Sheila Gunn-Reed and Tom Harris critique how postmodernism fuels Canada’s flawed green policies, like Edmonton’s river-valley solar panels (operating just hours daily) and Ottawa’s $60B net-zero plan—710 wind turbines, 450 $1M electric buses—despite contributing <0.1% to global emissions. Harris exposes wind/solar’s hidden costs: bird/bat deaths, no disposal plans for decommissioned tech, and rare-earth mining tied to Congo child labor and Inner Mongolia’s ecological destruction, citing Planet of the Humans. CBC’s censorship, from deleting Harris’s Trump positives post to blocking lockdown critiques, mirrors postmodernism’s rejection of reason, empirical evidence, and classical liberalism, prioritizing victimhood narratives over practical solutions. Their International Climate Science Coalition Canada pushes adaptation over unrealistic emission cuts, urging listeners to challenge municipal waste in upcoming elections by replacing proponents of these policies with evidence-based alternatives. [Automatically generated summary]
Oh hey Rebels, it's Sheila Gunread and you're listening to a free audio-only recording of my weekly Wednesday night show, The Gun Show.
But guys, I've got great news because tonight's show is also available for free in a video format wherever you watch us here at Rebel News because we've partnered with our friends at Resistance Coffee.
They're sponsoring the show today.
And I've got to tell you, long before they sponsored the show, I really liked them because they are free speechy and they care about freedom.
10% of the sales at Resistance Coffee go to support civil liberties initiatives like Fight the Fines and the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
And if you like freedom and you like coffee, then you're going to love what I have to tell you about next.
If you use the coupon code RebelOne, you'll get 10% off your order with resistancecoffee.com.
Now, let's get into the nuts and bolts.
Tonight, my guest is Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada.
And we're talking about two of my least favorite things, postmodernism and modern environmentalism.
And Tom is explaining how one brought us the other.
It's horrific, actually.
Now, if you like listening to the show, then I think you're going to love watching it.
And this week, you do get that free sneak peek.
But if you want to keep watching us, might I suggest you become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's what we call our long-form TV style shows here on Rebel News.
Subscribers get access to my show, as well as Ezra's nightly Ezra Levant show, David Menzies' Fun Friday Night Show, Rebel Roundup, and Andrew Chapados' brand new show, Andrew Says.
It's only eight bucks a month to subscribe.
And just for my podcast listeners, you can save an extra 10%.
Yes, more savings on a new Rebel News Plus subscription by using the coupon code podcast when you subscribe.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com to become a member today.
And now please enjoy this free audio-only version of my show.
And you know what?
Listen to the audio, then pop over and watch the video, courtesy of our friends at resistancecoffee.com.
How Modern Environmentalism Meets Post-Modern Nonsense00:02:39
How modern environmentalism ties into post-modernist nonsense.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed and you're watching The Gunn Show.
Municipal politics are a virtue signaling mess and that seems to hold true in every major city and municipality in this beautiful country.
For example, the city of Edmonton is putting acres upon acres of solar panels in our beautiful river valley to power a water treatment plant for just a couple of hours each day while some of the cleanest burning coal on the face of the earth sits just west of the city, unused, unloved, unwanted.
The city of Ottawa has a $60 billion climate change plan, and politicians there just dedicated $1 billion to electric buses with, I guess, complete and total disregard for the unreliability of 100% electric vehicles in Canada's frigid northern climate.
The natural question then is, why is any of this happening?
Why are Canadian cities and really cities around the world pursuing these bizarre green virtue signaling goals that at the end of the day have no impact on greenhouse gas emissions if you care about those sorts of things?
And if you're a regular watcher, you know that I really don't.
Well, my guest today is an avid watcher of bad green policies, bad green politicians making bad green policies.
And he's got some theories about applied postmodernism and how this new age social science has overtaken the application of real science.
So joining me tonight to discuss how feelings about climate overtook the facts of climate is Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada in an interview we recorded yesterday afternoon.
Guys, I love coffee.
I love fighting for freedom and I'm conservative.
So naturally, you know what?
I love saving money and I love supporting businesses that also care deeply about defending civil liberties.
That's why I'm so excited to tell you about my new partnership with Resistance Coffee.
It's a great Saskatchewan company.
Resistance Coffee has sponsored the show today so that people who don't yet have a Rebel News Plus subscription can enjoy the gun show for free.
So head on over to resistancecoffee.com when you get a chance when you're done watching the show.
They've got some great deals on bulk orders.
