CANADA How The Communists Took Control
Canadian State of the Union: November 2009

Friday, November 27, 2009

Two Communists & One Anarchist Demand Canada's Immediate Ouster From The Commonwealth For Its Genocidal "Carbon Footprint"

Leaders of Greenpeace may indeed support the goal of a WORLD GOVERNMENT, which is also a Soviet goal. The February 1990 issue of World Marxist Review, policy journal for the Communist Parties throughout the world, featured an interview with David McTaggart, chairman of Greenpeace International. He described his efforts as “helping to erase the borders between East and West, North and South.” He emphasized that “you can’t talk about the survival of your nation or your economic system or your way of life at the expense of the survival of the planet we live on.” When asked what he thought were the main obstacles to global environmentalist efforts, he responded, “To my mind, nationalism is the biggest enemy of global thinking.”


By Kathleen Moore, Montreal, Canada

TINY URL of this post:

Montreal, Saturday, 28 November 2009 02h50

First, let's clear the air. Climate change is a fraud to force forward a communist world government agenda. There is no anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.

Climate Researchers have been recently exposed for deliberate plans to falsify climate data to hide the fact that the earth is not heating up, and to make it look like it is heating up, in order to push a social (or is that "socialist"?) agenda:


The United Nations Climate Change Conference web site dated 27 November 2009 18h50 says:


"The World Development Movement, the Polaris Institute in Canada and Greenpeace have called for Canada to be suspended from the Commonwealth over its climate change policies, the Guardian reports."

This "proposal to exclude Canada from the Commonwealth" pushed by Greenpeace et als is part of a lead-up to the Copenhagen climate-change conference scheduled for December 7th to 18th, 2009 -- where, according to Lord Christopher Monckton (same link as above), an agreement will be signed to formally initiate a communist world government.

Who are Greenpeace, Polaris Institute and the Anarchiest World Development Movement?

1 - Here is a poster online featuring a teach-in by the Communist Party of Canada, Polaris Institute and others (Polaris is Marxist-Leninist):

Original url:

Downloaded and re-uploaded here:

2 - Here is a roundup of Greenpeace's communist, Soviet-backed activities using the environmentalist movement to push the free-market agenda which destroys nation-states:


(That whole post is more than well worth reading, with its details of Soviet backing for Greenpeace and its attempts to destroy the economies of other developed nations through environmental campaigns.)


"Greenpeace presented an article in January/February of 1989 boldly stating: “Through the 1990s, pressure groups and campaigning organizations like Greenpeace will have to take the lead in promoting the shift to a new economic order.” According to the article, free market principles would be replaced by a form of socialism in which local governments would exert “ownership and control” over the economy."



"Leaders of Greenpeace may indeed support the goal of a WORLD GOVERNMENT, which is also a Soviet goal. The February 1990 issue of World Marxist Review, policy journal for the Communist Parties throughout the world, featured an interview with David McTaggart, chairman of Greenpeace International. He described his efforts as “helping to erase the borders between East and West, North and South.” He emphasized that “you can’t talk about the survival of your nation or your economic system or your way of life at the expense of the survival of the planet we live on.” When asked what he thought were the main obstacles to global environmentalist efforts, he responded, “To my mind, nationalism is the biggest enemy of global thinking.”

3 - World Development Movement (Scotland) is chaired by Anarchist philosopher Alan Carter who was a founding member of the London-based Anarchist Research Group.

"Outside of academia, Carter is Chair of the World Development Movement Scotland and is on the Board of Directors of Friends of the Earth Scotland. He is a former Board Member and a former Trustee of Friends of the Earth."

Meanwhile, in a piece entitled "Scientists Target Canada Over Climate Change," the GUARDIAN.CO.UK reports:
"Saleemul Huq, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said: "If the Commonwealth is serious about holding its members to account, then threatening the lives of millions of people in developing countries should lead to the suspension of Canada's membership immediately."
Thus alleging that Canada is promoting genocide and should be "suspended" from the COMMONWEALTH as if its "CARBON FOOTPRINT" were an international human rights violation. However, there is no global warming, therefore the very notion of a "carbon footprint" as a measure of global warming is a fraud, as is any reference to these "junk scientists" as "scientists".

And, when did Communists ever concern themselves with genocide—outside of the times when they, themselves were actually perpetrating it? For a breakdown of figures totalling:

169,202,000 actual deaths

by confirmed Communist government genocides in the 20th Century, see DEATH BY GOVERNMENT By R.J. Rummel of New Brunswick, New Jersey (Transaction Publishers, 1994):


The Pol Pot is calling the Canadian Kettle CARBON black!

