CANADA How The Communists Took Control
Canadian State of the Union: 2011

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.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011




This past weekend, on my way down the hall toward the law library at the Université de Montréal, I noticed a small poster stapled to the cork board, and I acquired it. It's in French, I have scanned it :

The English version of the poster’s contents may be found online here:

Original url:


The title of the poster poses a question (I'm correcting the English): "Capitalism in Crisis?" and goes on to announce a 6-day "intensive" summer school course, open to "the concerned citizen" as well as to students, and purporting to review capitalism from its birth to the current "crisis". After a short few bullets of sub-topics, the subject veers rapidly to the question: "Toward another model: the rise of economic socialism and solidarity?" And another bullet, "Propositions for the reform of capitalism", and then "Reforms since the crisis - Advances and insufficiencies" and then "the anti-globalists - have they any realistic answers ?" That last bullet seems to imply that globalism is not a wholly autonomous phenomenon…

The blue footer of the "CAPITALISM IN CRISIS" poster declares in French :

"The planet is changing. Eighty experts tell you why and how."

This summer school is apparently designed to portray capitalism as a failure, and globalism and socialism as the solution to the "crisis of capitalism". The department of the Université de Montréal which is sponsoring this summer school is called CERIUM (Le Centre d'études et de recherches internationales) – (Translation : Center for International Studies and Research).

The summer school (and no doubt the variety of other topics on the menu at CERIUM) is of interest for at least two reasons:

(a) because Jean-François LISEE is on the board of CERIUM, and in 1995 he was paid by the Quebec government to advise Premier Jacques Parizeau on "strategy" for the 1995 referendum to break up Canada for the so-called "secession of Quebec".

My nearly seven years of research (to date of this current posting) into the Constitutional law and history of Canada, and of these referendums shows that the secession of Quebec is and always has been a scam to impose the EEC-EU system on Canada, using a threat of secession by Quebec as blackmail to force Canadians to accept the "negotiations" to destroy our own country, contrary to the Constitution which was designed in 1865 to prevent secession and annexation.

(b) The second reason why CERIUM and its anti-capitalist summer course is interesting is because CHRISTINE FRECHETTE is also on the board of CERIUM. Fréchette is the so-called "founder" of the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI) which runs the model parliaments for North America with Robert Pastor. NAFI moved its offices from downtown Montreal to the University campus a couple of years ago. We thus have a direct academic correlation between Jean-François LISEE advising strategy in an effort to destroy Canada in 1995 by the phoney secession of Quebec, and CHRISTINE FRECHETTE, leading the model parliament intended to replace the Parliament of Canada – and the Congress of the USA and the parliament of Mexico. Here is LISEE’s short bio from a page in CERIUM :

Jean-François Lisée

Directeur exécutif du Centre d’études et de recherches internationales de l’Université de Montréal (CÉRIUM), l’auteur fut conseiller diplomatique des premiers ministres indépendantistes du Québec , Jacques Parizeau et Lucien Bouchard.

TRANSLATION (by Kathleen Moore for Habeas Corpus Canada):

Jean-François Lisée is Executive Director of the Center for International Studies and Research at the Universite de Montreal (CERIUM). He was diplomatic adviser to separatist Premiers of Quebec JACQUES PARIZEAU and LUCIEN BOUCHARD.

It should be noted that Jean-François LISEE is also the author of IN THE EYE OF THE EAGLE, a non-fiction research account of Canada-US politics in the latter half of the last century with a focus on Quebec. I based my video WHISPER (Part I) in part on LISEE’s research (founded on American diplomatic notes of the time) and disclosing the secret committee of Power Corporation of Canada involving Pierre Elliott Trudeau and others in escalating radical separatism by infiltrating French-Canadian organizations :

That particular book chapter is scanned and online here :

Now, here is a CERIUM page from 2010 featuring Christine Fréchette; my translation of her two-line bio follows below.


Original url:

Christine Fréchette

Christine Fréchette est coordonnatrice de la Chaire d’études politiques et économiques américaines et de la Chaire d’études du Mexique contemporain du CÉRIUM. Elle dirige également le FINA et agit régulièrement comme analyste de la politique américaine dans les médias.

