Re: Sean Wesley Henry a.k.a. :Chief :Nanya-Shaabu: E[i]L:
Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 5:34 pm
Nanya appears to be active once more and making an effort at being a Guru while picking fights with other gurus.
Quatloos! The views herein are not those of Quatloosia Publishing LLC -- Legal Issues Fax to 877-698-0678 and admin issues to sooltauq [at] gmail.com
https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/
I know that phone companies have been accused of many evil things over the years, but it would seem that Canadian telephone companies preventing calls from going through are only shooting themselves in the foot. But this is Canada, maybe things are done different there.Sean Wesley Henry wrote:I feel this is a deliberate attempt to stop You and I from Talking.So it is apparent the Canadian Telephone Companies under a Private Agenty request are being told to BLOCK YOU and I from having a conversation.
Wow? Genocide? Really? Preventing a phone call is genocide? Sean must live in a very, very strict environment. What about a person who fails to clean his or her plate at dinner? A serial killer?If I do not hear from you by Friday, I will Discuss this fact that this is Genocide on My weekly address..
Uh...someone needs to explain to Sean it was a very bad mistake on his part to file his daughter's name with the United Nations, given that the UN is being accused every day by sovruns of preparing their own form of genocide.Your name is on file with the Unjited Nations DOCIP as Indigenous, this will prove the Genocide being committed against My Family and attempt to block me from Speaking to my Indigenous Daughte...
Although he doesn't look like a white male to me. But I suppose we're all entitled to self-identify nowadays.The :Chief is the ONLY Original White Male Autochthon & Plenipotentiary of Turtle Island with Solutions to the World Economic Order-the Source of the Chaos and Misery Plaguing the Planet.
No, it might have had a chance of being legit, but he made a mind-boggling error. Did you not notice the words "In accord with..." and the list of all those governing bodies, not to mention the insidious UCC? Once endorsing that, he might as well shown up naked and shackled in front of the NWO HQ and told the people inside to do as they please with him. After all, what self-respecting plenipotentiary is going to subject himself to the UCC?Burnaby49 wrote:That has to be legit, it has gold seals and his own personalized stamp.
I am from the Lower 48, but I do pay more attention to goings-on in Canada than most of my fellow countrymen. I'm pleased to be in the 53% that is aware that Canada is actually a separate country, part of the 48% that can locate Canada on a map, and part of the 11% of Americans that can name all the provinces and territories of Canada. I actually interact frequently with a number of colleagues in Montreal, so it's not just theoretical knowledge of Canada here.
As best as I can figure, "Wexit" is a movement of soreheads who are upset because the gummint woan' let them do what they wanna do, an' is tryina make them do what they doan' wanna do, which is wrong cuz its a free country an' no one is the bossa them. We have the same type of people down here.JohnPCapitalist wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 3:42 pmI am from the Lower 48, but I do pay more attention to goings-on in Canada than most of my fellow countrymen. I'm pleased to be in the 53% that is aware that Canada is actually a separate country, part of the 48% that can locate Canada on a map, and part of the 11% of Americans that can name all the provinces and territories of Canada. I actually interact frequently with a number of colleagues in Montreal, so it's not just theoretical knowledge of Canada here.
But I must admit that the "Wexit" Albertan secessionist movement is a new one on me. What on Earth would be the justification for Alberta seceding from the rest of Canada? Are they feeling slighted because Saskatchewan gets more fashionable toques? Or because BC has better weather and easier access to Burnaby49's pub crawling expertise? One can easily understand the Quebecois secessionist idea but... Alberta?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_ProgramThe National Energy Program (NEP) was an energy policy of the Canadian federal government from 1980 to 1985. Created under the Liberal government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau by Energy Minister Marc Lalonde in 1980, the program was administered by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Introduced following the oil crises and stagflation of the 1970s, the NEP proved to be a highly controversial policy initiative that pitted economic nationalism and federal aspirations of energy self-sufficiency against provincial jurisdiction with hundreds of billions of dollars in oil revenue at stake. The result was a dispute that sparked intense opposition and anger in Canada's West, particularly in Alberta, and the rise of the Reform Party, a development that would shape Canadian politics for years to come.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A National Post journalist, Jen Gerson, later stated that "the NEP was considered by Albertans to be among the most unfair federal policies ever implemented. Scholars calculated the program cost Alberta between $50 and $100 billion." Alberta still initially enjoyed an economic surplus due to high oil prices, but the surplus was heavily reduced by the NEP, which, in turn, stymied many of Lougheed's policies for economic diversification to reduce Alberta's dependence on the cyclical energy industry, such as the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, and also left the province with an infrastructure deficit. In particular, the Alberta Heritage Fund was meant to save as much of the earnings during high oil prices to act as a "rainy day" cushion if oil prices collapsed because of the cyclical nature of the oil and gas industry. The NEP was one reason that the fund failed to grow to its full potential.[21]
Provincial per capita federal contributions
In inflation-adjusted 2004 dollars, the year the NEP took effect (1980) per capita had fiscal contributions by Alberta to the federal government increase 77% over 1979 levels from $6,578 in 1979 to $11,641 in 1980.[39]:11 In the five years prior to the NEP (1975–1979), the per capita contributions by Alberta had approximated the fluctuations in the price of oil (see graph Fluctuations: Oil Prices & Alberta Per Capita Federal Contributions 1975-1981). In 1980, however, the inflation-adjusted average price of oil was only 5% higher than the previous year, but the per capita contributions from Alberta rose 77%[39] (see graph Fluctuations: Oil Prices & Alberta Per Capita Federal Contributions 1975-1981). Again in inflation-adjusted 2004 dollars, the year the NEP was terminated (1986) had per capita contributions to the federal government by Alberta collapse to $680, a mere 10% of 1979 levels.[39]
During the NEP years (1980–1985), only one other province was a net contributor per capita to the federal government: Saskatchewan, which also produces oil. In 1980 and 1981, Saskatchewan was a net per capita contributor to the federal government with a peak in 1981 at only $514, compared to Alberta's peak of $12,735 the same year, both values being 2004 inflation-adjusted dollars.[39] Thus, during the NEP (1980 to 1985), Alberta was the sole overall net contributor to the federal government, and all other provinces enjoyed being net recipients.[39]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalizat ... _in_CanadaEqualization payments are based on a formula that calculates the difference between the per capita revenue yield that a particular province would obtain using average tax rates and the national average per capita revenue yield at average tax rates. The current formula considers five major revenue sources (see below). The objective of the program is to ensure that all provinces have access to per capita revenues equal to the potential average of all ten provinces. The formula is based solely on revenues and does not consider the cost of providing services or the expenditure need of the provinces.
Equalization payments do not involve wealthy provinces making direct payments to poor provinces as the money comes from the federal treasury. As an example, a wealthy citizen in Quebec, a so-called "have not" province, pays more tax into the federal system and funds more equalization than a poorer citizen in Alberta that pays less federal tax, a so-called "have" province. However, because of Alberta's greater population and wealth, the citizens of Alberta as a whole are net contributors to equalization, while the government of New Brunswick, therefore the citizens, are net receivers of equalization payments.