Author Archives: Benjamin

War office. September 12, 1785. [broadside; concerns appointment of representative from Congress to Six Nations Indians]

The secretary at war reports, that it may be a subject worthy the attention of Congress, whether it would not be necessary to appoint some confidential person, with a small salary, either resident with the Six Nations, or upon the frontiers nearest to them, to whom they might apply, as the intermediate person between them and Congress.

Archives 2012 -  goo.gl-FyxX2

The Corporation Nation

To watch all 20 videos, uninterrupted, click here.

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is ruled by CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM or SECOND LAW OF THE LAND.

CANADA is a DEFACTO GOVERNMENT or CORPORATION and is registered with the US Securities Exchange Commission under the requirements of the securities Act of 1934 as a subsidiary of the UNITED STATES as a business trading on the stock markets of the world as such.

This is Canada’s Corporate registered number:

0000230098 CANADA DC SIC: 8880 American Depositary Receipt.

… and Business Address:

Canadian Embassy
1746 Massachusetts Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20036.

CANADA goes by CROWN LAW which is the LAW of the CROWN OF ENGLAND.

GOVERNMENTS are– owned by corporations, run by psychopaths, lying about an imaginary economy based on debt, fueled by illegal wars, destroying ecosystems, poisoning food & water, decreasing education, increasing prisons, manipulating the media, foreclosing homes, starving, humiliating, and killing the world; yet you still stay silent, pay taxes, vote, and trust the government? — Humberto Braga

Let’s start with how the government works, or more specifically, how it is set up. Each town, city, county, state and province has an individual government with individual budgets and finance books.

City councils who sit in fancy pillared or droll state buildings usually govern those many individual governments. Also, there are local government bodies, such as school districts and municipalities like gas, electric, water and sewage, bridges and roadways, and so on who are individually governed bodies as well. And then there are other forms of special government wealth, like pension funds.

On a larger scale, there is the federal government, the judicial and congressional [united states] or municipal [canada]  governments and so on down the line.

Together, these many individual governments are going to be referred to herein as “collective government”.

Just as ethnic groups in this country are individually considered minority [also minority governments] populations with insignificant political and decision making power when compared to the Caucasian or “white” ethnic group, these individual governments are, when compared to the collective power of all of these governments joined together, insignificant.

The power of these individual ethnic groups can only be realized if they ban together to become the majority. Likewise, the thousands of individual governments in the United States and Canada are extremely powerful and wealthy when manifested as one “collective” governmental body – collective government.

Bearing this in mind, I will now reveal the man behind the curtain, so to speak…

Through collective government investments from all individual governments across the United States and Canada, the government owns most of the major corporations in North America, and beyond.

I’ll say it again, in a different way. Collectively, through investment, the United States and Canadian government owns most major corporations and just about everything else in America.

Of the Fortune 500 companies we hear about, and even invest in ourselves with our cute little peanuts we think of as personal wealth, the government has over the last 70 years or so taken financial controlling interest in all of these corporations. This is no exaggeration. This is no joke. This is the reality of the corporate and financial state of our country and it’s government.

The 10 Planks of the Corporate Manifesto

1.) Abolition of private property. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2.) The income tax. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3.) Abolition of estate. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4.) Confiscation of property. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5.) A central bank. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6.) Government control of communications and transportation. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

7.) Government ownership of factories, land, and agriculture. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8.) Government control of labor — creation of government labor armies. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9.) Corporate farms and regional planning. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

10.) Government control of education. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Canada, Ontario, Brant County, Brantford, Six Nations — Recent Reports

Archives 2012 -  goo.gl-FyxX2

On the Arts of Stealing Human Rights

Extracts from a speech given by Gerry Gambill at a conference on Human Rights at Tobique Reserve in New Brunswick, in August, 1958. In this speech he warned native people about how society goes about taking away the Human Rights of native people.

It is ironic that Indians, whose ideas about human rights through the centuries have been so advanced; should be the group in Canada whose human rights have been so consistently denied.