TRANSLATION (by Kathleen Moore for Habeas Corpus Canada):

Christine Fréchette coordinates the Chair in American political and economic studies and the Chair of studies of contemporary Mexico at CERIUM. She also directs NAFI and on a regular basis, acts as an analyst of American policy in the mass media.

It would thus be reasonable to conclude that the model parliament for North America being shepherded by the self-appointed Ms. Fréchette is an institution of the post-capitalist "crisis" -- in other words, a full-blown socialist-communist rubber parliament designed solely for the sake of "democratic" appearances.

Kathleen Moore


The Official Legal Challenge

To North American Union






Sunday, June 12, 2011



Those who follow my posts and blogs will know that I am a proud Canadian. If I have chosen to translate an important document on the infiltration of the Quebec sovereignty movement by communists, written by a fellow Canadian who wrote it plainly as a sovereigntist, it is in part because true patriotism does not exclude an understanding of the patriotism of others. It is also because the well-being of my fellow French Canadians is inextricably linked to the well-being of all of us.

In a culture of freedom, infiltration is the most base treachery. It may rise to treason. The very notion that communists have been able to invade and deform patriotic sentiment in Quebec, or elsewhere in Canada, is an appalling assault upon the right to be a patriot. In honor of freedom, and of true patriots, I dedicate this translation of a report by an author who remains anonymous.

-- Kathleen Moore, Montreal, Canada, 16 June 2011


* The original French title of this piece is « L'Extrême gauche responsable de la déroute du mouvement souverainiste ? » The author is anonymous.


The following document will attempt to demonstrate the influence of the far-left at the heart of the Quebec sovereigntist milieu, and to explain the recent crushing electoral defeat of the Bloc Québécois in favour of Jack Layton’s New Democratic Party.


Gilles DuceppeYouth

Born in 1947, Gilles Duceppe grew up in the Hochelaga-Maisonneuve working-class district of Montreal, in accommodations that his family shared with his two grandparents, an uncle and an aunt. He still lives in the area.

His father, the popular actor, Jean Duceppe, had always been involved in politics and trade unionism. During his studies, Gilles will follow in the steps of his father.

His father, Jean Duceppe

Jean DuceppeJean Duceppe, the father of Gilles Duceppe, is a founding member of the federal New Democratic Party (NDP) led by Jack Layton today.

A popular actor, Jean Duceppe was always involved in politics and trade-unionism. The father, like his son, was exceedingly influenced by the ideology of the far-left, to such a point that he was a founding member of the federal New Democratic Party (NDP) in 1961.3 The NDP is that party farthest to the left on the Canadian political chessboard; we will return to it later.

Political Career

Robert BurnsIn 1970, at the age of 23, Gilles Duceppe becomes a member of the Parti Québécois, where he rises rapidly through the ranks to work as political organizer and secretary to candidate Robert Burns, one of seven Parti Québécois nominees who will be elected in April of 1970.

Robert Burns[a] comes from the left-wing of the Parti Québécois and has worked as a technical adviser to La Confédération des Syndicats Nationaux (CSN) [b]. In 1966, he is promoted to management of legal services for that trade union.

One can therefore understand why Robert Burns should be the one to take Gilles Duceppe under his wing.

En Lutte !In 1973, three years after joining the Parti Québécois, Gilles Duceppe, who is now 26 years of age, allows himself to be tempted by the radical far-left, first within the newspaper En lutte ![c], (literally, Struggle), then in the Marxist-Leninist Communist League, and then again in the Communist Workers’ Party (PCO).

Françoise David also campaigned at the side of Gilles Duceppe within the En lutte! newspaper (see the section on Québec Solidaire[d]).

In the 1980 referendum, Gilles Duceppe, who was 33 years of age at that time, did not vote “Yes”, because to do so was interdicted by the Communist Workers’ Party (PCO).6 When it came to a choice between the far-left and the independence of the Quebec people, we can therefore see which one took precedence with Gilles Duceppe, and this at an age when his choices cannot be attributed to youthful indiscretion.

