Lockdowns and election fraud dominate this episode, with the host exposing Canada’s police raids—like a pregnant woman arrested in Victoria for criticizing restrictions—and comparing it to New Zealand’s indefinite detentions of healthy citizens. Meanwhile, Benjamin Weingarten dissects Biden’s evasive debate performance, linking his silence on China’s aggression (cyber threats, economic warfare) to his family’s ties to the CCP, and warns of vote-buying in Minnesota’s Somali community ($200 for absentee ballot registrations). The discussion frames Trump’s 2024 victory as hinging on exposing Democratic fraud tactics and progressive extremism, from defunding police to censoring dissent like Quebec’s $9,000 fine against SchwaFM Radio X. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I take a quick tour around the Commonwealth.
Our friends, our cultural similars, our comparators, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, places that are pretty much like us.
And I show you the worst of the pandemic illiberal reactions and I ask you how long before they're here, but it's sort of a trick question because I show you every one of the things I point to overseas has already here begun.
Before I let you listen to that, let me invite you to become a subscriber to what we call Rebel News Plus.
I'm going to show you some videos.
Of course, you'll hear those.
You'll sort of be able to understand them.
But I'm going to show you what happened in an Australian farmer's market.
I want you to see it with your eyes.
And to do that, just join Rebel News Plus.
Get the video version of this podcast.
I do it every day, five times a week.
My friend Sheila Gunread and David Menzies, they do a weekly show.
So you're getting seven TV-style shows a week.
It's only $8 a month or $80 for the whole year.
And you're getting all the good TV stuff too.
Just go to RebelNews.com and click subscribe.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, it's getting worse.
They're taking us back into lockdowns.
I'll give you a quick update.
It's September 30th and this is the Angel Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government for why I'm opposed to it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
I follow the news from around the world because I'm interested in the world and because these days we have similar problems everywhere and it's interesting to compare solutions or problems or, I don't know, it's a warning, a canary in the coal mine, what happens somewhere else, like Australia, the United Kingdom, can happen here very quickly.
You've probably seen this footage of a pregnant mum in the Australian state of Victoria.
Police burst into her home with an actual search warrant, which means an actual judge signed off on this.
And the police arrested her.
They handcuffed her.
They were saying they came to take her away, even though she's visibly pregnant, has an ultrasound appointment in an hour.
And all of this, why, did she commit a murder?
No.
She posted a Facebook post about a peaceful protest against the lockdown.
As in, she had her home invaded by paramilitary police because she made a Facebook post about the risk of having her home invaded by paramilitary police.
Yeah, you can show me your search warrant before you go through my house.
Yeah, I own this house.
There it is.
Search warrant for what?
Now, what I will explain to you is, if you want to listen, you got your phone going?
Yeah, I do.
Now, you're under arrest in relation to incitement.
Incitement?
You're not obliged to say do anything, but anything you say, do may be given an evidence.
Excuse me, incitement for what?
What on earth?
Excuse me, what on earth?
Just put your phone down.
Can you recall this?
In my pajamas, ultrasound in an hour before.
Yeah, she's pregnant, so please.
What's this about?
If I have an ultrasound, just let him think about it.
It's in relation to a Facebook post in relation to a lockdown protest you put on for Saturday.
Yeah, and I wasn't breaking any laws by doing that.
You are, actually.
You are breaking it.
That's why I'm arresting you.
In relation to the pressure.
How can you arrest her?
Yeah, that's insane.
But those crazy Australians, I mean, that couldn't happen here, could it?
Well, let me use the past tense because it has happened here in a less robust way, but it happened.
I don't want to let the air out of the balloon on this story because we're about to do a full news report on in the days ahead.
But here's an RCMP officer going to the home of a private citizen, going to his home in a police car, wearing a police uniform, holstering a police gun to talk to him about his Facebook posts about the pandemic measures.
You know, I like the idea of police going in a friendly way to visit people who, you know, there's rumors they might be committing a crime, a grow-up.
Did someone hear gunshots?
God forbid, you hear the sounds of a man hitting a woman, God forbid.
Did you have some evidence of a crime that maybe a friendly drive-over and chat might head off or might detect?
I love that.
Call that community policing in a way.
But there was no underlying crime here, either proven or suspected.
It was just some guy writing about pandemic politics.
And Justin Trudeau's RCMP thought they needed a bit of a scare.
Why are you here?
So like I told you, okay, you just posted something on Facebook.
You just want to see, should they have any concern about what you post on Facebook?
You should have no concern about what I post on Facebook.
This is a free country.
Yeah, that's right.
That's right.
That's right.
I'm not, I'm not going to be here today.
I'm just here to talk to you.
I don't understand why you're here for anything that's posted on Facebook.
Why don't you go talk to Mark Zuckerberg?
Go talk to Mark Zuckerberg.
You got a problem with something on Facebook.
This is ridiculous.
I just want to talk to you for a sec.
I don't want to talk or even entertain this.
This is ridiculous.
Go find a crime, you guys.
Go do something.
Sounds good.
Oh, yeah.
Thank you very much.
Yeah, thank you very much.
We'll tell you more about that story later, but do you see what I mean?
Less than a month for that idea to move from Australia to Canada.
Here's another idea, this one from New Zealand.
I've shown you this before, locking people up indefinitely, not because they have the virus, but because they don't want to be tested.
They don't have any symptoms.
They're not unhealthy.
But the government really, really, really wants them to stick a rod up their nose to take a sample and then get it tested and get a result in a few days of test that has up to 50% false positives.
That is according to Ontario's Deputy Public Health Officer.
Let me just prove that to you for a moment.
You know, I think a lot of people think that testing is going to really solve the whole problem, and it isn't.
It's one component of a response.
If you test somebody today, you only know if they're infected today.
And in fact, if you're testing in a population that doesn't have very much COVID, you'll get false positives almost half the time.
Okay, so in New Zealand, you're completely healthy, no symptoms, and you don't want to take a test.
Well, then you'll be held in a new pandemic prison in perpetuity.
No hearing, no trial, no habeas corpus, no getting out on bail or parole, just forever until you comply.
Here's the ghoulish Prime Minister literally laughing about that.
You said I wanted to, I've got a number of questions about people refusing, you know, what do we do if someone refuses to be tested?
Well, they can't now.
If someone refuses in our facilities to be tested, they have to keep staying.
So they won't be able to leave after 14 days.
They have to stay on for another 14 days.
So it's a pretty good incentive.
You either get your tests done and make sure you're cleared, or we will keep you in a facility longer.
So I think people, most people will look at that and say, I'll take the test.
What a creepy, deathly, sickly monster she is, laughing about that.
But hey, that would never happen here, right?
Yeah, again, it already has past tense.
Here's a video translated from French into English by David Freihai.
He has a popular YouTube channel called Viva Frey.
I really recommend you visit it.
He's a recovering lawyer, so he has lots of good legal analysis.
I'll play for you a clip from this video.
David himself translated this.
Have you seen this on the CBC?
By the way, please consider subscribing to David's YouTube channel.
It's free.
Here, take a look.
Dr. Girard avant termini and journalists who can present Emmy in Android Recall Street.
Yes.
Merci, Dr. Girard.
Oui.
L'ordonnance concernait justement deux personnes qui ne collaboraient pas.
Et on trouve que c'est formidable de pouvoir finalement utiliser ce levier-là.
Vous savez, avant, si on n'était pas en urgence sanitaire, le directeur de santé publique peut utiliser ce pouvoir pendant 72 heures, en attendant qu'un juge, finalement, confirme l'ordonnance.
Dans le cas de la COVID-19, nous avons la possibilité d'isoler quelqu'un pendant 14 jours.
Et c'est ce que nous avons fait ce matin et c'est ce que nous avons déjà fait dans le passé.
and we also like the face material, or people collaborate in Quebec, and we have passed with success, and with a collaboration of policy collaboration.
Merci à tout le monde.
Passez une bonne fin de journée.
Vous avez donné quelqu'un pendant 14 jours à rester chez eux.
Ce n'est pas chez eux que ça se passe.
14 jours, le séjour, c'est à la prison de l'UQ.
Est-ce que vous avez l'impression d'être dans une prison?
Bien, c'est...
Because we're in our soul to the possibility of preventative.
C'est une disposition qui est beaucoup plus facile quand on a quelqu'un qui ne collabore pas, puis ça devient vraiment complexe.
Personne qui est, mais elle est en isolement, exactement où ça peut être aussi.
Ce n'est pas nécessaire.
C'est ça.
Mais est-ce que… Ce n'est pas la… Ce n'est pas la… Bien, ça dépend de la personne.
OK.
Because when we dispersed when we had the people, in the effect we had, and the idea we were observing, and he observed the railroad.
So, you see, it depends on the case.
Yes, it's an ordinance, in fact, where the two people...
Because the ordinance, on the transmits to the police.
So, yes, on can do it on an ordinance, on can identify several people.
In fact, it's not the same.
It's the first confessor, General Man, it's a person who reconstantly legal estimates that allow it to control their control.
Midnight Law Enforced00:05:57
Oh, so they just plain old arrest people who are at a bar.
Again, no symptoms.
Just out at a bar.
Won't stop going to bars, so put them in jail.
No trial, no hearing.
No appeal, no parole, no bail.
Just some doctor with the power of a tyrant putting people in secret holding facilities as long as they want.
And the gentle laughter under it, just like Jacinda Ardern, just laughing in New Zealand.
So, yeah, that's coming here.
It's here already.
And I told you yesterday about how various governments are now blacklisting and deplatforming and boycotting a Quebec City radio station that dares to criticize that government's out-of-control lockdowns.
They're back in lockdowns.
Quebec is insane.
They're out of control.
Take a look at this story here.
Montreal restaurateurs in shock after the provincial government orders 28-day closure.
I've got to read you the details.
That's even crazier.
Look at this.
Montreal restaurateurs say they don't understand why the provincial government is ordering their businesses to close, even though there have been no COVID-19 outbreaks tied to the city's famed restaurant industry.
On Monday, authorities moved Montreal and Quebec City to the highest COVID-19 alert level, banning private indoor gatherings and shutting bars, cinemas, and restaurant dining rooms for 28 days.
Well, I mean, who cares about you?
The ruling class is in charge.
Not one of them lost a day's wages.
Did any politicians or lawyers or bureaucrats lose work?
Well, of course, many in the ruling class had a six-month paid vacation without the work, but they got paid.
Teachers' unions are aching to shut down their schools.
They'll still get paid either way.
They prefer to be paid to sit at home watching Netflix.
Not one single child in our country has died from the virus.
But that's a small detail.
The teachers don't want to teach, but they want to be paid.
We were told constantly about our saintly doctors and nurses.
Yes, thank you very much for working.
And at some risk, I acknowledge, as there always is in a hospital, but most hospitals in Canada were empty and are still partly empty.
There was never a surge in cases.
In Ontario, each virus patient has two hospitals to themselves.
That's why hundreds of doctors and nurses killed time by making these execrable TikTok videos of themselves dancing and lip-singing and getting paid.
Too bad, so sad for you, restaurateurs and waitresses and bartenders.
Why don't you make some TikTok videos?
At least Quebec is honest.
They just hate working people.
But in the United Kingdom, they have the most bizarre rules that change in the dead of night.
Bars have to close at 10 p.m. or is it 9 p.m. now?
Not 10:30 p.m.
Because the virus knows what time it is.
Here's a new one.
I'm not making this up.
I swear, look at it yourself.
This law was passed last night at midnight, so technically this very morning.
No one in Parliament read it, let alone voted on it.
They weren't showing it until it was the law at midnight or 12:01.
It's so absurd.
10 pages of detailed lawyerly rules.
Do you think the police know these rules?
They were only issued last night at midnight.
Let me read you just one section, perhaps the dumbest, but it's a real contest for the dumbest part.
I'm going to read about a solid minute's worth of verbiage, not to bore you, but to show you how impenetrable the language is.
Tell me that any citizen or bar or restaurant could understand this, let alone a cop trying to enforce this law.
Tell me there's a jot of science behind this.
It's a ban on singing, I swear to God.
By the way, NENW stands for the Northeast and Northwest of England.
Here's from the law: A. Singing on the premises by customers.
One, in groups of more than six, where the premises are located in an area which is not part of the protected area for the purposes of the Northeast-Northwest regulations, unless one of the exceptions in Regulation 5 of the principal regulations applies, or 2, where the premises are located in an area which is a protected area for the purpose of the Northeast-Northwest regulations.
AA, in groups of more than six, where the group is located outdoors, unless one of the exceptions in Regulation V of the principal regulations applies, or BB, in groups of two or more persons where the group is located indoors, unless one of the exemptions in Regulation 6B or 6C of the Northeast-Northwest regulations applies.
Or do you understand any of that?
Well, you'd better.
You'll get a 10,000-pound fine if you don't.
Did you understand a word of that other than singing is now banned?
Now, how loud is singing, by the way?
What qualifies as singing?
And does that apply to rapping as well or talking loud?
What if I whisper a song?
Can I, hmm, is that, can I hum?
Is la la la considered singing, even that's not really a word.
How about the anthem?
Can you sing the anthem?
If I'm in my own group of people at a pub and someone is in their own group across the pub, and we both sing, is that illegal?
Do you see how stupid this law is?
Ten pages of that released at midnight last night.
Here's a London civil liberties lawyer who actually read the whole law.
Venezuela's Tyrannical Regime00:02:42
I pity him.
Adam Wagner says, I just gave a lecture to Bristol law students on human rights in COVID-19.
First section is me answering: Can your university lawfully imprison you in your accommodation blocks?
I'm afraid to say my conclusion was potentially yes.
Yeah.
Oh, just that.
Hey, no problem.
You can be imprisoned now.
Hey, no problem.
Here's the news from a tyrannical regime called Venezuela.
This is from The Guardian.
A wave of demonstrations has erupted across Venezuela as angry citizens flout lockdown restrictions to demand an end to worsening shortages of everything from electricity and water to fuel and household supplies.
Since Sunday, more than 100 protests have broken out in at least 17 of the country's 23 states, sometimes resulting in skirmishes with riot police.
Look, they've got nothing to lose in Venezuela.
Their country is so wrecked by the socialists.
They're actually used to riot police there.
It's Venezuela.
100 protests, riot police.
Tough to get too mad at them, though.
I mean, I used to rail against that stuff, but how can you condemn them but not say our ally, Australia?
Look at this farmer's market.
It is a farmer's market with moms and dads and kids shopping for vegetables in Australia.
Yeah, tough to point a finger at Venezuela.
So Quebec has shut down businesses in Canada's second largest city, Montreal, despite no outbreaks.
It's another lockdown.
They're not even pretending not to censor dissidents anymore or lock them up.
Doug Ford in Ontario is threatening people, threatening them, threats.
Hey, are you watching the worst that the pandemic is doing around the world?
Like the worst ideas, the worst violations cooked up by tyrants everywhere.
No singing.
Biden's Debates: Fibs and Fib Disavowals00:14:51
And we won't define singing.
You'll just have to guess if it's humming or whispering or rapping or talking loud.
Was that a song?
Was that a song?
Just watch what's being done in our fellow Commonwealth countries, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and remember that we are no different here.
If anything, our government is worse.
Our prime minister is stupider.
Do you really think that we're immune?
Brace yourself, my friends.
Welcome back.
Well, for those of you who tuned in last night, you'll know some of my thoughts and Sheila Gunreed's thoughts on the presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
My main takeaway was what a disaster the debate was in terms of process, procedure, format, and the interventionism of the supposedly neutral moderator, Chris Wallace.
As our friend Joel Pollack points out, Wallace not only over-talked the candidates and by a margin of five to one overtalked Donald Trump, he brought factual errors into the debate, and he engaged in some partisan banter too that was not his place.
But what was the substance of the actual debate?
Did any side score some points?
Joining us now to talk about it is the author of an incredible book on Ilhan Omar.
We've talked to him before, Benjamin Weingarten's book, American Ingrate, Ilhan Omar and the Progressive Islamist Takeover of the Democratic Party.
And Benjamin Weingarten joins us now.
Ben, what did you think of the debate?
Who do you think won?
Was there even a winner?
I think Chris Wallace tried to be the winner of the debate.
I'm not sure if he succeeded ultimately, given that we just found out word before this broadcast that the debate commission would be changing the structure of the debates going forward.
I do think on the substance, and very important to point this out, there were any number of issues on which Joe Biden essentially said, I have no answer.
And I'll just tick through them really quickly because they're incredibly significant when it comes to thinking about the stakes of this election.
And that's really what these debates should be about.
So he had no answer on court packing.
He had no answer on Hunter Biden's corruption.
He had no and his relationship to it.
Because of course Hunter Biden and his family members were profiting from all sorts of adversarial foreign regimes while Vice President Biden was vice president.
The filibuster, lack of support from law enforcement, Biden's accomplishments in 47 years versus Trump's accomplishments in 47 months, coronavirus strategy, environmental radicalism.
So President Trump got Biden on record or not on record, as the case may be on this litany of items.
And he also broke through the veneer of this affable Uncle Joe.
And I think he pretty effectively forced Biden to infuriate the left by denouncing all the positions that are right in the Biden-Bernie Sanders unity agenda.
So I think on the substance, those were hugely impactful hits.
And my main takeaway, though, is that last time around in 2016, it was very clear that Trump defined Hillary Clinton, besides being crooked Hillary, as really not having much of any substance.
You could not, in a sentence, define what Hillary Clinton was running on.
I think the same can be said with Joe Biden.
President Trump, on the other hand, as the insurgent candidate last time, ran on America first, get out of bad trade deals, put the American worker first, let's get back to a patriotic country with a vibrant civil society where we're going to protect the people who are under fire from progressive elites, build the wall, and the like.
And I think in the next debate, going forward, and vice presidential as well, there needs to be an emphasis on creating a contrast, not only in the personalities of the individuals, but in the vision for this country and what's at stake.
Because I think on that basis, Donald Trump kills Joe Biden, but it needs to be made abundantly clear to the American people.
Yeah, last night felt squabbly and quarrelsome.
Obviously, it's a debate, so it's going to have some of that in it.
But it felt like it was devolving into a muddle and a mess.
I saw that announcement that you referred to that the Debates Commission wants to change formats.
I'm guessing they're going to cut the mics of the opposing candidate when the other candidate is speaking.
That's one of my predictions of the changes to be made.
I think that I hope that the other debates are more clarifying.
I think Trump was underprepared.
Biden was clearly very practiced, had his talking points, and managed to get through them without having a Biden moment.
I think Trump felt a little bit like he does as a campaign speech, stream of consciousness, some talking points, but not practiced lines of what he thought was going to come up in the debate.
That's just how it came across to me.
Maybe he's too busy or didn't compel himself to go into that discipline or thought, well, I'm great with the media.
Unlike Joe Biden, I'll just wing it.
It just felt like he was winging it a bit to me.
Those are my thoughts.
But let me ask you a question, because you mentioned that Trump managed to get Biden to move to the center.
And on environmental radicalism, we saw Biden very clearly disavowed the Green New Deal.
And I think that Biden also tried to claim he was more about law and order than he has been in the past.
But here's my point to you, and I said this to Sheila Gunread last night.
I don't think that's going to drive a wedge between Joe Biden and his left-wing base, because I think that they will vote against Trump no matter what.
And they're delighted that Biden says whatever he has to say to win over some of middle America, too.
So if Biden fibs, throws the AOC wing, the Ilhan Omar wing of the party under the bus in a debate that millions of Americans are watching, I think the anti-fawing, the squad, that part of the party doesn't care because, you know, by any means necessary, say whatever you have to, lie, cheat, whatever it takes to win, just win, and they'll figure it out after the revolution.
I think you're right that ultimately Joe Biden has candidate Joe Biden, and I always put it in parentheses because he hasn't really run per se.
And when he said Harris Biden, I think that was an accurate description of what this ticket is.
Kamala Harris in some ways really embodies the nature of the party today because it's all about power at any cost, no matter what.
The ends justify the means.
It's about control over us ultimately.
And Joe Biden has always been the Trojan horse candidate for the leftist energy within their party.
So I agree.
It's not that he's going to lose votes as a consequence of trying to create a wedge there, but I think it is to try to stir up some dissension to the extent it can be stirred on their side.
What I would suggest is that the president ought to do two things next time.
First of all, when he's being attacked by the moderator and it's clear that every question is about ultimately trying to frame Orange Man Badge, the Democrat message, is say, I reject the premise of your question and it should offend the American people that you think so little of them.
And then he should pivot to, here's what you're trying to get at by framing this question as such.
Why don't you ask my opponent XYZ?
I think that would be a very effective tact next time.
And then number two, he has to make it very clear that Biden is the candidate of a radical left that ultimately wants to pillage your bank account, wants to destroy the suburbs, and make it very clear the Democrats' anti-suburb Obama-Biden plan, make it very clear that he's going to not just cripple your 401k and raise your taxes and all the rest, but ultimately that their party is a party that is anti-American, that wants to destroy the America we know and love.
And Biden may disavow that, but you need to get him on very crisp, succinct points disavowing it.
He didn't do that last night.
The contrast in the two visions has to be made clear.
It's absolutely imperative that it be made clear in the next couple presidential debates.
Yeah.
Let me ask you about something.
I mean, I'm interested in China, not just because of the virus, which is how it came up last night, but there's so many other factors.
China's regional expansionism.
It's practically in a war with India.
It's building offshore islands to threaten the Philippines and Taiwan.
It's threatening war with Taiwan.
It's, you know, it's aggressive regionally.
It's engaging in cybersecurity threats against America, whether it's Huawei or TikTok or just plain old industrial espionage.
Then there's the economic warfare.
I was sort of surprised that China didn't come up really at all other than a few glancing moments.
And frankly, foreign policy didn't come up at all.
Here's a president who has negotiated seemingly impossible peace deals in the Middle East.
Is it just because it wasn't scripted in the debate agenda?
Or do you think maybe Americans don't really care about foreign affairs?
That's a distraction for the political class.
And Americans, you know, prefer other matters.
Why didn't, like, China seems like an awfully large issue for America and for Trump personally.
Yeah, there were no real questions that sort of pushed the debate towards it based upon the six topics that were telegraphed in advance of the debate.
But I absolutely think even though the American people will not vote on national security and foreign policy, while they will vote on Homeland Security, they may not vote on the Abraham Accord and comedy between Arab and Israel that's really Arab nations in Israel, which is really unprecedented, or confronting communist China, the greatest threat to American liberty of any adversary in the world, or countering Russia, even though Trump gets attacked as a Putin puppet over and over again.
He has countered them to a huge extent through NATO and well beyond in terms of Nord Stream 2, and we can tick off the list of items, rebuilding our military and the like.
I absolutely think that this is a huge weak point for Joe Biden.
And I've written any number of columns at Newsweek, at the Federalist, at the American Mind, talking about the fact that Joe Biden is the perfect embodiment with respect to China of the globalist progressive elite classes aiding, abetting, and enabling of China for nearly 50 years.
And Biden did it at the highest levels of power, of course, because remember, he was the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he wasn't chairing it.
He was the ranking member in the minority.
And then he was the vice president, where his job was to handle the China portfolio, and in particular, in conjunction with the rise of General Secretary Xi.
And at every turn, and I've written about this at length, Joe Biden was a supporter of communist China's rise.
That has to be hammered home to the American people, that the destruction of manufacturing in this country, the stealing of hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars in intellectual property from Americans, all manner of national security threats posed by a rising China, Joe Biden enabled that to happen.
And oh, by the way, his son Hunter, and this also has to be made clear, seemed to be profiting to the tune of millions of dollars, as well as his other family members as well, by the way.
If you read closely in that Senate Joint Committee report, they were all profiting from those linked to the Chinese Communist Party and the PLA, the Chinese Communist Party's military apparatus, while Joe Biden was vice president in office.
So the question has to be posed: what did Joe Biden know?
When did he know it?
And why didn't he do anything about it?
And again, I think that needs to be made crystal clear in the next debate, as does this simple distinction.
And I wrote about this in Newsweek in advance of the debate, and happy to share that link.
Very clearly, do you believe in an America-first national security and foreign policy that's built in peace through strength?
Or do you believe in a national security and foreign policy that's about aiding, abetting, and enabling our worst adversaries to the benefit of our worst adversaries?
And it needs to be made crystal clear that that's the difference between the Obama-Biden agenda and the Trump agenda.
You know, one of the questions, one of the themes that Chris Wallace did, and if I heard him right, he said he himself came up with the questions.
He was asking about the Paris Global Warming Accords, which is a non-binding meeting that the United Nations held in 2016, I believe, in Paris, about carbon dioxide emissions.
The fact that that would be one of the top six things he wants to talk about in this debate felt so like reheated leftovers from an earlier campaign, not a mention about censorship, tech dominance, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter bias, not a mention about cancel culture in general.
I just felt like the ground was strong for Joe Biden.
Trump didn't reach for some of those issues that cross over into, that would excite people.
I mean, when I hear global warming, I just glaze over.
Now, maybe it's because I'm a skeptic, but I don't think that's going to rev up American voters.
You start talking about transgender extremism.
You start talking about, you know, people aren't allowed to say things freely in the internet.
Maybe those sound like small and unimportant things, but I think they touch on a larger change in America.
I don't know.
I just wish that there had been more substance, and I wish that it hadn't been just reheated blather that felt like it could have been in the 2016 election.
I don't know.
I guess I'm complaining to you about a debate.
What can I do?
Well, I 100% agree with you.
I think the questions were a perfect representation of what the political class thinks the important issues are for the American people.
And as I've argued before, what the political class thinks is mainstream is radical, and what mainstream America thinks is mainstream, the political class thinks is radical.
It was not at all an accurate depiction of what are the issues that, as you put it, rev up voters.
But I do think the point that you make is a critical one, which is I've argued, I've long argued that I don't believe they're really undecideds in this election.
Everyone knows who Joe Biden is.
Everyone knows who Donald Trump is.
I think it comes down to energy and intensity, which in turn generates turnout.
Voting Irregularities and Swing States00:06:51
And then maybe in those swing states, a few issues that could really push at the margins one candidate over the top against another.
So in my sort of pregame notes that I wrote at Newsweek yesterday, I said Donald Trump has to energize his base and Donald Trump has to make appeals in those swing states and show that the issues where Joe Biden will just cripple people and Donald Trump will support their dreams and aspirations.
So for example, in Pennsylvania on fracking, a key issue.
When it comes down to Florida, supporting tyrannical regimes like the Cuban communist regime that Joe Biden and Barack Obama sought a total détente with.
You could tick off the list of issues there that I think are critical issues and you've seen some movement in the polls on those issues, but I really think it comes down to energizing your base, which means hitting those core issues that you're speaking to, and then also tipping these swing states in your direction.
And so hopefully Donald Trump can set the narrative in the debates going forward because this really is, everyone says that every election is the most important election of all time, but this really is like one man against a wave of tyranny here.
So he needs to get it right and he needs to be victorious in my view.
Last question, and I think this one might be one you have a particularly interesting opinion on.
In the last few days, Project Veritas has released undercover footage of vote buying, vote harvesting in Minnesota involving the Somali community.
And of course, that's where Ilhan Omar has her power base.
Let me play a quick clip that James O'Keefe released just a few days ago.
Massive viewership online, almost completely ignored by the mainstream media.
Here, take a look at this.
Project Veritas has received an explosive piece of tape.
The tape you're about to see shows a man buying a registration form for an absentee ballot from a voter, giving him, quote, pocket money, unquote, of $200 and expecting to collect his ballot when the voter receives it.
...
Now you wrote the book on Ilhan Omar, American ingrate.
I think that Just as important as making good points in a debate is how America responds to clear cheating, rigging, vote buying, ballot stuffing.
And I don't think that that is being taken seriously by the establishment, except for the establishment that's in on it, those government officials who are part of the scheme.
That's my real worry is that you've got the tech bias that's going to be good for a few points of the ballot.
I think these shenanigans, these bending of the voting rules, that's probably good for a few points in a place like Minnesota.
What do you think?
Absolutely.
I mean, that's the whole election potentially.
And there's a reason that we saw these news reports about the Biden team hiring hundreds of lawyers in advance of the election, about these Democrats and Never Trumpers doing this wargaming about what happens in a contested race to try to paint it as, well, Donald Trump won't leave and Donald Trump's supporters will riot and loot in the streets, which is, of course, what Democrats are doing.
And if you want to look at what Democrats plan on doing, just look at what they accuse President Trump and Republicans of doing in connection with this.
But they want to create a scenario where it does come down to lawfare and the arcane rules associated with each state and which judges do they potentially have locks on.
And also for the Democrats, can they swing some state assemblies so that they get a majority of states to be Democrats so that if it comes to it and there's a vote in the House where each state has one vote, Democrats can win.
I mean, Democrats are perfectionists and they've turned it into an art trying to win on these sorts of rules.
They don't want it to be you walk into a voting booth, your vote is counted, and that's it.
They want you to be as far removed as possible from who's doing the vote counting and who's ultimately certifying and who's ultimately going to win, which is scary for the American Republic.
And I'm really glad that President Trump did hammer home the point about, why are you asking me about a transition of power?
Because Joe Biden and Barack Obama were the ones who did everything they could to halt a peaceful transfer of power to spy on and then sabotage and ultimately try to topple his presidency.
It's a disaster for the country that it comes down to this because the establishment hate this gut so much that they don't want to leave a chance again that somehow they could lose to Donald Trump.
Ilhan Omar in particular, this would be just another element of fraud on top of the marriage fraud, the student alleged student loan fraud, all manner of fraud.
We could tick through the list of items, her now husband, former, it seems, lover who she paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to as a campaign consultant.
I mean, you can run down the list.
I think she's the perfect representative, though, of the Democratic Party in 2020.
And that was the purpose of my book, American Ingrate, to make that case.
And this summer of discontent in the fall has really proved it with this alleged election fraud ballot harvesting scheme, which, of course, shows for the progressive Democrats the willingness to win at all costs with the 1619 riot that we witnessed this summer.
And she's the, first of all, starting in her district in Minneapolis.
But then second of all, her talking about the need to dismantle the system, defund the cops, abolish basically all rules and authority so that then you can have a progressive Gestapo sort of police force in the streets and mind control as well from their officers throughout every cultural institution.
And then, of course, you've seen in recent interviews and the Democrats writ large have tried to make this election about bigots versus anti-bigots or racist versus anti-racist.
And basically, if you hold any conservative traditional ideas, those are at their roots racist ideas, capitalism being racist, individual rights being racist, justice as, you know, Martin Luther King would have conceived of it being racist.
So she's the perfect representative of it.
She embodies all of these beliefs.
She is at her most unvarnished of all the Democrats in it.
And I think if you want to see where the Democrats not just are going but really are today, look to Ilan Omar in Minneapolis, which has been a disaster for those citizens who are most in need, by the way.
She Embodies All These Beliefs00:02:16
Yeah, isn't that the truth?
Well, great to catch up with you.
Benjamin Weingarten, author of American Ingrate.
These are heavy days and just barely a month to go.
Thanks for joining us.
Thanks for having me, Ezra.
All right, thank you.
Stay with us.
more.
Hey, welcome back to my monologue last night on SchwaFM.
Diane writes: Schwa-FM Radio X is the only radio talking to the population and telling the truth, not accepting the government advertisement.
Yeah, but I don't know how they're going to be able to survive if every advertiser is bullied, pressured to cancel them.
We have learned to survive without advertising through your help.
You pay subscriptions to watch this, and we have crowdfunding.
How does that apply to a radio station that's used to selling ads?
I'm worried for them.
Maurice says, I left Quebec six years ago.
I can tell you that there is no room for divergent opinions.
The mainstream media works for the government and despise the people.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, it's a total divide because of the language.
They're not part of the Mean Girls Club of Ottawa and Toronto.
They're just not.
But they have their own petty politics there.
And of course, they're absolutely in bed with the government.
Every media company is because they're all on a different form of bailout of regulation.
Paul writes, tyrants censor.
And we have tyrants at every level of government, at every level.
Quebec City Council looks petty and weak over this.
Yeah, but it's not the $9,000 that's going to hurt Schwa-FM.
It's the fact that now activists will say, oh, Quebec City quit.
Are you going to advertise?
All the good people are leaving.
You either join the mob or you be eaten by it.
I'm going to try and talk to my friends over there, Schwafm.
Occasionally, I'm interviewed by Dominique Moray over there.
I'm going to try and talk to him and see what's really going on.
It's hard to know if you're learning about it through the prism of the government media.
That's our show for today.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, do you at home?