Recent Posts

June 28, 2021December 25, 2023

CPC Vice President, Valerie Assouline, Also A City Councillor in Dollard-des-Ormeaux (Island of Montreal)

Does anyone see it as a conflict of interest when a city councillor (regardless of which city) takes a prominent position with a national party? Who does this person represent? How would any potential dual loyalty be resolved?

Valerie Assouline is a lawyer, businesswoman, and mother of four. A dedicated volunteer in her community, she has been recently elected as City councillor in Dollard-des-Ormeaux (Island of Montreal), and as member of the Board of the Montreal Bar. Her political experience also includes being a candidate in both provincial (2014) and federal (2015) elections, as well as winning her campaign to be elected on the Conservative Party of Canada’s National Council (VP – Quebec).

Following her Bachelor’s degree in science (sociology), she graduated with a law degree from Université de Montréal, and she has been a member of the Quebec Bar Association since 1998. While studying for her Bar Exam, she had also founded a dynamic direct marketing company that employed around thirty people coast- to-coast. After a run across Canada to develop her company, she decided to focus entirely on her legal career and founded her own Montreal-based firm, SOS-LAWYERS. Her firm specializes in family law, divorce, youth protection, and civil law. In 2014, she joined the ranks of the Conservative Party of Canada, and represented them as a candidate in the Pierrefonds-Dollard riding during the 2015 General Elections. Her grassroots, on-the-ground campaign, helped by her popular Conservative-themed camping trailer, was much talked-about during and since the elections across the province of Quebec, allowing her to be elected as National Councillor to represent CPC members.

Will such a person use their position within the national party to secure more money and influence for their city? Would that person zealously stand up for the interests of the city district? What happens when these promises collide?

And it isn’t just her. The CPC National Secretary, Amber Ruddy, is a current pharma lobbyist. Robert Batherson, the CPC President, started up his own lobbying firm. CPC Leader, Erin O’Toole, is a former Facebook lobbyist. Thornhill Candidate, Melissa Lantsman, is a former pharma lobbyist.

(1) https://www.conservative.ca/
(2) https://www.conservative.ca/team-member/valerie-assouline/
(3) https://sosavocats.ca/en/about/
(4) https://www.westislandblog.com/dollard-lawyer-valerie-assouline-takes-death-of-7-year-old-granby-girl-case/

June 27, 2021March 17, 2022

More Pandemic Bucks For “Disinformation Prevention” Locally And Abroad; CIVIX

In addition to funding efforts to combat “misinformation” locally, Canadian taxpayers are apparently on the hook for efforts in the U.S., Colombia and Mali as well. Wonderful use of deficit spending.

RECENT GRANTS TO COMBAT “MISINFORMATION”:

NAME	DATE	AMOUNT
CIVIX	Feb. 23, 2021	$2,500,000
Dubois, Elizabeth	Mar. 22, 2021	$19,145
Elnakouri, Abdelrahman	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Farokhi, Zeinab	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Gagnon, Marc-Andre	Mar. 15, 2021	$20,000
Gauthier, Evelyne	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Hassanein, Khaled S.	Mar. 15, 2021	$20,000
Hastings, Colin	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Henderson, Monica J.	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
IFEX	Dec. 14, 2020	$799,704
Jagayat, Arvin S.	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Levitin, Daniel J.	Jan. 1, 2021	$395,909
Merkley, Eric	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Naffi, Nadia	Jan. 1, 2021	$99,081
Petrina, Stephen	Mar. 15, 2021	$20,000
Reed, Kathleen J.	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Russell, Gillian M.	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Search for Common Ground	Dec. 16, 2020	$2,573,553
Smythe, Suzanne K.M.	Jan. 1, 2021	$210,711
Stewart, Michelle	Jan. 1, 2021	$339,783
Tilleczek, Kate C.	Mar. 15, 2021	$20,000
United Nations Development Programme	Mar. 30, 2021	$5,000,197
WITNESS	Dec. 18, 2020	$1,000,197

Good to know that Canadians are forced to finance counter intelligence operations in other countries.

Locally, one of the biggest recipients of “misinformation prevention” grants is CIVIX. Now, who exactly is that?

CIVIX is a charity registered with the Canada Revenue Agency. This means that about half of the donations are a subsidy from taxpayers.

CIVIX Board Members

Francis LeBlanc – Chair, Former Executive Director, Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians
Chris Wilkins – Past Chair, CEO, Edge Interactive
Robert Asselin, Senior Director, Public Policy, Blackberry
Megan Beretta, Policy Analyst, Canadian Digital Service
Rachel Curran, Public Policy Manager, Canada, Facebook
Peter Donolo, Vice-Chairman, Hill+Knowlton Strategies Canada
Dr. Elizabeth Dubois, Assistant Professor of Communication, University of Ottawa
Kathleen Monk, Principal, Earnscliffe Strategies

Peter Donolo is a longtime political operative with the Liberal Party of Canada. Rachel Curran spent years with the Conservative Party of Canada. Interesting.

CIVIX is a non-partisan, national registered charity dedicated to building the skills and habits of active and engaged citizenship among young Canadians. Our vision is a strong and inclusive democracy where all young people are ready, willing and able to participate.
.
CIVIX was born through a merger between Operation Dialogue and Student Vote – two non-partisan organizations with a significant history of engaging Canadian youth.
.
Student Vote was founded by Taylor Gunn and Lindsay Mazzucco in 2002 to develop the capacity for informed and engaged citizenship among young Canadians. Student Vote parallel elections were organized for students under the voting age coinciding with official elections.
.
Operation Dialogue was established by the late Warren Goldring of AGF Management in 1999 to promote good citizenship through information and dialogue with the goal of enhancing each individual Canadian’s appreciation of our country. Its flagship program was the annual ‘Talk About Canada Quiz,’ which encouraged young Canadians to be more informed about their country.
.
Operation Dialogue and Student Vote aligned their strengths and assets and worked together to achieve a larger vision. Following a collaborative approach during 2011-2012, the organizations formally merged operations in 2013 and created CIVIX.
.
Since 2013, CIVIX has continued to run the Student Vote program and has developed exciting new programs to reach students between elections.

While previously covered here, CIVIX is run by political hacks, who have bipartisan connections in Ottawa. This “counter-misinformation” group is anything but organic.

It’s also interesting the ETFO, the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario, and OSSTF, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, are supporters. Do their members know about this?

One project that CIVIX runs is CTRL-F, and it’s funded by the Canadian Government. This is supposed to help people become more aware in checking out source material.

Admittedly, CTRL-F/CIVIX do produce some quality videos on the topic of verifying sources. However, they remain silent on the topic of media censorship by government and tech companies. Easy to be pro-journalism when one has their thumb on the scale.

DATE	AMOUNT
Jun. 13, 2014	$100,000
Jul. 24, 2014	$100,000
Apr. 30, 2015	$75,000
Feb. 17, 2016	$75,000
Mar. 24, 2016	$25,000
Feb. 24, 2017	$75,000
Feb. 24, 2017	$225,000
Apr. 1, 2017	$25,000
Mar. 23, 2018	$165,000
Apr. 1, 2018	$400,000
Apr. 1, 2018	$175,000
Nov. 15, 2018	$23,000
Dec. 10, 2018	$100,000
Apr. 1, 2019	$540,000
Jan. 1, 2020	$494,320
Apr. 1, 2020	$132,500
Apr. 1, 2020	$192,300
Feb. 23, 2021	$2,500,000

In case you think this group is harmless, just remember, tax money is used to finance this group. We pay to push political agendas here and abroad, and were never asked about this.

June 26, 2021December 6, 2021

Canadian Immunization Research Network, Which Evaluates Vaccines, Is Funded By Big Pharma

The Canadian Immunization Research Network is a group that receives substantial funding from drug companies, as well as Canadian taxpayers. Part of their mandate is evaluating vaccine effectiveness. Now, here’s where things start to get interesting.

Our Focus
CIRN’s goals remain consistent with that of PCIRN, however, the network will not be limited to influenza research alone. Rather, CIRN will cover a broader scope of research pertaining to all areas of vaccine, immunization, and infectious diseases. The network will strive to achieve the following goals:
.
(1) Continue to perform vaccine research to inform health policy in Canada.
(2) Maintain an active research network capable of immediate response to infectious disease threats in Canada.
(3) Further develop collaborations between Canadian vaccine experts.
(4) Train the next generation of pandemic vaccine researchers.
(5) Perform applied public health research and vaccine evaluations of high priority for Canadian health decision makers.

In their “focus section“, the CIRN mentions that evaulating vaccines of high priority for Canadian decision makers is something they do. So, are these the people who ensured these experimental “vaccines” got interim authorization.

Also, considering that Pfizer/BioNtech is one of the products that got the emergency authorization, isn’t this a conflict of interest? After all, Pfizer is one of the major donors.

According to their financial statements, almost $24 million of the $59 million that the CIRN has received since 2009 has come from industry sources. Considering that Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi are listed as partners, the bulk of it probably was from them.

Pfizer has been lobbying Ottawa for years to get its products distributed here. One of its officials, Steven Hogue, worked in the Prime Minister’s Office back when Jean Chretien was in charge.

GlaxoSmithKline is another one that’s busy in Ottawa. Lobbyists for the company have ties to both the Liberal and Conservative Parties of Canada. In fact, Amber Ruddy, the Secretary of the National Council of the CPC, used to be a GSK lobbyist. Sanofi is involved in this as well.

This should be red flag for people. Pharmaceutical companies, involved in lobbying Ottawa and trying to sell products, are also financing the “independent” group that evaluates their effectiveness.

CIRN conducts a variety of research studies throughout the year, and many of these studies are multi-year projects. Often there are opportunities for members of the public to participate in studies in their local area; the Research Studies descriptions provide an overview of the study and indicate whether the study is active and recruiting.
.
Each research study funded by the CIRN Network will address one or more of the 5 following research area priorities:
.
(1) Rapid evaluation of candidate vaccines for safety and immunogenicity in persons of all ages;
(2) Population based methods to evaluate vaccine effectiveness and safety following release for general use;
(3) Vaccine hesitancy and evaluation of strategies to address hesitancy;
(4) Vaccine coverage, including isolated communities and cohorts of concern; and
(5) Adverse events following immunization.

CIRN funds research into a variety of subtopics, including vaccine hesitancy. This refers to the normal reluctance to put strange medications into one’s body. They are also involved in trying to convince pregnant women to take it. Research has also been done into proper messaging for Public Health Officials, as in, what lines or scripts are most effective. Another was using the internet to explain to why large portions of the public may be reluctant to take this.

Considering the amount of money CIRN gets from drug companies, there is an obvious dual loyalty presented here.

It’s not a stretch to call these “vaccine hesitancy” projects a form of marketing. Pfizer, GSK and Sanofi are studying their target markets, to see what techniques work.

CIRN has also received a number of grants from PHAC and the CIHR. Some of that is listed below.

June 25, 2021June 25, 2021

Bill C-36: Red Flag Laws In The Name Of Preemptively Combatting Hate Speech

Bill C-36 has been introduced into the House of Commons. It would be fair to describe portions of this as a “red flag” law. People can be subjected to Court restrictions simply based on the suspicion that they may engage in hate speech or hate propaganda.

Welcome to the Pre-Crime Unit, and the Minority Report

Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime
810.‍012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit
(a) an offence under section 318 or subsection 319(1) or (2);
(b) an offence under subsection 430(4.‍1); or
(c) an offence motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.
Appearances

(2) The provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.

Adjudication
(3) If the provincial court judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months.

Duration extended
(4) However, if the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of any offence referred to in subsection (1), the judge may order that the defendant enter into the recognizance for a period of not more than two years.

Refusal to enter into recognizance
(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.

Conditions in recognizance
(6) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant, including conditions that
(a) require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes that request;
(b) require the defendant to return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times;
(c) require the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, except in accordance with a medical prescription, of alcohol or of any other intoxicating substance;
(d) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation on the demand of a peace officer, a probation officer or someone designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(a) to make a demand, at the place and time and on the day specified by the person making the demand, if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant has breached a condition of the recognizance that requires them to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance;
(e) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation at regular intervals that are specified, in a notice in Form 51 served on the defendant, by a probation officer or a person designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(b) to specify them, if a condition of the recognizance requires the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance; or
(f) prohibit the defendant from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person identified in the recognizance, or refrain from going to any place specified in the recognizance, except in accordance with the conditions specified in the recognizance that the judge considers necessary.

Conditions — firearms
(7) The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the defendant’s safety or that of any other person, to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all of those things. If the judge decides that it is desirable to do so, the judge shall add that condition to the recognizance and specify the period during which it applies.

Surrender, etc.
(8) If the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall specify in the recognizance how the things referred to in that subsection that are in the defendant’s possession shall be surrendered, disposed of, detained, stored or dealt with and how the authorizations, licences and registration certificates that are held by the defendant shall be surrendered.

Reasons
(9) If the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall include in the record a statement of the reasons for not adding it.

Variance of conditions
(10) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant, the Attorney General or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance.

Other provisions to apply
(11) Subsections 810(4) and (5) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to recognizances made under this section.

-A person can be ordered to appear before a Provincial Court
-A Judge can order a person to enter into a Recognizance for 12 months
-That Recognizance can last for 24 months if there is a prior conviction
-A person can be jailed for 12 months for refusing a Recognizance
-A person can be ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device
-A person can be subjected to a curfew
-A person can be ordered to abstain from alcohol
-A person can be subjected to drug/alcohol testing
-That drug/testing can be ordered at regular intervals
-A person can be subjected to a no contact order (of 3rd parties)
-A person can be prohibited from going to certain places
-A person may be subjected to other conditions

Keep in mind, all of these conditions can be imposed, simply because of the SUSPICION that a hate crime will be committed, or hate propaganda will be distributed.

Not only is the Canadian Criminal Code to be amended, but the Canadian Human Rights Code will be as well, to implement fines and cessation orders. There doesn’t seem to be real standard for what counts as hate speech.

Canadian Human Rights Act
Amendments to the Act
2013, c. 37, s. 1
12 Section 4 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:
Orders regarding discriminatory practices
4 A discriminatory practice, as described in sections 5 to 14.‍1, may be the subject of a complaint under Part III and anyone found to be engaging or to have engaged in a discriminatory practice may be made subject to an order as provided for in section 53 or 53.‍1.
.
13 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 12:
Communication of hate speech
.
13 (1) It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Continuous communication
.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person who communicates or causes to be communicated hate speech continues to do so for as long as the hate speech remains public and the person can remove or block access to it.

Complaint substantiated — section 13
53.‍1 If at the conclusion of an inquiry the member or panel conducting the inquiry finds that a complaint relating to a discriminatory practice described in section 13 is substantiated, the member or panel may make one or more of only the following orders against the person found to be engaging or to have engaged in the discriminatory practice:
(a) an order to cease the discriminatory practice and take measures, in consultation with the Commission on the general purposes of the measures, to redress the practice or to prevent the same or a similar practice from recurring;
(b) an order to pay compensation of not more than $20,000 to any victim personally identified in the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice, for any pain and suffering that the victim experienced as a result of that discriminatory practice, so long as that person created or developed, in whole or in part, the hate speech indicated in the complaint;
(c) an order to pay a penalty of not more than $50,000 to the Receiver General if the member or panel considers it appropriate having regard to the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the discriminatory practice, the wilfulness or intent of the person who is engaging or has engaged in the discriminatory practice, any prior discriminatory practices that the person has engaged in and the person’s ability to pay the penalty.
Award of costs
53.‍2 A member or panel conducting an inquiry into a complaint filed on the basis of section 13 may award costs for abuse of process in relation to the inquiry.

According to the revisions in the Act, “hate speech” will be ongoing as long as the material is available publicly, and could be removed. A person can also be ordered to be $20,000 to each victim, and $50,000 to the panel itself.

Problem with all of this, “hate speech” is disturbingly vague. It could be applied subjectively, depending on the politics of the parties involved.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=11452710
(2) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-36/first-reading
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-69.html#docCont
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-91.html#h-122977

June 24, 2021June 24, 2021

Ontario’s “Re-Education” Training For Health Care Workers Refusing “Vaccines”

Pretty Orwellian, isn’t is? The above video is from a health care worker in Ontario, one who has been forced to undergo “reeducation” as a result of refusing the experimental, unapproved “vaccine”. While it’s impossible to 100% verify that this is authentic, it’s consistent with the programming that Ford has already sent out.

Thank you to whoever produced this.

TORONTO — Workers at long-term care homes who chose not to receive a COVID-19 vaccine will soon have to participate in an educational program on the benefits of vaccination, unless they can provide proof of a medical reason for refusing the shot.

The Doug Ford government has announced that all 626 long-term care homes in Ontario will have to have immunization polices in place for staff that will, at a minimum, require workers who do not get both doses of the COVID-19 vaccine to “participate in an educational program about the benefits of vaccination and the risks of not being vaccinated.

The policy takes effect July 1 and the only exception will be for staff who can provide a “documented medical reason for not being vaccinated,” the province say.

Welcome to the Ministry Of Truth.

It’s important to note: these are not “approved vaccines”. They are given interim authorization as a result of an emergency order. They aren’t really vaccines either.

This tutorial, and other government propaganda, don’t bother to mention that there are no long term studies about the effects. Nor do they discuss the testing deficiencies, such as no testing for pregnant women, nursing mothers, children, carcinogenicity, or toxicity. No evidence of fertility issues…. yes, because testing for it was never done.

Also noteworthy: there’s no mention that the manufacturers are indemnified against liability. This means they cannot be sued, regardless of what damages can be proven.

Interesting that there is the statement that death soon after injection doesn’t necessarily mean the vaccine was responsible. That distinction was never made for “Covid deaths”.

No mention of the fact that even from the Government of Canada’s own data, the overwhelming majority of cases get better on their own.

These are just a few of the questions that aren’t addressed.

Ever get the sense they are trying too hard?

(1) https://rumble.com/vis5wt-propaganda-course-for-ltc-in-ontario-if-you-refuse-the-vax.html?fbclid=IwAR2SO_d7nEjKJQ3GF-EONMLr_zEig3tudLL8wIyh6GECF_M-VZ02ErFdbY4
(2) https://www.facebook.com/groups/137204671811144/permalink/144676727730605/
(3) https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/unvaccinated-ontario-long-term-care-workers-will-have-to-participate-in-educational-program-1.5450034
(4) https://www.hrreporter.com/focus-areas/safety/ontario-mandates-immunization-policies-for-long-term-care-homes/356705

June 24, 2021June 24, 2021

A Guide For Spotting Controlled Opposition Among “Lockdown Critics” (My Take)

There are a few ways the press can do this. “Journalists” can quite openly support government restrictions, and take their subsidies. They can provide the faintest opposition to it. They cover stories while leaving out important details. None of this helps the public.

This problem exists in political spheres as well. Politicians can generally be lumped into 1 of 2 categories:

[1] Pro-Vaccine, Pro-Lockdown/Restriction
[2] Pro-Vaccine, Anti-Lockdown/Restriction

See how this works? Even the lockdown resisters support poisoning the public with God knows what.

DISCLAIMER: People who are unaware of certain things should not be lumped into this. If a person is genuinely oblivious, then they should be given the chance to get informed. The following distinction typically applies to politicians, media and other public figures.

There are the points that it’s acceptable to oppose, and to publicly come out against. Typically, they will only oppose the coercion element, but support the overall plan. Granted, they are still ahead of the subsidized media, and most politicians

ACCEPTABLE TOPICS TO OBJECT TO:
-Vaccine passports should be opposed
-Vaccines must be voluntary
-Forced PCR testing must be prevented
-Modelling projections don’t justify what’s happening
-Business closures are unjustified
-Media isn’t reporting what’s really happening
-Travel bans/restrictions are unjustified
-Mask mandates accomplish little

UNACCEPTABLE TOPICS TO OBJECT TO:
-Companies like Pfizer and their sketchy history
-The vaccines are experimental
-The vaccines have “interim authorization” not approval
-The vaccines have another 1 to 2 years of testing
-There are no longitudinal studies on the effects of such vaccines
-Governments handing out money to “increase vaccine confidence”
-Manufacturers are indemnified against lawsuits or legal action
-PCR testing is completely fraudulent when used in this way
-Modelling is a bogus pseudo-science
-This “virus” has never been isolated, possibly doesn’t exist
-Virus patents owned by Gates, Rothschild
-Media in Canada is being heavily subsidized
-Media in Canada is paid to not report the full truth
-“Fact Checker” groups in Canada are heavily subsidized
-Masks cause long term health problems, and this is done deliberately
-Biological tracking has been in the works for a long time
-Larger social agenda at play here, Great Reset
-People like Gates, Bell, Rockefeller are eugenicists
-These scenarios have been going on for years (Dark Winter, Atlantic Storm, Theresa Tam’s film, Clade X, Event 201….)
-Politicians are lobbied for their stance. (See below)

It gets a bit trickier when a public figure will wade a little bit into the unacceptable topics. That said, this should distinguish between the people pretty accurately.

Of course, there is another type to watch out for. There are people who tell the truth, but conduct themselves in such a way as to deliberately appear crazy. This is extremely off putting to the normies.

Jordan Peterson became famous for rejecting authoritarianism and compelled speech for gender pronouns. That said, he asks people to “suspend judgement another 6 months”, and supports mass vaccinating the public.

Maxime Bernier made a name for himself opposing lockdown measures. However, he still supports vaccinating Canadians, and claims to have recommended to his own father to get it. To be fair, Derek Sloan may very well be controlled as well, given his fairly tame objections.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis became a bit of a folk hero in Canada for his recent stances, particularly coming out against vaccine passports. That said, he still supports mass vaccinating his people his an experimental, unapproved concoction, with the manufacturers indemnified. See this earlier piece.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott, much like DeSantis made headlines by banning vaccine passports. That being said, he still supports injecting people in his own state, on a major scale.

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem is held in high regard for not imposing any lockdown measures in her state. That said, she is completely on board with the vaccination agenda.

Do you get it now? All of these supposed “freedom fighters” still want to inject everyone with the experimental poison. These people are not on our side.

One would think that this admission from John Bell (AstraZeneca Chief) would lead to immediate demands to pull the drug, and open criminal investigations. Strangely, it hasn’t.

(1) Unifor, Media, In Bed With Gov’t, $595M
(2) Government Subsidizes Media To Ensure Positive Coverage
(3) Postmedia Subsidies/Connections, Lack Of Real Journalism
(4) Nordstar; Torstar; Metroland Media; Subsidies & Monopoly
(5) Aberdeen Publishing Takes Handouts, Ignores Real Issues
(6) More Periodicals Taking Grants, Parroting Gov’t Narrative
(7) Tri-City News, LMP Pulls Bonnie Henry Article; Pandemic Bucks
(8) Subsidized Fact-Check Outlets Run By Political Operatives
(9) Groups Funded By Tax Dollars To Combat “Misinformation”
(10) PHAC Supporting #ScienceUpFirst Counter Intel Effort
(11) Even More Subsidies Canadian Outlets Are Dependent On
(12) Media, Banks, Credit Unions Getting CEWS
(13) John Tory’s Sister Board Member At Bell; CEWS; Subsidies
(14) Advertising And Marketing In Promoting “Pandemic” Narrative
(15) NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR Grants In “Confidence”; Mandatory Vaxx

CPC Vice President, Valerie Assouline, Also A City Councillor in Dollard-des-Ormeaux (Island of Montreal)

Like this:

Canadian Immunization Research Network, Which Evaluates Vaccines, Is Funded By Big Pharma

Like this:

Ontario’s “Re-Education” Training For Health Care Workers Refusing “Vaccines”

Like this:

A Guide For Spotting Controlled Opposition Among “Lockdown Critics” (My Take)

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: