Who stands for Canadian Sovereignty? Not the Conservative Party of Canada

By CanSpeccy

Austria & Germany before the Anschluss

Germany neither intends nor wishes to interfere in the internal affairs of Austria, to annex Austria, or to conclude an Anschluss.

Adolf Hitler, 21st May 1935

Who stands for Canadian sovereignty?

Not the Conservative Party of Canada.

On February 4, 2011, Stephen Harper and Barack Obama signed a joint statement Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness (SPP) effectively declaring their intent to end Canadian independence.

Among the objectives of this treasonous "shared vision" is: the intention to

... pursue a perimeter approach to security, working together within, at, and away from the borders of our two countries to enhance our security...

Which, among other things, would certainly mean extension to Canada of state-mandated sexual assault of air travelers unwilling to receive a carcinogenic dose of radiation by passing through a full body X-Ray machine.

There is, beside this, much more that is harmful to the Canadian interest. For example,

We have advanced our prosperity through the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Followed by verbiage about how trade between the US and Canada has expanded, without any reference to the way in which Canadian jobs in the auto assembly, auto parts, textiles and many other industries have migrated to Mexico.

Then there's this glorious declaration of our joint commitment to 

We stand together to confront threats to our collective security as partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  We work shoulder-to-shoulder in the defense of both our nations through the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

Where "standing together" means "joint air assault with drones, cruise missiles stealth and fighter bombers on brown people who get in the way of our control of the World's supply of hydrocarbons" and where NORAD is to be understood as that organization that totally failed on 9/11 with resulting promotion for the responsible military commanders.

As for:

We recognize that our efforts should accelerate job creation and economic growth through trade facilitation at our borders and contribute directly to the economic security and well-being of both the United States and Canada.

That's hard to believe, since for the last decade the US and Canada have been exporting jobs to Asia and other low-wage areas of the World at a combined rate of over 50,000 a month, during which time the aggregate economy of Canada and the US has not, on any realistic measure, grown at all.

The fact is that both Canada and the US have sanctioned the mass export of capital and technology to low-wage countries such as China which have lax workplace health and safety standards and poor environmental protection legislation, while permitting goods manufactured in those countries to enter the North American market tariff-free. The result, obviously, is a massive rise in unemployment, limited to some degree in Canada by a boom, likely now about to burst, in global demand for resources.

This policy of destroying jobs has been justified by bank employed economists who talk irrelevantly about Ricardo's principle of "comparative advantage," which asserts that free trade makes us all better off. But that's a lie as it concerns developed economies where high wages depend on high capital investment.

The export of Western capital and associated technology to low-wage jurisdictions and the free flow of cheaply made goods in return, results not in mutual prosperity but mass unemployment and widespread poverty in the West, as we now see in the US and in the mainly deficit-ridden and near bankrupt European countries.

Yet such a transfer is precisely what the SPP promotes, very much to the profit of the capitalist class who long ago shed any sense of allegiance to Canada or anywhere else: their allegiance being only to their money, their class, and the economists, politicians and other lackeys and hangers on who promote their interest.

On policing:

We intend to build on existing bilateral law enforcement programs to develop the next generation of integrated cross-border law enforcement operations that leverage cross-designated officers and resources to jointly identify, assess, and interdict persons and organizations involved in transnational crime.

 Which surely makes any sensible Canadian more appreciative of the RCMP, whatever their faults. Or do you welcome the invasion of Canada by miscellaneous trigger-happy American law enforcement agents?

And the integration should be extended:

The United States and Canada intend to establish a Beyond the Border Working Group (BBWG) composed of representatives from the appropriate departments and offices of our respective federal governments.

And the position of the Liberal Party of Canada?

Under the late great fiasco Paul Martin, the abolition of Canada was their idea, an idea to which Paul Martin's parachute star candidate and long-time American resident, Michael Ignatieff, supports in a characteristically two-faced way.

Which leaves only the NDP, who, despite their wacky economic ideas, deserve the support of patriotic Canadians for their consistent opposition to the SPP.