Dr. Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder and sustainability conference speaker in Regina (Feb 4), faces deplatforming after media like CBC—backed by Trudeau’s $140K weekly bailout—and local activists demand his removal over controversial views on CO2, nuclear energy, and climate science. Mayor Fougere called some claims "problematic," while organizers prioritize leftist-aligned figures like Suzuki. Meanwhile, Biden’s Iowa caucus tiebreaker chaos reveals polling fragility, with Nevada’s Super Tuesday outcome potentially crippling his campaign as donors reassess. Moore’s legal threats mirror Levant’s Alberta censorship battle, exposing a pattern of silencing dissent under ideological pressure. [Automatically generated summary]
Dr. Patrick Moore's Deplatforming Campaign00:01:43
Hello my rebels.
Dr. Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, is being deplatformed.
They haven't quite done it yet, but they're trying to cancel a speech he's giving in Regina, Saskatchewan.
Just some incredible defamation of him by both the media and academia and the mayor there too, frankly.
I'll go through it for you.
Before I do, let me invite you to become a premium content subscriber.
That basically means you get the video version of this podcast plus Sheila Gunread's show and David Menzies' show.
Just go to premium.rebelnews.com and there you go.
Okay, here's the podcast.
Tonight, a leftist mob of journalists and professors tries to get the co-founder of Greenpeace banned from a speaking invitation.
Why are they afraid to let him speak?
It's February 4th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government about why I'm others is because it's my bloody right to do so.
If I told you that the co-founder of Greenpeace was the subject of a deplatforming campaign, you know what I mean when people try to ban you, cancel you, have you fired, have your contracts ripped up, have you defamed, you might say, hang on, I thought that was only what the left did.
Banning the Greenpeace co-founder?
Patrick Moore's Denial00:16:02
Were conservatives really doing that to an environmentalist?
Well, you'd be right.
I've never not once in my life ever heard of a deplatforming campaign committed by conservatives against liberals.
I just haven't.
Have you?
Not even on campus, not in the media, not at any event, anywhere that I can think of.
And I keep an eye peeled.
That's a tactic of the left.
It's Leninist.
It's brutal.
This story I'm telling you only makes sense when you know that the co-founder of Greenpeace we're talking about here is our friend Patrick Moore.
Moore was there at the very beginning of Greenpeace.
He was on the boat sailing to protect the whales.
That's him right there in the center.
To stop hydrogen bombs.
Look at him there.
That sort of thing.
He was, there he is.
He really cares about those things.
But over time, he became skeptical of Greenpeace's political extremism and their rejection of science.
That's the thing.
He was the only PhD in the first crew of Greenpeace.
So he knows his stuff, but they've moved into politics and socialism and junk science.
He parted ways with them when they declared war.
I think it was on chlorine.
Now, of course, chlorine is one of the most essential elements.
You may know that salt is called sodium chloride.
Chlorine is half that molecule.
We need chlorine for a range of things, including many important medicines.
We put chlorine in swimming pools to kill bacteria.
I think that's when he pulled away from Greenpeace, if I recall, when they went to war against a natural element that we need for medicine.
He also supports peaceful atomic energy, which he points out has no greenhouse gas emissions, if you care about that kind of thing.
Patrick Moore departs from Greenpeace on that.
He's still a save the whales guy, though, very strong on those sorts of things.
He's just not a communist kook like the rest of his former team.
So yeah, he's the one environmental activist in the world who gets banned from places.
So he was invited to speak at a sustainability conference in Regina, Saskatchewan, which is a pretty good place to invite a speaker who supports safe, clean nuclear energy.
Because of course, Saskatchewan, as you probably know, is a major producer of uranium.
And that's used in peaceful nuclear reactors.
And unlike wind turbines, nuclear reactors work when it's not windy or when it's too windy.
And unlike solar panels, nuclear reactors work when it's not sunny, you know, like at night.
So yeah, I mean, I don't know exactly what the word sustainable means to any given person, but if you think it means something about carbon dioxide, and if you're worried that burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, and if you think that's bad, which is nuts, by the way, but still, then you probably should like nuclear because it generates heat from a nuclear reaction.
It's not burning stuff and emitting CO2.
There's no CO2 involved.
