Everything You Have Ever Learned is a Lie
Monday, 22 March 2010 08:21
YouTube - Everything you have ever learned is a Lie(3)
Monday, 22 March 2010 08:21
YouTube - Everything you have ever learned is a Lie(3)
Everything You Have Ever Learned is a Lie
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
( booh ..Bad jk)
How do you know there not tears of joy? Waving hello .I'm Over here.Not goodbye..Yet ..More likely a little of both ..Remembering both the good times and the bad/sad..(ok sorry ..now I'm just gettin sappy )..8O..Enough ..What's this thread about again?..Oh yeah .."Everything you have ever learned is a lie"...How sad ..and that's the absolute truth ..
Oh ..I just happen to have written a song called "Absolute truth "..And here it is for anyone interested .Don't forget to read the lyrics...;-):lol:
Odds R Evolution on MySpace Music - Free Streaming MP3s, Pictures & Music Downloads ( yet another thankless Self Promotion)
Oh ..I just happen to have written a song called "Absolute truth "..And here it is for anyone interested .Don't forget to read the lyrics...;-):lol:
Odds R Evolution on MySpace Music - Free Streaming MP3s, Pictures & Music Downloads ( yet another thankless Self Promotion)
Last edited:
What you talkin about Dexter Sinister ?..Where'd you get that info?;-)
What Canadians don't want to accept is that it is no different here, except that we passed a law saying we had to pay income tax even though the original constitution forbade the federal government from passing laws or collecting taxes. The sad times are just beginning.
No, in the original constitution, the preamble to section 91 empowers the federal government to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada on all matters not assigned exclusively to the provinces (which are enumerated in section 92), and section 91(3) empowers it to raise money by any mode or system of taxation. Those provisions are still in force.
Sections 91 and 92 of the BNA Act of 1867 sought to divide these powers of taxation fairly. The Provinces wanted to ensure that they had a source of tax revenue in order to carry on the business of government at the Provincial level while, at the same time, recognize that the newly created Federal government needed a source of revenue to carry out its obligations. Under Section 91, "Powers of the Parliament" Section 3 gave the Federal government the power to "the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation".( It is interesting to note that during the Quebec Conferences in 1864 and 1865, leading up to the passing of the BNA Act in 1867, this phrase was originally written as "the raising of money by any other mode or system of taxation.") This authority pertains only to the indirect "field" of taxation as intended under Section 91 of the BNA Act of 1867. Under Section 92, "Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures" section 92.2 gave the Provinces the exclusive authority to "direct taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a revenue for Provincial purposes." The phrase "for provincial purposes" was clarified in an earlier court case as "an explanation and not a limitation" on the authority of the Provincial legislatures. Direct taxation is exclusive to the Provinces and the Federal Parliament has no authority to levy such a tax. It seems, by this explanation of direct and indirect taxation and by the Sections 91.3 and 92.2 of the BNA Act of 1867, the federal government has invaded an area of provincial authority in the levying of federal income tax and the GST. A direct violation of the Constitution. Now, lets look at some of the historical evidence. The second reading of the BNA Act of 1867 in the British Parliament gives convincing evidence of this violation.
IMPORTANT!! When a bill reaches second reading, it cannot be changed in any way. It cannot be added to, deleted from or revised in any fashion. It must pass, as is, or the bill is dead.
In February of 1867 the second reading gives the following evidence;
Lord Carnarvon the Fourth stood before the house and delivered the reading:
"In this Bill the division of powers has been mainly affected by a distinct classification. That classification is fourfold; first, those subjects of legislation which are attributed to the Central Parliament exclusively; second, those which belong to the Provincial Legislatures exclusively; third, those which are subjects of concurrent (joint) legislation; and fourth, a particular question which is dealt with exceptionally. To the Central Parliament belong all the questions of the public debt or property, all regulations with regard to trade or commerce, customs and excise, loans, the raising of revenue by any mode or system of taxation, all provisions as to currency, coinage, banking, postal arrangements, the regulation of the census, and the issue and collection of statistics. To the Central Parliament will also be assigned the enactment of the Criminal Code."
"The principal subjects reserved to the local Legislatures are the sale and management of the public lands, the control of their hospitals, asylums, charitable and municipal institutions, and the raising of money by means of direct taxation."
"The several Provinces, which are now free to raise a revenue as they may think fit, surrender to the Central Parliament all powers under this head except that of direct taxation. But there is, as I have said, a concurrent power of legislation to be exercised by the Central and Local Parliaments. It extends over three separate subjects - immigration, agriculture and public works." (There is, therefore, no shared authority over direct taxation.)
Lord Carnarvon continues by saying: "As I have said, it is proposed that the Provinces shall surrender to the Central Parliament all powers of raising revenue except by direct taxation. In return for this concession the Central Government will remit to the Local Legislatures certain fixed sums and proportionate capitation payments, in order to enable them more conveniently to defray the costs of local administration." (These transfer payments, with no strings attached, have been discontinued through the repeal of Section 118 of the BNA Act)
There have been a number of cases since confederation, which support the Province's exclusive authority over direct taxation. In the case Citizens Insurance Co. v. Parsons and Queen Insurance v. Parsons, 1881, His Lordship, SirMontague Smith, of the Privy Council of England made the following statement in his decision; "So,' the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation' is enumerated among the classes of subjects in Section 91; but, though the description is sufficiently large and general to include 'direct taxation within the Province, in order to the raising of a revenue for Provincial Purposes,' assigned to the Provincial legislatures by Section 92, it obviously could not have been intended that, in this instance also, the general power should override the particular one." He continues by saying; " It could not have been the intention that a conflict should exist; and, in order to prevent such a result, the two sections must be read together, and the language of one interpreted, and, where necessary, modified, by the other. In this way it may, in most cases, be found possible to arrive at a reasonable and practical construction of the language of the sections, so as to reconcile the respective powers they contain, and give effect to all of them."
