Ezra Levant critiques Canada’s vaccine push, citing Gallup (Jan 2021) showing 51% of healthcare workers and 34% of Tier 1A frontliners refusing COVID-19 vaccines despite their 90% efficacy, FDA approval, and free distribution. Reports from Reuters, WSJ detail blood clots in Denmark/Norway, 23 nursing home deaths post-vaccine in Norway, and 17% of severe Israeli cases among vaccinated individuals, yet mainstream media like CBC ignores these risks. Levant links vaccine skepticism to broader UK/Scotland/Wales curfew debates and SNP’s divisive hate speech laws, framing them as part of a global anti-liberty trend—while grassroots free-speech movements offer resistance. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, why are so many frontline healthcare workers refusing to take the vaccines?
It's March 12th and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government publisher is because it's my bloody right to do so.
I'm not sure if you know this, but Rebel News is putting together an advisory board.
Our longtime friend Rahil Razza is the chair of it.
Barbara Santa Maria, one of our most loyal supporters, is on it too.
And the latest member is Larry Solomon, a columnist and philanthropist.
Here's how we describe our board on our website.
The Rebel News Advisory Board supports the editorial and the strategic decision-making of the Rebel News team.
Board members come from a variety of backgrounds and provide guidance and constructive criticism to Rebel News management and staff.
The advisory board meets formally four times a year and gives informal advice to Rebel News on a continuous basis.
So I'm glad to have these great allies and we're going to add a few more.
Anyways, I want to show you what Larry published in the Epoch Times.
I think it's not only well written, but it has real news in it, some of which I knew from before, but some of which I didn't.
So I'm going to take you through it.
I did a bit of this on my noontime live stream earlier today, but I'd like to go through it a bit deeper now.
By the way, you can read the Epoch Times online for free.
You just have to register with your email.
I'd also encourage you to become a paying subscriber to their print edition, which I am.
It's the only print newspaper I take, actually.
It's a weekly newspaper in Canada and it is so well done.
It's a great newspaper.
We love the Epoch Times.
You'll remember we did a show about it as recently as last night and we've defended them because they are being deplatformed just the same way we are.
So we stand up for them.
Anyways, I read Larry's column in the Epoch Times and it's great and even better, it's full of links to his underlying sources of facts, which is more than you get in most media, am I right?
Vaccine Skepticism Amid Pandemic00:15:11
Can I take you through his column?
I have some pride in it because Larry is our advisor, but obviously the work is all his.
So here's the article on the website.
The biggest COVID-19 vaccine skeptics?
Frontline healthcare workers.
What do frontline healthcare workers and first responders know about COVID-19 vaccines that politicians and their public health advisors don't?
Huh?
Let me take you through it a bit.
According to a January analysis by Gallup, 51% of healthcare workers and first responders polled in December were unconvinced of the merits of getting vaccinated, even if the vaccine was free, available, FDA approved, and 90% effective, unquote.
Gallup found these results especially concerning since those at highest risk of exposure to COVID-19, the professionals required to meet America's health, safety, and critical economic needs, whom the National Academies of Engineering, Science, and Medicine define as Tier 1A workers, were the likeliest to refuse vaccination, 34%.
And like I say, Larry links to the proof.
So if you click on that link, you get the Gallup website itself.
Here's their story.
Frontline workers no keener than others to get vaccine.
Isn't that interesting?
I should have thought it was.
In some places, the number of frontline workers who won't get the jab is 50%.
The frontline workers proved to be as defiant as Gallup's survey of their intentions anticipated.
I'm just reading here.
In California, over half of Tehama County's hospital workers at St. Elizabeth Community Hospital, an estimated 50% of frontline workers in Riverside County and 20% to 40% in LA County refused the vaccine, according to a report in the L.A. Times.
And again, Larry's got the links.
Here's the link that you click for the story in the LA Times.
Some healthcare workers refuse to take COVID-19 vaccine, even with priority access.
Let me read a little bit from the underlying story.
They are frontline workers with top priority access to the COVID-19 vaccine, but they are refusing to take it.
At St. Elizabeth Community Hospital in Tahama County, fewer than half of the 700 hospital workers eligible for the vaccine were willing to take the shot when it was first offered.
At Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills, one in five frontline nurses and doctors have declined the shot.
Roughly 20% to 40% of LA County's frontline workers who were offered the vaccine did the same, according to county public health officials.
So many frontline workers in Riverside County have refused the vaccine, an estimated 50% that hospital and public officials have met to strategize how best to distribute the unused doses, Public Health Director Kim Sauruatari said.
So what does it say about a pandemic when you can't even give away the vaccine?
Even to people who are the most educated about healthcare, I think, and who would theoretically be at the highest risk of getting infected, I think.
It suggests to me that they simply don't believe the hype.
And they're as close to health experts as anyone is.
And in fact, if you're a nurse or a doctor who actually deals with actual COVID cases every day, you probably know more about the reality of the virus than some bureaucrat or politician, which is what a public health officer like Teresa Tam is.
Larry gives a bunch more examples.
It's very widespread.
Here's one.
In Georgia, according to an estimate in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, only 30% of healthcare workers have been inoculated.
In Ohio, Governor Mike DeWine reported that 60% of nursing home workers refused the vaccine.
In Texas, the Texas Tripping reported in February that home health and assisted living agencies may not be able to service their clients because so many caregivers are refusing to be vaccinated.
A CDC survey of skilled nursing facilities published in early February found that fewer than 40% of the staff took at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.
Those are all linked, those sources.
Here's one, just for proof.
This is a newspaper in Columbus.
DeWine says 60% of nursing home workers not electing to get vaccine.
Now you could say, that's a scandal.
Force them, right?
I mean, those nursing homes, those seniors' homes, they're the most dangerous places.
And I think they are for people who are over 80, who have two, three, four underlying serious medical conditions.
Yeah, I think that's what the stats show.
But what about for young, healthy staff?
It's not dangerous at all, really.
And if you say that nursing staff should get the jab to protect their patients, I hear you.
That seems to make common sense to me.
But public health experts don't actually agree with that because they say you can still carry the virus even if you yourself are inoculated against it.
So what's the point of getting the jab if you're still carrying it and putting, like I just don't understand the logic?
Larry gives more examples from around the world.
I won't read through it all, but let me show you this news that's as fresh as yesterday.
Headline, Denmark, Norway, Iceland temporarily suspend use of AstraZeneca vaccine.
So this is a Reuters story published in Canada by Global News and others.
Health authorities in Denmark, Norway, and Iceland on Thursday suspended the use of AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine following reports of the formation of blood clots in some people who had been vaccinated.
Austria earlier stopped using a batch of AstraZeneca shots while investigating a death from coagulation disorders and an illness from a pulmonary embolism.
Still, the European Medicine Regulator, EMA, said the vaccine's benefits outweighed its risks and could continue to be administered.
Really?
If you're 25 years old and healthy, what's the risk to you from the actual virus?
It is close to zero.
But what's the risk of blood clots and pulmonary embolisms and all those things from the vaccine?
A vaccine rushed to market that hasn't been tested in the normal way, hasn't been tested yet on many groups, from young children to pregnant moms.
If you're a pregnant woman who was working as a nurse, would you really take the vaccine?
Let me quote some more.
The problem with spontaneous reports of suspected adverse reactions to a vaccine are the enormous difficulty of distinguishing a causal effect from a coincidence.
Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, told Reuters.
Yeah, that is a problem.
Is it just a coincidence or was it caused by the vaccine?
That's a great question to ask.
You know, when the rooster crows in the morning, did that cause the sun to rise?
Or is it just a coincidence?
Or was the cause the other way?
Well, we won't know if these blood clots and embolisms are caused by the vaccine or just a coincidence.
We won't know for months or years, will we?
This is normally when a vaccine is still being tested, isn't it?
Normally, people who get the jab this early, they sign a waiver and a release and are paid money from the drug companies to be human guinea pigs, aren't they?
We're all being the lab rats here.
Here's Larry's view.
For healthcare workers around the world, their dilemma is who to believe?
The government employers and the pharmaceutical companies who insist the vaccine's benefits far outweigh the risks or their own eyes.
Many frontline workers see firsthand those who fall sick or die after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine and in the absence of independent analyses, judge for themselves whether the vaccine is implicated.
They noted 23 nursing home deaths in Norway and hundreds of hospitalizations in Israel following vaccination.
Israel was held up as a great example of vaccine deployment.
I mean, you've all heard that, right?
Israel's number one in terms of getting the vaccine out there.
But did you hear this part of the Israel story?
It's from a link in Larry's Epoch Times article.
4,500 people diagnosed with COVID after getting first vaccine dose.
Health Ministry official warns one vaccine dose is not enough to prevent COVID-19 infection as morbidity continues to rise.
Hang on, morbidity, that's a fancy way of getting, I mean, getting sick.
So it's rising?
I thought they already vaccinated all the seniors, all the middle-aged people, but the morbidity rates are rising?
How did that happen?
I'll read some more from the story.
Dr. L. Ry Price noted that 17% of the severely ill patients who are currently hospitalized are patients who received a first dose of the vaccine before their hospitalization.
What?
So more than a sixth of all the people in the hospital are from the vaccine?
That is not a small number.
Here's the news from Europe where they're using the AstraZeneca vaccine that Trudeau likes so much.
Frontline workers also suffer from vaccinations themselves, as Reuters reported in February in an article entitled, AstraZeneca Vaccine Faces Resistance in Europe after Health Workers Suffer Side Effects.
The adverse effects hitting healthcare workers have unexpectedly left large numbers unable to work, forcing hospitals to scramble to maintain services.
In France, the safety agency advised hospitals to stagger the inoculation of team members to avoid disabling team functions.
Do you understand that?
So the vaccine, when every hospital nurse and other staffer takes it, it wipes out so many of the staff that it disrupts hospitals when all the nurses take it at the same time.
Wall Street Journal reports that to avoid getting vaccinated, half of the health professionals scheduled in the German state of Saarland failed to show up for their appointment.
That's Larry's quote.
Here's the primary source.
Here's the Wall Street Journal story that Larry links to.
You can read it for yourself.
These doctors want to pick their COVID-19 vaccine, fearing reactions lower efficacy.
EU leaders pressured AstraZeneca to deliver more doses of its vaccine, but now find some people balk at the shot.
Let me quote a little bit.
This is Wall Street Journal, one of the premier newspapers in the world.
Healthcare health worker unions in Europe say thousands of their members refused to take one of the three COVID-19 vaccines available in the region because of concerns over efficacy and reports of side effects, the latest setback for the continent's slow vaccine rollout.
Organizations representing health professionals across Europe said this week that doctors and nurses shouldn't be forced to take the vaccine developed by AstraZeneca because it was shown to offer less robust protection against COVID-19 than the other two currently authorized in the European Union.
They also expressed concern over reports that the AstraZeneca vaccine appeared to cause stronger reactions in recipients.
Hospitals said hundreds of health professionals scheduled to get the vaccines hadn't shown up for their appointments in recent days, while many who had got the shot were calling in sick after reporting painful headaches, fever, and other symptoms.
Hey, are you hearing about any of this on the CBC or the mainstream media?
Thing is, every source that Larry has here, everything I've just read to you, is from the mainstream media itself.
Wall Street Journal, huge, reputable, Reuters, other news agencies.
Reuters is one of the largest news agencies in the world, one of the oldest.
These are not partisan or right-wing or dissident news sources here.
Not kooky reporters.
This is real news.
So why are we hearing about it in the Canadian mainstream media?
Why isn't the CBC talking about this?
Well, actually, the scariest part of Larry's column isn't the health stats.
It's the propaganda plan.
Look at this.
All urge media and social media to be more vigilant in policing negative vaccination news.
