Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Border agent’s directive questioned

CBC is reporting that Drug busts by the Canada Border Services Agency rose 10 per cent between 2007 and 2012. So why would the Harper government instruct Canadian border agents to change their focus and not prioritize drugs or organized crime but to focus on human smuggling related to refugee and immigration reform? You can’t get any more corrupt than that. Knowing we’re in a gang war fueled by the cross border pot for cocaine drug trade, telling border agents not to prioritize that is criminally negligent and politically suspect.

This isn’t new information. We were told about the government’s new directive before although I can’t locate the story in the archives yet. This story just reaffirms the directive and compares it with the increase in drug related statistics showing once again how corrupt the Harper government really is. Cuts funding for the RCMP, the gang task force, the prisons and now tells border agents not to worry about looking for drugs. That's not very tough on crime at all.


  1. There has to be a crime problem for a government to use to justify increasing the loss of liberty with more control of you by them.

    No one gives up freedom for no reason, and the reason sold to the people by government is ALWAYS more safety and security. If they solved or effectively controlled the crime problem, they'd be undercutting their own arguments for needing more power. They need more crime, not less. This is part of the reason that state-ists are always in favor of gun control.

    Everywhere that citizens are allowed to carry arms for their own protection, there is less violent crime than places where they are not. This is not even arguable. Many of those who believe that government should have a monopoly on the use of force believe it for ideological reasons, but those who imagine themselves to be our masters because we elect them want gun control because without an effective means to resist government oppression, citizens are more dependent on government. And dependence is what they want.

    It's called the protection racket. Your loss of freedom is paid for with your own money. (taxes)

  2. Harper is a Right Wing Extremest who in my opinion has always had his own agenda and the last thing on his mind is the welfare and growth of our Country. Selling off this Country's Natural Resources for less than what we as Canadian's pay for our own product! WTF!! Canada is one of the most Oil Rich Countries in the world, so why are we paying OPEC prices when we aren't even a member of OPEC??? Why did Harper sell our Oil rights to the Chinese?? Glad to see our Government are able to line their pockets and allow the rest of the world to Rape our Country, while the majority of Canadians struggle just to make a living and support their families. No wonder Harper is De-prioritizing organized Crime... Our Government is the biggest "ORGANIZED CRIME" syndicate in the country! If I got caught steeling Tax payers money, I'd go to jail... But if you're in the government, the worst thing that happens to you if you get caught is you maybe.. might.. slightly possibly... have to retire!... But you can keep your pension! What a JOKE!

  3. TR78: "If they solved or effectively controlled the crime problem, they'd be undercutting their own arguments for needing more power. They need more crime, not less. This is part of the reason that state-ists are always in favor of gun control."

    Yeah! And the Mexican citizens are organizing AND arming themselves; for the new, popular front against the drug Cartels;

    "Thousands of armed vigilantes takeover Mexican town."

    "The takeover comes amid a growing movement of 'self defence' groups in the region, which claim to be fighting against drug cartels."

    "The force's spokesman, Bruno Placido Valerio, said: 'We have besieged the municipality, because here criminals operate with impunity in broad daylight, in view of municipal authorities."

    ...and much more...; (DailyMail)

  4. You are so right anarchy! 2015 can not come soon enough! Harper needs to go! Unfortunately he will probably just be replace by another self serving politician, elected on promises that we want to hear, but he or she have no intention of ever keeping!

  5. Although I agree with Anarchy99, I think it’s important to avoid stereotypes. People say right wing this and left wing that. The concern is extremism. A right wing extremist is no different than a left wing extremist because as much as one hates the other, they both end up at the same place - dictatorship. Harper is an extremist but I’m afraid he doesn’t appear to be very right wing. He claims he is but his actions are very far from his words and the deception is very real. Depending on how you define right wing of course.

    Northeastern is right in that most politicians are self serving used car salesmen who tell us what we want to hear at election time then do what they want when they are elected. One could argue in support of holding politicians to their election promises like a binding contract. Most will laugh at the concept realizing that will happen when pigs fly yet I think that’s the intent of recall petitions. To make politicians accountable to the people who elect them.

    Freddy makes reference to the armed vigilantes who recently took over a town in Mexico and arrested some police offices. Although I agree that is the intent of the US right to bear arms, I don’t think lawlessness is the right course. These people have established check points stopping everyone who goes by including tourists. The protection from unnecessary searches and seizures is an important right. Personally I don’t want to let the police or the army trample that right let alone an armed angry civilian.

  6. Exactly how does the citizens (who hold power anyway, they just delegate it through elected representatives and public official) deciding that they will take back that power form corrupt officials = "lawlessness". Corrupt cops and pols doing their thing is the lawlessness that required citizens to withdraw their delegation of the rights THEY hold from those who they gave those rights "in trust" (meaning to hold on their behalf) to? You seem to, (as do pols and the police) think that this power once given to them cannot be taken back. Well they are wrong, and THAT my friend, is what the Second Amendment is about, not duck hunting or defending yourself from attack, although it is about those things too. That is why pols (and the police, in Canada anyway) are in favor of gun control. They WANT that delegation of power to be a one way street, where once you give it to them they never have to give it back.

    Free men own guns, subjects and slaves don't.

  7. I didn’t say people shouldn’t own guns. I think it's a fine line and am not comfortable with giving armed angry citizens the same powers to search and seize I refuse to give the police.

  8. The reason thousands of armed Mexican citizens are forming their own militias is PRECISELY b/c they don't trust the Cops, can you not see that, AK...?

  9. You're right, it IS a fine line, and everyone knows it, that's what makes folks so nervous about it and why many if not most would rather suffer the excesses of authority than risk a larger loss of control. And don't think authority doesn't know that.....

    That said, we are talking here about a completely different circumstance than just replacing, say, VPD with gun owning citizens running checkpoints looking for bad guys. We're talking about a circumstance with violent crime running rampant in the streets, murder in broad daylight, and the authorities being either complicit or hiding out at the office. It's an unusual, desperate situation, and will require unusual, even desperate measures to deal effectively with it, and there's actually a very obvious lesson there if one cares to learn it. Between this place and the Lower Mainland we are talking only of degree......not hat the police should be replaced by armed citizens, but that the methods currently in use are not having the desired effect. THAT is something EVERYONE agrees on. They just aren't willing to up the ante, whereas "les Hells" and their minions always are.
    Advantage Red & White.....

  10. "VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) – Vancouver’s police union says officers can’t take a chance when someone resists arrests."

    Leaving aside that the guy didn't really resist arrest...Bad news Mate, you're in the chance taking business, goes with the job. If you're a risk adverse personality, you need to move on to a different line of work. Being risk adverse but doing the job anyway is not good, someone's gonna get hurt because you're a "fear-biter", and it won't be you of course. "Whatever it takes to go home at the end of shift", right? Whatever covers a lot of territory.....


Comments are moderated so there will be a delay before they appear on the blog.