The Washington Redskins’ July 13 name change ignores a 2016 Post poll showing 90% of Native Americans unoffended, with figures like Pratt Brazo and Clarence Louis openly supporting the team. Sponsor pressure and activist lobbyists—despite Indigenous voices—likely drove the shift, while "Washington" ties to slavery and Mount Rushmore’s stolen Lakota land remain unaddressed. Meanwhile, Canada’s COVID-19 lockdowns, deemed unjustified after April’s peak, worsened fentanyl deaths (exceeding 187 coronavirus fatalities), delayed cancer treatments, and violated rights under the Charter, with John Carpe of JCCF vowing legal challenges over unproven harms like suicides. The episode ties these controversies to broader questions of state overreach and media bias, exposing gaps in accountability during crises. [Automatically generated summary]
But as my friend Joe Warmington asked, should they just change the Redskins part or should they drop the word Washington too?
I'll take you through the whole thing.
That's ahead.
But before I do, let me invite you to become a Rebel News Plus subscriber.
It's eight bucks a month.
You get the video version of this podcast, as well as Sheila Gonread's video and David Menzies too.
I think it's worth the $8 a month.
That's less than Netflix.
It's $80 if you subscribe for the whole year in advance.
And most importantly, it helps us keep going.
You know we don't take any government money, right?
Okay, here's today's show.
Tonight, the Washington Redskins decide to change their name.
It's July 13th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a 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 a lot of us is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Four years ago, I told you about this huge story in the Washington Post.
New poll finds nine in ten Native Americans aren't offended by Redskins' name.
I called it a huge story back then because the Washington Post put a team of eight reporters on that story.
I've never heard of that before, have you?
Other than maybe covering a federal election or a war.
Eight?
And the Washington Post commissioned a large survey of over 500 Indians for that poll.
That's hard to do.
That's not just taking random names out of the phone book.
You have to make sure you're talking to real Indians.
I don't know enough about how the U.S. handles Indian bands.
For one thing, I don't think they call them Indian bands like we do up here.
But my point is, that's a big survey.
That's hard to do.
But a poll is a poll.
500 actual Indians were asked, not liberals in a CNN studio, not virtue signaling politicians.
Actual people who might have standing to say, I'm offended by a sports team called the Redskins.
And nine out of ten just weren't.
You could tell the Post was sort of shocked.
Let me remind you of two more questions from that poll that I showed you four years ago.
In general, do you feel the word Redskin is disrespectful of Native Americans or not?
73% said not.
I'm trying to think of what that would be like for me if someone said the word Hebrew instead of Jew.
I don't know.
I'm trying.
Or frankly, these days, some people are even afraid to say the word Jew.
They think it sounds too harsh.
So they say Jewish person.
People are so afraid.
If there were a sports team called the Brooklyn Hebrews, I think I'd love it.
I'd probably get some of their merchandise.
You bet I'd go to games if I were in town.
And I'd make sure to order some deli sandwiches, which would surely be for sale at the stadium.
And if someone said, aren't you mad that this fun sports team that is obviously proud of your people, aren't you mad that they call you a Hebrew instead of a Jewish person?
I'd say, oh, shut up.
That's what I think this is like.
Here's another way the Post put the question to their 500 Indian poll answerers.
If a non-Native American person called you a Redskin, would you be personally offended or not?
80% said no.
Now, I don't think I'd say that word myself.
I never have, but I'm a politically alert person in the year 2020.
This sports team was founded in 1932.
It was originally called the Braves, and then the next year changed to the Redskins.
That's how people talk back then.
We had different words for many things back then.
It's like the NAACP, which was founded in 1909.
Do you know that stands for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?
That was the height of progressive language back then.
You'd never hear that phrase now.
The United Negro College Fund was set up in 1944.
Same thing.
That was a progressive neutral name.
Today the website doesn't even write out its name in full.
It just goes by initials.
It's so shy of its name that its mother gave it.
Obviously, both of these organizations were started not only by African Americans, but by African Americans who deeply loved and cared for the success of all American blacks.