Any group which had as much practice as the white society in denying Indian human rights must be pretty good at it by now. The art of denying Indians their human rights has been refined to a science, and a whole society has become so skilled at it that it happens unconsciously and easily, like tying your shoes.

The following list of commonly used techniques will be helpful in “burglar-proofing”  your reserves, and your rights.This list is only partial. complete it with your own information. GAIN THE INDIANS CO-OPERATION. It is easier to steal someone’s human rights  if you can do it with his OWN co-operation.

1. Make him a non-person. Human rights are for people. Convince Indians their ancestors were savages, that they were pagan, that Indians were drunkards. Make them wards of the government. Make a legal distinction, as in the Indian Act, between Indians and persons. Write history books that tell half the story.

2. Convince the Indian that he should be patient, that these things take time. Tell him that we are making progress, and that progress takes time

3. Make him believe that things are being done for his own good. Tell him you’re sure that after he has experienced your laws and actions that he will realize how good they have been. Tell the Indian he has to take a little of the bad in order to enjoy the benefits you are conferring on him.

4. Get some people to do the dirty work. There are always those who will act for you to the disadvantage of their own people. Just give them a little honor and praise. This is generally the function of band council, chiefs, and advisory councils: they have little legal power, but can handle the tough decisions such as welfare, allocation of housing etc.

5. Consult the Indian, but do not act on the basis of what you hear. Tell the Indian he has a voice and go through the motions of listening. Then interpret what you have heard to suit your own needs

6. Insist that the Indian “GOES THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS.” make the channels and the procedures so difficult that he won’t bother to do anything. When he discovers what the proper channels are and becomes proficient at the procedures, change them.

7. Make the Indian believe you are working for him, putting in much overtime and at a great sacrifice, and imply that he should be appreciative. This is the ultimate in skills in stealing human rights; when you obtain the thanks of the victim.

8. Allow a few individuals to “MAKE THE GRADE” and point to them as examples. Say that the ‘HARDWORKERS” AND THE “GOOD” Indians have made it, and that therefore it is a person’s own fault if he doesn’t succeed.

9. Appeal to the Indian’s sense of fairness, and tell him that even though things are pretty bad it is not right for him to make strong protests. Keep the argument going on his form of protest and avoid talking about the real issue. Refuse to deal with him while he is protesting. Take all the fire out of his efforts

10. Encourage the Indian to take his case to court. This is very expensive, takes lots of time and energy and is very safe because laws are stacked up against him. The courts ruling will defeat the Indians cause, but makes him think he has obtained justice.

11. Make the Indian believe that things could be worse, and that instead of complaining about the loss of human rights, to be grateful for the rights we do have. In fact, convince him that to attempt to regain a right he has lost is likely to jeopardize the rights that he still has.

12. Set yourself up as the protector of the Indian’s human rights, and then you could choose to act only on those violations you wish to act upon. By getting successful on a few minor violations of human rights, you can point to these as examples of your devotion to his cause. The burglar who is also the doorman is the perfect combination.

13. Pretend that the reason for the loss of human rights is for some other reason, other than the person is Indian. Tell him some of your best friends are Indians, and that his loss of rights is because of his housekeeping, his drinking, his clothing.

14. Make the situation more complicated than is necessary. Tell the Indian you will have to take a survey to find out how many other Indians are being discriminated against. Hire a group of professors to make a year-long research project.

15. Insist on unanimity. Let the Indian know that when all the Indians in Canada can make up there minds about just what they want as a group, then you will act. Play one group’s special situation against another group’s wishes.

16. Select very limited alternatives, neither of which has much merit, and then tell the Indian that indeed he has a choice. Ask, for instance, if he could or would rather have council elections in June or December, instead of asking if he wants them at all.

17. Convince the Indian that the leaders who are the most beneficial and powerful are dangerous and not to be trusted. Or simply lock them up on some charge like driving with no lights. Or refuse to listen to the real leaders and spent much time with the weak ones. Keep the people split from their leaders by sowing rumor. Attempt to get the best leaders into high paying jobs where they have to keep quiet to keep their pay check coming in.

18. Speak of the common good. Tell the Indian that you can’t consider yourselves when there is a whole nation to think of. Tell him he can’t think only of himself. For instance, in regard to hunting rights, tell him we have to think of all the hunters, or the sporting good industry.

19. Remove rights so gradually that the people don’t realize what has happened until it is too late. Again in regards to hunting rights, first restrict the geographical area where hunting is permitted, then cut the season to certain times of the year, then cut the limits down gradually, then insist on licensing, and then Indians will be on the same grounds as the white sportsmen.

20. Rely on some reason and logic (your reason and logic) instead of rightness and morality. Give thousands of reasons for things, but to not get trapped into arguments about what is right.

21. Hold a conference on Human Rights, have everyone blow of steam and tension, and go home feeling things are well at hand.

*You could easily apply most of these to many situations since these are common strategies of the wealthy/powerful against the poor/weak, especially the legalities, stalling, and projection

Parliament_Hill[1]

The Myth of Canada!

Canada is created on lies, deceit, theft and the fact alleged Canadian’s DO believe in the impossible.  This is an essay detailing “The Truth about Non-Canada!” or, if you prefer  you could say it reveals,The Myth of Canada!“, Or it could be the story of “Canada: the Non-Country!”

When we refer to our cur­rent alleged Cana­dian gov­ern­ment as de jure, we no doubt mean de facto, since de facto means “in fact”, but not “by law”, which is what de jure means. In other words, a law­ful gov­ern­ment is a de jure government.

A gov­ern­ment that exists by decep­tion and fraud, and not by law­ful author­ity, is a de facto government.

It’s highly unlikely that the Cana­dian estab­lish­ment, with polit­i­cal mil­lion­aire shys­ters as its van­guard, is igno­rant of the actual his­tory of Canada and its fake gov­ern­ment. The fake ver­sion taught in our schools has noth­ing in com­mon with 135 years of real­ity; of gov­ern­ment by mil­lion­aires, of mil­lion­aires, for millionaires.

Canada is nei­ther a fed­er­a­tion nor does its gov­ern­ment oper­ate with legit­i­mate author­ity. Know­ing this and keep­ing mum about it makes politi­cians and the entire Bar Asso­ci­a­tion crim­i­nal offend­ers by default, if not by design…all of them, past and present. Which doesn’t mat­ter much these days because it’s obvi­ously cool (and very prof­itable) to be law­less, as far as those at the trough are concerned.

Judg­ing by politi­cians, and the legal community’s vis­i­ble con­duct, their strat­egy seems to be one of per­pet­u­ally rein­forc­ing the nix­ing of the UNAUTHORIZED AND ILLEGITIMATE EXISTENCE OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENTS by teaching and cel­e­brat­ing a Cana­di­ana, pick­led in bald-faced lies, with much ado and hoopla.

It takes a lot of time and effort to sep­a­rate the facts from the myths about Canada’s “cre­ation.” For­tu­nately, there have been many ded­i­cated Cana­di­ans doing the ardu­ous research. By learn­ing how con­sti­tu­tions and nations are prop­erly cre­ated and then com­par­ing this with Canada’s (and Britain’s) records of the time (and since then), these researchers have accu­rately re-created a chronol­ogy of what actu­ally hap­pened since 1864 and what Canada’s sta­tus is today…which isn’t news, it’s just infor­ma­tion that is rig­or­ously suppressed.

Few peo­ple would sus­pect that edu­ca­tional fac­ul­ties, politi­cians, judges, media and the entire mem­ber­ship of the Cana­dian Bar Asso­ci­a­tion would inten­tion­ally deny the exis­tence of such a fun­da­men­tally impor­tant mat­ter. With few notable excep­tions, the pub­lic has unques­tion­ingly accepted the offi­cial fairy­tale as gospel. Pro­fes­sion­als, privy to the truth, are sim­ply too busy chas­ing the buck and drop the truth from their conscience.

Politi­cians have banked on such devel­op­ments with aston­ish­ing suc­cess since “con­fed­er­a­tion.” Today, nobody in his right mind (while igno­rant of the facts) will believe that Canada has actu­ally been under the con­trol of impos­tors for 135 years; which con­tin­ues to be so, as long as most Cana­di­ans are con­tent to trudge through the dark, think­ing they are soar­ing in the light.

