Ezra Levant critiques Canada’s legal and political double standards, spotlighting Tommy Robinson’s 13-month prison sentence for exposing grooming gangs—despite reports like Jay and Quilliam estimating 8.5M victims since 2005 with just 222 convictions—while Anjum Chowdhury, a jailed ISIS recruiter, faces early release. Contrasting Trump’s 25-year-low U.S. emissions, deregulation, and 4.7% GDP growth, Levant slams Canadian conservatives for ignoring policy wins while mocking his style, calling Trudeau’s use of soldiers’ sacrifices in trade disputes "cynical." Underlining Trump’s boldness—like withdrawing from the Paris Agreement—Levant argues establishment figures like Mitt Romney lack the courage to defy media pressure or corporate interests, warning Canada’s trade future hinges on resisting such political posturing. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, Tommy Robinson was put in jail in the UK, but take a look at who they're letting out of jail.
It's June 4th, and you're watching The Ezra LeVance Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
You come here once a year with a sign, and you feel morally superior.
The only thing I have to say to the government for why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
It's been 10 days since Tommy Robinson, our former UK reporter and a leading critic of Islamic extremism.
It's been 10 days since he was arrested outside a courthouse in Leeds and thrown in prison for 13 months.
I'm not Tommy's boss anymore, so I can't make the legal decisions for him, and it's not my place.
But suffice it to say, I'm shocked by the sentence, and I'm also deeply frustrated that his sentence has not yet been appealed.
It's not my decision to make, though.
By the way, we had our big conference in Toronto on Saturday.
It's called The Rebel Live.
For those of you who were there, thanks for spending your day with us.
For those of you who weren't, let me show you a video of a surprise guest we had.
I'll show it to you in a few moments.
He's with the Office of Lord Pearson of Oranoch, a UKIP member of the House of Lords, just an FYI, on who Lord Pearson is.
If we accept the views of our lead police officer for child protection, of Rotherham's MP, and of the recent Jay and Quilliam reports, we seem to be looking at millions of rapes of white and Sikh girls by Muslim men, only 222 of whom have been convicted since 2005.
So, my lords, will the government ask our Muslim leaders whether the perpetrators can claim that their behavior is sanctioned in the Quran and to issue a fatwa against it?
And second, my lords, will the government encourage a national debate about the various interpretations of Islam?
Can we talk about Islam without being accused of hate crime?
Lord Pearson is eminently reasonable.
Can we even talk about it?
What a question.
In fact, Lord Pearson and Tommy Robinson had a lengthy on-camera conversation just a few weeks ago.
Well, Lord Pearson himself did not attend our conference on Saturday, but one of his senior staff did.
It was a surprise to me.
I wasn't expecting conference guests flying in from as far away as the United Kingdom.
I will play for you his speech in a moment.
His name is Peter McAlvenna, his aide to Lord Pearson.
You can watch the entire conference as a premium subscriber, all the Rebel Live proceedings on Saturday.
We were unable to live stream it on Saturday because we couldn't get a powerful enough internet connection at the venue, but it will be on our website shortly.
But right after this monologue, I will show you the speech by Lord Pearson's aide who flew into Toronto.
All right.
There's news, though.
The first piece of news is that there is no news.
Tommy's still in jail, 13-month prison term just for reporting outside a courthouse.
That has not changed in the last 10 days.
And saying nothing about the trial inside other than reading the names of the accused, names that were published everywhere.
That's why Tommy was put in jail.
Here's the BBC website that shows the names.
So Tommy's in jail, but look at who's getting out of jail.
This guy, Njim Chowdhury, extremist, calls for the overthrow of democracy in the United Kingdom to be replaced by Sharia law.
Says the Queen should be forced to wear a hijab.
Says Westminster should be turned into a mosque.
Islamophobia Defined00:08:36
Chowdhury was jailed for inciting support for ISIS, the terrorist group.
Yeah, no kidding.
But that was so long ago.
I'm sure he's reformed.
I mean, that was way, way back in September of 2016.
So, yeah, he's been in prison for more than a year.
And, I mean, talk about barbaric treatment.
We're almost as bad as ISIS itself.
A year and a half.
