Discover more from Ray’s Newsletter
Tracking the Slaves between the US and Canada
Developing a prison for those who still believe they are free
It is not a secret that the state started treating its inhabitants as assets over a hundred years ago. Since then, most people became used to the practice and comply, due to the conditioning they, and their parents and grandparents, have received over the years:
There are corollaries about which, I believe Killary noted that “If people understood what we are doing to them, they would rise up” or something like that:
Many people noted that the southern “Wall” is not about keeping intruders out; it’s about keeping Americans in. There might be more truth to that than I ever ventured to surmise.
An alternative method of controlling (and dividing) Americans emerges is “sanctuary” cities.”
“Be safe” was a mandatory sentence for corporate employees to bid you farewell during the plandemic. Can anybody ever be safe from anything? Yes, you can be free from headaches, if you cut your head off, but that’s just about the all of it.
“Sanctuary” in the Middle Ages was possible to claim in a church. It is another question who would feed you in a church, but that’s a next problem that is never mentioned. Still, if someone killed you in a church at the time, the church was desecrated and the perp was excommunicated, so you were relatively safe for the moment, as long as your future captors believed in the church doctrine. Even today, if you visit Muslims and you are their enemy, they are bound to welcome and treat you as a guest on their premises, even if they can’t stand your guts. Of course, after leaving, you might as well want to take precautions.
Most recently, US cities developed the idea of offering protection from being arrested by federal authorities, at least when it comes to the new type of invaders of the land.
Such policies represent the power of local governments, although feds have been making arrests on drug charges in states, where the possession and the use of pot were locally legit, but federal law has never followed suit. It looks like local governments can exercise such authority only as long as they are allowed by their handlers, and if you look at the great picture, a controlled demolition of the US is taking place, and illegal immigration is only a drop in the bucket. Do you remember the arsonists and violent players during the “protests” by freshly-released prisoners (35k only in CA, and probably on condition that they would wreak havoc) in the summer of 2020 who were not indicted by District Attorneys?
Even the case of Rittenhouse seems to have been rigged:
Your protection of your property and assets could be assured only if you could declare “eminent domain” over them
but it seems, only “elected” governments can do that, when they take what you own for compensation that might or might not happen or give you a new home, where you might or might not care to live. And most “elected” representatives don’t protect you:
The history of sanctuary cities focuses on the term sanctuary – or safe place. In 1971, Berkeley, CA became the first city to claim this status. Instead of questions of immigration, this sanctuary declared Berkeley a safe place for U.S. Navy soldiers who resisted the war in Vietnam.
New York is listed as a “sanctuary state,” although that seems to apply to NYC mostly (Albany and Buffalo might also participate for all I know).
Many people arrive there, hoping for a better life or shipped there for specific purposes that they might (being trained against Americans) or might not (being shipped to the Green Zones1) be aware of. What happens, when the location is overloaded with “undocumented” immigrants who are unable or unwilling to find work, even if it is a cash-in-hand scenario? Many people trying to find local government support are being turned away for lack of documentation. If they needed “medical” assistance, they are eligible for “Charity Care” for free in most cases. Unpaying patients, however, are immediately categorized to belong to the group of lab rats. They are investigated and treated for illnesses they don’t have and their body parts are sold:
In the meanwhile, the taxpayer is charged for the fraud. Shelters in NYC and comparable places in North America are full, and motels or even five-star hotels are being paid by local governments in most cases, using loans on the taxpayer’s behalf, because they are already broke.
Crossing from the US to Canada and back
For years, many “migrants” to the US have been taken to the Canadian border, where they would get across and claim asylum or refugee status. There are actually drop-off locations in Quebec and Ontario. The cities and the provincial governments are shuffling their resources, because the federal government’s monetary assistance is inconsequential. There is no help for the cost of the accommodations, food, not even support for the charities that are supposed to assist newcomers. In NYC, it got to the point that the mayor started using public funds to pay for transporting illegals to a border town near the unofficial border to Quebec. From the US, illegals had to find their way to Quebec, which they heroically managed to accomplish.
As Quebec is already fully loaded, illegals are bused to the Niagara Region and released there, shifting the responsibility to another province.
“NYC Mayor Adams was paying for bus tickets to send migrants to Canada”:
“Safe third countries”
What is a “Safe Third Country” agreement? What is that mean?
This means that a person who has applied for asylum status in a country deemed "safe" cannot reapply in another country that is a signatory to the agreement.
But this arrangement does not apply to irregular ports of entry like Roxham Road, allowing migrants to apply for asylum again and again without being returned to their country of origin.
According to an announcement on Friday, change is coming (oh, well, Obama’s spirit still lingers on2).
People would be denied entry and advised to apply for asylum in the first "safe" country they arrived in. The previous agreement from 2002 stated that if someone crosses at the official border-crossing and already has an asylum application in the other country, they would be turned back.
At this point, the agreement has been revised. According to the new one,
Under the revised pact, along the entire 6,416-km (3,987-mile) land border, anyone who crosses into either country and applies for asylum within 14 days, will be turned back.
Ultimately, who is “safe” here?
What does all this mean?
Governments treat people not only as subjects, but also as assets to be tracked and traded as collaterals for loans from central banks. In the US, that private bank is the Federal Reserve, and gold is not going to save you:
They also ensure full crowd and mind control over their possessions, who are now slaves:
In short, if you cannot be tracked, you do not officially exist, and in most cases, you cannot even get a driver’s license. Yes, there is such a thing as a pedestrian slave.
You might be familiar with the following dirty joke, but here it is, anyway:
“What does Obama say to men whose dicks are too big?”
“You must share!”
“What does he say to those, whose are too small?”
“Help is coming!”