Tuesday, May 2, 2017

Historic #ProLife Speech on Human Rights for All Humans by William Baptiste, SFO - P. II


PART II of The Historic Speech
HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL HUMANS
BECAUSE
PRO-LIFE=PRO-DEMOCRACY
Which Forever Redefines the Abortion Debate Worldwide
 Introduction to
“The Winning Strategy for ‘The Culture of Life’ to WIN the ‘Cultural War’ with ‘The Culture of Death,’ to Save Humanity Forever from ‘Creeping Totalitarianism’”
by William Baptiste SFO, Founder and Director of Human Rights and Freedoms Forever!
Delivered Friday, April 7, 2017, blocks away from Parliament Hill
At the beginning of this historic speech on Parliament Hill March 19, 2017 I said:
As a sometime-university professor, now a “professor of human rights,” I could easily lecture for 3 hours.  But I’m not going to do that. Instead, [in 1 hour] I’m going to inspire you, first with knowledge, and then with WINNING STRATEGY.  Before your eyes this afternoon I am going to redefine the terms of the abortion debate from now on, and give you CONFIDENCE that we can WIN the victory of Equal Human Rights for All Humans, born and preborn, far more QUICKLY than you ever imagined.  And we can end all the incessant attacks on religious freedom and democracy itself at the same time, because in my new book Democracy 101 and the Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy: The Antidote to Worldwide "Creeping Totalitarianism" Now Threatening Human Rights, Religious Freedom, and Lasting Democracy, I prove in detail that Pro-Life=Pro-Democracy and this afternoon I can prove it with just the “Top 6” Facts!
Now, during the speech at Parliament Hill I did most of what I said I would do in the hour I had to speak during the afternoon Pro-Life on Parliament Hill Rally.  But due to time constraints I did not get to introduce, as I intended, “The Winning Strategy for ‘The Culture of Life’ to WIN the ‘Cultural War’ with ‘The Culture of Death,’ to Save Humanity Forever from ‘Creeping Totalitarianism’” – and I did not have time to explain WHY I am convinced that we CAN successfully implement this strategy and end BOTH legal abortion AND the incessant attacks on religious freedom which my work shows is directly related to it far more QUICKLY than you ever imagined.  I will at last do this this evening.
For those who did not attend Part I of this speech on Parliament Hill, I will first very briefly review some of the major features of the “Hill  Speech” for context:
[using the original written speech from March 19 (as above), the speaker listed the THE TOP 6 FACTS FEW KNOW ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS HISTORY WHICH PROVE PRO-LIFE = PRO-DEMOCRACY]
[and then listed the FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY]
[and then listed THE CORE PRINCIPLES OF LASTING DEMOCRACY]
[and then listed THE TOP 6 MAJOR ASSAULTS ON DEMOCRACY IN "PRO-CHOICE-TO-KILL-HUMANS" CANADA -Similar Trends in Other Countries - SINCE 2015]
[The speaker also re-introduced the earlier Parliament Hill speech’s “New Terms to Clarify the Essence of the Central Dispute of Our Time: Where do you stand on the current Human Rights for All Humans debate? Do you believe in equal Human Rights for All Humans, or do you believe Human Rights can and should be denied to some humans? That is, are you “Pro-Human-Right-to-Live” or “ProChoice-to-Kill-Humans” ? “]
[Having recapped Part I of the speech] Now -  before going on to introducing the “winning strategy,” I wanted to put the facts and logic that underlie the Pro-Life position, now clearly shown, SIDE BY SIDE with the facts and logic used by the Pro-Choice side, which they actually are silly enough to call their “strongest arguments” for legal abortion – in a section I call:

Next to the Genuine Facts of History and Science Implicitly Underlying Human Rights and Democracy (and Made Explicit in Democracy 101), The Best "Pro-Choice Abortion" Justifications and Arguments are Obviously Weak and False, Just as Next to Real Money the Counterfeit Looks Fake


Just like it is much more valuable to for bank officials to study genuine money than to study counterfeit money, because, if they are intimately familiar with the real thing, that itself makes it easy to recognize any counterfeit (whatever precise form it takes), so my principal educational works like the treatise and the Pledge concentrate on the real facts and logic implicitly undergirding all Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms, without discussing in depth all the many various arguments put forth today to justify all the currently fashionable non-traditional values which are undermining genuine Human Rights and Democracy, simply because next to the real, traditional foundations of Human Rights and Freedoms these recent, anti-traditional ideas and arguments look as weak (if not colossally stupid) as they are, and there is little need to waste more time refuting them. 

