Author: Ronnie

Posted on

Ilhan Omar Calls Out AIPAC Influence In US Politics, But Omits Something

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for AIPAC main page.
CLICK HERE, for J-Street.
CLICK HERE, for Israeli-American Coalition For Action.
CLICK HERE, for Zionist Organization of America.
CLICK HERE, for Republican Jewish Coalition.
CLICK HERE, for Christians United For Israel.
CLICK HERE, for Jewish Institute for National Security of America.
CLICK HERE, for American Jewish Committee.
CLICK HERE, for Alliance for Israeli Advocacy.
CLICK HERE, for military support for Israel.
CLICK HERE, for House Resolution 1837.
CLICK HERE, for anti-BDS (ban, divest, sanction) laws which prohibit companies from “not” doing business with Israel.
CLICK HERE, for Kentucky being 26th State with anti-BDS laws.
CLICK HERE, for 2019 Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act.
CLICK HERE, for top campaign contributions by Congressperson.
CLICK HERE, for various lobbying groups.

A while back, Muslim (and Democrat) representative Ilhan Omar made comments about the impact about the Israeli lobby in American politics. She also suggested that members of Congress were in essence being bought off. This brought about rounds of criticism, and claims that the Muslim woman is an anti-Semite.

Omar faced a public backlash for suggesting that the US Congress was in the pocket of AIPAC, and that it was “all about the Benjamins” (which of course is a reference to money).

Here’s the thing, though: while Omar’s comments were intentionally inflammatory (and likely aided by her Islamic beliefs), they are not unfounded. It is truthful that AIPAC and other such lobbying firms do play a huge role in paying off contributing to political campaigns.

It is also true that the United States spends heavily on the military defense of Israel, and has anti-BDS (ban, divest, sanction) laws. These aid Israel both militarily and economically. Money well spent.

2. Contribution By Organization

GROUP AMOUNT GIVEN
American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) $3,518, 028
Israeli-American Coalition For Action $550,000
J-Street $400,000
Zionist Organization of America $200,000
Republican Jewish Coalition $130,000
Christians United For Israeli Action Fund $120,000
Jewish Institute For National American Security $90,000
Jewish American Committee $74,000
Alliance for Israeli Advocacy $60,000

This is the source (for 2018)

3. Highest Paid Puppets

Name Party State Amount for 2018
Robert Menendez Dem NJ $548,507
Ted Cruz Repub TX $352,894
Sherrod Brown Dem OH $230,342
Tammy Baldwin Dem WI $229,896
Beto O’Rourke Dem TX $226,690

These are just 5 of the Senators and Congresspeople who are being bribed receiving campaign contributions from the Israeli lobby. Going through the list of donations, it appears that almost all members of Congress are on the take.

Kentucky joins 25 other US states that have enacted similar anti-BDS laws or executive orders.

Montana, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Michigan, Texas, Nevada, Kansas, Louisiana and Wisconsin have all passed bills fighting BDS.
The BDS movement promotes financial, academic and cultural boycotts of Israel, ostensibly as a nonviolent protest against the so-called “Israeli occupation.” Critics say its activities are a modern form of anti-Semitism and that its true objective is to destroy the State of Israel.

26 states have anti-BDS laws against Israel. There are no other laws in the US that protect anyone.

4. Strengthening US Security In ME Act

SEC. 111. Findings.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In February 1987, the United States granted Israel major non-NATO ally status.

(2) On August 16, 2007, the United States and Israel signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding on United States military assistance to Israel. The total assistance over the course of this understanding would equal $30 billion

(3) On July 27, 2012, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–150; 22 U.S.C. 8601 et seq.) declared it to be the policy of the United States “to help the Government of Israel preserve its qualitative military edge amid rapid and uncertain regional political transformation” and stated the sense of Congress that the United States Government should “provide the Government of Israel defense articles and defense services through such mechanisms as appropriate, to include air refueling tankers, missile defense capabilities, and specialized munitions”.

(4) On December 19, 2014, President Barack Obama signed into law the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–296) which stated the sense of Congress that Israel is a major strategic partner of the United States and declared it to be the policy of the United States “to continue to provide Israel with robust security assistance, including for the procurement of the Iron Dome Missile Defense System”.

(5) Section 1679 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92; 129 Stat. 1135) authorized funds to be appropriated for Israeli cooperative missile defense program codevelopment and coproduction, including funds to be provided to the Government of Israel to procure the David’s Sling weapon system as well as the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor Program.

(6) On September 14, 2016, the United States and Israel signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding reaffirming the importance of continuing annual United States military assistance to Israel and cooperative missile defense programs in a way that enhances Israel’s security and strengthens the bilateral relationship between the two countries.

(7) The 2016 Memorandum of Understanding reflected United States support of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grant assistance to Israel over the 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028. FMF grant assistance would be at a level of $3,300,000,000 annually, totaling $33 billion, the largest single pledge of military assistance ever and a reiteration of the seven-decade, unshakeable, bipartisan commitment of the United States to Israel’s security.

(8) The Memorandum of Understanding also reflected United States support for funding for cooperative programs to develop, produce, and procure missile, rocket, and projectile defense capabilities over a 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028 at a level of $500 million per year, totaling $5 billion.

Here is the source.

5. Thoughts On Omar’s Comments

  1. Are there many Jewish organizations who lobby the US Congress? YES
  2. Does AIPAC spend a lot of money lobbying? YES
  3. Does AIPAC “own” the US Congress? YES
  4. Does Israel benefit militarily from this? YES
  5. Does Israel benefit economically from the anti-BDS laws? YES
  6. Does Ilhan Omar get a free pass? NOT QUITE

Ilhan Omar doesn’t get a free pass on her comments about AIPAC and Israel for one simple reason: hypocrisy.

While she accurately and truthfully calls out Jewish influence, she intentionally omits ISLAMIC influence and lobbying efforts.

Yes, it was a bit misleading to leave this bit out of the title, but it’s the form of “lying by omission” that Ilhan Omar would probably approve of.

6. Islamic Influence

CLICK HERE, for the Council on American Islamic Relations.
CLICK HERE, for the Islamic Society of North America.
CLICK HERE, for Islamic Relief USA (terrorism supporter)
CLICK HERE, for the Middle East Policy Council.
CLICK HERE, for Muslim Public Affairs Council.
CLICK HERE, for Muslims for Progressive values.
CLICK HERE, for American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
CLICK HERE, for Islamic Networks Group.
CLICK HERE, for Muslim Legal Fund of America.

7. Paid Saudi Lobbyists

Lobbying Firm Amount Donated
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP $220,770
Boland & Madigan, Inc. $420,000
Burson-Marsteller $3,619,286.85
Cambridge Associates $8,505
Cassidy & Associates $720,000
DNX Partners, LLC $225,000
Dutton & Dutton, PC $3,694,350
Fleishman-Hillard $6,400,000
Gallagher Group, LLC $612,337.37
Iler Interests, LP $388,231.14
Loeffler Tuggey Pauerstein Rosental, LLP $2,350,457.12
Loeffler, Jonas & Tuggey, LLP $1,260,000
MPD Consultants, LLP $1,447,267.13
Powell Tate, Inc. $990,732.77

Source is here.

This is just a list of lobbyists that are on Saudi Arabia’s payroll. Note: that for both Jewish and Islamic lobbyists, there are likely many, MANY more than what are covered here.

But the point in adding this, is that Ilhan Omar is being completely hypocritical to call out Jewish influence in American politics, without at all mentioning the Islamic influence. Some moral consistency would be nice here.

There are also endless demands for accommodation made by Muslims:

  1. Demanding accommodation for Islamic symbols
  2. Demanding removal of OTHER religious symbols
  3. Halal meat only
  4. Prayer rooms built in schools
  5. Build foot wash stations
  6. Paid time off to pray
  7. Sharia compliant swim times
  8. Religious accommodation with uniforms
  9. Refusing to say Merry Christmas
  10. Repeated attempts to ban criticism of Islam

And this is to say nothing of Islamic terrorism, which exists everywhere.

It would be nice if Ilhan Omar would call out bothJewish and Islamic lobbying efforts. But that will never happen.

If nothing else, that this point away from it. Don’t give Ilhan Omar flak for the TRUTH she spoke about AIPAC and such lobbyist groups. Instead, give her flak for the OMISSIONS she made in leaving out the Islamic lobby.

Posted on

Abuse of Safe Third Country Agreement & Coming To Canada Under False Pretenses

CLICK HERE, for previous article on the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement (signed in 2002)

1. Interesting Cases

(1) CLICK HERE, for a marriage of convenience.
Liang v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2014 CanLII 90636 (CA IRB)

(2) CLICK HERE, for committing identity fraud in order to gain entry to Canada.
Shaikh v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 CanLII 89040 (CA IRB)

(3) CLICK HERE, for an actual terrorist wanting to stay in Canada.
Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1997 CanLII 5893 (FC)

(4) CLICK HERE, for a failed US asylum seeker, relying on falsified psychological documents.
X (Re), 2016 CanLII 152912 (CA IRB)

(5) CLICK HERE, for a failed US asylum seeker changing his story this time.
X (Re), 2013 CanLII 99499 (CA IRB)

(6) CLICK HERE, for an Indian man claiming to be from Tibet to gain asylum (Mariam Monself, take note).
X (Re), 2014 CanLII 100882 (CA IRB)

(7) CLICK HERE, for a “refugee” who lived illegally in the US for 14 years, then trying to claim asylum in Canada
X (Re), 2015 CanLII 44019 (CA IRB)

(8) CLICK HERE, for a wanted fugitive from China trying to get asylum in Canada.
X (Re), 2015 CanLII 107837 (CA IRB)

These 8 cases are just a small sample of the tidal wave of fraudulent “refugee” claims that have been made over the last several years. Although many get rejected, many still get through. This happens even when adjudicators admit that applicants have been deceptive.

2. UN Promotes Abuse Of S3CA

CLICK HERE, for the UN link.

Exceptions to the Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada

The U.S. and Canada have an agreement preventing people who first enter one country from applying for asylum or refugee status in the other. This means that if you entered the U.S. first and then try to apply for asylum in Canada, you may not be able to. However, there are exceptions to the agreement that may allow you to apply for asylum in Canada, even if you came to the U.S. first. For one thing, this agreement only applies to you if you are planning on arriving at entry ports on the U.S.-Canada land border. It does not apply if you plan on arriving in Canada at air or marine ports.

The following questions will determine whether you meet any of the exceptions that will allow you to apply for asylum in Canada at a U.S.-Canada land border even if you arrived in the U.S. first.

EXCEPTION # 1 Land Border Entry Ports Only

Are you going to arrive in Canada from a land border?

NO ==> You qualify under this exception!

YES ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

EXCEPTION # 2 Family Connections in Canada

Do you have any of the following family members in Canada?

  • A spouse
  • A common-law partner (a common law partner is person of the same or opposite sex with whom you are cohabiting in a conjugal relationship and have cohabited for at least a year.)
  • A legal guardian
  • A child
  • A father or mother
  • A brother or sister
  • A grandfather or grandmother
  • A grandchild
  • An uncle or aunt
  • A nephew or niece

NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

YES ==> Is your family member any of the following?

