--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: There is no age restriction to signing a Petition to the government. Signing anonymously does not support it. There are in excess of 14,000 signatures and if everyone threw a buck or two at the GoFundMe effort to support lobbying for the CFSM, we could accomplish our effort in short order.

https://www.gofundme.com/volunteer-medal-veterans-cmvsm
I hope you might sign on and donate. Your help is appreciated.

Other Provinces have Family Day, Louis Riel Day or Islander Day, and BC has been wishing for a February holiday too. In order to harmonize holidays with other Provinces, the 3rd Monday of February is proposed.

We, the undersigned veterans, citizens and residents of Canada, and loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, draw the attention of the Minister of National Defence to the following:

WHEREAS the Senate of Canada passed a motion on December 14, 2010, encouraging "the Minister of National Defence to change the official structural name of ‘Maritime Command’ to a new name that includes the word ‘Navy’.";

WHEREAS the Naval Service Act received Royal Assent on May 4, 1910, and the Canadian navy commemorated its centennial in 2010;

AND WHEREAS the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) was the navy of Canada until 1968 when the three Canadian armed services were unified to form the Canadian Forces, and the modern Canadian navy has been known as Canadian Forces Maritime Command since unification, but still refers to itself unofficially as the "navy" and maintains many RCN traditions;

AND WHEREAS Command-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces is vested in the Canadian Monarch and ships of the Canadian Forces continue to be called "Her/His Majesty's Canadian Ship";

AND WHEREAS it is currently improper to use the expression "Royal Canadian Navy" and its abbreviation "RCN" in references to the Canadian navy after February 1, 1968;

AND WHEREAS the Royal designation of the Canadian Navy was executed by a Royal Proclamation which has never been revoked, and that the Canadian Government and the Canadian Forces are required to resume usage of the expression “Royal Canadian Navy”, if the expression “Canadian Navy” is used in any official capacity;

AND WHEREAS the above also pertains to the "Royal Canadian Air Force" and its abbreviation "RCAF" in references to the Canadian air force after unification, which has been known as Canadian Forces Air Command since September 2, 1975, but still refers to itself unofficially as the "air force" and maintains many RCAF traditions;

AND WHEREAS notwithstanding the National Defence Act, which states that "The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces", separate service uniforms were reintroduced in 1986, separate service chiefs were reinstated and returned to National Defence Headquarters in 1997, separate service websites were officially established and references to the separate services are now commonplace throughout the increasingly tri-service Canadian Forces, all of which have been accommodated without in any way compromising the unified command structure, integrated nature or corporate unity of the Canadian Forces;

AND WHEREAS resuming usage of the Royal designation as it pertains to the "Canadian Navy" and "Canadian Air Force" could be facilitated without in any way undermining the unity of the Canadian Forces acting as a single organization under a unified command structure, and without in any way compromising the integration of military operations, logistics support, personnel and administration of the separate services acting together under the current functional command system, which was the intent of Bill C-243, The Canadian Forces Reorganization Act, which we the petitioners strongly support;

AND WHEREAS resuming usage of such Royal designations could be facilitated without in any way replacing Canadian Forces Maritime Command and Canadian Forces Air Command, whose Chiefs of Staff would continue to exercise nominal command over the navy and air force respectively;

AND WHEREAS resuming usage of such Royal designations could be efficiently accomplished and executed without material cost to Canadian taxpayers;

AND WHEREAS resuming usage of such Royal designations would restore the traditional esprit de corps of the navy and air force, just as continued usage of the Royal designation of longstanding regular force and reserve regiments has preserved the traditional esprit de corps of the army, and just as continued usage of the Royal designation of the longstanding Royal Canadian Mounted Police has preserved the traditional esprit de corps of Canada's federal constabulary force;

En français:

Nous soussignés(es), les vétérans, citoyens et résidants du Canada ainsi que les loyaux sujets de Sa Majesté la Reine du Canada, désirons attirer l'attention de la Chambre sur ce qui suit :

ATTENDU:

que le Sénat du Canada a adopté une motion sur Décembre 14, 2010, encourageant "le ministre de la Défense nationale pour changer le nom officiel de construction» du Commandement maritime à un nouveau nom qui inclut le mot «Marine» . ";

que la Loi du Service Naval a reçu la Sanction royale le 4 mai 1910, et la marine canadienne a célébré son centenaire en 2010;

que la Marine Royale Canadienne (MRC) était la marine du Canada jusqu'en 1968 où les trois Forces armées canadiennes ont été unifiées pour former les Forces canadiennes;

que la Marine canadienne moderne a été nommée « Forces canadienne Commandement maritime » depuis l'unification, mais se rapporte toujours officieusement à elle-même en tant que « Marine canadienne » et qu’elle maintient beaucoup de traditions de la MRC ;

que le commandement des Forces canadiennes est investi dans le monarque et les navires des Forces canadiennes continuent à s'appeler « Navire Canadien de Sa Majesté »;

qu’il est actuellement inexact d'employer l'expression « Marine Royale Canadienne » et son abréviation « MRC » dans les références à la Marine canadienne depuis le 1er février 1968;

que la désignation « royale » de la Marine canadienne a été instaurée par une proclamation royale qui n'a jamais été révoquée et que le gouvernement du Canada et les Forces canadiennes sont obligées de reprendre l'utilisation de l'expression « Marine Royale Canadienne » si l'expression « Marine canadienne » est employée dans sa qualité officielle;

que ce qui précède concerne également l’ « Aviation Royale du Canada » et son abréviation « ARC », qui s’appelle « Forces canadienne Commandement aérien » depuis le 2ieme septembre 1975;

que malgré la Loi sur la Défense Nationale , qui déclare que « les Forces canadiennes sont les forces armées de Sa Majesté levées par le Canada [et] constituent un service intégré appelé ‘‘Forces armées canadiennes’’ », des uniformes séparés ont été réintroduits en 1986 et que des chefs de services séparés ont été rétablis et sont retournés au siège social de la Défense Nationale en 1997. De plus des sites Web séparés des services ont été officiellement mis en ligne et les références aux services séparés sont maintenant une banalité dans toutes les Forces canadiennes de plus en plus tri-service ayant été ainsi adaptées sans compromettre a structure unifiée de commandement, la nature intégrée ou l'unité de corporation des Forces canadiennes;

que réinstaurer la désignation royale appartenant à la « Marine canadienne » et la « Force aérienne canadienne » pourrait être fait sans miner l'unité des Forces canadiennes en tant qu'organisation simple sous une structure unifiée de commande et sans compromettre l'intégration des opérations, de l'appui de logistique, du personnel militaire et de l'administration des services séparés tels que voulus par le Bill C-243, Loi sur la Réorganisation des Forces canadiennes que nous, pétitionnaires soutenons fortement;

que la réinstauration de l'utilisation de telles désignations royales pourrait être effectuée sans remplacer les Force canadiennes Commandement Maritime et les Forces canadiennes Commandement Aérien, dont les chefs du personnel continueraient à exercer le commandement nominal;

que la réinstauration de l'utilisation de telles désignations royales pourrait être efficacement accomplie et exécutée sans coût pour les contribuables canadiens;

et que la réinstauration de l'utilisation de telles désignations royales reconstituerait l’esprit de corps traditionnel de la Marine et de la Force aérienne, tout comme son usage continu l’a préservé pour les régiments réguliers et de réserve de l'armée et tout comme c’est le cas pour la Gendarmerie royale du Canada, la police fédérale du Canada;

No matter how much we try to show facebook that the page, "Military Parents abuse their Children", is offensive they are not listening!

Help us show them that this page is attacking our soldiers for events not even proven, and that we will not allow this on our watch!

Check it out yourself at facebook.

If you read this you will see how many people are offended by this page!

Please know the facts, this is not a Right Wing Extremist fantasy issue, there are serious questions that must be addressed & Obama has spent over $1 million on three legal teams to keep his $20 birth certificate sealed from public view.. Why would he do this? Don't you have to show your Birth Certificate to get a job or a driver's license? Don't you have to send for your college transcripts to prove your educational qualifications? Don't we all have equal protection and or opportunity? Why is he able to avoid the requirements?

Congressional action was held to assure that John McCain born to Military parents serving our country abroad was a citizen, yet Obama was never vetted! Why?

I will say again what I’ve said for the last two years; Obama is not lawfully qualified to be president regardless of where he was born. Even if Obama by some chance was born in Hawaii he was still born a British Subject just as John McCain was born a U.S. Citizen even though he was born in another country.

Obama's father was a British Subject when Obama was born and subject to British law.

Read more here: http://legalwatch.blogtownhall.com/
Even if he was born in Hawaii as claimed Obama is not lawfully qualified to be President.

Also; here is another Great link to see for your self just what is going on here... We are getting Hi-Jacked by this Illegal Street THUG.

http://starboard.blogtownhall.com/2008/12/10/an_open_letter_to_the_electors_of_the_electoral_college.thtml

You can watch a copy of the program at this link.

http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/9raw-the-circle-mocks-war-hero/xk30y8q

If you are offended by the comments from Yumi Stynes and George Negus, please sign the petition below.

Spread the word by sharing on facebook and share on twitter. Also join the facebook group showing your support.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Yumi-Stynes-brain-found-at-the-bottom-of-a-pool-alongside-Georges-viagra/168755719907889