Nancy Russell, a 90-year-old Toronto retiree, chose medically assisted death in November 2020 after lockdowns erased her mobility and social life, with her daughter describing supervised visits as "helpless." The host dismisses her case as a government-framed tragedy, linking Quebec’s high COVID-19 deaths (61% of Canada’s) to euthanasia laws while ignoring broader recovery rates. Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell’s election fraud claims—Giuliani’s documented ballot irregularities in Pennsylvania versus Powell’s unproven Venezuelan conspiracy—expose systemic distrust in voting processes. The episode ends with the host warning of future lockdowns, accusing conservative leaders like Andrew Scheer of betrayal, and mocking WEF’s "renting food" proposal as dystopian. [Automatically generated summary]
Hello my rebels, I have the worst story of the year for you, the saddest, most pathetic story.
A 90-year-old grandma, who had a tough time in the first lockdown, said she didn't want to have a second lockdown, so she chose to kill herself.
It's a true and terrible story, and I'll tell it to you next.
Let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus, though.
It's a way to get these podcasts with the video part, too.
I really recommend it.
We put a lot of effort onto the visuals.
We play clips.
We show images.
Our proof is often visual.
You also get access to Sheila Gunread's show once a week and David Menzies.
And importantly, I think it's important, you support Rebel News.
You know we don't get any dough from Justin Trudeau, right?
We're unlike 99% of the media out there.
We're actually independent.
I think that's worth $8 a month, don't you?
If you want, you can buy a whole year in advance for just $80 for a whole year.
Just go to RebelNews.com and click subscribe.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, an elderly woman chooses suicide instead of living through a second lockdown.
It's November 20th, and this is the Ezra Med 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 house is because it's my bloody right to do so.
This story is so awful.
I thought it might be a hoax, and part of me still thinks it is.
I can't even believe it, and I can't believe how many people are parties to it, collaborated in it, aided, and abetted it.
That's what makes it hard for me to believe how everyone went along with it.
But I suppose watching people alone in their cars by themselves wearing a mask, perhaps I should not be surprised that people go along as easily with things as they do.
Here's the story in CTV.
Facing another retirement home lockdown, 90-year-old chooses medically assisted death.
Okay, so she was obviously stopped, right?
Obviously talked out of it, right?
She was rescued, right?
If not by some government authority, at least by her friends and family, right?
Yeah, no, apparently not.
When 90-year-old Nancy Russell died last month, she was surrounded by friends and family.
Yes, some friends, some family.
They clustered around her bed, singing a song she had chosen to send her off as a doctor helped her through a medically assisted death.
Look at that language there.
A doctor helped her.
I didn't know that was help.
A medically assisted death.
You mean he killed her, right?
You mean he like injected her or something, right?
I mean, very nicely and very politely, of course, but it's also passive in language.
It's that classic phrase, mistakes were made.
You know who talks in the passive tense like that?
Justin Trudeau, whenever he's caught breaking the law.
We can all learn something from this or something like that.
Anyways, yeah, she was put down like an old family dog.
It was the exact opposite of the lonely months of lockdown Russell had suffered through in the retirement home where Russell had lived for several years.
That was the whole point.
Got it.
So the only time she had friends and family with her was when she was being euthanized.
No one sees a problem with that.
Across Canada, long-term care homes and retirement homes are seeing rising cases of COVID-19 and deaths yet again, worrying a trend that is leading to more restrictions for the residents.
Oh, so the residents are the problem?
Not the retirement homes and the government regulators.
See, it's not seniors who are dying from COVID.
I just want to be clear on that.
It's seniors in these homes.
Take a look at this.
Here's the latest report from Manitoba.
Eight deaths, all eight in seniors' homes.
There are lots of people in Manitoba who are 70 or 80 or even 90 years old.
Lots.
They didn't die.
Only the ones in these seniors' warehouses are dying.
And you think the answer is to put more restrictions on the residents there?
