Stephen Harper seeks majority to dissolve Canada in favor of North American Union, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 110 times

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 04:08 AM by The Old American

Wasn't there a thread here on ATS a few months ago saying the same thing, but was debunked? I'll have to see if I can find it. Interesting, though. And by "interesting" I mean "holy crap that's horribly unconstitutional". But that never stopped congress!

/TOA

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 04:49 AM by silo13

reply to post by The Old American

I've no idea - didn't find anything in the search - but - considering 'reputable' sources report Stephen Harper is pushing to another election to be posted in May it sounds like this is at least legit on that end of the story.

peace

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 04:59 AM by Misoir

No way, no darn way. Washington and Wall Street have
been destroying this glorious nation for well over a
century, there is no way we can let them do to the
Canadians what they have been doing to us, and it is
just not fair. Canada was a country founded by
Canadians for Canadians, not founded by Canadians to
eventually become an occupied zone of American
corporate tyranny.

I don’t want an ‘Amero’, it’s bad enough our currency is
run by those criminals at the Fed let alone controlled
completely by private multinationals seeking to
completely pillage and rape this continent of every last
natural and human resource.

Canadians have the most to lose, coming under our
tyrannical regime. They will lose their health care,
pension, social services, resource protections,
freedoms, and much more. Canadians trust me, us
Americans hate this just as much as you do, and for a
good reason. We will all lose under such a Union, look
what has happened to Europe.

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 05:03 AM by boondock-saint

I am in total shock.
I guess u Canucks already
have ur plan of grievance ???
Bug out bag included I hope.

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 05:22 AM by eagleeye2

Yeah but.. majority is needed.

Ignatief is a dummy.
Layton could surprise.
Ducepte is very solid in Quebec.

Both Ducepte and Layton are key player to prevent majority.

I know that Harpers timing is perfect with that McCain'ish dummy type liberals candidate but when you a have a strong Bloc.. well it literally block things up.

So i think minority.

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 05:25 AM by Niall197

Why is a thread about Canada located in the "US Political Madness" sub-forum ? Has that fair Dominion already been consumed by the United States ?

I hope the voters of Canada have the good sense to vote for candidates who campaign on a platform of defending Canadian sovereignty. It's too special a country to see diminished in any way at all.

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 06:59 AM by GoalPoster

This is nothing more than Mel Hurtig shooting off his whackjob far left agenda, and it is nothing new either.

If you take a bit of time to do some research, Hurtig originally ran unsuccessfully as a Liberal in the early 1970s and got soundly beaten. Trudeau was Prime Minister. Shortly thereafter he formed the Committee for an Independent Canada . . . again this was during Trudeau's heyday. Stephen 'TheEvil' Harper was six.

Hurtig's Story

Hurtig formed the National Party of Canada in 1992 . . . ran in an election. No candidate fielded by the National Party of Canada was ever elected. Hurtig got in a pissing match with the main funder of the party and the whole thing fell apart in 1994 amid questions regarding party finances.

'Poof' goes the NPC

Basically, the whole thing was formed by Hurtig and his cohorts in response to the Mulroney Regime's North American Free Trade Agreement.

He was back at it in 2004 claiming the US missile defense system was the road to hell.

In 2006 he continued claiming Canada was being sucked into the US vortex via the efforts of political and economic elite.

Hurtig's the Energizer Bunny when it comes to this stuff . . . leading us to his claim that Harper's already signed over the deed and just needs a majority to complete the sellout.

The reality is, Hurtig's made a career and a whack of dough spouting doom and gloom for Canada, our economy and our way of life.

Clearly, from Canada's economic standing, paltry per capita national debt, stable banking system, relatively crime free citizenship and in general a widely accepted great place to live, Hurtig's been chicken-littling this mantra for decades and it has yet to manifiest itself in a nasty way north of the 49th.

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 07:14 AM by tyson

Originally posted by starwarsisreal
What's next Mexico? If so Canada and the US will be Mexico if Mexico was added due to the drug violence.

Well, this might be an unexpected bright side.

One thing those those CIA-driven drug lords have in abundance is *balls*. And one thing they do exceedingly well is remove heads (quite literally). If these miscreants were to ply their skills against the NWO-types, it might make for some interesting video. I'd imagine some of the NWO's victims would pay quite well for a copy of the last minutes of our corrupt politicians, corporatists and banksters.

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 07:17 AM by beezzer

Their bacon frightens me. But I like their beer.

Seriously? I'd volunteer to fight with the Canadians to KEEP their country.
Ours is trashed. No sense in screwing up another country.

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 07:24 AM by palg1

Yada, yada, yada. Just more liberal and new democrats fear-mongering BS.

