Opinion
How Christianity Remade the World
Tom Holland joins Bari Weiss on Honestly (The Free Press)
Interview courtesy of The Free Press
| By Bari Weiss |
This Christmas, one of our greatest living historians explains how one ‘radical message’ came to define the entirety of the Western world.
Is our vacation from religion coming to an end?
Whether you believe in the story of the virgin birth and resurrection, or you believe that those miracles are myths, one thing is beyond dispute: The story of Jesus and the message of Christianity is among the stickiest ideas the world has ever seen.
Within four centuries of Jesus’s death, Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire. It had 30 million followers—which amounted to half the empire. Today, two millennia later, Christianity is still the largest religion in the world, with more than 2 billion adherents.
How did the radical message of Christianity catch on? How did it change the world? And how does it shape all our lives today?
These questions motivate the latest episode of Honestly. My guest is the incredible historian Tom Holland, one of the most gifted storytellers in the world. His podcast, The Rest Is History, is among the most popular out there. Each week, he and his co-host, Dominic Sandbrook, charm their way through history’s most interesting characters and sagas. I can’t recommend it more highly.
I also recommend Tom’s book Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World. In it, he argues that Christianity is the reason we have America, that it was the inspiration behind our revolution. He also argues that Christianity is the backbone of both “wokeness,” as an ideology, and liberalism, which so often sees itself as secular.
In today’s episode, Tom discusses all this and more, including a question that a lot of my colleagues have thought about this year: Is our vacation from religion coming to an end?
Click below to listen to the podcast, or scroll down for an edited transcript of our conversation. Merry Christmas and happy holidays!
 |
Tom Holland on How Christianity Remade the World
The Free Press Episode |
On the radical story of Jesus’s death:
Bari Weiss: Your book opens with the crucifixion. Your argument is that the turning point is not Jesus’s birth, but his death, at 33 years old, at the hands of the Roman authorities. Why is this the pivotal moment?
Tom Holland: It is very difficult to overemphasize how completely mad it was for everybody in the ancient world that someone who suffers crucifixion could in any way be the Messiah, let alone part of the one God. In the opinion of the Romans, crucifixion is the fate that should properly be visited on slaves. Not just because it is protracted and agonizing, but also because it is deeply humiliating.
When you die, you will hang there like a lump of meat. This is a demonstration, in the opinion of the Romans, that essentially their might is right. That if a slave rebels against his master, this is what happens.
I think what is radical about what Christians come to believe is not the fact that a man can become a god. Because for most people in the Mediterranean that is a given. What is radical is that the man Christians believe was divine was someone who had ended up suffering the worst fate imaginable—death by crucifixion—which, in the opinion of the Romans, was the fate visited on a slave.
The reason that Jesus suffers that fate is that he is part of a conquered people. He’s not even from Judea. He’s from Galilee. Galilee is not properly under the rule of the Romans. It’s franchised out to a client king. He is the lowest of the low. Even the Judeans look down on him.
The fact that such a person could conceivably be raised up by citizens of the Roman Empire as someone greater than Caesar himself, greater than Augustus, is a completely shocking maneuver. Judeans, Greeks, Romans—it’s shocking to them all.
The radical message of the crucifixion is that, in Christ’s own words, the last shall be first, and the first shall be last.
On the power relationship between the church and state:
BW: I’ve always been so interested in how Christianity goes from being the bane of the powerful to being the faith of the emperor. Constantine, the emperor who could have been a god, instead converts to the faith whose god died on a cross. How does that happen?
TH: Christianity spreads through most of the major cities of the empire. It’s not difficult to see what the appeal is. In a society without any hint of a welfare state, a state in which no value at all is put upon the weak or the poor or the sick, what the church offers is the first functioning welfare state.
If you are a widow or an orphan or in prison or hungry, the likelihood is that you will be able to find relief from the church. And that offers a kind of power because bishop literally means an overseer—the figure of a bishop who has charity to dispense. That’s quite something. You are in a position of authority that even your pagan neighbors might come to respect.
That’s the situation at the beginning of the fourth century, when Constantine is fighting a civil war. What Constantine wants is what Roman emperors for a century have wanted. Everyone in the empire knows that the prosperity of the empire is dependent on the favor of the gods. But there is a problem, which is that most cults are centered on particular temples, particular shrines, particular ways of offering up sacrifice or respect to a god.
Over the course of the third century, the Roman Empire goes through a terrible time—barbarian invasions, galloping inflation. So when Constantine comes to power, he is looking for a religion that can bind everyone within the empire. And this, basically, is what Christianity supplies him with.
What it also does is to suggest that there is a single celestial king in heaven. You can see it’s quite nice to imagine himself as the chosen one of God, because it suits his ego to have a single god for a single emperor.
But it has to be said that it takes Constantine and his heirs a while to realize what they’ve taken on—that the church is a kind of independent entity. And over the course of subsequent Christian history, what the relationship of the church should be to the authority and power of the great is one that is repeatedly being hammered out.
The traditions and ideologies of the Orthodox world and of the Western world are, I think, a consequence of the attempt to try and work out exactly what the balance should be between what you might call church and state.
On Christianity’s many paradoxes:
BW: To join a community not based on the lineage of your family or where you are born, but based on a belief—that still feels so radical to me, even in 2024.
TH: To the Romans, it’s bewildering. They are very puzzled. Who do the Christians think they are? They don’t have a land. They don’t have a mother city. Because they claim a universal identity, to the Romans, it seems they have no identity at all. This is a tension that runs throughout Christianity.
The paradox is the great motor of the Christian story and of Christian history. The idea that a man can be a god, the idea that someone who is dead can come to life, the idea that someone who suffers the death of a slave can be greater than Caesar: These are all paradoxes. And over the course of the 2,000 years of Christianity’s history, it’s unsurprising that these ideas have, in turn, generated further paradoxes, of which I would say—and this is pointed out by people hostile to Christianity—that for a people who claim to have a universal identity, Christians are very fond of fighting one another and denying the name of Christian to one another.
Christianity is a faith that is founded on the conviction that a crucified criminal suffering the death of a slave triumphs over the greatest empire on the face of the planet. That conviction has led to it becoming the most hegemonic explanation for who humans are—what their purpose on the face of the earth is, and where they will go after death—that has ever existed. And that gives it an unbelievable degree of power, and has given kings and emperors and popes power.
That is the supreme paradox of Christian history, a faith that became powerful by virtue of enshrining as its symbol someone utterly powerless. It’s incredible.
On the influence of Christianity on revolutions and modern political movements like wokeness:
BW: One of the things that Dominion does so powerfully is it shows the ways in which things we take for granted were actually Christian ideas. Some are obvious: the ideas of charity or forgiveness or redemption. But you connect even the American Revolution, the French Revolution to Christianity. You talk about how the impulses behind wokeness are fundamentally Christian.
TH: Christianity is inherently subversive of the established order that it’s born into. The Reformation of the eleventh century is followed by the Reformation of the sixteenth century, and that Reformation in turn is followed by the Enlightenment, revolutions, and the great cultural, ethical, moral convulsions that we’re going through at the moment.
You can distinguish certain abiding themes. One of them is the idea that the last shall be first—it’s the humbling of the papacy itself in the sixteenth century. It’s the overthrow of kings and emperors and czars in the American, the French, the Russian Revolution. It’s the toppling of statues in contemporary America, the idea that there is almost an inherent virtue within victimhood. To be oppressed is a source of power. It’s a very radical idea that Christianity weaponizes and has weaponized again and again and again.
I would go so far as to say that there are very few aspects of the culture wars that are being fought in America at the moment that do not ultimately have their origins in Christian theology. Like the trans issue. On one level, you would say that the idea that a man can become a woman or woman become a man, is radically opposed to Christian teaching. God creates man and woman separately in Genesis, and there really is no kind of sanction for thinking anything else. But at the same time, the case for trans rights as pushed by those who campaign for them is invariably done in very Christian terms. Trans people are defined as the last. And that seems to impose a kind of instinctive assumption that the last should become the first.
Martin Luther King Jr. described himself as an extremist for Jesus. His language, his speeches, his activism was saturated in biblical imagery. And essentially what he was doing was reminding Americans that if there is no Greek or Jew in Christ, then obviously there is no black or white. And he was summoning white American Christians to a reminder of their shared inheritance.
But over the course of the 1960s, there were other people, other groups of people who historically were disadvantaged, who drew on that lesson—whether feminists or gay-rights campaigners. You have a splintering between those who remain doctrinally Christian and those who are drawing on that Christian inheritance, but feel that they are opposing Christian doctrine and therefore increasingly become hostile to Christianity itself. The fact is they are indebted to the Christian inheritance. But because they have cut themselves off from the Scripture, the theology, the liturgy, and the patterns of behavior that had always defined Christians, they are kind of drifting off in all kinds of radical new ways.
But I think that there is one major theological maneuver that happens over the course of the ’60s, which is that sense that the Latin Christian doctrine of original sin is something to be profoundly rejected. The notion that human beings are born good and that they’re kind of corrupted by capitalism or whatever is very, very powerful in the ’60s. And so it seems liberating and progressive to get rid of the idea that we’re all born as sinners.
The problem with that is that if you get rid of the doctrine of original sin, then what you bake in is that it’s within our own capabilities to be good, to be a good person, and therefore you might persuade yourself that you are free of sin. By abolishing the concept of original sin, it encourages progressives to sit, in a more self-confident way, in moral judgment of those they oppose, than they might otherwise have done.
On why Tom returned to Christianity:
BW: You became secular as a teen and then you returned to Christianity. What brought you back to it?
TH: I exist in the kind of shadowlands between belief and agnosticism. And what brought me back from being an atheist apostate was that I found it boring ultimately. I found the process of reading the great Christian thinkers, reflecting on the patterns of Christian history, and recognizing that this is where I came from—they kind of gelled with me in a way that nothing else would.
There are times where I might be out in the wilderness and I have a sense of the closeness of animals and water and the sky. And I can imagine what it must have been like to exist in the Neolithic era. But I can’t go back to that, obviously. But I can go back to Christianity, because that’s the faith in which I was raised. And I think because of that, I am more open, perhaps, to its beauties as well as to its cruelties.
I feel that in trying to make sense of it, I’m trying to make sense of myself and the kind of conflicted nature that I sense exists within me and within the society that I live in. Ultimately, it makes my life more interesting to be a part of that, to share in that and to contemplate the possibility that it might be true.
BW: What does Christmas mean to you?
TH: The times of the year where I feel most Christian and I feel that I can believe most easily are Christmas and Easter, because these are the two great festivals of the Church. I respond to the inherent beauty and drama of the story. To live in England in December is to live in darkness a lot of the time, and so the idea of light in the darkness is very vivid for me.
A tax expert on the departed Digital Services Tax, and the fiscal and policy holes it leaves behind
It’s fun, and fair, arguing whether Mark Carney “caved” in suspending the application of Canada’s Digital Services Tax to revive broader negotiations with the Trump administration. But I figure there are other dimensions to this issue besides tactics. So I got in touch with Allison Christians, a tax law professor at McGill University and the founding director of the Canadian Centre for Tax Policy.
In our talk, Christians discusses the policy landscape that led to the introduction of the DST; the pressure that contributed to its demise; and the ways other countries are addressing a central contradiction of the modern policy landscape: without some kind of digital tax, countries risk having to impose costs on their own digital industry that the overwhelmingly US-based multinationals can avoid.
I spoke to Christians on Friday. Her remarks are edited for length and clarity.
Paul Wells: I noticed in your social media that you express inordinate fondness for tax law.
Allison Christians: You will not find a more passionate adherent to the tax cult than me. Yes, I do. I love tax law. Of course I do. How could you not? How could you not love tax law?
PW: What’s to love about tax law?
Christians: Well, tax law is how we create our country. That’s how we build our society. That’s how we create the communities that we want to live in and the lifestyle that we want to share with our neighbours. That’s how: with tax law.
PW: I guess the goal [of tax policy] is to generate the largest amount of revenue with the smallest amount of grief? And to send social signals while you’re at it. Is that right?
Christians: I don’t think so. Tax is not about raising maximum revenue. Tax is about deciding what society you’re trying to build and what portions of that society need to be made public, and what can be left to private interests which then need to profit. So we have decided in Canada, as a country, that basic minimum healthcare cannot be a for-profit enterprise. It has to be a public enterprise in order to make sure that it works for everybody to a certain basic level. So tax is about making those decisions: are we going to privatize everything and everyone pays for their own health care, security, roads, insurance, fire department etc. And if they can’t pay, then too bad? Or are we going to have a certain minimum, and that minimum is going to be provided in a public way that harmonizes across the communities that we have. And that’s what tax is about. It’s not about extracting revenue at all. It’s about creating revenue. It’s about creating a market. It’s about investing in a community. So I just object to the whole idea that tax is about extracting something from me, because what tax is doing is creating a market for me to be able to thrive. Not just me, but all of my neighbours, as well.
