UN Global Taxation Efforts & Schemes

(Ways to raise money)

(This is the Paris Accord, and “Conservative” Garnett Genuis’ dishonest spin in supporting it in Parliament.)

(Shiva Ayyadurai, Republican and former Senate Candidate explains how the Carbon tax really works.)

(UN supports global tax to raise $400B)

(Details of proposed global tax scheme)

(Pensions are also being eyed as a funding source)

(UN Environment Programme)

(Green finance for developing countries)

(International Chamber of Commerce)

(Addis Ababa Action Agenda)

(Global tax avoidance measures)

(Why stop at just billions?)

These are not the only examples, but should serve as an illustration for the “taxation” efforts the UN is undertaking in order to finance its various agendas. Of course its ultimate goal is world domination.

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for New Development Financing: Carbon Tax $250B/year
CLICK HERE, for UN “Int’l Tax” To Raise $400B.
CLICK HERE, for Paris Accord “Financial Flows”.
CLICK HERE, for Addis Ababa, Financing Devel’t.
CLICK HERE, for Int’l Chamber of Commerce, Tax, SDA Goals.
CLICK HERE, for ICC Position on Tax, SDA Goals.
CLICK HERE, for Green Financing, Sustainable Development.
CLICK HERE, for Development Financing, “Cooperation” To Combat Tax Avoidance.
CLICK HERE, for Leveraging African Pension Plans.
CLICK HERE, for Finance 2030 SDG, $5-7T Needed.
CLICK HERE, for UN Tax Treaties Changes.
CLICK HERE, for: From Billions To Trillions
CLICK HERE, for Sustainable Financing Report.
CLICK HERE, for UN Enviro Program, Finance Initiative.
CLICK HERE, for Capital Development Finance.
CLICK HERE, for UN Join Staff Pension Fund.
CLICK HERE, for the UN Credit Union

CLICK HERE, for earlier review of Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for previous article debunking Paris Accord
CLICK HERE, for review New Development Financing.
CLICK HERE, for New Development Financing, the bait-and-switch.

CLICK HERE, for a recent article by Uppity Peasants on the UN Environment Programme. Also, go check out the site.
CLICK HERE, for a guest post by: BOLD Like a Leopard. This covered the “Green New Deal”, the US proposal.

2. Paris Accord Is All About Taxation

This is not an exaggeration, or hyperbole. The entire point of the agreement is to generate an enormous slush fund. The UN IPCC and select partners can then put that money into the commodities market and make trillions from it.

If you have any doubts about that, read Article 9 from the Paris Agreement. It spells out the “financial flow” in no uncertain terms.

1. Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention.

2. Other Parties are encouraged to provide or continue to provide such support voluntarily.

3. As part of a global effort, developed country Parties should continue to take the lead in mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels, noting the significant role of public funds, through a variety of actions, including supporting country-driven strategies, and taking into account the needs and priorities of developing country Parties. Such mobilization of climate finance should represent a progression beyond previous efforts.

4. The provision of scaled-up financial resources should aim to achieve a balance between adaptation and mitigation, taking into account country-driven strategies, and the priorities and needs of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change and have significant capacity constraints, such as the least developed countries and small island developing States, considering the need for public and grant-based resources for adaptation.

5. Developed country Parties shall biennially communicate indicative quantitative and qualitative information related to paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article, as applicable, including, as available, projected levels of public financial resources to be provided to developing country Parties. Other Parties providing resources are encouraged to communicate biennially such information on a voluntary basis.

6. The global stock take referred to in Article 14 shall take into account the relevant information provided by developed country Parties and/or Agreement bodies on efforts related to climate finance.

7. Developed country Parties shall provide transparent and consistent information on support for developing country Parties provided and mobilized through public interventions biennially in accordance with the modalities, procedures and guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement, at its first session, as stipulated in Article 13, paragraph 13. Other Parties are encouraged to do so.

8. The Financial Mechanism of the Convention, including its operating entities, shall serve as the financial mechanism of this Agreement.

9. The institutions serving this Agreement, including the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, shall aim to ensure efficient access to financial resources through simplified approval procedures and enhanced readiness support for developing country Parties, in particular for the least developed countries and small island developing States, in the context of their national climate strategies and plans.

These are quotes directly from the Paris Accord. In particular, Article 9 makes it abundantly clear that this is all about “financial flow” and a transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world.

Actual environmental changes seem almost to be an afterthought. This is a giant wealth transfer scheme.

3. New Development Finance, Bait-and-Switch

Okay, what are these “revenue sources”?

  • SDR (or special drawing rights), from IMF $150B-$270B
  • Carbon taxes, $240B
  • Leveraging SDR, $90B
  • Financial transaction tax, $10B-70B
  • Billionaire tax, $90B
  • Currency trading tax, $30B
  • EU emissions trading scheme, $5B
  • Air passenger levy, $10B
  • Certified emission reduction tax, $2B
  • Current ODA Flow, $120B

If these numbers are accurate, then the US is viewed as a cash cow somewhere to the tune of $627 billion to $807 billion. Yes, this only refers to revenue potential from the United States. I believe this is annually.

What does the report say about SDAs?

These include taxes on financial and currency transactions and on greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the creation of new international liquidity through issuance of special drawing rights (SDRs) by the International Monetary Fund IMF), to be allocated with a bias favouring developing countries or leveraged as development financing. Though their potential may be high, these proposals are subject to political controversy. For instance, many countries are not willing to support international forms of taxation, as these are said to undermine national sovereignty.

No kidding. There is a lot of political opposition to taxes which are deemed to undermine national sovereignty. Could that be because these taxes AREN’T being used to support the well being of the citizenry? Instead the money is being funnelled out of the country in the name of some global good project.

This is how bait-and-switch works:
(1) Raise money using cause A.
(2) Actually spend the money on cause B.

An array of other options with large fundraising potential have been proposed (see figure O.1 and table O.1), but have not been agreed upon internationally thus far. These include taxes on financial and currency transactions and on greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the creation of new international liquidity through issuance of special drawing rights (SDRs) by the International Monetary Fund IMF), to be allocated with a bias favouring developing countries or leveraged as development financing. Though their potential may be high, these proposals are subject to political controversy. For instance, many countries are not willing to support international forms of taxation, as these are said to undermine national sovereignty.

(Page 86) Debt-conversion mechanisms
Debt conversion entails the cancellation by one or more creditors of part of a country’s debt in order to enable the release of funds which would otherwise have been used for debt-servicing, for use instead in social or environmental projects. Where debt is converted at a discount with respect to its face value, only part of the proceeds fund the projects, the remainder reducing the external debt burden, typically as part of a broader debt restructuring.

Debt to developing nations can be “forgiven”, at least partly, if certain conditions are met. However, the obvious question must be asked:

Can nations be loaned money they could never realistically pay back, in order to ensure their compliance in UN or other global agenda, by agreeing to “forgive” part of it?

(Page 86) Debt conversion first emerged, in the guise of debt-for-nature swaps, during the 1980s debt crisis, following an opinion article by Thomas Lovejoy, then Executive Vice-President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), in the New York Times in 1984. Lovejoy argued that a developing country’s external debt could be reduced (also providing tax relief to participating creditor banks) in exchange for the country’s taking measures to address environmental challenges. Estimates based on Sheikh (2010) and Buckley, ed. (2011) suggest that between $1.1 billion and $1.5 billion of debt has been exchanged through debt-for-nature swaps since the mid–1980s, although it is not possible to assess how much of this constitutes IDF, for the reasons discussed in box III.1.

If debt can be forgiven in return for environmental measures, then why not simply fund these environmental measures from the beginning? Is it to pressure or coerce otherwise unwilling nations into agreeing with such measures?

(Page 88)
There have been two basic forms of debt-for-nature exchanges (Buckley and Freeland, 2011). In the first, part of a country’s external debt is purchased by an environmental non-governmental organization and offered to the debtor for cancellation in exchange for a commitment to protect a particular area of land. Such transactions occurred mainly in the late 1980s and 1990s and were generally relatively small-scale. An early example was a 1987 deal under which Conservation International, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental non-governmental organization, bought $650,000 of the commercial bank debt of Bolivia (now Plurinational State of Bolivia) in the secondary market for $100,000, and exchanged this for shares in a company established to preserve 3.7 million acres of forest and grassland surrounding the Beni Biosphere Reserve in the north-east part of the country.
In the second form, debt is exchanged for local currency (often at a discount), which is then used by local conservation groups or government agencies to fund projects in the debtor country. Swaps of this kind are generally much larger, and have predominated since the 1990s. The largest such swap came in 1991, when a group of bilateral creditors agreed to channel principal and interest payments of $473 million (in local currency) into Poland’s Ecofund set up to finance projects designed to counter environmental deterioration. The EcoFund financed 1,500 programmes between 1992 and 2007, providing grants for conservation projects relating to cross-border air pollution, climate change, biological diversity and the clean-up of the Baltic Sea (Buckley and Freeland, 2011).

We will “forgive” your debt if:
(1) A portion of your land is off limits; or
(2) Debt converted to currency to fund “projects”

The entire document is 178 pages. While a tedious read, it’s worthwhile.

4. UN Wants $400B In Global Taxation

New York, 5 July 2012 –The United Nations is proposing an international tax, combined with other innovative financing  mechanisms, to raise more than $400 billion annually for development and global challenges such as fighting climate  change.    In its annual report on global development, World Economic and Social Survey 2012: In Search of New Development  Finance, (WESS 2012) launched today, the UN says, in the midst of difficult financial times, many donor countries have cut  back on development assistance. In 2011, for the first time in many years, aid flows declined in real terms

The survey finds that the financial needs of developing countries have long outstripped the willingness and ability of donors to provide aid. And finding the necessary resources to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and meet other global challenges, such as addressing climate change, will be tough, especially for least developed countries. 

The need for additional and more predictable financing has led to a search for new sources not as a substitute for aid, but as a complement to it. A number of innovative initiatives have been launched during the past decade, mainly to fund global health programmes aimed at providing immunizations, AIDS and tuberculosis treatments to millions of people in the  developing  world.  The  UN  survey  finds  that  while  these  initiatives  have  successfully  used  new  methods  to  channel  development  financing to combat diseases, they have hardly yielded any additional funding on top of traditional development assistance. 

This source explains it straight from the horse’s mouth. The UN is not taking in enough money for its various schemes. In fact, real contributions are shrinking. Therefore it is necessary to come up with new and innovative ways to tax developed nations.

Of course one of the most common ways is with the “climate change” scam. But it is hardly the only one. The UN views many forms of wealth simply as money to tap into.

5. UN Eyeing Up African Pensions

(Page 10) III. PENSION FUNDS DIRECT INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE
International experience At 36.6 percent of GDP, assets of the pension funds in OECD countries are relatively large. As of end-2013, pension-fund assets were even in excess of 100 percent in countries such as the Netherlands, Iceland, Switzerland, Australia, and the United Kingdom (Figure 1). In absolute terms, pension funds in OECD countries held $10.4 trillion of assets. While large pension funds (LPFs) held about $3.9 trillion of assets, assets in public and private sector and public pension reserves (PPRFs) stood at $6.5 trillion.

(Page 30) C. Policy framework for investment in infrastructure Pension funds—just like other investors, domestic and foreign—need a fair, transparent, clear, and predictable policy framework to invest in infrastructure and other assets. This is important as infrastructure assets have a number of characteristics that increase investors’ perception of risk. First, infrastructure projects typically involve economies of scale and often lead to natural monopolies with high social benefits and, at times, lower private returns. As a result, infrastructure projects may require heavy government involvement. Second, infrastructure projects are often large and long-lived with a significant initial investment but with cash flows that accrue over a long horizon.

In this regard, improving the policy framework for investment can be useful to countries seeking to develop the investor base for infrastructure. For instance, the OECD’s Policy Framework for Investment (PFI) uses self-assessments and/or an external assessment by the OECD to help a country elaborate policies for capacity building and private sector development strategies, and inform the regional dialogue (OECD, 2015b). The PFI’s investment policy refers not only to domestic laws, regulations, and policies relating to investment but also goals and expectations concerning the contribution of investment to sustainable development, such as infrastructure

(Page 31) D. Infrastructure financing instruments available to pension funds Even in well-performing pension systems where the governance, regulation, and supervision of pension funds are conducive to investment in infrastructure and there is a sound policy framework for investment, there is still a need for adequate instruments to channel pension fund assets into the infrastructure sector. Pension funds can use a number of channels to invest in infrastructure. Direct exposure is gained mainly through the unlisted equity instruments (direct investment in projects and infrastructure funds) and project bonds, while indirect exposure is normally associated with listed equity and corporate debt. More specifically, pension funds can rely on a number of options such as

The paper itself is quite long, but here is the gist of it. The UN wants to take African pension funds and use them to “invest” it UN type of schemes.

While this seems harmless enough, remember the Paris Accord. The UN thinks nothing of taxing the developed world hundreds of billions of dollars under false pretenses in order to invest in the commodities market. Nor does the UN object to giving “infrastructure loans” to nations that will likely never be able to pay it back.

It should alarm people that an organization with no inherent loyalty to the region would want to use African pension funds to finance its own agenda.

6. UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

United Nations Environment Programme – Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) is a partnership between United Nations Environment and the global financial sector created in the wake of the 1992 Earth Summit with a mission to promote sustainable finance. More than 250 financial institutions, including banks, insurers, and investors, work with UN Environment to understand today’s environmental, social and governance challenges, why they matter to finance, and how to actively participate in addressing them.

UNEP FI’s work also includes a strong focus on policy – by facilitating country-level dialogues between finance practitioners, supervisors, regulators and policy-makers, and, at the international level, by promoting financial sector involvement in processes such as the global climate negotiations.

Here are the members of the Global Steering Committee. In short, this is a partnership between the UN and banking sector.

Keep in mind the “New Development Financing” agenda discussed earlier. Money is taken and used to “invest” in 3rd World Development Programs. Countries that are unable to pay back are forced either to give up sovereignty, or comply with other arrangements.

Banks are in the business of making money. Alternatively, they are in the business of acquiring assets which can be converted into money, or otherwise make them money. What if this banking alliance has no altruistic roots, and is meant to be predatory?

Uppity Peasants has an interesting take on the UNEP.

Make no mistake, this is exactly what happens to these people, by the way. One cross-country comparison between microloan recipients in Bangladesh and payday loan recipients in Canada found that both ‘products’ tend to attract the same kinds of people to them from very similar backgrounds, for largely the same reasons — i.e., neither group tends to use these loans for re-investment, such as starting a business; rather, they use them to cover day-to-day expenses at exorbitant interest rates, thus entrapping themselves in a cycle of never ending debt (Islam & Simpson, 2018). If you know how bad the consequences of payday lending can be for people in the first world, imagine how bad it is for someone who’s already living in third world-levels of poverty.

Now, part of the reason why the UNEP, of all possible agencies, is so heavily invested (emotionally and literally) into fintech and other start-up technologies is because many of the “incumbent banks” — the top-players of our current system — don’t think that completely up-ending the global financial system to move the focus away from profits and toward complying with heavy-handed, UN-decided environmental regulations is a particularly attractive road to go down. In the next excerpt, the UNEP openly admit that start-ups in this area are better to invest in for the pursuit of ‘change’, specifically because their owners tend to be new to the world of business and, as such, don’t know enough about what they’re doing to avoid being manipulated — and that’s where the UNEP comes in.

Uppity Peasants argues that the UNEP is driven much more on a business model than on any kind altruistic path. Further, the circumstances which the aid recipients require the resources to cover essential expenses means they are unable to invest anything. This is similar to a payday loan type of system.

7. Green Finance For 3rd World $5-7 Trillion

(Page 13)In 2015, governments adopted three major agreements that set out their vision for the coming decades: a new set of 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs), the Paris Agreement on climate change and the ‘financing for development’ package. Finance is central to realizing all three agreements – and these now need to be translated into practical steps suited to each country’s circumstances.

Sustainable Energy for All estimates that annual global investments in energy will need to scale up from roughly US$400 billion at present to US $1-1.25 trillion. Of that, US$40-100 billion annually is needed to achieve universal access to electricity. Overall, US $5-7 trillion a year is needed to implement the SDGs globally. Developing countries are estimated to face an annual investment gap of US$2.5 trillion in areas such as infrastructure, clean energy, water and sanitation, and agriculture.

