The United Nations interferes in national governance all over the world. Here are just a few exerps.
2005 World Summit Outcome I. Values and principles
1. We, Heads of State and Government, have gathered at United Nations Headquarters in New York from 14 to 16 September 2005.
2. We reaffirm our faith in the United Nations and our commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter and international law, which are indispensable foundations of a more peaceful, prosperous and just world, and reiterate our determination to foster strict respect for them.
3. We reaffirm the United Nations Millennium Declaration, which we adopted at the dawn of the twenty-first century. We recognize the valuable role of the major United Nations conferences and summits in the economic, social and related fields, including the Millennium Summit, in mobilizing the international community at the local, national, regional and global levels and in guiding the work of the United Nations.
Quite the loyalty oath here….
6. We reaffirm the vital importance of an effective multilateral system, in accordance with international law, in order to better address the multifaceted and interconnected challenges and threats confronting our world and to achieve progress in the areas of peace and security, development and human rights, underlining the central role of the United Nations, and commit ourselves to promoting and strengthening the effectiveness of the Organization through the implementation of its decisions and resolutions.
7. We believe that today, more than ever before, we live in a global and interdependent world. No State can stand wholly alone. We acknowledge that collective security depends on effective cooperation, in accordance with international law, against transnational threats.
8. We recognize that current developments and circumstances require that we urgently build consensus on major threats and challenges. We commit ourselves to translating that consensus into concrete action, including addressing the root causes of those threats and challenges with resolve and determination.
9. We acknowledge that peace and security, development and human rights are the pillars of the United Nations system and the foundations for collective security and well-being. We recognize that development, peace and security and human rights are interlinked and mutually reinforcing. 10. We reaffirm that development is a central goal by itself and that sustainable development in its economic, social and environmental aspects constitutes a key element of the overarching framework of United Nations activities.
This all sounds lovely and flowery, but are nations actually swearing off independence and autonomy? It goes on and on, with “independent” nations swearing and affirming their commitment to being collectively governed.
“The UN General Assembly and democracy
Since 1988, the General Assembly has adopted at least one resolution annually dealing with some aspect of democracy. Democracy has emerged as a cross-cutting issue in the outcomes of the major United Nations conferences and summits since the 1990s and in the internationally agreed development goals they produced. Member States at the World Summit in September 2005 reaffirmed that “democracy is a universal value based on the freely expressed will of people to determine their political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives
The Summit Outcome Document also stressed that “democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing,” and pointed out that “while democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy.” Member States resolved to promote increased representation of women in Government decision-making bodies, including to ensure their equal opportunity to participate fully in the political process.
The World leaders pledged in the Millennium Declaration to spare no effort to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as well as respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They resolved to strive for the full protection and promotion in all countries of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights for all and to strengthen the capacity of all countries to implement the principles and practices of democracy and respect for human rights.”
This all sounds good, but why does the UN see the need to meddle in everyone’s elections? Is there anything the UN “won’t involve itself in?
Of course, it wouldn’t be complete without pandering to gender quotas
Here are some of the goals:
In 2000, the Commission recommended a series of important legislative, institutional and practical measures to consolidate democracy (resolution 2000/47); and in 2002, the Commission declared the following as essential elements of democracy:
-Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms
-Freedom of association
-Freedom of expression and opinion
-Access to power and its exercise in accordance with the rule of law
-The holding of periodic free and fair elections by universal suffrage and by secret ballot as the expression of the will of the people
-A pluralistic system of political parties and organizations
-The separation of powers
-The independence of the judiciary
-Transparency and accountability in public administration
-Free, independent and pluralistic media
Since its establishment in 2006, the Human Rights Council (successor to the Commission) has adopted a number of resolutions highlighting the interdependent and mutually reinforcing relationship between democracy and human rights. Recent examples include resolutions 19/36 and 28/14 on “Human rights, democracy and the rule of law”.
Keep in mind, that the Human Rights Council is made up of memberstates which don’t believe in human rights. Also, the Council for the Status of Women contains memberstates which don’t believe women are equal, or should have rights.
Promoting the idea of democracy sounds great, but also keep in mind some of the other ideas this globalist organization is behind:
1/ UN proposes a world government (UNPA)
2/ UN proposes internet regulation (digital cooperation)
3/ UN wants to ban criticism of Islam globally
4/ UN want global migration compact
5/ UN pushed Agenda 21
6/ UN pushed Agenda 2021
7/ UN pushed Agenda 2030
8/ UN promotes gender/language agenda
9/ UN promotes forestry control
10/ UN wants urban development control
11/ UN pushed Paris Accord
12/ UN pushed climate change scam
13/ UN promotes abortion as human right
The idea of building up democratic systems across the globe sounds very appealing. But considering how much the UN controls, it is difficult to not view any such government as a UN puppet.
The UN wants governments “democratically” elected, as long as those governments support UN agendas.
Check out Australian YouTuber Daisy Cousens, for an interesting review on the Green New Deal. Thorough, and on point in her critique.
1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam
CLICK HERE, for #1: major lies that the climate frauds tell. CLICK HERE, for #2: review of the Paris Accord. CLICK HERE, for #3: Bill C-97, the GHG Pollution Pricing Act. CLICK HERE, for #4: in 3-2 decision, Sask. COA allows carbon tax. CLICK HERE, for #5: controlled opposition to carbon tax. CLICK HERE, for #6: controlled opposition Cons ==> Supreme Court. CLICK HERE, for #7: climate bonds pitched as $100T industry. CLICK HERE, for #8: Joel Wood pitching various pricing options. CLICK HERE, for #9: Mark Carney and UN climate finance. CLICK HERE, for #10: Goldman Sachs, Obama, Clinton, Chicago CX. CLICK HERE, for #11: Coronavirus, Pirbright Inst, Gates, Depopulation.
2. Important Links
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.
3. Context For This Review
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.
4. 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;”
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
5. 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.
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.
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.
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?
(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
4. Abortionists Moving The 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)
5. So, What Happens Now
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.
