Justin Trudeau’s favorability plunged to 35% (from 46%) in under a year, with 58% disapproving—78% in Alberta, 79% in Saskatchewan, and even millennials now supporting him at just 42%—as his economic stagnation, blocked pipelines ($10B Northern Gateway, $16B Energy East), and global diplomatic missteps (India, China, U.S.) fuel outrage. His "performative feminism," media complicity, and smearing of opponents like Quebec’s Legault as bigots while enforcing ideological policies (abortion attestations, UN Global Migration Compact silence) deepen skepticism. Protests, like the 22-km truck convoy near Edmonton, expose his detachment, with truckers—key to U.S. energy hubs—threatened by unemployment if pipelines remain stalled, proving his power rests on silencing dissent rather than addressing real issues. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, Justin Trudeau plunges in the polls and he starts to lash out.
It's December 19th, and you're watching The Ezra LeVance Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here and you won't give them an answer.
You come here once a year with a sign and you feel morally superior.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Angus Reid published a new poll and it is so bad for Justin Trudeau.
Let me quote, with less than a year before an expected election, the number of people who favor Trudeau has fallen to 35%, down from 46% this time a year ago.
For the first time since October 2015, he is no longer seen as the national party leader who would be the best prime minister.
Now, obviously, a year is an extremely long time in politics, and Trudeau is about to dump $595 million in bailout money into the few remaining media companies in Canada that he doesn't already control.
But still, just 35% of Canadians approve of his conduct.
58% disapprove.
Look at this chart from Angus Reid.
I think it has an important qualification in it.
Just hold this on the screen for a bit here.
Of the 35% who support Trudeau, that's the blue bars on the left.
8% strongly support him, and 27% sort of support him.
So that 8% would be the people who love him, like the staff of the CBC and professional anti-pipeline lobbyists and maybe some immigration consultants probably.
So of the 35% who like him, just a small number really like him, single digits.
But look at those who dislike him.
Those are the red bars.
That's the people who disapprove of him.
58% of Canadians are in this category, but look at how they break down.
39% say they strongly dislike him.
As in they're not just tired of him or bored or, yeah, I'm up for a change.
They actively, deeply loathe the guy.
I think that's what that means, isn't it?
I mean, what do you think?
Do you think that the unemployed men and women of Alberta are lukewarm about Trudeau?
Maybe those auto workers in Oshawa that GM has just laid off just weeks after Trudeau mismanaged the NAFTA negotiations?
Do you think they're lukewarm?
Do you think Quebecers who live near the illegal border crossing at Wroxham Road are iffy?
Ah, I could take Trudeau or take him or leave him.
Or do you think they despise Trudeau?
How about construction workers in the Atlantic who lost a $15.7 billion construction job called Energy East because of Trudeau's obsession with carbon dioxide or whatever?
How about any other working man in the whole country that Trudeau just blithely called rapists in waiting?
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.
Yes, seriously.
What red-blooded man would think, yeah, that guy Trudeau, he really gets it.
Or this from Catherine McKenna, the global warming extremist, telling a prairie farmer just the other day who's saying, I just can't afford this.
I just can't afford your carbon tax.
Catherine McKenna is saying this prairie farmer should just suck it up.
Just suck it up.
Just pay a carbon tax on all her fuel.
And if she has a problem with that, well, she just needs to be a better farmer.
She needs to download, I don't know, the government's bilingual farming app or something.
Catherine McKenna actually told her to use artificial intelligence to farm smarter.
That's what she should do.
The biggest challenge as a farmer for me is going to be the carbon pricing because agriculture is pretty much the only industry where we don't get to pass on that additional cost to our operation.
So carbon pricing is going to be an extremely challenging bill for a lot of farmers to be able to deal with.
She can't raise the price of her grain or she'll be forced out of the market.
So like maybe this explains why you've got all the prairie premiers basically saying, or most of them saying, we don't want a carbon price.
How do you win over farmers like her?
And look, if anyone understands the impacts of climate change, it's farmers.
Our system will give more money back to residents of that province than they will pay and will create the incentives for innovation.
And I've seen amazing innovations in farming, for example.
Zero-till agriculture, using less water, using smart technologies, artificial intelligence to figure out how you can use less fertilizer, how you can do a better job tilling, how you can get better results.
We can all do this.
But if we don't, the impact will be dire on farms.
Yeah, do you think farmers are, yeah, I could take Trudeau or leave him?
Or do you think they despise him?
And nothing is like the scolding, smearing name-calling from Ahmed Hassan, the Somali refugee to Canada who wants to open up our borders to unlimited more refugees.
And even though we saved his life, we took him in, he says we're racist.
Asylum seekers are processed in a separate queue at the IRB and all the other regular immigration programs are processed by IRCC.
And conflating the two knowingly is irresponsible, it's divisive, it's fear-mongering, and it is not Canadian.
What's so surprising to me is that Trudeau is disliked in every single region in Canada.
Hold this up on the screen for a bit here.
This shows it by province and by region.
So obviously Alberta and Saskatchewan there, 78%, 79% disapprove of Trudeau.
Sounds about right to me.
But look at his home province, Quebec, that's second from the right there.
Two to one may dislike him.
60% are against him, 30% for him.
That's incredible.
Even Ontario dislikes him by a margin of 10%.
And look at the next graph.
You put the next one up there.
Yeah, this one here.
It shows support for Trudeau by age groups.
Hold this on the screen for a second.
That pink line at the bottom, that's the 55 plus as in people who've been around a bit, have a home, the kids are grown up now, but they've lived a bit, seen a few things.
They like Trudeau the least, of course.
Only 31% support him.
I should point out that Quebecers detest Trudeau even more passionately than this age demographic.
They hate him out there.
But then look at that.
The middle line there are the 35 to 54 year olds.
Those are people trying to make ends meet, trying to raise a family, trying to afford buying a home.
Only 34% of them like Trudeau because they're in real life.
But even look at that top line.
That's the gray line.
Those are the 18 to 34.
That's Trudeau's base really, other than the media.
Millennials in there.
For the first time, Angus Reed shows that Trudeau's underwater with them.
Only 42% of support him.
That's down 14% in a year.
Now, it is inevitable over time, any politician's support can wane as that politician uses up capital to get things done.
I mean, they're spending their reputation to do stuff.
But what has Trudeau got done?
I can name one thing.
He legalized marijuana, though with a lot of screw-ups.
But can you actually name anything else he's accomplished?
Exactly what achievements can he point to?
Our economic growth in Canada is half that of the United States.
Tens of billions of dollars in investment is leaving every year.
We've wrecked our diplomatic relations.
If you care about foreign affairs, we've wrecked our relations with everyone from India to China to the United States to Saudi Arabia to Cuba to Australia.
And not that I care about some of those countries.
I'm hostile to China and Cuba as dictatorships.
But Trudeau promised he was so savvy and so cool, unlike that cowboy Harper.
But the world just sees Trudeau as a narcissistic buffoon who dresses up in ethnic costumes and does some fancy dancing and maybe shows you his socks if you're lucky.
Seriously, he does that.
Look at this picture here.
That's Angela Merkel.
That's Trudeau showing off his novelty socks.
Most national leaders talk about their national interests when they meet other national leaders.
Trudeau doesn't really know anything about that stuff.
So he auditions for the role of goofy kid brother.
I need your goofy kid brother.
I got some socks.
But people aren't buying it anymore, not even millennials.
It's really just, it's just the CBC now.
Last book you've read or the book you're reading?
I just finished The Patch, which was Chris Turner's history of the oil patch.
But I'm also about to start the new Can Follett, the third book that is the sequel to Pillars of the Earth.
That's your nerdy side?
No, that's my nerdy side.
No, no, it's not sci-fi.
It's just a sweeping historical epic, I'm sure, but I haven't started it yet.
What kind of music are you listening to?
Or podcasts.
No, I don't.
I've tried.
I run regularly and I've tried to do the podcast thing, but it hasn't really.
It doesn't really say, I don't like people talking in my ears when I'm trying to run.
I like to sort of vibe out.
Just a reminder, that's not a Canadian version of The Bachelorette or some reality dating show.
That was Rosemary Barton of CBC's The National with her year-end interview of Trudeau.
Do you think that kind of fake news makes Canadians happier or angrier with the whole establishment?
That's the thing.
I think there was a romance about Justin Trudeau.
The media felt it the hardest, but the public shared it to a degree.
I wouldn't say Trudeau mania.
But after 10 years of Stephen Harper, along came a younger guy, a little bit of an echo of his father, young team, polished, media savvy.
I think Trudeau lacks the charisma of his late father.
And remember, Trudeau only got 39% of the vote in the last election.
That's hardly Trudeau mania.
But the media cemented it as a love affair.
And it was true in some quarters.
Rosemary Barton is just, you know, every night she just goes to sleep with a little prayer.
But here we are, three years later, and I think a lot of people who were swept up have fallen out of love with Trudeau.
And when you fall out of love, you start to notice the things that you put up with that you can't stand anymore.
Like the feminism stuff.
After the revelations that Trudeau sexually assaulted a reporter named Rose Knight in the town of Creston, B.C. at this beer party, that's how the New York Times reported it, sexual assault.
But Rosemary Barton is too busy asking Trudeau, what are you listening to these days?
What books are you reading?
Well, now that we know that Justin Trudeau gets handsy with women, his feminism sounds a bit like Bill Clinton's feminism or Harvey Weinstein's feminism or Jeanne Gemeshi's feminism.
It sort of looks gross now that we know it's really just a preemptive attack to give him space for when his sexual misconduct is revealed.
I mean, his socks business.
It was funny, right?
It was funny at first.
It was a novelty.
Here's a huge story on.
I mean, CBC, Globe and Mail, McLean's, they did huge stories on the socks.
And it was funny the first time.
It was.
But now it just looks like a hollow man.
I mean, it's like show and tell in school.
You bring your funny socks once.
Hey, everybody, I got funny socks.
I mean, look at these funny socks.
Okay, so once you've done that trick, you've done it now.
They're not a novelty anymore.
Novelty comes from the word for novel, comes from the word for new.
So once you've done the socks trick, it's not novel anymore.
You need a new trick.
You can't keep going to international meetings and showing your socks, or you become just the socks guy now.
We have the socks guy as our PM, and we've all sort of noticed.
And my point is, if you loved him at first for the socks and the fancy dancing, and you thought that was like a cool accoutrement to a PM, and now you realize it wasn't just a bonus or a fun quirk.
Like Stephen Harper, when once a year he'd play piano and sing with his band, when you realize that the dancing and the socks is all there is, there's nothing else, there's nothing under it, then you feel betrayed a bit and like a fool.
It would be like if Harper played that bloody piano every week at every international event instead of once a year at a party.
So Trudeau is running out of things.
I mean, socks, dancing, okay, we got it already, but those don't solve Alberta's crisis or the closing GM plant or the looming carbon tax or the open borders.
So what does he have left?
Well, his year-end interview with the stenographers of the Canadian press was slightly less romantic than his year-ender with Rosemary Barton, but it gives us a hint.
Trudeau's going to smear and name-call everyone who's against him.
He's going to call them all bigots.
And the media is absolutely going to go along with it.
Let me read this a bit.
This is an interview that Trudeau did with Joan Bryden of the Canadian Press, who really is a liberal activist in everything but name.
She's embedded at the Canadian Press.
If liberals are in trouble, she's their go-to girl.
So here's her best effort on Trudeau's behalf as published on the CTV website.
That's what's so pernicious about Canadian Press is it's run in so many different media.
So let me read from this.
Fears vs. Hope00:05:44
The headline, obviously, Trudeau sees 2019 election as choice between positive liberals, divisive Tories.
Well, there you have it right there.
That's Trudeau's plan.
And it's the media's plan, too.
They're going along with it even now.
Let me read some more.
Justin Trudeau says he's confident he'll win re-election next fall by sticking to a positive, thoughtful approach to difficult issues in contrast to the conservatives whom he accuses of resorting to bumper sticker slogans that prey on voters' fears and prejudices.
Hey guys, I'm going to run a positive upbeat campaign, people.
Unlike that bastard Sheer and that idiot Singh.
And to hell with those idiots like Kenny and Ford, I will not sink to their low level and call those bastards names.
I will not be disgusting like them.
Oh, they're gross.
I will continue to campaign like an angel and I won't say a hard word, butter wouldn't melt in my mouth.
That reminds me of the old joke.
I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate.
But instead of calling out the inherent lie in this whole commentary, Canadian press and CTV and the rest of the media love it.
And they run with it uncritically, uncritically.
That's the point.
Trudeau said it, so they stenography it.
They just report it as it is.
But for God's sakes, do you have to be so passive and submissive as to not even challenge it?
Let me read some more.
I think one of the big distinctions that we see around the world right now is folks who want to exacerbate, amplify, and exaggerate those fears for short-term political gain versus those who are trying to thoughtfully allay those fears, Trudeau said in a year-end roundtable with the Ottawa Bureau of the Canadian Press.
This is from the guy who says the planet will be consumed in fires and floods if we don't bring in his carbon tax.
But don't fear-monger people.
Don't do it.
Stop your fear-mongering and pay the carbon tax or we're going to be consumed by fire.
Stop fear-mongering.
How can you report that with a straight face?
How can anyone even trust the media anymore?
Let me read some more.
Obviously, it's easier to spook someone than it is to explain a complex answer.
I go to Trudeau for the hard stuff, right?
But I fundamentally believe in trusting citizens' capacity to be thoughtful about where we're going, and that is what I am going to be putting forward as a vision for our politics, for our country, and by extension, I think for the whole world.
Really?
He believes in trusting grassroots citizens, does he?
Then why, just to pick one example, didn't he even allow a debate in Parliament about the UN Global Migration Compact?
Just for one example.
Why, for example, did he require every small business owner in the country to sign a moral attestation that they personally agree with Justin Trudeau's own views on things like abortion before they were allowed to apply for a summer jobs grant?
You're trusting voters?
You don't trust voters.
He doesn't believe in the grassroots anything.
He was born an elite, and he lives like an elite.
He jets to Billionaire's Island in the Bahamas and lies about it, hides it.
He hired two nannies on the taxpayers' dime.
What he can't afford to hire his own nanny like the rest of us do.
He breached the Conflict of Interest Act, the first prime minister in history to be convicted of breaking that law.
He hates the little people, and it shows.
Trudeau also took a run at François Legault, the Quebec Premier who just crushed the Quebec Liberal Party, in large part because Legault pledged to reduce immigration by 20% to ban the burqa in the public service, as in to keep the separation of church and state and mosque and state.
Here's Trudeau on that.
He said, while those ideas might be popular at first blush in a populist speech, Trudeau predicted that Quebecers will change their minds once they actually dig into the real-world consequences of allowing and encouraging discrimination based on someone's religion within a free society.
He argued that Canadians have become more aware of the dangers of populism, the consequences of populism.
Hang on, so the guy who bans pro-lifers from getting summer jobs grants is now for religious freedom?
You just write that, because you're Joan Bryden of the Canadian press, and you want to get your bailout money too.
Got it.
The dangers of populism is not on the minds of Quebecers.
The dangers of illegal immigration, the dangers of terrorism, that is on the minds of Quebecers.
So after going on about how he's better and nicer and sweeter than his opponents, Trudeau basically says, just kidding, he says this.
I'm always going to be very, very sharp.
Anytime there are clear distinctions in policy, in approach, in the way someone indicates their tendency to perhaps divide Canadians or exploit fault lines rather than pulling together.
I will make no apologies for being very passionate, sometimes overly enthusiastic in the way I engage in a robust debate, but I am as much as possible going to keep it on a substantive level.
Got it.
Got it.
Passionate.
That's what he calls it when he attacks people.
Hey, no, no, no.
I didn't attack.
That was not an attack ad.
That was just all my passion.
When an opponent does that, it's dangerous.
It's lashing out.
When he disagrees, it's not mean, though, when it's Trudeau.
It's sharp.
When others disagree, it's because of their bigotry.
Look, I know CTV and Canadian press and CBC buy all this stuff.
I know they do.
They're part of the 8% who still love Trudeau.
Trump's Military Buildup Plan00:09:19
But 58% of the rest of us no longer do.
And a campaign built on smearing ordinary people as bigots, scolding us and rewarding journalists to spin.
I'm just not sure that's going to turn people's minds around.
Do you think it will?
Stay with us for more.
Welcome back.
Well, I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
I might even say it at the year 2020.
If Donald Trump builds the wall, he'll be re-elected no matter what else he does.
But if he doesn't build the wall, he won't be re-elected no matter what else he does.
That's been my thesis for a couple of years now.
Johnny Me Now is an expert in all things Trumpy.
In fact, he's written the book on the subject.
I'm talking about a friend, Joel Pollock, senior editor-at-large at Breitbark.com.
And we've caught you in one of those Los Angeles commutes.
Thank you for pulling over and taking our call via Skype, Joel.
Actually, I'm in the small town of Weed, California, population 3,000 on the other side of the state from L.A. I'm actually heading to the Shasta Dam in a moment as part of my writing project on California water.
So I'm far away from L.A., and I got to hit the road again in a few minutes, but always good to talk to you and your viewers.
Well, yeah, it's very nice for you to pull over, and thank you for the correction.
I just assumed if you're in your car, you're stuck in LA traffic, but that's very interesting.
I know water politics are extremely heated in that state.
In fact, they came up again during the wildfire issues.
Hey, let's get back to the subject of the wall.
I see that Donald Trump has approved a massive multi-billion dollar foreign aid deal with Mexico, and there's no wall.
And Joel, I got to ask you, I mean, unless I'm misinterpreting things, didn't Trump say that there would be a wall and Mexico would pay America to build the wall?
It sounds like we got the opposite of that.
Right, we're paying Mexico and there's no wall.
I think that Trump supporters are justifiably angry about it.
I don't know if they blame Trump.
They blame Congress because Congress is the obstacle here.
But definitely it's an irony that is not lost on those who voted for Trump in 2016.
I want to show a tweet that Donald Trump made today, and he knows there's a problem.
Let me read it to you.
He said, Mexico is paying indirectly for the wall through the new USMCA, the replacement for NAFTA.
Far more money coming to the U.S. because of the tremendous dangers of the border, including large-scale criminal and drug inflow.
The United States military will build the wall.
Okay.
So he says that in a tweet.
Is that going to happen?
If the military builds that, is that some statement, Joel, that Donald Trump can do this without working with Congress?
I don't think he can finish it without Congress.
Even if he builds it with the military, he's going to need congressional authority to do various things you need to do with the wall.
There are, for example, some private property parcels along the border.
There are some public properties.
I mean, there's all kinds of things that have to happen.
Ideally, this would happen with congressional approval, but Congress, although they voted for border fencing so many times over the last several years when Democrats were in control, not interested right now.
They don't want to hand a win to Donald Trump.
And it's going to be a tough fight.
I got to say, it's not clear that they're going to win this round.
Donald Trump may sign a continuing resolution to keep the government funded for two more weeks into next year.
But then if Democrats are going to control the House, they're going to be able to set the terms of the debate.
So I think we're in for a long fight here.
The one thing that Trump could do with the military is perhaps build some of the foundation roads near the wall.
Ideally, you'd have a wall with a border patrol road alongside it, the way they do in Israel.
So that possibly could be done.
I'm not sure that it could.
We definitely have the technology to do it.
It would, again, probably be challenged in court.
You'd have to do it lawfully.
Very, very difficult.
And I think Trump supporters are angry.
They're frustrated the president can't get what he wants from Congress, but Congress seems to be able to pass just about everything else.
Well, and Trump seems to go along with everything else.
I mean, listen, I'm not an American.
This is not my thing, but I am a supporter of Trump from abroad.
And I can't help but notice that two years have gone by.
It has been more than two years since Trump was elected.
The wall was the clearest symbol of his presidency.
So if Congress won't get it through, whose fault is that?
And here we are having frittered away two years, and the Democrats are about to take back the House of Representatives.
How can you not say that's on Trump?
Well, because the Democrats would have had to vote at least in some small number for the wall, and they are completely unified against Trump.
They have much more party unity than the Republicans do.
Opposition tends to do that.
So they have been able to pull together and deny Trump any vote for the wall, even when he's given them very generous terms, such as legalizing almost 2 million illegal aliens who were brought to the country as minors.
That's a massive concession.
Democrats refuse to accept it.
And on the one occasion where they have been able to put a bill together that might fund the wall, there have been so many poison pills in the legislation that Trump couldn't sign it.
So Democrats have negotiated very well just to prevent the wall from being built.
Whether that's good for the country is another question, but this is a time and an era where each party is determined to prevent the other party from achieving its core promises to its voters.
And it's sad.
You'd think there'd be some room for dealmaking there.
Maybe there will be in the new Congress.
You never know.
Donald Trump could do it.
But if he can't, I don't think anyone can.
And so I think a lot of Trump voters are starting to look at this issue with a sense of worry.
I mean, people are very worried about whether we're ever going to have a secure border because Democrats seem hell-bent on preventing it.
In fact, some Democrat members of Congress went down to the border to escort members of the caravan through the port of entry.
That's the sort of concierge service that I don't think many American citizens get from their congressional representatives.
So it's looking pretty grim.
But we'll see what happens.
There are always surprises in politics.
Here in Canada, Justin Trudeau deputizes our mounties, our RCMP, to carry the luggage of illegals walking up from New York State.
I don't know if you know that, Joel, but the idea of self-deportation from America does happen.
It's the worst of the worst.
People Trump would throw out.
They know there's a bigger sucker up here.
But even Trudeau does not personally escort them across the border.
He leaves that to the Mounties to do.
It's incredible that Democrats are doing that.
Let me ask you, though, if Democrats are doing that, and obviously they're doing that for show, wouldn't a TV ad showing Democrats literally helping people across the border, wouldn't that be death to the Democrats?
Or has America's demographics and political center moved so much that that's as much of a win as a loss?
Well, I'll answer you this way, and then I've got to hit the road again.
I don't think the public cares as much about this issue in general as Republicans do.
This has become a very important issue for Republicans.
It's become partisan.
Most people don't live near the border.
They don't think about it.
Even if they have illegal immigration coming into their communities, they have crime.
They have gangs.
They tend not to think about it as related to border security.
They have other things on their mind.
The number one issue for most Americans right now is health care.
Their health care is too expensive.
It's not good enough.
The coverage under Obamacare is terrible.
The deductibles are terrible.
They want a solution to that.
For Republicans, the number one issue is immigration.
But again, they're talking about an issue that's not of the same interest to the country as a whole.
So if you showed Democrats helping illegal aliens across the border, people might raise their eyebrows, but it's not fundamentally what they're deciding, what's deciding their votes right now.
And Trump tried to solve that as well, and Republicans couldn't come through.
So we'll see what this Congress brings.
I don't expect much, but you never know.
Yeah.
Well, Joel, I know you've got to go.
Thank you for pulling over the side of the road and talking with us.
It's safer than chatting while you were driving, I'm sure.
We look forward to reading your reports on the water issue from California.
We'll let you hit the road again.
Thank you so much.
All right.
Thanks, Joel.
Take care.
Let me show you, viewers, one more tweet before we go in this segment.
It was written by Donald Trump when the migrant caravan was making its way up from Salvador and Honduras up through Mexico.
So look at this.
This was data just a couple months ago.
This is Trump saying Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador were not able to do the job of stopping people from leaving their country and coming illegally to the U.S.
We will now begin cutting off or substantially reducing the massive foreign aid routinely given to them.
Trump On Migrant Caravan00:02:42
Yeah, I don't think that's happened.
I don't think that's happened.
I saw that Ann Coulter, a tremendous Trump booster, said that he's lost her vote if he doesn't build the wall.
I think there's a lot of people who will say that.
And at the very least, the energy and motivation of Trump's base will, as Joel suggested, this is very much a Republican issue, and I think it will demoralize the base.
Well, stay with us.
There's more ahead.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue yesterday about a six-year prison sentence for being an alleged Nazi in the UK.
Ron writes, six years for a Nazi symbol on a cushion.
The UK judge also gave a couple a year for putting bacon strips on a mosque door handle.
No violence and no damage.
Yeah, I mean, listen, we've covered UK sentencing bizarro rules plenty in the last year, including with our friend Tommy Robinson, who was sentenced to 13 months in prison for reporting facts that were on the BBC website.
He was in solitary confinement for most of that, of course.
Yes, it's something that's weird over there.
That country's broken.
Paul writes, it's interesting how well Nazism and Islam go together.
Passages from Mein Kampf look as though they could have been plagiarized from the Quran and Hadith.
Well, I showed you images yesterday of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
That's the Muslim leader in Palestine, who was chummy with Hitler.
And I showed you, I had actually not seen some of those images before, of entire Muslim divisions in the Wehrmacht and SS troops, special pro-Muslim propaganda books written by the Nazis.
There was something called the Palestinian Brigade, but that's what the Jews who fought with the Brits called themselves.
So yeah, I think that Nazism in its German form was pretty much vanquished, but in its Islamic form remains alive.
Ruth writes, maybe it wasn't just the cushions.
And she sent me a link to this story.
And look at the headline there.
UK neo-Nazi who studied in yeshiva sentenced to prison.
Adam Thomas, who once studied in Jerusalem, yeshiva, but later named son after Adolf Hitler, sentenced to six years in prison.
Neo-Nazi Yeshiva Link00:04:20
And this is about that.
You can see Mrs. Potato there in the middle there.
Let me just read the first sentence here.
A neo-Nazi who once studied in a Jerusalem, yeshiva, that's a religious school, and tried to convert to Judaism has been sentenced to six and a half years in prison for membership in a terrorist group.
Okay, you can take that story now.
I thought that story was so crazy yesterday.
And then I saw this story, that one of these Nazis lived in Israel in Jerusalem, went to a Jewish school called the yeshiva, that's like a theological seminary.
He was thrown out because they said he was a little bit crazy.
That's the weirdest story of the year.
Would you agree with me?
Someone who wanted to convert to Judaism, went to school in Jerusalem to become a Jew, later goes back to Banbury in the UK, does a whole bunch of swastika pillows and winds up in prison for six years.
That's a crazy story.
On my interview with Lauren Gunter, Peter writes, Alberta has been used, stolen from, and dumped upon by Eastern Canada and BC to some extent for a long time, while at the same time providing many tens of thousands of high-paying jobs to all Canadians in and out of Alberta and $20 billion per year in equalization.
At some point, Alberta will reach a breaking point.
Well, I saw our friend Sheila Gunreed was at a massive protest in Niskiu, which is basically the Leduc area, south of Edmonton, sort of near the airport there.
A 22-kilometer-long truck convoy.
I've never heard of such a thing in my life.
Never heard of such a thing.
Thousands and thousands of people.
And as Sheila tweeted, that's her people.
That's her community, her tribe.
It's true.
But what do they think is going to happen?
And I'm not criticizing them at all.
I think it's great that they're speaking out, but what's Trudeau going to do with that?
He'll probably order a gender impact analysis of all these working men in a town or something.
Remember, that's what he said when he was in Argentina a few weeks ago.
It sort of breaks my heart because I know they will be ignored.
In fact, they will be demonized, and Trudeau will find some way to sort of weaponize them and say, you see, look at these bigots or something like that.
It's very sad, and I wish I could say something different, but I can't.
I believe that many of those trucks, like those are extremely expensive trucks and useful and in-demand trucks in North Dakota, in Texas, in Pennsylvania even.
I don't think a lot of those guys will stick around in Alberta anymore.
It's not their way to be unemployed.
I think they'll make their, I don't know if they can get to the States, but it's just so heartbreaking that you've got hundreds of trucks that are free on a weekday that aren't needed to drill for oil.
What's so gross about the announcement this week by Amarjit Sohi, Trudeau's spokesman in Alberta, is that the bailout was, okay guys, here's some loans for commercial projects and we'll give you advice on how to expand markets.
What?
None of that applies here.
There's no need to expand markets.
We know the markets, the United States and the world, oil doesn't need marketing.
Oil sells itself 100 million barrels a day.
You don't need to market oil.
You just need to have it.
But you have to be able to bring it to market.
And they don't need loans.
There's no shortage of investment in the oil and gas industry.
Enbridge was willing to put in, I don't know, what was it in the end, $10 billion to build the Northern Gateway?
TransCanada was going to put in $16 billion to build Energy East.
Those guys aren't short of money.
They don't need a loan.
They don't need a few hundred million dollars in loans.
They got all the dough they need.
No one is going to take and use that money until a pipeline is built.
It's the pipeline that's the problem.
It's not the money.
They don't need Amarjit Sohi's advice on expanding markets.
They know the markets exist.
They just need to get that oil out of the country.
I am so sad that those protesting workers, probably the first protest of their life, will absolutely be ignored.
Pipelines Not the Problem00:00:12
And what can you do?
Well, there's some answers to that question that aren't as pleasant as they should be.
Folks, that's it for today.
On behalf of all of us here at the Rebel World Headquarters, you at home, good night.