Rebel Roundup hosts David Menzies, Sheila Gunn Reid, and Abigail Hammond expose Canada’s $600M Trudeau-backed newspaper bailout—tying funding to government rebuttals—as censorship masquerading as "objectivity," comparing it to Alberta’s unconstitutional Bible Bill Aberhart era. Gunn Reid blasts media self-censorship (e.g., CBC’s decline, Unifor’s spin acceptance) and warns of industry collapse, while Hammond dissects Democratic debate hypocrisy: Bernie Sanders’ Burlington College scandal ($30M loss), Elizabeth Warren’s $8T tax plan backlash, and ancestry fraud. Menzies highlights Samuel Opoku’s Toronto courthouse attacks—five victims, three incidents—under a gag order, with taxpayers possibly funding his legal defense. The episode ends with a defiant call: "Without risk, there can be no glory." [Automatically generated summary]
You're listening to a free audio-only recording of my show, Rebel Roundup.
Tonight my guests are Sheila Gunreed and Abigail Haman.
If you like listening to this podcast, then you would love watching it.
But in order to watch, you need to be a subscriber to premium content.
That's what we call our long-format TV style shows here on The Rebel.
Subscribers get access to watching my weekly show as well as other great TV style shows too.
It's only $8 a month to subscribe or you can subscribe annually and get two months free.
And just for podcast listeners, you can save an extra 10% on a new premium membership by using the coupon code PODCAST when you subscribe.
Just go to premium.rebelnews.com to become a member.
And please leave a five-star review on this podcast and subscribe in iTunes or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Those reviews are a great way to support the Rebel without having to spend a dime.
And now, enjoy this free, audio-only version of my show.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, ladies and gentlemen, and the rest of you.
The show in which we look back at some of the very best commentaries of the week by your favorite Rebels.
I'm your host, David Menzies.
Strings Attached00:15:36
Remember that $600 million newspaper bailout announced last year by the Trudeau Liberals?
Well, shockers, there are apparently some strings attached.
Namely, those papers now getting taxpayer-funded welfare better say nice things about the liberals or else Sheila Gunread will have all the news that is unfit to broadcast.
And did you catch the most recent Democratic Party debate from Lotusland?
If not, I'm sorry to say you might have missed the most unintentionally funny GabFest of 2019.
But not to worry, Abigail Hammond has all the knee-slapping highlights.
And finally, letters, we get your letters, we get them every minute of every day.
And I'll share some of your responses regarding my encounter with Samuel Opoku outside the courthouse of Toronto's old city hall.
Opoko is the individual who stands accused of pouring buckets of liquefied human feces over the heads of five individuals on three separate occasions.
But as you'll see, when he's confronted by a camera and microphone, Opoku, he's not so brazen.
Those are your rebels.
Now let's round them up.
The media all over is overwhelmingly liberal.
And people are force-fed liberalism every night on their TVs.
And LeBoutelier, unfortunately, she ran into people in her riding who rejected it.
And it appears she was startled by these free thinkers in Quebec who reject Ottawa's paternalism.
I mean, think about the last time you saw a balance panel on the state broadcaster that reflected you or your community, or that didn't treat generally mainstream ideas supported by the majority of Canadians.
Ideas like reduced immigration rates or freedom of speech like some sort of white supremacist plot.
Yeah, exactly.
It's basically never, right?
And who could forget how Unifor, the National Media Party Union, declared themselves the resistance to the conservatives with little or nearly no pushback from their own membership.
Gosh, what a surly looking bunch, by the way.
But Leboutillier is implying the media was not liberal friendly enough to her?
Well, not to worry.
Le Boutillier has a plan for this.
Guess what?
Liberal minister is picking the recipients of the $600 million media party bailout.
The revenue minister, Leboutelier herself, Blacklocks has the details.
And just like us, Blacklocks says they won't take any of that bailout cash either.
It reads.
Tax officials in a document called Guidance on the Income Tax Measures to Support Journalism said Minister Leboutelier would have final veto over which newspapers would qualify for aid.
So how does that old saying go again?
If you make a deal with the devil, it's probably a good idea to read the fine print.
Because when it comes to those print outlets accepting filthy lucra from the federal liberals, well, what if the fine print basically suggests that if your newspaper is critical of the feds, space must be provided so that the libs can spin their fibs to the readership.
Oh my, with more on this story is the host of the gun show, Sheila Gunread, a journalist that could never be bought and paid for.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, my friend.
