogged down, and progress on an affordable national child care program is painfully slow. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are using anti-immigrant tactics to mount a political comeback, and the openly racist, misogynist and transphobic “People’s Party” plans to nominate candidates in every federal riding. This is a moment of extreme political danger.”

1/ Not defending Harper, but what did he do that was anti-equality?

2/ Trudeau got a pass on real action? I would actually agree with you (a first), but up to a point. Again, the wage gap is caused by personal choices, the MMIWG found that most Aboriginal women were murdered by men they knew (like all women), and national child care is just an entitlement program

3/ The Conservatives — I assume you mean Scheer’s CPC — are making a political comeback using anti-immigrant tactics? Could you provide an example?

4/ People’s Party is racist, misogynistic, and transphobic? A party that routinely calls out identity politics? Again, could you provide an example?

Lots of smearing going on here, but very little in the way of specifics.

“The fight for gender equality – in Canada, and internationally – is not a side issue. Building a more powerful resistance against capitalist patriarchy is crucial to the strategy of uniting and mobilizing millions of people for social justice, full equality, Indigenous rights, and much more. In this situation, an annual day of marches makes a strong statement, but it’s no substitute for a broad, inclusive and powerful pan-Canadian coalition of equality-seeking groups, with the labour movement’s 2.5 million women members playing a crucial role. The sooner such a coalition is brought together, actively intervening to demand full equality rights, the better.”

One clarification:
Do you seek equality of opportunity? or
Do you seek equality of outcome?

It makes a difference. Equal opportunity for women has been the law throughout Western nations since the 1960s. Women cannot be denied anything on the basis of sex. But what you probably seek is equality of outcome, which can only be achieved through force.

“The women’s movement can count on the Communist Party to fight for women’s and gender equality rights before, during and after the 2019 federal election. The Communist Party of Canada will campaign for “Full Gender Equality NOW!”, including the following demands:”

Again, what rights don’t women have? Free handouts isn’t a right, at least not yet.

“* Restore funding for women’s equality programs.
* Close the wage gap; legislate full pay and employment equity.
* Fully implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations, including justice for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
* Guarantee accessible and publicly funded abortion and reproductive rights services in every province and territory.
* Create a pan-Canadian childcare program – universal, public, quality, affordable childcare with Canada-wide standards and union wages for childcare workers.
* Protect women’s right to EI maternity coverage; expand parental benefits to 52 weeks.
* End all forms of violence against women and provide adequate funding for crisis centres and transition houses.
* Repeal Bill C-36 – stop criminalizing sex workers!
* No to Islamophobia! End the wars in the Middle East, zero tolerance for Islamophobic and gendered violence, and increase immigration and refugee quotas.
* Repeal the Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement, which disproportionately penalizes women fleeing poverty and violence.”

1/ The wage gap is a result of personal choices. Only way to change that is by forcing any and all jobs to be paid the same amount, regardless of type of work, skill, or hours. Basically, communism

2/ How many inquiries do we need? Especially given the RCMP findings that most of these women are killed by men they know

3/ Guarantee free abortion on demand? No. Just no.

4/ Free national childcare? Sounds lovely, but unrealistic. Take responsibility for having children.

5/ Women do have EI maternity coverage — if they have worked at a job enough hours. 52 weeks, a full year, for fathers? Nice, but unrealistic, as people will just keep having kids and never work

6/ Violence against women is illegal. And how many houses exactly do women need? Would you support shelters for men?

7/ Decriminalising sex workers? Assuming you only mean “adult” sex workers? That I agree with in part. As distasteful as it is, there are more important things for police to focus on.

8/ A lot to address in this one
(a) No to Islamphobia? Islam is a political ideology.
(b) End wars in the Middle East? Agree on that one.
(c) Zero tolerance for Islamophobic and gendered violence? Okay, but one clarification: what happens with all the “gendered violence” perpetrated in the name of Islam? They really don’t respect women.
(d) Increase immigration? No, get Canadians to have more children.
(e) Increase refugees? No, can’t screen them, and are a burden on society.
Note: with both (d) and (e) mass migration waters down Canadian culture.

9/ The safe 3rd country agreement is meant to prevent “refugees” from coming to either Canada or the US on visitor or tourist status, then crossing the border and pretending to be fleeing violence. Basically what happens at places like Roxham Road.

That should about do it. Go on their website, and everything is devoted to “social justice”, grievance politics, identity politics, and entitlement programs.

By the way: where has communism or socialism ever successfully been implemented?

Infanticide Part #2: Leave No Survivors


(Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse (R), calling out infanticide)


(Washington Senator Patty Murray (D), challenges new bill)


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter).

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG


CLICK HERE, for part 1: NY and Virginia legislation.

CLICK HERE, for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (2019 version)
CLICK HERE, for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (2018 version)
CLICK HERE, for the Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, signed by George W. Bush.
CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood’s “views” on Roe v. Wade.
CLICK HERE, for Roe v. Wade (1973)

Here is the Born Alive Infants Protection Act

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.

(a) In General.–Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

“Sec. 8. `Person’, `human being’, `child’, and `individual’ as
including born-alive infant

“(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person’, `human
being’, `child’, and `individual’, shall include every infant member of
the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
“(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive’, with respect
to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or
extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of
development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a
beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of
voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a
result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced
abortion.
“(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny,
expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any
member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born
alive’ as defined in this section.”.
(b) Clerical Amendment.–The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new item:

“8. `Person’, `human being’, `child’, and `individual’ as including
born-alive infant.”.

Seems harmless enough, right? If it 1/ breathes; 2/ has a heartbeat; and 3/ has muscles that move, it’s alive and needs protecting

Saving the life of infant children “should” be a priority for any civilized society. Unfortunately, as time goes on, we have to legislate further and further to make that point. In fact, pro-death activists have LONG passed the guidelines set out by Roe v. Wade (1973).

Sadly, this common sense legislation is not only needed, but apparently very controversial. This was passed in the House of Representatives last year.

Here is the 2019 Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

115th CONGRESS
2d Session

H. R. 4712

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 20, 2018
Received

AN ACT
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act”.

SEC. 2. Findings.
Congress finds as follows:
(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.
(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.
SEC. 3. Born-alive infants protection.

(a) Requirements pertaining to born-Alive abortion survivors.—Chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1531 the following:
Ҥ 1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion survivors
“(a) Requirements for health care practitioners.—In the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive (as defined in section 8 of title 1, United States Code (commonly known as the ‘Born-Alive Infants Protection Act’)):

“(1) DEGREE OF CARE REQUIRED; IMMEDIATE ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL.—Any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive shall—
“(A) exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age; and
“(B) following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence required under subparagraph (A), ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.

“(2) MANDATORY REPORTING OF VIOLATIONS.—A health care practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician’s office, or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1) shall immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or Federal law enforcement agency, or to both.
“(b) Penalties.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
“(2) INTENTIONAL KILLING OF CHILD BORN ALIVE.—Whoever intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child born alive described under subsection (a), shall be punished as under section 1111 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
“(c) Bar to prosecution.—The mother of a child born alive described under subsection (a) may not be prosecuted under this section, for conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 3 or 4 of this title based on such a violation.

“(d) Civil remedies.—
“(1) CIVIL ACTION BY A WOMAN ON WHOM AN ABORTION IS PERFORMED.—If a child is born alive and there is a violation of subsection (a), the woman upon whom the abortion was performed or attempted may, in a civil action against any person who committed the violation, obtain appropriate relief.
“(2) APPROPRIATE RELIEF.—Appropriate relief in a civil action under this subsection includes—
“(A) objectively verifiable money damage for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of subsection (a);
“(B) statutory damages equal to 3 times the cost of the abortion or attempted abortion; and

“(C) punitive damages.
“(3) ATTORNEY’S FEE FOR PLAINTIFF.—The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil action under this subsection.
“(4) ATTORNEY’S FEE FOR DEFENDANT.—If a defendant in a civil action under this subsection prevails and the court finds that the plaintiff’s suit was frivolous, the court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff.
“(e) Definitions.—In this section the following definitions apply:
“(1) ABORTION.—The term ‘abortion’ means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device—
“(A) to intentionally kill the unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant; or
“(B) to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant, with an intention other than—
“(i) after viability, to produce a live birth and preserve the life and health of the child born alive; or
“(ii) to remove a dead unborn child.
“(2) ATTEMPT.—The term ‘attempt’, with respect to an abortion, means conduct that, under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in performing an abortion.”.
(b) Clerical amendment.—The table of sections for chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item pertaining to section 1531 the following:

“1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion survivors.”.
(c) Chapter heading amendments.—
(1) CHAPTER HEADING IN CHAPTER.—The chapter heading for chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking “Partial-Birth Abortions” and inserting “Abortions”.
(2) TABLE OF CHAPTERS FOR PART I.—The item relating to chapter 74 in the table of chapters at the beginning of part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking “Partial-Birth Abortions” and inserting “Abortions”.
Passed the House of Representatives January 19, 2018

Pro-Deathers Keep Moving Goalposts
How did we get to this point?

1/ Abortion used to limited to only medical necessity to save the mother’s life, or in such cases as incest.
(0, unless medically necessary)
2/ Roe v. Wade allowed abortions in 1st trimester, but still had some safeguards in place.
(~13 weeks)
3/ Various state movements pushed abortion well into 2nd trimester
(20-24 weeks)
4/ New initiatives like NY Gov. Cuomo, see last article, want abortion up until birth
(0-39 weeks)
5/ Now efforts to keep survivors alive are being fought.
(0-after birth)

What’s next? Debating how, many days, weeks or months your child can still be killed?

Will it become like fostering an animal with the SPCA? If it doesn’t work out, you can return the animal within a year. (Disclosure: I did foster an animal, and formally adopt him 2 months later)

Also, how did we get to the point where abortion is “celebrated”? Even if, for the sake of argument, a person decides they can’t become a parent or provide any sort of future, okay. This is a decision that should be taken very carefully, and is nothing to celebrate.

No rational human would celebrate having to put down a sick or dying dog or cat. To them, they are literally losing a family member. However, a flesh and blood child gets nowhere near the same consideration.

My body. My choice. Leave no survivors.
This is truly sick.

Agenda 21: UN Sustainable Development, Wealth Transfer

(Agenda 21, signed in 1992)


(1) The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is HERE.
(2) The full text for Canada/US Safe 3rd Country is HERE, and see HERE.
(3) The proposed UN Parliament/World Government is HERE.
(4) The full text of the Paris Accord is HERE.
(5) The Multiculturalism Act is HERE.
(6) The Canadian Citizenship Act (birth tourism) is HERE.
(7) Bill C-6 (citizenship for terrorists) is HERE.
(8) M-103 (Iqra Khalid’s Blasphemy Motion) is HERE.
(9) Fed’s $595M bribery of journalists is outlined HERE.
(10) Agenda 21 (signed in June 1992) is HERE
(11) Agenda 2030 (signed in September 2015) is HERE.
Items in the above list are addressed HERE

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG


CLICK HERE, for the link to the actual globalist document.

The document itself is basically a 351 page book. Instead of listing the entire thing, here are the table of contents


CONTENTS Chapter Paragraphs 1. Preamble 1.1 – 1.6

SECTION I. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS
2. International cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in developing countries and related domestic policies 2.1 – 2.43
3. Combating poverty 3.1 – 3.12
4. Changing consumption patterns 4.1 – 4.27
5. Demographic dynamics and sustainability 5.1 – 5.66
6. Protecting and promoting human health conditions 6.1 – 6.46
7. Promoting sustainable human settlement development 7.1 – 7.80
8. Integrating environment and development in decision-making 8.1 – 8.54

SECTION II. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES FOR DEVELOPMENT
9. Protection of the atmosphere 9.1 – 9.35
10. Integrated approach to the planning and management of land resources 10.1 – 10.18
11. Combating deforestation 11.1 – 11.40
12. Managing fragile ecosystems: combating desertification and drought 12.1 – 12.63
13. Managing fragile ecosystems: sustainable mountain development 13.1 – 13.24
14. Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development 14.1 – 14.104
15. Conservation of biological diversity 15.1 – 15.11
16. Environmentally sound management of biotechnology 16.1 – 16.46
17. Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas, including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, and coastal areas and the protection, rational use and development of their living resources 17.1 – 17.136
18. Protection of the quality and supply of freshwater resources: application of integrated approaches to the development, management and use of water resources 18.1 – 18.90
19. Environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals, including prevention of illegal international traffic in toxic and dangerous products 19.1 – 19.76
20. Environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes, in hazardous wastes 20.1 – 20.46 21. Environmentally sound management of solid wastes and sewage-related issues 21.1 – 21.49 22. Safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive wastes 22.1 – 22.9

SECTION III. STRENGTHENING THE ROLE OF MAJOR GROUPS
23. Preamble 23.1 – 23.4
24. Global action for women towards sustainable and equitable development 24.1 – 24.12
25. Children and youth in sustainable development 25.1 – 25.17
26. Recognizing and strengthening the role of indigenous people and their communities 26.1 – 26.9
27. Strengthening the role of non-governmental organizations: partners for sustainable development 27.1 – 27.13 28. Local authorities’ initiatives in support of Agenda 21 28.1 – 28.7
29. Strengthening the role of workers and their trade unions 29.1 – 29.14
30. Strengthening the role of business and industry 30.1 – 30.30
31. Scientific and technological community 31.1 – 31.12
32. Strengthening the role of farmers 32.1 – 32.14

SECTION IV. MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION
33. Financial resources and mechanisms 33.1 – 33.21
34. Transfer of environmentally sound technology, cooperation and capacity-building 34.1 – 34.29
35. Science for sustainable development 35.1 – 35.25
36. Promoting education, public awareness and training 36.1 – 36.27
37. National mechanisms and international cooperation for capacity-building in developing countries 37.1 – 37.13 38. International institutional arrangements 38.1 – 38.45
39. International legal instruments and mechanisms 39.1 – 39.10 40. Information for decision-making 40.1 – 40.30 * * * * * * Copyright © United Nations Division for Sustainable Development

Interesting note: #5 goes on at length about “monitoring” demographic changes, but doesn’t give any priority to “maintaining” demographics.

(b) Raising awareness of demographic and sustainable development interactions
5.37. Understanding of the interactions between demographic trends and factors and sustainable development should be increased in all sectors of society. Stress should be placed on local and national action. Demographic and sustainable development education should be coordinated and integrated in both the formal and non-formal education sectors. Particular attention should be given to population literacy programmes, notably for women. Special emphasis should be placed on the linkage between these programmes, primary environmental care and the provision of primary health care and services.

Section 24 has to do with gender. It wouldn’t be a United Nations agreement without plenty of virtue signalling. Here are 2 parts: (a) gender quotas; and (b) free child care. Also, am assuming that “reproductive rights” is code for abortion.

