I thought I’d take a moment here near the close of March 2021 to touch base with you and talk about how the year’s going so far.
As usual, Covid has pretty much hijacked most of the political news since the start of this year. I hope you enjoyed the 3 or 4 segments of Conservative Talk Radio North that dealt with the impact of Covid 19. If you haven’t saw or listened to them, I encourage you to do so. Covid 19 is essentially defining many of the provincial administrations in Canada. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney had 2 MLAs leave his caucus in February after challenging the province's COVID-19 economic restrictions. They have joined The Freedom Coalition which is campaigning against lockdowns. The MLAs in question include Drew Barnes, the United Conservative MLA for Cypress-Medicine Hat and Angela Pitt MLA for Airdrie-East. If you recall I have interviewed three members of the Freedom Coalition (End The Lockdown Caucus.) The members were MP Derek Sloan, MLA Randy Hillier and West Lincoln Mayor Dave Bylsma. If you haven't viewed those segments I encourage you to. The Newfoundland Election was concluded on March 25th after Covid related delays. The final results were Liberals 22, Conservatives 13 NDP 2 and independent MLAs 3. Ches Crosbie lost his seat f Windsor Lake and has yet to say whether he’ll stay on as PC leader. NDP Leader Alison Coffin also lost her seat in St. John's East-Quidi Vidi and has yet to announce her plans as leader. She is questioning the legitimacy of the mail in ballot system. It’s interesting to hear CBC talk about the issues with mail in ballots as a legitimate issue after in effect calling Donald Trump a sore loser when he challenged the legitimacy of the mail in ballot process. Either way. Congratulations Mr. Fury.
0 Comments
Halifax, Nova Scotia – Who was William Lenthall? He was an English politician active in the mid-1600s. This was a time of rising tension between the King, Charles I, and England’s legislature, Parliament. The King wanted money to pursue foreign wars, but taxes could only be raised with the agreement of the legislature. In the past, the monarchy was able to overcome resistance from the legislature through threats, diplomacy, or political machinations.
However, at the beginning of 1642, the King, exasperated with the legislature’s inaction on tax increases, threatened five leading members of the legislature with high treason, the very worst crime on the books (the penalty was to be partially hung, disembowelled, and cut into four pieces – drawn and quartered). The King showed up, unannounced, with 400 armed men to arrest the five, who had fled. When the King inquired where they were, the rest of the Members remained silent. Then, he gave a direct command to the speaker, William Lenthall, demanding to know where the five were hiding, who famously responded: “May it please your majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this House is pleased to direct me whose servant I am here; and I humbly beg your majesty's pardon that I cannot give any other answer than this to what your majesty is pleased to demand of me.” This was the first time the legislature openly defied the will of the monarch and his government. This act was the tipping point in affirming the freedom and liberty of the people in the face of tyranny by demonstrating the independence of the legislature. It was a watershed moment in the development of our democracy. And the rest is history. Soon the English Civil War started with the King and his supporters on one side and the legislature and its supporters on the other. In the end, Charles lost both his throne and his head. A little over a century later, Nova Scotia’s own legislature convened on October 2, 1758. However, the existence of a legislature does not guarantee restraint and oversight of government. Political science has a theory called the Iron Law of Oligarchy which argues all democratic institutions eventually fall under the sway of a small group of people (an oligarchy). Political systems in every form can be manipulated to the advantage of the insiders, usually to the detriment of everyone else. A legislature is designed to keep government insiders at bay, but only if it retains its independence from the government. Unfortunately, Nova Scotia’s legislature is currently under the complete control of a small group of government insiders called the Premier’s Office. The King, sorry... the Premier controls the legislature. The latest display of this insidious power occurred March 10, 2020, a year ago, the Premier and his cabal used threats of party discipline to close the legislature in a secret vote. Since then, the government has acted by decree with no restraint (or consequences). Where are our William Lenthalls who would simply ignore the Premier and keep the legislature going? Break down the doors! Let our legislature debate and vote with or without the Premier and his lap-dog supporters! Contributed by Atlantica Party leader Jonathan Dean This is the 2nd part of a 2-part series. Last week’s instalment was on the questionable safety and efficacy of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines currently being distributed (or not) in Canada. This week, we’ll look in broad strokes at: • the disproportionate and unreasonable violation of our Charter rights and freedoms • the unprecedented lockdown of the Canadian economy • the seeming unwillingness of public health agencies to approve or allow treatment with existing available and affordable drugs Lockdowns and the Forced Confinement of Healthy, Law-Abiding Citizens A year ago, COVID-19 