David Menzies and Lewis Brackpool expose the 2022 WEF Davos summit’s "regaining trust" theme as a facade, given its push for digital central banking, metaverse control, and redacted influencer payments—like Health Canada’s $1.5M+ to Pokeroo and Brampton Batman—to enforce COVID mandates. Retired officer Rob Stocky received a May 2022 wiretapping confirmation from Ontario’s Attorney General, likely tied to his Freedom Convoy involvement, while the Emergencies Act was weaponized against protesters. The WEF’s Agenda 2030 aligns with policies like Boris Johnson’s 2030 petrol/diesel ban, proving its grip on governance, yet elites ignore public backlash over lockdowns and mandates. Celebrity endorsements, often ideological, mask deeper systemic corruption, where governments hide conflicts of interest while enforcing compliance—raising questions about transparency, censorship, and unchecked power. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome to Rebel Roundup ladies and gentlemen and the rest of you in which we look back at some of the very best commentaries of the week by your favorite rebels.
I'm your host David Menzies.
Well the 2022 edition of the World Economic Forum is over and done with.
We had a huge team of Rebel news reporters covering this gathering and one of those reporters Lewis Brackpool will join me to offer his thoughts on this elitist conference.
Say, did you know that the federal government used taxpayer dollars to pay influencers to convince citizens to comply with the COVID lockdowns?
Did you know that the government is being secretive about this scheme?
Well, Sheila Gunread has all the nitty-gritty details.
And letters, we get your letters, we get your letters every minute of every day.
And I'll share some of your responses about our story regarding Rob Stocky, a retired Ottawa police officer who recently found out that he had his phone wiretapped by law enforcement.
And why was that, you ask?
Great question.
No reason was given for the wiretapping, but Rob suspects his so-called crime was him taking part in the Freedom Convoy that descended upon Ottawa in late January.
Unbelievable.
Those are your rebels.
Now let's round them up.
I'm here with the entire team walking back to the car after what I would call a long three days of chasing down elites at the World Economic Forum here in Davos.
Mate Lewis.
Yep.
Last three days, what have you learned?
Well, I think I've learned a massive positive, okay?
And that's this year's narrative or theme is all about regaining trust, which paints the picture that people don't trust them.
So I take that as a big positive.
Beautiful.
I can't say I disagree.
I think I've seen that too.
Savs, come on in, tell the people.
Three long days.
What have you taken away?
I think my biggest takeaway, Avi, is that we're essentially living in the globalist ideal world, right?
They're far away from the people.
They are pushing all of this digital central banking metaverse on us.
But are they taking part in that?
Are they a part of that in their every single day lives?
On top of that, they have approved press here, which is why, again, go to WEFreports.com because we're some of the only journalists that are actually on the ground confronting these elites, these globalists that are trying to push these bad ideologies on us, these bad policies on us.
So, you know, I've just really learned the importance of, one, independent media, and two, that if the World Economic Forum had their way, this is what our world would look like.
They would be somewhere remote, far away from the people.
We would be suffering from their bad policy, and they would be sipping champagne on the streets.
I'm sorry, Sophie, you're going to have to follow that one.
What have you learned in the last three days here?
Well, if I had to sum up the last three days, it would be hypocrisy, hypocrisy, and a bit more hypocrisy.
We've had lecturing us on climate change while flying in by private jets and having cars after cars after cars.
We've had wanting to implement digital ID and more surveillance while hiding behind their little sheltered area back there.
So, you know, the rich get private lives, but the poor don't.
There's guards here armed to the teeth, but they don't like gun control.
So they've really reflected the annual WF motto, which is rules for thee, but not for me.
Another thing is that there's almost no world leaders here, so they must know that we're on to them.
All right, well said there, too.
Certainly, we've learned a lot here, Jeremy.
What about you?
Yeah, I would like to follow up with Lewis said.
The theme is working together to regain trust.
And what have they done to lose our trust?
They locked us in our house for two years.
They took away our jobs.
They mandated dubious medical interventions.
And after speaking to them, I learned how ignorant they are of this fact of why trust was lost.
