Ezra Levant highlights North Shore University Health System’s $10.3M settlement to rehire 500 fired workers for refusing COVID-19 vaccine mandates, citing religious exemptions and fetal cell concerns, while warning private employers against similar policies. He ties this to the WEF’s "Great Reset," featuring Klaus Schwab, Yuval Noah Harari (who dismisses biblical morality), and Bill Gates’ calls to reduce global population by billions via vaccines and healthcare. Louis Long, a UCP leadership candidate, criticizes past COVID decisions, defends cautious healthcare rhetoric, and opposes federal fertilizer bans threatening Alberta’s agricultural dominance, stressing judicial accountability and rural AHS failures. The episode underscores how corporate compliance and elite-driven agendas may reshape autonomy under crisis justifications. [Automatically generated summary]
Hello my rebels, very interesting case out of the state of Illinois, a $10 million class action lawsuit settlement by a major network of hospitals that refused to grant religious exemptions for the job.
Well they just agreed to pay $10 million to those people they fired and to rehire them all and to change their policies.
Very interesting story.
I'll take you through what happened and what didn't happen and whether maybe this might spread.
But first let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
It's the video version of this show.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe.
It's $8 a month, which I think is way too low.
You get my show every weeknight plus four weekly shows by my colleagues here.
That's 36 episodes a month combined for $8.
And most importantly, that's how we survive because we don't take any money from Trudeau.
It's from viewers like you.
So please go to RebelNewsPlus.com and click subscribe.
All right, here's today's show.
Tonight, a $10 million class action lawsuit settles, requiring a hospital to rehire everyone they fired for not taking the jab.
It's July 29th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Hi, everybody.
I'm traveling for work, and so I'm not in my normal studio at our world headquarters in Toronto.
Normally I sit there and we have a fancy backdrop, and I type up my script, and I load it in a teleprompter, so I read it sort of smoothly.
I'm not in my studio, and I don't have a teleprompter, so I'm going off the top of my head.
And I did write some notes on my phone that I'm going to read.
And I hope you'll forgive me for not being as buttoned down as I sort of am.
I also left my jacket in Toronto, so I'm just wearing a shirt.
Anyhow, enough of that.
I want to tell you some news that's actually pretty important and a little bit surprising to me because I know that we're the anti-journalists, we're the countervailing journalists.
You know our motto, telling the other side of the story.
So my job is to be skeptical.
But that said, every once in a while, you, I guess, by human nature, you think, well, maybe the other side is right on certain things.
And here's what I mean.
I was skeptical that you could sue institutions for firing you for not being jabbed.
I thought, well, you know, in Canada, our judges certainly haven't sided with workers who want to object to taking the jab.
I haven't seen it.
In fact, other than Arthur Pavlovsky's dramatic victory in the Alberta Court of Appeal about two weeks ago, I really haven't seen a great victory using our constitutional rights.
So I thought, well, maybe there just won't be one.
And more to the point, so many labor unions in Canada simply rolled over because the unions agreed with the company bosses to force their union members to get jabs.
So I think in many cases, there wasn't a fight.
I had come to the belief, and shame on me, that you just couldn't sue if you were fired for not being jabbed.
Pfizer Pays Up00:15:32
But here's an important case out of the state of Illinois.
It's where the great city of Chicago is.
A large healthcare network fired staffers who didn't want the jab and refused to give them a religious exemption.
They wouldn't even consider it.
They were warned in late 2021 about that.
They ignored the warning.
Well, to their peril, a large class action lawsuit was filed against them, and today they signed an agreement to pay out more than $10 million, which tells me if they're signing an agreement to pay out $10 million voluntarily, they were terrified of a much larger loss if the matter went to trial.
Now, I'm going to read from my phone a little bit of the exact wording because I haven't memorized it.
Here's the press release put out by their class action lawyers.
Healthcare workers settle COVID shot mandate for $10.3 million.
And those are real U.S. dollars, not our Canadian mini bucks.
Let me read to you from the press release.
It's a self-serving press release.
Obviously, the law firm is pretty pleased with itself, but they do append an actual copy of the deal.
And you can see that the health network has signed on to it.
A deal is a deal.
They're crying uncle and offering $10 million.
Let me read from the press release.
Today, Liberty Council, that's the name of this class action law firm, they're obviously interested in liberty issues, settled the nation's first class-wide lawsuit for healthcare workers over a COVID shot mandate for more than $10.3 million.
The class action settlement against North Shore University Health System is on behalf of more than 500 current and former healthcare workers who were unlawfully discriminated against and denied religious exemptions from the COVID shot mandate.
The agreed-upon settlement was filed today in the federal Northern District Court of Illinois, and that's that document I showed you, the health network's own signature on it.
As a result of the payment, North Shore will pay $10,337,500 to compensate these healthcare employees who are victims of religious discrimination and who were punished for their religious beliefs against taking an injection associated with aborted fetal cells.
Let me stop for a moment there.
Some vaccines, some medicines are made using aborted fetal cells, as in they take the dead baby from an abortion and use those cells to do medical engineering from.
And that offends some people, many people in fact, who believe that life is sacred and that aborting a baby and using their cells for medical profit is grossly unethical.
That was one of the reasons that people made a religious exemption.
There are other religious reasons you can think of for not wanting to take a vaccine, but using cells in some way that came from abortions is a powerful reason.
Now, what I've just said to you is illegal to say under the terms of service of YouTube and other social media, if you say that vaccines are in any way associated with fetal cells, even the research of those vaccines associated with fetal cells, you will get your social media account struck out.
You will get a strike, as they call it, and you could be suspended.
Imagine that.
The University Health System in Chicago just signed a $10 million settlement for violating the very right that YouTube and other social media companies says doesn't even exist.
