Karina Gould and Justin Trudeau pushed election-season internet censorship claims, citing fabricated threats like "assassination plots" from discredited sources like Michael Wernick. The CBC and CTV amplified baseless accusations—0.6% of Twitter mentions were low-credibility—while suppressing voices like True North and WEXIT separatists. Trump’s ISIS raid, including Abu Akar al-Baghdadi’s death, was downplayed by global media, contrasting with Obama’s bin Laden announcement. Meanwhile, Canada’s 100-million-person lobby ignores stagnant quality-of-life trends as growth drops its global ranking from 7th to 17th, exposing a disconnect between policy and public well-being. [Automatically generated summary]
In today's podcast, I take you through such a predictable and such a lamentable statement by Trudeau's democracy minister, Karina Gould.
She says we have to crack down harder on the internet.
And the CBC and CTV totally agree, but I take you through a story in each of those TV companies, and I show you that it is based on a fabrication.
I think you're going to want to listen to this one.
Before I get out of the way, please consider becoming a video subscriber.
That's what we call, if you get our premium subscriptions, you get the video version for the podcast.
I'll show you all sorts of things.
Just go to premium.rebelnews.com.
It's $8 a month.
If you use the coupon code PODCAST, it's cheaper.
And hey, you're supporting the Rebel, keeping us strong.
So that's premium.rebelnews.com.
Tonight, Justin Trudeau plans to censor the internet even more deeply next election, even though all the evidence shows it's more honest than he is.
It's October 29th, 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 is government.
But why?
It's because it's my bloody right to do so.
Government Credibility Crisis00:15:16
Well, the Canadian election is over, and it was a bit of a dud.
But all sorts of insane things that the media party and the Liberal Party told us would happen just didn't happen.
Do you remember this disgraced crank, the former Privy Council clerk, Michael Wernick?
He was up to his eyeballs in the corruption of the SNC Lavalam matter, and he resigned under an ethical cloud.
One of his last acts in office was to testify before Parliament's Justice Committee, and apropos of nothing, he just went nuts, suggesting that the internet was whipping up assassination attempts or something.
Just 100% kooky like that.
I worry about the rising tide of incitements to violence when people use terms like treason and traitor in open discourse.
Those are the words that lead to assassination.
I'm worried that somebody's going to be shot in this country this year during the political campaign.
What a weirdo.
That didn't happen.
I think that was a pre-hoax.
The whole point was obvious.
The liberals were in deep trouble, and they knew they could get the media party to switch topics by claiming that someone bad, probably a gun-owning right-winger, was trying to assassinate dear Justin.
So everybody, please stop talking about Joni Wilson-Rayball while we talk about this hoax.
It's a trick they tried at the end of the campaign, too, when they were really sagging.
Trudeau entered a packed rally 90 minutes late, surrounded by these SWAT team-style police, and he was wearing a bulletproof vest.
And in a break with all tradition and with any operational security considerations, Trudeau's spin doctors made sure to tell every reporter that there was a real risk to Trudeau's life, everybody.
So he's a brave hero for coming out into the rally anyways.
Now, Trudeau sent his wife and his kids home because apparently it was such a threat.
Did that ring true to you, or was it just another Wernick move?
Why would you send only your own wife and kids home if there was a terrorist threat to the whole room?
Why wouldn't you send the 400 mere citizens in the room home too?
Why would you wait 90 minutes while you assess the risk of the attack of a bomb threat and put on a bulletproof vest and do all that, but not take those 90 minutes just to empty the room, search the room, and then allow people back in, say, through a metal detector?
There wasn't even a guard at the door, but boy, he had a bulletproof vest one.
Why would you do all of that security theater inside the room, but not even have like an usher or like a minimum wage high school kid at the door looking in backpack?
It doesn't add up.
Just a few days later, having Trudeau out, shaking hands in public, unguarded, here just with the crowds and right after the election, the subway in Montreal.
Why would you do that when the so-called terrorists haven't been arrested yet?
