Custom Search
Top Stories
Go to Site Index See "Top Stories" main page
COMMENTARY · 5th September 2010
Merv Ritchie
British Columbia has become the latest and best example of law abiding, good citizens of a region being abused by their government. Gordon Campbell has lied to the people, he was elected to represent, since he was the Mayor of Vancouver. But this has nothing to do with that poor example of a human; it has to do with how all of us are being treated with disdain and today live in distress.

One can point to many issues in an attempt to demonstrate where the economic difficulties lay. Maybe; the environmentalists and first nations stopping all industrial projects, the markets and mortgage crisis in the USA, the public medical system for the drain on government revenues, the unions, the lawyers, the banks and the politicians, all are up for criticisms.

But as always we must find the core of the problem. If you agree all of the previous issues are a problem, can I suggest there is a common root? Yes, they all have relationships with money. The question which follows from this must be, ‘What is it with money that creates these problems when money is supposed to facilitate growth and solve problems?’

800 years ago the brave human population of England stood up against a different Gordon Campbell. His name was King John. The people of England had had enough, they weren’t going to take it anymore and Campbell’s Reigning predecessor was about to be burned out of his office. The Castle was about to overtaken and the entire country fall into chaos when King John submitted to the demands of the people to provide for better dignity of life for the citizens. Just like Campbell, King John submitted by lying to the Barons (MLA’s) to save his skin, then reversing his submission (reneging on the Magna Carta) after he felt safe. Pope Innocent III (Prime Minister Harper) then agreed and made the decision to agree to scrap the Magna Carta.

This decision plunged England into civil war and facilitated the death of King John (getting sick or was poisoned remains a mystery). The Magna Carta, the document demanding responsible government, has been slashed and dashed against the rock fields of the past 800 years. It has been repeatedly held up as a great piece of work when the truth is it was never even implemented. If it had been implemented, a man like Gordon Campbell would never have reached the high office of Premier.

The first article of this famous document to hit the scrap heap of history, still facing a continuous struggle to remain un-noticed is the interest charged, on borrowed money, by the Jews. The past 800 years has been a constant struggle for humans and nations of humans to come to terms with money. The Christians could not charge interest when lending money. This was against Christian law as it is against Muslim law. As the Jewish people were, of course not Christians, they could charge interest.

On the Magna Carta from; Introduction to contemporary civilization in the West. Columbia University, 1960. pg 419.

If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.

This has nothing to do with attacking any race or culture of people, it is simply a historical fact rarely spoken about. After Pope Innocent III declared the first draft of the Magna Carta Null and Void, no future versions mentioned the money lenders or those of the Jewish faith. The charging of interest on money borrowed was never stopped.

The British lords and Barons, representing the people rose up and challenged the authority of the King after he raised taxes again and again. The people were having the means to feed and clothe their families taken away. The debts imposed on the families by the exorbitant interest rates were crushing the families for generations and in turn the productivity of the Nation. All of this had to do with the debt owed to the lenders due to the interest charged on that debt. The King was so burdened he had to raise taxes.

Sound familiar? It should.

It does not matter who we elect to run our governments. If every Member of Parliament or Legislative Assembly must stand up and make their vote on issues public; those who are lending the money can pull the money, refuse to lend more, or demand repayment in full immediately. All these measures are legally enforceable by the worlds lending institutions, those who lend to the governments.

The USA during the founding centuries 16, 17 and 18 hundreds, issued currency without interest to the colonies to assist and facilitate growth. Right up until Woodrow Wilson became President when in 1913 the Federal Reserve Act was enacted. This allowed the World Banks once again to set interest rates and control all of the money. The depression soon followed. Money no longer became a tool to assist a nations society; it became a tool to rob a nation of its wealth.