Not one time from speaking to all of these attendees that I spoke to did any of those things come up.
They're clueless why trust was lost.
They don't know.
So the clueless of the elites is definitely on display here at the World Economic Forum.
Well, they haven't.
And I guess what I learned most from being here is that the elites consider this a safe space for them.
And they are absolutely shocked when independent journalists hit them with the tough questions.
Well, folks, I think that three-minute clip superbly sums up what occurred in Davos recently as the elites who comprise the World Economic Forum got together for their self-congratulatory party, or so it would seem.
And one of the rebels who attended that WEF powwow joins me right now, and that would be Lewis Brackpool.
Lewis, thank you so much for coming on Rebel Roundup.
And tell me, Lewis, for starters, what is the World Economic Forum to begin with?
And what is its true agenda?
Cool, that is such a big question.
Give me the reader's digest version then.
Right.
Okay, so the World Economic Forum is a conglomerate of many, many people that come together each year or an annual summit.
And what it is, it's a conglomerate of the most powerful people in the world.
Okay, and what they do, they get together and they essentially get together and rearrange the world or have ideas, visions, plans to rearrange society, essentially, is what it is.
And how that works for them is getting together with the most powerful people and discussing ways in which they can reset areas.
So, for example, environmentalism is a big thing at the World Economic Forum.
Societal is a big thing.
Technology.
And they get together all of these powerful people sitting many conferences in a place which is so remote that the normal or average person like me and yourself can't get to.
And they basically discuss how we should live.
And that's kind of the basic gist of it.
I mean, if we had longer, I'd go really, really in depth, but it's a huge, huge topic.
No, I think that's a very fair assessment, Lewis.
And, you know, you were there along with Abby and some other rebels.
And by the way, you did fantastic work, all of you.
Thank you.
I was reading media accounts, mainstream media accounts about what was going on in Davos.
And it seemed to be that the pitch from the WEF is that increased globalization would solve all the problems plaguing the world today.
And by that, I mean the climate crisis, inflation, high energy prices, broken supply chains, etc.
Are you buying that?
Definitely not, David.
Absolutely not.
The idea that a select group of people with their own vision can implement a plan towards everyday people like me and yourself.
And they think they hold all the cards to the public on what they believe is beneficial for us.
That's wrong.
Now, if you would have asked me if this was happening two, maybe three years ago, I would have written it off.
And I think a lot of people have been writing off this idea of a group of powerful people getting together and wanting to rearrange the world.
Yeah, I mean, it's now so clear as day and so open for anyone to access and look at.
It's gotten to the point where you cannot refute it.
And this idea of, you know, lots of things between implementing chips into people's heads, you know, from that to, of course,
tracking your carbon footprint and then potentially stopping you from going over that limit through spending or through various things, or adding so much technology to society where it almost becomes like some sort of science fiction novel.
It gets to the point where, yeah, people should be worried.
People should be waking up to this and go, do you know what?
There's something to say here.
There's a lot of questions that need answering.
So I kind of guess that was the main purpose of going on this big trip.
And tell me, Lewis, when I was observing the mainstream media coverage of what was going on in Davos, at best, it was apologetic of the World Economic Forum.
At worst, the mainstream media journalists were acting like cheerleaders.
It was almost a patronizing tone.
Listen, people, these are the important folks in the world.
Listen to what they have to say.
The world will be a better place.
I don't know if you were monitoring what the mainstream media was reporting, Lewis, but do I have it right in my assessment?
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, I think Avi bumped into a New York Times senior editor, and they had, well, a lot to say.
Well, I say she didn't have a lot to say, but we'd had a lot of questions, put it that way.
Yeah, the problem is with the mainstream media in this event is that they were accredited.
They were invited.
So how can it be fair for these reporters to be invited to a very significant summit with the most powerful people in the world?
Do we trust someone or a reporter or a journalist or an organization that was invited, handpicked by this particular organization to write a fair report?
I don't think so.
So I think the fairest people that would come to these sort of events and cover them would be people that weren't invited.
Someone like us, maybe, not to toot our own horn.
But I think people that aren't invited to these events that want to cover them and that aren't accredited have more to say than these reporters or mainstream journalists that, yeah, just jump in.
I would also say, Lewis, that, and you guys did report on this, if memory serves, it was almost a conflict of interest because there were media organizations that were sponsors of the World Economic Forum.
So we know exactly where they are weighing in when it comes to the WEF.
But, you know, the other prevalent theme in your reports, which I did not see in mainstream media coverage, Lewis, is the outrageous hypocrisy, the double standards.
It's almost as though the WEF was preaching: look, give up your car, eat bugs instead of steak, you know, and everything will get so much better.
And yet, these cats are living high on the hog.
They're jet-setting and private jets all over the globe.
They're staying in five-star resorts.
I mean, Lewis, it's a little rich, wouldn't you say?
I agree.
Completely agree.
mean even going to that private airport uh was you know damning enough uh going to a private airport and having the air traffic controllers giving us the report on all the planes that flew in for even that day was uh it's pretty eye-opening
And you think to yourself, and you know, the funny thing about that as well, to add, was they said, well, unfortunately, they couldn't get their private helicopter transport over after they've just flew in private jet.
They had to actually take a car.
So that's kind of like the, oh yeah, pity for them, isn't it?
Complete pity for them.
But yeah, it is hypocrisy.
It's double standards.
Global Leaders' Power Play00:03:06
And do you know what?
If someone was to try and, you know, push out this climate alarmist nonsense, their message, I'd at least expect them to practice what they preach before they start, you know, ramming this down the public's throat.
Yeah, what a concept, lead by example.
And Lewis, I really hope I live long enough to win some mega million dollar lottery so I can say to you one day, my friend, Lewis, I'm so sorry, I can't pick you up on my private helicopter.
It'll just have to be a luxury SUV or limousine.
I hope you don't mind.
Unbelievable.
But you know, seriously, Lewis, when it comes to the WEF, I think the big question is this, and you hear all kinds of differing responses all over the political agenda.
Does the WEF have any tangible power to influence the decisions of elected governments?
It's a big question.
I think yes.
A lot of people write it off.
I say yes.
And the reason being is this has been in motion since 1971 and have had various dealings with many other organizations, such as the European Commission funding Klaus Schwab's first ever annual summit in 1971 for the World Economic Forum.
They've modelled off of other organizations such as the Club of Rome, which is very famous for talking about very spicy subjects such as overpopulation and things like that.
They've modeled off of these types of organizations before.
And to add the Young Global Leaders Scheme, where you've seen many, many young global leaders that are in power now.
So they're old global leaders technically now, but at the time they were homegrown from this organization and now have sprouted into various cabinets.
Klaus Schwab said that famous quote where he said, we penetrate the cabinets.
And they was talking specifically, unfortunately, about your country, David, of Canada, and saying that more than half of the cabinet are from the WEF, young global leaders.
And there are various other of world leaders now that have stemmed from this organization.
So yes, there is an immense amount of power.
You can only look at what they are repeating, build back better and things like that.
And, you know, Boris wants to phase out diesel and petrol by 2030.
Coincidentally, the Agenda 2030 and the sustainability development that the WEF are really pushing.
And it's all what they're saying.
It's not what I'm drawing conclusions from.
It's what they are saying.
So that's the key points.
I'll tell you, Lewis, maybe this is unfair, but maybe it's the accent.
Maybe it's how he comes across.
But whenever I see Klaus Schwab speak, all I can think of is either a James Bond or an Austin Powers villain doing a monologue.
One last question because we're running late here.
Influencers and Paid Promotions00:13:23
No worries.
Based on what you saw in Davos Lewis, is there really any need for such an entity as the World Economic Forum?
No.
No.
The short answer is no, because it's not within the people's favor.
I mean, you can only look at the theme and the narrative of this particular summit, and it was all about regaining trust.
And you've got to just break down what that means.
Oh, so the theme of this annual meeting is about regaining trust from the public.
That means that the public do not trust them.