Is the threat suddenly gone?
Yeah, it was fake.
It was fake, fake, fake.
We know Trudeau's a fake.
He's a dramatic actor.
This is dramatic acting in the middle of an election for sympathy.
You don't proceed with a rally with 400 people in the room if there's a real terrorist threat.
You don't send your own wife and kids home, but let 400 people proceed without so much as a search.
It was a lie.
And maybe it worked.
Trudeau eked out a minority, and so far as we know, there wasn't any noteworthy interference in the election at all.
I mean, of course, there was interference from big spending dark money groups, whether it was the journalist union called Unifor or from foreign-backed environmental groups.
So yeah, there was actually interference, but nothing online of any substance.
No violence, of course.
I mean, look, online, there was the usual interference, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, censoring conservatives as they always do, but no attempt to hack our election, whatever that would mean.
We don't even use electronic voting booths.
We mark an X on paper.
I'm not sure what hacking an election in Canada would even look like.
And neither does Trudeau or his chief election censor, Karina Gould, the minister in charge, by the way.
She's the one who set up all these censorship panels before the election, including one that Michael Wernick was supposed to chair.
Oh, and by the way, this had the total support of Andrew Scheer.
But there was nothing.
No alarm bells rang.
But you know who wants censorship of the internet even more than Michael Wernick or Justin Trudeau or Karina Gould or Andrew Scheer?
The CBC state broadcaster, because when they think of meddling, what they really mean is someone saying something that's off narrative, something the CBC would disagree with.
Here, let me take you through this incredible story a bit.
The headline on this CBC story is, more needs to be done, Gould says after some online election meddling detected.
Oh, wow, so there was meddling.
Okay.
Well, obviously Gould needs to do what she's doing, plus more than.
The government broadcaster even said so, right?
Let me quote some more.
There were attempts to spread misinformation or disinformation.
Officials confirm.
Well, if the officials confirm it, then it must be true.
The government has to step up its fight against online disinformation in the wake of the federal election, says Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould.
Going forward, there is still a sense that more needs to be done to address the spread of disinformation on social media platforms, Gould said in a statement to CBC News.
There's still a sense that more needs to be done.
What does that mean?
She feels it in her bones or something?
Well, you heard the officials said there were problems.
So what did those officials say?
Who were the officials?
Do we have censorship officials now?
Well, here, let me read from the state broadcaster.
Yes, there have been some activities observed, none of which met the threshold as identified by the panel, said Stefan Schenck, manager of media relations for the Privy Council office.
Therefore, no public communication.
Okay, let me quote the other comment by the same official.
This is all of it.
I'm not leaving anything out that he said in this news report, and there were no other officials quoted.
The panel, that's the panel Michael Wernick was supposed to be on.
made some observations but did not observe a level of activity that would warrant a public announcement or meet the threshold that would then take the next step to make a public announcement on whether Canada's ability to have a free and fair election was compromised.
So there was nothing of note, nothing substantial, nothing significant enough to even mention.
The Geiger counter just didn't ping.
But you saw the CBC headline.
The liberals say more needs to be done.
And what did the government journalist at the CBC write again?
There were attempts to spread misinformation or disinformation officials confirmed.
Well, I just read you every single word quoted from the only official quote in the story.
Did they in fact confirm what the CBC said they confirmed?
They did not.
They confirmed the opposite.
The CBC are lying to you again.
So the CBC looked around and found some foreign corporation in the UK who said, well, they saw some tweets about something.
Let me read you this pitiful attempt by the CBC to justify the panic.
Between 19 and 21 October, 2019, out of 272,964 election 43 in Canadian poly, hashtag mentions, 4,433 were made by 1,669 low-credibility Twitter accounts.
AstroScreens report found.
That's this foreign company.
That's what you got?
1 or 2% of tweets were made by low-credibility accounts.
What's that?
What's a low-credibility account?
I think Catherine McKenna's Twitter account is a low-credibility account because she says she lied.
But you know, I actually gave him some real advice.