  • A Canadian citizen
  • A permanent resident
  • A protected person (i.e. determined to be a refugee or a person in need of protection)
  • Accepted in principle on humanitarian and compassionate grounds (removal order stayed under Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations 233)
  • 18 years of age or over and is a refugee claimant (and the claim has not been rejected, withdrawn, found abandoned or ineligible)
  • 18 years of age or over and is in Canada on a work permit or study permit (but check the exceptions)

    • YES ==> You qualify under this exception!
    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 3 Unaccompanied Minor
    Are you under 18?
    NO ==> You do not qualify under the unaccompanied minor exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.
    YES ==> Were you accompanied here by your father, mother, or legal guardian? Are you married? Is your father, mother, or legal guardian in Canada or the United States?

    If NO to all these questions ==> You qualify under this exception!
    If YES to any of these questions ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 4 Countries to which Canada Does Not Remove

    Are you a national of any of the following countries?

    • Afghanistan
    • Burundi
    • Democratic Republic of Congo
    • Haiti
    • Iraq
    • Liberia
    • Rwanda
    • Zimbabwe

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    YES ==> Have you been convicted of any crimes?

    NO ==> You qualify under this exception!

    YES ==> You may not qualify under this exception. Canada does not admit people who have been convicted of certain crimes. Whether you qualify under this exception depends on the type of crime(s) you were convicted of.

    EXCEPTION # 5 Death Penalty

    Have you been charged or convicted of an offence punishable with the death penalty in the country?

    YES ==> You MAY qualify under this exception. Canada does not admit people who have been convicted of certain crimes. Whether you qualify under this exception depends on the type of crime(s) you were convicted of.

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 6 Valid Visa Exception

    Do you have a valid visa to enter Canada, other than a transit visa?

    YES ==> You qualify under this exception!

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 7 Visa Required in U.S. But Not in Canada

    Are you a national of any of the following countries?

    • Antigua and Barbuda
    • Barbados
    • Botswana
    • Cyprus
    • Greece
    • Malta
    • Mexico
    • Namibia
    • Papua New Guinea
    • Republic of (South) Korea
    • St. Kitts and Nevis
    • St. Lucia
    • St. Vincent
    • Solomon Islands
    • Swaziland
    • Western Samoa

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    YES ==> You qualify under this exception!

    From Canadian Website

    CLICK HERE, for Canadian Government website.

    Where the Agreement is in effect
    The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:
    at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
    by train or
    at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S.

    Exceptions to the Agreement
    Exceptions to the Agreement consider the importance of family unity, the best interests of children and the public interest.
    There are four types of exceptions:

    1. Family member exceptions
    2. Unaccompanied minors exception
    3. Document holder exceptions
    4. Public interest exceptions

    Even if they qualify for one of these exceptions, refugee claimants must still meet all other eligibility criteria of Canada’s immigration legislation. For example, if a person seeking refugee protection has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, that person will not be eligible to make a refugee claim.

    Family member exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they have a family member who:

    • is a Canadian citizen
    • is a permanent resident of Canada
    • is a protected person under Canadian immigration legislation
    • has made a claim for refugee status in Canada that has been accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)
    • has had his or her removal order stayed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds
    • holds a valid Canadian work permit
    • holds a valid Canadian study permit, or
    • is over 18 years old and has a claim for refugee protection that has been referred to the IRB for determination. (This claim must not have been withdrawn by the family member, declared abandoned or rejected by the IRB or found ineligible for referral to the IRB.)

    Unaccompanied minors exception
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they are minors (under the age of 18) who:
    are not accompanied by their mother, father or legal guardian
    have neither a spouse nor a common-law partner, and
    do not have a mother, a father or a legal guardian in Canada or the United States.

    Document holder exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they:
    hold a valid Canadian visa (other than a transit visa)
    hold a valid work permit
    hold a valid study permit
    hold a travel document (for permanent residents or refugees) or other valid admission document issued by Canada, or
    are not required (exempt) to get a temporary resident visa to enter Canada but require a U.S.–issued visa to enter the U.S.

    Public interest exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if:
    they have been charged with or convicted of an offence that could subject them to the death penalty in the U.S. or in a third country. However, a refugee claimant is ineligible if he or she has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, or if the Minister finds the person to be a danger to the public.

    Making a refugee claim under the Safe Third Country Agreement
    For detailed information on making a refugee claim for protection in Canada at the Canada–U.S. border, please refer to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).

    There are so many exemptions in this agreement that it’s difficult to find someone who “doesn’t” qualify on one or more grounds.

    4. Canada Admits U.S. A Safe Country

    Factor 3: Human rights record of the United States
    The United States meets a high standard with respect to the protection of human rights. It is an open democracy with independent courts, separation of powers and constitutional guarantees of essential human rights and fundamental freedoms.

    Factor 4: Whether the United States is party to an agreement with Canada for the purpose of sharing responsibility with respect to claims for refugee protection

    The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States was signed on December 5, 2002, came into force on December 29, 2004, and remains in force.

    The US is a safe country. That “should” end the discussion on fake refugees coming here.

    After all, simply being in the country illegally isn’t a defense.

    Posted on

    CBC Propaganda #16: CPP “Invests” $2B In Mumbai, India

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for an honourable mention in the field of pensions, Bill Tufts. Author of the book: Fair Pensions For All.

    CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda Master List.
    CLICK HERE, for the CBC article.
    CLICK HERE, for the Canada Pension Plan Act.
    CLICK HERE, for the Income Tax Act.
    CLICK HERE, for Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board
    CLICK HERE, for sustainable investing link.
    CLICK HERE, for CPPIB proxy voting.
    CLICK HERE, for policies/guidelines (written in Chinese).
    CLICK HERE, for Policy on Responsible Investing (Signed in 2010)
    CLICK HERE, for CPPIB Areas of Investment.
    CLICK HERE, for climate change info.
    CLICK HERE, for human rights info.

    2. Why Invest Abroad?

    Canada Pension Plan Investment Board opened office in Mumbai this month
    .
    Canada’s pension fund is ready to invest $2 billion in affordable housing in Mumbai, a top Indian official said, in a move that would boost Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s goal of providing cheap housing to millions of people.
    .
    “A week back, the Canadian ambassador … informed me that the Canadian pension fund is ready to invest $2 billion in Mumbai for affordable housing,” Devendra Fadnavis, chief minister of Maharashtra state where Mumbai is located, told reporters.
    .
    The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board opened an office in Mumbai this month and has already committed to invest more than $2 billion in India.

    What the hell? The Canadian Pension Plan is something CANADIAN workers are forced to contribute to. Deductions are mandatory, and come right off your pay cheque. So “why” is this being invested in India, and to build cheap housing there?

    The Canadian Government is screwing with Canadians’ pensions, without their consent to do so.

    3. Income Tax Act

    2 (1) An income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year.
    .
    Marginal note:
    Taxable income
    (2) The taxable income of a taxpayer for a taxation year is the taxpayer’s income for the year plus the additions and minus the deductions permitted by Division C.
    .
    Marginal note:
    Tax payable by non-resident persons
    (3) Where a person who is not taxable under subsection 2(1) for a taxation year
    (a) was employed in Canada,
    (b) carried on a business in Canada, or
    (c) disposed of a taxable Canadian property,
    at any time in the year or a previous year, an income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the person’s taxable income earned in Canada for the year determined in accordance with Division D.

    4. Canada Pension Plan Act

    Amount to be deducted and remitted by employer
    21 (1) Every employer paying remuneration to an employee employed by the employer at any time in pensionable employment shall deduct from that remuneration as or on account of the employee’s contributions for the year in which the remuneration in respect of the pensionable employment is paid to the employee any amount that is determined in accordance with prescribed rules and shall remit that amount, together with any amount that is prescribed with respect to the contributions required to be made by the employer under this Act, to the Receiver General at any time that is prescribed and, if at that prescribed time the employer is a prescribed person, the remittance shall be made to the account of the Receiver General at a financial institution (within the meaning that would be assigned by the definition financial institution in subsection 190(1) of the Income Tax Act if that definition were read without reference to its paragraphs (d) and (e)).

    Quite clear: employers are obligated to deduct CPP from your pay.

    5. Can Foreigners Collect?

    [CPP Act] 107 (1) Where, under any law of a country other than Canada, provision is made for the payment of old age or other benefits including survivors’ or disability benefits, the Minister may, on behalf of the Government of Canada, on such terms and conditions as may be approved by the Governor in Council, enter into an agreement with the government of that country for the making of reciprocal arrangements relating to the administration or operation of that law and of this Act, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, arrangements relating to
    .
    (a) the exchange of such information obtained under that law or this Act as may be necessary to give effect to any such arrangements,
    .
    (b) the administration of benefits payable under this Act to persons resident in that country, the extension of benefits to and in respect of persons under that law or this Act and the increase or decrease in the amount of the benefits payable under that law or this Act to and in respect of persons employed in or resident in that country, and
    .
    (c) the administration of benefits payable under that law to persons resident in Canada, the extension of benefits to and in respect of persons under that law or this Act and the increase or decrease in the amount of the benefits payable under that law or this Act to and in respect of persons employed in or resident in Canada, and, subject to subsection (4), any such agreement may extend to and include similar arrangements with respect to any provincial pension plan.

    Canada can make reciprocity agreements with other countries. One must be extremely careful here to safeguard against abuse.

    6. Who Is CPPIB

    It has locations in:

    • Toronto, Canada
    • New York, USA
    • Sao Paolo, Brazil
    • London, England
    • Luxembourg
    • Sydney, Australia
    • Hong Kong, China
    • now, also Mumbai, India

    We are a professional investment management organization that invests the funds of the Canada Pension Plan on behalf of its 20 million Canadian contributors and beneficiaries.
    .
    The CPP Investment Board was established by an Act of Parliament in December 1997.
    We are accountable to Parliament and to federal and provincial ministers who serve as the CPP stewards. However, we are governed and managed independently from the CPP itself, and operate at arm’s length from governments.
    We take our responsibility to Canadians very seriously and operate with a clear mandate – to maximize returns without undue risk of loss.
    .
    Our detailed mandate and objectives
    .
    Our mandate is set out in legislation. It states that:
    We invest in the best interests of CPP contributors and beneficiaries.
    We have a singular objective: to maximize long-term investment returns without undue risk, taking into account the factors that may affect the funding of the Canada Pension Plan and its ability to meet its financial obligations.
    .
    We provide cash management services to the Canada Pension Plan so that they can pay benefits.
    .
    Our unique structure
    The CPPIB mandate is based on a governance structure that distinguishes us from a sovereign wealth fund. We have an investment-only mandate, unencumbered by political agendas and insulated from political interference in investment decision-making. Our management reports to an independent Board of Directors.
    .
    In carrying out our mandate, we aim to continually develop, execute and enhance the investment strategy that balances prospective risk and reward in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of the CPP Fund.

    CPPIB “claims” to be independent from government interference, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. In fact, going through their website, CPPIB parrots many of the talking points of the UN globalists.

      UN Topics CPPIB Indulges In:

    1. ESG (Environment, Social & Governance)
    2. PRI (Principles for Responsible Investing)
    3. Sustainable Investing
    4. Climate Change
    5. Water
    6. Human Rights
    7. Surprisingly, no gender references

    7. So-Called Sustainable Investing

    SUSTAINABLE INVESTING
    We believe that organizations that manage Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors effectively are more likely to create sustainable value over the long-term than those that do not. As we work to fulfill our mandate, we consider and integrate ESG risks and opportunities into our investment decisions.
    .
    At CPPIB we consider responsible investing simply as intelligent long-term investing. Over the exceptionally long investment-horizon over which we invest, ESG factors have the potential to be significant drivers – or barriers – to profitability and shareholder value. For these reasons we refer to what many call ‘Responsible Investing’ activities simply as Sustainable Investing. Given our legislated investment-only mandate, we consider and integrate both ESG risks and opportunities into our investment analysis, rather than eliminating investments based on ESG factors alone. As an owner, we monitor ESG factors and actively engage with companies to promote improved management of ESG, ultimately leading to enhanced long-term outcomes in the companies and assets in which 20 million CPP contributors and beneficiaries have a stake.
    .
    CPPIB has established governing policies, approved by our Board of Directors, to guide our ESG activities. Our Policy on Responsible Investing establishes how CPPIB approaches ESG factors within the context of our sole mandate to maximize long-term investment returns without undue risk of loss. Our Proxy Voting Principles and Guidelines provide guidance on how CPPIB is likely to vote on matters put to shareholders and communicate CPPIB’s views on governance matters.

    This is rather chilling. The whole agency reads like it is a branch of the UN. Canadians’ pensions and pension contributions are in the hands of people who put UN virtue signalling at the forefront.

    However, the CBC article (see the first photo), details NONE of this. Instead, it is touted as some great success.

    Posted on

    CBC Propaganda #15: Giving Free Drugs To Prison Inmates

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for the CBC article.
    CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda Master List.
    CLICK HERE, for a related CBC “safe injection” article review.
    CLICK HERE, for the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act of Canada.
    CLICK HERE, for an article from the Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies.
    CLICK HERE, for the 1991 Regulated Health Professionals Act.
    CLICK HERE, for an interesting malpractice case.

    2. Drug Injections To Reduce Harm

    Correctional service ‘exploring’ new harm-reduction measure, union says Drumheller Institution a possible site.
    .
    Canada’s prisoner service is considering opening overdose prevention sites as it expands a needle-exchange program that is now offered at a fifth institution for offenders who inject smuggled drugs.
    .
    In a statement, the Correctional Service of Canada says it “is in the early stages of exploring overdose prevention sites as another harm-reduction measure option for inmates.”

    Let’s clear something up. Needle exchange is “already” operational, and at least 5 prisons have them. Apparently being complicit in drug use in prison is harm reduction.

    And these “overdose prevention sites” are essentially free narcotics except with doctor supervision.

    Proponents say Drumheller Institution in Alberta is being looked at as a potential site, which would allow offenders to use illicit drugs under medical supervision. The correctional service did not respond to inquiries to confirm that.
    .
    Jason Godin, president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, said he has long lobbied for overdose prevention sites and that one has been proposed for Drumheller.
    .
    “At the very least, let’s start opening up (the sites) so we can get away from the needle-in-the-cell thing,” he said, adding supervised drug use would involve health-care professionals at a particular area in a prison instead of guards having to deal with inmates injecting smuggled drugs in their cells.
    .
    He said the needle-exchange program, which began last year, should be scrapped because nurses and doctors aren’t available at most institutions after 4 p.m. in case inmates overdose so sites dedicated to prevention make more sense, as long as they are adequately staffed.

    The needle exchange program isn’t staffed properly, so let’s scrap it and start outright providing drugs directly to prisoners. This is harm reduction? And should prison staff be in the business of providing illicit drugs to inmates?

    Wouldn’t this actually have the opposite effect of rehabilitation? Won’t people find it more advantageous to get arrested more in order to obtain free drugs?

    I can sympathise with the guards wanting safer work atmosphere, but this might be a case of the cure being worse than the disease. And are taxpayers expected to foot the bill?

    The correctional service said its needle-exchange program is aimed at preventing the spread of blood-borne diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis C, as well as skin infections from shared equipment as part of other harm-reduction measures including access to peer-support workers and the opioid substitution medications methadone and Suboxone.
    .
    The Nova Institution for Women in Truro, N.S., implemented a prisoner needle-exchange program earlier this month after it was introduced last June at Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener, Ont., and the Atlantic Institution in Renous, N.B.
    .
    It was expanded to the Fraser Valley Institution for Women in Abbotsford, B.C., and the Edmonton Institution for Women this year.
    .
    Godin said at least two security issues have been reported since the needle-exchange program was rolled out, one involving a missing needle and another when an inmate left his injection kit out with the cell door open, potentially allowing unauthorized access to the equipment that could have posed a danger to guards or others.

    Oh, the cognitive dissonance here. Prison staff say that this is aimed at preventing the spread of diseases, yet admits that human error can very easily cause more people to be put in danger.

    And again, why are the prisons aiding and abetting in drug use? Isn’t that … “ILLEGAL”? And as for these supervised injection sites, does illicit drug use become legal as long as a doctor writes a prescription?

    “Inmates who participate in the (program) are required to keep their needle kit safely stored in their cells,” it said, adding a lost kit or one with unaccounted-for items as well as unauthorized use of equipment could result in an inmate being disciplined.
    .
    The service said 13 inmates have been approved for the needle-exchange program at the five institutions but only five people are participating in the program because the remainder were either released or transferred to prisons that have not yet begun offering the service.
    .
    Peter Brown, a former offender who served three federal sentences at various institutions in Eastern Canada between 1992 and 1999 for crimes including robbery, said a needle-exchange program as well as overdose prevention sites are essential behind bars because drug use is common.

    This is absurd. If inmates and cells are routinely searched for safety and contraband measures, “why” would requiring selected inmates to have it in their cells be a good idea? They are criminals. Moreover, couldn’t anyone who knows about their status rob them at almost any time.

    Drug use is common in prison? That is true, but “why” should the public be allowing and financing it?

    Brown said he used bleach provided by the correctional service to repeatedly rinse his needles and syringes to try and avoid transmission of HIV and hepatitis C. The service said bleach is still distributed to inmates for that reason.
    .
    Sandra Ka Hon Chu, director of research and advocacy for the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, said bleach is not as effective a method of avoiding transmission of blood-borne diseases as clean needles, which the group began lobbying for nearly two decades ago in keeping with similar programs in many European countries.

    The staff is aware of the problem, and provides bleach, which can be extremely dangerous in the hands of drug addicted inmates. No concern for prison staff, just for the inmates shooting up.

    Yes, drug use is often a problem among inmates. However, getting them treatment, and re-establishing something of a normal life would be much more beneficial to everyone in the long term.

    As for the needle exchange, and the proposed “safe-injection” sites, shouldn’t the public have some say in the matter?

    3. Canada’s Drug Act

    Possession of substance
    4 (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II or III.
    Marginal note:
    Obtaining substance
    (2) No person shall seek or obtain
    (a) a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV, or
    (b) an authorization to obtain a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV
    from a practitioner, unless the person discloses to the practitioner particulars relating to the acquisition by the person of every substance in those Schedules, and of every authorization to obtain such substances,     from any other practitioner within the preceding thirty days.

    Definition of medical emergency
    4.1 (1) For the purposes of this section, medical emergency means a physiological event induced by the introduction of a psychoactive substance into the body of a person that results in a life-threatening situation and in respect of which there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person requires emergency medical or law enforcement assistance.

    Marginal note:
    Exemption — medical emergency
    (2) No person who seeks emergency medical or law enforcement assistance because that person, or another person, is suffering from a medical emergency is to be charged or convicted of an offence under subsection 4(1) if the evidence in support of that offence was obtained or discovered as a result of that person having sought assist­ance or having remained at the scene.

    Marginal note:
    Exemption — persons at the scene
    (3) The exemption under subsection (2) also applies to any person, including the person suffering from the medical emergency, who is at the scene on the arrival of the emergency medical or law enforcement assistance.

    Marginal note:
    Exemption — evidence
    (4) No person who seeks emergency medical or law enforcement assistance because that person, or another person, is suffering from a medical emergency, or who is at the scene on the arrival of the assistance, is to be charged with an offence concerning a violation of any condition of a pre-trial release or probation order relating to an offence under subsection 4(1) if the evidence in support of that offence was obtained or discovered as a result of that person having sought assistance or having remained at the scene.

    Marginal note:
    Deeming
    (5) Any condition of a person’s pre-trial release, probation order, conditional sentence or parole relating to an offence under subsection 4(1) that may be violated as a result of the person seeking emergency medical or law enforcement assistance for their, or another person’s, medical emergency, or as a result of having been at the scene on the arrival of the assistance, is deemed not to be violated.
    2017, c. 4, s. 2; 2018, c. 16, s. 195.1.
    Previous Version

    Possession, sale, etc., for use in production of or trafficking in substance
    7.1 (1) No person shall possess, produce, sell, import or transport anything intending that it will be used
    (a) to produce a controlled substance, unless the production of the controlled substance is lawfully authorized; or
    (b) to traffic in a controlled substance.

    Drug treatment court program
    10(4) A court sentencing a person who is convicted of an offence under this Part may delay sentencing to enable the offender
    (a) to participate in a drug treatment court program     approved by the Attorney General; or
    (b) to attend a treatment program under subsection 720(2) of the Criminal Code.

      So what can we take away here?

    1. Drug use not illegal if you obtain authorization
    2. You won’t be charged with drug use for calling for medical aid
    3. You won’t be charged if you call in for “another’s” drug use
    4. You won’t be breaching:
      • Pre-trial conditions
      • Probation
      • Parole
      • A conditional sentence
      • From calling in for emergency medical attention
    5. Trafficking okay if legally authorised
    6. Provisions exist to allow criminals to get treatment

    Although the review might seem like a cold indifference to people with drug problems this is not the case. I want them to be treated and move on with their lives.

    However, supplying drugs and drug paraphernalia is (in my view) a very bad way to handle the problem.

    Posted on

    CBC Propaganda #14: Let’s Replace The Canadian Population

    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG”
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.

    1. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda Masterlist.

    (CBC wants less Canadian children)
    CLICK HERE, for “we’re only having 1 kids, and that’s okay”.
    CLICK HERE, for beware of middle child syndrome.
    CLICK HERE, for criticizing those with too many kids.
    CLICK HERE, for why I only have 1 child.
    CLICK HERE, for childless women changing culture.
    CLICK HERE, for not teaching a daughter to be polite.
    CLICK HERE, have less children to lower emissions.

    (and in case you think CBC just wants less children in general)
    CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism is critical to Canada.
    CLICK HERE, for border walls are useless.
    CLICK HERE, for nothing will stop migration.
    CLICK HERE, for Europe should have open borders.
    CLICK HERE, for Hungary’s Orban is a dictator for rejecting migration.
    CLICK HERE, for bigot Orban wanting a Christian nation.
    CLICK HERE, for Global Migration Compact is harmless.
    CLICK HERE, for Canada having 100M people by year 2100.

    (and to everyone’s favourite benevolent founder>
    CLICK HERE, for Soros is misunderstood.
    CLICK HERE, for Soros bullied out of Hungary.
    CLICK HERE, for Canada joining UN, Soros, to sponsor refugees.

    3. Why This Is Important


    There are many, many more links on both subjects, but this should provide sufficient evidence for now. CBC, Canada’s government run “news” agency, consistently reports on both of these topics.

      CBC pushes both:

    1. Reducing Canadian birth rate; and
    2. Mass migration of foreigners

    What are the consequences of these 2 initiatives? Well, when Canadians have less children, their birthrate falls, and the population declines. When you have mass migration, the declining population of Canadians is replaced by migrants and their descendants.

    Think this is hyperbole? Consider these points:

    • Shame families with many children
    • Having 1 kid is okay
    • Childless is the new culture
    • Have fewer kids to save the planet

    ….. and on the other side:

  • Borders are immoral and pointless
  • Multiculturalism is part of Canada
  • Only bigots reject migration
  • Canada’s population needs to be much bigger

    • 4. Consider Both Narratives

    First, starting with the fearmongering piece that climate change is destructive and can only be mitigated by altering human behaviour:

    >What’s the single best decision you can make if you want to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) being released into the atmosphere?

    That’s the question UBC researcher Seth Wynes and his co-author Kimberly Nicholas set out to answer in a new paper published this week.

    Their answer? Have fewer children.

    The other three choices they identified were eating a plant-based diet, avoiding air travel and giving up personal vehicles. But by their reasoning, having one fewer child overwhelmingly outweighs all other choices, due to all of the GHGs that child would be responsible for emitting over the course of their life.

    “To put it simply, adding another person to the planet who uses more resources and produces more carbon dioxide is always going to make a large contribution to climate change,” Wynes said.

    And on the flip side of the “have fewer children” message, do you think that these people will recommend much, MUCH reduced immigration so as to reduce emissions? Nope, not a chance. From the “Century Initiative” promotion:

    If Canada sticks with current practices, our population will grow to between 51 to 53 million by the end of the century.

    A non-profit group called The Century Initiative advocates doubling that, to 100 million. That’s about triple our current population.

    “We recognize that it may be counterintuitive,” Shari Austin, CEO of the Century Initiative, told The Sunday Edition’s guest host Peter Armstrong.

    It’s the only way, she argued, that Canada can face the economic challenges ahead and strengthen its international influence.

    Currently, Canada accepts 310,000 immigrants per year. The Century Initiative suggests that number should be closer to 450,000.

    “It’s a big, audacious goal,” she conceded. But it has been done before. Since 1945 to the present day, Canada’s population has tripled.

    “A mix of people wanting to contribute to the economy and wanting to have children,” Austin explained.

    That doesn’t mean that refugees aren’t welcome.

    “We also have ethical obligations to make sure we do our fair share to help bring people to a better life,” she clarified.

    She also sees this as a way to create “a more diverse, more interesting, dynamic population.”

    “It’s an exciting opportunity to be proactive about what we want to look like in fifty years, in a hundred years. It’s also an opportunity to leave a better world for our kids and our grandkids.”

    It is interesting the contrast in the arguments.
    CBC uses ENVIRONMENTAL and HEALTH reasons to push for less Canadians to have less children. However,
    CBC uses ECONOMIC and MULTICULTURAL claims to push for more immigration (or migration)

    Nice bait-and-switch.

    To be fair, CBC does have many authors and contributors. However, the overall pattern is impossible to ignore. CBC regularly releases content pushing for Canadians to have less children. At the same time it sings the praises of open borders, mass migration and multiculturalism.

    5. George Soros Puff Piece

    The financier is also famously active as a philanthropist. Through his Open Society Foundations, he has given billions to NGOs in more than 100 countries to “build vibrant and tolerant democracies,” according to its website.

    Why is Soros controversial?

    Emily Tamkin, a staff writer for Foreign Policy magazine, compares Soros’s public image to a mirror in the Harry Potter novels. When a character looked in that fictional mirror, they would see what they desired most.

    “He’s like that, but with the thing that you revile most,” she told The Current’s Anna Maria Tremonti.

    CBC also has done many flattering puff pieces on Soros. They claim he is misunderstood, and that it is bigots projecting their own prejudices onto him. No real objectivity here.

    6. Is This Illegal?

    Under the letter of the law, probably not. But consider the following:

    Marginal note:
    Public incitement of hatred
    319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    Marginal note:

    Wilful promotion of hatred
    (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    Does this promote hate and harm against Canadians? I would think so, but sadly no judge ever would. The CBC, which uses our tax dollars to advocate for our own replacement is just so wrong.

    7. StatsCan Aware Of Decline


    Here is a recent report:

    Fertility rates among Canadian women continue to decrease

    The total fertility rate (TFR) for 2015 was 1,563 births per 1,000 women. In 2016, the TFR was 1,543 births per 1,000 women. The TFR in Canada has shown a general decline since 2008, when it was 1,681 births per 1,000 women. The TFR is an estimate of the average number of live births that 1,000 women would have in their lifetime, based on the age-specific fertility rates of a given year.

    Taking mortality between birth and 15 years of age into consideration, developed countries such as Canada need an average of around 2,060 children per 1,000 females to renew their population based on natural increase and without taking immigration into account. The last year in which Canada attained fertility levels sufficient to replace its current population was 1971.

    While the TFR is a good indicator of fertility in Canada as a whole, this national average can hide major provincial and territorial differences. From 2000 to 2016, Nunavut was the only province or territory to consistently have fertility levels above the replacement rate, with a TFR of 2,986 live births per 1,000 women in 2016. With the exception of the Prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories, every other province and territory had TFRs during this period that rarely exceeded 1,700 births per 1,000 women.

    In 2016, for the 16th consecutive year, Saskatchewan had the highest TFR among the provinces, at 1,934 births per 1,000 women. It was followed by Manitoba (1,847), the Northwest Territories (1,793) and Alberta (1,694). British Columbia was the province with the lowest fertility rate at 1,404 births per 1,000 women, followed by Nova Scotia (1,422) and Newfoundland and Labrador (1,425).

    Sustainable Development Goals

    On January 1, 2016, the world officially began implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — the United Nations’ transformative plan of action that addresses urgent global challenges over the next 15 years. The plan is based on 17 specific sustainable development goals.

    The Births release is an example of how Statistics Canada supports the reporting on the Global Goals for Sustainable Development. This release will be used in helping to measure the following goal:

    Forgot to mention, population control is part of Agenda 2030.

    Few Canadian Kids + Mass Migration = Demographic Replacement

    Final thought: Consider this policy idea, previously published.

    Posted on

    UN Conferences On Replacement Migration (Since 1974)

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for Gov’t views & policies.
    CLICK HERE, for participant contact info.
    CLICK HERE, for Russian replacement migration.
    CLICK HERE, for European replacement migration.
    CLICK HERE, for Korean population decline.
    CLICK HERE, for various conferences.
    CLICK HERE, for the “About” page.
    CLICK HERE, for “resolutions” from the UN Population Division.

    2. List Of Documents

      CLICK HERE, for the 2000 UN Expert Group Meeting On Policy Responses

    1. REPLACEMENT MIGRATION: IS IT A SOLUTION TO DECLINING AND A GEING POPULATIONS? (United Nations Population Division)
    2. UN/POP/PRA/2000/2 POPULATION AGEING AND POPULATION DECLINE: GOVERNMENT VIEWS AND POLICIES (Anatoly Zoubanov – United Nations Population Division)
    3. UN/POP/PRA/2000/3 THE INVERSION OF THE AGE PYRAMID AND THE FUTURE POULATION D ECLINE IN FRANCE: IMPLICATIONS AND POLICY RESPONSES (Jean-Claude Chesnais)
    4. UN/POP/PRA/2000/4 POLICY RESPONSES TO POPULATION AGEING AND POPULATION DECLINE IN FRANCE (Georges Tapinos)
    5. UN/POP/PRA/2000/5 DEMOGRAPHIC AGEING AND POPULATION DECLINE IN 21ST CENTURY G ERMANY – CONSEQUENCES FOR THE SYSTEMS OF SOCIAL I NSURANCE (Herwig Birg)
    6. UN/POP/PRA/2000/6 POLICY RESPONSES TO POPULATION AGEING AND POPULATION DECLINE IN GERMANY (Charlotte Hoehn)
    7. UN/POP/PRA/2000/7 POSSIBLE POLICY RESPONSES TO POPULATION AGEING AND P OPULATION DECLINE: THE CASE OF ITALY (Antonio Golini)
    8. UN/POP/PRA/2000/8 FEWER AND OLDER ITALIANS, MORE PROBLEMS? LOOKING FOR S OLUTIONS TO THE DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTION (Maria Rita Testa)

      9. UN/POP/PRA/2000/9 THE COMING OF A HYPER-AGED AND DEPOPULATING SOCIETY AND P OPULATION POLICIES – THE CASE OF JAPAN (Makoto Atoh)

    3. How Far Back Does This Go?

    United Nations Conferences on Population
    .
    Since the United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945 three world conferences on population have been held. The first conference, Bucharest World Population Conference, dates back to 1974. Ten years later Mexico City hosted the second International Conference on Population. The last world conference, the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, was held 1994. Two other conferences on population have been convened. The first one in 1954 in Rome. The second one in Belgrade in 1965. In 1999 a Special Session of the General Assembly on Population was held in New York.

      Let’s Think About This:

    • Meet in 1954 in Rome
    • Meet in Belgrade in 1965
    • 1st Conference in 1974
    • 2nd Conference in 1984
    • 3rd Conference in 1994

    4. Overview

    The Population Division was established in the earlier years of the United Nations to serve as the Secretariat of the then Population Commission, created in 1946. Over the years, the Division has played an active role in the intergovernmental dialogue on population and development, producing constantly updated demographic estimates and projections for all countries, including data essential for the monitoring of the progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals, developing and disseminating new methodologies, leading the substantive preparations for the United Nations major conferences on population and development as well as the annual sessions of the Commission on Population and Development.

    The United Nations Population Division assists the Department of Economic and Social Affairs in discharging its functions as member of the Global Migration Group. It provides programmatic support to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for International Migration and Development. It co-chairs the Population cluster of the Executive Committee on Economic and Social Affairs (EC-ESA), together with the Population Division of ECLAC.

    Why would the UN want to know all this information? Why would it want to know the population and demographic trends of memberstates? Almost like it wants to control the world.

    5. Want A Job?

    CLICK HERE, and see if you’re qualified.
    Responsibilities

    Within delegated authority, the duties of the Associate Population Affairs Officer are the following:
    .
    •Assists in developing and maintaining databases on demographic indicators, population and development indicators, population policy information and indicators or information on other population-related issues.
    •Applies the techniques of demographic analysis to estimate demographic indicators and to evaluate population data for completeness and accuracy so as to adjust the data as needed. It also includes the application of techniques or methods of projection of family planning indicators, and the provision of input to the periodic revisions of assumptions underlying those projections.
    •Prepares first drafts and inputs to technical studies or research reports.
    •Applies methodologies for demographic analysis.
    •Attends international, regional and national meetings on population issues to present results of demographic analysis and research; keeps abreast of developments in the field, gathers information, network and holds discussions on population issues with colleagues in other institutions.
    •Provides, as necessary, substantive support to technical cooperation projects in the area of population and development.
    •Performs other related duties as required, including a variety of administrative tasks necessary for the final delivery of the work unit’s products.

    Does plotting and calculating the future demographic trends turn you on? Get a kick out of becoming a minority in your own homeland? You can document the destruction of your nation and get paid quite well.

    WHY ISN’T THE PUBLIC AWARE?

    The United Nations has been studying population and demographic trends since at least 1974 (though probably much longer). They have been gathering all this information, and it is more than a passing interest.

    Keep in mind, the UN also promotes agreements such as the Global Migration Compact. There is no way the UN “wouldn’t” know about the long term trends and consequences from facilitating mass migration. There is no way the UN “wouldn’t” know about the breakdown and weakening of social cohesion by engaging in this.

    There is only one explanation
    UN WANTS DEMOGRAPHIC REPLACEMENT

    *Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress