William Ashley

I advocate for a relatively simple way of drastically reducing poverty. 1. The Right to work program - this program gives people an income that sits above the poverty line - with the opportunity for a work share bonus. These funds are raised from any surpluses created by the program itself and an across the board cycling. Cycling is done 1 cent for an income of $30,000 and 1 cent for every subsequent $10,000. It would cost approximately 50 billion to run the program give or take for employment costs. However the difference between it and action plan, is that it is geared to return on investment projects such as natural resources, affordable housing (which will provide sustainable income for the program, essential goods such as food and clothing, where as food is rising dramatically.) This program thus not only aims to remove poverty but to lower the cost of living, and thus poverty line (and cost of the program itself - thus reducing the cost to run, and increasing continuously the value of the program through re-inheritance of the funds into investment in the program). Likewise the program would provide training, and coordinate skills. It is not a bad thing that people are rich, it is an unfortunate thing that we aren't all rich. Being rich is good. It is just that there tends to be a limitation on how many rich people there are. Part of the proactive measure is to remove the war tax introduced in WWI called income tax. To do this everyone would pay back their personal share of the public debt or have that share confiscated as an estate tax on their death, pay it in life or death. But the idea is to pay down your debt in your life time (or just at the end of your lifetime). Of course concerns for hardship would be taken into account (also taken into account for other paid for by cycling programs). At minimum in life people would be required to pay their personal interest on the debt, instead of income taxes until it was paid, then pay for services, with some subsidies given to the poor. (Meanwhile corporations would pay an equal share to the annual debt interest divided from net profit of all companies combined (equal sum to share of wealth) instead of income tax until the debt was eliminated which oddly sits at about 15% but this amount would decrease by 1% or more per year as the debt decreased). The benefit to paying down more than the interest is that when you pay down the principle the cost on the interest reduces. Once the principal is paid in full - not interest tax. You pay nothing. Better yet with a price tag on citizenship sitting at the personal debt cost of citizens, all new citizens pay the same price that old citizens pay. So no one can say they don't pay their way. With 1 million new Canadians a year this represents some 30 billion in debt reduction just from new citizenship. With an immigration cap tied into the growth rate more or less this allow upto 100 billion or more in debt reduction from new citizens although one might think that number would be difficult to reach. However with unemployment reduced through right to work efficiency and thus growth might be increased allowing more debt paydown faster. What is important is not the divide itself but insuring that the bottom of the line has a standard and quality of life that we should all expect. Other than that the public body must channel ways of utilizing the public resources and wealth to improve the quality of life of society. The other measure of course is inflation - done by "printing" if the value of currency is decreasing people will be forced to spend their wealth or loose it, or transfer it into commodities, land etc.. or transfer it to another currency. This is "wealth transfer". We don't need to steal the past and a rightful legacy and right of their work and determination or grace, what however we can do is take right now and create a system where people are encouraged to only keep what they need, and reinvest the rest back into society to stimulate employment. Even if they are rich, as long as they are investing back in the public they are sharing their wealth so we can all grow as a society. As a government we control today, and we can work with yesterday. (Other measures are stopping government securities sales such as tresury and bonds, and other measures, such as the Payfor System and the Second Bank Initiative) http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=1

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Harper+announce+details+border+security+deal/5390608/story.html Almost time!!! To know what happened 9 months ago. lolz "perimeter security "action plan."" was it in the budget? Or does it start in January? "The broad outlines of the deal were contained in a declaration released at the start of negotiations" Wow negotiations that led to the exact things outlined 9 months ago. What a dialog. Negotiation. Can someone remind me what that word means again.

More signs of a divide between the military council and Jibril. I think it may only be a matter of time until he is offed like Younis "The military council rejects the idea of joining the NTC and they are considering this move an attack to hijack their revolution and [weaken] their authority. They say they are the ones who have been fighting Colonel Gaddafi for six months, and they are the ones who should represent the wish of the Libyan people," Ahelbarra said. He continued: "Sources from the military council told Al Jazeera that they reject the move and they will now ask for Mahmoud Jibril to quit. This is quite significant, it shows that differences and divisions are beginning to emerge." --- As soon as Foreign support is no longer needed to fight the war I think he will be gone. Along with some other figure that are puppets of the west.