It is simple basic economics that most economists refuse to acknowledge. Interest causes debt. This has been a fundamental truth understood during times before and after Christ. Somehow the recent generations have come to believe charging interest is a necessity. Nothing could be farther from the truth. A government can produce their own money, lend it without interest, circulate it to create productivity and ensure all the citizens are properly housed and cared for.

One simple solution might ensure this is enacted. The same simple solution would ensure a liar like the current Premier could not pass legislation, which has been so detrimental. A secret ballot in the legislature.

This is why Democracy does not work. We have nothing that resembles Democracy. Yes we get to vote for the guy we want to represent us in the legislature in secret. The problem is after he or she is elected, they are forbidden to represent us. They must stand up and vote in public. This manner ensures that they must vote the way they are told. Hence our vote is nothing but a sham, making us believe in some way this is a democracy.

Gordon Campbell has done one good thing only. He has provided a clear explanation of why we do not live in a democracy and provided an even better example of why King John along with the forced implementation of the Magna Carta was facilitated by unpopular, unfair and socially destructive taxes, such as the HST, and which will absolutely provoke a revolution.

There is a solution, print our own currency, our own Labour Notes, our own Greenbacks as Lincoln did. To enact this, to avoid the destructive powers of the lobbyists and influential internationalists, we need a secret ballot in all legislative houses. The House of ‘Commoners’ must be legitimate. Currently it is ineffective and a waste of all the common persons time and energy paying any attention to.

You know it, I know it and so does everyone else who has lived and died in the past 800 years.

Without the secret ballot in all legislative houses the Gordon Campbell’s of the world will rise to power again and again.
Comment by James Ippel on 8th September 2010
Like you said, the Gov't should always fear the people, not the people fear the Gov't.

I agree wholeheartely, get rid of the Gun Registry. As long as the Gov't knows we have guns they will not try anything stupid.

The philosphy of the Liberals and anti gun people is this: If no one has a gun we can do what we want without opposition.

Lots of luck. It ain't going to happen.
rights..and amendments
Comment by Steve Smyth on 7th September 2010
To quote the wonderul George Carlin-"we don't have rights as much as a temporary set of priveleges issued by people who can take them away at a moments notice. If you disagree, look up "Japanese (and Canadian)-American internment" on your favourite search engine.

In 1942, there were 110,000 Japanese American citizens in good standing, law-abiding people who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had: "Right this way" into the internment camps! Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away! And rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this (and our) country, is a bill of temporary privileges

George, as always, is painfully correct
one last thought
Comment by Kory Botz on 7th September 2010
Please go get your PAL and restricted arms license. If you own unregistered firearms (which i know we all do) have them registered. Maybe if they see the number of registered fire arms and restricted arms holders in Canada Quadruple after the implementation of HST, they will reconsider.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Comment by Kory Botz on 7th September 2010
You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one.

-- Rush Limbaugh, in a moment of unaccustomed profundity 17 Aug 1993
Comment by Kory Botz on 7th September 2010
Let us hope our weapons are never needed -but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government - and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.

-- Edward Abbey, "Abbey's Road", 1979
Comment by Kory Botz on 7th September 2010
Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788
Comment by Kory Botz on 7th September 2010
The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings.

-- Toyotomi Hideyoshi, dictator of Japan, August 1588
gun control
Comment by Kory Botz on 7th September 2010
Makes me wonder who's asses they're really trying to protect with all this gun control.

Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.- Thomas Jefferson.
Right Gerry, but we can just vote them all out.
Comment by Helmut Giesbrecht on 7th September 2010
Consider th following quote from Albert Einstein's writings many years ago.

"The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism."

With regard to the first principle consider the pressure to privatize hydro power production in B.C. and the methods used to do so. The stealth with which government collaborates with the private sector and the public is blissfully unaware..

As for the second principle, the significant part is "the owners dispose of them as they see fit" and consider the effect that free trade has had in moving jobs to Mexico or China. Before FTA and NAFTA workers had some protection that jobs could not easily be moved to across the border. Unions had some clout The pressure to reduce the "labour contract" to closer to free now seems possible. You wonder why the labour unions are under pressure and you can relate it directly to FTA and NAFTA and the free movement of capital across international boundaries.

