Ezra Levant exposes Canada’s carbon tax as a revenue grab masquerading as climate policy, with rebates like $256–$339 in provinces but no proof required—hitting necessities from school buses to furniture. He mocks McKenna’s "scientifically valid" crisis claims and Trudeau’s private jet hypocrisy while noting oil production shifts to the U.S., calling it an "unwinnable war against CO2," a life-sustaining gas. Joel Pollack links Biden’s 2020 "Me Too" allegations—backed by photos—to Democratic infighting, not public outrage, as internal factions weaponize past scandals to block his Obama-era revival. The episode ties carbon taxes, political corruption, and globalist threats like the UN’s migration compact to a broader warning: unchecked policies and power grabs erode sovereignty and common sense. [Automatically generated summary]
What a perfect day for Justin Trudeau and Catherine McKenna to introduce their new carbon tax.
And it's sort of like, you know, a watermelon seed.
It's slippery.
You push it from the right.
It slips to the left.
You push it from the left.
It slips to the right.
And my point is, is the tax painful enough to make us change our behavior?
Cancel a vacation, turn down the temperature in our house so it's cold.
It has to be painful for it to make a difference in our consumption habits.
But the other argument they say is it's no big deal.
You'll get a rebate anyways.
Eight out of 10 Canadians will actually be richer from this tax.
Well, which is it?
Is the watermelon squishing to the left or the right?
Because you can't squish both ways.
What is the truth about the carbon tax?
I try and get to the bottom of it in today's show.
Hey, before I let you go, can you please just go to the rebel.media slash shows and become a premium subscriber.
It's $8 a month.
And I know you don't have to get on a podcast, but it lets you get the video form of the show, which is pretty good.
And it does support us, and we are 100% viewer supported.
So please go to the rebel.media slash shows.
And it's just $8.
All right, here's the show.
Tonight, Justin Trudeau's new carbon tax takes effect.
What is its true purpose?
It's April 1st, 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.
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.
It's April Fool's Day, which is the perfect day for Justin Trudeau and Catherine McCann to roll up their carbon tax nationwide.
A few provinces already have a carbon tax.
Trudeau's will cover the rest of the country.
I checked the weather this morning, and the entire country is in a deep freeze.
Vancouver and Victoria are just above freezing, and there is part of Nova Scotia that's almost warm enough not to wear a jacket, but 99% of Canadians are cold today.
I had to scrape the ice off my window.
Now, you might be saying, Ezra, why are you talking about the weather?
One cold day doesn't mean that global warming isn't happening.
Don't you know the difference between weather and climate?
Well, sure, but I wonder if we could be consistent on that.
Here's a very shouty Catherine McKenna a few weeks ago when the SNC Lavalin fiasco was really starting to pull her party apart and she was clearly stressed out and manic and reaching for her safe place, global warming fear-mongering.
So she was talking about science and how because there were some fires started by arson last year and she spoke to a mum somewhere who was scared about something, that means we're in a scientifically valid climate crisis.
Remember this?
So let's talk about climate change for a second.
Who believes it's real?
Who believes in science?
We got a report last year that said we have 12 years to take serious climate action.
We are all in this together.
We need to act.
And just remember last year.
Who remembers last summer?
Who remembers the extreme heat that we felt last summer?
Who remembers that people literally died of extreme heat?
I've called people.
I've called mothers in British Columbia where there were forest fires.
Remember those forest fires?
And guess what?
They were scared for their kids to go outside because the air quality was so bad.
That really is how they hope to be re-elected this fall, folks, shouting at you about the weather.
Pay no attention to the cabinet ministers being fired or quitting each week, or even the new recorded phone call from the clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, threatening Jody Wilson-Rabel if she didn't drop the prosecution of one of Trudeau's corrupt friends.
No, no, no, no.
This new carbon tax on everything, that's going to save them.
That'll get them re-elected.
Well, when Trudeau and McKenna first announced their carbon tax plans, only the brave little province of Saskatchewan stood up to them.
Of course, I mean, Saskatchewan is geographically very large.
It has a lot of rural folks who have to drive far, who have to drive to farm.
There's no subway they can take.
Come to think of it, the subway is of no use to most people in Toronto either.
And of course, what Saskatchewan makes is energy intensive, oil and gas production, mining, agriculture.
If you work in a make-believe economy like Trudeau and McKenna in their private lives, I mean, they've never really done anything.
They just gave TED talks and gave PowerPoint presentations.
I guess you have no clue how things are actually made.
Remember when Catherine McKenna told, do you remember this?
I think it was on CBC or TV, she was telling that great Saskatchewan farm girl who's now running as a conservative candidate, that that farmer is just going to have to be a little bit smarter at farming.
Remember this?
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?
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 it 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.
Did you hear that?
You just got to farm smarter.
Stop being such a stupid farmer.
You got to farm smart.
And this could be really great for you, this new carbon tax.
Yeah, I'm shocked that 14%.
Did you see this new poll by Angus Reid?
Only 14% of Saskatchewanians say they would vote liberal according to the new Angus Reed poll.
That's even lower than now.
But look at that provincial breakdown.
It's lower than Alberta and rural Saskatchewan.
I don't know if you can see it.
I think it's the next chart.
Rural Saskatchewan, it's such a big poll.
It can be broken down into Regina, Saskatoon, and the rural parts.
Rural Saskatchewan, literally 10% of people say they'll vote for Trudeau.
One in 10 people.
You have 20 people in a room.
You're only going to find two of them who support Trudeau.
That is shocking.
But look, Trudeau hates them.
It shows it would be weird to like someone who hates you and who has an irritating cabinet minister shout at you to be just smarter in how you farm.
Just shut up and pay your carbon tax.
Just be smarter.
Well, since that time when Scott Moe and Brad Wall were against the carbon tax, other provinces have joined Saskatchewan.
Other provinces have decided that the carbon tax is a terrible idea.
Really, it's this generation's version of the GST.
The biggest ally Saskatchewan has today is Doug Ford of Ontario.
Thank God for him.
Remember, just a year or so ago, the weirdo Patrick Brown was the Tory leader.
And he was such a big booster of the carbon tax.
What a delight to have a big carbon tax fighter like Doug Ford as Premier instead.
And yesterday, Doug Ford was filling up his car and warning Ontarians that the tax was going up today, Trudeau's carbon tax.
So gas would be going up about a nickel a liter, which is about 20 cents a gallon for my American friends.
What I love even more is that Ford asked all of his MPPs to really do an identical tweet to film themselves or take a photo of themselves filling up their cars, making the same point.
My favorite one, by the way, was Caroline Mulroney, who used to be a huge, there she is, huge carbon tax proponent, seeing her tweet against the carbon tax warmed, you know, by snowy day in April in Toronto.
I'm serious.
I had to get out my ice scraper this morning to scrape off my windshield.
What a pleasure to see Caroline Mulroney following Doug Ford's lead and gretchering about the carbon tax for her.
But not everyone was upset about paying more for gasoline.
Did you know that there were some people who were positively excited about paying more for gasoline?
Or at least they wanted everyone to think they like paying more for the same thing they could get yesterday for cheaper.
Look at this.
Look at this guy.
Now, I should tell you, he's a Green Party activist, of course.
But listen to this.
Here's what he said yesterday.
You can see the date stamp there.
This is from yesterday for the carbon tax.
He said, I'm going to wait until tomorrow to fill up my tank.
Every liter I pump without a carbon price is a liter my kids will have to pay for as they suck it out of the atmosphere.
I pay my own way whenever I can, and that's why I'm glad to have a carbon tax.
I love it.
I really like it, guys.
Okay, hang on.
So he said this yesterday.
He was waiting until today so he could pay more money.
He's going to pump gas just like he would have yesterday.
He's driving around just like he was doing yesterday.
It's the exact same fuel he would have used yesterday.
And given that he's in Ontario, I'm not sure there's a chance it's made from U.S. fracked oil from North Dakota, but I think there's a chance it's Western Canadian oil.
But it's exactly the same gasoline he would have bought yesterday.
Nothing different about it other than he's enjoying paying more for it.
Every liter I pump without a carbon price is a liter my kids will have to pay for as they suck it out of the atmosphere.
What does that even mean?
Suck what out of the atmosphere?
Carbon dioxide?
Your car is still burning it the same way today as it did yesterday.
And by the way, carbon dioxide is not pollution.
No matter how many times Justin Trudeau or Catherine Kennedy say it is, it is just not.
It naturally exists.
It's about 400 parts per million in the atmosphere.
It's a trace gas.
You can't even see it.
You can't smell it.
You can't feel it.
Now, humans exhale 100 times that concentration.
Didn't you know you breathe in air with 400 parts per million CO2?
Your body uses the oxygen and you exhale CO2 at 40,000 parts per million, 100 times more, by the way.
depend on carbon dioxide to live.
So it's actually the dictionary opposite of pollution.
It's the stuff of life.
No CO2, there would be no life on earth.
Anything green, that green you see in every leaf, in every tree, in every vegetable that every animal lives on, that green is chlorophyll.
Without green, without carbon dioxide, all life on earth would die.
And everything depends on green like us.
What a kook that weirdo is.
And by weirdo, I don't know, I could be talking about Justin Trudeau, Katherine McKenna, that green activist.
They're all weird.
But how is he paying his own way by filling up today?
What does that mean?
And more to the point, how does that change the global warming that he is alleged to be happening on this cold, cold spring day?
How is paying, how is it changing the weather?
I like this one from a Globe and Mail column.
This has made me chuckle.
Adam Radwansky says, I don't really understand why this is a news story.
It's the entire premise along with money coming back via rebated policy.
He's complaining about a story where McKenna admits the carbon tax will raise the price of gas.
So Catherine McKenna and Justin Trudeau, they're saying this carbon tax won't hurt you a bit because you're going to get money back in the form of a rebate.
So that's the green shift he's talking about.
So 20 cents a gallon, you're going to get it back somehow.
And McKenna has done a bunch of tweets showing just how rich you're going to get from paying this tax from all that rebate money.
So province by province, you'll get 256 back for your family in this province or 339 back in Manitoba.
Except that's just, that's fake news because you don't submit your carbon tax expenses for a rebate.
It's not like receipts that you might keep and then submit a tax time to reduce your income by showing you gave money to this school or that charity.
It's not like that.
You don't keep all your gasoline receipts and give them, so you don't get back the extra you're paying at the pump.
And of course, that is just one thing that is being taxed today.
Of course, you don't just travel yourself.
You buy many things.
Almost everything that you buy was brought to you by someone else who travels.
The food at your grocery store, food at a restaurant, anything and everything you buy anywhere, furniture, toys, clothes, if it was moved in Canada, it's got a carbon tax embedded in it now.
There are no solar-powered trains or planes or trucks.
Sorry, it's all being carbon taxed now.
Of course, you're not getting the money back.
If that were the case, there would be no point to it because the whole point to this idea is to punish you into changing your behavior.
You heard McKenna's advice to that farmer.
Just farm smarter, duh.
I don't mean punishing bad behavior like so-called syn taxes that punish smoking and drinking.
But even though, even that's fake.
God forbid people would stop smoking and drinking, the government would lose billions of dollars a year in taxes.
Carbon Tax Conundrum00:14:21
They're counting on the fact that demand for smoking and drinking is what economists call inelastic.
People will keep doing it even if the price goes up.
It's not like, I don't know, if there was a special tax on just blue cars, people would immediately switch to cars of another color.
No one really cares that much about blue cars.
They would just switch.
Syntaxes count on the fact that people are addicted or at least have a habit or at least really enjoy smoking and drinking as a luxury.
So they'll pay no matter what the price is.
But if you're a school bus company though and your fuel goes up, is that a luxury you can do without?
Can you just, you know, can young kids just switch to, I don't know, it's snowing out there.
You're in rural Saskatchewan, I don't know, ride a bike 20 miles in the snow to school.
That's what this kooky left-wing lobbyist named Chris Regan says.
Listen to this.
This was in a video that was tweeted out by Catherine McKenna herself.
A carbon price says, you know what?
We're going to put a carbon price in place.
Those carbon-intensive things are going to get more expensive.
You figure out how to do it.
You might turn down the heat in your house.
Somebody else will buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle.
Somebody else takes different vacations.
On the production side, people are going to make different decisions about how they change the way they produce steel or produce cement or transport stuff across rails.
But it's their choice.
It's their choice.
And that flexibility is the key for why carbon price is the lowest cost way, best for the economy, to reduce emissions.
What a pompous ass.
Let them eat cake.
The people who have no bread, let them eat cake.
Some people won't take vacations.
It's true.
Some people have to live in a cold house.
It's true.
Sorry, Graham, I know you're cold, but just put on another sweater.
I mean, hey, it's your choice.
This is a great way to do it, folks.
This is really better for you to have to choose between no vacation or heating your house.
It's your choice, people.
By the way, I'm embarrassed as a born and raised Alberton that Preston Manning actually joined that carbon tax lobby group for years called Canada's Eco-Fiscal Commission.
What a crock.
Very disappointing that Preston lent his name and that of Westerners to that.
Say, do you think that lobbyist there on TV, Chris Regan and heck even Preston Manning, do you think that they have ever declined to take a vacation in the name of saving the climate?
I think so.
A few weeks ago, Justin Trudeau took a private jet down to Florida just for the weekend.
Then he came right back, and then I think he went right back down again.
Now, this Sandcastle photo was on another one of his tropical flights.
And of course, he took a private jet and then a private helicopter to his secret vacation on Billionaire Island in the Bahamas, courtesy of the Aga Khan.
So when they say, hey, guys, stop taking vacations, turn down your heat, they're not talking about themselves.
They're talking about you.
These jet setters literally, I don't know, they flew hundreds of hangers on to every global warming conference each year, often at resorts like, I don't know, Cancun, Bali, Rio.
These are some of the places they have marrakesh.
But you, the little people, you can change your behavior.
Trudeau himself said that.
The guy with two nannies on the government payroll, he said it.
I think one of the things we've seen across the country is that the incentives that come from better choices, making choices to be cleaner and greener is exactly what we want.
So which is it?
Is the price punitive enough?
Is it high enough to make you change your behavior and make you make better choices?
Or is it no big deal?
Do you just get the money right back in taxes?
Maybe you'll even get rich off this tax, guys.
Hey, here's a tweet by a senior advisor to Bill Morneau, the finance minister.
Sharan Cowher is her name.
And she's tweeting back to some conservative who's talking about the price rise.
She says, maybe don't drive a gas guzzler.
This is the millionaire who had the good sense to inherit it.
Bill Mourneau, he inherited a rich company from his dad.
Oh, and he went on to marry a billionaire.
So his office is chirping at someone for driving a gas guzzler.
Just saying, maybe don't drive a gas guzzler.
Just saying.
Do you think that Bill Mourneau has ever in his life, even when he was an infant, ridden in an economy car?
Here's a photo that one of our rebel journalists took right outside the Toronto offices of Morneau-Chappelle a few months ago.
That's the huge company Mourneau inherited from his father.
That car there is a Mercedes-S-Class, parked out front, vanity license plate WFM, William Francis Mourneau.
I don't know if that's Bill's car or his dad's car.
They have the same initials.
If you scroll down here on the website for the S-Class, right to the bottom here, depending on the options and the model, that car sells.
Do you see it there right in the middle on the bottom?
MSRP manufacturers suggested retail price, $258,000 plus tax, plus options.
That's a 300-grand car all in.
So yeah, I know these kooks keep saying the world is going to end from global warming.
What's the latest?
In 12 years, everybody, 12 years.
But they sure don't live like they believe it, do they?
But back to the whole remaining.
If it all evens out in the wash, if you pay tax and you get it all back, why would we be doing all this anyways?
What's the point?
But if it's punitive and hurts enough, especially to poor families, to make them change their lives, well, I guess same question.
Why are we doing all this?
Here's how Catherine McKenna puts it in reply to her Ontario PC counterpart.
She says, why don't you use every tool at your disposal to fight climate change instead, Minister?
Like a price on polluting, perhaps.
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, a progressive conservative, used that very tool three decades ago, and it worked.
Well, it's true.
Brian Mulroney did, in fact, price pollution when it came to real pollution, something called acid rain, which was the result of sulfur pouring out of smokestacks largely in the U.S. Midwest.
And that actual sulfurous smoke would drift up to Canada from the United States and cause acidic rain.
Sulfurous clouds are not natural.
That actually is pollution.
Acid rain is not natural.
And it was a problem that came from very specific factories.
You could track the actual factory.
And it was in fact solved.
There is no more acid rain today.
That actually is a great example, except that carbon dioxide CO2 isn't pollution at all.
It's natural.
It's not hurting anyone.
It's the stuff of life.
And you can't even track it.
That would be too absurd.
Literally everything with lungs from your puppy to a bird exhales CO2.
And everything with chlorophyll inhales or just absorbs it from the air.
In that regard, Canada is already a net carbon sink.
We're a net carbon absorber if you care about those sort of make-believe calculations.
But look at McKenna's tweet again.
Why don't you use every tool at your disposal to fight climate change instead, Minister?
Like a price on pollution, perhaps.
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, a progressive conservative, used that very tool three decades ago and it worked.
Fight climate change.
The emphasis is on the action, the motion, on keeping busy, on busy work.
Fight climate change.
Doesn't say beat climate change, does it?
It's a trick.
It's even trickier than the dual nature of the carbon tax.
Either it is really effective and will get people to change their lives by punishing normal behaviors like having a warm house, or it's no pain at all, guys.
You get your money back.
No big deal.
Please vote for us.
I mean, that's a trick.
That's a con.
But you'll notice the wording she used, fight climate change.
Trudeau's very precise with the language, too.
That would be like saying, fight against the rising and falling tides of the sea.
Fight against the wind.
Sure, I guess you could call it fighting, but you will never win.
You can never win.
You'll notice McKenna never says her plan will actually reduce global warming, assuming global warming is still happening.
Because isn't that the reason we fight anything to beat that thing, to win?
At least if fighting is costly and complex and forces you to change your life, whether it's canceling your vacation or living in a cold house or not driving your tractor on a farmer, come on, Megs, be a better farmer.
I mean, when Canada fought in the Second World War, just for an example, it was a mighty effort.
Every single Canadian scrimped and saved.
There was rationing, even rationing of food.
And of course, more than 1 million Canadians actually served.
And more than 40,000 Canadians died.
That wasn't just fighting for fighting's sake.
It was fighting to stop Hitler and Mussolini and Hirohito to actually win.
It wasn't just a lifestyle.
Hey, let's fight.
It wasn't for its own sake.
Everyone was overjoyed when the war was over.
The sacrifice was worth it for the victory, but it was the victory we were fighting for.
But there can be no victory in the great climate wars.
Not even the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that's the UN body overseeing this whole fiasco.
Not even the IPCC says that mankind can stop global warming.
Even if every single country in the world were to listen to Catherine McKenna, it would not stop global warming.
The change would be imperceptible.
And of course, no other country is listening to McKenna, most certainly not China or India or Brazil or any OPEC country, the big emitters in the world.
McKenna is not saving the world.
Same thing when she shuts down Canadian pipelines, like with her bizarre plans for a gender analysis of all new pipelines.
Remember this?
I know I've shown this before.
You've got to watch this every month.
Remember this?
Project's decisions will be based on science, evidence, and indigenous traditional knowledge.
We're also taking a bigger picture look at the potential impacts of a proposed project.
Instead of just looking at the environmental impacts, we'll look at how a project could affect our communities and health, jobs and the economy over the long term.
And we'll also do a gender-based analysis.
Yeah, so without even becoming law, that crazy bill has actually successfully shut down oil and gas pipelines in Canada.
No one is proposing more pipelines.
No one is proposing more major oil sense projects.
Oil production has actually fallen in Canada for the first time in a decade.
I didn't even know that was possible, but yeah, they did it.
They killed it.
So I guess that's mission accomplished for Catherine McKenna, except that whatever Canada is not producing, well, other countries have immediately made up for the shortfall.
OPEC, and especially the United States, which is now the world's biggest oil and gas producer.
So yeah, I guess we've shut down that dirty oil and gas business here in Canada, but it's just moved to North Dakota and Texas and Colorado.
Actually, our number one source of oil imports these days is from America.
So let's sum up here.
You're now paying more for anything that moves or anything that needs to be kept warm in a large country and a cold country.
So that's everything.
You're paying more for everything.
You pay more the more you move.
So this is going to hit everything, including cities, schools, grocery stores, everything.
I mean, just today, the city of Regina says it will cost an additional $1 million just for their vehicles.
So yeah, more taxes to pay the carbon taxes.
The whole point is to make you poor enough so you don't do the things you like to do, like go on a vacation or have a warm house in the winter.
They say that.
That's what they tell you to do, to change your behavior.
Well, they jet on their holidays to Florida.
But at the end of the day, it's all stolen valor in a way.
They're not really fighting climate change as if they were soldiers in a battle.
They're just hucksters.
Like I say, it's an unwinnable war against Mother Nature.
You could shut down every factory in the world.
You could ban every car in the world, and the climate would stay the same.
It would actually keep getting warming very, very slowly, as the climate has been doing since we've emerged from the last great ice age 10,000 years ago.
Every year, a teeny bit warmer.
Thank goodness.
This is nuts, this carbon tax.
It's a scam.
It's the weirdest reelection promise I've ever seen.
But it's also the worst journalism I've ever seen, too.
Catherine McKenna doesn't talk to us much here, The Rebel.
But are you surprised that not a single CBC reporter in almost four years has ever asked her, hey, minister, if we follow your plan, if we all do this, how much will the Earth's temperature change?
Because they know the answer is not at all zero.
Because they know this isn't about changing the climate or fixing a problem.
It's about controlling you, changing you, fixing you, telling you where to drive, where to vacation, and everything else, how to live.
While they continue to fly around on private jets, coming up with more ways to tax us.
Stay with us for more.
Welcome back.
Well, it is certainly not too early to start talking about who the Democrats will field in the 2020 presidential campaign.
Joe Biden's Me Too Challenge00:15:38
And although there's a lot of tire kickers out there, polls generally show two men with a lead head and shoulders above the rest.
I'm referring to Bernie Sanders, who many say actually beat Hillary Clinton when you take out the superdelegates and other vote rigging by Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Bernie Sanders is interested in running again.
He's thrown his hat in the ring.
And another one who is kicking the tires most seriously is Joe Biden, who was vice president for eight years under Barack Obama and had a lengthy career in the Senate before that.
But Joe Biden has a bit of a bump in the road.
He's a bit handsy.
And joining us now to talk about that is our friend Joel Pollack, Senior Editor-at-Large at PridePark.com.
Joe, great to see you again.
Good to be with you.
You know, Joe Biden is sort of a funny character.
In a way, he's Trump-like, in that he's a real unique individual.
He's got some goofy style.
He doesn't care what you think of him.
He just does goofy things.
He puts on goofy sunglasses and mugs for the camera in a way that I think maybe only someone in his 70s with a bit of swagger can.
I don't know.
I think it would be a heck of a match, him versus Trump, two similar guys in some respects.
But just like Trump, Joe Biden has some Me Too accusations, but unlike Trump, there's a hell of a lot of photographic evidence.
What do you make of the allegations?
Not even allegations, it's videotape, that Joe Biden just gropes dozens, maybe hundreds of people and does so in plain sight?
Well, it's important to note the difference, which is that Joe Biden did this in public, so we're not being told something about Biden that's hidden.
And in fact, it's been a running joke for conservatives for a long time that Biden has a habit of being very touchy-feely with women, including younger women, at official events, not behind closed doors.
No one's alleging any kind of sexual harassment or infidelity or anything like that, but he's just inappropriate.
Now, if we are applying the standard to Biden that was applied to other politicians, left and right, like Al Franken, for example, then Biden shouldn't run for president because if other people have to leave office for inappropriate behavior like this, including in public, as was the case with Al Franken, then Biden should also drop out.
But I think what you're seeing here is more a case of blue on blue, as we call it.
This is Democratic infighting.
These are allegations that are coming up now, largely from within the Bernie Sanders camp and from other rivals as well, most likely, in an effort to keep Joe Biden out of the presidential race.
You mentioned the polls that show Biden and Sanders neck and neck.
Sanders has declared his campaign, his candidacy.
Biden has not.
And so I think this is a bit of a challenge to Biden, a bit of a warning shot, don't get into the race.
The reason Biden is a threat to the rest of the Democratic field is he is probably the only candidate right now who can unify all the disparate factions of the Democratic Party.
That's not because of anything he believes or because of his style or his experience.
It's only because he served under Barack Obama.
And to the extent you could bring Obama back, Biden is the embodiment of Obama.
Not every Democrat likes Obama, but they put up with him for four years, eight years.
So they'll put up with Biden.
He is also equally capable of being in turns or at times progressive and moderate.
So Biden can pull that trick off.
That's why he's a threat to the current frontrunner, Bernie Sanders, who is defiantly left-wing and left behind, actually.
The things Bernie Sanders says about our economy and about our foreign policy are simply not true.
And for example, he says that people are stuck.
They can't make it into the middle class anymore.
The middle class isn't as nice a place to be anymore.
All of that is nonsense.
I mean, the Trump economy has basically turned the jets on for the middle class in America.
And the middle class in the United States is doing rather well.
There are some problems like student loan debt and housing costs, but generally people are doing very well.
The America Bernie Sanders wants us to live in ended really in the late 1970s, early 1980s, but it certainly doesn't exist today.
But he's got this charisma.
He's got authenticity.
And the other candidates have things to offer too that neither Biden nor Sanders has, such as being female, being a minority, whatever it is.
But anyway, this is infighting.
I would be surprised if it actually keeps Biden out of the race.
Some people are thinking this is going to keep him out because of the strength of the Me Too movement.
And I have my suspicions that this is going to fade.
And it may actually even be good for Joe Biden because to some extent it will inoculate him against these same claims when they come up down the road, either later in the primary or even possibly in a general election.
There may be other reasons Biden can't win, including the fact that the Democrats are simply so invested in identity politics that they insist on a Kamala Harris or somebody like that.
But I think that Biden will be able to move past this.
We haven't seen the pushback just yet, but I think Biden will probably overcome this.
Now, I'm not making a prediction.
I do think he is sensitive enough to know that there are other factors.
Again, he's a white male.
He's in his 70s already.
He's older than Trump.
He's got some other things against him as well.
In a general election, he's vulnerable for a couple of other reasons.
I'm trying to draw attention to those in some pieces I've got coming up.
But basically, he pursued every Obama policy that voters now find objectionable that Trump has done away with or is doing away with, like Obamacare, the Iran deal.
And he's got some corruption problems, as Breitbart News has documented.
His son, Hunter Biden, flew over on Air Force 2 while Joe Biden was vice president and did a deal with the Chinese government where the Chinese government put $1 billion into a fund that Hunter Biden was involved with.
This looks very shady and not good for Biden.
He was also very soft on China and a bunch of other problems with his record.
He's the one responsible for the nastiness of our judicial fights.
He's the one who insisted that ideology had a role to play in the confirmation of Supreme Court justices.
So you can thank Joe Biden for the nail-biter finishes in all of these congressional reviews or senatorial reviews of our judicial appointees.
But anyway, the Me Too moment is more a case of Democratic infighting than actual public objections.
People have known about this for a while.
Republicans have made fun of it for a while.
There haven't really been too many objections about it.
Some of the women involved didn't even object.
They said this was a friendly contact with Biden.
He was reassuring them or whatever it was.
Not every woman feels that way.
And maybe there was something more to it.
We may find out more information.
But I think Biden will probably survive this.
If he doesn't run, it'll be for other reasons.
Yeah, I have in my hand a piece that you wrote yesterday.
The headline is something that Canadians will chuckle at.
Joel, you say, Joe Biden on Me Too allegations.
I may not recall these moments the same way.
You know, our own Justin Trudeau up here apologized for sexually assaulting a young reporter in the year 2000 in the town of Creston, B.C.
And that was buried for a long time, but it came out again last year and he said she may have experienced it differently.
So it's that's that's that's the phrase male feminists use.
But Justin Trudeau is 47, I think, and he's supposed to be more woke.
I mean, Joe Biden is sort of, ha ha, there's Grandpa Joe Biden, you know, oh boy, you know, I think he gets a part of it is because he's so folksy.
That's what I mean by there's some similarities.
He's folksy.
But let me ask you this.
You mentioned he's so inextricably linked to the Obamas.
Of course, he was the loyal VP for eight years.
But from what I can detect, the Obamas, either Barack Obama or Michelle Obama or their old crew, they have not, from what I can see, been pushing Joe Biden.
Have I missed it?
Are they on side?
Would Barack Obama like it if Joe Biden ran?
I think he would be okay with it.
Remember, the reason Obama chose Biden was not because of any ideological affinity.
And Biden had been a terrible presidential candidate every time he ran.
Biden actually mocked Obama's lack of experience when they had their primary debate in 2007.
So Biden was not particularly close to Obama and had said some racial things about Obama.
The reason Obama chose Biden was he was an older white male with foreign policy experience, such as it was.
I mean, Biden was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
He was wrong about almost every foreign policy, as you're going back to whenever.
But that was the image Obama wanted to present.
He was very concerned that Americans would not vote for a black candidate.
Obama took ideas of racism very seriously, too seriously, in my view.
He thought Americans wouldn't like to see Muslims in the background at his events.
So they had Muslim women moved out of the camera angle.
He was convinced that Americans had a problem going into the ballot box or the voting booth and voting for a black person.
So he had Biden added to the ticket.
Biden was essentially window dressing for a racially obsessive Obama campaign.
And he didn't bring much to the administration.
He did have negotiating skills because he'd been in the Senate for so long, so he knew all the senators.
But Obama never really made use of those.
I mean, Obama never worked with Congress on anything.
So Biden was essentially a kind of prop for Obama.
But there is possibly some affinity in the sense that Biden would promise to continue some of what Obama did, which would unify the party.
However, the evidence we have so far is that the key Obama advisors and staffers who might have been on board for Biden are on board with Beto O'Rourke.
That is the choice of the Obama alumni.
They like Beto.
He's quasi-Hispanic.
He's got a Hispanic nickname, although he's an Irish guy that happens to be from El Paso.
But he's got a bit of Obama's style, kind of a catch-all, fill-in-the-blank leftism.
And there's a youth there, kind of dynamism, energy, people like that.
So the Obama alumni who are involved in an open way right now tend to be involved with Beto.
Whether that means the Obamas themselves will support anyone, I don't know.
I'm sure they're going to support whoever the nominee is, regardless if it's Biden, Beto, or anyone else.
They've been pretty silent so far, at least in terms of Barack and Michelle Obama, but their staffers seem to be gravitating toward Beto O'Rourke, who is pulling in some interesting fundraising numbers.
So he could be the challenger down the stretch.
He's not up there in the polls yet because people don't know who he is outside of Texas, but he is someone to watch as well.
Yeah.
You know, I, like so many people on Twitter and the internet, I am very familiar with the creepy Joe Biden video highlight reels.
In fact, Kellyanne Conway referred to them on TV the other day.
So many conservatives know them.
So you're so right to say this is liberal infighting because I think every conservative has been saying, yeah, we told you about that years ago.
I think there's something there.
And here's what I mean.
And let me close on this.
I'd love your reaction to this, Joel.
The only reason this is being brought up is it's being brought up by Biden's liberal enemies.
You mentioned Bernie Sanders.
But if Biden were to win, those liberals would close ranks or at the very most stay silent.
And the mainstream media would give him a complete pass the same way they've given a pass to the blackface Klan-hooded governor from Virginia.
They go through the motions for a few days, say, all right, that's our once-a-year even-handedness, and now we're going to forget that we care about blackface and things in college.
I believe that the only reason the media is even talking about this is for this brief family fight, after which they'll all close ranks, including the media.
That's my last thought.
Yes, that's correct.
And in fact, Biden's main accuser so far, Lucy Flores, said today on television that she would definitely vote for Biden over Trump, that she doesn't think he should run for president, but if he's a nominee, she will definitely vote for him.
So I think we have to take this all with a bit of, you know, with a grain of salt.
It's not all that's cracked up to me, but we'll see.
Holy cow.
I didn't know.
Imagine saying, yeah, he groped me, but I'd vote for him because I'm such a...
That is an incredible...
I didn't know that.
Thank you for that.
Well, Joel, it's great to see you, and I look forward to your covering.
Let me ask you one last quick question.
One of the interesting things about the 2016 Republican lineup was there were so many people in the primary, more than a dozen, that it made it so entertaining.
I think it's also one of the reasons why Trump won.
His personality just made him stand out from all the other less glittery candidates.
Do you think you're going to see a massive field in the Democrats, like a dozen people or more, as we did in the Republicans a couple years ago?
Yes, it's going to be a huge field.
And why not?
Even if you lose, and you're likely to lose if you run, just based on the probabilities, you will boost your profile.
And that's a good thing.
Look at what's happening to this mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Utijej, who's not even figuring anywhere in the polls, but he's raised $7 million in the first three months, and he's all over television.
And Republicans like him because he's the only candidate who sounds like a moderate.
That gives him no chance of winning the nomination.
But he's almost like, as someone said, a lost libertarian.
So he's kind of an interesting guy.
He's boosted his profile.
He's up for a cabinet position, perhaps, in the next Democratic administration because of the way he's handling himself in the media.
So definitely, this is a no-brainer.
If you have any ability to sustain the workload it takes to run a presidential campaign, you should jump in.
Why not?
Why not?
Give me 60 seconds on Hawaii's Tulsi Gabbard, former military vet.
I think she was a pilot.
Interesting take on foreign policy interventionism.
What's your take on Tulsi?
Very promising, new young voice, but is hamstrung by the fact that she had traditional positions on gay marriage about 10, 15 years ago, which is a no-brainer.
It's a disqualifier in the Democratic primary today.
And she seems to have had a rough start with a bit of organizational chaos in her campaign.
She could reappear, but I think it's going to be hard.
Yeah.
All right, Joel, great to talk to you.
Thanks for the update.
All right.
Take care.
Okay, there's our friend Joel Pollock, senior editor-at-large at Reitbart.com.
Stay with us.
more ahead on the Rebel.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue Friday about Andrew Coyne's embarrassing video on the Mueller report.
One Plank Missing00:02:39
Ron writes: Coyne talks with such authority but comes across as a pompous idiot.
He wasn't qualified to answer any questions.
Well, look, let me make a confession.
It's impossible to be an expert on every single thing.
People have beats.
People have an area of expertise.
I could not, you know, I'm very interested in Italy and Hungary and Poland, but I wouldn't dare go deep on those countries.
That's why we talk to Alessandro Bocchi from time to time from Milan because I'm trying to learn there.
I'd love to find someone reliable in Hungary.
There's no way you're going to get me answering tough questions about Poland or Hungary or Italy because I'm very shallow on that.
And I'm willing to admit it.
Certain things I know fairly well.
I've written a couple books on oil.
I'm from Alberta.
I engaged with the oil patch.
I feel like I know oil and gas politics fairly well.
I mean, anyone could be an expert in plain old politics.
You don't need to be an expert.
But the Mueller investigation was a technical investigation, a legal investigation that was measurable.
500 witnesses, 40 staff, 19 lawyers.
Like there's certain things you don't either know them or you don't.
And Andrew Coyne tried to give answers as an expert on a technical matter, and it was just pure BS.
And if he was talking about, well, who do I think is going to win the election in Alberta?
It's all BS to a degree, right?
We're all in the same boat together.
We're all guessing.
We're all trying to make sense of polls and the vibe.
But when you give a technical answer to a technical question, well, maybe they could subpoena the full Mueller report.
Just stop making it up.
And the thing is, I have this image in my mind, and it comes up all the time.
You know, when you're walking by someone's property and there's a picket fence, and maybe there was on the other side of the picket fence, I don't know.
I'll never know.
And there's one plank missing.
And as you go by, maybe a glance by.
You don't stop and, you know, you're not a voyeur, but you walk in and say there's one plank missing.
And you just glance for one second and you walk by.
I'm speaking metaphorically here.
I don't think that's ever happened.
But if there was one plank missing, for half a second, you said, well, what's behind the wall?
And now you know what's behind every plank, right, for a second.
That's my point with Andrew Coyne.
Most of the time, we don't know if he's BSing.
But today the one picket fence plank was missing and we saw he don't know what he's talking about at all, but he's good at faking it.
It's fake news.
I don't believe him anymore.
I don't believe him anymore.
And as a youngster, I used to look up to him.
National Post Paradox00:02:51
James writes, there is still some quality at the National Post, such as Latsford, Kate, and the occasional Black Piece.
I tuned out the Eliteist Coin years ago.
Yeah, you know, I made that point.
I reference in particular Rex Murphy, the best.
Conrad Black, very smart, very enjoyable, and a contrarian these days.
I should have mentioned Barbara Kate.
She's great.
As you know, we have her on our show from time to time.
Occasionally, there's some stuff in the Financial Post that's still good on issues like global warming, but that's about it.
I see today that the left-wing feminist editor of the National Post, Anne-Marie Owens, is leaving.
That came as a surprise to them, and I don't know who the new editor would be.
I don't even think it matters.
They have such a tiny staff now.
Most of their content is just wire copy from like the Washington Post.
Most of the stuff that bugs me about the National Post isn't even written in Canada.
It's just like some boilerplate bought from Washington or New York.
Why would you even get the National Post anymore?
I don't know.
And I say this as someone who was there in the glory days, the early days.
I worked there for two years.
On my interview with Janice Atkinson about Brexit getting delayed, Lynn writes, The UK did wonderfully for centuries without the EU.
It will again just give it a couple of years.
Yeah, well, I mean, I'm not the first to say it.
The best thing that ever happened to the United Kingdom was the English Channel.
We talked about picket fences a moment ago.
Good fences make good neighbors.
How about a huge moat around an island to protect you?
I'm not saying there should be no trade, but to let European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium pass laws that are binding on the United Kingdom?
Not until very, very recently would any party of the left or the right have accepted that as anything less than treasonous.
I mean, it's just so staggering how that country has let itself become undone.
And I think there's lessons there, as always, premonitions even, for Canada as regards other supranational organizations like the United Nations.
So when Ahmed Hassan and Justin Trudeau say, oh, don't pay attention to the Global Compact on Migration.
Nah, nah, nah.
Anyone who tells you that's binding, they're lying.
Nothing to see here.
You know what?
I'm sure that's what they said to the United Kingdom about being in the EU.
Oh, guys, just don't worry about it.
No, don't you worry about you're losing your sovereignty.
What are you, some xenophobe or something?
I think that there are warnings for us here on this side of the Atlantic from the Brexit and the establishment's absolute desire to undermine democracy.
I hope they leave soon.
I do fear there will be violence in that country if the democracy is destroyed.
Well, there you have it.
That's our Monday, Carbon Tax Day, April Fool's Day.