Why we publish this Service

This Service will fight resolutely to oppose all centralist policies, and work tirelessly for parliamentary and constitutional reform that provides the machinery essential for the Canadian people to insist on political accountability.

Another grave threat to the future of our country as a genuinely free nation comes from within: from the current bureaucratic censorship and book-banning by the federal government of anything expressing a view considered by the Elite Establishment to be 'politically incorrect,' and the escalating attack upon our fundamental rights of freedom of speech and assembly, and the right of dissent. This assault upon the right of Canadians to examine all sides of any issue, and to dissent or express a 'politically incorrect' view, is being promoted under the pretense of combatting 'racism' or 'anti-Semitism.' Yet, this spurious ploy which now threatens the freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and freedom to listen, of Canadians of all ethnic and religious backgrounds, under the pretense of defending 'human rights' and 'protecting minorities,' is in reality slipping the totalitarian shackles upon all Canadians.
This dastardly ploy has no place in our heritage of individual freedom and personal responsibility; and this Service will battle with all its strength and resources to expose and repel this and all other insidious attacks upon our heritage.

And, also, this Service will oppose with all its resources the shameful arrests and deportations of Canadian citizens for so-called 'war crimes' allegedly committed more than half a century ago in distant lands during the stress and duress of wartime. These arrests and deportations are reminiscent of the former Soviet Union's brand of 'justice,' are motivated by a spirit of hate and vengeance, are an outrageous waste of our tax-dollars; and they constitute a denial of the Christian precept of love, forgiveness, reconciliation and regeneration. And they have no legitimate place in our great country.

Essential Weapons
Essential weapons in today's battle for our country include facts, information, knowledge and understanding. And it is in researching and placing in your hands these essential 'weapons,' and challenging a renewal of faith, vision and dedication, that this Service plays a unique role in our nation's defence and future. And more than this, you'll find that we also consistently point out and underscore the constructive policies and reforms essential for the regeneration and rebuilding of our country. And so we welcome new readers to our family, but with the forewarning that it's a hardcore, dedicated family, and that you'll find our Service neither enjoyable nor pleasant reading.
It is not written for the faint of heart. It deals fearlessly with the great and often 'controversial' and 'politically incorrect' issues of the hour, ugly as they may sometimes seem, but an understanding of which is essential to our survival as a free people.

To all our readers, new and 'old,' may you throughout the coming year find our reports provocative, challenging, and useful in defence of God and Country. --Ron Gostick (Publisher)

A few further notes All policies are rooted in philosophies. And the philosophical roots of this Service's policy are the principles to be found in the Gospels of the New Testament. We might sum up our objectives in these terms:
o To promote loyalty to the Christian concept of God, and to a society in which every individual enjoys inalienable rights derived from God, not from the State.
o To defend the Free Society and its institutions -- private property, consumer control of production through genuinely free and responsible enterprise, and limited, decentralized government.
o To promote financial policies which will reduce taxation, eliminate debt, and make possible material security for all with greater leisure time for cultural activities, now made possible by optimal utilization of high-tech development.
o To oppose all forms of monopoly, whether described as public or private.
o To encourage reform that would give the grassroots electorate more input and control over public policy, and make its public representatives and governments more accountable to it.
o To support policies genuinely concerned with conserving and protecting natural resources, including the soil, and an environment reflecting (God's) natural laws.

RESPECTING the importance of the individual, this Service:
REJECTS the materialistic concept that the individual can do nothing, that he is but flotsam drifting on the sea of history;
BELIEVES that the individual does count;
AND FURTHER BELIEVES that the individual, calling upon God's grace and guidance, can be more than a helpless victim of environment; that the individual, working in association with others of faith and courage -- the dedicated minority -can help to shape and mould history, and make a constructive contribution to the future of our country.

RESPECTING GOVERNMENT,
this Service believes that: It is not the legitimate role of government to do for people what they can and should do for themselves. The prime role of government should be to maintain law and order and the general conditions which encourage the exercise of personal initiative and responsibility by the people in looking after their own welfare.

Surrendering to Caesar
Nearly 24 years ago, in our January 1978 issue, we published under the above heading the following article by the great Australian patriot, Eric D. Butler.

Those who doubt that the clock of Christian Civilization has been wound back should be asked to consider how the individual has become progressively subservient to Big Brother Governments. Government is Caesar, and Christ said in reply to what was a trick question, that while Caesar was necessary for men living together in society, the individual must only render unto Caesar that which was Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's.
Christ's reply must have amazed those who heard it. It contained a profound Truth that was not comprehended fully at the time. That truth had to be applied as history unfolded, with the evolving of the correct relationship between the individual and Government.

