TED CRUZ COULD HAVE BEEN IN THE HIGHEST SERVICE TO HER MAJESTY, QUEEN ELIZABETH II, IN CANADA. SO HOW CAN TED BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA?

In TAKE OFF, EH. IS TED CRUZ IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN? PUNDIT LAWYERS GET THIS SO WRONG, THE HOSERS, I showed you conclusively that Ted Cruz is a naturalized U.S. citizen. As well, in THE TED CRUZ CRIB SHEET. THE 34 REASONS WHY TED ISN'T NATURAL-BORN AND CAN'T BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I gave you a point-by-point summary of why Ted can't be president.

And now, I drop the ultimate bombshell that blows up Ted Cruz' attempt to illegally usurp the office of the presidency.

Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada under the jurisdiction of the Canadian sovereign.

Had Ted never emigrated from Canada, Ted would have lived life in Canada as a full-fledged Canadian with all of the rights the Canadian sovereign bestows on its natural-born citizens.





And until May 14, 2014, Ted Cruz could have immigrated back to Canada and been accepted with full allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II. 

Not only could Ted Cruz become prime minister in Canada as the leader of the majority party holding parliament in Canada, but more importantly, Ted Cruz could have become the Governor General of Canada.

Would Ted have become the Governor General of Canada, Ted would have been the viceregal representative of the Canadian monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, the recognized sovereign over the 10 provinces of Canada. In that capacity,  Ted could have carried out all of the Canadian constitutional duties of Queen Elizabeth II.

Ted could have served indefinitely in the post serving at Her Majesty's pleasure. If Ted would have become the  Governor General of Canada, Ted would have held the oldest continuous institution in Canada. In the job, Ted would have become the direct, personal representative of the uniquely Canadian sovereign.

No one can be natural-born of two sovereigns at the same time. Ted Cruz is a natural-born Canadian.

Cruz can run. Cruz can be elected. However, Cruz can't take the oath office, at least without many co-conspirators violating Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.

Congress can only naturalize by its express authority in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4. Congress cannot decree anyone natural-born. Congress lacks both capacity and authority to do so.

Ted was a conditional citizen from birth until age 8 before Congress removed a provision in law. Had Congress not done so, and Ted not met the provisions, Ted could have been stripped of his citizenship.

Hence, it's clear, Ted's citizenship comes from law and not from birth. As it comes from law, Ted is naturalized.

1. 8 U.S. CODE § 1401 was not in effect at Ted's birth.
2. PL 414 Section 301(a)(7) and Section 301(b) were the prevailing law at Ted's birth until Ted was almost eight.
3. Congress can only naturalize by its express authority in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4.
4. Congress cannot decree anyone natural-born. It lacks both capacity and authority to do so.
5. If Ted is citizen under 8 U.S. CODE § 1401(g), he is by law, naturalized at birth, and not by the consequence of being born under the jurisdiction of Congress.

Yes, Ted Cruz is a naturalized U.S. citizen by birth, decreed so in full in 1978, almost eight years after his birth in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. However, Ted Cruz never was a U.S. citizen at birth.

For the legal details, see:

• WAS TED CRUZ A U.S. CITIZEN AT BIRTH? THE MCCARRAN-WALTER ACT (THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952) WHICH THE RULED OVER HIM SAYS YES, BUT IT ALSO COULD HAVE STRIPPED HIM OF CITIZENSHIP
• THE 8 U.S. CODE § 1401 DEFENSE OF TED CRUZ FAILS TO SUPPORT CRUZ' NATURAL-BORN CITIZENSHIP, BUT DOES MAKE HIM A CITIZEN.

Read more ...

CANADIANS VOTE FOR PRETTY-BOY JUSTIN TO DICTATE TO THEM FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS. CANADIANS ALSO LIVE BY THE BIG LIE.

So Canadians voted for their members of parliament, and in effect, voted for their next prime minister, the product of nepotism, Justin Trudeau. Justin, the former son of one-time Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau and short-time school teacher, Justin made a habit of staying in college well into his adult years even though he only completed two of four degrees he started.  In 2008, Justin was given his first election win as an MP.

BC resident and seemingly indoctrinated voter Cassandra Fletcher earned her 15 minutes of fame the other day by sharing on Facebook, an attention-seeking bogus open letter written to Canada's next prime minister in which Fletcher asks for Justin to revert Canada to a mythical country.  The Canadian establishment propaganda media conjured a story from Fletcher's attention-seeking Facebook behavior.

Foolishly, Cassandra believes the problem with Canada is the electoral system. Cassandra even wrote, "[Justin] be the one to recreate what democracy is in Canada."

In light of the elections, the silly beliefs held by Canadians like Cassandra, all adult Canadians ought to ask themselves if they live under a representative democracy? There is no Canadian alive today and there has not been a Canadian alive for a long time who ever lived under representative democracy.

Officially the country of Canada has a constitutional monarchy entangled still with the Queen of England, 148 years after the supposed independence of Canada. However, Canadians have a parliament that includes a House of Commons whose members, known as members of parliament (MPs), get elected by Canadian voters directly. Currently, there are 338 MPs who supposedly represent Canadians.

Much like us Americans, Canadians have been indoctrinated into believing a huge lie about their country (see: THE BIGGEST LIE ALMOST ALL AMERICANS BELIEVE: AMERICANS HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. BERNIE, HILLARY AND ALL OF THE CANDIDATES LOVE THE BIGGEST LIE.) Like, Americans, Canadians have the right to vote. That is it. And like Americans, Canadians fail to see that voting does not equal representation.

In the first ever Canadian election of 1867, there were 1,491 voters for every MP. In this election, there were 51,951 voters for every MPs.

As you can see, like their American neighbors, Canadians started out with something that resembled representative democracy. However, Canadian representative democracy began dying almost straightaway, in waves.

The first death wave came between 1873 to 1913. The second death wave ran from 1914 to 1946. A significant death wave hit between 1947 and 1975. The last death wave hit between 1976 and 2013.


Today, here is the picture of how many voters each MP has by province.




When you discover that on a full-time, 40-hour work week with no time in Ottawa, a MP could give a mere three minutes on average to each of his adult constituents — seriously three minutes.



Now, if Canadians were to have a truly representative democracy, one where each Canadian could at least sit with his or her MP for 15 minutes, once a year and still have their MP go to the House of Commons in Ottawa for three months to hash out the only most important matters of Canadians, here are the number of representatives Canadians would need by province.


Adult residents of BC are 300 MPs short of having true, minimal representative democracy.

And here is what it would look like if MPs only gave 10 minutes to each Canadian, 18 and older while still hanging out in Ottawa for three months.


The true problem for Canadians is the same problem from which adult Americans suffer  — the lack of popular representation. And like Americans, Canadians live under a dictatorship of a well-organized minority.

Any Canadian who believes she or he lives under a representative democracy has been bamboozled. If Canadians lived under a  representative democracy, there would be many political parties with no party dominant. Canadians would have more than the conjured branding messages from their NDP, Liberals and Progressive Conservatives. Likely, parties would not exist in Canada.

Instead, Canadians would get superior government from their federal system. Only the most important bills would rise to the top and become law. Canadians would be left alone and respected.

If you are an Canadian adult or soon to be adult, likely this is the most important work you have yet read in your life. You can be sure that not one candidate from any of your establishment parties would ever want you to have representation. Spread the word!

I suspect the same problem exists for Australians, New Zealanders and Brits. It's quite a shame that in only a few hundred years, all of the hard work from the geniuses of the Age of Enlightenment has been scrubbed away from political cockroaches.

This is the illusion representative democracy:

Read more ...

Q2 2015 GDP FOR CANADIANS. CANADIANS HAVE BEEN SUFFERING RECESSION FOR MUCH LONGER THAN RECENT PROPAGADISTS CLAIM

Yesterday, the John Shmuel of the Financial Post reported that Canadians have entered a "technical recession" — two quarters of negative growth. Shmuel went on to report that most Canadian economists would claim Canadians aren't experiencing a recession because the unemployment rate seems steady and wages in current Canadian dollars seem to be growing.

Of course, Schmuel's beliefs are silly.



Right now, Canadians are feeling the effects of the recession of the Chinese and the depression of the Americans.

The Canadian economy has shrunk -34.9% in True Dollars™ since Q2 2011.

Read more ...

YOU WANT US TO PAY MORE BECAUSE WE LIVE IN THE GREAT WHITE NORTH? TAKE OFF, EH!