Hey, word to the wise, if you care about granny, get her the hell out of there.
Or maybe that's the point.
Maybe that's where people send their grannies to die when they're tired of them.
The sort of people who don't visit their granny until it's time for her to be put on the ice flow and drifted away.
Let me read some more.
These lockdowns are taking another toll among those who don't get COVID-19.
Residents eat meals in their rooms, have activities and social gatherings canceled, family visits curtailed or eliminated.
Sometimes they are in isolation in their small rooms for days.
These measures aimed at saving lives can sometimes be detrimental enough to the overall health of residents that they find themselves looking into other options.
Unquote.
Exactly.
So they're being tortured.
Psychology today.
It's torture.
Here's some law professors.
It's torture.
When you put someone in solitary confinement, it's torture.
Here's Trudeau's CBC State Broadcaster.
It's torture.
Or at least that's what all these groups say when it's criminals in solitary confinement in prison that they're talking about.
But when it's granny, they call it public health.
Imagine having this as your sole human contact.
That is elder abuse.
This is bizarre.
This is not scientific.
This is a lie.
Here's a hugging station.
Sorry, that is not normal.
That's not normal for a disease with a 99.9% recovery rate.
Actually, I'm sorry I understated it.
It's actually 99.997% recovery rate for people under age 20.
It's 99.98% for people under age 50.
It's 99.5% for people under age 70.
Those are statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.
If we were talking about Ebola, sure, black plague, sure, but a disease as deadly as, you know, a bad flu season?
No.
Let me read some more.
Russell, described by her family as exceptionally social and spry, was one such person.
Her family says she chose a medically assisted death maid after she declined so sharply during lockdown that she didn't want to go through more isolation this winter.
Being mobile was everything to my mom, her daughter Tori told CTV News.
My mother was extremely curious and she was very interested in every person she met and every idea that she came across.
So she was constantly reading, going to different shows and talks.
She was frequently talking about people she met and their life stories, very curious, open-minded.
So for 90, she was exceptional.
Imagine your mom who was so lively telling you she wanted to kill herself because she was lonely and you say, sure.
And a doctor says, sure.
And the largest private broadcaster writes about it and says, sure.
And the government says, sure.
You're lonely for two weeks?
Time to go.
The story is clear.
It wasn't the virus that killed her.
It was the lockdown.
Let me read some more.
But the first wave of COVID-19 restrictions in March ended her daily walks.
Why would it do that, by the way?
Library visits and all the activities in her Toronto retirement home.
Her daughter says they had plastic dividers in the dining rooms and supervised visits in the garden.
She almost overnight went from a very active lifestyle to a very limited life, and they had very early on a complete two-week confinement just to her room, Tori says.
Two weeks in solitary.
Imagine accepting that.
During those two weeks, since she couldn't exercise by walking to the library or doing her own shopping, Russell would stand up and sit down again and again in her room, counting the times, her daughter said.
You know, they have things in zoos to keep the animals distracted so they don't go mad.
I guess they just didn't get around to it in the seniors' home.
In that two weeks, all of us were phoning, and she learned Zoom and got up to speed, but she felt extremely restricted, naturally, as did everybody.
Oh, you know, but you know, we were all so busy.
I guess we could have visited or, hell, busted her out of that place and let her stay in our own spare bedroom in our house.
But, you know, we're all so busy these days.
What with that new Netflix series?
And, you know, the government knows best.
Incredibly, the suicide victim apparently said the same.
Tori said that her mother didn't blame the care home in any way and that she fully understood why that rule had to be in place.
Got it.
Accepting why that rule had to be in place.
So I accept that I must die because of some random and unscientific rule to stop me from dying.
I have to die to stop myself from dying.
That's the logic.
That's the logic of our entire Western civilization these days, isn't it?
The irony here, look at this.
My mother understood the fragility of the people in the building and the importance of protecting them.
So it was just a very difficult time, Tori says.
So to protect the people, we have to euthanize the people.