Hey, David, happy new year.
Happy New Year to you, Sheila.
So, my friend, can any media outlet right now in Canada claim to be objective when they are accepting this sort of bailout dough given all these inherent strings attached?
Well, no.
I mean, but what's the difference?
I mean, for so many of these journalistic outlets, normally they would be shouting from the rooftops if conservatives had attached this sort of caveat to their funding.
But you're not hearing any outrage about the fact that the liberals are requiring journalistic outlets, be they print or broadcast, to allow the government space for rebuttal if you write an article critical of the government or do a broadcast critical of the government.
You're not hearing anything from the journalists.
You think that there would be extreme pushback because, you know, they basically are required to publish liberal propaganda in the form of a balanced rebuttal.
But the journalists are all but quiet.
I mean, I think I'm the only person talking about this.
You know, you're absolutely right, Sheila.
And I can tell you, I remember once going to a journalism seminar in the 80s, and there was this example.
It was about, remember the Exxon Valdez tragedy where there was an oil spill in Alaska?
And it was about how there was a Toronto Star journalist and photographer.
They had to get to the scene, and the only way to get to it was by Exxon's corporate helicopter.
And the star actually, to their credit in the aftermath, worked out how much that would have cost and sent a check to Exxon because they didn't want any freebies.
There was this absolute separation of church and state, you know, and we're not going to be bought for.
Now they can hardly get their mitts on this taxpayer grub.
They must be desperate, Sheila.
Well, of course they're desperate.
Every week is another round of layoffs.
I mean, we've been hearing about the demise of the Rebel for, well, pretty close to five years now.
And in the meantime, we watch everybody else get laid off.
The most astounding thing, and you and I were talking about this off air, is the Alberta government under, they called them Bible Bill Aberhardt, who is the Premier of Alberta Social Credit Premier.
He passed a law that basically said that newspapers had to publish a rebuttal from the government if they were critical of the government.
And that law was ruled unconstitutional because the Edmonton Journal challenged it.
And the Edmonton Journal was the first foreign newspaper to ever win a Pulitzer Prize because they challenged this law, had it ruled unconstitutional, and defended their own journalistic independence and integrity.
And yet, I've heard nothing from former Edmonton Journal columnist, now so-called independent, liberal-appointed senator Paula Simons about this.
And you'd think that she would be somebody who is shouting about this from the rooftops again.
Complete and utter silence from the journalists and now the former journalists who call themselves independent senators.
No, you're absolutely right, Sheila.
What's the term?
They've gone native, I guess, when it comes to getting some payola on the side.
And I mean, listen, I understand their business model, which was conceived before the internet, it doesn't work anymore.
Newspapers that were, you know, weekend editions that were once the size of a town's phone book are now the size of pamphlets.
But still, A, it is not the government's mandate to bail out media outlets or any corporations, as far as I'm concerned, in the auto sector, Chrysler, GM, which are always coming up to the trough.
And B, I don't see how any journalist, how any publisher or newspaper owner can say we are completely independent and unbiased when you've got a political party, essentially, paying for your existence.
What are your thoughts on that, Sheila?
Well, I think this does something else, too.
It actually makes journalism far worse because we've figured out that there's a different way to do it, that you need to innovate.
You need to be ahead of technology and embrace technology and embrace new ways of doing things.
But the other legacy media outlets and the mainstream media, they aren't doing any of that.
They aren't changing their business model.
They aren't adapting to what their readership or viewership wants.
They aren't responsive to the consumer at all.
And the liberals are giving them money under the guise of protecting journalism because they value journalism, but actually they're making it worse.
And it's only going to get worse.
And there will come a time where they, even the liberals, I think, are going to come to a realization that they're throwing good money after bad.
And all these news outlets who failed to innovate and failed to respond to the consumer, I think they are in for a very rude awakening.
And this bailout, I think, will play a part in completely collapsing the news industry in Canada at some point because it will be a bubble that will eventually burst.
No, you know, I think you're absolutely right, Sheila.
And, you know, most of my life in the journalism business, I was in print.
And I can tell you this, you know, sometimes I'd work for an organization which the publisher was somewhat delusional in terms of putting out content in order to fool or mislead the reader.
And what I've always said, Sheila, is the reader is a lot smarter than you're giving him or her credit for.
They can smell it when something stinks or something's being covered up or something's being spun a certain way.
And certainly in your piece, you exposed the numbers in terms of the sheer volume of readers out there that simply aren't buying what a lot of the mainstream media is selling.
Yeah, CBC's viewership, I think, is at the lowest ever.
And, you know, even they have layoffs.
Now, think about CBC for a second.
A billion and a half in taxpayer subsidy, mandatory carriage on cable and satellite.
They get to sell ads.
So they compete with the private sector news organizations and entertainment organizations for ads, and yet they still can't make a go of it.
They have layoffs, and now everybody's outraged down at the CBC because they aren't insulated from reality anymore.
And the thing is, I think with a lot of these news agencies, and you just pointed it out, back when it was just print and just news, the consumer was smart enough to figure out when they were being sold aligned.
But it's even worse now with the advent of the internet.
People can fact check what's being reported to them in real time by going on the internet, by going on Twitter, by going on Facebook and seeing the posts themselves.
And every time the media takes for granted just how smart their readership is and the consumer is, they hurt their own credibility and it just leads to more and more layoffs.
Oh, 100%, Sheila.
And I can tell our viewers, if you're ever in downtown Toronto, please go visit the CBC headquarters.
It's right across the street from the convention center in the Skydome.
It is a Taj Mahal broadcast temple.
It is obscene the amount of money that's being spent.
In fact, given the footprint of that building, the best thing, Sheila, the CBC could do for the Canadian public would be to raise that studio and have a 90-story condo office tower go up because that land is priceless.
But they're too entitled to do that.
One last question, Sheila, and it's this.
You know, maybe you alluded to this, that, you know, the Liberals probably didn't even have to do this in the first place because we see time and time again self-censorship happening.
And I've always said, Sheila, if there's anything worse than government-mandated censorship, it's when a journalist self-censors him or herself.
And we see it all the time because they realize that, you know, rattling the cage, stirring the pot might not be in their financial best interest, especially given the media landscape, because there's so few opportunities out there.
What do you have to say, my friend?
Well, like I said off the top, I don't understand what difference this makes.
The media outlets are going to print government spin as though it were fact anyway.
I mean, during the NDP time in office, I, of course, got their press releases.
And I would see those about four hours later printed verbatim almost precisely by the CBC or the Edmonton Journal or Global News, just as though it were fact, as though it were, you know, first-person journalism, that they went out there and gathered the news themselves when all they did was just rework nearly word for word an NDP press release.
And we see it all the time.
So, you know, and I know the same thing happens at the federal level.
So this requirement that news outlets have to allow space for the liberals to write their own rebuttal, I think it's redundant.
They would and do do it anyway.
And you know, they're not even shy about it.
I mean, as you alluded to, Sheila, that unifor, you know, press release of we are the resistance.
I mean, they're blatant about that.
And Unifor, of course, for the viewers who might not know that they represent so many of the unionized journalists in Canada.
Unbelievable.
Well, let's see where this goes.
And I think this is something whoever the next leader of the Conservative Party is must stand against because it's not right in terms of a moral, ethical, and physical point of view.
Sheila, thank you once again for another superb commentary and all the best to you in 2020.
You too, David.
Have a great weekend.
Thank you so much.
And that was Sheila Gunread somewhere in Alberta.
Keep it here, folks.
More of Rebel Roundup to come right after this.
But my favorite part of the night was when Mayor Pete Buttigieg called Elizabeth Warren out after she went after him for his Crystal Cave fundraiser.
You know, according to Forrest Magazine, I am literally the only person on this stage who's not a millionaire or a billionaire.
So if this is important, this is the problem with issuing purity tests you cannot yourself pass.
If I pledge, if I pledged never to be in the company of a progressive Democratic donor, I couldn't be up here.
Senator, your net worth is 100 times mine.
Remember, Elizabeth Warren used to get her campaign funds from big-ticket fundraisers, and she made millions from defending large corporations whom she now despises.
Your presidential campaign right now, as we speak, is funded in part by money you transferred, having raised it at those exact same big-ticket fundraisers you now denounce.
At least we got to close the night, knowing the candidates completely understand what the greatest threat is to the United States.
Elizabeth Warren's Fundraising Flip-Flop00:12:00
People of color, in fact, are going to be the people suffering most if we do not deal with climate change.
I'm the only one on this stage who said climate is my number one priority.
That climate change threatens every living thing on this planet.
If I'm still here, I'll see you next time.
Well, those were just some of the highlights, or is the proper term lowlights at the most recent Democratic debate in Los Angeles?
Oh my, so many Democrats on stage espousing so much hypocrisy, so much imaginary fear-mongering.
Indeed, at certain points, it began to resemble a Saturday night live sketch, assuming the writers at SNL would ever dare skewer the Dems as much as they skewer President Trump.
But in the final analysis, the takeaway of this debate was simply this: regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, let's be honest, folks, we're probably looking at four more years of Donald Trump in the White House come November.
And with more on this debacle of a debate, is our Hawaii-based correspondent, Abigail Haman.
Welcome to Rebel Roundup for the first time, Abigail.
Hey, thanks for having me.
It is a pleasure.
So, you know, Abigail, there are many types of comedy out there in the world: black humor, slapstick, double entendres.
The list goes on, but I think my favorite kind of comedy is unintentional humor.
And I found this debate to be so unintentionally funny on so many occasions, like Bernie Saunders fretting that people of color, for whatever reason, stand to be the most victimized group due to climate change.
What was your overall assessment of this debate?
It was hilarious.
I mean, first of all, you come into this debate and you're looking at on stage and you go, for the party that's supposed to be representing diversity, and really in their eyes, diversity should be just of color and not of thought.
All the people on stage, you know, besides Andrew Yang, are white.
And, you know, you have these old white men who are, you know, definitely that's what's despised by, supposedly despised by the Democrats, but they're up there representing the Democratic Party and they're high up there in the polls.
And it's just so hypocritical.
It's hilarious.
That was one of my favorite highlights of it, to be honest, just from the start.
Oh, no, there were so many.
And my goodness, this is going to be the year of identity politics for sure.
You know, Abigail, I wondered about that quote that was given by the moderator attributed to Barack Obama.
And he said, quote, if women were in charge, you'd see a significant improvement on just about everything.
Two questions for you, Abigail.
One, as a woman yourself, do you feel like these kind of statements is just so much unnecessary pandering?
And two, if Mr. Obama really believed that, then why did he get in Hillary Clinton's way in 2008?
Yeah, well, it's definitely pandering.
What actually is funny about that quote, to be honest, first of all, is if that's true, then the person who really should be up on stage right now and the person who should win the nominee nomination is going to be Tulsi Gabbard because she is the only one who is a woman of color who's left in the race, if I'm correct about that.
And so what's funny about that, so that's, you know, that's where that stands right there.
And it's definitely pandering and it's definitely, it's not helpful because it goes, it's not looking at the policies.
It's not looking at who they are and what they've done.
It's just another example of identity politics.
So to me, that's where that stands.
It's just, it's not useful.
And, you know, it's just another sign.
I love the part when Joe Biden said, well, you know, when he was talking about answering Barack Obama, and he goes, well, I don't think he was talking about me.
And they go, I thought to myself, well, what about the time where he told you, Joe, you don't have to do this?
You know, you can step out of the way, essentially.
And this is just another reinforcement of that.
Oh, you know, that was hilarious too, Abigail, because I think, no, Joe, he's especially talking about you.
He spent eight years with you in the White House.
He knows you better than anyone.
Talk about such a damning non-endorsement.
But I'm just tired of this narrative, Abigail, of, yeah, what we need is a, you know, a woman of color who is perhaps a lesbian and disabled.
I mean, what about merit?
I don't care who you are as an individual.
I care about your brain power.
I care about the ideas you represent.
And I just see this idea of bringing affirmative action and employment equity to the White House to be the wrong course to go down in the first place.
Yeah, and it's pretty, I mean, it's pretty sexist as well, because, I mean, so you're just saying this, we need some woman to come in and, you know, take the role.
Okay, so what is, you know, what has Elizabeth Warren really done?
You know, and what has Amy Klobuchar really done?
What have these, are these women really successful?
So it's just they're always playing the part of the identity rather than who these people are and their accomplishments.
And I look at Elizabeth Warren, and she's somebody who's lied countless times about her ancestry, and she's used that for affirmative action purposes in order to progress.
And so she's done that on the Texas State Bar.
She did that for the University of Pennsylvania, and she won a minority status reward.
And of course, she's apologized to the Cherokee Indian community for lying because she believes that they get to decide who is of Native American descent.
But she never apologized for benefiting from those claims.
And also, so she's lied.
She's done exactly what goes against, supposedly against the left.
She's lied and claimed this minority status.
How many of these individuals, it's just funny in politics, all of the leftists who either dressed up in blackface or lied about their status as a minority and took benefits from that.
Yet they're still praised.
They're still praised by the left, you know, and so she's just not effective at all.
You know, she hasn't really worked in a business.
She doesn't, you know, she worked as a corporate lawyer defending big corporations who were not helping innocent victims.
You know, they were standing like Dow, there was a company, Dow Chemical, that had poisoned women with these faulty breast implants.
And she was trying to limit their liability.
And she lied later on about that, trying to say she was there helping protect the victims.
So, you know, these are ineffective politicians, and they're also just liars.
Most of them on stage, they all have, you know, countless lies there they've told to the American public, trying to paint themselves in trying to paint themselves as individuals who are for the people when they really have stood against the people in many ways.
No, no, you're right, Abigail.
When you say rhetorically, what does Elizabeth Warren stand for?
I say she stands for gaming the system.
And given her resume, her background, I simply can't believe we are taking this woman seriously as a candidate potentially for president.
And sticking to the issues of the day here and now, one of the moderators asked her the question that under her plan of raising taxes over the decade of $8 trillion, trillion with a T, folks, $8 trillion US dollars, that would stifle the economy and discourage investment.
What do you have to say about that, Ms. Ward?
And she said, well, they, meaning the top economists in the world, are simply wrong.
But she doesn't give any kind of factual background why these economists are wrong.
I mean, Abigail, I think this is staggering.
Yeah, it's staggering just every time she talks and she does, she talks about everything she's going to do.
And it's just millions and billions of dollars coming from the American people, all for her plans for, you know, essentially wealth redistribution, you know, helping teachers, helping all these people.
And I look at it and I go, where, you know, how are you really going to get all of this money?
I mean, anybody who's anybody who's wealthy, who's smart, wants the day that she comes, the day she becomes president, they're going to leave this country.
You know, they're going to leave.
And she says she's going to try and do an exit wealth tax or whatever, but they're going to evade her.
And really, these are just all policies that have never worked.
And it is truly funny that they praise all of these socialist countries and they want America to be like that, but they won't, you know, they won't live there.
I mean, think of Bernie in general, even.
Bernie went and praised the Soviet Union.
He praised them for their housing and for how cheap their housing was and their health care.
This was back in 1989.
And two years later, the Soviet Union collapsed and in large part due to economic failings.
And, you know, it's funny, really, it's truly funny if you look at Bernie Sanders because he also praised Venezuela as well.
And I'm pretty sure that during his first, back in 2016, when he was running, still on his campaign website, he was promoting Venezuela as a successful, as a successful socialist country.
I'm pretty sure about that.
And it was failing.
It's completely failing.
And also his wife, just another sign of bad management in that family, she was the head of, she was a leader in Burlington College, and she was responsible for them buying property on Lake Champlain, Champlain.
And she was responsible for that.
And it was so expensive that the school, and they couldn't afford it.
So essentially, they had to, you know, get her out of the way.
They paid her off $200,000.
And by 2016, they had to close down from that bad investment.
So this is a family that is not, you know, they don't know how to think business-wise.
You know, they can buy big properties and you know, sell books, but they, you know, they don't know how to help people and they don't know what it means to be a successful country.
They don't know what it looks like to be successful.
And let's not forget, Abigail, socialism isn't for the socialists.
We're almost out of time.
One very quick question for you, Abigail.
When I look at the roster of Democrats vying for president, I don't think there's any there.
And I'm wondering if in the 11th hour, somebody is going to come out of the woodwork.
And the name that springs to mind, believe it or not, is Hillary Clinton.
I mean, she's become more into the media in the last several weeks.
She did like an almost two-hour-long interview with Howard Stern last month.
You got to wonder why.
She doesn't have a new book to promote or anything.
Is it possible that we might see her return, or do you have any kind of dark horse candidate that might come in and surprise us all in the months ahead?
You know, I don't think Hillary's going to come back in.
I think she's doing this all for the purpose of fame and, you know, getting her voice in there, trying to stir things, you know, stir the pot around, distract us from, you know, what's really going on and what's, you know, what's really being accomplished under President Trump's leadership.
But it's possible, it's possible that Michelle Obama comes in.
Well, maybe not Michelle, I should say.
But, you know, I don't know of somebody who could jump in at the last minute.
It's definitely possible, but it's hard to make a prediction.
You know, I am even wary of predicting who's going to drop out of the race at what point in time, you know, because people can have turnarounds.
You know, Julian Castro, I think he dropped out of the race today or yesterday.
And so that's nice.
We got one more out of the way.
But anything's possible.
Anything's definitely possible.
Well, you know, 11 months is an eternity in politics.
Abigail will obviously be watching this file closely, especially you since our stateside.
Publication Ban Controversy00:04:23
So thank you so much.
It was a wonderful commentary and all the best to you, Abigail, in 2020.
Yeah, thanks for talking to you.
Thanks for talking to you.
Thank you so much.
And that was Abigail Hammond, our newest rebel from Hawaii.
Keep it here, folks.
More of Rebel Roundup to come right after this.
Why did you pour liquefied human feces over people?
What was your agenda in doing that, sir?
Mr. Rapolku?
Mr. Rapolku, why would anyone do something so disgusting as that?
Do you want, please?
Mr. Opoku, have you apologized to the victims yet?
Mr. Opoku?
Mr. Opoku, now that you're free on bail, what guarantee do we have that you won't do this against her?
Mr. Opoku?
Well, that was our attempt to get Samuel Opoku on the record regarding his alleged disgusting and deplorable crimes.
Namely, Opoku is accused of pouring liquefied human feces over the heads of five individuals on three separate occasions.
The thing is, folks, a publication ban severely hampers me from reporting what is actually said in court.
But outside the courthouse, well, that's a different story.
Yet, as you saw, Opoku gave us a silent treatment before he eventually retreated into the Eaton Center with his legal eagles.
Maybe he's shy, maybe he's well coached by his lawyers, or maybe he only likes to do his communicating by pouring a bucket full of shite over his victim's head.
If that's the case, maybe I should be thankful that the cat got his tongue on that day.
In any event, here's what some of you had to say.
Michael Creesa writes, not so brave when confronted by a camera and a mic.
Indeed, Michael, but then again, how in the world does one defend the indefensible?
Just imagine, folks, being doused with human waste.
I saw one victim endure that attack thanks to surveillance video that was presented in court.
That footage was unforgettable in a truly horrific way.
Chamindo 7 writes, love how the Canadian media covers this.
Oh, wait, Rebel is the only media with integrity showing us the whole truth of things going on in Canada.
Well, I can tell you, Chamindo 7, there were plenty of other media types at the courthouse on that day.
They could have scrummed Opoko too.
After all, given the publication ban, they too were prevented from reporting most of what is presented in court.
So why didn't they try to scrum Opoku as we did?
Is it laziness or is it considered impolite to ask questions to someone who stands accused of committing absolutely disgusting acts of terror?
Who knows?
Lou Winkler writes, amazing coverage, way to go after him.
He deserves all the embarrassment he gets.
I agree, Lou, given that the justice system is mully-coddling this individual due to a publication ban.
And for the life of me, I have no idea why there was a publication ban in effect in the first place.
And Eugene Denny writes, who is paying for his legal defense?
You know, that's a great question, Eugene.
I believe there are three lawyers on this file and a couple of social workers too.
I don't know who's picking up the tab, but how much do you want to bet the taxpayer is somehow on the hook for this particular shite show?
But folks, it appears that Samuel Opoku does have some supporters in his corner.
Just consider this from Nick Loss, who writes, what exactly was this fake journalist trying to accomplish?
If the guy answered, he'd have to cut it from this clip.
Either that or he doesn't understand the concept of a publication ban.
Ooh, he's just putting on a show for the hilariously gullible and just downright adorable Canadian version of the alt-white, er, I mean alt-right.
Talk About An SMH Shaken Head Moment00:00:55
Yay, Rebel, sometimes news.
Keep up the useless work, SMH.
Gee, where do I begin, Nick?
Because you disagree with the video?
It had been made by a fake journalist?
You know, I went to university for journalism and I've been working as a journalist since 1985, but who knows?
By the way, I'm afraid it is you who doesn't understand the concept of a publication ban.
Then again, you kind of strike me as the kind of guy who isn't too keen on transparency.
And as for the alt-white reference, why are you bringing race into this story?
It has nothing to do with it.
Talk about an SMH that's shaken my head moment.
Well, that wraps up another edition of Rebel Roundup.
Thanks so much for joining us.
See you next week.
And hey folks, never forget, without risk, there can be no glory.