Nowhere are the con­se­quences of this mas­sive decep­tion more embod­ied than in the dili­gence with which Cana­dian judges help the Cana­dian Cus­toms and Rev­enue Agency ( CCRA ) to ruth­lessly admin­is­ter a tax extrac­tion racket as fraud­u­lent and crim­i­nal as Canada’s C-36 pro­tec­tion racket. Faced with hav­ing to rule inescapably in favour of the aggrieved (tax vic­tims) Cana­dian judges, spine­less with­out excep­tion, have turned into legal eels, sym­bi­ot­i­cally cor­rupted by their addic­tion to pres­tige, spe­cial priv­i­leges and highly salaried appoint­ments for life.

Cit­i­zens, pay for judi­cial priv­i­leges with the ero­sion of their “con­sti­tu­tional” rights and speedy redress, while judges hide their bot­tom­less cow­ardice to uphold the prin­ci­ples of the BNA Act behind over­bear­ing pom­pos­ity, intim­i­da­tion and self-serving and crim­i­nal bias, in an effort to pro­tect the hand that feeds them.

There is no such thing as arms length free­dom of judges from gov­ern­ment inter­fer­ence. When it comes to the con­sti­tu­tion and taxes, judges are deathly afraid to reveal their knowl­edge of the BNA Act’s ille­git­i­macy. Instead they impro­vise slick Catch 22 pro­ce­dures and set obstruc­tive prece­dents based on legal sophistry; osten­si­bly, to “avoid the chaos” that would ensue if they were inclined to respect the (non-) con­sti­tu­tional rights of the peo­ple. They main­tain that, by enlight­en­ing the pub­lic about Canada’s con­sti­tu­tional real­ity and by rul­ing fairly and with integrity, they would “unleash” real nation build­ing reforms by a lib­er­ated pub­lic, while cur­tail­ing for them­selves Ottawa’s munif­i­cence, which they view as anarchy.

Com­pound­ing their crimes, judges find noth­ing wrong with the mas­sive coun­ter­feit­ing of credit and the col­lec­tion of inter­est from it by pri­vate banks. Nor does it bother them that this occurs with­out the bless­ings of the BNA Act and under the aus­pices of impos­tors with pre­ten­sions of gov­ern­men­tal authority…all of which has become “real” under the umbrella of fake legitimacy.

Canada is joined in this con­sti­tu­tional dilemma by Aus­tralia and New Zealand. But, unlike Canada’s, their legal com­mu­ni­ties have acknowl­edged that a con­sti­tu­tional prob­lem exists and they deal with it, view­ing it as a grand oppor­tu­nity of change for the better.

To under­stand why the BNA Act and the Cana­dian Fed­er­a­tion are fake, here is a quick, nut­shell expla­na­tion of how and by whom con­sti­tu­tions and sov­er­eign demo­c­ra­tic coun­tries are prop­erly created.

The “infa­mous social­ist agenda” The cre­ation of a demo­c­ra­tic nation is for sane peo­ple sim­ply a mat­ter of com­mon sense and decency; for the estab­lished elites it’s a lead­ing cause of apoplexy and a mat­ter of sub­ver­sion, ter­ror­ism and communism…if not down­right anarchy.

But assum­ing that a sov­er­eign demo­c­ra­tic fed­er­a­tion is socially desir­able – in other words, lib­eral rhetoric trans­formed into actual real­ity – no super­nat­ural abil­i­ties or spe­cial law degrees are nec­es­sary to cre­ate it.

