Monday, July 25, 2011



Title slide: G. Edward Griffin On The United Nations

I'm Ed Griffin. I'm an author, researcher.
I've written some books.
I've written about -- most recently of interest -- a book called
"The Creature from Jekyll Island, a Second Look
at the Federal Reserve System."
And, I've written other things
on the United Nations
("The Fearful Master, A Second Look at the United Nations")
I wrote a book on natural cancer research and therapy
called "World Without Cancer, the Story of Vitamin B17".
- - -

Title Slide: The United Nations

Well, the United Nations is different things to different people.
Most people think that the U.N. is our last best hope for peace.
That's the way it was sold to me when I was in school.
It was offered as an organization
where different nations could come together and
work out their problems and their grievances in a
peaceful manner. And be a means of reducing world conflict,
and increasing the economic prosperity of all of the member nations,
and all these wonderful things.

In reality, it turns out to be none of the above.
In reality, the United Nations is a-- the seat of
what the member governments hope will become
a true world government.

It's to be a government.
And, there's nothing inherently wrong with a world government.
But, we need to ask the question,
"What kind of a world government...
is this going to be?"
If the United Nations were going to be
a government based on all of the things
they've said it was going to be.
Peace and prosperity and protecting individual rights,
and all of these things...
I think it would be pretty hard to oppose it.
But, in reality, it's being built as a model of collectivism.
The political ideology that is inherent in the United Nations
is collectivism.

It's a word that probably needs to be defined for our purposes here.
But, in general, it means a totalitarian system.
A system of concentration at the top,
and the people being at the bottom being RULED from above,
-- not that the people have any voice in determining the
direction of their government, or the world,
but they are to be TOLD what the direction is;
they are to be TOLD to follow it.

Collectivism is the philosophy of Big Government and small people.
And, it's a philosophy that supposedly -- all of this -- is being done
in the name of society.
In other words, it's for the greater good of the greater number.
And so, you're supposed to go along with
whatever inconvenience or insult to your freedom comes along,
because, after all, it's in the greater good of the greater number.
And this is the rationale being used -- has been used -- for
quite some time, to justify all kinds of horrible atrocities.
All the leaders have to do is say, well, it's for the greater good
of the greater number.

That's the philosophy that's built in to the United Nations from top to bottom.
So, therefore, the answer to the question,
"What is the United Nations?" is: "The United Nations is
a budding, or building, world totalitarian system.

Title slide: Key People Behind the United Nations

The United States has always been the major supporter
and financier of the United Nations. So, you'd have to say
that the key people behind the United Nations are the GLOBALISTS --
I think is the best word to use to describe them -- in the United States.
Now, who are they?

They would be politicians. People in the State Department.
They would be international financiers.
We must remember, for example, that the land
where the United Nations is seated
was purchased by the Rockefellers, and donated to the United Nations.
Well, they didn't do that as a means of
being great humanitarians...
although that's the image that many people have.
They did it because they had a keen interest in
building this New World Order, and they
thought this would be the seat for it, and so
that's why they did that.

So, the people behind it in the United States
are the international financiers, who are located here, the primary:
the Rockefeller group.
And what's left of the old J.P. Morgan group.
And some of the larger banks.
But, primarily, you find most of these people in an organization
that is not well known, but definitely very important.
It's called the Council on Foreign Relations.
It's a group in the United States with about 4,000 members,
at the most. And yet, these people,
-- number one -- are all dedicated to building a New World Order,
a global government, based on the model of collectivism.

And -- number two -- you find them at the tops of most of the important organizations in this country.
You find them in government.
About half of our Presidents, and Vice Presidents, and uh --
just about all of our Secretaries of State
and Secretaries of Defense, and heads of the CIA and the
FBI and all of the important positions in government.
If you look at who these people are, over the years, they're members of this
Council on Foreign Relations.
Most of the great universities -- they have as their President -- or
their Board of Directors dominated by members of the
Council on Foreign Relations.

The news channels: ABC, CBS, NBC,
the Turner Broadcasting system.
Murdoch, I mean Murdoch is a well known member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
So, all of these major power centers of society
are in the hands of this small group.
Under 4,000 members.

And so, you ask, who is behind it?
If you want a list, that's a good place to start.
Write to the Council on Foreign Relations Office in
New York, as I have done every year,
and I ask for a membership report, or annual report.
And on the back of each report, they proudly list
all of their members.
So, that's where you find WHO is behind the United Nations.

Title slide: International Elites

That's a hard word for many people to accept-- or phrase--
to accept that we have an internationalist elite.
A lot of people believe, you know, that in this country,
we are the masters of our own political destiny.
We don't have an elite.
Maybe we have some rich people; yes, we have some powerful people.
But, the idea of an elite, or an international elite
is foreign to the thinking of a lot of Americans.

But, the truth is, we do have one.
And their intention is to -- number one -- maintain
their positions of being the elite; having
vast power and control. And financial wealth.
And -- number two -- to extend it to the international level.
We have these international elites. We call them international, but
basically, they're housed in each nation. We have them in England,
in France, in the United States, in Germany and so forth.
And now, the big move among these people is to coalesce
into a true international elite whereby
THEY will be operating through the governmental power of the United Nations.
Now, they really have clout. Because there's no nation in the world that can escape their power. Because the way these people work is that they --
if they want to accomplish something --
if they have an agenda --
let's just pick one at random:
Or another one:
population control,
or something like that.

As it is now, they have to convince each of the respective nations and their governments to implement those agendas.
But, once you have a true United Nations with true governmental power,
with real military forces,
and once you have turned over to these agencies of international power
control over your armies and over your air force...
and over your weapons of mass destruction...
you have created a global government, which is --
-- uh, cannot be challenged by any nation whatsoever.

So, now, these international elites do not have to worry about
convincing the governments in each part of the world,
as long as they control the center of this power,
which is the United Nations.
They therefore can control the world.
It's a very heady wine, I'm sure. But that's what
their objective is.

Title slide: United States Obligation
to the United Nations

But, the obligation of the United States to the United Nations
on a legal front has become entwined in these things we call treaties.
So, if you're talking as a globalist, or as an internationalist, and
you want to see the building of this New World Order,
you would say that
our obligation to the United Nations is legal, and it's binding, because
the United Nations has the status of a treaty.
And then, we have all these sub-treaties that follow along after it
NAFTA and GATT, and all these organizations that are created,
those are all based on treaty agreements.

And so, piece by piece, they have been weaving this fabric around this,
like the little silk threads that the Lilliputians wrapped around-- who was the--
Gulliver! -- Gulliver's Travels. I mean, any one thread, you could break.

But, Gulliver woke up one morning and he had these
thousands of little threads around his body and
although he was a giant compared to them,
he could not move. They had captured him.
So, I think that's basically what's going on.

And, in that sense, we have this obligation to the United Nations because we are being bound down
by thousands of treaties,
and it's destroying our independence.

- 30 -

Kathleen Moore
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union


YouTube Channel: CrazyforCanada

Tuesday, October 12, 2010


Blogger's Note: I have altered the title a bit to attract the reader who might otherwise pass by.

Communist Voting - Reminds me of the Quebec Referendums


The "New European Soviet": the European Union is rapidly descending into totalitarianism. Under NAFTA and the proposed FTAA, U.S. policymakers have adopted the same socialist EU program

by Vilius Brazenas | Sept 6, 2004 | The New American

I am going to tell you a story about Europe and America. It is a true story about tyranny and freedom, about hope, folly, deception and betrayal. It is also a warning about grave danger. Alarmed at the trends I see, I feel obliged to tell this story. Now in my 91st year, I am one of the few living souls who have experienced the major events of the last century. Being both European and American, I have witnessed and studied these events from opposite sides of the Atlantic.

I am Lithuanian by birth and saw my small country suffer under both Nazi and Communist brands of totalitarianism. My family was trapped in Russia when the Bolshevik Revolution brought the Communists to power. As a young boy in Moscow, in 1922, I was forced to march with my classmates in the Communist May Day parade in front of Vladimir Lenin himself.

Vilius Bražėnas - Kad tiek kovų nenueitų veltui (1-ma dalis)

VideoLife Uzerinden Izle
[If anyone can understand... I presume this is Lithuanian he's speaking... this is the man, Mr. Vilius Brazenas. There are a number of other videos of him at this source page: http://www.videolife.tk/video/z9r64XbiUm8/Vilius-Bra%C5%BE%C4%97nas-Kad-tiek-kov%C5%B3-nenueit%C5%B3-veltui-1-ma-dalis.html]

Like much of Europe, Lithuania was overrun in the 1940s by the Soviet Red Army, then by the Nazis, and then again by the Soviets. In 1944, as the Soviet Red Army was reinvading Lithuania, and after facing Soviet tanks, I was able to escape with my wife and daughter. In 1949, we were able to come to America and, later, thank God, to become U.S. citizens.

In January 2003 I came back to live in Lithuania. As an author, speaker and newspaper columnist, I am attempting to use my talents and opportunities in the time that I have left to warn my countrymen--both American and Lithuanian--about the very real and present danger to freedom posed by the evolving European Union (EU) and the very similar project proposed for North and South America called the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

Most Americans have only a very hazy understanding about what the EU is and an even foggier notion of how it came about. Unfortunately, most Europeans also have a very poor understanding of these things. They have only recently begun to recognize how blind they have been to the very real threats that the growing centralization of power in the EU poses to their national independence and their freedoms.

However, it must be said that the main reason why Europeans and Americans both have such foggy notions about the EU is that the EU architects and promoters have purposely kept the real origins and objectives of the EU shrouded in deception. They had to do this, in order to foist this scheme on the peoples of Europe. If they had openly proclaimed their true objective--to end national sovereignty and create an unaccountable, socialist suprastate--the entire scheme would have been rejected overwhelmingly, right from the start.

When former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev visited Britain in 2000, he accurately described the European Union as "the new European Soviet." He said this with obvious approval, since he sees the evolving EU as fulfilling his vision of a "common European home" stretching "from the Atlantic to the Urals," as he described it in his 1987 book Perestroika. Mr. Gorbachev is a lifelong Communist overlord who has steadfastly refused to renounce Communism.

In fact, he defiantly remains a Communist. On December 23, 1989, Gorbachev declared to his fellow Soviets, "I am a communist. For some that may be a fantasy. But for me it is my main goal." On February 26, 1991, Gorbachev said, "I am not ashamed to say that I am a communist and adhere to the communist idea, and with this I will leave for the other world." He has repeated these sentiments many times. In his book he also stated: "I frankly admit that we are glad that the idea of a 'common European home' finds understanding among prominent political and public figures of not only Eastern, but also Western Europe...."

It is highly significant that a top-level Marxist-Leninist such as Mikhail Gorbachev could find such affinity with Western leaders about a "common European home" and then, 13 years later, approvingly note that that common home was moving ever closer to the Soviet model. After all, hadn't the Soviet model collapsed and died? But Mr. Gorbachev was, at least in this instance, telling the truth; the EU has been, and is now, moving steadily toward Soviet-style tyranny.