PW: Let’s jump forward to the events of the past couple weeks. Were you surprised when the Prime Minister suspended the Digital Services Tax?
Christians: I think “surprise” is probably too strong of a word, because nothing any political leader does to cope with the volatility of the United States would surprise me. We are dealing with a major threat, a threat that is threatening to annex us, to take our resources, to take our sovereignty, to take our communities and rip them apart and turn them into a different way of being. And that’s a serious threat. So nothing would surprise me in response to that. Disappointed, of course. But not disappointed in our Canadian response. More disappointed in the juggernaut that Trump has been allowed to become by his base, and that they’re pulling the rug out from under everyone that’s cooperated with the US agenda for decades, including us.
PW: What’s your best understanding of what the Digital Services Tax was designed to accomplish? And is it unusual as taxes go?
Christians: So to understand this, you really have to be a policy wonk, which isn’t much fun. So I’m gonna give you an example that might make it clear from the perspective of Canada. Why we might have a Digital Service Tax or might want something like it.
I want to preface this by saying that the Digital Service Tax is by no means the only way to do the underlying things we want to accomplish. Certainly other countries have been collecting DSTs and have been collecting billions of dollars, and US companies have had reserves for paying that Digital Service Tax. So we just left money on the table. But let me try to explain why we want to do the thing without getting too “tax nerdy” on you.
So I’m sure you can come up with the one Canadian company that’s streaming content on television or on digital devices.
PW: Crave?
Christians: Yeah, that’s the one. Crave is owned by Bell Media and is a Canadian company. And Crave pays taxes in Canada. Crave has to compete against Netflix, which does not have to pay tax in Canada. Netflix just simply doesn’t have to pay the same way that Crave does unless we force them to pay. Crave has to compete with US and foreign content streamers. We may get to a point where we can get Netflix to collect some sales tax on the GST, for example. But if Netflix itself stays out of Canada, physically, but it’s still getting all those customers that otherwise Crave would have access to, then Crave is at a structural disadvantage.
Now tell me which Canadian provider competes with Google.
PW: I can’t think of one.
Christians: Exactly. There isn’t one. How are we supposed to get a homegrown competitor when our competition simply does not pay taxes, and any one we would grow here in Canada has to pay tax here? So we have to understand the Digital Service Tax as simply our response to the fact that we normally do not tax a company unless they are physically located in Canada. But now we’ve got to go into this digital space and say: you’re still here, even if we can’t see you and talk to you, you’re still here. You’re doing something in our market. And that’s what the Digital Service Tax was trying to deal with.
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
PW: Now, how are companies likely to respond to this Digital Services Tax? It seems to me the likeliest outcome would be that they would pass those costs on to their customers.
Christians: Yes, that is what companies have said they would do. Google talked about passing those costs on to the customers. And their customers obviously are advertisers. I want to point out that advertisers in Canada used to advertise in local newspapers and media. Now they advertise on Facebook, owned by an American-headquartered Company, Meta. Right now, they advertise on those foreign platforms, so we don’t have those advertising dollars here. Advertisers might have had to pay the Digital Service Tax if Google, or whoever, had passed it on to them. I think it’s fair to say, that Canadians advertising on those foreign platforms would have faced a gross-up to cover that tax.
PW: So, the net effect is that it just becomes more expensive for Canadian consumers. I’ve seen it argued that all this tax would have succeeded in doing is making Netflix more expensive.
Christians: Okay, that’s possible. I mean, that assumes the supply is totally elastic: you can increase the price of Netflix, and people will still pay it indefinitely. Right? So that’s the assumption in the short term. But the long-term assumption is that Crave becomes more competitive — because its competitors are paying the same tax that it is paying. The Crave subscription price may or may not respond, but if you put pressure on the foreign service providers in the same manner that’s on the Canadian providers, it might cost more, but we’re also getting the tax.
PW: I believe the Prime Minister, in an interview with the CBC said that he was thinking of getting rid of this thing, anyway. [The quote I’m reaching for here is: “Look, what we did this week is something that I think we were going to do anyways, in the end, for the deal.” At 1:07 in this video. — pw] Why do you think he would have been leaning in that direction? And do you think that absent a Truth Social post by President Trump, he actually would have gotten rid of the thing?
