CANADA How The Communists Took Control
Canadian State of the Union

Thursday, January 12, 2012

"The NDAA and the PATRIOT ACT are VOID and of NO legal FORCE or EFFECT" : 12 January 2012

Images like this perversely serve to convince the American public that the President and Congress have the power to pass any law they please, and to destroy the constitution. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Disinformation from the 10th Amendment Center and countless others:
"NDAA Obliterates Large Portions of The Bill of Rights"
Source: by Harold Pease, on Thursday, January 12th, 2012 at 12:09 am

You've got it backwards, Mr. Pease:

Unconstitutional laws are "VOID" -- in your country and in mine, and under any "WRITTEN" Westminster-model Constitution of the former British colonies, as well as in other modern constitutional nations. The fundamental principle of the INVALIDITY and VOIDNESS of unconstitutional laws is the written cornerstone of Canada's Westminster-model federal Constitution, just as it is of the American constitution:

Primacy of Constitution of Canada

52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.


This is more clear from Mr. Justice Field delivering the opinion of the court in Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886). Justice Field correctly said:
"Their position is that a legislative act, though unconstitutional, may in terms create an office, and nothing further than its apparent existence is necessary to give validity to the acts of its assumed incumbent. That position, although not stated in this broad form, amounts to nothing else. It is difficult to meet it by any argument beyond this statement:

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."


However, a pretense that a VOID law is law, and does confer "rights" (or powers upon officials) and does "impose" unconstitutional "duties" to act in violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, together with misguided public behavior in accordance, based on widespread DISinformation from posts the likes of yours, Mr. Pease, would, "de facto", cause the people to ROB THEMSELVES OF THEIR RIGHTS, being falsely led to believe that the "law" had, in fact, already taken their rights from them.

The NDAA 2012 and other so-called "laws" of its kind are NOT LAW, precisely because they are unconstitutional. Such VOID laws are incapable of any valid legal effect, let alone the preposterous effect alleged by you and by others that they "obliterate" or "repeal" huge parts of the constitution!

To repeal a part of a constituti­on, including America’s, an amending formula must be resorted to. An amending formula “ENTRENCHE­S” the constituti­on (legal word) to protect it from alteration by ordinary legislatio­n like the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

The USA has FORMAL constitutional amending procedures. There are also likely limits to the application of those procedures. The U.S. constitution is thus entrenched and protected against implied or arbitrary “amendment” by ordinary legislation such as the NDAA and the Patriot Act:

“The Amendment Process
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).”


Q.: When did the States RATIFY?

Did the Patriot Act and the NDAA pass both houses of Congress by a 2/3 majority and then go on to the States for ratificati­on?

If not, one would normally be looking at ordinary legislatio­n with the NDAA & the Patriot Act, and other similar “void” laws which infringe constituti­onal rights and liberties.


Delivering the opinion of the Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 in 1803, Chief Justice John MARSHALL said this of unconstitutional laws:

"If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."


America's rights were never "repealed", never "obliterated", it’s a BLUFF. Or, in other words, as attributed to Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

The NDAA and the Patriot Act are VOID laws which have NO POWER to amend the constitution by "repealing" any part of it.

What is the cause of all this lurid sensationalism around these void laws, which serves only to assist the police-state aims of those who illegally pretend to "pass" them?

Whence comes this nihilistic, suicidal orgy of public constitution shredding & burning, this extraordinary American death wish?

In referring to such void laws as "now the law of the land", and as having "obliterated" or "repealed" "huge parts" of the Constitution, people like Mr. Pease are aiding and abetting the imposition of an illusory slave-state upon the American people.

Furthermore, the self-serving LIE by politicians seeking office that these constitutionally VOID laws ARE "law" which can ONLY be reversed by political action to get themselves elected is, at best, the basest, lying political prostitution.

These VOID "laws" must be challenged in competent court immediately! The solution is LEGAL, not POLITICAL!

In addition, there is the further finely tuned question of whether there are limits to the power of constitutional amendment.

This issue arose in 1935 in Ireland in the case of State Ryan v Lennon [1935] I.R. 170

(You can DOWNLOAD that case in this zip file and read the dissent of Chief Justice Kennedy: – along with some notes, and some Irish and Indian case law pertinent to attempts to amend the constitution into a police state).

In Ryan, Chief Justice Kennedy dissented from the majority which had held that the amending power conferred in the Irish Constitution was unlimited.

Justice Kennedy said that a constitution has basic features, or a basic identity, beyond which it cannot be said to be “amended”.

Past such a point, one would be looking at an overthrow, i.e., an entirely new and different constitution. In the Irish case, the government was claiming to use the amending power to convert Ireland to a police state.

Could the American Constitution be lawfully amended to become a police state, even if the States did the unthinkable and RATIFIED the alleged amendments? I think this is highly doubtful, given Article IV, Section 4 of United States Constitution which declares:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

In my view, those words establish the legal identity of the U.S. Constitution; and this is the benchmark, the high water line beyond which even constitutional amendment cannot go.

This is more apparent from the words of Professor F. R. Scott (later, Dean) of the McGil Law Faculty, who in a 1948 article in the Canadian Bar Review entitled "Administrative Law", compares this feature of the U.S. constitution to a legal doctrine governing the constitution of Canada:
"Every sovereign parliament may delegate its powers to subordinate authorities. This is true of the Dominion Parliament [Canada]; whose most famous and extreme example is the War Measures Act, and of the provincial legislatures. Without such a power modern government could not be carried on. But limitations appear to exist (a) in that no legislature could abolish itself, substituting some totally different kind of body in perpetuo, and (b) in that neither the Dominion Parliament nor provincial legislatures can delegate powers to one another. Proposition (a) is hypothetical and need not detain us, though it might be a useful principle with which to oppose -- should the occasion arise -- the setting-up of some dictatorial, unparliamentary government, perhaps serving for Canada something of the purpose of Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, which guarantees to every state of the Union a republican form of government."
Source: "Administrative Law", published in volume 26, No. 1 of the Canadian Bar Review in 1948, free download at:

Question: Can the U.S. Congress, by passing any and all legislation, effectually "abolish itself", as well as the State Republics, "by substituting some totally different kind of body in perpetuo", i.e. a Hitler-regime police state?

Article IV, Section 4 of United States Constitution declares:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
This would appear to be a hopeful alternative to the highly limited prospects touted by Mr. Lyndon Larouche as "THE ONLY" method of removing Mr. Obama, i.e. with Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.

Cornell has annotated the U.S. Constitution, including its Article 4, Section 4. See online:


In one of its annotations of Article 4, Section 4, Cornell observes:
"the authority contained within the confines of the clause has been largely unexplored".


At Note 331, Cornell says:

"More recently, the Court speaking through Justice O’Connor has raised without deciding the possibility that the guarantee clause is justiciable and is a constraint upon Congress’ power to regulate the activities of the States. New York v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 2432–2433 (1992); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 463 (1991). The opinions draw support from a powerful argument for utilizing the guarantee clause as a judicially enforceable limit on federal power. Merritt, The Guarantee Clause and State Autonomy: Federalism for a Third Century, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (1988)."
In the same annotations we learn that a letter from Madison to Randolph in April, 1787 seems to imply that what lay in part behind Article 4, Section 4, was a determination to prevent any State converting itself to a Monarchy:
"Unless the Union be organized efficiently on republican principles innovations of a much more objectionable form may be obtruded.”

Note that Madison said "innovations" plural, implying not only a limitation on monarchy but upon any "objectionable form" of government.

Surely, then, by virtue -- for example -- of the ejusdem generis rule, the guarantee expands to protect the States, jointly and severally, from any non-Republican form of government, including a Hitler-style Obama police state.

Therefore, what patriotic American would not retain appropriate legal counsel to more fully explore "the authority contained within the confines of" Article IV, Section 4?

As I said to Larouchepac on 4 Jan 2012, I am concerned that the American people are being misled on a bluff; that controlled media and people with something to gain from allowing Americans to think the NDAA and the Patriot Act are law, are just pretending that these ordinary laws have "repealed" or "obliterated" large parts of the constitution. Which is LUNACY.

What are their aims? To get themselves elected public savior? On pretense that the SOLE remedy for this alleged “repeal” and "obliteration" of constitutional rights by the NDAA and the Patriot Act is entirely political
“Vote for me and I will save you!" "Only I can restore the constitution!”
What a baldfaced LIE! These constitutional rights were never "repealed", it is a BLUFF.

Some there may be, who for lack of a sufficiently emotional and dramatic lifestyle, feel neurotically compelled to attempt to re-enact the 1776 war against King George III. Then, let me say this, my friends: Beware of NATO, and "humanitarian bombing" and the perilous fate of Mr. Gaddafi.

This is no longer the Middle Ages. There are new modes of conquest, and a "CIA destabilization", meaning a UN DESTABILIZATION to overthrow your country and mine for world government using vast BlackOps and PsyOps operations, can happen just as well at home to nullify regimes as on "Arab-Spring" foreign soil.)

Mr. Pease said:
"OUR ONLY HOPE was a promised Presidential veto which did not happen. Therefore, what follows are details on how the new law emasculates the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the U.S. Constitution and Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Bill of Rights. ..."
Well, then, Mr. Pease, if we were to ignore the bedrock constitutional law of centuries, if we were to believe YOU... ALL IS LOST.


Lyndon Larouche said:
"Removing him [Obama] from office, by Article 4 of the 25th amendment, or by impeachment, is THE ONLY WAY the provisions of the NDAA can be stopped."
Source: "Obama Outdoes Hitler With NDAA Bill Signing Statement" (LAROUCHEPAC: Obamawatch,Empire, January 2, 2012 8:00AM),

To which I replied:
"Article 4 of the 25th amendment reads in part as follows:

"Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President...."

Realistically, [to Mr. Larouche] do you believe Obama's entourage would remove him? Shouldn't you be searching for options that a citizen can invoke, as opposed to LIMITING options to those that are totally out of the hands of the citizens?"

Ron Paul, a man running for President, whom you'd think might be obliged to know how the constitution works, said this of the Patriot Act (@ 1 minute 12-second point):

"But almost every Bill in Congress has a title to it which is exactly opposite of what it does. This is a perfect example, because I think if it had been properly named, it would have been called 'Repeal the 4TH Amendment Act'.... and most likely, they would have had a difficult time passing that piece of legislation."
Source: Rep. Ron Paul, Presidential candidate, White House, C-Span at:

And, again, 49 seconds of exactly the same thing:

UPDATE: Friday, 9 August 2013. The videos that I had linked above went offline at the Ron Paul web site. Meanwhile, I have found another video of the same or a similar event in which Ron Paul makes the same outrageous statements that blatantly falsify the way a constitution operates. UPDATE: 1 September 2013. Today, I found backup snips for the two videos that had been missing above, and I've uploaded them and re-embedded. So, now we have three examples.

In this clip, Ron Paul says:

"But they -- the question is, what if they had taken the Patriot Act and wanted to do this, and they were honest? What if they said, "This -- " and put, entitled the Bill, "Repeal of the 4th Amendment"?

How many people would have voted for it?

You know, they would have had a hard time.

But that is what the Patriot Act DOES. IT REPEALS THE 4TH AMENDMENT. You have essentially, NO PRIVACY LEFT!"

From which basis you get the Ron Paul political campaign:
"Elect ME and I'll put the Constitution BACK".
In other words, Ron Paul, a candidate for POTUS, disinformed the people of DUBUQUE that the Patriot Act is a VALID and EFFECTIVE ordinary LAW which has nonetheless "repealed" a huge chunk of the constitution.

But there is no possibility of unconstitutional VOID laws "removing" parts or all of the constitution in the first place. The legal reality is that anyone elected or appointed under the lawful constitution is a USURPER under a VOID OATH if he or she intends to abuse the powers in violation of the constitution.

That's the key, and no one is doing anything about it.

It is apparently the constitutional job of the American people to know their own constitution, so as not to be taken in by a con like this.

When a political man tells a falsehood about the constitution, an untruth which impedes everything he claims to stand for, I worry.

Chief Justice John Marshall and Justice Field, amongst countless non-cited others, have already told us:

"If, then, the courts are to regard the constituti­on, and the constituti­on is superior to any ordinary act of the legislatur­e, the constituti­on, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."
Whereas, people like Mr. Pease, and Mr. Larouche, and Rep. Ron Paul, and countless others each for their own gain or motives, apparently prefer that not only the courts, but the PEOPLE "close their eyes on the constituti­on, and see only the law" by pretending that the constituti­on is NOT obviously "paramount".

What kind of political steam would the "Campaign for Liberty" have without the alleged "repeals" of constitutional amendments by the NDAA and the Patriot Act?

