Opinion
Minister LaGrange Protected Charter And Home Schools Yet Is Being Targeted For Her Nomination
Article submitted by Wyatt Claypool of the National Telegraph
The performance of a lot of Alberta UCP Cabinet Ministers has left a lot to be desired over the past couple of years, but the one Minister that absolutely does not describe would be Red Deer-North MLA Adriana LaGrange.
LaGrange has been genuinely doing amazing work as Education Minister, helping to reform the public education system, and promoting the growth of the charter and homeschooling systems with more support typically monopolized by the public system.
She has also helped focus classrooms back onto straightforward teaching of mathematics and English in grades K-6, as well as started cutting politics out of the social studies curriculum, which she frequently took note of after being appointed Education Minister in April of 2019.
It is concerning that anybody would think that these were appropriate questions for a Gr. 10 Social Studies test. Alberta has a great story to tell about our responsible energy sector, and educators should not be attacking it. We'll get politics out of the classroom. #abed #ableg pic.twitter.com/GXFMNBxnXO
— Adriana LaGrange (@AdrianaLaGrange) November 28, 2019
After The National Telegraph contacted both Parents For Choice In Education and the Alberta Parents Union both pro-school choice and education reform groups had almost nothing but good things to say about Minster LaGrange.
Frankly, an even bigger endorsement of Minister LaGrange’s work is just how much the NDP and left-wing Alberta Teachers Association (ATA) hate her.
Regarding the latter, despite how hostile the ATA has been towards the UCP government and the reforms made to the education system, Minister LaGrange was able to wrangle the ATA into signing a new collective agreement with the province while she simultaneously took away the ATA’s arbitrary power to discipline teachers and gave the responsibility back to the province.

This all raises the question of why someone would want to challenge LaGrange for her nomination.
Well, it seems that certain political organizations new to the scene simply want their people in the legislature.
That organization is Take Back Alberta, which originally campaigned to remove Premier Jason Kenney in the leadership review vote has now moved on to trying to take out anyone associated with Kenney’s government, or at least anyone who hasn’t endorsed their preferred UCP leadership candidate.
Ironically many of the people backing Take Back Alberta are the same political insiders that either helped to install Kenney as UCP leader back in 2017, as well as Erin O’Toole in 2020, and who have contributed to the feeling of alienation within grassroots in conservative politics in Canada.
Take Back Alberta is backing a man named Andrew Clews whose claim to fame is founding an Alberta anti-mandate group called Hold The Line (with only 1,000 followers), and predictably his pitch to UCP members in Red Deer North is that LaGrange is not pro-freedom enough.
In an interview with True North, Clews said:
Even to date, I have not heard (LaGrange) voice any type of support for the rights and freedoms that we once had as Albertans, I’m not impressed with how our government has handled the pandemic, how they have so casually given rights and taken rights away from Albertans…we need to elect leaders to go to the Alberta legislature and stand for freedom.
While most people would agree the UCP government did a poor job standing up for Albertan’s civil liberties over the past two years, it would also be wrongheaded to think Minister LaGrange had much to do with it.
Yes, LaGrange did not stand against Kenney in the strong and principled manner that MLA Drew Barnes did, and while what Barnes did was highly commendable and important, LaGrange was not exactly a big supporter of lockdowns and mandates. She mostly just stuck to her ministerial work while Kenney and other members of his cabinet hard-charged on mandates.
Clews himself even tactically admits that LaGrange never publicly supported the lockdowns and mandates by focusing his criticism on the fact she was not publicly against them, not that she was publicly in favour of them.
On the issue of education, Clews basically endorses the job Adriana LaGrange has been doing as Education Minister.
Clews stated that:
We need to reform the funding for our school system so that the funding goes to the child and follows the child as opposed to going automatically into the public school or Catholic school system…
Frankly, unless Andrew Clews believes that LaGrange should be magically reforming the education system overnight, she is doing exactly what he said he wants to be done, but seeing as she is not the premier, she has had to move slower than she would want to.
Part of LaGrange’s support for charter schools has been making more funds available to them in order to reflect the increase in the proportion of students attending charter schools.
We need to actually evaluate our elected officials on their overall performance and not nitpick on one specific aspect of their record in order to justify throwing them out of office.
