Ezra Levant critiques liberal pollster Abacus Data’s survey, where 22% of Canadians—peaking at 61% among PPC supporters—believe the WEF secretly imposes global policies, despite its $18B funding claims and Freeland’s dual roles. He dismisses Trudeau’s censorship push (Bills C-11, C-18, C-36) as a distraction from his 32% election failure and questions Epstein’s "suicide," citing media suppression of alternative theories. The poll’s bias, he argues, stems from smearing Poilievre while ignoring systemic distrust fueled by government lies—like the Emergencies Act misuse—and partisan overreach, including VIP exemptions during airport chaos, revealing a broader crisis of institutional credibility. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I do a deep dive on a new survey by the liberal pollster Abacus Data into conspiracy theories.
Do you believe certain conspiracy theories that they list and who are you?
They break it down by demographics, including who you support politically.
It's a very interesting survey.
I'll take you through the questions and I'll give you my answers to those questions myself.
That's ahead, but first let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
I do it every day, every weekday that is.
And we also have weekly podcasts too.
There's four of them now.
So for eight bucks a month, you get a ton of stuff.
That's 36 shows for just $8 a month.
And you get the video version of it.
And I got to tell you, the main reason I'm asking is because we don't get any money from Justin Trudeau.
Nothing.
So whereas other media go cap in hand to him and it shows, we're completely independent and it shows.
Which is why I'd say, hey, mate, if you could check in $8 a month, it'd be much appreciated.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com.
Thanks very much.
Here's today's show.
Tonight, a liberal pollster says conservatives believe in conspiracy theories.
Is he right?
It's June 13th, and this is the Es Levance show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Abacus Data is a pollster we talk about from time to time because they're very political and we're interested in politics too.
I used to know their chief pollster, David Coleto.
He was the house pollster for the Sun News Network where I used to work.
And I really enjoyed the time I spent with him.
I don't doubt Coletto's technical skill, but I have to note that his new boss at Abacus is Bruce Anderson, one of the most partisan Trudeau shills around, huge Trudeau apologist.
His daughter used to work for Trudeau, if I recall.
He gets contracts from Trudeau.
So I approach anything from Abacus with that in mind.
They're really more like players than referees.
So with that caveat, I'd like to show you their latest poll about conspiracy theories.
It just came out yesterday.
Here it is on their website.
Millions Believe in Conspiracy Theories in Canada by Bruce Anderson and David Coleto.
So you can see that while the science guy had a hand in this, so did Trudeau's propaganda guy.
So proceed with caution.
But here, let me read some of it to you.
I thought it was interesting.
We recently completed nationwide surveying among 1,500 Canadians.
The focus was on the levels of trust people have in institutional sources of information and belief in conspiracy theories.
This is the second in the series called Trust and Facts, What Canadians Believe.
It's interesting, and you can see why Trudeau would be interested in it too.
People don't trust him.
So his response isn't to be more trustworthy.
It isn't to be more transparent or more democratic or put his ego in check.
It's to tighten his grip, to censor more, to use more carrots to bribe and sticks to beat with the idea middlemen, especially journalists, but also other institutions like academics and courts and NGOs.
If someone says you are trustworthy, it's easy to take offense, especially someone as thin-skinned as Trudeau.
Someone who so obviously suffers from imposter syndrome.
I mean, really.
A man of his meager accomplishments and intelligence must know that he would never have become PM were it not for the fact that he's Pierre Trudeau's son.
So he's defensive when people don't trust him.
In the last election, he got just 32% of the vote, the lowest ever for someone who went on to become prime minister.
So he knows that more than two-thirds of Canadians no longer buy what he's selling.
Now, if he were a bigger man, he might actually reflect on his failures and try to amend them.
Now, if you're under 45 years old, you probably don't know this, but Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992, and he tilted pretty far to the left in his first few years.
He appointed his wife, Hillary Clinton, to lead his administration's health care nationalization campaign.
Now, it was a total disaster.
The Democrats got shellacked in the 1994 midterms because of it.
But instead of blaming the voters, Bill Clinton listened.
He accepted their judgment of the course he was on.
He abandoned Hillary care.
He moved to the center.
He reformed welfare.
He pulled back.
Now, he's a trickster.
He's credibly being accused of sexual assault.
He's a liar, for sure, of course.
All of those things.
But underneath it, I think Bill Clinton actually likes people.
He's a people person.
And instead of indulging his vengeance or hatred, when people said they didn't like him, he actually listened to why he tacked back to the center and he won the 1996 reelection pretty handily.
My point is, that's what you want, right?
You want a politician who pays some attention to the people rather than turning on them, blaming them.
No, not Trudeau.
He's becoming more and more removed and bitter and vengeful.
As I'd like to point out, he literally has four bills he's working on to censor ordinary Canadians.
Bill C-11, which lets the CRTC regulate the internet.
Bill C-18, which regulates news media.
C-36, that provides extreme penalties for hurt feelings online.
And a yet untabled online harms bill that will set up a new internet czar with the power to literally take down or delete an entire website.
So four major bills or proposed bills.
He's obsessed with censorship.
Does he have four bills to make, I don't know, housing more affordable?
Four bills to fight inflation?
Four bills to get our airports fixed?
Anything that real people actually care about to help people, to put people first.
His four censorship bills all treat people as the problem, as the enemy.
But they're only a problem to him.
The problem is that they don't like him.
They don't trust him.
And instead of reflecting on his failures and his personality traits that may be causing the distrust, Trudeau's focused on blaming and demonizing others while that and getting out of Canada at every opportunity to bask in the glow of foreign crowds who have no stake in Canada, have no vote here, but more to the point still adore him like he was adored in 2015 before we found out who the real Trudeau was.
Look at this gross summit of the two peacocks, as I call it, when he met with the failed governor of California, Gavin Newsom.
Seriously, so awful, so atrocious that Californians actually voted to force a recall vote on him, something that hasn't happened in decades.
Look at these two Botox buddies.
Hey, everyone.
Bonjour Tolmonde.
I'm in California today with Governor Newsom.
We're signing an agreement to make sure we continue the deep partnership we've had on fighting climate change, on protecting our environment, in creating good green jobs, and moving forward in ways that really matter to people.
It's a great place to work if California are important for Canadian.
Governor Newsom, talk about this partnership.
But you don't have to speak the same language to understand that we're all in this together.
Divorce is not an option.
And so we're here on the issue that extends, I think, a global consciousness, and that's the issue of climate change.
And you're in a state where we're experiencing the extremes.
And so we're on the leading and cutting edge of not only dealing with the realities of it, but also the opportunities.
And that's why it's so wonderful to have you down here, Prime Minister, to focus on those partnerships and the opportunity advance together.
We only build a better world if we're doing it together.
and gathering like-minded partners like California and Governor Newsom is the way that we make this better future a reality for everyone.
I'm very happy with all the work we're doing.
We're going to continue to do it together.
Thank you.
Yeah, who knows what any of that even means, but like I say, not a word about high prices or jobs or fixing this mess up here.
Just a couple of guys admiring each other's hairdos.
So that's where this poll fits in.
Trudeau isn't wrong.
He's never wrong.
The people are wrong.
The fact that the people don't believe him, obey him, support him means that they must be nuts or misled or ignorant or into conspiracy theories.
It's the only reason why any person wouldn't support Trudeau.
I mean, those truckers, right?
How dare they?
They must be Vladimir Putin stooges.
It's the only explanation that fits.
I do ask that because, you know, given Canada's support of Ukraine in this current crisis with Russia, I don't know if it's far-fetched to ask, but there is concern that Russian actors could be continuing to fuel things as this protest grows, but perhaps even instigating it from the outset.
Yeah, right.
So let's look at this liberal poll.
Quote, 44%, the equivalent of 13 million adults, believe, quote, big events like wars, recessions, and the outcomes of elections are controlled by small groups of people working in secret against us.
Almost as many agree much of our lives are being controlled by plots hatched in secret places.
Sounds pretty nefarious.
I mean, who would believe that ridiculous theory, except we just have lived through the past two years?
And I mean, the polls are asked about big events if they're controlled by a small group.
Okay, can you think of a big event in the last couple of years?
Anything come to mind?
Anything?
Yeah, the pandemic, maybe.
Maybe the biggest event ever.
It's systematic propagandization, the censorship, and even persecution of doubters or critics, even doctors who dare to dissent, the unprecedented suspension of our civil liberties, heretofore unheard of mass group punishments, telling us when we could leave our houses, telling us who we could have over to our houses, if we could go to church or not, if we could open up our businesses or go to other people's businesses, even entire populations being locked down in a curve field like in Quebec.
Children banned from going to school, children forced to wear masks, or this, you know, police enforcing such absurd laws brutally.
None of this was debated in a legislature.
None of this was done using our normal democratic processes.
Not here in Canada, not in the UK, not in Australia, not in America.
It was so obviously designed to give exemptions for the elites, for the fancy people.
Your kid was banned from playing hockey, but the NHL lobbied and got an exception so they were allowed to play.
Suddenly, Teresa Tam was our boss.
Who is she?
Where did she come from?
Who did she answer to?
Who decided she was our ruler?
What exactly is the World Health Organization?
And since when did they have sovereignty over us?
Why can't we ask about China's virus labs?
Why did Google and YouTube and Facebook and Instagram censor us for asking real questions?
Why were the vaccine companies given legal immunity for any harm coming from their products?
And then why were we forced to take those experimental medical products on pain of losing our jobs or access to the public square?
So yeah, look at that question again.
Big events like wars, recessions, and the outcomes of elections are controlled by small groups of people working in secret against us.
And 44% of people agree.
I'm just amazed that 56% of people think that the last two years was some sort of normal democratic outcome.
I mean, I'm not sure if I'd put wars in there.
Canada, I don't think, has been in a war in a while.
I think Afghanistan would be the last one.
And that one was indeed subject to a great amount of political debate in this country.
I don't think we're actually involved in the Ukraine war in any real way other than rhetorically.
But still, how did pushing Russia out of Ukraine become the world's most important subject, so much so that we are actually risking an all-out war with a nuclear armed rival?
I mean, forget about Canada.
Trudeau's just a poser who sees Ukraine as another fun trip away from Canada and our problems here and a great photo op.
But even for Americans, they approved $40 billion in military aid to Ukraine in like one night's debate.
There's no declaration of war.
I'm not sure how it all happened so quickly, are you?
But I do know it does meet the description that these pollsters use.
And in terms of a recession, look, I don't know about that, but I know that a small group of people, Trudeau, his out-of-control spending, and the Bank of Canada that was happy to just print the money for him to spend, they really are the forces behind our inflation and our cost of living and the inevitable reaction to that, rising interest rates that will make everyone with a mortgage have to pay more each month.
And again, where was the debate about all this in parliament?
What debate has there even been in the media?
It's unanimous and all in favor of all these things.
I mean, journalists are economically illiterate to begin with, so yeah.
But if the shoe fits, a small cabal of politicians, Trudeau's cabinet, and the elite and secretive board of the Bank of Canada did in fact collude behind closed doors to give us the conditions for a recession, which is surely looming.
So yeah.
Take a look at this.
This is a chart from the pollster Abacus Data.
Much of our lives are controlled by plots hatched in secret places, they ask.
Yeah.
Like the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
The world's elite was there, and the ordinary people were kept out of their secret meetings.
We tried to get in.
They wouldn't let us in.
Christia Freeland's Secret Society00:05:03
It's not a conspiracy theory to point out that Christia Freeland, our deputy prime minister, our finance minister, is literally on the board of governors of that secretive society.
And that the boss of that secretive society, Klaus Schwab, brags about that fact.
But what we are very proud of now is a young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on, that we penetrate the cabinets.
I would know that half of this cabinet, or even more, half of this cabinet are for our actually young noble leaders of the world economic form.
So if that were not true, wouldn't Christia Freeland correct him?
Wouldn't she resign from his board of governors?
How does a cabinet minister who has to be loyal to Canada manage to be on a board loyal to another entity that seeks to create world economic policy?
So who is she serving?
Canada's board of directors, which is really what a cabinet is, or Klaus Schwab's board of directors?
You can't serve two masters.
This is a real photograph published by the Prime Minister's own photo account.
That's him at the World Economic Forum, and that's George Soros, and that's Christia Freeland, who was Soros' official biographer before she was elected.
None of this is contested.
These are facts.
So how could you possibly answer the pollster's question with anything other than yes?
Much of our lives are controlled by plots hatched in secret places.
Yeah, maybe I'd add Wuhan China to one of those places.
But again, it's a secret.
How do I know?
Even the pro-liberal Toronto Star wants to know what that's all about, including the Chinese spies who were working in Canada's top secret virus facility.
Trudeau's blocking those facts from being released.
Why?
Why the secrecy?
Here are some specific questions from Abacus Data.
They're interesting.
World Economic Forum group of elites with secret strategy to impose on the world.
20% of people say yeah, 37% aren't sure, and 42% don't agree.
Well, it's incredible to me that 20% of people even know about the World Economic Forum.
There is no mainstream media coverage of it other than to deny that it's a problem.
We sent six reporters to the World Economic Forum this year, but they were almost no other media other than our friend Andrew Lawton from True North.
I should be more precise.
There were other media there.
Yes, huge media companies, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, but they were there.
They were in on it.
As in they were part of the secret meetings.
They actually paid to be there.
They were paid sponsors.
They weren't reporting on it.
They were inside scheming.
Remember this?
Rebecca, how are you doing from the New York Times?
Can I ask you a quick question?
Ivy from Rebel News.
How is the public meant to believe that the New York Times is here to actually ask the tough questions when you're here as an invited guest?
How are people meant to rely on the mainstream media?
If you wouldn't mind, we just have, just if you could give us, you know, thank you.
You don't want to explain to people why we should trust the mainstream media?
No, of course, no comment.
Here's another question from the pollster.
Secret societies control the world.
22% agree, 31% aren't sure, and 47% no.
Well, I don't know.
The World Economic Forum is secretive.
The United Nations is secretive.
George Soros is secretive.
But he does tell us some things.
Here's his official website, the Open Society Foundations.
If you scroll slowly down it, you can see all of the places around the world where they're propping up left-wing activists, undermining local sovereignty, and basically trying to buy democracy.
He even has funded violent revolutions in other parts of the world, the so-called color revolutions in Eastern Europe.
You can see they brag about having spent $18 billion.
And all the way down, you can see that Soros has pledged $32 billion of his own fortune.
So yeah, I'm not sure it's a secret society, but it's secretive and it's definitely undemocratic.
And it absolutely has a huge impact on the world, including in Canada.
And you can't vote them out, can you?
I think when you say secret society, people think of a cult, something quasi-religious maybe, or a sex cult or whatever.
They think of the Freemasons, that sort of thing, the Illuminati.
I don't know a lot about those, but I am aware of some other secret societies, Like the casting couch culture in Hollywood, where countless actresses were extorted into sex or actually raped by Hollywood producers, or else they'd be blacklisted from the industry.
Secret Societies and Predation00:09:29
Of course, it wasn't just women, it was boys that were preyed upon.
That's not politics per se, but would you agree with me that Hollywood is a major source of political ideas in our culture?
They really control the culture.
Politics is downstream from culture.
Wouldn't you agree with me on that?
And Harvey Weinstein, the rapist, was a huge Democrat, huge Hillary Clinton supporter in particular.
And there were child actors who complained about being raped in Hollywood, but they were treated as kooks or cranks or liars.
When in fact, everyone actually knew about it.
They were all just too cowardly to say it publicly because they would put their own careers in jeopardy if they did.
Here's Courtney Love, Kurt Cobine's widow, back in 2005, a dozen years before Weinstein was finally taken down.
Hi, Comic Central.
Do you have any advice for a young girl moving to Hollywood?
I'll get lively with us.
Harvey Weinstein invites you to a private party in the four seasons.
They all knew.
But if you said anything, you were called a kook and you were blacklisted.
But that's nothing compared to Jeffrey Epstein, who ran a worldwide child trafficking ring for the world's richest elites, for the oligarchs, for the billionaires, for the political leaders.
Bill Gates met with Epstein dozens of times.
Do you think they were talking about computers or something?
No.
Epstein was a child rapist and a pimp of children to other child rapists.
Why did Melinda Gates take so long to speak out?
She finally did, but why did she take so long?
You know, it was also widely reported that Bill had a friendship or business or some kind of contact with Jeffrey Epstein and that you were not, that that was very upsetting to you.
Did that play a role in the divorce at all in this process?
Yeah, as I said, it's not one thing.
It was many things.
But I did not like that he'd had meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, no.
And you made that clear to him.
I made that clear to him.
I also met Jeffrey Epstein exactly one time.
Did you?
Yes, because I wanted to see who this man was.
And I regretted it from the second I stepped in the door.
He was abhorrent.
He was evil personified.
I had nightmares about it afterwards.
So, you know, my heart breaks for these young women because that's how I felt.
And here I'm an older woman.
My God, I feel terrible for those young women.
It was awful.
You felt that the moment you walked in the middle of the day.
It was awful.
Yeah.
And you shared that with Bill and he still continued to spend time with him.
Any of the questions remaining about what Bill's relationship there was, those are for Bill to answer.
Okay.
But I made it very clear how I felt about him.
I don't know.
Did Bill Gates threaten her too in some way?
Why is it that we know every detail about, I don't know, Amber Heard and Johnny Depp, every meticulous, titillating detail about their family quarrel, but we don't yet know basic facts about Epstein and his helper, Guillain Maxwell, like their like the client list.
A conspiracy, you say?
Yeah, a conspiracy.
Not a conspiracy theory, a conspiracy.
Here's a journalist caught on a hot microphone from ABC, leaked from someone in the ABC control room saying that they were instructed to cover up the story.
The reporter's name is Amy Roeback.
She's saying exactly that.
Watch this for one minute.
Did you kill the Jeffrey Epstein story, sir?
Was it you?
It was unbelievable what we had.
Clinton, we had everything.