The European Parliament, the European Commission and other EU institutions in Brussels, Strasbourg, Frankfurt and The Hague are dominated by radical socialists and dedicated one-worlders who are bent on smashing the individual, once-independent nation states of Europe into Soviet-style conformity with the oppressive dictates of the new EU Politburo.

A Revolutionary Coup d'Etat

In their powerful expose, The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union (2003), British journalist Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North, formerly a researcher inside the EU bureaucracy, aptly describe the EU as "a slow-motion coup d'etat: the most spectacular coup d'etat in history." In what remains of this article, I will attempt to explain why that description by Mr. Booker and Dr. North is no exaggeration and how this spectacular coup has come about. It is also my intent to show how the deceptive NAFTA-FTAA process is directly related to the EU and patterned after it to achieve the same kind of coup d'etat in the Americas.

The "European project," as the EU designers refer to their ongoing revolution, was launched with the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The Common Market was born the following December when Italy became the sixth nation to ratify the treaty (joining France, Belgium, West Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg). It was sold to the peoples of Europe as a "free trade" agreement that would bring prosperity by removing barriers to the movement of people, goods, services and capital across borders.

In fact, it was a program for national suicide, for gradual, "slow-motion" political and economic merger of the member nations. Booker and North write that Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak, known in Europe as "Mr. Socialist," was responsible for convincing his fellow EU founding fathers that "the most effective way to disguise their project's political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretense that it was concerned only with economic co-operation, based on dismantling trade barriers: a 'common market.'"

The Treaty of Rome was, in truth, a constitution for a new government disguised as a treaty. Traditionally, a treaty is an agreement between sovereign states, concerning borders, military alliances, trade relations, extradition, etc. The parties to the treaty remain sovereign states; their form of government is not altered and their citizens are not directly bound with new laws or obligations. The Treaty of Rome, however, created a new, overarching "community" independent of its member states and claiming the power to create laws that are binding not only on the member nations but on their individual citizens as well.

This was not noticed by the people at first, because the EU founders were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.

The original Treaty of Rome has been repeatedly modified by subsequent treaties and legislation, all of which have greatly enhanced the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the central EU government. The European Communities Act (1972), the Single European Act (1986), the Schengen Agreement (1990), the Maastricht Treaty (1992), the Amsterdam Treaty (1998), and the Treaty of Nice (2000) are some of the most important benchmarks that have transferred vast powers piecemeal to Brussels, where the EU is headquartered.

The eurofederalists cloak this destructive, revolutionary process under such code words as "integration," "harmonization," and "convergence." In 1991, the Single European Act was coming into force and beginning to show the very ugly teeth that had been built into it. At that time, Sir Peregrine Worsthorne of the Sunday Telegraph, one of Britain's major newspapers, expressed in a column the sense of betrayal and outrage felt by many in Europe. "Twenty years ago, when the process began," he wrote, "there was no question of losing sovereignty. That was a lie, or at any rate, a dishonest obfuscation."

It was actually a multitude of lies. The EU founders and their successors have been carrying forward nothing less than a brazen scheme of treason dressed up as economic trade policy. And treason is not too harsh a word, for many of the key leaders of this operation are government officials who are betraying a sacred trust and have been lying outright to their constituents. As Sir Worsthorne pointed out, for decades the EU advocates had explicitly lied, insisting that the developing EU would not affect national sovereignty, and that EU laws and regulations would not override national laws and constitutions. These were wild, paranoid fantasies, they said.

Warnings about the true nature of the EU were routinely smothered by the globalist controlled, pro-EU press--which includes nearly all the major media organs. Now that the project is entering its final stages, however, the eurofederalists are dropping all pretenses and admitting openly what they previously denied. They can hardly help it now, since the EU established a constitutional convention in 2002 to draw up a formal constitution for a United States of Europe. At nearly 300 pages, the document is an open-ended power grab, with none of the checks and balances and means of accountability that we enjoy in our U.S. Constitution.

Many Americans, no doubt, tend to consider the Common Market and the EU as positive steps toward greater freedom. After all, it certainly is more convenient to have only one currency, the euro, when touring the continent. But whatever conveniences it may offer are offset by far more important concerns. Consider:

* Regulatory nightmare. British grocers have been arrested and fined for continuing to sell bananas and other produce by the pound instead of by the EU's newly mandated metric weights. Similarly, the EU dictates on the shape and size of cucumbers, the consistency of marmalade, the texture and taste of chocolate, and thousands of other consumer items.

* Acquis communautaire. The EU already operates under the doctrine of acquis communautaire, which holds that all members must adopt EU law in its entirety, and further, that once the EU usurps the right to legislate in a new area, its authority in that area is guaranteed in perpetuity. Thus, power is guaranteed to flow in one direction--from the member states to the central government.

* Corpus juris. The corpus juris is the new legal code initiated by the Amsterdam Treaty that will, among other things, set up a European Public Prosecutor with overriding criminal law jurisdiction throughout Europe. Habeas corpus, trial by jury and other important protections will be swept away.

* Unlimited migration. Signatory countries of the EU Schengen Agreement have given up their right to police their borders, thus allowing illegal aliens--including terrorists--to travel freely between countries. With Russia and other former Soviet states, along with Turkey, scheduled for membership, we will soon have millions of new migrants, including many Communists and militant Muslims migrating at will throughout Europe--much like what could happen to the U.S. if the FTAA is implemented.

* Economic control. With the establishment of the euro currency and the European Central Bank, the EU countries have lost control of their fiscal and monetary policy as well as their currencies.

* Destroying agriculture. The EU's Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) has taken control of nearly all agriculture and has nearly destroyed British agriculture.

* Power to tax. The EU already claims the authority to dictate indirect tax policies such as the VAT (value added tax) on clothes, food, public transport, fuel, construction, homes, etc. The Treaty of European Union declares that EU decisions to "impose pecuniary obligation on persons other than States shall be enforceable." That means direct taxes on individuals.

* Coercive military and police power. If the Eurocrats have their way, they will soon have European military and police forces to enforce their increasingly dictatorial edicts.

The architects of NAFTA and the FTAA openly cite the EU as the model for their proposed regional "common market" for the Western Hemisphere. For example, Mexican President Vicente Fox acknowledged on May 16, 2002: "Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish ... an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union." At the time Fox was referring specifically to the three NAFTA countries (the U.S., Canada, and Mexico); the proposed FTAA would further develop the "ensemble of connections" while extending them throughout the Americas.

President Bush, President Fox and the "new world order" Power Elite at the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Council of the Americas have all adopted the deceptive terminology of the EU--"integration," "harmonization," "convergence"--to describe their "American project." They have adopted an aggressive schedule, intending to do in a few years what it has taken the eurocrats decades to accomplish.

We can and must stop this treasonous plan--or Mr. Gorbachev and his ilk will soon be able to gloat about the "new American Soviet."



Originally published: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/4826-the-qnew-european-sovietq

Re-published: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_18_20/ai_n25095870/


Few other human beings were eye witnesses to, and participants in, events of the 20th Century as was Vilius Brazenas. A survivor of wars, revolution, plague, famine, foreign military occupations and forced deportations, he became a tireless champion of freedom and unyielding foe of totalitarianism in all its forms. Mr. Brazenas passed away at the age of 97, in a hospital in Vilnius, Lithuania, on October 3 following complications from a recent fall.

"Vilius Brazenas: Lithuanian-American Freedom Fighter Extraordinaire"
The New American, Friday, 08 October 2010 18:00
Written by William F. Jasper

Url: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/4823-vilius-brazenas-lithuanian-american-freedom-fighter-extraordinaire


A light has gone out, but his flame still burns bright in our darkness.
Thank you, Mr. Brazenas.

Kathleen Moore
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union

Sunday, September 12, 2010


On April 17th, 2008, the MARXIST-LENINIST DAILY published its coverage and SUPPORT of the Canadian Action Party, then led by closet Stalinist Constance Clara Fogal (Connie Fogal*) marching to demand a "BINDING REFERENDUM" on the SPP, which means on the annexation of Canada to the USA. The ML Daily entitles its coverage: "Toronto Rally Demands Binding Referendum on Canada's Participation in the SPP".

Says the ML Daily: "Hundreds of people participated in the rally demanding an end to Canada's participation in the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), saying No! to a North American Union and yes to Canadian sovereignty." The article also reports that "[t]he specific demand put forward by the rally was for a binding referendum of the Canadian people to decide whether or not Canada would continue to participate in the SPP."

The ML Daily continues: "The Canadian Action Party, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada, Green Party ad Libertarian Party" SENT SPEAKERS to address the rally." And, continuing: "Pierre Chenier spoke on behalf of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada.

[I don't suppose he's the same Pierre Chenier of Paul Rose's "Chenier cell" of the terrorist group which kidnapped and is alleged to have murdered Quebec Labour Minister, Pierre Laporte at the outset of the 1970 October Crisis. On the other hand this Marxist Chenier who marched for the pro-Referendum gang on the SPP in 2008 has been a long-time member of the Communist Party of Canada and the Marxist-Leninists; he has sought political office many times in both Ontario and Quebec. He was 54 in 2008, 56-ish now. I'm 57. He would have been 17-ish in 1970. His occupation is that of a printer; would have come in handy running off broadsides for the FLQ... Does anyone have any more information? Is this the same Pierre Chenier?]

Marching with the Canadian Action Party in 2008, Pierre Chenier forcefully stated that Canada must get out of aggressive annexationist treaties such as SPP, as well as NAFTA and NATO... these treaties violate Canada's sovereignty... Our Party will continue to go all out to build the unity in action of Canadians to defeat the SPP and this North American Union, he concluded."

Did you get that? The COMMUNISTS are supporting Canadian sovereignty! They are supporting an END to the SPP and NAFTA, which are the basis of continental merger and hemispheric merger... on the way to world government, which is GLOBALISM which is exactly what Communism was FOUNDED TO ACHIEVE.

We are supposed to take at face value that Marxist-Leninists joined forces with the Canadian Action Party and other assorted leftists at a rally to DEMAND A BINDING REFERENDUM on whether Canada should be ANNEXED to the USA and that the Marxists were there to HELP SAVE CANADA!

Evidently, what they were there to do was to help SHOVE Canada over the brink by encouraging naive Canadians to put the Constitution of Canada up to a crap shoot --

What else is wrong with this picture?

[1] The MARXISTS (via Fidel Castro) were behind the founding in 1959-1963 of the FLQ -- the Front de libération du Québec, a terrorist group set up in Quebec to destroy the Constitution of Canada for an "open society" based in the FLQ's understanding of Marxist ideology.

[2] The Constitution of Canada, as the supreme and BINDING law of Canada, by its own existence and operation, absolutely prohibits the annexation of Canada to the United States of America. Indeed, Canada was founded in 1867 to prevent annexation, which being the constitutional purpose of the founding statute is non-derogable. A "referendum" on the SPP, an extension of NAFTA, and aimed to integrate Canada into the USA and Mexico, thus annexing Canada, introduces an OPTION which the Constitution does not allow. The Constitution says NO to annexation; a referendum on the SPP introduces a YES option, which the Constitution forbids.

The illusion of "democracy" is being used by the Canadian Action Party and its hard-core Communist supporters, to introduce a highly manageable RISK of tricking Canadians into VOTING YES to annex Canada to the USA and Mexico. Canadians foolish enough to believe in such an option and to vote in such a referendum, when they have NO CONTROL OVER ballot counts and vote results under corrupt pro-annexationist, pro-corporate governments, would be shooting themselves in their political foot -- to the absolute delight of the Marxists.

Within just a few days after I located and thank God downloaded this page from the ML Daily web site, the page disappeared from its URL, which was in the online ARCHIVES of the Marxist-Leninist Daily (also called the “Le Marxiste-Léniniste quotidien) in French: http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2008/D38058.htm#3

I found the google cache, however, and PDF'd it along with the dead link, and along with US Marxist sites that also picked up the Toronto Rally and support it. All have been placed at CALAMEO and linked to this blog update in the right-hand margin.

The 2008 Rally to demand a "Binding Referendum" on the annexation of Canada was emceed by Canadian Action Party candidate, Vijay Sarma; the Toronto instance of the pro-referendum action was organized by Canadian Action Party leadership contender Wendy Forrest and Karen Wittke, using a Facebook group to summon participants for the rally.

Canadian Action Party (CAP) was founded by former Trudeau appointee, Paul Hellyer (who now chases UFO's and urges us humans to "partner" in "development" with aliens his ex-Air-Force pal psychically communes with). Hellyer handed the reins of the CAP to staunch Vancouver Communist, Connie Fogal. For a good spoof on this gang and their Executive (alien-loving globalists) behind the CAP scenes, visit: "Canadian Soviet Action Party" (best viewed in Internet Explorer for the animations). On the subject of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, see my 2008 video, WHISPER:


* Constance Clara Fogal is the widow of hard-core Stalinist Harry Rankin, at whose funeral in 2002 the communist hymn, "Internationale" was sung by a choir. See: "North American Soviet Union" post in this Blogspot.

Friday, April 3, 2009

Referendum Rally Speech

Connie Fogal's "REFERENDUM" Rally Speech
What's Wrong With It?

This post will give you a section by section Constitutional analysis of what is vitally wrong with everything Connie Fogal-Rankin is preaching as an action-plan for Canadians in her 16 February 2008 Vancouver Art Gallery anti-SPP and anti-NAU Rally speech.

The basic premise of this post is the following:

It is a trick of Communists to interpose a false dialectic to manipulate and stick-handle two artificially created sides down the road to a pre-planned conclusion.

Connie Fogal is a Communist.

A referendum is ideal for magically creating artificial sides.

The Constitution of Canada says "NO," you cannot destroy this country. But a referendum introduces YES.

This is one reason referendums are incompatible with the Westminster-model Parliamentary democracy of Canada. They introduce an illusory option, they magically create "sides" where the Constitution has definitively spoken; in other words, where there are no sides.

If you buy into the illusion of a referendum, you overthrow your own Constitution. You assist those perpetrating treason. You make treason appear to be a political option.

Treason is never a political option; it is perjury of an oath of allegiance, and things don't get better after that, they get worse.

The Constitution of Canada is a guarantee against non-Constitutional action by the Executive.

If the Constitution is upheld—and there are ways to uphold it built into the Canadian Constitutional system—there are no sides for Communists, or anyone else, to manipulate.

In addition, the Fogal dialectic, like so many other Communist dialectics, is a false one. You cannot vote YES to treason and NO to treason. Treason is a criminal act. The remedy for a criminal act is legal, not political.

No one elected to office under the Constitution, has any power, authority or ability to replace, remove, or overthrow the Constitution, which is the framework of the nation of Canada. That is because the Constitution itself is the source—the only source—of temporary and limited access to power by those elected "under" it who can only use that power for purposes which the Constitution establishes.

The Constitution is the source of all lesser authority. Think of it as a plan for distributing temporary power for a very specific objective.

Think of it as a high mountain lake from which streams of authority flow downhill to lesser power-holders. No one has more authority than the Constitution; everyone necessarily has less authority than the Constitution. No stream can rise above its source. To rise above the source is to reverse the power, is to become the lake. If you rise above the Constitutional stream, you are a traitor.

If you seize power for yourself, if you seek to become the source, or to make someone else the source, or some coalition the source, or some group the source, that's treason. The attempt to eliminate Canada for a North American Parliament, or for a one-world government is treason.

The lake is the upper limit. No elected official can rise above it and still be in office under it. You can't destroy the upper limit without destroying all the streams of authority flowing from it, including your own.

If you destroy your source of authority, that means you have stolen power, you have breached your oath, you have extinguished your office, because your office doesn't exist anywhere except under the Constitution. All your acts, and all the acts of those you convene to aid and assist you, are null and void, because they are outside the Constitution, not under it.

That is why, in Constitutional law of Canada, we say "under" the Constitution, because no one is ever above it.

No citizen is above it, no elected official is above it. No action of anyone appointed or elected under it, is, or can ever be, outside or above it.

Oaths of allegiance are required to exercise office under it because the temptation to rise above limited power, and seize unconstitutional power, meaning to seize source power, power which it is unconstitutional for you to have, is too great.

The oath is the word of honor of the office-holder that he will uphold the Constitution. That he will not rise above it. "UP"-hold, keep it "UP", maintain it as the source, the upper limit; and himself under it, below it.

The purpose of the oath is to prevent the temporary office-holder from exploiting his position of power for a purpose foreign to the Constitution, meaning opposed to it or outside of it. The reason we have frequent elections written into the Constitution is to juggle the power-holders; to keep people and groups from getting a hold on too much power. Otherwise, any one of them would eventually become Fidel Castro.

Once you understand this, you will realize that you do not politically campaign against treason. You expose it, you prosecute it, you punish it, and you absolutely and utterly must remove it.

You do not wave placards at it.

If you wave a placard at treason, if you beg treason, if you "demand" of treason the "right" to vote on "whether or not" you will accept what treason wants to give you, you aid and abet treason. You are treating treason like the source. You have been duped.

Because the answer to treason is always NO. There is never a Yes. But a referendum introduces a false YES, a false option. It creates an illusion; it politicizes treason by tricking you into a mistake of fact.

Referendums manipulate you into mistaking the punishable crime of treason for a political act. Good scam. This is why the modern colonial system loves democracy, and uses war to export it. Because voting for anything other than your elected representative introduces highly manipulable false options.

Connie Fogal-Rankin is an expert Communist agitator whose goal is to introduce the illusion of YES beside the Constitution's absolute NO to annexation. One purpose of this blog is to prevent Connie Fogal-Rankin from becoming any more of an expert.

Speaking to an exhilarated crowd, Connie Fogal-Rankin told Canadians this:

"What they must do at this time—because it's too late only to be talking—what they must do is demand a referendum for the people of this country to say whether or not we want to be integrated into a North American entity..."

A referendum on the annexation of Canada contravenes the absolute prohibition of annexation in the Constitution of Canada. A referendum introduces an option where the Constitution strictly & completely excludes any option. Canada is a nation, not an option. A referendum says "maybe Yes, maybe No" to annexation. The Constitution says NO to annexation.

If you introduce "maybe Yes, maybe No," then the ball is in the air. The unbreakable Constitution suddenly appears capable of being broken.

In 1867, United Kingdom Parliament enacted the British North America Act, 1867 to prevent the annexation of the British North American colonies to the United States of America. That is the purpose of the Constitution of Canada. The purpose must always be given effect by every elected or appointed official, including every Judge in every Court, even the highest Court. Because even that highest Court is "under" the Constitution; it taps into the down-flow of power, it is not the lake.

Connie Fogal-Rankin also said:

"But, talk to them, make demonstrations in front of their— but ultimately, it's a two-pronged thing: we need a government that's gonna be a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Those were good words in the States. But you need an informed citizenry, and you are being informed. You have to continue to be—"

Those weren't just "good words," as Ms. Fogal would know, being a lawyer. "Of the people, by the people, for the people" is a specific form of government called a Republic. Which is utterly different from the Westminster Model Constitution of Canada, a specific form of government called a Parliamentary democracy.
Under this model, the Westminster Model of Constitution, the sovereignty of Canada is in trust in the hands of government. And Parliament is the people in their political capacity. The "job" of the Canadian electorate is to see that elected representatives act Constitutionally, and not to directly act, themselves, as in referendums.

If those in government, any branch of government — appointed or elected — violate the trust of temporary access to limited power, the Prerogative Writs are the remedy provided to stop them, i.e. habeas corpus and quo warranto. In the case of treason, quo warranto removes the usurpers for criminal prosecution.

What is "Quo Warranto"?

The term is Latin and refers to a special legal procedure taken to stop a person or a body of persons from doing something for which they have no legal authority. In other words, they are outside the law. They are acting personally, not on authority of law.

Quo Warranto literally means "By what warrant are you holding office?" By what source of authority?

Quo Warranto is a legal challenge to a person or to a body of people who purport to exercise an office or a power they do not have in law, or an office or power which does not exist in law.

Those who are now attempting to annex Canada can be challenged to show a source of power for their acts. As there is no source, and as these acts place the perpetrators outside the Constitution, and above the law, they are no longer in office "under" the Constitution. Quo Warranto will remove them.

The people can't vote to give power that doesn't exist in the Constitution. Referendums are a way to side-step the naked fact that there is no power. They conceal the lack of power. They substitute a phoney "democratic" vote for the Constitution.

Referendums play into their hands by pretending that giving the people a chance to vote on treason legitimates the treason. Of course, they don't call it treason; the whole point of the referendum is to conceal that it's treason.

Referendums make the people rise above the source of power. Now, everybody's outside the Constitution: the crooks and the electorate. What a ball game!

When you are outside the Constitution, you are in a very dangerous situation, you are pawns being used by the usurpers detaining the Prime Minister's Office of Canada, or the Premier's office of a Province. They are using you to make themselves look like they are, in fact, really in office.

Referendums are the ideal tool of people doing things they know to be illegal. The last thing those who are criminally annexing Canada to the U.S.A. want, is for you to start thinking. Referendums keep you from thinking. They distract your attention. They get you to absurdly compete with each other over Yes committees and No committees and who's getting what funding for which "Option". Such as "Option Canada," or "Option Quebec".

(P.S. The frosting on the cake? Prosecuting the No committee for breaking the funding law by sending too many people to wave the Canadian flag at the 1995 phoney referendum. It was never a real referendum; it was never a real law. Not only could there never be such a law in Canada, but the people who passed it weren't even in office. They were separatists, and annexationists disguised as separatists. They were outside the Constitution. They could never be under it, because there is no such thing as a power to secede. The Provinces have no powers except the powers very specifically listed at section 92 of the British North America Act, 1867, now called the Constitution Act, 1867.

They've been running this referendum scam for over 50 years while dismantling the country.

The last thing they want is judicial review, or Quo Warranto.

Given the situation, Connie Fogal-Rankin is absolutely, a 100% the agent of those who are annexing Canada. The Canadian Action Party was created for the purpose of "fighting" to save Canada. Connie said so, herself. That's dialectic. "Maybe yes, maybe No." Two false options.

Do you think that those who are annexing Canada have not thought everything out and realized they would need someone to distract our attention? The phoney Canadian Action Party was planned, like the phoney Parti Quebecois was planned, to make us "demand a referendum"! Oh, are they clever!

In 1967, a secret committee involving Trudeau resolved to create a separatist political party. René Lévesque fulfilled that mandate. The Parti Québécois merged all the little separatist movements into one big movement and used it to try to plant the European Union system on this continent, disguised as "Sovereignty Association".

They turned the people into groups absurdly competing against each other, voting Yes to treason and No to treason... which prevented us from turning on them to remove them.

As Vladimir Bukovsky said, "It's a trick for idiots." And we've been idiots a long time in Canada. Ever since Trudeau. He was our first highly skilled Communist agitator who substituted referendums for the Constitution to hide his total lack of power to "negotiate" with his pal, René Lévesque, on the pre-planned end of Canada.

"But your job—we need, we need elected people, we do need government; if we don't have government, the only alternative—if we can't turn this around in a government way—in a civil way—the only other alternative—is a very bad one that nobody wants to see. It happens in countries all the time. Canada doesn't have to go there. What we, as citizens, have to do, can do, and must do at this time is to continue this kind of activity, which is excellent, excellent..."

In other words, it's VIOLENCE or the VOTE, no other choice. This is the old TRUDEAU dialectic: two false choices presented for resolution of a manufactured problem: FLQ VIOLENCE or a nice PEACEFUL disposal of Canada by REFERENDUM under the PQ. Now, it's another opposition of the risk of civil violence, mob violence versus doing it in a "government way," as Fogal calls it.

When did TREASON become a "government" way? When did it become a "government way" to go along with people in power who are known and who are admitted, even by Fogal, to be perpetrating TREASON? Since when do people who are perpetrating TREASON to destroy a nation get to be called "government"? Why is Fogal pretending that people who have violated and are violating clear oaths of allegiance are "government" whose actions are to be contested solely in campaigns at the voting booth and with placards and sit-ins?

Hellyer was a Trudeau man. He was a Lester Pearson man. He was a Minister in the Pearson government. But, Pearson was a Soviet spy consciously feeding information to a Communist agent employed in Canada's National Film Board. Pearson played key roles in setting up the United Nations, the front of the future center of one-world government, as the EU today is the front of the future world federation UNDER it.

And Hellyer was a Trudeau man, he was National Defense Minister in the 1968 Trudeau government. Trudeau presented us with REFERENDUMS, not Rene Levesque. Rene Levesque was nothing but Trudeau's bagman, he worked for his bosses in the secret committee in the Lester Pearson government, run by Power Corporation, the SAME corporation that today is a founding member of the CCCE, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives that has given us the 2005 blueprint for the final dismantling and ultimate annexation of the landmass of Canada into the U.S. and Mexico.

Connie Fogal-Rankin is a known Communist who succeeded to Hellyer; and who is operating the SAME SCAM as Trudeau and Pearson operated. The one-world government scam. CONNING people to get it done! Politicizing it to give it power and a good long political lifespan so it can GET its work done.

This is from Fogal's 2008 Election presentation:

More preaching about "VOTING" to 'save' Canada; more of that sales job alleging that we need to "fight" to save Canada, we need to politically CAMPAIGN to "save" Canada, we need a PARTY to save the country. It's all a lie. Canada is not an option. It's a nation. You cannot say Yes to Canada, or No to Canada. Canada IS.

From The Nation's Deathbed - Part 3:

"It's a disgrace in Canada that we have not one political party that's in Parliament, not one provincial party in this country who are saying "We do not want a North American Union". This small party, called the Canadian Action Party that's been around since 1997, based on sovereignty and independence is a party that's saying to the Canadians, "We're here for you, we're the vehicle." The other parties have let us all down, and the only reason the Canadian Action Party exists is precisely because none of the other parties are prepared to stand up for the nation of Canada, the independence of Canada and the sovereignty of Canada."

"We do not want" -- Canada is not the subject of anyone's volition. No one elected to any office in Canada has any power under the Constitution to eliminate Canada. There is no power to replace Canada with any other form of government, or any other political arrangement. There is no power for those acting UNDER the Constitution in organs of government created BY the Constitution, to overthrow and remove directly or indirectly the source of their power. The Constitution cannot be overthrown by any politician or coalition of politicians, because the moment they attempt to do so, they become TRAITORS, and then they have no more power. None at all. They are de facto, not de jure; they are self-discharged for perjury of their oaths and abuse of the LIMITED power to which they were given temporary access on the sole condition of ALLEGIANCE.

[ Fix this .... The "political" scam: protects TREASON by campaigning against it as if it were politics not crime. Why aren't the PARTIES standing up, the parties should SAY something, it should be POLITICALLY opposed. By pretending that the correct response, and the only response to TREASON is political, is for parties to win VOTERS away from TREASON, Fogal—like Trudeau and his gang before her— gives political power to criminality. She allows it to run, she FUELS it by politicizing it; she gives it a SIDE in a DEBATE, in a false dialectic which introduces the absolutely and utterly false idea that the PEOPLE can VOTE to approve or disapprove TREASON. This false dialectic joins the people in the TREASON, it exploits the people to legitimate the TREASON by urging them to demand of TRAITORS the right to VOTE yes or no to their TREASON. . . . ]

There is no need to politically "stand up" for the sovereignty of Canada. The sovereignty of Canada is the fundamental obligation of government. When those detaining government move to dispose of that obligation, someone like Connie Fogal-Rankin comes in handy to introduce a FALSE OPTION, to create a phony dialectic between TWO FALSE PREMISES: yes to treason and NO to treason. TREASON is not political. It is CRIMINAL. The remedies are swift and LEGAL, not POLITICAL.

The "only" reason it exists is to create a false dialectic to fuel and perpetuate the treason, to allow it time to do its work. That was the "only" reason in 1967 that Trudeau's secret committee resolved that Rene Levesque should create a new phony party to bring in the EU system disguised as separation for Quebec. It introduced a second POLE, an OPTION, something to FIGHT against, and thus time to operate while dragging out the battle, the phony "fight" to save Canada. Because without that phony "fight," which democratized treason as a "government way" opposed to FLQ-style violence... the Constitution of Canada, is a 100% bar to secession, and to annexation, and these people needed then, as now, to get rid of it. It's all that stands in the way of a one-world Communist government.

1 - "disgrace" we're not politicizing it with a false option of a political "no" to treason, creates the false impression that treason, itself, is a legitimate political option.

2 - "We do not want" - there it is, that's the false option, the "we do not want". This is not relevant to treason. You don't DEBATE with treason; you REMOVE it.

3 - a political party "based on" "sovereignty and independence" for Canada, there it is again. The false option created and politicized. Sovereignty and independence are not OPTIONS under the Constitution of Canada, they are IMPERATIVES.

There is no need for any political party to take up sides in a false debate over Sovereignty yes, or Sovereignty no. The Constitution is a guarantee of the legal, national, political sovereignty and independence of Canada.

Creating a party allegedly to oppose TREASON, fuels the treason, it gives it longevity, it allows it time to do its work, which is the work of sedition while it carries out the internal dismantling of the nation. It empowers a coup d'etat to take up highest office, to enter the summit of the nation, and from there to take it down.

Trudeau knew this. He was part of a secret committee as early as 1967 which worked to escalate separatism, radicalize soft nationalists to the point of being "shocking" and then he ran for Prime Minister of Canada, so he could he "fight" and lose! Because without that false dialectic, without that phony political front given to TREASON, the Constitution of Canada designed in 1864-1865 to last "a thousand years," "for all time to come"—and those words are from the Hunter Rose 1865 Debates on Confederation—the Constitution of Canada is unbreakable.

And that's the barrier these guys needed to circumvent in 1967, and in 1980, and in 1995, and which they have tried and tried again, but couldn't circumvent. They couldn't con the voters into destroying our own country. They got close, but they never made it.

And now, it's a new phony party. A Hellyer party, a Trudeau man from the "politicize treason" era.

And a new scam to politicize the treason which was being planned even back then, with Lévesque and Trudeau: not "Sovereignty Association," not political "Partnership" of Qu&"#233;bec and the "Rest of Canada," but North American Communist Union, North American Soviet Union. The EU form of government for this whole continent. Goodbye, the United States of America. Goodbye, Canada.

That is what the Communists have always worked for. The end of nations. Not the betterment of nations, not the advancement of nations, but the end.

That is what Connie Fogal-Rankin is working for. Just like Trudeau, who single-handedly introduced the otherwise non-existent concept of the end of Canada, and politicized it. He politicized treason. He politicized a false option, as if Canada were not the unbreakable nation it is under this incredible Constitution that we have all been raised in ignorance of by people pointing at Americans, and quoting American patriots, and American politicians, so that we would forget who we are, and what Canada is made of. Because Canada was designed to be the opposite of the American Constitution, so that it wouldn't be breakable.

Trudeau, closest Communist—(actually, he was well out of the closet; we were just too mesmerized by corporate-owned press to notice)—Trudeau took up the FALSE dialectical position of YES to Canada, without which, nobody could ever have said NO to Canada in a phony, illegal referendum. A referendum invented not by Lévesque, but by Trudeau.

- - -
- Connie Fogal: Political Party's Purpose: Sovereignty of Canada

"It's a disgrace in Canada that we have not one political party that's in Parliament, not one provincial party in this country who are saying, We do not want a North American Union. This small party called the Canadian Action Party that's been around since 1997, BASED on sovereignty and independence, is a party that's saying to the Canadians, We're here for you. We're the vehicle. The other parties have let us all down, and the only reason the Canadian Action Party exists is precisely BECAUSE none of the other parties are prepared to stand up for the nation of Canada, the independence of Canada and the sovereignty of Canada."

SNIP: from Nation's Deathbed 3

- - -

- "Taking No Referendum from the People"

"And partnership, as well; they think that this is a partnership. But, it is a partnership made up by unelected bodies that do not represent the people's interests because they are taking no referendum from the people. They are not taking the people's into into account."

- - -

- "Demand a National Referendum" on SPP/NAU

"On February 16th, 2008, about 500 concerned Canadians of all ages braved the frigid cold and descended upon Queen's Park to voice their dissent and demand of politicians a national referendum to stop Canada's participation in the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America."

Notes: The Constitution is an absolute prohibition against annexation of Canada; a referendum introduces Maybe Yes/ Maybe No to annexation. The referendum is illegal because it contravenes the absolute NO to annexation of the Constitution.

- - -