Ezra Levant exposes the CBC’s bias by ignoring Rebel News’ December 9, 2021 China files revelations—secret docs showing Canada trained Chinese soldiers at CFB Pettawawa while Trudeau’s government clashed internally over detentions of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig. The network buried the story, citing Globe and Mail instead of Rebel News’ full disclosure, and failed to challenge Foreign Minister François-Philippe Champagne’s $1M Bank of China mortgage amid claims his policies would never be scrutinized. Levant contrasts this with Rebel News’ independence, even after Conservative critic Andrew Shearer distanced himself. Biden’s victory speech, analyzed by Breitbart’s Joel Pollack, dismissed Trump’s legitimacy and 75M voters’ grievances while ignoring right-wing violence, signaling deepening polarization. The CBC’s selective reporting underscores systemic partisan loyalty over truth, mirroring broader media distrust in democratic accountability. [Automatically generated summary]
Hello my friends, I have proof, incontrovertible proof, that the CBC lies.
I'm not talking about having a left-wing opinion.
I'm not talking about an opinion.
They lie like a rug.
I know this will shock you, but I'll provide you with proof.
Hey, before I do, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
It's only $8 a month, but you get the video version of this podcast plus.
Exclusive access to Sheila Gunn Reed's TV style show and also David Menzies.
Plus, the knowledge that your $8 a month supports Rebel News.
We don't take a dime from Justin Trudeau like everyone else does.
This is how we live, my friends.
Go to rebelnews.com.com and click subscribe.
Okay, here's the podcast.
Tonight, I have incontrovertible proof that you just can't trust a word the CBC ever says.
It's December 16th, 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.
Documents And Doublespeak00:12:56
I understand bias.
We all have it.
That's fine.
You can be biased, but still be fair.
There are some reporters I have dealt with who are very left-wing, but they are so fair, I actually think it's a real pleasure to be interviewed by them because at worst, I'll get a good debate from them, but there's an intellectual honesty and no gotcha journalism.
It's been a while, but Charlie Smith at Vancouver's Georgia Strait is an example of that.
And even a few years back, my dealings with Edward Keenan of the Toronto Star.
Very biased, but very fair to me at least.
I can live with that.
I'm sort of used to being a conservative in a leftist world, the media being even more think-alike than most.
But what about when a media company is so biased, it literally refuses to even acknowledge reality.
It just will not even run a story at all, even to criticize it, because to acknowledge a story is to concede a partisan point.
We saw that recently in the United States when the shocking revelations about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, came to light.
He's under all sorts of investigations for his corrupt dealings with China and Russia and Ukraine.
He's under FBI investigation for tax evasion.
And he even had his entire computer hard drive made public emails, photos, videos, including videos and photos purporting to show him smoking crack cocaine with strippers and prostitutes.
I know it sounds crazy, but it really was his hard drive, and he really had those photos and videos on it, and they were published.
The New York Post, one of America's largest and oldest newspapers, published the news about Hunter Biden and his laptop, but then Twitter literally banned them from tweeting about it and banned anyone who retweeted the New York Post for days and days total ban.
Total election interference.
That's insane censorship.
But Twitter, they don't pretend to be journalists, right?
I don't know what they are.
They're not really a platform.
I think they're censors more than anything.
They don't actually generate content, but they censor things.
But look at this from something called National Public Radio, NPR.
We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories.
And we don't want to waste the listeners and readers' time on stories that are just pure distractions.
That is what they had to say about the Hunter Biden laptop.
They were explaining why they weren't even covering the stories to criticize them.
With that, they just said Hunter Biden wasn't news.
That was in October when it mattered.
Now it's November and then December, where we are now, halfway through December.
And now, after the election, we know that it was a huge story, that there are investigations.
And they don't just touch on Joe Biden's son, but on Joe Biden's brother.
And obviously, the only reason his ne'er-do-well brother and his near-do-well son are receiving lavish payments from foreigners is not because they have any skills, but of course because they are related to Joe Biden himself.
They're selling their family relationship to him.
So, of course, Joe Biden is newsworthy, and these scandals obviously are about Joe Biden, at least at one degree of separation, but National Public Radio said it was too boring.
It's a distraction from, you know, more important things.
Do you see what I mean?
You can cover the Hunter Biden story with bias.
You're on Biden's side, but you still cover it.
But if you are so extreme that you don't even cover it, well, you're not a journalist anymore, are you?
