Ezra Levant and Andrew Scheer clash over Trudeau’s 350,000-annual-immigration plan, which Scheer endorsed after CBC’s Rosemary Barton pressured him—despite evading the question seven times earlier. Levant argues it’s politically driven, favoring non-economic immigrants like elderly dependents with no language skills over skilled workers, while citing 6% public support and housing/healthcare strains. Alberta’s Lauren Gunter warns of separatist backlash if Trudeau wins again, linking his policies to perceived betrayals on pipelines. The episode ties media bias—like CBC’s delayed blackface photos—to broader corruption, with a $10K legal challenge pending against Trudeau’s hand-picked debates commission for blocking journalists, exposing systemic manipulation. [Automatically generated summary]
I asked a question of Andrew Scheer about seven times two years ago and he never answered me and he went through life never answering it.
And then he went on the CBC with Rosemary Barton and was asked the same question and he didn't answer it.
But then she pressed him again and he answered it.
And the question is, how many immigrants do you think Canada should take every year?
And he finally answered it.
I'll play you the clip where he does.
Hey, before I go and let you listen to the podcast, please consider signing up for the video version of the podcast.
I do this show every day.
You also get access to Sheila Gonrid's show and David Menzie's show, all for becoming a premium subscriber.
Just go to premium.rebelnews.com and sign up there.
It's eight bucks a month.
What a bargain.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, Andrew Scheer wilts under CBC pressure and endorses Justin Trudeau's plan to raise Canadian immigration to 350,000 people a year.
It's October 4th, 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'm publishing it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Andrew Scheer has made it official.
He now agrees with Justin Trudeau and Ahmed Hussain.
Canada should increase our immigration, increase it to an astonishing, unprecedented level of 350,000 people a year, more than a million more people in three years.
Not surprisingly, he made that statement to Trudeau's CBC State broadcaster, to Trudeau's number one fangirl, Rosemary Barton, the one who takes selfies with Trudeau, the one who goes on platonic dates with Trudeau and asks him, what are you listening to on your iPod these days?
And hey, what books are you reading?
And how come you're so dreamy?
All right, I made that last one up.
So Rosemary Barton asked Andrew Scheer about immigration levels.
And as usual, Andrew Scheer evaded the question.
Can you tell me immigration levels?
I'm not sure that you've said yet what your immigration levels are going to set them at.
What number are you looking at?
Is it as high as what the Liberals have now, given our aging demographic?
Or where is your head at for that?
Well, this is an excellent question because I really do believe that this should be a number that is not politicized in nature.
This should be a number that is arrived at when Statistics Canada and experts in various fields say we need this many people to come to fulfill the gaps in the workplace or to ensure that we have a growing population combined with a humanitarian component for family reunification and refugees.
So there will be some who will have an auction to go higher and higher and some parties will have an auction to go lower and lower to kind of politicize it.
But what I'm saying is it shouldn't be a subject of politicization.
I think Canadians have confidence in their immigration system when it's working right, which is why we want to address the issue at the borders so that people can see and have confidence that our immigration program is based on orderliness, fairness, and compassion.
So he didn't answer, did he?
He did say other things, though, and they're just not correct.
Immigration levels are always a political decision.
It's not just an expert decision that's done by some panel of high priests who are unquestionable.
It's not something that a computer just spits out and you do it because there are experts who want less immigration and there are experts who want more immigration.
It is the political leader's decision to decide amongst those choices.
That's his job, actually.
Expert reasons for less immigration include lowering housing costs, especially in the big cities, reducing traffic, reducing demands on hospital waiting lists, raising wages for Canadians.
Those are factual reasons that an expert might cite.
I acknowledge that there are also reasons an expert could cite for more immigration too.
I find them less persuasive.
If you're a landlord, you like having so many more people trying to buy your house or rent your house.
If you're an employer, especially at a place like Tim Horton's, you love plentiful, cheap, low-skill workers coming in to lower and drive down your wages.
If you're in government, if you're a bureaucrat of some sort, there's more people to manage, more programs to oversee.
And of course, the real reason the Liberals love immigration is because they tailor immigration for their own partisan purposes.
Here's Ahmed Hassan campaigning in Canada.
I love that.
That's amazing.
Do you think his choice of a thousand Somali migrants might just be a little bit political as opposed to bringing in a thousand, oh, I don't know, cowboys from Texas?
Yeah, that's an expert reason.