(Page 14) The challenge for financial systems is twofold: to mobilize finance for specific sustainable development priorities and to mainstream sustainable development factors across financial decision-making.

Capital needs to be mobilized for inclusion of underserved groups (e.g. small and medium enterprises), raising capital for sustainable infrastructure (e.g. energy, housing, transport, urban design) and financing critical areas of innovation (e.g. agriculture, mobility, power).

Sustainability needs to become mainstream for financial institutions. This starts with ensuring market integrity (e.g. tax, corruption, human rights) and extends to integrating environmental and social (E&S) factors into risk management (e.g. climate disruption, water stress). Sustainability also needs to be incorporated into the responsibilities and reporting of market actors to guide their decision-making. Momentum is building to align financial systems with the financing needs of an inclusive, sustainable economy. This is complementary to ‘real economy’ actions such as environmental regulations, reform of perverse subsidies and changes to resource pricing. However, while these are critical, it is increasingly recognized that changes are also needed in the financial system to ensure that it is both more stable and more connected to the real economy.

Some interesting points here:

  • $5 to $7 trillion (yes trillion) needed annually fulfill these goals. The billions stated before was lowballed.
  • The “sustainability” agenda needs mass marketing.
  • Finance needed for:
    1. 17 goals of Agenda 2030
    2. Paris Climate Accord
    3. Finance for development
  • 3 above items to be integral part of national agendas.
  • Most of this has nothing to do with the environment

In fact, it reads like a global version of the US Green New Deal, proposed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In fact, her Chief of Staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, admitted it was about changing the economy, not the environment.

8. International Chamber Of Commerce

THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ICC is the world’s largest business organization with a network of over 6 million members in more than 130 countries. We work to promote international trade, responsible business conduct and a global approach to regulation through a unique mix of advocacy and standard setting activities—together with market-leading dispute resolution services. Our members include many of the world’s largest companies, SMEs, business associations and local chambers of commerce.
.
We are the world business organization.

That quote came from their policy guide. Pretty straightforward. They want to run business on a global level. Now, let’s get to the meat and potatoes, the tax proposals:

Interplay between tax policy making and economic growth The world’s population is predicted to increase by 2 billion people by 2050, and the population of the world’s least developed countries is projected to double by 2053, in some countries even tripling. By 2025 half of the world’s population will be living in water-stressed areas. Under such circumstances, the need for large-scale investment in economic growth and development becomes evident.

Whilst there is no panacea, it is evident that greater alignment of investment and tax policies would be essential in promoting investment, job creation and economic growth. International commerce remains a powerful mechanism to help lift people out of poverty. Tax is intrinsically linked to development as taxation provides the revenue that states need to mobilize resources and reinforce a country’s infrastructure. Taxation “provides a predictable and stable flow of revenue to finance public spending, and shapes the environment in which investment, employment and trade takes place.”

Further, it is important to have a fair, efficient, and effective revenue collection infrastructure to promote economic and social development. Domestic resource mobilization (DRM) has been proposed as a way to meet the SDGs with the development finance already available. However, DRM can be impeded by unclear and confusing tax systems. It is imperative that companies are able to move products and services into areas where they are most needed without unnecessary administrative impediments.

Having a reliable and consistent taxation policy seems reasonable enough. However, the ICC is not being clear on the reason behind the push. They want better taxation methods in order to INCREASE the amount of revenue available.

Governments often side with these groups, even when it is not in the best interests of the citizens themselves. “Investment” dollars are then shovelled into infrastructure projects.

Tax the people, so that the money can be “properly” spent, as the UN and their partners see fit.

9. Addis Ababa Action Agenda

(Page 10) DOMESTIC PUBLIC RESOURCE
For all countries, public policies and the mobilization and effective use of domestic resources, underscored by the principle of national ownership, are central to our common pursuit of sustainable development, including achieving the sustainable development goals. Building on the considerable achievements in many countries since Monterrey, we remain committed to further strengthening the mobilization and effective use of domestic resources

(Page 10) 22. We recognize that significant additional domestic public resources, supplemented by international assistance as appropriate, will be critical to realizing sustainable development and achieving the sustainable development goals. We commit to enhancing revenue administration through modernized, progressive tax systems, improved tax policy and more efficient tax collection. We will work to improve the fairness, transparency, efficiency and effectiveness of our tax systems, including by broadening the tax base and continuing efforts to integrate the informal sector into the formal economy in line with country circumstances.

23. We will redouble efforts to substantially reduce illicit financial flows by 2030, with a view to eventually eliminating them, including by combating tax evasion and corruption through strengthened national regulation and increased international cooperation. We will also reduce opportunities for tax avoidance, and consider inserting anti-abuse clauses in all tax treaties. We will enhance disclosure practices and transparency in both source and destination countries, including by seeking to ensure transparency in all financial transactions between Governments and companies to relevant tax authorities. We will make sure that all companies, including multinationals, pay taxes to the Governments of countries where economic activity occurs and value is created, in accordance with national and international laws and policies

(Page 13) 27. We commit to scaling up international tax cooperation. We encourage countries, in accordance with their national capacities and circumstances, to work together to strengthen transparency and adopt appropriate policies, including multinational enterprises reporting country-by-country to tax authorities where they operate; access to beneficial ownership information for competent authorities; and progressively advancing towards automatic exchange of tax information among tax authorities as appropriate, with assistance to developing countries, especially the least developed, as needed. Tax incentives can be an appropriate policy tool. However, to end harmful tax practices, countries can engage in voluntary discussions on tax incentives in regional and international forums.

(Page 45) 98. We affirm the importance of debt restructurings being timely, orderly, effective, fair and negotiated in good faith. We believe that a workout from a sovereign debt crisis should aim to restore public debt sustainability, while preserving access to financing resources under favourable conditions. We further acknowledge that successful debt restructurings enhance the ability of countries to achieve sustainable development and the sustainable development goals. We continue to be concerned with non-cooperative creditors who have demonstrated their ability to disrupt timely completion of the debt restructurings.

In no way does this cover the entire document. However, there are 3 themes which get repeated over and over again.

  1. Efficient tax collection
  2. Global tax regulations and data sharing
  3. “Sustainable” debt and borrowing

There is very little in this document, about actually improving lives, improving infrastructure, or improving the environment. Instead, it is all about implementing a global taxation system, while eliminating “off the books”, or illicit cash.

10. Global Tax Avoidance Measures

Exchange of information for tax purposes
Exchange of information has long been included as a feature of tax treaty models. By agreeing to exchange information with respect to taxpayers, countries can become more aware of the global activities taxpayers are engaging in and impose tax that should be due.

The upcoming 2017 revision of the United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing countries is expected to bring a new revised version of the exchange of information provision, following the approval of the new United Nations Code of Conduct. The Committee agreed in 2016 to a proposal for a United Nations Code of Conduct on Cooperation in Combating International Tax Evasion. This Code supports the automatic exchange of information for tax purposes as the way forward for countries generally, but recognizes that it is vital for developing countries to exchange information, even if they are not ready for automatic exchange. The Code of Conduct has been approved by the Committee of Experts in 2016, and set automatic exchange of information as the new universal standard after ECOSOC adopted the Code of Conduct in a Resolution in 2017, during the ECOSOC Special Meeting on International Cooperation on Tax Matters. .Furthermore, the OECD model convention and commentaries is expected to broaden the scope of the exchange of information article to allow triangular, or multi-party exchange of information requests.

While this certainly sounds like some well meaning way to prevent money laundering and tax fraud, there is another angle to look at.

Having a global (or at least more centralized) database of people and their taxable income will allow for more efficient and effective tax collection. This is especially true whenever a new “development project” needs funding.

Furthermore, if there is such a global system, it will be easier to determine who isn’t paying “their fair share” when it comes to contributions. Those national governments can then act accordingly. Also, who doesn’t view this as becoming a global version of Revenue Canada, or the American IRS?

11. From Billions To Trillions (SF 2.0)

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will require an enormous increase in external financing flows to developing countries. Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) have gradually started to shift their business model towards de-risking services to crowd in long-term, low-risk private capital. However, the targeted scaling up of private investment from billions to trillions to realise the SDGs contains massive risks for stability. And good macro-policies are needed, in turn, to address such underlying risks. Countries that need the greatest amount of development finance are often those that have domestic financial resource constraints and underdeveloped markets. Financing their growth and investment opportunities makes the management of exchange rate risks, which are inherent in development finance, a critical challenge.

Merely supplying development finance is not enough. It needs to be done in socially and economically sustainable ways, where risks are allocated to those who can best manage and sustain them. Efficient use of limited public resources, through improved policies and regulatory processes, is required to achieve the SDGs and related efforts. Governments around the world must work together to offer feasible business opportunities to the private sector that are in line with domestic and international development objectives. Only with such coordinated action will we succeed in moving from billions to trillions to realise sustainable progress for all.

This article should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks that this global development system is going to be steady. Wrong. Once considered “fully operational”, the next step is to upscale it, and make it far bigger.

It is not governments who will be paying for these globalist schemes. It is the working class tax-payers who will see more and more of their wealth transferred to these projects.

Of course, once your money leaves Canadian soil, there is little to no accountability or control over what happens to it. But that it routinely downplayed.

12. What To Make From All This?

To state the obvious: these agendas and agreements are bringing nations towards a global taxation model. Countries (presumably under UN control) will be expected to share data on tax paying citizens and other people earning money. While this is touted as an anti-tax avoidance measure, the real goal is making sure the global order accounts for all money and where it goes.

Going towards a “cashless society” also helps in that regard. Hence the push for more and more electronic options, while making cash payments more difficult.

Beyond enforcement, knowing which nations have money and how much will make it easier to determine who shall pay how much as their “fair share” of future projects. We won’t have nations in the traditional sense, just shareholders.

International agreements like the Paris Accord have nothing to do with the environment. That is just the sales pitch. Instead, it an excuse to funnel huge sums of money to the UN to finance their business model. It is taking advantage of an altruistic goal.

This is about having a globalist, centralized economy and taxation. The environmental and humanitarian claims are just talking points.

Backdoor Replacement Migration In Canada — More Detail

(Temporary Foreign Workers can become Permanent Residents)

(One option for college, university graduates is the Provincial Nominee Program. Its name varies slightly by Province)

(Brooks, AB, and cheap foreign labour)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for a previous article on the subject.
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s immigration rate: 1 million/year.
CLICK HERE, for previous article on CANZUK.
CLICK HERE, for the Conservative Party and globalism.

CLICK HERE, for fastest/cheapest ways to come to Canada

CLICK HERE, for Northern and Rural Pilot Program.
CLICK HERE, for new program, path to permanent residence specifically for agriculture workers.

CLICK HERE, for “Study In Canada” site.
CLICK HERE, for Temporary Foreign Worker Program.
CLICK HERE, for the International Mobility Programme.

CLICK HERE, for getting a temporary residence permit in the case of domestic violence
CLICK HERE, for applying for permanent residence based on domestic violence.
CLICK HERE, for Calgary research into shelters: 40% of domestic abuses cases involve Muslim families.

CLICK HERE, for CPC Policy Guidelines (Article 139(ii)).

2. The Rule From Before

If a Conservative or Nationalist isn’t willing to talk about the FULL SCALE of immigration into the country, there’s no reason to trust anything they say on the subject.

Disclaimer: If any program has been missed, please contact and it will be promptly added.

3. Faith Goldy Drops Truth Bombs

Faith Goldy does a livestream here, discussing the full scope of mass migration into Canada. She correctly points out that public debate is limited (Permanent + Refugees), while other categories are not discussed in the political sphere. She also points out the elephant in the room: politicians focus on replacing citizens with foreigners rather than promoting higher birth rates within Canada. The name “replacement migration” fits perfectly. Great video. Watch and subscribe.

Honourable mentions: YouTuber Rants Derek also points out some hard truths. (See 1:10-1:50). Another channel worth subscribing too, as he covers difficult and important topics. Also see this article by Spencer Fernando.

4. Totals From Before

(From the 2018 Report to Parliament)

(From the 2018 Report to Parliament)

Source: 2018 Report To Parliament

Also worth noting, 525,000 people got their citizenship in a 12 month period. This is despite the “backlog”, and only taking ~350,000 people into Canada.
Source: StatsCan population data.

Year TFW Int Mobility Student
2015 73,016 175,967 218,147
2016 78,402 207,829 265,111
2017 78,788 224,033 317,328

Remember: This table only covers “temporary” entrants (workers and students), and is outside what politicians typically declare. While these programs are officially marketed as temporary, there are a number of avenues to stay longer and become a permanent resident.

Now, combine the 2017 “temporary” totals with the approximately 350,000 permanent and refugees that the government declares and you get this.

350,000 (Perm + Refugee)
+78,788 (Temp Foreign Workers)
+224,033 (International Mobility)
+317,328 (Student Visas)
970,149 (total)

However, the only heading being debated is the 350K at the top (permanent and refugee). Very disingenuous to not include the entire amount.

Canadians are deceived, as most are likely not aware of the actual intake. The P+R categories only represent about a third of total immigration. And this doesn’t even cover the illegal entries.

5. Temporary Foreign Worker Program

This should be self explanatory, but let’s get some more information on this. Is temporary really temporary? Not really. From the factsheet which is freely available online.

Advantages to Employers
For employers who have been unable to recruit Canadian citizens or permanent residents for job openings, the TFWP makes it possible to hire workers from abroad. Employers might also find a qualified foreign worker already in Canada, such as a foreign worker who is about to complete a job contract with another employer or a foreign national holding an open work permit that allows the employee to work for any employer in Canada.

While most temporary foreign workers will be hired to address a specific, short-term labour need, some temporary foreign workers who initially came to fill a temporary vacancy can transition to permanent residence if they meet certain requirements. For example, the Canadian Experience Class is open to foreign nationals who have been working full-time in Canada as trades people or in managerial or professional occupations and meet certain other requirements. Other foreign workers may qualify through the Provincial Nominee Program for permanent residence in Canada. These routes exist to ensure that workers who have shown that their skills are in continuing demand and that they have already adapted well to life in Canada can build a future here.

Source is here.
While this is called the “Temporary” Foreign Worker Program, the wording makes it very clear. The pathway to Permanent Resident is built in intentionally. This absolutely is a pathway to PR, and from there, citizenship. Extremely misleading to the public.

Not only that, there is no requirement to attempt to hire a Canadian worker. An employer can just hire a foreigner who happens to already be in Canada.

6. Agriculture Specific PR Path

Thousands of temporary foreign workers in greenhouses, mushroom farms and meat processing plants will soon be given a path to permanent residency.

Under the three-year “Agri-Food Immigration Pilot,” 2,750 workers and their families will be able to apply for permanent residency each year. The federal government says it could mean up to 16,500 new permanent residents.

From this article, a pilot program set up to fast track people in agriculture to Permanent Resident status. It was created specifically for this industry.

Working in meat processing plants? Kind of like how things went in Brooks, Alberta, after Jason (Bilderberg) Kenney brought in cheap foreign labour? Those Somali Muslims?

Another boutique program to greenlight permanent residence to people coming into Canada.

7. Northern And Rural Program

The Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot is a community-driven program. It’s designed to spread the benefits of economic immigration to smaller communities by creating a path to permanent residence for skilled foreign workers who want to work and live in 1 of the participating communities.

This new initiative aims to get more immigration to smaller towns under the pretext of “economic development”.

In reality, it will likely make such small towns unrecognizable by inducing rapid demographic shifts. Want to get away from all the diversity in big cities? Now you won’t be able to, bigot.

Take for example, Brooks, AB, which was culturally enriched by then Immigration Minister Jason Kenney bringing in Somali Muslims to fill jobs at a meat packing plant.

