Sheila Gunn-Reid argues conservatives must adopt Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals to counter Ottawa’s $57.4B climate plan, including 710 wind turbines and 36 sq km of solar panels, which critics like Tom Harris say will hike property taxes by $60K+ per resident while ignoring feasibility. Harris’s coalition exposed McKinney’s evasive answers—like dodging child labor in cobalt mining—while Rogers censored tough questions, revealing systemic avoidance of accountability. From Vancouver’s drug policy failures to Calgary and Toronto’s unchecked green agendas, Gunn-Reid urges relentless citizen pushback, framing Alinsky’s tactics as the only way to force politicians into honest debate before costly, polluting schemes dominate local governance. [Automatically generated summary]
What happens when a bunch of climate change skeptics show up to a municipal debate on climate change?
Well, hilarity ensues and politicians embarrass themselves and I could not be happier.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
That quote is from Tucker Carlson.
It's smart, and I wish I said it, but I did not.
Now, another way to change people's behavior is to hold them to the same standard by which they hold the other side.
It's one of the rules for radicals written by Saul Lelinsky.
But conservatives haven't really been doing that.
And conservatives have sort of walked away from municipal politics.
For example, the city of Ottawa, a lot of the crackdown before Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act on the peaceful truckers convoy protesting the mandates there.
Well, a lot of those civil liberties violations prior to that had come at the hands of the Ottawa municipal government.
Now, Ottawa right now is in the middle of a municipal election and climate change skeptics are turning up to hold politicians to account for their multi-billion dollar decision to invoke a climate emergency in Ottawa.
It's a decision that could cost every man, woman, child, and infant living in the city of Ottawa $60,000.
It's insane.
But as I said, the people are turning up and asking the politicians to account for their decisions and the politicians cannot because they have a very shallow misunderstanding of this issue, which is odd because they write off the skeptics as the idiots in this debate.
Anyway, I should be quiet because my interview that I'm going to show you is quite long.
It's with Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition.
He's been going to these municipal debates and he's been filming them.
And what you're going to see is quite revealing.
Here's my interview with Tom.
So joining me now is my friend and good friend of Rebel News and my show, Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada.
And Tom is doing something that I wish more conservatives would do, and that is engaging in local politics because conservatives so often just sort of wash our hands of local politics and we look at the macro issues.
We focus on Justin Trudeau without realizing that it might be our local mayor who's costing us even more money before Justin Trudeau even takes his cut.
So Tom, tell us, what have you been up to at the local level there in Ottawa?
Because boy, you might have one of the crazier city councils in all of Canada.
And you've been doing your best to sort of fight back and hold them accountable.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, we at the International Climate Science Coalition Canada noticed that the city very quietly during the pandemic passed various climate change acts.
Okay, this is a city and the price tag is astonishing.
It's $57.4 billion for a city of 1 million people.
So that works out to almost $60,000 per person.
So in the latter half of last year, we put together a report and we didn't, we're not at first challenging the science because what we're trying to show people is the detrimental impacts of the plan and the fact that it's infeasible.
And the hope is, of course, people will look at it and say, man, do we really have to do this?
And then of course we have another report in the wings ready to come out, which shows, no, you don't have to do it because humans are not causing dangerous climate change.
I mean, you know, a 1.2 degree rise in the so-called average temperature in the last 142 years since 1880 is so small that if we didn't have climatologists and meteorologists, we'd never even notice it.
So what happened though in Ottawa, you see, is back in 2019 before the lockdowns, there was a declaration of climate emergency.
Every time.
Every time.
And once they say that and they say it's non-binding, and then the big multi-billion dollar program just follows right behind it.
Well, that's right.
And the reason they did this, of course, was because during the council negotiations about this so-called declaration, they had massive protests of environmental activists outside.
And no one on our side was protesting or even, you know, objecting in any way.
And so this was passed.
And the city instructed city staff to actually go ahead and make a plan.
So they made two plans.
One is called Energy Evolution.
The other is called the Climate Change Master Plan.
And in that, believe it or not, the city of Ottawa is going to put up 710 industrial wind turbines taller than the Peace Tower.
They're going to have 36 square kilometers of solar photovoltaic cells.
Yeah.
Well, they want to put the cells on rooftops.
But, you know, if you think about it, that's the equivalent of a square six kilometers on a side.
I mean, that's bigger than the experimental farm here in Ottawa.
They want to have massive batteries.
They want to have huge increases in all kinds of costs.
Okay.
Typically, we're talking about a 40% rise in property tax just to pay for their climate plan.
They want to charge $20 to people every single time they drive into the city.
Okay.
Every single time.
And, you know, the price tag just goes on and on and on.
I mean, it is really crazy.
So we wrote this report.
You know, we sent it to the city.
We put out press releases and everything else.
