Kim Campbell, Canada’s shortest-serving PM (1993), now leads Trudeau’s Supreme Court vetting committee despite inflammatory tweets—like calling oil firms’ procedural defeat "Nuremberg-worthy"—and factually dubious attacks on Trump. Critics argue her role reflects a broader trend: media and Democrats blame Trump for U.S. mass shootings, ignoring similar rhetoric from left-wing figures while exploiting partisan divides over immigration and gun control. Baltimore’s decay—rats, drugs, abandoned homes—under decades of Democratic rule like Elijah Cummings’ district, suggests systemic neglect, yet Democrats focus on demonizing Trump’s rallies instead. The episode questions whether governance failures or political scapegoating drive America’s deeper crises. [Automatically generated summary]
She was a Prime Minister of Canada for about 130 days, 25 years ago or so.
Summer job, really.
So she was voted out in the worst political defeat in Canadian history.
She was a first-term MP who became justice minister and then prime minister and then lost all in one term.
Then she went into a life of obscurity, but she's back now.
Justin Trudeau has appointed her in charge of our Supreme Court vetting.
But what's really in the news is how insane she is on Twitter.
I'm talking insane in the membrane.
I'm talking insane in the brain.
And may I encourage you to watch this video?
And I mean, I know you're listening to the podcast, but you've got to watch the video too.
You can do that by becoming a premium subscriber.
Go to the rebel.media slash shows.
It's eight bucks a month.
You get the video stuff.
I got to show you these craze tweets that she's writing.
I'll read them to you, but you should see them anyways.
All right, here's today's show.
Tonight, Kim Campbell has gone mad.
Why is Trudeau letting her choose our judges?
It's August 6th, and this is the Ezra Levant 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.
The only thing I have to say is government about why I publish them is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Kim Campbell not only was Prime Minister for barely longer than the lifespan of a fruit fly, she also presided over the greatest political destruction in Canadian history.
Funny thing, Campbell's motto in 1993 was think twice.
A warning, I guess, against not only the illiberals, but against the upstart Reform Party and Bloch Quebec parties.
But there was sort of a joke at the time, if you're old enough to remember, voters saw think twice, and they did, giving them just two seats, her own not being amongst them.
Normally, Kim Campbell would go away and be forgotten, but I think she's a bit of a grifter.
Out of pity, maybe.
Jean-Cretchen, the liberal, gave her a plum diplomatic posting as Canada's Consul General in Los Angeles.
What an amazing job.
Basically, a four-year vacation where she was given a huge hospitality budget and partied with the Hollywood elites.
How gross.
But I guess she needed the work and hadn't qualified for a pension yet.
Since then, she's largely been shunned in Canada.
I think she's really a punchline to a joke.
And I put it to you that 90, 95% of Canadians under 40 years old have never heard of her.
I mean, other than an answer to a trivia question, why would you?
So she's got all sorts of taxpayers-subsidized gigs, many of them overseas.
But then, who knows why, Justin Trudeau appointed Kim Campbell, hand-picked her, hired her, to be in charge of the committee that selects our Supreme Court judges.
What?
Now, in the United States, that would be one of the most powerful appointed positions in the government, choosing the Supreme Court judges, because, of course, in Canada, we don't have confirmation hearings of any real sort.
So, Kim Campbell is that confirmation hearing.
What questions are asked of the judges?
What are their answers?
What is the political litmus test?
Why are people disqualified?
In the U.S., all of those things are vetted in public, and they're very bruising battles, both ways.
The confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh last year was just staggering.
We got to know everything about him, or more accurately, every smear thrown against him going back to college, almost all of which were proven to be false other than the fact that he does like beer.
Anytime accusers show up with lawyers like Michael Abenatti, it's best to hold on to your wallet.
He represented some of the accusers.
Anyways, my point is vetting Supreme Court judges is so important because it shapes legal and cultural trends for decades, seriously for a generation.
The Americans take it seriously.
We give that power to Kim Campbell.
Now, I used to follow Kim Campbell on Twitter, but I criticized her, and so she blocked me, which shows you how politically neutral and balanced she is.
I'm kidding.
She's a full-on kook.
She's off the deep end.
She's politically unstable.
I won't go so far as to say she is mentally unstable or mentally ill.
I won't say that.
That's a medical or psychological diagnosis that I cannot make.
But I will call her crazy in the political sense.
And I will now prove it to you with some tweets from her.
She does like a dozen tweets every day, by the way.
She's obsessed with Donald Trump.
Look at this.
Not in a good way.
She disparages him like a crazy person would do.
She retweets the most outrageous and over-the-top insults about him.
She writes the most outrageous things.
She's profane.
She's gross.
She bashes our chief ally daily.
And that's fine if she were an obscure ex-prime minister no longer in the public interest that no one even heard about anymore.
But she's not.
She's Justin Trudeau's handpicked boss of the Supreme Court nominations.
That is a very senior and powerful position.
It requires political neutrality.
Who could trust judges who were picked by an extremist?
But look at this.
Just look.
I'm going to go through this one carefully with you slowly because it's just so incredible.
This was just the other day.
Now, she's replying, as you can see at the bottom there.
There was a tweet from a U.S. senator from Rhode Island.
Sheldon Whitehouse is his name.
Now, what that senator says isn't that interesting.
He's talking about a court case.
It's what Kim Campbell says about him that's very interesting.
Let me read what Kim Campbell says.
She says, this is precisely why I have said that the oil companies have committed crimes against humanity.
That's in all caps with an exclamation point.
That's why I'm reading it that way.
All the factors are there.
Knowledge of the truth and deliberate action to conceal, becloud the truth, to save their profits while preparing to protect themselves.
Nuremberg worthy exclamation point.
So let's go through this a bit.
The first thing that just jumps out is all the capital letters, which is sort of like shouting in a tweet.
I mean, if someone sent you an email and had sentences in capital letters that were angry words, you'd think it was aggressive and over the top.
It reminds me of the conspiracy theory guy who, this reminds me of this guy, reminds me of people who hand out single-space documents in all caps with all sorts of exclamation points to you on the street.
She put four parts of her tweet in capital letters, three exclamation points.
I think she was manic or something.
But let's look at the words themselves.
I have said that the oil companies have committed crimes against humanity.
The oil companies.
Which oil companies?
The ones that employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians?
The oil companies?
The oil companies?
Care to be a bit more specific there, or is this that crazy way of talking when you're deliberately vague and anyone who doesn't immediately agree with you is part of the conspiracy?
They are out to get me.
You know who they are.
You know what they're doing.
Crimes against humanity.
I think she's a little cuckoo.
Okay, so the oil companies have committed crimes, but not just any oil crimes.
The worst crimes imaginable on par with Hitler, who committed crimes against humanity.
She says that these oil companies are guilty.
They have committed these crimes, she says.
Now, I actually took the time to look up the legal case she was referring to.
It's the one that that Rhode Island senator was referring to.
It doesn't say what she claims it says.
Okay, it's a global warming lawsuit by Rhode Island against a bunch of American oil companies.
Not against OPEC companies, not against Saudi Arabia or Iran or Venezuela, just against companies that make oil and money and jobs for Americans.
But the case, and I read the whole ruling today, doesn't find them guilty of crimes against humanity.
It actually doesn't find them guilty of anything at all.
It was a procedural decision.
The oil companies say that the Rhode Island courts don't have the jurisdiction to hear the case.
Another court does.
So the entire ruling was about which court gets to hear the case.
And Rhode Island's chief judge says that Rhode Island does, but he granted the oil company 60 days to appeal his decision.
They haven't talked about the merits of the case yet.
So it's not a ruling on the substance.
The underlying case has not even been heard, let alone adjudicated.
No one has been found guilty of anything.
And Kim Campbell, with all the capital letters and exclamation points, just said the oil companies are guilty, including guilty of crimes against humanity, which of course they're not even charged with.
So she's a kook, but she's also completely uninformed about court cases and laws and judges, which is a bit alarming given that she's choosing who is in charge of Canadian court cases and laws and judges.
She's not just wrong.
She's weaponized her wrongness.
She's as passionate about it as she is wrong about it.
She's raging.
She's calling for Nuremberg trials.
And she doesn't even know any facts about it.
She says the company's deliberately concealed facts.
That's simply not proven yet.
She said that they're guilty.
That's just not true.
Oh, how I wish they would sue her for defamation to have her answer just how kooky she is in court.
Maybe that would cause her to finally be thrown off this Supreme Court committee just for being so utterly ill-fit.
But one last point, Nuremberg.
You know what that is, right?
The crimes against humanity.
That's Holocaust language.
After the Holocaust, the Nuremberg trials were where senior Nazis were tried for crimes against humanity, for the Holocaust, amongst other things.
That's the language she's using here.
She's comparing Nazi mass murderers, the people who gassed six million Jews, to oil companies, like the kind of oil company that she fills up her car from every week, the kind that employs countless Canadians.
She's saying the oil companies are like Nazis.
Now, I'm not sure she means it.
How could she actually mean that?
How could a sane, responsible grown-up actually mean that?
How could she say that unless she was joking or indulging herself or going a bit batty in her old age?
Republicans and Immigration Enforcement00:11:26
Kim Campbell is a footnote in history.
Other former leaders go a bit nuts too.
I've seen it.
Vicente Fox, the former American Mexican president, is an anti-Trump madman.
He swears, he threatens, he makes a clown of himself, but he's nothing anymore.
He's retired.
He has no power.
Kim Campbell, though, she's the woman in charge of choosing Canada's Supreme Court judges.
Her own judgment is woefully lacking.
So is Trudeau's judgment for appointing her and keeping her in that position.
And here's my real worry.
Anyone who appeals to her, who she approves, who she likes, might be just as reckless and judicially illiterate, illiterate as she is too.
Stay with us for more.
The shooter in El Paso posted a manifesto online consumed by racist hate.
In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry, and white supremacy.
These sinister ideologies must be defeated.
Hate has no place in America.
Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart, and devours the soul.
We have asked the FBI to identify all further resources they need to investigate and disrupt hate crimes and domestic terrorism.
Whatever they need.
Well, that's President Donald Trump yesterday speaking out against the two mass murder shooting sprees, one in El Paso, Texas, the other in Ohio.
He focused in particular on one manifesto allegedly published by the Texan murderer that claimed to be inspired by anti-racist anti-immigrant sentiment.
Although in other regards, that shooter claimed to be a leftist.
But it doesn't mention the Ohio shooter who was a down-the-line Democrat, an active supporter of the Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren, and someone who mimicked the language of Alexandria Oquesio-Cortez calling the ICE the immigration police in the United States, saying their detention facilities were similar to concentration camps.
Well, did Donald Trump manage to avoid being called a racist murderer supporter himself by saying what so many were glad he did say?
Well, let me refer you to today's story by Joel Pollack of Breitbart.com.
The headline's quite incredible.
National Public Radio, Trump should have blamed himself for mass shootings, really.
Well, joining us now is the author of that report, our friend Joel Pollock, senior editor at lodge at Breitbart.com.
Great to see you again, Joel.
Good to see you too.
I thought that Donald Trump went too far, frankly.
He's disavowed white supremacy at least a dozen times.
It's never enough for the left.
I think he was using some of their language when he didn't really have call to do so.
And of course, they didn't accept it from him.
They mocked him, said he was disingenuous.
As you point out, National Public Radio, which is a public broadcaster in the States, actually blamed him.
I don't know.
What was the result of his comments yesterday?
Did anyone soften their heart towards Trump on it?
Yes, but most of them were conservatives or Republicans.
Many of the calls for him to say something were coming from Republicans.
And I think by making that statement, he gave a lot of Republicans confidence to stick with him on the other issues here, which are immigration and gun control.
And I think that had he not said something, he would have seen some more serious defections from his own party, not because they believe the president is a racist, but because the media pressure is simply massive.
I have actually never seen anything like this.
The media are running a 24-hour round-the-clock campaign to demonize Trump and Trump supporters.
So it's remarkable that he's held his coalition together as well as he has.
I think people understand that the other side has overstepped the mark, that they've jumped the shark, so to speak.
Petro O'Rourke telling Trump he can't come to El Paso, people taking cheap shots at the president, people saying that he had something to do with this shooting in El Paso, which he clearly did not.
Even the shooter in his manifesto said that Trump did not.
And yet they're blaming Trump.
The argument, according to National Public Radio, which is publicly funded, nevertheless, they have said that Trump is responsible for the mass shootings because he used the word invasion to describe hundreds of thousands of people coming across the border illegally every month.
And the shooter in El Paso also used the word invasion.
Now, the shooter also talked about environmental catastrophe and talked about things like a basic income grant.
Those are left-wing buzzwords.
We don't see people on the left being blamed for motivating him.
I mean, the shooter basically was crazy.
Most of these shooters are crazy.
The Ohio shooter, the one in Dayton, a city I know very well, he had far left-wing views.
He supported Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, particularly Warren.
Yet those views, it's widely accepted, probably had nothing to do with the shooting.
He had had paranoid fantasies.
He had spoken to friends many times about wanting to shoot up a bar.
He had been reported to police.
Nothing had been done.
So there's a case to be made, perhaps, for laws that allow someone's firearms to be taken away if they show mental health problems, if there are complaints about them, and so forth.
Those laws can be abused, but I think you can provide enough safeguards.
And several states have such laws already.
The issue here is that nobody's making a big deal out of the Ohio shooters' radical left-wing views.
And he echoed a lot of the crazy things that have been said by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other Democratic politicians, like calling the migrant facilities at the border concentration camps and so on.
He's echoed a lot of their rhetoric, but no one's making an issue out of that.
What's going on right now is two things.
First of all, it's the usual media bias.
This is the media and Hollywood trying to get the country into a frenzy to blame Donald Trump for these shootings.
They have an open mic at the moment to do it.
They have elected officials who are repeating this.
The mayor of Dayton is a Democrat, mayor of El Paso, representatives from El Paso, a very Democratic city, even though Texas overall is fairly conservative.
They have that platform and they're using it because this is all about getting rid of Trump in 2020.
The second thing that's happening is a much more profound problem, and that is that this country cannot yet decide what to do about illegal immigration.
That we tried one method under Obama, which is essentially a creeping amnesty, making more and more people legal in the United States, even if they came here illegally, and trying to come up with solutions that allow millions more who entered illegally or overstayed their visas to stay here before there's any sort of border security to make sure it doesn't happen again.
So Obama basically tried one approach.
Trump's trying a different approach, which is to build a wall, enforce the law, prevent people from claiming asylum when they don't really deserve it, closing loopholes and all that sort of thing.
The country has recoiled in some ways because of the media, but has recoiled against seeing those laws enforced.
We hear reports from Democrats about kids in cages and all of that.
And so the country is really at a standstill over this issue, and it's become something that divides the parties.
That if you want the law enforcement, you're a Republican.
If you don't want it enforced, you're a Democrat.
There's also partisan interest working there because Democrats like the idea of growing their voter base by admitting more and more illegal aliens who will then owe a debt of allegiance to the Democratic Party for legalizing them in the United States.
So Democrats see future voters here.
They want to turn Texas blue.
By the way, saying that doesn't mean I'm a mass shooter because the mass shooter wrote the same thing in this manifesto.
This is something Democrats themselves say.
There's even a name for it.
It's called multicultural millenarianism.
It's the belief that we will finally see the progressive utopia once the white electorate has been outnumbered.
And you see that in statements like Nancy Pelosi saying that Donald Trump's ideology really is make America white again.
She's the one who introduces race into the conversation.
And the implication is that they have a different racial agenda.
It's a terrible thing to say.
And maybe that's not her complete intention, but certainly she's signaling that Democrats expect a more demographically diverse future to be one that's better politically for them.
So many Republicans suspect, and I think rightly so, that Democrats are reluctant to do anything about illegal immigration because they see all these illegal aliens as future voters.
So you have a border on the south end of the United States, on the edge of the country, that actually runs through the country.
Essentially, the U.S.-Mexico border is a fault line now in American politics.
And the parties are determined to fight this one out.
There is no reasonable compromise.
You might think that through a process of learning over the decades, we might have found that compromise.
And actually, the compromise is pretty obvious.
You create border security first so that you never have to do any more amnesty.
And then you decide who among the 11 million, maybe 20, 30 million people in the country illegally deserves to stay or should be given a chance to prove they deserve to stay.
You can sort that out once you make sure there's no more people coming in illegally.
But Democrats don't want to do that.
They don't want to have that process happen in that order.
They want the legal status to happen first, so there's no pressure at all to secure the southern border.
In fact, all the Democratic presidential candidates, with a few moderate exceptions, are talking about decriminalizing the act of crossing the border illegally.
They want free health care for illegal aliens.
These are the ideas dominating the Democratic Party.
They want to create more incentives for people to come.
They don't want to enforce the border.
They don't want a wall or a physical barrier on the border.
They think the answer to this migration crisis is shoveling more money to the corrupt governments in Central America that can't govern themselves.
And this is the fault line.
Essentially, we have Democrats believing in a kind of utopian future and cynically also understanding that this utopia happens to be better for them politically because as you delay dealing with this problem, you create more future Democratic voters.
And then you have Republicans on the other side saying we'd like to achieve something that the public says it wants.
They want the laws enforced and people want an end to illegal immigration.
But yet under the pressure from the media and the kind of coverage that happens, people recoil when they see those laws being enforced.
It's sort of like making sausages.
No one wants to actually see it happen.
So we're really at an impasse.
And Trump is encountering a political problem because the more he presses to try to solve that impasse, the more he wrestles with the problem, the more he is vulnerable to accusations of racism.
Why?
Because Democrats have successfully obscured the difference between legal and illegal immigration.
Well, Joel, let me interrupt you.
Because he comes here as a quote-unquote immigrant.
And so if you attack illegal immigration, you are then cast as attacking all immigrants, meaning you are racist, because immigrants are people from other countries.
Oftentimes, they are brown or black, or myself, I'm white, but whatever.
I happen to be an immigrant, but okay.
So Democrats have basically identified Trump's criticism of illegal immigration with racism.
Hence, anything Trump does to secure the border is by definition racist.
Let me interrupt for a second, Joel.
They write themselves up to a frenzy where anything he does about this is seen as a racial incitement, and hence the impasse that our country is at today.
All right, listen, I mean, you and I have talked about immigration on several occasions, and I think I agree with your assessment.
Guns, Violence, and Mass Shootings00:08:28
But how did we get from talking about mass shooters to immigration?
I know that Trump has mentioned immigration a few times in the last few days, but isn't the center of this debate firearms and banning guns and seizing guns and gun culture?
I mean, that's certainly what the left is talking about.
Yes, there are some absurd accusations that Trump stimulated this with his talk, but isn't the battle this moment another battle over firearms?
The firearms are not an issue that can be resolved.
It's not possible to resolve the issue.
That doesn't mean you don't try to make it better.
You don't try to manage the problem of violence.
But you have a country, first of all, with hundreds of millions of guns.
So even if you decided that guns were the problem, there's really no way to get rid of them unless you can invent some kind of a magnet that you can place over the country that only attracts guns to it.
I mean, it's not going to happen.
People are not going to give up their firearms, mostly because the purpose of the Second Amendment is deeply ingrained in American culture, which is to protect the citizens from tyranny.
And if you don't think tyranny is possible, just look at what the Democrats are doing and proposing, and then you understand why people want to be armed.
Not because they want to attack the government, but because people feel it's the ultimate safeguard against a government that takes away their rights.
So that's number one.
Can't be done.
Number two, it's not clear that guns are the problem.
And in fact, in some cases, guns are the solution.
Remember, not too long ago at the mass shooting at a church in Texas, it was a gun that stopped the shooting.
A neighbor with an AR-15 stopped the mass shooter and shot at him, causing him to flee and eventually be apprehended by police.
Actually, I think he killed himself during a conference or before the police arrived, but basically he ran away because he was fired at by a neighbor with a gun.
That doesn't happen in every situation, but it does happen often enough.
And there is no way you're going to convince Americans, at least a significant, at least minority of Americans, that giving up guns is the solution to acts of mass violence.
In fact, as more guns have appeared in American society, as more guns have been sold and bought, you've seen fewer. of these mass shootings.
Crime has actually gone down in most places, even though guns have gone up.
And that's the opposite of what gun control activists want you to believe.
Now, we don't want guns to be held by people with mental illnesses and so forth.
And there's a mental health aspect of this that really is something we can work on.
It's not going to solve the problem completely, but there's an element of it that is there.
Many cases, such as the Ohio shooter or the Parkland shooter last year, in many cases, there were warning signs that these people were mentally disturbed.
There had been police calls that were overlooked.
And that's what these red flag laws are aiming at.
That's why the president is going there, because he's seeing that state authorities and local authorities are often not doing enough.
They have laws in place to do this already, but the red flag idea is we're going to give the states more resources to do it.
So there's no excuse not to do it, not to take guns away from someone who's mentally unstable, who's made threats, as the Dayton shooter had already made to several people, of shooting up a bar.
I mean, in many of these cases, the shooters are known.
Their intentions are known beforehand, and nothing is done.
So there's something we can work on.
But in general, this is a problem that is very, very difficult to control.
You can't stop it by calling it domestic white supremacist terrorism or whatever, because we have laws against terrorism already.
You can't solve it.
You know, the president talked about video games.
You're not going to solve it through video games.
I mean, I think violent video games could be part of the problem.
There's some scientific questions about that, but I am disturbed by the kind of video games people play.
But look, this is a very difficult thing to solve.
The good news is it is getting better over time.
The bad news is we don't have one magic solution that fixes it.
And I think if you start making guns the issue, you're going to create more division in the country because people like their guns.
They don't want to give them up.
It's a deeply divisive issue.
And it's not really going to have an impact.
In California, we have some of the most strict gun control regulations anywhere in the country.
We had a mass shooting not 10 days ago at an outdoor festival.
It hasn't really helped much in California.
Now, you could say, well, they're getting guns and ammunition from other places, but in many cases, they're buying the guns here in California.
So this is not an easy problem to solve.
Anyone pretending it's an easy problem to solve and the only problem is president or the right wing or the National Rifle Association, that's just a way of ginning up political division because you're just telling Americans that the problem are these people on the other side who we don't like.
Not the problem is complicated and we need to work together to figure out how to make it better.
It's not going to go away.
We are becoming a less violent society over time and that's good.
But this is a country that has, since its founding, accepted the trade-off that with more freedom is going to come more risk.
And that's something that we all choose to live with.
You know, many help me out on this one last point, and thanks very much for giving us so much time today.
Joel, Donald Trump was blamed, including by national public radio and every Democrat, for at least the El Paso violence.
Barack Obama was not blamed for the Sandy Hook mass shooting.
Bill Clinton was not blamed for the Columbine shooting.
And just this past weekend in Canada, it was a long weekend up here, Toronto had so many shootings.
I think it was a record in a bad way.
And Toronto is now on track for a record murder streak.
It has a higher murder rate than New York City.
And yet you don't see that blamed on Justin Trudeau.
So help me understand how gun crime on a Democrat or a liberal's watch is just gun crime, but gun crime on a conservative's watch is the conservative's fault.
How is that happening?
How is that argument being done, being made?
How is it being getting away with, got away with?
You know, the best example, look, there are cases where it would have made no sense whatsoever to blame Bill Clinton or Barack Obama for the mass shootings.
I mean, the Columbine massacre.
These were two very troubled teenagers who carried it out, had nothing to do with politics.
I don't even think they understood anything about politics.
With some of the mass shootings under Obama, I mean, Sandy Hook was a mentally disturbed young man who stole the guns, I believe, or was given guns by his mother and should never have had them and had very troubled family life.
I mean, nothing political about it.
The mass shooting that one could, if one wanted to use the media's logic, the one that one could lay at Obama's door, was the shooting of five Dallas police officers in 2016 at a Black Lives Matter rally.
A crazed activist who empathized with the movement fired at the crowd and shot and killed five Dallas police officers.
Now, nobody actually blamed Obama for that, but you could have.
You could have said he supports this movement and he has used this rhetoric against police and somebody took it too far and he needs to tone it down.
Not only didn't he tone it down, he showed up at the funeral for the police officers and gave some very nice remarks about law enforcement, but then went on to talk about why Black Lives Matter had an important point we all should listen to.
So, you know, you could have done that, but people didn't.
People didn't do it.
You could also say that Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders and others on the left inspired the shooter at the Republican baseball practice in 2017.
There was a mass shooter who luckily didn't kill anybody, but he injured many people, including Steve Scalise, the majority whip of the Republican House at the time.
He showed up and he was a Bernie Sanders fan and he watched Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.
And he believed a lot of the crazy things the left said about Donald Trump and he showed up with a gun.
So one could, and a few people did start to say the Democratic Party has blood on its hands in the media for the way they've ginned up all this anti-Trump hatred, but even that was pretty muted.
The reason people are doing it with Trump is very simple.
The media believe this and they want it to be true and they want to get rid of Trump.
This is an effective way of making people afraid, not just of Trump, but afraid to identify with Trump.
They want to make him toxic so that voters don't go anywhere near him, that you can't wear your Trump t-shirt outdoors, that wearing a MAGA hat becomes an incitement to violence.
Corey Booker today called for banning all future Trump campaign rallies because he said that they provide incentives or inspiration for white supremacist terrorism.
Garbage Problems Expose City's Squalor00:04:06
I mean, this is where we've come.
This is because the media are trying to make sure Trump doesn't win in 2020 and they're trying to drown him out and demonize his supporters.
It's entirely political.
There's no evidentiary basis for any connection between what Trump has said and what these killers are doing.
The evidentiary basis is as strong, if not stronger, on the Democratic side.
You don't see conservatives doing what the media on the left, which is basically all the media, you don't see them doing to liberals what the media are doing to conservatives.
Joel, it's great to talk with you.
Thanks so much for giving us so much insight.
Thank you.
All right.
There you have it Joel Pollock Sr., editor-at-large at Breitbark.com.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back on my special episode yesterday from Baltimore.
Dan writes, an independent Canadian news organization making waves in the larger world.
I sure wish people would sit up and take notice, getting exposed to the truth in the process.
Well, I enjoyed the trip to Baltimore, and I'm very glad I had Kimberly as my guide.
And it was very friendly, and I felt very safe the whole time.
And I was glad she was with me.
It gave me courage to do some reporting.
We did see a rat.
I'm from Alberta, which has no rats, as you may know.
It was a little bit startling.
But these people just wanted little problems solved.
And they're not political, like getting more than one little garbage bin for your whole family.
That's not a left-wing, right-wing thing.
It's just a can you run a city thing.
Having garbage picked up, dealing with abandoned homes, that's not even a Republican-Democrat thing.
It's just don't you even care about your own people sort of thing.
And when you've been a Democrat who's been re-elected 40 years in a row, I guess you just don't need to care anymore.
Stephen Wrights, maybe if enough people see the mass and the squalor, the Democrats might get voted out.
Yeah, you know what?
I have to tell you, the people there, they weren't even thinking Democrat-Republican.
They were just thinking, we got rats, we got drugs.
I saw the grossest things there.
And, you know, conservatives might say, well, come on, buck up, buttercup, clean up your own neighborhood, clean up the dirty syringes, the used condoms, and the jars of urine, which is the weirdest thing I saw there.
Yeah, you have no idea how much garbage there was.
And like I say, these people don't have cars.
And they only have their small garbage bins, and the city may or may not pick it up.
So they actually can't.
I know that sounds crazy.
Well, take out your garbage.
Paint the place.
The problem is too large for individuals without resources to do.
And the irony is that their very powerful congressman, Elijah Cummings, was just five minutes away from the squalor, on a nice street, by the way.
And it was like he's five million miles away.
Robert Wrights, it's almost like far-left liberals everywhere don't really care about the citizens of their own countries.
Yeah, it was very sad.
I saw a lot of shocking things.
I saw people just absolutely high on drugs going through bizarre physical reactions just on the street.
I saw lots of gangs hanging out.
And you can sort of realize why so many people have fled the hood.
What was so weird to me is that half the houses on the street were empty.
And they were either falling down like trees growing in them or drug users or homeless people were in the abandoned houses.
That's a problem bigger than what a neighborhood can solve on its own.
And shame on the Democrats for letting the city go that way.
And you know it's the same in urban slums in other Democrat-run cities like Detroit or parts of Chicago or D.C. itself.
Well, that was the show yesterday.
That was my trip.
I'm glad to have done it.
I hope to do other shows from the road.
I wasn't great at holding the selfie stick level and steady, but I'll get better over time, I hope.
All right, folks, until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.