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.

- - -


1 comment:

Mike Smith said...