Here’s an excellent article by Licia Corbella on why we need a public inquiry into the US billionaire funded attacks on Alberta. She starts off:
“Lies and smears have been spread around the world about how damaging Alberta’s oilsands are to the existence of our planet. The response over all of those years by the Alberta government and, worse yet,the energy industry? Silence. Crickets.”
So, Greenpeace lies, and they admit it, or at least they admit to not telling the truth. Follow the link and decide whether they’re lying or not.
(The photo is of multimillionaire, multiple home owner, self-righteous environmental hypocrite David Suzuki signalling his opinion about anyone who questions him or his sainthood.)
Please do your research and think before you give a dime to any organization like Greenpeace, or the David Suzuki Foundation, or any other organization that portrays itself as fighting for the environment. In reality, nine out of 10 are nothing more than stunt companies looking for your help with the payroll.
Licia Corbella does an excellent job in outlining why it is imperative that we officially look into, and stop, these enemies of Alberta and its families.
In Alberta, it now seems that every time something comes up regarding an LGBT issue, Kristopher Wells pops up as the go to expert; always against parents, and always on the side of “progress” Let’s look at what Kristopher Wells means by progress.
Wells is a professor, and a confidant of Alberta’s Education Minister, David Eggen. About three years ago, Mr. Eggen engaged Wells to supervise the construction and launch of Alberta Education’s Gay Straight Alliance, or GSA, website. For several months no one paid attention, but then, Edmonton mother, Theresa Ng who is now with Parents for Choice, decided to have a look.
Ms. Ng found numerous links from the GSA website to sexually explicit sites. If you haven’t already, it’s very important that you follow the link. You need to be aware of these sites, included the one that gave instructions on “25 sex positions you can try at home”, and another on how to give oral sex. For 5 years and up?!
When confronted with absoluteproof of the links – Theresa Ng had presciently taken screenshots of the linked websites – the links were removed. But then Kristopher Wells took to social media to denounce Ms. Ng for being “hysterical” and “sensationalist.” Are you serious? In what demented world is a mother being hysterical by objecting to explicitly sexual content being provided, unbeknownst to her, to her children?
Judging by his verbal attack on Theresa Ng, Mr. Wells feels that making such material available to five, six, seven, and eight-year-olds is desirable. Anyone that thinks that way is, at the very least, exhibiting an appalling lack of judgment. There might also be serious psychological issues involved, for which Mr. Wells would deserve our sympathy.
But in either or both cases, Mr. Wells should not be allowed to have anything whatsoever to do with the education of Alberta’s children. Yet Mr. Wells is still looked to as an advisor by Education Minister David Eggen; and was the keynote speaker at an Alberta Teachers Association conference last summer. Alberta parents, that middle finger was for you.
Wells is also used as a source by the media, including, the Calgary Herald, the Calgary Sun, the CBC, and the consistently ridiculous, Star Metro. That the media would look to such an individual for comment says volumes about media elitists disdain for science, decency, and basic common sense, and their insouciant disregard for the innocence of children.
Or maybe they’re just too lazy to investigate, and can thereby claim ignorance. Whatever; when a member of the media quotes Kristopher Wells be aware that he’s the guy who thinks it’s OK to provide Alberta’s little children with quick access to explicit sexual instructions.
These facts tell you everything you need to know before you vote in the upcoming Alberta election. Because, knowing all these facts – and she must have – Rachel Notley has continued with David Eggen as Minister of Education, which, in practical terms, makes her complicit in what normal people would see as the corruption of minors.
Here’s what Pennsylvania law says regarding the corruption of minors. “(ii) Whoever, being of the age of 18 years and upwards, by any course of conduct in violation of Chapter 31 (relating to sexual offenses) corrupts or tends to corrupt the morals of any minor less than 18 years of age, or who aids, abets, entices or encourages any such minor in the commission of an offense under Chapter 31 commits a felony of the third degree.” Under 18? What about providing sexually explicit material to children under 8?
Luckily for Ms. Notley, Mr. Eggen, and Mr. Wells, they live in Alberta, because in Pennsylvania it’s possible they could be charged with a felony and imprisoned. Not a bad idea in my opinion, but in Alberta, the best we can do and must do, four months from now, is throw the creeps out!
I’m Dave Reesor
Please Share with your email list and Like on Facebook and Twitter! Social media is the culture shaping tool of the 21st century, so let’s use it! It’s vitally important that we have informed Albertans before the provincial election this spring.