In another case, Bank of Toronto v. Lambe, 1887, Lord Hobhouse, of the Privy Council of England, stated the following in his decision; " It is impossible to give exclusively to the Dominion the whole subject of raising money by any mode of taxation, and, at the same time to give to the Provincial Legislatures, exclusively or at all, the power of direct taxation for Provincial or any other purposes. Their Lordships adhere to that view, and hold that, as regards to direct taxation within the Province to raise revenue for Provincial purposes, that subject falls wholly within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Legislatures."
Again, it seems clear that the federal government has gone beyond its legislative authority by invading this area of (direct) taxation exclusive to the provinces.
Federal Invasion
Any changes to the constitution requires a vote by the people. I'm not sure this part can even be changed by doing that. Since a direct tax is illegal by the Fed then any income-tax based on that levied as a % of that tax is also illegal, that is our Provincial tax. A paycheck is a trade, labor for money, it does not qualify as a 'gain in wealth'.
IMPORTANT!! When a bill reaches second reading, it cannot be changed in any way. It cannot be added to, deleted from or revised in any fashion. It must pass, as is, or the bill is dead.
In February of 1867 the second reading gives the following evidence;
Lord Carnarvon the Fourth stood before the house and delivered the reading:
"In this Bill the division of powers has been mainly affected by a distinct classification. That classification is fourfold; first, those subjects of legislation which are attributed to the Central Parliament exclusively; second, those which belong to the Provincial Legislatures exclusively; third, those which are subjects of concurrent (joint) legislation; and fourth, a particular question which is dealt with exceptionally. To the Central Parliament belong all the questions of the public debt or property, all regulations with regard to trade or commerce, customs and excise, loans, the raising of revenue by any mode or system of taxation, all provisions as to currency, coinage, banking, postal arrangements, the regulation of the census, and the issue and collection of statistics. To the Central Parliament will also be assigned the enactment of the Criminal Code."
"The principal subjects reserved to the local Legislatures are the sale and management of the public lands, the control of their hospitals, asylums, charitable and municipal institutions, and the raising of money by means of direct taxation."
"The several Provinces, which are now free to raise a revenue as they may think fit, surrender to the Central Parliament all powers under this head except that of direct taxation. But there is, as I have said, a concurrent power of legislation to be exercised by the Central and Local Parliaments. It extends over three separate subjects - immigration, agriculture and public works." (There is, therefore, no shared authority over direct taxation.)
Lord Carnarvon continues by saying: "As I have said, it is proposed that the Provinces shall surrender to the Central Parliament all powers of raising revenue except by direct taxation. In return for this concession the Central Government will remit to the Local Legislatures certain fixed sums and proportionate capitation payments, in order to enable them more conveniently to defray the costs of local administration." (These transfer payments, with no strings attached, have been discontinued through the repeal of Section 118 of the BNA Act)
There have been a number of cases since confederation, which support the Province's exclusive authority over direct taxation. In the case Citizens Insurance Co. v. Parsons and Queen Insurance v. Parsons, 1881, His Lordship, SirMontague Smith, of the Privy Council of England made the following statement in his decision; "So,' the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation' is enumerated among the classes of subjects in Section 91; but, though the description is sufficiently large and general to include 'direct taxation within the Province, in order to the raising of a revenue for Provincial Purposes,' assigned to the Provincial legislatures by Section 92, it obviously could not have been intended that, in this instance also, the general power should override the particular one." He continues by saying; " It could not have been the intention that a conflict should exist; and, in order to prevent such a result, the two sections must be read together, and the language of one interpreted, and, where necessary, modified, by the other. In this way it may, in most cases, be found possible to arrive at a reasonable and practical construction of the language of the sections, so as to reconcile the respective powers they contain, and give effect to all of them."
In another case, Bank of Toronto v. Lambe, 1887, Lord Hobhouse, of the Privy Council of England, stated the following in his decision; " It is impossible to give exclusively to the Dominion the whole subject of raising money by any mode of taxation, and, at the same time to give to the Provincial Legislatures, exclusively or at all, the power of direct taxation for Provincial or any other purposes. Their Lordships adhere to that view, and hold that, as regards to direct taxation within the Province to raise revenue for Provincial purposes, that subject falls wholly within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Legislatures."
Again, it seems clear that the federal government has gone beyond its legislative authority by invading this area of (direct) taxation exclusive to the provinces.
Federal Invasion
Any changes to the constitution requires a vote by the people. I'm not sure this part can even be changed by doing that. Since a direct tax is illegal by the Fed then any income-tax based on that levied as a % of that tax is also illegal, that is our Provincial tax. A paycheck is a trade, labor for money, it does not qualify as a 'gain in wealth'.
Well, I stand corrected, although income tax is still not legal. It was a temporary tax instituted during WWI and was supposed to be rescinded at war's end. That is the stipulation that got it passed, but was never rescinded. So it is illegal. All amendments to the BNA act, according to the article posted by Mhz, seem to also be illegal since they were never voted on by the citizenry.
And for that matter, since we were not given the opportunity to vote on Trudeau's constitution, it is also illegal.
And for that matter, since we were not given the opportunity to vote on Trudeau's constitution, it is also illegal.
That actually goes as far back a having a vote to join the Sovereign Provinces (Country) into one single country called Canada. There is no record of the citizens voting for or against that proposal.
