Ezra Levant examines Twitter’s board of directors, including 86-year-old Bob Zellek—former White House Deputy Chief of Staff, U.S. Trade Representative, and World Bank leader—whose zero-tweet account hints at behind-the-scenes influence over censorship, like suppressing Hunter Biden’s laptop story or ivermectin debates, while Elon Musk’s $43B rejected takeover exposed board members’ near-zero stock ownership. Saudi investor Prince Al-Waleed’s role raises questions about foreign geopolitical control, contrasting with Musk’s vision of Twitter as a free-speech platform. Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau’s admitted dyscalculia and Liberal policies—ignoring inflation, housing costs, and vaccine injuries like Trina Huss’s Moderna-triggered autoimmune flare-ups—undermine economic credibility, while Pierre Poilievre’s fiscal focus and record crowds highlight a growing divide over Canada’s direction. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I'm going to take you through the biography of one of Twitter's directors of the board.
I thought they would be all sort of young tech guys and Silicon Valley experts, maybe in their 40s or maybe in their 50s, but basically young guys like Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey.
I was so surprised to see an ancient political name on there, someone by the name of Bob Zellek, and you got to be in your 60s to know who he is.
He's like sort of a slightly younger Henry Kissinger.
What is a former deep state diplomat doing on Twitter's board?
The guy's never used Twitter himself.
His account literally has zero tweets.
I'll take you through it.
I've got some theories on it.
I'll introduce you to one of Twitter's directors.
Probably relevant to Elon Musk's offer to buy the thing.
But before I do, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebeloos Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
I want to show you things, not just tell you things.
And that's where the video podcast comes in.
Go to RebeloosPlus.com, click subscribe.
It's $8 a month.
You get my show every day.
And then weekly shows from four of my friends.
All right.
Here's today's podcast.
Tonight, who is on the board of directors of Twitter that rejected Elon Musk?
It's April 20th.
And this is the Angel 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.
But why?
It's because it's my bloody right to do so.
We've talked a couple times now about the $43 billion offer that Elon Musk made to buy Twitter.
Of course, some of it is just that Musk is one of the world's most interesting people.
He's the richest person, at least for now.
He's a businessman with some real success.
Tesla is worth a trillion dollars according to the stock market.
That's more than GM and Ford and Chrysler combined, if you're counting.
Now, you may not think that's right, but millions of investors seem to.
So he's not just a businessman.
He's a bit of a mad scientist, too.
Not just his electric cars idea, but his spaceships idea.
He has a company called the Boring Company that's about tunneling underground for cars, hence the word boring.
It's a double entendre.
He's cheeky.
He's a bit of a mad scientist.
He made flamethrowers and sold them.
I'm not sure why, but he did.
He's a bit of a pundit, a bit of a philosopher.
He seems to love pot.
He smokes it while talking for hours with podcasters like Joe Rogan.
He meets with the comedy writers of the Babylon B.
I think they're the funniest conservative website around.
So of course, Elon Musk himself is fun to talk about.
I'm sure the fact that I'm obviously addicted to Twitter personally makes me more interested than a normal person would be who isn't on Twitter.
But that's the thing.
Who is on Twitter?
Boosting Algorithms, Throttling Truth00:08:00
It's big, but it's not that big.
I mean, it has 400 million users.
So sure, that's enormous.
But Facebook has, what, 2 billion users?
TikTok and Instagram are more than a billion.
Twitter doesn't make a lot of money.
And it's not really growing that quickly either.
So why is it so important?
Why are people fighting over it?
Because the number one reason users say they have Twitter is to get the news.
Yes, sports, comedy, celebrities, entertainment, of course, that's important too.
But Twitter is about the news.
It's about politics.
More importantly, it's maybe more accurately, it's about news makers and news creators and news writers and news editors, news shapers.
If you're a billionaire, you can go and buy yourself a newspaper, even buy yourself a TV news station.
Elon Musk probably could, but if you have Twitter, and by that, if you control it, well, you sort of have every news network in your hand because they all use Twitter to propagate stories and videos.
More importantly, all the journalists are on Twitter.
They're hooked on Twitter.
They're obsessed with Twitter, checking Twitter always.
It's the clubhouse for journalists.
It's where PR companies live.
It's the public square, the town square.
Twitter calls itself that.
So sure, it has a financial value, but its value is much deeper than that.
It's the bulletin board that every political and media person in the world uses.
Not just Americans, but Canadians.
The Chinese, the Russians, the Ukrainians, the Iranians, everyone.
Now, you can't use Twitter itself in China or Iran, but the Chinese and Iranian dictators use Twitter.
You see my point?
That's their value that they place on it.
And Twitter's top hashtag last year, that means the little tagline that users type out on the stories to help people searching find them, was COVID-19.
Are you getting it?
Let's say you wanted to control the entire national discussion, actually the global discussion.
Say you wanted to talk about Ukraine and Russia.
Not just in English, but in many other languages.
You could try and buy newspapers in every country, TV stations, whatever.
But why not just own the public square, own the meeting place, own the medium that they all use, and then subtly build in a few filters, call them algorithms.
Pump up the voices you want promoted.
Boost them.
Show them to more people.
And do the opposite to voices you don't want seen.
Demote them.
Show them to fewer people.
Put warnings on the accounts of people you don't like.
Ban them even.
Which is exactly what Twitter has done.
And that's what they say they've done.
Their new CEO, Parag Agarwal, famously said they're not so much interested in free speech, but rather deciding who gets attention to their speech.
