Joel Pollock reports from California on Super Tuesday’s March 3rd shift, while Canada’s media cartel—99% of newspapers (including Post Media’s Calgary Herald and CBC) that took Trudeau’s $600M bailout plus $1.5B for the CBC—demands government licensing to silence independent outlets like Rebel News. Meanwhile, Trudeau and Singh flip-flop on railway blockades, calling Alberta’s actions "unacceptable" or "racist" but ignoring Eastern Canada’s propane shortages and 1,000+ layoffs, exposing their selective outrage as political convenience. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I take you through a very strange and fairly private letter sent by Canada's media organizations, the big newspapers and the CBC, to the Trudeau government asking for them to bring in more regulations to determine who is and isn't a trusted media source.
Hang on, I thought Stephen Gilbo sort of walked those comments back.
No, Not only did he not walk them back, but the newspapers are demanding that sort of licensing.
I'll prove it to you.
Can I invite you to become a premium subscriber?
Go to premium.rebelnews.com.
It's eight bucks a month.
You get the video version of this podcast, which I recommend.
All right, here's the podcast.
Tonight, it's official.
The media that are taking Trudeau's bailout money are asking him to crack down on non-bailout media, saying we can't be trusted.
It's February 22nd, 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 where you're not likely to see any bad news about the billionaire media tycoon Michael Bloomberg, the guy who's just trying to buy the presidency through the Democratic Party?
You won't see any bad news about him, no critical news about Bloomberg on Bloomberg.
Bloomberg is actually a pretty big media company named after him, Bloomberg News, pretty reputable.
Of course, it tilts left as all media do, but it's a real company.
Not anymore, though.
Ever since Michael Bloomberg, the man, threw his pint-sized hat into the ring, Bloomberg, the media empire, hasn't criticized him.
Of course not.
They're not allowed to.
He's the boss.
And he's made it crystal clear, only attack Trump.
I suppose in many ways that's completely fair.
Bloomberg the man built his own media company called Bloomberg News.
Why can't he toot his own horn?
There are so many other media companies in America, it probably won't make a real difference other than people won't be able to trust Bloomberg the company quite as much anymore.
In fact, Bloomberg has now made his company the issue.
Maybe other media will start doing stories about just how deeply in bed with communist China this supposedly capitalist tycoon has gotten.
I mean, just watch this.
The guy makes Justin Trudeau look like a sinophobe.
I have literally never even seen a Chinese diplomat say something this crazy.
The Communist Party wants to stay in power in China, and they listen to the public.
When the public says I can't breathe the air, Xi Jiping is not a dictator.
He has to satisfy his constituents or he's not going to survive.
He's not a dictator?
No, he has to.
He has a constituency to answer to.
He doesn't have a vote.
He doesn't have a democracy.
He doesn't have to be a good idea.
He can survive.
If his advisors think about it.
Is they check on him just a revolution?
Yeah, I can have a revolution.
No government survives without the will of the majority of its people.
Holy cow.
I mean, when Trudeau says that, he sounds dumb and naive.
When Bloomberg says that, it sounds terrifying because we know he's not dumb and naive.
But my point is Bloomberg the Man says trust Bloomberg, the company, which says trust Bloomberg the Man.
And while it's all a bit much, and Bloomberg has more than $60 billion he can throw at other media companies too, by the way.
He could pretty much just buy every single TV station and newspaper in America if he really wanted to.
He's got enough money, though there are antitrust rules that would stop that.
I'm not so sure it would work because people would resist.
It'll be fascinating to watch in any event.
But my obvious point is, if you want bad news about Bloomberg the Man, you'll have to look somewhere else besides Bloomberg, the media company.
So what about in Canada where 99% of all newspapers are now on Justin Trudeau's payroll?
I don't mean 50% or even 90%.
I mean almost all of them.
Name me a single newspaper and I'll answer because it's easy.
Because there was already an oligopoly of a few big companies controlling everything.
So if you name the Calgary Herald or the Edmonton Journal or the Ottawa Citizen or Vancouver Sun, Vancouver Province, Montreal Gazette, Regina Leader Post, Saskatoon Star, Phoenix, National Post, Toronto Sun, Emmaison, Ottawa Sun, Calgary Sun, they're all just one company, right?
It's called Post Media.
And that company gets $140,000 a week from Justin Trudeau.
Those are just the daily newspapers.
I don't have time to read out all the names of the weekly newspapers, especially newspapers owned by Post Media.
And that's just one company.
But there are only a handful of companies that cover, seriously, 99% of all the media.
I'm not exaggerating.
The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, the regional BC papers, the Atlantic Papers, 99% of the newspapers in this country are part of the bailout.
So I'm not so worried about Bloomberg.
He's huge, but he's just one guy with one company.
If he buries bad news about himself, you'll probably hear it from someone else.
But what about in Canada where I swear I do not exaggerate, 99% of the media are in league with each other now.
They're all in it together now.
And by that, I mean they have all taken the plunge and taken Justin Trudeau's government bailout.
They're all in it together now.
It's exactly what I said would be impossible for Bloomberg, even though he's so rich, because he literally would not be allowed to buy 90% of American media because it would be an illegal trust, an illegal monopoly.
He would be stopped.
Well, we have that in Canada, but it's 99%.
Oh, and they have a lobby group, as you would expect.
They got their $600 million newspaper bailout.
That's the newspaper side.
The CBC gets another $1.5 billion direct from Trudeau.
All these groups want to keep the party going.
It's your money, so they're adverse to your interests, and they lobby Trudeau to get it.
And look at the main story on the front page, as it were, of their lobby group's website.
This is their main story today.
Media companies call on Parliament to support policies that favor trusted sources of original news.
So they just said it.
Not to you.
Like Bloomberg, they don't report embarrassing things about Bloomberg.
When Canada's media cartel announces their plans that are adverse to consumer choice or to freedom or to competition, they're not going to shout it out to you.
They'll put it on their lobbyist website and target it to Parliament.
Not on the front page of the newspapers that, you know, go to mere citizens.
I'm sorry, but the newspapers don't value you anymore.
The TV stations don't value you anymore.
You used to be the center of things in the media.
You paid a subscription fee for a newspaper.
You bought it a newsstand.
Your eyeballs were valued to advertisers.
But neither of those things are really true anymore.
You probably get your news for free, probably on the internet.
And sure, your eyes are still worth something to advertisers, very much so, but probably not to companies buying half a page of ads in a printed newspaper.
Probably to a Facebook ad or a Google ad or something like that.
So you aren't really even part of this discussion anymore, other than the source for tax dollars that Trudeau will extract from you and give to newspapers that you don't even read anymore.
Scroll down the page a little bit.
Look at who signed this begging letter.
It's everyone.
La Presse and Le Devoir.
Those are two left-wing Montreal newspapers.
National Observer, that's the far-left news website in Vancouver, but it's actually a propaganda site.
It was started by the sister of Joel Solomon, the creator of the Tides Foundation.
Post Media's on there, Toronto Star's on there, the CBC is on there.
These companies used to actually compete against each other once upon a time.
They used to compete against each other, hammer and tong.
But now they're partners, they're allies because they have the identical self-interest now, working together to pressure Justin Trudeau's government to give them more of your money.
They're allies now.
They're not competitors now.
They're allied to press Trudeau to give them things that they can't convince you to give them directly as a customer.
And what will they do in return for Trudeau?
Well, they just said, didn't they, they want Trudeau to favor them, and they'll return the favor like Bloomberg to Bloomberg.
Favor them over the handful of holdouts who don't take the bailout.
I can think of four in the whole country.
Us here at Rebel News, I think we're the biggest.
True North, that's Candace Malcolm and Andrew Lawton and friends, great people.
The Postmillennial, have you been to that website?
Good stuff, good work.
And Blacklocks, I've mentioned them before.
They're a small Ottawa-based news website.
The total number of staff at all four of these independent media I just named, including us, it's got to be less than 50 people.
In the whole country, we're the 1%, but not the richest 1%, as that term is often used.
We're the independent 1%.
We're the 1% who aren't on the take.
And that's what the media party wants to change.
And you bet Justin Trudeau does too.
Here, let's go through this weird lobbying letter.
And it was published just two days ago.
It's sort of strange.
Fancy that.
I don't think it was on the front page of your newspaper that you might have read.
It was just on the front page of their lobbying website.
Although they were talking about you and what you'd be allowed to read and what you wouldn't.
Here, let me go through this letter that was sent to Parliament.
Media companies call on Parliament to support policies that favor trusted sources of original news.