You're a what?
I don't know, propagandist, a liar, a partisan, a censor, a political campaigner.
I don't know, but you're not a reporter.
And let me now bring you to the CBC.
They're reporters, sort of.
They're government reporters.
You have to have that adjective, that qualifier, that modifier.
They're government reporters, which is a very different thing.
In the story of the year in Canada, the we broke here at Rebel News about the China files.
The CBC are not reporters.
They're not even government reporters.
They haven't reported on them at all.
They haven't shown them.
They haven't reported them with bias.
They just pretend the documents don't exist.
We broke that news story seven days ago, last Wednesday at 2.15 p.m. to be precise.
We put all the documents up on our website in full for the world to look at.
We gave them to everyone.
Later that day, the Globe and Mail reported on them.
And then later, the National Post.
And then the next day, the Toronto Sun reported on them.
And the Sun moved the story forward, proving that Canada, in fact, did train Chinese soldiers at CFB Pettawawa in 2018.
And within days, huge American and foreign media covered it too.
I went on Fox News' largest show, Tucker Carlson.
That was pretty fun.
But nothing, nothing from the CBC on Wednesday, on Thursday, on Friday.
This was the biggest story of the year until the weekend when literally there was a one-sentence vague mention of it on the CBC website, not even a TV or radio story.
I mentioned in passing and not showing the documents.
One sentence.
Nothing on TV or radio news.
The biggest scoop of the year.
Don't take it from me.
It just absolutely was the biggest story of the year.
It involved China, involved the Canadian Armed Forces, involved Trudeau and internal battles and training Chinese troops at Canadian bases and our allies objecting to that and secret documents that were released by accident and the two kidnapped Canadians, Michael Spaber and Michael Covery.
There was literally nothing about this story that was not newsworthy.
The CBC didn't try to spin it.
They just hid it.
They just put a cone of silence over it.
Until yesterday, six days after our scoop, the CBC sat down with one of the CBC's masters, a Trudeau cabinet minister named François-Philippe Chambagne, the foreign minister who thought it was appropriate to have a $1 million mortgage from the Bank of China, a state bank in the communist China, even after he was elected as an MP, even after he was appointed to cabinet, even after he was appointed to foreign minister.
He's talking about China in the cabinet room while owing the Chinese Communist Party and their bank more than a million dollars.
You can't make that up.
So watch this clip.
Watch this clip.
Take a look.
The reason I ask for a framework is, and you're well aware of this, the opposition charges that your policy towards China is incoherent.
There was recently an article in the Globe and Mail which seemed to underscore that argument, right?
It showed that the military had a certain posture when it came to joint exercises with the Chinese military in this country and that there was a lot of pushback from your department about that.
They didn't want disengagement when it came to China.
And this was a few months after Michael Covering and Michael Spaver were detained.
They didn't want to reduce the bilateral interactions or relationships in any capacity.
How are Canadians supposed to swear that one arm of the Canadian government says we shouldn't be increasing our engagement or maintaining our engagement with China while your arm, another arm says don't do anything to anger China.
Are you more worried about China's reactions than you are about Canadians?
How do you think that's a good question?
But let's put that in the context of time.
Now we're referring things to which they'd backs at least at best two years ago, or two years ago.
Yeah, to the beginning of 2019.
And the point is that what I kept saying at the beginning, and I think people who are watching understand China of 2020, not China of 2018, not China of 2016.
And even some of colleagues in Europe would say that the framework they've put at the beginning of this year is not any more accurate because things are evolving so quickly when it comes to China.
So my point to that, you know, what you were referring to was discussion between officials, which they'd back years.
Clearly the posture of Canada has changed since then.
But Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor had already been detained.
And that was at the time.
And like I said, our view and our posture has been changing because now you're talking almost...
So you wouldn't have pushed back today like there was pushback then?
Not you, I know it was somebody else.
No, no, but I would say we would never consider that today to do what was done.
But my point is that we always have to put that in time because you could refer back that the previous government has signed also a joint exercise agreement or some framework.
You would never do that today.
I think people understand that.
Now it doesn't bother me that Vasi Kapilos of the CBC mentions the Globe and Mail instead of us because it's true the Globe and Mail did do the story.
It's bizarre to me how she describes the document.
She never mentions secret documents, never shows the documents, just mentions the Globe and Mail.
So if you didn't read the Globe Mail, you probably don't even know what she's talking about, really.