And if you claim it exists, you'll be silenced.
Isn't that incredible?
Let me keep reading.
This is a historic first-of-its-kind class action settlement against a private employer who unlawfully denied hundreds of religious exemption requests to COVID-19 shots.
And that's very important.
Of course, there's certain constitutional rights that all of us have against our government in Canada using our Charter of Rights, in the United States using the Bill of Rights.
But this is against a private company.
And I think every other private company that thought that they would join the Pfizer mob against their own employees, I think they should wake up and read this very carefully.
The settlement must be approved by the federal district court.
Employees of North Shore who were denied religious exemptions will receive notice of the settlement and will have an opportunity to comment, object, request to opt out, or submit a claim form for payment out of the settlement fund, all in accordance with deadlines that will be set by the court.
As part of the settlement agreement, North Shore will also change its unlawful no-religious accommodations policy to make it consistent with the law and to provide religious accommodations in every position across its numerous facilities.
No position in any North Shore facility will be considered off-limits to unvaccinated employees with approved religious exemptions.
Isn't that incredible?
They're being forced to do the right thing going forward by lawyers.
I tell you, a lot of people mock lawyers, make fun of lawyers, but in this case, I think the lawyers fought for freedom and won.
Let me keep going.
In addition, employees who were terminated because of their religious refusal of the COVID shots will be eligible for rehire if they apply within 90 days of final settlement approval by the court, and they will retain their previous seniority level.
You know, I had an anecdote that I was thinking about tweeting about when it happened, but I refrained because I didn't want to identify the person in question.
But I was flying Air Canada the other day, and the lady at the gate, when I gave her my ID, she looked up at me and said, thank you.
And I thought she was just saying thank you because I was giving her my ID.
And I said, well, thank you.
She said, no, no, no, I know who you are.
And she talked briefly, we didn't talk long, about our stance on forced vaccines.
And she said to me, it was her first day back.
I didn't talk to her in much depth.
I was sort of startled by the whole thing.
But if I understand her correctly, she has just been rehired.
I think she said it was her first day back.
She had just been rehired from Air Canada after having been sacked for not taking the jab.
And I think Air Canada should have fought harder, but of course that was a federal rule.
That was a Trudeau rule.
Now she's back at work, but after, imagine the pain and the financial and moral suffering she was through.
I think we need class action lawsuits like the one I'm reading about.
Let me get back to the press release.
I'll read a little bit more from the press release and then I'll tell you what's interesting here.
In October 2021, Liberty Council sent a demand letter to North Shore on behalf of numerous healthcare workers who had sincere religious objections to North Shore's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.
If North Shore had agreed then to follow the law and grant religious exemptions, the matter would have been quickly resolved and it would have cost nothing.
But when North Shore refused to follow the law and instead denied all religious exemption and accommodation requests for employees working in its facilities, Liberty Council filed a class action lawsuit along with a motion for a temporary restraining order and injunction.
And then I'm going to quote from one of the senior members of this Liberty Council because he's taken a bit of a victory lap, but I think he makes some good points here.
Here, take a listen.
Liberty Council Vice President of Legal Affairs and Chief Litigation Counsel Horatio Mihet said, we are very pleased with this historic $10 million settlement achieved in our class action lawsuit.
The drastic policy change and substantial monetary relief required by the settlement will bring a strong measure of justice to North Shore's employees who were callously forced to choose between their conscience and their jobs.
And here's my favorite line.
I think this is the most important thing in this whole story.
This settlement should also serve as a strong warning to employers across the nation that they cannot refuse to accommodate those with sincere religious objections to forced vaccination mandates.
I think that is a good point.
How many companies, big or small, decided to go along with the mob?
Said, well, everyone else is doing it.
Well, Dr. Fauci says to do it.
Well, Pfizer says to do it.
Everyone else is doing it.
We may as well be callous and bigoted too.
I'd be worried if I was an American company that denied religious exemption.
I would be very worried about this president.
And, you know, it sounds like I've never heard of this healthcare system before, but if they're making a $10 million payment and if they had 500 or so staff that were involved, it sounds like they're a very large institution.
And my point for mentioning that is, you can imagine they had outstanding lawyers who worked very diligently and said, boss, we're going to lose this one, better pay.
So if you're a smaller company, and I'd say most companies are smaller than this health system, you're going to say, well, if the big guy with the big lawyers and the big insurance policies thought it was a loser, how could I possibly win too?
I better make amends.
I'd better rehire.
I'd better pay compensation too.
$10 million sounds like a lot, but as soon as I thought about it, I realized, no, actually, $10 million is a rounding error.
That won't even buy you a Pfizer yacht or a Pfizer private jet.
And I was reminded of this video.
This is back from 2009.
This is under the Obama administration, but the work done started in the previous Bush administration.
Take a look at this video, an announcement by the Department of Justice of the largest criminal fine to that point in American history.
Take a listen and listen to who paid the fine and why.
Within the Department of Justice, as well as beyond it, to announce a historic settlement with Pfizer Incorporated, a pharmaceutical manufacturer and its subsidiary Pharmacea and Upjohn company, arising out of civil and criminal allegations relating to Pfizer's allegedly illegal promotion of various drugs, most notably Bextra.
In a combination civil and criminal settlement, Pfizer has agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice.
Within that $2.3 billion is a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, which makes it the largest criminal fine in history.
When a drug is marketed or promoted for non-authorized, so-called off-label uses, any use not approved by the FDA, as was the case here, public health may be at risk.
And there's a real danger for patients that the medical providers who prescribed the medicine or the device aren't provided with, don't have full information about the drug's risks and benefits.
The office of the inspector general in this department, and Dan Levinson is here on the stage with me this morning, spent four years in the conduct of this investigation.
They didn't just implicate Pfizer.
They actually identified and charged the senior managers who were responsible for the fraud.
Pfizer paid $2.3 billion in fines for misleading people for hiding the facts about side effects of drugs.
Does that sound familiar?
Pfizer paid that $2.3 billion fine, and that is indeed a large fine, and I'm sure that stung.
But I'm sure the reason the fine was only so large is because that's how much money they made off of it.
I want to read to you a little bit from the press release put out that same day.
Justice Department announced its largest healthcare fraud settlement in its history, Pfizer to pay $2.3 billion for fraudulent marketing.
American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacea and Upjohn Company have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest healthcare fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, the Justice Department announced today.
Those other drugs, I frankly was not familiar with them, those are a drop in the bucket.
Those are a rounding error compared to the COVID-19 drugs.
In fact, in the case of the company called Moderna, they had actually never brought a product to market before.
Their COVID-19 mRNA drug is the first time they've ever been allowed to sell something to people.
And of course, only under the emergency use authorization.
They're not fully tested under FDA rules.
That company went from nothing, no viable products in the market, to a multi-multi-billion dollar company, Pfizer.
We're talking about companies that doubled, tripled, quadrupled in size and profit, yachts and private jets.
If they paid a $2.3 billion settlement a dozen years ago, how much money are they making off of pushing their COVID-19 drugs now?
We know from trying to pin down, for example, members of Doug Ford's health table that was giving advice, that there were people involved in giving advice to politicians in Canada and the United States who had direct stake in these drug companies, who either had stock in the drug companies or who were paid fees by the drug companies.
$10 million from this one hospital network in Chicago sounds like a lot of money.
But do you doubt that they made $10, $20, $30, $50, $100 million from Pfizer over the same period of time?
In fact, it wouldn't shock me, I have no evidence for it, but it wouldn't shock me if Pfizer said to them, hey, University Hospital, thanks very much.
We will cover your $10 million because we don't want to have a trial, because we don't want it to come out that we were encouraging you to push our meds.
There's no one more aggressive and assertive than a pharmaceutical salesman.
If you think realtors is going to be a nudge, you've never met a drug salesman.
And a major hospital like that in Illinois, they probably served up millions of doses of Pfizer's drugs and Moderna's drugs.
Do you think they wanted questions like that being asked under oath in an open court?
A $10 million payment to shut this up and shut this down?
That's a rounding error to them.
Remember, these are people who paid a $2.3 billion fine and didn't blink.
So this is good news for the 500 or so workers at this hospital network.
They'll get their jobs back.
They'll get a payment.
They'll get their seniority back.
The policies have changed, and I think this is about as close as you get to an apology in modern law.
Davos Docs: A Wake Call00:02:37
I think this is a good warning, wake-up call, to other employers from the United States, including private sector employers, that just because everyone was being a bully doesn't mean it's legal.
I hope this is encouragement to Canadian-class action lawyers to consider filing the same lawsuits up here, because we know that very few religious exemptions have been granted in Canada.
But it's also a reminder that $10 million means nothing to a company like Moderna or Pfizer compared to the amount of money they're raking in for these vaccines.
Stay with us, Moran.
Hey, welcome back.
I am excited that Rebel News is doing more and more documentaries.
What I mean by a documentary is a longer form video with a little more production value where we really drill in deep on a subject.
And one of the subjects we've investigated more closely, I think, than almost any other meeting in Canada, maybe even in the world, is the World Economic Forum run by Klaus Schwab, based in Switzerland.
They have their annual conference in Davos.
As you remember, just a few months ago, we sent six reporters to the annual Davos meeting, and we were pretty much the only independent reporters there.
There was one other guy, our friend Andrew Lawton from True North.
There were other media there, but they were there in collusion.
They were there as sponsors or official participants.
They, by definition, could not report honestly on the event.
In fact, they paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for the privilege of being insiders.
Here's a quick reminder of some of the interesting interactions we had on the streets of Davos.
I don't think they were ready for independent journalists.
I don't think they ever had independent journalists there before.
So they just weren't ready to be asked real questions.
Here's a snippet of that.
I'll stop now because you're asking me quite aggressive questions.
Well, I think the whole ask to be interviewed.
This is an interview done against my approval.
the vaccination is also the vaccine if this interview people are forced vaccinated Do you think that's okay?
That's against their will.
And that's WHO pushed the vaccine.
I have never called for forced vaccination myself.
Well, one of the six journalists we sent to Davos this year was our friend Louis Bragpool, our British reporter for Rebel News.
And you might recall that a few months ago, he produced the first in a series of documentaries.
Surveillance's Sinister Pill00:15:39
We're calling it a docu series, on what Klaus Schwab calls the Great Reset, the Great Reset.
You've probably heard that term used by globalists like Justin Trudeau and even by Joe Biden.
That's build back better terminology.
Well, we're ready with our second installment of Lewis's docu series.
Here, take a look at the trailer.
When it was first published in 2016, the fourth industrial revolution made the case that technology and digitization will revolutionize everything.
One of the features of this fourth industrial revolution is that it doesn't change what we are doing, but it changes us.
Making the overused and often ill-used adage, this time is different.
Simply put, major technology innovations are on the brink of fueling momentous change throughout the world.
In the four short years since technology progressed and moved impressively fast, AI is now all around us.
From drones and voice recognition to virtual assistants and translation software.
Where are they traveling?
How are they traveling?
What are they eating?
What are they consuming on the platform?
So, individual carbon footprint tracker.
Stay tuned.
We don't have it operational yet, but this is something that we're working on.
Our mobile devices have become a permanent and integral part of our personal and professional lives, helping us on many different fronts, anticipations, our needs, listening to us and locating us, when I ask not to do so.
Well, there you have it, a trailer on The Great Reset.
It's so true.
I remember once upon a time, I'm old enough to remember the before times before technology and surveillance technology was ubiquitous, that there was an idea of sweeping a room for bugs.
You know, you would see those in spy movies.
Oh, we have to sweep the room for bugs.
There's a listening device.
Well, now you're carrying the listening device, your phone.
It listens to you.
If you think I'm exaggerating, read the terms of service for almost every app.
The most terrifying includes TikTok, which not only tracks everything you do and say, but looks at your eyes where you look on the screen, your gestures.
It records all of that.
There's no such thing as sweeping for bugs.
We carry the bugs.
We carry our own surveillance systems with us at all times.
It's terrifying.
Joining us now to talk about it is the host of the docu series, our friend Louis Bradpold.
Lewis, great to see you again.
Congratulations on part two of the documentary.
This is the scarier one, isn't it?
Yeah, correct.
This is the part where we talk all technology.
And like you said, I mean, that's just the tip of the iceberg on technology and what we've been going through and sort of having a real deep dive into what Klaus Schwab and his minions have in store for us all laid out in his book.
So yeah, it's pretty scary stuff.
Now, one of Klaus Schwab's intellectual muses is a strange fellow.
And I say that, I don't think I'm being mean.
He's quite unusual.
He has many, very eccentric habits.
He even looks in a very, he's a very unusual person, Yuval Noah Harari, who's sort of a futurist and a historian and a kind of philosopher.
And I think he's having the time of his life with the pandemic and COVID and this fourth industrial revolution, as Klaus Schwab calls it.
And he said the quiet part out loud.
He says that the big meaning of COVID was it stunned us, it shocked us into allowing total surveillance.
And he keeps on talking about surveillance under the skin, which means our biological information.
And we see pharmaceutical executives talking about a pill that you swallow, and it literally has a little chip in it.
I mean, this used to be the stuff of conspiracy theories, a little chip that radios out, did you take your pill or not?
And even our devices, like a fitness device, like my watch takes my pulse.
And if I go for a run, okay, I'm glad to know how many calories I burn, but that's connected to my phone, which is connected to the internet.
Soon, they say you won't even have a cell phone.
It'll be, you could already take calls from your watch.
Maybe it's a chip.
And I'm not saying this in a conspiratorial way.
I'm talking about what Yuval Noah Harari of the World Economic Forum says where we are now.
He says COVID was the way to get us to accept surveillance of our bodies.
I think he's right.
And when the crisis is over, it's not like we're going back to the place where we started.
And it will be the same in so many different areas in the economy, in the political system.
So again, I can't predict which of all these experiments will succeed and what the outcome will be.
That's the danger.
It could last long after this emergency because there is always a new emergency on the horizon.
New surveillance technologies that are now deployed just to deal with this coronavirus outbreak.
When it's over, some governments may say, yes, but there is a second wave of corona coming.
So we have to be prepared.
And there is Ebola and there is also regular flu.
Why not protect people against that too with this new surveillance system?
So the tendency would be to prolong it indefinitely.
And in this way, the coronavirus epidemic could be a watershed event in the history of surveillance.
It's the moment when mass systems of surveillance are established, even in democracies that so far rejected them.
And also it's the moment when surveillance goes really under the skin.
Governments are now not just interested in where we go and who we meet, but even in what's happening inside our bodies, our body temperature, our blood pressure, our medical condition.
So that's really going a step further.
Absolutely.
He's very fascinated with the idea of transhumanism, which is a term not many people have heard of, where it's the idea of fusing man and machine, where he's openly said that he wants to hack organisms.
It's really quite sinister stuff, really.
And, you know, this is the thing.
All of this stuff was considered extreme, fringe, conspiratorial stuff from the late 90s to now.
And you're seeing it unravel before our own eyes.
And what's even more sinister is they openly talk about it.
And there are plenty of recordings and tapes online of not just Uvall, but other members of the World Economic Forum almost bragging of this vision that they have in stall in the technological sort of advancement they want to push towards.
And I don't think the term sinister is even, I think it's too polite to say.
I mean, this idea of tracking, it's now actually moved towards more of a compliant-based viewpoint.
You know, we've seen the clips saying, talking about that pill and saying, can you imagine the compliance?
And that to me is just sinister.
And we've seen what society has been like for the last two and a half, coming up to three years now since the pandemic started.
And they've openly admitted that they want to accelerate this type of not only technology, but vision.
And I think more and more people are starting to really wake up and go, actually, this isn't a conspiracy theorist, it's a conspiracy theory that I'm being led to believe.
And yeah, I think it's great to see that more and more people are now starting to wake up to it.
The COVID-19 crisis could be a really watershed moment, a moment of significant change in the history of surveillance, because surveillance is being revolutionized, transformed from over-the-skin surveillance to under-the-skin surveillance.
Previously, governments were collecting data about what we do, who we meet, where we go, what we watch on television.
Now, with this epidemic, they increasingly focus on what's happening inside our body.
What's our blood pressure, our body temperature, our heart rate?
And, you know, during the crisis, there is no time to have a deep public debate about it.
Decisions are just being made very, very fast.
Yeah, I was shocked to learn.
Like, I recently rejoined the world of dogs, and I was shocked to learn that dog tags, dog necklaces that dogs would wear if I'm lost, returning to this owner, have been largely replaced, at least in Canada, maybe other countries too, with actually a little microchip that is surgically put into the dog.
I didn't know that was normal and widespread.
I'm sort of shocked to hear it.
Now, dogs are not people.
