Global Affairs ATIP Part 3 - Bill Clinton - do we believe the women or not?

Global Affairs ATIP Part 2 - Canadians are safer when the world shares our abortion values

Part 3

From Bill Clinton: A Reckoning:

"The most remarkable thing about the current tide of sexual assault and harassment accusations is not their number. If every woman in America started talking about the things that happen during the course of an ordinary female life, it would never end. Nor is it the power of the men involved: History instructs us that for countless men, the ability to possess women sexually is not a spoil of power; it’s the point of power. What’s remarkable is that these women are being believed." (emphasis added)

So. Do we believe the women when they tell us that they were raped, sexually assaulted, etc. by Bill Clinton? If we do believe them, why is Canada doing business with the Clinton Health Access Initiative whose founder is President William J. Clinton. You do remember Bill?

"Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States (1993–2001), has been publicly accused of sexual misconduct by three women: Juanita Broaddrick accuses Clinton of raping her in 1978; Kathleen Willey accuses Clinton of groping her without consent in 1993; and Paula Jones accuses Clinton of exposing himself to her in 1991 and sexually harassing her. The Jones allegations became public in 1994, while Willey's and Broaddrick's became public during the 1998-99 time period, toward the end of Clinton's second term as president."

From Juanita Broaddrick's profile on her twitter account:

"Author, "You'd Better Put Some Ice On That" a rape survivor of Bill Clinton, retired RN, business owner mother, grandmother and tennis player. No More Silence replied."

"In 1999, Juanita Broaddrick burst into the public consciousness when she accused President Bill Clinton on national television of raping her in 1978 as he ran for governor in Arkansas. It was a TV appearance she dreaded and never wanted, but felt compelled to squash the rumors: it was rape. 

Now, with award-winning former investigative journalist Nick Lulli, she tells her story of survival; from the assault at the hands of the future president, to the veiled threats by a seemingly complicit presidential wannabe Hillary Rodham Clinton; Broaddrick believes now is the time to set the record straight and ensure victims everywhere are believed."

Kathleen Willey, like Broaddrick, has also written a book. It is about both Clintons, and how they nearly destroyed her:

"Kathleen Willey's explosive new book details how her life was changed - and nearly destroyed - by Bill and Hillary Clinton. Target contains never-before-released details of the intimidation campaign launched to silence Kathleen...one way or the other. It provides new insight not just into the death of Kathleen's husband - on the same day that Bill Clinton assaulted Kathleen in the Oval Office - but into Bill's sexual addiction and Hillary's compulsive enabling, a dangerous combination with power. The Clintons' terror and harassment continue. Over 2007 Labor Day weekend, Kathleen's home was burglarized. Instead of taking jewelry or computers, the thief took the manuscript for Target, with its explosive revelations that could damage Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. It was a break-in all too reminiscent of an earlier incident in which Kathleen was threatened by a stranger just two days before she was to testify against President Clinton in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. It's deju vu all over again - and a timely reminder of how cunning and ruthless the Clintons' desire for power remains."

Then there's Paula Jones who sued Clinton for sexual harassment and settled out of court for $850,000.

Then there's Leslie Millwee. What Clinton allegedly did to Millwee is too disgusting to repeat here.

There are others of course.

So I ask again. If we believe these women, why is Canada funding the Clinton organization?

Global Affairs ATIP Part 2 - Canadians are safer when the world shares our abortion values

Part 1 on my ATIP to Global Affairs Canada regarding $650M funding for reproductive rights: A women has economic power when she chooses abortion

Part 2

This may surprise you. But did you know that Canadians are safer when the world shares our abortion "values"? That these abortion values form the "core of our foreign policy"? That these abortion values are a "basic justice and also basic economics"?

I did not make this up.

Here is what Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland said when introducing Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy:

"It is worth reminding ourselves why we step up—why we devote time and resources to foreign policy, trade, defence and development: Canadians are safer and more prosperous when more of the world shares our values. 

Those values include feminism and the promotion of the rights of women and girls.

It is important—and historic—that we have a prime minister and a government proud to proclaim themselves as feminists. Women’s rights are human rights. This includes sexual and reproductive rights—and the right to access safe and legal abortions. These rights are at the core of our foreign policy. 

I am delighted my colleague the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie is launching Canada’s first Feminist International Assistance Policy, which targets gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls. We are positioning Canada at the forefront of this global effort. This is a matter of basic justice and also basic economics. We know that empowering women, overseas and here at home, makes families and countries more prosperous. 

Now is the time to rise to the great challenges of this century. As I said in the government’s foreign policy statement, our job today is to preserve the achievements of previous generations, and to build on them, as we are doing through Canada’s first Feminist International Assistance Policy."" (emphasis added)

The Honourable Chrystia Freeland
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Global Affairs ATIP Part 3 - Bill Clinton - do we believe the women or not?

