The Best Made Plans….
By the purest co-incidence, as soon as I committed myself to making frequent observations on the state of the Gun Control controversy, the Ottawa well went bone dry.
I have it from an impeccable source that our steely-eyed dictator has forbidden the uttering of the word “GUN” on “the hill”. If that be so, one is left to wonder why?
Today’s Throne Speech, or rather the opposition’s reaction to it, may make me a liar but I doubt that the government will fall. Now, if Stephen Harper was determined to abolish the long gun registry for starters it would obviously be the right time to introduce a Bill to that effect and dare Dion & Layton to jump into the ring, knowing full well that they would do no such thing.
The latest poll results, especially Nik Nanos’ indicate that Herr Harper desperately needs a big block of supporters to step forward otherwise he is going to end up, at best, with another minority government. If that happens he will no doubt get a “Dear John (Diefenbaker) letter” and go back to counting pennies.
But if he has been given a Mafia style warning to obey the UN and abolish ALL civilian ownership of small arms, we must see that he is fired as a warning to all the socialist/internationists in Ottawa. Couple this possibility of an authority (UN) higher than our Parliament issuing orders, with secondly the recently signed deal authorizing the U.S. to send troops across our border in case of “Civil Unrest” and finally, the discussions on forming the S.P.P. and you can get in line for your very own leg shackles.
Should we spell “Minutemen” the same way as the Yanks did in 1773?
I do not intend to end my days in slavery, sold out by a nation of cowards.
How about you?
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
CAUSE & EFFECT
It is familiar mix-up, that people confuse cause and effect and reverse the label to those two components in a discussion. For instance, it is common nowadays for some people to insist that gun possession causes crime, and therefore, by reverse logic, to reduce the number of guns is to reduce criminal activity.
This does not happen anywhere in the world where there are statistics because, whatever the reason that law-abiding people have for possessing firearms, their primary or secondary function is to prevent crime from occurring IN A MAN’S CASTLE.
Simply put, Crime causes Guns, not the reverse. Any increase in crime, especially crime near or in the home results in an increase of guns kept, or obtained.
The most likely reason that authorities choose to reverse the logic is that it is much easier and safer to hassle an honest man than it is to challenge the hardened criminal. Isn’t that the lesson we learned, but haven’t acknowledged at Mayerthorpe? Naturally such occurrences will make cops ‘gun shy’. There is far less risk in beating on Brian Ward’s door, or Bruce Montague’s door or any of the hundreds of doors of other law-abiding gun owners just because they have been declared criminals by 130 pages of crap written by Allan Rock and his herd of Justice Department lawyers.
As an old military man, and son of an old military man, I know that the majority of men would rather face off against the Lady’s Aid Society than get into a shoot out with one of Hitler’s Waffen SS Divisions, but that is simply not how wars are won. Ask our men in Afghanistan. You have to finally take on the hard cases.
The authorities who are responsible for the conduct and priorities of our many police forces, starting with the R.C.M.P. must issue firm orders for them to go after the hardened criminals and the criminal gangs FIRST. The punks will quickly disappear and then the cops can leave us to defend our homes. Just like it was BT (before Trudeau)
At the same time Parliament must quit mincing words and order the judiciary to award stiffer penalties for ALL crimes, not just gun crimes, because gun crimes are anyway a minority category. As a side issue, the presence of a firearm during a crime does not really make it a gun crime UNLESS THE GUN IS FIRED. And secondly, if a home owner fires a gun while protecting his family and home, it is not a crime anyway.
It will probably not be possible to increase the length and severity of prison sentences back to where they were when we had very little crime, unless we re-instate the death penalty. The simple reason is that without that time honoured maximum penalty at the top of the scale, all other punishments tend to slice down the scale to near nothing. That is why our prisons are full of people doing nothing while on holiday for a short time.
So, recognizing that cause and effect should never be inverted, get on with solving the problem.
This does not happen anywhere in the world where there are statistics because, whatever the reason that law-abiding people have for possessing firearms, their primary or secondary function is to prevent crime from occurring IN A MAN’S CASTLE.
Simply put, Crime causes Guns, not the reverse. Any increase in crime, especially crime near or in the home results in an increase of guns kept, or obtained.
The most likely reason that authorities choose to reverse the logic is that it is much easier and safer to hassle an honest man than it is to challenge the hardened criminal. Isn’t that the lesson we learned, but haven’t acknowledged at Mayerthorpe? Naturally such occurrences will make cops ‘gun shy’. There is far less risk in beating on Brian Ward’s door, or Bruce Montague’s door or any of the hundreds of doors of other law-abiding gun owners just because they have been declared criminals by 130 pages of crap written by Allan Rock and his herd of Justice Department lawyers.
As an old military man, and son of an old military man, I know that the majority of men would rather face off against the Lady’s Aid Society than get into a shoot out with one of Hitler’s Waffen SS Divisions, but that is simply not how wars are won. Ask our men in Afghanistan. You have to finally take on the hard cases.
The authorities who are responsible for the conduct and priorities of our many police forces, starting with the R.C.M.P. must issue firm orders for them to go after the hardened criminals and the criminal gangs FIRST. The punks will quickly disappear and then the cops can leave us to defend our homes. Just like it was BT (before Trudeau)
At the same time Parliament must quit mincing words and order the judiciary to award stiffer penalties for ALL crimes, not just gun crimes, because gun crimes are anyway a minority category. As a side issue, the presence of a firearm during a crime does not really make it a gun crime UNLESS THE GUN IS FIRED. And secondly, if a home owner fires a gun while protecting his family and home, it is not a crime anyway.
It will probably not be possible to increase the length and severity of prison sentences back to where they were when we had very little crime, unless we re-instate the death penalty. The simple reason is that without that time honoured maximum penalty at the top of the scale, all other punishments tend to slice down the scale to near nothing. That is why our prisons are full of people doing nothing while on holiday for a short time.
So, recognizing that cause and effect should never be inverted, get on with solving the problem.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Strategy - Tactics - Guesswork?
As of this morning, Friday the 8th of February, we start a daily analysis of “what’s going on with the macabre dance in Ottawa”. I liken the present push and shove contest to three (male?) dancers on a small table top. They are each shoving a tiny bit while desperately holding on to each other for fear of being ejected out onto the floor and out of the dance..
Or maybe it is more like a schoolyard squabble about “my Daddy is bigger than your daddy”. None of them wants a fight at this moment, and neither of them has a hope in hell of winning one outright, and after all it is the bewildered spectators (you and me) who will decide the outcome anyway (and pay for it).
And all three are trying to make our participation in the Afghan War the key issue when it clearly is not. In Afghanistan we are “in for a penny, in for a pound” whether we like it or not. Only if the Taliban physically eject us (as the Viet Cong ejected the Yanks) can we pack up and leave, albeit with our tails between our legs. That is exactly why the other whimpy NATO nations will not “get stuck in”. Getting in is as easy as walking through an open door, getting out is not quite as simple. Or maybe Jack Layton can advise us what to tell the little girls of Afghanistan as we cut and run, and send them back into the Middle Ages of ignorance, suppression, slavery and circumcision. There are about twenty million Afghanis. Half of them are women.
The Liberals volunteered us in the first place, and I have wondered if they did not do that deliberately, knowing they were probably going to lose the election to the Conservatives and thereby stick them with a messy political issue that has, at present, no solution.
So what does this all mean to the Morning Glory Rebellion? It means the same to us as to every other Canadian. The NDP will have no more influence on national or international affairs than they have ever had, which is nil. The conservatives and the liberals will go to the polls hissing and spitting like a couple of half grown kittens in a yard fight. The public will not know what to do because there is such a large clump of voters who don’t want to vote Liberal or Conservative for a variety of reasons, none of which has anything to do with the Taliban.
That is precisely why Harper and Dion are going to make Afghanistan the perfect non-issue. Neither wants to make a commitment to actually solve any of Canada’s real problems.
So, as of today, we should stay the course, but increase the political uncertainty by spreading the word farther and faster. It is before the election that we have the most influence, not afterwards.
Remember, IF there is a major irreversible change of attitude by Stephen Harper, we can switch to his support in a blink of an eye. So far there has been no movement by “he who would be our Diktator” to justify our support.
This country can not be democratically governed by a central government. It is too big, too diverse and the “French Problem is a man-made cancer in our guts which cannot be eradicated. That is why the House of Lords structured the BNA Act the way they did. They knew we had to develop as a true confederation of Provinces. That is exactly why they made the Provinces solely responsible for, amongst other things, property rights. They did all of this because they had been forced to give these rights to a conquered people (the Quebecois) for fear of a subsequent rebellion, which they did not have the will nor the military and naval forces to suppress. At that time the British were very much entangled in a myriad of colonial wars in India, the East Indies and Africa. And at that time the Americans were making very loud noises about removing Great Britain totally from North America.
Once the BNA Act came into effect in 1867 there was no turning back. Just because all of our governments since then have tried to centralize control does not make it possible. But many tricks were tried. Who do you think was behind the FLQ Crisis? The “Big Daddy Trick” of creating a national emergency, then invoking emergency measures to suppress it is as old as the first dictator in history. Does it not occur that C 68 was a similar ploy? Just because it didn’t work does not mean that Chretien and Rock did not think that they could succeed. And, from their point a view, it was worth a try because to lose was merely to waste billions of dollars, none of which was theirs!
I am sure that both those gents are drawing every penny of their substantial pensions despite their major blunders. And all the bureaucrats and lawyers who put C 68 together will do the same. We can influence only those who continue to support C 68 and who seek election.
That is all we can do, so let’s do it!
Or maybe it is more like a schoolyard squabble about “my Daddy is bigger than your daddy”. None of them wants a fight at this moment, and neither of them has a hope in hell of winning one outright, and after all it is the bewildered spectators (you and me) who will decide the outcome anyway (and pay for it).
And all three are trying to make our participation in the Afghan War the key issue when it clearly is not. In Afghanistan we are “in for a penny, in for a pound” whether we like it or not. Only if the Taliban physically eject us (as the Viet Cong ejected the Yanks) can we pack up and leave, albeit with our tails between our legs. That is exactly why the other whimpy NATO nations will not “get stuck in”. Getting in is as easy as walking through an open door, getting out is not quite as simple. Or maybe Jack Layton can advise us what to tell the little girls of Afghanistan as we cut and run, and send them back into the Middle Ages of ignorance, suppression, slavery and circumcision. There are about twenty million Afghanis. Half of them are women.
The Liberals volunteered us in the first place, and I have wondered if they did not do that deliberately, knowing they were probably going to lose the election to the Conservatives and thereby stick them with a messy political issue that has, at present, no solution.
So what does this all mean to the Morning Glory Rebellion? It means the same to us as to every other Canadian. The NDP will have no more influence on national or international affairs than they have ever had, which is nil. The conservatives and the liberals will go to the polls hissing and spitting like a couple of half grown kittens in a yard fight. The public will not know what to do because there is such a large clump of voters who don’t want to vote Liberal or Conservative for a variety of reasons, none of which has anything to do with the Taliban.
That is precisely why Harper and Dion are going to make Afghanistan the perfect non-issue. Neither wants to make a commitment to actually solve any of Canada’s real problems.
So, as of today, we should stay the course, but increase the political uncertainty by spreading the word farther and faster. It is before the election that we have the most influence, not afterwards.
Remember, IF there is a major irreversible change of attitude by Stephen Harper, we can switch to his support in a blink of an eye. So far there has been no movement by “he who would be our Diktator” to justify our support.
This country can not be democratically governed by a central government. It is too big, too diverse and the “French Problem is a man-made cancer in our guts which cannot be eradicated. That is why the House of Lords structured the BNA Act the way they did. They knew we had to develop as a true confederation of Provinces. That is exactly why they made the Provinces solely responsible for, amongst other things, property rights. They did all of this because they had been forced to give these rights to a conquered people (the Quebecois) for fear of a subsequent rebellion, which they did not have the will nor the military and naval forces to suppress. At that time the British were very much entangled in a myriad of colonial wars in India, the East Indies and Africa. And at that time the Americans were making very loud noises about removing Great Britain totally from North America.
Once the BNA Act came into effect in 1867 there was no turning back. Just because all of our governments since then have tried to centralize control does not make it possible. But many tricks were tried. Who do you think was behind the FLQ Crisis? The “Big Daddy Trick” of creating a national emergency, then invoking emergency measures to suppress it is as old as the first dictator in history. Does it not occur that C 68 was a similar ploy? Just because it didn’t work does not mean that Chretien and Rock did not think that they could succeed. And, from their point a view, it was worth a try because to lose was merely to waste billions of dollars, none of which was theirs!
I am sure that both those gents are drawing every penny of their substantial pensions despite their major blunders. And all the bureaucrats and lawyers who put C 68 together will do the same. We can influence only those who continue to support C 68 and who seek election.
That is all we can do, so let’s do it!
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Our Rights
Exactly What Rights Do We Have?
As anyone who has taken a course in basic logic knows, there are two ways to win a logical argument; you prove by evidence that such and such is the case, or you argue successfully that so and so must be the fact of the matter, because nothing else can be.
This may be applied to an argument about what rights we have. We are deprived of a supporting argument in favour of a specific property rights by virtue of it having been deliberately omitted from our Constitution Act of 1982. And coincidently there is no description of what (private) property is. It doesn’t exist. It is left to Law Court Judges to rule in specific and narrow cases and all so far have supported the State’s Right over the citizen.
I am convinced that each and every one of us can prove in a Court of Law that we have all of the rights that we claim to have by proving that most of the laws in the Criminal Code of Canada could not exist if we did not inherently have the right not to be deprived of any specific right in the first instance. There could not be a law against shoplifting, for instance, if it wasn’t a fact in law that the chocolate bars on the grocery shelf are the rightful property of the shop owner. And therefore it is unlawful for any person to deprive, or attempt to deprive the rightful owner of his property. Ipso facto: the shopkeeper has property rights, even though our Constitution Act does not say so. Murder could not be named as a crime if we did not all have the right to life. Women could not be protected against rape if they did not have, in this country at least, the exclusive right to determine with whom they will have intercourse.
The Criminal Code of Canada is a very large volume; even the Pocket Edition will not fit into any pocket that I own. It contains (2004 edition) 1555 pages that are
Printed with type of this size.
So, there are many laws that can only have been derived by virtue of our right to material property, wealth, intellectual property, security of person, freedom from physical and sexual abuse and myriads of lesser rights. There is even a specific law (CCC 323 (1) that protects owners of oyster beds. Therefore, persons who own oyster beds obviously have the exclusive right to the product of them. My biggest fear is the Supreme Court of Canada, as presently mandated, will selectively extinguish, one by one, those they wish to see gone. I imagine they will leave oyster beds alone for the time being.
However, before important laws are obliterated I would strongly recommend that anyone who is charged with the offence that the person did something to protect loss of personal property of any sort, dig into the C.C.C. and use that wealth of evidence to support the contention that IF it is an offence in the Criminal Code of Canada to deprive, or attempt to deprive a citizen of any personal property, then the right to that property must exist. To argue otherwise would be illogical and contrary to the essential elements of peace and good order. Maybe this explains why Canada seems to be coming progressively more disorderly.
If this all be true then we can justly demand that our Justice Department rewrite the laws that clarify our Rights. This means an amendment to The Constitution Act of 1982, or more likely, a complete re write followed by a National Referendum. This process is the only way that we can undo the injustice done to us all by Pierre Trudeau in collusion with all one thousand provincial and federal parliamentarians twenty six years ago. In 1982 not one MP or MLA in this country raised a serious word of objection to this most undemocratic of Acts that poses as the Law of the Land. I’ll repeat that. Not one of our elected representatives objected to a new Basic Law for Canadians that left out the most basic of Rights. Which means simply that our elected representatives, all of them, had something besides the welfare of we the people on their minds 26 years ago.
Or maybe they just can’t think!
We had better start raising hell because ’meek and mild’ obviously won’t cut it!
As anyone who has taken a course in basic logic knows, there are two ways to win a logical argument; you prove by evidence that such and such is the case, or you argue successfully that so and so must be the fact of the matter, because nothing else can be.
This may be applied to an argument about what rights we have. We are deprived of a supporting argument in favour of a specific property rights by virtue of it having been deliberately omitted from our Constitution Act of 1982. And coincidently there is no description of what (private) property is. It doesn’t exist. It is left to Law Court Judges to rule in specific and narrow cases and all so far have supported the State’s Right over the citizen.
I am convinced that each and every one of us can prove in a Court of Law that we have all of the rights that we claim to have by proving that most of the laws in the Criminal Code of Canada could not exist if we did not inherently have the right not to be deprived of any specific right in the first instance. There could not be a law against shoplifting, for instance, if it wasn’t a fact in law that the chocolate bars on the grocery shelf are the rightful property of the shop owner. And therefore it is unlawful for any person to deprive, or attempt to deprive the rightful owner of his property. Ipso facto: the shopkeeper has property rights, even though our Constitution Act does not say so. Murder could not be named as a crime if we did not all have the right to life. Women could not be protected against rape if they did not have, in this country at least, the exclusive right to determine with whom they will have intercourse.
The Criminal Code of Canada is a very large volume; even the Pocket Edition will not fit into any pocket that I own. It contains (2004 edition) 1555 pages that are
Printed with type of this size.
So, there are many laws that can only have been derived by virtue of our right to material property, wealth, intellectual property, security of person, freedom from physical and sexual abuse and myriads of lesser rights. There is even a specific law (CCC 323 (1) that protects owners of oyster beds. Therefore, persons who own oyster beds obviously have the exclusive right to the product of them. My biggest fear is the Supreme Court of Canada, as presently mandated, will selectively extinguish, one by one, those they wish to see gone. I imagine they will leave oyster beds alone for the time being.
However, before important laws are obliterated I would strongly recommend that anyone who is charged with the offence that the person did something to protect loss of personal property of any sort, dig into the C.C.C. and use that wealth of evidence to support the contention that IF it is an offence in the Criminal Code of Canada to deprive, or attempt to deprive a citizen of any personal property, then the right to that property must exist. To argue otherwise would be illogical and contrary to the essential elements of peace and good order. Maybe this explains why Canada seems to be coming progressively more disorderly.
If this all be true then we can justly demand that our Justice Department rewrite the laws that clarify our Rights. This means an amendment to The Constitution Act of 1982, or more likely, a complete re write followed by a National Referendum. This process is the only way that we can undo the injustice done to us all by Pierre Trudeau in collusion with all one thousand provincial and federal parliamentarians twenty six years ago. In 1982 not one MP or MLA in this country raised a serious word of objection to this most undemocratic of Acts that poses as the Law of the Land. I’ll repeat that. Not one of our elected representatives objected to a new Basic Law for Canadians that left out the most basic of Rights. Which means simply that our elected representatives, all of them, had something besides the welfare of we the people on their minds 26 years ago.
Or maybe they just can’t think!
We had better start raising hell because ’meek and mild’ obviously won’t cut it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)