It is mostly illegal in Canada to eat the Canada Goose because it is the national bird of Canada. It is like eating a bald eagle. http://www.wildgoosechasers.com/law.php www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/brochures/pdf/geeseshorelines-e.pdf Bald eagles are predators no, is that a good reason for a cull? Tastey bald eagle on the plate?

They can "renegotiate" treaty if they choose. However this is often done by creating "more modern versions" The corporations that have came out of it to rempresent places such as in Northern Quebec for Inuit claims - had reasonable success to give a cut to the local nunavit or whatever it was - however there were of course also individuals who had a stake in the process that were alienated. You cannot rule peacefully without consent.

The point was THEY OFFERED TO GIVE HIM UP. The failure to do so was the whole reason the US used to invade Afghanistan. Meaning the rationale behind that was false. By international law they could not turn him over to the US because there was no expectation of a fair trial or insuring his safety pending a fair trial. Read the Hague convention (original in french) it explicitly outlines the expectations of extradition, and a formal extradition request. The US did not meet the requirements for a formal extradition. THey did offer to turn him over to another country however, (which they appeared to), the US still invaded. The causi belli the US stated was not a legitimate causi belli because it was not "whole" under international law. Its demands were unjustified due to lack of guarentees to a fair trial or to Osama's safety pending trial. They refused him to be handed over to a third party to face fair trial. The US did not oblige. The US could have put in a formal extradition request to Pakistan if they really wanted him since they had formal relations with Pakistan. THEY CREATED AN UNNECESSARY WAR.

According to the article... NO YOU HAVN'T. THEY WERE STILL IN KANDAHAR at the airbase and transporting from there on patrols... They said combat operations would cease in July. THEY DIDN'T. ARMED PATROL AND FORCE PROTECTION ARE COMBAT ROLES. THEY LIED. Carrying bullets back and forth does not count as non combat roles if you carry those bullets to shoot at people. It is not what they said there were going to do. They said combat operations will cease in July. Now it is by the end of 2011. THEY ARE LIES.

------

No its called dragging your a$s. Its their country not Canada's. They are disenfranchised. They have no democratic option (NATO rigged the electoral candidates year after year, threatening people bribing them etc..) Fact is they have a reason to be there, it is their country. Canada is the INVADER NOT THE SAVIOUR to those people. THEY ARE MUSLIM THAT IS WHAT MUSLIMS DO THAT IS THEIR CULTURE THEIR COUNTRY THEIR CULTURE, THE OTHER AFGHANI'S HAVE ALSO CRITICIZED NATO'S OPERATIONS. DO YOU EVEN BOTHER TO READ THE REAL STORIES NOT JUST THE BRAINWASHED JUNK THAT WAR IS GOOD WE FIGHT WE GOOD. No it doesn't work that way Canada is half way across the world shooting people, murdering people, raping people, countless sexual assaults, drug violations, innocent murders, threats, and outright violence, THAT IS NOT THE TYPE OF CANADA THAT SHOULD BE SUPPORTED. The whole war was fabricated, within days the Taliban offered to give up Osama to Pakistan (they appeared to) and then the US just sat on intel that discovered his location. Canada shouldn't be there in the first place. Mistake one. then 2002 then 2003 then 2004 then 2005 then 2006 then 2007 then 2008 then 2009 then 2010 then 2011 --- and guess what I bet they will still be there in 2012 2013 and 2014. LIES unlawful undeclared war and lies.. they are liars and criminals. WAR CRIMINALS SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED! THEY ARE WAR CRIMINALS, THE US IS WAR CRIMINALS SUPPORTING A US WAR IS SUPPORTING WAR CRIMES. YOU ARE A WAR CRIMINAL IF YOU SUPPORT THEM! STOP. DEFENSE IS NOT OCCUPATION. They blamed Saudi's for the attacks not Afghan's. The Taliban offered to stop sheltering Osama and turn him over to Pakistan and an informal request for extradition (the us request violated the Hauge convention on extradition, technically and legally the Taliban could not in good conscience turn him over to the US due to the absence of a chance for a fair trial - also the US did not request extradition of him, even though Osama had been on the US most wanted list for years) . There was no causi belli the US (and allies such as Canada ) steamrolled them. The Taliban is not Al Qaeda.

