Bill C-6 gives terrorists Can. Citizenship

spilledthebeer

Executive Branch Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,296
4
36
Do you need a personal life coach?Ir do you need a piece of pie with cheddar cheese?
I could be your personal coach?Anger is a cathartic or a debilitating gig,plus it is hard on your body
Don't be afraid!

Who is they?

What if I decided to venture into life coaching via internet post retirement,I seek practices


Couldn't help yourself could you?

Harper is the most lied about politician in Cdn history! And one day the Trudope clan will be recognized as the most corrupt in Cdn history! Consider the Trudope version of economic logic:


Back in mid- October/2015 I predicted that if elected-Justin Trudope would perform a magic trick and make all our jobs and money disappear and lo and behold-I was correct! We have here a nice report from Fraser Institute explaining how well Our Brainless Boy is doing with his trick. And I have added some comments of my own in brackets):

What middle class tax cut? In reality, people will be paying more under the federal Liberals’ tax changes.

(Yes-PAYING MORE-without taking the series of THIRTY BILLION DOLLAR DEFICITS OUR Boy is planning to run-that WILL have to be paid for eventually!)

By Charles Lammam, Ben Eisen and Milagros Palacios

First posted: Saturday, July 09, 2016 07:16 PM EDT. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Postmedia Network files)

On the campaign trail, the Liberals promised to cut taxes for middle-class Canadians to ensure that “middle-class Canadians have money in their pockets to save, invest and grow the economy.”

Once elected, the Liberals did reduce the income tax rate on the second-lowest federal tax bracket from 22% to 20.5%. On its own, this tax relief would be welcome, especially since the average Canadian family currently pays more than 40% of its annual income in taxes.

However, since assuming power, the Liberals have also implemented or announced a host of tax hikes that will more than wipe out the benefits of the income tax cut. Far from leaving more “money in their pockets,” the federal government will actually reduce the take-home pay of middle-income Canadians.

(Apparently LIE-berals think that ALL their supporters are on the Sunshine List and thus earning well ABOVE middle class pay? Or maybe LIE-berals are CORRECT and ALL their supporters are above middle class pay rates thanks to their endless ENTITLEMENTS?)

The latest tax increase announced is the payroll tax hike that will be used to finance the expansion of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP).

Once fully implemented in 2025, the total CPP contribution rate (which is split notionally in half between employees and employers) will increase from the current rate of 9.9% to 11.9% of eligible earnings up to a maximum of $72,500.

In addition, earnings between $72,500 and $82,700 will also be subject to the CPP tax, albeit at a lower total rate of 8%.

(Yeah-the more money you make, the more likely you are to be a Hog and a LIE-beral friend and LIE-berals go easier on their ENTITLED friends!)

These changes represent a substantial tax increase that will more than wipe out the benefits of the recent income tax rate reduction for middle-income Canadians.

Consider, for example, someone with taxable income of $54,900— the current maximum earnings threshold for CPP contributions. The income tax rate reduction will reduce this person’s income tax by $144.

However, if we assume the CPP changes are fully implemented this year, that person will pay an additional $514 in CPP taxes. And this doesn’t account for the additional CPP taxes paid by the employer on his or her behalf (another $514).

(I point out that the more money taken out of the pockets of your boss, the harder it will be to get any sort of RAISE in pay in future! And what of all those people who live on commissions-sales people at all manner of retail outlets will be hurt as less people come through their doors! Ours is a service economy and the less money people have, the less services they buy and the economy slows-it seems obvious to any body but a LIE-beral that endless taxes and the gravy train are killing our economy!)

Yes, the federal government has said that additional contributions to the CPP will be tax-deductible for income tax purposes, so this worker would get some of their increased CPP contributions back by claiming a tax deduction.

But it’s clear that the net effect of these tax changes is a tax hike— not a reduction.

(And of course, that which govt gives-it can also TAKE AWAY-how long before the tax deduction fades and then disappears? And we should regard the offer of a tax reduction as simply a stupid sop to lull us that things wont get too bad! Until LIE-berals decide to really gouge us!)

Things look even worse for a Canadian with taxable income of $45,282 — the lowest income level of the tax bracket where the Liberal tax cut applies.

This person will receive no benefit from the income tax reduction but will have to pay $418 in additional CPP contributions ($836 including employer contributions).

Even for Canadians earning more, the outlook for tax relief doesn’t look good.

An individual with taxable income of $90,563 — the income level at which he or she receives the maximum amount of personal income tax relief from the Liberal income tax rate cut— will save $679 in income taxes.

But this person will pay an extra $821 in employee contributions to the CPP.

(Of course IF LIE-berals were really concerned with justice and balanced books they would IMMEDIATELY END that cosey deal that lets ALL civil service Hogs off the hook for paying the health `levy`. One employed Cdn in three works for govt and NONE of them pay that health levy! It’s a great deal for them and goes a long way towards explaining why govt is having a hard time PAYING the health care bills!)

