CLEAR May 23, 2020 Kelowna, B.C. End the Lockdown and NO NEW NORMAL

END THE LOCKDOWN protesters greet motorists coming of the Highway 97 bridge entering Kelowna

COVID-19   The Scamdemic Event of the Century

Following on the success of our initial May 16, 2020 Kelowna rally, we are again organizing our next May 23, 2020 rally in Kelowna, B.C. at Stuart Park, 12:00–2:00 and longer if you wish.
May 16, 2020 Update

We had an awesome turnout to last Saturday’s rally in Kelowna.  A number of people from another Kelowna End the Lockdown group with Deborah joined us at 12:00 noon at Stuart Park and then on to Harvey St.  It was awesome to join with others to increase our presence and visibility.  The amount of support from vehicular traffic, as well as police and ambulances, was incredible.  Many people working for the gov’t are well aware this is a SCAMDEMIC and are fully supporting us, across the country.

I’ve attached some pictures taken of our event as well. 

I will attempt to get at least one video up online in the next few days taken by one of our great supporters.

I had discussions with Barbara of the third End the Lockdown group at 2:00 p.m. on Saturday to see if they would be willing to join with us at 12:00 p.m. as well.  I’m pleased to say that all of our groups will join together next Saturday at 12:00 noon at Stuart Park in Kelowna!!  Thanks to everyone for their solidarity in our cause.  

I wish to again remind everyone to please bring as many friends and family members as you can.  Especially the younger adults and high schoolers, as they are the ones who stand to lost the most if any new normal is imposed.  They are the ones who stand to have their DNA recorded for life, who face the longest time periods of harm after forced vaccinations, who will not know the real meaning of true social interaction and many other stressful effects of these unconstitutional actions by our gov’ts.
We also urge you to reach out to churches and business owners and employees to join us.  They too are the victims of this fraud.  

One of our group members meritoriously raised the issue of trying to come up with solutions, echoing my point earlier that talk – action = nothing. 

If you can think of any solutions you wish to advance, including local solutions, please send them to me and I will make note of them to discuss on Saturday. 

Our organizers will open our rally with some comments, suggestions and updates. I think it critical for people to have a say and voice their opinions for a rally that they have come to support.  In that context, however, we need to ensure that the event remains somewhat structured.  If you wish to advance any ideas, opinions or facts in support of our cause, please let me know so we can arrange for people to speak and structure our times accordingly, as I think two – two and a half (2-2 ½) hours for the entire event is sufficient to achieve our purpose.  I have arranged for a moderator should people wish to speak their views for a few minutes.  Please keep in mind, our primary objective is to education others, not just ourselves!!!

I think that it would be a good idea, depending on weather, to maybe spend a few minutes on the boardwalk handing out flyers and personally talking to people, before heading over to Harvey St. too.  Having seen the success of last Saturday, I think we should continue to make our presence known and get the support of as many people as possible, personally and from people traveling in their cars.

Attack – always attack!

B.C. Doctors Interview?

I put feelers out on Saturday.  We need to get some B.C. doctors/nurses who are willing to speak anonymously, both visually and in audio, as to what is truly happening behind the scenes, from a medical perspective and a political perspective in the medical community.  We need to have local doctors/nurses providing accurate facts in relation to this issue.

If you know any doctors or nurses who would be willing to be interviewed anonymously, and with guaranteed power to review the interview prior to release, please contact me as soon as possible, and let’s see what we can arrange.  U.S. doctors are still medical professionals, but we need local facts to support our cause.
Doing a video of BC medical people would really strengthen our demands on Premier Horgan and allow us to attack them – instead of waiting while they attack us.  

Any other ideas on how to attack them (legally of course), are very much welcome.

If you know anyone “in the system” who can provide us anonymous tips and/or documents, we need all the help we can get.  Please let me know.

————————————————————-
Preliminary notes:

Please post the attached Circular and Flyer here to any Facebook account or website you may have, and send out to your email list.  Increasing our rally numbers is critical for our support.  Talk to your friends and family and lets get our youth out to this event as well — truly they are the ones must at risk. Thanks!!!

See Youtube and/or Bitchute videos with:  

Dr. Mikovits on exposing the false pandemic, Dr. Fauci’s history of corruption, success of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 and the dangers of wearing masks.

Dr. Rashid Buttar on the true medical nature of COVID-19, patents filed years ago for coronavirus and the people behind this, and the virus getting killed by Vit C and heat.


For the success of Vit C therapy in killing all viruses, check out this site of registered doctors from around the world:

http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v16n06.shtml

Canadian Dan Dicks and his awesome efforts and sacrifices in reporting the truth on COVID, the Vancouver rallies, and many other issues.

https://pressfortruth.ca/https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEM-9i33GsxFob6B4pAtQDQ

We were there – ReOpenPA.org 15 May 2020 – Harrisburg

Event was well-attended, we estimate 3000 souls. The first one on 20 April had twice that many, but this one was more … well, organized. I think the fact that a second rally occurred really unnerved the Communist Dictator. A whole bunch of Counties got re-opened yesterday that were going to stay “closed” for an extended period.

Not perfect, but we did the best we could. There was a threat-in-the-air to try and disperse the demonstrators, that probably discouraged another 3000 participants. But the police kept their distance … even more so than last month’s rally. We get the feeling that local “Law Enforcement” is tired of the BS and not so fond of Comrade Wolf

We made three passes in our vehicle and each “on-station” period lasted about fifteen minutes. We recognized several dozen cars and trucks that made “the circuit” with us three times. The main-opposition State Senator made a REALLY good impassioned speech. In general, people were PISSED OFF

    “Tom Wolf – The Antichrist”

“Sloppy” Joe and the Values Test

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Friday, May 15, 2020

“Sloppy” Joe and the Values Test

“Sloppy” Joe Baconburger was the owner of a restaurant. It was an independent eatery called the Celestial Carnivore. As you have probably deduced it catered to a meat-eating clientele. Barbecue ribs, steaks grilled to perfection, pork chops, and prime rib – these were the staples of the supper menu. Its hamburgers, fried chicken and chili con carne were all popular. The pizza section of the menu had but a single entry and that was for “Meat Lovers”. The Carnivore was most famous, however, for a sandwich.

This sandwich was a multi-layered spectacular. Forget the mere clubhouse or even the triple-decker. This sandwich had separate layers for roast beef, roast pork, roast turkey, and roast lamb. Each layer also contained a hearty portion of ham and bacon and slices of various sorts of cheese. If you wanted, vegetable fillers such as lettuce, tomato, and cucumbers would also be added, but these were optional. It was served smothered in chili and gravy. Naysayers called it “the heart attack waiting to happen” but every day people would come from near and far to order it.

One day something strange happened. Like any other day, “Sloppy” Joe arrived at the Carnivore early, pulled into his parking spot, got out of his car, and headed towards the door. Then he ran into a wall. Or at least it felt like a wall. Whatever it was he could not see it. There was nothing there to the visible eye but something was blocking his path to the entrance.

Baffled by the invisible barrier and uncertain of what to do about it, “Sloppy” Joe turned around and took a step in the direction of his car. He was unable to go any further, however, because he found his path impeded yet again by the unseen wall. Turning to his left and right, he discovered that he was boxed in on all sides.

Uttering something that need not be put down in print, “Sloppy” Joe looked around and saw his neighbour Bob walking down the sidewalk on the other side of the street. He called over to Bob, asking him to go for help, but Bob just kept walking along. “Sloppy” Joe called louder, but there was still no response. He then screamed at the top of his lungs but Bob did not seem to hear him. Whatever was keeping him from leaving or entering his business was apparently also trapping all sound.

Eventually Bob looked around and saw “Sloppy” Joe at which point “Sloppy” Joe began to gesture as best he could within the confines of his transparent cage. Bob shook his head and said “Better stick to cooking Joe, that pantomime act is never going to sell.”

Soon thereafter one of his employees arrived for her morning shift. She waved to “Sloppy” Joe and said hello as she moved toward the restaurant entrance but did not seem to notice anything was amiss. When she got as close to the door as “Sloppy” Joe was, however, a look of surprise came over her face and then, as she turned in all directions, one of panic. “Sloppy” Joe realized that she was trapped too. One by one, his employees showed up, and each in turn got trapped within an invisible box.

“What will happen when my customers start to show up?” “Sloppy” Joe asked himself.

He did not have long to wait. The first customer, one of his regulars, showed up like clockwork at the time the restaurant normally opened its doors to the public. He too found himself stuck between the mysterious unseen walls. The same happened to every other customer that arrived after him.

Before long the area around the restaurant was surrounded by people, trapped in place by invisible boxes. There was approximately six feet of space between each of them.

All of a sudden, a loud maniacal cackle came descending upon them from above. Looking up, they saw a man standing on top of the restaurant, holding a device that resembled a cross between a machine gun and a video camera. Groaning inside, “Sloppy” Joe recognized the man as Dr. Tofu Veggiebrain the notorious mad scientist and leader of an animal rights/environmentalist activist group that wanted to make veganism mandatory and which had been targeting him and his restaurant with harassment of various sorts for years.

“How do you like my latest invention, ‘Sloppy’ Joe?” Dr. Veggiebrain asked. “I call it the Insta-Mime. Soon you and all others who murder and eat our animal brothers and sisters will be trapped between invisible walls in the world’s most despised form of performance art forever.”

It looked like he might be right. Within an hour the police, fire department, and other emergency services had been called in and they could find no way of releasing anyone from the invisible boxes. The police wrote “Sloppy” Joe and each of the others a ticket for breaking the by-law against public displays of pantomime and then took off.

Soon, however, word of the strange impromptu mime session outside of the Celestial Carnivore got out and within a couple of days it made its way to the Marshmallow Monks (1) in the Carpathian Mountains. They immediately contacted “Eddy” Johnson who rushed to the scene as Reaction Man, (2) battled Dr. Veggiebrain, and freed everyone from their invisible prison. Since this is not an actual episode in The Adventures of Reaction Man but merely an essay illustration in which he makes a cameo appearance, I will not elaborate on the details, but will instead skip ahead to the aftermath of the trial of Dr. Veggiebrain.

After Dr. Veggiebrain was convicted criminally, “Sloppy” Joe filed a civil action against him to recover the losses his business suffered over the period in which he, his employees, and his customers had been mimed. It was not difficult to obtain a ruling in his favour for the law on the matter and the principle of natural justice underlying that law are quite clear. If you deliberately harm somebody else’s business he is entitled to compensation.

Things became complicated, however, when Dr. Veggiebrain said that he would not contest the ruling and would gladly pay the damages – but only on the condition that the Celestial Carnivore sign a statement of agreement with his vegan values and convert to serving only plant-based food.

Whereas most judges would not agree to such a stipulation, “Sloppy” Joe was unfortunate enough to have Justice Bob Baddecision of the Ontario Inferior Court hear his case. Judge Baddecision, who as we know is a close friend of Lucy himself and is prone to live up to his last name, (3) considered Dr. Veggiebrain’s stipulation to be entirely reasonable, and ordered that it be carried out.

You have likely already figured out the point of this story. Therefore I will make my commentary brief.

A man’s business is his livelihood. If your actions are demonstrably responsible for harming or destroying another person’s business, by the laws of natural justice you are required to compensate him for this damage. You do not get to hold the compensation to which he is entitled hostage until he meets your demands. If you attempt to do so you are guilty of a form of blackmail or extortion.

Over the past two months many people have seen their businesses suffer to the point of insolvency. This was not due to substandard goods, poor service, or other faults of their own. Nor can it be attributed solely to causes which are outside human control and for which no human agency can be held responsible. The coronavirus did not destroy these people’s businesses. Government ministers and their health officers did with their mandatory social distancing regulations, shelter in place orders, and lockdown of so-called “non-essential” businesses and services. This is why these businesses are entitled to government assistance at this time. Such assistance is not a “bail out” nor is it socialism, although it will have the same long term effect as these of saddling generations to come with an unthinkable tax and debt burden. It is certainly not the government being compassionate, no matter how much Captain Airhead tries to dress it up in these terms. It is the government paying compensation for damage it has itself inflicted.

This is why the government has no right to impose a values test on the small businesses that apply for such compensation. Since the government put these businesses in danger of bankruptcy, justice demands that the government pay restitution. As the party that has committed the injury, the government does not get to hold back this restitution until the party that has sustained the injury agrees to support abortion and the alphabet soup agenda. Its values test is a form of extortion.

Don’t let Captain Airhead get away with it.


(1) To learn more about the Order of the Marshmallownians see “Brother Moonpie and the Devil’s Apocalypse.
(2) “Eddy” Johnson previously appeared in The Adventures of Reaction Man: Episode One – The Origin and The Adventures of Reaction Man: Episode Two – Reaction Man Versus the Marxist Zombie Army.
(3) Justice Bob Baddecision of the Ontario Inferior Court and Lucy the gender-confused devil feature in Lucy’s Day in Court and Justice for Minnie?
Posted by Gerry T. Neal at 6:30 AM Labels: “Sloppy” Joe Baconburger, COVID-19, Dr. Tofu Veggiebrain, Justice Bob Baddecision, Justin Trudeau, Marshmallownians, mimes, Reaction Man, values test, vegans

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Friday, May 8, 2020

The Most Important Section in the Charter

As I have said many times in the past, I am not an admirer of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is not because I disagree with the “fundamental freedoms” listed in Section 2 or the basic legal and civil rights listed in Sections 7 to 13. All of these rights and freedoms, which are by far the most important rights and freedoms in the entire document, Canadians already possessed as subjects of Her Majesty under Common Law before 1982. The reason I dislike the Charter is because the Charter, rather than making these rights and freedoms more secure, as the Liberals who drafted it want you to believe, made them less secure. It includes two extremely broad loopholes.

The clause “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” found in Section 1 is the first of these. Who says what limits are “reasonable” and who decides whether they are “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society?” The government that seeks to place limits on these rights and freedoms cannot be trusted to make this decision itself.

The second loophole is Section 33, the Exception Section with its notorious “notwithstanding clause”. This section allows the Dominion and provincial governments to pass Acts which will operate “notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter”, i.e., the sections about our fundamental freedoms and basic legal rights. Although such Acts are required to sunset in five years (subsection 3) they can be renewed (subsection 4). This second loophole is the reason former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney said, and he was right to say it, that the “Charter is not worth the paper it’s written on.”

This is not the only problem with the Charter.

Section 7 reads “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”, substituting “security of the person” for “property” which is the third of the basic rights under Common Law, in which the security of person and property is the concise way of stating all three basic rights. Property is nowhere mentioned in the Charter. This has long been criticized as one of the chief failings of this document and has been thought to reflect the Marxist inclinations of those who have led the Liberal Party, arguably since Lester Pearson became leader in 1958, but especially since Pierre Trudeau took over in 1968.

Subsection 2 of Section 4 allows a Dominion or provincial government with a large enough backing in the House of Commons or the provincial legislature – a supermajority of two-thirds – to suspend elections indefinitely in a time of “real or apprehended, war, invasion or insurrection.” Note the words “or apprehended.” The threat of war, invasion or insurrection does not have to be real. Pray that neither the Liberals nor any other party, ever obtain enough seats in Parliament to put this subsection into effect.

Subsection 2 of Section 15 nullifies what subsection 1 says about how every individual is “equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”

I am not particularly keen on the wording of subsection 1 either. Saying that everyone has a right to “equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination” can be interpreted in two ways. It can be interpreted as binding the State, preventing it from practicing said discrimination in its administration of the law and justice. I would not have a problem with that interpretation. It can also be interpreted as empowering the State to interfere in our everyday interactions to make sure we aren’t discriminating against each other. I have a huge problem with that – it is a form of totalitarian thought control.

Consider the Canadian Human Rights Act which was passed five years prior to the Charter. Although the expression “human rights” is thought by most people to mean rights which all human beings possess by virtue of their humanity and which only bad governments violate, and the phrase “human rights violation” is ordinarily understood to refer to governments incarcerating people for indefinite periods without a trial, torturing them, murdering them, and the like, this Act places limits on individuals not the State, which it empowers to police the thoughts and motivations of Canadians in their private interactions with each other.

The second subsection of Section 15 states that the first subsection “does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.” In other words, the State is allowed to practice discrimination on the basis of race, rational or ethnic origin, colour, religion, etc., if that discrimination is the type sometimes called reverse discrimination, that is to say, discrimination against white people, especially those of British and French stock, Christians, males, etc.

Section 15 as a whole, then, appears to authorize the State to interfere in our private affairs to prevent us from discriminating against each other, while allowing the State to practice a form of discrimination itself.

Other flaws in the Charter itself could be pointed out but those that I have mentioned here are by far the worst. Worse, in my view, than any actual flaw in the Charter, however, is the attitude towards the Charter and the set of false notions about it that the Liberal Party has encouraged us to hold ever since 1982. There are many, for example, who refer to the Charter as if it were our constitution and claim that Pierre Trudeau gave us our constitution. This is not a claim the Charter makes for itself and it is no such thing. The Charter has been a part of our constitution since 1982, but it is not the constitution itself. Indeed, even the British North America Act of 1867, which was renamed the Constitution Act, 1867 during the repatriation process which gave us the Charter but remains in effect, is not the whole of our constitution. Most of our constitution is in fact, unwritten, or, to put it another way, written in prescription and tradition rather than paper and ink. As our greatest constitution expert, the late Eugene Forsey used to say to those who made the absurd claim that Pierre Trudeau had given us our constitution, we still have the constitution we had in 1867, albeit with a new name, and bells and whistles added.

Even more common is the strange notion that the Charter itself gave us our rights and freedoms. Admirers of the Charter tend to view it this way. Some critics, such as William Gairdner (The Trouble With Canada, 1990) and Kenneth McDonald (The Monstrous Trick, 1998, Alexis in Charterland, 2004) have argued that the Charter is an example of continental-style charter law, like the Napoleonic Code, intended to replace our Common Law system of rights and freedoms. The reality is more nuanced than that. Before explaining the nuance and what really happened, we need to understand the difference between the two systems and why this would indeed be a “monstrous trick” if it were in fact true.

Under continental-style charter law, everything is imposed from the top down, from the law itself, to the rights and freedoms that exist under it. Therefore, under this kind of law, you only have the specific rights and freedoms that are spelled out on paper in black and white. The question, under this system of law, is whether or not I have permission to do something.

Under Common Law, the law is not imposed from the top down, except in the sense of the underlying natural law being laid down by God, and even then this raises the much-debated theological question of whether God’s law and justice are expressions of His character or of His will. Don’t worry. I will not attempt to answer that question here as it is quite extraneous to this discussion. The Common Law is not imposed by the State. Although the Sovereign authority, the Queen-in-Parliament, has the power to add to, subtract from, and otherwise alter the Law, the Law is not the creation of the Sovereign authority. The law arises out of natural law and justice, through a process of discovery in the courts, where disputes are brought to be arbitrated on the basis of fairly hearing all the evidence on both sides. Rights and freedoms, under Common Law, are not limited to those that are spelled out in black and white. The question, under this system of law, is whether or not I am prohibited to do something. If not, I am free to do it.

The Charter of Freedoms does not actually replace Common Law with continental-style charter law. It merely creates the impression of having done so. The Charter does not identify itself as the source of our rights and freedoms, nor does it say that we have only those rights and freedoms it spells out. Indeed, it states the very opposite of this. Remember that the addition of the Charter was part of a constitutional repatriation process that required adopting an amendment formula and which required the participation of the provincial governments. Nine out of ten of the provinces are fully Common Law, and it is the exception, which under the provisions of the Quebec Act of 1774 has a hybrid of Common Law criminal law and French civil law, which dissented from the final product. The Liberals would never have been able to get away with substituting continental law for Common Law in this context in 1982. They, quite in keeping with their modus operandi of never telling the truth when a lie will suffice, settled for creating the impression that they had done so. Their totalitarian ends would be met, as long as Canadians started to think in terms of “am I permitted” rather than “is it prohibited.”

This is why the most important section in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is Section 26. Here it is in full:

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

This is the Charter’s acknowledgement, tucked away in the miscellaneous category towards the end rather than being placed in the very first section as it ought to have been, that the Charter did not take us out from under Common Law and cause all of our Common Law rights and freedoms to disappear.

To illustrate what this means in application to a current hot topic, the Supreme Court of Canada was entirely in the wrong when it said as part of its ruling in R v Hasselwander in 1993, that Canadians have no constitutional right to own guns. The passing of the Charter, by its own admission in Section 26, did not cancel our right, as subjects of Her Majesty, to have arms for our defence, such as are allowed by law. This is a Common Law right, the fifth right that Sir William Blackstone in the first volume of his Commentary on the Laws of England (1765) identified as a necessary auxiliary to the basic and absolute rights of life, liberty, and property, and which had been put into statute in the Bill of Rights of 1689. This does not mean that the Supreme Court of Canada was necessarily wrong in its ruling on this case which involved the confiscation of a Mini-Uzi sub-machine gun. It does mean, however, that it erred in saying that Canadians had no constitutional gun rights. This was in response to the defence’s own mistake of trying to argue based upon American law, but what they should have said was that Canadians’ Common Law right to own guns is not absolute, but is subject to the qualification “as are allowed by law.”

The significance of Section Twenty-Six is much larger than this however. It means that we should stop listening to all the lies of the Liberals and their supporters in the schools and media, and insist upon all of our traditional rights and freedoms as Her Majesty’s free subjects.
Posted by Gerry T. Neal at 7:41 AM Labels: Brian Mulroney, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Common Law, Eugene Forsey, gun control, Kenneth McDonald, Liberal Party, Pierre Trudeau, Sir William Blackstone, William D. Gairdner

Four Hundred People Stress Loss of Freedoms in “END THE LOCKDOWN” Protest at Queen’s Park, Toronto

Four Hundred People Stress Loss of Freedoms in “END THE LOCKDOWN” Protest at Queen’s Park, Toronto


The “END THE LOCKDOWN” protests in Toronto started two weeks ago at Queen’s Park with about 50 people. The premier denounced these concerned citizens as “a bunch of yahoos” who were reckless. Many now wear the term “yahoo” as a badge of honour. A week ago, the protest had swelled to 200. On a frigid, windy May 9 — yes, it must be global warming — there were 400 protesters of all ages in Queen’s Park. CAFE (the Canadian Association for Free Expression’s) contingent, marching under the Red Ensign quadrupled from the week before.
The protesters emphasized several concerns — the lies we’ve been told (3,500-13,000 deaths in Ontario by the end of April — actually fewer than 500); the insane closing of parks and other facilities; the worries about 5G technology and concerns about the danger of vaccines and the terror or compulsory vaccination.
Most of all protesters stressed the outrageous loss of individual rights — freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech. Several repeated an important warning: “Quarantine is when you restrict movement of sick people. Tyranny is when you restrict the movement of people.”
Independent candidate (Brantford-Brant) in last fall’s federal election Les Bory took the following video. It includes interviews with many protesters, including Paul Fromm, Director of CAFE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe3FpG4NB9c
There will be another protest next Saturday from noon to 3:00 p.m. and until the lockdown and trampling of our civil rights end.

END THE LOCKDOWN Protest in Winnipeg

Daniel Crump / Winnipeg Free Press. Around a hundred people attend an anti-lockdown rally at the Manitoba Legislature. The event was hosted by a group called Winnipeg Aware People with a Passion for the Truth. May 9, 2020.

Two hundred and fifty people demand “END THE LOCKDOWN” & “END THE TRAMPLING OF OUR FREEDOMS” at Manitoba Legislature, May 9. CAFE had a contingent there.