Ezra Levant compares Justin Trudeau’s meddling in India’s farmers’ protests to U.S. non-interventionism, citing Jefferson and Trump while mocking Trudeau’s lack of preparation and past broken promises like clean water on reserves. He accuses the RCMP of selective enforcement—ignoring Indian expat or Black Lives Matter protests but ticketing small gatherings—while Joel Pollack’s Neither Free Nor Fair e-book alleges 2020 U.S. election irregularities, including Zuckerberg-funded Democratic counties and ballot fraud in Georgia. Levant warns of creeping authoritarianism, from pandemic-era tracking to potential U.S.-style federal overreach under a Democratic trifecta, and ends by targeting Manitoba’s Brian Pallister for dismissing constituents as "idiots" while vacationing in Costa Rica during restrictions. [Automatically generated summary]
It's the anniversary of that fateful day that got the United States embroiled in the largest war in history.
I use that as a news peg to talk about a story of Justin Trudeau getting involved in the smallest battle in history, a quarrel between India and its farmers.
I don't know why Trudeau is taking a stand, but he says some curious things that I'd like to expand on.
It's a strange story, but you'll hear it in a moment.
Before I do, let me invite you to become a Rebel News Plus subscriber.
It's only eight bucks a month.
That's not a lot.
And you get the video version of this show every day, plus weekly shows from David Menzies and Sheila Gunread.
And most importantly, I think, you get the satisfaction of keeping Rebel News alive because we don't take any money from Trudeau.
How can you report honestly on Trudeau if you're taking money from him, like the CBC and all the newspapers do?
So that's why I'd like you to support us.
Just go to RebelNews.com and click subscribe.
Okay, here's today's show.
Tonight, why should you care about farmers in India?
I've got a few reasons.
It's December 7th, 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 don't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government.
But why?
Just because it's my bloody right to do so.
It's Pearl Harbor Day today, a day of infamy, as Roosevelt called it.
It was enough to turn America from an isolationist country to the world's biggest warrior.
A Japanese admiral at the time was later quoted as saying, I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.
That's true, but remember that it took that much to rouse America to the war.
It was already December 7th, 1941.
The war had been raging for more than two years.
America was participating rather passively, sending weapons to the UK, but for two years, the British Empire and its allies pretty much fought alone.
The Battle of Britain was in 1940.
Germany actually turned around and invaded Russia in the summer of 1941.
Neither of those things sent the U.S. to war, only Pearl Harbor did.
There's a noble tradition of the United States staying out of world affairs.
You might laugh about that because America now has more military bases around the world than all other countries combined.
America has a more powerful military force than all countries combined, at least qualitatively, at least for now.
But the tradition is non-interventionism.
Here's Thomas Jefferson at his inauguration as president in 1801.
He said, peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
That's what Trump has tried to do.
He just simply hasn't started any new wars.
And he's done his best to end some of them, bringing home many troops from places like Afghanistan and Syria and Somalia, doing a peace deal amongst Israel and some of its Arab neighbors, trying to do a deal with North Korea.
I much prefer that approach to the bullying, smash everything in sight approach of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, which we will surely see again if Joe Biden becomes the next president.
So, I mean, that is the land of unconfirmed ideas.
We came, we saw, he died.
Yeah, that cackle.
That woman turned Africa into a terrorist continent and launched millions of refugees into Europe and the West with that cackle.
You break it, you buy it.
She broke Libya and Egypt and the rest of the Arab world, but didn't stick around for the mess.
There's a lot to be said for non-interventionism.
Are you really going to invade every country in the world with whom you disagree?
Are you a policeman to the world now?
That's an empire, not a country.
And there is such a thing as imperial overstretch.
Afghanistan is already America's longest war.
May I ask what has been accomplished by that staggering expenditure of blood and treasure, including, by the way, 158 Canadians who died there.
Why again?
Those are heavy thoughts to look at the latest international gaffe by Justin Trudeau, who is a real lightweight.
No, don't worry, he hasn't started a new war.
But for some reason, he felt the need to weigh into another country's domestic affairs.
Here's a story about a disagreement in India in regards to its farmers.
Now, I'm not even going to research it.
You can if you care about it.
I don't know which side is right.
I don't even know what the different sides are.
There might be more than two sides.
I just know deep in my bones that it has nothing to do with me and my life and nothing to do with Canada.
It's very lively over there, I grant you that, but it is not our affair.
Just like we wouldn't want India's prime minister, Narendra Modi, however much we might admire him, we wouldn't want him to weigh in on any matter regarding our Canadian farmers.
It's just not his business.
It's not India's business.
And yet, here we are.
I would be remiss if I didn't start also by recognizing the news coming out of India about the protest by farmers.
The situation is concerning, and we're all very worried about family and friends.
I know that's the reality for many of you.
Let me remind you, Canada will always be there to defend the right of peaceful protest.
We believe in the importance of dialogue, and that's why we've reached out through multiple means directly to the Indian authorities to highlight our concerns.
So Trudeau isn't just weighing in to the matter of Indian farmers.
Say, do you think he actually knows anything about it?
Do you think he's read up on it, been briefed on it, canvassed the issue deeply, learned his history?
Of course not.
He doesn't even read Canadian matters that deeply.
It would be absurd for him to learn that subject inside out instead of, say, I don't know, learning about the lack of clean drinking water on Canadian Indian reserves, a broken promise five years old now.
But boy, he had his strong opinions.
So does Narendra Modi, though.
Trudeau has already insulted India so many times, including during his bizarre trip there where he dressed up every day like a different Bollywood dancer and made a fool out of himself.
Oh, and he just happened to bring along a convicted terrorist too.
Nice touch.
By the way, Trudeau managed the feat of simultaneously not knowing what he was talking about and also lying.
I would be remiss if I didn't start also by recognizing the news coming out of India about the protest by farmers.
The situation is concerning and we're all very worried about family and friends.
I know that's the reality for many of you.
Let me remind you, Canada will always be there to defend the right of peaceful protest.
We believe in the importance of dialogue and that's why we've reached out through multiple means directly to the Indian authorities to highlight our concerns.
You see, he in fact does not allow peaceful protests.
He does not stand up for protests.
His personal staff instructed the RCMP to kick out our reporter, Kian Bexti, from a press conference.
That's not even a peaceful protest.
That's just reporting.
Trudeau won't allow that.
So he was ignorant and lying.
Hey, maybe I can get Narendra Modi to name and shame Trudeau over that, the way Trudeau's poking Modi about the farmers.
Maybe Trudeau would care more about civil liberties here at home.
But yet I see that many Indian expats here in Canada are revved up about this farmer's issue.
They're obviously following the news back in their home country.
I get it.
Nostalgia maybe, maybe some family connections, maybe some lingering partisan thing, or perhaps just as likely they don't like Modi.
And so they want to embarrass him like Trudeau wants to embarrass him.
Look, if you live in Canada and you want to protest farming policy in India, I'm not going to complain too loudly.
I mean, compared to some of the other expat protests we see in Canada, farmer policy is about as peaceful as it gets.
I mean, remember this protest that David Menzies covered here in Toronto?
What would happen to a gay couple in Gaza?
Executed according to Islamic law.
Islam doesn't endorse gayism.
Islam doesn't endorse homosexuality.
Okay, so would you like to see Sharia law in Canada replace Canadian law?
At some point it will.
You know, because we have families, we are making babies, your population is going down the slump, right?
Right?
By 2016, Muslims will be the biggest religious group the world over.
What are you going to do then?
Actually, go above Sharia even then?
So if you haven't picked up my point yet, I don't really care about farming in India.
I generally support Narendra Modi, but it's none of my business.
I think the protests here may be in good faith or maybe political opponents of Modi's.
Again, I don't really care.
I am more worried about Canada's farmers, to be candid.
But Trudeau weighed in, the fool, jeopardizing our relationship again, that fool.
But my real concern is this.
Look, look at this.
Hundreds, maybe thousands of people protesting about Indian farmers and not a single ticket.
No ticket for illegal gatherings in the pandemic.
No lack of social distancing, no organizing, a get-together, no tickets at all.
I mean, you didn't really think that Justin Trudeau's RCMP under his handpick RCMP commissioner was going to ticket Trudeau's political allies or let's be candid, ticket any visible minorities or immigrants.
Did you?
I mean, that would look terrible on Prime Minister Blackface.
Trudeau literally took a knee with Black Lives Matter, a U.S. pressure group with no roots or ties to Canada.
Trudeau's RCMP take the knee too.
They don't give out tickets to Black Lives Matter protests.
They don't ticket hundreds of farmers protesting this weekend or non-farmers protesting farmers back in India, whatever.
But police were very busy this weekend handing out tickets to citizens who were sitting in their cars, windows rolled up, all alone, going to a church service where they literally parked in a parking lot and listened to the pastor on their radios.
So maybe the police were too busy ticketing them or in Calgary ticketing a small anti-lockdown protest there.
There's tickets for restaurant owners.
There's tickets for gym owners.
There's tickets for anyone the government doesn't like.
There are a lot of tickets for Christians at church.
Hey, you know what?
I think now that I think about it, I think I suppose those, I support those Indian farmers after all.
I take it all back.
Hey, you guys, when you have your next 500-car rally in support of Indian farmers, can you do us a favor and do it in a church parking lot?
I'm serious.
I'm sure they'd welcome you.
Because that's the only way I can think of to get Justin Trudeau and his political RCMP to stop ticketing the churches.
Stay with us for more.
Welcome back.
Well, we've spoken several times with our friend Alam Bokhari, the senior tech correspondent at Breitbart.com, about how the big tech companies ranging from the search engines like Google, YouTube's also a search engine, by the way, also owned by Google, and the rest of them, Twitter, Facebook, put their thumb on the scale and shifted potentially millions of votes away from Donald Trump towards Joe Biden.
Legal Challenges in Georgia00:12:48
But that's not the only tilting of the playing field that happened.
A new e-book written by Alam's colleague, our friend Joel Pollack, senior editor-at-large of Breitbart, makes the point.
The new book available out tomorrow is called Neither Free Nor Fair, the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election.
And joining us now to talk about what he means is our friend Joel Pollock.
Joel, great to see you.
Congratulations.
You move quickly.
I see on Amazon the book's 178-page e-book.
That's a lot of writing for just a few weeks.
Tell me the different sections of your book.
I see in your blurb, you say, even without voter fraud, which as of this writing remains unproven, the conditions of the election violated the free and fair standard.
Putting aside voter fraud, tell me how this election was not fair.
Well, first of all, voter fraud happens during the voting.
The voting is obviously the most important part of an election, but it is the last thing that happens aside from the counting.
Voting and counting.
Those are the last things that happen.
An election is actually much longer than that.
It's a process.
And we judge the quality of an election based on the entire process, not just the polls and the counting.
And if you look at the U.S. presidential election overall, there were several things that made it unfree and unfair.
The most important of these was the widespread adoption of vote by mail at the behest of Democrats and over the objections of Republicans right in the middle of the election.
So that made it unfair from the start.
But there were other factors as well.
One of them was political violence.
We had widespread political violence in this country, largely carried out by the left and covered up or excused by the media.
They say, well, only a small percentage of the Black Lives Matter protests were violent.
Well, that's hundreds of riots, and they took place in 48 out of 50 large U.S. cities.
So that had a definite impact, especially when you combine it with the cancel culture.
77% of Republicans reported they were afraid to share their political views.
And if they did, they feared losing their jobs.
They feared losing their security.
They feared losing their social media accounts.
So this is not an environment in which you can really conduct a free and fair election.
Then you've got the censorship.
And Alam talked about big tech intervening in the election through changing search algorithms and other kinds of interventions.
But we saw it right out in the open with the Hunter Biden laptop story when Twitter and Facebook suppressed that story and suspended the New York Post in Twitter's case from using its own account for more than two weeks.
Even people who shared the story, like Kaylee McEnney, the press secretary for the president of the United States, she was locked out of her account.
We've never seen anything like this in the history of American elections or really at any other time other than war.
You can think of maybe the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln imposing various kinds of censorship, martial law, that sort of thing, just to keep the country in line during a civil upheaval.
But we've never seen anything quite like this.
And you added a whole bunch of other factors.
The fact that the Commission on Presidential Debates, for example, was slanted against Trump.
One of the moderators conspired with one of Trump's most vociferous public opponents.
All of this, added together, made the election unfree and unfair.
Now, that doesn't mean we should throw out the results because most of these things that happened were also legal.
The abuses were legal.
There are some exceptions, the violent riots and so forth that was illegal, but you can argue that those were answered by their own backlash.
There's significant evidence that voters, particularly Hispanic voters, pushed back against the whole defund the police movement and the riots by voting against Democrats, as did other voters.
So in that sense, Democrats' failure to denounce the violence had a self-correcting feature in that voters turned out against Democrats.
But other aspects of this could not be corrected.
How do you correct the censorship?
How do you correct the extreme media bias?
How do you correct the Commission on Presidential Debates?
Do you try to have other debates?
I mean, this is a real problem, and we have a lot to do to fix our elections going forward.
Yeah, I mean, I remember we talked about this before, changing the rules of the game mid-game, and it explains so much about the pandemic mania.
I mean, there was a period of time when the pandemic was deeply unknown.
The risk was unknown, and anything was possible.
That was March, April, May.
But by the time November came around, and by the way, Black Lives Matter protests, every left-wing activist on the street sort of proved that even that side wasn't really taking the risk seriously.
But if that was used as the premise to say, okay, we get to mail in votes now, all of a sudden the pandemic mania starts to make a lot more sense, not just to politically throw controversy at the president to depress the economy, but to allow millions and millions of vote from home vote by mail.
I think you're right.
Let me ask you, do you think that these problems exist for the Georgia senatorial runoffs?
It couldn't be closer in the Senate, two seats up for grabs in Georgia.
If the Democrats take it, they have the House, the Senate, and the presidency.
They hint that they'll change everything, including the Supreme Court.
Do you think some of the problems you've just outlined are at play in this crucial, crucial Georgia Senate runoff?
Yes, they are.
There is evidence that tech companies, for example, are suppressing conservative news about the Georgia runoffs.
Georgia also has a flawed election system that was made flawed by Democrats who sued the Georgia state government and obtained these ridiculous settlements.
We call them consent decrees that imposed new rules on the voting.
They made it almost impossible to check absentee ballots against the signatures on file for those voters.
That's unconstitutional.
There are also many ways in which private actors are investing in Georgia to help Democratic counties turn out the vote.
That's unfair, probably illegal, and also unconstitutional.
All these things are still in place.
Plus, you have the conviction among many Republican voters that the election is rigged, and that's going to depress turnout.
I mean, whether you want to boycott the vote to send a message, which is a terrible idea, but some people have talked about it, or you want to vote to send a message that you don't stand for voter fraud.
This question of whether the election was fair or not really hangs over everything.
Now, people are focused on the Dominion voting machines and some of these other challenges, ballots in suitcases under tables.
I think that's a way of talking about a real problem with examples that might not actually pan out.
I think the real problem is that the election was unfree and unfair.
And the way people are expressing that is by focusing on specific examples that they believe to have been abused or cases of abuse.
But I think that the fact that Republicans are convinced the election was rigged in November is definitely a disadvantage heading into the January 5th runoffs.
The Democratic candidates in this election are really rather poor.
Neither has held political office before.
Neither is particularly good at anything.
John Ostoff is basically a perpetual candidate running and losing.
This guy, Raphael Warnock, is a reverend from a church.
He's well liked, I guess, in the faith community, but he's got radical political views that really don't belong in Washington.
These are very weak candidates, but they're going to be helped by the Democrats' turnout operation, by rules the Democrats have sued to make that give an advantage to the Democrats, and also by this demoralization among Republican voters that even with a red wave like we saw in November, they can't seem to win.
Yeah.
I know that Donald Trump just had a big rally and he said, hey, everybody, go out and vote.
This is the most important election in memory for the Senate, I think he said.
Is there a defeatism?
Are people saying, well, he's a lame duck president.
He's done.
He's lost.
Who cares?
We lost.
Let's just go home.
Is that the demoralization?
Or are people saying, no, let's fight one more time for our hero?
Like, what's the mood for Republicans?
It's a mix of both.
I think President Trump did a great job on Saturday in energizing the base and making it clear to them that he considers a vote for these Republican Senate candidates to be a vote for him as well.
And there's a lot of anger among Republicans at the Georgia state officials who ran the election, but they're not on this ballot.
This is a runoff election only for the Senate candidates.
So Trump is saying, send a message to the Georgia state officials you don't like by voting for these Republicans you do like in the Senate race.
So Trump is helping, but there is also a sense that no matter how much we do, we can't win.
And it's very, very frustrating for Republicans who are trying to turn off the vote.
Joel, I see today that Sidney Powell, the lawyer who worked for General Flynn and who has been making very audacious statements about Dominion voting machines and fraud, I see that two of her lawsuits have been rejected.
Are there other lawsuits by the Trump campaign that you think have a valid shot of winning?
I was, you know, Sidney Powell can tell a dramatic story that is very politically motivating, but it sounds like it didn't get through the legal hurdles.
Are there any more legal challenges out there that you think have a shot?
Yes, I actually have an appendix in this e-book, which lists all of the major legal challenges in the key battleground states.
And I do think there are a few challenges that have a chance once they get up to the higher levels in the federal courts.
And we have to look at some of the changes that were made in Pennsylvania, some of the changes that were made in Georgia, and some of the problems in Nevada.
Again, the common issue with, I think, the most likely legal challenges is that rules were added or changed without the consent of the state legislature, or if they were made by the state legislature, they were unconstitutional.
So in Pennsylvania, for example, there is a case involving Act 77, which is their vote-by-mail statute.
And the Republicans who sued said, hey, this law is unconstitutional according to our state constitution.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said, yeah, you're right about that, but you brought this lawsuit too late.
So they're going to appeal that to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is going to take another look at that interpretation of the Pennsylvania state constitution in light of legal principles and say, well, wait a minute, you can't really rule this out just because they filed it late, not in terms of some kind of filing deadline, but the argument is they didn't bring up the objection when the law was first applied.
So they can't bring it up now.
There's a doctrine called latches in law, and the Supreme Court might say, you know what, it doesn't really apply here.
So I think where there are legal and constitutional issues involved, that's where you see the Republicans and the Trump campaign with their best case.
Where you're looking at voting systems, that sort of thing, not so good.
Not so good.
Let me point out some of the legal cases filed by the Thomas Moore Society.
They have this project called Amistad, which has specifically taken up the issue of private actors, Mark Zuckerberg in particular, giving hundreds of millions of dollars to local governments in Democratic counties to improve voter participation, ostensibly nonpartisan, but because these contributions were overwhelmingly spent in Democratic counties, they violate, arguably, as of the 14th Amendment.
So we have, I think, a lot to see in those cases as to whether they go further.
That was the issue, by the way, that the Gore recount in Florida violated the Equal Protection Clause.
So those cases have some merit.
Time is running out, and we'll know soon enough.
Costa Rica Getaway00:02:55
Well, Joel, listen, I'm thrilled that you've got this book out so quickly.
Folks, it goes on sale tomorrow as an e-book.
You can get it at Amazon.
We'll have the link below this story.
Very exciting, very nerve-wracking.
I'm very nervous about Georgia.
And I'm not even an American.
My God, if the Democrats have all three levels, the White House, the Senate, and the House, I think our world is going to change up here in Canada, not just in the States.
Joel Pollack, congratulations.
The book is called Neither Free Nor Fair.
I can hardly wait to read it myself.
Thank you, Ezra.
Thanks for the opportunity.
All right, all the best.
There you have it.
Thank you.
Stay with us.
Hey, welcome back on my show on Friday about Brian Pallister.
Stewie writes, calling people that he's supposed to work for idiots doesn't make you popular.
What a surprise.
Yeah, I don't know if folks outside Manitoba know this, but Brian Pallister has a lovely getaway in Costa Rica, and he's always going down there.
In fact, there's a bit of a scandal because he covered up just how many, I think it was months, a year, he spends at his getaway.
And listen, I mean, I think when your primary job is taking care of, you know, million and a half people in Manitoba, you should probably be in Manitoba.
How about go to Costa Rica when you're retired?
But all of a sudden, his obsession with Costa Rica takes on a new light, given the fact that he's telling everyone, don't go outside, don't open your store, don't travel, don't gather.
Do you really think he's going to skip the love of his life, his Costa Rican getaway this Christmas?
I don't think so.
I just have a hunch.
Karen writes, naming and shaming just one of the moves before a communist takeover.
People say communist, and it brings up images of Soviets with their, you know, marching in their hats and their medals, or even Chinese communists.
But I think authoritarian or even totalitarian regimes were there already, tracking people on your smartphone app, writing down people's license plate numbers and giving them tickets, snitching on neighbors, snitch lines, bizarre rules about who you can and can't celebrate Christmas dinner with.
That really is what they did in communist Russia and what they do in communist China.
So it's the word communist sounds so shocking.
It's almost like the word Nazi.
It's so loaded historically, but communism is sort of what they're doing.
Maria writes, yeah, he's the man telling us to stay away from our families, yet you can be sure he will be with his own.
Not just that, but I wonder which country he'll be in, Canada or Costa Rica.
Bounty For Scandals00:00:47
You know, we're setting up a website.
Hopefully it'll be up soon, maybe tomorrow or the next day, called photobounty.ca.
And what I'm saying to people out there is if you capture these politicians in a photograph or hopefully in a video breaking their own rules, send it to us exclusively and we will pay you a bounty like your paparazzi.
In the past, we had to hire paparazzi to do that.
And when I mean we, I mean people in the media 20 years ago, smartphones are only about 10 years old.
But now everybody can be a paparazzi.
If you see a politician breaking their own rules, capture it on camera and send it to us and we will have a bounty that we pay you.
We'll have the website up shortly.
All right, folks, that's our show for today.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rubber World Headquarters, see you at home.