955 – Transcript

Just Right Episode 955

Air Date: March 11, 2026

Host: Bob Metz

Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this program are those of the participants.

Clip (Red Planet Mars):

Bob Metz:
Welcome everyone, it is Wednesday, March 11th, 2026. I’m Bob Metz, and this is Just Right, broadcasting around the world and online. Join us for an hour of discussion that’s not right wing, it’s just right.

So what’s worse than war? Dictatorship and tyranny. Wars are the second greatest evil that human societies can perpetuate. The first is dictatorship, the enslavement of their own citizens, which is the cause of wars. And so said Ayn Rand so many, many years ago. Since last week’s bombing of Iran, talk of regime change has been dominating social media, and the discussion is an extremely confusing one because regime change is always generally being discussed in abstract terms and completely lacking in context. It is said that, you know, we never learn from history, but perhaps I’m beginning to think that it’s more accurate to say that some of the lessons we do learn from history are just completely in error. Like, you know, we did learn a lesson, but just the wrong one.

And while all eyes are on America and Iran, most of the world was entirely blind to the regime changes, yes I’m speaking of more than one, occurring north of the American border, namely in Canada. And in light of the principles, we reviewed and established on the show last week, in particular regarding any nation’s non-existent right to exist and how the use of physical force is essential to governance. Our show this week will broaden that discussion to the debate about regime change as a concept in general.

During last week’s audio bite segment, where Matt Walsh correctly described how the ability of any nation to defend itself through the use of force is a prerequisite to its legitimacy as a nation, I couldn’t help but think of Canada throughout his entire commentary. And I didn’t bring it up last week for fear of going down another rabbit hole that our time constraints just wouldn’t give me enough time to crawl out of. So instead, we’re going to make that jump during today’s presentation, which begins right after our reminder that you can write us at feedback@justrightmedia.org. Hear us on WBCQ and on channel 292 shortwave. Follow and like us on your favorite podcast platform and visit us at justrightmedia.org, where you can access all of our social media links, archive broadcasts, and the support button that makes it easy for you to support the show. Because as always, your financial support is appreciated and is what makes this show possible.

Clip (Dallas Brodie):
Hi everyone, Dallas Brodie here. This is a 911, an SOS, a Mayday announcement to my riding of Vancouver-Quilchena, and all the other ridings that are located within the Lower Mainland. The federal government has now granted Aboriginal title over all of the Lower Mainland to the Musqueam Indian Band. The Musqueam Indian Band has approximately 1,250 members.

They have a chief named Wayne Sparrow, and I guess he is now the owner of Aboriginal title over your properties. This announcement has been buried in the mainstream media, but was discovered by Juno News and released on Friday. It’s interesting that this was secretly leaked out by the federal government just when things were heating up in the Middle East, and late on a Friday it came out. This is an astounding story and something that should have all of you waking up and taking notice. Your title to your property is now subordinate to the Aboriginal title that has now been given to the Musqueam Indian Band over almost all of the Lower Mainland.

Bob Metz:
Well, talk about regime change. So don’t be surprised if somebody tries to argue that the bombings in Iran were carried out just to be a distraction from another regime change imposed by the stroke of a pen.

Yep, that’s how it can happen. Dallas Brodie is a Canadian politician and former lawyer who has served as the interim leader of OneBC since 2025, and has served as a member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia representing the electoral district of Vancouver-Quilchena since 2024. Meanwhile, in the province of Alberta, support for a regime change in the form of separating from the country of Canada is at its highest level in history.

We’ll be taking a much closer look at each of these Canadian events later in the show and at the surprising common issue that connects Alberta’s situation to the one in BC. I’m raising these issues now just to give you a couple of examples of different kinds of regime changes and to establish the recognition of a principle that applies to this context, and that is this. Regime change is a perpetual phenomenon. Regime stability is the rarity when contrasted against the known political history of mankind. And right now, and understandably so, the regime change that has gripped the world’s attention is the one occurring in Iran. It’s a good bet that those who have been closely following events there have been watching wave after wave of social media reports regarding Trump’s actions on that front. And to many people, the very idea of regime change is a terrifying prospect with its potential for breaking out into a war that would directly impact them and that would make the world a worse place in which to live.

But is it true? Regime change has a history of destructive regimes being replaced by better ones, says Dinesh D’Souza on his March 2nd podcast, with which we shall kick off today’s conversation right now.

Dinesh D’Souza:
Regime change has a history of repressive, dangerous, and destructive regimes being replaced by better ones. The story is not an uncheckered one, sometimes regime change turns out for the worse. Regime change has gotten such a bad name in recent years, even on the right, and perhaps especially on the right, that it’s helpful to remind ourselves of the times and places where regime change has worked wonderfully. I’ll start with the American Revolution. Regime change, the British are forcibly ejected, and America seizes control of its own destiny.

Hey, that worked out pretty well, didn’t it? Writing as a champion of the American Revolution, the English essayist Tom Paine wrote, We have it in our power to make the world all over again. That is the hopeful resonance slogan of regime change.

Good can prevail over evil, things can get better if we act to make it happen. Incidentally, the French intervened to help us get there. That’s probably the last time the French did something useful in the world.

Fast forward to the middle of the 19th century. Texas used to be a part of Mexico, and the Mexicans broke faith with the Texans, so the independent republic regime change. And it was a good one because the Mexicans in Texas had far more rights than the Mexicans in Mexico.

Nine years later, Texas joined the United States and claimed its border at the Rio Grande. The Mexicans refused. This was the start of the Mexican War, 1845 to 1848. The United States intervened on behalf of Texas and defeated Mexico.

Texas got its full territory back and now became part of the United States. Again, regime change. The Civil War, 1861 to 1865, produced its own regime change, or changes.

In reaction to Republicans winning the election of 1860, the South created its own nation founded on slavery. Regime change. But this was problematic because, hey, you don’t get to break away from a country just because you lost the last election. It took the Union armies four years to unify the country by forcibly reintegrating the rebel states. Again, regime change, and some southerners are still unhappy about it. But I’m not because that’s how we got today’s America, a great and powerful republic that became the largest economy in the world in the 19th century and the world’s sole superpower in the 20th. We can’t make America great again if we didn’t have a great and powerful country to revive in the first place.

The Ottoman Empire, which lasted 400 years, was finally dismembered by the Allies in World War I. It was the last of the great Islamic empires. Regime change. And of course, a good one because it ended the era of Islamic caliphates.

World War II offers many examples of regime change. The Asia and North Africa are the most notable examples of regime change. The United States intervened directly to force regime change in Japan and Germany, even to the extent of rebuilding those countries and rewriting the constitution. And the results have been excellent.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the United States won the Cold War. This produced regime change across Eastern Europe, in Poland, in Hungary, in Czechoslovakia, in Romania, in Bulgaria, and in every case, it was a big improvement over communist rule. Eventually, regime change reached the Soviet Union itself when Soviet communism collapsed.

Now, whatever problems Russia has had with Putin’s authoritarianism or gangster capitalism, who can argue that the collapse of the Soviet empire was not a good thing for us, for the world, and for the Russian people themselves. So the United States has a very good record when it comes to regime change. Why then the antipathy to regime change?

Well, mostly it comes from two cases, Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, there are some sobering lessons here, but in neither case was regime change itself the problem. The problem was how we went about achieving regime change. It was about what we did after the regime change. In both cases, responsible neoconservatism gave way to neocon idiocy. We did incompetent regime change.

Consider Afghanistan. Surely it was right for the United States, after 9/11, to remove the regime that was the host nation for the attacks. We were right to drive the Taliban into the mountains. But then we should have installed the opposition made up of rival tribes that hated the Taliban and gotten out. The Taliban were 12th century anti-American tribesmen. We should have replaced them with 12th century pro-American tribesmen. Instead, we tried to run their country to administer their tribal councils to make Kabul into Philadelphia. Big mistake. We blew it. The Taliban regrouped and they are now back in power.

Iraq was an even bigger mistake for which the Bush gang, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, are to blame. We should never have invaded Iraq because Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction. Once again, we tried to impose parliamentary democracy there. Once again, we failed. But even here, America could have remedied its original mistake by replacing Saddam Hussein with rival thugs. Thugs who would do our bidding and protect our interests. We didn’t do that. We tried to run the place ourselves.

Now for young people with short memories of Afghanistan and Iraq are all they know and remember. These young people reject regime change because of these two isolated examples which do not prove that regime change is a bad idea, but only that there is a bad way of going about regime change and we should not be stupid enough to go down that road again. Trump, of course, knows this. He campaigned from the outset of on keeping America out of unnecessary long lasting foreign wars and entanglements.

Now let’s talk about Iran and regime change. The Mullahs came to power in 1979 as a result of regime change. They were part of a revolution to overthrow the Shah. It’s worth recalling that the United States under Jimmy Carter helped to bring about this regime change. We were allied with the Shah. Carter pulled the Persian rug out from under the Shah. That’s how we got Khomeini. So here is a crucial lesson in foreign intervention in trying to get rid of the bad guy. Try to make sure you don’t get the worst guy.

For Carter’s role in this debacle, I give him the Presidential Nincumpoopery Award. He was perhaps the biggest fool we’ve had in the White House, although there are other contenders for the title. The upshot of the Iran debacle is that for the first time, radical Islam got a hold of a major state. Previously, radical Islam was merely made up of ragtag outfits, but now it had a country and an important country with a great history, and oil wealth and a smart educated population.

For the past half century, Iran has been a menace to the United States. It has murdered our citizens, taken Americans hostage, terrorized our embassies, assaulted our allies, not just Israel, but also other Muslim countries and undermined our policy goals and interests throughout the Americas and Mexico, in Venezuela and elsewhere. What makes Iran so dangerous is that its power is wedded to a revolutionary ideology that scorns death. Champions martyrdom seeks nothing less than the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate. Iran seeks to become a nuclear power to help them achieve this end goal. This is not my view of them, it is their view of them. They affirm it in word and deed and have done so since 1979.

