In all the recent fuss about Charles Windsor as the political prince or the environmentalist, there is another side to the next in line to the throne that has fallen from the public consciousness: that of a self-deluded elitist with contempt for the British people.

What is wrong with people nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far above their capabilities?  This is all to do with the learning culture in schools. It is a consequence of a child-centred education system which tells people they can become pop stars, high court judges or brilliant TV presenters or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having the natural ability.

Confidential memo written by Charles to Mark Bolland, his then assistant private secretary, March 2002

Charles Windsor is a man who believes that not a single other person among a population of 60 million talented individuals could possibly do the job of head of state as well as he.  He thinks that people should know their place, should not rise above their station and should be expected to bow and scrape before their supposed social betters.

What I want to know is: what is actually wrong with an elite, for God’s sake?

Quoted in the Observer, 1985

He presumes to lecture those less favored by birth, but more favored by ability, on their silly aspirations and foolish hopes for self-improvement.  Yet he has had every advantage dropped into his lap throughout his life without ever realising that his privileged position arose not from education, skills and experience but from simple luck.

His nineteenth century patrician values may have had resonance when we were still sending small boys up chimneys, but they should have no place in a modern meritocratic Britain.

If this man were to stand for election as head of state, you wouldn’t vote him.  So we shouldn’t have to tolerate him as an hereditary head of state either.  Britain deserves the best leaders and representatives, and they are not to be found in the Windsor family.   It’s time to draw the line under the monarchy once and for all.

Taking it further: If you share our vision of a fairer, more democratic Britain, why not consider becoming a supporter or a member of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state?

You can also be part of our campaign by joining Republic Action, Republic’s own social networking site.

Good News This Christmas:

Wine DOES NOT make you FAT
it makes you LEAN…
. . .against tables, chairs, floors, walls and ugly people.

………………….

No Suprise…Very Talented

Excellent

Shocking

Bloodied and dazed, Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi is hustled away by bodyguards last night after being struck in the face at a rally.The 73-year-old had just addressed cheering supporters in Milan when a man threw a model of the city’s cathedral at him from close range.

Coldplay are to sell items from their ten year career through internet auction website eBay.Dubbed their ‘End Of Decade Clearout Sale’ fans will be able to purchase items including guitars, keyboards, amps, posters, platinum discs and a globe.With the proceeds going to charity Kids Company, bidding on the items begins on Thursday 17 December (5pm GMT), concluding on New Year’s Eve.In a statement on their official website the band said: “All items will either be signed by the four of us, or accompanied by a certificate of authenticity, again signed by all of us.”A catalogue detailing everything for sale will be published on their website before the sale begins.

OMG !!!!

I think I Just Peed Myself

Nestlé looking at the possibility of Cadbury offer

Prince William to share Queen’s duties: Treasury document reveals secret plan to make him the ‘Shadow King’

The Queen is to hand over a substantial part of her public duties to Prince William to help him prepare for the day when he becomes King, according to a confidential document obtained by The Mail on Sunday.Secret papers reveal that plans to ease the strain on the 83-year-old monarch and her 88-year-old husband, Prince Philip, are at an advanced stage.The disclosures come despite months of denials from the Palace that the Queen was planning to step back from her official work in favour of her 27-year-old grandson.

The information is contained in a briefing note written by Chancellor Alistair Darling’s Treasury officials about new financial arrangements for Prince Charles and his sons.Key paragraphs, disclosing the reason for the changes, are blacked out.But this newspaper has obtained an uncensored version of the document which confirms that the Queen is grooming William as a ‘Shadow King’.

One blacked-out line states that ‘the Princes [William and Harry] will increasingly incur expenditure when undertaking engagements on behalf of The Queen’.Another censored section, stressing the key role for William, says that ‘from next year, it is expected that HRH The Prince William will spend a significant part of his time on official engagements . . . we need to put the necessary provisions in place in anticipation of that’.The leak will add to speculation that the Queen believes William, rather than Charles, represents the best long-term interests of the monarchy, and will raise new questions about the timing of William’s long-anticipated engagement to his girlfriend Kate Middleton.The breach of secrecy caused alarm at the Palace last night, with a senior Royal source expressing concern that the private details had been leaked in ‘unredacted’ – the official term for uncensored – form.The reaction reflects the extreme sensitivity over the issue of the Queen’s future in public life – and how to promote Prince William without undermining the monarch or Prince Charles.It is bound to lead to new speculation that when the Queen dies, the monarchy could skip a generation, with the Crown bypassing Charles and being handed straight to William, although Royal sources strongly discount this option.The Treasury document was prepared for Mr Darling in the run-up to April’s Budget.The announcement that he was granting Charles tax relief worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, by allowing him to deduct his sons’ official expenses from his tax return, was slipped out on Budget Day in a separate ministerial note and was picked up by newspapers only several days later.The tax perk funds an office at St James’s Palace, with six members of staff, which for the past few months has been organising the affairs of Princes William and Harry. Previously, the Princes had been represented by Charles’s staff.

The previous MoU on Royal Taxation had been agreed in 1993.Charles currently receives £16million a year from the Duchy of Cornwall estate, which was established in 1337 to provide an income for the heir to the throne.The disclosure comes amid growing speculation about the Queen and Prince Philip’s continued ability to carry out their punishing schedule.

Last year, she performed 400 official engagements, including two overseas tours.Onlookers said she appeared more frail than usual during last month’s State Opening of Parliament and at the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad a week later, the couple’s only foreign trip this year.In February, she cancelled a State visit to the Middle East because she and the Duke ‘had too much on their plate’ – the first time an overseas visit had been abandoned on workload grounds.

