Sheila Gunn-Reid and Corey Morgan dissect Alberta’s Speech from the Throne, where Premier Daniel Smith pledged Bill 1—a tax referendum lock—to block federal gun bans despite near-2,000 long-gun restrictions. They critique the gas tax suspension as a temporary fix, question why opioid lawsuits (like Bill 3) target manufacturers instead of systemic solutions, and contrast Alberta’s drug policies with BC’s hands-off approach. A protester’s unchecked disruption highlights double standards, while past rights crackdowns—from Pastor Phil Hutchins’ SWAT arrest to summer jobs bans—underscore creeping government overreach. The episode warns that defending property rights today may prevent broader confiscations tomorrow, urging listeners to push back against incremental erosion of freedoms. [Automatically generated summary]
What does Alberta's Conservative government have in store for us Albertans in the upcoming legislative session?
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
Our government will ensure that Alberta and Albertans have exactly what they need.
This spring, we promised to keep taxes low and ensure no government can increase your personal taxes or taxes on job creators without the approval from Albertans through a referendum.
We're delivering on that promise today.
If passed, the Alberta Taxpayer Protection Amendment Act will shield families and businesses from future tax hikes.
The act already bans the introduction of a provincial sales tax without a referendum.
What we will do with this act is strengthen that.
With our amendments, increases to corporate and personal taxes will not happen without Albertans' permission.
This includes increases through the reduction of personal income tax brackets or through decreases in the basic personal espousal and equivalent to spouse credit amounts.
Thanks to this legislation, everyone from single parents to entrepreneurs will have an extra dose of certainty so that they can budget and save for what truly matters to them.
Monday here in Alberta, we heard the speech from the throne.
That's where the government of the day sets their agenda for the next legislative session.
And it sounds like Alberta's Premier Daniel Smith has a lot of fighting with the federal government planned for Justin Trudeau.
And I just can't wait.
Now, joining me to break down what we saw from the speech from the throne and what we can expect in the next few months from the Alberta government is my friend Corey Morgan.
He's a columnist with the Western Standard.
check it out.
So joining me now is Corey Morgan of the Western Standard.
And when Danielle Smith announced her plan for the next legislative session, I knew he was the guy I wanted to talk to.
Corey, thanks so much for coming on the show.
Talk to me about, like, let's zoom out a little bit about some of the things that you saw in Danielle Smith's throne speech.
Sure.
A lot of it was, I guess, kind of predictable, very much focused on making Alberta a destination for business as the messaging she wants to get out, you know, reducing regulatory regime and also for people with the affordability front, reducing the tax bracket, keeping that theme of pointing at Ottawa as the enemy to defend against.
Again, politically, it's always a good approach in Alberta, and they always give us lots to work with on that front.
The thing that kind of came out of left field there was the high-speed train proposal, though, which I don't remember anybody campaigning on or anybody even asking for.
And to have it actually inserted into a throne speech gets me actually kind of uncomfortable.
Yeah, that was sort of a thing I didn't expect to see.
I knew it was something that Jason Kenney was sort of poking around examining.
I hadn't seen the business plan for that.
But it seems like every five or six years, someone's like, you know, what we definitely need is a monorail from Edmonton to Calgary, stopping, I don't know, in Innisfail and Red Deer along the way.
I mean, I don't know what the usership would have to be to make that affordable.
If it's a government-run project, I mean, we'll have, we will just be able to teleport through a private company by the time the government gets a monorail finished.
So again, I'd like to see the business model on that, but you touched a little bit on the tax relief issue.
There's Bill 1, which I think we should definitely talk about, and also suspending the gas tax until the end of the year.
We keep doing this, suspend the gas tax until a certain date.
I don't understand why we just don't get rid of it altogether.
If we realize that it is driving up inflation and hurting Albertans in their pocketbooks, why wouldn't we just get rid of it altogether?
Because they like hedging their bets.
So if revenue starts dropping, it doesn't look like they're bringing back an old tax or adding a new tax if they got rid of it altogether.
They can always just say, well, the term of the suspension expired.
So this way they'll just keep kicking that can down the road.
At least they are suspending it for a time, but I would be more comfortable if they did just get rid of it altogether.
I mean, just admit it, it's not a good tax.
It's hurting businesses.
It's hurting citizens, and we should get rid of it.
But they won't quite make that step.
Yeah, it's true.
Now, let's talk about Bill 1.
So I think for people outside of the province, they really don't understand what Bill 1, but Bill 1 acts as a restraining order against the government for introduction of new taxes or hiking taxes.
If they plan to hike the tax, it has to go to referendum.
This is something that has been like a bread and butter conservative issue for a very long time.
This harkens back to the Ralph Klein days.
But of course, the NDP don't like this idea.
Well, the NDP, and I mean, it's fine for Premier Smith.
They seem to just have the pure chronic oppositional disorder going on.
That's the nature of opposition, but they're getting to a point of really just immediate opposition to everything.
And I don't think it's serving them at all.
This sort of thing does remind us of Ralph Klein.
He brought in the Balanced Budget Act to say that the government could not go into deficit.
The very first time I ever attended a live legislative session in person was to watch the Stalmack government put a quick motion in, repeal the act, and then go into deficit.
So these acts, they're good because it makes the government at least have to go pretty public and eat some crow and make a motion to get out of their own legislation if they do want to raise taxes.
This is different than it calls for a referendum if they wanted to do it, which I can't see any referendum winning when somebody's saying we want to raise your taxes.
So it does, it's a good thing to see.
But I mean, people also should realize that it's not set in stone.
Any majority government can always repeal these things, but it makes it more difficult for them down the road to try and raise taxes.
And anything that hinders the government's temptation to raise our taxes further is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, it's just so odd to see the NDP campaign against giving people the option, giving people a voice in the legislative process.
I think they're decrying it as undemocratic when it's probably the most democratic thing that I think the government could do.
And, you know, you point out that Stellmac repealing that law gave way to the NDP to bring in the largest deficits this province had ever seen.
We're still crawling our way out of this hole.
Yeah, and the NDP just can't even remain silent, perhaps, on a policy.
I'd rather come out and oppose it.
I don't think they're doing themselves any favors on that one to say it's undemocratic.
Well, we're talking about a policy to give citizens the right to vote on a policy.
It doesn't get any more democratic than that.
But I swear they can't hear themselves speak sometimes.
No, there was something that wasn't in the thrown speech, and I was hoping to see it, but I think maybe the government was caught a little bit flat-footed, although I think the writing was on the wall.
I thought there might be something in there for firearms owners, given that the federal court has just upheld Justin Trudeau's, again, there's that word undemocratic order and counsel banning of it started at 1,500 long guns and now it's closer to 2,000 long guns.
The federal court said that doing that is completely within the government's power and that the government didn't act unfairly by arbitrarily making people criminals overnight through the stroke of a pen.
I thought, given Daniel Smith's strong stance on property rights and firearms rights and public safety, that I would see something like that in the throne speech.
I think it just, they weren't prepared for that.
Yeah, it's the timing of things.
There's so many balls in the air right now.
It's hard to cover every possible issue in a throne speech and then to realize there was going to be a ruling come out at this point so close to it or during that they couldn't hit on it.
But I mean, it's Premier Smith has never shown any support for the federal firearms plans or track.
Ironically, Premier Kenny was actually always well outspoken for that.
He brought in Terry Bryant, I believe it is, the firearms officer.
She's been very common sense in that issue.
So I think they will, as you said, it was notably absent in the throne speech.
Maybe they're trying to appeal more to the urban crowd too, though.
I mean, everything's tactical when it comes to this, and they realize that's a strong rural issue, but they've already got strong rural support.
They want to make sure that Calgary stays solid because they came so close to potentially losing the election over some of the Calgary seats that while I don't think they would lose support over bringing the firearms issue into the middle of the throne speech, it wouldn't have necessarily gained them anything as well.
So that might be part of why they didn't touch upon it as well.
I suspect they're going to stand up for our property rights, at least as much as they're capable of within the federation.
Now, and on the flip side, I don't know how much more they could say or do, given that they've already said we're not going to allocate RCMP resources to kicking in our friends and neighbors' doors all across the province to get a bunch of firearms that really, frankly, nobody knows where they are.
So on the flip side, while it was notably absent from the throne speech, I don't know what else Daniel Smith could say, except if Justin Trudeau demands the RCMP go around and kick in doors, and I think that's the only way to go get them, frankly, that our cops are not going to do it.
No, and Premier Smith's been working almost incrementally towards bringing in a provincial police force, at least encouraging areas like Grand Prairie to say, you know what, we're going to go with a municipal force rather than RCMP and expanding the reach and the scope of the sheriffs.
She won't come right out and start say we're going to form an Alberta Provincial Police Force, but she's on that direction.
Another thing absent from this speech as well was the pension plan.
Not a peep on it.
And that's sort of been the top issue of this government since the last couple of months when they brought out that study on it.
I suspect they seem to have hit this poorly prepared.
We've talked about an Alberta pension plan for a long, long time, but now that they've sort of really made a solid move towards examining it, the blowback was anticipated, of course, but they didn't seem to respond strongly to it.
They can't give good strong numbers on it.
And they're sort of, I'm just thinking, circling the wagons a little bit and trying to think of how they're going to approach it from here on in, because if they wanted to hit it harder, you think that would have been right in the middle of that throne speech.
And they made a point of not having it in there at all.
So I think their support on it is softer than they hoped for.
And I think maybe the fact that Polyev came out and said, hey, Alberta, please don't, I think that might have rattled the UCP a little bit.
I don't know if they expected that from him.
But, you know, you very rarely see Alberta break with the federal party on these issues.
And, you know, it looks like there's a bit of a fracture there on this one.
Well, it puts Polyev in Iraq in a hard place.
I mean, if Alberta exits the plan, despite whatever people might claim, it will certainly cost every other Canadian a lot more money.
The only thing that's disputable is the amount of the principal that Alberta may be entitled to on the way out.
But if Alberta left even, you know, with a small percentage of the plan, that plan is suddenly going to be underfunded by a few billion dollars a year.
And any liberal would be able to, if Polyev supported that, would be able to beat pretty hard on them and say, hey, all your pension plan contributions are going up because of that plan you supported or that exit you supported in Alberta.
So he's in a difficult position.
And while there's, you know, the UCP and the federal conservatives aren't formally linked, they aren't like the NDP.
There's certainly a great deal of overlap between the members and the players and the political people in there.
So I suspect perhaps there was at least a polite request saying, can you take your foot off the pension plan gas a little bit?
Because we were having trouble here responding to it on the federal front.
Yeah.
And it is a good point to make that whether it is 50% of the federal pension plan or 30%, it's going to leave a big hole right in the middle that doesn't matter what party's in power.
They absolutely cannot deal with it without major tax hikes across the board in other areas.
Opioid Crisis Controversies00:08:40
Yes.
And so again, as a federal thing, I think perhaps, well, the better front might have been on Polyev's end just to stay silent about it.
I mean, he wasn't getting pressure or attacked from what I've seen as being supportive of it.
He preemptively kind of came out and opposed it, which upset a fair amount of Albertans.
It's not like, well, we've got to remember the politics of Canada, right?
Mr. Polyev has nothing to lose in Alberta, just as the Liberals have nothing to lose in Alberta.
That's our biggest fault as a province.
We're pretty predictable with our votes.
So that's why they always cater to Central Canada.
And an Alberta pension plan is never going to be a popular item in Central Canada or pretty much anywhere outside of Alberta, I'm afraid.
Now, let's talk about Bill 3.
Now, Bill 3 expands Alberta's ability to become engaged in class action lawsuits against the opioid manufacturers.
For some reason, BC is engaged in lawsuits against the opioid manufacturers while simultaneously allowing people to use hard drugs anywhere and everywhere, and the police turn a blind eye to it.
But Alberta is going to expand its ability to recoup some of the costs from the opioid manufacturers for, I guess, the over-prescription of opioids leading to deaths.
I mean, primarily the deaths, one-third of the opioid deaths are in Edmonton.
And if you've been to downtown Edmonton, that's no surprise.
What do you think about this?
I think it's a step in the right direction to hold people to account for how these things were first described to people looking for pain relief.
Well, I mean, there's certainly a lot of evidence when it came to OxyContin and things like that, that it was clearly they were understating the addictive nature of it.
They were giving a lot of incentives to physicians to prescribe it for pretty much anything.
So if you could find a definite intent to get people addicted to this, then those people should be held accountable.
I do worry about some of these sorts of things, though.
I mean, this is like going after the tobacco companies for the damage of cigarette smoking.
And of course, by extension, we also see these lawsuits coming out going after energy companies because of climate change.
And I'm not big on the government doing that.
They should be looking at the illegal use of opioids, which is a bigger issue than some of the legitimate use.
I mean, I horrified the world when I posted pictures of my colonoscopy on my show a while back, really just trying to show, you know, these procedures are, hey, get out there, get it done.
These things are important.
They gave me fentanyl, though, for that procedure.
And it was quite effective.
So I, you know, aside from the pictures, I had no memory of it, which was fine by me.
But I mean, there are legitimate uses for these opioids.
And if you keep hitting the manufacturers on them, you could actually knock research down on things like, you know, these sorts of drugs and breakthroughs.
So it's a dangerous area to go into.
We'll see what becomes of it, I guess, if it's a reasonable class action against true, you know, misguided or even corrupted practices with drug manufacturing or pushing or use.
But they could also cause more damage than they're solving.
Yeah, and I think it also eliminates the personal responsibility of the user.
So you didn't go home and you were like, I kind of like how that fentanyl made me feel.
Let's go to the local drug pusher and just get a bunch of it.
I'm with you.
I think if there is evidence of corruption, that the opioid manufacturers knew that their drugs were more addictive than they were telling doctors.
And if the opioid manufacturers were incentivizing doctors to over prescribe, which I'm not necessarily sure happens in our system.
But if that were the case, yes, let's hold them to account for that.
But also, as somebody who believes in personal accountability, I want to make sure that people are responsible for their choices in the mix here.
Well, that's it, like with the attacks on tobacco companies, which, yeah, they were selling a dangerous, nasty product.
But I mean, I remember people claiming we didn't know that it was dangerous.
Oh, spare me.
I remember an old Three Stooges episode where they referred to cigarettes as coffin nails.
So they knew in the 30s and 40s that these were not good for you.
Let's not pretend that people in the 70s, 80s, 90s didn't know that tobacco was a dangerous product.
Yet at the same time, it's a grab.
It's a money grab.
As you said, try to put the responsibility on somebody else besides the user or, of course, besides the government itself, the taxes and makes off quite well off of tobacco product sales.
So again, I'm not terribly enthused with them jumping on the potential class action thing, but they are taking at least the opioid crisis seriously.
And that's something that the Smith government's been very good about.
They talk a bit around and they're being careful with it, but possibly having compassionate intervention is the way to put it, but basically possibly trying to enforce treatment on people when they're very far along with addiction.
So I'm still very enthusiastic and optimistic about where the Smith government may go with dealing with this addiction crisis, but I'm not sure if this class action was one of their best moves with it.
Yeah, I think it is the Smith government attacking the opioid crisis from all fronts, you know, through opening up voluntary drug treatment beds so that that is not a hindrance to people seeking treatment, to possibly introducing the grabbing, I guess, and forcibly taking off to treatment violent drug addicts,
people who are threatening their families and threatening violence upon themselves and the community.
Great.
I'm all for that.
Those people aren't in the right frame of mind.
Snatch them up and take them away because sometimes that's the only way.
Also to continue to enforce our drug laws, unlike what's happening in other provinces.
Sometimes police intervention is the leverage you need to get some of these people off to treatment.
You can say to them, look, you're going to go to jail for like two years less a day, or you can go to treatment and serve 90 days.
The choice is yours.
And then I guess the lawsuits against the opioid manufacturer.
So I think she's trying to tackle this problem from all fronts.
And it really isn't just a drug problem.
It is a drug problem.
But it's got this like, it's like a pebble in a puddle, right?
It just ripples out.
So now we've got gangs.
We've got human trafficking, sex trafficking, drug trafficking, gun crime, property crime.
It all sort of spills out from the drug crisis.
Yeah, it's, you know, it's all the peripheral damage that it causes.
As long as you've got consumers, particularly addicted consumers, you know, gangs are going to come in.
They're going to try and fill that demand.
That's been known since the first addictive substances ever hit the world markets hundreds of years ago.
And yeah, she's really taking it as a big issue to try and take on and realizes it's multifaceted.
Ideally for treatment, I said, is somebody voluntarily saying, okay, I've had enough.
I've hit bottom.
I'm going to check myself in.
And having the availability, you know, they don't want to make a phone call and say, yeah, we can get you in in a month.
I mean, we've got to get them in right now.
And again, credit to Premier Kenney when he was in.
He expanded the beds a lot.
He did a great deal of work in that front.
And then Premier Smith is continuing with it.
The area that'll get controversial is with the intervention with people.
But when they've hit the point, when they've hit the point when they're in the alleys, when they're on the streets, you see them down there, their teeth are falling out of their head, they're covered in sores, they're begging, they're doing heavens knows some terrible things with themselves to try and get a fix.
