Canada giving in to Terrorist hype in march to Global Government?
Continental customs, energy, immigration policies on agenda of group co-chaired by Manley
CanWest News Service - Saturday, October 16, 2004
OTTAWA - Senior business and political leaders from Canada, the United States and Mexico are joining forces to establish a blueprint for a powerhouse North American trading bloc to take on the world, shielded by a Fortress America-style defence perimeter.
The tri-national task force, which has the full backing of the three governments, [but not the people!!!] has been charged with creating a road map toward a continent-wide customs-free zone with a common approach to trade, energy, immigration, law enforcement and security that would virtually eliminate existing national borders.
John Manley, the former Liberal deputy prime minister, will co-chair the
task force and be joined on the panel by William Weld, the former
Republican governor of Massachusetts, and Pedro Aspe, a former Mexican
finance minister.
The task force will report to the prestigious U.S. Council on Foreign
Relations, and received the blessing of Anne McLellan, Canada's Public
Safety Minister, and Tom Ridge, the U.S. Homeland Security Secretary,
during a meeting in Ottawa this week.
McLellan will be in Toronto on Monday for the first round of the task
force hearings as the first step in creating a NAFTA-plus regional trading
bloc to compete with the European Union, China, Japan and India.
[Anne
McLellan (who has already given a staggering 9 Billion to CSIS*) is perhaps
best remembered for actually stating that "Canadians should not think that any
of their rights are absolute"...Is she just profoundly dim-witted, or
is there something more malevolent at work?]
[*by contrast, Canada gave 12 Billion to its Armed Forces]
"The European Union has expanded to 25 members and China and Indian have
become major economic factors," said Mr. Manley. "At the same time the need to
build co-operative security relationships has become more critical in the
aftermath of 9/11. North America cannot but move forward and this initiative
... provides a road map for the future."
Former prime minister Jean Chretien was opposed to the idea of a North
American defence perimeter. He feared a loss of Canadian sovereignty
because security and economic decisions would in some instances be made
jointly with a partner, the United States, that is 10 times the size of
Canada.
A task force source said Paul Martin has encouraged the initiative, though
the Prime Minister would not be able to act on its recommendations unless
the Liberals win a majority government.
A decade after NAFTA was signed, the task force will examine the benefits
of a customs union with the United States and Mexico to accelerate trade
and address continental security. This would require common regulatory and
administrative solutions.
"Maximizing economic growth and development throughout this century -- in other words, creating the greatest wealth for the greatest numbers -- will require us to abandon zero-sum thinking," Mr. Weld said.
The task force is expected to propose a continental energy accord as well as special entry points for overseas travellers to North American while opening up most border crossings to relatively free passage of goods and citizens.
Dismantling the borders would require increased co-operation with law enforcement in Canada, the United States and Mexico, and similar policies on travel visas, immigration and refugees.
The idea of a "NAFTA plus" perimeter, including a continental energy pact,
was first proposed by Paul Cellucci, the U.S. Ambassador, several years ago.
While Mr. Cellucci said the United States had no interest in a comprehensive
European Union-style economic and political union, he said steps need to be
taken to make it easier for the free flow of commerce and people in North
America.
Brian Mulroney, the former Conservative prime minister and author of the Canada-US. free trade deal and NAFTA, has also proposed a customs union and new security arrangements for the continent.
Other prominent members of the task force include former U.S. ambassadors Gordon Giffin and Tom Niles, former Tory finance minister Michael Wilson, Tom d'Aquino, president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and former Alberta treasurer Jim Dinning.
Their report is scheduled to be released next summer.
Has the transition to US style "law" enforcement already begun?
Cop wins RCMP settlement after highway search
Last Updated Jan 28 2005 CBC News
VANCOUVER – A Vancouver man has won an out-of-court settlement from the RCMP after an incident in which he says he was illegally searched.
David Laing
David Laing says police overstepped the law when they stopped his car, decided
he was driving under the influence of marijuana, and searched his vehicle and
two-year-old son.