Today, the CBC published a work by Chris Hall who reports the Canadian federal government wants to give new powers to the Competition Bureau because Canadian politicians have told voters that voters suffer from geographic price discrimination.


Like their Australian brethren Canadians believe they pay more than Americans for the same products. Back in September, in DO YOU COME FROM A LAND DOWN UNDER WHERE PRICES GROW AND MEN PLUNDER?, I showed that Australians likely pay the same prices.

So, I decided to find out for myself. I looked at products made in Canada as well as products made elsewhere. Canadians pay much more for products made in Canada than they do for products made elsewhere.

Canadians pay much less for all kinds of cool products like the Microsoft Surface Pro 3, the iPad Air 2 and even a Fender Stratocaster!

Canadians pay much more for cars and tires.




Of course, my random selection of products cannot be construed as scientific.

Sadly, Chris Hall perpetuates the Ricadian myth that costs producers outlay to make things has anything to do with the prices they can fetch in actual sales by having written, "While higher labour costs, tariffs and the cost of transporting goods to Canada are some of the reasons goods can cost more here than in the U.S..." 

Heed my dictum: Costs have nothing to do with prices. Costs have everything to do with profitability.

Regular readers of Bizarro Theater will have learned by now the reality of prices. All prices get governed by the one, true, infrangible law for all of trade — the Law of Prices. The Law of Prices holds the winning bids of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer sets the price. 

It's the actual buyers of things who set prices. Whether those prices are high enough so the sum of sales on those prices lets a seller at least break even is another matter.

The whole trick of business is producing so that one can adhere to the Axiom of Profit on given prices set by winning bidders. The Axiom of Profit holds the sum of sales on prices set by winning bidders must at least equal the cost of production, otherwise the seller goes to ruin.

Costs of Production arise in the production and manufacture of a thing. Producers incur expenses.

Sellers can reduce their offering prices when they acquire their products at lower-to-them prices. As long as the sum of their sales at least equals their outlays, such sellers offering alike products can remain in business. If their competitors cannot do so, in short order, their competitors go to ruin. The Axiom of Profit prevails.

Any right-minded thinker can envision a producer who incurs $10,000 in costs to produce collapsible pick-up truck racks. Lets say he produced 100 racks. The costs distributed over 100 racks is $100 for each rack.

Such a producer could offer one rack for $400. Let's say that no one buys one rack at $400. Reluctantly, the producer reduces the price to $300 a rack. Again, let's say no one buys at $300, worriedly, the producer reduces the price to $100.

At at $100, the producer sells one rack. He earned $100. Yet, his costs of production remained at $10,000. Owing to the great Axiom of Profit, he goes to ruin precisely because the sum of his sales did not equal his cost of production.

The producer needed to sell all 100 at $100 to stay in business. The producer could have sold 50 racks at $200 to stay in business.

It is winning bidders of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer — in our example the customer who paid $100 — who set the price.

Costs relate with profit. Costs fall under the great Science of Profit. 

Costs are a factor of production. Costs and sales govern whether or not a producer can stay in business. If something cost more to produce, that means there is less profit and if costs exceed the sum of sales, in short order, the producer goes to ruin.

Prices relate with winning bids of purchase and sale. Prices fall under the great Science of Wealth. Prices arise from trade.

The idea that costs have anything to do with prices is laughable on its face and comes from a huge fallacy pushed by David Ricardo and perpetuated by Karl Marx.

Two producers could face the same material costs, but one producer renders a superior design. When both producers offer for purchase and sale their products to those with cash and credit, the one with the superior design could capture the lion's share of sales. If the inferior design producer fails capture enough sales to cover his cost of production, in short order that producer will go to ruin.

Read more ...

OH (NO) CANADA. OH BROTHER (OOPS AND OH SISTER).

O Canada is a lyrical poem written by Adolphe-Basile Routhier and set to music by Calixa Lavallée who left behind Canada to serve with the 4th Rhode Island Volunteers of the Union army during the War Between the States.



In 1880, Lieutenant Governor of Quebec Théodore Robitaille commissioned Lavallée to compose the song, which became Canadians' national anthem one hundred years later in 1980.

Routhier wrote the poem in his French. In 1906, Robert Stanley Weir loosely translated the poem into English. Weir tried his hand at it again in 1908. It is Weir's 1908  version, which became the version sung at most every hockey game played across Canada.

Now, too-much-time-on-his-hands Canadian politician Mauril Belanger has introduced a bill to change two words from thy sons to of us. The Liberal Party meddler Belanger believes that without such changes, O Canada is not inclusive enough. It surprises that meddler Belanger hasn't protested against the word God in the seventh line of the poem.

The word son is an Old English word. Son means descendant as well as  immediate male offspring.

English reveals reverence for females with female-specific words — daughter. English lacks the same reverence for males. Words for males also get spoken when sex lacks relevancy. Sons is one of those words.

The word man means person. Men, the plural for man, means persons. Mankind means people. And world means all men (persons) everywhere on earth. And no, the world doesn't mean the earth, though many weak speakers of English believe so, wrongly.

All of those words — man, men, mankind, world — are bedrock English words spoken by Germanic ancestors of all Englishmen, Canadians and Americans who have Germanic ancestors.

A literal translation of the poem reveals a fiery Canadian who is willing to take up sword and cross to forge an epic history.

O Canada!
Land of our forefathers,
Thy brow is wreathed with a glorious garland of flowers.
As is thy arm ready to wield the sword,
So also is it ready to carry the cross.
Thy history is an epic
Of the most brilliant exploits.
Thy valour steeped in faith
Will protect our homes and our rights
Will protect our homes and our rights

The 1908 translation comes across as something Bob and Doug MacKenzie might have sung, reducing Canadians to rent-a-cop security guards.

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

If Canadians are going to buckle under to cranks like Mauril Belanger, they might has fix the song in full to reflect reality. Here is my gift to Canadians: O Canada, 2014.

O Canada! (village!)
Our home and once the natives' land (reservations!)
True multicultural legality in all political command.
With indifferent hearts we see thee rise,
The True North once strong, now wimpy!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we skate on ice for thee (hockey!)
For glorious two-four, Canadians keep the queen!
O Canada, we skate on ice for thee (hockey!)
O Canada, we skate on ice for thee (hockey!)

Enjoy native Canadian William Shatner having a go at making O Canada fit into the vision of the Belanders of Canada.




As a bonus, enjoy Geddy Lee, bassist of Rush, the Canadian band inducted into both the Canadian Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the American Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Read more ...

LOONIE TALK! CANADIANS CAN GET RICHER WHEN THEY CAN AFFORD TO BUY LESS OR SO THEY'RE TOLD!

So today, I came across a persuasion-in-propaganda piece, Weaker Loonie will help the Canadian economy, published by Shaw Communications' Global Canada news.

The piece of deceit is typical. In it, the writer suggests fallacy and what should seem as absurdity to all.

Export growth will boost domestic disposable income and the government’s tax take and will enhance the balance of payments so why wouldn’t Canada want a weaker loonie.

Ask Canadians in what time periods their living standard has risen.

A weaker Canadian dollar does not help almost all Canadians whose jobs consists solely in working in Canada. A weaker loonie means Canadians would need to work more hours to pay for the same products they buy now from foreigners.

Only 4% of Canadians work in primary industries — logging, oil, fishing, mining — which account for 58% of Canadian exports. Primary industry accounts for a mere 6.2% of GDP. Yet, the devaluate-the-loonie jokers would have you believe that weaking the buying power of the loonie would be a bonanza for a whopping 93.8% of the Canadian economy!

Three-quarters of all Canadians work in services, mostly servicing other Canadians.

A weaker Canadian dollar only helps those whose firms export and thus are trying to increase sales against other exporters from other countries. Such Canadian exporters hope to increase sales to foreigners to offset what amounts to lower prices owing to a lowered exchange rate.

If what they say were true, that a weaker loonie would make Canadians richer, giving Canadians more income, then why wait? Why the executives of the Bank of Canada, Canadians central bankers, should double the cash in circulation right now. That should cut the prices of exports in half instantly.

Why Canadians could become the richest people on earth, if merely having less buying power were the key to life. Why would anyone believe the fallacy preached by those who who claim you can get richer when your cash loses buying power? Why would anyone believe that anyone can get richer when that one can buy less for the same hours worked?

If merely cheaper export prices were the key, why don't exporters voluntarily cut their prices in half right now? Why try to force a lower exchange rate, which imposes a burden upon all Canadians who are not capitalists of export products?