For example:  having first recalled the Science of Biology in fact confirms beyond dispute that any human life is the same unique living individual biological human organism with absolutely unique human DNA utterly distinct from his or her parents at every age and stage of his or her human life-cycle from zygote (fertilized egg) to senior adult (yes, that fetus in your mother’s womb with your unique DNA that you grew from to be the size you are now was YOU!); and having first established from undisputed facts connected using compelling logic that all Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms are historically and logically rooted in traditional Western values including the essentially "Pro-Life" historic Foundational Principles Human Rights and Democracy, which are given an eminently logical, mature and precise articulation in the first 5 Articles of the Pledge; and having also first demonstrated that "Pro-Choice abortion" philosophy throughout history has always gone logically hand-in-hand with oppressive totalitarianism, simply because there is no logical reason for any State to grant either Human Rights or Democratic Freedoms to humans in any State which does not even recognize any Inherent Human Right to Live, because abortion is legal (and having pointed out the undisputed fact the first two modern States to de-criminalize abortion were totalitarian Soviet Russia and totalitarian Nazi Germany) -- with that much solid and sensible education in view, it is simply not necessary to waste much time refuting the silly argument that the current abortion-on-demand of preborn humans in many jurisdictions should be legal (despite the fact it undermines democracy from its foundations) just because a tiny fraction of the human-killing abortions currently performed end pregnancies where the human baby was conceived in rape and was not the result of adult sexual consent.

In this factual light the "Pro-Choice abortion" argument is that we should follow the precedent of oppressive totalitarian regimes and actually undermine the whole fabric of our entire free and democratic way of life by legally eradicating the Inherent Human Right to Live of all of us by de-criminalizing abortion, and kill millions of humans worldwide every year, just because a tiny percentage of those humans were not conceived consensually and thus not wanted by their mothers.

As the counterfeit money is obvious next to the real thing, so it is obvious next to the facts undergirding all Human Rights and Democracy that there have to be much better ways to deal with the evil of rape than by adopting totalitarian anti-human policies which ultimately lead only to oppressive totalitarianism (as the current "Creeping Totalitarianism" specifically to ensure "abortion access" proves); there have to be better ways to deal with rape than legally eliminating the Inherent Human Right to Live (for BOTH the child AND the mother, since with legal abortion the mother too has no inherent Human Rights and could have been legally aborted by her mother too, as could ALL OF US who no longer have a recognized Inherent Human Right to Live because of this ridiculous "solution" to the social problem of criminal rape).  It should be also noted that the Pro-Choice position is not even remotely logically consistent, since Pro-Choicers argue that abortion should be legal if a child is produced by a non-consensual rape, and at the same time the Pro-Choice argument is that we should also undermine Human Rights for everyone by legally killing millions more human babies who were in fact conceived as the result of adult sexual consent, in a (scientifically, biologically speaking) successful sexual encounter of consenting adults which successfully resulted in sex's whole biological purpose, of human procreation - just because some are immature and irresponsible enough to engage in nature's process of producing the next generation of precious humans without any intention of nor even openness to the possibility of successfully doing so (which is an irresponsible and inhuman use of nature's way of producing humans, that violates our human biology itself - so no wonder it leads also to compromised Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms for all humans through de-criminalized abortion eradicating the legally recognized Inherent Human Right to Live when immature and irresponsible people demand the "right to kill" by abortion their irresponsibly produced preborn precious human children). 

