Leaderboard

Ah but that's the new favorite word for the left and its activists! There's no more disapproval or disagreement or even dislike! There's no judgement based on what you've seen and heard and experienced of a given group. There's no wariness or doubt or suspicion about a group's demonstrated behaviour, no prejudice. Either you fully approve of, like and admire a given group or you 'hate' them. Apparently the Left finds this a more useful pejorative to use for anyone who disagrees with them as it evokes a red faced angry/furious, raging person who isn't thinking logically. As opposed to someone who has considered the available information and made a decision as to what is in their own and their country's best interests.

Yes...it looks like Ms. Merkel is trying to take advantage of the situation. Shameless ! Canadians are right to call her on it...and demand they pay their own way.

That depends on your perspective, I would suppose. From my perspective the SC has made a number of decisions I consider unjust and not in the interests of Canada. Remembering them all with citations and case names at this point would be difficult, though. Certainly the decision to accept oral history from natives as actual evidence is one of them, and a rather astonishing one given our legal system has long dismissed 'hearsay' as largely inadmissible. Yet here it accepts an oral history with no written proof but merely the statement of someone that he heard it from his grandfather who heard it from his grandfather who heard it from his. The Singh decision was awful, too, though perhaps less outlandish. It stated that refugee claimants had the full rights under the Charter and full access to the law, to hearings and appeals and the courts. That decision has cost untold tens of billions of dollars so far. I would also say their decision in the case of Trinity law school made no sense, violated religious freedom, and went completely against previous decisions also made under the Charter. The decision to allow Canadian citizens to vote even if they hadn't set foot in Canada in five years or more was also a bad decision. I don't want to elect judges. I want to restrict them to making decisions based on the written constitution, and not continually stretch the wording to encompass new and sometimes only slightly related issues or use tortuous chains of reasoning to justify decisions. I do not like activist judges, and how their decisions can sometimes put a huge burden on taxpayers without those taxpayers or their elected representatives having much say in the matter. I also do not believe in their impartiality. They might not be card-carrying Liberals and might give little care or concern for the Liberal party, but they are, in the main, very liberal, in the same way as Trudeau's 'independent' appointments to the senate.

Your above comment was in direct response to my remark in which I said: "To start with the immigration law process for determining eligibility already interviews." What I do know ignoring your name calling is this: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/new-immigrants/prepare-life-canada/border-entry/interviews.html What I also know is this: that under 3 economic immigration classes of the federal express entry system because there is an objective point assessment screening system that may preclude the need for an interview. What I also know is that personal interviews may be required depending on the category of immigration applied for and there is an Express Entry system that takes the need away because the information obtained in an interview because it is already objectively obtained and screened for validity. It is most often required with family sponsorships, and non skilled workers but not usually with skilled workers. So what I know is there is no stratistic that says only 10% of applicants to immigrate to Canada are interviewed and if someone is not interviewed its because they already provided and validated information that would otherwise be obtained in an interview. Immigrants not seeing anyone until they get here has nothing to do with whether they provided objective information that was already validated before they come to Canada. Provide where you got your 10% figure from and what it refers to. It appears fabricated because you do not understand when interviews might be waived depending on what class of eligibility an immigrant applies. It also appears you have no idea about preliminary interviews or the immigration refugee process that deals with an initial interview with the CBSA officer who can reject them or choose to send them on to the Refugee Board which conducts a hearing to determine if they are eligible and in that process extensively questions and tests the testimony of refugees. What I do know is you shoot off at the mouth about what I know, and over simplify the immigration application process.

I wouldn't call someone who believes women should not leave the house without a burka - liberal. She's just following the lead of others here who accuse anyone of disliking burkas and Islam of being "haters". And apparently has nothing to add to the discussion except personal attacks.

IF by this June, the Democratic Party does not have majority holding candidate, just months before election campaigns begin a shock challenge and therefore surprise candidates could then offer to run. This might be what is happening at the moment...certain individuals waiting to see if there will be a stalemate and see how popular Trump is in June....so that conceivably means someone none of us are considering which caused one writer to speculate on Hilary Clinton again coming back: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1223243/trump-news-hillary-clinton-tipped-for-surprise-second-election-run-in-2020-spt. Yikes. However has anyone considered that under such a circumstance Bam Bam's wife Michaelle Obama might be thrown in as a candidate? While a deadlock has never happened in over 50 years, there is no clear front runner and the convention and has a system of new rules that could cause such an event to arise and some have said the new rules were designed to let it arise to enable a last minute candidate to come in. What they refer to as a "brokered" convention has to be contemplated. How could it not? How could the Democrats feel comfortable with Saunders, Biden or Warren at this point. 2 geriatrics whose prostates are considered historic monuments and an over caffeinated Betty White. Some choice. Saunders, Biden or Warren also appeal to the same constituents of the party making the overlap or deadlock even more likely. The remaining candidates coming up the rear are polling very low to justify serious consideration. And so ladies and gentlemen I reveal to you the next President and first lady who will come to the rescue and defeat Donald Trump: President Kanye West and the first lady Mrs. Kim Kardashian West

I've posted this before, but it seems apropo. For the US, that surge of Hondurans is a wavelet in an incoming tide; for Europe, 2015 was mere prelude. Yet this autumn’s caravan may further entrench an effective protocol. Populous, organised assaults on borders can overcome physical barriers and overwhelm bureaucracies. Migrants trying to get into Ceuta and Melilla have had remarkable success with storming the fences simultaneously. Should they take their cue from the Hondurans, canny migrants currently chafing in Libya might all hit the Med in a flotilla on the same afternoon. Millions if not billions of decent, ordinary people in need of food, clean water, shelter and medical care are bound to constitute a form of moral blackmail. They will all have heartbreaking stories. And Thomas Friedman has astutely characterised the West vs the rest as order vs disorder. But with over-stressed welfare systems, accelerating cultural upheaval and rising right-wing militancy, the lands of order can slide to chaos themselves. If in the next few decades we’re looking at migration on the scale I think we are, we may be required to develop a hard heart, or simply surrender to forces larger than we can control. I’m not sure which is worse. if we continue to confront the issue as a question of sympathy rather than existential self-interest, they will nearly all get in. https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/the-march-of-the-migrants-poses-a-dilemma-for-america/

No court awarded 10.5 million dollars to him.

The Khadr family is the poster child for "Entitled Refugees". They used the benefits of Canadian citizenship, all the while denigrating the country and all Canadian citizens and using our country as a home base to terrorize int he name of their religion. They are an embarrassment to our country. How some people can defend them is beyond me.

He makes some comments that sound good, but as I say - he also is demanding to have contact with his still terrorist family, which belies his claim to want to change. The conditions of his release were that he surrender his passport and not have contact with his family and he is now challenging those conditions. Not indicative of a remorseful man. I'm sorry - I don't have a soft spot in my heart for terrorists, misogynists, and antisemites like you do. He has some proving to do - quite a lot, really. He has wronged the people of Canada, the people of the US and the people of the world in the worst way possible. He has killed people and ruined families. It's going to take more than a "Woopsy-doodle!" apology to prove he's changed. That may be enough for you - but it's not for for many others. And that doesn't make us bad and him good. ETA: One of the concerns I have with the Khadr payout is that it essentially makes it okay for kids under 18 to run around the world killing American soldiers in the hopes of getting that $10 million dollar payout or a chance to rape 72 young women. It's a win/win for terrorists.

The refugees themselves will decide when the land they are on has become inhospitable to human life. Almost a foregone conclusion since we are doing so little to mitigate the effects of climate change. Its not just people trying to find a place to live, but the economic cost of climate change that will contribute to collapse of society as we know it.

Revolutionary commander who suppressed protests last November gunned down. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/iran-commander-working-to-suppress-protests-gunned-down-in-front-of-home

These subhuman murderous mullahs and their thugs are only creating more hate for themselves, for the regime and for the faith they supposedly represent with these brutal actions, killings and repressions. Time is against them. Iranian society is now highly advanced. The 6th century imposed arab culture imposed by invasion and occupation of Persia is no longer accepted and totally rejected by increasing number of Iranians who are now becoming a great majority in Iran. These mullahs may remain in power for a while longer by fear, intimidation and mass killing and brutal repression. But their repressive rule will end for sure. The question is when and at what price. How many more innocent women, children and men have to be sacrificed for these aging subhuman murderous mullahs to survive a while longer. Support from the West would make the inevitable sooner and with less bloodshed. On the other hand appeasing the regime as was practiced by Obama administration and currently being practiced by Europeans would mean they can hang on to power longer and much more innocent people will die the blood for whom will be n the hands of the leaders who try to sign a pack with the devil.