Wednesday, June 30, 2010

2010 Toronto G20 Summit

So, the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto is over and the federal government is announcing that it was a huge success because 85% of countries in attendance have signed off on reducing their debt to GDP ratio. Given some countries such as the U.S. and France (just to mention 2 countries) have injected a clause into this agreement that allows each country to achieve this debt to GDP ratio in their own way and in their own time means nothing and nothing has changed really in terms of any country’s debt to GDP ratio and how and when this objective is reached.

There is one hidden impact of tabling a debt to GDP ratio and having this initiative on the G20 Summit! Each country will now be able to tell its people that services wanted and needed by the majority have to be cut in order for each country to fulfill its international agreement. Furthermore, the steering committees and sub-committees of politicians and bureaucrats that will be set up to monitor, evaluate and analyse ways and means of achieving this objective and will surely represent just another gravy boat of income for this life sucking executive welfare social club.

Another impact coming out of this G20 Summit was the experience of a nation to suppress its citizens through force. This test of experience and the long gun registry represent government efforts of finding out how effective a nation is and can be when it comes to protecting these high profile social gatherings such as international summits. When you consider the end result of these summits, the only conclusion is that they are nothing more than very expensive social gatherings. President Obama summed up what came out of the nuclear summit held in the U.S. some months ago when he said, “countries need to be more careful when handling nuclear material”. Well whoop de do! Couldn’t this have been sent on an email?

Anything that has come out of these summits is likely to be rhetoric that could have been sent by fax, email, videoconference or teleconference. What does come out of these summits is far from what we hear on the news. The back room deals and agreements that are held in secret, behind closed doors is what really come out of these summits. Anything that has to be said and agreed upon by the people’s representatives behind the backs of the people can’t be good. In fact, it is likely to be more of the kind of ill-fated performance of our politicians and bureaucrats that ultimately brought on and caused the recent economy crunch.

President Obama had the president of GM resign and he also initiated the idea of performance bonuses only if deserved by mocking performance bonuses that were paid out to CEOs. This sounds like a good idea, so why aren’t these initiatives imposed upon government politicians and bureaucrats? Given that these politicians and bureaucrats are ultimately responsible for the economy crunch, why haven’t we seen or heard of the ousting of senior bureaucrats? Of course, bureaucrats and politicians are protected.

Remember Commissioner Zachardelli of the RCMP was caught embezzling the RCMP pension fund? The last time Commissioner Zachardelli was interviewed on TV, he implicated senior bureaucrats being involved. What has happened to Commissioner Zachardelli and who are the senior bureaucrats? Why haven’t we heard more? It is most likely because of the whistle blowing we might hear if any of them were brought to justice. To make matters worse, the bureaucrat and senior advisor to the Deputy Prime Minister was appointed the new Commissioner of the RCMP. Was this to ensure that other senior bureaucrats implicated by ex-Commissioner Zachardelli were protected? There is no telling what whistle blowing would go on by these implicated senior bureaucrats in their efforts to make a deal and save their skins.

Another thing these international summits represent is the ways and means for the fund channelling of tax dollars. How much of the money allocated by various countries for different directives actually reach the mandate for which the money was pledged? How much of this money ends up in the hands of other bureaucrats and politicians of other countries? How much of this money actually will be spent on the cost of our bureaucrats and politicians wining and dining in other countries, and is part of this money a slush fund for our politicians and bureaucrats that does not require Canadian auditing and falls off the Auditor General’s radar?

Can Canada claim that this summit was a success? The debt to GDP ratio was no success with there being no change, no mandate for all countries to achieve a timely result. The African Aid directive Canada pushed was no success given that Canada’s pledge of over 2 billion dollars is half of the total money raised. It took 19 of the G20 countries just to match Canada’s contribution; is that really success? It isn’t my intention to demean the goodwill involved in helping out other countries, but when was the last time Canada reached out to Canadian needs to the tune of over 2 billion dollars?

Can you imagine a contribution of over 2 billion dollars (over 2 thousand million dollars)? What would this mean to people not able to get into drug rehabilitation centres, battered women’s shelters, day care, single mother’s services, hospices and terminal disease research? This list goes on and on. Imagine what an over 2 billion dollar contribution to the environment would have done and the jobs it would have created.

Something else I find curious about the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto is the 4 police cars that were left abandoned in the middle of the street. What happened? Did these cars just breakdown in the middle of the street before they had enough forward momentum to make it to the side of the road? Weren’t there any tow trucks available to take these police cars away? What about the police officers who were in the cars? Were they not able to push these cars 20 feet to get them off the road? Instead of any due diligence, these police cars were left in the middle of the street representing a possible hazard to fire trucks, ambulances, etc. These police cars were left in the middle of the street where it was known that protesters would be passing by. It was also known that the so called black bloc would also be passing by so vandalism and even the torching of police cars would be very likely. These police cars may have been left deliberately in hopes that they would be torched so that all Canadians would see and maybe, consequently think that the 1 billion dollar plus price tag for security was worth it and necessary.

With regard to the violence: it boggles my mind why any liberation crusaders against corrupt government would vandalize property owned by honest and innocent individuals. I suspect it is likely that at some point in time that the anger garnished by corrupt government will be turned against the true perpetrators, the politicians, bureaucrats and senators. It is sad that there isn’t peace, tranquility and non-corrupt government, but I am quite aware that the acknowledgement of human rights derived itself from the French Revolution and the beheading of state officials such as Marie Antoinette. I believe it is time that we honour and commemorate the courage of those people who went against the gutless, arrogant monarchs of the French Revolution and who are responsible for the great strive they made for the freedom of humanity. Maybe it is time for another revolution to rekindle the fear into our democratic representatives that gutless cowardice of bowing down to being told how to vote by the party and betraying the people who elected them isn’t worth it.

The Toronto G20 2010 Summit as with all other international summits held by government are a waste of time, an outrageous waste of tax dollars and only serve to create social gatherings for the international executive welfare social club. What comes out of these gatherings behind closed doors are the backroom deals that only spell no good for humanity.

There is something we can do! Be sure to watch for an upcoming article on fighting back!

Monday, June 28, 2010

Human Rights

Human rights are important because it is important for the individual to know whom they are and their purpose. Only from knowing oneself and our lively purpose are we able to appreciate all that is ours and our right to it. The reason we have a right to the freedom of expression is because we were born with the ability to express ourselves. We have the right to sing, talk, walk, run, listen and think simply because our bodies are capable of doing all these things. All the things we can do come natural to us, so therefore we all have the right to natural human rights.

Although we have natural human rights, these rights don’t come naturally or freely, we have to fight for them. In the fight for human rights there has to be total united solidarity. The reason for this is that the argument for human rights is based exclusively on our being born with abilities, so therefore it is our natural human right to utilize these abilities.

If we make even the minutest smallest exception to the argument that supports human rights, then all natural human rights become a matter of politics. If human rights are based on politics, then people protected by human rights today may not be tomorrow. Human rights become a matter of chance, which protects nobody forever. Say the wrong thing to the wrong person and you no longer have any rights.

Human rights permit individuals to utilize their abilities; human rights do not give any individual the right to ignore the human rights of others. Human rights support a person doing all they can, being all they can as long as their actions are in harmony and peace with others. Your home is your kingdom and what goes on in your home is your business as long as it doesn’t interfere with the human rights of others.

Human rights do not give an individual the right to build a bomb in their home. If a bomb was to accidentally explode and blew up the neighbour’s home, then the neighbour’s right to life would have been ignored. There is a limit to human rights, however a good rule of thumb is that human rights provide individuals with all liberties as long as those liberties taken do not interrupt the human rights of others.

The Canadian Constitution of Freedoms and Liberties does not give Canadians their human rights. All individuals are born with human rights and there is no piece of paper or Constitution necessary to give individuals their rights. So, you might ask: Why did Canada spend 10’s of millions of dollars writing a constitution, supposedly to protect our rights, when it was not necessary? The reason for this is that the Canadian Constitution is an illusion; it doesn’t protect our rights, but instead takes away our rights.

The very first clause of the Constitution gives government the power to take away our human rights. It is the right of an individual to think. It is the right of the individual to enter into a contract. Human rights protect individuals from being enslaved and forced to work for a master. If an individual agrees to work for an employer and enters into a contract to do so, then there exists no contravention to that person’s human rights.