From 1983 to 1990, Gilles Duceppe became a union adviser and negotiator at the CSN; this was during the same period as Gérald Larose[e] of the Conseil de la Souveraineté du Québec (CSQ) (i.e., the Quebec Sovereignty Council).7 It was even the same union local as Robert Burns, the man for whom Gilles Duceppe had worked at the Parti Québécois when he was 23.8


Very few people know that for a long while there has been cooperation between the Parti Québécois and the far-left; in fact, this goes right back to the PQ's early beginnings. For example, there was a Conference of the Quebec Left in Montreal on the 20th and 21st of November 1981 which reunited not only none other than the CSN union locals (i.e., Robert Burns), the F.T.Q. and La Centrale des Enseignants du Quebec (C.E.Q.) (i.e, the Quebec Teachers’ Union), but also the New Democratic Party (NDP), the Parti Québécois, and the Communist Party of Québec.9

As concerns the C.S.N., from 1983 to 1999, Gérald Larose, who is president of the Conseil de la souveraineté du Québec, had for some time been president of the Confédération des Syndicats Nationaux (CSN).

The links between the sovereigntist milieu and the communist-style far left are still current news because the Communist Party of Québec called upon its sympathisers to massively support the Bloc Québécois during the recent federal elections of May 2nd, 2011:


“The Communist Party of Québec calls for a massive vote for the Bloc Québécois, except in the ridings of Outremont (where the Bloc Québécois has no chance of taking it and where the NDP Member, Thomas Mulcair, deserves to be re-elected); the same goes for the riding of Gatineau-Aylmer where Nicole Turmel, who for many years was a respected union manager, and who, in the last provincial elections had also called for a vote for Québec Solidaire, is also running for the NDP. In these particular federalist ridings, the CPQ would rather call for a vote for the NDP."10

The Communist Party of Québec (CPQ) does publicity for the newspaper Le Québécois, which is run by Patrick Bourgeois.[f] André Parizeau, leader of the Communist Party of Québec[g], was present at the commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the newspaper. There is also a link to the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois (RRQ) at their web site.12

Why establish such ties of cooperation if the sovereigntist organizations have no ideological links with the far-left? Who would wish to run the risk of associating himself with an ideology responsible for millions of deaths across the world unless he has the same ideas and goals?


As mentioned above, Gilles Duceppe’s father, Jean Duceppe, was a founding member of the NDP; so was Philippe Vaillancourt, honorary president of the Fédération des Travailleurs et Travailleuses du Québec (FTQ) in 1956.13

Today, the NDP is a full member of the Socialist International,14 a globalist political association which brings together socialist and communist parties of all stripes. The Socialist International moreover congratulated the NDP and its leader Jack Layton on their performance during the May 2nd, 2011 federal elections.15

A provincial branch of the NDP has already existed in Québec. The NDPQ (New Democratic Party of Québec) was founded in the 1960s as the result of a concerted effort by the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ), one of the principal workers’ trade union locals in Québec at the time.16

On June 30th, 1963, a provisional organizing committee of the NPDQ was elected, composed of none other than Charles Taylor.17, 18 One and the same Charles Taylor of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission on "reasonable accommodation". Quite a coincidence, no?!

The NDPQ was later merged with the Communist Party of Québec which in turn merged with the Union des Forces Progressiste (UFP) to finally merge with none other than Québec Solidaire.19 Charles Taylor makes no effort to hide it: he had run for the NDP "since the Middle Ages," to borrow his own expression. The Professor wore the NDP’s campaign colors four times in the 1960s. In 1965, he ran for the Liberals, finishing second behind Pierre Elliott Trudeau in the riding of Mount-Royal.20

Without a doubt, politics makes strange bedfellows!

To top it all off, the mysterious NDP constitution is not easily accessible to the public. According to a number of contemporary commentators, journalists and politicians, it is emphatically Marxist-Leninist in inspiration.21, 22, 23, 24


As was said before, Québec Solidaire emerged from a fusion of the New Democratic Party of Quebec and the Communist Party of Quebec.