Under Canadian law, that kind of search is illegal.
What upset the Laing even more is that some the officers he tangled with were
actually American police officers.
Last spring, Laing was driving on a highway near Hope. He turned a corner and
a man in an orange traffic vest in the middle of the road motioned him to pull
over. In a heavy Texas accent, the man asked for Laing's identification.
Laing asked if the man was an American. The man answered that he was, and that
he was performing a B.C. road check.
"I said, are you a police officer? Who are you to be detaining me?"
Photo: John
Ward
The man was a Texas state trooper. The RCMP [claim they] brought the Texans up to help them learn how to identify drug traffickers.
[Are we to believe that a man driving with his son on
the way to go fishing meet the profile of "drug traffickers"? Was fabrication
of EVIDENCE part of the training too?]
Laing refused to let the officers search his car. He knew that under Canadian
law, police officers don't have the right to perform that kind of search.
Laing is a Vancouver cop.
Less than a minute after Laing drove away, another Texas trooper – paired with
an RCMP officer – pulled him over.
This time Laing was told he was under the influence of marijuana.
Laing's lawyer, Marilyn Sandford, says it was all preposterous.
Laing agreed to the search, but was told he couldn't take his son from the
vehicle. He was horrified as he watched the Mountie search his
two-year-old.
The police found no drugs, and despite saying he was impaired just moments
earlier, let him go.
RCMP spokesperson Const. John Ward says the Texas troopers profiling program
provides great help to the Mounties.
"The Americans do a lot of this and have been doing it for quite some time. So
there's a lot of opportunity on both sides of the border to become closer."
Laing and his lawyer disagree. They say that when it comes to narcotics,
American attitudes and Canadian laws are quite different.
"We have different freedoms than they have," Laing says. "You don't want to
mesh too much. You don't want your police meshing to the point where we start
taking on other police jurisidiction's policies."
The RCMP settled with Laing out of court when he threatened to sue for
unlawful detention. But the Mounties defend the search, saying Laing was
suspicious because his eyelashes were fluttering and his eyes were flashing.
Murray Mollard of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association says police shouldn't
be depending on clues like that. He says that it's not a scientifically
reliable method.
The RCMP also says Laing was evasive when asked about his job. Laing says he
didn't want to tell them he's a Vancouver cop.
"To me it's irrelevant," he says. "I'm a father with his son going to look at
property. I'm not in the course of duty – I don't deserve privileges of any
type."
Mollard says Laing's case presents a series of concerns – from using
unreliable profiling techniques to a wrongful vehicle search, not to mention
using an American police officer to pull over Canadians.
He says his association will be writing the RCMP to complain about the
profiling techniques and remind them of the rights Canadians have under the
law.
[The RCMP have consistently proven they not only do not understand the Rights of Canadians, in the rare cases they do understand them, they wilfully break the law in violating them, and show contempt for the people they serve, and the sacred oath they gave before God to serve the Queens Law [Law of the Land - aka Magna Carta]. The RCMP more often resemble a terrorist organization, or criminal syndicate, than a legitimate "law enforcement" agency entrusted to enforce the King's (public) Peace.
Click these below links to see a shocking report by CTV's W5 on RCMP terrorism being committed in Canada RIGHT NOW, by way of their letting in Drug Lords and other criminal elements in exchange for money and power.
Click here for convenient youtube presentation of passport for drugs scandal videos.
http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_troopers20050128
Here is what the "federal government of Canada" has planned for you.....
Combined Forces Special Enforcement Units (CFSEU)
Canada to play response roles in mock attacks against U.S.
Intelligence Sources Say Bilderberg Targeting Patriots - If you believe in Christ, and/or believe individuals have fundamental equal and unalienable rights, as expressed in our Constitutions, they want to KILL you!
Taxing Drivers By Mile
Foreshadowing of the new "North American Zone"
transportation grid?
"I was paying about $500 a month," says Just.
So Just bought a fuel efficient hybrid and said goodbye to his gas-guzzling BMW.
And what kind of mileage does he get?
"The EPA estimate is 60 in the city, 51 on the highway," says Just.
And that saves him almost $300 a month in gas. It's great for Just but bad
for the roads he's driving on, because he also pays a lot less in gasoline
taxes which fund highway projects and road repairs. As more and more hybrids hit the road, cash-strapped states are warning of rough roads ahead.
Officials in car-clogged California are so worried they may be considering a replacement for the gas tax altogether, replacing it with something called
"tax by the mile."
Seeing tax dollars dwindling, neighboring Oregon has already started road testing the idea.
"Drivers will get charged for how many miles they use the roads, and it's as simple as that," says engineer David Kim.
Kim and his team at Oregon State University equipped a test car with a global positioning device to keep track of its mileage. Eventually, every
car would need one.
"So, if you drive 10 miles you will pay a certain fee which will be, let's say, one tenth of what someone pays if they drive 100 miles," says Kim.
The new tax would be charged each time you fill up. A computer inside the gas pump would communicate with your car's odometer to calculate how much you owe.
The system could also track how often you drive during rush hour and charge higher fees to discourage peak use. That's an idea that could break the bottleneck on California's freeways.
"We're getting a lot of interest from other states," says Jim Whitty of the Oregon Department of Transportation. "They're watching what we're doing.
"Transportation officials across the country are concerned about what's
going to happen with the gas tax revenues."
Privacy advocates say it's more like big brother riding on your bumper, not
to mention a disincentive to buy fuel-efficient cars.
"It's not fair for people like me who have to commute, and we don't have any choice but take the freeways," says Just. "We shouldn't have to be taxed."
But tax-by-mile advocates say it may be the only way to ensure that fuel
efficiency doesn't prevent smooth sailing down the road.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/eveningnews/main674120.shtml
US Military will be guarding 2010 Olympics....
The UN's "Borderless" World
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22163
By Joseph Klein
April 24, 2006
While pro-immigrant rallies get most of the attention from the mainstream
press, many law-abiding American citizens are fed up with the reality of
tens of thousands of foreign nationals every few weeks continuing to enter
this country illegally (ed. and legally) through our porous borders, added to
the more than 11 million illegal aliens who are already here. Americans
are bearing a grossly disproportionate share of the security risks and
economic costs associated with such migration, which makes it a national
problem for Americans to solve through their elected representatives
and through voluntary groups like the Minuteman Project.
Citizens are demanding that their government ensure effective protection at
the borders against more illegal entrants, who at the very least will become
tax burdens on the American people and could pose a much more serious
security threat. Congress and the President must decide what to do about
this mounting problem, consistent with the tenets of the U.S. Constitution.
Our democratic institutions can and must handle this situation without any
outside interference.
The United Nations sees the matter differently. Its bureaucrats envision a
"borderless" world where immigration is treated as an international human
rights issue and used as a global development tool to encourage free
movement of the developing countries' poor to developed nations. This
philosophy underlies their preparations for the United Nations High Level
Dialogue concerning international migration and development, scheduled to
take place in conjunction with the fall 2006 General Assembly session. They
want the agenda for this Dialogue to center on the relationship between
international migration and the economic and social development of the
poorer countries in the world.
The UN bureaucrats' aggressive push into the immigration debate fits in with
their dogmatic belief that international treaties should trump national
sovereignty prerogatives - in this case, a UN treaty that codifies the
internationalization of immigration policy called the International
Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
Members of their Families. This Convention was adopted by the General
Assembly in 1990 but went into effect in 2003 after the twentieth signing
country formally ratified it. It is heavily biased against countries like
the United States which receive the lion's share of illegal aliens.
Indeed, the Convention goes so far as to use the term 'irregular' as a
euphemism for illegal aliens and would require their destination countries
to provide them with an array of benefits and justiciable rights. This
explains why the ratifying countries are the ones who are effectively
exporting their economic problems to the United States and other destination
countries, and why the destination countries in turn have not signed on.
