Ezra Levant exposes Justin Trudeau’s $2.4M Digital Citizen Initiative, a July 26th fund targeting "disinformation" critics—especially COVID lockdown and Ukraine skeptics—while ignoring real online harms like scams or terrorism. Courts and police lost public trust by detaining figures like Métis grandma Tamara Leach (49 days on minor charges) during pandemic overreach, despite Charter violations. Meanwhile, the WEF and Gates-backed PBS push insect-based proteins, framing them as climate solutions in Time’s 2030 edition, while Catholic Relief Services distributes cricket meals globally. Viewers resist potential mandates, calling it elite-driven "hysteria" masking regulatory control over food choices. [Automatically generated summary]
Today, I take you through the latest censorship move by the Trudeau liberals.
It's in the name of fighting disinformation.
But what's disinformation?
Aren't we allowed to disagree about information in society?
Aren't we allowed to have more than one point of view?
Isn't the clash of ideas what brings out the truth?
Since when did the government get to term anyone who opposed it disinformationists?
I'll take you through the latest news.
But first, let me invite you to subscribe to Rebel News Plus.
It's the video version of this podcast.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe, eight bucks a month.
For that tiny amount of dough, you get my show every weeknight plus four weekly shows by my colleagues here.
That's 36 episodes a month just for eight bucks.
And importantly, we need that eight bucks to pay the bills because we don't get any money from Trudeau.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe.
Thanks very much.
here's today's podcast.
Tonight, Justin Trudeau dumps millions more into online censorship, especially against anyone who disagrees with his approach to Ukraine.
It's July 26th, and this is the Esther Levant show.
Shame on you, you sensorious bug.
I saw this news release late last week.
It's a press release from the government of Canada.
It says, projects launched to help strengthen Canadians' resilience against harmful online disinformation.
Now, that really is Orwellian, isn't it?
I mean, I can tell you some real online harms.
Scams that try to trick you into giving your passwords or giving your credit card information.
There's a ton of those online, which tells me that they work.
Identity theft, phishing, as it's called, when you're tricked into entering a password.
Pretty obvious online harm.
Being tracked and spied on by malware or spyware.
Sort of like the ArriveCan app, but by people even less trustworthy than Trudeau.
Ransomware.
Have you heard of that?
That's when your files are hacked and you have to send money, usually in the form of cryptocurrency, to pay the thieves to release your data.
It's blackmail.
Obviously targeting children, child porn.
That's a horrific online harm.
And then there's recruiting terrorists and promoting terrorist propaganda online using the internet.
ISIS was pretty good at that.
Their videos were terrifying and professional and very persuasive.
They scared their enemies and recruited terrorist soldiers from around the world.
Would you agree with me that all of those things are indeed genuine online harms?
They're scams and crimes and illegal misconduct that use the internet and some of which are really tailor-made for the internet.
Online harms, just like the words say.
But that's not what Trudeau is focused on.
None of those things.
I mean, take a look at his press release again.
He says he's targeting disinformation, disinformation, as in facts that are wrong or opinions that are unreasonable or things taken out of context, which isn't really internet specific, is it?
I mean, if you want disinformation, pick up any newspaper, turn on any TV or radio station, read any magazine, listen to any conversation, because disinformation is just a modern way of saying, I disagree with you and your facts.
You're wrong.
To which historically the response was, well, I disagree with you.
And I think you're the one who's wrong.
And then you haggle it out.
In fact, our entire modern democracy is set up that way.
We call it checks and balances.
We have an official opposition whose full-time job, by the way, is to oppose our election campaigns, our election debates.
They're designed to have a clash of ideas.
I say you're wrong.
I say you're wrong.
It includes facts and arguments and opinions.
Our entire legal system, our entire court system is based on two opposing visions, prosecution and defense, plaintiff and defendant.
Both are dead sure they're right and that the other side is wrong.
Wrong at best, lying at worst.
So why the sudden push to destroy the idea of two sides of an argument?
To destroy one of those sides of the argument and saying it's disinformation?
And surprise, the side that is to be destroyed, the side that is being equated to a harm like terrorism or crime, is the side that happens to disagree with Justin Trudeau.