8. Student Visas

Information is from here. Rather than rehashing it, here is the actual quote. It outlines a number of benefits to studying in Canada. They include

(1) International students in Canada can work for up to 20 hours per week during semester, and on a full-time basis during school breaks.
(2) The tuition fees to study in Canada, even for international students, are usually lower than in other countries.
(3) The spouse or common-law partner of an international student may accompany the student in Canada. Not only that, spouses and partners may obtain an open work permit, allowing them to work any hours they wish and for any employer.
(4) International students in Canada can bring their children to Canada, and the kids can attend one of Canada’s public elementary or secondary schools without needing their own study permit.
(5) Canada’s largest cities are ranked among the best student cities by the QS World University Rankings, with Montreal ranked the best student city in the world and Vancouver and Toronto not far behind.
Graduates can work in Canada for up to three years on an open post-graduation work permit (see below under ‘Earn’).
(6) Rather than closing the door on graduates who complete their studies in Canada or making things incredibly difficult, as some countries may do, Canada actively sets out to provide permanent residence pathways to students and graduates (see below under ‘Stay’).
(7) Canada’s liberal citizenship naturalization process allows international students to count time spent on a study permit towards citizenship residency days requirements.

The Provincial Nominee Program is a common, but not only, option for graduates looking to stay.

Not much I can add to this. Comparatively lax standards, and easy to move to Permanent Residence. Upon graduation, you are given 3 years. Also your time studying counts.

Canada’s international student population is surging, even as domestic student count is falling. Why is this? Different motivations. More and more Canadians realize that university, (and to a degree college), is useless for employment. However, foreigners looking to immigrate to Canada see college as a stepping stone to do so.

Will all students stay after graduating? No, but a lot will.

9. Students, Bring Your Families

This was alluded to earlier. Canada not only takes in lots of students, but allows them to bring a spouse and children. For everyone, time in Canada counts towards obtaining permanent residency.

Not just one person gaining time towards Permanent Resident status, but the family. Let that sink in.

In 2017, Canada issued 317,000 student visas. Theoretically, every one of those people would be able to bring a spouse and children, if they had any.

It is not the education that is the real value. Even STEM degrees don’t guarantee employment. Rather, student visas are used as a stepping stone to permanent immigration into Canada.

10. International Mobility Programme

Also known as the Youth Mobility Program, this allows foreign workers to come to Canada for 1-2 years for casual work, schooling, or travel. There is an age limit of 35. In 2017, Canada admitted 224,000 people under the International Mobility Programme

While this is sold to the public as a “temporary” visa, that is not the full story. Is a person is resourceful, they will likely be able to find another way to stay in the country. This would be by lining up another visa, making further education arrangements, getting married, or pursuing another method.

There absolutely are ways around the “temporary” nature.

True, many people will go back to their home countries after that 1 or 2 year period is up. But it is also true that creative people can get around the intent of the program.

11. Allegations Of Domestic Violence

From an earlier article on domestic violence:

Research by her organization found some shelter providers in Calgary found up to 40 per cent of women seeking help were visible Muslims. Many are new immigrants and refugees and can be socially isolated with few friends and no family in Canada.

And what does that translate to overall? Calgary’s Muslim population is about 3% of Calgary’s overall population. So let’s do an apples to apples comparison.

Let’s do some math: suppose you have a city with 1,000,000 citizens, which would mean 30,000 muslims, and 970,000 non-muslims. Now, suppose there are 1,000 incidents of domestic violence in a year. That means that 400 of those incidents would involve muslims, and 600 would involve non-muslims.

Now, those 30,000 muslims would have been involved in 400 domestic violence incidents, or about 1333 per 100,000 people. The 970,000 non-muslims would have been involved in 600 domestic violence incidents or about 62 per 100,000 people. Comparing the two groups of 1333 and 62 per 100,000, we divide and (1333/62=21.5). We get about a magnitude of 21 or 22.

That’s right. Per capita (assuming the research is correct), Muslim families engage in domestic violence at more than 20 times the rate of non-Muslim families. Let that sink in.

That is likely to get a lot worse, though not for the reasons you might be thinking.

Beginning July 26, newcomers who are victims of domestic violence can apply for a free temporary resident permit that will give them legal immigration status in Canada. That will include a work permit and health-care coverage. In “urgent” situations of family violence, the government will expedite the process by allowing people to apply for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

According to the CBC, people leaving domestic abuse situations can apply for a temporary residence permit. That can then become permanent residence based on compassionate grounds.

Get ready for more claims. Furthermore, it doesn’t specifically limit one spouse per person.

12. CANZUK Will Erase Borders

(The CPC strongly supports CANZUK)

(CPC policy is to give temporary workers permanent residence status wherever it is feasible. From Page 52 of policy guidelines)

The Conservative Party of Canada fully endorses CANZUK. This is the Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK pact which eliminates trade and movement barriers between countries. Plainly said, it erases the borders. While this seems harmless, it must be noted that the agreement explicitly states that other nations may be added later.

Using political, social and economic analysis, CANZUK International’s Research Associate, Luke Fortmann, explores the future possibilities of other countries joining a free movement and trade alliance with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

A useful way to begin is by taking a look at the CANZUK countries’ dependent territories, such as Christmas Island, the Cook Islands and Anguilla, for example, which are dependencies of Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, respectively, as well as the UK’s Crown dependencies (Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man).

Each area would naturally become full members of the new group along with the nations to which they are related. Some advocates claim that these small islands, and their generally sparse populations, are currently under-utilised, and that a CANZUK alliance would offer a tremendous opportunity for their communities to acquire a far more extensive set of rights by becoming equal partners in a union, while shaking off their somewhat colonial tint.

Widening our scope, we arrive at the Commonwealth realms. These realms are sovereign states who are members of the Commonwealth and who currently share Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch, of which, there are 16 including the CANZUK countries.

Additionally, it’s been noted that, particularly concerning the more populous realms such as Jamaica and Papua New Guinea, immediate free movement would generate a rush of emigrants who may be poorly equipped for employment in the CANZUK countries; while at the same time enticing the more skilled minority away from their homeland in search of better-paying positions in the richer nations, ridding schools and hospitals of vital staff.

Instinctively, the next place to turn is to the Commonwealth as a whole. Broadening our vision in this way does present some of the same issues, as well as some new ones. A complete Commonwealth union would of course be dominated by India, with a population of over 1.3 billion, along with Pakistan (193 million), Nigeria (186 million), and Bangladesh (163 million) who would dwarf the CANZUK countries in terms of inhabitants, rendering them merely minor players.

Does that scare you yet? India, Pakistan, Nigeria and Bangladesh have a combined population of almost 2 billion people. Imagine erasing the border between them and Canada. It would be a population overrun, if even 10% of those people came here.

What does the (potential) CANZUK list look like?

  • Anguilla
  • Antigua
  • Australia
  • Bahamas
  • Bangladesh
  • Barbados
  • Belize
  • Canada
  • Christmas Island
  • Cook Islands
  • Grenada
  • Guernsey
  • India
  • Isle of Mann
  • Jamaica
  • Jersey
  • New Zealand
  • Nigeria
  • Pakistan
  • Papua New Guinea
  • Saint Lucia
  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Solomon Island
  • Tuvalu
  • United Kingdom

CANZUK is a trojan horse. It is “marketed” to the public as a loosening of borders between only Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. However, the group makes it explicit that other countries joining is entirely possible.

If, for example 50 million Indians were to come to Canada (just 4% of their population), Canada would double in size, and the voting results would be altered forever. This is demographic replacement.

13. Global Migration Compact Implemented

While officially “non-binding”, that is not really the case. They can become the basis for court decisions at later dates. For reviews, see here, see here, and see here.

This was signed by the Liberals on December 10, 2018. While the People’s Party, and now the Conservative Party, claim to oppose the Compact, how serious are they? Both “conservative” parties support mass migration and give little thought to protectionist measures.

“Conservative” parties value immigration for growth in terms of population and GDP. They care little, if at all, of ensuring cultural compatibility. Furthermore, conservatives never focus on boosting births within their nations. It is always more immigration.

14. Focus On Raising Local Birthrates

(Russia on boosting birthrates)

(Hungary: No income tax for women with 4+ children)

Thailand is encouraging more children. Italy is doing a land giveaway for married couples.

Why do Canada’s politicians not do this? Why is the solution always immigration? The exact methods and incentives are totally up for debate, sure. But governments should be encouraging their own citizens to have more children if they need more growth, or even just to reverse a decline.

Guess what, when you try to replace with migration, you eventually replace your population. Having more Canadian children here, and raising them as Canadians is far preferable to importing replacement cultures.

15. Canadians Need To Know The Truth

Yes, some of these topics have been covered before. But the truth still needs to be told, and needs to be made clear.

Canada’s politicians are lying about the scale of mass migration and replacement migration in Canada. The “debate” is limited to a few categories, while others are ignored. In fact, it is those “ignored” topics that actually comprise the bulk of immigration in Canada

Canada’s annual immigration rate is not around 300,000 to 350,000. All told, it is more like a million a year. The public is lied to about this.

Not only is the full scale lied about, but globalist politicians in Canada want to erase borders with agreements like CANZUK and the Global Migration Compact.

If more people are needed, then they should come from within. Boost the birthrate of Canadians, and grow the country organically.

WE NEED CANADIAN CHILDREN, NOT REPLACEMENT MIGRATION

Please spread the truth, and make other people aware.

CANZUK — Erasing Canada’s Borders and Sovereignty

(CPC party convention in Halifax, 97%-3% vote in favour of partially erasing Canadian borders)

(Canzuk video on its website)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for CANZUK International.
CLICK HERE, for prior article of Conservative party endorsing a variety of globalist policies.
CLICK HERE, for possible expansion of CANZUK Zone.
CLICK HERE, for nations which Queen Elizabeth is head of.

CLICK HERE, for a proposed “CANZUK Army”.

2. CANZUK’s Political Advisors

A lot of members of the “Conservative” Party of Canada. Have to wonder exactly what they’re “conserving” here. Also worth mentioning that Andrew Scheer, a “Conservative” also appears on the site with enthusiastic support for the agenda.

It was bad enough to see Scheer chugging a milk at his acceptance speech, (as his win was provided by Dairy Cartel rigging). This is arguably much worse. The erasure of Canada and Canadian borders marketed as opportunity.

3. CANZUK’s Official Mission

CANZUK International (CI) is the leading group advocating closer ties between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, known amongst diplomats at the United Nations as the ‘CANZUK Group’.

Free Trade
CANZUK International seeks to establish a comprehensive multi-lateral free trade agreement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Customs duties and other barriers to commerce would be removed. Such a union would give its constituent members more collective bargaining power in dealing with large trading partners such as the USA, China, India and the European Union.
.
Freedom of movement within the CANZUK Group for citizens of the four realms would be an essential ingredient for a successfully open market. As these nations have compatible economic profiles, this form of immigration would be unlikely to lead to distortions in labour markets. Not only would an arrangement of this kind make good economic sense, it would reinforce a feeling of solidarity amongst the four kindred peoples. The Trans-Tasman Travel Agreement between Australia and New Zealand is a working model upon which to build. Although freedom of movement exists for citizens of both countries, there is an exclusion provision for those deemed to be a threat to the national interest. In this way mobility can foster trade and economic growth without jeopardising security.

Foreign Policy
CANZUK International endeavours to promote greater cooperation amongst the CANZUK Group with respect to foreign policy, defence and intelligence gathering. The ‘Five Eyes’ (FVEY) agreement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America has been highly effective in gathering signals, military and human intelligence. It provides a useful starting point for a more comprehensive diplomatic alliance for the nations of the CANZUK Group, which would compliment the work of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). An association comprising Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom would enjoy a more balanced relationship with the United States. Collectively, these countries could be global rather than merely regional players in the geopolitical arena.

Constitutional Affairs
The shared Sovereign would be an essential aspect of any CANZUK Group association. The monarch, who represents a global institution, has played an important role as a symbol of a common heritage and parliamentary tradition. Furthermore, the Crown has been the cornerstone of democratic government and the rule of law over a long history of peaceful constitutional development. It is instructive to note that the English speaking countries which have retained the monarchy have been far more successful in avoiding civil unrest than their republican counterparts.
.
In concrete terms, the existing dialogue between viceregal representatives and the judiciary of the CANZUK Group should be encouraged. This initiative could build upon meetings that already occur between the Governors-General of the various Commonwealth realms every two years. The joint decision to revise the royal succession laws through the Perth Agreement of 2011 is a good example of effective collaboration in regard to matters of constitutional law.

One interesting thing is that this only talks about such closer cooperation between the “CANZUK” nations: Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the UK. A lot of this seems very reasonable.

However, in a different part of the website, CANZUK International talks about extending memberships far beyond the original 4 members. And it is quite a long list.

Remember: it is pitched to the general populations as increased cooperation between 4 nations of fairly similar language, culture and customs. That is how to sell it. Once it is sold and operational, the goal becomes to expand its size and influence.

Nice bait-and-switch.

4. CANZUK Could Expand To Other Countries

Using political, social and economic analysis, CANZUK International’s Research Associate, Luke Fortmann, explores the future possibilities of other countries joining a free movement and trade alliance with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

It should be said that a new Commonwealth union would be welcoming of any potential members – with each being considered on a case-by-case basis – and that the CANZUK project is very much a work in progress; always receptive of fresh ideas and potential avenues to explore.

A useful way to begin is by taking a look at the CANZUK countries’ dependent territories, such as Christmas Island, the Cook Islands and Anguilla, for example, which are dependencies of Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, respectively, as well as the UK’s Crown dependencies (Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man).

Each area would naturally become full members of the new group along with the nations to which they are related. Some advocates claim that these small islands, and their generally sparse populations, are currently under-utilised, and that a CANZUK alliance would offer a tremendous opportunity for their communities to acquire a far more extensive set of rights by becoming equal partners in a union, while shaking off their somewhat colonial tint.

Widening our scope, we arrive at the Commonwealth realms. These realms are sovereign states who are members of the Commonwealth and who currently share Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch, of which, there are 16 including the CANZUK countries.

But, whether founded or not, the notion that free immigration was causing problems for the UK was undoubtedly a primary motivation for its departure from the European Union. A CANZUK union would seek to avoid such issues by moving slowly and steadily with the original four members, providing economic assistance to the realms before allowing their eventual membership.

Additionally, it’s been noted that, particularly concerning the more populous realms such as Jamaica and Papua New Guinea, immediate free movement would generate a rush of emigrants who may be poorly equipped for employment in the CANZUK countries; while at the same time enticing the more skilled minority away from their homeland in search of better-paying positions in the richer nations, ridding schools and hospitals of vital staff.

Instinctively, the next place to turn is to the Commonwealth as a whole. Broadening our vision in this way does present some of the same issues, as well as some new ones. A complete Commonwealth union would of course be dominated by India, with a population of over 1.3 billion, along with Pakistan (193 million), Nigeria (186 million), and Bangladesh (163 million) who would dwarf the CANZUK countries in terms of inhabitants, rendering them merely minor players.

When weighing up the potential barriers to entry that many of these Commonwealth countries have, we’re often confronted with the challenge that this new alliance is concerned only with nations that are populated by white folk. Such criticism is fairly lazy and can be easily dealt with. Firstly, as we’ve just seen, there’s absolutely no reason why these countries couldn’t join in the future, so long as efforts were directed at bringing them up to par in the ways just discussed.

At first, the project will be challenging enough, and caution will be required. Having said that, and as previously mentioned, CANZUK’s immense potential truly knows no bounds, and, down the line, further options can always be explored.

Theoretically, who could become part of CANZUK at some point in the future? Here is the list, based on the above criteria and comments:

  • Anguilla
  • Antigua
  • Australia
  • Bahamas
  • Bangladesh
  • Barbados
  • Belize
  • Canada
  • Christmas Island
  • Cook Islands
  • Grenada
  • Guernsey
  • India
  • Isle of Mann
  • Jamaica
  • Jersey
  • New Zealand
  • Nigeria
  • Pakistan
  • Papua New Guinea
  • Saint Lucia
  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Solomon Island
  • Tuvalu
  • United Kingdom

Really? We were told this was an agreement between 4 first world, developed nations. Now we are bringing in half of the third world.

Let’s be clear: marketing with the 4 nations (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK) is just a sales pitch. The agreement could very well expand once this is in motion. And it likely will.

5. Possible CANZUK Joint Defense Force

The first objective of any government is to protect its own citizens from external danger. How can CANZUK help achieve that goal?

Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have a common military heritage, and this shows in things as diverse as ranks, camouflage patterns and banners. They have a high degree of inter-operability – and in some cases, citizens of one nation can join the armed forces of another.

The nations have strategic similarities as well. Three out of four are island nations, whilst the fourth, Canada has the longest coastline of any nation. This places a premium on naval power – all the nations have considerable dependence on trade, vulnerability to blockades and an interest of open sea-lanes.

