On October 30, Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh dodged defending Canada’s freedom to caricature Mohammed, despite Islamist attacks in France—like the Nice attack (2020) and Samuel Paty’s beheading—often tied to blasphemy claims. Ezra Levant accuses legacy media of suppressing their refusal while ignoring Hunter Biden’s laptop evidence: emails, photos, and corruption links to China, which would disqualify Biden under U.S. security vetting standards like SF-86. Ben Weingarten frames the 2024 election as a battle between Western values and "de-civilization," warning that media bias and foreign influence risks eroding democracy unless voters reject the status quo with decisive passion. [Automatically generated summary]
Yesterday Jagmeet Singh and Justin Trudeau refused to say that they support the human right, the civil right, the charter right to draw a cartoon of Mohammed.
Why wouldn't they say that?
I'll read to you from the only news report of their refusal, the only news report in the country.
That's ahead.
But before, can I invite you to become a Rebel News Plus subscriber?
It's only $8 a month or $80 for the whole year.
Just go to RebelNews.com, click on subscribe.
You get the video version of the podcast.
Plus, well, that's how we pay the bills around here, folks, so it makes a real difference.
80 bucks for the whole year.
Go to RebelNews.com, click subscribe.
Okay, here's the podcast.
Tonight, Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh make it clear they do not support freedom of expression.
It means drawing an image of Mohammed.
It's October 30th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government about why I publish them.
It's because it's my bloody right to do so.
Here's a story from a Quebec newspaper called Le De Voir.
Trudeau évites de ce prononçais son le droire de caricature mohomet.
What do you think of my French accent?
In English, that means Trudeau avoids pronouncing on the rights to caricature Mohamed caricatures and to draw cartoons.
Now, I'm going to run this story through Google Translate now so you're not punished by my terrible accent.
I'm going to read the Google Translate version.
Translation is not perfect, but it works well enough.
I just wanted to show you the original French version first.
It's written by Helen Bazzetti, who is based in Ottawa, because this was an exchange in Parliament, had a press scrum.
So there's no excuse why this wasn't in every media outlet across Canada.
I mean, there are literally hundreds of accredited journalists who were based in Ottawa, including dozens from the big legacy media like CBC and CTV, and none of them covered this.
We would have, but we'd been banned from the parliamentary press gallery.
China's state broadcaster, Xinhua, is allowed in, but not us.
Our competitors have colluded to ban us.
You can see why.
Because they prefer if certain stories are not told.
Well, Helen Bazzetti apparently didn't get the memo yesterday because she did in fact cover the story.
Here's what it says, translated from Google, by Google from French.
While a new Islamist, that's a word you don't see in English papers, while a new Islamist attack afflicts France, federal politicians are reluctant to call the right for anyone to caricature the Muslim prophet Muhammad.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has avoided answering the question, while the leader of the NDP believes that we must avoid unnecessarily fueling hatred.
There's a lot of words in there you would never see in an English language newspaper.
Good for Helen Bazzetti for saying those things in French, though, in Quebec only, because Quebec is actually less politically correct about Islam.
They take their culture more seriously since they're worried about the French-Canadian culture melting away in North America.
So they fight for their French-Canadian culture, their history, their language, their norms, which includes very particular thoughts about religion and secularism.
And then, of course, the recent attacks in France have been in France.
And likely everyone in Quebec has watched the French news in their native tongue.
the opposite of the cowardly English-Canadian press gallery.
Now read some more.
The Nice attack, which resulted in three deaths, was carried out Thursday morning by a young man shouting Allahu Akbar.
It is still unclear for the moment whether, as in the case of the beheading of Samuel Patty, the gesture was made in response to the publication of cartoons of Muhammad, which became relevant again with the ongoing trial of the supporters of the attack on Charlie Hebdo.
But the question was nonetheless put to Mr. Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh, Should we, in the name of Western values, publicly assert that it is permissible to make fun of religion, including caricaturing Muhammad?
There's a lot of fair questions in there.
Obvious questions to me, which is why it's so surprising that any Canadian journalist would ask them.
Good for her, I say again.
And look at this.
Look at the boldness of this next line.
Asked three times, Jagmeet Singh refused to answer directly.
The NDP leader has repeatedly reiterated his faith in free speech, while adding that we should not attack others unnecessarily.
You have to stand up for freedom of expression, even if you don't agree with someone, Singh said.
But, hang on, there's no but after that, but he added, but also, if we want to have peace in society, we must also recognize that the freedom to express our thoughts is not a freedom to expressly create divisions and hatred, he added, that there are limits to expressing hatred or promoting hatred towards others.
It is a limit that we have accepted as a society because it is important for living together.
Well, hang on, hang on, hang on, which is it?
Do we have free expression or not?
Or only if you don't create divisions.
Isn't every decision in life a division?
Isn't every controversy a division?
I mean, do we have separation of mosque and state or not?
It's a yes or no.
Are we allowed to draw pictures of Jesus and to mock him?
Yes or no?
There's no maybe.
How about for Muhammad?
These are yes or no questions.
In parliament, a vote is called calling for a division.
It's what democracy is built on.
That's why we have elections.
So we can talk about things, according to Jack Meet Singh, but nothing divisive.
That means we can talk about nothing.
And why can't you hate a religion, if we're going to use the word hate?
I don't recommend hate.
I don't prescribe hate.
But if someone feels that human emotion, why can't they feel that way?
And why can't they express it peacefully?
But why can't they express their emotion?
A religion might have a rule that you cannot criticize that religion.
All right.
I would say that's not a very robust faith, I must say, but fine.
But how is that internal rule of Islam applicable to the rest of us who are not Muslim?
If you want to be Muslim or Jewish or Christian or Sikh or Buddhist or a Scientologist or a vegetarian, help yourself.
But why should the rest of us have to follow your particular group's rules too?
I'll read some more.
Mr. Singh stressed that it was difficult for him to measure the impact of a cartoon of Muhammad since he is not a Muslim.
But I can say that it is essential to find a way to achieve our ultimate goal of living together.
Well, there are various ways to live together.
One is as equals, peacefully under a common rule of law.
And there's other ways too.
I mean, under Sharia law, it is true, even infidels can live under Islamic Sharia law if they agree to submit to Islam and abide by certain strictures.
For example, to pay an infidel tax called the Jizya.
I visited Bethlehem.
For centuries, they were allowed to have Christians in Bethlehem.
They just had to live under the laws of Islam.
Absolutely, Islam allows Jews and Christians to still live there.
You just wouldn't want to live that way, just like prison wardens and prisoners have found a way to live together.
Yeah, it's just not equal, is it?
Secular Muslims disagree with the stabbers.
Secular Muslims, of whom there are many in France and many in Quebec, despise this cowardice in the face of terrorists and Islamists, but Singh and Trudeau are practiced at caving into the most extreme elements and ignoring the modern elements.
Let me read some more of them.
Mr. Trudeau was even more evasive in limiting himself to condemning the French attack.
He did not say a word about the freedom to caricature.
Quote, we absolutely condemn these heinous, unacceptable terrorist attacks.
There is absolutely nothing to justify this violence.
It is unjustifiable.
We stand by all the French people, said the Prime Minister.
He added that it was necessary, however, at the same time, quote, to recognize that these criminals, these terrorists, these murderers, do not in any way represent Islam or Muslims.
Okay, got it.
So he'll say the murderers don't reflect Islam.
He'll say that.
They say they do.
They shout Allah Akbar when they commit the murders.
As I told you the other day, the local mosque actually organized a protest against the school where the cartoons have been shown.
The Imam at that local mosque actually texted back and forth with the murderer of the school teacher, but sure, noted Quranic scholar Justin Trudeau says that these have nothing to do with Islam, got it.
And he would know.
But if that is true, then why doesn't he stand up for the right to draw Muhammad cartoons since he disavows those who claim it's a crime deserving of execution?
If you say that Islam does not kill infidels, why are you not willing to say that freedom of speech includes drawing cartoons of Muhammad?
We are banned from these press conferences because we would ask questions about freedom of speech from that freedom of speech point of view.
No other media there did so.
I give credit to the Quebec reporters who asked these questions and to Helen Bazzetti who noted the evasiveness.
But where's the CBC state broadcaster?
Where's CTV Global?
Where's the Globe and Mail?
Where's the Toronto Star?
Where's the National Post?
Do they find it uninteresting that Trudeau and Singh won't defend the right to mock Islam or to caricature Muhammad?