came to Canada. Government response to it was slow at first, but concern increased as case numbers and deaths rose. Since then, Canadians have been told to mask up, lock down, and trust the government. Yes, the same government that at first said: “keep the borders open” and “masks don’t work.” Now they want us to wear two or three at a time. We can excuse the early missteps, when we all knew very little about how COVID was transmitted, how lethal it might prove, what cures or preventions could be utilized or how long a pandemic might last. None of us could anticipate then the massive lockdown of businesses and churches, nor the economic cost of those lockdowns. In the frantic imposition of restrictions since then, it appears very little attention has been paid to the economic and social costs of the lockdowns. One year into the crisis, we see no evidence that decision-makers have learned from their mistakes. For a thorough discussion of the disastrous and unintended consequences of these Charter violations, read Flying Blind1 (PDF), a great article from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. The big story of last week was the unlawful detention of a Canadian citizen taken against her will from the Calgary Airport into forced confinement at—what was then—an undisclosed location.2 Nikki Mathis arrived from the US with a document proving she had tested negative for COVID before boarding the plane but she was surrounded by private security officers who warned her that if she refused to go with them, she would be arrested. She was not told where she was being taken. The detaining officers (on the phone) refused to tell her distraught husband their names or where his wife was being taken. These are warning signs of a police state. This woman was not a criminal, yet her security of person was breached. In addition, she was told that she would have to pay $2,000 for her stay at the isolation centre. It turned out she was being held at the Westin Hotel; it has been converted to a holding facility. The government is now violating the Charter rights of Canadian citizens.
Economic Collapse: Canada’s Unforced Error What began as a health crisis has now become a crisis of confidence, an economic crisis and a crisis for fractured families and churches, whose members struggle to find consensus on the path forward. The survival of freedom itself also is threatened—even in countries like Canada that have long championed freedom at home and around the world. Our brave soldiers in the last century bled and died to protect and preserve the freedoms that we have—up until now—taken for granted. Those freedoms include freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of worship . . . and also the freedom to own and operate a business, freedom to be an employee or an employer, to provide for one’s family and to contribute to the economy. Our first glimpse of the impact of ‘temporary’ lockdowns was last April when Canada lost two million jobs.3 CBC has reported that Canada’s economy shrank 5% in 2020.4 That doesn’t begin to describe the damage done. It’s not like everybody’s income shrank by 5% (a few big corporations like Amazon have done very well). It’s that hundreds of thousands of individuals and families—if not millions—no longer have a secure source of income. Government cheques have provided a short-term stopgap, but with tax revenues down and interest costs up, that safety net will not last. On top of the crushing blow to family businesses and to families that no longer have an employment income, Prime Minister Trudeau has been shovelling borrowed money out the door for the past year and will undoubtedly continue to do so until the international bankers turn off the taps. Interest and repayment costs of this reckless spending will be passed on to future generations. Around the world, 2.3 million have died of COVID (based on official numbers) but the vast majority—77.5 million—have recovered.5 It is estimated that the lockdowns in the industrialized nations—not the coronavirus—will cause an additional 130 million people to starve.6 Are public health officials really weighing the risks and benefits of lockdowns? Is the remedy worse than the disease?7 Potential Therapies Rejected; Why? One of the greatest tragedies of the past year has been the failure of federal and provincial governments to provide accurate information about two potential therapeutics that might have saved many lives. Don’t despair; there is hope. Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine have been safely used for decades: Ivermectin as an anti-parasitic and Hydroxychloroquine as an anti-malarial drug. Some doctors in other countries have been using them to treat SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) and they claim to have had a very high rate of either preventing COVID infection or successfully treating it, especially in the early stages. Some countries where they are in widespread use have had far lower death tolls than Canada and the U.S. In January, Slovakia became the first EU country to approve Ivermectin for use against COVID. So far, Canada has not followed suit. I am not a doctor and I am not giving medical advice to my readers . . . but I am giving political advice to Justin Trudeau and Theresa Tam: please review this compelling evidence and allow Canadian doctors to begin using these safe and affordable drugs, at least to test the theory. We can’t bring back those we have lost, but perhaps we can reduce COVID deaths in 2021. There are, of course, those who will dispute this information, including Big Tech, Big Media, Big Government and Big