The United Nations wants to change all that by seeking to position the
right to freely migrate from poor to richer lands as a fundamental human
right deserving of universal recognition. Indeed, they view internationally
managed migration as an effective means to socially engineer the end of
wealth disparities existing between the world's most developed countries and
the world's developing countries.
[ed. Lest you be in any doubt the UN is a Marxist organisation, you now have
proof...]
"Migration must become an integral part of global development strategies",
said a report prepared last fall by the Global Commission on International
Migration set up with Kofi Annan's assistance to help prepare the way for
this fall's United Nations High Level Dialogue. Using the euphemism
'irregular migration' to refer to illegal aliens, the Commission warned
that restrictive national policies are "neither desirable nor feasible, and
may jeopardize the rights of migrants and refugees."
To the UN 'experts' who advocate using migration as a global development
tool, the unemployed poor should become the economic charges of their
destination countries. For those migrants who do manage to find jobs in
their destination countries, they would be expected to send money back to
their families still residing in their countries of origin. These
remittances, as they are called, are seen by the UN's migration development
advocates as an indirect form of aid generated from the economies of the
host countries and adding significantly to the gross national product of the
migrants' countries of origin. If transfers that went through informal
channels were added to the official statistics, remittances could be as high
as $300 billion. They are larger than official development assistance (ODA)
and more than foreign direct investment (FDI).
At the same time, these same UN 'experts' want to discourage the movement of
those skilled educated workers from a developing country who seek better
economic opportunities for themselves and their families where their skills
will bring them more reward. With regard to those skilled workers who do
migrate, the UN 'experts' expect the prosperous destination countries of
these skilled workers to compensate the less developed countries of origin
for the so-called "brain drain". Of course, nothing is said about requiring
compensation from the countries of origin for the educational and monetary
benefits the destination countries are paying to assist their poor nationals
who cross the border illegally.
In short, if the UN advocates of open borders have their way, the developing
countries would get to transfer their economic underclass without any cost
to the destination countries, which would be expected to subsidize them.
The developing countries would also receive compensation from the
destination countries where their skilled nationals have migrated in order
to find gainful employment that is not available back home.
In support of such an approach, UNESCO recently completed a research
project - paid for, in part, by American taxpayers - entitled 'Migration
without Borders'. The project investigated the implications of an
internationally managed regime of freedom of movement for the world's
migrants, including the impact on economic and social development. The
chief of UNESCO's International Migration Section referred to this project
when he advocated that "(A)ll initiatives taken to address the challenges of
migration should above all consider the priority of the human rights of
migrants." (International Migration and Development: Key Aspects for the
High-Level Dialogue 2006.) He had in mind, no doubt, the poor uneducated
persons who leave their impoverished countries, often ruled by corrupt
governments that have failed their people. These migrants carry their
problems to an economically prosperous country which they enter without
permission and the skills or wherewithal to support themselves and their
families. The host country is supposed to welcome all migrants desiring
entry across an open border and take care of them. Why? Because the United
Nations bureaucrats want us to believe that migrants' human rights must take
precedence above all else, including concerns about securing national
borders.
As they say in Texas, that dog won't hunt. The United Nations is an
interloper, putting its nose in our country's business when it comes to
deciding how we are to treat illegal aliens, irregulars, undocumented
immigrants or whatever other label one wishes to attach to those individuals
who do not abide by our laws when entering our country.
Whatever compromise is ultimately reached in Congress regarding the
treatment of illegal aliens already in this country, there is a broad
consensus that our borders must be tightly secured to stem the follow of
more illegal aliens. As one petition to President Bush being circulated on
the Internet for signatures lays out, American citizens expect migrants who
attempt to cross our borders without permission to be "(a) detected, (b)
apprehended and (c) either removed from this country or detained for
appropriate punishment under the law". I would add that we cut off all U.S.
funding for any United Nations projects or forums promoting the inane idea
that 'migration without borders' is a universal human right or seeking to
push international migration as a global wealth transfer development tool.
.