No joke. They are open about joint military and naval ventures. Interesting to note: aren’t this countries all part of NATO? How exactly would that square with those obligations, especially as Canada can’t afford to pay for its NATO commitments anyway?

To be fair, this soldier-swap already exists to a degree. The UK accepts Commonwealth citizens in its military. To a limited degree, Canada, Australia and New Zealand allow foreigners in as well. This seems a way to do it on a much bigger scale.

6. Where Is CANZUK Going?

CANZUK International was founded in January 2015 as The Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation, and is the world’s leading non-profit organisation advocating freedom of movement, free trade and foreign policy coordination between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (the “CANZUK” countries).

Our campaign advocates closer cooperation between these four nations so they may build upon existing economic, diplomatic and institutional ties to forge a cohesive alliance of nation-states with a truly global outlook.

This seems harmless enough, but this will not be the end of it. The group will want to expand its sphere of influence and start controlling more issues and policies.

Remember, before the EU, there was a 6 nation bloc (France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Belgium). They started a trade agreement amongst themselves. Today, it is 28 nations — though the UK is leaving — and controls everything from budgets to agriculture to immigration. It swelled far beyond its original purpose.

It is very easy to see the “CANZUK 4” become 6, 8, 12, or 15. And those innocuous issues discussed on the website may morph into foreign bodies actually controlling national agendas.

As is obvious, the Conservative Party of Canada is an enthusiastic supporter of the CANZUK agenda. This is apparently regardless of the long-term erosion of national sovereignty. Globalists.

Canada’s Current Immigration Intake About 1M/Annually

(Temporary Foreign Workers can become Permanent Residents)

(One option for college, university graduates is the Provincial Nominee Program. Its name varies slightly by Province)

(From the 2018 Report to Parliament)

(From the 2018 Report to Parliament)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for a previous article on the subject.
CLICK HERE, for an earlier article. Hungary promotes higher birth rates while UN encourages replacement migration.

CLICK HERE, for 2018 Report to Parliament on Immigration.
CLICK HERE, for StatsCan 2018-2019 estimates. (Over 1/2 million new citizens)
CLICK HERE, for StatsCan data (165K new temporary residents)

CLICK HERE, for StatsCan data on births/year.
CLICK HERE, for StatsCan data on deaths/year.
CLICK HERE, for deaths in 2017.

2. Words Of Wisdom Here

If a Conservative or Nationalist isn’t willing to talk about the FULL SCALE of immigration into the country, there’s no reason to trust anything they say on the subject.

Remember this message.

3. Rants Derek Drops The Red Pill


Derek dropped a number of truth bombs in this video. Watch 1:10 to 1:50 for the relevant facts. His channel is a great resource for Canadians on many topics.

  • Hundreds of thousands of temporary workers, with a pathway to permanent residence status
  • Hundreds of thousands of student visas, with a pathway to permanent residence status
  • Actual number close to 1 million
  • 1/2 million new citizens in a year
  • Surge in citizens means surge in voters

4. From the 2018 Report To Parliament

Year TFW Int Mobility Student
2015 73,016 175,967 218,147
2016 78,402 207,829 265,111
2017 78,788 224,033 317,328

Remember: This table only covers “temporary” entrants (workers and students), and is outside what politicians typically declare. While these programs are officially marketed as temporary, there are a number of avenues to stay longer and become a permanent resident.

Now, combine the 2017 “temporary” totals with the approximately 350,000 permanent and refugees that the government declares and you get this.

350,000 (Perm + Refugee)
+78,788 (Temp Foreign Workers)
+224,033 (International Mobility)
+317,328 (Student Visas)
970,149 (total)

Now it is certainly true that many will not stay. However, the vast majority of them will try to. There are many legal avenues to extend a visa, or get a new one. Then there comes the sticky issue of chain migration

Think about it: why drop $100,000 on a useless college degree or program, or work for slave labour for years, UNLESS the ultimate goal was a better life?

While these programs are sold to the public as “temporary”, the reality is that they are backdoor migration.

However, so-called Conservatives, and even some self-identified Nationalists don’t want to talk about the full scope of mass migration in Canada. They prefer to parrot the talking points of the mainstream political parties, who claim there is about 310,000 to 350,000 annually in Canada.

This applies to proposed “reductions” to 250K/annually, (now pegged at 100-150K), while ignoring the true size of the issue. A common talking point of “populists”.

Remember the rule from before.

5. Canada’s Population Isn’t Decreasing Naturally

Year Birth Deaths Diff Day
2013 380,323 252,338 127,985 343
2014 384,100 258,821 102,761 343
2015 382,392 264,333 118,059 323
2016 383,102 267,213 115,889 318
2017 379,450 276,689 102,761 281

Canada’s population is “naturally” growing at about 300 people/day, and has been for years. This is births and deaths. Immigration is not taken into account.

Of course, even if you need a bigger population, there is another way. It is the ways nations have always done, prior to the “multiculturalism” mental disorder. They grew their populations.

Side note: it’s also how Muslims plan to become a global majority and impose Sharia law everywhere. It’s not as if they embrace multiculturalism or pluralism. And guess what your tax dollars are being used for in Toronto hotels and public housing. See this video from Rebel Media

Now, it doesn’t have to be that way. Hungary, for example, is taking measures to reverse its declining birth rate. While the specifics vary by nation, this is a prime example of a leader putting his people first.


You also never hear mainstream “Conservatives” talking about the idea of promoting bigger families. It’s always “import more and more” and economic growth.

Conservatives give little to no consideration of the natural inclination of people to want children. Nor do they care that people who are raised in Canada grow up as Canadians. Forget the culture. Forget the society. Besides, nations aren’t the people, but just abstract ideas apparently.

Canada already has people from a large array of backgrounds. Why not stop and work with what we have?

Ask yourself, which is more of a priority: economic growth, or protecting your way of life and culture? If the former, remember that eventually the demographics shift to such a degree that your way of life can be “democratically” rescinded.

6. Conservatives, Fake Nationalists, Are Gatekeepers

The Conservative Party of Canada’s policy declaration openly states it prefers to turn temporary workers into permanent residents. (Page 52, topic 139(ii)). Furthermore, the CPC endorsed CANZUK, which opens Canada’s borders to some other nations.

Maxime Bernier sort of addressed immigration rates into Canada, and was critical. However, he avoided the awkward truth that these “temporary” categories can lead to permanent residence.

Even Canadian Nationalist Party and National Citizens Alliance avoid the elephant in the room: 300K-350K is nowhere near the entire amount. And other parties seem to embrace the “mass migration is good” delusion.

Many self-identified Conservatives claim they are for much less immigration. However, they balk at the claim (and evidence) that it is much higher than they thought.

This seems an exercise in futility, and has led to many arguments. But such a topic must be discussed openly. Certainly, the exact numbers, programs, lengths, conditions for various programs should be open to debate. But it must be an informed debate or discussion.

Once more: If a Conservative or Nationalist isn’t willing to talk about the FULL SCALE of immigration into the country, there’s no reason to trust anything they say on the subject.

7. Why Go On About This Topic?

Because people need to know the truth about it.

They are being lied to daily by the media, and by politicians. It is a much easier sell to Canadians if they aren’t forced to look at the full numbers. It’s also easier to pitch is the lie is perpetuated that the population is declining and needs a boost.

And to restate, true, not everyone who comes to Canada will stay (regardless of entry class). But most will, given the standard of life here. Our laws allow many such pathways.

In a sense, the UN Global Migration Compact was a diversion and a soft target. EVERYONE was against it, and what it stood for.

Serious question to Canadians: Do you want to replace yourselves?

Canada’s Population To Reach 150M By Year 2100?

(Propaganda, Canada should be 100 million, Global Brief)

(Don’t worry, the UN can help)

Author’s note: the basis for this article is that Canadian politicians outright lie about the true size and scale of immigration into Canada.

While they “claim” it is approximately 300,000 to 320,000 people annually, it is not. Truthfully, when other categories are factored in, it is over 800,000 per year. That doesn’t even cover illegal migrants.

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for a previous review of CBC article on “Century Initiative”.
CLICK HERE, for a previous article searching the true size of immigration rates in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for research on forced diversity.
CLICK HERE, for the UN & replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for review of CBC pushing an agenda to replace the Canadian population. Less births + more mass migration.
CLICK HERE, for the Hungarian model, larger families.

CLICK HERE, for some StatsCan projections.
CLICK HERE, for StatsCan estimates of non-permanent residents.
CLICK HERE, for StatsCan’s conclusions in 2015.

2. Century Initiative

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.
.
Long term view and short term pain
.
According to Austin, if this goal isn’t met, Canada will struggle financially and governments won’t have enough to pay for the services we have come to expect in this country.
“We need to be prepared to put more money into certain things that will make sure our growth is successful,” she warned.
.
She also sees this as a way to create “a more diverse, more interesting, dynamic population.”

CBC published the article, and did an interview, seemingly with no real depth or critical questions. Little more than a puff piece.

There are so many questions I want to ask that group. Here is what I sent them. Unsurprisingly, they never responded.

(1) Who funds you exactly, and what is their political ideology?
(2) Does CBC endorse the article you did?
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-october-14-2018-1.4858401/canada-s-population-needs-to-be-100-million-by-2100-1.4860172
(3) Why should Canada be concerned with tripling its population?
(4) What would you say to critics who would argue that this is unnecessary, and just globalist propaganda?
(5) With this focus on mass immigration, why don’t you mention the many challenges that it has had, such as: (a) incompatible cultures; (b) language barriers; (c) difficulties doing proper screening — ISIS; (d) high unemployment, (e) stresses on the host nation; (f) medical and health issues and so on?
(6) Why focus on immigration when their are so many Canadian youth struggling to get meaningful work?
(7) Why focus on immigration to boost population when there are so many Canadians who would like to have more kids?
(8) Is your goal to change the nature and culture of Canada through mass immigration?
(9) Is your goal to dismantle or take away any of Canada’s sovereignty?
(10) Is your goal economic migration or “humanitarian” migration? And considering how many “refugees” become public charges, would that not be a drain on the public funds?
(11) Do you believe in open borders or globalism?

Amazing the garbage that our tax dollars air in public. It would have been nice for CBC to either push back a little, or show some skepticism.

3. Current Immigration Rates

This is reposted from the earlier article on estimating the true size of Canada’s immigration rates. How the estimates came by is outlined in that article.

A few assumptions:
(1) Although International Mobility is “meant” to be temporary, visa holders absolutely can find ways to obtain other visas, or apply for PR in certain cases, so count the entire amount.
(2) The data on international students appears to lump “current” visa holders in, it doesn’t specify the length of the visas (nor how long each would be good for). While some numbers put it at close to half a million overall, 150,000 permits would be a reasonable number to put.

Category Number
Permanent Immigration 310,000
Temp Foreign Worker 80,000
International Mobility 225,000
International Student 150,000
“Refugees” 45,000
Totals (approx.) 810,000

So 800,000 people annually, assuming all categories are counted, and assuming these numbers are accurate. For the sake of simplicity, let’s say yes they are. True, not everyone will stay in Canada. But the vast majority will, if given the chance.

And also, for the sake of simplicity, let’s assume that the globalist “leaders” won’t raise the rates, or come up with new programs, as unlikely as that is.

4. Estimate 2100 Population

Note: using an annuity calculator is not the same thing as proper modelling for population estimates. However, as a crude estimate, it will work.


With the “desired” annual intake of 450,000 people/annually, this would add about 63 million to Canada’s population by the year 2100. This would be very close to the 100 million that Century Canada is advocating for. It is also what the current Federal Government is calling for.

Again, while this is extremely rough, the average growth rate (from birth rates) would be about 1.32%. This doesn’t take host population into account, as birth rates are pretty flat, if not outright declining.

However, as shown previously, the annual intake of Canada is approximately 800,000 people annually. Possibly even higher.

Now we use the same calculator, again, assuming 1.32% growth, and zero growth for host population

Using this intake, it will add about 112 million more people, and the Canadian population will approach 150 million.

Yes, this is greatly simplified. However, the point was to illustrate that “current” mass migration rates far exceed those globalist agendas.

It’s like they don’t want us to know about what goes on.

5. Where Will The Real Growth Be?

This man, talking to Rebel Media, was stunningly blunt and honest. We have families, we are making babies, you are not. By 2060, according to Pew Research (Western research), Muslims will be the biggest group anywhere. What are Westerners going to do then?

Where is the lie here? Guess who is breeding? Muslims know that demographics is destiny.

6. It Doesn’t Have To Be Like This

Canada, wake up. Your politicians are lying to you about immigration into Canada. Moreover, this “civic nationalism” they promote is glorified multiculturalism.

Canada is not admitting ~300K people annually. It is close to triple that. By 2100, there could very well be close to 150 million people in Canada. Instead of promoting the Hungarian model of larger families, the solution is to import more people.

Culture, language, religion, customs…. none of that matters. What is important is getting the numbers up, and being tolerant. After all, having nothing in common makes us stronger.

It is not all rainbows and unicorns. Our “leaders” gloss over the issues with mixing incompatible cultures. They tell groups to “preserve their identities” and that diversity is our strength.

Refugee Selection: UN v.s. Civil Societies, Does It Matter?

(Lauren Southern reports on asylum fraud)

(UN publication on human trafficking)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda #2, Europe Needs Open Borders.
CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda #8, Border Walls Are Useless.

CLICK HERE, for UN supports migrant caravan invasion into USA.
CLICK HERE, for more on US invasion through Mexico.
CLICK HERE, for UN page on NGOs.
CLICK HERE, for UN Refugee Agency, and NGO/Civil Societies.
CLICK HERE, for UN New York Declaration (2016).
CLICK HERE, for previous coverage of New York Declaration
CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact (2018)
CLICK HERE, for UN book on people smuggling.

CLICK HERE, for Interpol and human smuggling.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto.

2. Advocates Abroad And Ariel Ricker

(Advocates Abroad Homepage)

(Lauren Southern exposing Ariel Ricker on coaching “refugees” to lie).

At least one organization, Advocates Abroad, is openly committing fraud in trying to get bogus “refugees” into Europe. This is done by concocting convincing stories with specific details in hopes of duping refugee agencies.

(From this RT article)

Ariel Ricker, the executive director of Advocates Abroad, a major non-profit NGO which provides legal aid to migrants, has been caught on tape openly discussing how she teaches refugees to lie to border agents. The video was released by Canadian right-wing activist, author and internet personality, Lauren Southern, and will be a part of her new documentary film project ‘Borderless,’ which takes on the European migration crisis.

One method she teaches migrants is to exploit the presumed Christian sympathies of the predominantly Eastern Orthodox Greece by pretending to have been persecuted for being Christian. She even describes telling them how to pray during interviews, ironically because doing so reflects “honesty.”

Advocates Abroad claim the video was selectively edited and manipulated to serve a particular agenda.

3. Other NGO Activities

CLICK HERE, for Advocates Abroad.
CLICK HERE, for smuggling 40 migrants into Italy.
CLICK HERE, for people smuggling into Europe.
CLICK HERE, for NGOs smuggling Muslims into Italy.
CLICK HERE, for “humanitarian” smuggling into Greece.
CLICK HERE, for Soros funded NGOs smuggling ISIS into Europe.

Of course the above links are just a tiny sample.

Interesting that Canada signed the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto.

The Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, adopted by General Assembly resolution 55/25, entered into force on 28 January 2004. It deals with the growing problem of organized criminal groups who smuggle migrants, often at high risk to the migrants and at great profit for the offenders. A major achievement of the Protocol was that, for the first time in a global international instrument, a definition of smuggling of migrants was developed and agreed upon. The Protocol aims at preventing and combating the smuggling of migrants, as well as promoting cooperation among States parties, while protecting the rights of smuggled migrants and preventing the worst forms of their exploitation which often characterize the smuggling process.

Canada claims to be against human smuggling. Yet we sign treaties (like the New York Declaration and Global Migration Compact), which facilitate human smuggling.

4. Interpol’s Take On Human Smuggling

For centuries, people have left their homes in search of better lives. In the last decade, the process of globalization has caused an unprecedented amount of migration from the least developed countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe to Western Europe, Australia and North America.

With this, we have seen an increase in the activities of organized criminal networks who facilitate irregular migration. By providing fake identification documents, organizing transport, and bypassing official border controls, criminals are making huge profits.

People smuggling syndicates are run like businesses, drawn by the high profit margins and low risks. They benefit from weak legislation and a relatively low risk of detection, prosecution and arrest compared to other activities of transnational organized crime.

Smuggling networks can be extensive and complex, and can include people who carry out a number of different roles:

A report published jointly by Europol and INTERPOL in May 2016 estimates that more than 90% of the migrants coming to the European Union are facilitated, mostly by members of a criminal network.

Worth pointing out: that while Interpol cites the UN’s policies against human smuggling, it neglects to mention that the UN’s policies around “rights” for illegals go a long way towards incentivizing mass illegal immigration.

It also neglects to point out the underhanded means which host countries have these forced on their populations by politicians.

5. Media Pussyfoots Around Illegal Immigration

(From a CBC article)

“Desperate migrants are choosing ever more dangerous sea routes to Europe and using smaller and less seaworthy boats, causing a sharp increase in drowning deaths, warns the International Organization for Migration.”

“Meanwhile in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is ratcheting up his attacks on the European Union, calling it a “transport agency” for migrants that hands out funds and “anonymous bank cards” to “terrorists and criminals.”
.
“This is the kind of slippery slope which could again lead to a broken Europe,” Orbán declared today in an interview on Hungarian public radio.

The author of this trash deliberately and repeatedly skirted the main issue here: these hoards of “migrants” trying to get into Europe were doing so ILLEGALLY. Hence places like Hungary have every right to secure their borders.

(From one CBC interview)

“AMT: We all remember the Berlin Wall coming down. In fact it was 30 years ago this year. I’ve got a clip here that I’d like you to hear. These are two Germans talking about what it felt like to stand on top of the Berlin Wall after the crowds started streaming across the border.
.
AMT: Elisabeth Vallet, how did the fall of that iconic wall affect our ideas around the usefulness or function of walls?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: Well actually if you remember in 1989 it opened a almost a hippie era of international relations, where we believed that it was the end of borders me. Maybe even the end of state sovereignty or even the fading sovereignty of the state. We believed that peace would be dominating and that conflicts would be solved by the international community. It actually showed the good the positive aspects of globalization. And we overlooked the negative aspects of globalization. And when 9/11 arrived, it’s as if that negative aspect of globalization showed its face. And that’s when the only solution to that, governments came up with the one only solution which was building border fences, because there is no way to retain globalization, to contain globalization.”

In this garbage, the “expert” compares the Berlin Wall to border walls in general. The Berlin wall was built in the 1960s to keep Germans from fleeing, and in fact kept them prisoner. This is conflated with building walls to stop illegal immigration.

The above are just 2 examples of how media outlets (like the CBC) try to shade and distort the truth by downplaying how serious and criminal these actions actually are. They play to emotion and selectively avoid hard truths.

6. UN Openly Aids And Abets Refugee Fraud

(UN supports ongoing efforts to undermine US/Mexico border)

It involves some serious mental gymnastics to explain how the UN can both:

  1. Support mass, uncontrolled entry into other countries
  2. Oppose circumventing laws to get migrants into other countries

San Jose – The UN Migration Agency, IOM, continues to provide support and assistance to migrants who have joined the migrant caravans crossing Central America and opted to seek asylum in Mexico or return to their countries of origin.

In the Siglo XXI Migratory Station of Tapachula, managed by the National Institute for Migration (INM) of Mexico, IOM and the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs (SRE) have been supplying food and basic hygiene kits to over 1,500 migrants from the caravans seeking asylum in Mexico.

“IOM maintains its position that the human rights and basic needs of all migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status,” says Christopher Gascon, IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico. “In coordination with UNHCR we will continue to monitor the situation of the caravan counting on field staff, the Mexican Office of Assistance for Migrants and Refugees (DAPMyR), and partner NGOs, providing information regarding alternatives for regular and safe migration, as well as options for voluntary returns.”

“The caravan phenomenon in Central America is another expression of a migration process that the region has been facing for quite some time,” explains Marcelo Pisani, IOM Regional Director for Central America, North America, and the Caribbean. “It is a mixed migration flow, driven by economic factors, family reunification, violence and the search for international protection, among others.

That’s right. The UN admits that many of these cases are not refugees.

The United Nations willingly aids and abets efforts to overwhelm the US/Mexico border. Even knowing that the bulk of the asylum claims are bogus, the UN sees nothing immoral about perpetrating a fraud. Nor is there anything immoral about the burden dumped on the American public.

What is eerie is how coordinated these “refreshment aid packages” are delivered. Almost as if the UN planned this invasion from the beginning.

7. UN Erasing Borders With New York Declaration (2016) and Global Migration Compact (2018)

The New York Declaration (2016) was covered here previously.

5. We reaffirm the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. We reaffirm also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recall the core international human rights treaties. We reaffirm and will fully protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, regardless of status; all are rights holders. Our response will demonstrate full respect for international law and international human rights law and, where applicable, international refugee law and international humanitarian law.

49. We commit to strengthening global governance of migration. We therefore warmly support and welcome the agreement to bring the International Organization for Migration, an organization regarded by its Member States as the global lead agency on migration, into a closer legal and working relationship with the United Nations as a related organization. We look forward to the implementation of this agreement, which will assist and protect migrants more comprehensively, help States to address migration issues and promote better coherence between migration and related policy domains.

56. We affirm that children should not be criminalized or subject to punitive measures because of their migration status or that of their parents.

77. We intend to expand the number and range of legal pathways available for refugees to be admitted to or resettled in third countries. In addition to easing the plight of refugees, this has benefits for countries that host large refugee populations and for third countries that receive refugees.

The UN Global Migration Compact (2018) was covered here, and again here. Sorry, but I don’t believe Michelle Rempel’s half-assed “rejection” of the Compact.

OBJECTIVE 5: Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
21. We commit to adapt options and pathways for regular migration in a manner that facilitates labour mobility and decent work reflecting demographic and labour market realities, optimizes education opportunities, upholds the right to family life, and responds to the needs of migrants in a situation of vulnerability, with a view to expanding and diversifying availability of pathways for safe, orderly and regular migration

OBJECTIVE 11: Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
27. We commit to manage our national borders in a coordinated manner, promoting bilateral and regional cooperation, ensuring security for States, communities and migrants, and facilitating safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration. We further commit to implement border management policies that respect national sovereignty, the rule of law, obligations under international law, human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, and are non-discriminatory, gender-responsive and child-sensitive.

OBJECTIVE 13: Use immigration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
29. We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize noncustodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.

OBJECTIVE 15: Provide access to basic services for migrants
31. We commit to ensure that all migrants, regardless of their migration status, can exercise their human rights through safe access to basic services. We further commit to strengthen migrant inclusive service delivery systems, notwithstanding that nationals and regular migrants may be entitled to more comprehensive service provision, while ensuring that any differential treatment must be based on law, proportionate, pursue a legitimate aim, in accordance with international human rights law.

OBJECTIVE 17(c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internetbased information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media

The United Nations is fully on board with erasing borders with their mass migration policies. The 2016 and 2018 agreements leave no doubt of that.

Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), or Civil Societies, are involved in bringing large numbers of people from the third world over to the first. Some do it out of guilt or conscience, while others do it for money.

Obvious question: Do these NGOs and the UN work together?

8. Many NGOs (Civil Societies) Work With UN

(NGO Branch Department of Economic and Social Affairs of UN)

(The UN “directly” collaborates with NGOs/Civil Societies)

Faced with many complex challenges in recent years, UNHCR has redoubled its efforts to strengthen its partnerships with UN organizations and NGOs, both international and national, seeking to maximise complementarity and sustainability in its work for refugees and others of concern.

Today, UNHCR works with more than 900 funded, operational and advocacy partners to ensure that the rights and needs of populations of concern are met. UNHCR continues to give high priority to its relations with partners, and strives to strengthen strategic and operational collaboration at global, regional and country levels.

The main goal of the organization’s vast network of partnerships is to ensure better outcomes for persons of concern by combining and leveraging complementary resources and working together in a transparent, respectful and mutually beneficial way. These partnerships also underpin UNHCR’s engagement in inter-agency fora and processes, where mutual understanding and strong alliances help ensure that refugees, IDPs and stateless persons are adequately prioritised.

CLICK HERE, for UN Refugee Partners.

So, how exactly would switching Canada’s reliance on refugee selection be helped here? If NGOs (Civil Societies) directly work with the UN, then is there any real difference?

The UN cites over 900 fully funded partners. Other than possibly decentralizing the process, what is the point here? Is it a policy distinction without a difference?

9. UN Hypocrisy On Human Smuggling

From the UN’s own package on smuggling people:

(Page 8) Salt and Stein suggested treating international migration as a global business that has both legitimate and illegitimate sides. The migration business is conceived as a system of institutionalized networks with complex profit and loss accounts, including a set of institutions, agents and individuals each of which stands to make a commercial gain.

The model conceives trafficking and smuggling as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies in destination countries. Salt and Stein conclude their theory by citing the need to look at immigration controls in a new way, placing sharper focus on the institutions and vested interests involved rather than on the migrants themselves.

Aranowitz puts forward a similar view and claims that smuggling could not have grown to such proportions if it were not supported by powerful market forces. Furthermore, Aranowitz argues that smugglers exhibit entrepreneur-like behaviour and circumvent legal requirements through corruption, deceit and threats. They specialize either in smuggling or in trafficking services, and the profit generated varies accordingly.

Interesting. The UN absolutely does recognize the “business” element of human trafficking, and likens it to any other type of business. It is driven by high demand.

However, the elephant in the room must be pointed out. The UN itself helps to drive such demand with its “one world” policies. By arranging accords (like New York or Global Migration Compact), the UN helps create these conditions. If it becomes mandatory that a host country MUST provide basic services, regardless of legal status, then people will flock to those countries. The UN also tries to facilitate housing and other social services at the expense of taxpayers.

To add insult to injury, these accords limit the ability of host Governments to jail illegals, and attempt to shut down legitimate criticism.

10. Canada’s Aud-G Uncovers Citizenship Fraud

(Rebel Media: Auditor General Michael Ferguson reports)

Citizenship being granted to people:

  • With prior, serious criminal records
  • Who commit crimes after arriving
  • Who are using fake addresses

About the fake addresses, the video talks about 50 people using the same address (as one example) to claim residency.

The Rebel video makes a great point: If this Ministry can’t be bothered to properly follow up on obvious cases of citizenship fraud, how can Canadians expect them to properly screen and select “refugees” for entry into Canada?

From this article.

The report shows that several people and possibly dozens managed to be accepted as Canadian citizens through fraud that went undetected, or through lax controls.

The report noted cases of people with serious criminal records who were accepted as citizens. It also found that between 2008 and 2015, 50 different applicants used the same single address on their citizenship applications during overlapping time periods during which time seven of the applicants became Canadian citizens. It took seven years before the scheme was found during an investigation.

The report also noted that in some 49 similar cases where an address anomaly had been detected, citizenship officials failed to follow-up on 18 of the cases to see if the applicants actually met residency requirements.

The report indicated that citizenship officers did not consistently apply their own standards to identify and deal with suspicious immigration documents including checking travel documents against the department’s database of lost, stolen and fraudulent documents.

11. What About Canada’s “Conservative” Parties?

CLICK HERE, for Conservative Party of Canada policies.
CLICK HERE, for People’s Party on refugees.

Disclaimer: political parties lie all the time, so take this with a grain of salt.

The CPC claims it will focus on “UN selected” refugee claimants, while the PPC claims that “Civil Society Groups” should be making the selections instead. However, this omits several important facts:

  • First, neither party will address the corruption and fraud that goes on both within the UN and with Civil Societies. Finding corruption within the process is a very quick and easy thing to do.
  • Neither will acknowledge that the vast majority of these “refugees” will likely be Islamic, an ideology which is completely incompatible with Western society. There is this MINOR problem of Muslims trying to take over the world.
  • This United Nations v.s. Civil Societies is a false distinction, as many Civil Societies work with the UN.
  • Canadians don’t want, nor were ever asked if they would support hordes of refugees being shipped into Canada.
  • Trudeau and the Liberals are an easy target for criticism for lack of proper screening. However, PPC and CPC fail to indicate how they would properly screen to protect Canadians.
  • Another question they won’t address: will these “refugees” be expected to work and contribute at some point, or will they be permanent welfare cases?

However, it would be fair to point out that Stephen Harper, in 2015, suggested focusing on Christians and Yazidis refugees. This would have been a considerable improvement over importing more Islam (and hence more Islamic violence), into Canada.

12. Little Difference In NGO v.s. UN Selection

Just an opinion, but there doesn’t seem to be much of a difference between the 2 ideas.

Considering how many Civil Societies (NGOs) work with the UN, it seems an exercise in futility to try to separate them.

And given the rampant corruption, and total lack of respect for national sovereignty, BOTH seem like very bad options.

How The Left Wages War On The American Republic

(2016 election, Electoral College)

(2016 election, by district)

(Snopes: LA County as big as 35 individual states)

Note: Each of the topics below could have been an article all by itself. However, in this instance, it is better to demonstrate the “pattern” and where it is all leading.

An individual even could be seen as an anomaly. However, it is better to connect the dots and view it all in context.

1. Important Links

YouTuber Mr. Reagan, created this video, and this video, on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Justice Democrats. Well worth a watch.

Previous Posts On This Site
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s Bill C-76, vouch voting.
CLICK HERE, for review on Canada’s Bill C-76.
CLICK HERE, for voting eiligibility, Part I, crime & citizenship.
CLICK HERE, for voting eligibility, Part II, identification.
CLICK HERE, for suing for right to enter illegally.
CLICK HERE, for Jewish and Islamic influence in US Congress.

Other Resources
CLICK HERE, for hypothetical: if only “x” voted
CLICK HERE, for Snopes article on Los Angeles v.s. 35 States.
CLICK HERE, for an article on bypassing the Electoral College
CLICK HERE, for removing “citizenship” from the 2020 census.

CLICK HERE, for NY giving driver’s licenses to illegals.
CLICK HERE, for Wikipedia listings of illegals being allowed State driver’s licenses.
CLICK HERE, for Florida banning sanctuary cities.
CLICK HERE, for letting felons vote.

CLICK HERE, for a budget with no wall funding.
CLICK HERE, for an Obama-donor judge blocking part of Trump’s border wall.
CLICK HERE, for thehill.com article on lawsuit to force the US to allow illegal entry on a massive scale.
CLICK HERE, for the UN deliberately undermining the US border, and US sovereignty.
CLICK HERE, for a video by The Red Elephants on Ilhan Omar calling out AIPAC influence in US politics.
CLICK HERE, for Saudi foreign influence.

2. US Electoral College v.s. Canadian Parliament

An important distinction here: Canada and the United States rely on different models to choose their leaders. Here is the difference in a nutshell.

CANADA has a Parliamentary system. Canadians vote on their MPs (currently there are 338 Federal districts). The Party with the majority (170) of the seats, or at least a plurality (in minority parliaments), governs. The Prime Minister is the leader of the largest party. The Senate consists of 105 unelected members, chosen by various Prime Ministers. If a majority of members vote against a Government, it is considered defeated.

THE UNITED STATES has a Congressional system. There is an “Electoral College”, gives each states so many of the 538 “votes”. The magic number to win is 270. Every decade, the maps are redrawn in accordance with the national census, giving growing states more votes, and other states less. Each state has its own rules for which Presidential Candidate gets the seats, but typically, the winner of the state gets them all. House of Representative Members, there are 435, are elected for 2 year terms. Each State has 2 Senators, which are elected for 6 year terms.

The Electoral College may seem strange, but it has a purpose, to ensure that smaller states are not overwhelmed by larger states. To provide some balance. The US is a republic, not a democracy. It is this “Electoral College” that leftists seek to undermine.

Why undermine it? Because it becomes an issue of popular vote v.s. electoral votes. In the 2016 election, Donald Trump won the Electoral College, and hence became President, despite have less overall votes. It is widely (and accurately) believed that the Electoral College tends to favour Republican Candidates, while the popular vote — due to those urban areas — tends to favour Democrats.