Pharma. They’ve already been censoring and discrediting America’s Frontline Doctors8 for challenging the official narrative. Those attempting to control the virus with masks andisolation want everyone to believe that experimental vaccines are our only hope. We can’t just assume that the mainstream narrative is correct. The majority is not always right. Consider this: In the 1800’s Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss deduced that the 10-15% of women dying after childbirth were dying from infections . . . because doctors were performing autopsies on dead bodies and then not even washing their hands before delivering babies. He was ridiculed by the medical establishment for his theory, in spite of the fact that his practice of washing hands reduced maternal mortality from over 10% to about 1%. He was rejected by most doctors and medical institutions and died in a mental hospital in 1865 at the age of 47.9 Microorganisms had not yet been discovered but Dr. Semmelweiss had instituted a scriptural practice10 that has since saved countless lives. We all owe him a vote of thanks for speaking up when the majority tried to silence him. PLEASE watch these two short video presentations by Dr. Christy Risinger11 and Dr. Pierre Kory.12 (Read the article and scroll down for the video). Don’t take my word for it. Listen to what they have to say and come to your own conclusions. Canada cannot lock down forever; we must find other ways to protect the most vulnerable, in this case, those in Long Term Care (LTC). Let’s press our elected officials to go back to the drawing board. What they’re doing is not working. CHP Canada will continue to press federal and provincial governments to end repressive lockdowns, fines and detentions and to focus our attention on protecting the most vulnerable, while developing and providing safe and effective therapies. Contributed by, Rod Taylor Leader, CHP Canada Part 1 of a 2-part series on COVID-19, government’s coercive response, and different approaches to treatment and prevention Canada has been dealing with questions about COVID-19 for almost one year. Information has flooded both cable news and the internet about what the virus is, how contagious or deadly it may be and how best to control its spread and minimize the death toll. Some Canadians are asking themselves: “What price are we willing to pay economically and socially for reduced exposure to germs? How effective are those measures? What else could have been done to save lives?” And now, as experimental vaccines are becoming available, folks want to know: “How safe are they? How effective are they at preventing infection? Will we have them forced on us?” Thousands of articles, blog posts and whole books are being written on these questions; hours and hours of video presentations are available on websites and social media, although some voices are being censored to allow the narrative of our provincial and federal governments to predominate. Many citizens —if they listen only to CBC and read only the Globe and Mail—may believe they’re getting complete and unbiased information. This is simply not true. As National Leader of CHP Canada, I know that our society is divided on these questions. Our churches, communities and even our families are being divided as people decide whom to believe. We all would agree that there are many different opinions on these issues, sincerely held by people of good will. Their opinions are largely determined by the news sources they trust. Obviously, when several opinions conflict, they cannot all be correct. Our aim is to provide some information not readily available on mainstream media. This first segment is focused on the Pfizer and Moderna experimental vaccines that are now being distributed in Canada, the US and around the world. While many people are worried that there may not be enough to go around or that they may have to wait too long for their turn to receive an injection, others (myself included) are concerned that these experimental biologic agents may not prove as safe or effective as government agencies and the pharmaceutical companies would have us believe. The official narrative that these fast-tracked experimental products are safe and effective is continuously proclaimed by government spokespersons and public health officers. I do not need to repeat those claims here because the mainstream media is carrying that message every day. I want to give you a few links to opinions and research that you may not have seen. I’m not a doctor. I’m not telling anybody not to take the vaccines; I only share this information and encourage you to make informed decisions for yourselves and your families. Canadians are under tremendous pressure to conform. Before acting, please consider the following opinions and concerns you may not have heard about the Moderna and Pfizer “vaccines”:
