Justin Trudeau is now Prime Minister of Canada. – What does this mean?

trudeau_transparency_20140611

What exactly does this mean?   It means absolutely nothing.   Trudeau is not the leader of the Canadian government.  Neither was Harper.   They are figure heads.  Meant to persuade you that you that they are in charge, when in reality.  They are not.

Never in our history has any prime minister made any changes.   His father, was the figure head who everyone praised like a god, but never once considered the long term harm he would do, and did.

Justin, born with a silver spoon up his butt, but with the good looks like people flock to, has no value.

Will anything change?   Not in the slightest.

The government will allow the spying on it’s own people, without any oversight or warrants.
The government will continue to raise taxes.
The government will continue to have scandals.

Here are some of Trudeau’s campaign promises:

Mr. Trudeau has promised that half of a Liberal cabinet would be women.
(This can NOT be fulfilled unless women step up and are qualified.)

Promising unions $750 million for skilled trades funding.
(This can be fulfilled but where does that money come from?  From the taxpayers of course.  And since the government is in debt, then they would have to raise taxes.)

Add $515 million in funding for first nations education.
(While this is a noble promise, it ignores the fact that canada has no money to do this.  Raise taxes.)

Lower the federal income tax rate to 20.5 per cent on incomes between $44,700 and $89,401, paying for it by raising taxes on the wealthiest one per cent. Bring in a new, tax-free child benefit to replace the Conservative universal child benefit.

(What Justin fails to understand is the wealthy one percent couldn’t cover the cost the loss of income tax the drop would cause.   The middle class in canada is the largest class.   The top one percent, couldn’t possibly cover the loss.   The man used to be a teacher and I shudder at the thought of his math skills).

Change labour laws to ensure that employees in federally regulated industries have the right to ask their bosses for flexible work hours.
(What this means is people (women) would be able to take more time off work to be with their family.  For example: a woman who now gets a year off maternity leave, would get to take even more time off, and be able to go back to work of and off as much as they want up to 18 months of time.  Per child.  That means if a woman has 3 children during her career, she would would be able to take up to four and a half years off.  And feminists are confused about the wage gap now, but they will freak out when the numbers start showing that in Canada the gap widens because of policies like this one if implemented.  Now I know he worded it “person”, which is due to the fact, he cannot discriminate, and so it sounds like men will be able to use this time as well, however, we know from history, that only a few men will benefit.  It will be the women who will be the major beneficiaries, not men.  So really this policy is sexist against men.)

Justin Trudeau has made so many election promises and all will cost money, but the money has to come from somewhere, so here are a few predictions:

Taxes will rise to the point the middle class will shrink, and the poor will grow.
The government will become more oppressive to it’s citizens.  We can even see TSA like systems put into place.  More family units will break down due to finances.
There will be a battle of the sexes in Canada.  Men against women.  Women demanding what men have, but not wanting to work for it.
And in future elections, people will blame the non voters for not stopping Trudeau from getting into power.   Just like they did with Harper, even though many of the complainers voted him in.

Stop being stupid people.   The government is a corporation, and they don’t care about you.  They have no obligation to protect you.  And since they have no legal obligation to protect you, they will do everything to scam you.

Advertisements

I thought I heard it all… until today.

Confused_baby

Today I heard a term I first heard on South Park and never heard about again.  At the time, I had no clue what South Park was joking about and frankly, laughed along with the episode, (Cartman is fucking funny!)

Today,  I ran into it again.  It was on a youtube video from a self described CIS male feminist, about why he needs feminism.  He started his dialog with describing himself as a “Identifying as CIS with his assigned gender”.    This caused me to do a search online for the term and get more information.

Here is the Wikipedia entry on it.

Cisgender and cissexual (often abbreviated to simply cis) describe related types of gender identity where individuals’ experiences of their own gender match the sex they were assigned at birth.[1] Sociologists Kristen Schilt and Laurel Westbrook define cisgender as a label for “individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity” as a complement to transgender.[2]

Please read that entry carefully.   If you are scratching your head, it is the same reaction I had.  There are a few issues with this.

Gender isn’t “assigned at birth”.   You are either male or female.   That is the way it is.  You can’t magically assign a baby with a penis as female or vice versa,   So by identifying your self as CIS your basically saying without saying it your male or female.  In the case of the experience with the video, he was male.

He continued by stating he needed feminism because while being CIS he didn’t fit the “Idea” of male by others and would experience shaming etc from other males or females.    So his reasoning was to join a group of females and males who are for the oppression of men.      He then continues and talks about how he has trouble finding potential dating partners and it is obvious he is leaving out pronouns in his descriptions.   For example he will not say He or She.  It’s always partner.   So for me being a gay man, and having seen this over and over and over and over and over for almost thirty years, I pegged him as being gay and in the closet.  Which if he was in the states, I can understand why depending on which state he is in.

CIS?  I’m so floored by the idiocy of the feminists and yet am in awe.  Not because they are great.  I’ve made it clear in previous pages that I hate feminism and all it stands for, but for the way it has interwoven so much into society that is can turn anyone from identifying from their gender to some fake one.

According to feminist theories from what I am reading they basically want to eliminate any type of gender identity.  That’s right.  They want eliminate the idea I’m a man because I have a beard, or that we identify a woman because she doesn’t have a beard etc.

I am honestly thinking I have to hit my head on a brick wall to make myself stupid enough to believe this garbage.  And yet we have millions of young girls going to university, spending billions of dollars in tuition to learn this in gender studies.

And these young feminists wonder why their Bachelor in Gender Studies has no value in the world?