So everyone can shout into the wind, but only Agarwal's friends will have their shouts heard by anyone.
So if you're Pfizer and Moderna, that's extremely valuable.
You need to boost tweets that promote vaccines.
You need to de-boost throttle tweets that are skeptical.
Call that misinformation, even if it later turns out that they were right.
Now, normally it's subtle.
You might not even notice it.
Sometimes it's just too much not to notice, like when they literally suspended a sitting president of the United States or when they suspended the mighty New York Post, one of America's oldest newspapers, for posting a completely true story about Hunter Biden's laptop just before the election.
What's the value of that?
If that censorship moved the needle a couple of percent in the election, did it lose it for Trump and win it for Biden?
What's the value of that?
It's got to be trillions.
Think about what China or Russia, or frankly, Pfizer or Moderna would do for that kind of control over the discourse.
There was no war for four years under Donald Trump.
You know that?
I mean, he didn't invade anybody.
He lobbed a few missiles in Syria for effect, but he started no new wars.
Russia and North Korea were pacified during that time too.
In fact, Trump made peace between the Jews and the Arabs.
I wonder if any, oh, I don't know, arms dealers wanted Trump gone.
I wonder what the value of owning Twitter, the massive censorship machine, would be to them.
That's what Twitter is.
It's a filter.
It's a subtle censor.
And do you doubt that they compile everything you look at, every message you send?
Don't doubt it.
It's in their terms of service.
It's their business model.
So imagine everything that every politician and every journalist writes and reads being owned by Twitter.
But more than that, Twitter has private messages you can send people that the public doesn't see.
They're called DMs, direct messages.
Do you doubt that Twitter staff read those secret messages between politicians, journalists, diplomats, et cetera?
I've had some pretty frank discussions with sitting politicians over Twitter direct messages, sensitive for them, maybe for me too.
I don't know.
But do you doubt they're being read by Twitter's left-wing staff?
Again, let me disabuse you of your naivete if you do doubt it.
Look at this story from the Washington Post, no less.
Former Twitter employees charged with spying for Saudi Arabia by digging into the accounts of kingdom critics.
Well, there it is.
And it just so happens that Prince Al-Waleen of Saudi Arabia is one of the largest investors at Twitter, has been for a while.
He says, I don't believe that the proposed offer by Elon Musk comes close to the intrinsic value of Twitter given its growth prospects.
Being one of the largest and long-term shareholders of Twitter, Kingdom HC, and I reject this offer.
Now, here's Elon Musk's reply to the Saudi prince.
He says, Interesting.
Just two questions, if I may.
How much of Twitter does the kingdom own directly and indirectly?
What are the kingdom's views on journalistic freedom of speech?
Elon Musk is right.
He's pointing out that a foreign prince of a dictatorship is calling the shots at an American company.
But his second point, while spicy, isn't quite right.
I don't think the main value to the Saudi regime of owning Twitter is spying on domestic political activists.
Of course, that's part of it, for sure.
But Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Twitter ownership can spy on everyone in the world, on the West, spy and throttle or boost, tweak the algorithms to show people more of what the owners want them to see and less of what the owners don't want them to see.
It's sort of obvious.
If you're using a free service like Facebook or Twitter, it's because you're the product that's being bought and sold.
All of which brings me to this.
I saw this the other day.
It's a list of Twitter's board of directors.
Someone put a spreadsheet together showing just how few shares they own in Twitter.
These directors get paid about a quarter million U.S. a year.
Elon Musk is in for a bad time, says this guy.
I'm not sure he's prepared to take on a couple of PhDs, a few MBAs, and a baroness who use Twitter once a year to reset their passwords and collectively own 77 shares of the company.
Well, I don't know if that's sarcastic or not, but here's what Elon Musk said in reply: Wow, with Jack departing, the Twitter board collectively owns almost no shares.
Objectively, their economic interests are simply not aligned with shareholders.
And then he said that if he takes over, he'll stop paying directors, saying, saving the company $3 million a year.
But it's obviously not about the money.
It's about the other thing, their interests, the director's interests versus the shareholders' interests.
If these directors own almost zero stock, why are they directors?
Not to make money.
I mean, if you don't own it, why do you care about it?
Well, like I say, because you care about other things than money that Twitter gives you.
I saw this name on there.
I was glancing at that list on that tweet, and I recognized the name because I'm a political person and I've been following politics for years.
Robert Zellek: Board Member Since July00:02:41
I recognize that name, Bob Zellek.
I bet very few people other than political watchers in their 50s know who he is.
He looks a bit like Steve Buscemi.
I'd call him a bit of a mini Henry Kissinger.
Here's his Twitter account.
He's never tweeted, not once, ever.
Here's his page on the Twitter Board of Directors, his official biography there.
Can I read his whole biography for you?
It's quite impressive.
Let me do it.
Give me a minute.
Robert Zellek has served as a member of our board of directors since July 2018.
From May 2017 to April 2019, Mr. Zellek served as the chairman of the board of directors of Alliance Bernstein Holding LP.
Since August 2013, Mr. Zellek has served as a board member of Temasek Holdings Private Limited, a Singaporean corporation principally engaged in the business of investment holding.
Since May 2017, he has served as a senior counselor to the Brunswick Group, a global public affairs and communications firm.
Since July 2012, he has also been a senior fellow at the Belfur Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
From October 2013 until September 2016, Mr. Zellek served as chairman of the board of international advisors at the Goldman Sachs Group.
From July of 2007 until July 20, June 2012, he served as president of the World Bank Group.
From 2006 to 2007, he served as vice chairman, international, and a managing director of Goldman Sachs.
Mr. Zellek served as the deputy secretary for the U.S. Department of State from 2005 till 2006 and as the U.S. Trade Representative from 2001 to 2005.
From 1985 to 1993, Mr. Zellek held various posts in the U.S. government, including counselor to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Undersecretary of State, and Deputy Chief of Staff at the White House.
Mr. Zellek holds a BA from Swarthmore College, a JD from the Harvard Law School, and an MPP from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
Oh my God.
I think that's a dictionary definition of the deep state.
I mean, obviously he cares about money, Goldman Sachs, that kind of thing.
But it's much more than just money.
This guy is the government.
He's the world.
He's the globe.
It's globalist money.
It's money with a certain political point of view, isn't it?
It's not mom-and-pop shops.
World Bank, Deputy White House Chief of Staff, International Diplomat, Harvard.
He really is a master of the universe.
Critical Issues Firm Strategy00:07:59
He's a senior big shot at Brunswick Group.
I'd never heard of them.
I went to their website.
Now, apparently they're a communications firm, but they call themselves Critical Issues.
It's their focus.
What does that mean?
What's a critical issue?
I spent a fair amount of time on their website, and I don't really think I know any more now than I did before.
It's quite a style of communicating they have.
If you look, they're huge, actually.
They're all over the world, from Beijing to London to Dubai to Washington.
Can I show you a two-minute video on one of their pages that explains what they do?
I don't understand it.
You tell me if you understand a thing here.
Can you watch this?
You tell me.
This is the boss of Twitter.
Take a look.
Brunswick.
Brunswick?
Brunswick is the world's leading firm.
Brunswick is the world's leading critical issues firm.
We work with the leadership teams of the great value-creating organizations around the world.
From huge multinational corporations to nonprofits and to up-and-coming disruptors because we recognize their value to society and we recognize how important it is that they tell their story in a meaningful way.
That is what a critical issues firm is all about.
Brunswick can provide the full suite of services to clients.
We can sit in the boardroom advising around major geopolitical issues.
Down to drafting a simple press release.
We're not just advising a company on a deal or an IPO.
We're advising them on an opportunity to tell their story to the world.
In terms of thinking through how they engage with their stakeholders.
Which are very broad and span across the regulatory, political, financial, and social spheres.
And help companies make the right business decisions and then communicate them effectively to those various stakeholders.
Allure them to play their role in the world, but also to meaningfully, and that's really important, to meaningfully engage with all their stakeholders.
We support them in becoming the kind of company that they want to be.
Brunswick's purpose.
Our purpose is to help clients play Brunswick's purpose is to help clients play their role in society more successfully.
And we do that by working with them on their most critical issues.
But to do it in a way that contributes to not only their bottom line, it also contributes to the advancement of society as well.
I truly believe that businesses are a key force for good.
We help people understand not just challenge and risk, but we help them understand opportunity and we help them position for a better future.
What on earth?
What does that mean?
Are they like a private CIA?
They can't tell you?
Do they do things like spy?
I don't know.
I mean, in a good way, even?
Or a bad way?
What are they doing in Beijing?
I have no clue.
And I think that's by design on their part.
I don't know.
Do they do nasty things for nasty people for a lot of money?
They operate in a lot of nasty places.
They know how to stop people like Elon Musk, though.
They really emphasize that.
Take a look at this.
I found this page on their website.
Shareholder activism, an integrated team equipping clients with communications tools to defend against activists.
I'm going to read every word on this page to you because this seems to be a fit with Twitter.
Give me a minute, okay?
Let me read this.
The surge of shareholder activism sweeping through the corporate world is only accelerating, and virtually no company is immune.
Brunswick works hand in hand with clients facing the increasingly complex threat of activist investors, from defense preparation before an activist establishes a public position in the stock to a full-blown proxy fight.
In the planning stages, we work with executives across a client's organization to identify possible areas of weakness that could be exploited by an activist investor, determine appropriate reactive messaging, and establish the detailed protocol and logistics needed to respond quickly to the wide range of public and private activist approaches.
When a fight turns public, Brunswick has the global media and shareholder engagement expertise to launch extended campaigns, all underpinned by our in-house digital, creative, and market research teams.
Strategic use of social media such as Twitter and LinkedIn can provide a company with a powerful campaign advantage.
So what do they do?
They protect companies from investors.
The right team at the right time with the right experience.
We know that a company's ability to hold off an activist will depend on how well you conduct your campaign and convince investors you are right.
We have a team of former lawyers, bankers, analysts, and journalists who have successfully advised on many of the highest profile activist fights, as well as behind-the-scenes preparation for clients large and small.
So yeah, that's who's on the board.
Elon Musk is up against some big operators.
They sound like the kind of people who have their hands in a million things.
I don't know.
Maybe they helped get this article published today in the Toronto Star.
Could be.
The headline you can see right there, Elon Musk's attempt to buy Twitter should be setting off alarm bells in Ottawa.
Here's the thing.
Elon Musk can offer these people $100 billion.
A trillion dollars.
They're not going to sell.
Twitter isn't worth that much as an ad platform.
It's only worth that much as a political spy machine.
A message censorship machine.
A mass formation psychosis machine.
If Tritter, if they really were about freedom of speech, things would be different.
I wonder if Trump would still be president if Twitter wasn't politically corrupted.
We'll never know the effect of throttling the Hunter Biden laptop story.
I know the things would have been a lot different about the pandemic, that's for sure.
