The United Nations and Helpers Aim to Destroy Christianity

by Jane Gaffin

A 100-foot-tall statue of Christ the Redeemer, his inviting arms opened 92-feet wide, has kept a kindly presence over his flock from atop Corcovado Mountain since the famous Rio de Janeiro landmark’s official lighting ceremony of October 12, 1931.

Somehow, supposedly tampering with the illuminating rods, the icon that reverently symbolizes Brazilian Christianity ended up flooded with garish green lights during the United Nations (UN) 10-day Rio+20  jabberwocky in late June, 2012.

One would think that when ill-mannered Marxist brats are guests in someone else’s house they could at least refrain from trashing sacred art objects.

As noted by esteemed writer Alex Newman of New American, shortly before the conference’s official opening, green legend James Lovelock — the “scientist” and environmental guru who initially introduced the whole UN “Gaia” concept to be worshipped as a one-world religious symbol — warned that the “green religion” was going to sink Christianity.

Understandably, UN critics and many Christians were outraged.

Shedding light on the matter, Newman expounded in The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked that “Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy advisor to former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and one of the most well-known opponents of the UN’s supposed environmental agenda, called it (the green stunt) ‘a kind of childish message that the environmental religion is now replacing Christianity,’ ”

More powerful men than James Lovelock and Simon Fish, vice president of Toronto-based BMO Financial Group, have tried unsuccessfully to wipe out Christianity for 2,000 years.

Throughout various pockets of history, Christianity has been pushed underground, even as recently as Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao’s “Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom” Campaign that flushed out dissidents opposed to party ideology. The clergy was either executed or banished to hard-labour camps where many died.

But Christianity didn’t die. The spirit of God lives within people’s souls and cannot be killed.

Presently, in China, Christianity is booming, propelling the country toward becoming the world’s largest Christian nation.

A groundswell of multimillions of Protestants/Catholics/Unknowns out of a possible 1.3 billion population have the momentum going to scare the pants off members of the Communist Party who seem to realize the futility in trying to wipe out Christianity by simply toppling man-made crosses from steeples and razing stone-and-mortar buildings.

Brave Chinese Christians simply put everything back in place and wait to be arrested or for the next demolition crew to show up. So far, the only imaginative crackdown remedy President Xi could conjure up is the threat to “nationalize” the surging religion to bring Chinese Christianity into compliance with the “party line”.

Concurrently, Xi’s neighbour, Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to be cultivating Christianity into his country’s prime religion.

While Christianity gains popularity in Communist-based countries, Canada is hell bent on dumping Christianity.

That fact did not escape President Putin: “We see that many Euro-Atlantic (the Western) States have taken the way where they deny or reject their own roots, including their Christian roots which form the basis of Western civilisation.”

Canada is “following politically-correct orders” from the United Nations, the international organization that has to destroy Christianity and the Bible to eliminate the supreme, God-based constitutions governing legitimate governments of the Western World that clash with the United Nations Charter.

Under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, an obscure Army manual cites the Christian Bible as one item that can find a person categorized as “terrorist”, “racist” or “mentally ill”. If not murdered for the transgression, the “sinner” will be forever institutionalized as a certifiable nut case.

Therefore, Christianity has to be eradicated to easily sell the masses on the ideology that national constitutions and their Bill of Rights are outmoded folly. In the Western civilization, people’s liberties and freedoms are protected as natural, God-given, inalienable rights, rooted firmly in British Common Law, Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Magna Carta of 1215, which has withstood the test of time for 800 years this June 15th.

However, through brainwashing and the gradual erosion of morality, integrity and spirituality the Marxists intend to break the back of freedom-loving countries. Carrying out the job for the United Nations are innumerable political puppets, the willing types referred to by Russian revolutionist Vladimir Lenin as “useful idiots”.

Alex Newman explains the double-dealing that goes on in the UN underbelly in his December 31, 2014 New American piece, UN Seeks to Criminalize Free Speech:

“Even the whole UN notion of ‘human rights’ should be viewed for what it is: a tool of tyrants to attack the real rights that have underpinned Western traditions since the Magna Carta.

“Indeed, unbeknownst to average Americans and humanity as a whole, the UN means something very different when it discusses ‘human rights’ than, say, the unalienable, God-given rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

“In the American system, rights such as self-defense, free speech, religious liberty, trial by jury, privacy, and property ownership are endowed by the Creator upon every individual — a truth that America’s Founding Fathers viewed as “self-evident.”

Everyone — Christian or not — has a huge stake in Christianity, declared the sage columnist Dr. Paul Craig Roberts in his powerful Christmas: The Greatest Gift for All message “Whether or not we are individually believers in Christ, we are beneficiaries of the moral doctrine…”

The latest Antichrist travesty has come from the Canadian banks, owned by Canadians, the majority Christian Canadians.

I’m doing my darndest to separate the Bank of Montreal, where I’ve done business for 48 years, dating back to when banks acted like banks, from the BMO Financial Group.

Bank lawyer, Simon Fish, seems to feel there’s nothing that quite needs reforming so much as other people’s habits and beliefs. He is trying to blackmail Christians into changing their conduct code, otherwise the banks and some 70 plus Canadian corporations will see that those people are ban from finding employment anywhere in Canada, starting with professionals such as lawyers, physicians, teachers and trickling down the list to tradesmen, labourers and service workers.

The burr under Fish’s saddle started with the private, 4,000-student Trinity Western University (TWU) at Langley, British Columbia, where students practice morality and good character in their daily lives.

The faculty and students believe strongly that marriage is between a man and a woman and are committed to family values. They shun Marxist ideology of “free love” and promiscuous sex.

Fish, who probably received his marching orders from the CEO and Board, attached his signature to a March 26, 2014 letter advising the Law Society of Upper Canada to not grant accreditation to lawyers degreed at Trinity Western University.

The law societies of Nova Scotia and British Columbia, in a backflip, came onside. To date, law societies in all other Canadian jurisdictions are granting membership to TWU law graduates, but not for long if the intolerant Canadian banks get their way.

University of Ottawa-degreed lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos, who holds to Christian beliefs, outlined in his January 9, 2015 article Christian Lawyers and Doctors Need Not Apply:

“TWU, which exists to ‘develop godly Christian leaders’ in a variety of marketplaces, requires its students and staff to sign a Community Covenant.

“This pledge, based on religious beliefs, to abstain from certain activities and behaviours during their time at TWU, includes the use of alcohol on campus, viewing pornography, and ‘sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.’

“…a concerted effort to block TWU’s law school was engaged by lawyers’ professional associations deciding to disapprove of its graduates.

