Justin Trudeau’s refusal to ban Huawei from Canada’s 5G network—despite the UK’s July 15, 2020, decision and Five Eyes allies’ collective exclusion—risks intelligence-sharing isolation while China exploits laws like its mandatory data access for spying. His appeasement stance, even amid detentions of Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, contrasts with democratic allies banning TikTok over privacy threats. Meanwhile, New York Times opinion editor Barry Weiss’s resignation exposes leftist cancel culture’s intolerance, including anti-Semitic slurs, as her own criticism of conservatives backfired. Trudeau’s alignment with China and the left’s war on dissent reveal a shared pattern: prioritizing ideology over national security and free speech. [Automatically generated summary]
And actually telephone companies have to rip out existing Huawei stuff in a few years.
Hey, do you think China, I mean, do you think Canada is going to do the same thing?
Do you think Canada is going to follow the UK lead?
Or do you think they're going to stick with China and Huawei?
Well, I get into that today.
Hey, can I invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus?
It's $8 a month or $80 for the year.
And you get the video version of the podcast.
Helps us pay the bills here.
And in addition to my show, you get Sheila Gunread's show and David Menzie's show.
Hope you sign up.
That's just at RebelNews.com, $8 a month.
Giver.
Okay, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, the UK bans Huawei from their 5G networks.
Why is Trudeau standing with China against our democratic allies?
It's July 15th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is the government will walk public just because it's my bloody right to do so.
Huge news out of the UK.
They've banned Huawei, the giant Chinese tech company, from building the UK's high-tech 5G networks.
Here's the BBC story.
Huawei 5G kit must be removed from UK by 2027.
As in there already are some Huawei parts in the UK phone and internet and computer system, but no more can be added and the existing stuff has to be ripped out in the next six years.
You can bet there are billions of dollars worth.
Let me read.
The UK's mobile providers are being banned from buying new Huawei 5G equipment after 31st of December.
And they must also remove all the Chinese firms' 5G kit from their networks by 2027.
Digital Secretary Oliver Dowden told the House of Commons of the decision.
That is a big decision.
And it has some costs.
Mr. Dowden said the supply ban would delay the UK's 5G rollout by a year.
All right, that's costly.
But I put it to you that handing over everything you write, you say, you watch, you save, you photograph, you read, just handing it to the Chinese Communist Party, well, that's a higher cost.
And that's what Huawei does.
That's what they are.
Any company like Huawei that's based in China must, under Chinese law, allow continuous, unfettered access to all of their systems, including access to encrypted secret material.
There's no secret material if your stuff goes through China.
If you're a Chinese spy, it's like you're sitting in on every phone call, watching every video, reading every email.
You literally have that right under Chinese law all the time for any reason or no reason.
Spying On Every Drive00:04:21
Yeah, I'll delay my self-driving cars for a year to get rid of that.
Let me quote, the technology promises faster internet speeds and the capacity to support more wireless devices, which should be a boon to everything from mobile gaming to higher quality video streams and even in time, driverless cars that talk to each other.
Yeah, that sounds awesome.
I honestly can't say I'm thrilled about the 5G world.
Oh good, more devices, cars that talk to each other.
Maybe I'm coming across as a bit of a Luddite.
I actually love driving myself.
It's a thrill.
It still is to me.
30 odd years after I started driving, one of my favorite things to do.
I don't need a computer to drive for me.
Frankly, it makes me a bit nervous for myself and for others on the road.
But really, imagine if China controlled your self-driving car.
Yeah, I'll wait a year to get Huawei ripped out first, thanks.
That's me.
I'm a grown-up, but what about teens?
You know, there's an app for teens called TikTok.
It's a video social app.
Really short videos, 15 seconds, 30 seconds.
I think the Max is one minute long.
So it's perfect for ultra-short attention spans.
Funny jokes, quick dance moves, lots of lip syncing.
It's actually really fun.
I had it on my phone for a bit.
It's very addictive.
2 billion downloads of the app worldwide, according to one source.
Number two app in the world behind WhatsApp, the communication device.
And look at this.
Here's the full age breakdown.
Age 13 to 17, 27%.
Age 18 to 24, 42%.
Age 25 to 34, 16%.
And only single digits older than that.
So you've got almost 70% of TikTok users are people under age 24.
Some of them are kids.
They're teens.
They'll say anything.
They'll do anything.
They don't know what they're saying or doing.
Some of them are literally children.
You can't drive yet.
You can't drink yet.
You can't vote yet.
Now, that's just the official stats.
But I happen to know that a ton of kids even younger than that are using the app.
How would anyone know or stop them?
And every word, every video, every move, every bad joke, every chat with your friends, even if it's set on private mode, it ain't private.
It's all going back to China.
Not just that, but anything else you're doing on your phone that has TikTok on your phone, that's going back to China.
If you have TikTok on your phone and you're writing an email and you're using that copy and paste function, you know, TikTok reads what you have copied and pasted.
Here, here's proof of it.
Look at this.
This is the new iPhone operating system warning every time TikTok takes a peek at what's called your clipboard.
Look at that.
It's spying on you literally every few seconds.
Do you see that warning up there?
Why is TikTok, a dance app, reading what you cut and paste in emails?
What does that have to do with recording a fun dance video?
Well, maybe it doesn't matter.
I mean, seriously, what kind of spying would China do on a 14-year-old girl doing some cool dance moves?
They're interested in 40-year-old women running for Congress, not 14-year-old girls, but yeah, 14-year-old girls grow into 40-year-old women.
15-year-old boys grow into 50-year-old men.
And every word you say, every joke you tell, every face you make, every ill-considered comment, every mistake, everything you delete, everything you think is on private mode, it is all captured and saved by the Chinese forever.
They now have a database of every single young American, really, and Canadian.
Facial recognition, who your friends are, what you've ever said to anyone, where you are, where you were, what you looked at, including things maybe you shouldn't have looked at, things you shouldn't have done.
And that will stay there, waiting patiently.
They've already got something on everyone now.
They'll just wait to know who will be the next congressman or senator or colonel or commander or diplomat or spy.
They've already got it all on you.
Probably even your fingerprints, certainly your voice print.
It's just waiting for you to grow up.
I think that's one reason why India banned TikTok recently.
India's TikTok Ban00:04:00
It's too bad.
I had TikTok on my phone for a bit, and I got to tell you, I enjoyed seeing some really exuberant dancers from India.
There were so many fun trends in India that TikTok gave me a window on.
I would never have seen them otherwise.
And I've got to admit, I feel sort of sorry for those kids who can't have fun with silly songs and dances now, but I'm sure they'll find another app to do their silly songs and dances now.
Maybe one made in India.
Or who knows, maybe we'll just do silly songs and dances in real life for their real friends in real time, like we did before smartphones and apps.
India has actually banned the app and more than 50 others because there's a shooting war between India and China now.
They're killing each other high in the mountains.
There's a war between Canada and China too now, but we're just too passive to notice it.
You think the kidnapping of two Canadians would have been a tip-off?
Obviously, China is now threatening the UK for banning 5G.
They're threatening in all sorts of ways.
That's what China does.
That's only hardening the hearts of Brits, though, confirming their decision was the right one.
But now Canada is out there all alone, still looking dreamily into China's eyes.
Here's a story in the South China Morning Post.
Canada faces new pressure to block Huawei from 5G after UK ban risks marooning Ottawa from Five Eyes intelligence allies.
Ex-diplomat Charles Burton says it will now be difficult for Canada to approve all Huawei and distinguish itself from allies who have all blocked the Chinese firm.
He says a policy of appeasement to China has not helped the detained Canadians, Michael Kovarb and Michael Spavor, who are accused by Beijing of spying.
So that's what the story from the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post says, the authors in Vancouver.
Now, not only are all our other allies protecting themselves from China now, but they realize that doing nothing in the face of Chinese belligerence gets no results from China.
So they might as well do something, right?
I think it's obvious that these countries, including the UK, were inspired, if not led, by America.
But not Justin Trudeau.
Remember, it was his ambassador, John McCallum, who actually said that Canada has more in common with China than with the United States under Donald Trump.
Just imagine how in the tank for the Chinese communists you have to be to say that, to believe that.
We have nothing in common with Communist China.
Nothing practically.
We're not allies.
We're not neighbors.
They buy very little of our exports.
We buy theirs, but that's not something we have in common.
We just give them cash for that.
We have different language and history and culture, different sports, different music, different TV, different movies.
It's such a foolish fantasy statement.
You have to be mentally on a different planet to think we have more in common with Communist China than with America.
John McCallum and Trudeau think that.
You have to be so deeply in love with China that you don't notice that everyone else is slowly walking away from them from India to the UK, to America, to Australia, to New Zealand.
Everyone is walking away carefully, slowly, no sudden moves.
Everyone except Trudeau.
Same with the NDP, I guess.
Here's a story where the NDP says they don't want to ban TikTok.
They think the U.S., not China, is the greatest risk.
I'm serious.
They're quoting NDP MP Charlie Angus.
He says, Canada needs to be very wary about jumping on board with the United States, particularly when it comes to issues of credibility, of defending privacy and holding digital apps to account, Angus said.
The U.S. is the world's center for disinformation and surveillance capitalism, and they've done a very poor job of handling this.
Yeah.
Charlie likes communist dictatorships.
Not enough to live there, but enough to cheer for them against America and think America is the threat to his freedom.
No wonder the NDP is propping up Trudeau's minority government.
Say, what do you think?
Do you think Trudeau will ban Huawei too?
Or do you think he's loyal to the end to the Communist Party?
Well, if you've read my book, China Virus, I'm guessing you're a pessimist just like me.
Why The Left Is Targeting Conservatives00:15:06
Stay with us for more.
Welcome back.
Well, of course, Rebel News is my favorite source of news, and it might even be your favorite as well.
A close second, it's probably our friends at Breitbart.com, but not everyone shares this taste.
In fact, it's generally accepted that the highest heights of journalism in North America are the pages of the New York Times.
There are other prestigious newspapers.
There are larger newspapers, the Wall Street Journal being one of them.
But the New York Times is the trend setter.
It's what all the fancy people read.
It's what other journalists read.
If you have a story on the front page of the New York Times, by afternoon, it's what CNN and the other cable networks are talking about.
And the next day, the other newspapers are following.
So the idea that someone who would scale those heights and achieve that journalistic apex would, without being fired, without being pushed out really, would voluntarily quit and resign is shocking.
But indeed, that is what happened by an editor of the opinion pages of the New York Times named Barry Weiss.
And she didn't just leave quietly.
She wrote a tell-all explaining why.
You can see some of it here.
It's addressed to A.G., which is the name of A.G. Sulzberger.
I think he's the fourth generation of that family to run the Times.
I'll just read a little bit.
Dear A.G., it is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from the New York Times.
I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago.
I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages.
First-time writers, centrists, conservatives, and others who would not naturally think of the Times as their home.
The reason for this effort was clear.
The paper's failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn't have a firm grasp of the country it covers.
Dean, I think it's Backet or Backwet, and others have admitted as much on various occasions.
The priority in opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.
And it goes on at some length talking about what went right, but what went so terribly wrong, of the cancel culture that has infected the New York Times, and indeed of a sort of terror within the New York Times, even by people who want to dissent from the official Red Guard line, that if you were to say something that might irritate someone, you would be fired.
You would be demonized.
At one point, she says that Twitter is not on the masthead, but Twitter actually runs the place because a Twitter mob is enough to get you canceled and fired.
Joining us now to talk about this is our friend Joel Pollock at my second favorite media outlet, Breitbart.com.
He's the senior editor at large there.
Joel, welcome to the show.
This is very interesting.
We were talking just before we turned the camera on.
Breitbart and you actually have some dealings with Barry Weiss, and so I know you have to be careful here and you want to be very objective and professional.
What are your thoughts on this subject?
And why don't you tell us a little bit about who Barry Weiss is and what the meaning of her resignation is?
Well, Barry Weiss is a brilliant writer, and she and I have actually known each other for more than a decade.
When she was a student at Columbia University in New York, she started a pro-Israel journal on campus, and my wife, who I was then just dating, did the same at Harvard.
And so we got to know each other.
And when she was hired by the Wall Street Journal as their deputy opinion page editor, we stayed in touch.
And we would meet occasionally if I was in New York, and we got along very well.
And she then went on to become editor of a new online magazine called Tablet, which is a very good magazine about specifically Jewish affairs.
And we had a few disagreements over some editorial and political issues that are probably not worth getting into.
But we basically kept in touch and we were on good terms until the Trump campaign came along in 2016.
And bizarrely, she started calling me out on Twitter for being supportive of Donald Trump.
And you know me, I am supportive of the president.
I'm a conservative Republican, but I've also tried to deliver straight news when I'm writing the news.
And so I'm not always in that partisan mode.
Often I go back and forth, and people know what my views are, so they can evaluate my reporting accordingly.
But in any case, she was going along with the idea that merely to support the president or to work for a publication that had some sort of tolerance for the president was to be xenophobic, racist, anti-Semitic, and so forth.
And she continued making these comments in social media specifically about me.
So I wrote to her privately.
I said, you know, what gives?
I mean, you can call me, you can talk to me if you have a problem or a criticism.
And you don't have to do this in public.
And I didn't respond to her in public initially.
And she didn't return my phone call, but sent me an email essentially saying, I don't want to have anything to do with you.
I'm paraphrasing quite significantly.
I don't actually remember the exact words she said, but it was something to the effect of the person I used to know was not a xenophobic racist who supported Donald Trump.
So she kind of played this cancel culture game.
And after the election, she moved from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times along with her mentor, Brett Stevens, who was a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist over at the Wall Street Journal, who became disillusioned with Trump and Republicans in general for supporting him.
And I should say that Brett Stevens is also quite brilliant, former editor of the Jerusalem Post.
He wrote a book called America in Retreat, I believe.
And it came out around about 2014, 2015.
And it was about American foreign policy under Democrats.
And it projected a very grim future under what he believed would be a future Hillary Clinton presidency, with America in retreat from all of its global obligations, all of its allies, and becoming weaker at home.
And he believed that America should have a stronger, more robust foreign policy.
And I loved the book.
The only problem was Brett Stevens seemed to think that the conservative base was isolationist.
And I actually disagree.
I think the conservative base, like many Americans, prefers to win wars if you're going to get into them, prefers to avoid wars that are pointless and that are waged for countries that don't like us or don't want us there to begin with.
And yet there's a huge constituency in the conservative base for a strong American foreign policy that doesn't overcommit our troops or our resources to far-flung lands where we don't really have a national interest.
So I wrote a review which was positive and basically said the only problem is I think he's misjudged the conservative grassroots.
Well, the conservative grassroots somehow frightened Brett Stevens and frightened Barry Weiss, and they became staunch anti-Trumpers.
And Barry Weiss was vehement on social media about her opposition, not just to me, but to Trump, more importantly.
And after Trump won, they moved over from the journal to the New York Times, where they were immediately, instead of being greeted with open arms, they were immediately treated like dirt.
People tried to cancel their subscriptions to the times when Brett Stevens wrote critically about climate change and other left-wing obsessions.
And Barry Weiss wrote some very good pieces about cancel culture, about the intolerance on college campuses.
She wrote a very interesting book about anti-Semitism after the Pittsburgh shooting in 2018, which happened in her community.
She's from Pittsburgh.
And I reviewed the book for Breitbart and said she's basically got most of this right, except the part where she thinks that Donald Trump is to blame.
And I went into that as well.
She now cites my review proudly on her website because she likes the fact that Breitbart didn't like her book.
In her mind, it's enough just to say that Breitbart didn't like you to say that you're against the racists, you know, those racist, terrible, conservative, Trump-supporting Breitbart people.
So Barry Weiss has actually played the cancel culture game that she has now been victimized by.
And so while I think her letter was brilliant and I think it's insightful, it's certainly making the rounds.
It's really penetrated into ordinary conversation and discussion.
It's not just a news item.
People in the Jewish community I know are talking about it.
People in general in intellectual circles are talking about it.
The charges she makes against the Times are really quite shocking about their intolerance, their anti-Semitism, their complete lack of respect for alternative points of view other than those on the extreme left.
I mean, it's very illuminating because I think she really wanted the Times to succeed as a kind of marketplace of ideas.
But in the end, they rejected her.
And they actually, she writes in her letter, they directed anti-Semitic remarks at her.
And they used the term Nazi to refer to her because she wasn't completely a left-wing radical.
If you're somehow to the right of, you know, Mao Zedong, you're a reactionary Nazi.
And I had the same reaction to this that Dennis Prager, the nationally syndicated talk show host, had yesterday.
And he said, and I'm just reading from the quote here, I know how destructive the left is, but it is the naivete and cowardice of the liberal that drives me craziest.
And he distinguishes between left and liberal.
It is the naivete and cowardice of the liberal that drives me craziest, as their lives will be destroyed just as readily as us conservatives, but they still think Donald Trump is the enemy.
And that's the problem here, is that there are a certain number of liberal never-Trumpers who threw in their lot with the left, thinking that it was important to fight Trump, that Trump represented illiberalism, that Trump represented repression and prejudice.
And it actually is 180 degree the opposite, that it's the left that is illiberal, that it is the left that is intolerant, and that the world in which Donald Trump is president is actually a world of freedom, of tolerance, of openness, where you can say what you want and think what you want and do what you want.
And you might get criticized in return.
I mean, Donald Trump doesn't pull any punches on Twitter, but that's the worst thing that happens to you.
Nobody shuts you down.
But in the anti-Trump world, if you hold the wrong view on even one of the many intersectional issues that they think are important, you are canceled.
And so Barry Weiss, in a sense, canceled herself.
And she speaks for a lot of people who are facing the same dilemma.
But what's interesting is it's happening on the left.
And if you think this is going to stop after Donald Trump leaves office, if you think this is just a political ploy, well, maybe it is to some extent, that Democrats are rioting in the streets and protesting, partly because their real grievance is the fact that they're not in charge.
They're not in power.
But if you think this ends the minute Joe Biden wins, it doesn't.
And in fact, we have that from some of the anti-Trumpers themselves.
I did a story a few days ago saying how this doesn't stop when Joe Biden takes the oath of office.
They're going to come after not just the Republicans who supported Trump.
They're going to come after Tucker Carlson.
They're going to come after the media personalities who advanced a conservative perspective.
So what the left has in mind is complete totalitarian domination, and they want to chase out any alternative points of view.
And finally, Barry Weiss, a liberal from within the left, really, is speaking out against it at the cost of her career, really.
And maybe I'm sure her critics inside the Times are saying she just did this to sell more books or to raise her profile and become a heroine or whatever.
But notably, I haven't heard one person from the New York Times speak out in her defense.
Not one.
There's not one person who's come out and said, you know what, she's right.
We need to think about whether we've become intolerant.
Maybe we need to look at our own practices.
Nothing.
And I'm imagining that Brett Stevens might say something eventually.
But what's happened here is that perhaps, perhaps, there's a liberal awakening about how dangerous the left has become in this country.
And you and I have talked about it before.
But Barry Weiss, in some degree, is hoisted by her own petard here because what she tried to do to conservatives is exactly what the left tried to do to her at the New York Times.
That's incredible.
I didn't know all of that history of how she herself tried to, in a way, cancel you, cancel Breitbart.
I mean, I've known you for years, and I know that, I mean, obviously, I know you're not anti-Semitic or whatever or racist.
In fact, I know that you're an observant Jew, and she would have known that even more having worked with you and your now wife.
But she was willing to use that weapon in the partisan war.
And I guess the thing is, you know, she thought she could ride the back of the tiger, and maybe she would be eaten last, but I guess she indeed has been eaten.
It's so, it's so, that's such a tragic story.
It feels like a Greek tragedy that she quit the Wall Street Journal.
She denounced you and renounced you and embraced the New York Times, but didn't realize she was actually going into the hands of the true anti-Semites, as she describes.
And unbelievable, but an important reminder of the difference between the liberals and the left.
There aren't a lot of liberals left anymore.
There just aren't a lot of liberals who say, yeah, let's have a debate.
Yeah, there's a spectrum of opinions.
It's just the hard left that, like you say, are really totalitarian.
They really are totalitarian.
They want a total, total annihilation of the other point of view.
They don't want a debate.
Yeah, and you know, I think it's time to bury the hatchet between liberals and conservatives because the common enemy really is the left.
The left is a threat to rational, reasoned, and tolerant discourse in this country and really in the West in general.
And the left believes they're winning.
The riots, the toppling of statues, they believe they're poised to take power in November.
I read about this in my book, Red November.
But basically, they feel they're on the verge of a socialist revolution.
They're going to use parliamentary procedures and loopholes in the law to essentially bring about what they believe will be a second American revolution, one that corrects the legacy of slavery and white supremacy from 1619 that was enshrined in the Constitution of 1789 and the Declaration of Independence of 1776.
They're going to begin at year one, which is going to be the year they get rid of Donald Trump.
And nobody is going to be safe, not conservatives and not liberals.
This is a left-wing revolution.
Left-Wing Revolution00:07:45
Joe Biden is a convenient sort of anodyne face for the most radical movement ever to represent any major political party in the United States.
And we are only seeing the beginning of this.
It doesn't end if Donald Trump is re-elected, but if Donald Trump is re-elected, there's a hope of stopping this eventually.
But there is no way to reason with the left.
There's no way to compromise with the left.
The left simply must be defeated, and enough people have to be convinced that its defeat is necessary that the Democratic Party moves on to other things.
It's happened before, after Reagan won twice and then Bush won in 1988, the Democrats turned back to the center.
They chose Bill Clinton.
They chose someone who could run as a centrist, even if he himself was radical, even if Hillary Clinton grew up an admirer of Sololinsky and so forth.
Even if all of that was true, Clinton at least understood that the country itself was centrist and wanted stability.
The left is offering more disruption.
Joe Biden is out there.
This is not the Joe Biden of backslapping and backrooms for the last 50 years.
Joe Biden is reading from a script.
He's saying, and this is a direct quote, he wants revolutionary institutional changes.
It's almost like a hostage video watching him read these left-wing statements.
And he is the presentable face of a radical revolution that is coming our way in November unless liberals wake up and join conservatives to stop it.
That's incredible.
The book that Joel's referring to is his new book called Red November.
Will the country vote red for Trump?
Or red for socialism?
Of course, in the U.S., red is the color associated with the Republican Party.
I recall our last conversation.
You absolutely terrified me when you talked about the second American revolution.
And I think you're exactly right.
Why on earth would they stop getting when they, if they get rid of Trump, that would be a starter pistol because there would be no barriers.
I think Trump really is the last thing standing between us.
And I just reviewed the history of the Red Guards and the Maoist cultural revolution.
It truly feels like that.
And it feels like Barry Weiss had her struggle session and lost, I guess.
I don't know.
If the New York Times itself becomes a champion of cancel culture instead of a champion of debate, I find that sad.
You know, you said conservatives and liberals have to team up against leftists.
I think 10 years ago, people would have said, what are you talking about?
Conservatives and liberals are opposites.
But these days, I think you're right.
Let me give you a quick example, and I don't want to keep you too long, but I find myself these days, Joel, finding common ground with people who a decade ago I would call radical feminists, because now they're being annihilated by transgender activists who hate the idea of female sex and biological determination of sex and who want to push trans men into women's prisons, women's shelters, women's sports.
And I find I have common ground with someone who 10 years ago, I would say, you're a radical feminist, you're on the other side.
No, no, they're actually against the extreme radicals here.
I think I get what you're saying.
Barry Weiss may be a liberal, but, and you actually told us that she was a bit of a canceler herself.
But the average liberal there sounds like it's just going to be handed onto next.
But I think she's been, in a sense, convinced by fake news.
And the fake news story about Trump and about Breitbart in 2016 was that he and we were a bunch of racist anti-Semites and so forth.
It's all fake news, and it's all based on lies, but it's what many in the media believe because that's the world they live in.
One of the interesting points Barry Weiss makes in her letter is that the Times journalists are treating Twitter like it's their real editor.
And when I think about my own differences with her, it's interesting to me that she took those differences to Twitter rather than to me personally.
And so I think that there's a lesson in there as well about how we interact with one another, that in order to have a real conversation with someone with whom you might disagree about something, you have to pick up a telephone, you have to have some sort of personal interaction.
Don't take it to social media, don't take it into the public realm right away.
We have to be careful.
We need to develop a set of rules of etiquette, perhaps, that don't rule out speech, but actually facilitate speech.
And so, you know, maybe we've all learned something from this.
But I will just add this note about the transgender issue.
There is some humor in my book as well, because you can't write a book called Red November without having a few good laughs at the expense of the would-be communists.
And there's a great moment in one of the early presidential debates where Julian Castro, the former housing secretary, who was one of the early candidates for the presidency on the Democratic side, said that we had to fight for abortion rights for transgender women too.
In other words, for biological males who identify as women.
In other words, you have to guarantee the right to abortion for someone who doesn't have a uterus.
And the fact that biologically they can't have an abortion is just, there's no meaning to the idea of having an abortion.
Well, they still have the right to have an abortion.
It reminded me of that Monty Python sketch from the life of Brian, where one of them decides that his name is Loretta.
And when one of his colleagues tells him he hasn't got a womb, he says, stop oppressing me.
So we've reached that sort of comic stage of American politics, but there is also a dangerous side to it.
Well, I find it very sad, and I think the most telling thing is that no one from that massive and mighty institution has come out in support of her, including, as you mentioned, her mentor, Brett Stevens.
Very interesting.
Well, Joel, thank you for your time.
As always, I'd like to give one more shout out to Joel's book, Red November, Will the Country Vote Red for Trump or Red for Socialism?
And let me recommend to you Barry Weiss's letter.
You can read it.
It's linked in Joel's column on the subject, which you can find at Breitbart.com.
Joel's column is called Barry Weiss, resigns from the New York Times, accuses Liberal paper of record of intolerance and anti-Semitism.
That's the biggest surprise, but you can see it all on that page.
Joel, great to see you.
Thanks for coming on the show again.
Thanks, Ezra.
All right, there you have it.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, welcome back to my monologue last night.
John writes, you guys are awesome.
Well-deserved wins and looking forward to more.
Well, thanks very much.
You know, we have so many fights.
I got to tell you about the times we win them, right?
Tracy writes, media like the Rebel News is so important to Canadian people.
Without you, the truth would be completely covered up.
Thank you for looking out for our country.
Well, I appreciate you saying that.
And in all of these cases, there's some risk, some degree of risk, legal risk, physical risk.
And we're happy to take it because, you know, as my old friend John O'Sullivan used to say, it's easier to fight in the first ditch than in the last ditch, isn't it?
On our newest rebel, Drea, Elizabeth writes, Drea, you did an awesome job on your first story.
You're well-spoken, confident, and pretty.
Hope we'll see more of you soon.
Well, I know you will.
In fact, I just saw her next video.
I think it's already up on the internet on our YouTube page.
She was covering a Fallon Gong story out of Vancouver.
So she's doing great reporting in the field already.