Christians: I can’t speculate too much about the politics of this, because I’m not talking to many of the people that make policy, but I know the complaints about the DST, and I don’t dispute them. It was going to be a complicated tax to collect and it was going to be messy in terms of compliance. There’s a lot of uncertainty around the tax and I know there’s always an enormous amount of pressure to reduce all taxes. There’s always going to be that segment of society that sees taxes being thrown down the drain and not as an investment in the society that we want to live in.
American companies are famous for investing their money on lobbying and not in taxes. They spend their money convincing us that it would be bad for us to tax them, and they can spend a much smaller percentage of their money on lobbying and get us to believe that narrative. And the narrative is that somehow, if we tax Google, Google will go away and we won’t be able to use it. That Google won’t innovate. It’s nonsense, but it’s a story that resonates nonetheless. Was Prime Minister Carney pressured to get rid of the DST? Undoubtedly. And maybe he personally thinks there’s a better way to tax these companies than with an excise tax. I don’t fault him for thinking that. I have even written that there are better ways for Canada to collect this tax than the Digital Services Tax.
PW: I’m going to want you to tell me about these other ways. But I assume that if a Canadian government attempts any of these other ways, then the companies we’re talking about know that all they have to do is hit the Trump button and the pressure will be right back on.
Christians: That’s correct. There are a couple of [alternatives to the DST]. We could, like some other countries have done, redefine the types of income that we subject to withholding taxes in Canada. It’s a complicated technical idea, but basically any payments that go from our advertisers to Google, we could impose a withholding tax simply by expanding a couple of definitions in the Income Tax Act that would then carry over into our treaty. Now, people will push back on that, and say that you’re changing a deal, and people will object to that. And we can have an argument about that, but that possibility exists. That withholding tax is the most straightforward way to do this and we should probably already be thinking about it.
Another one that’s kind of fun, which I really enjoyed learning about when I came to Canada, is Section 19 in the Income Tax Act. So, Canadian advertisers are paying Google now, instead of a Canadian newspaper. Well, Section 19 basically says that whenever someone makes a payment for advertising to a foreign, non-Canadian media, that payment’s not deductible.
Now that provision seems to violate Free Trade rules because it changes, depending on who you make the payment to. But it’s a provision in law. The US objected to it when we adopted it by imposing a reciprocal tax on US advertisers paying Canadian outlets, which doesn’t seem to bother anybody.
PW: But the application of that will be very asymmetrical, right?
Christians: Yes, for sure. And I’ll tell you what the Canadian media noticed when we started paying for digital newspapers online: that they’re not subject to Section 19 — only print and traditional media are subject to this denial of deduction — and Canadian media advocated for this denial of deduction for online publications as well.
All you have to do is look at the wording of Section 19 — and you don’t even have to change the words — and all of a sudden all those payments to Google are not deductible. But if the payments were to Crave, they would be deductible, and if they are to the Globe and Mail, or other Canadian companies, they would be deductible. That is a different kind of advantage for the Canadian competitor that’s a little less susceptible to Trump’s understanding, and a little less susceptible to the politics that surround the Digital Services Tax. But it’s technical. You have to explain it to people, and they don’t believe you. It’s hard to understand it.
PW: Theoretically a two-time central-bank governor could wrap his head around it.
Christians: Yes, I think he could fully understand it, for sure. You’re absolutely right. Will he want to do it, though? I just don’t know.
PW: You said that there are other jurisdictions that continue, today, to successfully tax the web giants. Who are you thinking of?
Christians: Well, Austria’s been doing the Digital Service Tax since the beginning. The UK has the Diverted Profits Tax that they’ve been using. Australia has one that’s been enforced. Austria stands out because I think it was 2017, in Trump’s 1st term, and it was part of a group that Trump threatened to retaliate against, but they just quietly kept going and they’re still collecting it. Part of the narrative is that we, Canada, came too late to the DST party. We just weren’t part of that initial negotiation. We came in too late, and then it was too obvious, and people were able to isolate us from the pack.
PW: My understanding is we’re looking at a hypothetical $7.2 billion in revenue over 5 years. And that represents a shortfall that’s going to have to be found either in other revenue sources or in spending cuts, or in greater debt. Aside from the DST, do you think Canada could use a general overhaul of its tax code?
