Sheila Gunn-Reid and Michelle Sterling expose Canada’s $5B federal push to replace single-family homes with "four units as of right" zoning, funded via municipal deals bypassing provincial oversight—like Calgary’s $44M eco grants. The Canada Electricity Advisory Council warned against Trudeau’s one-size-fits-all energy rules, while the COP26-backed CSSB plans mandatory corporate carbon tracking by 2025, risking small business collapse and shareholder liability. Senator Rosa Galvez’s Bill S-243, backed by Mark Carney, would choke fossil fuel expertise from boards, threatening energy security and public health. Gunn-Reid urges support for Friends of Science to counter this extreme green agenda’s economic and practical pitfalls. [Automatically generated summary]
Canadian municipalities have ambitious rezoning plans to make communities more green and more dense.
What does that mean for older communities?
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
Hey there.
So let's talk about fourplexes.
For decades, Canadians pretty much only saw either single-family homes or big apartment or condo buildings going up.
That's because local laws were written in a way that only allowed for those types of buildings.
Mid-sized buildings, like fourplexes, just didn't get built as much.
Well, that's changing.
We're making it so you can now build four units on the same plot of land that used to be just for one unit.
That's called four units as of right.
We've signed deals with all the big cities across Canada.
Now we're going even bigger.
We've put money down for provinces and territories, $5 billion to build the roads, public transit, and water infrastructure they need with a catch.
To get the money, they're going to have to change the way they do things, including, you guessed it, by legalizing four units as of right.
Because we need to change the way homes are built across this country.
Justin Trudeau's federal government has a sweeping and expensive tree planting scheme.
A plan to plant billions of trees across this country.
Although the majority of trees in this country are planted by the forestry industry and not the federal government, because as you know, industry can do things a lot cheaper and more efficiently than the federal government because they actually have a bottom line to worry about, like the federal government that can just reach into your pocket and take out more money every time one of their plans goes over budget.
But if the federal government wants to plant trees everywhere, including on arable farmland, why are they promoting municipal policies that will result in the destruction of mature trees in older neighborhoods in favor of erecting high density housing?
Well, we'll discuss that and more with my friend Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science up After the Break.
Michelle, I wanted to talk to you about something that we hear constantly and it's been pushed for, I don't know, the better part of five years, the tree planting scheme of the federal liberals.
And it is bled down to the municipal level.
You guys had a really great video that just came out the other day.
Tell us what we need to know about the tree planting.
I'm going to call it a scam.
I'm not sure you're going to call it that, but it is maybe a scheme.
Well, I think it must be called a scam by now because as most people know, there's this housing transition accelerator fund that requires blanket rezoning of any city if you accept money from it.
And blanket rezoning means that in many places where there are beautiful, mature trees, they'll just be ripped out and a larger facility will be placed there, 4plex, 8 plex, 16 plex.
So the thing is that your municipality and you people who live on that property or near it have paid thousands of dollars over the years for planting and urban canopy maintenance by city crews, right?
So you've paid for these very nice mature trees, which are now being torn down.
because of the Housing Accelerator Fund and the blanket rezoning.
But never fear, because there's a new tree planting program with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities just announced, I think it was May 15th, by Jonathan Wilkinson, the minister for this wonderful initiative.
And they're going to give money to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
They're going to create, I believe it's 2,000 jobs and they're going to plant 1.2 million trees.
And just so you know, many average tree planters plant about 3,000 trees a day.
So that seems to be quite a few people to plant that many trees.
And also, now you get to pay again to plant new trees that the same government is causing to have been ripped down.
And the thing is, you know, mature trees take decades to grow.
So you're really just tearing down these beautiful living investments from your community to build probably not well-made and ugly housing that will ruin your neighborhood.
But now the government is granting more money to municipalities to plant more trees and create these new jobs, which undoubtedly will become full-time and pensionable.
Of course.
Now, something particular is happening in Calgary, but it's happening across the province.