Truth about the Birth Registry System.

canada_birth

(Above:Sample Birth Registry Form)

Many people assume they have rights over the government when it comes to their children.  After all, you are the parents, the ones who love your children, gave birth or raise them.

What if I told you this is only a half truth?   What If I told you that you had no real rights to your child and the rules for raising them?

You would laugh and tell me I’m a moron right?   Don’t worry, I know.  I’ve been called many names over the years for my discovery of this tidbit of information.  Doesn’t make me wrong though.  So far there is no evidence to disprove me.

What you think of your “Parental Rights” is actually usage rights.  Usage rights, doesn’t really mean you have the right to use something as you see fit.   Or own something outright.  It means you can use the item, or in this case raise the child, within the confines of the rules of the government.

You scoff?   Think on this.  How does Children’s Aid societies across the country have so much power?   Why?    They can take your children without warrant or notice for the most trivial of reasons.   So how do they get this power?

This all has to do with law.  This is also why the abortion laws are the way they are.   Before I get into what makes it there.  I will explain a bit about old maritime law.

You see in the time of the big sail ships, that hauled cargo around the world there was certain agreed upon rules that every country followed with foreign cargo vessels.   These rules eventually became Maritime Law and were adopted procedures in law for other things, including registering a child’s birth.

Here is how the old maritime law works.

A ship laden with cargo in it’s hold would come to port of a nation.  The captain would register the cargo and the ship with the harbormaster.   The harbor master would take possession of the cargo into the harbor’s warehouses for safekeeping until the captain could find a buyer for the goods and sell it.  Until then it was kept in trust, and protection by the harbormaster.   So the captain did not have to worry about anyone else stealing that cargo or selling it behind his back.  It also ensured the good behavior of the captain and crew, because if they did anything wrong like break a local law they could confiscate that cargo and jail the crew or captain.

Now I’ll translate this into modern times.

A ship laden with cargo (Pregnant Mother), would come to port of a nation (Government Licensed Hospital), the captain (Father) would register the ship and it’s cargo (Mother is registered at hospital to give birth), The Harbormaster (Government Licensed Doctor), then removes cargo (Baby) from the ship (mother), and it is registered with the harbormaster (Government).  At this point the cargo (Baby) is under the control and protection (Ward) of the harbormaster (Government), until such time as the captain (Father) could find a buyer (Marriage) for the cargo (Baby).  Until that time, the cargo (Baby) remains in the care of the harbormaster (Ward of the state).   The captain (Father)has to follow the rules for trade (Rules for raising the child) within the land (in the country) and if they do something that goes against the local laws, the harbormaster (Government child protection services) then could confiscate the cargo (child) and jail the captain (father) and her crew if warranted.

Now this is 2015 and we live in a so called “Modern society” but this is still true, as it hasn’t changed in centuries.   This is also explains a few other things in our lives that most people don’t even think about.   This is also why the Queen is also known as the “Queen Mum” .  Not because she is old and has children of her own, but because technically according to the propaganda the Queen is the head of state of Canada and England and we are all her children via the registry system.

Why women are “Handed off” to a groom at a wedding.  The captain is selling his cargo and transferring ownership.   And also why fathers had a huge say in the past on who their daughter would marry.  It’s not the only reason by far but its a big one.   And why as well children are considered property or dependents until they reach the age of maturity.

England was the original country this practice was used on human beings and now to this day to the bankers influence on the world, almost everyone is registered.

This is also huge because as parents you don’t really have real rights to your property.  And yes the child is a human being, I understand this, but you created that child.  Your DNA, created it.  That means they had to find a way to trick you into giving up the rights to your property.  So the birth registry is the way.   This is also why in Canada you get a “Baby Bonus” cheque.   They tell you it is to help you pay for expenses for the child.  In reality that this a partial truth.  It is for the expenses of the child, but it is also payment for taking care of the ward of the state that you gave them.  They are paying you to take care of  the child you gave up ownership rights to.

If you hadn’t registered that child, it would be one hundred percent your child.  There have been a few rare cases where a parent did not register their child at birth and one case I read the mother had three children and one was not registered.  Children’s Aid society (child protective services) came and removed the children from the home because the mother didn’t comply with demands from the school for some legal reason.   The next day after the children had been removed, the police brought the one child who wasn’t registered back stating “This one isn’t ours, it’s yours”.   And left.

There are other cases where children are appearing at the age of 16 trying to obtain jobs and can’t because they don’t exist in the government’s eyes because they were never registered, and since people in this country think you have to hire only people with a SIN card, these people are unable to obtain work legally.

(Side note: Think of all the items you register in your life with the government.  The same applies to each one.  Your car, your boat, your home.   None of it is yours after.  It’s all theirs and they can make rules for it all because you got tricked into thinking you had to register your property with them).

Now when you realize  the above as truth, the rest of what happens makes sense.  The ability of the government to legally force you to send your child to their schools to strangers each day.   The ability of the government to decide what medical treatment options are available for children.  The rules for raising them, for feeding them, for housing them, for disciplining them, for nurturing them.

And why when one of these rules is perceived to be broken, Child Protection comes in and removes the child depending on which rule gets broken.

In some court rooms if a father makes a statement that he wants his property returned to him immediately, and has a judge that knows the history and background of the laws and understands them properly, will immediately recognize the father as the property owner and return the child to his custody.    I wouldn’t recommend trying it though, it is usually done in summary judgement otherwise known as Queen’s Bench, and you really have to be able to defend yourself and know your rights in that court.

I was taught all this in grade school and back then I never gave it a thought, because I was a child and didn’t understand the vast implications of a system like this.  The teacher at the time proudly taught us this with a smile, because in her eyes this is a great system.

I guess she didn’t see the lies in it.

(PS: If your a doctor reading this, and have ever gotten new parents to sign the registry document, or had your nurses get the parents do to it, this is exactly what you’ve been doing)

Zuckerburg is a criminal. Facebook is now Censoring more.

Today I found on my news feed on Facebook, that it had changed it’s rules and guidelines, basically telling us what we can and cannot post.   With very little detail and very ambiguous, it can now ban pretty much ban you for anything.  That is, anything they feel, they don’t like.    Like for example:

Articles about:

Any group the government targets … like terrorist groups.

However, what the government considers terrorist groups is not the same as what the average person does.

Here are some listed terrorist groups:

Environmentalists

Freedom of Speech Groups

Anti Abortion Groups

Human Rights Groups (yes that’s right).

Pro Freedom Groups

Anti Government or Smaller Government Groups

Facebook and Zuckerburg feel that it is okay to censor people’s voices.  That anything that doesn’t follow the american government’s ideas, is against them and therefor a target.

The recent past few months with the debate on vaccinations will be a thing of the past with these new rules.   They will allow Czar Zuckerburg to ban anyone who joins an anti-vaccination group, any group that is against the american government, who are against any government agenda.

The reason is simply, they don’t want the people to have freedoms.   Zuckerburg has created a social media culture where it’s okay to censor people.   I know, I see it all the time when I comment on friend’s posts.

One in particular claims he loves our discussions, but will delete my comments almost every time, because we tend to disagree on the topic he posts.   No real discussion can be had under that type of environment.   No opposing views allowed.  I’ve had friends that I’ve known personally in real life for years, all of a sudden delete and block me for a simple status message or an article that was posted.

The idea you can just delete a person whenever you wish is the kind of idea that leads to censorship and today facebook just added another way people can censor another, and more importantly, facebook themselves.

Now all the groups we see on facebook, that are against vaccinations, abortions, that are for environmental protections, clean energy, clean drinking water, raw milk, GMO labeling, Medical Pot, and more are all, at risk.   No more do we have true freedom of speech.   No more are the days when you can speak your mind about your views or opinions or even actually back your views with links to proof and real facts.  Instead, facebook can delete and block you if they don’t like your view.

In fact, you can say Zuckerburg has committed treason to the human race.

Here are the crimes he has committed against the human global race.

Censorship of Freedom of Speech

Selling our private information for profit.

Partnering with a  government spy agency to spy on it’s own people and others around the world.

Giving unrestricted access to government agencies to mine and collect our data to create profiles of each and every one of us.

Adding hidden programming in the phone apps that allow them to track where you are at all times via your phone’s GPS and through the cell towers.

Sharing your private communications with governments and using the contents to create advertisements targeting you specifically.

I had a conversation with someone about this and they laughed saying the american government doesn’t do these things.   When the person said that I couldn’t believe what I heard.   How could anyone in this day and age believe that?   The american government, Canadian governments both admit to it.  They admit to watching us, gathering information.  Obama has bragged on record for being able to kidnap american citizens without trial or warrant and execute them on a whim.   And yet he laughed and said it can’t happen.

When our freedoms are eroded so much, all you have to do is look at the people.  The people, the so called majority have become apathetic zombies.  Stuck on their reality shows, Facebook, and superficial lives.   Our society has been molded into an unthinking society of sheep, who refuse to question perceived authority.

This has to stop.  Before we are herded off into cattle cars and are marched naked into ovens en masse.

Sources:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/16/facebook-explains-what-it-bans-and-why/?_r=0
http://thefifthcolumnnews.com/2015/03/new-facebook-rules-sharing-this-article-might-get-you-banned/

Sage words…

I was once given advice by someone a long time ago, that still holds true today, and I suspect will hold true until the end of the human race.

“It’s alright, to love your fellow human beings.  Just don’t trust them.”.  

You can love them, treat them with respect but never ever trust them completely if they are strangers.   There are many people in this world who will give you the shirt off their backs when you need it.  And then there is a subgroup who will steal your pants and your wallet as well.

It is a known fact, that most people will trust almost anything that is put in front of them, if of course it doesn’t set off any alarm bells in their heads.    So the trick with fooling people and not setting those alarm bells is to play to their innate sense of goodness and overwhelm the alarm bells that might go off with pure, raw emotion.

I will use the gofundme pages as an example.    It has become common place now to beg strangers for money on the internet.  This started out as an innocent concept, of people looking for funds to get their ideas off the ground, usually innovative inventions.  Then a few years after those pages were up, I started to see something else, people who needed money for medical treatments, to fund vacations for loved ones they couldn’t afford to go see on their own, and some even wanted money to pay for their extravagant weddings.

Now, they are common place.  While gofundme websites started with good intentions, the greed of people prevailed.

Once couple’s page wanted funds to have three weddings around the world.   Why?  Because they lived in two different countries, came from two different backgrounds and wanted to honor both cultures and have their family be able to attend.  So instead of the normal way of having weddings and combining things.   They decided to go to the public and beg for money to fund this.  Airfare, hotels and the costs of each wedding.   The third wedding ceremony by the way was a destination wedding / honeymoon.      Ahh, but it’s love, and who doesn’t want to fund that?

Another case, which is quite famous, is the Cassidy Stay Family “tragedy”.    Now here is one that pulls at the heart strings, a teen aged girl watches her entire family murdered by her Aunt’s crazy boyfriend.   She narrowly survives by pretending to be dead and deflecting a bullet at point blank range with her finger.    The day after that happened a gofundme page went up.  “CASSIDYSTRONG” was the catch phrase.     It pulled at everyone’s heart.  This poor girl, lost her parents and three siblings.  Oh the tragedy!   Who know is with her grandparents.

The funds were to help her for the future!  Oh poor girl.   Except, one problem.   Her dead family were wealthy already.   See this is what people chose to ignore, because it was oh so tragic.

They lived in a million dollar home, which will be sold off and Cassidy gets the money for it.  Each family member was insured, each at least $250,000 -$500,000 per person.    Cassidy being the beneficiary.  That means that little girl gets a payout of at least 2.5 million dollars.   Then she got another half million from the gofundme page.   Plus when her grandparents die, she gets money from them.   Oh the tragedy.   The horror!  Plus then this doesn’t include the “Cassidy Strong” bracelets that were sold and the tshirt sales.

Poor girl.

Then we have that soldier who was shot at the war memorial earlier this year.  A gofundme page quickly went up, but then was taken down just as quickly when people started questioning the morality of it.  Instead they had a bank account set up.   While tragic, the media circus fueled the money machine.   Photos of the crying children, the loyal dog waiting at the fence, the soldier buddy standing guard.   Plagues of photos and stories pulling at the heart.

So what happens:   The family got a life insurance payout.  Plus, the wife gets his pension, and they had a state paid for funeral.   At least count they received half a million in donations from well meaning rubes, i mean people.    Then the royals, pushed their heads in and gave the family an undisclosed sum.   Oh that doesn’t include the sales from bracelets.

Now the family is rich and all off the death of their family member.

ALS challenge.   Oh what a terrible disease!  How horrible!  Affected 1 in 100,000 people! The answer!  Lets pour ice water on our heads and challenge another to do it.  This seemed like a PR Stunt from the beginning, and it was.  Most people jumped on the ALS bandwagon and shouted at people who pointed out a few things.

Those few things are the following:

The ALS Canada company (it is a company), gets over 11 million in funds from the government.   That is more money per person who has the disease, than cancer or aids.

The ALS Canada company has a board of directors, the top members get paid $150,000 and the rest around $80,000.

The board consists of people with back grounds in communications, sales, marketing, etc.  And if you look at the financials, the money that actually goes to research and to pay people to look for cures, is less than 27%.   Over 60% goes to advertising and the rest to pay the board.

Most so called charities work this way.   It is illegal in Canada to be paid a wage if you are running a charity.  The loophole is that, you can be paid if you are doing something charity related, like training volunteers or creating slick PR campaigns.

Really we must question everything before we let our hearts fully take over our brain functions.   We have been given brains and an ability to think.  Think first before you jump on those causes that pull at the heartstrings.   They really are just well designed PR stunts in reality, designed to pull at your wallet.

Anger .. The cause of much…

I was online earlier today and noticed a comment on a friend’s status about an article that appeared in the canadian news papers about a Canadian kid who went over to ISIS and made a video to warn Canada.

Now, please understand. I don’t like war.  I think it should be avoided at all costs.  I do know that sometimes, just sometimes it is justifyable.   I also look at these stories with a grain of salt when it comes from the mainstream, and i don’t look at it from angry eyes.

My friend’s anger was almost of a nature of fire and brimestone.  He condemned the kid in the story, called him traitor, denouncing him for joining a cause.

My friend in question was from anger, real anger derived from coming from Lebannon, a country were war is real and religious hate groups are real.  He has family that still lives there in fact.

The anger directed at ISIS and ISIL is to me, crazy and extreme in itself.   People are righteous in their hatred and anger for them without really able to express why.

I pointed out to my friend that coming from a view that I had no emotional attachment going either way I could see why and how these groups have sprung up and quite frankly, don’t blame it for happening.   I believe we Canadians would do the same if we were in their positions.   In fact, history shows we have in our early beginnings.   Not based on Religion but on a goal.

This is the same for ISIS and ISIL.   I can’t see them as some monster in the dark who will cut off my head.  I can’t, and anyone who looks at the world with an open mind, will see what caused this situation in the first place.   Plus when you have watched this all your life, in these countries then you can see the progression and know that these groups are desperate people.

Now before you go on a rant, think for a moment.

These countries used to be peaceful for the most part.  Every once in awhile one would break out in war and always,  ALWAYS, the american military would be there.   When I was younger, I would watch the news and it was always put forth that the american troops were there to stabilize the middle east.  To bring peace again to a “war torn” nation.   We don’t hear that anymore, we don’t even see the media even try to tell us that anymore.

Many of these countries are very powerful.   The reason for this is they are oil producing countries that control a huge portion of the world’s oil supply.   By destabilizing their governments and plunging those countries into wars, the american government can send troops in under the pretense of protecting the people and oh, protecting the oil as well.

I remember watching on the news, the footage of the american troops on the oil fields trying to put out fires.   Spouting flame from the ground going a mile high into the air under high pressure and extreme heat.   Yeah.   Very rarely did I see footage of a soldier saving civilians in those countries. I did happen, but now that I think back on it, it was usually when the world started to question the american involvement.  That would be when we would see footage of soldiers carrying injured children from rubble to get medical attention (allegedly).

Now here we are almost 40 years later, those middle eastern countries are in no better shape then when I was a kid.   New groups have sprung up and of course the media and the western governments condemn their actions and outrage follows from civilians who look no further than the 2 minute news story on their tv screens or the newspaper column.

This is where i have issues.   We have a means at our disposal that gives us more information, more quickly than the news media can put out.  The Internet.

I myself use this as a source.   Like all sources, it is not always reliable and sometimes it can be dead on reliable.

I look at all sides of the picture and come to my own conclusions, and I don’t assume the view that is portrayed my mainstream media.   Why?  They simply don’t check sources anymore.

I look at the videos and blogs from the people of those countries, the videos and blogs of the soldiers themselves.

Did you know there is a huge amount of videos of US soldiers who are condemning what is being done and they also testify on camera that they are being ordered to kill, rape and beat innocent civilians in those countries?   They get awarded by their superiors for their “first kills”.     One horrific story, a squad, raped a teenage girl, and forced her father to watch and then they set them on fire.   In that particular video, he showed footage from the building where it was done and you could see the blackened cement where the fire burned the bodies.

Those are just some tiny examples of what war is.  So imagine when you live in a country that is constantly bombarded by the Americans, from afar.  Whole families are killed by gunfire in an entire apartment complex, because the Americans want to kill 1 person in that building.

Generations have lived in those conditions.  Over and over and over again.  Not one person hasn’t had a person killed by either side.

Imagine if that was your world.  Unfortunately I have a vivid imagination and can see this all to well.

Out of that anger, then springs up groups that want to take their homes back, their lands, and their country and bring peace.   So these militant groups spring up and organize and fight back.   Some are military trained some aren’t.  That doesn’t matter.  It’s the goal.  The goal to get their lands back and stop the killing from foreign troops.   They use any means at their disposal, because they are outnumbered, and outgunned.  They are desperate and want their country back and to know what peace is, because they simply never have seen peace.   Never lived in a place where they didn’t have to fear getting shot when leaving their home, or being able to go to sleep at night wondering if they would wake up at sunrise or die by a midnight bombing of their home.

That constant barrage of fear will spring hatred.  That hatred becomes driving force in many militant groups and religion will even bring that to the forefront.

So I do understand why and how these groups spring up.   I do also know where the blame lies.  It really isn’t with the religion or with militant groups.   They are fighting for their lives.

You have to look back in history to see what is happening and to the cause   And it all started with the invasions by the american forces.    If the american and Canadian troops left those areas, then peace eventually would come back to those countries.   And eventually the anger would fade.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/07/john-maguire-an-isis-fighter-from-ottawa-appears-on-video-warning-canada-of-attacks-where-it-hurts-you-the-most/

Contracts, Traffic Tickets, The Traffic Court Cases and you.

I love this topic.  I have heated arguments with lawyers, professors, and many others who believe that a drivers licence is something magical that bestows abilities and powers that one would not normally have in life.

They refuse to believe, what it really is.  It is a contract.  That’s it.  It makes so much sense when you understand the government is nothing but a corporation.  A corporation or a government cannot force you to do something against your will.  It needs your agreement in order to perpetuate the myth you are free.   They don’t like not being in control so they have made up the myth that we must have permits, licences and such to do things we could do without that little plastic card.   They use their legalese to achieve this.  To get us to sign documents.  Let me break down some words so you understand.

When you apply for something you are in law, begging permission to do something to which you would normally not be allowed to do.

The roads are public roads. In law, a public road is defined as a public way to which everyone has the RIGHT to use.

So let me take the drivers licence again.   You apply for the licence.  You are asking permission to drive on the roads which by definition, you have every right to use.

Technically in law you wouldn’t have to get a licence.  So they trick you into believing it.  Now, what they are doing is getting you to sign an agreement with them.  A contract.    There are a few things that make a contract legal.

1.  Two or more parties on the contract

2.  Negotiation, Full disclosure.

3.  A benefit to both parties

4. Agreement of the parties.

This is what any licence is .   It’s a contract.  The terms and conditions are listed out in the act associated with the licence.  In the case of the drivers licence it would be the highway traffic act.    The benefit to you is that they don’t arrest you.  The benefit for them is they make billions of the public.

Now when you break one of the terms of the contract, you get issued a fine, or a ticket.  It’s a document which is basically the same as a bill you would get in a restaurant.  It has the name of the company, the violation, the cost and the signature of the person who issued it.

You go to court and you can either pay it or fight it.   Most people just pay it.  98% of cases are won in favor of the crown attorney.  The reason is that they keep the fine low enough that most people just couldn’t be bothered to fight it and just pay it.  So as such they bring in billions every year in traffic violations alone.

In the court if you decide to fight it, then the odds are not ever in your favor.   Again, the crown attorney and the judge are paid from the same pot.  Second, if you have a drivers licence then you agreed to the rules and the licence is the proof of contract (even though they won’t tell you that).   It’s also a civil matter.  Not a criminal one.  This should be proof enough to most that it is a contract.  A contract is civil and the terms can be violated.  A crime involves usually another person and some harm is usually involved.  A contract violation isn’t a crime, but a breach of a term.

So with that understanding, that’s why they call it a violation, and not a crime.  I’ve seen some judges try to justify it when put into a corner by lying and saying it’s a Quasi crime.

It’s simply a violation of a contract.    Now the sticky part on lower court judges is when the people who don’t fall for the propaganda don’t get a licence and get stopped.  Then the court is in a bind.  They will do everything to try to get the defendant to admit he broke some law.  In they don’t, they use a little known court room rule.

The court room rule book has a rule to which the judge can make a judgement without any law, precedent, and go based solely on his personal opinion.   In other words, he can throw out the rules, ignore law, supreme court cases and just make a ruling based on how much he likes you or doesn’t.

Go look up the courtroom procedure rules for your local courthouse.   It’s in there. That one rule allows a judge to ignore law.  How fair and just is that?

The other thing to keep in mind is that a judge is not held accountable for his/her rulings.   At least as far as if, they rule and their ruling turns out to be incorrect or seems to be biased, they can’t be sued, or arrested.  Even if they send someone to jail for life and it is found out 20 years after that the person was innocent and the judge was biased.  He is still a free man and the person lost 20 years of their life due to that improper judgement.  How fair is that?

Lower court judges will ignore supreme court rulings.  They will ignore case law.  If they don’t like you then your toast.  Doesn’t matter if you have court cases a mile high to back your case.  They can and will ignore that.  They will tell you things like “that is your interpretation” and because it is not theirs, they will ignore it.  They will say things like your not a member of the bar, so your not qualified to interpret law.  Yet, apparently, ignorance of the law is not an excuse either.

So in the lower court you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t.  My best advice to people is try to stay out of that court if your not prepared to fight, spend some time in jail or pay money.

The lower courts are also defacto courts.  Lawyers and judges hate that word, and claim they are not defacto.   Here is what it means.

What is DE FACTO?

In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which exists actually and must be accepted for all practical purposes, but which is illegal or illegitimate. In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful. legitimate, just, or constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or government de facto is one who is in actual possession of the office orsupreme power, but by usurpation, or v.-ifiirespect to lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de jure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power, but who has never had plenary possession of the same, or is not now in actual possession. 4 Bl. Comm. 77, 78. So a wife de facto is one whose marriage is voidable by decree, as distinguished from a wife de jure, or lawful wife. 4 Kent, Comm. 30. But the term is also frequently used independently of any distinction from de jure; thus a blockade de facto is a blockade which is actually maintained, as distinguished from a mere paper blockade. As to de facto “Corporation,” “Court,” “Domicile,” “Government,” and “Officer,” see those titles. In old English law. De facto means respecting or concerning the principal act of a murder, which was technically denominated factum. See Fleta, lib. 1, c. 27,

Law Dictionary: What is DE FACTO? definition of DE FACTO (Black’s Law Dictionary)

Defacto means they are not there by any constitutional means  but is corporate in nature. A company. And the law society is a registered company.   So it is defacto, because it’s members are all part of that society and because that society is a registered corporation it is illegitimate.

However, unless the masses wise up and start ignoring them, then they will continue to operate as if they are Dejure.

Now, when dealing with the police.   This is tricky.  Police are not trained to interpret law, and are backed by the Crown attorney and the judge.   A cop is supposed to be peacekeeper first and enforcer 2nd.  Unfortunately they are not trained in peacekeeping as much as they are enforcement.

If you take a traffic ticket to court and fight it, then the ONLY evidence a crown attorney has, is the cops word.  (Traffic cameras excluded).   His testimony is deemed as truth and has more force than your arguments, cases etc in the judges eyes.  This is why so many wrongs happen in court.  There are effective ways to get a judge to throw out the cops testimony and leave the crown attorney with nothing but his opinion.  You have a slight chance of winning then, but it’s doubtful, and you would still have to appeal but the appeal with have more force without a cops testimony.    Also, keep in mind the crown attorney doesn’t even look at the case until that day, sometimes not until the case is even called.  So if you do your work and try to get copies of the “evidence ” before, keeping records and copies of any correspondence with dates and times, and even tracking information. Then your chances increase a tad, because you have tried to get what is called “discovery”.  A crown attorney has to give you discovery before your court date, but you have to demand it.  And if they don’t provide it, a judge can and will throw a case out.  Or in some cases will berate the crown and give them more time to give you discovery.  Discover is a nice thing that has force in law.   If they have no evidence then they will revoke their claim and the case is dismissed.  Sometimes you get idiot crown attorneys who will refuse to believe a civilian can beat them in court and will take it to the hilt.  That’s fine. If you do your homework, learn how to defend yourself effectively in a courtroom setting then you won’t be the one to look bad.

This is not legal advice.  Just personal knowledge based on research and discussions from documentation, videos, audio and more.   There are others out there who can effectively help you with traffic or tax cases in court if you need it.  Marc Stevens is one. I highly recommend you contact him.  Doesn’t matter where in the world you are. He can provide solid advice based on personal experience in court rooms.  And no he is not a lawyer but a radio host.

Law Society

The law society is a society.  It’s member’s practice law.  They are the ones we call when we have a legal issue and need someone in court.

Remember what I said about societies in my first post?   This is a society.  It was created by and owned by, you guessed it.  The banking family.  The ownership of every company called a law society in the world in any country that was conquered, acquired or colonized by England has one.   The law society has it’s own members who pay their dues and in return they get the protection of their society and as well, they have their own language.   They don’t admit to it,  and after many conversations with lawyers who think I’m incorrect, I’ve found out they don’t even teach their new lawyers about law dictionaries anymore.  Many believe that book form law dictionaries like “Black’s Law Dictionary” is a myth or a hoax.

I call these so called lawyers, ill informed.   And what’s worse, is they won’t believe you, even if you show them the truth.  I had a few months long discussion with one, and I kept citing the law dictionary and he refused to believe it because according to him, the law dictionaries have no basis in law.  Even though they define the words he uses in law everyday.

The law society is a twisted concept, that on it’s face seems noble and honorable.  It is, the arm that holds society back.   It enforces it’s will on all who come within it’s walls and it’s not for the benefit of the people but the crown corporation.

The words they use are a twisted form of English to make people think they are speaking English.  They have redefined simple common place words, to have a slightly different meaning so they can have an advantage.

Driver is my favorite.  As they keep changing it’s definition to try to gain the advantage in court.   Every new edition of a law dictionary has a new definition of this word because people keep fighting this in court.   For my example I will use the original definition and I will go on to explain why this is important.

The original definition said

One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,

Law Dictionary: What is DRIVER? definition of DRIVER (Black’s Law Dictionary)

Now, the key words here is employed to conduct.   Employed (Hired or working) to conduct .. meaning to transport either goods or people.

This makes sense since the government by it’s own words is supposed to manage the resources of the lands and manage trade within and without the lands.   A driver then under that definition would be a commercial driver.  One who is using the roads (public roads) for personal gain.  So it makes sense to me that a “Driver” should be licensed and taxed for the money they make using the public roads that I as a non driver pay for via the gas tax.

So anyone really who makes a living transporting goods or people using the roads is a driver. At least under that legal definition.   This definition comes directly from the law society.

Yet we are forced to pay for driver licenses and taxed on it every year on our birthdays.   Many people don’t think of this that way and that is due to the twisting of the language.   Another thing in law they don’t tell you is the word MAY is synonymous with the word MUST.   Basically in law you can switch the one word for the other.   So when you read on the provincial government websites for drivers licenses you will see it say you MUST get a drivers license.   This is legalese again.  They use this to trick you into believing that you have to get a commercial license to use the roads you already pay for.

The public misconception is that a drivers licence magically makes you safe on the roads and competent to drive a vehicle.  Despite the fact there are thousands of accidents every day, by allegedly “competent drivers”.    Despite the fact that, up until the early sixties, people didn’t need a licence to drive a car on the roads for personal use.   It wasn’t until they used legalese in their wording on the documents that people began to believe the myth that a plastic card made you safe on the roads.    By that simple legalese trickery by substituting the word MAY with MUST, they ensured a billion plus dollars every year, plus fines from tickets, because tickets by the way are commercial bills in their nature.  I will get into that in another post.

The law society dictates what the words mean in their legalese.  Seemingly common words we take for granted have vastly different meanings or multiple meanings they use at will without our knowledge.    Look at it this way, in Quebec they speak a more guttural and slang version of french.  In Paris they speak a true form of french.   We speak English and the law society speaks a bastardized version of it.

Due to the fact the law society is a registered corporation and is also owned by the same people who own the government, they use that advantage to manipulate the people that they get true justice in all levels of court.  The lower court system isn’t about fairness or justice.  It’s about making money.  That branch brings in money in fines, fees and judgement’s in favor of the crown.  Not the Queen, the crown corporation.   They are a court of contracts.  This is why all lower court judges won’t answer the question if they are working for the crown corporation or the queen.  The can’t because then no one would listen to them anymore.

Another thing many people don’t realize about the law society, or rather they are beginning to suspect, is that they protect their own.  A judge is just a lawyer in a black dress.  He oversees cases and makes judgement on them in lower courts.   The usual penalty is a fine.  Which goes to the crown corporation.   That’s his job.  It’s not to ensure justice. It’s making money.  The judge, the crown prosecutor and the lawyer you hire, are all members of the same society.  They work together.   In many circumstances, judges are also chosen from the city attorney pool, usually a crown prosecutor will get promoted to judge.  And that is based on how many convictions he has gotten in his favor.  That means the more he wins and the more fines the crown makes, the better his chances at a promotion.   The judge, because they usually come from the prosecution side of the equation, are biased and tend to judge in favor of the crown.  This way he gets his bonus’s and raises.  They both get paid from the same source as well.

This is the system the law society set up.    Next blog post will be on the court rooms and the scams they do there.

Some words to look up are

Person

Driver

Monster

Some dictionaries you can find online are Black’s Law dictionary, Canadian Law dictionary.    You can also find these law dictionaries in ebook form and to buy in book stores.   Be aware, according to the current crop of lawyers out there, these books are a myth, hoax or don’t mean anything.

Canada is not a true democracy.

Canada is not a true democracy.  A true democracy includes those who don’t vote.   One of the fundamental cornerstones or truths in democracy is:

Consent of the governed.

We give our consent to be governed by participating in voting and voting for the person we wish to govern on our behalf.

This is a fundamental truth that the government of Canada will even agree on.  (I called and asked them).

Now here is the simple way to prove we are not a democracy.  The people who do not vote in Canada do not count.  If you speak with elections Canada and ask them what happens when the majority of the population don’t vote, they will tell you that it doesn’t matter, that even if only a thousand people voted then whoever got the most votes wins.

If we are truly giving our consent to be governed, we are removing that consent by not voting.   It doesn’t matter the reason either.   Once we remove that consent that should be it.  The government should dissolve and a new system should take it’s place.   However, according to the government, that isn’t the case.   The government goes one, without the consent.   Therefor, it is not a democracy.  It is a tyranny.  When a small group of people get to decide for the rest and use force to push their rules on them, then that is a tyranny.

In the city were I live, we had our local elections this year.   Only 35% of the population voted.  That means 65% removed their consent.   If this was a democracy, our city government would have disbanded and a new one should have replaced it. Instead we have the people that a small group decided on.    That is tyranny.   You can claim it isn’t all you want but when the majority say no by removing their consent and the government continues then that isn’t a true democracy.

Canada – What it really is.

I decided to start off my second blog, with information about the government of Canada.  In my searching I found some very eye opening information.   I, like many people, used to think that the government was some mass organization that is for the benefit of the people.  As the propaganda states, it is there for the protection of the people and it’s lands.  This is a half truth.

In order to understand what the government is, you have to go back before it was even created.  Back in the time when the first explorers came to the lands and interacted with the natives.    They created that famous first trading post in Hudson’s bay to exchange furs and such.

We all know the story and it’s very serene, sounds nice and is taught to everyone.   Have you ever wondered who financed that expedition?  Where the money came from?   Everyone assumes it’s the monarchy.   The English monarch definitely did approve of the expedition but she didn’t negotiate any deals herself.  She sent her envoys, who in return got sole rights to the management of the lands in the treaties.  This is what they don’t teach you in School.

They used to teach us that the Hudson’s bay company formed from that trading post and after more treaties were signed for the management of the land and approval of the people to colonize, that the government arose from the Hudson’s bay company.  Hudson’s bay dealt with trade between the natives and England and the government managed the lands and resources on behalf of the people and conducted trade with other countries.   After speaking with some teens and checking some current history books they don’t teach this anymore.  Apparently history changed.

So continuing on, the people who negotiated the treaties and created the government, worked for the banking family of the day in England, who happened to own the Crown Corporation of England and the City of London which is a small patch of land in the center of the larger city of England. A hidden inner city so to speak.   In this city because of it’s strange history, none of the reigning monarchs in England can set foot on that land without permission from the mayor.  It’s been that way for hundreds of years, and to this day the queen must ask permission to enter the inner city.

When I found out this information I did some research on the bankers themselves.  Back then there was about 9 banking families, all fighting for dominance.    The Rothchilds were the predominant and still are to this day.   They sent their people to negotiate the treaties with the natives and that included the rights to manage the lands, and it’s people.  So after the ink was dry on that treaty they created the government.  Which was and still is to this day owned by the Crown Corporation of London.   In Canada, our government is called the Crown Corporation of Canada.   We have the Bank of Canada, and they have the Bank of England.   (Do you see resemblances?).

Many people in Canada, believe and are taught without any kind of proof but a history book that the lands are held in trust by the Queen on behalf of the natives.   This is again a half truth.  The queen in this case is a figure head.  She approved the deal because the people she hired created the treaties.  In return for her support and her family, they get a continuous stream of wealth.   The real creators of the government is the bankers.   The Crown Corporation of Canada is listed as a corporation SOLE.  This can be verified by doing a simple credit report search on them, you can do it from TransUnion, Equafax, or Dun and Bradstreet.

For those that don’t know, a corporation sole is a company that is owned by a single individual or company.    In the Crown Corporation’s case, it is owned by the Crown Corporation of London.

Many people have gotten angry when I pointed this out. That the government is in reality a corporation.  That simple statement has caused people to go into a frenzy of trying to disprove me with regurgitation of the history books (which don’t tell us everything), down to name calling in an attempt to discredit me.   Please if you don’t believe what I said just go do some research and dig into this.  It took me about six months of digging to find out a fraction of this information.

The other thing that makes people believe the government was created by the queen was the name.  The Crown Corporation of Canada.  The government pushes this perception easily because let’s face it, when we think of the word “Crown” we think the queen.  So the government has created this image that the queen owns the Crown Corporation.  She doesn’t.   The name was chosen precisely to fool the people into thinking this.  Same reason the FED in the united states was called what it was.   The Bank of Canada, the same. It is a privately owned company.  All owned by the same people.

The title of the business fools the reader into believing that there is something noble and good about the government.  After all the crown created it so it must be good.   This isn’t the case.   The system was created a very long time ago to fool people they had freedom. And to instill the belief that the government was working on it’s behalf for the greater good.

The Crown Corporation is a corporation.  Owned by bankers and run by idiots.   I would estimate that maybe, three maybe four people in the entire high branches of the government are even aware who their real bosses are.   It is definitely not the people.

If you don’t believe this, then ask a judge this.  Do you work for the “Crown, her Majesty in Right of Canada” or do you work for the “Crown Corporation of Canada”.   A judge will NEVER answer this.  They cannot because the answer would bring out the lie.   In the thousands of hours of videos of court cases, and in all the times that question has been asked, the judge has always, always had a response that makes you blink.   In one video I watched a judge flee the room, in another, he flew into a fit of rage, in another he dismissed a case without going through the case.

There is a major difference between the Crown Corporation and the Crown.  One represents the Queen and one Represents the Bankers.

The other perception put forth by the Government is that your vote counts.  That it means something.  And that the leader you vote in is the one running the country.  This is an outright lie.

If you go look at the governor general’s act of Canada on line 2 it specifies the Governor General is the CEO of the crown corporation.   Not the PM.   The prime minister is then just a figurehead or rather, a sales person.   He is there to sell the people the perception that he’s in charge.   He makes the appearances, talks to other heads of state and manages the members of parliament.   He is the front-man.  Now I’m not saying he doesn’t have any authority, he has to if the act is to be authentic.  If he didn’t then, people would have figured this out a very long time ago.  No, he has the authority in Parliament and with his cabinet.    I would put him as the CEO’s top sales person.  Or assistant.   The people elect him.  The Governor General does not get elected by the people.  That is just one reason why your vote doesn’t count.

Now at this time I have been unable to find alternate information on the governor general, specifically if the queen really appoints him/her to the position or if it is the head office (crown corp of London.) .   This bothers me.  There is no historical information on this. I have doubts that the queen appoints the person but if it is true then it can mean that they run things on behalf of the queen in partnership with the bankers.  Sort of a partner in the business.   This makes sense to me, because it’s the royal family’s name at stake and if more people found out in the general public, there would be a lynching.  At least that is a personal belief and at this time I cannot find any evidence to prove otherwise either.