Christians: Always. Yes, absolutely! Taxes are funny, right? Because they come into every single political battle, and what ends up happening is that politicians treat the Tax Act and the tax system as a present-giving machinery, and not as a clear policy deliverance system.
I am, every day, surprised at how complicated the Canadian tax system is. It’s way too complicated. You can’t even fill out your own tax return in this country. You’re going to make mistakes because it’s just too ridiculously written. It’s too confusing. It’s too messy. So it’s time to take another look. But you need a commission [like the 1962 Carter royal commission on taxation]. You need to be bipartisan. You need to spend money on that. You need to think that the things that you do have long-term effects, and this takes political courage. And basically it requires upsetting a bunch of people and resetting things, and we just might not be at the right time politically to be doing that because people feel vulnerable to volatility from abroad. So it may not be the time to push that.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
Quick Hit:
Elon Musk announced Saturday he is forming the “America Party,” claiming it will challenge what he calls the “one-party system” in Washington. The move follows his public split with President Trump and appears aimed at targeting Republicans who supported the president’s domestic agenda.
Key Details:
- Musk announced the America Party on X, declaring that Americans are living under a “one-party system” and need a new political alternative.
- The launch followed his criticism of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill.
- On Independence Day, Musk posted a poll asking if Americans wanted “independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system,” which he cited as support for forming the party.
By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!
When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy.
Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom. https://t.co/9K8AD04QQN
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 5, 2025
Diving Deeper:
Elon Musk formally announced the launch of his new political outfit — the “America Party” — on Saturday, marking a new chapter in his increasingly public clash with Republican leadership.
“When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,” Musk wrote on his platform, X. “Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.”
The announcement comes as tensions between Musk and President Trump have escalated. While Musk previously worked closely with the administration as head of the Department of Government Efficiency, the relationship has deteriorated in the wake of Trump’s push for the One Big Beautiful Bill, a major domestic package that Musk now openly criticizes.
In a series of recent posts, Musk vowed to help primary Republican lawmakers who backed the bill. “They will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth,” he posted earlier this week.
He’s offered few specifics beyond that, other than suggesting the party will “laser-focus” on a handful of Senate and House races in 2026. So far, there’s been no indication of a formal party structure, candidate recruitment, or funding plan.
Critics were quick to compare Musk’s move to Ross Perot’s 1992 presidential bid, which many credit with splitting the conservative vote and aiding Bill Clinton’s election. “You are pulling a Ross Perot, and I don’t like it,” one user reportedly responded on X.
Meanwhile, Trump has reportedly explored options to retaliate. According to multiple reports, the president has discussed whether to revoke federal contracts connected to Musk’s companies and even floated questions about his citizenship. “We’ll have to take a look,” Trump told reporters when asked directly.
While it’s too early to tell whether the America Party will amount to more than a personal platform, the political message is clear: Musk is now openly working against Republicans he once aligned with, and doing so under his own banner.
Elon Musk slams Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ calls for new political party
Canada Caves: Carney ditches digital services tax after criticism from Trump
RFK Jr. says Hep B vaccine is linked to 1,135% higher autism rate
RFK Jr. Unloads Disturbing Vaccine Secrets on Tucker—And Surprises Everyone on Trump
Suspected ambush leaves two firefighters dead in Idaho
The Game That Let Canadians Forgive The Liberals — Again
Alberta Independence Seekers Take First Step: Citizen Initiative Application Approved, Notice of Initiative Petition Issued
-
Agriculture2 days agoLacombe meat processor scores $1.2 million dollar provincial tax credit to help expansion
-
Business1 day agoDallas mayor invites NYers to first ‘sanctuary city from socialism’
-
conflict2 days agoUS airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Was it obliteration?
-
Alberta Sports Hall of Fame and Museum1 day agoAlberta Sports Hall of Fame 2025 Inductee profiles – Alpine Skiing Athlete – Brady Leman
-
Crime1 day agoThe Left Thinks Drug Criminalization Is Racist. Minorities Disagree
-
Carbon Tax20 hours agoCanada’s Carbon Tax Is A Disaster For Our Economy And Oil Industry
-
Daily Caller20 hours agoTrump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Resets The Energy Policy Playing Field
-
Disaster20 hours agoTexas flood kills 43 including children at Christian camp