Please allow me to give you a Canadian’s straightforward evaluation of some trends in the United States of America and Canada and please be courageous enough to hear me. This article does not arise, so far as I am aware, because of any single event today, not even the global financial meltdown, but because, for whatever reason, I cannot remain quiet about what I have to say here a moment longer.
Let us start with what you call the “North-American Union,” following on from the so-called “Security and Prosperity Partnership.”
The provision of the SPP that will sink the Canadian ship and allow your leaders to take this country over, as I believe they wish to do, is the provision that troops on both sides of the border can enter the other country in the event of a terrorist incident. Now when would Canadian troops enter the United States? That surely is not why that provision is there.
Keep in mind my view as stated many times on this site (OpEdNews) that there was no original “terrorist” incident on Sept. 11, 2001. 9/11 was indeed, as popular culture now has it, an “inside job.” It was a false-flag operation, an engineered instance of mass murder and high treason, designed to trick the American people into going to war for the interests of an elite cabal which includes your current President, Vice-President, and most of his cabinet.
I am led to believe that charges are being prepared at the present time against President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and high aides, as well as military and intelligence officials once they have left office and lose immunity to prosecution. I am sure the investigators will uncover the treachery of 9/11.
If you follow my thinking in this, then who would be the source of that “terrorist incident” that would trigger an invasion of Canada? Your country would be - the same people who engineered the World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings: your government, Northern Command, NORAD, the CIA and the FBI.
9/11 protesters in Montreal confronted their city council with their knowledge that the same security company that was in charge of the World Trade Center had also been recently given the contract for the security of the Montreal subway. They told the mayor to be aware that they will know what has happened in the event of a second 9/11 in the Montreal subway.
Are you aware that one of your intsruments of state protection, the Central Intelligence Agency, plays a key role worldwide in the operation of the global drug trade? Take its one-time Director, George H.W. Bush, the same George Bush Sr. who, as a young CIA agent, stood at the door of the Texas Book Repository the day Kennedy was assassinated, later to be President (yes, President) of the United States. I allege that, as CIA Director, George Bush Sr. knowingly and regularly ran drug shipments into the US from Ilopango Airport in Honduras and killed his own agents and military personnel to keep the fact hidden. If I am correct, you can see why I would not want your institutions of state protection to be "protecting" Canada. To the vast majority of Americans who are sane and peace-loving, with whom Canadians have always been friends, with whom we share an undefended border of many, many miles, and with whom English-Canadians share a very similar culture, you must know that we do not want American troops in Canada. We appeal to you as the ones who must put a stop to this never-ending cycle of violence and oppression that your government is addicted to. We do not want to be a part of the American state. I know that most of you are man and woman enough to hear that and accept it. Wherein is our culture different from yours and why is the continued independence of Canada a good thing? We are engaged in a different experiment than you. Our government hails from a different period of history, one that we know of as “responsible government.” Responsible government means that the head of the administration sits in the legislature and is the head of the largest party there. It means that, when conflict exists in Parliament such that a no-confidence motion passes against the ruling party, the government of the day falls. President Kennedy recognized the situation when he told Dean Rusk in 1960, after the Bay of Pigs, that, if this were Canada, President Kennedy would have to go. (And so it would be.) But, since it is the United States, Rusk would have to go. I am most confident in saying that the vast majority of Canadians like their form of government. Perhaps not their contemporary leaders, but their parliamentary system. We do not want your system of checks and balances. You can see what frustrations you have with it. It does not work as well as ours. So the continued existence of Canada on this continent offers a political alternative and enriches our joint political life. Our judiciary is different than yours. It is not elected. It is allowed an arm’s length relationship from government. I say, without equivocation, that our judiciary, with a few minor exceptions, is wise and fair. When I served as a refugee tribunal member, I read the decisions of our courts as one might read a newspaper or magazine, they were so well-argued and judicious. Canadian caselaw is consulted in many other jurisdictions. In my opinion, America has a great deal to learn from the Canadian judiciary.
If you had this system, President Bush would not be in power today. Nor would President Nixon have remained in power as long as he did, dragging your country through Watergate.
1 | 2
