Ezra Levant and Anthony Fury expose a 2023 ASU/UTexas poll showing journalists rate their accuracy at 4.8/5, while the public scores them 2.9/5—a stark trust gap. They link this disconnect to Justin Trudeau’s $595M media slush fund and the UN’s Global Compact on Migration, which Fury calls a non-binding but influential framework, costing Canada over $1.1B annually in migrant processing while reshaping social services. Senior immigration lawyer Gideon Mammon warns it could create a "new human right to migrate", undermining democratic sovereignty. Levant’s live analysis and RebelUN.com reveal the compact’s far-reaching implications, from media control to curriculum enforcement, suggesting a global push toward unchecked migration policies. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, an amazing opinion poll measures the difference between how citizens see journalists and how journalists see themselves.
You're going to want to see this.
It's November 30th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the 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 about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
I've got this great poll about journalists I want to show you.
Huge sample size, meticulous methodology.
Just gorgeous.
It won't come as news to you, I bet, but it will come as news to most journalists themselves.
Bad news, news they will bury, which is probably why you haven't heard of this study, even though it is meticulous and authoritative and very, very interesting.
Because journalists are narcissists.
It's part of the job, I think.
You have to have a certain arrogance if you're going to tell people what to think of the world.
I mean, I suppose there's some pure 100% just-the-facts reporters out there who don't self-aggrandize, who don't spin their own personal opinion, having a tough time naming one.
And even if they cover something with minimal commentary and don't make themselves the center of the story, even the choice of what journalists cover and what they ignore, that's political too, isn't it?
And that's my point.
If you're in the business of telling people what to think and how to think and what to do, you've got to have a bit of an ego.
And by the way, I'm not excluding myself from this criticism, but I think we wear it on our sleeve here a little more explicitly.
Part of the mission of the Rebel is to change the world.
But I think that aside from Hollywood celebrities, will you agree with me?
The journalists have the highest self-regard of any profession, if you could call journalism, a profession.
I mean, maybe fighter pilots or astronauts have more arrogance.
Maybe the top brain surgeon in the country has a sense of importance that is unmoored from reality.
Maybe.
But those people really do have objectively quantifiable skills, and they've got to be the best of the best, right?
And I also note that those professions, astronaut, fighter pilot, brain surgeon, they do deal with life and death too.
So you can perhaps excuse some arrogance.
In fact, you probably want some arrogance.
Journalists, not so much.
Especially the junk journalism of the left these days, the rivers of leftist groupthink, sexed up occasionally by clickbait, but always just droning on and on, scolding readers for being racist, sexist, transphobic, Islamophobic, whatever.
I mean, BuzzFeed, Vice, Vox, all of that.
Here's just one of a hundred examples I could show you.
The holiday TV classic, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, is seriously problematic, people.
They say that it's racist and homophobic.
I'm not even kidding.
And then there's this one.
Did you see this a while back?
Sleeping Beauty is a form of rape culture, you see.
Because when the prince kissed her to wake her up, he didn't have her consent.
These are just crazy examples, but I put it to you that at least 50% of the news these days, not even from the kooks like BuzzFeed or, you know, Vice, I put to you 50% of the news these days, even on Global News or the CBC.
It's just some item designed to change your views about, I don't know, Syrian migrants or transgenderism or global warming or whatever.
It's just scolding arrogantly.
So here's what's so great about this new study I mentioned, this new poll.
It doesn't just ask the general public what they think of journalists.
Public Perception: 3.4/5 Biased00:14:12
It asks the same question of journalists themselves and then compares the two sets of answers.
It would be like asking those jet pilots I mentioned before, or maybe let's say a commercial jet pilot, how do you think the flight went?
And then asking the passengers too, and then comparing.
Or, I don't know, asking someone who just did have brain surgery or heart surgery, how do you think the surgery went?
And then comparing that answer to what the surgeon himself thought.
Useful, I mean, pretty important to have those two answers in sync.
If a doctor thought the surgery went great, but the patient thinks it was botched, if the plane had a terrible landing, but the pilots thought it was smooth, then there's some work to do.
So how do journalists do in the eyes of their customers versus how do they do in their own eyes?
Well, two major U.S. universities tested that question, Arizona State and University of Texas at Austin, which if you don't know, Austin is considered the San Francisco of Texas in terms of how far left-wing it is.
Austin is as leftist as Portland.
These are not Texas conservatives, by the way.
So this was a study done by the Center for Media Engagement, and it was released just two weeks ago.
So this is fresh stuff.
I haven't seen it in the news of you.
Let me quote their description of the study.
This is how they describe it.
Together, they're talking about the two universities, we designed and tested an online survey that three news organizations used to examine transparency, engagement, and mutual understanding with the communities they serve.
In total, 4,854 people participated in the survey from three communities.
I think that's pronounced MACON, Georgia, Fresno, California, and Kansas City, Missouri.
Our partner newsrooms in those communities who also surveyed 88 journalists and 51 news sources.
I'll explain what that is in a second.
This report provides insight into what we learned across those surveys.
So that's how they describe it.
Now that's pretty big, right?
4,854 survey respondents.
That is huge.
And 88 journalists.
And this was done in cooperation with their newspapers, right?
And 51 different news sources.
And by that, they mean someone who's quoted in a news story.
That's what they call a news source, like the person they interviewed for a story.
So they had California in the West, Missouri in the heartland, Georgia in the Southeast.
It's not the whole country, but it is a mix, isn't it?
And I'm going to spend the rest of my monologue looking at just two graphs.
Here's the first one.
Now hold this up on the screen for a bit because I'm going to go through it.
Let's understand what this shows.
The three colors, as you can see, represents the three different groups of people.
Blue is the public.
That's the customer.
Yellow is the sources of information.
That is a person who witnessed a car crash and then was interviewed by a journalist, a spokesman for a union or a company or maybe a politician as in the source of information given to the journalist.
And of course red is the journalists themselves, or orange and I guess dark orange.
And they were rating the journalists on a scale of one to five.
One is the worst, five is the best.
And this, as you can see, image has three questions on it.
You can see the questions at the bottom.
And this is about fact-based reporting, as you can see in the title.
So let me start with the question on the left.
You see that, those little three bars on the left there?
Underneath it, do journalists care about getting the facts right?
As you can see, journalists, that's the dark orange bar, they gave themselves 4.8 out of 5.
You know, that works up to what, what's that, like 96%?
That's an A-plus.
That's almost perfect.
That's the brain surgeon saying, I did that surgery perfectly.
That guy, he's going to be back to normal.
You won't even know he had a stroke or something.
I don't know.
That's the pilot saying, perfect three-point landing in the jet, smooth as silk, landed on schedule, great service.
That's the pilot saying, I'm awesome.
The people who actually had to deal with the reporters, the news sources, as you can see that's the yellow bar there on the left, they gave the reporters just 3.5 out of 5 for getting the facts right.
It's not quite a failing grade, but it's pretty iffy.
As a percentage, that's 70%.
That's weak.
So one-third of the time, I'm just interpreting here, one-third of the time there'd be a factual problem.
That's one way of looking at it.
But look at the bar graph on the very, very, very left.
That's the one in blue.
That's the public.
They say journalists care about getting the facts right only 2.9 stars out of five.
Would you stay at a hotel that got 2.9 stars out of five in terms of cleanliness or service?
I guess if you were really looking to save money or were desperate or something.
Now, I don't know who's right here, but there's a rule of thumb.
The customer's always right.
You ever heard that?
And the customer says the media don't care about facts.
And maybe it's true or maybe it's not true.
Maybe the journalists are right here.
But what's really interesting here, and that's the main point, is that the journalists themselves are obviously in their own planet, on their own world, in their own galaxy.
To them, they're as close to saints as can be without a beatification, 96%.
Now, let's look at that chart in the middle there.
Put it back up for a second.
And you can see the question at the bottom.
Are the journalists fair in their reporting?
Now, a few journalists admit they're not, but look, you can still see they give themselves 4.6 out of 5.
You see that?
We're right in the middle here, that orange bar.
News sources, that is people who talk to journalists, they know the media isn't fair, only 3.2 stars out of five.
And look at the public, 2.7.
The public says the media just isn't fair.
And in this case, they really are the judge of fairness, aren't they?
They're really all that matters.
Now, the last group of charts that's on the right-hand side, those three bars, that provides all the information you really need to understand.
Sorry, excuse me.
That's asking, do journalists provide the information needed to fully understand the news?
Sorry, that was they were asked.
