blackbird

You apparently don't know what is going on or are pretending you don't know.

So you're saying I have no right to speak if I use the word or idea of fascism. Fascism definition: -extremely authoritarian, intolerant, or oppressive ideas or behavior: -very intolerant or domineering views or practices in a particular area: The way illegal migrants are rounded up and sent to a torture/death prison in El Salvador fits the definition of fascism because it is authoritarian, and intolerant. Action against people that causes harm to them and denies the right to due process and does not respect human rights fits the definition of fascism.

Trump and people like you are not true conservatives. Conservatives don't believe in crushing dissent or political protest. Conservatives don't believe in just arresting people and deporting them without due process.

Nonsense. You are accusing me for saying how I see things going as giving protestors moral authority to break the law. That is an outright lie. Speaking the truth is not inciting anything. People are responsible for their own action.

No, 270 were sent to CECOT torture / death prison. That doesn't count how many others were arbitrary just deported to other places without due process.

No I haven't. I don't support fascism. Why do you? You may lose democratic rights and human rights if you go that route. Everyone's rights have to be respected and defended otherwise everyone's rights may be lost.

So you accuse anybody who opposes the way Trump is doing things as "inciting violence". That sounds fascist. Trump sent in national guard soldiers to Los Angeles to allegedly stop vandalism or criminal behavior but he is also crushing any peaceful protests against his policies. Some news reports say he is actually inciting violence by using excessive force against protesters. Whatever happened to the right to protest against government's policies or actions? Are you saying that is no longer permitted??

Yes I know that. I just said the DFO in Ottawa would not be doing routine management of the coast guard from Ottawa. They have people in B.C. in the coast guard who are experienced and would manage the coast guard on the B.C. coast.

You need help desperately. See a doctor.

I'm just said the coast guard is managed by coast guard officials in B.C. That means it is not run by bureaucrats in Ottawa who know nothing about it. The DFO in Ottawa would be all bureaucrats and have no experience in coast guard matters. They would approve budgets along with politicians.

You don't really know much about the Northern Gateway Pipeline proposal. There were over 100 requirements put on the company if it were to receive final approval by the government. It would have likely been approved by Harper if he had been re-elected in 2015, but Trudeau won and he was opposed to the energy industry and any more pipelines. So he cancelled it as part of his political agenda and war on climate change. He was not trying to build our energy industry. He appointed a Greenpeace anti-energy industry activist as a cabinet minister, Steven Guilbeault. That created all kinds of problems. It never even got to the point of negotiation with the native bands along the route. So it is silly to claim native groups opposed it. The only natives that should have a say would be the native bands that would be on the proposed route. What business would be to native bands in other areas of the province? None. The Coastal Gaslink pipeline through northern BC to Kitimat was approved by the native bands along the route. So there is no reason why native bands would not approve the Northern Gateway pipeline as well. The people that opposed the Coastal Gaslink pipeline were some hereditary chiefs, most of whom didn't even live along the route of the gas pipeline. All the elected bands approved of it. It was also opposed by radical environmental groups, some of which were American. Having radical American environmentalists come into Canada to oppose pipelines is another problem that should not be allowed. It is pointless to talk about groups that oppose it before it even reaches the stage of negotiation with the bands on the route. Environmentalists shouldn't carry any weight at all because they automatically oppose every pipeline. Canada needs pipelines to ship and sell it's oil and gas resources. Opposing pipelines as a matter of course is nonsensical and must be rejected as irrelevant.

It is a waste of time trying to discuss something with a madman. The Northern Gateway pipeline was opposed by radical environmentalists who oppose everything, some FNs radical hereditary chiefs (who are a tiny unelected minority of natives) who also oppose anything that crosses what they claim is their "traditional territories" and that includes the whole province of B.C. Often the only FN opposition came from hereditary chiefs, while the majority of elected band councils were willing to negotiate a pipeline through their territory because it would create jobs and prosperity for their people. Finally it was opposed and cancelled by Trudeau himself after he was elected in 2015. Cancelling it was a natural outcome of electing a lunatic who put carbon taxes on everyone to fight his phony war on climate change. It cost Canadians hundreds of billions of dollars in lost economic activity and jobs. And people wonder why the cost of real estate is out of sight and the cost of groceries and everything continues to rise dramatically. He killed one of the major investments that would have created real wealth for Canadians. Instead now we ship almost all of our oil to the U.S.A. and we can only sell a fraction of our oil to Asian markets. Meanwhile vast amounts of Canada's oil and gas reserves sits in the ground untouched while other countries are busy selling their oil worldwide. This article explains the importance of the building a pipeline to the west coast. quote Northern Gateway was a proposed pipeline project in Western Canada, consisting of two pipelines stretching 1,177 kilometres between Alberta and the West Coast. The $7.9 billion project included [1]: A western-flowing pipeline with a capacity of approximately 525,000 barrels of oil per day for export off the coast to buyers in Asia and the U.S. An eastern-flowing pipeline that would carry about 193,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate The construction of a new marine terminal for exports in Kitimat, B.C. An estimated $300 billion in economic activity for Canadians over its lifetime [6] Support from 80% of Indigenous groups along the path of the pipeline [5] Top 3 Lessons Learned from Northern Gateway’s Failure What can Canadians learn from the Northern Gateway’s failure that will help us to get future pipeline projects built? #1 - A Majority of Indigenous Groups Supported the Project Canada’s federal government approved Northern Gateway in 2014 after rigorous consultation with affected Indigenous communities. The level of government consultation with First Nations was arguably the most extensive of any natural resource project up to that point in Canadian history [5]. Apart from the government, Northern Gateway’s proponent also engaged in its own extensive consultation process. As a result, the pipeline won widespread support from Indigenous communities along its route, reaching 80 per cent. But like all other pipeline projects in Canada over recent years, Northern Gateway was mired by legal challenges from opponents. The most notable court case was decided in June 2016, where the Federal Court of Appeal, in a split decision, quashed the pipeline’s approval, sending it back to federal cabinet for review. According to the Court’s decision, a re-do of Indigenous consultation was all that was needed to move the project forward as part of an appeal and would take only four months to complete [3]. Despite four out of five Indigenous communities supporting Northern Gateway, the federal government decided that the pipeline was “not in the public interest” - although the facts showed otherwise. Many Indigenous groups were devastated by the government’s decision [8]. More than 30 out of the 42 bands along the pipeline’s route were looking forward to sharing in its construction and long-term benefits [8]. #2 - The Rule of Law Should Be Respected After a decade of planning and more than $500 million in spending on initial regulatory steps, Northern Gateway’s cancellation was a major blow to First Nations who supported the project [8]. According to Indigenous leaders, the pipeline’s cancellation was more of a political decision, not one “acting in the best interests of Canadians.” There was also a lack of consultation from the federal government with communities that supported the project [8]. Many bands considered legal action against the government for rejecting the project without proper consultation [8]. With approval in 2014, the federal government’s decision in 2016 should have been consistent with the pipeline’s extensive original regulatory evaluation process, showing the world Canada is a reliable jurisdiction in which to invest. Canada needs to bring back timely regulatory processes that provide investors with some level of certainty that their projects will get approved. It is hard to imagine that any company would spend half a billion dollars on a project if dire risks were involved with the regulatory approval. Examples like Northern Gateway and Energy East will make it difficult to bring back major capital investors to build pipelines in Canada. #3 - Canada is Left Behind While Other Nations Benefit Northern Gateway opponents ran an extensive campaign against the pipeline, pressuring elected leaders to cancel it outright through various means such as public protests. These groups made many polarizing claims, suggesting that the project was “not needed” [9] or that it would result in a “catastrophe” on land or off the coast despite Canada’s exemplary record on pipeline safety. They couldn’t have been more wrong. Today, global oil demand continues to hit new record highs – growing by nearly 9 million bpd since the federal government rejected the pipeline in 2016. Canada could have supplied more energy to the world via Northern Gateway but instead chose to cede oil market share to other jurisdictions abroad - missing out on immense economic benefits in the process. Oil Demand Growth Since 2016 Since the cancellation of Northern Gateway, global oil demand has grown from 95.7 million bpd (mbpd) in 2016 to 104.46 mbpd in 2024 [4]. Several projections expect global oil demand to grow even further over the decades to come. Obstructing Canadian pipelines like Northern Gateway has done nothing to stop global oil consumption growth. Instead, shutting down these projects has weakened Canada’s export-based economy over the long haul while ceding massive economic opportunities to other jurisdictions abroad. If built, Northern Gateway would have helped insulate Canada from U.S. tariffs, making our economy stronger and less reliant on our largest trading partner. Canada Needs a New Northern Gateway Canada now has an opportunity to either revive or develop a project like Northern Gateway to help diversify our international export markets and strengthen our economy over the long term. With a struggling economy and productivity crisis on our hands, it’s time for Canadians to build new pipelines and maximize the value of our natural resources. Canada’s future prosperity depends on it. unquote Why Was the Northern Gateway Pipeline Cancelled? - Canada Action

They don't manage the coast guard from DFO in Ottawa. It is managed by coast guard officials on the coasts who have the experience and knowledge.

Maybe on some rare rock depression, which won't affect any salmon run or fish stocks. Environmentalists simply don't understand that mankind, particularly Canada, must develop and sell the natural resources. That is the thing that produces good paying jobs and makes Canadians prosperous. We are not going to have good paying jobs and prosperity manufacturing fire crackers, cheap toys, and the countless things we import from China and buy in the dollar store for peanuts. Either we get with it and sell our natural resources, forestry, mining, and energy to the world or become another banana republic. The wealth is in the ground. We need to get at it.

There was no due process and no court determined they are violent gang members. These people have not been tried or convicted of anything. "Judges orders Trump administration to give due process to some migrants sent to El Salvador's CECOT" A significant number sent to CECOT in El Salvador are actually Venezuelans and courts have ruled against sending them to CECOT. Bing Videos

"Instead, the US president is publicly toying with the idea of having US citizens imprisoned in CECOT." Just more evidence he doesn't care about human rights. " "Why is the government of El Salvador continuing to imprison a man where they have no evidence that he's committed any crime and they have not been provided any evidence from the United States that he has committed any crime?" Democratic senator Chris Van Hollen, who is from Abrego Garcia's home state of Maryland, asked reporters after a meeting with the prisoner in El Salvador. With US media casting doubt on the alleged criminal past of other migrants who have been deported to CECOT, Van Hollen accused the Trump administration of lying, and criticized their disregard of judicial orders." US deportations to El Salvador test legal limits – DW – 04/19/2025

Silly. Canada only uses a fraction of the oil produced. Most of it must be shipped to foreign markets. That is the main purpose of having the oil and gas industry. We have resources in the ground that the rest of the world needs. It is a major source of revenue in Canada. That's where Canada and provinces with the resources earn billions of dollars in tax revenue and royalties. Without that money, what would pay for your public health care system, your old age pension, highways, forest fire fighting crews and aircraft and everything else governments provide? Think!

"Since March, the Trump administration has deported a total of 271 Salvadoran and Venezuelan migrants from the US to the CECOT megaprison in El Salvador. The deportees are claimed to belong to criminal organizations, but no evidence has been provided." Obviously the reason the administration claimed sending Kilmar Garcia to CECOT was an "administration error" was because of the court cases that ruled against sending him in the first place. The court rulings against the administration were the reason he was transferred to another prison and finally brought back. What about the other 270 migrants who were sent to CECOT and had their human rights violated? Let's face it, you don't believe in human rights or due process.

Why was he and many others knowingly sent to a known human rights violation country and torture / death prison in the first place? The Trump administration knew exactly what they were doing. They even paid that country six million dollars to take them.

Nonsense. You have become an environmental fanatic. There is no big threat from another oil pipeline. If there is the rare spill, it can be cleaned up. It is unlikely to affect a salmon run. A terminal in Prince Rupert is in the open ocean, not in the Skeena River. If a pipeline terminal is built in Kitimat, that is a saltwater inlet and not connected to the Skeena River. I don't think there is any threat to salmon runs from the TMX pipeline terminal in Burnaby or a future terminal if built at Prince Rupert or Kitimat. The B.C. coast is huge and the distances are huge. So a spill would likely be in a very small area and not affect the huge areas through the B.C. coast. The B.C. coast is made up of many islands and the area from the open Pacific to the inner coast from the southern border to the Alaska panhandle is probably thousands of square kilometers. So even if there was a spill somewhere in that vast area, it would be a drop in the bucket. That means it would be unlikely to affect any salmon runs. The Canadian coast guard also uses marine traffic control now to control freighters and oil tankers moving in and out of the seaports which further reduces the possibility of an accident. "Marine traffic control in Prince Rupert and Kitimat uses shore-based radar123. The radar provides extensive coverage from the Prince Rupert Harbour and approaches, past the Triple Island Pilot Station to the west1. The system aims to improve vessel visibility and monitoring3."