3. States’ Resolutions to Bypass Electoral College

As stated earlier, the Electoral College was meant to keep smaller States from becoming powerless compared to larger States. Extremely dense urban areas should not be able to wield such influence. However, a movement is underway for States to award their “votes” to the Candidate who wins the popular vote. This tactic will likely favour democrats.

From the fivethirtyeight.com article:

When Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016, it was the fourth time in American history — and the second time this century — that a candidate won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. Now a group of voting-rights activists is working to prevent any future presidents from taking office the same way.

The National Popular Vote initiative seeks to set up an interstate compact that would effectively do an end run around the Electoral College without actually abolishing it, which would require the lengthy, laborious process of building broad, bipartisan support to pass a constitutional amendment. The logic behind the compact is that the Constitution already gives states the power to award their electoral votes how they see fit, so each state that signs on to the compact agrees to award its electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote — not necessarily the candidate who wins that state. There’s just one catch: The agreement only goes into effect when the states who’ve joined are worth a total of 270 electoral votes — enough to deliver an automatic victory to the popular vote winner.

Ultimately, the biggest challenge to the National Popular Vote agreement may be a legal one. Election-law expert Rick Hasen at the University of California, Irvine School of Law told FiveThirtyEight he expected there would be serious legal challenges to the compact if it crosses the 270-elector threshold. Opponents may brandish the part of the Constitution that says that interstate compacts require the consent of Congress, or they may argue that it runs afoul of the Voting Rights Act because it may diminish the clout of minority voters. And, of course, there is the fact that it circumvents what the founders intended — the Electoral College was designed to be an indirect method of electing the president. So even if organizers somehow get states worth 270 electoral votes to join the compact, expect it to face a long fight in the courts challenging whether it can actually take effect.

There will certainly be a follow up article as this initiative progresses. But here is the takeaway:

Instead of States awarding their “votes” to the Presidential Candidate who actually wins their state, these states would instead give their votes to whoever won the overall popular vote. The intent is that states that a Republican would win, award the votes to the Democratic popular vote winner.

In short, this would do an end run around the Electoral College, and a significant check that has been in place for centuries.

4. Trying To Defraud Federal Census

There is actually a pending case before the Supreme Court on this issue. It is over whether or not “citizenship” should be on the census forms that are done every decade.

The Constitution requires an accurate population count every decade to guide government decisions from political mapmaking to federal spending. Recently revealed documents show the Commerce Department added the citizenship query after a political strategist found evidence doing so would undercount the true population and result in political districts that benefit Republican interests. As The Seattle Times’ Gene Balk reported, a study estimates a national undercount of more than 4 million residents — more than 75,000 in Washington— if the question is asked.

The above is an exerp from the Seattle Times, though there are many on the topic. The article is “partially” true in that the citizenship question will likely benefit Republican interests.

But the real issue is WHY that is.

As mentioned earlier, the States are each allotted so much of the 538 Electoral College votes, and those numbers shift with each census. But only citizens are allowed to vote in Federal elections, (although some municipal elections allow non-citizens).

But omitting the citizenship question blurs the line between citizen and non-citizen. Therefore, residents who are not citizens — or even illegal immigrants — would be able to count themselves and artificially boost the State’s population. With the increased population, the State would get more Electoral College votes, and hence wield more power in Federal elections.

5. Driver’s Licenses For Illegals, Auto Registration

New York State gives illegal immigrants driver’s licences. So do California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Vermont, and Washington.

That’s right. People who don’t have the legal right to be in the United States are allowed to legally obtain driver’s licenses.

Why? Supporters claim that it raises public safety if illegals are properly licensed and have access to some form of identification. The issue that these people are in the country ILLEGALLY is irrelevant.

Worth pointing out is that many States automatically upgrade their voting registry based on Department of Transportation records on driver’s licenses. What is the obvious conclusion?

People who are in the country illegally, are LEGALLY issued licenses, and then become registered to vote. Despite (again) not being allowed in the country in the first place. A good way to pad the voter rolls with new Democrat voters.

6. Sanctuary Cities

The twin bills — SB 168 and HB 527 — both passed through their final committees this week. They would create rules relating to federal immigration enforcement by prohibiting “sanctuary” policies and requiring state and local law enforcement to comply with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The bills also would give whistle-blower status to officers who report citizenship violations by undocumented immigrants detained in local jails on unrelated charges.

Under these bills, local law enforcement would be required to honor federal law enforcement’s request for an “immigration detainer,” meaning a request that another law enforcement agency detain a person based on probable cause to believe that the person is a “removable alien” under federal immigration law. The bill would essentially make the “request” a requirement.

Thankfully, Florida is showing some sense, although other States not so much. There are sanctuary cities across the US, and California is a “sanctuary state”.

But it is nice to see some pushback at least.

7. Efforts To Get Felons Voting

While this has a humanitarian spin on it, there is a more practical reason for letting ex-felons vote (and even letting people vote in prison). It is the idea that the votes will mostly benefit Democrats.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders says that they should and that voting is “inherent to our democracy — yes, even for terrible people.” Many of his rivals for the 2020 nomination aren’t as sure, and at least one opposes the idea outright. Sanders himself acknowledged that he was essentially writing an attack ad for Republicans to use against him through his support for the issue.

The question illustrates how Sanders continues to stand to the left of the other candidates as he endorses giving all prisoners, including those convicted of heinous crimes, the right to vote. Prodded by criminal justice activists, Democrats have largely embraced the politically safer cause of winning back access to the ballot box for felons who have served their time.

8. Opposing Efforts To Build Border Wall

A draft of the House Appropriations Committee’s fiscal 2020 Homeland Security spending bill does not provide any funding for additional Border Patrol Agents, Border Patrol checkpoints or border barriers — A decision that is sure to invite opposition from Republicans and President Donald Trump.

The draft bill does not provide any funding for additional Border Patrol Agents, Border Patrol checkpoints, or border barriers, a move that is expected to get pushback from Republicans and President Donald Trump, who has reallocated funding from other departments to build a border wall

Yes, the US Congress has been preventing much of this from getting done. This includes Republicans who supposedly back President Trump.

Given the continued invasion that has gone on for decades, it “should” be a straightforward, bipartisan matter to fix the laws. It is hard to imagine any other answer than most Members of Congress don’t want a real solution to the border crisis.

It’s almost as if Congress is being paid off not to close the border. See the video on this. And see the following tables.

This was covered in an earlier piece, but worth reprinting. The US Congress is subjected to a lot of foreign influence and money. While it is illegal for Presidential Candidates to receive such funding, there is little stopping Members of Congress from doing so.

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)

And no, that is not the end of it either.
Consider there are Saudi (Islamic) organizations that lobby as well.

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.

Could the reason Congress refuses to act be because of the Jewish and Islamic groups contributing to their campaigns? That is certainly part of it.

9. Corruption In US Judiciary

A federal judge who partially blocked President Trump’s plans to build a border wall along the United States-Mexico border previously donated almost $30,000 to former President Obama, other Democrats, and a political action committee.

U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam, an Obama appointee confirmed in 2014, donated $6,900 to Barack Obama’s debut campaign for president and $14,500 to his reelection campaign, according to federal election records. The same records also indicate he contributed $4,500 to the Democratic National Committee in 2012 and, between 2012 and 2015, sent $3,100 to the Covington Burling LLP PAC, which supports candidates from both parties. His contributions totaled $29,000.

Gilliam is one of three federal judges who have donated to Democratic candidates in the past and recently ruled against the Trump administration.

U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos and U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, both Obama appointees, ruled to release Trump’s financial documents demanded by Democratic subpoenas as investigations into President Trump continue in the wake of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

Unbelievable. Judges who donated to President Trump’s political opponents are issuing rulings against him.

Even if these Judges “could” be unbiased here, the proper thing would have been to recuse themselves from their respective cases. It is a clear conflict of interest.

If this border wall isn’t getting built, or if the Government is needlessly tied up, guess what happens? More illegals come in. Unscreened. Unvetted. Public funds used to accommodate. And once they are “settled” in the US, many will get driver’s licenses and be allowed to vote. The votes of genuine Americans will be offset by illegals.

It would be nice to know who is bankrolling the Judges in such matters. It seems doubtful that this influence is purely ideological.

And speaking of corruption in the courts, there is that little stunt in October 2018 where Liberals tried to sabotage the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. This happened with a far-fetched and wildly inconsistent claim of sexual assault from the 1980s.

What easier way to influence the highest court than by preventing judge’s with “incorrect” views from taking the bench?

10. Lawsuit To Allow Illegal Immigration

This was reported in thehill.com, and previously covered on this site. Interesting how impoverished migrants fleeing persecution happen to have a team of lawyers ready to launch court challenges on their behalf.

Trump’s professed and enacted policy towards thousands of caravanners seeking asylum in the United States is shockingly unconstitutional. President Trump continues to abuse the law, including constitutional rights, to deter Central Americans from exercising their lawful right to seek asylum in the United States, and the fact that innocent children are involved matters none to President Trump.

On top of the above, Trump has repeatedly professed that the caravan people will not get into this county, and just as significant, Trump has taken meaningful steps to ensure the world that this is his policy position/initiative, meaningful steps such as deploying thousands of active military troops to the border, waiting on caravan persons to arrive. The legal problem with Trump’s plan to stop caravan persons from entering this country is that Plaintiffs are seeking asylum, and Trump simply cannot stop them from legally doing so by using military, or anyone.

This would be funny, but is actually very serious. Lawyers are not just arguing that their clients have the right to seek asylum, but seek asylum specifically in the US. No other country, including multiple countries they passed through, will suffice.

The action also refers to “thousands” of asylum seekers. It seems reasonable to conclude they don’t want any sort of limitation.

And when thousands of unidentified people come marching to your border, what responsible President wouldn’t deploy the military to stop them?

11. UN Backs Mass Illegal Entry Into US

This was covered in another piece, but is worth repeating. The UN supports and condones, mass illegal entry into the US and other countries.

The United Nations Migration Agency, IOM, is providing support and assistance to migrants crossing Central America in several self-styled caravans, while expressing concern over “the stress and demands” they are placing on host countries.

All migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status – IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico

Under the guise of “human rights”, the UN aids and abets this invasion across the US/Mexico border.

12. War On The Well Being of US

So how bad are the problems in the US

  • End run around Electoral College
  • Fraud in the US Census
  • Driver’s Licenses for illegals, voting rights
  • 20+ million illegals in US
  • Sanctuary cities
  • Opposition to much needed border wall
  • Pushing to let felons vote
  • Corruption within the courts
  • Lawsuit to legalize illegal immigration
  • Congress paid off by Islamic lobby
  • Congress paid off by Jewish lobby
  • United Nations pushing for open borders

It is a war against the United States.
May she remain free.

World Domination: Connecting The Dots

How do you take over the world without war, guns, and bombs? You do it incrementally, and strategically. This guide will outline some of the major steps.

1. Important Links

This section will be empty. Instead, links are interwoven in the article. Also, Part II, will address who is behind these global takeover efforts.

2. Convention On Preventing & Punishing Genocide To Be Used As “Guideline”

No two ways about it. If you are serious about world domination, then you can’t have strong groups and populations standing in your path. The population needs to go. Either it needs to be killed off, or it needs to be “phased out”. This idea was addressed in a previous article.

He are sections of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishing Genocide:

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

This applies if there are certain groups, such as racial or ethnic, that are obstacles to the plan. Yes, we can kill them, or we can just reduce their populations, by preventing births or causing mental harm to the group.

Ironically, this convention outlines some effective “non-violent” ways to erase a group, or groups.

We will get back to this later.

3. Financing The Global Domination Mission

No doubt about it: a scheme to control the world is expensive and complex. The right people have to be in place, and the organization needed is substantial. So let’s discuss a few methods to finance our agenda.

(Option A:) Get wealthy nations to borrow extensively from private banks. Most countries have their own internal banking, which means that they effectively borrow from themselves. A much better alternative is to get nations to start borrowing from private banks, but never completely pay it back. This ensures permanent interest payments. However, we must be careful to fight any and all attempts by concerned citizens to take back control of their finances.

(Option B:) Convince wealthy nations to participate in bogus scheme such as the “climate change scam”, which is based entirely on junk science. Rather than endlessly appealing to give foreign aid (which we then steal), we should be appealing to the mutual survival instinct. Doing this can raise hundreds of billions in revenue each year. Sure there will be resistance, but we can establish some controlled opposition “Conservatives” to give the illusion of fighting for the average people. These initiatives, once established, will be profitable.

(Option C:) While using the money raised from (A) and (B) immediately seems like a good idea, we must be more strategic about it. A serious option is to loan out to developing nations, huge sums of money they cannot possibly pay back. As such, once nations begin defaulting, we can either seize assets, or “forgive debt” in return for favours. Sure this is predatory lending, and the middle class will suffer, but their leaders will be put in an impossible position.

Note: the debts that we “lend” to developing nations are not actually losses we accrued. Rather they will be from the perpetual “debt repayments”, which developed nations pay us after they started taking out private loans.

(Option D:) Make globalism more profitable and have our partners contribute to the efforts. Making mass migration more profitable leads to an almost endless supply of new customers. A wide variety of groups, can get involved, ensuring a diversified portfolio for us. By linking their business interests with our ideological interests, it will ensure these organizations are vested in our survival.

(Option E:) It doesn’t just have to be foreign aid that gets transferred outside of host nations. Many national pension funds are screaming to be invested in our global development. Sure, there are criticisms that they are underfunded and unsustainable, but the potential growth will offset any risks to the funds. If seniors object, we can always subsidize their efforts to start smoking.

(Option F:) For the purposes of trade, it is antiquated to think of it as “nations” trading. Rather, if we think of them as economic zones, trade can be liberalized much more effectively. Sure there will be job losses here and there. But it’s all for the good of the “global economy”.

4. Mass Migration Is Critical To Our Success

In order to achieve the “One World Order”, individual nations must be destroyed. Sure they may keep their flags and names, but for all practical purposes, they cannot exist. There must be no true sovereignty allowed.

This aspect has unique challenges. There are plenty of nationalists and ethno-nationalists who want to keep their race, culture, language, heritage, customs, traditions, and way of life intact. There are those who reject conservatism and libertarianism, (which favour individuality over group survival), in favour of the long term stability of their nation. We need to completely replace the host populations. Being direct and honest will not work in this case. As such other approaches are required:

(Option I:) We can buy off media outlets. The rise in internet use and citizen journalists had led to an utter devastation of traditional media outlets. This presents an opportunity never thought possible: to keep certain media solvent in return for favourable coverage of our practices.

(Option II:) We can install puppet candidates and fund parties whose populist agendas are very similar to ours. With the right rhetoric, the sheeple won’t care that we lie about the true size of annual mass migration. Nor will they care that a “right-wing populist” is only proposing a 7% reduction in current rates. With the right messaging, the patriots will overlook that forced multiculturalism and diversity has never actually been successful, and only leads to balkanization. Members of the Government and Opposition should both have their campaigns contributed to. While common in the US, campaign contribution laws shall be used fully to ensure a cooperative Congress or Parliament.

(Option III:) Straight up gaslighting can and does still work, but the citizenry is getting tired of it. This technique should be used less frequently. Not saying stop entirely, but it shouldn’t be the first tool anymore.

(Option IV:) Present mass migration as “normalized” and inevitable. Yes we will need other puppets to sign the New York Declaration, and the UN Global Migration Compact. Yes, there will be many critics, and the gaslighting should be used sparingly. There are many intellectually dishonest tactics we can use without being too obvious. Our shill media — addressed earlier — will be useful in attacking border control efforts, or even the idea of border control.

(Option V:) In order to facilitate mass migration and population replacement, we should introduce “throw-away” ideas such as repatriating terrorists to home countries. If successful, we further destabilize the nation states. If unsuccessful, we at least divert their attention away from our real goals.

(Option VI:) One subset of mass migration is promoting high levels of Islamic immigration. Given their desire to take over the world, and propensity for “playing the victim”, this will be useful. Further, the drain on resources of the host nations will make it harder for them to put up resistance. Given Muslims’ very high birthrate, and violent intolerance towards others, they can help replace the populations for us.

Note: we won’t allow the Muslims to actually take over. Rather, they will do much of the leg work for us.

Naturally, the elites will need to meet annually, to ensure a smooth post-national transition takes place.

Once mass migration is sufficiently underway, we can focus on controlling the new masses, and that leads to the next topic: education.