Do journalists provide all the information needed to fully understand the news?
And the result is just a disaster.
Now, I don't necessarily think it's a fair question.
I don't know if it's possible for someone to fully understand the news in a two-minute soundbite, or even a half-hour show, or even a 500-word newspaper article.
So maybe it's an impossible question.
But for however hard journalists say they are trying, 3.9 out of 5, they fail in the eyes of their own customers.
Disaster.
Now, there are so many numbers here.
I don't want to blizzard you under them, but there is one more comparison chart I want to show you.
This just uses one-word tests to describe the media and ask people what they think.
It's great that way, right?
So basically, you see those words at the bottom, biased, engaging, credible, accurate, trustworthy, fair, transparent.
They just put these to people and say, do you strongly disagree?
Or do you strongly agree?
Scale one to five.
So let's start at the far left there.
Biased.
Oh my God, you bet.
The public, that's that blue line there, says journalists are biased.
In fact, as you can see, that is actually the highest rating the public gives journalists on anything I've shown you.
It's the single most fitting word in this whole poll, the one word the public is most likely to use to describe the media.
Biased.
That's 3.4 out of 5 say biased.
Now most sources agree too.
You see that's 3.0.
Again, by source, I mean people who are actually quoted by journalists so they would know.
Now journalists themselves only rate themselves a 2 out of 5 on bias.
But think about it still.
That's an incredible number of journalists who admit they're biased.
That's 40% of journalists just admit they're biased.
68% of the public thinks so.
Now the next group of bars is testing the word engaging.
I think that's a weird one.
I think engaging means interesting, captivating.
He's an engaging speaker.
She's an engaging conversationalist.
So as you can see there, the media thinks they're fabulous.
The public, yeah, not so much.
It's like someone who thinks they're a great joke teller or a great singer or a great dancer.
And everyone else says, yeah, man, you're okay, but don't quit your day job.
You're maybe not quite as great as you think you are.
Well, these folks whose day job is journalism think they are riveting.
And the fact that newspaper subscriptions decline every month hasn't rung the alarm for them that no one agrees that they're engaging.
No one agrees.
Okay, put the chart back up.
Look at the next one there.
Credible.
Isn't that an important one?
And the one after that, accurate, very, very similar results.
Journalists love themselves, 4.6.
They truly are in love with their own work.
They rate themselves so highly, that's 92%.
That's an A in school.
The public, whoa, barely half that.
2.9 out of 5 on both counts, credible and accurate.
No one believes the media.
That's what credible means.
No one believes the media.
Trustworthy, you see that?
I'm now just to the right of center there.
Even bigger gap, huge gap.
Fair and transparent are the last two questions.
Fail, fail, fail, unless you ask the journalists themselves, in which case they give themselves a solid B for fairness and transparency.
But this is a U.S. study done in three states.
I read a little bit about the methodology to you.
But it looks methodical and accurate as far as it goes.
What do you think the results would be in Canada?
I think they'd be worse because we have less competition here.
I think our media is more of a monolith.
We have a less diverse national conversation.
That scolding, that political BS I showed you, how everything is propaganda.
I think we're worse up here than they are down there in the States.
The CBC, for example, is bigger than all other private news media combined.
And they're explicitly political on everything from global warming to gun control to Donald Trump to Trudeau to migrants, whatever.
I mean, how do you think David Suzuki, who has had a perch at the CBC for 40 years, how would he fare on those questions?
Transparency, accuracy, fairness, bias?
Now, if he were honest, he'd admit he's as biased as any other anti-oil extremist in the country.
He's full of bias.
But the CBC pretends, or maybe they actually think he's just the bee's knees.
He's a great journalist.
I bet Canadians know they're being lied to every day.
I think that's why Canadians watch so much U.S. news, why Canadians, when polled, disagree with the elites most recently on the carbon tax and immigration levels.
I mean, I remember when Justin Trudeau gave $10.5 million to Omar Cotter.
Remember that?
The media loved it.
It was perfect.
And Trudeau obviously did it for their applause.
But Trudeau, I think he was genuinely surprised when ordinary Canadians hated it.
He made the mistake, easy to do when you're in an elitist bubble, of thinking that what the media says is what people think.
Real Canadians hate Omar Cotter.
He's a terrorist.
He's a murderer.
49% of Canadians want less immigration.
Only 6% want more.
Another huge difference between the elites and the mainstream Canadians.
Trudeau is giving us more anyways, and the media loves it, and they scold anyone who disagrees as racist.
So yeah, we know our media are in the tank.
And that's all before Justin Trudeau's new $595 million slush fund kicks in.
How do you think that would affect all of these numbers, from bias to transparency to factual accuracy?
If Canadians come to know that their newspapers and TV stations are getting payoffs from Trudeau in an election year, do you think that would increase or decrease trust and belief in the accuracy of the news?
Obviously, it would make all those numbers worse.
Journalists are narcissists, but at least narcissists, if you know your Greek mythology, actually was beautiful.
Journalists love themselves as wise and honest and accurate and fair, but they are objectively none of those things.
And more to the point, their own customers don't think so.
Look, we're not perfect here at the Rebel either.
I'm sure we make each of those errors too, but we do our best to side with the people and to listen to our customers because if we don't, we're not going to be in business long because we live 100% on the contributions of our viewers.
That's you.
That is our ultimate guarantee.
That's our ultimate fail-safe, the way we know we're respecting our customers, because if we don't, our crowdfunding would dry up overnight.
We have to be attentive and respectful of our viewers.
But with the rest of the media, especially with this slush fund now, there is only one viewer they have to please now.
And his name is Justin Trudeau, and he has $595 million for them.
As he announced last week, that money, though, it's only journalists that he can trust that gets it.
He actually used that word trust.
So yeah, I'd like to see a survey like this done in Canada, wouldn't you?
But then again, no university or media company would dare to do it.
Now, would they?
For the reason I've just described.
Stay with us for more.
Well, yesterday we talked to Gideon Mammon,
a senior immigration and refugee lawyer, about something called the UN Global Compact for Migration, talking about how it normalizes and legalizes mass migration and grants new rights.
As I mentioned to you, I typed in the word rights into a search engine for that one document, and it showed up 112 times.
Well, of course, when there is a right to something, someone has to provide that something.
Costs of Mass Migration00:14:04
And the parliamentary budget officer has calculated the cost of the tens of thousands of migrants so far who have simply walked across the border from New York State to Quebec since Justin Trudeau tweeted an invitation a couple years ago.
Let me quote from an article in today's Toronto Sun by our friend Anthony Fury.
The headline is, illegal border processing costs alone to exceed $1 billion.
Parliamentary Budget Office report.
$1.1 billion, to be precise.
And joining us now is the author of this article, our friend from the Toronto Sun, Anthony Fury.
Anthony, that's a staggering amount of money.
And that's just for the feds, isn't it?
Yeah, exactly.
This is a really interesting report.
And what the PBO does, Ezra, is when any parliamentarian makes an official request, hey, can you get to the bottom of item X, they go about and do it as much as they can with their resources.
So one MP said, I'd like to know the cost of all of this.
So they said, all right, we're going to do it.
We're going to look.
And they compiled data from all these different federal agencies, RCMP, CSIS, CBSA, which is the Border Services Agency, the Interim Federal Health Program, and so forth, and tried to tabulate all of this money to find just how much was this costing.
Now, when you really delve into the report, one of the things that's really interesting, Ezra, is it's really hard to get a handle on actually the costs year over year that we're putting into this because it is just such a mess, the whole program.
You've got migrants coming across the border and they're accessing federal services, which is the RCMP when they see them, the processing at the Immigration and Refugee Board.
But then they're getting on various buses and what have you to places like Toronto and Cornwall and they're accessing services there that are provincial, that are municipal as well.
So the PBO wanted to do as best of a capture as possible.
They did federal money.
So they looked at just the federal agencies.
So really all this $1.1 billion is, Ezra, is the number to process the requests, to process their asylum claims.
This is not at all including any sort of social services you give them any housing.
You add that in, it is much higher.
Yeah, and I should point out, and I know this is obvious to everyone, the vast, vast majority of these folks have not finished their refugee or asylum claim.
They've just started it.
So they've gone through the intake, but just a few percent of them have had their hearing.
They're scheduling hearings for some of these folks as far in the future as 10 years.
I saw a story out of Quebec that someone got an appointment 10 years into the future.
So this is just so far.
And I see in your story that just these processing costs federally are working out by next year.
It'll be over $16,000 per person.
And that's really just a paperwork cost, isn't it?
That's just really to stamp and file and just to intake them, isn't it?
Yeah, pretty much.
I mean, that is the combined fee of the man hours of the RCMP guy being your bellhop when you first enter to the other person submitting your claim to the Immigration and Refugee Board judge hearing you.
And that $16,000 is what they've compiled to be the average.
So the reasonable amount of time that they expect this will take.
It goes up to about $35,000, which would be the cost for a claimant to keep appealing after they get rejected and then to eventually be deported.
So the costs that come with all of that and the deportation.
The other thing that's very interesting that they note, Ezra, is that the more people who come across the border, of course, the more people who they're going to be making claims and the less efficient the system becomes.
So the less economy of scale you have, so the more per person it costs.
It's a very interesting idea, but a very sensible one, that the more the system gets bogged down, the more expensive it becomes every single month.
Yeah.
And of course, I see in your article that the city of Toronto, so again, you've got your federal costs, you've alluded to them.
You've got your provincial costs, that's everything from healthcare to schools.
And the city, which runs homeless shelters, food banks, things of that sort, I see that 40% of the folks in these Toronto shelters are Trudeau's migrants.
So I mean, obviously, Aboriginal people, urban Aboriginals have had a challenge on homelessness and need shelters.
And of course, there's just Canadian citizens down on their luck.
But approximately 40% of people in our homeless shelters, they're foreigners who've come in as migrants.
And I don't know, there's no formal housing for them.
They don't have an income.
They just, I don't know what the reason is, but that's where they are.
You know, it's a very underreported element, Ezra.
As you know, I'm also a host on Series XM Canada.
And right across the street from our studio is a parking lot.
Well, it was a parking lot.
It was owned by the city of Toronto.
And they've closed down the parking lot for an area where there's not much parking, but there are a lot of people going for work and to frequent the shops and the restaurants and so forth.
They've shut down something like 150, 200 parking spaces to put up a temporary facility to deal with the influx of a lot of more people coming to the shelters, which is obviously caused by the migrants.
It's this temporary shelter, and they've paid something like a million dollars for it.
And if you read it by based on what just the reporting is, you'd think it's just some little shacks that they're putting up, like you make a tent when you go camping with your family, and then they tear it down later.
I've been watching this thing every day as I'm in the studio hosting my radio show.
And these guys are bringing in plumbing, bringing in new sort of cement blocks that they drill into the foundation.
I mean, this parking lot's done.
It doesn't exist anymore.
And this is pretty much, you know, the old saying, Ezra, there's nothing more permanent than a pilot project.
This shelter isn't going away.
So this has, I think, permanently changed a lot of the Toronto social service delivery.
Yeah, that's incredible.
There's one more thing that you bring to light, which I find very interesting.
Of course, the Global Compact for Migration, which we've been going through on our show yesterday with Giddy Mammon today on my show, Battleground, we went through.
Ezra, let me say something on that.
I see the emails.
People say, nobody's writing about this.
And then I end up getting hate mail from people saying, why aren't you writing about it?
I've written about it twice.
I have two columns on it.
So I'm on it.
I know you are, and I wasn't going there.
In fact, I was just about to say you're the only guy.
You're one.
I can count on like two fingers the number.
Sorry, I wasn't I wasn't.
In fact, I was just I know, but I'm getting I'm getting the hate mail saying they think I've been bought up by Justin Trudeau.
And no, well, let's not talk about the migration, but I am.
Listen, you keep tweeting those, and I'll retweet it to our people so they'll see.
No, you're one of the few guys who's actually read the thing.
What's interesting to me is that document, pardon me, doesn't make a lot of distinctions between refugees, asylum seekers, or just any old migrant.
And here's what, the reason I mentioned that is I'm looking at your story in the sun today.
And let me just quote a paragraph of what you wrote, and I'd love you to unpack this a bit.
In terms of country of origin, so we're talking about the PBO study here, while it was originally reported that Haitians made up the majority, they have now been overtaken by Nigerians.
Those two countries comprise the vast majority of arrivals, with people from Turkey, Colombia, and Eritrea making up a small fraction.
Now, here's my question to you.
I mean, I'm not an expert in those countries, but I don't think there's a genocide in those countries.
There is some terrorism in Nigeria.
Colombia is, there's some narco-terrorists, but I think most of these people are not fleeing persecution based on religion or race.
I think they're just here to get free stuff, to have a better life and to get social services.
And maybe those aren't even bad things, but I don't think these are refugees.
Not only is that not a controversial thing to say, Ezra, but that is a thing being said by every single nonpartisan bureaucrat who ends up actually speaking about this issue.
Everyone really other than Justin Trudeau and Gerald Butts.
Appearing before the Cornwall City Council, I think it was late last year, was a gentleman who's director general for a refugee resettlement program for the federal government in the Department of Overseas Refugees.
And he explained to Cornwall City Councilors there, and he wasn't saying this as if he was applauding a day, but he was saying, guys, you've got to realize the new normal in Canada is the European migration issues that they have there have come here.
And that is what we are effectively dealing with now.
And I thought, wow, that is wild to see a senior level bureaucrat actually sort of publicly acknowledge that.
And that is the situation.
And the big challenge with all of this, Ezra, a lot of people who want to engage in the fact wars and say, oh, it's me.
You got to say irregular.
It's mean to say illegal, et cetera, et cetera.
The main challenge here, these are self-selected migrants.
We are not selecting them.
They are selectum.
A certain percentage of them probably would be qualifying to come in legally to Canada.
I think it's a small percentage, but there is a percentage.
But it's not up to them to determine their legitimacy.
It's up to us.
It's that simple, very basic fact that a lot of people are missing here.
Yeah, I mean, I don't think I would personally like to live in Turkey, but it's not, you know, I mean, I wouldn't want to be a Kurd in Turkey, but just for someone in Turkey to say, you know what, I'm going to Canada, someone in Colombia, I'm going to Canada.
That's not enough, but that seems to be enough.
I have one last question for you.
You are one of the only Canadian journalists writing about this global migration pact.
And what's interesting to me is it's a done deal.
Like the actual title of the document is Agreed Upon Outcomes.
So it's already agreed.
I think it's just sort of a convention and a signing ceremony or anything.
I got a question for you.
Will this UN Global Compact for Migration, in your opinion, will it be a starter pistol for more migration, for more programs, for more open borders?
Do you think it'll actually cause a change in policy on the ground in Canada?
Or is it just some symbolic thing that you'll see lots of press releases about, but no action, like the global warming conventions, like the Paris Convention?
I mean, Catherine McKenna and Justin Trudeau talk a lot about it, but they don't actually, they haven't met those targets.
Do you think this is going to cause our immigration in this country to go up to $450,000 a year?
Ezra, my favorite line in politics used to be that line I just said, which is there's nothing more permanent than a pilot project.
My new favorite line is there's nothing less voluntary than non-binding agreements.
What this UN migration compact is, is a non-binding agreement.
So we're just all kind of voluntarily saying, sounds good, we're signing ourselves up.
You know that U.S.-Paris climate deal scam thing, Ezra?
You know how that basically means we have a gun to our head for these and we're facing carbon taxes and the little guys being hoes and anytime you try and oppose it, everyone tries to shut you down and so forth?
That is non-binding.
That is voluntary, even though it seems like people are going to be sent to the stockades for not going along with it.
And I think we're in a very similar situation with this alleged non-binding deal.
And I think we've got to ask a lot of questions about it because this is national federal policy that may end up being dictated by the bureaucrats in the UN who managed to be the most influential people at the table.
Yeah, isn't that the truth?
Well, very interesting.
And thanks so much for coming on the show.
Folks, if you want to read the article, you can find it on the Toronto Sun.
The headline is, Illegal border processing costs alone to exceed $1 billion.
PBO report.
We've been talking with our friend Anthony Fury.
Great to have you on the show.
Thanks for your time.
Bye now, Ezra.
All right.
Bye-bye.
Well, isn't that worrying?
But I'm glad Anthony's fighting the good fight.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back.
On my monologue yesterday about Trudeau controlling news in the next election.
Henry writes, the coming election is very much about Canada staying a free and democratic state versus Trudeau's favorite form of government, Chinese communism.
Well, that's a pretty bold thing to say.
There's some truth to it, though, because look, in the United States, their system is built really with strong checks and balances.
You've got the executive, you've got the legislative, you've got the judiciary, they're all at odds.
Individual senators or congressmen have a lot more latitude.
So even with a Barack Obama, who was an ideologue, or the left would say Trump is on the war path, well, you have checks and balances.
I mean, just this month, Donald Trump lost control of the House of Representatives.
That's a check on his power.
For his entire term in office, Justin Trudeau is unchecked.
He stacked the Senate.
He has an absolute majority in the House of Commons.
The courts were on his side anyways.
There's no confirmation of judges.
He's stacking the courts.
There's no check and balance.
So a prime minister with a B in his blonet, a prime minister with a zealous mission, can do a lot more damage in Canada than a good or bad zealot in the United States because we don't have the same checks and balances.
I'm not going to say we're going to go full China or full Cuba, but in four years, a prime minister can do much more damage to Canada than a president can do to America.
On my interview with Giddy Mammon about the UN's Global Compact on Migration, Ron writes, I've watched Giddy for a couple years, and no one can argue that he is not an expert immigration lawyer.
This UN Migration Pact is a serious problem that could severely change the world's democracies.
I couldn't help but notice Giddy shaking his head when reading and interpreting many of the new rules.
Trudeau has to be stopped.
Yeah, you know, I was looking at Giddy's credentials.
I mean, look, I know Giddy, I've known him for years.
He's been an immigration and refugee lawyer for 30 years.
That's a long time.
He doesn't look that old, does he?
And he's actually certified by the Law Side of Apple Canada as an expert specialist in immigration and refugee.
And both.
There's only about a dozen or two guys like that.
So, I mean, he's practically a professor of it, if I may interpret that.
Giddy's Impact on Immigration00:02:26
And like I always say, he loves immigration and refugees.
It's what he does.
His clients are immigrants and refugees.
It's all he does is he brings people into Canada.
So you can't say he's racist.
I think he's Jewish from North African extraction.
So I think he's a visible minority.
I've never asked him.
So he's a minority himself.
I would say 95% of his clients are probably minorities.
He spent his whole life bringing people into Canada.
So no one could ever say, Giddy, you're racist, bigot, anti-migrant.
Really?
He's brought more people to Canada than probably anyone else.
So when he says this system is insane, when he says this is broken, when he says this will be lawless, you got to take him at his word.
That's my view.
That's my view.
All right, Billy writes, I think tonight's show is the most frightening yet for our freedoms and democracy.
Billy, I'm not sure which part of the show you're referring to.
I presume you're talking about the Global Compact for Migration.
And if you haven't read the document yet, you can find it on our website.
You could Google it in a second yourself.
But if you go to RebelUN.com, I think you'll find it there.
I think he was there last night.
And that Global Compact for Migration, I talked about it today.
If you go to YouTube, I don't know if you know this, every Friday at 12 noon, I sit down for an hour and I just riff and I take live chat.
So I just have a live chat show.
I don't know if you know that.
Every Friday at 12 noon Eastern Time, 10 a.m. Mountain Time, if you're in the UK to 5 p.m. UK time.
And we just went through it.
We went through 10 different passages in it and I took questions.
And it hit me that this is not a technical legal document.
Yeah, there's some baffle gab and vague buzzwords in it, but anyone can figure out what this means.
This means there is a new human right to migrate.
This means governments have to positively lobby for migration and positively stamp out anti-immigration sentiments.
They specifically talk about school curriculums.
They specifically talk about the internet.
They specifically talk about the media.
So you don't have to be a lawyer or a diplomat or a bureaucrat expert to understand this.
So I encourage you to actually read the document.
You can find it on our website or somewhere else.
So yeah, it is bloody scary.
And the scariest part, and if you want to go to my YouTube show today, you can really address this.
Read The Document00:00:49
It's a done deal.
It's already done.
It's already signed.
It's already agreed to at least.
I mean, there might be some signing ceremony.
America, but it's already in the bag done.
So we're sending David Menzies in a videographer.
I'm pretty sure the UN will keep us out.
I mean, they keep Sheila Gunn Reed out of the global warming conferences.
We send her anyways because we think she can do even better reporting from the outside than the other guys can do from the inside.
So we're going to send David.
And that's actually coming up in just, what, nine days or so.
Anyways, that's our report for today.
Yeah, yeah.
We're going to talk more about that.
Go to RebelUN.com if you want to see more on this.
And we'll have a lot more to say, especially as David goes over there.
All right, on that stressful note, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night.