CBC's Censored Comment Section00:05:32
Might I suggest the defund the CBC roast and get this.
10% of all sales go to civil liberties initiatives like fightthefines.com and you can save 10% on your order today by using the coupon code RebelOne.
So maybe pause the show right now, go order from Resistance Coffee and meet me back here in five minutes.
Thanks.
Joining me now from his home in Ottawa is my friend Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition, Canada.
Tom, you and I were talking off camera, and I know this isn't on the list of things that we were going to talk about, but I did a story this week about how CBC censors their comment section.
And you have your own experience with the censorship of the CBC.
Can you just give us a brief Cole's notes version of that?
Because, you know, they are, you know, they're supposed to be the voice of Canadians.
I'm pretty sure that's why we give them over a billion dollars every year, but they sure don't want to hear from all of us.
No, that's for sure.
And in particular, you know, right around the time when they had the riots in Washington, D.C., people were on the web saying, you know, Donald Trump has done everything wrong.
And I said, well, actually, no.
And here's quite a list.
I gave them a list of 16 things that he'd done really well.
Okay.
And among those things are bringing the troops home, of course, and trying to prevent American companies from indirectly helping the Chinese military.
He'd done, you know, lots and lots of good things, getting out of the Paris Agreement, things like that.
Well, of course, the CBC moderators, really censors, immediately took my post off the web.
And so people then would get on into the comment section and say, oh, you can't list a single thing.
I'd say, yes, I can.
Here they are, 16.
Boom, it's just immediately deleted.
And, you know, this is a trend that I've seen with the CBC on other issues too.
I mean, about a year ago, I was putting in some postings, actually, a particular posting.
I made a video about why the lockdowns were a big mistake.
I put it up on YouTube.
I got about 500 views, not a lot, but still, it was fun.
And I put a link to it on the CBC's website in their comments section.
And it followed all their guidelines.
They say they do welcome, you know, alternative points of view.
And you can have links to external sites as long as, you know, there isn't hate speech and things like that.
And of course, they took it off right away.
So I wrote to the CBC, you know, in both cases, and I said, you know, what's going on?
Like, I'm not breaking your community standards.
Why is it being deleted?
And the only kind of answer I got was from audience relations saying it was completely correct to remove your posting.
So I'd say, well, why is it completely correct?
No answer.
And this is a typical trend of what we're seeing in the CBC.
I mean, the point of having a public broadcaster is supposed to be, you know, unbiased coverage of news in which we can hear both sides of stories and people can make their own mind up as to what they agree with.
But the CBC is not doing that.
I mean, they're completely violating their mandate, which is supposedly to give unbiased news.
for Canada.
Instead, they have a woke progressive mentality that allows them to simply delete without explanation points of view that are different to what they want to promote.
And from that point of view, I don't see the point in even continuing to fund the CBC.
I mean, I've noticed your t-shirt defund the CBC.
I couldn't agree more because they are violating their whole raison d'être.
You know, they simply are not doing what we're paying them to do.
It's fascinating to hear your experience because I had a version of your experience in black and white, how CBC censors their comment section.
And they have a specific host of policies around President Trump or they did at the time, especially with regard to the riots.
So they said in their comment section, you know, that they would be deleting things that were fact-checking the CBC's stories on Trump.
So when CBC publishes a story saying Trump incited the riots, and if one of the commenters posted a link saying, well, here's what he actually said, they would delete that.
And you lived that experience in real time.
That's very interesting for me to hear.
Well, you know, the CBC and I have been at odds for quite a long time.
I mean, right back to the days when the space shuttle blew up in 1986.
And that's what got me into journalism, actually, to the degree I do it, because the CBC were attacking NASA for not launching the space shuttle with the frequency of the Ariane unmanned rocket.
But of course, the unmanned rockets, if they blow up, all they do is cost a lot of money.
And the CBC were attacking them completely unreasonably.
And NASA eventually did yield to media pressure, not just the CBC, of course, but all over North America.
And they launched under conditions the engineers said were dangerous.
And then, of course, the CBC and the others immediately attacked NASA for launching under those conditions.
So, I mean, I realized at that point, with such a biased mainstream media, I had to get into media because my specialty was aerospace engineering at the time and to start to write actually what's true.
But the CBC, I mean, I've had so many conflicts with them over that, over climate change, over anti-Americanism.
I mean, it goes on and on.
710 Wind Turbines Debate00:10:02
I mean, they have a mandate that to me should not be supported by the public.
Oh, that's the thing.
Publish whatever you want.
I don't care.
I just don't want to pay for it.
Tom, I wanted to talk to you about something that's happening pretty close to home for youth, city of Ottawa.
They've got a, as these things tend to be, enormously expensive climate plan that is going to put the taxpayer on the hook for, sounds like $60 billion.
Yeah, exactly.
They have a plan to hit net zero by 2050.
Net zero, of course, is practically the same as saying zero greenhouse gas emissions.
Zero people.
Well, what in fact they do is in calculating net emissions is they actually look at things that are used to take carbon dioxide out of the air too.
And they subtract that from the amount that we're emitting so that you end up with a net zero.
But it's pretty close to simply going to 100% renewables and getting entirely off fossil fuels.
And they want to spend almost $60 billion by the year 2050 to go to net zero by 2050.
And, you know, it's really quite incredible, Sheila.
If you actually look at what that number represents, I mean, the city's annual budget, okay, is 3.94 billion.
So, 60 billion dollars is about 14 and a half times their current total annual budget.
And they want to spend this on this loopy idea that Ottawa can help stop climate change.
I mean, the whole of Ontario is one half of 1% of world emissions.
I don't know what Ottawa is, but it's probably like one-tenth of one percent.
It's just trivial.
And you know, it's interesting because here are some of the things that would have to be done to meet the 100% scenario in the electricity sector.
We would have to have, in Ottawa alone, we'd have to have 36 square kilometers of solar photovoltaic panels on rooftops.
36 square kilometers.
Now, that's 40% of what the whole of Ontario currently has.
But here's the killer.
And this is something that Catherine McKenna, our MP from Ottawa, and of course, previous environment minister, she should be really opposed to this.
They want to have to meet this target 710 large-scale turbines.
Now, these turbines, these wind turbines are huge, 160 meters in height.
And that's in comparison with, let's say, the Peace Tower, which is 98 meters in height.
Okay, so we're talking about not twice as high, but pretty close to twice as high as the Peace Tower.
And they want 710 of these turbines.
I mean, in Denmark, you can walk from one side of the country to the other and never lose sight of a wind turbine, these huge wind turbines, some of them up to 60 stories high.
And you sure don't want to live near one because, of course, they produce infrasound, which goes right through your wall and causes all kinds of problems for people.
But if Ottawa had 710 of these huge turbines, you'd never lose sight of a dozen of them anywhere in the city.
They would be everywhere.
So, I mean, Catherine McKenna and others should be vehemently opposed to these.
And of course, the whole idea that wind and solar are environmentally friendly is completely ridiculous.
I mean, these are bird blenders.
I mean, they kill millions of birds across the year, across the world, and in fact, even more bats, because a bat only has to fly behind the turbine blade where the low pressure zone, that low pressure, bursts their lungs.
So you find that, in fact, twice as many bats are killed than birds by industrial wind turbines.
So you see experts in these fields, conservation, who are vehemently opposed to wind turbines.
But you know, the Ottawa plan is completely crazy because they also don't talk about what are you going to do with all the turbine blades when they wear out in the 15 to 20 years.
The same thing with the solar panels.
I mean, there is no plan currently for disposing of these things.
And of course, we're going to have to.
If they only last 15 to 20 years, by 2050, we're going to be on our second generation of all these.
So they're going to have to take them all down, all 710 huge wind turbines, all the 36 square kilometers of solar panels.
They're going to have to take them all down and somehow do something with them.
So, you know, the whole plan is completely loony.
And it's led to another plan, and that is their buses.
Okay.
They want to have, and I'll just read it here: 450 battery-powered buses.
They're planning to roll it out over five years.
And it's going to cost almost a billion dollars for these buses.
And I don't know about you, but I find Ottawa is kind of a cold place in the winter.
I heard it's snowy.
And, you know, battery manufacturers tell us that the lithium-ion batteries that are in these buses actually don't operate so well at low temperature.
And we've already seen that, you know, like in Germany, in Berlin, we had last year alone, 23 electric buses broke down in the cold weather because their batteries gave out.
And, you know, if you actually look at the manufacturers' statistics about these batteries, they tell you point blank that there's a big problem when they're operated in very low temperatures.
For example, you know, you see the range of batteries when the temperature drops from 10 degrees Celsius, which it could be on a very warm winter day, to minus six, which is still not cold by Ottawa standards, the electric bus ranges drop by 38%.
And it's funny because in Berlin, where it was only about minus 10, they found that these electric buses were supposed to have a range of 130 kilometers, but the batteries ran out halfway through their trip.
