Dr. Volodymyr & Mr. Zelensky: the dark side of the Ukrainian president

by Guy Mettan

The Swiss MP and former editor-in-chief of the Tribune de Genève, Guy Mettan, paints a portrait of the acrobat who plays the role of president of Ukraine. He shows how this public entertainer became an ally of the Banderists and set up a dictatorship for them.


“Héros de la liberté”, “Hero of Our Time”, “Der Unbeugsame”, “The Unlikely Ukrainian Hero Who Defied Putin and United the World”, “Zelensky, Ukraine in blood”: the Western media and leaders no longer know what superlatives to use to sing the praises of the Ukrainian president, so fascinated are they by the “amazing resilience” of the comedian miraculously transformed into a “warlord” and “saviour of democracy”.

For the past three months, the Ukrainian head of state has been making the headlines, opening the news, inaugurating the Cannes Film Festival, haranguing parliaments, congratulating and admonishing his colleagues at the head of states ten times more powerful than he is, with a happiness and tactical sense that no film actor or political leader before him had ever known.

How can you not fall under the spell of this improbable Mr. Bean who, after conquering the public with his grimaces and extravagances (walking naked in a shop and mimicking a pianist playing with his sex, for example), was able to swap his antics and gravelly puns for a grey-green T-shirt, a week-long beard and words full of seriousness in order to galvanize his troops who were besieged by the evil Russian bear?

Since 24 February, Volodymyr Zelensky has unquestionably proved himself to be an exceptionally talented artist in international politics. Those who had followed his career as a comedian were not surprised because they knew his innate sense of improvisation, his mimetic abilities and his audacity in acting. The way he campaigned and defeated tough opponents like former president Poroshenko in a few weeks between 31 December 2018 and 21 April 2019, mobilising his production team and generous oligarch donors, had already proved the extent of his talents. But it remained to transform the trial. This has now been done.


However, as is often the case, the front rarely looks like the backstage. The spotlight hides more than it shows. And here the picture is less than stellar: both his achievements as a head of state and his performance as a defender of democracy leave a lot to be desired.

Zelensky’s talent for double-dealing will be demonstrated as soon as he is elected. We recall that he was elected with a score of 73.2% of the votes, promising to put an end to corruption, to lead Ukraine on the path of progress and civilisation, and above all to make peace with the Russian-speaking Donbass. As soon as he was elected, he betrayed all his promises with such untimely zeal that his popularity rating fell to 23% in January 2022, to the point of being outdistanced by his two main opponents.

From May 2019, to satisfy his oligarch sponsors, the newly elected president is launching a massive land privatisation programme covering 40 million hectares of good agricultural land under the pretext that the moratorium on land sales would have cost the country’s GDP billions of dollars. In the wake of the “de-communisation“ and “de-Russification“ programmes begun since the pro-US coup of February 2014, he is launching a vast operation of privatisation of state assets, fiscal austerity, deregulation of labour laws and dismantling of trade unions, angering a majority of Ukrainians who had not understood what their candidate meant by “progress”, “westernisation” and “normalisation“ of the Ukrainian economy. In a country that, in 2020, had a per capita income of 3,726 dollars against 10,126 dollars for the Russian opponent, while in 1991 the average income of Ukraine exceeded that of Russia, the comparison is not flattering. And it is understandable that the Ukrainians did not applaud this umpteenth neoliberal reform.

As for the march towards civilisation, it will take the form of another decree which, on 19 May 2021, ensures the domination of the Ukrainian language and bans Russian from all spheres of public life, administrations, schools and businesses, much to the satisfaction of the nationalists and the astonishment of the Russian-speaking people in the south-east of the country.


The record on corruption is no better. In 2015, the Guardian estimated that Ukraine was the most corrupt country in Europe. In 2021, Transparency International, a western NGO based in Berlin, ranked Ukraine 122nd in the world for corruption, close to the despised Russia (136th). Not brilliant for a country that passes for a paragon of virtue in the face of Russian barbarians. Corruption is everywhere, in ministries, administrations, public companies, parliament, the police, and even in the High Court of Anti-Corruption Justice according to the Kyiv Post! It is not uncommon to see judges driving around in Porsches, the newspapers observe.

Zelensky’s main sponsor, Ihor Kolomoïsky, who lives in Geneva where he has luxurious offices overlooking the harbour, is not the least of these oligarchs who profit from the prevailing corruption: on 5 March 2021, Anthony Blinken, who probably had no choice, announced that the State Department had frozen his assets and banned him from the United States because of “involvement in significant corruption“. It is true that Kolomoysky was accused of embezzling $5.5 billion from the state-owned Privatbank. Coincidentally, the good Ihor was also the main shareholder of the oil holding company Burisma, which employed Joe Biden’s son Hunter for a modest compensation of $50,000 a month and which is now under investigation by the Delaware prosecutor. A wise precaution: Kolomoisky, who has become persona non grata in Israel and is a refugee in Georgia according to some witnesses, is not likely to appear on the stand.

This is the same Kolomoïsky, who was a key figure in Ukraine’s progress, and who made Zelensky’s entire career as an actor and who is implicated in the Pandora Papers affair revealed by the press in October 2021. 

These papers revealed that since 2012, the TV channel 1+1 belonging to the sulphurous oligarch had paid no less than 40 million dollars to its star Zelensky and that the latter, shortly before being elected president and with the help of his close guard of Kryvyi Rih – the two Shefir brothers, one of whom is the author of Zelensky’s scripts and the other the head of the State Security Service, and the producer and owner of their joint production company Kvartal 95 – had prudently transferred considerable sums to offshore accounts opened in his wife’s name, while acquiring three undeclared flats in London for the sum of $7.5 million.

This taste of the “servant of the people“ (that’s the name of his TV series and his political party) for non-proletarian comfort is confirmed by a photo that briefly appeared on social networks and was immediately deleted by anti-complot fact-checkers, which showed him taking his ease in a tropical palace at a few tens of thousands of dollars a night when he was supposed to be spending his winter holidays in a modest ski resort in the Carpathians.

The art of tax optimisation and the assiduous association with controversial oligarchs do not argue in favour of an unconditional presidential commitment to fighting corruption. 

Nor does the fact that he tried to remove the troublesome president of the Constitutional Court, Oleksandr Tupytskyi, and appointed him prime minister after his predecessor, Oleksyi Goncharuk, left office due to scandal, an unknown man called Denys Chmynal, but who had the merit of running one of the factories of the richest man in the country, Rinat Akhmetov, owner of the famous Azovstal factory, the last refuge of the heroic freedom fighters of the Azov battalion. Fighters who sported tattoos on their arms, necks, backs or chests glorifying the Wolfsangel of the SS Das Reich Division, phrases from Adolf Hitler or swastikas, as seen on the countless videos released by the Russians after their surrender.


For the rapprochement of the flamboyant Volodymyr with the most extreme representatives of the Ukrainian nationalist right is not the least of Dr. Zelensky’s oddities. This complicity was immediately denied with the greatest virulence by the Western press, which judged it scandalous because of the president’s suddenly rediscovered Jewish origins. How could a Jewish president sympathise with neo-Nazis, who are presented as a tiny minority of outsiders? One should not give credit to Vladimir Putin’s “denazification” operation…

And yet the facts are stubborn and far from trivial.

It is certain that Zelensky personally has never been close to neo-Nazi ideology or even to the Ukrainian nationalist far right. His Jewish ancestry, even if relatively remote and never claimed before February 2022, obviously excludes any antisemitism on his part. This rapprochement therefore does not betray an affinity but is a matter of banal raison d’état and a well-understood mixture of pragmatism and the instinct for physical and political survival.

One has to go back to October 2019 to understand the nature of the relationship between Zelensky and the far right. And you have to understand that these far-right formations, even if they only weigh 2% of the electorate, still represent nearly a million highly motivated and well-organised people who are spread across numerous groupings and movements, of which the Azov regiment (co-founded and financed as early as 2014 by Kolomoysky, still him!) is only the best known. To it must be added the organisations Aïdar, Dnipro, Safari, Svoboda, Pravy Sektor, C14 and National Corps to be complete.

C14, named after the number of words in the American neo-Nazi David Lane’s phrase (“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children”), is one of the least known abroad but most feared for its racist violence in Ukraine. All of these groups were more or less merged into the Ukrainian army and national guard at the initiative of their leader, former interior minister Arsen Avakov, who ruled the Ukrainian security apparatus unchallenged from 2014 to 2021. They are the ones Zelensky calls “veterans” since autumn 2019.

A few months after his election, the young president went to Donbass to try to fulfil his election promise and enforce the Minsk agreements signed by his predecessor. The far-right forces, who have been shelling the cities of Donetsk and Lugansk since 2014 at the cost of ten thousand deaths, welcome him with the greatest circumspection because they are suspicious of this “pacifist” president. They are waging a merciless campaign against peace under the slogan “No surrender”. In one video, a pale Zelensky pleads with them: “I am the president of this country. I am 41 years old. I am not a loser. I’m coming to you and saying: take the guns out.” The video was released on social networks and Zelensky immediately became the target of a hate campaign. This will be the end of his desire for peace and the implementation of the Minsk agreements.

Shortly after this incident, a minor withdrawal of the extremist forces took place, and then the bombing resumed in earnest.


The problem is that not only has Zelensky given in to their blackmail but he is joining them in their nationalist crusade. After his failed expedition in November 2019, he receives several far-right leaders, including Yehven Taras, the leader of C14, while his prime minister stands by Andryi Medvedko, a neo-Nazi figure suspected of murder. He also supports the footballer Zolzulya against Spanish fans who accuse him of being a Nazi because of his proclaimed support for Stepan Bandera, the nationalist leader who collaborated with Nazi Germany during the war (and with the CIA after the war) and participated in the Jewish Holocaust.

Collaboration with nationalist radicals is well established. In November last year, Zelensky appointed the ultra-nationalist Pravy Sektor Dmytro Yarosh as special adviser to the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian army and, since February 2022, as head of the Volunteer Army, which is waging terror in the rear. At the same time, he appointed Oleksander Poklad, nicknamed “the strangler” because of his taste for torture, as head of the SBU’s counter-intelligence unit. In December, two months before the war, it was the turn of another Pravy Sektor leader, Commander Dmytro Kotsuybaylo, to be rewarded with the title of “Hero of Ukraine” while, a week after the start of hostilities, Zelensky had the regional governor of Odessa replaced by Maksym Marchenko, commander of the ultranationalist Aïdar battalion, the very same one with whom Bernard-Henri Lévy would make a point of marching.

Desire to appease the far right by giving them positions? Shared ultra-patriotism? Or a simple convergence of interests between a neo-liberal, Atlanticist, pro-Western right and a nationalist far right that dreams of smashing Russians and “leading the white races of the world in a final crusade against the Untermenschen guided by the Semites”, in the words of former deputy Andryi Biletsky, leader of the National Corps? It is not clear, as no journalist has ventured to ask Zelensky this question.

What is not in doubt, however, is the increasingly authoritarian, even criminal, drift of the Ukrainian regime. So much so that its zealots should think twice before nominating their idol for the Nobel Peace Prize. 

While the media look the other way, a real campaign of intimidation, kidnappings and executions is underway against local and national elected officials suspected of being Russian agents or of connivance with the enemy because they want to avoid an escalation of the conflict.

“One less traitor in Ukraine! He was found killed and was tried by the people’s court!” This is how the adviser to the Interior Minister, Anton Gerashenko, announced on his Telegram account the murder of Volodymyr Strok, mayor and former deputy of the small town of Kremnina. Suspected of having collaborated with the Russians, he was kidnapped and tortured before being executed. On 7 March, the mayor of Gostomel was killed because he had tried to negotiate a humanitarian corridor with the Russian military. On 24 March, the mayor of Kupyansk asked Zelensky to release his daughter, who had been kidnapped by SBU agents. At the same time, one of the Ukrainian negotiators was found dead after being accused of treason by the nationalist media. No less than eleven mayors have been reported missing to date, including in regions never occupied by the Russians…


But the repression does not stop there. It hit the critical media, which were all closed down, and the opposition parties, which were all dissolved.

In February 2021, Zelensky closed down three opposition channels deemed to be pro-Russian and supposedly owned by the oligarch Viktor Medvedchuk, NewsOne, Zik and 112 Ukraine. The State Department hails this attack on press freedom, stating that the US supports Ukrainian efforts to counter Russia’s malign influence…” In January 2022, a month before the war, Nash was shut down. After the war began, the regime went on a hunt for left-wing journalists, bloggers and commentators. At the beginning of April, two right-wing channels were also affected. Channel 5 and Pryamiy. A presidential decree obliges all channels to broadcast a single, pro-government tone of voice, of course. 

Recently the witch-hunt even extended to the country’s most popular critical blogger, Ukraine’s Navalny, Anatoliy Shariy, who was arrested on 4 May by the Spanish authorities at the request of the Ukrainian political police. Attacks on the press at least equivalent to those of the autocrat Putin, but never heard of in the Western media…

The purge was even more severe for political parties. It decimated Zelensky’s main opponents. In the spring of 2021, the home of the main opponent, Medvedchuk, reputedly close to Putin, was ransacked and its owner placed under house arrest. On 12 April, the oligarch deputy was forcibly interned in an undisclosed location, visibly drugged, deprived of visits before being shown on TV and offered in exchange for the release of the Azovstal defenders, in defiance of all the Geneva conventions. His lawyers, threatened, had to give up defending him in favour of someone close to the services.

Last December, it was Petro Poroshenko, who was rising in the polls, who was accused of treason. On 20 December 2021, at 3.07 pm, the official SBU website listed him as a suspect for crimes of treason and support for terrorist activities. The former president was accused of “making Ukraine energy dependent on Russia and the leaders of the Russian-controlled pseudo-republics.”

On 3 March, activists of the Lizvizia Left were raided by the SBU and imprisoned by the dozen. Then on 19 March, repression hit the whole of the Ukrainian left. By decree, eleven left-wing parties were banned: Party for Life, Left Opposition, Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialist Party of Ukraine, Union of Left Forces, Socialists, Sharyi Party, Ours, State, Opposition Bloc Volodymyr Saldo.

Other activists, bloggers and human rights defenders are arrested and tortured, journalist Yan Taksyur, activist Elena Brezhnaya, MMA boxer Maxim Ryndovskiy or lawyer Elena Viacheslavova, whose father was charred to death in the pogrom of 2 May 2014 at the Odessa House of Trade Unions.

To complete this list, we should mention the men and women stripped naked and whipped in public by the nationalists in the streets of Kiev, the Russian prisoners beaten and shot in the legs before being executed, the soldier whose eye was pierced before being killed, the members of the Georgian Legion who executed Russian prisoners in a village near Kiev, while their leader boasted that he never took prisoners. On the Ukraine 24 channel, it was the head of the army’s medical service who said he had given the order “to castrate all Russian men because they are subhuman and worse than cockroaches”. Finally, Ukraine is making extensive use of facial recognition technology from the company Clearview to identify dead Russians and broadcast their photos on Russian social networks, ridiculing them…


The examples could be multiplied, as there are so many quotes and videos of atrocities committed by the troops of the defender of democracy and human rights who presides over the destiny of Ukraine. But this would be tedious and counterproductive with a public opinion convinced that these barbaric behaviours are solely due to the Russians.

This is why no NGO is alarmed, the Council of Europe is silent, the International Criminal Court is not investigating, and press freedom organisations are silent. They have not listened well to what the kindly Volodymyr told them during a visit to Butcha at the beginning of April: “If we do not find a civilised way out, you know our people, they will find an uncivilised way out.”

Ukraine’s problem is that its president, willingly or unwillingly, has ceded power to extremists internally and to the NATO military externally in order to indulge in the pleasure of being worshipped by crowds around the world. Was it not he who told a French journalist on 5 March, ten days after the Russian invasion: “Today, my life is beautiful. I believe I am wanted. I feel that this is the most important meaning of my life: to be wanted. To feel that you are not just breathing, walking and eating something. You are living!”

We told you: Zelensky is a great actor. Like his predecessor as Dr. Jekill & Mr. Hide in 1932, he deserves to win the Oscar for best male role of the decade. But when he is faced with the task of rebuilding his country after a war, he could have prevented in 2019, the return to reality may be difficult.

 «The Comedian-Turned-President is Seriously in Over His Head», Olga Rudenko, New York Times, February 21, 2022 (Opinion Guest from Kyyiv Post). 
 «How Zelensky made Peace With Neo-Nazis», and «Zelensky’s Hardline Internal Purge», Alex Rubinstein and Max Blumenthal, Consortium News, March 4 and April 20, 2022. 
 «Olga Baysha Interview about Ukraine’s President», Natylie Baldwin, The Grayzone, April 28, 2022. 
 «President of Ukraine Zelensky has visited disengaging area in Zolote today», @Liveupmap, 26 October 2019 (Watch on Twitter). 
 «Qu’est-ce que le régiment Azov?», Adrien Nonjon, The Conversation, 24 mai 2022. 
 «Public Designation of Oligarch and Former Ukrainian Public Official Ihor Kolomoyskyy Due to Involvement in Significant Corruption», Press statement, Anthony J. Blinken, US Department of State,March 5, 2021. 
 «Petro Poroshenko notified of suspicion of treason and aiding terrorism», Security Service of Ukraine, 20 December 2021. 
 «Un maire ukrainien prorusse enlevé et abattu», Michel Pralong, Le Matin, 3 mars 2022,

Guy Mettan


Member of the Grand Council of the Canton of Geneva (Christian Democrat). Former editor-in-chief of the Tribune de Genève and founder of the Swiss Press Club. Author of the book Russie-Occident. Une guerre de mille ans (to be published on September 8, 2022).

Voltaire Network

Voltaire, international edition

Federal Justice Lawyers Trying To Delay My Lawsuit 

Well, the fight is really on. 

The Federal Government’s Lawyers through the Department of Justice have filed in Federal Court a motion to have my lawsuit delayed . They are suggesting a delay from the agreed Sept 2 deadline for the respondent’s( Federal Justice Department) final filing , thereby making the Sept 19 beginning of the five day hearing having to be delayed also. 

The Federal  Government’s lawyers are arguing , among other things, that there is no urgency now that the federal travel mandate has been lifted . 

Of course, my lawyers are arguing that the mandates have not been cancelled but suspended and , of course, they are not all even suspended. The Government’s own published statement as provided to the court says among other things :

‘Today, the Government of Canada announced that, as of June 20, it will suspend vaccination requirements for domestic and outbound travel, federally regulated transportation sectors and federal government employees.’ 

 And goes on to say 

‘This change does not affect border measures that require all travellers entering Canada to continue following entry requirements, including vaccination.

Other public health measures, such as wearing a mask, continue to apply and will be enforced throughout a traveller’s journey on a plane or train. 

Given the unique nature of cruise ships, including the fact that passengers are in close contact with each other for extended periods of time, vaccination against COVID-19 is still required for passengers and crew on cruise ships.’

And then to emphasize the temporary nature of it all :

‘The Government of Canada will continue to evaluate measures and will not hesitate to make adjustments based on the latest public health advice and science to keep Canadians and the transportation system safe and secure.’

The case , therefore , is very much in the public interest to be tried as quickly as possible ( expedited basis) since Canadians are still being denied their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms , an integral part of Canada’s Supreme Law. 

And as my lawyers point out a very important issue is at stake: 

‘ This case deals with a matter of national importance: whether Canada breached its Charter obligations by imposing the Travel Vaccine Mandates. ‘

The arguments regarding delay were heard today and the Judge reserved judgement 

It is hoped that a decision on this will be rendered early next week . Meanwhile,  the case continues on cross examination of evidence by the parties. 

Obviously, the Federal Government is not eager for this case to proceed,  attempting to use arguments , my counsel states are invalid , to justify breaking the agreed schedule for the case to be heard  on an expedited basis. 

Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade, Eliminates Constitutional Right to Abortion

The court upholds law from Mississippi that bans abortion after 15 weeks, opens door to widespread prohibitions on the procedure

By Brent Kendall

and Jess Bravin

Updated June 24, 2022 

WASHINGTON—A deeply divided Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, overruling the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and leaving the question of abortion’s legality to the states.

The court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization upheld a law from Mississippithat bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, roughly two months earlier than what has been allowed under Supreme Court precedent dating back to Roe.

Read the Decision: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

In siding with Mississippi, the court’s conservative majority said the Roe decision was egregiously wrong in recognizing a constitutional right to an abortion, an error the court perpetuated in the decades since.

“The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.

“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” he wrote.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined the Alito opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts, in a concurring opinion, agreed that the Mississippi law should stand, but didn’t support rescinding the right to an abortion altogether.

The court’s three liberals, signaling profound disagreement, jointly authored a dissent. They accused the majority of discarding the balance precedents struck between a woman’s interest and that of the state in protecting “potential life.”

“Today, the Court discards that balance. It says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of,” Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan wrote.

Although the case before the court involved a 15-week ban, the overruling of Roe gives states broad latitude to regulate or prohibit abortion as they see fit. Many conservative-leaning states are poised to tighten access further, while some liberal ones have established permissive abortion regimes under state law. The decision could become a major issue in this year’s elections, as state and federal lawmakers look to position themselves in a post-Roe world.

Where Abortion Is Legal and Where It Loses Protections Without Roe v. Wade

Almost half the states didn’t support rescinding the right to an abortion altogether., while others have laws that would preserve its legality. Questions on whether and how to limit abortions are expected to continue roiling state legislative debates.

The ruling, one of the most consequential in modern memory, marked a rare instance in which the court reversed itself to eliminate a constitutional right that it had previously created.

The decision also is a defining moment for a Supreme Court that is more conservative than it has been in many decades, a shift in legal thinking made possible after President Donald Trump placed three justices on the court. Two of them succeeded justices who voted to affirm abortion rights.

In anticipation of the ruling, several states have passed laws limiting or banning the procedure, and 13 states have so-called trigger laws on their books that called for prohibiting abortion if Roe were overruled. Clinics in conservative states have been preparing for possible closure, while facilities in more liberal areas have been getting ready for a potentially heavy influx of patients from other states.

The ruling follows a highly unusual leak last month of an early draft opinion in the case that suggested the court was preparing to overrule Roe and withdraw federal protections for abortion rights.

The Supreme Court has been investigating the leak at a time of strained relationships among members of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas in a recent speech suggested trust among members of the court had been lost. And when the court heard oral arguments in the Dobbs case in December, Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the court could “survive the stench” created by perceptions “that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts.”

The court’s Roe decision in 1973, written by Nixon appointee Justice Harry Blackmun, reflected a line of legal thinking that the Constitution barred political majorities from imposing their moral judgments on the intimate choices of individuals. The Roe court grounded the right to an abortion in the 14th Amendment’s guarantee that states can’t deprive individuals of life and liberty without due process of law. The ruling built off a constitutionally recognized right to privacy, which came when the court struck down state restrictions on contraceptives.

That ruling didn’t spark an immediate outcry, but by the Reagan era, it had become a rallying point for conservatives who believed the high court had improperly invented rights not laid out in the Constitution, usurping the political branches of government. The issue of abortion has hung over the Supreme Court ever since, as well as the Senate confirmation process for new justices.

Mr. Trump pledged to appoint justices who would overrule Roe, and when he named Justice Amy Coney Barrett to succeed the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court’s conservative majority grew to six justices. That gave hope to abortion opponents that aggressive new state measures might find high-court support and led some, including Mississippi, to call on the court to overrule Roe.

The court does on occasion overrule its past decisions—notably, for instance in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that ended racial segregation in public schools—but justices for years have dueled over when it is appropriate to do so. Most of those debates have taken place in cases that had nothing to do with abortion, but the future of Roe has loomed over the discussions.

The Supreme Court in 1992 came close to overruling Roe, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a case involving abortion restrictions in Pennsylvania. But internal deliberations led the court to preserve core protections for abortion rights, under a controlling opinion forged by three GOP appointees.

Mississippi’s law, the Gestational Age Act, was adopted in 2018 and initially designed as a more incremental attack on abortion. At the time, a full legal assault on Roe had no realistic chance of success because Justice Anthony Kennedy, a maverick conservative, stood alongside Justice Ginsburg and three other liberal justices in forming a solid majority to keep abortion rights in place.

The case began when the state’s only provider, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, sued to strike down the 15-week law.

After Justice Kennedy later in 2018 retired and Justice Ginsburg died in 2020, Mississippi shifted gears in how it defended its restrictions. After previously arguing its law could be upheld without jettisoning all constitutional protections for abortion, the state urged the high court to ditch Roe and Casey altogether.

Write to Brent Kendall at brent.kendall@wsj.com and Jess Bravin at jess.bravin+1@wsj.com

Source: Wall Street Journal 

The Rich World’s Climate Hypocrisy

They beg for more oil and coal for themselves while telling developing lands to rely on solar and wind.

By Bjorn Lomborg

June 20, 2022 

The developed world’s response to the global energy crisis has put its hypocritical attitude toward fossil fuels on display. Wealthy countries admonish developing ones to use renewable energy. Last month the Group of Seven went so far as to announce they would no longer fund fossil-fuel development abroad

Meanwhile, Europe and the U.S. are begging Arab nations to expand oil production. Germany is reopening coal power plants, and Spain and Italy are spending big on African gas production. So many European countries have asked Botswana to mine more coal that the nation will more than double its exports.

The developed world became wealthy through the pervasive use of fossil fuels, which still overwhelmingly power most of its economies. Solar and wind power aren’t reliable, simply because there are nights, clouds and still days. Improving battery storage won’t help much: There are enough batteries in the world today only to power global average electricity consumption for 75 seconds. Even though the supply is being scaled up rapidly, by 2030 the world’s batteries would still cover less than 11 minutes. Every German winter, when solar output is at its minimum, there is near-zero wind energy available for at least five days—or more than 7,000 minutes.

This is why solar panels and wind turbines can’t deliver most of the energy for industrializing poor countries. Factories can’t stop and start with the wind; steel and fertilizer production are dependent on coal and gas; and most solar and wind power simply can’t deliver the power necessary to run the water pumps, tractors, and machines that lift people out of poverty.

That’s why fossil fuels still provide more than three-fourths of wealthy countries’ energy, while solar and wind deliver less than 3%. An average person in the developed world uses more fossil-fuel-generated energy every day than all the energy used by 23 poor Africans.

Yet the world’s rich are trying to choke off funding for new fossil fuels in developing countries. An estimated 3.5 billion of the world’s poorest people have no reliable access to electricity. Rather than give them access to the tools that have helped rich nations develop, wealthy countries blithely instruct developing nations to skip coal, gas and oil, and go straight to a green nirvana of solar panels and wind turbines.

This promised paradise is a sham built on wishful thinking and green marketing. Consider the experience of Dharnai, an Indian village that Greenpeace in 2014 tried to turn into the country’s first solar-powered community.

Greenpeace received glowing global media attention when it declared that Dharnai would refuse “to give into the trap of the fossil fuel industry.” But the day the village’s solar electricity was turned on, the batteries were drained within hours. One boy remembers being unable to do his homework early in the morning because there wasn’t enough power for his family’s one lamp.

Villagers were told not to use refrigerators or televisions because they would exhaust the system. They couldn’t use cookstoves and had to continue burning wood and dung, which creates air pollution as dangerous for a person’s health as smoking two packs of cigarettes a day, according to the World Health Organization. Across the developing world, millions die prematurely every year because of this indoor pollution.

In August 2014, Greenpeace invited one of the Indian’s state’s top politicians, who soon after become its chief minister, to admire the organization’s handiwork. He was met by a crowd waving signs and chanting that they wanted “real electricity” to replace this “fake electricity.”

When Dharnai was finally connected to the main power grid, which is overwhelmingly coal-powered, villagers quickly dropped their solar connections. An academic study found a big reason was that the grid’s electricity cost one-third of what the solar energy did. What’s more, it was plentiful enough to actually power such appliances as TV sets and stoves. Today, Dharnai’s disused solar-energy system is covered in thick dust, and the project site is a cattle shelter.

To be sure, solar energy has some uses, such as charging a cellphone or powering a light, but it is often expensive and has distinct limits. A new study in India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, found that even hefty subsidies couldn’t make solar lamps worth their cost to most people. Even in wealthy nations such as Germany and Spain, most new wind and solar power wouldn’t have been installed if not for subsidies.

This is why, for all the rich world’s talk of climate activism, developed nations are still on track to continue to rely mostly on fossil fuels for decades. The International Energy Agency estimates that even if all current climate policies are delivered in full, renewables will only deliver one-third of U.S. and EU energy in 2050. The developing world isn’t blind to this hypocrisy. Nigeria’s vice president, Yemi Osinbajo, articulated the situation elegantly: “No country in the world has been able to industrialize using renewable energy,” yet Africa is expected to do so “when everybody else in the world knows that we need gas-powered industries for business.”

Rather than selfishly block other countries’ path to development, wealthy nations should do the sensible thing and invest meaningfully in the innovation needed to make green energy more efficient and cheaper than fossil fuels. That’s how you can actually get everyone to switch to renewable alternatives. Insisting that the world’s poor live without plentiful, reliable and affordable energy prioritizes virtue signaling over people’s lives.

Mr. Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus and a visiting fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. His latest book is “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.”

Source: Wall Street Journal 

A Retired English Teacher, Poet, Writes A Thank You Poem —-And I Taught English Once Upon A Time—

What Was It Shelley Said? ‘Poets are the un-acknowledged legislators of the world.’

‘Thank you poem 

Dear Mr. Peckford – thank you for all the legal and political work you’re doing to help keep many of us sane – the last couple of years have been unlike anything I’ve experienced in my life and I’ve experienced a lot over the past 70 years 

– I’m a retired English teacher and write a lot of poetry so the pdf of my poem called “Barefoot on Eggshells” is my contribution to the effort – i.e. a way of keeping perspective as well as a way of wishing those of us who are hanging on with such determination a happy summer solstice and the end of a glorious spring even if the world seems on the verge of collapse – as Emile Zola said in Germinal, “Connection is all.”

– to put the poem in context, a friend of mine who also writes sent me a recent book of hers that included a poem called “To the Anti-Vaxxer” Dr. Souse style – I thought, ‘what is she thinking?’ by using such a term – the whole issue of name-calling over the past 2+ years has been so damaging – I responded by writing a series of haikus/senryus that tell a narrative different from the one she has experienced – I used a pen name for my poem that I’ve used before – it felt in keeping with its tone    

– I don’t have a lot of hope that things will improve even if the end of the poem sounds hopeful – but it’s in the nature of writing that we can see a different reality even if it feels unreachable

– good luck with the court case in Sept around travel mandates as unconstitutional – and have a good summer – stay well – we need you – Deb Panko 

Barefoot on Eggshells

in Canada, Spring 2022


So much name-calling coming from one direction … you hide your face too.

‘Anti-vaxxer’, one

of the names designed for me, I give back to you.

Why this war of words before first robin’s first note greets both day and night?

Feathers knock against

the window pane, settle on two tiny blue eggs.

Each egg has its shell

to rest complete within it

– indivisible.


Riverbanks sprout blooms. What message in RNA

are you looking for?

Wars make enemies.

This time they’re invisible. Let me be your moth.

In our global nest war-mongering ghouls work at streamlining designs.

It seems that disease

can be asymptomatic. Masked bandits creep close.

It takes only one munching moth to unravel designer sweaters.


Big Media drives

the ‘vaccine’ war machine, ads unprecedented.

Neighbours are convinced. Bind yourself to ‘sacrifice’. Give your life for theirs.

Stay home. Stay safe. Zoom. Pray at the crossroads. Prophets seed graveyard poppies.

All glorious wars

fade, as do forget-me-nots. What do you expect?

You know already

you’ve lost. We all meet our ghosts eventually.


War gods want you dead

yet will mourn you when you die. Therein lies the lie.

These pop-up verses

are safer, more effective than their ‘common good’.

Your head spins. You sleep. Crack open reason’s cocoon or become enslaved.

Evil preens itself.

Detached from all that breathes deep, it sniffs out your fear.

We are divided.

It’s too late, unless you pluck your name from its plot.


I give back to you

robin, moth, forget-me-not. I’ve learned from poppies.

The name I give you

is the name you gave yourself looking in water.

Don’t you remember? Invisible at first glance, names reveal themselves.

Prophets make profits, build plandemic industries. Billionaires rejoice.

Thunder spawns addicts. Big Pharma’s injuries spike, their message expressed.


The sky is alive.

Birds stream in from far and wide. Do you hear their calls?

In all directions

designs spring up unbidden. Riverbanks chatter.

Dawn’s chorus of notes

has swelled from the first robin to me still writing.

Each fragile shell breaks, brooks impossibilities. You’ll find empty nests.

Ghosts conscript bodies. Breathe in circles fully. Read what will happen next.


Binoculars poised,

go track mating calls. Wings flash without censorship.

Bullshit detectors

block Big Tech penetrations. Cows graze in meadows.

Spring’s immunity over-rides ‘gain-of-function’ man-made pathogens.

Robin chicks have fledged. Children find joy in nature recover beauty.

Peace heals our spirits. Feathered freedoms purify. Gratitude abounds.

Enamel Nosegay,

in five-seven-five tempo, lays her golden eggs.

It’s Not A Poll That Counts It’s The Law( My Words)  —‘Supreme Court expands gun rights, striking New York limits’


WASHINGTON (AP) — In a major expansion of gun rights, the Supreme Court said Thursday that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public.

The justices’ 6-3 decision follows a series of recent mass shootings and is expected to ultimately allow more people to legally carry guns on the streets of the nation’s largest cities — including New York, Los Angeles and Boston — and elsewhere. About a quarter of the U.S. population live in states expected to be affected by the ruling, the high court’s first major gun decision in more than a decade.

The ruling comes as Congress is working toward passage of gun legislation following mass shootings in Texas,New York and California.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

In their decision, the justices struck down a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry one in public. The justices said that requirement violates the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”

California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island all have similar laws. The Biden administration had urged the justices to uphold New York’s law.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said the decision comes at a particularly painful time, when New York is still mourning the deaths of 10 people in a mass shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo. “This decision isn’t just reckless. It’s reprehensible. It’s not what New Yorkers want,” she said.

In a dissent joined by his liberal colleagues, Justice Stephen Breyer focused on the toll taken by gun violence. “Since the start of this year alone (2022), there have already been 277 reported mass shootings—an average of more than one per day,“ Breyer wrote.

Backers of New York’s law had argued that striking it down would lead to more guns on the streets and higher rates of violent crime. 

Gun violence, which was already on the rise during the coronavirus pandemic has spiked anew.

In most of the country gun owners have little difficulty legally carrying their weapons in public. But that had been harder to do in New York and the handful of states with similar laws. New York’s law, which has been in place since 1913, says that to carry a concealed handgun in public, a person applying for a license has to show “proper cause,” a specific need to carry the weapon.

The state issues unrestricted licenses where a person can carry their gun anywhere and restricted licenses that allow a person to carry the weapon but just for specific purposes such as hunting and target shooting or to and from their place of business.

The Supreme Court last issued a major gun decision in 2010. In that decision and a ruling from 2008 the justices established a nationwide right to keep a gun at home for self-defense. The question for the court this time was about carrying one outside the home.

The challenge to the New York law was brought by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, which describes itself as the nation’s oldest firearms advocacy organization, and two men seeking an unrestricted ability to carry guns outside their homes.

The court’s decision is somewhat out of step with public opinion. About half of voters in the 2020 presidential election said gun laws in the U.S. should be made more strict, according to AP VoteCast, an expansive survey of the electorate. An additional third said laws should be kept as they are, while only about 1 in 10 said gun laws should be less strict.

About 8 in 10 Democratic voters said gun laws should be made more strict, VoteCast showed. Among Republican voters, roughly half said laws should be kept as they are, while the remaining half closely divided between more and less strict.


Associated Press reporter Hannah Fingerhut contributed to this report.

Dr. Alexander, Tom Marazzo, James Topp —Ottawa

If government is confident in COVID vaccines, why do you need some sort of liability protection?

PAlexanderPhD Published  June 23, 2022SUBSCRIBESHARE


Tom Marazzo, Veteran James Topp and Dr. Paul Elias Alexander in Canadian parliament, Ottawa, June 22, 2022 (afternoon session). James Topp and Dr. Alexander discuss COVID vaccine mandates.

My content is available for free. I have lost extensive income due to my advocacy for early treatment and my stance against the COVID vaccines, especially for children. Your kindness and generosity is very much appreciated in my sharing of research and the fight against scientific censorship where several good and brilliant doctors and scientists are silenced and cancelled, including myself. It is absolutely imperative that people/populations are given accurate information about the benefits and harms of societal restrictions or medical interventions such as vaccines. Only then can people make informed decisions about what is best for them.

• Donate at: drpaulalexander.com

• Substack (Alexander COVID News): https://palexander.substack.com/?utm_source=discover_search
• Twitter: @PAlexanderPhD

The Federal Republic of New Normal Germany

CJ Hopkins

So, the government of New Normal Germany is contemplating forcing everyone to wear medical-looking masks in public from October to Easter on a permanent basis.

Seriously, the fanatical New Normal fascists currently in charge of Germany’s government — mostly the SPD and the Greens — are discussing revising the “Infection Protection Act” in order to grant themselves the authority to continue to rule the country by decree, as they have been doing since the Autumn of 2020, thus instituting a “permanent state of emergency” that overrides the German constitution, indefinitely.

Go ahead, read that paragraph again.

Take a break from the carnage in non-Nazi Ukrainethe show trials in the US congressmonkeypoxmaniaSudden Adult Death SyndromeSudden Bovine Death Syndromefamily-oriented drag queensnon-“vaccine”-related facial paralysis, and Biden falling off his bike, and reflect on what this possibly portends, the dominant country of the European Union dispensing with any semblance of democracy and transforming into a fascist biosecurity police state.

OK, let me try to be more precise, as I don’t want to be arrested for “spreading disinformation” or “delegitimizing the state.”

Germany is not dispensing with the semblance of democracy. No, the German constitution will remain in effect. 

It’s just that the revised Infection Protection Act — like the “Enabling Act of 1933,” which granted the Nazi government the authority to issue any edicts it wanted under the guise of “remedying the distress of the people”— will grant the New Normal German government the authority to continue to supersede the constitution and issue whatever edicts it wants under the guise of “protecting the public health”…for example, forcing the German masses to display their conformity to the new official ideology by wearing medical-looking masks on their faces for six or seven months of every year.

In addition to a ritualized mass-demonstration of mindlessly fascist ideological conformity (a standard feature of all totalitarian systems), this annual October-to-Easter mask-mandate, by simulating the new paranoid “reality” in which humanity is under constant attack by deadly viruses and other “public health threats,” will cement the New Normal ideology into place.

If not opposed and stopped here in Germany, it will spread to other European countries, and to Canada, and Australia, and the New Normal US states. If you think what happens in Germany doesn’t matter because you live in Florida, or in Sweden, or the UK, you haven’t been paying attention recently.

The roll-out of the New Normal is a global project … a multi-phase, multi-faceted project.

Germany is just the current “tip of the spear.”

Sadly, the majority of the German masses will mindlessly click heels and follow orders, as they have since the Spring of 2020. They’re all enjoying a “summer break” at the moment, but come October they will don their masks, start segregating and persecuting “the Unvaccinated,” and otherwise behaving like fascists again.

I hesitate to blame it on the German character, because we’ve witnessed the same mindlessly fascistic behavior all around the world over the past two years, but, I have to admit, there is something particularly scary about how the Germans do it.

Meanwhile, Germany’s FBI (der Bundesverfassungsschutz, or BfV) is hard at work enforcing the new Gleichschaltung. According to a report in Die Welt, the BfV is not just surveilling people who use terms like “Corona dictatorship” (and presumably a long list of other “wrongspeak” words), but it is also “surveilling people and groups that disseminate conspiracy theories, or call the democratic nature of the state into question.” Politicians are insisting that the BfV “toughen up the classification of political crime, especially regarding the Corona deniers.”

Yes, that’s right, publicly challenging the official Covid-19 narrative, or protesting official New Normal ideology, is a political crime here in New Normal Germany. It has been since May 2021, when the Bundesverfassungsschutz established a new official category of domestic extremism … “Anti-democratic or Security-threatening Delegitimization of the State.”

I covered this in one of my columns at the time (“The Criminalization of Dissent” ) as did some corporate press, like The New York Times (“German Intelligence Puts Coronavirus Deniers Under Surveillance”), but, for some reason, the story didn’t get much traction.

“Delegitimization of the State” … let that language sink in for a moment. 

What it means is that anyone the New Normal authorities deem to be “delegitimizing the state” can be arrested and charged as a “political criminal.”

I wasn’t entirely clear on what is meant by “delegitimizing,” so I looked the word up, and the definition I found was “to diminish or destroy the legitimacy, prestige, or authority” of something, or someone, which … I don’t know, sounds a little overly broad and subject to arbitrary interpretation.

For example, if I, right here in this column, were to propose that the German government had no legitimate reasons whatsoever for locking down the entire population, forcing everyone to wear medical-looking masks, and demonizing and segregating “the Unvaccinated,” that might make me a “political criminal.” 

Likewise, if I were to describe Karl Lauterbach, the Minister of Health of New Normal Germany, as a fanatical fascist, and a sociopathic liar, that might make me a “political criminal.” Or, if I were to point out how the German state media have deceived and gaslighted the German public for over two years like the proverbial Goebbelsian keyboard instrument, that might make me a “political criminal.”

Or, if I were crazy enough to publish a book of essays written over the past two years documenting The Rise of the New Normal Reich, including essays about New Normal Germany, that might also make me a “political criminal.”

Naturally, I am a little uneasy, living in a former-Nazi country where I could be classified as a “political criminal” for my activities as an author and a political satirist … which, of course, is the point of the new classification. It is meant to scare dissidents like me into silence. 

Or … OK, it isn’t meant for me. It is meant for German dissidents like me. I’m an American, not a German citizen.

So the chances of a heavily-armed “Special Commando” team storming my apartment in the wee hours of the morning and arresting me on trumped-up weapons charges — as they recently did to Dr. Paul Brandenburg, an outspoken opponent of the New Normal Reich — are probably (hopefully) fairly remote.

In any event, I would never do that, i.e., attempt to diminish the prestige or authority of the Federal Republic of New Normal Germany, or in any way compare it to Nazi Germany, or any other totalitarian system, or describe it as a nascent biosecurity police state wherein the rule of law has been supplanted by the arbitrary edicts of fascist fanatics, because that would just be asking for trouble.

After all, if we’ve learned anything from history, the smart thing to do during times like these is to keep one’s mouth shut and follow orders, and if you hear a train coming … well, just look the other way.

CJ Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing and Broadway Play Publishing, Inc. His dystopian novel, Zone 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. Volumes I and II of his Consent Factory Essays are published by Consent Factory Publishing, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amalgamated Content, Inc. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.

Poilievre Got It All Wrong —-It’s The Rule Of Law Not Of Czars OR Guardians Or First Ministers Or Cabinets —And Respect For The Constitution, the Division of Powers , The Charter , Parliament —The People 

Well, we see now that ,as I have been saying for some time,  too many leaders in the Federal Conservative Party are no different than many of the leaders in the  Liberal Party of Canada . Just more of the same swampy status quo —-political convenience not adhering to the Constitution.  

 One of the Leadership Candidates Pierre Poilievre is proposing a top down solution not a people , parliamentary solution to the problem he sees in higher education and freedom of speech. Before even gaining the leadership position in his party he is already proposing  what most people see as what is wrong in this country—executive Government rather than parliamentary Government —the concentration of power in the executive and more recently , the last several decades, in the Prime Minister’s office. 

A Prime Minister creating a Guardian,  a Czar, to root out freedom of speech violations in academia. And then —is it the high schools, community colleges , vocational and technical schools———where does it end? Companies that get money from the Government? That’s just about everyone in today’s Canada. How about Education Departments and Health Departments? How about Municipal Institutions. All of this is Provincial under the Constitution. 

Has Mr. Poilievre noticed —Education, his first target,  is Provincial  under the constitution, the constitution he alleges he is protecting ??? Section 93 of the BNA Act says

‘93 In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education,————‘

Just create another bureaucrat to solve the problem . Its not more spying we need , its less. And if the Constitution is being violated then we must seek redress from the Judiciary.  

That’s why the Leader of the Peoples Party is in court, that’s why I am in court. That’s why other citizens are in court. 

Perhaps Mr. Poilievre and his Party would like to support our legal actions . Now that would be consistent with the rule of law . And if the system fails then it is up to the people to decide on reform and what types of reform. That is , there is a process for Constitutional Reform .

And before that if Mr. Poilievre is interested he could have his people review my Magna Carta proposals advanced at the Reclaim Canada Conference in Victoria a few weeks ago and available on my blog :www.peckford42.wordpress.com that do not involve constitutional change but reforming the present system under existing  law. 

It’s not more bureaucracy we need , it is more adherence to the law and reforming the three levels of our democracy if that is what is determined by —-the people through their parliaments. 

And a good place to start would be in Mr. Poilievre’s own party —like having his party publish publicly annual audited financial statements , and have his party sponsor a bill in the Federal  Parliament that no MP can serve in the Parliament if they have been found guilty of violating the law as determined by the Federal Ethics and Conflict of Interest Commissioner or a Court of Law. 

Democracy is tough and difficult and is not amenable to quick, easy solutions and can only last with the ongoing engagement of the people , their parliaments and honest political parties .

Perhaps before inflicting political convenient, constitutionally questionable proposals without due process ,  Mr. Poilievre should clean up his own party first , then make reform proposals that are consistent with the written and unwritten parts of our Constitution or seek through the Constitutional Amending formula  of the Constitution Act of 1982 , Constitutional Change.  


Magna Carta For Canada —My Speech On The Steps Of The BC Legislature Today( May 28) —Reclaim Canada Conference —A Proposal To Reclaim Canada

Canada’s Magna Carta—We, The Citizens of Canada Stand For—

A.  An Independent Public National Inquiry to Examine whether Government  (Federal, Provincial and Territorial) mandates and lockdowns were necessary and constitutional.  People in Government and their agencies who are found guilty of breaking the law after due process MUST be brought to Justice.

Such an Inquiry CANNOT be led by any of the Governments of Canada who are the major subjects of the Inquiry.  Instead, a Citizens Group MUST be formed for that purpose.   And these Governments and their agencies MUST open their books and release to the inquiry and the public all necessary relevant information concerning their actions during the pandemic.

B.  ALL Registered Political Parties In Canada Must Be Obligated By Law To Publish Audited Financial Statements ANNUALLY.  Right now, NONE of the Federal Parties who are in the House of Commons publish any audited financial statements.

C.  No Member of The Federal Parliament or members of Provincial Legislatures or Territorial Assemblies can sit in these chambers if they have BROKEN a Canadian law as determined by a court or an Ethics and Conflict of Interest Commissioner.  

D.  EVERY private members bill/resolution presented before a parliament in Canada must be debated and voted upon within six months of parliamentary sitting days from its introduction.

E.  All Judges of the Supreme Courts of the Provinces and Courts of Appeal, the Federal Courts and the Supreme Court of Canada MUST, BY LAW, have criteria established as to their qualifications to serve.  And all Government nominated candidates for those positions MUST be subject to a hearing by a parliamentary committee who would present to FULL Parliament their recommendations to approve or reject any nominated judge.  Parliament’s decision is FINAL.

F.  ALL Parliamentary Committees of all Canadian Parliaments MUST have safeguards whereby the majority on the Committee cannot close down those committees when the business of the Committee has not been completed—when there are citizens with relevant valuable information to be presented.

G.  All Governments of Canada MUST have balanced budget legislation enacted with no exceptions except in times of pending war or insurrection or the country’s existence is at stake.

H.  All Authorities responsible for primary, elementary and high school education MUST  enact curriculum measures to ensure Civics is a mandatory subject in each grade at Grade Eight and above.

l.  The power of the Prime Minister MUST be reduced.  The Prime Minister’s office and the Privy Council today has a workforce of over 1500 persons.  This MUST be reduced to not more than 500.  The more than 206 Departments and Agencies and the 320,00 Public Services, that work for them, can then get back to doing the work they were hired to do.

J.  There MUST be a three day Public First Ministers Conference ANNUALLY to discuss the pressing national issues of the day.  All Governments MUST publicly issue written statements at the Conference highlighting what they think are the national priorities.

K.  Canadian Courts hearing a Constitutional Case related to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms  MUST BE obligated to consider in their written rulings the two introductory concepts to the Charter —The Supremacy Of God and the Rule of Law.  NO DECISION rendered without a written consideration in the decision of these principles will be valid.

L.   Canada must remain a sovereign nation. Therefore no treaty or international regulations, of any kind, can be agreed to by Canada that in any way erode our nation’s sovereignty.

M.   Membership in any international organization MUST BE CONDITIONAL upon Canada remaining a completely sovereign nation.

David Bell, a scholar with Brownstone Institute , doctor, public  health official,  formerly worked for WHO , said this in an article this past week : 

‘Pressure to conform is strong and maintaining integrity carries risks. We all have families, jobs and lifestyles to protect. The belief of many that the ‘humanitarian’ sector was somehow different should by now be shattered. That is a good thing, as illusions do not help us and we need to recognize the historical reality that preserving personal comfort has often entailed throwing others under the bus. 

When the tide turns, the easiest approach is to turn with it. As a staff member of an international agency said to me recently – ‘the money is going into pandemic preparedness, you have to accept and go with it.

As an insight into humanity, this response is a disappointing one. We are always poorly served by cowardice. 

But recognizing how things are, and that help is not coming from those paid to do so, will strengthen the resolve of the rest of humanity to move forward without them, taking the future into their own hands. As, according to orthodox public health, they should.’

Unless we take matters in our own hands , and move forward with new paradigms , new structures , facing up to the brutal reality of our failed existing system we will be captured by corrupt mainstream political parties, a broken heath system where over 5 million Canadian are without  a regular physician , an education system that promotes failed economic and political  ideas , that denigrates our traditions and historical figures that helped create this nation, a press system that through coercion and money has become an arm of big Government , an economic system that depends on Government and where real free enterprise is stifled and fair , free trade is on its deathbed . 

A system that sees our society being run by the four horseman —big government, big press, big pharma and big tech , an Orwellian construct that with the dominance of a world order that wants the nation state reduced , the individual subject to dictates of an international unelected bureaucrat .

This is our fate without a New Magna Carta For Canada ..

The Little Napoleon Got His ComeUppance And——-

This fellow of France has finally met his match at the ballot box.

The French people are not happy with this fellow with an insecurity problem,  masking as a competent leader of the French. He failed to get the majority his pollster friends had predicted.  You know all that collusion and stuff so engrained in the swamp crowd. 

The yellow vests had a go —and perhaps helped more people to see and prevent the majority . 

He ( Macron) doth bestride the world with alleged solutions to almost all the world’s problems , and then cannot convince his own people of solutions to his own country’s problems. 

Quite the guy—-

It takes a lot for the progressives to see the error of their ways, but even the French have a breaking point—watching their country go down the drain to an international system that now begins to dilute the French nation state to a nebulous international system that tends to homogenize all. A race to the bottom. Even when things were going well for the French and Germans in this experiment it was all a mirage leveraged by money printing  masquerading as ‘quantitative easing .’

And then there are the Germans , still with active American soldiers on their soil ( when was that war again —-over in 1945??) , reopening coal fired generators to produce electricity, having been closed down a few years ago , meant to be permanent , promised to be permanent, as they naively , mistakenly brought back the intermittent medieval windmills ( 100,000 tons of windmill blade waste by 2025–free west media reports) denying the priority of ’ reason ‘ , the product of their own renaissance a few centuries ago. 

What are we to make of these two ‘European Powers ‘ as they now grapple, printing more money , to prop up one of the most corrupt nations in their region?