And we got zero response.
I mean, they did not even answer and say thank you for, you know, except for automail, auto responses, they didn't even say thanks.
You know, we'll read the report, et cetera.
And we were quoting some of the world's leading economists and policy experts.
You know, well, some science.
There wasn't a lot of science in this particular report.
And then most recently, I sent an open letter to the city of Ottawa about three months ago, making sure, look, you know, now that the lockdowns are over, you know, take a look at this.
I mean, this is really important.
Well, really great thing happened.
And that is there was a group of environmentalists who decided to host climate change meetings and they called it climate justice, okay?
Which of course is ironic because if you actually increase the cost of electricity by four times, you're hurting the poor more than anyone.
Right.
Climate justice, where we all pay for the crimes of the rich elites like Al Gore, who get to fly around and have an enormous household.
But it's us, the little guy, we have to pay for those crimes.
Yes.
Justice.
So this group has put on four debates.
Three have happened so far.
I've gone to them all.
And you know, the thing I'm happy to report, Sheila, is that Ottawans, who are normally, you know, very passive and, you know, a lot of us work for the government, Ottawans are actually speaking out.
And I wanted to show you some examples of this.
And it's really kind of a test case to show what citizens can do.
And in particular, following Alinsky's rules.
Okay.
So there's one debate coming up.
It's September 28th, a week from today, actually, as the day is broadcast.
And it's from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Center Town United Church.
So we want as many people as possible to come and to support those brave Ottawans who are prepared to actually speak out and say something.
I mean, I'm one of them, but I've been quite impressed to see at the first three debates, and I have some samples of video from these debates showing how brave citizens can make a difference.
And they can, in one case, drop an atom bomb on the whole debate if they ask the right question.
And I'll show you that atom bomb question.
It's pretty awesome.
So we actually have to look at who's sponsoring, who's running this.
Okay, it's a list of generally left-wing groups.
It includes groups like Ecology Ottawa and other pro-climate change groups.
It's a little bit like having the referees in a hockey game actually on one of the teams.
Right.
You know, whether, and there's already censorship going on, and we'll get onto that.
But here's what's going on.
This is the first question of a very brave Ottawan.
And I'd like you to hear it because it shows, you know, average people can get up and make a noise and make a sound.
And so far, you know, typically they'll have eight or nine questions from the audience in each case.
You're only allowed 45 seconds and you're not allowed to ever come back with anything, even if they change the topic, which is a bit of a problem.
But here's a brave Ottawa on.
I'll just play it for you for fun.
I'm very concerned, having just come out of the COVID emergency, about the new emergency, the environmental emergency.
And I'd just like to know how we came to this conclusion that we're in a state of emergency when, as far as I understand, the global warming has only gone up by less than two degrees in the last many, many years.
I also am wondering how the council thinks that Ottawans are going to pay for this new initiative, given that the cost of living has gone up 8% in the last year.
Yeah, now that's a very good question.
And it really put them on the hot seat because right away, somebody's asking questions they don't want asked, of course.
They don't want people talking about the cost.
We have to save the world, you know, to hell with the cost.
But what we're finding is that Ottawans are speaking out.
Okay, so this is really good.
And, you know, what they're doing, either indirectly or directly, I don't know, is they're actually using something called Alinsky's rules.
So, what's important to understand is that how did the left take over our institutions?
Okay, the great, what's it called?
The long march through the institutions, where progressives, as they call themselves, really regressives, the left have actually taken over our academia, you know, our corporations, our government, our media, and churches.
It just goes on and on and on.
Well, to a certain extent, their Bible has been Saul Olinski's Rules for Radicals.
And what we're seeing in the Ottawa events actually is the various questioners are using various Saul Olinski rules.
And I don't think they know it, but they are.
And it's very effective.
And I want to go through some of his rules with you and then give you samples of where they're actually following them because this is something conservatives must do.
Okay, I'm astounded.
I've asked various conservatives: have you read Saul Saul Olinsky's Rules for Radicals?
Because this is how they took over.
And to tell you the truth, until about a month ago, I hadn't read it either.
I mean, I'd read about it, but I'd never read it.
And in the last month, I've read it and understood: wow, this is a very powerful document.
No wonder they took over our institutions because it's brilliant.
It really is brilliant.
Now, at the time Saul Olinski wrote this book, the left were on the outside looking in.
Okay, conservatives were in charge.
And he was talking about people who are disenfranchised, like what you can do to actually start to get inside.
Well, now the circumstance is reversed.
The conservatives are on the outside, and the left are on the inside.
So, his rules, while he'd probably roll over in his grave, knowing that we're using them against him.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say.
Yeah, exactly.
So, I'm going to go through some of his rules just for fun.
You know, one of them is specifically about ridicule, okay?
Saying that man's most potent weapon is ridicule.
It actually irritates your opponent so much that, in fact, they become irrational.
And of course, Alinsky said, The enemy, properly goaded and guided in his reaction, will be your greatest strength.
Okay, that's what he says.
I'm just reading it off the screen.
So, I'd like to show you a sample of that.
But before I do, this next sample actually uses two of Alinsky's rules: that rule, okay, ridiculing them.
You'll laugh when you hear the question.
And the next one is to personalize your target.
You know, what Alinsky said is people hurt faster than institutions.
Okay, if you attack the government, the city of Ottawa, I mean, that doesn't really, you know, who's responsible for that?
Attacking Individuals Matters00:10:22
It's like a conglomerate of people.
So, this next question actually is beautiful because it attacks, it attacks an individual.
That is Catherine McKenney, who's the leading candidate for mayor, unfortunately.
Is she really?
Yeah, I'm sad to say.
According to Lowell Green, he's been looking at the polls.
He says that, yes, she is the leading candidate.
And she's by far the most extreme.
She actually could get worse than Jim Watson, but it is.
It is.
Yes.
She was the one who pushed the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, you know, treating fossil fuels as if it's like nuclear weapons.
Yeah.
Now, the next question, the next question I'm going to show you, it's doubly interesting because I think the organizers knew it was very effective.
It targeted a person and it was on ridicule.
Because guess what, Sheila?
When Rogers TV put up the video on the internet, unlike the first two debates where they showed it all, they took out the two most powerful questions.
You can see this lady coming to the microphone, all ready to ask her question, then it's suddenly the next person.
Wow.
You know, so they took this question out.
So we had somebody in the audience, actually, a friend of mine who was videotaping the whole thing.
And he sent it to me later.
He said, oh, look, they took her question out.
Well, I'm going to show you what the powers that be, whether it's just Rogers or the city or working together, I expect.
They did not want people to see this question.
And for good reason, not only was it a great question, but also because the answer is very, very revealing.
So here we go.
My question is for Catherine Market.
When it was brought up in debate number one, that technical alliance on wind power led to 700 deaths when we failed last year.
Catherine said, referring to energy evolution.
Thank you.
i do support energy evolution i did i did vote for it it is a plan that gives us 39 actions that will reduce greenhouse gases and give us i did Do I think that every one of those 39 actions will be what we know today compared to what we will know by 2040 and then 2057?
Ah, now isn't that interesting.
She really pinned her down.
She said, you said that wind did not play a major role.
But and she said, you know, instead, solar was more.
Well, no, she pointed out that is deceptive and wrong.
It's deceptive because Catherine said in the previous debate that no, they're going to have district energy.
Well, of course, that's just the way we're distributing it.
That doesn't narrow down the source at all.
And she nailed her point blank, showing that what she said was wrong.
So once again, Catherine is trying to divert.
She's avoiding the questions.
And it's beautiful because I think people in the audience start to scratch their head and say, what's going on here?
You know, like she approved a plan that has as its major component, one of the top major components, wind power, which she now says, oh, well, it's not really that important.
So what we saw there was actually two of Olinski's rules being used very effectively.
One was ridicule.
Did you vote for the plan without reading it first?
I mean, that is a beautiful question.
And the second part was personalizing it, attacking an individual.
Catherine McKinney, you know, what are you doing?
It contradicts totally what you're saying.
But you know, the next one is by a fellow who's obviously a very good speaker, and I'll just let it speak for itself.
Okay, so here we go.
And we're again, and also I should point out the reason the video quality is so low with this one as well is because this was censored out by Rogers.
That first one that I showed you, which was pretty fuzzy, it was censored out.
And so was this one.
So out of eight questions that were allowed, Rogers took the two questions, which specifically showed the city didn't know what the heck they were doing.
So here we go.
$57.4 billion.
In the first debate, I pointed out that Ottawa, if it reduced its emissions to net zero, would only affect the global temperature by one ten thousandth of a degree Celsius.
And the response I was given was that it's important because Ottawa would be the world.
And we're expecting to be that the world is going to fall on Ottawa.
China, the world's largest emitter, twice that of the USA, has made it crystal clear that they are not slowing down.
They are not following Ottawa.
They are actually massively increasing, for example, consumption.
So, but essentially, no one of magnitude is following this.
Why is Ottawa expected to pay millions and billions and billions of dollars in expenditures for statistically zero?
Your question is directed to people that look at the US.
Okay, and then A. McKinney.
Thank you.
I guess I'll give the same response.
I do believe that we have to take action on climate.
I do believe that we have to mitigate against the change in our climate.
We have to find ways of adapting.
And I support the plan that has been developed by expertise.
We've got to protect our environment, nature, for us, for our children moving forward.
So thank you for your question.
You know what?
It shows how clueless they are.