Genuine democracy, where individuals exercise power 'over' governments, is a manifestation of practical Christianity. As the great Lord Acton observed, when Christ spoke of Caesar and God, he "gave to the State a legitimacy it had never before enjoyed, and set bounds to it that had never yet been acknowledged. And He not only delivered the precept but He also forged the instrument to execute it.
To limit the power of the State ceased to be the hope of patient, ineffectual philosophers and became the perpetual charge of a universal Church."

A study of the history of government in England reveals the successes achieved by the Christian philosophers in creating a climate of opinion in which a constitution could be evolved which ensured that Caesar was kept in his proper place. The most important figure at Runnymede when King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, was the great Archbishop Langton. Langton claimed to speak with Authority concerning the laws of God. He did not insist that Caesar was not necessary, but that he should recognize the truth that even he was subservient to the laws of God.
Magna Carta was one of the great constitutional landmarks in English history. It insisted on the natural rights of the individual, rights derived from God and not from Caesar. That which is granted only by Caesar can be taken away by Caesar.

Reducing the power of Caesar
Modern governments have exercised a control over the individual which would never have been tolerated in medieval Europe. The Divine Right of Kings has given way to the Divine Right of Governments sheltering behind something called 'majority rule.' The philosophy underlying modern government is that once a government obtains a majority of the votes of electors, irrespective of what lies are told to trick the electors (or how low the percentage of qualified electors voted), it should be able to do as it likes until the next election.
Under the Divine Right of Kings, the King could at least be made personally responsible for his actions. But under the Divine Right of Government no one is responsible. An increasing portion of the individual's life comes under the control of officials operating under delegated legislation which has the force of law.
Nothing is more destructive of individual initiative than government by regulation. Every increase in the power of Caesar is at the expense of the power of the individual. The individual is not then capable of rendering unto God that which belongs to God.

Security and genuine freedom of choice are essential for the individual to serve God. But both individual security and freedom are being destroyed as Caesar takes more of the individual's substance in the form of increased taxation. Inflation is one of the most insidious forms of taxation because it is a form of disguised theft. Irrespective of what governments say about inflation, they frame their budgets on the assumption that it is going to continue. Caesar now has a vested interest in continuing inflation, which automatically increases Caesar's power.

The Divine Right of Government
During the evolution of Western Christendom, the traditional role of the Church was to help curb the power of Caesar. The Christian Church appealed to the power of God to offset the power of Caesar. Relationships between individuals were governed by the conception of voluntary co-operation. But today even Christian clerics preach that man's problems can only be resolved by increasing the power of Caesar. They ignore the fact that most of man's problems are the result of excessive power being in the hands of Caesar. Some even humorously describe themselves as "Christian Socialists," which is like saying that fire and water are basically the same.

The regeneration of Christian societies is only possible if enough Christians co-operate to decrease the power of Caesar; to insist that their Christian responsibilities make it impossible for them to be subservient to Caesar. Every victory over Caesar, such as a genuine reduction in taxation, is a manifestation of practical Christianity. During the celebrations traditionally associated with the birth of Him who said that He had come that the individual might enjoy the life more abundant, it would be appropriate that those who call themselves Christians ponder on the meaning of Christ's famous statement concerning God and Caesar. The future of Civilization depends upon an understanding of the Truth contained in that remarkable statement. (The end of Mr. Butler's article)

Mr. Butler's article was published nearly 24 years ago. It is even more relevant today, as since the Trudeau era the Canadian Caesar has been relentlessly and exponentially increasing its power and control by invasive projection and meddling in the affairs and jurisdictions of the individual, the family and the provincial order of government.

FROM MONTH TO MONTH

'Gay marriage' before the court
The National Post, Nov. 8, carried a report captioned "Marriage applies to union of man, woman: Ottawa." Here are excerpts: "TORONTO - The institution of marriage will be essentially destroyed if extended to same-sex couples, lawyers for the federal government argued at a court hearing in Toronto yesterday. "Three Ontario Superior Court judges are hearing a motion by eight gay and lesbian couples that the ban on same-sex marriages violates the Charter of Rights. ... "

But Roslyn Levine, a lawyer for the federal government, said that by its very definition, marriage applies only to the union of a man and a woman. "The three foundations of marriage are 'procreation, fidelity and sacrament,' as defined by the common law and Parliament, Ms. Levine said. "She added the definition is 'Charter proof' because it is not intended to exclude any group but to outline the 'goods and goals' of a heterosexual union. "When asked by the panel if she believed the institution 'would fall' if any one of its three foundations were abandoned, Ms. Levine replied: 'That institution is gone at the end of the day if one of the goals is taken away.' ..."