Here is another example of sloppy "Pro-Choice abortion" thinking (one cannot call it "logic") that is revealed as being as counterfeit and absurd as it is just by knowing all the actual facts underlying Human Rights: the notion that it was worth eliminating the Inherent Human Right to Live for everyone and unleashing the current "Creeping Totalitarianism" undermining Democracy into the West "because some pregnant women get hurt or die from illegal abortions."  This "reasoning" (if one can call it that) was actually used in the de-criminalization of abortion in many countries, even though it is exactly like saying "because some people getdesperate enough to commit crimes for sometimes sympathetic reasons, we should de-criminalize the crimes so anyone - desperate or not - can legally do them for any reason."  Would we de-criminalize stealing because some cat-burglars, some of whom are desperate enough to steal for sympathetic reasons like feeding their poor family, get hurt or killed in the dangerous process of committing their crime (by crawling into upper-storey windows where they could fall)?  The whole fabric of the Law which guards the Human Rights (and property rights) of everyone is offended by this "reasoning."  Clearly, if a woman for whatever reason, however sympathetic it might be, feels desperate enough to kill her own child that she is willing to risk her own life while committing the crime in a dangerous illegal abortion (as in the “cat burglar” analogy where a man feels desperate enough to steal to feed his family that he is willing to risk his own life while committing the crime in a dangerous upper-story cat-burglary), the solution in either case cannot be to legalize the crime, which can only make more innocent human victims, because it only motivates many more people, who are NOT criminally desperate, to commit the same crime as the few who are criminally desperate.  The solution has to be to uphold the law which protects the rights of everyone (the right to life or the right to property) but seek social reforms and social support programs that lessen people’s temptations to become desperate enough to commit a crime, whether a crime against humanity or a crime against property.

The third big "hard case" used illogically to somehow justify legal abortion-on-demand in addition to the "hard case" is that abortion should be legally allowed in cases "where medically necessary to save the mother." But if one thinks this "hard case" logically through, this "hard case" is dead easy to resolve without in any way compromising Democracy's foundation of the Inherent Human Right to Live and driving "Creeping Totalitarianism" with legal "abortion-on-demand."

The Pro-Life principles which Democracy 101 prove are so foundational to lasting Democracy itself are simply enough applied even to difficult medical decisions in a way which maintains the value and dignity of allhuman life.  In the exceedingly rare case where a complication in the pregnancy puts the mother’s health in serious danger, it will be a human tragedy if either the mother or the baby or both die. If doctors are in the very rare situation of having to make a decision to save one of the two human lives or the other but cannot save both, in that case whichever one dies will be a tragedy, because every human life is precious.  Even in these cases, some "Pro-Life" surgeons argue there is no such thing as a “medically necessary abortion,” because a medical procedure that saves the mother’s life which the baby will not survive (as a side-effect) stilldoes not need to target the baby for death (as the intended effect) as an abortion does. So there is simply no need to legally allow abortion when necessary to save the mother - all the law has to do is simply acknowledge the (worldwide daily) reality in emergency rooms that medical personnel, who (like the government in a healthy democracy!) are obligated to do all they can to save precious threatened human lives,sometimes are unable to do so.

As long as neither mother nor baby are "devalued," as long as one is not bigotedly viewed as "lesser" than the other and both are recognized as precious humans, which obligates the doctors to do their best to save both IF POSSIBLE, a failure to save both precious human lives is not a violation of Human Rights and there is no need to violate Human Rights by specifically legalizing the abortion-killing of humans in medical emergencies.  It is simply a human tragedy when the doctors, despite their best efforts, are unable to save both; and it is tragic if in the course of saving the mother who had the best chance of survival, the doctors had to make the uncomfortable decision to do a medical procedure which (as a side effect not as the main intended effect) they knew the baby would not survive.  This is a tragedy, not a "choice," and certainly not a "right," if there are any Human Rights at all.

Nothing could be more asinine and ridiculous than arguing that because doctors sometimes have to make the hard choice to save the precious mother not the precious baby when there is an unusually bad complication in a pregnancy, and an abortion or abortion-like procedure the precious baby will not survive occasionally has to be done only in order to save the precious mother, that somehow this precedent of a supposed "need" for abortion-killing to save another valuable human life in a rare "hard case" in any way justifies abortion-killing of precious humans in any case (the current "abortion-on-demand" in many countries).

Any logical thinker would recognize this as a "non sequitur" -- "it does not follow" that even if abortion-killing of one precious human life is occasionally, in a rare and extreme set of circumstances, necessary to save another precious human life, that therefore somehow there is no Inherent Human Right to Live (as any legal abortion implies) and abortion should be legal for any reason.  Yet this illogical application has become common.