That makes me laugh.
Really, and this is going to shock you.
Sorry to ruin the suspense, spoiler alert.
They think that they're the only trustworthy ones.
And I suppose they are.
They're the only ones that Justin Trudeau can trust to give them his money, your money.
So if that's what they mean by trust, the only newspapers that Trudeau can trust, they're right.
Trudeau doesn't trust us, that's for sure.
He keeps trying to censor us either by calling the cops on me for writing a book about him or banning us at the Rebel and our friends at True North from the leaders' debates.
Remember that happened in October.
So it's, I suppose, true that the media party are the only trustworthy media if it's Trudeau's trust that counts as opposed to your trust that counts.
I put it to you that it's the opposite.
We, the 1%, the tiny band of rebels and our allies, we're the only trustworthy ones that you can trust, not to be paid off by the people we're supposed to be holding to account, Justin Trudeau and his government.
How can you take money from someone you're covering?
They keep talking about who's trustworthy, and they have decided who will decide.
They will.
Get this, I'll read some more from their letter.
As a result of those discussions, CBC Radio Canada and the Winnipeg Free Press launched a pilot project in Winnipeg, sharing resources on weekends and cross-linking trusted news content on their websites to better serve that community.
The group is continuing to explore other areas of possible collaboration.
Oh, okay.
So it's Trudeau's CBC, the official state broadcaster with government journalists.
They'll decide who's trustworthy.
They just said so.
And they'll promote those voices using government money?
They just said so.
Let me read some more.
The journalism being produced every day by people in your community is important.
Now more than ever, we encourage you to support Canadian media in your community.
The letter says, A strong democracy depends on diverse sources of trusted news.
We all have a role to play.
What does that mean?
I'm in the community.
We're all in the community.
I'm Canadian.
We at the Rebel meet the term diverse if by that you mean different points of view.
We're different than the other guys.
But what's that trusted part again?
Trusted by whom?
I don't trust the CBC or the Toronto Star or many of the other media on the bailout now.
Maybe they don't trust me in return.
Many Americans don't trust Bloomberg media's reporting anymore, but at least in America, they have other choices.
And in America, Bloomberg hasn't asked the government to favor his personal company.
And that's what these Canadian grifters just did.
They already command 99% of the market.
Now they're trying to decide who is or isn't trustworthy, and they want Trudeau to enforce their definition.
They said so.
They want to change the laws and the policies of Trudeau's government to favor them.
This letter is written to the government who pays them.
Earlier this month, the Heritage Minister Stephen Gilbeau, a longtime Trudeau ally, a convicted criminal, by the way, radical environmental activist for years, here he is being arrested a little while back.
He went to CTV to talk about government licenses to prove you're trustworthy.
Media Grifters Demand Control00:04:06
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.
This is a recommendation, Evan.
The CRTC hasn't decided.
Okay, but they're recommending that.
They're recommending that, yeah, 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.
Do you really think that was a gaffe, a mistake?
Of course it wasn't.
The second item on Gilbo's official to-do list, his mandate letter sent to him from Trudeau, is to censor the internet.
It's his job description, according to Trudeau.
Still, it was a bit startling to hear it spoken that way.
Like I say, normally this sort of weird lobbying and censorship isn't published to the population at large.
Like I say, Bloomberg, the company, doesn't report bad things about Bloomberg the man.
And this was a case of the media actually reporting bad things about the plans for the media.
What a PR mistake.
So Gilbo was sent back out the next day to try to clean up the damage.
What we are saying is that we will not ask news organizations to have license.
and I refer people to the report, which does make an independent panel that makes a recommendation that on the issue of discoverability, media organization would need to have a license.
But that, we're not, and media can be confusing.
I recognize that because the report talks about media, but not necessarily in the sense necessarily of news agencies.
And maybe the confusion comes from there.
Thank you very much.
But he didn't really walk it back, did he?
You heard him at the end.
They're going to license media companies.
And maybe you saw the odd pundit squawk about what Gilbo was saying.
Here's Robin Urbach.
Yeah, they were very, very mad.
Here's Andrew Coyne, of course.
They were mad at Gilbo.
And they said so.
Here's Chris Selly of Post Media.
They said so in their government-trusted, government-funded, controlled opposition kind of way.
All those pundits I showed you there who were saying, this is outrageous.
Yeah, well, two days ago, their bosses all wrote to Trudeau asking for exactly what Gilbo had proved, what he had suggested, new policies to favor them, the trustworthy ones.
I've said it before, 99% is not enough for Trudeau.
He wants the last of us 1%ers, the 1% independent media.
He wants us dead, arrested.
He sent the cops after me.
Soon there will be only two kinds of journalists in Canada.
Those working for Trudeau, like Urbach, Selley, and Coyne there.
And those banned by Trudeau.
Stay with us for more for another four years and we can't stand that.
Billionaire Bloomberg Attacks00:08:08
So I'd like to talk about who we're running against.
A billionaire who calls women fat broads and horse-faced lesbians.
And no, I'm not talking about Donald Trump.
I'm talking about Mayor Bloomberg.
Democrats are not going to win if we have a nominee who has a history of hiding his tax returns, of harassing women, and of supporting racist policies like redlining and stop and frisk.
Holy moly, that's Elizabeth Warren taking off the gloves this week in a Democratic presidential primary debate that just got started.
It was even more brutal.
After that, joining us now via Skype to talk about it, is our friend Joel Pollock, the senior editor-at-large at Breitbart.com.
Joel, you were there.
It was shocking on TV.
I see that had the highest debate ratings of any Democratic debate, I think, ever.
Not hard to see why.
It was truly gloves off.
It was.
I think the ratings were high because people wanted to see Mike Bloomberg.
They wanted to see the new entrant into the field.
And I also think they were anticipating this kind of a fight.
Bernie Sanders had been hinting at it for days that this was a billionaire trying to come in and take control of the party.
And if there was one thing you knew about Bernie Sanders, it's that he would not stand for a billionaire buying out the presidential election.
So I think this was a highly anticipated fight virtually on the eve of the Tyson Fury Deontay Wilder Heavyweight Boxing Championship in Las Vegas, which happens on Saturday evening.
And very much in that style.
Right out of the gate, Elizabeth Warren jabbed Michael Bloomberg right between the eyes.
And to his credit, he stayed on his feet.
He got in a few good punches of his own, particularly at the expense of Sanders, noting later on that what a wonderful country America is because the best-known socialist in America has three houses and is a millionaire.
I think we've got a clip of that.
Let's play that right now.
It's quite something.
Obviously, he had been keeping that powder dry, but he really delivered it well.
Here, let's take a look.
What a wonderful country we have.
The best-known socialist in the country happens to be a millionaire with three houses.
What'd I miss here?
Well, you'll miss that I work in Washington, House Watch, the first problem.
Live in Burlington, House Code.
That's good.
And like thousands of other Vermonters, I do have a suba camp.
Forgive me for that.
Where is your home?
Which tax haven?
New York, your home.
New York City, thank you very much.
And I pay all my taxes.
You know what?
I think a lot of Democrats, pundits, Democrat pundits, thought Michael Bloomberg was not quite prepared, not ready for obvious questions that were coming his way.
My theory is that when you're worth $60 billion and the president of a company that's named after you, you don't have a lot of skeptics or dissidents in your world.
Everyone's sort of a yes man.
It's been a while since he's been mayor of New York where everyone's a critic.
I think maybe he just wasn't ready for the rough and tumble.
Am I overstating how poorly he did?
There's another argument, which is that he actually did exactly what he needed to do.
Now, this is not a view I share, but it is a pretty good argument, which is that all he needed to do is draw out the worst in the other candidates and survive.
The only person who he did not manage to draw into a confrontation was Pete Buttigeg.
Pete Budige remained focused on Bernie Sanders.
And I thought that showed some smart thinking on his part because Bloomberg is not on the ballot on Saturday when the people of Nevada, in the Democratic Party at least, go to vote in their caucuses.
He's also not on the ballot in South Carolina.
Now, you might think it's kind of dumb for Bloomberg to go on stage before a caucus or a primary where the result is going to be he loses with 0% of the vote.
That was my thinking.
But Buttigej understands that Bloomberg may be around for a while, and his real challenge is actually Bernie Sanders.
Sanders is the frontrunner, and Buttigeg is trying to say, look, I'm the real alternative to Sanders.
I'm not going to waste my time attacking Michael Bloomberg.
I'll leave that to the others, but I'm going to go after the frontrunner.