It's a different reaction altogether.
That is, if you really do care about carbon dioxide.
And I know that you don't because everything in life is carbon-based, including you and me and all plants and animals and wood and most of our planet.
Carbon is the sixth element in the periodic table.
It's in almost everything.
So it's all just a scam to levy carbon taxes.
But if you really do say you're worried about carbon dioxide, and I know you're not, then nuclear is really the only real option, at least in a flat place like Saskatchewan, where there aren't mighty raging rivers for hydroelectric dams.
So yeah, Patrick Moore, the perfect choice to speak at this conference.
But see, he disputes that carbon dioxide is a problem.
He doesn't dispute that the climate changes.
That's absurd.
The climate changes all the time, always has.
If you've ever heard of the ice ages and know that North America was once covered in a sheet of ice and you can see that we're not now, then you know about climate change.
Patrick Moore, Dr. Moore, let's just be accurate, just says it's not related to carbon dioxide and certainly not to man-made carbon dioxide.
That's not what ended the last major glaciation, as it's called, when we were covered in a mile of ice until about 10,000 years ago.
What I was showing you there was one of Dr. Moore's slides from his presentation where he talks about climate change.
He's not against talking about climate change.
He just explains it like a scientist, not a politician.
I have to tell you, he's a very interesting speaker.
And you can tell he still deeply cares about the environment.
He understands the cycles of nature.
He understands how trees are important.
He's got a whole book on the subject.
Trees are the answer.
How it's fine to use wood because it's renewable.
We can plant more trees.
How plastic is non-toxic.
It's low emission.
I mean, he's thinking practically, which most environmentalists never do.
And he, most important, proves, at least I think he proves it, that man-made global warming is just not a thing.
It's not the reason, or at least it's not a significant reason, why the globe is very slowly warming.
And it's not from carbon dioxide.
And in fact, the world has too little carbon dioxide from the point of view of successful plant life.
When you look over the millions of years of life on Earth, we're starving of carbon dioxide now.
Now, I'm not doing his point of view justice because I'm not a PhD in ecology.
He is, so listen to him.
I've seen his presentations.
He actually came on one of our rebel cruises, our first rebel cruise.
It was amazing.
I wish more people could see his presentation, including leftists and students and environmental activists.
Either they would criticize Dr. Moore's point of view and challenge it, and maybe Dr. Moore might improve his theory.
I don't know.
That's the scientific method, right?
Put out a hypothesis and test it and change your hypothesis.
Or maybe what I think, he would actually convince those environmental activists of his point of view.
And they would certainly come away understanding how deeply he cares about the environment.
I can sure sense it.
But look, leftist protesters are not interested in learning or science.
They're interested in power.
So look at this.
Regina paying climate crisis skeptic $10,000 to speak at sustainability conference.
Look at, they put sustainability in scare quotes.
My first thought upon seeing that in the CBC state broadcaster was, he's only speaking for $10,000?
The CBC's own David Suzuki charges 30 grand.
And Dr. Moore actually is a subject matter expert.
Say, when was the last time that the CBC did a shock and awe story about any left-winger giving a speech on campus?
Is the $10,000 part supposed to be the scandal?
If so, why the silence when Suzuki does it, when multi-millionaire Justin Trudeau charged actual charities $25,000 a pop for speeches even after he became an MP?
Why are they suddenly interested in that?
Look at this.
You of our scientists dismayed by City's decision to have Patrick Moore speak at conference.
Do you see that sub-headline there?
Well then, a scientist is dismayed.
Better censor someone with a different point of view then, because a scientist says so.
I'm embarrassed for the University of Regina that that's their contribution to this news, calling for censorship, because someone has a different point of view.
But get this.
A former Greenpeace director who disputes there's a climate emergency and that man-made carbon emissions are harmful has the top billing at the City of Vegina's upcoming conference on future sustainability.
Oh, so it's not even just that he's a skeptic of the theory of man-made global warming or the theory that carbon dioxide is the control knob of the climate, as Professor Al Gore told us.
It's that Dr. Moore is skeptical that there is a climate emergency, climate emergency.
That's a political phrase.
That's a slogan.
That's a bumper sticker phrase.
That's hyperbole, of course.
Emergency, emergency.
Is there an emergency?
Really?
So they're not even pretending anymore at the CBC.
If you don't support the official Liberal Party of Canada talking points, not just the science, but the political talking points.
Emergency.
Is emergency science?
I mean, if you don't do that, you're unacceptable in the eyes of the state broadcaster and the state university, the University of Regina.
The government doesn't like you if you don't agree with them, but of course.
And look at that.
Look at that.
If you look on the page there, scroll down, the state broadcaster posts a tweet by a U.S.-based anti-oil lobby group called DeSmog Blog, not even pretending to be anything more than a political megaphone for the extreme left, the anti-oil left.
Why is that being promoted by the CBC state broadcaster?
But if you think the CBC state broadcaster is bad, look at this from the bailout newspapers, the Regina Leader Post, allegedly a private sector newspaper company, but not anymore.
Post Media that owns it, receives $140,000 per week from Trudeau's media bailout fund.
And boy, are they earning every cent of it in Regina.
Let me quote, climate change denier, Patrick Moore, to speak at Regina Sustainability Conference.
Yeah, no, he's not a climate change denier.
I've seen his talk.
This is one of his slides.
All he talks about is climate change and trying to explain it and understand it.
Why were there glaciers and there's not now?
Saying he's a climate change denier is a 100% pure lie from a stupid person.
The city of Regina, let me quote, the city of Regina is defending its decision to hire a well-known climate change denier to speak at his upcoming sustainability conference.
Really?
Well-known climate change denier.
You lying liar with your lies.
They quote some crank, Shannon Zikidniak, the founder of a local environmental organization.
Hey guys, hey guys, she founded Enviro Collective, so listen to her.
She said her group would like to see Moore removed from the agenda.
The objective of this conference is to set the framework to make Regina 100% renewable by 2050.
It is not helpful to have someone who disputes the science behind climate change being one of the prominent speakers of that event, said Zakidniak during a phone interview.
I bet they phoned her.
Of course they did.
So some local activist extremist thinks someone else should be banned from speaking because he's not helpful to her cause.
By the way, her cause is nuts.
I'd like to invite anyone in Saskatchewan who wants to get rid of fossil fuels and nuclear fuels to lead by example today and turn off the gas to your home and stop driving your car when it's what?
I don't know.
I didn't check the weather in Saskatchewan today.
Is it minus 20?
Is it minus 30?
I checked it.
It was minus 39 in Tuck-Tayuk Tuck.
It's probably only minus 20 in Saskatchewan.
You go first, lady.
It has been that cold this winter.
I mean, talk about nuts.
But what you see here is a confection, a recipe.
You're watching fake news, political meddling, being made in real time.
It's being cooked up.
There's no grassroots wave to have Dr. Moore deplatformed.
To be fair, most people in Regina have never heard of Dr. Moore, and I bet most who have heard of him will probably be interested in hearing from him.
Aren't you?
Co-founder of Greenpeace, who has a bit of a change of heart, still believes in whales and seals and stuff, is pro-nuclear, but is worried about this.
He's just such an interesting guy.
You don't want to hear him?
And those who don't want to hear him, so what?
So go see one of the countless left-wing, think-alike, talk-alike global warming profiteers out there.
I'm sure Al Gore will be around soon enough.
There is no mob with pitchforks trying to get this guy canceled.
There's just a few losers on the CBC reporters' speed dial.
A few losers on Twitter and a bored academic looking for some media coverage to feel relevant.
Yeah, we don't censor people for not being helpful, except that the CBC's mission is to turn that into a thing, this whole thing into a thing, because the CBC is a state broadcaster whose own survival is linked to pleasing Justin Trudeau.
So step one was to demonize Dr. Moore.
Step two was to call for him to be fired.
I've seen the CBC do this many times.
So the CBC makes the complaint, and then the CBC reports on its own complaint as if it weren't the central force behind confecting it.
Look at this.
Regina now reviewing decision to pay $10,000 to Patrick Moore for a talk at a sustainability conference.
Look at this.
Oh, this is my favorite.
Outcry and controversy prompts review.
Yeah, no, you lying liars.
It is not an outcry.
It is not a controversy.
It's you.
It's you, the CBC, and the rest of your little media party club.
You turn off your gas right now.