Exporters want a lowered buying power of Canadian cash because exporters still need to pay Canadians their full wages, the ones who make those export products. Weaking the Loonie lets exporters pay less in buying power to Canadian workers who work in export.

So why the clarion call for less buying power for Canadians with a so-called "weaker" loonie? Some Canadian businessmen can't compete without bending the rules.

If the Chinese are slowing down, needing less natural resources, it means that Canadian bankers and investors have plowed too much cash and credit into primary industries to produce things for export. Their capital structures are wrong.

Those Canadian primary industries need to shrink. Bankers and capitalists who bet on those industries in what now is clearly over-investment, need to take losses.

Too many unprofitable firms involved in primary industries exports need to go out of business. The Canadian state of trade needs to adjust to the new reality.

What Canadians ought to hope is for a strong loonie that lets Canadians buy American know-how (technology) at favorable prices to Canadians so that Canadians can set the stage for new industries and more employment for Canadians.

Greater buyer power is the essence of what it means to be rich. However, believing that having less buying power against foreign goods leads to trade dominance and enriches everyone through undercutting rivals is to suffer from loonie-cy, er, lunacy.

Weakening the buying power of one's cash against foreign cash puts one's exports on fire sale prices. Fire sale prices might lead to more sales, but it does not follow that doing so leads to higher profit. It is profit whether from wages less living expenses or sales less outlays, which makes anyone rich.

Exports are not an end. Exports are the means to an end, paying for imports. The goal is to work for greater buying power. The goal is not to work for less buying power. If the goal were the latter, then why not enslave oneself to a people of another country?

Never in history has a country failed because its people suffered from having too much buying power. However, the list is long of those countries whose people were ruined by having too little buying power.

Oh, Canada. Talk about daffy, loonie lunacy.

Read more ...

AMERICANS, WHAT HAPPENED? WE CAN'T BLAME TERRANCE AND PHILLIP FOR THIS ONE

One day, historians shall say a post-World War 2, 1950s to early 1960s economic bump masked the long decline of the USA. This decline began to be obvious in the late 1960s and began to accelerate in the early 1990s, with last gasps that included the dot com bubble of the late 90s and residential reality bubble of the mid-2000s.

However, the real decline began in 1913, during the the Quiet Revolution of 1913, which overthrew the Founders' constitutional design. During the Quiet Revolution, popular representation of the House was frozen at a permanent 435, which has made it easy to capture Congressmen.

Also popular voting for Senators became law, which took away the impossibility to bribe thousands of states' legislators, who had chosen Senators, and made it easy to buy 51 out of 100 senators.

The revolutionaries of the Quiet Revolution of 1913 established the Federal Reserve System, eventually replacing a specie money system based on gold with a fiduciary money system based on checking account credits, paper centralized bank notes and token coins.

In the days of specie money, citizens could run on bankers when they could see that bankers were mishandling credit. These runs forced bankers to behave. With gold as everyday money, bankers were powerless and so were politicians.

Today, in the era of fiduciary money, citizens live at the mercy and behest of bankers. It's bankers who control the Federal Reserve system and who bailout themselves and the lesser bankers whenever they mishandle credit, as in the most recent residential reality bubble stoked by no-doc liar loans.

Also, it's bankers who order their Federal Reserve system to buy bonds sold by U.S. politicians. However, their Federal Reserve system doesn't have money. So to buy bonds, the hacks at the Federal Reserve conjure up checking account credits from nothing.

Doing so is a kind of counterfeiting. Doing so is why food prices go up and why gasoline prices go up. Doing so is why unionized government employees are vastly overpaid for the same job titles as those in the private sector.

Also in 1913, the Quiet Revolution revolutionaries instituted the income taxation system, which gave politicians the means to dole out political privilege through subsidy to financial backers and welfare to loyal voting blocs.

So now you know what happened to America, Americans.

Enjoy Canada Is Less Of A 'Failed State' Than The US

Read more ...

DID THE OIL TRAIN EXPLOSION HAPPEN BECAUSE OBAMA DENIED CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAFER KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE?

Thirteen died after a runaway train carrying crude oil set off a series of explosions and flattened a downtown. An estimated 100,000 liters of oil spilled into the nearby river.

For more on the debate over dangerous train shipping versus safer Keystone XL, check out what the greenies say here:

Here is the story from the CBC.

Read more ...