It's absurd to say those names are hateful or bigoted.
Our language has changed, sure.
These organizations have always been what they are.
And I think that's how it is with sports teams.
My own high school teams were called the Red Men, which I think is at least one degree less prickly than Red Skins.
Yes, it makes color, reference to skin color, yeah.
So does, I don't know, Black Lives Matter.
We talk about race far too much, I think, but it's a conversation we're having.
Always have, I think, maybe always will, I think.
Naming a sports team after something or someone is always positive.
No one names himself something negative.
There's always something strong or fast or honorable or epic in sports.
You don't name yourself something denigrating.
It is a sign of respect to the characteristics of Aboriginal people.
And as the poll shows, nine out of ten real American Indians agree.
Look at this.
Here's a senior Indian leader.
Every time the team owner would invite a senior Aboriginal leader to watch the game with him in his box seats, he'd fly him in by private jet, put him up in a nice hotel, great weekend.
If you're an Indian elder and you were sitting with the big boss of the team watching a team called the Redskins play, it's got to be pretty exciting.
I don't think you would go to that if it were demeaning.
And you're treated as a VIP.
That's got to be an amazing feeling.
As I've mentioned before, every actual Indian I know wears Indian-themed clothing.
Here's Pratt Brazo, the senator, wearing a Redskins hat.
My favorite Indian chief, Clarence Louis of the Asoy's band, he always wears Indian brand clothes.
Mount Rushmore Controversy00:06:52
He loves it.
And they're good-looking clothes.
If there was a team about my tribe, and I guess Jews have tribes, you bet I'd wear the gear.
I'd probably even care about the sport a little bit.
Imagine all this kerfuffle.
Here's what the Washington Post said in their massive story four years ago.
Those interviewed highlighted again and again other challenges to their communities that they consider much more urgent than an NFL team's name.
Let's start taking care of our people and quit worrying about names like Washington Redskins, said Randy Whitworth, 58, who lives on the Flathead Indian Reservation in Montana.
Exactly.
It's easy for politicians to dress up in costumes and make little speeches and demand that the Redskins or the Braves or the Chiefs or the Black Cocks or the Red Men or the countless other Indian-themed names change their names.
I mean, Justin Trudeau even has a generic Indian tattoo on his shoulder.
So you know he cares.
That's what he tells white people.
But when actual Indians, sorry, Indigenous persons, ask him for some help, like for example, five years into his term as prime minister, maybe they can have some clean drinking water by now.
Well, then he shows them the real Justin Trudeau and he speaks with a forked tongue.
That we invest in the middle class and in people working hard to join it.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for being here tonight.
Thank you.
People like Rossiniero are filming for Mercury poisoning.
Thank you.
Thank you for being here.
Thank you very much for your donation tonight.
I really appreciate the donation to the Liberal Party of Canada.
And as we know, the Liberal Party is filled with different perspectives and different opinions, and we respect them all.
And our commitment to reconciliation continues to be strong and committed.
And we will continue to engage.
Thank you, sir, for your donation to the Liberal Party of Canada.
I really appreciate you being here tonight.
Thank you for being here.
That is why we are moving forward on reconciliation in a real and tangible way.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you for being here tonight.
Thank you for highlighting how important reconciliation is.
Thank you for being here tonight, sir.
Thank you very much for your donation to the Liberal Party.
Yeah, it's like Trudeau's male feminism.
It's like his black face.
You know Trudeau doesn't actually give a damn about Indians precisely because he has an Indian tattoo on his shoulder.
Isn't that enough?
In his mind, that's all he needed to do.
He doesn't actually have to solve any real problems.
You know, Aunt Jemima's syrup, Uncle Ben's rice, they're gone.
They're both deleted.
Why?
Because they're black?
They're not being mocked in these ads.
Why are you canceling black people from things that everyone likes?
Why are you canceling that pretty young woman from the land of lakes butter?
Did you just end racism?
Tell me, tell me, come on.
Did you just save the world from racism by having a little fit on Twitter about Aunt Jemima's syrup?
And you just solved racism.
Yeah, no, it doesn't work that way.
Well, it's 2020 and the Wokerati haven't been this confident since Mao's Red Guards in the 1970s.
If you haven't seen my special 90-minute episode about the Cultural Revolution and the photos taken by a red color news soldier, you really should.
We'll put the link to it under this video.
I did it on my noonday show a week ago.
That's what's going on here.
So the Redskins caved.
Here's the news.
Redskins to drop name yielding to pressure from sponsors and activists.
The NFL team in Washington announced the move on Monday and will continue its search for a new name and logo.
Sponsors and activists, I can guarantee you they were all white.
Maybe the odd official Indian, and by that I mean someone who's really a paid actor, a paid lobbyist who rents himself out to the media as a spokesman for all Indigenous people.
Whatever you want, he'll say it.
Just like Black Lives Matter claims to speak for all blacks when polls show.
In fact, most blacks are deeply against the violent protests.
But we already had the stats.
90% of real Indians were fine with the name.
It's the liberal whites who are terrified.
That's why they're making the change.
But as my friend Joe Warmington asked on Twitter, is it really enough, though?
Can they keep the Washington part?
Or do both names have to go?
That's a great point because you know George Washington, well, he's out of vogue these days too.
I mean, for starters, he founded America, the racist, fascist regime.
But more to the point, he had slaves.
He had black slaves.
I mean, take it from the media party.
They got to destroy Mount Rushmore.
Donald Trump chose the most grandiose symbol of U.S. imperialism on earth to usher in a very on-brand star-spangled spectacle.
The mother of all photo ops, Mount Rushmore.
And we know why this president just can't resist going there.
President Trump will be at Mount Rushmore, where he'll be standing in front of a monument of two slave owners and on land wrestled away from Native Americans.
We have to acknowledge that Mount Rushmore is sitting on Lakota land.
The place Donald Trump is going to on Friday is stolen land.
He will inevitably and predictably talk about our heritage.
In other words, he will talk about he is the protector of white America.
And to Indigenous people, Mount Rushmore with four white presidents, two of whom were slave owners, is one of those symbols.
Questions have really been raised about Thomas Jefferson in particular, but also George Washington for their holdings of slaves.
It's worth reminding folks that the man who carved the monument behind me had deep ties to the KKK.
There are other issues.
The sculptor, Gutzon Borglum, was a supporter of the Ku Klux Klan.
That, of course, is something in all the history books.
Yeah, it's a big hassle to change a team name like the Redskins, especially a team that's almost 100 years old.
Think of all the merchandise and the branding and the ads.
You don't want to change names too often.
Better drop the Washington part two while you're at it.
I mean, some activists and sponsors won't like it, and that's how we're living our lives now.
Stay with us for more.
Lockdown's Legacy: Fear and Cases00:15:19
Well, you would think British Columbia would be the province that had the most deaths from the Chinese coronavirus.
After all, there are the most flights to Vancouver from China.
There's a large population that goes back and forth, a lot of Chinese foreign students there, but actually they have one of the lowest death rates in the country.
There are almost 9,000 Canadians who have passed away from the coronavirus, but BC, with a population of 5 million, has had only 187 deaths.
Now, of course, every death is a tragedy, but this is less than the annual flu season.
And as you can see from this beautiful chart that's published from data, by data from the BC government, right now there are only 16 people in the entire province who are in the hospital, only five people in intensive care.
One in one million British Columbians is in intensive care.
16.
There are about 50 major hospitals in British Columbia.
So you'd have to hunt, maybe one in four has a patient from the virus.
It's simply over.
Whatever the reasons are are things we can study.
But here's the thing.
British Columbia is still in some ways under lockdown, even though the pandemic is over.
In fact, you could argue it never really actually came to BC.
I was looking at some statistics the other day that I shared with you.
The number of British Columbians dying from another Chinese plague, this is fentanyl and other illegal opioid drugs, is more than double the number who have died from the virus.
There are pandemics in BC.
The coronavirus ain't one of them.
So why is BC under still a sort of lockdown, a kind of house arrest?
Well, I'm not the only person asking that.
Our friend John Carpe, the executive director of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, is asking that.
In fact, he's going beyond asking it.
He is challenging the lockdown measures in a new analysis called Benefits Assumed, Harms Ignored.
And John Carpe joins us now.
John, great to see you.
I'm so glad that you are fighting for civil liberties in the era of the pandemic.
Too many people are afraid to even say, hey, what are we doing?
This is madness.
We asked Prime Minister Trudeau and all the premiers, all of the chief medical officers back in April.
So we're talking three months ago, what are the projected, anticipated harms of the lockdown in terms of anxiety, depression, alcoholism, drug overdoses, spousal abuse, child abuse, suicides, people driven to despair, and less money being available to pay for health care once we cripple and quasi-destroy our economy.
Because I wonder how many people are going to be marching in the streets six or 12 months from now when governments cut health care spending by 20% because we're broke, because we destroyed our economy.
What are the costs?
What are the costs of the canceled surgery?
How many people have died because hundreds of thousands of surgeries all across Canada, including British Columbia, have been cancelled?
And three months later, not a single response to any of these questions.
And so the politicians are assuming benefits and they're ignoring harms.
You know, I know exactly what you're talking about.
I bumped into a doctor the other day who said that Toronto's leading cancer care clinic says that their backlog will take them five to eight years to catch up.
I said five to eight months.
No, he said five to eight years.
It's just incredible.
Of course, we all know from other economic studies that unemployment is directly tied to suicide and things of that sort.
I think that in places like BC that mercifully had a lower death toll on the virus, I think we've probably exceeded that and certainly in other jurisdictions too.
So you've produced this charter analysis.
Are you doing any litigation in support of it or is this just trying to impact the public discussion?
Well, we will be filing court challenges in future if the politicians don't come clean and do what they're supposed to do under the charter, which is to provide evidence for the claim that the lockdowns have saved thousands of lives.
You hear it repeated like a mantra over and over and over again, just the same way they talk about evidence-based public policy.
They talk about science and they talk about the lockdowns have saved thousands of lives.
Well, I'd like to see the evidence for that, because making an assertion is not evidence.
And on the harm side, the charter allows governments to violate our fundamental freedoms to move and travel, associate, assemble, worship, provided that they demonstrably justify these measures as reasonable in a free and democratic society.
Now, there's complicated tests that you're aware of, the Oaks test with rational connection and minimal impairment, and it's a very complicated test.
But the gist of it is that the governments need to demonstrate that any law, policy, regulation, health order that violates a fundamental charter freedom, like our freedoms to move, assemble, associate, travel, worship, any law that violates charter freedom needs to be demonstrably justified as bringing about more good than harm.
And politicians in every jurisdiction have failed miserably and continue to fail in actually demonstrating that the lockdown has caused more good than harm, which is what they need to demonstrate in order for those measures to be valid.
You know, as you may know, I published a book about some of these matters, and I looked at the original modeling that Justin Trudeau relied on, and there were different scenarios in his model.
The best case scenario was 50,000 deaths.
The worst case scenario was 350,000 deaths.
I mean, 350,000 deaths is a stunning large number.
That truly would be scary.
But it turned out that the actual number was around 9,000.
And even that is misleading because 80% of those were seniors in particular seniors' homes.
So it's not even just if you were over the age of 80.
Even that didn't mean you were doomed.
It was particular group settings, close settings where hygiene wasn't in place.
So first of all, I think there was a single person under age 20 in the whole country who passed away, and that person had a terminal case to begin with.
I mean, province by province, the number of people under 50 who have passed away from this is single digits.
And to know that we've shut down our schools, our jobs, because a handful of people, typically, average age, 83, passed away.
And I'm not saying I'm happy that the average age is that high.
But now that we know it's that high, we can focus our care on them.
We don't need to shut down everything else.
We can focus all our protection and care on the people at risk and let the rest of us go back to normal life.
I don't know.
I find it appalling that no one's willing to talk about this.
You're one of the few who are.
I wish there were more people just voicing that because unfortunately, you know, fear is very powerful.
And the politicians and the chief medical officers scared Canadians into a state of fear in the months of March and April.
You mentioned Trudeau's figures of at least 50,000 deaths, possibly 350,000 deaths, actual number 9,000.
The same thing in Alberta.
Jason Kenney said that as many as 32,000 Albertans could die in a province with just over 4 million people.
32,000 deaths is the fear-mongering that Jason Kenney engaged in.
And now the actual number of deaths is approximately 160, with the average age of death being in the low 80s.
And, you know, youngest person to have passed away was 27 years old, and that was someone with other pre-existing serious health conditions.
So it's just disgusting how this fear-mongering is still persistent.
You know, the lockdown could have been justified for a week or two, or maybe even three or four weeks, if the goal was truly to flatten the curve.
It could have been justifiable in March or April, but to prolong this into July and to throw people into unemployment and poverty and despair and suicide and to destroy the prosperity that we need to actually pay for health care and to delay treatments for cancer patients, cancer diagnosis, cancer treatment being delayed.
It is unconscionable for any province to be continuing with this lockdown now that we're into July.
It is unconscionable.
Yeah.
Well, there are a lot of statistics out there and they're very easy to find.
Toronto, for example, has very detailed statistics.
I know Ontario, every province does.
And you can see it's similar in every province.
The peak, when they said flatten the curve, the idea was, oh my God, this is going to overwhelm our hospitals.
We've got to slow the spread.
They never said stop the disease.
They said, flatten the curve, which means let's not have everyone get sick at the same day because that would overwhelm the hospitals.
That's why they brought those ships down in L.A. and New York, those Navy hospital ships, just to relieve the hospitals.
They thought, oh, my God, they're going to overwhelm all the hospitals in L.A. and New York.
Bring these massive...
No one ever went on them.
No one ever needed them.
And in Canada, too, the peak was mid-April, April 13th, plus or minus a few days, depending what province you're in.
So here we are, May 13th, June, July.
We're three months after the peak.
We didn't just flatten the curve, John.
The curve never happened.
Our hospitals were never full.
And now they're back down to the levels they were before everyone rang the bell.
Like, they're literally down to late February numbers.
And instead of backing off, things are getting tougher in Toronto.
They're bringing in mask laws, mask laws.
I would have been open to mask laws back in March, April when no one knew what was going on.
And every day the cases were going up, And maybe we would see that 350,000 death toll case.
But it's been over for months and only now they're requiring masks.
That is so obviously an attempt to keep us in the psychology of fear.
Or maybe something more simple.
Justin Trudeau bought $2 billion worth of masks at super inflighted prices.
He's got to have us use them or he'll look like an even bigger dope for buying a bunch of masks that expensively.
It's, I just, you know, I just don't know.
It's very bad public policy, I can tell you that.
And I can tell you that under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, even something like mandatory mask wearing, if somebody gets a ticket for that and challenges the ticket in court, the onus would be on the government to show that this obvious restriction on our liberty and autonomy is necessary and is reasonable.
And I think the government would have a hard time coming up with persuasive evidence.
Now that we have this data on who is impacted by it, if you're not over 70 and if you don't have a serious pre-existing health condition, which by the way, if you do, then there's all kinds of things that threaten you, not just COVID.
But if you don't have the pre-existing health condition and if you're under 70, you're in greater risk of dying simply by getting into your car and driving to the grocery store or driving to work or driving anywhere.
So why we have this restriction on freedom when the stats that are in, when you look at the data, it's very clear that this is not this unusually deadly killer that the fear-mongering politicians made it out to be back in March.
Yeah.
You know, we've shown on the show before the number of Canadians who die by driving into a moose on the highway.
And I know that sounds really funny.
It's not funny, especially in Newfoundland where there's so many, there's over 100,000 moose there and they just meander onto the road and you're driving fast at night.
It's not funny at all.
But if you are under 70, you have a higher likelihood of being killed in Canada.
Let's say under 60, you have a higher likelihood of driving into a large animal and dying that way.
And I'm not making light of it.
I'm sort of doing the opposite.
I'm saying it's so unlikely that you'll be harmed.
Hey, I got a question for you.
As you may know, we started a sort of civil liberties project of our own called fightthefines.com and we got about 10 cases.
Are you guys doing some cases like that?
I mean, this is a big work you've done here.
You've done the civil liberties critique of the state of the law.
Are you taking any individual cases?
Are you guys representing anyone?
We're thinking of doing another round.
people who are seriously at this late date being fired or kicked out of somewhere for a mask or something.
I don't know.
What do you think?
Well, we do have several cases where we are representing people that got $1,200 tickets for peacefully exercising their charter freedoms to assemble and associate and express their opinions.
So we continue to take on cases.
We've also written some demand letters to some nursing homes and telling them that the way these seniors who are in solitary confinement for 80 days and cutting off access so the family members cannot go see their mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, and so on, cutting off of family members.
We've been dealing with that issue as well.
And we're looking at the masks issue and, you know, there's haven't haven't quite formulated fully what our approach to that is going to be, but we're looking at that very closely right now from a charter standpoint.
You know, I've had some of the same thoughts here.
You know, I'd like to read to you, I'm just looking for it here.
Peter Hitchens, the half-brother of the late Christopher Hitchens, who's just wonderful, and I really wish Christopher Hitchens were around these days.
Rex Murphy Keynote00:07:52
He had this tweet, and I'm just looking for it right here because he was so spot on with what you told me.
Here it is.
In the name of COVID, the state has come between spouses at the point of death, practically abolished weddings and funerals, prevented millions from making a living, confined us to our homes.
Now it tells us what to wear.
Is there no point at which people will say enough?
And the way he put it about coming between spouses at death, banned marriages and funerals, those are things that in other eras would have actually sparked a revolt or a revolution.
You know, to interfere with the basic building blocks of social life like that.
And when you say solitary confinement, that's exactly what it is when some of these bizarre nursing homes won't let them visit their family for 80 days in a row.
It's the nursing homes who have sentenced so many old people to die.
Last word to you, John.
I'm very upset by all of this.
And in the beginning, like you, I'm sure we didn't know what to make of anything.
And how do you trust China?
Maybe they were hiding millions of deaths.
I don't know.
Or maybe they were just authoritarian idiots who didn't know how to do anything and their cover-up was worse than the crime.
I don't know.
So in March, April, maybe we didn't know and our numbers were climbing up.
But we've had three months now.
The pandemic's over now.
And the politicians, I think they enjoyed their taste of power a little too much.
Last word to you.
I think there is a God complex at play where politicians like Trudeau and Kenny and Ford and others, they want to be saviors and they want to run around saying that they've saved thousands of lives.
We have yet to see any concrete evidence for that.
And last word that I would say to viewers and listeners is don't complain to each other.
Pick up your phone, phone your MPP, phone your MLA, phone your MP, but particularly your provincial representatives and tell them that these violations of freedom are, after four months, these violations of freedom are not justified today.
So don't complain to each other because that doesn't do much good.
But pick up the phone, call your MPP, your MLA.
John, I said that was the last word, but I want to ask you one last thing.
I see that your group, the JCCF, and we love you.
And you know what I think about, I think you've probably been the most frequent guest we've ever had on the Eswell Vance Show with the possible exception of our buddy Joel Pollock, because we think what you're doing is so important.
And I see that you have an outstanding event coming up, and I hope it's a fundraiser for you.
It's your George Jonas Freedom Award, and it's celebrating the 10th anniversary of the JCCF.
And here's my favorite part.
Oh my God, I'm so excited.
Rex Murphy is your keynote speaker.
I want to buy all the tickets myself.
Tell me a little bit about this.
There's a limited event.
And how do we, where do I get tickets?
Is it at jccf.ca?
That's correct.
Okay, so tell me about the event with Rex Murphy.
I got to be there.
Well, it's our third dinner.
First year, the award recipient was Mark Stein.
And last year was Christy Blatchford, who unfortunately passed away not too long after receiving the award.
This year, it's a not very well-known recipient, but a group that's done tremendous work for decades.
It's the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship.
Oh, okay.
It's the third recipient of the George Jonas Freedom Award.
George Jonas was just a heroic Canadian, came to our country in 1956 as a refugee from communist Hungary and was a poet, an author, national post-columnist for many years.
And so in honor of George Jonas, this will be our third dinner Thursday, October the 1st in Toronto.
And keynote speaker is Rex Murphy.
And then we have dinners after that in Calgary and Vancouver as well.
With Rex Murphy as well?
Rex Murphy is coming to Calgary and probably Vancouver, still waiting for confirmation on that third city.
You know, you might have groupies who go from town to town just to catch all of Rex Murphy's speeches.
And I don't know anyone who would do that.
Well, listen, he is worth coming for on his own.
Obviously, supporting the JCCF is the point of it.
Is that what this is?
Does this raise funds for the JCCF?
It's a fundraising dinner, and we have, I think, maximum seating capacity was 300.
I don't know if the authorities are going to force that into a lower number or not, but there's a limited number of tickets available at www.jccf.ca.
Well, I got to tell you, as soon as I'm done this interview with you, I am going to buy my ticket, and I don't want to embarrass myself by saying I'm going to be that groupie going from town to town.
But it sounds like a great evening.
I'm joking around.
Rex Murphy is the hero of our time.
He's one of the few who hasn't bent the knee to the red guards, to the struggle session Maoists.
And I'm delighted.
He's a perfect fit.
So very exciting.
October 1st in Toronto.
Tickets at jccf.ca.
And it looks like they're 200 bucks a ticket.
Is that right?
Yes, but you get a tax receipt for a large portion of that.
And does that include dinner?
That includes dinner and you get a tax receipt and you get dinner.
I don't even know if there's any money left for you to make some money.
I hope you make some money.
I'm in.
I'm in.
I'll see you there.
See you October 1st.
That's a bargain.
200 bucks for a tax receipt.
Rex Murphy, nice dinner, Toronto.
Support the JCCF.
I'm going to bring my friends.
Right on.
John, I'm very excited for you.
You're one of the few guys fighting for freedom.
You fight smart.
You fight principled.
And you're tenacious, and you're not afraid to take on anyone.
You're one of our favorite guys.
Thank you.
All right.
Good luck, my friend.
Talk to you soon.
There you have it, John Carpe.
I am absolutely serious.
My friends, if you want a ticket, you better buy them soon because I am going to buy tickets for myself and my friends, and I'm going to be there.
JCCF.ca, keynote speaker Rex Murphy.
I know I sound like I'm gushing, but it's all my favorite things combined.
The JCCF, Rex Murphy.
And if you get a charity tax receipt, it's only $200.
Seriously, I mean, I thought the price was going to be $500 a ticket.
I am absolutely going there, and I'm going to see if we can bring some of our rebel talent along with us.
All right, stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, welcome back to my monologue Friday on the We Day scandal.
Wes writes, it's pathetic that CBC is supposed to be our non-biased news service that is funded by our tax dollars, but that's what you get when you vote in the corrupt Liberal Party.
The only thing that needs to be defunded right now is the mainstream media.
Hey, good points.
Can I ask you, though, what about the years 2006 to 2015?
Because if memory serves, we had a conservative prime minister who seemed to be just fine with the CBC.
Ward writes, most corrupt PM we've ever had.
The Trudeau Beat00:00:46
I think that could be right.
I think part of him just doesn't even realize he's doing anything wrong.
I mean, he's a prince.
He's almost an angel.
He's an aristocrat.
What do you mean I can't do that?
My whole life, I've done whatever I wanted, whether it's touching women, taking money, just being a Trudeau.
We're different, we're special.
He says as much.
On my interview with Spencer Fernando, John writes, It's good to see Spencer making regular appearances on The Rebel.
His reporting is top-notch.
As the commander of Rebel says, he's a little prickly when covering the Trudeau crime family.
We, not we, need more independent, like-minded reporters on the beat.