How much is being lost now by trying to directly intervene?
I know some people say, oh, the treatment rate when you intervene like that is very, very low.
Well, that's fine, but the survival rate once they're on the street at that point is also very, very low.
There's little to lose at this point.
I'm sure parents, family members, friends would say, please step in, do whatever you can, even if it's a long shot because it's better than the path they're on right now.
And I really appreciate the Smith government's courage to look at that as an alternative to deal with this, as opposed to enabling, as we see in pretty much every West Coast city in North America.
Yeah, I believe it's called the Alberta model.
And some of the more atrocious cities of the world, Portland, Seattle, they're studying the Alberta model.
And luckily enough for us here in Alberta, but tragically for the people in BC, we have two different models that we can study for effectiveness.
Regular Viewers Speak00:05:25
We have the Alberta model, which has more beds enforcing the drug laws, considering rounding up drug addicts when they become violent towards their friends and families and start to become a plague upon the neighborhood versus the complete and total enabling of people into the grave in British Columbia.
So I guess time will tell which system works.
But of course, the NDP are like, actually, let's not give them drug treatment.
Let's just give them drugs and see how that goes.
Yeah, and I've never made it a secret of my being a recovering alcoholic.
And I know that if they were handing out shooters at my AA meetings, I would still be drinking today, if indeed I'd still be alive after drinking that much.
So the absurdity of the NDP approach is, I think most people realize it.
I sure hope they do.
Enabling just doesn't work.
Yeah.
Now, I wanted to talk to you before I let you go about something I think isn't really being talked about all that much in the mainstream media.
And I think it's because they were really, frankly, a member of the NDP street team.
There was a one-man insurrection, to use the language of the left, at the throne speech where an environmental activist tried to disrupt the thing.
And let me tell you, if that were, let's say, Bernard Hancock during the NDP days, generations of Bernard's people would be canceled from existence on social media.
the NDP activist member of the NDP Street team acting up during the throne speech, no big deal.
By the way, how did that person get invited to the throne speech?
You have to be invited, right?
Typically, the room's pretty full, so you need an MLA to kind of say, yeah, we can get you in to pop up there and be in the gallery and do your thing.
So I don't know if they're going to expose who invited this person or why, but it's the nature of the NDP and the lack of accountability when it comes to these protesters, as you said, versus others.
We'll never hear further on this.
I'm sure they're just ejected and no further things.
But when it comes to a convoy protester or if Bernard had done it or even the, you know, they would have had heavy charges.
I saw recently some pro-Hamas protesters had taken over Christia Freeland's office.
I doubt there was a single charge laid there as well.
I look forward to being proven wrong on that, but I really doubt it.
There's definitely a different standard with the NDP protest gang versus any conservative protests.
And we're seeing it just another example of it.
Yeah, no bank accounts frozen there.
Not for the pro-Hamas protesters either who staged also a January 6th style insurrection at Christia Freeland's office.
Corey, thanks so much for coming on the show.
Let people know where they can find your work, your show.
This is your chance to shamelessly self-promote.
Well, much appreciated.
I'm always shameless.
And yeah, WesternStandard.news, of course.
I mean, independent media like you guys, and we need folks to come out.
We need subscribers.
This is how we can keep breaking through things.
I also write for the Epoch Times.
And I'm very prolific on X, formerly Twitter at Corey B. Morgan, if you really want to get engaged with me online, but you might not appreciate my views.
I think people will appreciate your views, at least my viewers will.
But boy, if you want to see a guy anger up the left, angry up the blood of the left, follow Corey on X. Corey, thanks so much for coming on the show.
We'll have you back on again very soon.
It's always a pleasure.
Thanks, Sheila.
Well, friends, we've come to the portion of the show where we invite your viewer feedback.
I know I say this every single week.
So regular viewers, I'm sorry that this seems redundant, but we get new people all the time.
We've got to be nice to them.
We've got to show them how this works.
So I invite your viewer feedback because without you, there really is no rebel news because we will never take a penny from Justin Trudeau and how could we hold him to account if we did.
And so I want to hear from you.
This is why I give out my email address right now.
It's Sheila at RebelNews.com.
Put gunshow letters in the subject line so I know why you are contacting me because I do get sometimes hundreds of emails per day, especially if I've said something controversial or shared an opinion that the left doesn't like, then, you know, it's a lot.
It's a lot to open up the old email inbox some days.
But also don't hesitate to leave a comment wherever you might be watching the show.
For example, if you're watching the free version of the show on YouTube or on Rumble, first off, let me thank you for sitting through those ads, but leave a comment there.
Sometimes I go looking over there to see what you have to say because there is no bar to entry, I should say, to leave a comment on the work that we do and for me to care about your opinion.
So paid subscribers, not paid subscribers, doesn't matter.
Your opinion's all the same to me.
So today's letter comes from a regular viewer of the show, Bruce.
If you're a regular viewer like Bruce, you know that Bruce and I have a bit of a back and forth.
He emails me and then I read his letter on air and comment.
Bruce's Letter00:04:46
And then the next week he does it and the next week he does it.
The next week he does it.
And Bruce's email comes to me by way of the show last week with Rick Iggersich from the National Firearms Association.
And we were talking about how Justin Trudeau says that, you know, 1,500 models of Canadian lawn guns, and then it's been expanded now to include nearly 2,000 Canadian lawn guns, were banned through an order in council by Justin Trudeau in May 2020 because they were assault-style weapons and they were so deadly that they had to get off the streets immediately, immediately.
Well, that was three years ago.
And the people who own these guns still have them and still aren't committing any crimes with them.
And the reason for that is Justin Trudeau can't figure out how to compensate these people for the firearms he plans to confiscate from them.
And so that was three years ago.
Still, these people are still not committing crimes, although Justin Trudeau is treating them as though they were.
And because Justin Trudeau is incredibly inept and can't figure out how to snatch people's lawfully acquired property from them, the amnesty for those owners to turn over those guns has been extended another two full years.
So five years.
These guns were left in the hands of their lawful owners.
And still, still no plague of violence coming from these people.
You see, yes, these guns are so deadly that they could stay in the hands of their owners for five years and nobody would notice or care.
So anyways, we talked about that.
And so Bruce sent me a letter.
Bruce is in Radway, by the way, just north of me.
They have a great military surplus store there, in case you're interested, in case you're traveling through Radway.
Anyway, Bruce writes, Hi, Sheila.
I'm proud to be an NFA member.
We must defend this kind of property so that the government can't confiscate other kinds of property.
The property issue is what we must always bring up when we speak to gun and non-gun owners alike.
If I recall correctly, Bruce doesn't even have firearms.
He just cares deeply about the rights of people to own things and acquire things legally.
And he's against the government just deciding one day that you shouldn't have that because somebody else did something bad somewhere in the country.
Instead of dealing with the person who did the thing bad, they just deal with you because they know you're going to follow the rules.
Suppose diesel and gas-powered cars and trucks made before 2023 are suddenly banned.
That would upset almost everybody.
And if people object, the government will say that's justified by the gun grab.
Both firearms and cars have killed people, they'll say, so they can't be left in the hands of mere mortals.
This is true.
The Libranos use the courts to get their way and they have their hard-left judges in place for these incremental laws to be enforced bit by bit.
Our freedoms are being confiscated.
They know that people would freak out if they went full tyranny.
So they sneak little bits of restriction into the court system to make it extremely complex to fight.
Sincerely, Bruce Atchison.
And then he included his MFA membership, which I think is lovely.
It's true.
You know, you think about what happened during the pandemic.
It wasn't overnight, especially with the demonization of Christian pastors.
So Justin Trudeau has had a bit of a war on Christianity since he took office.
And you can see the historical context of that in our documentary, Church Under Fire, Canada's War on Christianity.
It wasn't just 0 to 60, all of a sudden they're arresting pastors in the street El Chapo style because they opened their churches during COVID.
It was a little bit by little bit, by little bit in how the government talked about Christians, how they took away rights of certain Christian groups.
For example, with the summer jobs program, if you were against abortion, you couldn't have a summer camp for some reason and qualify for a summer jobs program that would employ summer students.
It was a little bit by little bit until all of a sudden, you know, SWAT style takedowns of pastors on Calgary Streets and locking them up for 30 plus days or seven days in solitary confinement, as was the case with Pastor Phil Hutchins, my friend from Out East.
Tyranny In Stealth00:00:30
So you're right.
People don't notice tyranny until it's here.
And that's why we must be on guard for any sort of incremental restrictions of our rights, because pretty soon the little increments are a really big thing.
And we've seen it time and time again.
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.