Should we overthrow the Canadian Government?

For all his bluster Harper is the leader of an unstable minority government. Killing our soldiers for American lies and allowing war criminals to operate on our sovereign land; What do you think, should we topple the government for this?

Our country, founded on the principles of liberty and independence, is no longer our country, but instead has been hijacked by a group of businessmen and businessmen who play politicians who trample over our civil liberties and sell our independence to the highest bidder, both foreign or domestic. Today, corporations, not the people, write our laws and leave the needs of the nation to waste while money is spent for bombs and bullets and concentration camps. Under the last two administrations, which were stolen wantonly and openly by the hijackers, Americans have seen their retirements funds stolen, the nation's treasure pillaged, their jobs outsourced, their infrustructure dismantled, and their country plunged into a never-ending war crafted by Machiavellian-Neocon minds controlling the White House. Congress, beholden to these interests, have shirked their duties to represent the people and have colluded with the hijackers by passing unconstitutional laws like the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the John Warren Defense Appropriation Act, and countless others laws that will further erode our liberties and freedoms.

Isn't tax resistance the least we could do in light of all these injustices? When do we start expressing outrage (as well as freedom and bravery) by stopping the blood money spigot which is financing this rogue state? Just when do we decide to pull the plug on this illegal war that we were lied into and that has already killed over a million people? Just when do we stop paying our legislators who are actively working to destroy the U.S. Constitution? Just when do we stop funneling our tax dollars to be used to build concentration camps here in the United States for our own enslavement? Just when do we stop aiding and abetting torture?

At what point do we say enough is enough!?

These are the moral arguments to not pay federal taxes, but, for those of you who are worried that you are breaking the law by not paying the feds, rest assured that the very law itself says that you have no legal obligation to pay if you know that these money will be spent in the commission of a crime.

For instance, if you know that the government is breaking domestic and international law, and we have ample proof that they are, see: "Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture and Other Ill-treatment of Persons in Custody"; "US War Crimes During the Gulf War," by Francis Boyle ; "A Chronology of US War Crimes & Torture, 1975-2005" it is incumbent upon you to resist these crimes by refusing to finance them because, according to U.S. law, if you don't, you will be considered criminal liability and subject to prosecution.

According to our legal system when a person kills someone in the process of committing a crime, his accomplice (who wasn't directly involved in the killing) would be just as guilty as his partner who pulled the trigger. It doesn't matter that the accomplice didn't actually do the killing or that he might have objected to the use of such violence, to the U.S. legal system he is just as liable for murder as his partner and would be charged with 1st or 2nd degree murder.

Here is the definition of an "accomplice" in the legal dictionary:

"One who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime. One who is in some way concerned or associated in commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids or assists, or is an Accessory. One who is guilty of complicity in crime charged, either by being present and aiding or abetting in it, or having advised and encouraged it, though absent from place when it was committed, though mere presence, Acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act, is not enough, no matter how reprehensible it may be, to constitute one an accomplice. One is liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if he or she gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime."

-- The Legal Dictionary

I don't think it gets anymore explicit than that. The law is unambiguous: If you knowingly give assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent the commission of a crime you are liable as an accomplice to that crime. So, when we send Federal taxes off to the state and and we know the money will be used on an illegal war and to pay torturers, and to destroy our Constitution, we are breaking the law and can be held accountable.

Once again, the law is unambiguous, you would be breaking the law by being an accomplice to a crime by paying your federal taxes.

Now, many tax resisters are using various constituional arguments to not pay taxes. Some use the excuse that the 16th Amendment was never ratified, therefore, it is null and void; others say that tax laws only stipulate paying taxes made on certain profits, but not on income derived from labor. There may be some validity to these argument but I believe that we need to take a moral stance similar to what Henry David Thoreau would have advocated in "Civil Disobedience." It's one thing to say that taxes are wrong because it wasn't codified or was misused in a legal document, and another to say that taxes are wrong because they are being used to commit morally reprehensible and illegal acts.

The added bonus to this moral/legal argument is that it is unimpeachable in its logic: One doesn't have to be a tax law/Constitution scholar to argue the "accomplice to a crime" defense.

Please obey the law and refuse to be an accomplice to a crime. Stop paying your federal taxes.

'War by Way of Deception' Teaser

'Dear Disintormed,

Look the "illuminati" didn't create the Niger forgeries (which were used to accuse Iraq of buying nuclear materials). Michael Ledeen did. The new world order didn't oust Plame (the CIA agent).
Lewis Libby did. It you don't Know how to handle real facts and people with real names and faces. Then go play with your cult.'

This is a quote from the movie that I found interesting.




For those of you that want to climb into the rabbit hole and see how far Alice goes follow this Wink.

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?p=80922#80922

Active Denial System

Agents Provocateurs, pepper spay, billy bats and riot gear. Now the police state has a new tool. Called the Active Denial System it is a high powered directional microwave beam that causes pain. From the video evidence it looks like the pain threshold is crossed almost immediately. From what I've read there is some concern of permanent damage if 'subjects' are given prolonged exposure to the beam. Beam weapons are now a reality one difference between the reality and the science fiction is that these weapons do not have any visible 'beam'. If you are being hit with an ADS beam and do not see the ADS weapon good luck trying to figure out where its coming from and how to get out of the way.

Do you know the truth about the EU?

I'll be the first to admit that I don't. The author of this article has some startling assertions about it though.

"Its worth noting that Adolf Hitler first had to get elected, if on a 35% minority vote, and then get his Enabling Act passed. An EU dictator has no such problems. Our EU rulers do not submit themselves for election now. And the Queen has already signed the Enabling Act (Civil Contingencies Act 2004).

The EU's Hitler will have a much easier rise to power, and will have the formerly British and French nuclear weapons from day one. Adolf Hitler killed 54 million people. The EU's dictator could kill a billion at the touch of a button, with no democratic checks and balances to answer to. How could any aspiring dictator resist the EU opportunity?"

Anthony Sutton

Good Cop Bad Cop Provo-Cop

The use of Agents Provocateurs by the Surete du Quebec (Quebec Provincial Police force) is still reverberating. This video mentions how similar tactics were used to rip apart U.S. civil rights movements.

Update: Sûreté du Québec Agents Provocateurs at Montebello

I heard part of the press conference where the Sûreté du Québec made a statement. This statement was made under duress, they didn't want to make a statement but pressure has been building in both the Quebec National Assembly and the House of Commons all week and they essentially had to say something.

Their words were chilling. They admit to using Agents Provocateurs, they do not see anything wrong with their actions and have no intention of changing their approach. This is a rogue police agency!

The Sûreté du Québec insists on using their Orwellian New Speak words and take offence to the truth which is the fact that they were caught red handed using Agents Provocateurs in an attempt to provoke a riot. This type of behavior is to be expected from fascists as they twist the truth in order to make the unacceptable suddenly perfectly ok.

Update: Sûreté du Québec Agents Provocateurs at Montebello

THEY DID IT! The Sûreté du Québec dressed up some of their officers as punks with masks and tried to pick a fight with the Sûreté du Québec riot squad.

The Quebec Police have admitted it! Just in case there are some convenient historical revisions I'll just paste the whole press release here:


La Sûreté du Québec précise certains faits concernant le Sommet de Montebello

23 août 2007

À la suite de la diffusion d’un extrait vidéo sur le site Internet Youtube.com, impliquant possiblement des membres de la Sûreté du Québec lors du Sommet de Montebello, cette dernière aimerait apporter certaines précisions. Après avoir analysé son contenu, en plus de prendre connaissance des vidéos enregistrées par les corps policiers, elle est maintenant en mesure de confirmer que ces individus sont des policiers de la Sûreté du Québec. Ces derniers avaient le mandat de repérer et d’identifier les manifestants non pacifiques pour ainsi éviter les débordements. Les policiers ont été repérés par les manifestants au moment où ils ont refusé de lancer des projectiles.

En aucun temps, les policiers de la Sûreté du Québec ont agi comme agents provocateurs ou commis des actes criminels. De plus, ce n’est pas dans les politiques du service de police ni dans ses stratégies d’agir de cette manière. À tout moment, ils ont répondu à leur mandat de maintenir l’ordre et la sécurité.

The CBC has reported on the police admission in this video:



For those of you that reviewed the video from the crime scene; do you believe Sûreté du Québec? The Agents Provocateurs were discovered when they refused to throw rocks. Excuse me! The Sûreté du Québec Agents Provocateurs were the only ones with rocks!

These three Agents Provocateurs are guilty of attempting to start a riot. They need to be identified and charged. These men were not acting alone, their hierarchy knew and endorsed these activities. This is criminal behavior exhibited by Canadian police agencies and it needs to be fully investigated and all guilty parties reprimanded.

Unless the police are above the law, in which case this will be quickly forgotten and swept under the carpet. Contact your member of parliament tell them that the use of Agents Provocateurs by the Sûreté du Québec is unacceptable and MUST be addressed.

How many other protests in Canada have been disrupted by the use of Agents Provocateurs?

Sûreté du Québec Agents Provocateurs at Montebello

All that evil needs in order to thrive is for good men to remain silent. Thankfully Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada is a good man and he choose to speak up.

Here is an article posted to The Star's web site. I've reposted the article in full because stories such as this have a habit of being removed.

Police accused of using provocateurs at summit

Aug 21, 2007 09:14 PM

Canadian Press

OTTAWA – Protesters are accusing police of using undercover agents to provoke violent confrontations at the North American leaders' summit in Montebello, Que.

Such accusations have been made before after similar demonstrations but this time the alleged "agents provocateurs" have been caught on camera.

A video, posted on YouTube, shows three young men, their faces masked by bandannas, mingling Monday with protesters in front of a line of police in riot gear. At least one of the masked men is holding a rock in his hand.

The three are confronted by protest organizer Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. Coles makes it clear the masked men are not welcome among his group of protesters, whom he describes as mainly grandparents. He urges them to leave and find their own protest location.

Coles also demands that they put down their rocks. Other protesters begin to chime in that the three are really police agents. Several try to snatch the bandanas from their faces.

Rather than leave, the three actually start edging closer to the police line, where they appear to engage in discussions. They eventually push their way past an officer, whereupon other police shove them to the ground and handcuff them.

Late Tuesday, photographs taken by another protester surfaced, showing the trio lying prone on the ground. The photos show the soles of their boots adorned by yellow triangles. A police officer kneeling beside the men has an identical yellow triangle on the sole of his boot.

Kevin Skerrett, a protester with the group Nowar-Paix, said the photos and video together present powerful evidence that the men were actually undercover police officers.

"I think the circumstantial evidence is very powerful," he said.

The three do not appear to have been arrested or charged with any offence.

Police confirm that only four protesters were arrested during the summit – two men and two women. All have been charged with obstruction and resisting arrest.

Veteran protester Jaggi Singh, who is helping to circulate the video as widely as possible, said all four of those arrested are known to organizers and are genuine protesters.

"But we see very clearly in that video three (other) men being arrested . . . How do (police) account for these three people being taken in, being arrested? Where did they go?" Singh said.

"I have no hesitation in saying they were police agents . . . and they were caught red-handed."

Singh, a member of the Montreal-based No One is Illegal, believes the agents were meant to provoke a confrontation and give the police an excuse to use some of their "toys," such as tear gas and rubber bullets.

"To a certain extent it's self-fulfilling logic. You provide police with this kind of equipment and they end up using it and one way to justify it is to plant some people that toss a rock or two."

Neither the RCMP nor the Surete du Quebec would comment on the video or even discuss generally whether they ever use the tactic of employing agents provocateurs.

"I cannot answer your question because I don't have the information," said Const. Kane Kramer, a spokesman for the RCMP at the summit.

We normally think of our police as being good upstanding citizens that have taken an oath to uphold the law. Unfortunately this logic does not seem to apply when citizens wish to voice their political will, because it has been demonstrated that the police are quite capable and willing to break the law in these cases.

Italian media have been publishing transcripts of an inquiry into the policing of the 2001 Genoa G8 summit in which officers admit fabricating evidence against protesters.

At the centre of the inquiry is a police raid on a school being used as a dormitory by anti-globalisation demonstrators, in which dozens of people were injured.

A senior officer, Pietro Troiani, reportedly admitted under questioning that two petrol bombs allegedly found at the school were planted by police to justify the raid.

Here is a link to the full article from the BBC

Subverting Sovereignty in America, Canada and Mexico

Canadians Protest At The Montebello Summit

Montebello Protests