I, (the writer of this article), was strongly against lockdowns and mandates, and the reporting I did here at The National Telegraph contributed significantly to protecting unvaccinated workers, as well as getting Dr. Verna Yiu removed from her position as the CEO of AHS for incompetence in the management of ICU beds.

Former AHS CEO Dr. Verna Yiu.
With that in mind, I don’t take much issue with anything LaGrange did or did not say over the last two years. She would be close to the bottom of the list of people I’d hold responsible for the lockdown regime, and on issues regarding education, I’d say her record, for the most part, is unblemished.
Very few politicians could ever be reelected if Adriana LaGrange was someone deemed unworthy of continuing her work in government, but the people behind organizations like Take Back Alberta do not seem to care about any limiting principles. Their goals seem to be more based on political ambition than anything truly connected to the conservative grassroots.
If I was a UCP member in Red Deer North I would be voting to renominate Education Minister Adriana LaGrange.
———
Details on the Red Deer North UCP nomination vote are listed below:
– August 18, 2022
– 11:00am-8:00pm
– The Pines Community Hall
– 141 Pamely Avenue
Great Reset
Are climate-obsessed elites losing their grip over global politics?
From LifeSiteNews
Bill Gates appears to be spearheading a new push towards a Malthusian ‘One Health’ agenda instead of global temperature concerns amid a sudden shift in the climate change narrative.
Guess what, folks? The climate emergency has been cancelled!
That’s right, as my listeners will know by now, no less a personage than famed climate crusader Dr. [sic] Bill Gates is now admitting that climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise“ after all.
As my loyal listeners will also know by now, Gates has his reasons for backtracking on his decades of climate scare-mongering. (SPOILER: it’s not because he’s suddenly realized that the climate scare is a hoax!)
READ: Bill Gates switches stance on climate change, says it won’t bring ‘humanity’s demise’
Unsurprisingly, this very public about-face has caused much hand-wringing in the clique of climate fearmongers. Take Michael Mann – yes, that Michael Mann. He has already penned a lengthy screed to excoriate Bill for raining on the climate doomporn parade.
As for old Billy boy himself, he wants everyone to know that they’re getting him all wrong! ManBearPig is still super cereal, guys! In fact, Bill’s spending on the climate crusade is actually increasing!
But whether Gates’ backpedaling enables him to win him back his climate-fearing friends or not, perhaps the most important part of his new climate message was the timing of its release. You see, “Three tough truths about climate” – the blog announcing his changing views on the climate emergency – was subtitled “What I want everyone at COP30 to know,” and it was released on the eve of COP30, the U.N.’s annual global climate summit.
So, what does this (anthropogenic) tempest in a teapot tell us about the future of the climate scam? Let’s find out.
COP30
In case you hadn’t heard, there’s a party going on in Brazil right now!
… But don’t get too excited; it’s not that kind of party. And, unless you’re part of the globalist jet set, you definitely aren’t invited.
No, the party that’s currently underway is #COP30, aka the “Conference of the Parties,” or the annual global climate change conference put on by the U.N. If you want the real skinny on what the COP is and the role it plays in the nascent global governmental power structure, you need to read my editorial from last November, “THIS is How Global Government is Run (and What’s Coming Next…)”
Long story short: the “Conference of the Parties” is the annual meeting of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Established in Article 7 of the UNFCCC as “the supreme body” of the convention, it is tasked with “[p]eriodically examin[ing] the obligations of the Parties” to the treaty. It also assesses those parties’ climate change mitigation measures and policies and, of course, “mobilize[s] financial resources” to help line the pockets of U.N. kleptocrats … uhhh, I mean, to appease the angry weather gods.
As I pointed out in my editorial last year, since no one ever reads the fine print of bureaucratic documents, the climate technocrats were able to embed all sorts of goodies right there in the rules of procedure for the UNFCCC COP, such as Rule 30:
Meetings of the Conference of the Parties shall be held in public, unless the Conference of the Parties decides otherwise.
And Rule 32:
No one may speak at a meeting of the Conference of the Parties without having previously obtained the permission of the President.
And Rule 42:
Decisions on matters of substance shall be taken by consensus, except that decisions on financial matters shall be taken by a two-thirds majority vote.
