(UNHCR: United Nations High Commission on Refugees, has released another guide in how to circumvent the Canada/U.S. border)
It’s rather difficult to have any real sense of a border between Canada and the U.S. when neither country has full control over their affairs. An obvious example is the Safe Third Country Agreement.
1. The Loopholes Written Into S3CA
EMPHASIZING that the United States and Canada offer generous systems of refugee protection, recalling both countries’ traditions of assistance to refugees and displaced persons abroad, consistent with the principles of international solidarity that underpin the international refugee protection system, and committed to the notion that cooperation and burden-sharing with respect to refugee status claimants can be enhanced;
ARTICLE 1
In this Agreement,
“Country of Last Presence” means that country, being either Canada or the United States, in which the refugee claimant was physically present immediately prior to making a refugee status claim at a land border port of entry.
ARTICLE 4
Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, the Party of the country of last presence shall examine, in accordance with its refugee status determination system, the refugee status claim of any person who arrives at a land border port of entry on or after the effective date of this Agreement and makes a refugee status claim.
The “land border port of entry” is clear. However, in practice it is becoming such that if you simply bypass the official border ports, you can actually take advantage of it. Poor wording, but it has become a real headache.
Where the Agreement is in effect
The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.: -at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
-by train or
-at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S.
This clearly was not meant to reward people for illegally crossing the border, provided they do so anywhere other than a port of entry. If this really was just poor drafting, then it would be really easy to fix. The fact that there’s no effort to is very revealing.
2. More Loopholes In S3CA
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they have a family member who:
-is a Canadian citizen
-is a permanent resident of Canada
-is a protected person under Canadian immigration legislation
-has made a claim for refugee status in Canada that has been accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)
-has had his or her removal order stayed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds
-holds a valid Canadian work permit
-holds a valid Canadian study permit, or
-is over 18 years old and has a claim for refugee protection that has been referred to the IRB for determination. (This claim must not have been withdrawn by the family member, declared abandoned or rejected by the IRB or found ineligible for referral to the IRB.) citizens, permanent residents, or various other statuses, you qualify for an exception to the rule. The “family members” list include: the spouse, sons, daughters, parents, legal guardians, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews.
Unaccompanied minors exception
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they are minors (under the age of 18) who:
-are not accompanied by their mother, father or legal guardian
-have neither a spouse nor a common-law partner, and
-do not have a mother, a father or a legal guardian in Canada or the United States.
Document holder exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they:
-hold a valid Canadian visa (other than a transit visa)
-hold a valid work permit
-hold a valid study permit
-hold a travel document (for permanent residents or refugees) or other valid admission document issued by Canada, or
-are not required (exempt) to get a temporary resident visa to enter Canada but require a U.S.–issued visa to enter the U.S.
Public interest exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if:
they have been charged with or convicted of an offence that could subject them to the death penalty in the U.S. or in a third country. However, a refugee claimant is ineligible if he or she has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, or if the Minister finds the person to be a danger to the public.
Source is here. Okay. Are there is any cases that DON’T meet any of these exceptions?
3. UNHCR Is A Party To S3CA
CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;
ARTICLE 8
(1) The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
(2) These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
(3) The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.
Source is here. Serious question: why have Canada and the United States signed an agreement that quite clearly gives the UN a seat at the table?
There has never been a full and proper debate on this Treaty either in the U.S., or in Canada. While the document sounds great, it has so many loopholes that it’s close to worthless.
Cultural Marxism, and ideologies such as feminism are often criticized as complete nonsense. It’s pointed out that they use garbage arguments, half truths to justify themselves, and end up fragmenting society.
While this is all true, an interesting piece of the puzzle is left out: what are the origins of these beliefs? Did they grow organically, or was there something more organized helping it along? Also, were these good intentions gone awry, or is there malevolent intent behind these theories?
3. Articles On The Subject
Aesthetic Theory, (Theodor W. Adorno)
Culture Industry Reconsidered, (Theodor W. Adorno)
Critical and Traditional Theory (Horkheimer)
Critique of Instrumental Reason, (Max Horkheimer)
Dialectic of the Enlightenment (Adorno and Horkheimer)
Knowledge and Human Interests (Habermas)
One-Dimensional Man (Marcuse)
Structural Transformation and the Public Sphere, (Jürgen Habermas)
The Aesthetic Dimension: Toward a Critique of Marxist Aesthetics, (Herbert Marcuse)
The Authoritarian Personality, (Theodor W. Adorno)
The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Habermas)
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (Benjamin)
Towards a Rational Society, (Jürgen Habermas)
Traditional and Critical Theory, (Max Horkheimer)
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, (Walter Benjamin)
4. From ThoughtCo Site
The Frankfurt School was a group of scholars known for developing critical theory and popularizing the dialectical method of learning by interrogating society’s contradictions. It is most closely associated with the work of Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse. It was not a school, in the physical sense, but rather a school of thought associated with scholars at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt in Germany.
In 1923, Marxist scholar Carl Grünberg founded the Institute, initially financed by another such scholar, Felix Weil. The Frankfurt School scholars are known for their brand of culturally focused neo-Marxist theory—a rethinking of classical Marxism updated to their socio-historical period. This proved seminal for the fields of sociology, cultural studies, and media studies.
In 1930 Max Horkheimer became the director of the Institute and recruited many of the scholars who came to be known collectively as the Frankfurt School. In the aftermath of Marx’s failed prediction of revolution, these individuals were dismayed by the rise of Orthodox Party Marxism and a dictatorial form of communism. They turned their attention to the problem of rule through ideology, or rule carried out in the realm of culture. They believed that technological advancements in communications and the reproduction of ideas enabled this form of rule.
Their ideas overlapped with Italian scholar Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony. Other early members of the Frankfurt School included Friedrich Pollock, Otto Kirchheimer, Leo Löwenthal, and Franz Leopold Neumann. Walter Benjamin was also associated with it during its peak in the mid-20th century.
One of the core concerns of the scholars of the Frankfurt School, especially Horkheimer, Adorno, Benjamin, and Marcuse, was the rise of “mass culture.” This phrase refers to the technological developments that allowed for the distribution of cultural products—music, film, and art—on a mass scale. (Consider that when these scholars began crafting their critiques, radio and cinema were still new phenomena, and television didn’t exist.) They objected to how technology led to a sameness in production and cultural experience. Technology allowed the public to sit passively before cultural content rather than actively engage with one another for entertainment, as they had in the past. The scholars theorized that this experience made people intellectually inactive and politically passive, as they allowed mass-produced ideologies and values to wash over them and infiltrate their consciousness.
Marxism (as prescribed by Karl Marx), was a way of “making” everyone equal via Communism. The Government would control the means of production and in effect, run all industries. Everyone who make the same amount of money, regardless of profession or work ethic. Everyone would have access to the same level of Government run social services.
In theory, this sounded great, as everyone would get their basic needs met. In practice, however, the only way to run such a system is by force, and to take away free will. Few people are willing to work hard when there are no rewards for doing do, hence the system falls apart. True, everyone will have access to the same services, but to the same “poor” services.
Cultural Marxism takes those same principles and applies them on a cultural level, despite having extremely harmful effects. This is because “oppression” is often viewed as the root cause of a difference, not simply difference in groups.
How does this destructive ideology manifest itself? Let’s take a look at a few examples of claiming “injustice” where no such thing exists.
5. Long Debunked “Gender Pay Gap”
This was addressed in a previous article. Feminists (a sub-group of cultural Marxists), have long claimed that women are on average are paid less. As proof, they often point to government statistics that show that on average, the hourly wage is more for a man than for a women.
However, feminists don’t want to ask WHY women are, on average, paid less than men. Such an omission completely derails their arguments. Men on average, work in more physical, dangerous, and skilled positions. They work full time more often than women do, and on average, are employed for longer periods of time. Also, there are more likely to take fields in college or university (like STEM or business), while arts and humanities are dominated by women. These differences go a long way towards explaining differences in pay.
Despite these obvious answers being easily available, the “gender-pay-gap” is still widely trumpeted in academia and feminist circles. It’s as if the people behind these theories, the Cultural Marxists, don’t want to see it properly addressed.
One such example is here, of a brainwashed feminist. She knows men are not women, but assumes that women earning less is patriarchy. Great use of her BA/MA in gender studies.
Of course, cultural Marxism also pushes the idea that women have to have careers in order to be happy with their lives, and that motherhood is a form of submission into traditional gender roles. Fact is, we need women to be mothers in order to keep the next generation of society going. Population replacement via mass migration is not really a good idea.
6. Abortion Agenda
This area has been brought up repeatedly on the site. To boil it down, cultural Marxists have been pushing the idea that abortion (or killing your unborn children) is actually a form of empowerment to be embraced by women as a whole. This is morbid, as it completely devalues human life.
See here, see here, see here, and see Trudeau, for some examples of accepting viewpoint diversity.
Also worth noting is that the organ trafficking industry — or baby chop shop — is an extremely lucrative market. So there is definitely a financial incentive as well for pushing infanticide.
7. Affirmative Action, Racial Differences
The topic of affirmative action was covered, in this article on Harvard University being sued for having racial quotas. Harvard, like many schools, engages in affirmative action, or have “quotas” for how many people in certain groups get in. The rationale is that “oppression and inequality” get factored into these decisions. But isn’t that inherently unfair to other groups of people?
2 other possibilities could explain the disparity in admissions.
(a) Differences in culture: if a particular group has such a culture that on average does not value education, it seems likely that far fewer people from that culture will successfully pursue academia. It is not discrimination, but the result of personal choices.
(b) Biological differences in racial/ethnic groups: as unpopular as it is to say, there are biological differences between groups, and it includes differences in IQ. This has been researched ad nauseum, but the findings are immediately condemned by many as being racist. Average IQ of whites is around 100, while Jewish and Asians are even higher. IQ in Central and South America is often in the 80s, while in Sub-Saharan Africa, it is in the 70s. Certainly, no one has control over how they were born, but these differences do exist.
Despite IQ and work ethic differences across various groups, cultural Marxists keep insisting that differences in academic entry, graduation, and accomplishment is due to systemic racism and discrimination. It’s as if they don’t want the truth to be told.
8. Promoting Gay/Trans Agenda
Not only are segments of society actively promoting the idea that people should become the opposite sex if they feel uncomfortable, they push it in children as well. This comes despite the enormous health risks, the suicide rates, and the inability to have children in later stages of life.
One recent trend is the push for allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports, despite the remaining physical advantages. This will undoubtedly help to ruin women’s sports along the way.
Another development was to block funding, for a rape relief shelter in Vancouver, as it wasn’t interested in letting trans-women in. This is nonsense. Rather than being available to help the vast majority of victims, it will now be available to help no one. Good job.
There is the idea of people living their lives as they are, (controversy notwithstanding). Then there is throwing your weight around and demanding society accommodate you.
9. Increasing Islamization
Islam has such strong influence in Canada today that our government pussyfoots around calling Islamic terrorism for what it is. Our leaders crow about diversity being a great thing, but never get into the sexual violence and exploitation that is so rampant in Islam.
This is on top of Bill C-75, which waters down penalties in Canada for terrorism. This is on top of Bill C-6, which revoked a previous law to deport “Canadians” who were dual citizens, but convicted for terrorism or treason.
Also, please note the incessant demands by Muslims to accommodate their way of life, their religion, and their culture. Note, this accommodation will never be reciprocated.
Islam is completely incompatible with the West, and with every other culture in general. However, cultural Marxists just keep telling us not to be bigots and embrace diversity. Feminists as well, openly embrace Islam, despite is going against everything they claim to believe in. LGBTQ groups support Islam too, despite the fact that Islam openly calls for gays to be killed?
Why is this nonsense embraced, when it is so contrary to Western ideals? What is behind it? Who is behind it?
10. Cultural Marxism A Weapon Against Us?
Consider the long term implications of cultural Marxism. Yes, there is some stereotyping, but largely this is true. Consider the points raised in #5 to #9
(A) Women who become feminists are very likely to reject Western society as a whole. They will hate themselves, and men in general. Rather than having children and perpetuating the species, many will remain childless. Instead, they will believe the lie that career is the key to every woman’s happiness.
(B) Rather than embracing children, killing their unborn children is now seen as totally acceptable. It is framed as “reproductive care” and of “my body, my choice”. The obvious result from this is a much lower birth rate, and population decline.
(C) Instead of promoting a meritocracy, we water down any and all standards in the name of being inclusive and tolerant. Actual skill, experience, and competence take a backseat to being diverse.
(D) Push the gay and trans agenda, especially in children. Forget the emotional and psychological harm that comes of it. Remember as well: gay couples cannot have children, and people who have transitioned fully cannot have children with anyone anymore.
(E) Embracing and making excuses for Islam projects the false image that it is compatible with Western society. Never mind the huge cultural clashes that do go on. And never mind that Muslims have a birthrate that far exceeds Western couples. An attempt to out-breed us?
Is there a pattern here? Although cultural Marxism encompasses other ideas, there is a trend here. These initiatives involve Western, European people having less children — or none at all. The solution of course, will be to import a “replacement population”, who will outbreed and eventually replace Europeans.
The founders of cultural Marxism, why do they do this? Are they of a certain group that has a very strong in-group preference? Is the goal of cultural Marxism to inflict great damage across the West? Is it designed to completely destroy the West?
(Shafia family murders, 4 dead in honour killings)
(First FGM case in America, yes, America)
(Nigerian Muslims committing genocide against Christians)
(Iqra Khalid’s blasphemy motion, M-103)
1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation
CLICK HERE, for #1: series intro and other listings. CLICK HERE, for #2: suing for the right to illegally enter U.S. CLICK HERE, for #3: the U.N.’s hypocrisy on sexual abuse. CLICK HERE, for #4: fake refugees gaming the system. CLICK HERE, for #5: various topics on subject.
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for text of Cairo Declaration. CLICK HERE, for Bill C-6, citizenship for terrorists. CLICK HERE, for repatriating terrorists to home countries. CLICK HERE, for 2018 Report to Parliament on Terrorism. CLICK HERE, for Bill C-59, Changes to Young Offender Act. CLICK HERE, for Bill C-75, weakening terrorism penalties. CLICK HERE, for Washington Post on ISIS sex slavery. CLICK HERE, for a BBC article on child brides. CLICK HERE, for Gatestone on grooming gangs being ignored in UK. CLICK HERE, for CP article, Muslims slaughtering Christians in Nigeria.
Previous Articles CLICK HERE, for Cairo Declaration on Human “Right”. CLICK HERE, for World Hijab Day review. CLICK HERE, for guidelines for returning terrorists. CLICK HERE, for the efforts to ban criticism of Islam globally. CLICK HERE, for purging “Shia” and “Sunni” from terrorism reports to avoid naming the actual perpetrators. CLICK HERE, for Islam and domestic violence. CLICK HERE, for ECHR upholding Austrian blasphemy conviction.
3. Context For This Article
Yes, Islam has been covered before on the site. Just look at the above articles.
This one focuses on the exploitation that Islam enables and encourages. Forced child marriages, no rights for women, slavery or killings of non-believers or apostates is common in Islamic culture. This isn’t something that can shrugged off as normal, but amounts to serious human rights violations.
Despite censorship, information is getting out about how people are being abused, sexually exploited, trafficked and killed. Certainly these crimes are not exclusively because of Islam, but it does play a role in much of it.
So why isn’t this much more public? Quite simply, because of a concentrated effort to shut down criticism and discussion about Islam. Individual campaigns have been launched, national legislations introduced, and even global bans have been attempted. Beyond that, attempts have been made to frame Islam (ex. the Cairo Declaration) as entrenching human rights.
It’s quite a clever strategy to disguise a political ideology as a religion. That way, any criticism — regardless of how valid — can be condemned as bigotry and hatred. If the enemy cannot criticize you, then you have already won.
It should also be noted that the endless demands of Muslims to accommodate have taken their toll.
4. Grooming Gangs In The UK
In allowing this criminality to fester for decades, the British authorities have effectively become criminal themselves as accessories after the fact. They could also be accused of breaking not only domestic law but international treaties regarding child protection, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.
As the abuse is largely perpetrated by “(South) Asian” criminals, UK authorities now find themselves in a bind. To act with concerted government and police action may increase existing community tensions. Alternatively, by not acting, faith in the country’s institutions and laws — and minority communities themselves — will continue to deteriorate among large sections of the public. As that may not happen immediately on the watch of the current crop of feckless UK politicians, there is most likely the inclination among them to kick this human tragedy down the road.
The UK has abdicated its responsibilities to protect its citizens, and especially to protect children from exploitation.
Under the guise of wanting to be tolerant and not inflame ethnic tensions, UK law enforcement has effectively turned a blind eye to hundreds of sexual predators operating within its borders.
However, they are not being completely useless. In the rare time that charges are brought, police are ready to snag someone like Tommy Robinson for reporting on the proceedings of the grooming gangs.
5. Islamic Slave Trade
Younger Yazidi girls fetch higher prices in the Islamic State slave markets. According to some accounts, those higher up in the organization’s command structure get first choice. But it’s clear the trade comprises a real wing of the Islamic State’s internal economy.
“The girls get peddled like barrels of petrol,” Zainab Bangura, the United Nations’ special representative on sexual violence and conflict, said in an interview with Bloomberg. “One girl can be sold and bought by five or six different men. Sometimes these fighters sell the girls back to their families for thousands of dollars of ransom.”
The Washington Post details some of the barbaric practices that been going on be ISIS fighters. Women are bought and sold like property, and become slaves for men willing to do cruel things to them.
Of course, this practice long precedes ISIS. In fact Islam itself has a lengthy history of slavery, which is permitted for “infidels”. Funny how leftists in the West blame whites for limited slavery by some ancestors, yet are silent about the ongoing slavery that goes on under the name of Islam.
6. Forced Child Marriages
Almost one third ( 32% ) of refugee marriages in Jordan involve a girl under 18, according to the latest figures from Unicef. This refers to registered marriages, so the actual figure may be much higher. The rate of child marriage in Syria before the war was 13%.
Some families marry off their daughters because of tradition. Others see a husband as protection for their daughters, but the UN says most are driven by poverty.
City of the dispossessed
“The longer the crisis in Syria lasts, the more we will see refugee families using this as a coping mechanism,” said Michele Servadei, deputy Jordan representative for Unicef. “The vast majority of these cases are child abuse, even if the parents are giving their permission.”
It involves Syrian brokers and men – mainly from the Gulf States – who present themselves as donors, but are actually shopping for brides.
They prey on refugee families, living in rented accommodation, who are struggling to get by.
This piece is very heartbreaking. Many are abandoned by their family out of poverty, or married off due to tradition.
Circumstances also make these young girls easy targets for adult men who fully intend to exploit them. This isn’t “marriage” in any real sense of the word. It’s child sex slavery.
7. Polygamy, Multiple Marriages
If the idea of forcing a young child into marriage isn’t sick enough, consider the idea of forcing children (yes, multiple) children into marriages.
Considering the power imbalance in child marriages, and under Sharia law in general, how exactly is the well being of these “wives” supposed to be looked after?
8. Female Genital Mutilation
This is a move that should outrage feminists, but they are stunningly silent on it. Young girls, often against their will, and having their privates mutilated in order to prevent them from getting aroused in later years.
Obviously, if there is unwanted sexual contact, it is exclusively the girl/woman’s fault. The man is never responsible.
This practice is banned in dozens of countries, but is going on under the radar in the West. The U.S. recently had a very public case against 2 doctors performing such actions.
Dr. Jumana Nagarwala is the lead defendant in the case. While the charges of conspiring to commit and committing female genital mutilation, as well as aiding and abetting others in doing so, have been dropped, Nagarwala still faces charges of conspiring to travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct and conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding. She was charged alongside Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, his wife, Farida Attar, and five other residents of Michigan and Minnesota.
Congress had no authority to pass a law criminalizing female genital mutilation, judge says
Apparently, a law designed to protect girls and women from violence directed at them is unconstitutional. From the CNN article, it shows how the victims have been failed by the courts.
Make no mistake. FGM does happen elsewhere in the West. However, Islamic groups would much prefer that it not be discussed publicly.
9. Domestic Violence
This was addressed in another article. The example included research by a Calgary group for violence survivors, who found that up to 40% of their patrons were visible Muslims. Of course one may ask “why” there is such rampant abuse in Islamic families, but that would be bigoted.
10. Honour Killings Of Girls
Of course, it doesn’t always stop at just violence. It can, and does, often lead to murder.
Two cases that made national headlines were: (a) the Shafia family killing, where 3 daughters and an ex-wife were killed; and Asqa Parvez, killed by her brother and father.
While those are just 2, there are many more that are going on in the West. In the name of diversity, we import cultures who do not believe in equality between men and women.
11. Pro-Islam Campaigns Pushed By Media
Now that we’ve gotten into the horrendous, exploitative things done in the name of Islam, we have to ask the next question. Why aren’t these things repeatedly and thoroughly condemned by the media?
In short, great marketing. Islamic groups frequently push and promote their “religion”, using selective truthfulness. It happens very often.
Consider this example of a CBC article promoting World Hijab Day. 2 women are at the Windsor Regional Hospital to talk about and promote the event. They speak of it in absolute glowing terms.
Of course, neither these women (nor other Muslim women) mention the ugly truth: women in many regions are FORCED to wear the hijab. See here, see here, and see here. Certainly this should at least be mentioned. Otherwise, this is just propaganda.
12. Media Sweeps Islamic Terrorism Under Rug
The church leaders said that “over 6,000 persons, mostly children, women and the aged have been maimed and killed in night raids by armed Fulani herdsmen,” which is prompting their cry to the government of Nigeria “to stop this senseless and blood shedding in the land and avoid a state of complete anarchy where the people are forced to defend themselves.”
The press release also pleaded with the international community, as well as the United Nations, to intervene in the Fulani attacks, fearing they might spread to other countries as well.
“We are particularly worried at the widespread insecurity in the country where wanton attacks and killings by armed Fulani herdsmen, bandits and terrorists have been taking place on a daily basis in our communities unchallenged despite huge investments in the security agencies,” they added, saying President Muhammadu Buhari has failed to bring attackers to justice.
In Nigeria, as well as other places, Muslims openly wage war against infidels. This is nothing short of a genocide. People, often Christians, are slaughtered simply for believing in something different.
This has been going on for 1400 years in some form or another. However, Islamists using Taqiyya (deception) have been largely successful in persuading large parts of the public that it is only extremists who are engaged in this sort of thing.
Articles and stories like this are quite common, but you will never hear about it on the mainstream media.
April 29, 2019 Update
As per the Minister of Public Safety’s statement on the 2018 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada, a review of the language used to describe extremism has been undertaken and is ongoing. The Government’s communication of threats must be clear, concise, and cannot be perceived as maligning any groups. As we continue this review, it is apparent that in outlining a threat, it must be clearly linked to an ideology rather than a community. The Government will carefully select terminology that focuses on the intent or ideology. As a first step, the Government has updated terminology used in the 2018 report to eliminate terminology that unintentionally impugns an entire religion. Going forward, the Government of Canada is committed to applying a bias-free approach to the terminology used to describe any threats inspired by ideology or groups.
Ralph Goodale, who identifies as the “Public Safety Minister”, tries to sanitize the report by emphasizing that it is not the ideology itself (Sunnis and Shias) who are committing acts of terrorism, but rogue elements.
Never mind that Islam is an ideology which requires its followers to commit violence against non-believers. This is just whitewashing the truth. He can’t even call a spade a spade.
This is as absurd as when former U.S. President Barry Soretoro (a.k.a. Barack Obama) claimed that the Fort Hood shooter — an Islamist who killed 40 troops — was committing workplace violence instead of terrorism.
14. Legislation To Combat “Islamophobia”
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has upheld a conviction against an Austrian woman who publicly called Mohamed a “pedophile” for marrying a 6 year old girl. Also see the video.
In Canada, the Federal Government passed a motion to ban “Islamophobia” and other forms of discrimination. Not accidently, “Islamophobia” was never explicitly defined, making it easier to be interpreted broadly.
Those are just 2 examples of creeping Islam, and efforts to shut down any questions or criticism, regardless of merit.
15. Global Efforts Against “Islamophobia”
This was covered in a previous article. There are attempts to make criticism of Islam a crime everywhere in the world. While these movements are portrayed as stopping religious defamation and prejudice, the real goal is to shield Islam from people speaking the truth
CLICK HERE, for a March 2008 meeting. CLICK HERE, for an April 2009 press briefing. CLICK HERE, for a 2009 statement, States obliged to promote religious tolerance. CLICK HERE, for World Interfaith Harmony Week, February 2010. CLICK HERE, for a 2010 call for “minority rights”. CLICK HERE for UN Assistance in Afghanistan meeting in 2012. CLICK HERE, for a 2012 address from the Turkish Foreign Minister CLICK HERE, for a 2014 Iranian statement to the UN. CLICK HERE, for a whitewashing of Islam, October 2014. CLICK HERE, for a gripe-fest about Islamophobia, August 2017. CLICK HERE, for Iqra Khalid, Pakistani Muslim, and Liberal MP.
16. Islamists Infiltrating “Human Rights” Bodies
There are 57 members in the UN OIC, which is the Organization of Islamic Countries. This makes up the single biggest voting bloc in the UN. Their goal, predictably, is to work collectively to advance Sharia Law.
Several of these nations are also on the UN Human Rights Council. That’s right. Nations which commit human rights abuses are on the HRC.
17. Cairo Declaration Provides No Protection
ARTICLE 2: (a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to safeguard this right against any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a shari’ah prescribed reason.
ARTICLE 12: Every man shall have the right, within the framework of the Shari’ah, to free movement and to select his place of residence whether within or outside his country and if persecuted, is entitled to seek asylum in another country. The country of refuge shall be obliged to provide protection to the asylum-seeker until his safety has been attained, unless asylum is motivated by committing an act regarded by the Shari’ah as a crime.
ARTICLE 22: (a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.
1.. Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.
ARTICLE 23:
(b) Everyone shall have the right to participate, directly or indirectly in the administration of his country’s public affairs. He shall also have the right to assume public office in accordance with the provisions of Shari’ah.
ARTICLE 24: All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.
ARTICLE 25: The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.
Nice bait-and-switch here. While the Cairo Declaration presents as an enshrinement of human rights, one thing must be pointed out. All of these “rights” are solely within the context of Shari’ah. This effectively means that there are no real rights, nor any true equality.
Certainly, the Cairo Declaration “appears” to enshrine many basic rights for everyone, and to ensure equality between men and women. It appears to support free speech, and fundamental freedoms for all. But again, only within the context of Sharia law.
18. Final Thoughts
So what is really going on here with Islam?
Media propaganda to promote Islam
Keep names out of government reports
Pass laws to ban “Islamophobia”
Work to ban criticism of Islam (globally)
Infiltrate human rights organizations
Enshrine meaningless declarations
Of course, this is only a partial list, but should illustrate the point. But why do all of this though?
It’s to cover up the exploitive and downright predatory nature of Islam. It’s to silence and discredit people who ask questions — regardless of how well founded they are. To keep people in the dark about how women and girls are really treated in Muslim majority areas.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: series intro and other listings. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #2: suing for the right to illegally enter U.S. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #3: the U.N.’s hypocrisy on sexual abuse.
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.
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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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:
Support mass, uncontrolled entry into other countries
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.
8. 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?
9. 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.
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?
(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.
11. 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?
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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
CLICK HERE, for AIPAC main page. CLICK HERE, for J-Street. CLICK HERE, for Israeli-American Coalition For Action. CLICK HERE, for Zionist Organization of America. CLICK HERE, for Republican Jewish Coalition. CLICK HERE, for Christians United For Israel. CLICK HERE, for Jewish Institute for National Security of America. CLICK HERE, for American Jewish Committee. CLICK HERE, for Alliance for Israeli Advocacy. CLICK HERE, for military support for Israel. CLICK HERE, for House Resolution 1837. CLICK HERE, for anti-BDS (ban, divest, sanction) laws which prohibit companies from “not” doing business with Israel. CLICK HERE, for Kentucky being 26th State with anti-BDS laws. CLICK HERE, for 2019 Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act. CLICK HERE, for top campaign contributions by Congressperson. CLICK HERE, for various lobbying groups.
A while back, Muslim (and Democrat) representative Ilhan Omar made comments about the impact about the Israeli lobby in American politics. She also suggested that members of Congress were in essence being bought off. This brought about rounds of criticism, and claims that the Muslim woman is an anti-Semite.
Omar faced a public backlash for suggesting that the US Congress was in the pocket of AIPAC, and that it was “all about the Benjamins” (which of course is a reference to money).
Here’s the thing, though: while Omar’s comments were intentionally inflammatory (and likely aided by her Islamic beliefs), they are not unfounded. It is truthful that AIPAC and other such lobbying firms do play a huge role in paying off contributing to political campaigns.
It is also true that the United States spends heavily on the military defense of Israel, and has anti-BDS (ban, divest, sanction) laws. These aid Israel both militarily and economically. Money well spent.
These are just 5 of the Senators and Congresspeople who are being bribed receiving campaign contributions from the Israeli lobby. Going through the list of donations, it appears that almost all members of Congress are on the take.
Kentucky joins 25 other US states that have enacted similar anti-BDS laws or executive orders.
Montana, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Michigan, Texas, Nevada, Kansas, Louisiana and Wisconsin have all passed bills fighting BDS.
The BDS movement promotes financial, academic and cultural boycotts of Israel, ostensibly as a nonviolent protest against the so-called “Israeli occupation.” Critics say its activities are a modern form of anti-Semitism and that its true objective is to destroy the State of Israel.
26 states have anti-BDS laws against Israel. There are no other laws in the US that protect anyone.
4. Strengthening US Security In ME Act
SEC. 111. Findings.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In February 1987, the United States granted Israel major non-NATO ally status.
(2) On August 16, 2007, the United States and Israel signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding on United States military assistance to Israel. The total assistance over the course of this understanding would equal $30 billion
(3) On July 27, 2012, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–150; 22 U.S.C. 8601 et seq.) declared it to be the policy of the United States “to help the Government of Israel preserve its qualitative military edge amid rapid and uncertain regional political transformation” and stated the sense of Congress that the United States Government should “provide the Government of Israel defense articles and defense services through such mechanisms as appropriate, to include air refueling tankers, missile defense capabilities, and specialized munitions”.
(4) On December 19, 2014, President Barack Obama signed into law the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–296) which stated the sense of Congress that Israel is a major strategic partner of the United States and declared it to be the policy of the United States “to continue to provide Israel with robust security assistance, including for the procurement of the Iron Dome Missile Defense System”.
(5) Section 1679 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92; 129 Stat. 1135) authorized funds to be appropriated for Israeli cooperative missile defense program codevelopment and coproduction, including funds to be provided to the Government of Israel to procure the David’s Sling weapon system as well as the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor Program.
(6) On September 14, 2016, the United States and Israel signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding reaffirming the importance of continuing annual United States military assistance to Israel and cooperative missile defense programs in a way that enhances Israel’s security and strengthens the bilateral relationship between the two countries.
(7) The 2016 Memorandum of Understanding reflected United States support of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grant assistance to Israel over the 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028. FMF grant assistance would be at a level of $3,300,000,000 annually, totaling $33 billion, the largest single pledge of military assistance ever and a reiteration of the seven-decade, unshakeable, bipartisan commitment of the United States to Israel’s security.
(8) The Memorandum of Understanding also reflected United States support for funding for cooperative programs to develop, produce, and procure missile, rocket, and projectile defense capabilities over a 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028 at a level of $500 million per year, totaling $5 billion.
Are there many Jewish organizations who lobby the US Congress? YES
Does AIPAC spend a lot of money lobbying? YES
Does AIPAC “own” the US Congress? YES
Does Israel benefit militarily from this? YES
Does Israel benefit economically from the anti-BDS laws? YES
Does Ilhan Omar get a free pass? NOT QUITE
Ilhan Omar doesn’t get a free pass on her comments about AIPAC and Israel for one simple reason: hypocrisy.
While she accurately and truthfully calls out Jewish influence, she intentionally omits ISLAMIC influence and lobbying efforts.
Yes, it was a bit misleading to leave this bit out of the title, but it’s the form of “lying by omission” that Ilhan Omar would probably approve of.
6. Islamic Influence
CLICK HERE, for the Council on American Islamic Relations. CLICK HERE, for the Islamic Society of North America. CLICK HERE, for Islamic Relief USA (terrorism supporter) CLICK HERE, for the Middle East Policy Council. CLICK HERE, for Muslim Public Affairs Council. CLICK HERE, for Muslims for Progressive values. CLICK HERE, for American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. CLICK HERE, for Islamic Networks Group. CLICK HERE, for Muslim Legal Fund of America.
This is just a list of lobbyists that are on Saudi Arabia’s payroll. Note: that for both Jewish and Islamic lobbyists, there are likely many, MANY more than what are covered here.
But the point in adding this, is that Ilhan Omar is being completely hypocritical to call out Jewish influence in American politics, without at all mentioning the Islamic influence. Some moral consistency would be nice here.
There are also endless demands for accommodation made by Muslims:
Demanding accommodation for Islamic symbols
Demanding removal of OTHER religious symbols
Halal meat only
Prayer rooms built in schools
Build foot wash stations
Paid time off to pray
Sharia compliant swim times
Religious accommodation with uniforms
Refusing to say Merry Christmas
Repeated attempts to ban criticism of Islam
And this is to say nothing of Islamic terrorism, which exists everywhere.
It would be nice if Ilhan Omar would call out bothJewish and Islamic lobbying efforts. But that will never happen.
If nothing else, that this point away from it. Don’t give Ilhan Omar flak for the TRUTH she spoke about AIPAC and such lobbyist groups. Instead, give her flak for the OMISSIONS she made in leaving out the Islamic lobby.
(Then President George W. Bush, arguing for an invasion of Iraq under blatantly false pretenses. The UN Security Council approved the use of force in 2002 by a 15-0 vote. War was launched on March 20, 2003).
(A critique on the problem with veto power)
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for UN Security Council home page. CLICK HERE, for the page on sanctions. CLICK HERE, the UN Charter. CLICK HERE, for Article 41 of the UN Charter (Sanctions). CLICK HERE, for an index of voting records. CLICK HERE, for Wikipedia page on “Proxy Wars”.
2. Stated Mission
Peace and Security
The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has 15 Members, and each Member has one vote. Under the Charter of the United Nations, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions.
The Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. In some cases, the Security Council can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.
That is correct. 15 nations can decide what is “in the interest of global peace and security”. Hardly seems that other nations get much of a say in international matters. Would your own sovereignty be limited by what these 15 members of the “Global Community” have to say?
Even more undemocratic is the make up of the Security Council. There are 15 members, 5 of which are permanent, and 10 others which are chosen on a rotational basis.
The 5 permanent members are: 1/ the United States; 2/ Russia (formerly the Soviet Union); 3/ Britain; 4/ France; and 5/ China. These were the “winners” of World War II, when the UN was founded. Each of the 5 permanent members has “veto” power, meaning they can unilaterally block any resolution from passing.
In order to pass a Security Council resolution, a majority of members have to approve it. Additionally, none of the “Permanent 5” can veto. They each have to abstain or support.
3. Non Military Options
What if the UN doesn’t opt for military force? There are less direct, but more passive-aggressive measures called “sanctions”. These are essentially punishments the Security Council imposes.
(From Article 41)
“The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.”
From the page on sanctions:
“Security Council sanctions have taken a number of different forms, in pursuit of a variety of goals. The measures have ranged from comprehensive economic and trade sanctions to more targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, and financial or commodity restrictions. The Security Council has applied sanctions to support peaceful transitions, deter non-constitutional changes, constrain terrorism, protect human rights and promote non-proliferation.”
The UN Security Council also lists who it has imposed sanctions upon: “Since 1966, the Security Council has established 30 sanctions regimes, in Southern Rhodesia, South Africa, the former Yugoslavia (2), Haiti, Iraq (2), Angola, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Eritrea, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Liberia (3), DRC, Côte d’Ivoire, Sudan, Lebanon, DPRK, Iran, Libya (2), Guinea-Bissau, CAR, Yemen, South Sudan and Mali, as well as against ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida and the Taliban.”
4. UN Contributing To World Peace?
Does UN Security Council Create World Peace?
Not really. This is especially true when one of the “Permanent 5” has veto power over any resolution to stop or condemn the aggression. Though the major powers may not directly be involved, they may provide aid to others and fight proxy wars.
Though not always the best site, Wikipedia is great for a quick reference.
Chinese Civil War (1944–1949)
Greek Civil War (1944–1949)
Iran crisis of 1946 (1945–1946)
First Indochina War (1946–1954)
Paraguayan Civil War (1947)
Malayan Emergency (1948–1960)
Internal conflict in Myanmar (1948– )
Balochistan conflict (1948– )
Arab–Israeli conflict (1948–present)
Korean War (1950–1953)
Mau Mau Uprising (1952–1960)
Second Indochina War (First Taiwan Strait Crisis (1953–1975))
Algerian War (1954–1962)
First Sudanese Civil War (1955–1972)
Suez Crisis (1956–1957)
Second Taiwan Strait Crisis (1958)
Lebanon crisis (1958)
Tibetan uprising (1959–1962)
Central American crisis (1960–1996)
Congo Crisis (1960–1965)
Portuguese Colonial War (1960–1974)
Xinjiang conflict (1960s–present)
First Iraqi–Kurdish War (1961–1970)
Eritrean War of Independence (1961-1991)
North Yemen Civil War (1962–1970)
Dhofar Rebellion (1962–1976)
Sarawak Communist Insurgency (1962–1990)
Sand War (1963)
Aden Emergency (1963–1967)
Insurgency in Northeast India (1963–present)
Rhodesian Bush War (1964–1979)
Dominican Civil War (1965)
Communist insurgency in Thailand (1965–1983)
Bolivian Campaign (1966–1967)
Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–1969)
South African Border War (1966–1990)
Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970)
Naxalite–Maoist insurgency (1967–present)
Communist insurgency in Malaysia (1968–1989)
Operation Condor (1968–1989)
Al-Wadiah War (1969-present)
Civil conflict in the Philippines (1969–present)
Yemenite War (1972)
Angolan Civil War (1974–2002)
Ethiopian Civil War (1974–1991)
Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990)
Western Sahara War (1975–1991)
Indonesian occupation of East Timor (1975–1999)
Cabinda War (1975–present)
Insurgency in Laos (1975–present)
Civil conflict in Turkey (1976–present)
Shaba I (1977)
Ogaden War (1977–1978)
Cambodian-Vietnamese War (1977–1991)
Mozambican Civil War (1977–1992)
Chittagong Hill Tracts conflict (1977–1997)
Shaba II (1978)
Uganda–Tanzania War (1978–1979)
NDF Rebellion (1978–1982)
Chadian–Libyan conflict (1978–1987)
Yemenite War of (1979)
Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989)
Sino-Vietnamese War (1979
Internal conflict in Peru (1980–present)
Ethiopian–Somali Border War (1982)
Sri Lankan Civil War (1983–2009)
This isn’t even a complete list. But when researching conflicts, you will find that it is most often one or more of the “Permanent 5” behind these conflicts. How can the UN actually help world peace when its own Security Council members can flaunt the principles without consequences?
Why are a nation’s well being and sovereignty dependant on the will of 15 nations, 5 of whom appointed themselves as permanent members with a veto.
This is not to say that nations should not be free to enter into military alliances and pacts. However, this arrangement seems stacked against smaller and weaker nations.
5. What Does UN Say About It?
Under the United Nations Charter, the functions and powers of the Security Council are:
.
-to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;
-to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction;
-to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;
-to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;
-to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;
-to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;
-to take military action against an aggressor;
-to recommend the admission of new Members;
-to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in “strategic areas”;
-to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.
There has been much speculation within Canada that Justin Trudeau is being so “UN compliant” because he is aiming for a seat on the Security Council. Not sure if this is true, though it’s certainly possible.
Military aggression. But “democratically performed” military aggression.”
6. Who’s Behind US Military Aggression?
In a word: Israel.
The State of Israel has been influencing US military policy, particularly in the Middle East, for decades. Western (Christian) nations go to war against Muslim nations. This in turn creates refugees who are forced to take shelter in other countries. Of course Israel won’t take them, but will help ship them off to the West.