I've seen this sort of thing myself.
Do you remember when I went to the UK about a year ago covering Tommy Robinson's case in court?
And there was this BBC reporter.
I remember his name is Dominique Cassiani.
And he reported me to the police, literally to the Metropolitan Police of London, because I made a little video about Tommy.
So this BBC reporter, this state broadcaster over there, complained about me to the police.
I have a copy of his complaint.
And then that same BBC reporter called me for comment about the complaint that he made to the police, as if he weren't manufacturing the story, as if he were some neutral reporter.
That's deeply unethical, of course, for a real journalist, but government journalists aren't real journalists, and the CBC is full of Dominique Cassianis.
I'm not saying the private sector journalists in Canada are any better on global warming.
The Regina Leader Post article was outright defamatory, to be honest.
But remember, Trudeau owns the CBC.
He only rents post-media.
Frankly, that makes post-media journalists more nervous because they worry that maybe their annual bailout won't be renewed.
Whereas at the CBC, they know it will be.
Can't trust the media party.
90% of them are on the payroll.
Here's a global news story.
Regina reviewing decision to hire climate skeptic Patrick Moore for keynote speech.
Now, Global is not owned by the state and it's not a newspaper on the bailout.
But it is highly regulated by the CRTC and must win the approval of Trudeau constantly.
CRTC has the power to literally destroy media outlets if it doesn't like by either changing the terms of their media license or removing it altogether.
Seriously, in Canada, you need a license to make a TV show on real TV or radio.
It's how the CRTC killed Sun News Network.
So Global and CTV, they have to behave how Trudeau wants them to behave.
So look at this.
He also holds controversial views about the shrinking polar bear population, the death of the Great Barrier Reef, and the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
Now, I'm pretty familiar with the first of those, polar bears.
I happen to know that the polar bear population is actually exploding, thriving, growing, whatever you want to call it.
So right there, Global News, well, they're lying to you, obviously, but not only are they lying, they're accusing Dr. Moore of lying about polar bears when he speaks the truth about it.
They're lying liars and they're telling lies.
And listen to this wording.
Global News spoke with Moore on Monday morning, asking him what he thinks about the controversy so whirling around him.
What controversy?
I mean, I get it.
A handful of left-wing journalists are whipping up a fake storm.
Controversy swirling.
I love that.
I wonder if a single normal person has even weighed in on this.
It's 100% fake news by activists and media party advocates.
Severe Climate Debate Debunked00:02:05
The mayor said, while some of his views are fine, oh, good, I have the approval of a mayor.
Oh, thank God, I was waiting for that.
Some of Moore's other views are problematic.
Fougere, that's the name of the mayor, emphasized the city believes there is a climate issue, a severe one.
Got it, got it.
So we have a mayor deciding which opinions are acceptable and which are problematic.
Is that his job?
Is that constitutional for him to do?
Is he willing to go head-to-head with Dr. Moore in a debate about global warming?
Now, that's a debate I'd pay to see in a kind of stare-at-a-car crash kind of way.
Oh, man, there's a severe climate issue, is there?
Yeah, I agree.
It's damn cold in Saskatchewan.
We got us a severe climate issue, people.
But then again, it is winter, so that severe climate issue comes around once a year.
Global then quotes another professor who says, Hall, and to me, quote here, Hall and two colleagues have recently established a climate change lecture series that includes 11 speakers from the university.
None were invited to speak at the Reimagine Conference, she said.
We're past the point in our history as a society that we can legitimize the idea that climate change is not human-induced, that these natural variations that we see in climate are not something to be concerned about.
So she's got some government-funded speakers panel or something, probably billing you millions of dollars for it.
And she has 11 global warming speakers who all believe the same thing.
And she just can't stand that one speaker somewhere else is allowed to dissent for one hour on one day.
She doesn't want other points of view to even be heard, even once.
She's got 11 speakers, she wants 12.
She doesn't want a debate.
She wants the other point of view delegitimized.
Iowa Caucuses Coin Flip00:13:47
She used that word because just like the media party is a fraud, so is most of academia.
They're not interested in scholarship or learning.
They're ideological trainers for students.
Imagine telling students that you prefer only one point of view being heard because otherwise it's problematic.
Can you imagine what it's like to be a student in that professor's class?
If you dare ask a question, I bet you get a lower mark.
You don't want to be legitimized.
Look, the media are lying about Dr. Moore.
The professors and media who used to care about free speech are the ones leading the charge to deplatform him.
Regina has an odious mayor who is more concerned about being fashionable than representing the interests of his city and province.
And all of it explains why we haven't heard any opposition to Justin Trudeau's plans to license and regulate not only the news media, but every website in the country.
Remember this?
To be fair, you've got an agency that wants to enhance its scope of powers to determine what's a trusted news source.
So the first question will be: who's to define that?
You've got a lot of these recommendation events.
The CRTC hasn't decided.
Okay, but they're recommending that.
They're recommending that content providers have to register and get a license.
So how will this work?
How are you going to regulate websites?
How are you going to register all that?
Do you buy these recommendations?
Well, I mean, one of the recommendations, so you're talking about a couple of different things here, but as far as the licensing is concerned, if you're a distributor of content in Canada, and obviously, you know, if you're a very small media organization, the requirement probably wouldn't be the same as if you're Facebook or Google.
So there would have to be some proportionality embedded into this.
But we would ask that they have a license, yes?
Oh, yeah.
You know, get a license, right?
Yeah, they're not really trying to censor Dr. Patrick Moore, though.
No.
It looks like it.
What they're actually trying to do is censor you.
Dr. Moore is just standing in their way.
Stay with us for more.
And then flip it over.
Heads. I can be good. Heads.
All right, so Buttigieg will get $3,000.
Have you ever seen a coin toss like that in your life?
Where you toss the coin, you grab it, you look at it, you check which side you're on, and then you put it on your hand.
And surprise!
Pete Budig won that little round of caucusing.
That was from Iowa yesterday, from the Democratic Party's presidential caucuses.
The whole thing is very arcane and obscure.
At the best of times, it's not a one-person, one-vote primary system.
They have the little meetings and conclaves, and they count and they eliminate and they schmooze and merge.
It looks very friendly, very old-town-ish.
And one of the rules is if they have a tie in one of these little caucuses, they do break the tie with a coin toss.
But I ain't never seen a coin toss like that.
I thought it was a symbol of how kooky the night was.
Joining us now via Skype from Los Angeles, where he has just returned from Iowa, is our friend Joel Pollack, senior editor-at-large of Breitbar.com.
Joel, I was a little kooky at the best of times.
That coin toss is a symbol of that, but last night felt like a meltdown.
What did it look like from where you were?
Well, actually, the coin toss is a more humane version of the old system.
Under the previous rules, it was pistols at dawn.
What?
No, I'm just kidding.
You know, I mean, it could be.
It's so obscure and unusual.
Well, look, it's not, there are other places in the country where close elections are decided by coin tosses.
In this case, it's not really deciding the outcome of the caucuses.
What they're doing is electing delegates to the state convention who will then decide who will get the state's nomination, the state's delegates at the National Party convention.
So it's one or two steps removed, but yes, it does look a little funny.
But the real scandal in Iowa is not over the coin toss.
The real scandal in Iowa is over the fact that almost 24 hours after the caucuses were done, there's no sense of who actually won.
The Iowa State Democratic Party releases, has released, or is about to release, depending on what time zone you're in, 50% of the results, but they don't have 100% of the results yet.
And it's odd because we're not talking about large numbers of people.
I was at a caucus in Des Moines, Iowa yesterday, which was one of the largest ones.
And they had 680 voters.
So that's not a lot of people to count.
And in fact, they counted everybody by hand.
So that's why people are confused and upset that the computer system or the cell phone app that they were supposed to be using to tabulate all these votes did not seem to work.
Yeah, I mean, it's not like they were counting every single vote in the state.
It's a smallish state to begin with.
These were just Democrats, just Democrats who physically turned out to these caucusing places.
I think, I mean, you correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.
600 people, that's not a long time to count that.
You've got scrutineers there, I imagine, as we say, people observing it.
I don't know how many individual caucuses.
Do you know how many individual caucuses there were in Iowa?
Would there have been 100 even?
I think it was, I'd be guessing here.
I don't know the exact number.
Someone else asked me the same question.
I don't know the exact number, but I was in Des Moines, which is the largest city, and there are, I think, a couple hundred precincts in Des Moines, so extrapolate over the state.
We're not talking about a huge number of voting precincts, let's say in the ballpark of 1,000 to 2,000.
And I'm guessing again here.
But the real question, I think, comes down to how they did it.
They used a new process this year where they used a kind of ranked choice where you came to the caucus, you stated your preference for a particular candidate, and if that candidate received more than 15% of the vote at that caucus, they made it to the second round.
The candidates that did not make it, well, they had a lot of voters who supported them who were now free to make a second choice.
And they could choose one of the candidates who survived through to the second round, or they could band together and choose one of the candidates who didn't make it through on the first count.
That is so confusing.
It's like a transferable ballot.
Go ahead.
It's not that confusing if you have someone who knows how to do it.
I think the problem was they just didn't have, well, here's actually the real problem.
I think this is when we figure out what the problem is behind all of this.
I think it'll turn out to be the following.
One of the choices you have between the first and second vote, if your candidate did not clear 15%, I was at a caucus where Joe Biden missed the 15% threshold.
So if you're one of those Biden voters and your candidate only got, let's say, 11%, well, you could choose to go with one of the other candidates or you could choose to go home.
And a lot of people simply went home.
They did not want to support another candidate.
So that doesn't theoretically pose a problem for the system, except for some of the people counting votes.
Now they had fewer voters in the room.
And I think it confused a lot of people because, for example, we had 680 at the start of our caucus.
By the time they counted the first round, there were only 677.
There were even a couple of votes for people who aren't even running.
There was a vote for Corey Booker, who was already out of the race.
And then you have people leaving after the first round, a huge number of people, not just the Joe Biden people, but a lot of the people whose candidate did make it through to the next round just decided to go home.
So the number of people who remained was something like less than half of the original 680.
Now, this caucus had a very competent manager.
She knew what she was doing, and she knew only to count the difference.
That is to say, the new votes on the second round for candidates who didn't get those votes the first round.
But I imagine that for someone who didn't really know what was working or how to work this system and hadn't done it before, I imagine it was very difficult.
And I'm not sure that the app that they developed for this had appropriate programs in it or appropriate code to take in all this information.
They wanted not just to know how many delegates were won by each caucus, by each precinct, and each candidate in each precinct.
They also wanted to know who won the first ballot, who won the second ballot.
So this app was being asked to take in a whole bunch of information when all people really wanted to know was who got more votes than who else.
It's just needlessly complicated reporting.
What they could have done, I think, in retrospect, was simply report the total number of votes for each candidate at each caucus and get to all the other information in the weeks that followed because there's six weeks between the Iowa caucus, roughly six, maybe seven, between the Iowa caucus and the state convention.
They had plenty of time to work this out, but they tried to do it all with the fancy app on a phone, and the system was broken enough as it was, complicated enough as it was.
The conspiracy theory going around is that Joe Biden did so badly that the party bigwigs spiked the result.
There may be some truth to that.
And in fact, as we speak right now, Joe Biden's campaign is considering going to court to stop the results from being reported because they're not going to be fully reported and they're concerned that he might be in fifth place or worse, maybe.
The caucus I was at, he was in fifth place, and that's an urban caucus with people concerned about electability, some more moderate people, perhaps.
The winner of our caucus was Elizabeth Warren, who actually showed up in person to give a speech.
That's allowed, by the way.
Campaigning within the caucus is part of how it works.
So she showed up personally.
Her candidate, her delegates, her supporters, her caucus goers, outnumbered the rest.
But he was first, then Bernie Sanders, then Pete Buttigieg, then Amy Klobuchar, and Biden failed to qualify.
Wow.
That, I think, was mirrored throughout the state.
I don't think Warren won a whole lot of precincts, but I think she did fairly well, second or third.
And Pete Buttigieg did fairly well.
Bernie Sanders probably won Iowa.
Amy Klobuchar and Joe Biden, nobody knows who was fourth, who was fifth.
And I think Biden's people are very worried that they'll see a rapid drop-off in support in other states if he is out of the top four.
They said this morning they thought he was in the top four.
A little remark escaped his spokesperson on one of the American news networks.
She was asked how they did, and she said, Well, we're bunched up in the top four.
That was her guess.
If they're not bunched up in the top four, it's going to look pretty bad for Joe Biden.
Here's a quick clip of CNN's Jake Tapper talking to one of these little clusters of Biden voters who were hoping they could become what he called viable.
Take a quick look at this.
Biden, how are we doing over here?
This does not look like 56 people.
So the Biden group.
So you look like lovely, wonderful people, but it doesn't look like you made the viability threshold.
Not yet.
Not yet.
There's time.
This year?
I'm not trying to be funny, but no, but what are you going to do?
We're going to stand strong with our first choice.
And when other candidates are not viable, we know that Joe is a lot of people's second choice and will become viable in the second alignment.
Joel, I got to tell you, first of all, it looks really fun.
Everyone hanging out, schmoozing.
Looks like some of those ladies here were ready to go.
They were holding their coats as if they just wanted to go.
That's a massive time commitment.
It seems like it's not just go show American X and go.
If Joe Biden is in fourth or fifth, but he's the establishment candidate, it sounds like the Democrats have a version of the Trump movement, which is the grassroots hate the establishment and vice versa.
Who do you think?
Well, there's something to that.
Although I think on the left, the grassroots are more part of the establishment than they were on the right.
It's a topic for another time.
I will say this.
The Biden people had been saying as far back as September that Iowa was not a must-win state for them.
So even though they campaigned hard, I think they were already trying to lower expectations in September.
And they are hoping, as of right now, that they can keep their lead in South Carolina.
Every poll still shows him leading in South Carolina, although his lead is dwindling.
They're hoping he can keep his lead with African-American voters.
And this is, how beautiful is this?
They're gambling on Nevada.
That's right.
Las Vegas, Reno, and Nevada.
That's going to be a big showdown.
Biden and Sanders in the latest poll are in a statistical dead heat.
So if Joe Biden is going to stay in the race much past Super Tuesday, he's going to have to win Nevada, not just because it's going to forecast voter trend, but because he's got to keep his donors on board, and they're going to look to back a winning candidate.
If they see that Biden's not doing well, they're going to quickly try to find someone else other than Sanders to support.
I doubt many Biden donors would move over to Sanders, and I'm not sure he would take them.
But I think that Nevada is going to be really interesting.
So if you've got nothing else to do over President's Day weekend in Nevada and through the week that follows, you should come hang out.
Never a bad reason to go to Vegas.
This time, it's a real gamble.
Wow.
Thanks For Your Time00:01:57
Well, Joel, thanks for giving us your time.
I know you just got back to LA, so you've got to catch up on stuff.
I follow you on Breitbart.com.
I encourage all our viewers to do so.
This is very interesting times.
We'll have to start sending our Canadian reporters down there to get things firsthand, but we'll always rely on you for analysis, Joel.
Thanks for your time.
And you don't have to register here, at least not yet.
Oh, that's right.
Yeah, you're talking about journalist registration.
Holy cow.
Yeah, it's a global embarrassment, that's for sure.
All right, take care, my friend.
Thanks for your help.
Take care.
There you have it, Joel Pollock, senior editor at large of Breitbart.com.
And isn't that funny?
His comment at the end there, I don't know if you caught it, is a reference to registration of journalists.
Trudeau's scheme has made world headlines.
Stay with us.
More Ahead on the Rebel.
Well, what did you think about the show today?
I am outraged that they're coming to de-platform Dr. Patrick Moore.
As I record this, he has not yet been de-platformed.
But if he is, I would encourage him to sue for breach of contract.
And not just for breach of contract, to sue those who induced the breach of contract.
That's what I did when I was deplatformed in Alberta.
Remember my book launched?
Some leftist extremists scared the theater owner into ripping up the contract.
I get the feeling that this conference will hold firm.
The whole point of a conference is to have interesting different points of view.
Dr. Moore is one of 45 speakers.
And I can't think of a better promotional marketing campaign than someone wants to speak or banned, buy your ticket now.
If they're smart, they'll go ahead with it and love the publicity and sell a lot more tickets.
I wonder if they're good and smart or if they're just too afraid.
We'll find out soon.
That's our show for today.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, good night.