Global Affairs ATIP Part 1 - A women has economic power when she chooses abortion

Part 1

I've been working on an ATIP I did to Global Affairs Canada regarding the $650 million dollars to fund Canada's vision for reproductive rights in Africa, when I came across this nonsensical tweet by Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau.

The Liberals really are scary. Do they really believe this stuff they come up with?

First of all Canada doesn't "firmly believe" this nonsense--Liberals "firmly believe" it. Many Canadians, myself included, do not.

Second, there is no such thing as a fundamental right to choose. This "right" is a made up right.

Third, does anyone believe--besides Liberals--that "economic empowerment" is the same as the mythical pro-abortion construct known as a "fundamental right to choose"? Even if the right did exist, the statement still doesn't make sense.

Here is Minister Bibeau's full quote on the government's website:

“Canada firmly believes that a woman’s fundamental right to economic empowerment cannot be distinguished from her fundamental right to choose. When sexual and reproductive health and rights are respected, other rights become more accessible. With its Feminist International Assistance Policy and partners like UNFPA, Canada is committed to a comprehensive approach to the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and girls globally.”

- Marie-Claude Bibeau, Minister of International Development and La Francophonie

I'll write more later on what I learned from the ATIP.

Part 2 here

When the Conservatives act like Liberals

You know Pierre Lemieux makes a really good point in his latest email to his supporters. When the pro-abortion Liberals decided to spend more of our tax dollars on abortion in poor countries, why haven't we heard anything against this from the Conservative party?

"You may have missed a significant announcement last week. 

The Liberals announced that they are giving $20 million this year to help International Planned Parenthood provide more abortions overseas. 

If you missed it, it wasn’t because the Liberals tried to hide it. They’ve been pre-positioning it for weeks. 

Rather, it is because Conservatives, as Opposition, are saying nothing."

Why the silence? Do the Conservatives condone this spending? Surely not. Aren't the Conservatives all about fiscal prudence? We have a 635 billion dollar debt in this country, and no Conservatives are talking about this shameful waste of money. Oh it's about abortion, is that it? Can't be seen as opposing anything to do with abortion?

Seems like the Conservative party is becoming an awful lot like the pro-abortion Liberals when they refuse to hold the Liberals to account to us for this shameful spending on killing unborn children in poor countries:

"When life issues are “out of bounds” for us as Conservatives, the Liberals are able to implement their agenda without any accountability or challenge."

Here's the question then. Why do we need a Conservative party at all? When the Conservative party we thought we had is really just a Liberal party?

What you can do when you hide abortion statistics

This is interesting. Seems the Australia government has been making stuff up. Government officials there have said that smoking rates have gone down in Australia since the government introduced plain packaging on cigarettes. But that isn't actually true. Smoking rates have actually gone up in Australia:

"The most recent national survey of smoking rates published by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in 2014 does not appear to indicate plain packaging helped accelerate the 22-year downward trend. Instead, it suggests youth smoking may have increased over the 2010­–13 period it covers, with reported daily smoking among 12 to 17 year olds climbing from 2.5 to 3.4 per cent. 

Indeed, despite all the publicity surrounding the introduction of the new packs, the survey found the percentage of Australians citing health warnings as a reason for smoking less or quitting fell from 15.2 per cent in 2010 to 11.1 in 2013. 

Separate data collected across four of Australia’s six states suggest smoking rates actually increased between 2012­–13. 

“The Australian government finds itself in an embarrassing situation having trumpeted its policy only to find that despite all the rhetoric that tobacco prevalence didn’t fall,” says economist Sinclair Davidson, an economist at Melbourne’s RMIT University and a plain-packaging critic.

Now on the other side of the world, namely here in in Ontario, where we have the Kathleen Wynn government, Ontario hides anything and everything related to abortion. Suppose that, Ontario Liberal politicians decided to make something up about abortion? For instance, what if they announced that abortion rates had gone down in Ontario? We would have no way of knowing if that was true or not, would we?

Juistin Trudeau's 2016 budget disaster - sign the petition

From MP Jason Kenney:

When the last Conservative government was in office, we lowered taxes and balanced the budget. As a result, Canada had the strongest middle class in the world, according to the New York Times, and was ranked the best country to do business by Forbes.

But the new Liberal government is reversing the progress we made as fast as they can. After promising voters that they would not borrow more than $25 billion over their term in office, the Liberals are now planning to borrow at least $119 billion — and that's just a start.

It’s not just broken promises we need to worry about. According to the National Post’s John Ivison, “what we are seeing is the creation of a long-term structural deficit, not temporary cyclical investments."

We know that a long-term, structural deficit will be a disaster for our country.