It's so important to protect people, she said as the doctor injected her with the serum that would kill her.
We must do everything to protect people, especially the elderly for whom we care so much.
We have to kill them to save people.
Come on.
Now, her family is filled with her death, but not the first doctor she talked to.
Quote, the first doctor she applied to said no.
My mom told me he said to her, you've got too much to live for, Tori said.
In Canada, you do not need to have a fatal or terminal condition to apply for made.
I love how they're saying that word.
But you must have a serious condition, be in an advanced stage of irreversible decline, be experiencing mental or physical suffering that cannot be relieved, and be at the point where your natural death has become reasonably foreseeable, according to Health Canada.
So she obviously doesn't fit that description, but they kept shopping her around, sounds like, till they found a doctor willing to off Granny.
I love that phrase, made.
It's so much prettier than euthanasia.
There's no word death or kill or anything mean like that that you have to say out loud.
I'll read more.
She just truly did not believe that she wanted to try another one of those two-week confinements into her room, her daughter said.
I mean, really, what other choice was there, right?
Dr. Samir Sinha, a geriatric specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital, commends the family for telling their mother's story.
Hey, hey, seniors, give that guy a bit of a, give him a bit of space if you're feeling a cough.
I do appreciate that this family has come forward, especially when the balance of evidence out there actually says that these restrictions in too many circumstances are overly restrictive and actually causing unnecessary harm, Sinha told CBTV News.
That's the best she got, eh?
Hey guys, maybe we should look at lockdowns a bit more closely if grannies are killing themselves.
I guess these days that counts as being a courageous doctor.
I wouldn't be surprised if even with that meek protest, he gets some ethics complaints to the College of Physicians and Surgeons for even questioning the lockdown.
When you stick someone alone and deprive them of the usual things that bring them interest and joy, that can be an incredibly isolating, lonely, depressing experience.
Sinha said, Okay, so he's come around, Bet.
Here's how the story ends.
I worry about seniors.
I worry about families who feel helpless.
I felt helpless, and I believe some other members of my family did at times, Tori said.
That's the daughter.
She's the real victim here, because she felt helpless.
So Granny's got to go.
Yeah, your mom just killed yourself with your blessing.
So I don't think you were worried about the right things at the right times there, Tori.
As I've noted before, Quebec has 61% of all the COVID deaths in Canada, but they have just a quarter of the population, nearly triple that rate of death, right?
Why?
How?
Is there something in the water there?
The doctors aren't as good?
No, I don't think it's that.
I think it's because they have the most aggressive euthanasia laws in the country.
From that point of view, it's win-win-win, you see.
Heartless kids say goodbye to Granny instead of having the burden of caring for her.
They got Netflix shows to watch, not boring old granny.
The government likes it.
They don't have to pay for ongoing medical care or pensions.
Save the money, get rid of old people who overwhelmingly have pre-existing medical conditions that are expensive, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, whatever.
And the public health deep state loves it.
Just like this kooky and hilarious and sad story where a man fell off a ladder and died, and it was counted as a coronavirus death.
I bet you this Nancy Russell, who was suicided with her family and doctor, I bet you she's going to be counted as a virus death.
And in a way, she was, wasn't she?
I mean, a government doctor killed her because she was worried about a government lockdown.
But sure, I mean, it was the virus that gave all of those evil forces their justification, wasn't it?
Stay with us for more.
Giuliani's Accusations Hang Together00:15:15
There are many more affidavits here.
I'd like to read them all to you, but I don't have the time.
You should have had the time and energy to go look for them.
That's your job.
Like it's my job to defend the president and to represent the president.
It's your job to read these things and not falsely report that there's no evidence.
You know how many affidavits we have in the Michigan case?
220 affidavits.
They're not all public, but eight of them are.
Four affiants here, those are people who give affidavits, report an incident that under any other circumstances would have been on the front page of all your newspapers if it didn't involve the hatred that you have, irrational, pathological hatred that you have for the president.
Well, that was Rudy Giuliani just tearing a strip off journalists in the United States, very vigorously saying not only does voting fraud exist, but shame on journalists for not making inquiries themselves.
It's a good point.
Voting fraud, Russian collusion was the only thing we heard from the media party for the first three years trying to delegitimize Trump's election.
When we have genuine problems in key states, battleground states this time, though, the media couldn't be hastier in their unanimous view that Joe Biden must be crowned the president right away.
In that press conference, there was also a lawyer named Sidney Powell who made more dramatic allegations about a foreign internet conspiracy, I suppose, to literally revise and undo votes electronically.
A spectacular claim that has yet to be proved, but some would say you save your evidence for the court of law, not for press conferences.
Joining us to help digest this huge story is our friend Joel Pollack, Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart.com.
Joel, great to see you again.
There were a lot of workaday allegations, like regular election fraud allegations in the press conference.
What Sidney Powell talked about, this Venezuelan company changing millions of votes.
I've never heard anything so spectacular like that in my life, and it makes me nervous when I hear something that spectacular because it's almost like I want it to be true to explain this election loss, but it feels like it's too far.
How do you feel about that?
Well, I think she's operating on a theory, and I've heard it from a couple of other people who are studying what they see are patterns in the data, and they're also looking at the ownership of some of these companies that run the voting machines and so forth.
It all seems speculative to me.
I mean, I can't rule anything out, but it's not the kind of thing that's going to be easily provable, even if it is presented to a court of law.
You'd actually have to show evidence of a crime.
What she's alleging is a crime.
So that would obviously take significant proof and development of evidence.
And I don't know that that's going to be something they can even do, even if it did happen.
Let's assume for argument's sake that it did.
I don't know that they're going to be able to do that in the time they have left before states certify their votes.
Giuliani's accusations seemed to hang together a little better, and they seem a little more credible to me because I think they are the kind of errors or, in his estimation, deliberate interference with the election that you would expect in mass mail-in voting.
There's no civilized country that does an election through mass mail-in voting.
And the reason is, as Jimmy Carter said in 2005, absentee ballots are the most vulnerable to fraud.
And we saw in early attempts this year to run elections through mass mail-in voting where it hadn't been done before, that roughly one in four of the ballots were rejected.
Either they didn't have signatures on them or they were sent by voters who were ineligible or the addresses were wrong.
There were all kinds of problems.
You can imagine how awful it would be to try to determine the outcome of a national election if one out of every four ballots submitted by mail and two-thirds of the early ballots in this election were submitted by mail, one out of four is wrong.
I mean, that could swing the results in any number of states.
And what Democrats did was they sued in a lot of states, I think 18 states altogether, to weaken some of the rules on absentee ballots.
That made the ballots easier to accept, harder to reject.
So that's probably the most plausible explanation for the rejection rate plummeting from around about 25% to well below 1%.
They did it through the courts, and they were able to, in some cases, negotiate these consent decrees, which Democrats did in Georgia, for example.
The consent decree in Georgia makes it almost impossible to check ballot signatures, even though you're required to do that by state law.
In Georgia, the consent decree, again, which didn't go through the legislature, just went through the courts, makes it almost impossible to actually practically check the ballot signatures.
So Democrats succeeded in weakening all these protections, and they then ran a turnout operation based on vote by mail.
So what Giuliani describes, where ballots are not being checked properly, not being observed properly, perhaps are being included when they shouldn't be.
That sounds like what you might expect, and you might expect that even through a quasi-legal process, because the Democrats were able to obtain these agreements or these judgments that allowed some of that stuff to happen.
In Pennsylvania, for example, they're now supposed to accept ballots that are received even without postmarks.
So there's no guarantee they even went through the mail.
Somebody might have just put it in a box somewhere.
They didn't mail it in.
So there are all these safeguards that have been dropped.
So Giuliani's claims, he's alleging a little bit more than I'm stating.
He's saying that there were deliberate violations of the rules.
Another claim the campaign is making is that the rules as adopted were invalid and unconstitutional, which I think is actually a good argument.
So Giuliani's allegations hang together a little bit better for me.
Sidney Powell is out there talking about an issue that is going to be difficult to prove.
I think even if she has evidence, how do you develop a case that is so complicated?
And it's on the level of Democrats saying that Russians interfered in the election.
It's not impossible that they interfered.
We know that Russians may have been involved in some of the hacking of DNC emails, for example, earlier in the 2016 campaign.
But what she's saying is exactly the kind of things Democrats and the media did say for four years almost, but that doesn't make it true.
So I find her allegations a little harder to believe.
I'm sure she believes them.
She seemed to deliver them with a lot of passion.
But as Giuliani pointed out also in a moment in the press conference, the allegation that the election was improperly decided doesn't hang on Sidney Powell's allegation, that Giuliani's case is independent.
And in his view, it's sufficient.
So the Sidney Powell allegations are not necessary for the Trump campaign to make its case.
Again, this is a very, very hard case to win.
It's going to require the Trump campaign to win in a number of states.
That's kind of like hitting the trifecta in horse racing.
You don't just have to guess the winner, but you have to guess the winner, second place, and third place.
That's the kind of task they've set for themselves.
So I think simply because they have to overturn results in so many places, the Trump campaign has a very low chance of succeeding.
However, the case is coherent.
I mean, they have a theory as to how this happened.
Part of it is plausible.
And I think they helped themselves by making it yesterday, although the media, of course, are only focusing on the parts of the case they find least plausible.
Yeah.
Well, let me throw something at you.
I know that Justice Alito of the Supreme Court asked that Pennsylvania set aside votes that were received after Election Day, if I'm recalling correctly.
So that sounds to me like a very clear thing when you have a group of ballots that are suspects, set them aside, and then maybe those baskets will be discounted later.
That sounds very practical and something you can measure and count.
But for example, I'm reading your article on Breitbart.com.
Let me refer to it.
For folks to read, I recommend you read the whole thing.
It's called Nine Key Points from Trump Campaign Press Conference on Challenges to Election Results.
Your first one is: observers were allegedly prevented from watching mail-in ballots being opened.
And that's very believable to me.
We've probably all seen videos on Twitter of scrutineers being kept out of places.
We saw, I think it was in Philadelphia, it was a Michigan boarding putting up so people physically could not watch counting.
So let's say that it's established that things were done in the dark.
Do you set aside those votes?
So even if a judge says, yes, I agree, scrutineers were banned, these five things weren't done.
Is that enough to make a judge say, therefore, I throw out what?
How many?
Do you even know how many?
So this is interesting.
So it's important to make these distinctions.
And I hope I'm going to help clarify things.
Some of the cases, particularly I think, where you saw the boards being put up to keep people out, I think that involved excluding people who may not actually have been official observers, who tried to enlist as observers or scrutineers, but they were in excess of the observers who were already in that particular counting place.
So I don't want to allege that they kept people out.
I don't even think the Trump campaign is saying they kept people out in that part of the case.
I think they've complained about it in other ways.
And we do know some poll workers were excluded.
I know of at least one case where someone was excluded accidentally or mistakenly because a local official got the law wrong.
But anyway, what everyone agrees on, and you can see this in the court filings, is that the observers were kept a far distance away from the area where the absentee ballots were being opened.
And the only dispute between Democrats and Republicans is whether that was lawful or not.
In the trial court in Pennsylvania, Democrats prevailed.
In the Commonwealth court, which I guess is the appellate court in Pennsylvania, the Republicans prevailed.
And then the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned that decision.
And what they said was: the law only requires that observers be present.
It doesn't be, it doesn't require that they actually wait for it.
It doesn't require that they actually observe anything.
So it just requires them to be in the room.
And the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided that if the state legislature had wanted to stipulate that people must actually be able to observe something, they must actually be able to see something, they would have said so.
It's an unusually deferential approach to the law.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has often not been deferential to the text of the law.
In fact, when making up the rule that you could accept ballots after Election Day, they simply went out on their own and not adhering to the state statute.
But anyway, is that appealable or is that the end of it?
No, no, I think that is appealable.
It's going to go, I think that could go to the Supreme Court.
And it is going to involve enough votes to overturn the result in Pennsylvania.
I think it's between 600 and 700,000.
The other part of the case, though, you have to understand is this.
What Giuliani said was the reason observing the envelopes was important was they had to match the signature on the envelope to a signature on file on the voter roll.
And you can't make that match happen unless you actually look at the signatures.
And so the observers wanted to be sure that these signatures were being matched properly and that the ballot counters weren't simply ripping open the envelopes and using the ballots regardless.
Why is that important?
Normally, you wouldn't necessarily overturn 600,000, 700,000 votes just for a small procedural mistake like that.
The reason it's important is it's a mistake that can't be undone.
Apparently, they threw the envelopes away.
So those ballots are now just mixed into the rest of the pile of ballots, and they can't really be traced back to the original envelopes.
There's no way, in other words, to go back to those 600 or 700,000 ballots and to double check whether they indeed were cast by voters who were on the rolls.
So what Giuliani is saying is that the exclusion of observers from a critical stage in ascertaining the legality of those votes means the entire collection of votes that was counted during that period ought to be invalidated because there's no way to validate whether they're legal or not.
So I think that is actually a serious claim.
It's probably the most serious claim out of all the ones we've seen so far.
And I've said before, and I think Alan Dershowitz has also said that the Trump campaign's strongest case is in Pennsylvania.
They have a weaker case elsewhere.
But again, this is the problem with mail-in voting.
You're going to get these kinds of challenges.
And also, even if everything is done by the book, what happens typically with mail-in voting is that the result after Election Day is very different from the result on Election Day.
Mail-in voting creates the impression of fraud even when there isn't fraud.
It's something we in California have unfortunately become used to.
And the first time you see it, it feels like something horrible has taken place.
You can't think of any other explanation than fraud, but it's just the fact that mail-in ballots work this way.
Sometimes it works to the advantage of Republicans.
Two California Republicans just won their congressional races.
They were losing on election night, but the mail-in ballots came in for the Republicans this time.
So it can go either way, although it tends to go more often for Democrats.
But the first time you watch this happen, it does lead you to think it must be fraudulent.
And it's just the major problem of mail-in ballots.
They create this impression that the politicians or the election officials have simply waited to see how far behind one candidate was on election night and then gone and found the ballots they need to make up the difference.
Yeah.
I find this troubling.
I mean, I'm reminded of when Richard Nixon had the election stolen from him in 1960 by the Chicago Kennedy Democrat machine.
And he chose not to fight it.
He said it would rip the country apart too badly.
And he was a patriot first.
I really believe that.
And he waited and he had his chance later.
I think that the tone and the drama is so much worsened.
Supreme Court's Courage?00:03:33
What I wonder is if the Supreme Court will have the courage or the bloody-mindedness to overturn this.
Or I know you've suggested this before, if they just throw it back to the Constitution, as in, hey, the Constitution says that these electors are chosen by the states in any manner.
So I suppose, and let's wrap up on this because I know you got to go.
If these elections are so compromised and some of it's unfixable, like you mentioned, the envelopes are thrown away.
Could it happen that the Supreme Court says there's so many anomalies here, the patterns, the facts we do have, putting aside the wilder theories that would probably take a Mueller-like investigation to find out what happened in Venezuela, according to Sydney Powell's points.
Let's just throw it back to the states under the Constitution and have them choose in what is it, a state house vote or a vote of their congressional delegation.
If the Supreme Court wanted to stop this election, but have someone else make the final decision, who would they throw it to in, say, the case of Pennsylvania?
I think they would probably say the state legislature would have the responsibility to choose the electors.
And I think that's the right approach.
I do think the state legislature would probably find some formula that split the electoral vote proportionally rather than giving all of the votes to Trump.
I think they're going to have to find some way to do it.
If it does go back to the state legislature, they'll find some way to do it that doesn't antagonize the people who voted.
They'll probably find some way of approximating what the vote might have looked like.
Maybe they'll just split it down the middle.
Either way, Joe Biden would still win the election.
So I think that state legislators in this case, or members of Congress, if it goes up to the House of Representatives, which it could eventually, I think they're going to be reluctant to do anything that will overturn the election because it would cause a public backlash.
And even though the Constitution allows them to do it, I think that in this circumstance, I can imagine other circumstances where they might be much bolder about doing something, but in this circumstance, I just think they're not going to do anything that changes the result of the election.
So I don't really see a path there for the president.
I think he's doing the right thing by fighting.
This is, by the way, the minimum that Democrats want their candidates to do every time 2000, 2004, Democrats insisted on fighting for every vote.
It was the minimum a candidate had to promise.
So the idea that this is somehow undemocratic is just ludicrous, especially because the way these voting rules was changed.
I mean, the voting rules were changed in an undemocratic way through the courts.
So the idea that what Trump's doing is undemocratic is just ridiculous to me.
But I think most Americans are actually just waiting for the process to play out.
I think everybody understands this.
It's the media and the chattering political classes that have gotten themselves worked up about this.
But I think most Americans who've had to deal with courts and who've watched these elections before pretty much know how this is going to end.
The courts are going to rule.
Everyone will respect the decision of the courts.
They'll complain about it, but they'll respect the decisions.
There might be some surprises.
Trump might win a state.
He didn't win on election day or shortly thereafter.
But anyway, I think this will wind to hopefully a pleasant conclusion that allows everybody to move forward.
Well, I don't think it'll be pleasant, but there will be a conclusion.
Joel, we'll let you go.
Thanks so much for your time today.
Surprises Ahead00:02:17
Whoops.
Thank you.
All right, you take care of Joel Pollack, Senior Editor-Large at Breitbart.com.
What a pleasure to have him with us, as always.
Stay with us.
Morehead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your feedback on the World Economic Forum article.
Doug writes, I, for one, don't want to rent my food.
You know, it's such a crazy story about renting everything, not owning anything.
Exactly your food, your clothes.
It just, who owns it?
Who made it?
Why would it be owned or made if someone doesn't own it?
It's crazy talk.
On Andrew Scheer, Andre writes, maybe Andrew Scheer is feeding insider info to the liberals.
No, he's not that clever and he's not that cunning.
He's just a slow-motion grifter who's gone through life.
Remember, he was one of the youngest MPs ever elected.
He never had a real job.
He was almost an insurance salesman, but hadn't got qualified yet.
He's been a government employee ever since, but not a low level.
He was an MP.
He was speaker, oversaw hundreds of millions of dollars of parliamentary budgets.
He grew up as a grifter.
He's really known little else.
And apparently he didn't have enough guidance around him, either from the party or from his family, to know you don't put family members on the government payroll.
That's what liberals do, not conservatives.
And it's super gross that Andrew Scheer is still hurting the conservative brand.
So now it's actually a problem for Aaron O'Toole.
If Justin Trudeau, the crooked, law-breaking liberal, will allow Yasmin Rattanzi, sorry, won't allow Yasmin Rattanzi to hire her sister if she's kicked out of the caucus, why is Aaron O'Toole having a lower ethical standard for his caucus?
I just don't get it.
Well, my friends, that's the end of a very busy week here at Rebel News.
Next week is going to be even busier as little tyrants across this country bring in their lockdowns.
I think things are more dire than ever.
And I swear to you, as God is my witness, we will be there to cover it and to fight it.
All right.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us, good night.