They do not trust their vision or their plan or their idea to implement on the people.
So no, absolutely not.
It's a conflicted, a very conflicted idea and organization between what they want, what these elitists want.
And they're not elite, because that's a different phrase, elitists, where, you know, they think that they're doing no wrong.
You know, a cat doesn't know it's meowing.
A cow doesn't know it moves.
And they don't know that they're being evil.
So that's all it is.
Wow.
Well, Lewis, I want to say to you again, thank you and your teammates for such superb coverage.
It was true journalism.
It wasn't an exercise in public relations, which was, that seemed to be the agenda of the legacy media as far as I could tell.
So thank you so much again.
And maybe we'll send you to the next World Economic Forum if you can actually stomach it.
Stomach it.
Yeah.
Well, I won't be eating bugs, put it that way.
Okay, then.
Thank you so much, my friend.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you very much.
You got it.
And that was Lewis Brackpool in London.
Keep it here, folks.
More Brabo Roundup to come right after this.
We know that Health Canada has been paying influencers to push pro-vaccine, pro-lockdown messaging.
Frankly, it's almost expected that when we see someone in pop culture pushing the official government line, that they're being paid for it.
They're being paid to push us to submit to rules on our lives that they scarcely live by themselves.
Millionaires taking tax money to convince the little guy to comply with lockdowns that could destroy the little guy financially.
It's all transactional.
It's gross.
It's the Kardashification of public health.
But at least if you've been paying attention, you know what's happening.
It's published in the CBC.
Health Canada wants influencers to spread COVID messaging.
But what if the brainwashing is coming from people under the guise of government with the credibility of being part of the public health cabal?
What if government bureaucrats were being paid to be influencers by private pharmaceutical companies on top of their current government salaries to tweet and Instagram the ways of the COVID deep state?
And because of social media rules, if you question their paid talking points, you could be canceled and banned.
Let me show you this access to information filing we found as a proactive release on the government website.
What this means is someone else filed for this information and the government has now released the documents to the public.
I don't know who did this filing, but I think they know something we don't.
Look at what they ask for.
Any document Health Canada holds to see that civil servants or executives have received amounts of money or various gifts to act as influencers for private companies for the last year to January 8th, 2021.
Now, the dates are important here.
They're asking for the pandemic dates.
This person, I think, is asking in a sneaky way if bureaucrats are getting paid by big pharma to push vaccines or by Amazon, for example, to tell people to stay at home and do all their shopping that way.
The government returned documents.
They don't deny that civil servants were getting cash and gifts from private companies to act as paid influencers to the public.
In fact, we know they were doing it.
There's an admission on page 17.
What we see here is an email exchange from one bureaucrat to their superior regarding a potential conflict of interest stemming from being hired as a paid health influencer as an employee of Public Health Canada.
Look at this subject.
Conflict of interest declaration form.
Importance high.
Yeah, I bet it is.
You got to get paid, don't you?
Anyway.
Hi, Randy.
As promised, here is my conflict of interest declaration form along with a Word document with information to be included in section C of the form.
I appreciate you and your team expediting this review.
Thank you.
And then it is all redacted.
We don't know what company hired this public health bureaucrat.
We don't know how much they were paid and we don't know who they are, but we do know that the team expedited this review.
But the government won't tell us, the public, who was doing it.
Was it Teresa Tam?
Who?
They won't tell us how frequently they were doing it.
They won't tell us how much they were getting paid to do it, but we do know they were doing it.
They won't say who hired them.
It's all redacted.
Now, this is where you can help me.
We are appealing these redactions.
These bureaucrats don't get to use their taxpayer-funded perch and the credibility of being a so-called trusted government source, at least according to social media and the mainstream media, to enrich themselves, manipulate the public, and then hide it all.
If you can help fund our research and access to investigation appeals, please consider making a donation to our special fund at rebelinvestigates.com.
For Rebel News, I'm Sheila Gunread.
So what, pray tell, is more egregious that there are millionaires taking taxpayer dollars to convince the great unwashed masses to comply with lockdowns?
