Conservative Party linked to pro-U.S. annexation cabal

Activities tantamount to Treason, involving Breach of Parliamentary Oath and conspiracy to overthrow Her Majesty

by Peter Mackenzie

"Stand Up for Canada" appears to have been devised as a technique of mass deception, under the joint auspices of former ultra-right wing Alliance Party and U.S. Republican Party advisors.

In the last 2006 Federal Election, the Conservative Party kept trumpeting its slogan that it would "Stand up for Canada". Then, Opposition Leader Stephen Harper during that elected indicated that he would similarly "Stand Up" for Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. Mr. Harper portrayed his party, as a party which would govern Canada with integrity and openness in a spirit of renewed democracy, in contrast with the 'corruption' of the Martin Liberals. As it turns out, these assertions by Mr. Harper could not be further from the truth.

Mel Hurtig, the founder of the Council of Canadians, and also a variety of other reliable sources including veteran CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, now reveal that senior elected representatives and advisors to the Conservative Party, are currently planning a scheme that would hand over Canada to the Bush regime by 2007. The official name for this scheme, is called "North American Union".

Mel Hurtig, a noted Canadian author and publisher who was the elected leader of the National Party of Canada, provided researchers with the agenda and attendee list of the so-called "North American Forum" at the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel in Banff, Alberta, Sept. 12-14, 2006.

Mr. Hurtig said the "secret meeting was designed to undermine the democratic process." In addition, the reported Agenda undermines the Statutory position of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, as the constitutional expression of a Canada independent from the U.S.

"What is sinister about this meeting is that it involved high level government officials and some of the top and most powerful business leaders of the three countries and the North American Forum in organizing the meeting intentionally did not inform the press in any of the three countries," he said. "It was clear that the intention was to keep this important meeting about integrating the three countries out of the public eye," Mr. Hurtig further indicates.

The motive for U.S. participation, according to Mr. Hurtig, was "to gain access and control Canada's extensive natural resources, including oil and water."

Documents obtained by researchers associated with the Council of Canadians were marked "Internal Document, Not for Public Release." At least three current Ministers of Stephen Harper's Conservative Party minority government are cited in the Document as "ring leaders" so-to-speak, of an unlawful and anti-constitutional effort to hand Canada to the Bush regime.

Canadian constitutional and related law is quite clear that any such effort by elected members of a government to subvert the political authority of the Government of Canada, constitutes breach of a Parliamentary Allegiance of Office, and broadly treason.

This is because the reportedly directed efforts of Ministers in the Stephen Harper government, to hand over Canada to the political authority of Mr. Bush, as the American Head of State, without the consent of the diverse Canadian public, can only be executed by the seditious overthrowing of the Crown, i.e. Canadian Head of State.

Section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867 indicates as follows:

Every member of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person authorized by him, and every Member of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province shall before the Lieutenant Governor of the Province or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act; .

The oath set out in the Fifth Schedule reads as follows:

I, A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty... [Elizabeth II].

According to the Sixth Edition of Beauchesne's Rules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada:

Should a member violate his oath he [or she] would be amenable to the penalty of not being allowed to sit in the House of Commons. He [or she] may be suspended from taking part in the sittings while still remaining a member of Parliament, or, in a case of extreme gravity, a Bill might be passed to annul his election...

The power of dealing with treason is inherent in the Parliament of every country.

The leaked document clearly substantiates that Ministers of the Stephen Harper Government are sharing information with representatives of the U.S. military-industrial-complex, for the purposes of "surrendering" Canada to a U.S.-based "non-democratic authority". This apparent government-sponsored effort is designed to destroy the sovereign authority of Canadians as co-owners of their society, in violation of all Canadian Constitutional Acts since 1867.

Pursuant to Section 46 (2) of the Canadian Criminal Codes "Every one commits treason in Canada, when someone (b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

Furthermore, pursuant to Section 52 of the Criminal Code of Canada, to the extent that the apparent efforts of the Stephen Harper government to surrender Canada to a non-democratic American political arrangement is seditious to "(a) the safety, security or defence of Canada," the Stephen Harper government has executed treason. If that has indeed occurred, then the Stephen Harper government, if it has any semblance of integrity, must surrender its authority to the Governor-General acting on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, toward new Federal Election.

Make comments about this article in The Canadian Blog.

A new blog series about John F. Kennedy

I just discovered an excellent series of essays about John F. Kennedy on this blog by Laura Knight Jadczyk. There are ten entries so far, with more on the way. The author does a great job on analyzing how the world might have been different if JFK had lived to fulfill his term in office. Instead, we are stuck with a moron and pathological liar like Dubya, who seems hell-bent on starting WWIII, with his Zionist/Neocon backers paving the way. Psychopaths... all of them.

In order to familiarize the reader with these series of essays, I will be presenting the first few paragraphs or so of each chapter, with a link to it's proper source.

Enjoy!

Relic

#1 John F. Kennedy and The Debris of History

Over the past few days I've been thinking a lot about John Kennedy and what our world might have been like if he had lived. These thoughts didn't just come out of the blue, they are the result of the fact that I have just finished reading one of the saddest books ever written: Farewell America by the pseudonymous author, James Hepburn.

Farewell America is pretty well accepted to have been authored by the French equivalent of our CIA, and based on hard intelligence gathered from French, Russian, and even American sources. It was originally published in French in 1968, but it was unavailable in the United States for many years. With the coming of the worldwide web, it became available and I truly wish that every American citizen would read it.

With remarkable skill and insight, the book outlines the overall situation in America at the time, and describes the players and most probable conspirators involved in the horrific and brutal public execution of probably the best president America ever had. There are many reasons to think that George H.W. Bush was involved in the plot, and today, having placed his idiot son on the throne, the world is as far away from that world we could be living in had Kennedy lived, that it is like we all died back then, and now we have awakened in Hell. [...]


#2 The Gladiator: John Fitzgerald Kennedy

In my previous post, I included a chapter from Farewell America which gave a broad overview of the "American Psyche." It is crucial to understand the forces at play here in order to understand why John Kennedy was murdered, and why, when he died, the death knell of the American Republic - as well as its people - began sounding.
As I have written before, most Americans are woefully ignorant of their true history, and by design. [...]


#3 The Bushes and The Lost King

The assassination of John F. Kennedy is a lot like the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Since that terrible day, almost 43 years ago, there have been over 2,000 books written about the JFK assassination. There have also been numerous television programs and several movies. There is endless theorizing and speculation as to why John F. Kennedy was executed by what amounts to a firing squad, in broad daylight, in the middle of Dallas Texas, on a sunny day in November. Additionally, there have been a lot of myths created and propagated seemingly to muddy the waters. The only thing that most of the proponents of various theories can agree on is that the FBI and the CIA did little to help the Warren Commission solve the crime. Well, that also sounds a lot like the official 9/11 Report. Both events were dealt with in the same way, by a "select group of bureaucrats with an agenda of lies".

Just as with the events on 9/11, there is the "official story"; in the case of Kennedy, it was the "lone gunman"; in the case of 9/11, it was 19 improbable terrorists directed by a cave-dwelling mastermind. In fact, Osama bin Laden and Lee Harvey Oswald have a lot in common: both worked for the CIA. [...]

Is the Bush family implicated in the assassination of John F. Kennedy? [...]


#4 Sim City and John F. Kennedy

When I re-read the words of John F. Kennedy, when I consider the legislation he sought to enact, when I consider the sheer depth and humanity of him, and compare him with what is lurking and lurching in the White House today, I am literally overwhelmed. How far down into the Slough of Despond we have been sucked since that November day 43 years ago. [...]


#5 John F. Kennedy and All Those "isms"

Today, I want to come back to my JFK project. Twelve days from now is the 43rd anniversary of the assassination - a virtual coup d'etat effected by Corporate America and its various connections. As I mentioned when I began this little series in commemoration of John F. Kennedy, a close and careful study of American history reveals that the American system was set up to promote the rule of the rich. It was Calvinism with a kick, and that kick was that it appealed to deviant persons without conscience for whom it seems the Capitalistic system was invented. [...]


#6 John F. Kennedy, J. Edgar Hoover, Organized Crime and the Global Village

Did you know that if we could reduce the world’s population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all existing human ratios remaining the same, the demographics would look something like this:

60 Asians

14 Africans

12 Europeans

8 Latin Americans

5 North Americans AND Canadians

Of all of the above, 82 would be non-white and only 18 would be "white".

67 would be non-Christian and only 33 would be Christian.

5 would control 32% of the entire world’s wealth, and all of them would be US citizens

80 would live in substandard housing

24 would not have any electricity (And of the 76% that do have electricity, most would only use it for light at night.)

67 would be unable to read

1 (only one) would have a college education.

50 would be malnourished and 1 dying of starvation

33 would be without access to a safe water supply

7 people would have access to the Internet

If there is a meal in your refrigerator, if you are dressed and have got shoes, if you have a bed and a roof above your head, you are better off, than 75% of people in this world.

If you have a bank account, money in your purse and there is some trifle in your coin box, you belong to 8% of well-provided people in this world.

If you are able to go to church, mosque or synagogue without fear of harassment, arrest, torture or death, you are better off than 3 billion persons in this world.

I guess you notice that Americans are in the minority population wise and yet they control the majority of the world's wealth. What do you think will happen if that majority of people ever really gets it in their head that America is an intolerable bully and must no longer be tolerated? Sure, America could bomb the hell out of the planet and reduce our lives to a Stone Age existence, but then that would be rather like cutting off our noses to spite our faces, now wouldn't it?

Today I want to look at some of the words and acts of John F. Kennedy in the last year - and days - leading up to his death, extracted from Farewell America. These words and deeds give us a deep insight as to how he wished to deal with America's place in the global village; that he saw the danger and sought to avert just what is happening today: the entire world is turning against America. As you read his words, and contemplate his acts, consider them in the light of what we have experienced in America since his death. We know where the assassins have led us: a world of terror and heartbreak, of endless war and privation for multiplied millions of human beings; where would we be today if they had not succeeded? [...]


#7 John F. Kennedy and the Psychopathology of Politics

Today I want to continue with the subject of John Kennedy; there's only one week left before the anniversary of his death, so I'm going to have to really put the pedal to the metal to get to the end of the subject on time. As it happens, now that the subject weighs so heavily on my mind, I find that there are things that constantly remind me of what America lost, the terrible state of the world today as a consequence of that loss, and the ultimate reasons behind it all. [...]


#8 John F. Kennedy and the Pigs of War (JFK and the Bay of Pigs)

On November 18th, 1963, 43 years ago today, John F. Kennedy predicted that the month of April, 1964, would bring "the longest and strongest peacetime economic expansion in our Nation's entire history." And he added: "The steady conquest of the surely yielding enemies of misery and hopelessness, hunger, and injustice is the central task for the Americas in our time . . . 'Nothing is true except a man or men adhere to it -- to live for it, to spend themselves on it, to die for it . . . '"

Time was slipping through his hands . . . he had four days to live. [...]


#9 John F. Kennedy and the Titans

On November 19, 1963, 43 years ago today, at a ceremony in the White House Flower Garden, John F. Kennedy welcomed officers of state education associations of the National Education Association. he remarked: "I realize once again in a very personal way what a tremendous flood of children are coming into our schools..."

He was always concerned about children, his own as well as the children of all Americans and the world. [...]


#10 John F. Kennedy, Oil, and the War on Terror

On November 20th, 1963, between 11:30 - 11:40 a.m., President John F. Kennedy met with Lena Horne, Carol Lawrence, DNC chairman John M. Bailey, and others.

Later that day, he issued a statement on the Extraordinary Administrative Radio Conference to Allocate Frequency Bands for Space Radio Communication Purposes, held in Geneva, Switzerland from October 7 to November 8, 1963. He invited other nations to participate in setting up a global communication satellite system. He spoke of "a peace system worldwide in scope."

Following that, John Kennedy sent to the Congress the 17th annual report on U.S. participation in the United Nations, and then he signed into law bill (HR2073) to allow the conveyance of submerged and tidal lands to Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa if they are needed for economic development or other compelling reason. The John F. Kennedy Presidential Library Archives

At the end of the day, he had less than two days left...

Seismic Proof 9/11 Was An Inside Job

Sunday, November 12th, 2006
Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross

There is an appointed time for everything
And there is a time for every event under heaven
Ecclesiastes 3:1

SUMMARY
On September 11, 2001, the seismic stations grouped around New York City recorded seismic events from the WTC site, two of which occurred immediately prior to the aircraft impacts upon the Twin Towers. Because these seismic events preceded the collisions, it is clear they were not associated with the impacts and must therefore be associated with some other occurrence. None of the authorities charged with the responsibility for the investigation of the events of 9/11 have proposed a source for these seismic events, nor have they given a valid reason for the difference in times between the seismic events and the aircraft impacts. Only by consideration of the evidence of basement explosions before the aircraft impacts, as experienced by William Rodriquez and 36 others, can an explanation be found for the fact that the seismic stations recorded seismic events originating from the WTC sites prior to the aircraft impacts. It seems unlikely that Middle Eastern terrorists could have overcome the WTC security and managed this kind of high-level, technological coordination. Do the facts presented here, simple and few, raise the possibility of inside involvement in 9/11/01, both before and after the attack? [...]

Post-Election Reality Check

By Laura Knight-Jadczyk
08/11/2006

So you think "the system worked", democracy has won out, and that yesterday's election is the first step to straightening out the mess Bush and the Neocons have made on the planet?

Think again. It's not that "the system" didn't work; it worked very well, but you have again been duped.

Nothing has changed. In fact, many of you have been put back to sleep by the staged Democratic victory which was set up just for that purpose; to make you think you still live in a democracy. The fact is, the Zionist halter is as firmly strapped on the head of American State policy as it ever was, and the American voter needs to realize that it is immaterial which party prevails at elections.

We read in one news item today:

Democrats Win House, On Brink of Senate Power

Democrats rolled up gains of about 30 seats in the House in Tuesday's elections, riding to a huge victory on a wave of public discontent with the Iraq war, corruption and Republican President George W. Bush's leadership.

Yeah, the public has been VERY discontented and the wave of resistance growing, what with all the activity on the internet working to expose Bush and the Zio-cons for the criminals they are. I'm sure that this was part of the reason to carry on this election farce.

Democratic control of the House will make outspoken liberal Rep. Nancy Pelosi the first female speaker and could slam the brakes on much of Bush's agenda and increase pressure for a change of course in Iraq. ...

Just slamming on the brakes? How about let's put things into reverse and go back a bit? I don't think that is what Pelosi has in mind, though.

"Tonight is a great victory for the American people," Pelosi told a Democratic rally on Capitol Hill. "Today the American people voted for change, and they voted for Democrats to take our country in a new direction." ...

Did they REALLY? Or is this just another manipulation? Is it a distraction to make the people think that changes really are on the way, when, in fact, it will be business as usual?

Early exit polls showed voters disapproved of the war in Iraq by a large margin, but voters said corruption and ethics were more important to their vote, CNN said.

Democrats hammered Republicans for spawning a "culture of corruption" in Washington, with four Republican House members resigning this year under an ethics cloud.