I mean, you don't have to recommend mocking or caricaturing to defend the right to do so.
I mean, how about this for an answer?
We want to live in harmony.
We want to respect each other and our religious faiths.
But part of being in a liberal, pluralistic democracy is that we permit criticism of any ideas, including religions.
How about saying that?
Just say that.
Is it not true anymore?
And for Justin Trudeau to be such a coward about it, his own father brought in the Charter of Rights that specifies our fundamental freedoms so important, they give them their own special section in the Charter called Fundamental Freedoms.
It's brief.
I'm going to read it.
I know Justin Trudeau has never read this.
Let me read it for him.
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms.
A, freedom of conscience and religion.
B, freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.
C, freedom of peaceful assembly.
And D, freedom of association.
That pretty much covers it.
How about you say, as my dad said, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, free country.
How about you say that?
There's a saying in the Charter there.
I just read it to you.
There's no such freedom of expression with respect, as our disgraceful foreign minister said the other day in that tweet that Canada supports freedom of expression with respect.
You have to have that respect for it.
If you don't respect someone, then they can stab you or bomb you.
That's the Islamist way.
That's the Chinese Communist Party way that François-Philippe Champagne believes in.
But that's not the way of Canada.
It's not the way of the Charter of Rights.
That's not Pierre Trudeau's way, but it's Justin Trudeau's way and it's Jagmeet Singh's way.
And it's the way of 99% of the media party.
I'm worried that it'll become Canada's way.
Stay with us for more.
Welcome back.
Well, of course, we're Canadians and we think about Canadian things, but what the United States says and does has a disproportionate impact on us.
America is the world's leading nation, certainly the beacon of freedom and democracy, and we have the luck of being their next-door neighbor and closest ally.
of course it's going to affect us.
But the themes of the U.S. election, a small government, a rule of law, the foreign policy approach, the approach to terrorism, the approach to China, so many of the things that Donald Trump stands for and that the Biden campaign is against will have an immediate effect on our country.
Just to pick one example, whether or not Canada chooses to let Huawei, China's high-tech mega-company.
Knife Edge Election00:06:43
set up our 5G.
That is one of the things, I believe, one of the many things that will turn on this U.S. election.
In some ways, I think this momentous election coming up next week will have more impact on Canadians than even the Canadian election itself.
So we will be live streaming the election results.
I understand that the first results from Florida will come in at 7 p.m. Eastern Time.
So I think we're going to start our live stream about a half hour before that, 6.30 p.m. Eastern Time.
That's 4.30 p.m. Mountain Time.
And we'll go late.
We'll go long.
We're making plans to be in this chair for a while because, of course, we want to see what happens in those key early states like Florida.
But there are a lot of states in contention.
Obviously, California and Hawaii are shoe-ins for the Democrats, but there's a lot of interesting places.
We'll have to stay up late.
I wonder how Pennsylvania will go.
I wonder how Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan will go.
Well, one of the guests who will be joining us intermittently through the night on Tuesday is our friend Ben Weingarten, who's a fellow at the Claremont Institute, has written variously for the Federalists, and in fact has a new piece in Newsweek.
And he joins us now.
Ben, how are you doing?
Ezra, I'm well.
How about you?
And thanks for having me on.
It was a pleasure.
And I'm very grateful to you for being our go-to U.S. expert that night.
We're going to have lots of things we're talking about.
We'll bring in the rebel team from Canada.
But over the course of the last year, I've come to know your deep command of American politics, not just at the shallow talking points level, but for example, your book, American Ingrate, about Ilhan Omar, and of course the state of Minnesota, a place where Donald Trump thinks he can win it.
Very interesting election.
Give us your thoughts on the lay of the land.
Mark Morano yesterday said it's a 50-50 knife's edge for him.
What's your thinking?
Yeah, to me, and I don't mean this as a cop-out answer because I think it's still the contrarian answer when you look at where the national polling is and even most of the state polling as well.
I think it's a toss-up and this election rests on a knife's edge and it's purely going to be a function of intensity and passion leading to turnout.
And the reason I say that is I don't think anyone is undecided on these two men.
They're two of the most known political officials, one not really, one kind of an anti-political official, but two of the most known quantities possible out there.
What they represent are two conflicting worldviews, two conflicting paths for America, frankly, for Western civilization as a whole.
I'd even go above and beyond just one representing American values and the other representing a party, which is in hockey to those like Ilhan Omar who believe in values that are completely antithetical to them.
Think it's civilization versus de-civilization on the ballot.
It's more than just two choices.
It's an existential election.
It's a survival election.
And if America is to repudiate its founding values and principles in toto, which is what I think would happen to the extent there was a Democrat sweep, I think it portends terrible things for Western civilization.
There's no place to go after America.
We can't go north to Canada and we can't go south to Mexico either.
So everything sort of hinges on this.
I wish it weren't so.
If we were adhering to our founding values and principles and we were kind of debating over means but not ends and we agreed on those ends, we'd be in a much better place.
Unfortunately, we're not.
And Donald Trump is essentially the one man, the single force fighting against what I view as a tyrannical leftist movement that's really revealing itself in these final days where in Washington, D.C. and cities across the country, already in main streets, stores are covering up their storefronts, boarding them up in anticipation of anti-civilizational unrest and riots.
And there's a shutdown D.C. movement that plans to do just that in the days following the election.
You have essentially dissenting opinions being completely censored on social media and elsewhere.
And you have a blackout, and I assume we'll talk about this a bit during this segment, of any information that at all could damage Joe Biden's political trajectory.
So these are scary times.
I do really believe, though, that it is on a knife's edge.
It's going to come down to those few states.
As you mentioned, Pennsylvania, for one, it looks like Florida is trending in the president's direction and those Rust Belt states as well.
And we will see where it comes out in Wisconsin and Michigan and the rest.
Yeah, it's very interesting.
You know, you were using very dramatic language, but I think the evidence supports it.
I mean, the fact that essential elements of the American democracy, the checks and balances, the Constitution, have all been directly challenged by senior voices in the Democrats from Biden himself, Nancy Pelosi, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who represents the red guards of the movement, challenging the Electoral College, talking about packing the courts.
There's so many things, even the idea that votes would be counted up to nine days later, the possibility for total electoral fraud.
These are not people who are two happy teams, the blue team and the red team, playing a football match, and then they're both going to go home, hey, job well done.
I accept the win.
I accept the loss.
One team is so zealously intent on power that it has effectively said in advance it will do whatever it takes to win.
And the fact that the riots are so palpable in the air that people are boarding up store windows now, only one side riots.
It's not been a summer of discontent where conservatives have been rioting.
Conservatives don't riot.
That's the left saying, yeah, you're damn straight, we're going to riot.
Yeah, and I think something that was underappreciated among many who would call themselves conservatives or Republicans in 2016 was the fact that Trump saw this.
He saw the other side, and clearly over the three and three-quarters years of his tenure thus far, he's seen the fact that the other side wants it all.
They want to dominate.
They want total power.
This isn't about, there was never a transition of power, a peaceful transition of power in any traditional respect.
Once-a-Century Floods and Political Warfare00:03:01
This is a president who's had to fight for every last thing opposed by a bureaucracy that's probably more than 95% at his throat the entire way.
And I think that's a representation of where kind of the elite and the political establishment is in America.
And they're leading, they're kind of stalking horse in the radical left that is out in the streets and this kind of woke big tech Wall Street alliance that we see.
Ultimately, they believe that their regime should triumph over our regime in the classical sense.
And that's why everyone always says it's the most important election of all time.
But in this case, it really is up there because it really is two antithetical worldviews that are competing with each other right now.
And again, I think the reason that Trump has been so loathed and hated this entire time is that he's been willing to fight fire with fire in a way that no non-leftist has really presented towards the left and the political establishment.
And that's why they've tried to destroy him at every turn.
And that's why, even if after election day, President Trump wins and Republicans hold the Senate and Republicans miraculously took a majority in the House, still the day after, they'd be fighting just for survival because the other side is engaged in perpetual political warfare and it's a zero-sum game for them.
It's all or nothing and they'll do anything and everything they possibly can within the law and outside the law ultimately to triumph over us.
Yeah, you make me think of about a year ago we had an interview with a fellow, I can't remember his name right now.
I think he was a historical hydrologist or something who focused on once-a-century floods.
And he was making the case that once a century floods doesn't mean you have to wait 100 years for it to happen.
