Ezra Levant argues Canada’s police investigation into hecklers calling Jagmeet Singh a "communist piece of shit" reveals hypocrisy, as Trudeau—who used the same slur in Parliament—faces no consequences while dismissing scrutiny (e.g., military surveillance of the trucker convoy) as "disinformation." Comparing this to the U.S. Disinformation Governance Board’s partisan censorship, Levant warns regimes fear truth more than dissent, fueling global backlash against progressive policies like woke corporate purges and baby formula shortages amid inflation. [Automatically generated summary]
I want to let you know that someone swore at a politician this week, and the entire media political complex is apoplectic.
What will we ever do?
The people are not complying peacefully.
They're actually heckling politicians.
Well, obviously, the police are investigating.
I'll give you more details, but I think that Jagmeet Singh and Justin Trudeau just might be cry bullies.
I'll show you the tape of the hecklers in question.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
You get the video version of this podcast.
That's important.
So I want you to see what these hecklers looked like.
I want you to see that they were not, in fact, physical.
They were not threatening.
They didn't block anyone's path.
They weren't violent in any way.
And to see the video version, you just got to go to RebelNewsPlus.com, RebelNewsPlus.com.
Eight bucks a month.
You get my daily video show plus four other weekly shows of Rebel News.
That's 36 shows a month just for eight bucks.
Rebelnewsplus.com.
And, you know, we rely on that eight bucks because that's how we pay our bills.
We don't get any money from Trudeau.
All right.
Here's today's podcast.
Tonight, someone swore at a politician, so the police are investigating.
We really are becoming a demand.
It's May 13th, and this is the Esper LeBancho.
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 shouldn't?
It's because it's my bloody right to do so.
Justin Trudeau is atrocious, which might be a reason he did not win a majority government in the last election.
But he is able to govern as if he has a majority because the NDP's weak leader, Jagmeet Singh.
has pledged to prop up Trudeau in a coalition.
It's really quite pitiful.
Singh is such an intellectual lightweight.
He puts out little tweets criticizing and condemning Trudeau to give the appearance of opposition or something.
But of course, it is precisely his support for Trudeau that keeps Trudeau in power.
It's almost like Singh is deceiving you.
But not everyone is deceived.
When Singh was at a campaign event for a provincial NDP candidate competing in the Ontario provincial election, Singh was accosted by a group of protesters heckling him, much in the same manner that Trudeau is always heckled.
I'm sure they could be the very same people who heckled Trudeau, too, in fact.
But here's how it often is for Trudeau these days.
And it's a reason why Trudeau prefers doing photo ops in Ukraine to actually governing here at home.
I mean, here's just an example.
Here comes that communist piece of shit.
There's that fucking piece of shit.
You communist fuck.
You piece of shit.
You fucking communist fucking.
We've all you want, you brick swab lover.
Yeah, sorry, it's rude, but really, we haven't had any opposition in this country for two years.
Aaron O'Toole and Jagmeet Singh saw to that in parliament.
The media party saw to that in journalism.
The cowardly judges that rubber stamped the lockdown saw to it in the courts.
So yeah, that's really the only outlet people have to talk back to an increasingly authoritarian bully.
And I know there are some swears.
I hope Trudeau's okay.
But like I say, Trudeau is nothing without a subservient, docile, passive, submissive poodle NDP, not an NDP that fights with him, certainly not fighting with him about the rights of workers who were all sold out during the pandemic by their unions, but play fighting.
So yeah, Jagmeet Singh is Trudeau's accomplice, and some people swore at him too.
I hope he's okay.
Here's a video of that.
You can't fucking traitor.
You're a freaking traitor.
You're a fucking traitor to this country.
Fuck you.
You all can call freedom climb voice.
Now, those are some very mean words, and they were shouted.
They're not the meanest words.
I think there's a hierarchy of swears.
Some are worse than others.
The Brits and the Australians, they just love saying the C word, which is like the nuclear bomb swear over here.
There's a 12-letter swear that's pretty bad when you hear it.
Those were bad swears they used against Jagmeet Singh, but they weren't racist swears.
I'm glad of that.
Those can really sting.
And they weren't threats.
I'll kill you.
I'll hurt you.
I'm going to F you up.
It was just generic abuse, really, harsh heckling.
The kind of thing that Trudeau dishes out.
I mean, just last week, he used a six-letter swear that starts with F-U-C-K.
And he said it in Parliament.
