Rebel News examines the Conservative Party of Canada’s chaotic leadership race, where Andrew Scheer—earning $250K+ with perks—reversed his resignation amid allegations of misusing party funds for private school tuition and other costs. Four remaining candidates—Lewis, McKay, O’Toole, and Sloan—face criticism for weak conservative stances, flip-flopping, or avoiding tough questions like Flynn’s unmasking by 39 Obama officials (including Samantha Power) and Biden’s potential prior knowledge. Meanwhile, L.A.’s Mayor Garcetti extends outdoor mask mandates despite low transmission risk, sparking public resistance, while pandemic mismanagement by Democrats contrasts with Trump’s rising approval as a crisis leader, exposing conservative media’s suppression by mainstream outlets. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I go through the Conservative Party of Canada's leadership race.
I'll tell it to you in one word.
It's pitiful.
But if you want to hear 2,000 words, well, have I got a podcast for you?
I go through all of the remaining candidates and also talk about the two candidates who were thrown out by the party.
And I'll talk about my own thoughts on why it matters whether or not a candidate will even talk to Rebel News.
That's all I had.
But before I get to that, let me invite you to become a Rebel News Plus subscriber.
It's $8 a month or $80 for a whole year.
That's cheaper than Netflix, you know.
You get the video version of this podcast, plus also podcast videos from Sheila Gunread and David Manzies, and the personal satisfaction of knowing that you keep the Rebels strong.
We don't take a dime from Trudeau, and it shows.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, the Conservative Party's leadership contest lurches forward.
I'll tell you the Rebel News view.
It's May 15th, and you're watching the Ezra Levant show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government.
But why publish?
It's because it's my bloody right to do so.
It's May 15th already.
We're almost done half the year.
The pandemic has stolen so much time, hasn't it?
And it will steal so much more than that before it's done.
One of the things that derailed, or at least detracted from, is the Conservative Party's leadership contest to succeed Andrew Scheer, who stepped down after a disappointing showing in the October federal election.
He said he planned to stay on, but then there were rumblings in the caucus against him.
The whole balloon just popped when it was revealed that he had been secretly pocketing donations from the party to cover his own children's private school costs and other personal expenses.
It's not so much that he was taking those secret payments from the party.
I think all parties have expense accounts for their leaders.
It's not just that Scheer, as opposition leader, was already making more than a quarter million bucks a year, plus expenses, plus travel, plus an MP's office in the riding and in Ottawa, plus living expenses, plus, plus, plus.
I mean, that made it gross.
I think it was that when you're a conservative and you publicly and loudly and with a straight face condemn Justin Trudeau for secretly enriching himself, whether it's Trudeau putting his two nannies on the public dime, I guess that's not in secret, or Trudeau taking a secret, illegal $100,000 vacation on the Aga Khan's private island or the Bahamas, or secretly spending millions to renovate the lake house, as Trudeau's doing.
Political Fiascos and Consequences00:15:01
When you condemn all that excess and grift and graft, and then you're caught doing the same thing all along, there's really nothing left for you to say or do.
It's like when a televangelist gets caught having an affair, it just doesn't work anymore.
So Andrew Scheer jumped before he was pushed and he quit.
But then, I don't know how it happened.
He just flipped around and decided to stay on as leader until whenever to continue to take his leader's salary top up, to take the official residence storing away, to take the extra limo, the extra staff, be in charge of choosing the shadow cabinet, promoting or punishing backbench MPs.
So it was a resignation for some time in the future because he's still the leader today.
One reason why that's a problem is that it confuses the party's message and branding.
Is Scheer gone or not?
Is it still his party to shape or not?
Is Shear's trademark communication style boring, passive, deferential, timid?
Is that still the nature of the party?
Seriously, what Conservative with a pulse would prefer someone like Scheer instead of someone like Pierre Polyev?
How many prisoners received their emergency benefit check?
The Honourable Minister, if I may go further, I'd like to thank the member for his question.
7.7 million Canadians received emergency benefit.
Mr. Polyevre.
7 million Canadians are in jail.
The question was, how many prisoners have received the benefit check?
Honourable Minister, listen.
We can make jokes about what's happening to Canadians, but many of them are suffering with this crisis.
Mr. Polyevre.
CBC is saying that prisoners are receiving the check.
They can't have lost their job.
They were already in prison.
Simple question.
How many prisoners have received the checks?
The Honourable Minister.
Chair, I'd like to remind members in this House that we're talking about a very serious situation and some people are unable to make ends meet.
These are emergency measures.
Mr. Polyev, we're doing the work that Canadians expect us to do.
The Honourable Minister, Chair, I've already explained to the member that I, and I'm happy to remind him once again, that this benefit is an emergency one.
Mr. Polyevreview.
The Auditor General says that he keeps dropping half of his audits because the government refuses to provide him funding.
The government has enough money to send 200,000 fraudulent applicants emergency checks.
Why won't the government give the Auditor General the funding he requests?
The Honorable Minister.
I'd like to thank the member for his question.
And I'd like to talk about the role that institutions play in this emergency situation, including the role of the Auditor General.
And we're going to continue to support him because he allows us to do things properly.
Mr. Polyevre.
What does the Auditor General have to do to get the money to do his audits?
Does he have to file a bunch of fraudulent applications for an emergency response benefit?
I just want to remind the Honourable Members to place their questions through the Chair, not directly to the members, and answer directly.
The Honourable Minister.
Chair, I know the member and I know that he doesn't want to give the impression that the Auditor General has to be fraudulent to correctly do his job.
Mr. Polyevre.
That's why he should get the money he needs to do his job.
He was doing twice as many audits under the previous government that he is now, but doesn't have the money to do the audits he needs to keep an eye on this government's extraordinary spending.
So yes or no, will the government give the Auditor General the funding he has requested so that he can get back to doing the same number of audits he did under the much more robust funding of the previous Harper government?
Yeah.
Thing is, when Scheer is the party leader, though, he gets to be top dog.
He gets to eat first when it comes to media coverage.
So the contenders for the leadership, well, they have to try and get the scraps when Scheer is done.
Same with any MPs, even Pierre Polyev.
And all the bad judgment Andrew Scheer showed, he's still showing it.
I think there's a non-zero chance Trudeau will call an election soon, and Andrew Scheer will have to run again as party leader because the Conservative election might not yet be done.
So Scheer will lose again.
In the 2019 election, we criticized Andrew Scheer, who is indistinguishable from Trudeau on key issues such as open borders immigration, the theory of man-made global warming, or at least the UN's role in fixing it, and the need to achieve some industrial reductions because some bureaucrats and diplomats meeting in Paris four years ago said we have to.
Scheer was a lukewarm proponent of oil and gas.
He certainly didn't go toe-to-toe with any anti-oil extremists.
Actually, refused to criticize Trudeau on immigration and literally announced his policy on the fly when being pestered a bit by Rosemary Barton and the CBC.
I'm serious.
He had gone the entire campaign without saying what level of immigration he wanted, and then some CBZ hack just pesters him and he immediately does whatever she tells him to do.
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.
Yeah, not really hard to see how he lost the election.
Sorry, I just wish he would go already so the party could get on with things.
Real talk.
Who is a more effective counterweight to Trudeau today?
Whether it's on the pandemic or foreign policy towards China or oil and gas or the carbon tax, Andrew Scheer or a provincial premier named Jason Kenney.
Well, enough griping by me.
We are now waiting a new dawn for the party.
The party doesn't seem to be very focused on it.
Almost the opposite.
Here's the party's homepage.
Pretty tough to find any information about the leadership race.
There's that one big link there to buy a membership for the leadership.
And I clicked on it.
And it indeed will let you buy a membership.
And I mentioned that because today is the deadline to buy a membership if you want to be eligible to vote.
So do that if you like.
But there's nothing else about the race on that page.
You just can't find it.
None of those main tabs across the top either.
Take action about us, news team.
Where's the excitement?
Got something else going on?
You have to go to that little hamburger in the top right.
That's the website jargon for those three lines that open up a menu.
You have to go there to find it and then click on it.
And then can you still even find it?
You have to go there.
Leadership 2020.
It says if you click on that and then you get this page in very small, fine print, a boring memo about the race being reconvened.
And again, you have to hunt very hard to even find a list of the candidates.
And here they are finally.
Leslie Lewis, Peter McKay, Aaron O'Toole, and Derek Sloan.
I've interviewed two of them, Leslie Lewis and Derek Sloan.
Both Aaron O'Toole and Peter McKay told our journalists personally to their face that they would do interviews with us, but they didn't keep their promise.
They didn't do an interview in person or even via Skype.
Peter McKay in particular was really, really weird about it when our David Menzies talked to him.
David, there's no questions.
I just got to see if I can ask him.
No question.
No questions.
You guys are preventing me from interviewing.
I just want to ask one question, not even an interview.
It's a question on freedom of speech.
So under Peter McKay, it'll be the same as Andrew Scheer, that the rebel is not allowed to be here?
Here, aren't you?
Excuse me, here.
But I'm going to ask a question.
Yes.
Hi, Mr. McKay.
How you doing?
Just want to ask you, sir, what do you feel about Ezra Levent being interrogated by the Elections Commissioner?
I don't like anybody being interrogated, including right now.
Yeah, if you're afraid of David Menzies, who's a really nice guy, no tricks, no gotcha questions, just basic questions.
If you're terrified of the menzoid, there's a small chance you might not be ready to take on Justin Trudeau and his media party escorts.
But back to the four candidates.
Why just four?
And really, this isn't me giving a critique on the website.
We have problems with our own website.
Everyone does, I guess.
It's got that easy to remember domain name, CPC-leadership2020.ca.
That's easy to remember.
It's almost like they don't want a leadership race.
$300,000 entry fee for candidates, the highest I've ever seen in my life.
Andrew Scheer is still taking up all the airtime, still taking all the media interviews.
And the worst part of it is any candidates who dare to be edgy, whether you like them or not, whether you agree with them or not, they've been disqualified by some unnamed party bureaucrats in some closed-door hearing.
First, it was Richard DeKary, a former advisor to Stephen Harper, who had views on LGBTQ and abortion that these party insiders simply rejected, and so they banned him from running.
Hang on, isn't the point of a contest to contest things?
I say, let's have opposing ideas, different ideas, put forward by different people, and we'll all make the final decision after a campaign in a vote.
Why would some secret insiders say, nope, you can't make your case?
If the ideas were so bad, though, why wouldn't they let party voters prove that they were bad ideas by resoundingly rejecting the man and his ideas?
How odd that was.
It frankly reminded me of how Justin Trudeau just simply bans any pro-life Catholics from running in his party.
He just bans them.
But at least he's the party leader, and liberals knew what they were getting with him.
And they all sort of hate pro-life Catholics over there at the Liberal Party anyways.
But why is this happening in the Conservatives?
And by whom?
It doesn't make any sense.
But alas, it happens again.
First, DeKary and now Jim Karajelios, longtime Conservative Party activist in Ontario provincially, especially fighting against the carbon tax, fighting against Patrick Brown's political corruption.
Kara-Halios was simply kicked out of the race too.
I like Jim, and I interviewed him twice, I think.
Nice guy.
I don't know if he's a party leader type, frankly, as much as an activist Gadfly type.
Frankly, I'd like to see him working at Revelus more than running a political party, which by definition requires traits like compromise and team building.
I think Jim is a troublemaking activist, which is why I like him.
And again, he was sacked, removed from the race, not by party members in a vote, but because he criticized Aaron O'Toole's campaign chairman.
How obscure and inside baseball is that?
O'Toole's campaign chairman is Waleed Solomon, a lawyer, political fixer, and Muslim activist.
Solomon was one of the closest advisors to the disgraced former leader of the Ontario PC party, Patrick Brown.
And Solomon has been a proponent of Sharia law-compliant financing in Canada.
And Kara Helios criticized that rather gently, I think, in a campaign email.
Well, Aaron O'Toole complained to that weird secret Conservative Party committee, the same one that banned DeKary.
And so they banned Kara-Halios, too.
He's in court today fighting that ban, by the way.
I wouldn't bet against him winning.
My point is, shouldn't party members get to decide all these things?
If DeKari and Kara Helios and anyone else said things that should be unsayable?
Why is the party trying to make this contest as obscure and small and lifeless and boring as possible in everything from the extreme entry fee to the bizarre hidden website to firing candidates in secret meetings?
I just don't get it.
It's almost, you know, if the thing was being run by an agent of Trudeau, I'm not sure what would be done differently if it were.
I will say what bothers me even more than the firing of those candidates is that Aaron O'Toole and presumably Walit Solomon himself were the complainers who tattled to the party, asking the party to ban their competitor.
That is far more troubling to me.
It's a sign of weakness and whininess, a sign of poor character, I think.
For some reason, it reminds me, I don't know, you know the worst part of soccer, and there are plenty of bad parts.
You know this thing about soccer?
Yeah, that seems to happen all the time.
It's not really a good look to whine to the teacher because your political opponent said something mean to you.
How about be smart and clever and either turn it around on them in some way or ignore them or, I don't know, practice responding to unfair attacks because you're going to get a lot more of them and a lot tougher ones if you actually become leader.
I didn't really care one way or another about Kara Helios' letter.
I liked it fair enough.
But I sure am disappointed with the cancel culture of the party now and that Aaron O'Toole thought de-platforming his opponent was better or easier than beating his opponent.
That ain't going to be how it works if you become the leader of the party, Aaron.
You won't be able to run the mummy to make your younger brother stop pulling your pigtails.
You're going to have to learn how to fight.
So yeah, the two most interesting candidates were removed because they were too interesting in ways the party didn't like and it didn't trust party members to throw them out.
So who are the four that are left?
I've interviewed Leslie Lewis twice and she's a very nice lady and she destroys stereotypes about the party.
But going from running a law firm to running a party and then hopefully running a whole country, doing that in one leap is too much.
I mean a word for Donald Trump, but he's one in a billion.
He, in so many ways, already had been a national figure and had an enormous presence.
He was a household name.
He's a force of nature and that's the presidential system anyways.
Our parliamentary and party system is just different.
I just don't think it's going to work.
And though I like Leslie Lewis very much, I just don't think she's ready for the roughest, toughest political game in the country.
Now, she's done very well, and it's too late to count anyone out.
She's raised a lot of money.
Anyone who made the final cut has.
Here's what I hope.
I hope she runs in a winnable riding as a Conservative MP.
I hope she wins.
I hope she gets smarter and tougher and more experienced as an MP, smoother at answering questions, more practiced.
Maybe in four years after that, if the Conservatives ever win, she'll be ready for cabinet.
And maybe four years after that, she's still young.
Maybe she will be a formidable and powerful and well-known political force then.
So I can't honestly say I think she's ready for a big job, but she absolutely should run for a medium job that could turn into a big job.
How about Derek Sloan?
I like him too, and I like that he had some courage to call out Trudeau and the United Nations and the World Health Organization.
And I like the fact that he was swamped and mobbed by haters and didn't seem to bend the knee.
If you missed it, Sloan simply said what I had said and countless other Canadians had said.
Dr. Teresa Tam is in a terrible conflict of interest working for both the World Health Organization and for the government of Canada.
Surprised by Courage00:10:18
You can't do both.
Teresa Tam followed the World Health Organization every step along the way.
She accused Canadians who were concerned about this virus initially for being racist.
She also suggested that travel bans were unnecessary.
And as late as January 14th, she suggested that human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus was not happening when very credible evidence suggested that it was.
Yeah, that's not racist to say that, of course, but the left and the deplatformers would say it's racist just to shut you up.
What disappoints me again so much is that it was conservative MPs and staffers who joined the denunciation of Sloan and they tried to deplatform him.
I'm frankly surprised he wasn't kicked out too by this secret committee of the party.
I don't think Derek Sloan has the team or the money or the national network or the household name to beat the Liberals either.
I mean maybe and the fact that he didn't immediately fold when a little Twitter mob came against him is a very good sign.
That's actually my favorite thing about him.
It's the rarest thing.
It's a slightly trumpy thing.
He doesn't bend the knee to the leftist mob.
So what about the last two?
Aaron O'Toole and Peter McKay, both are low energy.
Both feel like also Rand retreads reheated leftovers from last night's dinner.
The B list, maybe even the C list.
People who would surely not be anyone's first choice.
But we have to have someone, right?
Peter McKay has been out of politics, making money at a Toronto law firm and raising a family.
That sounds like a pretty nice path in life, don't you think?
I know politics is in his family blood, but he so clearly lacks the fire.
He doesn't even care, it feels like.
He's not even following the news, it seems to me.
His social media campaign is clearly not even being written by him, obviously.
It's being quirky and odd, and I'm not talking about how weird it looks.
I'm talking about the fact that it has been so content-free, and the odd time McKay or whoever is writing it takes a stand on something, he immediately backs down at the first breeze of pushback.
That's the lack of courage, I mean, surrendering at the first puff of resistance from the CBC.
McKay faces backlash over now-deleted tweet that critics say promoted vigilantism.
It's the second social media controversy this month for the conservative leadership candidate.
Yeah, no, he didn't call for vigilantism.
Here's exactly what he said.
Glad to see a couple Albertans with a pickup truck can do more for our economy in an afternoon than Justin Trudeau could do in four years.
He was talking about our friends out there who simply and peacefully and quietly and politely cleared off some dangerous junk that was blocking a railroad track when police and politicians in the courts wouldn't.
That's not vigilantism.
That is literally picking up the garbage at the side of a railway and clearing it away.
That's environmentalism, Alberta style.
Imagine thinking that tweet was edgy.
And then imagine them thinking it was too edgy.
And then imagine taking it down in shame, thereby admitting it was too much.
Trump, what would Trump have done?
You know what he would have done.
He would have doubled down, tripled down, given the CBC a nickname, retweeted some funny internet meme, then he went farther.
He would have made the leftist media go into a tizzy about it, knowing that severely normal Canadians would be cheering for him, knowing that the media would be providing him with free PR, knowing that he would be building his brand in two ways.
First, McKay would then be someone who's not afraid of the media.
Wow, wouldn't that be refreshing?
And second, someone who was against those blockades and thus pro-law and order and pro-Alberta.
What a missed opportunity.
Instead, it was a gaffe.
He should have flipped it around and said, that's not a gap.
That's exactly who I am.
Yeah, he's not who that is, though.
Get us on him, the substance of it.
It's the weakness.
It's the flip-floppiness.
That's Andrew Scheer disease.
And it's clearly spread throughout the whole party.
And Aaron O'Toole, he came in third in the 2017 party leadership race.
He got just over 10% in the first ballot.
By the time he dropped off, what, 11 or 12 ballots later, whatever, he had just over 21%.
So he didn't really light the party on fire back then.
But he had a name of sorts and a track record of sorts.
I'm a bit concerned about the Wally Solomon thing because personnel is policy.
And I'm a bit worried about Solomon's influence on O'Toole.
But that's not what really worries me about O'Toole.
The five-alarm fire for me is that O'Toole, a former military man who has obviously shown courage in his personal life, as in his previous career, he was in the Air Force.
He flew search and rescue helicopters.
That's courage.
He got a law degree, got into politics.
Politics is actually his family business too.
He looks pretty good on paper.
It's a bit boring.
That's okay.
So is Stephen Harper.
But since when does a man of character whine to get a rival knocked off the ballot?
I tell you about that because I focus on that because it shows what he's going to be like and what he is already like.
Now we've invited him to come on Rebel News to talk with us, as a number of other candidates have already talked with us.
But he refuses.
That could be Wally Solomon's advice.
But the decision is ultimately the candidate's decision.
But should a candidate only talk to people he agrees with?
Can you not handle different ideas or firm questions from another point of view?
I say again, if you can't handle rebel news, you're not going to be able to handle the Liberal Party plus the media party.
This isn't vanity for me.
I have 100 things I could talk about on any given day.
I don't need the moral approval of some slightly known sea list politician to feel validated.
If I'm being 100% candid, I don't think any of these four contestants is ever going to be prime minister.
I'm sorry to say it.
It's not even sour grapes.
It's me thinking, what a shame that so-called conservatives have been so conditioned to be scared of engaging with real conservative media or real conservative interest groups.
And by the way, here at Rebel News, we're moderate in the whole constellation of conservative grassroots activists in Canada.
What a shame that the party is simply writing off a huge swath of its base, whether it's because the party is no longer conservative, could be, or whether the party simply doesn't want the media to say mean things about it.
That's probably it.
I mean, I remember when Jordan Peterson, our old friend, was interviewed by the CBC after we had helped Jordan Peters when we promoted his book.
We crowdfunded some funding for it.
I don't know if you remember, a couple years ago now.
So Jordan Peterson, world star, like the hottest book in the English language, global superstar, selling out rock concert-sized venues to give philosophy lectures.
And the CBC finally lands an interview.
Wow, they could talk to him about anything.
The very first question they put to him was, why do you talk to Rebel News?
Speaking out against the federal bill, C-16, the gender pronouns and so on, the federal government cut your funding for research.
Rebel Media came in and did a crowdfunding project for you, raised about $200,000.
After Charlottesville and the riots, the protests there, many people cut ties with rebel media, including the conservative leader, Andrew Scheer, saying that it could be seen as giving hate groups a platform.
You still go on there.
So I'm wondering, why do you go on Rebel Media after Charlottesville?
Now, Jordan Peterson was surprised by how stupid that question is.
But Aaron O'Toole and Peter McKay and Andrew Scheer aren't surprised by how stupid that question is.
They know all about it.
They know that the mean girls in the media party will be mean to them if they dare to talk firmly about railroad blockades or call for restricted immigration or stand firm for lawful firearms, or especially if anyone criticizes St. Greta Thunberg.
And coming on Rebel News is a way of signaling to the world that you're at least open to those conversations and those issues.
That's what worries me the most is it's O'Toole and McKay have signaled to the media political establishment, don't worry about us.
We'll be barely conservatives, sort of conservatives.
We'll really be blue liberals.
We'll be flippable conservatives on anything important.
We'll abandon our values at the first whiff of gunpowder like McKay did on the blockades tweet.
They're saying they're more comfortable with Rosemary Barton, the CBC host and nuisance plaintiff who literally sued the Conservative Party in the middle of the last election campaign.
She was recovering.
She was the debate moderator suing the conservatives.
I mean, that's fine for the conservatives.
Imagine going along with that, but you won't talk to the rebel.
Unbelievable.
That tells you everything you need to know.
So she's polite company in Conservative Party circles, but a truly conservative media outlet with 1.3 million subscribers and a huge Canadian following, well, that's just too crazy.
Yeah, no, it's a rebel litmus test.
If you're not comfortable even saying hello to me or Sheila Gunreed or David Menzies or Kian Bexte on camera, but you're dying to get on Rosemary Barton's Christmas card list, you just might be doing conservatism wrong.
I should note that both Leslie Lewis and Derek Sloan have positively talked about their belief in free speech and about rebel news, and I very much appreciate that.
I just wish that they had more horsepower and could win and take back the country.
I just wish it was, but I don't think it is.
That wishy washing this didn't really work out for Andrew Scheer.
And I don't think it'll work out for the equally uninspiring successor if it's McKay or O'Toole.
I hope I'm wrong on all this stuff, but don't bet on it.
In the meantime, yeah, go join the Conservative Party if you can find the website and go vote for the least worst candidate.
Good luck if you're still allowed to by the secret committee.
And we'll keep doing our best here at Rebel News.
Our best to keep the fires burning for true conservatism, to talk about issues and conservative ideas that the party does.
We'll be active where the party is and will stand up for civil liberties during this time of the virus.
That's another example of a missed political opportunity for these candidates, don't you think?
So yeah.
Of course, I hope Justin Trudeau loses the next election.
Of course, I hope a conservative wins.
But hope ain't going to do it alone.
It's not enough.
And I'm not sure that this party will do enough either.
Stay with me for more.
Stay Home Surf Rules00:07:29
Welcome back.
Well, I was sending a message to my friend Joel Pollack, the senior editor-at-large of Breitbart.com.
I was just talking about some Canadian news that I like to share, and he wrote back about the news of the day in the United States saying this is nuclear.
And I had never heard Joel say something like that before.
I said, you got to come on the Rebel and tell our viewers what you mean.
It was Rick Grinnell, Donald Trump's interim director of national intelligence, releasing a trove of once confidential and classified documents.
The power to declassify rests within the president's power, and he simply chose to do it this week.
Joining us now live from sunny Los Angeles is our friend Joel Pollocks.
Joel, first of all, before I get into the news, tell me a little bit about being outdoors in LA.
I heard that the city is ordering a lockdown for months to come.
What's the deal?
Yes, Mayor Eric Garcetti and the leaders of Los Angeles County are extending the stay-at-home order for three months, which would mean until the end of July, essentially most of the summer.
And they've relaxed some rules because the state of California is in what our governor, Gavin Newsom, calls phase two, which means retail stores can open for curbside pickup and they're going to start opening some malls for curbside shopping.
They're going to even open some museums.
So Los Angeles has to go along with that.
But Mayor Eric Garcetti, who's been pessimistic throughout and who has really been telling us that things are only going to get worse the entire time, he's almost like the exact opposite of President Trump.
You know, Trump's always talking about optimism and we're going to get through this better than before.
Eric Garcetti is always telling us it's going to be death.
It's going to be awful.
People are going to lose their jobs.
This is the worst it's ever been and it's going to get worse.
But the socialist revolution that looms beyond the horizon will be our great salvation.
That's kind of where he has to go with all this.
You have to have things get terrible before they can be salvaged by the great socialist utopia that is to come.
But Garcetti's basically been trying to get people to obey more and more restrictive rules.
So as of Wednesday evening, everyone in Los Angeles who leaves their property is supposed to wear a face mask outdoors even.
This is sort of ridiculous.
The scientific evidence we have suggests that it's very hard to transmit the coronavirus outdoors, especially in warm weather with a lot of ultraviolet light like we get in LA.
We get a very strong sunlight here.
So it's very unlikely to get this thing outdoors, especially if you're just passing people by in the street.
You're more likely to get it indoors.
But nevertheless, they want us to wear face masks outdoors.
Meanwhile, the regulations on the county level and on the state level sometimes move in the opposite direction.
So on Wednesday morning, the very morning Garcetti extended this face mask order, they opened all the beaches in Elliott County, which had been closed since the start of the pandemic.
Now it happened to be a very good surfing day, so I counted about 60 surfers near the beach by our neighborhood here, and the surf was really good.
It was about as good as I've ever seen it on a day with sunshine.
You know, you get high waves during a storm, and some people will go out there then.
But this was a perfectly beautiful, bright blue spring day, and the waves were very high.
You don't normally get surf that good up in L.A. County.
Mostly that's down in Orange County or San Diego.
So the surfers were out in droves.
It was pretty amazing.
Also, a pod of dolphins swam by.
So the beaches are starting to open for recreation.
You can do anything sport-related on the beach except volleyball.
They don't want people playing volleyball because it involves people standing around in close proximity to one another or something like that.
But it's all a confusion.
And I think people are going to start to disobey some of these rules just because they're so ridiculous and because people just want to go on with their lives.
People are starting to take matters in their own hands.
The surfers, for example, never really went away.
If you went out in the early morning down to the beach, which also you weren't supposed to do because the beaches were closed, the surfers were there.
There were about 10 or 12 of them instead of 50 or 60.
But the surfers just decided to go before the police showed up.
As long as you were off the beach by about 8.30 or 9 o'clock, you didn't get in trouble.
So people are going to find little ways to do their own thing, what they have to do to be happy, what they have to do to survive.
Yeah, I just find a hectoring politician who's always doom and gloom.
When, by the way, the stats for most of the country, including for New York City, by the way, I mean, the curve has been flattened.
So increasing rhetoric about doom and gloom when the caseload and the death rate and the hospitalization rate is falling.
I think between, it's like telling people don't believe your lying eyes.
I just don't think hectoring politicians are going to win out over moms wanting to take their kids to the playground, you know, people wanting to get out of their cooped up.
I just don't believe that a fairly lawless city like LA is going to have any luck going beyond what it currently patrols.
I follow the New York Police Union on Twitter, and they are adamant that their police just simply will not enforce these goofy social distancing rules.
They say they have their hands full with real crimes already, especially since the prisons have been released.
How will the LAPD react?
Do you think they will do the foolish orders of Mayor Garcetti, or will they say, nah, boss, we'll stick to the crime.
You can have, you know, your political ticket givers take care of the social distancing.
I don't think LAPD is going to be too active.
I mean, there's also the question of influential lobbying groups in the city.
So for example, you can probably hear a lawnmower in the background here.
One industry that never shut down in LA during the pandemic, even when the stay-at-home orders were at their most strict, was landscaping.
Landscaping and gardening.
People just kept coming to work.
People kept showing up at homes.
Some days the only cars you'd see on the street were the pickup trucks loaded with lawnmowers and other gardening equipment.
And that's because that's just a massive industry among the Hispanic community here.
And Garcetti was not going to get away with telling those folks to stay home.
Now, in Michigan, the Democratic governor there, Governor Gretchen Whitmer, did tell landscapers and gardeners to stay home, and they enforced that pretty rigidly.
You would not get away with that here, where the Latino population is so important to the electorate.
Likewise with the construction industry, construction workers basically stayed on the job here.
There were a couple of houses going up near me, and those guys kept coming to work.
As long as the people who owned the property had money to pay them, those industries kept going.
Those workers kept showing up to work.
And Garcett was not going to be able to shut them down.
So I think what you're going to see is more and more pushback from influential industries, from business associations, from some labor unions.
People are just going to say, we've had enough of this, and we're going to take the risk.
We've learned how to manage the risk.
We'll do the face masks.
We'll do the social distancing.
We'll keep older relatives at home or we will be more careful about people with pre-existing conditions.
But they're not going to be able to enforce that kind of rigid regulation for much longer.
Worker Pushback Builds00:14:54
Well, listen, thanks for letting us catch up on that stuff.
It's just nice to see you out in L.A. I'm sort of jealous up here.
We had snow a couple days ago in Toronto, if you can believe it.
Let me get back to the reason we really called you.
And I know I've burned up half our time just talking about LA, but it's so interesting to me.
When I reached out to you just on some silly Canadian news, you wrote back and said, this is nuclear.
And I think you were talking about the publication of previously classified information that was used in the witch hunts to find the Russians that were in collusion with the Trump campaign, in particular, the spying committed by the Obama administration on the Trump campaign, including General Michael Flynn.
Is that what you were referring to when you said this is nuclear?
Yes, on Wednesday, Acting Director of National Intelligence Rick Grinnell, who I've known for a very long time, actually, released a declassified list of the names of Obama administration officials who had unmasked General Michael Flynn's name in the last days of that administration.
And the list was rather long.
It was about 39 people, some of whom were intelligence officials, and that's the kind of thing they do to try to figure out what's going on.
But some of them were political appointees.
Some of them were people who had no connection to the question of relations with Russia whatsoever.
The ambassador to Italy, for example, was one of those who had requested that Flynn's name be released.
Now, it's a little fuzzy as to what exactly they requested because they all received some kind of intelligence documents and the names of the Americans are hidden.
And then the unmasking process is when you ask them to reveal what the name is, what the hidden name is, who the identity of the person is in this wireless surveillance transcript.
They didn't ask for Flynn precisely, but they asked for this name, who I'm led to believe could only have been Michael Flynn.
In other words, they knew they were asking about Flynn.
They were asking about him in early and mid-December, which is long before he was having conversations with the Russian ambassador that eventually got him in trouble.
Not that there was anything illegal about those conversations, but he was accused later of lying to the FBI about the content of those conversations.
It's not clear that he lied to the FBI, but he pleaded guilty as part of a plea bargain.
It seems because the FBI threatened to indict, or the Department of Justice threatened to indict his son.
They put a lot of pressure on him, and he acquiesced.
Now he's trying to change his plea, and the Department of Justice wants to drop the case.
But Grinnell basically has named and shamed the Obama administration officials who were involved in this unmasking effort, including Samantha Power, the ambassador to the United Nations.
And Trey Gowdy, former Representative Trey Gowdy, when he questioned her in a now declassified hearing at the House Intelligence Committee, informed her that she was the biggest unmasker of U.S. persons in the history of the country, that nobody has ever unmasked as many names or nobody has ever made as many unmasking requests as Samantha Power.
She seemed kind of confused by it all.
She claimed that she wasn't responsible for all those unmasking requests, but she's also one of the most partisan members of the Obama inner circle.
So partisan, in fact, I don't know if you remember this, but during the 2008 primary, they had to drop her from the Obama campaign because she called Hillary Clinton a monster.
And that's how fiercely she fights for Obama.
So she was very active, or her office was very active in unmasking names.
And she asked for Flynn's name to be unmasked several times.
So it's all very interesting.
We still don't know who leaked Flynn's name to the Washington Post.
That's the only actual crime here that we know of because it's illegal to leak classified information to the media.
And his name, while unmasked, was still classified.
We don't know who did that, but I think we may find out.
I also note that Joe Biden, if I'm not mistaken, was on the list of people who saw the secret name in.
That was the biggest brand new piece of information was that Joe Biden was the last person on the list in chronological order.
He was the last person to ask for the unmasking.
And he did it on an interesting day.
He did it on January 12th, 2017, which is, first of all, barely more than a week left in the Obama administration.
So Biden had nothing to do at work, really.
There's no real reason for him to have asked for anything to be unmasked.
It's also the day when the Washington Post first revealed that Mike Flynn was having conversations with the Russian ambassador.
So it looks like Biden may have, out of curiosity, tried to figure out the story.
But we don't know what he knew and we don't know when he knew it because he was sitting in with Obama on January 5th on this big meeting that Obama had with all the intelligence and law enforcement chiefs where they planned out who was going to approach Trump and what they were going to find out, what they were going to say.
So there's a lot that we have to uncover.
What we do know is that Joe Biden was not completely truthful with the public when he was asked earlier this week by George Stephanopoulos on ABC News, Good Morning America.
He was asked about whether he knew about the Flynn investigation, and he said he didn't know anything.
Then Stephanopoulos said, but you were there at this January 5th meeting.
Then Biden backtracked and said, oh, yeah, well, I knew there was an investigation, but I didn't know more than that.
Well, now we know he knew more because he asked for Flynn's name to be unmasked.
So he certainly knew that Flynn was captured on these surveillance transcripts of the Russian ambassador.
And we don't know what else Joe Biden knew.
Of course, he could claim now that he doesn't remember, and that would be a credible excuse at the moment because as Julian Castro said during one of the debates, Joe Biden can barely remember what happened two minutes ago.
So not being able to remember would be a plausible excuse.
Here's a quick clip of that George Stephanopoulos and Joe Biden moment.
This is slightly emphasized by the Trump campaign.
They zoom in on his earpiece.
Take a quick look at this.
It was quite painful to watch.
I do want to ask you about Michael Flynn.
The president said yesterday that that move is justified because President Obama targeted Flynn.
He called it, quote, the biggest political crime in U.S. history.
Your former Senate colleague Charles Grassley has added that Flynn was entrapped.
So what did you know about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn?
And was there anything improper done?
I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn, number one.
Number two.
I do want to press that.
You say you didn't know anything about it, but you were reported to be at a January 5th, 2017 meeting where you and the president were briefed on the FBI's plan to question Michael Flynn.
I thought you asked me whether or not I had anything to do with him being prosecuted.
I'm sorry.
I was aware that there was, that they asked for an investigation, but that's all I know about it.
I don't know the detail of where we are right now.
Focus on what's in front of us.
You have plenty of time to investigate this issue.
I think there's nothing there there.
Well, Joe, let me ask you this, because in my life, and I'm getting old, I'm probably 10 years old than you.
I've had a lot of these moments that I thought, this is nuclear, this is it, this is the big moment, this is the reveal, this is proof of everything, and I'm so excited, and I, you know, I tell everyone and I show everyone and I publish things, and nothing, because the other side doesn't care.
I mean, for example, when there's a Me Too allegation against a Democrat, well, they didn't actually care.
That's just a weapon they use against conservatives.
Or so many of the gotchas of the reveal.
So this is shocking to you and me because we believe that no U.S. president administration should spy on its rivals.
That sounds like something Putin would do.
You and I believe in the rule of law and not abusing spy technology, but I don't think the other side does.
And I don't think the media who were part of selling this collusion myth, I don't think they actually care either.
They were all angry at Richard Nixon for his break-in just because it was Nixon.
They weren't particularly angry at Hillary Clinton when she committed crimes.
So I'm revved up by what you call nuclear, but I don't think any Democrat is feeling one shade of embarrassment.
And I don't think the media are going to run with it.
I already see the media defending it.
Yes, the Democrats and the media haven't really admitted that this is a problem yet.
However, they're on the defensive.
And it's becoming tougher and tougher for them because more and more information is coming out.
You mentioned the Me Too story with Tara Reid accusing Joe Biden of sexual assault.
There's more information coming out about that.
And the Democrats do not control that flow of information.
Likewise with Michael Flynn, there's more information that's going to come out about what the Obama administration did.
There's more that has to be declassified and more transcripts, for example, that Adam Schiff is sitting on that Richard Grinnell could simply move on.
So we're going to see more and more information come out.
The Democrats are losing control of the flow of information.
It certainly is energizing Trump's supporters who now feel like they're on the offensive.
And eventually, Democrats are going to sound somewhat tired as they continue to trot out defenses that get shot down again and again and again.
I think they're worried, not necessarily because they are taking this seriously, which they aren't, but just because they've lost control of the narrative.
They want this to be about Trump just using a diversion to distract from coronavirus or whatever.
But coronavirus is also a changing story.
It's now about the economy.
It's not about the virus anymore.
And Democrats don't control that either because people aren't listening to their mayors.
People aren't listening to their governors.
And it's the smarter Democrats like Jared Paulus in Colorado who are doing what Republicans are doing.
That is to say, finding a way to reopen their economies.
The national Democrats are simply focused on keeping everything shut down as long as possible.
It appears as though they want to maximize the economic damage.
They want to maximize the political damage to Trump, but they're not in control anymore.
So the Democrats are fighting from terrain that is, let's say, low.
They don't have the high ground anymore.
And slippery.
They don't have good footing anymore.
And Republicans basically are seizing the high ground again in this debate, in these series of debates.
And I think Democrats are going to start to suffer from a little bit of fatigue.
One last comment.
I know we've kept you a long time.
Boy, it looks nice where you are, by the way.
You know, Bill Maher made a, Bill Maher, the comedian on HBO, made a quip more than a year ago that he wished for a recession because that, he thought, would get rid of Trump.
And he's probably right on that.
Now, that's a comedian making an irresponsible comment, trying to make a dramatic point.
I think if he were actually in a position of power, he probably would not say that honestly.
That's just a lippy provocateur.
But I think that that's sort of the model being taken by Democrats across the board.
You mentioned one exception in Colorado, but whether it's Democrats in public health, Democrats in Washington, or maybe even the mayor of L.A., if they can destroy Trump's strong suit, which was a booming economy, low unemployment, everyone doing well, I actually think that Bill Maher comment, a recession would stop Trump.
I actually think the Democrats are siding with the virus and siding with the recession.
I know that sounds insane, but I think that's what they're doing.
Well, they are doing that for two reasons.
One legitimate, one illegitimate.
I think that there are more Democrats who legitimately fear that opening up the economy too quickly could lead to a second wave of infections, and they're worried about that.
Democrats by nature are risk-averse, more so than Republicans.
It's a cultural difference between the parties.
There was a CNN poll that came out this week that showed, and I'm only off very slightly on the numbers here, but basically three out of four Democrats expect things to get worse, and one out of four Democrats expects things to get better.
It's exactly the opposite with Republicans.
Three out of four Republicans expect things to get better, and one out of four expects things to get worse.
Republicans, conservatives in general, are more comfortable with the idea of managing risk.
Democrats want the risks managed for them, and they want the state, they want government to eliminate those risks.
I don't agree with that perspective, but I think it is a sincere perspective.
And so people are worried that we're going to come out of this thing and plunge right back in again.
However, there are Democrats who simply want to maximize the economic damage, who are thinking as Bill Maher was thinking, I don't think it's going to work, and here's why.
If this had been a mild recession, if this had been a recession confined to the United States, then I think you could point the finger at Trump and there would be policies you might be able to find somewhere you could blame.
He's the guy in charge anyway, so he gets blamed for whatever happens on his watch.
But because this is a virus that has affected the entire world, and because this is not a recession, but simply a pandemic, a shock to the economy so deep it's unlike anything we've ever experienced before, it almost has no effect on Trump.
I won't say it helps him, but it gives him an opportunity to show his managerial skills.
During the election in 2016, Democrats enjoyed pointing out all of Trump's bankruptcies, and they said, this guy's been a failure in business.
They don't understand what bankruptcy does.
Bankruptcy allows you to rearrange things, come back better than ever.
And the fact that Trump's been through bankruptcy and succeeded is actually an excellent training for restarting an economy after a sudden shock.
And he's done exceptionally well by global standards in terms of the economic interventions, as well as in terms of the innovations and the changes government has made.
Trump's Bankruptcy Advantage00:04:26
You can argue that we weren't prepared enough for the pandemic, but you also have to acknowledge that nobody was prepared, at least not in the West.
Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, they had been through Middle East respiratory syndrome five years ago.
They were better prepared.
But there's no state or mayor, no city, no state, no Democrat who was prepared.
In fact, two Democrats in particular, Bill de Blasio in New York City and Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown, his predecessor in California, actually destroyed the stockpiles, got rid of the stockpiles that Republicans had built up beforehand, precisely to deal with pandemics.
It turns out that Arnold Schwarzenegger, of all people, and Michael Bloomberg, in New York, Schwarzenegger in California, Bloomberg in New York, had prepared for a pandemic after the SARS scare in the early 2000s.
And Jerry Brown in California, Gavin Newsom in California, the two Democrats, and Bill de Blasio, the Democrat in New York, they just let those stockpiles fall apart.
They sold off the respirators or ventilators.
They got rid of the masks.
They used up everything that was there and they never replenished it.
And every Democrat basically was unprepared, as unprepared, if not more unprepared, than Trump.
I mean, Trump, at least to his credit, enacted some pandemic precautionary measures last year before we even knew about coronavirus.
He had executive orders.
Of course, they were looking then at influenza.
They weren't looking at a SARS-type coronavirus pandemic.
So, you know, Dwight Eisenhower said, the reason they call it an emergency is because of the one thing you weren't prepared for.
But be that as it may, Trump did react with the travel ban on China and immediately got American industry going, got things going in a way that we've never seen before in the United States or really anywhere.
We have this dramatic increase in testing capability.
We've had innovations.
We are now, as Trump says, the king of ventilators because we produced them so quickly.
We're exporting them to other parts of the world.
So Trump's response has been absolutely phenomenal.
So it's given him, this pandemic has given him a chance to show how he manages.
And it turns out he manages very well.
And to the extent that we weren't ready for this, that's because Trump was following the advice of the scientists.
Because the scientists were saying as late as March that you can still go to campaign events and you can still take cruises.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Democrat hero, said on March 9th that people who have no other risk factors should feel fine going on a cruise.
That was in March 9th.
That was two days before Trump went on the airwaves from the Oval Office and told everyone we're shutting down the country.
So I think Trump has actually done very well.
His approval rating in some polls is as high as it's ever been.
Democrats are panicking and they're starting to realize they're on the wrong side of this reopening question.
That by trying to keep people at home, they're incurring the wrath not just of Republicans and conservatives, but their own voters.
People are tired of it.
Democrats also have to pay the bills.
And Trump's been very generous.
They've had forgiveness for rents, for mortgages, stimulus payments, PPP loans for small business.
There's been all of this intervention by the Fed and by the government, and Trump's led all of it.
So Democrats are now dealing not with Herbert Hoover, but with FDR.
And it's harder to beat FDR.
You know, we didn't get out of the Great Depression until the Second World War, but FDR kept getting re-elected because he was seen as doing something.
He was seen as trying.
Now, this is a more divided time, and the media tries to keep people hating Trump, but Trump is active.
He's doing things.
He is seen at least to be trying.
He's not doing the typical, if you might say that, Republican.
He's not a stereotypical Republican.
Less government, let people survive on their own.
I mean, that's the stereotype, obviously, is not the reality.
He is using less of the federal government, but he's empowered the state governments, the local governments, and he's brought private industry together in this national effort in a way no one's done before.
So Trump has turned himself, in a sense, into the Republican FDR.
Democrats are hoping to run against Herbert Hoover.
We'll see how it looks in the fall.
But I think the Democrats are actually in a tough spot here.
Some of them want the economic damage to be worse.
They're blaming Trump.
But somehow it's not working just yet.
Maybe people are just not focused on politics yet.
He's Doing Things00:06:20
People are still focused on the virus and bread and butter issues.
We may see more of a politicization of this thing as it recedes into the past.
But for now, I think Trump's got a fighting chance of winning in November.
Well, Joel, I learned so much from you, as I always do.
Thank you for joining us from your lovely outdoor in LA.
I tell you, if I was in L.A., I would not be listening to some Democrat mayor telling me not to go out or have fun either.
Take care, my friend, and have a great weekend and stay safe.
Thank you, you too.
All right, there you have a Joel Pollock Sr., editor-at-large at Breitbart.com, joining us from the sunny outdoors in Los Angeles, California.
Stay with us.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue yesterday about questions I have about the pandemic.
Sherry writes, something feels very wrong about this pandemic.
The results were not anywhere near as bad as we were told, yet the authorities are very reluctant to end it.
We should be celebrating and reopening, getting our lives back to normal.
Yet there is no sense of this.
It is concerning.
Yeah, I mean, I understand the idea of being cautious.
It's why you buy insurance.
You just don't know.
You've got to prepare for the worst.
I get it.
And we simply didn't know in early days how bad this was because China lies about statistics.
It was sort of like China's Chernobyl.
How bad is it?
But now we see it's not that bad.
Not one single person under 20 in Canada has died from it.
So at the very least, let the kids go back to school, let the waiters and waitresses go back to work.
I think people love the power of saying you can't work, you can.
I'll be your great giver.
I'll give you 500 bucks a week from the government.
I'll say you can work.
I say you're arrested.
I think that appeals to all the wrong instincts in politicians.
On my interview with Aaron Rosenberg about an update on letusreport.com, Ron writes, I found your decision to offer your legal research to a left-wing Alberta organization immensely gratifying, even if they were ingrates.
The principle of defending freedom of speech for all is what sets Double News apart from the stenographic legacy media.
Yeah, I mean, it wasn't a big deal.
We had the research, and I just said to our administrative lawyers, pass it over because, well, there's a selfish reason there, too.
Because if we can build up a jurisprudence, build up a case law, case after case after case, of more journalists getting in rather than fewer, that benefits us in the long term.
I don't want to be the only force in Canada fighting for a free press.
But it was a decision because I know they hate us, and they were so mean to us.
It was shocking, but not surprising.
Contrast that to when we went to court in the federal court in October, trying to get it in the leaders' debates.
We had no help from any other media other than our friends at True North.
God bless them.
And in fact, there was one blog there, Canadaland, that was live tweeting from the courthouse, and they were negative.
They were hoping we'd be kept out.
So yeah, there is no spirit of free press and free speech in the media party.
It's a cartel.
They're all in it together.
They're all on the take from Trudeau, and they're all liberals.
It's too bad.
There used to be a time liberals cared about free speech.
That hasn't really been the case in 20 years.
Tyler writes, oyve, Rosenberg looks a lot like Ezra's younger brother.
You know, I thought that was a funny email when I got it, and I looked at it, and maybe there's a little bit to it.
I think the glasses help and sort of a general Yiddish look.
I thought it was funny.
On my interview with a conservative leadership candidate, Dr. Leslie Lewis, Barry writes, you seem rather proud that a candidate for the Conservative Party leadership would appear twice on your program.
Yes, she is attractive and refreshing, but she does not stand a chance of being anything more than a candidate.
should not be interviewing her nor admiring her any further.
She's nice, but it's over.
Stop it today and now.
Well, Barry, I mean, it's pretty tough of you.
We invited all the leadership candidates to talk to us.
Derek Sloan did twice, once with me and once with Kean.
Leslie Lewis did twice.
And Jim Kara-Helios did twice.
So we talked to each of those candidates twice.
I can't remember if anyone on our team talked to DeCary, but he was never certified.
And we asked Aaron O'Toole and Peter McKay many times to come on.
I personally called their campaign staff who I know who were friends of mine, friends of the Rebel.
And they just wouldn't come on.
So it's not so much that I'm in love with those three candidates that we did interview.
It's that I'm grateful anyone comes on the show and has a parley with us and shows, more importantly, that they're not beholden to the censorship deplatforming mindset of the rest of the media party.
That's what bugs me about McKay and O'Toole.
McKay is obviously too liberal to me, and O'Toole just seems boring and doesn't have the charisma to win.
Those are personal views.
Who cares?
It's not really important.
It's just my view.
What bugs me about their decision not to come on the Rebel is not some vanity.
It's that it shows they're terrified of what the mean girls, the media party, will say about them.
I mean, frankly, if I was them, you want a home run, come on my show and fight me.
Not physically, but poke at me.
Sure, you were wrong.
It would be weird.
But you want to be a hero to the left, come on my show and debate me and wrangle with me or something.
But don't let the mean girls say who you can and can't talk with because that just, I mean, it's the perfect encapsulation is what I talked about in my monologue today.
Peter McKay makes a pretty bland tweet supporting the good Alberta boys who carried the garbage off the railroad track.
He just says, look at these guys clearing the railroad track.
Vigilante, you like crime.
Like, you want vengeance.
And he, instead of just laughing that off, he listens to them, is persuaded by them, deletes the tweet.
I don't know if he apologized.
Like, that's, even if he was wrong, shows some spine.
I'm terrified that a man with a jellyfish of a spine like that will win.
Who cares what he thinks of me or the rebel?
He just, he's like a seat cushion that bears the impression of whoever last sat on him.
Oh my God.
God help us all.
That's the show for today.
We'll have a show on Monday, and we'll have videos over the weekend.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night.