Here, let's read a bit from this press release.
Credible information is fundamental to a healthy democracy and a strong society.
Canadians should have access to diverse and reliable sources of information so that they can form opinions, hold governments, public institutions, and individuals to account, and participate in public discourse.
Now, it's tough to disagree with most of that.
I like the word diverse.
That means a variety of points of view.
We don't really have a lot of variety in our news these days, do we?
I mean, all the mainstream media agree, for example, with the theory of man-made global warming, and all agree that the solution to changing the weather is a carbon tax.
And all the mainstream media agree that we need open borders, mass migration, and all the media agree that the pandemic justified an unprecedented destruction of our civil liberties, tantamount to martial law, and that after 50 years of talking about my body, my choice, that it was not, in fact, your body and that you did not have a choice.
You had to be jabbed with a vaccine that was not fully tested on people and won't be for years to come.
And if you don't, you'll lose your job and lose your access to broader society.
Do we really have a lot of diversity in Canadian journalism?
Do we really?
And I haven't even talked about anything controversial like abortion on demand paid for by taxpayers for any reason or no reason until the moment of birth.
Is there a lot of diverse facts and opinions on really anything of importance in Canadian media?
But they use two phrases there, credible information, reliable sources of information.
Credible means believable.
But don't different people have different opinions about what's believable?
I mean, Trudeau is a CBC man, or more accurately, the CBC or Trudeau's man, like this gal, who has since been promoted.
Remember this?
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.
Now, is that credible?
Is she a reliable source?
Well, yes, she is.
She's reliable in terms of promoting Trudeau's messaging.
Sure.
Say this weekend we had almost a dozen journalists in the field, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa.
We were covering thousands of truckers and farmers who were rallying together in solidarity with each other and with the Dutch farmer rebellion and the worry that those same issues will come to Canada.
Huge event, huge convoys.
We had huge coverage.
But have you seen anything about it at all?
I mean, anything in the media party?
I have not.
If these protests in all those cities I've listed had been synchronized global warming protests led by Greta Thunberg, you bet they'd be covered by the CBC and the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail and everybody else.
These huge rallies and convoys really happened.
Can you call the CBC credible and reliable when it absolutely ignores a major political story like that?
Well, sure.
If you're Justin Trudeau, then they are reliable.
You can rely on them.
But like I say, we believe in an adversarial system where we don't all have to agree.
Back to the government press release.
They say, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Pablo Rodriguez, and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure, and Communities, the Honorable Dominique LeBlanc, today announced over $2.4 million in funding for projects that will give Canadians the tools to identify online disinformation, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine.
Don't you think it's odd that the only thing the Minister of Heritage talks about is censorship?
I mean, namely one thing he's done for our heritage, for the culture, other than plot and scheme how to silence you.
He really is a minister of censorship, isn't he?
Then again, in the book 1984 by George Orwell, the Ministry of Propaganda was called the Ministry of Truth, wasn't it?
So they're going to be fighting disinformation about COVID-19 and the Russia-Ukraine war.
Now, there is disinformation about every controversial topic in the world.
Why are those two topics the two that Trudeau is obsessed with?
I think it has to do with money in part.
There are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, trillions actually, with COVID-19 schemes.
And don't forget that Trudeau himself bought literally 400 million doses of the vaccine.
Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on lockdowns and his subsidies.
There's a lot riding on your obedience to the official narrative.
And the war in Russia and Ukraine, well, that I'm a little bit more puzzled by.
Of course, Trudeau has had lots of photo ops on the subject, even Ukraine itself.
And Canada has pledged money and weapons, but nowhere near the size and scale of what the U.S. is doing.
So much of Trudeau's Ukraine project has just been symbolic, I think.
I mean, Canada is not really an important country for Russia economically.
The United Kingdom, the U.S., Cyprus, Germany, those are important places in terms of Russia and its oligarchs.
None of those oligarchs are stashing money or assets in Canada.
And as soon as Trudeau's sanctions actually caught something valuable, the Russian natural gas pipeline turbines that were being repaired in Montreal, Trudeau immediately caved in and let Russia have them back, literally amending the sanctions.
So I'm not quite sure why Trudeau is obsessing over controlling the messaging about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, other than perhaps that NATO itself is obsessed, so he's just doing what he's told on that.
But, you know, there's roughly 200 countries in the world.
There are wars amongst them all the time.
Right now, Yemen and Saudi Arabia are at war.
Syria is in a civil war.
Iraq is at war.
Civil war, and Iran's sort of undermining it.
Much of the Maghreb region of Africa is in war.
Jihadis in a dozen countries, including Nigeria.
I'd add the Mexican drug cartel wars, and I'd add Burma in there too.
And I'm not sure exactly what you'd call what's going on in Sri Lanka these days, but each of these is a violent struggle.
And each is accompanied by nonviolent propaganda designed to aid each respective side.
Do you know who the good guys are in Yemen?
Do you really?
How about in Mali?
20,000 people died last year in the war in Tigray.
It's almost as many have died in Ukraine, Tigray.
That's part of Ethiopia.
Can you find it on a map?
Are you worried about disinformation?
Now, I'm not really.
I just find it odd that the only disinformation that's being targeted by Trudeau is the disinformation that he has a personal political stake in.
I suppose it's normal to counter foreign government propaganda when you're in a war, but Canada's not actually in a war.
And Trudeau's plans are to censor not Russian journalists, but Canadian journalists.
Not to somehow try to block Russian propaganda, but to demonize Canadian citizens as Russian agents and censor Canadians here.
It's just like Trudeau and Biden blaming Vladimir Putin for inflation or gas prices.
Government Censorship Tactics00:10:47
What a handy way to shift the blame for things that they've done and accuse others of disloyalty.
I find it odd.
Let me read more.
Today's announcement is the result of a special call for proposals launched in March 2022.
These projects are citizen-focused activities and funded under Canadian Heritage's Digital Citizen Initiative.
The initiative promotes civic, news, and digital media literacy through funding third-party educational activities and programming to help citizens become resilient against disinformation.
Of all the people in the world, would you trust government to tell you what journalists to believe and what journalists not to believe?
Like, really, the government's going to choose that for you?
The press release quotes the censorship minister saying, the best defense against Russian disinformation is Canadian citizens armed with facts.
These projects will give Canadians skills and tools to tell fact from fiction online.
We live and work better as a society when we have a common set of facts.
It's by Pablo Rodriguez, who calls himself the Minister of Heritage.
I think it's good to have a common understanding with people, but I also think it's important to be able to dissent, to critique, to disagree, to say, no, I disagree with the mainstream way of thinking.
Like I say, our whole system, our whole political system, our whole legal system, indeed the scientific method itself depends on challenging and refuting things that were once the establishment consensus.
Does the sun revolve around the earth?
That was once a government and church approved fact.
Is the earth flat?
So was that.
It was disinformation to claim otherwise.
We need a reliable and credible source of information, not like that Galileo.
When he published disinformation, he was prosecuted and convicted in the Inquisition in 1633, and he was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life.
You know, 1633 isn't that long ago.
It was 150 years after Columbus found America.
But you can be much more current than that.
Are women persons?
Should women have the right to vote?
That's a controversy of about 100 years ago.
By the way, I don't know if you know this, but in Canada, status Indians under the Indian Act did not have the right to vote in elections until the 1960s.
Like I say, those were accepted truths until then.
Anyone who said otherwise was an unreliable, incredible troublemaker.
It's disinformation to say that Indians can vote.
It's disinformation to say that women should vote.
That was standard establishment thinking until a few decades ago.
Imagine the government demanding that you accept their facts and even more so, their sources.
It's like Anthony Fauci declaring that he himself was the science.
So don't criticize him.
There's a distinct anti-science flavor to this.
So if they get up and criticize science, nobody's going to know what they're talking about.
But if they get up and really aim their bullets at Tony Fauci, well, people could recognize there's a person there, there's a face, there's a voice you can recognize.
You see him on television.
So it's easy to criticize.
But they're really criticizing science because I represent science.
But look at this quote from another Trudeau Liberal Cabinet Minister, Dominique LeBlanc.