She lets her boss, that liberal cabinet minister, get away with pretending this was done years ago.
No, it wasn't.
It was 2019.
It was last year.
It was just last year that this pro-China Trudeau government was screaming at the Army for daring to want to cancel a cold weather warfare exercise.
It wasn't ancient history.
It was 2019.
It was last year.
After China took our two hostages.
That's what made it extra outrageous.
This little weasel was trying to say, oh, China is very different now.
No, it's not.
And the CBC's obedient employee did not push back.
But look at the tweet that included that video.
Look at this.
I just want to show you what they wrote, not the video.
They wrote, François-Philippe Champagne says Canada would never today consider joint military exercises like the exercises that were reportedly planned and subsequently canceled in 2019 between the Canadian Armed Forces and China's People's Liberation Army.
Story first reported by Globe and Mail.
So in the video clip, Vasi Kaplow says the story was in the Globe and Mail, which is true.
It obscures the full truth, but the story was reported in the Globe.
didn't describe the story or show the documents, but it was in the Globe.
That's fine.
I don't really care.
But look at the written version.
Story first reported by the Globe and Mail.
But that's just not true, is it?
Who wrote that?
And why would they write that?
Look at all the replies to that tweet.
Scroll down.
Keep scrolling.
Keep scrolling.
Everyone calling her out as a liar again and again and keep scrolling.
Keep going down slowly.
The CBC just being butchered by the millions of people who know.
It came from us.
Even other media, including in the United States, mentioned it too.
This is a lie.
Story was broke by rebel media and Ezra Levant.
Huge, huge.
I mean, five million people, or however many watched Tucker Carlson on Fox, saw where the documents came from.
I really don't think anyone in Canada actually watches CBC politics.
If you look at the CBC's latest viewership statistics, they're plunging.
It's really as close to zero as it gets.
I think there's just like 3% of Canadians even watch it.
It's, I don't know.
Maybe there's a relationship there.
Maybe the fact that so few people watch the CBC is related to the fact that so few people trust the CBC.
We're biased here at Rebel News.
We're conservative, just heads up in case you didn't know.
But you've never seen us kill a story to support a Tory.
In fact, the Conservative Party, the fact that we can't be controlled by them, I think they hate that about us as much as Trudeau hates that about us.
Same reason.
Ask that loser, Andrew Shearer, who stopped talking to us after we criticized him.
We're independent, which is why I think people trust us, even when they disagree with us, even when they're liberal.
They know we have an opinion, but we are fair.
And we break stories and we talk about the news even when we don't like the news.
Not the CBC.
They simply don't talk about stories, huge stories, stories of the year, when those stories embarrass their liberal boss, Justin Trudeau and his crooked, crooked cronies.
And when they do finally mention it in a tweet seven days later, they lie like a rug.
The CBC hates you.
I think the CBC hates a lot of Canadians.
But judging by their ratings, I think the feeling is mutual.
Bipartisan Concerns Ignored00:15:23
Stay with us for more.
On this battle for the soul of America, democracy prevailed.
We, the people, voted.
Faith in our institutions held.
In America, politicians don't take power.
People grant power to them.
The flame of democracy was lit in this nation a long time ago.
And we now know nothing, not even a pandemic or an abuse of power, can extinguish that flame.
The court sent a clear signal to President Trump.
Well, that is a clip of Joe Biden in the wake of the Electoral College vote that gives him formally the title of president-elect.
It looks like Donald Trump's last-ditch legal efforts have failed.
There still is an obscure path to victory for Trump, but I think we have to acknowledge that it is most unlikely.
However, in his moment of victory, Joe Biden was bitter, negative, continuing the attack instead of uniting America, poking at those who didn't support him.
It was an incredible speech punctuated by bursts of coughing.
Here's a quick glimpse of that.
And once again, the American America, the rule of law.
More Americans voted this year than have ever voted in the history of the United States.
Votes counted than a pence received when they won in 2016.
Excuse me.
Or dispute the results.
Margin four years ago.
And yet, I thank them.
And I'm convinced we can work together for the good of the nation on many subjects.
That's the duty owed to the people, to our Constitution, to our history.
Well, what do you make of this speech?
And will Joe Biden even make it to inauguration?
Joining us now, via Skype from the Los Angeles area is our friend Joel Pollack, Sr. Editor-at-Large of Breitbart.com and the author of the new e-book, Neither Fair Nor Free.
Is that the title of your new e-book, Joel?
Neither free nor fair, the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
And yes, it's about how our election was distorted by the Democrats, by the media, by various other institutions to make it very difficult for Donald Trump to win.
If you zoom out from the question of voter fraud, which people are still very concerned about, and you look at the election as a whole, this was not an election conducted by what would be standard democratic standards or standard international practice.
This was skewed against the president, and it's actually as remarkable that he did as well as he did.
Yeah.
As you point out, this unfairness and this unfreeness was not done in the main illegally.
That's the crazy thing is it was approved by courts, usually litigated, not legislated.
So the big steal didn't happen with, you know, extra ballots being sneaked in in the dead of night.
It happened months earlier with the vote harvesting.
But let's talk about, we had a great interview with you about your book before.
I'm sorry, just last moment I thought, oh my God, this is your expertise.
This is your turf.
But last night, Biden gave a speech and, you know, do a victory lap or the opposite.
Be magnanimous.
I mean, you finally won.
I think it's fair.
I mean, 99.9% chance.
Let me put it this way.
A lot of those British betting houses that let people bet on political outcomes, they refused to pay out until yesterday, where I think one of the big ones paid out over a billion euros.
So that's how certain they are.
Let me put it that way.
Instead of saying, all right, I won.
I got everything I ever wanted.
Let me actually be magnanimous for an hour.
Biden couldn't do it, could he?
No, and I think he ought to reach out to Trump and his supporters.
He actually has the unique opportunity and ability to do so because he's now the president-elect.
So he has what he wanted, and he can bring the country together if he reaches out, if he talks about the things that Trump contributed to the country, if he thanks Trump for Operation Warp Speed.
Biden's pretending this vaccination plan is now his own.
You know, he's out there promising to vaccinate 100 million people by March.
Well, that's what Trump's already doing.
So if he acknowledged that Trump had a positive effect on the country, even if his own supporters don't believe it, even if Biden's supporters would be upset, if he said to Trump and his supporters, thanks for your service.
Thanks for what you did, let's move ahead together, I think that would be incredible, actually.
And he has the opportunity to do it.
President Trump reached out when he won.
In his victory speech, he reached out to those who didn't vote for him and so forth, and was simply met by conspiracy theories and resistance and hostility.
I think when you are the winner of the election, it's in your best interest to be magnanimous.
But instead, Biden continued arguing the case that he had already won.
Biden continued arguing why these challenges by the Trump campaign had fallen short.
And he seemed irritated that they had even been brought.
Rather than saying the other side had its rights, the other side had its day in court, the other side challenged these results, and we respect their right to do so.
No, he basically expressed irritation.
This is a guy who couldn't admit that Trump was a legitimate president.
I mean, as recently as last May, he was agreeing with Democratic voters who said that Trump was illegitimate and was placed in office by Russia.
So Biden and the Democrats refused to accept Trump's election as legitimate for years.
And yet Biden is somehow annoyed that Trump is going through the legal system and exhausting every option he has.
I mean, that's what Democrats would do in the same position.
So the idea that what Trump is doing is somehow illegitimate.
The other thing Biden did was he condemned intimidation and threats and so forth against poll workers, election workers, election officials.
He was right to do so, but he didn't condemn the physical attacks on Trump supporters that have happened since the election.
He didn't condemn the intimidation against Trump's lawyers.
With Biden, condemnation of violence is almost always entirely in one direction.
And he pretends that the violence is a right-wing problem.
It is overwhelmingly 99% a left-wing problem in this country.
And by ignoring that, he's effectively condoning it.
He's not going to stop the left from doing violent things.
He's not going to stop the left from intimidating lawyers and destroying that aspect of our judicial system that everyone has the right to representation, that everyone has a right to a defense or just to make their case in court.
And I think Biden burned bridges with that speech.
He could have reached out and instead he is proving himself to be the servant of a party that is bent on vengeance, not on reconciliation.
The only Republicans Biden is interested in talking to are those who don't like Trump.
That's not who you have to negotiate with.
The people you have to reconcile with are the 75 million people who supported Donald Trump and Donald Trump himself.
And Biden's never really reached out personally.
He continues to treat Trump like some kind of usurper, like some kind of dilettante interloper who never got elected properly in the first place.
That's not going to fly.
And if Biden does that, the country is going to remain divided for years into the future.
This is an opportunity for him to lead by telling Trump that his service is appreciated, by giving Trump, in a sense, a dignified exit, and also by telling Democrats, stop pursuing Trump with these fruitless investigations.
They're promising investigations ad infinitum of Trump and his family.
For what?
We don't know.
They're just going to find something.
They're going to just investigate.
That's corrosive to our democracy.
They talk about a peaceful transfer of power, but when you're threatening the other party with continued investigations forever for no reason, that's not a peaceful transfer of power.
So Biden has an opportunity and really a responsibility, I would argue, to lead, but he's not doing it.
He's choosing the route of division.
And I think that's going to have some very serious consequences.
You know, Joel, I didn't plan to bring this up, but when you mentioned they're threatening to investigate him and his family ad infinitum, the rationale to come later.
They just know what they want to do.
I mean, the irony being, of course, that Hunter Biden really was under investigation for some very serious accusations.
And the media and the Democrats silenced that.
But, you know, this is off topic a little bit.
And I didn't plan to bring it up.
But not one hour ago, Joel, I received a courier package here at our Rebel News headquarters in Toronto, Canada from a Democrat deputy attorney general threatening to investigate us for a particular story and activity we did in the United States.
Us here in Canada.
I'll do a, I won't get into it now, but I was shocked and I mean, I'm laughing at it.
I mean, come and get me up here in Canada.
But if that's how scorched earth these Democrats are going to be, like, who am I?
I'm a nobody.
I'm up here in Canada.
I'm not even an American.
We just do, you know, have a website.
If I'm getting threat letters from Democrats myself, I can only imagine what it's like to people actually in the Trump campaign and actually in the Republican Party.
I mean, forgive me for bringing up the story.
It's not really relevant other than it's an anecdotal example of how bitter and vengeful the Democrats are as opposed to magnanimous and healing.
As you say in your Breitbart article, he didn't build bridges, he burned them.
Yeah, I'd be really interested in the story you published and what they're threatening to do.
I mean, that sounds like it's quite newsworthy.
But that's what Democrats are aiming to do.
They are claiming that questions about voter fraud are foreign disinformation.
Now, they spent years on Russia collusion hoaxes and talking about voting machines and so forth.
I mean, you can go back and find old video of Joe Biden attacking voting machines, saying that they're subject to interference and hacking and all sorts of things like that.
So this has been a bipartisan concern.
Neither party's done anything about it.
But the idea that you could even raise questions and be accused of essentially acting for foreign interests is so corrosive.
Ron Johnson, the senator in charge of the Homeland Security Committee, exploded at his Democratic counterpart, Gary Peters of Michigan, earlier on Wednesday, saying that you guys lied in public, saying that all of these Hunter Biden stories were Russian disinformation, and now they turn out to be true.
So the Democrats are in a mood to dismiss anything that is accurate or even just legitimate questions about things that they do, about their political figures.
They're prepared to dismiss it as foreign disinformation and to imply that you're committing a crime by reporting it or even bringing it up.
You can get censored on social media, kicked off of YouTube, and so forth.
And that's the climate right now in the United States.
I mean, you and I talked about it before the election, and here it is.
And we'll see how far it goes.
But certainly Joe Biden has done nothing to stop it.
And in fact, as Jonathan Turley, a liberal constitutional law professor at George Washington University, he's not a Republican, but he shares many classical liberal views on freedom of speech.
He's pointed out that the Biden campaign has insisted for months on restricting freedom of speech on censorship on social media platforms, and that some of the advisors he's appointed to his transition team are some of the most vigorous advocates of censorship in public life in America.
They think that if stories are inaccurate or even just inconvenient, they should be drummed out of the public square.
The answer to them isn't more speech.
The answer to them is less speech, and they want to decide who gets to speak.
This is who Joe Biden is bringing into the American administration.
So after all of the ridiculous fantasization of Trump as a kind of would-be Hitler, we now have Democrats openly promising to restrict freedom of speech in America and saying that the censorship that's been handed down already by the social media companies hasn't gone far enough.
So you're getting a taste of that with the Attorney General or deputy, whoever it was, sending you that kind of threat for a media story.
I mean, the right response to a media story that doesn't meet the definition of libel is simply to put out your version of the story.
And, you know, you're seeing some of that with the debate over voter fraud in America.
You know, there was a story from Michigan about a voting machine turning out a 68% error rate.
And they had an expert in front of that same Senate Homeland Security Committee who said, that's not really accurate.
The 68% figure represents a message that's generated, but it's not an error.
So, you know, you put out the correct information.
Of course, the lie goes halfway around the world, and it's harder to catch up with it.
But as long as the information gets out there, things that are inaccurate tend to fall away, or at least they discredit the people who repeat them after a certain period of time, when there's sufficient time to inform yourself about what the actual facts are.
But Democrats don't even want to let that process happen.
And that process is necessary if people are going to believe each other.
But Democrats just want to use the heavy hand of government and the immense power of Silicon Valley to control public discourse.
Yeah.
If you've got 75 million plus Americans who voted for Trump, they're in different degrees of passion and ideological partisanship.
I mean, many of those people are just severely normal people who think about politics once every four years.
Those, let's say, moderate Trumpists or centrists or independents would be the people most receptive to a message of reconciliation because they would say, oh, okay, so we lost the battle, but we are all still one family and we all still abide by the rules and we're coming together again.
Like, you'll never convince the hardest line partisans on either side.
But I think there's a feeling, and look, I'm in Canada, I'm not in the States, but there's a feeling that amongst many Republicans that they didn't just lose the election, it was taken from them in unfair ways.
That's what your book describes.
So a generous word can take the sting out of a feeling that you've been hard done by.
Losing a game fair and square, most people are fine with that.
That's sports.
You lose the battle.
Maybe you're even disappointed in yourself more than anything.
You're impressed by the winner.
But when you feel it was stolen from you, you have a deep dissatisfaction.
A kind word of encouragement and soothing, I know those are alien words in politics, would probably take the sting out for half of those 75 million, yet not one of them will get that.
And as you warn us, harsher things to come.
Last word to you, Joel.
Trump's 75 Million Base00:03:13
You know, I think both sides can be better.
I mean, I don't think Trump has necessarily helped himself with some of the things he said.
And I've often thought back, I don't know what you think about this in Canada, but I've often thought back to Prime Minister Harper's closing speech when he lost to Justin Trudeau, where he said, the people are never wrong.
And it struck me as kind of an interesting statement because sometimes people are wrong.
You know, I mean, half the people don't think the other people, the other half got it right.
But it struck me as one of the most profound sentiments about good sportsmanship in an election, that you're just going to accept the result.
I think the difficulty that Trump may have with saying that in this election is that it's not entirely clear what the result is.
It's not entirely clear that this result was arrived at honestly.
But I do think that Trump could help himself by saying something like that, that he accepts the judgment of the people and the people really have ratified his policies in many ways.
I mean, they've given Republicans more seats in House and so forth.
So I think Trump could be doing more as well.
But I agree that it really would be helpful if Biden would appeal to the other side and not just by appealing to the Republicans that are sort of media approved, but to the ones who actually enjoy some legitimacy among Trump's 75 million vote strong base.
Yeah.
Well, listen, great to talk with you.
Again, we're speaking with Joel Pollock Sr., editor-at-large of Breitbart.com.
His e-book, which is available right now and we'll put an Amazon link below this video, is Neither Free Nor Fair, the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election.
Great to see you, Joel.
Take care, my friend.
Thank you.
All right, stay with us.
Welcome back on my show last night.
Paul writes, people may be figuring out that they don't intend to ever end this farce.
Yeah, you know what?
I'm seeing stories about, well, even if you take the vaccine once, you have to take it again.
Oh, and even still, you have to wear a face mask.
What happened to two weeks of Latin the Curve?
Andrea writes, the politicians making the rules are total hypocrites.
They constantly treat us like children to make us toe the line.
I don't think they believe what they're telling us, little people, because if it was as dangerous as they say it is, they wouldn't even want to break the rules.
Oh, exactly.
It's like when Al Gore is on his private jet or a private yacht talking about global warming.
You sort of see they don't mean it.
They're not acting like they're terrified.
Julie writes, I just purchased the book on Amazon.
I can't wait to read it.
Ah, you know, I'm so excited that you're buying Rahil's new book called The ABCs of Islamism.
I'm so proud that she chose to be published with us.
In a way, maybe other publishers would push her out because she's a critic of Islamism.
But in a way, I think Rahil could have gone to a lot of places.
She's so prestigious.
She's so thoughtful.
She's got such an excellent voice.
What an honor for us to have her publish that book with us.
I'm just so proud.
And I really want that book to go to number one.
If you want to go to the abcsofislamism.com, you can find it there or just go to amazon.ca.