Significantly, William will undertake his first official overseas tour in January when he represents the Queen in New Zealand and Australia. He is also expected to attend the World Cup in South Africa.

Publicly, the Palace has denied any plans for the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh to scale down their responsibilities, always insisting that the pair are in ‘robust’ health – although Royal sources have let it be known that theQueen would like other family members to bear much of the burden of her duties during the Diamond Jubilee in 2012.Enquiries direct to the Duke about his fitness have been met with a curt: ‘Do I look bloody ill?’Last night a spokesman for Republic, which campaigns for an elected Head of State, accused Buckingham Palace and the Government of mounting a cover-up.‘We have been misled,’ the spokesman said. ‘This shows that planning is well under way to prepare for the next succession.’Here we have proof that the Palace is preparing William to take over the Queen’s duties.‘The Palace operates in secrecy, doing deals behind the back of the British people to ensure a smooth transition to the next King.‘In addition, we discover that at a time of recession, Charles is secretly lobbying for an exclusive tax break worth hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.’The fact the Treasury attempted to cover up this lobbying shows they knew it would be scandalous if made public.’

A spokesman for St James’s Palace said: ‘Both Prince William and Prince Harry have gradually increased the number of engagements they carry out in support of the Queen, although their focus remains on their full-time careers in the Armed Services.‘The Royal Household and HMRC agreed to update the Memorandum of Understanding for the first time in many years to reflect changes in the Royal Family. The previous Memorandum still included the Princess of Wales and not Prince William or Prince Harry.‘The new MoU merely streamlined the bureaucratic arrangements concerning Prince William’s and Prince Harry’s official lives.‘The new MoU made no difference to the amount of tax paid by the Prince’s Household.’

Katie Price and Pamela Anderson turn heads in garish dresses at British Comedy Awards

In a room full of predominantly male comedians, Katie Price and Pamela Anderson stood out from the crowd.Not least because they both wore eye-popping dresses.The pair are not known for their comedy genius, so perhaps it was an odd choice to have the model and Baywatch actress presenting awards during the evening.

……..

Show-stopping: Katie Price and Pamela Anderson were at the British Comedy Awards in London last night to present awards

But both came determined to impress.Katie poured herself into a hot pink and black printed silk dress which showed off plenty of cleavage.Pamela Anderson wore a short orange draped dress with a low back, which was printed with blue stars and yellow swirls.Katie, 31, presented the best comedy television actor award to Simon Bird of The Inbetweeners with comedian Alan Carr.Carr said he was only dolling out the award so he could appear on the front of OK magazine.

Pamela, 42, joined designer Vivienne Westwood to present the award for best new British TV comedy to Reese Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton for Psychoville.Comedian Miranda Hart later wrote on Twitter: ‘Best thing about comedy awards – seeing Jordan and Pamela Anderson meeting for first time. Fascinating!’During the ceremony, which was presided over by Jonathan Ross, family sitcom Outnumbered was the big winner with a trio of gongs.The BBC One comedy, starring Hugh Dennis and Claire Skinner, won best sitcom, best female newcomer for its child star Romona Marquez and the overall best comedy prize.But it was also another good night for Harry Hill who picked up best entertainment programme for his TV Burp for the third time in four years and reclaimed the best personality award which he last won in 2006.

Michael McIntyre and Alan Carr had both been tipped for success with three nominations each. But on the night McIntyre only picked up the award for best stand up and Carr left empty handed.Veteran broadcaster Sir Terry Wogan, who retired from his long-running Radio 2 breakfast show this month, was honoured with a lifetime achievement award.He said: ‘Well ladies and gentlemen, it’s been a journey. This only sustains my long-felt theory in our business if you can stay upright and reasonably sober they’ll give you something in the end.’This is the “I don’t believe he’s going of his own accord but give him something so that he doesn’t come back”.

…..

Glamour: Pixie Lott and Claudia Winkleman both wore black to the awards

‘And I shall take this with me and covet it always, back to the home for the bewildered, the home for infirm disc jockeys, my little room there… put it beside my little tooth mug, besides Jimmy Young’s room.’Jonathan Ross opened the night with a joke about the Sachsgate scandal that saw him sit out last year’s awards.He said: ‘It’s been a remarkable year… for a start I’ve been allowed to work.’Don’t worry the producers have been through the script. It’s been scrutinised more thoroughly than Tiger Wood’s mobile phone bill. They crossed out anything they didn’t like… so good night everybody.It’s ok, they trust me. That’s why there are five snipers up in the balcony and a Heartbeat special ready to go.’Ross added: ‘It’s been a tough year for comedy. You people are under scrutiny, you can’t say anything. I tell you, comedy has taken more hits than Leona Lewis at a book signing… which is an example of the sort of joke you can’t do anymore.’Harry Potter author J.K Rowling presented an outstanding contribution to comedy award to Bolton-born funny man Peter Kay who recently topped the singles charts with a Children In Need charity record.

JK Rowling said she was presenting Peter Kay with his award for outstanding contribution to comedy because he was a “very good friend” of hers.She said: “He’s one of Britain’s best loved comics and the creator of by far the funnier of the two famous Potters and of a kebab stand, my personal favourite, called Harry Pitta.’Even though, Warner Brothers aren’t going for the idea of a death eater from Bolton so he’s going back on tour and it gets him off my back.’Kay said: ‘I don’t know what to say… lovely. Thanks to anybody who’s ever met me.’Anybody who used to work with me in Netto, anybody who used to work with me in Majestic Service Station, me mum, anybody who’s bought a ticket for my new show, and thanks to everybody who’s selling them on eBay.’