24.3. Governments should take active steps to implement the following:
a. Measures to review policies and establish plans to increase the proportion of women involved as decision makers, planners, managers, scientists and technical advisers in the design, development and implementation of policies and programmes for sustainable development;

e. Programmes to establish and strengthen preventive and curative health facilities, which include women-centred, women-managed, safe and effective reproductive health care and affordable, accessible, responsible planning of family size and services, as appropriate, in keeping with freedom, dignity and personally held values. Programmes should focus on providing comprehensive health care, including pre-natal care, education and information on health and responsible parenthood, and should provide the opportunity for all women to fully breastfeed at least during the first four months post-partum. Programmes should fully support women’s productive and reproductive roles and well-being and should pay special attention to the need to provide equal and improved health care for all children and to reduce the risk of maternal and child mortality and sickness.

Section 33 gets to the heart of the matter: MONEY

33.1. The General Assembly, in resolution 44/228 of 22 December 1989, inter alia, decided that the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development should:

Identify ways and means of providing new and additional financial resources, particularly to developing countries, for environmentally sound development programmes and projects in accordance with national development objectives, priorities and plans and to consider ways of effectively monitoring the provision of such new and additional financial resources, particularly to developing countries, so as to enable the international community to take further appropriate action on the basis of accurate and reliable data; Identify ways and means of providing additional financial resources for measures directed towards solving major environmental problems of global concern and especially of supporting those countries, in particular developing countries, for which the implementation of such measures would entail a special or abnormal burden, owing, in particular, to their lack of financial resources, expertise or technical capacity;

This article could go on forever, but take this away:
1/ Virtue signalling
2/ Huge wealth transfer
3/ Zero accountability

A World Parliament by Jo Leinen & Andreas Bummel

(A World Parliament by Jo Leinen & Andreas Bummel)


(1) The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is HERE.
(2) The full text for Canada/US Safe 3rd Country is HERE, and see HERE.
(3) The proposed UN Parliament/World Government is HERE.
(4) The full text of the Paris Accord is HERE.
(5) The Multiculturalism Act is HERE.
(6) The Canadian Citizenship Act (birth tourism) is HERE.
(7) Bill C-6 (citizenship for terrorists) is HERE.
(8) M-103 (Iqra Khalid’s Blasphemy Motion) is HERE.
(9) Fed’s $595M bribery of journalists is outlined HERE.
(10) Agenda 21 (signed in June 1992) is HERE
(11) Agenda 2030 (signed in September 2015) is HERE.
Items in the above list are addressed HERE

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG


CLICK HERE, for the link to the pdf outline.

CLICK HERE, for more information on Andreas Bummel.
CLICK HERE, for more information on Jo Leinen.

What is it with Germans wanting to take over the world?

THIS ARTICLE, and THIS ARTICLE may help shed some light on things.

CLICK HERE, for the German version of the book. Google translate or some similar service should be helpful to you non-speakers.

This is not my usual format, but this may be necessary for a glimpse into the mind of someone who can support a “world” parliament.

OUTLINE OF THE BOOK
Detailed Contents
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………. 1

PART I The idea of a world parliament: its history and pioneers
6
1. From the Stoics to Kant: cosmopolitanism, natural law, and the idea of a contract
8 Cosmopolitanism in ancient Greece
8—Cosmopolitan roots in India and China
9— Vitoria’s ‘republic of the whole world’
10—Conceptions of peace under ‘the sovereign power of the state’
12—The idea of the social contract in Hobbes and Locke
13—The social contract and Wolff’s ‘Völkerstaat’ 16—Kant’s cosmopolitan project
17 2. The 18th century: enlightenment, revolutions, and parliamentarism …..
20 The American federal state and representative democracy
20—The historical roots of parliamentarism
22—Cosmopolitanism in the French Revolution
24—Cloots’ ‘republic of humanity’
25—The end of cosmopolitanism
26 3. From Vienna to The Hague: the dynamics of integration and the inter-parliamentary movement
27 Sartorius’ ‘peoples’ republic’
27—Pecqueur’s concept of worldwide integration
28— Pecqueur’s world federation and world parliament
29—Tennyson’s ‘Parliament of Man’
31—The long struggle to extend the right to vote
32—The birth of the inter-parliamentary movement
33—The establishment of the IPU
34—The Hague Peace Conferences as a catalyst
35—Internationalism in the USA
36—An initiative at the IPU
37— Arguments emerging out of the German peace movement
39 4. World War and the League of Nations
42 The programme of the ‘Round Table’ group
42—The theory of sociocultural evolution and a world federation
43—A world parliament on the Versailles agenda
44—The ‘German Plan’ for the constitution of the League
46—Disappointment over the League of Nations
46 5. The Second World War and the atomic bomb: World Federalism in the early days of the UN
50 Federalism under pressure from fascism
50—The growth of world federalism
51— Planning the post-war order
53—Fundamental criticism of the UN, and the shock of Detailed Contents ix the atom bomb
54—Prominent support for a federal world order
55—Reves’ critique of democracy, the nation state and sovereignty
56—Albert Einstein and Albert Camus as advocates
57—The position of the Catholic Church
58—The British initiative of Nov. 1945
59—The issue of a Charter review conference
60—The foundation of the Council of Europe
62—Sohn’s proposal for a parliamentary assembly at the UN
62—Models for a world constitution
63—The Clark and Sohn model
64—CURE’s deliberations and conclusions
65—Parliamentary cooperation for a world federation
66 6. Bloc confrontation and the rise of the NGOs
68 World federalism caught between the fronts in the Cold War
68—The federalist movement and the founding of NATO
68—The declining popularity of world federalism and a world parliament
69—The World Order Models Project
71—The growing importance of NGOs
71—The idea of a ‘second chamber’
73—The issue of weighted voting in the UN General Assembly
74—Bertrand’s report
75— Perestroika and Gorbachev’s initiative
76 7. The end of the Cold War: the democratization wave, and the revitalization of the debate
79 The democratization wave
79—The revitalization of the debate
80—A UN parliamentary assembly as a strategic concept
81—Support for a world parliament and a UNPA
82— The report by the Commission on Global Governance
85—The report by the World Commission on Culture and Development
87 8. Democracy in the era of globalization
88 Globalization and the nation state
88—The theory of ‘cosmopolitan democracy’
90— The Falk and Strauss essays
93—A community of the democracies?
94— Höffe’s federal world republic
95—The call for a WTO parliament and the role of the IPU
97—Other initiatives towards a world parliament and a UNPA
98 9. The ‘War on Terror’, the role of the IPU, and the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly
102 The ban on landmines, the International Criminal Court and the World Social Forum
102—New contributions on the idea of a global parliament
103—The Lucknow conferences
104—9/11 and global democracy
105—The report by the German Bundestag‘s Enquete Commission
106—The report by the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization
107—The Ubuntu Forum campaign
108—The Cardoso panel report
108—Growing support for a UNPA
111—The international campaign for a UNPA
114—Calls for a UNPA since 2007
117—The third World Conference of Speakers of Parliament
120—The European Parliament Resolution of 2011
121—The de Zayas recommendations
123—Later developments
124—The report by the Albright-Gambari Commission
126—The election of Trump and ongoing efforts 127

x A WORLD PARLIAMENT PART II Governance and democracy in the 21st century
129
10. The Anthropocene, planetary boundaries, and the tragedy of the commons
132 The era of humankind
132—Earth system boundaries
133—The problem of voluntarism
135—The ‘tragedy of the commons’
137—The management of global common goods
139—The problem of the generations
140—Global majority decision-making
141— The tragedy of international law
143 11. Overshoot, the ‘Great Transformation’, and a global eco-social market economy
144 Overshoot and ecological footprint
144—The end of the Utopia of growth
145—The challenge of global eco-social development
146—‘Political barriers’ as the main obstacle to transformation
147—The process of state formation and the rise of the market economy
148—The ‘double movement’ between market fundamentalism and state interventionism
149—A global eco-social market economy
150 12. Turbo-capitalism, the financial crisis, and countering global deregulation
153 The relevance of the ‘double movement’ and the emancipation question
153—The financial crisis and the continuing systemic risk
154—State intervention to stabilize the financial system
156—The financial system as a ‘priority global public good’
157—The anarchic system of international law
158—Liberalism, Laissez-faire and the question of a world state
159—The global race to deregulate
160—The key role of tax havens and anonymous shell companies
161—The hidden trillions
164—Global state formation as the goal of the counter-movement
165 13. A world currency, global taxation, and fiscal federalism
167 A world currency and a world central bank
167—The impact of national monetary policy and currency wars
168—Recent proposals for a world reserve currency
169—The fiscal race to the bottom
170—Uniform taxation of multinational corporations
172— Rejection by the OECD
173—Global fiscal federalism and the restitution of fiscal sovereignty
174—Ideas for global taxes
175—The management, supervision and expenditure of global tax revenues
176 14. World domestic policy, trans-sovereign problems, and complex interdependence
179 ‘Trans-sovereign problems’
179—The concept of interdependence
180—Transgovernmental networks and the merging of domestic and foreign policy
181—The evolutionary phases of the international order
183—Sovereignty and the era of ‘implosion’
184 Detailed Contents xi 15. The fragility of world civilization, existential risks, and human evolution
187 The potential for worldwide collapse
187—The Genome as part of the heritage of humankind
188—Reprogenetics
189—Transhumanism and artificial intelligence
190— Autonomous weapons systems
191—Bioterrorism, nanobots and new pathogens
193— The need for regulation under global law
194 16. The threat of nuclear weapons, disarmament, and collective security …
196 Nulcear war as ‘the end of all things’
196—The danger of nuclear war
197—The risk of nuclear accidents
198—The unfulfilled commitment to general and complete disarmament
200—The architecture of nuclear disarmament
202—The link between nuclear and conventional disarmament
204—The McCloy-Zorin Accords
206—The unrealized peace concept of the UN Charter, and UN armed forces
207—The four pillars of a world peace order
209—The role of a World Parliament
210 17. Fighting terrorism, ‘blowback’, and data protection
212 The ‘war on terror’ as an end in itself
212—The covert warfare of the USA
212—The consequences of US foreign policy and the ‘war against terror’
213—Human rights violations and the USA’s drone warfare
215—The roots of transnational terrorism and the relevance of a World Parliament
216—The global surveillance system and universal disenfranchisement
219—Global data protection legislation
221 18. A world law enforcement system, criminal prosecution, and the post-American era
223 The need for world police law and a supranational police authority
223—The failure of classical sanctions
224—A supranational police to support the ICC
225—Extending the prosecuting powers of the ICC
227—Strengthening international criminal prosecution and a World Parliament
229—Interpol and accountability
231—A World Parliament as an element of world police law
232—The role and significance of the USA
235 19. Global food security and the political economy of hunger
238 The extent of worldwide hunger and the right to adequate nutrition
238—Population growth and food production
240—The fragility of global food supply
242—Dependence on oil and phosphates
244—Hunger as a problem of political economy
244— The relevance of democracy and the international
245—Agricultural subsidies, the WTO and food security
247—Commodity markets and financial speculation
248— Food security as a global public good and the failure of the G20
249—The FAO, a World Food Board and global food reserves
250—Free trade, food security and a world peace order
252—Democratising global food policy and a World Parliament 253

xii A WORLD PARLIAMENT 20. Global water policy ………………………………………………………
256 The state of drinking water supply
256—Water security as a global concern
257—The democratic deficit in water governance and a World Parliament
259 21. The elimination of poverty, and basic social security for all
262 Poverty as a key issue
262—Extreme poverty and the right to an adequate standard of living
262—The need for a new approach to international development
265— Economic growth is not enough
266—Social security as the foundation of a planetary social contract
267—A global basic income
268—Universal access to the global commons
270—The dream of a life free from economic compulsion
270 22. Global class formation, the ‘super class’, and global inequality …………
272 The emergence of global class conflicts and the role of the middle class
272—The global precariat
274—The concept of the Multitude
275—The super rich and global power structures
277—The transnational capitalist class
279—A transnational state apparatus 280—The interconnections between transnational corporations
281—The need for a global antitrust authority
282—Global inequality and instability
284— Inequality as the cause of the financial crisis
285—The growth of capital investments and a global tax on capital
286—The need for global public policy instruments and a World Parliament
287—A new global class compromise
289 23. The debate on world government, the age of entropy, and federalism .
290 The global elite and the question of a world government
290—The spectre of a global Leviathan
292—Hierarchical order and complexity
294—Different types of hierarchies
294—The principle of subsidiarity
295—The fragmentation of global governance and international law
296—Coherent world law and a World Parliament
298— The bewildering world order and the ‘age of entropy’
298—The entropic decline of world civilization?
300—World federalism as a means of reducing complexity
301—A world state as a taboo topic
302—The teetering paradigm of intergovernmentalism
303— The standard reactionary arguments
305 24. The third democratic transformation and the global democratic deficit
307 The waves of democratization 307—Economic development and democracy
309—The post-industrial transformation in values
310—Democracy as a universal value
312— The right to democracy
313—The undermining of democracy by intergovernmentalism
315—The influence of transnational corporations
317—The example of the Codex Commission
317—Fragmentation as a problem of democracy
319—The dilemma of scale
320—The concept of a chain of legitimation
320—Output legitimation
321— Accountability to the world’s citizens
323—Equality and representation in international law and world law
324—The third democratic transformation
326— International parliamentary institutions
328 Detailed Contents xiii 25. The development of a planetary consciousness, and a new global enlightenment
330 War and socio-political evolution
331—The decline of violence
333—The development of reason, empathy, and morality
333—The origin of morality in group selection
336— In-group morality and humanity’s crisis of adolescence
337—Sociogenesis and psychogenesis
340—The widening circle of empathy
340—The transition to an integral consciousness
343—Group narcissm and the Promethean gap
345—The problem of cultural lag
347—Global identity and the Other
349—The ‘Overview Effect’ and a planetary worldview
351—Identity, demos, and state formation
353—The progressive attitude of the world population
357—Global history and world citizenship education
359—‘Big History’ as a modern creation story
360—The continuation of the project of modernity
362—The new global Enlightenment 365

PART III Shaping the future: the design and realization of world democracy ….
367 26. Building a world parliament .
369 The example of the European Parliament
369—The proposal for a UNPA
370—The extension of powers and responsibilities
371—Growing democratic challenges
374— The allocation of seats
376 27. Creating world law
379 International law and world law compared
379—A bicameral world legislature
381— A world constitutional court
382 28. The necessary conditions for the transformation
384 The structural conditions for institutional change
384—A cosmopolitan move- ment
386—The role of NGOs
388—A UNPA as a catalyst for change
389—Four factors
391—The stealthy revolution
391—The revolution from below
392—The revolution from above
393—The trigger
394—Anticipating and averting the horror
395— Climate-induced events
396—A democratic China
397—In the beginning 399
Index …………………………………………………………………………. 401

World currency? World bank? World parliament? World courts?
Global identity? New global enlightenment? Global antitrust authority? Global public policy instruments?
Social security as a right?
Supra-national police force?

298— The bewildering world order and the ‘age of entropy’
298—The entropic decline of world civilization?

Entropy? Isn’t that what Trudeau referred diversity as?