The federal government has tried to go around the provincial government to give money to the municipalities to inject these green schemes into their affordable housing plans.
And I think this all sort of ties in together, where if you have an uncooperative provincial government with the federal government's green agenda, the federal government is doing their best to just go around the provincial governments altogether.
And I think people really have to pay closer attention to what happens at the municipal level.
As a small C conservative, we all sort of get tied up in like paying attention to what the provincial government's doing and paying attention to what the federal government's doing.
But some of these green schemes are the most expensive at the municipal level when it comes to housing, when it comes to these tree programs, when it comes to the multi-billion dollars, tens of billions of dollars in Calgary's green plan.
Well, they don't have water right now.
I really think the recycling, let's not forget the scam of recycling.
I'm all for not throwing out garbage that we don't need to throw out, but storing plastic containers in sea cans somewhere until we figure out what to do with it or shipping it to the developing world doesn't seem like a great idea.
What do you think about the federal government going around the provincial government to talk to progressive mayors to make life more expensive for residents?
Well, I'd say that they've actually been doing that for quite some time, but people haven't really noticed.
Again, because it's always been shrouded in the, you know, sort of halo of this is a green initiative and we're doing something good for mankind.
And probably one of the more activist groups would be the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
At one point, they claimed that they had installed 4,000 wind turbines or they'd been responsible for initiatives to install 4,000 wind turbines.
One of the professional engineers that we've worked with in the past said that in Alberta anyway, they anticipate that it costs a million dollars a megawatt to integrate a wind turbine into the system.
So you can imagine how much money that actually costs you, and it's not anything that people should be cheering about.
So, for instance, this idea of going around the province when Jason Kenney was premier and he announced a very large sum for the Alberta inquiry I think it was about 30 million dollars originally and it was cut back to 3 million I'm not too sure on the big figure, but about a week after that, if you check the record, the government the federal government came up with 44 million dollars,
which was split equally between Edmonton and Calgary for eco operations.
I think it might have gone to Alberta ECO Trust.
I'm not exactly sure who it went to, but that's an example of where the provincial government was trying to protect our industry and our incomes, revenues for the province, and the federal government immediately upped the ante with by funding these, the NGOs, some of which are also foreign funded, by the way, but you know they dropped a big chunk of cash on them, presumably to fight back.
So I it's been going on for a long, long time.
The thing is at the municipal level.
It's very easy for activists to appear before council to ingratiate themselves to councillors because they know them, they live in the same community, so you know, maybe they've been in the same rotary club for years or gone to the same university, so it's quite easy to get in, whereas for provincial and federal, you generally have to have some kind of lobby registry and it's a more formal process, more difficult.
So yeah it's uh, it's happening a lot.
And if you read the blueprint for housing, which was presented by a large group of sort of ENGO and types and Mark Carney was one of the leads on it, in it he represented himself as being part of Canada 2020, he's actually associated with Brookfield and Brookfield has a huge real estate division, but anyway, and a renewables division, but anyway,
in that they were advocating that the federal government should actually expropriate land.
They're referencing I think it was the IRPC, can't remember the name of that group.
They were rep. They were suggesting that the federal government should expropriate land along transit lines and then build dense housing there using climate resilient methods.
Now in Alberta, the provincial government has generally ignored or pushed back on the net zero 2030 building requirements because it would add a huge burden to the cost of building and there's no particular benefit in terms of climate or anything.
So this is a way of forcing cities to build net zero climate resilient housing without ever having the province agree to do that.
The federal government's housing policy, wherein we'll basically all end up living in cardboard boxes if these people get their way.
It sounds like they're handing out a lot of money, but at the end of the day, it's really not.
No, I think during the Calgary hearings on the blanket rezoning, somebody said that, you know, the city is trying to get about $474 million, I think it was, from the Housing Accelerator Transition Fund.
But the city itself provides $5 billion in tax revenue to the feds.
And I don't know how they calculated that.