I kid you not.
Chowdhury will be released imminently.
Canada isn't the only place that needs truth in sentencing.
Chowdery got a five-year prison term.
He's served, what, a third of it?
And he'll be out in a flash.
Tommy is still in jail.
That's a fitting metaphor, isn't it?
Tommy in jail, Chowdhury out.
But as you can see, that article about Anjum Chowdhury being released, he's just one of 193 convicted terrorists in the UK, half of whom are about to be released back onto the streets of the UK.
Let me read a little bit.
Here's the bullet points in the mail online.
Police are facing a surge in number of convicted terrorists released from prison.
Over 40% of sentences handed down over 10 years will be spent by end of year.
80 of 193 prison terms issued for terror offenses.
That's a typo there between 2007 and 2016 will run out.
But true number of releases could be even higher as prisoners are eligible to be freed halfway through their sentences.
Seriously, what's even the point?
What's the point?
According to British authorities, there are 23,000, not 23, 23,000 jihadis on the loose in the UK.
Just to be clear, those are the people who the Brits say are ready to commit terrorist violence.
That's not even including anyone who would just want to see the results.
Burkis on Every Woman, Sharia Law of the Land, but who wouldn't necessarily kill for these 23,000?
Well, here's how the prestigious Times newspaper puts it.
About 3,000 people from the total group are judged to pose a threat and are under investigation or active monitoring in 500 operations being run by police and intelligence services.
The 20,000 others have featured in previous inquiries and are categorized as posing a residual risk.
Oh, that's comforting.
But better keep that Tommy Robinson locked up.
I'm not kidding.
Can you imagine how many people it takes to track a suspected terrorist around the clock?
The answer is actually more than 20.
You have to cover all the shifts of the day, 24 hours a day and weekends, and you have to have a boss managing it.
And you need electronic coverage and phones tapped and emails and translators.
More than 20 people to watch a single jihadist.
They've got 23,000 that they will admit to.
They're only trying to track 3,000 of the worst of the worst.
But put that Tommy Robinson in jail because he criticized some accused rapists.
But look at where Sadiq Khan, the Muslim mayor of London, is putting his focus and his budget and his manpower.
Here's a tweet from the UK police, the Metropolitan Police in London.
We have 900-plus specialist officers across London dedicated to investigating all hate crime.
That's a lot of cops looking for mean tweets or unfunny Facebook posts.
But what's their standard?
Well, for Islamophobia, of course, that's really all they do, hunt down people worried about terrorism and worried about rape gangs.
The British police have decided it's easier to hunt down people talking about terrorism or rape gangs than to hunt down people doing terrorism or rape gangs.
And of course, the police are actually right.
It is easier that way.
It doesn't solve the underlying problem.
But hey, they don't have Tommy Robinson making a fuss on YouTube these days, do they?
But look at this.
This is an official report.
It's a few years old now.
But that's part of my point here.
An official report from the Metropolitan Police.
That's what London's police are called.
By the way, look at the bottom left of the page.
Their motto is, total policing.
Yeah, I'm not sure.
That's a great motto.
Totalitarianism, total policing.
You don't want to say things like a police state would say.
You just don't, unless you're being a little too honest.
So this was a study, as you can see on the cover there, of, quote, hate crimes against London's Muslim communities, ending in 2012.
So this was published in 2013.
So it's five years old, but that's helpful.
It shows what's been happening for years, even before Sadiq Khan was the mayor.
I want to turn to the page in which this police manual defines Islamophobia.
It's numbered page six at the bottom.
You can find this online.
There are a number of terms that are used throughout this report that require a brief comment.
Islamophobia and Islamophobic or anti-Muslim hate crime, Islamophobia.
Okay, so we're going to define these words.
Okay, this is from the police guide.
They have eight different definitions.
Let me read.
The eight components of Islamophobia are, number one, Islam is seen as a monolithic block, static and unresponsive to change.
So that's Islamophobic, according to the police.
If you think Islam is unresponsive to change, like as in maybe they still make women in the UK dress like they're in the Saudi desert in the seventh century.
So it's Islamophobic if you don't think Islam is dynamic and modern, you know, like female genital mutilation or polygamy.