This is messed up

Democracy Without Borders: A Call For A Globalist Gov’t

(Open call for 1-world government)

****************************************************************************
(1) The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is HERE.
(2) The full text for Canada/US Safe 3rd Country is HERE, and see HERE.
(3) The proposed UN Parliament/World Government is HERE.
(4) The full text of the Paris Accord is HERE.
(5) The Multiculturalism Act is HERE.
(6) The Canadian Citizenship Act (birth tourism) is HERE.
(7) Bill C-6 (citizenship for terrorists) is HERE.
(8) M-103 (Iqra Khalid’s Blasphemy Motion) is HERE.
(9) Fed’s $595M bribery of journalists is outlined HERE.
(10) Agenda 21 (signed in June 1992) is HERE
(11) Agenda 2030 (signed in September 2015) is HERE.
Items in the above list are addressed HERE

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
****************************************************************************

“We strive for a democratic world order in which citizens participate beyond national boundaries.”

At least they are being upfront about it.

CLICK HERE, for the main site

Let read some more about what this organization wants to do


We, the Peoples
The UN believes that democracy belongs to its universal and indivisible core values and principles. The UN Charter begins on the promising opening words: “We the peoples.” However, one will seek in vain for a means by which ordinary people can play a role in the world organization. It is high time that the UN allows citizen-elected representatives to participate in its deliberations.

An Incremental Approach
Initially, states could choose whether their UNPA members would come from national (or regional) parliaments or whether they would be directly elected. Starting as a largely consultative body, the rights and powers of the UNPA could be expanded over time as its democratic character increases. In the long run, the assembly could develop into a real world parliament.

A Global Campaign
Democracy Without Borders coordinates the global Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly that was launched in 2007. The campaign is supported by various civil society organizations as well as by individuals from 150 countries, among them nearly 1,500 current and former members of parliament and numerous distinguished personalities from all walks of life.

The UN believes that democracy belongs to universal values & principles

CLICK HERE, for a review of “The New Nationalism”, by Steve Turley. He makes a very compelling argument for what really binds societies together.

ETHNO-NATIONALIST: The people are what matters, be it: heritage, culture, common language, traditions, way of life, and often ancestry, are the necessary elements for a cohesive society. EN is commonly thought to be a racial supremacist ideology, but that just isn’t the case.

CIVIC-NATIONALIST: The multicultural way of life. The cohesive unity that ethno-nationalists stress is not nearly as important as more abstract beliefs such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and acceptance rather than assimilation of newcomers.

Civic nationalists claim (rightly), that their society promotes tolerance and diversity. Ethno nationalists claim (rightly), that there is nothing that holds them together, and that people will just form groups which do reflect their identities. These 2 ideologies are in fact arguing different things.

It becomes clear that this group promotes the idea of “values” rather than “identity”. But what values exactly? And if a “culture” or “religion” has values which are completely incompatible, do we just accept it as “diversity?

It is time the UN allows citizen-elected representatives to take part in the deliberations? Why is that? What is wrong with keeping democratic voices within the nations themselves? Of course, if 51% of nations decide to impose rules that the other 49% vehemently oppose, that would technically be “democratic”.

This was launched in 2007, more than a decade ago? Then why has there been no public debate on the issue?

“As humanity struggles with mass violence, mass migrations and the widening effect of climate change, the international system inaugurated nearly 75 years ago to manage such global problems seems to be crumbling. The United States has turned its back on the United Nations Human Rights Council and the Paris climate accord. It openly attacked the International Criminal Court. During the UN General Assembly, Donald Trump publicly stated that “nations must defend against threats to sovereignty … from global governance.”

The UN Human Rights Council, as of the time of this publishing, includes:
1/ Afghanistan;
2/ Bahrain;
3/ Bangladesh;
4/ China;
5/ Cuba;
6/ Democratic Republic of the Congo;
7/ India;
8/ Iraq;
9/ Nigeria;
10/ Pakistan;
11/ Qatar;
12/ Rwanda;
13/ Saudi Arabia;
14/ Somalia;
15/ Tunisia

So why exactly should the US take this “Human Rights Council” seriously?

The “climate change scam” does nothing to prevent climate change. It is just a giant wealth transfer scheme. No wonder Trump left.

As for the UN Global Migration Compact, it is a globalist agreement to normalize mass migration. In fact, the UN cites 258 million migrants. Not refugees. Migrants.

“Fortunately, efforts by others to reinvigorate the multilateral system are underway. Last November, President Emmanuel Macron convened the inaugural Paris Peace Forum, to “offer the opportunity to reflect on world governance while we commemorate the end of World War I and recognize our collective responsibility.”

Poor example to cite Macron. Efforts may be underway, but there is at least as much pushback. Nationalists won’t tolerate the one-world vision Macron promotes. Nor is the European Army idea going over too well.

“Call for a global leaders summit in 2020
Among the initiatives gathered in Paris was Just Security 2020, which builds on the Albright-Gambari Commission on Global Security, Justice and Governance and calls for a global leaders summit in September 2020, the 75th anniversary of the UN’s founding.

The suggested summit offers a chance to contemplate the international system as a whole and its anchor, the UN. This gathering could adopt innovations to make the UN better prepared for current and future global challenges and more resilient amid America’s withdrawal from global leadership.”

Cute to use the 75th anniversary of UN founding. But that is the least of it.

Logistical question: given the money that the United States has been pumping in for the last 75 years, approximately 25% of all payments globally that leaves a major gap. Furthermore, you seem to assume that no other nations will leave. Very unwise.

“For the summit to achieve meaningful changes, a new coalition of smart like-minded civil society groups and states is urgently needed. The UN 2020 Initiative has built a broad effort advocating for such a leaders summit. Through consultations, policy research and engaging government delegations, the coalition represents what is needed to ensure that UN reforms meet 21st-century challenges.”

Like minded in what way? You need to specify. Will leader with nationalist views be shunned?

Despite the initiative’s growing influence, in September last year, Russia and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) succeeded in removing from a new UN General Assembly Resolution, A/RES/72/313, language seeking preparations for the 75th anniversary with an eye to “further strengthen the Organization and improve its work.” Russia and NAM countries, such as Algeria, appear already concerned about a summit agenda that could run counter to their national interests.”

Now we get to some good stuff, though it seems shrugged off. Several other nations are worried about a summit that runs counter to their national interests. The US may be the least of your worries.

“Rebuilding multilateralism
Rather than resign themselves to these near-term diplomatic setbacks, concerned civic groups and governments should be inspired by President Macron’s recent call, in his address to the General Assembly, to “rebuild multilateralism,” which he sees as a “challenge . . . for our generation.” In addition, German foreign minister Heiko Maas proclaimed that the United Nations thrives on the pledge of “Together First”, a slogan which is now the name of a civil society campaign launched at the Paris Peace Forum.

Further, the Spanish foreign minister Josep Borrell stated in an op-ed that the 75th anniversary of the United Nations in 2020 “may be a good moment to analyse at a summit some institutional changes necessary to increase its legitimacy and effectiveness, such as the reform of the Security Council to make it more representative and limit the use of the vetoes of the great powers, or the establishment of a parliamentary assembly, thus strengthening the role of civil society and the democratic dimension of the multilateral system.”

What Are the Goals for 2020?
To reverse the recent inroads made by populist and authoritarian forces worldwide, it is time for governments, scholars, activists and others to reiterate the need for multilateralism and to recognize the pursuit of justice and security as critical for achieving peace and prosperity. This approach is spelled out in our new book, Just Security in an Undergoverned World.”

This is Orwellian style double speak. Populists who listen to their people have made inroads, and this is a bad thing? What happened to being accountable to your citizens?

The pursuit of justice and security as critical? Sounds like a totalitarian state. Or rather, post-national state.

And to be clear: are populists and authoritarians 2 different things? Or do you conflate them?