All the other candidates spent their time attacking Michael Bloomberg, and he was able, in a sense, to make them all look angry.
So perhaps, this is the argument, perhaps he actually did win the debate because he will be around again next week.
Then he's around on Super Tuesday when all the other candidates have essentially punched themselves out, all of them except Pete Buttigieg, who, despite whatever other flaws he has as a candidate, is running a very polished campaign.
He is running all over the state of Nevada.
He's appearing in communities everywhere.
He's doing everything you would need to do to win the state.
Not polling very well, though, because I don't think people are warming to his message, which is rather elusive.
It's almost an Obama-type Hopi Changey message 12 years after the fact.
So it's not really clear what he stands for.
And I think that's fundamentally his problem.
He is running an incredibly well-organized and disciplined campaign, and you saw that there in the debate.
But Sanders and Bloomberg came to fight, and Sanders especially, and you can see he really let Bloomberg get under his skin very early on, as well as Budijej.
When Budijej was attacking Sanders, Sanders almost flew into a rage on stage.
And I think that was Bloomberg's goal.
He was trying to get everybody to look angry, unhinged, lacking the leadership temperament.
And he kept his cool.
He knew that a lot of this was coming.
He didn't dispute some of it.
Some of it, by the way, I don't think was actually correct.
Some of the attacks against him weren't 100% factually correct.
He just withstood it and delivered his message.
There was one thing he did very poorly, which was on the issue of women making accusations inside of his company and the non-disclosure agreements he made them sign.
That was very poorly handled.
You know, Trump would have handled that very differently.
And Bloomberg lied.
I agree.
I thought that was, he looked so bad.
Here, let's play a clip of it just so our viewers know what you're talking about.
It's for sexual harassment and for gender discrimination in the workplace.
So, Mr. Mayor, are you willing to release all of those women from those non-disclosure agreements so we can hear their side of the story?
We have a very few non-disclosure agreements.
How many are you?
Let me finish.
How many is there?
None of them accuse me of doing anything other than maybe they didn't like the joke I told.
And let me just put, and let me put, there's agreements between two parties that wanted to keep it quiet, and that's up to them.
They signed those agreements and we'll live with them.
So wait, when you say it, I just want to be clear.
Some is how many?
And when you say they signed them and they wanted them, if they wish now to speak out and tell their side of the story about what it is they allege that's now okay with you, you're releasing them on television tonight.
Senator Howard.
Is that right?
I thought that looked, I thought that was pretty bad.
I mean, it looked bad.
I don't know what the truth beneath it is, but it looks bad.
What do you think, Joel?
I thought it was very poor debating form for him to be drawn into that subject.
He ought to have said, there's nothing here.
I'd like to know the truth about Elizabeth Warren's investments in the fossil fuel industry, or I'd like to know about how she flipped houses and took advantage of people who went bankrupt.
You know, he had to counter with something instead of which he gave them more information that they could use in subsequent attacks.
And watching all that and being right there in Las Vegas, my eyes kind of glazed over because I don't think there's anything of real public interest in that discussion, but it does make him look vulnerable.
Bloomberg's Debating Dilemma00:05:15
And so I don't think that it was that interesting a point in terms of policy debate, but it was certainly interesting in terms of the political struggle.
And polls since the debate have shown that the only real change was that Bloomberg's favorability went down dramatically.
And I think that exchange was part of it.
I remember back four years ago when Donald Trump was amongst a dozen plus contenders.
And after a while, they all turned their guns on him.
And just simply being the subject of their attention, he, it was like he was the only one who stood out after a while.
He was such a character.
He had so much charisma, so much style, so entertaining, so outrageous, that he took up all the oxygen in the room.
I'm not sure if Bloomberg has that.
He has all the money in the room, but I don't know if he has, if being the center of attention is enough for him.
What do you think?
I think Bloomberg is pitching himself as a safe alternative to Trump.
And it helps him that Sanders is doing so well because I think Democrats who don't like Sanders will eventually have to pick a candidate.
And it's not that he's the best candidate.
He just has the most independent staying power.
I think surely on the merits, Amy Klobuchar is probably the best non-Sanders candidate.
The problem is she has very little money and she's peaking too late.
She did very well in New Hampshire, but she came to Nevada a few days later and had to basically start from scratch.
She had to open two new offices.
She didn't have offices there before, I don't think.
And she hired 50 staff.
That's all well and good, but it's a bit late in the game.
Elizabeth Warren had five offices there back in September.
By the way, you might see Elizabeth Warren do quite well in Nevada, not just because of that organization, but because, as we mentioned earlier, she came out fighting in the early part of the debate.
And I think that's what Democrats want to see.
The media pundits decided that Donald Trump was the winner of the debate.
And sometimes I agree that Democrats do so poorly that Donald Trump's the real winner.
I think the Democratic Party as a whole won that debate, because I think if I were a Democratic voter watching that debate, I would feel that finally the candidates were showing some energy, some pluck, some willingness to fight.
And that's what Democratic voters want to see most.
They want to see that their leaders are willing to fight.
So I actually think the debate was good for the Democrats, even though they spent all their time attacking each other.
Those attacks will help Trump, there's no doubt.
And the candidate said things that will appear in Trump campaign ads also, no doubt of that.
But I think that since the Democratic Party is simply trying to convince itself that it can fight in this election after the debacle of impeachment, after the good economic numbers, you know what, they almost didn't talk about the economy at all.
They didn't talk about foreign policy at all in this debate.
Trump is winning on those fundamental issues.
And so Democrats are just trying to convince themselves they have the staying power.
In that regard, I think the debate was a big win for Democrats because Warren and the rest were, they were willing to get scrappy.
And I think that's what voters wanted to see.
I know you got to run.
Let me ask one last question.
I see today that Bernie Sanders was asked about Michael Bloomberg.
And obviously, he wasn't going to give Bloomberg a positive review, but he said something that I got to think is true.
He said Donald Trump would chew Bloomberg up and spin him out.
And I thought, I think that's right.
I think there's styles.
I mean, Bloomberg is a manager.
He's sort of bland.
He's not particular.
I mean, he's just Trump, as you mentioned earlier, would have parried and thrusted and cut back against Elizabeth Warren as he did with Hillary Clinton.
I think Trump would demolish Bloomberg.
But maybe that's my desire, not a true prognostication.
What do you think?
I think that's true.
And I think the only threat to Trump on the debate stage is Amy Klobuchar because she has a style that is so different that she could end up reframing the debate the way she wants to.
And that changes everything completely.
None of the other candidates seems to understand how to do that.
Klobuchar didn't do very well in the last debate either because she allowed Pete Buttigieg to get under her skin.
And I think she had an unfortunate moment in a television interview in Nevada where she was asked the name of the Mexican president and couldn't remember.
And I think that is bothering her.
I actually think it's really bothering her.
It also didn't help that one of the debate questions was about that.
And I think she was off her game.
But when she's on her game, she can change the debate.
And it's simply because she has such a different style to everybody else.
And it is a style.
It's not just a cop-out.
It's not a weak personality.
It's a different way of approaching a debate.
And I think it's one that Trump would have trouble with.
The rest, they all want to play on his field.
Bernie Sanders going after Trump toe-to-toe doesn't make Bernie look better.
And you can see that every time he fights anyone on stage, he looks flustered.
He gets angry.
He's also not in the best health.
And that's been a problem for the campaign.
They've really tried to dispel rumors that he's unhealthy.
And they haven't really succeeded.
They're not really being completely transparent about his medical problems.
So Bernie versus Trump on stage, I think Bernie comes off worse, but Bloomberg versus Trump, definitely worse.
I mean, Bernie would do better than Bloomberg.
Bloomberg, I think, was a deer caught in the headlights for most of the debate.
Again, his strategy, I think, was just to survive and draw out the other attacks.
And he did come back with a few zingers against Sanders, but he did not look like a great debater.
Very interesting.
Clearing Blockades Nonviolently00:05:53
Well, hardly wait to see what's coming up.
Let us know one last time: when is this Super Tuesday, where so many of the states vote at once and it will really shake out the third, fourth, fifth place folks from the race?
So Super Tuesday is March 3rd, March 3rd, Tuesday, March 3rd.
And that's the big day.
There are a few other big primaries after that, but California and Texas both vote on Super Tuesday.
So that's going to be very big.
After that, you've got Michigan and Florida, Arizona, and I think the last big one is Pennsylvania at the end of April.
By that point, we should have.
Where are you going to be on Super Tuesday?
I will be in California.
I'll be home in California because that's where the state will be voting in Super Tuesday for the first time.
The California primary used to be in June.
They moved it earlier.
And so I'll be reporting on the ground in California.
Home, sweet home.
That's when Super Tuesday is going to happen.
March 3rd.
That would be amazing.
That's coming up so soon.
Well, Joel, thanks so much for joining us and taking the time away from things over there.
We'll let you go.
Have a great weekend, and we look forward to keeping in touch with you.
All right.
Thanks so much.
There you have it.
Joel Pollock Sr., editor-at-large of Breitbart.com.
I can't believe how quick Super Tuesday is coming up.
I really think it's going to winnow the field.
Stay with us.
It's more ahead of the level.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue yesterday about the illegal blockades.
Kaylin writes: if the police don't enforce the law, is it not legal for people to do citizens' arrests?
Basically, doing what the cops were supposed to do in the first place.
I didn't hear anybody suggesting this, so I was thinking that this might be the next legal step.
Well, that's true.
Ordinary citizens have many powers that we generally leave to the police.
For example, you can perform a citizen's arrest.
Now, you have to be careful.
And I don't generally recommend it.
That's not what these lads did in Alberta.
They didn't perform a citizen's arrest.
They didn't perform any policing duties.
They just cleared the junk off the railway tracks that was a danger.
So this wasn't even policing on the part of private citizens.
I wouldn't recommend that you try and arrest someone for standing on railroad tracks because I just think that I don't think that that would stand a strong chance of being legally successful.
You have to be very careful when doing a citizen's arrest, and I wouldn't want to give you legal advice.
I'm not in a position to do so.
Clearing blockades, though, in a nonviolent way, I say thumbs up.
And in fact, the rebel will provide legal lawyer to any Canadian who nonviolently clears off a blockade and is later harassed by police or arrested.
Corey writes, personally, hope the Eastern Canada blockades increase.
What better way to send a message to Easterners and people in big cities?
Wait a second, I can't get my Starbucks?
You mean coffee isn't grown in Toronto?
Late today, Justin Trudeau started saying, Her, her, her, the blockades must come down.
The very things he condemned as unacceptable and Jagmeet Singh called racist a few days ago.
He still doesn't have any plans for making the blockades come down.
I think the reason Trudeau chose to act was, first of all, you don't think he's going to work on the weekend, do you?
So he wanted to go skiing, so he had to solve it today.
Number two, Certain critical things for Eastern Canada, like propane deliveries, were about to run out.
And it's cold across Canada right now.
I think there's some real problems starting to happen if these blockades continue.
I don't want people in Atlantic Canada to be freezing in the cold.
I don't want businesses to go out of business.
We've already seen more than 1,000 layoffs.
But I will admit that it's sort of a karmic outcome.
that the parts of this country that voted so overwhelmingly for the climate change parties, the Liberals and the Black Quépoco and the NDP, are the ones who are squawking now, I need my propane.
Let the diesel-powered trains go.
It's almost like they didn't mean it when they said they wanted a climate action future.
It's almost like all they meant was Alberta can suffer and they can just get the virtue signaling in.
Sean writes, I'm not sure if anyone is going to get this email, but I want you to know I live in a small town, Ontario, Northern Ontario, and I'm more than willing to lend my services to clean up any blockade.
I'm willing to go to jail.
Let me know.
Well, Sean, I don't want you to go to jail.
And so my number one piece of advice, just as a friend, is don't put hands on a protester.
Just don't get physical with the people.
I believe that it is, in my own amateur opinion, that it's lawful to take junk off a railroad track and move it away.
In fact, I think it's not only legal, I think you're doing a good thing because you're removing a danger.
What bugged me so much is that the police in the northern Alberta crossing there were standing by and it fell to private citizens right in front of the police to move the danger.
So don't touch anyone.
Don't fight anyone, but absolutely clear the junk off railroad tracks.
You might actually be saving a life.
And if you get arrested or hassled, we will supply you with a lawyer.
I should recommend to you in closing a video that Sheila Gunnery just published today.
She was in Alberta meeting with some of those lads that cleared the tracks in Alberta, and we gave each of them a case of beer on us, a way of saying add a boy.
And if any of them has any legal troubles, we'll send them a lawyer as well.
All right, that's our show for the week.
We'll see you on Monday, and we'll have YouTube videos on the weekend.