We would not put it on the air.
First of all, I was told who's Jeffrey Epstein.
No one knows who that is.
This is a stupid story.
Then the palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways.
We have footage of Amy Roebuck saying that ABC News executives killed her Jeffrey Epstein story some years ago.
Do you have a comment, sir?
I done.
I done.
Did you kill the Jeffrey Epstein story, sir?
Was it you?
I have not killed it.
So if you have a comment, sir, now would be a good time.
I don't have a comment.
Thank you very much.
There will come a day when we will realize Jeffrey Epstein was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known.
I had it all three years ago.
You can't watch Good Morning America without being a Disney princess or a Marvel Avenger.
Virtual imperative is incompatible with terror.
Do you believe that Jeffrey Epstein hanged himself in his jail cell?
Do you believe that it was just a coincidence that the security cameras in his cell were turned off?
Really?
Do you think that it's a coincidence that the guards to his cell falsified records?
And do you think it's a coincidence that the government cut a deal with those guards to avoid a trial?
I mean, the CBC believes it's a coincidence.
I'm just wondering which explanation is more plausible that there really was a global network of billionaires and politicians who raped children.
And when the kingpin of that rape gang got caught, his wealthy and powerful clients arranged that he be suicided to protect the client list.
That's one answer, one explanation, or the official explanation, which is the real one.
That it was just a series of whoopsies, whoops, it was suicide, whoops, the camera was off, whoops, the guards weren't guarding.
Are we supposed to believe that he hanged himself and we should be fine with never knowing the client list and we shouldn't ask questions or we'll be called crazy like Courtney Love was called crazy.
I mean, now that Queen Elizabeth herself has stripped her son, Prince Andrew, of his remaining royal affiliations and duties because he admitted he paid an Epstein child victim an enormous settlement, and now that Melinda Gates is effectively calling her husband a child rapist, can we acknowledge the discrepancy here or do we still have to keep pretending?
So yeah, what's the wording of that poll question again?
Do secret societies control the world?
Well, I don't know.
They don't control me, but I'm pretty sure that whoever controlled Jeffrey Epstein's global pedophile operation wasn't doing it for the money, but rather was doing it for the blackmail power.
So control the world?
Well, part of the world, I think.
Secret societies?
I think you could call Epstein's world a secret society.
If you add in Secret of the United Nations and World Health Organization and World Economic Forum meetings, I'd say, yeah, there's some truth to it.
Not everything's controlled by them, but some things are.
I mean, let me know when Christy Freeland contradicts her boss.
But what we are very proud of now is a young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina, and so on, so that we penetrate the cabinets.
Let me read one more question from this poll for you.
This is from Abacus Data.
Question is, Bill Gates uses microchips to track and affect people's behavior.
Do you agree or not?
13% say yes, 21% don't know, and 66% say no.
I mean, those kooks, right?
Who are those 13% who say yes?
They're crazy.
Probably believe in UFOs or the Sasquatch.
Now, I don't think Bill Gates is doing that.
He used to run Microsoft, but since then he's been doing strange things like, I don't know, buying up more farmland in America than any other person.
That's weird.
But saying we have to get off meat and start eating synthetic meat.
That's double weird.
And telling us to drink what he calls poop water.
That's super weird.
And proposing a scheme to put billions of tons of dust into the air to block out the sun to reduce global warming.
That and awkwardly answering questions about Jeffrey Epstein is what he's doing.
Anyone else looking at this?
Well, he's dead.
So, you know, in general, you always have to be careful.
Yeah, so I actually don't think Bill Gates is tracking us.
And I don't think the COVID vaccines track us either.
Though here's Albert Burla, the CEO of Pfizer, talking approvingly about a plan to literally put microchips in your pills so your pill can report back to Pfizer or the government, whoever, that you have obeyed and taken your dose.
It is basically a biological chip that it is in the tablet.
And once you take the tablet and dissolves into your stomach, sends a signal that you took the tablet.
So imagine the applications of that, compliance.
The insurance companies to know that the medicines that patients should take, they do take them.
It is fascinating what happens in this field.
That was at the World Economic Forum where he said that.
So yeah, some conspiracy theory, eh?
It's so funny.
All of these things are visible.
If you look, if you agree with them, then you're good.
But if you disagree with them, then they gaslight you.
They say they're not real.
They're a conspiracy theory.
But I think that for most people, Bill Gates is simply synonymous with big tech.
Big Tech's Invisible Hand00:04:59
It's sort of shorthand for big tech CEOs who are maybe a little bit creepy.
You could put the lizard king Mark Zuckerberg in that place too.
So if you ask someone, is big tech tracking you and trying to affect your behavior?
I think that's sort of the same thing as asking about Bill Gates, or at least I think that's how some people would interpret the question as asking it's weird to name Bill Gates as an individual person rather than the massive tech company that he built or other tech companies in the same space.
So I think that's sort of a flawed question.
But if you asked just one word difference, if you said, are tech companies, are technology companies, or Silicon Valley giants tracking you?
Well, how could you answer that with anything other than the word yes?
Have you heard of an internet cookie?
You probably have.
Here's how they're defined by Norton, a computer security company.
It's a very well-written definition of cookies.
I'm going to read about a minute to you just because it's great.
What are cookies?
Cookies are small files sent to your browser from websites you visit.
These files track and monitor the sites you visit and the items you click on, these pages.
Retailers use cookies to remember what the apparel and shoes you clicked on, the items you stored in your online shopping cart, and the products you've purchased in the past.
News sites use them to remember the stories you've opened in the past.
Some sites might use cookies to remember your password and username so they fill in automatically when you visit the site's login page.
This might seem intrusive, and it's true that many users resent cookies following their activities across the internet.
But companies and advertisers say cookies improve your online experience.
An example, a news site you visit each day can use the information it has collected through cookies to recommend other stories you might want to read.
A retailer might use the information compiled through its cookies to suggest products you might like to buy based on the handbags, laptops, and smartphones you've clicked on its and other retailers' sites.
So now you know where the cookie is, and that's just cookies.
That's just from you surfing around the internet.
It's like barnacles attaching to your ship.
But if you actually log into an account somewhere, like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google, Gmail, whatever, They don't even need cookies because you're in there.
They grab every single word you type, every photo you upload, every place you go, physically and on the internet.
They track far more than cookies.
If you ever read the terms of service for one of those apps, and I bet you haven't because they're very long, you'll see that you're granting them a license, for example, to use all of your photos on Instagram.
You still own your photographs, but if you put a photo on Instagram or Facebook, the terms of service say you are giving them the right, the legal license to use those photos for any of their own purposes.
And of course, the biggest thing for sale is you.
That's why all these social media sites are free.
You're the one for sale.
It's sort of funny to phrase it, as these pollsters do, that Bill Gates uses microchips to track and affect your behavior, like they planted a chip in you or something.
That's sort of silly.
They only plant chips in pets now.
They've been doing that for a decade.
Here's a video from 10 years ago of what it looks like.
A microchip is placed under the skin using a hypodermic needle that isn't any more painful than a typical shot.
Your pet doesn't need surgery or anesthesia, so it can be implanted during a routine office visit.
If your pet is already under anesthesia for surgery, your veterinary can do it then as well.
A microchip contains an identification number that matches the owner's contact information listed in the microchip database.
Of course, you don't need to actually plant a chip in people because they're carrying it around in their hands, not just a little microchip, but a powerful computer with a GPS tracker, a camera, a microphone, and all your emails and photos in it, your cell phone.
If you have a smartphone and use almost any app, you surely see the question pop up, do you allow this app to access your contacts?
Do you allow this app to access your camera, your microphone, your GPS, your photos?
So sometimes you're warned, and sure, you can say no, but then the apps might not work.
And obviously, apps based on your camera and microphone like TikTok, what's the point if you don't give them access to your microphone and camera?
So yeah, what kind of nut thinks big tech is tracking you and nudging you?
What kind of nut thinks that big tech is creating a database about you and is using that information to affect you, whether it's your shopping habits or your political habits?
Alternative Realities00:05:33
Only a crazy conspiracy theorist would believe that.
Yeah, or someone who understands how social media works and has read the terms of service.
I'm going to show you one more slide from this poll.
And it's this one here.
This is the demographic breakdown of people who answered that one World Economic Forum question.
You can see the national average, like I mentioned, is 22% of people who believe the World Economic Forum has a strategy to impose their ideas on the world.
Now, I have to stop myself because it isn't even a matter of opinion that they have a strategy.
Of course they do.
That's what they're working towards.
They've been working towards that for decades.
And whether or not this strategy is successful or how successful it is or whether or not that's moral, that's up for debate.
But they explicitly have a goal, a plan, a strategy to control the way the world is.
That's not of a matter of opinion that they have such a strategy.
That's their whole raison d'être.
So how can you not answer with yes?
But back to the poll results.
You'll see in the demographic breakdown that People's Party of Canada supporters are the most convinced of that, 61%.
The Conservative Party of Canada, 30% of people who vote CPC are convinced of that.
Other parties are too, including 18% of Liberals.
But you can see by ideology, the right is twice as concerned about this as the left.
Maybe not even concerned.
They're just aware of it.
I think it's because the ideas of the World Economic Forum are essentially leftist and authoritarian and against the idea of a nation state.
They're undemocratic.
So if you're leftist, what's the worry?
That's your team.
You can see the real purpose of this poll, though, is the very next line, to somehow smear Pierre Polyev as a kook leading an army of kooks.
34% of Polyev's supporters are worried about the World Economic Forum compared to just 13% of Chere supporters who are worried about this, actually lower than the Liberal Party number, right?
And the last three lines are interesting, too.
Basically, if you don't trust the media, if you don't trust the government, then you are worried about the World Economic Forum.
I get it.
It makes sense.
But it's not that being a Polyev supporter makes you a skeptic of the World Economic Forum.
It's actually the opposite.
If you were a skeptic of unchecked power, of secrecy, of hidden elites, of oligarch, as if you're skeptical of gatekeepers, as Polyev would say, well, who on earth would you support as your political leader?
Trudeau, who loves to hobnob with them?
If you were worried about these things, how could you possibly support forces of the establishment status quo?
What this is really about is coming up with an alternative reality, an alternative explanation for why Trudeau and the establishment elites are unpopular.
Trudeau is not unpopular because he's a shallow, vain, slippery politician who denounces people as racist if they disagree with him.
No, He's not unpopular because he put Canada under a form of martial law and threw his peaceful enemies in prison and seized their bank accounts.
No, no, no.
He's not unpopular because he's ruining our economy.
No, no, how dare you?
Justin Trudeau is unpopular because we, the people, aren't worthy of him.
We don't see his greatness, and we're being tricked and conned by conspiracy theories, like the outlandish idea that unelected people had power over us during the lockdowns, or that our cabinet pays more attention to George Soros or Klaus Schweb than do than, I don't know, to truckers or ordinary Canadians.
But here's what the pollsters say in their conclusion.
I'll just pick out a few lines.
Only recently we've witnessed how a massive demand for the protection offered by COVID-19 vaccines fostered a strenuous effort by those who disbelieve government and media to deny the value of those same vaccines.
What did you say?
Massive demand stimulated a reaction to the vaccines.
No, I mean, I guess if you threaten to fire anyone in society who doesn't take a vaccine, and then you ban any contrarians from going to stores or schools or restaurants or gyms or flying on airlines, yeah, I guess you'll get massive demand.
And I don't know about you, but I'm not sure if massive demand for the vaccine has made someone calling for a vaccine to be banned or something.
It's just freedom to choose, really.
They say these vaccines have great value.
And they don't mean financial value to Pfizer.
They mean to citizens.
Yeah, again, I guess that's up to the individual to determine whether or not they're valuable.
I mean, I think people's opinions have changed.
Here's the child predator Bill Gates admitting that these vaccines aren't exactly what they were promised to be.
Economic damage, the deaths, it's been completely horrific.
And I would expect that will lead the RD budgets to be focused on things we didn't have today.
We didn't have vaccines that block transmission.
We got vaccines that helped you with your health, but they only slightly reduced the transmissions.
We need a new way of doing the vaccines.
Emergencies Act Controversy00:14:45
Yeah, so here's how these pollsters conclude.
Perhaps the most disconcerting thing in these numbers is the fact that mistrust of institutional accounts isn't simply neutral skepticism.
It is often accompanied by a willingness to believe dangerous, contrarian theories.
This threatens to undermine the ability of political parties, businesses, civil society groups, and governments to help build consensus and make progress together.
Hey, guys, it's dangerous to disagree.
It's dangerous to be a contrarian.
You need to join us.
You need to join our consensus.
You need to agree with us, but we don't have to agree with you.
See, you're the one who has to change your views.
We are normal.
You are contrarian.
We are safe.
You are dangerous.
We are neutral.
You are radical, even though we're the ones who just changed all the rules.
Don't you understand?
They're doing what they've been doing since the beginning, redefining anyone who disagrees with their plans, anyone who disagrees with Trudeau, as dangerous, as stupid, as evil, as a non-person.
That's 67% of us, by the way.
Stay with us for more.
Hey, last week I sat down with Spencer Fernando to talk about this growing scandal.
Take a look.
We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement.
The advice we received was to invoke the Emergencies Act.
Look, I don't want to speak for every last serving member of law enforcement, but there was a very strong consensus that we needed to invoke the act.
We invoked the act because it was the advice of nonpartisan professional law enforcement.
The advice that we were getting was that law enforcement needed the Emergencies Act.
It was only after we got advice from law enforcement that we invoked the Emergencies Act, and that advice came from very experienced law enforcement.
We had to invoke the Emergencies Act, and we did so on the basis of non-partisan professional advice from law enforcement.
And that was the advice that we were receiving from law enforcement.
And one of the main reasons why we invoked the Emergencies Act.
We got the advice from our law enforcement that we've met the threshold.
They then came to their judgment, as you say.
And thereafter, we came to ours on the basis of the advice that we were getting from law enforcement.
That's a compilation put together by our friend Cosmo Gierga at True North.
How many clips were there there?
Ten?
Could he be clearer?
Police told them they needed, it was their advice.
It was their request.
It was their nonpartisan view that they needed the Emergencies Act invoked.
Well, except it just wasn't true.
Joining us now to talk about this wicked lie is our friend Spencer Fernando, whose latest essay is called Establishment Press, Unwilling to Just Admit That Marco Mendocino Lied to the Canadian People.
And Spencer just now from Winnipeg.
I mean, he really couldn't have been clearer.
It's not like it was a gaffe that he misspoke once or twice.
I think there were close to 10 clips there in parliament, in press conferences, in committee.
He said he got that advice.
It didn't happen when you know something didn't happen, you say it happened.
That's called a lie.
It's not a mistake, it's a lie.
Yeah, it's very interesting how he's in the liberal government and much of the media is now trying to say, oh, we miss, he was misunderstood, you know, just a poor misunderstood soul.
And, you know, as you say, everywhere else, that would just be called lying, right?
And so I think, you know, it's clear that he's probably being set up as the fall guy.
I think the liberals are feeling the pressure.
You know, if they evoke the emergencies act on what clearly looks like a false pretext, then there's going to be a lot of hell to pay.
And he's probably going to be set up as the fall guy for it.
And they'll either throw him under the bus or try to just distance Trudeau from it.
But as much as the focus should be on, you know, Mendicino being a liar, it does go back to Trudeau.
He's the one who invoked it.
He's the one who and his PMO who would have given Mendicino the talking points.
And, you know, maybe the fact that Mendicino is somewhat incompetent has just made it easier to see how dishonest the government is.
You know, it was sort of incredible.
We heard that so many times, as you saw there, about 10 times.
But it took weeks for the truth to come out.
No police force positively counteracted him or contradicted him.
It was only when they were being grilled in front of some legislative committee, anyways, that they were asked, did you ask for this?
Did you recommend this?
And one after the other, they all said no, which sort of surprises me that they answered at all.
But the RCMP said no.
The Ottawa police said no.
They all said no.
The lie was told for months.
The truth only came out later.
Now, tell me a little bit more what you mean in your essay.
You say the mainstream media are still holding the line that Mendocino was just misunderstood.
Are there any mainstream media out there that are calling him out?
You're calling him out.
True North is calling him out.
We're calling him out here.
Are the National Post of Toronto Sun, the Toronto Star, Globe Mail, CBC, are they still shy about this subject or do they realize the lie also?
Well, I'm sure most of them realize it, but they're using generally different language to refer to it.
Misunderstood.
Liberals clarify Mendocino's comments.
They're treating it as if he said one thing once and it was a mistake, right?
Oh, he won.
One time he said the police asked for this and law enforcement asked for this.
Okay, he misspoke.
Okay, you can understand that, you know, someone, if your job is to talk for a living, you know, we all know that we're going to say one or two things that don't always hold up.
But he said it over and over again in many different settings, you know, press conferences, you know, speaking in parliament, speaking in committees.
So it's clearly that was his line and that was the message they were going with.
And so the fact that that is just completely disintegrated shows that they were lying to the whole country.
And, you know, again, that is really the difference between independent media and much of the establishment.
It's kind of similar to the anger when Polyev was criticizing the Bank of Canada.
It's almost that they're more concerned about the tone, right?
Oh, how dare you call someone a liar?
How dare you criticize an institution?
Whereas I think most Canadians, and certainly independent media, are more focused on the facts and focused on what's actually happening.
The tone doesn't really matter.
I mean, are we supposed to be nice about the government lying to people?
Are we supposed to be nice about the government using a false pretext to take away people's rights and evoke the Emergencies Act?
That's not something we should just be polite about.
Yeah, Mendocino and Trudeau lied about the arson in that apartment.
It was completely unconnected to the truckers.
The Ottawa police confirmed that.
They lied about weapons being found.
That was a lie perpetrated by Justin Lang, I think, in the Star of the Globe.
It was a lie.
They lied about police asking for this emergencies power.
And by the way, they lied about tow trucks.
They did not need the Emergencies Act to commandeer tow trucks.
Section 129 of the criminal code has for decades given police the power to commandeer a tow truck or frankly your own car.
I mean, you often see it in like a Hollywood Chase movie where a cop says, I'm a policeman, give me your car.
That's not theft.
In Canada and the United States, police actually have the power to commandeer a vehicle.
Now, there are rules around it.
They have to compensate you, et cetera, et cetera.
But police did not need the Emergencies Act for the tow trucks.
Trudeau did it as a political power move, as a way of seizing bank accounts, as a way of terrifying people.
And it's because it's his instincts.
My point is, Mark Mendocino made it possible.
And a better cabinet minister, say like Jody Wilson-Raybold, someone who puts the truth and justice and honor above party loyalty.
I put it to you, Spencer, that if someone like Jody Wilson-Raybold had been public safety minister, they would have said no to Trudeau.
What do you think?
Yeah, I agree with that.
I think the unfortunate reality is that all those people are gone.
The people who had the courage to stand up to Trudeau, the people who actually believed him when he said he was going to be on openness and transparency, those people are gone now.
And so, you know, there's a few.
I think Nathaniel Erskine Smith, obviously not a high-level cabinet minister, he tried to be a little, you know, principled and he got, you know, we saw what the liberals did.
They made it a confidence vote and he was pressured to vote for keeping the emergencies act.
So I just think they've gotten rid of all those people.
You know, maybe there's a few left, but they're too scared and they're too quiet, which means they aren't really courageous people to begin with.
Yeah, you know, you can have a political hack or a partisan liar, frankly, in a number of portfolios, and it doesn't do a lot of damage to the country.
I mean, right now we're all learning that Omar Al Jabra really doesn't know how to fix any problems just watching the airport meltdown.
But that position of public safety minister, in some ways, is as powerful as the prime minister itself, but it's more hands-on with our spy agencies, our police forces, wiretapping, seizing bank accounts, dealing with the five eyes, other allies, United States, UK, Australia, New Zealand.
So when you have someone who is so completely partisan and will do and say anything and lie for Trudeau in a position where he has access to spy material, where he can wiretap his enemies, I find that very unsettling.
We've seen what happens in the United States when the FBI and the CIA become colonized by a political party.
I'm worried that the Canadian institutions that are our equivalents are being turned into political tools of Trudeau.
And I think that's a real banana republic move.
Yeah, I think that's part of the reason that trust in institutions across the country is really collapsing.
I mean, the Bank of Canada seems very partisan and seems very influenced by the Trudeau government.
The Supreme Court, I mean, they're complaining that people want to interfere with them, but you have the Chief Justice criticizing the Freedom Convoy.
You have them making rulings saying, oh, you can't have multiple, you can't have life in prison for mass murders.
So, you know, all these institutions are discrediting themselves.
And then instead of taking responsibility, they just blame Canadians for being angry at them.
And so I think that's the same thing Trudeau's trying to do with public safety and really with every part of the government.
Turn everything that was nonpartisan and somewhat objective into something that serves his interests and the interests of the liberal.
Yeah, I'm just worried that our checks and balances in this country are failing.
And it makes me worried.
Spencer, it's great to see you again, folks.
If you're not signed up to spencerfernando.com, you really should.
I get Spencer's emails in addition to going over to the website myself.
The story today, establishment press unwilling to just admit that Marco Mendocino lied to the Canadian people.
Spencer, great to see you.
Look forward to talking again soon.
Alrighty, take care.
All right, stay with us.
Your letters to me are next.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me.
Alex Gilardo says, honestly, David is one of the best.
Really, I'd say the best reporter, investigator, reporter in Canada.
I remember way back when we actually had real reporters like this.
He is still from that era.
David is pure gold.
You're talking about David's investigative journalism into Patrick Brown, the current mayor of Brampton and the would-be leader of the Conservative Party, would be prime minister.
I think you're right.
And it's sort of odd to me that Rebel News, with our small budget and our small team, is doing this kind of journalism when no one else is.
You get the budget of the CBC.
You got the budget of, I don't know, the media party.
You're just not interested in this stuff.
You're not curious.
You're not skeptical.
I find that depressing.
Limestone Holiday Lighting has an opinion, which is the Highway Traffic Act doesn't apply on private property.
So unless David was driving dangerously, which becomes a criminal code violation, or carelessly, the cop had no reason to conduct his traffic stop for driving in the lot a little fast.
The officers should know this, especially being a sergeant.
If and when the police call David, the comment from Sir Patrick's driver will help.
Very interesting comments there.
And I did notice that the driver is saying, we know who you FNR.
That obviously goes to the laughable fact that David was threatening these people.
They knew exactly who he was.
And if you're threatening someone with criminal harassment, you don't follow them into a police station.
It was absolutely laughable that they were detained and asked about criminally harassing Patrick Brown just for asking him questions.
In fairness to the cops, though, put yourself in their shoes.
They probably heard a wail of a tale on the phone spoken quite hysterically by Patrick Brown trying to whip them up, sort of like, I'm coming in.
I'm coming in hot.
I'm being chased by these bandits.
They're threatening me with things.
I'm really scared.
Have your guns ready.
Wouldn't surprise me if that's the kind of thing Patrick Brown told them.
And so they were prepared for the worst, and they just probably were stunned with the fact that it was David and Lincoln.
The story's not over yet, but I got a question for you.
Have you seen a follow-up to this in any other media?
I'm not talking about the chase and the fun, but seriously, you have a leading candidate.
I would call Patrick Brown probably the second most likely candidate.
I mean, maybe Jean Charais in there, but I don't really think so.
So you got a leading candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada who was found with a secret campaign office that is employing half of the mayor's civil servants, and not a single people, not a fall.
I haven't seen a fall of anywhere.
Maybe I missed one.
Is that because they don't care?
Is that because they're lazy?
Is that because they don't want to follow Rebel News' lead?
I don't know, but it doesn't look good on the media party, does it?
Vovo says Governor Newsom is being recalled for his disastrous policies.
Are we allowed in Canada to recall Trudeau?
Well, they did have the recall referendum, but he survived it.
So they had the recall, which chastened him for about five minutes, but he survived.
We don't have recall in Canada.
Private Flights and Customs00:07:02
We have a different system.
And in our parliamentary system, Jack Meet Singh is propping up Trudeau.
And until he does something so disastrous that Jagmeet Singh is more afraid of staying with Trudeau than Jagmeet Singh of going for the polls, he's going to remain prime minister.
I'm afraid Jack Meet Singh is such a terrible leader, and he is in such trouble.
And remember, his brother, Guritan Singh, just lost his seat in the Ontario provincial election.
I don't think Jagmeet Singh wants an election a minute earlier than he can.
So I'm afraid Trudeau's in for a while.
Well, that's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rubber World Headquarters, to you at home, good night.
We keep fighting for freedom.
Like every other public health measures that we put in place, the cabinet debates it and looks at the evidence before it consults experts, including Dr. Teresa Tapp, and then we make a decision.
And like we've done in the past, many of these measures are reviewed on a regular basis, and sometimes we make adjustments.
Canadian airports are a hellscape of chaos and disorganization as the Fed to ask these transport hubs to become biomedical security labs to perform in the Liberals' COVID airport theater.
And it is the worst in Canada's busiest airport, Toronto Pearson.
It's become an international embarrassment with millions of people gazing upon this video with horror and disgust from a former NHLer who's now working as a journalist for Barstool Sports.
Just take a look at this.
Yesterday I landed around 3.
I then had Toronto to Boston at 8.30.
Customs was about three hours, got through flight canceled from Toronto to Boston.
All right.
At this point, now I go and I see there is a 400-person line with two Air Canada workers.
There's a million canceled flights.
Everyone's just panicking.
So I waited in that line about six hours.
At near the end of the line, by the way, you know how much my feet hurt?
Be it near the end of the line, they closed it.
They just said, oh, you have to go somewhere else.
We had to re-enter Canada.
We had to go through Canadian customs.
So by the time I finally see someone from Air Canada, it's 1 a.m.
I said, can I just get my bags?
I had a ride to Buffalo all set up, and I had a Jet Blue flight from Buffalo.
I just need to get out of this country, out of this airport.
This is the worst airport on earth.
I'm telling you, there's no other airport like this.
So they say, no, no, no, you can't have your bags.
Your bags are already like in the middle of no man's land.
You can't have your bags.
So we have an 8.50 flight for you from Toronto to Boston for this morning.
This is at 1 a.m.
Okay, I be here at 5 a.m., they said.
So I got here at 4:55.
I wanted to be five minutes early.
So I wanted to be three hours and 55 minutes early.
I get here, this woman says, Oh, we booked you actually on a flight from here to Montreal and then Montreal to Boston, but that leaves in 50 minutes and you can't make it.
They never sent me an email.
They just started laughing.
I mean, what do you even do?
It was either that or like cry.
So now I'm on a so now I'm on 10 a.m., but there's nobody really around the gate.
Yeah, I'm just so in shock at this place.
It is the biggest disgrace known to man.
And the liberals, of course, they don't seem to care.
Okay, so these mandates are always assessed and reassessed.
The evidence that masks reduce transmission is unequivocal and quite clear.
It's 60 to 80 percent reductions of chances of transmission.
So while we are always looking at the evidence and assessing it, the masks continue to offer tremendous protection for everyone.
The same applies to vaccine mandate.
Just like I said about masks, these measures are always getting assessed and reassessed.
In fact, part of the problem is that the Liberals cut a pile of security screeners as a cost-cutting measure.
It's the one time the Liberals decided to actually be fiscally conservative for some reason, and yet they couldn't even save money properly.
And then there are all the vaccine mandate firings.
But the Liberals, they don't care because they don't have to live through the nightmare of airport purgatory that regular people now have to.
Because the Liberals have been taking private flights organized through the very ministry, transport, that is now responsible for the hellacious airports.
Let's call it the hellscaping.
And the private flights for so-called liberal VIPs were frequently asked for by the prime minister's office.
Yeah, the PMO.
We know because we filed for access to information on private pandemic flights.
Now, if you want to support our access to information filings, please consider a donation to our investigations fund at rebelinvestigates.com.
So let's take a look. at what we have and I'll publish the documents here so you can take a look at them for yourself.
You don't have to take my word for it.
There are several references to the Prime Minister's office being involved in setting up the flights for various VIPs on page 36 to accommodate Health Minister Patty Haju.
That's the lady who banned Canadians from traveling, told us all to stay home.
The crew had to get to the Ottawa airport at 3 a.m. to fly to Thunder Bay to pick her up and then bring her back to Ottawa.
Page 44, the PMO is asking for the contact info for the flight crew.
Weird.
Must have some highly gropable flight attendants on that crew who would be experiencing things differently later on.
Page 58, additional PMO request.
Would it be possible to fly Health Minister Haju from Ottawa to Thunder Bay Thursday evening and then from Thunder Bay to Ottawa Sunday evening or Monday night?
Page 67, the PMO wants Transport Canada to send a plane to fly the revenue minister from Gas Bay, Ile de Madeleine, and back all in one morning.
Some climate emergency.
Page 73, this is getting weird again, says Transport Canada officials to all the PMO flight requests.
Page 76, the minister's office, the transport minister at the time was Mark Garneau.
Well, they were inquiring about the possibility of using a Transport Canada aircraft to fly a VIP.
Page 24, Dominic LeBlanc, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure, and Communities, emails to thank them for all the flights.
Page 141, this is ironic, given how these people force Canadians who can't get private taxpayer-funded flights to wear masks from the very second they set foot in an airport.
But Dominic LeBlanc's staff was asking if they have to wear masks on the flight.
Funny, because if a normal person tries that on a commercial flight, these same people will insist you are stuck on a no-fly list for basically the rest of your life.
Page 143, LeBlanc notes he is bringing someone else, but they promise to reimburse the value of a commercial ticket for the travel.
Oh, that's it.
Just reimburse us as they get to jump the queues and the mayhem of the airports because it's who you know, not what the rules are or what they tell us the science is.