What we saw during this pandemic was a national tragedy of elders not being properly cared for in every corner, almost every corner of the country.
That's why we committed to working with provinces and territories to improve the quality of long-term care for residents right across the country.
We're continuing to move forward, working with and recognizing the jurisdiction of provinces, but also knowing that the federal government also has a role to play in ensuring that every senior in this country is treated with the dignity and care that they so richly deserve.
And that's all the time we have for questioning period today.
And I'm seeing we have a number of points of order, I'm guessing.
Boca Pois.
I would like to recognize the Honourable Member for La Pré to kick things off.
After the question asked by the member for Pontiac, the Prime Minister answered his answer by saying, shame on Quebecers.
We checked, we listened to it, that's what we heard.
So, of course, I would like him to withdraw his statement.
The Right Honourable Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, in the emotion, I forgot a word.
It was shame on the Quebec Conservatives.
Order.
Another point of order.
For Foothills.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm sure all of us in this illustrator are used to vigorous debate, certainly during question period.
But there is a line that should be not crossed, especially when it comes to using unparliamentary language.
The Prime Minister used an obscenity and it was not fuddle-duddle in describing the official opposition.
I would ask the Prime Minister to stand and apologize for that language.
I can say during question period, there was a number of things that was flying back and forth.
I did not hear, I did not hear what the Prime Minister said, but all I can say is I heard a number of lies on this side as well.
So those are things that should not be said in this House of Commons.
And as I said before, during question period, to follow some decorum in this House of Commons, to watch what we're saying to each other so that we reflect what Canadians want in this House of Commons.
Yeah, he said that in Parliament where you're not supposed to use unparliamentary language.
And there was that time a few years back where he called Peter Kent a piece of S-H-I-T.
Well, Mr. Speaker, my honorable colleague, if she had been in Durban, would have seen that, in fact, Canada was among the leaders in...
Order. Order.
Shh.
Yeah, so don't feel too bad about Justin Trudeau hearing some swears.
He's faking it if he says he cares about profanity.
Everyone and everything about him is fake.
I mean, he's the guy who calls you racist while he's dressing up in blackface more times than he can remember.
He's the guy who calls you a sexist, but he's the one who sexually assaulted Rose Knight in Creston, B.C. He's the guy who calls you intolerant while he segregates and discriminates against millions of Canadians based on medical status.
So yeah, crocodile tears.
But look at this.
The CBC wants you to know something.
Police in Peterborough say they are actively investigating a protest that resulted in the profane heckling of NEP leader Jagmoot Singh during a visit to the central Ontario city earlier this week.
Look at those words there.
The police are not investigating a crime.
They're not investigating an assault.
They're investigating a protest, not an assault, not a battery, not mischief.
The hecklers didn't touch anyone.
They didn't threaten to touch anyone.
They didn't block a road, nothing.
They were just, as the CBC calls it, profane.
And so police are involved.
Is that a thing now?
You know, for years, I mean, just for years, FUCK Harper was the thing.
I mean, this sudden concern about profanity was never a thing before.
Here's the famous celebrity, Ashley Collingbull, with her F. Harper t-shirt.
I mean, she was the toast of the town.
She was the front page of every magazine in the country.
F. Harper was pretty much the go-to campaign for every leftist in Canada for nine years.
I don't know if police ever investigated them for mean words.
I mean, there's a famous American case on the F-word.
I think I might have told you this one before.
It's an old case.
50 years ago, there was an anti-war activist, Vietnam War, who wore a shirt saying FUCK the draft, the military draft.
He wore that into a courtroom.
He got into trouble.
He appealed it.
And all the way up, the Supreme Court, relying on the First Amendment.
And his right to wear that profane shirt, FUCK the draft, was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Here's what Justice John Harlan said writing for the majority.
He said, while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric.
The court found that being able to say FUCK was essential because that shocking rudeness was necessary to properly express the distress and anger and urgency that this guy was feeling in his opposition to the war.
I see this picture from time to time.
It's a joke about how Canadians protest.
I'm a little upset.
But it's true, we are usually polite.
But after two years of having our rights flattened by a bully prime minister, few people feel like swearing.
I think it's because they're powerless.
You know, maybe it's not your style.
That's fine.
I mean, which is worse?
Hearing the profane words F-U-C-K and S-H-I-G, or, I don't know, hearing this.
I want to be clear who I stand with.
I stand with the healthcare workers, and I'm compassionate to the people that have given so much to us.
