Trans Mountain’s Ian Anderson warns protesters blocking pipeline expansion will face injunctions if they disrupt work, citing past delays like Trudeau’s $4.5B overpayment for the original pipeline and legal inaction against "tiny house warriors." Saskatchewan’s COVID lockdowns—despite zero cases in many regions—violate the Charter of Rights, argues lawyer Marty Moore, referencing failed Imperial College death projections (350K vs. 9K) and canceled medical exams like Aaron Ogden’s fatal delay. Media fearmongering, including alleged CBC-PSOPS collusion, fuels overreach, while Trump’s Abraham Accords prove diplomacy can end religious conflicts. Canadians must demand accountability through courts or ballots to curb unchecked government power. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I take you through a couple of interesting comments from the boss of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project.
You know, they are actually building parts of that pipeline, the easy parts in Alberta mainly.
But what's going to happen when they get into British Columbia?
Well, I'll show you an interview from Ian Anderson, the president of the company, and what he says and what I think that actually means.
Before I do, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
It's eight bucks a month, not much.
And you get the video version of this podcast, plus shows from Sheila Gunread and David Menzies.
Importantly, it helps us pay the bills around here.
And I hope you consider subscribing for that reason alone.
Just go to rebelnews.com and click subscribe.
Okay, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, the Trans Mountain Pipeline Builder says he's prepared to take action if protesters block construction.
But is that true?
It's September 16th, and this is the Answer 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 is a government publisher, just because it's my bloody right to do so.
I saw an interview on TV with the president of the Transmountain Pipeline Expansion Project, Ian Anderson is his name, lifelong pipeline builder.
But his pipeline was blocked by the liberals.
It's actually supposed to be done by now, really.
Of all the pipeline proposals, it should have been the easiest to get done.
There's another pipeline called the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project.
It was going to be wonderful.
It was partially owned by local Indian bands along the route.
How awesome is that?
As the name suggests, it was a northern route.
So many of the jobs would go to Indian bands that have very little economic activity.
But alas, Gerald Butts didn't like it.
Because the real alternative is not an alternative route.
It's an alternative economy.
What a destroyer.
Energy East was another wonderful proposal, truly a national unity project like the Trans-Canada Highway.
It would have taken oil from Alberta and sent it to the largest refinery in Canada, which you may not know is in New Brunswick.
Right now, that giant refinery buys oil from OPEC countries like Saudi Arabia, as well as some American imports.
Imagine buying Canadian oil instead.
Talk about national unity and don't think the Irving family would be doing it for that reason alone.
Of course, Alberta oil sells for a discount to world oil prices.
So the refinery would say billions over time.
So it would be a win for Alberta to get a second market, higher prices than now, a win for the refinery to get secure supply, lower prices than now.
A win for everyone who would think it's better to have Canadian ethical oil than Saudi conflict oil in their cars.
And wow, a $15 billion construction project for Atlantic Canada and Quebec.
Alas, Trudeau killed that too.
So Transmountain was the last big one.
In a way, it was the easiest one.
It already exists.
See, it was built, I don't know, almost a century ago, if you can believe it, through the Rocky Mountains in the 1950s.
Seriously, the pipeline is almost 80.
It's a marvel of engineering.
But my point is, the path is already there.
They were just doubling the pipeline on the path.
So they do have to dig it up and refurbish it and make it bigger and more modern, more high-tech.
But the route is already there.
No one can say it's invasive.
Check this out.
This is what the pipeline looks like for the vast majority of its route.
You can't see it because it is buried underground.
This is from a liberal on Twitter, by the way, who says, for anyone wondering, this is what the current Trans Mountain Pipeline looks like outside of beautiful Jasper, Alberta.
Note, the pipeline is buried underground.
Well, pleased to see a liberal saying that.
It's underground.
You wouldn't even know it's there.
So it's not ugly like massive wind turbine farms.
There's no chance of it derailing like massive oil tanker trains.
No one even notices the pipeline's there.
But Trudeau campaigned against oil and gas, so he had to delay this pipeline also to get through his last election.
He promised his leftist environmentalist base.
He promised Gerald Butts.
The National Energy Board had already approved the pipeline in terms of being environmentally progressive and friendly to Indigenous people.
So the pipeline got the green light.
So there really wasn't any legal excuse for Trudeau to block it.
So what could he do?