The answer is we have to do something, even if it amounts to nothing, no matter the cost.
Yeah, exactly.
And she totally ignores the point that nobody of magnitude is following Ottawa.
I mean, China, which is double the U.S., is not following Ottawa.
Now, it's interesting.
One advantage of this question was it opened up one of the topics that I'm sure Mark Maguire, who was the only sort of rational person on the whole panel with respect to climate change, it gave him the license, so to speak, to give a really good message.
So, I mean, when you're asking questions, you know, and in this case, you're allowed to ask three people.
Obviously, you asked McKinney because she's a current member of the council and she voted for these insane plans.
And we're trying to reveal that as truly insane.
But you want to vote, you want to actually ask the other two questions or to the other two people who you know will support your point of view and criticize McKenney.
And it's interesting that, you know, the black fellow, Adad Adi, I guess his name is, he's being very critical of Catherine McKinney for saying one thing and then saying something totally different.
So what you have to do then is choose your answerers, the people that you want to answer.
You don't choose someone who's one of her allies.
You choose somebody who'll say something different.
Dr. Cadre, who's a professor at Ottawa U. He's also a candidate.
And I put in his answer because it is so ludicrous, you can hardly believe it.
And you can see then, and anybody watching this would know.
So you can see why Rogers took it out.
I'm pretty sure.
I mean, you don't know for sure, but the organizers almost certainly contacted Rogers and said, please take that out.
Don't show the question because it shows them as being either morons or dishonest.
Okay.
Well, and it's quite shocking, actually, for the average citizen to be relying on Rogers to say, well, I couldn't go to the debate in person, but I'd like to see the debate because I want to make up my mind.
And Rogers is selectively editing to make sure that their preferred candidates, or at least the candidates that align with their ideological view on global warming, they aren't made to look like complete and total idiots on the issue.
It's so dishonest and it's so undemocratic.
They are publishing propaganda, the likes of which we would see in places like Venezuela where they're trying to prop up the regime.
Yeah, and I wonder for a community TV station under CRTC rules, are they allowed to take sides in elections?
And, you know, they're covering debates, lots of debates for all the different wards.
How do we know those aren't being censored too?
I mean, we know for a fact they censored out the two most probing and important questions in the whole debate.
So, I mean, maybe they're doing this all over the board.
So, I don't even know if they're allowed to by CRTC rules.
But let's listen to Professor Cadre.
And again, this was censored out and it sounds so ludicrous.
Remember, he's asking, why should Ottawa spend billions and billions and billions of dollars when nobody's following us?
China's not going to follow Ottawa.
Well, I like Dr. Cadre, but listen to what he said.
It is so crazy.
That was my answer.
That would send me to the channel of Sheikhi to this.
Did you hear the fellow in the background yell out, not going to happen?
Well, of course, Rogers doesn't want that because it is so ludicrous.
I mean, China has said point blank.
I mean, their negotiator was confronted in the Peru COP in 2014, and they asked him if they were going to lead a change to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which underlies the Paris Agreement, which gives them a permanent out clause, okay, because they're still considered a developing nation, says their first and overriding priority is poverty alleviation and development.
So they can say, forget about any targets.
You know, we're just following the Framework Convention.
Anyway, the negotiator said to the person who asked, he said, the purpose of the Paris Agreement is to enforce the Framework Convention, not to change it.
So they know they have a sweetheart deal, you know, and so Cadre, sadly, I mean, as I say, I do like him as a person, but he's completely naive thinking China is going to follow Ottawa.
I mean, come on.
Making Decisions Within Knowledge Limits00:09:24
Yeah, could you imagine?
There's almost a level of narcissism in all of this to think that by taxing each and every living, breathing Ottawa to the tune of $60,000 to pay for this absolutely inconsequential plan, the cosmopolitan nations around the world and the more authoritarian ones will look and say, you know what?
Let's follow Ottawa.
They're really doing something good over there.
It's narcissistic to think that way, but here we are.
Yeah, they'll say, oh, and is what's Ottawa?
Is that kind of what are they doing?
Yeah, is that kind of bread or something?
I don't know what it is.
But anyway, I wanted to go through a couple more of the rules.
One of them, obviously, rule number one is a very important one.
And that is when your organization is small, you have to make a din.
You have to make a lot of noise and you have to make it look like you have more people than you do.
That's an important rule.
There's two things here, and this will lead to my next video.
You have to make sure that you keep within the knowledge of your participants.
Okay, if you're organizing people, or if you're a person going to the microphone, it's not a good idea to bring up topics that you don't know anything about.
Okay, because if you're quizzed, you're not going to have any answers.
So you have to stay within your particular knowledge base.
But one thing, and actually, I'll show you a fellow doing that right now.
Okay, here we go.
This speaks for itself, actually.
It's very good.