Yes, the subject is your lack of empathy. " Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia[a][b] is a Salvadoran man who was illegally[9] deported from the United States on March 15, 2025, in what the Trump administration called "an administrative error".[10] He was imprisoned without trial, initially in the Salvadoran maximum security Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), despite never having been charged with nor convicted of a crime in either country,[11][12] under the countries' agreement[13] to imprison U.S. deportees there for payment.[14] The administration has since defended the deportation, publicly accusing him of being a member of MS-13 (a U.S.-designated terrorist organization), an accusation based on a bail determination made during a 2019 immigration court proceeding, which Abrego Garcia contested.[15] Abrego Garcia grew up in El Salvador and then illegally immigrated to the United States in 2011 at the age of 16 to escape gang threats. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him withholding of removal status due to the danger he faced from gang violence if he returned to El Salvador. This status allowed him to live and work legally in the United States. At the time of his deportation in 2025, he lived in Maryland along with his wife and children, all American citizens, and was complying with annual check-ins with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).[16] On April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, without dissent,[c] that Abrego Garcia's removal to El Salvador was illegal.[19] The court rejected the administration's defense, which claimed it lacked the legal authority to exercise jurisdiction over El Salvador and secure his return. Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that this argument implied the government "could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene." The Supreme Court required the U.S. to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's release, but stopped short of a lower court's directive to both "facilitate and effectuate" his return, instead directing the lower court to clarify what it meant by "effectuate".[20] The administration interpreted "facilitate" to mean it is not obligated to arrange his release and return,[21] and can meet its obligation by admitting him into the U.S.[21] and providing a plane[22] if El Salvador chooses to release him, which President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador refuses to do. Bukele stated in an Oval Office meeting that he would not "smuggle a terrorist into the United States".[23] The case regarding facilitating Abrego Garcia's return continues to be litigated in district court. The government has argued that the case involves state secrets, and refused various discovery requests on that basis.[24] U.S. senator Chris Van Hollen met Abrego Garcia in El Salvador on April 18, 2025 where Abrego Garcia said he had been transferred from CECOT to another prison in El Salvador, and was being held in isolation.[25] On June 6, 2025, the Trump administration brought Abrego Garcia back to the US, and the DOJ announced that he had been indicted in Tennessee for "conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain" and "unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain."[26] Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia[a][b] is a Salvadoran man who was illegally[9] deported from the United States on March 15, 2025, in what the Trump administration called "an administrative error".[10] He was imprisoned without trial, initially in the Salvadoran maximum security Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), despite never having been charged with nor convicted of a crime in either country,[11][12] under the countries' agreement[13] to imprison U.S. deportees there for payment.[14] The administration has since defended the deportation, publicly accusing him of being a member of MS-13 (a U.S.-designated terrorist organization), an accusation based on a bail determination made during a 2019 immigration court proceeding, which Abrego Garcia contested.[15] Abrego Garcia grew up in El Salvador and then illegally immigrated to the United States in 2011 at the age of 16 to escape gang threats. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him withholding of removal status due to the danger he faced from gang violence if he returned to El Salvador. This status allowed him to live and work legally in the United States. At the time of his deportation in 2025, he lived in Maryland along with his wife and children, all American citizens, and was complying with annual check-ins with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).[16] On April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, without dissent,[c] that Abrego Garcia's removal to El Salvador was illegal.[19] The court rejected the administration's defense, which claimed it lacked the legal authority to exercise jurisdiction over El Salvador and secure his return. Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that this argument implied the government "could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene." The Supreme Court required the U.S. to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's release, but stopped short of a lower court's directive to both "facilitate and effectuate" his return, instead directing the lower court to clarify what it meant by "effectuate".[20] The administration interpreted "facilitate" to mean it is not obligated to arrange his release and return,[21] and can meet its obligation by admitting him into the U.S.[21] and providing a plane[22] if El Salvador chooses to release him, which President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador refuses to do. Bukele stated in an Oval Office meeting that he would not "smuggle a terrorist into the United States".[23] The case regarding facilitating Abrego Garcia's return continues to be litigated in district court. The government has argued that the case involves state secrets, and refused various discovery requests on that basis.[24] U.S. senator Chris Van Hollen met Abrego Garcia in El Salvador on April 18, 2025 where Abrego Garcia said he had been transferred from CECOT to another prison in El Salvador, and was being held in isolation.[25] On June 6, 2025, the Trump administration brought Abrego Garcia back to the US, and the DOJ announced that he had been indicted in Tennessee for "conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain" and "unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain."[26]" Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia - Wikipedia So it is a undisputed fact that the Supreme Court ruled that he had been deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador illegally. He was initially held in the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador, but said he had been since transferred to another prison and held in solitary confinement. What for? He had not been convicted of any crimes.

Nonsense. The subject was not the victims of crimes. Go back and read the OP. The subject is the fascist type of behavior. Because some of the illegal migrants have committed criminal offences does not give the government the right to just swoop in and sent migrants to a torture and death prison in some foreign country. But you have shown you support it and don't respect human rights. Now you use the argument I lack empathy for the victims of crime. That was not the subject and you are just lying and smearing to try to get out of the mess you made for yourself.

When have you ever admitted you were wrong about anything?

You forgot to say that only a certain number of illegal migrants allegedly committed the crimes you listed. Why is it you don't believe in justice? What about the historic motto of innocent until proven guilty? Where were the trials to convict people? It is easy to make accusations without proof or due process in a justice system. Grow up kiddo. But Trump acted contrary to law and violated human rights by sending people to a notorious prison in El Salvador where people's human rights are violated, people are tortured, and many die. This was already done to many people. Many people had no due process, but even if there is a due process begun in the future, there is no right to send people to a torture and death chamber. That is capital punishment without a fair trial.

You like to make fake accusations. Shows you're desperate now. You don't believe in due process and respecting human rights. He was illegally sent to a prison in El Salvador known for torture and death and had not been charged with anything. Trump ignored court rulings repeatedly. Yet you support that kind of thing.