Now, ordinarily, America would have to deal with Iran by itself. And this is not easy, because America’s record in fighting radical Islam is terrible. But to our unbelievable, good luck, Israel also has an interest in getting rid of the Mullahs in Iran. The Jews live in that bad neighborhood, they understand their enemies, they know how to deal with them. Moreover, Israel has every justification. Iran was one of the main planners and funders of the October 7 attack. So, Israel isn’t preemptively striking Iran, Israel is legitimately striking back.

Some people think America is getting involved to do Israel’s bidding. But here’s a case where Israel’s interest happily converges with our own. Not only that, but Israel is taking the brunt of the fight. Israel pulverized Iran in the 12-day attack and the United States simply joined for 48 hours by striking the key nuclear facilities. Even now, Israel is spearheading the assault on America’s participating with and behind them.

America First is not a recipe for isolation. America First means we should not get involved in unnecessary wars. It means we should avoid long-term protracted entanglements. America First does not mean ignore the world and focus only on domestic issues. America First recognizes the world is a dangerous place and we have allies and adversaries. America First means promoting American interests and getting our allies to help us do it. If our allies benefit too, all the better, because this way they will be more motivated to help us achieve our objectives.

Our objective here is to replace the world’s greatest terrorist state, the most anti-American regime in the world, with a stable, prosperous, pro-American Iran governed as they wish by the Iranian people themselves.

Let’s throw the bums out and give Iran back to the Iranians. They are smart people with ample resources. We don’t have to run their country. They can take it from here.

We have the opportunity with Israel’s help to deal radical Islam its greatest blow. To take away from radical Islam the one major state it still controls.

And we have the Muslim country, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Gulf kingdoms, even Qatar behind us. If we’re successful this will be our greatest triumph since the Cold War, perhaps even since World War II. This will be regime change, but not Bush style, Trump style, regime change in the tradition of the American founding and World War II and the Cold War. Trump becomes our greatest president in the 21st century. We become the good guys in the world again.

This is an anti-maga. It is maga. It’s one way that we make America great again. With Trump at the helm we’re achieving something great for the Iranian people and for the Muslims in the region and for Israel and for America. The only people who are mourning regime change in Iran are the Mullahs, the Democrats, and Tucker Carlson. And that’s the way I see it.

Bob Metz:
Ouch! Poor Tucker Carlson. He’s really been coming under fire lately for his take on Israel and Iran. And you know I’m beginning to think deservedly so. I recently watched an episode of Redacted during which its host Clayton Morris turned over most of his podcast time to a Tucker Carlson commentary. And I tried to listen to it, but I couldn’t hack it any more past the first few minutes. Tucker Carlson has a severe case of what I would call Israel Derangement Syndrome. And while I’m always open to criticism of any given nation or country, he was just losing me. If his comments were calculated to condemn America’s actions in Iran, which of course he attempted to persuade Donald Trump not to do, they weren’t very convincing.

Now I have to admit I got a few chuckles out of Dinesh D’Souza’s historical account of regime changes. In particular how the French intervention in the American Revolution was the last time the French did something useful in the world. You know it reminds me as I once asked on a past episode, may we blame the French for a lot of problems in the world? To which our answer was mais oui.

But another seemingly humorous statement made by Dinesh was when he pointed out how the Taliban were 12th century anti-American tribesmen and we should have replaced them with 12th century pro-American tribesmen. And that kind of seems to describe how Trump’s plan is currently being portrayed. He’s not trying to do what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I recall on a long past episode of Left Right and Center, which would be archived on our site, when I expressed to host Jim Chapman my skepticism about America’s then stated intention to bring about a regime change in the countries they were invading at the time. Because to do so effectively would require America to essentially take over those countries or at least occupy them for several decades. And they were actually talking about bringing quote-unquote democracy to these mid-eastern nations when the necessary history and culture is completely missing. And they weren’t prepared to stay there on a permanent basis. So it shouldn’t be surprising, even if it is disappointing, that many of the so-called military experts who witnessed or participated in America’s misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to project their experiences there onto the current situation regarding Iran, to which I still say apples and oranges.

And in this regard, things have gotten worse since my citing the folks like former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter and Colonel Douglas McGregor last week. For some rather outrageous statements, such as when Scott Ritter on the March 1st edition of Redacted argued that the Iranians that were seeing protesting in the streets of Iran are really protesting in favor of the regime, one of course certainly by now, given the celebrations being seen by Iranians around the world over the death of their supreme leader, you would think that he maybe has altered his views in this regard. Because it’s just like Dinesh D’Souza said, the only people mourning regime change in Iran are the Democrats, the Mullahs, and Tucker Carlson.

