Ezra Levant, Martina Markota, and Jack Buckby dissect Toronto’s 2018 hate crime against Jewish teens—where police dodged specifics—while exposing Justin Trudeau’s pro-Islamist policies, like $50M for Hamas-linked Gaza schools. Jack’s campaign targets UK’s £463M aid to Pakistan, a Taliban-aligned state, amid domestic poverty crises. Victoria’s Secret faces backlash over excluding plus-size or trans models, with Ed Razak’s apology seen as brand-damaging capitulation. The episode contrasts Trump’s media defiance—suspending Jim Acosta for disrespect—with perceived bias against conservative journalists like Ken Warren, framing press freedom struggles as ideological battles. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, ladies and gentlemen, and the rest of you, in which we look back at some of the very best commentaries of the week by your favorite rebels.
I'm your host, David Menzies.
Well, the hate crime was committed against Jewish teens in Toronto earlier this week, but why are the police being so tight-lipped about who the alleged assailants are?
Rebel Commander Ezra Levant will offer his analysis.
And as we know, Pakistan is a hotbed of terrorism and hatred, and that terrorism and hatred is often directed right at the West.
So it makes perfect sense, doesn't it, that the UK gives this state millions of pounds in aid every year.
Jack Buckby says enough is enough as he launches his latest campaign.
And is Victoria's secret transphobic and fat phobic because it doesn't have any trans models and obese models?
Well, apparently the answer is yes.
Well, at least according to the SJW set, Martina Markota will try to make sense of it all.
And finally, letters, we get your letters every minute of every day.
And I'll share some of the feedback we received regarding my commentary about two journalists being disciplined recently.
One deservedly received what he got and the other, well, not so much.
Those are your rebels now.
Let's round them up.
Here's a press release from police.
Let me read it to you a little bit about it.
Robbery hate crime investigation.
Nine young persons wanted.
That's what they say in the headline.
Sounds serious, doesn't it?
Let me read the whole thing to you.
The Toronto Police Service is requesting the public's assistance, identifying and locating nine young persons wanted in a robbery hate crime investigation.
On Sunday, November 11th, 2018 at 8 p.m., officers responded to an assault in the Fairholm Avenue and Bathurst Street area.
It is reported that four 17-year-old boys were walking in the area, all of whom were wearing attire of their religious faith.
As they passed another group of young persons who were unknown to them, derogatory comments were made about their religion.
The unknown group then assaulted two of the 17-year-old boys, punching and kicking them.
A pair of sunglasses was stolen from one of the victims.
The unknown suspects split up and fled the area.
Police were called and attending officers located and arrested one of the suspects involved in the assault.
The victims of the assault received treatment for their injuries at the scene.
The outstanding suspects are described as in their early teens.
And the first thing I noticed was they asked for help in finding the suspects, but they didn't describe the suspects.
Even though they have one suspect in custody, who could surely tell them a lot of details, they said there were four victims who were 17.
So surely and obviously they saw who the attackers were.
And even if they couldn't describe them precisely, you know, in a fight or whatever, they could surely know a few things.
I mean, to say the obvious, were they male or female?
Let's start there.
Early teens.
That's specific.
Were they also Jewish?
I doubt it.
Were they, oh, I don't know, Muslim?
Maybe they were white supremacists or something.
That's what the media tells us we have to be on the lookout for.
Who's attacking Jews?
Who were they?
You know, I always thought that part of policing involved solving mysteries, not creating mysteries.
Because if that Toronto Police Service press release demonstrates anything, it's that Hogtown's police brass, apparently due to, I don't know, cultural sensitivity, seem to be going out of their way to keep the public in the dark about the perpetrators of a hate crime.
And that's just downright shameful.
Joining me now with more on this story is Rebel Commander Ezra Levant.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup Again, Ezra.
Thanks very much.
I mean, sometimes the police ask for help to find a suspect.
You have to describe the suspect a little bit at least.
In this case, the press release said they want the public to help them, but they didn't say anything other than they were teenagers.
They didn't even say if they were men or women.
We can assume that the perpetrators were men or boys.
I don't know.
But one of them was in custody at the time.
In fact, I think I understand one is being charged now.
You had four witnesses, and the police and the media did not describe them physically.
Well, isn't that something you do, like a tall man or a short man or a thin man or a fat man?
Or maybe you would talk about their appearance.
Are they a visible minority?
Are they black?
Are they Muslim?
Are they white?
Are they Jewish too?
Maybe it was two rival gangs of Jews from two synagogues to rumble.
I mean, I'm joking, of course, but it's obvious that the media and the police and the political leaders don't want to talk about this because according to two sources I have, the perpetrators were, of all things, believe it or not, Filipino kids, which is shocking to me because the Filipinos and the Jews get along just fine, especially in Toronto.
I think this will be a shock to the Filipino community as much as to the Jewish community.
I think they're going to get a lot of discipline at the hands of their parents and church leaders.
But it's amazing to see the cowardice and political correctness on the part of the police and Justin Trudeau, who waited, what, four days before just retweeting, yeah, man, yeah, I'm against anti-Semitism.
Like, he would not weigh in on this because he really doesn't care about Jews.
Yeah, you know, two things.
First of all, on the first aspect of this, Ezra, not giving any details to people who are at large.
What I liken it to is, could you imagine if there was a hit-and-run incident at Young at Eglinton, and instead of the police saying, we are on the lookout for a black Mazda 6, if they just said, we are on the lookout for a vehicle, it would be absolutely useless information to the public.
Secondly, you touched upon Trudeau's unbelievable response, which was for the longest time no response.
And I liken it to when the hijab hoax happened, which was a hoax.
It was a fake crime, a make-believe crime.
He was first out of the gates to weigh in on that.
Here is a real hate crime.
Eyewitness, there are charges.
It's not manufactured.
And our prime minister is AWOL on Twitter about this.
What do you make of that?
Yeah, I remember when that 11-year-old girl claimed that some Asian man grabbed her on the street, but very gently, didn't hurt her, and carefully caught her, so careful that she wasn't even scratched, and that he went away and then came back and did it again, and he didn't say anything, and no one else saw it.
And there were so many obvious tells that this was just a story.
There were so many weird things about that hijab hoax.
The fact that they put an 11-year-old girl in a national press conference.
Never seen that before.
And like, if you would have believed her hoax, you would think, well, the perpetrator, this crazed scissor-carrying hijab attacker, is out on the prowl on the loose, and you've just identified the girl by name and video picture.
Like, why would you put, and her brother was sort of joking and laughing in the background.
And I'm certain when she said it was an Asian man, 11-year-old girls don't know the phrase Caucasian.
Yes.
So she was probably told, say it's a Caucasian.
Say it's a Caucasian.
No 11-year-old knows what the word Caucasian, and he was an Asian.
I'm sure that she was prompted to say that and just got it wrong.
So there's so many levels of that hoax.
And Ezra, if I can interject here, I think you are 100% right on that theory.
We'll never be able to prove it, of course.
But right from the get-go, before the hoax was even revealed, or I should say, once the hoax was revealed, it was starting to make sense to me.
Why would somebody who is herself a visible minority demonize another visible minority, an Asian?
The villain du jour these days are white males, right?
And so I think you're right.
I think she misheard the coaching and said Asian as opposed to Caucasian.
Well, that's what I mean.
Yeah, that's why.
I mean, it didn't make any sense.
And by the way, I've just the idea that there's some Chinese guy running around with scissors.
So and Trudeau within hours had a tweet about it.
And even after the hoax, the tweet is up today, Trudeau has never apologized, retracted, clarified, or even just deleted it.
That's why there were actually rallies across Canada by the Chinese community saying, why are you throwing us under the bus?
Well, it's not just the Chinese community that's thrown under the bus.
The Jews are too.
And I don't get it.
I mean, Joe Warmington, our friend, called up the Prime Minister's office and said, hey, how come nothing to say here?
And instead of just saying the perfunctory, oh, the Prime Minister, his thoughts and prayers go out to the family and may justice be done, like something so generic, the spokesman himself said, I can't answer.
Let me refer you to the public safety minister, Ralph Goodale.
Like, you can't, you're literally instructed not to even say, our thoughts are with the victims and their families.
You can't even say that because they're Orthodox Jews, which means they're probably right-wing.
And the perpetrators here, from what I understand, are Filipinos, so that doesn't fit the narrative.
Justin Trudeau really doesn't care about hate crime if it's the wrong perpetrator and the wrong victim.
Let me tell you, the New York City Police Department, one of the best police departments in the world, has a hate crimes unit.
And according to the New York Times, which is a liberal news outlet, in the last two years, there has not been a single anti-Semitic incident in New York City perpetrated by a right-winger.
There are anti-Semitic incidents in New York all the time, but they are perpetrated by people off-narrative.
And this is part of a disturbing trend I see, if I can call it the Jewish file, for lack of better terms, Ezra, in terms of how our prime minister deals with Jews in Canada.
Twice at two separate commemorative address about the Holocaust, Justin Trudeau excluded the word Jews as the victim group.
And that's why earlier this month, when he issued that formal apology to the Jews that were on the MS St. Louis, 907 Jews that were fleeing for their lives and they could not land in Canada under the liberal government of Mackenzie King, by the way.
And several hundred of those people ended up being killed in concentration camps when they were returned to Europe.
I kind of look at it as it's kind of easy for Justin Trudeau to issue an apology to Jews that died decades ago.
Kind of hard for him to stand in solidarity with the Jews who are very much alive in Israel today, in which case he takes the Palestinian side when Israel ever has the temerity to defend its own borders.
Yeah, I mean, it's so darkly ironic.
Earlier this year, Donald Trump cut off funding to the Hamas-run hate school in Gaza.
What I mean by that is there's these schools that a UN agency runs for Palestinian kids, and they teach anti-Semitism, they teach terrorism, in fact, two dozen of their teachers have been found to have Hitler imagery on their own Facebook page.
It's crazy.
So Trump cut them off for that reason and corruption.
So Trump cut off American funding.
Trudeau jumped in to positively say, hey, Hamas, don't worry about it.
We got your back, and gave him the $50 million windfall.
So it's not just that Trudeau is passive or absent or neutral.
Justin Trudeau is a positive supporter of Hamas-run hate schools.
And of course, there are many connections between Hamas and these hate schools.
They use the schools as sort of a human shield.
They set up their rockets right next to them.
Justin Trudeau shows us who he is all the time.
10 million bucks for Omar Cotter.
Hanging out with Joshua Boyle, the Taliban supporter.
$10 million a pop for three other accused terrorists.
Saying a citizen is a citizen when it comes to terrorism.
Saying returning ISIS terrorists have an important voice.
After a certain period of time, when a guy shows you who he is again and again and again, maybe we should believe him.
Ezra, we're almost out of time.
Very quickly, two-pronged question.
One is, is the unspoken reason here that there is more Muslims than Jews in Canada now?
So this is his brand of identity politics.
And secondly, the Liberal Party has traditionally enjoyed a lot of Jewish support in Canada.
What Jew in their right mind would vote for this regime given this track record?
Yeah, I mean, Jews have been disproportionately liberals for a long time.
Stephen Harper, by being pro-Jewish and pro-Israel, turned that around.
And in fact, in his last election in 2011, maybe in 2015, too, he won the plurality of Jewish votes, which is rare for a Canadian conservative.
I think Justin Trudeau did two things.
First is he said, well, there's no way I can outbid Stephen Harper for the affections of Jews.
I can't.
There's no way to be more pro-Israel than him.
Why don't I do a little bit of judo and use that against them?
Judo with the Jews.
So Harper can have the Jewish vote, but there's only 350,000 Jews in Canada.
There are 1.3 million Muslims in Canada and more every year.
So he said, well, let the Conservatives have half the Jews.
I'm going to get 90% of the Muslim vote.
I'm going to open the floodgates to Muslim migrants.
I'm going to visit every mosque.
I'm going to decline to criticize terrorists.
So it's an electoral strategy because there's four times as many Muslims in Canada as Jews.
It's also an ideological strategy.
If you look around the world, whether it's the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, the Democrats in the U.S., the parties of the left are the parties of Islam in Europe.
So Justin Trudeau is being ideologically anti-Israel, ideologically Islamist, and pragmatically he can count, as well as you and I can, for every Jew he loses, he gains three or four Muslims.
Appalling.
Appalling.
Ezra, thank you so much for that important commentary.
And folks, in terms of the Jewish hate crime, the Toronto police want you to be on the lookout for humanoids.
Humanoids.
That's it.
We don't want to offend anyone.
So if you see any suspicious-looking humanoid on the streets of Lawrence and Bathurst, please call 911.
More of Rebel Roundup to come right after this.
Why Pakistan Matters00:10:43
This is an extremist radical state that's home to some of the greatest monsters on earth.
Have no doubt about that.
And yet still, somehow the British government showers this state with money, our money.
And by 2021, the UK could be spending as much as 14.5 billion per year on foreign aid overall.
And this target comes from the United Nations.
It sets this arbitrary target of spending 0.7% of the UK's gross national income on foreign aid.
So this has resulted in Pakistan receiving some £463 million of our money in 2016 alone.
And that number is only going up.
And if you think somehow that this money is being spent wisely, then think again, because huge amounts of our money is being handed out to Pakistani families on prepaid debit cards.
No joke.
Around 235,000 Pakistani families every three months are receiving prepaid debit cards with about £34.50 on them.
And they can spend that money however they like.
Not only is it completely irrational to be giving what is essentially dole money to people who A, don't live in this country and B, have never paid into our tax system, it's also offensive to any rational person that this money, especially in such huge quantities, is being handed over to a state that promotes terrorism.
That's why I'm starting a new campaign today.
And this time we're calling on the government to stop foreign aid to Pakistan.
It's time to end the madness, stop funding this terrorist state and focus on our own problems instead.
And here's why Pakistan is so dangerous.
For many years, Pakistan's intelligence agencies and military have been thought to be providing sanctuary to the Taliban and other Islamic extremist groups.
And ever since 9-11, the West has really been pushing Pakistan to force them to better control these groups.
But the pressure's been ignored and Pakistan remains a hotbed for terrorism.
The Cato Institute says that without the active support of the government in Islamabad, it's doubtful whether the Taliban could have ever even come to power in Afghanistan in the first place.
And that Pakistani authorities have helped fund the militia and even equip them with weapons and hardware when the Taliban was just a small player in Afghanistan's civil war.
And this extremism, by the way, is not just in Pakistan, it's hit the UK as well.
Absolutely amazing.
Pakistan is known as a state sponsor of terrorism.
It's an extremist, radical, undemocratic state.
And still, the British government showers this country with taxpayers' money.
I guess making bombs and printing signs stating death to the West requires a lot of dough.
Joining me now is our London-based rebel, Jack Buckby.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, Jack.
Hello, thanks for having me.
Always a pleasure, my friend.
So Jack, how is it that the UK somehow feels, I don't know, morally obliged to give millions and millions of pounds to a terrorist state in the first place?
I just don't get it.
No, I don't get it either.
Well, I suspect it has something to do with colonialism, you know, only funnily enough, it's a weird thing to tie in, I get, but I was forcing myself to watch Doctor Who the other day, you know, the new series with that woman.
And they had this episode about the Punjab.
And I had to turn it off the minute I saw this because they started talking about, oh, it's the partition of India's happening and the Brits are going to kill millions of Muslims and blah, And it's like, oh my, it's like that colonial guilt is still there.
And I can only suspect that's why we're doing it because the government knows this is an extremist state.
The Cato Institute said that if it wasn't for the government in Islamabad, then the Taliban in Afghanistan would never have even gained any power at all.
They've been helping extremists for years.
And to this day, I mean, look at the case with Azia Bibi.
This is an extremist state and we are throwing hundreds of millions at it.
Yeah, and you know, and by the way, Jack, to answer your question, no, I haven't seen the new Doctor Who, nor any of the Doctor Who's, because I'm going to give you some tough medicine here, Jack.
The Brits are great in so many facets.
The Brits cannot do science fiction.
You are completely inept at that.
So, but moving on.
Shocked and appalled, David.
I'll debate that with you later.
But for Adi Abibi, tell us about that.
This is a woman that's being put on trial for blasphemy in Pakistan.
She is very much a target for death in that country.
And what I find appalling is, as you mentioned in your commentary, the Brits don't want to give her any kind of asylum in your country because she might be problematic there to certain people.
What the hell is that about, Jack?
So what they're saying is, or at least what they're saying in a roundabout way, is that she simply wouldn't be safe.
The mobs that are out in Pakistan will come out in force in the UK because we've been importing extremists from Pakistan for decades.
So if Azia Abibi comes here, she wouldn't be safe in the first place, and we'd see riots.
We've seen riots many times by Islamic extremists.
It's pretty common in the UK.
So there will be riots here as well.
I still don't think that should stop us offering her asylum.
I think what we should do is a trade.
Why don't we take Azia Abibi and all the people that riot, we round them up and deport them back to Pakistan?
I think that'd be a good trade, don't you?
Oh, I would love, I'd make that trade in a heartbeat, Jack.
But you know, you touch upon something here going back to the foreign aid question, and I define it as a lose-lose scenario.
First of all, the UK is sending millions of pounds sterling to Pakistan, which is going to be indirectly used to preach death and destruction to the West.
In the meantime, Britain is somehow importing some of the worst of the worst from Pakistan.
Now, I'm not saying every Pakistani immigrant to the UK is a terrible person, but you know from the rape grooming gangs, Jack, that there is a high percentage of Pakistani nationals or expatriates there.
And again, what is the aside from colonialism?
Don't people running your country realize that this is almost like cultural suicide happening before our eyes?
They just seem completely oblivious to it, or at least the ones that do see it, they don't talk about it because they know it might end their career if they do.
You know, we're forced to pay 0.7% of our gross national income because of the UN.
Penny Morden, the Minister for International Development, has said that she wants to change how that works, but she doesn't want to change that goal of 0.7%.
So what she's saying is she wants a way for the private sector to invest better in Pakistan, etc.
But she's not changing the 0.7% goal.
And what I'm saying is we should change that 0.7% goal, slash it a great deal, if not entirely, and stop funding Pakistan completely.
And with our petition, stopforeignaid to pakistan.com and campaign, we might be able to push her over the edge just to make that decision.
She's almost there.
You know, and another very interesting point you touched upon, Jack, is the fact that when nations in the West are dealing with the Pakistani government and the Pakistani military, you really don't know who you're talking to.
Somebody that's on side with us, which there are some, but others that are fifth columnists that are sympathetic to terrorist goals.
And I think of John Bolton, who was talking about when the U.S. was in the war on terror and they were taking out targets in Pakistan, the agreement they had is that before they do a bombing mission, they had to inform the Pakistani intelligence that they were going to carry out that mission.
And lo and behold, every time they got to the target, the terrorists had already fled.
So they'd been tipped off.
And it got so bad, Jack, that Bolton said the way the U.S. stayed true to their commitment is just before opening the bomb bay doors of the aircraft, they would make that call.
So there was no time to tip off the bad guys.
So I guess what I'm getting at is that this is an added layer of complication in that you don't know who you are dealing with in that country.
No, we don't.
And the money, by the way, we're not even controlling how it's spent.
Do you know what we do?
We give that money to families in Pakistan on prepaid debit cards that they're giving every three months.
And it contains £34.50, which is probably a lot of money over there.
They're not a huge deal, but certainly enough to make some impact.
And they can spend it however they like.
We're giving dole money, benefits money, to families who've never even been to this country, never even paid into our system.
Meanwhile, there's a thing here you might have heard of called heat or eat.
And a lot of people in the UK are having to choose between eating or heating their home.
And people freeze to death.
No word of a lie.
Older people especially die every year because they either can't heat their home or they can't eat.
And I think that's a tragedy.
And instead, we're funding the rest of the world.
I think it's gross negligence.
Well, I think those people need the gift cards more so than Pakistanis that might be using that money for nefarious purposes.
But before we wrap, Jack, we're not just whining about this.
You are launching your latest mission, stopforeignaid2pakistan.com.
It's a three-pronged initiative.
You've got the petition going.
You want to raise enough funds to commission a scientific public opinion poll just to see what Brits actually think about the UK giving so much money to such an odious state.
And of course, if we have some money left over, do another billboard campaign.
Can you give us an up to date on stopforeignaid to pakistan.com, Jack?
Yeah, so the next step, if we can raise the money, we are going to get the public opinion poll.
We did this with JL Anjan, but it worked.
So we're doing it again.
The public opinion poll is really great, actually, because it backs up what we say in the petition.
One thing I'll be interested to find out is just how many Brits are suicidal enough to say that they don't want to stop it.
Because unlike the Angen one, I'd be surprised if the vast majority of Brits actually want to stop it, if I'm honest.
All we need to do is show that enough Brits want it for it to be taken seriously.
And then following that, let's see if we can get that billboard campaign out again, because that van was great.
It was great seeing people's faces as it was going around Westminster.
Absolutely true, Jack.
And if the elected officials on your side of the pond are embarrassed by this, well, they should be embarrassed because this is an absolute egregious disgrace that is happening in the UK right now.
Models as Fantasy Representations00:13:01
And Jack, good luck with the campaign.
And I hope anyone that has a spare dollar or two can kick it in.
Every dollar counts and we're always so appreciative of that.
So thank you again for your efforts, Jack.
Cheers for having me.
You take care.
You got it.
And that was Jack Buckby in London.
Keep it here, folks.
More of Bravo Roundup to come right after this.
I've reported on Victoria's Secret models before, but things are getting even worse.
They are getting hit hard by the media, social media, and consumers because they have never featured plus size nor transgender models in their runway show.
Victoria's Secret responded that it may have come across as insensitive, but they have had trans at CASM calls, but like many others, didn't make the cut.
People are furious over this and boycotting.
This is so ridiculous.
They have the right to cast their own show and models don't represent the customers.
Otherwise, they would have like 20 customers.
Lots of people don't make the cut.
I wouldn't make the cut.
Should I demand to be a Victoria's secret model?
Harper's Bazaar reports: Victoria's Secret chief marketing officer Ed Raisick has apologized for his insensitive remarks about transgender models.
During a recent interview about whether the brand was putting more emphasis on diversity and inclusion, Ed Raisick had commented that the annual Victoria Secret shows are a fantasy and therefore should not include trans or plus-size models.
I think this is an important distinction.
These angels are not supposed to depict real-life people.
They are a fantasy, just as he says.
And they have a certain otherworldly look to them, not a real-life representation of the population.
Raisick, who was part of the casting team, admitted that he had considered putting transgender and plus-size models on a catwalk, but conceded that the company did not market to the whole world.
Does the brand think about diversity?
Yes.
Do we offer larger sizes?
Yes.
Shouldn't you have transsexuals in the show?
No.
No, I don't think we should.
He told Vogue.
The show is a fantasy.
It's a 42-minute entertainment special.
That's what it is.
It's the only one of its kind in the world.
There has been a huge backlash over this, and people are boycotting the brand and offering up other alternatives to Victoria's Secret.
On Twitter, I saw someone that posted this.
This is for all my trans friends and cisgender women friends that are average or plus-size, rather than support the bigoted Victoria's Secret, ate transgender-friendly lingerie brands to support instead of Victoria's Secret by Teen Vogue.
Another Teen Vogue article, just going at it.
I'm really not impressed by Vogue or Teen Vogue lately.
I'm sorry, but looking at those pictures does not make me want to buy lingerie, nor does it make me feel beautiful or sexy.
This is just hideous.
Victoria's Secret Angels had always made me feel like, wow, that's so beautiful.
I want to look like that.
In what world am I living that gorgeous supermodels are being put aside for this?
Well, I think it's safe to say that Victoria Secret's brand is all about the imagery of smoke and hot models giving us the jiggle with the giggle as they parade down the fashion runway clad in sexy lingerie.
At the end of the day, Victoria's Secret is, as the company's chief marketing officer rightfully states, selling a fantasy.
But the usual suspects apparently want Victoria's Secret to be all things to all people.
And this is what's known in the marketing business as branding suicide.
Yet the lunatic fringe continues to fume on social media about Victoria's Secret being transphobic and fat phobic.
Oh, give me a break.
Joining me now with more on the Victoria Secret brouhaha is someone who knows a thing or three about the fashion business.
And that is Martina Markota.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, Martina.
Thank you for having me.
Always a pleasure, my friend.
So Martina, I really want to be allowed to compete in the Mr. Universe competition.
You know, I do have a washboard stomach.
I just have 20 pounds of laundry on it right now.
So my dream is dead.
But going by the logic of the Victoria Secret critics, I guess I should now somehow start a campaign condemning Mr. Universe for not being inclusive to allow flabby guys like me to compete.
What do you think?
I mean, that's exactly right.
Like, what kind of world are we living in that it's like you can just demand?
It's what I said before when you had me on before.
I said there's they have a militant form of inclusiveness.
It's very militant that you must include everyone in everything.
And I just don't understand why being a model is the ultimate goal of like representation.
Like models are models.
doesn't mean that is the ultimate form of you being represented or not.
Why?
It's so arbitrary.
Why does everyone need to be a model?
I mean, I can't play in the NBA for various reasons, not only my height or my talent, but I'm not a man.
So no, you're quite right, Martina.
And I think you're on to something here in terms of this whole, you know, how the definition of inclusiveness has changed.
I mean, if we look at the trans community, it used to be it was about acceptance.
And I'm not saying you should discriminate against people like that or, God forbid, you know, physically harm them, anything like that.
But it's gone from acceptance to affirmation.
There are activists in the trans community that are saying, we demand that you stand on a podium and applaud us and love us.
And I'm sorry, no, we don't have to do that, do we?
No, and it's a business.
And Victoria's Secret models have always been.
I mean, I remember when I was younger, you remember like 10, 15, 20 years ago, it was like that was their standard of how they have their models and how they look.
Not a lot of people would be accepted to be a model.
Like you said, many women didn't make the cut.
And that's just the way it is.
So you can't stomp your feet and have a hissy fit because you didn't make the cut.
Like lots of people don't make the cut.
And I'm sorry, the models don't represent the consumers.
The models represent a fantasy.
It's an ultimate fantasy.
And if the models represented the consumers, they'd have what 20 customers the past 20 years.
You know, like.
No, you're right, Martina.
I mean, it's a fantasy, I think, both for women and for men, you know, who will buy this product, who like to look at these models.
And personally speaking, as a heterosexual male, and I know that's not cool these days, I don't want a Victoria Secret fashion show to turn into my own personal crying game, if you know what I'm saying here, right?
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
I mean, that's not the fantasy that anyone tunes into.
And I've seen on Twitter a lot of women, including myself, have always looked at these models and go, wow, that's so beautiful.
Like that makes me want to buy that lingerie.
Look how beautiful that was.
Look how sexy that was.
I want to look like that.
I want to be in that.
And if I see, you know, I'm sorry, no offense, a fat, someone fatter than me and up there and wearing it, I'm like, nah, I'm good.
You know, if, or if someone's no offense in a wheelchair, because I've seen a lot of people that were like in the wheelchairs and they're trans wheelchair people saying, I can model too.
You know, I can be better than your models going down the cow.
Seriously, no joke, in wheelchairs and stuff.
And it's like, I'm sorry, that doesn't make me feel sexy.
It doesn't make me want to buy that.
And if you feel sexy and you want to feel empowered, that's fine.
Good for you.
And I'm proud of you.
I'm not taking anything away from that.
But for regular people who aren't wheelchairs, who aren't, you know, trying to idolize obesity, let's just see these beautiful women.
We go, wow, that's beautiful.
I want to be like that.
Oh, 100%.
And Martina, in your commentary, you reference some pics on social media of people of various sizes and shapes wearing what they believe to be lingerie.
And I got to be honest, I'm not trying to be mean here, but it looked like promotional photos for the next Adams family movie.
I mean, there was nothing sexy or professional about it.
And I mean, if you want to do that and post those pictures, hey, more power to you.
I believe in freedom of expression.
But that doesn't give you the God-given right to become a Victoria Secret model.
Yeah, exactly.
And like I said, it's a business model.
It's their business.
We can't be dictating how other people run their business all the time.
That's just insane.
You can't keep up with that sort of thing.
You have a business model.
You have everything.
I mean, since when did people expect Victoria's Secret to change?
It's been that way for so long.
Yeah.
And you know, Martina, I fear for the future, though, because Ed Razak, as you noted, the head honcho at Victoria Secret, after stating something commonsensical about these are, you know, the models that we prefer at our company, then felt compelled to apologize for stating the bloody obvious and issuing that apology to plus-size people and transsexual people.
And I'm thinking that's a fail on his part.
First of all, there was nothing to apologize for.
And secondly, I know from experience, you can apologize till the cows come home to these vested interest groups.
They will never accept the apology.
It's never enough.
And it just emboldens them to go on the offensive.
So I'm just wondering in the next couple of years down the road, if this lunatic fringe is going to get its way.
Yeah, I mean, that's a really good point.
And it's super valid.
I was super proud of him, Rasik, in the beginning for his initial comments, because it was pretty bold.
And, you know, he's a bit older.
He's 70 years old.
So I probably think that in his head, he didn't say anything that controversial.
You know, I'm thinking he thought I was like, okay, we can, we just don't, they didn't make the cut.
We don't want that.
We want a fantasy.
Like, so what?
Like, it is what it is.
And then he wasn't prepared for the backlash of what modern day society is about.
And I guess maybe pressure from business partners or whomever to have some sort of apology.
And that's kind of where we at.
We have to constantly kowtow around what all this hype is all about.
And I don't think he was really aware of what he said being that controversial.
And I agree with him.
I was super proud of his initial statement.
And then we were all like, oh, don't apologize.
I know, I know.
It's a sign of weakness and it's a flawed strategy.
I'll tell you what, Martin, we'll wrap it to that.
If they do go ahead with this, I fear that if they turn Victoria's Secret fashion show into almost a circus sideshow of all types and people, this is what I call brandalism, you know, a combination of vandalism and brand, brandalism.
And I think of, you know, GM in the 80s, they came out with a Cadillac, a compact Cadillac, which was basically a re-badged Chevy Cavalier, the worst car they made at the time.
And they almost killed the Cadillac brand because of that.
And this is what I fear.
If you go down this politically correct social justice warrior route, they are putting the entire Victoria Secret brand at risk.
Absolutely.
Okay.
No, well, I mean, if you want me to just add one more thing, I was thinking about this as well, is that, you know, they want, nowadays it's considered like if you're not attracted to trans or what have you, that that makes you a bigot.
And I think that's exactly where they're leading to with this as well is like you must have these half-naked trans women and you must find them sexy.
And if you're a straight man and you watch the runway show and you don't find it sexy, you're a bigot and you're in trouble.
And I mean, I think that puts a lot of psychological issues on straight men.
And I think that's a little messed up.
And I think that's where we're going.
Yeah, you know, you raise a good point.
If in the future they're part of this and I somehow, well, let's put it this way.
I'm probably looking at some psychiatric couch time.
Yeah.
I mean, it's just messed up what they're doing to society.
It's going to break everything down.
I don't think it's a really good idea.
If you want to feel empowered and you want to wear lingerie and be a woman, like I've performed with lots of people like that, women like that or what have you, whatever you want to call them.
And I've been super encouraging and supportive.
I don't agree with, you know, it being normalized.
That's my opinion.
Acosta's White House Standoff00:05:52
But good for you, do it.
And being out there and being normalized and trying to force straight men to find it sexy, I think is really wrong and it could force psychological issues.
Oh, and as you well know, Martina, although the left loves diversity, they don't love diversity of opinions.
We're supposed to think in lockstep.
So we'll keep our eyes on the Victoria Secret file.
I'll be watching very, very closely for research reasons, of course, in the years ahead.
So thank you so much for weighing in on this.
Thanks for having me.
Thank you, Martina.
And that was Martina Markota in London.
And keep it here, folks.
more of Rebel Roundup to come right after this.
But old Jim, well, he must have thought he was embedded at his CNN studio because he wasn't just quite ready to relinquish that microphone.
Ms. President, if I may ask you a question, are you worried about the question?
That's enough.
That's enough.
Mr. President, I'm going to ask one of the other folks.
That's enough.
Pardon me, ma'am.
Ms. President.
That's enough.
Mr. President, if I may ask on the Russia investigation, are you concerned that you may have to do that?
I'm not concerned about anything with this investigation because it's a hoax.
Are you worried?
That's enough.
Put down the mic.
Mr. President, are you worried about indictments coming down in this investigation?
Mr. President.
I'll tell you what, CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them.
You are a rude, terrible person.
You shouldn't be working for CNN.
Go ahead.
You know, I just love the audacity this man had for the White House staffer who tried to pry the mic from his grubby hands.
Excuse me, ma'am.
Don't you know who you're interrupting?
It's the great Jim Acosta during a taping of the Jim Acosta show starring Jim Acosta.
I also wonder how this story would have played out if a male conservative commentator physically resisted the efforts of a female White House staffer at an Obama press conference.
But alas, seems that the hashtag MeToo movement went on a little siesta during this particular event.
In the aftermath, Acosta had his White House press credentials suspended.
And justifiably so.
If the Commander-in-Chief tells you to sit down and shut up like three times over and you don't, then you reap what you sow.
Well, earlier this month, we witnessed two reporters being disciplined.
The first, as you just saw, was the odious Jim Acosta of CNN, who seemingly felt entitled to monopolize a White House press conference.
His White House press credentials remained suspended, and for that, I say goodriddens, Jim.
But a few days after Acosta gate on this side of the border, Ottawa Sun sports reporter Ken Warren was banned from the Ottawa Senators' charter flights after Warren broke the story about the two senators players who took an Uber ride and proceeded to criticize the team's coach.
This conversation was later made public.
Yes, it was embarrassing for the hockey club, but by reporting this incident, Warren was merely doing his job.
Unlike Jim Acosta, he didn't deserve to be disciplined, so talk about shooting the messenger.
In any event, here's what some of you had to say.
Urban Jungle writes, CNN is not banned from the White House.
They have several other journalists with press credentials.
Acosta is banned for touching a staffer, not for his questions, which were not questions.
They were, as he stated, debating points.
A White House press conference has followed the same formula for decades.
Ask a question, get an answer.
It's not a debate.
If you're lucky, you get a second question.
That's it.
Well, you are 100% correct, Urban Jungle.
Also keep in mind, it is not a God-given right nor even a First Amendment right for journalists to attend White House press conferences.
If that were indeed the case, these press conferences would have to be staged in a football stadium to accommodate all the reporters who wanted to attend.
The White House has to narrow down the list simply due to logistics.
It is an honor and a privilege to be part of the White House press corps, something that seems to be lost on the egomaniacal Jim Acosta and his blowhard bosses over at CNN.
And Bike Cycle writes, Acosta isn't asking questions.
He's grandstanding and making speeches and antagonizing the president and the office of the president.
Disrespectful and vulgar.
He would never have done this to Obama.
Oh, I agree, Bike Cycle.
This sort of disrespect never happened during Obama pressers.
And if any reporter had dared to be even half as disrespectful to Obama as Acosta was to Trump, trust me, the rest of the press corps would turn on that scribe like a pack of hungry jackals.
Double standard much?
And Gangles Gon Ryden writes, how does CNN even think they have a case?
The left has absolutely lost the plot.
How anyone could vote for them is mind-blowing.
Well, Gangles, you're absolutely referring, I would imagine, to the fact that CNN is now suing the president and his top aides over the suspension of Acosta's press credentials.
And the usual useful idiots are also bemoaning that this is a case of Trump attacking press freedom.
But they're wrong.
This isn't about President Trump attacking press freedom.
He's attacking the press, or more specifically, a member of the press, and for good reason.
Acosta tried to hijack a press conference.
And you know, Trump's response makes for another reason to love the president.
Forever Seeing Courage00:00:30
For the first time in seemingly forever, we are seeing a president who's not going to be intimidated by members of the media, especially those biased members of the media who have a not-so-hidden agenda.
What a delight to witness such a demonstration of strength and courage coming out of the White House.
Well, that wraps up another edition of Rebel Roundup.
Thanks so much for joining us.
See you next week.
And hey, folks, never forget, without risk, there can be no glory.