Jack Ma’s $61B critique of China’s financial regulators in October 2020 triggered President Xi Jinping’s abrupt cancellation of Ant Group’s record-breaking $34B IPO, exposing Xi’s zero-tolerance for dissenting billionaires. The episode contrasts China’s state-enforced loyalty with Western corporate compromises—like Disney’s Xinjiang concessions—and highlights Georgia’s January 5th Senate runoff as a pivotal Democratic gambit to flip control via Kamala Harris’ tiebreaker role. Polls underestimated Republicans, who won key seats like Susan Collins’ Maine victory, while donor fatigue and socialist rhetoric (e.g., Schumer’s "change America" claim) fuel GOP momentum. The broader lesson: unchecked power prioritizes political obedience over economic growth, whether in Beijing or Washington. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I bring you news of FinTech financial technology from China.
That's a change of pace.
Well you know there's a company in China called the Ant Group, like the little bug, that was set to have the world's largest IPO, the largest release of shares to the public in the history of the world.
Until the dictator Xi Jinping stopped it, I'll tell you what and I'll tell you why.
And it's an incredible story and a cautionary tale about any Westerner who thinks he can work with China.
You got to hear this story.
That's ahead.
But before that, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of these podcasts.
It's just $8 a month, $80 for the whole year.
You can see that's two months for free if you buy the whole year.
You also get weekly shows from David Menzies and Sheila Gunread.
Just go to RebelNews.com and click subscribe.
I'd be grateful if you would, because we rely on you.
You know, we don't take any money from Trudeau like most reporters do.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, China's dictator swats down China's richest billionaire.
It's November 13th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government a lot of publisher is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Western Companies in China00:14:09
For 15 years, I've been following the fool's errand of Western companies trying to make money in China.
I went there myself a little more than a decade ago, and you could see how dangerous it was to Western companies who are used to the rule of law and the sanctity of contracts and the idea of property rights, especially intellectual property.
There were official government tourist stores that sold nothing but counterfeit clothing brands.
The government tourism buses would drive Western tourists there as a destination, as in they weren't hiding this theft.
I was there when a new superhero movie had just been released in North America just weeks earlier.
You could already buy a DVD bootleg copy of it on the street for 50 cents.
There were some Western brands there officially, especially restaurant chains, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Starbucks.
And as a tourist, you're sort of drawn to them because the food's familiar and maybe you want to use a clean Western style bathroom.
But you soon realized there were entire fake Starbucks stores there.
Entire stores were counterfeits.
I like what I saw with some of those Western companies.
They were teaching skills and habits to Chinese workers that everyone in America and Canada ought to learn too, frankly.
Personal responsibility, showing up to work on time, etc.
I remember being in a Haganda store in Beijing and overhearing a job interview and was basically teaching concepts Concepts like respecting the customer, handling criticism, food safety, being on time, taking responsibility.
I think we need to teach those things here as much as over there.
But I found it admirable what these companies were trying to do.
But here's the thing.
It's impossible to succeed in China for a Western company.
It is impossible.
In fact, the better you are, the less chance of success you have.
At best, the Chinese Communist Party will skim away all of your profits.
Your business partners in the Communist Party will take so much from you there's nothing left or they'll just steal everything just all of it Let me read to you from an article that I wrote back in 2007 You know, I used to write the back page column for Canadian Lawyer magazine.
Can you believe it?
So this story I wrote way back then was called The Outward Appearance of a Capitalist Country.
Can I read a little bit of it?
I can't believe I've managed to dig this column up.
Here it goes.
Danan isn't used to getting roughed up.
The French company is the world's largest yogurt maker and owns Evian, the world's best-selling mineral water, too.
Then it got the bright idea to invest in China.
Danan teamed up with Chinese beverage manufacturer Waha Group Company Limited.
That's named after the way kids supposedly laugh.
Waha, it's a great name for a company, isn't it?
Danan poured in money and Western technology.
Waha supplied the Chinese credentials.
The joint venture is now Chinese largest beverage company.
This is me writing back in 2007.
So far, so great.
But it all began to unravel earlier this year.
Danan alleges that Zong Ching-ho, the founder of Wahaha and chairman of the joint venture, get this, had set up 20 of his own rogue companies producing the exact same products as the joint venture, using the joint venture suppliers and distributors, but keeping all the money for himself.
It's part of the reason why Zong is now the 23rd richest man in China, according to Forbes.
So that was what I was writing 13 years ago.
Can you believe that?
So the Chinese partner, he just set up 20 factories making the same stuff.
He got the ingredients and the recipes.
Now the French were paying for the marketing and the know-how.
He just set up parallel companies just to take all the money.
Let me get back to my column.
At first, Danan offered to pay Zong to make his counterfeit brands part of their joint venture, offering more than $500 million.
Zong scoffed.
So Danan filed a lawsuit in California.
Danan might even win, but with its bottling plants and marketing in China, that's a pyrrhic victory.
Yeah, you can't enforce an American ruling in China.
Good luck with that.
I won't read too much more.
It's just amazing to read this from what I was thinking back in 2007.
Here's a little more.
Maybe Danan should have seen it coming.
One of Wahaha's signature brands is Future Cola, marketed in cans and bottles indistinguishable from Coca-Cola with identical colors and styles.
Isn't that funny?
Last quote.
Ansley quotes Cao C. Yuan, the father of Chinese bankruptcy law, on the fate of foreign litigants.
It is absolutely impossible for a foreign party to win a case against a Chinese party in a Chinese court.
Judicial exchanges by Canadian judges are just exotic tourist junkets for the Westerners and a PR Figleys for the Chinese government.
So if you're the CEO of a mega company like Danan, you think you're pretty smart.
And you are.
But you're bringing a knife to a gunfight when you go to China.
You know, Disney found out the same thing recently when it worked with the Chinese Communist Party to make a live-action remake of their film Mulan in China in Xinjiang province.
They were so deferential to the Chinese communists, they even gave a shout out to the secret police and security services that run Xinjiang's concentration camps for the Uyghur Muslims there.
Seriously, Disney put them in the credits.
They were saying thank you to the secret police.
They clearly made the mathematical decision that it was worth sucking up to China, as in the Communist Party there, with the movie Mulan, because if it had Xi Jinping's political blessing, it could make some serious money in China.
I mean, forget about the American market.
Imagine a billion-plus Chinese people watching a Disney quality movie set in China and buying all the junk.
Alas, something went wrong.
Someone lost face.
Someone's nose was out of joint.
Someone didn't get the bribe or payoff, whatever.
Who knows?
Because despite bending the knee and bowing deeply and thanking their secret police, China disparaged the movie and China, just dissed it.
I don't know why, but it was incredible.
You saw Hollywood prostrate itself before the tyrant, violate everything that America stands for to ingratiate itself, and it backfired still.
Couldn't happen to a nicer group of people, nicer group of appeasers.
Same thing with the NBA.
They'll take a knee to protest who knows what in America, those millionaires playing for billionaires, but they won't say a peep of the Uyghurs or Hong Kong.
I look forward to them being scorched by China too.
But look at this.
If the stories about Dan On and Disney don't shock you, look at this.
Jack Ma is China's richest man.
He's worth over $61 billion U.S. Great entrepreneur, great capitalist, tech and finance and business and cell phones and internet, amazing.
And his company called Ant, as in the little bug, was about to have the world's largest initial public offering, IPO.
That means he was going to list his private company on the stock exchange and let people buy shares in it.
That's important for a lot of reasons, not just for the company to get access to capital, but for the whole industry to have some public disclosure, to learn about Ant, to have some sort of oversight on the company.
When you're in a stock exchange, it makes your company have to comply with certain rules.
Obviously, there's a lot more corruption in China than in America, but being on a stock market brings some rules and oversight.
It's healthy, I think.
And I don't think Jack Ma was looking to scam people like so many stock market players in China do.
He's a rich man who was building what he thought was his answer to the banking system, his answer to PayPal and Facebook combined, really.
And it was set to be the world's largest IPO, as in it would raise more money than any deal in history.
Put aside politics, I mean, wouldn't you want to own a slice of the Chinese version of Amazon Facebook?
But let me read this from the Wall Street Journal.
Here's the story.
I'm going to read for about two minutes.
China's president Xi Jinping personally scuttled Jack Ma's ant IPO.
Senior government leaders were furious about wealthy entrepreneurs' criticisms of regulators.
Rebuke was the culmination of years of tense relations.
All right, here's the story.
Chinese president Xi Jinping personally made the decision to halt the initial public offering of Ant Group, which would have been the world's largest, biggest, after controlling shareholder Jack Ma infuriated government leaders, according to Chinese officials with knowledge of the matter.
The rebuke was the culmination of years of tense relations between China's most celebrated entrepreneur and a government uneasy about his influence and the rapid growth of the digital payments behemoth he controlled.
Mr. Xi, for his part, has displayed a diminishing tolerance for big private businesses that have amassed capital and influence and are perceived to have challenged both his rule and the stability craved by factions in the country's newly assertive Communist Party.
In a speech on October 24th, days before the financial technology giant was set to go public, Mr. Ma cited Mr. Xi's words in what top government officials saw as an effort to burnish his own image and tarnish that of regulators, these people said.
At the event in Shanghai, Mr. Ma, the country's richest man, quoted Mr. Xi saying, success does not have to come from me, unquote.
As a result, the tech executive said he wanted to help solve China's financial problems through innovation.
Mr. Ma bluntly criticized the government's increasingly tight financial regulation for holding back technology development, part of a long-running battle between Ant and its overseers.
Mr. Xi, who read government reports about the speech and other senior leaders, were furious, according to the officials familiar with the decision-making.
Mr. Xi ordered Chinese regulators to investigate and all but shut down Ant's initial public offering, the official said, setting in motion a series of events that led to the deal suspension on November 3rd.
Investors around the world already had committed to paying more than $34 billion for Ant's shares.
It isn't clear whether it was Mr. Xi or another government official who first suggested the shutdown.
Yeah, I mean, the company would be worth a third of a billion dollars, because that $34 billion or whatever, that was just the value of the sliver that was being sold.
So the market cap was a third of a billion, but if you said something mean about the dictator, or even just something presumptuous, which is what I think was going on here, well, that's what matters.
That's all that counts in China.
Don't let the dictator lose face.
I'll read some more.
Xi doesn't care about if you made any of those rich lists or not, said a Chinese official.
What he cares about is what you do after you get rich and whether you're aligning your interests with the state's interests, unquote.
All right, that was from the Wall Street Journal.
Great piece there.
Here's how Bloomberg described the same news.
Derailing of Jack Ma's ant IPO shows Xi Jinping's in charge.
China's move to abruptly halt the world's biggest stock market debut sends global investors a clear message.
Any financial opening will only be done on terms that benefit President Xi Jinping and the Communist Party.
Policymakers in Beijing shocked the investment world on Tuesday by suspending an initial public offering by Ant Group Company, a fintech company owned by billionaire Jack Ma, China's second richest man, apparently.
The decision came just two days before shares were set to trade in a listing that attracted at least, oh my God, 3 trillion orders from individual investors that can't be in American money.
That's probably Hong Kong dollars.
The timing of the decision showed once again that for Xi and the party, financial and political stability take precedence over ceding control of the economy, especially to a private company.
Yeah, they kneecapped their greatest entrepreneur, their greatest businessman, their startup master, their wealth creator.
They're Bill Cates plus Mark Zuckerberg plus Jeff Bezos, their top guy.
They just threw him off the cliff on the eve of his great achievement.
Why?
Because they can and they want you to know it.
Imagine being a Western company, a CEO in New York or London or Toronto, and thinking that you can outsmart or out-navigate China.
That you've got an inside track.
At best, you'll be denoned or Disney's, or maybe you'll be stepped on like an ant.
You know what?
Come to think of it, I heartily recommend that Facebook and Google and YouTube and Twitter and all our banksters put their eggs in the Chinese basket.
Go do business with them.
Invest it all.
Bet it all, you crooks.
And may you get the result you so richly deserve.
What a shame that shareholders will pay the price, but still.
Trouble is it's not just businesses who are getting skinned alive by Xi Jinping and the commies.
It's foolish politicians, too.
We're quite proud the prime minister has been given a faunt nickname in China.
He is called Tudo, which I believe means potato.
And he's, I can't say the Chinese word, it's xiang, pudo, little potato, because his father, Pierre Elliott, Tudo, was senior potato.
Yeah, watch Xi Jinping eat her alive.
Stay with us for more.
Welcome back.
I recall that Leslie Lewis, who had a very strong race for the leadership of the Canadian Conservative Party, an accomplished black woman, an immigrant, a lawyer, very thoughtful, had a very strong showing.
And in the end, the CBC gave her precisely one minute and 45 seconds of airtime because a strong, thoughtful black woman immigrant lawyer.
Runoff Election Pressure00:15:01
Well, that just broke the narrative.
At the same time, and this was before Kamala Harris was chosen as Biden's vice presidential pick, the CBC gave 20 times as much coverage to Kamala Harris, a foreign political candidate who at that point in time had merely succeeded in losing the Democratic presidential nomination.
And so it is in the race recently in the United States Congress.
Of course, there was the mighty presidential election that's still being counted.
But across America, there were a new bumper crop of Republican women, including young women and minority women, success stories, immigrant women from Vietnam, people of Cuban descent.
But of course, the attention was focused on the left-wing Democrat squad, as they call us, joining us now via Skype from the West Coast is our friend Joel Pollock, senior editor-large at Breitbart.com.
Joel, the idea of young, powerful, high-energy women being a Republican force, that just confounds the left too much, so they just pretend it doesn't exist.
Am I right?
Well, first of all, let me explain my outfit.
I'm about to go boxing, take out my frustrations from the week.
So this is my sporting hobby.
I go and punch some leather a few times a week.
But the women in the Republican Party know how to be fighters.
And I think one of the reasons that the Republican Party is attracting so many talented women and minorities is because Americans like a challenge.
And when you tell Americans that the Democratic Party is going to set aside certain positions, they're going to use identity politics here in California.
They're going to reserve corporate board seats for people who are historically disadvantaged.
That doesn't really motivate people to do better, to do more, to break the mold.
But the Republicans say, we're not going to do any of that.
We're just going to judge you as you are, but we're open to anybody who has the talent to compete.
That ironically produces the kind of freshman class that Republicans are going to arrive in Washington with in January.
The 10 seats that Republicans have won so far in the House elections of 2020 are 100% women and minority candidates.
And that 100% statistic is going to stick around because there is a Korean-American woman who's about to win a race in Orange County, California.
She's ahead by several thousand votes.
It's probably going to be called in the next few days if it hasn't been this morning already.
Republicans are attracting talented women, talented minorities who want to make their mark on American politics and don't want to be reduced to their identity, don't want to be handed a set of talking points by a Democratic Party that essentially treats them as if they are functionaries carrying out a kind of representative role, but not really seen as future leaders.
It's interesting that Kamala Harris, who is presumably our vice president-elect, almost never spoke to reporters once during the entire general election campaign.
From the time she was nominated in mid-August to Election Day, I think she held maybe one or two press briefings.
They were all very brief, something like 10 minutes or less.
And they were all in the presence of Joe Biden.
She never really sat down with the press for spontaneous, extemporaneous questions.
So that's the role that the Democratic Party reserves for women and minorities.
You basically follow the script and you offer different versions of the accusation that the Republicans are racist and greedy and so forth.
Whereas Republicans don't put any labels on people.
They don't hand a script to people.
The people who are running in these races, they launch their own campaigns.
They've got to raise their own money.
If they do very well, they get some interest from national Republican Party organizations and donors.
But these are all startup candidates.
And it's incredible that they've come so far and done so well.
But it tells you also that Donald Trump, who may be on his way out as president, has diversified the Republican Party by sheer force of example and against a media and an opposition that have constantly referred to him as Adolf Hitler, that are referred to as supporters as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and so forth.
Christian Amanpour was on CNN yesterday talking about how the Trump presidency reminded her of the Nazi regime in 1938 on Kristallnach.
Now, that's a form of Holocaust denial when you reduce the unique suffering of the Holocaust to some kind of ordinary political event.
That is, the kind of Holocaust denial is recognized as such by scholars in the field.
But CNN gets away with it because everything is permissible with regard to Trump.
And yet, Trump has attracted this outstanding crop of female and minority candidates for the House of Representatives.
He has, as someone said, longer coattails in defeat than Joe Biden had in victory.
Yeah, I think a lot of people who are around the world riveted on the presidency, obviously the most important part of the election, might be surprised to see this strength.
I mean, seriously, you've got a controversial president who's been in office for four years.
You've had the pandemic spook people.
You've had a total war against them by the media.
The idea that he would pick up 10 seats four years in is, I think, I mean, that feels surprising to me to have believed the vibe that the pollsters and pundits were emitting.
You would have thought he would have been crushed.
I mean, he's not going to win.
Every day I wake up at three or four in the morning and I read the news.
And leading up to election day, every single day in my inbox, there were two or three stories about how terrible the polls were for Donald Trump.
And they were terrible for Republicans.
The pollsters were telling us Republicans were on track to a massive historic landslide loss.
They were going to go down in flames and Donald Trump was the reason they were going to collapse.
In Maine, Susan Collins, who was leading, oh, sorry, was losing to her opponent, her Democratic opponent, in every single poll taken before the election, won quite comfortably on Election Day and is returning to the Senate.
And she won, even though Democrats targeted her for supporting Brett Kavanaugh.
She ran away from Donald Trump.
She distanced herself from Trump, but she was one of the only ones who did.
Mostly, the Republicans embraced Donald Trump, embraced his voters, embraced what he stood for.
And they have defended, the Republicans have defended Senate seats all over the map in places where the media said there was going to be a Democratic wave.
Democrats were likely to win in North Carolina.
They were likely to win in Alaska.
I mean, these are all places that the Democrats thought they had in the bag.
And they were looking forward to a kind of unified government that would be able to carry out the excesses of their Democratic socialist agenda, the most progressive agenda in history, as Joe Biden and Barack Obama both boasted, even though they rejected the label socialist.
It certainly was a socialist program they ran on, like it or not.
Now it all comes down to this runoff election.
Georgia has a system where if no candidate gets more than 50% on election day, they have a runoff election between the top two candidates.
So by a curious circumstance, because one senator had to retire early for medical reasons, we have two runoff elections happening in the state of Georgia on January 5th.
So the 2020 election really isn't over yet.
The Republicans still hold the Senate by a two-seat majority.
Democrats want to win both of those runoffs.
If they do, there will be a 50-50 tie.
And according to the Constitution, the tie-breaking vote is the vice president's vote.
So if Democrats can win both of those runoffs, then Kamala Harris will cast the tie-breaking vote, giving control of the Senate effectively to the Democrats.
That means they'll basically be able to do whatever they want as long as they can hold their caucus together.
And they will control all the committees.
They will be able to ramp through all the judges they want.
They will end any oversight of the new administration.
If you thought the Senate was going to investigate Hunter Biden, all of that is history if Democrats win both of these runoff elections.
Republicans have two very good candidates.
The Democrats have two very weak candidates.
One of them is a guy named John Ossoff, who's never held elected office before, but this would be his third election, essentially, because he came second in the general for the Senate.
He also ran unsuccessfully for Congress a couple of years ago in a district he didn't even live in.
And then the other guy is this Reverend Raphael Warnock, who is a supporter of Jeremiah Wright, who has radical anti-Israel opinions, who is a far-left activist.
And so these are weak candidates in the state of Georgia, but Democrats are going to pour money and celebrities and volunteers.
They're encouraging people to move to the state to vote there, even though that is probably illegal.
So the next stage of this fight for 2020 continues, and it's really going to be a battle for all or nothing for Democrats in Georgia.
If they win both of these runoffs, they can run the table in Washington.
If they lose, however, they've got to deal with a divided government, Mitch McConnell running the Senate, and they're not going to be able to do very much of what they ran on, which I think is what voters want.
Another interesting thing about this election is that Joe Biden's out there claiming a mandate to do all kinds of things.
But if you look at four key states that had they gone the other way, Donald Trump would be re-elected easily.
The Libertarian candidate won more votes than the margin between Biden and Trump.
So you can argue that the Libertarian candidate was actually the spoiler for Joe Biden in four states, in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia.
And it shows you the peril of third parties in America's two-party dominant system, that if you vote for small parties that are very unlikely to win, you end up handing the election to a party that you probably don't agree with.
So that's where we are right now.
But Joe Biden doesn't really have a mandate.
This, if anything, was an election for moderation, not for moving full steam ahead on the left-wing agenda.
But it all comes down to Georgia now.
John Osoff, I've seen some of his video clips.
He feels like he was made in a laboratory.
feels so focused, Tessa, so fake to me.
But I don't know.
I mean, I'm a skeptic.
Maybe I would say that about any Democrat.
I think the other candidate, Reverend Warnock, does look extreme, but I don't know.
Maybe that is where the Democratic Party is now.
I don't know enough about Georgia.
I'm nervous about it.
I think in the general election, you know, 10 days ago, we saw that the Democrats were spending in some states more than $100 million on a Senate seat.
Like they were trying to boot Lindsey Graham out of there, if I'm not mistaken, at that price.
I can only imagine you got two Senate seats in one state.
I think between the two parties, they're going to spend a quarter billion dollars, half a billion dollars in Georgia in the next couple months.
And I'm worried about all the shenanigans.
Let me ask you, do you think there will be some sort of fraud control?
That's what really worries me.
The fraud that we saw like this.
Well, I think the risk in this election, again, is going to be vote by mail.
Vote by mail introduces greater potential for fraud.
It also is a form of voting that favors Democrats.
That's why Democrats pushed for it everywhere.
Now, the Georgia state government is run by Republicans who are presumably going to be a little bit more careful than Democrat governors were in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
So I think it is going to be harder for Democrats to steal Georgia, as it were.
But I don't know that Democrats are that confident about their chances in Georgia.
Remember, Trump brings people out on both sides on the ballot.
So when Trump's on the ballot, Republicans turn out and Democrats turn out.
I don't know if it's going to be the same this time around.
Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, Senate minority leader, did a huge favor to Republicans a few days ago when he ran out into the street to celebrate no social distancing, forget all that, but he ran out into the street to celebrate Joe Biden declaring victory or being declared the victor by the media, calling the race for him.
And Schumer declared loudly that we win in Georgia, we change America.
That statement caught on video by a documentary filmmaker is now featured in the campaign ads for Republicans in Georgia, basically telling voters Democrats want to use these runoff races to radically transform America, and you are the only thing stopping them from doing so.
So I think Republicans having that fear of Democrats pushing all the socialist stuff they want to do is going to be more of a motivating factor than Democrats' belief that they can actually win these seats and do it.
There's an article in the New York Times Friday morning about how there's a kind of donor fatigue among Democrats that they've been told they can win all these Senate races.
They pour, as you said, hundreds of millions of dollars into races in South Carolina, in Alaska, and so forth, and then they get nothing.
So I think it's going to be harder to motivate Democratic donors to contribute to Georgia.
They were very motivated about helping Joe Biden and so forth, but I don't know that they're going to have the same energy behind their campaign in Georgia.
The celebrities are all in, the politicians are all in.
So there are definitely going to be some people who try.
But I think that Republicans have more at stake in this election and they have better candidates.
So right now, I think the odds are slightly in favor of the Republicans.
The polls are also slightly in favor.
I don't know if you believe polls, but in both of the polls that I've seen so far since Election Day, Republicans are modestly ahead of their Democratic rivals in Georgia.
Given the pro-Democrat bias of most polls, that probably means the Republicans have a slightly larger edge than that.
But we'll see.
Well, I sure hope so.
I mean, without a check on the excesses of Biden and Harris, and I'm presuming that they do pull off the wind presidentially, without a check in the Senate against that, I'm terrified of what will come.
Well, we'll have to, what's the date for the runoff in Georgia?
I don't know.
It is January 5th.
So it'll happen before the end of Trump's term.
It happens January 5th.
So we will know going into January 20th.
whatever the result in the presidential race, we will know what Congress will look like already.
Deplatforming Trump's Options00:03:03
Now, Trump is hinting that if he runs out of legal room, he will concede the election.
The idea that the media have had in this country and around the world that Trump is some sort of would-be dictator is completely ridiculous, insulting, false, and inflammatory.
Never been true.
And he's been saying all along he would accept the result if he loses, but he doesn't like to lose.
So he's going to exhaust all his options until there's nothing left.
But I do think that Trump has a lot to do still if he is going to be a lame duck president.
And I don't think Democrats are going to like it very much.
And I hope that Trump has a very, very ambitious agenda for the weeks he has remaining because there are a lot of things he can do to undo some of the damage Democrats have done and to set up his agenda to carry over into the next administration, which I think is entirely appropriate to do because I do think that agenda is very popular.
Biden's already talking about reversing immigration law and other sorts of radical changes.
He has a mandate for none of that.
Trump ran on a tough immigration policy and got more Latino votes, not less, not fewer.
So I think that we're going to see these battles happening a lot over the next few weeks.
And Trump still has the advantage.
He has the advantage of the White House.
And the media don't like it.
They want him gone as soon as they possibly can get rid of him.
But he still has, if he indeed loses the election, he still has until January 20th to do what he needs to do.
Yeah, very interesting.
Well, Joel, great to see you.
We'll let you go box, do some boxing, throw a few punches for us.
Great to see you.
Thanks for your wisdom, as always.
Thank you.
All right, there you have it Joel Pollock, Sr., editor-large at Brightpark.com.
Stay with us more.
Welcome back on my monologue last night.
Greg writes, I hope all places that serve cheesecake in Ontario banned Doug Ford for life.
Yeah, you know what?
Seriously?
Good for those folks in Cheshire.
A guy is literally voting to shut your company down.
If a guy says, I don't like you, all right, fine, whatever.
That's just an opinion.
If you don't like the restaurant, don't come into the restaurant.
But when through the power of the law, he shuts you down.
Why should he ever be allowed in again?
Good for them.
Jay Collins says, I would love it if restaurants and bars started doing this in Canada.
Exactly.
Make these politicians impolite company, persona non grata.
Jesse writes, good on them.
I hope this is just the beginning of MP's shutouts.
Isn't this exactly what they do to us all the time?
Yeah, this is deplatforming.
But you know, I don't believe in deplatforming people because they have an opinion.
But if this guy was voting to close and destroy businesses, let him never be allowed to enjoy those businesses that he attacked.
All right, folks, what a busy week.
What an interesting week.
And I'm sure next week will be even busier and more interesting.
Until then, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, you are home.