Sunday, 24 January 2016

The oath of allegiance to her Majesty the queen and her designates.

At first this is going to come across as a little seemingly racist or far fetched but I as well as many others believe there is something there. Born as a Canadian, we don't have to "swear an oath to our Government or the queen" WE are just , well us.

You don't have to swear until that is you undertake one of these postings and or join one of these organizations that represent her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. The oath :

I, [name], do solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare the taking of an oath is according to my religious belief unlawful, and I do also solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.[7]

and the before mentioned appointments and or organizations:

Federal[edit]
Governors general of Canada[27]
Members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada[29]
Senators[4]
Members of parliament[4]
Clerk of the House of Commons[42]
Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada
Justices of the Federal Court of Appeal
Justices of the Federal Court
Justice of the Tax Court of Canada
Citizenship Judges
All employees of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service[43]
Recruits of the Canadian Armed Forces[44]
Members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police[45]
Recruits of the Canada Border Services Agency
Locally engaged staff at Canada's foreign missions who are Canadian citizens [46]
Provincial[edit]
Lieutenant governors[47]
Members of a legislature (MLAs, MPPs, MNAs, and MHAs)[4]
Justices of the appellate courts, superior courts, and provincial courts
Auditor General of Ontario[48]
Staff of the civil service in Ontario[49] and Manitoba[50]
All other Crown appointees in Ontario[51]
All police officers, railway constables, special constables, and reserve and auxiliary constables in British Columbia[52][53]
All police officers, bylaw enforcement officers, and special constables in Nova Scotia[54]
All police officers in Saskatchewan,[55] New Brunswick,[56] and Alberta[57]
Mayors and councilors in Nova Scotia[58]
Medical examiners and investigators in Manitoba[59]
Sheriffs in Newfoundland and Labrador[60]
Lawyers in Alberta,[61] Newfoundland and Labrador,[62] Manitoba, and Prince Edward Island[63]
Notaries public in Newfoundland and Labrador[64]
Territorial[edit]
Commissioners and deputy commissioners of the territories of Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut.[65][66][67]
Members of the Executive Council of Nunavut[68]
Members of the Legislative Assemblies of Nunavut[68] and Yukon[69]
Mayors, municipal councilors, and alderman of Yukon [70]
Coroners of Yukon[71]
Lawyers in Northwest Territories and Nunavut[72]
The rest of us simply do not have to swear that oath and I beg your pardon but why?, are we second class citizens, unfortunate of spring? free persons or persons not of consequence. Remember we being the 99 percent, the oath takers being the 1 percenters.


So I thought about this a bit more and looked around to find this:


Since 1860 we have taken those called refugees, temporary workers, foreign workers ,immigrants. As you can tell by the numbers by year, this is no small amount of people that ALL have to swear an oath to the Queen and or her representatives. Just in the last 30 years alone we have brought over those that swore allegiance, oath of obedience a staggering 7.5 million people! This of a country that only boasts a population of :35 890 449, that would be almost 1 quarter of our population!

Canada Population clock
24-01-2016 09:13:23

35 890 449 Current population

17 806 339 Current male population (49.6%)

18 084 111 Current female population (50.4%)

22 889 Births this year

376 Births today

17 768 Deaths this year

292 Deaths today

12 580 Net migration this year

207 Net migration today

17 701 Population growth this year

291 Population growth today


Someone's opinions connected to this are the following:
Unjustified Immigration Levels Against Public’s Wishes
Posted on November 22, 2015


Why? In particular, why has Canada’s average 250,000 per year immigration intake remained in place for over 24 years, a clear abnormality in Canada’s immigration history?


The answer is that for many decades, Canada’s major political parties have assumed that, on the immigration issue in particular, they know better than average Canadians. This attitude and the promotion of political party self-interest manifested itself particularly in 1990 when one political party (the Progressive Conservatives) increased immigration levels to 250,000 per year.
At the time they did this, they actually announced they were doing so in order to capture more of the immigrant vote. This may sound hard to believe because it is so brazen, but it is a fact. Since then, all other parties have adopted the same policy. All pretend that their actions are helping people in the rest of the world and that this immigration flood is also literally and figuratively enriching Canadian society.

The reality is that Canada’s average 250,000 per year immigration intake since 1990 has been far too high. In fact, Canada’s intake is the highest per capita in the world. And it hasobviously been destructive and senseless.

What are some examples of the destruction and senselessness?

First, our high intake has had major negative economic consequences for a minimum of 1.5 million Canadians who are looking for work. At the very least, it has forced many of them to compete (through Canada’s so-called “Employment Equity for Visible Minorities” programme and others) with immigrants for a limited number of jobs.

Second, relentless high immigration has caused two results : (1) relentless demand for a basic human need such as housing and (2) relentless increases in house prices. The urban area which is the best example of this is Metro Vancouver where house prices are now the second highest in the world. (Metro Toronto has also been seriously affected.) Much of Metro Vancouver’s population can no longer afford house ownership. In cases where the existing population has bought housing, they have had to take on huge mortgages. UBC Geography Professor David Ley has clearly shown the connection between immigration and Metro Vancouver house prices

Third, the continued pursuit of the “Diversity” social engineering project has led many Canadians to conclude that they are being ethnically cleansed and that Canada is being re-colonized.
Finally, many Canadians see that our governments seem to think that our urban areas can take infinite numbers of people. This attitude has turned many areas of the country into crowded, grid-locked, environmental disasters-in-progress—duplicates of the environmental catastrophes many recent immigrants come from.

We repeat one basic question :

Why Is Canada bringing in 250,000+ immigrants per year? Ottawa and business interests have made wild claims about the economic benefits of immigration, the need to deal with our aging population, and the need for immigration to satisfy current or future labour shortages. But those claims have been refuted by the government’s own studies or by studies done by respected think tanks. In addition, Ottawa and business interests have pretended that current immigration is no different from past immigration. However, a graph of Canada’s immigration intake since 1860 (See above) shows that immigration since 1991 is an abnormality in Canada’s immigration history

We believe Canada should have some immigration, but that immigration levels should be reduced to about 25,000, that is, to about 10% of the current annual 250,000 intake. We advocate that the 25,000 intake level should be kept in place indefinitely to compensate for the immigration disaster that has occurred in the past 24 years.

We also advocate a significant reduction to Canada’s widely-abused Temporary Foreign Worker program which in 2012 allowed well over 300,000 non-Canadians to work in Canada. This program should probably be reduced to nearly zero. In any recession, it is madness for a country to be importing large numbers of immigrants as well as large numbers of Temporary Foreign Workers.

In addition, we also call for major reform to many of Canada’s other immigration policies. (See our Basics section for details.)

** For background on major immigration policy changes made in the 1960’s and 70’s, click on the following summaries of excellent research done by reporter Doug Collins in his book “Immigration : The Destruction Of English Canada” :

Scary thing that"Third, the continued pursuit of the “Diversity” social engineering project has led many Canadians to conclude that they are being ethnically cleansed and that Canada is being re-colonized." since we swear no oath outside of office and or policing and they ALL have too. In fact Stephen Harper (former P.M) recently went bug shit about a woman covering her face during the swearing in ceremony which ids her Constitutional right!, that is how serious they take this.
While we the lets say "non oathers" struggle in recessions, they flood the country in with our replacements. While we study our asses off  a 25 percent lesser margin is applicable for visible minorities in all fields. while we pay taxes nearly half the year and the "immigrants " costs 23 billion a year and they get a tax free life for 5 years!https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwip8-zz78LKAhUWzGMKHVb2C-4QFggqMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.nationalpost.com%2Fnews%2Fcanada%2Fimmigrants-cost-23b-a-year-fraser-institute-report&usg=AFQjCNH2QRBtVHlecAFOLAtU54NjhGP1xg&sig2=qLlAeQ_4qojZCrhqBU5mWA

Wow! So when we talk about ethnic cleansing, you might want to add in us, our own people. We are being swapped out for those that take the oath and enjoy the massive perks. We study 25 percent harder, work one could imagine twice as hard for our money and sadly to say there has been talk of those new people being basically spies against the rest of us "in order to be a good citizen. Where all of this bitching is going on about minority rights, need I remind you that those of the old English, polish, Indian, German and ukrainian descent are now the VISIBLE and effectual minority.





Post a Comment