CANADA How The Communists Took Control
Canadian State of the Union: CFR Involvement in the Planned End of Canada

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

CFR Involvement in the Planned End of Canada


Source: Will Canada Unravel? Plotting a Map if Quebec Secedes, Charles F. Doran, in Foreign Affairs, September/October 1996, article preview: first 500 of 4,294 words total.

Source: Charles Doran Testifies on the "Unravelling" of Canada.

Working Notes: This transcript, file name 1182VW-4.htm, documents events on the date of 25 September 1996, in which Charles F. Doran, a card-carrying member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) gives testimony to the US House Committee on International Relations Subcommittee On Western Hemisphere concerning the Secession of Quebec.

This, of course, is a year after the failed referendum of 1995. That referendum, by the way, was illegal. It was sedition and treason against Canada. There is no power for a province to secede from Canada; the Constitution was designed in 1867 to prevent the annexation of Canada to the USA and thus necessarily to prevent secession, which would cause the annexation to happen.

A couple of paragraphs at the bottom of Doran's testimony to the Subcommittee are similar, but not quite as explicit as Doran in fact becomes in his September/October 1996 article for the CFR entitled "Will Canada Unravel? Plotting a Map if Quebec Secedes," in which Doran specifically proposes an arrangement that cannot be anything other than "North American Union", and where Doran goes further to suggest that if Quebec secedes, not only Canada, but all of North America could "unravel". Here is an extract from a preview (at the CFR web site) of Doran's article:
"This more complicated picture of Quebec's separation and its consequences may be described as a worst-case scenario. 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."
At my web site,, I have begun to expose that the Secession of Quebec was from the outset always intended as a ruse to implement the legal and political institutions of the European Union on North American soil. See my Grounds page, and then my Statement of Purpose.

The testimony of Doran before the Western Hemisphere committee directly connects the "unravelling" of North America with Quebec Secession. He then proposes to that Subcommittee the implementation by the USA of a regional "supranational affiliation". That generic term is clearly North American Union a decade before the official publication of the "Building A North American Community" ("BANC") plan by the Council on Foreign Relations at its web site.

And, we should note, the BANC was published in 2005
in the absence of Quebec Secession. In other words, events have caught up with these people. North American Union was always intended. As the 1980 and 1995 referendums for the phoney Secession of Quebec did not pan out for them, they are moving ahead anyway.

Of great concern to me, and perhaps to others, is that they are now moving ahead based largely on the notion that the attacks on New York's World Trade Center in 2001 require a common North American external security perimeter. To date, there has been no independent inquiry into events on September 11th, 2001. To the extent that those events are being used to drive the annexation of Canada to the US and Mexico, concerned Canadians should be demanding a full and independent inquiry into how those events of September 11th actually transpired.

In short, the CFR has an agenda, part of which is called North American Union. The CFR has been working for decades with its affiliates in the Bilderberg Group and in the Trilateral Commission, and with other allies, including but not limited to the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, to take down Canada by an illegal Quebec referendum. Tricking Canadians into destroying their country served as a cover for the fact the CFR has always intended to annex Canada to the USA and Mexico as part of its October 1940 plan to equip the USA with the political, military, economic and territorial resources necessary for the CFR to use the USA as their private enforcers to run the whole planet.

They also need the phoney secession of Quebec as a trigger to help ignite separatist sentiment in other countries in order to finish them off by breaking them up for attachment to the European Union, and to the Asian and African Unions. These clones of the European Union are intended to be merged together into one-world union under the self-appointed rule of those controlling the CFR, the international bankers.

They have not been able to get the phoney Secession of Quebec, so they are proceeding as planned, anyway. Covert "working groups" under the banner of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) and hosted by those detaining the governments of Canada, the USA and Mexico, are working feverishly to harmonize the regulations attached to our laws. Multinational corporations are thus altering our laws by a back door in order to merge all three countries into a common legal system that is not a part of the Constitution of Canada, and undoubtedly not the result of your democratic vote for your Member of Parliament.

There remains the extreme risk that they still will attempt, one last time, to precipitate a final illegal Quebec referendum by stirring up trouble somewhere in Canada to ignite separatist sentiment as a cover for their own subterfuge of an imperialist attack upon the sovereign nation of Canada. Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Québécois -- a federal phoney separatist party, counterpart to the provincial phoney separatist Parti Québécois -- has recently indicated plans to rev up his Quebec constituents for a new "Sovereignty" debate. Of course, there's no "Sovereignty" in it, the referendums are a scam to dissolve Canada by imposing the structures of the European Union on Canadian territory.

Loyal Canadians must be at all times on guard for attempts by red necks and blue necks of all persuasions to foment discord and racism amongst Canadians. We have too easily fallen prey to these tactics in the past few decades. Our responsibility as citizens of Canada is to respect and care for the well being of one another, not attack each other like rabid dogs on a short leash controlled by the CFR and their agents agitating for division in our country to take us down.

It's time for us all to wake up and treat one another as colleagues in the same nation. No more language wars, no more Quebec vs. The Rest of Canada nonsense.

Each and every Province is distinct. Each and every Province was endowed at Confederation, or at the time it entered Confederation, with a unique heritage and culture which the Union of Canada was intended to preserve, while promoting a common political nationality for all of us to enjoy.

It is our duty as citizens to live up to this heritage, to promote peace, goodwill and harmony amongst all of our Provinces. And to welcome the members of each Province into every other Province when they come, by respecting the Constitution of Canada which protects us all and provides for distinct features in every province, and bilingual government structures.

If we are too small for this task, if we are unwilling to be the nation that our ancestors and founders meant us to be, then we must be willing to accept the consequence of becoming nothing but a chunk of landmass attached to the fascist military dictatorship unfolding south of our 49th parallel under CFR control.

The American people have a huge and tragic problem to deal with in that regard: the loss of their Constitutional Republic, which stood to be admired before its take-over from within by the CFR. Canadians also must deal with this problem, preferably by maintaining our sovereignty and our independence. And that begins at home by regarding our fellow citizens as members of the same country, not regardless of Provincial distinction, but very proudly because of it.

The passage of Charles F. Doran that I quoted above shows a direct connection being drawn by that card-carrying CFR member and author, between the SECESSION OF QUEBEC and what is very clearly NORTH AMERICAN UNION, described by him in generic terms in 1996.

Thus, plans for North American Union did not just pop up suddenly in 2005 with publication of the Building A North American Community blueprint for annexation.
Doran's term, the "remnants of Canada," is, of course, an uncharitable reference to virtually the richest natural resource-bearing territories remaining on this planet. And they are all on Canadian soil. It is quite an understatement for someone in 1996 proposing what is clearly an NAU-style regional, "supranational affiliation" to refer to these extremely rich areas of water, forestry, mining, oil and gas as "remnants" of anything.

The Canadian Provinces are in fact key to provisioning, for the next century, not of the USA, but the future one-world government which the CFR intends to wield through its own puppet on American soil, created by it in the 1940s: the United Nations.

Charles F. Doran of the Council on Foreign Relations also acted as an as "expert" witness before the Supreme Court of Canada in the phoney Reference re the Secession of Quebec. That farce and scam had no remote connection to fact or law. It was the personal rule outside the Constitution of the Supreme Court bench complicit with our entirely corrupt Executive, most of whom are members of Bilderberg, a sister organization of the CFR. In other words, it was treason.

The Reference re the Secession of Quebec was also an exercise in public brainwashing, to convince Canadians that their country could be terminated by "principles" the Supreme Court of Canada pretended to find in the Constitution. In fact those "principles" are the so-called international "law" standards developed in 1991 for the express purpose of destroying Yugoslavia, a sovereign nation apparently sitting on an oil pipeline feeding directly into the European Union. For more information on this particular aspect of the scam to take down Canada, see my 2008 Elections Bulletin linked to the front of and look for the "Badinter Applicable Standards," which later become the European Union's 1993 "Copenhagen Criteria". [If clicking on the Bulletin doesn't work, paste the direct address into your browser:].

Doran was accompanied at the phoney Secession Reference by another member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Thomas M. Franck. The testimony of both of these so-called "experts" in support of the breakup of Canada was solicited by the former Chief Justice of Canada, Antonio Lamer, now deceased, who appointed Quebec lawyer André Joli-Coeur as "amicus curiae" (friend of the Court) to represent Quebec during the phoney Reference.

Joli-Coeur submitted the testimony of Franck and Doran, both of whom are CFR, as "expert" witnesses.
In addition, CFR author Robert Lloyd Howse, also a former speech writer to our Federal Cabinet (and now you can see where Canadian federal policy is coming from), aided the 1998 coup on Canada by recommending these "bogus principles" to the Supreme Court of Canada for the purpose of the Secession Reference. In an article he penned together with then-law student Alissa Malkin, entitled "Canadians are a Sovereign People: How the Supreme Court Should Approach the Reference on Quebec Secession," (1997), 76 Can. Bar Rev. 186, Howse repackaged the Yugoslavian take-down for Canada. [If clicking on that doesn't work, paste the direct address into your browser:]

It should be noted that Chief Justice Antonio Lamer received a controversial, but perhaps not well publicized pension hike a few months before the Secession Reference. At least one astute academic, Professor Ted Morton of the Department of Political Science at the University of Calgary, raised an important objection when speaking to the Canadian Senate on the subject of the "Lamer Amendment" to the federal
Judges' Act on Thursday, 17 October 1996 (Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Issue 30 - Evidence - Afternoon Session):
"The pension change is before the Senate at the very time that Mr. Rock is proceeding to the Supreme Court with a reference on the legality of Quebec's so-called right to secession ... it invites the charge that the pension benefits that would accrue to the Chief Justice, or more probably to his wife, payments that could be in the millions of dollars, compromise the requirement of the appearance of impartiality... Sceptics can, and I suggest will, claim that it is unacceptable for a Chief Justice who is about to benefit from Mr. Rock's proposed pension policy change to also sit in judgment on Mr. Rock's Quebec reference, the most politically sensitive constitutional case of this decade."
In similar proceedings, Senator Anne C. Cools raised the following issues concerning that particular pension hike, which, as it only benefited the Chief Justice and his wife, was referred to in debates as the "Lamer Amendment" or as the "Tremblay-Lamer Amendment", Justice Danielle-Tremblay being the Chief Justice's wife [I'm going to translate this because I can't find my English version right now]:

FRENCH proceedings:
(2nd Session, 35th Legislature, Volume 135, Number 38, Tuesday, 1st Octobre 1996, the Honorable Gildas L. Molgat, President)

TRANSLATION [Senator Anne C. Cools]:
Honorable Senators, let us now examine the Lamer, Tremblay-Lamer amendment. Section 44 of the Judges Act prohibits surviving spouses of Judges from receiving more than one pension. Section 3 of draft bill C-42 would permit a surviving spouse to receive more than one pension. I informed myself on the subject of the number of judges and of cases affected by this amendment. I have been informed that there is only one case and marriage, that of Chief Justice Antonio Lamer and Madame Justice Danielle Tremblay-Lamer. They were married in 1987, and Mrs. Tremblay-Lamer was appointed a Judge of the Federal Court of Canada on 16 June 1993.

FRENCH ORIGINAL: Honorables sénateurs, examinons maintenant l'amendement Tremblay-Lamer, Lamer. L'article 44 de la Loi sur les juges interdit aux conjoints survivants de juges de recevoir plus d'une pension. L'article 3 du projet de loi C-42 permettra au conjoint survivant de recevoir plus d'une pension. Je me suis renseignée au sujet du nombre de juges et de cas touchés par cet amendement. On m'a informée qu'il n'y a qu'un cas et un mariage, celui du juge en chef Antonio Lamer et de Mme la juge Danielle Tremblay-Lamer. Ils se sont mariés en 1987, et Mme Tremblay-Lamer a été nommée juge à la Cour fédérale du Canada le 16 juin 1993.

Having successfully, if illegally, led the Supreme Court bench in formulating an official procedure to break up Canada in the absence of any right or power to do so under the Constitution, the Chief Justice, Antonio Lamer, died on 24 November 2006, and Mrs. Lamer, herself a Judge in Ontario, has presumably now benefitted from that pre-Secession-Reference and possibly multi-million-dollar pension.

[FN] This page of working notes was made in Montreal on 9 December 2008 and revised slightly on 25 February 2009 [CrazyforCanada].

No comments:

Post a Comment