Grumpy Grampa. Enjoy shooting the bow. "That's bow not bull."
Alberta Canada
Joined November 2013
- Tweets1.8K
- Following573
- Followers314
- Likes3.4K
Brian Johnson retweeted
We are live from Edmonton this afternoon with Federal and Provincial Government officials and the Canadian Armed Forces to give Canadians an update on the tragic events and response at CFB Wainwright.
Watch here: cpac.ca/headline-politics/ep…
Ditto
I remember at 16 years old parking my pickup at school with 2 rifles hanging on my back window just like this. One was a .22 and the other was a 3030 lever-action Winchester.
Never once did I even entertain the idea of shooting up the school, or any public place for that matter.
We were built differently back then and weren’t subject to radical far left indoctrination. The loonie left’s campaign of radical indoctrination twists a young person’s mind into knots and you wind up with the school shootings you see today.
Back in my school days, teachers educated, they didn’t indoctrinate and fill your head with CRAZY!
15
Brian Johnson retweeted
Canada should have to respond.
If Ottawa believes the present arrangement is fair to Alberta, it should be prepared to defend it.
If Canada wants Alberta to remain, it should put a serious offer on the table.
Option 2 creates that obligation and leverage. Option 1 allows Ottawa to ignore us.
Brian Johnson retweeted
STATEMENT FROM LET ALBERTA DECIDE CO-LEAD KEITH WILSON, K.C.
Albertans should welcome any serious effort to get our energy to world markets. But with the October 19 referendum only weeks away, they are also entitled to ask some hard questions about today’s Pacific Link announcement.
The first is: why now?
Alberta has been seeking tidewater access for decades. This new pipeline was formally referred to the Major Projects Office on July 2. Yet the major announcement declaring it a project of national interest arrives immediately before Albertans make an important decision about their future constitutional relationship with Ottawa.
That timing deserves scrutiny. Its Ottawa playing politics to get Albertans to forget about decades of mistreatment and how Canada does not work for Alberta.
Albertans should also look carefully at what was actually announced. This is not yet a fully approved, financed or construction-ready pipeline. The current estimated cost is between $35 billion and $44 billion. Taxpayers are now on the hook for the overwhelming majority of the initial ownership interest, while major questions remain about final financing, new BC tolls on Alberta oil, shipper commitments and the ultimate cost to taxpayers.
The pipeline comes with many strings attached imposed by Ottawa. The $20-30 billion Pathways carbon-capture project will be another hit on taxpayers.
This brings the combined cost to taxpayers of over $70 billion which is the same amount as the total budget for the Alberta Government including health care, education, and social programs.
Today’s announcement is significant and I hope the pipeline ultimately gets built.
But Albertans should judge it on the facts, not the timing of a press conference. Does Canada still work for Alberta or can Alberta do better? That’s the question that will be decided on October 19.
Serious change is needed in the constitutional relationship so that the Alberta Government does not have to spend decades of effort and billions in taxpayer dollars just to get a new pipeline.
Don’t have to be a Separatist to choose option 2
“I don't want Alberta to separate, so why would I even consider Option 2?”
If that's you—or someone you know—I hope you'll join us in Medicine Hat on October 8.
Question 10 does not itself make Alberta independent. Option 2 calls on the Alberta government to seek a better deal for Alberta.
Come hear the arguments surrounding that choice and ask the difficult questions.
Wyndham Gardens | Doors 6 PM | Starts 7 PM
18
Brian Johnson retweeted
Even if you want Alberta to stay in Canada, vote Option 2.
It’s not a vote for separation. It’s a vote that the status quo with Ottawa is unacceptable — and it gives Premier Smith real leverage instead of sending Carney a message that everything is fine.
Voting Option 1 is a surrender.
My argument in the Calgary Herald:
calgaryherald.com/news/local…
Brian Johnson retweeted
What does “Vote to Stay” actually mean?
Voting Option 1 is voting for the status quo. It means:
- STAY with the current tax burden.
- STAY with the current regulatory structure.
- STAY with today’s affordability pressures.
- STAY with the existing relationship with Ottawa.
Option 2 means Albertans want something different.
We can do better. Vote Option 2.
Brian Johnson retweeted
Option 2 signals that our dissatisfaction with Alberta’s position in Canada requires more than another speech about national unity. It tells both governments that Albertans expect a credible process, transparent analysis and a meaningful opportunity to decide.
Anyone campaigning against that should explain why the existing arrangement deserves approval before the alternative receives a proper hearing.
Brian Johnson retweeted
Even stay-in-Canada Albertans should vote Option 2.
It’s not a vote to leave. It’s a vote that Ottawa’s current deal is broken — and it gives Danielle Smith the leverage she needs.
Option 1 tells Carney we’re fine with the status quo. We’re not.
calgaryherald.com/news/local…
Brian Johnson retweeted
JUST IN
The Liberal government's legal fees for its Emergencies Act litigation are now up to $3.99 million... and this is before Supreme Court hearing.
All because they won't just admit that they violated the constitutional rights of Canadians (which two courts have affirmed).
Brian Johnson retweeted
I’m supposed to perform the obligatory little ritual now and pretend both versions of this trade debacle deserve equal credibility.
I don’t... I believe the Americans.
Not because they’re American. Not because politicians suddenly became trustworthy. And certainly not because Donald Trump has been canonized.
I believe them because the American account increasingly makes more sense.
Greer, Lutnick and Bessent have spoken openly and specifically about what happened. Their accounts have been remarkably consistent. They can discuss the negotiations like people who were actually involved in them, without appearing terrified that an unsupervised adjective might escape and without a teleprompter.
Meanwhile, what do Canadians get from our own government?
Carefully sterilized language. Vague explanations. Missing specifics. Scripted talking points. Every sentence apparently passed through enough communications people and lawyers to remove any detectable trace of information.
We’re being kept in the dark like bloody mushrooms while learning more about Canada’s own trade negotiations from American officials and American media than from the Canadian government supposedly representing us.
And somehow we’re not supposed to notice how politically convenient the Canadian version is.
We got:
👉🏻 Trump was unreasonable.
👉🏻 Trump changed the deal.
👉🏻 Trump threatened our sovereignty.
👉🏻 Trump forced Canada to walk away.
Trump. Trump. Trump.
Just keep Canadians sufficiently pissed off at Donald Trump and perhaps nobody asks the considerably more inconvenient question:
❓️ What exactly did Mark Carney walk away from, and why?
Because after the Gordie Howe Bridge fiasco, I’m fresh out of complimentary benefit of the doubt.
And here’s the part that absolutely reeks, discrediting any appearance of truth told by the liar in chief #MarkCarney...
If Carney possesses documentary evidence proving Trump suddenly dumped outrageous, unacceptable demands onto Canada at the eleventh hour, where the hell is it?
Seriously.
Think about what that evidence would be worth politically.
IF Carney had a piece of paper proving Donald Trump screwed Canada, blindsided our negotiators and forced our heroic prime minister to stand up, pound the table and walk away, the Liberal machine wouldn’t quietly tuck that document into a filing cabinet.
Are you kidding me?
▪︎ They’d wallpaper Ottawa with the damn thing.
▪︎ They’d hold press conferences about it.
▪︎ They’d wave it around in Parliament.
▪︎ They’d quote it in fundraising emails.
▪︎ They’d buy ads with it.
Every friendly pundit in the country would have a laminated copy by breakfast. CBC would probably commission a twelve-part documentary and an interpretive dance.
It would be political rocket fuel.
Carney could point directly at the evidence and say, See? I stood up to Trump.
And considering how desperately this government wants Canadians angry at Trump, they would squeeze every last political drop out of it.
Instead, we get:
- Words.
- Trust us.
- Trump did it.
- Don't worry about the details.
- Just keep your elbows up and direct your anger toward the orange man south of the border.
How extraordinarily convenient.
And while Canada spends years shrieking about foreign interference, demanding security clearances for opposition leaders and warning us about other countries trying to influence Canadian politics, Canadian politicians seem remarkably comfortable inserting themselves into American partisan politics.
Apparently foreign political influence is a mortal threat to democracy when it crosses the border heading north.
Heading south?
Nothing to see here, carry on.
So enough of the carefully packaged Liberal bullshit.
Release the negotiating documents.
• Show Canadians the American demands.
• Show us Canada's demands.
• Show us what changed.
• Show us when it changed.
• Show us exactly what was sitting on that table when Canada walked away.
Because if those documents prove Carney's story, his government has every political incentive imaginable to release them, and its quite odd that they haven't.
Their continued absence doesn't prove he's lying, but it sure does suggest it!
And considering the Americans are providing details while our own government feeds us verbal oatmeal, it sure as hell gives Canadians a reason to stop swallowing everything we're spoon-fed.
Mark Carney isn't an oracle. He isn't our father. And Canadians aren't intellectually deficient children who need the PMO to decide which facts we're mature enough to see.
Stop telling us whom to hate.
Show us what happened.
Then we'll decide for ourselves who is full of shit.
#cdnpoli
Brian Johnson retweeted
Do federalists actually believe that literally any private investor will bring a single unguaranteed dollar to build a pipeline anywhere in this country under the current fringe leadership of fringe politicians with fringe policy?
Completely delusional.
Brian Johnson retweeted
A large majority of Canadians now view the carbon tax as just a tax that makes life more unaffordable and does nothing for the environment.
Share if you agree it’s time to axe the carbon tax in 2023.
#carbontax #cdnpoli #abpoli
Brian Johnson retweeted
CBC Karen Pauls @karenpaulscbc Accused Of Bias In Humboldt Broncos Coverage Favoring Convicted Killer Over Victims @CBCNews
thedaily.ca/cbc-karen-pauls-…
Karen Pauls has built a career at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation marked by persistent bias and editorial choices that prioritize sympathetic portrayals of perpetrators over the profound suffering of victims. In her extensive reporting on the Humboldt Broncos bus crash and Jaskirat Sidhu the man responsible for killing 16 people and injuring 13 she has consistently framed the story around his remorse his mental health challenges and the potential family separation he faces. This approach diminishes the gravity of his negligence and the lasting trauma inflicted on the families who lost loved ones. Pauls has produced multiple articles and segments that grant Sidhu prominent space to discuss his personal struggles while presenting victim perspectives as secondary or balanced counterpoints rather than the central focus they deserve.
Her selective editing practices have drawn sharp condemnation from families directly affected. Chris Joseph the father of one victim has publicly accused Pauls of twisting interviews by cutting key statements demanding deportation and using softer production elements for Sidhu family scenes. Such techniques create an emotional imbalance that humanizes the driver at the expense of those mourning irreplaceable losses. Joseph has stated that this pattern has destroyed trust in mainstream media coverage of the tragedy leaving families feeling their voices are manipulated to fit a predetermined narrative. Pauls continued emphasis on humanitarian grounds legal delays and Sidhus family circumstances years after the crash serves only to prolong public attention on the perpetrator while reopening wounds for survivors and bereaved relatives.
This reporting style reflects deeper issues in Pauls professional conduct. Rather than delivering straightforward accounts of accountability and justice she has amplified excuses and complexities that soften the consequences of dangerous driving. Internal actions at the broadcaster including monitoring and archiving negative public reactions to her work indicate an awareness of the controversy yet no apparent effort to correct course. Pauls has turned a preventable tragedy rooted in unqualified operation and regulatory failures into a platform for ongoing sympathy toward the individual at fault. Her choices have fueled widespread calls for her removal from such sensitive assignments and for greater scrutiny of taxpayer funded journalism that appears to favor certain narratives over victim centered truth.
Pauls body of work on this case exemplifies a failure of journalistic duty. By repeatedly centering the drivers side she has contributed to a public discourse that questions whether Canadian lives hold equal weight when weighed against immigration and family considerations. Families have expressed exhaustion with the cycle of stories that revisit the horror without delivering closure. Her persistence in this vein despite clear backlash reveals a reporter more committed to her framing than to ethical balance or respect for those harmed. The result is coverage that many view as exploitative and dismissive of the human cost at the heart of the Humboldt Broncos story. Pauls approach has damaged credibility and intensified demands that she face professional consequences for undermining the seriousness of this national tragedy.