But the only sensible thing, once one is educated enough to know lasting Human Rights and Freedoms depend on the "Pro-Life" Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy, is to not make abortion legal in any circumstances, but merely acknowledge that sometimes a precious mother's life can only be saved by a medical procedure that her precious baby will not survive (a procedure that surgeons confirm does not have to target the baby for death the way an abortion does at all -- so there are no "medically necessary abortions").
All of these three examples – (which have in fact been used to justify following the totalitarian Soviet and Nazi precedent of de-criminalizing abortion) - represent the strongest arguments usually presented for legal abortion.  None of them have anything to do with facts or logic, but all are merely emotional appeals to genuinely sympathetic "hard cases" - and none of them can be logically applied to a general policy of legal abortion outside of the "hard cases" - nor even within the "hard case."  Of course we should have sympathy for the tiny percentage of women who suffer the violent crime of rape who become pregnant by this non-consensual sexual act.  But does this mean we should eliminate the Inherent Human Right to Live and thus undermine democracy with "Creeping Totalitarianism" just because we legitimately feel sorry for a woman who is pregnant through no fault of her own and does not want to be?  Nothing could be more illogical, and if this is the best solution the “Pro-Choice abortion” mindset can come up with to complicated human social problems including rape – to kill more humans – following totalitarian precedent, and undermining democracy itself - they must have seriously deficient creative problem-solving intellects.

How YOU Can Learn and Participate in the Winning Strategy for the 'Culture of Life' to WIN the 'Cultural War' with the 'Culture of Death,' to Save Humanity Forever from 'Creeping Totalitarianism'