And I denounce the fact that they are been made to be afraid to walk down the streets.
I'm compassionate to the families of people in Ottawa who are wanting to send their kids to school that have been kept all night by people who want to overthrow the government.
I'm compassionate to workers in downtown Cora who've been harassed and intimidated by these members of the convoy.
I'm compassionate to young people who've been harassed and verbally assaulted by this.
I'm compassionate to racialized people who see symbols of hate.
I'm compassionate to the Jewish people who saw swastika and Nazi flags flying.
I'm compassionate to racialized people and black people who saw Confederate flags and say, how is this happening in our country?
That's who we're standing with.
We're standing with the people.
We're saying this is not Canada.
This is not what we represent.
This hate, the desecration of war memorials, the vandalizing of the Terry Fox Memorial, this is not Canada.
This is not who we stand for.
Can I get a police investigation for those profane insults?
Or can politicians insult us, but we can't insult back?
What's the rules?
Or how about what Trudeau says the truckers were all racists and Nazis?
I know you're wondering about what you saw in our capital city this weekend.
As my friend Erwin Kotler said on Saturday, freedom of expression, assembly, and association are cornerstones of democracy, but Nazi symbolism, racist imagery, and desecration of war memorials are not.
It is an insult to memory and truth.
Hate can never be the answer.
Over the past few days, Canadians were shocked and frankly disgusted by the behavior displayed by some people protesting in our nation's capital.
I want to be very clear.
We are not intimidated by those who hurl insults and abuse at small business workers and steal food from the homeless.
We won't give in to those who fly racist flags.
We won't cave to those who engage in vandalism or dishonor the memory of our veterans.
There is no place in our country for threats, violence, or hatred.
So to those responsible for this behavior, it needs to stop.
To anyone who joined the convoy but is rightly uncomfortable with the symbols of hatred and division on display, join with your fellow Canadians.
Be courageous and speak out.
Do not stand for or with intolerance and hate.
Stand Against Hatred00:05:52
Or how about when Trudeau campaigned on marginalizing millions of people based on their medical condition?
They are putting at risk their own kids and they're putting at risk our kids as well.
Those people are putting us all at risk.
Or how about when he says, we shouldn't even tolerate such people?
Si des gens qui sont farouchement opposés à la vaccination.
Qui sont extrémistes.
Qui croient pas dans la science, qui sont souvent misogynes, souvent racistes aussi.
C'est un petit groupe, mais qui prend de la place.
Et là, il faut faire un choix en tant que leader, en tant que pays.
Est-ce qu'on tolère ces gens-là?
Ou est-ce qu'on dit, bien, voyons, la plupart des gens, presque 80% des Québécois, ont fait ce qu'il fallait faire.
Ils se sont fait vacciner.
On veut revenir aux choses qu'on aime faire.
C'est pas ces gens-là qui vont nous bloquer.
Maintenant...
Are you allowed to swear back?
Or do you just have to say, I'm a little upset?
Can you swear when Trudeau's police horses trample you at a peaceful protest?
Can you swear when they shoot you?
Like they shot our reporter, Alexa LaVois.
You know, I don't even think she scored, by the way.
How about when Trudeau's personal bodyguards beat up our reporter, David Menzies?
I don't think he scored either.
He just called them false.
Are you kidding?
Are you kidding?
And then there's Trudeau himself, hours after a judge said that we at Rebel News are accredited journalists.
Trudeau said we weren't.
And we were beneath his contempt.
I have a question from Tamara Ugolini from Rebel News.
Thank you, Mr. Trudeau.
The only reason that I'm allowed to ask you this question is because today the federal court ruled that the government doesn't have the right to determine who is or is not a journalist.
This is the second election in a row that the floor type of Uber carrying your government.
Do you still insist on being able to make that decision and why?
First of all, questions around accreditation were handled by the press gallery and the consortium of networks who have strong perspectives on quality journalism and the important information that is shared with Canadians.
The reality is, organizations, organizations like yours that continue to spread misinformation and disinformation on the science around vaccines,
around how we're going to actually get through this pandemic and be there for each other and keep our kids safe, is part of why we're seeing such unfortunate anger and lack of understanding of basic science.
And quite frankly, your, I won't call it a media organization, your group of individuals need to take accountability for some of the polarization that we're seeing in this country.
And I think Canadians are cluing into the fact that there is a really important decision we take about the kind of country we want to see.
And I salute all extraordinary, hardworking journalists that put science and facts at the heart of what they do and ask me tough questions every day, but make sure that they are educating and informing Canadians from a broad range of perspectives, which is the last thing that you guys do.
So you have an abusive government increasingly violent against its own people, verbally abusive against its own people, seizing bank accounts, martial law.
You know, that's all fine, but you can't swear back.
Here's what Jack Beet Singh said to reporters once he recovered from hearing the F-word.
He said, it was more of an aggressive and a bit on the violent side in terms of the language that was being used.
It would rank among our worst experiences.
What it does remind me is there's a level of polarization that's going on in politics, which is troubling.
What's violent language?
I think I know what violent language is.
I will hurt you.
I'm going to punch you.
It's violent language.
FUCK isn't violent language.
It's rude, very rude.
FU is rude, but what does he mean by violent language?
Because if there were actual violence or the threat of violence, the hecklers would have been arrested.
It's almost like we have a cry bully on our hands here.
He calls you a racist Nazi, and when you shout back, he condemns you for being polarizing.
That's my favorite part.
You know who has the power to polarize and divide a country?
Not working-class people fired from their jobs and banned from flying or taking the train because they won't get a jab.
Not poor people, powerful people, politicians.
Here's what the former head of CESIS told Parliament just yesterday: I really do think that political correctness has reached the point today where it's almost impossible to have a conversation about a whole raft of issues.
And if you're frustrated with government and with society to begin with, and it's not helpful, and I don't think that attacking views is helpful by anybody, not by you, not by me, not by the prime minister.
You don't say, you don't say.
You know, I'm sure the Toronto Star is furious at those swearing poors.
They would never engage in, what's that phrase?
Verbal violence.
No, sir.
They would never engage in division, not them.
Look, the Toronto Star is so gross, but they're just a rag.
What worries me are the police because it's atrocious to censor peaceful disagreement.
Nina Jankowicz's Blue Checkemark Influence00:10:30
But we're long past that in Canada.
We're well into arresting people now, jailing people now, seizing their bank accounts because you didn't protest with the right tone of voice.
Stay with us from a huckster takes some lies and makes them sound precocious by saying them in Congress or on mainstream markets.
So, disinformation's origins are slightly less atrocious.
It's how you hide a little eye, little lie.
It's how you hide a little idle lie.
It's how you hide a little idle lie when Rudy Giuliani shared that intel from Ukraine.
Or when TikTok influencers say COVID can cause pain.
They're laundering dissentful, and we really should take note.
And not support their lies with our wallet voice or vote.
Who is that?
Come on, that can't be a real person.
Well, indeed, that is.
That is Nina Jankowitz, Joe Biden's choice to head a new disinformation board at the Department of Homeland Security.
You couldn't make it up.
Just incredible, the treasure trove of commentaries, many of them musical, by Nina Jankowicz, that are just right out there.
The New York Post, one of the best headline writers in the business, they had this cover story a while back.
They called her Scary Poppins, not Mary Poppins.
And the New York Post again today, a great column by our friend Ben Weingarten.
The headline is: You couldn't have picked a worse minister of truth than Nina Jankowicz.
But actually, I think she is the perfect minister of truth in the Orwellian sense that she'll do any silly thing, say anything to flatter the regime.
And joining us now via Skype is our friend Ben Weingarten, who writes for the Federalist and is with the Claremont Institute.
Ben, great to see you again.
You publish so many interesting things in great titles.
You're in Newsweek sometimes.
Here you are in the New York Post.
Tell us a little bit more about Nina Jankowicz.
I actually haven't dug into this for our viewers yet, but she is riveting in the same way a car crash.
You just can't look away.
Tell us more about Nina Jankowitz.
Well, thanks for having me.
And this is a, in some ways, ridiculous topic, but in other ways, one of the most important topics when it comes to what I've cast as a war on wrong thing that's been going on in America.
Nina Jankowicz, we recently found out in testimony, I believe, from the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkis, is chairing, serving as the czar of the so-called disinformation governance board, the DGB, within the Department of Homeland Security.
And according to DHS, this department is not operational, except that it's coordinating all of its work with a slew of other clearly operational bodies, including the DHS and other government agencies.
Set that aside for a moment.
And Jankowitz herself is, of course, the last person to serve as an arbiter of truth in an organ that should not exist in the U.S. governmental system, period, full stop.
We do not need disinformation governance boards.
We certainly don't need them housed within the DHS, that is, with an inherently domestic focus.
