Security Perimeter: U.S. Obama administration pursues annexation deal against Canada

“There is no power to annex Canada in the heads of power. Therefore, they cannot TAKE STEPS in that direction, they have no power; and amendment is a STEP, they cannot take the STEP of amendment to ADD a power they don’t have, they are limited by existing powers” – Kathleen Moore Habeas Corpus Canada

The case for annexation CAN’T be legally made. It’s really a moot point. legally. Our temporary civil servants do not have the Constitutional authority or prerogative to annex Canada to the United States. They are mere creatures of the Constitution and their powers are limited -- constitutionally limited and limited to the POGG powers (Peace, Order And Good Governance).

Our Constitution expressly prohibits annexation, and annexation cannot be accomplished via simple amendment to our Constitution. It would require nothing less then a complete removal or dissolution of our Constitution to make that happen.

With no power to dissolve our Constitution on their own, they need us the people to do that for them. How can they convince us to do that? They can certainly promote and support any agenda that has the same or similar end goals. For example, the ‘republican movement’ here in Canada.

I recently attended a debate at the Royal Ontario Museum on this very topic. I’m happy to say that the debate that evening worked out in favour of keeping our Constitutional Monarchy vs a Republic.

The ‘republicans’ that were there, vowed to keep pressing on though and they are gaining ground. In order to form a republic in Canada, it would require nothing less then a total removal of our current lawful Constitution and replacing it with a republic style document, outlining the new position and duties of Head of State, a ‘President of Canada’ and a new governmental, judicial structure.

Other ways they can do this is to underhandedly promote and support Quebec separatism in order to split apart Canada, which again, and regardless of the Clarity Act, would result in a rewrite of our Constitution if they ever achieve a YES vote for separation.

Gilles Duceppe spent the summer of 2010 promoting the tired idea of separation and even went as far as to send out an official document to the world proclaiming yet another bogus referendum on the matter.

Then we have other interests or movements that have very similar goals- open borders, the end of nations, global governance/one world government, Anarchism, Communism, opting out of society, Provincial Secession etc..

Since our government can’t suggest or ask this themselves as they have no power to act in this direction and asking a question is an act, they need us to DEMAND the change from them. They need us to demand this issue of a common security perimeter be debated in Parliament, or that it should be decided by referendum and they are playing their cards very well so far, pretending they have the power to sign unconstitutional treaties and agreements that water down our sovereignty, which is tantamount to treason and sedition, both criminal acts but they would like us to think they are political acts- worse case scenario they don’t get re-elected vs. charged with Treason or Sedition.

By voting yes or no to treason and sedition, what we are saying is that this type of criminal behaviour is ‘OK’ as long as the majority of voters are ‘OK’ with it.

In regards to North American Union or North American integration, the government propaganda machine has been in high gear over the last 5 or 6 years, busy shaping public opinion via controlled media with almost unlimited resources, combine this with the indoctrination of our kids via colleges and universities, the school system in general into their globalist mindset, then couple this with a general population were the majority are still to this day, not fully aware of what’s truly at stake here and how all these seemingly ‘unrelated’ efforts by governments, NGO’s and special Interest Groups, at all levels, local, Provincial and Federal are for the most part, playing into a much bigger agenda. Knowing this, we should then realize that demanding a referendum or vote in Parliament might be a very risky proposition!

If they can manipulate a YES vote, it would give the appearance that they now have the consent of the people to proceed with their unconstitutional activities and at that point there would be very little we could do about it. The same goes for allowing it to be voted on in Parliament, another risky proposition they are hoping for. We all know that it was the Liberals under Paul Martin that signed us into the SPP and then the Harper Conservative picked up the torch and ran with it without skipping a beat!

The NDP although on the surface seem to disapprove of a merger, their solution also is to put it to a vote in Parliament. A Parliament that is made up the two main political parties that have been pushing integration and harmonization and ensuring this agenda continues moving forward.

Now, can you imagine putting the question and final decision of a common security perimeter before the House, to be voted on between these two ‘bought and paid for’ parties? The very same parties that drafted the deal and created the framework in which this recent deal is based around? Honestly, regardless of how transparent this process is, how do we think this vote would turn out? I’m not a betting man, but I would be putting my money on the YES vote in this situation.

You may quickly say, it doesn’t matter because Harper is just going ahead and doing it without a vote or a referendum anyway so we would be at least have some sort of chance to vote on it, a chance to have our say, a chance to see what’s even in the deal. What we are doing here is putting our pieces on their grand chessboard when in fact we are not even required to play the game! If you don’t put your pieces on their slanted board they cannot win the game especially when they have no power to force you to play.

Prime Minister Harper’s actions will speak louder then his words and thanks to sections s. 52, of the Constitution Act, 1982 and s. 91, s. 92 of the BNA Act, 1867 and the Prerogative Writs, there are other solutions and tools at our disposal for dealing with power out of control. Solutions that don’t involve tearing down your government or the Constitution or trying to convince each and every Canadian that this is a bad idea in hopes they end up voting that way or voting at all.

Please visit: - The Official Legal Challenge To North American Union

Get To Know Our Constitution-

British North American Act, 1867



There are 0 comments on this post

Leave A Comment