But no, in fact, since Ritter’s conclusion then that America had already lost the war because it couldn’t decapitate its leadership, even as that was happening, he most bizarrely insisted that Trump had no plan behind his invasion of Iran and could not possibly win a war against Iran.

But since his appearance on that episode, I once again saw Scott Ritter, this time on March 6th, on a show called Deep Dive, and which was hosted by Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis. And the episode ran with the title, Iran hitting our bases like no enemy before, which may well be true up to a point. But then, for a second time, he referred to the bombing of a girl school resulting in what he called America’s murdering of over 170 school girls as the sole justification for condemning the American action in Iran.

And on this particular event, and at this particular time, this is one of those controversies that has been clouded by what we like to call the fog of war. During his March 10 media update and address, Donald Trump was questioned about this specific incident, at which time we informed that the bombing of the school was carried out by a Tomahawk missile, assumed I suppose to be an exclusive weapon of America. But Trump pointed out that several nations have Tomahawk missiles, including Iran. Trump said that the matter was still under investigation, but most importantly, he said that if indeed the school bombing was the result of an American weapon, America would just have to bear the responsibility for it with no regrets beyond that point.

But here’s what I found rather interesting from some of past week’s social media reports on the incident. Apparently, there were several witnesses to the bombing who reported what they saw on various social media platforms. And the first significant thing about this school that I heard was that the school was located right beside one of Iran’s missile launching bases. And if that’s so, that would have been a fact that very much coincided with witnesses reporting that the school was hit by an errant Iranian missile that witnesses saw climbing straight into the sky until it just conked out due to some kind of mechanical failure and then just fell straight down where it landed on the school. And there were also reports saying that at the time of that quote-unquote school bombing, neither America nor Israel had yet launched their attacks.

So whatever the reality, and I can’t say that any of this is factual as yet, the fog of war continues. And there has been nothing that I have heard Scott Ritter suggest that is even slightly plausible. He even lamented the fact that America has killed a revered religious leader, even as we were watching all of those Iranian people celebrating and revering his death. Unbelievable. I was starting to think that Scott Ritter had lost his mind. Only days earlier he argued that there was no way that America could decapitate the leadership. And now he laments that they did.

And then there was this, and I quote, by bombing that school we have destroyed our credibility not only in America but around the world. There is no justification at all for murdering 170 school girls, end quote. And you know, as a floating abstraction, he’s right. There is no justification for murdering anybody under any circumstances. And to classify this kind of event as murder certainly did a lot to destroy Ritter’s credibility in my mind. Unless of course he was referring to the Iranian government itself, which has a litany of state sponsored murders on its own citizens to account for.

And again, as Trump said during his press conference, if the fault turned out to be America’s, he just have to accept it and live with it. Collateral damage. Proclaiming that there’s no justification for murdering school girls, quote, end quote, is an argument not unlike, you know, the every war has unintended consequences argument that we touched on last week. But one point I did not make about that whole unintended consequences issue was that in a conflict, one side’s unintended consequences are usually the other side’s intended consequences. So if you never take action to achieve your own intentions, guess whose intended consequences you’ll end up having to live with.

So with that thought in mind, let us now turn our attention to the other regime changes that appear to be underway. And just about, you know, all the harshest criticisms that you can hear directed at the government of Iran could be a carbon copy of the very criticisms I’ve been directing against the government of Canada. It’s just a difference in degree and not in kind.

As we observed on our February 18 broadcast titled From Canada to Cantata, Canada appears to be on the doorstep of its final demise. As more and more people are discovering the country’s dismal political history and its disintegration as a viable sovereign nation. And when viable sovereign nations begin to disintegrate, guess what? Suddenly regime change appears on the horizon.

And one of those regime changes could be the separation of the province of Alberta from the rest of Canada. And in that regard, Robert Vaughn recently brought to my attention a March 5 podcast hosted by Harrison Faulkner, whose guests, Bruce Pardy and Jason Kenney, were debating that very prospect. And of course, Bruce Pardy has been a guest on Just Right with Robert writing, quote, Bruce’s opening remarks are compelling end quote, and boy was that ever an understatement, as we’ll hear right now.

Clip (Harrison Faulkner):
Hello, my name is Harrison Faulkner. Alberta Independence is no longer just a fringe idea. Albertans are deciding whether to sign their name to a citizen petition seeking the requisite number of signatures to hold an independence referendum.

Intentionally, the question proposed on that very petition will be the word for word resolution of this debate. Do you agree that the province of Alberta should cease to be a part of Canada to become an independent state? Arguing in favor of the motion is Bruce Pardy, Professor of Law at Queen’s University, a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, and the Executive Director of Rights Probe. Arguing Premier of Alberta from 2019 to 2022 before leading Alberta as Premier. Kenny served as Canada’s federal immigration minister, employment minister and minister of defense. Professor Bruce Pardy, you were arguing in favor of the motion. You have the floor for your four minute opening statement.

