Monthly Archives: May 2020

The Most Important Section in the Charter

Posted on by

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

POTUS Stands for Free Speech on Social Media

Posted on by

POTUS Stands for Free Speech on Social Media

600 DailyThe White House • May 28, 2020BREAKING: President Trump signs order to fight online censorship

Moments ago in the Oval Office, President Trump signed an Executive Order to fight online censorship by technology corporations, including social media platforms. Tech bias is a major issue facing our democracy. It challenges the free exchange of ideas and public debate that protects our civil liberties. Every citizen—liberal, conservative, or otherwise—has a right to be heard and treated fairly online.

WATCH: President Trump announces executive action to fight online censorship In the next few hours, you may hear a lot about this Executive Order. Leftwing media will claim it addresses a fake problem because tech bias doesn’t exist. Democrats in Congress will say the President is exceeding his authority. Some in the Beltway establishment will say the order doesn’t do that much in the first place. All of these are lies. Here are a few of the key actions in President Trump’s order:

Makes it U.S. policy that platforms who selectively edit, censor, or are not acting in “good faith” with regards to content will not receive the liability protection included in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Directs the Commerce Department to petition the FCC to make clarifying rules on Section 230 in line with U.S. policy

Helps stop millions of taxpayer dollars from being wasted by federal agencies on advertising with biased social media platforms

Ensures the Justice Department will review more than 16,000 complaints about politically motivated censorship that were collected by the White House in advance of a Social Media Summit held last year

Mobilizes State Attorneys General—who have massive subpoena and consumer protection authorities—to ensure social media platforms are not engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices

Acts as federal law and lists the many ways in which tech platforms act with bias against viewpoints they disagree


Massive corporations that treat millions of American citizens unfairly shouldn’t expect special privileges and protections under the law. With President Trump’s Executive Order today, our country is one step closer to having an honest, fair public debate.


Read President Trump’s Executive Order on censorship here.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techwatch/nb-staff/2020/05/28/33-examples-twitters-anti-conservative-bias
MORE: 33 Examples of Twitter’s Anti-Conservative BiasPhoto of the Day
President Trump, joined by United States Attorney General William Barr, signed an Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship | May 28, 2020

Anti-Conservative Bias

How to Respond to an Anti-Conspiracy Theorist

Posted on by

How to Respond to an Anti-Conspiracy Theorist
By Mike King

“You sound like a conspiracy theorist.”

RESPONSE: “Conspiracy Theorist?” Now tell me the truth, where did you hear that term…on TV? (Laugh) … The label of “Conspiracy Theorist” is tactic used to discredit those of us who can see through the government/media-bullshit that you, evidently, cannot. Let me get this straight. Are you saying that men in high positions of power are not capable of criminal activity and telling lies to the general public to cover that up? Don’t you believe in the famous proverb: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?” Are you really that naive?” (Laugh as you say this.)

“I’m not saying that powerful people don’t lie, but a conspiracy like that would have to involve 100’s of people. You can’t hide something like that.”

RESPONSE: “You’re absolutely right. I agree with you 100%. It is impossible to totally cover up a conspiracy so massive. That’s why I know about it! What you must understand is that they don’t have to cover it up totally. First of all, most major scams are compartmentalized. Not everyone understands the “big picture.” And even a bucket that has a few leaks can still do the job of carrying water from here to there. They only need to fool 80% of the public, which isn’t hard to do when only a few well-connected elites — themselves united by either self-interest or fear — control the major networks and newspapers. The 10-20% that do figure it out (and the fewer still who will dare to speak their minds about it) can be very easily marginalized with the propaganda label “conspiracy theorist.” The 80% + never take us critical thinkers seriously because they want to be part of the majority. This is known as groupthink. (*Note: When saying “conspiracy theorist,” always hold your two hands up as you make sarcastic quote marks with your fingers.)

(The Ridicule Trick) “That’s ridiculous (as he rolls his eyes). Do you really believe that nonsense?”

