If you aren't looking forward to the North American Union, here's an explanation of why Canada, yes CANADA, might be a problem.
You see, their rights come from the government. All things not expressly granted to the subjects are reserved for the Canadian government(s).
Yes, subjects. They never obtained their freedom from the British Empire...
If you've ever talked with a fan of their medical system and its fairness, you know what I mean.
Would any of it make a good 51st or 52nd State? I'm not sure!
Scary!!
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Hilarious. Thank you.
And I am British , also proud to be Canadian and yes I do rightly despise shameful and foolish US foreign policies, and any system that requires $$$$$$$ to run for any office including those "democratic" judicial appointments you are so proud of.
Tragically, British Subjects disappeared in the British Nationality Act 1981. Do your research.
The notion of being a Subject is the only notion in perfect harmony with both the Bible and Conservatism. Anything else is man-centred Rebellion and sin.
The turning of the Queen into a mere "citizen" of the European Union was a treasonable act.
(I'm always glad to amuse. Thanks for your indulgence! :^)
So, the point of the article was well made? Yes: It will be hard to harmonize us rebellious Yanks and you subservient Canucks.
The Bible tells us to be good slaves until such time as we can be free. For good or ill, we're free.
However, a very popular slogan of our rebellion was "No King but King Jesus!" You have a problem with that?
To whom would you have us be in bondage so that our continued sin may cease?
And... What's the better side of having non-democratic life-time appointments to the judiciary?
Me again.
Well I'm not going to provide the minutiae of all the weaknesses in your system - you bloggers are already very good at that. My point is that the reason why you have so MANY problems lie with the heart of your system.
What's the alternative to "democratic" appointments to the judiciary ? - well competent appointments made by trusted experts in the field with a sense of duty and public service and not with regard to the campaign purse string holders.
Ever heard the saying that a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine?
Ever considered the virtue of a constitionally supreme parliament under the crown where the rights of man have been laid down for centuries?
Ever considered the number of times that having unelected Law Lords sitting in the UK Parliament scrutinising legislation upfront have protected a nation from unrestrained foolishness from an "elected" government?
A good friend of mine is a successful politician in a substantial city in Canada. His election expenses come to less than $500. His US counterparts are amazed that he can even run without spending thousands upon thousands in a campaign. Which system is the most "democratic"?
Did Jesus say "No King but King Jesus"? Hardly. Likewise, did he say that we should pretend that all men are "Kings"? That is not the meaning of a "royal priesthood".
We reject the "divine rights of Kings" falsely so-called and have no intention of investing them in any other man. When did your Congress declare war in Iraq? Where was your separation of powers and your constitution then? Rather the US led war was delayed for 3 days to enable the UK Parliament to debate it according to our constitution! You are not as independent of your friends as WND likes to think you are, thank you for the courtesy. Are you sure you are "free"?
Some things can't be fixed when broken and you are living with the consequences.
Is Canada or the UK perfect? Far from it but in principle it is a much more biblical system built upon centuries of wisdom.
Yes, it's good that we are agreed. Like you I reject a NAU. Just as much as I reject the ideas behind both the EU's - the European Union and the Etats Unis.
Thank you.
Given that Canada's judiciary has all but gutted the rights of Englishmen as they would have been understood in the 1689 Bill of Rights, I don't know that I'd commend that system to anyone.
Never mind that someone within the political system must appoint those so-called "impartial" experts--sorry, but delegation doesn't reduce the reality that it is in fact a political choice.
Moreover, exactly what good does it do to have politics run without money--this effectively insulates the political parties from the will of the people, which here tends to be a bit more in line with the Constitution than the will of politicians.
A few billion every two years is CHEAP compared to waiting three months for gallbladder surgery, or lacking the means of self-defense when you need it.
Bert, you lacked the means to defend yourself when you needed your gallbladder surgery? I'm sorry, I didn't know! ;^) And what took you so long getting here?!?
I like that Anonymous claims to be a citizen not a subject because of a particular legal act of very recent vintage. - What man has given, man can take.
Well, the hospital certainly didn't want Connie's Kimber there, but I did have my pepper spray in my jeans nearby. So I wasn't completely defenseless.
That's good to know.
The hospital was a posted (g)unsafe zone?
Bah!
Yup, most clinics here are. I've found a couple that are not, but most are posted victim disarmament zones.
Well, you can hardly blame them.
It's just good business sense!
:^?
Post a Comment