“The Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society, the (Ontario) Law Society of Upper Canada and the Law Society of British Columbia each decided to refuse admission to TWU graduates to the practice of law because of TWU’s adherence to the biblical view of marriage.

“To do so, these law societies chose to disregard the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2001 decision, which ruled that a professional body could not refuse to accredit students from a TWU program because of TWU’s Community Covenant.”

In rendering the 2001 decision, Canada’s top court cited a raftload of passages from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Further, to be brought to the attention of BMO Financial Group and its supporters, is the Mobility Rights 6(2)(b), which was not at issue in Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 772, 2001 SCC 31.

“Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.”

These politically-correct witchhunters, an extreme madman practice I thought went out of fashion in Salem in 1693, need to view remarks posted by TWU graduates and others in response to certain articles, specifically the Vancouver Sun’s Proposed Christian Law School at Trinity Western Under Fire Because of University’s Anti-Gay Rules.

Respondents varied in skin colouring; admitted homosexuality; or spoke of following non-Christian religious persuasions. The common denominator, however, was their enjoying and appreciating their time on TWU’s campus.

So what’s the problem? What’s wrong with aspiring to be a good person?

TWU does not reject applicants as long as they adhere to house rules like the ones by which offsprings must abide as long as they live under their parents’ roof. If the applicants don’t like the rules, they are free to enroll at any of Canada’s public law schools.

Why are the bloodthirsty Marxist busybodies whipping up a frenzy to protect students from discrimination who don’t seem to be suffering discrimination? Students posting comments did not sound like they needed or wanted outside interference.

The next time a customer service rep coos sweetly at me, “I see from your account that you don’t have a BMO Mastercard, and they’re so-o-o handy”, I have a souvenir to hand to the rep to read and share with bank colleagues.

It’s a three-pager, penned by long-time BMO customer Lou Iacobelli of Toronto, headed “Why I Will Be Cancelling My BMO Mastercard”. It spells out the sordid mess that is not a BMO Financial Group banking matter, but starkly defines a discriminatory policy that smacks of Christian bigotry.

Whereas corporations have the right to make whatever internal policies they want, I have the option to obtain a credit card from a source not connected to any of the five major Canadian banks.

The central Bank of Canada has a mandate to hold Canadians’ money in Trust, keeping it safe and secure, which is what renders the Canadian banking system the envy of the world.

My gold-plated suggestion is that the banks bow out of meddling in matters of sexuality, ethnicity and religion and get back to tending to the business of banking, thus ensuring that debts incurred gambling on the derivatives, currency and mortgage markets can be covered without having to rob middle-class depositors’ accounts and pension funds to cover losses when the bubbles pop.

Goodness is the only investment that will never fail you.

Practice it, BMO!



A War of Wills: Agenda 21 Can Be Crushed


by Jane Gaffin

“Sustainability”, “stakeholder”, “partnership”, “stewardship”, “environmental” (this or that), “community planning”, “municipal funding” and a host of other innocuous-sounding, politically-correct terms are spinoffs from the United Nations (UN) Agenda 21, a pervasive, conspiratorial system absorbing all constitutional-rights systems.

Bluntly put, Agenda 21 spells totalitarianism, which, in its final form, means the State demands to exercise total control over the individual.

Yet the essence of a free life is supposed to mean the right to choose the style of living one prefers. Under the rule of Agenda 21, you can forget freedoms of everything.

Whether that tyrannical system of governance follows the brutal doctrine of Marxism, communism, Nazism, fascism, environmentalism or the Evil Eye doesn’t matter a whit. The difference between these political theories is infinitesimally small as to not matter one iota. All of them want everything good banned, including the teaching of minion workers to count beyond 100.

The significant part to this type Marxoid gibberish is that the top kleptocratic potentate, and the cabal of quislings who help the psychotic in his quest to be Top Dawg, desires to own every individual’s body, brain, soul and schedule.

Agenda 21 is the root rot at the base of every contentious issue and controversy facing the world today. To wage an effective fight against any of these politically-correct policies or problems is like trying to nail jelly to the wall unless people clearly understand what Agenda 21 is all about.

Then, and only then, can that indescribable evil be slain. Otherwise, it will continue expanding like a great omnipresent ameba that it is.

This odious, complexly-structured blueprint serves a United Nations (UN) social engineering cult in ruling the masses in the 21st century. It is a ghastly cradle-to-grave, people-control plot, which, prevalent since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, is about making people’s lives miserable.

Yet most people claim never to have heard of the noxious Agenda 21 that is unfolding in front of their closed eyes.

One reason most people think they haven’t heard of it is because the corporate-owned, propagandizing mediots and presstitutes have been directed by the powers-that-be not to address the nightmare by name that is consuming humanity from every direction, every second of every day.

Regardless, Agenda 21 is not a huge secret. Information is readily available on the Internet and in print. And it was the unprecedented Internet technology that was the unintended wild card that somewhat stemmed Agenda 21’s early rapid progress by assisting greatly in educating at least a portion of the public.

Therefore, the “aggrieved” UN wants total control over the Internet in 2015 so it can tax every common user out of existence. But this will no doubt backfire. It is highly probable that at this very moment brainy entrepreneurial technocrats are busy with the feasible development of a counter network to offset whatever the UN steals.

However, the problem with the Agenda 21 literature is that the material is presented in deceitful Orwellian Double Speak language to make the New World Order sound peaceful, environmentally-friendly and conducive to people living happily ever after in a Utopian society.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In comparison to what Agenda 21 has in store for world populations actually makes the iron-fisted North Korean police state appear as enticing as a sweet, dazzling paradise.

Astute freelance writer and editor Daisy Luther at The Organic Prepper has read between the lines of the 300-page action plan titled Earth Summit Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio and submitted her truthful interpretations to the world-at-large.

Her insightful, starter-kit essay, Agenda 21: Full Spectrum Domination and related posts have concisely boiled down an ultra-complex subject that will help the beginner get the drift of what governments are dumping on our heads everyday in our countries, our communities and subtly destroying everybody’s lives.

“The peace-loving tree huggers at the UN have devised a plan for the world,” her February 28, 2012 piece begins.

“The friendly folks at the UN’s Department for Sustainable Development have a master plan for us all.

“Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

“So let’s see if we understand this correctly. A plan of action. Got it.

“To be taken globally…okay – everyone must participate.

“In every area in which human impacts on the environment….yep, that covers everyone and everything in the entire world. It’s a warm fuzzy way to take over the world!

“Group hug, anyone?”

She covers sections on how the “action plan” impacts Social and Economic Dimensions; Conservation and Management of Resources for Development; and Strengthening the Role of Major Groups.

Oh, joy. The Means of Implementation is the bellringer.

“This section,” writes Ms. Luther, “describes how to get the whole world on board the happy train to Agenda 21-land.

“Redistribution of financial resources (i.e., taking it away from some and sharing it among others), technology (public transit, “equal” distribution of energy usage, monitoring of behaviours through big brother technologies) science and environmentalism (removing people from rural areas to “save” the natural resources from pollution and mismanagement), re-education (brainwashing with propaganda) and restructuring of local governments (installing puppet leaders).

She warns that all this peace and love Agenda 21 claptrap does not focus strictly on third-world countries either; the developed countries of North America and Europe are part and parcel of the reverse Robin Hood theme of “steal from the poor, give to the rich” and doing it at “warp speed”.

With the decline of the American farm, people are being funnelled into the cities in search of work. With the decline of the economy, fewer people can afford private transportation and are therefore limited to the places that public transit will take them.

“Support of the local down-trodden is geared to further incite class warfare. Separation of families through child protection agencies, big brother parenting, and the dumbing down of our education system is planned to break down our society even further. Publicly funded health care will dictate toxic vaccinations, secretive sterilization, eugenics of the elderly and less-productive members of society, and mandated birth control.”

The writer gets it. She sees very clearly that nothing–but nothing–has escaped Agenda 21’s Full Spectrum Domination by the 1%.

“It guarantees both birth control and death control. It promises the basic essentials of life in return for submission. It exchanges critical thinking for re-education and brainwashing.

“It destroys the epicenter of the family, society and culture, allowing only one way to live. It groups the population into small contained areas to be more easily controlled. It takes away from some to give to others who will be more easily managed by the promise of a full belly and a warm shelter.

“It’s a parasitical representation of the 1%, feeding on the 99.”

As seen in Daisy Luthur’s analysis, the Agenda 21 powermongers don’t intend to use the UN to curb tyranny around the world but rather to create it…which is presently in full cry as the United States lapdog carries out the honours.

Everybody is subjected to the Marxist fallout from the United Nations’ Agenda 21, and they are expected to participate as blind believers at the federal, provincial, state, municipal and school board levels, which covers everything from which lightbulb you must buy to the banning of children’s lemonade stands.

In Marxist fashion, private land ownership is taboo as is the family unit. To meet Agenda 21’s objectives, the planet must be cleansed of capitalism and the affluent middle class. This critical societal layer, which comprises the educated, innovative and productive, is very dangerous to fresh wannabe despots coming out of the closet.

Survivors will be relocated into human “stack’em ‘em and pack‘em” concentration ghettos that are reminiscent of the depressing habitat for humanity concrete apartment blocks of Soviet Russia.

The masses will be denied any benefits and amenities that once served human convenience. To further meet the Nazi “law of life” objectives in which people’s bodies are state-owned, Christianity will be destroyed.

The health-care system is already categorizing anybody who owns or reads a Christian Bible as “mentally ill” and has targeted those “heretics” as “potential terrorists”, who will be dealt with according to the same harsh rules prescribed for gun owners, smokers, drinkers, libertarians, as well as those sporting body tattoos and dyeing their hair artificial colours.

“Saving the earth” is the monotonous mantra. Whoever controls the land and other natural resources controls nations; whoever controls the food supply controls the people.

To date, it looks like government and mega-corporations are winning on those fronts. Food Bank UN, anyone?

Food deprivation was the key in Hitler’s master plan. Hungry people, busy digging dirt for morsels to stave off starvation, are too weak to fight back, and, therefore, no threat to overthrowing the powers-that-be.

UN dictators are blindly devoted to humanity’s destruction under the guise of “saving the earth”. The perfect instrument to achieve world bureaucracy is to send out enviro-pressure groups, represented by a million or so government-operated, non-governmental global organizations (GONGOs).

Gang Green disciples are not elected, nor accountable and answer to no one for their nonsensical orations, decisions and deeds, for which they are paid handsomely. What these gullibles don’t understand is that they, too, will be tossed in the dung heap just like any of Lenin’s “useful idiots” when their services become obsolete.

Thankfully, some astute politicians in many American states have seen the light emitted from their hoarded, outlawed incandescent bulbs. One by one, states are attempting to reject Agenda 21 by writing their own rules that protect their citizenry’s constitutional rights against this vast Marxist machination.

After Agenda 21 hid under the radar for nearly 20 years, moving seemingly in slow motion, in the year 2011 alone, some 54 counties and state legislatures started opting out of any Agenda 21-related programs. It took immense work, but they did it. Their further energetic resolve is to not stop until the pestilence is crushed.

I don’t see Canada or the European Union doing a damned thing to thwart this Agenda 21 pestilence…probably because all provinces, municipalities and politicians have been bought off.

Of course, these brave American states will face threats of federal government reprisals unless the “renegades” learn to “follow orders” and climb back on board the Agenda 21 happy train without sass.

If that doesn’t work, the Beltway Mafia, operating at the UN’s behest, will offer graft to local politicians as a means of “re-educating” them into changing the tunes they hum.

Some states and counties aren’t listening to the District of Criminal’s drivel; they are more mortally concerned about the final consequences if they continue to follow the doctrine laid out in the egregious Agenda 21 scheme.

For instance, the Oklahoma Community Protection Act,”, written as recently as March 2014, would prohibit any state agency or political subdivision from adopting or implementing “policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe upon or restrict private property rights without due process.”

It would void any previous commitments which may have been made under Agenda 21 or a similar program: “any debt or commitment to an international or federal entity whereby the citizens did not have the ability to exercise their constitutional rights shall be considered null and void.”

Agenda 21 is a very serious threat. And the extensive work underway to frustrate Agenda 21 should tell any intelligent citizen, especially in the Western World, that this unofficial piece of trash is not a UN feature that government systems of any level should adopt.

Somehow, the world has survived the misery and grief of Marx, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and a trainload of other tyrannical lunatics throughout history. There’s no reason to believe that the war these horrific Agenda 21 lunatics waged against the masses can’t be won, too.

The question is whether the world can survive the corrupt, deceitful, graft-infested United Nations that is more than 60 years beyond expiry date. This world organization is in dire need of being dismantled posthaste before civilization is destroyed by the lies of these chronic psychopaths who make cult leader and murderer Charles Manson appear sane.

As author T.E. Lawrence of Lawrence of Arabia fame wrote in the introduction to his book Seven Pillars of Wisdom:

”All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.”

The handful of parasitic, psychopathic, globalcratic despots-in-waiting, who control the UN’s upper echelon and are already squabbling over who will occupy the throne, are very dangerous men, indeed.

They act out their fantasies by day.



The Banning of Everything

by Jane Gaffin

I am convinced that the supposedly not-for-profit GONGOs (government-operated non-governmental organizations) were designed to keep hapless, aberrant droneheads off the streets.

