Amanda Head, Ezra Levant, and Sheila Gunn Reid dissect Canada’s legal and political absurdities: John Alabi faces $12K in penalties for refusing to remove shoes in his own apartment, with tenants possibly exploiting the system; Sheila Gunn Reid counters Trudeau’s attack on male workers by exposing his $600M media grants and $10.5M donation to al-Qaeda-linked Omer Cotter. Rebel Media’s $15K military charity donation was rejected by CFB Borden, then returned under DND pressure, revealing a government more concerned with optics than soldiers’ welfare—proving systemic bias against free speech and working-class Canadians. [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.
So a Christian landlord goes up against Muslim tenants, claiming their faith was dissed because the landlord never removed his shoes in his own house.
Can you possibly guess who came out on top in this squabble?
Ezra Levant has all the depressing details.
And when Justin Trudeau made bizarre comments regarding male construction workers being predators, he didn't just spout his usual garden variety idiocy.
No, this time he really triggered Sheila Guddreid in a very personal way.
And just waitly here what Sheila has to say.
And Bruce Springsteen is no fan of President Trump, but even the boss is a realist predicting Trump will win another term.
Amanda Head weighs in on who might head up the Democratic Party in 2020.
And it ain't pretty.
And finally, we get your letters.
We get your letters every minute of every day.
And I'll share some of the letters we received regarding our year-long quest to donate $15,000 to a military charity, something that continues to be stymied by the Trudeau Liberals.
Oh yeah, here's an update you might not believe.
Those are your rebels.
Now let's round them up.
You might recall the case of John Alabi.
He- He is an immigrant to Canada from Nigeria, came here with nothing really, and worked his way up as hard as he could, taking jobs and finally becoming, well, a bit of a landlord himself.
He lived the Canadian dream.
But then one of his tenants, well, took him to the Human Rights Tribunal.
You see, John is Christian, and one of his tenants was a Muslim family that objected to John not taking his shoes off in the apartment.
They said it was anti-Muslim discrimination.
And in a shocking decision, well, not shocking to those of us who know the human rights tribunals, they won a multi-thousand penalty against John.
Well, when we heard that, we said, John, we got to fight this.
And we crowdfunded the legal appeal, which happened in Toronto.
John joins me in studio now.
John, good to see you again.
Thanks for being back here.
Thank you very much.
I understand that there was a hearing at Osgood Hall, the very senior courthouse in downtown Toronto.
We have your lawyer, Uche Baykara, on the line via Skype.
I'm going to ask him how it went, and then I'll come back to you for your personal reactions, okay?
All right.
Joining us now via Skype is Uche Baikara.
Uche, you're the lawyer who has been fighting for John.
We crowdfunded the appeal.
Tell us how it went.
First, Ezra, thank you for having us on and thank you for having me.
So we heard the appeal at the divisional court for a panel of three judges and the decision that came down was from a procedural standpoint specifically.
The Human Rights Tribunal did not err in the way that they arrived to their decision.
Well, we gave it the good old college try.
Actually, we did far more than that.
We tried to get justice in a real courtroom for John Nalabi, the Christian Nigerian landlord who was taken to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal for supposedly being disrespectful to Muslim tenants.
But as anyone who follows the human rights racket in Canada already knows, there is a hierarchy.
And even though John himself is a visible minority, he learned that when it comes to the kangaroo court, that is the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Islam trumps all.
And joining me now with more on this story is Rebel Commander Ezra Levant.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, Ezra.
Thanks very much, David.
So, Ezra, I guess I'll cut to the chase.
Is Canada unofficially under Sharia law right now?
I'll tell you, this story is so irksome.
John Alaby is a very mild-mannered, soft-spoken immigrant from Nigeria.
Nigeria is about half and half Muslim and Christian.
So John's a Christian man, and he came to Canada.
I don't think he had 10 bucks in his wallet when he came.
And now he's worked hard, he's worked his way up, and he's a very small landlord.
