Opinion
Red Deer Citizen of the Year Terry Loewen calls ‘defunding the police’ one of the most dangerous ideas yet
This post is republished with the permission of author Terry Loewen
The ideological idea of defunding or eliminating the police is the most irresponsible, dangerous and stupidest one I’ve heard or seen yet!!
Reform policies and hold all police officers accountable (immediately) for any actions that are not lawful? Absolutely!!
This is getting so out of hand and ridiculous, it’s embarrassing to human civilization. I always thought this was what oppressed third world countries did, not first world countries!
People are saying “we riot because we are not heard”!
Smashing windows and stealing every item in stores is NOT a protest or seen as being heard! Defacing a city with spray paint is NOT a protest or seen as being heard!
I get it that we as a society can do a lot better when it comes to racism. In fact we can do a lot better in many other social issues as well, but I have never and will never believe violence, looting and destroying property is acceptable for any reason.
Society as a whole has to start showing empathy for everyone no matter their race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion or any other characteristics a person or group may have!
If we don’t, we as a society will just destroy itself. Plain and simple! Forget nuclear war or a pandemic! We will just look after it ourselves.
This world really needs a leader that can be open minded and can bring a very far right and left together! It’s the only thing that is going to get us back on track.
There is something in this world for everyone and there should be, but it comes at a sacrifice of something. It always does.
You can work your butt of and be rich and have a successful business, BUT your family life will suffer somewhat to do that.
You can spend 24 hours a day training to be a professional athlete and achieve that, BUT you will sacrifice time with friends, girlfriends, boyfriends and family!
I could go on and on but my point is that nobody can have everything they want without giving up something in return. For society to get along and live prosperous lives, it comes with sacrifice of certain things. That doesn’t mean you can’t believe or say that you don’t agree with something, but you can tolerate it because you get something that you believe in, in return!
It’s called compromise! Which the right and left are refusing to do! It’s all or nothing! Its tearing us apart and it’s unnecessary in my opinion.
There are some great leaders right now but there are far too many terrible leaders and we better start electing ones that are between the 2 forty yard lines of a football field ASAP or it will be the end of the free world as we know it!!
Lastly, it would be helpful for the media to report the truth and not the BS that only pertains to the politics they believe in!! It in my opinion is possibly the biggest problem.
Two friends are bringing the world together one beer at a time.
John Stossel
The Green Industrial Complex: Power, Panic, and Profits

From StosselTV
Media portray environmental groups as the underdog. In reality, they’re the big guys, and today they’re rolling in money.
What’s worse is how they use it.
First, they peddle scares. They say polar bears are disappearing. They aren’t. They claim bees are dying off. Also not true. They spread these lies to get MORE money.
“Hysteria generates donations,” explains science writer Jon Entine. “The oxygen for these organizations is money donated by people who think they’re doing good.” It’s why Big E now receives billions in donations.
It’s bad enough that they lie to us to get paid. But they also use their money to block progress. One group boasts, “In the past year our legal team has stopped thousands of miles of fossil fuel pipelines and dozens of large power plants.”
They even oppose solar and wind farms. “It’s a shame,” argues Cato Institute’s Travis Fischer, “When I think about what America could be … we could be so much more prosperous than we are.”
Our video covers more ways Big E blocks progress.
After 40+ years of reporting, I now understand the importance of limited government and personal freedom.
——————————————
Libertarian journalist John Stossel created Stossel TV to explain liberty and free markets to young people.
Prior to Stossel TV he hosted a show on Fox Business and co-anchored ABC’s primetime newsmagazine show, 20/20. Stossel’s economic programs have been adapted into teaching kits by a non-profit organization, “Stossel in the Classroom.”
High school teachers in American public schools now use the videos to help educate their students on economics and economic freedom. They are seen by more than 12 million students every year.
Stossel has received 19 Emmy Awards and has been honored five times for excellence in consumer reporting by the National Press Club.
Other honors include the George Polk Award for Outstanding Local Reporting and the George Foster Peabody Award.
———
To make sure you receive the weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://johnstossel.activehosted.com/f/1
—— —
Fraser Institute
Democracy waning in Canada due to federal policies

From the Fraser Institute
By Lydia Miljan
In How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue that while some democracies collapse due to external threats, many more self-destruct from within. Democratic backsliding often occurs not through dramatic coups but through the gradual erosion of institutions by elected leaders—presidents or prime ministers—who subvert the very system that brought them to power. Sometimes this process is swift, as in Germany in 1933, but more often it unfolds slowly and almost imperceptibly.
The book was written during Donald Trump’s first presidential term, when the authors expressed concern about his disregard for democratic norms. Drawing on Juan Linz’s 1978 work The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes, Levitsky and Ziblatt identified several warning signs of democratic decline in Trump’s leadership: rejection of democratic rules, denial of the legitimacy of political opponents, tolerance or encouragement of violence, and a willingness to restrict dissent including criticism from the media.
While Trump is an easy target for such critiques, Levitsky and Ziblatt’s broader thesis is that no democracy is immune to these threats. Could Canada be at risk of democratic decline? In light of developments over the past decade, perhaps.
Consider, for example, the state of free speech and government criticism. The previous Liberal government under Justin Trudeau was notably effective at cultivating a favourable media environment. Following the 2015 election, the media enjoyed a prolonged honeymoon period, often focusing on the prime minister’s image and “sunny ways.” After the 2019 election, which resulted in a minority government, the strategy shifted toward direct financial support. Citing pandemic-related revenue losses, the government introduced “temporary” subsidies for media organizations. These programs have since become permanent and costly, with $325 million allocated for 2024/25. During the 2025 election campaign, Mark Carney pledged to increase this by an additional $150 million.
Beyond the sheer scale of these subsidies, there’s growing concern that legacy media outlets—now financially dependent on government support—may struggle to maintain objectivity, particularly during national elections. This dependency risks undermining the media’s role as a watchdog of democracy.
Second, on April 27, 2023, the Trudeau government passed Bill C-11, an update to the Broadcasting Act that extends CRTC regulation to digital content. While individual social media users and podcasters are technically exempt, the law allows the CRTC to regulate platforms that host content from traditional broadcasters and streaming services—raising concerns about indirect censorship. This move further restricted freedom of speech in Canada.
Third, the government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act to end the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa was ruled unconstitutional by Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley who found that the government had not met the legal threshold for such extraordinary powers. The same day of the ruling the government announced it would appeal the 200-page decision, doubling down on its justification for invoking the Act.
In addition to these concerns, federal government program spending has grown significantly—from 12.8 per cent of GDP in 2014/15 to a projected 16.2 per cent in 2023/24—indicating that the government is consuming an increasing share of the country’s resources.
Finally, Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, which became law on June 26, grants the federal cabinet—and effectively the prime minister—the power to override existing laws and regulations for projects deemed in the “national interest.” The bill’s vague language leaves the definition of “national interest” open to broad interpretation, giving the executive branch unprecedented authority to micromanage major projects.
Individually, these developments may appear justifiable or benign. Taken together, they suggest a troubling pattern—a gradual erosion of democratic norms and institutions in Canada.
-
Business1 day ago
Carney Liberals quietly award Pfizer, Moderna nearly $400 million for new COVID shot contracts
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days ago
Canada’s New Border Bill Spies On You, Not The Bad Guys
-
Addictions1 day ago
Why B.C.’s new witnessed dosing guidelines are built to fail
-
Business1 day ago
Mark Carney’s Fiscal Fantasy Will Bankrupt Canada
-
Energy2 days ago
CNN’s Shock Climate Polling Data Reinforces Trump’s Energy Agenda
-
Opinion1 day ago
Charity Campaigns vs. Charity Donations
-
Red Deer1 day ago
Westerner Days Attraction pass and New Experiences!
-
COVID-191 day ago
Trump DOJ dismisses charges against doctor who issued fake COVID passports