Einstein was right. He could see the way things were heading while watching the U.S.A. Mulroney and Co. gave us FTA when most Canadians were opposed. Now you know what the plan was all along. It continues to this very day.
Corporate Government
Comment by Gerry Hummel on 7th September 2010
This government is so corrupt...if they spent the rest of their lives in jail it wouldn't be long enough! They report directly to Corporations who they serve with careless abandon. They are filling their own pockets and the corporations pockets with tax dollars and easy access to the provinces resources. When they are finally thrown out of power they will be rewarded with seats on boards of large power hungry corporations like Rio tinto or West Fraser. They have decimated the Unions and are forcing more and more people out onto the streets. The only way to get rid of these skumbags is to deal with them like the Italian populace did with Mousilini after the war. Democracy..bah! You're fooling yourself. Corporate Government is what we have and it may take a reveloution to get rid of it!
Furthermore Rudi
Comment by Helmut Giesbrecht on 6th September 2010
Let me repeat: "Secret ballots in the legislative chambers only matter because the selection on a ballot (at election) is limited by finances." I added the "election" In bracketed portion. Maybe I misled you.

Secondly: "Find a way that gives any candidate on a ballot ((add "election") an equal opportunity (equal resources) to get his/her message to the voter and you just might get a representative who doesn't accept being told how to vote and spends more time consulting the populace on issues than sitting at party conventions, meetings and caucus meeting being told how to vote and what to say."

So I am just advocating a more moral method. We may well be in agreement in the overall objective.
Comment by Helmut Giesbrecht on 6th September 2010
I said I was reluctant to "encourage" deceit. I did not say that it did not exist in the current situation. Now if you can give me a case where I said one thing and then did quite another during my tenure, I will be happy to respond.

A system that would encourage a member to lie to his party and then vote a different way in secret is flawed. Members should be able to stand for what they believe independent of directions given by the leader, the inner sanctum of government, or the party without lying to anyone about it.

I think people have had enough deceit even if the end might justify the means in their opinion.
Comment by Helmut Giesbrecht on 6th September 2010
I should maybe point out that simply having a secret ballot for all votes in the legislature would encourage deceit among elected representatives. They would pretend they supported a leader or a government and then vote otherwise. I'm not sure that kind of behavior should be encouraged. But, I have no illusions about how difficult it would be to shed the influence of money on our system of government. Those who currently enjoy the greater influence in policy making will never relinquish their power without a fight and they control the mainstream media.
Comment by Walter Fricke on 6th September 2010
Good point. I always feel I live in a Democracy for about the length of time it takes for me to drop my completed ballot into the box. After that, in a majority government situation, it feels as if our elected representatives stick with the party, and it's party line, not really about the electorate that put them there. It feel a bit hopeless for me, as a voter.
Interesting point but..
Comment by Helmut Giesbrecht on 5th September 2010
It is because of the way we select a "representative" that we don't have a democracy. Secret ballots in the legislative chambers only matter because the selection on a ballot is limited by finances. You are either independently wealthy, or have the backing of a party or you can't run a credible campaign. You might have a chance with someone independently wealthy as in the case of Bill Van der Zalm but let me quickly add that it will not be a guarantee as we know. One Fight HST campaign does define a change not change a person' political orientation.

Democracy is defined as the "rule of the people" and a fundamental principle is equal access to power. We simply do not have equal access to political power and one could say we are governed by "the rule of corporate interests".

Find a way that gives any candidate on a ballot an equal opportunity (equal resources) to get his/her message to the voter and you just might get a representative who doesn't accept being told how to vote and spends more time consulting the populace on issues than sitting at party conventions, meetings and caucus meeting being told how to vote and what to say.