5. Taking Control Of Education

If the agenda is to succeed, we need to take control of the next generation, and the one after that. As noted, children are to become dependent on the schools for everything from meals, to health care, to actual parenting. Yes, the financial costs will be high, but we will pay for it out of the interest payments from the loans we grant to governments. So really, it costs us nothing.

Academia has an important role to play, which is obvious. Scholarly articles, such as those written by Frank Geels and Kirsten Jenkins will add legitimacy to what we are doing.

Another important aspect is to redefine what cultural norms are. This in turn will also help reduce the host populations, which will make it easier to replace them. One such technique is encouraging people, especially young children, to have sex changes. A further technique is to keep pushing for abortion as a “human right”. Less births will of course reduce the host nation’s population. An extra benefit is that baby parts sell for huge amounts to organizations which are sympathetic to our globalist methods.

6. Making It All Come Together

Okay, this is definitely a lot to absorb. But knowing and implementing all of these steps, what have we actually accomplished? Let’s list them:

  • We have identified ways to commit genocide against nations and their host populations without the obvious evidence of guns, bombs and war
  • We have raised money by getting nations to borrow heavily from private banks, and never fully pay it back, leading to permanent interest payments
  • We raised money via bogus environmental scams
  • We loaned out to nations who cannot pay
  • We have enlisted corporate partners in our goals
  • We have invested national pensions and other assets
  • We have eliminated borders, ensuring efficient trade
  • We have bought off an obedient media
  • We have propped up puppet politicians
  • We reduced the overt gaslighting
  • We changed the narrative to mass migration being normal
  • We normalized repatriating terrorists
  • We weaponized Islamic immigration
  • We coordinated global leadership meetings
  • We have made children dependent on schools
  • We controlled the academic output
  • We replaced traditional cultural norms
  • We centralized globalization via UN
  • This list is by no means exhaustive. However, it should serve as an introduction to global domination.

    The UN, naturally, is a great way to centralize the consolidation of the global empire. But should the UN stop being a useful tool, we have backups in reserve.

    Just remember: taking over the world is a marathon, not a sprint.

    7. Who’s Behind All Of This?

    That will be addressed in part II, a post all by itself. There are simply too many players to do it justice in one article.

    S3CA: Response To Motion To Strike


    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

    ISSUES

    FACTS

    APPLICABLE LAW
    -Right to self-representation
    -Federal Court jurisdiction
    -Private & Public standing
    -Charter Provisions Engaged

    • 91 (POGG)
    • 15 (Equality)
    • 35 (Indigenous Rights)
    • 38 (Amending process)

    -Unjust enrichment
    -Unconscionability
    -High burden to strike out
    -Amending as an option
    -Defense misrepresentation

    ORDER SOUGHT


    1. Written Submissions

    2. Issues


    -Does the Plaintiff have the right to self represent in this case?
    -Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction to hear the case?
    -Is there private or public interest standing in this case?
    -Are the following Constitutional provisions engaged: 91 (POGG), 15 (equality rights), 35 (Indigenous rights), 38 (amending the constitution)?
    -Does allowing fake refugees into Canada violate the doctrine of unjust enrichment?
    -Does allowing fake refugees into Canada violate the doctrine of unconscionability?
    -Does this motion meet the “very” high burden to strike out?
    -Is amending the Claim a better option?
    -Does the Government lawyer misrepresent the facts?

    3. Facts

    1. Canada the US signed the S3CA in 2002. It came into effect in 2004.

    2. Canada is recognized as a safe country, which provides protection to people seeking genuine asylum

    3. The United States is also recognized as a safe country, and offers protection to people seeking protection from persecution based on: race, religion , political beliefs, and identity

    4. Both Canada and the US receive hundreds of thousands of refugee applications annually.

    5. Although there is a loophole in the agreement (which omits crossings “between” official ports), it was never meant to be a path for illegal immigration, or fraudulent refugee claims.

    6. Crossings from the US into Canada mainly fall into 2 categories:
      (a) Those coming to the US on tourist visas, with the intent of using the US as a stopover country,
      (b) Those living in the US illegally, who have decided to “asylum shop”

    7. There are AT LEAST 40,000 illegals who have snuck into Canada, likely many more.

    8. The Plaintiff is a self-representing, Canadian citizen, concerned about the impacts of illegal immigration. She is interested both as a private citizen, a taxpayer, and as a Canadian.

    9. Preventing illegal immigration (and bogus refugee claims), is both a private interest, and a public interest.

    10. Self represented people have every right to have their cases heard in court.

    11. Illegal immigration (such as via this loophole) undermines the integrity of the immigration system, costs cities and provinces money they don’t have, and undermines the security of the country

    12. For example, the Mayor of Toronto, John Tory, has reported that illegals have taken up almost half of the available space in homeless shelters

    13. The Federal Government has had to reimburse the Provinces (mainly Quebec and Ontario), over $300 million so far due to costs these “refugee claimants” have racked up.

    14. The Federal Government has also been paying the homeowners near Roxham Road — using taxpayer money — for the damage caused to their properties.

    15. Recently, a group of illegal “refugee claimants” has announced plans to sue Quebec for subsidized daycare.

    16. The flood of fake refugees has caused a strain on the health care system, particularly in Ontario and Quebec.

    17. All of the above statements are not “mere assertions”. They are facts which can be proven in the course of the trial and via discovery.

    18. The Government makes at least 3 serious misrepresentations.

    19. First, the Government’s lawyer, Aman Owais, misrepresents the truth when claiming the loophole was “intentionally” written into the agreement. This is provably false, since even Trudeau has publicly spoken about the need to cut the illegal border crossings.

    20. Second, there is a strawman argument that this is about refugee protections. Wrong, it is about protecting the public from illegal immigration.

    21. Third, and furthermore, Aman Owais suggests that it would be better to have a refugee claimant make this claim. This is complete nonsense. A person using legal channels wouldn’t be impacted by this case. A person using illegal means to enter Canada would have no reason to pursue this, as it would be a big conflict of interest.

    4. Applicable Law

    22: Self representing litigants: From Pintea v. Johns, [2017] 1 SCR 470, 2017 SCC 23 (CanLII)

    [3] As a result, the finding of contempt cannot stand.
    [4] We would add that we endorse the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council.
    https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_other_PrinciplesStatement_2006_en.pdf
    B. PROMOTING EQUAL JUSTICE
    STATEMENT:
    Judges, the courts and other participants in the justice system have a responsibility to promote access to the justice system for all persons on an equal basis, regardless of representation.
    PRINCIPLES:
    1. Judges and court administrators should do whatever is possible to provide a fair and impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.
    2. Self-represented persons should not be denied relief on the basis of a minor or easily rectified deficiency in their case.
    3. Where appropriate, a judge should consider engaging in such case management activities as are required to protect the rights and interests of self-represented persons. Such case management should begin as early in the court process as possible.
    4. When one or both parties are proceeding without representation, non-prejudicial and engaged case and courtroom management may be needed to protect the litigants’ equal right to be heard. Depending on the circumstances and nature of the case, the presiding judge may:
    (a) explain the process;
    (b) inquire whether both parties understand the process and the procedure;
    (c) make referrals to agencies able to assist the litigant in the preparation of the case;
    (d) provide information about the law and evidentiary requirements;
    (e) modify the traditional order of taking evidence; and
    (f) question witnesses.

    23: There is nothing in the Pintea v. Johns ruling that says self-represented people can “only” appear in certain courts or in certain types of cases

    Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear the case

    24: Consider that the test for determining if a matter is within the Federal Court’s jurisdiction is stipulated in ITO-International Terminal Operators LTD v Miida Electronics, 1986 CanLII 91 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 752 at 766 [ITO-International]:

    1. There must be a statutory grant of jurisdiction by Parliament.
    2. There must be an existing body of federal law which is essential to the disposition of the case and which nourishes the statutory grant of jurisdiction.
    3. The law on which the case is based must be “a law of Canada” as the phrase is used in s. 101 of the Constitution Act.

    Furthermore, the Federal Courts Act (under Rule 25) has original jurisdiction if no other court is designated as such.
    Extraprovincial jurisdiction.

    Rule 25: The Federal Court has original jurisdiction, between subject and subject as well as otherwise, in any case in which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under or by virtue of the laws of Canada if no other court constituted, established or continued under any of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 has jurisdiction in respect of that claim or remedy.

    25: Although designed for Judicial Review Applications, the Federal Court does have authority under Rule 18.1(5) of Federal Courts Act to correct errors in form or technical defects. The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just.

    Defect in form or technical irregularity,
    (5) If the sole ground for relief established on an application for judicial review is a defect in form or a technical irregularity, the Federal Court may
    (a) refuse the relief if it finds that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred; and
    (b) in the case of a defect in form or a technical irregularity in a decision or an order, make an order validating the decision or order, to have effect from any time and on any terms that it considers appropriate.

    26: Immigration matters are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. And this case is essentially about illegal immigration and border security. Furthermore, if this case prevailed, it would certainly have an impact on how asylum claims were handled in the future.

    27: The Canadian Border Services Agency enforces the border, and enforces approximately 90 different acts. So there is ample Federal law to be looked at here. They are given their authority under the Customs Act.

    28: Furthermore, CBSA enforces such acts as

    Access to Information Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1]
    Aeronautics Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. A-2]
    Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act [S.C. 1995, c. 40]
    Appropriation Acts [R.S.C. 1985, c. Z-01 ]
    Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3]
    Canada Agricultural Products Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. 20 (4th Supp.)]
    Canada Grain Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. G-10]
    Canada Post Corporation Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-10]
    Canada Shipping Act, 2001 [S.C. 2001, c. 26]
    Canada Transportation Act [S.C. 1996, c. 10]
    Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 1997, c. 14]
    Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 2001, c. 28]
    Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 1996, c. 33]
    Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 1988, c. 65]
    Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 [S.C. 1999, c. 33]
    Canadian Wheat Board Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-24]
    Coasting Trade Act [S.C. 1992, c. 31]
    Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-38]
    Criminal Code [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46]
    Cultural Property Export and Import Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-51]
    Customs and Excise Offshore Application Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-53]
    Customs Tariff [S.C. 1997, c. 36]
    Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. A-9]
    Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act [S.C. 1994, c. 31]
    Department of Industry Act [S.C. 1995, c. 1]
    Energy Efficiency Act [S.C. 1992, c. 36]
    Excise Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-14]
    Excise Act, 2001 [S.C. 2002, c. 22]
    Excise Tax Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15]
    Explosives Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-17]
    Export Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-18]
    Export and Import Permits Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-19]
    Feeds Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-9]
    Fertilizers Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-10]
    Financial Administration Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11]
    Firearms Act [S.C. 1995, c. 39]
    Fish Inspection Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-12]
    Fisheries Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14]
    Food and Drugs Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-27]
    Harbour Commissions Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. H-1]
    Hazardous Products Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. H-3]
    Health of Animals Act [S.C. 1990, c. 21]
    Immigration and Refugee Protection Act [S.C. 2001, c. 27]
    Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. I-3]
    Industrial and Regional Development Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. I-8]
    International Boundary Commission Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. I-16 ]
    Meat Inspection Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. 25 (1st Supp.)]
    Motor Vehicle Safety Act [S.C. 1993, c. 16]
    National Defence Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5]
    National Energy Board Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. N-7]
    Navigable Waters Protection Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. N-22]
    Nuclear Safety and Control Act [S.C. 1997, c. 9]
    Pest Control Products Act [S.C. 2002, c. 28]
    Pilotage Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-14]
    Plant Breeders’ Rights Act [S.C. 1990, c. 20]
    Plant Protection Act [S.C. 1990, c. 22]
    Precious Metals Marking Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-19]
    Preclearance Act [S.C. 1999, c. 20]
    Privacy Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21]
    Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-24]
    Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act [S.C. 2000, c. 17]
    Radiation Emitting Devices Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. R-1]
    Radiocommunication Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. R-2]
    Seeds Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. S-8]
    Special Economic Measures Act [S.C. 1992, c. 17]
    Special Import Measures Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. S-15]
    Statistics Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. S-19]
    Textile Labelling Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. T-10]
    Trade-marks Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13]
    Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 [S.C. 1992, c. 34]
    Visiting Forces Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. V-2]
    Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act [S.C. 1992, c. 52]
    Source: https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/actreg-loireg/legislation-eng.html

    29: The border clearly is being protected in accordance with Federal laws, and Acts passed by Parliament. So loopholes which make it harder for them to do their job at least conflict with Federal laws.

    30: It has also long been held that,

    The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Constitution does not belong to the federal or provincial governments, but to Canadian citizens (Nova Scotia (AG)), and that it is a tool for dispute resolution, of which one of the most important goals is to serve well those who make use of it: Reference Re Residential Tenancies Act, 1996 CanLII 259 (SCC), [1996] 1 SCR 186 at 210.

    There private & public interest standing in this case

    31: Three cases which are used to determine public interest standing are:

    (a) Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, (b) Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, and (c) Minister of
    Justice v. Borowski. The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of
    Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

    It has been seen that when public interest standing is sought, consideration must be given to three aspects.
    First, is there a serious issue raised as to the invalidity of legislation in question?
    Second, has it been established that the plaintiff is directly affected by the legislation or if not does the plaintiff have a genuine interest in its validity?
    Third, is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the court?

    32: First: if this “interpretation” of the S3CA is as the Government claims, then effectively the Canada/US border disappears, except for a small number of official crossings. That is pretty serious. Illegal immigration cannot simply be shrugged off if it is not the government raising the issue.

    33: Second: Yes, I am effected by illegal immigration. As a taxpayer, and as a citizen who wants secure borders. Clearly I have a genuine interest here. Why else go to court to do this? It is insulting and misrepresents reality to suggest that citizens are not concerned and interested in the external security of their nation.

    34: Third, there doesn’t seem to be another reasonable or effective way to bring it to the Courts. It is the Government itself, with a majority mandate, which seems content to end-run the intent of the law.

    35: Note: Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found
    in Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance)

    36: Plaintiff submits that there clearly is standing to bring forward these justiciable issues on the facts pleaded. This standing is personal, but it is also public interest-based and is in line with recent jurisprudence: Canada (Attorney General) v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45 (CanLII); Galati, above.

    Following Constitutional provisions engaged:

    • 91(POGG),
    • 15 (equality rights),
    • 35 (Indigenous rights),
    • 38 (amending the constitution)

    Peace, Order & Good Governance (Section 91)

    37: Consider the case of R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., [1988] 1 SCR 401, 1988 CanLII 63 (SCC).

    33. From this survey of the opinion expressed in this Court concerning the national concern doctrine of the federal peace, order and good government power I draw the following conclusions as to what now appears to be firmly established:

    1. The national concern doctrine is separate and distinct from the national emergency doctrine of the peace, order and good government power, which is chiefly distinguishable by the fact that it provides a constitutional basis for what is necessarily legislation of a temporary nature;

    2. The national concern doctrine applies to both new matters which did not exist at Confederation and to matters which, although originally matters of a local or private nature in a province, have since, in the absence of national emergency, become matters of national concern;

    3. For a matter to qualify as a matter of national concern in either sense it must have a singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility that clearly distinguishes it from matters of provincial concern and a scale of impact on provincial jurisdiction that is reconcilable with the fundamental distribution of legislative power under the Constitution;

    38: In looking this through the Peace, Order and Good Government (POGG) doctrine, it is worth asking should we allow actions that our laws seem designed to prevent?

    34(1)(b.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act prohibits: engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada.

    39: Allowing fake refugees to slip in arounf official border ports in order to “jump the queue” seems hardly in keeping with the POGG principle, or Rule 34(1)(b.1). Again, it is submitted that poor wording, not intent is the cause of this loophole.

    40: The Court must also consider the national security implications of protecting the border. This should be obvious, but a nation that cannot control its border ceases to be a nation.

    41: Currently, illegal border jumpers (fleeing war zones in Minnesota and New York State), are able to illegally enter Canada. They are processed, then released into the public often within hours. There is no public interest in doing this.

    42: Given the vast amount of unscreened and unvetted fake “refuges” entering, there is no way to keep the public safe. This is not consistent with POGG in any sense.

    43: Again, the Government’s lawyer “claims” that this loophole was intentionally written into the S3CA. This is even while Justin Trudeau and other Government members profess their desire to cut illegal entries. Obviously, both statements can’t be true.