RESPONSE: “Can I ask you an honest question?” (Wait for “yes”) Do you consider yourself an open minded, critical thinking person – yes or no? (Wait for “yes”) Then how can you possibly ridicule an opinion when you haven’t even done 10 minutes of research into the matter? That’s kind of ignorant don’t you think?” (Wait for response.)

“Not everything that happens in the world is a conspiracy!”

RESPONSE: “Not everything is a conspiracy, but nor is NOTHING a conspiracy either. Wouldn’t you agree that we should evaluate each case independently and with an open mind?” (Wait for response.)

THE POWER OF GROUPTHINK!

A variation of the “80-20 Rule” applies to pulling off huge conspiracies. If only 80% of the public can be fooled (not hard to do when academia, the government and the media are so corrupted), then the remaining 20% can be intimidated, ridiculed and marginalized into silence.

“Governments are so incompetent that they can’t even deliver the mail on time or balance a budget. They couldn’t conspire their way out of a paper bag!”.

RESPONSE: “Don’t confuse your incompetent, dim witted Congressman or Senator with the shadow government. The dark covert elements who stage these events are very skilled at carrying out, and concealing, their plots. Take for example the Manhattan Project. Hundreds of the world’s top scientists were holed up in a desert for months as they worked on the Atomic Bomb. More than 100,000 people — most all of them compartmentalized, kept ignorant of “the big picture” and each sworn to silence — worked on the project in 3 secret cities. A test bomb was even detonated in the the desert and not one word was said about it! This conspiracy was so secretive, that when FDR died and Vice President Truman became President, FDR’s advisors had to inform him of the Project’s existence! So you see, the shadowy intelligence element of the government is VERY capable!”

(The Unresolved Detail Trick) “If this is a conspiracy then explain to me how they managed to do x, y, and z?”

RESPONSE: “I don’t have every missing piece of this puzzle. But I have enough pieces to KNOW that the government-media version is false! Imagine if I gave you a 100 piece jigsaw puzzle, and told you that the image is of a beach in Hawaii. But after snapping 30 pieces together, you notice polar bears, snow capped mountains, and men covered in furs. Although there are still 70 missing pieces, you already have enough to KNOW that the image is NOT that of a beach in Hawaii. It’s the same with solving conspiracies. I may not have all of the details, but I have laid out enough pieces to know that the official story is a lie. Does that make sense to you? (Wait for response.)

“So what? just because “x” happened, or “y” said this, it doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy. You’re taking a few coincidences and making a conspiracy out of it. “

RESPONSE: “If it were just one or two coincidences, I would agree with you. But when you have a series of 10,15, 20 different anomalies, the law of statistics PROVES that they can’t all be just “coincidence”. For example, if we’re playing dice, and I roll a “7” to win. That doesn’t mean that my dice are rigged. It’s just a 1 in 6 coincidence. But if I roll a “7”, eight times in a row, then that’s a 1 in 150,000 “coincidence”. You would have to be a fool not to question the integrity of those dice! You do understand probabilities don’t you? (Wait for response.)

(The Isolated Piece of Evidence Trick) “Other than citing some historical events, you still haven’t shown me one piece of evidence that this was a conspiracy. Tell me just one thing that most proves a conspiracy.”

RESPONSE: “That’s a trick question! If I tell you “just one thing”, you’ll just climb on your high horse and dismiss it as a “coincidence”. What I want to show you is TWENTY THINGS! But you’re too closed minded to consider the case in its totality! You won’t even watch a You Tube video let alone read the case! I sure hope you never get selected to serve on a jury! You want everything boiled down to a simplistic media sound byte. Unless you will commit to a few hours of study, I’m wasting my time with you. Why are you so afraid to study this? (Wait for response)

“If this were true, the media would be all over it! It would be on the front page of every newspaper in America.”

RESPONSE: “The media, the government, the International bankers, Hollywood, and academia are all part of the same incestuous complex. The media is part of the conspiracy, so why would you expect them to tell you the truth?” (Wait for response.)

“You wouldn’t be able to corrupt so many people. Every reporter and politician would have to be “in on it” in order to cover it up.”