I'm assuming that would be from the residents.
So, you know, it's really a spit in the bucket and very, very disruptive because what this housing accelerator funding does not account for is the fact that all the infrastructure will have to be upgraded.
And, you know, they're kind of counting on the idea that, oh, if we build a four plex or a 16 plex on one or two property lots that used to be single housing, there's already existing infrastructure there.
That's why they're focusing sort of on inner city rather than building greenfield housing, which would be a new suburb.
But the problem with that is that that infrastructure was built for a single family neighborhood.
And there's a limit to how much additional pressure can be put on those lines, whether it be the sewage, the water mains, the electrical.
And one of their theories is that, of course, you know, in your new housing pod, you will have electrified things like electrified heating.
And maybe you'll just have an induction stove or hot plate.
Maybe you'll just have a little Instapot.
Maybe that will be the entire kitchen for you.
It'll all be electrified.
But then you have to upgrade the electrical distribution grid for that neighborhood a lot.
So these costs are astronomical.
And I think as we've seen in Calgary just now with the big water main break, you know, that pipe apparently was about 50 years old.
And the lifespan of such a pipe is apparently 50 years.
So there's lots of that all over every city in Canada.
And there's going to be lots of big fails like that as density is imposed on neighborhoods that are not built for it.
And I think actually a lot of the new neighborhoods are built for considerations of like adding additional units like a Gramma suite, adding EV chargers.
You know, a lot of them are set up with electrical that could accept that in the future.
But the old neighborhoods are not.
You know, I'm glad you brought up the strain to the electrical grid once we're all using induction stoves and our air fryers to cook our dinners instead of good old reliable natural gas.
Coal-Fired Power Strain00:07:21
I just, I'm reading from a press release right now from Premier Daniel Smith and the Minister of Environment and Protected Areas, Rebecca Schultz.
And it's on the following, it's on Canada's Electricity Advisory Council's final report.
Ottawa's one-size-fits-all electricity regulations are dangerous, costly, and an unrealistic path to failure.
So Justin Trudeau's own electricity advisory council is sounding the alarm, saying that they need to call for less ideology and more common sense, rejecting rigid mandates that ignore regional realities.
So the Federal Advisory Council on Justin Trudeau's rapid transition to electrification of all things is saying that this doesn't take into account the regional dynamics of places like Alberta versus places like BC.
Do you think the feds are going to listen?
I mean, this is something we've all been saying for a very long time, but what happens?
Brownouts, I guess?
Well, it's hard to know if the feds will listen because they are so ideologically driven.
And I suspect that they are driven also by investment considerations.
It's my view that many of the pension plans, the big pension plans, especially public service ones, are invested in renewables, heavily invested in them, whether directly or indirectly through mutual funds.
And this is why we see this continuous push to incorporate, you know, a so-called clean grid and EVs, all these new things.
I think they're deeply invested in them, so they're just trying to prop them up.
And as long as the climate scenario, catastrophic scenario reigns in the public mind, they will go along with it.
But as people begin to figure it out, like, wait a minute, you know, we're talking about foreign interference at the highest levels of government in Canada.
Where is the largest producer of EVs and wind and solar panels?
Well, it's China, right?
So who benefits from the purchase of these products and installation of them?
Well, China does.
So, you know, you have to look for those conflicts of interest, I think.
And practically speaking, I'm sure that all of the utilities companies have made the case to various levels of government that, you know, if you want one of these substations or these types of transformers or these types of devices that integrate wind and solar because they're, you know, one is DC, wind and solar, the other is AC, the main grid.
So you have to have something that converts it.
These kinds of devices, A, they're highly in demand because lots of places in the world are trying to do that.
And B, it takes years to order and get them.
Years, like five years, I understand, for some of these transformers and millions, billions of dollars.
So, you know, hopefully reality will hit and people will say, come on, let's back off this net zero thing.
Because the problem is we will destabilize the grid and we won't be able to fix it because we will not be able to get enough of these supposed big batteries that will save us.
They won't save us, but they would perhaps provide some interim power for a few hours.
But all these things are very expensive.
They're very hard to get.
And as we are rushing ahead, we are simply destabilizing the power grids everywhere in Canada, driving up costs.
And at some point, I think it'll be too broken to go back and fix.
And a lot of the things that we need and want won't be available because we're not the biggest player in the market.
So, you know, if somebody in the States wants those particular transformers, they probably will get them first.
Bigger customer.
For sure.
And we've already seen this happen in Alberta in like a very small scale, but it was in one of the coldest parts of the winter when we did not have enough electricity on our grid to deal with the demand.
And so what did we have to do?
Well, we bought electricity from BC.
We bought it from the United States, which is coal-fired electricity.
So while they got us off coal-fired electricity here in Alberta, they didn't really, they got us off coal-fired jobs because we end up buying coal-fired electricity from the states to keep us going.
Right.
And the thing is, you know, it's been, I think, since 2005, a long-standing demand or dream of the Liberal government and the Liberal Party to have an east-west grid.
Their ideological vision is that because there's hydro in BC and hydro in the Atlantic provinces and hydro in Quebec, all you have to do is hook it all together and la-di-da, put up some wind in Alberta and we can have renewable grid and everything will be perfect.
But it doesn't work that way.
And we can see that very clearly right now in BC.
They're in a drought period.
So so much for that.
You know, we can't really draw the same kind of power from them reliably as we could in times when they had lots of power.
Likewise for them.
We used to provide them with coal-fired power at night so they didn't have to run their reservoirs at the same level.
So the reservoir could replenish at night and then the coal power would go back to Alberta for our industrial operations and daily operations.
And then at night when we didn't need that excess, we could shift it back to BC and they could store up their reservoir water again.
So that doesn't happen now as far as I know.
And the thing is, you know, people say, oh, well, coal plants are inefficient because you have to run them all the time.
And you do pretty much have to run them all the time.
They're not a start-stop thing like a natural gas plant can be.
But when you have this kind of arrangement, then you're actually maximizing the benefits of the coal plant for everyone.
And we have lost a big chunk of our energy security in Alberta because, you know, you have to remember that natural gas is pressurized.
So there always has to be pressure in the line and that's what's feeding the gas plant.
But when you have a coal plant, you can have a year supply of coal sitting there in a pile on site.
You don't have to worry about it.
But if there's a gas plant leak or an interruption in service or a shortage or a huge price spike in natural gas, then you're toast, you know, whereas coal is price stable.
It's been price stable for like about 100 years.
Yeah, unless you slap it with carbon tax and then the carbon tax ends up being more than the value of coal, as my friend Mike continues to show me as he posts his coal bill online because he eats with coal and he's paying more in carbon tax than he is for the coal.
CSSB's Improbable Climate Scenarios00:08:14
I want to ask you about this article that you wrote for the Western Standard about an organization many people probably don't know about.
It's called the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board.
Why should we be paying attention to these people and what do they plan to do to us all?
Well, this is a subset of the International Sustainability Standards Board and it came out of, I think, COP26.
And basically what they want is that every corporation should count every carbon molecule that they use in every way that they use it and not only what they use in their facility and operation on site, but also what is emitted by their suppliers, both their suppliers of services like electricity, but also downstream, meaning, you know, the delivery truck.
At this point, they're proposing that this should be voluntary and not mandatory until it is mandatory.
Because they're saying that the Canadian Securities Administrator will decide when it becomes mandatory.
They wanted to have it implemented by January 2024, so that's already a bad sign, and they're looking to implement it by 2025.
Now, the problem is when you go right down to the scope three, which is really the kind of granular level, first of all, you know, they're trying to count everything that the end user of their product does with it.
So, I think the potato example is very simple, and people can understand it.
This means they're trying to determine what you do with that potato.
Do you bake it?
Do you fry it?
Do you deep fry it?
Do you air fry it?
You know, so you can imagine how complicated that would be.
So, the other side of that is that there's a push to also have a personal carbon ration.
So, you would actually become the verifier of those end-user carbon molecules, right?
Now, that's not, the personal carbon ration is not part of the CSSB, but that would be the end result.
But the CSSB is asking people, corporations, to make analysis using climate scenarios that are implausible.
And then they also have to make numbers of analysis as to whether or not it's going to be disorderly achievement of net zero, orderly achievement, too little too late, or hot house earth.
These are their four transition scenarios.
So, first of all, like there is no hothouse earth.
Secondly, we've just seen Václav Smil's report from the Fraser Institute showing that net zero is impossible, is very unlikely to achieve.
We also did a report called Getting to Net Zero, where we looked at the Canada Energy Regulators' plans for how we get to net zero versus a left-leaning organization, the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, which did a very brutal factual analysis.
So, the Canadian Energy Regulator is claiming that, oh, you know, if heat pumps only dropped 30% in price by 2030 and we sold millions of them, then we'd cut our emissions in half.
You know, very wild, exaggerated assumptions.
One of the assumptions with that we would use direct air capture at a rate that I believe was 5,000 percent of what the world rate is, right?
5,000 times.
So, you know, these assumptions are ridiculous.
Anyway, the CCPA report is very blunt, and it basically says that to achieve net zero, Canadians have to accept the fact of degrowth and deindustrialization and cutting your personal emissions drastically.
So, you know, you can't reach net zero.
So, the CSSB is asking chartered accountants and companies to come up with a solution or with a plan to meet something that's impossible to meet.
And what sort of influence do these people have as far as influence on policymakers?
Huge influence, huge influence.
It was actually Christie Freeland who invited the CSSB to set up an office or the ISSB to set up an office in Canada, and that it would be under the umbrella of the charter professional accountants.
Now, charter professional accountants are supposed to be the people who help us make rational decisions about financing and money.
And if you look at the list of signatories on the letter that Christie Friedland sent, you know, it's groups like even AIMCO, you know, all the big pension funds, OMERS, they all want to have some kind of standardized reporting.
But what are they reporting on?
They're not reporting on anything practical.
So, you know, this is also a huge trough.
For all the environmental groups.
Because you know these consulting fees are estimated to be I think dr Tammy Neemuth has done a couple of articles on this, one in the Financial POST and one in the HUB that consulting fees to do this kind of analysis would be, you know, in the hundred thousand to four hundred thousand dollar area.
Very, very complex mathematics and you have to know how to, you know, make it look right right um, the mom-and-pop operations will be crushed by this.
They can't do this kind of reporting.
They're trying to sell cookies or whatever they sell, you know, but ultimately it will come down to them because they're receiving some of the materials from the big corporations.
Who will ultimately be asked, and what are those guys emitting?
This is impossible yeah, it's absolutely impossible.
And, as you say it, when small businesses are being crushed already by the carbon tax and over-regulation, municipal taxes, all all sorts of uh, onerous rules and hoops that they have to jump through and abide by, how are they to do this?
I mean, it's impossible, right?
So you can see our letter.
We posted our letter to the CSSB on our website and you know, in a kind of a total irony, you know the recent regulations about not greenwashing regarding fossil fuels and net zero.
Well, how would that apply to these guys who are making reports on how they're going to achieve something that's not possible to achieve?
Will they all be?
That's the other thing that Tammy Neemuth says.
You know that the shareholder liability and the uh lawfare from E NGOS would just blossom with this kind of legislation.
Yeah well, and i'm so glad you pointed out the consultant class in this country because, as you know, that's unfolding right now at the federal government, with Mckinsey getting, I think it's, 209 million dollars in consulting contracts.
Many of them have no proof of work and most of them were rigged to favor Mcinsey, and Mcinsey's contracting went up, I think, a two 2500 percent since 2016.