The Canadian Constitution was written as a way to circumvent the individual’s human rights by getting the individual to enter into a contract that would give government the power to ignore the individual’s rights. I know you don’t remember ever voting for or agreeing with any contract with government that would cause you to lose your human rights. The abuse and erosion of modern day democracy is how government believe Canadians have entered into a contract that gives government the power to ignore human rights.

The reason why government believes Canadians to be in a contract that causes Canadians to lose their human rights is simply because your MP who was elected to represent you voted for you in favour of the contract. This MP may not have wanted to vote for this contract, but they may have been forced to do so.

Political parties have what is known as a party whip who is a person in the party who’s job is to ensure that MP’s vote the party way. This isn’t democracy. Why have a representative at all? The reason for the MP is simply to create an illusion so that Canadians think they have a democracy, so that Canadians think they have human rights, so that Canadians think they have control and power to change the political party. It doesn’t matter what party is in power because bureaucrats run the country and politicians are puppets. The federal government in Canada is a bigger violator of human rights than all other human rights violators in Canada collectively.


What a wonderful life it would be if only we could give democracy a chance. If we were to give democracy a chance, there would be a job for every Canadian. There would be home financing for all Canadians. There would be cures for more diseases. There would be prescription drug coverage for all Canadians. There would be effective health care for all Canadians. There would be effective law, order and justice for all Canadians. All of this and anything else that you could reasonably think of, there could be if we gave democracy a chance. The cost would be less than half of what the federal government costs Canadians now.

Saying that 2 heads are better than one thus the majority knows best can best sum up democracy. Secondly, we can say that the force of the majority is stronger and able to put the schoolyard bully in their place. First of all, in a democracy the elected Member of Parliament (MP) is supposed to represent the individuals who elected them. After all, why would we need an MP to represent us if the MP’s efforts were not to represent us?

The reason (contrary to what we would believe) we have an MP, isn’t to represent us, but instead to create an illusion that we are represented. All legislation and law brought into force is through the force of the majority. The only way to make a law in a democracy requires notice that the majority supports the law. When our MP votes to pass a bill or law their vote represents our voice. If the MP’s vote is coerced and dictated by the party, then our MP is not representing the people who elected them. Never the less, the fact that the MP votes as instructed by the party still carries the weight required to bring into law any proposed bill or legislation.

As long as the individual is controlled by the party and not the electorate, then there will not exist any democracy, but instead only the illusion. Having an MP makes absolutely no difference and the result is a government no different from socialism or communism. Our nation is a country ruled by a hierarchy that makes the rules, calls the shots and the individual has no choice but to suck it up.

The government would tell you that the people have a choice to elect a different government. This argument is another illusion to lead the individual into believing that voting for a different party can make a difference by giving choice to the electorate. It doesn’t matter what party is elected; the MP is still going to be coerced and dictated to as to how they vote. The result is still the same; the individual is still not represented by the MP, there still doesn’t exist any democracy.

Another illusion is thinking that the party runs the country. The political parties elected to office do not run the country, the bureaucrats do. The political party is the tool that allows the bureaucrats to control the country. The politicians that make up the political parties are puppets. Bureaucrats are not elected; they have been there for a lifetime. Bureaucrats can make or break any political party. If a political party has a chance to hold on to power in the next election, then the party will need to get along with the bureaucrats. This means that the bureaucrats get their own way and to ensure bureaucrats get their own way the party dictates to the MP how they are to vote so as to ensure that the bureaucrats get their way.

The relationship between bureaucrats and political parties is that the bureaucrats fill their hunger of political power and the political parties fill their hunger of feeling important. Both of these self-serving creatures feed each other diets of greed. The bureaucrats blame any shortcomings of what the electorate expect on the government and suggest the electorate change the government. The political parties blame any shortcomings of what the electorate expect on the bureaucrats, each one hiding behind the other – quite a scam.

One argument both bureaucrats and politicians throw at the electorate is that running a government is very complicated. It isn’t complicated at all; it at least doesn’t need to be. Simply using logic and common sense could quite easily run Canada. I had one top official in the Department of the CBSA tell me that if his department were to use logic and common sense it would shut down his department.

The number one reason why government makes the country complicated to run is simply because it creates financial gravy boats for self-serving politicians and bureaucrats; the executive royal welfare of this country.

"Complicated Government"

The belief that government has to be complicated is an illusion that government orchestrates to protect their jobs. If the truth were known, running the country is not complicated, at least it doesn’t have to be and the need for high paid bureaucrats and politicians would vanish. If you remove the double talk of bureaucrats, politics and past politics from running the country it would become very easy to run the country.

Bureaucrats and politicians like to feel important and the best way for bureaucrats and politicians to achieve this feeling of importance is to make the common person believe that we need bureaucrats and politicians. Everything is made to sound complicated only so that we think bureaucrats and politicians must be smart. It is only because the government has created such an unnecessary complicated way of running the government that we are not easily able to see through the illusion.

The best way to see through the illusion that government needs to be complicated is to consider what we need the federal government for to begin with. First of all, the federal government was created to serve the stakeholders; in this case Canadians. How do Canadians need to be served? We need to maintain the sovereignty of our nation, so we need armed forces to protect our coastline and our country. We need law, order and justice so that Canadians are protected from criminals and so that criminals are put behind bars. We need federal government to administer banking structures and protocols to ensure financing and credit is available to business and individuals. We need federal government to administer social net programs and programs to promote Canadian culture. We need federal government to administer acceptable work standards and product/service standards. We need federal government to administer border services.

Some of what the federal government undertake to deliver on happens to be services we do need. What we don’t need the federal government doing is the way they undertake to deliver these services. Out of the cost of delivering these services 90 cents of the dollar is unnecessarily wasted. What this means to Canadians and business is that our taxes could be 90% less and we would still receive the same benefit. Ninety cents out of every tax dollar is wasted due to the over complicated way the federal government undertakes delivering services to Canadians. This 90% waste covers the unnecessary galas and the executive welfare cost of our bureaucrats and politicians.

Even with all this waste Canadians still don’t receive the services that they should. The average Canadian receives less than 15% of their tax dollar in services. In order for the average Canadian to receive the 15% worth of their tax dollar they would have to be both alive and dead, rich and poor, healthy and sick, employed and unemployed. The list goes on, but the point is that the average Canadian would have to qualify for all of these criteria at the same time in order to benefit from 15% of their tax dollar. The other 85% of the Canadian tax dollar covers the costs of all the unnecessary make work projects of Canada’s executive welfare.

The reason why Canadians don’t have the services and support programs they need and should have is simply because of the cost of unnecessary make work projects that support the executive welfare that is associated with providing the service and support programs Canadians need and should have. Remember, in the article on legislation I mentioned the CRTC and how the legislation created was supposed to protect the privacy of Canadians in not being harassed by telemarketers in their homes was counteractive to the intent. Instead of protecting Canadian’s privacy in their homes the CRTC legislation gave telemarketers the legal right to invade the privacy of Canadians. The cost of all of this unnecessary CRTC legislation as well as the ongoing review and re-review make work projects for the executive welfare.

This is part of the unnecessary cost I am talking about. Instead of the legislation and the review and re-review, simply produce a law that states that if you bother Canadians at home you will be personally responsible and make a penalty that comes down hard on telemarketing companies that break the law. If we did this, there would be no review and re-review making work projects for the executive welfare and Canadians would have the peace and quiet of the privacy in their own homes. This is a case (of which there are thousands) where the federal government undertakes making running the country unnecessarily complicated and unnecessarily expensive. The exorbitant cost of the CRTC legislation regarding telemarketers being reduced to zero and the immediate effect would be to provide Canadians instant privacy in their own homes.

The unnecessary cost of the executive welfare deliberating over what Canadians need could be reduced to asking Canadians what they need. If you take a look at what the executive welfare that run this country think Canadians need, then you would probably agree it is time to ask Canadians. It would be impossible for the majority of Canadians to be more plundering than what our executive welfare has proved to have been. One thing is for sure and that is that the cost savings of not creating make work projects for the executive welfare would have to put us further ahead.