RESPONSE: “You don’t understand how social dynamics work. The corruption doesn’t come from the outside-in. It comes from the top-down. If the ownership of a major media organization decides that a certain story is to be spiked, or if another story is to be hyped, then the rest of the organization follows. If a low level reporter decides to defy his bosses, he will lose his job and be blacklisted. Remember Helen Thomas? After 50 years as a White House Correspondent, she was dumped like a hot potato for publicly criticizing Israel. The same fearful top-down control works in government and academia as well.

“This is crazy. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories.”

RESPONSE: “You don’t believe it? Or You don’t WANT to believe it? There’s a big difference between the two. The human mind is filled with complexes, one of which is the desire to shield itself from unpleasant truths. You’re afraid that if you look into this, you might see that it’s true. And you’re especially afraid that if you come to agree with me, you too will then become marginalized as a “conspiracy theorist.” It is FEAR that is causing you to close your mind and act like a sheep. Grow a pair and stop being so closed minded!”

“Conspiracy theories appeal to uneducated people because they provide simplistic answers to complex events.”

RESPONSE: “Exactly the OPPOSITE is true! The evaluation of conspiracy theories not only requires much time and study, but also applied logic and critical thinking. Did you know that Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and chess legend Bobby Fischer all believed in the “one-world conspiracy theory”? Were those men stupid? No, it is intellectually lazy people like you who choose to swallow and parrot whatever simplistic narrative that the TV feeds you. Do you ever question anything that the TV feeds you?” (Wait for response.)

A single family, the Sulzberger-Ochs clan, has majority-owned and run the most influential newspaper in the world since 1896. The monstrous lies of The New York Times are countless and ongoing — such as their 12-month promotion of the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” lie which led to the endless wars in the Middle East, at the cost of millions of lives and trillions of US taxpayer dollars.

“Conspiracy theories appeal to people because they are comforting.”

RESPONSE: “Exactly the OPPOSITE is true. It is far more comforting to believe that certain tragic events happen exactly as the TV says, than to believe in monstrous internal plots beyond our control. Do you actually think that I enjoy believing that such evil exists? You think I like being ridiculed by simple minded family members and friends? Take it from me, the life of a “conspiracy theorist” can actually be quite stressful at times!”

“Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.”

RESPONSE: “I don’t believe everything that’s on the Internet. But apparently you believe everything that’s on the Idiot Box! I only believe those things which are verifiable, and consistent with my own sense of reasoning and logic. The beauty of the Internet is that, unlike the TV that you worship so much, all sides of an issue are presented on the Internet. It allows a critical thinker to figure out what the true story is. The TV doesn’t give you that option. Do you really believe that the media presents the whole story? Are you that naive? (laugh) Remember the fairy tale of the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ in Iraq? The media shoved that lie down our throats. So why do you trust the media so blindly and not the Internet?”

(Wait for response.)

“Some conspiracy theorists still believe Elvis is still alive.”

RESPONSE: “So, according to your twisted logic, because some theories are false, therefore ALL theories are false? I’m astonished that you could make such a stupid and offensive analogy! Is that the best you got?” (Wait for response.)

“You don’t have any respect or compassion for the family members of the dead.”

RESPONSE: “I am honoring the dead by pursuing the truth as to who really killed them! If someone in your family was killed, wouldn’t you want to know who the true culprit was?” (Wait for response.)

WATCH: Trudeau RCMP Drags Reporter Out Of Press Conference

Posted on by

WATCH: Trudeau RCMP Drags Reporter Out Of Press Conference

NewsSpencerFernandoMay 27, 20200

Trudeau RCMP Authoritarian

Some China-style media management by the Trudeau PMO.

On the same day that Canada’s justice system showed independence and commitment to the rule of law by being indifferent to CCP threats and ruling on the Meng Wanzhou extradition challenge, Justin Trudeau appears to be once again emulating the Chinese dictators he loves so much.

Rebel News reporter Keean Bexte was let into a Trudeau press conference by security. And, considering a judge had ruled that The Rebel had the right to report on the news just like anyone else, it is of course the democratic right of Canadians to ask questions and report on the PM.