Amir Khadir, moreover, declared that the rise of the federal NPD was hoped for by a number of "progressive" sovereigntists:


"A strong ascent for the NDP was desired by a number of progressive sovereigntists, including me. But not at the price of sweeping out the Bloc Québécois. Québec Solidaire had moreover called for a vote to support progressive candidates, whether bloquist or new-democrat."25

We are thus not far here from the official position of the Communist Party of Quebec, as cited above.

Does Québec Solidaire have sovereignty at heart, or the promotion of far-left “progressive” ideas?

Also, Françoise David was an activist with the Marxist-Leninist organization, En lutte! from 1977 to 1982.26 The same organization as Gilles Duceppe, and during the same time-frame!

Amir Khadir confirmed his past support for l'Organisation des Moudjahiddines du peuple iranien (OMPI), an Islamic socialist organization devoted to the overthrow of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.27 He also ran under the banner of the Bloc Québécois in 2000.28 If a politician as far left as Amir Kadhir felt so at ease with the Bloc Québécois, there must be a good (ideological) reason?

A number of the adjutants of Québec Solidaire entertain questionable links with far-left microgroups such as anarchists and communists, certain of which are very active in Quebec community groups and college and university student associations.

One of these is Simon Tremblay-Pépin, seen in the photo below in company of Amir Khadir.

Simon Tremblay-Pépin is a strategy adviser of Québec Solidaire (QS) and presented by Françoise David as a pillar of the party.29


In addition to his involvement with Québec Solidaire (QS), Simon Tremblay-Pépin took his doctorate in political science at York University and his journalism degree at UQAM. He was co-editor-in-chief of the satirical newspaper Le Couac, in charge of the political committee of Québec Solidaire, and student representative on the Board of Directors of UQAM. He was a researcher at the Institut de Recherche et d’Information Socio-économique (IRIS) (i.e., Research and Socio-Economic Information Institute).

His militancy does not end with his involvement in Québec Solidaire; Simon Tremblay- Pépin routinely collaborates with extreme-left microgroups, including:

L’Union communiste Libertaire (UCL)
(“The Libertarian communist Union”)

The UCL has its tentacles into a number of regions in Québec, with chapters mainly in Montréal, Québec, and Saguenay. The UCL disseminates its own magazine, Cause Commune, (i.e., Common Cause) promoting communist and anarchist ideology.30 The following collectives, Le Collectif Emma-Goldman and Voix de Faits, are two groups affiliated with the Union communiste Libertaire (UCL).31

The Voix de Faits collective (UCL-Québec)

On March 18, 2011, Simon Tremblay-Pépin took part in a radio conference organized by the Voix de Faits collective, press arm of the anarchist collective La Nuit, the latter an affiliate of the UCL in Québec City.32

Le Collectif Emma Goldman (UCL-Saguenay)

On 21 October 2010, Simon Tremblay-Pépin acted as a panelist at a conference entitled "Liberal Budget: how to make the government retreat?" organized by Le Collectif Emma-Goldman.33

During the conférence organized by Le Collectif Emma-Goldman, in which Simon Tremblay-Pépin took part with other interlocutors plainly affiliated with groups from the extreme-left, we find a certain Étienne David-Bellemare, President of the Syndicat des Étudiants et Étudiantes syndiqué(e)s de l’Université du Québec à (Chicoutimi SEEE-UQAC), and spokesman for Le Collectif Emma-Goldman, both affiliated with the group UCL-Saguenay.34, 35

In addition to his trade union and communist activities, Étienne David-Bellemare is a research assistant with the Canada Research Chair on Democracy and Sovereignty at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi. He organized the most recent conference entitled "Secularism and cultural and religious pluralism in Quebec society" which took place from March 29th to 31st, 2011 at UQAC and in which Gérard Bouchard of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission was an invited guest speaker. 36, 37

Étienne David-Bellemare is none other than the son of Françoise David of Québec Solidaire.38 Françoise David had her son Étienne by a first spouse from whom she separated a year after the child's birth.39 It is also interesting to note that Étienne, more radical in his ideas than some of his "comrades in arms," took issue with Patrick Bourgeois, qualifying the latter as a xenophobe promoting primary nationalism.40

As if that were not enough, Simon Tremblay-Pépin and Étienne David-Bellemare are connected in the social network, Facebook:

Ultimately, our research on Simon Tremblay-Pépin led us to discover that he maintains serious links on the social network Facebook with radical groups such as UCL-Québec, UCL-Montréal, Collectif Rebelles (i.e., Rebels Collective), Ya Basta ! (Spanish, roughly meaning "Enough is Enough!"), etcetera. It is impossible to know whether these groups are part of his list of friends, or are merely contacts…

What is Le Collectif Emma-Goldman?41

They define themselves as follows:


"The Emma Goldman anarchist collective is a political organization active in the Saguenay region since 2008. We militate in favour of social combat movements and the emergence of an open and broad libertarian Left. We are affiliated with the Union communiste libertaire (UCL).

The collective seeks to advance the emergence of a radical and incisive fighting Left
. We refuse to be defenceless victims! The flaccidity of the reformists plays the game of the populist right. The era of courtesy is at an end. It is necessary to intensify the criticism of Populism, to assert our rejection of the moral order, of security discourse, of nationalism and militarism. The values of liberty, equality, of sharing and of solidarity must serve as the counterpoise. The status quo is not an option, we should no longer hesitate to act and to be revolutionary and libertarian."

What is the Voix de Faits collective?42

They define themselves like this:


"Voix de faits is the media arm --web and radio-- of the anarchist collective La Nuit (UCL-Québec). Become a fan and follow our Blog with Facebook... [We never cease to forge ahead].

'Voix de faits’ seeks to advance the emergence of a radical and incisive fighting Left. We refuse to be defenceless victims! The flaccidity of the reformists plays the game of the populist right. The era of courtesy is at an end. It is necessary to intensify the criticism of Populism, to assert our rejection of the moral order, of security discourse, of nationalism and militarism. The values of liberty, equality, of sharing and of solidarity must serve as the counterpoise. The status quo is not an option, we should no longer hesitate to be anti-system, révolutionary and libertarian. The libertarian resistance must give itself the means to achieve its ambitions. By implementing a daily political intervention, ‘Voix de faits’ is marching in that direction."

Those are quite the connections for a political party which claims to align itself with the national aspirations of the Québécois! Microgroups that totally reject Nationalism and the Moral Order...

Are we dealing with a single political party that is acting on a number of fronts? In other words, an initial front which consists of allying itself with nationalist movements on the one hand while on the other hand opposing and denouncing the concept of nationalism and its virtues? Are we dealing with a party whose fundamental business is the political infiltration of that to which it is fundamentally opposed?

Finally, Québec Solidaire recently affirmed a wish to marginalize its own "radical left". This is far from being a done deal; worse still, it seems to be part of a strategy of trivialization of their radical wing.43 A number of journalists have come to the same conclusion: Amir Khadir and Françoise David, and their acolytes, are fanatics of the far-left.44, 45, 46, 47


Although not directly involved in the sovereigntist milieux, Gérard Bouchard and Charles Taylor are close to some of the major players directly or indirectly linked to various parties or movements of the far-left.

As said before, Gérard Bouchard co-chaired the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, besides being a professor of sociology at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi (UQAC), the same University where Étienne David-Bellemare had organized the conference on "Secularism and cultural and religious pluralism in Québéc society" with Gérard Bouchard as a guest speaker.48 This raises serious questions concerning the possible links that may be fostered by these two people in the same establishment.

Is it possible that Étienne David-Bellemare has been taken under the wing of Gérard Bouchard? The question can be seriously posed when one knows that Étienne is the son of such a well known political personality.

As well, it is interesting to note that Gérard Bouchard does not hide his political preference for Québec Solidaire, for during the lecture at McGill University as part of the prestigious "Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton Lecture 2010", he said that throughout the debate on "reasonable accommodation," Québec solidaire was the most "straightfoward" party, thus being the "best behaved" of all Québec's political parties.49

As well, Québec solidaire, through its two spokespersons, approved the full content of the Bouchard-Taylor report the same day of its publication… Could that be just a coincidence?50

And what are we to make of the declaration of Gérard Bouchard to the effect that we must "all together, throw OUR roots onto the next Saint-Jean Baptiste bonfire"?51 It is no secret to anyone that Mr. Bouchard conducted himself like a good "Soviet commissar" during the Commission on reasonable accommodation, dictating to the participants what to say and what to think instead of giving ear to the public's anxiety.52

Moreover, is it possible that Mr. Gérard Bouchard could endorse the militants and ideas of the far-left, notably when we know that the principal organizer of the Symposium comes from such a radical sphere of influence?