Tax deductibility on new CPP contributions will provide this individual with some savings.

But once you factor in the $821 in employer contributions (the cost of which will be passed on to the employee through slower wage growth and/or a reduction in other benefits), even this higher-income Canadian won’t receive a tax cut on balance.

Finally, the CPP tax increase is just one of many tax increases imposed by the new federal government on middle-income Canadians.

The elimination of income splitting for couples with children, the cancellation of several widely used tax credits, and the reduction in annual TFSA contribution limits will potentially increase the tax burden for middle-income Canadians.

With all these tax hikes in mind, the net effect of recent tax changes is less money in the pockets of Canadians.

The campaigning Liberals promised to reduce the tax burden on Canada’s middle class. In office, they have failed to deliver.

(Isnt it SAD? Those stupid civil service Hogs put LIE-berals in power in exchange for promises of more gravy-but apparently sometimes LESS IS MORE! Its just the cost of doing business with LIE-berals! Just how greedy does a person have to be to drink the LIE-beral cool aid and BELIEVE? After all the FAILED promises?)

Lammam, Eisen and Palacios are analysts with the Fraser Institute www. fraser institute (dot) org

And none of the above takes into account the Trudope "defense tax"! Trump warned NATO slackers- including Canada to properly honour their military commitments or there would be trouble! So Our idiot Boy Justin reduced our already TINY defense budget even further and now he has been hit with the softwood lumber tariff!

Just how many people will Our idiot Boy throw under the bus in exchange for "selfies"?
 

WLDB

Senate Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,182
0
36
Ottawa
- removes the right to revoke citizenships from dual nationals convicted terrorists;

.

This is the only change I dont really have a problem with. If you want to change the criteria and process by which people gain citizenship im totally open to that however once granted citizenship should be irrevocable. People born and raised here have committed terrorist acts - but did not and cannot lose their citizenship as a result. The ones who happened to be born somewhere else yet gained the same equal citizenship should be treated exactly the same. Terrorism is also a bit or a random thing to pick. Paul Bernardo has killed more people in Canada than any act of terrorism has in Canada - yet he still holds citizenship and no one is trying to take it away. So, if he's worse than a terrorist why not do it with him?

Ultimately its just semantics though. If a foreign born citizen committed a terrorist act here, was convicted and had their citizenship revoked what difference would it make in practice? They'd still be here in one of our prisons. We aren't just going to ship someone who killed people here back to where they came from. First, what if that country refuses to take them back? Or what if they do take them and let the person go free? Then they'd continue to be a threat. So, citizenship or not it wont change much when it comes to how they are dealt with when they commit a crime here.
 

Durry

House Member
May 18, 2010
4,709
286
83
Canada
This is the only change I dont really have a problem with. If you want to change the criteria and process by which people gain citizenship im totally open to that however once granted citizenship should be irrevocable. People born and raised here have committed terrorist acts - but did not and cannot lose their citizenship as a result. The ones who happened to be born somewhere else yet gained the same equal citizenship should be treated exactly the same. Terrorism is also a bit or a random thing to pick. Paul Bernardo has killed more people in Canada than any act of terrorism has in Canada - yet he still holds citizenship and no one is trying to take it away. So, if he's worse than a terrorist why not do it with him?

Ultimately its just semantics though. If a foreign born citizen committed a terrorist act here, was convicted and had their citizenship revoked what difference would it make in practice? They'd still be here in one of our prisons. We aren't just going to ship someone who killed people here back to where they came from. First, what if that country refuses to take them back? Or what if they do take them and let the person go free? Then they'd continue to be a threat. So, citizenship or not it wont change much when it comes to how they are dealt with when they commit a crime here.

Getting citizenship in Canada is a privilege not a right. If your born here, you have a right to citizenship. And I don't see them as equal.

So if you commit a terrorist act as an immigrant, you didn't deserve to get citizenship in the first place so it should be removed from you.

In the end, it's all about penalty. I don't believe it has to be equal for immigrants and Canadian borns.
We expect more from immigrants but they seem to be offering less.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,277
5,904
113
Olympus Mons
I don't know how anything I said is being a apologist for Justin Trudeau. I didn't mention his policies, let alone defend the, Maybe you meant to comment on someone else.
No, it was directed at you. You used the exact same excuse that Trudeau and the Liberals used, that it's discriminatory and creates two tiered citizenship, while ignoring the fact that the Trudeau govt is deporting people with no benefit of a hearing simply because their parents lied on their entry documents when they were kids.

This is why ever since the Chretien days I've been saying the Liberals sure do love foreign terrorists. When they're not busy rescuing them from foreign prisons, they're making sure they can't be deported.
 

spilledthebeer

Executive Branch Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,296
4
36
This is the only change I dont really have a problem with. If you want to change the criteria and process by which people gain citizenship im totally open to that however once granted citizenship should be irrevocable. People born and raised here have committed terrorist acts - but did not and cannot lose their citizenship as a result. The ones who happened to be born somewhere else yet gained the same equal citizenship should be treated exactly the same. Terrorism is also a bit or a random thing to pick. Paul Bernardo has killed more people in Canada than any act of terrorism has in Canada - yet he still holds citizenship and no one is trying to take it away. So, if he's worse than a terrorist why not do it with him?

Ultimately its just semantics though. If a foreign born citizen committed a terrorist act here, was convicted and had their citizenship revoked what difference would it make in practice? They'd still be here in one of our prisons. We aren't just going to ship someone who killed people here back to where they came from. First, what if that country refuses to take them back? Or what if they do take them and let the person go free? Then they'd continue to be a threat. So, citizenship or not it wont change much when it comes to how they are dealt with when they commit a crime here.


Sorry guy you are WAY OFF the trail there. Bernardo was born here and we must deal with home grown goofs. Second, my opinion is that he is so damaged that he is better off being sent back to his maker- yeah-I am talking mercy killing/death penalty here. He spends 23 hours a day alone in a cell because he is a dangerous psycho and can never be released. You would be in trouble if you locked up a dog alone like that!

As for countries that wont take back their goofs-so what- parachute them out of a plane-or better yet DO A BETTER JOB of selecting people in the first place-but LIE-berals are deliberately IGNORING THAT ONE! As for such goofs being released back home....so what...they AIN'T HERE!

It is WAY TOO EASY to get Cdn citizenship. Any goof that looks likely to vote LIE-beral and be dependent on govt handouts and thus likely to be LOYAL in the long term is good enough to be a Cdn LIE-beral!

Even worse, LIE-berals have just reduced the standards EVEN FURTHER- with even less education needed and virtually NO skill in EITHER official language now required-and now they refuse to even TRY to dump criminals.

Next, we are not talking about throwing out innocent people from Canada. We are talking about people with SERIOUS criminal issues! And we are also referring to people who HOLD DUAL CITIZENSHIP! If they are still holding on to links to the old country then WHY NOT throw them out if they spit on us in a criminal way? If you still have the old passport then why are you griping about being SENT HOME at OUR EXPENSE?

Currently the govt does not monitor how long you are out of the country-who knew for instance that it would cost EIGHTY SIX MILLION DOLLARS to "rescue" so called Cdns from Lebanon during the Harper years when fighting between Israelis and terror group Hamas flared up! The ugly truth is that too many people use Cdn citizenship as a shield of convenience and Cdns are tired of being the sucker nation of the world.

Consider the Somali cop hired in Ottawa even as cops there argued the validity of shooting another Somali-one with serious mental issues. It sure looks like politicians over-rode the cop hiring board and brought in that other Somali for reasons of political correctness- IN SPITE of the guy having TWO separate sets of identity papers and a serious set of links to criminals- HOW is such a tainted character likely to make a goof cop? Why kiss up to such a guy-unless you are a LIE-beral and badly want the immigrant votes because ordinary Cdn white people who don't get a civil service pay cheque all HATE you?

Or the Roumanian cop in Toronto who has been on PAID LEAVE for TEN YEARS while prosecutors argue about whether he has connections to organized crime and if he might have screwed up various cop investigations by leaking information to his criminal friends!

All LIE-berals assume that when you start griping about immigrants that you must be talking about blacks and it ain't so! What about the Russian mobster arrested at his palatial mansion in King City for trading in stolen and forged credit cards? He had eight hundred cards in his possession when arrested and had enough information in his computers to make FOUR THOUSAND MORE CARDS. And this was his SECOND ARREST!

Why not put such troublesome goofs into a circus clown cannon and fire them back where they came from? They get in too easy as it is and LIE-berals are going out of their way to import MANY MORE and you cannot honestly defend such a policy!

AS I asked before: "can some LIE-beral tell me in simple words WHAT THE HELL benefit comes to Canada from letting a convicted terrorist stay here after he has served his jail sentence"?

I HAVE ASKED THIS QUESTION REPEATEDLY ON VARIOUS FORUMS OVER TWO YEARS AND THERE IS ONLY SILENCE FROM OUR LIE-BERAL HORDES!

LIE-berals are so afraid of giving a public answer to this question that they will forego their usual barrage of insults and pretend I never asked it!

Thank you LIE-berals for the gift of govt Hypocrisy!
 

spilledthebeer

Executive Branch Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,296
4
36
This is the only change I dont really have a problem with. If you want to change the criteria and process by which people gain citizenship im totally open to that however once granted citizenship should be irrevocable. People born and raised here have committed terrorist acts - but did not and cannot lose their citizenship as a result. The ones who happened to be born somewhere else yet gained the same equal citizenship should be treated exactly the same. Terrorism is also a bit or a random thing to pick. Paul Bernardo has killed more people in Canada than any act of terrorism has in Canada - yet he still holds citizenship and no one is trying to take it away. So, if he's worse than a terrorist why not do it with him?

