Justin Trudeau’s 340,000-immigrant annual target was surpassed in 2019 with 694,000 arrivals, including 50,000 at Roxham Road, many staying long-term despite classification as non-permanent. Critics argue these policies—favoring refugees and elderly dependents over skilled workers—strain housing, healthcare, and wages while benefiting landlords and low-skill employers, with polls showing 6% support for increased immigration. Meanwhile, Quebec’s CAQ, led by François Legault (60% approval), won by cutting immigration and banning "illiberal" symbols like hijabs, contrasting with Alberta’s NDP collapse. The episode also ties Trudeau’s immigration advantage to Liberal voting blocs and links global free speech battles—like Virginia’s mislabeled pro-gun rally—to authoritarian threats, citing 760,000 U.S. defensive gun uses annually as proof of firearms’ necessity against tyranny. [Automatically generated summary]
Justin Trudeau said immigration would be 340,000 people per year, a new record.
But Statistics Canada said we had more than 200,000 new people in Canada in the last 90 days.
I'll take you through the stats.
Before I do, let me invite you to become a premium subscriber.
You get the video version of this podcast.
It's eight bucks a month, which isn't that bad.
You get access to the video version of this podcast, as well as Sheila Gunread's show and David Menzie's show.
Okay.
You can get that at premium.rebelnews.com.
Here's today's podcast.
Tonight, Justin Trudeau said he would raise immigration to 340,000 people a year.
But StatsCan says Trudeau increased our population by 200,000 in a three-month period.
It's January 21st, 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 publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
You know what I know, what everyone knows, especially the government that constantly polls, what they know.
Canadians want less immigration.
Every single poll shows that.
Every province believes that, both genders, all age groups, every party stripe.
Here's the Angus Reed chart that I show you from time to time.
The number of people who want more immigration bounces around in the single digits.
I've seen it between 4 and 8 percent.
Let's call it 6 percent.
It's really the same number since support is so low for increased immigration.
It's almost as small as the margin of error.
The number of people who don't really know, so they do the moderate Canadian thing and just avoid the question and say, it's fine where it is.
That used to be dominant.
Ask the average person on the street, and they don't know what the number is, and they don't want to weigh in on a contentious issue, let alone one that could get them branded as racist.
So they just say, oh yeah, whatever it is now is fine.
But the number of Canadians who are willing to tell pollsters that they positively want less immigration is now at the highest point ever recorded by pollsters.
For everyone who says they want more immigration, about 10 people say they want less.
And I bet the actual number is higher.
People are shy about saying controversial things to pollsters.
If you doubt that this is accurate, may I point to you the greatest political shake-up in Canada in the past decade?
What do you think I'm talking about?
Rachel Notley winning in Alberta?
That was cataclysmic and catastrophic, to be sure, but it was truly an anomaly.
It was an accident.
The NDP won in the unique voter breakdown of the other parties and the collapse of the status quo that I won't get into now, but the NDP immediately plunged in the polls when they revealed their agenda and they were turfed out decisively in the very next election.
It was an accident, not a trend.
It was a blip, a footnote.
Now, the most remarkable political realignment in the past decade in Canada happened in Quebec.
A new party, the Coalition Avenir de Québec, or TAC, as its acronym goes, they swept out the Liberals and the Parti Québécois.
They dispatched the two parties who had alternated in power for half a century.
In fact, they swept a majority of the first, not their first go-round, but they weren't even 10 years old.
And on the strength of immigration reform.
And by that I mean immigration reduction, reducing the number by 20%, and related, absolutely related, promising to ban Muslim hijabs and burqas from the civil service.
Now, the wording of that ban also captures Sikh turbans and Jewish yarmulkes, I think.
I'm not sure of the final wording of it, but the number of Jews dressed conspicuously as Jews in Quebec has pretty much stayed the same or fallen in the last generation.
That's not what provoked this bill.
It's about mass immigration, particularly from places with illiberal cultural traditions, particularly towards women.
That's Islam.
Especially conspicuous Islam, where hijabs and niqabs, you know, the face-obscuring veil, those are in fact a political statement.
And Quebec just announced that it's also, I don't know if you saw this, it's dumping its school curriculum that teaches about all religions, teaches multiculturalism here.