What kind of steam would Ron Paul's campaign have to get himself elected if he were not able to paint himself in opposition to these non-existent "repeals" so as to get elected on a promise to reverse them? A promise to reverse "laws" that are utterly VOID and have NO SUCH "LEGAL" EFFECT, and need to be struck not at the polls, but in the courts, which are the lawful and immemorial guardians of the constitution.

When King James I accused Sir Edward Coke (pronounced "Cook") (1 February 1552 - 3 September 1634), of treason for suggesting that his (James's) sovereign power might be under (below) the law, Chief Justice Coke replied:
"Thus wrote Bracton: the king is under no man but God and the law"
As Lord Denning points out, this saying has "reverberated down the centuries" to make judges the guardians of the constitution, (What Next in the Law, pp. 311-318).

Such people are all illusionists. By repeatedly alleging that these void laws have "repealed" the Second Amendment, or the Fourth Amendment, or have "obliterated" "huge parts" of the constitution, they encourage national submission to these illegal and VOID acts by pure, repetitive hypnosis.

They recklessly disregard if not passively encourage the grave risk of mass rage, riot and despair that may fling the American people against each other and into irreparable and disproportionate internal conflict, conflict that may, in fact, become the pretext for deployment of these void and illegal police-state powers.

They deprive the American people of awareness that they do have legal recourse available against these illegal acts of fake legislation. And moreover, for the lack of taking immediate, appropriate LEGAL action, this crucial suppression of awareness may result in the direct but illegal imposition of the very police state these leaders claim to oppose.

They place their nation in danger, and mine that is next to it. I do not wish to be attached to a VOID and utterly mind-washed, self-imposed illusion-based hypnotic military police state.

The American people must wake up in time to save themselves before martial law is invoked by the tag-team putsch (a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force) which has taken over your government­.

They must move fast to have these laws which are VOID because UNCONSTITUTIONAL legally declared VOID by a competent court before they put you all into the FEMA CAMPS!

Kathleen Moore
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union



Thursday, November 17, 2011

The Holy See, UN Reform & War for World Government

This post is in response to remarks on Honduras, and the concepts of “community” and the “responsibility to protect” at the blog “Diligite iustitiam” in its post “Holy See on UN Reform”.

Diligite iustitiam” said:

"In this context, Mr. President, my delegation would like to remember here the Honduran people who continue to undergo suffering, frustration and hardships from the already too long political upheaval. Once more, the Holy See urges the concerned parties to make every effort to find a prompt solution in view of the good of the people of Honduras. [No Vatican recognition of the legitimacy of the current Honduran government?]"

The 2009 Honduran government was not merely “legitimate”, it was lawful.

A great deal of misunderstanding about Honduras was willfully broadcast in 2009. In July, 2009, I wrote a blog to explain the legal position: there was no military coup, the coup was by Manuel Zelaya upon the Honduran Constitution, and his ouster was constitutional and lawful as ordered by the Supreme Court of Honduras:

In August of 2009, the Congressional Research Service of the Law Library of Congress issued its Report For Congress, in which it analyzed other constitutional criteria, and came to the same conclusion as I did: the ouster was NOT a coup, it was lawful:

The self-appointed powers are building a world government by force. Zelaya was attempting to pave the way for a full-blown Central American Union, modeled on the EU as is UNASUR. A Central American Union is needed to link the northern and southern continents in a single EU-style western hemisphere. (It is the North American Union that I am fighting here in Canada.)

The Charter of the U.N. prohibits armed state aggression on other states.

If a nation refuses to be forced into a union and thus commit national suicide, other means are brought to bear. For example, defaming Honduras in the world press so it appears to be a banana republic or a rogue state that would benefit from "stabilization" by UN-forced submersion into a regional union on "security" grounds. See articles 52, 53 & 54 of the Charter of the UN.

Along the same lines, the "Responsibility to Protect" is another facade for launching unilateral wars of aggression on sovereign states whose political forms of government must be swept away to create or expand existing regional unions under the UN Charter.

These unions, provided for at articles 52, 53 & 54 of the UN Charter, are being used as a “ratchet” for consolidation of the world towards world government.

The extreme danger of such a policy of militarily invading sovereign states on this basis is founded in the fact that it is very easy for self-appointed powers working underground to finance and foment people-powered "revolutions" which they know a state will be virtually compelled to put down by force.

The hapless people are thus used as canon-fodder to set up a pretext for unilateral NATO or similar aggressive military action. In that light, Libya will end up attached to the EU, or to some other regional union modeled upon it, because the EU system is the basis of the incoming world government. The former SFRY has already met that fate; its "independent" remnants are obediently in line for EU attachment. As well, on the criminal use of international state recognition to destroy nation states while holding them defenceless (in this case, led by the Pontiff) see the writings of Professor Raju Thomas.

Michael Byers, writing in War Law, discusses the dangerous uses to which the so-called "Responsibility to Protect" can be applied. See his Chapter 9.

Says Byers, "most... proponents of the 'responsibility to protect' are motivated by a desire to prevent human suffering. However, by arguing for a new and largely self-judging exception to the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force, they play into the hands of those who would seek exemptions for less benevolent ends."

Byers illustrates his point:

"British Prime Minister Tony Blair has provided the most worrying example of the potential for politically motivated abuse of a right to unilateral humanitarian intervention. In a speech in his Sedgefield constituency in March 2004, he explained how:

[B]efore September 11th, I was already reaching for a different philosophy in international relations from a traditional one that has held sway since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648; namely that a country's internal affairs are for it and you don't interfere unless it threatens you, or breaches a treaty, or triggers an obligation of alliance.

Byers continues:

"This passage would likely be endorsed by... well-intentioned proponents of the responsibility to protect - were its application left abstract. But Blair proceeded to apply the concept retroactively to Iraq, stating specifically and emphatically: '[W]e surely have a responsibility to act when a nation's people are subjected to a regime such as Saddam's.'

Suddenly, a highly contentious war... was being rationalized, one year after the fact, with a doctrine that had already been widely rejected by most of the world's governments. Blair's invocation of a responsibility to protect undoubtedly related back to the all-too-apparent absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but it was also forward-looking. For Blair … in his Sedgefield speech ... also indicated a desire to change international law to extend the responsibility to protect to a broader range of circumstances... "

Byers continues to quote Blair:

The essence of a community is common rights and responsibilities. We have obligations in relation to each other. ... And we do not accept in a community that others have a right to oppress and brutalize their people."
As morally appealing as this may be, Blair seemed unable to grasp what it means to live under the rule of law, particularly when the community subject to that law -- the international community, in this case -- has already established clear and firm rules. In Sedgefield, he went on to say, with no apparent sense of irony:

"I understand the worry the international community has over Iraq. It worries that the US and its allies will, buy sheer force of their military might, do whatever they want, unilaterally and without recourse to any rule-based code or doctrine. But our worry is that if the UN -- because of a political disagreement in its Councils -- is paralysed, then a threat we believe is real will go unchallenged."

