Allum Bokhari reveals how Silicon Valley’s libertarian roots (2012–2013) morphed into far-left censorship, pressuring platforms like Google to fire engineers—such as James DeMore—over private dissent memos, while blacklisting conservatives and tolerating Antifa. With Facebook deleting 30,000 Marine Le Pen pages and EU contracts enforcing hate speech laws, tech giants (Amazon, Microsoft) now rival historical trusts in unregulated influence, potentially swaying elections by 40–50% via search manipulation. Ezra Levant warns suppression of Trump-like movements is inevitable unless grassroots pressure forces political reform, contrasting Canada’s weak defense culture with Israel’s military unity. Rebel Media’s ad revenue collapse (85%) and Tommy Robinson’s Twitter ban underscore the stakes for free speech. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, how tech companies have more control over our free speech than most governments do.
It's July 3rd, and you're watching The Ezra Levant 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.
I've been worried about YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google, for a couple of years now.
When we started the Rebel, it felt like it was the golden age to be online.
We grew very rapidly.
We have almost a million subscribers on YouTube, and we were actually making money through ads on YouTube.
And I thought for a moment that it was possible to survive that way.
And conservatives in particular flourished online.
But you see, that was a problem to the powers that be because it was the online grassroots activists who won the Brexit referendum.
And then later that year, who put Donald Trump over the top, while Hillary Clinton and the remainers in the UK thought TV ads and official endorsements did it.
Well, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter was where it was at.
And so, in early 2017, the social media companies almost collectively decided to shut that down.
They immediately demonetized websites like ours.
Our YouTube revenues that were on track for a million dollars in the year were cut by 85%.
Our viewership was restricted.
And later on, our top talent, like Tommy Robinson, who used to be with us, was thrown off of Twitter, banned altogether, simply for expressing points of view.
It's not just a particular concern to us as a media company, but to anyone who wants the other side of the story, the contrarian side of the story, either to say something or just as importantly, to hear something that the powers that be disagree with.
I think it's actually the most important story of our age.
And whereas a decade ago, when I was prosecuted before Alberta's Human Rights Commission, a government agency for publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohamed in the Western Standard magazine, censorship today does not have those processes, procedures, and appeals.
It all happens in some back room, perhaps by some millennial staffer pushing a button that no one ever knows about, but a voice has disappeared.
I think one of the most important journalists covering this beat right now works for Breitbart.com.
His name is Alan Bokhari, and he's agreed to spend the entire show with us today.
Alan joins us now via Skype from the UK.
Nice to see you again, Alam, and welcome to a special program on The Rebel.
How did you get into covering this unique beat?
Well, you know, I'm one of those millennials, so I grew up on the internet essentially.
Internal Group Think Exposed00:15:48
I spent way too much of my teenage years online, and I saw increasingly, I think it was around 2012, 2013, I started to notice these initially calls from, you know, far-left radical blue-hair type activists from Tumblr saying that, you know, platforms like Red, Facebook needed to kick offensive people off their platforms, you know, offensive content.
And it started off with, you know, there was a big panic about men's rights activists back in 2013, and then they started panicking about racists and neo-Nazis.
And we've seen that, and I saw this push over the years for the platforms that I grew up with, which were previously open-free platforms to become more and more censored.
Let's talk about the corporate culture of these places.
I mean, so many of the tech innovators are men who are engineers, mathematicians.
I mean, if you look at the inventors of the Google algorithm, a couple of Russian Jews with great math savvy.
Look at Steve Jobs.
These are not people who are inherently political.
And if they were political, they would tend towards the meritocracy.
They would tend towards, you know, objective ideas, right, wrong, on, off, zeros and ones.
I mean, mathematics and physics, there's not a lot of room for postmodern, you know, there's really no feminist answer to a math equation.
How did tech companies go from being really the domain?
I mean, I'm going to use some racial and gender language here, straight white, male, and Asian male mathematicians to being the domain of feminists, transgender activists, anti-Islamophobia activists.
How did it move so far away from its scientific meritocratic roots?
So, yeah, as you said, Silicon Valley started off founded by these very sort of non-political, apolitical types, very science-y, nerdy types.
And if they were political at all, their values were normally quite libertarian.
If you look at the values of early internet companies, the ethos of early internet companies, even the World Wide Web itself, it's a very libertarian idea.
