On the record—Canada’s tyrannical response to COVID-19 | Ches Crosbie—National Citizens Inquiry

 Health Care, Journalism, Latest, Law, Political Parties, Society, Video  Comments Off on On the record—Canada’s tyrannical response to COVID-19 | Ches Crosbie—National Citizens Inquiry
Feb 192024
 


The COVID-19 pandemic plunged Canada into a culture of fear and panic, marked by egregious violations of individual rights not seen since times of war. One might assume that the federal and provincial governments would have faced opposition to their unjustified and tyrannical measures aimed at curbing the spread of what amounted to nothing more than a severe flu. However, they did not. Instead, all of “officialdom” supported the measures taken, and anyone who questioned those measures were tormented, canceled, and vilified. Some were even beaten, arrested, and imprisoned.

In turbulent times Canadians normally turn to the mainstream media to pose challenging questions regarding the actions of government, pursue a balanced approach to the available “expert” information, and at the very least document the experiences of Canadians. Not this time. The mainstream media, receiving funding by the federal government since 2019, completely failed Canadians. No probing questions were asked, no alternative opinions were offered, and the negative effects of government actions were ignored. Some legacy media outlets even stooped to inciting hatred and encouraging Canadians to turn on those who did not share the official narrative.

With the lack of responsibility and probity on the part of Canadian officials, institutions, and media, it fell to the People themselves to document the effects of the government’s overreach and offer solutions.

The National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) marked a first for Canada. Citizen-led and funded it traversed the county gathering the heartbreaking stories of 305 victims, the testimony of 94 experts in law and medicine, and over 76,000 signatures on a petition of support.

Ches Crosbie, a Canadian Lawyer and spokesman for the NCI, joins Robert Vaughan to discuss some of the recommendations of the NCI’s final report: Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada, released November 28, 2023, and the disregard of the report by those who would benefit most from its findings.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider donating:
🧡 PayPal

847 – Rules of the game—of definitions

 Comments Off on 847 – Rules of the game—of definitions
Feb 142024
 


A Jan 26 2024 provisional judgement finding it “plausible” that Israel is violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide has unleashed yet another epistemological conflict in which the two sides of the debate have been polarized over the valid definition of a concept, in this case, the word “genocide.”

Rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the judgement was made in response to an application filed against Israel by South Africa. Though the definition of “genocide” used by the ICJ is far broader and, to the minds of many, invalid relative to its long accepted “dictionary” definition, this objection fails to recognize the “rules of the game” that were accepted by each of its players long before the first move was made.

“It happens. That’s politics,” explains our guest Salim Mansur in describing the apparent injustice and unequal application of the rules to differing players in the game. As America and other nations escape judgment, Israel appears to be unduly targeted for “genocidal” activities no different from those nations with “veto” power.

In light of the fact that each of the governments involved are signatories to the conditions and definitions being adjudicated, it is important to understand the rules of the definition game in which they are engaged, before attempting to apply definitions and standards proven to be Just Right for most of us not playing games.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

A serious conversation—Tucker Carlson’s Vladimir Putin interview

 Foreign Relations, Journalism, Latest, Politics, Society, Video  Comments Off on A serious conversation—Tucker Carlson’s Vladimir Putin interview
Feb 132024
 


Tucker Carlson’s interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin did not reveal groundbreaking insights into the leader or his policies to those of us who have been closely monitoring events in that region. However, it did bring to light previously overlooked facts to hundreds of millions, courtesy of a journalist committed to honesty, in stark contrast to the West’s dismissive yellow press.

In this insightful discussion, Professor Emeritus, Salim Mansur and Robert Vaughan delve into the interview’s implications, exploring its impact on a global audience that is typically shielded from the truth but now finds itself unexpectedly confronted with reality, thanks to a journalist who values integrity.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider making a donation:
🧡 PayPal

Feb 112024
 

When the International Court of Justice (ICJ) announced that it found it “plausible” that Israel is violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, many immediately drew parallels to the Holocaust, suggesting that Israel’s actions were akin to the treatment of Jews under Nazi Germany.