The party was hit by allegations about influence peddling, links to convicted lobbyists and a Capitol Hill sex scandal involving Republican Rep. Mark Foley's lewd messages to teenage male congressional assistants.

Hmmm... Pelosi is focusing on Iraq and not on the corruption issues. I think I remember some recent polls that suggested over half the people in the U.S. would support impeachment of Bush and even criminal charges. That's what people are really upset about, but is Pelosi on top of that issue? Or is she just handing the people a consolation prize?

Here's another from the Chicago Tribune:

American people sent 'unmistakable message'

After six years of near-total Republican domination, voters repudiated President Bush, the Iraq war and the GOP-led Congress on Tuesday, handing control of the House of Representatives to Democrats, placing Republican hold of the Senate in doubt and upending the balance of power in Washington.



The election, which centered on war, scandal and an array of anxieties about illegal immigration, high gasoline prices and embryonic stem cell research, abruptly ended 12 years of Republican rule in the House, casting out incumbents in every region of the country. ...

Notice how the corruption issues mentioned in the article above as being the chief concern of the people in the exit polls are mentioned only briefly here - scandal - while the focus gets put on the war, (which is certainly an outgrowth of corruption in the Bush Administration), immigration, high prices, and - geeze, how did that get in there - "stem cell research"?? Did they miss the exit polls that said: "voters disapproved of the war in Iraq by a large margin, but voters said corruption and ethics were more important to their vote."

You know: corruption, lies about WMDs, corruption of the Media, criminal behavior that needs to be investigated and prosecuted criminally?! It's sounding more like a set-up all the time: "hey, we'll let you Dems take the elections so it gets the heat off of us from the people who are ranting that we are fascists, meanwhile, you just make sure that nobody gets called on the carpet and/or raked over the coals! We don't want any REAL truth and justice and the American Way in Washington, ya know!"

Tuesday's election results mean Bush enters his final two years in office without a Republican Congress willingly moving his agenda forward and refraining from asking hard questions about U.S. conduct of the war in Iraq. Instead, Democrats will confront him with an agenda of their own and a newfound power to issue subpoenas and launch investigations.

Hmmm... but will they investigate what really matters? That's the 64,000 $$ question.

"The American people have sent a resounding and unmistakable message of change and new direction for America," said an exhausted Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who recruited and funded many of the challengers who won Tuesday. ...

Did they? Or is it all a farce to let off some steam, and take the heat off the criminals?

Democrats have vowed to raise the minimum wage, allow Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, make college tuition tax deductible and implement all of the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission to secure the nation's borders and ports. They have also promised to expand federally funded embryonic stem cell research, which Bush gave his first, and only, veto to this year.

But wait a minnit! What about the exit polls that said: "voters disapproved of the war in Iraq by a large margin, but voters said corruption and ethics were more important to their vote."?? Sure, raising the minimum wage is a good idea, helping medicare and students out is all fine and good, but what about investigating the lies that led us into the Iraq War? What about investigating the complete lie of 9/11? What's this about "securing the nation's borders and ports"? That sounds like they are just going to continue the Bush Zio-con agenda while handing out candy to the crowd. And again, "stem-cell research"??!! Don't get me wrong, I'm all for stem-cell research if it is conducted ethically. I'm also pro-choice. But how did this become a "talking point" when what is really upsetting Americans is corruption and lack of ethics in government? We need some investigations - independent ones at that - and some arrests and prosecutions! We want Bush and the Zio-cons BEHIND BARS or in front of a firing squad! Geeze, Pelosi, they've murdered over 600,000 innocent people! Don't you get it?

On Iraq, Democrats have said they would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces and require Iraqis to take responsibility for their country. They have also promised to double the size of Special Forces in order to track down and destroy terrorist networks such as Al Qaeda. ...

In other words, they are just going to pursue the Bush-Zio-con agenda with different justifications. Nothing about bringing the criminals to trial, getting out of Iraq today, this minute or telling the truth to the American people that there never WAS a "terrorist threat" other than the ones created by the CIA and MOSSAD. And now that we've mentioned it, that's another thing that needs to be investigated, independently!!!

That unhappiness extended to conservatives who watched with dismay as Republicans shifted from the party of limited government, less spending and strong ethics to one of massive spending, more government and scandal.

And now it looks like the Dems are doing a similar metamorphosis ...

Voters across the political spectrum were also distressed as bribery and lobbying scandals tainted a host of Republicans, forcing House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to resign and sending Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California to prison. Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) pleaded guilty to accepting illegal gifts from lobbyists, resigned his seat and is headed to prison next year.



"They went from being the party of conviction to the party of convictions," said Matt Bennett, a strategist for Third Way, a Democratic think tank. ...

And that's the main issue, if Pelosi and gang will just take notice. And the corruption goes all the way to the top.

On top of all that, sexually explicit electronic messages to congressional pages forced Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) to leave office and allowed a Democrat to win his seat. The ensuing scandal over who knew what when threatened to cause the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, New York Rep. Tom Reynolds, to lose his own previously secure Republican seat. Even so, Reynolds managed to win re-election.

Now, isn't that odd? We already know that the main thing that Americans are upset about it corruption, and here is a guy, at the center of a major scandal, who somehow managed to get re-elected?! Something isn't right with this picture. How much you want to bet that the guy running against him couldn't be bought, and the only Dems that did win in this whole election farce were the ones that could be relied upon to be "guided" by those special interests that are driving America to destruction?

Meanwhile, Rep. Don Sherwood (R-Pa.) lost his bid for re-election after acknowledging a long-running affair with a younger woman who alleged that Sherwood had assaulted her. He later reached an out-of-court settlement with the woman. And in New York, Rep. John Sweeney lost to Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand after it became public that police responded to a domestic violence call involving Sweeney and his wife last year. ...

I guess that Sherwood was expendable. Odd that he would lose for basically a "normal" scandal - at least it was adults involved - while Tom Reynolds, involved in the Foley pedophilia scandal kept his seat. Is it just me, or is anybody else seeing something wrong with this picture?

The country's sour mood and its unhappiness with the Bush administration were apparent in the final days and weeks of the campaign. As House and Senate races went down to the wire, many Republicans chose to distance themselves from the president. And the president was unwelcome in many states where Republicans were struggling to hold onto power.

And you can bet it was all planned that way. Now, let's look at Pelosi:

Pelosi set to become first woman to lead House

Under U.S. law, the speaker is second in the line of succession to the presidency, behind only the vice president.

That means that the controllers must be very sure of Pelosi. I would say that this almost guarantees that she is dirty.

Pelosi has said she will not try to end U.S. funding of the Iraq war but will pressure Bush to shift course, begin a phased redeployment of U.S. troops and require Iraqis to take greater responsibility for their own nation.

Oh, geeze, Nancy! How assertive of you! That would have probably happened anyway because even the Repubs admit it's a quagmire. You are doing anything special!

Pelosi has rejected calls to attempt to impeach Bush and drive him from office. But she has said Democrats would hold congressional oversight hearings, which could include such matters as whether he manipulated the facts to build early support for the Iraq war.

Wow! That says it all! Pelosi rejects calls to impeach Bush... but, just to make sure people think she is being straight-up, they'll investigate the "manipulation of facts." Can we say LYING, Pelosi? Can we say putting American lives in danger? Can we say TREASON?

Now, let's think about this for a minute: All the revelations mentioned above - the "culture of corruption" - came to us via the Media. We all know that the media is responsible for promoting the lies that Bush and the Neocons peddled about 9/11 and bin Laden and Saddam that got us into the war. We all know that the media colluded to protect the standing of G.W. Bush, a rapist, drunk driver, cocaine user, and deserter from the National Guard. Now, do you really think that the media (and its controllers) suddenly woke up and decided to become overseers of the Neocon ethics, to expose the corruption in the Bush Administration that has existed for all of the past six years?

Of course not.

Now, think back to the previous presidential election when it is a certainty, based on exit polls and the general feeling in the U.S., that G.W. Bush did not win that election - heck, he didn't win the first election - it was a fraudulent election, plain and simple. Take this to the next step: do you really think that if two elections could be stolen, that a third one could not? That the entire election of yesterday could not have gone to the Republicans IF that had been wanted by those who control the money, the media, and the voting machines?

But they knew that Americans were getting just a bit too hostile, that the climate in America was volatile, and another obviously "stolen" election could have been the spark to set off a powder keg. Not that they don't, ultimately, WANT to create a revolution in the U.S.; they just want it on their terms, and when they are certain that they can make it go the way they want it to go.

Besides, the crucial legislation that was needed to get and keep all the Democrats in line has already been passed.

Remember how many democrats voted to confirm Samuel Alito? What about Atty. General Gonzalez? How about the Patriot Act? The Torture Act? Remember how McCain showed his yellow spine?

So, do not, for an instant, let it escape your mind that the very media organs that ought to support accountability have been totally co-opted for a very long time.
Israel - by way of Jews loyal to the Zionist agenda - controls the media.



They control other things as well.



Consider who controls the telephone system in the U.S.... Israel. In short, long before 911, they had the ways and means to blackmail anyone in this country, INCLUDING CONGRESS.



Then consider what Paul Craig Roberts wrote about Bush's illegal spying...

Bush's acts of illegal domestic spying are gratuitous because there are no valid reasons for Bush to illegally spy. The Foreign Intelligence Services Act gives Bush all the power he needs to spy on terrorist suspects. All the administration is required to do is to apply to a secret FISA court for warrants. The Act permits the administration to spy first and then apply for a warrant, should time be of the essence. The problem is that Bush has totally ignored the law and the court.

Why would President Bush ignore the law and the FISA court? It is certainly not because the court in its three decades of existence was uncooperative. According to attorney Martin Garbus (New York Observer, 12-28-05), the secret court has issued more warrants than all federal district judges combined, only once denying a warrant.

Why, then, has the administration created another scandal for itself on top of the WMD, torture, hurricane, and illegal detention scandals?

There are two possible reasons.

One reason is that the Bush administration is being used to concentrate power in the executive. The old conservative movement, which honors the separation of powers, has been swept away. Its place has been taken by a neoconservative movement that worships executive power.

The other reason is that the Bush administration could not go to the FISA secret court for warrants because it was not spying for legitimate reasons and, therefore, had to keep the court in the dark about its activities.

What might these illegitimate reasons be? Could it be that the Bush administration used the spy apparatus of the US government in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election?

Could we attribute the feebleness of the Democrats as an opposition party to information obtained through illegal spying that would subject them to blackmail?

When Roberts suggests "What might these illegitimate reasons be? Could it be that the Bush administration used the spy apparatus of the US government in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election? "

... he doesn't really go the full distance. What if the illegal spying is to gain complete control of government and judiciary? Everybody has dirty laundry, and if you have that information, you can control about anything. The only people you can't control are those who are "clean" and we can guess from the way things are going in the U.S. and UK, just about everybody is "dirty."

Americans turned out in record numbers to vote in the last presidential election. They NEVER do that unless they are unhappy with the status quo. The exit polls and evidence of vote tampering suggests strongly that Bush did not win the election... (which is not to say that Kerry was any better choice!)

So, not only do they have control of congress and the judiciary so that they can control legislation, they also control the votes... As Stalin said, it's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes. And with control of congress and the judiciary AND the support of the Israeli owned media, there is NO possibility of them being made accountable for ANY of their crimes.

The whole election was played out as a farce to reassure the American people that they still lived in a democracy and to quell the growing revolutionary agitation.

So, considering the cards that the Israelis are holding in terms of illegal spying, I think we need to be realistic and understand that this election is not going to change anything substantive. They made a big show of the Democratic Sweep of the House, and on and on. But with the controls this cabal has already, there is ZERO possibility of fundamental change in course.

That's the problem we are facing and 911 is the single best leverage we have to DO something about it IF it is utilized efficiently. People need to continue to demand accountability for 9/11 - a full and independent investigation that includes reviewers and overseers selected at random from a pool of qualified, INTERNATIONAL, experts. The real criminals need to be found and prosecuted.

Anything else is just farce, business as usual.

This excellent analysis of post-election lies and hysteria can also be found at Signs of the Times

Canadians believe Bush is a threat to peace

Poll:
Many fear U.S. will launch strikes on Iran, N. Korea
Bin Laden still perceived as greatest danger

Nov. 3, 2006. 01:00 AM
TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON—Canadians believe the world has become a more dangerous place since George W. Bush was elected U.S. president and a majority believe he will launch military strikes in Iran or North Korea before his term ends in 2008, according to a new Toronto Star poll.

Canadians also consider Bush more dangerous to world peace than Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

The EKOS poll was done in Canada for the Star and Montreal's La Presse ahead of Tuesday's U.S. mid-term elections, expected to be decided on the issue of the Iraq war. The same questions were posed to respondents by pollsters in Britain, Israel and Mexico.

Canadians — like Americans — have soured on the U.S. invasion of Iraq with 73 per cent now telling EKOS that Washington had no justification for it. When the same question was asked of Canadians in April 2003, right after the Bush invasion, EKOS found 53 per cent thought it unjustified.

Also like Americans, Canadians are split on whether the U.S. should stay and finish the job or come home as soon as possible.

Canadians told EKOS they believed Osama bin Laden posed the greatest danger to the world, followed by North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, then Bush, Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah.

Mexicans ranked Bush the second-most dangerous of the five, behind Al Qaeda's bin Laden.

Views in Israel were radically different, where only 9 per cent ranked Bush a "great danger," compared to 34 per cent of Canadians, 41 per cent of Britons and 58 per cent of Mexicans.

Israelis ranked Ahmadinejad — who has vowed to wipe the country off the map — the most dangerous, slightly ahead of bin Laden.

In addition, 57 per cent of Canadians said they believed the U.S. would intervene militarily in North Korea or Iran in the next two years over objections to their nuclear programs.

The polls were conducted in late October and involved 1,000 people in each country. The results are considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Analysts here say anti-Americanism has become more intense under Bush than any other U.S. president before him.

"The feeling goes well beyond just policy choices," says Charles Pena of the Independent Institute. "There is the perception the Bush administration went into Iraq unilaterally and has made other choices unilaterally. There is a belief we ran roughshod over allies and that their opinions didn't matter and we wouldn't listen anyway."

Charles Kupchan of the non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations says there is a sense in the world that "America has gone off the reservation ... it is no longer a team player.

"It's a reaction to an Iraq war which seems to get worse by the day and is a festering wound. It will damage the U.S. image to 2008 and beyond because this eight-year period under Bush is something that will take years to overcome."

The Canadian view is not that different from that held by Americans. A New York Times/CBS News poll published yesterday indicated 26 per cent of Americans believe Bush had a clear plan to deal with the situation in Iraq and only 8 per cent said they believed he should continue on his present course in the war. Bush had the approval of 34 per cent of those polled.

The Pew Research Center in the U.S. regularly tracks America's global image and it, too, has found the image being tarnished with each passing year of the Bush administration.

Pew found the only time anti-Americanism had shown signs of abating was 2005 because of positive feelings generated by U.S. aid for tsunami victims in Indonesia and elsewhere. But a year later, America's image also had declined significantly in India (from 71 per cent to 56 per cent with a favourable opinion) and Indonesia (from 38 per cent to 30 per cent), Pew reported.