Yet, when PMO stooges saw Bexte at the press conference, the Trudeau RCMP dragged Bexte away, pushing some China-style ‘media management.’

This is incredibly disturbing and dangerous. The PM is using the police to block journalists he doesn’t like from reporting on what he says, which is of course totally anti-democratic and anti-Canadian.

China might approve of this kind of authoritarian behaviour, but it’s not supposed to work like this in Canada.

Once again we see that Trudeau wasn’t joking when he said he admired ‘China’s basic dictatorship.’

You can watch the video below:

“UNBELIEVABLE: PM Justin Trudeau had me literally dragged out of his press conference to avoid questions. I was officially let in by security, but when Trudeau’s henchman saw me, the PMO sicced the RCMP on me. A journalist. Democracy is dead in Canada. Vid: https://youtu.be/quLkAj5fYUE“

"WORST EVER": Chinese Communist Party Mouthpiece Issues New Threat Against Canada, Calls Our Country "A Pathetic Clown"

Comments PolicyPrivacy Search Search for: Men

How Lamestream Media Censorship Works: Leftist Smear Outlet “Vice” Drops Interview With Paul Fromm After Learning Who He Is

Posted on by

VICE is a leftist Toronto online media outlet. They covered recent END THE LOCKDOWN freedom rallies at Queen’s Park. An Twitter observer explains: “

VICE interestingly let Toronto protesters say whatever silly thing they wanted even if it made them look bad, though it weirdly did not say anything about who Justin Long and Paul Fromm are. Long might be relatively unknown, but Fromm?

Well, that didn’t last long. Aghast that they had let one of Canada’s best known dissidents speak for himself, they quickly regretted their ways.

Update: A previous version of this story featured an interview with a man who only identified himself as “Paul.” VICE has learned the man was white supremacist Paul Fromm and has removed the interview.

END THE LOCKDOWN Protest in Kelowna, May 23 — Huge Success

Posted on by

COVID-19   The Scamdemic Event of the Century

Following on the success of our past May 23, 2020 Kelowna rally, we are again organizing our next May 30, 2020 rally in Kelowna, B.C. at Stuart Park, 12:00–2:30 and longer if you wish.

A supplemental email will go out for people to help us with our Thursday, May 28, 2020 flyer delivery in Kelowna.  Our goal is to deliver 1000 flyers to homes in Kelowna, B.C. that have been prepared specifically for this delivery.  Let’s hope and pray that our efforts alert a lot of people to our upcoming rallies for them to support.

Global TV did a small segment on their news cast about this this past Saturday, and were kind enough to state that our rally will happen every Saturday.  Hopefully this too will alert people that it is not a one-time event, and that people can and must come out to support us this Saturday.  This will hopefully turn our to be some beneficial comments.

At this point, I really would like to stress our gratitude and appreciation for our friend Glen, who was kind enough to bring his amp and microphone, greatly increasing our ability to reach everyone in our group.

I would also like to stress our gratitude and appreciation for all those who have recruited others, either during our rallies or online.  Without your support and efforts, we could not have grown this far.  And our objective is to grow and obtain further community support.

May 23, 2020 Update

We had another awesome turnout to last Saturday’s rally in Kelowna, with over 70  people in attendance.  A number of people from another Kelowna End the Lockdown group with Deborah joined us at 12:00 noon at Stuart Park the previous week, and more joined us with Barbara’s group this past Saturday.  It was awesome to join with others to increase our presence and visibility.  

I’ve attached some pictures taken of our event as well showing just how big our attendance really was. Thanks to our friends at Free North Patriots, you can also see these pix at:  
https://www.facebook.com/104731914538977/posts/131775008501334/?d=n

We now have a huge banner which you can see in one of our pictures.  This banner resulted in our messages being much readily readable to all traffic, and significantly more audible support!
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.  

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. 

As usual, our organizers will open our rally with some comments, suggestions and updates.
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.  We will have only a few people handing these flyers out to ensure that people do not get approached by more than one person.  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