May 18, 2023 • 42 mins
How deep does the NDP's manipulation and misinformation go? Discover the shocking tactics they employ to deceive voters, including twisted audio clips and broken election laws. Hear about their Just Transition Program's devastating impact on jobs, and the dishonest way they present themselves as centrist rather than progressive.
We also take a critical look at the power of progressivism in politics and how it has shaped the world under Justin Trudeau's leadership. Listen to our thought-provoking discussion on the system's favoritism toward progressivism, and the hefty price we pay in taxes to cover their expensive policies. Plus, don't miss our analysis of the UCP's proposed tax rate changes and how they're seen as contributing to underfunded services.
Lastly, explore the NDP's harmful approach to growth and expression, focusing on their top-heavy administration and the detrimental effects on frontline staff. Learn about the NDP candidates' open admiration for socialist and communist leaders, and join us as we question what the pandemic would have looked like if they held power. Don't miss this eye-opening conversation that will have you questioning the reality of Alberta politics!
(No Guest)
Politically discordant, counter culture clothing for the discerning civil disobedient.
Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Whether we agree or agree to disagree, everybody's
got an opinion, and I'm about togive you mine.
So sit back, relax, buckle upand try not to get offended.
Welcome to This Canadian Thinks.
The Alberta NDP is outrightlying and manipulating audio
clips to present positions thatare not held by the United
(00:22):
Conservative Party as beingpositions that they actually do.
They are breaking election lawsand allowing unions to
represent them using fraudulentinformation.
You can hear it on the radioevery day.
Commercials about the UCPwanting you to pay for health
care, and so on.
Audio snippets are includedthat appear to have Danielle
Smith talking about privatizinghealth care or selling hospitals
(00:43):
, throwing away pensions and alitany of other seemingly
heinous ideas.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
A regular checkup to your doctor.
Does that really have to besomething that is covered 100%
by government, or should that bepaid for out of your health
spending account?
Speaker 1 (00:56):
These clips are from radio shows, podcasts or
interviews given of which Smithwas a host or appeared as a
guest and where she discussessubjects such as health care and
possible solutions to fixingthe obviously broken system
faced by Albertans.
They are taken out of contextand may possibly represent the
views of the individual, andthey may also just as easily be
a position taken for the purposeof exploratory dialogue and
(01:18):
nothing else.
Without context, we are leftwith the NDP alone to decipher
the actual intent.
Even if it's the personalopinion of Smith that we should
actually endorse the ideasdiscussed, it does not
necessarily translate to partypolicy.
Do you actually believe thatevery politician believes
everything that their partypolicy might say?
It's highly unlikely.
Let's be fair.
(01:40):
During the pandemic, there wereplenty of politicians at a step
with the official message.
Guys like Drew Barnes wouldn'tget in line and they ended up as
independents.
As a result, they were kickedout of caucus because they
couldn't set their own personalviews aside and come into line
with the rest of the party.
It actually happens all thetime.
I understand that Smith is theleader and, as such, can
somewhat guide the party in acertain direction, but we've
(02:01):
seen how ineffective that's beenso far.
The amnesty for COVIDconvictions fell flat, for
example, once it became clearthat there was no legal avenue
for the government to take onthat file, it ground to a rather
quick halt.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
In a series of interviews and media appearances
since mid-December, Alberta'sPremier said she spoke to
prosecutors about whethercriminal cases related to COVID
restrictions should proceed.
Comments that set off afirestorm of criticism.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
Granted the optics of Smith speaking to Artur
Pawlowski may have presented afield day for the NDP, but it
really only went to prove thatNotley would limit access to
government officials to anyoneshe didn't agree with.
How does that work?
I mean, I understand thatsomeone in jail gives up their
rights to vote and in some waythe officials elected as a
result, but, Pawlowski wasn'twasn't in jail and at the time
(02:50):
was a nominee for the leadershipof a rival political party.
Had Smith not spoken to him andhad his message been in line
with the NDP, Notley would havepitched a fit over Smith not
having done so.
Additionally, do the humanrights proponents not rally
their government officials tomake conditions more favourable
and institutions ofincarceration?
Do the wrongfully convicted notseek clemency?
(03:10):
At what point do you putsomeone completely outside of
the purview of any governmentagency whatsoever?
The death penalty, perhaps?
That's something we don'tentertain in Canada anymore, nor
have done for quite some time,unless you count medical
assistance in dying.
It's the misdirect andmisinformation game that Notley
and her cohorts are so very wellversed in on display once again
(03:31):
.
The party of tolerance andinclusion, showing just how
intolerant and divisive theyreally are.
It's the root issue with mostprogressive politicians these
days, the NDP and Liberalparties being the true
architects.
They speak their myths, truthsand condescending non-sequiturs
in response to any question, insuch a manner as to befuddle,
bewildering the voter base intoabsolute automatons.
(03:53):
The more outrageous andunbelievable the message, the
more people swallow it.
It's absolutely unbelievable tome actually.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
I mean, this is just like the NDP on all financial
matters Let's shoot now and talkabout it and plan later, and
that's not the way to run agovernment.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
How did we get here?
Well, it likely started whenthe political class voted that
they didn't have to answerquestions in question period.
Then it manifested from thereinto what we see now, where you
could literally ask a politicianif Canadians like poutine and
receive some sort of blatherabout the middle class and those
working hard to join it instead.
It's inconceivable, really.
Speaker 4 (04:28):
The Leader of the Liberal Party has an opportunity
to respect the fact thatheating your home in January and
February in Canada is not aluxury And it does not make
those Canadians polluters,they're just trying to survive.
This from a prime minister whoburned more jet fuel in one
month than 20 average Canadiansburned in an entire year.
(04:52):
So will the prime ministerground the jet park the
hypocrisy and axe the tax hikes?
Speaker 5 (05:00):
The right Honorable prime minister.
Speaker 6 (05:05):
On this side of the house, we're going to continue
to stay focused on direct andreal help for Canadians,
Responding to the challengesthey're facing with meaningful
measures that are going to helpmillions of Canadians in the
middle class and those workinghard to join it.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
Keep in mind, these are the same parties most likely
to censor the internet or workto stop the spread of
unacceptable viewpoints.
The progressive parties are farmore likely to limit expression
, rally against misinformationand restrict access to
government officials.
They say we hate the things andothers that we dislike about
ourselves.
Well, it should be pretty clearby now what the Liberal and NDP
(05:40):
parties stand for and what theymost dislike about themselves.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
So how do you decide what's misinformation and when
to use these words, since theword can encompass different
ideas amongst Canadians?
Speaker 6 (05:52):
Thank you, Unlike all of you in this room, or most of
you in this room, I neverstudied political science.
I studied English literature.
So words really matter to meand you may call me old
fashioned but I tend to defer tothe actual definitions of words
(06:14):
when I use them.
And misinformation anddisinformation, which you used a
little interchangeably, areactually very different things.
Disinformation is when thingsthat are false, things that are
untrue, are spread by people whodon't know any better.
(06:35):
Misinformation is a deliberatechoice to spread and share
falsehoods for a particularpurpose, whether it's a personal
purpose or a political purposeor a creating chaos purpose.
(06:55):
Now, what can start asmisinformation can quickly end
up being amplified asdisinformation.
But the entire discourse has toground itself in something,
because you're absolutely right.
Who decides what ismisinformation and
disinformation?
Well, if someone looks outsideand says it's a beautiful, blue
(07:17):
sky, sunny day today, we wouldknow that's wrong, because our
experience here in Ottawa, ourexperience looking out the
window, tells us otherwise.
But if someone says the earth isflat, you can see extensive
YouTube pages devoted by peoplewho've decided and this is a
(07:41):
recent phenomenon over the pastdecade or so that the earth is
flat because their experience asthey look out to the horizon is
boy, the earth sure looks flat.
So it can't just be aboutperception.
You look on the weather channel.
Oh, it's raining in Ottawa.
Okay, so it's not a blue skysunny day.
We have to agree that we'regoing to agree with the weather
channel on this, or with thescientists from Environment
(08:04):
Canada who are saying that it issunny today in Ottawa or it is
rainy here today in Ottawa.
There has to be an acceptancethat there are experts out there
that create a basis of factthat was built up on in
generations to tell us thatwater is wet and it freezes at
(08:30):
zero degrees Celsius, and thereare scientific realities that
have been proven and accepted.
And the challenge that we havenow is that increasingly,
misinformation anddisinformation is carrying
people to believe things thatare untrue.
(08:50):
Vaccinations is a perfectexample of it.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
But Notley is different, "he represents
Albertans and isn't beholden tothe federal NDP.
You might say That is untrue.
The NDP is actually the onlyparty where the provincial body
doesn't have autonomy from thefederal party.
This is why we got the JustTransition Program under the
Alberta NDP when they were inpower, which cost countless jobs
.
It wasn't in the best interestof Alberta to implement that
(09:19):
program and Nautli must haveknown that from the get-go.
Instead, although she was ableto adopt a stance on a wide
range of inconsequentialprovincial matters, just
Transition went through withoutdelay, championed by those whose
incomes depend on the verything they were trying to
strangle.
Talk about cutting your nose offdespite your face.
So here we are Political adscomprised of whole lies being
(09:41):
broadcast by the very people whocaution you about broadcasted
lies.
You need to really listen tothese people.