So communist Greenpeace, communist Polaris Institute, and anarchist-friendly World Development Movement are pushing phony climate change (debunked in the links and videos above as CLIMATEGATE) to get Greenpeace's wish of a market economy as the precursor to socialism by (amongst other things) calling for the ouster of Canada from the Commonwealth as punishment for the "carbon footprint" of its TAR SANDS which are driving North American Union (NAU) via energy integration.

However, NAU is a step on the way to the very MARKET ECONOMY Greenpeace and the Marxists want, and a phase on the way to communist world government via a world market economy.

Greenpeace et als thus would forcibly RELEASE Canada from a vital and historical international community of NATION-STATES (which Marxists and Anarchists both hate), PRECISELY to facilitate Canada's annexation (along with its TAR SANDS) into NAU (whose backers have no intention of giving up the TAR SANDS, thus the "suspension" of Canada from the Commonwealth would certainly be permanent) on the way to a communist world government, which has no need of the Commonwealth.

And they would DEMAND this in November 2009, whereas Canada is slated for merger into the USA and MEXICO by 2010. (Although they appear to be running a bit behind schedule. Still waiting for that last phony "referendum to secede" into North American Union here in Quebec.)

Meanwhile, Canada's own media, including state-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) [Canada's Pravda and regular Bilderberg (world government tank) attendee under an oath of MEDIA SILENCE] and CTV are both slamming "monarchy" after the recent November 2009 visit to Canada of Prince Charles, and are calling for Canada to "grow up" and "dump" the Crown.

But the Crown—or the Monarch, that is—is the ONE thing that stands between the demise of Canada and the Executive abuse of powers that is currently fueling the disappearance of Canada into the North American Union. In virtue of Section 9 of the British North America Act, 1867 (now called the Constitution Act, 1867) The Monarch, aka the Sovereign of Canada, is personally responsible for the abuse of Executive powers:
Declaration of Executive Power in the Queen

9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

Nice timing, all 'round! (For more information on THE PLANNED END OF CANADA, see my web site.)

Kathleen Moore
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union

My own videos:

MY UK-IRISH Y! SITE (same vids):

* 1. Whisper (Part I):
Supporting docs:
* 1-A. Newsletter to accompany the Whisper Video:
"Pierre Trudeau: Founding Father of the Parti Québécois
1967: Trudeau's Plan to "fight" separatism: Create a separatist party, -and- Encourage separatism so radical that it becomes "shocking"
* 2. 1968 Press Conference of Rene Levesque to replace Canada:
* 3. While You Were Sleeping:
* 4. Model Parliament for North America:
* 5.
* 6. Whisper (Part II) El Terrorismo (Fidel Castro, Trudeau's best friend, captured on film just a few months after a Cuban love-in with Prime Minister Trudeau!
* 7. - Collaboration with - "Obama: The First Year in Office & The Impact on Canada's Elite"

* Recommended reading:
* The FARC's Honduran Friends -
* Hillary's Honduran Obsession -
Recommended reading: *
Recommended reading: * Report For Congress, Library of Congress: Zelaya Removal Constitutional -




HAVE A LAUGH: Communists and Theocratic Globalists want to "save Canada":
"Soviet" supporting documents for that spoof site are here:

* "1942 POSTWAR NEW WORLD MAP by Maurice-Gomberg

* *
* *

* Poems to print:
* Canadian Web Award:
* [Poems] (linked to Habeas Corpus Canada site)
* [Photography] (linked to Habeas Corpus Canada site)


* (send an e-card for Canada this coming Christmas and New Year)


Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Constitutional Law 101 (First Instalment)

What neither side quite acknowledges is that the seat of sovereign power is not to be discovered by looking at Acts of any Parliament but by looking at the courts and discovering to whom they give their obedience.
— H. W. R. Wade, "The Basis of Legal Sovereignty", [1955] Cambridge Law Journal 172, 196.

By Kathleen Moore, Montreal, Canada
To my followers in YouTube and elsewhere:

Montreal, Tuesday 24 November 2009 15h27

Re: Constitutional Law 101 -- and Stephen Harper's current political campaign to the Jewish Community

Hello, everybody. I recently sent you news of a political campaign flyer circulating in Montreal and featuring a voting ballot. I have finally been able to access a scanner and have placed the bilingual document online:


I could be wrong -- but it seems to me that this voting ballot suggests that the Harper government may be anticipating yet another federal election in the near future. Please tell me if I'm wrong, I would appreciate all views on the subject.