Everyone can have this platform to express themselves.
And that's what Reddit promised initially.
That's what Twitter promised initially.
And then it changed over time.
Partly due to pressure from these social justice warrior gender studies types who suddenly started infiltrating Silicon Valley and pushing for more censorship and more diversity quotas.
And I think what happened was essentially partly because Silicon Valley is so dominated by technology is a very male field.
It's what male people enjoy doing.
And it's just a natural consequence of equality of opportunity and people following what they want to do.
But partly because of that, the left was able to attack Silicon Valley for being this straight white male place.
And this gave social justice warriors, the far left a foothold.
They were able to attack Silicon Valley, give them bad press when they didn't do what they wanted them to do.
And they were essentially able to intimidate a lot of these companies into taking a very far left line on political issues.
It's also partly a geographical problem.
Silicon Valley is based in the San Francisco Bay Area, possibly the most liberal leftist area in the United States.
So a lot of the people they're hiring come from the same location.
They come from places like Berkeley and Stanford, which are these very left-wing campuses.
So that's another issue.
I think if these companies move some of their operations to, say, the Midwest, then some of the problems might be a little bit reduced.
You know, I remember when Mark Zuckerberg was on Capitol Hill, he said, listen, San Francisco is a far-left city.
And I think he was saying something that was fairly obvious.
Now, there are some people who have that original independent, even contrarian ethos.
I think of Peter Thiel.
He was an early investor in Facebook.
He was with PayPal and other.
He's a gay, libertarian, Trump supporter.
He says he doesn't even like hanging out in San Francisco anymore.
I think he said he's moving his operations, I think, to LA or something.
I don't remember where he moved to.
Yeah, I think that's what I heard.
He has moved to LA now.
And Palmer Lucky is another one, the founder of Oculus Rift, a billion-dollar gaming company.
So, you know, conservatives in Silicon Valley really feel under siege.
They often don't even reveal the fact that they're conservative to their coworkers because they immediately face pressure.
They immediately face frivolous HR complaints and people, radicals, trying to get them fired.
So if you're a conservative in Silicon Valley, your job is under perpetual threat from these people.
It's part of the reason why the James DeMore case is so important.
He was fired from Google.
He's one of the senior engineers fired from Google because he expressed a pretty mainstream, moderate position on gender differences.
He essentially said that the ratio of male to female workers in Silicon Valley probably wasn't due to discrimination.
It might simply be because men and women have different preferences and part of that's by old Deuce terminus.
That's a pretty moderate position.
It's the kind of thing David Brooks would agree with in the New York Times, and he did actually agree with it a few days after DeMore was fired.
It's a very moderate, mainstream position.
It's not even a conservative position.
You could say it's a moderate liberal position.
But if you divert from far-left ideology even slightly, like DeMore did, then your job is at risk in Silicon Valley.
So I'm totally not surprised that conservatives are simply choosing to leave.
I actually met James DeMore, and I think he's such a sort of science nerd.
I mean, he's even a tiny bit awkward, I think.
I'm not disparaging.
I'm just saying he's exactly who you think would be programming in the bowels of these companies.
And I read his carefully argued item, and you can disagree with it, but he was trying - he was a problem solver.
Like, he's a problem solver, there's a problem, and he was laying out, well, here's how we can, he didn't just say there is a gender difference.
He'd say, well, here's how we can ameliorate it in ways other than reducing our standards.
And it was exactly the kind of discussion, problem-solving thing you'd think these companies would like, but they took the torches and had a witch-burning.
The reaction to him was stunning.
Describe what happened to this one fairly mild-mannered young guy who thought he would speak out against political discrimination based on gender, or sorry, gender discrimination.
Tell me a bit about the mob that came for him.
So, yeah, his manifesto essentially had two key points.
One of which was the fact that Google, the company where he worked, had become a fairly intolerant place towards people of differing political opinions.
That was the main thrust of his argument, that you're not free to express yourself at Google.
You can't disagree with certain progressive policies.
And if you do disagree, then your job is at risk.
And I think what happened after he published that memo kind of pretty much proved him right.
The second point he made was that gender differences, that the gender split in Silicon Valley, which is fairly dominated by white and Asian males, wasn't necessarily due to discrimination.
And this is what progressives have been arguing because progressives inside Silicon Valley have said, well, this whole, the reason there are so many men and so few women in tech companies isn't because men like tech more than women do.
It's because it's because of the cultural sexism and discrimination, which is a kind of bizarre argument to make because Silicon Valley companies bend over backwards to be diverse and welcoming and give incentives for minorities and women to join the companies.
It's the most welcoming place you could imagine.
But this is the argument the left makes, and James DeMore disagreed with it.
He said, well, no, the fact that there's a split could simply be because men and women have different preferences.
And what happened after that, and the other important point to make was that this was a private memo that he circulated inside Google.
He did not publish it himself.
It was published maliciously by left-wing activists inside Google who wanted to publicly shame Damore and create public question on Google to fire him.
So that's what happened.
It was initially a private document.
And immediately there was this huge uproar inside Google.
All the left-wing employees said DeMore has to be blacklisted, not just from Google, but from the entire industry.
And you had Google saying openly in communication channels in Google that they were making lists of everyone inside Google who supported James DeMore and supported his views.
And they were going to essentially have these lists and circulate them around and make sure that these guys were never employed in Google or inside Silicon Valley ever again.
So in a sense, it wasn't just the witch hunt of James DeMore, it was the witch hunt of anyone who agreed with him.
And if you express agreement with his very moderate, you know, mainline, still centrist positions, James DeMore's not a conservative, he's a centrist.
If you express agreement with them, you can expect to be put on one of these blacklists if you work in Silicon Valley.
You know, the fact that he sued them is very interesting because that's how we've gotten to learn some of these internal matters about Google.
Reading about it, it looked like there was an internal mob that the Google senior executives either stoked or, at the very least, allowed and most certainly didn't feel the need to suppress.
I mean, it was like a fire was raging within the building to cleanse any James DeMoore sympathizers.
That's how it looked.
But so many strange details have come out because of this lawsuit of the internal group think that's being enforced there.
I think this lawsuit could be much more important than just his own case.
I think it could show systemic discrimination against, not just against men, but against conservatives or skeptics of their affirmative action.
Do you think this lawsuit will go to term?
Do you think there will be actual hearings and actual witnesses testifying about the kind of censorship of conservatives and libertarians in Silicon Valley?
Oh, yeah, I know that for a fact.
There are quite a few people inside Google who have come forward to me anonymously and to Harmony Dylan, James DeMoore's lawyer, and I've told them the extent of the radicalism inside Google and the extent to which conservatives and people, not just conservatives, people who dissent from the group thing are made to feel afraid, made to feel that their jobs are in danger, often get frivolously reported to HR on minor complaints.
There was one guy I recently heard who got reported for sharing a national review article on internal channels.
National Review is like an extremely established, moderate, conservative magazine.
But even that, if you report it to HR and Google, I mean, this is a company that sells Black Lives Matter hoodies on their campus.
It's a company that also through this lawsuit we heard allowed one of their employees to give a presentation on living as a yellow-scale wingless dragon king, identifying as a yellow-scale wingless dragon king, which is bizarre, far-left, tumbler identity politics.
It's one of the most left-wing radical companies in the world.
And there have been threats of violence against Trump supporters.
You had this one guy who was openly supporting Antifa, Antifa, a far-left politically violent organization in the U.S.
It's classified as a domestic terrorist organization by multiple U.S. security agencies.
And you had this guy who was openly supportive of Antifa inside Google.
And he faced no consequences.
He was allowed to go on Twitter, go on public channels, and say, yes, You should punch Nazis, and also anyone who voted for Trump is a Nazis, so you should punch them too.
And this is the kind of thing that was tolerated and even encouraged in Google.
And I think we're going to see a lot more of it through this lawsuit.
I think it's one of the most important lawsuits of our time.
I think you're right.
And I hope it goes the distance.
Here's what scares me about that.
I mean, Starbucks is such a social justice warrior type company.
And it's madness.
I think the senior executives are crazier than the workers there, turning their bathrooms into basically homeless shelters.
But at the end of the day, Starbucks can't hurt me.
I mean, it's a cup of coffee.
There's really no politics to the actual drink itself.
If I don't like it, I'll go to some mom-and-pop coffee shop.
They can be insane in their own corporate culture, and it doesn't change the way the coffee tastes.
Google, if they're reporting someone to human resources because they shared a national review article, I've got to think, Alam, well, are they tweaking the search criteria for national review?
Like, if it's corporate policy that antifo is good, a violent alt-left street gang, and that national review is bad, extremely moderate, conservatives, so moderate, they're actually anti-Trumpers, many of them.
Well, it's not a cup of coffee they're making.
They're making how billions of us perceive the world.
They can make your website disappear, or they can promote a website.
And we won't even know about it because their algorithm is secret.
That's what terrifies me, Alam, is that they can make someone disappear, make them a non-person, and we don't even know that the reality has been changed by one of these yellow-scale dragons.
I mean, it's terrifying when you look deeper into the research as well, because most people don't go to page two of Google search results.
They don't even scroll down the page.
The vast majority of clicks on Google searches are the top two, the top three results.
So if Google decides to go and put you at the bottom of the results on the first page or the second page, they've essentially disappeared because no matter how popular you were previously, you won't be popular anymore because people just won't find you.
So they have an extraordinary amount of power over what becomes popular on the internet, what websites are popular, what news sources are popular, and even what politicians are popular.
The best researcher on this at the moment is a guy called Dr. Robert Epstein.
He's the former editor of Psychology Today.
And he looked at how Google can affect elections by tweaking their search results.
And they can have insane amounts of impact on undecided voters.
The figures are, I can't remember the precise figures, but it's up to like 40%, 50% of undecided voters will change their opinion if search results are manipulated in a certain way.
And like I said, Google can do this entirely undetected because everyone's search result is different.
So it's very difficult to monitor search results for bias.
Google's Election Influence00:08:08
So they could be manipulating elections and we don't even know and wouldn't even know about it.
Well, I mean, in some cases, we know about it, but we only know a fraction of what happened.
For example, I mentioned Brexit and then Donald Trump.
Well, the next big election was in France.
And you had Maureen Le Pen of the National Front.
You can take her or leave her, but she was sort of the next outsider, anti-EU, anti-immigration candidate.
And I recall Facebook suddenly announcing that they deleted 30,000 Facebook pages that were supportive of Maureen Le Pen, calling them fake.
Well, maybe they were fake.
Or maybe someone in Facebook just said, we don't want to have the three Pete, Brexit, Trump, and Le Pen, and we have no idea.
And I recall that Microsoft, Twitter, YouTube, Google, and I think I'm missing one more, Facebook, struck a contract with the European Union to enforce their hate speech laws for parts of Europe, including Germany.
Private deal.
That they're literally enforced.
And how do we know what's going on?
How do we know that there weren't instructions in the EU put down these anti-EU parties like in Hungary or Poland or Austria?
I'm far more terrified of the people that lynched James DeMoore than I am a dozen years ago when I was prosecuted by the human rights commissions in Alberta.
Far more terrified.
Well, the real danger, like you said, is if governments start working with these social media companies to censor people they don't like.
Then it becomes like a real force of authoritarianism.
I mean, when you've got the power of government combining with the power of their social media companies, that's beyond anything, say.
Imagine the most totalitarian government of the 20th century, the USSR, they didn't have this kind of power because they didn't have this kind of technology.
I think European governments are absolutely putting pressure on Facebook to censor people they don't like, not only enforce their hate speech laws, but also go beyond that and censor what they call fake news.
It's very arbitrary concept that's very flexible and can be changed to cover anything they don't like.
I think when it comes to companies like Europe and Canada, the first thing that has to change is the hate speech laws.
I mean, it's no good getting Facebook to stop banning users for hate speech if you're going to be put in jail for it anyway.
So there's a political battle to be fought there first.
But certainly the alliance between governments and social media companies is quite terrifying to watch.
Let me ask you a question.
About a century ago, in the United States, there was an independent president, you know, the leader of the Bull Moose Party.
His name is Teddy Roosevelt.
He was a swashbuckler.
He was a disruptor.
And he also busted up the trusts, you know, all the big oil and steel and banking, you know, monopolists.
He busted them up.
You could say it was a violation of capitalism.
I mean, if J.D. Rockefeller was a colossus and if he got it legally, who was the government to bust it up?
I put it to you that Facebook with 2 billion users or whatever it is is more powerful politically than J.D. Rockefeller was at his apex.
And I'm terrified of Bezos, who not only controls Amazon, but who, by the way, has a massive CIA contract.
And I'm not engaging in conspiracy theories.
I'm just saying he's a very powerful man who also happens to the Washington Post.
And I wonder, you know, a libertarian free market purist would say, no, don't touch these companies.
That's meddling.
An alternative will come along.
Whether it's Friendster or MySpace, there will be a competitor.
And just give it time.
If Twitter's misbehaving and Facebook's misbehaving and Google's misbehaving, they will lose customers to an upstart.
Yeah, maybe, maybe, but when you've got 2 billion people and you're the end, you know, the starting and stopping point, you're really an alternative internet and you're controlling the perception of reality.
You can make political parties disappear literally like Tommy.
You can make him disappear.
You can make 30,000 pages disappear.
I wonder if we need our bull moose of our era, Donald Trump, to do something politically and legally.
But what can he do that doesn't just accrete unto himself and the U.S. government power?
Because we can't just think about Donald Trump.
What if it were Obama in office?
We wouldn't want to give Obama enormous powers, so we have to be principled about it.
What's the solution here?
Is there some way to bust up these new censors that doesn't empower the state even more?
Well, that's the real question.
I think the answer is unquestionably yes, but the answer was how.
The question is how.
Interestingly, the big social media companies like Twitter and Facebook and Google are doing exactly what net neutrality activists warned the ISPs would do.
They're discriminating on the basis of content.
They're privileging certain news organizations over others.
So everything that the net neutrality activists warned the Internet Service Dwights would do, Facebook and Google and the social media companies are doing right now.
So I'm interested that we haven't heard more from them.
But I absolutely agree with your point that Standard Oil and the monopolies that were busted up in the 20th century are nothing compared to Facebook or Google because they didn't have the same amount of power over communications and information.
I mean, thinking back to that same time, when there were revolutionaries in the 20s and 30s, one of the first things that a group looking to seize power would do was that they'd seize the radio station or the television station because power over the means of communications is everything.
And now you've got all that power being concentrated into the hands of a few far-left radical companies in Silicon Valley.
So absolutely regulated.
And the idea of competitors one day coming and displaced and kind of misses the point because say if a competitor did displace Google or Facebook and they became the new Google or Facebook, come election time, that company would be just as much of a threat and just as much of a problem.
And that company would also need to be regulated to ensure it doesn't just swing an election or suppress a news source a few months before an election.
So even if competitors come along, it's still a problem that they have all this power over information.
In terms of what can be done, that's the real question here, because the problem that we have with social media companies is that on the one hand, they're being pressured by governments to crack down on Trump, and on the other hand, they're being pressured by their own advertisers.
So if you passed a law saying that political speech is protected on Facebook, political speech is protected on Google and Twitter, this would sort of help the social media companies because they could then turn to the advertisers and say, well, there's no point boycotting us because the government's making us do it.
So they should support it as well, frankly.
But I think the only way you get there is through a massive grassroots movement because politicians, whether it's politicians of the left or establishment politicians from the conservative side, they're very much in favor of social media companies acting as their own censors because they can put pressure on them as well to send their own political opponents, whether it's Tommy Robinson or Rebel Media or Breitbart or whoever.
So it's really got to be the grassroots that puts pressure on politicians and gets rid of politicians who don't support freedom on the internet.
Pessimistic Hope00:02:03
That's really the only way I think this can change.
Very interesting.
Well, I have to say I'm pessimistic because I see everything going towards more censorship.
I've said it before.
If Donald Trump doesn't bust the Silicon Valley monopolies, they will bust him.
I really think it is that they will not allow a repeat of 2016.
I think that Silicon Valley, through some of the reasons you've described, and also, I think they've been deliberately colonized.
I think that there's a deliberate political strategy by the hard left to colonize these groups, these media.
I'm very pessimistic, but I'm always grateful for your reports because you're one of the few people shining a light of scrutiny on it.
And I hope we can continue to talk with you as this battle continues, Alam.
Thank you very much, Africa.
It's great to be on.
Well, thank you for spending so much time with us.
That's our friend Alan Bokhari.
He's the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News.
And he covers this important beat that so many others ignore or are frankly complicit with.
Stay with us.
My final thoughts are next.
Well, what do you think of Alan Bocari?
I like his style, really smart, and more than that, I think his beat is extremely important.
He's not a lovey-dovey tech reporter.
So many tech reporters, I think, want to suck up to Facebook or YouTube or whatever, writing PR for them, hopefully to be hired by them to get some of that big Silicon Valley cash.
Not Alan Bokhari, I think, is really the only critical reporter who looks at the politics of Silicon Valley.
He works for Breitbart.com, so he's actually doing it out of self-interest as well as public intellectual reasons.
Amazing Israeli Parade00:05:21
BreitbartBart.com is targeted just like we are here at The Rebel.
I hope you agree.
Boy, I hope we are allowed to continue to talk to him, both us at the Rebel and them at Breitbart.
Of course, if the left had their way, we would both be silenced.
Hey, by the way, I pre-taped this interview because I'm actually overseas with other rebels going on a fact-finding trip to Israel.
Here's a quick clip from there.
Ezra Levant here with the Rebel.media, I am in Israel for almost 10 days with half a dozen of our on-air rebels and more than 50 of our most enthusiastic viewers from around the world.
We have folks here from as far away as Australia in the United Kingdom who are on this fact-finding adventure with us through Israel.
We were only a few days into it, but I think I know already what the highlight of the trip is going to be.
It's when we attended the graduation of the latest class of pilots for the Israel Air Force.
Some would say it's the best Air Force in the world, perhaps second only to the United States.
What was amazing was the air show obviously was spectacular.
There was a dogfight between two F-15s, amazing.
The F-35 is in service in Israel, the most advanced aircraft in the world.
That was neat.
That was exciting.
And watching the military procession and parade was cool.
But it was interesting to me that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came and the president of Israel, which is a more ceremonial position, came, and the head, the defense minister, Abigail Lieberman, came, and the head of the air force.
So the absolute top political brass of the country came and they all gave speeches, but then they stayed for the whole ceremony as each pilot's name was read out and in many cases a little personal anecdote was told about them.
And the prime minister and the president, who were very busy people, spent all of this time there.
And I realized at that point we were the only tourists in the group.
Everyone else was a family member or a personal friend of a pilot who had graduated from this most elite part of the Israel Defense Forces.
And then it struck me how amazing it was that we were able to come to such a personal event.
And yes, the demonstration of the hardware was amazing.
It was sort of neat because as there was marches, they showed on the big screen, I don't know if it was from a satellite or from a drone, images from space of the same thing in real time.
It was tremendous.
But what struck me, besides the sheer thunder of it and the investment in it, was the moral investment that Israel makes in its armed forces.
And that was a point that Netanyahu made, is that these are the absolute best people in the country, and the country proves it with their paying for the best equipment, but also giving them all the moral support.
These are the people at the highest heights, the top of the social pyramid.
And I say that in contrast to Canada.
In Canada where our prime minister would not go to such an event, of course.
And if he did, what would we be doing, flying some old F-18s, the ones that weren't in maintenance of that day?
And would he tell these people they're the absolute best in the country?
And would he stay after his own self-loving speech and listen to the stories of every other pilot there and meet their families?
He would not.
What was amazing to me is the fusion of nationalism, patriotism, military, and the fact that they're counting on these young people.
They're young.
As Sheila Gunrida pointed out in other videos, these are millennials.
Millennials who in the West are dyeing their hair pink and talking about, use my proper gender pronoun.
Instead of that shenanigans in the West, in Israel, 18, 19, 20-year-olds are defending the country against real hot terror threats.
In a way, it's a wonderful luxury that in Canada we live in a country where the consequences and the drama of life is so remote that we can afford to have a shallow, narcissistic failure to launch Manchild as our prime minister and not face the brutal consequences.
And I couldn't help but think, what if Israel, God forbid, in some parallel universe, were to have Justin Trudeau as its prime minister, a man who loathes the military and lets it show, who doesn't give them the best equipment in the world but rather demands they give, I don't know, their sleeping bags back as Trudeau did, who says veterans are asking for more than he can give but gives $10.5 million in his settlement to Omicar.
Imagine the demoralization if Israel had such a failed prime minister.
It's unthinkable.
All of Israel's prime ministers on the left and the right have done military service.
It was just such a reminder of the stakes at play in Israel and how seriously they take their own security and a reminder of the lack of seriousness on these matters in our own country and what a buffoon that we have as a leader by contrast.
But I suppose we're lucky to be able to afford a buffoon as a leader, don't you think?
I'm here all week in Israel.
If you want to see all our videos, go to RebelIsrael.com.
That's our show for today on behalf of all of us at The Rebel.