allcreatorsgifts.org
Home



Commentary :: Imperialism
The Myth of Canada!
by *Natural
Church of God.*
jackharper
http://kcindymedia.org/newswire/display/46432/index.php

Canada is created on lies, deceit, theft and the fact alledged 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 (DE JURE) 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 elite 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.

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.

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?

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.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain
This work is in the public domain




allcreatorsgifts
Home