Let me quote a squawking liberal teacher from the Anglo-Enclave of Westmount Quebec to complain about that.
Robert Green, a Westmount high school teacher who teaches the ECR, the multicultural course, said he was outraged and saddened to hear that the CAC government plans to abolish the course.
This course does not teach children to be religious, Green told CBC Debrique.
It teaches them about the diversity of the society in which they live.
Green said that he welcomes the other themes the government wants to include, but said it should not come at the expense of religion-focused aspects of the course.
We are in a context right now, both in Quebec and globally, of rising xenophobia around the world and rising far-right movements, he said.
I think you can see exactly why Quebec is getting rid of it.
It's an anti-Western, anti-Quebec, anti-historical, anti-Christian, anti-French curriculum, and Quebecers are sick of it, no matter what an elite Anglo in Westmount has to say.
And Quebecers have a premier who's unafraid because he was elected because he was unafraid to talk about the most important issue.
And he knows that being unafraid works when you're on the side of the people.
I wish Andrew Scheer had studied under Francois Lego just a little bit.
So the biggest political realignment in Canada since Stephen Harper merged the fractured right-wing parties was the realignment in Quebec where anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalism won the election.
And look at that.
Lego is the most popular premier, 60% in the polls.
Most popular in Canada.
That's shocking.
So that's Quebec.
It's not a blip like the Albert Andy B.
It's not an accident.
In fact, it could be a trend.
But what about the rest of us and the rest of the country?
What's our view?
Well, let me show you something shocking.
You know, I've shown you this chart before.
This is an official government document.
It's a chart of what Justin Trudeau and Ahmed Hassan, who was then his immigration minister, it was the chart of what they promised immigration would be.
It was a huge expansion of immigration, 340,000 people per year.
Actually, you can see it's bouncing around 350, 360, 370.
It's a bit of a range, but the top numbers there, more than 1 million in three years.
And as you can see, the majority of these migrants would be uneconomic.
They would be economic burdens, either refugees or grandparents and great-grandparents who would be brought here in chain migration.
So people who would never speak English or French, never have a job, but who would pretty quickly go on a government pension and welfare and would be able to access our world-class health care system in their dying years, pushing long-standing tax-paying Canadians further back in line.
I'm sorry, that's what it means when you bring in uneconomic family migrants, not immediate family, but like grandpa and uncle and stuff.
You bring in people in their 60s and 70s from the third world countries.
They're just going to take your Medicare in their golden years.
It's sort of obvious.
It's why so few countries have that kind of immigration policy, that chain migration.
Certainly very few that have a welfare state.
Germany has done it, and it has been a disaster there both socially and economically.
It's a myth that most migrants under Trudeau's system are economic engines.
I showed you Trudeau's plan.
It explicitly says only a minority will be.
And of course, many of the rest have been low-skilled immigrants.
But here's my news, and it comes from Statistics Canada itself.
Look at this.
Record population growth during the third quarter of 2019.
Let me read.
Canada's population increased by 208,234 from July 1st to October 1st, 2019, driven mainly by an influx of immigrants and non-permanent residents.
This was the first time that Canada's population increased by more than 200,000 in a single quarter.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
208,234 people in a quarter, like a quarter of a year in 90 days.
But I showed you, Trudeau promised that we would have only 340,000 new immigrants, give or take, in a whole year.
Let me read some more.
This is Statistics Canada.
This gain represents a quarterly population increase of 0.6%, the largest growth observed since the beginning of the period covered by the current demographic accounting system, July 1971.
On October 1st, 2019, Canada's population was estimated at 37,797,496.
International migration, both permanent and temporary, accounted for 83.4% of the total Canadian population growth in the third quarter, a share that continues to increase.
The rest of the gain, 16.6%, was a result of natural increase or the difference between the number of births and deaths.
So out of 208,234 population growth, you heard them, 83.4% was from immigration.
The rest was people having babies.
So let's count immigration only.
Let's get rid of the natural population growth from childbirth.
So there were 173,667 immigrants in 90 days.
Extrapolate that to 694,000 on an annual basis.
694,000, that's almost exactly double what Trudeau promised.
It is exactly double what he promised.
Here's the trick.
When Trudeau said 340,000 people, he meant immigrants as a particular legal definition, not the plain meaning someone who has moved here from somewhere else.
That's what you and I might think immigration means.
340,000 people means.
But there's another category, non-permanent residence.
I don't even like to say those words because, of course, in Canada, almost no one is ever deported.
No one leaves.
We've had 50,000 people simply waltz across the border at Wroxham Road.
And what, maybe 1 or 2% of them even being deported?
Look, the RCMP are carrying their bags for them, helping them out.
So calling these people non-permanent residents is, I think that's a lie, a bunch of young men coming in.
Let me read a little bit more.
The strong international migratory increase observed during the third quarter was led by both the arrival of many new immigrants, 103,751 persons, and an increase in the number of non-permanent residents, 82,438 persons.
Growths of this magnitude had never before been seen in a single quarter.
Well, does it matter what the classification of these migrants is?
Immigrant, permanent resident, non-permanent resident, criminal fake refugee just waltzing across the border and laughing at our cops.
It doesn't matter practically.
They will all send their kids to school.
They will all go to the same hospital emergency room as you and wait in line.
They will all sit in traffic.
They all need housing.
Those that do work, if they do work, will drive down labor prices, you know, supply and demand, especially if they're unskilled.
Hey, why is traffic so bad in so many of our cities?
Why is it a six, seven, eight hour wait in the emergency room?
Why are food banks and homeless shelters so full?
Hey, why is it hard to get an entry-level job in Canada that pays well?
Hey, how come housing costs so much?
Well, look at this.
Here's also from Statistics Canada.
It's the number of houses in the country that are under construction.
And here's the number, it's the number under construction.
Houses of all kinds, single-family homes, apartments, everything.
So in that same third quarter of 2019, the number of houses under construction, when there's 208,000 more people coming in, there were 51,865 new homes being built.
Now, look, if you're in the construction business, this is great, having 200,000 people a quarter move in.
Housing construction doesn't seem to be keeping up, in fact.
It sounds like a boom.
Maybe that's one of the reasons supply and demand, housing is so expensive.
You're building 50,000 new houses, you're bringing in 200,000 new people.
Look, if you're in the construction business, this is great.
If you're in the real estate business, if you're a landlord, it's great.
If you're in the low-skill retail business, as in if you're an owner, like let's say you own a Tim Hortons, this is great.
I mean, cheap labor, just happy to be here, happy to be earning $14 an hour instead of, what, $4 an hour back home where they came from.
But if you're not a landlord or a cheap employer, if you're just a regular Canadian, we're born and raised here, your family paid taxes to build this country's schools and hospitals over the decades, and now you can't find a job that pays enough to let you leave home, leave your parents' home, let you buy your own home, start a family, if you can't afford to buy a house in Toronto or Vancouver, if you can't find a job in Calgary or Edmonton,
Firearms and Everyday Heroism00:16:08
if you can't get your kids into a university, if you can't see a doctor when you need one, well, maybe 208,000 new people in 90 days isn't that great.
But hey, they all vote liberals, so there's that.
Maybe that's one reason why France while Lagaud wasn't afraid to push back and why Quebecers weren't afraid to back them.
And remember this?
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.
Maybe that's one reason why Andrew Scheer lost and deserved to lose.
Stay with us for more.
Well, as we've shown you in the past weeks, any three, four, five leftists get together, and it's a national news story about their protests.
But there's certain protests on the right that have thousands or tens of thousands of people show up, and they're either ignored completely by the mainstream media or greatly disparaged.
Well, there was one such rally in Richmond, the capital of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
It was a pro-firearms rights, pro-Second Amendment rally.
And I guess it was simply too big to be ignored.
I've seen reports saying 22,000 or more lawful firearms owners meeting in resistance to their Democrat governor's plans to, well, crack down on lawful firearms ownership.
Let me show you how Justin Trudeau's CBC state broadcaster reported on this.
Look at this tweet.
Gun rights activists, along with members of militia groups and white supremacists, began to descend on Virginia's capital city this morning to protect, to protest Democrats' plans to pass gun control legislation.
White supremacists?
Well, here's an interview with one such white supremacist.
Take a look.
