Pinned Tweet
Decolonization of BC.
This is perhaps the most important election issue and, interestingly, its not being talked about.
By "decolonization" I mean the various measures taken by the NDP to transfer land, money and power from the Province to indigenous groups. The Haida Agreement is an excellent example of this:
- transfer of all provincial public lands in Haida Gwaii to the Haida;
- transfer of provincial powers to the Haida in Haida Gwaii including the recognition of "Haida Law";
- continuation of provincial obligations in Haida Gwaii such as provision of schools and hospitals; and,
- Haida claims for damages against BC including loss of fee simple lands continue unextinguished;
Mr. Eby described the Haida Agreement as a template for the rest of BC: indiginews.com/features/land…
The Haida Agreement covers about 1% of BC but the Haida are but one band of just over 200. Thus, the 'template' in fact covers about 200% of BC, ie. more land than BC has proportionally.
Many say that the private lands in Haida Gwaii are protected by the Haida Agreement. But they are covered by aboriginal title and the Agreement has a mechanism whereby the private lands are gradually absorbed into the Haida territory. And, again, the taxpayer will have to pay for them to remain (for now) in private hands.
Then add in DRIPA with its clear and clearly unworkable aboriginal veto: Article 19 of UNDRIP. This basically requires the Province to co-govern with all of BC's indigenous groups.
Thus, you have Mr. Eby's vision for BC: decolonized, dismantled, diminished. It is a BC whereby the vast majority of public lands are controlled by indigenous groups, where private lands are slowly absorbed into indigenous lands, where non-indigenous people have less access to public lands (see Joffre Lakes) and receive no royalties from resource development on same but shoulder the burden of the province's taxes and social programs, and where indigenous legal systems spring up to regulate interactions in most of the province but where non-indigenous people have no say in those laws or their administration. It is a BC where the Province loses its say in how to govern, regulate, or administer its public lands and can't even pass zoning regulations on condo buildings on aboriginal land in BC cities or prevent industrial uses on BC lakes, rivers or forests. It is a BC where the Province must pass laws and administrative measures with the free, prior and informed consent of any band affected by such a law or measure.
That is the Eby vision for BC and it is shared by both his caucus and the Green party.
The seeds of this future lie in the obvious outcomes of the Haida Agreement and DRIPA. Many if not most British Columbians perhaps do not see it and, indeed, there is much progressive misinformation spun to prevent them from seeing it. But, if one looks, it is there to be seen.
I suspect most British Columbians, if they understood this future, would not want this future.
The only way to avoid this future is to not vote NDP or Green.
Tim Pettit retweeted
Looks like the @Conservative_BC needs to clean house at Elections B.C.
There is no fucking way that a deceptive campaign flyer is in any way acceptable.
cheknews.ca/elections-bc-say…
Tim Pettit retweeted
Your bank hereby demands to know if local or indigenous communities have criticized you.
From an actual commercial mortgage review with one of Canada's top banks.
Tim Pettit retweeted
"A pregnant person is a person who is pregnant."
That's the answer the Liberal-appointed head of the PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY OF CANADA gave when asked to define a term used in her own agency's taxpayer-funded guidance on pregnancy.
When pressed to explain how that differs medically from a pregnant woman, she couldn't give a clear answer.
Our own Public Health Agency can't even clearly define the language it publishes in its public health guidance...or tell Canadians whether a man can get pregnant.
This is what happens when Liberal identity politics take priority over clear communication about biological reality.
One of the things the data analysts on our side obsessed over was "composition"—whether the electorate looked close enough to 2024 for Republicans to win. And despite polls that showed a Democrat blowout, the data kept on telling us the same story: in some states turnout was merely OK, in other states it was downright amazing, and in no state was it catastrophic. There was a genuine sense of optimism on our team: our people were showing up.
So, I asked the smartest data guy I know, does that mean we're going to shock the world? "No," he told me. "We might do better than the polls suggest. But the data is telling us that a lot of Trump/Vance 2024 voters are pissed and planning to vote for the other guys. Our voters are turning out, but they may not vote for us."
Well, that looks prophetic now. Our voters did show up. In Florida, for example, the electorate was 9 points more Republican than Democrat, just a couple points worse than 2024. Undoubtedly there were places we could have done better on turnout. But the main problem is not turnout. The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026.
There will be a lot of infighting and arguing over what happened and why that is. One of the pollsters I really respect told me that our economic messaging wasn’t sharp enough down the stretch. I’m sure that’s true.
But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.
Another pollster—one of the smartest people I know in politics, told me yesterday we’d lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what would cause them to come back on our team. The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses were:
1) End the war
2) Focus on cost of living/inflation
3) Put America First
4) Change our relationship to Israel
Our voters showed up. And the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats. This is according to a pollster who nailed the results. While many spent Monday attacking Rachel Campos Duffy for calling for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, it turns out her political advice was sound. (She’s also a great person.)
In the next few months, there's going to be a lot of gaslighting. Expect to hear any number of establishment politicians say the solution to our woes is amnesty. I'm open to the idea that we should change enforcement—by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. But anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you.