While many Canadians, knowlegeable and respectful of our Common Law Christian heritage, may find it rather an absurdity that such a question as 'same-sex marriage' should be wasting our time and money in court, at least there's a small gleam of hope that Federal Government legal counsel are defending our historic concept of marriage.

PM's political buddy guilty
The National Post, Nov. 8, published a report captioned "Shawinigan businessman pleads guilty." Here are excerpts: "OTTAWA - A Shawinigan businessman yesterday pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud, admitting that he misused more than $190,000 from two federally funded business groups in the St. Maurice riding of the Prime Minister. "Paul Lemire admitted he defrauded both Groupe Forces and the Canadian Institute of Tourism and E-Commerce (CITEC), which together received $7.5-million in Human Resources Development Canada and other federal grants, while he oversaw the business groups. "Mr. Lemire admitted he misappropriated more than $55,000 in salary and other honorariums from CITEC, even though the institute had formal rules barring him and others on the board of directors from receiving such payments. "He also admitted to using unauthorized credit cards to misappropriate an additional $135,000 from Groupe Forces, an economic development group, to cover personal expenses and restaurant meals. Charges of theft were dropped. ..."

Our last couple of Prime Ministers seem to have had quite a crop of crooked buddies back in their constituences. Of course, they couldn't be responsible for the company they keep, could they! Or for the tax-dollar grants they got!

Supplementary Section
A Special Enterprise Report on Philosophy, Finance, Economics, Etc.

The American Tragedy - 'Cui Bono'?
The New Times Survey is published monthly in Melbourne, Australia, by the Australian League of Rights. Its September issue, under the above caption, published the following penetrating assessment of the September llth attack on New York and our consequent War on Terrorism.

The world is stunned by the horror events in New York and Washington. People normally indifferent to world affairs have been glued to television sets watching the tragic human stories emerging from Manhattan. Paper after paper has declared that a state of war exists. Within hours of the attacks the airwaves were full of speculation and theories of what had happened and who was behind it all. The general consensus -- although no one would specifically say so -- was that the former member of the Saudi royals, and now an arch-terrorist, Osama bin Laden, was the culprit.

Several times a comparison with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was made. This is significant. For over 40 years Pearl Harbour was officially held to be an unprovoked surprise attack. It is only in recent years that it has been undeniably revealed that both Churchill and Roosevelt, due to the cracking of Japanese secret codes, knew in advance of the impending attack, and could have saved the subsequent significant loss of life by passing the information on to naval commanders. But it was withheld, and the deep American shock was used as the pretext to drag a hitherto reluctant US into World War II. Something of this magnitude was needed to supersede Roosevelt's election pledge that America would not be dragged into a 'European' war. Conditioned for war.
There is little doubt that a similar reaction is being bred among Americans in 2001. But war against whom? And why?

There is also little doubt that truthful and dispassionate answers to these questions will be withheld from ordinary people in the USA. It is now virtually certain that there will be war in the Middle East; and that the United States will be involved, not as a reluctant and divided surrogate to a beleaguered Israel, but as a massively injured partner, with an aggrieved population still outraged over the attacks on its own soil. The similarities to Pearl Harbour will be uncanny.

The replacement of Prime Minister Barak with Ariel Sharon, after Israel had torpedoed any chance of peace under the Oslo Accords with an aggressive settlement-building programme in perceived Palestinian territory, linked by fortified by-pass roads that forestalled any viable future autonomy for Palestinians, marked an implicit change of course on the part of Israel. Arafat's insistence on continued peace negotiations, and the corruption and repression of his administration towards his own people, had outworn the patience of younger and more militant Palestinians, who recommenced the direct confrontation of the intifada, made immeasurably worse by the suicide bombers. To such the most potent military force had no answer.

Cui Bono?
Sharon was elected by an Israeli voting population that was getting hurt and had surged to the right. Sharon declared a technological war against a people virtually in Israel's midst. Helicopters, tanks and gunships faced down stone-throwers and suicide bombers, supplemented for the first time since 1948 with rifles and mortars. Palestinian leaders were targeted and assassinated. Gaza was turned into the biggest prison camp in the world, with a population unable to get out, living in conditions akin to recently-displayed refugee camps in Afghanistan.
Using its widespread worldwide Zionist-oriented monopoly in the media, the plight of a dispossessed people, the Palestinians, was downplayed, and gradually portrayed as 'terrorist' in nature, as compared to the unfortunate but necessary self-defence of Israel, which had no option but to do what had been forced on it.

The words of Sharon, one of the greatest terrorists of the modern era, with enough blood on his hands to deserve arraignment before any court for crimes against humanity, sounded probable to those who had no concept of previous events in the Middle East.
By comparison, the only voice for the Palestinians was that which it could employ to a limited audience from its own TV station, and the courageous efforts of a few journalists such as Robert Fisk, whose articles were kept off the major world's papers and screens.

But this was enough, by the brutality and starkness portrayed, to present two sides to the question --a situation Israel had seldom faced before. This year the Palestinian broadcasting station was demolished by helicopter gunship in a rocket attack, as was Orient House, the official headquarters of the Palestinians. A vicious economic attack was made on ordinary Palestinian families, rooting out century-old olive plantations, razing homes and market places, slaughtering livestock.
The scenes of carnage outraging the people of New York were suffered day-by-day, months and years on end, by the Palestinian people.

For Israel, it was either to withdraw to the 1967 boundaries unencumbered to the Palestinians, or it was a war of aggression in the hope of eliminating the Palestinians as a people altogether, even though this would inevitably mean an escalation of war to involve all Arab nations in the Middle East, with the possibilities of a world wide nuclear conflict. It seems clear that Sharon chose the latter course.

From the beginning his chosen course was heightened provocation, starting with his visit under military guard to the Dome of the Rock last September. Apart from anything else, Israel was losing the propaganda war. Sufficient journalists, even though still a small minority, were getting out enough embarrassing stories to make life difficult for the scenario Israel wanted to portray. The picture of the Israeli torture camps in Lebanon became public knowledge. The daily life in Gaza and the West Bank still hit the screens now and then. The situation at the UN antiracism conference in Durban where, after the withdrawal of the United States and Israel, 3,000 nongovernment organizations from 44 regions publicly condemned Israel's racial policies, indicated a worldwide growth in understanding about realities in the Middle East.

Arms and Missiles
So throughout the Middle East there was an awareness of Israel's intentions, and increased activity in obtaining arms and building military forces. Syria suffered Israeli air raids on its forces in Lebanon last June, and President Bashar Assad does not intend to be caught napping again. Syria is obtaining Scud D missiles from North Korea, and is steadily building up defence systems in Lebanon and Syria. As September opened, Israel's Ariel Sharon visited Vladimir Putin in Moscow, to try to forestall the sale of Russia's S-300 antiaircraft and antimissile rockets to Iran. The S-300 is reputed to be superior to anything the West can offer.
On September 5, almost as Sharon departed, Iran's Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani arrived in Moscow, seeking S-300's and MIG-29 aircraft. What transpired is not known. But it is known that Iran is building a nuclear reactor at Bushehr, being constructed by Russian companies. Iran fears a strike from Israel similar to that which destroyed Iraq's reactor at Osirak in 1981. Whatever else is said about the ubiquitous Saddam Hussein in Iraq, he is still there, by permission of the West.

For ten years Iraq has suffered economic sanctions from the West -- with Australia's (and Canada's) compliance -- with devastating consequences for women and children who have been dying from what one UN administrator, who resigned in disgust, called "genocide." The facts will be readily attested to by the increasing number of Iraqi refugees landing in Australia. Rumour has it that some of Saddam Hussein's crack troops have been moved towards Jordan, with the idea of supplementing Palestinian fighters.

In any conflict that broke out in the Middle East, Israel would now have to deal not only with an external aggressor, but a domestic situation totally disruptive to a normal war effort. But if the US would take the lead, as it did in the Gulf War, Israel's whole situation would change. For this reason, the tragedy in New York and Washington has played into Israel's hands.

Cui Bono? (Who benefits?)
The answer comes readily to mind. Is this to imply that Israel had anything to do with the strike? Of course not. It is safe to say, however, that the massive attacks on the Trade Centre and the Pentagon were highly skilled efforts involving a lot of preplanning -- months or even years. To assume that American security or the Israeli Mossad had no inkling of what was in the pipeline is to stretch credulity. There is such a thing, as Admiral Nelson taught us, as the "blind eye."
The recent events in the United States will create ripples that will affect us all. They are but a prelude of things to come.

The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small.
As usual in war, the greatest casualty will be truth. But even the lie, as Solzhenitsyn has pointed out, does not endure permanently. Retribution and revenge are now the order of the day. It is time we learned that they are a monstrous base for a world that yearns for peace and harmony. (End of the Times Survey article)

A few notes, views and insights respecting the war on terrorism
The following notes, views and insights respecting our "war on terrorism" are based upon a veritable stream of news items, articles and e-mails coming into our office in recent weeks from many parts of the world.

While there's an obvious reluctance -- almost amounting to a conspiracy of silence by Washington and its main Western allies in this "war on terrorism" -- to ask WHY there is such widespread Islamic anger against the West in general and the United States in particular, there is no doubt in the minds of Third World nations what the problem is:
The Palestine problem and US support, financial and military, of Israel in its war against the Palestinians in their ancient homeland.