Besides, as was said before in the section on the NDP, Charles Taylor was a member of the New Democratic Party of Quebec (NDPQ) and an NDP candidate during the 1960s.53, 54 In fact, Charles Taylor is the political guru of Jack Layton, leader of the NPD.55

During the 2008 federal election campaign, Charles Taylor showed up to support Thomas Mulcair, NDP candidate in the riding of Westmount-Ville-Marie. We see him in this photo beside Julius Grey, a Montreal lawyer renowned for representing a diverse range of legal causes in large part linked to "reasonable accommodation" of a religious nature.56

Are we to deduce that the NDP, like Québec Solidaire, is a party which defends and promotes "open secularism," which consists in supporting religious causes other than Catholic? It is very strange that ex-commissioner Taylor could have been portrayed as an impartial person to act as commissioner, when the NDP party for which he has already run and which he still supports today, is far from promoting "open secularism" for all. . .

Which also leaves substantial room for doubt as to the political preferences of Charles Taylor… who, all in all, never had the impartiality necessary to chair such a commission on "reasonable accommodation".

Finally, it is quite ominous that both leaders of the Bouchard-Taylor commission are so closely involved with the anti-nationalist far-left and with political parties like Québec solidaire and the NDP which promote "open secularism". Can we really count on them to settle the debate on national identity, secularism and reasonable accommodation? The answer is no.


The CÉGEPS were created in 1967 with the passage of Bill 60 in the Quebec National Assembly.

It was also a time of rapid expansion of the Quebec university and college network. The social studies faculties were quick to embrace a vulgarized version of French university Marxism from the 1960s, recycled through countless professors recruited in Europe or via mass-hiring of Quebecers fresh from the mould of their studies in France. This is how an entire generation of young Quebecers was initiated to "Marxism", to "communism" and to "anarchism" through "philosophy" courses dispensed in our collegiate and university institutions.57, 58

It is also interesting to note that the former Centrale des Enseignants du Quebec (CEQ), (i.e., Quebec Teachers Union), the principal union of teachers of that era which had participated in the famous "Conference of the Left"59 with the C.S.N. (i.e., Gérald Larose), the F.T.Q. (i.e., the NDPQ), the NDP, the Parti Québécois, and the Communist Party of Québec. As one example of the influence of the far-left in the school system, there was a recent workshop on an introduction to libertarian communism at the Cégep in Alma, Québec with the permission of school management.60, 61 " We never cease to forge ahead. . ."

Quebec universities have not been spared. We can cite one example, the case of David Bellemare, President of the Student and Employees Union of UQAC and Research Assistant for the Canada Chair on Democracy and Sovereignty at the University of Québec at Chicoutimi.62


Considering the political origins of Gilles Duceppe, we are entitled to wonder if the fall of the Bloc was not entirely orchestrated by the Bloc itself with a view to extending the influence of the far-left over English Canada by delivering the keys to political power to the NDP, of which his own father was a founding member. A kind of return to one's sources?

The doubts grow considering the intention to form a coalition with Jack Layton's NDP, a man whom Gilles Duceppe ironically called a "dangerous socialist".63 When one looks at the facts, as Dawson College Professor of History Frédéric Bastien said: "we can better understand the extent to which the Bloc itself sawed off the branch it was seated on".64 Perhaps it's even easier to saw it off by pre-arrangement?

And this, without even taking into account the involvement of the various players, near and far, linked into the sovereignty and independence movements.

In light of all the facts, it becomes hard to think that the far-left and its worthy representatives have been unable to exploit the sovereignist movements at every level of the political classes, by infiltration.

Today we have the sad evidence. . .



Or click here to download the PDF'd Footnotes in a ZIP file (25MB unpacked).