The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night.
If you'd like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that's at least honest.
But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.
I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, “I told you so”: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview. To the people who are just pissed at the results, you should be. Let’s take that anger and get back to the work of saving our country.
Tim Pettit retweeted
The Indian Act persists for the exact same reason as all the other damaging, outdated, dependence-encouraging Canadian legislation that refuses to die: It protects special interests.
Tim Pettit retweeted
I sometimes feel like I'm banging my head against a wall discussing economics in Winnipeg. Back home in rural Manitoba, people I've spoken with tend to understand something that seems lost in political debate: somebody has to produce the wealth before somebody else can spend it.
After decades in business and years studying economics, history and philosophy, I've learned that intentions don't pay bills, government spending isn't free, and every decision has consequences.
You cannot legislate prosperity, borrow indefinitely without consequences, or ignore incentives and expect good outcomes.
The frustrating part isn't that people disagree with me. It's that so many political arguments never get past the good intentions to examine the actual costs.
Economics doesn't care about your political loyalties.
Eventually, reality sends everyone the bill.
Imagine spending decades making terrible financial decisions, relying on someone else to pay your bills, and then accusing THEM of ruining your life when they finally tell you to get your house in order…
That's basically what Canada and Europe are calling the "collapse of the world order."
Maybe Trump didn't break the system? Maybe the countries that depended on it just can't afford their own decisions anymore.
Funny how consequences are suddenly a global crisis
Tim Pettit retweeted
I am so so so so tired of this country
It's not meant to be like this
Other countries seem to be functioning properly and actually making things better
WHEN - will we have a Government who do what they promise and who do what's best for this nation and the BRITISH people
When
Tim Pettit retweeted
Bad news is we lost senate seats that won't be winnable for six years. Gut wrenching.
Here's the good news: in terms of electoral prospects, this is super easy to fix. Trivial, even:
1. End the tariffs now. If the Admin wants to make a case for a few targeted ones for bad actors, fine. But the broad tariffs must stop.
2. Either go balls to the wall on Iran to finish the regime, or pull out of the war. Do more limited stuff like "midnight hammer" if Iran tries to rebuild its nuclear program, but that's it.
3. Do not back off the stuff that IS going well, and a lot is. Crime at record lows. Border under control. ATF and 2nd Amendment Section doing great work. Government employment reduced. Etc. Do not learn the wrong lessons from what was an inflation-related election blowout and undermine the things that are working.
4. Finally, and this one may be the hardest for Trump: limit the stupid distractions.
Tim Pettit retweeted
If you were wondering whether Pacific Link pipeline will actually get built - take a look at what’s happening now.
Carney knew First Nation opposition was a very real, if not guaranteed, obstacle.
Here’s the political calculation:
Announce the pipeline, take credit for supporting energy development and when it runs into legal challenges and opposition - blame First Nations for it never getting built.
Mr Net Zero gets the photo op. Canadians get another broken promise.
British Columbia First Nation files court challenge over Pacific Link oil pipeline consultations reut.rs/3X15K2x
Tim Pettit retweeted
One of the first things David Eby did as AG was radically transform elections finance laws in B.C. to knee-cap the Centre-Right opposition while providing millions to the @bcndp.
The @Conservative_BC needs to immediately repeal the Eby Subsidies and claw back these funds.
Tim Pettit retweeted
Admitting you’re actively attempting to make other people poorer to make yourself richer isn’t exactly a winning communications strategy.
Tim Pettit retweeted
Scathing analysis by @SelinaMRobinson:
On @Dave_Eby: "A political animal with little to no humility."
On the @bcndp: "A dictatorial leader took them to the cliff, said 'Jump!' … and they did."
Reprinted for @BeatNorthern
northernbeat.ca/opinion/seli…
Wow. Compare this to the utter contempt to which the Eby government described conservatives
.@LDoerkson says: “The campaign is over. Governing is our focus now and governing is a different job… as of today you represent every single person in the province and in your riding. The people who voted for us, and against us and the people who didn’t vote at all.”
The hard left is radicalized to the point of violence…
🚨🚨 JUST NOW: Deranged Abdul Supporter tackled a Jewish girl (@basedinmalibu) at free speech event.
She was SWIFTLY arrested, resisted and then said “I SHOULD HAVE KILLED HER!!” As she was loaded into the police vehicle.
Tim Pettit retweeted
Working at Oculus would have been an utter waste of my time except for one thing.
While I was there, I realized what's wrong with leftists.
Not that they have been programmed, that's obvious. Not why they have been programmed. For power, that's obvious, too.
But how they have been programmed.
The exact method that their moral compass has been destroyed works like this:
Target a bunch of people with very few deeds and accomplishments, such as young people or incompetent people, or incompetent young people.
Create for them an environment where they are rewarded with moral approval, not for what they do, but for believing certain ideas.
The ideas don't have to be outrageous, or absurd, or have anything to do with what you actually need them to believe. In fact, it's better to start with something innocuous.
Why? Because the goal isn't to install those beliefs at all. The goal is to repeat this process until you create a person who measures his moral worth by what he believes, not what he does.