However, this interpretation is not accurate. The common understanding of “genocide” as the “systematic extermination” of a group of people does not align with the definition in the UN’s Convention, nor is it the definition under scrutiny by the ICJ.

In UN law, “genocide” encompasses a broad range of actions, including killing any number of people in a defined group, even a single person, or causing serious mental harm to a member of the group. This expansive definition implies that nations involved in any conflict, anywhere, at any time could potentially face allegations of “genocide.”

Professor Salim Mansur from Western University joins us to explore the implications of the ICJ’s provisional decision and its potential impact on the very existence of the state of Israel.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider making a donation:
🧡 PayPal

846 – United Freedom Party of Alberta—neither united nor free

 Comments Off on 846 – United Freedom Party of Alberta—neither united nor free
Feb 072024
 


Due to the emergence of an officially registered party in Alberta called the United Freedom Party (UFP), we find ourselves forced to conduct some damage control given our own association with Ontario’s officially registered Freedom Party. The two parties have literally nothing in common.

Organizers of the UFP, Luke Denis and Chris Hampton, have described themselves as “extreme right wing Christian conservatives,” whose key agenda includes the advancement of anarchy, libertarianism and the socialistic redistribution of wealth. Citing the “fifth greater re-set event being held right now, from the libertarian sector and the yellow and black anarchist types,” they attribute the current functionality of society on “some kind of magic hootenanny.” Seriously.

Unable to offer an objective definition of political freedom, the UFP organizers suggest that freedom is “the ability to do whatever one wants, so long as it does not ‘harm’ other individuals or the environment.” Among the ‘harms’ it includes in this definition is, for example, the inability or failure of a private road contractor to meet the financial or construction obligations of its contracted agreements. They appear to be unaware that using the so-called ‘harm’ argument to justify restricting freedom was the very ground on which everything from covid injections to wearing masks to mandated lockdowns was justified.

For the most part, the UFP’s perspective on politics and the economy is incoherent, contradictory, and so bizarrely oblivious to any kind of consistency or civilized standard that it is difficult to comprehend what kind of people would support such madness. The principle of justice, due process, or consent is nowhere to be found in their rhetoric. “We don’t need their bloody permission” they say of their fellow Albertans.

At one point it was suggested that Bill Gates should have been “murdered and ripped apart on stage.” They see people like Tucker Carlson and Douglas Murray as mostly “controlled opposition.”

Among the UFP’s bizarrely contradictory and anti-freedom proposals are the following:

The UFP would institute an across-the-board 3% resource tax and provide all Albertans with cheques drawn upon that account “because these are natural resources that we should share.”

In a pure Joe Biden open border policy, the party would “flood the province of Alberta with millions of people from outside the province (doubling Alberta’s population) who would theoretically support and vote for “unity” and “solidarity” though no means of vetting such people was deemed necessary. At the same time the party would expel all current Albertans who disagree with the party’s policies: “Get the ‘f’ out.”

On the democratic front, there is simply no way to reconcile or make sense of the party’s utterly contradictory and illogical proposals. On the one hand they would “remove the power of politicians” to legislate, and would “end the voting process after the UFP is voted into power.” On the other hand, they would encourage people to “vote more furiously in all the time honored ways of voting.” The UFP would also be in favor of “forming a new country” in the province of Alberta and within other jurisdictions around the world.

While they pay lip service to “private education” they claim the right to “educate the sheep” and “if you don’t like it get the ‘f’ out.”

And all this is just the tip of the iceberg of the UFP’s irrationality.

Claiming that ‘unity’ and ‘solidarity’ are their central concerns, one must question the motives of a party that would register in a province where there are already a myriad of conservative splinter groups with those same objectives, including Artur Pawlowski’s political party which had already successfully registered candidates in all of Alberta’s ridings.

