Shaun Newman Podcast - #811 - Newman - Ruechel - Scholz

Episode Date: March 11, 2025

Dustin Newman is an engineer and owner of Original Oil a small oil company operated in Alberta.Peter Scholz is a freelance consultant who wrote accepted policies for the UCP that include killing e-tabulators, connecting Allberta to more ports and anti-WEF policies.Julius Ruechel is an independent writer, analyst and author of Autopsy of a Pandemic and Grass Fed Cattle.We discuss Mark Carney, Alberta independence and the 17th amendment.Cornerstone Forum ‘25https://www.showpass.com/cornerstone25/Get your voice heard: Text Shaun 587-217-8500Substack:https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcastSilver Gold Bull Links:Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/Email: [e-mail] Grahame: [phone]Bow Valley Credit UnionWebsite: www.BowValleycu.comEmail: [e-mail] Use the code “SNP” on all ordersProphet River Links:Website: store.prophetriver.com/Email: [e-mail]

This is Viva Fry. I'm Dr. Peter McCullough. This is Tom Lomago. This is Chuck Pradnik. This is Alex Krenner. Hey, this is Brad Wall. This is J.P. Sears. Hi, this is Frank Paredi.

This is Tammy Peterson. This is Danielle Smith. This is James Lindsay. Hey, this is Brett Kessel, and you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Tuesday. Holy Dina, has it been a bullet train of a few days? And before we get to all of that, and then some.

Did you know, Junk Silver refers to? to old circulation coins like dimes, quarters, half dollars, and dollars from back before our government debased their money by removing the silver from our coinage. Many of these older coins are not only a solid investment, but also ideal for trade or barter if the economy ever truly went sideways under old King Carney. That might be possible. I don't know. Man, Carney, unbelievable.

Well, I'm an optimist. I truly don't see us getting there. I, oh, King Carney's making me question that. But I do understand and appreciate the sleep at night insurance policy that the coins provide. That's why I bought some. And silver gold bull, they're my go-to for precious metals. And they have a feature on junk silver right now exclusively for you, the listener. Just text or email Graham for details about this feature or any other questions you may have around buying, selling, storing,

or using your retirement, entirement. Oh, man, retirement accounts to invest in precious metals. Profit River, SMP. Yeah, we've teamed up. And any purchase you make, I need you to reference the S&P. We got a primary contact. That's Joel. He is their phone and internet sales manager, and he knows this stuff.

So we're going to bypass the front desk lady. No offense to the front desk lady. And we're going to go to somebody with some expertise, and they've created an email address to get rate to them. SNP at Profitriver.com. It's down the show notes on any purchase you make, whether it's online, in person, over the phone, reference S&P that'll get you entered into a $100 gift card that's going to be drawn each and every month

they're going to be tracking purchases tracking not like our government a way of just you know kind of challenged the SMP listener if you would and I said challenge accepted let's do it you know let's find out to how many gun owners are watching and listen to this show so if you're looking to get you know anything to do with firearms optics and accessories, make sure to reach out to Profit River. You can go on Profitriver.com. They service all of Canada and any purchase made, just reference SNP.

That'll help put you on the list for a $100 gift card to Profit River. So once again, Profitriver.com, folks. Rect Power Products. Over the past 20 years, they've been committed to excellence in the Power Sports Industry and they got a whole lot of stuff going on throughout the next coming months, you know, you can put your, uh, your order in for a skidoo for the fall.

I never, you know, I, I joke about it, but I'm like, obviously I'm not in that world because I'm like, right now, I'm talking about spring, baby. It's right there. I can almost feel it until it dropped a minus 15 the other day. And then I was like, oh, maybe not. Um, I mean, it's getting closer. But rec tech, you know, uh, when it's coming to spring, they got you covered. Side by sides.

Man, has anybody walked by? Sorry, folks to go all local. But when you go through the multiplex, they got the defender there, the kids are just like in love with it. Let me tell you, that is a beautiful side-by-side. They also got, obviously, your scoos, your boats. Lund has been, you know, the Cadillac of the fishing boat.

They got Lunds now in Lloyd. And so if you're on the west side of Lloyd, stop into one of the border markers of Lloyd. Well, it's becoming a border marker through all of you. And check out their showroom. Tells your Ryan I sent you. and get them to show you some things. There is a whole lot going on.

If you're online, just go to rectech power products.com. Planetcom, when you're growing your business, running your business, trying to stay on top of the ever-changing world of information technology, can be overwhelming to say at least. Well, I tell you what, even trying to stay on top or politics can be overwhelming to say at the least. That's why they're here and they're going to take care of it, leaving you to do your thing and they can do theirs. For 22 years, Planetcom has been boosting your...

your productivity by proactively managing every aspect of your IT infrastructure, both in-house and in the cloud, and ensuring you're not tangled up in technology, and you can just go and get some things done. All right? Planetcom.com. You're building the website, Planetcom. That's where you've got to go.

Planetcom.com. And talk to Carl and his team. Substack, free to subscribe to. Obviously, you paid attention this week, and I put out a video going, we can review. You can wait another week because we're going to run a four and a half hour, live stream on

Carney's coronation. Well, you heard all that. All right. If you're listening, watching on Spotify, Apple, YouTube, Rumble, X, make sure to retweet it, subscribe,

leave a review, comment, all the things, share. We rely heavily on you, fine folks, to get the word out. All right?

Let's get on to that tale of the tape. The first is an engineer and owner of original oil, the second, a freelance consultant who wrote accepted policies for the UCP, including killing e-tabulators, connecting Alberta to more ports and anti-weft policies, and the third an independent writer, analyst, and author of autopsy of a pandemic and grass-fed cattle. I'm talking about Dustin Newman, Peter Schultz, and Julius Ruchel.

So buckle up, here we go. Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast. Today I'm joined by Dustin Newman, Julius Ruchel and Peter Schultz. I've got to be honest, Peter and Julius. You guys got two last names that don't make any sense in my brain, but I still think I knocked it out of the park this morning. Welcome back, gentlemen. Thanks for hopping on this morning. Thanks for having us.

Thank you. Great to be here. Great to be here, Sean. Okay. We're going to start with Peter. For the audience, and as I was saying, for the three of you, I've never had you on together. Just a quick, I don't know, two-minute, I don't know,

background, if you will, Peter. We'll start with you. Feel free to just share some insights about who you are. Thanks, John. Great to be here. Nice to meet everyone here. I live near between Cochran and Canmore, and I have five children, one of whom was ecstatic as I plowed my 500-meter driveway with his truck. And we got home, he was like a little two-year-old running on going, burr, burr, he was on 7th Heaven.

So that's that's the high point. I am a transportation planner and a regional planner by a profession. I work independently with a variety of clients, mainly in Alberta. professionally the thing I'm most interested in is building corridors out of Alberta's northeast and west to the north more corridors to the north coast of BC to Hudson Bay and to Alaska and the north coast I don't know what else to add from there I think that's I think that's perfect Julius yeah I'm I come from an agricultural background and a geology degree but I started writing about the COVID stuff was back to

back in the middle of the madness there. And that's kind of how I ended up getting involved in more and more of just, you know, speaking out about all the crazy different things that are going on and trying to make sense of it all. So that's kind of what I bring to the table. Whereabouts are you chiming in from today? We are back in interior British Columbia, North Okanagan. Dust. Dustin Newman, I'm Sean's brother.

I'm an engineer by trade. I run a small oil producing company at the moment near Lloydminster, Alberta. I was involved with the Wild Grows Independence Party in Alberta back during COVID because COVID scared the crap out of me. And that party completely dissolved. But my interest is generally in Alberta and returning to something that looks like growth from prosperity for the future. I'm going to start with probably the big news of a couple nights ago, which is Carney being coordinated. I kind of joked about it with Peter when he first walked on.

You know, like we've been talking about this for a couple months now with Trudeau intending to resign. And now, you know, like, and everybody going on, it's a foregone conclusion. And people like, well, you know, maybe it's not a foregone conclusion. But everybody was like, no, he's going to be the next one. And that's, in fact, what happened. And your guys' thoughts just immediately on a new prime minister here in Canada, not going through the traditional road, but by all things I can read, the legal route.

I mean, this is one of the ways you can become prime minister in Canada, which is really sad to say. But, hey, that's what it is. What are your thoughts on Carney? And I guess I should have started this out by saying, we're in a roundtable format now, boy, so don't feel like you have to bring it back to me every time. The Empire strikes back is what we're seeing. The Wef has lost power of the United States, and they are rapidly regrouping, and Canada is a primary target because we're right next door to the U.S. They want to piss off the Americans strategically. We saw that with Freeland calling for nuclear protections against American invasion.

We see it with Trudeau being the only country so far to remit seized Russian assets to Ukraine. No other country has done that. It's been conveniently ignored by the media, but it was significant. You're seeing it with the seizure of the leading candidate in Romania, who has been barred from running for re-election. You're seeing activity in Australia where they're doubling down on enforcing mass migration. This is we have readjusting to, for the long, for the long. long haul and Canada is battleground number one. I'll be interested to see what happens in the next week or so and whether Kearney actually,

I'm assuming he'll call an election because obviously he's got installed but he hasn't been elected yet. I'm assuming that they'll have an election and then the Canadian public will get their chance to see whether we actually want a complete globalist running our country or, you know, not that I have complete faith in Fuliav, but he'll be better than what Carney is for sure and see where that leads us and where we can get back on the right track in this country.

Yeah, I mean, to me, the whole process just kind of underlines just how distant our democracy is from the people themselves. Like the whole system is set up to basically keep us at armless length. I mean, you have a guy being installed with 131,000 votes, and he's now the prime minister for the entire country.

And I mean, he might call an election, but he could theoretically hold it off until the end of this year. And if he manages to pull some kind of emergency stunt in our constitution, he could literally pull it out, like hold off an election until the fall of next year. I mean, that's just the way our system is structured. It's exactly the opposite of the way the Americans are structured, where there's always some kind of, you know, feedback from the people and a way to hold people accountable in ours. We just don't. And this is the perfect example.

Well, this is what I've been wondering about. Like, everybody's, the signals point to an April, early May election, right? There's different things talked about last night from flight logs showing that, you know, and space rentals going on and different things that happen that are around one of elections being targeted. I also think, well, somebody's being a keener because how the heck would they know what, what's going to happen in the liberal party? Because I'm like, everything to this point has not played out the way it should have. I remember when I had Tom Korski on and Tom Korski said the only time all these things start happening, he was talking about job positions being people getting positions. He said, when they're running like this, they're heading for an election.

That was like the fall of 2024. And I mean, now look at where we are and so many things have changed. anyone i mean julius has brought it up you do you think he's calling for an election i know we're speculating because how can we possibly know um dust you'd mention yesterday that you know like um and actually i should say several of you mentioned uh the other day that essentially his popularity is only going to fall if he stays in you know you play out julius's thought but i'm like do they care do they care at all about the popularity of it they have power right now and if they firmly believe they're going to lose it,

then they might as just hold on to it for as long as possible. My guess is, according to, from what the little I know, is that Carney has to declare his financial conflicts of interest within three or four months. So my guess is they'll try to have an election before that time frame. They're also going to try to squeak it in before the Epstein list is finally released and we find out just what was going on there. I think they have to if you look at it because right now, they have the prime opportunity with Trump putting tariffs on Canada,

where they have an outside bogeyman that they can run against because they don't want to run on their record. And they really don't want to battle with Pollyev. What they really want to do is battle against Trump because that's the one that is easiest to vilify. And if they're going to try and win an election, that is the easiest way to do it. So I think they're looking at right now being the best time

because I don't think, I think it plays out badly in the media and the population of Carney stays in and pushes the election off essentially when he hasn't even hasn't been voted in yet. Yeah, I mean, that's one of the weird things about the way our system is structured is that he can call an election whenever he feels like. So he can basically watch the polls and get a sense of where things are at. If the polls are rising, he can hold off.

If it looks like they're plateauing, he can call it today. Like, I mean, it's a kind of a joke that, you know, our system allows that sort of thing. Like there should be an actual schedule that it has to happen on so that you can't game the system to call an election whenever it's most favorable to the prime minister that's currently sitting. I mean, I think that to me is the crux of our system that we can't, that they can play those kinds of games.

To me, that's not democracy. Our system has three checks and balances. It's got the Senate. it's got the governor general and it has the judiciary all three are completely filled now with liberal party members who've proven their loyalty over decades so all of all three Canadian checks and balances have now failed so yeah we're all agreeing that probably a neglection in the next four months but we also have to consider there is a worst case scenario where martial law is declared under some sort of contrived emergency and they just don't go to election with the

intent of fomenting an American incursion in order to get rid of Trump or to limit US influence it worldwide. We have to consider that option as well. Yeah, I mean, every time there's some country around the world that pulls some stunt, all the others copycat it, right? I mean, Zelenskykordes in the Ukraine that they suspended elections for an emergency, and the world still thinks that they're saving democracy by doing it. you know, Romania cancels an election overturns it and bars of somebody from running it and that's still saving democracy. So like it to me it's not even, like it's, it's, it's a question of what wouldn't they do in Canada to hold on to power? Like they can just pull from all of

these different strategies and somehow it's already been normalized in the public mind. So if they can, if they need to contrive some kind of emergency, I don't see why they wouldn't. It's terrifying. Yeah, I looked at the, I looked at the Canada 338 map yesterday and again, liberals are constantly, they have a very efficient vote and they're concentrated in the four biggest cities and in Newfoundland and the eastern, in the eastern provinces. They don't, they have to push a few more seats in suburban Toronto and Vancouver and they're set up for another government. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, the other thing that I've thought about too is you know how in Germany they've got, they built the, the firewall around the AFD, right? And so even if Pueleev, it was to cap, managed to get a minority.

government, theoretically, like, who's he going to build the minority with? If they decide to firewall him, then all of a sudden, even if he's ahead of the liberals, if the block and the NDP and the Greens decide that they want to gang up with the liberals and keep him out, then you'd be back with a liberal or whoever government and they would, you know, push the conservatives back into the opposition, firewalled right out of existence. On Saturdays, I help out with the local transfer from grocery store to the community fridge. And I'm loading up the fridge and there's this over 50s female individual, you know, purple hair. And she's going through the apples.

You know, there's one kind of spotty apple. So they throw, they give away the whole bag and they're all, you know, we're stacking them. She's going through them separated a Canadian and American apples. She says, we can't eat American apples. That'd be wrong. I'm looking at, I'm trying to keep my mouth shut. This is a case and point. in the mindset and I'm going to say stupidity you know self-centeredness entitled you are an older lady you're going to a community fridge because you cannot afford your own apples you're not thinking about why but you're still following the CBC line about apples and that's that's the mindset that really terrifies me about this country how many people are fit into that mindset and yeah I think

the liberals have a chance and the ramifications are not like four years of bad governments. The ramifications are police state. Very much so. One of the things I've been toying with. It actually started with you, Julius. Thanks for that. This idea of 51st state.

I hadn't really given it much thought than I had Julius on and spurred on some thoughts, although I think I've come to the firm conclusion. The Canada of the 51st state is a terrible, terrible, terrible. I can't put enough terrible's behind it idea but out of that we've seen you know like jeff wrath now um you know he's been

on the show he talking about leading a delegation to washington to go talk about you know what what would it what would that even look like and i guess from my standpoint i'm curious your three thoughts on it you know like i look at it and i'm like any information is interesting it would be interesting because right now you just you sit around and you talk about it but there's really nothing you know like oh we get the dollar oh we get this or maybe we get that but until you actually know anything, you actually don't. And then, I mean, on top of that, it's like, well, then you'd have to have a referendum.

So that's why we just had on Ben Trudeau and him talking about the Quebec referendums in the 1990s, not to mention the one in 1980, and just all the things that went on in this country around referendum. It's not just as simple. I think we all knew this, but I'm beginning to explore just how difficult an idea this is. When you look at Carney being a leader

and you look at some of the, the dark days of what this could be. Then you come back to, okay, what are possible solutions? How do we get out of this? Because obviously, as Peter so eloquently pointed out,

the three things that are supposed to stop some pretty crappy stuff going on are all compromised. So you look at a province leaving and you go, would that do things that could alter the course for Canada? Your three thoughts?

I think it's a leverage point. Alberta needs to be talking about having a referendum on independence, too scare to make the headlines over in the East because they are not hearing us. Number two, we should be supporting crime investigations however we can, like Leson Lewis has alluded to it. Should we be looking into Trudeau family ownership in the pipelines in the East that import Saudi oil? And is that part of the way that why Trudeau is fighting against climate change or, you know, supposed climate change, just undermine the liberals where they're at, which is corruption.

The conservatives are still fighting the liberals on the basis of policy. I'm like, this is not a policy election. This is a corruption in avoiding a totalitarian state election. And not even the conservatives are getting it. They're still playing soft, trying to win over the middle-aged purple-haired ladies, which isn't going to happen, right? Number three, you know, I know it's self-serving because I put so much pro bono time into building understanding and knowledge of corridors and railways and such. There's only so much I can say because there's a lot going on behind the scenes at high levels. But I can say comfortably the folks at the state and local level and some degree at the federal level and states are very interested in a corridor to Alaska through Alberta.

that gives us a leverage point. If we are talking aggressively with them and we're talking about where is it going to go and working at the legal machinations and the corporate governance, that gives us a leverage point because that gives us more trade routes, gives us leverage with both Washington and Ottawa.

And number four, it might be a little controversial, but I think we need to start talking to people in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia, rural parts of those provinces saying, you don't have to be colonized by your major cities anymore. Kudniz, you can become your own province quite easily. North peace, you can become a province quite easily with your resource base and you have the population. Prince of Rhode Island is like tiny and it has 100,000 people or 140,000

people. We can match that. West Northern Ontario, northern Quebec, why are you beholden to Montreal and Toronto? Separate these guys out. So you cut off the tax flow into the four big cities which suck on the teat of the rural areas, which allow these socialist ideologies to flourish in these big cities because they are in such a strongly subsidized position. Once you take away subsidization and force people to face the real world, socialism dies. And that's, I know, I know that sounds very weird, but you know what? Why not? Go ahead, Dustin. Well, Peter's talking about actually fixing Canada, and I think I already know where Julius is going to go with this, but fixing Canada is the biggest problem. To me, it really comes down to the next election. Well, one of two things. If,

if Carney pushes off the next election, that's a red flag right away because he has not been elected. And the separatist movement of Alberta should happen immediately. If there is an election and Carney gets elected, to me that is the point of no return when it comes to Canada. And at that point, you have to look at Alberta is the easiest one to begin this process, because I do not believe that Canada as a whole could have a way. referendum on, you know, joining the U.S. That'll never happen. So then you look at piecemeal and where it could actually happen. And that's where Alberta comes in. I was always a fan of Alberta going, becoming its own country, but I realize now where we are in the world, that that would be,

let's say, impossible. Because if you ever had a referendum for Alberta to separate from Canada, Canada would drag its feet and make the process as long and as painful as possible. to where it may never happen, essentially, because they do not want to lose Alberta, even though they fight his tooth and nail and everything. When it comes to corridors, Ottawa does not want important corridors from the states going up through Alberta into Alaska.

Now, it would be great. It would make a ton of sense. It would also make a ton of sense to have east-west corridors, but this is where it comes down to the government and power. And even if Pollyav comes in, with the rest of the checks and balances being owned by the Liberals, can any of that stuff actually get done? So I come back to if Carney actually gets elected in the next election,

which I assume is going to happen fairly soon. But even if he pushes it off, at that point, Alberta has to look at a referendum itself because it's the easiest mechanism to actually make change in this country. And then it's like, well, do we actually want to convince Canada to, you know, give a little on what we want? Or the thing about it is, is if you have a referendum to separate and join the states as the 51st state, which the states would love, because Alberta is a real jewel that they would love. If Alberta ever voted in favor of that, at that point the U.S. steps in and starts protecting

what is theirs. And the process actually gets finished because the states has a vested interest at that point, and they're the most powerful country in the world. Yeah, I'd agree with that, too. I mean, to be able to try to reform Canada, to me, is a lost cause. I mean, look at Harper. He spent 10 years trying to reform the Senate because, you know, coming from the West, he understood how important that was and he got absolutely nowhere.

Like he eventually quit, right? So this is where, you know, and that's a small change compared to what actually has to happen to fix this country. Because even if you get Puele-A-Vin, you're only one election away from the next Trudeau, right? Like that's the thing is that until the actual structure of this country has changed, you're constantly just gambling with the next one coming in. I mean, this is the same issue that I have with, you know, any individual province, you know, staying independent. Like, I think that the separatist referendum is the way to go about it.

But at that point, do you stay independent or do you join the United States? Well, if you stay independent, what happens if you've got, you know, the next notly government or NESHI, I guess now, with the NDP that manages to get a hold of the province, right? Then you're basically stuck in a dictatorship and you've got nowhere to go. This is where being a province in a large decentralized republic makes more sense as far as maintaining your freedoms, that there's an exit valve and a certain degree of just through the sheer mass of the country that you have a chance to, you know, prevent any individual corner of it going completely crazy overnight, right? A lot of Canadians would say you're only one election away from having Biden or Kamala Harris. Well, see, that's where I, for sure that that is the risk.

Part of, you still have a lot more protections under the U.S. Constitution than you do under, under any, like, you know, Canadian constitution. But, I mean, to me, this is where the opportunity of the lifetime is to say, all right, if you lean into the idea of the 51st state and actually organize some reforms on the way in, like, you know, repealing the 17th Amendment and, you know, trying to pull apart the, this whole idea of that, this. states have to be fixed in their current size like split out the cities as their own mini city states i mean that germany's already done that with with hamburg bremen and berlin like they're the the municipal boundary and the state boundary is one and the same so if you if pull that you all of a sudden um start to decentralize that republic in a massive way and i mean in my last piece i put out a few other other suggestions too like this is where down the road if the the the Republic, or if America stays independent from, you know, Alberta, Quebec, whoever, and,

but they carry on on their current course. If that republic is not decentralized, it might be one, two, three, four administrations from now, and you might suddenly get an invasion under, under the next Biden president. So you're not any further ahead unless you use this opportunity to actually, you know, bring the Republic back towards its own roots and away from this imperial power. Yeah, Julius, can you talk a bit more about the 17th, the, because a lot of reviewers won't know what that is. Okay, so the 17th Amendment was passed in 1913 by Woodrow Wilson, and the main goal of that. Terrible president.

Yeah. Basically caused World War I, World War II. Yeah, very much so. Yeah, I mean, he passed it with the specific goal of removing this obstacle towards the big, you know, expansion of federal power. And so the 17th Amendment changed the structure of the Senate in the United States. So originally, like the founding father set up the Senate so that there was two senators per state, but they were appointed by state legislatures, right? So you think of that.

So the senator essentially served almost like an ambassador in Washington, and the state could actually fire those senators if they wanted to. So the main goal of that is that, so the House of Representatives was the voice of the people in Congress, and the senator was the voice of state legislatures in Congress. So what that allowed them to do is that every time there's a piece of legislation, the state legislature could essentially block that if it was starting to eat away at the powers of the states, like growing the federal government at the expense of the states. And so once they remove that limit and basically turn the Senate into another version of the House of Representatives, which are just directly elected, the states lost their voice to block that legislation. So that's all of a sudden where you get the power to, you know, for the federal government to raise its own income taxes to start funding all these institutions. And for the presidency to start, you know, basically acting almost like an imperial power at the center of the republic,

rather than being on a leash held by the states where the states could block anything that they didn't want them to do. So that, repealing that basically takes it back to a scenario where each, you know, state or if the province is joined, that you have a vote. a way in Washington to block that expansion of power without having to rely on the courts, which are appointed by the federal level of government. So you actually see, sorry, jents, this is the first time I've heard this. So I go,

so you actually see this as a huge, this isn't just a huge opportunity for, for let's say, Canada to redefine what Canada is. You see this as a huge opportunity for, if you're looking at the United States, in the same way we look at Canada. Like I look, I've been, listen, folks, you know this. I wasn't in this for the last 20 years.

So at times I'm like, I'm just looking at this with new eyes. It's like, this doesn't make any sense. Like we're, we're going to spend decades trying to get what, you know, what we want or get some resemblance of normalcy. And Julius just pointed out with Harper, he tried and failed over the course of a decade. He couldn't get anywhere. You almost threw his hands up, right? If you're in the United States, you're probably thinking the same thing about your own country. and what you're starting to point to

is there would be a real vested interest in Alberta. Let's pick on Alberta for a second. The reason why is because it is the crowd drill. I mean, just look at all the resources, not to mention it would fit nicely as a Republican state, right? Like, I mean, like, we are a pretty raucous crowd here. Henceforth, this conversation. You'd be the wealthiest state in the union, apparently.

If you look at it, just to finish the thought, and I'll let you boys hop in. What you're saying is they would have an opportunity to bring in a new state and then redefine what the United States of America is as much as Canada would be looking to leverage that to get out of some of like the

the red tape and the rules and the corruption that is plaguing us across this country. Dust, you were going to hop in. I was just going to say, even if they don't reform the Senate by repealing the 17th, their Senate still functions a hundred times better than ours because our senators are a point.

by the federal government. And so they have complete, there's no check and balance there. And to actually reform the Senate in Canada is pretty much impossible because none of the provinces that control the Senate with all the seats they have are ever going to vote in favor of losing that power. The challenge we have in Canada is the way it was set up was top down so that the east could control the rest of the country, which it does and still and will in perpetuity.

Whereas in the states, the Senate is actually a check and bounce. Now, we better if the states actually, you know, the senators were actually from the state legislature as opposed to being directly elected, but it's still 10 times better than what we got in Canada. Yes and no. Our Senate actually functioned at the point of most highest importance is when the Prime Minister tried to renew the Emergencies Act. The Senate stopped him. The Senate said, no, you do not need the emergency. Act, we're not going to do it. And he pulled back from that point because he did not.

The prime minister doesn't directly control the senators, even most of them are liberals. So that, they did actually function when things through. Would it function again with all these new appointees? Probably not. And that's a point of terrifying. But I do think if Alberta puts itself into position where we're actively negotiating with Washington to become a 51st state and we put on the table such things as we want We want our senators to be appointed by the government without the 17th Amendment,

preferably across the entire country. That would solidify freedom in the United States enough to make it that I would be interested. Second, all, the United States needs to get active on what they call red states secession, which is splitting states where, you know, that don't have that urban core like Oregon, Washington, New York, California, where all the cities vote Democrat, but the rest of the state does not. So it's basically another colonization situation where you have these oversized states. If we're in that active negotiation stage, that gives us the kind of leverage we need with Ottawa to keep us, keep ourselves safe. Yeah. And I mean, the other thing I'd point out is that, you know, through Doge and with Elon Musk,

they are trying to, you know, trim back all of this corruption and knock back all of these, federal agencies. I mean, Elon has been pointing out that there's been two new agencies per year on average for the last, I don't know, century or something, right? But the trouble for them is that they can, they can root all this stuff out, but, you know, the current mood is going to eventually change and new problems are going to show up on the table. And all of a sudden, the momentum to start regrowing all of these agencies is going to be right back, right? So at best, this is a temporary, temporary, you know, change of course, but over the long term, how do you keep all this stuff from coming back unless you do something like the repealing the 17th Amendment, which kind of

pits the state power against the federal power to start undermining the regrowth of these agencies. So you basic, because I mean, it doesn't matter what rule you pass, somebody's going to find a way around it unless, I mean, this is the genius of what the founding fathers built, is that you have these two separate, self-interested entities, the states, versus the federal government that are basically stuck in gridlock, each defending their own interest, and that's what kept either side from overwhelming the other. That created this decentralized republic where it stops the tyranny at the state level, but it also stops the tyranny at the federal level.

And I think that to me is the opportunity here, is to resurrect that as a way of cementing what Trump is doing into permanency by reestablishing that push-pull between. between those two forces. One caution I need to put on on the whole idea of Alberta becoming, losing its access to the crown is that Alberta is 100% treaty land and those treaties are signed with the crown. If Canada, if Alberta is not under the crown anymore, all those treaties legally need to be renegotiated.

And the First Nations are their demands are, I mean, very significant if those treaties are reopened. can before we move on from this um I need to talk about the 17th amendment again because one of the things that I'm not getting through my thick skull this morning

is I got Peter sitting there and Peter's like I'm not ready to leave can and I'm not doing it not doing it sorry that's a terrible Peter accent and uh and then I just heard actually if they redid the 17th amendment got rid of it I'd be interested in that I'm like okay when I read the 17th Amendment and forgive me if this is if I'm missing something here but I'm just going to read what I pulled up and I forgive me folks Wikipedia this morning. It says the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two centers from each state elected

by the people thereof for six years and each senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualification requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature when vacancy happens in the representation of any state in the Senate. The executive authority of such state shall issue rich. of election to fill such vacancies, provided that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments and to the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. The amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the

election or term of any senator chosen before it becomes valid as a part of the constitution. I hope somebody caught that in there. Right. I'm like, okay, so why is the 17th Amendment irritating. Two of you for sure. I can't remember, Dust, you may have said you're against 17th Amendment too. I'm like, what is the 17th Amendment got to do with everything? Put it into simple terms for me because my skull is thick this morning. Obviously, and I can't grasp what the hell you two are talking about.

Because when it's elected, the Senate can be filled with a bunch of wonkeys like Mitch McConnell that are just out for their own best interests. If it's appointed by the state legislature, then if the senator is just super popular but is not working in the state's best interest, the legislature will just recall him. So when you say the state legislature, you're talking, I'm going to try and pull it back to Canadian terms. It would be like Daniel Smith, here in Alberta, and the MLAs elect their own two senators to go off to Ottawa. They don't elect them. They appoint them. Sorry.

I'm going to get the words. right here. And then if they're really irritated, they just go, you know what? You two, done or whatever. One of you done. We're putting somebody new in. And you prefer that over this. If Alberta had like elections for those two positions, correct? Yeah. Yeah, because it's still, you know, the people appointed them are still accountable to you at the state legislature, right? Like you, you've elected Danielle Smith and the entire legislature. But see, this is where, you know, like, I mean, take the example of Quebec. Like if Quebec wanted to become a state in the United States, how do they protect their culture,

their language, their, like everything that makes Quebec? I mean, they're the perfect canary in the coal mine because they're so worried about preserving their independence, their sovereignty within the larger envelope, right? So if you don't have a senator that is appointed by that province, right, the only recourse they have if the federal government starts to eat away at their sovereignty is to go to the courts to say, listen, you know, this is overstepping federal limits here. And the courts are appointed by the federal government. So chances are they're going to rule against them. Whereas if you have a senator that is on a leash for the state legislature, the provincial legislature, you basically got a way of controlling the federal government,

that they can't do anything that the states aren't willing to allow the government to do. I mean, this was the whole idea of the way that the U.S. Republic was structured, is that it's actually, you know, it started as 13 sovereign colonies, and they created a treaty to create this thin level of government where the federal government is basically a tool controlled by the states to do the things that individual states can't do, like protecting national sovereignty or interstate commerce. And by breaking that relationship, you essentially transferred this huge amount of power into the hands of the federal government, which allows, you know, the senators to be either, you know, bribed by the federal government or bribed by

lobbyists, wherever. And all of a sudden, you have no way for the state legislatures to stop that, to defend themselves against that. I can't beat what Julia said, but, you know, this actually gives me an opportunity to clarify what I just said about Woodrow Wilson, because I'm sure I was, when I said what I said about him contributing to World War II, I'm like, somebody's going to take me out of context here. Woodrow Wilson contributed to the creation of World War II in two ways. Number one, he led the charge with the Germans in World War I saying surrender and you'll be

treated fairly. And then during the peace treaty, the Brits and the French went hog wild about the reparations thing, the Germans are 100% responsible for the war. You know, this isn't World War II. We're talking about. We're talking about World War I. You know, it was all a mishmash of different imperial systems and blah, blah, blah.

And then Woodrow Wilson could totally drop the ball and allowed the peace treaty to proceed as it was. And Woodrow Wilson during the during the peace treaty was not talking to his advisors in Washington whatsoever. And the Treaty of Versailles, which basically created the Weimar Republic, which had, you know, basically owed the equivalent of like 10 times the German GDP to France and all these kinds of things was directly linked to Woodrow Wilson. So everything Woodrow Wilson did had a really bad effect down the line.

When you look at the U.S. Senate today, yeah, you've got your Rand Pauls and guys like that, But more you've got like Elizabeth Warren's and your Mitch McConnell's and that slimy guy from California. What's his name? They're in power for so long six years that they just get these corporate benefits. And they build these power structures, Nancy Pelosi, for example, to become super wealthy. So it just becomes an elite as factory. So is the non-elected Senate system perfect? No.

It was that unelected system that, you know, there was the U.S. civil war. But I'm more comfortable with that. And I would be more comfortable with Daniel Smith ordering senators around either Ottawa or Washington than having six-year senators or lifetime senators. Well, in the Senate set up where, like in Canada, the senators from Alberta, even if the provinces sent them, there's too many on Ontario and Quebec that hold the balance of power that the rest of the senators really don't matter. So whereas in the states, it's, it's, uh, equal representation. Yes.

And so there's actually a balance of power there between the more populated states and the, uh, the less populated states. The other thing that, uh, is interesting about having a state appointed Senate is that, like as it sits right now, there's a hundred senators and they're all in Washington. So, you know, whether it's, it's the, the government that wants to bribe, like the federal government that wants to bribe a senator or whether the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, uh, corporate lobbyists or military industrial complex whatever if they want to bribe a senator there's literally only a hundred guys and you have to set up shop in one town to do it whereas the moment you

switch to a state appointed senate the only way that you can you know bribe the senator and get away with it without that senator losing his job is actually to bribe the legislators in each individual state in order to get them to appoint somebody that's corrupt right so all of a sudden you have 50 plus states that you have to set up shop in with 148 uh legislators, legislators on average in each state. So that's over 7,000 people that you have to draw from to be able to figure out how to stack the Senate to do what you want to do. It cuts down the corruption at the federal level in a massive way.

Balances the power between the states and the federal government as well. Yeah. So by having these discussions, we build up leverage. because we're defining an option for Alberta to leave the country or to negotiate for trade corridors and things like that. So that's the power of this conversation is we're building up how can Alberta force the East to protect our personal rights and freedoms and eliminate these economic colonialism that we're under. And they're not willingly. You have to use force and we're talking about the options. Don't you think Peter.

Peter Julius Dustin, like maybe I'm wrong on this. I look at this and I go, the reason we start off with Carney is because, you know, like, it's just one more domino that we're waiting to see fall, that everybody could see was going to fall. And then the idea of Alberta, the 51st state, I think just went up a notch. I don't know how big of a notch. It just went up just a little bit because now you have King Carney, whatever you want to call them, as the, you know, the leader, the protectorate of Canada. now and I look at that and I go, I have a hard time almost getting around my head around the fact that it's happened, but it has happened. Okay. So it's just one domino. Now, it hasn't gone, I think in certain circles, the conversation we're having, the 51st state, I mean, Jeff Rath once again, leading a delegation down, the fact that these conversations are starting to pick up, everybody's looking at, okay, what is the next domino? Well, I would say, um, Carney gets, uh, coronated roughly,

around March 24th of memory serves me correct that's when parliament convenes again and he'd have to be sworn in and we're going to find out at the end of march here which i mean is once again a couple of weeks away unless he dissolves and comes back before then um you're going to find out which way this thing is really heading and everybody says everybody's leaning towards we're having an election which means then we wait a little bit longer we wait till april or or beginning of may or what have you on whether or not the next domino falls because i look at this and i go if pierre polio gets in and maybe you three will disagree with me in the short term a lot of this conversation dies away i think a lot of the public just goes you know what we got a conservative government

and uh things are going to get better and in the short term you know if he access to the tax and a couple other of his slogans on the surface things get better for for the short term or what are three or three, thoughts as you look at this. Alberta actually has a mechanism for a referendum. So I look at that and you're right. This is why I go back to Carney and the election is if Poliyev wins the the Alberta public, the sentiment, the will for a referendum and separation will die down just because whether I think Poliyev will do better or not, well, I think he'll do better for

sure, but whether he'll actually solve the issues and progress things along in the right direction that, you know, that remains to be seen. But I think the Alberta public as a whole will come down and go, it's a conservative prime minister. Does anyone, sorry, Dust, does anyone on this call go Pierre can get in? He can make things better, but can he really do the things we're talking about? The answer is no, because everything is corrupted to a point. All it does, Pierre getting in, is it calms the Canadian public down. What blanket on a little bit of a simmer?

But if you're going to have a referendum, one, you need the support to have the referendum in the first place, and then you need the referendum to be at least close or to win the referendum. And the only way that happens, like, that's not happening if Poliev gets in. The only way that happens is if

Carney either tries to retain power without an election or Carney wins the election, in which case, then the public in Alberta becomes outraged. then you actually have a shot. Go ahead, Peter. Going a bit off topic, I view Carney is a Stalin in waiting.

I am terrified of the man. His, it is possible one of his intents is to foment Trump to do something stupid, like an incursion. So I could see him arresting people like us and putting them in prison, then Trump gets really angry

and then doesn't it, military incursion. so that the way of can go, look, Trump is the evil imperialist and try to win against that. I don't put that above what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with a world empire that just lost its major, its queen. But it's still very much on the board. And they want to get ponds up to the back of the board so they can get more queens.

I look at Ruby Dala, who was second to win. She was for the Liberal Party. She was knocked out for some mysterious reason. in over 50 bucks or something. The Liberal Party kept her $350,000 donation. You know, we're not dealing with people that are playing according to the rules, and we're still thinking in terms of the rules.

It's a very dangerous situation. Well, listen, the one thing I always point out with the liberals, the conservatives do the same bloody thing, right? So full stop here on the liberal, right? The liberals are plain shady, but the longer I look at politics, this is just the way the game's being played. life. So the conservatives had their their group of people. But I mean, Grant Abraham literally was just on the show talking about when he ran and they moved him. I mean, you'd go, Joseph Borgo was another one. And it's on, is it on, it's on technicalities. They never give the money back. They never have to be like, oh, this is why. You go to a local, a more local level or a provincial level and you look at people like Kaelin Ford, who would be a slam dunk politician.

removed. You know, like here in Alberta, they just had the MLAA from, what was it, Slave Lake folks, I think Slave Lake, didn't vote in favor of the provincial budget, which is a deficit here in Alberta, removed. You go, so we stare at the liberals and when your team blue, you look at the liberals and what they're doing, and you go, oh, look, they're not playing by the rules. But one thing I want to point out to myself, to you three, to the audience, is the conservatives are just as freaking bad. This whole game is built off of how can we win. That's it. We're just going to win. Don't care the,

because if it was on who is the best politician, there'd be a lot of politicians on probably on both sides that would be in, except that isn't what this is about. Ruby Dalia was like, I mean, I certainly enjoyed what she was saying. Boom, God. And would she have won? I don't know, right? Like maybe, but I think they didn't want that conversation. Yeah, well, they didn't want the conversation on their platform, just like the liberal or the conservatives didn't want the grant Abraham, the Brown from Ontario, and of course, Joseph Borgo at a Saskatchewan. Those three men would have, would they have won? I had a hard time believing that back when Pierre was at the height of where he was at, but they would have added things into the conversation that they just

didn't want there. That's what they do. They found a way to remove them on technicalities. Both parties do it, both major parties do it. Probably all the parties in the political system do it. It's just part of this game. It's a very nefarious game. It's dark. You don't like, you know, like I look at the NHL. I always bring things back to the hockey world and people will laugh at me. But the Vegas Golden Knights come in and they're given these, all these favorable rules. Are the next teams that come in giving those rules? No, they're going to change them a little bit. And then they have Stone and everybody will remember Stone. They put him on long term injury reserve. Oh, but he's ready to go by playoffs. Everybody can see. It's all about winning.

And so that's my rant for you. Carry on. Yeah, I mean, part of, like, when I look at Kearney, I think Peter's right on the money as to the danger there. And yet the irony is that the other side with Pueleev is that, you know, he diffuses the tension. And yet he's, he's, because there's this expectation that he's going to save things. At the same time, he's more likely to end up like a Boris Johnson or a Rishi Sunak from the UK that comes in and push the same globalist nonsense, right? Like we've seen this over and over in every single country. And I think this is where, I think there's a huge difference in the, you know,

conservative idea that's now emerged under Trump versus the conservatism of most conservative parties is that most conservative parties are conserving the post-World War II era. All of the ideas, the institutions, the core philosophies of, you know, when there's a problem, you know, Folleyev wants free trade with China to replace free trade with, with America. You know, let's build the pipelines, right? Whereas Trump is actually taking all of these, you know, post-World War II pillars and attacking them.

It's like, well, free trade is hollowed out America. We need tariffs to bring the manufacturing back. Like it's philosophically 180 degrees away from the approach that Puellev or any of the other conservative leaders in other countries have taken towards solving the problems that are now in our era. Like it's like the ideas that, you know, solve the problems of the second world. World War of free trade and alliances and all that. Those things have now been weaponized into problems that are destroying our countries.

The solutions to one era become the problems of the next. And I think this is the core of why, whether Poliev is pro-world economic form or against it, in some ways it's like, well, he's still actually defending the same core pillars that the globalists are now leveraging to turn into a global empire. So even if he isn't part of that empire, he's still preserving their tools, whereas Trump is attacking their tools. And I think that's the core philosophy difference between the two. The big mindset difference is still believing in the institutions versus not believing in the institutions.

And this is, you're worried about the concern about Poliav. Is he going to trust the institutions that are in place that I think for a lot of people post-COVID, you know, I don't trust the institutions anymore because they've proven to be corrupt. And what Trump is doing is attacking those institutions and taking things back to the, you know, back to the base essentially in rebuilding or trying to rebuild something that makes sense for this era. And as long as you're just like fiddling around the edges, you're actually not doing anything. And you're living within their frame or their world essentially, you know, like net zero. Holyev hasn't come out against it. So that, you know, is he going to do anything too radical?

Probably not. he might get rid of the carbon tax, but is he going to actually go against net zero and climate change narratives? And to this point, he hasn't, essentially. It's like most of the conservatives are preserving the era that was created by Woodrow Wilson of this liberal international order, whereas Trump is actually harking back to the conservatism of President McKinley, which is the pre-Woodrow Wilson era, which was controlled by tariffs and had a very different, much smaller footprint as far as trying to do social engineering. So I think there's the philosophical split between the two sides.

Do we dare bring up the topic of fiat currency? Sure. I'm game. Go for it. Uh, thea, okay, gold, under, under traditional systems, uh, the goal, the bank would have gold in their vault. And then they would issue receipts for the gold to people who owned it. And then the bank realized that most people keep their, their gold in the bank most of the time. So the bank can issue more receipts for the gold than the bank actually has in gold.

So the bank, that's where the whole 10 to one ratio. the bank could lend out 10 times as much money as it had in its vault because most people keep their gold in the vault and pay a fee for it. And that went on for a long time. So the banks are doing very, very well. And then they said, why do we even need to have the gold? People just use the paper. And that's where you had the development of the Federal Reserve and, you know, the private banks like the Bank of England and the Bank of Canada, which aren't, you know, you think they're multi-year, you know, that they're, you know, immutable organizations. But no, they're not that old.

And the whole idea of a currency issued by government that's backed by nothing really took off in the 1970s. And I'm not an expert in this topic. But it certainly seems interesting because a lot of these kinds of issues and globalization issues and the global elite really seemed to really take off once you eliminated the gold standard. What do you guys think? I mean, from the time that Woodrow Wilson created the Federal Reserve, which was part of this, you know, moving towards the Keynesian economics, the paper money, the value, like the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar has devalued by 98% since 1913. Right. Like we have utterly destroyed wealth on a colossal scale as a consequence of, you know, creating the Federal Reserve system and moving away from the gold standard. And I mean, there's different chapters that there was, you know, the first steps were taken in the late 1800s, and it basically finished under Nixon and, you know, we're actually seizing gold out of people's holdings, right? But that, that process utterly gutted the United States and all other countries that played on the same, by the same rules. I mean, Canada is in the same boat.

Another way to view it visually is back in 1913 or whatever, you could buy a Ford T model, whatever it was. For about a stick of gold, okay, it would be, you know, worth $35 or something. Nowadays, you know, a half decent car is $30, $40, $50,000, which is, you know, a stick of gold. Gold has not lost its value. The cash has lost its value. I agree with most of that, but every time I listen to Martin Armstrong, I get confused. And I'm going to lay out his basic argument, and I'm not going to do it justice. But he goes, you know, if you look back across government,

over time, if you have gold coins with the same amount of gold in them in two different currencies or two different countries, the country that is more powerful, the gold coin would be worth more, even though the gold content is the same. And so, you know, I understand the risk of fiat currencies, obviously, you know, governments printing insane amounts of money and inflation going through the roof. But I understand Martin's point in that just because you have gold, it doesn't matter if they're the same size, the same weight, the country, you know, the U.S. gold coin versus the Canadian gold coin, the U.S. gold coin is going to be worth more just because the trust in government or the trust in the power of the government will make it so that the American gold

coin at this point in time would be worth more. Now you go out 50 years and, and you're a lot of and the U.S. isn't the most powerful country anymore. All of a sudden, the Chinese gold coin would be worth more. But it's not like it's just the gold content that determines the value of the coin. He was talking about, yeah, he always talks about Caesar. Caesar being on the gold coin, right? And what that represented back in that era. It was trust in that it represented what it actually represented.

Yes. Anyhow. So I don't know, I can't articulate or I don't fully understand the art. fully yet, but just relying on a system where you say, well, we have this much gold, therefore, we have, you know, it's more complicated than that, I believe. The idea of having a gold standard is that, you know, you can't print money that you don't have gold for. Like if every dollar that's in circulation is tied to a certain amount of gold sitting in a bank vault,

it puts a lid on the government inflating away your currency. And so by breaking that link, you've unleashed this incredible spending binge that's run on debt and printed money that the government can get away with because who's counting how many dollars are being printed. Whereas as soon as there's a gold standard, every bank is looking to make sure that there's actually gold equivalent to every dollar that they take in. So there's a sort of a self-regulating process that's in place.

And I think this is, you know, maybe there's other ways to rein in that kind of spending. But I think that the gold standard is, or some kind of commodity-based standard like that, is, you know, an extremely important part of bringing our governments back into, into a, you know, a balanced financial situation. Well, inflation has been a massive issue over the last couple of years as governments printed obscene amounts of money coming out of COVID for sure. Well, and the irony is that the main reason that they do this is to fund wars. So, you know, there's a lot of people that are concerned about joining the United States

because of the United States history of military adventurism. Well, one of the ways to bring that back into some kind of balance is to take away their ability to fund endless wars. And one of that is through the gold standard. A really crazy idea is to go back to the Old Testament where it calls for Jubilee, which has never been implemented, which was every 70, that's 70 years, all debts are canceled.

And I'm like, boy, that would actually be a big reset button every 70 years because around year 50 or year 45, all the financial institutions and lenders would start really restricting how much they lend because they want to be paid back, right? So that some people are good with money, some people are bad with money, but it just creates a giant reset button.

and also, you know, these multi-generational debts like Trudeau's created would be a way to bring an end to them. So I was like, what would happen if in the year 2019 Canada declared a Jubilee or the West declared there'll be Jubilee? I was like, I actually could see this working. That's my crazy idea. Your crazy idea of the day. Well, I mean, we're talking about Alberta 50. I mean, we're talking about a bunch of crazy ideas today. Alberta 51st state. I remember when I had Martin Armstrong on the first time and he said he doesn't see what it was it socrates doesn't see canada as a country by 2030 like it'll be and he argued he was discussing even the united states i was like how on earth would that be

possible and and and then he said it could be just something small right like that sets it off that you can't even predict that it's coming and i look at this conversation and we're talking about crazy ideas one because mark kearney is now the prime minister of canada right and you go okay well then there's a whole lot of unknowns and if he certain events play out then certain events are certainly going to be a reaction to those events right like there's there's just a whole lot going on here so crazy ideas you know like forgiving everyone's debt as after every 70 years that is a crazy idea i would think the powers of be don't like that idea one iota you know i've been playing with crazy ideas for the whole 51st state thing.

And I mean, the other question that comes up for any province that wants to join the United States is what if the marriage is sour and you want to leave again, right? Like, can you leave? I mean, the U.S. Civil War pretty much closed that door that once you're in, there's no leaving. And there's good reasons for that, which is that, you know, if you split into two parts like they did in the civil war, you have, you know, the entire continent going to war. and if you try to split out again, you're going to be chewed up on the outside by other foreign powers that want to have a piece of you. But at the same time, once you're in and you end up with the federal government growing more and more powerful,

you end up under an authoritarian dictatorship and there's no way back out without, you know, a war. So leaving kind of becomes a necessity then. And so to me, the balance that could be struck is that you actually use so that there's, if you come in, as long as the republic stays decentralized, that most of the power is held at the state level, that there's no exit door. But if the power starts to shift towards the federal government, where you can possibly end up under a tyranny,

that certain triggers can be hit, and there is an actual exit door built into the Constitution. Right. And you could use something like federal spending as a percentage of GDP or federal debt as a percentage of GDP, or both, as triggers to open that exit door. So that if an Alberta or a Quebec, that is very concerned about maintaining its sovereignty on its home soil,

joins the Republic, that you're in as long as you have your, and there's no exit as long as you have that high degree of sovereignty at home. But the moment that the Republic is kind of replaced by a big empire, all of a sudden that door opens that you can leave again. And to me that would be another way to incentivize the system to not get more, you know, federally centralized. Ironically, that's how why the Soviet Union dissolved in the 1989 or 1991, whatever it was, because in their constitution, every republic had the right to self-determination and independence.

So when Russia just declared independence, the Soviet Union just automatically dissolved. And there wasn't an immediate civil war, where you've seen wars in the post-Sovic Union is where the boundary was really badly drawn, which is between Armenia and Azerbaijan. on and with Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, which kept going fine until, you know, which is a whole other topic. The Americans got involved in 2014. So, yeah, we're playing with some big ideas that need a lot of fleshing out. But I think the main theme we're coming at is that we need to be thinking out of our comfort zone because we are dealing, we're not dealing with the prime minister of Canada who's maybe a bit of a dip. Excuse my French. We're dealing with a world empire that has

shown itself to be brutal in every way possible up to and including bloodshed. Well, the thing about, you know, Alberta independence versus Alberta joining the states is that joining the states would actually stop a civil war from occurring essentially. Because there's a risk that if Alberta went, tried to go independence and push the issue with the federal government, that the federal government, you know, would essentially arrest everybody in a civil war, break out, those kind of things. Whereas if you're joining the states and you vote in favor of joining the states, the states would suddenly immediately protect you from the Canadian government.

And there'd obviously be a lot of negotiating, which that's actually the bonus of Trump being in there, is you'd have someone who would negotiate well on the state side to actually make things work. But I think what we all agree on is the best case scenario is a Canada that is free of globalistic, interference, CCP interference, and whatever you believe, whether it's Qatari, Russian, Chinese, Indian, whatever, Calistani, these influences don't belong here. We need to get rid of those influences to make the country at least work on a day-to-day level. And over the long term, we need to restructure Ottawa. And the stasis and the ossified bureaucracy and the fact that Easterners just don't get it needs a big push. So I think our fundamental, I think we would all

agree a Canada that works is our best option, but it's really frustrating that Canadians aren't realizing it because they're living on our money, right? And we need to push the issue because it's the same as with the, you know, the wife of an abusive spouse, her primary powers her feet. She can walk out the door. Well, we're, you know, we're the, the wealthy, the wealthy, wealthy lady that owns a household that has got a bunch of entitled kids that are squabbling and fighting. That lady's saying, get out of the house or I'm going to leave the house. I would say we're the big kid that's getting bullied and we just don't realize our size.

Like we just don't realize when we swat them for the first time, they're going to be like, oh my God, what just happened, right? Like I think we don't understand what we actually have because we've been told for so long that you're, you know, whatever, this, that and the other. He's part of the reason with one of the hard things with conservatives is we have a really hard time coming together. We just, we just do. And it's because we have wonderful people that think for themselves. I mean, that's about as simple as it gets.

When you get a bunch of headstrong people who think for themselves in a room, everybody's right. And so that's, that's hard to put in a direction. But we're getting to a point here, folks, where you look at Carney being in, everything you've all said about them is 100% bang on. Like, I mean, you know, I went, I went and played hockey last night, walked in. And, uh, you know, oh, where were you? I was like, oh, you know, like, uh, talking about new prime minister. Oh, yeah, who's that? Like, Mark Carney and typical hockey is, oh, I guess we change their flags from,

and you're partying, your French, all part of my French, fuck Trudeau to, to fuck Carney. And I'm like, that, that's as simple as they are. They're, they're just done with the liberal party in that room, right? but to the common voter, or maybe even not the common room, to the people that are paying attention. I think they realize how dangerous, precarious of a situation we're in with this change of governance and the change of prime minister. You know, the only way that you break this is this,

I think if some of the provinces start pushing for independence movement. And I mean, Quebec is certainly growing, but the most likely group to want to get out is Alberta, plus possibly Saskatchewan and BC since they're the ones that pay the most into the equalization funds, right? But the demographics are not on our side. Like this has to happen soon.

Otherwise, the continuing growth of these megacities just makes it more and more hard to get out because the voters in the megacities overwhelmingly vote liberal. They overwhelmingly support the globalist ideas. Like, you know, if this doesn't happen soon, the exit door closes just naturally, just through the sheer speed at which these different cities are growing.

I mean, Ottawa is growing, just as an example, because we were living there for a while. Ottawa is growing at the speed of, you know, 40,000 people a year. That's the entire population of our town of Vernon every single year is being added. Like, at those rates, all the power just keeps shifting there, even just through the way that our MPs are, like through the electoral districts. It's like the power shifts to those big cities on such a scale that eventually their referendums to exit are gone. I mean, we've already seen that even in Alberta where, you know, the rural regions are all ready to separate and the cities are, you know, heavy NDP strongholds. And that's the key to it all is it's not actually Ottawa.

It's the place that actually, you know, might want to get out is Alberta. But the demographics and the immigration into Alberta changes the demographics immensely. over time and it gets worse for, you know, actually having a vote and, and deciding to do something different. Jen. Oh, sorry. Well, I am going to disagree a bit on that. It's not exactly related.

The taxation financial and royalty structures are set up to benefit centralized cities. And we talked to, you know, you can talk about separating big cities of separate provinces. You can also talk about reforming royalty and taxation implementation. systems so that they're more equitable and less of a drain on the rural areas. And number two is, you know, when I push for corridors, I'm also going like, you know, a bird is going to be doubling its population. And right now we're set up that most of that population growth is in our two major cities. And I'm like, why?

With more corridors more infrastructure, you can have more mid-sized cities. And that's another reason I think the UCP should take this issue seriously is like, why can't waitminster double or triple in size? Why can't high level be 50 or 100,000 people? Why can't Grand Prairie be 300,000 people? It just needs the, you know, they're at the end of branch lines of infrastructure as opposed to being untransed continental grids. That's my little geek moment.

I mean, this is where, like, if you decided in Alberta or in BC that you wanted to split the big cities out, you'd have to get the permission of the big city voters to do it, right? Like, this is how our system is set up. So they probably wouldn't want to do it. But if you were trying to negotiate to become the 51st state, as it sits right now, the current structure would basically tip, bringing the Canadian voters in, would tip the electoral college into the hands of the Democratic Party, possibly for generations, because we're so left-leaning.

But if you suddenly say, listen, so bringing this whole idea of changing the cities out as their own states, it becomes suddenly of interest to the federal government or to the Trump administration, say, well, we better make sure that we don't wreck the Republic by bringing the Canadians in. So, you know, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, and possibly Edmonton and Calgary should all be their own little city-states. And we're going to redraw the boundaries so that there's an equal balance of Democrat versus Republican or conservative versus liberal entities. So all of a sudden there's a real push.

You know, there's the 800-pound gorilla suddenly wants to make it happen too. And that increases the likelihood of getting it done. gentlemen appreciate you hopping on today um thanks for having us i highly doubt we solved anything today but uh one of the things about these conversations is you're you're putting in new ideas that uh very few have wrestled with and i know there are people that were actively wrestling with them but uh i would say there's a whole bunch of the the alberta population and everywhere else in western can to tune into this it hadn't really given it a whole lot of thoughts so appreciate you guys coming on and exploring some different ideas today and hopefully it's not the last time.

Thank you very much. Definitely. Thanks so much for having us. Thanks, Sean.