Keep at this until you have created a mass of people who not only reward themselves with a feeling of moral superiority for believing the right things, but who will reward each other for believing orthodox things, and who will compete with each other, not to do the most good, but to have the most orthodox beliefs.
Now, change one of the propositions you have programmed them with to a slightly more radical version of itself, and hold this up as a more correct version of the old belief, which has been newly discovered by scholarly investigations into culture and moral philosophy.
Sit back, watch, and give them a few weeks to compete with each other to adopt the new belief, and to condemn the "evil" of anyone who believes the old belief, the very thing they believed last month.
Repeat this process until they are used to rapidly changing their entire belief system in response to an external cue.
Congratulations, you have a population of entirely programmable people whose moral compass is not just broken, but entirely non-existent.
They don't care what any person in front of them actually does. Only that he believe the orthodox thing, which they just learned about in last week's memo.
They are willing to do anything, so long as it is done in support of their current belief system, which can be replaced whenever it's convenient to do so.
They are willing to burn down an entire city with no qualms whatsoever if they are doing it in support of the idea that black lives matter.
They are willing to murder a man in front of his children, and it doesn't matter if his actions were entirely peaceful and good, because all that matters to them is whether he believes the correct things or not.
And a man who builds cheap spaceflight for the human race, develops viable electric cars to save the environment, restores voices to the voiceless, and plans, for his next trick, to heal the blind... well, all those are deeds, so none of them matter. The only thing that matters is that he told people to vote republican once, which is wrongthink.
So what you have a horde of communist zombies, who can be steered to shuffle in any direction and attack the living, eat their brains, and turn them into more zombies.
Once someone becomes one of the zombies, you can't cure him, because a moral compass can only be repaired by understanding the consequences of actions in a new way... and they don't care about actions or consequences. They only care about beliefs, and not about consequences at all.
Their moral compasses aren't just broken. They are absent. There's nothing to repair.
You have to understand that the zombies are zombies now.
Tim Pettit retweeted
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 @preta_6
Amy Hamm: Lorne Doerkson, don’t go soft on wokeness nationalpost.com/opinion/amy…
Tim Pettit retweeted
Replying to @TruismsT @CanadaGoose911
Agreed. DRIPA needs to be repealed but the repeal won’t resolve constitutionally based indigenous rights.
That said, the question arises in terms of those constitutional rights: do we want to live in a society of race/ancestry based rights and hierarchies or a society of equal rights? I favour the latter and see no moral justification for the former. Indeed, the opposite: race/ancestry rights are morally wrong.
I have your comment to try to work with constitutionally based indigenous rights but the further question arises: can we? The trajectory of court decisions is of steadily increasing nature and scope of these rights over time. There is no legislative oversight. Thus, there is a ratchet effect.
The Haida Agreement was based on Haida constitutional rights claims. First, it did not settle those claims in total and second, did this Agreement bring any economic benefit to B.C.? Maybe it did but I’m not aware of any…
Tim Pettit retweeted
Le preguntaron a Bukele en Argentina cómo sacaron a los jóvenes del modelo del narco: la casa grande, el coche caro el smartphone… cuando trabajar honesto tarda años. Su respuesta duele porque es verdad
"El gobierno llega tarde si espera reinsertar al que ya violó, ya mató y ya cortó cabezas. A un niño de 6 u 8 años sí se le puede cambiar la vida. Al que ya eligió el mal... el joven que vende tomates en el mercado, suda, carga, gana $5… y en la esquina el pandillero se los quita. ¿Qué incentivo gana? ¿Vender tomates o ser el que cobra? Por eso nunca se gana la guerra de incentivos si el criminal sigue en la calle.
Porque el Estado no puede pagarle triple salario mínimo para que deje el crimen. Eso no es gobierno, sino ingenuidad cara. Un organismo me dijo: «no puedes acabar el crimen de un golpe, son 70 mil empleos, esa plata llega a los hogares y se gasta legal». Lo que ellos insinuaban era que dejara vivir al cáncer para no lastimar la economía. Bukele les respondió con otra analogía: si tengo cáncer con metástasis y me ofrecen cirugía, quimio y quedar débil… pero vivo, me opero. No me quedo así nomás esperando que el tumor sea educado."
Le dijeron que el PIB podía caer hasta 10% por sacar esa economía sucia. No cayó. Subió. Porque el miedo también es un impuesto. Y ese sí lo pagábamos todos los días. Sacaron al pandillero de la ecuación y no sólo para castigarlo, sino para que el muchacho que todavía no entra en ese mundo vea otro menú. Ya no es: «me hago pandillero y gano». Ahora es: «me hago pandillero y pierdo mi libertad». Eso no es odio, es orden. Es proteger a la familia que sí trabaja, a la que manda la remesa, a la que nunca tuvo casa grande porque no cobraba renta de sangre. 30 años de discursos. 7 años de resultados. El resto es teoría para intelectuales.
Tal vez necesitamos un Bukele en España. Y en el mundo.

