I said that if you actually say it louder, we've learned in the House of Commons.
If you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that is your talking point, people will totally believe it.
Hey, kids, friendly advice.
Don't drink and tweet, okay?
Okay, so some foreign company in the UK tells the CBC that they studied a quarter million tweets and they found that 1 or 2% of tweets had low credibility.
So the tweets in the election were like 98% credible.
Let me know when the CBC is that accurate, okay?
I mean, there were a lot of tweets with this clip in them.
The allegations in the Globe story this morning are false.
Neither the current nor the previous Attorney General was ever directed by me or by anyone in my office to take a decision in this matter.
That was from February.
That's Justin Trudeau lying.
Saying that the Globe and Mail's report in February about how he fired Jody Wilson-Raybold for blocking his attempted interference in the criminal trial was false.
He said it was false.
In fact, the story was not false.
It was accurate.
Justin Trudeau was a liar.
Tweets with that video in them were lies.
So does Trudeau count as high credibility or low credibility in the minds of a UK company?
You know, the answer is up to you and me, actually.
It's up to all of us.
That's what a campaign is about, really.
Really, that's what an election is about.
Stripped of its niceties, each party's campaign is really calling the other guy a liar or at least wrong.
But Trudeau and Karina Gould and some weirdo in the UK thinks they get to decide what's credible or not.
Let me quote one more expert for you.
His name is Kevin Chan.
He's the head of Facebook Censorship in Canada, who also just happens by the strangest of coincidences to be a former Liberal Party staffer who worked in the office of the Liberal leader.
What are the odds?
And here's what he says.
Kevin Chan, head of public policy at Facebook Canada, said he was cautiously optimistic that the steps it took to prevent its platform from being used to interfere in the election worked.
He said Facebook did see some signs of attempts at voter suppression, such as posts suggesting supporters of different parties were supposed to vote on different days.
For us, it's very hard to know if they were joking or it was a satire or was it something nefarious, Chan said.
We do have a voter suppression policy in our community standards, so we were proactively looking for these things and removing them when we did find them, Chan said.
Facebook didn't see signs of foreign election interference.
Oh, see, the CBC headline said the government needs to do more.
And the sub-headline said officials confirmed there was interference, but in fact, the Canadian government official confirmed no such thing.
And the foreign weirdos in the UK said election chatter on Twitter was like 98 or 99% authentic.
And what does inauthentic even mean?
The liberal who runs Facebook said they didn't detect any problems.
They're optimistic.
But Trudeau knows he wants to censor his enemies.
And that's everyone on the internet.
And the CBC knows what the boss wants.
I mean, look, the CBC is even suing one of Trudeau's enemies right now.
The CBC is suing the Conservative Party right in the middle of the election campaign.
The CBC-controlled parliamentary press gallery conspired with Trudeau's Debates Commission to keep us and True North out of the leadership debate scrum.
They don't want other voices.
We know all this.
It's not just the CBC, it's all the legacy media.
Here's a bizarre story published by CTV.
So this is a tweet from a lobby group called Hill and Knowlton, a lobbyist over there.
What's behind WEXIT?
That's Western separatism.
Conservative bots.
That's like robot.
A lot of them.
To start with, Blair Mackey and I cracked their eyes of the hashtag.
Okay, so who's talking there?
Who was I reading?
Well, that's a lobbyist with Hill and Knowlton.
That's what HNK Canada is.
That's a major international lobby group.
It's in there for hire.
They're mercenaries that literally work for anyone anywhere around the world.
They have a major Russian office.
I'm just pointing that out.
And for some reason, CTV published a whole news story based on what this international lobby group claimed, that the Western Canadian separatist movement was just fake, started by some robots, some fake disinformation.
Now, this isn't what I showed you there.
It was not actually the first version they published.
They deleted the first version without an editor's note or a correction or a clarification because the first version they published, based on the lies of Hilla Knowlton, claimed that a whole bunch of very specific people on Twitter were fake, were robots, bots, as they said, were liars.
The implication, of course, being that Western separatism is fake and no one should believe it.
And CTV just ran with that.
Uh-oh.
Except that they weren't.
I mean, here's one Aboriginal woman, very real, who clapped back at CTV and Hilla Knowlton and pointed out that CTV didn't even ask her if she was real before claiming she was a robot.
Yeah, no, she's real.
Real people are unhappy in Western Canada, but CTV and this lobby group, Hill and Knowlton, they were the fake ones, not the bots.
They were the ones lying.
And then they quietly edited the story to remove all the details of their accusations, but no explanation, no correction, no apology, and no answer for why is the media party simply taking stories from foreign lobby firms and running them as news.
Why this UK firm in the CBC story?
Why this Hill and Knowlton Russian firm here?
That's corrupt.
Why are you running lobbyists as if that's news?
Maybe that's even the foreign meddling we've been looking for.
Yeah, I'm not worried about some guy on Facebook who says that Trudeau had an affair with a teenager at West Point Gray Academy when he was a teacher there.
I haven't seen real proof of that rumor, by the way, other than some circumstantial evidence.
I didn't report on that rumor because I'm not going to put my reputation staked on rumors.
If some guy on Twitter or Facebook wants to, that's his business.
Why Trump Acts Differently00:15:45
And it's each of our own business to decide who to believe and who not to believe and who to challenge and who to accept.
Like I say, some random guy on Facebook could be lying, could be telling the truth, but we know the liberals lie.
But you know, I actually gave him some real advice.
I said that if you actually say it louder, we've learned in the House of Commons.
If you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that is your talking point, people will totally believe it.
Look, I'm much less worried about some guy getting something wrong on Facebook than I am worried about Trudeau and Gould and even Andrew Scheer telling me that I can't make up my own mind about things for myself and that they will be the censors of Canada.
Stay with us for more.
Tonight, the United States brought the world's number one terrorist leader to justice.
Abu Akar al-Baghdadi is dead.
He was the founder and leader of ISIS, the most ruthless and violent terror organization anywhere in the world.
The United States has been searching for Baghdadi for many years.
Capturing or killing Baghdadi has been the top national security priority of my administration.
U.S. Special Operations Forces executed a dangerous and daring nighttime raid in northwestern Syria and accomplished their mission in grand style.
The U.S. personnel were incredible.
That's Donald Trump.
I saw that announcement live on Sunday morning.
I thought, oh, I'll just watch for a few minutes.
I found myself riveted.
Donald Trump is quite a storyteller.
He knows how to communicate.
Of course, you would expect a man who hosted the widely viewed apprenticeship, the apprentice series to have a certain flair.
Of course, the story was incredible, and the details were communicated by the president in his signature manner.
He talked about the dogs chasing down al-Baghdadi, and he really emphasized the cowardice with which Baghdadi met his final moments, fleeing down a dead-ended tunnel with three of his children, and I think two of his wives and blowing himself up.
Trump really emphasized the humiliating end of Baghdadi, and that didn't impress the liberal media who thought it was too mean.
To me, it sounded obvious, a way to demystify and take away the mystique and the psychic power that Baghdadi held.
It's just like when they captured Saddam Hussein in a little spider hole in Iraq, and they manhandled him and plucked at his beard to make him look as lowly as possible to bring down the mega man to a nothing.
I thought it was very powerful.
Alas, the media did not agree with me.
And joining me now, one of the few media to celebrate the downfall of this tyrant and to talk about the mainstream media's reaction to it is our friend Joel Pollack, senior editor-large at Breitbart.com.
Joel, great to see you again.
Thanks for being here.
It seems impossible, but the leading media in America and Canada too actually seemed to take Baghdadi's side.
I know that sounds crazy, but we'll have some examples from the Washington Post and from Bloomberg and even from Global TV here.
I'm not saying the media were cheering for him, but they were mad that Trump was triumphant.
I think that's right.
I think they were less pro-Baghdadi than anti-Trump, and they understand what this could mean for his re-election chances.
Recall that Barack Obama essentially cemented his re-election with the successful raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May 2011.
He passed a commander-in-chief test, and that was a big concern about Obama, who had no military experience, no national security experience, and a deep history in the anti-war movement.
So people thought, is this going to be a problem for him when he has to fight terrorism?
And Obama proved a lot of that criticism wrong with the decision, and it was a bold one, to authorize the raid on bin Laden.
Now, Trump, actually, interestingly, after the raid was announced, congratulated Obama personally.
This was at a time when he was pursuing Obama for his birth certificate and all kinds of other things.
But Trump issued a statement personally congratulating Barack Obama and calling on Americans to put politics aside for a moment while the country savored the victory.
What you're seeing now is Democrats and the media are refusing to give Trump credit.
You saw the Democrats congratulate the military and so forth, but they didn't congratulate Donald Trump.
They didn't say he had done anything, many of them now saying that this success happened in spite of him.
Joe Biden gave a detailed interview today to the Washington Post saying that Trump will never have another success like that again because his foreign policy is basically confused.
And they're just desperate to spend this as somehow something bad for Trump.
They understand that Trump doing this, killing the leader of ISIS, who terrified Americans with his graphic executions, beheadings, and all kinds of tortures.
This man who haunted the American consciousness for so many years is dead and was killed essentially during a confrontation with a dog.
This should be cause for celebration, but the media are making sure that Americans do not think about this as a success for Donald Trump, even though he did make the not just the decision to do this, but he kept it under wraps.
This is a president who we were told would give away national security secrets.
And in fact, we were told that he had done so because he had to declassify things about Russia and so forth.
We were told this guy's Twitter account was a national security threat.
Donald Trump, the most media-accessible social media-addicted president we've ever had, kept this entirely under wraps.
And that also makes him look like, as with Obama, he's passed the commander-in-chief test.
Could argue he had already done so, but this also boosts Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria because what he's shown is he can go after the ISIS leadership and take out their command structure without having to commit thousands and thousands of American soldiers to the region.
And it's basically a huge national security and foreign policy win for Trump.
That's why the media and the Democrats are so angry about it.
Yeah.
You know, what also made them angry is that Trump did not give them advance notice and that many of them found out when Trump told the world.
And it's so obvious to me, even as a foreigner up here in Canada, Joel, that if he would have told people like Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff, they would have leaked it either themselves publicly or given it to their friends in the Washington Post.
It's so obvious that keeping it secret from the Democrats was an important national security decision, too.
And that infuriated them.
Well, giving something to Adam Schiff is giving it to the Washington Post.
Giving something to Nancy Pelosi is giving it to the New York Times.
They have a direct pipeline to these newspapers.
They've shown they cannot be trusted, especially Adam Schiff, who calls the impeachment inquiry a grand jury investigation and then proceeds to leak details of testimony that no one else is allowed to see.
Of course, a grand jury is supposed to be secret.
If this really is a grand jury investigation, he's in legal trouble.
It's not, but that's what he's been telling everyone.
And meanwhile, he's leaking selective documents to make Trump look as bad as possible.
He is a leaker-in-chief, and Trump is right not to share information like that with him, even if he does hold the position of House Intelligence Committee chair.
By the way, Republicans weren't briefed either.
I think the president was right to keep this as close to his chest as possible and let politicians know when it was time for everyone to know.
There's nothing they needed to know about this that would have enhanced the operation in any way.
What would they have done to help him?
I mean, what would be the purpose of informing them?
There's no purpose.
They just don't like that their egos are a bit bruised.
Nancy Pelosi seems to think she is the president.
She's argued for months that she has co-equal status to the president.
She was just in Jordan to discuss the Syria situation.
Of course, last time she went to Syria, it was to play footsie with Bashar al-Assad, who was then about to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people.
She thought that was a good idea to show that we could be diplomatic with Assad.
And he was a reformer, Hillary Clinton Poland.
So that's Pelosi's track record on diplomacy in Syria.