Trudeau loves campaigning in mosques.
He sews up the Muslim vote there.
There's always a woman in the hijab strategically nearby him, but he makes sure not to have pictures with women in full face obscuring niqabs.
That would be too far.
He says it himself.
There is no mosque in Canada that he won't campaign in.
He'll even boast about campaigning in the al-Qaeda-linked Asuna Wahhabi Mosque in Montreal.
I spend a lot of time running from the Bangladeshi to the Pakistani to the Maghrebi to the Asuna Wahhabi Mosque.
Yeah, that's where the terrorists came from.
So yeah, that's an expert reason to increase immigration to 350,000 people a year, especially if you're choosing them.
By the way, the entire United States, they take about 1 million immigrants a year.
Canada is one-tenth their population.
We're taking 350,000 a year now.
We're literally taking triple the number of migrants they are proportionately.
I can assure you, it is not for economic purposes.
It's for political purposes.
It's not an expert economic decision by Statistics Canada, or if it is, there is no expert in any other country anywhere in the world who has come to the same conclusion.
The 350,000 person a year plan by Hassan and Trudeau is not an economic plan.
Here is their own document.
This is their own plan.
Fewer than half of them could even be classified as economic or skilled immigrants.
The rest would be refugees or dependent family members.
So maybe one skilled worker would come and then he'd bring his old grandma and grandpa, maybe from Pakistan, didn't have any economic skills, but boy, they sure look forward to receiving their Canadian pension and Canadian health care in their golden years.
So Andrew Scheer tried to evade the question, as he always has.
He has literally never gone on record before about what his number would be.
Can you imagine that?
He became leader of the Conservative Party without ever answering the question.
He's been the leader for more than a year without ever answering the question.
And he tried again on the CBC not to answer the question.
Oh, I know what that's like.
In fact, me asking him that same question is precisely why he quit talking to the rebel.
It was actually last time he and I spoke.
He was running for the Conservative Party leadership.
And I had the temerity to ask him what he thought the number of immigrants should be that Canada should take.
And he just wouldn't answer me.
Remember this?
Well, McCallum has said he's going to jack up the numbers probably by 100,000.
Do you oppose that?
Well, what's that based on?
Yeah, so if it's not based on something logical or coherent, then I think it's just a political target aimed at trying to win over a segment of the electorate.
I'm not going to do that.
One of the constraints...
Are you against that?
Well, I am against a policy that just throws a number out for shock value or to try to gain attention.
I want our immigration policy to be based on what the needs of the economy are, what the needs of our society are, and then let's arrive at a number.
And then that'll be defensible.
I think your point is right.
There are areas where people are looking at saying, well, do we need that many in this region?
If it's based on common sense or logic, I think Canadians will be comfortable with that.
But I don't think that they're comfortable with just a number for the sake of having a really big number.
I wasn't asking for shock value or for attention.
I was asking what his number is.
He had been an MP for more than 10 years now.
He hadn't thought about it.
He also evaded my question about cultural fit.
Would he take just anyone who wanted to come, even if they had anti-Canadian cultural views, such as if they didn't believe in the equality of men and women or if they didn't believe in the separation of mosque and state?
He would not answer me on that either.
I'm talking about someone who, let's say, believes in polygamy or believes in the subjugation of women or believes in Islamic supremacism.
That's not violence.
No, no.
But when you talk about the practical methods of dealing with immigrants, here's a one-page questionnaire, and is that effective?
I don't know.
Are we going to police what's going on in people's minds?
Is there room in a country for a difference of opinion on some issues that you might define as a Canadian value?
Kelly might have something else, or a liberal might think that certain positions should be kept out.
Are these types of things going to be applied to Orthodox Jews or devout Christians coming from other places that might not run?
Yeah, but it would be the lead of things.
So that's why I'm not focused on those types of things.
Yes, I think Canadians want to see new immigrants come here and integrate and embrace and celebrate our Canadian history, the rule of law, our Westminster system, the equality of men and women.
Those are all things, absolutely, yes.
And we should promote and ensure that new Canadians understand that and are willing to accept that.
You know, I went around seven rounds with him.
He never answered me once.
It got tenser and tenser, and then he just decided never to talk to us again.
But when Rosemary Barton put the follow-up question to him about the number of migrants this week, he actually answered, here, take a look.
But you still didn't give a number, and you would have to set a target as government.
That's part of your job, is to set a government.
So if a level.
So if the target right now is 350,000 immigrants by 2021, is that about what you're looking at?
I think that's reasonable.
Yeah, and again, as long as that's coming from facts, from evidence, from a look at the situation and an understanding of where our society has needs, then absolutely.
So I think that's reasonable.
Yeah, absolutely.
You heard him.
The largest immigration numbers in Canadian history, more than any other country in the world proportionately, triple the rate of the U.S. proportionately.
And this approach that Ahmed Hassan has outlined that he agrees to, most of the new migrants will not be economic.
They will not work.
They'll either be outright refugees or old unskilled grandmas and grandpas, likely with no English or French fluency.
Couldn't even work the low-wage jobs at Tim Hortons.
They'll just take the pension in their hospital room.
And that's reasonable, says Andrew Scheer.
And how could he even say that, though?
He just said a moment earlier that he wanted to examine the scientific facts from Statistics Canada or other experts.
So how could he then just pronounce that Ahmed Hassan and Justin Trudeau have it just right?
So he just said to her he would study the science, but then he immediately caved to her.
Well, because it's not a scientific fact from Statistics Canada.
That's not what political decisions are made from.
It's about Andrew Scheer being afraid of the CBC, being afraid of the media party.
He didn't want to evade Rosemary Barton a third time because he's afraid of her.
It's 100% the same reason why he caved in on global warming, because in an interview, a reporter named Evan Solomon asked him about it, and Andrew Scheer didn't want 30 seconds of discomfort on TV, so he just caved and made policy on the fly.
He said, Evan, whatever you want.
Remember this?
I'm just asking, because you know, this is the big issue, because it ties in with pipelines, as you said.
The former Harper regulations would not come close to meeting the targets that the Harper government set, and you want to keep those.
Will you unveil a plan that will actually meet the Paris targets?
Of course I will unveil a plan that reaches the targets that we have already voted in favor of.
We believe that Canada has to be part of the solution.
We want to have, we will, we will have a meaningful plan to reduce emissions.
He made up his policy right on the fly.
He just made it up.
You know, back to immigration, you know that only 6% of Canadians agree with Ahmed Hassan's extreme position, now Andrew Scheer's extreme position.
The 350,000 figure that Scheer says is so sensible, we're not even at that yet.
That is an increase from where we are now.
No one wants that.
Well, sorry, 6% of Canadians want that, according to the Angus Reed poll and every other poll I've seen.
6% want more immigration.
That's almost less than the margin of error.
So basically, it's journalists and Liberal Party executives and immigration lawyers.
That's about it.
Obviously, even most Canadian immigrants don't want that if it's just 6%.
Look, we need to absorb immigrants and integrate them, learn the language, fit in, become part of our Canadian system.
Rather than just stacking up migrants in urban refugee camps like the Radisson Toronto East or allowing a free-for-all at the border.
Hey, Conservatives, if you would have known this fact two years ago, if Andrew Scheer would have told you back then, back then, rather than telling the CBC this now, would you have chosen him as party leader?
Alberta's Black Pill00:12:08
Do you suddenly, do you suddenly support open border mass migration just because the Conservative Party leader doesn't have the personal ability to say no to a CBC journalist in the heat of the moment?
Stay with us for more.
Well, listen, I've been traveling around the country a little bit.
Yesterday I actually went to Winnipeg.
I was in Calgary and Edmonton.
that I've been scooching around, not as much as our 1B swarms.
That's what I call Keen and David and Sheila.
But I love checking in with Lauren Gunter because he gives me the pulse of the West, especially of Alberta.
Now, I think we know Alberta is going to go pretty much 100% conservative, but it's the ideas and the way the campaign is observed out there that I really want to hear about.
And joining me now via Skype is our friend Lauren Gunter.
Lauren, great to see you again.
Good to see you.
I think that the only question is, will the Conservatives get all of the seats in Alberta or maybe all minus one?
So that's not what's interesting.
What I want to get from you, if I may, is the point of view that's outside of the Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal triangle, the echo chamber, the Me Too is when I say Me Too, I don't mean in the sexual misconduct way, in the ditto, dido, diddo, the repeaters out here.
How is this election being viewed outside the golden triangle?
I think an awful lot of people are having trouble wrapping their minds around the possibility that the liberals could actually win because no one that they talk to is going to support the liberals.
I think you're absolutely right.
I think we're headed for 34 of 34 conservative seats in Alberta.