I'll read more.
This is from the police definition.
Islam is seen as separate and other.
It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them, and does not influence them.
I mean, we're all humans, so we all have some values in common, but the police here are saying that it is Islamophobic of you if you merely think that Islam, again, we're talking about the religion, mind you, not individual people who are called Muslims, but we're talking about the doctrine, the ideology, the philosophy, the book called the Quran, you're a hater, you're an Islamophobe if you don't say, yeah, we really have a lot in common with Islam.
They're just like us.
How they treat infidels, how they commit jihad, how they treat women or gays.
I'll keep going through the list.
This is the list the police are using.
Islam is seen as inferior to the West.
It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.
Hang on, so the police are just flat out saying that if someone believes the West is the best, they're a bigot?
Isn't that why Muslims come to the West?
Because they think it's better?
Are they bigoted?
If someone says that Islam is sexist, are they really committing Islamophobia?
Have these cops ever even read the Quran?
Multiple wives.
Muhammad himself marrying a girl at age six and having sex with her at age nine.
Again, I'm not condemning any individual person called a Muslim, but this police guide says that if you believe Islam, the doctrine, the ideology, is sexist, then you are a bigot, you hate criminal.
No, no, I'm not, Gov. No, I'm not.
A bit more.
Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a clash of civilizations.
Yeah, that's a whole concept that we call the jihad.
Actually, we don't call it that.
You can tell by the Arabic nature of that word.
That's what they call it.
The Quran actually divides the world into two halves, Dar Islam and Dar al-Kharb, the house of submission, that's what Islam means, and the house of war.
I didn't make that up.
Muhammad did.
Here's some more.
It's Islamophobic if Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.
Well, it is.
Have you read the book?
And I like this one.
Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
So you're not allowed to criticize Islam, but you must accept Islamic criticisms of the West, you bigot.
You better admit that you're wrong.
Let me read one more.
Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
Okay, now, only after the previous six definitions do we see it moving from the ideology to individual people.
But of course, we judge people on their actions and beliefs, what they say and what they do.
If they are guided by an extreme ideology and talk and act that way, yeah, we have the right to judge them as we would judge anyone else.
You see, you're a hate criminal now, though, if you believe in judging people by what they believe.
And finally, anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.
If you believe that, you're a bigot.
So they've switched from Islam to Muslim, which is better.
Judging Beliefs and Actions00:05:59
But you know what?
When you have terrorist attacks again and again, and when leading Muslim groups and Muslim leaders do not condemn calls for Sharia law, but rather promote them, do not condemn terrorism without the word but.
Yeah, it is actually a normal human reaction to say, this isn't safe.
I'm scared.
Maybe I'm a little phobic.
We want to differentiate between individual, individual people.
We want to treat people as individuals in charge of their own lives.
Something the Quran isn't particularly good at doing.
But even if we get it wrong, even if we engage in unfair thinking about Islam or about Muslims, how on earth is that a matter for police?
Or 900 police?
Well, like I say, it's easier to throw you in jail or even Tommy Robinson in jail than to tackle 23,000 jihadis, isn't it?
Stay with us for more.
Hey, welcome back.
Normally we have two guest interviews every day.
We'll have Mark Murano in a moment.
But first, I want to play for you one of the speeches from this Saturday's The Rebel Live.
It was a surprise speech.
It wasn't on the agenda.
It was one of the staffers from Lord Pearson's office in the UK who flew to our conference.
Actually, I didn't even know he was coming.
He introduced himself, showed who he was, and said, could he say a few words about Tommy's case?
And I said, well, absolutely.
So let me now show you a presentation by a staffer for Lord Pearson named Peter McAlvenna.
Without further ado, I'm going to run this in the place of an interview.
I didn't have a chance to interview him, but here's his speech.
Take a look.
It was wonderful.
Vesuit asked me to come and speak to give you understanding that there are some voices supporting him in the establishment.
Lord Pearson has been speaking on Islam for many years and on the demographics, on the Sharia law system, on the financial, but actually on the case of grooming gangs, and that's where their paths cross.
So Tommy had been kept on Lord Pearson's email lists for quite a while.
He came and interviewed Lord Pearson probably six weeks ago and Lord Pearson faced a lot of criticism.
His criticism was by inviting Tommy into the Palace of Westminster.
He was endangering Parliament.
That's exactly what he was told.
So the issue, the danger is not from Islamic terrorists.
It is actually from this guy, Tommy Robinson, a Jack the lad, a guy from the streets in Luton, and he's the one causing issues by highlighting these.
But when Lord Pearson had him for lunch, he actually then had him for lunch a second time, and he asked for the central table in the peers' dining room to be booked.
This is how much he wanted to snub those around him.
And Lord Pearson is an establishment figure like no other.
But he realizes this issue.
So he asked for a central table, couldn't get it, but then started giving Tommy a tour of Parliament, introducing them to all different individuals.
So we met the ex-Archbishop of Canterbury, George Kerry, who actually understands the issues of Islam.
He invited him to Norman Tebbit, who was one of the Chancellor of the Exchequers, the finance ministers under John Major.
And he was walking up and down the corridors.
you must meet Tommy, my good friend Tommy.
And these people didn't know what to do.
They were thinking, we recognize his face.
He shouldn't be here.
What's happening?
So good there wasn't a camera there.
But so Lord Pearce has been highlighting this.
He's written to the Home Secretary and said that Lord Pearson will take the Home Secretary to court if Tommy is hurt, injured, or if he dies in prison.
Because the last time Tommy was in prison, he got beaten to very close the point of death.
And the concern is this is what will happen again.
As Ezra has said, many parts of the British prisons are run by Muslim groups.
So please do remember there are things happening and certainly from my point of view being involved in UKIP, Lord Pearson being a former leader of UKIP.
Jared Batten, the leader of UKIP, has been involved in this.
And this has to become a political issue.
You have to turn it from the street movement into a political issue, which actually causes fear amongst Westminster.
Because until that happens, politicians are scared about losing their seats.
That's it.
They don't care about anything else.
So we have to turn this into political action, vote to the ballot box, and we have to change our government.
So that's where we are at the moment.
As I said, Tommy's been in jail now four hours, five hours from being arrested to being in jail.
So Lord Pearson has got more questions down to ask what exactly has happened.
He not only emailed the Home Secretary, he phoned him, left a voicemail, and sent him a text to make sure he got it.
So he cannot say he did not get that.
And that was published far and wide.
So there are some voices, and there are many people who say we've got an issue with Tommy.
Maybe as a character, he's got to pass, but actually, the issues he's raising are vital issues, and we have to understand that.
So really, we want the media to look past maybe the Jack the Lad figure from a working class background that they look down and sneer upon and see these issues of free speech, the freedom of the media, and freedom to talk about these rape gangs, which a Labour MP from the socialist side has said up to one million girls could have been raped.
That was three years ago in the Daily Mirror newspaper.
She gave the figure of 1 million.
So this is a massive issue with court cases happened in 55 towns across the UK.
This is a huge issue.
And if we do not have people like Tommy raising this, then we are disappearing fast as a nation.
So I think that's about it, Ezra.
Two Anniversaries Forgotten, One Remembered00:03:35
Thank you.
Thank you.
That's Peter McAlvana of the Office of Lord Pearson.
Stay with us.
More ahead after the break.
Well, a lot of guys don't remember their anniversaries.
You know, it's just not a guy thing.
But a lot of guys are celebrating two anniversaries.
One is the 500-day anniversary of Donald Trump being sworn in as the U.S. president and the one-year anniversary of Donald Trump pulling out of the UN global warming scheme.
I love his comment that he was elected to represent Pittsburgh, not Paris.
Remember that line?
I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.
Well, it's been one year, and joining me now to celebrate the anniversary that we both remember almost as well as we member our own wedding anniversaries is my friend Mark Morano, the boss of Climate Depot.
Mark, I'm kidding around.
Of course, we remember all of our anniversaries and our wives' birthdays and our kids' birthdays.
Of course we do.
But we just happen to also celebrate the anniversaries of Trump.
He pulled America out of the UN Global Warming Agreement and nothing happened.
The earth didn't, the sky didn't fall.
Something that everyone was afraid to even mention.
He just did it and nothing bad happened.
No, in fact, the climate activists are pointing out that since Trump pulled out, Nicaragua and North Korea have joined the PAC, which is great.
It makes America look that much stronger.
And as I noted at the time, this was a, I don't think anyone could actually appreciate Ezra.
I mean, we can, but I don't think the general public appreciates and the media appreciates how big of a freaking deal, I said freaking deal this was for a U.S. president to pull out of this treaty.
Up until the last minute, Donald Trump had Mitt Romney, the former GOP nominee, lobbying him hard to stay in the treaty.
He had people like John McCain and even Bob Dole and George W. Bush, all people who would have stayed in the treaty.
All previous Republican presidents or nominees would not have had the courage to do what Donald Trump did.
He stood up to the face of the United Nations, the other world leaders, the American media, academia, and he stood strong and he stood proud and he just said no deal and we're pulling out.
And it was the withdrawal heard around the world.
It still stuns me that he had the courage to do it.
And since that time, it's just been fantastic because the United States, and it was just crowned this past week to be the most successful country in reducing their emissions.
And we're not even part of the U.N. Paris Agreement.
You know, that was going to be my next point, Mark, is that in Canada, our irritating global warming minister, Catherine McKenna is her name, and Justin Trudeau, they have this one line.
It's a message track.
It's so, it's really all they say, the economy and the environment go together.
You can't, I mean, it's just, and they mean nothing, they do nothing, and actually both are failing in Canada, or at least the economy is failing in Canada.
But the same week that Donald Trump is, the Bureau of Labor statistics reveals the lowest unemployment in, what, a generation?
The Economy vs. Environment Debate00:15:17
Is it 3.8%?
Black unemployment rate, lowest in history.
Hispanic unemployment rate last month was the lowest in history.
So the U.S. economy, I've seen predictions of 4.7% GDP growth, unheard of for decades.
So the U.S. economy has never been stronger.
But unpack that what you just said.
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, which I do not regard as pollution, but the crazies on the left do, at the same time as the U.S. economy is stronger than ever, U.S. emissions are at 25-year lows.
Explain how that works.
I know, but I want to hear you say it.
Well, what's amazing is technology, technology, technology.
Not too long ago at Climate Depot, I posted an article for I was watching the old Johnny Carson classics, and it was a Paul Ehrlich, 1980 or 1981, predicting that by the end of the 1980s, we'd be running out of oil, that the world was going to be done with oil.
Well, it turns out that energy, abundance, and technology have been the answer.
The United States has turned to good old fracking and natural gas.
Coal has dramatically dropped just since 2011, Ezra.
And fracking is now up to approaching 40% of U.S. energy sector, while coal is dwindling down into the 20s.
And it's partially done.
A very smaller amount is done due to the regulations of the Obama era and basically sending a signal to coal.
But the biggest reason was that technology of fracking, horizontal drilling came in and has revolutionized American energy, thus lowering emissions.
And that has been one of the biggest driving factors.
We haven't done it through the bureaucracy.
We haven't done it because of all the mandates.
We've done it because of technology and because of abundance and because of ingenuity.
And it's been phenomenal to watch.
We're outperforming all of Europe who's turning their noses at us because we're not part of this UN-Paris agreement.
Yeah, it's so odd.
I mean, fracking, which has been done literally millions of times since it was perfected in the 1940s, is the reason the United States is moving to clean natural gas.
I mean, I'm a pro-coal guy myself, but I acknowledge that natural gas not only has a lower carbon footprint, which I don't care about, but it burns cleaner in terms of sulfur, particulate pollution, things like that, which I do care about.
So it was Halliburton and fracking and Dick Cheney, who used to be their president, their executive.
That's what's cut American emissions to a 25-year low.
So weird, Mark, that fracking, this miracle technology that not only unlocks free energy but reduces its pollution footprint, has been banned across eastern Canada, in Quebec and the Maritimes, those are the liberal provinces, in France, in so many parts of Europe.
They're banning the one way to actually reduce emissions.
And those European countries and even Japan are building coal-fired power plants while they shake their finger at Trump.
It's like Alice in Wonderland, a bizarro world.
It is.
In fact, in the United States, we have states like New York where they ban fracking and won't allow it.
And neighboring states, of course, are booming and profiting from it.
Yes.
And what doesn't even further make sense when you unpack this, Ezra, and I detail this in my book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change, is the Sierra Club took money from the natural gas industry, equivalent of, I think it was $26 million.
And this was money that they were going to use to denigrate coal.
So even the fracking industry used the Greens to lobby against coal for their own benefit.
But the Greens took the money.
So they know that fracking is beneficial.
You think they would be out there promoting more.
Of course, the Sierra Club taking the money got a huge amount of flack.
And I point that out in the book from the other environmentalists.
They tried to keep it secret for a while for taking fossil fuel money.
But it's an incredible story of success in our emissions.
And with this, as we go forward, the United States is now trying to continue this unraveling of these Obama-era regulations.
Right now, Trump's battling the whole cafe of corporate average fuel economy standards.
And interestingly enough, he has to battle the auto industry as well as states like California and the environmentalists.
So everything's turned on its head here.
We're the success story, but they're still trying to keep all these regulations and even crank them down.
And of course, we still have the worry of who the next president will be, whether Trump serves four or eight, because it's, you know, even the next Republican is likely to be a milquetoast Republican on these issues and not push back like Donald Trump.
Yeah.
Well, Mark, as I alluded to a moment ago, I knew the answer for why global warming gases, greenhouse gases, had fallen so much.
It's because of fracking made natural gas so cheap and plentiful.
I mean, states like Pennsylvania, you never think of Pennsylvania as a natural gas place.
I mean, it did have oil for a long time, but it's amazing.
There's actually pretty much as much natural gas being fracked there as in Texas.
I love Pennsylvania.
I've been there so many times for that.
So I knew that.
But you told me something today.
And I know we've kept you for almost 15 minutes already, but just give me one more minute on this.
You told me something today I hadn't heard before.
I knew that Donald Trump was going after that fuel economy standards that made it so difficult for automakers.
It was an environmental extremist move.
It was really anti-industrial.
And it was one of Trump's promises.
He said, if you bring your factories back to America, bring them back from Mexico.
I'll do you a favor.
I'll cut your taxes along with everyone else, and I'll get rid of these fuel economy standards.
I really like that approach.
He's not saying I'll give you a bailout or a grant.
That would be the Canadian way or the Obama way.
He's saying, I'm not going to give you money, but I'll cut your taxes and I'll cut this regulation and you can earn your own money.
I really like that approach.
But you just said that he's fighting the auto industry over that.
Are you saying that the auto industry wants those environmental regulations?
Give me just one or two minutes on that.
Yeah, this is a very bizarre thing.
There's actually a letter signed by a coalition of the major auto, including Ford and other companies, basically saying we are okay with these standards.
We do not essentially don't support this.
And the reasons are, number one, they want to appear green to the public, but the larger thing they try to trump it up is this regulatory certainty.
And the idea, and there's some validity to this and the extent that Trump can come in and reduce these standards.
Right now, the current standard is going to go to 54, I think 54.5 miles per gallon by 2022.
Now, that is statutorily the end of the American SUV, unless you do all kinds of accounting tricks, like make a bunch of cars no one wants that are little death traps, and then you put them out as fleet sales at reduced rates so you can still have, there'll be a lot of high numbers of those cars, and then you can still build your SUVs.
But it gets harder and harder as these numbers that were negotiated in the Obama era and mandated keep coming.
So they're going to take away, if Trump does nothing, you're taking away efficiency, safety, performance, and size of American cars.
That's essentially all it's doing.
It's a war on American cars, particularly a war on American SUVs.
So what's happened now is the auto industry is essentially, many of them are fighting back.
Some elements of the auto industry are standing up with Trump and want these reversed.
But it all comes down to California, as the best argument for California to secede from the United States is in the cafe standards, these fuel economy standards.
California for years has been terrorizing the auto industry, saying we are going to set our own standard and the rest of the countries are going to have to follow because automakers can't make two different standards for California, one for California, one for the rest of the country.
And now Massachusetts has joined and a bunch of other states are joining them, the very liberal Northeast states.
And so what's happened here is that Donald Trump has to go to court to take away California's authority to set their own standard.
They want a national standard.
That way California can't terrorize the rest of the nation and the auto industry.
So there's a lot of court battles.
It's kind of like the UN-Paris Agreement.
We're not really out of it till 2020, and there's going to be court battles, and there's all kinds of ways we can get back in, especially with the next election.
It's just, it's undoing the regulatory state is a nightmare.
That's why Ronald Reagan said the closest thing to eternal life on earth is a regulation.
And that's what we're facing here.
But it's a huge battle.
And you have your corporate capitulators in the auto industry who don't want to have this fight because they want the regulatory certainty.
But the problem is, if Trump can win, the good news is if Trump can win this, we can break the back of California to set it.
Then the automakers will be free.
The problem, though, is if Democratic president in the future could then reinstate these.
So it's just, you know, there is something to be said for that yin-yang of regulations.
They don't like it, and understandably, but at some point, they need to stand up for themselves.
And this is their moment.
They can actually fight back.
And again, fuel economy standards ration the vehicles.
It's either going to have performance, size, and safety are what are going to suffer here ultimately.
You know, it's almost like the auto industry has Stockholm syndrome.
They actually crave the certainty of the prison cell they were in, in a way, in a manner of speaking.
The certainty of three square meals in their prison cell, essentially.
Yeah, it's absolutely true.
And they don't have confidence that there's going to be long, drawn-out court battles.
They don't know what to do next.
So a lot of this is the lawyers talking and the regulators.
You mentioned Mitt Romney, if I recall, his father used to be the governor of Michigan.
And before that, his father was the president, correct me if I'm wrong, of the American Motors Corporation.
Tell me if I'm wrong there, but if Mitt Romney's dad was not only the governor of the auto state, but the former president of an automaker, and yet his son, Mitt, is calling for this global warming baloney, it shows you just how colonized the minds of industrialists are.
And again, I think that so many industries and so many people don't even deserve the good things that Trump is doing for them, and they're even fighting against it.
It's incredible, but I tell you, it's more good news from my point of view every month.
Great to see you again, Mark.
And please bring us more good news as you keep doing these days.
The environmental sector is just one of the bright spots in the Trump administration to me.
It is.
And by the way, just one note, Mitt Romney came out recently and said that he would have basically been doing all the same things Trump's been doing had he been elected.
And I almost gagged.
I don't see how he would not have pulled out of the U.N. Paris Agreement.
He would not have taken a deregulatory agenda at the EPA.
There's just no way Mitt Romney is capable of standing up to the American media and being break himself from the establishment.
So that all literally was gagged when I heard that.
I mean, I can't believe that.
Some people believe Mitt Romney would have actually done it, but there's no way.
Mitt Romney is not Donald Trump, and I mean that in a good way.
Yeah.
Well, I hope some of Trump's courage rubs off on our Canadian conservatives.
What's disappointing to me is how often Canadian conservatives want to show that they're classy, and so they disparage Trump just for aesthetic reasons.
Oh, he's too American, he's too brash, he's too rude, he's too vulgar.
Ignoring all of which are valid criticisms of Trump, but that's sort of who he is, and you got to get overview, get past that.
But I have no problem acknowledging that, but he's still a great president.
Yeah, I'm not looking for a boyfriend or a babysitter or a surrogate dad or something.
I'm not looking for him to adopt me.
I'm looking for him to run the country.
And I'm looking for a Canadian.
I mean, yeah, it would be nice if he had all the finest, exquisite manners, but that's not as important to me as a guy who's bringing in the lowest unemployment rate in a generation.
Mark, it's great to talk with you.
Thanks so much for joining us.
Look forward to our next update with you soon.
Thank you.
All right, there you have it.
Mark Morano.
He's the boss of climatepot.com.
By the way, I recommend an article that is posted on climatepot.com.
It's written by Charles Moore of the Daily Telegraph.
And it's an interesting view on Donald Trump because, of course, it's written from the United Kingdom with a bit of a British perspective on Trump.
And it's called Donald Trump Has the Courage and Wit to Look at Green Hysteria and Say No Deal.
It's a great read.
I recommend you find it.
You can get that at climatepot.com.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back.
Your viewer feedback on my monologue Friday about the trade war between Canada and the United States.
Robert writes, I must admit that it was particularly galling to hear Junior referring to the sacrifices of Canadian soldiers as a reason Trump should cut Canada some slack.
Please, Junior, tell us, are these the same soldiers who want more than the government can afford?
Talk about a completely cynical argument by a politician who despises the Canadian military and who has no appreciation for what they have achieved.
You are exactly right.
It's particularly odious knowing he actually doesn't care about soldiers.
And I'm sorry, that's just a fact.
When you refuse them pensions, when you sue them and fight them in court, but rush to give free cash and public apologies to terrorists like Omar Connor, I'm sorry, you cannot then call upon the valor and the sacrifice of those same soldiers in your trade war.
What's that got to do with anything?
It's pretty simple.
Justin Trudeau wants to talk about feminism and gender quotas, and Donald Trump wants to talk about steel.
They're not even having a conversation.
It's obviously going to fall apart.
Sorry, you can't really dragoon vets and the fallen to your side.
It was pretty gross.
James writes, I am waiting for CBC or CTV or the Globe or the Star to bring up the fact that Canada has a 240% import tariff on U.S. dairy products that Turtle Ladoux fully supports.
Do you think I will be waiting long?
Well, we did a show before on the bizarre decision by Justin Trudeau to, out of the blue, bring in new tariffs on, I forget it's a very kind of dairy product.
I think it's like dried milk or something.
I don't understand it.
But why would you pick a fight with places like Wisconsin?
You know, they love their dairy there.
Why would you pick a fight with those key battleground states that Donald Trump just won?
Why would you pick a fight at all on trade?
Why would you pick a fight with those states and why would you do so so in such an unprovoked manner unless maybe you really do want to scupper the NAFTA negotiations?
I think it's quite possible.
I think I alluded to this in my book, Trumping Trudeau, that I wrote a year ago, more than a year ago.
I think Justin Trudeau would like to run against Trump in his 2019 election.
Demonize Trump.
I mean, the media certainly would go along with it.
I wonder if Canadians would be fooled.
Why Fight with Wisconsin?00:02:03
Liza writes, it's hard to blame Trump when all our representatives can do is cry and whine and insult him.
Spoiled is a good word for our government, spoiled, entitled unrealistic.
Frankly, I'm glad to see that playing social justice warrior games and spreading fairy dust is falling flat with the real world.
Thanks to Trudeau, we are a laughingstock.
I'm of two minds as well on this, Liza.
On the one hand, it's refreshing to see that not everyone is convinced by the baloney that Justin Trudeau uses to such great effect with the fawning media.
I mean, when Christia Freeland cried at that Belgian trade negotiation a year or so ago, like she literally cried and said, I thought we were the good guys.
That's embarrassing.
And the media loved it because it showed how tenderhearted she was.
But Donald Trump is an art-of-the-deal America firster.
And if the best you got is a journalist, that's what Christia Freeland was, a journalist and an author, who turns on the waterworks when she doesn't get her way.
Trump's going to devour her.
Now, the trouble is he's not actually devouring her.
He's devouring us.
I want a successful trade agreement with the United States for all of our benefit.
I prefer steel workers.
I have no connection to steelworkers other than they're Canadian, and I want them to keep going.
I like having an auto industry in Canada.
But Justin Trudeau and Christia Freeland are so over their heads, I don't think it's going to happen.
Well, that's our show for today.
For those of you who joined us on Saturday at the Rebel Live, I hope you had a good time.
I really did.
It was so interesting.
We had speakers from so many different backgrounds.
Lindsay Shepard, the free speech student from Laurier, was there.
Our friend Joe Warmington was there from the Toronto Sun.
Katie Hopkins came all the way into Townford.
That was exciting.
Sheila Gunreed came in from the West.
A great event overall.
And I know a lot of people said by email, hey, let's do one out west.
And maybe that is our next plan.
But we're going to take a day off before we start hatching new Rebel Live schemes.