This is a vision of power without accountability, exercised by supposedly benevolent leaders with the best interests of their subjects in mind. At the same time, it is reminiscent of a much earlier natural law approach to international law -- one that did not require broad-based consent and was instead imposed by the so-called 'civilized'. The prime minister, by reaching for the concept of community, was in fact relying on the international law of the crusaders and conquistadors -- which, in essence, was no law at all. Were Blair truly concerned about the plight of the world's oppressed, he would have done better to focus on the other, non-military aspects of the responsibility to protect."

The Byers quotes came from his pages 105-108 in chapter 9.

A more recent illustration of the dangers of a concept of "community" coupled with a "duty to protect" is the 2006 radio speech in French by Quebec Cardinal, Jean-Claude Turcotte (who was amongst the conclave that elected the current Pope Benedict XVI, who is now calling for world government).

In no minced terms, Cardinal Turcotte himself called for establishment of a world government -- and if necessary, WAR to impose it -- while rationalizing such WAR as being conducted on behalf of the world's poor, and underdeveloped third-world countries. This is how far someone both benevolent and imaginative can stretch Tony Blair's "broader range of circumstances"

Here is a link to the French tape of Cardinal Turcotte calling for WAR to impose world government:

Here is my translation:

Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte interviewed on 20 December 2006 by Paul Arcand:

Then, at this point, we need a world government. In order to attain this, is it absolutely necessary to make war? I don't know. I deplore it, absolutely. Instinctively, I am against it. That's obvious, eh? But even so, there are still things in the world which, in a certain way, affect the basic problem that we have.

Because these questions even have effects on poverty. And even on... the fact that some countries remainless developed than others.

So then... how are we going to... I would not say, to have a oneness, or a kind of... common identity of everyone on earth. I don't know. But, all I know is that we must have it as the goal."

Are the Cardinal and the Pope evangelizing Christ... who said "the poor you will always have with you" ... or the Bolsheviks?

In that speech of Turcotte's, we have a Blair-like approach to an implied 'responsibility to protect', while also invoking 'community' by implication, and using it to rationalize WAR which is illegal under the UN Charter.

And this is necessarily a WAR against the developed world -- or, from what I know -- those parts of it as may refuse to commit suicide and join the EU, the template of the new world-government system being promoted by the Holy Pontiff.

However, the Pope’s call for reform of UN institutions to transform it into a world government is no surprise – the U.N. was declared in 1946 to be “the basis of the world government” by Canada’s Louis Stephen Saint Laurent, addressing the U.N.:

Every act of aggression committed since that date to destroy or disintegrate sovereign countries can only be interpreted in light of the desire to liquidate and merge them into regional blocs under one new system: the system of the world government. If that is the case, then all acts of aggression prior to that date must be viewed with circumspection in the same light, as designed to set up “the basis of the world government”.

In addition, in the Turcotte tape, all is blithely said while necessarily calling for the world's peoples and nations to destroy their unique identities to facilitate this merger into a single common global identity. The very concept of Nation derives first from the race of a people; and is then applied to political arrangements.

The Cardinal’s determination to eliminate the races, which are the basis of Nations and political states, without even bothering to substantiate the philosophical purpose behind his demand for global ethnic cleansing of the peoples to whom the existing states belong, and to whom their sovereignty belongs that is being stolen, is thus highly suspect. It is also genocide in the name of God.

And that racks up two major breaches of international law in one short speech from the good Cardinal: WAR in violation of the UN Charter, and GENOCIDE in violation of the same Charter plus international convention. 'Genocide' is defined in the 1948 Genocide Convention as the 'intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group'. Of course, if you can con them into destroying themselves on religious or ethical grounds, you might sidestep the charge.

Ultimately, the Cardinal desires WAR to eradicate everyone's National identity so a "global authority" (where have we heard that before) world government, can take over all power and all resources:


"[L]et the Child of Bethlehem take you by the hand! Do not fear; put your trust in him! The life-giving power of his light is an incentive for building a new world order based on just ethical and economic relationships."

"[L]asciati prender per mano dal Bambino di Betlemme; non temere, fidati di Lui! La forza vivificante della sua luce ti incoraggia ad impegnarti nell’edificazione di un nuovo ordine mondiale, fondato su giusti rapporti etici ed economici. "

In the pursuit to create a single world power, has the Holy See bothered to condemn the UN’s Agenda 21, a plan which necessarily includes the mass murder of 90% of the world’s population in the next 30 years? Well, it must be mass murder, unless most of that 90%, who are well under retirement age, are lifted up in a rapture, carried off by aliens, wiped out in a lab-engineered fake pandemic, or on "ethical" grounds for the "common good" volunteer for euthanasia.

Kathleen Moore
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union

Download a free copy of the video clips in this post from MediaFire:
[3] [1946 - Louis Stephen Saint-Laurent: World Government]

Tuesday, June 28, 2011


“This country has become so polarized that it's almost astonishing…. Not only with the red and blue states… President Obama suffers from the most polarized situation in Washington that we have ever seen – even maybe than the time of Abraham Lincoln and the initiation of the war between the states.”
-- President Jimmy Carter, 21 September 2010
Mr. Carter was the 39th President of the United States (1977-1981), inaugurated on January 20th, 1977.

This clip of Mr. Carter, CFR member and Bilderberg attendee, should be viewed in the awareness that Leader of the so-called 'separatist' Bloc Québécois party in the federal Parliament of Canada, Gilles Duceppe, has been touring Canada in 2010, urging ALL the provinces to "secede".

2010 is the target year in the Council on Foreign Relation's "Building A North American Union" plan sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations of which Mr. Carter is a member, and which elaborates the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America, by laying out the groundwork for the North American Union:

A “North American Community“ that cannot be built without dismantling Canada AND the U.S.A. –- which could only be done by a vast wave of “SECESSIONS“ ripping across the continent. Charles F. Doran of the CFR would call it “unraveling North America”, which he stated in 1996 could only conceivably be done by the secession of Quebec:

"Will Canada Unravel? Plotting a Map if Quebec Secedes". Charles F. Doran · September/October Foreign Affairs (CFR) 1996:

Direct url:

In that article, the CFR’s Doran also says:
"But is the thesis of continuing Canadian fragmentation after Quebec's secession plausible? Could NORTH AMERICA unravel? The United States must take the possibility seriously enough to draw up plans for a form of SUPRANATIONAL AFFILIATION with the remnants of Canada."
CNN, in the time of Lou Dobbs, said repeatedly that North American Union had not been submitted for Congressional approval. What Dobbs didn’t know is that it was submitted to the United States Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere in 1996, and was described by Doran in merely generic terms as a “supranational affiliation”. Read that testimony:

Direct url:

Again: Doran of the CFR, in “Will Canada Unravel?”:
"Economic association with NAFTA, no matter how useful in trade and commercial terms, is not a substitute for this new kind of political affiliation. Except for bounteous customs rules and an elaborate trade dispute resolution mechanism, NAFTA contains no institutional structure above the nation-state that will bind sovereign entities together."
Here’s the timeline, do the math:


1996 -- "If ... separation of Quebec occurs anyway, then the United States must consider further options. One is a new form of political interaction with those fragments ... The concept is regional affiliation ... an affiliated polity could establish ties with the United States. ... Political affiliation ought to address the basic needs of people. Freedom of movement for goods, services, capital, and people ought to be at the heart of the arrangement."

-- Charles F. Doran, Will Canada Unravel ? Plotting a Map if Quebec Secedes, Foreign Affairs, CFR, September/October 1996. Volume 75 . Number 5

Read it:

September 11, 2001 -- September 11, 2001 -- In 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) will impose the SAME supranational entity "in response to" 9/11 as the CFR intitially planned as a emedy for Quebec "secession". (Note: they are "imposing" it through our governments, which they clearly own, operate and control.)

The fact that North American Union is a RESPONSE to 9/11 is confirmed by Allan Gotlieb, on video, who calls 9/11 the “provocative agent” for NAU:

Direct url:

But, that is a lie. North American Union has clearly been planned for decades. Therefore, 9/11 could hardly be the "provocative agent" for something designed and projected long ago; rather, the globalists' need to deepen NAFTA towards a "new world order" set up on a "new international system" was the "provocative agent" for 9/11:

Henry Kissinger, writing in the 18 July 1993 edition of Los Angeles Times declared that NAFTA was no ordinary trade agreement:
"It [NAFTA] will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War, and the first step toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere." [NAFTA] is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system." -- Los Angeles Times, op-ed, Kissinger, July 18, 1993
Obviously, NAFTA was always intended to be "deepened". Duceppe, himself, in the video above on The Hour in April 2010, alludes to a 'deepened' NAFTA as tantamount to the European Union system for North America. He says:
"Once, Boutros-Boutros Ghalli, the former UN General Secretary said, 'There's two main streams around, politically talking, around the world. One seeing nations giving themselves their own country, and the other one seeing those same countries getting together in large economic bodies like the European Union,' and in a certain sense like NAFTA, even if we have to do better than the NAFTA we have -- "
Henry Kissinger and Gilles Duceppe are evidently on the same page with respect to NAFTA, which is undeniably the basis of a "new international system," known on this continent as the North American Union. And the job of Gilles Duceppe, an agent of one-world government posing as a "separatist" is to force the new system onto Canada, and onto the continent by producing what the CFR's Charles Doran said could only conceivably result from the secession of Quebec: the unravelling of North America. It is no coincidence that Duceppe launched his cross-Canada tour urging all the provinces to "secede" in April 2010, target year of the CFR's Building A North American Community plan.

Moreover, writing in Foreign Affairs for the CFR, Robert Pastor -- A Director on the Board of the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI) which hosts the Model Parliament for North America, calls NAFTA" the same thing the 1957 Treaty of Rome was to Europe -- "an economic CONSTITUTION for North America." (quoted from North America's Second Decade By Robert A. Pastor, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2004)

2005 -- "To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American Community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. ... Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe."

-- Building A North American Community, Report of the Independent Task Force, Council on Foreign Relations, May 2005.

Read it:

And thus, the 1996 plan the CFR’s Charles F. Doran proposed to the U.S. western hemisphere subcommittee – but which MERELY expands on NAFTA – has been officially in the open since 2005 as an alleged "response to" 9/11.

And now, we have the CFR’s Jimmy Carter appearing publicly on 21 September 2010 -- target year of the CFR's Building A North American Community plan -- declaring that the USA is more polarized than at the time of Lincoln and the 1861-64 American war of secession! CFR man, Bilderberg attendee and Trilateralist, Jimmy Carter, is clearly preparing Americans for the outcome of that planned “unraveling”. He is relying on the normative tendency of the factual; he is driving home the 'reality' of the rift being wilfully escalated in the United States.

And it's easy to do it: on the one hand, establish a 10th-Amendment movement in protest against the abuse of Executive and Federal powers; and on the other hand, drive the movement by simply escalating the abuse. Eventually, you will get what you are after: you will "unravel" North America for North American Union by turning the patriotism (the expression of which is misguided in the circumstances) of the average American against them.

Meanwhile, the Model Parliament for North America — launched in the Canadian Senate Chamber in 2005, and with offices out of the University of Montreal under Christine Fréchette, with Robert Pastor of American University as her co-chair — anticipates NOT a meeting of Canada, the USA and Mexico under a continental parliament -- but the DISMANTLED states and provinces of the USA, Mexico and Canada meeting in the continental parliament.

And in this same year of 2010, we have -- both north and south of the 49th parallel, two secession movements: the 10th Amendment Movement in the USA, and the "Quebec secession" movement in Canada, preparing to rip the continent apart -- quite conveniently for re-federation into North American Union, almost precisely on schedule as per the CFR-CCCE plan. There is no possibility that this is a coincidence.

To cinch it, Gilles Duceppe sent a letter on June 9th, 2010 to 1,600 world leaders and influential figures advising them that a third and final referendum for Quebec to 'secede' is coming. Here's the letter in English (it went out in English, French, and Spanish):

Duceppe's itinerary also indicates he is touring the western hemisphere this Fall (2010) to follow up on his letter... he is obviously arranging the international state recognition of Quebec, which in the international arena will have the effect of DISSOLVING Canada.

See my photo blog on this for much more detail, title:

"PLOTTING A MAP IF QUEBEC SECEDES (CFR 1996)" and featuring Charles F. Doran, of the Council on Foreign Relations:!/photo.php?pid=213932&id=1777851356&fbid=1124372287664&subject=116430275057791&ref=mf

For details on the Gilles Duceppe "secession" tour of Canada in April 2010, read my blog, "Liar! Liar!" with videos and news articles linked:

Video of Gilles Duceppe pushing the "European Union" style of federation:

And here’s Duceppe advocating "sovereignty" (secession necessarily implied) to facilitate WESTERN HEMISPHERIC UNION, in French with my own clear English subtitles -- and I am a professional-level translator:!/video/video.php?v=1153731501626&oid=117511084929452

The CFR’s Doran presented the plan for the supranational affiliation to the WESTERN HEMISPHERE committee... most certainly because not only is there going to be North American Union, there is going to be hemispheric union.

Kathleen Moore
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union

Read my Blogspot:

Support the legal challenge with PayPal: habeas.corpus.canada@live.

Monday, June 27, 2011



Nota Bene: The links on this Blog post are being archived here, on calameo.

I want to illustrate briefly the dangers of the 10th-Amendment movement, no matter how well intentioned most of its followers.

The State of Massachusets filed a 10th-Amendment Resolution:

They even have a page for it in Facebook:

It was filed on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 by Massachusetts State Representative Jeffrey Davis Perry before the House of Representatives to protect the Founding Fathers' intent and the Constitutional protections of the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Now, let's back up a bit. William F. Weld is a Former Governor of the State of Massachusetts and a former Assistant U.S. Attorney General.

More importantly, Weld is a CHAIR of the CFR-CCCE's Building A North American Union task force, and he SIGNED the Report planning the continental merger:

Just as important, WELD is the co-author of a related, CFR-sponsored article entitled: "NORTH America The Beautiful":

You see the little OATH problem there? For America, and for Canada -- our former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley also signed that article.

So, while Massachusetts is busily pumping up lawsuits against the FED under the 10th Amendment, and invoking the constitution and originalism, with apparent patriotic fervor -- do you notice the same people behind that fervor opposing with equal enthusiasm the actions of former Governor Weld, who signed the death warrant of all the States?

Do they oppose any of his gubernatorial successors, who, arguably, are in the same NWO boat?

Why are they aiming ONLY at nasty old Obama and his "Council of Governors" to apparently replace the Republic:


"(, Jan. 11, 2010 at 11:54 p.m.). "Obama signed an executive order establishing a panel to be known as the Council of Governors, which will be made up of 10 state governors, to be selected by the president to serve two-year terms. Members will review matters involving the National Guard; homeland defense; civil support; and synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States, the White House said in a statement."

... but are not, I suspect, taking EQUAL aim at people of the type of William F. WELD and CELLUCCI -- who have used their public careers in Massachusetts as a springboard to advance North American Soviet Union, and thus globalism? Have there been any Tea Parties against Weld and Cellucci and their pro-NAU actions?

Surely there must be others in Massachusetts who are on board with NAU -- who have chaired and co-authored the END of America, whose REPLACEMENT actually requires Obama's likely Soviet-style council?

Now, recently Wikileaks released part of a 2005 cable to Canada from U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci, in which he discusses how best to advance the NAU integration agenda for North America:

"Leaked U.S. cable lays out North American ‘integration’ strategy (National Post, 2 June 2011)"

Here's that cable:

Who's Paul Cellucci?

He ran for Governor of Massachusetts against William F. Weld (the latter who, by the way, resigned in an effort to become Ambassador to Mexico -- the narco-state to the south they are merging into the USA and Canada under Weld's little plan with Big Business and the CFR.)

Cellucci won for Governor; he then resigned to become Ambassador to Canada, that lovely little semi-socialist state to the North with whom the USA is being merged:


Here are a few words from Cellucci's cable to Ottawa, while he was Ambassador to Canada:

“An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain the most support among Canadian policymakers.

Our research leads us to conclude that such a package should tackle both "security" and "prosperity" goals. This fits the recommendations of Canadian economists who have assessed the OPTIONS for continental integration. While in principle many of them support more ambitious goals, like a customs union/single market and/or single currency, most believe the incremental approach is most appropriate at this time, and all agree that it helps pave the way to these goals if and when North Americans choose to pursue them."

You don't "pave the way" to something that you have no intention of doing; even less do you pretend that you are "paving" the way on the off-chance that "North Americans" might one day "choose to pursue them".

This goes to prove that CFR men who are up to their ears in continental union -- and this is very different from the Monroe Doctrine, this is not the same thing -- are easily elected to highest office in Massachusetts where they are called "Excellency" by electors unaware of their true leanings.

At the end of February, 2009, I had an exchange of comments with an American citizen who deemed himself a proponent of secession under the 10th Amendment. Here's how he expressed his views:
"If states break off, that will certainly wake the entire population of a given state up. The governor can take charge of his national guard and bring them home. The ENTIRE state will wake up and arm itself and be ready for federal encroachment.

I feel very positive about these 10th amendment bills because in my opinion it is being asserted in the manner in which it should be, "We will not allow you to do anything that is not listed in the constitution."

...The states are standing up for the constitution and ready to ignore so called "federal law" and secede if necessary.

Imagine if states did that and the people woke up and armed themselves? They may have tanks but in order to retake the land they have to put boots on the ground like in Katrina.... imagine if in the aftermath of Katrina, every cop who entered a house illegally was shot at by the resident? Imagine how many casualties there would have been. If NH secedes and decides to arrest all federal officers and kick them out or charge them with treason... imagine how galvanized the people will be... how armed they will be, how awake to the threat they will be...

Individual states standing up and saying NO is how this country was founded. This nation was born out of defiance. It's time our founding fathers had something to say on current affairs." (SimpleDan76)
I wonder if that stands for "1776". In any event, we see that this proud and defiant American (i) expects the State GOVERNOR to take charge of the troops; (ii) he equates full-scale militarization as "standing up" for the constitution; (iii) he imagines there will be plenty of casualties, the thought of murdering fellow Americans en masse doesn't seem to bother him; any day now, his neighbor employed in the FED could start to look like King George III, and if so, woe to him.

However, by the time the people "awake" to the "threat" under SimpleDan's system, their own national guard may well have been turned on them by their own Governor, working for the CFR. Imagine if mass-secessions were coordinated with another 9/11 attack, but this time, a direct hit on the White House and on Washington?

After all, what is the White House, according to the Canadian International Council (CIC), our branch of your CFR, but an "old power" "declining"; one that has to be gotten rid of -- just like our Canadian Parliament -- to "pave the way" for the new "North American" parliament.

Now, add into the mix the precedent being set today in Libya: full-scale military attack on a head of state for his use of military to resist revolution by his own citizens. Apply this to a full-blown 10th-Amendment scenario.

If CFR-controlled State Governors declare secession, and call home their national guards, could an American CFR-controlled President even attempt to resist secession of the States without incurring UN bombing raids on the White House and assassination attempts on the President?

Knowing that both the White House and States like Massachusetts are under full CFR control, how might the game unfold?

Hypothetical 10th-Amendment Scenario:

Here's one scenario: the States, having been turned against their own federal government would refuse to re-unite. The CFR-controlled Governors would propose A NEW FORM OF SUPRANATIONAL UNION to "stabilize the continent". This would involve a "deepening" of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America signed with Bush, Fox & Martin in 2005 in Waco.

There would be an early agreement (pre-arranged between some CFR-controlled States, of course), and there would also be pre-arranged dissent by others, who had always believed that secession would bring the White House to its knees, begging the seceded States to re-convene.

But instead, the CFR-controlled White House pulls a Yeltsin and declares the USA officially terminated on the grounds of multiple secessions and goodbye, Constitution. With the States all gone, there is no one to defend the Constitution. On the international scene, the mostly communist UN members rush to declare the "sovereignty" of the seceded States, and the United States of America -- which no longer has a UN seat -- is dissolved.

The States having seceded under CFR command would now be in apparent control of the situation in all of North America. A skirmish might break out, or full-blown civil war. Those States under the CFR insist upon a full-blown North American Union, while those who believed they were only "seceding" as a "wake-up" call to the federal government, now want to reunite the Republic.

As civil war rages, other events are deployed which were also planned long ago and are under CFR control: a convenient foreign power, perhaps with a long-range missile based in South America, takes it upon itself to decide the outcome. Putting an end to all discussion: they bomb the White House off the map. The States now have nowhere to go except the direction carefully prepared for them over the course of decades: for the sake of "security and prosperity", they agree to the North American Union.

Now, with the White House gone, although the Pentagon is still left standing, a new location must be found for the parliament of North America, which, in fact, will be merely a branch of the United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, under communist world government.

Quite conveniently, Canada's Parliament Hill has been under major renovations since 1992, and in particular since the year of the SPP signed in Waco, Texas -- 2005. But it has 308 seats -- far more than required for North American Union, but just the ticket for an assembly of representatives from all the western hemispheric nations.

You do not know what CFR members, who are or have been State Governors and other officials, have done internally to Massachusetts or any other State to facilitate UN takeover under Agenda 21 and the North American merger. All this has been planned for decades, never mind the 2005 date on the CFR's "official" merger plan called "Building A North American Community". However, what is quite clear is the nature of the power and the kinds of resources they wield, thanks to electorates who repeatedly and ignorantly put them into power: including the power to declare secession and to issue commands to your own State troops.

And when they do issue those commands under the guise of "defending the constitution", will they will bring America to its Waterloo by turning its own national patriotism upon it to destroy it for North American communist union?

Now, what about Massachusetts Governor Jane Swift? She's a guest speaker for Global Conferences at the Milkin Institute:

What is on the agenda of the Milken Institute: CLIMATE CHANGE:

Now, that's a dead-ringer.

The Center for Global Studies quotes the Mission Statement of the Milken Institute:

"Mission Statement

"[T]o improve the lives and economic conditions of diverse populations in the United States and around the world by helping business and public policy leaders identify and implement innovative ideas for creating broad-based prosperity."

Who are the sponsors of the Milken Institute?

That list includes Canada, Bloomberg and BNP Paribas.

On the subject of BNP Paribas, fellow sponsor Bloomberg has this say:

"Mr. Paul Guy Desmarais, Jr. is the Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Power Corporation of Canada. He also serves as a Managing Director of Pargesa Holding S.A. Prior to joining Power Corporation of Canada in 1981, Mr. Desmarais was at S.G. Warburg & Co. and Standard Brands Incorporated. He serves as the Chairman of the Board of Power Financial Corporation. He is also a Vice Chairman of the Board and Director of Pargesa Holding S.A.

That's WARBURG and Standard Brands, two famous names in the setup of world wars and revolutions to get world government. And, BNP owns a large stake in a Power Corporation subsidiary, namely Pargesa Holdings.

Desmarais for Power Corporporation sits on the Board and on the Senate of the Canadian International Council (CIC) which is the Canadian branch of the CFR. The CIC web site features a video and report, both entitled OPEN CANADA, and both declaring that the WHITE HOUSE is an "old power declining". Here's the Report:

Here's the video:

URL of that video:

Here's the slide from the video showing the WHITE HOUSE on its way out:

Like his father before him, Desmarais for Power Corporation sits on the CCCE which authored the Building a North American Community task force plan to merge North America post-9/11.

In addition, late last year, the RHODES Scholarship committee which doles out the prizes for Quebec convened at the Montreal offices of Power Corporation:

"The Quebec Committee for Rhodes Scholarships convenes at Power Corporation (Peggy Curran, Montreal Gazette, November 26, 2010)":

It is now well known that Rhodes Scholarships are conferred on students seen not only as able to advocate for a world government, but to actually help implement it by returning to their communities in various capacities so as to give effect to their free indoctrination at Oxford.

On the committee that year, we find at least one (Peggy Curran) -- but most likely two connections to The Montreal Gazette. By this, I mean Michael Goldbloom. I wrote to Ms. Curran in regard to her Rhodes article, but she ignored my request to know whether Michael Goldbloom, former publisher of the Montreal Gazette, our only major English newspaper, was still a member of the Rhodes selection committee, as he was said to be in 2006:

"Goldbloom has a distinguished record of community leadership...He also served... as a member of the Quebec selection committee for the Rhodes Scholarship."
We all have our opinions of what constitutes "community" leadership. In Goldbloom's case, that would have to be defined specifically as the same "North American Community" under construction by the CFR.

World government requires the dismantling of Canada, being done by fake secession, which in turn requires fake news, not to mention sedition. Michael Goldbloom has been ideally positioned to generate fake news, and sedition, both of which feature prominently in the January 9th, 1995 Montreal Gazette Editorial of which he is one of the signatories:

Scroll down here for the Editorial entitled "Legalities of separation important but more crucial questions are being glossed over... ":

Notice from the title of that Editorial that there is something more crucial than the LAW for lawyer-publisher Michael Goldbloom.

At the Grounds page of my web site,, I prove that the Montreal Gazette, its former publisher Michael Goldbloom, and his former Editor-in-Chief Joan Fraser (now, a Senator) are up to the neck in sedition and fraud to bring down Canada for NAU through the phony secession of Quebec.

Future senator Fraser will chair the Senate Clarity Committee whose job it is to rubber-stamp the Supreme Court of Canada's treasonous, non-binding Secession opinion, which purports to legalize the illegal secession of Quebec.

But, back to Massachusetts. There is NO way that Power Corporation, its ties and allies, would SPONSOR the Milken Institute, and no way that Jane Swift would lecture there, unless all was in proper order in terms of the NAU agenda.

More importantly, in a secret committee of Power Corporation in Quebec in 1967, a committee of which Pierre Elliott Trudeau and numerous other "federal" Members of Parliament from Quebec were a part, it was decided to create a "separatist party":


"IN THE EYE OF THE EAGLE - THE "SECRET COMMITTEE" AT POWER CORP. (1967), by Jean-François Lisée (Toronto: Harper-Collins Publishers Ltd., 1990)"

That book chapter is based, in part, on American diplomatic notes and telegrams involving names such as Walt Whitman Rostow, Dean Rusk, Walt Butterworth, Ed Ritchie.

The "separatist party" that was created is a FAKE, a fake known as the PARTI QUEBECOIS, whose agenda was (and still is) to impose the European Economic Community system on Canada in 1980 disguised as a "referendum to secede". But, it was really a referendum to get a mandate to NEGOTIATE the new system, disguised as "keeping Canada together", while using a threat of UDI by Quebec as blackmail to impose it.

The same fake political party tried again in 1995 and failed. At that time, as the materials indicate, which I won't go into, there were plans for a military coup in the event of a YES to the fake "secession". The two attempts to impose the EEC-EU system (the basis of North American Union to have commenced with Canada) having failed twice, 9/11 was done, and NOW they are imposing it disguised as the SPP.

And, as I have said in another post, the purpose of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) is to forge ahead with North American INTEGRATION, while leaving the political dismantling till the end, i.e., we are now up against BOTH:

[a] the phony secession of Quebec into North American Union, to trigger the unraveling of Canada and North America; and

[b] the phony secession of the States of the Union under the 10th Amendment, perfectly timed to achieve the same thing, but hidden behind the mask of American patriotism, and operated out of states like Massachusetts, which is clearly fully enrolled in the globalist agenda.

Now, what about former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney? Here's a page with a few words:

"The people that believe Mitt Romney is a Washington outsider are falling for a campaign ploy that has been used for a hundred years. Mitt Romney, as well as all the major candidates, have surrounded themselves with the same campaign handlers that have been involved in all the Presidential elections in recent memory.

They all have ties to George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. The other thing they all have in common is the Council on Foreign Relations.

All past Presidents and no doubt our next President, with the exception of Ron Paul, will pick their cabinet from the membership of this elitist group. The stated purpose of the CFR is “to bring about a New World Order through the manipulation of U.S. foreign policy and relations and through international economic interdependence.” These are people that believe in developing a world government in incremental steps. They believe in diluting national sovereignty by merging countries together into economic regions (the European Union, the North American Union)."

Jimmy Carter Says US More Polarized Than During Civil War (1861-64 Secession)

The web site, LAW.COM, run by lawyers, picked up my YouTube re-publication of the Carter statement above, complete with my video description, literally within seconds after I posted it early morning on September 22, 2010:


LAW.COM, quoting me writing about President Jimmy Carter and the two secession movements in Canada and USA:
"Former President of the United States of America, Jimmy Carter (CFR member and Bilderberg attendee), speaking on Tuesday, 21 September 2010:

"This country has become so polarized that it's almost astonishing.... Not only with the red and blue states... President Obama suffers from the most polarized situation in Washington that we have ever seen -- even maybe than the time of Abraham Lincoln and the initiation of the war between the states."

Mr. Carter was the 39th President of the United States (1977-1981), inaugurated on January 20th, 1977.

This clip of Mr. Carter should be viewed in the awareness that Leader of the so-called 'separatist' Bloc Quebecois party in the federal Parliament of Canada, Gilles Duceppe, has been touring Canada in 2010, urging ALL the provinces to "secede". 2010 is the target year in the Council on Foreign Relation's "Building A North American Union" plan which elaborates the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America, by laying out the groundwork for the North American Union. Meanwhile, the Model Parliament for North America, launched in the Canadian Senate Chamber in 2005, and with offices out of the University of Montreal under Christine Frechette, with Robert Pastor of American University as co-chair, anticipates NOT a meeting of Canada, the USA and Mexico under a continental parliament -- but the DISMANTLED states and provinces of the USA, Mexico and Canada.

And in this same year, we have north of the 49th parallel and south of the 49th parallel, two secession movements -- the 10th Amendment Movement in the USA, and the "Quebec secession" movement in Canada, preparing to rip the continent apart -- quite conveniently for re-federation into North American Union, almost on schedule. To cinch it, Duceppe sent a letter on 9th June 2010 to 1,600 world leaders and influential figures advising them that a third and final referendum for Quebec to 'secede' is coming. Duceppe's itinerary also indicates he is touring the western hemisphere this Fall to follow up on his letter... clearly, he is arranging the international state recognition of Quebec, which in the international arena will have the effect of DISSOLVING Canada. Here's the letter in English (it went out in English, French, and Spanish):"

For more on the Carter announcement of 21 September 2010, see my blog post here:

But, what about Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick?

"Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick to push in-state tuition for illegal immigrants"

Now, that ought to help the North American merger.

Given these facts, is the filing of a 10th-Amendment State-sovereignty resolution under the Constitution of the United States of America really consistent with the Governors of the State of Massachusetts embracing North American Union? Unless the purpose of the Resolution is to lay the basis of a real "secession", controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations through State and Federal officials they thoroughly own and operate.

In my view, Massachusetts is a key candidate for triggering mass-secessions in the USA under its 10th Amendment Resolution, to dismantle North America if Quebec fails to "secede" so as to do it.

Ultimately, to complete the North American Union, both must do it.

There may be other States equally qualified to pull the ripcord.

I think you can see my point. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong.

Kathleen Moore

The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
Facebook . Calameo . Blogspot . CrazyforCanada on YouTube.