NAU meeting protest ends in tear gas!

geemony, I would have posted my response about 5 min ago, But just awesome 45 min of work lost, power out! stupid storm.

/starts over in notepad...

[edit on 22-8-2007 by C0le]

Originally posted by geemony
I don’t see that at all, I see three nations contemplating the future of doing business in this current global environment. And I will bet that they for sure will put it to the people once they have a plan which can be brought to the people.

The President and the leaders of the United States took and oath to protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States. Any actions which threatens the sovereignty and existence of the 50 united states is unlawful, and a breach of this oath.

I did expect personal attacks since that’s all you people can resort to when you read something you don’t agree with. Good point maker JA

You suggested that any battle that cannot be won is not worth fighting for.
A battle that is lawful and just is always worth fighting for regardless of the outcome.

I guess Saddam didn’t try and force his will on his people. I guess the Taliban didn’t force their will on the people. I guess communism didn’t try and force their will on people. Lame argument IMO America is the only country on the planet willing to stand up and take the lead. And if we were engaged in a bake sale instead of a war on terror then the food industry would be the rich getting richer. Of course in a war environment those that produce weapons and tools of war will get rich.

The business that goes on within a sovereign nation is that of its own, And not ours, Our Founders made this very clear in the documents they left for us.
Our country is to maintain a neutral and non interventionous
policy regarding the affairs of other nations, Our Forced influence in the business of other nations in this instance the nations in the Middle East, Dating back to the beginning of the last century, has created all of the problems that now exist.
All of the enemies we now face at some point have been our allies, All while they were committing the very acts we use to justify our current actions, But our Government turned a blind eye to these things.
Our influence in this region has proven not to be for the interests and well being of the respected people within these nations.
But for the interests and expansion of American wealth and power.
There are numerous nations which suffer the same and or worse fates, yet our Government ignors these people, for it has nothing to gain from them.
They key players who pushed for this war are all profiting form it personally..

The last true document of freedom. Our Constitution and Bill of rights have been used as tools by those who interpret them to mean anything they want anyway. I suggest our forefathers are prob rolling in their
graves at what’s been done to the original values and morals America was founded on. So change is inevitable at this point. Change is not always a bad thing IMO so don’t put it down until it’s had time to work.

The thing is there is nothing to interpret, The Constitution is very clear, And everything within it was given plenty of explanation as to the meaning behind it by our founders in the Federalist papers.
The Constitution isn't a document which restricts or enslaves the people, but a document which ensures the freedom of the people, No laws are to be passed that prevents a free man from being free so long as he hurts no
other, The Governments job isn't to prevent freedom but to protect it, Yet they continuously make men less free when they have no authority to do so as this would go against the meaning of the Constitution.

I guess it would be better to allow protesters to go anywhere and do anything they want with no order or structure. Yeah that would be a good thing right?

So long as they aren't hurting anyone and on public property then yes, It is there constitutional right.

Again how so, I can contact my congressmen anytime I want and have and have gotten a response every time. It’s not the fault of the process that you may have a lazy congressman.

How often are these responses form letters, containing there personal views and votes based upon those views,
Rather then votes based upon what the constitution says is correct?

Again the times dictate that changes to gun laws must be addressed; they didn’t have auto weapons and auto handguns in 1776 my man. They didn’t have millions and millions of people either. I guess you would be ok
with people having any type of gun they want. Also you would be ok with them not having to register those guns
as well? Great way to control guns in America right?

Im not going to go into statistics or any such things but I'll say this

The weapons insured by the constitution were weapons of war at that time, The founders on numerous occasions

said its the right of the people to be armed adequitly to oppose any threat to the several states.

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)


Full auto Yes, You could buy them new up until 1986, look at the crime stats during that period concerning Full auto weapons.
Full auto is still legal for anyone who can pass a background check, Look at the crime stats.
Registration leads to confiscation, Ask the people in New Orleans.

Why does the government need to know what I own when the very thing I own is meant to protect me from that government?

Gun control is unlawful

Originally posted by geemony
You lost me here Taxes are Law so pay them or don’t its up to you.

First the form you file whichever one you file, you sign, when you sign this, if you fail to file again the next term, the IRS can use this against you and put you in jail for it, thus you are being a witness against yourself.

Second, Some taxes yes, but not the income tax, Show me this law, you claim exists, Ive researched Title 26 and the applicable regulations extensively, and have yet to find a law which applies to me or most Americans.
The supreme court has ruled multiple times on things which support my findings, however the lower courts will not allow these rulings into the court room.

Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time my friend.

If bail has been set then no capitol crime has been committed, you are innocent until proven guilty and any bail which holds you in prison for a crime you haven't been proven to have committed is unlawful
bail is nothing more then collateral to insure you show up for court to face your accuser and or answer to the crime you may or may not have committed.

Which states have passed laws that violate the Bill of rights?

Every state who has passed a law which restricts constitutional rights.


[edit on 22-8-2007 by C0le]

[edit on 22-8-2007 by C0le]

Originally posted by geemony

With an NAU there is no more illegal immigration with the three countries for one. Also don’t think for one minute an NAU would do away with the sovereignty of any of the three countries. There would still be an America, a Canada and a Mexico. Yes a new constitution would be voted on but who’s to say it wouldn’t address the times and be more in line with how life is lived in this day and age.

The NAU was designed for security, how will it make us more secure if they
take borders out? Once they start merging the Union you will see more unemployment. Mexicans will have the right to cross any border, and get
American/Canadian jobs. Not to mention they will work for much cheaper.
Then you will see people here yelling and screaming about the unemployment rate.
Back to what I said before, why do corporations get to know the deal and
the rest do not? They will be doing business with the three other countries,
but it is not like they do not do business with each other now.

They claimed to be talking about the North Pole and how it belongs to the
whole world. Why can't they just tell us about the NAU? I mean if they are
certainly thinking about it I would like to know. I do not know if you like being kept in the dark by your president, but I do not like it one bit.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by Equinox99]

reply to post by C0le


Cool someone who can debate and not attack, thx for that and I apologize for the comment about the attack about my physical makeup. :-)

The President and the leaders of the United States took and oath to protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States. Any actions which threatens the sovereignty and existence of the 50 united states is unlawful, and a breach of this oath.

I agree that our congress and current and past administrations have done a lot to usurp the original constitution when it fits their needs, but so does everyone else. The Constitution was written many years ago in a way different time. The main points of the constitution I don’t think have changed much. We are still free to do pretty much anything we want with in the law.

You suggested that any battle that cannot be won is not worth fighting for.
A battle that is lawful and just is always worth fighting for regardless of the outcome.

I do not state that in anyway, I state that an NAU may not be the monster everyone thinks it will. Our sovereignty will not be lost IMO. All three countries will still have their Identities in tact, but will make it easier to do business and progress the standard of living for all three countries IMHO.

The business that goes on within a sovereign nation is that of its own, and not ours, Our Founders made this very clear in the documents they left for us.

I say to this again, times have dictated that we have to intervene when the situation could harm us in the future. Listen I understand why we are in the Middle East right now. It’s for the future of America plain and simple. With-out Oil our way of life is over. Our government yes is greedy, prob the most greedy basterds on earth, and we should have been better prepared for the decline of oil resources. It is sad that we have allowed this to happen but it is what it is.

The thing is there is nothing to interpret

I disagree the constitution is a plan for government with guidelines on how Government will do business. It is a living ever changeing document. Yes it has articles which deal with personal freedoms however, congress has the right to create amendments to the constitution as they see fit as long as they have a two thirds majority vote. And since the people vote in the congress it’s the peoples fault if something gets passed they don’t agree with. You see our forefathers knew that the constitution wouldn’t be in agreement of everyone. This is why only a two thirds majority is needed to enact new laws and not a unanimous vote.

Not until the 13th amendment was slavery outlawed. The Original document did allow for slavery and how it was to be done.

My point is the constitution is a living document, which is always changing with the times; the writers knew this and did allow for changes to be made as the need arose.

As long as they aren't hurting anyone and on public property then yes, it is there constitutional right.

Yes as long as it is a peaceful protest then everyone has that right.

How often are these responses form letters, containing there personal views and votes based upon those views,
Rather then votes based upon what the constitution says is correct?

I have gotten both actually, I have even been asked to come to my congressmen’s office and discuss my concerns.

The weapons insured by the constitution were weapons of war at that time, The founders on numerous occasions

Make no mistake I am all for the right to bare arms and I do, However as with the changing times certain guns are not included in this because they simply did not exist or were even thought of when the second amendment was formed. Tell me how the average citizen needs a full auto M16? or a MAC 10, or an Uzi? Just no justification for it at all. You want a shot gun, you want a rifle you want a handgun by all means please arm yourself because it is your right to bare arms and is prob the most important of all Amendments. But one doesn’t need a grenade launcher, or a law anti tank weapon. Again a living document which needs to reflect the changing times and the changing mentality of society.

Second, Some taxes yes, but not the income tax, Show me this law, you claim exists

I give you the 16th amendment to the constitution which states "Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

If bail has been set then no capitol crime has been committed, you are innocent until proven guilty and any bail which holds you in prison for a crime you haven't been proven to have committed is unlawful
Bail is nothing more then collateral to insure you show up for court to face your accuser and or answer to the crime you may or may not have committed.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

As I have stated I feel the judicial branch does need to be overhauled. But I do agree with bail because yes criminals can jump bail and never be brought up on the crimes they commit. Can innocent people be arrested for a crime they didn’t commit of course they can and do, just as those who are guilty walk out Scott free and don’t get what is coming to them. How do we fix this I surely do not have the answer to that one?

Thx for the discussion.

Originally posted by Equinox99
The NAU was designed for security, how will it make us more secure if they
take borders out?

I would hope that an NAU would allow for security and I can’t say how we would be more secure because there has been no official acknowledgment of an NAU yet. My hope is it would free up resources to allow for better protection of all three countries.

Once they start merging the Union you will see more unemployment. Mexicans will have the right to cross any border, and get
American/Canadian jobs. Not to mention they will work for much cheaper.
Then you will see people here yelling and screaming about the unemployment rate.

Wouldn’t it also allow for Canadians to come here and work with out obtaining a laundry list of papers giving you the right to do so?
Again my hope is that it will bring big companies back to North America and reinvest in our three countries rather than give the money to India, or China or an EU country.

Back to what I said before, why do corporations get to know the deal and
the rest do not? They will be doing business with the three other countries,
but it is not like they do not do business with each other now.

Because they need to know if doing this thing would get off the ground financially. An NAU make no mistake is about advancing each countries GNP and stimulating the economies of all three. Security, citizen rights and the such are distant seconds to making the all mighty dollar.

They claimed to be talking about the North Pole and how it belongs to the
whole world. Why can't they just tell us about the NAU? I mean if they are
certainly thinking about it I would like to know. I do not know if you like being kept in the dark by your president, but I do not like it one bit.

Actually I think Canada has a good argument for the North Pole, however our poles are the last frontier so to speak. Land not inhabited which holds a vast amount of natural resources. I believe this is what the next all out world war will be fought over. I hope not but seems to be heading in that direction.

I don’t like to be in the dark anymore than the next person, but my time in the military and my career supporting the military and government has taught me that need to know is just that. The need to know will be dictated by the need. If and when they need us to sign off on the deal we will know. I am patient in this regard and will wait to hear their story before I make nasty or play nice.

Listen I don’t agree with everything my government does but to me an NAU may not be as bad as everyone thinks.

Thank you E take care up there I frequent Swift Current from time to time and love Canada as im sure you do to.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by Equinox99]

Look at this video and tell me those 3 guys were not cops.
Youtube video

They were probably hired to ruin a peaceful protest.

Another video

They tried to show the 10,000 petitions signed in Canada but they were not
allowed.

This video shows they were doing a peaceful protest and the cops started firing
tear gas, which led people to start throwing rocks.

Video

So now the cops have the right to dissolve a peaceful protest? Can you tell
me what a police state would do in the same matter?

[edit on 22-8-2007 by Equinox99]

reply to post by Equinox99


Those 3 guys are sooo cops. Good that someone stepped up and stopped them before they could do anymore damage. Sad though that these guys probably weren't the only ones out there.

If you read this article from a Canadian paper, you will see that the 3 guys in bandanas causing disturbance, one holding a rock, are most probably policemen.

www.thestar.com...

Geemony: The 16th Amendment was never properly ratified, in fact it wasn't ratified at all. See the documentary "Freedom to Fascism" it explains all of this.

One other point: The EU may have held some secret meetings, but the point is that it was, in the end, voted on by all concerned countries/parties. If you do some research on the NAU, you will find that their objectives are not at all benign. Actually let me amend that. The facts about what the NAU are doing used to be posted on the SPP.gov site. and I saw the website with my own eyes. That has now been removed and they have put up complete lies about it and omitted some vital sections.
Good luck in finding out what the NAU's true objectives are. Also, there has been no mention of any of us being able to vote for this.

As for what rights have been taken away: we have lost the right to habeus corpus; if you are an anti-war protester you can lose all your property and be thrown in jail without a trial and left to die there; some U.S. citizens also lost the freedom to travel freely, as people who supposedly owe back child support can't be given a passport - some of the charges against people haven't been proven or disproven yet; the govt can spy on you anywhere, any time for any reason, including trumped up reasons if you say something the govt doesn't like, say, anything anti-war or anti-Bush.
There's a whole ton more but I don't have time for that here.

Originally posted by forestlady

Geemony: The 16th Amendment was never properly ratified, in fact it wasn't ratified at all. See the documentary "Freedom to Fascism" it explains all of this.

OK you got me doing some good ol research and Ill say yes id like to have Ron Pauls bill passed. But it will never happen in this day and age im afraid. SO I dont really think about it much you know. America couldnt survive with out income taxes now. To many libral entitlement programs like welfare would be cut immediatly. Public education would cease to exsist. Our Military would cease to exsist, our heros in VA hospitols would be out in the cold, Food stamps forget about them wont be a program. You want anarchy do away with taxes in todays environment. I have been blessed so it would only give me more to have fun with, but for millions of americans it would be like turning your back on them, some really do need the help.

Good luck in finding out what the NAU's true objectives are. Also, there has been no mention of any of us being able to vote for this.

We sure will be asked becasue that would be the thing that sends the American people over the edge for sure.

As for what rights have been taken away: we have lost the right to habeus corpus; if you are an anti-war protester you can lose all your property and be thrown in jail without a trial and left to die there; some U.S. citizens also lost the freedom to travel freely, as people who supposedly owe back child support can't be given a passport - some of the charges against people haven't been proven or disproven yet; the govt can spy on you anywhere, any time for any reason, including trumped up reasons if you say something the govt doesn't like, say, anything anti-war or anti-Bush.

Sorry I just dont see it as you do, its nothing personal I just dont feel the loss of any personal rights. I live according to the rule of law. I dont break them except maybe to run my vette at 150 or so sometimes

I do hear what you are saying but if one owes back child support they dont have any rights IMO. Take responsibility for the kid and thats that. if a clerical error occurs then it will be fixed in time and thats life on that one. Teh government can not spy on you everywhere come now just a bit over the top wouldnt you say? Show me one protester or anti Bush person who is in jail and will be left to die there.

I tell you what.... When a Democrate is elected next Nov and has 4 years to do thier voodoo that they do. Lets come back to that subject and see where the country is then. I dont think anything will change except taxes will be much higher me thinks.....

im conservative by nature but independent affiliated. i dont like elephants or jackasses, I put them all in the same boat and light it on fire to valhalla.

Im just to tired so no spell check on this one sorry.

Take care

[edit on 22-8-2007 by geemony]

reply to post by Equinox99


Here is the Breaking Alternative News thread on that.
Police accused of using provocateurs at Montebello, Que. summit

Originally posted by geemony
I agree that our congress and current and past administrations have done a lot to usurp the original constitution when it fits their needs, but so does everyone else. The Constitution was written many years ago in a way different time. The main points of the constitution I don’t think have changed much. We are still free to do pretty much anything we want with in the law.

In general yes the constitution is still intact and rights are not directly violated, however congress has its ways of getting around rights by passing other seemingly unrelated laws which effect said rights in the negative.

I say to this again, times have dictated that we have to intervene when the situation could harm us in

the future. Listen I understand why we are in the Middle East right now. It’s for the future of America plain and simple. With-out Oil our way of life is over. Our government yes is greedy, prob the most greedy basterds
on earth, and we should have been better prepared for the decline of oil resources. It is sad that we have allowed this to happen but it is what it is.

The Government could have many times went about things in the Middle East in better ways, Ways that didn't involve forcing our views or ways upon them, Or our CIA conducting false flag ops within sovereign nations to
influence power change or wars that benefit our Government, Our dealings in the middle east should have stayed strictly trade based and nothing more, When this war is over and we have cleaned up our mess, The Government needs to revert back to the plans the constitution laid out in dealing with sovereign nations.

I disagree the constitution is a plan for government with guidelines on how Government will do business. It is a living ever changeing document. Yes it has articles which deal with personal freedoms however, congress
has the right to create amendments to the constitution as they see fit as long as they have a two thirds majority vote. And since the people vote in the congress it’s the peoples fault if something gets passed they
don’t agree with. You see our forefathers knew that the constitution wouldn’t be in agreement of everyone. This is why only a two thirds majority is needed to enact new laws and not a unanimous vote. Not until the 13th amendment was slavery outlawed. The Original document did allow for slavery and how it was to be done.

My point is the constitution is a living document, which is always changing with the times; the writers knew this and did allow for changes to be made as the need arose.

The Constitution preserved certain unalienable rights that no majority or Government could take away and or restrict, The Congress was Never meant to be able to pass laws which go against Liberty or the rights which protected an individuals ability to that which he choses so long as he hurts no one.
Congress's job is to protect those liberties and make sure no majority and no power is ever able to take away a mans individual rights, its job is to protect the sovereignty of the several states within this union, Its job is not to restrict the rights ensured not granted by the Constitution.

Make no mistake I am all for the right to bare arms and I do, However as with the changing times certain guns are not included in this because they simply did not exist or were even thought of when the second
amendment was formed. Tell me how the average citizen needs a full auto M16? or a MAC 10, or an Uzi? Just no justification for it at all. You want a shot gun, you want a rifle you want a handgun by all means please arm
yourself because it is your right to bare arms and is prob the most important of all Amendments. But one doesn’t need a grenade launcher, or a law anti tank weapon. Again a living document which needs to reflect the changing times and the changing mentality of society.

They did not exist maybe, but military and the types of weapons in this time were ever changing, enough so that our Founders who were not stupid men understood that so long as Government exists, Man is the equal balance to it for We are the Government. Man can and is greedy, corrupt, and evil at times, Our Founders ensured in our Constitution that We if the need
arised would have the means and ability to protect ourselves from such a Government if it were to ever become corrupt to these ends, And that with those means we would have the ability to institute new Government based
upon the constitution which would protect not restrict the rights of man, And that in order to be able to do so, that our abilities be equal to that of the standing military, the Militia is to be armed to protect this Country from not only itself, but when called upon, to protect this Country form outside influences which threaten liberty.

I'm not saying we need RPG's, grenades, explosives, tanks, or fighter jets.

I am saying that Semi automatic rifles should have no restrictions if the man who owns it is not a criminal.
I am saying that New Fully automatic weapons should be able to be purchased by those who can pass the current background check required to purchase a fully automatic weapon.

With that said, I am, albeit slowly saving up for a Full automatic UZI SMG, Because I'm a law abiding citizen who can pass the background check for it, As could most Americans, The problem being is, that since 1986 banned
the manufacture and sale of NEW NFA items, These are expensive.

The statistics show that NFA weapons prior to the ban were never a problem, The only crime committed with a legal full auto was committed by a COP...

The statistics show, (though the anti gun crowd twist them around and not include full details), That our crime rate concerning guns is actually better then that of most countries.

The crimes that are committed, are almost always CHEAP junk guns, Not 1k+ rifles.

I give you the 16th amendment to the constitution which states "Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

As another poster pointed out there is sufficient proof that this amendment was never legally ratified,
however I wont argue that point, I'll argue the law as it is now.

First, The 16th amendment granted the rights to tax income from whatever source derived.

What is income?

as defined by the IRS Code Title 26.

Title 26>Subtitle A>Chapter 1>Subchapter A>Part1>Section 1:Tax imposed

From here you pick what would seemingly apply to you, And you would read this.
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of (whichever part seemingly applies to you)

Ok so what is taxable income?
Lets look at the code to find out
This can be found in,
Title 26>Subtitle A>Chapter 1>Subchapter B>Part1>Section 63:Taxable income defined
(a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term taxable income means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

Ok so what is gross income?

This can be found in,
Title 26>Subtitle A>Chapter 1>Subchapter B>Part 1>Section 61:Gross income defined
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities
Continued...

[edit on 22-8-2007 by C0le]

(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

Now if you look at this list, and the wording it implies, that from whatever source derived could include you labor, However, upon further reading into the various sections of Title 26, and this very definition you will see that

The list above are all Gains, While they are also sources.. Trick wording.

Now some will also say that
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
Means your labor.

But ill state again upon reading further into the code, What most people don't do you will find that, this applies to the gains based upon these transactions, and not the labor its self.

Supreme Court ruling support this claim.

Title 26 Applies to the Gains of Corporations business ect, Not individuals. If you dig even deeper you will find that even then the income tax doesn't for the most part even apply to these entities..


All of your money taken out for income taxes goes to paying back the national debt, This was proven by what is now known as the grace commission.

What is the national debt?
Its the money our government borrows from the Federal Reserve, A Private Central Bank, At interest, meaning for every dollar our government borrows comes attached to it a certain percentage of interest.

Keep in mind Congress has the legal powers to oversee and create money, thus doesn't need to borrow anything from any Bank.

Seeing as all of our money comes from one place, when we go to pay it back, where do we get the money to pay for the interest from?
Our government borrows even more money from the Federal Reserve, thus increasing the debt even more. and more money is pushed into the economy.

Now the value of our money is regulated by how much money is in circulation, so the more more money borrowed creates more money in the economy, thus our dollar continues to devalue..
The Federal Reserve enslaves us, This is a debt which can never be repaid, ever..

Its also a debt which doesn't have to exist if congress would take back its powers to regulate and create currency...


Here are some relevant movies that will point you in the right direction, however, i would suggest as i did, and anyone should, to look into these things for yourself, the IRS code, the Supporting Regulations and the Supreme court rulings.

This also doesn't not take into account the federal government has no jurisdiction over anything within the 50 states, other then those specifically listed in the constitution.

If you look back to my comment

Title 26 Applies to the Gains of Corporations business ect, Not individuals. If you dig even deeper you will find that even then the income tax doesn't for the most part even apply to these entities..

and compare the Tax code, with the Jurisdiction the Fed does have, you will understand this.




Good introduction film that will open your eyes.
American: Freedom to Fascism

Detailed transcript of the code.
Theft by Deception



Again don't take these videos as truth until you look into the claims yourself, though ultimately you will come to the same conclusion.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by C0le]

Thanks so much Cole, for fleshing out what I was trying to say in my post. I think you've explained it much better than I ever could. My hat is off to you!
FL

I'm a Canadian who has stepped up and defended our country by joining the Canadian Forces and paid the price with a broken body. I fly the flag in my yard and would fight to the death to defend your right to be wrong. I love Canada, and have lived in several provinces and travelled to most of the others. I am raising my family in Canada, having had the chance to join the American Airforce at a substantial increase in both rank and pay/benefits, and turning it down. I don't want to be an American.
But I feel that my government has betrayed our country to the Americans time after time. Our water, trees, minerals, oil , natural gas,electricity, and the cream of our medical schools go across the border for pennies on the dollar because our politicians are not willing to stand up and tell the American President to go pound salt! Even when the American Supreme Court rules in Canada's favour, they allow the US Government to with hold millions of dollars in illegal taxes and duties.
Now our Prime Minister is holding closed door meetings with the US President and the Mexican President about how to sell out the last of our soveriegnty. They use American style riot control against Canadian citizens exercising their right to protest and shrug off the concerns as 'a few hundred, It is sad.'
Sure, this would be a great thing for the US. They would finally get unrestricted access to our resources and waters. Bush would be able to move one step closer to the American Dream, Manifest Destiny.
But what about Canada? We lose our sovereignty and let the US start making our laws. We would lose our medical care system right quick and our economy would plummet as the rest of our companies are gobbled up by the American Industrial Complex and moved south so that Americans will have jobs. Our forestry industry is already a subsidury of American lumber companies, and the oil and gas companies are pushing hard at the last Canadian owned gas companies.
Pressure from the US government led to the privitization of our telephone, gas and hydro companies. Now there are just a few Canadian owned suppliers, with the rest as subsiduries of American Utility Companies.
People ask, why would the US want Canada? It's all rocks and trees. That's why they want it. Those are important rocks and trees, worth a great deal of money. If we were to close our borders and stop the flow of resources to the US, the entire northern US would shut down over night. The western coastal states are dependant on Canadian electricity and natural gas. The US hasn't been able to produce enough power to supply it's market since the 1960's. And it's getting worse. Now Canada is having power supply problems because of the amount that is being sent south.
People have to open their eyes and take a look at what is happening. We are a huge country with a population of around 35 million. The US is a smaller country with a population approaching 350 million. We have large amounts of natural resources, US natural resources are almost depleted. Between us stands the worlds longest undefended border with most Canadians living within a couple hundred miles of it. You do the math.

My rant is over now. Please feel free to exercise your right to pick me apart.

No need to pick you apart mate. You pretty much hit the nail on the head.It's all about resources. Oil, NG, water, minerals, softwood, the list goes on and on. I don't mind sharing these with the US, but it has to benifical to us as well.

Originally posted by geemony
America couldnt survive with out income taxes now. To many libral entitlement programs like welfare would be cut immediatly. Public education would cease to exsist. Our Military would cease to exsist, our heros in VA hospitols would be out in the cold, Food stamps forget about them wont be a program. You want anarchy do away with taxes in todays environment. I have been blessed so it would only give me more to have fun with, but for millions of americans it would be like turning your back on them, some really do need the help.

We sure will be asked becasue that would be the thing that sends the American people over the edge for sure.

Sorry I just dont see it as you do, its nothing personal I just dont feel the loss of any personal rights. I live according to the rule of law. I dont break them except maybe to run my vette at 150 or so sometimes
[edit on 22-8-2007 by geemony]

Geemony, as someone else mentioned, income tax all goes to pay off the national debt. Who is this debt owed to? The Federal Reserve, the ones who loan money to the U.S. govt at an interest rate. The FR is a group of private investors who loan money to the U.S.
Why isn't the U.S. printing its own money? That's what we're supposed to be doing. If we got rid of the Federal Reserve, which we sure as hell don't need, we would have no federal income tax.
Our country survived for 150 years without income tax and did just fine.

As for loss of rights, you may not feel as if you haven't lost any, but read the bills that have been passed since 9/11, especially in the last year. There were 2 bills passed just a few months ago that allow the govt to take away all of your property if you deem you as someone who is an anti-war protester/dissident. Read between the lines and read the actual bills, that's exactly what has been done. So if you happen to be an unlucky passerby at a protest, you could very well lose all your property and you have done nothing illegal.
Just being innocent will not protect you any longer; the recent bills have insured that. And, the govt depends on people not being aware of this.

As for political prisoners, America has a long history of that, it's just not talked about in the MSM.