When they tell you they'reworried about election
interference, it means they'relikely going to interfere with
the election.
When they tell you there's arise in misinformation, it means
they're releasing more and moremisinformation every day.
It's about the only thing youcan actually believe anymore,
because nothing else makes sense.
Speaker 7 (10:03):
You should watch.
You should listen.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
I'm certainly not trying to say that the UCP are
saints and aren't engaged insome dishonest practices of
their own.
It would seem that it's in apolitician's portfolio to behave
in such a way anymore.
It's just that the NDP is beingso blatant about it.
Not only they're broadcastingoutright lies, but they double
down on them with abandon everychance they get.
Speaker 7 (10:24):
It's not enough for us to just be not those guys.
Albertans want to know who weare.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Most of what not least team are peddling are
rehashed and reworded versionsof proposals or plans already
established by the UCP.
If the UCP's ideas are so great, then why do we need the NDP to
deliver on them?
The fact of the matter is theNDP won't.
The things they're saying areuntrue, and they're only saying
them to woo UCP voters who maybe unhappy with Smith, based
(10:53):
mostly on the lies perpetuatedby the NDP.
Should the Alberta NDP getelected, they'll start right
back where they left off in 2019.
Which, from where I'm sitting,looks like the further erosion
of Alberta from a position ofstrength into the subservient,
federal government-dependentutopia of progressivism imagined
by the leftist hardliners.
Rachel Notley is positioningher dialogue in an appearance of
(11:16):
being closer oriented to theright and thus far more centrist
than progressive, but it's asham, a blatantly preposterous
one at that.
For those out of the know, itsounds wonderful, but we've seen
it play out in the past,ignorance of which has drastic
consequences.
We watched it spiral downwardover the NDP's short time in
power not so very long ago.
The promises they do keep arealways the most costly, and the
(11:39):
promises we need them to makegood on are never fully realized
.
That's the problem withsocialists and communists, both
of which the NDP identify quitestrongly with, they lie.
You surely must have askedyourself at some point, "ow did
they get all those people to goalong with that?
There's a long list of examplesHitler, saudi Arabia, atrocious
moments in human history wherewe witness a huge number of
(12:01):
people bend to the will of anauthoritarian power Outside of
outright military intervention.
This has most often,undoubtedly been due in no small
part to someone havingfirst-told lies.
That's what they do.
Politicians in general arefamous for it, but progressive
politicians are the ilk in themost grandiose tales, of which
(12:23):
only history can serve to teachus.
We never learned, though.
Seven years and over 185 daysto date, under the contemptuous
glare of Justin Trudeau, isproof positive of that.
The sheer disdain held by thosewho went and got vaccinated
towards those who did not isanother good example.
How could you get society toturn against one another or
(12:43):
concede to a nefarious plan?
Indeed, it wasn't hard.
Unfortunately, it was far tooeasily accomplished for my
liking.
It was as if the world lost itscollective common sense.
Could you just imagine thecontrol over the people a global
progressive government wouldhave?
I can.
I've been watching them roll itout in real time.
It's like witnessing the carcrash of humanity.
(13:05):
You don't want to see it, butyou look anyway.
There's nothing you can do toprevent it, but you feel guilty
about it all the same.
You still look, but now youfeel as bad about yourself as
you did for them, except nowyou're both boarding a train car
and cars are illegal in orderto prevent loss of human life.
(13:27):
In reality, though, there'ssimply no escaping the constant
drift towards the left inCanadian politics.
The way the system is set up is, by design, advantageous to
progressivism.
If you have a right-leaningparty in power and the official
opposition is decidedlyleft-wing, then every time the
government decides to dosomething, they have to add or
do things that appease theopposition, even if they aren't
(13:49):
directly related to what they'retrying to pass, lest they
receive a vote of no confidencein the House, which basically
means that an election is called.
These votes of confidence aretied to things like the budget,
where they need the support ofthe House to pass it as
legislation.
If there were twoconservative-leaning governments
acting in both capacitiesgovernment and official
opposition then, and only then,could the legislation be moved
(14:11):
right.
It seldom happens.
It happens in Albertaoccasionally, which is one of
the reasons that things have notdrifted as far into progressive
territory in this province asin most others.
When the progressives are incharge, they appease the more
conservative opposition bywatering down their agenda
enough to enjoy the same will ofthe House, but they're already
starting from a progressivestandpoint.
Spend a little less, move alittle slower, and the
(14:33):
progressives can still very muchmove in the same direction as
they originally attended.
Speaker 6 (14:39):
Progressive parties need people to vote for, and
it's always easy to come up withthe right jingle or the right
soundbite that destabilizes andgets people angry.
As progressives know that wecan't do the many things around
equality of opportunity and trueprogress and shared prosperity
(14:59):
unless we have the growth thatgives us the capacity to do that
and leads to that.
Speaker 1 (15:04):
So keep in mind, outside of the PPC there is no
other real federal Conservativeparty.
Even the so-calledconservatives are progressive.
The name of the party is theoxymoronic Progressive
Conservative Party, after all.
Once you drag the conversation,and thereby the legislation of
a place towards the left ofcentre spectrum, it is near
impossible to undo.
The problem therein lies in thefact that the things that
(15:28):
progressive governments seek toimplement tend to cost us
astronomically and they expectus to pay substantially more to
cover them.
How do we do that?
Through paying more and moretaxes.
I'm actually really surprised tohear many talk radio hosts and
political pundits accusing theUCP of spending money because
they're proposing a change totaxation rates, including tax
(15:49):
cuts, that will benefit thevulnerable among us the most.
It would seem the perfectproposal for the more
progressive minded, but insteadit's viewed as nothing more than
contributing to moreunderfunded services, services
that ballooned to mammothproportions and became so tough,
heavy and union beneficial thatthey were completely
unsustainable and effective dueto the complete disaster propped
(16:11):
up by the Alberta NDP.
Guys like Shay Gannum carry onabout the UCP offering a tax
break.
He repeatedly asks where doesthe money come from?
Due to the dependence on themoney from taxation.
There is no concept of bloatedgovernments, only governments
that are not yet big enough.
When the NDP was in power, thegovernment's tax income
increased substantially.
(16:32):
They raised taxes on all sortsof things to cover their
increasingly costly agenda.
Now, in order to bring the costof government down, and with it
the need for even more taxdollars, taxes must come down
and certain areas need to betrimmed to become more
sustainable, just like AlbertaHealth Services, where, once
again, a top-heavy,administration-rich union
(16:53):
environment can only benefitthose at the very top and at the
expense of frontline staff.
When your administrators aremaking a quarter of a million
dollars and your nurses aremaking five-figure salaries at
best you could have a lot morenurses than administrators and
keep costs down at the same time.
Instead, they have six levelsof management all telling the
(17:13):
handful of actual staff what todo.
It's ludicrous.
This is the real-world NDP.
This is the NDP they aredesperately trying to avoid
having.
You see, right now.
Speaker 8 (17:27):
Hello Peter, what's happening?
We have sort of a problem here.
Yeah, you apparently didn't putone of the new cover sheets on
your TPS reports.
Oh yeah, i'm sorry about that,i forgot.
Yeah, you see, we're puttingthe cover sheets on all TPS
reports now before they go out.
(17:48):
Did you see the memo about this?
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, i have the memo righthere, i just forgot.
But it's not shipping out tilltomorrow, so there's no problem.
Yeah, if you could just goahead and make sure you do that
from now on, that would be great, and I'll go ahead and make
(18:08):
sure you get another copy ofthat memo, okay.
Speaker 5 (18:10):
Yeah no, I have the memo.
Speaker 8 (18:12):
I've got it.
It's right here, Hello Bill.
What's happening?
Speaker 1 (18:16):
That's why progressives want to censor any
opposing dialogue, so that theonly thing you hear is their
position.
It's hard to remember whathappened before if you have no
one to remind you.
That's one of the core tenetsof these socialist and
communist-enthralled progressiveideologies.
They all have a tendency tolimit and control rather than
nurture any sort of actualgrowth or expression, even
(18:37):
contrary to that which theymight say, just like the Alberta
NDP are doing right now.
It's simply lip servicedesigned to keep the sewer rats
under control and right wherethey should be doing exactly as
the government says.
The sort of government knowsbest approach that should be
resisted at all costs.
They literally think that youare so stupid that you will
(18:57):
believe absolutely anything theytell you.
Judging by the exponentialgrowth in NDP signs and rural
areas since the last election,they might be right.
It's mind-numbing to me thatthey have been able to
adequately dupe so many withtheir basic communist manifestos
.
Just a quick peruse of theparty's policies should be a
quick reminder of how out ofstep their words are from their
(19:18):
core belief.
It's an obvious display fromtweets about Mao, to
participation in pro-communistand communist party marches,
right down to Rachel Notleysporting a hip tribute to Shea
Guevara in the form of awristwatch at one point.
Of course, the moment anyonedraws attention to it, they
delete the posts almostinstantaneously and make much
(19:39):
ado about minimizing.
Such was the case with NDPcandidates Gerynder Brar, Ray
Loyola, Diana Batten justrecently.
The love and admirationbroadcast for socialist and
communist despots by these NDPhopefuls remains truly startling
.
Speaker 5 (20:13):
The state tells us it wants to prevent a panic.
Listen.
