Different Approach On Fixing S3CA Loophole


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

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

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


IMPORTANT LINKS


CLICK HERE, for trying to use Notice of Application.
CLICK HERE, for trying to get a motion to extend time for A.J.R.
CLICK HERE, for background on the loophole.
CLICK HERE, for abuse of loophole in S3CA.

CLICK HERE, for the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

BACKGROUND INFO


The Federal Court has shot down multiple attempts to use application for judicial review (Section 18 of Federal Courts Act) to correct this problem. So, now the next approach taken: ask for straight-up enforcement of how the agreement was “intended” to be.

Specifically, it was never meant that anyone could bypass the S3CA simply by going around official checkpoints.

NEW ATTEMPT: CLAIM FOR ENFORCEMENT

Facts Alleged

  1. The Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) was signed between Canada and the United States on December 5, 2002, under then Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

  2. The Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) came into effect on December 29, 2004, under then Prime Minister Paul Martin.

  3. The intention behind this agreement is to recognize that both countries are “safe” countries, and that “asylum seekers”, shouldn’t be “shopping around” for a better country to arrive at.

  4. The Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) remains in effect legally, the only issue is of enforcing it properly.

  5. Recently, however, more than 40,000 economic migrants (fake refugees) have come into Canada from the United States. This poses security and financial burdens.

  6. Instead of deporting these illegal, economic migrants (fake refugees), the Federal Government has decided instead to take them in, at great expense to taxpayers.

  7. By far the most common location is Roxham Road, in Quebec, which shares a border with New York State.

  8. A loophole in the S3CA means this only covers “official ports of entry”, or official land border crossings. This means the law can be circumvented merely by going AROUND any official border crossings.

  9. While the wording in the official agreement may be poor, the intent was to avoid “asylum shopping”.

  10. No reasonable person could interpret the agreement to mean that the agreement could be
    bypassed by ignoring official checkpoints. That would reward lawbreakers.

  11. This is even more outrageous when considered that the US gets tens of thousands of asylum applications annually. Hardly a dangerous place.

Law On The Subject

(12) As specified on the Canadian Government’s own website, the point of the Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) is to prevent abuse. Here is a quote:

The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States (U.S.) is part of the U.S.–Canada Smart Border Action Plan. Under the Agreement, refugee claimants are required to request refugee protection in the first safe country they arrive in, unless they qualify for an exception to the Agreement.

The Agreement helps both governments better manage access to the refugee system in each country for people crossing the Canada–U.S. land border. The two countries signed the Agreement on December 5, 2002, and it came into effect on December 29, 2004.

To date, the U.S. is the only country that is designated as a safe third country by Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Agreement does not apply to U.S. citizens or habitual residents of the U.S. who are not citizens of any country (“stateless persons”).

(13) There is nothing vague or arguable about the intent of the agreement. People seeking asylum are required to apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive at.

(14) Canada recognises the United States as a safe country. Period.

(15) It is further codified later on the Government website

Section 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) permits the designation of safe third countries for the purpose of sharing the responsibility for refugee claims. Only countries that respect human rights and offer a high degree
of protection to asylum seekers may be designated as safe third countries. To date, the United States is the only designated safe third country.

(16) And from reading Section 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, we gain this information.

Regulations
102 (1) The regulations may govern matters relating to the application of sections
100 and 101, may, for the purposes of this Act, define the terms used in those sections and, for the purpose of sharing responsibility with governments of foreign states for the consideration of refugee claims, may include provisions
(a) designating countries that comply with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture;
(b) making a list of those countries and amending it as necessary; and
(c) respecting the circumstances and criteria for the application of paragraph
101(1)(e).

Marginal note:Factors
(2) The following factors are to be considered in designating a country under
paragraph (1)(a):
(a) whether the country is a party to the Refugee Convention and to the
Convention Against Torture;
(b) its policies and practices with respect to claims under the Refugee Convention
and with respect to obligations under the Convention Against Torture;
(c) its human rights record; and
(d) whether it is party to an agreement with the Government of Canada for the
purpose of sharing responsibility with respect to claims for refugee protection.
Source: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-19.html#h-56

(17) The United States, being the only officially designated “safe country” certainly means that people are safe there.

(18) To reiterate, it is the complete flaunting of a legitimate international agreement that is the issue. The S3CA was NEVER meant to mean anyone can claim asylum in Canada if they merely bypass official checkpoints.

(19) Under 101(1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, so called “asylum seekers” who enter Canada illegally via the US would be inadmissible anyways, even without the S3CA.

101(1)(e) the claimant came directly or indirectly to Canada from a country designated by the regulations, other than a country of their nationality or their former habitual residence; or

(20) Again, clearly this would make these illegal economic migrants ineligible.

(21) And to beat a dead horse, these illegal, economic migrants (fake refugees) would be ineligible under 34(1)(1.b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This is on the grounds that it would be subversion against an institution or process.
34(1)(b.1) engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;

(22) Also, allowing these illegal economic migrants (fake refugees), into Canada from the United States arguably violates AMERICAN law. Consider Section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

(42) The term “refugee” means
(A) any person who is outside any country of such
person’s
 nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in
a particular social group,or political opinion, or
 (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate
consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any
person who is within the country of such person’s

Here is the source.

(23) Please note: the Canadian Federal Court is not being asked to rule on the validity of US refugee laws. This is added to acknowledge that the US does offer refugee status to approved asylum applicants. Again, this is not an attempt to amend or alter US law.

(24) Allowing this to happen is not saved by Perogative Powers. True, the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has the power to make treaties, and has legitimate purpose.

(25) However this is a treaty signed by a previous administration, that of Jean Chretien in December 2002. The treaty is valid, binding, and to this date, has never been rescinded. The current federal government must respect that.

(26) If the current administration has no interest in enforcing the S3CA as it was intended, then perhaps they should leave the agreement entirely.

Public Interest

(27) As should be obvious from the content of the Statement of Claim, this case is not about money, or getting rich from it. It is about enforcing the integrity of existing border security laws.

(28) The Federal Government has an obligation to the public to enforce agreements in good faith, and to not allow loopholes to undermine public policy.

Remedies Sought

(a) To declare the entire Canada/US border an “official port of entry” or an “official border crossing” to close the loophole in the S3CA.
(b) To deport automatically illegal economic migrants (fake refugees) attempting to cross in the future.
(c) To retroactively void/deny or invalidate any existing or previous claims (where these illegal crossings happen) on grounds that it takes advantage of the loophole

The Dark Side Of Forced Diversity


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

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

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


IMPORTANT LINKS


CLICK HERE, for Harvard’s racial quotas lawsuit.
CLICK HERE, for SAT admission by race, class
CLICK HERE, for Bob Rae’s affirmative action policies.
CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Charter.
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Forces fitness standards (2011).
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Forces run times.

CLICK HERE, for Robert Potnam, E Pluribus Unum
In diverse neighbourhoods (US), everyone “hunkers down”.
Links to many different surveys.

CLICK HERE, for Leveraging Diversity To Improve Business.
No improvement in talent or production found.

CLICK HERE, for MIT article on workplace diversity.
“Idea” of diversity preferred to “actual” diversity
Diversity raises profits, but lowers social cohesion

THE MACLEAN’S ARTICLE

Most recently, and perhaps most significantly, Ontario has become the first province in Canada to propose a mandatory employment equity program that would have the effect of requiring privately owned companies to hire and promote women, nonwhites, aboriginals and disabled people.

Ugly: So far, the government’s opponents have taken aim most directly at the proposed labor laws. Business groups and many of the country’s largest employers have argued that the legislation will give trade unions too much power and frighten off investors from Canada’s industrial heartland. Critics also charge that the New Democrats’ approach to empowering vulnerable or disadvantaged members of society—including workers, visible minorities, women, natives, children, the elderly and the disabled—is fundamentally misguided. They claim that some of the programs will hand power to narrowly focused interest groups rather than to needy individuals. Acknowledged one veteran NDP organizer: “We are getting into some very dicey areas. If we are not careful we can create all kinds of tension

Indeed, some analysts say that the NDP’S employment equity proposal is a potentially divisive instrument. Declared University of Toronto historian Michael Bliss: “People are being defined by race and gender, and it is profoundly wrong. In a liberal society you think about people in terms of their character, not the color of their skin.” Bliss said that he is worried that the program could produce an ugly backlash. “The government says that it is trying to stop racism and sexism,” he added, “but I think they are raising the awareness of race and sex almost to a fever pitch.”

WHAT DOES THE CHARTER SAY?

Equality Rights

Marginal note:
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Marginal note:
Affirmative action programs
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

In short, everyone is equal, unless you call it affirmative action. Then equality can be thrown to the wind.

GENDER MORE IMPORTANT THAN SPEED

This example is from the Canadian Forces 1.5km run times.

AGE MALE FEMALE
Under 30 Years 10:13 – 11:56 12:36 – 14:26
30 – 34 10:35 – 12:26 12:57 – 14:55
35 – 39 10:58 – 12:56 13:27 – 15:25
40 – 44 11:12 – 13:25 13:57 – 15:55
45 – 49 11:27 – 13:56 14:26 – 16:25
50 – 54 11:57 – 14:25 14:56 – 16:54
55 and over 12:27 – 14:56 15:27 – 17:24

Serious question, how does watering down the standards based on age and sex help strengthen the Canadian Forces?

RACE, CLASS OVER INTELLIGENCE

The next 2 charts have to do with how SAT scores and ACT scores are slanted depending on race or class in order to gain entry to American universities.

GROUP ACT (Scale of 36) SAT (Scale of 1600)
Race
Black +3.8 +310

Hispanic +0.3 +130

White +0.0 +0.0

Asian -3.4 -140

GROUP ACT (Scale of 36) SAT (Scale of 1600)
Class
Lower -0.1 +310

Working +0.0 +70

Middle +0.0 +0.0

Upper-Middle +0.3 -20

Upper +0.4 -30

So, just looking at race, Asian would have a -140, while blacks would have +310, concerning SAT scores. So there would be a 450 point gap, or more than a 25% discrepancy based on race.

Even scoring a perfect 1600, the Asian student would only get 1460, while the black student would only need to achieve an 1150 to beat that Asian. In this case 1150 = 1600. Absurd. Isn’t admission into colleges supposed to be reserved for the most academically accomplished?

Robert Potnam, E Pluribus Unum

Ethnic diversity is increasing in most advanced countries, driven mostly by sharp increases in immigration. In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration.

The evidence that diversity and solidarity are negatively correlated (controlling for many potentially confounding variables) comes from many different settings:
• Across workgroups in the United States, as well as in Europe, internal heterogeneity (in terms of age, professional background, ethnicity, tenure and other factors) is generally associated with lower group cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover (Jackson et al. 1991; Cohen & Bailey 1997; Keller 2001; Webber & Donahue 2001).
• Across countries, greater ethnic heterogeneity seems to be associated with lower social trust (Newton & Delhey 2005; Anderson & Paskeviciute 2006; but see also Hooghe et al. 2006).
• Across local areas in the United States, Australia, Sweden, Canada and Britain, greater ethnic diversity is associated with lower social trust and, at least in some cases, lower investment in public goods (Poterba 1997; Alesina et al. 1999; Alesina & La Ferrara 2000, 2002; Costa & Kahn 2003b; Vigdor 2004; Glaeser & Alesina 2004; Leigh 2006; Jordahl & Gustavsson 2006; Soroka et al. 2007; Pennant 2005; but see also Letki forthcoming).
• Among Peruvian micro-credit cooperatives, ethnic heterogeneity is associated with higher default rates; across Kenyan school districts ethnolinguistic diversity is associated with less voluntary fundraising; and in Himalayan Pakistan, clan, religious, and political diversity are linked with failure of collective infrastructure maintenance (Karlan 2002; Miguel & Gugerty 2005; Khwaja 2006).
• Across American census tracts, greater ethnic heterogeneity is associated with lower rates of car-pooling, a social practice that embodies trust and reciprocity (Charles & Kline 2002).
• Within experimental game settings such as prisoners-dilemma or ultimatum games, players who are more different from one another (regardless of whether or not they actually know one another) are more likely to defect (or ‘cheat’). Such results have been reported in many countries, from Uganda to the United States (Glaeser et al. 2000; Fershtman & Gneezy 2001; Eckel & Grossman 2001; Willinger et al. 2003; Bouckaert & Dhaene 2004; Johansson-Stenman et al. 2005; Gil-White 2004; Habyarimana et al. 2006).
• Within the Union (northern) Army in the American Civil War, the casualty rate was very high and the risks of punishment for desertion were very low, so the only powerful force inhibiting the rational response of desertion was loyalty to one’s fellow soldiers, virtually all of whom were other white males. Across companies in the Union Army, the greater the internal heterogeneity (in terms of age, hometown, occupation, etc.), the higher the desertion rate (Costa & Kahn 2003a).

Michele E. A. Jayne and Robert L. Dipboye

Research findings from industrial and organizational psychology and other disciplines cast doubt on the simple assertion that a diverse workforce inevitably improves business performance. Instead, research and theory suggest several conditions necessary to manage diversity initiatives successfully and reap organizational benefits. This article reviews empirical research and theory on the relationship between workforce diversity and organizational performance and outlines practical steps HR practitioners can take to manage diversity initiatives successfully and enhance the positive outcomes. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

  1. Increased diversity does not necessarily improve the talent pool. An increase in the diversity of a group at the demographic level (age, gender, race, disability) does not guarantee an increase in diversity of task-related knowledge, skills, abilities, experiences, and other characteristics

  2. Increased diversity does not necessarily build commitment, improve motivation, and reduce conflict. Another expectation is that a happier, more harmonious workplace will result from diversity. Unfortunately, the diversification of the workforce often has the opposite effect.

  3. Increased group-level diversity does not necessarily lead to higher group performance. One cannot, on the basis of the current research in psychology, conclude with confidence that a diverse group is a better-performing group

Peter Dizikes | MIT News Office

“The more homogeneous offices have higher levels of social capital,” Ellison observes. “But the interesting twist is that … higher levels of social capital are not important enough to cause those offices to perform better. The employees might be happier, they might be more comfortable, and these might be cooperative places, but they seem to perform less well.”

Another wrinkle Ellison and Mullin found is that just the perception that firms are diverse was sufficient to produce satisfaction among employees — but this perception did not necessarily occur in the places where more extensive gender diversity accompanied better bottom-line results.

“In offices where people thought the firm was accepting of diversity, they were happier and more cooperative,” Ellison says. “But that didn’t translate into any effect on office performance. People may like the idea of a diverse workplace more than they like actual diversity in the workplace.”

Final Thoughts:
The idea of being tolerant and inclusive is a great theory. However, if forced, it doesn’t stand up to any testing or scrutiny. Despite this being rammed down our throats, people are not receptive to diversity being pushed.

Unity is strength.
Diversity is weakness.

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


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

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

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


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.

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)

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.

STRENGTHENING AMERICA’S 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.

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.

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.

SAUDI PAID 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.

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


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

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

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


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.

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
  • 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.

    GEORGE SOROS PUFF PIECES

    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.

    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.

    STATS-CAN 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.

    Infanticide #4: Fallout And Some Pushback


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

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

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


    In This Series

    CLICK HERE, for Part 1, New York and Virginia.
    CLICK HERE, for Part 2, Kill The Survivors.
    CLICK HERE, for Part 3, UN Endorses Abortion As Human Right

    Links Worth Checking Out

    CLICK HERE, for Oregon allowing mentally ill people to starve to death. That is House Bill 4135.
    CLICK HERE, for a mother who gave birth, killed her child, and claimed it’s basically an abortion.
    CLICK HERE, for a NY man who killed his pregnant girlfriend, but will only face 1 murder charge.
    CLICK HERE, for Wikipedia’s “Heartbeat Bill” listings.
    CLICK HERE, for Florida’s SB 492, to make it a felony for a doctor to perform abortion if heartbeat detected. Also, CLICK HERE, for House Bill 235 in Florida.
    CLICK HERE, for Georgia Heartbeat Bill, House Bill 481.
    CLICK HERE, and also CLICK HERE, for Maryland.
    CLICK HERE, for Missouri, House Bill 126.
    CLICK HERE, for West Virginia, House Bill 2903.
    CLICK HERE, for the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
    CLICK HERE, for Ohio Planned Parenthood being defunded by taxpayers.

    Stabbing Baby Post-Birth Is “Abortion”


    From the Toresays.com article, a 17 year old Texas teenager apparently gave birth, then murdered her infant. Here is a quote:

    “The infant girl was delivered naturally and there were nine entry wound sites. The infant was stabbed 5 times in her back, once on her side and three times in the neck. This was determined by Dr. Diaz who performed the forensic examination. She also determined that the child was found 12 hours after birth and died to homicidal violence.

    Many of them quoted the snippets of coverage by MSM who claimed killing a child up until the time of birth is a “right of women’s health”. All these young children believe they have the right to end the life of an infant because “My Body My Right”.

    What this young lady did was murder. She stabbed an innocent young baby girl 9 times and abandoned her in a shed and went straight to back to bed. The rhetoric of the radical leftists MSM along with the educational system that purports radical grievances and ideologies has torn the fabric of basic morals and the sanctity of life. “

    This is disgusting. How did we get to the point where not only abortion is legal, but then giving birth and then killing your child is considered “your right”?

    Perhaps the rationale here is: “well, I saved the taxpayers some money by not having them pay for a doctor, so I did you a favour.”

    But at least there is some good news. The recent surge in pro-death sentiments has led to some backlash, and people reaffirming that life really does matter.

    Review Of Mark Bray’s Book: Antifa, The Anti-Fascist Handbook



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

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    Yes, this came out in 2017, but still worth a read.

    Check out this amazing review of Antifa by YouTuber Matt Christiansen.

    This review will mostly focus on the opening part. This is for a few reasons.
    First: The book is fairly long.
    Second: It gets very repetitive.
    Third: You can get a good understanding just from the introduction.

    Despite a resurgence of white-supremacist and fascistic violence across Europe and the United States, most consider the dead and the living to be safe because they believe fascism to be safely dead — in their eyes, the fascist enemy lost definitively in 1945. But the dead were not so safe when Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi described spending time in Mussolini’s prison camps as a “vacation” in 2003 or the French Front National (National Front) politician Jean-Marie Le Pen called Nazi gas chambers a mere “detail” of history in 2015.”

    Assuming these details are accurate, Mark Bray lists 2 European leaders making inappropriate remarks as evidence of fascistic violence rising.

    This book takes seriously the transhistorical terror of fascism and the power of conjuring the dead when fighting back. It is an unabashedly partisan call to arms that aims to equip a new generation of anti-fascists with the history and theory necessary to defeat the resurgent Far Right. Based on sixty-one interviews with current and former anti-fascists from seventeen countries in North America and Europe, it expands our geographical and temporal outlook to contextualize opposition to Trump and the alt-right within a much wider and broader terrain of resistance. Antifa is the first transnational history of postwar anti-fascism in English and the most comprehensive in any language. It argues that militant anti-fascism is a reasonable, historically informed response to the fascist threat that persisted after 1945 and that has become especially menacing in recent years. You may not walk away from this book a convinced anti-fascist, but at least you will understand that anti-fascism is a legitimate political tradition growing out of a century of global struggle.

    Okay, some points to take away from this.

    (1) The book’s author admits it is very partisan, and is a call to arms. And as he will show, he means it quite literally.

    (2) Opposition to Trump and the Alt-Right? Seems an admission that Trump himself is not Alt-Right.

    (3) Militant fascism is appropriate.

    As historian Robert Paxton argued, fascists “reject any universal value other than the success of chosen peoples in
    a Darwinian struggle for primacy.”
    Even the party platforms that fascists put forward between the world wars were usually
    twisted or jettisoned entirely when the exigencies of the pursuit of power made those interwar fascists uneasy bedfellows with
    traditional conservatives. “Left” fascist rhetoric about defending the working class against the capitalist elite was often among the first of their values to be discarded. Postwar (after World War II) fascists have experimented with an even more dizzying array of positions by freely pilfering from Maoism, anarchism, Trotskyism, and other left-wing ideologies and cloaking themselves in “respectable” electoral guises on the model of France’s Front National and other parties

    Bray seems not to grasp the hypocrisy here. This so-called Anti-Fascist movement does exactly that: it promotes the success of “marginalised people” in a struggle for supremacy. He is also correct about the “Left’s” claim to defend the working class is the first to be discarded.

    Some historians have used this literal, minimalist definition to describe as “anti-fascist” a wide variety of historical actors, including liberals, conservatives, and others, who combated fascist regimes prior to 1945. Yet, the reduction of the term to a mere negation obscures an understanding of anti-fascism as a method of politics, a locus of individual and group self-identification, and a transnational movement that adapted preexisting socialist, anarchist, and communist currents to a sudden need to react to the fascist menace. This political interpretation transcends the flattening dynamics of reducing anti-fascism to the simple negation of fascism by highlighting the strategic, cultural, and ideological foundation from which socialists of all stripes have fought back. Yet, even within the Left, debates have raged between many socialist and communist parties, antiracist NGOs, and others who have advocated a legalistic pursuit of antiracist or anti-fascist legislation and those who have defended a confrontational, direct-action strategy of disrupting fascist organizing. These two perspectives have not always been mutually exclusive, and some anti-fascists have turned to the latter option after the failure of the former, but in general this strategic debate has divided leftist interpretations of anti-fascism.

    (1) The author sees liberals and conservatives as unable to stop fascists, though he admits they are opposed to it.

    (2) An interesting admission: Apparently legal and non-violent means of stopping fascism are ineffective, hence the need to turn to violence.

    At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase incorrectly ascribed to Voltaire that “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” After Auschwitz and Treblinka, anti-fascists committed themselves to fighting to the death the ability of organized Nazis to say anything.

    Thus, anti-fascism is an illiberal politics of social revolutionism applied to fighting the Far Right, not only literal fascists. As we will see, anti-fascists have accomplished this goal in a wide variety of ways, from singing over fascist speeches, to occupying the sites of fascist meetings before they could set up, to sowing discord in their groups via infiltration, to breaking any veil of anonymity, to physically disrupting their newspaper sales, demonstrations, and other activities. Militant anti-fascists disagree with the pursuit of state bans against “extremist” politics because of their revolutionary, anti-state politics and because such bans are more often used against the Left than the Right.

    A lot to unpack in these passages:

    (1) Anti-fascism is illiberal.

    (2) Anti-fascists reject free speech ideals.

    (3) Anti-fascists don’t believe “Nazis” should have the right to speak at all in any organized way.

    (4) Anti-fascism opposes the far right, not just fascism.

    (5) Anti-fascists will drown out speakers they don’t like.

    (6) Anti-fascists will infiltrate groups they don’t like.

    (7) Anti-fascists will commit violence.

    Bray makes an interesting comment about bans being used more often against the left than the right. Bray seems completely unaware that his words make such a ban seem popular.

    So who does Mark Bray reject?
    A/ Nazis, Fascists
    B/ Far right individuals
    C/ Conservatives
    D/ Liberals, or at least liberal beliefs
    Or, to be blunt, most of the political spectrum.

    Despite the various shades of interpretation, antifa should not be understood as a single-issue movement. Instead, it is simply one of a number of manifestations of revolutionary socialist politics (broadly construed). Most of the anti-fascists I interviewed also spend a great deal of their time on other forms of politics (e.g., labor organizing, squatting, environmental activism, antiwar mobilization, or migrant solidarity work). In fact, the vast majority would rather devote their time to these productive activities than have to risk their safety and well-being to confront dangerous neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Antifa act out of collective self-defense.

    (1) This seems like a bogus attempt to give Antifa some legitimacy. Saying it is more than a single issue movement distracts from the harm it does to free societies. Remember, this group openly rejects free speech and liberal ideology.

    (2) Just because Antifa members have other things to do with their lives doesn’t whitewash the violence they commit against speakers they disagree with.

    (3) Collective self defense? Who is the collective? Antifa has written off everyone who is Liberal and any further right. And attacking people whose viewpoints you don’t like is not “self-defense”.

    Finally, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that anti-fascism has always been just one facet of a larger struggle against white supremacy and authoritarianism.

    The lack of self awareness here. Mark Bray advocates for a violent, illiberal, ideology that rejects free speech …. but at the same time rejects authoritarianism.

    For this reason, it is vital to understand anti-fascism as a solitary component of a larger legacy of resistance to white supremacy in all its forms. My focus on militant anti-fascism is in no way intended to minimize the importance of other forms of antiracist organizing that identify with anti-imperialism, black nationalism, or other traditions. Rather than imposing an anti-fascist framework on groups and movements that conceive of themselves differently, even if they are battling the same enemies using similar methods, I focus largely on groups that self-consciously situate themselves within the anti-fascist tradition.

    -Anti-fascism is just part of the bigger picture?
    -Your wording is confusing. Is BLACK NATIONALISM a good thing?
    -You just focus on the violent groups? Okay.

    Mark Bray’s Fall 2017 Book Tour
    9/16 Philadelphia: Wooden Shoe Books (w/ George Ciccariello-Maher)
    9/18 Durham, NC: Duke University
    9/19 Chapel Hill, NC: Flyleaf Books
    9/23 Atlanta: A Cappella Books
    9/25 Richmond, VA: Babes of Carytown
    9/26 Highland Park, NJ: Reformed Church of Highland Park
    9/27 Brooklyn: Powerhouse Arena (w/ Kim Kelly)
    9/28 Baltimore: Red Emma’s
    9/29 DC: Politics and Prose
    10/5 Ithaca, NY: Ithaca College
    10/7 Rochester, NY: Gay Alliance of the Genesee Valley
    10/8 Pittsburgh: National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 84
    10/9 Detroit: The International Institute of Metropolitan Detroit
    10/10 Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Friends Meeting
    10/11 Flint, MI: University of Michigan at Flint
    10/12 Chicago: (info tbd)
    10/15 Minneapolis (info tbd)
    10/16 Madison, WI: A Room of One’s Own
    10/17 Detroit: Wayne State University
    10/18 Toronto: Workers’ Action Center, 720 Spadina Ave., Suite 223
    10/19 Ottawa: Dalhousie Community Center
    10/26 Woodstock, VT: Yankee Bookshop
    10/27 Montreal: CÉDA, 2515 rue Delisle
    10/30 Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University (see below)

    No one tried to shut him down. Weak fascists.

    This guy is a lunatic, who supports violent, illiberal policies, and opposes free speech. Ironic that he relies on free speech to sell his book, and to promote his ideas.

    That was just the introduction covered. But Bray repeatedly conflates speakers and ideas he doesn’t like with fascists. He also conflates right wingers with Nazis and fascists.

    Could Antifa Logic Shut Down Antifa?
    Serious thought: if you say that violence must be used to prevent violence from happening, could groups of people not pre-emptively attack you? This is the precedent you set.

    Loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement: Notice of Application


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

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    CLICK HERE, for the final text of S3CA.
    CLICK HERE, for article which explains what the loophole in the S3CA is.
    CLICK HERE, for previous article, on closing the loophole.

    Note: Service had been attempted a few weeks back via a “Notice of Motion” to extend time to file a challenge to the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement. However, the Department of Justice refused (yes refused) to accept it. So after some thought, this is how it will be done: Not seek to modify the agreement itself, but ask to get it enforced as it should have been. Different tactic, same end goal.

    TO THE RESPONDENT:
    A PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED by the applicant. The relief claimed by the applicant appears on the following page.

    THIS APPLICATION will be heard by the Court at a time and place to be fixed by the Judicial Administrator. Unless the Court orders otherwise, the place of hearing will be as requested by the applicant. The applicant requests that this application be heard at Calgary Federal Court.

    IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION, to receive notice of any step in the application or to be served with any documents in the application, you or a solicitor acting for you must prepare a notice of appearance in Form 305 prescribed by the Federal Courts Rules and serve it on the applicant's solicitor, or where the applicant is self-represented, on the applicant, WITHIN 10 DAYS after being served with this notice of application.

    Copies of the Federal Courts Rules information concerning the local offices of the Court and other necessary information may be obtained on request to the Administrator of this Court at Ottawa (telephone 613-992-4238) or at any local office.

    IF YOU FAIL TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU.

    APPLICATION

    This is an application for judicial review in respect of Approximately 40,000 economic migrants (fake refugees), have crossed the border into Canada claiming asylum. They are taking advantage of a loophole in the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement, which only covers official ports of entry. However, no one could REASONABLY believe that this is how the agreement was intended when it was drafted.

    The applicant makes application for:

    (a) To issue a permanent, binding injunction against the Federal Government letting economic migrants (fake refugees) who enter Canada from the United States (via Roxham Rd. and elsewhere), make asylum claims in Canada.

    (b) To find that the S3CA “meant” that refugees couldn’t land in one country and hop to the other, that they have to file for asylum in the first country they arrive in. The agreement means Canada and the US view each other as “safe countries”.

    (c) To find that the agreement should apply across the ENTIRE Canada/US border, and that “Official Port of Entry” limitation is just poor wording.

    (d) To find that not honouring the spirit and principles of the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country violates the intent of that Agreement.

    Alternatively an order that:

    (e) If the Government of Canada chooses not to participate in good faith in the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, that an act of parliament is required to withdraw from it.

    (f) If the Government of Canada chooses to alter the terms of the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, that it must renegotiate with the United States.

    The grounds for the application are:

    1. First: Does allowing illegal economic migrants entering from the US to claim asylum violate the spirit and principle of the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement, provided they circumvent official border checkpoints? This treaty was signed in 2002 by bth parties. Should it be honoured as it was reasonably intended to be?

    2. Second: Does allowing illegal economic migrants (fake refugees), into Canada end up violating US immigration regulations? These migrants would be travelling to the US on tourist visas, with the intention of coming to Canada to claim asylum. Bear in mind, the Court is not being asked to make a ruling that would impact US laws.

    3. Third: Does allowing large numbers of unscreened, unvetted, illegal economic migrants (fake refugees), into Canada under false pretenses violate Section 7 of the Charter, which guarantees security of the person?

    4. Fourth: Does allowing illegal economic migrants (fake refugees) to come across the Canada/US border violate Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution, considering that most social services are Provincial jurisdiction?

    5. Fifth: Does allowing illegal economic migrants (fake refugees) to come across the Canada/US border violate Sections 5/6 of the Canadian Human Rights Code, since they get priority of social services over citizens and legal residents?

    6. Sixth: Does allowing illegal economic migrants (fake refugees) to come across the Canada/US border violate Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: Sections 3(2)(a) since they aren’t refugees, and 3(2)(e), since doing so would not maintain the integrity of the system, and 10.1(4) since the application would be based on misrepresentation?

    This application will be supported by the following material:

      Copy of Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement
      Information from both Canada/US Immigration websites
      Documentation showing mass illegal migration across border
      Other documentation as needed

    Florida Judge Rules Using Fake Documents To Get Driver’s License Isn’t Illegal


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

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    CLICK HERE, for text of the ruling.
    CLICK HERE, for media on the subject.

    “BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

    ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

    THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal Order (“Motion”), ECF No. [53]. The Court has considered the Motion, the Defendant’s Response in Opposition, ECF No. [54], and is otherwise fully advised. For the following reasons, the Motion is denied.

    The Government asks the Court to reconsider its ruling dismissing the Superseding Indictment against the Defendant. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for motions for reconsideration. In ruling on a motion for reconsideration in a criminal case, federal district courts apply civil standards and exercise substantial discretion. See United States v. Sabooni, No. 09-20298-CR, 2014 WL 4385446, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 4, 2014) (Seitz, J.) (citing United States v. Pugh, 426 F. App’x 876, 876 (11th Cir. 2011)). “The only grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” Smith v. Ocwen Fin., 488 F. App’x 426, 428 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)). “A motion for reconsideration should not simply rehash previously litigated issues[.]” United States v. Russo, No. 11-6337-RSR, 2011 WL 3044844, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 25, 2011) (Rosenbaum, J.); see also Smith, 488 F. App’x at 428 (“A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise arguments, or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment” (citing Arthur, 500 F.3d at 1343))).
    In its Motion, the Government rehashes essentially the same arguments raised in its Response to the Defendant’s Motion for Dismissal, during argument at calendar call, and in its Response to Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum. The Government disagrees with the Court’s conclusion that the Government has failed to identify any federal statute or regulation prescribing an Order of Supervision as evidence of authorized stay in the United States. Yet the Government fails to point to any new facts or law, demonstrate clear error or manifest injustice, or identify any federal statute or regulation that would require the Court to change its prior finding. Simply put, the Government’s arguments amount to “mere disagreement” with the Court and do not warrant reconsideration. See Linet Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Florida, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2015) (affirming denial of reconsideration where plaintiff merely “disagreed with the district court’s treatment of certain facts and its legal conclusions” in the earlier order under review); see also Roggio v. United States, No. 11-22847-CIV, 2013 WL 11320226, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2013) (Goodman, J.).

    It appears the Government argues that evidence of authorized employment in the United States necessarily equates to evidence of authorized stay in the United States. However, this argument is not persuasive because Section 1546(a) clearly delineates documents evidencing “authorized stay” and documents evidencing “authorized employment” as two distinct forms of authorization. By equating these two forms of authorization, the Government’s interpretation of Section 1546(a) necessarily renders the words “or [authorized] employment” superfluous. See In Re Walter Energy, Inc., 911 F.3d 1121 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[W]e generally construe a statute so that ‘no clause, sentence, or word’ is rendered superfluous, void, or insignificant.” (quoting TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001))). While the Court agrees with the Government that, when amending Section 1546(a) in 1986, Congress intended to broaden the types of documents encompassed by Section 1546(a) beyond those “required for entry into the United States,” see ECF No. , the Government’s Superseding Indictment did not provide the Defendant notice of any intent to prove that an Order of Supervision is “prescribed by statute or regulation… as evidence of authorized… employment in the United States,” ECF No. [22].


    Accordingly, it is
    ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal Order, ECF No. [53], is DENIED.

    DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 7th day of March, 2019.

    This is absurd. The driver’s license was obtained under false pretenses. Shrugging this off as “procedural” is setting a dangerous precedent. It will be interesting to see if this is appealed.

    Hopefully either it is overturned, or the State Congress will enact legislation to prevent this from happening again.

    UN Security Council: Legalized Aggression


    (Then President George W. Bush, arguing for an invasion of Iraq under blatantly false pretenses. The UN Security Council approved the use of force in 2002 by a 15-0 vote. War was launched on March 20, 2003).


    (A critique on the problem with veto power)


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

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    CLICK HERE, for UN Security Council home page.
    CLICK HERE, for the page on sanctions.
    CLICK HERE, the UN Charter.
    CLICK HERE, for Article 41 of the UN Charter (Sanctions).
    CLICK HERE, for an index of voting records.
    CLICK HERE, for Wikipedia page on “Proxy Wars”.

    Peace and Security

    The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has 15 Members, and each Member has one vote. Under the Charter of the United Nations, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions.

    The Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. In some cases, the Security Council can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.

    That is correct. 15 nations can decide what is “in the interest of global peace and security”. Hardly seems that other nations get much of a say in international matters. Would your own sovereignty be limited by what these 15 members of the “Global Community” have to say?

    Even more undemocratic is the make up of the Security Council. There are 15 members, 5 of which are permanent, and 10 others which are chosen on a rotational basis.

    The 5 permanent members are: 1/ the United States; 2/ Russia (formerly the Soviet Union); 3/ Britain; 4/ France; and 5/ China. These were the “winners” of World War II, when the UN was founded. Each of the 5 permanent members has “veto” power, meaning they can unilaterally block any resolution from passing.

    In order to pass a Security Council resolution, a majority of members have to approve it. Additionally, none of the “Permanent 5” can veto. They each have to abstain or support.

    What if the UN doesn’t opt for military force? There are less direct, but more passive-aggressive measures called “sanctions”. These are essentially punishments the Security Council imposes.

    (From Article 41)

    “The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.”

    From the page on sanctions:

    “Security Council sanctions have taken a number of different forms, in pursuit of a variety of goals. The measures have ranged from comprehensive economic and trade sanctions to more targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, and financial or commodity restrictions. The Security Council has applied sanctions to support peaceful transitions, deter non-constitutional changes, constrain terrorism, protect human rights and promote non-proliferation.”

    The UN Security Council also lists who it has imposed sanctions upon: “Since 1966, the Security Council has established 30 sanctions regimes, in Southern Rhodesia, South Africa, the former Yugoslavia (2), Haiti, Iraq (2), Angola, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Eritrea, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Liberia (3), DRC, Côte d’Ivoire, Sudan, Lebanon, DPRK, Iran, Libya (2), Guinea-Bissau, CAR, Yemen, South Sudan and Mali, as well as against ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida and the Taliban.”

    Does UN Security Council Create World Peace?
    Not really. This is especially true when one of the “Permanent 5” has veto power over any resolution to stop or condemn the aggression. Though the major powers may not directly be involved, they may provide aid to others and fight proxy wars.

    Though not always the best site, Wikipedia is great for a quick reference.

    Chinese Civil War (1944–1949)
    Greek Civil War (1944–1949)
    Iran crisis of 1946 (1945–1946)
    First Indochina War (1946–1954)
    Paraguayan Civil War (1947)
    Malayan Emergency (1948–1960)
    Internal conflict in Myanmar (1948– )
    Balochistan conflict (1948– )
    Arab–Israeli conflict (1948–present)
    Korean War (1950–1953)
    Mau Mau Uprising (1952–1960)
    Second Indochina War (First Taiwan Strait Crisis (1953–1975))
    Algerian War (1954–1962)
    First Sudanese Civil War (1955–1972)
    Suez Crisis (1956–1957)
    Second Taiwan Strait Crisis (1958)
    Lebanon crisis (1958)
    Tibetan uprising (1959–1962)
    Central American crisis (1960–1996)
    Congo Crisis (1960–1965)
    Portuguese Colonial War (1960–1974)
    Xinjiang conflict (1960s–present)
    First Iraqi–Kurdish War (1961–1970)
    Eritrean War of Independence (1961-1991)
    North Yemen Civil War (1962–1970)
    Dhofar Rebellion (1962–1976)
    Sarawak Communist Insurgency (1962–1990)
    Sand War (1963)
    Aden Emergency (1963–1967)
    Insurgency in Northeast India (1963–present)
    Rhodesian Bush War (1964–1979)
    Dominican Civil War (1965)
    Communist insurgency in Thailand (1965–1983)
    Bolivian Campaign (1966–1967)
    Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–1969)
    South African Border War (1966–1990)
    Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970)
    Naxalite–Maoist insurgency (1967–present)
    Communist insurgency in Malaysia (1968–1989)
    Operation Condor (1968–1989)
    Al-Wadiah War (1969-present)
    Civil conflict in the Philippines (1969–present)
    Yemenite War (1972)
    Angolan Civil War (1974–2002)
    Ethiopian Civil War (1974–1991)
    Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990)
    Western Sahara War (1975–1991)
    Indonesian occupation of East Timor (1975–1999)
    Cabinda War (1975–present)
    Insurgency in Laos (1975–present)
    Civil conflict in Turkey (1976–present)
    Shaba I (1977)
    Ogaden War (1977–1978)
    Cambodian-Vietnamese War (1977–1991)
    Mozambican Civil War (1977–1992)
    Chittagong Hill Tracts conflict (1977–1997)
    Shaba II (1978)
    Uganda–Tanzania War (1978–1979)
    NDF Rebellion (1978–1982)
    Chadian–Libyan conflict (1978–1987)
    Yemenite War of (1979)
    Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989)
    Sino-Vietnamese War (1979
    Internal conflict in Peru (1980–present)
    Ethiopian–Somali Border War (1982)
    Sri Lankan Civil War (1983–2009)

    This isn’t even a complete list. But when researching conflicts, you will find that it is most often one or more of the “Permanent 5” behind these conflicts. How can the UN actually help world peace when its own Security Council members can flaunt the principles without consequences?

    Why are a nation’s well being and sovereignty dependant on the will of 15 nations, 5 of whom appointed themselves as permanent members with a veto.

    This is not to say that nations should not be free to enter into military alliances and pacts. However, this arrangement seems stacked against smaller and weaker nations.

    What Does UN Say About Security Council?

    Under the United Nations Charter, the functions and powers of the Security Council are:

    -to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;
    -to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction;
    -to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;
    -to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;
    -to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;
    -to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;
    -to take military action against an aggressor;
    -to recommend the admission of new Members;
    -to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in “strategic areas”;
    -to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.

    There has been much speculation within Canada that Justin Trudeau is being so “UN compliant” because he is aiming for a seat on the Security Council. Not sure if this is true, though it’s certainly possible.

    Military aggression. But “democratically performed” military aggression.”

    YouthClimateStrikes Deliberately Targets “Impressionable” Youth


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

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    CLICK HERE, for Youth Climate Strikes.
    CLICK HERE, for their platform.
    CLICK HERE, to find a strike.
    CLICK HERE, for how to start a strike.
    CLICK HERE, for HR109, Green New Deal.
    CLICK HERE, for Green New Deal FAQ.
    CLICK HERE, for earlier review of Green New Deal.
    CLICK HERE, for an earlier review of the climate change scam.

    This topic was referred to me by a fellow author and researcher. https://www.youthclimatestrikeus.org, (a.k.a. YCS), which aims to get young children into the business of climate change action

    YCS DELIBERATELY Targets Children
    Why? Because, as they admit, children are more impressionable. Check out their platform page.

    Compulsory comprehensive education on climate change and its impacts throughout grades K-8

    K-8 is the ideal age range for compulsory climate change education because:
    Impressionability is high during that developmental stage, therefore it’s easier for children and young adults to learn about climate change in a more in-depth manner, and retain that information
    Climate change becomes a nonpartisan issue, as it truly is because it’s based solely on science from the beginning

    Yes, that’s right. Target kids specifically because they are more impressionable.

    Youth Climate Strikes v.s. Green New Deal

    TEXT FROM YOUTH CLIMATE STRIKES
    Our Demands
    Green New Deal
    -An equitable transition for marginalized communities that will be most impacted by climate change
    -An equitable transition for fossil-fuel reliant communities to a renewable economy
    -100% renewable energy by 2030
    -Upgrading the current electric grid
    -No creation of additional fossil fuel infrastructure (pipelines, coal plants, fracking etc.)
    -The creation of a committee to oversee the implementation of a Green New Deal
    -That has subpoena power
    -Committee members can’t take fossil fuel industry donations
    -Accepts climate science

    A halt in any and all fossil fuel infrastructure projects
    Fossil fuel infrastructure disproportionately impacts indigenous communities and communities of color in a negative way
    Creating new fossil fuel infrastructure would create new reliance on fossil fuels at a time of urgency

    All decisions made by the government be based on the best-available and most-current scientific research.
    The world needs to reduce GHG emissions by at least 50% by 2030, and by 100% before 2050.
    We need to incorporate this fact into all policymaking

    Declaring a National Emergency on Climate Change
    This calls for a national emergency because we have only a few years to avoid catastrophic climate change.
    Since the US has empirically been a global leader, we should be a leader on climate action
    Since the US largely contributes to global GHG emissions, we should be leading the fight in GHG reduction

    Compulsory comprehensive education on climate change and its impacts throughout grades K-8
    K-8 is the ideal age range for compulsory climate change education because:
    Impressionability is high during that developmental stage, therefore it’s easier for children and young adults to learn about climate change in a more in-depth manner, and retain that information

    Climate change becomes a nonpartisan issue, as it truly is because it’s based solely on science from the beginning
    Preserving our public lands and wildlife
    Diverse ecosystems and national parks will be very impacted by climate change, therefore it’s important that we work to the best of our abilities to preserve their existence
    Keeping our water supply clean
    Clean water is essential for all living beings, when we pollute our water supply, or the water supply of someone else, it’s simply a violation of an essential human right

    TEXT FROM GREEN NEW DEAL
    (A) building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies;

    (B) repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including—
    (i) by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible;
    (ii) by guaranteeing universal access to clean water;
    (iii) by reducing the risks posed by climate impacts; and
    (iv) by ensuring that any infrastructure bill considered by Congress addresses climate change;

    (C) meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including—
    (i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources; and
    (ii) by deploying new capacity;

    (D) building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and “smart” power grids, and ensuring affordable access to electricity;

    (E) upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;

    (F) spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry;

    (G) working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including—
    (i) by supporting family farming;
    (ii) by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and
    (iii) by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food;

    (H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—
    (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;
    (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and
    (iii) high-speed rail;

    (I) mitigating and managing the long-term adverse health, economic, and other effects of pollution and climate change, including by providing funding for community-defined projects and strategies;

    (J) removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution by restoring natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as land preservation and afforestation;

    (K) restoring and protecting threatened, endangered, and fragile ecosystems through locally appropriate and science-based projects that enhance biodiversity and support climate resiliency;

    (L) cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites, ensuring economic development and sustainability on those sites;

    If you go through both YCS, and the GND (as proposed by US Congress), it becomes very clear that they were written by the same people.

    Both claim the world is ending, and that catastrophic climate change is about to alter the environment beyond repair. Both are alarmist fear mongering.

    YCS Incorporates Identity Politics
    ” We are striking because marginalized communities across our nation —especially communities of color, disabled communities, and low- income communities— are already disproportionately impacted by climate change”

    YCS Wants Nation-Wide Strikes
    Yes, there is actually a map which you can search strikes around your neighbourhood.

    YCS Gives Instructions On Starting Strikes
    Step-By-Step Action Guide

    Step 1: Pick a Location & Register Your Event
    Step 2: Coordinate with your School/Workplace
    Step 3: Get the Word Out
    Step 4: Green New Deal Support Drive
    Step 5: Get Ready for the Big Day
    Step 6: #YouthClimateStrike
    Step 7: Keep the Party Going

    It is disheartening to see the same end-of-the-world nonsense pushed onto children as is the Green New Deal in Congress.