Sign in to follow this  
Jaydee

Reality 2020

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Wolfhunter said:

Discretion and common sense have left the building and won't be back anytime soon.

 

Yes, very strange.  Even the most lefty, politcally-correct, teacher on the planet knows that a 6 year old with Downs Syndrome does not represent a threat so why, exactly, would they report it and call the police?  These people have lost the ability the assess a situation and even worse have lost the ability to make a decision and take responsibility for it - everything gets reported a a level 11 incident and passed off to some higher authority for action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She asked him, 'How much are you selling the eggs for?'
The old seller replied, '$.25 an egg, Madam.'
She said to him, 'I will take 6 eggs for $1.25 or I will leave.'
The old seller replied, 'Come take them at the price you want. Maybe, this is a good beginning because I have not been able to sell even a single egg today.'

She took the eggs and walked away feeling she has won.
 

She got into her fancy car and went to a posh restaurant with her friend. There, she and her friend, ordered whatever they liked. They ate a little and left a lot of what they ordered. Then she went to pay the bill. The bill cost her $45.00 She gave $50.00 and asked the owner of the restaurant to keep the change.

This incident might have seemed quite normal to the owner but, very painful to the poor egg seller.

The point is,
Why do we always show we have the power when we buy from the needy ones? And why do we get generous to those who do not even need our generosity?

I once read somewhere:

'My father used to buy simple goods from poor people at high prices, even though he did not need them. Sometimes he even used to pay extra for them. I got concerned by this act and asked him why does he do so? Then my father replied, "It is a charity wrapped with dignity, my child”

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jaydee said:

She asked him, 'How much are you selling the eggs for?'
The old seller replied, '$.25 an egg, Madam.'
She said to him, 'I will take 6 eggs for $1.25 or I will leave.'
The old seller replied, 'Come take them at the price you want. Maybe, this is a good beginning because I have not been able to sell even a single egg today.'

She took the eggs and walked away feeling she has won.
 

She got into her fancy car and went to a posh restaurant with her friend. There, she and her friend, ordered whatever they liked. They ate a little and left a lot of what they ordered. Then she went to pay the bill. The bill cost her $45.00 She gave $50.00 and asked the owner of the restaurant to keep the change.

This incident might have seemed quite normal to the owner but, very painful to the poor egg seller.

The point is,
Why do we always show we have the power when we buy from the needy ones? And why do we get generous to those who do not even need our generosity?

I once read somewhere:

'My father used to buy simple goods from poor people at high prices, even though he did not need them. Sometimes he even used to pay extra for them. I got concerned by this act and asked him why does he do so? Then my father replied, "It is a charity wrapped with dignity, my child”

probably the best thing you ever posted 😉

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to mob rule

Political appetite for action seems remarkably low

  • Calgary Herald
  • 13 Feb 2020
  • JOHN IVISON National Post jivison@postmedia.com
img?regionKey=aLb5qkA1C7CFB1iwz2KvEg%3d%3dJONATHAN HAYWARD / THE CANADIAN PRESS A security guard tries to stop protesters from prying open a door at the Coastal Gaslink offices in Vancouver on Wednesday, as protests continued in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en against the LNG pipeline in northern B.C.

Canada is slowly turning from democracy to mobocracy, as the rule of law is tested from coast to coast.

From blocked intersections in downtown Toronto, to journalists and legislators being barred entry to the B.C. legislature; from an obstructed CN line affecting rail traffic out of the port of Prince Rupert, to the barricades impeding Via Rail’s service between Toronto and Montreal, Canada is slowly being choked into submission.

The protests are in solidarity with the opposition to the Coastal Gaslink pipeline in northern B.C. by hereditary chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en Nation. But a considerable number of “outsiders” are using the dispute as an excuse for mischief.

It’s impossible to know how many anarchists are at work. The U.S. website, It’s Going Down, has been actively calling for its followers to “shut down the ability of capitalist civilization to function” and has been promoting a campaign to #shutdowncanada.