It's just it could happen two years in a row theoretically.
And what are the odds of that happening and how it applies to can you get insurance for your house in a floodplain?
He was saying apply that to political unrest.
He says America has had two once-a-century floods politically, the Revolutionary War and the Civil War.
And he said, what are the odds of a once-a-century flood happening in your lifetime of an American?
And he was trying to make the case that it is a real possibility, not a one-in-a-million never happened thing.
And he was making the case for buying a firearm, keep it in your attic, and he was explaining why Silicon Valley billionaires might build a safe room.
I got to say, we've had a summer of riots.
We've had an attempted soft coup perpetually.
I think that historical hydrologist is sort of right.
I mean, we saw that couple, I'm trying to remember if it was in St. Louis or where they were, who the mob came up to their house, the mom and dad came out with firearms to protect their house.
It was a beautiful house.
Maybe you recall the neighborhood I'm talking about.
And they were charged with brandishing firearms.
We are at that once-a-century flood that that hydrologist was talking about.
Rising Threats and Family Business00:14:03
I really think so.
And my God, bat in the hatches because it's coming.
Well, look, we've seen scenes that are reminiscent of at least what's described in texts of the Chinese Maoist cultural revolution, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks duking it out.
And we are living that in America right now.
And it's not to say that it's the vast majority that's that way, but certainly those at the commanding heights of society to keep it in that sort of leftist milieu, those at the commanding heights have completely conceded to this radical movement, either out of cowardice, out of what they perceive to be their own self-interest, or because they're true believers themselves.
And unfortunately, I think far too great a percentage are true believers because they've been educated at the schools and indoctrinated in the schools and a culture which has put forth this anti-American, progressive, radically leftist, intersectionalist.
We can run through the adjective worldview.
So to your point, look, we've seen images of this in America that are un-American fundamentally, images.
And there have been riots and essentially and looting and criminality run rampant in the past.
In the 70s, you had radical leftist movements and there were dozens of bombings that took place in America among these radicals, many of whom are now on the faculty at universities around the country.
But what is fundamentally different today is that you have one party that will not stand up to this sort of thing.
What is acceptable for leading Democrats across this country today would have been unacceptable for Democrats a generation ago, maybe even 10 years ago.
So the acceleration of that radicalism and what's radical becoming mainstream among the political establishment is something that I do believe, I rarely say unprecedented, but it may be unprecedented, where you have just an insurrection on the part of our so-called leaders.
So you have a senator in Massachusetts, Ed Markey, who says originalism is sexist, racist, et cetera.
This is in context of Amy Comey Barrett, the Supreme Court nomination fight.
When you have someone in the U.S. Senate saying that basically originalism, the founding ideology, what undergirds our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence and the like, is an inherently evil and immoral sort of philosophy, that means you have people in the Senate who are rejecting the very institution they serve.
And that's where we are in America today.
And you can't long survive if the representatives of half the country are putting forth a view that seeks to take the country down.
You know, I think there are people who ideologically want to undermine America from within, but I think they've actually been aided by forces from without.
Yuri Besmanov, the Cold War defector from the Soviet Union to Canada, actually did a video series, and you can see it on YouTube, it's everywhere, about how you demoralize the country and you can make it ripe for this sort of upheaval.
That can happen internally, but I think, and of course, the Democrats say, oh, Russia, Russia, Russia.
Well, I think there actually is a huge interest in China to, if not undermine America, at least to tame it and stop it from pushing back on China's ascendancy militarily, economically, commercially, in terms of cybersecurity.
And I want to bring in your essay in Newsweek magazine.
I'm impressed that you were published there.
The headline of your piece is Joe Biden clinched Communist China's vote in the final debate.
And I think that's a foreign affairs and sort of an espionage and great game story, but it's also very much a domestic story, too.
China doesn't just want to push us aside militarily.
They don't want us to block their dumped goods.
They don't want us to block their tech.
They don't want our factories reshored in North America.
They want to keep things going just perfectly as they have been over the last 20 years.
I think China is a very real foreign and domestic threat, the likes of which maybe America has never seen.
Maybe there's a lot of foreign threats, but that same country being a foreign and domestic threat, this feels new.
Let me make three quick points.
The first is that the greatest beneficiary of Russia, Russia, Russia, besides the Democratic Party, who has put forth this narrative that our president is compromised by the Russians on the basis of absurd allegations that have been totally debunked, while similar allegations on the other side are ignored.
The biggest beneficiary of that is China, which is far richer, stronger, and more powerful than Russia.
So all the focus on Russia has diminished our resources and turned our attention away from the far greater immediate, medium-term, and long-term threat, which is communist China.
Number two, in terms of the kind of domestic impact of this unrest and the foreign relation to it, the entire basis, at least stated basis of U.S.-China relations and integration, accommodation, and what I would describe as appeasement over the decades, once we got past the throes of the Cold War, was that economic integration and liberalization would lead to political liberalization, social liberalization, and essentially peace,
a kumbaya sort of world between the U.S. and China.
The fact of the matter is that the U.S. has become more like China than China has become like us.
And so when we talk about the censorship of big tech and we talk about state media and control of the narrative and what is acceptable, what we're seeing in America today scarily resembles what we have in China, where there is one media, there is one party line, and if you run afoul of it, your life could literally be in danger there.
Thankfully, we're not here yet, but then you have people taking it into their own hands to try to force their views on Americans today.
Number three, Joe Biden is someone who supported that political establishment project agenda of integration and appeasement and accommodation for decades at every single level from his perch as the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as a ranking member there, and then as a vice president where he was responsible for the China portfolio.
And at every turn, Joe Biden supported China's rise.
He said it wouldn't be a disaster for the American middle class and particularly our manufacturing and industry.
He said that China's rise would be a benefit to the American economy.
He said, and there are direct quotes of this, that China had repudiated communism and rejected it and admitted it was a failure essentially when it came to granting China permanent normalized trade relations and then most favored nation status, which ultimately created a glide path to China, China's accession to the World Trade Organization, which was the rocket fuel for its rise over the last couple of decades.
At every turn, Joe Biden has been an appeaser, in effect, an aider and a better of the Chinese Communist Party's rise.
And he's even said it's a good thing.
It's a positive thing as recently as beyond 2010.
And then, of course, in 2019, he said China isn't real competition for us.
He said, come on, man, which is what he always says.
So what I suggest is that in the last debate, Joe Biden went back to this hobby horse of China and in several ways essentially said his administration would return to that untenable status quo that has put the world in a position where China really could be the sole superpower and we could be its tribute state, its vassals, essentially.
Joe Biden's been the vessel of China's rise at the top purchase, top purchase of the U.S. federal government.
And in that last debate, he proved it in several ways, which we can walk through.
But the fact of the matter is he would be sure for the country.
And that's before we even get into his family's dealings with communist China-linked individuals and entities, which in and of themselves compromise Joe Biden.
Yeah.
You know, I see news that the second Chinese aircraft carrier claims to be operational.
And why should we doubt it?
I think the U.S. Navy is still qualitatively superior to China's, but I don't know how long I would say that.
I mean, they used to be flying old, junkie versions of MiGs.
Now they've basically stolen the tech and have replicated F-22s and perhaps soon F-35s.
I think that they are a genuine military threat to America.
I think a lot of these arguments that you've just outlined could have been seen to the public eye.
But now that we see behind the scenes when Hunter Biden, his son's laptop has been revealed, I mean, I've heard of honey traps before when you compromise someone with sex or drugs or money.
Well, I mean, Hunter Biden is winning the poo to that honey trap.
He took all of them.
Shocking information on that laptop.
But there's basically been a cone of silence from any mainstream media other than the alternative media on the right.
The New York Post, which has been censored by Twitter for talking about it, and Tucker Carlson on Fox.
I don't know if that news has gone larger than what Jake Tapper of CNN calls the right-wing echo chamber.
And let me ask you about that.
I think that what's in that laptop doesn't just show that Joe Biden's son is completely, and it's probably being extorted right now, although he wouldn't even know it because he's happy to do for them whatever they want.
But there's references to Joe Biden himself of cutting Joe Biden himself in on funds.
And we don't know if that's true yet, if those things actually happen, but there's no inquiry.
We've seen every witch hunt for what the Trump kids are doing and an alleged collusion with Trump for four years.
Here you have photographic and video evidence and countless emails.
And it's not just lack of interest.
They're positively burying it.
As Dave Berg would say, they're covering that story with a pillow until it stops moving.
Do you think if that story were recovered naturally and normally, it would make a difference in the election?
Or is it, as you said at the beginning, people have already made up their minds about these two men and no one's going to move?
I think in some ways it's a fait accompli.
As you said, those who were actually following all of the revelations of this story probably were already Trump supporters to begin with.
The criticality of the story is that Biden's whole meta narrative is, I'm a return to decency and character and normalcy, which I guess normalcy he is in the sense of he's a corrupt swamp creature who spent almost 50 years empowering what's turned out to be the West's worst adversary in communist China.
So influence, peddling, and corruption, yeah, that is a return to normalcy and the swamp of the political establishment.
But character and decency, it goes directly to the core of it because the story really isn't about Hunter.
In some ways, you could make a case, you know, that Hunter is a troubled person and his family essentially exposed his demons and made it much worse by putting him in the position of being the one out there running all these so-called business operations with our worst adversaries.
And the emails themselves, which have many of which have been authenticated, indicate that he was kicking lots of that income back to his father, that his father may have been cut into some of these deals.
We don't know.
We don't necessarily have a smoking gun.
We do know that Joe Biden apparently has lied about the fact that he never talked with his son or his family members about this business, which is just laughable.
But the Tony Bobolinski interview puts an end to that lie.
But I think the bigger thing is, let's say every one of these dealings was above board in the sense of there wasn't money laundering and supposedly there's a money laundering investigation around this.
There wasn't money laundering.
Joe Biden never got a penny.
His family didn't serve as cutouts for him essentially, collecting money on his behalf and purchasing gifts or other things on his behalf as a result of the business.
The fact of the matter is the mere appearance of corruption or potential of corruption, where you have a man who is a vice president of the United States dealing with China and many of our other adversaries, and his family is doing business with those linked to the governments of those corrupt and or adversarial places, including in strategically significant sectors.
That alone, that appearance of corruption, that appearance of impropriety, and the potential for compromise, enough should be disqualifying.
And if you were to look at the basic forms for vetting any national security official in America, your viewers can go online, look up an SF-86 form, the standard form 86, that every person who applies for a national security or foreign policy position has to go through in their vetting.
It points out you need to put forth all of your family relations and friends' relations with anyone who's a foreigner.
And if they have any ties to the government or the military or intelligence have to be disclosed, and the nature of your dealings have to be disclosed.
Now, obviously, Joe Biden was a vice president, so he's going to have dealings with all of these foreigners, but that his family is involved in business dealings associated with adversarial and corrupt regimes alone raised so infinite red flags to the point where if Joe Biden was not Joe Biden, I don't believe he could come close to getting a security clearance.
And that is why it's such a critical issue.
It gets to the heart of this, again, this lie about character and decency, but it also shows he is truly compromised.
And if we really care about foreign interference and our national security, as has been talked about endlessly for almost four years now, this is a real-life steel dossier, and this is a real-life compromise candidate.
Look Forward to Tuesday Night00:01:37
Incredible.
Ben Weingarten, great to catch up with you.
Look forward to seeing you on Tuesday night to be one of our Sherpas guiding us through what is sure to be a momentous night.
I am nervous.
I feel just like I did four years ago.
I am pessimistic, but a secret part of me is hopeful that all the experts are wrong as they were back then.
We'll see you then, my friend.
Look forward to it, Ezra.
Thanks so much.
You have a Ben Weingarten.
His new essay in Newsweek magazine is called Joe Biden, Clinched Communist China's Vote in the Final Debate.
Stay with us.
more ahead.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue last night.
Stewart writes, mostly peaceful terrorism.
Oh, yeah, the media.
You know what?
I mean, I'll just never get over that laughing line.
You know, CNN standing in front of a riot and arson.
Mostly peaceful protest.
Jan writes, freedom of expression with respect is right up there with some animals are more equal than others.
Yeah, what does respect even mean?
To the killer, it meant if you respect my religious prophet, you can speak freely about everything except that.
That's not freedom of speech at all, is it?
Well, that's our show today, folks.
I'm looking forward to next week very much.
I can hardly wait for election night in the U.S.
I think it will be a momentous occasion.
I'm secretly hopeful.
Until then, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters to you at home, good night.