GENERAL STRATEGY IN BRIEF: The British Abolitionists successfully and peacefully ended legal slavery (which was fundamentally incompatible with Democracy and the conflict had to be resolved for the stability of society) by EDUCATING FIRST THEMSELVES, THEN THE ELECTORATE OF VOTING CITIZENS FROM THE GRASSROOTS UP in the TRADITIONAL AND DEMOCRACY-GROUNDING PRINCIPLE of EQUAL HUMAN PRECIOUSNESS until there were sufficient numbers of EDUCATED voting citizens who believed that EVERY HUMAN WITHOUT EXCEPTION HAD EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTSto convince the politicians to end the entrenched and powerful, profitable SLAVE TRADE which DENIED HUMAN RIGHTS TO SOME HUMANS.  In the same way, today’s TRADITIONAL believers in the SAME Democracy-Grounding Principle can become “New Abolitionists” and “Democracy Pledgers” WHO CAN END the current worldwide trends of “Creeping Totalitarianism” which is driven by now-popular “Pro-Choice-to-Kill-Humans” abortion policies that are just as fundamentally incompatible with Democracy and thus de-stabilizing to society as legal slavery was, because they violate the SAME TRADITIONAL underlying principle that EVERY HUMAN WITHOUT EXCEPTION HAS EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS  that legal slavery did by DENYING HUMAN RIGHTS TO SOME HUMANS like legal slavery did and – worse than slavery – legally eradicating the Inherent Human Right to Live which is the foundation of all Democracy.  To end the killing of humans and end “Creeping Totalitarianism at the same time, following the example of the original Abolitionists, “Pro-Human-Right-to-Live” New Abolitionists (like YOU) just need to make sure that enough voting citizens in every country (starting with themselves) become EDUCATED enough in where Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms historically and logically come from that sufficient numbers of EDUCATED voters will no longer vote for UNEDUCATED politicians who are undermining the very fabric of Democracy in their IGNORANCE of the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy(which are the SAME TRADITIONAL underlying principles held by the Abolitionists who ended slavery).  Knowing and holding the now-clearly-identified historic and logical Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy (which are backed up by the science of human life)  should be a minimum qualification for politicians in any democracy which wants to remain a democracy long-term and not fall to current trends of “Creeping Totalitarianism,” and making sure there are enough EDUCATED VOTERS to convince the politicians to constitutionally enshrine the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy is the core of the “Winning Strategy” which was successfully used by the Abolitionists to end legal slavery (who held these same principles like EVERY HUMAN WITHOUT EXCEPTION HAS EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS).
So, if I am encouraging you all to become “Democracy Pledgers”, just what is one?
Definition:  A “Democracy Pledger” is someone who takes responsibility for Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms for everyone rather than taking them for granted; someone who bothers to learn where they come from so they can protect these rights and freedoms for future generations, rather than not even knowing where they come from and so not being vigilant to maintain their foundations, and thus being prone to ignorantly compromise Human Rights and undermine Democracy without even realizing it, which uneducated ignorance on a wide scale in both politicians and voters has brought on the current worldwide threat of “Creeping Totalitarianism” necessitating the educational Democracy 101 & The Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy to combat this uneducated ignorance.  A “Democracy Pledger” reads the Pledge (Democracy 101) to learn Democracy’s historical and logical foundations and then spreads it to others who spread it to others, until there are enough EDUCATED citizens in their country (who no longer take Human Rights and Freedoms for granted) to ensure they last long-term.
A “Democracy Pledger” “takes the Pledge” by reading it and spreading it to others as part of a new worldwide grassroots movement to make sure Human Rights and Freedoms last forever on their firm traditional, historical, scientific and logical foundations – until enough citizens in their country understand and stand up together in Solidarity for the constitutional enshrinement of the essential content of The Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy and The Core Principles of Lasting Democracy identified from history, science and logic in PLEDGE PART II and clearly articulated in PLEDGE PART I of Democracy 101 & the Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy.
I have chosen the word “Solidarity” here very deliberately.  Do you THINK the current movements and forces of “Creeping Totalitarianism” undermining traditional Western values in so very many ways with massive social and legal changes, undemocratically imposed, look scary and can’t be beaten?  Well, guess what!  No anti-democratic forces EVER looked stronger than the Soviet Union, but it fell like a house of cards, more quickly than anyone ever imagined, when people with TRADITIONAL Western values JUST LIKE YOU stood up together in Solidarity against it.  The Polish Solidaritymovement, inspired by the Polish Christian, Pope John Paul II, undermined even full-blown hardline Communist Soviet totalitarianism in the Eastern Bloc Warsaw Pact countries, AND IT FELL WITHOUT BLOODSHED AGAINST ALL EXPECTATIONS.  We are only dealing with “Creeping Totalitarianism” rooted in the ignorance of politicians who are just too uneducated to know any better how to make democracy last; we are NOT facing full-blown and deliberate totalitarianism like the Polish Solidarity movement was.  If we stand up together in Solidarity for the TRADITIONAL Western values now clearly articulated as the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy, all the current “Creeping Totalitarianism” will also FALL LIKE THE INSUBSTANTIAL HOUSE OF CARDS IT IS.
Don’t believe me?  Well, as my final encouraging point, please consider my assertion that Gandhi's Sequence of Progressive Government Response to Non-Violent Protest Against Injustice Indicates the "Pro-Human-Right-to-Live" (or "Pro-Life") Side Will Soon Win the Victory of Human Rights For All Humans Against Current Democracy-Destroying “Pro-Choice-to-Kill-Humans” (or "Pro-Choice") Laws and Policies
The classic description attributed to Gandhi of the stages of government response to non-violently seeking political change where there has been injustice, when genuine rights have been trampled by the government is: "First they ignore you.  Then they ridicule you. Then they persecute you.  Then you win."