1 - Canada Votes 2008, Leaders, Gilles Duceppe, elegant separatist
(Original url:

2 CBC News - Canada Votes 2006, Leaders, Gilles Duceppe, Bloc Québécois
(Original url: tes2006/leadersparties/leaders/bio_duceppe.html)

Jean Duceppe - Wikipédia
(Original url:

4 Le Jeune Militant, Radio-Canada Nouvelles 2007-05-10 (Original url: 07/05/10/005-bio_duceppe_militant.shtml)

5 Robert Burns (homme politique québécois) Wikipédia (Original url:

6 Le Jeune Militant, Radio-Canada Nouvelles 2007-05-10 (Original url: 07/05/10/005-bio_duceppe_militant.shtml)

7 Gilles Duceppe : L'homme qui détestait l'improvisation,, Le Soleil, Raymond Giroux, 2011-04-01 (Original url:
Original url:

8 Gilles Duceppe, un homme blessé, L'ex-chef du Bloc envoie un message au PQ: sous-estimer la défaite serait une erreur, Guillaume Bourgault-Côté (Le Devoir 14 mai 2011) (Original url:

9 Colloque de la gauche québécoise par Claire Sasylva (COMBAT, 25 septembre 1981, p. 4) (Original url:

Positions du PCQ sur les prochaines élections fédérales (2 mai 2011) par Gabriel Proulx, co-porte parole du PCQ (Original url: )

Le 14 mai dernier (2011): une soirée réellement motivante par Gabriel Proulx, co-porte parole du PCQ (Original url:

12 Positions du PCQ sur les prochaines élections fédérales (2 mai 2011) par Gabriel Proulx, co-porte parole du PCQ (Original url: l_application=articles&lang=fr)

13 Fonds d’archives Philippe Vaillancourt ( 127P ) Service des archives et de gestion des documents, Université du Québec à Montréal (Original url:

14 Partis membres de plein droit, Internationale socialiste, XXIII Congrès de l’Internationale Socialiste, Athènes, Solidarité mondiale : Le courage de faire la différence, 30 juin-02 juillet 2008 (Original url:

15 Résultats sans précédent pour les Nouveaux Démocrates Canadiens ( 06 mai 2011) Internationale Socialiste (Original url:

16 Nouveau Parti démocratique du Québec, Wikipédia, L'encyclopédie libre (Original url:

17 Nouveau Parti démocratique du Québec, Wikipédia, L'encyclopédie libre (Original url:

18 La Presse, 2 juillet 1963 (citée dans R. Denis, 1979) : Roch Denis, Luttes de classes et question nationale au Québec, 1948-1968, Presses socialistes internationales, Montréal, Études et documentation internationales, Paris, 1979, ISBN 2-89136-000-1, à la page 269, 2ième Référence.

19 L'Union des forces progressistes (UFP), Wikipédia, L'encyclopédie libre (Original url:

20 The NDP's missing constitution, by Leslie MacKinnon (CBC News, April 27, 2011 6:00 PM)
(Original url:

21 Terence Corcoran: Jack Layton’s hidden agenda (NDP’s hidden constitution opposes profits, backs ‘social ownership’) Apr 29, 2011 – 8:28 PM ET | Last Updated: Apr 29, 2011 8:35 PM ET (Original url: den-agenda/)

22 Terence Corcoran: Jack Layton’s hidden agenda (NDP’s hidden constitution opposes profits, backs ‘social ownership’) Apr 29, 2011 – 8:28 PM ET | Last Updated: Apr 29, 2011 8:35 PM ET (Original url: den-agenda/)

23 «L'inamovible WAC Bennett», Radio-Canada archives. «Aux élections du 27 août 1969, William Andrew Cecil Bennett, surnommé WAC Bennett... chef du Crédit social traite ses principaux adversaires, les néo-démocrates, de marxistes-leninistes.» (Original url:

24 «Charles Taylor analyse la défaite du NPD.» Radio-Canada. Date de diffusion : 12 décembre 1975. Le politologue Charles Taylor commente le résultat des élections de 1975 en Colombie-Britannique. (Original url: