Darfur Rebels Overun an African Union peacekeeping base

Last year, NDP leader, Jack Layton, was appealing to the Canadian government to send peacekeeping troops to Darfur, even though there was still fighting between government and rebel troops. A peace deal had been signed by both groups, but neither side respected or observed it.

NDP wants Canada to lead on Darfur mission

The federal New Democrats want Canada to take a lead role in any UN mission to stop the bloodshed in Sudan's Darfur province, even if that means scaling back its commitment in Afghanistan.

Apparently the peacekeeping mission is not going very well for the African Union peacekeeping troops stationed there.

Darfur Rebels Kill 10 in Raid On Peace Force

Hundreds of Darfurian rebels overran an African Union peacekeeping base in the central Darfur region of Sudan in a surprise raid over the weekend, killing at least 10 soldiers, possibly kidnapping dozens more and seizing supplies that included heavy weapons, African Union officials said Sunday.

If Canada had gone ahead and sent troops to Darfur and had suffered casualties, would Mr. Layton now be demanding a withdrawal of Canadian troops from that country? Chances are, his party would blame the Conservative government for handling the mission badly and demand an immediate withdrawal, as in the case of Afghanistan.

U.S. refugee worker was arrested while trying to enter Canada with illegal aliens

Janet Hinshaw-Thomas, a U.S. refugee worker was arrested at the border crossing of Lacolle, Que. last week, as she tried to enter Canada from New York state with 12 illegal aliens from Haiti, including seven children and five adults.

She has been charged under Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, but has since been released on $5000 bail.

As usual, the left-wingers, including Maxine Jennings of the Liberal Party and Olivia Chow of the NDP, are already attacking the use of Section 117 of the Immigration Act to charge her.

"Instead of arresting Good Samaritans and harassing faith-based humanitarian non-profit organizations, the Harper government should focus its attention on many known illegal immigration consultants who prey on the most vulnerable refugees, who coach them to lie and strip them of huge sums of money," Chow said in an e-mail.

"This section of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was designed to catch human traffickers, so why is the Harper government exploiting it to go after a well-intentioned refugee advocate?" Jennings said in a statement.

"That means that Rob Nicholson, the Attorney General of Canada, authorized it, and that's a clear misuse and misinterpretation of the law," she said.

"He has explanations to give."

But excuse me, how is this a misinterpretation of the law? The law clearly says the following

"Organizing and aiding entry into Canada is an offence under Section 117 of the (act)."

The Liberal Party, with the support of the NDP, Bloc and defunct Alliance Party made this amendment to the Immigration Act in 2002. If the Liberal Party had meant for this law only to be used in specific cases, shouldn’t they have structured it that way?

As usual, there are those who want these illegal aliens to come unimpeded into our country. They do not care about the additional burden in terms of financial, social and health care cost that our cities and urban centres have to absorb, even though many of them are operating under inadequate funding.

For them, Canada is a rich country and we can afford to absorb all of these illegal aliens that arrive here without a problem. It's easy for them to say this, because they are not the ones footing the bill.

Janet Hinshaw-Thomas is not just simply a refugee advocate, as some would like you to believe. She is actively involved in transporting illegal immigrants to the Canadian border for the purposes of obtaining asylum.

She frequently drives asylum seekers to border crossings, according to her lawyer, but alerts officials ahead of time.

Ms Hinshaw-Thomas only has herself to blame for the predicament that she finds herself in. Canada should never be allowed to become a dumping ground for illegal aliens, who are nothing but economic refuges trying in enter our country by claiming asylum. So anytime a refugee advocate or anyone else breaks our immigration law, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

What is Afghan President, Hamid Karzai thinking?

What was Afghan President, Hamid Karzai thinking when he makes decisions such as this?

Karzai offers government office to Taliban

Especially after this

Taliban unveils hardline Afghan constitution

The 23-page document envisages a country where women would remain veiled and uneducated, "un-Islamic thought" would be banned and human rights would be ignored if "contrary with the teachings of Islam".

But here is the kicker

On freedom of speech the Taliban charter, which is written in Pashto and Dari, is clear: "Every Afghan has the right to express his feelings through his views, writings or through other means in accordance with the law."

However "un-Islamic thought" is strictly forbidden and "violators will be punished according to sharia" - under the Taliban's strict interpretation of Islamic teachings.

Talking to the Taliban with the hope of involving them in government is a serious mistake. They are not interested in peace and reconciliation unless they get everything their way. The Taliban will not accept anything less than for Afghanistan being run under their rules, so talking to them is a waste of time, unless the aim is to return Afghanistan to the 'dark ages'

Public Safety Minister Day promises 'consequences' for illegal refugees

It is good to see that Public Safety Minister, Stockwell Day, is actually going to crack down on illegal immigrants to Canada. Especially after the increase in illegal aliens from Mexico and Latin America, who have living in the US, but allowed to enter Canada through Windsor to apply for refugee status.

