View topic - Republic or Refederate? :: Free Dominion - Principled Conservative - Party and Canadian Politics

Posted: 02/ 01/ 04 12:28 pm Post subject: Republic or Refederate?

REFEDERATION OR REPUBLIC

Refederation

The Architect of the “Alberta Agenda”, Ted Morton, is a polital science professor at U of C and has been involved in mainstream conservative politics for some time. He is supported by the new Citizens Centre (previously the Report Magazine) headed up by the Byfields. Ted Morton is an Alberta "Senator in Waiting" (to be appointed). His words in the latest flyer sent by the Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy (www.citizenscentre.com) reveal the dangers of the word "Refederate". Ted Morton says, "The Alberta Agenda is not about separatism. Its about restoring the original constitutional assumptions on which Canada was founded."

The question needs to be asked. . Why keep a system which has provided the conditions for tyranny? What is a constitutional assumption? Who's assumption was Canada founded upon? I believe the answer is the British Crown! The parliamentary system is full of the dreadful word "appointed" which takes away the peoples voice. It was written with subjectiveness and is easily interpreted by appointed leaders and judges for the benefit of the government of the day.

It goes without saying that if the west were to separate, why would Westerners still want to be tied to Mother England? I'm convinced sovereignty is what the people would want and I'm sure they would want a constitution which would set in stone the ability to hold their representatives accountable to the people.

Republicanism

It is not too many years ago that Canadians and Americans were regarded as being the most fortunate of people by the rest of the world. Both nations were prosperous, filled with rugged individualism and citizens of both nations were filled with vitality and optimism. But then a strange thing happened. America continued to advance into, as Winston Churchill might have put it, "Sunlit Uplands" while Canada has disintegrated into a morass of expensive, time-consuming, efficiency-robbing and freedom-destroying bureaucracy infiltrating into our lives at virtually every level of society. Once free Canadians now find themselves ruled, manipulated, interfered with and taxed at levels which were virtually unimaginable just a few short generations ago.

What has happened? The answer is simple indeed. The inherent differences in how the two countries were founded and how governments were set in motion have come to the fore. America is a REPUBLIC. Canada is NOT.

Why should such a seemingly minor difference result in such vast differences in the direction the countries are moving? Because the differences are NOT minor at all. They are important and they are significant - and if Canadians ever hope to recapture even a modicum of their former vitality, then they must come to understand that there are two basic choices in society: either society dominates government or government dominates society. America is founded solidly upon the concept that society dominates government. Canada is NOT. Canada instead labours under a form of government by which the bureaucracy and the ruling political aristocracy dominate the entire spectrum of society.

In America, people are free to choose their style of medical care. In Canada they are told what to do.

In America, the government must answer to the people. In Canada, the people must answer to the government.

In America, the concept of a free economy is still dominant. In Canada, regulations, laws and bureaucratic interference abound.

In America, taxation is moderate to low. In Canada, taxation is at staggeringly high levels and tax laws are ruthlessly enforced.

In America, corruption, once exposed, is not tolerated. In Canada, society turns a blind eye to even the most corrupt practices of government leaders.

In America, they still think of themselves as "The Land of the Free." Canadians don't even pretend to such a status.

In America, one language and one language alone - and it is the language spoken by the vast majority - serves as the only official language. In Canada, we have the language of the minority dominating the language of the majority - at the costs of enormous complexity, diminishment of freedom, diminishment of opportunity for the majority and staggering additional financial costs.

One of the most fundamental differences is that Americans truly think of themselves as FREE. Canadians are trained now to think of themselves as unobtrusive subjects of the Her Majesty's Crown and government. Therefore, we are taught to 'go along' while Americans are taught that their freedom is the most important consideration as a nation.

Canadians have little scope to 'punish' corrupt politicians. Americans have many. Because of this difference, there is much less open corruption of government than in Canada. No American politician would dare to openly appoint unqualified friends to positions of great importance. In America, important appointments to positions of high authority must be approved in Congress, after open consultation and debate. In Canada, they are handed out like so much political candy by the Prime Minister's Office.

Canadians must become aware of their precarious situation. Our freedom to function on an equal basis with the rest of the world is being eroded by an all-consuming bureaucracy. Our freedom to function as free and equal citizens in this nation is being eroded by such monstrous policies as bi-lingualism, which, in reality, is nothing more than a program to hand over every national political advantage to those who speak French. Our level of taxation in our nation, our provinces and even our municipalities is destroying the purchasing power of our consumers and is turning Canada into one enormous TAX HELL.

And it is not getting better, it is getting worse - and these trends will continue to deteriorate until Canadians, by some massive national exertion, begin to understand the destructive forces that are loose in the land, begin to fight against them, and finally begin to achieve the hope of the ultimate establishment of a nation built on principles of freedom and limits on government power.

The beginning of that fight is the realization that a Republic is a thing "of the people" and when that manner of government is combined with economic and social freedom, then the nation can prosper and advance.

That is what the "Republic of Canada" movement is all about. But which provinces in Canada would join a new Republic? Perhaps it would include only the Western provinces. If Ontario were to stay within Parliament with Quebec, who would be the milk cow?

Gail Parker and Leonard Melman,
Republic of Canada
_________________
For Liberty,
Gail Parker,
republicofwesterncanada.com
A Movement for Canadian Independence

"In questions of power then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson

Posted: 02/ 01/ 04 12:35 pm Post subject:

The monarchy isn't what's undemocratic, it's the Liberals.

Getting rid of the Liberals would be an excellent first step. Then we need a government with a conseravtive reform agenda that will make the needed adjustments.

PET wanted a Republic (or a People's Republic). The Queen of Canada is our link to Canada's history and traditions.
_________________
US debt clock:

"The heck with the courts, eh? You know, one of these days we in this country are going to stand up and say, 'the politicians make the laws and the courts do not.'" Hurray

Posted: 02/ 01/ 04 1:17 pm Post subject:

Posted: 02/ 01/ 04 1:19 pm Post subject:

As far as the Monarchy is concerned, Begbie's post on another thread [ http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=17797&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15 ] expressed the case for it the best:

Posted: 02/ 01/ 04 3:32 pm Post subject:

Becoming a republic will not fix our corrupt system. All that is is window dressing. I believe it is possible to restore power to the provinces and the people and to devolve power from the PMO while retaining a constitutional monarchy.

Not to mention it is constitutionally virtually impossibe to ditch the monarchy. It would require 50%+1 in a referendum PLUS the approval of ALL provincial legislatures and the House of Commons and the Senate.
_________________
British Columbia will ever be a goblet to be drained by the East. - WAC Bennett, Premier of BC, 1952-1972

The flag when Canada was a true Free Dominion...

Posted: 02/ 01/ 04 7:43 pm Post subject:

Posted: 02/ 02/ 04 12:52 am Post subject:

Posted: 02/ 02/ 04 11:27 pm Post subject:

Posted: 02/ 03/ 04 12:13 am Post subject:

2003 UN Human Development Index

1. Norway - Monarchy
2. Iceland - Republic
3. Sweden - Monarchy
4. Australia - Monarchy
5. Netherlands - Monarchy
6. Belgium - Monarchy
7. USA - Republic
8. Canada - Monarchy
9. Japan - Monarchy
10. Switzerland - Republic

Our slide from first is something to be blamed on the Lieberals, not on our constitutional monarchy. Also note the absence of France and Germany.
_________________
British Columbia will ever be a goblet to be drained by the East. - WAC Bennett, Premier of BC, 1952-1972

The flag when Canada was a true Free Dominion...

Posted: 02/ 03/ 04 1:10 am Post subject:

Posted: 02/ 03/ 04 1:29 am Post subject:

Hey check the avitar swap eh> Revenge from one of you royalist dweebs Laughing

"Oh I say.....Mumsie.... one of those horrid filthy commoners with the camera has accidentally crushed one of the royal corgis with his horrid old common auto." "Sometimes I wish it were 1730 so we could have the blaggard disemboweled."
_________________
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive; those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis, In Freedom .

Celebrate Hard Likker and Handgun week here at the Shadowy GroupTM

Posted: 02/ 03/ 04 1:42 am Post subject:

Posted: 01/ 05/ 07 2:59 am Post subject:

Posted: 01/ 05/ 07 8:24 am Post subject:

Well, I am surprised to have a reply to my post. I left "free DOMINION" when I realized that most people on this site had no idea that the title FREE DOMINION is an oxymoron.

You are correct about one thing, today we live in a different world. The American republic started out the closest to a free nation ever in the history of man. Although there are clauses in it which gave rise to statism, their constitution set them completely apart from the other socialist, mixed economy nations or dictatorships which make up the rest of the world.
America is drastically unlike the other republics you sited which are communist lies.

If you study the Federalist Papers and if you believe in the philosophy of objectivism (aynrand.org), where man should be the master of his own individual life, you will see that America came closest to protecting the smallest minority of all, the individual.

Real property rights is essential for a capitalist society, the only moral social system in which man can exist freely and benovolently among his fellow man. All other systems produce racism because some minorities are always favored by government over others...the end is inevitable.

The American Republic came with no guarantees of success but it was originally the closest true government of the People. For the first time in the history of the world, the People were EQUAL to their representatives in their constitution. Benjamin Franklin replied when he was asked what type of government did they decide America would have, "A Republic, if you can keep it".

There must be strict restrictions on statism written into the constitution if a nation is to thrive on capitalism. Government entering the marketplace spells disaster for the individual. Man must be free to live and pursue his life by his own REASON in order to thrive.

The Economy plays a major part in the freedom of the individual. Socialism is an immoral system by which one man is permitted to live off the fruit of another mans labor. A prescription for DISASTER.

The American model is living proof of what can happen to a free people. The industrial revolution began when they threw all the instruction manuals away and the old ways of thinking of the old world and reinvented it all - even in the arts and music, etc. The evidence is everywhere you look.

The rest of the world try to emulate America by copying their economy with government in control but it must be done from the bottom up...the people must control their own economy through production.

I am attaching a paper I authored a few year back which explains political systems in detail. The source of this information is a video by J. McManus of the John Birch Society.

_________________________________

POLITICAL SYSTEMS - An overview of our World (John McManus, JBS)

Canadians are demoralized. Apathy is a disease in Canada spawned by the deep realization by the People that it is impossible to make a difference. The dictatorship which exists in Ottawa is the cause of this. Even though our MP's are elected by their constituents, they become mere pawns before the PM when they get to Ottawa. The parliamentary structure which we inherited from Britain is called a "Democracy".
What is a Democracy?
It means rule of the majority or "mob rule". It means that if more than 50% of the group want something, they can have it but at the same time, the minority lose all their rights. Some call it "mobocracy" or “tyranny of the majority”.
History has shown that democracies are fatally flawed and have consistently ended up as oligarchies. Therefore a Democratic system of government is only temporary. It is in a transitional state which always ends in tyranny. Therefore a Democracy is not a viable political system.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think it will help if I explain how I see the different forms of governments in the world today.
There are different styles of Government, which are beautifully defined by the John Birch Society. However, there are really only two stable political systems – Oligarchy and Republic, as illustrated in this diagram. The others are merely transitional (in the yellow boxes) states of governing.

Left Wing Right Wing
POLITICAL SYSTEMS
Monarchy
Rule by One Oligarchy
Rule by Elite Democracy
Rule by Majority Republic
Rule by Law Anarchy
Rule by None

Monarchy – Rule by One…but it does not appear as "Rule by One".

Canada is a perfect example! In a convoluted way, in Canada the Monarchy controls at arms length through its representatives, the Governor General and the Prime Minister who swear their allegiances to the Crown but not to the flag, the people nor the nation that it stands for. The Prime Minister derives his power to overrule the MPs in Parliament from the Monarchy. The Prime Minister is never elected by the People. The reality is that it is "Rule by an elite group" with one up front. (Kings, potentates, Emperors, etc.). This is why the elite cling to the Monarchy, even Trudeau and his cohorts, who despised the Crown, derived their power from the Monarchy.

Democracy - As soon as more people want something than don't, a tyranny of a democracy occurs (mobocracy). History has shown that all Democracies deteriorate into tyranny. Therefore, a Democracy is not a stable form of government but only a transitional state toward an Oligarchy, then revoltion into anarchy and the cycle continues to repeat itself.
In 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor a The University of Edinborough, had this to say about "The Fall of Athenia” some 2,000 years prior.
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (mobocracy) always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

Republic - Rule by Law. The word Republic (res publica), which literally translated means law for the people (rule of objective law). The founding Fathers of America wanted a limited negative government power which leaves the people alone but protects them from physical force from others including government. The word "republic" is used erroneously by many governments of the world. It's a communist lie. For example, The Republic of China, or The Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. These governments do not have a true Republic, they are Oligarchies or Dictatorships. The real definition of a Republic is that which was written by the founding Fathers of the United States who desired minimal government with a negative not a positive force. The slogan of the JBS is …"We are a Republic, not a democracy, and lets keep it that way".

Anarchy - The truth is that most crimes in history have been performed by Government, therefore occasionally people conclude that they want no government at all so they destroy the existing government with an uprising or a coup. This results in chaos, looting, burning, killing. This is not a true form of government as it is merely a transition where the people eventually ask for someone to come in and restore order and quite often it is the oligarchy which was overthrown in the first place, hence a return to an Oligarchy form of government. This happened in Russia in 1917, in Nicaraugua in 1979 and in Iran in 1979. It has happened throughout history with great frequency.
The Purpose of Law - An Overview of our World by John McManus - John Birch Society

How does man govern himself? America has a unique political system because it established a body of law to govern the government. In America government is clearly meant to be the servant, not the master.

On the other hand, the UN establishes a rule of law based on the assumption that government exists to control people. The world body holds that rights do not transcend the power of government, but exist at government's pleasure. This is a blueprint for total government.

UN authority G. Edward Griffin has observed that "law is force, legalized," and explained that any law without force to back it up is no real law at all. Who in America, Griffin asked, would send hard-earned money to the IRS if force did not compel the paying of an income tax? Law is nothing if it isn't enforced.

Those who claim that the world must have international law instead of relying on force to settle disputes are not posing alternatives; they are offering the same alternative twice. International law, like any law, is merely a collection of words without force to back it up. Those who champion international law under the UN are calling for UN might to back up the UN's law.

For international law to prevail, the UN's muscle would have to be more powerful than any other force on earth. Once created and functioning, however, who would be able to control it? Are we to believe that those who possess unchallengeable military power would not use it to tyrannize mankind? Such a hope is foolish indeed. The dangers to personal liberty and national independence from UN-created international law ought to be obvious to all. Were the UN to become all-powerful, its power would be used not to control government on behalf of the individual, but to control the individual on behalf of the government.

The U.S. Constitution offers history's finest alternative to government force. Instead of throwing away our marvelous heritage and submitting to global government, we ought to recognize that we are indeed "the heirs of all the ages," and that we have a responsibility to compel our leaders to adhere to the Constitution's limitations on their power. We must continue to stand as a beacon of hope in a world of strife and tyranny, for if we allow our leaders to cede our sovereignty to the UN, we will have committed national suicide.

___________________________________________________________________

Canadians bombarded constantly with govt anti-American propoganda. Our media airwaves are strictly controlled by the CRTC and their employees are all civil servants. That is why Canadians hate America. In addition, Canadians are desparate for their own unique identity and because they are not free to create one of their own, they love to be anti-American.

Canada has become a racist country due to the favoring by govt of minority groups, with the most elite French up front.
_________________
For Liberty,
Gail Parker,
republicofwesterncanada.com
A Movement for Canadian Independence

"In questions of power then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson

Posted: 01/ 05/ 07 8:36 am Post subject:

	The time now is 09/ 02/ 10 3:38 pm
	Home ∴ Forum ∴ Recent ∴ Register ∴ Profile ∴ Log in to check your private messages ∴ Log in FAQ ∴ Search ∴ Donate ∴ Activist's Toolbox ∴ FD Links ∴ FD Swag [ Login to join chat ] FD Arcade - Click Here-->