N.B.: I am attaching my short vid of Stephen Harper speaking French (I've added English subtitles) on the day of the "NO" to the 1995 Quebec referendum to "secede".

I would remind my viewers of a little known fact -- that STEPHEN HARPER tabled the first known draft of the Clarity Act in 1996 when he was a mere member of Parliament. The Clarity Act purports to be a statute of the Federal Parliament of Canada enacting the terms and conditions on which Canada may be terminated in the event of a YES to "secede" in Quebec.

In this particular video, HARPER declares that 'he prefers to build a NEW FEDERATION'. In other words, Stephen Harper would be entirely ready to scrap Canada. But then, so was Trudeau; and Chrétien after him.

However, under the Constitution of Canada, elected and appointed representatives have NO POWER to scrap Canada. Quebec's phony referendums to "secede" in 1980 and in 1995 were illegal, as there is no power to secede under Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 -- and here's a nice old bilingual version of the British North America Act, 1867 (the original name of the Constitution) with French and English face-to-face as well as quite rare indexes of terms in the document -- don't be afraid of the French title, open it up and there's English in there as well:


Moreover, the provincial "residual" power at Section 92(16) is limited to "local purposes" only. No province may undertake any measure, whether political or legislative, which substantially affects any other province, let alone all of Canada, as is well known throughout the entire Constitutional jurisprudence of Canada up until the traitors got their hands on our governments.

(Provincial residual power) Section 92:

16. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

In the same vein, the Federal government and Parliament of Canada and the Crown of Canada have no power under the Constitution of Canada to dispense with Canada.

The Crown simply has has NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER to assent to an unconstitutional law or measure.

The Constitution is a guarantee of the CONTINUANCE of Canada. The only thing DISCONTINUED are elected governments, on a regular timetable, and the continuance of this timetable is a part of the guarantee of the PERMANENCY of Canada and of the TRANSIENCY of our elected representatives, which is express in the Constitution in order to prevent the advent of a permanent self-appointed government, or a one-party system, i.e. TOTALITARIANISM.

(Guarantee of transient government) Section 50 (BNA Act, 1867)

50. EVERY House of Commons SHALL continue for FIVE Years from the Day of the Return of the Writs for choosing the House (subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and no longer.

As will be more clear below, this express wording EXCLUDES all prospect of ANY government making itself PERMANENT, or of making itself the LAST government by terminating Canada. The word "SHALL" is imperative, meaning it can't be side-stepped. The word FIVE means that after FIVE years at a maximum there MUST BE NEW ELECTIONS under the EXISTING Constitution. No government can TERMINATE the Constitution. It has to get out and give way to the next government and Executive.

The inability of the Federal Parliament to terminate Canada is more apparent from the well known formula for law-making at Section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867, which is called the "Peace, Order and Good Government" power, or "POGG" for short in the legal literature.

(Federal POGG power) Section 91:

"91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces"

The "statutory construction" of the words "FOR the Peace, Order, and good Government OF Canada" make it apparent that the Federal government and Parliament have NO POWER to legislate or to institute ANY measure or law that is NOT "FOR" the governance "OF" "Canada"; moreover, "Canada" for the purposes of the POGG power and every other power under the Constitution, is defined at Sections 3 and 4 of the BNA Act, 1867:


3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.

4. Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.

It was well known at the time of Confederation and throughout the history of Canada's constitutional jurisprudence up to the time of Trudeau (who with René Lévesque hijacked the Constitution) -- that "UNION" means the CONFEDERATION of Canada, and that this word being express and stipulated in the Constitution Act means that DIS-union is prohibited. This is more clear from the Long Title (legal tool) of our Constitutional statute which sets out and expressly limits the PURPOSE of the Constitution:

"An Act for the UNION of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for Purposes CONNECTED THEREWITH."

The state of "UNION" of the four founding provinces extends to the other provinces which subsequently joined the "UNION" and are bound by the same Constitutional "purposes".

It is expressly written and clear that the PURPOSE of the Constitution of Canada, that is, of the British North America Act, 1867, is the "UNION" and "PURPOSES CONNECTED" with the UNION. In constitutional and statutory construction, one of the legal tools of analysis is the Latin maxim:

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (The express mention of one thing excludes all others) i.e., items not mentioned are assumed NOT to be covered by the statute, i.e., they are assumed to be EXCLUDED, i.e. PROHIBITED.