“In examining threats and opportunities at the intersection of security and justice through the prism of “just security,” we developed these proposals:

I’m almost afraid to read further.

“Make key changes in UN Security Council membership and engagement. The UN’s approaching anniversary should encourage give and take, which could break the political logjam that has long hampered efforts to make the Council more effective and representative. For example, a small amendment to the UN Charter’s Article 23 could allow nonpermanent members (e.g., Germany and India) to be re-elected for consecutive terms. And the Council’s permanent-five members (Britain, China, France, Russia and the US) should again be encouraged to restrain — or at least to publicly justify — their use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities against civilians.”

Break the political logjam? Okay, this seems more like tweaking a system.

Britain, France, China, US & Russia should be encouraged to refrain (or at least justify) using their veto in cases of mass civilian atrocities? With this statement, you have basically justified “scrapping” the entire UN Security Council.

“Create a “G20+” as part of a new framework for global economic cooperation. Every two years at UN headquarters, the G20 forum should engage the other 173 member countries of the world body to ensure greater institutionalized coordination — with the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization and others — and more prioritizing on crucial issues for the world economy. This new G20+ configuration could also strive to prevent the spread of cross-border financial shocks, promote the reduction of economic inequality and foster the inclusive growth that is necessary for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.”

Integrating nations with globalist organizations? Integrating nations into one umbrella organization? How is that working out for the European Union?

“Establish a UN parliamentary network as an advisory body under UN Charter Article 22. The network would engage parliamentarians from their own legislatures to advise the General Assembly on UN governance, from reducing extreme poverty to nuclear nonproliferation. It would also complement other work to develop a transnational democratic culture, including the European Parliament’s recent recommendation to establish a UN parliamentary assembly.”

The European Union supports a proposed UN Parliament? That I believe. And yes, efforts are underway to launch such a project. Although, with the vast amount of difficulty the EU is having, why would a UN Parliament fare any better? European nations at least have similar cultures and heritages, something that obviously wouldn’t hold for a “global” parliament.

A New ‘Smart’ Coalition
At the start of his tenure, in January 2017, UN Secretary-General António Guterres launched internal reviews on peace and security, development and management sectors, and in late July he appointed Jens Wandel, a veteran UN administrator, to carry out the reforms. While the reviews recommended long-overdue changes to the UN system, they are only the first wave of transformations to come.

A new kind of smart coalition that taps the ideas, networks and abilities of diverse players must step up, alongside Guterres, to ensure that the UN’s 75th anniversary commemoration in two years becomes a turning point and not an anticlimax. Constructive criticisms of the UN from the right and the left should be heeded to weigh and adopt bold structural reform ideas. All this can help enable a modernized system of governance to better grapple with the crises now facing humankind.

This piece was originally published at Passblue under a CC BY-ND 4.0 license. This version includes a few updates made by the authors.”

So, is this the group behind the United Nations Parliament? They certainly support it.
Groups like this need to be exposed, if nations are to be kept intact.

Nationalists: Put “their” nation’s well being first
Globalists: Sacrifice their nation for some “greater good”

Seems simple enough, but this group will never entertain, let alone accept the nation-state.

Mandatory Minimum Sentences: Good, Bad, Or It Depends?

(YouTuber Canadian Libertarian)

****************************************************************************
(1) The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is HERE.
(2) The full text for Canada/US Safe 3rd Country is HERE, and see HERE.
(3) The proposed UN Parliament/World Government is HERE.
(4) The full text of the Paris Accord is HERE.
(5) The Multiculturalism Act is HERE.
(6) The Canadian Citizenship Act (birth tourism) is HERE.
(7) Bill C-6 (citizenship for terrorists) is HERE.
(8) M-103 (Iqra Khalid’s Blasphemy Motion) is HERE.
(9) Fed’s $595M bribery of journalists is outlined HERE.
(10) Agenda 21 (signed in June 1992) is HERE
(11) Agenda 2030 (signed in September 2015) is HERE.
Items in the above list are addressed HERE

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
****************************************************************************

Disclaimer #1: I never suggested or implied that “all” or even “most” criminal offences should carry any sort of mandatory minimum sentence. The discussion, as started on Twitter, was that “some” of the very serious offences should.

Suggested Offences With Mandatory Minimums
CC 46-48 (Treason)
CC 83.01-83.3 (Terrorism)
CC 151-154 (child Sex Offences)
CC 229-239 (Murder, 1st degree)

Disclaimer #2: Furthermore, I never suggested or implied not believing in the concept of “presumption of innocence”. Of course this is necessary for an just society to work. It seems to be a straw-man argument that came up from the audience.

Disclaimer #3: An argument that came up from the audience asking if I realized that minimum sentences would mean women getting the same sentences as men. Yes, and that is a good thing.

Disclaimer #4: There is no ”collective guilt” here. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, not actions of other group members. All that is asked is the standards be applied consistently.

The case AGAINST Mandatory Minimums
(argued by Canadian Libertarian)

-Judges are better able to look at a case and decide what is fair
-Judges are better able to decide what would be best for the public
-Judges are not subject to the whims of the population, given their jobs are secure
-In the event of very poor rulings, they can be appealed
-Mandatory minimums are very costly to the public
-Mandatory minimums result in “social costs” to the public
-There is no general deterrence
-Politicians in general cannot be trusted to pass good laws
-Politicians take so much power anyway, a separate judiciary is necessary
-Government should stay out of people’s lives as much as possible
-Given fraud and corruption within gov’t it is hypocritical for them to be passing such laws
-Judges are best able to “make that exception” when needed
-Mandatory minimums make it hard, if not impossible to make punishment fit the crime. It always must.

Articles Cited:
Research At A Glance
Mandator Minimum Penalties
Mandatory Minimums Unfair and Expensive
PBS Special on Mandatory Minimums

The Case IN FAVOUR OF Mandatory Minimums
(argued by Canuck Law)

-Politicians can (theoretically) be thrown out, judges cannot
-Although far from perfect, public input can help draft laws
-While judges are well intended, different perspectives can lead to widely differing sentences on cases of similar facts
-Consistency is necessary in applying sentencing principles
-If bad rulings occur and are not struck down, they can create ”precedent” for future bad rulings. Having set standards eliminates that possibility
-If not mandatory minimums, then guidelines (as is also the case in US/UK)
-Some offences are so bad they “require” prison time (as mentioned, it covered offences like murder, terrorism, child sex offences)
-Of course, this is not to imply that all, or even most offences should carry mandatory minimums
-The crimes being proposed for mandatory minimums are committed so rarely, that there would be ”no dragnet” of people.
-For certain offences, the well being of society needs to trump individual rights
-The Principles of Sentencing (see below) to see a need to balance both individual rights and society’s (the group’s rights)
-Items (a), (b), (c) put societal interest first, while (d), (e), (f) put individual interest first

What Does The Law Say?

Note: the information here is not necessary to prove that mandatory minimums are necessary, but rather to explain when the rationale behind sentencing.

Also the Bill C-42 was introduced to remove so-called ”conditional sentencing” for certain offences. The rationale being, if house arrest is inadequate, the probation would be even more so. In effect, it would ”create” mandatory jail sentences (though the length not specified).

Purpose and Principles of Sentencing
Marginal note:
Purpose
718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

Objectives — offences against children
718.01 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years, it shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.

Objectives — offence against peace officer or other justice system participant
718.02 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence under subsection 270(1), section 270.01 or 270.02 or paragraph 423.1(1)(b), the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct that forms the basis of the offence.

Objectives — offence against certain animals
718.03 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence under subsection 445.01(1), the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct that forms the basis of the offence.

Fundamental principle
718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Restrictions on Conditional Sentencting, Bill C-42

R v. Proulx (2003) for conditional sentencing
(Ironically, arguing in support of Canadian Libertarian’s position)

“The requirement in s. 742.1 (b) that the judge be satisfied that the safety of the community would not be endangered by the offender serving his or her sentence in the community is a condition precedent to the imposition of a conditional sentence, and not the primary consideration in determining whether a conditional sentence is appropriate. In making this determination, the judge should consider the risk posed by the specific offender, not the broader risk of whether the imposition of a conditional sentence would endanger the safety of the community by providing insufficient general deterrence or undermining general respect for the law. Two factors should be taken into account: (1) the risk of the offender re-offending; and (2) the gravity of the damage that could ensue in the event of re-offence. A consideration of the risk posed by the offender should include the risk of any criminal activity, and not be limited solely to the risk of physical or psychological harm to individuals.

Once the prerequisites of s. 742.1 are satisfied, the judge should give serious consideration to the possibility of a conditional sentence in all cases by examining whether a conditional sentence is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2. This follows from Parliament’s clear message to the judiciary to reduce the use of incarceration as a sanction.

A conditional sentence can provide significant denunciation and deterrence. As a general matter, the more serious the offence, the longer and more onerous the conditional sentence should be. There may be some circumstances, however, where the need for denunciation or deterrence is so pressing that incarceration will be the only suitable way in which to express society’s condemnation of the offender’s conduct or to deter similar conduct in the future.

Generally, a conditional sentence will be better than incarceration at achieving the restorative objectives of rehabilitation, reparations to the victim and the community, and promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender and acknowledgment of the harm done to the victim and the community.

Where a combination of both punitive and restorative objectives may be achieved, a conditional sentence will likely be more appropriate than incarceration. Where objectives such as denunciation and deterrence are particularly pressing, incarceration will generally be the preferable sanction. This may be so notwithstanding the fact that restorative goals might be achieved. However, a conditional sentence may provide sufficient denunciation and deterrence, even in cases in which restorative objectives are of lesser importance, depending on the nature of the conditions imposed, the duration of the sentence, and the circumstances of both the offender and the community in which the conditional sentence is to be served. A conditional sentence may be imposed even where there are aggravating circumstances, although the need for denunciation and deterrence will increase in these circumstances.

No party is under a burden of proof to establish that a conditional sentence is either appropriate or inappropriate in the circumstances. The judge should consider all relevant evidence, no matter by whom it is adduced. However, it would be in the offender’s best interests to establish elements militating in favour of a conditional sentence.

Sentencing judges have a wide discretion in the choice of the appropriate sentence. They are entitled to considerable deference from appellate courts. Absent an error in principle, failure to consider a relevant factor, or an overemphasis of the appropriate factors, a court of appeal should only intervene to vary a sentence imposed at trial if the sentence is demonstrably unfit.”

R v Proulx makes a pretty compelling case in favour of “conditional sentencing” a.k.a. “house arrest”. This case is recognized and relied on when handing down sentences. Many defense lawyers argue that conditional sentencing would better serve everyone (in most cases) than physical prison.

The restrictions that came from Bill C-42, however, means that certain offences are no longer eligible for conditional sentencing. This means that Judges will have to choose jail sentences, since probation would be considered unfit.

Overall, a very interesting topic to cover.

UN Proposes A Global Government (Not A Joke)

(The globalist UN, showing its true colours once again)

****************************************************************************
(1) The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is HERE.
(2) The full text for Canada/US Safe 3rd Country is HERE, and see HERE.
(3) The proposed UN Parliament/World Government is HERE.
(4) The full text of the Paris Accord is HERE.
(5) The Multiculturalism Act is HERE.
(6) The Canadian Citizenship Act (birth tourism) is HERE.
(7) Bill C-6 (citizenship for terrorists) is HERE.
(8) M-103 (Iqra Khalid’s Blasphemy Motion) is HERE.
(9) Fed’s $595M bribery of journalists is outlined HERE.
(10) Agenda 21 (signed in June 1992) is HERE
(11) Agenda 2030 (signed in September 2015) is HERE.
Items in the above list are addressed HERE

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
****************************************************************************

(A shoutout to YouTuber Joe Hazelton and People’s Party Leader, Maxime Bernier for this)

CLICK HERE, for the actual link to the proposal

CLICK HERE, for supposed research data.

CLICK HERE, for Canadian politicians who support this

To all the conspiracy theorists who believe that the UN is proposing setting up a one world government, your fears just became validation.

The UN formall proposes to do exactly that.

The proposal of a UN Parliamentary Assembly

The proposal of a UN Parliamentary Assembly

In this age of globalization, more and more issues have a global dimension that requires global cooperation. At the UN and other international fora, governments come together to negotiate and decide on policies that affect us all.

The UN Charter begins on the promising opening words: “We the peoples.” However, one will seek in vain for any clause in the document that specifies a means by which ordinary people can play a role in the organization’s deliberations and decision-making.

The bodies of the UN and international organizations are occupied by officials who are appointed by the executive branches of national governments. In view of the growing importance of international organizations and their decisions, this is no longer sufficient.

A United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) for the first time would give popularly elected representatives a formal role in global affairs. As an additional body, the assembly will directly represent the world’s citizens and not governments.

Initially, states could choose whether their UNPA members would come from national parliaments, reflecting their political spectrum and gender equality, or whether they would be directly elected. Eventually, the goal is to have all members directly elected.

Starting as a largely consultative body, the rights and powers of the UNPA could be expanded over time as its democratic legitimacy increases. The assembly will act as an independent watchdog in the UN system and as a democratic reflection of the diversity of world public opinion.

In the long run, once its members are all democratically elected, the assembly could be developed into a world parliament which – under certain conditions and in conjunction with the UN General Assembly – may be able to adopt universally binding regulations.

In short, the UN should evolve from what many believe to be a generally ineffectual “talk-shop” into a viable democratic and legislative body.

Read more
International appeal for a UNPA

Okay, let’s break this down a bit:

”In this age of globalization, more and more issues have a global dimension that requires global cooperation. At the UN and other international fora, governments come together to negotiate and decide on policies that affect us all.”

So what? This seems to deliberately conflate cooperation with sovereignty. Nations can and do discuss and cooperate on issues all the time. This is a solution to an artificial problem.

”The UN Charter begins on the promising opening words: “We the peoples.” However, one will seek in vain for any clause in the document that specifies a means by which ordinary people can play a role in the organization’s deliberations and decision-making.”

Searching in vain for any clause that says ordinary people can play a role in decision making? Is this a good thing? Shouldn’t people have some ability to influence decision making?

”The bodies of the UN and international organizations are occupied by officials who are appointed by the executive branches of national governments. In view of the growing importance of international organizations and their decisions, this is no longer sufficient.”

How so? Do we not want people who are directly chosen by the host nation to be taking part in such discussions?

”A United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) for the first time would give popularly elected representatives a formal role in global affairs. As an additional body, the assembly will directly represent the world’s citizens and not governments.”

Logistical question: how do you decide if a leader is ”popularly elected”? Military dictators frequently hold sham elections and win close to 100% of the vote.

Further, what if the values of a block of nations (such as the 50+ members of Islamic nations) democratically overrule nations which believe in human rights?

”Initially, states could choose whether their UNPA members would come from national parliaments, reflecting their political spectrum and gender equality, or whether they would be directly elected. Eventually, the goal is to have all members directly elected.”

If they are not being directly elected by their people, then who is electing them? Should the UN get to decide who ”represents” the Nation of Canada, the US, Australia, or Japan?

”Starting as a largely consultative body, the rights and powers of the UNPA could be expanded over time as its democratic legitimacy increases. The assembly will act as an independent watchdog in the UN system and as a democratic reflection of the diversity of world public opinion.”

Ah, non-binding and consultative bodies which eventually become legally binding? Kind of like the UN Global Migration Compact.

How exactly would there be ”oversight” when this would effectively take away actual representative government from host nations?

”In the long run, once its members are all democratically elected, the assembly could be developed into a world parliament which – under certain conditions and in conjunction with the UN General Assembly – may be able to adopt universally binding regulations.

In short, the UN should evolve from what many believe to be a generally ineffectual “talk-shop” into a viable democratic and legislative body.”

How would this possibly be democratic? It takes vontrol even further from the public. If you think your MP or MPP or MLA or Senators don’t represent you now, how would you gain more representation from being even further removed.

UN Claims They Conducted Research
CLICK HERE, for survey results

Survey on a UN Parliamentary Assembly
survey graphic -donought -readyOn behalf of the British Broadcasting Corporation BBC, in 2004/05 the research institute GlobeScan conducted representative surveys in 18 countries representing 61% of the world population.

In one of the questions concerning reforms of the United Nations, participants were asked about their opinion on “creating a new UN Parliament, made up of representatives directly elected by citizens, having powers equal to the current UN General Assembly that is controlled by national governments.”

On average, 63% supported the reform proposal, while only 20% rejected it. For the first time, this survey provides empirical evidence that the world’s citizens overwhelmingly support the establishment of a directly elected world parliament.

Country results
In every surveyed nation the supporters of a UN Parliament significantly outnumbered the opponents. Overall, support to opposition margins show overwhelming majorities in all nations favoring the creation of a UN Parliament.

Let’s see: Only 18 countries were surveyed

UN claims these 18 countries represent 61% of the population.

UN Claims that 63% of populations surveyed support global government
1/ Argentina
2/ Australia
3/ Brazil
4/ Canada
5/ Chile
6/ China
7/ Germany
8/ Great Britain (UK)
9/ India
10/ Indonesia
11/ Italy
12/ Mexico
13/ Phillipines
14/ Poland
15/ Russia
16/ South Korea
17/ Turkey
18/ USA

Assuming the numbers are true, that means that all but 18 countries were left out of the survey

It means that 39% of national populations were not consulted at all

It means that 37% (of consulted nations) oppose the measure.

A better level might be to use (0.63)*(0.61) = .03843 = 38%

Assuming this research is even accurate, that would mean that only 38% would support such a measure. Of course, the site doesn’t list any of the SAMPLE SIZES, which would help give a more accurate picture.

Were 100 people interviewed in each country? 1,000? 10,000? Can we see the questions that were asked?

Of course, none of this addresses the central question: why is it that there has been no public consultation on us signing away our sovereignty? Shouldn’t we have the final say?

Wait, globalists don’t care what people think. Now it makes sense.

Canadian Politicians Who Support This

Justin Trudeau, and Elizabeth May are on here. Jagmeet Singh probably would be, if he actually was an M.P.

Members of Parliament from Canada
Diane Bellemare
Senator, economist and politician from Quebec, Canada

(2013-12-17)

Carolyn Bennett
MP, Canada
(2009-07-07)

Sheri Benson
Member of Parliament for Saskatoon West, Canada
(2017-03-10)

Daniel Blaikie
MP, Canada
(2017-03-06)

Rachel Blaney
MP, Canada
(2016-10-26)

Sean Casey
Member of Parliament, Canada
(2011-09-01)

François Choquette
MP, Canada
(2011-06-09)

David Christopherson
Member of Parliament, Canada
(2011-06-21)

Jane Cordy
Senator, Canada
(2018-01-19)

Jane Cordy
Senator, Canada
(2018-01-31)

Nathan Cullen
MP, Canada
(2010-10-05)

Julie Dabrusin
Member of Parliament for Toronto-Danforth, Canada
(2017-04-18)

Don Davies
MP, elected 2008; Lawyer, trade union representative, Canada
(2007-05-25)

Fin Donnelly
MP, Canada
(2010-04-19)

Julie Dzerowicz
MP, Canada
(2017-03-16)

Wayne Easter
MP, Canada
(2012-02-09)

Art Eggleton
Canadian Senator, Canada
(2009-04-28)

Ali Ehsassi
MP, Canada
(2017-04-07)

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
Canada
(2016-05-12)

Hedy Fry
MP, Canada
(2009-06-15)

Marc Garneau
MP; first Canadian in outer space; President, Canadian Space Agency (2001-2006), Canada
(2012-03-24)

Randall Garrison
MP, Canada
(2012-02-24)

Pamela Goldsmith-Jones
MP for West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Canada

(2017-05-17)

Claude Gravelle
Member of Parliament, Nickel Belt, Canada
(2010-07-29)

Laurie Hawn
Member of Parliament since 2006 Privy Councillor Royal Canadian Air Force Veteran, Canada
(2012-02-16)

Carol Hughes
MP, Canada
(2012-02-16)

Mobina Jaffer
Member of the Canadian Senate, representing British Columbia, Canada
(2009-12-18)

Janis G. Johnson
Senator, Canada
(2009-05-01)

Peter Julian
MP, Canada
(2008-02-25)

Frances Lankin
Senator, Canada
(2016-11-15)

Dr. Hélène Laverdière
Foreign Affairs Critic for the New Democratic Party of Canada and MP for Laurier – Ste-Marie, Canada
(2012-02-27)

Dominic LeBlanc
MP, Canada
(2012-03-01)

Hélène LeBlanc
MP, Canada
(2012-02-28)

Alistair MacGregor
MP, Canada
(2018-02-09)

Brian Masse
MP, Canada
(2009-04-30)

Irene Mathyssen
Canada
(2012-03-12)

Elizabeth May
MP; Leader, Green Party of Canada, Canada

(2007-05-11)

Dr. John McCallum
Canada

(2012-03-13)

The Honourable John McKay P.C., M.P.
Canadian Member of Parliament for the Riding of Scarborough-Guildwood., Canada

(2012-02-28)

Alexandra Mendes
MP, Canada
(2009-04-28)

Don Meredith
Senator, Canada
(2017-03-01)

Maryann Mihychuk
Canada
(2018-02-14)

Wilfred P. Moore
Senator, Canada
(2011-06-21)

Isabelle Morin
MP, Canada
(2012-02-28)

Joyce Murray
MP, Canada
(2009-05-09)

Thanh Hai Ngo
Senator, Canada
(2018-01-22)

Robert Oliphant
MP, Canada
(2009-06-15)

John Oliver
Member of Parliament , Canada
(2018-03-01)

Joe Peschisolido
Canada
(2018-02-21)

Rose-May Poirier
Senator, Canada
(2010-07-02)

Tracey Ramsey
MP, Canada
(2018-02-08)

Murray Rankin
MP, Canada
(2018-01-26)

Pablo Rodriguez
MP, Canada
(2010-05-03)

Dan Ruimy
MP, Canada
(2018-05-07)

Nancy Ruth
Senator, Canada
(2009-05-01)

Francis Scarpaleggia
MP, Canada
(2010-08-19)

Judy Sgro
MP; Canadian Member of Parliament for the Riding of York West, Canada
(2012-04-05)

Scott Simms
MP, Canada
(2012-02-28)

Wayne Stetski
MP, Canada
(2018-04-25)

Dr. Kennedy Stewart
MP, Canada
(2012-02-22)

Justin Trudeau
Member of Parliament, Canada
(2010-07-21)

David Wells
Senator, Canada
(2016-11-22)

Borys Wrzesnewskyj
MP, Canada
(2009-05-01)

Kate Young
MP, Canada
(2018-05-03)