1. Although Moderna and Pfizer’s RNA injectable products are referred to as “vaccines,” some doctors say that is not an accurate term. They should actually be called “experimental biologic agents.” A true vaccine is meant to give immunity and prevent infection.1 The manufacturers do not claim that their products will produce “immunity to infection or prevent transmission” of COVID-19. The WHO does not claim that these experimental vaccines will prevent infection or transmission.2 “I don’t believe we have the evidence on any of the vaccines to be confident that it’s going to prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on,” said the WHO’s chief scientist, Soumya Swaminathan, MD.3 2. Vaccination will not end the pressure to wear masks, socially distance and avoid crowds. Although most people assume that vaccination will allow a “return to normal,” health officials admit that the vaccination will not guarantee immunity.4 All mandated precautions—such as masks5 and quarantine—will still apply to vaccinated air travellers returning from a foreign country.6 3. There has been a small but significant number of reported adverse reactions—including deaths— among those who have been vaccinated.7 As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. points out, the pharmaceutical industry likes to call these deaths and injuries “coincidental,”8 while counting every death of a person with a positive PCR test within 60 days as a COVID death, regardless of age or comorbidities. 4. In spite of the growing evidence that these experimental vaccines carry significant risk and no guarantee of protection from infection, the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing them are immune from liability.9 They do not accept any responsibility for harm caused, even if that could be proven (which is very difficult to do). The federal government already has a system for reporting adverse reactions following any vaccination, including those using the experimental COVID-19 vaccines. The reporting process is complicated and begins with the patient or family reporting back to the medical practitioner who administered the injection. The practitioner may report to the CAEFISS (Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System).10 Most adverse reactions are never reported. If—by some miracle—a court should award compensation for injury or death, it will be paid for, not by the pharmaceutical companies but by federal taxpayers under a government-proposed vaccine injury compensation program.11 5. Another concern for some Christians regarding the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines is the fact that cell lines from aborted fetal tissue were used in the development or testing of these experimental products. While the products themselves do not actually contain fetal tissue, for some of us, the fact that the vaccines were tested using the by-products of an abortion—however long ago that abortion took place—still raises ethical questions. These are just some of the concerns that have been raised about these experimental RNA products. I encourage you to review the information in this article, explore the links and come to your own conclusions.12 I’m not giving you medical advice. I’m only offering information. CHP Canada believes that the government has an obligation to protect the right of all Canadian adults to make their own informed health decisions. Next week, in the 2nd instalment, I will discuss the COVID lockdowns and restrictions, the economic harm being done to families, businesses and churches, the dangers of surrendering our freedoms to government and—most importantly—how we can more effectively protect our senior citizens, those most vulnerable to COVID-19. According to many doctors, there are low-cost therapeutics that are saving lives in other countries. Contributed by, Rod Taylor Leader, CHP Canada Hon. Jay Hill, PC, interim leader of the federal Maverick Party.
Early this year we released our Maverick Party Manifest of 5 proposed amendments to change Canada’s archaic Constitution. I wish I could say that our hard work received glowing tributes and wide acclaim. The truth is our announcement wasn’t even noticed. Could it be that not many folks, our friends in the media included, have any interest in the mundane issue of constitutional reform? Or could it be our press release coincided with the continued fallout from the US Presidential election and a protest gone crazy in Washington, DC? Or perhaps Canadians were focussed on the debate between government restrictions to keep the elderly safe from Covid and the government’s infringement of Charter rights? Or, maybe it is just that very few can make the connection as to why modernizing Canada’s constitution should matter to them? Like most complex issues, it is likely some combination of all these and more… So, why should YOU care? Well, we in the west had a perfect example of why we should care when the brand-new US President, Joe Biden cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline permit as one of his very first acts. The United States is not only our closest neighbour but arguably our greatest ally. President Biden has said he wants to rebuild foreign relationships and yet he’s begun his tenure by “kicking Canada squarely between the pockets!” And what does our Prime Minister have to say… only that he’s disappointed. Do YOU think that the answer for Alberta, and the West, is to call upon Justin Trudeau to defend the Keystone XL pipeline? Really, Premier Kenney? I think good old fashioned western common sense would dictate it is sheer lunacy to ask a Prime Minister who has consistently displayed such a strong anti-oil agenda to engage in serious negotiations with President Biden over the export of our oil. Maverick Party’s first amendment to modernize Canada’s constitution is that provinces should have the constitutional right to market access for their natural resources. If we in the west are ever to have any hope of catching the attention of our so-called national government from east of Manitoba, we must take a page from Quebec’s playbook. Premiers Kenney and Moe should set aside their often-stated unquestionable loyalty to Canada and declare their intention to hold provincial referendums on independence. Perhaps then our Prime Minister and his central Canadian government just might pay attention! |
|