Eco-warriors like Rising Tide Toronto are calling on its activists to fight actors in that city that “benefit from mega-extraction and colonialism.”

The mob is winning.

CN has temporarily closed down part of its network and warned of threats to the transportation of food, grain, de-icing fluid for airports and propane for Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

In the face of this declaration of disorder, our politicians have been supine. Justin Trudeau is overseas, campaigning for a UN Security Council seat, but encouraged all parties to use dialogue to resolve the problem.

Beleaguered Transport Minister Marc Garneau noted that it is illegal to blockade a rail line under the Railway Safety Act but said it is up to the provinces, not the federal government, to sort it out.

It’s true that Ottawa cannot direct provincial police forces. No one wants a repeat of the Oka Crisis. All sides need to show restraint to avoid a bloodbath.

But somebody in Ottawa, other than Conservative leadership candidate Erin

O’toole, should be pointing out that along with the right to protest there are certain responsibilities to allow other people to go about their business.

The prime minister should be pointing out that the protesters’ case is built on judicial sand.

The RCMP on Wet’suwet’en territory are not “invading sovereign Indigenous territory” as protesters occupying the federal Justice building in Ottawa contend. The Mounties are enforcing an injunction granted by the B.C. Supreme Court, which gives them the right to arrest people and remove camps designed to block pipeline construction.

The 670-km pipeline has support from the five Wet’suwet’en bands and their elected chiefs and councils, who have signed financial benefit agreements worth $338 million for the 20 bands along the route, plus contract work for Indigenous businesses estimated at $620 million.

But the project is opposed by hereditary chiefs, who argue that they represent Wet’suwet’en’s traditional governance structure.

The common sense view may be that the democratically-elected band governments should prevail. But there is no place for common sense when it comes to Crown-indigenous relations.

The hereditary chiefs argue that, since the pipeline’s proponents were not given permission to enter unceded territory, they are in violation of Wet’suwet’en law. The judge presiding over the injunction said that Indigenous customary laws are not viewed as an “effectual”

part of Canadian law until they are recognized in treaties or court declarations. The landmark Tsilhquot’in case in 2014 said that once aboriginal title is established, there is a requirement to get consent from First Nation before development can take place.

But the Wet’suwet’en have not established title, or ownership, over their traditional lands in Canadian court or through negotiation. They would likely have a very strong case to take to the Supreme Court of Canada but, while there is a duty to consult, there is no veto. In time, the hereditary chiefs might stop the Coastal Gaslink project, but that will be up to the courts.

Such nuances are clearly lost on protesters such as the young activists blockading the Justice building, who insist that, since the land was unceded, it remains sovereign.

But that is not the law. “Under Canadian law, whether land has established aboriginal title or not, Canadian courts don’t treat it as ‘sovereign’,” said Dwight Newman, the Canadian research chair in Indigenous Rights at the University of Saskatchewan.

This is messy stuff and there is validity in the claim in a blog post by Gavin Smith, a staff lawyer with the West Coast Environmental Law organization, that “the Wet’suwet’en are a classic example of how the Crown and Canadian legal system have overseen a long-term and continuing failure to give effect to the promised recognition of Aboriginal title and Indigenous law.”

But the law is all we have and without it, we will have anarchy, which seems to be precisely what many protesters want.

“From their point of view, I’m not sure that Canadian law matters,” said Newman. “One of the challenging things (the Wet’suwet’en case) is exposing is that there are a lot of protesters who take the view that something other than Canadian law should be determining a lot of issues within Canada.”

As B.C. Premier John Horgan noted of the confrontation at the provincial legislature, things have shifted from traditional protest to something quite different.

“These are extraordinary times, extraordinary events,” he said.

It is going to take deft political leadership to defeat the mob without civil conflict.

The early signs are not encouraging.

THE PROTESTERS’ CASE IS BUILT ON JUDICIAL SAND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jaydee said:

'My father used to buy simple goods from poor people at high prices, even though he did not need them. Sometimes he even used to pay extra for them. I got concerned by this act and asked him why does he do so? Then my father replied, "It is a charity wrapped with dignity, my child”

My father-in-law had a cottage 30 miles up a lonely road (which was in turn hours from the nearest city).  A small rail depot, that had long since been taken out of service, had resulted in a number of dwellings alongside a lake and these had been converted to recreational properties.  Not a particularly noteworthy lake and the isolation meant it would never be developed into anything more than it was.  Amongst these cottages was a family that ran a small seasonal store.  He always made a point of buying supplies from this small store even though he could just as easily have bought them before leaving the city for his weekend at the cottage - said he wanted to support the store so that it would be there when he needed it.  Yes, somewhat self-serving but taught me that "price" is not always the primary concern.  Since I was exposed to this concept over 30 years ago I have adopted it myself and specifically make a point out of stopping to buy stuff from isolated stores, gas-stations and businesses - so that they are there sometime when I need them.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Marshall said:

It is going to take deft political leadership to defeat the mob without civil conflict.

 

Personally, I would welcome the conflict.  These protestors are clearly in violation of our country's laws - send in the Army.  CS gas and truncheons - that would be my solution.  "You have 30 minutes to vacate or we will remove you."  and then do it.  Don't care if it's Greenpeace, Antifa, Neo-nazis or First Nations - off to the Gulag.  If more show up tomorrow, remove them too.  Peaceful protest along side the road where it doesn't impede anyone, fine, stand there all day and night if you want.  Block a gate, door, road, railway, sidewalk - taser, tear gas and cable-tie handcuffs.

Edited by seeker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, seeker said:

Personally, I would welcome the conflict.  These protestors are clearly in violation of our country's laws - send in the Army.  CS gas and truncheons - that would be my solution.  "You have 30 minutes to vacate or we will remove you."  and then do it.  Don't care if it's Greenpeace, Anitifa of First Nations - off to the Gulag.  If more show up tomorrow, remove them too.

to which I would add, escort all non foreign protesters immediately out of our country and at the same time ban foreign funding .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don Martin: Trudeau should stay away from this perfect storm of Indigenous-energy conflict

Published Thursday, February 13, 2020 1:37PM ESTLast Updated Thursday, February 13, 2020 1:47PM EST
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Volume 70%
 
 
 
From CTV News Channel: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau urged all parties in the pipeline protests to 'resolve this as quickly as possible.'
 
 

SHARE

  facebook-icon.png  
0
  twitter-icon.png  
 
  reddit-icon.png  
  share-icon.png  
 
  print-icon.png  
  email-icon.png  

The optics are severely squeamish.

The prime minister set out to prove he’s back on the world stage by touring Africa to land votes for a temporary UN Security Council seat, which comes with some prestige, little power and plenty of future Donald Trump headaches.

Meanwhile, back on the home front, Justin Trudeau’s signature policy priority is in flames.

Indigenous reconciliation is burning down across Canada, sparked by a blockade to support hereditary Wet’suwet’en chiefs aiming to stop construction on a massive natural gas line cutting through their territorial claim to the B.C. coast.

But based on Trudeau’s comments so far, specifically his support for peaceful (but illegal) protest while crossing his fingers to hope for constructive (likely confrontational) dialogue, he’s basically a helpless bystander.

In so many ways, this is the perfect storm of Indigenous-energy conflict.

The Wet’suwet’en protest lays bare the mission impossible for future energy projects seeking consent to proceed from the First Nations they impact.

Despite having the environmental go-ahead from governments, green light rulings from the courts and thumbs up from elected bands, which see this as an economic imperative, the Coastal GasLink project still can’t find an unobstructed road to completion.

And lest we forget, this is a natural gas pipeline, which would not cause the severe environmental damage an oil or bitumen rupture would unleash.

That’s why a cyclonic swirl is forming.

Police enforcing the law are attracting national and international media exposure, which generates wider protest by publicity-seeking advocates.

Spreading protest triggers economic interruption, which turns the public tide against Indigenous causes.

And when public and business opinion hardens, political resolve to confront and clear the barricades increases.

Then the cycle repeats itself with greater tension, inflamed emotion and a rising risk of violent confrontation.

Yet to ignore a court order to dismantle the barricades has the similarly negative impact of reducing public sympathies.

The public fumes at the double standard of Indigenous lawbreakers escaping police action against barricades while they get ticketed for failing to shovel a sidewalk.

Even buying peace with more cash is not an answer. It just confirms it’s all just a money-grab, which leads to more outstretched palms seeking more grease down the road.

This has suddenly become a vexing, intractable problem for the prime minister.

Sure, he can dispatch Indigenous Services Minister Marc Miller to listen. He seems to have a commendable understanding of these issues, but what can Miller offer by way of a tangible solution? Nothing comes to mind.

Perhaps Trudeau could follow the B.C. premier’s lead, hold his partisan nose and turn to former NDP MP Nathan Cullen, who knows every inch of the riding which encompasses the Wet’suwet’en nation, for advice on mediating a way forward.

But there’s really no obvious end to continued confrontation as time runs out on public patience.

Wise voices close to the scene tell me it’s not yet entirely hopeless, but insist progress will only take place within the First Nation itself or in talks with British Columbia taking the lead.

So unless he wants to do one of his white knight charges onto the battlefield with cameras rolling, armed with good intentions that aren’t nearly good enough, Trudeau might as well stay an ocean away, safely delivering mush into the microphones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.foxnews.com/us/connecticut-high-school-girls-lawsuit-transgender-athletes-sex-discrimination

I have to say NO.

This was an obvious, easily anticipated effect of "inclusivity." You wanted it, you got it and the people who warned against this very thing shouldn't have to shoulder the burden of fixing it or paying for it. What happened to "it's like a bathroom like."

The concern of thoughtful people here was always on behalf of the women likely to be disadvantaged. And, in many cases, it was those very women screaming Nazi at the people trying to defend them.

Well deserved, enjoy the show.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first glance the announcement looks like a good step ahead but since children under 12 don't purchase the items (their parents do) you have to wonder what happened to "Parenting". When our children were that age, we, not them, decided what was purchased.

Unilever vows to stop marketing foods to kids under 12

Commitment to new ad rules comes as firm looks to curb childhood obesity

  • Toronto Star
  • 17 Feb 2020
  • LAURA REILEY

Unilever, one of the oldest multinational consumer goods companies, pledged this week to stop advertising ice cream to children. By the end of this year, the company will stop marketing and advertising foods and beverages to children under the age of 12 in television and print, and for children under 13 via social media channels.

Unilever may not leap to mind when it comes to frozen dairy confections, but it should. The company owns premium brands Ben & Jerry’s and Talenti, workhorse ice creams Breyers, Klondike and Good Humor, and specialty bars and ice cream treat brands Magnum, Cornett o, Viennett a, Choc Ice and others.

“The World Health Organization names childhood obesity as one of the most serious public health issues of the 21st century. And it’s a key reason why Unilever is committing to new principles on marketing and advertising foods and beverages to children,” the company said in a statement.

The company says it will not run ads on television and other media where children under 12 represent more than 25 per cent of the audience. It will not promote ice cream products in schools or children’s films. In addition, Unilever said it won’t employ celebrities or social media influencers or use licensed cartoon characters in marketing that appeals primarily to kids under 12.

Obesity rates for children and adolescents have more than tripled since the1970s and experts say a drop of just a few percentage points could save thousands of children from diabetes, heart disease and other health problems. According to a National Survey of Children’s Health report released in October, obesity rates among youths ages 10 to 17 averaged 15.3 per cent nationwide, with a childhood obesity rate hitting 25.4 per cent in Mississippi.

This is not the first time Unilever has pledged to restrict advertising aimed at children. In 2010, the company joined 18 of the world’s largest food corporations in signing the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative pledging not to advertise Skippy and Popsicle brands to children younger than six. For children between the ages of six and 11, it would advertise those food and beverage products that met certain nutrition criteria.

With this week’s announcement, Unilever also debuts a “Responsibly Made for Kids” label. By the end of 2020, every ice cream in the kids’ range will have no more than 110 calories and a maximum of 12 grams of sugar per portion.

“It’s a move designed to help parents, caregivers and kids make informed choices about the food and drinks they buy,” the Unilever statement said.

Fran Fleming-Milici, director of marketing initiatives for the nonprofit Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, says that to meet that sugar limit, many products may have added artificial sugars, something not recommended for children. And while she sees Unilever’s announcement as a step in the right direction, she says government regulation is essential.

“Their bottom line is profit, not public health,” she said. “Without policies that put some rules around marketing to children across all companies, it’s hard to believe one company is going to sacrifice its profits to effectively reduce consumption of unhealthy foods.”

Shu Wen Ng, an associate professor in the nutrition department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says that many food and beverage companies voluntarily restrict their marketing to kids as a means of delaying stronger regulations.

“They can say, ‘We’ve already done all these things and we’re being proactive,’ as a delay tactic,” she said. “They can pledge things that sound great but have a lot of loopholes.”

She says that companies may make pledges of this sort to get credit for portion-size changes or ingredient reformulations they were already considering in anticipation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Nutrition Facts labels, which went into effect last month. The new nutrition panels list total calories in a bigger font and serving size requirements have changed to reflect what people actually eat (read: more). And, for the first time, the label calls out added sugar as opposed to those naturally occurring and updates the list of nutrients required or permitted to be declared on the label.

Unilever did not respond to a request for further details about the announcement.

Latin American countries such as Chile have led the way in reducing children’s exposure to advertisements. Foods high in added sugar, saturated fats, calories and added sodium must display black stop signs on front-of-package labels. Nothing with black stop signs can be sold or promoted in schools or included in child-targeted television ads or marketing strategies aimed at children. Consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks dropped nearly 25 per cent after Chile adopted the rules in 2016.

In the United States, food, beverage and restaurant companies spent $13.5 billion (U.S.) in advertising in all media in 2016, according to the Rudd Center, a seven per cent increase since 2007, despite those commitments from major food companies who signed the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext

Summary

Although health care expenditure per capita is higher in the USA than in any other country, more than 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, and 41 million more have inadequate access to care. Efforts are ongoing to repeal the Affordable Care Act which would exacerbate health-care inequities. By contrast, a universal system, such as that proposed in the Medicare for All Act, has the potential to transform the availability and efficiency of American health-care services. Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another bump for travelers who have taken advantage of Justin's well thoughtout new pot laws.

Canadians can lose Nexus passes over legal cannabis use in Canada: U.S. document

img_0757-1.jpg?quality=70&strip=all&w=68&h=68&crop=1
BY PATRICK CAIN GLOBAL NEWS
Posted February 20, 2020 9:16 am
Updated February 20, 2020 9:20 am
 Admitting to legal cannabis use in Canada can get your Nexus pass taken away by the U.S., a lawyer warns.
Descrease article font size
-A
Increase article font size
A+
Cannabis use may be legal in Canada. But if U.S. border guards find out about it, a person could have their Nexus pass taken away or not granted in the first place, secret instructions issued to managers at U.S. border posts say.
 

“If an alien admits to the use of marijuana (post legalization) he or she is technically admissible to the U.S., but would not be eligible for a Trusted Traveller Program,” the instructions say.

The instructions were intended only for supervisors at U.S. border posts and weren’t supposed to be circulated below their rank level. Lower-level border officers got much simpler material.

A software developer on the West Coast, who did not want to be identified for professional reasons, found out about the rule the hard way.

A dual U.S.-Canadian citizen, he went to renew his Nexus card at the Vancouver airport, a process that needs interviews with both Canadian and U.S. officials. The Canadian interview went smoothly, but the trouble began with the U.S. one.

 

“Finally he asked, ‘Have you ever smoked marijuana?’ He kind of curved his shoulders and looked at me.

“I told him I tried it when it became legal in Canada, but I don’t have any desire for it. I don’t like marijuana.”

Later he got an e-mail saying his renewal had been denied on the basis that he is “not a low-risk person.”

“The worst I’ve ever gotten is a speeding ticket,” he says. “I can’t believe this is actually happening to me. Even though it’s federally prohibited in the U.S., it’s legal in Canada. How can you hold that against me? It doesn’t make any sense.”

2018-11-21T07-03-41.458Z--1280x720.jpg?w=1040&quality=70&strip=all1:47Prospective Canadian cannabis investor gets lifetime U.S. entry ban

 Prospective Canadian cannabis investor gets lifetime U.S. entry ban

The Customs and Border Protection policy creates a dangerous trap for people who don’t see a problem with admitting to legal cannabis use, and are then surprised to find their pass taken away for life, says immigration lawyer Len Saunders.

“I get lots of phone calls from people who run into issues with the Nexus program,” he says. “As a U.S. attorney right at the border, they’ll call me and say, ‘I had this really weird situation that happened, I was conditionally approved, I went into the Nexus office, and I was basically interrogated by an American officer on my legal use of cannabis in Canada, and I walked away basically being told I wasn’t eligible.’

“The people are dumbfounded. When I tell them there’s really not a lot I can do, they’re shocked.”

It’s been clear that a policy along these lines has been enforced, lawyers familiar with the issue say, but a written copy hasn’t been public until recently, when it surfaced during a lawsuit.

The language used internally is clearer and harsher than in CBP’s media talking points about the issue, which use words like “could” and “may”. It’s also much clearer that it’s referring to legal use, not illegal use before October of 2018; the public talking points could be read either way. It also appears to include medical use as a ground for refusal.

1:24Think twice about asking for a pardon, border lawyer says

 Think twice about asking for a pardon, border lawyer says

Nexus cards allow pre-screened travellers to cross the border easily, often skipping long lines.

The U.S. rule also applies to the less well-known FAST program, which is designed to let commercial truck drivers cross the border easily.

“Usually it’s someone who’s younger, in their teens or early 20s,” Saunders says. “The officers will frequently ask if you’ve ever used cannabis in the past. A lot of times people admit to it, whether they’ve done it before legalization in Canada or after.

“They don’t realize that if they’re asked that question and they admit to it, it’s basically the kiss of death to getting a Nexus card. It’s an immediate denial and a lifetime ban from the program.”

The CBP instructions list 30 different cannabis-related scenarios that could come up at the U.S.-Canadian border, with correct solutions. All of the solutions are censored.

200211e-1.jpg?quality=70&strip=all&strip

The lawsuit stems from a U.S. freedom-of-information request originally filed with CBP by Davis Wright Tremaine, a large Seattle-based law firm with a cannabis law practice.

The FOIA request was aimed at finding out the legal basis for CBP’s decision to treat Canadians with ties to the legal U.S. cannabis industry as “drug traffickers” liable to be banned from entering the U.S. for life.

Cases of this happening to unwary Canadians regularly come to light.

In 2018, senior executives in a Canadian farm equipment company were banned for life when they tried to cross the border to do a sales demonstration of a cannabis bud trimming machine. In a separate case, a B.C. man who admitted that he’d invested in a legal grow facility in Nevada was also banned for life.

(In the U.S., cannabis is federally illegal but legal in several states; the tensions and contradictions that result create traps for unwary non-Americans.)

In 2018, CBP said it would also bar Canadians working in the fully legal Canadian cannabis industry, but reversed this position a few days before legalization.

Davis Wright Tremaine’s lawyers take the position that they haven’t been given all the documents they’re entitled to, which led to the lawsuit. The goal is to find out what CBP thinks the legal basis is for policies like banning Canadians for life for involvement with the U.S. cannabis industry, says lawyer Chris Morley.

“There does appear to be, from CBP’s actions and statements, an actual policy that they’re implementing. There appears to be an interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act that they have turned into a policy. It appears that they developed this policy in April of 2018, and they started implementing it then.”

Morley says it isn’t clear to him how CBP justifies policies like these, based on the laws the agency is supposed to be enforcing.

“Really, the long game is to try to figure out what CBP’s policy is. CBP officials have discussed the policy, but we don’t know what it is.”

Global News asked CBP whether the rule in the manual was still their policy, what the legal authority for it was, and why the language intended for the public was milder than the language used internally. They refused to comment, citing ongoing litigation.

0:19Past marijuana conviction could still prevent U.S. border crossing

 Past marijuana conviction could still prevent U.S. border crossing

Significantly, the instructions advise CBP officers not to try to use a law excluding people from the U.S. for being a “drug abuser or addict” on Canadian cannabis users.

Since U.S. law assumes that any level of use of controlled substances like cannabis is “abuse,” there have been concerns since legalization that it could be used to ban any Canadian cannabis user, no matter how occasional their use was.

“It is recommended that this ground of removal not be used due to being difficult to sustain,” the instructions say. However, the explanation that follows only addresses addiction and not abuse, a much looser category.

(No case of the provision being used this way has become public.)

2:55Canadian lawyer questions government advice to be honest at U.S. border

 Canadian lawyer questions government advice to be honest at U.S. border

The application for a Nexus card asks about a criminal record but not about drug use, licit or illicit. Questions about cannabis use, if any, come up at the U.S. interview.

Bellingham, Wash., immigration lawyer Scott Railton represented an elderly American couple who were denied Nexus cards after admitting in an interview that they used CBD to help them sleep, he says. CBD is legal in the U.S. in most contexts.

“It is both confusing and ridiculous,” he wrote in an e-mail. “The information was volunteered to be candid and truthful in relation to a certain question.”

1:17Trudeau asked to provide pot-users with advice on crossing U.S. border

 Trudeau asked to provide pot-users with advice on crossing U.S. border

About 6.1 million Canadians used cannabis at least once in mid-2019, Statistics Canada says. About 1.4 million Canadians, and 400,000 Americans, have Nexus passes, the CBSA told Global News.

If asked the question, Saunders advises refusing to answer it. Not answering doesn’t have long-term consequences, but an admission does.

“I live in fear,” Saunders says. “I work right at the port of entry, in northern Washington State. I cross back and forth frequently. I live in fear that some silly decision by an officer could affect my Nexus privileges.

“It can be life-changing. If someone has to cross over on a daily basis and they lose their Nexus privileges, or they’re not issued a Nexus card when they move to this area, what happens is that they have to change their job, they have to change where they live. It’s unfortunate if it happens to be an admission to smoking cannabis, when legally they’ve done nothing wrong.”

© 2020 Global News, a division of Corus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HMMMM DOES THE SAME APPLY IN CANADA?  

Op-Ed: Bernie Sanders is the front-runner because of how we raised our kids

PUBLISHED SUN, FEB 23 20209:38 AM EST
 
 
 
 
KEY POINTS
  • How did an avowed socialist get to the top of the Democratic Party? He is supported by millions of younger voters who have been raised to support Bernie Sanders, even if their parents don’t realize it, writes Jake Novak.
 

GP: Bernie Sanders Campaigns In NH 200210

People cheer as Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) arrives onstage during a campaign event at the Whittemore Center Arena on February 10, 2020 in Durham, New Hampshire.
Joe Raedle | Getty Images

With his convincing victory in Saturday’s Nevada caucuses, Sen. Bernie Sanders is solidifying his status as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination more than ever before.

So how did a life-long avowed socialist and someone who’s never actually won an election as a Democrat get to the top of the party’s mountain?

