Up-Front Liberal Continentalism Directly From John Manley

That SOB wants to undermine our Soverignty, and sell us out to Uncle Sam, yet tells us not to worry. America is a fricking POLICE STATE right now, and he is advocating we sign on for that? What a dick.

Just one reason.

He is not Loyalist.

Liberals, regardless what their individual feelings may be, never question that Canada is a loyalist country.

Continentalism would be a huge benefit for Canadians because we are slipping into becoming a one-party state with all the inherent evils that entails, as can be seen in other banana republics.

The Party currently has a lock on media and the public purse so they will never be voted out of office and the theft and corruption will continue. But with continentalism, The Party won't have as much control over what Canadians get to see and hear. Freedom of information would reveal to Canadians the extent to which this once-great country has fallen.

Sorry...freedom by adopting current US standards? How will we be less a one
party state if we integrate more? Freedom of information?

Continentalism will not help cure the evils that ail us. If anything these
problems are symptomatic of an integrationist agenda and practice.

---
--Sooner or later you've got to do something--

In the USA the goverment addmittadly released all kinds of fake press reports about the success of the war in Iraq. Homeland(Fatherland) Security being applied to every sector of life? Where's the freedom there?

As far as Canada/US relations go, and Deep
Integration, we can thank John Manley for revealing the
agenda that Harper keeps hidden (barely, with a
complicit mass-media).
Harper-Manley want what Harris-Manning want, at
the same speed.
Martin wants to go a little slower, because he is after
all, only governing with a minority, and has to deal with
the reality of popular opinion.
The majority of Canadians want less integration, not
more, and have remained steadfast in their desire to be
independent, in spite of an enourmous endless
propaganda assault that tells them they can not survive
without the help of their generous and mighty Uncle
Sam.
The NDP has performed well, playing a weak yet
improving hand for all it's worth.
One imagines what would happen should Layton,
Blaikie, et al, put more focus on defending sovereignty,
shallow integration, etc.
Even though the media would distort this as reckless
"anti-Americanism" , the public would respond, and the
response would cause a Liberal response.
We'd also have a dandy election issue to get to once
Gomery fatigue set in during the campaign.

---
"The very fact that the concept "anti-American" can exist exhibits a totalitarian streak that's pretty dramatic." Noam Chomsky

Kindly get your collective heads around this simple fact <br />
There is NO “our sovereignty”<br />
It is a concept having nothing to do with any reality<br />
Governments are NOT free to act as sovereign much less to be referred to as ‘our sovereignty’<br />
Political power is in the hands of multinational corporations. PERIOD!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.iahushua.com/WOI/superanus.html">http://www.iahushua.com/WOI/superanus.html</a> <br />
Sovereign - The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; the supreme will; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent. <br />
The power to do everything in a state without accountability,-to make laws, to execute and to apply them, to impose and collect taxes and levy contributions, to make war or peace, to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like. <br />
Sovereignty in government is that public authority which directs or orders what is to be done by each member associated in relation to the end of the association. It is the supreme power by which any citizen is governed and is the person or body of persons in the state to whom there is politically no superior. The necessary existence of the state and that right and power which necessarily follow is "sovereignty." <br />
By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern. The word which by itself comes nearest to being the definition of "sovereignty" is will or volition as applied to political affairs. City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 52 Ariz. 1, 78 P.2d 982, 986. <br />
________________________________________<br />
Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition <br />
SOURCES OF THE LAW. By this expression is understood the authority from which the laws derive their force. {snip} <br />
3d. The principles of the Roman law, being generally founded in superior wisdom, have insinuated themselves into every part of the law. Many of the refined rules which now adorn the common law appear there without any acknowledgment of their paternity, and it is at this source that some judges dipt to get the wisdom which adorns their judgments. The proceedings of the courts of equity and many of the admirable distinctions which manifest their wisdom are derived from this source. To this fountain of wisdom the courts of admiralty owe most of the law which governs in admiralty cases. <br />
{snip} <br />
<br />

I agree--I think this would make a heck of an election issue and it SHOULD be an issue that Canadians vote on (it was in the NDP platform last time, but didn't seem to be a central focus for the campaign or media coverage). <P> As for continentalism somehow fixing politial problems within Canada--it wouldn't. <P> First, deep integration does NOT mean giving Canadians corresponding political power to go along with the amount of integration of our economies; rather, it drains political power and the say citizens have by giving corporations MORE of a voice. eg The decision of a democratically elected government can be overturned due to a lawsuit by a multinational corporation under NAFTA (and in the future NAFTA plus) or due to the decision of a big trade organization. You might think this makes things better by limiting what the government can do, but actually it doesn't do anything to fix the current system, INCREASE democracy or end corruption. It simply concentrates more power into the hands of the corporate interests who are the ones influencing the government already (eg through campaign contributions, eg sponsorship scandal, eg giant corporate tax breaks, other corporate-friendly policies). <P> Second, we'll never truly be the 51st state because then the U.S. would have to include too many new potential Democrat voters, and the Republicans currently running things know that (since Canadians tend to be more progressive as a whole than U.S. voters). <P> The best way to address the problem of moving towards a two-party or one-party system IMHO is <a href="http://www.fairvotecanada.org">proportional representation</a> or some other change to the voting system that both allows us to hang on to our rights as citizens (unlike deep integration) while also more effectively representing the will of the populace come election time (and giving "third" and fourth/fifth etc and new parties more of a chance of electing some MPs; eg the Green Party would have MPs under PR).<p>---<br>Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf<br />

PS re the media--removing any foreign content restrictions etc that currently exist in Canadian media wouldn't help us get the skinny on our own politicians either. Remember that all of the media in North America is currently controlled by something like 5 companies when you get down to it. Allowing the US media to completely take overin Canada won't solve the problems of media concentration which have allowed journalism to become so monolithic and undiverse in the U.S., where they have just as many problems getting alternative views and content as we do at home. All the continentalization of our media would do would increase the U.S. content we get here--and U.S. corporate media companies don't have much interest in uncovering the wrong-doings and corruption of our politicians.

---
Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf

I don't see how you can say that Canada is becoming a one party state (I assume you mean the liberals) since the conservatives have been trying every trick in the book lately to force another election. I'm sure they wanted that election because they felt they had a great chance of winning it. I agree that we must find a better way of allocating seats, since parties winning a substantial proportion of the popular vote should have some representation, especially after the BC election where I think the greens got over 9% of the total vote but ended up with no seats.
I don't see any evidence of the Party (liberals ?) controlling the press, do you ever read the National Post ?, neither the Ottawa Citizen (closely tied to the National Post) nor the Ottawa Sun could be said to be supporters of the liberals. What about tho Calgary Herald ?. Do the folks out West see it as a voice for the liberal platform ?.

Frank

"The Liberal Party, other than the 1988 election, has been the continentalist party. And I don't think I'm out of that trend."


I'm beginning to like Manley. He's just the man to show Canadians that there is really no differnce between the Conservatives and Liberals. Party on, John.

In these interviews John Manley's past credentials should be checked by his
current ones. He is private sector now, and represents or is a paid consultant
to interests who stand to make a fortune off the technical aspects of deep
intergration. His baby is the security perimeter aspect, because (as noted
elsewhere on vive) he is a paid consultant for a leading biometrics firm.

Using past public office credentials to represent one's motives for public
policy changes, without declaring current private interests, should be treated
as influence peddling, same as if you still hold public office. The media
further has an obligation to declare the private interests of former politicians,
especially when they are obviously using their political celebrity to push
policy agenda.

All we hear about Manley are his past political achievements, and his future
leadership aspirations--very little about how he pays for his groceries right
now.

Your're wrong. The power lies with governments, who have CHOSEN to allow corporations to become so powerful. There are always risks, but governments still have power.

Was Trudeau a continentalist Mr. Manley? Quite the opposite.