READ: Pope Leo’s Vatican quadruples down on support for the green agenda
Just a decade or two ago, when the vast majority of the public still believed that the climate hoax was “settled science” and that scientists would never lie or twist the truth for a political agenda (oh, how naive!), the annual COP was a truly nerve-wracking affair. Each year, this globalist shindig threatened to put another nail in the coffin of national (let alone individual) sovereignty, and brought the world another step closer to a U.N.-led global government.
In fact, the COPpers admitted as much in their own words. For instance, do you recall that, on the eve of the COP15 conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, EU President (and Bilderberg lackey) Herman von Rompuy declared 2009 to be “the first year of global governance” and insisted that the COP in Copenhagen “is another step towards the global management of our planet”?
Back then, when the climate change religion was in the ascendant, it seemed that nothing could derail the globalists and their quest to create a global government on the back of the fake “climate emergency.”
But, interestingly, the cultural tide has shifted in recent years and COP30 is already looking set to be a flop for the climate confabulists.
FLOP30
It’s not just Bill Gates who is spoiling the COP30 party. The U.S. government has already decided it’s not going to send any high-level representatives to this year’s climate hoax conclave.
Even the climate conspirators – perhaps reading the direction the political wind is blowing – have shown themselves reticent to play the game anymore. As of last month, only 64 of the UNFCCC’s 198 parties had even submitted their national plans for cutting greenhouse emissions – plans that are required of each party to the 2015 Paris Agreement. And, according to the climate doom-mongers and corporate fake news repeaters masquerading as “journalists” at The Guardian, those plans that have been submitted “fall drastically short of what is needed to stave off the worst effects of climate breakdown.”
Of course, all of this is made-up nonsense. The COPpers may as well be fretting about how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin or precisely how many unicorn farts are needed to power their trillion-dollar green energy swindle. As Corbett Reporteers know by now, there are dozens of questions that need to be asked (and answered) before we can come to a determination of what “average global temperature“ even means. And that’s not to mention the question of the validity of the temperature records from which such assessments are being made or the reliability of the models that are being used to extrapolate from that dodgy data.
New reports coming out weekly are shining more and more light on how the climate emergency hoax has been perpetrated. This week’s inconvenient truth for the climate fraudsters? A new study demonstrating that reduction in air pollution actually exacerbates global warming.
READ: The real reason why the West is not having children (it’s not just cost of living)
You might expect the fraudsters would be ashamed to continue to lie so brazenly to the public … but if you do expect these power-hungry pathocrats to feel shame over their actions, then you clearly haven’t watched Dissent Into Madness yet. Instead of being remorseful, the psychopathic swindlers are doubling down on their scam, flying to Brazil to put on yet another farce in the name of “saving the earth.”
The first order of analysis – and, sadly, the point at which many critics of the UNFCCC and its “Conference of the Parties” tend to stop – is to simply point out the hypocrisy of the summit’s attendees.
The VIPs fly in on private jets and relax at $1,000/night resorts while they lecture us peons about reducing our comparatively miniscule carbon footprint.
To prepare for the earth-saving event, the Brazilian government felled tens of thousands of acres of Amazon rainforest and destroyed a vital ecosystem so it could build a new highway from the local airport to the summit venue.
In fact, such is the level of hypocrisy on display at these annual soirees that even climate activists have taken to calling it out.
But this isn’t about “hypocrisy,” really. To rephrase something I wrote about Matt Hancock – the Covidiot authoritarian who imposed lockdowns on the U.K. while breaking his own rules to conduct a secret affair – the people who are hectoring and lecturing the public to reduce their carbon footprints aren’t motivated to expand their own footprints out of a cheeky “rules for thee, not for me” mentality. No, they’re doing it because they know the whole “climate emergency” narrative is BS.
In truth, this isn’t about science. It never was. That’s why pesky facts that go against the Angry Weather God religion have been ignored and memory-holed.
Fortunately, more of the public than ever is finally aware that “the science” is not settled. They are waking up to the fact that they’ve been had for the last 40 years by a bunch of Chicken Littles who are not interested in saving the earth but in scaring people into giving over their power to global technocrats.
Hence Bill Gates making his narrative adjustment. Suddenly it’s not about temperature. Now it’s about health! You like health, right?
Given that COP30 is about to belly flop and no one is expecting anything of importance to come out of it, we may be tempted to simply take the win, declare the climate hoax over, and move on to the next news story of the week.
But perhaps we should take a closer look at what’s really happening here before we climate realists throw a party of our own.
STOP30
The first thing to note is that reports of the climate scam’s death may be entirely premature. For those poor, deluded souls who still believe that the new BRICS multipolar world order is going to save us from the dastardly Western technocrats, you might want to read up on how the BRICS are now introducing “multipolar” carbon markets in the name of keeping the 2030 agenda on track.
But what do we make, then, of prominent climate technocrats like Bill Gates seemingly changing narrative tack on the climate doomsday scenario?
Yes, Gates is flipping the Angry Weather God script. He realizes that the public is no longer buying the absurd theory that CO₂ is some magical thermostat with which we can dial the “global average temperature” up and down as desired. Thus, he suddenly wants us to know that temperature isn’t the best way of measuring the impact of climate change. Now, he wants us to concentrate on a different metric: improving lives.
READ: UN to launch ‘disinformation’ taskforce to silence critics of globalist Agenda 2030
This is a chance to refocus on the metric that should count even more than emissions and temperature change: improving lives. Our chief goal should be to prevent suffering, particularly for those in the toughest conditions who live in the world’s poorest countries.
And you know what? If Gates were to stop there, he’d actually be right (more or less). Regardless of the tenths of a degree (tenths of a degree, I tell you!) of “global average temperature” change that may (or may not) have taken place in the post-industrial era, the real point is to enhance the quality of people’s lives in a warming (or cooling) world. To this we might add that the quality of the environment and the well-being of animal life is another relevant factor, but otherwise, this is a much more sensible approach than that of the climate apocalypticists, who insist we must end industrial civilization and eat bugs (or Impossible Burgers) and live in locked-down 15-minute cities to prevent some long-predicted but never-arriving temperature rise.
Of course, as I discussed in my recent appearance on The Jimmy Dore Show, Gates has his own motivations – financial and otherwise – for this change of heart.
As it turns out, Gates is not interested in genuine human well-being. He’s interested in demolishing any roadblocks to the erection of power-hungry AI data centers, and he’s also interested in continuing the climate agenda under another guise: One Health.
You see, the climate agenda was never actually about temperatures or greenhouse gases or preventing a climate emergency. That was just the codswallop that was forced down the public’s throat to create a cadre of true believers (a.k.a. useful idiots) who would be willing to push the real agenda.
The real agenda was always about control. It was about the ability to confine people to their designated eco-ghettos while the real rulers of the planet jet about overhead, monopolizing the earth’s natural resources. It was about imprisoning us neo-feudal peasants in our climate hovels to eke out a subsistence living from the carbon rations doled out to us under the new global government’s Universal Basic Enslavement program.
That’s the vision that the climate technocrats (and their poor, deluded true believers) have been working toward.
So, even if Gates is swapping in a new metric for measuring progress toward that technocratic goal, he isn’t changing the goal itself. Now, he (and no doubt some of his globalist compatriots) will start focusing on the next iteration of this scam: the Malthusian, anti-human “One Health” agenda.
In short: Yes, COP30 is turning into FLOP30. The global government will not be announced in the freshly cleared Amazonian rainforest. In fact, few will pay any attention to anything that comes out of this year’s climate confab.
But that does not mean that the fight against the globalist technocrats is over. On the contrary, we’re just entering into a new stage of that conflict.
READ: Pope Leo XIV warns ‘world is burning’ from ‘global warming’ at first ‘Care of Creation’ Mass
Remember: this isn’t about “equilibrium climate sensitivity” or the inaccuracy of climate models or the non-existence of weather stations. It’s about the attempt to create a one world government. And if the global warming fairytale isn’t working for the technocrats anymore, they’ll just tell us a new fairytale until we stop listening to them altogether.
This is not the time to pat ourselves on the back. We can’t rest on our laurels yet. Rather, now we must redouble our efforts to warn people about this new scam and inform them that it is (at base) the same as the old scam.
Reprinted with permission from The Corbett Report.
Business
Nearly One-Quarter of Consumer-Goods Firms Preparing to Exit Canada, Industry CEO Warns Parliament
Standing Committee on Industry and Technology hears stark testimony that rising costs and stalled investment are pushing companies out of the Canadian market.
There’s a number that should stop this country cold: twenty-three percent. That is the share of companies in one of Canada’s essential manufacturing and consumer-goods sectors now preparing to withdraw products from the Canadian market or exit entirely within the next two years. And this wasn’t whispered at a business luncheon or buried in a consultancy memo. It was delivered straight to Parliament, at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, during its study on Canada’s underlying productivity gaps and capital outflow.
Michael Graydon, the CEO of Food, Health & Consumer Products of Canada, didn’t hedge or soften the message. He told MPs, “23% of our members expect to exit products from the Canadian marketplace within the next two years, because the cost of doing business here has just become unsustainable.”
Unsustainable. That’s the word he used. And when the people who actually make things in this country start using that word, you should pay attention. These aren’t fringe players or hypothetical startups. These are firms that supply the goods Canadians buy every single day, and they’re looking at their balance sheets, their regulatory burdens, the delays in getting anything approved or built, and concluding that Canada simply doesn’t work for them anymore.
What makes this more troubling is the timing. Canada’s investment levels have been falling for years, even as the United States and other competitors race ahead. Businesses aren’t reinvesting in machinery or technology at the rate they once did. They’re not modernizing their operations here. They’re putting expansion plans on hold or shifting them to jurisdictions that move faster, cost less and offer clearer rules. That’s not ideology; it’s arithmetic. If it costs more to operate here, if it takes longer to get a permit, and if supply chains back up because ports and rail lines are jammed, investors will choose the place that doesn’t make growth a bureaucratic mountain climb.
Graydon raised another point that ought to concern anyone who cares about domestic production. Canada’s agrifood sector recorded a sixty-billion-dollar trade surplus last year, one of the brightest spots in the national economy, but according to him that potential is being “diluted by fragmented interprovincial trade and logistics bottlenecks.” The ports, the rail corridors, the entire transport network—choke points everywhere. And you can’t build a productive economy on choke points. Companies can’t scale, can’t guarantee delivery, can’t justify the costs. So they leave.
This twenty-three percent figure is the clearest evidence yet that the problem isn’t theoretical. It’s not something for think-tank panels or academic papers. It is happening at the level that matters most: the decision whether to continue doing business in Canada or move operations somewhere more predictable. And once those decisions are made, they’re very hard to reverse. Capital doesn’t boomerang back out of patriotism. It goes where it can earn a return.
For years, Canadian policymakers have talked about productivity as if it were a moral failing of workers or a mystical national characteristic. It’s neither. Productivity comes from investment—real money poured into equipment, technology, training and expansion. When investment stalls, productivity collapses. And when a quarter of firms in a major sector are already planning their exit, you are not looking at a temporary dip. You are looking at a structural rejection of the business environment itself.
The fact that executives are now openly warning Parliament that they cannot afford to stay is a moment of clarity. It is also a test. Either this country becomes a place where people can build things again—quickly, affordably, competitively—or it continues down the path that leads to empty factories, hollowed-out supply chains and consumers who wonder why the shelves look thinner every year.
Twenty-three percent is not just a statistic. It’s the sound of a warning bell ringing at full volume. The only question now is whether anyone in charge hears it.
-
Alberta1 day agoCalgary mayor should retain ‘blanket rezoning’ for sake of Calgarian families
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoSports 50/50 Draws: Make Sure You Read The Small Print
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta Offers Enormous Advantages for AI Data Centres
-
espionage2 days agoTrump says release the Epstein files
-
COVID-191 day agoNew report warns Ottawa’s ‘nudge’ unit erodes democracy and public trust
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoQuebec City faces lawsuit after cancelling Christian event over “controversial” artist
-
Alberta1 day agoNational Crisis Approaching Due To The Carney Government’s Centrally Planned Green Economy
-
Daily Caller20 hours ago‘Holy Sh*t!’: Podcaster Aghast As Charlie Kirk’s Security Leader Reads Texts He Allegedly Sent University Police