Cancel it and basically confirm that no large projects can ever be done in Canada again and also risk being sued for billions by Kinder Morgan, the company that took Canada's laws at face value and actually thought if you follow the rules, you can build something.
So he could do that.
But he panicked and did what Trudeau does.
He throws money at a problem, billions.
He overpaid.
He bought the thing, the existing pipeline, for more than a billion over market value.
He bought the pipeline built in the 50s.
It really wasn't for sale.
And he was happily pumping away.
Trudeau bought that for a billion over market value just to shut up Kinder Morgan to buy Trudeau time to get through the last election without either environmentalists or Kinder Morgan squawking too much.
But now some people are actually expecting the thing to be built.
The pipeline company, Jason Kenney of Alberta, other people are expecting it to be killed.
The environmental extremists, the Gerald Butts people that Sappora Berman people.
So what's going to happen?
Well, here's an interesting interview with the boss of the pipeline, Ian Anderson, who was on Bloomberg TV, being interviewed by Tara Weber, who I thought asked some pretty good questions.
Here's the first one.
What do you think of this?
Another challenge that you're likely going to face would be protesters as we head towards those areas.
How do you anticipate dealing with that?
You know, we keep a close eye on activity.
We obviously, you know, don't discourage, you know, law-abiding, peaceful protest activity.
That's everybody's right in our society, and we don't discourage that.
But to the extent that it impedes our work at our work sites or threatens or causes unsafe conditions, then we'll take immediate action.
We're, you know, prepared for whatever might come our way.
But at the same time, we're really hopeful that it's going to be peaceful and law-abiding and that the men and women working on this project can continue to.
I like that answer.
He's fine with peaceful protests.
That's excellent.
He's all for safety.
That's excellent.
But if someone blocks things, he'll take immediate action.
Really?
What does that mean?
Well, it means he'll go to court.
Okay, that's what law-abiding people do.
He might even get a court injunction.
I'm sure he's got a half a dozen already.
He's a collector.
All oil and gas and forestry and coal and mining companies are connoisseurs of court injunctions.
They have very many of them.
Very expensive.
But as Stalin once said about the Pope, how many divisions has he got?
As in, thanks for the sentiments.
How can you enforce it?
Thanks for the injunction.
Let me show you what the injunction looks like in Northern BC.
Here's Kian Bexty visiting people who were the subject of several injunctions in a northern BC pipeline.
This one's for natural gas.
Yeah, what I would suggest is you guys just go and then maybe come back later in the night.
Could I just pop out, grab some footage?
Yeah, just talk to the hereditaries down there before you come up.
Maybe you can have a heretic.
There was no hereditary.
Would they meet us up there?
Do some investigating, and I'm sure you'll come across them.
Could I ask one question before we go?
You guys are using tires and gasoline.
Is that hypocritical at all, given that you want to stop a pipeline?
We're going for directing you to the hereditary chiefs now, so you can go.
All right.
Keant went back up there again to a town where illegal blockaders have been there so long, they've actually set up little houses there permanently.
This blockade has been going on, from my understanding, for months, if not years, along with these tiny house, tiny houses that have been built here.
That is where they get their name, the tiny house warriors.
Obviously, it is all part of a narrative, right?
It's like building a medical center that has to be torn down, that they know is going to have to be torn down.
It's all about the narrative here.
And right now, it's completely empty, which is great.
That's frankly the only reason our security, which is they're standing with us, is allowing us to be here right now because the rest of them have all sort of marched through town and are having a bit of a session.
So yeah, Ian Anderson is going to take immediate action, is he?
To pay lots of money to lawyers to run to court to come by to put another injunction on the pile of injunctions.
It doesn't work.
Injunctions, court stuff.
Doesn't work if the police don't enforce it.
The RCMP, do you think the RCMP is going to enforce it?
Here's Trudeau's hand-picked shill, who runs the RCMP now.
Brenda Lucky is her name.
I've literally not heard a single police officer anywhere ever say a good word about her.
She's Trudeau's man down to her bones.
You can tell by her letting him slide on SNC Lavland, by her letting him slide on weed charity corruption.
If Trudeau's hand-picked puppet doesn't take immediate action, what exactly is Ian Anderson going to do with all those injunctions?
Injunctions?
We got a sale on injunctions.
Buy four, get your fifth free.
Here's some more from Tara Weber's interview with Ian Anderson on Bloomberg.
She basically asked him that same question.
When you say immediate action, what happens if these protests turn violent, as we've seen with some of the other protests around pipelines?
Yeah, the authorities have their jobs to do, and we're in regular contact with authorities, and we are inclined to take immediate and swift action.
And we've got an injunction in British Columbia that prevents anybody from heeding to work or creating unsafe conditions.
We're patient.
We will take the necessary steps, but we'll ensure that the work is safe and can proceed.
Immediate and swift action, but we're patient and we will take the necessary steps.
Look, it's easy to build the pipeline in Alberta.
And at the end of the pipeline in Burnaby, Kinder Morgan has a fenced off facility.
Those are the easy parts.
It's BC.
It's not easy.
That part hasn't started in earnest yet.
I think we might be heading into an election sooner rather than later.
It's not a question of if, but a question of when.
When Sapora Berman and Gerald Butts and the rest of the foreign-funded eco-extremists send their cannon fodder to stop this pipeline.
When they're supplemented by anti-rioters and all sorts of imported extremists from the U.S., when they come in military style, antifa style, riot style.
When they threaten all sorts of violence like we've seen in the United States, I'm sure Ian Anderson will rush to court and get the finest injunction money can buy with a fine leather binding.
Frame the thing.
Hang it on your wall.
It's going to be such a beautiful injunction.
But do you think for a second that Justin Trudeau will enforce that injunction?
Either with the RCMP or even, I don't know, with the military?
Yesterday, Sheila Gunreed and I both showed you how Trudeau's military right now is putting together a plan for how to handle Canadians who don't agree with Trudeau on the pandemic.
The military made a nine-page psyops psychological operations battle plan for that.
But for actual threats of violence and terrorism against critical infrastructure in Canada, are you kidding?
No way.
When Jim Carr, the former Trudeau energy minister, mused for one moment that the military might have to respond to violent ecoterrorism while Trudeau frog marched him back out in public and told him to retract and to apologize for even suggesting that the rioters would be stopped.
He was ordered to apologize for even speaking theoretically, hypothetically, about sending in the army to stop eco-terrorists.
That was four years ago when Trudeau had a majority government when he was still high in the polls before the blackface fiasco and the SNC Lavlam fiasco and the meet a wee fiasco and all his fiascos.
Do you really think Trudeau would, even for a second, actually take steps against the violent left now when he has a minority government and he's promised to phase out energy?
You really think so, eh?
I don't know.
Well, maybe the new pro-Western deputy prime minister has something to say about that.
Telina's question about decarbonization as part of our economic plan going forward.
Of course, it has to be part of it.
I think all Canadians understand that the restart of our economy needs to be green.
Oh, right.
Yeah, look, I like Ian Anderson a lot.
Maybe he can wring a few billion more out of Trudeau because he's really not going to get it to help stopping the rioters, is he?
Stay with us for more.
Lockdown Measures Debate00:15:50
I remember when I first heard of the Imperial College in London and their epidemiological models that said, if I can translate into plain English, we're all going to die from COVID-19.
If anything is called the Imperial College, it's got to be, well, authoritative.
That's what the word imperial and college both mean.
That imperial college model was later found to be junk, junk science, cobbled together.
And the man who put it together himself admits it was flawed.
And yet that was replicated around the world, including here in Canada.
Justin Trudeau and Teresa Tam predicted between 50,000 and 350,000 dead under those same models.
Of course, the real number is about 9,000, and most of those are in Quebec with their pro-euthanasia, do not resuscitate laws in seniors' homes.
But how about Saskatchewan?
Not a lot of international travel to Saskatchewan, so perhaps it wouldn't have as many communicable patients bringing the virus in, no direct flights from China, for example, or Italy, two places that had the disease or Iran.
Well, those same models predicted that Saskatchewan, a province of slightly more than a million people, would still have between 3,000 and 8,300 deaths, even with lockdowns, 10,000 without lockdowns.
Well, what's the actual statistic?
24 deaths in Saskatchewan.
A single death is something to lament, but we're all going to die one day.
The average age of the deceased from this virus in Canada is in the mid-80s, higher, in fact, than life expectancy.
And I come to my point this way.
If Saskatchewan, one of the safest places in the country by any measure, especially by this virus measure, is bringing in lockdown laws that persist to this day based on flawed methodology, flawed models, and junk science.
Can it be legally justified?
Especially if it's taking away your basic rights, your freedom to associate, your freedom to assemble, as they say.
Well, our friends at the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom have done a legal analysis on this question for the friendly province of Saskatchewan.
And one of their crack lawyers who attended school at the University of Saskatchewan College of Law, Marty Moore, joins us now via Skype.
Marty, great to see you again.
With you, Ezra.
I got a question for you.
Saskatchewan's been one of the provinces in Canada touched most lightly by this virus.
And look, of course, even a single death is a tragedy.
But the pandemic that was supposed to kill up to 10,000 Saskatchewan people, it's killed 24.
So why is the place still under lockdown?
That's an excellent question, Ezra.
And that's the question that the Justice Center is asking as well.
And you touched on it rightly when you said, can the government justify these lockdown measures, not only the initially imposed lockdown measures, but the continuing imposed lockdown measures that are going on to this day, including in areas of Saskatchewan where they haven't seen a single case.
And there's no current cases, not deaths, no current cases whatsoever.
They're still under lockdown restrictions.
And as you note, governments in Canada are required to justify these actions when they restrict Canadians' charter freedoms.
And it's quite shocking to think that a government in Saskatchewan is continuing to maintain, in many cases, very invasive measures restricting people's freedoms under a perceived and asserted risk to health and safety, which, quite frankly, can't be justified in the circumstances that Saskatchewan is looking at.
Yeah.
You know, early in this pandemic, we went through some of Canada's emergency powers laws with Sam Goldstein, a bencher here in the Law Society of Ontario.
We went through the federal laws.
And what was interesting to me is they were all time limited.
You know, an emergency by nature is not a permanent situation.
The idea of a permanent revolution, a permanent emergency, that's the kind of language that communist revolutionaries use to excuse their heavy-handedness.
All of our emergency laws have a time limit, have fail-safes in them.
And you can understand a pandemic comes in, the death toll starts rising, people don't understand it, people freak out.
They say, okay, for a short period of time, 15 days to flatten the curve, two weeks to flatten the curve, they said.
We're past six months to flatten the curve now.
And we've learned a lot more.
We've learned that the models were wrong.
We've learned that young people just don't get sick, or if they get sick, it's very gentle.
We've learned a lot more.
But the underlying models have not been updated, have they?
No.
In fact, in Saskatchewan, as you pointed out, the lowest projected death total in Saskatchewan was going to be 3,075.
And Saskatchewan government, after a month or so, recognized that that was wildly off.
So they revised that projection.
They said with lockdown measures, our new estimation is 3,050.
And to date, there's been 24 deaths.
But, you know, the tragedy here, Ezra, is that when the government's gone on this lockdown, you know, imposition on many Saskatchewan residents in line with almost every other jurisdiction in the world, there have been harm to the residents, not from COVID in most cases, but from the lockdown measures themselves.
And as we note in our report, the tragic case of Aaron Ogden, who, you know, in a knee-jerk reaction, Saskatchewan government canceled surgeries and medical diagnostic exams.
Aaron Ogden's life could have been saved.
He had a diagnostic exam scheduled for June.
It was canceled.
On August 15th, he died due to a blood clot that would have been detected in that medical exam that was canceled.
This is a measurable life that was lost due to a government decision based out of fear of overwhelming the health care system instead of actual scientific evidence as what was actually happening on the ground.
And these are the tragedies that unfortunately these stories are going to continue to come out.
And this is why in Canada, governments must be held to account to justify measures that violate Saskatchewan residents charter rights and freedoms.
And that includes their charter right to associate.
That includes their right to go and receive the services that are necessary for their health and security of the person.
And, you know, to see these measures continuing in this environment with what we know now, as you pointed out, you know, Saskatchewan residents deserve an answer.
The charter requires that the government have a pressing and substantial objective that would justify any limitation on charter rights.
And at this point, one might ask, what is the government's objective in continuing these lockdown measures?
Yeah.
You know, you were using that language, pressing and substantial.
I haven't practiced law in more than a decade, but I know that's the language.
When the government violates your rights, the first step of challenging that is to say to the court, my rights have been violated in these particular ways.
That's usually pretty easy to prove.
The heart of the debate then happens in the next step, which is, can the government justify them in a free and democratic society, demonstrably justify them?
Can they prove, hey, everybody, we know where you're violating, we're violating your rights.
We know that.
We know that's not normal, but here's how.
And then, if I'm not mistaken, the name of the legal test that set this out more than decades ago was called the Oaks test.
And it has to, you know, is the infringement reasonably rationally connected to the overarching goal?
Is it the least infringement possible?
Is it proportional?
There's all these, the government can't just say, oh, 24 people age 85 got sick.
We're shutting down schools.
Like, is it rationally connected?
Is it proportionate?
I don't think this passes the legal test, but I'm surprised not a single person has filed a lawsuit in Saskatchewan yet that I know of.
Are you aware of any lawsuit in Saskatchewan to push back against any of this?
To date, I am not aware of a lawsuit that has been filed in Saskatchewan.
Yeah, that's correct.
Well, you know, it's the same across the rest of the country.
Other than Rocco Galati's lawsuit in Ontario, I mean, I don't know of a lawsuit in most jurisdictions around the world.
I don't know why people are being so passive and submissive here.
Yeah, and you're right to note that the government is required to justify these lockdowns.
I mean, there are lawsuits that are ongoing.
We have a few pending in Ontario.
We have a number in Alberta and others in the works.
The reality is that In Saskatchewan, for example, right now, there is both the democratic process and the legal process.
Saskatchewan has an election going on right now.
It's appropriate for people to ask their elected representatives to spell out.
Can you justify this lockdown?
What is the goal?
Is it to keep the healthcare system from being overwhelmed?
Because we're not seeing that.
And if you can't tell me a goal and tell me why that is minimally impairing, no one is trying to say we shouldn't protect the vulnerable.
But when your government lockdown measures go beyond protecting the vulnerable and start interfering with no attempt at being minimally impairing or proportionate, you know, people deserve answers.
And if the government does not provide those answers, it can expect in due course.
And hopefully things can be rammed up in that regard to find itself answering those questions in court, where potentially that's where this should be headed.
Yeah.
Well, we have an event that was supposed to proceed in May in Regina.
We sold over 1,600 tickets to a speech by Dr. Patrick Moore.
It was postponed, and I understand May was really the height of the pandemic was mid-April.
There was no way it was going to proceed in May.
We rescheduled it for September.
They haven't updated the rules.
There's this massive theater in Regina called the Connexus Art Center.
It's got 2,300 seats.
You could, frankly, social distance in that massive facility and still have more than 1,000 people in the room.
That's not allowed.
There's a very small group of people who can meet indoors, even in a gigantic facility like that.
Whereas airplanes, you're sitting right next to a person in a metal tube for hours.
And I'm not saying lock down the planes.
I'm just saying there's no rhyme or reason here.
There's no rationale here.
I think everyone's just afraid of being the first to loosen up because you'll be accused of being a murderer or something when, in fact, the opposite is true.
By shutting down normal life, you are statistically, undoubtedly, causing many more deaths than whatever you claim to be saving.
And you note, you know, the irrationality around measures.
I mean, for example, in the north of Saskatchewan, they received some of the harshest lockdown conditions, actually in the country, where they had conditions and imposed lockdowns that would prohibit northern residents from leaving the boundaries of their town except for very explicit and exceptional circumstances.
And so if you were living in Beauval, Saskatchewan, for example, you could not go out on the lake or go for a walk in the forest because that was prohibited by an order of their chief medical health officer.
And those are the kind of things that, as you note, some of these things haven't been taken down.
I mean, the Northern Health Order was, but the irrationality of some of these measures continues.
And things need to be narrowly tailored.
If you can identify a risk to health, address that risk.
But if we're just going to continue to impose lockdown measures without specific and demonstrable goals and results, then they are not justified.
And the government should be concerned because it loses legitimacy on everything when it demonstrates such incompetency and irrationality on this very specific and important issue.
Yeah.
You're so right.
You know, you remind me of when Edmonton brought in its mask bylaw.
They didn't even pretend it was about science.
They said it was public opinion.
Well, that's not exactly a strong demonstrable justification for taking away someone's rights because everyone wants it.
That's not a pressing public priority.
I think that, you know, I'm personally affected by this.
1,660 of my friends were affected by this because we're not allowed to meet.
I tell you, maybe this is a province that needs some litigation.
I mean, Saskatchewan is generally a common sense place.
It's not a radical, left-wing place.
I think the judges are probably fairly reasonable.
The population is probably not easily scared.
It's not like Toronto.
I think that maybe Saskatchewan ought to be a place where a legal challenge is made.
And frankly, maybe the Rebel is the organization to do it because we ourselves have been affected there.
We have lots of supporters in Saskatchewan.
And you know what?
And I got a question for you.
Marty, do you think that the government would actually like someone to put their feet to the fire on this so they have some, because every other force in the media says keep in panic mode, stay in panic mode.
Oh my God, we got three new cases.
It's an outbreak.
Do you think having a legal challenge to the law would be something welcomed by the government of Saskatchewan, who could finally have some pressure pulling them the other way?
Because the CBC, post-media, you know, every pundit is saying keep the lockdown, fight the second wave, wear a mask, be paranoid, be afraid.
Do you think the government might actually like someone saying, no, no, no, that's junk science.
Don't go paranoid Toronto on everybody.
You're free people, you're Saskatchewan people.
You've had almost no deaths and very few illnesses from this.
Don't be crazy.
When a government decides to, you know, enact measures based on fear rather than the facts of a situation, it may very well be time to see court applications bring the government back to center.
And sadly, the fear that is being conjured in many parts of society, unfortunately, is a powerful motivator for many people.
Rationality And Facts Should Prevail00:03:11
But rationality and facts should prevail.
And if they're not prevailing in the public decision-making process, they better prevail in a courtroom.
And, you know, I can tell people not to speak too far ahead of myself, but you can keep posted on these issues because court applications may very well be coming.
All right.
Well, you're getting me excited.
I want to join in some of that action, Marty.
What I would say to people who are scared is govern yourself.
You know, you don't want to go outside?
Fine.
You want to sit in the corner with the lights out?
Fine.
You want to hide under your bed?
Fine.
I'm not going to tell you how you live your life.
Just don't tell me how to live mine.
You don't want to send your kids to summer camp?
That's fine.
Don't stop me from doing the same over here.
You want to wear a mask.
If you're in your car, windows up, rolled up, only person here you want to wear a mask?
You want to wear some scuba gear.
You want to put on some scuba.
You want to wear a full wetsuit.
You want to dress like an astronaut.
Knock yourself out.
Just don't make me do the same thing.
Marty, I think I'm going to be in touch with you by telephone because if there's any legal action, I think we might want to be part of it.
All right.
Well, we're happy to have those conversations.
We have them with thousands of Canadians across the country on it on a monthly basis.
There's a lot of people that are starting to realize that these measures are not justified and people need to push back.
And again, I note that as an individual resident of Saskatchewan, you have a right to contact your elected representatives.
And if they are not going to behave rationally on this, you can vote them out of office.
Huh.
Tough talk, Marty.
Great to see you.
Good luck to the JCCF.
We're huge fans of yours all the time.
We always follow what you do.
I'd encourage people to go to jccf.ca to check out all your activities and to read your legal opinion.
Thank you very much, Ezra.
Thanks, Marty.
All right, folks, stay with us for right now.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue on the Armed Forces Propaganda Plan.
John writes, Rosemary Barton is the CBC's Tokyo Rose.
Yeah, I mean, I mentioned the other day that CBC senior personnel regard themselves, they think of themselves, as bureaucrats in the civil servants, like an assistant deputy minister or something.
Rosemary Barton absolutely thinks of herself as an attaché to the government, maybe even an honorary cabinet minister.
She's not an independent journalist.
It is completely reasonable, based on that PSYOPS document, to think that the Canadian military works with the CBC to propagandize on behalf of Trudeau.
It was all in writing.
Doug writes, please, my fellow Canadians, let us unite to remove this inept and extremely corrupt government, ASAP.
Well, I think you might get your wish.
I am increasingly thinking there will be an election before the end of the year.
On my interview with Joel Paula, Greg writes, God bless and protect President Trump.
Peace For Peace00:00:52
He made this possible and deserves at least one Nobel Prize of the two nominations he's received so far.
Beautiful.
Yeah, I just can't believe the warmth of this piece.
First of all, it's peace for peace, not peace for money or peace for land.
It's peace for peace.
That's the only kind of peace that's sustainable.
And to see the leaders of these Muslim countries embrace the Jewish Torah scrolls and be so friendly religiously when we've had centuries of hate, that's incredible to behold.
I like what Joel emphasized.
These are called the Abraham Accords, a reminder that Jews, Christians, and Muslims come from the same patriarch.
I think that's a powerful way to have framed it.
I find it very encouraging.
Maybe I'm too gullible or utopian or idealistic, but it looks realer than anything else we've seen in years.
That's the show for today until tomorrow.
On behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, TU at home.