They don't have rights in the same way.
They're not, you know, subject to their own, you know, they're not their own moral agents.
They're owned by people, and that's why they're dogs and not.
But what Yuval Noah Harari talks about is that fusion.
And he keeps talking about under the skin, under the skin, technology and skin, and then hacking this human-technology hybrid.
He says that we, either now or in the near future, will be able to hack people and know them better than they know themselves and know what they're going to say before they themselves think it, because we know everything from their biochemistry to like, like if you can get the technology, you can get people to agree to put technology into their bodies, then you can know them better than they know themselves and control them in ways based on that knowledge.
And I've always felt eerie about that.
Like I've always said, Facebook knows you better than you know yourself because it, unlike you, has never forgotten anything.
It knows every email you've ever written or read, every picture you've ever looked at.
You have probably forgotten what you read last week, last month, 10 years ago.
Facebook never does.
Google never does.
And so in some ways, they know you better than they know yourself, but they're not in your head.
It's like the Truman show when he said, you never knew what was in my mind.
But Yuval Noah Rari and Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum.
And imagine with Jeff Bezos, instead of just knowing everything you ever shopped at and looked at, knew deep into your heart, deep into your head, what you really wanted.
And selling you things is the least problematic.
Controlling you politically, controlling your freedom is what I'm really worried about.
That's really what they want to do with the technological side of the great reset, isn't it?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
There's a lot of talk as well about playing God.
He talks a lot about playing God too.
And whether you're a man or woman of faith or not, the idea of playing God and the idea of becoming a God of yourself is something that shouldn't be tampered with.
And I think both people of faith or not of faith have kind of understood that there is a fine line between stepping into that kind of realm because it can be extremely dangerous.
The only thing God managed to create are organic beings.
All these trees and giraffes and humans, they're just organic.
But we are now trying to create inorganic entities, inorganic life forms, cyborgs, artificial intelligence and so forth.
If we succeed, and there is a very good chance we will, then very soon we will be beyond the God of the Bible.
It seems like this organization and Yuval as well are really trying to push for that.
They really want that because data now is the most sacred and the most powerful tool to be used against people and to be used to work out not only, like what you said, with understanding people and understanding how humans work.
So pushing, going beyond this threshold and pushing towards this direction is not only scary, but it's menacing.
There is something menacing there.
And I don't like to, you know, talk in a black pill sense or, you know, depressing or, you know, that kind of side of things.
But it seems to me that that's the way that it seems to be pushing.
And this is one of those things.
People say, well, how do you not know that they're looking through it in a perspective that could be good for people?
Well, I challenge people to say, well, if you think about it, a cat doesn't know it meows.
A cow doesn't know it moves.
And sometimes some people don't know that they are being evil.
And that's kind of my perspective from going on this deep dive about the World Economic Forum.
It's anti-human, is what it is.
It's very anti-human.
And it's almost you're treated or you're turned into a commodity for their own science, as they call it.
Yeah, you're so right on that.
And a lot of the WEF World Economic Forum oligarchs explicitly say they want billions fewer people in the world.
It's a terrifying TED talk with Bill Gates, where he says we need to reduce the number of people in the world by billions.
And he's the guy in charge of vaccines.
That doesn't square.
It's an average about five tons for everyone on the planet.
And somehow we have to make changes that will bring that down to zero.
It's been constantly going up.
It's only various economic changes that have even flattened it at all.
So we have to go from rapidly rising to falling and falling all the way to zero.
This equation has four factors, a little bit of multiplication.
So you've got a thing on the left, CO2, that you want to get to zero.
And that's going to be based on the number of people, the services each person's using on average, the energy on average for each service, and the CO2 being put out per unit of energy.
Churchill's Warning00:02:36
So let's look at each one of these and see how we can get this down to zero.
Probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty near to zero.
Now that's back from high school algebra.
But let's take a look.
First, we've got population.
The world today has 6.8 billion people.
That's headed up to about 9 billion.
Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.
But there we see an increase of about 1.3.
You know, you've all know what Harari says: anyone who follows the Bible is following some, you know, some gossipy rumor, a myth in the past, and that's unscientific, and we are our own gods.
And when you seek to replace every source of morality and everywhere to control people, you don't even know what you're going to cause.
And you don't have to be religious.
I think of what Churchill used to say.
Churchill says, Churchill would say, I'm not a pillar of the church.
I'm a buttress of the church.
I support it, but from the outside.
And that sounds funny, but here's what he meant.
He meant that I don't have to go to church every Sunday.
I don't have to be a deep, faithful believer to understand that the church is good and that it is good for people and that it helps under its foundation upon which our civil society operates.
There's a reason why the Christian West treated minorities better than in other parts, why they were open to reason and science more than in other parts, why the kind of legal system we have, the humanity that we have, is the way it is.
If you've ever watched that movie by Mel Gibson called Apocalypto, to show you life in the Aztecs before Columbus came, where they sacrificed people by the thousand on those and blood going down the pyramids, maybe we need a reminder of what the world is like if it doesn't have a biblical Christian morality.
It can be that, but when you replace it with what Klaus Schwab says, what an oligarch says, what a computer algorithm says, what Mark Zuckerberg says, and when you say there is no religion, religion is just bad programming from centuries ago, you have no idea what you're messing with.
Early Testing Controversies00:15:10
You're messing with a deep ingrained structure of the West.
And if you pull that foundation out, we don't even yet know the chaos that will come.
Klaus Schwab and Yuval Noah Harari and Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg and all of them believe they are gods and they believe they have the moral right to be gods and they believe in purging all citizens of their beliefs and replacing the power structure with them at the top.
And I think your documentary series is very powerful and I watched it.