You know, lockdowns that could very well destroy them financially, or the fact that there is essentially zero transparency from the federal government when it comes to this perverse scheme.
And hey, so much for sunny ways yet again.
And with more on this story is Rebel News chief reporter, Sheila Gunread.
How you doing there, Sheila?
I'm doing great, David.
Thanks for having me on the show.
Always a pleasure.
Sheila, the lack of transparency on this file is absolutely outrageous, I think, especially since government works for us, not vice versa.
Why are they being so secretive about this scheme in the first place?
Well, it's extra secretive because it's not just outside influencers that we're talking about here.
I think most people know when a celebrity is telling them to run out and buy or do this certain thing that they're being paid for it.
Now, are they being paid for it by the company or by the government?
You generally know that if you see somebody that you follow on Instagram who's high profile pushing something, that there's probably a financial incentive for them to do that.
What makes what the Public Health Agency of Canada was doing extra sinister was that it was their own staff who were taking money and gifts.
And we can't really know what they were taking, but we do know that they were reporting these things to their bosses.
They were flagging these issues as potential conflicts of interest, basically saying, hey, this is what I've been offered, but that part's all redacted from our documents.
Can you clear this as quick as possible so I can do this deal?
That's what we're seeing.
And we don't know the companies.
We don't know the terms, but we do know that public health agency bureaucrats and staff were being paid as influencers by outside companies.
And what's interesting here and what makes me suspicious is it was happening during the time of the pandemic during that timeframe.
So were they being paid by Health Canada to the Public Health Agency of Canada?
Were they being paid by Moderna, Pfizer, some of these other companies?
Were they being paid by Amazon, the lockdown beneficiaries?
We don't know who they were being paid by or the agreements that they were getting, you know, these payments and gifts around.
We do know what was happening, though, because it's in the emails that they were flagging the potential conflicts of interest to their superiors.
You know, Sheila, in the bigger picture, what do you think about this whole idea of influencers basically promoting an experimental vaccine?
I think back to late last year, Peel Region here in the Greater Toronto area, they had the chief medical health officer join forces with Brampton Batman in order to get kids on board with getting the jab.
In Toronto, Mayor John Torrey teamed up with Pokeroo from Polka.door, which went off the air in 1993, I believe.
So there's no young people that know who Pokeroo is.
But the point I'm trying to make here, in this case, the influencers were kid-friendly icons to, I guess, get kids excited about getting jabbed.
It gives me a queasy feeling.
What about you?
Yeah, it does me too.
For example, if I'm wearing a t-shirt or something of a company, I've mostly, I've never gotten paid for it.
No one's ever paid me to promote anything ever.
You know, if we're doing a sponsorship in one of our shows, for example, we've had sponsorships in the past with Resistance Coffee.
We make that very clear.
But there's low liability in, you know, promoting a coffee company or wearing the t-shirt of an archery store that stood up to the lockdown.
There's low liability in that for the person doing it.
And equally, there's low liability for these influencers.
If they use their platform and, you know, their social clout, I guess is the right word, to incentivize other people and encourage other people to engage in things they otherwise wouldn't, like vaccinating their little tiny children.
What's the harm in it for them?
They get paid and they get to go on with the rest of their lives.
But who lives with the fallout if something goes wrong?
Not them, but the people they encouraged.
And so there's more social consequences, I think, when they're pushing these medical initiatives, really, as opposed to just pushing a brand or a supplement company or whatever.
That's, I think, a lot different for an influencer to do that than to encourage people to take, as you say, experimental vaccines where we are now learning a lot more about the consequences for certain people and injuries for certain people due to, you know, this push to vaccinate immediately as many people as possible.
And, you know, Sheila, another issue I think is, do celebrity endorsements work?
I mean, I can't get myself into the mind of somebody who looks at a so-called influencer and says, oh yeah, because he or she said that, I'm going to purchase that good or service or in this case, get vaccinated.
I mean, you know, I see Wayne Gretzky on TV right now promoting a MGM gambling app.
That doesn't mean I'm going to rush out and sign up.
If I want to gamble, I'm going to do my research and I'm going to gamble on the merits of the odds and payouts and whatnot.
So again, I bring it back.
Does this kind of influencing from celebrities and so-called celebrities even work?
I don't know.
I think sometimes it does.
And I think it depends on the mindset of the person that, you know, the media by which you're consuming it.
For example, you know, when you see the Daily Wire promoting their brand of razors, they're a counsel-proof brand of razors.
That's a little different because it's appealing to people like me who want to support brands who support freedom.
Resistance Coffee is a great idea of this.
In the past, Black Rifle Coffee, people supported Black Rifle Coffee because it was sort of a pro-Second Amendment company.
And so I think when there's also a social issue behind the brand being promoted by the high-profile person, I hate to use the word influencer.
That's a little different than Kim Kardashian wants me to buy these supplements that she promises will make my butt big.
I think that's a little bit different.
Now, on the flip side, there are people who are on social media for those reasons.
They follow influencers because they want to follow the trends and jump on the trends and they have a very superficial sort of worldview.
That influencing does work on them.
And that other influencing, it kind of works on me.
So I guess it depends on who's doing the influencing.
Why You Should Know About Wiretapping00:10:53
Interesting.
Sheila, one last question.
Given all the mystery on this file, where do we go from here in terms of getting the truth of the matter?
You know, we're appealing those redactions.
Again, this was not one of our access to information requests.
We found this on the proactive release website and it came back redacted.
So what we have to do is re-file so that it's now our access to information requests, which means after we refile and then naturally they send it to us completely redacted too, then we can refile an appeal.
And that sort of stuff, as you can already tell, takes time and it takes money.
We have a researcher who helps us because it's just impossible for us to do journalism and all those other things while dealing with the boring paperwork side of journalism.
And so if people would like to support our continued access to information investigations, particularly in trying to find out who was paying public health bureaucrats to, I don't, influence, but we don't even know on what.
If you'd like to help us get that information, please consider making a donation at rebelinvestigates.com.
Well, Sheila, it was a great piece and thank you for warning me away from ingesting those Kim Kardasian special pills.
You have a good weekend, my friend.
Thanks, David.
You too.
All right.
And that was Sheila Gunread, somewhere in the northern hinterland of Alberta.
Keep it here, folks.
More of Rebel Roundup to come right after this.
The federal government has invoked the Emergencies Act to supplement provincial and territorial capacity to address the blockades and occupations.
The government is issuing an order with immediate effect under the Emergencies Act authorizing Canadian financial institutions to temporarily cease providing financial services where the institution suspects that an account is being used to further the illegal blockades and occupations.
The police wiretapped me under the criminal code, presumably for participating in the freedom convoy on Parliament Hill.
When you have a criminal code warrant of this magnitude, you are talking about homicides.
You are talking about high-level criminal activity, organized crime, et cetera.
We need to have our rights back.
We need stewards who are going to be serving us, not dominating us.
David Menzies for Rebel News here on Parliament Hill in Ottawa.
Well, folks, going back to late January, when the trucker Freedom Convoy first descended upon Parliament Hill, we witnessed so many examples of government overreach.
And I'm talking about the truckers and their allies being demonized and vilified all the way to the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
Now, speaking of government overreach, I want to introduce you to my guest.
His name is Rob Stocky.
He is a former police officer.
And the story he has to tell about what happened to him as a result of the trucker convoy is equal parts egregious and disturbing.
We plan to get justice for those citizens who had their privacy rights trampled upon by government and law enforcement.
You can keep up to date with our efforts in this regard by visiting stopthewiretapping.com.
That's stopthewiretapping.com.
We're going to come at this from four different angles.
First, we have to tell the story because the story of the Ontario government wiretapping political dissidents is so outrageous that if we don't have the proof, no one would ever believe it.
Then we've got a petition that we will deliver to the Attorney General of Ontario and the federal public safety minister if we find out the federal government was involved in this also.
Our petition calls on the AG to stop the wiretapping of Canadians whose only crime is peacefully opposing government policy.
Our third plan of attack is as follows.
We want to find out the scale and scope of this wiretapping operation and we want to know who exactly was wiretapped.
We have an anonymous intake form at the same website and that is stopthewiretapping.com where you can submit your information and we promise you you will remain anonymous.
So Rob, thank you so much for joining me today.
As I mentioned in the preamble, you recently received a letter from the Attorney General of Ontario's office dated May 18th, 2022.
And what did that letter say?
First of all, David, thank you for having me on your show and thank you for covering this very important story.
It's very important that the public hears about what's going on because it is so egregious.
On the 18th, I received a letter from the Attorney General of Ontario basically explaining I was actually the object of intercepted communications, which is a wiretap.
So for people who aren't familiar with the language, the police wiretapped me under the criminal code, presumably for participating in the freedom convoy on Parliament Hill.
And this was news to you that you were wiretapped.
Understand, Rob, that after a certain period of time, the rules are that you have to inform the subject of the wiretapping that he or she was indeed wiretapped.
So that's why you got the letter.
What was the reason for the wiretapping of your phone?
Well, if you look at the letter, which I've provided, there is no reason provided.
It just says that I was the subject of a wiretap from these two dates.
And if you look at the actual section that I was wiretapped under, I was wiretapped under a section of exigent circumstances, meaning that the circumstances were so urgent and so worrisome about criminal activity that the government did not have time, or the officers investigating did not have time to qualify all of the potential issues and reasoning why they're getting this wiretap.
So this wiretap was not only an emergency type of wiretap, but it was also allowed to be done ex parte.
Wow, what a bombshell.
And really, is this where we are in Canada right now?
That apparently having a contrarian opinion to the government makes you a so-called enemy of the state, and thus you can be subjected to wiretapping.
Hard to believe that 2022 is the 40th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In any event, you had plenty to say about what happened to Rob Stocky.
Sven Carlson writes: Their tyranny in disguise met peaceful but massive protests from regular working people.
They got pressured enough to drop their democratic disguise and show their true authoritarian colors.
Well, Sven, given that the law-abiding Rob Stocky is not a member of the mafia nor al-Qaeda, subjecting this citizen to a wiretap is surely a textbook example of tyranny.
We still have no official reason for the wiretap.
Indeed, what did law enforcement officers say about Mr. Stocky that convinced a judge to grant the wiretapping order in the first place?
This remains the biggest unanswered question thus far, and I'd love to know the answer.
Supreme writes, men of all the countries in the entire world, who would have thought this is the face of Canada today?
And here's the worst part, Supreme: Under the Trudeau Singh regime, things are going to get worse before they get better.
Just consider Bill C-11, which will allow the government to censor the internet.
Apparently, impolite thoughts and words are verboten in Canada these days.
T. Amos writes: None of the legacy media would cover this.
That's a very good point, T.A.M.O. is a huge story here.
And since we broke it, I've done one interview with a radio station, that would be Saga 960 AM, and that's it.
So, where is the media snowball regarding this incredibly important story?
Or are most members of the legacy media on side with the idea of wiretapping those who took part in the Freedom Convoy?
JJ Chadoy writes, Is this made up?
You know what, JJ?
At first, we were skeptical about Mr. Stocky's story too.
Then he supplied us with the evidence, namely that letter from the AGO.
Because really, it does sound surreal, doesn't it?
idea of the government and law enforcement spying on law-abiding citizens simply because of their political leanings?
Incredible.
And Hogwash writes, haven't you heard of the Cone of Silence?
Oh, I sure have, Hogwash, but does one laugh or cry?
The Cone of Silence, of course, was that anti-eavesdropping device featured in the classic Get Smart TV series back in the 60s.
It was meant to shield conversations from enemy agents.
Alas, it never worked properly.
But if some tech guru could revive the cone of silence idea and work out all the kinks, maybe there would indeed be a thriving market for such technology in Canada in the 21st century.
And really, folks, how sad is that?
Well, that wraps up another edition of Rebel Roundup.
Thanks so much for joining us.
See you next week.
And hey, folks, never forget, without risk, there can be no glory.