Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

International

The UN and EU are targeting Bulgaria for moving to protect children

Published

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

Bulgaria overwhelmingly passed a ban on LGBT propaganda in schools, and the country appears determined to resist pressure from LGBT activists and their globalist allies.

In 2021, the Hungarian government passed legislation that introduced stricter laws protecting children from pedophilia and also making it illegal to promote homosexuality or “sex changes” (“gender transition”) in schools and in the press to minors. The Hungarian government made clear that the law did not impact content aimed at adults or entertainment but propaganda targeted at children. Hungary promptly became a target for the full fury of the international elites. 

The attitude of the European Union was perhaps best summarized by then-Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who warned ominously of the EU’s intention of “bringing Hungary to its knees” over Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s opposition to the LGBT agenda, and billions of EU funds (including COVID recovery funds) were initially withheld from Hungary to that end. Within the EU, there are many countries with socially conservative majorities – but those countries have learned the hard way that the LGBT flag flies alongside the EU flag in Brussels.  

In fact, the European Commission at the European Union Court of Justice went so far as to launch a legal case against Hungary in 2022, with the intent of forcing Hungary’s parliament to repeal the bill – and 15 countries signed on, including the Benelux countries, Ireland, Denmark, France, Germany, and Sweden. The message was clear: being part of the EU club comes with specific social obligations, the most important of which is submission to the LGBT movement and the national implementation of its agenda.  

Earlier this month, Bulgaria passed a bill banning LGBT propaganda in schools, with a supermajority of parliamentarians – 159 to 22 – voting in favor. In response, the LGBT movement has already swung into action. First, UN Human Rights Office spokesperson Liz Throssell “expressed deep concern” over the law, urging Bulgarian authorities to “reconsider the law in light of the country’s international human rights obligations.” Throssell further remarked that “addressing stigma and misinformation is vital for fostering acceptance, tolerance, and the creation of inclusive societies.” 

Translated, of course, this is a United Nations spokesperson insinuating that the Bulgarian law targeting gender ideology and other aspects of the LGBT agenda may actually be a violation of international human rights and stating, in no uncertain terms, that Bulgaria must instead work towards the normalization of LGBT ideology and recreate its society to conform to the LGBT movement’s standards. An unelected progressive bureaucrat, in short, is telling a sovereign country to change its values and change its laws. 

LGBT activists are urging the European Union to step in, as well – especially when President Ruman Rudev declined to veto the bill on August 15. “This law is not just a Bulgarian issue — this is a Russian law that has found its way into the heart of Europe,” Rémy Bonny, executive director of the LGBT activist group “Forbidden Colours,” toldPolitico’s Brussels Playbook. “The European Commission must step in and hold Bulgaria accountable.” He did not mention the fact that the bill was passed with support from every major party, including those supportive of the EU. “Senior figures” from the EU’s LGBTI Intergroup also called on European Commission President Ursula von der Leyden and Equality Commissioner Helena Dalli to “urgently condemn” the law. 

In response, the European Commission sent a letter to Bulgarian Education and Science Minister Galin Tsokov on August 13  “to request further information on the legislation,” with a spokesperson stating that: “The Commission remains steadfast in its commitment to tackling discrimination, inequalities and challenges faced by LGBTIQ individuals — including in education, as outlined in our LGBTIQ Equality Strategy of November 2020.” Other activist groups, including Action, Buditelkite, LevFem, and Feminist Mobilizations, have also urged action, and called on the Bulgarian president to veto the bill.  

Thus far, the Bulgarian government appears determined to ignore these predictable criticisms. Kostadin Kostadinov, chairman of the Revival Party that introduced the law, called it “a historic breakthrough” and stated that “LGBT propaganda is anti-human and won’t be accepted in Bulgaria.” The vast majority of Bulgarian parliamentarians agree with him – but that won’t stop the UN, the EU, and the LGBT activists who drive the international agenda from doing their best to force their agenda on Bulgaria through threats, soft power coercion tactics, and public condemnation.  

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National PostNational ReviewFirst Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton SpectatorReformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

International

Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy Outline Sweeping Plan to Cut Federal Regulations And Staffing

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

By Mariane Angela

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy published an op-ed Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal that revealed their huge plans for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Civil service protections won’t shield federal workers from mass layoffs, according to the op-ed. Musk and Ramaswamy outlined a sweeping plan to cut federal regulations and staffing, marking the most detailed glimpse yet into Trump’s downsizing strategy.

The pair, acting as “outside volunteers,” pledged to collaborate with Trump’s transition team to assemble a “lean team of small-government crusaders.” This team, they said, would work closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget to implement their vision.

The initiative focuses on three core objectives: cutting regulations, reducing administrative overhead, and achieving cost savings. Legal experts and advanced technology will help identify regulations that overstep congressional authority. These rules would be presented to Trump, who could halt enforcement and begin the repeal process through executive action.

“A drastic reduction in federal regulations provides sound industrial logic for mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy. DOGE intends to work with embedded appointees in agencies to identify the minimum number of employees required at an agency for it to perform its constitutionally permissible and statutorily mandated functions,” the op-ed revealed.

Musk and Ramaswamy acknowledged the impact of their plan and said displaced workers should be treated with dignity, proposing incentives like early retirement packages and severance pay to ease their transition into private-sector roles. Despite common assumptions, civil service protections won’t prevent these layoffs, they contended, as long as the terminations are framed as reductions in force rather than targeting specific employees.

Musk and Ramaswamy also advocated for relocating federal agencies out of Washington, D.C., and encouraging voluntary resignations from remote workers unwilling to return to the office full-time. “If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home,” they said.

Ramaswamy said Tuesday that federal employees must return to the office full-time. He noted on X, previously known as Twitter, that unions are hastily revising agreements to prevent job losses, claiming the prospect of a five-day office schedule has left some “in tears.”

Trump announced that Musk and Ramaswamy will co-lead a newly created DOGE during his second term. The duo will work with the White House Office of Management and Budget to streamline federal agencies, reduce wasteful spending, and eliminate excessive regulations.

Continue Reading

Energy

What does a Trump presidency means for Canadian energy?

Published on

From Resource Works

Heather-Exner Pirot of the Business Council of Canada and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute spoke with Resource Works about the transition to Donald Trump’s energy policy, hopes for Keystone XL’s revival, EVs, and more. 

Do you think it is accurate to say that Trump’s energy policy will be the complete opposite of Joe Biden’s? Or will it be more nuanced than that?

It’s more nuanced than that. US oil and gas production did grow under Biden, as it did under Obama. It’s actually at record levels right now. The US is producing the most oil and gas per day that any nation has ever produced in the history of the world.

That said, the federal government in the US has imposed relatively little control over production. In the absence of restrictive emissions and climate policies that we have in Canada, most of the oil production decisions have been made based on market forces. With prices where they’re at currently, there’s not a lot of shareholder appetite to grow that significantly.

The few areas you can expect change: leasing more federal lands and off shore areas for oil and gas development; rescinding the pause in LNG export permits; eliminating the new methane fee; and removing Biden’s ambitious vehicle fuel efficiency standards, which would subsequently maintain gas demand.

I would say on nuclear energy, there won’t be a reversal, as that file has earned bipartisan support. If anything, a Trump Admin would push regulators to approve SMRs models and projects faster. They want more of all kinds of energy.

Is Keystone XL a dead letter, or is there enough planning and infrastructure still in-place to restart that project?

I haven’t heard any appetite in the private sector to restart that in the short term. I know Alberta is pushing it. I do think it makes sense for North American energy security – energy dominance, as the Trump Admin calls – and I believe there is a market for more Canadian oil in the USA; it makes economic sense. But it’s still looked at as too politically risky for investors.

To have it move forward I think you would need some government support to derisk it. A TMX model, even. And clear evidence of social license and bipartisan support so it can survive the next election on both sides of the border.

Frankly, Northern Gateway is the better project for Canada to restart, under a Conservative government.

Keystone XL was cancelled by Biden prior to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Do you think that the reshoring/friendshoring of the energy supply is a far bigger priority now?

It absolutely is a bigger priority. But it’s also a smaller threat. You need to appreciate that North America has become much more energy independent and secure than it has ever been. Both US and Canada are producing at record levels. Combined, we now produce more than the Middle East (41 million boe/d vs 38 million boe/d). And Canada has taken a growing share of US imports (now 60%) even as their import levels have declined.

But there are two risks on the horizon: the first is that oil is a non renewable resource and the US is expected to reach a peak in shale oil production in the next few years. No one wants to go back to the days when OPEC + had dominant market power. I think there will be a lot of demand for Canadian oil to fill the gap left by any decline in US oil production. And Norway’s production is expected to peak imminently as well.

The second is the need from our allies for LNG. Europe is still dependent on Russia for natural gas, energy demand is growing in Asia, and high industrial energy costs are weighing on both. More and cheaper LNG from North America is highly important for the energy security of our allies, and thus the western alliance as it faces a challenge from Russia, China and Iran.

Canada has little choice but to follow the US lead on many issues such as EVs and tariffs on China. Regarding energy policy, does Canada’s relative strength in the oil and gas sector give it a stronger hand when it comes to having an independent energy policy?

I don’t think we want an independent energy policy. I would argue we both benefit from alignment and interdependence. And we’ve built up that interdependence on the infrastructure side over decades: pipelines, refineries, transmission, everything.

That interdependence gives us a stronger hand in other areas of the economy. Any tariffs on Canadian energy would absolutely not be in American’s interests in terms of their energy dominance agenda. Trump wants to drop energy costs, not hike them.

I think we can leverage tariff exemptions in energy to other sectors, such as manufacturing, which is more vulnerable. But you have to make the case for why that makes sense for US, not just Canada. And that’s because we need as much industrial capacity in the west as we can muster to counter China and Russia. America First is fine, but this is not the time for America Alone.

Do you see provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan being more on-side with the US than the federal government when it comes to energy?

Of course. The North American capital that is threatening their economic interests is not Washington DC; it’s Ottawa.

I think you are seeing some recognition – much belated and fast on the heels of an emissions cap that could shut in over 2 million boe of production! – that what makes Canada important to the United States and in the world is our oil and gas and uranium and critical minerals and agricultural products.

We’ve spent almost a decade constraining those sectors. There is no doubt a Trump Admin will be complicated, but at the very least it’s clarified how important those sectors are to our soft and hard power.

It’s not too late for Canada to flex its muscles on the world stage and use its resources to advance our national interests, and our allies’ interests. In fact, it’s absolutely critical that we do so.

Continue Reading

Trending

X