    44: As cited above, there are literally dozens of Acts which members of the CBSA are charged with enforcing. Obviously, enforcing the border is a sign of POGG. Now, how does adding a loophole to bypass some of these Acts make any sense?

    45: How does it now undermine our national security? Borders are meant to be the protected outer areas of a nation. No one, except the most disingenuous would argue that borders do not matter. However, the Government does an end run around that (violating POGG doctrine), by claiming the loophole in the S3CA was intentional.

    46: Border security “doesn’t” matter, apparently, as long as you go around the official checkpoints.

    Section 15; Equality Rights:

    47: This seems like a strange one to bring up. However, the Government of Canada’s website on Charter cases brought up an interesting argument about equality under the law.

    (a) Pre-existing disadvantage, stereotyping, prejudice, or vulnerability experienced by the individual or group at issue
    Section 15 has a significant remedial component (Andrews, supra at 171). Therefore, one of the most compelling factors is the impact of the governmental action on individuals or groups who are vulnerable, the object of stereotypes, disadvantaged or members of “discrete and insular minorities” (Law, supra at paragraphs 63-68). A member of a group that historically has been more disadvantaged in Canadian society is less likely to have difficulty in demonstrating discrimination (Law, supra at paragraph 68). When considering intra-group distinctions within a larger disadvantaged group (for example, as between status and non-status Indians, as determined pursuant to the Indian Act), there is no requirement that the claimant group be the more disadvantaged; there is no “race to the bottom” (Lovelace, supra at paragraph 69). Where no such unique disadvantage is established, as distinct from the broader group which provides the basis for comparison, this factor does not play a significant role (Gosselin, supra; Martin; Laseur, supra at paragraph 88).

    48: In this case, the disadvantaged people are those who immigrate legally into Canada, and go through proper channels.
    True, Canada’s immigration system is slow, expensive, and very complex. But that is a debate for another day. Point is, hundreds of thousands of people follow proper due process every year.

    49: They are the ones who suffer as “border jumpers” push ahead of them, and get preferential treatment, and access to benefits. Furthermore, they are the ones who suffer the public backlash as Canadian get fed up with mass, illegal immigration.

    50: In short, legal applicants suffer because of the actions of criminals.

    Section 35: Indigenous Rights

    51: From the case: Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII), the issue of duty to consult to brought up.

    26 Honourable negotiation implies a duty to consult with Aboriginal claimants and conclude an honourable agreement reflecting the claimants’ inherent rights. But proving rights may take time, sometimes a very long time. In the meantime, how are the interests under discussion to be treated? Underlying this question is the need to reconcile prior Aboriginal occupation of the land with the reality of Crown sovereignty. Is the Crown, under the aegis of its asserted sovereignty, entitled to use the resources at issue as it chooses, pending proof and resolution of the Aboriginal claim? Or must it adjust its conduct to reflect the as yet unresolved rights claimed by the Aboriginal claimants?

    27 The answer, once again, lies in the honour of the Crown. The Crown, acting honourably, cannot cavalierly run roughshod over Aboriginal interests where claims affecting these interests are being seriously pursued in the process of treaty negotiation and proof. It must respect these potential, but yet unproven, interests.

    52: The case of Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII), should also be considered, and for much the same principle.

    25 As discussed in Haida, what the honour of the Crown requires varies with the circumstances. It may require the Crown to consult with and accommodate Aboriginal peoples prior to taking decisions: R. v. Sparrow, 1990 CanLII 104 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075, at p. 1119; R. v. Nikal, 1996 CanLII 245 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; R. v. Gladstone, 1996 CanLII 160 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, at para. 168. The obligation to consult does not arise only upon proof of an Aboriginal claim, in order to justify infringement. That understanding of consultation would deny the significance of the historical roots of the honour of the Crown, and deprive it of its role in the reconciliation process. Although determining the required extent of consultation and accommodation before a final settlement is challenging, it is essential to the process mandated by s. 35(1). The duty to consult arises when a Crown actor has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of Aboriginal rights or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect them. This in turn may lead to a duty to change government plans or policy to accommodate Aboriginal concerns. Responsiveness is a key requirement of both consultation and accommodation.

    53: It is a serious question here: how much consultation (if any), was done before signing a document that — the Federal Government now claims — eliminates the security of the Canada/US border? Just because there isn’t a claim pending doesn’t mean there are not valid Indigenous interests to be considered

    54: No consultation process took place — EVER — which would fulfill the obligations to negotiate in good faith with Indigenous groups. The Government claims that the S3CA was “designed” to allow for entrants from the United States to make refugee claims, as long as they bypass the official border ports.

    It would be disingenuous for the Federal Government to claim that it wouldn’t be aware of any obligation to consult prior to “erasing” the US/Canada border.

    55: The Government breached is S35 obligations if, by this defense, the S3CA was drawn up with the loophole “intentionally” left in.

    Substantial Consent required (section 38)

    56: If the Government truly believes that POGG, and other obligations can be circumvented by intentional poor wording, then we need to amend the constitution to change what POGG means.

    57: This was decided regarding the issue of changing the Senate rules (Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38). The Court cited the amending procedure.

    [34] The process set out in s. 38 is the general rule for amendments to the Constitution of Canada. It reflects the principle that substantial provincial consent must be obtained for constitutional change that engages provincial interests. Section 38 codifies what is colloquially referred to as the “7/50” procedure — amendments to the Constitution of Canada must be authorized by resolutions of the Senate, the House of Commons, and legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces whose population represents, in the aggregate, at least half of the current population of all the provinces. Additionally, it grants to the provinces the right to “opt out” of constitutional amendments that derogate from “the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province”.

    58: If what the Government says is true, then the doctrine of Peace, Order and Good Government (POGG) has been distorted to such a degree that a Constitutional amendment should be required.

    59: These constitutional arguments are not exhaustive, and will be expanded on more fully as the case progresses. The point here, is that the case at hand (the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement), engages the same Charter rights as what is cited here.

    Doctrine of unjust enrichment

    60: The Court must also consider how allowing illegal immigration and fake refugees to gain priority over legal immigrant violates the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

    61: Citing from 3 cases:
    Kerr v. Baranow, [2011] S.C.J.
    Kerr v. Baranow, 2009 BCCA 111
    Vanasse v. Seguin, 2009 ONCA 595

    62: These cases set the standard for unjust enrichment. (a) the person received a benefit, (b) the claimant suffered a loss corresponding in some way to the benefit, and (c) there was no juristic reason for the benefit and the loss.

    63: As stated in the facts, these so-called “refugees” have been accessing public services. This costs money, and takes away from actual citizens.

    64: And forget the money factor for a moment. Isn’t Canadian residence or citizenship a thing of value itself? If we consider that being Canadian is something to be valued, then doesn’t obtaining it (or Permanent Residence, or Protected Status) under false pretenses count as illegally obtaining a benefit?

    Doctrine of unconscionability

    65: From the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, trying to circumvent proper immigration channels should not be rewarded.

    34(1)(b.1) engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;

    66: If the loophole in S3CA was written in such a way as to circumvent very legitimate national security and immigration concerns, then how valid and enforceable is it?

    67: Remember, Aman Owais, (the Government’s lawyer) has pleaded the intent of the agreement was “not” to apply the proper screening rules as long as self-identified “refugees” bypass official border ports. This is claimed to be intentional, not accidental.

    68: Notwithstanding that no reasonable person could view it that way, and notwithstanding the Canadian Government has made announcements to cut down on these crossings, how valid are these provisions?

    Does this motion meet the “very” high burden to strike out

    69: Even if there are deficiencies in the Statement of Claim, they can usually be cured by filing an “amended” Statement of Claim. That must always be considered when asked to strike out. This is settled by a great many cases.

    In terms of the general principles that ought to be applied on a motion to strike, the Plaintiffs assert that the facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs must be taken as proven: Canada (Attorney General) v Inuit Tapirasat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 SCR 735; Nelles v Ontario (1989), DLR (4th) 609 (SCC) [Nelles]; Operation Dismantle, above; Hunt v Carey Canada Inc 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 959 [Hunt]; Dumont v Canada (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 131 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 279 [Dumont]; Nash v Ontario (1995), 1995 CanLII 2934 (ON CA), 27 OR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [Nash]; Canada v Arsenault, 2009 FCA 242 (CanLII) [Arsenault].

    The Plaintiffs echo the test referenced by the Defendants, asserting that a claim can be struck only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument: Nelles, above, at para 3. The Court has provided further guidance in Dumont, above, that an outcome should be “plain and obvious” or “beyond doubt” before striking can be invoked (at para 2). Striking cannot be justified by a claim that raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of law”: Hunt,

    The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson. Therefore, on a motion to strike, it is not determinative that the law has not yet recognized the particular claim.

    70: This case DOES raise an important point of law, one the Defendant pretends doesn’t exist. Can the Court close a plain and obvious loophole in the S3CA?

    71: Can a clearly frivilious, fraudulent, abusive and vexxing defense filed by the Crown be overcome?

    72: Note: this does not amount to a rejection of the agreement as a whole. For the most part, it is a fine document.

    Amending the Claim a better option

    73: The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just.

    The novelty of the Amended Claim is not reason in and of itself to strike it: Nash, above, at para 11; Hanson v Bank of Nova Scotia (1994), 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA), 19 OR (3d) 142 (CA); Adams-Smith v Christian Horizons (1997), 3 OR (3d) 640 (Ont Gen Div). Additionally, matters that are not fully settled by the jurisprudence should not be disposed of on a motion to strike: RD Belanger & Associates Ltd v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (1991), 1991 CanLII 2731 (ON CA), 5 OR (3d) 778 (CA). In order for the Defendants to succeed, the Plaintiffs state that a case from the same jurisdiction that squarely deals with, and rejects, the very same issue must be presented: Dalex Co v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman (1994), 19 OR (3d) 215 (CA). The Court should be generous when interpreting the drafting of the pleadings, and allow for amendments prior to striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA).

    74: The facts as laid out in the above section are not bare assertions. They can be proven in court, going through the discovery and document production phases. It is not at all plain and obvious that the Claim is baseless.

    75: Any flaws in the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim could be cured by amending.

    Government lawyer misrepresents the facts

    76: The Government claims, without any basis, that the S3CA was negotiated with the “loophole” deliberately written in. In essence, they are arguing that although the Canada/US border stretches for thousands of miles, only the few dozen “legal” entry ports should be considered. Anywhere else, people are free to walk across and claim asylum. If this were actually true, it would effectively erase the Canadian border.

    77: Bald assertions, without supporting facts, are not sufficient to satisfy the rules of pleading. See Rule 174 and accompanying jurisprudence. This should also applies to motions to strike.

    78: Bald assertions, without facts, are baseless. If any part of the claim is “plainly and obviously” without merit, it is the defense raised by the Government.

    79: The claim that the S3CA was “intended” to allow illegal border crossings is fraudulent, and an attempt to mislead and deceive the court by Aman Owais. This is plain and obvious given that members of the Government, including Justin Trudeau himself, have publicly stated the need to stop illegal border crossings. The false defense violates Rule 221, as a frivilous, vexous, and abusive misuse of Court procedure.

    80: This can and will be proven in a trial.

    81: Also worth noting: according to Rule 221, “inconsistent pleadings” can be struck out. So if the Government ever tries to put another spin on this, it will automatically qualify for striking.

    82: And to reiterate: the “remedy” suggested makes no sense. A person entering Canada legally would have no interest in the case, since it only covers illegal entry. A person entering Canada illegally would have no reason to pursue the case, as it would be a conflict of interest. This absurd solution wastes court resources.

    83: The government also appears to distort the purpose of the case. It is about protecting the Canadian public from illegal immigration, not making things easier for people to cross the border.

    84: To add insult, Aman Owais also implies that I have no business attempting this case since I am not a lawyer. Arrogance. Pintea v Johns (2017, SCC) enshrines protections for “all” self-representing litigants. It doesn’t limit it to certain types of cases, or certain Courts.

    85: Will closing this loophole have an impact on current and future cases? Hopefully. Otherwise, what would be the point of going to Court?

    4. Summary

    86: Plaintiff has a right to self represent

    87: Federal Court has jurisdiction

    88: Plaintiff has both a private interest, and qualifies for public interest standing

    89: Constitutional provisions engaged: 91(POGG), 15 (equality rights), 35 (Indigenous rights), 38 (amending the constitution)

    90: Allowing fake refugees into Canada violates the doctrine of unjust enrichment & unconscionability

    91: Motion doesn’t meet the “very” high burden to strike out

    92: Amending the Claim a better option than striking without leave.

    93: Note: This is not an attempt to get to court to make a final ruling on the case. Rather, it is to show that there is merit to the case

    94: The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Constitution does not belong to the federal or provincial governments, but to Canadian citizens (Nova Scotia (AG))

    95: The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson

    96: The Court should be generous when interpreting the drafting of the pleadings, and allow for amendments prior to striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA).

    5. Order Sought

    (a) Dismiss the motion; or
    (b) Allow the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the statement of claim.

    Dodgeball Is A Tool Of Oppression (Satire)

    CLICK HERE, for the actual article.

    The moral problem is that dodgeball encourages students to aggressively single others out for dominance, and to enjoy that dominance as a victory

    The problem is actually much worse. In white majority countries, it should be noted that the majority of successful teams include mostly white players. Research has indicated that there is a correlation between whiteness and white supremacy.

    The games children play in schoolyards are famously horrible, if you stop and think about them.

    Tag, for example, singles out one poor participant, often the slowest child, as the dehumanized “It,” who runs vainly in pursuit of the quicker ones. Capture the Flag is nakedly militaristic. British Bulldog has obvious jingoistic colonial themes. Red Ass, known in America as Butts Up, involves deliberate imposition of corporal punishment on losers.

    This is absolutely true. Every children’s game in the Western World is about preparing our youth for war, and for ways to oppress marginalized people. These are specific examples that need to be exposed and stamped out.

    Contrast with the above photos #2 and #3. This shows tolerant Muslims and the richness that diversity brings us.

    But none rouse the passions of reform-minded educational progressives quite like dodgeball, the team sport in which players throw balls at each other, trying to hit their competitors and banish them to the sidelines of shame.

    Not only is this traumatizing for the children, but rarely, if ever, do dodgeball competitions hand out “participation trophies”. How will the children cope with that?

    When the Canadian Society for the Study of Education meets in Vancouver at the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, a trio of education theorists will argue that dodgeball is not only problematic, in the modern sense of displaying hierarchies of privilege based on athletic skill, but that it is outright “miseducative.”

    Naïve parents will argue that kids are just kids, and they are just releasing their excess energy. But this completely misses the point. Most serial killers and rapists have played dodgeball at some point in their lives. Are we breeding the next generation?

    Experts agree, that we need to replace the Canadian population as an immediate measure to mitigate the effects anti-social behaviour as caused by dodgeball.

    Dodgeball is not just unhelpful to the development of kind and gentle children who will become decent citizens of a liberal democracy. It is actively harmful to this process, they say.

    These citizens also need to be aware that playing dodgeball is physical activity. Physical activity leads to heavy breathing, which leads to increased CO2 output. HELLO! We signed the Paris Accord for a reason. Do you want the Earth to heat up just so Little Johnny can get first place?

    As Butler’s abstract describes it, those “faces” are “marginalization, powerlessness, and helplessness of those perceived as weaker individuals through the exercise of violence and dominance by those who are considered more powerful.” Young’s list of these fundamental types of oppression also includes exploitation and cultural domination.

    Nations like Canada have demonstrated themselves to be an extremely welcoming place. And we shouldn’t jeopardize that just so some 11 year old can go “goose-stepping” and throw balls at other children.

    For teachers trying to foster the virtues of caring and inclusion, on this view, dodgeball is counterproductive. Sport can teach ethical behaviour and give students the chance to practise it and, in this sense, it is important training for citizens in a democracy.

    Of course this is true. Being part of the global democracy, is vital for all citizens of the planet.

    Fun for fun’s sake is good, Burns said, but when a teacher is formally telling students rules for a game, fun can also reinforce behavioural patterns, for good or ill. The moral problem with dodgeball, he said, is that it encourages students to aggressively single others out for dominance, and to enjoy that exclusion and dominance as a victory.

    One day they are throwing rubber balls at each other. The next they are perpetuating the next Holocaust. The connection is plain and obvious.

    What’s next? Pepe memes?