So that’s why I’m asking you to take action today and sign my petition to protect Canada’s future.
I will be fighting hard against the Liberal plan to massively increase spending — I hope you will join me and do the same.

Sincerely,

Jason Kenney

P.S. I strongly encourage you to read this excellent analysis of this disastrous and dishonest Liberal budget.

Ontario PCs - hold Liberals to account for hidden agenda

Dear Monte [McNaughton],

I received your letter in the mail asking me for a donation to your [Progressive Conservative] party. I might consider giving the party a donation, if your party would stand up in the House and ask the question I asked Patrick Brown below (to which I never received a response). And, if your party would actively advocate and make an issue of this undemocratic, secretive law. 

If and when I hear that the PC Party is actively engaged on this issue, and holding the Liberals to account for their secret agenda on this, please contact me again.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/p/blog-page.html

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Patricia Maloney <maloneyp64@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:44 PM
Subject: Liberals hiding medical information
To: patrick.brown@ontariopc.com
Cc: Patricia Maloney <maloneyp64@gmail.com>

Dear Patrick,

Congratulations on your recent victory for your seat in the Ontario Legislature.

As you know I am taking the Ontario government to court with my Charter Challenge.

Could you ask Kathleen Wynne a question during question period about their hiding information about a tax-funded medical procedure (abortion), and why they did it without a word of debate in the legislature?

I have asked Kathleen and the then Minister Deb Matthews for their reasons for this, and they have continually refused to answer me.

Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/p/blog-page.html

Thomas Mulcair as Prime Minister - maybe it's not all bad

So what would happen if Thomas Mulcair becomes Canada's next Prime Minister?

Now there are some definite problems with this. Saving Canada Post's door to door delivery, $15 a day daycare, and a $15-per-hour federal minimum wage, to name just a few big NDP government spending nightmares.

But maybe it's not all bad.

For starters, I, and many other Canadians, are very tired of Mr. Harper and how the party itself has fared under him. Mr. Harper is a control freak. He won't allow discussion on abortion in Parliament. He's completely standoffish, refusing to engage with ordinary people or the media. Maybe he cares about the average Canadian, but if he does, he doesn't show it. It seems to be only about power for power's sake.

As far as Justin Trudeau goes, he scares me to death. Really, would I trust the country to someone who has said and done so many dumb things? Who won't respond to a letter from Canadians signed by 395 people? Who actually thinks a woman has a charter right to abortion; etc, etc.?

On the plus side of the Conservative party, we know that it is the only party of the three main parties, that will allow MPs to have a choice on whether or not they are "pro-choice", never mind the irony of that fact. But that never seemed to actually help them do anything pro-life as long as Mr. We-Don't-Talk-About-Abortion-Harper is leader of the Conservatives.

So what's the not so bad part of Mr. Mulcair as Prime Minister? Because it frees up pro-life Conservative MPs to do something while in opposition. We know that both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair won't even allow pro-life persons to be a candidate in the election. And as long as Mr. We-Don't-Talk-About-Abortion-Harper is leader of the Conservatives and they are in power, no pro-life MP will ever be successful with any pro-life motion or bill brought forward in Parliament anyway.

But if the Conservatives don't get into power then Mr. We-Don't-Talk-About-Abortion-Harper won't be leader anymore. Conservative MPs in opposition, will at least be be free to speak out on abortion. And bring forward pro-life private member's bills or motions.

Who knows how this could turn out? At the very least it will be a very interesting election.

When writers drool

I'm no fan of Stephen Harper. Not since he threw social conservatives over the cliff, down the embankment, and into the river.

And I think that Justin Trudeau will probably be the next prime Minister of Canada. Not because he's got anything to offer as a leader, but for reasons that I or anyone else, can't seem to quite figure out. Never mind that pro-life persons need not apply to be a Liberal candidate in the next election--discrimination by any other name.

But then I read Heather Mallick's gushing compliments about Trudeau. It makes me yearn for a political leader who isn't even on the political scene: anyone else.

Mallick thinks Trudeau is fantastic because he is/has

"intelligent, humane, self-confident, a Québécois, a most marvellous family, a sophisticated career-minded wife, three adorable young children with interesting names, an English degree, a UBC teaching degree, intellect, wit, good looks, warmth, can wear a suit."

Oh. And Mallick also likes that he can dance. All very important qualities for the next leader of Canada. Especially the dancing part. And that English degree and suits. Important stuff for sure. Now I know why I would never vote for Trudeau.

But when Mallick then proceeds to personally attack Stephen Harper, it makes me want to vote for him next time round. I actually feel embarrassed for Mallick.

Does she actually read what she writes? Does she have an editor? Or does she do this all on her own?

The Liberals aren't thinking clearly

This is a stupid move on the part of the Liberals.

"The Liberal Party of Canada is in favour of decriminalizing medically assisted suicide, adopting a resolution on the controversial matter at the end of its four-day policy convention in Montreal."