When a government that fancies itself democratic or benevolent to humans (and not totalitarian) realizes that they can no longer ignore nor ridicule nor persecute the protest movement against a legitimate complaint against injustice or a Human Rights violation without betraying their own best principles and becoming obvious Human Rights violators themselves by violently quelling those standing up for justice or genuine Human Rights, then they concede to the protesters and correct the injustice, and uphold Human Rights.
In this manner Gandhi's non-violent non-acceptance of injustice convinced the British Empire to change certain prejudiced policies (in both South Africa and India) which did not treat all human citizens of the Empire equally (and eventually to peacefully leave India - on friendly terms - to rule itself).   Even though some British policies did not live up to Britain's own highest, traditional Western (Christian) ideals of equal human preciousness, still Britain had these ideals.  And thus Gandhi's non-violent non-compliance with injustice, when they could no longer ignore it, forced the British in South Africa and India to realize that to continue the status quo of their existing  prejudiced policies, they would have to become their own definition of totalitarian monsters through repeated, consistent persecution through arrests or violence of those who would no longer put up with the injustice of the government not treating all humans under their power equally.  So the British government, after some incidents of violent persecution they themselves found highly distasteful, but which were necessary if they really wanted to enforce their current unjust laws which did not treat humans as equally valuable, had to concede that their laws and policies were unjust - and changed them.
They would have to be monsters to continue to enforce compliance upon those refusing to accept the injustice and non-violently protesting it.  They would have to be monsters to silence the voice of legitimate protest against an inhuman injustice.  So they finally decided they were not monsters, upheld their own highest democratic ideals and conceded to justice which treats humans equally, changing laws and policies which did not treat all humans equally.  All "Pro-Human-Right-to-Live" "Pro-Lifers" (New Abolitionists) are doing is in the same way standing up for the just equal treatment of all humans, for the equal Human Rights for All Humans that is the historical and logical ground of Democracy, by protesting the injustice of legal abortion which similarly does not treat all humans equally because of one kind of bigoted prejudice or another which cannot in any way be justified by the science of human life (age-bigotry "this human that is smaller than me has no rights" instead of race-bigotry "this human that is darker-skinned than me has less rights").  Since all instances of not granting all humans equal Human Rights are unjust, my below analysis of Gandhi's Sequence of Progressive Government Response to Non-Violent Protest Against Injustice indicates that "Pro-Lifers" can soon expect a major victory for their cause of having preborn humans treated equally with the same rights other humans have.
Now, how "soon" is "soon" will vary a great deal from country to country, but according to Gandhi's progression we will soon have a "Pro-Life" Human Rights for All Humans victory, because the "Pro-Choice abortion" side has kept the upper hand in worldwide governments so long only by staying in Gandhi's "ignoring" stage, which they cannot do for much longer; and they cannot seriously ridicule the "Pro-Life" side without looking like idiots themselves since the great weight of history, science and logic support the "Pro-Life" position as essential to lasting Human Rights and Democracy (this was always the case, which is why there has not so far been serious ridicule of the Pro-Life side, which would invite average people to really examine the relative merits of each side's case and see the side against current abortion law is much stronger; but now Democracy 101 & The Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy has made it extremely easy for anyone to see that in fact Pro-Life = Pro-Democracy.  So From now on, any government which tries to ignore or deny that Human Rights are for All Humans, and that this is the Foundation of Lasting Democracy, will be easily seen as uneducated/ignorant at best; or illogical/unintelligent; or selfish/evil and totalitarian at worst.  So now these “Pro-Choice-to-Kill-Humans” governments cannot ridicule the “Pro-Human-Right-to-Live” side without looking uneducated or evil; they also cannot seriously violently persecute the "Pro-Life" side to silence it without looking totalitarian and anti-democratic for violently suppressing peaceful "Pro-Life" Human Rights advocates who are only reminding people that killing humans is wrong and championing Human Rights for All Humans in a democracy that is supposed to recognize Human Rights; this means the only stage they can reasonably progress to, as continuing to ignore the "Pro-Life" voice becomes no longer viable, is to conceding we win and abolishing abortion so that Human Rights are for All Humans, now that the naturally-ensuing rotten "Creeping Totalitarian" fruit of legal abortion cancelling the Inherent Human Right to Live has grown to its logical democracy-compromising maturity.  The logical ultimately totalitarian results of de-criminalized abortion (which followed the precedent of the totalitarian Soviets and Nazis in the first place) can no longer be hidden (as in the 6 Canadian assaults on democracy since 2015 listed before); this natural rotten fruit of abortion has grown too large, and they can no longer ignore the "Pro-Life" voice which can now point at obvious compromises of democracy which are specifically to ensure "abortion access" or other anti-traditional values contrary to Democracy's Traditional, historical and logical foundations [defined clearly in Democracy 101].
and start [incessantly] asking hard questions, the government will no longer be able to ignore us without looking like uneducated fools at best and “totalitarian creeps” at worst.  We can ask them [with the same incessant tenacity the original Abolitionists used to end legal slavery], “Why do the Canada and Ontario governments (and U.S. and European and other governments) not believe killing humans is wrong, like every totalitarian State government does not?  Why does the Canadian government not recognize human rights for all humans, like every totalitarian State does not, and like every State where slavery is legal does not?  Why does our government no longer legally recognize the Inherent Human Right to Live because every human is EQUAL and PRECIOUS, which is the very foundation of Democracy - Like every totalitarian State does not?”

