Opinion
1 Million March 4 Children announces second event Saturday, Oct 21 – How should we feel about this?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/789dc/789dc651d270a70932618f210f212613ceaa3458" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a2968/a2968cb433b59e24e5a86ed9950b1664d0c6c4b5" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ab019/ab019adeac5f05fa004ec3f57e197007aec0a72c" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/85495/85495fbb00a67bab71461bdbd5e5488033b396e6" alt=""
- These protests are supported by a big tent of far-right and conspiratorial groups, including Christian Nationalists, COVID-19 conspiracy theorists, sovereign citizens, and anti-public education activists.
Sounds dangerous. Far-right and conspiratorial groups, Christian Nationalists, COVID-19 conspiracy theorists, sovereign citizens, all mixing it up with anti-public education activists. No wonder I was afraid to go at first! Good thing I don’t depend on the AntiHate.ca website to plan my outings.
Come to think of it I’ve got a couple of questions for AntiHate.ca.
1) Are Christian Nationalists ‘far-right’ or ‘conspiratorial’? Can they be just Christians who like their country a lot? If not, what do we call Christians who like Canada? Just wondering.
2) Are the COVID-19 ‘conspiracy theorists’ the ones who correctly (if annoyingly) warned the lock downs / masks / 1, 2, 3, 4 doses of vaccine would not stop the pandemic? or were they the ones who incorrectly believed all those things would bring that pandemic to an end? Can you see how that could be confusing in 2o23?
3) I didn’t know I had to be afraid of sovereign citizens and anti-public education activists. Can I let my children out of the house while they still exist in Canada?
It’s important there are groups like AntiHate.ca. It’s important Canadians always remember that no matter how much we disagree, almost every single person wants to live their lives in freedom and simply enjoy opportunities. When we descend into hatred, we take society down with us. So thank you AntiHate.ca for watching out for us.
Were there incidents at hate at the 1 Million March 4 Children? AntiHate.ca found some examples. I did not see or hear of any incidents at the Red Deer event. Part of the credit goes to the police. They did a wonderful job of patrolling between the opposing sides in a very relaxed and friendly manner that certainly calmed the tension people would otherwise have felt.
Standing on the sidewalk as protestors streamed past me, I was struck by how different the 1 Million March 4 Children felt compared to other protests I’ve attended.
This was a protest of families. There were pregnant women, new mothers and fathers with their young children, and lots of grandparents. It also featured an intriguing and beautiful mixture of cultures. As protestors strolled past I was reminded of that feeling you get from the multi-cultural festivals that mark so many Canada Day Celebrations.
Fact: On September 20, 2023 a vast array of Canadians representing many cultures and beliefs united at Red Deer’s City Hall Park for the 1 Million March 4 Children.
But: Unlike Canada Day, it felt a little bit like we were going to get in trouble just for being here. Maybe that’s why very few politicians dared to come out in support of this group. I did see Red Deer South MLA Jason Stephan and Red Deer Catholic School Board Member Monique LaGrange. Jason has never been frightened of zagging where other politicians are zigging. As for Monique, she’s been disciplined for expressing her opinion recently and probably felt she had nothing more to lose by being associated with the people AntiHate.ca is warning us about.
Canada’s Prime Minister is convinced the people streaming past me were “phobs”… Transphobs, homophobs, and biphobs (I think he may have invented the last one just as he was writing the post below). According to our Prime Minister hundreds of Central Albertans and the tens or hundreds of thousands of Canadians who gathered on September 20 were there to ‘manifest their hatred’ of 2SLGBTQI+ people. Here’s Trudeau’s post on X.
The Muslim Association of Canada strongly condemned Trudeau’s remarks and called for an apology that has yet to make it’s way into the line up of apologies PM Trudeau seems to make on a daily basis. Here’s part of their statement.
- By characterizing the peaceful protests of thousands of concerned parents as hateful, Canadian leaders and school boards are setting a dangerous precedent of using their position of influence to unjustly demonize families, and alienate countless students.
- On Wednesday September 20th, thousands of Muslims, joined by other faith-based groups, protested to raise their concerns, calling for their rights as parents in relation to their children’s education. Their intent was to be heard, not to sow division. Parents should have the absolute right to advocate for the wellbeing of their children.
As I streamed through my social media feeds last week I could see some of my friends (who I did not see at the protest or counter protest) apparently agree with Trudeau. The most common post was the “no space for hate” meme which is really a beautiful message even if it might be a bit too sarcastic when aimed at the vast majority of those who marched. (I’m OK with sarcasm. I think my family may have invented it.)
By using the word ‘hate’ they seem to be implying the protestors are hateful. Maybe they can come to the next march in October to see for themselves. I did not see messages of hate from the protestors OR from the counter protestors in Red Deer. You can see excellent examples of the signage from both sides in the photos below which show the signs on opposite sides of the street (and the debate).
On top of the signs there were also competing slogans. Chants of “Leave our kids alone” from the protestors were so loud it was a bit difficult to hear the opposing chant. I thought I heard “I was born like this” from the counter protestors.
I heard another chant from the protest organizer on his megaphone. “Don’t interact with the counter protestors. They have a right to be here too.” All in all the Red Deer protest was a bit loud, but far more civilized than advertised. I guess it felt a little bit like democracy is supposed to feel like.
As the protest ended I even witnessed one protestor walk up to a group of 5 or 6 counter protestors. He said (I’m paraphrasing) “I may not agree with you about much, but I respect your right to be here and I just wanted to say thank you for expressing your opinions peacefully.” That was quite a moment for the counter protestors who all looked relieved as they were likely expecting a confrontation. I admit I was stunned. It caught me by surprise and I was unable to get a photo or video in time.
As I looked through the protest signs and briefly chatted with people streaming past me it was clear there was one overwhelming message. The protestors clearly want to be the ones to teach their children about gender ideology. Others are far more concerned about the idea that schools would be keeping secrets with students from their parents who pay the taxes that support the whole system.
I leave the final words to Tim Hoven. Tim is a politically active Central Albertan who tried to take on his local UCP MLA Jason Nixon in a nomination and then ran unsuccessfully as an Independent candidate against him when his nomination was disqualified. Hoven was the local organizer and the main speaker at the Red Deer version of 1 Million March 4 Children.
Business
Americans Say Government Is Corrupt and Inefficient but Are Lukewarm About DOGE
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/94e41/94e41e697f51641398c69db44bffe8979f56ea6b" alt=""
Democrats seem willing to tolerate a lot to get a larger government, but Republicans aren’t much better
Americans think government is wasteful when it’s not outright fraudulent and abusive. That should create a welcoming environment for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its mission to cut fat out of federal agencies on the way to (hopefully) reducing the state and balancing the budget. But support for DOGE is lukewarm. Unsurprisingly in these politically fractured times, cost-cutting efforts are a lot more popular with Republicans than Democrats, but polling suggests the division isn’t just one of partisanship. The DOGE is running up against fundamental disagreements over the role of government and the people who staff it—and the price people are willing to pay for a less-obnoxious government.
Corrupt and Inefficient Government, but Iffy Support for DOGE
Last year, Pew Research polling found that 56 percent of Americans say government is “almost always wasteful and inefficient.” The Babbie Centre at Chapman University reported that “nearly 2/3 of Americans fear that our government is run by corrupt officials.” And last month, A.P.-NORC researchers found 70 percent of Americans believe corruption is a major problem in the federal government, 65 percent say the same of inefficiency, and 59 percent see red tape—including regulations and bureaucracy—as a major problem.
Yet DOGE draws just a 39 percent “favorable” rating in the latest The Economist/YouGov poll, a bare three points ahead of “unfavorable” at 36 percent (25 percent picked “don’t know”). A poll this month from Trafalgar Group found 49 percent approving of the cost-cutting efforts of DOGE and Elon Musk, with 44 percent disapproving (7 percent were undecided). That’s more support than opposition in both cases, but you’d expect greater enthusiasm from a public that overwhelmingly considers government to be corrupt and wasteful (with plenty of evidence to support that position).
Part of the explanation, of course, is partisanship. Anything done by officials from one of the major parties is bound to be booed by the opposition, no matter what. As Gallup’s Jeffrey M. Jones pointed out in 2022, “generally speaking, Republicans and Democrats are more inclined to say the government has too much power when the president is from the other party, and less inclined when a president from their own party is in the White House.” That tribalism likely extends to cutting government as well, even if the cuts apply to agencies controlled for the moment by political enemies. Sure enough, both Trafalgar and The Economist/YouGov found far greater support for DOGE among Republicans than among Democrats (independents split the difference).