habeas corpus. Opinions arn't alwaya different as a response to an act. Like I said you can have overlapping jurisdictions, where an act may or may not be a breach of the peace to a given jurisdiction. Many times states resolve treaties to clarify those sorts of issues. The British Annexed and claimed most of Canada, and set out to enter treaties. You are either a denier of the source, or not aware how heavily first nations rights to self determination have been watered down over the last 200 years. Over the last half century or so, some of that enfranchisement has reasserted itself - but realize that treaty is still being conduct or is still being clarified even today -- in BC very recently in Ontario say 1920's and still ongoing on disputes. The First nations are the grieved, Canadians I don't think will show up to their court - aside from treaty. Other than war acts and civil disobedience what other recourse exists? It is not because of a superior position but due to the gravity of the situation. Canada is weak. First Nations 1/10th the population of Canada could paralyze Canada if they asserted themselves and bring it to its knees. The overall outcome however may not be too good for everyone. Bear in mind there are emerging deals economically and organizationally with China emerging. All peaceful of course. For instance http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/investing-in-a-first-nations-china-strategy/article2124447/

you read Arabic? I've been following the issue, the NTC has not passed a constitution for Libya. You are wrong. Much the same as the closest thing to "a constitution" Israel has is "the Law" Talmun Torah covenant etc.. Islamic law is the "Basis" for law for the NTC, sharia etc.. this imo does not really represent a constitution, it more so states we are Islamic - religious government is not a constitutionally secular legal basis. "The NTC is the highest authority." And what is that? None the less I find that there are just word changes etc.. and different people... none the less they are still "intending" to adopt a constitution, they don't actually have one. Its a plan not a constitution. It is a declaration by an oligarchy, not the voice of the people. Its saying what they are going to do, --- it really doesn't define Libya. It doesn't say how government will function. Under that all it is is well Sharia, there is no government. I don't recall the Koran setting out the function of government, all I remember is a bunch of stories about animals and stuff and the equally bizarre if not more so equivalent to revelations. If you thought the bible was cryptic try the Koran. whoa.

Israel said to day it would back the Armenians and Kurds (with the media stating military support) Today in Egypt Protestors attack the Israeli Embassy - and invade it. (successfully) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/world/middleeast/10egypt.html Hmm looks like a natural vent for Egypt might be just to send everyone to war with Israel.. better to have an enemy abroad then being it yourself. But what are the chances of that.. it is unfathomable to think that Egypt and Turkey would go to war with Israel, even if they just signed a mutual defence pact and vowed to use warships to defend a breach of what Israel considers its waterfront. Well not really, but it does seem well revolutionary, and surreal. Surely all these Al Qaeda and radical islamists would back their governments if it was to eradicate Israel? Or is the homefront more important. It really is unreal though. Like Lebananon, the west bank and Gaza have been invaded a few times over the last decade (which israel actually didn't seem to win heavily against Lebanon (but they got some dirty tricks in) I don't think Israel would be able to on its own or with Greeces help push back a pan regional assault in this day an age - Turkey is very powerful. I would find it contentious for the EU to take sides - although it seems Greece is that card. However the global security situation with out turkey weakens heavily the NATO alliance - especially as it is trying to consolidate its advances as it seems to be "withdrawaling" None the less further escalation would be suprising --- uhm well except for that Palestinian statehood vote and the flotilla issue on the radar. I'm not sure if the first is enough to provoke a war.. you know, we don't recognize you, we will invade you type thing. Lets just see. Any bets? War on vote war on flotilla? -- I think turkey will feel a little better with that missile shield - if Israel has nukes.

Now why would people here be upset? not the cancer causing body scanners and 10% increase in taxes to pay for foreign wars and homeland security? Could it be that?

Being someone who is interested in teaching in the future.. I'm not upset by an additional year - although I am currious how it would effect 3 and 4 year BEd standalone programs. If it would turn it into a 4 / 5 year program or 5/6 year program. None the less I think teachers should be well trained, but I think it is not fully realistic - except as offering or using the MEd as a basis of prefered teaching positions - there are a lot of teachers. However I think the professional marketplace already places a preference towards masters of education over bachelors of education so what is the deal? What happens does masters of education turn into an even longer program? Or do people graduate with a graduate degree in education instead of a post undergrad degree? I am welcome though to extending learning time for professionals as already many teachers do not leave with a teaching position, many are on subs lists etc.. or just don't go into teaching - or are just on subs lists. Invaldiating the BEd for teaching qualification I think is not going to happen. New programs might be adjusted but how much more can you back in. The 1 year post is fairly standard. I honestly think that it really means very little.

They also said that combat roles would end in July. SEPTEMBER COMBAT FORCES IN KANDAHAR. Its not like doing patrol operations isn't "risky" or non combat oriented. Some non combat forces in Libya, just helping the tanks be secure, or the other military equipment being transported to the NTC.. no combat role here --- unless we get fired on.. what you think they are blue helmets, even blue helmets fire back. I really think your view is dim. The date has been pushed back LIE AFTER LIE AFTER LIE

I curriously await that premise. I think that the ICJ situation still ongoing. The blockade wasn't called legal, the boarding of the ship for defensive reasons was deemed "allowable" by a political organization, not a legal one. The issue here is the allowance for delivery of foreign aid, and protection of ships. The Turks escorting the flotilla or sailing in the Mediterranean sea is legal. If their ships come under attack they have a right to a response, as attacking ships under the protection of a foreign state is an act of war. Now this does not mean Turkey intends to violate the law of the sea. Merely it may be there to insure that the law of the sea is followed. Israel is occupying a lot of land, as per the Balfour declaration, a lot of Israel and the waters are not Israel as per the declarations and arrangements of the foundation of the state of Israel by the United Nations. Countries occupying territory have certain rules to follow else it is a breach of international law. Israel's claims are very weak to a huge chunk of Israel. The whole re-statehood thing for Palestine is an interesting development though and how it plays out for Palestinian land in the divided Palestine, and differentiation between Palestine and Jewish Lands as decided by the UN on the outset of the two state solution for Palestine. Israel has more or less annexed and occupied a lot of land contrary to international law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine Notice how all that water next to yellow by the law of the sea is Arab sea not Jewish sea. It is unflawful for a nation to annex another nation, and during an occupation the rules of war occupation must be applied.

They are observers, much the same as the Knights St. John who are also a sovereign state. There are comminications inter alia with various parties not only other aborignal nations within Canada and abroad but also formal communications and pacts with state agents such as China. Treaties are more than contracts they are agreements between states. Those treaties recognize them as seperate nations and sovereign. Nothing. Many of those people are living their lives as you or I. Ok what type of communications do sovereign entities have with one another? No business dealings? What about aid arrangements? Uhm, what about trade arrangements? What about land use arrangements? What about exchanges, including language exchanges? What about security arrangements? No they don't and there are a variety of examples where things did not progress that way or still have not progressed that way. Often the reason why it ends up in court is because "Canada" gets militant with first nations. Violence has erupted in various standoffs. You need to recognize Canada resorts to application of force, not law. Actually rulings only have effects during a court case, law is a reference not a fact or act. People can do whatever they like, and if someone is offended by it, then there can be a court challenge or redress to resolve the matter. However people can break the law and not be guilty, much the same as laws can be changed or clarified. You live in a world that isn't based in reality. Atleast that is how it seems when you refer to contradictory and vague principles that arn't even solidified or at common law. Actually at common law the first nations are in right not Canada, because they have a greater right to stake in the land. It is Canada that needs their permission for use otherwise it is theft and tresspassing. Treaties are a way of saying it is ok for Canada to use the land, if they have violate their treaties they have no rights at Common law to use that land. Common law is the most powerful and supra vires law. To invalidate common law is to invalidate the will of the people. It is rational and applicable law, because it is manifest in the status quo ante diem. If you view it as an annex, it is illegal in current international law to annex anther nations territory. As stated Canada has little if any absolute right to any territory within Canada. It is only by forced occupation that it exerts force and rule - rule by force, not rule of law, but the constitution invalidates that and declared Canada a free country that is ruled under rule of law, not rule of force. In many ways it is the British BNA that are occupying Canada, while Canada itself is going to be forced to be pacified to an advisory role in internal occupation of the territories within Canada. British law is static in Canada due to Westminster and the Canada act. It is not gone.

They were in foreign waters, with out authorization form the host country it would be an act of war, especially to blow up a nationals boat. They could run it over most likely but blowing it out of the water is another matter completely. Normally the side of the ship and the size give notice as to who needs to move. The distance is often "judgement based" for safety reasons. However US law and NAVY procedure do not effect foreign ships in a foreign port. If the US doesn't like the port rules, they can choose another port. Its not theirs.

No they don't. They have various proposed constitutions none of which have been enacted.

Wouldn't be the first time, probably not the last. This doesn't invalidate the point. They have an 18 to 20 month time frame to adopt a constitution set out. They 'need to' have elections then adopt a constitution (definitely in that order) to be legitimized somewhat - even though it is a load of BS political junk behind their recognition anyway. (As the actions of NATO definitely violated the sovereign independence of Libya, and constituted supporting armed rebellion/insurrection and overthrow of a member government of the UN) The saving grace is that it was a coupe stated supported by major leaders of the government (ironically appointed in the case of the de facto PM - westernization drive) none the less You are wrong. Officially there is no constitution, and there is not a definite order - only a junta, and local councils that are somewhat self motivated. There is no consent to rule, right now it is rule by force. i.e. martial order http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/31/libya-constitution-idUSL5E7JV2CF20110831

You are the one who is suppose to let the judge decide. Become a judge then you make perfect sense when speaking from a Canadian perspective, it has happened you know.

This was actually a seemingly huge step in the Gaza blockade issue. It seems both the state status bid from Palestine, and now Turkey (a NATO member) stating that they will escort aid ships. If Israel attacks Turkish ships, it attacks NATO - and would effectively be at war with NATO. I find this step by Turkey to be a proactive step in ending the blockade (the next time ships are sent) I highly highly doubt Israel will risk war with NATO over the issue. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14844902 The question is, when are the ships being sent? This is a massive test by Turkey especially with Iran and Syria on the block. This along with a new Egyptian Security pact... (with elections coming up in Egypt which will likely not be as friendly toward Israel as Mubarak was. It is not only a test for Israel on the blockade issue but also a test on the Alliance and Turkey as a member itself. The EU bid thing also is questionable. This at a time when the US has said it is up to Europe to wage war, as the US is too war weary. http://www.scotsman.com/news/Friend-and-foe-watch-Turkey39s.6833090.jp

Ah so you don't recognize the NTC eh? You seem to be missing the NTC comments in NTC vs. Libya and the NTC not having a constitution. I thought this might be relevant because you are so Canada this law canada that. Canada has recognized the NTC as the government of Libya but they don't have a constitution. Libya's constitution has Gaddafi as one of the head directors of the country. They don't seem to be following his instructions. That unilateral comment isn't sinking in, do you understand the word unilateral? First nations are part of the UN. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/declaration.html (Canada has since recognized the declaration) http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf They are recognized. (who did they sign treaty with?) Treaties arn't signed with Companies, contracts are. If they aren't sovereign the treaties and powers are absent and the treaties have no effect. I don't think you would say that is the case. Some may be. That is their choice. Often but not always. In dealings with Canada --- they are involved in other international dialogues including with China. When dealing with Canada they tend to deal with the courts or political channels. They use what they have access to just like me or you. Use what you got.

What is a fair deal for the hydro people? This is more of a provincial issue though not federal.

Hey at least they got the paint. "IT was worth a million." That's art. (party colours) http://tinyurl.com/3ck8mdt http://tinyurl.com/3gdo829 They were good sports.