Ezra Levant warns of Ukraine’s escalation risking nuclear conflict, comparing it to the Cuban Missile Crisis, while criticizing Trudeau’s hypocrisy—repairing Russian gas turbines for Europe yet blocking Canadian exports. The Kerch Bridge attack and Daria Dugin’s assassination may provoke Putin’s overreaction, while Ukraine’s victories clash with Russia’s missile strikes. Alberta’s new premier, Danielle Smith, faces pressure to end prosecutions like Arthur Pavlovsky’s acquittal on mask charges, despite bureaucratic resistance. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania farmer Amos Miller fights USDA raids targeting his organic, pasture-raised operations, alleging industry-backed regulations aim to crush small producers—echoing globalist trends seen in climate summits and WEF policies. Levant frames these battles as warnings of creeping authoritarianism and unchecked state power. [Automatically generated summary]
Frankly, I'm getting a little bit scared about it.
I feel like we've never been this close to a nuclear war, at least not since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I think things are escalating, and the trouble is Russia, even though it's floundering and having some setbacks militarily, it's run by an authoritarian leader who has nuclear weapons.
And for 80 years, we've had a mutually assured destruction, a theory where we won't attack them and they won't attack us because the price would just be too high.
Does that theory not hold water anymore?
Are we really going to escalate a war against a nuclear power?
I'll take you through the latest news and my thoughts on it.
I'm a little worried, I have to tell you.
Before I get to that, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month.
You get the Ezra Levant Show five days a week.
Plus, we have four weekly shows.
Put it all together.
That's 36 episodes a month.
That's a lot of viewing for just eight smackers.
But more to the point, it's how we survive.
We need that dough because we don't take any money from Trudeau.
So if you're going to help us out and help yourself to some great TV watching, go to RebelNewsPlus.com.
All right, here's today's show.
Tonight, an update on my travels and a heavy discussion about the war in Ukraine.
It's October 11th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you sensorious bug.
Great to see you again.
Great to be back in our world headquarters.
You know, I've been traveling a little bit lately.
I've been traveling mainly within Canada.
Last week, for example, I went out to Calgary for the United Conservative Party leadership announcement.
Danielle Smith winning with about 54% of the vote.
She's the premier designate of Alberta, taking a bit of a sovereignty line, something we've heretofore only seen from the province of Quebec.
I find it very interesting.
One of the reasons I'm hopeful is that Danielle Smith, despite her flaws, has focused on a freedom message, including repudiating some of the lockdowns and the bullying that has characterized, well, frankly, every government in this country over the past two years, but Alberta in particular.
You may know we have a petition right now at lockdownamnesty.com.
We hope to hold Danielle Smith to her promise of dropping the lockdowns.
There are very few lockdowns still in place, a few pandemic rules still in place in Alberta, but the government is still prosecuting tickets and charges that were handed out during the lockdown.
For example, and I'll tell you a little bit more about this in a moment.
Arthur Pavlovsky was in trial today for a lockdown offense that happened over a year ago.
So although the lockdowns are no longer issuing new charges and tickets, they're still going through all their old victims.
We hope and expect Danielle Smith will act on her promise to undo that.
In addition to covering news, I've been going to little fundraising get-togethers for Rebel News.
I've been to, I think, 16 cities in six or seven provinces over the last little while, all the way from Vancouver on the west to, I think, Montreal is the furthest east I've been just reconnecting with our people since so many of us have been under a form of lockdown.
In fact, few of us could even fly within Canada domestically until a few months ago when Trudeau decided to give us that liberty back.
I'm heading back west tomorrow for the release of our latest documentary.
It's called Ungovernable.
It's about Alberta separatism, Alberta's ungovernable nature.
And I love the fact that it was made by Kian Simone, who's a transplanted Torontonian who moved west and has sort of discovered the nature of that province.
Here's a quick trailer of the movie, which you can see for yourself at albertadocumentary.com.
Here's the trailer for Ungovernable.
The values.
You look at Western values in Western society, and these are values we could all relate to, but they're old world values of grit and community and perseverance.
It's a place where you can make a living with your back and your hands and a little bit of hard work.
And it's a place of opportunity.
And I think as Albertans, we're fiercely protective of that.
The world's energy crisis has been grabbing newspaper headlines.
In a nutshell, we're running short of petroleum resources and the prices are zooming upwards.
My colleagues in the government and I have come reluctantly to believe that the price of oil in Canada must go up.
This was Alberta.
The origin of the Alberta separatist movement begins with the election of Pierre Trudeau as prime minister.
It was a deliberate and malicious targeting of the West, which suited Pierre Trudeau just fine, just like it suits Justin Trudeau just fine.
Sunny ways, my friends.
Blackface.
There is an actual hostile government, though it's Alberta.
Why did your dad give everyone in Western Canada the middle finger?
Really, in politics, you do have to make big decisions.
And whenever you make big decisions, there's going to be people who agree with it and people who don't disagree with it.
Plenty of people want to leave this country.
It's not the kind of idea you'd expect to hear from someone who wants to win power and hold power.
It is a radical idea.
And you would normalize the discussion.
And so maybe Alberta wouldn't have to go because maybe the rest of the country and the rest of the world would say, whoa, don't go.
Will you accept these changes instead?
That's what happened for Quebec.
There's no Maple Leafs west of the Manitoba border.
Why do we have a Maple Leaf by unilateral decision on Canadian flags?
Think of how the American colonists were in 1775.
That's how a lot of Albertans are today.
Very exciting.
I'll be there in Calgary tomorrow night.
We're playing it in a real cinema, the Canyon Meadows Theaters, and we're going to have a little red carpet style get together beforehand.
I've been out to that same theater for other movies we've done, for example, Kamloops, The Buried Truth, a documentary by Matt Brevner and Rea Humphrey.
Police Storm the House00:07:10
So we've got a lot of documentaries going on these days, and I'm happy for our team just doing that new form of storytelling, which I think is wonderful.
So I have been missing some shows.
I hope you're enjoying when Sheila or David fill in for me, but I am aware that I'm out there, but I tell you it's for work.
Over the weekend, Thanksgiving weekend here in Canada, I actually went on my first trip outside Canada in nearly three years, my first foreign trip.
I went to Scotland, of all places.
One of the things I did was I met this youngster, Callum Smiles.
That's a great name.
He's our newest reporter in the United Kingdom.
Here, let me play for you a little hello video.
I did meeting Callum for the first time in a wonderful little town in Scotland called Stonehaven.
Take a look.
Well, the work you're doing, you're up here with me in Scotland to cover the case of Gabby Burnett, whose house was stormed without a search warrant by police almost two years ago.
I get the feeling that I've had here before, which is that the mainstream media in the UK is just as much a media party, just as much in sync with the regime as in Canada.
There might be a few more exceptions, like the new GB News TV station.
They're independent-minded.
There are a few interesting individuals left in the UK, but the vast majority of reporters seem to be bland regime narrative woke repeaters more than reporters.
That's how it looks to me in Canada.
What do you think?
There seems to be this willful neglect of the little man.
So I've shown people around the country before coming up here when they said, Oh, where's the next story?
And I told them about Gabby Burnett, and they think, and they say, Who's Gabby Burnett?
Shown the video, and they all have that same heart-throbbing shock to think not only could this happen in our country, but that it can be kept so quiet.
Well, I didn't make my journey to Scotland just to say hi to Callum, though that was fun.
I was there because we have one of our fight the finds cases in Scotland.
In fact, we've got two cases over there.
As you know, the Democracy Fund handles most of the Fight the Fines cases here in Canada, 2,100 of them.
But the Democracy Fund only operates within Canadian borders.
So, we have a couple of cases in the UK, both of them in Scotland, and we have some cases in Australia that Rebel News itself takes care of.
I want to tell you the story about Gabby Burnett.
This video I showed you the other day, I just want to show you again.
Actually, let me play for you a little bit of my conversation with Gabby Burnett and her little brother Luke, who were at home when police stormed in.
No search warrant, no crime going on, no hot pursuit, none of that.
Just a neighbor snitching on them, saying, Oh, they have an illegal gathering.
They didn't.
Gabby had a seizure.
They wouldn't help her, and they stopped her brother and her mother from helping her.
And to add insult to inner jury, they're actually prosecuting her.
I'm not going to play the whole thing for you.
It's an 11 and a half-minute video that I recorded over there in Aberdeen.
But I'm going to play a couple minutes for you.
I want to show you, first of all, the violent police invasion, the home invasion, really.
And second of all, a bit of my chat with Gabby and her brother Luke.
I'm not going to show the whole thing.
You can see the whole thing at standwithgabby.co.uk.
Here's a little bit of what I was doing in Scotland.
In my house, I do not think so.
What's wrong?
No, please.
My mom's no more.
Please stop at my lane Please stop at my lane What the f*** You got excited, you should just get home Give me your phone This got airborne.
I did.
I see her.
I'm not it.
I see her.
I don't see any more.
Oh, my God.
I was in Canada.
I was far away.
I had never been to Scotland until today.
I had never met you or heard of you.
I saw that video and I was enraged.
We're not just here to tell the story of what happened.
We're here to fight back.
We have crowdfunded a lawyer to defend you in court.
And we'll talk about that in a minute.
But Callum Smiles and I want to talk about what happened that day.
Callum, you've watched that video.
What would you want to ask Gabby and Luke?
And we'll talk to Luke, who was there observing.
Because the world has only seen from when you started the camera.
We don't know exactly what happened beforehand.
So in your own words, what exactly happened that day?
Well, that day, it was just a normal day.
We're obviously all bored because of lockdown and that.
I'd been going through some stuff, so my mum was looking after me.
I was all tired and everything.
I was just chilling with my little brother.
I think my mum was through the house with her friend.
I think they had a bottle of wine or something, maybe had some music on, not very loud or anything, just like everyone does.
And then them had that knock to the door.
And they were questioning my mum about who she had in the house and about coming into the house to check who she had in the house.
And she obviously wasn't up for that because we've done nothing wrong and you know there's no reason for them to be coming into our house.
They had no warrant.
And then from then I thought it's getting a bit loud and a bit too, you know, a bit too much.
So I'll get my phone and record it because my little brother's there as well, which I'm worried about, obviously.
And then I went through to say, I'll give you my mum's details.
And as I said that, that's when I got tackled to the ground in front of my little brother and my head smacked off or something and had a seizure.
So you had a seizure and they burst in the home, no search warrant.
They pushed their way in.
How many of them were there?
There was two standing at the door and I'm sure there was two on the stairs as well.
They pushed their way in and your brother, Luke, you're 11 now.
How old were you back then?
Were you nine or ten?
Ten.
And, you know, I'm talking to you with your sister's permission.
It's not my practice to talk to young kids on camera, but you were there, not just as a witness, but as a family member.
And I don't want to ask you prickly questions, but what was it like seeing your mum being tackled this way by cops?
Scary.
And you were crying, were you?
Patty Hogg's Journey00:06:47
Yeah.
He was crying and he was all loud and, oh my god, oh my god, someone get her someone, get her someone.
You know, he was totally in a state.
So were you worried more about the cops or about your mum's sorry, your sister's seizure?
Sister's seizure.
Did the cops help her at all with the seizure?
Not no.
So that trial may or may not proceed tomorrow.
It's sort of up in the air, but Callum Smiles will be there.
Either way, I'm really excited about the lawyer we've mustered, the law firm in Scotland.
This was just coincidence.
I didn't know this till later.
The law firm in Scotland and the lawyer, Call Anderson, that we hired actually was the lawyer for the First Minister of Scotland.
That's what they call their sort of prime minister there.
So serious law firm, very serious, high-powered, smart guys.
And I'm very excited about that because there's simply no way that a working-class woman like Gabby, who's only 20, could possibly fight back against the unlimited resources of the Scottish Police on her own.
So I was glad to be over there.
And we do have one more case in Scotland, and I think that's it for the UK.
It's actually terrible in its own way.
This was atrocious because the home invasion and Gabby had a seizure and the police didn't help her and banned the other family members.
It's just so terrible.
But the other case we have is the case of Patty Hogg, who was at the time a city councillor in Lanarkshire, which is near Glasgow.
He was a skeptic of the lockdown, and so he had a peaceful outdoor protest in the city.
Police charged him, and one of the things they charged him with was a heavy crime called reckless endangerment.
That's the kind of thing you get charged with if you do something insane, like standing on an overpass, dropping bricks on cars below, or I suppose driving drunk through a playground or something.
Reckless endangerment, a shocking crime.
What did Patty Hogg do?
Well, by encouraging other people to protest outdoors at City Hall, they said, oh, he was recklessly endangering them.
He could have murdered them by the COVID virus.
I don't even know if there's been a single case of a confirmed outdoor transmission in history, but they so hate Patty Hogg and the fact that he dared to have another opinion, they are charging him.
He was a sitting city councilor at the time.
Imagine that.
You're an elected politician elected to politic.
You go to your place of the legislature to protest, and they charge you not just with some nuisance or mischief or trespass or a ticket, but with a shocking crime like reckless endangerment.
So Patty Hogg is our second case there.
Obviously, 99% of our Fight the Fiance cases are here in Canada, but I thought that would be a fun first trip outside the country.
Fun, but I can assure you it was a working trip, as you can see.
I'm going to talk a little bit more about Fight the Fines and Arthur Pavlowski's case today, but I want to tell you that most of our team at Rebel News is unjabbed.
Now, we don't care if you're jabbed or unjabbed.
As far as I'm concerned, that's a personal choice everyone can make for themselves.
We have jabbed and unjabbed people at Rebel News, and we never inquired, and we never violated people's privacy.
But I happen to know that a number of our folks were unjabbed.
And between that and foreign countries' rules and Trudeau's bans, we really didn't leave the country much.
Now, that was okay insofar as the story was here.
We had to cover the lockdowns in Canada.
We had to cover the Canadian reaction, and we were very busy from coast to coast.
Alexa Lavoie in Quebec, Adrea Humphrey in Vancouver, so many journalists in between those two places.
We really had a lot of work.
But now that Trudeau has finally dropped his unscientific vendetta against the unvaxxed, some of our journalists who you've gotten to know for their domestic coverage are going to be making trips to foreign countries.
For example, coming up in just a week, we are sending a crew of five people to the United Nations World Health Organization Summit in Berlin.
That's starting October 16th.
That's the largest gathering of the WHO.
In fact, it's their only in-person gathering in three years.
We're sending five people to cover it, including Alexa, who's going to cover it in French.
I think it's going to be very important.
There's going to be delegates from up to 200 countries there.
Obviously, we're going to keep our eye appealed for the Anthony Fauci's and Teresa Tams of the world.
But I'm very curious to talk to people from the third world, to talk to people from Africa, the least vaxed country, which happens to have the lowest COVID mortality rate.
Isn't that interesting?
If possible, I'd like to talk to a delegate from China.
Why has that country refused to inject its citizens with mRNA vaccines?
Isn't that weird?
I want to talk to people from India, because India said to Pfizer, sure, you can sell your drug here, but we want to do clinical trials.
We want to see them.
And Pfizer said, no, thanks.
So there's a lot of questions I would put through our reporters to delegates from other places around the world.
I'm not just interested in talking to Canadian and American delegates.
It's going to be very interesting.
And covering the media, covering the World Health Organization, is going to be interesting, too.
We've got a big delegation.
You can see that at rebelwho.com.
There's an interesting event we're doing in another part of the world in Buenos Aires, the C40 World Mayors Conference.
What is that, you say?
It's a globalist meeting of mayors.
They're meeting in Buenos Aires outside the prying eyes of journalists, outside the democratic accountability of their own city councils, and they're hatching their plans.
It's almost like it's out of a bond movie.
It's not a democratic organization.
It's not voted on by your me, but these world mayors get together and they have it's like their own mini World Economic Forum.
So we're sending two journalists down there.
I'm very excited about him.
You know, one thing we used to do every year, Rebel News, was cover the UN Global Warming Conference, technically called the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
We did send a small team last year to Glasgow.
This year it's in Egypt.
We are sending six journalists.
We love to cover those because we care about oil and gas, we care about junk science, and we want to show the hypocrisy of all the politicians flying in with their private jets and telling us to take a bike or to walk, but they'll be there in their huge escalades and Yukons, air-conditioned in that desert heat.
It's going to be fascinating.
And then the final trip we've got coming is our trip to the World Economic Forum and they're meeting in Davos, Switzerland in January 2023.
Fascinating Trips Ahead00:02:20
And I plan to go to that one too myself.
So we're doing these trips because we've been cooped up for two years.
We're doing them also because they're very relevant to Canadians.
Because I put it to you, more decisions are made at this list of events I've just told you about.
None of them democratic.
None of them have the kind of transparency and scrutiny that our own Canadian legislatures have.
But I put it to you, more decisions will be made at those conferences I've just outlined than will be made by Parliament.
Now, earlier I mentioned the Scottish cases, Gabby Burnett, who's in court tomorrow, Patty Hogg, who's in court coming up later.
Well, I mentioned them, and it just so happens that earlier today, we had a huge win in court in Calgary by our very first Fight the Fines client, Arthur Pavlovsky.
I'll tell you more about it.
I'm hoping to interview a reporter on the scene, Celine Galas, who was live tweeting the hearing and who had the news the moment he was acquitted today.
But basically, Arthur Pavlovsky went to pick up his mail in the post office.
He had a medical exemption and not wear a mask, and they refused to serve him.
And not just that, they called the cops on him.
But the case totally fell apart in court today.
There was no evidence that Arthur did anything wrong.
They made up a bunch of lies about him.
Oh, he was rude.
He swore.
I have heard Arthur Pavlovsky use strong language before strong words like, get out, get out, but I have never in my life heard him swear.
I actually don't think he swears.
I think it's sort of a religious thing for him.
So they had all these false accusations, and the police and the prosecutors were able to prove none of them.
And so he was acquitted.
But let's be honest, it wasn't about him being guilty.
It was about the government of Alberta's ongoing vendetta against him.
And believe me, he has plenty more trials to come.
They're still pursuing him.
The province of Alberta, Danielle Smith, is now the premier designate of Alberta.
I told you she won her leadership just last week.
But the province of Alberta, the bureaucrats, the lawyers, the Justice Department, are still hunting down lockdown skeptics like Arthur Pavlovsky.
That's why we insist that she keep her promise and have an amnesty for everyone like Arthur.
Ukraine Calls for NATO Attack00:06:31
So that's what's going on.
I've been traveling a bit, but I wanted to explain to you it's not vacations.
I have not actually had a family vacation since 2019.
I'm going to go away this Christmas break for the first time with the family in a long time.
It'll be good.
I wanted to explain to you that I'm either working on news stories like I was doing in Edinburgh and Aberdeen, or that I was meeting with rebel supporters across the country to raise funds for rebel news, which is sort of my job.
But I have to tell you that over the last few days, I have seen troubling news about the war in Ukraine.
And when I saw the images of the mighty Kerch Bridge, that's the bridge that Russia built connecting Russia to Crimea, which is a multi-billion dollar ridge.
It's a rail bridge and an automobile bridge.
And it's not just a strategic piece of infrastructure.
It is full of political pride for Vladimir Putin.
He personally inaugurated the bridge.
When I saw that that bridge was destroyed, I wouldn't even call it a military attack because it was not by jet fighters or a missile boat or anything like that.
It was a truck bomb, frankly terrorist style.
I think that's what you'd have to call it.
And in fact, it sounds like the driver of the truck did not know what he was driving.
Ukrainian authorities took credit for the explosion, which I suppose means they take the blame for killing the man who was in the truck and those who were blown up by it.
I found that shocking and audacious and bold.
And I suppose it's the kind of thing you do when you are in a total war.
But I am deeply worried about the reaction that may come from Russia.
This comes on the heels of another dramatic attack against Russian infrastructure, the explosion of their Nord Stream undersea natural gas pipeline, which was detonated by a massive trove of explosives.
No one has definitively taken credit or blame by that, but I think the conventional wisdom is that something so sophisticated and so major could only have been done by a government entity, and the list of governments whose militaries could pull that off is quite limited.
And then there's just that little video of Joe Biden saying, don't you worry, that pipeline, we can take it out of commission if we want.
Here's Joe Biden saying that a few months ago.
If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2.
We will bring an end to it.
How will you do that exactly?
Since the project and control of the project is within Germany's control.
We will, I promise you, we will be able to do it.
So I was getting nervous.
I mean, I was nervous when that Nord Stream pipeline was blown up.
I'm nervous when the Russian bridge was blown up because these things are brilliant tactical victories on the part of Ukraine or if it's the United States or the CIA or mercenaries.
We don't quite know who's done these things.
They're brilliant.
They're devastating, absolutely.
And it seems like Ukraine and whatever other militaries are operating there.
We know, for example, the CIA confirmed to the New York Times that they are on the ground in Ukraine helping direct the use of their modern weaponry.
Russia is having setbacks and it's actually retreating in some parts.
But that scares me because unlike a traditional or conventional foe, Russia still has nuclear weapons.
And an angry, embarrassed, humiliated, rebuked Vladimir Putin still has access to those nuclear weapons, whether it's a tactical nuclear weapon in the theater of war or something else.
I'm getting a little nervous about it.
And I see that the bellicosity has come to Canada.
Let me start by showing you this terrifying video by Vladimir Zelensky, the former actor who is now the president of Ukraine.
Here he is calling for NATO countries to proactively attack Russia itself.
He wants NATO to attack Russia.
He wants to end the 80 years of mutually assured destruction, you know, the architecture of deterrence, of mutual deterrence.
He says NATO should attack Russia.
Take a look at this.
How do you feel about this?
It makes me nervous when someone who is a serious person, the president of Ukraine, who obviously has the ear of many Western leaders, is calling on NATO countries to attack a nuclear armed Russia.
Does that make you nervous at all?
Well, here's Justin Trudeau tweeting in reaction to a Russian attack that he stands loyally by Ukraine and will give military assistance to Ukraine.
This is new for Justin Trudeau, I should remind you.
Justin Trudeau used to hate the military just like his old man.
You might recall that very shortly after Trudeau became prime minister in 2015, he withdrew our CF-18s from the war against ISIS, something that the U.S. and Obama in particular asked him not to do.
Trudeau's Shift in Stance00:06:21
The President of the United States, Barack Obama, said, please do not withdraw your fighter jets from the war on ISIS.
But he did.
He was such a peacenick.
In fact, I don't know if you remember this clip.
He was asked by CBC's Don Newman about what role Canada's military should play, and he made this joke about generals who wanted to whip out their CF-18s and show you how big they were.
Take a listen to this guy.
You referenced Jean-Claudier in the Second Iraq War, where he said, the proof is the proof is the proof.
And then he said, I don't see the proof, so we're not going.
But also in the first Iraq War, 1991, the Liberal Party at first was going to oppose the CF-18s, which were actually flying a non-combat role, but they were flying patrol over the Persian Gulf.
And then they reversed their position, and they did it basically for politics.
And I'm wondering if you think Mr. Harper wants you to vote against the resolution because he thinks that's to his political advantage, are you not playing into his hands if, even on a principled matter, and I, you know, I take the principles and I think they're very important ones, but at the same time, politics is politics, and on a principled matter, you may have to put water in your wine and think, what are the political consequences of this?
In a room like this, it's easy to say politics is politics and we have to do this.
And that's one of the problems that happens in rooms like this in the Ottawa bubble.
We forget about Canadians.
We think about tactical angles and how we might look to the press gallery or what our opponents might say about us.
And that, quite frankly, has led Canadian politics to being in the position of having a record level of disenfranchised, disinterested, cynical voters.
I'm sorry.
Leadership moments are not about making the easy decision that goes along with things.
It's about taking a stand on the values and the principles.
And if there's anything the Liberal Party should have learned over the past years, it's that Canadians need to know where we stand and Canadians need to trust us.
So politics is secondary to me.
So will you be Jean-Frétien though?
You still want to see the proof is the proof is the proof?
Or are you pretty well made up your mind that it would be better for us to stay in the long conversation?
I haven't made up my mind, but the onus is on Mr. Harper to demonstrate that a shift from a non-combat role that we've established right now to a combat role is the right thing for Canada, the right thing for Canadians, but also the right thing for the international community.
There are an awful lot of things that Canada can and should be doing.
I mean, think about Canada's reputation around the world and what we've done around refugees.
Whether it be the Vietnamese boat people, whether it be the Ismailis in Uganda, in East Africa, whether it be even more recently the Tamil community fleeing civil war in Sri Lanka.
Canada has been a place that draws in and helps refugees in a significant and serious way.
Now, in this situation, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of displaced peoples in the region who aren't looking to all leave the region.
That's where their homes are.
They need support to get through this very, very difficult time.
Canada has a capacity and an expertise in doing just that.
Why aren't we talking more about that?
Why aren't we talking more about the kind of humanitarian aid that Canada can and must be engaged in, rather than trying to whip out our CF-18s and show them how big they are?
It just doesn't work like that in Canada.
It's quite something for someone who was so anti-war, anti-war to the point of undermining our largest ally, even when it was a Democratic president.
There's something quite startling about Trudeau being so bellicose and belligerent.
I mean, Trudeau, I saw this statistic.
Trudeau's emissaries and diplomats have met countless times with the Taliban since NATO was driven out of Afghanistan.
I usually see that, and it's juxtaposed with the fact that Trudeau refused to meet the truckers at all, but he'll meet the Taliban.
But that's my point.
Trudeau will suck up to anyone.
He'll suck up to ISIS, even returning ISIS terrorists.
He says a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.
He pulled away his CF-18s.
He's negotiating with the Taliban.
You know, he calls China the country he most admires.
He praised Fidel Castro.
Suddenly, he's very butch and militaristic.
It's startling for Canada.
It's startling for Trudeau in particular, who, I don't know if he would call him a peacenick, but he was certainly anti-war and against our allies.
It's quite out of character for him.
And I put it to you, it's out of character for Canada as well.
You remember once upon a time we were known for peacekeeping and occasionally even for peacemaking.
I don't think we've seen the word peace coming from any world leader recently.
Now, I should tell you that when Justin Trudeau says he's all for war against Russia, I don't know if he actually means it, because Canada's contribution to Ukraine has been extremely modest.
His contribution to Vladimir Putin has been much larger.
You might recall that Trudeau announced with great fanfare a list of sanctions against Russia and Putin's inner circle.
And he immediately amended those sanctions so he could have Russian natural gas turbines shipped to Montreal to be serviced there, to be maintained there, before sending them back.
Trudeau literally fixed the turbines that will sell Gazprom's natural gas to Europe, that is holding Europe hostage, but he will not sell Canadian natural gas to Europe.
He actually said there's no business case for it.
Shocking Awe Tactics00:15:10
So you've got the worst of both worlds.
You've got a warmonger who's anti-Putin publicly, but he's sort of a Putin collaborator economically.
So he has the photo ops about how tough he is with Putin, but he's actually doing more favors for Putin by A, fixing Putin's natural gas industry and B, refusing to let Canadians sell.
But I think things are getting very serious now.
I think the talk about nuclear war is being normalized.
Here's a global warming expert saying, hey, guys, this whole nuclear war thing, this could be a real plus for global warming.
I'm serious.
That's the kind of commentary you're getting.
Nuclear war, it could be great for society.
We just don't know it yet.
I think things are getting heavy.
The Crimean bridge blown up, the pipeline blown up, and one of Putin's close allies named Alexander Dugin, his daughter Daria Dugin, was assassinated.
I mean, that kind of, it feels terroristic.
It doesn't feel military.
It feels vengeful.
It feels like a vendetta.
And it feels like the kind of thing, frankly, designed to provoke Vladimir Putin to overreact, to over-respond.
Now, after the attack on the Crimean bridge, Putin's military did launch a barrage of missile attacks on Ukraine.
And that certainly got a lot of media coverage.
But when I saw some of the footage, it's very hard to get footage from Ukraine.
It's very hard to know what's real and what's disinformation.
But frankly, it looked a little bit, it reminded me of the U.S. tactic of shock and awe when the U.S. military first attacked Baghdad after 9-11.
Let me give you a reminder of, sorry, it was not 9-11, it was the first Gulf War.
Here's the first Gulf War, the shock and awe tactic of scaring and breaking the confidence in Baghdad.
Here's what Baghdad looked like during shock and awe.
That is shocking and awesome.
Probably killed a lot of civilians, too.
Here's what the Russian missile attack on Kiev and other places looked like.
It looks like some people were bloodied, and obviously some people were killed.
But frankly, I don't know if I would call it devastating, at least these images.
I'm sure it did kill people, and I'm sure tens of thousands of Ukrainians and civilians have been killed.
But, you know, here was a pro-Ukrainian video montage, and the bridge they showed destroyed was like one of those tourist glass bridges, the kind of bridge you have to be courageous to walk on because the floor was glass.
It actually felt like it was a shock and awe move designed to scare more than to kill en masse.
I don't know.
I don't really know what's going on there.
It's hard to know because there's so much censorship and so much propaganda.
But what I see officially from the West does scare me.
I see, for example, the video of Joe Biden promising that that pipeline will not proceed, and later it gets blown up.
I see in reaction to this missile strike, Joe Biden announcing that he will indeed send advanced American anti-air missiles to defend Ukraine.
And that probably would shoot down some of those missiles.
But Ukrainians don't know how to use these advanced American systems.
They take months of training.
I suppose that could happen, that they train Ukrainian soldiers for months how to use them, but I think it's just as likely that Americans would operate them.
I mean, you can send an advanced missile system, but unless you're trained on it, you don't know how to use it.
Is Joe Biden going to give them the missiles and then train them and have them ready sometime in 2023?
Or did he mean what I think he meant, which is that he's going to send the advanced anti-aircraft missiles and the Americans to run them?
Which is really an American no-fly zone, not a Ukrainian no-fly zone.
I mean, can I ask the obvious question that I think a child would ask?
Is Joe Biden telling American military forces to shoot down Russian aircraft?
Should we have a debate about that?
Not just should Americans have a debate about that, but maybe Canada, the NATO ally, should we at least have a discussion?
I mean, are we going to declare war on the former Soviet Union?
Are we going to declare war on Russia?
Are we just going to do that?
Isn't that the thing that we were told was absolutely terrifying and would lead to mutually assured destruction for nearly a century?
Haven't we been told that?
Now, I agree, of course, that war is wrong, but there's no move to peace afoot.
There's no second track.
There's no parallel way to get to peace.
Can you have a total victory?
Can Ukraine actually get a victory that doesn't involve some diplomacy?
How do you get a victory over a nuclear power as an opponent?
That's what I don't understand.
I understand that Ukraine has had great military support and financial support from the United States.
I understand that U.S.-made weapons, many of them operated by U.S. CIA operatives or others, have really helped turn things in Ukraine's favor in the last couple months.
I understand that.
I acknowledge that.
But can you really expect a total victory over a nuclear power, especially one whose authoritarian ruler has been publicly humiliated?
Blowing up that bridge over Crimea was shocking for sure, but does Ukraine actually think they will reconquer Ukraine, which has been legally annexed to Russia?
Do they think that's going to happen?
And did they think Putin would allow that to happen without pushing the nuclear button?
I mean, I don't know.
Sometimes I'm told he's a maniac and unpredictable, and he could be very dangerous.
And other times I'm told not to worry about the Russian military at all.
I don't know which to believe.
I just don't think that Ukraine can have a military victory over a nuclear-armed Russia.
I just don't know if it's possible.
What's crazy in the West, both in the United States and Canada, is that it is a non-partisan, a bipartisan military-industrial complex now.
Very few Republicans have spoken out against giving almost $100 billion worth of cash and weapons to Ukraine.
Very few have.
And in Canada, the same thing.
I see Pierre Polyev is vigorously denouncing Russia and supporting Ukraine.
Okay, of course, Russia is the aggressor here, but does every single party now support this war without a parallel track suing for peace?
I mean, if Justin Trudeau, of all people, is pro-war, is there anyone else left?
Have you heard a word from the peace parties of the left, from Jagmeet Singh, about maybe suing for peace?
There's a lot of reasons why people want war.
If you're in the weapons business, these are boom times.
If you're in the oil business, the gas business, it's boom times.
If you're in the news business, you need something to sell clicks now that Donald Trump is gone.
Trouble is, Ukrainians are the ones in the meat grinder.
They're the ones who are dying.
By the thousand, by the tens of thousand, by the hundreds of thousands?
We don't know, really.
It's tough to check.
I've got a question for you.
And I asked this of a friend of mine who said that she would send her child to fight in Ukraine.
And my friend is not Ukrainian, and I don't know if she was serious.
But I said, why Ukraine and not the other wars around the world?
There are many wars around the world at all times.
And what other wars should we engage in?
Should we give military support for?
What other wars should we send people to?
Should we, I don't know, engage in the war in Ethiopia?
Should we engage in the war in Yemen, in Afghanistan, in Mali?
There are wars all the time.
Is the only reason why we're so supportive of the war in Ukraine, is it because we feel we've got Russia trapped and can grind them down?
Or is it an ethnic or racial similarity?
Like, why are we not sending tens of billions of dollars to these other battles?
I don't understand it.
I don't understand the advantage for Ukraine, and I most certainly don't understand the advantage for Canada or the United States.
confused by it.
I want to say that asking these kinds of questions is not disloyalty and it's not being a Russian agent despite what the disinformation czars at the University of Calgary say.
There used to be a tradition in Western democracies of having debates and votes before declaring war.
Certainly that was the case in the world wars in Canada even when we weren't fully autonomous from the United Kingdom.
I think that we ought to have a debate and a vote.
I remember when Stephen Harper sent a small contingent of a couple of hundred Canadian forces to the ill-advised war to replace Muammar Gaddafi, the war that later gave birth to the modern slave trade, the mass of refugees from North Africa into Europe and the rise of ISIS.
What an ill-advised war that was.
But even then there was a debate in parliament about it, even though it was a modest undertaking.
Do we believe in votes anymore or did we sort of get rid of that old-fashioned notion and pass everything by order?
Maybe Teresa Tam can keep passing orders like she did about health.
Maybe she can just simply issue orders about wars.
What do we think about the atrocities committed by Russia?
That's a very important question.
There have been atrocities.
But how do we feel about the atrocities carried on by Ukraine?
About the assassinations of family members of Putin's inner circle, about the truck driver on the bridge who didn't know what he was driving and it was blown up.
That was not a military attack.
That was a suicide truck, and I don't think the driver knew that was his role.
How do we feel about the abolition of opposition parties in Ukraine?
Because that's what happened.
Vladimir Zelensky has shut down political parties that don't fully support him.
He's shut down opposition media too.
You know he was named in the Pandora papers for having tens of millions of dollars in offshore accounts.
I don't think he's the role model for a democracy or for ethical and accountable government.
I think it's a place of oligarchs and corruption.
What exactly is our role there?
What exactly is our interest there?
Can I understand what the Canadian interest is there?
And by the way, what constitutes a victory?
Do we have to keep supporting a war until all of former Ukraine is returned, including Crimea?
What price are we willing to bear?
It's sort of shocking and the kind of thing that you slow down like with a car crash to stare.
You can't help yourself when a bridge is blown up or a pipeline is blown up as long as it's someone else's bridge and pipeline.
How would we feel if, God forbid, one of our bridges or pipelines was blown up because we were part of the NATO allies that armed Vladimir Zelensky or even operated some of the weapons?
Are you ready for that?
Can we have a discussion at least?
I feel like the world is closer to nuclear war now than at any time during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Where are the pro-peace people?
Where's the left?
Where's the parties of the left who were always for disarmament, the activists, like Trudeau was seven years ago when he mocked generals whipping out their CF-18s?
Or is the idea of dissent just completely gone?
Again, another legacy of COVID.
We just all agree with the latest thing.
We just all say ditto to each other.
I'm not for Vladimir Putin.
In fact, I've criticized him so many times and written a powerful chapter in a book about him that now makes it impossible for me to visit that country.
The whole thesis of my two books, first Ethical Oil and then Groundswell, was that Canada had a special duty to produce as much oil and gas as possible to displace oil from OPEC and Russia, to relieve their customers of the hostage situation they find themselves in.
If we had built the pipelines, including Energy East, all the way to New Brunswick, that would have allowed LNG tankers to fill up in New Brunswick and take that natural gas to places like Ukraine or Poland.
I think Canada would have helped make the world a lot freer and would have removed the power that Vladimir Putin has over Europe.
Alas, Justin Trudeau didn't agree.
I don't think that Justin Trudeau is actually an agent for Vladimir Putin, but really, if he was, what would he do differently?
Suppressing Canadian oil and gas, repairing Russian pipelines.
I just don't understand it.
I find myself in an unusual position being someone who's against wars.
At the time, I thought the 9-11 wars were very justified.
I was delighted when Saddam Hussein was smashed by George Bush Sr.
Sometimes a war makes people feel artificially bold and confident.
Judge's Exasperation00:16:59
That's just usually if you don't know anyone who's fighting it.
If it's far away, you can only read the exciting footage, stories, and see the exciting footage.
But I'm not sure how long this war will stay far away.
If Joe Biden says he's going to give high-tech American equipment and if Canada is saying it's going to be involved, how long will this war just stay on our TV sets?
How long will it be till some of it comes home to us?
I don't know, but I know one thing, asking basic questions about accountability and decision-making and national sovereignty and war and peace and justice, that's called being a Canadian, and that's called being a Democrat and having a public policy debate.
I find it deeply troubling that there is no debate on these subjects.
And just like during the COVID era, everyone who's anyone seems to agree with each other.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Well, earlier today I told you about a journey I made to Edinburgh and Aberdeen because we have two fight the fines cases over there and a handful in Australia.
But as you know, Canada is where 2,100 of our fight the fines cases are.
And our very first one was a case of Arthur Pavlovsky.
Boy, they've come down on him like a ton of bricks.
It really is a vendetta.
And even though Danielle Smith is now the premier designate of Alberta, it's the old regime of Jason Kenney and his lockdown laws that are still being prosecuted in the courts.
Let me say that again.
The lockdown is over.
Danielle Smith is the new premier designate.
But the bureaucracy, the prosecutors, the police are still marching under the old orders.
And today, they took Arthur Pavlovsky to court again, this time for a mask violation.
I didn't even know they prosecuted people for that.
So they had that mask trial in Calgary.
And I was watching the live tweeting of that from our reporter, Celine Galas.
And when she said the verdict was issued, I couldn't contain myself.
A huge, huge win for Arthur Pavlovsky.
And we go now to the courthouse steps.
It's a little noisy outside there, but it's very exciting to have Celine on location at the Court of King's Bench in Calgary.
Celine, great to see you.
Thank you for being in the court today.
This is the second big win in a row for Arthur Pavlovsky.
That's right, it is.
Yeah, no, it was really exciting today to actually be there and to be able to live tweet, to be able to be there representing Rebel as well.
Well, I'm very glad you were there.
We have covered the case of Arthur Pavlovsky really since it started in the spring of 2020.
They have come after him so many times.
I was talking to his lawyer, Sarah Miller, the other day.
I think this is like the 16th or 17th court hearing she's done for him that simply would be impossible for anyone who didn't have the resources of a crowdfunding campaign behind them.
Like literally, you would have to be a multi-millionaire or you would be crushed under the power of the government.
Tell me, how many government people were there at the trial?
How many lawyers and police and witnesses?
I bet they spent a half million dollars trying to get him today.
You know, that's really interesting, actually.
There was only, I believe it was just three witnesses.
It was one police officer.
He was the one that came after the couple of people at Shoppers Drug Mart, the employees had called 911.
He was there to answer that call and to go and talk to Arthur himself.
And then there was one of the managers and then the woman at the counter that refused to actually provide him his mail, even though he had a medical exemption for his mask.
But again, what's really interesting is that originally this case was founded on him for a mask violation, for being contrary to the bylaw at the time.
And that was actually dropped.
And it also came out from the store owner when asked further about the different signs that they would have had posted and whatnot, that they're actually pretty lenient at the time and that going forward, that wouldn't stand with his case.
So that case was dropped pretty quick, pretty quick, like in the beginning of the court proceedings this morning.
And then they started talking about how you can't film in there and there's signs everywhere.
And then it was actually just down at the very beginning.
Sorry about that.
Someone just came up to us.
But yeah, then it just so happened that people, sorry, that totally just kind of threw me off.
No, keep going.
So you're saying that there was a sign or something?
Yeah, you're not supposed to record.
That's one of their store policies.
But it just ended up coming out again by the store owner that there was just a tiny little sticker in the window that, you know, it just was the camera with like the little red circle with the cross through it, like no filming.
So then he tried to say that he was banned.
And at the very end, what this case was like founded on is, and what the crown was grasping for, the straws at the end, was just trying to present any evidence regarding any evidence that had to do with the person at the front desk and her feelings and how she was, you know, personally offended by Archer because he had looked at her intimidatingly.
It was very strange because by the end of it, we were all very, very confused about what was going on and just what exactly this court case was founded on to start with.
Yeah, you know, I used to be a practicing lawyer.
I haven't done law in 15 years, I'm glad to say.
But I know, and I don't think you have to be a lawyer to know, that prosecutors only bring cases where, number one, it's in the public interest to do so.
And number two, where they have a reasonable likelihood of conviction.
So they don't bring trivial cases.
They don't bring weak cases.
First of all, it's not fair.
And second of all, there's so much real work to do to go after a marginal case is just a waste of time.
And it's not, again, in the public interest.
This sounds, again, like an anti-Arthur Pavlovsky vendetta.
It sounds like they just threw everything at the wall.
Oh, you're not wearing a mask.
Well, he had an exemption.
I was following along.
Did he swear?
No.
And I know he does.
I've never heard Arthur Pavlovsky say a swear in the entire time I've ever known him.
Like there was really, so I mean, really what it came down to is they didn't like him.
They were being mean to him, but he had a lawful medical exemption.
So they were just trying everything.
Oh, you recorded.
Yeah, because you're treating me in a bullying way.
It sounds, I'm deeply embarrassed for the prosecutors and the police who put forward this case.
And good for the judge.
Now, tell me a little bit about the judge.
Do you remember the judge's name?
Was it a man or a woman?
Was it old or young?
Did the judge have something to say?
Did the judge issue the ruling quickly?
Was the judge exasperated by the it sounds like the case sort of evaporated before your very eyes.
I didn't have a chance to read all your live tweets.
So, and I'm sure most of our viewers didn't either.
So what was it actually like in the courtroom?
What was the judge like?
Could you tell by their face what they were thinking?
Oh, yeah, exasperated is a really good way to put it, actually.
Unfortunately, I didn't catch the gentleman's name, but he was elder and he really did his due diligence.
He analyzed all of the different evidence that was brought up from both sides.
But it's just like you said, it immediately started to be torn apart the narrative that the Crown was trying to put together and aim at Archer Polowski.
It very, very quickly that started to evaporate as soon as he started to ask questions to the Crown.
And, you know, I've watched a couple of these court proceedings.
I've never actually seen a judge dismiss witnesses from the crown so many times to actually question the crown prosecutor and just kind of be like, you know, why are you asking these questions?
Like, what are you doing?
Like, what is your intention?
There were quite a few times where he literally asked him, he was like, is this relevant at all?
Why would you ask this question?
And it was very interesting because with Archer Polowski, he has a lot of followers.
The side of the courtroom that he was in was totally full of his supporters.
And, you know, they were quiet.
They just sat there.
And I mean, by the end of it, there was a couple of chuckles and even the judge didn't mind because he just seemed so confused about what was going on.
Because again, they were just grasping for straws to try and persecute Pastor Archer Pavlowski.
And tell me a little bit about the prosecutor.
Was it just one prosecutor?
Were there several of them?
Did he seem like he had he knew the Arthur Pavlovsky file well or was he just thrown into it?
Sounds like he had a bunch of goofy questions the judge didn't have time for.
Yeah.
No, he definitely did.
And I do not think that he was that he was able to tackle the saga that is Artipolowski.
There's no way.
There was a couple of pieces of evidence that he tried to actually bring forward.
And I wasn't aware of this.
I'm still new to covering these court cases, but I learned so much each and every time that I'm there.
The evidence that is initially given to the Crown to be able to look after so that both sides can be able to present them in front of the judge, all of that was already pre-established.
And he was here trying to grasp at straws again, trying to show new things.
And Sarah Milla stood up and was like, this has nothing to do with anything.
And by the end of it, when she called for a verdict and the judge was ready to give an answer, he asked her to go up and give her her ending statement.
And then he politely asked her to sit down and was like, he basically said, you don't need to.
He's like, like, everything's good.
And then he was like, it's all dismissed.
He's like, you're 100%.
Well, I'm paraphrasing, obviously, he didn't say that, but it was ruled that he was not guilty.
And that was it.
Everyone stood up.
It was court adjourned.
And that was it.
I don't think the crown could have done anything.
They were not prepared for this.
How long was the whole hearing?
Well, court was supposed to start at 9 a.m., but I believe that we started around 10.30.
And we were in there for probably an hour and a half.
And then once the verdict was ruled out, there was a 10-minute break.
And then we came back.
And that's when he said that all the charges were dropped and that Archer Polowski was found not guilty.
Wow.
And tell me a little bit more about Sarah Miller.
Was she there on her own or did she have another lawyer with her?
Sarah Miller is a lawyer that the Democracy Fund hired to represent Arthur a year and a half ago.
Like I say, she's been in court 16 or 17 times for Arthur since then.
Was she on her own or did she have a colleague with her?
How did she do?
She was on her own.
And like always, she was ready, she was prepared.
And yeah, absolutely.
She's so fantastic at what she does.
And every single thing that the court brought up for her to go over in the cross-examination period, she was really quick to fire back and to deliver the facts really straight, cut clear, right to the point.
And there was nothing else that they could do.
She was there.
Well, that's very exciting.
You know, I've gotten to know Sarah a little bit over the last year and a half, as you know.
She actually flew with Sheila Gunread to Geneva, Switzerland to lodge a human rights campaign against the Canadian government for the abuse of political prisoners, the way that the government and the police and other entities have treated peaceful protesters, Arthur Pavlovsky, Tamara Leach, etc.
If these things were happening in Venezuela or Cuba, the UN Human Rights Council would investigate.
And so Sarah Miller and Sheila went to Geneva, Switzerland to file that complaint there.
So I really like Sarah.
And she, you know what?
We've won some and we've lost some.
It's a lot better to win.
And it just goes to show you, you got to sometimes stick with it.
I mean, for the first year, Arthur Pavlovsky lost every single hearing he had.
And I think it's because the courts were, they had COVID mania.
I think they just were so terrified.
Judges are typically elderly.
They don't circulate.
Like, they're not going to gyms or clubs or schools.
So the lockdowns didn't hurt them.
They get paid no matter what.
You know, they're not going out to party at night.
So, you know, in places like Quebec where they had a curfew, the judges really didn't care.
Judges were afraid of death.
I mean, we all are afraid of death.
But I think now two years into it, judges are sort of waking up.
And Arthur Pavlovsky has had two important wins back to back.
And I think he's on a roll.
And I'm glad you were there.
And congrats to you on live tweeting a court case.
It's sort of a special skill, but I sure liked it.
I read your tweet the minute you said he won.
I was thrilled.
And were there any other journalists in the courtroom?
No.
No.
And all the other times that I've live tweeted from court, it's been the same thing.
A rebel has been the only journalist in court every time.
You know what?
That goes to show that the media party, as I call it, they really have an official narrative.
They have talked about Arthur Pavlovsky endlessly.
They're obsessed with him.
I suppose we're obsessed with him too, but we have an excuse.
He's a freedom fighter.
We're crowdfunding his legal defense.
But the mainstream media is actually obsessed with Arthur Pavlovsky.
They write about him all the time.
They just don't like to write about it when he wins.
They hate him so much.
Like you would think they would be in court today.
Aha, Arthur Pavlovsky, he's going down.
Oh, he was a mass, an unmasked bandit.
Normally you think a masked bandit.
Oh, he was an unmasked bandit.
We got him now.
No, they weren't there.
And it goes to show that one of the powerful forms of censorship is when the regime media simply does not talk about something.
One form of censorship or bias is when they talk about things in an unfair way, smear people.
They did a lot of that to the truckers.
But another form of censorship is when they just ignore the story.
And so I'm so glad you were in court today.
And I'm feeling pretty good.
That's good news.
And that credit goes to Rebel News viewers who crowdfunded the legal defense.
Celine, thanks for going to court today.
Absolutely.
No, and thanks for having me.
Right on.
Our pleasure.
There you have it.
Celine Galax in our Calgary office at the Court of Queen's Bench or Court of Kingsbench, as it's now called.
You can see those big brass doors there.
Stay with us.
Your letters to me are next.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters.
Roddy998 says Danielle Smith is the best choice for the UCP to defeat the World Economic Forum, Soros-Driven NDP.
Yeah, it'll be very interesting to see how she does.
I mean, I was talking to a lot of friends in political circles, and I'm just asking them: do you think she'll be for real, or do you think she's going to start to water things down?
And there's a range of opinions out there.
I think she's got a tough go of it because she immediately inherits a caucus and really material for her cabinet that were assembled by her predecessor, Jason Kenney.
They're Jason Kenney's men and women, not all of them.
He alienated a lot of them.
But she's going to have to get started at least with Jason Kenney's people.
That'll be tough.
GGFD says taking accountability for the past mistakes is a refreshing change.
Trudeau and Al have music to face at the Emergency Act Review.
All Canadians need to be tuned in to that.
Looking forward to the coverage.
Hey, thanks for that.
I'm really excited.
I told you about some of my travels.
I've been traveling throughout Canada and I went to Scotland for two days.
I am going to be in Ottawa for our truckercommission.com coverage.
We've rented an Airbnb.
We're turning it into a studio.
We're going to cover this thing for really six weeks straight.
So I will be spending some time down there doing some journalism along with a lot of our team.
I think it's important that we're there because I know the regime media is going to try and revise history and make Trudeau the hero and the truckers the bad guys.
We'll have to do our best to speak truth to power.
That's coming up later this week.
I'll be in Calgary tomorrow night for the documentary, Ungovernable.
The next day, I'm off to Ottawa for a trucker commission work.
It's all work, my friends, and I love to do it.
And thank you for when I'm away, accepting with such a warm welcome my colleagues David and Sheila.
Amos vs Federal Government00:04:08
Until next time, 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 Laferdo for Rebel News in Burdenhan, Pennsylvania at Miller's Organic Farm.
Last month, we told you the story of how Miller's farm was raided by armed federal agents and economically crippled with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.
Now, as the seasons change, Miller's farm is going toe-to-toe with the federal government to protect himself and independent farmers all over the country.
My goal is to leave an example for the generations to come so that future generations can farm like our grandfathers did.
The way God wants us to be sustainable without genetically modified seeds, without synthetic fertilizers.
We just want to live off the land and take care of God's nature.
Amos Miller is an independent organic farmer in Burdenhan, a remote Amish village in central Pennsylvania.
The farm has everything: pasture-raised, grass-fed cattle to grass-fed raw dairy, like yogurts, cheeses, and butters.
The farm raises chickens, pigs, and even water buffalo.
Everything is raised in pastures without any pesticides, GMO feed, or synthetic hormones.
It's these reasons, holistically grown organic meat and dairy, that people all over the country signed up to be a part of Miller's private food club.
I think they want to have the connection to the farm and they see the actual practices being done on the farm and they trust the way we do things.
They educate themselves and they truly believe that food from grass-fed cows, Access to sunshine and fresh air does affect their overall health.
But unfortunately, this is also the reason that the federal government and all of its might is coming after him.
Several months ago, Amos' farm was raided by armed federal agents, the U.S. Marshal Service.
They're also trying to economically cripple the independent farmer with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.
The government says that Amos must cease operations because he doesn't adhere to the USDA standards, the very reason that so many of Amos' customers get their food from him.
Amos argues that U.S. government food regulations exist chiefly to strip small organic producers of their independence.
They're also financially intensive, making it so only the large producers are able to afford and stay in business.
By cutting the government out of his operations, he's effectively cutting out the middleman.
The government siphons money out of these small farms through expensive, quote, user fees.
The government is using a health and safety justification to come after Miller's farm.
According to U.S. Representative Thomas Massey, it's instead corrupt financial incentives that are behind it.
He explained correctly that Amos is still able to sell camel milk and water buffalo meat.
Why?
He said because there's no corporate camel milk lobby or industrial buffalo meat lobby embedded at the USDA or walking the halls of Congress with campaign checks.
Meaning, even though he processes all sorts of animal meat and dairy at the farm, the USDA is only concerned about the way in which he raises and processes cattle because they're funded by the animal-specific industry.
More so, Amos and his customers argue that the USDA mandates food be processed and produced in ways that actually make the food less nutritious.
Amos believes if they can bring down his operation under dubious reasoning and harmful regulations, other farmers will be next, putting the entire food system at stake of being transformed in the vision of the industry-backed government and WEF-aligned elites.
Amos noted that over the past few years, more and more valuable independent farmers have been getting shut down by the government.
Legally representing Amos is constitutional whiz and veteran lawyer Robert Barnes.
Barnes explained to the Lancaster Patriot, a local newspaper in Amos' area, that, quote, this is about power.
Who has the power to choose what I eat, what I put into my own body?
It's an extension of the vaccine mandate dispute.
It's an extension of a range of controversies currently raging across the country about the Constitution and our laws and the role of the federal government in our lives.
Next week, Rebel is going to sit down with Robert Barnes for an exclusive interview and discuss what this case means for independent farmers, food sovereignty, bodily autonomy, and freedom in general.
Please go to leavethemalone.com, that's leavethemalone.com, and sign our petition, which I'll be personally delivering to the federal court where Amos' case resides.