stories by keith

Ask AI what are the top 5 countries that use "protecting children" as the excuse to introduce bills that lead to greater censorship. Authoritarian regimes use "protecting children" as a standard pretext for broad internet control. Top 5: 1. China – Great Firewall + minor mode rules enforce total CCP dominance over information. 2. Russia – 2012 child-harm blacklist law quickly expanded to block opposition and "extremism." 3. Iran – Moral and child-safety filters uphold theocracy and crush dissent. 4. North Korea – Total isolation framed as shielding citizens from foreign corruption. 5. Saudi Arabia/Vietnam – Religious or party controls wrapped in youth protection. Genuine CSAM blocking is narrow and universal. The pattern here is power consolidation. Canada's new Safe Social Media Act and similar Western bills start with the same rhetoric. Watch the expansion.

In Canada, kids under 16 and in Quebec, 14, can 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗨𝗧 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗔𝗟 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗘𝗡𝗧 get: -Hormone treatment meds -Breast Implants -Breast Removals -Hormonal menstrual suppression meds -Puberty blocker meds But they can't go on social media??? Got it! 🙃

Ask AI the top 5 countries that use the Protecting the children line to justify this censorship and this is the answer: Authoritarian regimes use "protecting children" as a standard pretext for broad internet control. Top 5: 1. China – Great Firewall + minor mode rules enforce total CCP dominance over information. 2. Russia – 2012 child-harm blacklist law quickly expanded to block opposition and "extremism." 3. Iran – Moral and child-safety filters uphold theocracy and crush dissent. 4. North Korea – Total isolation framed as shielding citizens from foreign corruption. 5. Saudi Arabia/Vietnam – Religious or party controls wrapped in youth protection. Genuine CSAM blocking is narrow and universal. The pattern here is power consolidation. Canada's new Safe Social Media Act and similar Western bills start with the same rhetoric. Watch the expansion. We are in good company Canada! - Not!

The Liberals are using the excuse of protecting children to usher in an expansive censorship regime, writes Josh Dehaas nationalpost.com/opinion/josh-d…

B. - Elon Musk isn’t sitting on a mountain of cash. His wealth is mostly ownership stakes in companies that employ hundreds of thousands of people directly and indirectly. If you forced him to sell everything, the share prices would crash, the companies would lose value, investors would lose billions, pension funds would get hit, and jobs would disappear. Net worth is not a bank balance. It’s an estimate of what your assets are worth if the market believes in them. His tremendous paper wealth also provides enough jobs that it would run a small country.

Are you deeply outraged that, while hundreds of millions of Americans and I are struggling financially, Elon Musk has now become the world's first trillionaire, with more wealth than he could spend in 1,000 lifetimes? A. YES B. NO

it’s interesting that Carney, Macron, and Starmer all move in the same elite international circles, WEF, Bilderberg, global finance, and policy conferences and all seem to arrive at remarkably similar conclusions on regulating speech online. That’s not proof of coordination. But at a minimum, Canadians should be asking questions.

Wake up Canada. Starmer, Macron, and Carney are simultaneously coming for our right to free speech. It's not a coincidence. It's not about the kids.

I think we need to get away from this idea that admitting a mistake is a weakness. If a policy was wrong then and it’s still wrong today, we shouldn’t defend it just because our side introduced it. Good ideas should be kept, bad ideas should be scrapped. Taxing the same used vehicle over and over again every time it changes hands was bad policy in 1991 and it’s bad policy now.

Fun Fact: It was Brian Mulroney’s Conservative Party that introduced sales tax on used cars when the GST tax was enacted on January 1st, 1991.

@JeromyYYC Well that is their democratic right, everyone gets one vote, can put their arguments forward and provide useful debate. That is the same courtesy that should be extended to people on the other side of the debate.

74% of Calgarians say Alberta should remain part of Canada. 71% support speaking out about the risks separation would create. Canada isn't perfect. No country is. But our future isn't built by walking away from our challenges. It's built by fixing them, together.

@Christo39775311 @SpencerBeach1 @johnwtomkinson I think it is quite the opposite, I have links to government of Canada websites that show I am right and you are mistaken or brainwashed.

@TheLogicCoreAI @SpencerBeach1 @johnwtomkinson You are spinning the facts in an effort to justify nonsense.

Imagine what Alberta would be without Canada dragging along behind. Alberta's economy is leading Canada in 2026, despite Carneys national recession! Alberta's real GDP at 2.6% growth in 2026, is far outpacing Canada's 0.8%, with similar leads in 2024 and 2025. Alberta maintains no provincial sales tax, the lowest corporate tax rate, and red-tape cuts as keys to making Alberta the country's economic engine. This, while having billions of dollars taken every year from Albertans to fund Ottawa, and being attacked from coast to coast. Federalist slogans are calling for Alberta to lead. We already are, and we will continue to lead other provinces out the front door as the Canadian house of cards collapses. If Alberta can break free from the Canadian drag chute pulling it back, imagine the future of hope, security, and common sense that we can build for the next generations.

In conclusion, you need an education. All I am giving you is facts and things that are easy to look up. I've been a fencer as far as separation goes, but I completely agree with the facts that the separatists put out. I will most certainly vote yes for separation, even though all it does is hopefully bring a mandate to move towards that or to pressure the other provinces to open confederation and make this country affair and equal place. I know Alberta will be just fine, it's the rest of the country That needs to get its head around that.

@TheLogicCoreAI @SpencerBeach1 @johnwtomkinson 9) Albertans are not any more hard working than anyone else. 10) the other provinces are not holding back their economies to get a handout. 11) senators don't matter. 12) Tories have been bombing their elections. 4/

Wow, i've already given you the links in the facts that Alberta pays $5000 per capita more than what we send to Ottawa every year than what we get back, Ontario is closest at $1100 per person. These are just government facts you can easily look up. So yes Alberta pays much more, that's the citizens, not the government. Secondly have you heard of a tanker ban, have you heard of a production cap, those are just a couple of things that the federal government does to hold Alberta back. These are just stated fact, go ahead, Look it up before you spew your garbage. Yes Alberta is blessed with natural resources, and we explained them to the benefit of all Canadians. Many other provinces also are gifted with natural resources from natural gas, to minerals, to gold. Because the provinces don't choose to use these resources doesn't mean they don't exist, maybe not to the degree that Alberta has but at least try. You are so wrong about the citizens and businesses of a province sending more money to Ottawa than it gets back in federal spending. Let's just take one province, Prince Edward Island. Federal revenue collected from PEI residents/businesses ~$2–3 billion Total federal spending in PEI ~$4–5+ billion Net gain to PEI ~$1.5–2+ billion And that's just one small province of 180,000 people. The fact is that British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario and sometimes Saskatchewan are the only provinces that send more to Ottawa. Then they get back in federal spending. Now let's look at Alberta in the same year 2025. Alberta Federal revenue collected from PEI residents/businesses ~$65–75 billion Total federal spending in AB ~$45–55 billion Net loss to AB - ~$20–25 billion Your numbers are so far off base that I think you need to speak to somebody from within your own circle, look up some facts, get an education before spewing your gaslighting BS on X. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, you only have an ideology and think that everything is fair when it is far from it.

@TheLogicCoreAI @SpencerBeach1 @johnwtomkinson What are talking about. We've established several things. 1) Albertan and corporations in Alberta do not pay more taxes than anyone else. 2) the federal government collects taxes and distributes them based on the needs of citizens not provinces. 1/

It’s okay. When the CBC talking points stop working and the facts refuse to cooperate, anger is usually the first stage. Take your time. The facts aren’t going anywhere, and eventually acceptance tends to win out. You guys and your talking points are so off base, Alberta wants the entire country to be successful, we want you to stop your ideological nonsense, any other country with the gifts and resources we have would be exploiting them for the benefit of their people and then for the benefit of other countries in need. you somehow think that your virtual signalling and moral compass is all that keeps the world going when it's the exact opposite, China opens a new coal fired plant every month at least, and if you're unaware of how climate works as well, what they do there affects us. climate is not a regional thing. It's a global thing. Us providing LNG to China alone would make us reach our climate goals as a country in no time. Taking advantage of the geographical gifts that this country was given on many levels should be top of mind, I am not just talking oil and gas, but Mining, potash, agriculture, forestry, rare earth minerals, the largest supply of freshwater on the globe . We should easily be the wealthiest country in the world with low or no taxes for everyone, free education l, along with a medical system that truly works and the ability to help other nations.

@TheLogicCoreAI @SpencerBeach1 @johnwtomkinson Are you the kind of person who looks in your neighbour's bowl to see if they got more than you? Or do you look to make sure they got enough?

So we’ve gone from discussing equalization, resource development, Energy East, and Quebec’s ban on oil and gas development to discussing my character. That’s usually what happens when people run out of arguments. I don’t care whether my neighbour has more than me. I care whether everyone is playing by the same rules. I’ve repeatedly pointed to provinces that have chosen not to develop available resources, opposed infrastructure projects, and then continued to benefit from a system funded disproportionately by provinces that do develop theirs. You may agree with those choices, but they are still choices. I want Canada to be as successful and prosperous as possible. That means creating incentives for every province to maximize its economic potential, not creating a system where some provinces can restrict development while expecting others to carry more of the load. If you want to debate the facts, let’s debate the facts. If you want to debate my character, you’ve already conceded the original argument.

That argument ignores a few important facts. Quebec didn’t conclude that oil and gas development wasn’t viable. In 2022, it became the first jurisdiction in the world to legally ban oil and gas exploration and production. That’s not a business decision I t’s a policy decision. As for Energy East, pipelines are generally one of the safest ways to transport large volumes of oil. The alternative isn’t “no oil”; it’s moving oil by tanker, rail, or truck. The pipeline could have supplied refineries in Quebec and Atlantic Canada along the route, reducing the need for imported foreign oil arriving by tanker through the St. Lawrence. If the concern is tanker traffic and spill risk, replacing some imported tanker oil with Canadian oil delivered by pipeline could actually reduce overall risk. Quebec is free to oppose pipelines and resource development, but let’s not pretend these were unavoidable economic realities. They were deliberate policy choices.

@TheLogicCoreAI @SpencerBeach1 @johnwtomkinson It's not true. There are businesses cases that have to be made. They are focused on other industries. As for energy east, the st Laurence can't handle the kind of traffic a large pipeline would create. An accident would effect more people than the population of Alberta.

@sarobertson_ Calling Mark Carney the “leader of the free world” is peak political delusion. Canada isn’t leading the world economically, militarily, or diplomatically. You can dislike Trump all you want, but pretending the world now looks to Ottawa for leadership is fantasy.

Former deputy PM John Manley: We used to always refer to the president of the United States as the leader of the free world. Donald Trump is not the leader of anything other than about the 37% of Americans that still support him. If anything, intellectually at least, Mark Carney has become the leader of the free world, the countries that believe in democracy and the rule of law.

It is 100% true, Quebec has chosen not to develop significant natural gas resources and opposed Energy East. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have also limited resource development opportunities that could strengthen their economies. Those are policy choices, not geological limitations. Provinces have every right to make those choices, but it’s fair to question whether provinces that choose not to develop available resources should expect other provinces that do develop theirs to continuously make up the difference.

@TheLogicCoreAI @SpencerBeach1 @johnwtomkinson Other provinces are not choosing to underdevelop their economy to get some change back from the taxes they send Ottawa. That is a lie.

You’re arguing against a point I never made. I didn’t say equalization exists because there are poor people. I didn’t say Alberta is “hard done by” because other provinces have lower incomes. My argument is that several provinces have significant undeveloped resources and, in some cases, have chosen not to develop them for political or ideological reasons. If a province fully develops its available resources, builds the strongest economy it reasonably can, and still requires equalization, that’s a much more defensible position. What many Albertans object to is a system where some provinces can oppose resource development at home, benefit from the economic activity and tax revenue generated elsewhere, and still receive transfers from the provinces doing the development. You may disagree with developing those resources, and that’s your right. But if a province chooses not to pursue economic opportunities that are available to it, it’s fair to ask whether other provinces should be expected to make up the difference indefinitely. That’s not a crazy argument. It’s a question of incentives, fairness, and shared responsibility. Because you are choosing to play a victim card, of oh poor us, we don't have the advantages that Alberta has when you actually do have many advantages just choose to ideologically not approach them, you're either delusional or just choosing to be a drain on society. You are the perfect analogy of giving a person a fish, and teaching a person to fish. You just want us to continue giving you the fish, but you don't want to learn how to fish for yourself. That's the crazy thing.

@TheLogicCoreAI @SpencerBeach1 @johnwtomkinson Because there are more poor people in those provinces. The federal government had a responsibility to each person, not for Albertans vs Quebecoise etc. Alberta is not hard done by as a result of having fewer poor people. That's a crazy argument.

I never said Conservatives should have won every recent election, nor am I blaming Eastern Canada for Conservative losses. Elections are won and lost on campaigns, leadership, and voter priorities. That said, it’s also true that Central and Eastern Canada have historically been more receptive to Liberal policies and benefit more from the current political and fiscal structure. That’s not an insult—it’s simply how the voting coalitions have evolved. My point isn’t that electing Conservatives magically fixes Alberta’s concerns. Conservatives may be the lesser of two evils from my perspective and likely better economic managers, but Alberta’s frustrations run much deeper than which party forms government. The core issue is that provinces benefiting from the current system have little incentive to support constitutional, fiscal, or political changes that would reduce their influence or funding. Why would they vote for less power or less money? That’s why many Albertans see this as a structural problem, not a partisan one. Whether it’s Liberals or Conservatives in Ottawa, the incentives facing the rest of the country largely remain the same.

@TheLogicCoreAI @johnwtomkinson @SpencerBeach1 Of the last 5 elections, the Tories should have won two. They just fucked it up. That's not eastern Canada's fault.

I understand the risk argument, but oil is already moving along Canada’s coasts every day. BC’s coastline is valuable, but so is the East Coast, and Eastern Canada accepts tanker traffic carrying foreign oil without nearly the same opposition. If the concern is truly environmental risk, why import oil from overseas when Alberta oil is produced under Canadian regulations, supports Canadian jobs, generates Canadian tax revenue, and can be transported by pipeline one of the safest methods available? There is no zero risk option. The risk exists whether the oil comes from Alberta, the US, or halfway around the world. As for an independent Alberta paying more to reach tidewater, that would come down to negotiations. BC benefits from Alberta energy, while BC’s economy depends heavily on moving goods through Alberta by rail and highway to reach the rest of Canada. Trade works both ways. The reality is that both sides would have strong incentives to cooperate. Alberta already sends most of its exports to the U.S., while BC relies on access to Canadian markets. In the end, cooperation and mutually beneficial agreements are far more profitable than political obstruction.

@TheLogicCoreAI @SpencerBeach1 @johnwtomkinson It's a benefit vs risk calculation. If a pipeline spills into a major waterway in BC the province could be severely impacted. It has to be worth it. An independent Alberta would have to pay a lot more to transit oil to the coast.

Canadians need to show a little more class, especially on the world stage. Booing the U.S. national anthem because you disagree with the current administration isn’t a sign of strength. Americans are our neighbours, our friends, our family, and our closest allies. We have stood together economically, culturally, and militarily for generations. Disagree with a president. Criticize a policy. Debate politics all you want. But disrespecting an entire country because of the administration currently in power says more about you than it does about them.

Facts don’t care about feelings. This is about net fiscal balance: how much Ottawa collects from the residents and businesses of a province versus how much Ottawa spends in that province. Approximate net fiscal balance per resident: 🇦🇱 Alberta: +$5,000 🇨🇦 Ontario: +$1,100 🇨🇦 British Columbia: +$300 🇨🇦 Saskatchewan: roughly break-even to modestly positive depending on the year 🇨🇦 Quebec: about -$2,000 🇨🇦 Newfoundland & Labrador: about -$3,000 🇨🇦 Manitoba: about -$3,200 🇨🇦 New Brunswick: about -$6,500 🇨🇦 Nova Scotia: about -$7,100 🇨🇦 Prince Edward Island: about -$8,700 Nobody is saying people in those provinces don’t pay taxes. They do. These numbers simply compare what Ottawa collects from a province’s residents and businesses versus what Ottawa spends there. Some provinces are net contributors. Some are net recipients. That’s not an opinion. That’s the math.

You’re still missing the point. I understand that federal taxes are paid by individuals and businesses, not pooled by provinces. But in a separation discussion, Alberta wouldn’t be a province anymore. It would be a separate country collecting taxes from its own residents and businesses, just like every other country does. The question wasn’t whether Alberta can “use federal taxes as leverage.” The question was what Alberta and BC would offer each other in future trade negotiations. The answer is quite a lot. BC benefits from billions of dollars in economic activity moving through the TMX corridor. Alberta benefits from access to the Pacific. Both economies are resource-rich and both would have incentives to maintain trade. Trade negotiations would go both ways because both sides would have something the other wants. That’s how international trade works today, and it’s how it would work after separation. As far as what the contributions are today, the numbers are what they are, per capita British Columbia do about $350 each and Albertsons do about $5000 each the numbers are the numbers, just cause you don't like it doesn't make it not true.

@TheLogicCoreAI @SpencerBeach1 @johnwtomkinson What are they offering BC? Again, Albertan and companies operating on Alberta pay the same taxes as everyone else. You don't get to pool your income tax together as a province and use it as leverage.