Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Are We Being Ruled By A Travelling Politburo?

Are We Being Ruled By A Travelling Politburo?

Politburo: “the executive committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and of certain other nations”

( http://www.yourdictionary.com/politburo )

We see many leaders of nations travelling to different countries each year to hold meetings. Example: The G20 and the G8, the most recent example was in Toronto, Canada, where many of them congregated to discuss World Policy. In fact a number of media outlets, were calling this gathering a, “World Summit.” Which begs the question: When did the peoples’ of many of these different countries who still have a supposed “parliamentary system” hand over their national sovereignty to a travelling politburo? Are we being conditioned to accept some form of “World Government?” Or is it already here? After all, we have a “World Bank,” a “World Health Organization,” a “World Court,” an “International Monetary Fund,” which imposes austerity programmes on elected governments, so perhaps the world dictatorship has already arrived. But, we did not notice it happening. But, I digress. Now back to questions about the travelling politburo.

Are decisions being made and policies being designed to be implemented without discussion in national parliaments of the free world? Communist China is a dictatorship, yet it was a participant in these discussions by the travelling politburo. In fact its leader was an honored guest at a dinner put on by the Canadian government and attended by some powerful business interests. [1]

And the un-elected President of Europe, Herman Van Rompuy, was also a participant at these meetings. The Brussels Journal had this to say about the European Union (E.U)

“Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.” [2]

One might ask the question: Are these heads of state giving up some of their national sovereignty? After all, whose interests are being served when these “leaders” of various countries are making decisions outside their parliaments without holding debates in their own countries about policies being enacted at these G8 and G20 meetings? And why are the parliamentary oppositions in all these countries not asking these questions? And one might ask: Why are the investigative media not asking pertinent questions about these meetings? Who is behind them? Who arranged them? Who started them? Are there other forces, unelected, behind the scenes the real powers that be? I believe, we need answers to these questions.

Other questions that could be asked are; why is there no clamp down on offshore tax havens? Another question: are these tax havens the places where many of the financial elites keep their money? We have seen huge amounts of the peoples’ tax dollars being used to bail out, oops, I mean stimulate financial institutions that in fact caused the present financial crisis. And some of these financial institutions have subsidiaries in offshore tax havens. But, instead, these so called leaders are talking about “deficits,” and “paying down the debt,” living within our means,” and all the other slogans they use to put the boots to the taxpayers. Meanwhile, the un-elected banksters are advising them on “monetary policy.”

“In recent months, G20 countries have submitted their economic plans to the IMF - which would then assess what the net impact would be on the global economy.” [3]

And “global economic governance” is now being facilitated.

“The Group of Twenty ("G-20") nations, the new Financial Stability Board ("FSB"), and the International Monetary Fund ("IMF") are progressing on two fronts: the monitoring and revision of national and regional economic plans to facilitate global economic governance…” [4]

And so the un-elected “advisers” for “global governance” have their travelling political politburo puppets making the decisions that are contrary to freedom and democracy.

Stephen J Gray
June 29, 2010.


[1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/spector-vision/the-photo-harper-doesnt-want-you-to-see/article1617411/

[2] http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865

[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/06/imf_says_g20_could_do_better.html


Further reading and links to articles below:
Bilderberg 2010: What we have learned

A huge agenda of global issues was crammed into four days of 'secret' meetings by a mysterious group of power brokers. But who elected them and why are we paying for them?




Saturday, June 26, 2010

The Political School

I must say I am encouraged to see that we have a full class for the opening of the political school. For some time I have felt there was a need for this type of school. After all, we have schools for other occupations, such as plumbing, journalism, law, cooking, etc., so why not a political school? Looking at all you students eagerly awaiting training in this political school tells me just how much you all want to be involved in the political management of the country. It is good to see such interest.

I see from your resumes that you all come from various political backgrounds. Some want to be Socialist politicians, others Liberal and still others Conservative, with a small sprinkling of Communists, Greens and others. This is good, for we are a non-partisan school and with the blurring of political ideology, floor crossing, and double-crossing these days, political labels mean nothing. The job is the thing, and of course the remuneration that comes with it. With a starting salary of around $150,000 dollars a year plus expenses, pensions, and perks, this is a dream job (but a nightmare for the people who elected you). That is, of course, provided any of you reach the pinnacle of your political aspirations, which I am sure you will.

Where else can you get a starting salary of around $150,000 a year with no experience needed, no training, and no knowledge of how the political system works? Of course this is where the political school comes in: we will give you the tools to make a success of your political career should you manage to persuade the people to elect you in the party of your choice.

Now let us get down to the first lesson. When running for political office the first thing you must do is make nice sounding promises. Tell the people that you have a vision for the country, that you have a plan. What will your vision and plan be? This is entirely up to you. Visions and plans come in all shapes and sizes. Remember that old saying: “Throw the dogs a bone.” Well this saying holds true for people. Mind you, I am not saying people are dogs (much laughter from the class) but people do like to be fed things especially monetary promises from the taxes they have already paid. So promising them a financial inducement is always good bait in an election. Should you succeed and get into office and be government you can always renege on your promise. This is how politics works. First you ask for a cross next to your name at the ballot box then you double cross the stiffs, oops, I mean the people, once you are elected.

(More laughter ensues and the trainee politicians bang their desks just like the elected politicians do in parliament.) The teacher continues: Wow, I see most of you have learned the desk-banging trick; well done. Now as I was saying before the interruption by your quickly-learned “parliamentary procedure,” a good example of this reneging on a promise is the hated Gobbling Suckers Tax (GST). Now it is accepted and brings in billions of dollars to government coffers, and now there is another tax in the offing called the Hammer the Serfs Tax (HST) But, I digress.

Another important lesson you will learn at our school is Political speak or Poli-speak as I like to call it. I will give you an example, seeing it is your first day, but we will go into Poli-speak at length in your next lesson. Here is an example of words you will have to learn in a crisis situation: “We must move forward in this complex situation, with a measured response, but it is a challenge and challenges are good. We can become better persons because of them and fulfill our hopes and dreams in the process. Read my lips no more taxes.” So what does that all mean? It means nothing, nothing at all. They are just words to use or should I say political B.S. in a crisis situation and something for the media to report and for the masses to read in the newspapers. But the words sound good and that is what I call Poli-speak.

Notice all the words I’ve used are positive, and this is the way you will learn to speak even when, as politicians, you are, as the old saying goes, “caught with your pants down” and in poop up to your eyeballs. But, if you know the right words, all can be made clean. (More laughter ensues, and all the class seem to be enjoying the course.) And so ended the first day of the political school.

Stephen J. Gray
June 26, 2010.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

The Political Potentates

The political potentates from various countries were coming to visit the land. Much preparation had been done in their honor. The host potentate of the honored land was reportedly spending over a billion dollars of the serfs tax money to make them all feel at home. Fences and cameras were installed at the meeting place and it was reported that snipers were positioned on the roofs of nearby buildings. The serfs who were paying for all this security were not allowed near the place of honor, because it was said that there were those amongst the serfs who were not impressed with these would-be “princes” of politics. Still, it was a sign of how much these “rulers” were loved that they had to be isolated for their safety.

Safely ensconced in their rich and opulent surroundings, the new political “royalty” would discuss their solutions to all the problems of the world. Some of them were communist, others capitalists, some could be called dictators and others despots, some were free marketers and others were freeloaders; this was a motley group of state heads—or head cases, depending on one’s point of view. They would issue upbeat press releases to the controlled and over-taxed masses and tell them they were working on solutions and that they were all moving forward in unison to help the people everywhere. “Yeah sure,” thought some cynical people.

A number of the people thought that their political “masters” were a gathering of gossips wasting time with other peoples’ money; but hey, who cared what the serfs thought. This was the “princes of politics weekend” and they were all going to have a ball at the peoples’ expense.

No expense was to be spared for the comfort and enjoyment of the political potentates. A fake lake was even built courtesy of the serfs tax dollars; now the people knew the meaning of that old saying, “money flows like water.” The honored ones would also be watered and fed in a manner fitting their status as political princes. The camp followers of the political potentates would also be part of the extravaganza; some were called “sherpas” and they in turn had assistants called “yaks.” These are the new buzz words of the political elites. After all, “sherpas” sounds better than sycophantic bureaucrats feeding off the serfs tax dollars and “yaks” is a good fit, for there will be plenty of noisy yakking going on as they spend the serfs’ tax dollars.

Big dollars for big personages would be spent to “showcase” the land, and a political flack reportedly said, the gathering of the “great” was worth every penny! Still, some of the serfs were thinking over a billion dollars was a lot of pennies for an orgy of political excess. But, these were considered to be negative people whose only contribution to this gathering of the “greats” would be their tax dollars paying the bills.

Alas, bills are the serfs lot in life, and to be ruled and fooled, and taxed to the max by out-of-control political “princes.” At one time, political leaders used to be described as servants of the people. Now the people are servants, or serfs, of these political potentates.

Stephen J. Gray
June 24, 2010.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Was the Rand Decision a Fix?

I wrote this some years ago. SJG

“It cannot be stressed enough that the coercion which unions have been permitted to exercise contrary to all principles of freedom under the law is primarily the coercion of fellow workers” (F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty).

The architect of compulsory union dues in Canada was an appointed judge: Mr. Justice Ivan C. Rand. Judge Rand was appointed arbitrator in the dispute between the Ford Motor Company in Windsor, Ontario, and the United Auto Workers Union now known as the C.A.W. He handed down his decision on January 29,1946, a decision, that made union dues compulsory.

The Liberal politician who helped “bring about his appointment” was Mr. Paul Martin Senior, who wrote in his memoirs, A Very Public Life (Volume 1, pages 395-396),

“Although I knew that Rand’s views on the rights of labour were encompassed within a progressive social outlook, I wondered whether I could convince the cabinet to appoint him…Privately, I knew that the workers were getting fed up and might revolt against the strike leaders if a settlement was not found soon. This I wanted to avoid, for it would set the cause of unionism in Canada back ten years…I encouraged Pat Conroy and George Addes to urge the mass meeting on 14 December to vote for a new ballot. Conroy knew, because I had told him confidentially, that Mr. Justice Rand would be the arbitrator…”

Mr. Paul Martin Senior, a Liberal cabinet member at the time, is also quoted in an article by David Moulton (in the book On Strike, edited by Irving Abella, page 147):

“…Martin, who knew Rand personally, recalls, ‘I talked with him [Rand] about these problems…I knew his views…he was a man who knew the evolution that was taking place in social thinking… he had been thinking about these questions for a long time…and it just happened I was in a position to help bring about his appointment’”

And the union leaders are quoted on page 146 of On Strike as saying:

“…Conroy came up and gave us to understand that the government would pick a strictly impartial person sympathetic enough… they almost told us they would give us some kind of union security…we couldn’t tell the workers that…” [emphasis added]

(Note: Pat Conroy was Secretary/Treasurer of the Canadian Congress of Labour at this time.)

It would appear by the aforementioned quotes that arrangements had been made and that the politically correct decision would come down, and it did. A person didn’t have to “belong” to the union, but must pay union dues. Involuntary dues payment was now legalized in Canada.

This decision by Justice Rand was eventually enacted into labour legislation across Canada. Now over 30% of the workforce are compelled into financing and supporting--with their compulsory union dues--socialism, same-sex marriage, abortion clinics, and numerous other issues unrelated to the workplace.

Stephen J. Gray
December 1, 2007

Monday, June 7, 2010

Harper says No to Bank Tax, Yes to HST

“…the federal government is aiding and abetting the provinces. It plans to pay B.C. and Ontario almost $6 billion to ease the transition to the HST” (CBC News, October 7, 2009).

The Harmonized Sales Tax, or Hammer the Serfs Tax (HST), will be coming into force July 1st 2010, and our tax dollars, from the Harper Tories, will be paying the Liberal governments of BC and Ontario to impose it upon us. Now we know the meaning of that old saying, “Liberal, Tory, same old story.”

This is the same Mr. Harper who is on record as saying this: “I don’t believe any taxes are good taxes.” [1]

Oh really Mr. Harper? Then why is your government handing over “almost $6 billion” of the peoples’ tax dollars to provincial Liberal governments to bring in the HST?

And the Globe and Mail quoted Mr. Harper as saying this:.

“We believe there is no justification for levies on banks and financial institutions,” [2]

Many of these banks and financial institutions have subsidiaries in offshore tax havens. A CBC news story of May 31, 2010, said this:

“CBC News and the Globe and Mail newspaper reported last fall that the CRA probed Royal Bank of Canada Dominion Securities (RBCDS) for information on 15 Canadians, all with alleged links to Liechtenstein. The CRA said that probe ended up confirming the agency’s suspicions.” [3]

And an article in the Guardian newspaper of 13th December 2009 had these headlines:
“Drug money saved banks in global crisis, claims UN advisor”

“Drugs and crime chief says $352bn in criminal proceeds was effectively laundered by financial institutions” [4]

Mr. Harper does not want a tax on banks or financial institutions. Surely these banks and financial institutions in offshore tax havens should not only be taxed but investigated as well if they are engaged in nefarious activities?

Still, the big activity in Canada will be July 1st Canada Day, and the imposition of the Hammer the Serfs Tax (HST]. This HST will tax just about everything that moves and does not move. It is a politician's dream and the people's nightmare. It’s too bad Mr. Harper is not as good as fighting for the people of Canada as he is for the big banks. He says No to a Bank tax but says Yes to the HST.

Stephen J. Gray

June 7, 2010


[1] http://blog.canadianbusiness.com/no-taxes-are-good-taxes-harper/

[2] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/economy/canada-eu-at-loggerheads-over-bank-tax/article1557236/

[3] http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/27/liechtenstein-banks-tax.html

[4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims