2008 Archives (January – April)

Lost Canadian Liberties
Myths About Libertarianism
Libertarian Party of Canada Convention
Le droit de porter des armes
Blogging the North American Union (SPP)
Ron Paul’s Incredible CPAC Speech
My Speech at Feb. 16 SPP Protest in Toronto
Don Harrold’s Attack on Federal Reserve and Financial System
What a Surprise – Contradicted by the Fraser Institute
Wake Up – Canada Should Protect War Deserters
Status of Freedom
SPP Budget from 2006
Libertarian Mary Ruwart running for President
Rejecting Earth Hour


Lost Canadian Liberties

Article by Pierre Lemieux

January 11th, 2008


Myths About Libertarianism

Essay by Murray Rothbard:

… Far from being immoral, libertarians simply apply a universal human ethic to government in the same way as almost everyone would apply such an ethic to every other person or institution in society. In particular, as I have noted earlier, libertarianism as a political philosophy dealing with the proper role of violence takes the universal ethic that most of us hold toward violence and applies it fearlessly to government.

… There is no real rift between the “spiritual” and the “material” and hence any despotism over and crippling of the material will cripple the spiritual as well.

… the institution of the state establishes a socially legitimatized and sanctified channel for bad people to do bad things, to commit regularized theft and to wield dictatorial power.

January 13th, 2008


Libertarian Party of Canada Convention

I’ve been busy with this:  the Libertarian Party of Canada will be holding its 2008 convention in Edmonton, Alberta on May 17 and 18 (Victoria Day weekend).  The registration form is now available, and you need to join by February 16.

This is a good time to join the LP of Canada and contribute to its focus.  I always try to put peace and interventionism, Canadian sovereignty and civil liberties at the top of a healthy list of issues.

Libertarians with differing views who share a common belief in liberty can help build this coalition of individuals who are trying to bring libertarian ideas to the consciousness of the Canadian electorate.

January 31st, 2008


Le droit de porter des armes

In- depth presentation by Pierre Lemieux (in French).

February 8th, 2008


Blogging the North American Union (SPP)

As a (paleo-)libertarian, the highest priority issues for me are anything that erodes the freedoms we have, that goes in the wrong direction, that threatens individual rights – of Canadians and foreigners – directly.  These are:
1) war and interventionism
2) erosion of civil liberties, due process, habeas corpus, use of torture, growth of surveillance and biometric identification
3) threats to Canadian sovereignty and independence from supra-national governments
4) after that, it’s attacks on free speech, undermining property rights, self-defence rights, reforming the justice system, independence of the individual and non-government institutions like families and churches from the government, taxes of course.

Probably all of the issues in #4 are important too, but I think #1, #2 and #3 should be given higher priority and are the most relevant to those in the public who care anything at all about freedom.

I’ve got so much to say about the Security and Prosperity Partnership, I better get started.

First, I am reading “The Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada” by Jerome Corsi, and I have heard his interviews on the radio, and I think he presents valuable insight into what is going on.

Second, I don’t agree with economic nationalism at all and interventionism in the economy by the government, and the policies in this article highlight the contradictions in this issue.

If we come at it as if there are only two points of view, then we are left thinking that we need to adopt either the one or the other.  But I’d like to step mud all over both.

True statement: “We have a security and prosperity partnership which is dealing with a kind of de facto annexation that drives Canadian public policy.”

Yes, the corporatist state called the United States that intervenes in its economy and believes in this same anti-economic anti-market concept of “energy security” – to the extent that it attempts to dominate the world militarily – is indeed annexing the Canadian corporatist state.

To the libertarians and conservatives who advocate or passively advocate integration with the United States:  Why is this a good thing?

The other contradiction: the report authors are wary of domination by the U.S. government but it’s somehow okay to go along with all the globalist environmental domination – annexation by the international global warming agenda (also pushed by many Americans)?

I’m supposed to take Klein’s and Harper’s side?   I’m supposed to be against the Liberals who stayed out of Iraq?  This left-right nonsense just leaves people confused.  Look for the contradictions.  It is divide and conquer by the political class.

February 8th, 2008


Ron Paul’s Incredible CPAC Speech

February 9th, 2008


My Speech at Feb. 16 SPP Protest in Toronto

More or less what I said:

I’m here to speak for Canada’s sovereignty and independence on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Canada and its Leader Jean-Serge Brisson.

The Libertarian Party of Canada’s platform clearly states our opposition to the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

The SPP will remove decision-making even further from Canadians and will interfere with efforts to hold our government accountable and create a freer society.

To build liberty, we need to build it from the ground up, we need  to protect our sovereignty.

Let me put it like this, my parents moved our family from Northern Ireland to live in Canada in the 1970’s.

We didn’t come to live in America.  We came to live in a peaceful and free country called Canada.

Not a country where the president defends water-boarding and instigates torture and eternal war.

Not a country where they attack the civil liberties of their own people.

We did not leave Northern Ireland to come and live in another “SECURITY” state.

As Sir Wilfred Laurier said, “Canada is free and freedom is its nationality”.

Canada is not free enough but our ideal is freedom.

Libertarians believe in individual sovereignty as an ideal, but to get to that ideal, we need to protect local and national sovereignty.

U.S. Congressman Ron Paul believes in free trade, but he also believes in his country’s national sovereignty in order to protect liberty, and he opposes the SPP as a threat to liberty.

Sir Wilfred Laurier believed in free trade, but he also made very strong statements for decentralization and local autonomy.

Both Ron Paul and Laurier advocated liberty.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership is not about free trade, it’s not about security, it’s not about LIBERTY.

It’s just another secretive propagandistic government attack on the freedom and independence and right to representation of Canadians.

It’s a government above the federal government, way beyond our reach.

And those in government and the media who say it is not an effort to unify North America are liars.

Let me say it again, Canada is meant to be free and freedom is our nationality.

Blog coverage:

Thousands call for referendum on US, Canada, Mexico security partnership

“The SPP will remove decision making from Canadians even further,” says Alan Mercer, President Libertarian Party of Canada, “and will interfere with efforts to hold our government accountable and create a freer society.”

Libertarians believe in individual sovereignty as an ideal, he says, but to get to that ideal we have to protect local and national sovereignty.

Youtube links:



Info on the SPP:



Security Integration between Canada and U.S. Proceeding

More on U.S. “Security”:





March 9th, 2008

Comments to My Speech at Feb. 16 SPP Protest in Toronto

  • Peter

March 16th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

We all have much work to do.



Don Harrold’s Attack on Federal Reserve and Financial System

Hat Tip

March 18th, 2008


What a Surprise – Contradicted by the Fraser Institute

March 18, 2008: The Fraser Institute: SPP Agreement Will Lead to Better Canada-US Trade and Economic Opportunities; Not Political Integration

Canada and the United States must press on with negotiations under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and not let the agreement collapse under the weight of ill-founded conspiracy theories, says a new paper released today by independent research organization The Fraser Institute.

Just to mention some of the arguments by Professor Moens of the Fraser Institute:

1) To paraphrase, it’s not a conspiracy, not a conspiracy, not a conspiracy.  Repeating that over and over in the media shuts critics up nicely.

2) Yes, he admits it’s secret, or too “low-key” in his words.   Yes, and this is responsible for the conspiracy theories and so-called “concerns” about sovereignty and allowing foreign troops on Canadian soil and NSA-monitored biometric identification and God knows what kind of Abu Ghraib thugs onto our soil.  But that doesn’t make it a conspiracy.  Of course not.

3) It’s not intended to be political integration European-style, no of course not, it’s:

“simply an agreement to conduct negotiations in a wide variety of areas related to product standards, government regulations on trade, health and food safety, energy, and the environment as well as a wide variety of security measures related to border crossings.  The objective is to gradually achieve more regulatory convergence and product standards compatibility as well as more streamlined border and security measures so that the costs of trade and border crossings can be lowered, while standards and regulations become more continent-wide.”

Sounds like an attempt at political integration to me.

By the way, notice how the Fraser Institute press release calls the SPP an “agreement” four times!      Let me quote the U.S. government website http://spp.gov/myths_vs_facts.asp (as of March 21, 2008 ):

“Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.

Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries.  The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty.  In fact, no agreement was ever signed.”

The jokers on the U.S. SPP website say the SPP is NOT AN AGREEMENT.   Let’s get our “facts” straight!   Ha ha HA!  I can see why people might be confused.

(4) Another type of argument is wanting the SPP to be something that isn’t defined by the governments involved:

“This confusion around what the SPP stands for has skewed public perception. Governments need to redefine the process and articulate specific goals for the partnership.”

In other words, let’s project onto the SPP all our hopes and desires for good things for Canadians and it will become whatever good thing we want it to be even when we’re not involved at all as citizens – not in any way at all.

“He recommends defining the SPP as a means of creating a North American Standards and Regulatory Area (NASRA) that would include further economic integration beyond free trade but not political integration.”

No, he doesn’t want it to mean political integration –  it shouldn’t mean that and people who think it means that are “conspiracy theorists” and “left-wing nationalists”.   But a “Standards and Regulatory Area” sounds like political integration to me.

“With the protectionist noises emanating from the Democrats in the run up to this year’s presidential election, now more than ever we need cool heads and thoughtful leaders on both sides of the border who can recognize the mutual importance of trade and the benefits of an open border for both Canada and the US,” Moens said

(As if the Republicans haven’t been protectionist.)  Yes, because our number one concern as good Canadians should be fear that the Americans won’t do business with us if we make them mad.     It’s a compelling argument I “can’t” argue with and I should just shut up.

And flying the flag means I’m a “left-wing” nationalist.  Sure…  yes, the only kind of nationalist is a left-wing one and as we all know, left-wingers are just so wrong about everything, so they must be wrong about flying the maple leaf.    And the right-wing nationalists, they must be xenophobes and nasty populists, and luckily we don’t have any of those sorts here in Canada.  Oh no.  That’s very convenient how the left-right paradigm works to shut down dissent.

You know what, Canadians, and free market believers and libertarians, don’t listen to the Fraser Institute on this issue.    The Fraser Institute is defending a big government program called the SPP that is secretive and behind closed doors.

Tell your Members of Parliament to shut down all SPP negotiations and save what’s left of Canadian sovereignty.    Protect your basic freedoms too before the U.S. government extends its “security” methods up here – if it hasn’t already.

Do something positive and assert Canadian sovereignty and let’s build a free and prosperous society independently of these other nations.  Set them an example.  Let’s treat tax-paying Canadians with respect, let’s restore private property which has been completely undermined, let’s restore self-defence rights and free speech, let’s treat aboriginals with respect, let’s find voluntary ways of helping those in need and let’s get rid of these “conservative-liberal” authoritarian structures and stop listening to their propagandists.

March 24th, 2008

Comments to What a Surprise – Contradicted by the Fraser Institute

  • Powell Lucas

March 24th, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Normally I am in agreement with most of the reports by the Fraser institute and, as far as domestic policy is concerned, I still am. However, on this issue I find myself on the other side of the fence. I have been reading the publications of various U.S. governmental policy groups and, although I don’t see any evidence of some SPOOOOKY conspiracy at work, I do see a fundamental difference between Canadian and U.S. interpretation of the goals of the SPP. The U.S. side appears to be following the track proposed by the large financial institutions and is pushing for greater economic integration between our countries. In light of the latest “funny money” scandal in the States, and keeping in mind the Savings & Loan debacle of a few years ago, this would be a disaster for our country.
The banks in Canada are no different than those in the U.S. when it comes to pushing for greater debt levels and the creation of money from that debt. The only reason Canada has escaped the financial fraud perpetrated on the American people is a) they depend more on actual deposits to fund their activities and b) they are smaller and can’t compete with the ‘big boys’ and c) they are more closely regulated under our banking system. What exposure they do have to the asset-backed financial instruments were mainly generated by their U.S. subsidiaries. However, these pin- striped thugs are in lock-step with their U.S. bretheren in that they now want to dump the whole mess in the laps of the general public. In the U.S. they are doing it by having the Feds guarantee the purchasing of defaulting brokerage firms while in Canada the banks are attempting to have the courts declare the 33 billion in bad loans as an incorporated entity so they can freeze it under bankruptcy protection and shaft the very investors they conned in the first place when they assured them that the investment was as safe as GICs. In the U.S. case it will be the general public that takes the hosing when it turns out that the ‘Phoney Money’ scam brings down even more financial institutions; in Canada it will be the investors only who take the big hit (we will all pay a smaller price), but tough…’you pays your money and you takes your chances.’
So, I think Canada would be much better off if they quietly backed out of these SPP discussions and probably NAFTA as well before we get sucked into adopting the U.S. style banking system as part of some overall agreement. No sense in tying ourselves too closely to a sinking ship.
Powell Lucas


Wake Up – Canada Should Protect War Deserters

New York Times article on war deserters. (ht)

Tell your Member of Parliament to protect those who are trying to escape military slavery in the United States, who choose to leave these immoral wars.   (Who cares if they are U.N. mandated or not?!)   Let’s see some big hearts around here.

You don’t need to give them free stuff.   Give them a “refuge from militarism” as Trudeau said (oh, no, I can’t mention Trudeau!).  Let them apply for permanent-resident status and tell Harper and his cronies to go live in the United States if they like it so much.

Why does anyone in this kind of situation have to beg for refugee status?   What a shame.   A country so much lacking in confidence.   Some of us fall for this “draft dodger” propaganda crap, don’t we?   There are a lot of hard-hearted Canadians I wouldn’t want to meet in a dark alley, that’s for sure.    And I bet they’re the same type who want to control everyone in many other ways.

What do people fight for?   For your government?   “Obey your government”!?     Is that the attitude we have?   The government should be obeying us and following the rule of law and respecting individual rights.   This includes the right not to be enslaved and to be able to leave a job when we don’t want to work in that job any longer!

If the Canadian government can’t protect a handful of helpless  young people in this situation, what the hell use is it?

Our reputation internationally is just getting trashed.

And no, the Liberals aren’t much better than the Conservatives.  So what?

March 24th, 2008

Comments to Wake Up – Canada Should Protect War Deserters

  • Powell Lucas

March 28th, 2008 at 1:11 am

What I will tell my M.P. is that if he supports keeping these people in Canada then he had better look for another job. Thses guys signed up of their own volition…there is no draft. They thought they could cut corners and get an education or a trade paid for on the taxpayer’s back. But when it came their turn to honour their signatures they pulled a disappearing act. The very fact that most of them have entered this country illegally shows that they don’t respect any nations’ laws. This is not the type we need to make good citizens. If you don’t want to pay, then don’t play.


Status of Freedom

Henry Lamb: Time for a Commission on the Status of Freedom

Same concerns he’s expressing about the U.S., I’m expressing about Canada.

…freedom is diminishing while governmental authority is expanding….

Arrangements such as the Security and Prosperity Partnership, at the federal level, and the Arizona Mexico Commission, at the state level, use non-elected bureaucrats to “harmonize” and “integrate” rules and regulations – without review or approval by elected representatives of the people.  The people who are subjected to these rules and regulations have no voice in the rules that govern them. This is wrong!

March 25th, 2008


SPP Budget from 2006

The security section of the Canadian federal government budget in 2006 includes funding details for the Security and Prosperity Partnership.  I wonder if any M.P’s cared about the details or objected at all.  In any case, parliament is responsible for letting it slide by year after year.

The discussions, such as in Montebello in 2007, are held behind closed doors, meaning they are secret talks among key cabinet level officials of the three nations and corporate lobbyists.   But much of the results of those talks, as far as we know, are spelled out publicly on the government SPP websites and in budgets, such as the one just mentioned.

March 25th, 2008


Libertarian Mary Ruwart running for President

Some good news this week.  I don’t know if Mary Ruwart will win the US LP presidential nomination, but I think a lot of libertarians will be happy about this.   Her book, Healing our World, is a powerful presentation of libertarian principles applied to real-world problems.

Buy it here.


March 25th, 2008


Rejecting Earth Hour

Toronto and other cities worldwide experienced this global act of collective obedience to the global warming crusaders and globalists called “Earth Hour”.

My basic reaction to this is very simple – if it’s good to turn off the lights and electrical power for one hour, then the logic of that ethical rule implies it is good to just shut off the power all the time.   Just shut down human civilization completely.  Turn off the lights!

Because that’s the basic message of these propagandists who are really advocating global controls on human behavior.

Their message is that human beings are a waste of space and that our comfort and well-being doesn’t matter.  What kind of message is that to send to children?

And if these people persist in not recognizing the concept of property rights and self-determination, then their ideas are worthless in preventing genuine pollution.

They’re not even talking about genuine pollution.  They just want to make people  believe that all carbon gases produced by the burning of fuels are pollutants, and this is a complete lie.  Carbon dioxide is what we breath out and is used by plants.

One of their propaganda films is David Attenborough’s “The Truth About Climate Change” (link to a segment) which has no convincing evidence that global warming is caused by human beings – even with this graph they’re showing.  I do not believe the green graph because I believe it leaves out the activity of the sun.

At least it has David Attenborough’s voluntary individual choice approaches at the end of the documentary (you’d have to see the whole thing), but of course they are trivial aesthetic acts of self-deprivation.   And I reject the assumption that there is some sort of problem that needs to be solved.  What is wrong with the earth warming anyway?   How do they know there are going to be huge disasters?  People will adapt better if they were left alone!

But of course governments are going to impose involuntary “solutions” and costs on ordinary people  – not voluntary solutions.  I think this is David Attenborough’s essentially good nature coming through despite his succumbing to their propaganda or whatever pressures they put on him.

The whole documentary I saw on CBC TV is substance-less.   Just a vapid pile of crap.   A total waste of time for anyone trying to understand what the arguments are of those who advocate global controls on human activity.

And the part that is completely shameful is the graphical representation of carbon dioxide as a black soot piling up over peoples’ houses as they consume electricity.  Many people who are educated in basic science may take it for granted, and most people in the public will be surprised to hear this, but carbon dioxide is an invisible non-polluting gas that is entirely natural.

Governments also attempt to associate the greenhouse effect of non-polluting carbon dioxide (which is much less than water vapor) with what people ordinarily consider as pollution.

That’s the level these people play at.    That’s what their “earth-loving”(?) ethics amounts to.   Lying to tax-payers so they can pillage us more.

Yes, those who went along with “earth hour” are truly demonstrating their status as slaves.

Guess what?   We need more power.   We need more power-production.  We need more economic opportunities.   More competition.  An end to institutional government-protected monopolies.  An end to government intervention in the economy.   More products.  More happiness.   More of everything.  Lower taxes.   Less inflation.   More saving.  Sound currencies – choice in currencies.     For all that, we need more freedom and more respect for property rights, more legal rights for ordinary people – to protect us from the effects of new technologies run amok by the way – which the global warming crowd couldn’t care less about!  More respect for human autonomy.  We need to get central-planning fascist governments under control.  And we need people really in control of their lives instead of following along with these tyrannical agendas.

March 31st, 2008

Comments to Rejecting Earth Hour

  • M. Wendt

March 31st, 2008 at 2:42 am

Wow. I didn’t realize there were people as stupid as this! Go drive your SUV and keep your thoughts to yourself please.

  • canadian

April 2nd, 2008 at 4:36 am

Get your governments off our backs, buddy.

  • ryan k

April 19th, 2008 at 3:31 am

How refreshing it is to read something which makes sense on the subject and more.
We are in the minority to be sure, but your article makes much sense. I can say so due to the fact i will never allow myself to be “programed” like so many, smug, adolescent, blind idealists etc. that i have to encounter every single day, do.

Ethical capitalism, moral courage, limited/responsible/elected government, self responsibility are some of the most important elements required for Freedom to be realized and sustained.

Since none of those four even really exist in reality anymore…is it any wonder why we are losing our freedom, bit by bit, and therefore becoming the victims of the ideology of the left and far left, and far right as well?

We are all under assault here.
When good men and women stand by and do nothing…evil prevails.
Each of us needs to get off the fence, within ourselves firstly, and focus on the values that will enable a future…realistically, optimistically, but never blindly.

No matter how smart and sophisticated the SALESMAN seems to be.

April 28th, 2008 at 1:46 am

All of you are scaring me.

  • Briz

May 28th, 2008 at 1:40 am

Excellent article. This is exactly how I felt about Earth Hour. It was just another way for people to conform and show their blind obedience, without understanding the issue WHATSOEVER. What confirmed this fact to me was a quote I heard on the news: “Turn off you lights, and watch the hockey game in the dark.” Right, because your 250W TV uses less power than a 15W light. It’s the thought that counts though, right? Because that’s the impression I got from Earth Hour, lots of thought, minimal results.

  • Flu-Bird

March 1st, 2009 at 2:37 pm

Screw the EARTH HOURS how aboiut if for one day all the bothersome eco-freaks keep their stupid blabbering pieholes shut instead of blabbering their mindless banter to us all their the biggist producers of HOT AIR around

  • Beatriz Perez-Sanchez

March 10th, 2009 at 10:55 pm

I have been telling friends and family members for a long time that the ecology movement is all about political and social control and that concern for the environment is merely a useful smokescreen. All too often, I am met with blank stares of incomprehension, disbelief or I’m accused of being ‘paranoid’. Earth Hour is an exercise in global social conditioning and is just one of the many ways in which the masses are being prepared to accept blindly the imposition of a one-world police state. ‘A Million Acts of Green’ is another good example. This all reminds me so much of Naziism and Stalinism.

I’m glad to see that there are others who see what is happening. This website is a breath of fresh air.


Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.