The real reason I'm out here is I do not support in any way, shape, or form Governor Northam's and the Democrats' gun control.
What I also don't support is the fact that every news piece you've seen on this this weekend, they've always brought up the issue of race as though it's nothing but white rednecks and hillbillies out here who care for the Second Amendment.
When actually black Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Americans in general care about the Second Amendment.
I work at a gun store part-time and I can't tell you the number of customers I see of all races, all colors, all creeds, who care about the Second Amendment and who just want to peaceably live their lives, enjoy their rights, and the Second Amendment.
Well, it wasn't just the CBC that slandered 22,000 people as white supremacists.
NBC in America did so.
This is a deleted tweet from their reporter Ben Collins.
Look at the first sentence.
Reporters covering tomorrow's white nationalist rally in Virginia.
I'm absolutely begging you.
And it goes on.
Now, of course, it was not a white nationalist rally, and he had the, I don't know, the shame to delete his slander suite, whereas the one I showed you from the CBC remains published to this day.
Well, joining us now via Skype from Las Vegas is a new correspondent, A.W.R. Hawkins, Ph.D.
He's with Breitbart.com, where our friend Joel Pollock and Alan Bokari come from.
He's their Second Amendment correspondent, and he joins us now.
AWR, thanks very much for taking the time to join us here today.
You're sort of the firearms or Second Amendment expert at Breitbart.
Was this a white supremacist rally, and on what basis could the CBC or NBCC say so?
No, it wasn't white supremacists.
And the only basis, well, they don't have a basis.
What they have is the leftist tendency to try to frame reality for us.
You know that leftist policies won't work in reality, in the metaphysical leftist policies won't work.
So they have to get us to buy into an ulterior reality.
And the same situation here.
This is a nightmare for leftists, that 10, 20, 25, however many thousand people show up peaceably to demonstrate for the Second Amendment.
That's a nightmare.
So what you have to do if you're a leftist, you get out in front of them, you tell people, hey, you're not going to see what you think you're going to see.
When you see it, you're not seeing what you think you're seeing.
What you're really seeing are a bunch of white supremacists and blah, blah, blah.
That's just how it goes.
It's a guy.
If they're trying to justify raising taxes, they work the same way if they're trying to justify a high-cap magazine ban, some other type of liberal policy.
And that's what they did with this rally, and it backfired on.
Well, I saw clips of many black Americans.
I saw Asian Americans.
I mean, people were sort of tooting their horn of which group they're with to sort of disprove this slander.
I saw LGBTQ people with those signs.
The CBC, I don't know why they still have that slander up.
I guess they don't really care.
I mean, they're a Canadian broadcaster.
What do they care about slandering Virginians?
But there was one thing that I think would surprise a Canadian because nowhere in our country do we have open carry of lawful firearms.
And I think it's startling to Canadians to see 22,000 people, I'm going to say at least a quarter of them, packing heat.
To the liberal mindset, that ought to be like they would, oh, someone's going to shoot, and then everyone's going to shoot the shooter, and it's going to be a massive crossfire, and you're going to have a massacre.
Not one shot was shot.
The liberal mind would say, oh, my God, that's the most dangerous place on earth.
Conservatives probably know that's likely the safest place in America for that day.
Right.
You're exactly right.
You know, humans, regardless of our political philosophy or political bent, we are wired by nature that self-preservation is our chief goal.
It just is.
It's a subconscious drive.
It's an involuntary drive.
And you don't do stupid things when you know the people around you are armed.
And likewise, people around you don't do stupid things when they know you're armed.
Thus comes the old manter from the Wild West, right?
An armed society is a polite society.
I live in a state in the United States where I carry a gun openly, usually three days a week, maybe four or five days a week.
I carry either a classic 1911, which is a .45 caliber handgun in plain sight on my hip, or I carry a 9mm handgun in plain sight on my hip.
And I'm by no means alone.
It's not uncommon to be in line at the fast food restaurant, and the guy in front of you and the guy behind you are both carrying openly.
There's nothing alarming about it because you know these are good guys with guns and they're carrying for the benefit of the protection of their own lives, their family's life, and God forbid, the life of somebody in that store should some lunatic come in there.
And that's just how the real world works here in America.
And I treasure that.
It's an aspect of American life that I treasure.
Well, that's not just a theoretical philosophy.
Not too long ago, a madman went into a Texas church.
And here, let me show you the video of this.
This circles all the people in that church who apparently were armed because they were all reaching for their firearms.
Only one fella who actually ran a, you can tell me more about him.
I'm sure you know more about him.
It was actually a firearms instructor who acted very quickly here.
Let me just show you.
Someone later slowed it down and put circles around everyone who seemed to be reacting in the same way.
It did not result in a crossfire that killed many.
In fact, it was very accurate, and in mere seconds, they saved many.
That's how it works in reality.
But the only reason we know about that is it was televised and it was dramatic.
I'm guessing that every week, maybe even every day in America, someone with a lawful firearm stops what could be a newsworthy tragedy, but we don't hear about it because instead of 30 people killed, one person is injured or killed, and it was the bad guy.
Right.
But I'm going to say something that's very important.
At Breitbart, we make an effort to cover those stories every day.
And usually, and this is probably news to people in other countries.
It may be news to people in America, to some people if they watch CNN every day.
But I usually have to pick amongst two, three, four stories where a law-abiding citizen has used a gun to save his or her life.
And I try to pick the one that's going to resonate best with the readers, the one that I feel will hit our readers where they are.
But some days I have to end up writing all of them.
I might write three or four such stories in a given day.
And there's been academic work on this at Florida State University.
It's very important.
This is not hearsay.
This is not opinion.
Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, K-L-E-C-K, he has done work on this since about 1993.
And he has demonstrated, again, through strenuous or rigorous academic work, there are roughly 760,000 defensive gun uses a year in the United States.
Now, the trigger is not pulled in each of them.
Sometimes simply pulling the firearm is enough.
And I have anecdotal stories I won't get into, but people send me their stories.
Women will tell me stories where people walked up to their car, and when she just showed them that she had a gun, they take off running.
Yeah.
So there's no telling how many times this happens, but the firearm is used for a lawful, justifiable reason so far and away at a greater rate than it's used criminally.
It's unbelievable.
Yeah, well, that's very interesting.
I'm unaware of Professor Kleck.
Of course, I'm familiar with the work of Dr. John Lott, who has specifically studied mass shootings.
And one of the things I remember from his lectures and his conversations with us on the show is how so many of these mass shootings happen in so-called gun-free zones that the mass shooter scoped out and reconned in advance, knowing that there wouldn't be that lawful guardian like you or like that churchgoer the other day.
Let me ask you one last question.
It's nice to talk with you.
It's nice to meet you.
You usually have your facts and you're well briefed in this.
I want to bring it back to a different story we've been covering here at Rebel News for a few months now.
Twice we've sent reporters to Hong Kong to cover the democracy protests there.
And they're very brave.
In fact, they're waving American flags and they're calling America the role model for their freedoms and their desire for democracy.
But at the end of the day, they do not have firearms.
In fact, there was a skirmish at one of their universities called Poly U, and the students who were standing up to the Chinese police were actually using bows and arrows.
It sounds almost fantastical.
I am deeply worried for the people of Hong Kong because if they go full Tiananmen Square and roll in the tanks, those bows and arrows won't work.
And I mean, sure, they could do Molotov cocktails or whatever, but they are disarmed and they are vulnerable.
And maybe you could give us a word or two about authoritarian regimes like China, like the former Soviet Union, and their relationship with citizen firearms.
Well, the thing I would tell you, a lot of the gun controls that they used, that Mao used in China, a lot of the gun controls that Hitler used in the roll-up to World War II, they're very similar in many ways to the gun controls we see being pushed in Virginia, which already exist in California, that are in place in Great Britain, the means of a background check and registration.
And so those, once you get to the registration level, those things give a tyrant an address and a door to knock on.
Very dangerous, okay?
And what you're talking about in Hong Kong, where these people can only fight back with sticks and stones, with words, with slingshots and bows and arrows.
If Thomas Jefferson were here and I would get up and he would take this feet, if you read Thomas Jefferson's writings and if you soak him up, this is a paraphrase, but if you soak him up, what he would tell you is those people in Hong Kong, they're being denied their very humanity because the ability to defend our lives is a gift.
It is one of our natural rights.
Apart from guns, apart from anything else, simply self-defense itself, as Associate Justice Samuel Alito said, that is the central component of the Second Amendment.
Now, the gun is important because the gun is the best way to defend yourself.
When these things are denied to us, Jefferson would argue that our humanity is denied to us because they are intertwined in us to that depth.
They are integral to the human experience.
So when a tyrant disarms people, whether it's in Hong Kong, whether it's in California, wherever it is, when a tyrant does that, he is ripping humanity away from people.
He leaves them vulnerable.
And they can't defend what I said when we began these segments.
They can't defend their most important possession, which is their life, which is why nature wires us.
So this goes to so many things.
People say, well, why do you need this particular type of firearm?
Why can't you just have a revolver?
Why do you need an AR-15?
Why can't you just have a pistol?
And I'm not making fun of them.
I'm just saying these are the questions.
Well, this is why.
See, when the Second Amendment was written, people say all we had were muskets.
Well, guess what?
What did the military have?
The very same muskets.
So the muskets that were protected by the Second Amendment were the very muskets the military was using to fight other nations at that time.
So it was in our founders' mind that the people would always have a weapon sufficient to defend themselves against their own government.
And that all comes together when we look at what's going on in Hong Kong and how these poor freedom-starved people have no means of self-defense.
I tell you, it's not just Hong Kong, it's Venezuela, it's Cuba, it's North Korea, it's all the places where people, it's Iran, all the places where people are violated, it's because they don't have that right of self-defense.
Tommy Robinson's Free Speech Victory00:02:39
Well, listen, AWR, it's a pleasure to meet you.
As our viewers can probably detect, you have a PhD in military history, Civil War, Vietnam War.
So the fact that you are such a good teacher and have such a depth of information, that helps explain it.
And I'm grateful to make your acquaintance and I appreciate your information.
And hopefully we can talk again on these matters in the future.
I hope we can.
It was great to be with you.
Thank you very much.
All right, likewise.
Well, there you have it.
A.W.R. Hawkins.
He's the Breitbart Second Amendment correspondent.
And he joined us via Skype from Las Vegas, Nevada.
Stay with us.
More ahead on the road.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue yesterday about Tommy Robinson winning a free speech award in Copenhagen.
Preston writes, nice job on your coverage of this prestigious event.
Well, thanks very much.
I was a little bit chat lagged.
Boy, that is such a long trip.
Oh my gosh.
But I really liked it.
I hadn't been at Copenhagen in almost a decade since I won the award way back when.
I had dinner with Tommy and with the Free Press Society, and they told me about their trials and tribulations.
And I think this is a common battle across the West.
And what I learned very clearly, it was reiterated, I knew it before, is that it's a coalition.
Who wants to censor people?
Who wants to get rid of free press?
I think it's a coalition.
I've seen this in Canada, the UK, Denmark.
It's leftist Marxists and Islamists.
They have an unholy coalition, I think.
That's what I relearned there.
Grace writes, Facebook threatened to have my page unpublished, and I cannot post for seven days because I posted your videos of Tommy receiving his award.
Yeah, we don't even try posting Tommy Robinson videos to Facebook anymore because they have warned us they'll shut our whole site down.
That's how insane they are.
If it was the government doing that, we would call it unconstitutional and illegal and meddling.
Facebook basically is the internet for two billion people and they're operating it like a company town.
You know what I mean?
Well, I don't like, you don't like how this company town operates.
Why don't you move cities?
Well, there is no other internet.
That's where the public square is these days.
Michael writes, good to see Tommy's doing all right.
I haven't heard anything about him in two months.
Impressed at the Danish Parliament00:00:39
Well, you know, I hadn't heard from him in a while, too.
I just called him up out of the blue.
And by chance, it was two days before he won this award, not two days after.
So I really just hopped on a plane.
Like I rushed to the airport at 2.30 that day, got right on the plane and flew overnight.
I don't mind the flights.
I mean, don't let me complain.
It's interesting.
And I was impressed that it was at the Danish parliament, although as an MP said, that was as much for high security as anything else.
I tell you, the battles we're in, friends, the battles we're in.