This guy's obviously a super expert, and we'll see what they say.
In following the implementation or the testing of the new buses that are coming in, the electric buses.
There's probably five or six that are there.
I think your city auditor questioned where they stand in that project, which means to me they're rushing.
The city's rushing to implement and buy more buses, and they've not done proper both testing, especially in cold weather, nor have they done proper validation or piloting.
Why is the city rushing?
And the second is, if you're a mayor, how are you going to make sure that people follow best practices, project planning, and implementation?
Yeah, that's a good question because he shows he has the expertise.
He's staying within his own area of expertise.
And of course, the council virtually have no expertise.
The committee have, you know, the candidates have virtually no expertise, except perhaps Mark McGuire.
And at this point, I would say he's a candidate we should watch because he's saying some smart things.
Here's what Maguire says: it's the question of I'd like to see the cost-benefit analysis because the electric buses are extremely expensive.
And we can't just front-end load all of these and say we're saving the world because we're using less energy after it's in service.
We have to look at the costs of putting it in service.
And then when it's done, what are the costs of mitigating, removing all of those toxic compounds that made up the electric bus in the first place?
Yeah, so that's great because it, once again, it gives Maguire an opportunity to make some good points that he probably wouldn't have had time to otherwise.
I'll just give you one more question here.
Yeah, this is an interesting one.
And this actually focuses on some of the emotional content.
I'm not sure if that's one of Alinsky's rules, but you'll hear what she says.
And she's talking about wind turbines and birds and that sort of thing.
Oh, sorry.
This is, this is Cadre answering.
This is Cadre answering.
Stream projects and make a project.
Make a project doesn't work.
We need to have different types of solutions, either phased in solutions or pilot projects.
And I believe at the city of Ottawa, we are not doing this well.
We have seen wealth.
And so he goes on to explain.
I won't play it all.
And I wanted to skip over to one question that I think is really important for people to see.
And that's what I will call the atom bomb question.
Okay.
I'm just going to go to the side here and make sure I get the right one.
Let's see.
Okay.
This is rule number four.
Alinsky says you have to make your opponents live up to their own book of rules.
Now, this is really important because the city keeps talking about climate justice.
You know, we can't leave anyone behind.
We have to, you know, look after the poor and the disadvantaged and all that sort of thing.
And so this question actually is a really good one because it's holding them to account for, well, you'll hear.
Here we go.
The city of Ottawa plans to back up its wind and solar power using a huge amount of batteries.
But we all know batteries are made using cobalt mined by children, 40 to 100,000 children in the Congo.
This is destructive.
The cobalt is then shipped in China.
Again, disrupting human rights.
The price tag is very hefty.
I'm a mother, I'm a grandmother, and I do not want to pay that price.
Is Ottawa ready to support this?
Now, that's a beautiful question.
The way she delivered it, the way she personalized it, you know, she tugs on people's emotions.
She holds them to account for their own rule book.
You know, you're talking about justice.
You know, what kind of justice is this?
And I want to show you one little clip that my daughter took from the back of the room.
The person that you see lean forward and suddenly be very interested in this question.
I spoke to him later, and he's a direct advisor to the mayor on climate policy.
So just watch this.
You can see the body language, okay?
And this is important to notice when we actually get to McKenny's response to this.
You can see she's totally unprepared.
She's very uncomfortable.
She'd rather the question were never asked.
It's way outside her knowledge base.
And of course, this is the reason that they don't want you to see this sort of thing.
But anyway, let's watch the body language.
You'll notice the fellow lean forward and you can see they're paying attention.
I'm not going to lie.
I don't know what to tell you.
We want to shift from gas-powered vehicles to electric vehicles, and those are battery-operated.
I'm on your side when it comes to using children to mine cobalt.
But there are innovative ways out there right now that is being looked at in other forms of energy, other sources of types of batteries.
But we're still far away from that.
So, you know, it's what do we do?
I don't have the answer, and I don't want, I'm not going to give you false hope by giving you an answer that would be not responsible on my part.
So, this is something that's going to have to be looked at, and we're going to have to come up with better solutions and look at new innovative ways.
And we have to look outside the box, look in the States, look in Canada, what kind of new sources of energy that's out there, and see what we can do to not use those types of batteries or not use.
We do that with coffee, right?
Locally sourced or sourced.
They have it on the packaging.
Anyways, I'm going off topic here.
So I can't give you an answer that I feel comfortable with.
So that's something we're going to have to look at as a society.
So to make a decision on that.
Well, boy, he's caught flatfooted.
So, you know, at first he starts off by saying something akin to, and I'm paraphrasing here.
Well, you know, that's, I hear, like, those kids are just the cost of going green.
And then he acknowledges that, you know, there's a problem here and it's something that they have to look at in the future.
The problem is these people want to go green right now.