So we're going to leave people stranded on street corners all over Ottawa at minus 20 degrees.
Oh, and we better be rescued by the old internal combustion engine buses.
Let's hope we don't throw them out because we're going to need them to back up all these stupid battery buses.
You know, it's so crazy, but it's not Ottawa.
Like, I think most of the bad ideas in this country come from Ottawa in one form or another, but it's not just Ottawa.
I mean, Edmonton with their stupid solar panel farm in the river valley to produce like a fraction of the energy to run one water treatment facility during the day in optimal weather conditions.
How does this thing work in the winter when we have no daylight at all?
And it's going, and they are putting it in this environmentally fragile area of our river valley.
And yet, these are the same people who say, oh, no, no, we can't have a pipeline.
It might leak.
And I'm looking at these horrible solar panels thinking they're pretty fragile.
They don't have the monitoring system that pipelines have.
They're toxic to begin with.
And you're sticking them in the river valley, the river valley, and for nothing, like for it to produce like a virtue signaling ounce of energy every single day.
Well, that's right.
And in fact, it's a terrible way to do virtue signaling because, you know, wind and solar power in their own ways are the most environmentally damaging energy sources on the planet.
I mean, if you look at, for example, where the rare earth supply is mostly coming from, I mean, it's coming from countries like China.
And in fact, in particular, Mongolia, which is where most of a lot of the world's rare earths supply, and by the way, I should point out the rare earths are needed in the supermagnets of the top of the wind turbines, okay, to get reasonable amounts of electricity out.
So we really, we don't need them, but we would like to have them.
Otherwise, they give out even less electricity.
But it's really interesting because where they mine rare earths, for example, in Inner Mongolia, they're causing incredible environmental destruction.
And I have a number here that's pretty amazing.
The China Ministry of Industry and Information Technology estimated that the cleanup costs in the Jiangzhi province, okay, this is where they mine these things, is going to cost $5.5 billion.
Now, of course, that's just cleanup from one particular region for the mining of rare earths.
And, you know, I encourage people to have a look at Michael Moore's film.
I generally don't promote Michael Moore's stuff, but he did a film called Planet of the Humans.
And over about a two or three minutes span and speeded up action, he shows why wind and solar power are so incredibly damaging to the planet.
He doesn't focus on birds and bats, but he shows where the materials come from that are used to make these things.
You know, another example are transition metals like cobalt.
Cobalt comes typically from the Congo in Africa.
And believe it or not, not only do they use essentially slave labor, but they're essentially using child slave labor.
They have 10 year olds crawling into small spaces in mines to pull out the cobalt.
So when you're driving a Tesla or some other vehicle that is using transition minerals or rare earths, you're indirectly supporting child slave labor in other countries.
And of course, terrible environmental controls.
And that's why, in my opinion, wind and solar, when you look at the overall picture, are the most environmentally damaging energy sources on the planet.
You know, as you were talking about Ottawa, I was thinking, you know, these, if they do ever put up those wind turbines, they're not going to go in the city of Ottawa.
They're going to go in the unfortunate rural people's property all around Ottawa.
And it's environmental colonialism.
And this from the side of the political argument that literally won't shut up about colonialism.
And that kind of takes me to the next thing that I want to talk to you about, because you have some, I think, pretty solid theories about where this is all coming from.
Yes, exactly.
Postmodernism's Impact on Social Justice00:10:01
You know, we have to realize that most of the heads of the environmental movement are bachelors of arts.
They're people with degrees in history and philosophy and so on.
Not scientists.
That's weird.
No, you virtually never see somebody with a degree in engineering heading up a climate activist group, which is a shame because, well, I guess they'd quit the job because they realized how they were.
There you go.
But what you have is a lot of BAA graduates.
And you have to look at what were they indoctrinated with as they went through their bachelor programs.
Well, in the last few decades, a new form, a new philosophy has come to surface, excuse me, which is called postmodernism.
And postmodernism is a very weird sort of philosophy.
What they do is they reject the fundamentals of the Enlightenment.
Now, what it boils down to is the Enlightenment, excuse me.
There we go.
It must be my allergies.
The Enlightenment actually started, you know, 17th, 18th century from Europe, where in fact, what was promoted was reason for making decisions based on evidence and a respect for alternative points of view and debate to try to find compromises where people would actually come up with the best solutions for your society.
And, you know, it didn't mean that there were always peaceful, these discussions.
But generally speaking in universities, if you go back 50 years ago, you find that people wanted to come to good, solid conclusions based on reason with true empirical evidence, real observational data.
But, you know, in the 1960s, there was a new movement which started in the art, actually in art, you know, actually paintings called postmodernism.
And postmodernism did some very weird things.
They rejected the fundamentals of the Enlightenment.
They said that we should be actually making decisions not based on reason or evidence at all.
It should be based on things like feelings and things like, you know, what sort of identity group you were in.
And that is, in fact, what indeed came up in the 80s and 90s, because postmodernism basically said there were no truths.
There were no trends at all.
And if it feels good, do it.
Yeah.
But it was more of a theoretical thing that was just in the universities.
So you sort of shrug and say, oh, well, they're always going to examine really crazy stuff.
But what happened was that postmodernism became applied.
They started to apply it to things like racism.
And of course, that led to critical race theory, which essentially says that the only people who can be racist are white people.
And the only people who can be sexist are, in fact, men.
So, I mean, postmodernism leads to this really weird social justice theory, capital SJ.
It's not social justice in the sort of normal sense where you think that, you know, we want to help poor people.
We want to help disadvantaged people.
Social justice with a capital SJ is a new thing that is based on postmodernism.
It's essentially, from what I understand, it's a form of applied postmodernism.
And there's a really outstanding book that is just being published.
I just finished it actually, and I'll hold up.
It's on Audible right now.
It's called Cynical Theories.
Cynical Theories is a really outstanding explanation of how the left have been completely bamboozled by these postmodern people.
What's happening is that postmodernism is becoming the sort of doctrine of the day, especially for universities, where people are being taught this really wacko theory that rejects the whole foundations of the Enlightenment, that you don't make decisions based on evidence.
You base your decisions on things like identity politics.
In other words, it doesn't matter so much what you say.
It matters more who you are, whether you're a black, you know, gay, black, black, gay woman, for example, would have more credibility, more significance in the debate than much of what you were actually saying.
Now, this is indeed the kind of situation that the heads of today's environmental movement were inculcated with when they went through university.
So you see it all the time.
I mean, I saw a debate the other day from James Taylor of the Heartland Institute with environmentalists, and he was showing that virtually every single one of their charges about climate change, you know, more hurricanes is not true.
You know, sea level rising beyond comprehension, it's not true.
Polar bears is three times as many now as there were in the 1960s.
Temperatures only risen a degree since 1880.
James was bringing up all these true facts about climate, but it didn't matter.
The environmentalists were still, you know, passionately absorbed with their philosophy, their emotions, their feelings.
And that is indeed what is driving postmodernism.
And as I say, it's really a very big danger to our society because you're seeing it, for example, censoring people, the cancel culture.
They are not open to debate.
They think, and this sounds really nutty.
You got to read this book to really understand it.
They think that even debate using reason and logical arguments with evidence and empirical data, that that in itself is not woke.
That is not the way to come to conclusions because they think that the whole concept of rational debate based on reason with empirical evidence is something that was originated by white male Westerners.
And so as a consequence, the whole system is completely corrupted.
It's unable to come to any social justice type conclusions.
And, you know, it's a hard thing to explain because postmodernism, especially applied most postmodernism, is not only very dangerous, it's also quite difficult to figure out.
You know, and I was corresponding last night with Dr. Patrick Keeney, who's a visiting scholar at the Center for Multiculturalism and Education Policy in Thailand at the University of Chi Mei.
And here's what he said.
And this is a quote from his email.
And he said I could quote it on air because I think it's really important that people understand what is driving this totally wacko environmental extremism.
I mean, if you look at Ottawa's plan, it is really crazy.
I think that environmental extremism is anti-enlightenment, anti-enlightenment, and ill liberal, and an excellent example of applied postmodernism.
The Greta Thunbergs of the world have little time for actual science, which is always defensible or defeasible and open to correction, interpretation, etc.
The climate activists, or at least a significant portion of them, are on a crusade to redeem the world, which is readily divisible into believers and non-believers.
In their understanding, one is either a saint or a sinner.
There's nothing in between.
Increasingly, we seem to think that the science around any topic is settled, so there's no need for debate.
And by the way, that is a common ingredient of postmodernism, and in particular, applied postmodernism.
They will not debate.
You are wrong, they are right, and that's all there is to it.
The science is settled.
Even in their mantra, it shows up.
And it's funny because you talked about social justice.
And as you were talking, I was furiously scribbling it down.
Social justice, in the traditional sense, is you know, you help people until there are fewer people left to help.
And hopefully, one day there will be no people left to help.
But postmodern social justice, the big S, big J, it's not about helping people.
It's actually about creating victim classes of people who feel helpless.
You can't help them because you've told them that they are helpless.
They are oppressed.
And so there's no help to give them.
Well, that's right.
And, you know, people on the left have got to realize it's interesting.
The authors of this book are people from the left.
And what they're recognizing is that while, let's say in the United States, Democrats used to on occasion work with Republicans to come up with compromises.
What's happened is the progressive left have moved much further left and they're now allying themselves with these postmodern people.
And, you know, true liberals, I mean, people who support classical liberalism, people who support the idea of open debate among alternative points of view.
I don't mean liberal party people, I mean classical liberalism.
They have to realize that this postmodernism, especially applied postmodernism, is vehemently against liberal values.
I mean, as it says here, this doctor I was reading to you previously, he writes, Liberalism favors universal human values and human dignity, while postmodernism favors group identity and victimhood, just like you were saying.
Liberalism encourages disagreement and debate as a means of securing the truth.
At the same time, postmodernism rejects these as merely reinforcing the dominant discourse and rejects the notion of the truth, insisting that we can only discover our personal truth.
And it all varies depending on the person's feelings.
Liberalism accepts that the statements can correspond to reality, while these other people they say that words, words can ever, they deny that words can ever correspond to reality.
So it's all a language game in their eyes.
And that's why they focus so hard on their version of 1984's new speak.
You know, how you refer to things to them defines those things.
My truth.
My truth.
People have got to learn about this because this is what's driving not just the extreme environmentalism, but the critical race theory, post-colonial, all kinds of things are being driven by this.
And I'll tell you, our society, especially in the universities, is being ruined.
The Importance of Local Politics00:03:27
Well, Tom, I'm so glad that you recognize this and you articulate it in such a way that as you were talking, light bulbs are just going off in my head.
You know, when they say the science is settled, well, that's because they're debating with emotion and there's no science in emotion.
You know, like you and I could say whatever, whatever true facts there are.
None of it matters to them.
Now, Tom, there's a wasp in my studio and it's probably going to bite me.
It must be a postmodern wasp.
You better watch it.
You probably.
Tom, I wanted to give you a chance to let everybody know where they can find the very important work that you're doing, but also support the very important work that you're doing.
Because unlike these huge environmental organizations, you're not that.
You don't have these deep-pocketed U.S. foundations dumping money on you.
You're just a little grassroots guy grinding it out to change things.
Yeah, that's right.
Well, we did, we had a contractor do some research, you know, a group of us about a year ago, looking at what is it that's really driving the climate scare.
And we decided that what was necessary to oppose it was to create a new nonprofit in Canada, which we call International Climate Science Coalition Canada.
And people can check it out on the web at icsc-canada.com.
And we'll be actually promoting the idea that governments should not be focused on trying to stop climate change, which of course is ridiculous.
They should focus on adapting to climate change as it occurs and get ready for what's inevitably going to happen.
So people can support us if you go to icsc-canada.com.
And, you know, in a couple of weeks, you're going to see some interesting results at what we're going to be attacking because a lot of what's going on in Ottawa is about to spread across the country if we don't stop it here.
Well, that's great.
And we'll have you back on to announce what you're planning to do next.
You've given me a hint, and I think our rebel viewers and supporters are going to love it.
Tom, thank you so much for making the time to come on the show.
I know you and I are both up against the clock, but we will have you back on very, very soon, just a couple of weeks.
Okay, thank you.
Thanks, Tom.
Bye-bye.
Special thanks today to our partners at resistancecoffee.com for sponsoring the show today.
And because they did that, they made it available for free on YouTube to folks who are not yet subscribers to RebelNewsPlus.com.
Be sure to check out resistancecoffee.com.
stay caffeinated, keep free, and join the resistance.
This is a drumbeat that I play all the time, but major municipalities, particularly here in Alberta, are approaching election season again.
So I think it needs to be said one more time.
Local politics are the ones that affect you most and first.
And yet, conservatives, we rarely focus on municipal politics the way we should.
Our local municipal politicians are just as good as our federal and provincial ones at wasting your money on dumb ideas.
We have to not only hold them to account, but we also have to find some good conservatives to replace these bad liberals.
Well, everyone, that's the show for tonight.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
I'll see everybody back here at the same time in the same place.
Well, maybe not in the same place, who knows where I'll be, but I'll be back here next week.