The vaccines, discussions about ivermectin alternative treatments, whether you agree with him or not, these were all subjects that were throttled or banned by Twitter.
That's pretty valuable to Modern and Pfizer, isn't it?
Look, Twitter is not about freedom, hasn't been in a long time.
It's about control.
That's why Bob Zellek and the Brunswick-I don't know, what even is that company?
That's who runs it now.
Bob Zellek doesn't tweet, but why would he?
I bet he reads a few tweets.
If Elon Musk were to buy Twitter, not only might he stop their censorship and the twisting of the world's perception of things, but I think he'd probably unearth things they've been up to all these past years but haven't told us about.
Jack Dorsey, the founder and the past president of the place, he seems to have something he wants to say.
Someone asked him on Twitter, this is actually a report for CNBC: serious question for Jack.
If you think the Twitter board is or was so dysfunctional and kept that company from being great, as you imply, either through your own tweets or replies to others, why didn't you do anything about it when you ran the company for several years?
Well, Jack replied.
He said, so much to say, but nothing that can be said.
Yeah, I don't know.
I might be wrong.
Bob Zellek might just care about freedom of speech in his own way and making good old-fashioned money.
Nothing wrong with that.
He's smarter than that Saudi prince who weighed in in public on Twitter.
What a fool showing his cards like that.
I have no idea what Bob Zellek is really doing, either at Brunswick or at Twitter.
But then again, I had no idea he was on the board.
He really is like a mini Henry Kissinger, isn't he?
I'd never have guessed it.
There's a lot we don't know about our American oligarchs.
I think they like it that way.
Canada's Competitive Advantage00:15:17
P.S. I don't think that even the world's richest man could beat them.
Because the core problem with housing in Canada is we just don't have enough housing.
It's just a mathematical thing.
Canada has the fastest growing population in the G7.
That is fantastic.
That is actually a huge driver of economic growth, and it is one of Canada's competitive advantages.
But we cannot have the fastest growing population in the G7 without also having the fastest growing housing stock in the G7.
And we don't have that right now.
We have a shortage of homes.
There's some truth to it.
The math doesn't lie.
Price is dependent on supply and demand.
Since Justin Trudeau became prime minister, the pricing of an average house in the country has doubled, and it is much worse in the number one destination for newcomers to Canada, namely Toronto and Vancouver.
In fact, in the last year alone, the prices in Toronto have gone up nearly 30% in one year.
Here to join us to talk about it is our friend Spencer Fernando, whose latest article is called, Freeland Admits Federal Immigration Policy Has Driven Up Housing Costs.
Spencer, great to see you again.
I think this is a kind of breakthrough.
It's one of the first times I can remember a liberal actually acknowledging that immigration is driving demand, which is driving price.
I mean, whether or not the liberals admit it, it is how supply and demand words.
But I think she admits it.
Having the highest immigration policy of the G7 is causing the highest housing prices of the G7.
Yeah, it's interesting to see her say that.
I've seen people on Twitter noting that if a conservative politician have said something similar, they'd be attacked as anti-immigrant, anti-immigration, racist, bigoted, all of those things.
And so it's interesting that she's saying that, but she is correct, obviously.
I mean, it is a simple supply and demand issue.
The only problem is, of course, after she acknowledged the truth, she basically went on and said, oh, this is great and this is how we're growing the economy.
And obviously, thinking that you're growing the economy just by bringing in more people as opposed to having per capita GDP growth is obviously a serious problem.
And it's concerning to see the finance minister kind of falling into a logical trap like that.
Yeah, that's a great point.
I mean, when you add people to an economy, when you bring people, when you do any activity, it is GDP.
But it's like the broken windows fallacy.
And I'm not comparing it to immigration.
I'm just comparing the logical flaw.
Sorry, I mean, if you break a window, if you have a car accident, you have a car accident, the GDP goes up.
But it's not productive GDP.
If you smash a window, okay, you create a job for a glazier, but you haven't improved people's wealth.
You burned it up.
Immigration can be a tremendous source of growth and wealth, actually, but it depends on who's coming.
And one of the things that Trudeau boasts about is that while there are some economic, you know, economically strong, like professional class immigrants, the plurality of the immigrants under Trudeau's current immigration scheme are people who are either family members or they're refugees.
They're not economic.
So while we may be bringing in, say, 200,000 people a year who are probably net positive on the GDP side, we're bringing in 150,000 a year who are not investor class or professional class.
Yeah, I mean, it's obviously a balance, right?
Because you have, you know, for example, if someone has a large family, they may be an entrepreneur and then they bring over a relative and they can help take care of their children.
So, you know, there can be benefits there as well.
But I think, you know, the deeper problem is that we don't discuss immigration in this country in a mature way.
You know, a mature country is able to have people who say, well, I think we should have more immigration.
Other people say we should have less immigration.
But somehow in Canada, it's become almost everybody in the political establishment basically feels pressured to go along with whatever the current highest number is.
As I note in the article, if someone supports, say, say about half the immigration level we have now.
So say they said they want 230,000 or 240,000 people to come into the country every year as a percentage of our economy.
That would give us one of still the highest immigration rates in the world.
And that would be in most countries kind of the maximalist pro-immigration position.
Whereas the other side of it would be people saying they want much less.
Whereas in Canada, if someone says, oh, we should have 240,000 people come in every year, that's considered a huge cut to immigration.
And they will be called anti-immigrant in many cases.
So I think the fact that the debate on immigration in Canada has become so, it's emotional, it's political, everybody demonizes everybody.
I think that's a real drawback for the future of the country because we should be able to have a logical, a reasonable and balanced debate about this issue.
You know, Angus Reid is one of the few pollsters who regularly test that question, actually I'm sure all pollsters do, but Angus Reid is one of the few who publish it.
And overwhelmingly, Canadians say either we have enough or the number is just right or the number is too high.
Very, very few, always less than 10%, say we need more, and yet Trudeau increases the number every time.
I think this is one of those issues where if a politician were to say it very gently and very carefully and in a way that allowed no misinterpretation that it was a race-based thing, but rather on an economic basis, if we've just doubled the cost of housing in this country, you know, don't tell me how this is wonderful for our GDP if inflation is now close to 7%, no young people can get a house.
You know, the fact that the GDP is doing well, but no one can afford to buy a house, you know, that might work in Christia Freeland's world, but I don't think it works for ordinary Canadians.
Yeah, and I think there's also the issue of, I guess you could say, economic illiteracy is obviously a serious problem, even apparently at the higher echelons of the liberal government.
But this idea that, you know, if you make the economy bigger overall, that you're actually benefiting people, like that's that's not really how it works, right?
You know, say, say somehow we decided tomorrow that we were going to double Canada's population.
You know, people from every part of the world came in and we got to, I guess, what would be 74, 75 million people or so.
Okay, well, we'd probably have a much bigger GDP than we do now, certainly, but everybody else would be much poorer on an individual basis, right?
Everything would massively increase in price.
There would just be chaos in the country.
And so, sure, the overall economy would be bigger, but we'd all be worse off.
And so, you know, that's the issue with immigration: you have to have it at a level that is benefiting the country and reducing some of the drawbacks that very high immigration can cause.
And we just don't have that discussion.
As you said, polls show a lot of Canadians want to see a change in immigration numbers.
People either think there's enough people coming in yearly already, or there should be fewer people coming in.
And very few people in the political, you know, the political class in this country are willing to actually talk about that.
You know, it seems sort of obvious to me that just like spending in a country can go up and down depending on the economic cycle, immigration can too.
I mean, if immigration is leading to a depression in wages and an increase in housing prices, it seems like a lever that you can adjust.
You know, if you're in a recession or if you're in boom times, that you can adjust government spending too.
I mean, the whole theory of Keynesian economics was that when times are amazing, the government puts the brakes on a bit and maybe runs a surplus.
And in tough times, the government, you know, it's countercyclical.
So if things are tough, well, maybe that's when the government spends more.
And I'm not necessarily a Keynesian, but the point is, it's not always run a deficit.
And the thing about immigration is it's not always more, There may be times when less is the answer, when their wages can't keep up with the cost of living, when housing is doubled in four years, then maybe it's time to pump the brakes.
You know, the funny thing about Christy Freeland, I just remembered it.
When she came back to Canada from New York, where she had been working for years, she bought a house so that she could say she lived in her neighborhood in Toronto.
She had to get her dad to co-sign the mortgage.
Now, I'm not making a lot of fun of her, although I think it is sort of a little bit odd that a woman in her 40s in the cabinet can't, you know, doesn't have the credit to get her own house.
But if the deputy prime minister herself needs help to buy a house, she's a bit glib with people who are not of her station in life, who need help to buy a house, or frankly, there's no hope for them at all.
Yeah, I think a lot of what's happening is the liberals have kind of backed themselves into a corner because of the overtly ideological nature of how they govern the country.
I mean, immigration will be one example.
They keep increasing the immigration number every year.
The carbon tax, obviously, their anti-energy sector policies, these are all policies that cause issues in the economy.
Obviously, inflation, the carbon tax is a deliberately inflationary policy.
It's designed to make things more expensive and it makes them more expensive every year.
And so they can't really actually do anything about these problems without admitting that their ideology is the cause of many of these issues.
And so they're forced to kind of play the game where they say, oh, we're very concerned about inflation and we're very concerned about housing and we're very concerned about the cost of living and we're going to do everything we can to help people.
But they can't really do anything because that would involve admitting they were wrong in their overall policy focus for the last, what is it, six or seven years.
And so I think that that's kind of what's happening now: they're just trying to, you know, muddle along, pretend they're concerned, hope people focus on other things.
I think, you know, that's one of the reasons Pierre Polyev is doing so well.
He's one of the only politicians who's offering an agenda that is ideologically very different than what the liberals are offering.
And he's saying, look, here's the problem.
Here's a solution.
Here's what I'm going to do.
And it's very different than what the liberals are talking about.
And so I think that's why the establishment really is going after him so much because he represents a real alternative.
And if he was to get in and have very different policies and make things better for people, a lot of people would say, you know, why are we putting up with these, you know, all these supposedly brilliant and supposedly progressive policies over the past years.
And so I think they're very concerned they want to stop him from getting in power because they know his ideas will probably actually work.
You know, it's interesting.
He is getting criticisms because his crowds are so large.
I mean, if his crowds were small, he'd be getting criticism for, ha ha, he can't draw a crowd.
He's had events on an Indian Reserve in Alberta.
He's had events at Sikh and Chinese cultural locations, but he's accused of being too white.
I mean, the criticisms about him seem pretty desperate.
The one thing I like about Pierre Polyev is his command of fiscal policy, but also monetary policy, which is a little bit hard for, I think it's something that most ordinary folks don't think about a lot, but he really has thought a lot about it and inflation and how it's really attacks on everything because it devalues your money.
I mean, the fact that he's into crypto, but not in sort of a, you know, a hype kind of way, but he sees it as a way to solve some of the problems of government inflation.