This is strategically a really dumb mistake for them to make. As it was, they could have picked up some disenfranchised social conservatives in the next election, especially Catholics who have tended to vote Liberal in the past.

What were they thinking? Not that I would ever vote Liberal myself. Especially with Mauril Belanger as my candidate (shudder).

But there was a small chance that other social conservatives might have considered voting Liberal. Probably not now though. Especially the elderly and more vulnerable citizens. For them, voting Liberal could be a death sentence.

Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

Will Motion allow MPs to speak out on abortion?

So we now know that Justin Trudeau is putting forward his own motion to:
"open up Parliament and allow all MPs to speak freely on behalf of their communities.”

But this has confused me, based on a prior tweet to a CBC reporter when he said that:
"Committed to giving MPs more freedom to represent Canadians, but MPs would be required to support Canadians’ fundamental rights. For me, a woman's right to choose is a fundamental right. See my policy on democratic reform at Justin.ca"

So I just sent Mr. Trudeau the following email to ask him to clarify his tweet, in light of this Liberal Motion.

Dear Mr. Trudeau,

Recently you said in a tweet that you are: "Committed to giving MPs more freedom to represent Canadians, but MPs would be required to support Canadians’ fundamental rights. For me, a woman's right to choose is a fundamental right. See my policy on democratic reform at Justin.ca"

And today you made this statement that:

“Members of Parliament from all parties should be community leaders, free to share the priorities and express the views of those they represent,” said Mr. Trudeau. “That is why we are tabling this motion to open up Parliament and allow all MPs to speak freely on behalf of their communities."

The Liberal Opposition Day motion, to be debated and voted on in the House of Commons on Monday, would change House of Commons rules to ensure that every MP has an equal opportunity to raise issues of importance to their communities. Currently, that process is controlled by party leadership, which decides who will speak and on what issues.

“Canadians must have confidence that the candidates they elect will represent their views in Ottawa, not Ottawa’s views to them,” said Mr. Trudeau. “Our motion is a strong step in the right direction and we hope that all Members of Parliament, regardless of party, will agree to support it.”

Can you please clarify for me whether or not, you would allow an MP to use their Member Statement (SO31) to speak out against abortion?

Thank you.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

I'll post his reply once I hear back from him. Stay tuned.

Liberal strategy - have a good weekend Mr. Harper

Well well well. Maybe Justin Trudeau isn't just another pretty hair-do. Seems like he's pulled a pretty big rabbit out of his hat.

Check this out from the Liberal's website:

Liberals to Introduce Motion to Give all MPs a Greater Voice For Their Communities in the House of Commons

Posted on April 19, 2013

MONTREAL– The Liberal Party will launch a debate in the House of Commons next week to help make Parliament more democratic and more representative of Canadians and their priorities, said Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau today.

“Members of Parliament from all parties should be community leaders, free to share the priorities and express the views of those they represent,” said Mr. Trudeau. “That is why we are tabling this motion to open up Parliament and allow all MPs to speak freely on behalf of their communities.”

The Liberal Opposition Day motion, to be debated and voted on in the House of Commons on Monday, would change House of Commons rules to ensure that every MP has an equal opportunity to raise issues of importance to their communities. Currently, that process is controlled by party leadership, which decides who will speak and on what issues.

“Canadians must have confidence that the candidates they elect will represent their views in Ottawa, not Ottawa’s views to them,” said Mr. Trudeau. “Our motion is a strong step in the right direction and we hope that all Members of Parliament, regardless of party, will agree to support it.”

Background:

The Liberal Opposition Day motion is as follows:

That Standing Order 31 be amended by adding the following:

(1) The Speaker shall recognize Members in alphabetical order by Party. For the purposes of this Standing Order, all Members who do not belong to a recognized party shall be grouped together.

(2) When a Member is unable to present his or her statement on the date required by Standing Order 31(1), he or she may indicate in writing to the Speaker at least one hour prior to the beginning of Statement by Members, the name of the Member with whom he or she will exchange position.

Not only will the Conservatives not let us discuss abortion, they don't seem overly fond of freedom of speech either. It was one thing when Mr. Harper's threw social Conservatives under the bus--driving over us a few times for good measure--when he killed Motion 408.

But he did all of this in OUR Parliament. He somehow thought it was HIS Parliament. Imagine that?

We know that the Liberals are pro-choice, but no more pro-choice than Mr. Harper. Yet now we find out that the Liberals seem to be pro-freedom-of-speech.

Well if I had to "choose" between the Liberals and the Conservatives right now, guess which party it would be Mr. Harper?

Pretty smooth move, Mr. Trudeau. Great manoeuvre on a Friday. Bet Mr. Harper's having fits right now.

Oh well, you reap what you sow I always say.