Ezra Levant’s episode dissects media bias in Canada’s coverage of Marissa Shen’s murder by Syrian refugee Ibrahim Ali, contrasting Western outlets’ victimization of Ali with Chinese-Canadian media’s focus on accountability. He highlights Trudeau’s selective outrage—condemning a hijab hoax but ignoring Shen’s case—and ties it to U.S. parallels like Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation fight, where Democrats weaponized accusations without evidence. Levant warns Doug Ford against conceding to left-wing tactics, comparing his resilience to Rob Ford’s political downfall, while exposing a $50K "liberal cash scam" for Syrian families. The episode ends with a call to fund skeptical reporting at the UN Open Borders Conference in Morocco next month, framing it as essential to counter establishment narratives. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, ordinary citizens react to the murder of a 13-year-old Chinese-Canadian girl in a manner that our media party doesn't approve.
It's September 17th 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.
Last week, Ibrahim Ali, one of Justin Trudeau's Syrian refugees, was charged with the first-degree murder of a 13-year-old Chinese-Canadian girl, Marissa Shen.
Here's some video footage of Shen in the last few hours of her life as she went to a local coffee shop and went out to the park, where she was later murdered.
I don't want to ignore her.
I don't want to forget her because she's already being ignored and written out of the story.
She is the real victim, obviously, as is her family and her community.
But just like the odious case of Omar Cotter, the mainstream media and the political elites, what I often call the media party, have decided that Ibrahim Ali, the accused murderer, is the real victim here, and that Syrian refugees are the real victims here, and that the cause of open-border mass immigration is the real victim here.
So they have to omit the actual victim from their stories so you're not reminded of the pure evil that has happened to her.
That's what the media party did for Omar Cotter.
Can you name for me the name of the man he murdered or the name of his fatherless kids or the man who was blinded in one eye by Omar Cotter?
Unless you have been a close supporter of our own crowdfunding campaign for them, I bet you can't because the Canadian media never mentions them.
Sergeant Christopher Spear is his name, by the way.
His widow is Tabitha and their two kids are Taryn and Tanner.
The man who lost his eye is Lane Morris.
It's important to remember the real victims when the media tries to gaslight you.
It's important to think about a beautiful 13-year-old girl who will never have a chance to grow up and live because the mainstream media, upon learning that her accused murderer was a Muslim refugee from Syria, have decided they need to reframe the story.
Don't let them do that.
Here's CTV doing that.
Their story is actually headlined, Accused Killer of BCT described as new to Canada, normal guy.
Let me quote from the story.
A family friend who CTV Vancouver agreed not to identify described Ali as calm, respectful, and a normal guy and said he hadn't seen Ali acting as though he had something to hide.
Well, that settles it then.
Sounds like a really great guy with a smile that would light up the room.
Is there any other category of accused murderers and rapists for whom the media immediately goes into normalization and humanization mode?
Well, they did that for Faisal Hussain, the killer who went on a shooting spree in Toronto's Greek town, murdering two young girls also.
Here's the CBC literally quoting someone saying that phrase, he had a million-dollar smile.
And he was very upbeat and happy whenever I saw him.
I didn't identify any triggers.
I couldn't see anything wrong.
Is there any other kind of murderer other than a Muslim migrant for whom the media immediately ignores the real victims and tries to turn the murderer or accused murderer into a victim?
It's so gross and yet absolutely uniform across Canadian media.
Let me show you some local Vancouver media coverage.
So on the day when Ibrahim Ali was first brought into court, a local Syrian activist named Mohammed Al-Saleh thought he'd go and grab some of the publicity for himself.
A quick Google search will show you that Al-Saleh is a professional immigration agitator and propagandist who literally does the political speaking circuit promoting Muslim immigration to the West.
It's his profession.
He's an organizer and he was very organized.
He contacted all the media in the city of Vancouver and told them the official Syrian refugee approved narrative that this murder has nothing to do with the accused being a Syrian refugee.
And even if it does, Syrians are just as mad as the Chinese community.
And it's very important that the media not be, you know, into boring Chinese stuff about a Chinese Canadian girl murdered and possibly raped, which I think is the reason it's a first-degree murder charge.
No, no, no.
It's about the noble Syrian refugee story's all about them.
And the media didn't just report this strategy by Al-Saleh.
They helped organize it.
They published a video of Al-Saleh advertising his huge rally of Syrians in support of Marissa.
They literally embedded his PR video right into the Vancouver Sun's main website with a beautiful promotional propaganda piece underneath it.
I mean, what's that?
$100,000 worth of PR gifted to him, minimum?
Al-Salah obviously worked the phones because by the time he showed up at court, he had, oh, I don't know, maybe four other Syrians with him, grand total.
For some reason, no one other than his professional activist friends came along.
Funny how that worked.
There were literally more left-wing media reporting on his fake vigil than there were people at that vigil.
But to the media's surprise, some actual Chinese Canadians were actually there.
And for some reason, they didn't want to talk about how much they love Syrian refugees.
They didn't want to talk about what a normal guy Ibrahim Ibrahim Ali is, how handsome he is, how his smile just lights up a room or whatever.
The line today is, how unexpected.
That's the line most of the media used.
It was so unexpected.
Take a look at this.
This was not the scene we expected here in downtown Vancouver this morning.
We are outside the Vancouver Provincial Courthouse.
We were expecting a planned vigil to materialize by members of the Syrian community living in Metro Vancouver.
They had told us that they were going to come and show their support for Marissa Shen's family.
Now, instead, we have seen dozens of counter-protesters show up.
They say they are also here in support of Shen's family, but they have a very different message.
What if we are here?
Yes.
We demand the Prime Minister to apologize.
This morning, members of the Syrian community, as I said, had planned to hold vigil outside the Vancouver courthouse.
That was drowned out by these counter-protesters who say Ali never should have been here in the first place.
You want Trudeau to address this issue?
Of course.
That's a life, right?
A life got terminated at 30 years old.
And where's the leader?
It's a sad thing for human beings and not only for our community.
Yeah.
It should be, the murderer should be punished.
They called that Chinese protest unexpected.
Really?
Do they think normal Canadians are as soft on crime as they are or obsessed with Muslim migrants as they are?
But give Global News credit, they actually allowed a very brief criticism of Justin Trudeau to go to air, as you saw.
Amazing they'd allow that.
That's actually the unexpected part here.
Here's more from Sarah McDonald of Global TV.
Here's her tweet.
She said, Members of the Chinese community came up to speak with us immediately afterwards.
They say they are not affiliated with other demonstrators here who called Justin Trudeau's refugee policies too lax.
Ibrahim Ali, 28, is charged with first-degree murder and the death of Marissa Shen.
So Global TV is making it really clear.
Chinese Canadians say they are totally not amongst those who believe refugee policies are too lax.
No, no, no.
Don't worry.
The liberal narrative is safe.
Trudeau is loved by the Chinese people who love his refugee politics, including that guy who's mad at Trudeau.
That's just love.
He doesn't know it yet.
All right, let me run the video clip that was embedded in that tweet.
And you tell me, is Sarah McDonald reporting accurately or is she just, you know, making stuff up to fit her narrative, despite the so many unexpected things the Chinese community said.
We are here to show our concerns.
Okay.
You have to have the hard feelings.
We're here not only to support the loss of the family, of the young girl, of the young life.
We're here to express our concern of the security, of the safety of our community.
Not only for Chinese community here, people from other different corners of the world, right?
We want to have this place, Canada, a better place for our children and children's children.
Now, there are a few different factions of people here today.
You're saying you're here on behalf of the Chinese community to show your support for Shen's family.
You're saying you're not associated with the group that is saying that is against immigration and that says that Syrian refugees should be here.
We are not here.
We are not against the immigration law.
We just want the authority to do the lead screening.
The checkup of the applications.
Do not just want anyone who wants to come here.
We don't want any criminals with the criminal records to come here and commit crime and kill.
Did you catch the part at the ending there?
There was some crosstalk, but I've watched a few times now.
He specifically said they want better vetting to stop criminals, better vetting.
He's obviously talking about Syrian migrants.
That's what they were talking about in the protest.
Here, listen just one more time to that ending part.
We just want the authority to do the screening, the checkup of the applications.
Do not just want anyone who wants to come here.
We don't want any criminals with the criminal records to come here and commit crime and kill.
So just back to that global tweet again by Sarah McDonald.
She said, they say they are not affiliated with other demonstrators here who call Justin Trudeau's refugees policies too lax.
Yeah, no, sister, that's sort of the exact opposite of what he said.
I mean, I know that's what you wanted him to say, but he didn't say that.
He says it's too lax.
He wants more vetting.
The Chinese community is being quite unexpected these days, isn't it?
Unexpectedly, they're not thrilled that one of their 13-year-old girls was murdered by a Muslim migrant Trudeau brought to Canada unvetted, who Trudeau himself said would never be allowed in as a single military-aged Muslim male.
Trudeau said no, single men like that.
But he lied, didn't he?
So unexpected.
Do you remember when a young Muslim girl in Toronto unexpectedly claimed that she was attacked by a Chinese-Canadian man who allegedly cut her hijab with scissors?
It was such a preposterous claim that a Chinese man would be walking around town with scissors and he would accost a hijabi girl on the way to school and rush up to her and say nothing but cut her hijab with scissors, but to do so so carefully that he didn't cut her herself and that this whole thing actually happened twice in the same short period of time, but no one saw it and it happened.
Honest, and you know it's legit because the school called a national press conference with the 11-year-old girl as the star and put her on national TV, and her little brother was there, and he was laughing and joking around, because that's the normal thing to do after a girl has attacked twice with scissors, right?
Put her on national TV, give out her name for the perp to find as opposed to putting the school in lockdown or something.
Yeah, it was an obvious hoax.
But Justin Trudeau loved it or was fooled by it, I don't know.
He put out a national statement condemning the alleged attacker who didn't exist.
And once the hoax fell apart, once it was proved there was no Chinese man with scissors, Justin Trudeau didn't correct the record.
He let it stand.
He let his slanders stand.
The mainstream media ignored the results of that, but we didn't.
Look at this.
Remember this?
Hundreds of Chinese Canadians marched in protest of Trudeau, criticizing him for blaming them.
They also condemned the CBC for promoting the same anti-Chinese lie.
And by the way, they praised the Rebel too, which was interesting.
CPC fake news!
CPC fake news!
Rebel media!
Real news!
Rebel media!
Rebels!
So that was a few months ago after the hijab hoax.
And now this, a real murder of a real girl, not a fake hijab hoax, quickly disproven.
And so where is Trudeau's tweet this time?
Where is his visit?
Where is anything?
Not a peep.
Because it's against the narrative.
It would not be unexpected for him to care about a 13-year-old murder victim if the accused were an ordinary killer.
If it were a regular, say, gun murder, Trudeau would commiserate and pine for the cameras.
But here, it's a Syrian migrant that Trude himself let in, Trudeau, who allegedly murdered and likely raped the girl.
Best to pretend it never happened.
No wonder they're mad in Vancouver.
Trudeau likes Chinese Canadians on voting day.
The other 364 days a year, well, they have to know their place in the pecking order.
Oh, one last thing.
That anti-immigrant group that Global News was on about it, that's actually a lovely lady named Laura Lynn Thompson, who was there in solidarity with the Chinese community.
She was talking in support of the Chinese folks and argued with some old leftist who was pro-Syrian migrant.
But as Laura Lynn was talking, someone walked by, looked like she was wearing a hijab, and threw coffee on her.
Take a look.
Now, it wasn't clear, but I think that was a woman in the hijab.
I couldn't see her face.
Let's just watch it one more time.
Did you see that?
I think that's a Muslim woman in the hijab.
But I don't know.
I didn't see her face.
I don't know.
What we do know is that we saw an assault there, the coffee being thrown on her, and we saw a gaggle of media.
You could see the CBC microphone with the logo on it at the end.
That's an assault.
But not a peep about that from the media.
They all saw it with their eyes.
They all caught it on tape.
But not a minute of that made it to broadcast TV.
Why?
Because it would be unexpected.
An attack, an attacker herself in a hijab, throwing hot coffee on a Canadian critic of open borders migration.
If it were the other way around, if a white woman had thrown hot coffee on a Muslim woman in hijab, oh my god, the media would have stamped after her.
Who are you?
What's that?
They would have let the news and police would be hunting the hate criminal right now.
But the reverse, yawn, boring.
You can't trust the mainstream media.
But you know what?
Now you have an alternative.
People Watched One Little Tweet00:02:05
Chinese-based media have covered this case much more honestly and comprehensively than Canadian media.
The other day I mentioned the South China Morning Post, based in Hong Kong, many online Canadian Chinese media, too.
And I did just one little tweet on the subject.
You see this tweet here?
It took me about a minute or two to write it.
And I had the clip on it.
And look at these stats.
Twitter gives you statistics.
Here's a look at the Twitter statistics of that one tweet.
That one little tweet I did about this case.
1.6 million people read the tweet and more than 400,000 people actually watched that little video I uploaded.
I just copied it, actually.
400,000 video views.
That's as many people as watched CBC's The National on any given night, watching one little tweet.
1.6 million people looked at the tweet itself.
I've been on Twitter for nearly 10 years and this is by far the most watched, most read thing I've ever written.
Why?
Was it that interesting?
Well, yeah, actually, because people know the media and the politicians are lying to them about something they deeply care about.
The murder of this young girl and who did it and the critical issues of Islam and fake refugees and violence.
The media party, at least in Canada, is terrified to talk about it.
They bring in actors.
That's what that Syrian activist was.
They're pretending that he's a legit representative of the Syrian community.
That's good enough for the people.
An actor says they really love, they really love the Chinese community.
They pretend that we all love Trudeau's mass immigration when polls show 90% of us don't.
You know, until very recently, no one had anywhere else to go for the news.
Now we do.
stay with us for more.
Welcome back.
Kavanaugh's Confirmation Crisis00:15:24
Well, one of the great successes of Donald Trump's presidency so far, by observers on the left and the right, has been the quality and quantity of appointments he's made to the courts.
In fact, he set a new record for the number of appellate judges appointed, and they've been vetted by the conservative Federalist Society.
So they're judges that Ronald Reagan himself would be proud of.
Of course, the crown jewel in the judiciary is the Supreme Court of the United States.
And Donald Trump has now nominated his second appointee, a judge well regarded by both parties until this moment, named Brett Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh sustained more questions than any other nominee combined, than every other nominee combined, answering literally hundreds of oral and written questions.
Well, the Democrats didn't find enough to stop him, and despite their antics of shouting down and having protests, he appeared to be set for confirmation until a late hit.
California Senator Dianne Feinstein broke the news that there was an allegation from Brett Kavanaugh's years in high school that has remained dormant for 30 years and now looks like it could upset this confirmation.
Joining us now via Skype is our friend Joel Pollock, senior editor-at-large at Breitbart.com.
Joe, did I accurately sum up the state of Brett Kavanaugh that he was pretty much set to be confirmed until this late hit?
Yeah, that's correct.
There was no reason not to confirm him.
And all of the Republicans on the committee looked satisfied with him.
And they were going to vote to pass his nomination through the committee on Thursday on party lines, which would have meant an 11 to 10 vote.
And that would have moved it on to the floor of the Senate where thanks to Democrat removal of rules on the filibuster, a simple majority, which is in the Republicans' hands, would have been enough to put him on the Supreme Court.
So this was basically over.
But then the vote was postponed from last week because of Hurricane Florence.
And now over the weekend, a woman has come forward to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were both in high school.
He 17 years old at the time, she 15.
And the assault sounds like a kind of drunken fumble in a room at a house party.
And he says it never happened.
And he has never done anything like that with anybody, including the accuser.
The only other witness agrees with Brett Kavanaugh.
So this woman is the only person who is providing any kind of story here.
There's no corroborating evidence at all.
The only potentially corroborating evidence is something she told her therapist six years ago, which is 30 years afterward.
And the therapist's version of the story is different than hers.
So we don't know why this is being taken so seriously.
Well, let me rephrase that.
We know why.
Democrats are determined to stop this confirmation.
And so they're grasping at straws.
And they've basically said the entire thing needs to be derailed.
Now, Kavanaugh has said he's prepared to come back and testify under oath in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
And the accuser, she has also said through her attorney, she's willing to testify, which should be interesting.
But Democrats don't want to have a hearing on this.
They want the FBI to investigate.
So they're now asking the FBI once again to interfere in a fundamental political question.
And their goal, of course, is to delay the Kavanaugh confirmation past the election.
Now, I don't think that helps them because I don't think they're likely to win, at least in the Senate, in the House.
Democrats are favored to win, but Republicans, because of the way the Senate elections are happening this year, are favored to pick up seats in the Senate.
So Democrats will have less leverage, not more, after the November election, at least as far as the Senate goes, maybe not in terms of the overall narrative about where the country is at.
But it's a delay tactic that they're using, gambling somehow that this will prevent Kavanaugh from taking a seat on the Supreme Court.
Maybe they can force him to withdraw.
They can please their own base.
They can show that they're strong.
They can energize their voters.
And whether he's confirmed or not, this will energize their voters anyway, because now they've set up a situation in which the elected politicians, most of whom are male, are being confronted with accusations by a woman and told that if they don't believe her, then they're anti-woman.
So this is a perfect setup.
It's a win-win for Democrats.
Either they stop the confirmation or they rile up their base.
What's unseen and unheard so far is whether this also riles up the conservative base, the Republican base, and particularly male voters.
Male voters, very important to Republicans, very important to Donald Trump, very unlikely to state their opinions openly because once you do, you become a target.
But this could motivate more people to go to the polls for the Republicans because if Democrats win in November, you're going to see more and more of these kinds of tactics, these kinds of hearings.
And there's no sense that there's any boundary around it whatsoever.
If you can go back in time more than 35 years and dredge up a strange accusation uncorroborated from high school in order to evaluate the long distinguished judicial career and the character of a man who's been vouched for by female clerks, female colleagues, even female classmates from that high school era, then anything is possible.
And really no man is safe.
I mean, that's how I think it's quietly being interpreted where Americans are concerned.
You know, a lot of these Me Too moments turn on the details.
I mean, the phrase, the devil's in the details, it's a cliché because it's true.
And in this case, you pointed out the important first fact, this happened three and a half decades ago in high school.
The second fact is that this woman never breathed a word of this in high school, in college, when Kavanaugh was first appointed to the court, when throughout the decades, she only had some sort of recovered memory moment in deep couples therapy, as you mentioned a few years back, but didn't mention the name to her therapist, or he didn't write it down.
The stories changed.
And what's interesting to me is that Senator Feinstein has had this accusation in her pocket for six months and didn't bring it to the FBI then, didn't raise it in the under oath examination of Kavanaugh, obviously was holding it for this last-minute hit.
And I don't think it's irrelevant that this accuser who has never uttered a complaint in 35 years and who has no corroborating witnesses, didn't tell anyone until some strange couples therapy thing a few years ago, happens to be an anti-Trump activist.
Not just a regular person coming forward, but a highly motivated anti-Trump extremist professor whose students say she's a bit dark and unusual and vindictive in their student reviews.
I don't think those are irrelevant details.
Do you?
Well, they're not irrelevant.
Obviously, the most important thing is what she'll say under oath.
But I think that's all reason for her to be cross-examined by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I think that as long as they keep to the original timetable, they can have a hearing with this woman and with Judge Kavanaugh and still vote on his confirmation on Thursday.
There's no reason they can't do it tomorrow or Wednesday.
This is a very small accusation.
It's not backed up by other accusations.
It's not a terribly deep evidentiary dive.
She's going to tell her story and he's going to respond and they're going to ask each other or the two sides are going to ask them questions.
That's it.
So I think Democrats are now, you know, we're told that the Me Too movement is supposed to allow victims or accusers to be heard, but they don't want to hear her.
They want to drag this out.
And I think Democrats are now risking this entire tactic because if they decide not to have these hearings under oath, then Republicans may just decide, you know, we did our best.
Too bad.
We're going to vote on this anyway.
That may be complicated by the fact that one of the Republicans, Jeff Flake, who's a determined anti-Trumper, has already said he wants to hear more and maybe we should delay things.
But basically, I think the longer this drags on, the worse it looks for Democrats.
So I think Kavanaugh's nomination is now at risk.
But also, I believe Democrats are risking a lot by pulling this card.
Because again, I think there will be a backlash, a quiet one, but one that counts in November.
And even if Democrats win in November, they can't stop Trump from nominating another conservative justice as long as Republicans hold the Senate, which they're likely to do.
Here's why I think this is maybe the most important moment of the year for Trump.
And I acknowledge he has done some interesting things, his trade deals, his tax cut.
But here's why I think this moment is more important than maybe any since the campaign.
And Joel, I'd really like your thoughts on this.
You're, of course, the author of a best-selling book on Trump.
It's my view that the accusations have, well, it's universally known that the accusations here have no basis other than this woman's recovered memories 35 years later.
So there could not be less.
It couldn't be any older.
It couldn't, I mean, a teenager, no corroboration.
Why didn't she mention this?
Why did the Democrats hold it back, et cetera, et cetera.
If this is enough to derail an eminently qualified, moderate, bipartisan, this judge has had bipartisan support in the past.
If this good man, Brett Kavanaugh, if this half accusation is enough to stop him, if this tactic is rewarded with success, two things will happen.
First of all, this tactic will be repeated.
And no one will be safe from, oh, back in junior high, you dipped a girl's hair ponytail in the inkwell back in 1952.
I mean, so if this is given credence, moral authority, it'll be rewarded with a hundredfold.
And no man could, if an accusation is the same as a conviction, no one will ever recover.
But more importantly, Trump won precisely because he wasn't willing to submit to this kind of unfair tactic.
He was the bully enough, the bull in the china shop enough, the tough guy enough that he would never bend the knee to the media narrative.
The same way they destroyed John McCain in 2008, the same way they destroyed Mitt Romney in 2012, those were mild.
Mitt Romney was a mild-mannered man who was inoffensive in every way, and yet they turned him into a raging misogynist because he used the phrase, I have binders of women, referring to resumes.
I guess my point, Joel, is Trump, his very credibility and his very style is at risk here.
If he is seen to bend the knee to this mob, I think countless of his supporters will lose heart.
If he says this is a smear to hell with this dirty tactics, I think, like you said, a lot of people will quietly say, enough.
That's exactly right.
What do you think?
Sorry, that was a long-winded way of me putting the question, but I think this puts to the test everything Trump stands for.
Well, what's been interesting is that he's standing by the nominee.
He hasn't said much on Twitter, where he's usually quite vocal.
I think he's watching to see what happens.
But definitely the White House has been supportive.
They're not backing down.
They think that their man is telling the truth.
And there's no evidence, no other accusers as of yet, anyway.
So this looks like a desperation tactic from Democrats.
The thing that Democrats really have against him here, one of the many things, is the timing.
They had this information, as you said, in July.
They did not bring it up.
They did not ask him even in the abstract in private meetings.
They didn't ask him under oath in the public meetings, in the one-on-one meetings, nothing.
This never came up.
So they're trying to blindside him with something that they've been sitting on for months, which basically is anti-democratic when you think about it, because the public is supposed to be able to see into this process.
And you have these hearings and everybody watches and everybody forms an opinion based on that.
And instead of allowing that public process to play out, Democrats basically withheld this information, then made sure it was leaked to the media.
And they're attempting once again to bring the FBI into the situation.
It's anti-Democratic.
And I think it's going to hurt Democrats in the long run, even if their base is fired up, seeing that their leaders are fighting against a conservative 5-4 Supreme Court majority.
They're going to get that conservative majority with or without Brett Kavanaugh, because Trump is going to appoint someone else if Kavanaugh resigns or fades, withdraws, whatever, or if he's not accepted in the final floor vote.
I also think that the Republicans like Jeff Flake, he's retiring, but those who waiver on Kavanaugh will also see their political fortunes fail.
And conversely, I think Democrats that support Kavanaugh will see their fortunes improve.
There are several states in which Democrats are running this year in November that Trump won in 2016.
So those red state Democrats are under a lot of pressure, and Diane Feinstein and the left wing of the Democratic Party have not made things any easier for them.
Joel, my last question to you was a bit of a ramble.
Can I try a different approach and I'll keep it more succinct?
Because there's something about Trump I want to plumb here and his appeal.
I don't know if you remember in his primary campaign, he was in, I think it was North Dakota, and he said the word Pocahontas in reference to Senator Warren of Massachusetts.
And some Aboriginal journalists from Canada actually shouted, that's offensive.
And instead of backing down, Trump said, oh, what, Pocahontas?
And he repeated the bad word several more times on purpose, not only because he's a provocateur, but as a sign that he was not going to be stunned or blinked or deviated from his path because of a journalist.
Even if she was right, which she wasn't.
He wasn't being offensive to Aboriginals.
He was poking fun at Elizabeth Warren, the fake Aboriginal.
And I think a million men across America said right on because Trump pointed out that Elizabeth Warren was a beneficiary, apparently, of affirmative action and fake racism and stuff like that.
Why Silence Reigns00:04:08
And he was calling them on it.
I think that's here, too.
I think a lot of guys and a lot of women, a lot of moms and wives know that this is an unfair charge against Brett Kavanaugh, but they don't dare utter it publicly.
And if Trump says, I'm not blinking in this in fairness, a million people will say, finally, someone's fighting back for when I was wrongfully accused or when I could be wrongfully accused.
Finally, we have a bully on our side as tough as the bully on the others.
Okay, that wasn't any shorter than my last attempt.
But did it make any sense?
Am I making any sense, Joel?
It's the same dynamic as we saw during the election itself.
That's exactly what happened during the election.
That there were enough American voters who decided they had to stand up to the intimidation, to the cult of political correctness.
And that's what's happened.
So I think you're seeing a similar dynamic.
Democrats seem to want to relitigate 2016, right down to what Barack Obama is saying on the campaign trail.
It's nothing different at all.
They're setting this up as a replay of 2016.
They think that they have the momentum on their side because their voters are energized by the defeat of that presidential election.
I'm not sure they're not making a big strategic mistake.
And I think that there are enough people who will stick with Trump because they see the Democrats bullying not just Brett Kavanaugh, but potentially other people as well.
Well, Joel, you're being very generous with your time, and thank you for listening to my two rambling questions.
I guess I'm still trying to figure out the dynamic here.
I personally think it's an incredibly important moment, and I hope that neither Kavanaugh nor Trump blinks.
We'll keep reading your stuff on this.
I know you've been very active.
I've been following your Twitter comments on this very illuminating.
Thanks very much, Joel.
Thank you.
All right.
There you have it, Joel Pollock, senior editor-at-large at Breitbart.com, who very patiently listened to me put five-minute-long preambly questions to him.
But what do you think, dear viewer?
Let me know.
Do you think that this is an important thing that Donald Trump has to dig in his heels on simply to show he can't be pushed around?
I fear that if Trump gives in on this, he'll start a—the dam will break.
And there will be countless false allegations because people will know that Republicans cower and you can do what you will to them.
All right, stay with us.
more ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue Friday about the liberals bringing resistance tactics from the U.S. to Canada in their war against Doug Ford.
Robert writes, Doug Ford is no stranger to the resistance.
The far left did this to his brother Rob.
Expect daily attacks on Doug in the far left media, lawsuits, galore, and demonstrations by special interest groups who have been booted off the gravy train.
You're so right.
And expect the coming, I mean, this whole Brett Kavanaugh thing with an anecdote, true or not, how would you know?
35 years ago, something that happened between two teenagers and no one's mentioned it for 35 years.
Expect that kind of mudslinging to come.
I agree with you.
I don't know about it on a daily basis.
But expect dozens and lawsuits and scandals from nothing.
I think Doug Ford knows that if he doesn't fight back hard, they'll kill him.
If not physically kill him, they'll politically kill him, like they did to his brother Rob.
Ron writes, I'm 4,000 kilometers away from you, but go Doug Ford.
Yeah, you're right.
I don't know which direction you are 4,000 kilometers away.
The fact you're saying kilometers tells me you're probably in Canada, not the States or somewhere else.
Yeah, I think Doug Ford right now is the most important politician in Canada by far.
He's actually leading the charge against Justin Trudeau in important ways, such as on the carbon tax.
He is turning back the hands of time on the disastrous, well, he can't turn back the hands of time, but he's stopping the disastrous green schemes, cap and trade, subsidies for wind turbines, things like that.
Decision This Week00:02:30
We can never go back in time, unfortunately, on that.
He's using the notwithstanding clause.
I hope that becomes a precedent for other provinces too.
Yeah, Doug Ford by far is the most important Conservative leader in Canada today, including his media strategy of basically not granting them moral authority.
I wish Andrew Scheer would learn this lesson from Doug Ford.
On my interview with Sheila Gunreed about the large payoffs to Syrian families in Canada, Tammy writes, Sheila, thanks for exposing $50,000 liberal cash scam, cash scam by the liberals.
Yeah, it's unbelievable.
And I thought what was even more odious about that was the cover-up, that they know what they're doing is so out of sync with public support that they deliberately hid that fact.
They know what they're doing is wrong.
Billy writes, as we mentioned, Sheila will report on COP24, that's Conference of the Parties 24, in Poland in December.
That's the global warming meeting.
I think it's more important that she go to Morocco for the UN Open Borders Conference.
Well, thank you very much for bringing that to my attention.
I read your email when I got it last night.
And I went on the UN website and I have studied about that conference and I am going to see, in fact, I hope we'll be able to make a decision as soon as this week, if we can send someone to that global migration conference also.
Now, if we do, I'm going to have to rely on our viewers to pay for it because it's in Morocco, which is actually a good place for it.
So many of the migrants come from North Africa across in the Mediterranean.
So we're going to have to send a reporter, a cameraman, videographer, editor.
That's flights, that's hotel, and there's probably some sort of fee and obviously food and stuff.
So it would not surprise me if the cost of doing that would be $5,000 to $10,000.
And obviously we just don't have the dough.
But if we can get our ducks in a row, I will come back to you and other viewers and say, do you want us to be the only skeptical reporter at the UN Migration Conference, just like we're the only skeptical reporter who goes to the Global Warming Conference?
And I believe that our people will say yes.
I hope so, because if we decide to do it, it's going to cost us some dose.
So thank you for the tip.
It was not on my radar scheme, but you put it there, and hopefully I'll have news for you, maybe even as soon as this week.