In Canada and around the world, democracies are contending with malicious actors seeking to weaken our institutions and undermine citizens' trust in their government.
Working with civil society, this program will give Canadians the tools they need to identify disinformation and strengthen our democracy.
So hang on, I thought this was about fighting against the evil Russians about the war in Ukraine, or silently accepting whatever Pfizer is selling us this week, but it's not.
Dominique LeBlanc drops the mask a little bit.
He says it's to combat anyone who undermines citizens' trust in the government, as in the Canadian government, as in Trudeau and LeBlanc and Rodriguez themselves.
It's nothing to do with Russia or Ukraine or Pfizer.
It's everything to do with silencing people who don't like Trudeau.
You know, in the last election, just 32% of voters voted for Trudeau.
68% of voters did not.
And that's just of people who bothered to vote.
Trudeau is even more unpopular now.
That's what this is about.
It's not about Ukraine.
It's about silencing Trudeau's critics, not silencing Ukraine's critics.
What's striking to me is how uniformly this has been accepted.
It's not even remarked upon.
Have you seen any news about this?
Like the Trucker Rebellion, the media party is just pretending it's not even happening or that it's not newsworthy because they're in on it.
That's the QCJO qualified Canadian journalism organization thing that we were talking about before.
That government journalism license.
If you have that license, you're by definition trustworthy and reliable.
In fact, you get government money, Facebook and Google money, access to all government events, and the algorithms of the internet are tweaked to boost you.
If not, not.
You're marginalized, banned, and downranked online.
So of course, the 99% of the journalists who are in the club are silent about the banishment and the punishment of those outside the club.
It's bizarre how large this whole operation is just to silence the small contrarian voices like ours.
I say again, in case you don't remember from my previous 50 times, I'm opposed to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, just like I was against their last invasion of Ukraine and their invasion of Georgia, their hostage-taking of Europe through natural gas.
That's why I actually wrote a book about it called Ethical Oil and a sequel called Groundswell.
It's about fracking.
The only way to beat Russia, other than a nuclear war, I suppose, in which both sides would lose.
The only way to beat Russia is to take away their energy monopoly over Europe by replacing conflict oil and gas from Russia and OPEC with ethical oil and gas from Canada.
I wrote the book.
I saw this headline the other day.
Trudeau says, with Russia weaponizing energy, Canada looking at how to supply Europe.
But you know what?
That's disinformation.
See what I did there?
If you actually click on the link, read the story itself, you'll see it's just not what Trudeau said.
That is literally not true.
It shows that Europe wants Canadian oil and gas.
You bet.
They want it very badly.
They want to be relieved from their hostage taker, Vladimir Putin.
But the only energy Trudeau is contemplating sending to them is get this, and I quote, the prime minister went on to suggest that the projects down the line could be used to export hydrogen, a clean fuel alternative.
Hydrogen?
Can you heat your home with hydrogen in the winter?
Can you fill up your car's gas tank with hydrogen?
Can you use it in an airplane as jet fuel?
Hydrogen?
Have you ever heard of anyone actually using hydrogen fuel for anything?
Seriously, the only hydrogen I can even remember being used was in the Hindenburg.
It didn't really end well.
So that's Betrudeau being super helpful and CTV lying about it.
That's a bit of disinformation.
But look, where there's money, there are grifters.
This press release from the government, a whole raft of companies have signed up for some of that Trudeau cash.
I guess there aren't authentic people willing to make those arguments for free.
The government has to pay people to make their arguments for them.
That really feels sketchy to me.
Doesn't it feel that way to you?
You know me, I'm for ethical oil.
I'm against conflict oil.
I'm a private person.
But when the government of Alberta set up an official advocacy organization, a government advocacy organization with a $30 million year budget, it was a bit off.
I mean, why didn't the companies, the oil companies, do that themselves?
$30 million is a rounding error to them.
Was it more authoritative when the Alberta government did it?
Is it more effective?
Was it more cost-efficient?
Was it tougher?
I don't think so.
I mean, I like Alberta defending its oil against foreign disinformation.
And in that case, it really is foreign disinformation, foreign entities like OPEC and Russia lying about the oil sands, Greenpeace lying about the oil sands and fracking to promote, say, OPEC and Russia by default.
But having a government agency in Canada tell you what to believe by necessity made it a weaker, inauthentic voice.
I'm talking about Alberta's energy center.
Well, Trudeau is trying that now.
And though the media and opposition just went nuts opposing Alberta's Canadian Energy Center, as they called it, I haven't heard a peep from those same journalists or opposition about Trudeau's propaganda arm.
They love it.
And the grifters do too, of course.
It's not the money I'm worried about.
And it's not even the messaging I'm worried about.
I don't trust any government when they try to hide their tracks using front groups.
I don't trust them even more.
I trust them less.
But what I'm worried about is that disinformation and combating disinformation isn't their goal.
It's their means to a goal.
It's their excuse.
It's their way of demonizing Canadian critics of Trudeau.
Nothing to do with Pfizer or Ukraine.
You heard how Dominique LeBlanc defined it.
From there, denying those disinformation critics their civil rights, denying them the license to practice journalism, perhaps even putting them one day on a sort of security watch list.
Disgraceful Justice?00:12:25
It's a form of McCarthyism.
Back then, the Russians really were the bad guys.
It's so weird to see so-called liberals bring back McCarthyism as a way of demonizing and silencing their own domestic critics.
Really weird to me.
Stay with us for more.
Today was an enormous day.
Tamara Leach, the Métis grandma who peacefully helped organize the trucker convoy in January and February.
Well, as you know, she was seized under a national warrant, the kind of thing reserved for, I don't know, murderers on the loose.
She was seized, brought from Medicine Hat, where she lives, to Ottawa, a journey that takes a number of hours, but they managed to stretch it out into a week.
She was put before a Justice of the Peace, not a judge, not even a lawyer, just some guy who kept her in prison.
And it was only today that a real judge heard the matter again from scratch and said, no, the woman can go free.
And it was a good day for freedom.
It feels like a little bit of an echo of Arthur Pavlovsky's good day for freedom last week.
Unfortunately, both Arthur Pavlovsky and Tamara Leach had to serve weeks in prison before they got the good news.
But Sheila Gunreed was covering the entire trial today via remote, via video feed.
I really recommend you read her Twitter stream.
We've also collected them in a written article on Rebel News.
And Sheila joins me now via Skype from her headquarters in Edmonton.
Sheila, great to see you again.
I really enjoyed your Twitter feed today.
I was riveted by it.
I couldn't refresh.
Click, click, click.
I was waiting for the updates.
And obviously, I wasn't alone.
It looked like tens of thousands of people were following along in real time.
Maybe, maybe even more than that.
I've just, I've never seen such Twitter engagement on your feed before.
I think people were riveted.
I think so too.
I think, you know, for the lay person to tune into court, it can be a little bit difficult.
And it even is for me.
And I do court reporting all the time to sort of weave through the legal language.
But what we saw in court today was an actual judge making an actual ruling on the actual evidence before him.
And this judge just ripped apart the assessment of the prior justice of the peace, a non-lawyer who had ordered Tamara Leach's bail revoked and sent her back to jail at the end of June.
Today, it marked 49 days of incarceration for her on minor mischief charges, minor stuff.
That as a 49-year-old person with a non-criminal background, she would likely not even spend a day in jail for what she's done.
But she's approaching 49 days in jail.
And the last thing I heard that judge say today was, Madam Constable, take off those shackles.
Yeah.
You know, it's been a while since I practiced criminal law.
I haven't practiced any law in over a decade.
But when I was a law student, one of the things young kids do is they take the most minor cases in court to sort of practice being a baby lawyer.
It's good education.
And so we had shoplifting cases.
We had the most minor, you know, a mischief charge, a vandalism charge.
And you very quickly learn that if it's generally a good person who hasn't done something wrong, not only will they get no jail time, not only will they get no fine, they'll most likely not even get a criminal record.
It'll be dispatched with a discharge, a conditional discharge.
That is, they have to do a few conditions, some public service, or even what's called an absolute discharge.
That's basically in Golf, they'd call that mulligan.
It's the judge saying, look, I don't know what you were thinking.
You're a good person.
Do not go down this road.
This way lies bad news for you.
I am going to give you a second chance.
Fly straight.
And basically every case we had was of the gravity of Tamara Leach's case.
Oh, inciting mischief.
Well, don't do that again.
Young lady, I don't want to see you in this court again.
Instead, 49 days in prison, 49 days of hard time.
You know, you get day parole in Canada.
My math is right after one sixth of your sentence.
So 50 days, that's like a one-year prison sentence, a one-year prison term for inciting mischief.
And of course, she hasn't even been tried or convicted yet.
What a disgrace, what an absolute disgrace, not on her, but on the prosecutor, on the police, on the police who ordered the national warrant, on the medicine hat police for complying,
on the fake judge, Justice of the Peace, and on this disgraceful prosecutor, who our friends at Truth North revealed has donated $17,000 to Trudeau and who clearly was auditioning for a judicial appointment by Trudeau.
Disgraces all around, other than today's judge, seem to set things right.
Yeah, today's judge actually took the prior Justice of the Peace to task.
He basically said the Justice of the Peace erred in taking everything the Crown said.
He used the words as gospel.
He didn't even bother to drill down.
He didn't bother to examine so that when the Crown said, oh, somebody facing Tamara Leach's charges could face, if convicted, a maximum of 10 years in prison.
Maybe, but that's not what in reality, that is not what people with no criminal record after 49 years on the face of the earth, that's not what they face on minor criminal convictions like this.
The only thing the judge looked and he said, I looked because the other justice of the peace didn't.
The only time he could ever find somebody even remotely in line with this was a case called Dubay.
And that person basically ground through mischief the entire Quebec electrical system to a halt, causing catastrophe.
That person got jail time.
Tamara Leach would never see time behind bars.
He said if she were convicted of everything, she would at the maximum get time served right now.
Yeah.
Well, I'm so glad you were there covering it.
It's funny because when Arthur Pavlovsky was charged and convicted, and when he was losing, the mainstream media loved it and they demonized it and they wrote about it.
But when he won, I saw the tiniest little mentions in the mainstream media.
And Tamara Leach was demonized.
It's hard to demonize a Métis grandma from medicine hat, but they did their best.
And today on her victory day, it's quite something to watch the mainstream media who really were a torch-bearing mob coming to get her.
It was the media that was the mob, not the truckers.
It's the media that were baying for blood.
And you know what?
The worst media in the country, the Ottawa-pampered press case.
Oh, they're the worst.
And I'm just so glad that you were there covering it to provide the other side of the story.
Never believe a word the CBC says.
Never believe a word that the mainstream newspapers say.
You just can't.
They lied to you about the trucker rebellion in the first place.
Do you really think they would tell you the truth about the trial?
You know, there are a lot of times during this hearing today and yesterday where the judge basically had to remind the crown.
And I suppose by extension, the mainstream media who also, like the Justice of the Peace before this judge, repeat everything the Crown says without any sort of skepticism, had to remind them that she is not charged with sedition.
She's not charged with inciting a riot.
She's not charged with rioting.
She's charged with very minor things under the law.
And basically, the judge had to remind the Crown several times today and yesterday, settle down, quit acting like a drama queen.
This is very minor stuff.
You should not be asking to hold this woman up until her trial date, which is not said.
It could be two years out to hold her until her trial date on causing really what amounts to an extended traffic snarl in the nation's capital.
Yeah.
Well, it's quite something.
All the things we were told to respect.
We were told to respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Until Arthur Pavlovsky's ruling last week, that Charter of Rights and Freedoms was about as, well, it was completely useless to come to it.
It hasn't rolled back a single lockdown measure at all.
We were told to respect the independence of the prosecution.
Oh, so you take the top liberal donor in Ottawa and you let him run rampant against a Métis grandma.
We're told to respect the courts.
So you throw a non-judge, non-lawyer, justice of the peace who has no idea what the hell he's doing, and he throws someone in prison for two months.
All the things, the Ottawa police, the most disgraceful police in the country under their thuggish chief, all the things we were told to respect and look up to, every one of them is ashes.
And people wondering why there's no trust left.
Well, because of the treatment of this woman, who would you trust?
Would you trust the crown prosecutors again?
Would you trust the police?
Would you trust the Justice of the Peace?
Would you trust politicians?
Would you trust the media?
None of them are worthy of your trust.
Well, and that's why the convoy formed in the first place.
It's because all the institutions failed.
The police failed.
The courts failed.
The doctors failed.
The politicians failed.
People's employers were forcing them into vaccine mandates.
Everything failed.
And so the truckers decided they were going to sort this out for themselves.
And it continues.
You know, it continues until today.
Now, finally, a judge, somebody trained in law, looked at this and said, settle down.
These are minor charges.
She's not a danger to anybody.
And basically, I don't care about your feelings.
She gets to go free.
Yeah.
Well, I'm so glad you were in there.
And so many people followed your live tweeting and we compiled them on the website.
For folks who want to read it, go to rebelnews.com.
It's on the website or go to Sheila's Twitter feed, which is also a fun way to read it as in chronological order.
Great to see you, my friend.
Thanks for doing such good reportage.
You really are telling the other side of the story.
Thanks, boss.
All right.
There you have it.
Sheila Gunread.
We don't call her our chief reporter for nothing.
Stay with us.
Your words to me next Hey, welcome back to your letters to me.
Petty McKay says, God has won the victory with the help of his servants, as Levant, his team, the lawyers involved in the case, an honest judge, and many prayers.
Praise God.
It really did feel miraculous, and I was starting to lose hope.
I really was.
How many lawsuits have failed in the last two years?
This was the first major victory.
Dal French says, never thought it would happen.
I thought the courts were just as corrupt as the politicians.
Well, maybe not.
All these COVID fines should be taken to court, and all the cops involved should be fired.
They should know better, and they didn't.
They should be looking for another job, like maybe shoveling snow.
I think police were an enormous disappointment over the last two years.
I think good cops who didn't want to be mask enforcers and health inspectors either retired, were shuffled out of the way, or some of them were fired, the ones who spoke out.
I think the worst of the policing traits were rewarded.
Anyone who liked being a bully, people who liked the vagueness.
I mean, imagine arresting someone for not having six feet of separation from someone else.
Insect Protein Debate00:06:39
A quasi-scientific rule that was proven not to have any underlying research basis.
I think police really lost a lot of trust over the last two years and will be a long time to recover it.
Well, that's our show for today until tomorrow.
On behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night and keep fighting for freedom.
I'm Jeremy Lafredo for Rebel News in New York City.
We're going to see how New Yorkers feel about replacing traditional animal-based proteins like chicken and beef with more experimental, sustainable, low-carbon proteins like crickets, mealworms, and bugs.
The fact that the ruling class wants to replace nutritious meat and other animal proteins with insects has been deemed as conspiracy theory as recently as last year.
But more recently, the elite and their obedient friends in the media have been pushing the idea of replacing supposedly dirty, unsustainable meat with bugs, crickets, mealworms, you name it.
The World Economic Forum, the thought leaders of the global agenda, have recently gone into overdrive, pushing the bugs as food narrative.
The WEF explains that eating insects can reduce climate change and that insects, quote, deserve a role in our diets.
In regards to eating bugs, the WEF explained their goal is more than just publishing articles on the topic.
They wish to change public perception and change public regulatory policy.
They wrote that we, meaning them, need to, quote, overcome the last major barriers, which are preconceived ideas about insects as a source of food and legislation with regard to the use and consumption of proteins derived from insects.
They argue that by 2050, the world's food supply will need to feed another 2 billion people.
Insect farming for food could offer an environmentally friendly solution to the impending food crisis.
According to this article, insects are, quote, a credible and efficient alternative protein source requiring fewer resources than conventional breeding and a healthy ingredient that is highly digestible.
PBS, which has received millions of dollars from the Gates Foundation, as recently as last week aired a new documentary pushing the bug-eating agenda.
The documentary, Edible Insects, was promoted on their social media as being, quote, a tasty look at insect foods that could benefit our health and our warming planet.
Last year, Time magazine, a strategic partner of the World Economic Forum, which had an entire magazine edition last year called The Great Reset, featured an article in their not-so-subtly titled 2030 edition, which called for the eating of insects to save the planet.
The WEF partners said they are healthy and sustainable and asked why humans don't eat more bugs.
In the article, readers can learn that the plan to feed everyone bugs is already being undertaken on the world's most vulnerable.
International aid agency, Catholic Relief Services, whose president and CEO is a partner of the World Economic Forum, is already giving cricket-based meals, which according to time are fiber-rich, to hungry people and adding it into their initiative to supply children with more nutritious and sustainable school lunch programs.
What do regular people think of this?
Since regular people have little say or control over the decisions of our regulatory agencies, they'll likely have little say if crickets get introduced into our everyday foods or not.
What do you think about eating insects instead of meat?
I think any way we can cut back eating meat is important.
What do you think about eating bugs?
Well, personally, I hate bugs, so I wouldn't.
No.
So you wouldn't eat them?
Definitely not.
Not even to save the planet.
Well, to save the planet, I might give it a consideration, then maybe try it, but I hate bugs.
Instead of a steak or a burger?
No.
You would support if they started, you know, phasing out some animal proteins for bug proteins?
Definitely.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Too many animals being butchered, contributing to, you know, climate change, and we don't need all of it.
I'm more concerned about the fires and in our food processing plants, takeover of our farmland by billionaires.
We've lived how many thousands of years with farming and animal husbandry, and suddenly we're supposed to go to crickets?
I mean, come on.
I'm sure that they're going to be targeting kids because it's going to be a cool factor for them.
Many adults that we've spoken to so far support the idea of eating crickets because they think it'll save the climate.
Oh, please.
Oh, please.
I've lived through 40, 50 climate hysterias in my life.
Manhattan was supposed to already be covered with water.
I don't see any rich people stopping their purchase of waterfront properties given what's happening in Holland with the farmers.
This is all coordinated, without a doubt.
Disgusting.
That shit nasty.
Well, it's your choice to do what you want to do, but you shouldn't put it in old foods.
You should let people choose what they want to do with this shit.
They say it'll help the environment.
Do you think it'll help the environment?
The government says a lot of shit that it's not you all the time, so you never really know what.
Yeah, I think that's a great idea.
I think anything to help the climate, and I think the government should support it.
I'd be pretty questionable if I got like, you know, a burger that was like a cricket burger.
I'd be pretty concerned.
It's actually probably a bit healthier and cleaner with protein than what you would get with those other kinds of meats.
I think it would be hard to get people to hop on board.
There would be some reframing to be done, but.
What do you mean by reframing?
A lot of people, there's like a stigma against eating bugs, essentially, I feel like considered kind of nasty or just undesirable to a lot of people.
There would need to be like a messaging campaign that explains that bugs are actually, you know, clean and healthy.
I would think so.
Yeah.
How do you feel about the government using taxpayer funds to incentivize more cricket and mealworm industrial farms and decentivize ranchers from raising cattle, chickens, and meat in general?
If that were to happen, I would think that would be really cool.
Yeah.
How do you feel about substituting out chicken and beef animal proteins for mealworm crickets, bug proteins?
They say it'll help the climate.
Yeah, I mean, I think if people have that interest, as I understand it, it's a very robust source of protein.
I'm all for that.
On the other hand, I'm not, you know, for being in a position as a consumer, an American consumer, being forced necessarily to go down a path such as insects and other, you know, high-protein sources.
I'd rather stick to the meat.
Hell no.
They're not going to have insects on your plate.
Whoever you are that's about to make this happen or trying to make this happen, I'm pretty sure you're not going to be the ones eating this stuff, all these things that you're trying to manufacture.
I feel that it's something that should be explored.
And I think it could really help our planet.
If it's less burdensome on the environment, I don't think it's a bad idea.
If it's for the environment, then definitely.
If you refuse to succumb to the World Economic Forum's new plan for the future of food, go to iwon'teatbugs.com and sign our petition.