Like, good for him, right?
Get a place, rent it out, live the dream, follow the rules, pay your taxes.
Well, his tenants were Muslim, that's fine.
And he came in to his apartment, his place, and he didn't take his shoes off at the door.
Now, maybe he should, I don't know.
But whether or not he did is a matter of, let's say, courtesy or custom, I don't know.
But it's not a religious matter.
And it is his property.
Yeah, of course.
So they took him to the Human Rights Tribunal.
There is no such thing as a human right to have your landlord take his shoes off.
It might be a courtesy or a custom, but they claimed it was discrimination based on religion.
What?
He obviously didn't discriminate against him because he rented the place to him.
When a landlord does or doesn't take your shoes off, that's not racism.
John Alaby's black, by the way, if I didn't mention it.
Like he's black.
And he's happy to rent to Muslims.
And I know he has other Muslim connections that I won't get into now.
He's like he's a friend to Muslims.
He's not an enemy of Muslims.
And wearing shoes in his own property is not an anti-Muslim act.
That's not a thing.
But they took him to the Human Rights Tribunal and they beat him and we said, we got to help.
And we lost the appeal two weeks ago.
And there's other things that I don't know if we have time to get into.
During this whole trauma, God forbid, I hate to mention it, John's son committed suicide.
And there was so much stress and so many bad things, the family broke up.
He got a divorce or a separation.
And yet the Human Rights Tribunal insisted, no delays, we're proceeding with this important case.
Yes.
Well, you can imagine the man's mind was elsewhere.
But Ezra, here's what I'm saying.
So another couple, let me just throw one more thing.
Let me throw one more thing, and then you come into your question.
So I think that I forget the amount.
I think it was $8,000 or $12,000 or something they won for.
It was $12, $6 each.
That's right.
You know how many lawyers the government had on it?
Four.
Two for the Human Rights Tribunal, and two for some legal aid for the Muslim family.
Four government lawyers versus John Alabi.
Sorry, go ahead.
Here's what I understand.
When we raise the funds to appeal this in a real court, and the decision comes back where basically they say the tribunal did, they said that it's not that the tribunal made the right decision, but they were following their own proper protocol.
Now, Ezra, you're a lawyer by training.
This is beyond my pay grade to understand.
I mean, this is not a matter of justice to me, one iota.
What's your take on this?
Because the Human Rights Tribunal is called an expert tribunal, it's granted some deference from the courts.
Now, of course, it's not an expert tribunal.
It's a bunch of BS.
It's partisan, it's unfair, it's biased, it's not run by real judges.
But for example, let me give you a very obscure example.
Where I'm originally from in Alberta, there's something called the Surface Rights Appeal Board.
What is that?
Well, let's say you're a farmer who's got a blueberry farm.
And underneath is $100 million of coal.
So one guy owns the blueberry farm on top.
The other guy owns $100 million of coal underneath.
How do you compromise?
How do you regulate how the coal miner gets his coal and the blueberry farm?
And that's a real case.
I actually, when I was an Arlington student, I worked on that case in Alberta before the Surface Rights Appeal Board.
It's such an obscure area.
It's such a narrow field of law that everyone says, okay, well, we don't know anything about surface rights except this expert.
We're going to grant them a lot of latitude.
And if you don't like what happened in that expert tribunal, we're just going to check to make sure that they follow their own rules more enough.
We're not going to get into whether they were right or wrong.
We're just going to say, was it patently unreasonable?
So you get it for surface rights, because that's something so obscure.
You want to say, okay, I'm not going to mess with surface rights.
But human rights is a catch-all for any grievance thing.
It's not a real field of expertise.
It's not a real field.
Like, surface rights is a real issue that is a really narrow area of law.
I believe that the Surface Rights Appeal Board should exist.
And it should be granted deference.
The Human Rights Tribunal should not be granted that kind of deference because it's not a real field of expertise.
And so here in this case, you had three real judges who didn't crack open the case and say, yeah, that's a bad ruling.
They granted deference to the Human Rights Tribunal and said, well, they followed their rules and there was, and yeah, maybe we don't like the outcome, but there's nothing that would make us set it aside.
So they respected the Human Rights Tribunal.
Trouble is it doesn't deserve respect because it's not even a real thing.
And I would argue, Ezra, it's about the interpretation.
To go back to what you said earlier, the idea of John being anti-Muslim, about him being Islamophobic, it doesn't fly because he would never have rented the unit to people who are obviously Muslims in the first place.
So that's one thing.
The second thing, Ezra, this is a speculative question.
Do you truly think these two people, these two tenants who painted themselves as devout Muslims, they pray five times a day, et cetera, et cetera, were they really that offended by somebody wearing shoes into their home?
Or was this an opportunity in their minds to game the system to come out with a nice financial reward, which had a pretty good chance of winning?
Yeah, well, I mean, I don't know them, so I don't know what they're like.
I only know what they've done, and they've really destroyed John's life in a number of ways.
And they are so insistent that they get their payday.
That's super gross.
But look, there's a lot of gross people in the world.
These gross people, these tenants, these abusive, name-calling tenants, were aided, abetted, assisted, and represented by the government.
Four lawyers.
There's $12,000 here.
Why was this so important that you had two lawyers?
I'm talking about the court appeal last week, two weeks ago.
Why is it so important that the Human Rights Tribunal sent two lawyers and some legal aid clinic sent two lawyers?
You have four lawyers coming for John O'Labby.
I'll tell you why.
Because if anyone's allowed to resist, they must be crushed.
And, you know, and that's, here's the perversely ironic epilogue to this story, Ezra.
These government lawyers and the tribunal are saying, we are going to fight for Muslim rights.
You know, no one's going to stop us.
This is the top of the pyramid.
Well, they'll never say that, of course.
Here's the big picture.
This has received some considerable press.
Say I'm a landlord.
Say I look at potentially renting out a unit to a couple of devout Muslims.
Suddenly, this would never have crossed my mind before, but now that I see that, wow, if I don't take off my shoes, if I don't give 25 hours' notice of a visit, you know, that so that the female can properly veil herself, I am inviting myself into a world of hurt.
So I think there might be landlords out there that they're not anti-Muslim or Islamophobic, but this is now a third rail for them.
If I get the wrong type that know how to game the system based on the most trivial complaint, I'm screwed and I want no part of it.
Yeah, I mean, it's like what we're seeing as a result of the over-the-top Me Too allegations is that I was just reading a great story about this the other day.
A lot of corporate recruiters say, you know what?
It's just not worth going out for drinks after work with colleagues who were women because the chances of a spurious accusation are too high.
Whereas they wouldn't think twice about going out for drinks with a colleague.
And it's not because they're sexist.
It's the opposite.
They don't want to be called sexist.
And so really, do you go on a business trip with a colleague who's female?
Well, it's so many risks there.
And I'm thinking that, I mean, I believe that we should be against, I think we should treat people on the content of their character, not the color of their skin or their gender or things like that.
But if a woman walking in is danger, danger because they're bringing with them four lawyers.
Yes.
If a Muslim tenant is danger, danger because you've got four hunter-killer lawyers with them, why would you take the risk?
It's not worth it.
It's not worth the risk.
And it's not just the 12 grand that John owes them.
Now he's got to pay for his own lawyer and he's got to pay money to their lawyers.
That's what's so absurd is that their lawyers didn't charge the Muslim family.
But John has to pay.
So we're crowdfunding that.
It's a terrible thing, but we have to help John.
Absolutely.
So we've set up a website, helpjohn.ca, helpjohn.ca.
And I kicked in the first hundred bucks because I hate what happened here.
So we need $12,200 for his own lawyer.
I forget the math off the top of my head.
We got his lawyer, the bad guy's lawyers, I'm sorry to say it.
And we have to pay the fine.
Or if we can get enough money together, there's a possibility of another appeal.
But John doesn't want to go deeper into the hole.
So I said, well, let's try and fill up the hole you're in now, and then maybe you can decide what to do later.
So we are trying to at least cover his own legal fees, et cetera.
$12,200.
Well, Ezra, good luck on that.
We're all out of time for this.
And well, what can I say, folks?
What a sad story here.
We have an immigrant living the Canadian dream, rags the richest.
All he was trying to do was bring home the bacon.
Thank God he didn't bring home the bacon to that home.
That might have been another $12,000 life.
Keep it here.
More of Rebel Roundup to come right after this.
This is my husband.
A Good and Decent Man00:09:20
He's one of the oil field men and construction workers Trudeau was referring to when he said this about them in Argentina.
You might not say, oh, what does a gender lens have to do with building this new highway or this new pipeline or something?
Well, there are gender impacts.
When you bring construction workers into a rural area, there are social impacts because they're mostly male construction workers.
How are you adjusting and adapting to those?
That's what the gender lens in GBA plus budgeting is all about.
Now, despite what his prime minister has to say about him and the other men he works with to fuel the Canadian economy, my husband is a good and decent man.
The best man, if you ask me, our children, and probably my mom.
But he's also humble, quiet, private, and busy working.
The last thing he would do is stick up for himself.
He's just not that way.
That little baby you see there in the picture with him perched behind the wheel of his bed truck is now a busy, well-rounded, nearly 13-year-old girl.
We don't live in that smaller house on the smaller chunk of land anymore, and we drive better trucks now.
And he's not exactly a trucker anymore, but he's gone just as much, and he works just as hard, sacrificing his time with us, working hours away for weeks on end in the heat and the cold to make sure that I am always here for our kids, that we have everything we need and some of the things we want.
He dotes on our daughters, which has made them confident and resilient girls, but he still misses birthdays, Christmas concerts, anniversaries, cadet parades, girl guides, family get-togethers, and sports.
So many sports.
Why do I put them in so many sports?
And why are they so good at stuff?
Anyway, it's the sacrifice he makes every day to keep a roof over our heads and our kids on the family farm where I was raised, where my dad was raised, where my grandparents lived, because it's important to me.
He's no sexual harasser.
He's no danger to anything or anyone besides those deer he keeps clipping off with his truck when he's trying to get home to us after a long rig move.
Well, our ever feisty Sheila Gunnread always has plenty to complain about when it comes to the never-ending idiocy spewed by Justin Trudeau.
But thanks to those inexplicable comments the PM made in Argentina recently regarding male construction workers, well, in Sheila's case, Justin swam into Jaws 4 territory.
You know, this time, it's personal.
And with more on this latest example of cosmically stupid commentary by the Prime Minister is the host of the gun show, Sheila Gunread.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, my friend.
Hey, David, thanks for having me on.
Always a pleasure.
So Sheila, I must ask you, what's it like being married to a predator?
Well, you know, he, like I said in the video, he's not much of a predator, except, you know, when he's trying to hunt down a good deal on Khajiji, when he's trying to relax in his tiny broom closet of a room in camp while he's away at work.
It's so ridiculous that these are the insinuations being made against good, decent, hardworking Canadian men by the kokany groper himself.
Yes, and something that he has never apologized for.
If you see his interview in Chatelaine, Canada's leading women's magazine, so-called, he answers that question with about three paragraphs of baffle gab that I do not understand, even though English is my first language and I have a degree in journalism, but he can't even take actions, he can't even take responsibility for his actions.
But Sheila, I think you were really on to something in your commentary, and that is bringing up the psychological condition of projection, where you project your worst qualities on other people.
And, you know, when you look at Justin Trudeau, as you mentioned, Trust Fund Baby has never worked a tough job, a tough gig in his life.
So entitled, so, you know, born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
Compared to your husband and so many other men out there putting in brutal shifts in all kinds of weather, bringing home the bacon, if I'm still allowed to say that phrase, I mean, he is the one who is a disgrace, not people like your husband.
Well, and that's the thing.
Like Justin Trudeau, we have to look at just his lifestyle at Harrington Lake, which is his like summer cottage.
In the winter, the Canadian taxpayer spends tens of thousands of dollars just to clear away the snow for him because he can't even do that himself.
That's too difficult.
I think it's $40,000.
I could be wrong.
Just to clear away the snow at his summer house.
And he has the audacity to malign and frankly libel these decent men who are out there.
It's minus 40.
The wind is blowing.
It's plus 30 in the summertime.
They're working in terrible conditions.
And it's one thing for someone who has actually put in a hard day's work to be critical of you.
But how hard is being a part-time snowboard instructor and professional vacation taker?
You know, Sheila, I wonder where he gets these ideas.
And I'm being serious here.
Is this organically dreamt up in his brain?
Or are his advisors, the likes of Gerald Butts, saying, you know what?
Time to play the gender card.
You might want to say this to show your feminist side.
What do you think it is, Sheila?
Well, I do think he's stupid.
I'll go on the record to say that he is not a bright individual, but this is the Liberal Party of Canada talking point.
We've seen Catherine McKenna trot this talking point out before in interviews with the media where she says that this gender-based analysis business that pipelines have to go through is because of these large quantities of men coming to rural Canada to build a pipeline and sleep in camp and go on Kijiji and text their wives when they finally get back into cell phone service.
She's said that.
This is something the Liberal Party truly believes and it's something they think is a winning issue.
And I don't think they really understand how insulted vast tracts of Canada really is by all of this.
It just speaks to how isolated they are inside their strange little Laurentian bubble.
No, I think you're right about that.
Isolated and detached from reality, quite frankly.
You know, Sheila, I thought this commentary was one of your all-time best.
I thought what you said about your husband was a million times greater than any Valentine's Day card you could buy him.
It was so profound.
It was so heartfelt.
It was so truthful.
But like you said too, it's not as though you and your husband are living any kind of unique lifestyle.
You know, there are millions of Canadians that are doing this, getting up, you know, keeping a family together, working really hard.
And for Justin Trudeau to be so dismissive of that, it's like a slap in the face to all hardworking Canadians out there.
It's funny you say that because my husband, we don't talk about work when we get to talk to each other when he's away at work.
So he didn't see the commentary.
I don't think he's seen the commentary yet, but he did text me yesterday and say, what did you say on the internet?
Someone is calling me a journalist groper.
And so that's going to be his work experience for the next couple of days.
But like I said in my commentary, I'm not special.
We're not exceptional.
This is, we are absolutely mainstream Albertans.
This is the life my parents lived, my in-laws lived.
And it really speaks to the detachment, especially of the West, from these Laurentian lizards who are making the rules for the rest of us to live by.
100%.
And Sheila, perhaps we can wrap it on this.
I know the year, the calendar year 2018, has 24 days more to go, but I'm going to go out on a limb and I'm going to say you had the line of the year for every rebel commentary recorded in 2018.
And that was when you spoke about how Justin and your husband do share one common trait, that they've both been known to grope a journalist every now and then.
That was brilliant.
I hope, I pray Justin gets to see that commentary.
I would love to see the look on his face.
Well, you know, you know they watch The Rebel.
They keep bringing us up in the House of Commons.
So I'm sure he's seen that, but I'm sure he doesn't even understand what I'm talking about.
Well, Sheila, congratulations, like I said, on the line of the year and congratulations on another great commentary.
And anyone who hasn't seen it in its entirety, please see it.
It is a superb piece of commentary.
Why Democrats Embrace Trump's Language?00:08:39
Just a beautiful thing.
Thank you again, Sheila.
Thanks, David.
Have a great weekend.
You too.
Good luck in Poland.
And folks, keep it here.
More of Rebel Roundup to come right after this.
He has said that Trump ushered in bigotry and racism and intolerance and called him a toxic narcissist.
And just earlier this week, he accused POTUS of crimes against humanity by dividing Americans.
But his newest comments, while in no way complimentary of the president, certainly don't offer any praise or confidence for Democrats either, especially as it pertains to Democrat candidates running for the presidency in 2020.
In a recent interview with the Sunday Times, Springsteen said this.
I don't see anyone out there at the moment.
The man who can beat Trump or the woman who can beat Trump, got to make sure you get that woman part in there so you don't piss off the feminazis.
You need someone who can speak some of the same language as Donald Trump, obviously.
And the Democrats don't have an obvious effective presidential candidate.
Now, what's interesting about this to me is that on a daily basis, when you watch CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, basically all of the mainstream and legacy media, their number one complaint is about something that Trump said, his language.
And now you've got Springsteen out here saying that Democrats have got to have someone with the same language.
I'm sorry, isn't that what you hate about Donald Trump?
Because regarding his language, the reason his supporters love him so much and the reason they support him so avidly is because he speaks the truth.
And truth and honesty are not really what lefties peddling.
And on top of that, when Donald Trump was running for the election, Americans like the idea of a businessman, not a politician, being president.
And many of the Democrats who have hinted at throwing their hat in the ring for 2020 are Democrats whose hands are so deep in the pockets of lobbyists and special interest groups, they could clip their toenails for them.
Like so many other celebrities, Bruce Springsteen is no fan of the president, given his over-the-top hysteria pertaining to Trump.
But at least the boss is a realist by predicting that the Republicans are very likely headed for a second term under President Trump.
Yet the question arises with less than two years until the next election, who will be that effective, credible candidate to lead the Democratic Party, assuming such a person even exists, that is.
And with more on the Democrat dilemma heading into 2020 is our very own Hollywood conservative, Amanda Head.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, Amanda.
Thank you.
Good to see you.
Always a pleasure, my friend.
So, Amanda, so many angles here.
But first off, I would argue that given the current roster of rogues who want to lead the Democrats from Conrad Sanders to Pocahontas, the worst thing I can say about this party is that its best option might be going with Hillary 2.0.
What do you say?
Oh, man, that would personally be my dream.
I would love to have a Clinton-Trump battle once again, because I firmly believe that Donald Trump is going to win reelection in 2020 regardless.
But I think that if Hillary Clinton runs, oh, man, I mean, that would just be so much pure joy and entertainment for us.
I mean, Trump would probably come up with 30 new nicknames for her.
It would be amazing.
I have heard that Robert Francis O'Rourke has been flirting with the idea of a presidency at some point.
He, of course, is the Texan who ran for Ted Cruz's seat in the Senate.
He's also the one who allegedly walked away from a drunk driving accident in the 90s.
Beto, of course, although I don't like to use the term beto because I think that it's culturally appropriating Hispanic culture, but the left doesn't seem to have an issue when it's one of their own, obviously.
Well, at least that drunk driving incident didn't involve a car being submerged with a person inside it at the time.
But, you know, aside from him, Amanda, I'm going through your list that you adroitly mentioned in your commentary, and you've got crazy Uncle Joe Biden claiming he's the most qualified.
And you have Pocahontas, of course, Elizabeth Warren.
I don't know how she gets a pass given her credentials and the fact that she would even brag that, you see, the DNA test proved me right.
I am 1,250th native.
Kamala Harris, I mean, that's got to be a science fiction plot.
I mean, Amanda, what gives?
Is there somebody lurking in the behind the curtain that's a real heavyweight that is going to save this party in the next several months?
Yeah, I wouldn't doubt that it might be someone out of the blue.
You know, Barack Obama as a junior senator, he was kind of out of the blue, but he just picked up steam so very quickly going into the presidential election that year.
So I wouldn't be surprised if it's somebody out of the blue.
You know, Joe Biden, I mean, I guess if the qualifications, you know, maybe he's lining himself up against Bill Clinton.
So that's why he thinks he's the most qualified, because we all know that Joe Biden tends to get a little handsy.
So maybe that's why he's qualified with Kamala Harris.
And this is something I will say about Kamala Harris.
She is so far left.
Of course, she's senator here in California where I am.
If the Democrat Party nominates her and she is their candidate and the DNC by proxy buys into her brand of leftism, the Democrat Party is in trouble or we as a country are in trouble because she is so far left on practically every single issue.
So, you know, I think that they will have a rough time with a candidate like that in 2020.
I hope that they will because if they don't and someone like that prevails, then, you know, the ideals that this country was founded on, I mean, they will be completely thrown out.
Who else were we talking about?
Corey Booker, I think, is another one who has floated the idea, but he's kind of in the same camp as Kamala Harris.
So, you know, you've got all of these names floating around.
Of course, Pocahontas as well, who is one 1,094th Native American.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's somebody that we don't even know right now.
You've also had Michael Bloomberg, Jeff Zucker, a bunch of like millionaire slash billionaire types.
I don't know if they're trying to, you know, emulate the Trump thing.
But the interesting thing about Donald Trump, as opposed to your normal millionaire or billionaire, you know, Trump was the richest one out of that entire pool of Republicans and Democrats.
And yet he was the one who had the ability to relate to the common man the most.
So that says something about him and his demeanor and his language and the way that he spoke to us in speaking of his language.
Democrats, mainstream media, legacy media, the number one thing they criticize about this president is his language.
And now they are trying to match it because I think they realize that they can't, you know, I mean, if you can't beat them, join them, right?
No, you know, that's an excellent point, Amanda.
And to go full circle on that, when we speak of Jeff Zucker, of course, he is the president of CNN.
I mean, how perversely ironic is that?
You know, the fact that this individual would play his cards by actually running for the leadership of the Democratic Party.
I mean, I guess in one way, talk about full disclosure.
And by the way, I'm not sure if I'm spelling full F-U-L-L or F-O-O-L here.
But I mean, you know, it would sure bring credence to the fact that most of the mainstream media has it in for Republicans and Donald Trump specifically.
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, talk about being in the tank for a presidential candidate.
I mean, we thought it was bad when the media was in the tank for Hillary Clinton.
This would quite literally be in the tank, in the pocketbook, in the bank account, in the pockets of Jeff Zucker.
So, I mean, that would, I think that's just a little too ironic for even Democrats to.
Oh, well, Amanda, I think we've lost the connection, so we're going to have to wrap it here, my friend.
Thank you so much for another excellent commentary on the plight of the Democrats south of the border.
CFB Borden Donation Controversy00:07:48
And folks, keep it here.
More of Ravel Roundup to come, right after this.
You know, the other day I was having an Adam West moment.
Check out this scene from the 1966 Batman movie.
Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb.
Yeah, some days you just can't get rid of a bomb.
And you want to know something, folks?
Some days you just can't get rid of $15,000.
Now, you may recall that around this time last year, we started a fundraising drive for soldiers and their families at Camp Borden north of Toronto.
You see, we were tipped off about a story that was published in the base's official publication entitled Seasonal Sharing Basket Campaign.
Indeed, Justin Trudeau pays our soldiers so little they're forced to ask for charity.
And this is the same Trudeau who gave $10.5 million to Omer Cotter, a convicted al-Qaeda terrorist who murdered a soldier.
So it was we set out to raise $10,000 for the CFB Borden food hamper.
And you know what, folks?
Like always, you came through for us and our soldiers by donating more than $15,000.
But a funny thing happened on the way to CFB Borden.
What was meant to be a feel-good photo op turned into, well, this.
Hi, how are you?
Good Christmas.
Good.
My name is David Menzies.
I'm from Rebel Media.
Okay.
And we just wanted to drop by.
You were having a seasonal sharing basket campaign.
Yeah.
And we reached out to our viewers to raise money for it.
And we've raised over $15,000.
Okay.
And we just wanted to drop off this check for our generous viewers to you.
Okay.
Actually, I have nothing to do with that anymore.
The campaign is closed.
Well, there you have it.
Your generous donations are mula non grata at CFB Borden.
We did find another military charity, however, called Canada Company.
They were initially happy to accept our donation, yet within hours of taking the check, guess what?
Canada Company sent it back and they even requested that we destroy the video footage of them accepting the money.
Well, we smell the rat.
Was there some interference going on in Ottawa?
And upon filing a Freedom of Information request, our suspicions were confirmed, for we received more than 100 pages of correspondence from the Department of National Defense, bureaucrats who were fretting over how to handle a charitable donation?
Yes, the DND paper pushers were afraid that we would politicize such a donation.
But the perverse irony is this, folks, by refusing our donation and having our quest to give this money go on for more than a year now, it is they who have politicized this issue, not us.
In any event, here's what some of you had to say about how the Trudeau liberals just can't help themselves when it comes to disrespecting the military and losing their stuff over the one Canadian media outlet they cannot control.
Zempla writes, In the meantime, Justin is bragging to Daily Show host Trevor Noah on Twitter that he'll dish out 50 mil in Canuck Bucks to some charity that doles out money to other charities marked for educating girls in the third world.
Yeah, indeed, Zempla.
Just put it on the tab, I guess.
But here's the thing.
That's not Justin's money to give, is it?
That's our money.
And Canadians had no say in the matter.
Meanwhile, the money that we raised from you, our viewers, was voluntarily given.
Yet those funds are refused?
This is nothing short of surreal.
MGTOWK writes, wait, what?
Accepting Rebel's fundraising check could be bad PR?
So their answer is to reject a donation and spur Rebel to notify their viewers like they are doing in this video?
Yeah, that's not going to go over like a lead balloon or anything.
Yeah, good point, my friend.
They turned this into the proverbial federal case, not us.
And it just goes to show why so many people consider the term military intelligence to be an oxymoron.
Vaughn Ellis writes, the same Trudeau that gives $600 million to journalists who are trusted sources instead of paying the troops a livable wage.
Funny how Trudeau puts his image before serving forces and veterans.
Yeah, true enough, Mr. Ellis, but I honestly believe our prime minister is a narcissist.
And if you suffer from such a condition, why wouldn't you send a lot of payola to the media to write nice things about you or at the very least have them bury the ugly truth?
And Merlin Crisp writes, wow, this is criminal, absolutely disgusting.
This needs to go viral.
I'm sickened by this.
Well, Merlin, I don't think the actions of the government are criminal in terms of breaking any actual laws, but are their actions immoral and unethical?
Oh, big time.
As for going viral, we're not quite done with this story yet, folks, as we continue to seek out another military charity that will accept your donations.
Please add your name to our online petition that we plan to deliver to Defense Minister Harji Sajan.
Simply visit calloffyourdogs.com.
That's calloffyourdogs.com.
And it's worth noting that not everyone was outraged by your donations getting rejected.
Mary Hildreth writes, she, meaning the CFB staffer, didn't say your money wasn't good enough.
She said it, the charity, was closed.
I don't know about the second one, but the first one said it was already closed.
When you infer something like that, people don't take the rest of your commentary seriously.
Well, Mary, maybe you'll change your mind when you hear the rest of the story, which is this.
After being informed that the 2017 program at CFB was over, we suggested the money could go towards the 2018 CFB fundraising initiative.
And suddenly, guess what?
The story changed.
A CFB media flack informed us that the food hamper drive is meant to be a spirit-raising event on the base and accepting money from outsiders would go against that goal.
So again, they declined.
And if you think that's a truthful reason to turn down 15 grand for needy people, I have a slightly used Sherman tank for sale that was only driven by a little old lady on Sundays.
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.