Since the year 2000, the 17,000 non-governmental organizations operating worldwide seems to have ballooned to over a million that comprise the rampaging army of untold numbers of social engineers who are trampling the rights and lives of ordinary people worldwide.

The communistic pimps at the United Nations need this astronomical number of doofuses to spread their evil like a dirty disease.

Like computer specialists are under pressure every year to dream up innovative apps the bosses can incorporate into computers or translate into new electronic gadgetry with which to bambozzle the buying public or be fired, the GONGO mouthpieces and so-called researchers must perform, else their senseless GONG show will be replaced with another senseless GONG show.

It takes a specific-type warped Marxist personality to wallow gleefully in propagandizing lies rather than spending time usefully ferreting out truth with which to educate the public.

This modus operandi has sent GONGO participants to coming up with worthless, absurd ideas with which to divert the malleable public’s mind from reality.

The GONGOers must wholesale whatever globaloney the United Nations and its proponents want dished out as socially-unacceptable. The politically-correct gospel is then sold to the obedient talking heads of corporate-owned media and to the grafted bureaucratic policymakers and politicians.

These illustrious apparatchiks eventually pass laws and filter the drivel through the channels where various governmental departments within the apparatus forcefully regulate their fiction with an iron fist.

Bans on perfectly functional or healthy substances and products–or tax them out of existence–seems to be the vaunted propaganda route GONGOs repeat to stay on the robust payrolls.

Although time-tested prohibitions have proven to backfire into immeasurable crime waves while blowing up in the faces of politicians at the polling booths on election day, they soldier on.

Innumerable countries over the centuries have followed temperance-league agendas into alcohol prohibition disasters on hackneyed excuses for curbing “excessive” drinking.

One way that notion crumbled was with a proliferation of hard-boiled gangsters sprouting up who controlled the illegal trafficking trade. It also spelled a loss of taxes. Due to elusive independent distillers busy under the moonlight proved difficult for revenuers to catch and shut down the operations. Meanwhile, many trusting imbibers went blind or died painfully from drinking contaminated co’n likker laced with anti-freeze or gasoline for “flavoring” or “extra kick”.

It is relatively recent history when American politicians were forced into an error admission. Within basically 14 years they lifted the national alcohol ban with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in late 1933. What took them so long to learn? Politics and stupidity. But that hasn’t stopped the GONGOs from taking another jab at the beverage industry, both alcoholic and non-alcoholic.

A few decades back, a bunch of government-sponsored lackeys were funded to demonize, and eventually ban, coffee. One purpose was to eliminate the ubiquitous “coffee break”.

Besides inconveniencing millions of consumers who would have to convert from their beloved beverage to a ghastly-tasting wartime ersatz substitute, the cruel intention was to put the numerous coffee growers in developing nations out of business.

As a major cash crop and significant export product, coffee is one of the world’s most widely-consumed beverages and a very lucrative business. It represents over 50 percent of some developing countries’ foreign exchange earnings.

Why would the United Nations member states want to ruin that position for coffee-growing nations and their inhabitants? Without a cash crop to generate money, the coffee growers’ land would be expropriated and the farmers forced to flee into the unfamiliar ghettos without the necessary skills to find meaningful employment in an urban environment.

Sinking its claws into the coffee industry was nothing short of the United Nations’ sick joke to be played out by the controlling cabal of crazy, no-good, overly-rich, evil, corrupt, powermonging, megalomaniacal globalcrats who like to toy with their prey.

The mendacious propagandizers, or “useful idiots” as Lenin would have tagged them, tried to appease the UN by promoting coffee as a carcinogenic beverage.

It didn’t wash. The same bad-publicity campaign was tried against the chocolate industry. That campaign also whimpered out without leaving a politically-correct trace behind of any sinful side effects of chocolate. As with coffee, only the benefits and nutritional value derived from indulging in the ambrosial treat were reported.

I can only guess that the anti-chocolate GONG show must have been silenced under pressure behind the scenes and was replaced with some other ridiculous GONG show.

However, a second swipe has been launched on chocolate by way of sneaking in the back door with an attempt to ban sugar.

Without access to real sugar, chocolate and other industries would be forced to use harmful artificial sweeteners. And, in fine Agenda 21 blueprint style, the sugar-industry workers will be driven off the land and into the ghastly ghettos so the United Nations’ Gang-Green club can re-wild the planet.

The sugar industry, under attack a few decades ago, was running ads lauding the substance as necessary for energy and pretty hair. Eventually, the aggression spluttered and subsided. Everybody went back to business-as-usual.

Now the dimwitted enablers are back in full force demonizing sugar under the false premise that it causes diabetes which gives them the “excuse” to go after outlawing soft-drink beverages, too.

Sugar doesn’t cause diabetes; an ill-functioning pancreas not secreting sufficient insulin to offset the sugar does.

The cure for diabetes was discovered by Mayo Clinic researchers in 1970. I was present to experience the staff’s jubilation. Have you heard of Big Pharma manufacturing the cure? No, and you won’t. The avaricious pharmaceutical companies that don’t give a hang about your health would lose too much money on insulin.

The industry invented pre-diabetes, Diabetes I, Diabetes II and is working diligently toward “selling” the medical community on Diabetes III.

Soon, every patient will be diagnosed as diabetic and be prescribed pills whether the person truly has the disorder or not. To ensure the machinations work, Big Pharma bribes physicians with attractive kickbacks for willingly over-dispensing the drugs.

Can you smell “marketing racket”?

Neither does sugar cause obesity which is idiotically touted as a recent politically-correct disorder. It is not what you eat but how much you eat that causes fatness, you dummies. Most people are not overweight, despite the United Nations’ ruse of wanting the public to believe that everybody would be healthier if they were underfed so they can be poured into an emaciated Twiggy mold that exhausted its popularity rage in the 1960s.

I do not know with certainty what happened behind the scenes with the chocolate or coffee businesses. But I can extrapolate that the godfathers of the powerful coffee cartels issued stern warnings that if policymakers planned on taking coffee down Tobacco Road somebody was going to wake up dead.

The chumps wisely observed the “cease” and “desist” order. They shut up. Besides, the public weighed in heavily on this subject. Coffee became more popularized with the springing up of socially-embraced, franchise coffee shops that advertise many flavors of expensively-priced java concoctions and free wi-fi for computer buffs.

It would have behooved the magnates who are facing the threat of bans on tobacco, alcohol, soft drinks, milk, salt, sugar, Vitamin D, Canola oil, guns, lightbulbs, plastic bags, doorknobs, Christian Bibles–even sunlight, water and oxygen–and a myriad of other legal and natural products to investigate and engage in whatever tactics were employed by the coffee cartels.

Whatever was said, it worked. Researchers dropped the negativisms and now seem to be extolling only the virtues gained from coffee consumption. However, that didn’t deter governments. They have placed the onus for coffee consumption on the users through the socialized medical-and-mental health care services.

Without legal intervention of the courts, the overseers for Zero Tolerance on tobacco, alcohol and salt usage fall under “mental illness”. Since precipitated under the surreptitious Hillarycare days of 1993, the program has evolved into capturing uncooperative patients and locking them up as solitary-confinement prisoners and keeping them knocked out on dangerous psychotropics.

A diagnosis of “mental-illness” is synonymous with being labelled as a “potential domestic terrorist”. For example, paying cash to buy a cup of Starbuck’s pricey coffee is a definite indicator of a “mental disease”.

Why else would doctors, dentists and statistic bureaus ask if you smoke? Drink alcohol? Use street drugs? Drink coffee? Own guns? And wrongly accuse you of eating too much salty canned goods, butter and sprinkling too much salt on your meals?

Other signs of mental illness are body tattoos, hair died artificial colors, carrying backpacks, talking to oneself, eating meat, French fries, Campbell’s soup, fast foods…and displaying intense aggravation under grilling by nosey bureaucratic bozos on the subject of these type “substance-abuses”.

This is what one can expect as a fallout from socialized medicine. The “useful bureaucratic idiots” are mandated to carry out command-and-control over the lives of their patients who will lose all freedom of choice because Big Brother can make better lifestyle choices for them. In other words, these social workers are given directions to turn the Underlings into obedient state-controlled robots.

What else can be expected when the Marxist twaddle continually demands that governments set up this program; fund that strategy; ban this substance; do this, do that; gimme, gimme, gimme?

It seemed the Establishment surely had us under lock-down mode and civilization was truly teetering at the edge of the precipice. Then I read Brandon Smith’s uplifting words at

“The establishment understands well that their criminality is clearly visible, and eventually, they will be personally subject to the rage of the people. The next fight could very well be the last for them.”

I can only hope the public is outraged in a hurry before the twits do any more damage banning everything in sight. The only thing that can stop the small but powerful cult of elitists from perpetrating their con jobs on us is for “we, the people” to stop them in their tracks with a “cease and desist” order.

It is incredible what these morons can dream up to keep themselves in the good graces of the United Nations.

Another proposal is to render air off limits unless individuals possess the financial wherewithal to pay the Gorey Gang-Green taxes on a “pay-as-you-go” scheme. If you can’t pay? The valve on your oxygen supply will be turned off by Smart Control.

The eugenicists will have a field day. Gore, a “useful idiot” in his own rights, also proposes an extra penalty for those who exhale CO2. Those who can’t afford to pay will be obviously banished from planet Earth.

This uselessness is nothing more than keeping the wheels of the money-grabbing United Nations extortionists greased at the expense of the Underlings who can ill-afford the nonsensical and unhealthy diktats. Yet it is surprisingly easy for the “esteemed” UN to keep finding eager puppets who can be corrupted with a relatively small amount of baksheesh.

It is past due for bringing on the outraged mavericks. The first item on the agenda is to dig into the rotten roots and ban the United Nations. This destructive, opulent, fat-cat organization has lingered more than 60 years too long.

Then, let’s get back to business-as-usual.


Worth Repeating: God is Always the Convenient Scapegoat

by Jane Gaffin

Self-defense is a natural instinct that God bestowed on every living creature planted on planet Earth.

While world governments following the United Nations’ tyrannical dictates continually try stripping people of their God-given rights, the list is long of the many ministers preaching gun ownership from their pulpits and websites, the likes of Chuck Baldwin, Bradlee Dean, James David Manning, Doug Giles and, yes, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee who was in the pulpit 12 years before entering the political arena.

Yet every time a singular or plural madman wades into a crowd and goes on a killing spree–most of them false-flag con jobs staged by government agencies–the corporate-owned Marxist media pundits go ballistic and smugly corner Christian-leaning gun advocates and pose the question to them: “How could God possibly allow this to happen?”, as though God had everything to do with these bloody slaughters that are purported to be beyond human control.

Who are these morons the media hires to hide behind the scenes writing questions for these dimwits on the front lines? I swear, if I were the interviewer with my face to the camera, I’d be too embarrassed to ask some of those dumb questions scripted by others. Why don’t the show hosts think about writing their own scripts?

Humans–not God–were responsible for those mass killings, and you don’t have to look any further than to your own government and politicians.

The reason God gave mankind  brains before planting the species on Earth was they could think for themselves; he gave them a conscience that can be nurtured and cultivated to know right from wrong.

“Thou shall not murder” is a Ten Commandment imperative against unlawful killing of another human. Doesn’t anybody pay any attention to the Bible any more?

Some people do abide by the Bible despite the fact our own governments under the United Nations’ mandate are subtly deeming the Christian Bible, as well as guns, unlawful and are categorizing anybody who owns one or the other as “mentally ill”.

A soldier back home from fighting a war not of his doings can expect badge-bearing thugocrats to confiscate his government-issued gun and be thrown in a mental ward against his will by these government-costumed goons who don’t hold a court order or search warrant to carry out their malfeasance.

Likewise, anybody who smokes tobacco, drinks alcohol, mourns the loss of a loved one “too long” or believes in the values of the family unit are also categorized as “mentally ill”.

Mankind is responsible for its own doings; God is simply on alert to pick up the pieces when a person loses his way and needs and asks for guidance in how to be a good person and carry out the tenets of the Golden Rule and the Commandments.

After these tragedies occur where does everybody in the community go for solace, regardless of whether they harbor religious beliefs or not?

The church.

Instead of waiting to call on God in an emergency at the “back door”, maybe people should think about letting God into their lives through the “front door” so they already have some type of spiritual communication with Him before the bad crap happens…and it is going to happen because the government and globalists are going to make sure of that fact.

But interviewers–many of them anti-Christ, anti-gun presstitutes, who are puppeteered by corporate masters and scriptwriters–always try to pull a big ‘gotcha’ on the interviewees.

‘How could you possibly like such an evil God?’ they ask.

Sorry, buds, my God is not evil, and this anti-Christian attitude didn’t work in 2001 with evangelist Anne Graham Lotz nor more recently with former pastor Michael Huckabee.

Both nailed the subject of what is wrong with today’s society square on the head. But the pressitutes, who may all be atheists or puppets, just don’t sound like they catch on. 

First, however, all the politicians and bureaucrats are yammering about gun-control to the point they think every last gun in the U.S., Canada, Australia, UK and the European countries is possible to eliminate.

Yet these countries are not about to take guns away from their militaries and thugocrat police forces while their government agencies feed guns and money to rebel groups around the world.

Do you really want to live defenseless under a totalitarian regime in which only the police and military are allowed arms?

I don’t think so.

Yet nobody in the political, anti-gun arena ever mentions that governments should stop issuing weapons to 18-year-old youth who serve in the military overseas, killing, killing, killing in foreign countries they’ve never heard until they were deployed there, and where innocent babies, children, women, men, elders are rounded up and exterminated or caught in the cross-fire.

The locals are out of sight and thought of back home as valueless “collateral damage”, a disgusting term former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Company used quite liberally without displaying an ounce of emotion or remorse for his kindred kind?

Our immoral, indecent, body-guarded politicians and gun-grabbers are hypocrites of the first order, operating on double standards–if they have any standards at all.

And we wonder why the younger generations have morally degenerated when they are using these sleazy adult thugs sitting in high places as their role models.

Former Arkansas governor and GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, himself a pastor before entering politics, attributed the December 14, 2012 massacre in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut to the lack of God and religion in public schools.

Addressing the tragedy on Fox News, Mr. Huckabee dismissed calls for stricter gun control and claimed that future violence can be prevented by solving matters of “the heart” and turning to God.

“Ultimately, you can take away every gun in America and somebody will use a bomb. When somebody has an intent to do incredible damage, they’re going to find a way to do it… People will want to pass new laws, but unless you change people’s hearts, they’re our transition to the pastor side. This is a heart issue…laws don’t change this kind of thing.”

Inevitably after these tragedies, the question arises to the essence: “how could anybody possibly love a God who let this happen?”

“We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we’ve systematically removed God from our schools,” said Mr. Huckabee.

“Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage because we’ve made it a place where we don’t want to talk about eternity, life, what responsibility means, accountability?

“That we’re not just going to have to be accountable to the police, if they catch us. But one day, we will stand before a Holy God in judgment. If we don’t believe that, then we don’t fear that.”

Now, that brings us to evangelist Anne Graham Lotz whose “Food for Thought” words were truthful, profound, insightful and honest when interviewed on the CBS Early Show shortly after the 9-11, 2001 attacks on America.

Of course, TV show host Jane Clayson couldn’t refrain from asking Ms. Lotz: “How could God let something like this happen?”

“I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we’ve been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.

“And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone? 

“In light of recent events…terrorist attacks, school shootings, etc., I think it started when Madalyn Murray O’Hair complained she didn’t want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.

“Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school … the Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbour as yourself. And we said OK.

(Note: staunch atheist activist Madalyn Murray O’Hair is notorious for the Murray v. Curlett lawsuit, which led to the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruling that ended official Bible-reading in American public schools in 1963. O’Hair was murdered in 1995, her mutilated body found in 2001 shortly before 9-11.)

“Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn’t spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem . We said an expert should know what he’s talking about.

“And we said OK.

(Note: Dr. Spock’s grandson committed suicide.)

“Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. The school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when he or she misbehaves because we don’t want any bad publicity, and we surely don’t want to be sued.

“And we said OK. (despite the fact there’s a big difference between disciplining, touching, beating, smacking, humiliating, kicking, etc.).

“Then someone said, let’s let our daughters have abortions if they want, and they won’t even have to tell their parents.

“And we said OK.

“Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and they’re going to do it anyway, let’s give our sons all the condoms they want so they can have all the fun they desire, and we won’t have to tell their parents they got them at school.

“And we said OK.

“Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn’t matter what we do in private as long as we do our jobs. Agreeing with them, we said it doesn’t matter to me what anyone, including the President, does in private as long as I have a job and the economy is good.

“Then someone said let’s print magazines with pictures of nude women and call it wholesome, down-to-earth appreciation for the beauty of the female body.

“And we said OK.

“And then someone else took that appreciation a step further and published pictures of nude children and then further again by making them available on the Internet.

“And we said OK; they’re entitled to free speech.

“Then the entertainment industry said, let’s make TV shows and movies that promote profanity, violence, and illicit sex. Let’s record music that encourages rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes. And we said it’s just entertainment, it has no adverse effect, nobody takes it seriously anyway, so go right ahead.

“Now we’re asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don’t know right from wrong, and why it doesn’t bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

“Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out.

“I think it has a great deal to do with ‘we reap what we sow’.

“Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world’s going to hell.

“Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.

“Funny how you can send ‘jokes’ through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.

“Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

“Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you’re not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

“Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

“Are you laughing?

“Are you thinking?”

Well, if you’re not thinking by now, after hearing from Mr. Huckabee and Ms. Lotz, maybe it’s time to think about starting to think!


The Charter: Dismantling Democracy

by Jane Gaffin

This article was originally published in the Whitehorse Star on April 26, 2002 in recognition of the Canadian Constitution Act’s 20th anniversary.

April 17, 2013 will mark its 31st anniversary and interpretations have grown worse–not better–as the Constitution and its Charter centerpiece continue to age into an obsolescence trumped by politically-correct Marxism under advisement of the United Nations.

These documents are supposed to reign as paramount law of the land until repealed, which would bring on rebellious attention of a tyrannical government in the wings. So, the documents linger at the door, ignored or trounced, dismantled in slow motion, by such government offenders as lawmakers, law enforcers, Crown prosecutors, activist judges, human rights commissions, and the like.


The Charter of Rights and Freedoms–the important centerpiece of the Constitution Act of 1982–has been doing damage to democracy since the brainchild of the late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was enacted 20 years ago (1982).

The Charter has removed governance from the hands of elected parliamentarians and placed the power for deciding political policy with nine appointed justices of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Since the majority of laws are not charter-proof, the contentious ones blatantly infringing on civil liberties, like the firearms act and anti-terrorism legislation that are destined to wind up for a constitutional airing in the highest court.

As a result, the Charter has expanded the justice system into the nation’s biggest growth industry.

Anything one may have learned in civics class about fairness, natural justice and legality upheld by the courts is becoming obsolete. Interpretation of the constitution is swinging away from judicial restraint in favour of ruling by politically-correct judicial activism.

Much to the horror of traditionalists, who hold to principles of applying only law that is there and nothing else, judicial activism interprets the constitution as a “living” document. A judge makes up stuff that isn’t there and moves things around that is there to come out with the desired results in the name of “social justice”. (Another term for the societal adjustment which Communist Manifesto author Karl Marx declared “equity” in his crusade to exterminate the middle class.)

Heated arguments rage in both Canada and the United States as to whether a constitution should be treated as an organism or as a legal document.

In one camp are those who believe judges should issue rulings based on the whims of society and the influences of special-interest groups who want to control the lives of others.

In the other camp are those who fear anything short of judges sticking to the law will dismantle democracy and put ordinary citizens at high risk to be judged wrongly or unfairly.

The disagreement has increased the cry for Supreme Court justices to be elected.

In Canada, the Supreme Court justices are essentially hand-picked appointees of the prime minister without further scrutiny; in the United States, justices are appointed by the president but must be confirmed by Congress.

An equal number of sitting Democrats and Republicans has made it difficult for President George Bush to fill 99 vacancies on federal benches with his nominees. The Republican president wants only federal judges who will interpret rather than make the law; the Democrats will only approve judicial activists.

If, however, judges were elected, voters would have to choose them on their political positions and not on their ability to interpret the law. It would open the ugly possibility for judicial corruption.

Even the most principled candidates would need a political agenda and campaign donations. Whoever pays the piper could call the tunes and get the “best justice”–whether it be lawyers, big corporations or good-old-boy political cronies.

Elected judges is not the concern. The real problem is judicial restraint having been trumped by judicial activism.

Earlier this month, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada came to Whitehorse (April 4, 2002) to give a public lecture about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Beverly McLachlin likened the Charter to a “living tree”, a term dating back to 1929 when a spokesman for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council opined that the Canadian Constitution should not be regarded as “frozen” but should be seen as a “living tree”, capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits. In this respect, women were recognized as persons.

Survey polls have indicated about 82 percent of Canadians would like to “canonize” Trudeau for his constitutional centerpiece which they believe provides a unique identity for Canada unlike any other nation has.

A smaller percentage of the population would just as soon have “cannonized” the former prime minister for unraveling 115 years of a perfectly-functional constitution and bequeathing supremacy for policy-making to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Regardless of which camp one sits in, there is no end to discontent swirling around decisions flowing from the Charter, a document signed into law by Trudeau and Queen Elizabeth on April 17, 1982.

Translating broad statements of rights into functional doctrine and finding the right balance have led to an increased recognition of the importance of context, policy and philosophy in judging, said Chief Justice McLachlin.

Judges used to never acknowledge those three words as part of their jobs, she continued. But the Charter has forced judges to acknowledge that before making decisions that affect people’s lives or government policy, judges must have some understanding of the circumstances in context with the problem and the implications of deciding one way or the other.

Traditional decisions can have important policy ramifications and judges now face difficult philosophical issues, she added.

But through this process she hopes Canada can develop a Charter interpretation that will serve the country quite well. Judges have to think about these thing when crafting the rules.

“You can make it fairly definite but you want to keep enough flexibility so that if (big issues) change or it turns out what you’re doing is having problems, you can shift it around.

“The Charter, quite simply, is our ‘made in Canada’ way of dealing with our problems, and, I, for one, think we are fortunate to have it,” she concluded.

Still, the Canadian Constitution can be compared to the U.S. Constitution by virtue that the laws of both countries stem from English common law that evolved from the Magna Carta to become “the Supreme Law of the Land”.

It was only natural that the principles of British common law found their way to British-controlled Canada. By the same token, the English emigrates who sailed across the ocean to establish American colonies also embraced the British legal system they knew and admired.

“Now, judicial usurpation of democratic self-government is not a uniquely Canadian phenomenon,” noted Ian Hunter in a recent “Natioinal Post ” article.

The professor emeritus in the faculty of law, University of Western Ontario, drew on the words of Robert Bork, a former U.S. Appeal Court judge and a Supreme Court nominee. “Our country is being radically altered, step by step, by justices who are not following any law.”

Hunter also enforced his point by quoting an excerpt from a profound dissenting opinion written by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, an “originalist” who holds tenaciously to a philosophy that the U.S. Constitution is a legal document.

“What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become justices of the court,” wrote the articulate Scalia, appointed to the Supreme Court bench by former Republican President Ronald Regan in 1987.

“Day by day, case by case, (the court) is busy designing a constitution for a country I do not recognize.”

Two years ago, Scalia took his judicial philosophy to two separate crowds of 500 each on a university campus in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

He was reported to be unpopular because of his refusal to view the Constitution as a “living” document. Altering the Constitution’s meaning just because society changes is “seductive”, he declared.

“The Constitution is not an ‘organism’,” emphasized the justice whose strong stance is to preserve and protect the document’s original meaning.

Judges who don’t adopt an “originalist” or “textualist” approach have no judicial philosophy and are issuing rulings based on the majority view of society at a given time, he said.

It has only been within the past 40 years that U.S. justices like Earl Warren began to see the Constitution as an evolutionary document that could be interpreted differently with the passage of time.

The socialistic notion slipped over into Canada where judges, and much of the public, support the “living” concept, thus allowing the Constitution to say anything one wants it to say.

Scalia is adamant that the Constitution must remain static. “But that doesn’t mean laws cannot change to reflect changes in society,” he suggested.

Meanwhile, many judges treat the Constitution and statutes as if they were written in disappearing ink.

“Activist judges recognize the parts they like, ignore the ones they don’t, and simply re-write the parts they think should be updated or change,” scoffed Thomas Jipping, who deals with legal and democracy matters for the Free Congress Foundation.

Rather than servants to the law, activist judges have set themselves up as masters of the law, he stressed.


Kangaroo Justice Leads to Rebellions

by Jane Gaffin
This article was original published in the Whitehorse Star on May 22, 2002. It demonstrates that the more things change the more they stay the same, or rather “those who don’t know history–or who choose to ignore it–are condemned to repeat its most evil, tyrannical parts”.
See related articles on this site Where the Bullet Hits the Bone
Bypassing the Legislative Process is Deadly to Democracy

The famous Ballarat Rebellion of 1854 ignited due to government’s grossly unfair licencing practices and a corrupt constabulary dispensing “kangaroo justice” in the gold rush camps of Australia.

While the origin of “kangaroo court” is hazy, the term may indeed be a souvenir from that era. Kangaroos supposedly have a strange habit of staring blankly into space for long periods, then suddenly bouncing off in the opposite direction.

Judges who leaped to irrational conclusions were scoffed for acting with the logic of a kangaroo.

History is replete with tales of justice being transformed into a mockery by replacing legal procedures, principles and ethics with dishonesty, incompetence and corruption.

Today, governments try to sell “kangaroo courts” under the politically-correct guise of “judicial activism”. Edward Greenspan isn’t buying.

The noted Toronto criminal lawyer, who believes deeply in due process and justice, recently condemned the trial of former Yugoslavia leader Slobodan Milosevic as a “kangaroo court” and a “lynching”.

Even the worst thugs are entitled to a fair trial, he was quoted as saying in the press. Peter Worthington opined in his March 22 (2002) Toronto Sun column that a fair trial certainly isn’t what Milosevic is getting or could get from the International War Crimes Tribunal.

After Milosevic was kidnapped from Belgrade, where he should have been tried, and was transferred to The Hague, he refused to enter a plea. He doesn’t recognize the International War Crime Tribunal (IWCT) set up by the United Nations Security Council as a legal body.

Much reaction to Greenspan’s assessment of the trial was hostile. The columnist thinks maybe it’s because Milosevic is known as one of the world’s unpleasant tyrants.

He sees the whole concept of international court for war criminals rife with folly and shame. He agreed with Greenspan: Milosevic hasn’t a chance in this kangaroo court, even if Greenspan himself were defending him.

Among the assorted charges against Milosevic was genocide. “He may well be found guilty, even though no genocide was involved,” reminded Worthington.

“In fact, even charging him with genocide gives respectability to those who actually have implemented genocidal policies. Atrocities are not genocide.”

He pointed out that Madame Justice Louise Arbour of the Supreme Court of Canada, appointed to the IWCT as prosecutor, suggested Milosevic was guilty of genocide before she had much more than hearsay evidence.

“Arbour cited a massacre at Racak, in Kosovo, as Milosevic’s, which later turned out to be a fake massacre orchestrated by Albanian Kosovars to frame the Serbs,” noted Worthington.

History teaches that turning away from ethics and the fine points of good law to satisfy societal whims or a judge’s agenda ultimately leads to rebellions.

The kangaroo-style system has crept unnoticed into Canada and a myriad of other countries as bureaucrats and politicians, driven by mob mentality, eagerly embrace the United Nations’ scheme for a communistic one-world government.

Nobody except the rulers are going to like the experience.

Masiphula Sithole, a political science professor at the University of Zimbabwe, recently told The Christian Science Monitor: “A country and its people cannot go on like this.”

They can’t and they won’t. When the toes of justice are stepped on and people’s liberties trampled too long, they can be relied on to rise up and set things straight, just as they were forced to do during the Australian gold rush–a scenario not unsimilar to the situation that has unfolded under our noses in a federally-controlled Yukon.

The government in Melbourne, the seaport capital of Victoria, had no mining law in place when the gold rush struck in the early 1850s. In typical bureaucratic-Think, the government thought it could take care of every situation with a licence.

High-priced licences authorized miners to enter, locate, prospect and mine the Crown land. Many miners, however, did not relish–or could not afford–paying high fees to look for gold they may not find. The miners complained, then ultimately ignored the dictum.

To prove who was boss, the government dispatched the local constabulary to carry out licence inspections.

Due to a manpower shortage, many goldfield cops were hardened ex-convicts who carried out their duties in a ruthless manner. The police lorded their authority over the vulnerable gold miners who had no vote and no representation in Parliament.

A miner caught without a licence was chained to a log until the stiff fine was paid. Without legal rights attached to the licence or to their claims, the miners fell victim to the constabulary’s bribery, extortion and, finally, murder.

The miners demanded the government grant a more secure form of claim ownership. The words fell on deaf ears. Their only recourse was simply to refuse to cooperate with the hated licencing system. The government’s response was to increase inspections to twice a week. It generated more resentment.

As a measure of last resort, miners took up arms. On November 11, 1854, they organized the Ballarat Reform League. About 175 men occupied a stockade in Eureka.

On December 3, they set fire to the worthless pieces of paper and sent word to Melbourne they wanted to negotiate for something better.

The governor, Sir Charles Hotham, reacted by mobilizing every member of the constabulary and military in the district. Their orders were to go quash the Ballarat rebellion.

When the troops arrived, the entire garrison of miners was asleep. Unchallenged, the enforcement units opened fire on the sleeping rebels and took the stockade in about 15 minutes.

Up to 30 miners and six government troopers were killed. Of the 114 miners taken prisoner, 90 were wounded. Only about 30 escaped.

In another shameful display, Commissioner Robert Rede then unleashed his troops to slaughter both innocent and rebel miners in the surrounding mining camps. The untold casualties must have been extraordinary, for Governor Hotham spoke of the military commander’s actions as “imprudent”.

When news of the small rebellion and subsequent bloody massacre reached London, the British government was horrified that such savage events had taken place in its farthest colony. It was bad from a political perspective.

Rede was immediately posted elsewhere and the governor fired. The role of the diplomatic replacement was to do whatever necessary to satisfy the angry miners.

It didn’t take an iota of imagination to quickly recognize the myriad of injustices the government had committed against the miners. The first step toward reparation was to release the men arrested during the rebellion as well as three miners who were earlier sentenced to prison for taking justice into their own hands.

They had burned down Bentley’s Eureka Hotel in protest of the hotelier’s kangaroo acquittal for murdering James Scobie. A retrial, following better legal procedure, found the hotelier and two other defendants guilty of manslaughter.

The government gave miners the right to vote and opened a seat for a member from Ballarat in the local legislative assembly.

Within six months, Parliament passed the Victoria Mining Act of 1855. It was a major victory in so far that it offered miners a fairer deal and was the first “modern” free-entry law in the British Empire.

The Mining Act abolished the hated miners’ licence and granted miners rights which provided legally secure tenure for their mining claims as a form of property.

The Mining Act was a template for subsequent parliamentary law, notably the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, which, unfortunately, has since been overthrown by the comeback of a licencing and kangaroo-style system.

The result of the Ballarat Miners Rebellion, however, was the finest thing in Australian history, according to great American writer Mark Twain, whose quote was shared with readers by historian Douglas Fethering in his book, Gold Crusades: A Social History of Gold Rushes.

“It was a revolution–small in size, but great politically; it was a strike for liberty, a struggle for a principle, a stand against injustice and oppression.

“It was the Barons and John, over again; it was Hampden and Ship-Money; it was Concord and Lexington; small beginnings, all of them, but all of them great in political results, all of them epoch-making.

“It is another instance of a victory won by a lost battle.

“It adds an honorable page to history; the people know it and are proud of it. They keep green the memory of the men who fell at the Eureka Stockade.”

Then, why, one must ask, are legislative bodies everywhere–Canada and Australia inclusive–frustrating people by willfully overthrowing good laws for bad laws and replacing fair justice systems with kangaroo courts when it only serves to force ordinary citizens of the world to have to rise up against thuggish and tyrannical oppressors like Milosevic.

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien isn’t helping matters either by supporting the United Nations.

The majority of the world’s population would prefer living in peace, harmony and in pursuit of their dreams. But government members of the United Nations intentionally stir the pot with an electric prod to instigate civil unrest so police and military can practice their mean-spiritedness by quashing the likes of the Ballarat Rebellion.