It requires merely a pub­lic con­sen­sus about the pur­pose of the nation and how to best achieve it.

a) First, there has to be a ter­ri­tory (like a Cana­dian province) who’s peo­ple desire to be a sov­er­eign and demo­c­ra­tic nation.
b) From among them­selves the peo­ple select, by vote or appoint­ment, a tem­po­rary assem­bly and charge it with the for­mu­la­tion of a con­sti­tu­tion.
c) A first draft of the con­sti­tu­tion is sub­mit­ted by the assem­bly to the peo­ple for review and pub­lic debate, to pro­vide an oppor­tu­nity for changes.
d) After a first pub­lic debate the assem­bly retires to work out the changes, after which it is sub­mit­ted again to the peo­ple for review and fur­ther changes, if nec­es­sary.
e) This process is repeated until the con­sti­tu­tion has become a for­mula accept­able to a sub­stan­tial major­ity of the peo­ple.
f) Now the peo­ple vote in a ref­er­en­dum to accept (or reject) the con­sti­tu­tion with a pre-determined major­ity (75% for exam­ple).
g) If the required major­ity can­not be achieved, fur­ther changes must be made until the for­mula becomes accept­able to the required num­ber of peo­ple.
h) The entire process is recorded and doc­u­mented as proof of the constitution’s author­ity.
i) On the basis of the con­sti­tu­tion a gov­ern­ment is then formed, which is con­trac­tu­ally bound (social con­tract) to respect it and con­duct itself in accord with it.
j) Now this sov­er­eign nation can form a fed­er­a­tion with other nations, if it wishes to do so.

Note, that no con­sid­er­a­tion has been given to the manip­u­la­tive inter­fer­ence from pri­vately owned media monopolies.

Note, that the con­sti­tu­tion is cre­ated first, then the gov­ern­ment. To cre­ate a demo­c­ra­tic nation for the peo­ple, by the peo­ple, of the peo­ple, it can­not be any other way.

Note, no for­eign gov­ern­ment can for­mu­late (or cre­ate) the con­sti­tu­tion of another coun­try. It has to be cre­ated by the peo­ple them­selves and becomes thus, for all intents and pur­poses, their pro­tec­tive prop­erty. It’s not only the law but is a con­tract which sub­ju­gates the gov­ern­ment to the peo­ple. The gov­ern­ment derives a lim­ited author­ity to gov­ern from it, always sub­ject to the people’s authority.

Note, ONLY SOVEREIGN NATIONS CAN FORM A FEDERATION. For exam­ple, a domin­ion is the sub­ject of an empire, un-free, and can­not deter­mine any­thing, much less fed­er­ate, with­out the empire’s approval. A SOVEREIGN NATION IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANYONE . In other words, it is free to design its socio-economic orga­ni­za­tion or enter into fed­er­a­tions in any way it wants.

A sov­er­eign, demo­c­ra­tic domin­ion?! But that’s not what hap­pened in 1867. When we ask, did Canada become then a sov­er­eign, demo­c­ra­tic domin­ion, we must also ask, of whom or of what? The Crown? Roth­schild? The IMF ? Thus the incon­gruity becomes unmis­tak­ably self-evident.

In 1867 we-the-people didn’t exist, as far as polit­i­cal “par­tic­i­pa­tion” was con­cerned. In the exalted view of our bet­ters, the colo­nial mil­lion­aire paragons of civ­i­liza­tion, we were prac­ti­cally indis­tin­guish­able from the stink­ing squalor sur­round­ing us. They habit­u­ally referred to us as “scum.” They were the landed gen­try, lord­ing it over us, the rab­ble, with style, opulence…and vastly refined superiority.

In 1864 an assem­bly of such unelected “colo­nial rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Crown” (appointees and careerists) con­vened in Que­bec and began to draft the Que­bec Res­o­lu­tions under the wise guid­ance of the Hon. John A. Mac­don­ald, all of them men of sub­stance, inspired by self-interest. The gen­eral “scum” of the day didn’t even know that this was going on, not being wealthy enough to vote and all.…

Note, that the orig­i­nal draft was cre­ated by an unelected assem­bly of colo­nial appointees with­out the knowl­edge of the gen­eral pub­lic. In 1867 the “Que­bec scheme of 1864″ was sub­mit­ted to the Colo­nial Office in Lon­don for Royal assent, to be enacted by the British leg­is­la­ture. In between read­ings in the House of Lords and the House of Com­mons the word­ing of the pre­am­ble (the most impor­tant page of a con­sti­tu­tion) was changed (a fraud­u­lent slight of hand), with­out the knowl­edge of the del­e­ga­tion from Canada or any­body in both houses, into the oxy­moron it has remained to this day. At this point there existed no printed copy of the original.