And this is, of course, the last administration to be telling us, to be trying to separate truth from fiction when it's been one of the greatest purveyors, for example, of what it cast as disinformation with respect to the coronavirus, for example, and then ended up flip-flopping and promoting it as the truth.
And Jankowitz herself, of course, perfectly reflects this administration on three levels.
The first is that she is the last person to be an arbiter of truth because she herself has been a prolific purveyor of disinformation.
This is someone who is a Russiagate collusion monger who's promoted the work of Christopher Steele, told the untruth that the Steele dossier, which is at the core of the entire Russiagate fraud, itself was funded by Republicans.
Not true.
This is someone who is also partisan, something that you wouldn't want if you were supposed to have a neutral arbiter of truth, which, of course, again, the U.S. government shouldn't be in the business of.
This is someone who was said, tweeted, hashtag I'm with her with respect to Hillary Clinton and quoted Hillary Clinton in 2016 with this ill-fated statement that the most dangerous thing I'm paraphrasing here about Donald Trump would be that he would embolden and empower ISIS when of course Donald Trump helped destroy ISIS ultimately.
Someone who claimed, of course, this is the biggest promoter of untruth here.
Someone who claimed that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation when, of course, that was an American information operation, in effect.
The New York Post reporting there has been vindicated.
Someone who was an ardent defender, actually, of Hunter Biden's work with barisma, as well as a defender of Joe Biden, who she claimed in a November 2020 piece in foreign affairs was uniquely suited to combat disinformation and called for the creation in that article of a counter-disinformation czar, basically lobbying for the creation of a position in which she now sits.
Last but not least, as for free speech, this is someone who wants people, blue check marks like her, enlightened blue check marks like her, to be able to add context, so-called, to tweets, that is to be able to edit tweets, conferring their wisdom upon them and batting down the disinformation of politicians they don't like or commentators they don't like, and who also said that she shudders, this is her word, shudders, to think about free speech absolutists purchasing social media platforms.
So on every level, in terms of herself being a spewer of disinformation, in terms of being a partisan hack, it would seem based upon her public positions, and then on the fact that she is not devoted to free speech, clearly, on each one of these bases, that makes her the worst minister of truth, but also the perfect minister of truth for this regime.
And this ministry that she's going to be overseeing is supposedly tasked with combating misdis and malinformation regarding irregular migration, that is illegal immigration, particularly from our southern border, and then Russian disinformation going into the midterm.
So, as I ask in this piece, does that mean that if you bring up the fact that the Biden administration has engaged in sovereignty eviscerating policies with respect to our southern border and that that thus provokes or compels people to rush those borders, are you a purveyor of dangerous disinformation?
What about if the equivalent of the Hunter Biden laptop story fell into our laps tomorrow?
Would the DHS and other agencies cast that as Russian disinformation going into a midterm election, thus interfering in that election?
All of these questions are open questions and they deserve more than scrutiny.
This bureau should not exist.
But even more broadly, the war on wrong thing that it's part and parcel of, which we've talked about here before, should not exist.
Yeah.
You know, and the thing is, all of it she puts to a show tune.
It's just like it, it's all creepy and crazy to begin with.
I mean, here's a clip of her saying that, I mean, the blue check mark, just FYI for folks, is there's so many people on social media, but if you're a brand that can be confused, or if you're a celebrity and there's people copycatting you, most social media let you get a little blue check mark to say you're verified, you're legit.
It's not necessarily a function of how large your audience is, though that is a factor.
Celebrities, politicians, journalists, but it's not an endorsement of what you have to say.
It's not an endorsement that you're a keeper of the truth.
It's really just this is like a VIP user of this social platform.
Here she is saying anyone with a blue check mark, as if it is some moral status that you have a unique perspective on the truth, should be able to go in and correct anyone else in the world.
Like she would be the editor for your own private thought.
You just got to see it.
Take a look.
And I am eligible for it because I'm verified, but there are a lot of people who shouldn't be verified who aren't legit, in my opinion.
I mean, they are real people, but they're not trustworthy.
Anyway, so verified people can essentially start to edit Twitter the same sort of way that Wikipedia is, so they can add context to certain tweets.
So just as an easy example, not from any political standpoint, if President Trump were still on Twitter and tweeted a claim about voter fraud, someone could add context from one of the 60 lawsuits that went through the court or something that an election official in one of the states said, perhaps your own Secretary of State and his news conferences, something like that.
Adding context so that people have a fuller picture rather than just an individual claim on a tweet.
But of course, it's all sung.
I don't know who this lady Nina Jenkowitz wanted to grow up to be, but I think maybe she thought there was like some VEP or some house of cards show that she would be perfect for.
Sometimes it was just weird, like this strange one where she sings, who do I have to sleep with to get ahead?
Why is she rich, famous and powerful?
While I'm still stuck here singing Christmas songs for all of you?
What does it take to be famous and powerful?
Santa, if you're listening, please tell me what to do.
Who do I fuck to be famous?
I don't know.
It just feels like a joke.
Now, I know there were some hearings on Capitol Hill where the head of Homeland Security was asked about her, but she herself has not appeared before any confirmation hearings.
Am I right?
She's, I guess, a low-level enough higher that she's not subjected to hearings like a judge would be or an agency head.
Institutions Undermine Truth00:08:02
Yeah, my understanding is this is a non-confirmable type of position.
And that is one of the reasons why I think one of the dangers that we've seen in the evolution of the executive branch, creating all of these positions that are not subject to, in effect, the consent of the governed.
That's why they create these czarships.
And that's what she serves as.
And I agree.
There's a level of this which is one of my friends, David Reboy out there, he has this blog, this substack, and he's kind of gone with this.
He calls it late republic nonsense.
This is the perfect illustration of late republic nonsense.
But it's deathly serious because, and this is what I've been trying to emphasize when I write and speak about this, as wild and outlandish as it is that this person is running this ministry, this ministry exists.
It does have power because it is coordinating across the government.
And the DHS put out a terrorism advisory bulletin back in February, which said that the U.S. faced a heightened threat environment fueled by misdis and malinformation.
And particularly around, of course, contentious, heated topics like election integrity, Chinese coronavirus policies, and immigration when it came to refugees primarily coming from Afghanistan, it referred to.
So they have tried to associate debate, really views that do not comport with the regime's views on heated, contentious issues that are supposed to be hashed out in a Republican system like ours.
They've said that if you're on the wrong side of those issues, you might be on the side of the dangerous, the terrorists, I guess ultra MAGA, as Joe Biden has cast some Americans.
And they have this whole apparatus that's being built to pursue it.
And it started with, as we've talked about before, the creation of the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, which was put out back in June of last year, which called for the need, a whole of government effort to confront the long-term contributors to the great domestic terror threats, fueled by, again, missed and disinformation and assaults on essentially democracy, efforts to undermine the institutions and democracy.
But the thing is, the institutions themselves are doing that undermining, and they're trying to cast critics of it who observe what we all can see with our own eyes, the ridiculousness here, the late Republic nonsense themselves as a danger, rather than that the institutions themselves are basically serving as a danger to the country, our liberty, and justice.
Yeah.
You know, it used to be that in politics, we just called each other wrong.
You're wrong.
You're factually wrong.
Your facts are wrong.
Or your opinion is unreasonable.
That's how it used to be.
But the remedies for being wrong are a correction or a rebuttal, a debate.
But those ideas are no longer in vogue in the left.
So they've replaced, well, you're wrong, or I disagree with that is misinformation, disinformation, malinformation.
I haven't heard that one before.
Because then you're saying, well, I don't have to fact check you.
I don't have to do the work of debating you.
I don't have to challenge you.
We're not going to interact.
I'm going to just swallow everything up that you've said, and I'm going to cancel it and eradicate it.
And the fact that you would even dare disagree with me, I'm going to call it disinformation.
And now I'm going to call you disloyal.
I'm going to put you in some homeland security category along with China, Russia, and terrorists.
And instead of getting into the nitty-gritty of answering your points, I'm going to say anyone who even engages in those points is morally wrong.
It's not a war room debate.
It's not one of these fake fact checks where the corporate media says, well, you can't disagree with us.
It's like a nuclear fact check because it's government weaponized.
And there's going to be some government response.
Facebook, social media is going to be ordered to take it down.
You'll be condemned by government, not just the private sector.
I think that this whole disinformation industry is simply censorship of anyone who disagrees with the regime.
Yeah, essentially what they're saying is the science is settled.
If you don't disagree with us, your ideas are dangerous.
You're a potential danger.
We threaten to use the full force of the public sector and private sector power because oftentimes now they're working in tandem with a private sector that has embraced the regime ideology, works with the regime.
Of course, in some ways, corporate America itself has become like an arm of the administrative state in its embrace of wokeism and diversity, inclusion, equity, DAI as opposed to DEI, critical race theory, and the rest of it.
And you're absolutely right.
It's because they do not want to debate.
They have given up on reason and persuasion, and they're going to force to try to drive their political opponents into submission.
They want to demoralize their opposition.
They want to scare their opposition into remaining silent.
And that's why I think it's so imperative to speak up because this is really going to have civilizational consequences if this effort continues to stand and continue and the long march continues through the institutions.
You know, it's a global phenomenon.
You can see all the World Economic Forum types synchronizing on this stuff.
You can see Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand, Justin Trudeau.
The other day in Parliament in Canada, Ben, it was revealed that a military aircraft was spying on the trucker convoy, flying overhead, probably collecting electronic data, signals, intelligence on, probably ID'd every person in the crowd using their cell phone, probably logged all that info, hoovered up all the calls.
I don't know what.
It was a military spy plane.
For months, the government denied that happened.
It was revealed.
The military acknowledges it.
So Justin Trudeau was asked about it in our question period.
He did not answer substantively.
He lashed out, accusing the question asker, who is a member of parliament, a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, whose job it is to ask questions of the government, called that disinformation.
So it's just the go-to insult, because I guess calling people racist or sexist or homophobic or transphobic isn't quite enough because that doesn't shut anyone up.
But saying that's disinformation now, oh, I'm scared to even repeat it because there's something foreign and hostile to the information.
It's so bizarre and so cheap to see him use that in parliament against the fact that his own government has admitted.
I just thought that's classic.
That just shows what this whole disinformation BS is.
It's just a new version of calling someone racist, but in a way that the words they say become toxic in a foreign affairs kind of way.
The truth is, they don't fear disinformation.
What they really fear is truth, truth speakers.
They want to silence and muzzle them because those who speak the truth boldly and courageously threaten their power and privilege.
And all around the world, there have been movements rising up, populist movements, nationalist movements rising up against our progressive, globalist, internationalist davoisie, whichever adjective we want to use, the global ruling class, so to speak.
And they can't tolerate that.
But the whole reason that there's been this populist nationalist uprising is precisely because of the failures of these rulers to do what the people want.
And just on a very practical basis, if you ask the question, is your life better than it was 10 years ago?
Truth Speakers Under Attack00:07:10
If the answer is no, you have to be responsive to the public.
And they want to act as if the public doesn't matter and that's just an impediment to their rule.
And we, the people, can't take it anymore and aren't going to stand for it.
But consequently, they have to cast those who would dare speak up as a danger, try to delegitimize them, chill and silence them into submission.
And that's why it's imperative not to, not to cower.
Well, it's incredible.
And just because she smiles and sings doesn't make it any less terrifying.
In fact, I think that makes it absolutely terrifying.
There's a real hunger games vibe to what she's doing.
It's really gross.
I'm so glad you wrote about it in the New York Post.
Ben Weingarten, great to see you again.
Don't be a stranger.
Thanks for having me.
Really appreciate it.
Right on.
Stay with us.
Your letters to me are next.
Hey, welcome back.
Kevin Armstrong says, Clark did that just to make a mockery of the Conservative Party.
That nonsense should never happen again.
You're talking about Tom Clark, the absolutely atrocious moderator.
I'm not even going to call him a moderator, and I'm not going to call that a debate.
I don't know exactly what that was.
You know, I saw an opinion.
I think it was our friend Candace Malcolm who said it wasn't all Tom Clark's fault.
He was atrocious.
But it was designed to make sure there was no spicy moments for the candidates.
That was her theory.
I think Occam's Razor, have you ever heard that rule?
It's sort of a tool for decisions and philosophy.
Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
So you could say, oh, this was some complicated plan by the Conservative Party to have an uneventful and uninteresting debate that as few people watched as possible so the party didn't get into trouble.
I don't think that really makes sense because there are other non-official debates.
And I just think, no, I think it's what it looked like.
You had an atrocious moderator and some really bad judgment.
And I mean, I don't care if it was good TV or bad TV.
It was just a terrible debate.
It was unfair.
It revealed very little about the candidates.
And it's not surprising because you brought in a liberal lobbyist.
What's going on?
Ralph H. said, you don't have to be religious or a Christian to understand that abortion is wrong 99% of the time.
Well, look, abortion is a real moral issue, and we have no abortion law in Canada.
It's legal from conception to birth for any reason or no reason at all, including, for example, sex-select abortions.
But is it a newsworthy question in Canada today?
I don't know.
I don't think so.
Roe v. Wade, the American decision that was overturned after 50 years, doesn't touch on Canada.
But Tom Clark was obsessed by that question almost as much as he was obsessed by asking people what their favorite movies was.
It was ridiculous.
Greg Pentney, somebody sign answer up for Jeremy's Razors.
You know what?
I just want to show you what Jeremy's Razors is.
What you're talking about, but I don't think some of our viewers do.
Take a look at this great video by Jeremy Boring, the boss of the Daily Wire.
That's the website where Ben Shapiro does his work.
a look at this.
Do you remember when there were two genders and only one and a half of them had to shave their mustaches?
Oh, hi, I'm Jeremy Boring, CEO and God King of The Daily Wire.
Harry's Razors used to advertise on our shows.
They're a great product, and we were happy to do it.
That's before some peon who works for me went and said that boys are boys and girls are girls.
And that was just too much for Harry's.
They condemned our views.
Views held by millions of Americans and virtually every human who's walked the planet until about 15 minutes ago as inexcusable.
And they dropped their ads from our network because of what they called values misalignment.
You're damn right our values are misaligned.
And it's not just Harry's either.
Gillette razors used to be the best a man could get.
Then they decided that men are too toxic.
Unless you're the kind of man who teaches his daughter to shave her beard.
If that makes sense to you, keep buying Gillette.
But if you've had enough of the woke bullshit and you're tired of paying companies like Harry's and Gillette to hate you, then buy my new razor instead.
Behold Jeremy's razors.
Yes, they're real.
Yes, they're fabulous.
But Jeremy, you say, you're a stealth silver fox with a salt and pepper beard that's the envy of lesser men.
You damn right I am.
And I want to be clear that shaving with a Jeremy's Razor won't actually make you look more like me.
You're giving me fierce.
You're giving me power.
Could make you look more like this guy, though.
And that's the most homoerotic moment you'll ever get from a Jeremy's Razor commercial.
What kind of man shaves with a Jeremy's Razor?
I don't know.
How about cowboys, firefighters?
Those guys that shot Osama bin Laden.
I mean, no, none of those guys have ever even heard of a Jeremy's razor, but imagine how much more manly they'd be if they had.
Right now, you're probably wondering if this whole thing is a joke.
Sure it is.
That doesn't mean it isn't real or that it won't be the best shave of your life.
Harry's Razors doesn't want your business.
I do.
They seem to hate you.
And I, well, I can't say that I love you, but I don't mean you any specific harm.
Our country's in trouble.
Conservatives are being canceled by Hollywood, the media, universities, and now Harry's Razors.
Stop giving your money to woke corporations who don't think you deserve their product.
Give it to me instead.
Isn't that amazing?
I think it's a great way to fight back against cancel culture, but just the production value of that.
Baby Formula Shortage in Miami00:02:43
That was such an entertaining ad.
They're doing great and congrats to them.
Yeah, you know, I'm trying to, I'm trying to grow a beard.
I've been trying now for about three weeks.
I don't know if it's working.
I don't know if it, I mean, I just, maybe I should just give up.
I feel like I'm this far in, I should give it a little more time.
Anyways, hey, thanks for joining me this week.
I hope you found it interesting.
Let me leave you with our video of the day from Juan Mendoza Diaz.
And it's an exclusive look at baby formula shortages in Miami, Florida.
Until Monday, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night and keep fighting for freedom.
This is Juan Mendoza reporting for Rebel News.
With the recent amount of inflation and shortages that have been affecting Americans here in the United States, the prices are going up.
So even if you start making more money, if the prices are going up faster than your wages or your salary is going up, you're actually losing ground in this inflationary economy.
The most recent item to be facing shortages is baby formula.
We're going to take you around many grocery stores in Miami just to show you how the city is being affected with the shortage of baby formula.
We're here at one Publix location in this NC the amount of baby formula around at this store is not as much as they had.
As you can see there's clear shelves here.
So we're here at Target now and at the baby formula section and as you can see the supply is also very very short here for baby formula and we wanted to see if it was not just Publix that was having an issue on supplying baby formula and as you can see some of the shelves here they're not completely full.
So I got here to a local supermarket here in Miami and they don't seem to have been impacted as bad for the baby formula shortage as other grocery stores like Target or Publix or Walmart.
We are here at another Walmart location in Miami and, as you can see, the baby formula there's not much left here either.