Of all the potential leaders, Stevie's the most patriotic of them all. When Iggy was away he never showed one iota of pride in Canada. Nor did they ever raise the issues of sovereignty until after the conservatives decided to spend money to defend it. Iggy's blatant pro Americanism (while he was working there and after) are well documented so his new "patriotic" stance is a bit hypocritical. His allegiances seem to vary based on how "he" can benefit. Jacko, well although he does seem to be a real pro Canada kind of guy, his socialist leanings though would catastrophically en-debt Canada. Just my opinion of course.

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 07:30 AM by The Sword

reply to post by Q:1984A:1776

That was France, not Canada.

Why would an anglophile bail out a francophile?

Also, if the NAU was formed, we'd have to put up bilingual road signs thanks to Quebec.

edit on 21-4-2011 by The Sword because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 07:40 AM by alldaylong

reply to post by silo13

People seem to have forgotten the role of Queen Elizabeth II Australia had a "mad-cap" Prime Minister back in the 1970's named Gough Whitlam. In 1975 The Queen had him removed from office. So my message to Canadians is........Don't worry, if The Queen don't like it, it won't happen.

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 08:13 AM by NowanKenubi

reply to post by The Sword

It would be Chinese, not French, on the posts...

But can it be done while still being British subjects? Surely the Queen would put her feet down and stop it from happening? Not out of love for us, but we are still hers...

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 08:13 AM by ToneDeaf

________________

With money woes in u.s, the states incl. israel are looking
for new revenues. harper is a traitor who would easily
spend our money overseas' while Canadian's here at home
struggle to pay for utilities, taxes and put food on the table.

________________

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 08:16 AM by Invariance

reply to post by silo13

In effect this is treason. Since we are still subjects of the British Commonwealth, do you think the Queen would really allow this?

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 08:28 AM by Invariance

The Green Party is on our side:

“Not only are the details of this new security agreement not being made public, but there seems to be no intention to bring this issue to parliament for debate. Harper continues to subvert democracy on all fronts,” said May.

How's that for a source on the issue?

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 08:30 AM by Corruption Exposed

I wish they still hung politicians for treason. Like the good old days.

This guy has done so many horrible things to Canada during his years in office.

The thing is, no matter who we elect, they have the same agenda. If Jack Layton was in office he would have signed those papers on Feb 4 2011. This has been going on even before Harper though. Paul Martin got the ball rolling while he was in office, this is systematically being implemented, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. It is as good as a done deal.

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 08:31 AM by Maxmars

Originally posted by Invariance
reply to post by silo13

In effect this is treason. Since we are still subjects of the British Commonwealth, do you think the Queen would really allow this?

That was my question. I can't imagine Her Majesty's government NOT having a say in this. Which leads me to think that they perhaps already "had their say" or this is part of a "larger plan."

Many people in the States see the government running itself into the ground, failing at every point, big corporations brazenly pulling strings and rewriting legislation... almost as if they want the country to fail.

Perhaps they do.... and who will rescue us?...our staunch allies the Brits? And we will end up as a feature in the British empire... which will change nothing from Canada's perspective of course.... except the governance they are accustomed to will be restored to them over a larger piece of property. In effect, as if the US were dissolved and merged into and under the Canadian form of government.

But why stop there? Using the UN, the globalist organizations like the CFR can expand that even farther still.... The Empire will blossom again. The London bankers will have centralized control over massive revenue flows, Britannia will rule again.

Could that be any more of an uncomfortable supposition? I don't know how; except maybe if we recognize that those in our government, especially the 'legacy' career politicians will have earned themselves seats in the royal bloodline..... making us the serfs they always wanted..... because "it's the will of God" ... as most royalists justify their entitlement to power.... And the "ruling" church is only happy to affirm that to the faithful.... as usual.

It's a Thomas Paine nightmare.

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 08:35 AM by ganjoa

Sorry I'm late to the discussion, but how would anyone in Canada usurp the authority of the Queen? Earlier in the week there was a topic on ATS regards the (non-existent) office of "Prime Minister" in Canada, the traditional appointment of the majority party leader to the post and the absolute authority of the Queen's representative (can't remember his name or title) to install or remove a "Prime Minister". So I just wonder what effect the Canadian Parliament - representing the will of the people - can really accomplish if the Crown has veto power? Anybody here understand the Canadian political process? I certainly don't (then again what I though I knew about the US political process hasn't turned out to mirror reality).

ganjoa

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 08:37 AM by Invariance

reply to post by Maxmars

Admittedly as found on the Green Party's website, they state that

“Not only are the details of this new security agreement not being made public, but there seems to be no intention to bring this issue to parliament for debate. Harper continues to subvert democracy on all fronts,” said May.

I emailed them to see if they had any more info about this. If even our political parties are lacking information, doesn't it stand to reason that perhaps Britain doesn't know?

ALTHOUGH we should never assume!

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^