The Israeli intellectual Stephen Steinlight, a former Director of National Affairs at the American Jewish Committee, in an article widely e-mailed recently, said that "nearly 80 percent of the entire foreign aid budget of the United States (goes) to Israel." And much of that annual aid is in the form of the latest high-tech military equipment. Would Americans be angry at Russia, may we ask, if Moscow were financing and supplying arms to an American neighbour who was attempting to kill Americans and steal their country? Because that is precisely how the Islamic world sees the Washington/ New York/Israeli liaison.

"Noose is tightening around bin Laden," is the heading of the Toronto Sun's report by Foreign Affairs columnist Eric Margolis in its November 18th issue. Here are excerpts:
"Osama bin Laden survived at least 10 assassination attempts mounted by the Soviets, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. But now, after the rapid retreat of Taliban forces and fall of Kabul to the Northern Alliance, the noose is tightening around the world's most wanted man. "The Taliban's retreat was inevitable. Its 30,000 lightly armed tribal fighters spread over a Texas-sized nation could not withstand massive U.S. air attacks and Northern Alliance Tajik and Uzbek troops freshly supplied by Russia with tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery. The Taliban's deftly executed surprise retreat wrong-footed the U.S. and Pakistan, who didn't want the Alliance to occupy Kabul before they could cobble together a government of their own choosing.

The Northern Alliance is a proxy for Russia.
Its two military leaders are Gen. Rashid Dostam, a brutal communist warlord who slaughtered 30,000 civilians in the 1990s, and Gen. Mohammad Faheem, a senior officer of Khad, the former Afghan communist secret police, an arm of the Soviet KGB. Khad's forces tortured and murdered thousands of Afghans. To Washington's embarrassment, the Alliance also controls Afghanistan's opium and heroin exports. The Taliban, a religious movement, had shut down the drug trade. The war against terrorism has plainly taken priority over the war on drugs. "Handing northern Afghanistan and Kabul over to the Russians appears the price the U.S. had to pay for Moscow's support in the hunt for bin Laden. As this column has long warned, if the Taliban were overthrown it would be replaced by the even more brutal Uzbek-Tajik alliance dominated by Russia.

Having ousted the Russians from Afghanistan in the 1980s, Washington has now invited them back in. So far, clever Vladimir Putin is the big winner in the Afghan mess. The reality seems to confirm that during the 1980's the Western powers, primarily the USA, financed and equipped bin Laden and his Taliban group to battle and finally drive the Russian invaders out of Afghanistan. And now, the Western powers, primarily the USA, have been financing and equipping the Russian communist terrorists to defeat and drive out the Taliban group, leaving the Russian-controlled terrorists once again in control! Quite a game, indeed! The only winners would seem to be the Red-oriented terrorists and the international armament crowd and the bankers who finance them.
And the victims?
The poor people of Afghanistan, and Western taxpayers who foot the bill for such nonsense in the name of 'foreign policy.'

There is a significant body of evidence -- most of it circumstantial at this point -- that the September 11 Twin-Tower attack in New York was, indeed, another "Pearl Harbour," diabolically designed and executed to involve the United States in a war with the Islamic world -- for the benefit of whom? After all, he who conceives and designs a crime is usually the one who stands to gain or benefit. More on this in a future issue if we come up with another few pieces of concrete evidence.

We recently received by e-mail an essay on the 9/11 tragedy written by Robert Jensen, a professor of journalism at the University of Texas in Austin. Following, is a portion of his essay:
"Although we may not like the label, the United States is an empire. And like empires of the past, the United States is quick to try to solve problems with its overwhelming military power. "But this problem will not be solved by force, by the 'global campaign to wipe out terrorism' that officials are calling for. We should not forget the wiping out of terrorism inevitably will mean wiping out many innocent people, which will only deepen the resentment of the United States around the world -- especially the Third World -- and strengthen the resolve of terrorists. It will not end terrorism but create new terrorists.

"The problem of terrorism will be solved by making peace and seeking justice. That will not be achieved at the end of a gun, but by changing the posture of the United States in the world. We must move from claiming the right to make unilateral demands to truly multilateral engagement.

"If the United States were to announce its intention not to avenge this attack with violence but with a new approach -- one based in a commitment to a real peace in the Middle East based on real justice -- the world would not see it as weakness. Such a declaration would be the ultimate sign of strength.

"There is a difficult truth about the United States that we must come to terms with if we are to understand why we were targeted for this cruel attack:
For more than three decades, the United States has been the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East, and until we reverse that position we will be the target of the frustration and anger of many people there.

"Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza since 1967 is at the heart of the conflict in the Middle East, and that occupation has been possible because of support the United States -- through Republican and Democratic administrations. We call ourselves the architects of the 'peace process,' but in truth we have for decades blocked the international consensus for peace, which has called for Israel to give up the occupation and demanded basic rights for the Palestinian people.

"Since 1991, when the Bush administration made sure that a U.S.-led war would be the only response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the resentment of the United States among the people of the Middle East has only deepened. Our willingness to use massive and indiscriminate violence in that war, and our eagerness to establish what has become a permanent military presence in the region, has made us few friends. …

" Professor Jensen, in other words, postulated that Christian charity and justice, not vengeance and violence, is the key to genuine peace in the world. Unfortunately, the architects of the One World Order have little interest in either charity or justice, and are perhaps somewhat concerned that their drive for world power has not been progressing as fast as they planned. Let us hope that the 9/11 tragedy at least serves as a wake-up call to the people of all countries.

ON TARGET Section

Draft Proposal for a Revised and Updated Canadian Constitution 2000 A.D. - Part 7 -

Last month, in Part 6 of this series on the Canadian Constitution 2000 A.D. Draft Proposal for a Revised and Updated Canadian Constitution, we dealt with the sections on "National Equity," General Provisions, and the First and Second Schedules near the end of the document. The "Third Schedule," dealing with "The Public Works of Canada within the Provinces," follows the Present Constitution closely. Today, in Part 7, we continue on -- The Fourth Schedule
Defence of Canada
(Note: Our present Constitution -- Sect. 91(7), Page 27 -- lists military services and defence as a Federal jurisdiction. Likewise, the Proposed Draft -- Sect. 67(l) #8, Page 13 -- lists defence services as a Federal jurisdiction. But the Proposed Draft further spells this section out in its Fourth Schedule, as follows.) --
1. The Governor-General shall direct the Prime Minister to Assemble Parliament to Prepare any Declaration of War, Prosecution of Insurrection, Peace-Keeping, or Address any other Matter of National Security where Disposition of any Part of the Canadian Armed Forces is required.
2. The Federal Government shall Support and Maintain the Canadian Armed Forces and Coast Guard, each with its Reserve Component, for the Defence of Canada, Assistance of Allies, and Support of Civil Authorities in National Emergencies.
3. The Federal Government may dispose Parts, or All of the Canadian Armed Forces, for the Defence of Canada, or for the Support of Canada's Allies, or for Peace-Keeping Purposes, upon acquiring at least a Seventy-Five Percent Majority in both Houses of Parliament for such Proposed Action.
4. The Federal Government shall commission any Portion of the Canadian Armed Forces in Response to a Declared State of Emergency of any Province.
5. The Federal Government shall commit Canadian Armed Forces Personnel to Contain any Federal State of Emergency and, if such State of Emergency persists and continues for a Period of Forty-Eight Hours, further Direction of the Canadian Armed Forces shall require Seventy-Five Percent Support of Both Houses of Parliament and the Consent of the Governor-General of Canada.
6. The Federal Government shall at all times appropriate Necessary Revenue to Maintain and Enhance Canada's Armed Forces for the Defence of Canada and to Support Canadian Allies.

The reason for revising and spelling out this section, was not only to clarify Federal jurisdiction and responsibility from a security perspective, but to tie Executive power and responsibility more closely back to Parliamentary scrutiny and public sanction. The Revised Proposal continues --

The Fifth Schedule Oath of Allegiance
I, (name) do swear, That I will faithfully bear true Allegiance to the Crown, Canada, and The Canadian Constitution. Declaration of Qualification I (name) do declare and testify, That I am duly qualified to Sit as a Member of (Parliamentary Body) according to the Provisions of this Act, and that I will faithfully bear true Allegiance to the Crown, Canada and its Constitution.

Our present Constitution expresses allegiance to the Crown, but the Revised Proposal adds "to Canada and the Canadian Constitution," thus drawing attention to the fact that in Canada the Crown is the Crown of Canada, and it's the Crown's duty to uphold and defend our Constitution and the rights and freedoms of the Canadian people.

The Sixth and final Schedule, titled "Referenda Criteria," which will complete this series, will be published next month as Part 8, God willing.

War on terrorism skipped the KLA
The National Post, Nov. 13, under the above heading, published the following article by James Bissett, a former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania, 1990-1992.
U.S. President George W. Bush has made it clear the war against terrorists will be unremitting and relentless. Even those countries affording shelter to terrorists will not be spared. These words come too late for the Serbs, Gypsies, Jews, Turks and other non-Albanians who have been driven from their ancestral homes in Kosovo by the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army. It is too late as well for Macedonia, which has been forced by the United States, the European Union and NATO to yield to all the demands of the Albanian terrorists in that country.

This double standard and lack of consistency when dealing with terrorists calls into question the policies the United States and its NATO allies followed in the Balkans. It also underlines the necessity for the United States and its allies to clean up their act if they wish to retain credibility in the war against terrorism. The bombing of Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999 allegedly to stop ethnic cleansing and prevent the Balkans from becoming once again the powder keg of Europe has backfired. Kosovo has become exclusively an Albanian province with the exception of a few stalwart Serbians in the Mitrovica area who live surrounded by barbed wire and are threatened daily with murder and mayhem by their Albanian neighbours.

The Balkans, since the end of the bombing, have been in constant turmoil caused by the KLA terrorist activities. NATO allowed the KLA, which under the terms of United Nations Resolution 1244 was to be disarmed after the end of the bombing, to keep its weapons. The KLA was renamed the Kosovo Protection Force and been given the task of maintaining peace and security in Kosovo. How well it has been able to carry out this task is summed up in a report dated Feb. 26, 2000, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, which accuses the protection corps of widespread acts of murder, torture and extortion. That condemnation should not have come as a surprise.

As early as 1998, the U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and funds supplied from Islamic countries and individuals, including Osama bin Laden. This did not stop the United States from arming and training KLA members in Albania and in the summer of 1998 sending them back into Kosovo to assassinate Serbian mayors, ambush Serbian policemen and intimidate hesitant Kosovo Albanians. The aim was to destabilize Kosovo and overthrow Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic.
Bin Laden and radical Muslim groups have been deeply involved in the Balkans since the civil wars in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995.

Despite a UN arms embargo and with the knowledge and support of the United States, arms, ammunition and thousands of Mujahideen fighters were smuggled into Bosnia to help the Muslims. Many remain in Bosnia today and are recognized as a serious threat to Western forces there. The Bosnian government is said to have presented bin Laden with a Bosnian passport in recognition of his contribution to their cause. He and his al-Qaeda network were also active in Kosovo, and KLA members trained in his camps in Afghanistan and Albania.
Emboldened by the knowledge it could achieve its political objectives by terror, the KLA moved into southern Serbia and initiated, under the eyes of 40,000 NATO troops, a campaign of terror against the Serbian population. Not until NATO permitted the new democratic government of Serbia to send the Serb army back into the area was the KLA routed and sent back across the border into Kosovo.

Macedonia, with its large Albanian minority, was the KLA's next target. In February, its forces moved against this small and newly independent democracy. The familiar pattern of murder, ambush and intimidation followed. Unlike Serbia, which still possessed a powerful and well-equipped army, Macedonia had little with which to defend itself against the well equipped and battle-hardened KLA fighters. The promises of assistance made by former U.S. President Bill Clinton in return for Macedonia's co-operation during the Yugoslav bombing were forgotten. Nevertheless, when the fighting started, it appeared NATO and the European Union might help Macedonia resist the terrorist threat.

In March, Lord Robertson, the Secretary-General of NATO, condemned the KLA terror campaign and described them as "murderous thugs." He supported the Macedonian government's refusal to negotiate with the terrorists. Obviously, Lord Robertson was not aware the United States had other ideas about which side to support in Macedonia. The message was made clear in May, when U.S. diplomat Robert Fenwick, ostensibly the head of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, in Macedonia, met secretly in Prizren, Kosovo, with the leaders of the Albanian political parties and KLA representatives. Macedonian officials were not invited. It was clear the United States was backing the Albanian terrorist cause.

This was confirmed a month later, when a force of 400 KLA fighters was surrounded in the town of Aracinovo near the capital, Skopje. As Macedonian security forces moved in, they were halted on NATO orders. U.S. army buses from Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo arrived to remove all the heavily armed terrorists to a safer area of Macedonia. German reporters later revealed that 17 U.S. military advisors were accompanying the KLA terrorists in Aracinovo.

In August, fearing the Macedonian forces might be able to defeat the KLA, U.S. Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice flew to Kiev and ordered the Ukrainian government to stop sending further military equipment to Macedonia. Since Ukraine was the only country supplying Macedonia with military assistance, the Macedonians realized continued resistance against the KLA terrorists, the EU and NATO was futile. Macedonia was forced to concede defeat and obliged to accept all the terrorist demands. When the peace treaty was signed, Lord Robertson proclaimed, "This day marks the entry of Macedonia into modern, mainstream Europe ... a very proud day for their country." (End of Mr. Bissett's article)

COMMENT (by R.G.): Well! Well! Well! Looking at a world map and focussing on the Balkans, the Middle East and Caspian area, like a giant jigsaw puzzle, the pieces are beginning to fall into place, reveal a pattern and picture ... which throws a new light and meaning on a number of seemingly irrational, if not incredible, international diplomatic somersaults and backflips, 'peace actions' and 'wars,' and the political and cultural totalitarian threat today masquerading as "Globalization."

Yes, it does indeed involve conspiracy and secrecy and keeping the public in the dark; were this not the case the people would rise up and drive the makers of violence and wars from their political and financial temples. Space constraints won't allow a discussion of this subject at this time, but we'll come back to it in an early issue.

WW II Hero dead at 81
-By Ron Gostick-

Doug Collins, a renowned World War II hero and a fearless defender of freedom of speech, passed away in North Vancouver on September 29th. My wife and I were campaigning in the Western provinces at the time, and this is our first opportunity to inform our readers who might not yet heard of this great patriot's death.

After coming to Canada from the U.K. following World War II, Doug worked for the CBC on the West Coast and then in the Press Gallery in Ottawa, and later worked for the Vancouver Sun and the (Vancouver) North Shore News. And for years he was Canada's foremost journalist and author exposing our suicidal immigration policy and the mounting attack upon our Christian heritage and freedom of speech. Douglas Fisher, the eminent journalist and dean of the Parliamentary Press Gallery (and, incidentally, also a WW II vet), devoted his column in the Nov. 14th Toronto Sun to Doug Collin's life and legacy. Here are excerpts:
"What I (wish) to explain is the respect I have had for Doug Collins, despite some views he held on dicey topics like immigration and the Holocaust which didn't square with mine. The bedrock of my respect was his soldiering. He was a junior British NCO in the infantry when in June, 1940, just coming 20, he was captured by the Germans near the beaches of Dunkirk. "As a PoW, the Germans sent Doug, a physical powerhouse, to labour in mines in Silesia. There, over the next five years, he engineered 10 escapes, most of them alone, toward the Russian lines. Each failed, although the last one took him into Romania and recapture there just before the war ended.
After repatriation, he stayed for some time in western Europe, working with the British Control Commission 'de-Nazifying' Germany. ...

"In later years, although I came to disagree with what Collins expressed on specifics like the toll of the Holocaust or the most sensible scale and choice of immigrants for Canada, I felt he had the right as a journalist to make them. I knew it took courage I rarely had. "Early, as a columnist for the Tely in the mid-'60s, I had found that any analysis which argued specific, ethnic limits on immigration or questioned Canada's foreign policy in the Middle East or belittled multiculturalism brought charges of racism and anti-Semitism.

"I wasn't brave enough to keep banging away on these themes, given it meant public accusations of bigotry and anti-Semitism. Collins had the bravery ... "In a letter to me in 1979 about immigration, Collins made this point: 'Not a single politician that I know of has ever chosen to campaign against immigration. That has meant there has been no focal point of resistance, with the result that although the mass of the population is 'anti' they have not been able to express their feelings in an effective way.'
"I agreed with that then, and, by and large, it's still the case. ...

"I guess it's a generational thing, but I've long felt that by his conduct in war, Collins earned the right to sound off. I feel I owe it to him to say that he often deserved responses of more substance than he got." In other words, Doug Fisher admires the courage and bravery of Doug Collins in wartime -- a national hero no less. And, too, in peacetime journalism, while he may not agree with Collins on every detail of 'controversial' issues (for business reasons?), he defends his right to speak out -- and adds that Collins in fact by speaking out exhibited more courage than he or other journalists could muster.

In short, Doug Collins, in both war and peace, was a great Canadian of extraordinary integrity and bravery. That just about says it all, doesn't it: What more can a man give than in both peace and war he lay down his life for his country and loved ones with unmatched courage and integrity, that we who live on might still enjoy the rights and freedoms won and passed down to us by our forefathers?

DOUG COLLINS -- Magnificant in war, and even greater in peace?

May Doug's wife Betty and family and loved ones find strength and comfort in his life and memory; may his soul rest in peace; and by his example and standard, may we who battle on find the courage, strength and inspiration to take up the torch and accept the challenge that Doug's whole life now presents.

An excerpt from the Epilogue of Doug Collins' latest book, Here We Go Again!:
"In Canada, more than in most other Western countries, our misnamed Human Rights Commissions maintain a strict watch over words. One can discuss budgets and 'safe' politics, but venture into forbidden territory and one can land up before a kangaroo court in which the 'adjudicator' is judge, jury and prosecutor. "What is a kangaroo court? Let me repeat it. It is a court in which truth is no defence; where opinion is on trial; where fines can be unlimited; where juries do not exist; where the normal rules of evidence do not apply; where one can be fined for having hurt someone's feelings, and where impressions count more than facts."