In offering pointers on how to debunk critics, the Columbia Journalism Review on March 5th told media companies that the first rule of reporting on mis and disinformation is don't talk about the mis or disinformation and suggested they consider the practice of pre-bunking, that is actively debunking or anticipating public questions and concerns rather than only reacting once false narratives have been popularized.
Although studies show that such assurances and public education campaigns, also known as propaganda, can reduce vaccine hesitancy, Gallup finds their effect is marginal.
Quote, the limited COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates among all occupation groups show little movement since November 2020.
So Larry's quoting from the Columbia Journalism Review, which is considered the leading journalism authority for American mainstream media.
It's from Columbia University in New York.
Here's that story.
They have a list of points, 10 points, not about how to report the news on the vaccines, how to get the facts, how to go get the news, the who, what, why, where, when, you know, but about how to spin, how to spread the ideology, despite the facts, in the face of the facts, it's really incredible.
These are 10 tips for how to spin the public, not 10 tips for how to report the news.
I'll just read a few of them that I just picked out.
It's critical to address the unfounded public concern that the speedy development of COVID vaccines means they're not safe.
So you've just assumed they're safe and you've assumed that there's no well-founded public concern.
You've just assumed that.
Varying vaccine effectiveness data is causing mistrust.
If that's true, how is that unfair?
How is that a problem?
Why must you debunk that?
Overemphasizing the rare instances of adverse reaction undermines trust.
Well, is your job to prop up trust in the establishment or to get to the truth?
And are you saying that these adverse reactions are minimal?
Here's another.
Vaccine hesitancy is normal and natural.
Well, then why are you fighting against it?
Why are you trying to change it?
Don't accidentally undersell the vaccine's effectiveness.
Sell, undersell.
Are you in the selling business here?
You got to go out and sell these vaccines.
This is a journalism review giving spin doctor.
Was this paid for by a pharmaceutical company?
Like, was this an ad?
That's the kind of thing political parties tell candidates.
It's like PR school.
That's what corporate PR executives tell CEOs.
Isn't the rule for actual reporters just, you know, follow the facts wherever they lead?
Well, apparently not during a pandemic.
Not when there's this much money to be made.
Lockdown Limits00:07:30
Not when there's this much power to be had.
Great article by Larry.
And I'm completely unsurprised that the only newspaper in Canada that would publish it is the Epoch Times.
Stay with us for more.
The woman, Sarah Everard, was abducted and we suppose killed because remains had been found in a woodland in Kent.
I would argue that at the next opportunity for any bill that's appropriate, I might actually put in an amendment to create a curfew for men on the streets after 6 p.m., which I feel would make women a lot safer.
And discrimination of all kinds would be lessened.
Well, there you have it, a speech from the floor of the Palace of Westminster, the British Parliament, a call for a curfew against men.
I don't know if she was serious about it.
It was, of course, in reaction to a terrible crime committed against a woman, and thus the proposed penalty is a group punishment against all men.
Joining us now to talk about this and other diminutions of civil liberties is our friend Calvin Robinson, a pundit, activist, and a member of a senior fellow of the Policy Exchange in the UK.
Calvin, great to see you again.
What do you make of that speech?
It's really caught fire, that idea.
I don't know if it was made in jest or as a dramatic example, but I can't believe it.
That idea is taking hold.
First of all, thank you for inviting me on again, Ezra.
It's a pleasure to be here.
Thank you.
How outrageous was that?
In the mother of parliaments, we have a peer, a baroness, no less, standing up and suggesting the idea that all men should be locked away after 6 p.m.
Now, I don't for one minute think she was serious.
I can't believe that she would say something like that and be serious.
I believe she's trying to make a point.
But the fact that she could stand in our houses of parliament and make that suggestion just shows how far we've come because no one challenged her.
No one laughed.
No one booed her.
No one called her out.
It just, you know, it just became another lord saying another thing.
And that is because we've just spent the past year locked away in our homes.
It's become second nature now.
You know, no one had heard of locking down.
a Western society, in fact, any society until China did it.
And we followed the Communist Party of China in their policies, as if that's ever a good idea.