So anyway, they're upset.
I think it's good that they're upset.
People like it when they're upset.
And I think this is still a big win for Trump.
And you're going to start to see Americans rally around him.
I think this is a very important turning point with regard to 2020.
Yeah.
I remember Obama had an unofficial re-election slogan, Bin Laden is dead and Detroit is alive.
And that was a powerful thing to say.
Let me show you the first headlines that the Washington Post and Bloomberg put up.
This is the post.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48.
Not the word terrorist or murderer.
And he personally conducted the most violent crime.
He personally raped an American woman.
Like, personally, he didn't, it's not even that he delegated it.
He himself was a monster and a war criminal.
And the Washington Post emphasizes he's a modest man and a scholar, and he helmed the Islamic State.
You cannot read that without knowing that the Washington Post is not on America's side, or if they are, it's grudging.
Yeah, and the woman he writes was Kayla Mueller, who is and was an outstanding American who worked in Syria with humanitarian aid organizations, and she was killed under Baghdadi's orders.
She, I think, was one of the victims of a bombing rape, but she wouldn't have been there had Baghdadi not executed that Jordanian pilot in brutal fashion, burning him alive and filming it and so forth.
Kayla Miller was her name.
She was forced into slavery by the leader of the so-called Islamic State.
And by the way, also journalists were murdered by this thug.
And yet the people who tell us democracy dies in darkness didn't really seem to have much sympathy for a journalist and a murdered humanitarian aid worker who were Americans.
They had this approach to Baghdadi as if he were some sort of fanciful object of interest you could hold at arm's length.
Oh, yes, you know, respected scholar and all that.
One thing that is interesting about al-Baghdadi is that he was raised in a middle-class family.
And back around the time of 9-11, there were all these debates about why Islamic terrorism exists.
And on the left, people said it's because of poverty.
No, it's not.
Many of the people who lead these terror organizations are from middle-class upbringings.
And this is how they decide to make their way in the world.
So he came from a family of some means and became radicalized at university.
Of course, in a society where very few people go to university, he joined the Muslim Brotherhood and so on and so forth.
So, yeah, it's amazing how our media have reacted.
They look very, very bad.
And especially when you look at the Washington Post motto, Democracy Dies in Darkness.
That ran above the obituary, at least in the online version.
And you just say to yourself, do these people even understand the basic value that they purport to defend?
I don't think they do.
Yeah.
You know, the phrase austere scholar, that's such an unusual combination of words, that it cannot be a coincidence that one of Canada's so-called terrorism experts, he's on the CBC all the time.
Here he is on Global News using that exact language.
Take a look at this clip from Canada's Global News.
Kind of austere religious leader.
as a way to show supporters that he was this kind of austere religious leader he has a way yeah i mean i'm sorry that's just not a coincidence that canada's terrorism expert is parroting the washington Let me show you one more example.
I don't want our viewers to think that it was just the Washington Post.
Here's Bloomberg.
Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi transformed himself from a little-known teacher of Quranic recitation into the self-proclaimed ruler of an entity that covered swaths of Syria and Iraq.
Wow, he was almost the same kind of entrepreneur as Trump in his own way.
You know, the funny thing on both of these, not only is that they don't mention terrorism, murder, rape, but they're suddenly giving him credit as a religious scholar, whereas the media party line for five years now has been, no, no, no, no, this isn't the true religion.
This isn't really Islam.
But both the Post and Bloomberg say, no, he's a religious scholar, Quranic expert.
Now, they're only saying that now.
It's so embarrassing and so noticeable.
And I should point out, you mentioned that the media didn't give Trump himself credit.
Neither did Canada's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, put out a belated tweet.
Again, not using the word terrorism and not giving credit to Trump.
I think this is just a reminder that on terrorism and military issues, the establishment is so, so, so far off from ordinary Americans and Canadians.
And I hope you're right that this is a defining moment for the 2020 election.
Let's word to you, Joel.
Well, it's unfortunate that people see things this way.
I think it shows the degree to which many Americans have been misled by media into seeing absolutely everything in their lives in a partisan or through a partisan lens.
When Obama came on TV to declare that Osama bin Laden had been killed, I lit up a cigar, literally, on the deck of my building.
And it didn't matter who got the credit.
I mean, this was a victory for civilization.
And the same is true of the death of the ISIS leader.
And that's really how we should have absorbed the news.
But if not for the dog, I mean, the dog has become sort of a unifying figure.
The dog that confronted the ISIS leader was sent there, maybe with a camera, who knows, but basically sent to track him down while he was running away in a tunnel and so forth.
Everybody likes dogs.
That's a good thing.
Good thing to have a hero that will never have a political opinion.
But other than that, people have been, I think, overly partisan in reacting to this news.
And it's sad.
And the media have driven at least half of the American public into that particular corner.
Yeah.
Well, it's disappointing, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Baghdadi is dead.
Victory for Civilization00:04:01
And I understand from another tweet from Trump today, the number two commander in ISIS was also just killed.
It's interesting.
He was killed.
Also, the spokesman was killed.
I think what happened was that unlike the Obama administration, which sat on the intelligence in Bin Laden's headquarters for a long time, the Trump administration is acting on everything they found in the al-Baghdadi headquarters, and they're just mopping up as many people as they can before they can find new hiding places, before they can leave Syria, before they can get to some other place.
I think the U.S. military is going after whoever they can in the command structure based on communications and evidence they would have found in that hideout.
Incredible.
Well, Joel, great to see you again.
Thanks for talking about this with us and keeping up the great work at Breitbart.
There you have it, our friend Joel Pollock Sr., editor-at-large with Breitbart.com.
Stay with us.
There's more ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, on my monologue yesterday about a globalist lobby group wanting Canada's population to reach 100 million people, Billy writes, Since 2010, Japan's population has been stagnant.
During that time, their standing on the Quality of Life Index has stayed the same at 13th or 14th.
Canada's quality of life went from 7th in 2012, and this year, Canada's 17th Canada's population increased by 10% since 2010.
In fact, population increase does not equate to an improved standard of living.
The globalists are lying.
Yeah, I mean, if you've ever driven a car in Toronto or Vancouver or even these days, Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, more cars on the road isn't improved quality of life.
If you've ever tried to buy a house or rent property in Vancouver, Toronto, you know that more people, supply and demand, more people trying to buy up houses.
That's not a good thing.
You try and get a job, and you know there's a lot of cheap labor driving down wages.
That's not a good thing.
Yeah, it's not always a good thing when all of a sudden you have thousands or millions of people ahead of the line for hospitals, pensions.
It's just not related.
If the only thing you care about is gross GDP, I guess, which is why this globalist lobby group is packed full of banks, because I guess there's going to be more mortgages and more things to sell.
That ain't quality of life.
On my interview with Tanya Granick Allen, Liz writes, I hope Tanya Granic-Allen gets back into politics.
She was terribly used by Doug Ford.
Yeah, I gotta say that's true.
I mean, she endorsed him, she supported him, and then he threw her out of the first moment, and I don't think it was a good look.
On the topic of Alberta separation, John writes, most Albertans would prefer Quebec left Canada over Alberta leaving.
It would save them a bundle.
What do you think?
You know, that's an interesting way to put it.
That's why I don't think Quebec would ever leave because it gets so much.
They just want the pain, the friction, the transaction cost of the negotiation to be so high that the rest of Canada says, fine, stay, keep your millions, billions.
Whereas Alberta, Alberta would say, okay, guys, we're going to go now.
Okay, see you later.
And would actually go if they were to go because there's so much money Alberta ships to the rest of the country.
They would immediately be able to eliminate income tax.
Just stop and think about that.
Just, boom, gone.
Could you imagine a whole province where there's no income tax?
How does that work?
Well, that works if Alberta doesn't have profit ranking anymore.
So yeah, Wexit, that's not being promoted by bots, despite what the lobby firms say.