So they're not saying let's put off this expensive plan until we can do it in a more moral fashion.
Nope.
They want to go green right now.
And what the kids today, that's okay because we'll figure this out for the kids tomorrow.
That's atrocious, actually.
That's pretty, pretty, pretty ghoulish, actually, that, you know, the kids today, those are the costs of figuring it out to make life easier for the kids tomorrow.
And then he goes into, well, maybe we should consider fair trade labeling.
Yeah, I would agree with that.
Let's slap the sticker on the pump in Ottawa and show where that gas is from.
Is it conflict gas or is it freedom gas from Alberta?
I would agree with him on that.
He just would rather do it for an electric car battery that doesn't work.
And I would rather do it for gasoline in the tank.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, the next person answering is a black fellow.
And I think it's a good strategy to have that question asked to a black person since, of course, it's the black children that are working in the mines.
I won't play his whole response, but I'll play part of it, okay?
Promote Us To Your Council00:15:28
Just so you can see.
And yeah, it's an opportunity again for them to say the city is wrong.
It's a good, it's a good question, but not an easy, not an easy solution.
I'll say this.
I don't believe, and for too often, the city of Ottawa has sort of ceded our environmental duties to the province.
So when the province mandates something, they say, well, we've got no choice.
No, not under my mayorship.
We have a duty to our constituents.
And one of the things I'd like to see is something what you would call a balanced scorecard analysis before we implement certain windmill developments.
And one of that aspect of that is where do the components come from?
How were they made?
It could be that certain projects cannot go ahead because child labor was involved.
Yeah.
So, I mean, that's great.
He's saying that.
Now, the last one I want to show you.
Sorry, just before we move on from that, I noticed I'm just like the hypocrisy laser beam today.
He says, you know, we have a duty to constituents.
Then, okay, great.
I agree with that.
Ottawa first.
Why are you pushing this thing that speaks to your obligation to the entire world?
Yeah.
And don't work in cold weather and all kinds of problems.
You know, like the whole thing is nuts.
Now, the last video I wanted to show is especially important because this is Catherine McKinney.
And she, as I say, is the leader in the debate right now, unfortunately, in the whole.
And I think she's probably the most radical.
Yes, exactly.
And you can tell by her body language, and this is really important.
You can tell by her body language that the questioner has gone totally outside of Catherine's knowledge base.
Okay.
Catherine has not thought about this clearly beforehand, even though we sent them the report and it detailed it.
She obviously hadn't read our damn report.
But anyway, here we go.
This is Catherine.
Now, watch your language, especially the way she ends when she sort of puts down the mic and says, oh, that's all I have to say.
So just watch this.
It's beautiful.
And it shows that, again, one of Volensky's rules in force.
Thank you.
And thank you for that question.
Absolutely.
We can't just look to electrifying everything.
We just can't look at batteries.
If we're going to phase out fossil fuels, if we're going to meet our goals, we have to look at completely reducing our demand for energy.
And we've got to look at increasing our use of renewable resources.
But we can't just look towards electrifying all of our vehicles and using unsustainable practices that you outline.
Thank you.
You see that body language.
She's like Kamala Harris, where I feel like she's paid by the word or at least the W.
She just talks about nonsense and keeps saying, you know, we're going to work on the work that we're doing and we're going to continue to work on the work that's going forward.
And you're like, she didn't say anything.
That's the same thing.
She just said a lot of nothing and didn't say anything.
For me, I look at cobalt mines with children, or I look at young Indigenous men making $150,000, $200,000 a year, a way out of generational poverty here in Canada.
For me, it's a no-brainer.
But for her, it's something you have to consider.
That's right.
That's right.
And, you know, I think the last rule I have here is to keep the pressure on.
Okay.
When they don't answer questions, even though the moderator says, oh, you know, you've had your chance, you've had 45 seconds.
No, you cannot let them get away with it.
You know, I was speaking to a communications consultant about what's going on at these meetings, and I described to him how you're given 45 seconds to answer the question.
And what a lot of the candidates are doing is they're bridging to totally different topics.
They're not addressing your question.
They're ragging the puck, as they say.
They're just winding the clock down.
And what he said then is that you must interrupt them.
And it may be against the rules, but you know, we're talking about the survival of the city.
We're talking about, you know, people dying because of lack of energy at minus 30.
If we're a little bit rude and we break some of their rules concerning debate, well, tough.
I mean, that's what you have to do.
And that's what I did actually in the Kanata debate, the second one.
I'm not going to play the whole thing.
I'm just going to play the part where I interrupt her, okay?
Because I think this is what everybody has to do.
When they're not answering the question, you have to say, you're not answering the question.
I'll just play a little snippet of that here, actually.
Thank you.
I do support.
I think I said this at the last.
Oh, I should tell you what the question was first.
I asked her, would she promote having the experts that we involve and quoted in our reports?
Would she promote them coming into council to explain what the city has done wrong?
That's my question.
Okay.
Now she goes on and says, oh, well, I support the plan, blah, blah, blah.
And she starts to talk all about it.
So you'll see what I did here.
Things back, but I do just want to reiterate that I strongly support the climate energy plan that was produced.
Thank you.
Will you promote us speaking to your council about the problems with the plan?
That was my question.
No answer.
I guess anybody can come if it's an item in front of committee and present as well.
Will you promote us speaking to the council about the problems?
You can come to committee at any time, like anyone else.
Absolutely.
Thank you.
Well, she sort of answered.
But we have to be brave and we have to actually bring up the fact that, you know, they're not answering questions.
I mean, that is really important.
We also have to make sure that our attacks are in areas where we have a good answer.
After the last debate or a previous one, somebody came up to me, one of the enviro activists and said, okay, so what would you do if you're not going to have wind power?
I said, well, I'd retain our natural gas.
It's doing great.
He was quite annoyed, actually.
Gave me back my business card.
He ran off.
So, I mean, there's lots of other quotes I could show you.
Alenski's rules being in action being applied.
But, you know, I'm really proud of the citizens of Ottawa for speaking out.
I mean, they basically have turned this into something that is so damaging to the city's cause that Rogers has engaged in actual censorship, taking out two of the most important questions that were asked to the city.
And so I really encourage people to go to the last debate, and I have it on the screen here.
It's on September 28th.
One of the points our communications analyst said, look, he said, if you ask a revealing question and two people in the audience clap, the moderator says, oh, no, no, no one's allowed to clap.
Well, what's she going to say if 50 people clap?
Maybe she'll say the same thing.
But again, yeah, sure, you break their little rules.
The fact is, we're talking about the survival of the city.
We're talking about thousands of people's livelihood, their well-being, and even their lives.
So if we break a few rules, we clap and cheer for our people, the people who are actually bringing up points of view that we know should be brought up.
That's great.
Now, the nice thing about the last event on the 28th is it's going to be live streamed on the internet.
Okay.
So it's hard to edit that.
Yeah, it's going to be hard for them to edit it because if they do, anybody can say, oh, look at this.
Here's the original and here's what you finally put up.
So, yeah, we need lots of Ottawans to go and cheer.
If they're too afraid to actually go to the microphone or they don't know enough to go to the microphone, that's fine.
But we need them to cheer and say, like that fellow did when Dr. Condry was saying Ottawa is going to lead the world.
And you could hear somebody yell out, that's ridiculous, or whatever he said.
I mean, you have to go out and make a din.
That's Alinsky's rule number one.
Okay.
People have to go out and make noise or they will lose their city's prosperity.
Ottawa will become bankrupt, more polluted, because, of course, these sources, wind and solar, produce more pollution.
And guess what, Sheila?
The sale of electric generators in backyards is going to go through the roof.
If you look at the stock, for example, of Geniac, I think that's what they're called in the United States.
They're an electric generator producer.
You know, they burn fuel, fossil fuel to make electricity when the wind and solar don't work.
You're going to have those all over the city.
So your pollution is going to go way through the roof.
So it'll fail in that regard as well.
So yeah, people have got to read Alinsky's rules.
They got to be brave.
They got to apply them.
And we have to point out this stuff.
And especially in this debate on the 28th, which is live stream.
So Rogers will have a hard time censoring it.
You know, I think it's wonderful that on the next debate, you know that all those panelists are going to be in absolute terror that the citizens might show up and ask them a question about the things that they voted for.
Because really, that's what's happening here.
They voted for this.
They passed this huge, comprehensive, expensive program that will change the way Ottawans live and cost them $60,000 at the bare minimum.
And that doesn't even go into the increase in their heating bills and everything else.
That's just 60K likely added on to your property tax over the course of your time in Ottawa before you escape and become a refugee to Calgary.
Well, and Calgary is not any better.
Become a refugee to Red Deer.
I think so far a refugee.
You can go to Red Deer.
It's pretty good there.
But, you know, I mean, all you show up and ask them questions about the things that they voted for, and they don't have a clue.
It shows how shallow their grasp is of this issue.
And yet they are the first ones to turn around and call you or me or those people in the audience as well-meeting citizens of Ottawa climate deniers.
They're climate deniers when they, it's clear they know more than the politicians on this issue.
Yeah.
And like that lady said in the very first question I showed you, or the second one, she said, did you vote for this plan without even reading it?
And I think the answer is not, I don't know about in her case, but the answer on the part of a lot of the counselors is undoubtedly yes.
Okay.
We had one of the counselors in Stittsville denying that certain things were in the plan.