Remem­ber, no for­eign gov­ern­ment can cre­ate a legally valid con­sti­tu­tion for another coun­try. What even­tu­ally emerged from the British leg­is­la­ture was a statute as phoney as a three dol­lar bill, with the first page miss­ing entirely. The list of experts who attested to this fact in 1935 is impres­sive, indeed:

Dr. O. D. Skel­ton, Under-Secretary of State for Exter­nal Affairs; Dr. Ollivier, K.C., Joint-Law Clerk, House of Com­mons; Dr. W. P. Kennedy, Pro­fes­sor of Law, Uni­ver­sity of Toronto; Dr. N. McL. Rogers, Pro­fes­sor of Polit­i­cal Sci­ence, Queens Uni­ver­sity; Dr. Arthur Beauch­esne, K.C., C.M.G., L.L.D., Clerk of the House of Commons.

And it doesn’t end there. Note, that there exists no doc­u­mented record of a man­dated assem­bly or debates by nei­ther the elites nor the “scum,” nor a bind­ing ref­er­en­dum in 1867 or since.

On Novem­ber 8, 1945, the MP for Jasper-Edson, Wal­ter F. Kuhl, widely respected as the pre-eminent author­ity on con­sti­tu­tional mat­ters at the time, tried to revive the issue of Canada’s non-constitution/non-federation in the House. He stressed that UNTIL 1931 CANADA WAS NOT , AND COULDN ‘T HAVE BEEN , A FEDERATION since, until then, it was still a domin­ion of the crown.

Only in 1931 did the British Crown abro­gate its author­ity over the Cana­dian Domin­ions (provinces) with the enact­ment of the Statute of West­min­ster. This pro­vided a most aus­pi­cious oppor­tu­nity for Canada to become a truly sov­er­eign, demo­c­ra­tic fed­er­a­tion. Instead Ottawa cre­ated the Bank of Canada, a cen­tral bank.

Once again the élite stu­diously “ignored” the oppor­tu­nity Mr. Kuhl’s argu­ment offered to cre­ate a bona fide fed­er­a­tion based on a bona fide con­sti­tu­tion. It cre­ated the Maple Leaf Flag instead; more focussed on image than on sub­stance in order to main­tain the delib­er­ate decep­tion. There exists no record of any con­sti­tu­tional assem­bly, any pub­lic debates or any con­sti­tu­tional ref­er­en­dum nor any con­fed­er­a­tion efforts since 1931, other than Ottawa’s denial of Quebec’s sov­er­eignty, which is a fact.

Since 1931 the rest of Canada has been akin to a wreck, loaded to the hilt with gold, adrift at sea, under the con­trol of pirates who gut and plun­der it to their hearts’ con­tent. There are even rumours, that the Roth­schild Clan secretly claimed Canada as an object of sal­vage and is man­ag­ing it and extract­ing its wealth from behind com­plex fronts within fronts, like a Russ­ian Egg, with the outer, vis­i­ble shell being the “fed­eral government.”

But, peo­ple ask, didn’t Trudeau “patri­ate” the con­sti­tu­tion and the Char­ter of Rights and Free­doms in 1982? Well, he actu­ally did patri­ate, in a fashion…and a uni­fied cho­rus of the pub­lic, the media, the judi­ciary and edu­ca­tional insti­tu­tions all went “Aahh” and “Oohh” and “isn’t that nice of him?” It seem­ingly never dawned on any­body to ask who gave him the author­ity to draft the Char­ter of Rights and Freedoms.

Let’s give it the ben­e­fit of the doubt and assume that it is a seman­tic mis­take, and what was meant was that Trudeau repa­tri­ated the con­sti­tu­tion. That would mean he brought it home in 1982. We must ask then, from where?! Where was it until 1982 if not in this “sov­er­eign, demo­c­ra­tic and fed­er­ated domin­ion?” In Britain? The prob­lem here, is the word “patri­ate.” It didn’t exist in the Eng­lish lan­guage until 1981, nor does it exist in any other lan­guage, ancient or con­tem­po­rary, to this day. It is mean­ing­less gib­ber­ish invented by Trudeau and his cab­i­net. The ques­tion “What does it mean?” is unan­swer­able. Per­haps it was intended to be rooted in the Latin word patris. Which could mean, by a wild stretch of the imag­i­na­tion, that Father Pierre fathered the Bill of Rights and Free­doms and gen­er­ously bestowed it upon Cana­di­ans as an (uncon­sti­tu­tional) gift. More likely, the word sim­ply exists to invoke a sense of con­sti­tu­tional incom­pre­hen­sion in order to dis­cour­age deeper prob­ings by a mys­ti­fied public.

Why? In com­par­i­son with the proper process explained above, it’s prac­ti­cally impos­si­ble to believe that Canada is a legit­i­mately sov­er­eign and demo­c­ra­tic fed­er­a­tion, unless one is deranged or in the grasp of opi­ate dreams. Since most Cana­di­ans DO believe the impos­si­ble, what does this say about their men­tal and moral disposition?

No mat­ter how we slice it the Cana­dian Fed­er­a­tion remains a fic­tion. The fed­eral gov­ern­ment is a cabal of impos­tors; its author­ity to gov­ern being non-existent until such time as Cana­di­ans wake up to the fact that EVERY TREATY ENTERED INTO ( NATO , GATS , NAFTA , FTA , FTAA etc.) AND ALL LAWS AND REGULATIONS ( ITA , GST , C36 , PRIVATIZATION , DOWNSIZING , etc.) PASSED SINCE 1867 ARE NULL AND VOID …just as null and void as the non-constitutional author­ity of Canada’s com­mu­nity of bot­tom feeders…the judi­ciary and the Cana­dian Bar Asso­ci­a­tion, includ­ing their bloated and sub­ver­sive court procedures.

And let’s not for­get the law enforce­ment agen­cies such as the RCMP , the police and CSIS , which have no non-constitutional author­ity to enforce (or pro­tect) any­thing, much less the dic­tates (legal­ized crime) of impostors.

GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE BOSS , YOU ARE! SO ACT LIKE ONE! Know­ing all this, per­haps it becomes a bit more attrac­tive for Cana­di­ans to get a taste of real nation­hood and real sov­er­eignty (i.e. free­dom), instead of oppres­sive despo­tism and wage slav­ery, by adopt­ing the purely Cana­dian con­cept of PARTICIPATION .

To sum it up, CANADA IS A GIGANTIC FAKE , an embar­rass­ment of giant pro­por­tions. All cen­tral­ized gov­ern­ments are imposed by non-legal force and their con­sti­tu­tions are not worth the paper they are writ­ten on, nor are their laws, as we can clearly see now. It will stay that way until such a time when nation build­ing is again con­sid­ered a project wor­thy of the cre­ative and lib­er­at­ing efforts of free people…inclusive, con­sen­sual, uni­ver­sal and truly democratic.

As it stands now, Canada is a fake in every respect, in the hands of despotic indi­vid­u­als bent on pulling off the biggest crime in the universe… THE GLOBALIZATION OF FAKENESS …and again the establishment’s cheer­lead­ers go “Oohh” and “Aahh,” duly recorded and end­lessly re-cycled in the closed loop of the media monop­o­lies until all alter­na­tives have moved beyond the van­ish­ing point…out of sight.

Oh, and what was that you were say­ing about fight­ing your tax assess­ment (or this or that alleged law) on grounds that it is uncon­sti­tu­tional? Per­haps you should con­sider mov­ing to a real Coun­try, or at least one that has a real constitution!

We, as alleged Cana­di­ans are liv­ing in an un-country with no law because we have no basis from which to frame any law, hence we have absolutely no fun­da­men­tal rights, real or feigned! Every­thing is merely an “act” (no pun intended) designed to keep us un-informed, un-protected, and un-able to object.

  • Related Arti­cles
  • http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/atmyth.htm
  • http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/papers/paquin.htm