On Feb 27, 1933 the nacent Nazis in Germany knew they would need to defeat their rivals were they to attain power in Germany. The Nazis burned their own parliament (Reichstag) and blamed the fire on a communist man they had found wandering the street.
Now do I have trouble with the present Harper Tory party in power? No. It is not about that… It is over the issue that if you suspend one groups liberties now… those same policing powers can be employed against you or anyone else down the road.
It is simple. There are troublemakers from below; who want to damage our liberties. We know this ; and don’t argue with that. There are troublemakers from above. The second group is of greater concern; because they are the authorities; and pretend that they are around to serve and protect us.
For the United States the pretext was 9/11. This was used to begin to strip away citizens liberties. Now with October 22, 2014 we have a ‘pretext’ event in Ottawa, Canada to remove liberties in Canada. Now we have had our reichstag fire in Canada. The Upper Floor (planners who appoint PMs and Presidents) was simply biding its time.
This is all about ‘one law for them’ – and ‘another law for you and I.’ Get used to showing your biometric passports on the street. Is that what your grandad fought for all those years ago? To have your government watch you?
They have long been building a cage and waiting for everyone to run inside out of their own fears; fears fanned by a mainstream media . Mainstream media stations are to no surprise already giving government a carte blanche to do whatever they need to do to get the ‘terrorists’. So who do you hunt? Who do you screen? Where does it end? How are the security conditions shut off?
The Ottawa event was not an ad hoc happening. It was a Reichstag Fire.
This fire will be used:
1. to apply an Indian Reserve Prosiska (pass) system in Canada; yes you are the new indians
2. it is part of a larger staged plan (called ‘piecemeal functionalism’) is part of the changes to re-manage this continent on the model of the European Union as a North American Union. It is about bringing Canada inside a North American Union – without your consultation.
3. These continental changes are a re-management program that was discussed under the ‘Partnerships for Peace Program’ at the North American Forum (‘Confab Banff’) When? Back in 1993; and behind closed doors.
This Ottawa reichstag fire will be used as a pretext to end habeas corpus in Canada and bring us inside a North American Union discussed years ago . ‘Sorry you weren’t in attendance.’
Advice? ‘Love your neighbours as yourself; and pray that the God of Jacob would make His calling on your life more clear; and pray daily for those in government.’ Proverbs 21:1 which says, “The LORD directs the rulers heart like the flow of the river. He turns it wherever He wishes.”
North America. A place of liberty almost like no other in history. Yet what happens when your freedom of speech and assembly disappears?
Politicals on the run on this continent? Could it happen again?
Members of the Underground Railroad often used specific terms, based on the metaphor of the railway. For example:
- People who helped slaves find the railroad were “agents” (or “shepherds”)
- Guides were known as “conductors”
- Hiding places were “stations”
- “Station masters” hid slaves in their homes
- Escaped slaves were referred to as “passengers” or “cargo”
- Slaves would obtain a “ticket”
- Similar to common gospel lore, the “wheels would keep on turning”
- Financial benefactors of the Railroad were known as “stockholders”
The Big Dipper (whose “bowl” points to the North Star) was known as the drinkin’ goard.
Yesterday it was Black slaves in the southern United States who were runaway ‘criminals.’ Yes, lawbreakers by the books.
The Railroad was often known as the “freedom train” or “Gospel train”, which headed towards “Heaven” or “the Promised Land”, i.e., Canada.
As with the Americans, Canadians are seeing their liberties curtailed. So where to hide now?
Governments will fail you. Man is a snare we are told.
Ask yourself ‘who is your compass’? ‘Where are you going next’?
My friend hear me now. Seek your shelter in the arms of
‘ the One who died your death for you.
“For anyone who trusts in Him will in no wise be ashamed.”
“His blood will cleanse you to the uttermost”
After Kafkaesque hunt, Indian status and citizenship both out of reach for desperate Ontario mom
It means that while she grew up in this country since her teens, the now 25-year-old mother of two can’t get a social insurance number, health-care coverage or child tax benefits even though one of her children was born in Canada.
She says sexist laws have prevented her from obtaining her status Indian card, which would give her all those rights and privileges, and Citizenship and Immigration has suggested her only means of naturalization is to first apply for permanent residency on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
“I’ve been living like an illegal immigrant for almost 12 years,” said the frustrated Haliburton, Ont., mother during a recent trip to Ottawa to make her case to anybody who would listen. “I’m hoping to fix it. I’m not leaving.”
Considered unique, Harnois’ case highlights just how convoluted Canadian citizenship and aboriginal law can be.To explain, here’s a breakdown of her conundrum:
Harnois was born in the United States to an aboriginal mother and non-status father, the latter of whom she never really knew, and entered Canada legally as a dependent of a status Indian in her early teens to be closer to relatives. Her mother was also the offspring of an aboriginal mother and white father, but they were never married.
While all her ancestors from her grandmother down are full-blooded aboriginals from the Chippewa of the Thames reserve near London, Ont., she argues she was ineligible for Indian status due to a “second generation cut-off” rule that prevented Indian women from passing on status. Bill C-3 passed in 2010 sought to rectify parts of the law, but it offered no reprieve for her as her grandmother — an Indian woman who had children with a non-status man in the context of a common-law relationship — was still barred from passing on status.
On the citizenship side, Harnois has learned that she is also among those who were penalized in 2009 when the government amended the Citizenship Act so that second-generation offspring born abroad could not be naturalized. Part of Bill C-37, the decision was made in the aftermath of the Israel-Lebanon war after some so-called dual “citizens of convenience” were criticized for taking advantage of the Canadian government and accepting an airlift out of the region only to return once tensions died down.
Bill C-37 was supposed to help “lost Canadians” like Harnois’ mother who was born outside Canada, out-of-wedlock and whose birth was registered with the band office, not the Canadian government. It helped about 95% of so-called lost Canadians who often discovered they weren’t citizens for a variety of administrative reasons when they applied for a passport. That said, it left out the children of would-be war brides and Canadian servicemen born out-of-wedlock prior to 1947 when Canada had no citizenship laws of its own. It also created a new class of lost Canadians — second-generation, born-abroad residents who previously had the option to apply to retain their citizenship before their 28th birthday. It’s an option that might have been available to Harnois had her mother thought to register her own citizenship and her daughter’s citizenship sooner.
I think in the future people will be more informed and educated and will have a greater understanding of what their rights and obligations are
“It’s understandable that Canadians may not want second, third and fourth generation born-abroads with no connection to Canada to be citizens,” Harnois conceded.
She added this is often not the case for the remaining lost Canadians, who “have beyond substantial connections and bear legitimacy in Canada.”
This week, Jackie Scott — a 68-year-old B.C. woman who was denied citizenship despite coming to Canada at the age of two with her British mother and Canadian father — went to court to fight for those lost Canadians born prior to 1947, but it’s unlikely her case will have any bearing on people like Harnois.
Toronto immigration lawyer and author Jacqueline Bart said it appears Harnois is indeed “caught” in a very “difficult” and “unique” situation that may only be resolved through humanitarian and compassionate considerations. That said, she believes it was a “prudent” decision on the part of government to limit citizenship to a single generation born abroad and suggests there’s “a real onus on parents to make sure they regularize their children” as soon as they can, be it through sponsorship or another method.
“Otherwise somebody could basically live here for three years and their children’s, children’s, children’s, children’s, children’s children could continue being citizens even though there’s really no tie to Canada,” she said, adding the law is still relatively new and many are being taken by surprise by it.
“I think in the future people will be more informed and educated and will have a greater understanding of what their rights and obligations are.”
As for a possible resolution under the Indian Act, Victoria, B.C.-based aboriginal lawyer Christopher Devlin argued it’s unlikely. He believes it’s in the government’s interest to deny Indian status to aboriginals who marry and procreate with non-aboriginals. It means in 100 years, he argued, there won’t be many status Indians left which means less funding for aboriginal communities and fewer treaty obligations.
“As long as the government defines what it is to be an Indian by procreation and generation and not by other measures of culture and ethnicity, then you’re going to run into these problems and there’s going to be people who very much identify with their aboriginal past but are going to be cut off from legally being Indians,” he said.
“They will have gotten rid of their Indian problem by defining Indians out of existence … It’s a gradual but relentless way to eliminate your responsibility for aboriginal people.”