 

The simple answer is that he’s being supported by millions of younger Democratic voters, and those voters have been raised to be Sanders voters, even if their parents don’t realize it.

Here’s how it happened:

We convinced everyone college was 100% necessary, and then we made college unaffordable. Since the end of World War II, the chorus of educators, politicians, and journalists making it sound like college was essential for career success only became louder and drowned out any counterargument.

At the same time, college tuition costs have exploded thanks greatly to government programs that produced unintended, but predictable consequences. It mostly started in 1978 when more loans and subsidies became available to a greatly expanded number of students. The cost of college tuition has risen by six times more than the rate of inflation since the 1970s.

Now, millions of American young people are straddled with college loans that look impossible to repay. The total student loan debt in the U.S. now stands at more than $1.6 trillion.

 

Is it any wonder so many of them are attracted to a candidate who not only promises to forgive their student debts, but presents their predicament as the result of corporate greed and misplaced government priorities?

Luckily for Sanders, young voters supporting him for his college tuition forgiveness promises don’t seem to be too interested in his own family history. His wife Jane Sanders was president of the now defunct Burlington College and she and other administrators were reportedly the subjects of a long-running FBI probe that they misled bank loan officers about the real number of donations pledged to the college.

The FBI probe of the matter ended in 2018, and Jane Sanders was not charged. But the policies she oversaw, which included pushing for major campus expansions, were indicative of some of the root causes of increased college costs in America.

The establishment in both parties ignored young voters. As sacred as our politicians make college education sound, it’s nothing compared to the way leaders from both parties talk about programs for older Americans like Social Security and Medicare.

None of that is a mystery, as older Americans have always been more likely to vote. Even though voters aged 18-29 have been showing increased turnout numbers in recent elections, senior citizens still stand atop the heap. In 2016, 71% of Americans 65 and older voted compared to just 46% of 18-29-year-olds. In the 2018 midterms, that gap narrowed to 66% to 36%, but it’s still a wide gap.

All of this focus on older voters and their retirement funds is a nice sentiment but it’s misplaced. Older Americans aren’t just doing okay. A 2017 study of age-based wealth in the U.S. shows that a typical household headed by an adult 65 and older has 47 times the net worth of a household headed by younger Americans. Yep, Papa and Granny are loaded.

Now, helping older people who happen to be poor or on the margins of poverty is something different. But the cultural assumption many of us have about elderly folks needing more financial help in America is pretty much the opposite of the truth.

Throw in the Affordable Care Act, which literally and foolishly leaned on younger and healthier Americans to foot the bill for covering older and sicker people, and you see a pattern here.

Sanders talks plenty about Social Security, and he’s obviously a senior citizen himself. But he usually expands his campaign promises to include younger people, as he did when he took the lead on the Medicare for All promise in 2017.

We told them America’s house was on fire. For all the policy differences and political minutiae Democrats delve into when criticizing President Trump, the most enduring attacks on Trump from the Democratic establishment remain accusations that Trump is supporting white supremacy and is controlled by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

These are over-the-top accusations, and it’s hard to accept that even most elected Democrats actually believe them. But pushing that message on America for the last three-plus years comes at a price for both sides.

For the Democrats, the price is becoming clear: it’s made moderate presidential candidates look less viable than ever.

Think about it: if you really believe the president is a traitor and supporting violent plots against non-white Americans, is this really the time to support mainstream Democrat or Republican candidates?

Sanders may be a career politician, but he’s never been a mainstream politician. His persona and political brand fits much better into the current Democratic narrative that we’re living in desperate times.

Establishment Democrats are reaping what they sowed.

As a result, it’s looking more and more like Sanders has unstoppable momentum going into the Super Tuesday primaries and beyond. The big question now is whether that Democratic establishment will try to derail Sanders before or during the Democratic National Convention.

But either way, the party would be playing with fire and risking alienating those younger voters forever.

Jake Novak is a political and economic analy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this