Ultimately its just semantics though. If a foreign born citizen committed a terrorist act here, was convicted and had their citizenship revoked what difference would it make in practice? They'd still be here in one of our prisons. We aren't just going to ship someone who killed people here back to where they came from. First, what if that country refuses to take them back? Or what if they do take them and let the person go free? Then they'd continue to be a threat. So, citizenship or not it wont change much when it comes to how they are dealt with when they commit a crime here.

OHHHH-gotta love that LIE-beral logic! If a terrorist is in PRISON- then they can DREAM all the want about murder and mayhem but can DO NOTHING! Your LIE-beral judges will even defend their right to dream of mayhem-its been 25 years since a B.C. man had his child pornography charges dropped-the guy was simply WRITING STORIES about pedophilia for his pals- and since it is STILL a free country -in spite of LIE-beral efforts to the contrary- you can still think and dream as you wish! It is only the ACTS we want to stop! Dream any dream you want but don't step physically over any legal lines!

And at the end of the terrorist jail sentence it would BE BEST if LIE-berals did not turn immigrants under deportation orders loose back into the community with nothing but a promise to turn up later in the year at the airport for the ride back to the foreign land!

For one thing there is currently NOTHING to prevent failed immigrants to go on a credit fueled shopping spree-buying up everything and anything- with no need to pay until next year or NEVER-cause they ain't here any more! This is just one more reason for LIE-beral policyt to be in disgrace-MUST we allow failed immigrants their shopping spree-with the loot spread and HIDDEN amongst friends and family before the deportation?

LIE-berals give goofs every chance to get into Canada, give them MORE chances to stay regardless of reason and logic and then tell them they cannot stay and then LET THEM LOOSE to go HIDE so they cannot be quickly or easily rounded up and deported!

This is why your LIE-beral immigration policies, anti crime programs and anti terror initiatives are IN DISGRACE!

WE Canadians are tired of being played for suckers and victims by phony immigrants and LIE-beral bottom feeders!

Your mindless parroting of already disgraced and dismissed LIE-beral propaganda is doing neither you or LIE-berals any credit.
 

Murphy

Executive Branch Member
Apr 12, 2013
8,181
0
36
Ontario
Good evening. This evening's musical selection is an old favourite by Nat King Cole, Autumn Leaves. It's a beautiful song, written by Johnny Mercer. I hope you enjoy it.
 

B00Mer

Make Canada Great Again
Sep 6, 2008
46,948
8,065
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.canadianforums.ca
Where is the song
My mind is bent,someone has stolen my dog and you want me to look up songs?

 

spilledthebeer

Executive Branch Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,296
4
36
Thanks for nothing

You are very welcome....and why is Our idiot Boy Justin starting a trade war with Yankees just because he hates themOur idiot Boy would rather bring in every known terrorist in the world than work with a Yankee for five minutes and irt will be dairy workers and lumber mill people who suffer first -then we will see layoffs at Cdn seaports where Yankee coal was exported till Our idiot got mad and closed that off to punish Trump. Our isdiot Boy cares nothing for our economy or the thousands dead and maimed in Muslim terror-all this is LESS than the chance for idiot Boy to sneer at Yankees!

Now consider this:

Politicians still brush aside concerns about extremists

By Lorne Gunter , Edmonton Sun

First posted: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 07:26 PM EDT | Updated: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 07:38 PM EDT

In this image taken from video of CCTV footage provided to AP on the condition that its source not be revealed, suspected Islamic extremist Ziyed Ben Belgacem, center left, holds a soldier after grabbing her from behind at Paris’ Orly airport, Saturday, March 18, 2017. (CCTV via Mobile Phone via AP)

If a man gets drunk at a bar in the middle of the night, tokes a little bud, snorts a bit of blow, then goes home and slaps his wife around, do we not still think of him as a wife beater even though he was drunk and high?

If a meth head holds up a pedestrian on the street to get a little cash to finance his next hit, do we not still think of him as a mugger?

So how come much of the world’s press, and many politicians, are dismissing claims that Ziyed Ben Belgacem was a Muslim extremist simply because he had been drinking and indulging in recreational drugs before he shot a Parisian gendarme and then tried to take a French soldier prisoner at Orly airport?

Is there a threshold for how many times an attacker has to have attended daily prayers or how many hours he has spent looking at extremist websites before he can be considered a radical?

“Oops, no. Can’t call him a terrorist. He shouted Allahu Ak-BAR. And every radical Muslim knows the correct pronunciation is Allahu AK-bar.”

Belgacem, 39, was known to French security officials before Saturday morning’s attack, although he does not seem to have been considered a major threat. But when he grabbed a French air force patrolwoman and tried to take her rifle, he told her fellow patrolmen (who eventually fatally shot him) that he was there to kill or die for Allah.

Belgacem had in his backpack a Koran, a canister of gasoline and some matches. So unless you think he was on his way to read Islamic scripture while burning off some prickly underbrush at his country home, it can be assumed he was at Orly to commit a terror act.

Was he new to jihad? Was he any good at it? Doesn’t matter. The point is Belgacem was motivated, at least in part, by extremist Muslim views.

These sorts of politically correct debates – how many radicals can dance on the head of a detonator switch? – are exactly what is driving an increasing number of voters toward firebrand populists such as Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen in France and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands.

The utter unwillingness of most politicians in all mainline parties to address the public’s concerns about rampant immigration and refugee intakes will force many voters to cast around for someone – anyone – willing to address their concerns.

Many will settle for demagogues if more reasonable politicians dismiss them or refuse to hear them.

Should Canadian leaders react to citizens’ concerns by shutting our borders completely and refusing to take any new immigrants or asylum seekers? Of course not. Openness to legal immigrants and legitimate refugees truly is a great Canadian value.

But the response by many politicians to Canadians’ honest concerns has been to double down on politically correct assertions about immigrants.

In response to a huge spike in refugees trying to sneak across our border, particularly in Quebec and Manitoba, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has increased his talk about open borders.

Rather than arguing that border security is integral to true openness – that we must do all we can to protect our tradition of openness by ensuring no bad guys are trying to sneak in – Trudeau publicly insists there is no reason for concern. None.

And many other federal and provincial leaders are no better.

Canadians have legitimate worries. But as if to prove their own “progressive” bona fides, too many of our leaders insist on acting as though there are no concerns whatsoever – or worse yet, as if all concerns are bigotry and Islamophobia.
 

personal touch

House Member
Sep 17, 2014
3,023
0
36
alberta/B.C.
What kind of person steals pets?Who steals dogs?What are their characteristics?more so why does the system think dog thefts is ok?Just dogs?not sure what is what but I plan on finding out,for every pet lover in Canada,not just poor Felix,for every pet lover out there,
What a crappy place to dwell in the trenches of the industry of pet theft,and the disregard to such horrible actions
I am forced to go places I rather not,but Felix belongs to me
Nothing like hanging out with thugs of society ,breaking my tradition of such s peaceful life,
I need encouragement to go deeper into this world,as I move along I hope to take many on side that pet theft from your "neighbor " is not s good thing
 

spilledthebeer

Executive Branch Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,296
4
36
What kind of person steals pets?Who steals dogs?What are their characteristics?more so why does the system think dog thefts is ok?Just dogs?not sure what is what but I plan on finding out,for every pet lover in Canada,not just poor Felix,for every pet lover out there,
What a crappy place to dwell in the trenches of the industry of pet theft,and the disregard to such horrible actions
I am forced to go places I rather not,but Felix belongs to me
Nothing like hanging out with thugs of society ,breaking my tradition of such s peaceful life,
I need encouragement to go deeper into this world,as I move along I hope to take many on side that pet theft from your "neighbor " is not s good thing


Here is another article illustrating the scale and scope of LIE-beral religious hypocrisy. With some comments of my own in brackets):

Malala in Lalaland

By Tarek Fatah, Toronto Sun. First posted: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 05:31 PM EDT | Updated: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 05:36 PM EDT

Two aspects of Malala Yousafzai’s speech delivered to a packed House of Commons April 12 were notable.

The first was her failure to mention Stephen Harper, let alone thank the former prime minister who was behind the move to grant her honorary Canadian citizenship.

(The name of Harper is anathema to LIE-berals anyway and he may also be viewed harshly by Muslims as he was prepared to deal aggressively with Muslim terrorists operating in Canada- a SHARP contrast to LIE-berals who actively court those who would attack us by allowing almost unrestricted entry to refugees from United States and by RESTORING Cdn citizenship to CONVICTED TERRORISTS such as the leader of the Toronto 18! LIE-beral concern for national security is so low they plan to order immigration judges to rubber stamp mass refugee applications without the bother of doing ANY security investigation into the back ground of the new comers! All is well just so long as the new arrivals who have been fast tracked into Cdn citizenship VOTE LIE-beral-in exchange for that preferential treatment!)

But it was what Malala said about Muslims and Islam that was both inaccurate and lacking in total honesty.

Referring to the 2014 killing of Canadian soldier Cpl. Nathan Cirillo by Muslim radical Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, Malala said: “The man who attacked Parliament Hill called himself a Muslim — but he did not share my faith. ... I am a Muslim and I believe that when you pick up a gun in the name of Islam and kill innocent people, you are not a Muslim anymore.”

The problem is Malala’s words, while eloquent, are in conflict with the reality of today, and incompatible with 1,400 years of Islamic history.

Yet it drew applause from the audience, hungry for any medicine that would dull the pain caused by the growing cancer of Islamic terrorism.

That said, when it comes to Islamic history, someone might have asked Malala about the 17th century Ottoman Caliphate’s siege at the Gates of Vienna, or perhaps the 11th century plundering of India by invading Islamic armies of Central Asia.

But since she is all but caged by her PR handlers, the media seldom get to ask her tough questions.

For example, would Malala say the Arab invasions of Persia, Jerusalem, Damascus and Egypt, “had nothing to do with Islam”?

How about the slaughter of Prophet Muhammad’s very own family? Or the assassinations of three of the first four caliphs of Islam by Muslims?

(Asking about and quibbling over various versions of Islam is like arguing over the Catholic Spanish Inquisition and the quarrels with Jews and Protestants. It is not the religion that is to blame; it is the interpretation! And currently a good many Muslims interpret their religion in terms of fire and swords and death! With our LIE-berals SCORNING anybody who wants the radicals weeded out for our safety! Muslims will not be suitable as Cdn citizen until they have made peace with the larger world they are hell bent on destroying!)

Within hours of Malala’s speech, a young Muslim journalism student inspired by Karl Marx and Che Guevara, from Malala’s ancestral Swat region of Pakistan, was lynched.

A Muslim mob of university students accused Mashal Khan Yusufzai of being an Islamophobe. Because he was a Muslim, he had thus, in their view, committed blasphemy.

The 23-year old student was shot, beaten to a pulp and was about to be burned before police intervened, while the bloodthirsty crowd shouted “Allah O Akbar”.

Earlier in the day, as Malala spoke in Ottawa, all MPs, including 12 Muslims who had voted for Pakistan-born MP Iqra Khalid’s motion M-103 against “Islamophobia”, cheered.

When I asked them to comment on the “anti-Islamophobia” lynching in Pakistan, not one responded, not even the three born in that region.

(I have said before that we are NOT well served by foreign born Members of parliament. In these dangerous times the MP job should ONLY be open to those who are born here and committed to staying here and supporting OUR values! Johnny come lately types who come here only for money and who will probably leave for greener pastures as soon as things get awkward should NEVER gain power or influence in our govt!)

(WE would not let firebrand Reverend Ian Paisley in here because he would incite hate of Catholics. We deported dual citizen/Cdn/German Ernst Zundel because he spoke lies about the Jewish Holocaust- so WHY then should we be letting in RABID Muslims? Other than because LIE-berals are BUYING Muslim VOTES!)

If there was any more evidence needed to show how M-103 can be misused as a tool against secular Muslims commenting critically on Islam, Mashal Yusufzai’s death provided it.

What is required from us Muslims is a bit of truth and honesty.

Malala and the rest of us should face the reality of what our Qur’an says when confronting Kaafirs -infidels and Islamophobes, including Muslims like Mashal, who were labelled as such.

Qur’an (47:4) “When you meet the Unbelievers- Kufaar, non-Muslims in fight, smite at their necks; At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them.”

Quran (8:12) “Remember your Lord inspired the angels: ‘I am with you: give firmness to the Believers- Muslims: I will instil terror into hearts of the Kufaar. Smite them above their necks, and smite all of their finger tips off them’.”

It is time for all of us to be truthful instead of living in Lalaland.

Tarek Fatah

The war of civilizations continues in Europe

In the latest terrorist attacks, a bomb blew up inside a St. Petersburg subway station, killing 14 Russians, barely a fortnight after a jihadi killed four people in London, England.

(Muslims are at least as dangerous to each other as they are to us! With so many people in the world desperate for a better life-I ask again WHY we should bother kissing up to hate filled Muslims when there are others-calmer-quieter-more peaceful- and thus more deserving- seeking our aid?)
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,709
3,320
113
Man accused of massacring villagers fights revocation of Canadian citizenship
Jim Bronskill, THE CANADIAN PRESS
First posted: Monday, July 10, 2017 06:57 PM EDT | Updated: Monday, July 10, 2017 07:08 PM EDT
OTTAWA — A man accused of slaughtering villagers in Guatemala using a grenade, gun and sledgehammer is fighting Canada’s attempt to revoke his citizenship.
Jorge Vinicio Sosa Orantes denies he concealed participation in a 1982 massacre by the Guatemalan military when he obtained Canadian citizenship a decade later.
In documents filed in Federal Court, Sosa Orantes says he was not even in the village of Las Dos Erres when the events took place.
He paints himself as an upstanding instructor at a military training school during the period in question, working with local communities in Guatemala to build good relations.
Sosa Orantes, 59, is serving a 10-year sentence for immigration fraud in the United States, where he also held citizenship until it was revoked in 2014.
In the early 1980s, the Guatemalan military junta began a ruthless campaign against guerrilla groups that wiped out 440 villages, killing over 75,000 people and displacing more than 250,000, the Canadian government says in documents filed in Federal Court.
Canada says Sosa Orantes was a senior member of a military special forces group that led a mission to Las Dos Erres in December 1982 to interrogate inhabitants after some military rifles were allegedly stolen during a guerrilla ambush of troops.
Military members killed at least 162 civilians, including 67 children. Women were raped and children were thrown into an 18-metre dry well.
“The members of the special forces group killed their victims by hitting them on the head with a sledgehammer, by hitting their heads on a tree, by shooting them, or by slitting their throats,” the federal submission says.
“In other cases, victims were simply thrown into the well while they were still alive.”
At one point, Sosa Orantes fired his rifle into the well, then tossed in a grenade, the documents say.
In supervising the killings at the well, he mocked subordinates “who showed any hesitation to commit the murders.”
Sosa Orantes is representing himself in the Federal Court case, filing documents — including a statement of defence in sometimes fractured English — from a Phoenix, Ariz., prison.
“I was not in Las Dos Erres,” he writes.
Sosa Orantes says that in late 1982 and early 1983 he was busy travelling to several towns as part of a goodwill effort, handing out notebooks, pens, chalk, educational games and sports equipment.
“I distributed material to more than 20 schools in the area. I had no information about Las Dos Erres and other ... operations due to the fact that I was a subordinate.”
Sosa Orantes left Guatemala for California in 1985. After being denied asylum in the U.S., he visited the Canadian consulate in San Francisco to seek haven in Canada. He was granted refugee status, later becoming a permanent resident and citizen of Canada.
The federal government argues Sosa Orantes failed to disclose details of his military involvement that would have made him inadmissible to Canada.
In his court filing, Sosa Orantes insists he disclosed his military background and “had nothing to hide.”
Sosa Orantes married an American woman and attained U.S. citizenship in September 2008.
In 2010, the U.S. discovered he had committed immigration fraud by concealing his past. He was arrested the following year in Lethbridge, Alta., while visiting family.
In ordering his extradition to the U.S. to face trial, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench said the evidence establishes Sosa Orantes was one of the commanding officers who decided to murder the villagers and that he “actively participated in the killings with a sledgehammer, with a firearm and a grenade.”
“It is difficult for this court to comprehend the murderous acts of depraved cruelty on the scale disclosed by the evidence.”
Man accused of massacring villagers fights revocation of Canadian citizenship |
 

spilledthebeer

Executive Branch Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,296
4
36
Man accused of massacring villagers fights revocation of Canadian citizenship
Jim Bronskill, THE CANADIAN PRESS
First posted: Monday, July 10, 2017 06:57 PM EDT | Updated: Monday, July 10, 2017 07:08 PM EDT
OTTAWA — A man accused of slaughtering villagers in Guatemala using a grenade, gun and sledgehammer is fighting Canada’s attempt to revoke his citizenship.
Jorge Vinicio Sosa Orantes denies he concealed participation in a 1982 massacre by the Guatemalan military when he obtained Canadian citizenship a decade later.
In documents filed in Federal Court, Sosa Orantes says he was not even in the village of Las Dos Erres when the events took place.
He paints himself as an upstanding instructor at a military training school during the period in question, working with local communities in Guatemala to build good relations.
Sosa Orantes, 59, is serving a 10-year sentence for immigration fraud in the United States, where he also held citizenship until it was revoked in 2014.
In the early 1980s, the Guatemalan military junta began a ruthless campaign against guerrilla groups that wiped out 440 villages, killing over 75,000 people and displacing more than 250,000, the Canadian government says in documents filed in Federal Court.
Canada says Sosa Orantes was a senior member of a military special forces group that led a mission to Las Dos Erres in December 1982 to interrogate inhabitants after some military rifles were allegedly stolen during a guerrilla ambush of troops.
Military members killed at least 162 civilians, including 67 children. Women were raped and children were thrown into an 18-metre dry well.
“The members of the special forces group killed their victims by hitting them on the head with a sledgehammer, by hitting their heads on a tree, by shooting them, or by slitting their throats,” the federal submission says.
“In other cases, victims were simply thrown into the well while they were still alive.”
At one point, Sosa Orantes fired his rifle into the well, then tossed in a grenade, the documents say.
In supervising the killings at the well, he mocked subordinates “who showed any hesitation to commit the murders.”
Sosa Orantes is representing himself in the Federal Court case, filing documents — including a statement of defence in sometimes fractured English — from a Phoenix, Ariz., prison.
“I was not in Las Dos Erres,” he writes.
Sosa Orantes says that in late 1982 and early 1983 he was busy travelling to several towns as part of a goodwill effort, handing out notebooks, pens, chalk, educational games and sports equipment.
“I distributed material to more than 20 schools in the area. I had no information about Las Dos Erres and other ... operations due to the fact that I was a subordinate.”
Sosa Orantes left Guatemala for California in 1985. After being denied asylum in the U.S., he visited the Canadian consulate in San Francisco to seek haven in Canada. He was granted refugee status, later becoming a permanent resident and citizen of Canada.
The federal government argues Sosa Orantes failed to disclose details of his military involvement that would have made him inadmissible to Canada.
In his court filing, Sosa Orantes insists he disclosed his military background and “had nothing to hide.”
Sosa Orantes married an American woman and attained U.S. citizenship in September 2008.
In 2010, the U.S. discovered he had committed immigration fraud by concealing his past. He was arrested the following year in Lethbridge, Alta., while visiting family.
In ordering his extradition to the U.S. to face trial, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench said the evidence establishes Sosa Orantes was one of the commanding officers who decided to murder the villagers and that he “actively participated in the killings with a sledgehammer, with a firearm and a grenade.”
“It is difficult for this court to comprehend the murderous acts of depraved cruelty on the scale disclosed by the evidence.”
Man accused of massacring villagers fights revocation of Canadian citizenship |

It is truly amazing the kind of people Our idiot Boy and his wretched LIE-berals WANT to keep in Canada! One had only to think of Anthony Dooley- the Jamaican born crack dealer who immigrated first to United States- where he quickly got convicted ofr drug dealing- did his time and got sent back to Jamaica!

From there he came to Canada and hooked up with welfare fraud Marcia Dooley. In order to get more welfare money, Anthony Dooley persuaded his ex wife to send him his two sons. In the space of a couple of years with welfare being ripped off regularly and our hug a thug LIE-beral judges bent over backwards to find some reason to keep them, Marcia and Anthony Dooley managed to beat 9 year old Randall to death- punched him in the face so hard and so often that the autopsy found pieces of his shattered teeth in his stomach.

Somebody really needs to rein in this LIE-beral "buy the immigrant vote at any price" game- its killing people and costing us millions! The yearly jail bill for Marcia and Anthony Dooley will be over three hundred thousand dollars per year- WITHOUT factoring inflation!
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
6,049
3,835
113
Edmonton
This is the only change I dont really have a problem with. If you want to change the criteria and process by which people gain citizenship im totally open to that however once granted citizenship should be irrevocable. People born and raised here have committed terrorist acts - but did not and cannot lose their citizenship as a result. The ones who happened to be born somewhere else yet gained the same equal citizenship should be treated exactly the same. Terrorism is also a bit or a random thing to pick. Paul Bernardo has killed more people in Canada than any act of terrorism has in Canada - yet he still holds citizenship and no one is trying to take it away. So, if he's worse than a terrorist why not do it with him?

Ultimately its just semantics though. If a foreign born citizen committed a terrorist act here, was convicted and had their citizenship revoked what difference would it make in practice? They'd still be here in one of our prisons. We aren't just going to ship someone who killed people here back to where they came from. First, what if that country refuses to take them back? Or what if they do take them and let the person go free? Then they'd continue to be a threat. So, citizenship or not it wont change much when it comes to how they are dealt with when they commit a crime here.


The "Bernardo" claim is apples and oranges and besides, he's in prison for life (hopefully)!


If a person moves here and takes an oath to become a Canadian citizen, the expectation is that he will abide by our laws. Threatening to kill the citizens of a country that you have chosen to live to me is basically treason and citizenship should be taken away and the individual should be deported. Period.


If a Canadian is born here and commits treason, there's a cell waiting for him where he should remain for as long as he lives.


Unfortunately, under the Liberals, neither case will be taken seriously and after "some" prison time, they'll be released. Treason isn't taken seriously anymore so doesn't matter whether someone was born here or not.


For whatever reason, the fact that an immigrant isn't being "fairly" treated is their choice and they need to take responsibility for them. I don't believe for a minute and it's disingenuous to say that they system would be "unfair" because they would be deported as opposed to someone who was born here. That should be a non-issue.


JMHO
 

Decapoda

Council Member
Mar 4, 2016
1,682
801
113
Our idiot Pet has passed on his vile hatred of Cdn values to his son - Our foolish Boy Justin and he is busy carrying on implementing his parents twisted values!
There is no such thing as Canadian values according to Justin. Haven't you heard...Canada is a post-nation state according to him.

Justin Trudeau is making every effort he can to eliminate the notion that Canada can have it's own identity. He believes that there is no such thing as Canadian values, that everyone should maintain their native cultural identity and values while in Canada and that any notion of a unified Canadian identity should be suppressed and ultimately destroyed. He has no concept of sovereignty and is truly repulsed at the idea.

I'm not so much troubled by Trudeau's demented, destructive mindset as I am by the apparent ironic fact that Canadians as a people are either ignorant of what he stands for, or support such a reckless idea and are content watching their Canadian values being flushed down the toilet by this buffoon.

Unfortunately, under the Liberals, neither case will be taken seriously and after "some" prison time, they'll be released. Treason isn't taken seriously anymore so doesn't matter whether someone was born here or not.

Treason only applies to sovereign nations. This goes against Trudeau's idea of Canada being a "mosaic" of cultures and being free of unified sovereign values.