Notre Dame’s April 16th fire—potentially arson or terrorism amid jubilant Arabic-language reactions and a 2016 ISIS plot—threatens France’s Christian heritage. Meanwhile, Alberta’s election pits Jason Kenney against carbon tax critics like Charles Adler, dismissed as "kooky," while Ontario’s court challenge questions Trudeau’s federal overreach. Rebel Media debates nationalist vs. globalist policies and promotes live YouTube coverage at 7:45 p.m. Mountain Time, framing the fire and election as tests of Western resilience against cultural and political erosion. [Automatically generated summary]
If you want your podcast, you got it, but can you do me a quick favor?
Can you go to the rebel.media slash shows and sign up to become a premium subscriber.
You get the video version of the podcast, which I think is pretty awesome.
Today we talk about the horrific fire at Notre Dame de Paris.
And you can talk about a fire, but I think you want to see it with your eyes.
And I also show you other things that you only get on the TV version of the show.
It's eight bucks a month.
I think it's worth every penny.
And look, even if you just like the podcast, which are free, it helps us cover the bills.
So it would be a mighty big favor to me, the Rebel.media slash shows.
Without further ado, here is our podcast.
You're listening to a Rebel Media podcast.
Tonight, the Cathedral of Notre Dame burns in an inferno.
What happened?
What does it mean?
It's April 16th, 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 don'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.
Tonight is the Alberta provincial election, which we have been covering very closely this past month.
But since this show here airs at 8 p.m. Eastern, which is 6 p.m. in Alberta, and the polls don't close there until two hours later, I'm going to talk about something else today, since we've pretty much done all of our speculating and guesstimating about the election already.
I should invite you, though, to join our live results show tonight, which is on YouTube.
It's free.
It's not behind our paywall.
And it's called a YouTube Super Chat.
If you haven't heard about that before, while we broadcast live, we'll also have a little live comment section right next to the YouTube screen that we can see in real time.
And so you send us messages.
We'll surely be responding to your questions and comments as we go.
Notre Dame's Burning Heart00:08:31
It's going to be pretty exciting.
Sheila Gunn Reed and Kian Bexte will be in Calgary at Jason Kenny's election night event.
And I'll be here in Toronto.
And we'll start it all at 7.45 p.m. Alberta time, which is 9.45 p.m. out east.
All right.
So that's for all of you who want to watch as Rachel Dantle is finally removed from office.
So let me talk about something else that is in the news that is much bigger than political parties or the daily quarrels of life.
I mean, the stunning fire that consumed one of the finest cathedrals in the world, the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris yesterday.
Now the Eiffel Tower is a symbol of modern France, though it's almost 150 years old.
You see it, you immediately think Paris.
It's the world's most photographed object, they say.
The Arc de Triomphe, whose construction started more than 200 years ago, is a stunning edifice too, a monument to France's past greatness militarily.
That's what it means, the military triumphs of the country.
Did you know someone once flew an airplane through it?
Notre Dame Cathedral, though, is the foundation for all of it, for all of Paris, for all of France.
It is the French pillar of Western civilization.
The history of the West is the history of Christianity.
And while the Vatican in Rome is the house of the Catholic faith, as was Constantinople and the mighty Hagia Sophia Church before it was conquered by Islam and turned into a mighty mosque, Notre Dame must surely rank as one of the most important cathedrals, the outpost of Christianity in France and beyond.
A thousand years, nearly, the foundation stone was laid by the Pope in the year 1163.
It took more than a hundred years to finish building it.
Four generations of workers.
It's massive.
It's a staggering feat of architecture and art.
It has many little chapels and nooks, treasure troves, hidden passages, hidden staircases.
The narrow path up to the top leads to a stunning view of Paris down below.
It's amazing today.
It's inconceivable how impressive it must have been during the Middle Ages.
It truly would have been a wonder of the world.
In fact, I think it still is.
It became the setting for the Victor Hugo novel, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, which has been turned into so many plays and movies since, including a Disney version, of course.
It has been renovated, the church, and rebuilt countless times since its original construction.
The enormous spire that fell so tragically yesterday was only several hundred years old.
The mighty oak roof was original, though those trees would have already been three or four hundred years old when they were harvested to build the mighty roof, an estimated 12,000 trees, a whole forest.
It took a century to build this thing.
That roof was from trees that grew a thousand years ago.
Here's what Bernard-Henri Lévy, the French author, said of the place.
Notre Dame de Paris is really one of the beating hearts of the French civilization.
How can you rebuild eight or nine centuries of history?
How can you rebuild the tears, the whispers, and the memories of a whole country and of the whole civilization?
I think they will rebuild.
So far, several French billionaires have stepped forward with pledges of hundreds of millions of dollars.
And thankfully, the stone walls of the church seem to be sturdy.
And other parts of the church down below, the main blaze was on the oak roof.
I don't know if you remember.
I didn't remember until I was reminded of it.
About 25 years ago, Windsor Castle burnt.
And it looked as shocking as the Notre Dame fire, almost.
But within a couple of years, it was refurbished and rebuilt with craftsmen and the horror.
And I guess it gave way to redemption.
Gave Brits a new connection to the royals to rebuild it.
They opened the doors to it.
And that was just history and the monarch.
This is history and monarchy and faith and civilization itself and far older.
This is everything for France.
There were relics in that church that date back to Jesus himself.
The crown of thorns, brought to France nearly a thousand years ago, is believed to be the preserved crown of thorns that Jesus himself wore.
The cathedral is an important symbol, but there was no one killed yesterday, thankfully.
One firefighter was injured.
But still, it had the gutting, shocking feeling of a sort of 9-11, a symbol of the Christian West itself being burnt.
Which is why it was no surprise to those of us who follow such things that the Arabic language chat by French Muslims on news pages and Facebook pages was jubilant.
Look at all these comments from a French news Facebook post.
All the celebration, all the happy faces, the emojis, the jubilation at the burning of a mighty Christian church.
They know there's a meaning here more than just bricks and stones.
Just two months ago, by the way, another mighty French church, Saint-Silpice, was burnt too.
Police say that was deliberately set.
Arson.
It's true the fires can happen by accident in old buildings, especially.
Most fires are accidental.
Some are arson of the mere criminal variety, but it is also a tool of terrorism.
In 2016, there was an ISIS plot to blow up the Notre Dame Cathedral.
Now that was foiled.
In fact, a terrorist from that plot was sentenced just two weeks ago, a few weeks ago.
Was it terrorism?
Immediate talking points on French TV said that this was a construction accident, not arson, certainly not terrorism.
But how could that possibly be determined before the fire was even put out?
How could that be immediately known?
Contrary reports say there was in fact no construction at that time.
It'll take some days or weeks for the facts to come out.
If it's like the mass shooting in Las Vegas, it'll take years, if ever.
But the immediate reflex of politicians to rule out arson or Muslim terrorism has become sort of like a reverse boy crying wolf.
You know, that parable, the boy falsely cried wolf so often that soon no one believed him.
And one day a wolf did truly come.
Here we have the reverse.
The media and politicians reflexively say, nothing to see here.
No wolf here.
There is no wolf here.
Before they even know, when there so evidently sometimes is a wolf, when someone calls out Allah Akbar, when an ISIS flag is found, when it's so manifest, we have the reverse of the boy who cries wolf.
We have someone saying, no, wolf, there's no wolf, but too often there is a wolf, and so we no longer trust those who we need to trust.
I don't know the facts of Notre Dame's fire.
I don't know.
But I know that Emmanuel Macron, the French president, his approval ratings are in the 20% range.
Last I saw, 23% of French approve of him.
He's hated.
This picture here shows him with his wife and fancy friends drinking what I understand is a $2,000 bottle of wine in a mountain chalet.
This sort of lifestyle doesn't help while he inflicts carbon taxes on the little people.
The yellow vest protests are in their eighth month, I believe.
He's on the defensive.
People don't trust him.
And he failed yesterday.
The greatest treasure in France was burnt.
It was from neglect, if it was from neglect and carelessness.
That's almost as bad as if it were from malice and arson and terrorism.
None of it looks good on Macron, whether it was an accident or arson.
But I think he would have had political motive to lie about it if, for example, it had been done by, if it were arson, if it were a terror attack committed by someone known to security, then it would be terrible if that came out, wouldn't it?
Again, this is all speculation.
I regret that we will likely never know all the facts.
We have sent Jack Buckby and Martina Marcota to Paris to see what they can find and to interview people on the street and see if they can get other interviews and information.
They landed there this morning.
You can see their first videos at rebelparis.com.
And you can ship in there to cover the cost of their economy class airfare.
We sent them on the very first train this morning.
I think they're flying back.
If you want to help out, you can go to rebelparis.com.
All their videos will be on that page as well.
Now, accident or arson, I do not know, but I do know that this has caused a hole in the heart of France.
It is a symbol of decay of the West.
How the West is falling, how the West's enemies are jubilant, how a coalition of militant progressives who hate the church from the left are allied with soft or hard jihadists.
Ontario's Carbon Tax Debate00:14:26
We don't know which.
It's a sad day.
And you don't have to be French or Catholic to feel it.
Stay with us for more.
Well, I remember a couple of years ago when the only politician in Canada who had office, who was standing up to Justin Trudeau's proposed carbon tax, was the premier of Saskatchewan.
And boy, they were fighting hard.
But Saskatchewan is a small province, as provinces go.
And of course, the Liberals don't care much about it, only having, what is it, one MP from there, if my memory serves.
But now that Ontario has Doug Ford as the Premier, they have a much bigger battle on their hands.
And in fact, that battle is now being waged in the Ontario Court of Appeal, where the province of Ontario is challenging the constitutionality of Trudeau's carbon tax.
I understand there are also interveners in that court from other provinces.
Well, I'm delighted to say that our friend Andrew Lawton is in the courthouse at the Court of Ontario in downtown Toronto.
He's been covering it for the True North Report, which is, of course, run by our friend Candace Malcolm.
Andrew joins us now via Skype.
He's back at his hotel room from the trial.
Thanks for taking a few minutes to talk with us, Andrew.
Absolutely.
Yes, lawyers are good for many things, but not having a good internet connection.
So I bolted away from the action for a couple of moments to chat with you, but I appreciate the time.
Well, come on.
We appreciate you.
I know it's so busy.
I remember you were with me in London, England, live tweeting the trial of Tommy Robinson.
So I know you're skilled at covering court cases.
Set the scene for our viewers a little bit.
How many lawyers, how many parties are there in this courthouse at the Ontario Court of Appeal?
Well, the event is being held at Osgoode Hall, the actual hearing here.
And if anyone's ever been to their main courtroom, it has a room that seats a few dozen people.
But what's interesting is that there are so many lawyers involved that media and the general public have actually been relegated to a different room.
And there's a video stream that we're watching because there are so many lawyers because of how many parties are involved that are taking up the space in that main room.
Now, in the actual reference, there are just two parties, the government of Ontario and the government of Canada.
But the interventions are quite significant in this.
Not only do you have several provinces that are intervening, British Columbia is intervening to support the federal carbon tax.
And then the governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and New Brunswick are opposing.
Another element that I find interesting is that the United Conservatives of Alberta are intervening.
Now, the Alberta government opted against pursuing intervener status, but the United Conservatives will be presenting their argument tomorrow.
And the interesting thing about that is that they may find out tonight that they're going to be the government of Alberta, which will certainly give the arguments they're planning on putting forward tomorrow a little bit more heft because we'll have yet again another province joining the crusade against Justin Trudeau and his carbon tax.
Isn't that interesting?
Now, of course, as we know, an election happens, and the winner of that election, I think, is called the Premier Designate.
Sort of like in the States when you win, you're the president-elect, but there's a transition period.
So Jason Kenney will not actually be the Premier of Alberta tomorrow, in fact, but he will be as good as the Premier.
So I think you're so right.
His party's arguments will have more heft.
Now, I understand also the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is intervening.
Are there any other groups intervening on behalf of the tax?
Well, pretty much everyone is intervening on behalf of the tax, with the exception of the provincial governments I just mentioned and the United Conservatives and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
A lot of the interveners, there are nine, I believe, are coming at this from a pro-carbon tax perspective.
You've got the Environmental Defense Initiative.
You've got the Intergenerational Climate Change Group.
You've got a lot of the Suzuki Foundation, which I know is one of your favorites, Ezra.
But you've got all of these groups that are pushing for a carbon tax.
But what's fascinating about this is that the scope of the discussion was laid out very clearly by both the Canadian government and the Ontario government.
And that is that we're not debating policy here.
That's the job of legislators.
We're debating the constitutionality of it.
But what's interesting is that the pro-carbon tax side of this has drifted into debating policy a few times.
For example, the federal lawyer, when speaking today, spoke about the urgency and necessity of action against climate change.
A lot of the factum submissions by the pro-carbon tax interveners, very similarly, are speaking about the urgency of climate action.
Well, the fact is, this is a question of jurisdiction, not of urgency.
And whether you agree with a carbon tax or not, what's being discussed here is whether that's the right of the province or the federal government to decide, not whether it's good or bad policy.
That's a great point.
I was watching some reports from the courthouse where it sounds like the federal government and these pro-tax interveners want to talk, you know, like David Suzuki talks, we must save our planet.
But that's not, you know, we're not having a TV debate here.
We're not having a presentation to junior high school kids about their feelings.
This is about constitutional matters.
And of course, it is a fact that Ontario has actually reduced its greenhouse gas emissions, if that's something you care about, if that's something you're worried about.
They've actually reduced them quite a bit.
And I think that is a legal factor that's much more important than the dreamy stuff.
Because if Ontario, I mean, there's so many different layers here.
There's the constitutional layer.
Is it pressing?
Is Ontario doing enough on its own if you think it should be doing anything?
I don't know.
How have the judges been?
I know it's dangerous to take a judge's questions as an indication of their actual belief because they could just be testing, poking, prodding, trying to make the lawyers earn their keep by fleshing out their arguments.
Tell me about some of the judges' questions for these advocates.
Well, one of the big questions that came up yesterday when the Ontario government was putting forward its effective challenge of the federal carbon tax, the questions were fairly subdued, but they were coming at it from really the perspective of, okay, well, if not a carbon price, what?
And Ontario was actually trying to say, no, no, no, we agree that climate change is a threat.
We agree that greenhouse gases are causing it, but here's what we're doing instead.
What was interesting today when Canada was doing its submission was how about three of the five justices at one point were, I'll say ganging up, and I don't mean it in a malicious sense, but all trying to press her for an answer on a very key constitutional question.
And that question is, okay, if we say that the federal government has the jurisdiction over climate change and greenhouse gas emissions because it's a national concern, and this is a legal doctrine that the federal government is trying to establish.
If the federal government can claim jurisdictions on greenhouse gases, how can it not claim jurisdiction on anything that causes greenhouse gases?
And the argument that Ontario put forward was, okay, if the federal government says that it has a new head of power to rein in greenhouse gas emissions, it will also, by extension, be able to regulate whether you can drive a car, whether you can have a wood fire stove, how much you can heat your home or stuff like that.
And these are exceptional examples, but basically the Ontario government is trying to say there's a slippery slope here.
And today, the justices were pushing for the federal lawyer to articulate where she thinks that limit would end.
And she couldn't give an answer.
And effectively, what she said was, well, just trust us.
And, well, we've got to hope that the act will constrain itself.
And I'm sorry, I have a lot of trust in certain people, but the federal government is not one of those entities that I'll just sit idly by when it says, no, no, no, we'll just trust us to stay within our limits.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, Justin Trudeau himself has said it repeatedly and fairly candidly that his whole purpose is to get Canadians to make different choices, as in don't heat your house, don't drive a car, don't take a vacation.
You know, he is very clear that the purpose of a carbon tax is to be a social engineer, behavioral engineer.
So all these, you know, slippery slope arguments, they're not paranoia.
That's the whole rationale for the plan.
The whole point of a carbon tax is to dissuade you from using carbon.
Not just politically, Ezra, but that is actually a key part of the legal defense that the federal government has been employing here, that it is a regulatory charge aimed at changing behavior.
And this is where things got a bit into the weeds yesterday.
If a government is going to levy a tax, there's a constitutional mechanism it needs to follow, which didn't happen.
This legislation was not delineated to put a tax forward.
It was a regulatory charge.
And to do that, the government has to prove one of two things.
Number one, that it's trying to impact behavior.
So that's actually part of its defense here, that, you know, the worst fears of Canadians, that this was social engineering, that's actually the government's legal strategy.
Well, let me ask you this, because there can be legal cases and there can be scientific cases, but at the end of the day, a government is what the people want.
And I must tell you, Andrew, a couple years ago, I was very pessimistic.
I thought there's no chance this can be stopped.
Everybody's for a carbon tax, including some voices in the Conservative Party at the time.
Patrick Brown, Michael Chong, Preston Manning himself.
You had so-called think tanks like the Eco-Fiscal Commission.
They were trying to recruit conservatives.
And it looked pretty bleak, but now the pendulum is swinging back.
At the end of the day, I think this comes down to voters, especially in Ontario and even maybe not so much Quebec, but Ontario.
Do you think this is going to be stopped?
Do you think this can be repealed?
It was repealed in Australia.
So I know it can happen.
A carbon tax comes in and then it's rooted out.
If you had to use your crystal ball, how is this going to end?
Well, I think there's a lot of truth in what you said there, Ezra.
And one of the key things is that, well, this is a constitutional question now.
And I think that's important because I do think the federal government's powers need to be constrained.
That is a moot point if Justin Trudeau loses the election and Andrew Scheer, who's committed to repealing the carbon tax, is in there and does that, just as cap and trade's constitutionality in Ontario was a moot point when Doug Ford came in and said, we're going to get rid of it.
So if there is enough of a backlash, it is irrelevant as far as this case goes because you're right, the people will have spoken against it.
And you look at how many provinces are really opposing this.
It isn't just Saskatchewan.
It's Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, even Quebec to some extent now, New Brunswick, and PEI.
We're talking about seven provinces in Confederation that have drawn a line in the sand now compared to just a couple of years ago, one prairie province.
Yeah.
And of course, we love Saskatchewan, but politically is what I'm talking about to have the heft of the allies joining.
And of course, as you point out, tonight's election in Alberta.
You know, taking on national challenges like this, I mean, there was a certain argument for the GST.
There's certain arguments for national programs.
I think, especially as Canada teeters on the edge of a recession, as unemployment ticks up a tiny bit, as the economy slows down, as the bloom comes off the rose for Trudeau, I think, you know, eat your spinach.
This tax is good for you morally.
I just don't know how that's going to sell.
And I don't think Trudeau has the pizzazz he did four years ago.
They seem to think it's a winner.
Every hour I see Catherine McKenna trying to go on the offense about it, but I just see the price of the pumps and I think I don't think it's a winner for them.
Do you think they must have polling that shows it's a winner?
Because it's all they're talking about, I think.
Well, you know, I'm not sure that they do have polling.
I think at a certain point they're, as they say, pot committed, where they've invested so much into this that they can't really back away now.
You just have to go all in and hope for the best.
You know, the government sent out to every Canadian in one of the, in Ontario anyway, this little card talking about how much they were going to get back on the climate action incentive, which is basically trying to bribe Canadians with their own money that was going to be collected through a carbon tax revenue.
And the fact is that if it is revenue neutral, there has to be a winner and a loser in that.
And the idea that we could take someone who lives in downtown Toronto and walks to work and has a carbon footprint the size of a dime and give them the same amount as someone in Ottawa who's a long-haul trucker who put thousands and thousands of dollars of fuel in his truck every year just to feed his family.
The idea that both of those people are going to get that same couple hundred dollars is actually quite offensive because we are seeing a government here that is trying to pretend that greenhouse gas emissions are a choice when in a lot of cases they are a necessity of life that comes along with all of these other things we do in life.
Yeah.
Second largest country in the world, one of the coldest countries in the world.
You need carbon to live.
Andrew, I'm so grateful to you for taking time.
I know you're so busy and you rushed home from Osgood Hall where the court is to your hotel to do this interview with us.
We're very grateful.
We look forward to your reports at TrueNorth.
And that's what's the website for True North?
Greenhouse Gas Necessity00:04:30
I don't want to get it wrong.
Can you remind me of that?
So the easiest one for daily coverage like this is TNC.news, TrueNorthCanada.news, TNC.news.
And that's where you'll find all of my updates on this throughout the week.
Thank you very much.
I knew it was a .news.
TNC.news.
All right.
Thanks, my friend.
Thanks a lot, Ezra.
Okay, there's Andrew Lawton.
He's with the True North Initiative, TNC.news, and he's at the courthouse.
Very interesting case, isn't it?
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue about what Jason Kenney should do in his first days and hours in office.
Bob writes, one would hope Kenny would heed this advice, but I'm worried sick about it just not happening.
Well, look, I don't know who his transition team is.
Because he was a former federal cabinet minister.
He surely knows people, both professional political people and lobbyists and helper routers and lawyers and staff.
So he would have a circle of friends or advisors who could fill those roles and do that homework so that if and when he wins, he'll be ready to go day one.
I hope so.
Of course, the real question is, what will they be like?
Will they be courageous or will they be too afraid of the left-wing media?
Eliza writes, Charles Adler is the knuckle-dragger.
I had no idea he was that much of a bottom feeder.
Is he hoping for some CBC action in his old age?
Liza, it's so funny you say that.
I used to know Charles fairly well.
I was on his radio show pretty often.
And then, of course, we worked together at the Sun News Network.
Now, he was based in Winnipeg.
I was based in Toronto, so we didn't physically see each other, but there was a sort of a fraternity there.
I honestly haven't talked to Charles in a few years, but I do remember him as sort of being a passionate conservative, both parts of that.
I think that, I mean, he's just gone mad.
I mean, I saw him tweet today that he thinks we should all stop eating meat and that's the moral thing to do.
Like, when you're going full PETA, it's a little bit kooky, to be honest.
And I don't know if he's just having fun, if he's just doing some performance art, if he truly believes that, maybe he does, or maybe you're right.
I mean, look, it is a fact that if you are a radio talent in this country, you can't get work if you're conservative.
They've practically been purged from every single radio station in the country.
I could probably count the true conservatives on one hand's fingers.
And the CBC is the mothership of them all.
So yeah, maybe Charles Adler wants that super contract.
In fact, what was so weird to me is after he had his 30-minute Bash Kenny interview, he then did interviews about that interview, including with the CBC.
Sounds like he was doing some job auditioning to me.
I don't know.
Here's what I do know.
It's not going to make a difference in the election tonight.
I would be surprised if a single Albertan voted based well.
What did Charles Howard Adler tell me to do?
How writes, your advice on how to out the NDP holdovers is beyond reproach.
Lauren Gunter was the perfect guest.
He gave us hope that Jason Kenny will do Albertans Proud.
Will he govern as a nationalist premier or as a globalist?
Well, that's the thing, because of course, to be a globalist, you have to have certain tools, including foreign policy, immigration, foreign aid, things like that.
So the globalists I'm most worried about are the ones in the federal government.
Really think about what a premier's top constitutional duties are.
Healthcare, schools, maybe some police and courts and prosecutions.
In Alberta, it's so clearly jobs, pipelines, oil and gas.
So I don't think that globalism is going to manifest itself, although he does have that weird open borders.
Let's bring maximum third world immigration to rural Alberta, which is just really, really weird.
And by the way, you don't bring low skill, you don't bring any unemployment, any immigration to high unemployment regions.
The reason the men and women of Alberta are unemployed is not because they're low skilled, by the way.
It's because there's no jobs.
It's actually the most high-skilled workforce in Alberta.
Dumping thousands of Somali migrants in Brooks ain't going to fix that.
John writes, I love how you cover all of Canada.
You live in Toronto, but now, but you haven't forgotten about the West.
Your strong Alberta and BC coverage keeps me engaged.
Bring Maximum Third World Immigration00:01:13
We are all rebels.
Well, John, that's very nice of you to say.
I think we do need to cover more things in BC.
We do some of that from here and from Alberta.
But yeah, I mean, BC is its very own place.
I love it there.
What a gorgeous, gorgeous province.
You're making me homesick for that part.
And I'm not even from, that's not even my home.
But thank you for your compliment, which I will accept.
And in the weeks ahead, we'll have some news about a new position that Kian Bexty is going to fill.
You'll just sort of start seeing it.
And I think you'll see more coverage in BC because of it anyway, so I won't give it away.
But that's our show for today.
I'm pretty excited about the election tonight.
We had a strong role to play in it.
Our Sheila Gunnread and her best-selling book, Stop Notley, The 5,000 Lawn Signs, and even our fight with the Election Commissioner.
I'll tell you about that another day.
All right, folks, without further ado, let me say goodnight, but tune in tonight, 7.45 p.m. Mountain Time, 9.45 p.m. Eastern Time.
Our live super chat that's just on YouTube.
Go to our YouTube page, go to our website, you'll find it either place.
Until tomorrow or until tonight, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, good night.