Shaun Newman Podcast - #729 - Tanner Hnidey & Leighton Grey

Episode Date: October 17, 2024

Leighton is a senior partner and lawyer at Grey Wowk Spencer LL. with a Ph.D. in Philosophy and host of the Grey Matter Podcast. Tanner is an economist, freelance speaker, social critic and author of “Kingdom of Cain”. We discuss the Tanner running for city council, the Alberta Bill of Rights, why Alberta is different and ruling by consensus.  Cornerstone Forum ‘25https://www.showpass.com/cornerstone25/ Clothing Link:⁠⁠⁠https://snp-8.creator-spring.com/listing/the-mashup-collection⁠⁠ Text Shaun 587-217-8500 Substack:https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcast E-transfer here: [e-mail] Silver Gold Bull Links: Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/ Email: [e-mail] Text Grahame: [phone]

This is Chris Sims. This is Tom Romago. This is Chuck Pradnik. This is Alex Kraner. This is Daniel Smith. And welcome to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Thursday.

How's everybody doing today? Before we get into, well, a whole lot of things, let's talk some silver, gold, bull. They are my go-to for precious metals with their complete in-house solutions, whether buying, selling, storing, or adding precious metals to your retirement accounts. You know, they say gold is a measure. of trust in the government, okay, the price of it. So let's hop on silvergoldbill.com.

Where you can see the actual chart, and look at this. It is at all-time highs, $3,600 an ounce. There you go. That's the price of it. And I'm just, I'm going to flip over to silver. It's nice and easy. On silver gold bowl, you could just like pull up the chart and see what it's at. Okay.

Back in 20 September, oh, no, wait, wait, wait, wait. and April of 2011 it hit $41.4. Currently, where we sit today, $42.95 for an ounce of silver. Just trying, you know, whenever I say, you know, I've been saying this lots, you know, it's a measure of trust in the government, and I say it's plummeting. I say, well, historically speaking, gold's never been higher, silver's never been higher, and, well, what does that tell you about trust in government? I think it says everything you need to know.

And for SMP listeners, that Silver Gold Bull's got a little exclusive offer for you. Quarter ounce gold coins from the Royal Canadian Mint. For anyone looking to protect, not buy, looking to protect their savings with physical gold, these low-cost, fractional coins are great buy. They got a whole bunch of other things, a whole bunch of other things on the site as well. Silvergoldbill.com. I don't know if my tongue's going to work today at Thursday. But regardless, if you're heading there and you're buying anything,

make sure to let them know, S&P or they're. the Sean Newman podcast sent you. It helps me. It helps me. It helps you know that you find folks are paying attention, which you certainly are. McGowan professional, chartered accountants, Kristen and team, they've been on the hunt for a CPA. I keep talking about it. I'm not going to stop until we find it. They've been turning customers away.

It's pretty simple. Their business is a booming, and they can't take on anymore until they find a qualified person to help alleviate some of the load. Of course, they offer accounting, bookkeeping, business consulting, and training, financial planning, and tax planning. For more information in regards to them, go to McGowanCPA.ca. You can shoot me a text. I can always put you in touch with Kristen as well. Substack, it's free to subscribe, folks. Every Sunday, 5 p.m., it's become standard now. I think we're on to, this will be, this was week nine of it, and next, this coming Sunday will be week 10. And in my books, that's, well, that's about as consistent as you're going to get every week at 5 p.m. you're going to get a week in review.

And for paid subscribers, the only place you can subscribe to the podcast, you're going to get a little preview of Monday's episode. We're working on some value ads. I know I keep saying that, but I want to make sure that when I start it, I don't just flop on it. I want to make sure that it keeps coming. But for all you people who don't like, you people, for all you people that don't like getting your email inbox blown up,

no worries. It's one email right now. It is on Sundays at 5 p.m. Like I say, it's become a, It's become almost therapeutic for me on my side. It's been really enjoyable to kind of put together the week, show it off, and then let you guys discuss. And, you know, if you can't catch up on everyone,

you can go watch a two-minute video and be like, oh, I missed that. I didn't see that. It's really helpful for that. The Cornerstone Forum returns. Yeah, you better mark your calendars. May 10th, 2025. And we are journeying to, does that word journeying? We are on our way.

I don't know why that sounds so weird. We are on our way to Calgary, Alberta. That's where the next one is going to be. Here's some details you might want to know about it. It's going to be at the Winsport. I'm going to be announcing hotels here, hopefully before the end of the year, folks. I want to make sure I get everybody a solid deal if you're heading into Calgary. The three confirmed keynote speakers include Tom Longo, Alex Craneer, Chuck Prodnick.

I've got two guest hosts so far confirmed this year. Chris Sims from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and Tom Bodrovics from PalisadeG Gold Radio. So this is going, it's going to be similar to that. If you made it last year or you watched it on Substack, because if you subscribe and pay for Subscrap, subscribe, I don't know what's happened to my voice today, my tongue today, not my voice. If you pay, if you're a paid member of Substack,

you can go back and watch the entirety of the first Cornerstone forum. Regardless, it's the same format, but we're going to be tweaking some things. And in those tweaks, obviously you're hearing an extra host. Maybe you're going, oh, interesting. We're also adding in a trade show. I'm hoping to have more details on that soon as well. And early bird tickets are up,

which means you can get the cheapest ticket possible right now for a limited time. No worries, more details coming out at that. And I will forewarn you when they're going away. This all wouldn't be possible, especially in Calgary, Alberta, of all places. If it wasn't for Silver Gold Bull and Bow Valley Credit Union, those two have stepped up to be major sponsors of this event. I think it's going to be, well, something. And I look forward to seeing hopefully all of you join me.

there for an electric day on May 10th, 2025. All right, let's get on the tail of the tape. Oh, wait one second. Hold on. It's Thursday. Sean's skipping things. How about this? We got three tables left.

Where am I going today, folks? We have three tables left for the S&P Christmas that's dueling pianos at the Gold Horse Casino on November 29. Three tables left. So if you've been dragging your feet, don't drag them anymore. There's only a couple tables. well, a few tables, three tables, to be exact, left for November 29th here in Lloydminster at the Gold Horse Casino.

All right, now we can get on to the tale of the tape. The first is a senior partner and lawyer at Grey Walk Spencer L.L. With his Ph.D. in Philosophy and host of the Grey Matter podcast. The second, an economist, freelance speaker, social critic, and author of Kingdom of Cain. I'm talking about Leighton Gray and Tanner Nadey. So buckle up. Here we go. Welcome to the Shrodh Newman podcast.

This is, you know, it's always fun having multiple guys in the studio, but I'm running around with my head chopped off a little bit. You know, getting things ready. Anyways, I'm excited to have you boys in. I'm joined by Layton Gray, Tanner today. Boy, so thanks for hopping in. My pleasure. Always a pleasure to be here and also with Tanner. It is.

Same thing. Pleasure to be with Leighton and you. Now, I don't know. Do we want to start on the, we can go further out. We can talk Alberta politics. We can draw it in a little closer and start in Lloyd. Where do you want to start? Let's start with Lloyd.

I want to hear about Tanner's campaign. Yeah, sure. So let's, I think to the audience, I think most people probably know, but at the same time, have you become like many, a fixture on the podcast? You've been on lots. And you have some big news. So rattle it off. It's true.

The big news is I'm running for city council in the Lloyd Minster elections that are happening on November 13th. And the reason I'm running primarily is when we go and speak, you know, me and others speak at a bunch of town halls across the province and events and so on, we always talk about, particularly during the question and answer portion of the speech, how important it is for individuals to become involved in the political process. You know, we look at what happened over the last how many years here. And you can trace a map to show how so much of what the government did and what they were allowed. to do happen because of apathy, right? Individual apathy. We weren't involved in politics. We let the

government do what they wanted. And as a consequence, we suffered very terribly for it. And so we say at these events now, if we want to ensure that doesn't happen again, we have to be involved in the political process. And I think that, you know, that happens in a variety of different ways. I know Layton's Bill of Rights and so on. The Alberta Bill of Rights is an excellent example of that, but I'm not a lawyer. And so I thought, at time to take my own advice and become involved in the way that I thought I'd be most useful, which was, or which is, with council. So I'm running for council. It's exciting.

It's been fun. Yeah, it's been fun. I think it's great that you're getting involved. You want to pull that, Mike, just a little smoother. Sure. Yeah, just a little touch in you. I think it's great that you're getting involved at the municipal level, because a lot of people don't realize that a great deal of the federal government

overreach that's happening is being done through infiltration of municipalities. And in fact, it's so severe that not that long ago, the provincial government, the Smith government, actually stepped in and basically told the federal government to stop going to municipalities and offering them money to... Well, isn't that the housing accelerator fund, right? That's one of them. But also they've been presenting 15-minute cities. What you're seeing at Evanton right now is an example of the federal government giving our tax dollars to municipalities in order to institute to, rezoning there, which is going to fundamentally change the way people live and move and work and breathe in in, in, in Edmonton. Another example of the importance of this is recently there was a lot of

talk about the Green Line project in Calgary. People forget it was the federal government that came in and promised Calgary all kinds of money to build that. And so now the Smith government recently came in and said, hey, wait a minute, this is not going to be built out the way that you thought it was going to because the federal government had issued a broken promise, which Trudeau does a lot, especially to indigenous people. That's another topic. But now we see the province on a lot of fronts coming in and saying, you know what, federal government get in your lane,

but what is happening in Alberta and places like Alberta and Saskatchewan, which are, let's say, flexing in terms of their provincial authority to the federal government is the federal government's trying to do an end run. and going to municipalities. And they even tried to institute 50-minute cities in a community as small as old, so if you can believe it. Well, I can believe it. Because, I mean, we're 15-minute city discussion

has come all the way down to Lloydminster, right? Like, I mean. Yeah. And it's textbook Agenda 2030, which Prime Minister Trudeau recently was abroad and made a speech that nobody listened to, nobody attended in the UN. And he said,

repeated Canada's commitment to Agenda 2030. I don't know many Canadians who are committed to Agenda 2030, especially in Alberta. But this is one of the one of the center pieces of that agenda is the 15-minute city, which they tried even in Paris during COVID. If anybody's been to Paris or knows about Paris, if the 50-minute city could exist anywhere, it would be Paris. We have a very sophisticated transportation system. abundant public transportation, a very, very modern and ancient European city, and it failed there,

even under the strictures of COVID. So how on earth could it operate or succeed in a place like Evanston where I grew up? I can't even imagine it. No, I don't know. Like, to me, I would, well, actually, no, we're going to do this because I keep forgetting to do this. Here, let's start here, okay? Thanks for, thanks for rolling into the studio, boys. Okay.

We're going to talk 15-minute cities, but if we're going to talk 15-minute cities, let's talk a little silver and gold first, shall we? Sure. Silver Gold Bull. Anyone who comes in person to the studio gets a one-ounce silver coin. That stuff is going up and up and up. So thanks for... $30 an ounce as I saw yesterday in silver.

I think that's American. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Sorry. Yeah, okay. Yeah, because Canadian, it's higher than that. Yes. Yeah, I appreciate you, you boys answering the call to come in the studio.

It's always, you both know this because you've both been on plenty of shows. You've obviously late in your show where you host people. It's always, you know, technology is amazing. But when you get to sit across from people and interact, it's just a thousand. I'm envious that you get to do it. Yeah. Well, do it. We don't get to do it near enough, right?

But we somehow find people out to Lloyd Minster. Including the premier? Including the premier. Yeah, absolutely, yes. Now, this 15-minute city thing, you know, because I've had lots of people bring it up to me, right? Because it's become, you think where we were four years ago, maybe less, if somebody brought up 15-minute city, most people, what the hell is that? Yeah.

Right? Here in Lloyd, the entire place is a 15-minute city, right? Like, I mean, you can get across Lloyd, even in rush hour, in less than 15 minutes. So it's the concept of 15-minute that nobody understands because they're like, I don't get it. Don't we want things to be convenient? And it's like, well, yes. But where it gets into the nefarious part of this is when you put on everything that

happened to COVID and what they want to continue to try and do. Now, is it 20 years in the future? Is it next year? I don't know. But that's the nefarious part of the 15-minute city, right? When you look at Eminton, you go like, well, what are they putting 15 minutes? You know, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to go, we just went through it, and they're trying to implement more controls on you.

to help save the climate and probably three other things. Yeah. Yeah, to be honest, the number that the time that we place in front of the term city, whether it's 15 or 20 or 30 minutes, it's irrelevant. It doesn't really matter what number that is, to be honest. Because like you mentioned, the nefarious part of it is what comes as a consequence of pursuing this agenda. So you have zoning restrictions and you have rules and regulations about what you can and can't do. And of course, government says, oh, no, that's not coming.

It's such a beautiful idea, but that's always the way Babylon works, right? It looks beautiful from the outside, and then you get into it and you go, oh, this actually isn't so pretty. It's not so beautiful. Actually, it looks much more like a dystopia than it does a utopia, right? And so, yeah, we're not as concerned with the number that's in front. It's just the concept itself of government telling you where to go, where you should send your kids to school and so on and so on and so on, gradually restricting your freedoms until one day you wake up, and they're, they've totally vanquential. right? They've been completely conquered by government. Yeah. It's the way it works. It's always like a

Trojan horse. Yes. One of the features of it in Canada that they don't talk about is it goes hand in glove with multiculturalism, which is another really evil agenda, which even Angela Merkel has said is an utter failure. That's what she said. So she described it. But how it fits in with 50-minute cities is that, you know, we have massive numbers of people coming over to Canada right now. In fact, the UN just announced that they want to bring 600 million, 600 million people to the United States and Canada. Well, the way that it fits in with a 50-minute city is that it actually promotes the type of ghettoization that has happened in places like Sweden and Belgium and elsewhere.

And it's happening in Canada, too. You see this happening in the United States. We've heard stories about a whole apartment complex as being taken over by Venezuelan gangs. So 50-minute city would only promote that. type of ghettoization would prevent integration of people into broader society, which is the original plan and which is the useful type of immigration, which has made countries like Canada and the United States great. That is a shared vision of what a country is and bringing in people from around the world who want to be part of it, who contribute to it, come over here and build

families and businesses and careers and lives generationally. That Canada has been a multi-ethnic society, not a multicultural one. Multiculturalism is actually a Marxist economic Trojan horse. And I'll defer to the economist in the room here. But I dare say he would agree. Multiculturalism is a fallacy and a dangerous one that is actually destroying places like Canada and Australia and the United States really throughout the Western world. And interestingly, it doesn't exist in other parts of the world. Douglas Murray recently was on a podcast and he said, isn't it interesting that an English person can live generationally in places like India or China,

but never become Indian or Chinese, but someone lands in Canada or the United States and instantly is a Canadian or an American, even though they haven't really done anything to earn that or be worthy of that, at least of all, to understand and know, what the customs are, what our history is, what our laws are, or nor even want to be part of that. So that's the problem with multiculturalism. That's one of the problems.

But, you know, 50-minute cities, people should understand it goes hand and glove with all the other agenda 30 stuff, sorry, agenda 2030 stuff, which is unspeakably evil. He's right. Layton, he's dead on the mark, right? The multi-culturalism is, it is a Trojan horse, right? The fallacy of it is the idea that you can have two cultures which are diametrically opposed to each other in their views existing simultaneously with each other. You can't. How? How am I supposed to live with a group of individuals that say who believe that women shouldn't have the right to vote? Like that it's so contrary to classical Canadian values that it's impossible that the two should live together. And you see it in Canada, right? Look at the violence that's increasing all across the country. The cultures aren't meshing together.

It's not just two cultures. There's three, four, five, six, ten, twenty, right? And so it's causing this fracture in society in which all of these individual cultures are vying for supremacy in the nation and one will take over, right? One culture will reign supreme. There is one which will be most powerful

and it will be a culture that says no other culture is allowed to exist. You have to then, so you see how it works, right? You fracture the society first with multiculturalism so that all the groups are so busy fighting each other that they don't have time to focus on, you know, the big real issues at hand. And as that's going on, one culture rises up. It gains power steadily and, well, actually almost instantaneously, to be honest.

One day they don't have it the next day they do. And now that that culture is supreme and most powerful, they can institute what they will in society. Like you will have a supreme culture. There is one. It's going to happen, just the way the world works. So the question is what culture ought to be supreme. And then I think Layton would agree with this, right?

As far as we're concerned, it's the Christian worldview, right? Because Christ was raised from the dead. That's the supreme culture. It's what Canada was founded on. The Constitution was founded on it, and so on and so on. And so it's what should be supreme. That is the law of the land in Canada, or it should be. And if you don't agree with it, then don't come to Canada.

Interestingly, even atheists agree. Richard Dawkins has recently quoted it and saying that, talking about something called cultural Christianity, which is to say, and this is coming from somebody who is a vociferous, opponent of all religions, but he said he wants to live in a society that is culturally Christian that has Judeo-Christian values because that is the one that is best designed to promote and permit human flourishing, tolerance of religious beliefs, different cultures, indeed promotion of them. So even atheists, even the apex of the atheist religion, and it is a religion,

folks think that Judeo-Christian values are what we need in order to have a free and democratic society. I mean, just walk around. You know, if you start, you start, you know, you go down the prepping rabbit hole, right? And then you just, you start walking around and like, in the sink, we just leave every door unlocked. You can walk into all these stores. I walked in the shoppers drug money the other night, okay?

It's 8 o'clock at night. I forget what I was picking up. It doesn't matter. and now you got all these self-checkouts. Yeah. Okay? There wasn't a staff at the front door. I mean, sure, it would have beeped.

But there wasn't a staff. I remember looking around being like, I could just walk out the door. Yeah. What is holding me here to pay? Now, obviously, our values in this country, our culture in this country holds you there, and you go, and I'm going to pay,

and I paid for it, and I'm like, but if you were from somewhere else, and I'm not saying that they don't have culture that's similar, but regardless, it's got to be weird. I'm sitting in shopper's drug mart. Nobody's there. And I'm not looting the place.

I'm not taking things I don't need. I'm paying for everything I got. And I'm like, this is getting a little bit weird. Like the fact that you could walk in. And once again, we stand on the people that built this country to where you can do that. And you don't have to have, you know, like, you know, in the states they have concealing carry or open carry for that matter. And one of the things about this nation that's, you've got to fight for it is this ability. that we're not walking around terrified all the time.

And when you talk about violence, it's creeping. Because, you know, you just look at Lloyd and you start talking to people about how in the middle of the day, I don't know, don't walk downtown and go to the gym. I don't know. Right? Yeah, it's only 50 years ago. You would be waving at everybody. Yeah.

Now, so on one sense, I go, you can't walk downtown. And on the other sense, I go, I walk into Shopper's Drug Mart, which is on the other side. of town. And there's nobody in there. I mean, there must have been staff somewhere, but I'm like, walk in, check out myself. I'm like, that was a strange experience. Well, this is a really important point. It's, um, in the Western world, we've lived under trust based societies. That's what you're talking about when you're in the shopper's drug mark, but it applies across the board, you know, your relationship with your doctor, relationship with your lawyer, uh, your butcher, your podcaster, right? We have relationships of trust everywhere.

These don't exist everywhere. People need to understand. This is unique to Western culture. And globalism is set upon destroying that, and all these agendas flow like rivers into the ocean. And the ocean is globalism because the globalist ideology, the people who want to destroy everything that we're talking about and everything that we love about, Canada and the Western world, they want total technocratic control of everything that we do, constant surveillance, and that is the very antithesis of a trust-based society. And believe you me, it's not anything that we want.

Great Britain is going through torment right now because they are, now the entire society is under surveillance, at least in the cities. And so people are getting arrested based. upon social media posts, yeah. And coming soon to Canada. Yeah, I might be talking about three criminals here. The laws already in place. Yeah.

Well, you look at where, you know, like, I got talking, so I went on an interview to a hundred, 99-year-old man, soon to be 100 in January in Carrott River. And once again, I think I already did this once, but I showed out to Vern Crawford for bringing me out there to interview his father Bill. And, you know, like I got sitting around with another lady. and, you know, basically she was just like, so what are you concerned about today? And I'm like, well, that's an open topic.

All right, let's have had her. You know, because like, she's clued in, I'm clued in. You know, you sit in this chair and you interviewing up people, and you're like, holy man, you know, like when you look at the next month, less than that now, you got next like three and a half weeks, you got a BC election that looks like it's going to go the conservatives way, but who knows, that's polling. I always rag on polling.

and now I'm like, what the poll will say? You have a Saskatchewan election right after that. Then you have, I'm sure, what the three of us, among others that are listening to us are paying attention to. That's the UCPA jam and a leadership review there. And then you have the U.S. election. All bang, bang, bang. And I mean, Tanner leads off this podcast

by talking about he's running for counsel here in Lloyd Minster. Right? So you have all these elections, right? Under the big ones, there's a ton going on in Saskatchewan and probably BC. as well. And then, I mean, within, you know, so I go, in the next three and a half, four weeks, what do you guys concern about?

Like, what's eating up your time? Oh, that's a good question. And behind the scenes, what looks like a private, secret clandestine leadership review within the Liberal Party of Canada. Yes. I'm just, like, you just kind of throw it on the table. You know, I want to talk about Alberta Biller rights. I want to talk about some things here with the UCP and everything else.

But I'm like, I'm just kind of curious because if there's two guys that are clued in, I feel like you two, you know, you're talking to as many people as I am. Well, true. A buddy of mine, one of the book club, showed up to Ken, sent me a video, sent us all a video, hang out with the mad ones. Have you seen this? No. It says, oh, God, why didn't I just pull it up?

I'll pull up the first 10 seconds. People don't really need it. If you want to go find it, you. You can. But, uh, Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

Everybody's got to wait for Sean to find it now. Okay, this is the start of it. Inside you, main ones left. There you go. In a mad world, the mad ones are the only same ones

that are left. Sounds like somebody who lived about 2,000 years ago. Yeah. He beat me by one second. That's a guy, totally agree.

Beat me by one second. Well, that's, well, there's a C.S. Lewis, uh, you know,

when he talks, what is Christ or man or the truth, right? Yeah, mm-hmm. So. Well, I come back to it. You said, you know, we joke about this mad thing, you know, mad ones.

It just seems like it's like, oh, yeah, well, some people listen to it's like, I don't know. I'm curious what you two are staring at. I mean, obviously, you're finding a way to get involved. Yeah. Getting involved means running an election. Yeah. And for the city of Lloyd, I really hope you get elected.

No, right? Like, I'm not going to tell people how to vote. Right. But I do think you being on the city council would be a benefit. You've been touring all of Alberta talking about tons of different things. You're well-educated. You've got a head on your shoulders. Appreciate it.

Congratulations. Thank you. And there's just a lot you can offer. So, like, is that all you're worried about? Are you staring at other things going well? Oh, yeah. It's a good question. You know what, I'm speaking about this on Saturday.

As far as individuals go, right now what's taking up. most of my time or these concern is the prevailing sentiment to put all of one's hope and faith in men or women, new politicians. You talk about all of these new elections and with it there's this wave of new hope that arises in people because a new leader is coming to power maybe Trudeau, you know, maybe he's going next year, we'll see what the leadership review is like for the UCP and so on and so on. And it gives men and women and voters this burst of hope. because either my politicians in power or the guy that I want is coming to power and so on and so on. And of course, we do need a change of government, right?

Like the federal government is the clearest example of that. We need a new one. But people have this prevailing tendency to put all of their hope and faith in a leader, in a person. And then after about a year or two, they realized that particular person maybe isn't fulfilling their promises as they thought. And so they decide to switch to a new leader, or they'll change gears and go to a little. someone else. And then that process repeats for 30 years or 60 years. And then the person really passes away with no hope, right? Zero hope at all. So what I'm speaking about at this conference I'm at on Saturday is don't put your faith in a person. Put your faith in Christ. Well, he is a

person, but don't put your faith in a mere man, you know, put your faith in Jesus Christ. And that's true for my campaign as well, right? I'm very careful to not say, we're here to save everything. No, now I do want change, right? The core of my platform, this is a shameless plug, but the core of it is the family, right? At the foundation of the campaign itself, apart from Jesus Christ, is the family is the foundational structure of civilized, flourishing, just, honest society.

And if you have rules which benefit the family and which protect the family structure, then they're good rules, right? If you instead have policies which crush that family structure, which is really what the liberals and a lot of big cities are doing, then it's bad for society.

And you can watch society crumble as the family is torn apart, right? That's accurate. But we're careful to not say we're here to save you or I'm here to save you. Far from, right? Far from. And so in these hours of elections

and in these months of elections, I think it's very important to remember politicians or just politicians. They won't save you. And I don't blame people for looking for hope, lots of things are so bad right now. Inflation, even though the government's so excited, it's only what, just under 2% now,

as if it still isn't climbing and so on is excellent. Oh, fantastic. and, you know, we have all of these issues with lockdowns or fears of lockdowns and government overreach and et cetera, et cetera. So we are looking for a salvation from it, but far from looking to government, who is the one giving us this oppression, we should look to somebody else.

You know, I think I'm sitting next to somebody who potentially could be a premier or even the Prime Minister of Canada. I think Tanner has all the makings. And what's exciting for me to see, someone like him going into politics is he's young, he's well educated, he's principled, and this is something that in Canada, unfortunately, we've not had over the past generation or so enough people like him going into politics. The young people like him, talented people have been going into business or academia, whatever,

but they haven't been going into politics because the impetus hasn't been there. This could be part of the silver lining of the cloud that is COVID, that now young people have maybe been awakened, startled, had a road to Damascus moment where they're saying, wow, if I don't get involved and do something, all these other people are going to be running the country. these wolf skulls are going to be doing everything. So I think it's wonderful that, you know, Tanner's going in and just talking about values.

I'm reading a book right now by Spencer Claven, who's an American guy, Andrew Clavenson, just brilliant book. It's called How to Save the West, Ancient Wisdom, and Modern Crisis. One of the things he talks about in the book that Tanner sort of touched on is, in addition to those things you're talking about right now in terms of politically, technologically, just amazing things are happening. I don't know if people saw a video of the new Elon Musk robot that you could carry on a conversation with. It's going to be available.

People can buy them for the price of a Tesla car. And he just had a rocket. If people saw this video, the rocket actually. Maybe I'm wrong. Was the rocket not more impressive? Maybe I'm just under. It's mind-blowing technology. Don't get me wrong.

The robot, I'm like, that's probably the more dangerous of the two here soon enough. But the rocket coming back and landing, I'm like, that is insane. It's beyond belief. And, you know, with all that technology, young people now have made, I think, I shouldn't single them out, but young people especially have made a false God of technology. And what Spencer Clarend talks about in his book are these ancient principles, right, the sort of the pillars of Western culture, which are Judeo-Christian religion and morality, and sort of the Greco-Roman history of reason

and thought that sort of underpins a lot of our law, that marriage is unique in Western culture. And it's those, what Claven says, and I agree with this, is we need leaders like Tanner who are going to have an understanding of the modern technology and the needs of modern society, but are going to govern according to, according to ancient principles, which are timeless and classic.

And it's those principles that I think are going to be the wisdom that will guide us through all the challenges of this in a world full of robots and rockets that land themselves and cars that drive themselves and, you know, all of that, these incredible unprecedented challenges to us as a society. I think just people are starting to, you know, I think of myself, but I mean others, Lots of people have understood the problems we face, but I think ever since, you know, the blessing of COVID is, you know, you come through

and certainly there's some eyes open. But there's, once you've lived through that experience, there's no expunging that from the history of, they can talk about, you know, moving on and different things, but there's just certain things people went through. You're never getting that through. I could probably bring in and forgive me, folks, for not having just like every Thursday being a new,

story on somebody how they were screwed by COVID because there is thousands of them and they're all heartbreaking and it just over and over and over again right we see it like the national citizen's inquiry you want to go listen to you want to you want to have a wet eye yeah i mean go go listen to some of those stories they've got new hearings coming up yes they do like i just that well my hat's off to them but what i was meaning is like there's just no going back and so one of the things that's coming out of that and I guess I'll bring in the Alberta Bill rights right because I listen to you Viva and Bruce Party

I thought that was an excellent conversation by the way so if people haven't gone and listened to Kray Matter with those two on they really should because it's three lawyers and I would say in different levels almost three black belt lawyers right talking about this wonderful document everybody's excited about the only thing I would interjected with was a piece of paper is only as good as the crowd wants it to be.

And right now, the crowd wants it. The crowd is very much behind it. And if we're ever going to stave off the mob, one needs to understand and be involved in politics and understand their rights. And I feel like that's the big change from COVID. There's no going back. I could be wrong.

Like maybe I'm completely wrong on this thought. Maybe we are going back into COVID lockdown 2.0 in one year. But as soon as I think that thought out, I'm like, I'm not. And I would have, you know, like I went along for a while. You go back, listen to all my, I was like, I don't know what the hell is going on. I'm not going back. And I think, how many other thousands are not going back? That means, you know, that bill already has a support of more people.

And they already understand what their rights are. Nope, not doing that. I think how many people I run into that understand municipal versus provincial versus federal. And a month, not a month ago, a year ago, I wouldn't even been able to tell you, There was three of them, and there's, and Layton might be like, oh, and you forgot this and this. It's fair. But there are people who walk in here and rattle off. I'm like, the difference is there is weight behind that piece of paper now.

It's just a piece of paper. I mean, at all times, the Charter of Rights is just a piece of paper. And we've been circumvented by all these different institutions, but I think there's this, this knowledge that's happening with so many people that it isn't over in a month. This is going to be the rest of my life. It just is. wonderful thing to have to know and if we raise families up and keep them together and raise kids up in that you're going to get more tanners you just are you know i had cailin ford on this week

and she was talking about charter school she's brilliant brilliant and you think how many kids 1300 kids right now in it they turned away i think it was like 1700 and they're opening up new new charter schools i can just hear people's mows salivating it the opportunity to have something that's built by, because it sounds very interesting. And I go, what's that going to do for Alberta or Canada? Because that's a whole new crop. You know, you're all worried about the public school system. Well, look at the positive things that are going on that are really going to change the trajectory.

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Well, when you talk about, you know, the charter of rights or bill of rights just being a piece of paper, you're actually sort of streaming James Madison who wrote the American Bill of Rights. He said the same thing. He was given this project to do in America, and he said, well, you know, it's not really, it's kind of a waste of time because a bill of rights or a charter of rights is just a list of

promises that a government may or may not keep. And what he said, and this kind of gets at a part of the Bill of Rights that, as I go around and talk to people, they don't really quite understand. The real protection of freedom in countries like Canada and the United States, and this is what Madison said is in the structure of federalism, is in the separation of powers between the different levels of government. And in our Constitution, which was well-fashioned, despite what people say about people like Sir Johnny and McDonald, we have clear divisions of powers. And our Bill of Rights is really born out of two main things that are driving it.

Firstly, as we talked about COVID, because COVID awakened people to the failure of the Canadian Charter Rights and Freedoms, which, by the way, in my respectful view, was designed to fail. Designed to fail in terms of protecting individual rights. It's been very successful in doing the things that Pierre Trudeau and Company wanted to happen, specifically transferance of power to judges, unappointed judges, and secularization of Canadian society. But one thing that, one reason for the Alberta Bill of Rights, is COVID. The second thing is massive government overreach,

which has been accelerated since COVID, during and since COVID, and really since the Freedom Convoy. And so what the Bill of Rights really is, the way I see it, is an expression of federalism. It is an expression, and it fits totally aligned with what the UCB government

did from day one when they said, the first bill they passed, was the Sovereignty Act, which is simply a reaffirmation of what it says in Section 92 of our Constitution would set so provincial powers. But really what this Bill of Rights does is it says to the rest of Canada and especially to Ottawa that we are going to recognize and affirm these rights. And these rights and freedoms all fit squarely within Section 9213, which is the property and civil rights aspect of our Constitution,

grossly underdeveloped, horribly abused by the federal government. But when I go out and I talk to people, I challenge them. I say, okay, tell me one aspect of your relationship with government that would not come under property and civil rights. There's no answer. It's all property and civil rights. And the province could expand that aspect of provincial power in the same way that the,

the federal government has over expanded its criminal law power to be expressed as an exclusive power over firearms, which they actually do not have constitutionally. It could be expanded the way the federal government has expanded the environmental authority, which actually is not in the constitution, but they've expanded so far that they can impose climate taxes on everybody and tell provinces how to manage their natural resources. and there's just more on and on and on. The federal government has intruded into health. Right now they've got a bill C-293.

People don't even know this. Just had lawyer lease on. It's a health bill that essentially is going to take over. It's going to vitiate provincial sovereignty by giving the federal government the ability to declare a national health emergency. And they have no jurisdiction over health. even the pharmacare bill, which is Mr. Singh's big talisman, his great achievement, requires all of the provinces to assent because the federal government has no authority over health.

The federal government is intruding into daycare, municipalities, education. Are you, forgive me, maybe my brains, I don't know where it's been in the last month or so. We stare at all the negative. So when I, the thing that frustrates me about politicians. Oh, okay. I'm going to pick on Mayor Jared Albers and Gerald, the only reason I do it is because you explained part of it to me. I come in with a problem.

Yeah. Oh, so that's not a city problem. That's a provincial problem. Yeah, yeah. They always defer up. Yeah. And it's really annoyed me. And I got nothing against Gerald.

Sorry, Gerald. I just, it just stuck out of my mind. But what you're pointing out, I think, is we can use that system the opposite way. which is like, well, no, the province can't tell Lloyd what to do because Lloyd can be like, nope, these are our purview. So you stay out of our affairs. And one bigger than that would be the province, Daniel Smith and company, telling Canada, no, you're not coming into this chunk of land

because this is what is set out in law. Well, Quebec Senate. Right. So why, I guess what I'm, it's changing the mindset, though, Layton, I think from like, all I see is problems, right? There's a saying, stop telling me the problems, show me a solution. And I just see it's framing all we have is problems to, well, why don't we just do this and this starts to become a solution.

It's a way more positive outlook on where we could go in a trajectory. Is it just another piece of paper? Yes, but things have changed drastically. I don't see us going back to another lockdown. I could be wrong. They certainly probably want to, but the conditions are different. Like, I mean, just look at it. at, you just go talk to a couple industries.

I don't know, firearms, silver and gold, a couple other things. And all of a sudden, you'll start to realize people are not, they're gearing up for something way different than lockdown 2.0 where they're not allowed to talk to their neighbor. Right? Like, we're in two completely different worlds. And I think what you're talking about, maybe I'm wrong, Tanner can hop in too, by all means, is that instead of focusing on how they're

screwing us. Let's focus on how we can get out of this and actually make Alberta and other places way better. Yeah. Well, I think like one of the things I appreciate so much about the bill, about your bill of rights, is that there's such a concentration on, as you mentioned, property rights. That is so critical, right? Everything comes back to property rights. Like you look in the charter, as far as I know, there is no mention of property rights as an individual. Deliberately. The rights in the charter were left deliberately vague. Right. So they're left vague, and that's critical because everything comes back to property.

Like go back to the Ten Commandments, go back to the Old Testament law that Moses gets. Everything comes back to property because when you read that law, you see it's implied clearly that you are responsible for your own actions, right? If you steal something, you are stealing someone's property, right? If you commit adultery, right, you are intruding in someone's house and doing what you're not supposed to do. someone else's, right? When you, you know, even when you showed fire in a movie theater, you can't do that because that's someone else's property. And there are rules affiliated with that property that you have to follow in order to, you know, enjoy a movie there in that particular case. So when you exclude property rights from, from, in this case, the charter and so on,

you give government an unbelievable swath of power to do whatever they wish, right? Because it's not you don't have the property right. So government can come in and take what they will and they often do. And you go, this is my property. And they go, yeah, well, show me the property right. Principles and so on. So with Layton's bill, right, with this Bill of Rights, it focuses on that. And it recognizes that you have to have property rights in order to really to live in a functioning society and to protect your freedoms.

Right. Murray Rothbard, who's a little more niche, but he's a libertarian economist. He's an Austrian economist wrote extensively on this on how important. property rights are and his writings on it are I think they're quite excellent just because they they clearly demonstrate how really if you exclude property rights from your you know bill of rights in this case the other the other clauses are practically null and void mm-hmm this is a great great point in fact most people know about the second amendment in the United States which is their right

to keep him bare arms but what they don't realize is that in the other parts of the American Bill of Rights and Constitution, there's no mention of property rights. The secret in the sauce of the Second Amendment is that it is a fundamental protection of private property because what is a firearm? What is a weapon? It is a species of private property. So if you cannot take firearms, then you cannot take any other type of private property. Now, when you turn that on his head, you begin to understand why an error.

totalitarian society that we know of in recent memory, they've all been confiscators of firearms. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Cuba, Venezuela, now Canada. And I was thinking Australia. Australia doesn't have firearms either. They don't. They were getting, they're getting quelled with rubber bolts, if you remember. But the thing is, people need to understand if they can take your guns,

then they can take all of your private property. And we're living in a country where the federal government has already seized private property as we know during the Emergencies Act. They did it improperly. It was found to be illegal by a court by Justice Mosley. And the federal government has done absolutely nothing to recognize that or to grant any sort of relief to the people who were armed. But once again, what gives me hope, okay, so it's coming in the Bill of Rights, right? It's for people listening who haven't read it. This is a part of what you guys have proposed, correct?

Yes. It was another one of your podcast because I, you know, I went down a late gray rabbit hole. And it was Mitch Sylvester saying 350,000 Albertans are lawful gun owners. I'm like, almost three million nationwide. But here's the thing. I'm like, three to half, 350,000 Albertans. I'm like, man, that's a good stat. And here's the next thing I know for certain.

There's people you think are gun owners that love guns, love everything about it. and they're not. They don't have a license or whatever because they've never gotten one or they don't believe in it and whatever. So $350,000 is the bare minimum in Alberta that are. And I'm like, that. Now, that is something that gives me a lot of hope on where, those are positive stats in my mind.

Some might find that scary. I'm like, oh, $350,000? Where's all the gun crime? Because the basis for confiscation is safety. Public safety. We've got millions of guns in Canada. Where is all the rampant gun? This should be the Wild West.

Actually, what we have in Canada are arguably the most responsible gun owners, not only in the world, perhaps in history of the world. We have the most responsible. When you look at the actual stats on gun crime in Canada, we probably have the most responsible gun owners that have ever, in any society that ever existed. So why is the federal government wanting to confiscate all the guns?

People should be asking this question. Well, because if you also read history, as you just pointed out, I mean, when your population doesn't have teeth, it's pretty easy to push them around, right? How does it improve the lives of Canadians to seize and confiscate their property? That's true.

Our government should be creating rules that allow us to preserve and protect our property. That is their constitutional duty. Sure, but the government right now does a whole bunch of things latent that aren't for me getting a better life. No.

You know, like that's just, it seems like every day it's one of probably 50 things the federal government's doing, you know, where you're just like, oh my God, right? Like, you know, Christia Freeland. I was just talking to Tom Corsky on Blacklocks about it, right?

They're going to tax vacant lots, or that's what they've, you know, this new tax. And you're like, oh my God, just stop. Just stop. Like, just stop. But that's why you need to have a new government come in. And I don't mean to say that they're going to go and fix all the problems.

No. But some of the stupidity has got to stop. Because it's, you know, it was a guy sitting across from me once upon a time. When I heard him speak for the first time, I was thinking about this this morning. It was Wayne Wright, Alberta. We were there to talk about RM laws on how many chickens. he could have and some of the things like that. And this is the first time I'd ever heard Tanner speak before.

And he said something very profound that has stuck with me. Obviously, I was thinking about it today. And it was, you know, the big laws give you freedom, the small laws. Yeah. They wipe it out. And you just think of where we sit today with everything going on and all these different things. The gun thing is certainly one.

And the fact there's so many lawful gun owners gives me a ton of hope. But they're just, the federal government, just keeps ramming things in and provincial governments as well. Nobody's free from this sin. No, that's true. Yeah, I can't take credit for that big law as quote. That's a Chesterton quote. But it's right.

Well, you can take credit for introducing it to me. If you had a society that was structured just in the Ten Commandments for a foundation, that's a great start. You don't need much more after that. You really don't, right? We have a government or governments that care more about how much windex, you're spraying on your window than they do for the crime, which is rampant downtown, you know, and you go, why is the society dysfunctional or why is it becoming dysfunctional? And it's for that

reason, right? You and I, this isn't hyperbole. You and I are more concerned about trying to avoid breaking the law than we, then criminals are in a sense, right? The book of laws is so large and it's so invasive with these small little pesky laws, right? You can't do this, can't do that, can't do so and so health authorities coming to check on this some other authority is coming here how tall are your fences and so on that we have no time to focus on the simple laws don't steal don't murder right don't commit adultery don't uh well covet isn't you know legal but the law says it is and so on and so on those are the laws that should be maintained by government and again it all comes back to property you start with the property rights and from that that foundation follows

Yeah, actually on this point, I just read a book by Neil Gorsuch, who's a Trump appointment to the United States Supreme Court. He has a new book out called Overruled. He talks about this, how we just have an overabundance of law. And one of the examples that he cites is a case that actually went to the U.S. Supreme Court of a guy, retired guy, who was a magician. And he would go around and appear at neighborhood birthday parties and things like that. part of his act was he would pull a rabbit out of a hat. While during COVID, some busybody, woke scold, reported him to the bureaucratic authorities. And one of these people showed up at backyard birthday party and asked him for the license that he

needed for his rabbit because according to the regulations, the bureaucrat was treating the rabbit in the magic act as a zoo animal or a circus animal or some other type of creature that is used in commercial enterprise. And that gives you an idea of the extent to which we have become overruled and overregulated. And the worst part of it is the people creating and enforcing these laws, just like we had with AHS during COVID, are not people we've ever, we don't even know who they are. We never voted for them. We never would vote for them. It reminds me of the, of the lady who was the investigator who shut down Grace Life Church. She shut down. She shut down a church and imprisoned, she actually was responsible for creating a law that would shut down

and triple barricaded that church for months. And she also was directly responsible for imprisoning a wonderful Christian pastor, Pastor Coates. And when I asked her what training she had in investigation and in crime, she said that she was on a 30-minute Zoom call. And so this is the problem. This is the great danger of being governed by a society of busy body bureaucrats and this over-expanding government. So coming back to the Bill of Rights and protecting property, part of that and implicit in the Bill of Rights is, and coming back to your earlier point about trust, implicit in a bill of rights is a government saying, maybe we have too much power. Maybe we've got to give some of this back.

Here you go. So this is what I see. And it's significant to note for the people who are listening and watching, Alberta is the only province that's talking about a bill of rights. I think our premier and our government is recognizing, look, we've got to restore this trust. And one way of doing that is through this bill of rights. Because it says to Ma and Paul average, look, we don't need all this power. we're going to protect you from government.

We're going to make at least some promises to you that we're not going to do certain things. For example, we're going to recognize that you have bodily autonomy. You don't have to participate in a global drug experiment that might maim or kill you or change your DNA forever. So I think what's happening here with the Bill of Rights is very important to see it in the broader context

that Tanner's talking about. Okay, sticking on the Bill of Rights for an Albertan, like is this, forgive me on not knowing all the levels of law, right? It's like, okay, it says, you know, like, I guess where does it stand in the law once this is put through? Let's just say it gets put through, there it is. Now what does it do in the court of law? Well, this is, again, coming back to the concept of federalism. One of the mistaken impressions Canadians have, but it's natural that they do because they're constantly told this. Ironiously, Canada does not have a national government.

We have a federal government that is sovereign within very specific areas of jurisdiction. We have provincial governments that are sovereign within their specific areas of jurisdiction. And this gets out the wisdom of the people who frame the Constitution because what we have in Canada is a vast geographical country. with incredible diversity that doesn't need to be imposed upon us because we have everywhere you go in the country it's beautiful and we have great people we have great food we have different languages different denses all kinds of things but the framers of the constitution recognized that the different regions in Canada are are different and they're distinct and so we needed to have provincial governments that could govern appropriately for

that region because the most important government to anyone is the one that's closest to your door. So let's take an example of what you're talking about. Under section 9127 of the Constitution, it says that the federal government has exclusive authority over criminal law. Okay. So that's true that the federal government gets to make the criminal law. However, it's also true that the provincial governments actually prosecute crimes and enforce the laws. And this is something that people were confused about in the Coots context, right? But Section 9127, even though it gives the federal government exclusive authority to make criminal law, so we have this big book called the Criminal Code, it nowhere

gives the federal government exclusive authority over firearms ownership and registration. That's an overreach. In fact, as I was saying under Section 9213 of the Constitution, which gives provinces exclusive authority over property and civil rights, in fact, in fact, fact, the federal government should not be anywhere near firearms, the types of firearms laws that it's passing right now because firearms are clearly property and they're solely within jurisdiction of the provincial government. So coming back to my point earlier, the federal government has been allowed, especially over the past 50 years, to concentrate more and more power in itself and especially under prime ministers like Trudeau and Maruni and I'm sorry, even Harper,

and now the latest Trudeau, we've had this concentration in one office. You don't have to apologize. I'm a fan of very few politicians. But we have this concentration of power, of political power, but it's not legal power, right? So part of what the Bill of Rights is attempting to do, if it's done right, it's a statement to judges, it's a statement to Canadian society, it's a statement to legislators. Look, we are going to get back to governing Canada according to the Constitution. Because right now, in Canada, by and large, that's not being done. because what we have is we have a dictatorial federal government that thinks that it can do anything it likes and has no regard for the charter, has no regard for the separation of powers.

In fact, Bill C-69 and the plastic reference are great examples. And there are others where they just think that they can legislate in any area they like. And the only premiers in Canada right now who are saying no seem to be in Alberta and Saskatchewan. I pray that that begins to change and that this Bill of Rights is going to be a signal to the rest of the country and an array of hope to them

that we can get back to peace order and good governance in our country, which is actually what's promised in the Constitution. What are you guys' thoughts on the AGM coming up? I'm curious.

I'm excited to go to it to see what it's like. I read the, did you read the policies that they emailed out to members who were going? Yes. And where we sit right now, I think, is somewhere just under 6,000 people showing up, I think.

I don't know if anybody's got an updated number on that. That's a lot of people. It's a lot of people. Well, it's a record for Canada, right? Like, it's, it's, no, forgive me, I didn't mean to just want to throw that in the context, right? Like, there is a ton of people going. And a shameless plug on my own show, me and twos have a hospitality room going on there for the mashup. Do you?

Where we're going to set up, I don't know. I got to get there and actually see, visually see it. We'd like to set up a roundtable form where people can not only watch, but then, you know, as people such as yourself and others, right? Because you think of all the people that are coming to this. There's going to be some wonderful voices that you probably could have a 14-hour roundtable and just let people come in and talk about what they think. And I don't know how that's going to work.

And I hate to get people's excitement too high. But there is going to be a mash-up hospitality room. We'll see what that entails. and hopefully, you know, all of us can meet up and discuss. But, I mean, in the lead up to it, you got this large sum of people rolling in. You've got different things. You know, Leighton walks in with this black hat today, right? I think that's become pretty commonplace.

And certainly, if you want to give a plug or a little background on what it is, if people don't know, fire away. So I mentioned earlier that the genesis of the Bill of Rights was COVID. It's also a very principal group of people in the Premier's Home Writing in Brooks and Medicine Hat. And they took this up. And it's a wonderful story about, you know, Tanner was talking earlier about how he's getting involved in his community. It's a wonderful story about how in Alberta, and I would say in Saskatchewan, too, there still is a spirit of grassroots populism where people feel like they can't. get involved in politics and make a difference and so this bill of rights that you're

seeing come to fruition is not you know a group of you know ivory tower lawyers in downtown Calgary this is a group of guys wearing black hats ex-military people just good hardcore country folk intelligent people but not lawyers I was brought in late it's a sort of help to I would say curate what they have had done. But what you see in this document was largely written by everyday people, just like you and you and others. And I think it's a great testament to what people can do when they decide that they don't like what they're seeing and they want to make a difference. They want to make a positive contribution. And I think that that in and of itself is a great statement about our province and

about our country too. So these are just regular guys and they, they, the, you know, they're basically cowboys and they wear the black hats. And so this has become their signature, uh,

sort of piece. And, uh, as luck would have it, the only cowboy hat that I had was black. So it appears God's hand was working in it as he, as is, is almost everything.

Um, but really, um, you know, they deserve much more credit than, than I do. for, you know, being part of the black hats of myself and another wonderful lady named Shauna Sundal, who's a parental rights advocate.

Yeah, people. She had her brought in late kind of as consultants. The, what is her parent project? Why am I forgetting the first word? That's terrible. Sean, I apologize. Yeah. Yeah, I should know that too, but it escapes me.

I'm looking it up. That's irreplaceable. I wanted to say. Irreplaceable parent. Sorry, Shana. But I did remember to, I did mention your name, Shana. She literally somewhere, she's laughing, I hope, because she's been on the podcast. She's sat in the studio.

She's actually done one of her talks in Lloyd. Yeah, the irreplaceable parent project. Oh, that's, to me, you know, this is, these are all the things that I go, this isn't the same world as four years ago. You got close to 6,000 people. maybe it is 6,000 people now, I don't know, descending on red deer. You have, you know, the black hats, which I think has become, you know, people.

You got take back Alberta. You have, now you got this 1905 committee, right? I've had Nadine Welwood on. And on it, on it goes. You know, like, heck, four years ago, I wasn't talking about any of this, right? So, like, among others, so, like, this has become a different beast all together.

It doesn't mean there isn't nefarious players working in there because you got also maybe slipping in is is the NDP trying to to galvanize a force to go in and vote Daniel Smith out they see maybe a little blood in the water and I I go careful what you wish for because the other side of that might be something even you know by worse I mean even better I don't know what the other side of that could be the best pundits I've seen think that she's going to get an 80 plus percent of endorsement time will tell but I have a question for you gentlemen I'm really interested to know why do you think that the

sort of Bill of Rights, let's call it populism movement is unique to Alberta. And bear in mind that the premier the announcement of the Bill of Rights has been a real boost to her popularity. I know she posts, she did a short video

that on Twitter had over half a million impressions. But this seems to be something uniquely Albertan. Why do you think that is? I'm interested to get your take on that. I think it's a fundamentally Christian bill. Michael Wagner has a book on the history of Alberta, and I don't know if you read it, it's fascinating,

in which he details, I think, very simply but very eloquently why Alberta is different culturally than the rest of the country. And he looks at our history and Christian roots in this province and so on and so on. So we want to talk about culture. I think it's different in Alberta because fundamentally our culture is different. I believe our culture fundamentally compared to the rest of the country is more Christian. I'm not saying we're not a secular society, we certainly are, but you have in this province an adherence, or at least a willingness to adhere,

to a Christian code to a greater degree than other places across the country, certainly in the East and so on. Because I think this bill is fundamentally Christian, right? It has that at the, really at its foundation, you have the Ten Commandments, as part of this bill, you can see that integrate into the entire proposal itself. I think it's taking root here. That's why it's a different, it's just a different culture, right? It totally harkens to this argument about multiculturalism

and how multiculturalism fundamentally cannot work. And it's not meant to work, right? From Trudeau's perspective, you hear Trudeau all the time say how diversity is our strength, diversity is our strength. Now, if you take that quote and you apply it to you and I, to our lives, individually and as a community, clearly that's a lie. Diversity isn't our strength, right? It tears us apart.

That's been documented time and time again, and it's being documented right now. But if you take that quote, diversity is our strength and you apply it to Trudeau and his government, then for them it is a strength because it makes the entire nation weak. And so it allows the government then to do what they wish without very much, you know, pushback

against their advance. So with this Bill of Rights, because Alberta's culture is different and because it's unique and Saskatchewan shares in it too for sure but you know you might even generalize and say because this Midwestern or Western culture in Canada is different

than it is in the east right with the Lerentians and so on it demands a different style of leadership a different sort of government and a different focus on in this case individual rights so that would be my answer I'm very pleased to hear you say what you do about the bill and its Christian foundations,

because that's one of not only the weaknesses, but the dangers of the charter. Yeah. Of course, Michael Wagner talks about this in another of his case, leaving God behind, where he says basically the charter is a very secular document, and it was designed to secularize Canadian society. It's been enormously successful in doing that.

But I don't know if it answers the full question, because when you think about it, why Alberta? Why not Saskatchewan? why is Saskatchewan still have the same premier that imposed everything when the rest of not all Canada but the rest of the independence have booted or changed or you know it's a very interesting question I don't know if I have the answer for I certainly can't say it as eloquently as Tanner

but like I just go back to or there's something here because you know like the answer would be the people I go like why doesn't Saskatchewan have why is there no I hate to put myself in that ring because I love Saskatchewan but by now I've probably shown a few cards

that I live in Alberta and I'm dictated by Alberta even though I'm right on the border of Saskatchewan why doesn't Saskatchewan have whoever that is I don't know right when you look at Alberta on the flip side and I apologize to all Saskatchewan because I'll probably get about 14 texts about different shows but you know

you look at it and you're like there's a lot of different things going on in Alberta and it was the first place to boot Kenny put in Daniel Smith you gave rise to the you know the the David Parker of the world you got um you know like I just I just think of some of the things going on I listen to Kalin Ford and I'm like holy crap and I should point this out I know in Saskatchewan you have your own things going on and it's hard um hard to fully understand everything in two provinces because it's there's just you know a guy sits in this chair does five shows a week I can't keep up with it yes right so but the question is about Alberta why isn't why isn't Saskatchewan doing it and

I that's a good question because like it isn't just that the bill has a Christian background certainly that could be part of it but why hasn't Saskatchewan give mow the boot why like there's rumblings there's talk that this is his last the election, but it's his last election. I mean, you know, like, look at it starting to pull apart there. They got, they got different parties trying, you know, I know a ton of wonderful people there. And yet Alberta is doing it differently. You have the Bill of Rights. You have the first premier ever to say, hey, I'm sorry for what happened during COVID. Even if people get upset because she apologized after that about some of her comments. She's the only one that I know of,

you know, well, for sure, Canada, I would say North America that said those things. And you know, you start to extrapolate. It's like, what is it about Alberta? Right? I'm sure the audience, I can already feel my, you know, I can anticipate that the phone is going to be buzzing about what makes Albertans different. Yeah.

But it is an interesting question. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And you, we have to ask the other question, too, is why is Danielle Smith open to this, the government open to this? And why now? These are really good questions because, of course, it's been 50 years since we, we had the first bill of rights,

it was Premier Lawyid, is interestingly one of the first bills that he brought in. But, you know, she could have just shut it down and said, no, we're just, we're not doing it. Well, my answer to that would be, then the leadership review would be, I guess my answer to that,

I don't know if this is right, right? Daniel could sit here and tell me different, I'm sure she would. But I look at it and I go, I could feel the way this was trending for Daniel Smith. It wasn't good. Then she had,

announces the bill of rights then she comes out and talks about parental rights and all of a sudden she went from trending a certain way and boof she's she's taking a jump on whatever that is the trampoline you know like um people can't see what i'm doing with my hands but you get the point i can everybody i interview anybody who's following i was like this is really strange everybody is against daniel smith right now this is the crowd that got daniel smith in right all of them aren't with so why now my simple answer would be She's staring at what's going on. She's been doing town halls across all of Alberta. And she's going, people are upset.

And she won't say that. But she's not a no dummy. She's looking at the questions coming at her. And this has been something that has been, you know, pushed on her. Like this needs to get done. Heck, she's talked about lots of different things. So why now? I would say because people have held her feet to the fire and say, if you don't,

we got a leadership review here in now, you know, three weeks. You don't. I'm showing up and I'm voting you out. I hope it's not just political expediency. I hope it's more than that. I think she believes in it, right? I do. But I mean, what have we seen out of politicians?

Yeah. If there's nothing pushing them to get things done, they're probably like the rest of us. Oh, well, I'll get to it when I get to it, you know? If I don't set deadlines for myself, you know, Oh, yeah. You can kick things way down the road. Sure can.

Look at tax season when we all go racing in there and get taxes done. One subtle change that maybe people didn't notice, but what I see as a seismic shift for her is the removal of her chief of staff. Yeah. And going to Rob Anderson, who is a lawyer, and he was principally responsible for the Alberta First concept, which became the Sovereignty Act. And that's a significant change.

He's been involved in the background, but now he's the chief of staff. And the previous chief of staff was also chief of staff for Mr. Kenny. So what's going on within the party, as far as I can tell, I'm not an insider, but I've gotten a glimpse of the inside from being involved in this Bill of Rights thing, is that there's still a yin and yang within the party between the progressives and the small,

Sea conservatives. Yeah. There's a battle going on there. She's facing all of that. And that's not to apologize for her, but I think that's part of the reason why her small sea conservative agenda has been slow to develop. It's been moving more like a glacier than a Ferrari. And people are getting, you know, they're getting annoyed because people want everything.

We live in that world now of instantaneous gratification. But I see that the Bill of Rights, as you. say as an example of her maybe getting down to business on her on her core agenda what I would say about the premier is you know I support her she one one I wouldn't say it's a criticism but by way of a commentary is I think that she's very strong in building consensus it's in her nature to do that she's very good at getting people together on the getting getting them on the same page And that's good, but it can also be hindrance. Talking about Margaret Thatcher,

Margaret Thatcher had no regard whatsoever for consent. She didn't even read the newspapers. She had a very clear idea of the right way to govern, what the right policies were, and she did them. And she had no regard. In fact, she thought consensus was a, trying to build consensus was a complete waste of time. I think that we need less consensus building

and we need more of more, more Thatcher right governance where our premier she's been entrusted by us we voted her in she has a clear mandate she has a majority govern us according to your vision of what you think is best for our for our province and if we like what we see then we'll vote you in again if we don't like what we see then maybe you won't last but I think one of the struggles I have and I challenge you guys to tell me it's been two years what is the character of the daniel smith government how would you describe it i i struggle to do it i don't i'm not really sure what we have right now what do you think well i was going to go back to you know like people want things like that and i'm like actually

i think most of us are pretty patient henceforth we're sitting here and now the anger starts to boil i actually think conservatives have been very patient um yeah like we we championed her when she got first in the UCP nomination, and then everybody, I remember having the same thought. I equated her to Woodcroft from the Oilers. Got a little runway, then she's got the big election day, she wins, okay, here we are. And so people's patience, I think, and champion are been very good. And listen, everybody knows I admire Daniel Smith.

She's been on the show lots, and I got a ton of time for her, but Sheila Gunn-Reed put it best. I'm not here just to, you know, shake your hand and smile. It's like the problem we have in society is if you rule by consensus, let you use the consensus thing. Well, consensus in COVID was, get the vaccine. How wrong was that? Pretty damn wrong. Right now, the consensus by pundits is that the world's ending in 2030 if we don't change climate.

Well, how wrong is that going to be in the consensus? And, you know, if you look at the world even further, it would say that boys can be girls. Yeah. And we should teach that in school. Well, how wrong is that going to be? So this consensus is baloning. I guess. Maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe you two can set me right. I just look at it and I go, that's what you're up against. So you try and build consensus. Good luck with that, because the entire world is trying to tell you something different. And we can all sit here and go, well, we just wait five years and see what that brings and see where we are and see how quickly you keep your job. Because it isn't going to be that. It's like people are telling you what want, and the CBC and those news media outlets aren't going to tell you that. They're going to attack you every step of the way.

But, you know, once again, I'll bring up Tom Corsky. He literally just said they lost another 10% of their ad revenue. Canadians don't care. So the consensus seems like it's there. It's this mirage where the hardworking people of Alberta specifically, I'll stick to Alberta, don't want any of the consensus jargon. They want what they know to be true, and that's the Margaret. Thatcher approach, right? It's like, boys can't be girls. Climate change, yeah, it never stopped

happening, but we don't have to stop everything to try and combat it. We can be responsible citizens. We can do things right that way. We don't need 15-minute cities. What else do I have to say? And that's what we're looking for, isn't it? Yeah. I don't know. Leighton's right. That's, like, this demonstrates the supremacy of Christ compared to all other leaders, right? Here's Christ. Never once does he come to build consensus, right? He comes down to our, he says, I'm the way, the truth doesn't know like that. And he says, listen, I've come to tear mother from father

and children from parents and friends from friends. That's why I'm here, right? I'm not here to bring you all together into one unified culture like Nimrod did back with Babylon and Assyria in the Genesis, right? It's the opposite. It's, I've come so that you might follow me. And that means you won't build consensus with a lot of your contemporaries,

but you must follow me because it's the right thing to do. It's the true thing to do. So I agree with Leighton and yourself. Far from building consensus, that shouldn't be a leader's prerogative. Rather it should be, here's what's right, here's what's true. I'm going to pursue these goals because they are right and because they are true. And if the people like that, then they'll vote for me.

And if they don't, they won't. And then that's an example of people, oh no, of a leader speaking for the people. Like I think we have it inverted in this day and age where lots of leaders or at least will be leaders, hopeful leaders, say, okay, we want to be a voice of the people. So that means we'll go to the people, we'll listen to what they have to say, and then we'll speak it in government.

Fair enough. But you go to the people and find there are literally millions of people, and all of them have very different voices, right? And so whose voice are you going to present in government? Are you going to present Joe who lives on 32nd Street or Jim who lives on 52nd Street, right? which one are you going to promote, right? And the answer is it's impossible to do so.

You can't. So instead, the way that you govern, or at least the way the people govern you is by this, you say, here are my values, here are my objectives, here is what I believe to be true. And I'm going to promote this in government. If you agree with it, then as I mentioned, you'll vote for me. And if you don't agree with it, then you'll vote for someone else. And in doing so, you exercise your voice. And if you do vote for me, I'm speaking for you then, right?

because you agree with what I'm saying. If you don't vote for me, then you want someone else to speak for you, who you believe aligns more closely with your values. So I think Layton's dead on the mark. I'm glad you brought up the example of Christ because as a corollary to what Tanner said, Christ models something called servant leadership.

Yeah. Which really our politicians don't model very well right now. The idea that you are a self-sacrificing leader of people, that you are responsible to them. And if we had leaders who understood that, that they have to lead according to some vision of the good, then we would have a very different society. We'd have something closer to a society

that ensures the freedom and prosperity of individuals and families and communities. The other thing I would say, though, in fairness to someone like Daniel Smith, is that if you live in a society in a country where you agree with absolutely everything that the leader says, then you're probably living in Nazi Germany.

In other words, you're never going to find a political leader where you agree with absolutely everything that they do or say, right? And again, that gets at the problem with trying to build a consensus. Because using your example, how do you bring people together who live on 32nd Street and 50 Second Street? If they're never going to get together, well, you've got to find some vision of the good that's going to make life better for them both.

And your job as a leader, as a servant leader, is to figure that out. And you can try and compromise. I hate compromise. Right. That makes nobody happy. Right. You can say I'll take some of Jim's points and some of John's points and then I'll try and bundle them together. And then nobody likes you.

one wants to follow you because you have no you're you don't have any objective standard by which you by what or what you pursue you're pursuing no standard so no one knows where you stand on anything right like if you say we're going to try and appease group x and group y and group z all three of them are going to despise you can't serve two masters and i know jesus is talking about money there the love of money and almighty god but the principle applies solemn has a great idea about compromise actually wrote a paper about this and i comment one of my my commentaries, it's called the Wisdom of Solomon. Of course, this famous story of the two women

fighting over a baby. Yeah. And he reveals the truth by not giving you to compromise. That's profound, what Leighton said. Yeah. You ever heard this story? Tell me.

There's a, there's a, so David's son, Solomon. Yeah, he's king. It helps when you get a guy. Just show the, just tell the story. He's the son of a preacher, man. It's actually, I think it's one. of the most profound stories in the Bible. Certainly one of the, it's the wisdom Solomon exercises here is,

it's unbelievable. So you have King David, King David has a son, Solomon. Solomon becomes king. And his rule is, you know, regarded as a very peaceful rule where Israel flourished as a consequence of what he did and so on, for the most part. And he's this unbelievably wise king, right? Wisdom that is, like you can't quite describe. how wise he was wise and rich.

I get $2 trillion by today's standards. He's wealthy and wise. Anyways, one day two women come to him in his court, yeah, and they're holding a baby, and one woman says, this baby is mine, you know, and the other woman says, no, it's my baby, and actually this woman stole it, and they're going back and forth,

trying to figure out, you know, whose baby is it really, right? So Solomon's sitting there in his chair, and he gets tired of listening to them bicker back and forth about whose baby is this. So he says, all right, give me a sword. And they bring a sword. He says, listen, cut the baby in half.

And one half of the baby goes to one woman and the other half goes to the other woman. It's a compromise. Yeah, here, you both get half of the baby. Governor Walls would be in favor of that. Yeah, that's exactly right. You both get the baby. Wow, fantastic.

The one woman says, yeah, that works for me. Fair enough. The other woman says, no, please don't do that. Give the baby to this other woman. And then Solomon renders his judgment. He says, got it. The woman who said, give the baby to the other woman, keeps the baby alive.

It's her son. And he declares this profound judgment. So far from compromising, right? Solomon figures out a way to use the possibility of compromise to decide whose baby it really is. And when you go deeper into the story, the one woman actually, killed her own child

accidentally in the night. She goes and she steals the other woman's baby and she replaces her dead baby with the other one. So she causes this woman uncontrollable. Incredible grief. She wakes up in the morning and finds his dead baby and it's not her baby.

And super added onto that. Her baby's gone. And this other woman has stolen her baby. And in my analysis of the story, I actually forecast what would happen in a modern woke court. where what a judge would do instead of what Solomon would do by applying absolute pure wisdom and reason,

what he would do is he would look at which one of the two mothers ranked higher on the victimhood scale and would apply social justice instead of biblical justice and applying social justice, the woman who stole the other woman's baby would actually get the baby and the other woman would be punished and scolded for having the audacity to, insist upon actual justice and keep her own baby.

How dare you insist? Can't you see how grieved this other woman is? Her baby died. Never mind that it's your baby. Never mind that she stole it from you. She's more aggrieved than you because her child's dead. And we're going to fix this. We're going to make this applying Kamala Harris's reason that, you know,

we're going to make everybody end in the same spot. We're going to give her your baby. And you know what? You can go off and have another baby. It also pulls back. to what I was, I don't know why this theme keeps coming up when I hear it, but like Solomon finds this like immovable spot to be in and then uses it to gain profound, or teach profound wisdom if you would. And I come back to, this is probably a terrible analogy, but the levels

of government, we've focused on how you can only just push it up. Oh, it's stupid, you just, Oh, it's not mine, that's a provincial thing. Oh, that goes, and the politicians do this song, dance. And I hear, oh, we're going to take that. We're going to use that. We're going to make it so that what the insanity they're pushing down. No, we're going to get rid of this. And I come back to, you know, like, A, that's a beautiful story.

I come back to this whole Danielle Smith thing. Because lots of people have been texting me, oh, you're not a Daniel Smith fan anymore, you know? No. And so this Alberta question, right? Why Alberta? I look around the table and I look around the table and I, go, I feel like this is why, and I know all the other provinces have it. This is, once again, I'm going to try and get off that grenade or landmine that I walked

onto because I can just hear Saski boys just giving it to me. But I look around the table and I see all these wonderful people that are like beyond, you know, like how active Layton's been or Tanner or the list goes on, Tamara Leach, right? Like all these large names. But don't forget, Chris Barber was the head of the convoy. Where's Chris Barber, Saskatchewan, right? You know, like, you can break this down. I see all these excellent people talking about it.

And when you get ex-able, excellent, like, how do you make politics intriguing? I tell you what, you don't tune into the CBC. You tune into different shows, and I'll bring back up, you, Viva, and Bruce, because that was an interesting discussion. Because they didn't agree with you. No. And by not agreeing with you, it sucked me out. Well, this is now this is it. and I got a lot of time for Bruce and Viva and late,

and they've all been on the show. And one of the things I think Alberta has done very well is provided means to get involved in politics and be entertained by it. I'm not saying that's the whole goal of it, but the entertainment value is why people go and watch hockey or on and on. They tune in to spit and chicklets.

Why? Because they're sitting there and they're doing, you know, it's entertaining. Well, you want to learn about politics in a way that is captivating. You need people that, are intelligent to talk about it. That has taken time. Alberta seems to be real fast on the uptake. Like they were all sitting there.

I take zero credit for this. I just had on Dennis Modry. And I sat across the town. I'm like, holy crap. This guy's got some things between the ears. And so that is certainly why Alberta, there's a part there. There's something here where it gets going. You're like, this is interesting.

But the next thing is, for all these new political, people getting used to the game. I wish it wasn't a game, but to me, it's just, you know, it's what it is, okay, fine. Is, so you like Daniel Smith. I think a lot of us do, right? She's excellent in speaking. She's talking back to Ottawa.

She's doing lots of things. She's getting some things wrong. Heck, that's why you got 1905 committee. That's why you got probably the black hats. That's probably why you got all this, because they want to make sure they pull her further to the right than to the left. and in that people who listen to these things think that just by bringing up some of the negatives

all of a sudden you're saying in their mind oh she's the worst and get her out of the door and that's a really interesting thing to notice from my standpoint we're not allowed to criticize Daniel Smith right excuse me I thought this was I thought that's what we did on this show I thought we talked about politicians

show what they were doing and showing what they're not doing right and if it's if it's if it's scott moh if it's ebby out in bc if it's ford and ontario if it's justin trudeau it'll soon be pierre poliev by all stats and you best believe we're going to start to probably talk about him too and you got to get used to that and i feel like that's a new class of people who are paying attention and getting involved in politics your thoughts well i think that one of the things that intrigue you about the conversation that we had with myself and Viva and Bruce is you know that you could have dissent

this is when we have meaningful conversations is and you can't really cannot have any kind of useful conversation like the one we're having right now unless you can risk offending somebody yeah and maybe this is something that's different about Alberta that you know it says it says I believe it's in proverbs that arm sharp iron right and so applying that to ideas, you know, we get the best ideas. The strongest steel is fortune, hot as fire.

In Alberta, we seem to still have an environment where we can have a 1905 movement, right, where they're saying they don't like necessarily what's happening in our province. And they can gather momentum and they can bring a group to the AGM. A few years ago, we had TBA, you know, did likewise. This seems to be this popular. movement and the willingness to dissent is seems to be alive and well in Alberta and it may not be as thriving in other provinces that might be one of the explanations I think one of the signs of a flourishing society is the extent to which you can have dissent you know political dissent people can be free to

express different ideas and of course our federal government is trying to impose a globalist agenda to stop us from being able to do that. But, and I think part of the sovereignty push in Alberta is obviously is coming from the grassroots level. People still feel free to express concern and dissent about what's happening in our province. And that may be part of the explanation why we still seem to have a thriving, active conversation in Alberta about, you know, how is the government doing? Is she doing a good job?

You know, the prospect that we could remove her as premier doesn't seem to exist in other provinces. And so I think that's a good thing. I think it perhaps holds leaders accountable, political leaders accountable, in a way that perhaps they're not in other provinces. What do you think about that? There's a scripture. Someone asks Jesus, he goes, good teacher.

And Jesus goes, why do you call me good? quick to answer. No one's good except God alone, he says. Of course, the insinuation is Christ is God, right? You're right to call him God, or you're right to call him good because he is God. But that principle only applies to Christ. What I mean to say is when people tell you, because you've criticized Smith, or any other leader for that matter, you must not like her, or you must no longer like her, or you must not think she's good, I think we have every right to respond with, why do you, you know, why do you call her good? Why do you call any man good, for that matter? You and I have an obligation to objectively scrutinize our leaders, all of them. And we scrutinize them

based on the standard of scripture, based on the standard of Christ. I'm able to say, and you're able to say, and anyone's able to say, whether or not a leader is doing a good job based on only the scripture, only on Christ. That is the measure. That is the standard. Otherwise, you go around the province or the country, and you listen to 10,000 different men say 10,000 different things about leader X and one says he's good because he's doing this and one says he's bad because he's doing that and there's no general consensus there's no absolute consensus about whether or not the leader really is good because there's no objective standard but if you impose that standard if you decide to obey it then all of a sudden there is something by which you can measure how a leader is doing right you can say

the law says x Y Z a good leader will do X Y Z is the leader doing X Y Z yes or no if they are they're doing a good job If they're not, then they're not doing a good job. And so when you go to the Old Testament and you read about Israel and Judah when after the nation splits, the chronicles and the kings give a detailed description of the leaders in those two, in that split nation. And at the end of each leader's reign, it's always the same. Either it's the king did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, and so he's given a checkmark, or the king did what was wrong in the eyes of the Lord, and so he's given an X. and almost invariably the king is given an axe.

He does a very poor job. Almost all the kings in both of Judah and Israel do poor jobs to be entirely honest because they don't follow the scripture. They don't follow the standard. The same is true today. That's really the end of all things. Is the leader doing what's righteous or not? Yes or no.

So you're right to criticize Smith if she's doing wrong. We're right to criticize Moe if he's doing wrong. We're also right to say good job if they're doing right. And that applies for every leader. Well, one of the groups that does that accept. exceptionally well. Yeah. Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

I'm thinking of you, Chris Sims. Yeah. Because she'll applaud the NDP. They do. They're objective. And she'll, right? They follow. They have a clear mandate.

Yeah. Simple. And it's great because it doesn't behold you. It doesn't make you beholden to any man, right? This is the wonder of being a nation ruled by law, is that it makes you beholden to no individual in power. Rather, it makes you beholden to. A paper is just a piece of paper.

It's true. But it does give us, it does, um, material. realize for us a standard, a set of rules by which we are to be governed by which are ours. Well, you have to empower your citizens. So if the citizen, if it gets signed into law, correct? Right. That's what we're waiting on now is a whole bunch of things to make it go from what it is into law. Correct. Leighton, I'm not a little bit of all. Well, my understanding is that what we submitted is not going to be translated verbatim, even though the UCP board has approved that. My understanding is that about seven or so of the 22 freedoms that we submitted are going to find their way into the bill.

But included in that are some pretty key ones like bodily autonomy and protection of property and the protection of firearms as property. So there are some key ones in there. They didn't adopt all them verbatim by the time, you know, all the monkeys on the typewriters and the bowels of the legislature. What I see after 2024 then, if this goes, you know, the hopeful way. And, you know, I hate me eternal optimist. Some days I wonder about that train of thought, you know. But at the same time, I just don't know any other way of being.

So you go, okay, well, after 2024, learn them. And every Albertan should learn them. So when things start to happen in the future, you know, no, no, that's not the, this is right here. And knowledge is power. So, like, you put the things into place. And in another four years, another two years, another year, you go, no, we need this one in. the voting public can go, you know, push for it. And if they're not going to, if they don't have the political will to do it,

I don't you go. Let's find somebody who puts it in. Like, part of, part of COVID is, you know, certainly all the institutions compromised. But part of it is, the majority of the public didn't realize with which or how any of it worked anymore. They just, you know, just going along, get along. And the only way I'm getting in there is that. Oh, I don't even know how to argue it. You know, there's this famous book, Art of Rhetoric, right?

And you think, like, we've all lost that ability to try and, you know, dictate to someone else what we're thinking. And by no means, am I the standard? I'm working on it, right? I look at you two and I think, I got a long way to go. But, like, at the same token, compared to four years ago, like, how many of us just didn't even know how to think out of any problem? So when you bring in these things in the Alberta Bill of Rights or other things that get signed in, it's going to give hopefully if we engage with it the ability in the future to be like, no, no, no, that doesn't happen. And I see that for a population, specifically Albertans. You bring up a profound point, the inability to verbalize arguments in favor or against certain positions.

That's intentional. I have no doubt that government has actively ensured that is the key. case that the general population is unable to properly communicate what they believe about certain things. Now, that is straight out of Orwell's, 1984. That's the whole point of newspeak, right? The whole point in newspeak is to disable your ability to think by disabling the language, right? If you make language imprecise, if you don't train children particularly, but all people, to speak with a precise diction that most clearly

you know communicates reality as it is then you completely dissolve your ability to think because that is what speech is thought right and here's I'll take it one step further if you can't speak specifically it takes away your inability to pray that yes that too yes we were just when you walked in I was talking to a friend

on the phone about this yeah right about praying and I'm speaking for myself, you two, fine gents, can maybe add to this slot, is if you're praying, that's great. But if you're playing and you don't get specific and use language, it's like, well, what did you just say? Yeah. You know? Now, you're right. Yes, of course, Christ teaches us how to pray. You need the language. There's also a scripture in Romans. Is Romans 8, 26, 28? Yeah. And it's talking about how there are times when you and I don't know what to pray. So at best we kind of just sit there and we almost meditate on the prayer.

Now in that case, the Holy Spirit does send up what Paul calls wordless groans to the throne. And Paul goes, the Spirit knows our heart better than we do. And so in that instance, you're quite, you know, in that instance, the Spirit actually prays on our behalf. He's interceding for us. And he actually asks the Father what to fulfill the needs that we have, even if we don't know the needs ourselves. But nevertheless, right, you can't just. kneel in prayer and sit there, right? You have to say, yeah, you have to speak, which is what Christ teaches us, right? That's the, well, that's the Lord's Prayer, our Father who are in heaven,

and so on and so on. I find it helpful to read the Psalms. Well, the power of speech is even deeper than that, I think, because if you go back to Genesis, totally. And you ask yourself, okay, you've got this all-powerful, limitless God, could have created the universe in multitudinous ways, but chooses speech. He spoke the world, the universe into existence. And then you go to the book of John and it says that Christ was the word, the word made flesh and walked among us. This is the importance of language and of speech and of words. And it also explains why the method of attack from the enemy through the left is the changing

and the destruction of our words. Right? So for example, in our Solomon example, really important word, justice. Okay? We have an instinctive understanding of what justice means, which is illustrated in the story of Solomon. But then what is social justice? It is a perversion of justice. Social justices.

To rank people according to their level of victimhood and then place them above others and the manifestations of it are as deep as no white person can get hired at Walmart or Tim Horton's anymore, right? Very, very deep, deep, deep manifestations of the manipulation and the destruction of language. Yeah. Very subtle. Settle. And that's the thing with language that it is. It's subtle.

Settle is the word of the enemy, right? He uses words, too, right? In the garden. He uses words when he tempts praise. Yeah, he does. The ethics commissioner, right? And then the penalty of ethics is exposure. And, you know, that you can go, why did they call it that?

Or you can start to understand that maybe they did that on purpose. Ethics, because, you know, we intuitively, we understand what ethics means. But then when you listen to them, you're like, that doesn't make any sense. Like, what do you mean? You can just be the worst human being in politics and you did nothing? Exposure? Interesting. Very interesting.

Yeah. And this is what always comes back to giving me hope. I remember having these conversations four years ago. Language. And people would tell them that. I'm like, I don't get what that guy was saying. But that's the slow burn of this on the other side is it's, you know, maybe not subtle, but like it just, it takes time.

It takes time to start to understand some of these problems and some of these conversations. Then you go home and chew on it and wrestle with it and hopefully pray on it. And all of a sudden it starts to, you know, then you're sitting across from you two or maybe listen to this wherever you're at. And you're starting to like grasp the the where we're at in civilization. But but it's not new. If you go, if you know your Hamlet, sure. And when Hamlet is pretending to be a madman. Yeah.

He says words, words, words. He dismisses them. And what he's saying, he's using, he's saying, well, words are just rhetoric. They're just things that we can manipulate and change like anything else, right? Words don't have intrinsic meaning. They're just, we can make the words say whatever. we want and the way that we change the words will reshape reality. For example, a man can be a woman. A man can menstruate, right? So see, it's not a new problem. We've been dealing with this.

This goes all the way back to the dawn of time. It does. Layton's right. I just feel like we're in the dumbest time of it when men can menstruate. You know, and it's one thing to censor a man and, you know, to take away his language so we can't speak. But we're going farther, right? Now the government is saying you must speak this, that, and the other thing. You see the difference. It's compelled speech. It's compelled speech, and that is far more malevolent. That's Jordan Peterson's.

Yeah, exactly what that is. That's exactly what that is, right? It's one thing to say, you can't say this. It's another thing to say you must say that, right? Because, again, speech is how you think. And so you repeat that enough. You repeat that what they demand you say enough. You will begin to believe it.

Two plus two equals five. Absolutely. It is. That's why Orwell is, that's why 1984 is profound. Like, it's so profound because he had this, almost supernatural ability to predict what was happening or what's coming, right? This 2 plus 2 is 5, war is peace. You take things which are diametrically opposed to each other

and you act as though they live in harmony, right? What's a good example? Peaceful multiculturalism or successful multiculturalism. Diversity is our strength. That's from 1984, right? That's straight from Big Brother. Diversity is our strength. No, it's not actually.

Yeah, lots of stuff with, just look at what happens in government, right? They stand up and they chant these. Yeah, it's just, it doesn't make any sense. Boys, thanks for coming in and doing this. One last time, you're running in the election, give out any election information that you want people in the wall. Well, I don't know if they can see on the camera, but I even brought a little card.

I made these cards. I'm very proud of them, actually. And it just has the five points that I'm focusing on. Again, the family, championing the family is the foundation. the run, right? Every policy ought to be guided by, does it help the family, does it allow the family to flourish? And so from that, you get policies like saying no to a 15-minute city. We say no to it because it doesn't allow the family to flourish, right? We say no to an increase in crime, right? We see all of this, we see all of this bureaucracy that's allowing what they call

petty crimes to continue. They're not petty anymore, right? They're becoming more and more violent. It's like that doesn't help a family flourish. So that has to change, right? You look at taxation. Taxes continue to increase. Spending continues to increase. It takes more money from the family. It doesn't allow the family to flourish, right? We have this idea that when government spends, they do so to the best of their abilities. That's not true, right? It's inefficient. Spending is generally inefficient with government. And so as unpopular as it might be, cuts are needed. So again, the foundation is, does it champion the family? Does it permit the family to flourish? and thrive if it does, it's a good policy.

If not, it's something that we ought not to pass. I think your slogan should be 10 in a day, a good man. Oh. You should also mention your book that you got a right now. Oh, yes, I suppose I have a book, Kingdom of Cane. It's all about the insanity of progressivism. Wonderful book, folks. Well, I appreciate it.

Thank you. Yeah, it was a short, fun one. And you have a second one coming. There's one coming. I was supposed to say, wait a second. Did Layton get a book that I don't have? No, we both read it. But there is one more that's coming, hopefully by Christmas.

We're working hard to get it done. Cool. Yeah. Layton, any final thoughts? I don't mean to, you know, I appreciate this conversation a lot. It's almost a thought of maybe a guy should be doing a monthly roundtable where you bring in a few different people in studio. Because as we both know, as everybody sitting here knows, it is a thousand times better when you're sitting in studio and you get to do this. And I don't know.

I guess we'll wait and see what the audience thinks of the conversation. I've enjoyed it. but, Leighton, any final thoughts before we sign off? Well, I just want to encourage people, as Tanner said, to not be discouraged by what's happening right now in our country. And if they take anything away from the Black Hat's group or movement or whatever, it's that, you know what, it's still out there for you. It's still open for you.

To get involved, you can make a difference. Every single person who's listening to this or watching this has something really important and valuable and unique to offer to their neighbors and to their communities. And the Lord's second commandment is to love your neighbor. Part of that is a willingness to get involved in the community to take a risk. I promise you if you do that, it's not going to be all, you know, sunshine and roses, but you won't regret it. I'm glad that I did it.

I'm glad I got involved, you know, sort of more openly and politically as it, were, but we need more people to get involved in the communities the way Tanner is, because that is really, that is what is going to preserve and promote the kind of communities that we all want to live in in Alberta and in our country. I think it's exciting, I don't know. I think it's exciting because, you know, I got asked a lot if I was going to run in city politics, and I was like, wow. You'd be great.

You would? I don't know. Maybe. I might be a bull and a china shop, or I might be, you know. I could see you as being like a Ron DeSantis type. Sure. My issue right now is three young kids. I was just looking at the schedule.

Think about this. Six hockey practices, three hockey games in a week, and that isn't even touching anything else. God bless you. I'm like, I'm really excited about it. But the wife and I talked about this, you know, do you get involved? And she's, well, what are you going to give up? I was like, that's a fair point. And then I talked to Tanner about it, and I'm like,

but is it the point where you might lose everything if you don't get involved? You know, like there's more than just the, but, you know, go back to the 99-year-old that I interviewed in Carrot River, he was ecstatic about how all of his kids turned out, that they're all happily married, they have grandkids, he has great grandkids. You go, it's all about, like, family is such a huge, huge, huge thing. and I do not take that for granted. So I am very happy that a guy like Tanner is stepping up to run

because I think, you know, you talk about what I could be. I go like, what's Tanner? Like that should be, I might be tuning in to Monday, Monday counsel if he gets elected. The sky's the limit for this guy. You know? Sweet. We're going to get people tuned into Monday council meetings. It's like, I don't know, some interesting discussion.

Like I think back to what we, why is Alberta different? Certainly part of it. to be that there's interesting discussion happening among its citizens almost if not weekly or sorry not if daily for sure weekly and having you guys come in here and do this you know it really spurs on the thought that maybe it should be happening monthly because one of the one of the guests you've you've both got to witness I think Tom Luongo and Alice Craneer in Lloyd they come on monthly and people love it But that's a geodynamic conversation.

And a very large conversation. You're talking about the world powers. And one of the things is trying to find a way so that we talk about Alberta or even Lloyd Minster with the same level of, what's the word I'm looking for? Because it's an open conversation, but they know their stuff. Right. And, you know, it's like, I got to go. I got to get out of the vehicle, but I don't want to. If you can create something like that, I don't know, sky's the limit, I guess.

You know, like Daniel Smith, she got elected by being able to talk and talk to people. It's such a lost art. Speaking of being able to talk, this gentleman here is one of the most compelling live speakers that I have seen many years. Well, and he sits here in Lloydminster. Yeah. So if you get a chance to see Tanner today speaking public folks, you really must do. Who's, sorry. Billy Graham quality.

We've all been on their show and I'm forgetting it. The father's son Cory and Allen, Talk truth. Talk truth, thank you. We were just talking about, I was just talking to him this morning about you.

Oh. You won't like what he said them. No? He said, Tanner's a good man. Oh, that's a... Well, they said something interesting to me, and it was about this area, not just specifically like.

What is going on in that area? Yeah. And they brought up Layton. Yeah. They brought up you. And of course, they were sitting talking to me. Yeah. And then you, you know, I don't know.

Rick, why? Why here and not Emmington? Yeah. Or you could list off a whole bunch. There's a ton of wonderful communities across Western Canada that have a lot of things going on. Lots of high-tech rednecks. Yeah, they come back to the people, right? Yeah.

So regardless, thanks for coming in and doing this, boys. And I don't know, I'm having some thoughts. Maybe we should do it again very soon. But regardless, we'll let the people decide if they enjoyed it or not. And, well, safe travels. And thanks again for hopping in. Thanks.