Bruce Pardy:
I’m an Ontario boy. I was born there. I grew up there. I live there. I work there. I don’t want to see Canada destroyed, but here’s the problem. It has already been destroyed. Canada has become impoverished, dysfunctional, corrupted, and autocratic. Canada is broken, and it cannot be fixed. Powerful people in this country will not allow it.

Alberta, to save itself and possibly save the country, Alberta must leave. And a lot of Albertans want out. Now, I don’t pretend to speak on behalf of Albertans generally, but this group of Albertans I agree with. So, I’m going to use the word we. We because I agree with them.

Now, maybe Canada was once a free and noble country. I’m not sure anymore. But it certainly is not one now. It’s politically corrupt. Its institutions have been captured. It has become a leftist, woke, progressive socialist country. Per capita, Canada is poorer than Alabama. It is almost as poor as Mississippi, the poorest state in America. And it has done that to itself.

Canada’s elites collaborate with foreign powers and global institutions. They sacrifice the interests of its people to plunder what remains of its prosperity. For a privileged class of public servants and private cartels, Canada has become a grift.

The people are regulated, supervised, controlled, influenced, tracked and surveilled, told what kinds of cars they must drive, how to carry their groceries, what medications they must take, how to speak, what to think, who to hire, taxed at work, at the store, at the pump, and in their homes. Canada is a managed society. Governments run the place. They have the people under their thumb.

We don’t want to live in this kind of country. We don’t want to live in a progressive country. We don’t want to share a country with Canadians who think all of this is okay. We reject their values. We reject their core beliefs. We want above all else to live in a country that is free. It’s like being in an abusive marriage. We have irreconcilable differences. We do not love Canada anymore. We want a divorce.

Jason Kenney:
I’ll pick up where Bruce left off, which is love of country, because I don’t think a country is or should be a balance sheet. It’s not simply the sum of a bunch of economic calculations of short-term fiscal or economic advantage. It is a country is a collection of mutual reciprocal loyalties to one another and to those who went before us, and indeed I believe is a traditional conservative, to those who will follow us. I don’t think it is in our authority to destroy a country that we have inherited from our ancestors, and for which we have an obligation as custodians.

I can say as a Albertan, I believe the vast majority of Albertans feel that way. You can hear it when they lustily sing, oh Canada at the hockey games. Despite the many problems in our domestic politics, some of which Bruce has enumerated, you didn’t see Albertans booing Team Canada in the recent Olympics, but cheering on those athletes from Newfoundland to British Columbia as Canadians, because they are Canadians, because there is a sense of meaning, value, depth, reciprocity, loyalty, and dare I say it, love of country that underscores all of that, that underscores any passing political problem. For me patriotism is and must be at one level, frankly, unconditional. I know that is a big claim to make.

My friend Bruce is a libertarian, and I will let him speak for himself, but I think for him, the only real sovereign is the sovereign individual. I do believe that people come together through the generations over time to form communities, including national communities. That’s where I want to start by saying that Albertans fundamentally do believe in Canada, its history, and its promise, while they are legitimately frustrated with current misgovernance from Ottawa. The most beautiful reflection I can think of of that deep and abiding patriotism is an effort of civil society, voluntary local Calgarians who come together over the past couple decades at something called the Field of Crosses on Memorial Drive in Calgary in Remembrance Week every year to plant crosses and Stars of David, each of them with a Canadian flag, to memorialize a particular southern Albertan who died in the defense of Canada in the great wars of the past century. So I feel we have an obligation to them to lead Canada rather than to leave Canada.

And let me just say that everything that Bruce has enumerated, first of all, I think he, well, I agree with some of his critique, massively overshoots the target with a lot of political hyperbole. The notion that we are an autocracy is, I think, objectively ridiculous. We are a liberal democracy flawed, though it may be. We have elections. And if Canadians, Albertans don’t like the government they have, they can choose new and different governments.

I would point out, I don’t like this fact. But right now, the Federal Liberal Party of Mark Carney, which I oppose, I’m a card-carrying conservative, is very close to leading the polls in Alberta. And I think today would actually win an increased number of seats. So to say that those Albertans are completely wrong, because they support the Federal Liberal Party is, I think, the opposite of a democratic attitude.

But let me just point out that we need to mend not end Canada. None of us were talking like this when Stephen Harper was Prime Minister. And if we go down this road, we risk not liberation, as Bruce says. You know, the government of Norway, which is roughly our size and population, spends more than we do, as do Sweden and Finland. And we would see a huge outflow of capital, of people, destruction of our real estate values, turning a constructive relation with Indigenous communities to an ongoing legal and political war with huge social disruption. All of this for a project that is supported by a marginally small number of Albertans. I think it’s not worth the risk. We need to lead and not leave Canada. We need to mend this country, not end it.

Bob Metz:
And not one single suggestion that he offered as to how to do that. You’re listening to just right broadcasting around the world and online. Meet Mark Carney 2.0, or are we up to version 5.9 or something, given the losers we have sitting in Canadian Parliament? Jason Kenney has mastered the word saladry of Mark Carney like a pro, pure gibberish without any substance, whatever. And please accept our apologies for having exposed you, our valued listeners, to such drivel, but it is illustrative of what kind of people have been governing this country.

Listening to Jason Kenney was a bit cringe-worthy for me. His nursery rhymes were the only memorable thing that came out of his mouth. Lead, not leave. Mend, don’t end. At least three times he repeated these stupid platitudes. Straight up there with, you know, elbows up. A complete authoritarian, and as Bruce Pardy correctly labeled him during the debate part of their event, which we’ll hear shortly, talks like a member of the Laurentian elite. I don’t think the country should just be a balance sheet. It’s not simply the sum of economic calculation of short-term fiscal or economic advantage, says Kenney.

Whoever said it was. The words dysfunctional, corrupted, and autocratic are not just economic criticisms, they are social and political, which was the focus of any discussion where you’re talking about regime change.

Canada is broken and it cannot be fixed. Powerful people in this country will not allow it correctly observed Pardy. Canada has become a leftist, woke, progressive, socialist country. I suppose we could add a few more adjectives if we wanted. To which Kenney responded, with purely emotional associations regarding Canadians attending hockey games, singing O’ Canada, and displaying a field of crosses on Memorial Drive on Remembrance Day, which on this show we’ve been calling Forgettens Day for many years now because Canadians have pretty well forgotten a lot of their history. Then he cites an obligation Canadians have towards their ancestors, an obligation that neither his Conservative Party nor the Liberal Party have ever honored. Bruce is a libertarian and for him the only sovereign is the sovereign individual. I do believe that through the generations people come together over time to form communities, including national communities. So that’s where I want to start, Jason Kenney says.

Well what he has just confessed is that he is an outright collectivist and that’s his starting point of any position he has about nationhood. In Canada it has long been established that it is its parliament that is sovereign and not the individual, which is exactly why the country is disintegrating. He denies that Canada is autocratic, which is defined in the dictionary as independent or self-derived power, absolute or controlling authority, supremacy. And he cites the fact that Canada, just like every other nation on the planet, whether free or totalitarian, has elections where people can vote.

Yeah sure, they can vote, quote-unquote, for their next autocrat. But perhaps the most telling clue to where Jason Kenney sits on the sovereignty of Canada was revealed when he said that Alberta’s separation would, quote, turn constructive relationships with our indigenous communities to a political and legal war with huge social disruption, end quote. How coincidental that we should have spoken to this very issue in the same February 18 broadcast I cited earlier, where we argued that Canada is already finished as a nation, particularly in light of a recent court ruling declaring that various indigenous tribes were the legitimate, quote-unquote, owners of long-established and developed Canadian municipalities and that not even the Crown had any jurisdiction over such lands. And that brings us back to that 911 SOS May Day warning that we heard being issued by Dallas Brodie at the outset of today’s show.

So on this side of her upcoming bumper, we’ll hear the rest of her May Day alert while on the return side, some back and forth between Bruce Pardy and Jason Kenney on the whole issue of indigenous rights and taking together, boy, does that ever tell a story.

Dallas Brodie:
This here is a map showing the area that is covered by this agreement that the federal government has made in secret. Look at this territory. There are two million property owners in this area. There were three agreements signed, all of which are being kept in secret by the federal government. Journalists have asked for copies. They’re being denied access.

So you can bet, buried within those agreements are vast payouts to allow for the transition of the title to roll out for all of us to see in its incredible glory. I was never advised of this as the MLA sitting in Vancouver, Quilchena. And I would like to know if any other MLA’s were told about this. What about the MPs?

In my area, we have Wade Grant, who is a member of the Musqueam Indian Reserve, Indian Band, and he’s an MP for Vancouver Quadra. That sounds like a little bit of a conflict of interest to me, Wade. Don’t you think you should be resigning in the wake of this? Were you aware of this? Did you, did you tell your riding about this before it was sprung on everyone? What did you know about this, Wade? All of us would like to know. And you, to leave Norm Mohamed, what about you?

You’re in Vancouver, Granville. What did you know? Both of you are the MPs that cover my riding, and I would like to know what you knew before you granted title away from all of the constituents in your ridings to an Indian Band of 1,200 people.

And let’s think about this. If I don’t have title to my property anymore, I’d like to know why I’m paying property tax and who I’m now paying it to. You cannot tax me without representation. As far as I know, I’m not entitled to vote out the Council of the Musqueam Indian Band if I don’t like what they’re doing. This is taxation without representation. And I’d like to know precisely the details that they’ve reached around this issue.

British Columbians who own their properties in the lower mainland have been paying taxes on their properties since they’ve owned them. This is an outrageous betrayal of their rights. It is terrifying to think that this has been done in secret by our federal government against its own people. I was awake all last night thinking about this and wondering how this possibly could have been allowed to happen. I call on to leave Norm Mohamed and Wade Grant to immediately make a statement that you are against this, that this has to be stopped in its tracks.

And I call on the other MPs who are in the other ridings, Burnaby, West Van, North Van, parts of Coquitlam. This is all your problem too. You should be calling a stop to this. This is going to be extremely bad for all of your constituents and you know that. So Wade Grant, you have a special duty here, not only a duty to stand up and say you oppose this because it’s against the vast majority of the constituents in your riding, but you should also resign immediately because if this proceeds forward, and actually you probably knew about the negotiations as well, you are in a grotesque conflict of interest. Shocking behavior.

But why am I not surprised Wade? And let’s be clear here, this is not fear mongering. This is reality. The title to your property is now defective, damaged and your property value is tanking right now. I cannot believe this is happening in our country. This is a land grab. This is collectivization.

We are now this far away from complete communism. And I cannot believe I’m standing in a country that I once knew and watching this happen. A 1 BC government, when I am Premier and we form government, we are going to immediately stop all of this nonsense. A government has to act for all the people in this province, all the people in this country, not a special 1%.

And let’s be clear, this is never going to go to the average indigenous person who’s living in a crummy place on a reserve that’s an absolute mess. While the Chiefs and Council roll around in their gorgeous cars and their private planes, we will stop all voluntary transfers of land, money and power to these Chiefs and Councils. We will repeal DRIPA 100%. We will declare undrip of no force and effect in this province. We will demand that the federal government amend section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982, and we will require that all of these bands in BC, 200 plus bands, be converted into townships and municipalities and behave like proper government.

And every member of that band be given fee simple title to the land on which they are currently living. We cannot go forward with these race-based laws. It is ruining our country. We are losing our property values. We’re losing our way of life. And this is not helping Aboriginal people. There is a bigger agenda at work here. I know it, because average Aboriginal people are never going to benefit from this.

I guarantee you that. And I’ll guarantee you this, the average British Columbia is never going to benefit from this either. This is terrible. We will demand that CERNAC, what is this ridiculous department that they’ve got federally, oh, the Crown Indigenous Relations Canada Group, I will repeal all of this in demand that all of this get rolled back. We cannot operate this way anymore. This is insanity.

Harrison Faulkner:
Many Alberta First Nations have publicly stated that they will refuse to recognize an independent Alberta. You propose that in a free Alberta, Aboriginal rights should not exist. Is it all possible for there to be an independent Alberta without the consent of its First Nations?

Bruce Pardy:
100%. 100%. Let me go back to the words of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court said that in negotiations that follow a successful referendum, there will be no conclusions predetermined by law on any issue. So the vision that I and others have for an independent Alberta is a country that has at its root the principles of Western civilization as reflected in its legal system that we have failed to do in Canada. And that is, first and foremost, the idea of blind justice. That is the same rules and standards and laws apply to everyone without regard to who you are, without regard to your race, without regard to your sex, without regard to who your parents are, what culture you come from. And if Alberta is to be a country that is governing in accordance with this fundamental principle of Western civilization, blind justice, equal application of the law, equal protection of the law, then it is untenable for any group of people to have different special rights compared to anybody else.

One of the problems for Aboriginal peoples in this country, and of course it differs from group to group to group, but for many groups the problem is that the rank and file Indigenous people who have long suffered are being, if I can use the word oppressed, by their own leaders, as well as their helpers in governments, bureaucrats and lawyers and policy people and so on, all of whom insist that the present system must continue.

Jason Kenney:
Well, Bruce has given, I think, a thoughtful articulation of the sort of classical liberal perspective that there should be, race should not be a factor in the relationship between the state and the individual. But that ship sailed around in the 1870s in the Alberta, Western Canadian context when we signed those treaties.

I think Bruce is being the intellectually honest one here. There are others who pretend that Alberta could somehow seamlessly assume the treaty obligations and there’s no fuss. I think Bruce is being absolutely right when you, if you create a separate Alberta state, it is de novo.

It’s a blank slate. And that implies section 35, obviously that section 35 of the 1982 Constitution on Indigenous Rights is extinguished. And I think it also implies the treaties are extinguished. There’s one very big problem with that, which is the counterparties to the treaties. Those treaty rights holders, those bands, or now we say nations, who signed those agreements in perpetuity are not simply going to abandon that. That’s why they have raised the strongest possible opposition to the concept of separation.

Because they see it as implicitly an extinguishment of their treaty rights, of their status, and they are not going to abide it. Now here’s the practical reality. Bruce can make, I think, particulate theoretical arguments, but here is the real world, concrete reality, that if we go down that road, we will move from what is, I think, a broadly a very positive relationship between Alberta First Nations and the private sector and with the Alberta government to one of constant and serious conflict.

There will be endless litigation and certainly much more than that social and economic strife. So at one last point, I wanted to rebut, okay, I’ll just very quickly, Bruce’s point about authoritarianism. Canada is an authoritarian managed society in autocracy and so forth. I just want to remind Bruce, if he thinks that a separate Alberta is going to be some kind of a libertarian utopia, he should think twice. With respect Bruce, to let’s say libertarian separatists who imagine that your Republic of Alberta is going to be a night watchman state, Alberta voters are giving their politicians different marching orders. They want a full service welfare state. You and I may disagree with it, but that’s where they are.

Bruce Pardy:
I mean, if I didn’t know better, just listening to what he is saying, I would have thought that Jason was an Eastern Laurentian. He is advocating an Eastern Laurentian perspective on this, where in provinces like Alberta, go to the federal government and say, please sir, may we have some more? Because it is the federal government that decides things. To federalists, I would say this, change our minds. If you believe that this country can be fixed, then fix it. Tell us how you are going to get a different Canadian constitution. Tell us how you are going to build a country based upon a different set of principles. Tell us how you are going to change the belief system inside the minds of the people in this country. Tell us how you will make Canada actually, genuinely free. You can’t. That’s not going to happen.

Now, I don’t know what the chances are for Alberta independence. I really couldn’t say. Maybe it’s 50-50. Maybe it’s a lot less. But I do know this. The chances are not zero. And that means it is a better chance for radically reforming this country than any other proposal I have heard.

Bob Metz:
So there we have Jason Kenney arguing against equality before and under the law, saying that the indigenous issue is a done deal and represents, quote, a very positive relationship between Alberta’s First Nations and the private sector and the Alberta government. End quote. Who does he think he’s kidding?

The relationship he’s describing works like this. The government steals from the private sector and hands that money and property over to the indigenous groups. In fact, they have already renamed Vancouver’s Trunch Street to some unpronounceable Musqueam language with letters in it that have nothing to do with the English language as we discussed on our past broadcast.

The very idea that any indigenous group of people has some kind of perpetual right to any given territory is simply a fiction to believe otherwise invites disaster, especially for the indigenous people in question. And I remember addressing a public federal commission many, many years ago on the whole issue of Aboriginal rights, and I was reprimanded for having raised the historical fact that various Aboriginal groups moved around the continent and effectively emigrated from one area to another, often displacing the existing indigenous group by war.

So I learned from firsthand experience that the policies of this country relating to Aboriginal peoples would have nothing to do with reality. Small wonder that Jason Kenney cited, quote, bands who have signed agreements in perpetuity and have raised objections to separation because they see it as extinguishing their status and they will not abide by it end quote. Yeah, the status of getting something for nothing.

Now a society of status is a stagnant one. In a free society, status is only applied to children and animals, rights and responsibilities accrue only when they are earned, not assigned by others. And let me say that I fully support Dallas Brodie’s prescription that all 200 plus bands should be converted into townships and municipalities and behave like proper government and that every member of the band be given title to the land they’re currently living on and that we cannot go forward with these race-based laws ruining the country. And it is also an opinion, I think, that’s completely echoed by Bruce Pardy when he describes his vision of Alberta as a country that has at its roots the principles of western civilization as reflected in its legal system that we have failed to do in Canada, namely blind justice, the same laws apply to everyone, no regard to status or race and equal application and protection of the law. No one should have different special rights.

You know, this should be so self-evident to any conscious human being and in particular to any politicians that it is itself a 911 SOS May Day warning to all that it even has to be said, let alone in response to a situation that has to be rectified. And Bruce Pardy’s closing challenge pretty much said it all, to federalists I challenge you to change our minds if you believe this country can be fixed then fix it. Tell us how.

And the fact that Jason Kenney could have talked so long and never really addressed that challenge again brings me to the conclusion that he has mastered the art of word saladry in the very footsteps of fellow Laurentian Mark Carney.

Now will any of these regime changes we’ve reviewed on today’s show actually come to pass and take root? No one can predict that. But instead of always worrying about unintended consequences or about paying the necessary price to preserve and maintain freedom, maybe we can simplify the complexities involved by always choosing to do that which we know is right. Like for example, choosing to join us again next week when we will continue our journey in the right direction and until then be right, stay right, do right, act right, think right, and be right back here. We’ll see you then.

Clip (Bill Maher, March 2 2026):
Also this week, war. Did you hear about that thing? We bombed Iran and it’s going on now. Have you expected me to say I hate it? I don’t. Sorry. When he puts boots on the ground, yeah, then I’ll hate it. Now I know too many happy Iranian Americans. Sorry.

You cannot name one horrible thing that has happened in the Middle East in the last 50 years and not connected to this fascist theocracy. They’re like six degrees of they don’t eat bacon. One thing we do know for sure, Mullers, mullahs are fucking morons. Some people on the fence about that.

Okay, here’s my evidence. They’ve known for months. We have all the entire military surrounding their country. Everything is aimed at them. They know we’re ready to take them out. They have their big meeting. They have everybody who’s important in the country meet in one place. His office. They had another meeting of who was left. They call, I swear to God, this is not a joke, The Assembly of Experts. Otherwise known as The League of Extraordinary Idiots. And they get blown up again.