That's the value of their contracts with the federal government.
Just imagine all these environmental ENGOs who are already getting favorable tax status in this country through their charitable status, enriching themselves with federal money because they are the consultants in this shakedown racket.
Right, and we just saw Mark Carney Who was claiming that he was representing himself as an individual presenting to the Senate.
Rebel News' Funding Challenge00:10:23
Now, of course, he's the former governor of the Bank of Canada, former governor of the Bank of England.
So he brings with him an aura of a lot of rationality.
He was pushing for Senator Rosa Galvez Bill S243.
And that bill would install on every board of directors a climate expert.
So that would be from this consulting class as well.
And it would not allow anyone with actual expertise who has been working in the fossil fuel industry within the past five years to be a board member.
So you're actually going to have hyped up ideologues on boards that are dealing with critical infrastructure and supply of services.
And Mark Carney thinks that's a good idea, this Bill S243.
We don't want any actual experts involved.
Right.
So all of these things are converging to really put a chokehold on the energy operations in Canada.
And the public health is at risk.
Without adequate and reliable supply of reliable energy, then we suffer and many of us die.
And it's that simple.
There's no two ways about it.
So if you're a farmer, you're creating food for us, you need energy to run your tractor to do the harvesting, to dry your grain.
If you're a manufacturer, you need energy to can that food, to make the things that we need, to build houses, and all this crazy, you know, carbon dioxide reporting stuff.
It's just noise that does nothing.
It's not productive in any way.
And, you know, we're a country that's now on the ropes in terms of our national economy.
The last thing we need is more ridiculous legislation, more layers of rules, more accounting of carbon molecules, you know, when it does nothing for anyone and it just makes it harder and harder to do business here.
Yeah, and it makes a lot of people richer and a lot of other people poorer.
Michelle, how do people find the work that you do and support the work that you do at Friends of Science?
Because you'll never take a penny from any level of government.
How would you hold them to account if you ever did?
But you are also up against people who do take a lot of money from the government, as in these environmental ENGOs.
So your videos, by the way, are great because they take these big, extra confusing, I think purposefully confusing concepts and you break them down into small bite-sized pieces that normal people can understand.
And that takes time and it takes resources.
And I think, you know, every little bit helps.
So tell us how people can get involved.
Okay.
Well, you know, we're a small non-profit.
We're run by volunteers.
We do have a handful of contracted suppliers that we have to pay.
And we do have to pay for our videos, of course.
We have never monetized our videos.
Like a lot of people think, oh, you guys have like 53,000 followers.
You must make a lot of money on your videos.
But we don't.
We've never made a penny from our videos.
But if people who watched our videos gave us a dollar, that would be very helpful.
If you gave us 20, that would be even more helpful.
We're in our 22nd year of operation, so you can send an e-transfer to contact at friendsofscience.org.
And if you want to send us $1 or $20 or $22, that would be great.
Or even more, that would be fine.
But we're very happy with small sums.
You can become a member.
It's $40 for one year, $80 for three years.
And if you go to our main website, you can see a join or donate button there.
You can share our material.
And most of all, you know, we provide the material free to the public.
We don't have lobbyists in Ottawa.
All the big green groups have dozens of lobbyists in Ottawa.
Literally hundreds of people are lobbying the government on behalf of the green groups.
We don't have any.
We're not a federally registered lobbyist.
We give the material to the public and we say, here it is.
Do with it as you see fit.
So we really rely on you to be our foot soldiers and our supporters.
So we're very grateful for our loyal members and supporters over the years, but we do need more help.
We need to get our messages out there.
It's critical now because a lot of very dumb ideas are being pushed by very influential people and groups.
So if you can help, please do.
Yes.
And unlike what the federal government would want on these advisory boards, you actually employ experts to do the work that you do.
It's not just a bunch of ideologues.
These are scientists and professional engineers who are examining these bad ideas for what it will practically mean for the taxpayer in your pocket and in your lifestyle and in your family, which I think is important work that you do.
Michelle, thanks so much for coming on the show.
Thank you also from the bottom of my heart for being part of our documentary, Made, The Dark Side of Canadian Compassion and telling your family's story there.
I think you will change hearts and minds there.
I so appreciate how raw and honest you were.
And I can't wait to see what you guys do next.
And I'll have you back on the show very soon.
Thank you so much, Sheila.
All the best and thank you for all you guys do.
You're amazing.
Rebel out there every day.
Well, we've come to the portion of the show wherein we invite your viewer feedback because without you, there would be no Rebel News, right?
We'll never take a penny from Justin Trudeau.
We're just like friends of science in that way.
And how could we hold him to account if we did?
I'm looking at you, mainstream media.
But it's the reason I also open up my email to you because you should have your say.
If we exist only through your support, then I kind of have to listen to the shareholders, don't I?
So if you want to send me an email, it's sheila at rebelnews.com.
Put gun show letters in the subject line so I know why you're emailing me.
But don't let that be the bar for entry.
If you're watching free clips of the show over on Rumble or YouTube, just leave me a comment there.
I go looking over there quite frequently, about 50% of the time.
Today's gun show letter, though, does come from the email inbox, and it comes from a loyal Rebel News viewer, Bruce.
Bruce lives in Radway with his cat, and he sends me letters from time to time.
And it's been a while since I read one of Bruce's letters.
And if you would like a lively back and forth the way Bruce and I have, I'm going to suggest you start sending me some emails.
Okay.
Now, Bruce writes to me on last week's show with my friend, Chris Sims from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
And he says, hi, Sheila.
I don't mind at all if you go along with your guests.
They're all fascinating.
Why people would want shorter shows is beyond me.
Chris Sims is especially charming and interesting.
Oh, Bruce, I second that motion.
Let's keep going.
Whenever I hear of all the waste and interest charges the liberals have foisted on us, I imagine all the good that money could have done for us.
Imagine all the hospitals which could be built.
Imagine all the doctors and especially specialists that could be hired.
Imagine all the specialty equipment which could be purchased.
Imagine, too, all the help veterans, seniors, and disabled folks could have if that money wasn't squandered on stupid stuff.
It angers me whenever I hear of how these pompous ministers and bureaucrats treat our concerns with contempt.
Me too.
By the way, why is Rebel News taking ads from Timu, a company which has a parent company linked to the Chinese communists?
China, in focus, has done two stories already on Timu.
I also wrote to Rebel News about this, but nobody answered.
I hate it when companies get too big to answer our mail.
Please mention this story in your morning meeting.
I'm mentioning it right now, and I will bring it up in the morning meeting.
But what I do know about how Google serves up ads to you has almost nothing to do with us.
So what I see as an ad on our website served up to us by Google AdSense is going to be entirely different than what you see.
And it's based on your interests and the things you've browsed, much like how if you're on Facebook and you have been searching for something on Facebook Marketplace and then all of a sudden you see ads for that same thing served up to you.
Or maybe it's been eavesdropping on you and all of a sudden you get ads served up for a teardrop trailer.
Like I've been served up and you're like, I never even searched for that, you eavesdropping weirdos.
That's what happens.
So I know that you have an interest in Timu as it pertains to its links to the Chinese Communist Party.
So you've probably done some Googling on that or you've watched some stuff on that.
And so now the Google algorithm says, oh, he is curious about Timu.
Let's serve him up some of those ads.
So that's what's happened.
So we are not working directly with Timu.
Don't think that at all.
But that's why you're seeing that.
And so what you see will be completely different than mine.
And now that I have been talking repeatedly about Timu, guess what I'm going to get next time I log on to RebelNews.com.
Probably an ad from Timu.
Thanks to the dark overlords at Google.
So, you know, that's how that works.
Well, everybody, that's the show for today.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
I'll see everybody back here in the same time in the same place next weekend.