Monthly Archives: January 2017
Syrian Refugee School Sex Assault in New Brunswick
Fourteen year old molested but no charges against “refugee” teen molester.
Who Are the Progressives?
by , Liberty Institute of Canada
 |
| Progressive worldview in the US |
The Progressive Movement
The progressives are people of different political stripes (but mainly neo-liberals and Marxists) who share a common goal: To replace Christian society and the free market with a Marxist, 60-gender plus amoral society ruled by politically correct bureaucrats.
The progressive movement, also called “cultural Marxism,” grew out of the efforts of a few Marxist academics at Germany’s Frankfurt School in the 1920s. The men later fled Germany during WWII and set up shop at Columbia University in the U.S. They abhorred the social restrictions imposed upon them by Christian morality, and they also equally hated capitalism and the free market because Karl Marx said that those were bad. The Frankfurt academics believed that traditional society needed to be “burned to the ground” so that the phoenix of a perfect Utopia would rise from the ashes.
The movement became known as “progressivism.” It has been widely promulgated by university professors since the 1930s. In 1942, the federal Conservative Party changed its named to “Progressive Conservative Party” to reflect the fact that it had adopted progressive ideals. Later the conservatives dropped the word “progressive” to emphasize their adherence to budget cuts and lower taxes, but hardly to question the progressive social agenda of the other parties. Today, progressivism is promoted not only by academics, but by left-leaning think tanks and mainstream politicians from all parties.
How Have They Attempted to Achieve Their Goals?
The methods that progressives have used to accomplish their goals of societal transformation have evolved over time. Today they include:
- Political correctness: With political correctness, it becomes taboo to speak against society’s traditional taboos. Ironic isn’t it? The goal is to remove speech as a tool that can be used to defend culture and values. When a man does speak-up, then the state’s Anti-Human Rights Commissions come calling with the intent to shut the man up, to fine him, or to put him in prison.
- Attack on Christianity: The progressives are relentless with their attacks against Christianity because of its myriad prohibitions against moral and sexual degeneracy. For example, they call traditional Christian culture a “rape culture” purely as a means of discrediting and demeaning Christianity.
- Attack on the family: Progressives are known to call parents “dangerous.” They routinely attack motherhood and fatherhood. The reason is that they know that parents are the first line of defence in protecting children. They need to discredit parents so that they can take their place for the purposes of education and indoctrination.
- Discrimination against Anglo-Saxons: One way to burn society to the ground is to make the majority of its citizens no longer believe in their own worth. Hence, the progressives use the false meme of “privilege” and the old history of slavery to devalue and degrade us.
- Promoting mass immigration: Progressives are well aware that mass immigration can be used to wipe out traditional Anglo-Saxon Christian society. This is why hundreds of thousands of foreigners are being allowed to flood across Canada’s borders each year. They call it “multiculturalism.”
- Attack on capitalism and the free market: At their core, the progressives are Marxists and believe that an economy run by a few academic elites from the top-down is the best way to manage resources. They don’t believe in property rights because such rights stand in the way of the central distribution of resources (i.e., your wealth). They adamantly believe in “each according to his need and each according to his ability,” even though such philosophy has resulted in economic and societal collapse wherever it has been tried.
How Do We Fight It?
Progressives shroud their evil deeds with Orwellian Doublespeak. Racist terms like “privilege,” “diversity” and “inclusiveness” simply mask the progressive’s real intent to destroy our traditional culture, values and prosperity. The best way to fight them is to expose what they are really saying. When they announce a “diversity” program, call them racist. When they sexualize young children with their debauched sex-ed programs, call them sick degenerates. When they shout “privilege,” call them xenophobes.
Do what this German politician from the anti-establishment party AfD did when the bureaucrats wanted to pass a law recognizing 60 different genders: He ridiculed them and rejected them:
Progressives are dangerous. Their ideology threatens the very survival of humanity. We, therefore, cannot shrink from their threat. Instead, we must attack them with all of our might. Truth and morality are behind us. We must win!
Somalian Muslim Lawyer is New Minister of Immigration in Canada. Paul Fromm discusses the issue with Brian Ruhe.
Paul Fromm is the Director of the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee and he is not a happy camper over this appointment of Ahmed Hussen by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau!
CATHOLIC BISHOPS FACILITATE MOSLEM INVASION OF U.S.A.
Somali refugees arrive in the U.S. at a rate of more than 800 per month, filing into more than 300 U.S. cities and towns from U.N. refugee camps such as this one in Dadaab, Kenya.
More than 25 percent of the thousands of refugees who come annually from the Third World to America are resettled in U.S. cities and towns by the Roman Catholic Church.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, operating through its Migration and Refugee Services division, resettled more than 22,000 refugees in 2015, with many of them coming from the Muslim-dominated countries of Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Sudan and Afghanistan.
Since 1975, the Catholic Church has helped resettle more than 1 million refugees in America, making it the largest of the nine resettlement agencies that work for the U.S. government.
The Bishops are proud of this accomplishment and are celebrating it this week during the Catholic Church’s “National Migration Week.”
Some of the states where the Catholic bishops are most active in resettling Muslim refugees are Michigan, Minnesota, Tennessee, Ohio, Florida, California, Arizona, Maine, Georgia, Nebraska, Illinois, Virginia, Kentucky, Washington, Texas and Utah.
The USCCB statement on National Migration Week noted that it provided “an opportunity to embrace the important work of continuing to secure the border, to welcome the stranger and serve the most vulnerable – all components of a humane immigration policy.”
At the same time the Catholic Bishops are placing Muslim refugees into hundreds of U.S. cities and towns, they have also been lobbying Congress for the U.S. to embrace the mostly Catholic Central Americans who have massed at the U.S.-Mexico border seeking asylum.
“If you are a Catholic, you are likely being bombarded this week (Jan. 8-14) with propaganda about welcoming the stranger,” writes refugee watchdog Ann Corcoran at her blog, Refugee Resettlement Watch.
The Catholic publication Crux published an article this week highlighting the church’s work with refugees.
Another article on the work Catholic Charities of Minnesota is doing with Somali refugees appeared Jan. 10 in in the Catholic publication Patheos.
“We are the frontline for helping them find a place to live, establish a relationship with a landlord … getting them established with basic food and clothing, helping their kids get connected to school, helping them get connected to the available public benefits,” said Laurie Ohmann, senior vice president of client services and community partnerships at Catholic Charities of St. Paul-Minneapolis.
Silent on federal role in their work
But neither of the articles mentioned the fact that more than 95 percent of the Catholic Bishops’ budget for refugee resettlement comes from federal tax dollars. Nor did the articles mention that the Catholic Bishops, along with the eight other resettlement agencies, must sign a contract agreeing that they will never share their Christian faith with any of the refugees.
The federal government pays Catholic agencies $2,050 for every refugee they resettle in the United States. They also get numerous special grants for providing services to refugees, offering them help with everything from food nutrition and how to shop at American grocery stores to marriage counseling.
“It’s a long, glowing piece and not a single word about Catholic Bishops getting all that federal money, so the average Catholic parishioner is probably thinking, ‘Oh isn’t this great, we Catholics helping all these refugees and isn’t this a nice thing we’re doing?’ when they have no clue this is going on,” said Corcoran, who is herself a Catholic. “They just do not grasp that their leadership in the Catholic Church is involved in all this federal refugee stuff.”
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/
Pope Francis called on hundreds of children in Italy to stop fearing refugees.
Resettlement agencies also provide travel loans for refugee airfares into this country. When the loan is paid back by the poor refugee, the Catholic Bishops and other resettlement agencies get to keep a percentage of the federal loan.
According to the 2014 annual report for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the organization reported total revenue of $85.5 million with $79.6 million or 97 percent of that coming from federal grants and contracts.
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2017/
The Catholics are by no means the only denomination involved in this deceptive “charity” program flush with federal tax money. The Lutherans, Episcopalians, Reform Jewish groups and evangelicals are doing the same thing. By accepting all this federal money, these Christian organizations end up compromising their faith, says Corcoran.
“I don’t understand why they’re not advocating for Syrian Christians coming to this country,” she said, noting that only 1 percent of the refugees coming from Syria are Christian. “But when you follow the money, you get your answer: If they want to get their federal grants they can’t be biased or swayed in their preference for Christian refugees.”
Compromising the faith
Carl Gallups, pastor of a large Baptist church in Florida and author of “Be Thou Prepared: Equipping the Church for Persecution and Times of Trouble,” also believes churches involved in the refugee program are compromising their faith.
“I too, as a senior pastor of a thriving church, have been asked to compromise concerning helping people’ (homeless, etc,) by involving my church in government programs, but with the added caveat of ‘you can’t proselytize these people, if you take government money,’” Gallups told WND in an email.
He calls such Christian social activism “utter hypocrisy.”
“So, our church and its facilities, manpower, and financial assistance are good enough to be ‘used’ to assist the government in its endeavors, but our message of salvation is not?” Gallups asks. “I have always turned down such offers. We will minister to people’s needs without having our hands tied by government handout mandates.”
While Pope Francis’s objectives are commendable, Gallups sees the application of those objectives as deeply flawed.
“How biblical are they, really, if we are actually prohibited, by government decree, from sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the refugees – the very message that compels the church to exist in the first place?” he said.
While the Catholic hierarchy quotes Old Testament scriptures about caring for the “stranger” in the land, that’s only half of what God commanded his people in Israel to do with regard to the refugee.
“Surely Yahweh instructed the Israelites to care for the stranger in the land, but didn’t he also expect them to point these foreigners to the one true God?” Gallups said. “Of course He did. That was His very purpose for bringing the stranger to the land in the beginning.”
Bad apples slip through the cracks
The U.S. State Department and its federal contractors continuously put out the refrain that refugees are “the most rigorously vetted of all people coming to the U.S.”
This mantra doesn’t square with the FBI statements, from Director James Comey and others, that it’s impossible to screen refugees from “failed states” like Syria and Somalia.
As the numbers of refugees caught plotting terror attacks continues to pile up, it becomes clear that Americans should listen to the FBI, not the State Department or its federal contractors.
Sam Rohrer, president of American Pastors Network and a former state legislator for 18 years in Pennsylvania, said the resettlement agencies have blood on their hands whenever they resettle a refugee who harms Americans. Recent incidents at the Crossroads Mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota, and at Ohio State University, for example, resulted in Americans being seriously wounded by Somali refugees who carried on jihad stabbing attacks. An Afghan refugee set off pipe bombs Sept. 17 in the Chelsea area of Manhattan, injuring another 29 people.
“Clearly many of the Catholic Church entities and certain other groups have been part of these resettlement programs that have worked hand-in-hand with the lawless Obama administration,” Rohrer told WND. He said the primary purpose for helping the poor and the needy and is the sharing of the gospel in the living water that Christ alone can provide.”
Get the new release former Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is calling the “most important read of 2017.” It’s “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad” in which investigative reporter Leo Hohmann blows the lid off the dark side of refugee resettlement.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/
Somali Moslem Immigration Lawyer is Trudeau’s New Minister of Immigration
In a big knee to the testicles of Canada’s European founding/settler people, Justin Trudeau on Tuesday appointed Ahmed Hussen as Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, in charge of the rapid replacement of the old stock Canadians with hordes from the Third World.
The Globe and Mail (January 11, 2017) reported: “Ahmed Hussen, who arrived in Canada as a refugee from Somalia at the age of 16, was sworn in as Canada’s Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship at a Rideau Hall ceremony. … ‘I’ll bring my experience as an immigrant to Canada, but also an immigration lawyer, someone who worked many, many years before running for office as a community activist, a community organizer and a community advocate,’ Mr. Hussen told reporters on Parliament Hill Tuesday.”
He is also former national president of the Canadian Somali Congress.
Okay, so Moslem, Somali refugee, immigration lawyer and former head of the Canadian Somali Congress. It’s clear whose interests he represents, but who will protect the interests of mainstream Canadians?
This is out new gatekeeper.
Late last year, Justin Trudeau told the New York Times that Canada is becoming a new kind of country, not defined by our history or European national origins, but by a “pan-cultural heritage”.
“There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,” Trudeau said, concluding that he sees Canada as “the first post-national state.”
North York resident wins right to move city-owned tree based on religious belief
Vastu, an ancient Indian system of architecture involving home design, holds that trees shouldn’t be planted directly in front of a home’s main entrance.
Toronto’s tree canopy may carry important economic and environmental benefits, but city council is willing to extend a maple branch when it comes to moving trees to accommodate religious beliefs.
“It was a very sad struggle for my family,” North York resident Sanjeev Joshi told the Star, following a more than yearlong fight to get approval to move a city-owned tree on his front lawn to another part of the property at his own expense.
“But my experience has brought forth the entire true glory and majesty of multicultural Canada. My story illustrates how our Canada today is probably the last bastion of true cultural diversity.”
In November, following a lengthy debate, council voted 19-7 to allow Joshi to move the tree.
The case began in April 2015, when he requested that the city remove the 17.5-centimetre-diameter Freeman maple tree entirely.
According to a report by the city’s forestry department, Joshi requested the tree’s removal to prevent future damage to his driveway by the tree’s roots and to mitigate “the negative effects on the tree’s esthetics due to the future canopy pruning to accommodate overhead wires.”
After the city’s forestry department denied his request, he appealed the decision, requesting religious accommodation under the Ontario Human Rights Code, according to the city report.
In consultation with the city’s Human Rights Office, it was determined Joshi had not established in good faith that his request warranted religious accommodation by the city.
Yet Joshi continued to argue that the position of the tree in front of the main door of his home violated his belief in vastu, which he defines as “the architectural science of harnessing nature’s energy for well-being of family.” Joshi, who’s retired, says he cited his religious belief from the beginning.
“It was a really reasonable request. He’s not somebody who doesn’t like trees,” said Councillor John Filion, who represents the area where the property is located.
“It’s just so absurd. It was such a ridiculous discussion that the guy does have religious reasons for needing to move the tree at his own expense a couple of feet to one side on his lot.”
Vastu, an ancient Hindu system of architecture involving home design, holds that trees shouldn’t be planted directly in front of a home’s main entrance in order to harness the flow of good energy into the house.
Councillor Gord Perks, who voted against the motion, said he trusted city staff’s determination that Joshi’s request didn’t meet the standards for religious accommodation.
“Anyone saying that there should be a religious exemption is ignoring the people who test our policy against human rights and religious needs,” said Perks, adding that the city receives tree removal applications “all the time.”
“This particular instance was, in my view, nothing more than that,” he said. “There’s a fairness argument here. If we have a series of tests that every Torontonian can rely on being applied equally, why does this guy get an exemption and the next person who makes an application not?”
There are about 600,000 trees on city streets in Toronto, including those on city-owned land between roadways and private property. The city, which has a goal of increasing its tree canopy to 40 per cent, maintains these trees to help grow Toronto’s urban forest, due to the ecological, recreational and health benefits of trees.
The motion at council, moved by Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker, includes a two-year guarantee for the health of the tree in question. If the tree dies following the transplant, Joshi would be required to replace it.
Alex McLeish, general manager of Kontiki Landscaping, said transplants of the type and size of tree in question have a very high success rate, adding it would cost about $1,000 to move the tree.
“A (17.5-centimetre), we wouldn’t even break a sweat,” McLeish said. “You would be in the high 90s in percentage of living. If you moved 100, I doubt you’d lose one.”
But Perks said there was “no sense in taking a risk,” no matter how small.
“The thing that you can do that best meets the city’s policy goals of having a healthy urban forest, reducing our costs and improving air quality in the city of Toronto is to leave trees where they are when they’re healthy,” he said.
Filion said his vote in favour of the transplant was the first time he had gone against a city forestry staff report, which had originally recommended against removing it.
“When the city is going out planting trees, which I’m all in favour of, maybe don’t stick it in the middle of a lot, because there are people with religious beliefs about the tree being right in front of their door,” said Filion. “Just put it off a bit to the side because people’s front doors are pretty much always in the middle of a lot.”
Filion said he opposes requests to move trees for convenience and said any suggestion that this vote set a precedent for such requests to be approved was an “absurd characterization.”
“The whole discussion was absurd,” he said. “It was like a Monty Python skit, it was so absurd. Obviously it only sets a precedent for somebody wanting to do the exact same thing. That’s not a precedent I would be concerned about.”
__________________________
https://www.thestar.com/…/north-york-resident-wins-right-to…
If the tree so offended him, why did he buy that house? Also, if it was new construction, he could have had the front door built in a different position..
Another shameful accommodation of the invaders. Cultural compatibility should be an absolute requirement, if we are to accept any immigration at all. — Paul Fromm
This is What Passes for a Discussion On Immigration: Lies, Folly & Nonsense
Kirsty Duncan is the Member of Parliament for Etobicoke North (where we collect our mail). In her December householder, she reported on an immigration town hall meeting she’d held in the summer featuring Immigration Minister John McCallum and others. Duncan who is also Minister of Science and should know about provable reality peddles the most preposterous nonsense in her report.
“We heard your views on the issues that matters most to you, especially shortening processing times and focusing on family reunification,” she reports. Pictures accompanying the article show scarcely a White face in the audience. She continues: “Our government is committed to bringing a greater number of immigrants and refugees to reunite families, diversify the economy and create sustainable growth.” The former medical geography professor could hardly have packed more folly into a single sentence.
The almost entirely Third World audience selfishly, of course, stressed what would benefit them. Duncan’s conclusion shows neither she nor the Liberals have a clue as to what would benefit Canada. The government is committed to bringing in more immigrants and refugees, she says. The promise may be true but it is ludicrous.
With intractable unemployment hovering around 7 per cent, what are these newcomers going to do? Either they find a job and a Canadian remains unemployed (Canada loses) or they don’t find a job and the taxpayers support them on welfare (Canada loses). Family reunification, after acceptance of poorly screened refugees, is almost the worst way to import immigrants. “Family class” applicants do not have to prove any language or skill qualifications (to say nothing of cultural compatibility).
Duncan suggests more immigration will “diversify the economy”. Unless she means curry houses or roti huts, she’s talking twaddle. Only new resources or new manufacturing techniques will “diversify” the economy.
Prof. Herb Grubel, Fellow at the Fraser Institute and former Reform Member of Parliament
Finally, she dreams, immigration will “create sustainable growth.” Economist Herb Grubel, a former Reform MP and a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, recently revealed that Canada’s failed immigration policy costs the taxpayer $30-billion a year,. That is calculated by measuring what the mostly Third World immigrants who came here since the early 1980s contribute to the tax pot each year, minus what they take out. There is a $30-billion deficit. They take out more than they contribute. This NOT sustainable!
[This article will appear in the December, 2016 issue of the CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE. Published monthly, the CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE is available by subscription for $30 per year. You can subscribe by sending a cheque or VISA number and expiry date to CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3.]