Friday

The New Energy

Thursday

Hitler's Germany Revisited in Canada?

Connie Fogal, Leader of CAP, says " 'NO' to an impending federal law to give police and national security agencies new powers to eavesdrop on cellphone calls and monitor the Internet activities of Canadians"


"This law is another destruction of Canadian freedom,"insists Fogal. "It moves Canada even further into the realm of a police state. This is an adjunct to our nefarious anti terrorism laws imposed on an uninformed citizenry by our Parliament and Senate. It is another elimination of some of our sovereign rights that were supposed to be guaranteed to us under our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is an act of stealth imposed under the guise of national security."

Fogal asks? "Why is this being done? Canada is mirroring recent U.S legislation because our government has committed Canada by stealth and backroom deals to a North American Union: US, Canada, and Mexico under US command and control. Information on this year's meeting by the three national leaders at Bush's ranch in Texas on North American Union has been revealed even in mainstream media."

"This latest piece of liberty stripping legislation is but one more incremental step of stealth because Canadians would not tolerate this if we were allowed to have full information of what is going on. This is an incredible situation," reported Fogal.

She continued, "Many Canadians fought and died in WW2 to stop this very kind of police state activity. What we are witnessing now with these types of laws is an exact pattern of liberty -stripping imposed by Hitler on Germans under the guise of 'National Security'. Good people there who turned a blind eye or failed to resist later discovered it was too late.Their liberty was completely eliminated . Eventually it reached a stage where even Germany's highest court judges were committing crimes by convicting innocent people. See the Nuremburg Trials. Even Judges are corruptible in such regimes. As Harry Rankin, Vancouver's renowned 25 year alderman and criminal lawyer, used to say, 'If you want justice, go to church,not to the courts. The courts are there to apply the law created by politicians.' "

"Fogal, a lawyer, said, "Canada along with many countries has been participating for years in an eavesdropping program called Echelon. That is illegal. What government is trying to do is make it legal. It is illegal because our system as a democracy had built in protections for the good and innocent. Police have to justify any invasion of privacy before a court of law. If the court did not accept the reason for the invasion, it was not allowed. This protection is core to civil liberties. We should not abandon it. We must not abandon it, if we are to be a free and democratic people."

"It is such hypocrisy for Canada to be supporting the US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq as deliverers of "freedom" when new local draconian laws at home are stripping Canadians and Americans of our liberty. It is time for a reality check," insisted Fogal.

"At a crucial point in 'the tide of the affairs of men' human beings have to take a stand and be counted. Better sooner than later when to do so means imprisonment or death, as happened in Germany. I, for one, say "NO" to another deceitful and wrongful law. I also speak as the leader of a small federal party voicing the view of thousands of Canadians who feel betrayed by the existing Parliamentarians,"said Fogal.

Connie Fogal, lawyer, Director Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee and Leader of Canadian Action Party/parti action Canadienne

-30-


Contact:
Canadian Action Party/ Parti Action Canadienne
Leader, Constance (Connie) Fogal
Telephone (604) 872 2128 home; Fax: (604) 872 1504
E-mail: conniefogal@telus.net

Catherine Whelan Costen, Vice President and Candidate
Email: cathpublish@wildroseinternet.ca
Ph: 403-684-3514 or 403-660-0449 Fax: 403-684-3464

Head Office #385- 916 West Broadway, Vancouver B.C. V5Z1K7
Tel: (604) 708-3372;Fax: (604) 872 1504; e- mail: info@canadianactionparty.ca

Friday

Ominous Rumblings of a “North American Union”

April 22, 2005


by Christopher G. Adamo

Among the greatest ironies of history is that during the first part of the twentieth century two World Wars and a “Cold War” were fought on the European continent, for the specific purpose of preventing its consolidation under one governing authority. Yet by the end of the century Europeans had acquiesced to just such a fate.

Though not imposed with the imperiousness of the Kaiser or the brute force of the Reich, the concept of the “European Union” runs contrary to traditional ideas of nationalism or patriotism. Such crass sentiments are the realm of commoners, thus making them counterproductive to the new order.

Nevertheless, the lowly masses were eventually bought off with glowing assurances of economic benefits and all of the standard empty promises of liberal utopianism. Predictably, the vast majority of the European Union’s “citizenry” continue to struggle, having been further mired by the malaise of that continent’s burdensome socialism, which is now driven by a vastly enlarged bureaucracy.

Unfortunately, though the overwhelming majority of Americans hold such concepts in complete contempt, similar anti-national thinking has nonetheless encroached upon its shores to a degree Islamic jihadists might envy.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once lamented that American military dominance was inherently unfair, and that the best remedy was to assist the advancement of competing military establishments in other countries. Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Ginsburg have, in recent rulings, looked to the laws and governing philosophies of other nations for justification.

But while the majority of Americans do not embrace this contemptible thinking, neither do they stage mass protests in the wake of such court decisions, demanding the ouster of their authors, as would certainly have been the case only a few short years ago. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly evident that such alarming ideologies are not confined to those on the left.

Though the signs of a growing acceptance of this mindset have become glaringly obvious, most Americans remain reluctant to believe that their leaders would even contemplate the forfeiture of this nation’s sovereignty to such a degree. Yet the behavior of high placed individuals, including President Bush, raise extremely disturbing questions as to just how willing they might be to copy the Europeans.

Recently, Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez Baustista floated a “trial balloon” during a speech at the University of Texas, ominously revealing a possible answer. According to Baustista, Mexico and the United States should eventually become “integrated,” thus forming what can only be construed as the hub of a “North American Union,” no doubt eventually including Canada as well.

President Bush has indicated a disturbing sympathy towards such thinking, refusing to characterize Mexican immigrants as “illegal.” In contrast, he implies illegality by the “Minutemen” who now protect the border, having described them as “vigilantes.”

Conversely, he discusses the actions of the “undocumented immigrants” as “pursuing their dreams,” seemingly indifferent to the fact that Americans will be forced to shoulder the burden of fulfilling those dreams, ultimately at the expense of their own.

On other crucial fronts, the President clearly shows a willingness to embrace policies that significantly weaken the nation’s borders. When dealing with Canada, he steadfastly advocates a beef import program that clearly puts the interests of Canadian beef producers ahead of their American competitors.

Thus he allows an influx of beef from the north that threatens to seriously degrade this country’s food supply. Though a financial boon to Canadian agriculture, it provides no incentives to enhance the quality of beef produced there while undermining the viability of American cattle growers.

Meanwhile, President Bush has been championing the “Law Of the Sea Treaty” (LOST), whereby seagoing Americans would henceforth be subject to a maritime version of the “International Criminal Court.”

The perceived “benefits” of this blurring of national boundaries might initially sound attractive, particularly to individuals whose primary impetus is monetary. But America stands to lose far more than it could ever hope to gain by compromising its freedom and independence.

Although indispensable to national security, an able military is not the key to a strong nation. Such strength lies within its culture. America cannot remain strong or great if it is overwhelmed by people who uphold neither its society nor its laws, but instead seek only after its wealth.

Despite the establishment of the “European Union” that continent’s vibrancy and greatness continue to decline as a result of its own cultural erosion. America may soon follow.

Christopher G. Adamo