And as I said to you privately, you're very careful at documenting what they say and not engaging in baseless speculation.
You don't go any further than what they say.
It's tempting to say, oh, here's a conspiracy.
Here's a conspiracy.
You don't need to come up with a conspiracy.
There's enough conspiracy facts that they're bragging about, that they're writing books about, that they're having meetings about.
You don't need to engage in speculation to be bloody terrified.
Last word to you.
Yeah, well, exactly that.
And, you know, it just takes a few minutes to go onto their website, to see what they're saying, to see the agenda contributors, to see who is involved, to see who are pushing this message of Agenda 2030, sustainable development under the guise of climate change and helping the environment or advancement of technology because it makes things or society easier for you.
It doesn't take a lot to find out their vision.
And that's the thing.
And they've managed to be so smart with how they portray their message because you know what Klaus Schwab keeps saying, they want to be a transparent organization.
They want to be completely transparent.
Because when they're saying it out in the open, if you repeat exactly what they say to the average man or woman, they'll still look at you as crazy.
And that's what's smart about it.
But you know what?
I'm optimistic, as I try to be all the time, especially when going through subjects like this.
Is a lot of people are now realizing this isn't a conspiracy theory.
It actually just takes a bit of time to look into what they're saying, to listen to what they're saying, and to understand that these visions are, in fact, anti-human.
Well, there you have it, Luce Brackpool, our British reporter and the host of the docu series on the Great Reset.
What's the website where we're going to debut the documentary?
I can't remember it offhand.
Do you know it?
Yes, it's expose the reset.com.
You can visit there and you can catch up with the first episode that's already out, which is an introduction to the docu series, where each episode is themed almost a bit like Klaus Schwab's book, where he highlights in each chapter societal reset, environmental reset, technological reset, and we're theming it exactly how Klaus Schwab does it and making it digestible.
And like what Ezra just said as well, we're not beating off the conspiracy theorist or making assumptions or straying off from what they say.
It's all what they say.
So yeah, expose the reset.com.
I think it is the most credible, authoritative, well-researched expose of that subject I've seen.
I'm very proud.
It's coming through Rebel News.
Louis, you've done a great job.
It is so hard to tackle these subjects and walk the straight line.
You want to show what's really happening, but you don't want to step a toe into speculation because that's when critics can rightfully say, oh, you're engaging in a fever dream.
What's interesting about your first episode and the one that you're about to release, which I've seen already, is that you never step one inch outside of the facts we can document.
That's why it's so bloody terrifying, is that it's not actually a secret plan.
It's a public plan that the media party refuses to talk about.
We'll let you go.
Thank you for joining with me today.
And folks, I got to say, it is a fascinating documentary.
It will disturb you, but I think that it is better to know what's going on than not to know.
Lewis, thanks.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
All right, there you have Louis Brackpool, our British reporter and the host of our document series on the great reset.
Stay with us.
My final words are next.
Well, that's our show for today.
We will have a show on Holiday Monday.
As you know, we always do shows on those holidays.
So we'll have a show on Holiday Monday, and I'll be back in the studio on Tuesday.
Thanks for your support.
Have a great weekend.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at our Rebel Western Outpost, to you at home, good night and keep fighting for freedom.
We need an investigation into what happened with the COVID response.
I have colleagues here that were in the COVID cabinet, and now that it seems a public tide is changing, that all of a sudden they're trying to distance themselves from the decisions that they made there.
If people start coming onside and start seeing things the right way and start representing their constituents and representing Albertans, then I think it's a good thing.
We need a justice system that ultimately delivers justice and adheres to the laws of the land.
I come from a farming family in a farming community.
I know how important agriculture is and where my food comes from.
This is a fight that we have to have.
And when we get into fall respiratory virus season, we're going to make sure that we have enough room to be able to handle that surgeon patient load.
That's the first step I'd take.
Let's do early testing.
Because when you do early testing, there's just so many options available for treatment.
That was the intention of why I did the interview.
And I hope that people do that.
I'm so privileged to be invited.
It doesn't matter to me what party you're part of, but I have sold 25 memberships that day.
It's not a misunderstanding she said it.
Just apologize.
I've made lots of mistakes.
I continue to make them.
I try to make as few as possible, but once you make them, talk to the team, apologize, and move on.
Yes, it's always difficult when you're in these debates to try to make your points.
And I think the reason why I did go a little bit personal and it's not what I usually do because I think it's important to critique the ideas and not the individual.
Adam Sils here on location for Rebel News at the first official UCP leadership debate.
All seven leadership hopefuls for the United Conservative Party of Canada will be here tonight debating it, arguing over who has the best ideas to lead this province forward to catch this full report and all our coverage of the UCP leadership race.
Make sure to go to ucpleadership.com.
You likely noticed in that brief intro that there was, well, a helicopter in the background.
And if you're wondering where we're at, the UCP debate tonight is actually taking place in Medicine Hat at the Halo Air Ambulance Hangar.
A bit of an unconventional location for a debate, but it is providing one heck of a background.
I just want to take a moment to clarify a comment I made in a podcast last week about cancer that was misunderstood.
I know that cancer can strike anyone at any time without any relation to lifestyle, especially kids.
But not just kids.
It happened to my mother-in-law too.
She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and only survived three months after diagnosis.
And by the time they found out, she was so malnourished that they weren't able to continue her chemo treatment.
That's why I became such a proponent of early detection, early treatment, nutrition, and holistic medicine.
There are so many more options if you diagnose early than you can treat early.
And that's what I was trying to say, albeit very awkwardly.
But it's in that vein that is why I proposed health spending accounts.
I know a lot of people in there started to boo as you were particularly harassed on the cancer comment.