Well, it's true, when thepeople see the police, they will
be afraid, but it is myexperience that when the people
ask questions that are not intheir own best interest, they
should simply be told to keeptheir minds on their labor and
leave matters of the state tothe state.
(20:35):
We seal off the city no oneleaves and cut the phone lines,
contain the spread ofmisinformation.
That is how we keep the peoplefrom undermining the fruits of
(20:56):
their own labor.
Yes, comrades, we will all berewarded for what we do here
tonight.
This is our moment to shine.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
What would these people say to those who came to
Canada to escape the drudgery ofcommunism?
if they were to stand beforethem today, what possible
apology would suffice to excusetheir complete detachment from
the reality of the situation?
These people talk about therest of us checking our
privilege, but it would seem tobe that they should spend a bit
of time mirror-gazing themselves.
Maybe, if they were to do so,they might see the folly in
(21:39):
their ways.
It's not likely, though.
These are the same people whowould require a zero-tolerance
mandatory vaccinationexpectation, should they have
been the ones making the choiceat the time.
Thankfully they weren't.
I'd hate to see what the recentpandemic would have been like if
they had been.
The rights and freedomswell-earned by the blood and
sweat of our forefathers wouldhave been even more quickly
(22:00):
vanished into the annals ofhistory, to be no more.
Even if you disagree with theactions taken by the government
during the pandemic, you have toadmit it would have been far
more onerous and strict had theNDP been in power at the time.
The reason Alberta had most ofthe mandates and restrictions
that we did was in no small partdue to clamoring from the NDP
(22:20):
in their base over the UCPneeding to do more than they
already were, which furtherproves the idea that
progressives always drag theconversation left.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
The community that faced the most restrictions on
their freedoms in the last yearwere those who made a choice not
to be vaccinated.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
Make no mistake, though the Alberta NDP party is
indeed lying.
They desperately need you tobelieve the huck they are
peddling.
They want nothing more for youto forget the four years they
were in power and how manybusinesses fled the province and
took their high paying jobswith them, how expensive things
become, how the taxes increased,how the public expense exploded
, how the unions andadministration staff profited
(23:00):
from the general desperation ofabsolutely everything, all while
the efficacy of care sliddownward in an avalanche of
mismanagement andunsustainability.
It was the perfect storm for anAlberta on the precipice of a
global pandemic.
Speaker 7 (23:14):
Due to circumstances well beyond our control.
Our economy is volatile one,and we may be struggling a bit.
Speaker 11 (23:21):
Companies are cutting back on hiring and
investment, and the plummetingprice of oil means the
government's energy royaltiesare tumbling too.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
In yet another example of their disconnect,
livingstone McLeod NDP candidateKevin Van Teegam was also found
to impart some thoughtfulopinions about Alberta's energy
sector, while comparing it toslavery and a dumb pursuit in
place of college enrollment, inhis book Wild Roses Are Worth It
.
His revulsion of the peopleinvolved in Alberta's energy
(23:49):
sector simply cannot be denied,but the NDP simply replies when
pressed about it with theAlberta, ndp supports the future
of oil and gas and we have arobust energy plan to build a
resilient economy and betterfuture for the province.
Speaker 10 (24:04):
Federal memo about the just transition is a fresh
source of tension on thisalready difficult issue.
The 81-page document ispredicting significant labour
market disruptions, particularlyin energy, as Canada
transitions to cleaner options.
Employees in Alberta point tothe document as evidence of the
policy's destructive intent.
(24:24):
I want to start with somepoliticians and workers,
particularly in Alberta.
They're extremely distressed bythis document.
What do you say to them?
Speaker 12 (24:33):
Let me say this to Alberta workers and to Canadians
across the country TheSustainable Jobs Program is all
about creating and adding highquality, long-term, sustainable
jobs to the economy.
It's about making sure that wehave long-term, high-paying,
sustainable jobs in the oil andgas sector for decades into the
future, way past our 2050 netzero targets, and making sure
(24:57):
that we embrace new technologieslike hydrogen, lng, wind, solar
, and making sure that, when weembrace nuclear technology as
well, that we've got the bestand brightest workers able to do
what they do best, which isbuild up Alberta and build up
Canada.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
What the hell does that even mean?
The Alberta NDP eliminatedhundreds of thousands of jobs
and energy sector businesseswith the disastrous support and
implementation of the federalLiberals Just Transition Program
.
How is that supporting thefuture of oil and gas?
Perhaps they mean that theysupport the future, but it just
happens to be void of oil andgas.
The oil and gas sector is anembarrassment to the NDP.
(25:35):
They constantly feel the needto apologize for it every chance
they get.
It's their arch-nemesis, thejoker to their Batman, the
equivalent to Alberta's ownSodom or Gomorrah.
How do they support the oil andgas industry?
They don't.
They support the oil and gasindustry and its employees'
votes, but that's it and that'sall.
And once they get them, it'll bebusiness as usual for the
(25:58):
Alberta NDP and their federalcoalition with Justin Trudeau's
Liberal Party.
Guaranteeing that absolutely noregard will be given again to
the actual concerns of Albertansuntil the next voting cycle,
when they will no doubt lie toyou all over again.
They'll say they created jobs,that the Just Transition Program
(26:54):
benefitted those in the oil andgas industry.
They'll say they made lifeeasier for Albertans, that they
were the only party to achieve apipeline to coastal tide water.
How they represent hard hatsand those who work hard.
The only hard hats theyrepresent are the white ones
that belong to the Unioninspectors and the ones working
(27:15):
hard to realize the NDP'sutopian fantasies.
But the embarrassing cousinsand the sewer rats don't fit
into the program when the NDPare dictating what goes.
So if you want to ensure yourUnion rep gets a raise and a
hefty bonus, by all means votefor the Alberta NDP.
They'll find a way to squeeze afew extra bucks out of you that
you never even knew you didn'tneed to pay for it, no problem.
(27:36):
They'll also take credit whereno credit is offered, like the
Trans Mountain Pipeline, apipeline that existed since 1953
, when Ernest Manning wasPremier and leader of the Social
Credit Party.
The Alberta NDP did absolutelynothing to build that pipeline.
The twinning project wascompleted while the NDP were in
power, sure, but the project waswell underway, with or without
(27:57):
their interference, or lackthereof in this particular case.
Politicians need to stopoverpromising things we can't
afford.
It's easy for them to dobecause they aren't the ones
paying for it.
We are.
If they grow short on funds,they'll just hike taxes or
borrow more money from globalistbankers to pay for whatever it
might be, never mind if they canbarely service the interest on
(28:17):
the debt.
Just keep spending and spendinguntil any cuts are deemed to be
an expense by the population.
All the while crying thatservices are underfunding and
that the current terrible stateis a direct result of too little
money and not in any waybecause of too much government
or their rich and illustriouspromises.
That's the progressive way.
(28:38):
but the government has a way ofmaking you think exploding
governments are a good thing.
Take, for example, the way theyannounce jobs.
Most people just hear the totalnumber of jobs created in the
last X amount of days.
They don't understand what itmeans when the newscaster says
120,000 jobs were created lastmonth, 110,000 which were public
sector jobs and 10,000 privatesector jobs comprised the
(28:59):
remainder.
It sounds great, except that itisn't.
The 110,000 jobs are publicsector.
That means your taxes pay theirwage and your tax burden
increases every time a positionis created.
The only job numbers thatmatter are the private sector
jobs, and it's only ever good ifit's the other way around and
there are far more privatesector jobs than public sector
(29:20):
jobs.
This allows for the creation ofactual jobs that contribute to
the taxes necessary to fund thepublic sector.
You need more of those to breakeven in terms of public versus
private sector job numbers.
Everything else is a deficit.
The Alberta NDP love to announcejob numbers, even if they're
low, because they know mostpeople don't know how the
numbers work.
They hear a big number and theythink it must mean the
(29:40):
politicians are doing the rightthings in keeping Albertans
employed.
You couldn't be farther fromthe truth, especially if we
can't afford it.
The more public sector jobs,the less we take home in our own
pockets and the more costly thegovernment is overall.
It's far more important to havea robust economy creating a
large number of private sectorjobs than it is to have a large
amount of public sector jobsduring a downturn like we are
(30:02):
currently facing.
It's astounding to me that theAlberta NDP would say we can't
afford the UCP.
The truth is, if we can'tafford the UCP, then there is
absolutely no way at all that wecan afford to elect the NDP.
Speaker 12 (30:16):
We want you to forget how our NDP drove us into
massive debt and lost 183,000jobs.
Rachel Notley and the NDP canwe really afford them again?
Speaker 1 (30:28):
The sheer expense of just four short years.
One single term with theAlberta NDP in office was
astronomical, posting thelargest deficit in Alberta
history at the time.
The United Conservative Party,meanwhile, balanced the books
recently, after three years ofCOVID-related spending spending,
it might be added that the NDPchampioned as necessary and
(30:48):
obligatory.
This is a far cry from whereAlberta was during the tenure of
Ralph Klein.
Ralph Klein committed tocutting government spending by
30% almost overnight and broughtabout a surplus when oil
revenues were in the tank.
Rather than whine and complainabout our dependence on oil and
gas, Klein acted as though wedidn't depend on it at all.
For a short time it seemed hewas right.
(31:09):
The royalty revenue went toAlbertans' pockets directly.
Almost as quickly we wereposting more surpluses.
Speaker 9 (31:15):
I've been a reporter for 11 years in this city and
I've traveled with bikers andI've traveled with whores and
I've traveled with gamblers andI've traveled with people from
the east end of town to the westend of town and I've been in
all kinds of trouble with thepolice.
Speaker 13 (31:34):
I started with $300 in my pocket and that's how I
started this campaign and I hada sense of commitment and I drew
the greatest bunch of vagabonds, misfits and beautiful people
(31:56):
to my campaign who never oncesaid to me I have to work for
this son of a bitch because Iowe him something.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
Ralph did some other things that were supposed to
protect us from spend-happygovernments in the future.
Legislation that was supposedto make it illegal for a
government to operate at adeficit in Alberta ever again,
for example.
This was, of course, unwrittenand thrown aside when Stelmach
and then, worse yet, Redfordneeded more money.
Alison Redford bought teachersunion votes by promising
something like $300 million tothem if they voted for her.
(32:26):
Three months after the election, Redford still hadn't paid and
the unions went public.
Redford wrote legislationallowing her access to the
Alberta Heritage Fund in orderto pay them off.
Then Prentice pointed hisfinger at us and told us we, the
taxpayers, were the problemwith Alberta, and it's no wonder
the conservative vote becamefractured and split.
It was the perfect time for theAlberta NDP to slip into power
(32:49):
quietly and unexpectedly.
Speaker 11 (32:51):
The NDP is talking about dismantling the Alberta
Heritage that has made.
You know there's 100,000 peoplea year come to this province,
right, and they come herebecause it's the free enterprise
engine of the country andbecause people come here to
invest.
They come here to get jobs,they come here to create jobs.
We're like the envy of NorthAmerica.
(33:13):
What the NDP proposes is towalk away from that.
You know.
Start with a royalty review.
Is there anything worse youcould do in Alberta in the
circumstances we're in right now, than launch a royalty review?
The last time we did this, itwas a disaster and there's parts
of the energy industry thatstill never recovered from what
(33:34):
happened at that time.
And so you know their policiesstart from that.
We'll undermine investorconfidence.
You know people have investedbillions of dollars in this
province.
We're going to now get into aroyalty review when oil prices
are like 50 bucks a barrel.
It's the worst thing you coulddo.
On top of that, they want to,you know, increase corporate
(33:56):
income taxes to the same levelas Quebec.
You know, and I know like I getit.
It's easy to say we shouldincrease corporate taxes.
It's a.
You know, in some people's mindit's a solution.
It's not a solution because itwill just cost us investment and
jobs.
We know that One of the thingsthat's driving the Alberta
economy is we have the lowestcorporate income taxes in the
country, so people come here toinvest and create jobs and
(34:17):
create wealth and createopportunity, you know.
So, again, it's the worst thingwe could do.
When they're proposing that thecorporate income taxes be
higher than Quebec, like youknow, since when is that part of
the Alberta advantage to havehigher corporate taxes than the
province of Quebec?
let alone what they're going todo to, you know, to personal
taxes?
Now, on top of that, you knowwe hear that, you know they want
(34:41):
to have refineries here, butthey want pipelines Like this is
preposterous.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
What followed was spending and progressive
legislation at a rate and pacenever seen by Albertans prior.
It was alarming and immediate.
It was the exact opposite ofthe Ralph Klein years.
Royalties were governmentabsolutes and entitlements.
In fact.
The government wasn't beingpaid enough, so we'd have to
undergo a royalty review to makesure they were getting their
due.
Can't have the governmentmissing out on any additional
(35:10):
revenue.
After all, How else can theypay for all these wonderful
things they've decided you musthave?
That's what happened when theysnuck in the back door, nary
saying a word.
The look on Naughty's face whenthey announced she'd won the
provincial election was of shockand awe.
Up till that very moment, therewas next to zero chance of the
NDP or Liberals taking power inAlberta.
Speaker 8 (35:30):
It's an outrage, it's a tragedy, it's like why are we
even doing it?
Speaker 6 (35:36):
And like why and like don't?
Speaker 1 (35:38):
Unfortunately, that's no longer the case.
This time they're coming inloud and full of vigor, equipped
with lies and platitudes, andstand as good a chance of
winning as their competitors.
Can you just for a moment takethe time to consider what will
happen if the Alberta NDP winsunder this circumstance?
They won't hold anything backlike they did the first time,
when their position was tenuousand they were, as though, an
(36:00):
accidental government.
This time they will bebolstered by what they view as
an acceptance of theirprogressivism.
The Albertans agree in thecourse they will chart and, more
importantly, accept it.
The following sequel would befar worse than the first,
Speaker 11 (36:17):
The polls across the province have been pretty
steady for the last few monthsand they show a tie, a neck and
neck race between the UnitedConservatives and the New
Democrats.
Speaker 2 (36:25):
Polls have both parties basically in a coin flip
position, and that's veryunusual for a province that has
leaned clearly conservative foralmost as long as it has existed
.
Speaker 1 (36:35):
You might notice the words sales tax get bounced
around a lot more comfortablythese days as well.
It's almost as though it'simpossible to conceive how
Alberta made it this longwithout one.
The fear of cutting services,even if they're out of
proportion, means it's easier toconvince people that it's
acceptable that the governmentfind additional sources of
revenue.
The trouble is, as witnessedduring Notley's term, almost
(36:58):
every single source ofadditional revenue was through
taxation not investment orinnovation, but by raising and
collecting more taxes, taxesthat are paid by Albertans and
far eclipsed the revenue to begenerated through collecting a
provincial sales tax.
During this election, smith hasoffered to lower taxes.
Notley proposes to keep alltaxes the same for the next four
(37:19):
years.
Then what?
Triple them?
Quadruple?
No answer.
That's the part they leave outon purpose, all but guaranteeing
their quiet consideration ofthings like a provincial sales
tax.
The fact that the governmenttaxes your money when you make
it and that they also find waysto tax it every time you spend
(37:40):
it is inconscionable enough, butit's already proven to be
exacerbated under an NDPgovernment.
Speaker 2 (37:47):
I had seen a number of your tweets over the weekend
and then comments today, callingfor increased restrictions
because of the increase in cases, as well as the variance of
concern.
The Premier did just that today, moving the province back
effectively into stage one.
Is that what you were lookingfor?
Speaker 7 (38:04):
Well, finally, yes, i mean you know Jason Kenney is
continuing a pattern of actinglast and acting least.
to be clear, when they firstmoved to reopen restaurants in
mid-February, we at the timesaid it was too early and that
we raise.
We ran the risk of allowingcases to get away from us again.
(38:25):
And in this particular case, ofcourse, this announcement is
coming after a four-day longEaster weekend which everybody
could see that this was comingAnd we are going to be paying
the price for the last four daysfor some time to come, I'm
afraid.
Speaker 1 (38:43):
That's why it's so very important to make sure that
people understand that a votefor the Alberta NDP in the next
election is one supporting heavytaxation, misinformation,
censorship and centralizedgovernment control over your
day-to-day affairs.
It's a vote to support vaccinemandates in the future.
It's supporting socialism andcommunist ideologies.
(39:03):
The words they speak and theway they speak them is as though
a condescending parent.
The Alberta NDP hates theprovince of Alberta.
It is their intention to changeAlberta to better reflect their
own progressive globalviewpoints and, by doing so,
change Albertans.
A recent poll said that morepeople trust Notley than Smith,
(39:25):
which is laughable.
really, like Smith or not,she's been delivering the
straight goods since she waselected, regardless of what you
may have said during her time inthe entertainment realm.
However, some may still harborill will towards her from when
she crossed the floor from theWildr ose Party to join
Prentice's Conservative Party.
I know I certainly do.
It was a terrible blow toAlberta.
For the first time in a while,we were in one of those rare
(39:47):
moments where conservatives wereholding conservatives
accountable.
The Conservative Party was inpower and the Wildr ose was the
official opposition.
The Wild Rose didn't have thepunch and muster it once did
after that.
Not until Kenny breathed newlife into Alberta conservatism
with the unification of the twoparties during Notley's term.
Speaker 6 (40:06):
You remember Jason Kenny?
He was banging around Ottawafor decades.
Well, now he's back.
Jason made a name for himselfnationally as a loud, proud
activist.
Speaker 1 (40:16):
I was always taught to give people a second chance.
When Smith got elected leaderof the UCP, I decided that's
what I would do.
Give her a chance to see if themistakes she'd made in the past
would come home to roost again.
So far they haven't.
The bits that Notley's NDP havemanaged to pull to shore
haven't been anything more thanthe statements of someone who is
being paid to be entertainingduring a time when she was an
(40:37):
entertainer and not a politician.
In the meantime, you can barelytell the difference between
what the two leaders areproposing in terms of promises,
except that one has been sayingthe same things all along, and
one has changed her tune inorder to garner votes and is no
longer saying the same thingsthat she once was.
In other words, one of them islying, and at least this time
(41:00):
it's not Danielle Smith.
The things Smith is saying arethe same things the UCP have
been doing since her election,which appears to have the best
interest of Albertans at heart.
At least she isn't asking youto change to be an Albertan or
to be embarrassed by where youcome from, but Rachel Notley
certainly has many, many times.
The Alberta NDP are like wolvesin sheep's clothing.
(41:22):
They'll tell you any litany ofthings to convince you they
aren't, but make no mistake, atthe end of the day they will use
their long, sharp fangs to sinktheir teeth into your lunch and
their long, sharp claws to holdyou down in submission, forcing
you to succumb to their plan.
Their fairy tales are butfables designed to confuse and
befuddle, but they are not true.
(41:43):
The Alberta NDP is lying to you.
Speaker 2 (41:48):
There is only one party who is listening to
Albertans standing up to Ottawaand fighting to move our
province forward, both to standup to the Liberal NDP coalition
of Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singhand Rachel Notley.
Whether we agree or agree to disagree, everybody's
got an opinion, and I'm about togive you mine.
So sit back, relax, buckle upand try not to get offended.
Welcome to This Canadian Thinks.
The Alberta NDP is outrightlying and manipulating audio
clips to present positions thatare not held by the United
(00:22):
Conservative Party as beingpositions that they actually do.
They are breaking election lawsand allowing unions to
represent them using fraudulentinformation.
You can hear it on the radioevery day.
Commercials about the UCPwanting you to pay for health
care, and so on.
Audio snippets are includedthat appear to have Danielle
Smith talking about privatizinghealth care or selling hospitals
(00:43):
, throwing away pensions and alitany of other seemingly
heinous ideas.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
A regular checkup to your doctor.
Does that really have to besomething that is covered 100%
by government, or should that bepaid for out of your health
spending account?
Speaker 1 (00:56):
These clips are from radio shows, podcasts or
interviews given of which Smithwas a host or appeared as a
guest and where she discussessubjects such as health care and
possible solutions to fixingthe obviously broken system
faced by Albertans.
They are taken out of contextand may possibly represent the
views of the individual, andthey may also just as easily be
a position taken for the purposeof exploratory dialogue and
(01:18):
nothing else.
Without context, we are leftwith the NDP alone to decipher
the actual intent.
Even if it's the personalopinion of Smith that we should
actually endorse the ideasdiscussed, it does not
necessarily translate to partypolicy.
Do you actually believe thatevery politician believes
everything that their partypolicy might say?
It's highly unlikely.
Let's be fair.
(01:40):
During the pandemic, there wereplenty of politicians at a step
with the official message.
Guys like Drew Barnes wouldn'tget in line and they ended up as
independents.
As a result, they were kickedout of caucus because they
couldn't set their own personalviews aside and come into line
with the rest of the party.
It actually happens all thetime.
I understand that Smith is theleader and, as such, can
somewhat guide the party in acertain direction, but we've
(02:01):
seen how ineffective that's beenso far.
The amnesty for COVIDconvictions fell flat, for
example, once it became clearthat there was no legal avenue
for the government to take onthat file, it ground to a rather
quick halt.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
In a series of interviews and media appearances
since mid-December, Alberta'sPremier said she spoke to
prosecutors about whethercriminal cases related to COVID
restrictions should proceed.
Comments that set off afirestorm of criticism.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
Granted the optics of Smith speaking to Artur
Pawlowski may have presented afield day for the NDP, but it
really only went to prove thatNotley would limit access to
government officials to anyoneshe didn't agree with.
How does that work?
I mean, I understand thatsomeone in jail gives up their
rights to vote and in some waythe officials elected as a
result, but, Pawlowski wasn'twasn't in jail and at the time
(02:50):
was a nominee for the leadershipof a rival political party.
Had Smith not spoken to him andhad his message been in line
with the NDP, Notley would havepitched a fit over Smith not
having done so.
Additionally, do the humanrights proponents not rally
their government officials tomake conditions more favourable
and institutions ofincarceration?
Do the wrongfully convicted notseek clemency?
(03:10):
At what point do you putsomeone completely outside of
the purview of any governmentagency whatsoever?
The death penalty, perhaps?
That's something we don'tentertain in Canada anymore, nor
have done for quite some time,unless you count medical
assistance in dying.
It's the misdirect andmisinformation game that Notley
and her cohorts are so very wellversed in on display once again
(03:31):
.
The party of tolerance andinclusion, showing just how
intolerant and divisive theyreally are.
It's the root issue with mostprogressive politicians these
days, the NDP and Liberalparties being the true
architects.
They speak their myths, truthsand condescending non-sequiturs
in response to any question, insuch a manner as to befuddle,
bewildering the voter base intoabsolute automatons.
(03:53):
The more outrageous andunbelievable the message, the
more people swallow it.
It's absolutely unbelievable tome actually.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
I mean, this is just like the NDP on all financial
matters Let's shoot now and talkabout it and plan later, and
that's not the way to run agovernment.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
How did we get here?
Well, it likely started whenthe political class voted that
they didn't have to answerquestions in question period.
Then it manifested from thereinto what we see now, where you
could literally ask a politicianif Canadians like poutine and
receive some sort of blatherabout the middle class and those
working hard to join it instead.
It's inconceivable, really.
Speaker 4 (04:28):
The Leader of the Liberal Party has an opportunity
to respect the fact thatheating your home in January and
February in Canada is not aluxury And it does not make
those Canadians polluters,they're just trying to survive.
This from a prime minister whoburned more jet fuel in one
month than 20 average Canadiansburned in an entire year.
(04:52):
So will the prime ministerground the jet park the
hypocrisy and axe the tax hikes?
Speaker 5 (05:00):
The right Honorable prime minister.
Speaker 6 (05:05):
On this side of the house, we're going to continue
to stay focused on direct andreal help for Canadians,
Responding to the challengesthey're facing with meaningful
measures that are going to helpmillions of Canadians in the
middle class and those workinghard to join it.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
Keep in mind, these are the same parties most likely
to censor the internet or workto stop the spread of
unacceptable viewpoints.
The progressive parties are farmore likely to limit expression
, rally against misinformationand restrict access to
government officials.
They say we hate the things andothers that we dislike about
ourselves.
Well, it should be pretty clearby now what the Liberal and NDP
(05:40):
parties stand for and what theymost dislike about themselves.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
So how do you decide what's misinformation and when
to use these words, since theword can encompass different
ideas amongst Canadians?
Speaker 6 (05:52):
Thank you, Unlike all of you in this room, or most of
you in this room, I neverstudied political science.
I studied English literature.
So words really matter to meand you may call me old
fashioned but I tend to defer tothe actual definitions of words
(06:14):
when I use them.
And misinformation anddisinformation, which you used a
little interchangeably, areactually very different things.
Disinformation is when thingsthat are false, things that are
untrue, are spread by people whodon't know any better.
(06:35):
Misinformation is a deliberatechoice to spread and share
falsehoods for a particularpurpose, whether it's a personal
purpose or a political purposeor a creating chaos purpose.
(06:55):
Now, what can start asmisinformation can quickly end
up being amplified asdisinformation.
But the entire discourse has toground itself in something,
because you're absolutely right.
Who decides what ismisinformation and
disinformation?
Well, if someone looks outsideand says it's a beautiful, blue
(07:17):
sky, sunny day today, we wouldknow that's wrong, because our
experience here in Ottawa, ourexperience looking out the
window, tells us otherwise.
But if someone says the earth isflat, you can see extensive
YouTube pages devoted by peoplewho've decided and this is a
(07:41):
recent phenomenon over the pastdecade or so that the earth is
flat because their experience asthey look out to the horizon is
boy, the earth sure looks flat.
So it can't just be aboutperception.
You look on the weather channel.
Oh, it's raining in Ottawa.
Okay, so it's not a blue skysunny day.
We have to agree that we'regoing to agree with the weather
channel on this, or with thescientists from Environment
(08:04):
Canada who are saying that it issunny today in Ottawa or it is
rainy here today in Ottawa.
There has to be an acceptancethat there are experts out there
that create a basis of factthat was built up on in
generations to tell us thatwater is wet and it freezes at
(08:30):
zero degrees Celsius, and thereare scientific realities that
have been proven and accepted.
And the challenge that we havenow is that increasingly,
misinformation anddisinformation is carrying
people to believe things thatare untrue.
(08:50):
Vaccinations is a perfectexample of it.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
But Notley is different, "he represents
Albertans and isn't beholden tothe federal NDP.
You might say That is untrue.
The NDP is actually the onlyparty where the provincial body
doesn't have autonomy from thefederal party.
This is why we got the JustTransition Program under the
Alberta NDP when they were inpower, which cost countless jobs
.
It wasn't in the best interestof Alberta to implement that
(09:19):
program and Nautli must haveknown that from the get-go.
Instead, although she was ableto adopt a stance on a wide
range of inconsequentialprovincial matters, just
Transition went through withoutdelay, championed by those whose
incomes depend on the verything they were trying to
strangle.
Talk about cutting your nose offdespite your face.
So here we are Political adscomprised of whole lies being
(09:41):
broadcast by the very people whocaution you about broadcasted
lies.
You need to really listen tothese people.
When they tell you they'reworried about election
interference, it means they'relikely going to interfere with
the election.
When they tell you there's arise in misinformation, it means
they're releasing more and moremisinformation every day.
It's about the only thing youcan actually believe anymore,
because nothing else makes sense.
Speaker 7 (10:03):
You should watch.
You should listen.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
I'm certainly not trying to say that the UCP are
saints and aren't engaged insome dishonest practices of
their own.
It would seem that it's in apolitician's portfolio to behave
in such a way anymore.
It's just that the NDP is beingso blatant about it.
Not only they're broadcastingoutright lies, but they double
down on them with abandon everychance they get.
Speaker 7 (10:24):
It's not enough for us to just be not those guys.
Albertans want to know who weare.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Most of what not least team are peddling are
rehashed and reworded versionsof proposals or plans already
established by the UCP.
If the UCP's ideas are so great, then why do we need the NDP to
deliver on them?
The fact of the matter is theNDP won't.
The things they're saying areuntrue, and they're only saying
them to woo UCP voters who maybe unhappy with Smith, based
(10:53):
mostly on the lies perpetuatedby the NDP.
Should the Alberta NDP getelected, they'll start right
back where they left off in 2019.
Which, from where I'm sitting,looks like the further erosion
of Alberta from a position ofstrength into the subservient,
federal government-dependentutopia of progressivism imagined
by the leftist hardliners.
Rachel Notley is positioningher dialogue in an appearance of
(11:16):
being closer oriented to theright and thus far more centrist
than progressive, but it's asham, a blatantly preposterous
one at that.
For those out of the know, itsounds wonderful, but we've seen
it play out in the past,ignorance of which has drastic
consequences.
We watched it spiral downwardover the NDP's short time in
power not so very long ago.
The promises they do keep arealways the most costly, and the
(11:39):
promises we need them to makegood on are never fully realized
.
That's the problem withsocialists and communists, both
of which the NDP identify quitestrongly with, they lie.
You surely must have askedyourself at some point, "ow did
they get all those people to goalong with that?
There's a long list of examplesHitler, saudi Arabia, atrocious
moments in human history wherewe witness a huge number of
(12:01):
people bend to the will of anauthoritarian power Outside of
outright military intervention.
This has most often,undoubtedly been due in no small
part to someone havingfirst-told lies.
That's what they do.
Politicians in general arefamous for it, but progressive
politicians are the ilk in themost grandiose tales, of which
(12:23):
only history can serve to teachus.
We never learned, though.
Seven years and over 185 daysto date, under the contemptuous
glare of Justin Trudeau, isproof positive of that.
The sheer disdain held by thosewho went and got vaccinated
towards those who did not isanother good example.
How could you get society toturn against one another or
(12:43):
concede to a nefarious plan?
Indeed, it wasn't hard.
Unfortunately, it was far tooeasily accomplished for my
liking.
It was as if the world lost itscollective common sense.
Could you just imagine thecontrol over the people a global
progressive government wouldhave?
I can.
I've been watching them roll itout in real time.
It's like witnessing the carcrash of humanity.
(13:05):
You don't want to see it, butyou look anyway.
There's nothing you can do toprevent it, but you feel guilty
about it all the same.
You still look, but now youfeel as bad about yourself as
you did for them, except nowyou're both boarding a train car
and cars are illegal in orderto prevent loss of human life.
(13:27):
In reality, though, there'ssimply no escaping the constant
drift towards the left inCanadian politics.
The way the system is set up is, by design, advantageous to
progressivism.
If you have a right-leaningparty in power and the official
opposition is decidedlyleft-wing, then every time the
government decides to dosomething, they have to add or
do things that appease theopposition, even if they aren't
(13:49):
directly related to what they'retrying to pass, lest they
receive a vote of no confidencein the House, which basically
means that an election is called.
These votes of confidence aretied to things like the budget,
where they need the support ofthe House to pass it as
legislation.
If there were twoconservative-leaning governments
acting in both capacitiesgovernment and official
opposition then, and only then,could the legislation be moved
(14:11):
right.
It seldom happens.
It happens in Albertaoccasionally, which is one of
the reasons that things have notdrifted as far into progressive
territory in this province asin most others.
When the progressives are incharge, they appease the more
conservative opposition bywatering down their agenda
enough to enjoy the same will ofthe House, but they're already
starting from a progressivestandpoint.
Spend a little less, move alittle slower, and the
(14:33):
progressives can still very muchmove in the same direction as
they originally attended.
Speaker 6 (14:39):
Progressive parties need people to vote for, and
it's always easy to come up withthe right jingle or the right
soundbite that destabilizes andgets people angry.
As progressives know that wecan't do the many things around
equality of opportunity and trueprogress and shared prosperity
(14:59):
unless we have the growth thatgives us the capacity to do that
and leads to that.
Speaker 1 (15:04):
So keep in mind, outside of the PPC there is no
other real federal Conservativeparty.
Even the so-calledconservatives are progressive.
The name of the party is theoxymoronic Progressive
Conservative Party, after all.
Once you drag the conversation,and thereby the legislation of
a place towards the left ofcentre spectrum, it is near
impossible to undo.
The problem therein lies in thefact that the things that
(15:28):
progressive governments seek toimplement tend to cost us
astronomically and they expectus to pay substantially more to
cover them.
How do we do that?
Through paying more and moretaxes.
I'm actually really surprised tohear many talk radio hosts and
political pundits accusing theUCP of spending money because
they're proposing a change totaxation rates, including tax
(15:49):
cuts, that will benefit thevulnerable among us the most.
It would seem the perfectproposal for the more
progressive minded, but insteadit's viewed as nothing more than
contributing to moreunderfunded services, services
that ballooned to mammothproportions and became so tough,
heavy and union beneficial thatthey were completely
unsustainable and effective dueto the complete disaster propped
(16:11):
up by the Alberta NDP.
Guys like Shay Gannum carry onabout the UCP offering a tax
break.
He repeatedly asks where doesthe money come from?
Due to the dependence on themoney from taxation.
There is no concept of bloatedgovernments, only governments
that are not yet big enough.
When the NDP was in power, thegovernment's tax income
increased substantially.
(16:32):
They raised taxes on all sortsof things to cover their
increasingly costly agenda.
Now, in order to bring the costof government down, and with it
the need for even more taxdollars, taxes must come down
and certain areas need to betrimmed to become more
sustainable, just like AlbertaHealth Services, where, once
again, a top-heavy,administration-rich union
(16:53):
environment can only benefitthose at the very top and at the
expense of frontline staff.
When your administrators aremaking a quarter of a million
dollars and your nurses aremaking five-figure salaries at
best you could have a lot morenurses than administrators and
keep costs down at the same time.
Instead, they have six levelsof management all telling the
(17:13):
handful of actual staff what todo.
It's ludicrous.
This is the real-world NDP.
This is the NDP they aredesperately trying to avoid
having.
You see, right now.
Speaker 8 (17:27):
Hello Peter, what's happening?
We have sort of a problem here.
Yeah, you apparently didn't putone of the new cover sheets on
your TPS reports.
Oh yeah, i'm sorry about that,i forgot.
Yeah, you see, we're puttingthe cover sheets on all TPS
reports now before they go out.
(17:48):
Did you see the memo about this?
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, i have the memo righthere, i just forgot.
But it's not shipping out tilltomorrow, so there's no problem.
Yeah, if you could just goahead and make sure you do that
from now on, that would be great, and I'll go ahead and make
(18:08):
sure you get another copy ofthat memo, okay.
Speaker 5 (18:10):
Yeah no, I have the memo.
Speaker 8 (18:12):
I've got it.
It's right here, Hello Bill.
What's happening?
Speaker 1 (18:16):
That's why progressives want to censor any
opposing dialogue, so that theonly thing you hear is their
position.
It's hard to remember whathappened before if you have no
one to remind you.
That's one of the core tenetsof these socialist and
communist-enthralled progressiveideologies.
They all have a tendency tolimit and control rather than
nurture any sort of actualgrowth or expression, even
(18:37):
contrary to that which theymight say, just like the Alberta
NDP are doing right now.
It's simply lip servicedesigned to keep the sewer rats
under control and right wherethey should be doing exactly as
the government says.
The sort of government knowsbest approach that should be
resisted at all costs.
They literally think that youare so stupid that you will
(18:57):
believe absolutely anything theytell you.
Judging by the exponentialgrowth in NDP signs and rural
areas since the last election,they might be right.
It's mind-numbing to me thatthey have been able to
adequately dupe so many withtheir basic communist manifestos
.
Just a quick peruse of theparty's policies should be a
quick reminder of how out ofstep their words are from their
(19:18):
core belief.
It's an obvious display fromtweets about Mao, to
participation in pro-communistand communist party marches,
right down to Rachel Notleysporting a hip tribute to Shea
Guevara in the form of awristwatch at one point.
Of course, the moment anyonedraws attention to it, they
delete the posts almostinstantaneously and make much
(19:39):
ado about minimizing.
Such was the case with NDPcandidates Gerynder Brar, Ray
Loyola, Diana Batten justrecently.
The love and admirationbroadcast for socialist and
communist despots by these NDPhopefuls remains truly startling
.
Speaker 5 (20:13):
The state tells us it wants to prevent a panic.
Listen.
Well, it's true, when thepeople see the police, they will
be afraid, but it is myexperience that when the people
ask questions that are not intheir own best interest, they
should simply be told to keeptheir minds on their labor and
leave matters of the state tothe state.
(20:35):
We seal off the city no oneleaves and cut the phone lines,
contain the spread ofmisinformation.
That is how we keep the peoplefrom undermining the fruits of
(20:56):
their own labor.
Yes, comrades, we will all berewarded for what we do here
tonight.
This is our moment to shine.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
What would these people say to those who came to
Canada to escape the drudgery ofcommunism?
if they were to stand beforethem today, what possible
apology would suffice to excusetheir complete detachment from
the reality of the situation?
These people talk about therest of us checking our
privilege, but it would seem tobe that they should spend a bit
of time mirror-gazing themselves.
Maybe, if they were to do so,they might see the folly in
(21:39):
their ways.
It's not likely, though.
These are the same people whowould require a zero-tolerance
mandatory vaccinationexpectation, should they have
been the ones making the choiceat the time.
Thankfully they weren't.
I'd hate to see what the recentpandemic would have been like if
they had been.
The rights and freedomswell-earned by the blood and
sweat of our forefathers wouldhave been even more quickly
(22:00):
vanished into the annals ofhistory, to be no more.
Even if you disagree with theactions taken by the government
during the pandemic, you have toadmit it would have been far
more onerous and strict had theNDP been in power at the time.
The reason Alberta had most ofthe mandates and restrictions
that we did was in no small partdue to clamoring from the NDP
(22:20):
in their base over the UCPneeding to do more than they
already were, which furtherproves the idea that
progressives always drag theconversation left.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
The community that faced the most restrictions on
their freedoms in the last yearwere those who made a choice not
to be vaccinated.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
Make no mistake, though the Alberta NDP party is
indeed lying.
They desperately need you tobelieve the huck they are
peddling.
They want nothing more for youto forget the four years they
were in power and how manybusinesses fled the province and
took their high paying jobswith them, how expensive things
become, how the taxes increased,how the public expense exploded
, how the unions andadministration staff profited
(23:00):
from the general desperation ofabsolutely everything, all while
the efficacy of care sliddownward in an avalanche of
mismanagement andunsustainability.
It was the perfect storm for anAlberta on the precipice of a
global pandemic.
Speaker 7 (23:14):
Due to circumstances well beyond our control.
Our economy is volatile one,and we may be struggling a bit.
Speaker 11 (23:21):
Companies are cutting back on hiring and
investment, and the plummetingprice of oil means the
government's energy royaltiesare tumbling too.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
In yet another example of their disconnect,
livingstone McLeod NDP candidateKevin Van Teegam was also found
to impart some thoughtfulopinions about Alberta's energy
sector, while comparing it toslavery and a dumb pursuit in
place of college enrollment, inhis book Wild Roses Are Worth It
.
His revulsion of the peopleinvolved in Alberta's energy
(23:49):
sector simply cannot be denied,but the NDP simply replies when
pressed about it with theAlberta, ndp supports the future
of oil and gas and we have arobust energy plan to build a
resilient economy and betterfuture for the province.
Speaker 10 (24:04):
Federal memo about the just transition is a fresh
source of tension on thisalready difficult issue.
The 81-page document ispredicting significant labour
market disruptions, particularlyin energy, as Canada
transitions to cleaner options.
Employees in Alberta point tothe document as evidence of the
policy's destructive intent.
(24:24):
I want to start with somepoliticians and workers,
particularly in Alberta.
They're extremely distressed bythis document.
What do you say to them?
Speaker 12 (24:33):
Let me say this to Alberta workers and to Canadians
across the country TheSustainable Jobs Program is all
about creating and adding highquality, long-term, sustainable
jobs to the economy.
It's about making sure that wehave long-term, high-paying,
sustainable jobs in the oil andgas sector for decades into the
future, way past our 2050 netzero targets, and making sure
(24:57):
that we embrace new technologieslike hydrogen, lng, wind, solar
, and making sure that, when weembrace nuclear technology as
well, that we've got the bestand brightest workers able to do
what they do best, which isbuild up Alberta and build up
Canada.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
What the hell does that even mean?
The Alberta NDP eliminatedhundreds of thousands of jobs
and energy sector businesseswith the disastrous support and
implementation of the federalLiberals Just Transition Program
.
How is that supporting thefuture of oil and gas?
Perhaps they mean that theysupport the future, but it just
happens to be void of oil andgas.
The oil and gas sector is anembarrassment to the NDP.
(25:35):
They constantly feel the needto apologize for it every chance
they get.
It's their arch-nemesis, thejoker to their Batman, the
equivalent to Alberta's ownSodom or Gomorrah.
How do they support the oil andgas industry?
They don't.
They support the oil and gasindustry and its employees'
votes, but that's it and that'sall.
And once they get them, it'll bebusiness as usual for the
(25:58):
Alberta NDP and their federalcoalition with Justin Trudeau's
Liberal Party.
Guaranteeing that absolutely noregard will be given again to
the actual concerns of Albertansuntil the next voting cycle,
when they will no doubt lie toyou all over again.
They'll say they created jobs,that the Just Transition Program
(26:54):
benefitted those in the oil andgas industry.
They'll say they made lifeeasier for Albertans, that they
were the only party to achieve apipeline to coastal tide water.
How they represent hard hatsand those who work hard.
The only hard hats theyrepresent are the white ones
that belong to the Unioninspectors and the ones working
(27:15):
hard to realize the NDP'sutopian fantasies.
But the embarrassing cousinsand the sewer rats don't fit
into the program when the NDPare dictating what goes.
So if you want to ensure yourUnion rep gets a raise and a
hefty bonus, by all means votefor the Alberta NDP.
They'll find a way to squeeze afew extra bucks out of you that
you never even knew you didn'tneed to pay for it, no problem.
(27:36):
They'll also take credit whereno credit is offered, like the
Trans Mountain Pipeline, apipeline that existed since 1953
, when Ernest Manning wasPremier and leader of the Social
Credit Party.
The Alberta NDP did absolutelynothing to build that pipeline.
The twinning project wascompleted while the NDP were in
power, sure, but the project waswell underway, with or without
(27:57):
their interference, or lackthereof in this particular case.
Politicians need to stopoverpromising things we can't
afford.
It's easy for them to dobecause they aren't the ones
paying for it.
We are.
If they grow short on funds,they'll just hike taxes or
borrow more money from globalistbankers to pay for whatever it
might be, never mind if they canbarely service the interest on
(28:17):
the debt.
Just keep spending and spendinguntil any cuts are deemed to be
an expense by the population.
All the while crying thatservices are underfunding and
that the current terrible stateis a direct result of too little
money and not in any waybecause of too much government
or their rich and illustriouspromises.
That's the progressive way.
(28:38):
but the government has a way ofmaking you think exploding
governments are a good thing.
Take, for example, the way theyannounce jobs.
Most people just hear the totalnumber of jobs created in the
last X amount of days.
They don't understand what itmeans when the newscaster says
120,000 jobs were created lastmonth, 110,000 which were public
sector jobs and 10,000 privatesector jobs comprised the
(28:59):
remainder.
It sounds great, except that itisn't.
The 110,000 jobs are publicsector.
That means your taxes pay theirwage and your tax burden
increases every time a positionis created.
The only job numbers thatmatter are the private sector
jobs, and it's only ever good ifit's the other way around and
there are far more privatesector jobs than public sector
(29:20):
jobs.
This allows for the creation ofactual jobs that contribute to
the taxes necessary to fund thepublic sector.
You need more of those to breakeven in terms of public versus
private sector job numbers.
Everything else is a deficit.
The Alberta NDP love to announcejob numbers, even if they're
low, because they know mostpeople don't know how the
numbers work.
They hear a big number and theythink it must mean the
(29:40):
politicians are doing the rightthings in keeping Albertans
employed.
You couldn't be farther fromthe truth, especially if we
can't afford it.
The more public sector jobs,the less we take home in our own
pockets and the more costly thegovernment is overall.
It's far more important to havea robust economy creating a
large number of private sectorjobs than it is to have a large
amount of public sector jobsduring a downturn like we are
(30:02):
currently facing.
It's astounding to me that theAlberta NDP would say we can't
afford the UCP.
The truth is, if we can'tafford the UCP, then there is
absolutely no way at all that wecan afford to elect the NDP.
Speaker 12 (30:16):
We want you to forget how our NDP drove us into
massive debt and lost 183,000jobs.
Rachel Notley and the NDP canwe really afford them again?
Speaker 1 (30:28):
The sheer expense of just four short years.
One single term with theAlberta NDP in office was
astronomical, posting thelargest deficit in Alberta
history at the time.
The United Conservative Party,meanwhile, balanced the books
recently, after three years ofCOVID-related spending spending,
it might be added that the NDPchampioned as necessary and
(30:48):
obligatory.
This is a far cry from whereAlberta was during the tenure of
Ralph Klein.
Ralph Klein committed tocutting government spending by
30% almost overnight and broughtabout a surplus when oil
revenues were in the tank.
Rather than whine and complainabout our dependence on oil and
gas, Klein acted as though wedidn't depend on it at all.
For a short time it seemed hewas right.
(31:09):
The royalty revenue went toAlbertans' pockets directly.
Almost as quickly we wereposting more surpluses.
Speaker 9 (31:15):
I've been a reporter for 11 years in this city and
I've traveled with bikers andI've traveled with whores and
I've traveled with gamblers andI've traveled with people from
the east end of town to the westend of town and I've been in
all kinds of trouble with thepolice.
Speaker 13 (31:34):
I started with $300 in my pocket and that's how I
started this campaign and I hada sense of commitment and I drew
the greatest bunch of vagabonds, misfits and beautiful people
(31:56):
to my campaign who never oncesaid to me I have to work for
this son of a bitch because Iowe him something.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
Ralph did some other things that were supposed to
protect us from spend-happygovernments in the future.
Legislation that was supposedto make it illegal for a
government to operate at adeficit in Alberta ever again,
for example.
This was, of course, unwrittenand thrown aside when Stelmach
and then, worse yet, Redfordneeded more money.
Alison Redford bought teachersunion votes by promising
something like $300 million tothem if they voted for her.
(32:26):
Three months after the election, Redford still hadn't paid and
the unions went public.
Redford wrote legislationallowing her access to the
Alberta Heritage Fund in orderto pay them off.
Then Prentice pointed hisfinger at us and told us we, the
taxpayers, were the problemwith Alberta, and it's no wonder
the conservative vote becamefractured and split.
It was the perfect time for theAlberta NDP to slip into power
(32:49):
quietly and unexpectedly.
Speaker 11 (32:51):
The NDP is talking about dismantling the Alberta
Heritage that has made.
You know there's 100,000 peoplea year come to this province,
right, and they come herebecause it's the free enterprise
engine of the country andbecause people come here to
invest.
They come here to get jobs,they come here to create jobs.
We're like the envy of NorthAmerica.
(33:13):
What the NDP proposes is towalk away from that.
You know.
Start with a royalty review.
Is there anything worse youcould do in Alberta in the
circumstances we're in right now, than launch a royalty review?
The last time we did this, itwas a disaster and there's parts
of the energy industry thatstill never recovered from what
(33:34):
happened at that time.
And so you know their policiesstart from that.
We'll undermine investorconfidence.
You know people have investedbillions of dollars in this
province.
We're going to now get into aroyalty review when oil prices
are like 50 bucks a barrel.
It's the worst thing you coulddo.
On top of that, they want to,you know, increase corporate
(33:56):
income taxes to the same levelas Quebec.
You know, and I know like I getit.
It's easy to say we shouldincrease corporate taxes.
It's a.
You know, in some people's mindit's a solution.
It's not a solution because itwill just cost us investment and
jobs.
We know that One of the thingsthat's driving the Alberta
economy is we have the lowestcorporate income taxes in the
country, so people come here toinvest and create jobs and
(34:17):
create wealth and createopportunity, you know.
So, again, it's the worst thingwe could do.
When they're proposing that thecorporate income taxes be
higher than Quebec, like youknow, since when is that part of
the Alberta advantage to havehigher corporate taxes than the
province of Quebec?
let alone what they're going todo to, you know, to personal
taxes?
Now, on top of that, you knowwe hear that, you know they want
(34:41):
to have refineries here, butthey want pipelines Like this is
preposterous.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
What followed was spending and progressive
legislation at a rate and pacenever seen by Albertans prior.
It was alarming and immediate.
It was the exact opposite ofthe Ralph Klein years.
Royalties were governmentabsolutes and entitlements.
In fact.
The government wasn't beingpaid enough, so we'd have to
undergo a royalty review to makesure they were getting their
due.
Can't have the governmentmissing out on any additional
(35:10):
revenue.
After all, How else can theypay for all these wonderful
things they've decided you musthave?
That's what happened when theysnuck in the back door, nary
saying a word.
The look on Naughty's face whenthey announced she'd won the
provincial election was of shockand awe.
Up till that very moment, therewas next to zero chance of the
NDP or Liberals taking power inAlberta.
Speaker 8 (35:30):
It's an outrage, it's a tragedy, it's like why are we
even doing it?
Speaker 6 (35:36):
And like why and like don't?
Speaker 1 (35:38):
Unfortunately, that's no longer the case.
This time they're coming inloud and full of vigor, equipped
with lies and platitudes, andstand as good a chance of
winning as their competitors.
Can you just for a moment takethe time to consider what will
happen if the Alberta NDP winsunder this circumstance?
They won't hold anything backlike they did the first time,
when their position was tenuousand they were, as though, an
(36:00):
accidental government.
This time they will bebolstered by what they view as
an acceptance of theirprogressivism.
The Albertans agree in thecourse they will chart and, more
importantly, accept it.
The following sequel would befar worse than the first,
Speaker 11 (36:17):
The polls across the province have been pretty
steady for the last few monthsand they show a tie, a neck and
neck race between the UnitedConservatives and the New
Democrats.
Speaker 2 (36:25):
Polls have both parties basically in a coin flip
position, and that's veryunusual for a province that has
leaned clearly conservative foralmost as long as it has existed
.
Speaker 1 (36:35):
You might notice the words sales tax get bounced
around a lot more comfortablythese days as well.
It's almost as though it'simpossible to conceive how
Alberta made it this longwithout one.
The fear of cutting services,even if they're out of
proportion, means it's easier toconvince people that it's
acceptable that the governmentfind additional sources of
revenue.
The trouble is, as witnessedduring Notley's term, almost
(36:58):
every single source ofadditional revenue was through
taxation not investment orinnovation, but by raising and
collecting more taxes, taxesthat are paid by Albertans and
far eclipsed the revenue to begenerated through collecting a
provincial sales tax.
During this election, smith hasoffered to lower taxes.
Notley proposes to keep alltaxes the same for the next four
(37:19):
years.
Then what?
Triple them?
Quadruple?
No answer.
That's the part they leave outon purpose, all but guaranteeing
their quiet consideration ofthings like a provincial sales
tax.
The fact that the governmenttaxes your money when you make
it and that they also find waysto tax it every time you spend
(37:40):
it is inconscionable enough, butit's already proven to be
exacerbated under an NDPgovernment.
Speaker 2 (37:47):
I had seen a number of your tweets over the weekend
and then comments today, callingfor increased restrictions
because of the increase in cases, as well as the variance of
concern.
The Premier did just that today, moving the province back
effectively into stage one.
Is that what you were lookingfor?
Speaker 7 (38:04):
Well, finally, yes, i mean you know Jason Kenney is
continuing a pattern of actinglast and acting least.
to be clear, when they firstmoved to reopen restaurants in
mid-February, we at the timesaid it was too early and that
we raise.
We ran the risk of allowingcases to get away from us again.
(38:25):
And in this particular case, ofcourse, this announcement is
coming after a four-day longEaster weekend which everybody
could see that this was comingAnd we are going to be paying
the price for the last four daysfor some time to come, I'm
afraid.
Speaker 1 (38:43):
That's why it's so very important to make sure that
people understand that a votefor the Alberta NDP in the next
election is one supporting heavytaxation, misinformation,
censorship and centralizedgovernment control over your
day-to-day affairs.
It's a vote to support vaccinemandates in the future.
It's supporting socialism andcommunist ideologies.
(39:03):
The words they speak and theway they speak them is as though
a condescending parent.
The Alberta NDP hates theprovince of Alberta.
It is their intention to changeAlberta to better reflect their
own progressive globalviewpoints and, by doing so,
change Albertans.
A recent poll said that morepeople trust Notley than Smith,
(39:25):
which is laughable.
really, like Smith or not,she's been delivering the
straight goods since she waselected, regardless of what you
may have said during her time inthe entertainment realm.
However, some may still harborill will towards her from when
she crossed the floor from theWildr ose Party to join
Prentice's Conservative Party.
I know I certainly do.
It was a terrible blow toAlberta.
For the first time in a while,we were in one of those rare
(39:47):
moments where conservatives wereholding conservatives
accountable.
The Conservative Party was inpower and the Wildr ose was the
official opposition.
The Wild Rose didn't have thepunch and muster it once did
after that.
Not until Kenny breathed newlife into Alberta conservatism
with the unification of the twoparties during Notley's term.
Speaker 6 (40:06):
You remember Jason Kenny?
He was banging around Ottawafor decades.
Well, now he's back.
Jason made a name for himselfnationally as a loud, proud
activist.
Speaker 1 (40:16):
I was always taught to give people a second chance.
When Smith got elected leaderof the UCP, I decided that's
what I would do.
Give her a chance to see if themistakes she'd made in the past
would come home to roost again.
So far they haven't.
The bits that Notley's NDP havemanaged to pull to shore
haven't been anything more thanthe statements of someone who is
being paid to be entertainingduring a time when she was an
(40:37):
entertainer and not a politician.
In the meantime, you can barelytell the difference between
what the two leaders areproposing in terms of promises,
except that one has been sayingthe same things all along, and
one has changed her tune inorder to garner votes and is no
longer saying the same thingsthat she once was.
In other words, one of them islying, and at least this time
(41:00):
it's not Danielle Smith.
The things Smith is saying arethe same things the UCP have
been doing since her election,which appears to have the best
interest of Albertans at heart.
At least she isn't asking youto change to be an Albertan or
to be embarrassed by where youcome from, but Rachel Notley
certainly has many, many times.
The Alberta NDP are like wolvesin sheep's clothing.
(41:22):
They'll tell you any litany ofthings to convince you they
aren't, but make no mistake, atthe end of the day they will use
their long, sharp fangs to sinktheir teeth into your lunch and
their long, sharp claws to holdyou down in submission, forcing
you to succumb to their plan.
Their fairy tales are butfables designed to confuse and
befuddle, but they are not true.
(41:43):
The Alberta NDP is lying to you.
Speaker 2 (41:48):
There is only one party who is listening to
Albertans standing up to Ottawaand fighting to move our
province forward, both to standup to the Liberal NDP coalition
of Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singhand Rachel Notley.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com