“1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
“2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
“3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants or to subject them to military tribunal.
“4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a state of emergency on a state.
“5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
“6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
“7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
“8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to keep the peace or to maintain control.
“9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
“10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.”
All of this is total propaganda in order to elevate the World Heath Organization and train the public to obey. And they are introducing special machines at airports – as in the video – that scan your whole body for flu-like temperatures.
“As Mexico City, the third largest in the world, grinds to a halt, the EU’s health commissioner warns European travellers not to fly to anywhere in North or Central America unless their journey is absolutely necessary.”
Meetings in bunkers! Trying to shut down travel. Over a mild flu!
The message is WE ARE HELPLESS, USELESS AND WEAK and we must get used to following orders.
“As California’s governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declares a state of emergency because 60-odd Californian schoolchildren have contracted Mexican flu, without any so far dying, it is pointed out that normal flu strains cause 36,000 deaths in America every year.”
“Normally detecting influenza in pigs would not generate a response from food safety officials, but with an international flu outbreak, the current circumstances are different, Evans told a news conference in Ottawa.
“”The chance that these pigs could transfer virus to a person is remote,” said Evans.”
“..He added there have been no reports that any of the people with the flu have been hospitalized.”
“To revive a fatally flawed system that was specifically designed to evade due process and the rule of law would be a grave error and a huge step backward,” Jameel Jaffer, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.
“On Friday, a Portuguese warship seized explosives from suspected Somali pirates after thwarting an attack on an oil tanker, but later freedthe 19 men. It was the first time NATO forces found pirates armed with raw explosives, spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Fernandes said.”
They freed the “pirates” carrying explosives? Weird. Doesn’t add up.
The belief system of the propagandists, including Canadian Maurice Strong, in their own words: Read “Quotes from the Environmental Community” by www.peopleforwesternheritage.com
“Toronto MP Bob Rae, who halted his own leadership campaign so that Ignatieff would have no competition, said his former rival has his full support.“
So the New World Order has the Liberal Party all sewn up and on board with the agenda. But people still think it’s a separate party from the Conservatives. It’s funny how Ignatieff supported the Iraq war just like George Bush, but people still believe all these political parties – Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals are separate. The “left-right” trick is effective.
Michael Ignatieff is Establishment. He is a member of an internationalist ruling class.
“Ignatieff was born in Toronto, the son of Russian-born Canadian diplomat George Ignatieff and Alison Grant, and the grandson of Count Pavel Ignatiev, Minister of Education to Tsar Nicholas II and one of the few Tsarist ministers to have escaped execution by the Bolsheviks. His Canadian antecedents include his maternal great-grandfather, George Monro Grant, the 19th century principal of Queen’s University. His mother’s younger brother was the political philosopher George Grant (1918-1988), author of Lament for a Nation, and his great-aunt was Alice Massey, the wife of Governor General of Canada Vincent Massey. His great-grandfather was Count Nikolay Pavlovich Ignatyev, the Russian Minister of the Interior under Tsar Alexander III. In his book called The Russian Album, Ignatieff explores the importance of memory and obligation to ancestry in the context of his own family’s historywhile rejecting Russian nationalism. …
“Ignatieff’s family moved abroad regularly in his early childhood as his father rose in the diplomatic ranks. But at the age of 11, Ignatieff was sent back to Toronto to attend Upper Canada College as a boarder in 1959. At UCC, Ignatieff was elected a school prefect as Head of Wedd’s House, …”
He is an interventionist and an apologist for the system misleadingly labelled “Democracy” which is attempting to finish its takeover of the world. Imperialism poses with humanitarian motives while employing revolutionary agents of different stripes such as the above-mentioned Bolsheviks to undermine the independence and strength of individuals and cultures.
“…he says that there should be more active involvement and larger scale deployment of land forces by Western nations in future conflicts in the developing world”
“…In this vein, Ignatieff was a prominent supporter of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Ignatieff says that the United States established “an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights and democracy, …”
Regardless of his later change of tune, this blindly pro-American, pro-Iraq war stance totally disqualifies him from antiwar support, so the antiwar movement should certainly not support the Liberal Party. Again, notice how being pro-American government merges with being pro-internationalist. Same difference, no difference.
“On June 3, 2008, Michael Ignatieff voted to implement a program which would “allow conscientious objectors…to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations…to…remain in Canada…”
And that resolution was positive – except for those who don’t support “United Nations” wars of course. They’ll just be hung out to dry someday when the only kinds of wars will be Ignatieff-supported UN wars posing as “humanitarian” wars directed at those who refuse to be integrated – all the nasty “nationalists” and “backwards” people they hate so much.
I could also comment on his opposition to weapons in space. Too late, Mr. Harvard professor! The globalists already accomplished that during the “Star Wars” program, using the U.S. government, and left them pointed down at all of us below – to make sure we become good world citizens. All that nuclear terror all those years – whether from Republicans or Democrats – was used to accomplish that feat. We were scared to death of being destroyed in a nuclear war since the Cold War seemed so real.
“Ignatieff has argued that Western democracies may have to resort to “lesser evils” like indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, and pre-emptive wars in order to combat the greater evil of terrorism….”
“…Ignatieff has adamantly maintained that he supports a complete ban on torture, which according to his 2004 Op-ed in the New York Times, did not include certain“forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in lasting harm to mental or physical health, together with disinformation and disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods).…”
…During the Liberal leadership race in 2006, Ignatieff advocated strong measures, including a national carbon tax, to address climate change. Following the 2008 election, he shifted his approach. In a speech to the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce in February, 2009, he said:
“You’ve got to work with the grain of Canadians and not against them. I think we learned a lesson in the last election.””
Yes, he has learned his lesson that when he and his managerial types are doing their shaping and sawing and manipulation with our lives, he will try not to go “against the grain”. They will re-work their propaganda more effectively until we submit to the carbon tax and everything else they want.
May 3rd, 2009
Comments for May 3, 2009 – Oath Keepers, Ignatieff, Swine Flu, NATO vs. Pirates, Climate Change, Other News & Opinions
Alan,
Do you agree with the Oath Keepers or did you post that video to show how the spirits of nationalism and militarism pervade into the freedom movement?
I admire the Oath Keepers and their list of oaths. It sounds like a very positive force in the freedom movement. I don’t like the wars at all or the unjust laws, so there may be a few opinions expressed on their site I disagree with, but they could do some good. This is more concrete opposition to immoral actions, torture, attacks on civil liberties than among many so-called libertarians who don’t have these issues as priorities. They’re where they’re at – people have to start somewhere – young people who sign up for war don’t know what they’re getting into – nobody is telling them. And I’m not holding my breath waiting for everyone in the freedom movement to call themselves “anarchists”. Why should we be so abstract? Why not more concrete with how we use our principles?
I also think loyalty to a sense of nationhood, tribe, religion, family is healthy because it resists conformity and integration and provides protection against the totalitarian State. The old-fashioned nationalism was just a stage of development before the international government is imposed, but it might do some good and slow things down.
» Good News
OATH KEEPERS OF CANADA- “We The People” seek a vow from our police and military to disobey any orders that violate our rights and impose martial law
18 April 2009 No Comment
Owen Sound Free Press in conjunction with a contingent of community members in Owen Sound are asking that police officers, local military members and other service people involved in law enforcement and regulation compliance to consider augmenting their oaths of office to ensure the people of Owen Sound and area are fully protected from peril. Please pass this idea on in your community, in your police unit and or in your military detachment.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that Canada, as with most other nations of the world is facing a loss of sovereignty and devastating Economic Depression. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) openly states that they plan to shut down the sovereignty of nations like Canada through total control of our economy. WE THE PEOPLE must avert a catastrophe, we seek the protection of a moral and constitutionally compliant armed forces, police force and various other enforcement and civil protection agencies. We see indications of a militarized police state being formed in the USA and even Canada. Particularly in the USA Soldiers are being used to patrol the streets, search civilians and it seems like some may even be interned into holding camps in an area coincidentally called Ontario, California.
An organization has formed recently in the USA called the Oath Keepers. This particular organization is composed of mostly active police officers, military service people and similar professionals concerned about recent developments in their nation that indicate that an incremental elimination of people’s rights and freedoms is being implemented along with a burgeoning militarized police state. The Oath Keepers according to my research are comprised of a patriotic council of men and women who vow to refuse any orders from their superiors to impose any immoral and or unconstitutional measures on the people they are sworn to protect. The Canadian people need assurances that their protectors will act in the best interests of the civilian population at all times as it is apparent that the forces of globalization seek to plunder every man woman and child of their rights, freedoms, personal property, right to health care, shelter and access to food and natural remedies of their choice. It is imperative that WE THE PEOPLE have an understanding with particularly our police and military that we should not be considered the enemy.
Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. both highly successful leaders in civil justice, understood that in order to avert tyranny and massive civil unrest they needed to be proactive, non-violent and lead mass movements of well informed and motivated people. In light of recent events unfolding globally I feel it is prudent to request that not only leaders and commanders take a moment to find out about Oath Keepers of Canada, but also their subordinates. In other words Oath Keepers of Canada would ideally like to see everyone affirm an oath to one another. The following is a tentative collection of vows that I hope all will consider adopting. These vows are not carved in stone and I encourage community discussion to institute a standard oath that would be universally accepted by ideally everyone– not only police and military. The following is fashioned after the Oath Keepers of the USA;
1. We will not obey orders to conduct warrantless and or unlawful and immoral searches of the Canadian people. We will obey the laws of trespass and respect private property.
2. We will not obey orders to detain Canadians as “Enemy Combatants” or subject them to military tribunal. The law of Habeus Corpus must be upheld along with Miranda Rights.
3. We will not obey orders to impose martial law on Canadians, states of emergency can not justify immoral and unconstitutional treatment of Canadians.
4. We will not obey orders to blockade communities turning them into concentration camps.
5. We will not obey any orders to intern Canadians into concentration camps or similar under any pretext
6. We will not obey orders to allow foreign troops of any nature to deploy on Canadian soil to carry out an occupation of any part of our sovereign nation or to impose unconstitutional or immoral measures on Canadians. United Nations troops under “Peace Keepers” or similar guise will not be allowed on to Canadian soil. Command of our police and military troops by foreign powers will not be permitted.
7. We will not obey orders to confiscate any property or food from Canadians. Peaceful Canadians must be allowed to maintain responsible firearm ownership. Canadians must be allowed to access the foods, natural health products and supplements of their choice. Crop lands, water and livestock must be protected.
8. We will not obey orders that halt the access of publicly funded health care for all Canadians.
9. We will not obey any orders that violate The Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and The Canadian Bill of Rights— (“notwithstanding” and escape clauses will be disregarded– rights will be protected) Constitutional rights of Canadians must be protected first and foremost.
10. We will not obey orders that violate Canadians rights to protest, peacefully assemble and to petition or redress grievances to the government- Free Speech and Freedom of the Press must be protected at all times. Emergencies of any type do not legitimize a curtailment of individual rights and protections for Canadians.Freedom of the press must be upheld.
For more info on how to join OATH KEEPERS OF CANADA please contact Doug Schapira
This site doesn’t represent an organization. I oppose Bill C6, yes. And libertarians ought to understand what it’s about and oppose anything like it. The Libertarian Party of Canada officially opposed the last attack on natural health products in the last election (Bill C-51 at that time).
May 5, 2009 – Challenge the Smoke Alarm Inspectors, B.C. Government Attacks Free Speech, Newt Gingrich’s Real Agenda
POINT OF RESISTANCE – N* O* W* – TELL THE INSPECTORS WHAT YOU THINK AS THEY VIOLATE YOUR HOME
“The program, called Project Zero, will see fire inspectors going door-to-door making sure homes have smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors….
““If they do not have working smoke alarms in their home, they’ll be issued a provincial notice of violation. They will receive that from our inspectors today, who will not leave a property without working smoke alarms. So we would install them. We would then come back in seven days to make sure that they have purchased new ones and reinstalled them, and take the old ones out,” said Stewart.
“The fine for not having a smoke alarm is $235.”
In other words, they will violate your home to inspect your property and your responsibility, and may very well rob you blind. Or rob your neighbour blind – you know, the one who needs the money for food (and maybe skimped on smoke detectors for the same reason).
If you realize what’s being done to you, that you’re being threatened with a massive fine if you don’t have a smoke alarm, then let them know they’re not welcome, that you’re only letting them in under threat. And tell them to tell their bosses what you think. If people show no resistance, there will be more of the same.
Tell them how you feel and challenge them. Then maybe we will have some hope. There is no end to this kind of legislation. This is recent legislation – courtesy of McGuinty and his bosses – that “allows” them to do this. I don’t believe it was YOUR idea. It was THEIR idea. And there is more and more and more until we are completely under the control of the State.
No fire inspector has ever come to our house in all my years living in Canada. It is NEW legislation for a new system along with all the other new home and business-violating laws from provincial and federal governments.
You are being trained for tyranny. At least acknowledge that when they are invading your privacy, please. Your home is sacred, remember? They are going to threaten their way into your home or your neighbour’s home. Maybe you can talk some sense to them, and they’ll give up.
B.C. Government’s Vicious Attack on Freedom of Speech
“s.239 of the Election Act … requires everyone who carries out “election advertising” to register with the government, no matter how little they spend. Failure to register can mean up to a year in jail time and fines up to $10,000.”
Understanding Newt Gingrich and the real 1994 ‘Contract with America’
“”The core of our Contract,” and the solution for those “trying to figure out how to put me in a box,” he said, could be found in a book by futurist Alvin Toffler called “The Third Way;” to which he added: “I am a conservative futurist ….”
“Futurism, as already alluded to, is one and the same with the Third Way or Third Wave, but for brevity sake, Webster’s Dictionary gives us another take on this subject.
““Futurism: Study of, and interest in, forecasting or anticipating the future, or theorizing on how to impose controls on events.”
“Or in other words, a head in the clouds political philosophy, complete with theories and forecasts, which envisions the use of force to insure those theories and forecasts come to past….
“[Gingrich]: “For twenty years we [who’s we?] have worked to develop a future-conscious politics and popular understanding that would make it easier for America to make the transition from the Second Wave civilization [the one our Founders gave us] – which is clearly dying – to the emerging, but in many ways undefined Third Wave civilization [Alvin Toffler’s Centrist Utopia].”
“…So central, so critical, indeed, that Mr. Gingrich put the book on a recommended reading list for members of Congress and all Americans….”
Just read the full article about Gingrich and Toffler to understand that the Establishment’s agenda is the creation of a centrally planned socialist society on a global scale. As in my post on NormanDodd concerning the role of the big foundations, this article also backs up Dodd’s point that the Soviet and American systems were to be merged. And that’s what has been happening in the West before and after the Berlin Wall came down.
May 5th, 2009
Comments for May 5, 2009 – Challenge the Smoke Alarm Inspectors, B.C. Government Attacks Free Speech, Newt Gingrich’s Real Agenda
“Residents of the Bala Boluk district in western Farah province [Afghanistan] on Tuesday claimed more than one hundred ‘innocent people’ have been killed in the Monday’s air offensive by the US forces.”
“Against a backdrop streaked with controversy and under the intense spotlight of unprecedented world media attention, the international Conference on Population and Development reached consensus–despite some widely divergent viewpoints–on a worldwide strategy to curb global population growth over the next 20 years and achieve sustained economic growth and sustainable development.
“…Convened in Cairo, Egypt from 5 to 13 September [1994], the Conference adopted without a vote a 16-chapter Programme of Action, calling for action to stabilize world population growth at below estimates of 7.5 billion by the year 2015 in the context of sustainable development….
“Four previous UN population conferences have been convened at the global level: Rome (1954); Belgrade (1965); Bucharest (1974) and Mexico City (1984). The first World Population Plan of Action was adopted in 1974 and was reviewed and supplemented at the 1984 Conference by a set of recommendations for its further implementation.
“…It was widely agreed that for current population policies to be successful, the international community must address the fundamental issue of transforming countries from economically backward societies into modern ones, where people would be ready to implement new and radical ideas.”
In other words, not putting it so nicely, they would hammer away at people in “developing countries” until they change their values and both husband and wife are outside the home slaving away to pay taxes and debts (government and personal) – so they’re not able to have children and don’t really want to – the wonderful, complex, “radical” modern world we’re all supposed to love so much.
“…Many speakers stressed that population growth in the developing world was not the only threat to the planet’s survival; rather, unsustainable consumption patterns in the industrialized world represented an equally grave concern….”
This article is full of UN propaganda and terminology that the ruling class invented. “Unsustainable”, “sustainable development”, “overpopulation” and “planet’s survival” are concepts we are supposed to believe in so that we adopt the UN’s point of view and recognize its supposed right and the supposed right of national governments to interfere in individual and family decisions.
There is a lot of double-speak in this article where they pay lip service to individual rights and feign respect for cultural resistance to abortion.
The article also accuses “rich” (they’re really changing that now) first-world inhabitants of consuming too much, and this has escalated to massive propaganda over “climate change” in order to control our lives. Who made these people God – to stand as judges over our lives?
It all amounts to: “Dirty humans! Dirty humans! You use too much and reproduce too much. You’re filthy and selfish and good-for-nothing.” That’s the message, loud and clear from the U.N. for us children – that’s how they see us – as children. That’s what they’re really thinking and it’s what they want you to think also. You’re just supposed to be a child who can’t make decisions for yourself about anything significant! That’s YOU. Abused. Child. War. Toxins. Torture. Poverty. Lies. It’s the U.N.’s world. Yes, sir, we think they know what they’re doing! Do you notice that none of these governments or organizations is planning a freedom agenda for us, to leave us alone and let us have our property rights and freedom? Freedom wouldn’t work – for them.
We’re programmed through decades of brainwashing and belief in “authority” to go along with this agenda as if these freak ideas are legitimate. The elites who run the U.N. and national governments do not like competition. That’s all it is. We are taking up their space.
“…European nations spoke of their growing concerns over the shrinking and ageing of their populations, which was linked to declining fertility rates, among other factors….
Declining fertility rates? Why? A CBC documentary, The Disappearing Male (Feb. 20 ‘09) answers part of this.
This article also explains the agenda – in a nice-sounding way – as far as urbanization and moving people off the land and into the cities. Note that the Ontario Smart Growth Agenda – a long-term plan – was basically following this agenda to move people into more easily controlled population corridors. The “green belt” projects of recent Ontario governments are part of this also:
“RELATED ARTICLE: Planet Earth: An urban experience
“Recognizing that the future of the planet will be an urban one, two new UN studies focus on the problems resulting from mankind’s move to the city. Population, Urbanization and Quality of Life, prepared by the UN Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) as its contribution to the Cairo Conference, points to some positive aspects of urbanization….”
Nobody – elected government or unelected institution (U.N.) – nobody – has the moral or natural right to interfere with individual and family decisions about having children. And they have no right to propagandize their beliefs or manage us like farm animals either! They have no right morally to interfere in our lives. But these public-private partnerships DO manage us and they DO promote their agendas with OUR money.
I wrote the following Environment Platform a couple of years ago for the Ontario Libertarian Party.
From my point of view now, I feel uncomfortable with the phrase “Libertarian government”. I agree with the main principles involved still, but I would express them differently now.
There seems to be a top-down tone to it, and I’m afraid that could be misinterpreted as seeking to impose a way of life on people who don’t want it. The intention is idealistic and the idea is to leave people alone and let them make arrangements with each other.
Especially, now, I would be very careful about what I mean by wanting to have everything privately owned. I’m referring to regular taxpayers who have funded the current system and not to the fascist process of building up public property with taxes and then selling it off to privileged corporations. I wouldn’t necessarily agree with “auction” now. I think taxpayers are entitled to their share. Also I think resources that were taken by colonialism could be peacefully negotiated among individuals and groups – sovereignty and property could be treated as separate issues.
The public should not be treated unfairly in any way and should really be able to decide individually the form of compensation for all the years of taxation, or whether they would like to hold resources such as parks or highways in common. But the key is not to treat individuals unjustly or ignore their personal sovereignty.
This is all idealism, and these ideals ignore the elephant in the room, which is that the world is not moving in the direction of individual rights and freedom. It is moving towards ever greater centralized control of all resources.
These ideals – like the word “private” – are already abused by those in power. “Private” is not good in itself. The world is in “private” hands – banks, corporations and foundations control governments (the use of force) believe it or not – and that is not a good thing. We need empowerment for everybody.
“A Libertarian government would introduce a system in which owners have full control of their property to the extent that their actions do not infringe on the rights of others.
Pollution and Restorative Justice
Pollution of another person’s property, including their body, is a violation of individual rights. Pollutants refer to substances that are harmful or unwanted from the point of view of the injured party, and can include noise, odours, toxic and non-toxic substances, radiation and litter.
Polluters must be held strictly liable for the harm they cause to health and property, and be required to cease the pollution and/or provide compensation acceptable to the injured party.
Such a libertarian system of restorative justice would be costly for offenders, and would have a powerful deterrent effect. However, this would not be a sufficient reform, as another major weakness in the current system is the prevalence of public property.
Public Property vs. Private Property
Private ownership of property leads to responsible maintenance of that property. The owner has invested in it, so he evaluates the costs of his own actions and the actions of those to whom he rents. With publicly owned land, there is little incentive for users to respect the resources they use.
Only 11% of land in Ontario is privately owned and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources holds jurisdiction over 88% of Ontario’s forests. With a Libertarian government, this situation would be corrected. Public lands would be auctioned off to private individuals, businesses and groups who could make use of them, including First Nations communities.
Today when a company dumps toxins in a lake, the government threatens them with fines. In a libertarian system, lakes would be divided among property owners for fish and other resources, and those owners would be much more motivated to detect pollution and take legal action.
Property rights will need to be defined in more detail, especially in the case of air and water. The water that flows above and below the ground can be described in terms of property. Each household owns the proportion that they use. Both the air and water – polluted or otherwise – flow into and out of a definite space that is also defined as a person’s property.
Ownership of rivers follows the riparian system in Ontario, which is a sound common-law system of ownership based on usage. Unfortunately, Ontario has a comprehensive permit system which enables the province to supervise all major consumptive uses of water.
Natural resources would become the property of those who access them, based on agreements with landowners who control the source. Private owners of parks and beaches could open them to the public. There would also be private hunting and nature reserves in which owners had a vested interest in protecting endangered species.
Land Use
In a libertarian system, land use will be determined by owners and not by governments! Governments will not be able to override the decisions of owners in the interest of revenues or “green space”. No one except the owner will decide whether he is doing too much with his resources or too little. Libertarians will repeal the numerous oppressive land management laws such as the Greenbelt Act, which prevent property owners from developing their property as they wish.
Free Market Solutions
Since pollution would be costly for violators, respect for the health and property of others would be much more common. Property owners would pay responsible waste management services to remove all kinds of waste. The disposal rate for a particular material would reflect the reality of real costs and would tend to affect the buying habits of consumers. In turn, consumers would cause manufacturers to reconsider their materials.
A genuine free market would be a major factor in controlling pollution. Beach-goers, for example, care about pollutants in the water and sand. Also, consumers are interested in how their foods are produced. There would be more consumer information services to provide data about the safety of products. Insurance companies would offer better deals for responsible owners to cover possible infractions.
Agreements among neighbours would be another factor that would replace top-down regulations. Property owners and tenants would make contracts concerning levels of pesticide use. Airports and airlines would deal with property owners directly and pay them to allow a specified level of noise onto their property.
In a libertarian society, each person will own his own life and will be free to decide the type and quantity of substances he is willing to expose himself to. In order to avoid liability, owners will be pushed by economic concerns to make employees, residents and customers aware of this information.
A libertarian society will empower people to be aware of their own environment. They would test their own air, soil and water (using companies that specialize in testing), and would take charge of what goes into their bodies and homes. They would decide what they can and can not live with.
Many people have serious concerns about air pollution in Ontario. For automobile pollutants, property owners would complain to those who managed highways and roads. The companies that replace the Ministry of Transportation could be sued for pollution. As a result, those who administered roads would tend to charge drivers higher fees unless they switched to cleaner fuels and technologies. Property owners living adjacent to the road could sign contracts to allow a certain level of air and noise pollution in exchange for fees or shares in the road companies.
Liberty is Human-Centred
Today there is a lot of hot air about respecting nature, but there is no respect for the nature of man, who requires freedom to act and choose. “Green-house gases”, such as carbon dioxide, which are blamed for global earth-warming are a natural by-product of living and breathing human beings. Individuals must be free to do what they think is best for their own well being, and that includes burning fuels to heat their homes and to run their vehicles and businesses.”
U.S. Federal Government Power Grab – Clean Water Restoration Act S787, Apr 2 ‘09. Expands definition of “Waters of the United States”, infringing further on property rights. Reminds me of Ontario law that was passed in last few years.
This is what the creeps mean by “sustainable development”.
May 12th, 2009
Libertarian Statement on Ontario Clean Water Act
Statement I helped compose on the Clean Water Act in 2006. I’m trying to post as much material as possible – old and new – in order to get these ideas across, and to provoke discussion about freedom and individual rights. Notice again that the system we live in is the exact opposite of these ideals and the statement is just contradicting everything about it.
Legislation is all about tying us down and controlling everything. Laws are being used to bind us and the system called “democracy” gives it all perceived legitimacy although it doesn’t come from the people at all.
Every voice that remains silent in the face of this onslaught from the State of various kinds of legislation – federal or provincial – is acquiescing or consenting to what is done. That’s how it looks to the Establishment:
Libertarians Declare “Clean Water” Act a Dirty Trick
July 26, 2006 – The Ontario Libertarian Party considers Bill 43, the “Clean Water” Act, to be a serious threat to property rights and simple justice, and insists that it be withdrawn. While we agree that clean water is essential to human life, there is no justification for the draconian measures proposed in Bill 43. Incidents of contaminated drinking water have been rare and can be readily addressed by existing legislation. This Bill is a sledgehammer “solution” to a mosquito problem and will create more problems if it is enacted. It is clear that this Bill is an attempt by the government to gain centralized control over private land.
Nowhere in the Bill is there a definition of “clean water,” or what constitutes a threat, significant or otherwise, to clean water. This will be left up to committees appointed by conservation authorities. These committees must prepare “Source Water Protection Plans” defining what remedies will be required.
There is no provision in the Bill for input or appeal by landowners who will be affected. The decision by the Minister of the Environment is final. The Bill requires municipalities to appoint “Permit Inspectors” to implement the Source Water Protection Plans, as approved by the Minister of the Environment. The Bill gives the inspector the right to enter private property without consent of the owner or occupant and without a warrant. If the owner refuses entry, the Permit Inspector may obtain a warrant and obtain police assistance to use whatever force is necessary.
Landowners may be required to buy a permit to use the water on their property. They may be prohibited from activities that have caused no problem in the past, and be required to ‘fix’ perceived problems at their own expense or pay heavy fines for non-compliance. A business may be forced to cease operations (without compensation) if their activities are deemed to be an existing or potential threat to source water. The Bill also gives municipalities the right to expropriate land without compensation. There is no process for appeal, and individuals may not initiate any legal action against the government or its agents to stop an injustice. Even bankruptcy will not protect an individual from costs imposed by this Bill.
“This is a dirty trick to play on our farmers,” declared Jim McIntosh, Treasurer of the Ontario Libertarian Party. “This bill gives McGuinty the ability to steal land from them.”
The Ontario Libertarian Party believes that respect for property rights are essential for individual freedom and prosperity, and that government should protect our property rights. Those rights include the right to continued use of water flowing onto ones property. If someone else infringes on this right by making the water unusable, that person should be required by the courts, not some government bureaucrat, to correct the problem and/or provide compensation. Landowners have a vested interest in protecting the quality of water on their property.
Bill 43 makes it clear that the Ontario government has no respect for property rights and has no intention of protecting them. It also reflects a total disrespect for due process and justice. Some of the unintended consequences of this Bill will be to render large areas of farmland unusable, bankrupt many landowners, and increase the price of Ontario produce. The Ontario Libertarian Party appeals to all citizens who believe they should have the right to use their property as they wish – as long as they do no harm to anyone else or their property – to tell their MPP’s they are opposed to Bill 43!
The Push for Single-Payer / Universal Health Care in the United States Quote: “Everyone in, no one out“. No private health insurance allowed! Sounds like a communist slogan and ties in with the other socialist aspects of the system shared by Canada and the U.S. – namely central banking, income tax and everything else.
Universal health care – for example, in Ontario – means you are not allowed to choose (or provide) health care services outside the system under penalty of fine or prison! Can you justify the threat of fine or prison in order to control human beings and end up limiting choices? I think people would understand having a voluntary system if it was allowed. Neither the Canadian system nor the current U.S. system care about freedom. It’s all about government and special interest control in one form or another. And always there is a privileged class of people who do ok – which is really the point of the whole system: “Some animals are more equal than others” – as George Orwell warned about socialism.
Eugenics on the Rise (Flip Side of “Caring” Universal Health Care)
Another aspect of the system we live under and consider normal – a system that substitutes for parents (who pay), and which regiments and indoctrinates children under penalty of law. And another example of a freedom issue we tried to tackle. Here is more info on the legislation that was passed along with (even recent) reader comments.
I never heard anyone else “debate” it, so I think of it as something that was done to the people of Ontario – who are really helpless in the face of government power. That’s what it amounts to. So I use the word “issue” loosely and people can pretend to “debate” it, but I don’t think most even heard of it.
And there is a lot more oppressive legislation coming all the time from federal and provincial governments. I notice the mainstream media – if it ever talks about these laws instead of distractions – is used to help people adjust / adapt to whatever laws comes down from their bosses (same bosses the government has). People take “left-right” sides in some make-believe talk radio debate, and then whatever is planned happens anyway (or something along the same lines).
And the system of pushing international-scale bureaucratic ruling-class mandates continues on its merry way not bothering to ask your opinion.
The anti-smoking laws were implemented here and worldwide – actually I don’t think they’re done yet - but people rationalized that or were afraid and guilty about debating it. Same kind of thing. Taking choices away from you. That’s what the government is there for – managing your lives like you’re a bunch of farm animals. And some of you like it. I don’t think there’s any end.
Is anybody going to reverse this education law? This is causing some families with older children nothing but grief.
Ontario Libertarian Party Response to Statements in the Liberal Throne Speech Concerning Education
October 15, 2005 – Toronto, Ontario…
“According to the Ontario government, “too many young Ontarians are making the wrong choice: nearly one-third of them are dropping out” of school. So the government of Premier Dalton McGuinty “will introduce legislation that would make learning to age 18 mandatory in Ontario.”
“The Ontario government calls dropping out of high school the “wrong choice”. But it insists on robbing young people of the ability to make that choice by locking them in a classroom of one kind or another until they are 18.
“Obviously many young people have no interest in school, and many of those forced to stay will disrupt classes for other students who want to learn. Some will be anxious to work in order to earn a living, to gain independence, or even to escape poverty. Some will want to start their own business early. Some will learn much more and benefit greatly from earlier work experience. For certain, they will have their whole life in which to continue learning in their own way and on their own initiative.
“The Ontario government assumes a great deal if it believes it can make school so interesting that every teen will enjoy hanging around until age 18.
“And the government assumes even more if it believes that it can make the process of learning – a process of the human mind that requires free will – “mandatory”. Outside of a novel by George Orwell, the words “learning” and “mandatory” should not ever be used in the same sentence.
“Education is important but it should never be “mandatory”.
“The Ontario Libertarian Party believes in getting the government out of education, and letting parents and teens make their own choices about education.”
One of the exercises simulates combat with a “disgruntled Iraq war veteran” for some reason.
“The Explorers program, a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America that began 60 years ago, is training thousands of young people in skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence — an intense ratcheting up of one of the group’s longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters….
…In a simulation here of a raid on a marijuana field, several Explorers were instructed on how to quiet an obstreperous lookout.
““Put him on his face and put a knee in his back,” a Border Patrol agent explained. “I guarantee that he’ll shut up.”…
…There have been numerous cases over the last three decades in which police officers supervising Explorers have been charged, in civil and criminal cases, with sexually abusing them…”
“…Jeal argues that Baden-Powell’s distrust of communism led to his implicit support, through naïveté, of fascism. In 1939 Baden-Powell noted in his diary: “Lay up all day. Read Mein Kampf. A wonderful book, with good ideas on education, health, propaganda, organization etc.—and ideals which Hitler does not practise himself.”
“He also admired Benito Mussolini, and some early Scouting badges had a swastika symbol on them. According to his biographer Rosenthal, Baden-Powell used the swastika because he was a Nazi sympathizer. Jeal, however, argues that Baden-Powell was naïve of the symbol’s growing association with fascism and maintained that his use of the symbol related to its earlier, original meaning of “good luck” in Sanskrit, for which purpose the symbol had been used for centuries prior to the rise of fascism….”
Scouts also used the swastika as a symbol. It acquired the alphabetic symbolism of “Scout Submission” and the concept of self-sacrifice (even the ultimate self-sacrifice) because it represented a cross. http://rexcurry.net/pledge-of-allegiance-scouting.html
It is important to note that the Nazis did not call their symbols a “swastika,” but called it a “Hakenkreuz,” which means “hooked cross.” Altough it was an ancient symbol, the hooked-cross was also used to represent crossed S-letter for “socialism” under the National Socialist German Workers Party, as shown in the work of the historian Dr. Rex Curry (author of “Swastika Secrets”). http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html
Below is a somewhat ominous piece that pre-dates the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, Baden-Powell gives an etymological meaning to the swastika that is different from the popular modern idea that it means “well being” or “good luck.” According to Baden-Powell’s first comments, the swastika meant “Obedience or Submission, the different arms of the cross being in reality legs in the attitude of kneeling.” Thus, Baden-Powell also recognizes the swastika as a type of cross with religious significance.
“The Swastika” From Baden-Powell, What Scouts Can Do: More Yarns (1921):
“On the stole of an ancient bishop of Winchester, Edyndon, who died in 1366, is the Swastika or Scouts’ Thanks Badge. It was at that time called the ” Fylfot,” and was said to represent Obedience or Submission, the different arms of the cross being in reality legs in the attitude of kneeling.
It has been found engraved on weapons belonging to the Norsemen. It was also engraved on the spindles used by the ancient Greeks in their- weaving at Troy.
In India rice is spread on the ground in the form of the Swastika at the baptism of a baby boy to bring him luck.
The Indians in North America use it as an ornament, and it has been found engraved on ancient pottery in Peru.
How it got from one country to another, separated as they are by oceans, it is difficult to guess, but some people who say they know all about these things, affirm that there was once a great continent where now there is the Atlantic Ocean, but it went under the sea in an earthquake.
This continent was called Atlantis, and joined up Europe with America.
It was supposed to have four vast rivers running from a central mountain in different directions—North, East, South, and West—and the Swastika is merely a map of Atlantis showing those four rivers rising from the same center. “
In the book “The Boy-Man: The Life of Lord Baden-Powell” (1990 New York: Morrow) the author Tim Jeal argues that Baden-Powell’s distrust of Soviet socialism in the USSR led to his implicit support, through naïveté, of German socialism under the National Socialist German Workers Party. In 1939 Baden-Powell noted in his diary: “Lay up all day. Read Mein Kampf. A wonderful book, with good ideas on education, health, propaganda, organization etc.—and ideals which Hitler does not practise himself.” (p. 550). The word “Nazi” never appears in Mein Kampf. The word fascism appears twice and never as a self-description in Mein Kampf. The term “National Socialism” and its variations appear throughout in describing ideas on education, health, propaganda, organization etc.
According to his biographer Rosenthal, Baden-Powell used the swastika because he was a sympathizer with the National Socialist German Workers Party. http://rexcurry.net/swastika3swastika.jpg
Jeal, however, argues that Baden-Powell was ignorant of the symbol’s growing association with National Socialism and Military Socialism and Christian socialism. Yet, Baden-Powell used military-style uniforms and other military imitations in Scouting. Baden-Powell related the swastika to the hooked-cross (hakenkreuz) and Christian socialism when he said that the swastika meant “Obedience or Submission, the different arms of the cross being in reality legs in the attitude of kneeling.” Jeal maintains that Baden-Powell’s use of the symbol related to its other meaning of “good luck” in Sanskrit, for which purpose the symbol had been used for centuries prior to its modern use by socialists as overlapping S-letters for “Socialism.” However, that concept of “good luck” was part of the inspiration that motivated other socialists in the use of the hooked-cross, while adding the concept of crossed S-letters for “socialism.” That concept was shared by Christian socialists in their use of another cross, the non-hooked cross, for “good luck.” http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html
“A tobacco seller in Kentville, N.S., is gearing up for another legal fight with the provincial government over its law on displaying tobacco products.
““The radio frequency identity (RFID) tag that will be embedded into the card can be read not only by authorized readers, but just as easily by unauthorized readers,” Ann Cavoukian said in a statement accompanying the release of her 2008 annual report Wednesday.”
““The problem is that we’re using the pallet technology [for driver's licences],” Johnston said. “I can track you from a great distance and you’re not going to know that I’m keeping track of you.”…
“Tassé is also concerned that once enough people are carrying the cards, officials other than border guards may wish to take advantage of the ability to track and identify people at a distance.
““Police will be really tempted to seek the authority to identify people in public spaces. The temptation will be irresistible to use the technology,” he said.”
International and Federal Hyperregulation and Interference in our Lives
“The government was given the power to set those standards in amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act that gained royal assent Thursday, said a news release from Natural Resources Canada….
“The Paris-based International Energy Agency had urged countries in 1997 to adopt the one watt limit by 2010….”
Notice how it was determined internationally, like everything else. Their reasoning: the anticipated increase would “jeopardize efforts to increase energy security and reduce the emission of greenhouse gases”.
May 18th, 2009
May 22, 2009 – Harper’s Attack on Libertarians, Tax Burden Continues
Speaking of the agenda: Continuing Tax Burden on Business
“The complexity and the cost of compliance affect competitiveness, and Canada faces a major challenge on this front.… This excessive complexity hurts large and small businesses alike”
Contrary to Harper’s lame scape-goating attack on the freedom philosophy – which he seems to think means “freedom” for elites to rip off taxpayers - it is the State – about which he is doing NOTHING – it is his STATE which he is perpetuating, and its alliance with the military industrial complex and the international banking system, which has steadily over the decades, been deliberately undermining “FREEDOM, FAMILY and FAITH”.
And we can define “faith” in the broad sense of freedom of individual conscience as contrasted with the totalitarian system which he and his friends – in all parties – have been working really hard on building.
Do you know what many people associate “conservatism” with? Torturing people and letting even Canadians rot forever without trial in dungeons. And the surveillance state. And tasers. And wars, yes, endless wars and lies. And the amalgamation of the Americas – the destruction of sovereignty, which they pretend isn’t happening. And endless federal legislation that infringes on our freedoms, civil liberties, and property rights – on every topic. On all fronts with no end to it. Taking turns with the Liberals, same thing at the provincial level, same club.
So when Harper says “freedom”, I just assume he means the opposite, because the word has been twisted into a pretzel by these “conservative” freaks in America since 2001. When the towers were destroyed, that was the justification to start destroying our freedoms too. So Obama will carry on where Bush left off. And the “climate change” tax-and-control scam escalates.
“Conservatives” and “liberals” just take turns creating their socialist globalist nightmare of a future where we have NO PRIVACY and NO FREEDOM AT ALL! They pretend to be on different sides. That is how the agenda is moved along, government after government. And the society is corrupted from top to bottom by people making excuses for these policies and laws the media doesn’t even talk about, and for the underlying coercive nature of the power system we live under.
May 22nd, 2009
May 24, 2009 – Nationalization, Handcuffed for Handrail, BPA, Vaccines, Detention, Torture, Science Propaganda, Globalism
“Perhaps the most disturbing casualties of government intervention are General Motors and Chrysler, two disgraced automakers that have gone from private ownership to the public trough virtually overnight….
“… the attorney representing the [Chrysler bondholders], stated that his clients weren’t able to “withstand the enormous pressure and machinery of the US government.””
Effective “nationalization” of General Motors also.
“…the guys from Wall Street – especially Goldman Sachs – who have taken over the Treasury Department are now taking over control of the domestic auto industry.”
Feds may use this takeover to push “green” vehicles.
‘Escalator handrails are a source of germs, Kosoian said. “They are dirty! How many people touch them every day? Thousands!”
‘“I cannot believe I was handcuffed – like a prisoner. Like I committed a crime.”
‘…Kosoian refused to immediately provide identification papers, she said, “because I did not do anything wrong.”…’
Good for her. She disagreed with the rules and she had the nerve to talk back to the police. She lived in Eastern Europe so she knows. We better stop going along with everything or we’ll end up like an old communist country.
Can you imagine if the police started enforcing all the victimless laws and all the stupid rules that the different levels of government create? Everybody’s just going to follow them all, right? Because it’s “the law”? These laws are a trap for you, your family and your neighbours.
She’s doing us a favour by her example. Her attitude means there is hope that we won’t all be total slaves.
“…Experts have been concerned about the possible health effects of bisphenol A (BPA) – an everyday chemical used in many plastic food and drink containers and tins as well as clear baby bottles – which is officially classified as toxic in some countries.
“A study found that participants who drank for a week from polycarbonate bottles showed a 69 per cent increase in their urine of BPA, which mimics the female sex hormone oestrogen….
“…linked to birth defects, growth problems and an increased risk of heart disease and diabetes…
“…Karin B. Michels, associate professor of epidemiology at HSPH and Harvard Medical School, said: ‘We found that drinking cold liquids from polycarbonate bottles for just one week increased urinary BPA levels by more than two-thirds.
“‘If you heat those bottles, as is the case with baby bottles, we would expect the levels to be considerably higher.
“‘This would be of concern since infants may be particularly susceptible to BPA’s hormone gland-disrupting potential.’
“Canada banned the use of BPA in polycarbonate baby bottles last year and some manufacturers have voluntarily eliminated it from their products.”
“Researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester made the discovery after studying 263 children who had had flu, and whether or not they had been vaccinated.”
Source mentioned in article: 105th International Conference of the American Thoracic Society in San Diego.
“…Human rights advocates are growing deeply uneasy with Mr. Obama’s stance on these issues, especially his recent move to block the release of photographs showing abuse of detainees, and his announcement that he is willing to try terrorism suspects in military commissions — a concept he criticized bitterly as a presidential candidate.
“The two participants, outsiders who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the session was intended to be off the record, said they left the meeting dismayed.
“They said Mr. Obama told them he was thinking about “the long game” — how to establish a legal system that would endure for future presidents….
““He was almost ruminating over the need for statutory change to the laws so that we can deal with individuals who we can’t charge and detain,” one participant said….”
“President Obama said Wednesday that he would fight to prevent the release of photographs documenting abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan by United States military personnel, reversing his position on the issue after commanders warned that the images could set off a deadly backlash against American troops.
“…two categories: Abu Ghraib-style personal snapshots taken by soldiers; and photos taken by military criminal investigators documenting allegations of abuse, including autopsy photos of prisoners who died in custody.
“…Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the A.C.L.U., said the decision to fight the release of the photos was a mistake. He said officials had described them as “worse than Abu Ghraib” and said their volume, more than 2,000 images, showed that “it is no longer tenable to blame abuse on a few bad apples. These were policies set at the highest level.””
Possible propaganda – using the theory of evolution to explain away male infertility and prepare us for possibly engineered future changes to human beings:
“…A researcher in human sex chromosomes said the male Y chromosome was dying and could run out within the next five million years.
“…But Professor Jennifer Graves said men may follow the path of a type of rodent which still manages to reproduce despite not having the vital genes that make up the Y chromosome….
“…She told medical students at the annual outreach public lecture at the Royal College of Surgeons (RCSI) in Ireland a second species of human beings could even be born in the future….”
European globalists continue to insist on ignoring the Irish referendum vote.
‘Eighteen “phantom” MEPs will be elected on full pay and perks next month despite not being able to start work for up to two years due to Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon Treaty…
‘… Timothy Kirkhope, leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, said. “If the EU is to have democratic legitimacy, we should respect the decision of the Irish, and our Labour government should honour its manifesto commitment to hold a referendum…”’
Globalist “Philanthropists”: Their Agenda is Secret
“…The philanthropists … discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.
“…Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority.
“…This could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.”
Gates talked about “better reproductive healthcare”. Note the double talk. “Reproductive” means abortion. They’re having trouble convincing the third world that abortion is a good thing. Schools, water and malaria are mentioned also.
“…a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.”
The reason for secrecy: because they didn’t want to be painted “as an alternative world government”.
According to Jim Tucker, the group discussed major steps towards world government, which also includes a global U.N. carbon tax and pressure on the Irish to vote the CORRECT WAY (the globalist way) on the Lisbon Treaty.
People need say NO to their agenda. Based on the article, it sounds like awareness and resistance has an effect on the Bilderberg group.
On the other hand, most of the mainstream media is still bought and paid for. What a disgrace they are. Of course they were represented at the meeting.
Another version of the list in German. Canadians in attendance according to the report:
W. Edmund Clark, Canada (CEO TD Bank Financial Group)…
Frank McKenna, Canada (Deputy Chairman of the Toronto-Dominion Bank)…
J. Robert S. Prichard, Canada (CEO of Torstar Corporation and president emeritus of the University of Toronto)…
Heather M. Reisman, Canada (co-founder of Indigo Books & Music Inc.)…
Indira Samarasekera, Canada (President of University of Alberta, Board of Directors Scotiabank)…
May 24th, 2009
Libertarian Response to Liberal Agenda (2005)
I wrote this statement in 2005. It deals with a bunch of issues that people need to wake up to, but it’s all part of the gradual deliberate change that has been occurring over generations. We need to fundamentally question the system we are born into and where it is headed. “Liberal” is a label for the party that happens to be in the majority, but all the main parties serve Establishment interests:
Ontario Libertarian Party’s Response to the Liberal Government’s Agenda
…
Libertarians have several observations to make about the Ontario government’s agenda, announced in its recent Throne Speech.
For one thing, the government has announced a parent replacement plan called “Best Start”, which “will ensure our children arrive, on the first day of school, prepared to learn.” It doesn’t say what effect this program will have on private day care businesses, or on parents who might otherwise decide to care for their pre-schoolers at home. But it claims that Best Start is the result of “years of hard work by people who have devoted their lives to our youngest Ontarians.” This statement does not refer to each parent designing a program best suited to his or her child, but to collectivists who have somehow designed a program that is “best” for all of Ontario’s children.
The government also presented proposals to stop Ontarians from making lifestyle choices that are incompatible with the precarious state of its socialist health care system. “For the first time in our history,” as they put it, “your government has a Minister of Health Promotion who is leading an ambitious agenda to promote healthy and active living in Ontario.” So the government promises to meddle with your diet and exercise habits. And of course it also passed legislation that bans smoking in private clubs and privately owned places of business that socialists regard as “public places”.
As well as continuing a system of forced wealth redistribution to Ontarians with lower incomes, the government is proud to donate huge sums of taxpayers’ money to the automotive industry and the forestry industry – not to mention the Lord of the Rings musical. On top of that, in order to force gasoline consumers to provide more income to farmers, the government “is requiring an average of five per cent ethanol in all gasoline sold in Ontario by January 2007, and supporting the construction of ethanol plants.”
The government also wants to “break down the barriers that can prevent new Canadians from reaching their full potential.” But instead of taking the direct approach of ending the monopoly of certification agencies such as the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the government only promises to “ensure timely access to professions and trades for qualified professionals trained outside of Canada by ensuring regulatory bodies create a fair and transparent registration and appeals process.”
In response to the government’s policies of central planning and social engineering, the Ontario Libertarian Party recommends that Ontarians should be free to make their own choices as to how they live their own lives: how they invest their money, how they look after their health, and how they educate their children.
May 31st, 2009
Libertarian Statement on Organ Bill (2006)
More libertarian ideas are mentioned in this statement from 2006, with apologies for it being out of date. Also, it’s the wider issues that are important and not the specific Bill or party. Nevertheless, I hope readers start to fundamentally question the system they live in as well as the direction their society is being pushed.
The statement doesn’t address the dark world of the current organ trade, which is a consequence of the system. The system – escalating totalitarian management under left-centre-right flavours – creates an underworld, one reality for the rich and privileged, and another reality for everyone else.
The same dilemma exists with the “war on drugs”: Making narcotics illegal creates a nightmare for many, but there are powerful people profiting from the high prices of the illegal drug trade. There are supposed reasons why something is illegal and then there are the real reasons that have to do with control: empowerment for a few and dis-empowerment for the many.
Update: another caveat: There is the deeper point that we should not be seeing other human beings’ bodies as resources for our own benefit in the first place. I think this is a real trap we’ve fallen into, because we are led to neglect the sanctity of life. The logic may lead to unacceptable practices. However, it would be better if these decisions were made individually rather than allow the State to impose its economically-based policies on everyone.
Libertarian Party: Ontario Organ Donation Bill Seeks Government Ownership of your Body
February 18, 2006 – Toronto, Ontario. Ontario M.P.P. Peter Kormos has introduced Bill 61, which seeks to amend the Trillium Gift of Life Network Act in order to allow “presumed consent” for organ donations. According to the bill’s explanatory note, the “purpose of the Bill is to ensure that upon the death of a person, tissue from the person’s body may be removed and made available for transplant into another person’s body and that this may be done without the consent of the person from whom the tissue is removed.”
Trillium Gift of Life Network is a government monopoly that controls organ donation in Ontario. This agency’s restrictions follow a strict socialist ideology that weeds out non-altruistic motives by potential living donors. For instance, directed-donation by living donors is forbidden except among family and friends. As a result, the availability of organs from living donors does not meet the critical needs of more than 1800 Ontarians on transplant waiting lists.
Bill 61 seeks to solve this government-created shortage by using the force of law to harvest organs from any deceased person who has not stated an objection. Various parties in the Ontario Legislature seek to force “solutions”, whether it is by declaring government ownership of peoples’ dead bodies or by forcing them to sign statements.
Libertarians believe that a person owns his or her own life and body. The Ontario Libertarian Party rejects Bill 61 as a shameful violation of personal freedom and self-ownership. We reject the belief held by Peter Kormos and other legislators, that the government owns the bodies of Ontarians, or that the government has the right to decide what happens to our bodies after death. The Libertarian Party utterly rejects the concept of “presumed consent” for organ donation. Nobody has a right to take organs and tissues unless explicit consent is given.
Furthermore, the government has no right to require statements or collect information on the various reasons – religious, philosophical or otherwise – that people may have for not donating their organs.
In fact, there should be complete freedom for Ontarians to make economic and charitable arrangments concerning what happens to their organs while they are alive and after they are dead. Freedom involves economic incentives, choice and initiative, whereas government solutions involve confiscation, restrictions and threats of punishment.
The Libertarian Party calls for the rejection of Bill 61 and for the abolition of the original Act.
May 31st, 2009
Rule by NGOs: Libertarian Rejection of “Smart Growth”
This statement (see below) relates to the United Nations plan “Agenda 21″, but I think I was only barely aware of it at the time. If there is only one clear point to make about Agenda 21, reading it will tell you that the United Nations laid out a plan for total re-organization of the world in the 21st century, and that’s basically where governments get their “ideas”.
When we don’t know any better, we tend to blame only local interest groups, as if there is some logical normal and natural reason for imposing total control over society. That’s just not reality. Even local groups and local governments get their marching orders and their religious dogma from the U.N. The dogma is “Sustainable Development“.
Here is an example of a group with a presence in Toronto, which promotes environmentalist policies: ICLEI Canada, “Local Governments for Sustainability”. And all of this will sound familiar if you review Agenda 21:
“ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability is an international association of local governments and national and regional local government organizations that have made a commitment to sustainable development…”
“ICLEI is supported by core and project funders and by our host cities. Some of our major project funders include the Australian Greenhouse Office, Canadian International Development Agency, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), European Commission, German Environmental Foundation, and the US Environmental Protection Agency.
“ICLEI builds and fosters alliances and partnerships that further our goals and better support our Members. We have a wide range of international and regional partners that collaborate on our programs and campaigns, including national governments, academic institutions, local project-specific partners such as foundations and non-governmental organizations, and dozens of national, regional, and international associations of local governments.”
In other words, government policy is determined internationally by foundations and councils (i.e., soviets). By a special class, in other words, groups in which there is a pre-determined consensus. And, oh yes, the funding comes from YOU the tax-payer and the private foundations who call the shots. But this group commits to policies from their club, not to any ideas YOU might have unless you are in their club. Get it? The club includes both governments and non-governmental organizations.
Here is another example (listed at the Integrity Commissioner’s website) of a Toronto lobbyist group, “Federation of Ontario Naturalists”, representing “Ontario Nature”.
What is this group advocating?
“We are actively advocating the provincial government to pass legislation to direct conservation-based land use planning in advance of development allocations in the northern boreal region.” [Comment: They have almost finished "protecting" the forests from humans in Southern Ontario so they have to rope off the North now.]
“Bill 150 – Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009″ [Tyranny Act, 2009, unbelievable]
“Regulations under the Endangered Species Act (we are advocating effective implementation of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act to ensure that species at risk and their habitats are protected) The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.” [Comment: Human beings are supposed to be in their eyes a less important species, so I think we're definitely endangered based on what these groups are advocating.]
“We are advocating for smart growth policies that create compact, transit supportive communities[how "compact" do you want your town to be?] and protect urban green space. We are advocating for a connected natural heritage system throughout southern and eastern Ontario south of the Canadian shield. We are advocating that the Ministry of Education implement the recommendations of the Bondar report with particular emphasis on experiential and outdoor education [Comment: "education" - indoctrination - is spelled out repeatedly in Agenda 21]. We are advocating the adoption and support of an Alternative Land Use Services program across Ontario We are working on the Mining Act review.”
“Northern Boreal Protection Act”
“… We will also be focusing on promoting enforcement of existing policies [Comment: the use of force] designed to protect natural heritage and advising government of new policies needed to protect natural heritage.”
Ontario Nature receives substantial funding from government agencies. In other words, taxpayers have paid to fund this group whether or not they agree with its goals:
— Environment Canada, 13,500;
— Heritage Canada, 30,223;
— Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 14,276;
— Ontario Ministry of Culture – Ontario Media Development Corporation, 12,500
You can get a picture of an interconnected web from all this. As far as “private funding of $750 or more”, the Ivey Foundation in Toronto is listed:
“Since 1947 the Foundation has made grants totalling $67.8 million.”
And this section shows you where the Ivey Foundation grants go. In 2008, a group called “Ontario Nature” (Must be the same group as above) received $100,000.
The link provided, for some reason, is WWF-Canada, World Wildlife Fund – Canada, founded in 1967 by Senator Alan MacNaughton (pictured next to his boss, HRH Prince Philip).
Just another example: $42,900 in 2005 went to the Ontario College of Family Physicians:
“To educate doctors, the general public, and Ontario policymakers on the health effects of urban sprawl.”
Another of the Ivey Foundation’s recipients – pulling one at random – is the Neptis Foundation:
“Neptis believes that by enriching public knowledge of regional urbanism, it can exert a constructive and creative influence on the course of debate and decisions on regional management.
“Neptis initiates, supports, and popularizes expert nonpartisan research and opinion on urban regions and their futures by leading academics and other researchers. Neptis serves as a resource to governments, the private sector, practitioners, students, and the public generally. It regards this activity as a kind of informational activism.
“Neptis seeks to fill voids in regional knowledge, not to duplicate the work of government. It aims to bring scholarly research to public policy formation, and to dissolve boundaries between disciplines- both in research and in policy-making”
These groups – these are the ones who do the policy making! Not individuals through democratic representation as citizens. But rather well-funded lobbyists and research institutions, privately and tax-funded. These do the policy-making. Not you. You were not involved in these decisions. This is rule by “experts” who know what they want to force on everyone, and you and your children will just be educated in their camps unless enough people stop going along. Groups like these initiate the legislation that governments pass. It is not democracy. You had no say at all. And this is just one example of how things work.
And here is the LP statement from 2006 (most links below are out of date):
Libertarian Party Rejects ‘Smart Growth’ as a Dumb Idea
The Libertarian Party is the “Party of Choice,” and as such, we reject this dictatorial power grab that seeks to impose “better choices” on individuals.
This plan represents even greater centralization of government planning, in which the people who force decisions on Ontarians are even further away from real life.
This plan is a continuation of other policies which attempt to obliterate personal property rights in Ontario, such as the Greenbelt Act which prohibits development within designated areas. Of course there is no mention of the concept of “property rights” in either the Places to Grow Act or the Growth Plan.
The preamble to the act states that “planning must occur in a rational and strategic way”. However, governments and central committees are not capable of rationally planning what is best for millions of individuals. Whereas the act elevates arbitrary power to the level of “rational”, the process of individuals expressing their personal choices through the free market is smeared by implication as irrational.
The province wants to plan how big our houses are, how much land is allotted to each unit, and where houses are in relation to businesses. The province also wants to establish minimum population densities.
The plan describes targets for intensification (p. 14-17): “All municipalities will develop and implement through their official plans and other supporting documents, a strategy and policies to phase in and achieve intensification and the intensification target.” The intensification targets (p. 16) are: 400 residents and jobs per hectare for urban growth centres in Toronto, 200 for urban growth centres in municipalities such as Brampton, and 150 for urban growth centres in municipalities such as Barrie.
The purpose of “urban growth centres” and “intensification corridors” is to move people away from the country and pack them into the city where they can be more easily ruled.
Individuals should decide the best use of land based on their needs. The government should not be deciding whether it is best for a family to live in a one-bedroom condominium or on a farm. Government planning also squelches innovation, but the free market allows for innovation and choice with respect to housing styles.
The plan complains (p. 8 ) that “attractive and efficient public transit is difficult to introduce into sprawling communities, and this limits our ability to respond effectively to growing traffic congestion issues.” In other words, the government wants to plan the living arrangements of residents in order to better serve transit systems rather than let transit systems develop to serve individual choice.
As the Star reports in its discussion of the Growth Plan, 400 people and jobs per hectare is “the minimum number of people required to support a subway”. In other words, the government thinks we exist to support subways. Packing people like sardines into intensification zones is all about making problem-solving more convenient for central authorities.
The plan (p. 8 ) admits that, “decades of neglect and lack of sufficient investment have resulted in the current infrastructure deficit. Tens of billions of dollars beyond current levels of investment will be required before the situation is back in balance.” This admission of government failure under various ruling parties raises the question of why we trust big government to manage anything. But here they go, tightening their grip, asserting more control in the face of failure, and planning in detail the lives of over 11 million people for the next 25 years.
The plan attacks “sprawl” (p.8), which is a pejorative term for “suburbanization”. Suburbanization is not for everyone, but it has made it possible for huge numbers of people to own their homes and accumulate capital, while raising their children away from the stress and noise of the ‘high density’ city.
The plan attacks individual mobility (p. 25) by requiring municipalities to implement policies that “increase the modal share of alternatives to the automobile.” That means the government will try to make you walk more, cycle more, use transit more and use your automobile less. But the pros and cons of all these modes of travel should be decided by individuals free of coercion.
Scattered throughout the plan are the fears used to justify violations of individual rights – fear of consumption of agricultural lands and other natural resources, fear of the loss of “employment lands”, and fear of urban sprawl (p. 8). The implication is that forcing solutions to these supposed threats is the best way to deal with them.
The plan sets in stone the so-called “Culture of Conservation” (p. 30, 32) or as we might more accurately call it, the “Culture of Deprivation”. It’s the people-as-pets way of thinking and we are so sick of it. The complaints about human beings come thick and fast: We use too much water. We use too much energy. We produce too much waste. We use too much land. According to this belief system, only the government knows what is “sustainable”.
Contrary to their false assertions about sustainability, depriving human beings of freedom is not sustainable. Also, freedom is the only sustainable method for deciding how to deal with resources. The free market is one of the most important means we can use to work cooperatively with others to resolve concerns. All of these resource problems are everyday human problems, and are best managed by each individual who knows his/her own situation better than anyone else. That’s why each individual needs to be empowered with liberty and a system that properly protects their rights.
For residents to achieve the homes and neighborhoods they want, we need market-oriented and consumer-oriented planning. In other words, we need people deciding their own futures within a framework that also protects the legitimate rights of others they interact with.
The Libertarian Party rejects the whole concept of a central authority planning peoples’ lives and regulating the use of their property. Please register your disagreement with the Ontario government’s Growth Plan by supporting the Libertarian Party…
‘Dozens of US cities may have entire neighbourhoods bulldozed as part of drastic “shrink to survive” proposals being considered by the Obama administrationto tackle economic decline.
[that's the reason they're giving the public]
‘The government looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature.
‘Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 per cent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area...
[like 'compact cities' in 'Smart Growth']
‘Mr Kildee said he will concentrate on 50 cities, identified in a recent study by the Brookings Institution, an influential Washington think-tank, as potentially needing to shrink substantially to cope with their declining fortunes….
‘“The real question is … whether we let it happen in a destructive or sustainable [their favorite word] way,” said Mr Kildee. “Decline is a fact of life in Flint. Resisting it is like resisting gravity.”
[Or like resisting our masters who run the government. As the Borg said in 'Star Trek', 'Resistance is futile!' 'It's good for the economy - somehow'. ]
‘Karina Pallagst, director of the Shrinking Cities in a Global Perspective programme at the University of California, Berkeley, said there was “both a cultural and political taboo” about admitting decline in America.
[Americans probably didn't realize decline was meant to be permanent, but they want to re-educate all of us about that globally.]
June 16th, 2009
June 20, 2009 – Policing Internet – Sterilization in Peru and Colombia
“Human rights organizations have thoroughly documented evidence that women were physically coerced, threatened, tricked, and enticed with economic incentives during the implementation of the program, which sterilized a total of approximately 400,000 Peruvian women in just two years, 1997 and 1998, with the help of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).”
“The Colombian sterilization bill, should it pass, would be considered an “involuntary” sterilization program according to standards adopted by the United States in legislation known as the Tiahrt Amendment. The amendment regards any program that uses “incentives, bribes, gratuities, or financial reward for family planning program personnel for achieving targets or quotas, or for individuals in exchange for becoming a family planning acceptor” according to the government’s USAID program.”
Recent Comments