There are three candidates running for the United Conservative Party (UCP) nomination in the new Calgary riding of Peigan. One of the candidates is Jeevan Mangat. Another is Tanya Fir whose campaign manager is Craig Chandler, a man who has often been a controversial figure within Alberta conservatism.
For the most part I try to keep away from direct political commentary, but I think you need to know about this. It’s a local story, but the principles involved apply far more widely.
Within the past couple of months, Craig Chandler and the Fir campaign have expressed displeasure with an advocacy organization which I support, and one which I know for a fact will not endorse any candidate from any party.
This organization informed the Fir campaign of their nomination engagement process which involves presenting hard evidence regarding some of the highly controversial and wildly unscientific ideas that are currently being promoted in Alberta’s school system. These information sessions are available to any group, or to the nominees of any political party that reaches out to the organization. So far, Craig Chandler and the Fir campaign have not taken advantage of this opportunity.
Another competitor for the UCP nomination, Jeevan Mangat, did choose to put on a campaign event at which this advocacy organization was invited to speak. For some reason, Mr. Chandler was displeased.
Indeed, Mr. Chandler was sufficiently displeased to leave a 59 second voicemail with the organization. The organization never gave me a transcript of the voicemail, but I have since been made aware of it. In it, Mr. Chandler states that he is “ticked off”, and that there would likely be Tanya Fir supporters at the Jeevan Mangat event, voicing their concerns “very loudly,” whatever that meant.
Sadly, Mr. Chandler goes on to say in the voicemail that: “A lot of us who are Christians and who are supporting Tanya…..”
Is Mr. Chandler implying that Christians, as a matter of principle, shouldn’t support someone who isn’t a Christian? If true, I would find that appalling.
I know Jeevan Mangat personally, and while he is an adherent of the Sikh religion, he’s told me, repeatedly, that he wants to live in a society which operates on Judaeo-Christian values. That’s why his family moved to Canada when he was a little kid. And because he is committed to saving that Judaeo-Christian ethos in society, he became involved in politics.
Although Mr. Mangat obviously doesn’t call himself a Christian, in my experience, he consistently conducts himself in what would be called “a Christian” manner.”
If you live in Alberta, or especially if you have friends or family in the new Calgary riding of Peigan, I’d suggest that you make sure that they get this information right away. The vote is this week, Thursday, August 2 at the Riverbend Community Association.
We certainly do need political and culturalchange. What we need to end are sleazy, heavy-handed, old-style politics.
I’m Dave Reesor, and that’s my opinion. What do you think?
As you know, John Carpay and the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom (JCCF) are in the forefront of fighting back against Progressivist attacks on basic human rights, including attacks on free speech.
Free speech used to mean that you could say anything you wanted, provided it didn’t promote or incite violence. Free speech even included hate speech, provided it didn’t promote or incite violence.
For example, you could say that you hated old white men, or even more specifically, that you hate Dave Reesor, and by the way, so should everyone else. In fact, I’d defend your right to say exactly that, in public and in private, or even to take out an ad in the newspaper advocating: “Hate Dave Reesor.” Only if you promote violence have you stepped over the line.
That’s free speech, or at least it was.
But now, in our “I’m a victim”, post-modern / post-rational new world, you can find yourself in trouble if you hurt someone’s feelings, or even say something that might hurt someone’s or some group’s feelings. And apparently, there are endless groups that are victims of white privilege, or ancient wrongs done to their ancestors, or some other debilitating grievance.
So we have endless groups that must not be offended; that is, with the exception of conservatives, practicing Christians and Jews, aboriginal Canadians and women who don’t vote Progressivist, etc.. In the United States, the old free speech rules apply to conservative women and conservative African-Americans; everyone else is a victim, and must not be offended.
This imbalance around free speech is enthusiastically abetted by most Canadian and American universities. In this short video, John Carpay explains exactly how universities are shutting down free speech. The JCCF believes in free speech, including your free speech; it fights unfair university policies, and it usually wins! If you believe in free speech, you should support them.
And if you haven’t already, it would be greatly appreciated if you supported us by becoming a member of the Let’s Do It Ourselves online community.
There’s been a lot of talk lately about the need for a moderate conservatism. I agree.
Progressivist Conservatives often tell us that they are fiscally conservative but socially progressive, in other words, they are models of moderation.
What it really seems to mean in practice is that you must timidly support every social initiative of the Progressivist Left, no matter how intrusive, anti-human rights, anti-family, anti-science, or, outright perverted.
The fact is that on most social issues, our society has completely abandoned moderation.
Because let me ask you:
Is it immoderate to oppose government initiatives that completely ignore the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights, which explicitly states that it’s not the government, but parents, who have a “prior” or first right, to decide on the education of their children?
Was it immoderate for Theresa Ng to reveal that Alberta’s taxpayer financed Gay Straight Alliance, or GSA website provided links to over 20 sexually explicit websites?
That GSA website is approved for children ages 5 to 18, but Kris Wells the guy in charge, didn’t think Theresa’s concern was moderate. He called her hysterical and sensationalist. On what dystopian planet would you draw that conclusion?
Is it immoderate to affirm the scientific and biological, and obvious reality of two genders?
Is it immoderate to oppose government initiatives, that seek to normalize gender dysphoria in children, against the findings of science, and, simple common sense? Those initiatives constitute government sanctioned child abuse.
Is it immoderate for a politician to give a pass to Gay Pride Parades (LINK WARNING: severe stupidity on display) – those Flasher Festivals where addled parents flaunt their Progressivist bona fides by taking their kids to gawk at naked men? In saner times, it would be considered child abuse.
Is it immoderate to point out the irrefutable scientific fact, that a human being’s life journey begins at conception, and that at no point is a fetus a part of a woman’s body. It is in her womb for protection and nourishment, but it has its own DNA, its own blood type, distinct heartbeat, and even personality!
Is it immoderate to insist that we need to have an honest conversation about abortion, and to enact a law to give the fetus protection after a certain stage of its development? Could we at least outlaw aborting baby girls, just because they’re girls?
The fact is, that it’s the current governments of Alberta and Ontario and Canada that are immoderate.
Most of the mainstream media is giddily proud of their immoderate social views.
Much of Hollywood is immoderate to the borders of insanity.
It’s past time for real moderates – that would be those of us who don’t ignore biology and science, and who have a high regard for observed reality – to make our voices heard, and call out the im-moderation of the Progressivist Left.
I subscribe to The Economist Magazine. It’s mushily pro-business but starry eyed Progressive. Its masthead should be a cartoon of a guy grinning uncomfortably while straddling a rail.
In their weekly section on US politics called “Lexington” the correspondent – who I believe also writes the pieces on Canadian issues – headlines this week’s column: “ Who’s deplorable ”
It’s all about having sympathy for people like poor Hillary Clinton who was roundly criticized for labeling half of Donald Trump’s supporters “Deplorables.” He talks about the dreadful dilemma Trump represents for the political establishment and for journalists who, like himself are: “trying to report fairly on this election.”
Because in his view half of Trump’s supporters clearly are deplorable, although you can’t say it directly. He’s also sloppily gaga over Canada’s selfie addicted Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau; he disdains Alberta’s oilsands, and believes we all need to be on the Stop Climate Change bandwagon, even though it appears to have no wheels.
So you might ask why I’d subscribe to a magazine like The Economist that’s in the tank for every so-called **Progressive cause and every so-called Progressive politician on the planet.
The simple answer is that I like to know what people that I might disagree with are thinking. It forces me to think through my own positions more carefully and hopefully helps me move closer to the truth.
Although I’m a Christian I have atheist rock star Richard Dawkins’ supposedly theism shattering book: “The God Delusion” on my shelf. (Yes I’ve read it; twice) It turned out to be rather juvenile, and wildly disingenuous.
For instance, Dawkins claims that most of the atrocities in history can be blamed on organized religion and blithely dismisses the fact that in about 50 years during the 20th century, three atheists; Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot, killed more people – mostly their fellow citizens – than all the religious wars in history put together. Add in neo-pagan, Adolf Hitler, and their total approaches 100 million.
Dawkins’ book was supposed to have put paid to the idea of a God who created the universe, and is still involved. But in the book, Dawkins chief aim seems to be to explain why he doesn’t like God, if he actually exists, and in any case he doesn’t want to live in a universe where there is a God. Now I could be uncharitable and suggest that Dawkins doesn’t want there to be a God because he doesn’t want a competitor. But I won’t be.
As I read the book, Peggy Lee’s classic phrase: “Is that all there is?”kept running through my head. So paradoxically, The God Delusion’s lack of convincing argument actually buttressed my faith.
It seems to me that it’s important to critically examine a wide range of ideas, including your own. And then, having reached defensible conclusions, we need to defend them. Our motto at LDIO™ (Let’s Do It Ourselves), is that we will think Carefully, Courageously, and Completely about issues, and then take a stand.
We small C conservatives need to get serious about this.
**CS Lewis analyzed progress best when he suggested that if you are “progressing” into a swamp, real progress involves stopping and retracing your steps to where you took the wrong turn, and then setting out again, but in the right direction. Remember that when people call themselves Progressives.