Democrats Want More Government, Flaws and All
But there are also real differences in attitudes toward the role of the state. The same Pew poll that reported widespread belief in the wastefulness and inefficiency of government also found that 49 percent of respondents “would prefer a smaller government providing fewer services” while 48 percent “would rather have a bigger government providing more services.” And the partisan divide here isn’t just tribal, it’s ideological. Despite fluctuations depending on who is in power, Republicans have overwhelmingly favored a smaller government providing fewer services since polling on the issue began in 1976 (support for bigger government peaked among them at about one-third in 1988 and 2004). Democratic support for larger, more active government grew from 49 percent in 1976 to 74 percent now.
Democrats in the A.P.-NORC poll were just slightly kinder than Republicans in their opinions on government corruption, efficiency, and red tape; majorities agree the federal government is corrupt and inefficient, while a 47 percent plurality says that red tape is a major problem. Given the overwhelming belief that government is corrupt and wasteful, but iffy support for DOGE, it’s fair to conclude that at least some Democrats are willing to put up with those concerns as the price of a larger state.
Partisan disagreement over the role of government also applies to trust in the people who staff the federal bureaucracy. These are the people the Trump administration offered buyouts and seeks to reduce in number, much like the Clinton administration did in the 1990s. Support for reducing the federal workforce depends, to a large extent, on agreement that those workers are part of the problem—or at least that we’d be better off with fewer of them. That’s not a universal opinion.
“Just 38% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents express a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in federal career employees,” Pew Research noted last week. That’s down 10 points from 2018. “In contrast, 72% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say they have confidence in career government employees – 7 points higher than in 2022, but on par with 2018 levels.”
So, if we’re to believe what members of the public tell researchers, majorities of Americans across partisan divides think the federal government is corrupt and inefficient. But a fair number of those who hold this position—Democrats, in particular—are confident that the people employed by the federal government aren’t responsible for that corruption and efficiency. Those problems appear from somewhere, perhaps as a miasma emanating from the swamp that D.C. was in years past. Also, many of those concerned that corruption and inefficiency plague the government are willing to put up with those handicaps so that the corrupt and inefficient government can play a larger role in our lives.
Republicans Also Want Their Expensive Goodies
Of course, consistency and logic aren’t necessarily common features of public opinion. As I’ve noted before, Republicans and Democrats may disagree when it comes to broad philosophical statements about the size and role of government, but when it comes to specifics, there’s more that unites them than divides them. Majorities of partisans of both parties as well as of independents want more federal spending on Social Security, Education, and Medicare, according to A.P.-NORC. A majority of Democrats also want more to be spent on Medicaid and assistance to the poor, while a majority of Republicans similarly want more dedicated to border security and the military.
Social Security is almost a quarter of federal spending all by itself, while Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care are slightly more, by the Cato Institute’s reckoning. National defense is about 13 percent, as is income security, with interest on federal debt right behind. DOGE faces quite an uphill battle to succeed in its mission to slash the size and cost of federal government.
DOGE faces obstacles from Democrats who recognize that the government is corrupt and inefficient but want more of it anyway. It also faces a challenge in Republicans and independents who say they want less government but don’t want to surrender their favorite boondoggles.
Americans are lukewarm about DOGE because they’re torn about its mission. Sure, they have a low opinion of the federal government, but they might be willing to put up with its deep flaws so long as it delivers their goodies.
|
|
|
National
Did the Liberals Backdoor Ruby Dhalla to Hand Mark Carney the Crown?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/250af/250af7e5ef7f4c9f1ac6fb0a904a01edd9468e0f" alt=""
She was surging in the polls—so why was she secretly disqualified? Was this a race or a coronation?
She Wasn’t Supposed to Win
Ruby Dhalla wasn’t supposed to be a problem. When she entered the Liberal leadership race, she was treated as an afterthought, an outsider with no chance of breaking through. Mark Carney was the clear favorite—not because he had some overwhelming grassroots movement behind him, but because the Liberal swamp had already crowned him as Trudeau’s successor. The decision had been made long before the race even began. But then, something happened that the elites didn’t see coming: Dhalla started gaining traction. She started signing up thousands of new members. She started climbing in the polls. And that’s when the Liberal machine kicked into overdrive to shut her down.
If you’ve been paying attention to Canadian politics, none of this should be surprising. This is how the Liberal Party operates. The leadership race was never about choosing the best candidate; it was about making sure their pre-selected golden boy, Mark Carney, strolled into power without opposition. Dhalla’s rise threatened that plan, and as we’ve seen time and time again, the Liberal establishment has no patience for democracy when it gets in the way of their backroom deals.
Who Is Ruby Dhalla?
Unlike Carney, who spent his career bouncing between bureaucratic positions and the boardrooms of global financial institutions, Ruby Dhalla actually had experience winning elections. She wasn’t a puppet installed by the elites—she had built her own career in politics. Born in Winnipeg to Punjabi immigrant parents, Dhalla had been politically active from a young age. At just 14, she made international headlines for standing up to India’s Prime Minister over Sikh violence, proving early on that she wasn’t afraid to challenge powerful figures.
In 2004, she was elected as Member of Parliament for Brampton—Springdale, becoming one of the first Sikh women in Canada’s Parliament. For seven years, she fought for causes that mattered to working-class Canadians—pushing for foreign credential recognition, better healthcare access, and policies that helped immigrants integrate and succeed instead of being stuck in low-wage jobs.
But the Liberal Party, especially under Trudeau, doesn’t like independent thinkers. Dhalla lost her seat in 2011, took a step back from politics, and then, in 2025, decided to make a comeback. This time, she wasn’t just running on her record—she was running to take back the Liberal Party from the corporate elites, career bureaucrats, and political insiders who had hijacked it. And for a brief moment, it looked like she might actually succeed.
Dhalla’s Platform Was A Direct Threat to the Liberal Swamp
Let’s get one thing straight: Dhalla wasn’t just another Liberal politician running on empty platitudes. She was actually taking on the biggest failures of the Trudeau era—the very policies that have driven the country into the ground.
She was the only candidate willing to take a hard stance on illegal immigration, promising to deport those who entered Canada illegally and crack down on human trafficking networks that had turned Canadian cities into a magnet for asylum scams. This was a direct rebuke of Trudeau’s open-border policies, which flooded major urban centers with asylum seekers while leaving legal immigrants—the ones who actually followed the rules—waiting years in bureaucratic limbo.
She also had the guts to address Canada’s crime wave—something the Liberal establishment refuses to even acknowledge. Under Trudeau, violent crime, carjackings, and organized theft rings have exploded across the country, while the justice system has been hijacked by radical left-wing activists who care more about “rehabilitating” criminals than protecting innocent people. Dhalla called for stronger sentencing laws, increased funding for law enforcement, and an end to the revolving-door justice system that lets repeat offenders walk free. This was a direct challenge to the Liberal Party’s activist wing, which has spent years prioritizing criminals over victims.
Economically, she focused on the cost-of-living crisis that Trudeau’s reckless spending had fueled. While Mark Carney was busy rubbing elbows with globalist elites, Dhalla was actually talking to working-class Canadians who were struggling to afford basic necessities, being crushed by inflation, and priced out of homeownership. She proposed tax relief for small businesses, homeownership incentives, and policies to lower the cost of essential goods. Most importantly, she vowed to end corporate influence over government policy—something that would have put her in direct conflict with the very donors bankrolling Carney’s campaign.
The Fix Was In—And the Liberal Establishment Didn’t Even Try to Hide It
While Dhalla was out winning over actual voters, Carney didn’t have to lift a finger—at least, that’s how she sees it. According to Dhalla, the Bay Street donors, the Liberal bureaucrats, and Trudeau’s inner circle had already decided he would be their next puppet. But her unexpected momentum was throwing a wrench into their plans.
She claims her campaign signed up over 100,000 new members—a surge that, in her view, proved just how many Canadians wanted an alternative to the establishment. Internal polling allegedly showed that she was running neck and neck with Carney, challenging the idea that he was the inevitable frontrunner. Most importantly, she says she was calling out corruption within the party—something the Liberal insiders simply couldn’t tolerate.