Day said Canada will take a zero-tolerance approach to anyone trying to enter the country illegally, but wanted to investigate specific claims in Windsor more closely.

In an earlier post, I referenced an article that appeared in the National Post that described a potential illegal-immigrant nightmare situation that could engulf our urban centers. It described the journey of Manuel Ortega, a Mexican who was living illegally in Florida for 15 years, but decided to flee to Canada to avoid an immigrant crackdown.

Mexicans pour into Canada from US

Ortega's dream, as he recounted it Tuesday standing outside a room at a Windsor motel, is now but a memory. He is one of an estimated 180 Mexicans from Florida who've rushed across the border and into Windsor to claim refugee status, fleeing a crackdown on illegal aliens in Florida.

The thing that incensed me the most was that he was not fleeing persecution or in fear for his life. This was basically an economic refugee whose time was running out in the US, who decided to come to Canada and jump the queue ahead of legal immigrants, many who had waited years and followed the system to legally enter our country.

Local agencies that work with refugees have been told to brace for 4,000 to 8,000 refugee claimants."
...
"After driving his 1996 Grand Caravan for 24 hours without stopping -- except for gas and food -- the Ortegas arrived at the Windsor tunnel Sept. 11. When they told the border guard they were seeking refugee status, the Ortegas were given a list of social services organizations to contact for support"

After reading this, the first question that came to my mind was, why did our border guards not refuse entry to this person and hundreds of others who did the same thing? It was my impression that the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement was supposed to limit cases like these from occurring. Below is my understanding of the agreement

Those applying from a "safe third country," such as the U.S., are ineligible to make refugee claims at a Canadian border crossing by land.

If Mexicans come to Canada through the U.S., for example, they must make refugee claims there, and are not eligible here.

If this is the case, why are our border guards letting these people in? During the time that they are here awaiting their claim, which most likely will be denied, they are given housing, welfare cheques and other forms of social assistance at great cost to our urban centers. Would it not be prudent and cost effective to simply turn these people back?

According to this article that appeared in the ctv website

Dozens of settlers have begun receiving welfare benefits from the government while they wait for their refugee claim cases to be processes. Most of the claims have little chance of success.

It has been reported that the immigrants may not be covered under Canadian refugee status, meant to be given to people with a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country.

Take for example the city of Windsor. They are facing a severe financial crunch due to this issue.

Last week, he said it had so far cost the city $230,000, about 20 per cent of the annual budget for shelters.

Windsor's unemployment rate is currently pushing 10 per cent, making the influx of jobless refugees the last thing its economy needed.

In addition to the financial crunch, Windsor is also dealing with refugee advocacy groups, who are aiding and abetting the arrival of these illegal immigrants. One of the most prominent members is Jacques Sinjuste, founder of Jerusalem Haitian Community Centre in Florida.

On Friday, Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis met with a Florida man accused of being responsible for sending the wave of immigrants to Windsor. He told Francis there are more busloads of potential immigrants on the way.

"There are individuals or organizations that are now planning for these types of arrivals at the Detroit-Windsor gateway," Francis told A-Channel after his meeting with Jacques Sinjuste, founder of Jerusalem Haitian Community Centre in Naples, Florida.

Mr Sinjuste has been blamed for starting the exodus of illegal immigrants from Florida to Windsor and his group is under investigation by the Florida police after complaints from Canadian and Mexican authorities. His group is accused of making false promises of asylum in Canada to their clients.

Kristi Lester, media communications officer for the county sherriff's office has confirmed that investigators are looking into reports the agency has received concerning JHCC activities. However, she termed the probe an "open investigation," meaning there are currently no charges pending.

Canadian and Mexican authorities have complained that the organization misled Mexican nationals living illegally in the U.S. and fearful of a government crackdown, promising them that Canada was offering asylum and legal status. It's been alleged that JHCC accepted donations of between $300 and $400 to help the Mexicans obtain Canadian refugee applications.

Sinjuste acknowledged that misleading information was passed along to between "20 and 40" illegal Mexican aliens who came to his office after a Spanish-speaking staff member was interviewed for Spanish television.

Hopefully Canada will step up to the plate soon and start enforcing our immigration laws against these illegal refugees. They also need to take firm action against those refugee advocacy groups, who are actively involved in facilitating illegal immigrants to enter our country. Earlier this week, Janet Hinshaw-Thomas, a US refugee worker was arrested at the Quebec border crossing of Lacolle, for tying to help 12 Haitian asylum seekers into Canada.

Her arrest was made under Section 117 of the act, which makes it illegal to "organize, induce, aid or abet" the entry of persons without visas or passports.

More actions like these need to be taken to crack down of illegal immigrants and groups that are assisting them. If nothing is done, Canada could be very soon facing the same, out of control, illegal immigration problems that exist in US border states, such as California, Arizona and Texas.

Charles Adler's Response to his interview with NDP MP Alexa McDonough

This is an update to my previous post concerning an interview that talk show host, Charles Adler, had with NDP MP, Alexa McDonough.

In that interview, she accused Afghan President, Hamid Karzai of having the speech he gave to parliament, during his visit to Canada, written by the Canadian military. It did not seem to matter to her that this accusation by NDP defence critic, Dawn Black, had been flatly denied by Afghan ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad.

Previous post: NDP Alleges that the Canadian Military wrote Afghan President Hamid Karzai's speech to Parliament

Sound clip of the original interview
(Note: You need Windows Media Player to hear it)

link to original interview

In his blog, Adler on the Edge, Charles Adler responds to Ms. McDonough's allegations against the Afghan President.

She wore a long black veil to cover her mind by Charles Adler Sept 27/07

"That's over the top Charles. We never said Karzai was a puppet of the Canadian military," said the NDP's Alexa McDonough. Over the top?

Alexa McDonough in a radio interview on Adler On Line, was delivering the "scoop" that much of the messaging in a speech delivered by Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the Canadian House of Commons last year, was prepped for him by Canadian military officials.

She insisted that the messages we got weren't necessarily those that the people of Afghanistan would want us to have. By any objective standard, the NDP is calling Karzai a puppet. What's over the top is not my characterization of the NDP position. What's completely out of bounds and over the line is patently false charge that Afghanistan's first democratically elected leader is a puppet of Canada's Department of National Defense.

When I asked McDonough to name one single fact in the Karzai speech that was untrue, she said this issue wasn't about the truth. The former boss of the New Democratic Party spoke volumes with that little chestnut. Ideologues care little about the truth.

It's all about ideology. Karzai, in the Canadian Parliament, simply delivered his boiler plate speech to the West. He talked about an Afghanistan where instead of schools being burned to the ground, they were being rebuilt, and instead of girls being denied the right to go to school, there were now two million of them attending. He talked about an Afghanistan where twenty percent of the members of their parliament were women, and where per capita incomes were going up instead of down. Yes, he was grateful to our military for helping to create a better life for many Afghans.

The NDP could learn a lot from the graciousness of the Afghan leader. He has far more respect for our military than the NDP does. And it isn't because military communications people laid down a few words on a piece of paper to help him get his message across. It's because they laid down their lives to give his people an opportunity to have a life.

I gave Alexa McDonough three chances to come up with a single fact stated by the President of Afghanistan that wasn't accurate. Three times she swung her propaganda bat and missed. The NDP's issue in their own words, isn't about the truth. It is a remarkable confession from a Canadian political party which continues to offer feint praise for the bravery of our troops but consistently fails to admit that they have made a difference for the people who inhabit one of the poorest countries in the world. When McDonough was asked if she could admit that our troops were doing some good down there, she would not do so. I offered her the litmus test of honesty by asking her to tell me how many of the 2 million girls now going to schools in Afghanistan how many of them would be attending if our troops and other Nato forces had not been sacrificing their lives.
"Charles you know that is a question that is impossible to answer." "How about zero, Ms McDonough? That would be a truthful answer." She then called my arithmetic ridiculous.

What requires public ridicule is the idea that the NDP has even a shred of moral authority on issues involving our military. What's clear as a bell is that the party has no respect for the military because of their inability to distance themselves for their core pacifist ideology. The NDP refuses to acknowledge that sometimes when bad things to people, the only way to stop it is to kill the bad guys, or as General Hillier once called them, the scumbags.

The NDP refuses to acknowledge that there are times when the only way to help people is through armed force. It is not NDP rhetoric that opened up the schools of Afghanistan and converted the soccer stadium in Kabul from a place to execute "disobedient" women to a place where teams now play soccer. It is not NDP rhetoric that has created better health care for many Afghans and freedom from the TALIBAN barbarians that the NDP seem to prefer.

At least those headchopping, women hating Taliban types aren't reading speeches that have been vetted by the Canadian military. Isn't that something Canadians should respect? When given a choice between condemning the democratically elected leader of Afghanistan or the thugs that who would condemn that country to the dark ages, the NDP position is now crystal clear. And while Alexa McDonough did not have to wear a head covering to do an interview in Canada, a country kept free by the military she tries to diminish, the objective truth was concealed by her prepared talking points. For my part, I am eternally grateful to the Canadian military for keeping me free enough to have the opportunity to unmask the dishonesty of the party that some stooges of the left continue to call the conscience of parliament.

Update:

Alexa McDonough has been shuffled out as NDP critic on foreign affairs by Jack Layton. Her new portfolio is international development, international co-operation, peace advocacy, Atlantic Canada region.

NDP Alleges that the Canadian Military wrote Afghan President Hamid Karzai's speech to Parliament

It is amazing how ridiculous some of the allegations made by left-wing supporters against anyone who stands for the mission to Afghanistan are. The NDP is now alleging that the speech made by Afghan President, Hamid Karzai to parliament during his visit to Canada last year was written by the Canadian military.

Dawn Black, the NDP defence critic, said the documents indicate military advisers were asked to prepare an initial draft of Karzai's speech, delivered on Sept. 22, 2006.

"What Canadians heard was not the voice of the Afghan people, but the talking points of the Department of National Defence,'' Black said.

The Afghan ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad, has strongly denied the allegation, but that did not matter to the NDP.

"I can say something simple and say it's laughable and I could say something a bit more serious and say it verges on being insulting.''

Afghan ambassador denies NDP claims on speech

"I was one of those who spent hours, along with other Afghan officials, with the president himself working on the speech, and the president himself was the last person who edited and finalized it, as is his style," Samad said.

On his radio show yesterday afternoon, host Charles Adler interviewed NDP MP and former Federal NDP leader, Alexa McDonough.

Charles Adler's interview with NDP MP Alexa McDonough
(Note: You need Windows Media Player to hear it)

link to original interview

Some of things that Ms. McDonough said and implied were indeed shocking. In that interview:

• She refused to acknowledge that the 2 million Afghan girls that are in school, were there because of the sacrifices made by Canadian and NATO troops.
• She said that (Canadian) military communications people delivered the words that (Hamid Karzai) delivered in parliament when he visited Canada last year
• She feels that there has been an incredible exploitation of the Canadian military in a propaganda war.

Here is the kicker: (Note I am paraphrasing here, as I did not get all the words)

Charles: "...give me a single line from that speech based on life in Afghanistan that he portrayed that is not true"

Alexa: "No that’s not…It is not a question of what is true. It is a question of are we hearing ah from the President of Afghanistan the message that the people of his country want delivered to Canada through parliament. I mean that’s ah a pretty major venue in which to give that opportunity"

Charles: "That’s a pretty serious charge. It’s a pretty serious charge that he does not represent his own people. That he represents something else. That’s a very serious charge."

Alexa: "What was recorded by our own military was that he took his messages, his themes, the key statistics, as well as the overall structure of his speech provided to him and delivered it to parliament and I find it deeply disappointing and I find it very frightening."

Charles Adler's interview with NDP MP Alexa McDonough
(Note: You need Windows Media Player to hear it)


What is really shocking here is the level of contempt that the NDP has shown for a democratically elected head of state from a war-torn country, who simply came to Canada to say thank you and inform Canadians of the good that their troops are doing.

But then again, why should I be surprised? The left-wing, and their friends in the MSM, have had a concerted campaign to do anything in their power to portray the Afghan mission in a bad light and minimize the good that is being done there.

Update:

Alexa McDonough has been shuffled out as NDP critic on foreign affairs by Jack Layton. Her new portfolio is international development, international co-operation, peace advocacy, Atlantic Canada region.

Terror charges reinstated against Omar Khadr

A US military appeals court has overruled a judge who threw out murder and terrorism charges against Omar Khadr.

The decision by the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review means the Pentagon once again has the green light to put the 21-year-old on trial before a war-crimes tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

There are some groups that have been advocating for the return of Omar Khadr to Canada. Such a move would be premature, as he is a hardened, al-Qaeda trained combatant, who is accused of killing a US medic. There is no guarantee that Omar will not return to his previous al-Qaeda activities and plot against our troops serving in Afghanistan. Take for instance his late father, Ahmed Said Khadr.

Ahmed Khadr was a financier for al-Qaeda and was being held in prison in Pakistan. At the urging of the Khadr family, former Liberal Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, while on a visit to that country advocated for his release. That decision brought nothing but unnecessary trouble and regret for him and his government.

Jean Chrétien raised the Khadr case with the Pakistani prime minister at the time, Benazir Bhutto, and within weeks, Ahmed Said Khadr was released.

Once he was released, Ahmed Khadr immediately resumed his al-Qaeda activities and was later killed in a gun battle with Pakistan troops.

It is probably best for Canada that he stays in Guantamo Bay. Given Canada’s lax justice system, chances are that he would be quickly released and free to pursue his association with al-Qaeda.

There is not much sympathy for the Khadr family from the Canadian public, especially because of their links to terrorist groups and the contraversal interview in which Ahmed Khadr's wife and daughters denounced Canada during a television documentary. Without the support of the Canadian public, there is no urgency on the part of the government to intervene on his behalf, so Omar may remain in Guantamo Bay for a long time.

The Canadian public has had little sympathy for the Khadr family since it was revealed that patriarch Ahmed Said Khadr was a close associate of Osama bin Laden. Comments made by his wife and daughter during a television documentary further agitated some Canadians, who demanded their citizenship be revoked.

In government circles, the "Khadr effect" is also meant to serve as a warning not to intervene in foreign security cases if there's potential for embarrassment. That goes back to 1996 when prime minister Jean Chrétien intervened in the case of Ahmed Said Khadr, who was under arrest by Pakistani authorities for allegedly financing a terrorist bombing.

Canada can't find 50 Afghan detainees

The Globe & Mail is once again harping on the Afghan detainees issue.

Canada can't find 50 Afghan detainees

Apparently 50 detainees are un-accounted for after being handed to the Afghan authorities. There are all kinds of possibilities as to what may have happened to them.

• They could have been released or bribed their way to freedom, as what often occurs, in that country.
• They could have been transferred to another prison, but due to shoddy record keeping, it was not recorded.
• They could have escaped from custody and gone back to the Taliban.
• In the worse case scenario, they could have been tortured and executed in captivity, but there is no evidence to support this scenario.

Afghanistan is still dealing with over 30 years of civil war, and there have not been effective government institutions for a very long time, so record keeping is shoddy at best.

The article mentions that Canada struck a deal with the Afghan authorities to monitor detainees handed over to them by Canadian forces after May 3rd. The detainees mentioned were handed over to the Afghan authorities before this agreement was in place, so tracking them down is en extremely difficult and complicated exercise.

Detainees transferred after May 3 have been monitored under a deal struck in reaction to uproar over the issue, but the Canadians were also anxious to know about the earlier transfers. Sending detainees into places where they face abuse or torture might constitute a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Months later, however, a quarter of those 200 detainees remain missing, neither listed as released nor still in custody.

As usual, in their zeal to promote their agenda against the Afghan mission, the G&M automatically assumes the worst-case scenario without any evidence and automatically brings up the possible violation of the Geneva Convention.

Sending detainees into places where they face abuse or torture might constitute a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

There is no evidence that Canadian forces are intentionally sending detainees to be tortured and it is not known if these unaccounted detainees have been tortured, but that does not stop the G&M from bringing it up. Also, for the Geneva Convention to be violated, prisoners would have to be knowingly transferred to places for the purpose of torture, but this in fact has not occurred, so there is no basis for a possible violation of the Geneva Convention.

There May be a Federal Election this fall

There is an increased possibility of a federal election this fall, as all three opposition parties are now balking at supporting the throne speech when parliament resumes on October 16th. Bloc Quebecois Leader, Gilles Duceppe, is considering taking his chances by opposing the throne speech, as he now realizes that the Conservatives, not the Liberals, are the biggest threat to his party’s hold on the seats it has in Quebec. The longer the Bloc waits, the more its influence and support diminishes to the Conservatives.

The Bloc Quebecois has issued a five-point set of demands for the Conservative minority government that appears to be a reaction the party's bruising in byelections earlier this week. It also appears to be setting the stage for a fall election.

List of Bloc Quebecois demands:

• Eliminate all federal spending powers in provincial jurisdictions;
• Respect the Kyoto Protocol and establish targets for greenhouse gas reductions;
• Assistance for workers in the ailing forest industry;
• Changes to supply management for dairy farmers;
• And finally, "non négociable," in the Throne Speech, an announced end to the combat mission in Afghanistan by Feb. 2009

It is unlikely that the federal government will satisfy the Bloc's requirement for respecting the Kyoto protocol, so there is an increased possibility of the Bloc not supporting the throne speech.

NDP leader, Jack Layton as already indicated that the NDP will not support the throne speech, even though they have not even heard it as yet. For the NDP, their best chance may be now, as they are still riding the momentum of their historic win in the Outremont by-election. The longer they wait, the greater their chances of some of their core supporters drifting to the Greens and Liberals.

The Liberals are the party that find themselves in a pickle. They are still in debt from the last leadership convention, have not had good fortunes with Stephane Dion as their leader.

In an article in the Toronto Star, Dion admits that his own image needs polishing. To make matters worse, he is also having a communication issue with members of his own caucus that feel that he is not listening to them.

On Wednesday, staff from Dion's office met with Liberal MPs' staffers, in what was reportedly a frank and sometimes tense exchange over lack of communication among Liberals on Parliament Hill. The main message to the Official Opposition Leader's office, according to staffers who attended the session, was: "You are not listening to us."

Despite this though, several Liberals have indicated that their support for the throne speech will be highly impossible unless the Conservative government revives the C-30 bill. But since the government has already said that the bill will not be revived, Liberal support is not likely.

A fall election would be advantageous to the Conservatives for several reasons.

• They seemed to have lost their focus after last Spring’s budget. A new election campaign will allow them to focus on a new mandate.
• The Conservatives are swimming in cash. They have raised more than 3 times the amount of money raised by the liberals. They now have the means to have an even more effective election campaign than the previous one.
• The Conservatives have largely erased the fear and apprehension that was falsely being spread by the Liberals and their friends in the MSM that was preventing many Canadians from voting for them. Many people no longer see them as composed of extremist elements, bent of introducing social policy.
• The Conservatives have proven that they can govern the country well and conduct sound economic and foreign policy. They are not perfect, but even with the income trust issue and the Afghan detainee issue, they have governed far better than the Liberals.

If the fall elections occur, hopefully this time the Conservatives will get a majority..

Why is Immigration Canada not enforcing our Immigration Laws?

Kudos to fellow blogger, SDA for raising this issue in one of her posts.

According to an article in the National Post, 180 Mexican illegal aliens, who were living in Florida have been allowed to enter Canada through the Windsor crossing, by Canadian border guards. Local Canadian agencies that work with refugees have been asked to brace for another 4000 to 8000 more Mexican refugees.

Mexicans pour into Canada from U.S

"Ortega's dream, as he recounted it Tuesday standing outside a room at a Windsor motel, is now but a memory. He is one of an estimated 180 Mexicans from Florida who've rushed across the border and into Windsor to claim refugee status, fleeing a crackdown on illegal aliens in Florida.

Local agencies that work with refugees have been told to brace for 4,000 to 8,000 refugee claimants."
...
"After driving his 1996 Grand Caravan for 24 hours without stopping -- except for gas and food -- the Ortegas arrived at the Windsor tunnel Sept. 11. When they told the border guard they were seeking refugee status, the Ortegas were given a list of social services organizations to contact for support"

The question that I have is why did the Canada border guards not turn these illegal Mexicans aliens back to the United States, as mandated by the Safe Third Country Agreement? Most of them are economic refugees, not facing any harm or persecution in their own home country.

I thought that there was an agreement between the United States and Canada, called The Safe Third Country Agreement that prevented refugees that arrived first in the United States from claiming refugee status in Canada.

Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement

"Under the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement, persons seeking refugee protection must make a claim in the first country they arrive in (United States or Canada), unless they qualify for an exception to the Agreement.

Execptions

• Family member exceptions
• Unaccompanied minors exception
• Document holder exceptions
• Public interest exceptions

From what I see, most of these Mexican refugee claimants would not qualify under any of the above categories, so why are they being let into our country? In our cities, our social services are already strained and stretched beyond capacity.

Immigration Canada needs to step up to the plate and start enforcing our immigration laws, otherwise Canada will soon be facing the same, out of control, illegal immigration problems that exist in US border states, such as California, Arizona and Texas.

Police arrest native protesters in Caledonia

Police are now moving to arrest native protesters who have been occupying a residential subdivision site on Stirling Street in Caledonia.

Hmmm, I wonder if this has anything to do with the upcoming Ontario Provincial elections. Especially since the police are only now beginning to enforce law and order. It looks like McGuinty is finally beginning to feel some pressure to do something about the native occupation.

Drama continues in Caledonia

CALEDONIA (AM900 CHML) - It's another day of dramatic activity in Caledonia.

Police are now moving in to arrest native protesters who have been continuing to occupy a residential subdivision site on Stirling Street.

Joe Gualtieri, the brother of Sam Gualtieri, the builder who was attacked and seriously injured by young native protesters last week, saw what he said was about 100 police in full riot gear.

Residents are being told to stay away from the area.

Development was expected to be allowed to continue after the builder and Six Nation's Confederacy reached an agreement last weekend.

France: Prepare for war over Iran

French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, on Sunday warned that the world should prepare for war with Iran if it obtains nuclear weapons.

"There is no bigger crisis in the world at the moment," said Kouchner. "We have to prepare ourselves for the worst, and that is war," he added during a television interview.

It is good to see France finally asserting itself on the world stage, by standing up to Iran after being absent for such a long time. The May 6th election of Nicolas Sarkozy, as President, represents a drastic change in French foreign policy from one of appeasement to one of assertiveness.

The Hypocrisy in Stephane Dion’s Position on the Canadian Mission to Afghanistan

All does not seem to be well with Opposition Leader, Stephane Dion and the Liberal caucus these days.

There is an article in the Montreal Gazette in which Dion publicly attacked 24 of his own MP’s for voting to extend the mission in Afghanistan. Comments made by Dion seem to imply that his fellow MP’s were not intelligent enough to listen to arguments, both for and against the extension of the mission and come to a sound decision.

Dion said the 24 Liberal MPs who supported the motion were wrong to have done so.

"They believed the government," Dion explained.

In other words, not only were they wrong, they were duped.

It does not matter to him that this mission begun under a previous Liberal government. It also does not matter to Dion that the decision to move the Canadian troops from the relative safety of Kabul to Taliban-plagued Kandahar in June 2005 was endorsed by the Liberal cabinet, of which he was a member. They were aware that the mission in Kandahar would be a dangerous one, where they risked attacks from and combat with al-Qaida and Taliban insurgents, but they still proceeded.

Then Prime Minister, Paul Martin responded to criticism from those who said that sending troops to Afghanistan would endanger Canada, by saying that fighting terrorism is the government's responsibility.

Even back then, Gen. Rick Hillier of the Canadian Armed Forces admitted that there was a likelihood of Canadian troops encountering Taliban fighters and their al-Qaeda allies.

"Gen. Rick Hillier said last week that Canadian troops will likely encounter Taliban fighters and their al Qaeda allies".

As far back as 2005, critics of the Afghanistan mission were already expressing concern of the increased risks, including IED’s that Canadian troops would face, but the Liberal government still proceeded with it with full cabinet approval.

According to, Eric Margolis, a seasoned war correspondent, in his criticism of the Canadian mission.

"You cannot go into a war and expect you're not going to get shot at. It's foolish and it's illusory to do so, so Canadians have to be prepared,"

Other critics of expressed the concern back then that Canadian soldiers could face dangers in Kandahar similar to those seen by American forces in Iraq.

As late as August 2005, only three months before the fall of the Paul Martin government, the combat aspect of the mission to Afghanistan was not only taking place, but was being reported by the MSM. Not only that, but the war rhetoric that the Liberals and their left-wing allies in the MSM are now criticizing the present Conservatives government of doing was actively taking place before the Conservatives even got into office.

"When you project an image that you're ready for a fight, they'll go somewhere else to look for a fight," Commander Robbie Ball (Aug, 2005)

Taking all of these factors into account, the thing that is most disingenuous about Staphane Dion and his cheerleaders in the Liberal party and the MSM is his insistence that the Canadian mission changed to a combat mission under the Conservative government. That is definitely not true. As early as 2002, Canadian troops were involved in conflict with Taliban and Al-Qaeda insurgents and their snipers were lauded by the MSM for their exceptional performance in combat.

Lets not forget the reason why foreign troops are in Afghanistan. The Taliban government allowed Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda allies into Afghanistan. They then started carrying out terrorist activities against other countries, including destroying the World Trade Towers in New York, which killed close to 3000 people, including 24 Canadians. The United States gave the Taliban the option of keeping their government, but extraditing bin Laden and closing their terrorist camps and they refused. So the Taliban only have themselves to blame for losing power in Afghanistan.

It is absolute hypocrisy for Mr. Dion to criticize his fellow MP’s for voting their conscience in their support for extending the mission. A lesson that he needs to learn is that being Opposition leader does not necessarily mean opposing everything that the government does, especially when previously supporting it. It means being an effective counterbalance to the government to keep them honest, responsible and accountable to the Canadian people.

The MSM Obsession with Actors Criticizing Canada’s Foreign Aid Policy

The left-wing MSM seems to have an obsession with movie stars and entertainers criticizing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper and the Canadian government over its foreign aid commitment to countries like Africa. In the “top stories” section of the CTV news website, there is an article titled, “Matt Damon criticizes Harper”. But if you read the MSM's spin on this story, it would imply that the population of Africa is suffering and children are starving because of "selfish" countries like Canada that refuse to give them more money.

The MSM conveniently fails to mention that Canada is one of the most generous countries in the world, when it comes to aid to that region. So by their omission of this very important fact, they have bolstered Matt Damon argument, and given him credibility in the eyes of uninformed readers, when he has absolutely no credentials when it comes to discussing Canada’s foreign aid or financial policy.

What is also missing from the article is the misuse and misappropriation of the majority of financial aid that is sent to that region. A large proportion of it is squandered by various dictators, who end up spending it on their friends and cronies, while very little of it goes to the people that it is supposed to help.

Despite more than 30 years of economic aid to Africa, there is still an ever increasing occurrence of poverty, starvation, death, disease and misery experienced by a vast majority of people in many of these countries. This is due in large part to mismanagement of its resources, thievery and failed economic policies followed by many of its leaders. So at some point, we really need to consider whether Western aid to Africa in its present form is really making a difference.

So, with these facts in mind, any responsible government would first of all insist on stringent conditions attached to any foreign aid it gives to a region with such a bad record of misappropriating the aid it receives. A responsible government also would not blindly pledge a percentage of its GDP or billions of taxpayer dollars for foreign aid on a recurring basis without any type of parliamentary debate, where it could be properly scrutinized. Such a commitment would depend on budgeting, fiscal and other obligations that the government has to Canada and that can change at any moment.

This policy apparently was not good enough for Bob Geldof and Bono. They were howling with indignation over Canada’s insistence of properly accounting of any aid given to Africa during the G8 summit in Germany in June. They were in fact falsely accusing Canada of "blocking other G8 countries from making clear targets" in the group's humanitarian aid package to Africa. Instead of looking at all of the facts, the left-wing MSM willingly swallowed this story "hook line and sinker" while the Liberals spun the story, portraying the Conservative government as cold and heartless.

Just sending money to Africa will not by itself reduce the poverty, disease and lack of economic opportunity that many of its inhabitants find itself. Africans need implement reforms in the way their government operates and need to have a mechanism to hold them accountable when they fail to produce results.

The MSM would be better served by promoting the necessary reforms needed in Africa instead of becoming the mouthpiece of entertainers such as, Matt Damon, Bob Geldof and Bono. Their simplistic solution, advocated by many left-wingers, of simply throwing more money at the problem has been tried for 30 years and has failed miserably. So it is now time for a new approach to be tried to combat this problem.

Why I Hate The Left

I have many friends and acquaintances that are lefties, but what I do disagree with is what they stand for politically. My biggest pet peeve against the left is their “slash and burn” techniques that many of them and their friends in the MSM use whenever anyone presents a reasonable argument against any of the things that they hold dear.

Anyone who disagrees with the indoctrinated views imposed by successive liberal governments over the past 30 years are suddenly labeled extremists, bigots, racists, un-Canadian, etc

1. Kyoto – Argue against the economic cost or science of Kyoto and you are accused of being the following - “Global warming denier”, “In the pockets of big-oil”, “In bed with the polluters”, “If you are against Kyoto, you not care about our planet and our children’s future”
   


2. Universal healthcare vs. Allowing private health-care to exist alongside with public healthcare – “Un-Canadian” (Even though some of the most vocal critics of private health-care have gone to the US or taken family members there for treatment instead of having to wait in the queue like most Canadians), “Trying to turn Canada’s healthcare system into a completely private one like the US” (Even though that is not what most of us are advocating)



3. Supporting Canadian troops in Afghanistan (Even though it was the Liberals who moved Canadian troops from the relatively safe Kabul to Kandahar and initiated the combat phase of the mission) - “War-monger”, “George Bush’s poodle”, “Anti-Islamic” (despite many Muslims being among the people brutally killed and mutilated by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda)
   

I have many friends and acquaintances that are lefties, but what I do disagree with is what they stand for.

This comment by one of the readers to my blog symbolizes many of the things that I, as a person to the right of the political spectrum, have against the left.

Yes, I HATE the left;

I hate their moral relativism that puts wicca, paganism and new age Californian crystal power theology on the same footing as Judeo-Christian tradition.

I hate their secular humanism that tries to make faith something to be ashamed of.

I hate the ease with which they use the suffix "...phobe" to stifle any discussion or debate.

I hate their victimhood industry that works to remove all personal responsibility for ones actions. You're in one of the "victim" groups, society made you do it!

I hate their Michael Moores, their Al Gores, their Laurie Davids, their Leonardo DiCaprios who have perfected the selective use of facts to support their do as we say-not as we do agendas.

I hate their influence on the judiciary that has resulted in a softening in sentencing and the removal of the punitive aspect of a prison sentence. Cable TV and taxpayer funded tattoo parlors; now that's hard time.

I hate how all of these left-wing ideas have turned Canadian government into a tax and spend nanny state and Canadian society into a whiny, politically correct subservient population that shies away using the word HATE.

I hate the left and all it stands for and I will not apologize for that.

Piracy or peaceful protest?

Toronto Sun columnist, Joe Warmington, has an article about the Greenpeace organization's latest stunt. Three Greenpeace activists were arrested for boarding and blocking a coal ship in Lake Erie from delivering its load to a coal plant at Nanticoke. Ontario Police Commissioner, Julian Fantino, referred to this illegal action as "dangerous, despicable and an act of anarchy”

"We will not be silenced by intimidation," Bruce Cox, executive director of Greenpeace Canada, said in a news release.

Excuse me, but who is doing the intimidation? The Greenpeace organization, that has a history of attacking sea vessels, or the OPP commissioner, who has a duty to uphold the law and is justly criticizing “law breakers”? Maybe it is time that this organization takes a serious look at changing the name, Green-peace, as there is nothing peaceful about this one proud organization, that has now been overrun by thugs.

As usual, the "Red" Star and other left leaning media outlets have put a positive spin on their illegal action. What they fail to realize is that power from the Nanticoke generating station is contributing to keeping the light on in their offices and is keeping many of these protestors homes warm during the winter. Hopefully with enough prodding some of these misguided individuals will soon "see the light"