It's absolutely bonkers that we've come to this authoritarian, draconian point in time where it's almost feasible for a Western state, a democracy, to lock away half of its population.
And then she said it's in the name of cutting down on discrimination.
You're going to discriminate against half the population in order to prevent discrimination.
Something's not right.
Yeah, I think you're right that a year of conditioning people in the UK that they can be locked in their homes turned it from an absurd jest.
I'm with you.
I don't think she actually truly meant it.
I think she was speaking poetically or dramatically or out of exasperation.
But you locked down, essentially have a curfew on a whole country for a year.
All of a sudden, the Overton window has shifted.
Let me play for you a clip from the, I think it's the Prime Minister of Wales, who's a Labour Party politician.
So like Scotland, they have sort of a devolved parliament, if I understand it correctly.
And he later walked this back, but at least for a while, it looks like he was seriously considering.
Here, I'll let the viewers judge for themselves.
Take a look.
Some people have said sometimes that if there were an area, particularly where there were concerns of women maybe being assaulted or feeling particularly scared, that there should be a curfew on men for a period of time.
Is that something that you would consider?
It wouldn't be on the top of the list of things that we would consider because it would be at the very best a temporary intervention.
I'm sorry, to be clear, you say you wouldn't.
It's not the top of your list.
I can only take it from that, that you could not rule out that being potentially something that you would do.
If there were a crisis and you needed to take dramatic action that allowed that crisis to be drawn down, then of course you'd be prepared to consider all measures that would make a difference.
But the sort of measure, the curfew measure that you've described, it could only ever be a temporary answer.
And therefore, it's not at the top of our list.
There are other things that we can do and should do.
And we'll work hard with our third sector organisations or local authorities in Wales.
As I say, people need to be safe and to feel safe.
There you have it.
The First Minister of Wales saying he would, in fact, consider it if it was a crisis.
Whether, I mean, like I say, he later walked that back a bit.
But look, this was treated as a serious subject.
And all over social media, people are deadly serious about it.
I don't think it's actually going to happen, Calvin, but it shows not only identity politics, but just a total lack of civil liberties.
That's what I think.
Wales has been the worst, or one of the worst.
The whole United Kingdom has been terrible in this, actually.
But Wales in particular, because when we closed our shops for lockdowns, Wales went a step further.
And the essential shops that we allowed to remain open, such as supermarkets, they had non-essential items barred off.
So you go in there and buy fruit.
You couldn't buy pen and paper, for example.
They went to the minutiae level of controlling people's lives.
And I think that's very terrifying that when a government is so happy and so comfortable doing that, it's very worrying for me.
And in Scotland, they've taken measures too far as well.
This is why devolution does not work.
The United Kingdom is one kingdom, one country, one nation, and we should be ruled from Westminster.
We shouldn't have all these devolved parliaments making absolutely silly decisions on their own.
Well, let me ask you this.
I understand the First Minister of Wales is a Labour politician.
I understand the peer, the member of the House of Lords, I think she's also Labour.
Correct me if I'm wrong there.
She's a Green.
Pardon me?
She's a Green Party.
Thank you for the correction.
So these are parties of the left.
Has the Conservative Party, has the party of Boris Johnson, have they pushed back on this?
I mean, even just in a dismissive manner, has anyone said this is nuts?
Not as far as I've seen yet.
And that's, again, concerning.
In England, we obviously have a Conservative government with an 80-strong majority.
So they can push through whatever regulations and legislation they like.
But we haven't seen much anti-lockdown sentiment coming from our party, coming from the right.
We've seen a lot of, you know, all of these measures have been brought in by the Conservative government, actually.
And the left have been saying, we want more, we want to push further.
So there's no opposition.
There is no party out there saying, actually, stop.
We don't want our citizens to be locked down, or subjects of the United Kingdom to be locked away and their liberties taken away.
Conservative Majority Pushes Legislation00:09:50
Where is that coming from?
Which is why it's good to see small parties popping up like Reclaim and like Reform and like the SDP to say to the larger parties, you know what, you need to stand up for the people of this country that deserve the right to earn a livelihood, deserve a right to have meaning in their lives and deserve a right to decide who they welcome into their own homes because an Englishman's home is his castle.
That's what this nation was founded on, the principle of freedom of association and freedom of expression.
And they're all being washed away by what should be a centre-right government.
I want to shift to another one of the countries in the UK, Scotland, which has an SNP government, which I understand is really a party of the left.
They just passed a hate speech law, which I did a video on it a year ago, 200,000 views, which shocked me.
I thought it was an obscure story.
A lot of people were worried about it.
A lot of the views were from Scotland.
The Justice Minister there is a real crusading censor, in my view.
I want to play for you a clip of this Justice Minister because I find it so ironic.
Then we'll come right back.
He's saying that he feels like Scotland is institutionally racist.
And the way he denounces it is quite something.
And then let's watch the clip.
I'll come back and I'll ask you the question: Would his rant here be caught by his own anti-hate law?
Take a look at this.
When the most senior positions in Scotland are filled almost exclusively by those who are white, take my portfolio alone.
The Lord President, white.
The Lord Justice Clerk, white.
Every High Court judge, white.
The Lord Advocate, white.
The Solicitor General, white.
The Chief Constable, white.
Every Deputy Chief Constable, white.
Every Assistant Chief Constable, white.
The head of the Law Society, white.
The head of the Faculty of Advocates, white.
Every prison governor, white.
And not just Justice.
The Chief Medical Officer, white.
The Chief Nursing Officer, white.
The Chief Veterinary Officer, white.
The Chief Social Work Advisor, white.
Almost every trade union in this country headed by people who are white.
In the Scottish Government, every Director General is white.
Every chair of every public body is white.
Calvin, I got to tell you, he obviously spent a lot of time researching and checking people's race.
I find that a little bit creepy.
I mean, first of all, Scotland is, you know, 95% plus ethnically Scottish, so it's not really surprising that a place that's more than 95% white, you're going to have people in leadership who are white.
But what I find troubling there is that he seeks to identify people and judge people and think the most interesting thing about them is their skin color rather than the content of their character.
And yet this is the fella who now put through a hate speech law.
I found that, I don't know if hateful is the right word, but my God, he's obsessed with dividing us based on race.
That's what I got from that little rant.
Absolutely.
Hamza Youssef is one of the most divisive, toxic politicians in this country.
Now, let me be clear.
Scotland is absolutely beautiful.
It's a fantastic place.
I was there not too long ago.
I love it.
It's amazing.
It's very diverse, very tolerant, and very inclusive.
It just so happens to be predominantly white, as he would say.
But the way he describes whiteness, the way he talks about it, to me, that so I've always thought, what is hate speech?
I don't understand it.
But listening to his video, watching his video, I understand it.
That is hatred right there.
The way he talks about white people, the way he tries to divide society into white and non-white, it doesn't make sense.
If he hates Scotland so much, why is he living there?
That's what I don't understand about this thing.
But the whole hate crime bill is anti-liberty.
It's anti-freedom.
It's very, very worrying.
It's probably the most worrying piece of legislation that I've seen in a long time because it essentially says you can be arrested for saying or thinking the wrong thing in your own home.
If someone takes offense to something you've said in your house, they can tell the police and you can get arrested for it.
How is that appropriate in the 21st century?
It's absolutely bonkers.
I know the Scottish Police Association has said they don't want this law because it turns them into Orwellian police.
They say they put out public statements saying it will destroy their support amongst the community.
I believe the police need the consent of the people.
That's why I think these lockdown enforcements are so damaging to the police.
The Scottish police said, please do not make us enforce a law about opinions and views and emotions.
And that's their new job, isn't it?
Because these are crimes, I think, right?
In this country, we used to have freedom of speech, which means you can say what you like as long as you're not inciting violence.
It's a very clear line.
As long as you're not causing people to physically harm another person, you can say what you like.
We have a place in Hyde Park called Speaker's Corner, which where people go to rant and just, you know, say the world's coming to an end or say whatever they want to say.
And people can stand around and listen.
It's a very British thing.
But it's being eroded because people are taking offense.
There's nothing wrong with being offended.
We are living in a free country where we can choose to take offensively.
I took offense at what Hamza Youssef said right there.
I'm not going to call the police and tell them, oh, he offended me to the point that I needed him arrested.
We need to come back to a place of saying, actually, if people say something I don't believe in or agree with, I can challenge them.
I can give them my own views or I can walk away and not listen.
We don't need to shut down people for not saying what we want them to say.
It's very dangerous, very, very worrying.
Well, I'm glad you're fighting the good fight there.
And I do see popping up in the UK grassroots movements to strengthen freedom of speech.
You mentioned a couple of the new parties, the Reform Party, the Reclaim Party with Lawrence Fox.
So there is a, you know, counter-revolution, so to speak.
There are people who believe in freedom.
I find that hopeful.
Toby Young and his anti-lockdown and free speech union group.
So there is a free speech wing to the country.
And I wish you great strength.
I know you're part of it.
Calvin Robinson, pleasure as always.
Thanks for taking the time with us.
Anytime.
Thank you again.
All right.
There you have it.
Calvin Robinson.
You can follow him on Twitter.
Stay with us.
Hey, welcome back on my show last night.
Tom writes, O'Toole has convinced me not to support the Conservative Party in any way anymore.
What's the use of liberal light?
Yeah, you know, I think there's two things at play.
I think, first of all, this Alain Reyes or whatever his name is.
I've never seen him fight for freedom or for free speech.
I think his job is to sort of telegraph to the media that, oh yeah, however much you hate conservatives, we at the Conservative Party hate them more.
So don't blame us.
I think his full-time job is to appease the wokesters, the cancel critics, the media.
So it's worse than nothing.
Just staying silent would be bad enough in the era of censorship.
But I actually think that O'Toole and the rest of his MPs, they think they have to be more pure than the Puritans.
They have to be the last, you know, like in the old Soviet Union where someone would see who stopped applauding Stalin.
They would make a note.
Who stopped applauding first?
It was a test to your loyalty.
It would be bad enough for the conservatives to be silent, but they want to be the ones who are applauding right to the end just to show how politically correct they are.
It's really gross.
Jay writes, Epoch Times is one of the best news sources.
It has been accurate, non-biased, and gives a world overview, not just North American news.
I agree.
And that's my whole monologue on Larry's column today.
Bill writes, Ezra and the Rebel continue to spiral down to the National Telegraph level of journalism.
I will mention only the first sentence.
I don't really know what Aaron O'Toole stands for.
He claims he's against the carbon tax, but he says he's for net zero emissions.
Levant obviously has no idea what he's talking about.
The current CPC platform hasn't really changed from the days under Harper.
The CPC then and now never, ever supported carbon taxes, yet they did and do support cleaner and reduced emissions.
I could go on, the entire article is one stinking bundle of crap.
But how do you really feel?
Come on.
Don't be shy.
Don't hold back.
Listen, first of all, thanks for writing.
I really appreciate it, actually.
I don't think that Aaron O'Toole has the courage to actually say, I am for a carbon tax.
I don't think he will say those words because I think he knows that would be drilling a huge hole in the bottom of his canoe.
But I think what Aaron O'Toole will say is, I'm for other things that are tantamount to a carbon tax.
I'm for cap and trade.
I'm for a hard cap on emissions.
I'm for phasing out this and that.
And I think you cannot get to the UN global warming goals without crushing the oil and gas industry.
Carbon tax is just the most obvious way that the liberals went for.
I wish you were right.
I wish that Aaron O'Toole stood for something.
And frankly, I don't think your letter convinces me otherwise.
Saying that Stephen Harper gave lip service to global warming, I think there's some truth to it.
There's some truth to it.
But I think that that is not a rebuttal to my charge that Aaron O'Toole stands for nothing other than cancel culture.
That's the show for today.
Until Monday, on behalf of all of us here at Rubber World Headquarters to you at home, good night.