That, she argues, is when the knives came out.
According to Dhalla, her campaign faced deliberate obstruction at every turn. She says she was denied access to crucial party membership lists, while Carney’s team faced no such restrictions. She also claims the party handed exclusive control of voter data to Data Sciences, a company with deep ties to both Trudeau and Carney—giving the establishment free rein over the internal mechanics of the race.
Then came what Dhalla describes as a financial ambush. Leadership candidates were required to submit a $350,000 deposit to stay in the race. Her campaign, backed by thousands of small-dollar donors, met that requirement in full. But just days later, she says, the party suddenly hit her with a six-page letter listing 27 allegations—none of which had been raised before she made her final payment. Despite fully cooperating, answering every question, and providing every requested document, Dhalla was disqualified behind closed doors.
But were these serious concerns about party rules and ethics? Or were they just serious concerns for Mark Carney’s leadership bid?
They didn’t even bother waiting for a debate. They removed her just before the first leadership debate in Montreal, ensuring that Carney wouldn’t have to answer a single tough question. The only real challenger was gone. And just like that, the “race” was over.
A Staged Leadership Race
With Dhalla and Chandra Arya—the only two South Asian candidates—mysteriously vanished from the race, the Liberal Party has officially dropped the mask. This is not a party of “inclusion” or “diversity” or whatever meaningless buzzword they trot out when the cameras are rolling. This is a party of insiders, where Trudeau’s handpicked elites play musical chairs with Canada’s future while pretending to hold a fair contest. And now, with the competition conveniently wiped off the board, Mark Carney—the globalist banker with a resume straight out of the Davos job fair—is all but guaranteed his coronation.
And let’s take a moment to acknowledge who’s left. Chrystia Freeland—who doesn’t even bother hiding her ties to Carney (he’s literally her children’s godfather)—isn’t running against him, she’s running as his insurance policy. If, for some reason, Carney stumbles, Freeland will be right there to catch the baton and carry on the exact same elite-driven, Canada-last agenda. And then there’s Karina Gould, a candidate so irrelevant to this race that her sole purpose seems to be testing the waters for the Liberals’ shiny new Marxist project: Universal Basic Income. Because if there’s one thing Trudeau’s Liberals love more than taxing Canadians into the ground, it’s making them dependent on government handouts.
This was never a leadership race. It was a staged coronation, a laughable farce cooked up by the same Liberal swamp who have spent the last decade running Canada into the ground. If this had happened in another country, Canadian politicians would be tripping over themselves to condemn it, talking about how democracy is under attack. But because it happened inside the Liberal Party, the media just shrugs and moves on, pretending this is all perfectly normal. Because, in their world, it is.
And that’s the real story here. If this is how the Liberals run their own leadership race, what do you think they’ll do in the next federal election? If they’re willing to purge their own candidates, rig their own nomination process, and outright silence anyone who dares to challenge their elite-controlled puppet show, then what chance does the average Canadian voter have?
This isn’t just corrupt. It’s disgusting. It’s a slap in the face to every Canadian who still believes in fair elections, free debate, and the basic idea that leaders should be chosen by the people—not installed behind closed doors by Trudeau’s golfing buddies and Bay Street billionaires.
The Liberal Party isn’t a political party anymore. It’s a gated country club for the ruling class, where power is passed around like a family heirloom. And if no one stands up to stop it, they’ll keep getting away with it. The fix is in, the swamp is deeper than ever, and the only question left is: Are Canadians going to do anything about it?
-
Health22 hours ago
RFK Jr: There’s no medical justification for vaccinating one-day-old babies for Hepatitis B
-
National3 hours ago
Did the Liberals Backdoor Ruby Dhalla to Hand Mark Carney the Crown?
-
Energy1 day ago
Federal Government Suddenly Reverses on Critical Minerals – Over Three Years Too Late – MP Greg McLean
-
International2 days ago
Jihadis behead 70 Christians in DR Congo church
-
National23 hours ago
Andrew Scheer exposes the Mark Carney Canadians should know
-
Addictions2 days ago
BC overhauls safer supply program in response to widespread pharmacy scam
-
Business1 day ago
Worst kept secret—red tape strangling Canada’s economy
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Kash Patel First Statement As FBI Director, Tells Media ‘Bring It On’