That would be similar to 1982 after Justin's daddy had brought in the national energy program.
Alberta voted, I think at that time we had 21 MPs.
We voted 21 of 21 conservatives.
Even Edmonton, which is known, nicknamed Redmonton, votes overwhelmingly conservative at the federal level.
And so I think you might see Edmonton Center, you might see Edmonton Strathcona go to other parties, but by and large, ground, ear to the ground, I think we're going to go 34 of 34.
So, you know, when people out here talk about that, they talk to their friends in BC or they talk to their friends in Manitoba.
It's mostly from resource extracting areas.
And those people aren't voting for Trudeau either.
So I think the number one thing people are going to have trouble with is I still think that we're headed for a liberal minority.
I think that possibility has changed dramatically in the last 10 days.
But I still think instead of liberals sniffing at majority, they're still in minority range.
And if Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, plus the proper Vancouver area foists another liberal government on us, I think there's going to be a kind of, you know, that kind of anger that comes with being surprised.
You know, you're not only angry, you're shocked.
And I think that there's going to be some of that.
You know, when I was out handing out Librano's lawn signs in Calgary and Edmonton, more than a few people came up to me and talked about separatism.
They said, Ezra, we want to talk to you.
You know, we're more, they called it more right-wing than me.
I don't think it's more right-wing than pretty right-wing.
I think what it is, is what the kids would say, black pill.
You know, I don't know.
That language comes from that movie, The Matrix.
You know, take the blue pill, go back to living in a dream, take the red pill, and you wake up to the reality.
It's tough, but it's reality.
So that's what the kids say when they, red pill is to wake up to the tough reality.
But black pill is to be so disillusioned that there's no point to anything like the black, the color of death and hopelessness.
And what I'm seeing from Albertans is they've been red-pilled on Trudeau since day one.
And if he wins again, despite Alberta allegedly being in, you know, Stephen Harper made a lot of Westerners think, okay, we can be in this country as equals.
We're still given a lot more financially, but good enough.
The black pill will set in and people will say, what is the point?
There will no longer be constructive goodwill because everything's been gutted and now it's just leave, get the hell out.
I don't even want to participate.
That's what I sensed.
Yeah, you might have noticed yesterday in the National Post, Brad Wall, the former Premier of Saskatchewan, who, if he were a national conservative leader right now, would be looking at 200-plus seats.
Brad Wall had a piece where he said Trudeau will not commit any right.
Trudeau will not commit to building Trans Mountain at any cost.
And I think the reason for that is that they're looking at the Liberal war room at a minority win.
They know they're going to be held in power either by the NDP or the Greens or some combination of the two, both of whom want to kill Trans Mountain.
And the price of joining in a coalition with the Liberals, a formal or informal coalition, will be the death of Trans Mountain.
At which point, I can't predict what's going to happen here.
There is an awful lot of anger out there already.
And I'm not trying to suggest, you know, yeah, you know, vote out the Liberals or we're going to leave.
But there is really a strong sense out there that we've been down this road before two or three times.
Yeah, fool me once, shame on me.
Fool me four times.
I'm out of here.
Well, it's not just that.
I mean, I was saying to an Albertan the other day, at least when Pierre Trudeau came, he wasn't actually trying to get people to stop drilling for oil.
He was just trying to steal it.
So, you know, you can't steal something that's not made.
So Trudeau, in the end, he did grievously harm the industry, but I don't think that was his goal.
I think his goal was to transfer the wealth to Quebec, which the precondition is that there is wealth.
But Justin Trudeau and his Rasputin-like figure, Gerald Butts, they're utopian in this strange way, never having lived in any real life, just in think tanks and TED talks.
Yeah, exactly.
Podcasts.
They're podcasts.
Yeah, that's right.
And so when they, they're not coming to I remember the name of one of Papa Trudeau's taxes.
It was called the PGRT, the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax.
Okay, so it's a huge tax.
Even the carbon tax is a huge tax.
But you need a pipeline for oil to tax it.
They don't even really, they would prefer not to have oil and not to tax it.
And my point is, and sorry for taking so long to make it, and I'll throw it back to you, Lauren.
If you're an Alberta oil man, it's one thing for someone to say, hey, can I put another load on your shoulders to carry?
You're so broad-shouldered.
Can you carry more?
But it's another to say, you know what?
There is no way you will even be able to do this.
We don't even want you to work.
There's no solution here.
There's no compromise here.
You will be ended.
It's actually not them that's being blackpilled.
The black pill is being done to them.
They're being extinguished, terminated, extincted.
And what other country in the world with resources is doing the same thing?
Yeah.
Well, I mean, no one would say, like, there's problems in the fisheries.
There's problems in the auto sector.
There's problems in the steel sector.
But none of those is the government saying, wow, this is amazing.
There's so many cod, but we're banning it because we're against catching fish.
Or, wow, those cars are amazing.
You've got a huge market, but we're against it for whatever.
So there are other economic problems in this country and they're not being solved well, but they are not purely government creations.
Right, right.
If the government got out of the way and we got one obstinate government out of the way in April when Albertans voted out the NDP, if you got government out of the way and let the industry within sensible parameters with keen regulations on environment and wage equity and all whatever else you want to do, if you simply said, hey, we really want you to produce oil and bitumen.
We just want you to do it with these conditions, we'd be back into another boom because look at the Americans.
American production in oil has gone up over 40% in the last five years.
Since the big crisis in 2014 and 2015, they have recovered and then some.
Ours has not gone up at all.
It's marginally gone up.
But even so, it's got nowhere to go.
I noticed the other day there was a story about this innovative company in Alberta who decided to solidify bitumen so it can be shipped in rail containers, in the boxes that fit on the backs of flatbed cars on trains.
There is just so much demand for oil, and we are pretending like oil was on the way out.
It's something that like buggy whips.
Everyone used to have to have one, but now nobody needs them anymore.
And so we can just ignore it.
It's absolute economic insanity.
Yeah.
Yeah, it's crazy.
I want to switch gears to the campaigning end, but you're so right on that.
And I'm worried about Alberta because, you know, Preston Manning, his answer was the West wants in.
That was a reaction and a rebuttal to the West Wants Out, Doug Christie's Western Canada concept.
In a way, Stephen Harper, his message was, I'll bring you in.
We don't even need to say the message.
The West will be in and there'll be peace.
And there was.
And actually, Quebec separatism died under Stephen Harper, too.
But I don't even think, I mean, what could Jason Kenney say?
What could Brad Wall say if Trudeau was re-elected again?
Because not only will it factually, the pipeline be stopped, but what would Trudeau, why would Trudeau be wrong if he said, you have vindicated me.
You've vindicated me on the substance of blocking pipelines and the car.
Every barista in downtown Toronto who has no clue where the money comes from to buy the coffee they're pushing has decided they don't want pipelines because those are messy.
We now have the idea about natural resources that we have had for many generations about the food in the grocery store.
We don't like the idea that cattle are butchered, but we sure love beef.
And we've made this great disconnect between, well, milk involves milking cattle, milking cows, but we don't like to think of that.
Milk is just produced in the back behind those swinging doors near the produce section.
And so we'd love to have all of the fancy social programs and the big government spending that is funded in large part by natural resources, not just oil and gas, but also by mining, forestry, all the things that we have in plentitude in Canada.
Disconnecting Reality00:05:51
We'd love to have all that.
But now there's a whole generation of people.
In fact, we're on to the second generation of people who have no clue where that comes from.
Yeah.
Well, and you talked about the wealth that comes from oil.
Let's just talk about the oil itself.
I'd like to see the fancy pants who fly every day out of Toronto Pearson Airport or Vancouver's airport.
Let's go without jet fuel for one month and see how you guys do.
Let the liberal campaign go without jet fuel for one of its jobs.
I don't care.
They can have the other one.
Well, you bring me back to the point I was going to make.
Apparently, having two campaign jets, one for all Trudeau's stuff, in addition to one for the people, was not only the worst kept secret in the press gallery this time, but he did it in 2015 as well.
But not a single media outlet covered it.
And I saw Althea Raj of the CBC and an American gossip site, Huffington Post.
Althea Raj said, oh, well, I thought everyone knew.
I mean, come on, everyone's talking about it, but it's not news.
Yeah, it is news, sister, because he didn't publish it.
But it made me think of this, and I'd like your answer on this, my friend.
When Time magazine published the blackface photo of Trudeau as Aladdin, Aladdin in Blackface, I've watched the Aladdin movie.
He ain't black, but Trudeau blacked him up.
So Time Magazine published that.
It was quite a thing.
And it happened in the evening, I remember.
It was very exciting.
And Trudeau actually was on the plane when it broke, and he had a mid-aircraft press conference.
It was quite dramatic.
Within an hour, Lauren, Global News released a video they obviously had had before, a video, the blackface video.
And then I think it was the CBC that released another blackface photo of Trudeau when he was younger.
So here's my point.
And it's the same point I was making about Althea Raj keeping the secret for Trudeau about the two planes.
Time magazine published.
Obviously, the CBC and Global had their blackface photo in their pocket that they had not chosen to publish.
They only did after Time broke the cartel of silence, the conspiracy of silence.
That's outrageous to me.
That's a deeply racist thing, blackface.
It has a special meaning.
It's not just someone dressing up like a cowboy.
It has a meaning rooted in what blacks were as slaves and their place as slaves.
And the fact that the media withheld that tells me how could you trust the damn thing they say?
The one that really bothers me is that the video of him with a t-shirt that has bananas on the front, an Afro wig, and blackface.
Because he's clearly implying that black people are apes.
Yeah.
And maybe no one was sitting on that.
Maybe someone had that on their own.
No, no, no.
Global had that.
That was the low-res version.
Global had the low-res version, and the star later released the high-res version.
Global had that.
You know, the point that I think is salient is not that they had it and they didn't release it.
I think that's wrong.
I think that's doctoring the news.
I think that approaches fake news because you aren't telling the whole truth.
The point is, this makes sense, I think, if you're sitting in downtown Toronto, where Justin Trudeau is still much beloved.
I think it makes sense if you're sitting in Ottawa, where you think your job is on the line and your prominent place in Canadian policy and culture is dependent on the liberals winning again.
And it makes sense if you're in Montreal, where this is your native son.
Remember the old U.S. presidential conventions, the nominating conventions, they would say, you know, this great state of Iowa casts all its 172 votes for the native son such.
That's the sort of attitude they have towards Trudeau there.
But outside that, the rest of the country is very different.
And unfortunately, there are just enough seats in Atlantic Canada, the Golden Triangle, and Vancouver proper to return the liberals.
And, you know, then their media buddies are going to be claiming, as they did for years and years and years and years and years, they're a national party.
They're the only national party.
Well, it's not only going to be taken as a vindication of the substance of him, but of his corrupt style.
And there was a brief moment, you could measure it in minutes, where there's a bit of shame in the Liberal Party, where Jodi Wilson-Raybold had not yet quit.
And if you recall, she made certain demands that Gerald Butts be given the boots.
She had a few demands, and there's this brief period where Trudeau thought he could keep her in.
And so he was acceding to those demands.
And Butts left in disgrace for a New York lobby shop called the Eurasian Group.
And it looked like there was some honor being restored thanks to Jodie Wilson-Raybold.
Well, Trudeau overplayed it, said, ha ha, obviously she still likes me because she's here, and she quit immediately.
But look at Gerald Butts just coming right back in.
How long, that would be a good unit of measurement.
You have what's called the Angstrom unit, which I think is still the smallest unit of measurement available in science.
The liberal shame unit would be half that size.
It takes them less than an angstrom unit to get over any shameful thing they do and realize that the number one objective of every liberal is to retain power.
Lying Becomes Truth00:02:54
They don't care what they do with the power.
It's just to have the power is the number one objective of the Liberal Party.
Power above all else is the motto over their door at their Bank Street headquarters.
And it doesn't matter what they do.
They are capable of absolving themselves, of giving themselves penance, of washing away all their sins in the blink of an eye if it comes down to their power.
You know, let me close with something that's sort of obvious, but maybe sometimes we have to hear the obvious spoken plainly.
And I guess I always knew it, but I actually had to hear Jordan Peterson say it to me.
I asked him once, should a college kid lie in an essay and pretend he's liberal to get a good grade?
If he tells the truth and he's conservative, he'll get a bad grade.
Should he just lie and fake it and get the good grade and get out?
That's a real question.
And his answer to me was, no, you shouldn't lie.
And he had two parts to it.
The first part was, because most professors really aren't that vindictive.
I think he's wrong.
But the second part was what stayed with me.
He said, because if you tell a lie, that changes who you are.
And you become what you do.
And now you're a liar.
And you know you're a liar, even if no one else does.
And now in your mind, you have lied for your own self-interest.
You got ahead through lying.
And now you're a liar, and you know you're a liar, and that's who you are.
And he said it much more elegantly than that, but it hit me.
The biggest punishment of lying is that you become a liar.
And here's, and I'm sorry for this long anecdote, but it comes to this.
If you renew the lease on power of a corrupt group of liars who tried to interfere with a criminal court prosecution, if you approve that, if you grant that, if you normalize that, that is now what Canada is.
And Trudeau can truly say, you approved it.
I was the first prime minister in history to be convicted not once, but five times of violation of the Conflict of Interest Act.
And you said it's okay.
That's not just who I am now.
That's who you are now.
You are me now.
I think that's valid.
And the other thing about lying is that if you do it often enough, it becomes the truth to you.
You lose that ability to see where the lie ends and the truth begins or vice versa.
And then it all becomes obscured.
And keeping yourself in the position you're in, whether it's power in government or wealth or a position of authority in your school district, doesn't matter.
That becomes the only thing that matters because staying in your position is the only thing you have left to cling to.
Shocking Monday Revelations00:04:13
You don't have the truth to cling to anymore.
Yeah.
I tell you, these are very momentous days.
Lauren, it's great to talk to you.
Thank you for joining us from Edmonton and giving us your point of view.
It's always nice to see you, my friend.
Will do.
All right, there you have it.
Lauren Gunter, senior columnist of the Edmonton Sun, joining us via Skype from the capital city of the Wild Rose Province.
Stay with us.
There's more ahead on the road.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue yesterday about left-wing media altering photos of Donald Trump.
Revelation, right?
We all know about the fake photos of fires and the like, but the more subtle stuff is probably even more powerful as it's subliminal.
Well, that's the thing.
And it took a photographer to convince me of this.
I like to think that video is persuasive.
Yeah, but it takes a lot of it.
You got to pay attention to a video.
You got to understand what you're seeing.
You've got to listen to it.
But a photo is instant.
You don't even notice you're seeing what you're seeing.
It is an instant propaganda device.
Video takes time.
Print takes time and effort.
Jan writes, as they say, a picture paints a thousand words.
Commercials use this imprinting technique.
It only takes seconds of showing an image or picture to imprint the subliminal or underlying message they want the viewer to react to or remember.
That's right.
I mean, with Trump, it's just so off the hook.
And it's not even Trump, it's Melania.
The most beautiful First Lady since Jackie O, perhaps of all time.
I mean, exquisite international supermodel who suddenly has been scowling for three years straight, sir, I don't buy it.
I think she's a normal person who, if there are photos of her smiling, those are garbaged, and only the sullen or sad ones are used.
It's outrageous.
It's propaganda.
That's the media party for you.
You can't even trust the pictures.
Edward writes, it's the pictures where the mouth is left agape that are awful or the ones where he is smiling so broadly.
I can hear the Grinch theme song playing in my mind.
Overall, Trump has done quite well despite the whole damn system being rigged against him.
Yeah, I mean, I'd say there's two things.
First of all, people have alternative media sources, like YouTube, social media.
And the second is they're so desperate for someone to fight back against the media party mob that they would say, well, even if he is that absurd, even if he does look that way, even if his face is that orange, we like him anyway.
The fact that he's still at 53% approval compared to Trudeau's 33%, despite a wall of media hate, shows how good he must be.
Well, folks, that's our shows for today.
Can I invite you to do one thing before I say goodbye?
We learned today that Justin Trudeau's hand-picked debates commission is blocking rebel journalists from attending even in the audience of the one and only English language leaders debate on Monday.
And they, in a very cowardly way, only told us today.
Debates on Monday.
But we have retained a law firm to work all weekend, and we will be appearing in federal court on Monday, seeking an emergency injunction to allow our reporters into the event.
To learn more about this, go to letusreport.com.
And I want to tell you, I'm going to tell you exactly how much money I paid the law firm today.
I paid them $10,000.
I know that sounds like a shocking amount of money, isn't it?
We got two lawyers working all weekend and then appearing in court on Monday.
That's how $10,000 goes.
I know that is a shocking amount of money.
We're not doing it for the money.
We're doing it because this cannot stand.
And if you agree with me that Kian Bexti and David Menzies, who properly applied, should be allowed to attend this debate like any other journalist in the country, then please go to lettucereport.com and please help me cover this $10,000 fee.
I paid the money today in advance because the lawyers are going to be working all weekend and they'll be in court on Monday.
So if you can help me out, please do.
All right, folks, that's the show for today.
Until Monday, when we'll have much more news for you.