Given the utter irrationality and contradictory statements made by the UFP, it’s beginning to look like the only way to define Alberta’s UFP in a way that’s Just Right is as some kind of psyop designed to disrupt and destroy any opposition to the existing regime.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

845 – Politics is simple—it’s just not easy

 Comments Off on 845 – Politics is simple—it’s just not easy
Feb 012024
 


The spectacle of thousands of political protesters gathering to “fight tyranny” without having a clue as to how this might be done can only lead to continued tyranny ahead. Though accomplished and expert in their own fields of discipline – whether medicine, law, education, journalism, etc. – most of the leading voices in the “freedom movement” are clueless when it comes to the politics of freedom.

It’s one thing to be able to identify the political condition (tyranny) you’re running ‘from,’ it is quite another to identify the political condition (freedom) you must move ‘towards.’ Calls for ‘unity’ or ‘solidarity’ or for ‘political separation,’ or for ‘creating a republic’ or for ‘changing the electoral system’ are not calls for establishing a free society. They are desperate aimless propositions that amount to a clear admission that the protesters really don’t know what must be done.

This is completely understandable. Most people pay no attention to politics until it is too late. Fortunately, one group that has discovered the fundamental principles necessary to the advancement of individual freedom is the Freedom Party of Ontario, established on January 1, 1984.

A brief review of the party’s myriad of successes in changing and affecting the laws of Ontario makes two things clear: (1) that winning individual battles against the deep state and the political parties of the day is doable, if one employs the proper principles and tactics, and (2) that Canada’s tyranny today is no different than it has been for the past half century and longer. In every respect, municipal, federal and provincial governments in Canada were as abusive of their power and authority in the 1980s as they are today.

Protesting against tyranny and oppression certainly has some limited value. But preventing the next wave of tyranny and oppression demands a political discipline currently not seen in the political arena – one ‘for’ freedom, not merely ‘against’ the latest manifestations of state injustice.

The war for freedom can only be won by those who understand and act on the singular set of freedom based principles that are Just Right.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

844 – The empire strikes out | Salim Mansur

 Comments Off on 844 – The empire strikes out | Salim Mansur
Jan 242024
 


“A republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin’s famous response (Sept 1787) to Elizabeth Willing Powel’s question: “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” was as much a warning as it was a description of an ideal America as a state in which the sovereignty resides in the people and the legislative and administrative powers are lodged in officers elected by them.

It is now 2024 and the republic to which he referred no longer exists. Were he alive today Franklin might be tempted to respond with “An empire – if you can defeat it” as the means of both defining the nation and of recovering its republican status.

Our guest Salim Mansur argues that America’s descent from a free republic to a coercive empire was accelerated and completed during the period between the election of Woodrow Wilson in 1912 and the installation of Joe Biden in 2020. “We are now in a post-constitutional America,” he says.

America’s republican status was dismantled thanks to the imposition of the federal income tax, the 17th amendment which “democratized” the election of senators, the establishment of the federal reserve (1913) and other legislation making “America now the world’s biggest threat to individual rights.”

As an empire, America suffers from the “disease of the empire” which Salim describes as a nullification of freedom at home and the coercion of people abroad. Ultimately all empires are little more than military rule.

Despite all of this corruption and power, the good news is that the vast majority of “we the people” has begun to see America and its global empire for what it has become. With world-wide protests and demonstrations against their own politicians, to say nothing of the unprecedented popularity of Donald Trump, the rulers of the empire are beginning to be uncomfortably aware that their empire may soon be struck out.

For that reason, we are in “uncharted waters” when it comes to predicting what the empire’s elites may do to strike back in their state of desperation. It looks like 2024 will be the decisive year in which Americans will choose between living in an empire or in a constitutional republic. So far it looks like they’ll choose to do what is Just Right by striking out an empire and choosing to keep a republic as their home’s base.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal