Ezra Levant exposes how Twitter and Facebook suppressed the New York Post’s May 13, 2017, Hunter Biden emails story—calling it "unsafe" or "hacked"—while ignoring evidence. He contrasts this with government censorship cases like his 2006 Danish cartoon trial and Arthur Topham’s 2015-2018 legal battles, arguing tech platforms now enforce faster, more opaque suppression. Levant claims mainstream media avoids the story, favoring trivialities like Biden’s ice cream purchases, and accuses platforms of shielding figures like Ilhan Omar while targeting conservatives via shadow bans and filter bubbles. Without censorship, he asserts Trump would dominate polls, but conservative outlets like Breitbart may collapse under current pressures, urging reform of Section 230 to break tech’s bias. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I talk about the New York Post, a mighty newspaper 200 years old, founded by Alexander Hamilton, banned by Twitter because they're not being nice enough to Joe Biden.
I'll go through it and I'll also talk to Alan Bokhari, author of the book Deleted.
Before I do, let me invite you to become a Rebel News Plus subscriber.
It's only $8 a month, $80 for the whole year.
And you get the video version of this podcast plus videos by Sheila Gunread and David Benzies too.
Okay, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, what if you were censored but you didn't even know it?
Or phrased a different way, how Trump can lose.
It's October 19th, 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 to the government about why I'm publishing it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Always, in an investigation interview, I always ask people, even though they've been as thorough as you have, in summary fashion, what was your intent and purpose of your article with the cartoon illustrations published on February 27th?
Why is that a relevant question?
Under section 31A, it talks about intention, purpose.
We'd like to get some background as well.
Is it, you'd like to get some background or does this determine anything?
We publish what we publish.
The words in the picture speak for themselves.
Are you saying that one answer is wrong and one answer is right?
Will a certain answer, is a certain answer contrary to law?
No.
So if I were to say, hypothetically, that the purpose was to instill hatred, incite hatred, and cause offense, are you saying that's an acceptable answer?
I have to look at it in the context of all the information and determine if it was indeed.
I think you're playing silly bugger here.
I think you know that the answer here, that that answer would be illegal.
Anything is possible, I guess, but again, I look at it, this kind of Section 3 case takes a lot of analysis, so there's a lot of things I have to look at.
That piece of information is just one.
My answer to your question is as follows.
We published those cartoons for the intention and purpose of exercising our inalienable rights as free-born Albertans to publish whatever the hell we want, no matter what the hell you think.
I've probably given 200 interviews with people other than the state where I give a very thoughtful and nuanced expression of my intent.
But the only thing I have to say to the government about why I published it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
And it's my right to do so for reasonable intentions, and it's my right to do so for extremely unreasonable purposes.
Oh, for the good old days when censors told you they were coming to censor you, they had a hearing about it.
They published their findings.
You could appeal.
That video clip, if you didn't recognize it, was from a dozen years ago when a censor named Shirlene McGovern with a business card identifying her as a bureaucrat with the Alberta government's Human Rights Commission came at me for publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed in the Western Standard magazine.
So stop right there and do an inventory.
Number one, I knew the charge, blasphemy against Islam, really.
I mean, even though they called it publishing something likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt.
It was junk law.
It was illiberal law.
It was unconstitutional, but at least we knew the law I supposedly broke.
Point two, I knew who the complainant was in that case.
I knew who was running the Inquisition.
The complainant was an extremist Imam from Pakistan named Syed Soharwardi.
He was the complainant, and Shirlene McGovern was the censor.
Three, there was a process.
It wasn't fair.
It wasn't the same as a civil court.
There's no rules of procedure.
There were no normal standards of evidence.
The concept of precedent didn't apply.
There were a dozen problems with the procedure, but there was a process, and I was invited to it.
Fourth, at the end of the day, the process was subject to political oversight.
My release of that videotape of my interrogation so discredited and embarrassed the Human Rights Commission that Shirleen McGovern asked to be transferred off my case.
The cabinet minister in charge of the Human Rights Commission itself actually called it a kangaroo court to reporters, and the federal government amended their human rights law to repeal their censorship provision.
So that's an awful story with a slightly less awful ending, but at least there was a story there.
That's how censorship was done back in 2006, 7008.
Just FYI.
The complaint was in 2006, and it took two years for those losers and the government to even interrogate me.
That's another thing.
Censorship that moves at the speed of government, the laziest bureaucrats in the country, that's somehow less terrifying, isn't it?
But what about now?
How are you censored now?
Sure, there are still human rights complaints and government prosecutions.
Here's one.
Give me a minute on this one.
I see in the news that Arthur Topham is in trouble again with the censors.
You see this story here, Quinnell Mann found guilty of breaching probation on hate crime conviction.
Let me read this very short story to you.
A decision was handed down on Friday for 73-year-old Arthur Topham.
He will be back in court on October 27th to set a date for sentencing.
A 12-member jury originally found Topham guilty in December of 2015 on one of two counts against him of promoting hatred against those of the Jewish faith on his radical press website.
He then lost a charter challenge on that conviction in February of 2017 and received a six-month conditional sentence and two years probation.
Court documents reveal that on or around January 3rd of 2018, Topham is accused of failing to comply with the conditions of his probation, specifically that he not publish or post to any internet site or to any social media where such postings can be read by the general public any information about persons of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin.
Now, that's it.
That's the whole story.
I've heard of Arthur Topham before.
He's a crank.
He had a very obscure website with very little traffic, most of which was probably just undercover cops and human rights hate finders.
They've been hunting this guy, Topham, for about 15 years over this stupid website he had, Radical Press.
They had a whole jury trial, sounds like.
And then an appeal, sounds like.
How much has been spent on getting this guy?
It's got to be a million bucks.
And in the end, a suspended sentence as in nothing, really, except he made a promise not to publish anything about Jews ever again.
Now, I'm not sure how that's even constitutional, really.
You can't write anything about Jews, just you can't.
This is not a normal thing to say in a free country.
If someone rants on an obscure website that he thinks the Jews control the media, and then a group of Jews prosecute him, shut down his website, get him banned from talking about the Jews controlling the media.
I don't think you convinced him that he's wrong.
I think you spent a lot of time and money going after a 73-year-old man who used to have a blog that no one was reading.
And I have actually seen some of the things he wrote on his website, and they're pretty garden variety, anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.
Nothing you wouldn't find on any university campus, subsidized by student fees as part of the more excitable Muslim student groups or the anti-Israel activists who pretend not to be anti-Semitic.
They call themselves boycott, divest, and sanction activists, BDS, but they really only hate Israel.
Imagine thinking that BDS is a fig leaf for just Jew hatred.
So yeah, while some really obsessed narcs go after a 73-year-old man for saying Jews are persecuting him, just go onto Twitter, you know, for example, and see literally millions of people saying the same thing in real time.
Here, I just typed in Jews control the media into Twitter, and I got this endless list of comments here, this one, Jews start all the wars.
I'm just picking these at random, and these are in English.
Try in Arabic or Farsi.
You don't have to search random people, too.
There are plenty of horrible things said by official people, people that Twitter recognizes with that little blue check mark calling them verified.
People like Ilhan Omar, the Minnesota congresswoman who came from Somalia, or even Iran's Ayatollahs, they're allowed on Twitter.
Yeah, but you keep going after Arthur Topham, the 73-year-old crank.
I think that's called a placebo.
Go after him very bravely.
He's easier to take on than Islamists who arrive in Canada every day, unvetted, from parts of the world where it's just taken for granted that you hate Jews.
So my point with that little anecdote about Arthur Topham is to show you how stupid and slow and expensive and irrelevant the official human rights, anti-hate industry is.
Social media vomits out a Niagara Falls of anti-Semitism every hour.
Much of it linked to terrorism, much of it from official states, countries.
But this old crank from Quinnell, B.C., he's the risk.
Okay, got it.
But back to censorship.
I'm all for censoring terrorists.
I don't believe in censoring mere anti-Semitism or other bigotry, though.
I'm for censoring calls to violence and other crimes.
Yeah, for sure.
But we can't just censor hard feelings.
And yeah, I'm sorry, hate is a feeling.
Sorry, you can't stop people from feeling a feeling.
But if you try, especially if that feeling is hate or powerlessness, I'm guessing they're just going to feel that feeling even more.
I don't think they've convinced Arthur Topham not to hate Jews.
But what about censorship, not of terrorism and not of violence, not even of hate, but just of conservatives that's being blurred with hate, you're a hateful conservative.
Using all the censorship apparatus that was built in the name of tackling terrorism, tackling violence and tackling hate, whatever that is.
Facebook's Surprising Censorship Move00:15:29
And that brings me to the case of the New York Post, one of the largest and oldest newspapers in America.
They had the audacity to report on the story of the year.
Emails reveal how Hunter Biden tried to cash in big on behalf of family with Chinese firm.
Maybe a little bit because I'm pretty sure you didn't see this story on the CBC.
Hunter Biden pursued lucrative deals involving China's largest private energy company, including one that he said would be interesting for me and my family.
Emails obtained by the post show.
One email sent to Biden on May 13, 2017 with the subject line, expectations, included details of remuneration packages for six people involved in an unspecified business venture.
Biden was identified as chair, vice chair, depending on agreement with CEFC, an apparent reference to the former Shanghai-based conglomerate, CEFC China Energy Company.
His pay was pegged at $8.50.
And the email also noted that Hunter has some office expectations he will elaborate.
In addition, the email outlined a provisional agreement under which 80% of the equity of shares or shares in the new company would be split equally among four people whose initials correspond to the sender and three recipients with H apparently referring to Biden.
It goes on and on.
There's so much more.
There's many stories that have come up since then.
Biden has not refuted it.
He's just mad to be asked about it.
And Mr. Biden, what is your response to the New York Post story about your box car?
I know you would ask it.
I have no response.
It's another spirit campaign.
Right up your alley.
Where are the questions you always had?
Yeah, scolding a reporter for asking a question, did that actually just work on the media?
Oh my God, yes, it did.
They're not asking about it anymore.
But the news here is not that the New York Post was summoned by some human rights commission like Arthur Topham was or me in the cartoons or anything like that.
He wasn't censored by any government.
They actually have the First Amendment down there in the U.S.
No one could knock out that story like I was put on trial for the cartoons, except the social media companies, Twitter, Facebook.
They just banned the story.
They banned anyone from linking to it.
They banned anyone from repeating it.
Totally locked down the Twitter account of the New York Post itself, banning them from speaking.
It's still banned today, banning anyone who linked, including the official Trump campaign and various senior Trump spokesmen.
There was no complainant that we know about.
Remember, I had that complaining of that Muslim imam from Pakistan in my case.
There's no information at all, no chance of a hearing, no chance for a lawyer, no chance to meet the case, no fight, no chance to fight the case, no transparency, no neutral oversight, no rules of procedure, none of that stuff.
Just click, they're banned.
Banned.
By whom?
Oh, we don't know.
Censored just stopped three weeks before an election.
And the rest of the media, if they weren't silent, they were cheering.
Now, the New York Post is big enough that they didn't just disappear.
They're kicking up a fuss.
But who else is being deleted this way for the crime of being conservative?
Or more to the point, getting in the way of Joe Biden winning.
When I was censored, I could look my censor in the eye.
Every day, millions of people are censored by strangers and increasingly by artificial intelligence trained to copy censors.
There's no debating it.
There's no hearings.
You're just gone.
It just didn't happen.
You never existed.
You've been deleted.
You're a rumor.
You're deplatformed.
You're unpersoned.
Coming up, I speak with the author of the new book called Deleted.
Well, a lot of Americans know the name Alexander Hamilton because of the hit Broadway musical.
But did you know that Alexander Hamilton created a mighty newspaper that's still around 200 years later?
It's called the New York Post.
It's not just still around.
It's bigger than ever.
It's one of the largest circulation newspapers in America.
It's very flavorful.
It's got that tabloid style.
But you can't link to it, at least not to certain stories in it, on Twitter.
You see, the New York Post broke a massive story that Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden, the former vice president and the presidential nominee for the Democrats this time around, had massive corrupt dealings with China and that the corruption touched Joe Biden himself, that Joe Biden was in on the take.
This information came from a laptop computer that Hunter Biden left with a Mac repair shop.
Tens of thousands of emails corroborating the story, but Twitter simply banned any links to it.
Here to help me tell this shocking story is our friend Alan Bukhari, Breitbart News senior technology correspondents and the author of the new book, Deleted Big Tech's Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election.
Alan, great to see you again.
I've never seen censorship this bad before.
I've never seen it so blatant before.
They don't care who knows.
They've just got three weeks to go, don't they?
They've really crossed the Rubicon here.
I mean, what was especially surprising for me was that Facebook took the rare step of foregoing the usual plausible deniability thing that they do, where they just wait for the third-party fact-checkers, who are, of course, all left-wing and partisan, to rate a story before they suppress it.
In this case, Facebook actually went and suppressed the New York Post story before any of the fact-checkers had provided a judgment.
But it was Twitter, too, wasn't it?
Yes, Twitter sort of went a lot further than Facebook.
They completely locked the New York Post account.
The New York Post account is still locked today, actually, five days after the story broke.
And they're not allowing the New York Post to regain access to that account unless they delete the original tweet containing the article.
And of course, why would you want to do that?
You're implicitly admitting guilt if you do that.
I certainly wouldn't want to do that.
So Twitter and Facebook, by coincidence, have both decided to nuke a late-breaking story that seems to be meticulously corroborated by background documents.
I should note that the Biden campaign, at least as of this moment, has not discredited or claimed that this is false.
They have not said those are forgeries.
They have not disowned it, as far as I know.
They're simply not discussing it.
So it has not been under my, in fact, the director of national intelligence says there's no evidence whatsoever that this is a foreign hack or a plant.
If so, it would be quite an effort.
I mean, I suppose theoretically it could be.
This is simply a political judgment by Twitter and Facebook three weeks before the vote to shut down the equivalent of Watergate in this election.
Am I right in that or is that over the top?
That's not over the top at all.
It's extraordinary.
The Biden campaign have not denied the veracity of the emails and yet Twitter is still suppressing the New York Post.
It's extraordinary.
And what's more, the Biden campaign is just today called the lid.
No more meetings with the press for the next few days until the debate.
So they're just avoiding the media altogether, avoiding the spotlight.
Not that the media would actually ask them any tough questions about this because they're in on the suppression.
I've really never seen anything like it, trying to suppress a clearly important national story like this just a few weeks before the election.
I think it's actually on the Silicon Valley companies, though, because the sense this is a story that's big enough that you can't really contain it.
And the more you try to contain it, the bigger it gets.
I should add that doesn't happen to most victims of censorship.
Most victims of censorship are not heard of again because they're not big enough to create a giant media firestorm.
But in this case, I think that it's really backfired on the tech giants.
Maybe, because you're talking about it and I'm talking about it, and a lot of extremely online people are talking about it.
But like you mentioned, if the link was killed on Twitter, if Facebook is deleting this like it's a hate crime, you have to be pretty motivated to get these stories.
You mentioned that Joe Biden has declared a lid.
That's campaign speak for telling journalists, don't worry, he ain't going to say anything in public for three days.
That's a shocking thing to do in a campaign so close to election day.
But look at this.
Biden was shopping, was buying some ice cream cones, and the media who finally had access to him, look at what they asked him.
Take a look at this.
Have a safe one.
We got everybody in oak shakes, didn't we?
Yes, sir.
Got everybody?
Yes, sir.
All right.
We got it.
Mr. Biden, Mr. Biden, what flavor did you get?
We got one mile in one chopper, but I wanted to get what we call black and white.
We're going to move it in another way.
We're going to split it.
So my question to you, Alan, is you and I are really dialed in, but if mainstream media reporters are just asking about ice cream cones, is this story really getting out?
Like, has the New York Times or the Washington Post dug deep here, or have they just engaged in distractions, misdirections, downplaying?
Like, if you're not part of the conservative campaign movement, do you even know this is happening?
Well, this is the whole problem of the filter bubble that these tech giants have created in the wake of 2016.
If you're an undecided voter, and then this is the real danger to Trump as well.
If you're an undecided voter today, going online, trying to find out more information about the two candidates, all you're going to see is a stream of propaganda from the mainstream media if you Google Joe Biden or if you Google Donald Trump.
This is a real danger, not to political partisans.
You know, there are tens of millions of conservatives in the country who will know all about this story.
But the real danger, as you correctly point out, is, you know, will this story ever reach undecided voters?
That's an open question.
And I do think that November the 3rd is going to be a test of whether Silicon Valley can steal an election.
They've certainly been trying over the past four years.
All of these new words they've invented-disinformation, fake news, you name it-all emerged right after the 2016 election.
My sources in Facebook say the people who push the disinformation panic inside Facebook, inside these other companies as well, all the most anti-Trump people at those companies.
And then they went on to staff them.
In fact, at Brightbug News, we wrote a story a couple of days ago revealing that one of Facebook's top global content regulators used to advise Joe Biden on Ukraine.
So she was, you know, deeply tied to this very story.
That's incredible.
Now, one of the things that I found most shocking, I find it shocking that for five days now, the New York Post has been censored by Twitter, and not a peep that I can see from Reporters Without Borders, American Civil Liberties Union, any of the Nobel Peace Prize, Nobel literature.
Where's the professors?
Where's the mass letter signed by every journalism professor, every law professor?
Where's the pro bono litigation?
Where's all that?
If the shoe were on the other foot, if some company, it's impossible to even daydream such an alternate universe had shut, I mean, there's no possible equivalent to it.
If something Trumpy shut down a Democrat voice, you wouldn't hear the end of it.
But there's silence and collusion.
The crazy part is what Twitter's saying.
When people try to tweet that story, Twitter says that it's an unsafe website, an unsafe link, as if you'll get malware by going to the New York Post, as if you'll get some computer virus.
And they say it's hacked material, so it's against their policy.
I didn't hear that when they published Donald Trump's tax returns, which were illegally stolen.
I didn't hear that over anything from Wikipedia or any leaks.
The whole Trump administration has been a leaky sieve that's being published.
Just that they're not even pretending that they're doing anything other than being political choosers here, are they?
Calling it unsafe.
Yeah, I mean, that unsafe feature that Twitter has, it just shows you what Silicon Valley has done over the past four years.
What they've done is they've taken tools that were meant to be, that were meant to protect users from things like malware and viruses and spam.
That's what the unsafe link warning was originally intended to do.
And they're now applying it to politics.
It's the same with shadow banning.
Shadow banning is the covert suppression of people's posts so that you don't appear at the top of people's feeds.
People never see what you actually post on these platforms.
Or if you create a website, people will never go to the front page of Google.
They'll be buried on page 100, page 1,000.
The way this used to work was big tech companies would employ shadow banning to get rid of spam bots, to get rid of sites pushing malware, to get rid of sites pushing illegal content.
But ever since 2016, they've been using those same tools to suppress people for political reasons.
This is another thing that I've been told.
This isn't just my opinion.
It's what I've been told by people who work for Twitter, who work for Google, work for Facebook.
So that's another thing we see with the whole unsafe label they're placing on the New York Post website.
Now, in recent weeks, I've seen President Trump tweet about Section 230, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
I've seen Josh Hawley, the senator from Missouri, say the same.
You and I have talked about that before.
That's a decades-old law that really helped the internet get started.
It basically said, hey, internet service providers, we're going to keep you immune from any content on your site as long as you stay neutral.
So you're like a phone company.
You can't be sued for what people say on the phones as long as you don't meddle.
Well, they're meddling like crazy now.
So changing Section 230 would make them responsible for the meddling.
I see Trump tweeting about it.
I see Josh Hawley saying, I'm going to subpoena the head of Twitter.
Yeah, three weeks before the end of the before the election.
I don't know why these guys haven't done anything real in four years.
In the chance that they win again, I don't know if they're going to do anything.
Google, Facebook, YouTube, all these places, they spend more on lobbying than any other industry, more than the oil industry, more than the arms industry.
They own Washington.
Republicans Defend Fringe Media00:05:11
They own the Republicans.
I simply don't believe Donald Trump, Josh Hawley or others when they say, we're going to change things.
Really?
You're about to be killed by the folks who you promised to change and you haven't.
It really is atrocious how long the Republicans in Congress really waited to, and, you know, and the FCC, frankly, waited to act on this issue.
They let it get to this point.
I mean, the real issue we have there, and you touched on this before as well, how there's no outcry from the institutions and society that are supposed to stand up for free speech or supposed to stand up for freedom of the press.
Nothing from them.
It shows you how far we've fallen as a society because I certainly remember a time, and I'm not super old, when people would, it was a common thing to say, well, I disagree with what people say, extremists say, but they have a right to say it.
Shouldn't be pushing to ostracize someone just because they have crazy or fringe views.
But not only, you know, not only do Democrats now defend Trump supporters getting attacked in the street by Antifa just for being a mainstream Republican Trump supporter, but also Republicans in Congress refuse to defend the slightly crazy people who are gradually getting kicked off these platforms over the past four years.
And that just allowed them to escalate and escalate and escalate until they finally reached the New York Post and President Trump himself.
So of course they didn't defend free speech for everyone.
The census came for them.
It was inevitable.
You have to defend the fringe.
Otherwise the census will inevitably escalate.
That's exactly what happened.
That's why I got to this point.
I will say the Trump administration in the past six or seven months has been making some very positive moves in social media censorship.
The reason the FCC is now proposing a rulemaking change on Section 230, that critical law you mentioned, is because the Trump administration put a petition in front of them months before this actually happened, months before this New York Post story was suppressed.
So they have been moving on it.
And I think a second term Trump would be quite positive for fixing this problem.
Obviously, it could have come a lot sooner, but certainly with the Joe Biden administration, he's going to use the power of the federal government to do the exact opposite.
He's going to use the federal government to press for even more censorship.
Yeah.
It's just been crazy to watch.
I mean, they locked the account of the official Trump campaign.
They locked the account of Trump's official spokesman.
They actually locked the account of Trump's public health advisor because he said something that was, what, that Twitter experts thought was wrong.
I mean, if they routinely put warnings under Trump's own comments as if they're greater experts than him.
I don't see the same thing done to, say, the Ayatollah of Iran who still use the site.
I'm deeply depressed by what I see.
I mean, I'm not positive about the election.
I think it's on a knife's edge.
If you told me that Trump wins, I'd say, okay.
If you told me he loses, I'd say, yeah.
If you said he loses in a landslide, I'd say, I believe it with the amount of disinformation from the left.
They accuse Trump of disinformation while they're the ones interfering with the internet.
I am not sanguine about this at all.
And I have to say, I'm increasingly in the view that any conservative online entity like Breitbart and Rebel News, it's gone from Alex Jones being censored to the New York Post being censored.
I got to tell you, if Breitbart, where you work, or Rebel News, where I work, are around a year from now, I'll regard that as a minor miracle.
That's, I mean, it certainly is on a knife edge, not just the election, but as you as you point out, internet freedom as a whole.
It's, I will say, like, as I said, you know, the Trump administration is making some interesting moves.
I think the election itself, that's the real question.
I certainly think Trump would be winning in a landslide, winning in a landslide, if it hadn't been for internet censorship, because the amount of momentum that the populist movement had, largely thanks to their ability to organize online in 2016, 2015, even 2017, was momentous.
They were dwarfing the old high and liberal globalist movements, which had no popular support, still have no popular support, really.
If that had been allowed to continue, I think Trump would be easily winning this election.
The fact that it's so close is a result of internet censorship.
And I think if he loses the election, it will be because these tech platforms stole it from him.
Because the way they manipulate information is so much more insidious than the way the mainstream media propagandize it.
It happens in invisible ways you can't even detect.
That's why I wrote the book, Delete It, because it's such a complicated topic, but such an important topic that people need to get their heads around.
Internet Censorship's Impact00:01:10
Yeah.
Listen, great to talk with you.
Hopefully, my pessimism is not borne out.
We've been talking with our friend Alan Bokari, the Breitbart News Senior Technology Writer and the author of Deleted, Big Tech's Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election.
You take care, Alan, and you stay free.
Thanks, Ezra.
You too.
All right, thanks.
Stay with us.
Hey, welcome back on my show Thursday on Dr. Crowley's book, Gardeners vs. Designers.
Jane writes, such a good interview.
Gonna buy the book?
Maybe more than one.
Hey, well, there you go.
I say support conservative writers.
J writes, I will absolutely be buying this book.
What a wake-up call to us all.
We've been lectured to by Trudeau and his liberal government for five years.
We have been talked down to, criticized, and dictated to for far too long.
What an absolute treasure this man is.
And thank you for bringing him to our attention.
Well, that's very nice of you to say about me.
And I'm sure he appreciates it too.
All right, that's the show for today, folks.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night.