I really think that's thoughtful.
And he's also good at putting it in layman's terms.
I think that in Pierre Polyev, you've got a guy with a lot of substance on cost of living issues.
And Trudeau, I mean, he famously bragged.
He doesn't think about monetary policy.
I don't know if you saw this clip from his pre-prime minister days.
Here's Trudeau saying he's never really been good with numbers and it's a learning disability, he claims.
I don't know if you saw this.
Take a look at this.
I have a little confession to make.
I have a slight learning disability.
I am dysnumeric.
What that means is I have an inability to handle small numbers and little calculations, those easy things that people do so well.
13 plus 14.
27.
Under pressure, it's even worse.
So, I mean, if I pick up numbers and try to do it, two plus three minus one times two minus four plus two.
How many people follow that?
Now, I'm not looking to make fun of anyone for a learning disability.
I have a hunch that that's just a fancy term given to a bad student in the case of Trudeau.
But when he says he doesn't follow monetary policy, when he says the budget will balance itself, when he says that you grow the economy from the heart out, and when he says he's dysnumeric, a guy tells you four times he's not good at numbers.
We should probably listen to him.
It's sort of terrifying that he's the guy in charge of the economy right now.
Yeah, it's quite concerning.
And I think a lot of it is in many ways a luxury that the Western world has had from a period of peace and prosperity that went on really for a historic amount of time.
If you look at history, this has been a long time of economies growing and the world being relatively peaceful.
And a lot of that's obviously starting to change.
And so I think what's happened over time is people, obviously people like Justin Trudeau, who had a very privileged upbringing, but the society in many ways at large and our political institutions.
There's been so much wealth created that people kind of lost the understanding that at the end of the day, you still have to produce real things.
You still have to make, you have to produce food.
You have to transport it.
You have to fill your cars with gasoline.
You have to drive around.
Planes have to get where they're going.
You have to extract minerals and things from the earth to build things.
And there's been this idea where, oh, we don't really need to produce things.
We just print more money and give out the money and then we're richer and then we're all doing better.
And so I think that's starting to slowly shift.
Polyev, as you talk about monetary policy, that would be, he's an example of someone who's starting to help people kind of get out of that mindset.
But Trudeau is obviously still very much in the way of thinking that, oh, well, if there's a problem, the government just creates some money and gives it out to people and money fixes the problem.
So there's no issue.
Obviously, that just devalues the currency and makes everything more expensive as we're seeing across the country and much of the world.
But he's not going to get it.
Christia Freeland, I wouldn't be shocked if at some level she does understand it, but politically she can't admit that these are terrible policies and reverse any of them.
So she's just going to keep going along with it as well.
And so I think until there's a change of government, and until hopefully it's someone like Pierre Polyev, not someone like John Charae, until that happens, Canada is going to be stuck in a set of policies where the government says, oh, we're very concerned about these issues, and then their policies make all these issues worse.
Government Policies and Inflation00:04:56
You know, I wouldn't put too much stock in Christia Freeland.
I sat down and read her last book, and I have to say, I didn't find it thoughtful or philosophical.
It felt like sort of a lifestyles of the rich and famous.
And her work at Reuters, Thompson, not only did she nearly destroy a whole enterprise, like she was a disaster as a manager.
I just, I think that she is puffed up in a way like Trudeau himself is.
I don't think there's a lot of there there, but compared to Trudeau, she looks like a PhD professor.
I don't know.
Pierre Polyev's phenomenon is interesting.
And here's my theory on that.
And I know we're shifting gears from the original immigration and cost of living question, but it is quite something for a guy to get 1,000 people out in small towns on short notice.
Like he's getting 1,000, 5,000, 7,000 people out.
And he's not even the leader yet.
And my theory is for two years, there's been anti-gathering rules.
You can't gather in public.
The political accountability of our system has been reduced as well.
Parliament has not sat in the normal way.
Politicians have been cloistered.
And because of the quote, emergency, I think the political classes and the courts have sort of agreed with each other.
They've sort of huddled together.
They've circled the wagons.
And so for the first time in two years, people can express themselves.
And I think you have pent up two years of disagreement, two years, anything over the last two years has bothered you.
You've never really been able to act on it.
Even the last election, all the candidates were so similar, including Aaron O'Toole.
I think you're not just seeing Pierre Polyev, you're seeing that the fake political media consensus of the last two years was indeed fake.
And that someone who takes on the system, whether it's the lockdown system or the monetary system or the housing system or the media system, is really tapping into something that the media has missed.
It's that populist undercurrent that was sort of papered over for two years.
That's what I think Pierre Polyev has tapped into.
Maybe that's sort of obvious, but I think you're looking at two years of fake news that everyone was going along with this crisis from Trudeau.
And a lot of people are saying, no, we're completely sick of it.
And the establishment has failed us in every respect.
What do you think?
Yeah, I think if you look at what happened to Aaron O'Toole, it's all part of the same pattern, right?
I mean, he was basically, you know, he campaigned as one thing in the leadership race.
Obviously, he offered something very different that a lot of people were not too pleased about when he became the leader of the party.
And a lot of what he did was basically, as you say, create a false political consensus, right?
He made it appear as if even the largest opposition party was completely in favor of most of the things the liberals were doing, except with maybe a few tweaks, and it'll be, you know, marketed a little differently.
And so Polyev, you know, I think another reason he's getting big crowds, in addition to the points you raised, is that he's been talking about these issues for some time.
You know, I wrote recently in the National Citizens Coalition how he has a lot more credibility than most people because he was talking about the danger of government spending and money printing two years ago when those policies were extremely popular, when almost everybody else was afraid to utter any criticism of the government spending massive amounts of money.
He was still out there talking about, you know, this is going to cause a problem.
This is why the government needs to get its fiscal house in order.
This is why it's dangerous for the Bank of Canada to print so much money.
And so I think the fact that he's been talking about that for such a long time gives him credibility.
And then, you know, in some ways, you know, the moment has worked out well for him.
Unfortunately, it means that there's obviously issues going on in the country because people are obviously upset.
But I mean, if you're talking about, you know, the danger of government policy and spending and monetary policy, and then people see their prices going up all over the place, they're going to look and say, who is somebody who's offering something different?
We know what the Liberals and the NDP offer.
It's just more spending, more government intervention, the same problems that have caused this mess.
So I think all these things are kind of coming together.
The false consensus that the Conservative Party tried to impose on people through O'Toole, you know, the media suppressing a lot of different viewpoints.
Yes, the fact that people couldn't gather.
And then the fact that Polyev is offering something different and has been relatively consistent for two years.
I think it's all kind of coming together and really forming a movement, not just a political campaign, but a movement across the country.
Yeah.
Well, we're in very interesting days, and I dare to have a little bit of hope as well.
Spencer Fernando, great to catch up with you, folks.
You can follow Spencer as I do at spencerfernando.com.
He's one of the few journalists in this country who is not on Trudeau's payroll.
Take care of Spencer.
Mask Mandates vs. Charter Rights00:02:03
Thank you.
No problem.
All right, cheers.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your viewer mail.
Sean Roberts says, when the Canadian government lets unvaccinated refugees in, but actual Canadians aren't allowed to travel unvaccinated, mask mandates are the least of my concerns.
I'd wear a mask on a plane if it meant I was allowed to travel.
It's an excellent point.
At what point is it just pure abusiveness?
I mean, they're not testing anymore if you have symptoms, if you're sick.
You're allowed to, like, if you are sick, since they don't ask for testing, and I guess you wouldn't have to tell them, you're allowed on the plane.
But if you're unvaxed, you're not allowed on the plane.
Even if you're not sick, even if you got sick and have natural immunity now, it's just about punishment.
Howard Tannenbaum says they will make the motions of an appeal or registering their objections to talking about Biden and the American mask ruling.
I don't think that Biden wants to appeal.
What happens to the Dems if the mandate is reinstated?
More fuel to hate on them.
He was done a favor by the judge.
I think so, but yesterday Biden sort of flip-flopped.
At first he said it's fine, but then they suggested they might appeal.
It's very interesting what's going on in that party right now, the Democrats.
Scott Cook says, great news for the USA, but when do we in Canada get our freedoms back and the criminals arrested for violating our rights?
Like I say, our Supreme Court has not even weighed in on the pandemic.
It has been more than two years.
And our Supreme Court has not had a thing to say about it.
And our Charter of Rights has not protected us in one way.
What's the point of it?
Like, what a joke it is if in the worst civil liberties bonfire in our history, the Charter of Rights was never used to protect us.
What is the bloody point?
That's our show for today.
Let me leave you with our video of the day from Tamara Uglini.
Vaccine Injured Revelations00:11:40
Now vaccine injured, this former believer in vaccine speaks out.
This is a tough story to see.
Until tomorrow, folks.
Good night and keep fighting for freedom.
Here's Tamara's video.
Bye-bye.
Tamara Ugolini here with Rebel News, and I continue to hear absolute silence from mainstream media about the reactions that Canadians are suffering from as a result of COVID-19 injections, which makes the story that I'm bringing you today even more shocking because a mere few months ago, 47-year-old Saskatchewan resident Trina Huss was an avid mainstreamist.
She relied on the mainstream media as her daily news source and was terrified into submission by their incessant and exaggerated COVID reporting.
They report on this idea of long COVID, but completely ignore the vaccine reactions that are happening.
And Trina knew after only one dose of this injectable that her body wouldn't be able to handle anymore.
And then she got COVID.
And because she didn't die, despite technically being in a high-risk category with comorbidity, she began to question what was happening in the mainstream.
Listen to her story.
So, Trina, tell me why you decided to get the injection and what brand, what manufacturer you went with.
I got the vaccine a year ago, and the reason I got it was SHA, Saskatchewan Health Authority, sent me a letter telling me I couldn't get the vaccine before my age group due to my health conditions, autoimmune disease.
But I took a month and I thought about it.
And then I finally was like, okay, I better do this because I'm scared.
I'm terrified I'm going to get COVID because the news is saying, like, if you get it, you're going to die.
Doctors are saying you're going to get it, you're going to die because you're immune compromised.
So they literally had me scared.
And I got the vaccine April 23rd.
And the very next day, I started having reaction.
It flared up my arthritis and created more back issues than what I was dealing with before.
And did you, you landed up in the ER, is that correct?
Yes.
I ended up going to the ER twice.
And they said, well, there's no evidence that the vaccine has done this.
So we really can't help you, basically.
Tell me what the follow-up's been like.
You've gone to a few different specialists.
You know, it's been a year.
Tell me a little bit about what that's looked like.
The internalist was no help.
Basically, said there was no evidence that the vaccine is doing this to you.
That I needed a neurologist and to see my rheumatologist.
So I am still waiting for a neurologist appointment.
Haven't heard anything.
And this was back in September when she put the requisition in.
But I've seen the rheumatologist now twice.
And she put me on new medications that are helping to a point.
And then just recently saw her again.
And she recently just put me on another medication to see if it'll help even more with the pain that's going on in my body due to the vaccine and like my health issues before.
It just the vaccine triggered it even more.
What was, I understand that the tone or the tune rather of your rheumatologist has changed since the previous time you saw her and then you saw her again just a few days ago.
Can you elaborate on that?
Yes, back in October, again, there was no evidence that the vaccine has done this to you.
But since seeing me, she has also seen more patients like me come into her due to the vaccine, which I had was Moderna.
And she's now agreeing that the vaccine has caused my issues to be worse.
And she's now getting the ball going and getting more imaging done for my back where the pain won't go away.
It's 24-7.
So she's while I'm still waiting for the neurologist appointment, she's going to get things going.
Now, how has this affected your daily life, this pain and this inflammation that you deal with chronically?
I had to stop working.
I cleaned houses and businesses for a living before, which my body hurt after I was done, of course, because of my issues, but I still was able to work.
I wasn't completely crippled to where I can't, where now I can't work.
I can't even do my own dishes.
I'm bent over the sink while doing dishes now to get them put in the dishwasher.
And then by the time I'm done that, I got to sit before I could even continue to do any other kind of housework.
You know, so I basically, it takes me a week just to clean my whole house doing fits every day.
You and your husband, you, he, so he chose, opted not to, and, you know, correct me if you don't want to discuss this on camera.
But what's the difference there health-wise between the two of you?
Someone, you know, living in the same household, someone who chose to get the first dose and someone who didn't.
He's he's fairly healthy.
Like he's got his blood pressure problems, but otherwise he's healthy.
And he was possibly going to get the vaccine, but after I did and saw my reactions, it made him, no, I'm not doing this.
And now that he's also have had COVID three times, why get it when he has all the antibodies?
You haven't had COVID.
Is that, do I remember?
Did I remember that correctly?
I did have COVID just recently.
We both recently got over it a couple weeks ago.
We had it March, end of March, beginning of April.
The first two times he had COVID, I didn't get COVID.
And that the second time was in August, and I had my shot in April.
So this was in August when he had COVID.
And then in October, we did our antibodies test.
My antibodies test came back that I had no antibodies, which I should have if I had a vaccine.
So I asked the doctor, I said, okay, when we did our antibodies test, his came back that he had two strains.
Mine came back, I had nothing, which, why didn't I?
If I had the shot, and she said, Well, it leaves, it runs out or leaves your body within three months.
So then that would have been by August.
I should have not been, the vaccine should have been gone.
So then I asked her, Well, then, why didn't I get COVID?
Because then the vaccine would have been out of my body.
And I slept with my husband, like we shared everything in the same house.
I took care of him.
And she's like, Well, that's because you're vaccinated.
Well, you just finished telling me that by the time August comes around, I was no longer vaccinated, but yet I was protected because the vaccine was in my body.
Like you just turned your words around.
Yeah, it's really hard to follow some of this, this logic.
It seems very illogical.
Exactly.
What was the main deciding factor for you not to get or to proceed with the second dose?
Because of all the pain.
What's the second dose going to do to me?
You know, the first one did this to me.
Is it going to inflame my arthritis and everything, all the other issues going on inside my body?
Even worse.
And then also, like when I got the shot, two months later, I had my last monthly.
And I'm thinking, like, okay, well, it must be due to the menopause I'm going through.
So I just brushed it off.
But when I got COVID in nine months later, my monthly started.
And then it got worse and worse and worse while I had COVID.
And then it got better when I was better from COVID.
So I had no period for nine months.
There seems to be a lot of anecdotal discussions around that.
And then when I did go to a doctor about that issue, he did agree that the Moderna did do that to me.
But no one has formally documented this as a reaction and they won't give you any further exemption for other doses?
No.
The one doctor I asked if I can even get disability, he just said to me, No, because there's no evidence the vaccine did this to you.
You basically have fibromyalgia, so just deal with it.
And then he said, and then that's a rheumatologist appointment.
So talk to your rheumatologist and tell her what I said.
So when I did tell her on Friday that he basically told me to tell her that I have fibromyalgia and I have to just deal with it, she got kind of mad.
And she was going to rate some kind of complaint.
It must be on a forum that they have and was going to put in a complaint about doctors sending patients to her, just saying you have fibromyalgia, just deal with it.
She said, no, there is fibromyalgia.
She goes, but I don't like to diagnose that because there is a route to what's going on.
And we got to find that.
So interesting.
Well, hopefully, very interesting as well.
Yeah, well, keep me posted.
Hopefully, you can get to the bottom of whether or not she ends up documenting this.
And maybe at that point, you would be eligible to receive the government.
There's a federal grant program out now for vaccine injured.
I just have you heard anything on mainstream media.
I understand that you were a heavy consumer of mainstream media.
Did you hear about any of these reactions through the media or how did you find others?
No, I didn't hear any of it on the media.
It was all through following all the live feeds from the convoy and then people commenting about their reactions from the vaccine.
And I relate to many of those people.
We all are in the same situation.
We're all vaccine victims and it's a real thing.
We're not people out there lying just to get attention.
This is real.
And these doctors need to deal with it.
Do you have a message for the mainstream media who may be instilling this fear of COVID and simultaneously not acknowledging that the injections are causing damage to some people?
Coming from someone who has been watching mainstream media, global news, the one I've been watching since I was little, which started out as ITV, please start listening to us, listening to the ones who are hurting because we're in pain due to this vaccine.
Everyone's still getting COVID, even with this vaccine.