I know a lot of people out there took that to mean that healthy lifestyles and early testing can reduce severity of outcomes.
Do you feel that this, along with some of the articles out there painting you as a cook and an outsider, are part of a concerted effort to attack a clearly defined frontrunner?
You know, the Mayo Clinic talks about early testing and biomarkers.
This is why I-Corp Blood Services has put forward a proposal to the government on a pilot project to do exactly that.
Let's do early testing.
Because when you do early testing, there's just so many options available for treatment.
That was the intention of why I did the interview.
And I hope that people do that.
Justin Trudeau plans to bring in restrictions on fertilizers, as we've seen in Denmark, which led to absolutely massive protests.
And we've seen these sort of ideas spreading throughout Europe.
Set to come here.
What can Alberta do beyond simply issuing a letter and making a statement to ensure that farmers aren't devastated in Alberta?
Yeah, this is something I came out about last weekend.
It's something that almost all candidates on stage tonight agreed with, that we can't allow that to happen, especially because production in agriculture, and even when it comes to energy, is an area of provincial jurisdiction.
We have to stand up at a time where we do have a food shortage right across the world.
Alberta has the ability to feed the world.
I come from a farming family in a farming community.
I know how important agriculture is and where my food comes from.
This is a fight that we have to have.
I believe yourself and a number of other people have said, well, they don't want to weigh into sort of the judicial process.
But when the judiciary is categorically overstepping, we're now seeing, whether it be Tamir Leacher or Pastor Archer Pavlowski, just categorical repudiations of what the courts did.
At what point is it the responsibility of politicians to publicly advocate when so much wrong is being done by the judiciary?
Well the judiciary ultimately needs to be held to account and there's due process for that and I'm in favor of that due process.
Look, we need a justice system that ultimately delivers justice and adheres to the laws of the land.
There's a process and you know what, again, we've seen some decisions recently that exonerate those that were accused early days.
Ultimately, that's good news and that's justice.
You talked about the resistance towards anger responses, but I think for many you were probably perhaps pursuing Danielle Smith in the most fiery and impassioned way.
How do you sort of balance that sort of attacking her head on even some personal jabs about not needing a talk show host?
Yes, it's always difficult when you're in these debates to try to make your points and I think the reason why I did go a little bit personal and it's not what I usually do because I think it's important to critique the ideas and not the individual.
But I think it was the comments around cancer which were very hurtful.
As a former Minister of Community and Social Services, I can tell you I've dealt with a lot of vulnerable individuals who have suffered from cancer and mental health issues thereafter and we've all You've been in contact with a loved one who suffered.
But then mistakes can be made.
It's all right.
I've made mistakes and you apologize, you move forward.
But the doubling down was not appreciated.
What is a concrete action that can actually be taken?
Because we heard similar language on, well, we're not going to allow the federal government to mandate COVID response.
And then they did, we can say those things, but what's a tangible way to do that?
Yeah, we're already seeing other provinces step up and just say that we are not going to accept those targets, which will in fact, again, reduce production.
Because I think when we look at the production side, it's one thing the federal government tries to make it about emissions or limits on fertilizer.
But when it comes to production, that is in fact an area of provincial jurisdiction and that is protected in the Constitution.
So folks are certainly more than entitled to sort of eat breakfast with whoever they please, but a number of people sort of issued concerns with the fact that you were hanging out at a Justin Trudeau Liberal Stampede breakfast.
Do you have any response on that ground?
Well, interestingly enough, a lot of folks who vote liberally, federally, vote conservative provincially.
A tremendous amount of my constituents were, I was so privileged to be invited.
It doesn't matter to me what party you're part of, but I had sold 25 memberships that day.
So it was fantastic because many, many of those folks come from my constituency and they invited me to come.
It was a huge privilege to be there with them.
We need an investigation into what happened with the COVID response.
I have colleagues here that were in the COVID cabinet and now that it seems that public tide is changing, all of a sudden they're trying to distance themselves from the decisions that they made there.
I agree also that throwing money at it isn't going to solve the problem.
We have an AHS system that needs a severe renovation.
They've had 15 years to get it right and they've been failing all the time.
We have a shortage of health care workers.
We have emergency rooms being shut down in rural Alberta.
We have a post-secondary system in Alberta that doesn't graduate the needs of our society when it comes to health care workers and other educational opportunities.
And we have a College of Physicians that isn't helping either.
We need to get the test done and the treatment done that we need.
All right, that's zero, Mr. Long.
Thank you.
Many politicians are now trying to sort of cash in on the freedom sentiment, celebrating Arthur Pavlowski's win, calling Tamara Lich a freedom fighter.
You're the only leadership candidate who paid a political price for standing up when it wasn't popular.
What do you make of people sort of attempting to cash in on that now?
Well, I think it's a little hypocritical, but again, if people start coming on side and start seeing things the right way and start representing their constituents and representing Albertans, then I think it's a good thing.
So much ado has been made about Danielle Smith's comments last week.
Towards the end there, the crowd became a little agitated.
I think for some people reading that, obviously people have to be careful when talking about cancer.
But I think for some it was taken as in some I spoke with.
Danielle Smith was saying that there can be positive health outcomes even with serious illnesses if there's additional health care opportunities.
You seem particularly sort of upset about that for obvious reasons.
I completely understand that.
But do you think that there's a bit of sort of scandal generating for comments that were maybe taken a little bit out of hand?
Oh everybody makes mistakes but when you make it don't call it a misunderstanding.
Apologize and move on.
You know It's just it's just not appropriate and I don't think she should have done that but at this stage she needs to backtrack it and I think that would be the best thing.
But you know, I'm not here to talk about her.
I just think that I'm speaking for a lot of people that went through death in their family from cancer and it's not a pleasant experience and I frankly don't think people should just throw it out there that they believe that something can be accomplished through natural path methods.
Now, let's be clear, I'm under a naturopath right now.
I've been under their care for about three months now because that's what enables me to do what I need to do during this leadership race and I think they certainly have their calling and they're excellent at what they do and I think alternative medicines should be what we look at under doctors' advice and doctors look at a lot of different things and we need to be open-minded about health care because one size fits all doesn't fit everybody for health care.
Access to Healthcare Matters00:06:01
We have rural Alberta and we have urban Alberta and we need to make sure that we have health care ready across Alberta and that means not access to a lineup, it means actually access to health care and I just think that it's important that Albertans feel that somebody's speaking for them on the issue of cancer and cancer is a great killer right now.
And so just to confirm you agree maybe with some of her sentiment as far as providing better health care, but just the nature of her comments towards cancer may be a little inappropriate.
It's not a misunderstanding she said it.
Just apologize.
I've made lots of mistakes.
I continue to make them.
I try to make as few as possible, but once you make them, talk to the team, apologize and move on.
As a follow-up to that, the sentiment of sort of separation is at an all-time high.
People are very upset.
What would you do differently within that constitutional framework to get Alberta a better deal?
Well, it's interesting that you asked that.
My riding has a really, really diverse population.
We have a lot of folks that are angry and frustrated.
Part of that is our fault.
We have used people in this province's collateral damage in a fight between left and right, whether that was through COVID policy, whether that's through various things.
There's a tremendous amount of desire, I think, to actually work together and to collaborate.
There are angry folks.
We have to be able to bring people back in.
We can't do that unless you lead by example.
So I'm hoping that as we bring these diverse Conservative candidates around the table, that we're able to manifest a really strong and competent group of people that speak to everybody.
We haven't spoken to people.
Do you know how important it is in the midst of all of that to be able to have a conversation to de-escalate misinformation?
That was a huge, huge loss on our part.
And instead of using the opportunities to really build at a time, and I have to tell you, I was the Minister of Culture, Multiculturalism, and the Status of Women at that time.
And what I saw was tremendous compassion and giving, you know, through the churches and community associations and gurdwaras and temples and mosques.
In the midst of all of this, 90% of the people went and took care of seniors.
They created baskets for people and took them to their communities.
They left food out on doorsteps.
I mean, our family were singers.
We went and sang outside on doorsteps at Christmas for senior citizens.
We made sure that we dropped off CDs and information for people so that they were able to access things at a time when they were so alone and isolated.
I have to tell you, as much as I understand the pain and the suffering, I also saw tremendous, tremendous strength in our province.
And if we have the right leader to be able to build on that strength and that capacity, that's the Alberta I know.
That's what I grew up with.
That is the vision that has to come forward from any movement that decides and has the privilege to be able to lead this province forward.
Because if we don't lead by example, it's the opportunity to be able to have a discussion no matter how difficult it is, to not shy away from a robust debate, to be able to bring things to the floor.
You'll never know where people stand.
You won't honestly have an authentic idea of where people are.
So I'm really hoping that with a different approach and a thoughtful and kind person at the helm who is competent, who's been elected for seven years, who's had multiple portfolios, and a person who I love Alberta more than I can even explain to you.
And I'm just compelled to be able to give back.
And there's really not much more to it for me than that.
There's no special interest.
There's no machine behind this team.
This is a simple desire to be able to give back to a province that has given me so much.
I think for many Albertans, with the separation sentiment being higher than Quebec now, the problem is for years and years we've been giving billions of dollars away, paying the bill for the rest of Canada and getting a very raw deal.
A politician is coming up and saying, no, we're putting an end to this.
How do you actually change things compared to we're working on it, we're working on it, nothing happens, and actually stand up for Alberta?
Yeah, good question.
So just saying that, you know, you're going to put an end to it doesn't mean that you are going to put an end to it.
Again, just going back to my previous comments.
And I said, it's a tough task.
And right now, MPs have a significant role.
That is their whole job to fight with Ottawa for our rights.
And we most definitely have to have a conservative government in place for the next mandate.
I mean, all of these things are going to help.
But one thing that we can do right away, I talked about security of supply.
Geopolitical events right now have actually poised Alberta in a very unique situation to be the supplier of energy, to be the supplier of food.
And we need to make sure that we have a strong Western identity with the other provinces and we make more alliances down south.
And that collaborative is going to put more pressure on Ottawa.
And let me just give you an example.
Germany is moving more towards coal-powered energy right now.
And Trudeau was talking to Germany about LNG, right?
We just need to put more and more and more pressure about the value proposition.
I think it's doable, but we can't be breaking the law.
I mean, that's not how things work here.
That's not why my family came to Canada.
They came here for stability, safety, and predictability.
Well, the first official UCP leadership debate has wrapped up here here at the Halo Air Ambulance Hangar in Medicine Hat.
It was great to see the people actually engaging, going at it with each other, some real back and forth.
Certainly not what we saw at the last federal leadership debate.
We also had an extensive opportunity to ask some real tough questions during the scrum.
It's great to have this type of access and to be covering the story and asking the questions you need answers to.
For all of our coverage, make sure you check in regularly at ucpeleadership.com.
As always, I want to thank you so much for tuning in for Rebel News.
I'm Adam Sos.
Hey, everybody, as you just saw, the very first official UCP leadership debate is in the bag.
I just actually left the meet and greet that took place afterwards and actually had the opportunity to book a number of the leadership candidates for long form exclusive interviews to make sure you don't miss out on any of that content and that you catch all of our reports on the UCP leadership.
Make sure you check in regularly at UCPLeadership.com.