Posts Tagged ‘Eric Holder’

Flags of North America

That is the message the Canadian government has sent with its plans to rely on U.S. law enforcement officials to conduct law enforcement operations in Canada, starting in 2012.

Embattled U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced the plan on September 14, 2011.

Given the population disparity of nine times the number of Americans to Canadians, it’s pretty evident which country will be more reliant on the others’ law enforcement in this interoperability scheme.

This isn’t the case of co-operating to defend against a common existential threat of intercontinental ballistic missiles, as is the case with NORAD; It is a fundamental responsibility of every sovereign country to defend its own borders.

Despite the spin of it being necessary to have such a collaborative approach, as Holder describes, the reality is that the governments of both countries are telling their citizens that they aren’t capable of defending their borders.

As a Canadian myself, I ask the question of other Canadians: do you accept the notion that we are incapable of defending our own borders? If we’re incapable of defending our own borders, then what other fundamental responsibilities of our government are we incapable of fulfilling?

And to my American neighbours and friends, I ask: are you also incapable of defending your own borders?

For more on the Canadian and American governments’ lack of confidence in their own citizens’ abilities, see my article North American Unionization: U.S. and Canadian law enforcement interoperability.

Read Full Post »


Here is U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder announcing a plan on September 14, 2011, to have U.S. law enforcement officials operate in Canada, and Canadian law enforcement officials to operate in the U.S. by next year.

Watch how he justifies it in the name of so-called “21st-century threats,” and claims to be protecting your liberties (commentary added).

This is an exciting step forward [for whom?] – and precisely the type of bold, collaborative approach that’s necessary to address 21st-century threats [like the average citizenry upset with your policies?]. In conjunction with the other provisions included in the Beyond the Border Initiative [yes, an initiative, and not a treaty, since you couldn’t get the required two-thirds support in the U.S. senate], such a move would enhance our cross-border efforts and advance our information-sharing [without your consent] abilities – while still vigorously protecting [infringing upon] civil liberties and privacy rights [for the elites only] under the laws [statutes purporting to be lawful] of both the United States and Canada.

Note, however, he said civil liberties, and not liberties. He’s referring to government granted privileges, and not unalienable rights. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically requires a warrant for searching persons, places and effects, but not so with the Canadian Constitution. Which Constitution will American and Canadian officials abide by when they are operating across their border?

Since 9/11, warrantless wiretapping became the norm, so they’ve already stopped adhering to it when they deem it necessary for “security.”

This plan is against both the U.S. Constitution and Canadian law, since U.S. government officials are prohibited from holding any office from a foreign power, without the consent of Congress, and Canadian government officials are required to swear an oath to the Queen in order to faithfully execute her laws.

For more information on North American unionization, see my article, De-facto North American Unionization: How the U.S. no-fly list became the Canadian no-fly list.

Read Full Post »

On Thursday, November 5, 2009, I sent the following email to Bob Kincaid, host of “Head On with Bob Kincaid” on the Head On Radio Network (H.O.R.N.), and I thank him for addressing it, by reading it on the air that evening, starting at 16:00.

I became a listener in mid-2006, and listened regularly until early 2009. He did such a great job excoriating the Bush administration for their deliberate and repeated assaults on the Constitution, and informed me of things I wouldn’t have otherwise heard about, such as now Attorney-General Eric Holder’s representation of Chiquita International, on accusations of supporting a terrorist group, which they admitted to and paid a $25 million fine in 2007.

I was concerned that, in my view, the U.S. was headed down the same path that President Bush had taken it down, despite the window dressing looking very different. It’s not about Democrat or Republican. They are two wings of the same bird of prey. I hope that more people will see the evidence for this, as events continue to unfold under President Obama, who campaigned under the slogan of “change.”


On yesterday’s show you blamed Republicans for killing any meaningful health care reform, but with the Democrats having a comfortable majority in the House, even excluding the so-called Blue Dogs, and a theoretical filibuster-proof Democratic caucus majority in the Senate, it’s clear who’s to blame for this failure — “Democrats.”

I agree with the meaning and tone of all the chastisements you’ve ever made about Harry Reid and Joe Lieberman. Lieberman never should have been allowed to continue caucusing with the Democrats once he endorsed McCain for president, and therefore the Democrats could never have been said to have a filibuster-proof majority in actuality until they had one without relying on him. But what about the other nine Democrats? One need look no further to cast blame than so-called Democrats.

After all, despite a bi-partisan committee majority supporting Dennis Kucinich’s single-payer option for states amendment, it was taken out by the (Democratic) House ‘leadership’ last Thursday, and that rightly had Dennis fuming.

[the author of this site]

Read Full Post »