Here's a Webster definition of "maxim":

"a general truth, fundamental principal or RULE OF CONDUCT"

In other words, it is a RULE OF CONDUCT of Judges when interpreting the EXPRESS words of legislation to EXCLUDE all that these words themselves, by definition, exclude.

The restriction of the Constitution of Canada to "PURPOSES" "CONNECTED" with the "UNION" of the Provinces is a very clear and express statement against DIS-UNION, i.e., against SECESSION. Therefore, when the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 in the Secession Reference stated at paragraph 84: "It is of course true that the Constitution is silent as to the ability of a province to secede from Confederation", they LIED. They then proceeded to DEVISE a FORMULA TO DESTROY CANADA, (which the other traitors purported to pass into LAW as the Clarity Act) thus perpetrating blatant, outright TREASON.

This is more apparent from an Australian case (their Constitution, like ours, is on the Westminster Model and is interpreted in a similar fashion — Amalgamated Society of Engineers v. Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd. ("Engineers' case") [1920] HCA 54; (1920) 28 CLR 129 (31 August 1920), where Justice Isaacs said:

"The non-granting of powers, the expressed qual­i­fi­ca­tions of powers granted, the expressed retention of powers, are all to be taken into account by the Court."

Again, as Lord Sankey, Lord Chancellor said, when sitting on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom during the constitutional maturation of Canada:

“Useful as decided cases are, it is always advisable to get back to the words of the Act itself and to remember the object with which it was passed.”

— Lord Sankey, Lord Chancellor, In re Regulation and Control of Aeronautics in Canada [Privy Council] [1932] AC 54, 70

You can see that case online here at calameo:


Moreover, in considering the POWERS of the Provinces under the Constitution of Canada, Judge Cartwright of the Supreme Court of Canada (in better days) declared:

“The power of the legislature to enact such a law, if it exists, must be found in s. 92 of the British North America Act.”

— Judge Cartwright in McKay et al. v. R., [1965] S.C.R. 798, 804 (later, Chief Justice)


On glancing down the 16 "subject matters" of Section 92 of the BNA Act, 1867, it will be fully apparent to you that THERE IS NO POWER TO SECEDE; and that since 92(16) restricts all measures not specifically listed in 1-15 to PURELY LOCAL purposes. indeed there could never be a power to secede, because it would AFFECT all the other provinces, as well as Confederation itself.

Writing in the Cambridge Law Journal of 1955 at page 196, Sir H. W. R. Wade set forth a warning that all Canadians would do well to heed:

"What neither side quite acknowledges is that the seat of sovereign power is not to be discovered by looking at Acts of any Parliament but by looking at the courts and discovering to whom they give their obedience."

The Supreme Court of Canada in the 1998 Secession Reference gave its obedience NOT to the Constitution of Canada, but to our traitorous Executive who directed this phony reference to them on the pretext that they had NO IDEA SECESSION IS ILLEGAL IN CANADA.

There is no possibility of their not knowing it. The Secession Reference was a SCAM by which the Executive employed their appointed agents on the Bench to control the minds of Canadians and to alter our behaviour to MAKE US THINK that the Clarity Act was lawful; and that the destruction of Canada was lawful. And that 50 years of battering us with phony "separatism" and two fraudulent referendums to "secede" were LAWFUL. There is only one possibility, and that is COLLUSION between our High Court and our Executive to criminally and illegally destroy our nation.

Moreover, as the Supreme Court of Canada is normally deemed the "court of last resort" whose decisions are not subject to further appeal, the traitors detaining our governments and colluding in this at both the federal and provincial levels believed they would get off scott free. However, they were and are sadly mistaken, as I will challenge the Supreme Court by lawful jurisdictional routes and THROW THEM OUT, along with their PHONY "secession" opinion.

No Judge of any Court has ANY POWER to alter the Constitution in order to destroy it. But the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 REVERSED the very PURPOSE of the Constitution of Canada by criminally and unlawfully reading into it a POWER TO SECEDE that does not exist at either Section 92 (provincial powers) or Section 91 (federal powers) and is prohibited by the PURPOSE of the Constitution FROM existing. Another word for the "purpose" of a constitution is its "grundnorm" -- meaning the PIVOT around which the entire law is built, and the OBJECT it is designed to achieve. In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada GUTTED the Constitution of Canada to reverse the grundnorm, the very OBJECT of permanent unity that the Constitution was DESIGNED to achieve. That act itself by the Supreme Court in 1998 was an act of High Treason.

Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217:

This is an HTML version of the BNA Act, 1867 that you might like to look at, complete with well done annotations at


It is a principle of constitutional law that no Parliament and no Legislature may bind a future Parliament or Legislature of Canada or of the provinces. The outrageous proposition by those detaining the provincial Legislature of Quebec, and the federal Parliament of Canada that THEY have the right and power to terminate Canada (with the connivance of the Supreme Court in 1998) in order to replace Confederation with something else is an utter fabrication and outright treason.

Such an act would constitute a BINDING measure terminating even the prospect of a future Parliament or Legislature ever again convening. It would be tantamount to the permanent hijacking and disposal for all time of all political and legal powers entrusted TEMPORARILY to elected and appointed officials at the time of swearing-in after valid elections.

The foregoing points of interpretation are by no means the only ones available to prove that in 1998 the Supreme Court LIED, and that the referendums of 1980 and 1995 in Quebec are ILLEGAL. I have a couple of hundred pages of notes which I am sure you would not like to read in an email.

Thanks for your time. Have a great day.


Kathleen Moore
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union

My own videos:

My new document site:

P.S. You will note that I have switched from scribd to calameo for my document storage due to various technical problems at scribd. I've got about 150 documents parked online at to complete with descriptions, tags and titles, and will let you know when they're done so you can go have a browse.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

EU Constitution author says referendums can be ignored

Future referendums will be ignored whether they are held in Ireland or elsewhere, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the architect of the European Union Constitution said.
By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Published: 7:24PM BST 26 Jun 2008

The former President of France drafted the old Constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters three years ago before being resurrected as the Lisbon EU Treaty, itself shunned by the Irish two weeks ago.

Mr Giscard d'Estaing told the Irish Times that Ireland's referendum rejection would not kill the Treaty, despite a legal requirement of unanimity from all the EU's 27 member states.

"We are evolving towards majority voting because if we stay with unanimity, we will do nothing," he said.

"It is impossible to function by unanimity with 27 members. This time it's Ireland; the next time it will be somebody else."

"Ireland is one per cent of the EU".

Mr Giscard d'Estaing also admitted that, unlike his original Constitutional Treaty, the Lisbon EU Treaty had been carefully crafted to confuse the public.

"What was done in the [Lisbon] Treaty, and deliberately, was to mix everything up. If you look for the passages on institutions, they're in different places, on different pages," he said.

"Someone who wanted to understand how the thing worked could with the Constitutional Treaty, but not with this one."

France and Germany are putting pressure on Ireland to hold a second referendum which would allow the Lisbon Treaty to come into force before European elections on June 4 2009.

Mr Giscard d'Estaing believes "there is no alternative" to a second Irish vote, a view shared by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President.

Mr Sarkozy, who takes over the EU's rotating presidency next week, will use a Brussels summit on October 15 to force Ireland to find a way out of Europe's Treaty difficulties.

"Everyone agrees it has to be sorted out by the time of European elections," he said at the weekend.

Václav Klaus, the Czech President has continued to insist that the Lisbon Treaty "cannot come into force" after the Irish vote.

"The EU cannot ignore its own rules. The Lisbon Treaty has been roundly and democratically rejected by Ireland, and it therefore cannot come into force," he told El Pais newspaper.

"Any attempt to ignore this fact and make recourse to pressure and political manipulation to move the treaty forward would have disastrous consequences."

Mark François, Conservative spokesman on Europe, also insisted that it was time that European politicians started to respect the Irish No vote.

"The Irish people gave an emphatic No to the Treaty of Lisbon on a record turnout and it would be good for politicians of all countries to respect this democratic decision," he said.

"The point is particularly clear to us here in Britain as the Irish were fortunate to be given a referendum which we were denied by our Government."

An opinion poll for the newspaper Libération has shown 44 per cent of the French want Ireland to vote again and 26 per cent want the ratification process to continue without Ireland.

But a quarter of those polled want to abandon the Treaty and 52 per cent think the Irish No vote is going to dominate Mr Sarkozy's EU presidency.



«Nos référendums ne sont pas de la démocratie directe» (Rowat)


«Sur le caractère anti-démocratique du référendum» (Lygeros)