British political comedy In the Loop beat Sacha Baron Cohen’s camp Austrian fashion reporter Bruno for the best comedy film and Harry Enfield and Paul Whitehouse picked up their first British Comedy Award in over 10 years for their sketch show Harry and Paul.Controversial comic Frankie Boyle, who caused offence earlier this year with a near-the-knuckle gag about the Queen on Mock The Week, caused the night’s first blue moment with a joke about sexual abuse.When Ross expressed horror at what he had said, Boyle returned: ‘You have created the climate in which that cannot be broadcast, and then you stand here dispensing awards looking like a five hundred pound haircut on top of a pile of melting ice cream.’

British Comedy Awards 2009

• Best comedy entertainment personality: Harry Hill: Harry Hill’s TV Burp (Avalon for ITV1)

• Best comedy entertainment programme: Harry Hill’s TV Burp (Avalon for ITV1).

• Best television comedy actor: Simon Bird: The Inbetweeners (Bwark for E4)

• Best television comedy actress: Katherine Parkinson: The IT Crowd (Talkback Thames for Channel 4).

• Best new British television comedy: Psychoville (BBC Productions for BBC2).

• Best television comedy drama: Pulling: special (Silver River for BBC3).

• Best live stand-up performer: Michael McIntyre Live at the Apollo

• Best male comedy newcomer: Charlie Brooker: You Have Been Watching (Zeppotron for E4).

• Best female comedy newcomer: Ramona Marquez: Outnumbered: series 2 (Hat Trick Productions for BBC1)

• Best comedy panel show: Have I Got News For You (Hat Trick Productions for BBC1)

• Best sitcom: Outnumbered: series 2 (Hat Trick Productions for BBC1).

• Best sketch show: Harry & Paul: series 2 (Tiger Aspect Productions for BBC1).

• Best comedy film: In the Loop (Optimum Releasing: Peter Capaldi/ Tom Hollander/ Gina McKee/ James Gandolfini)

I hate waking up in the morning and finding fucking snow on my car.

EastEnders lovebirds Stacey and Bradley tie the knot again

The path of true love did not run smoothly the first time for EastEnders couple Bradley Branning and Stacey Slater.But it looks like they are willing to give each other another shot.Viewers saw the divorced couple kiss on Friday night and the reunited couple are to remarry.

Lacey Turner, 21, who plays Stacey, and Charlie Clements, 22, who is Bradley in the soap, were spotted filming scenes for the wedding ceremony.But is Stacey hiding something under her coat? The character looked as if she had a bulge in her dress which could indicate an EastEnders new arrival.The couple divorced in June after sensational story lines involving Stacey’s infidelity with Bradley’s father, a miscarriage and Stacey’s bipolar condition.But unlike other East End weddings, such as Ricky and Bianca’s, the rest of Albert Square have not been invited.

Only Bradley’s dad Max, played by Jake Wood, and Stacey’s mum Jean (Gillian Wright) are witnesses at the wedding.But how long can the couple’s happiness last this time?Actor Charlie Clements is quitting the show and EastEnders producers have promised a big, memorable exit for the character.The wedding scenes are due to be screened in the new year.

And  A Christmas Day Whodunnit…

One Walford resident murders Archie

The Mitchells wake on Christmas Day in various houses across Walford. Peggy leaves Dot and Jim’s home and heads across to see Phil, who stayed with Shirley. Peggy’s disgusted when she sees a drunken Shirley and Phil sharing a kiss. With that, Peggy shouts that Phil should have finished off Archie when he had the chance. Roxy and Amy, meanwhile, wake at Jack’s house and Archie soon turns up with a sack of presents for his granddaughter. Jack’s unhappy with Archie’s presence and goes to visit Ronnie in hospital. Archie then turns up to see Ronnie, but she’s unable to look her father in the eye. Jack returns to Ronnie’s hospital room and throws Archie out. With Archie gone, Jack tries to calm Ronnie down as she paces the ward in a state, but she declares that she wants her father dead. After fetching a doctor, Jack panics when he discovers that Ronnie’s disappeared.

Later, Janine and Archie are upstairs in The Vic celebrating their dream come true. Archie reveals that he’s paid Tracey extra to open up earlier. Instead, she unexpectedly resigns. As Janine recounts her childhood in The Vic, Archie assures her that he’ll sort out Christmas dinner. Janine’s later intrigued when Archie hands her an envelope – the first clue in a treasure hunt. Janine searches for the clues and she eventually finds the final one under the Queen Vic bust. Janine’s not impressed, though, when she opens the last envelope – it’s not what she’d expected in the slightest. With that, Archie hands Janine her suitcase, admits that he’s been using her and throws her out of his pub. Peggy’s enraged by what Archie’s done to her and her family, while Ronnie walks back to Walford with intent. A broken Janine, meanwhile, stares up at The Vic with a murderous look in her eyes…

Meanwhile, over at Pat’s house, the kids are desperate to open their presents and Bianca eventually agrees that they can. Janine turns up asking what time they’ll all be over at The Vic for lunch, though Ricky insists that he’s staying where he is for the day. Furious by her brother’s betrayal, Janine says that she’ll never forgive him. As Janine walks away from the house, she bumps into Ryan who reveals that he’s quit his job at the pub. The Jacksons’ Christmas dinner descends into a food fight and among the chaos, Bianca insists that Ricky doesn’t have to move out as she loves him. Before Ricky knows what’s happening, Bianca’s proposed that they tie the knot! Their elation, however, is short-lived when they’re suddenly interrupted… Elsewhere, Bradley and Jean are concerned for Stacey’s welfare; Bradley, Stacey, Mo, Jean, Charlie, Jim and Dot turn out in force to spend Christmas Day with Abi and Max; after dinner, Mo encourages the family to go to The Vic, but nobody seems interested and Stacey heads off home; and Max takes Abi’s phone and secretly makes a call to Tanya.

Furious by Archie’s treatment of Ronnie, Jack pays him a visit at The Vic and pushes him up against the bar. Threatening Archie, an enraged Jack warns him never to go anywhere near Ronnie ever again, before leaving the pub. Afterwards, Archie finds Ronnie behind the bar staring at him. Archie’s nonchalant and unapologetic about his actions towards Ronnie, while she calmly admits that she’d be happier if he were dead. After making a cruel remark about Danielle, Archie throws his daughter out of The Vic. After Ronnie’s encounter with her father, Jack and Roxy attempt to placate her rage. As Jack leaves the flat, Roxy goes to check on Amy but when she returns to the room, Roxy’s perturbed that her sister’s disappeared.  After being thrown out of The Vic, an upset Janine heads over to Pat’s house, much to Ricky and Bianca’s surprise. As the Jacksons head out to the carol concert, Ryan stays to talk with Janine. He walks away, though, when he listens to her scheme to exact revenge on Archie. Later at the Car Lot, Janine angrily grabs a knife and walks out into the Square. Outside, Bianca’s concerned that she’s blown her chances with Ricky after proposing. Will he give her the answer that she’s waiting for?

Meanwhile, at Shirley’s flat, an inebriated Phil attempts to dress himself. As he staggers towards The Vic, though, he bumps into someone that he’s not happy to see. Afterwards, he goes to the Arches and collects a crowbar, before continuing his journey to the pub… At The Vic, Peggy gives Archie an ultimatum – either leave The Vic tonight or he’ll face the consequences. Unfazed by his wife’s threats, Archie hands back the divorce papers in the hope of spending one more night with her. Peggy’s disgusted by his suggestion and quickly leaves, but watches The Vic from the shadows outside… Later, Archie’s knocked to the ground by a mystery assailant and when he hears a noise, he looks up to see who’s around him. As he does, though, his attacker delivers a fatal blow to his head.

Whilst On The Cobbles….On Xmas Day

Kevin’s stunned by Sally’s shock revelation

At the Websters’, Kevin’s distracted, while Sally, Rosie and Sophie excitedly open their presents. He’s desperate to see Molly, who’s across the Street trying to drum up enthusiasm after opening Tyrone’s extra special gift for her – a karaoke machine. Unable to wait any longer, Kevin makes an excuse to leave the house and a shocked Molly sees him in the backyard of her house. Furious, she steps outside on the premise of taking some rubbish out and slaps him across the face. Kevin, however, won’t take no for an answer and insists that he can’t wait any longer – he wants to be with her forever and he wants them to tell their families today! Molly’s stunned but swept away by the danger and romance of the situation. She agrees and the clandestine lovers return to their partners to break the devastating news to them.

However, when Kevin returns home and finally convinces Sally to take a break from her Christmas dinner preparation, she breaks down and stuns him with some devastating news of her own – she has breast cancer. As a shell-shocked Kevin struggles to take the news in, he realises that he has to get to Molly before she tells Tyrone everything. But will he make it in time? Meanwhile, completely unaware of the drama unfolding across the Street, the Barlows try to enjoy Christmas with their extended family for Simon’s sake. He’s thrilled with his bike from granddad Ken, but when granddad George turns up with a games console, Ken finds himself – and his gift – sidelined. Will the warring grandparents be able to keep the peace?

There’s no shortage of drama and tension at the Platts’, either. When Tina and Jason turn up for Christmas dinner, Tina’s stunned to be greeted by the handsome stranger she kissed earlier in the week – and she’s shocked to realise his relation to the family. After an uncomfortable dinner, Tina makes her excuses and heads home, leaving David wondering what exactly is going on Elsewhere at the Rovers, Steve and Becky enjoy their first Christmas together as a family and as Steve watches Becky with Amy, he can’t help but wonder if the time has come to give Amy a brother or sister. But how will Becky feel about her husband’s idea?

Todays Toons

Todays WTF !!!!

Her Majesty The Queen and His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh to Visit Canada in 2010

OTTAWA—Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, is pleased to announce that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh will visit Canada in 2010.

The visit will take place from June 28 to July 6, and will include stops in Nova Scotia, Ontario and Manitoba, and in the National Capital Region, on Canada Day.

The program will be coordinated by the Canadian Secretary to The Queen, Mr. Kevin MacLeod, CVO, CD. A detailed itinerary will be published at a later date by the Department of Canadian Heritage.

-the Ottawa Citizen

Earlier this month, Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney unveiled Discover Canada (PDF here), a new guidebook for immigrants preparing to take the citizenship test. While the release of a government brochure rarely becomes headline news, this particular publication generated a surprising amount of excitement. Adam Chapnick, writing in the Ottawa Citizen, could hardly contain himself:

For the first time in our history, individuals seeking to become Canadian citizens will be provided by their future government with a reasonable, balanced assessment of the national past. Having studied the comprehensive document, I believe they will be better prepared for the realities of Canada today than the millions of immigrants who have come before them.

This seems a bit over the top, considering that new immigrants merely need to absorb enough of Discover Canada to scrape through a test and are then free to begin forgetting its contents. Nevertheless, the way Canada chooses to present itself to newcomers is important, if only because of what it says about how we perceive our country and ourselves. Accordingly, I went through the slightly masochistic exercise of comparing Discover Canada to the older guide that it replaced, A Look At Canada (PDF here, for now). To my surprise, Chapnick has a point: the new guide really is better in a lot of respects, and worse in only a few. Uncle Jason seems to have got this one broadly right.

Perhaps the most discussed passage in the new guide is this ringing statement of “the equality of women and men:”:

In Canada, men and women are equal under the law. Canada’s openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, “honour killings,” female genital mutilation, or other gender-based violence. Those guilty of these crimes are severely punished under Canada’s criminal laws.

This was greeted with jubilation in some quarters, and I suppose it’s not so bad. It can’t hurt to warn new immigrants that they’ll face penalties if they pummel their spouses or circumcise their daughters on Canadian soil. Still, the word “barbaric” does seem unnecessarily subjective and judgemental, especially considering that cosmetic procedures not so different from the milder forms of “female genital mutilation” are becoming increasingly popular in the West. I appreciate that there’s a substantial difference between operating on a young girl with no say in the matter, and operating on a paying customer – but is the difference really so vast that we can solemnly describe the one thing as barbarism, while the other is just cosmetic surgery? Perhaps the guide should merely have noted that honour killings and female genital mutilation are illegal in Canada, and left it at that.

In any case, that one blurb about barbaric cultural practices is something of a distraction from the more substantive new element in Discover Canada, which is a sense of historical depth. The section on “Canada’s History and Symbols” in the older guide was only two pages long, and started with Confederation on July 1, 1867. While bits of historical information were sprinkled in elsewhere, they didn’t really add up to much.

Discover Canada, on the other hand, has ten sumptuously illustrated pages of Canadian history, running from pre-Columbian times to the end of the Second World War. Like the rest of the guide, the section reads like something out of a junior high school textbook, but it’s still nice to see. I even learned a few things by reading through it, for example that there was a proposal in the 1920s to incorporate some British possessions in the Caribbean into Canada. Who would have guessed? Similarly, Discover Canada has some welcome discussion of Canadian symbols, from the beaver to the maple leaf, and is admirably emphatic about the role of the Queen as our head of state (one hopes that Michaëlle Jean will take note).

John Ivison, in the National Post, argued that all this discussion of history, symbolism and the monarchy meant that Discover Canada was nothing less than a brilliant move by the Conservatives to “rebrand” (how I’m beginning to loathe that word) Canada in their own image. It’s true that the guide has some suspicious twists of emphasis, dispensing with public health care in a single rather ambiguous sentence while waxing poetic about our economic links to the US and sometimes paying exaggerated attention to the role of religion. Nevertheless, it’s hard to see Discover Canada as Conservative propaganda. The guidebook is essentially what it should be – a reasonable crash course in Canadian history, geography and civics, conveying useful information about modern Canada without pretending that the country sprang from the brow of Zeus as a finished product in 1867.

A CBC documentary airing tonight suggests that the Monarchy is in a deep crisis of legitimacy. Certainly the Queen’s family has not fared well in the celebrity-tabloid era. Could the malaise among some citizens about the Monarchy translate into constitutional change? Could the Crown of Canada be abolished after our beloved Queen Elizabeth II?

I doubt it highly. Current heir to the throne, Prince Charles, is certainly more unpopular than his mother, but not nearly so unpopular as to galvanize the public of Canada into replacing the traditional Head-of-State with a new (republican) system. As my previous post about political-history professor Michael Behiels makes clear: there is no simple way to change Canada’s constitution to allow a different Head-of-State. Opposition to Canada’s Monarchy would need to be united and very strong (75%+) to have any chance of eventually moving to a different system. And this would require constitutional negotiations and amendments – passed in all provinces and both houses in Ottawa (Constitution s. 41) – for the change to be effective. Disgruntled as some would-be-republicans might be, they are not nearly so united and strong as to force through a new Head-of-State.

In Canada’s case, the momentum of the status quo will ensure that we see our Monarchy continue beyond Queen Elizabeth II.

Those who are simply unimpressed with the current heir and wish to skip a generation should consult the constitutional conventions inherent in the Statute of Westminster 1931. The Crown is shared among several dominions and the United Kingdom. The Statute of Westminster requires the consent of all parties to the Crown to any alteration in the rules of succession. Historically, this was required only once before: when accepting the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936. I consider it unlikely that the governments in several countries will pursue any alteration in the succession.

The campaign for a democratic alternative to the monarchy is, by its very nature, always going to be adversarial.  So any chance to establish some common ground with those more accepting of an hereditary head of state is always welcome.

BBC Northampton conducted a phone-in discussion recently on the future of the royal family.  Comments from callers ran the expected gamut of opinion from “leeches” and “parasites” on the one hand to “the finest queen in the world” and simply “I love the queen” on the other.

But within these extreme views there was one issue on which both monarchists and republicans seem to implicitly agree:  we all want to have some say in who is our head of state.

As far as the monarchy is concerned the republican position is straightforward: nothing less than a democratically elected head of state will do.  The idea of hereditary privilege is wrong in principle, anti-democratic in practice, and acts as a roadblock to much-needed, far-reaching reform of the way we in Britain govern ourselves.

But even those callers to the BBC who were happy to forgo their right to choose the head of state felt that the hereditary system is flawed.  Caller after caller, almost without exception, expressed the view that they would not be happy with Charles as king. We heard how Charles was not “fit” for office, how he had “betrayed” them over his divorce and subsequent remarriage, and how the line of succession should “skip a generation”.

What does the dissatisfaction expressed by so many callers to the BBC tell us?  Among those that the monarchy would normally be expected to rely upon for their core support, there is very much the feeling now that they do not like the way things are heading and that something must definitely be done, even if they’re not quite sure what that should be or how it should be achieved.

But, of course, you can’t have it both ways.  If you’re signed up to the idea of an hereditary monarchy then you’re committed to gambling the country’s future on the spin of the roulette wheel of genetics.  You can argue that, with the present incumbent, the gamble paid off.  But when, as it looks likely, our luck eventually runs out, it is no good to then start calling for the rules of the game to be changed.  So if you’re not prepared to accept the risk of losing, you need to get out of the game altogether.

With an elected head of state, on the other hand, there is certainly still a risk. We have to take a chance with a candidate who must persuade us of their ability, of their integrity, and of their commitment, but who may yet be untested in high public office.  However, the risk is short-term because we give ourselves the insurance policy offered by the ballot box.

The common grievance shared between republicans and supporters of the monarchy, that we want a greater say in who becomes our head of state, should give us all a perverse sense of hope.  Although monarchists’ ideas of the way forward might still be a world away from republicanism, this rare piece of common ground provides an opportunity upon which we can continue to build our campaign.

So, we’re in a game together where the odds are against us and the House of Windsor, it seems, always wins.  But if we really want to take responsibility for our own future, we need to cure our gambling addiction. We have to stand up for our rights, leave the casino behind us and select our next head of state on the basis of rational choice, not blind chance.

Citizens of Newfoundland gave a very warm welcome to the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall on behalf of all Canadians. Check out CBC’s image gallery.

Meanwhile, Sun Media is reporting on the findings of Leger Marketing poll regarding the Monarchy in Canada. Canadians are split on their support -except in Quebec, where only 11% continue to support our Monarchy.

“Most provinces are in favour of the Queen remaining as our head of state, except Quebec,” said Dave Scholz, vice-president of Leger Marketing.

Averaged across all of Canada, 44% support the Monarchy and 45% may wish to abandon it.

Of course, any change away from Monarchy would require a substantial amendment to our Constitutional, as well as our society. And without widespread support for an adjustment this becomes a political impossibility.

Removing all symbols of the Crown in Canada would be an exhausting process.  From the widespread use of “Royal” in nearly every town and city (Royal University Hospital), to the Queen on our currency, to the term “Crown” used by governments, to visual symbols in the Canadian Forces (the symbol for the CF itself has a crown at the top). It would be an expensive and lengthy proposition merely to change the terminology and symbols.

When President Obama made his tour of Europe soon after his election, he was greeted with open arms, cheers, welcoming placards, parades and smiling children.  For many Americans it was a relief to gain favor in the eyes of our European neighbors.

The election of President Obama, agree or disagree with his political agenda, was an amazing moment in American history.  It took America almost 90 years to abolish slavery, 188 years to pass the Civil Rights Act and over 230 years to elect a black president.

Since the 1720 establishment  of Sir Robert Walpole as the United Kingdom’s first prime minister, to the election of Gordon Brown, over 285 years have passed.  The UK is yet to elect a minority to the most powerful position of prime minister.

The first modern chancellor of Germany in 1867 was Otto von Bismark.  Of the 34 individuals who have served as the elected head of state in Germany, each one has been from the racial majority.

Since 1848, France has had various titles for the elected head of state and for 161 years, all the French presidents have been caucasian.

Italy is no different.  Italians have elected 81 prime ministers!  Not one of them has been from a racial minority.

While President Obama has enjoys immense popularity with our EU neighbors, one point is clear—While the Europeans claim to love and respect Obama…

They would  have never elected him as president in their own countries!

Obama loves the Europeans and they say they love him—but not enough to elect him or someone like him.  If Obama was running for president or prime minister in Europe, it is quite doubtful he would have won the election.

No matter what the citizens of the EU try to “teach” Americans about being open minded, or morally upright—it is Americans who are leading the way to correct racial inequality.  All Americans can be proud to be a part of a nation that elected Obama.

An article today by Andrew Cohen in the Ottawa Citizen suggests that now is the time (in view of the Queen’s current advanced age) for an intelligent and informed debate about the future of Canada’s Monarchy.

He suggests that the current arrangement is particularly “antiquated” and that it needs to be (and has been by modern Governor Generals) made more modernized, “making it more relevant and more Canadian.”

And although Cohen suggests a Royal Commission be launched to investigate such a change, he makes no particular suggestion as to how it could be made more “relevant” or how exactly our Head-of-State could be “more Canadian.”

Certainly Cohen has his own ideas about what constitutes “Canadian” (see: The Unfinished Canadian: the People We Are), but what exactly his prescription for what might be a more Canadian Head-of-State than the current Canadian Head-of-State remains, at the moment, a mystery.

Queen Jean?

According to a Canwest new article published today, Canada’s Governor General, Michaëlle Jean, moved aggressively to claim the title of Head-of-State of Canada in her newly revised website (gg.ca).

the website launched Friday includes various descriptions of the Governor General’s role — without any reference to Queen Elizabeth — that imply Jean is the head of state.

Meanwhile, PMO spokespeople and Members of Parliament continue to point out the legal absurdities in Jean’s claims.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sent a clear message to Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean that she should not call herself Canada’s head of state.

Global TV

The story quotes former University of Saskatchewan professor David Smith as noting “there seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of Rideau Hall as to the constitutional position of the Governor General under our system.”

And League Chairman, Robert Finch, stated: “I hope this puts an end to the silly notion that the Governor General is head of state — de facto or otherwise.”

This is just one example of the tide that is rising against the Dear Leader, Chairman Maobama, the Usurper.  I don’t think it has a possibility of success until we remove a bunch of the demo-rats from office next November.

Stopping Obama and the Democrats from destroying America and her way of life is every citizens responsibility.  Each of us is a drop in the bucket that can come together to put out this fire of communism, socialism, and oppression that has been set by the arsonists of the left to burn down America as we know it.  You can’t sit back and wait for others to act for you.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

If you wish to add your name to the petition supporting this movement, click on the link below:

https://fs7.formsite.com/C4Strategies/form532157721/secure_index.html

Resolved, that Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I

In his conduct while President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has:

In doing this, Barack Hussein Obama has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Barack Hussein Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

Article II

In his conduct while President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and to that end, through his subordinates and agents, has:

In all of this, Barack Hussein Obama has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Barack Hussein Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

Nu stiu cati dintre oameni stiu cat de important in viata este sa razi. Rasul face bine la sanatate, asta stiam de mic. Rasul ajuta la o mai buna circulatie a sangelui, are un efect benefic asupra sistemului imunitar si este ca un medicament impotriva stresului. Din aceasta cauza incerc sa-mi iau zilnic portia de sanatate razand. Iar ca sa rad… trebuie sa am si de ce, sau de cine, nu? Ma uit zilnic pe youtube sau alte site-uri de acest gen, cu filmulete si cu prosti gramada, insa la un moment dat ma enervez ca am cam vazut toate filmulete cu prosti si nu mai gasesc si altele, asa ca cel mai bun mod este sa ma uit la un film de comedie. Ala ma tine 1h 30 min – 2h, stau in pat, ma relaxez si rad. Daca va plac filmele de comedie si voua (eu sunt nebun dupa ele), va prezint cateva filme pe care le-am vazut si care mi-au dat o portie sanatoasa de ras.

• Rat Race

• How High

• Jackass 1

• Jackass 2

• Eurotrip

• Sex is zero

• Scuola di ladri (Scoala de hoti)

• Little man

• South Central L.A.

(Nu gasesc trailer-ul, dar merita vazut!)

• Head of state

Toate merita vazute, credeti-ma ca sunt filme de comedie de nota 10. Spun asta pentru ca le-am vazut si m-as uita din nou la ele in fiecare zi. Unele dintre ele le-am vazut de 3-4 ori (Head of state sau Rat Race)

Alte recomandari:

-  Toate seriile de la: Scarry Movie, American Pie, Home Alone.

Daca ati vazut filme de comedie foarte tari, va rog sa lasati un comment si sa ne spuneti si noua.

It was a million bucks JUST for Air Force 1.  The first malady went separately on an Air Force 757.  Why?  Then you have a couple of C-5’s or equivalent airlift to carry all the helicopters and limos, the support and security personnel, etc.  If this boondoggle cost a dime less than $10 million I would be shocked.  Oh, but he met with his top general in Afghanistan for a whopping 20 minutes.  Let’s see… In the 70 days since General McChrystal took over, Obama has talked to him twice, about 20 minutes each time.  So, Obama has met with the commander of what he said was the most important part of our war on man caused disasters when he was a candidate for an average of 35 seconds per day.  Does that say to you that he thinks winning (in Afghanistan) is important?  But I digress.

Instead of hearing how much Obama is traveling (more than Bush), how much it costs (not just for AF1), or how big his carbon footprint is, what we hear from the media formerly known as mainstream is simply silence.  Actually, let me correct myself.  When the votes in Copenhagen were tallied, the sound bite from one MFKAM anchor pretty much summed up the Obamabot response to this whole thing.  This reporter stammered through about 30 seconds of airtime in total disbelief that the mOssiah had been denied.  It went something like “Wha…, we didn’t…, I can’t believe this.  But president Obama and the first lady gave speeches.  I can’t believe Chicago didn’t win.  This is outrageous…”  And it went on from there.  No mention of any of the other topics concerning his travel.

In what has been yet another illustration of Obama’s narcissism, he disobeyed one of the unwritten rules of being a head of state.  You don’t personally go to things like this as a head of state unless it is already pretty much a done deal.  You can’t risk pissing away your limited supply of political capital on such things.  As Richard Cohen wrote in his September 29th article, it’s “Time to Act Like a President.”  American presidents don’t run around looking for a stage and a camera.  American presidents don’t act as if they are gods or dictators.  American presidents don’t run around the world apologizing for America being great.  American presidents don’t bow to foreign leaders (especially Arabs).  Maybe it is dangerous to assume that Obama IS an American.  He hasn’t proved it, and he sure doesn’t act like it.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Obama’s trip to Copenhagen cost $1 million or more

People, take a look at the current Governor General of Canada – Michaëlle Jean. If you don’t know about her – then you need to look her up. She is sorta, kinda like President Barack Obama in Canada simply by the fact that she is the first person of African descent to hold such a position (appointed by Queen Elizabeth upon the recommendation of Prime Minister Paul Martin) and she is simply a rockstar!

Simply great. Check out an interview she did recently above.

By Rick Gunderman

To many Canadians, we live in the most perfectly free, democratic society in the entire world. Our government works for us, they listen to us, and they never, ever trample on our rights, so the tale goes.

It would seem odd, however, that a people whose head of state lives in and rules over another country across the Atlantic Ocean would consider themselves politically independent. The fact that she (Queen Elizabeth II) is a monarch also never seems to perturb many.

An Ipsos Reid poll from 2002 suggests that 65% of Canadians believe that the monarchy should have no formal role in Canada’s government. The same poll found, however, that only 48% prefer to have a republican government as opposed to a constitutional monarchy. This is further complicated by the same poll revealing still that 79% support the constitutional monarchy. It is clear from this that Canadians are largely ignorant or misinformed about our options for a system of government.

A long-running debate among the socialist community has been whether to accept a bourgeois-type republic as a step towards a socialist government, or to fiercely fight for socialism now. A similar debate split the First International among communist-anarchist lines, and those same lines were drawn again during the Spanish Civil War. In the case of the latter, the USSR-supported Communist Party of Spain insisted on focusing on an anti-capitalist revolution only after the war with Franco’s Nationalists was over, while the anarchists vehemently pursued their goals of a free, socialized society.

The experience in Spain, though, cannot be compared directly to Canada’s current conditions. For one, Canada has developed far beyond where the Republic of Spain had in the 1930s, and hence capitalism is far more entrenched in Canada. Secondly, Canada’s history of anarchism and communism in the labour movement has fizzled to a large degree, whereas Spain had many active anarchist and communist movements at the time (although not always working in cohesion).

The question of the republic for Canadian socialists must be approached in light of our current conditions. We are an advanced capitalist society with a constitutional monarchy system of government. Such a fusion combines the capitalist rule-of-the-privileged with a federal state whose only elected officials are the members of parliament – Senators and the Governor-General are appointed, as are many, many government portfolios.

We must ceaselessly challenge capitalism, but the Canadian people are in no position for a spontaneous libertarian socialist uprising as was seen in Spain. Our best hope, then, is to unabashedly proclaim our support for a republic with a unicameral legislature and a head of state both elected by popular vote. We should support the abolition of the Senate in favour of greater autonomy for the provinces, who would similarly be remodelled as republics in their own rights.

This is not to suggest that should a Spanish Revolution-style uprising take place that we not immediately rally behind it – quite the contrary, we would be fools to make a mistake that history has taught us will lead to, at the worst, a fascist victory. Until Canadians are ready for a commune-based system of socialism/communism, however, Canadian socialists should stand behind the republican movement.

Information on the republican movement can be found at http://www.canadian-republic.ca/

It wasn’t my intention to create a flaming Sarah Palin page, but I’m consoling myself with the fact that this isn’t actually about Sarah Palin, its about her followers.   This is really all you need to know about what’s wrong with the Republican Party.  At least its what’s wrong with the Republicans that read USA Today.  God what a shitty “news paper”.  Actually, its the perfect combination.  USA Today, Sarah Palin, and the retards that love them both.

God Bless America, and no one else!

Succumbing to much pressure, finally, I give you my blog and its first post. And how suiting it is that it be on Canada Day, my favourite day of the year after Christmas.

A recently commissioned polled showed that nearly two-thirds of Canadians wanted to abolish the monarchy. Of course Québec, which still sees it as a constant reminder of defeat and humiliation, led the pack, while Ontario, usually more traditional in these matters, remained the least favourable to such a change but yet still over half of Ontarians favoured it for the first time ever, which is truly remarkable.

I certainly do have great respect for our institutions and a particular fondness for Her Majesty the Queen and royal family collectibles. But we are not shackled to the past, although our inherited system of governance has served us rather well. As Sir Winston once lamented, “Our system is the worst in the World, save all others.” That said, change for change’s sake alone is complete poppycock.

I have written about modernizing and Canadianizing our monarchy for quite some time. This however becomes even more pertinent and timely as Britain’s First Minister Brown contemplates ending male-preference primogeniture and the exclusion of Catholics in the line of succession.

We will see the lunacy of the “status quo” if the Right Honourable Mr. Brown pushes forward his reforms, which will have for effect the disestablishment of the Church of England in the long run. Obviously, Canada has no established church and cherishes secularization to a certain point. Nevertheless, if all of England’s former colonies are forced to rubber stamp Westminster’s monarchical tinkering, which is degrading and the antithesis of sovereignty, why then perhaps does Canada not take the bull by the horns and come up with its own made in Canada solution? There was once even a time when Canada had a constitution but not the ability to amend it by itself.

Alas, I also note that the Union Jack is still flown here as if it were Canada’s own. Was that debate not settled in 1965? And when are Manitoba and Ontario going to modernize their flags?

Moreover, it is humorous that certain monarchists today foolishly believe in the archaic divine right of kings («Dieu et mon droit») and follow Her Majesty’s family tree all the way back to the Biblical King David, an ancestor of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. In France, others even believe the blue bloods will eventually be reinstated upon the throne with Louis XX.

Remembering that some of us Canadians seem strangely to value that gene pool in particular and others the supposed stability and continuity often accompanying hereditary monarchy (which can of course be achieved otherwise), I admit having once toyed with the idea of Canada’s offering the Crown to one of Her Majesty’s grandchildren, perhaps the one who married the Montréalaise, but no, building upon its glorious history, Canada must choose its own uniquely Canadian path vis-à-vis the monarchy. The so-called problem in some of the other ‘realms’ is creating an alternative, for example, in Australia, which also considered republicanism; however, that route is unwise for Canada and would prove disastrous.

I remain committed to an indirectly elected monarchy based loosely upon the papal conclave model. I would have members of the provincial legislative assemblies come to Ottawa to chose from a list of nominees provided by the House of Commons and Senate, the whole procedure being somewhat in secret. Why? Because the institution needs to keep that special magic other models clearly do not have. A ceremonial magistrate or a political president is to be avoided like in Ireland and America respectively. The Americans even elect dog-catchers and suffer from ballot-box tyranny.

Possibly, this could circumvent the virtually impossible requirement of unanimity, meaning an act of settlement concerning the Canadian crown could be solely passed by the Parliament of Canada, like Parliament does with titles, and like how the Privy Council of Canada has to approve royal marriages. Another reference to the Supreme Court of Canada?

Let us not forget that there are technically eleven crowns in Canada due to federalism. Accordingly, who is to say that with present technology, a Canadian king or queen could not personally exercise the roles of governor general and lieutenant governors, the savings thus being reinvested in royal projects such as the arts and architecture to name but two. Could you imagine the first coronation upon Canadian soil? Once replanted here, after the terms and conditions are well delineated, the golden institution would certainly take on an evolution of its own, much like the Office of the Governor General. In any event, we would continue to need that head of state who is special, a neutral arbiter above the political fracas, a role model and a unifier.

In the final analysis, the royals are a bunch of inbred freemasons in cahoots with the international banking cartel. Canada can certainly do better than these foreigners.