Just like the fall of Soviet Communism, the victory for traditional Western, democracy-grounding values of ending abortion – and ending “Creeping Totalitarianism” at the same time – is much, much, closer than you or anyone have ever expected.  If you want to start working on it right away, then come to Lasting Democracy Study Nights, soon to be started all over Canada and all over the West [once Democracy 101 and the Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy is released in May as the text to read and discuss at such study nights], because we don’t have to be afraid of Creeping Totalitarianism in Western democracies anymore, we only have to stand up together against it in Solidarity, as EDUCATED “Democracy Pledgers,” and it will fall like the house of cards it is because our whole free and democratic way of life is based on our TRADITIONAL WESTERN, Christian and “Pro-Life” values as its necessary foundation.

-         by William Baptiste SFO, Founder and Director, Human Rights and Freedoms Forever!
-         Part I of Speech delivered March 19, 2017, on Canada’s Parliament Hill
-         Part II of Speech delivered April 7, 2017, blocks away from Parliament Hill

 

Parts I and II of the above speech Human Rights for All Humans Because Pro-Life=Pro-Democracy emphasize the intellectual, factual and logical basis of the traditional, Pro-Life Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy and their implications towards ensuring that lasting democracy defeats current worldwide trends of “Creeping Totalitarianism.”  But a “Part III” of the speech is currently being prepared, aimed specifically at Christians.  One does not strictly need to be Christian to hold these traditional Western Pro-Life values which all human rights and democratic freedoms were historically and logically built upon, and the Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy within the new book Democracy 101 and the Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy has been written specifically so that non-Christians who also uphold traditional Western, democracy-grounding values (and who also want to keep their threatened democratic freedoms) can feel comfortable taking and spreading “the Pledge” so that human rights, religious freedom, and democracy for everybody can last long-term.  But the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy are in fact specifically Christian values, which Christianity introduced the West to and which the West specifically adopted from Christianity starting in the 4th Century, and as such, Christians should have a particular interest in learning well and spreading these democracy-grounding values, and in supporting the spread of these values for the sake of precious human life and religious freedom.  Thus, Christians can watch for an upcoming “Part III” of the above speech, for now provisionally entitled Part III: The Spiritual and Prayer Dimension Needed to Back Up And Empower the Spread of the Human Rights Education Contained in Democracy 101 and Proclaimed in the Historic Speech Human Rights for All Humans because Pro-Life=Pro-Democracy. Part III will include a Christian theological section entitled Foundation of the Foundations: God is Love – The Foundation of The Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy.

In the meantime, Human Rights and Freedoms Forever! encourages everyone (Christian or not) who wants human rights and democratic freedoms to weather the current storms of “Creeping Totalitarianism” and last forever on their firm traditional, historical, scientific and logical foundations to GET INVOLVED in making sure they do last, by getting involved in implementing the Winning Strategy for the 'Culture of Life' to WIN the 'Cultural War' with the 'Culture of Death,' to Save Humanity Forever from 'Creeping Totalitarianism,' which was introduced in the speech.  Resources to assist doing so are available at the following:

 
·        To order the new book (scheduled for release in May 2017) Democracy 101 & The Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy:  The Antidote to Worldwide "Creeping Totalitarianism" Now Threatening Human Rights for All Humans, Religious Freedom, and Lasting Democracy, go to http://protecthumanrightsandfreedoms.ourchur.ch/order-democracy-101
·        Link to a video of the speech at http://protecthumanrightsandfreedoms.ourchur.ch/historic-speech (or directly on YouTube at https://youtu.be/Z7wyuPeLrdw 
·        To join and help form the new community of patrons financially supporting Human Rights and Freedoms Forever! (even just $5/month) in its world-educating and world-changing goals of human rights for all humans and lasting democracy and religious freedom go to https://www.patreon.com/humanrightsandfreedomsforever  and click “Become a Patron”
·        For more information, e-mail humanrightsandfreedomsforever@outlook.com  or call 1-613-761-0147

No comments: