A Country Betrayed

March 3rd, 2007, 07:34 AM

Since 1968 Canada has progressively lost her sovereignty and become less free. It's the tale of how 4 men, three Liberals and one Conservative, effectively gutted a country that survived a depression, helped win two world wars and built a successful and vibrant democracy in the process.
REALITY CHECK: Canada is no longer a free country



National Archives. Federal/Provincial Constitutional Conference, 1968.The Canada of today is not the same country millions of Canadians fought and died for in two world wars. That Canada is largely dead. It has been replaced by an imitation created by elitist nihilists who, in addition to benefitting from the corruption and greed that they supported (Gomery's comments come to mind), cared more about street gangs and criminals than they do about their victims. Make no mistake. This is true. They still do. Just listen to what they're saying.
Now these people, even while sitting in opposition, can't come to terms with the mess they've created. I am fed up to the teeth with these hand-wringing, limp-wristed nihilists and their attitudes. I don't care how our lawmakers solve the problems they created, just solve them. But don't take away *my* rights and freedoms in the process. I am talking to you Mr. Prime Minister. I am not a criminal. My heart cries when I think of what your predecessors have done in the last 38 years.
If you have a problem with terrorism, take it up with the terrorists and those counselling violence and hate in our country. Don't take away my rights and freedoms. If you have a problem with guns in the streets, find and arrest those street gang members and others who are carrying guns in the streets. Don't take away my guns. I repeat. I am not the criminal. I am the person who elected you and who you swore to serve and protect. I am a peaceful citizen.

Since 1968 Canada has become a pacifist, socialist country where judges make law instead of elected legislators; where courts are more concerned about criminals than their victims; where foreign companies can sue Canada for enacting laws that are good for Canada and Canadians; where people are encouraged to get on welfare and discouraged from finding work when on it; where the ability to speak two languages has become enough to qualify for public office and; I could go on... Our federal government has become a large and intrusive government that has either forgotten what its core functions are, no longer cares, or, worse yet, has become an instrument for others who want to destroy our sovereignty. Canada is a country on the eve of destruction.

March 3rd, 2007, 07:35 AM

Betrayed by elitist, nihilist, moralist puppets


While Progressive Conservative objectives seemed to be to sell out Canada's sovereignty in the interests of North American Free Trade Agreements that were not about free trade at all, Liberal Party objectives seemed intent on destroying individual rights and freedoms via a Charter which was about anything but rights and freedoms. Both were about more control and power over Canadians. Once again, the lies are in the names.
Remaining in power for the Liberals was largely carried out in the name of "keeping Canada together" by fighting the separation movement in Quebec and selling the benefits of the welfare state.
To paraphrase Dennis Prager, no matter how pure their motives, socialism makes Canada and its citizens less noble people! To that I would add, less free.

March 3rd, 2007, 07:36 AM

Genesis of socialism and secret government in Canada



National Archives. Lester B. Pearson and Pierre Trudeau.After the Conservatives decisively defeated the Grits in 1958, Lester B. Pearson organized a gathering of academics, writers and politicians in Kingston, Ontario in 1960. This gathering, which became known as the Kingston Conference, was what historians generally credit with shaping Liberal Party policy and their socialist agenda for the better part of a generation.

National Archives.
Pierre Trudeau.With his election to Prime Minister on April 20, 1968, Pierre Elliot Trudeau's creeping "dictatorship of relativism" succeeded in embedding his pacifist, Marxist-leaning, socialist philosophy into the Constitution and laws of Canada. Western Canadian columnist Link Byfield wrote in a September 2000 Globe and Mail article that "Parliament annoyed [Trudeau], so he bulldozed his Charter of Rights into the Constitution (1982) and surrendered statutory supremacy to the court."
"A new biography [Young Trudeau: Son of Quebec, Father of Canada, 1919-1944] of the former prime minister, whom Canadians have long been taught to regard as a great liberal politician, reveals that as a youth and young man, Mr. Trudeau was an anti-Semite, admired fascist dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini, promoted revolution and longed for an independent and Catholic Quebec that would be home only to francophones." Young Trudeau: Fascist, anti-Semite, and separatist: Robert Sibley, The Ottawa Citizen, May 31, 2006.

National Archives.
Brian Mulroney.Then along came Brian Mulroney, an Anglo Quebecois, who, just so that everything we despise about today's Canada couldn't be blamed on the Liberals, made an alliance with Quebec separatists, or soon-to-be separatists, and patronage and pork continued to flow into Quebec. This was later to be perfected by the Liberals but Mulroney started it.
Then, showing a total misunderstanding or disregard of the rights and freedoms that already existed under the Constitution of 1867 and Common Law, Mulroney tried his best to entrench the Charter further into the fabric of Canada by attempting to convince Quebec to sign on. This of course failed.
Brian Mulroney was also responsible for the Free Trade Agreement, and later the North America Free Trade Agreement, trade deals which gave up significant chunks of Canadian sovereignty and which were opposed by the majority of Canadians and still are.
Then came the Goods and Services Tax. All in all a devastating two terms for people who value individual freedom and less government. Mulroney learned well the policies of secrecy and diversion that were so perfected by the Liberals under Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

National Archives.
Jean Chretien.
National Archives.
Paul Martin.After Mulroney was tossed from 24 Sussex Drive Jean Chretien and Paul Martin continued the selloff of Canada. Jean Chretien signed NAFTA in December, 1993 and, twelve years later, Paul Martin signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America with President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005".
Jean Chretien and Paul Martin then continued the slide into socialism and dictatorship that Trudeau started and, in the opinion of many, added another disturbing element, a climate ripe for organized crime, both homegrown and immigrant. Still not satisfied, they then brought this corruption into the very halls of government (again, Gomery's comments come to mind).
Why did they do it?

Why did these leaders, all brilliant men, do these things?
Why did the Liberal Party choose socialism and dictatorship for Canada that day in Kingston, Ontario in 1960? The answer to me is simple. They did it for power. They knew what would buy votes. They didn't care about what was good for Canada. They cared only about what they believed would get them back in power and keep them there. And they were right. They created fear of Quebec separation and then said they were the only party that could deal with it. They created the welfare state and then said they were the only party that would continue to dole out the money. Enough people believed them and voted for them, and the people of Canada got what they deserved.
Why did Brian Mulroneya and Jean Chretien surrender Canada's future and move her one step closer to a North American super-state that has resulted in a total loss of sovereignty for Canada in several key areas? These include energy, natural resources, transportation, currency, immigration, environment, social policy and national defense, to name a few. All areas of policy that should be made in Ottawa, right? By lawmakers we vote for, right? Well, not any more under the future that is NAFTA. Why did they do this? Perhaps the really believed what they were doing was right. Perhaps they were doing the bidding of others. Perhaps they were puppets. Whatever. Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien sold Canada out and the result will soon be total foreign ownership and multinational corporate control of everything we thought was ours. Take a good look around. Everything you see is now owned or controlled by foreign interests or soon will be.
In my opinion Canada's politicians have been bought off and are now firmly in the pockets of an international crime syndicate whose sole objective is to take over Canada and destroy Canada's sovereignty and the rights and freedoms of her citizens. Unless Canadians rise up and stop this the result will be slavery and a police state existence for us all.
Is Steven Harper continuing the selloff of Canada?


Steven Harper.It looks like Steven Harper is committed to this selloff of Canada. I had held off posting about this in the hopes that Mr Harper would have some additional thoughts to say, perhaps an explanation, but apparently not. So I have to conclude that Steven Harper is continuing this devestation of a once proud country.
At the Summit of the Americas in Cancun on March 31, 2006, Stephen Harper, along with the US and Mexico, released the Leaders' Joint Statement. The statement presents six action points to insure that the North American Union be in place by 2007. These action points include:
- Establishment of a Trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework
- Establishment of the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC)
- Provision for North American Emergency Management
- Provision for Avian and Human Pandemic Influenza Management
- Development of North American Energy Security
- Assure Smart, Secure Borders
COMING IN 2007: Construction is set to begin on the "NAFTA superhighway" and the creation of the North American Union (NAU) will become fact.

March 3rd, 2007, 07:36 AM

Let's examine what they did

Charter of Rights and Freedoms


The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is smoke and mirrors. I challenge anyone to identify one single right or freedom, desired by the majority of Canadians, that the Charter offers that we did not already have under the existing Constitution Act of 1867 or under Common Law. The Charter was crafted in secret by lawyers, for lawyers, with the specific objective of empowering courts and Cabinet to create laws in secret outside of Parliament. Once again, the lie is in the name. It has nothing to do with individual rights and freedoms. It has everything to do with power and control.
The decline of Parliament and legislative supremacy


National Archives. Canada's Parliament Building."The primary problem of the Charter has not been the empowerment of judicial supremacy, but the further decline of Parliament and provincial legislatures as policy makers at the hands of the political executive [in Ottawa]." Who Makes the Laws? The Struggle for Legislative Supremacy in Canada. James B. Kelly, Ph.D.
If the above statement is correct then it is further proof that the judiciary can be influenced by the political executive which means, of course, that they are doing the implementing of change for the cabinet. If this is indeed true than it is even worse than an activist court. It is closer to a dictatorship wouldn't you say?
"Charter politics is bureaucratic politics under the direction of the Department of Justice on behalf of the political executive." Who Makes the Laws? The Struggle for Legislative Supremacy in Canada. James B. Kelly, Ph.D. Can't get much clearer than that.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was social engineering by a combination of force and finesse and they enabled the courts to do the dirty work for them.
The Charter as seen by the courts


National Archives. Canada`s Supreme Court."When the court finds itself in uncharted charter waters, its role is not to start thinking creatively, but rather, to refer the matter back to Parliament... [in not doing so] they're violating, essentially, the separation of powers." Rory Leishma, Against Judicial Activism.
This is not good enough for our Chief Justice though...
"Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin defends the Supreme Court's power to transcend the Constitution... In myriad ways, the Supreme Court has used the charter to change government policy on, according to F. L. Morton in his book [The Charter revolution and the Court party], 'an ever-expanding list of controversial issues--abortion, aboriginal rights, gay rights, bilingualism, criminal law enforcement and prisoner-voting.'" Western Standard: The right to make new rights.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a sham
Nisus Dictionary defines fraud as: "something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage." The Charter of Rights and Freedoms must either be abolished or reformed and put under the oversight of Parliament and away from Cabinet. In addition, each and every Supreme Court of Canada ruling that was based on interpretations of the Charter, in areas where no law existed, must be reviewed and debated in the Legislature. Parliament must return to making the laws of Canada in an atmosphere of full and transparent debate.
Robert Bork in his book The Tempting of America-The Political Seduction of the Law, wrote, "Once the judges make the law, the democratic process is at an end."
Supreme Court of Canada judges are political appointees and are not answerable to the electorate. They are not even appointed by parliament where each appointment could be debated. They are appointed by the Prime Minister. Allowing courts the power to make law is in stark contrast to the intent of the Constitution Act of 1867.

March 3rd, 2007, 07:37 AM

The FTA and NAFTA and soon FTAA


The World Trade Organization is the most powerful legislative and judicial body in the world. By promoting the "free trade" agenda of multinational corporations above the interests of participating countries the WTO has systematically undermined sovereignty around the world. They have orchestrated the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement, the North America Free Trade Agreement and are today working on the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. This will effectively put all of North and South America under the direct control of the WTO and the large multinational corporations.

National Archives. Signing NAFTA."This agreement [FTA and NAFTA] sets enforceable global rules on patents, copyrights and trademark. It has gone far beyond its initial scope of protecting original inventions or cultural products and now permits the practice of patenting plants and animal forms as well as seeds. It promotes the private rights of corporations over local communities and their genetic heritage and traditional medicines." Council of Canadians.
As an indication of how bad NAFTA is, consider this: In signing into NAFTA Mulroney agreed to a Chapter 11 resolution settlement clause which effectively gave foreign corporations the right to sue the Canadian government for any lost profit and any future lost profit as a result of any government action, even if the corporation was acting illegally and the government action was to protect Canadians.
A few FTA and NAFTA Chapter 11 examples

"Under Chapter 11, the Ethyl Corporation, an American gasoline additive company, successfully sued the Canadian federal government when it banned MMT in gasoline, even though the additive is illegal in the USA. Canada could not afford the $250 million lawsuit and so caved in [and] allowed the additive in Canadian gasoline and paid up $13 million for the short time the ban was in effect. To add insult to injury, the settlement required two cabinet ministers to go on TV and lie to the Canadian people that MMT was considered completely safe." Trading Democracy?: Bill Moyers, PBS journalist.
"One of the Canadian negotiators of the free trade agreement said that even if a company were putting plutonium in children's food, the company could still sue for lost profit if they were required to stop. Foreign corporations are insured from economic risk, unlike domestic corporations, no matter how irresponsibly they behave. Not only are governments required to compensate them for lost profits, but also for all lost profits indefinitely into the future. Ironically, the worse the foreign corporations behave the more they can extort from governments under Chapter 11." Trading Democracy?: Bill Moyers, PBS journalist.
What this all means


Google Earth. Can you find the borders of Canada?The FTA and NAFTA are bad enough. But, under the Council on Foreign Relations plan expressed in May 2005 for building NAFTA into a North American Union, the stakes are about to get even higher. A task force report titled "Building a North American Community" was written to provide a blueprint for the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America agreement" signed by President Bush, President Fox and Paul Martin in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005. This is the master plan to connect Canada, America and Mexico into a borderless North American free trade zone.
This simply must not be allowed to proceed. Canada must demand that the FTA and NAFTA be re-negotiated under an atmosphere of transparent debate visible to all Canadians. Chapter 11 and several other key objectives must be either radically altered or deleted from both agreements. Canada must also back out of any future participation in the FTAA.
The thing about Chapter 11 is that it can work both ways, but only to the advantage of multinational corporations. If local companies can't compete against foreign corporations locally then why sell locally? If you live in Canada it may be best to sell into the US or Mexico. If their governments stop you from doing so then sue them. The lawyers love it of course. We now have lawyers who specialize in Chapter 11 lawsuits. We will probably be seeing Chartered Accountants and International Business Consultants springing up with specialties like setting up business plans to take advantage of the opportunity to sue a foreign government under Chapter 11. I mean, why work for your money when you can sue?
It may indeed work both ways, but it's not good for local, small businesses when they have to compete with large multinational corporations selling the same products up the street for less than they can buy or produce them. Small businesses that sell locally are at a definite disadvantage under the FTA and NAFTA.
The FTA and NAFTA must be re-negotiated
The provinces did not sign into these agreements. The people of Canada did not agree to them. They were negotiated in secret by Brian Mulroney, with the help of government beaurocrats and their lawyers in Ottawa. The FTA, NAFTA and FTAA must be brought to the House of Parliament and reviewed in an atmosphere of full and transparent debate in the Legislature. The Constitution Act of 1867 demands this.

March 3rd, 2007, 07:37 AM

Disarming Canadians, the long gun registry fiasco and fraud


The CPC have announced there is currently an "amnesty" where firearms owners who have not registered their guns have one year where they can do so without criminal charges being laid. The CPC are still keeping the old registry's requirement to report every transaction with a long gun - sell, buy, borrow, lend.
So, when the CPC says they are fulfilling their promise to scrap Bill C-21 they are simply lying. Why are they doing this? Why not keep their promise and abolish it? The reason to me is clear. The original intent of Bill C-21 was never to reduce crime or gun deaths in Canada as the Liberals told us it was. The reason for Bill C-21 was expressly to disarm the Canadian population and give the police and government a list of all guns that are in the hands of Canadians. Then, at some later date, it would be easy to simply walk into anyone's home that was on the list and confiscate the legally-registered guns.
Do not believe the propaganda about what Bill C-21 has cost Canadians. The figures of $1 billion to $2 billion are ridiculously low. The Attorney General's estimate cost, as most know, was about $1 billion. But according to a study done by the Fraser Institute the real cost is:

• The Department of Justice costs were about $1 billion.
• The cost of all co-operating departments, Agencies, Provinces and Territories was about $1.5 billion.
• Gun owners have paid more than $.55 billion.
• Cost of enforcement $1 billion. And it is unknown how much it will cost to complete owner licensing and firearm registration.
• Cost by RCMP of registering 17 million firearms as projected by the CPC when they went to the RCMP and got the "per transaction" processing cost of a single handgun registration, which turned out to be about $3.7 billion in 2004 dollars.
• Reference PDF slide show: Fraser-Institute22104.ppt.pdf

Total cost estimated by the Fraser Institute as of 2004 was over $7.75 billion.
Since Bill-C21 we have more unreliable/false/incomplete data on guns and owners in the federal database at a cost of 7.75 billion dollars than we did prior to 1995. According to a person who wrote some of the CPC agenda to scrap Bill C-21 here's a brief rundown:

• There are more owners and guns 'outside' the control system than prior to 1995.
• There are more guns unaccounted for than prior to 1995.
• There is less enforcement of firearms control laws than prior to 1995.
• Less people are applying for permits than prior to 1995.
• More guns trade hands without federal notice than prior to 1995.
• Firearms systems cost 1000% more for effectively suspended regulatory enforcement compared to pre 1995.
• A federal authorization to buy firearms has less scrutiny (in functional application) than it did before 1995.
• There were more prosecutions of criminals who used firearms in a crime and more sentencing time added for using a gun than prior to 1995.

So, if anyone tells you that Bill C-21 is a good law you can tell them they're showing their ignorance, and perhaps they should educate themselves and not believe all the hype from the gun-control crowd. They have an agenda that does not have your best interests at heart.
Think not? Then you haven't read the history books. Perhaps you should. Start with Mein Kampf and the history of Nazi Germany. The globalist elites who are behind the North American Union are the same families and individuals who helped put Hitler in power.
Prior to 1995 there was a requisite police background check attached to the 10 dollar FAC which you required to buy a long gun and a sporting long gun for the first time. But you did not have to apply to some bureaucrat sitting behind a desk who knew less than half what most people probably knew about firearm safety and operation. You simply made your request in person at your local RCMP office.

March 3rd, 2007, 07:38 AM

Graft and corruption made in Canada


There are many examples of Liberal Party corruption over the years. Some recent ones of course are the sponsorship scandal, income trust leak, Kyoto Protocol and Industry Canada/National Research Council grants. The latest example is the long-gun registry. Two short quotes about the long-gun registry by the National Post pretty well sum up the legacy of the Liberal Party of Canada since 1968.
"The former Liberal government hid more than $60 million in unexpected costs from Parliament, left no written record of important decisions taken by officials, and may have broken numerous contracting rules in its handling of the controversial gun registry, Auditor General Sheila Fraser has found." Death knell for gun registry?- National Post May 16, 2006
"There is no way to deny or minimize the stark reality of what it [the firearms registry] contains: Liberal cabinet ministers colluded in a scheme of deception -- fraud is another word -- to hide the mounting costs of the gun registry. They did so, what is more, not to avoid mere embarrassment or criticism, but to defy the will of Parliament... It [the firearms registry] was a deliberate act of deception, a calculated defiance of Parliament, and a fraud upon the public." Why should we ever trust the Liberals again? National Post, May 17, 2006
"If this was about drugs, it would be called money laundering. Don't you agree? Am I mistaken?" Mr. Justice John Gomery to former Chretien aide Jean Carle. "Gomery's reference to money laundering is particularly poignant when one considers the Minister responsible for the program, Alfonso Gagliano, was the former accountant to Augustino ****rera, the de facto head of the Caruana/****rera mafia family." Prime Time Crime, Gomery appointment raises conflict questions, Nov. 11, 2005

March 3rd, 2007, 07:38 AM

A country made for organized crime, street gangs and terrorists


Weak immigration laws and strong refugee protection laws established under the Charter have proven irresistible to criminals and terrorists alike. This is the quiet powder keg that needs to be fixed, soon, before it explodes.
"'If [organized criminals] were asked to invent a country, it would look exactly like Canada,' says Antonio Nicaso, one of the country's pre-eminent authors on organized crime." Married to the Mob. Kevin Steel, Western Standard, January 23, 2006.
"The current climate legally in Canada allows us to pretty much do whatever we want... Criminals have free rein in Canada. There's no doubt about it. This is the most awesome place on earth. If you want to run your criminal organization on a global scale, Canada is just perfect. You've got huge borders and you've got lax laws and you've got a cross section of people from all around the world and they are all congregating in Vancouver." former crystal meth lab operator Alex Hanson, to CTV Whistleblower, May 9, 2006
A good measure of a society is it's handling of organized crime. To paraphrase Mark Steyn, "...the succeeding terms of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin have almost succeeded in changing Canada into the G7s first Third World kleptocracy."
International terrorists and terrorist organizations also love Canada. "Terrorists have exploited the "liberal Canadian immigration and asylum policies to enjoy safe haven, raise funds, arrange logistical support and plan terrorist attacks." The Country Reports on Terrorism 2005.
Is this the kind of Canada you want to live in?
Do you want to live in a Canada where decisions are made in secret, where Cabinet can dictate to the police how they can handle a case or respond to an issue, where courts can make law outside of Parliament? Do you want to live in a Canada that no longer controls her sovereignty, energy, resources, borders, defence, trade, environment or laws, to name a few? Do you want to live in a fascist police state where you have no personal freedoms? If not then please join us and start taking Canada back today! Make your opinions known in the Canada Blog. Sign the Canada Agenda. Tell others to do the same. Together we can make a difference! But time is short.

http://takingcanadaback.ca/betrayed.php

March 3rd, 2007, 07:48 AM

Somebody's been drinking from the "deluded and irrational" well again.

March 3rd, 2007, 07:57 AM

How so? I thought it was a very interesting article, or group there of.

March 3rd, 2007, 08:11 AM

I liked the postings. Confirms my longheld belief that one specific Canadian, aka Pierre Trudeau, is responsible for most of the stupidity that has bedevilled the country since the late 60's. A favourite of the left and feminists, he has done more to destroy Canada as I knew it than any other. To his supporters I say: watch your back.

March 3rd, 2007, 08:18 AM

Maybe if we dug Trudeau up and hanged him you could get some rest. There's nothing sillier than a women attacking the people who made it possible for her to read and work.If the right had prevailed this would not have been the case.

March 3rd, 2007, 08:21 AM

It was a very interesting article, written by the organized criminals. The CCCE is the biggest crime organization in this country Steve Harper works for them.

March 3rd, 2007, 08:22 AM

What a load of horse shyte!!! I suspect you already know that too beav.

March 3rd, 2007, 08:22 AM

What a stupid response. Tamarin, the monkey, has made thousands of posts on various posting boards since the mid '90's. He is definitely not a woman.

March 3rd, 2007, 08:24 AM

Come to think of it darkbeaver is likely a girl. Sounds like bootytalk to me.

March 3rd, 2007, 08:25 AM

This is what detracts from your arguement and those that tow the same line, if all else fails, call them criminals, as if that helps in some way. That's right up there with the hysterical ramblings and use of words such as neokkkons, nazi's, fascist and so on. Yet the Liberals under PET and Cretien, were closer to fascist movements then any Conservative Governement in Canadian History. Good grief!!!

March 3rd, 2007, 08:26 AM

Isn't that strange?