And Lowell Green, who runs a podcast, it's very good, actually.
He's still on air.
He says, well, it's like right in the plan and you voted for it.
So, yeah, of course, they just voted to be woke.
You know, they're not reading the plan.
And it turns out the questioners know far more about the technology, about the implications, about the negative impacts and the feasibility.
They know more than anybody on the council.
So yeah, go there and grill them.
Be brave.
Okay.
And, you know, I think this is a great illustration of what could happen across Canada in various cities.
And, you know, ICSC Canada, I mean, I'd love to organize that in Calgary, for example.
So if we had the funds, I would do that because, you know, with the slides I showed you and a sample of Ottawa as to what can be done, you know, I think it would be great.
I'd love to organize it for Calgary and show how to apply Alinsky's rules.
And I'd like to do it for future Ottawa events too.
I mean, so yeah, if people want to see this kind of thing, I'm sure I can make it happen, you know, with ICSC Canada.
When is Toronto's next election?
Because I feel like you could really make an impact there.
You know what, Tom?
Now's your chance to make an appeal.
Let people know where they can find you.
Let people know where they can support you.
And please don't forget to plug your podcast.
Every time you're on the show, you forget about your podcast.
Yeah, that's right.
Well, we're at icsc-canada.com.
And I actually have a slide, our very last slide here, right there.
And my podcast is on that website.
Just go there.
It is Exploratory Journeys with Tom Harris.
Also, we have AmericaOutloud.com.
And Dr. Jay Lear and I are putting out weekly radio shows, interviewing some of the most amazing people, mainly about climate and energy, but sometimes about anything from obesity to COVID, all kinds of interesting topics from a conservative perspective, of course.
So yeah, that's great.
Well, Tom, thanks so much for the work that you do to just encourage civil debate and hold politicians to account for their expensive decisions and injecting a little bit of reality into this overheated emotional debate.
I mean, it's, you know, don't you care about the trees?
Don't you care about the children?
And I say, yeah, I do.
That's why I don't want them mining cobalt.
Maybe you should feel the same way as I do.
I thank you for the work that you do on this.
And we'll have you on again very soon, perhaps after the Ottawa election, just to discuss how things worked out there.
Yeah, exactly.
See what impact they had.
But, you know, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good people do nothing.
So you got to start somewhere.
And I'm really pleased to see that Ottawans are doing it.
Thanks, Tom.
Well, that was a long and interesting interview with Tom.
And I look forward to seeing what he does next.
Those poor witless politicians.
Anyway, this is the portion of the show where we want to hear from you, unlike the mainstream media, who, I guess, as it turns out, censor out embarrassing things that politicians say or do when the civilian population asks them questions they don't have answers to.
We actually want to hear from you.
We care about what you think about the work that we're doing here at Rebel News.
And one of the ways that we invite your viewer feedback is, well, I give out my email address.
If you want me to read your letter or comment on air, one of the best ways to do it is to send me an email directly.
It's sheila at rebelnews.com.
Just put gun show letters in the subject line so I can find it easily because I'm sure you imagine I get hundreds of emails a day.
Anyway, today's gun show letter comes to us from Dana.
She writes, Hi, Sheila, loved your interview with Matt Brevner.
Matt Brevner is the filmmaker behind the new documentary made with our rebel news journalist Drea Humphrey.
It's called Kamloops, the Hidden Truth, and it is about what happened or didn't happen for that matter at the residential school there and the search for truth.
You can get all the details at kamloopsdocumentary.com, including finding out when our in-person showings are.
Anyway, Dana writes, My daughter studied in Vancouver from September 18th to May 22nd.
I was shocked at what I saw when I visited her fall of 2018 near Gastown.
People were actively overdosing in the street.
Yeah, one of the things that we talked about, Matt and I, was this progressive push to normalize drug abuse because they claim it's compassionate to the drug user to remove the stigma, but really it is just sentencing the drug user to either a slow or quick suicide.
Normalization Debate00:01:23
And that is, for me, the opposite of compassion.
Anyway, Dana continues.
More disturbing was my daughter's response when I asked if we should contact 911.
She said, it's okay, mom.
They take care of each other.
Someone will have naloxone.
I was so shocked at how quickly she had become desensitized to the realities of drug culture.
This was only two weeks after she left Alberta as an 18-year-old student on her own for the first time.
Dana, I just think this is horrible.
Our progressive drug policies prevent people from getting the help they need, prevent people from becoming productive, happy, healthy members of society, but also becoming productive, happy, healthy members of their own families.
Because so often, outside of the drug user being the first victim of drug abuse, it is their families, it's their children.
They get sucked into this black hole that they had no part in creating.
And it is, like I said, the furthest thing from compassion.
Well, everybody, that's the show for tonight.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
I'll see everybody back here in the same time, in the same place next weekend.