Sheila Gunn Reid reveals Justin Trudeau’s NDP-backed censorship plan, exposing Twitter’s 2023 purge of 250,000 users—including Canadian Armed Services accounts—under U.S. government pressure over fabricated "Russian collusion" claims. Leaks show federal operatives embedded in Twitter prioritizing political suppression over crimes like revenge porn, while Elon Musk’s reforms reinstated banned ads and fired key censors. The episode contrasts McLaughlin’s death-row transition framed as a "diversity victory" with Jesse Johnson’s vaccine-pass defiance costing him his business, then pivots to Ontario’s College of Psychologists targeting Jordan Peterson for non-clinical tweets, demanding "re-education" on free speech—highlighting how institutions weaponize bureaucracy to silence dissent. [Automatically generated summary]
Oh, hey guys, I bet you were expecting the melodious sounds of Ezra Levant's voice, but no, it's me, Sheila Gunread.
I'm filling in for Ezra tonight in the big chair.
And we're talking about a bunch of things today, but mostly internet censorship.
You see, the NDP have signed on to the Liberals' censorship plans, although the NDP, as the NDP tend to do, they don't think the Liberals are going far enough.
Now, this is very concerning to me because the Liberals need the NDP support to hang on to power.
And Justin Trudeau's only ideology is attaining power and hanging on to power and not really earning power.
And so I think his censorship is going to get even more radical because he needs to please the NDP.
And then we're talking about the latest Twitter leaks and how basically the entire Russia collusion, Russian bots problem on Twitter was a complete and total fabrication of the U.S. government and their mainstream media enablers.
And we're doing that with Ian Miles Chong, Rebel News journalist, but also Elon Musk's Twitter friend.
Now, if you like listening to the show, then I promise you're going to love watching it.
But the best way to do that early and ad-free is to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's what we call our premium long form shows here on Rebel News.
It's really easy to subscribe and it's only eight bucks a month.
Just go to rebelnewsplus.com to join today.
And before I let you go, I'm going to ask you to do one more little tiny thing that does two things.
Wherever you find us, wherever you're listening to us, leave us a five-star review.
It helps more people find us on podcast platforms because it puts us higher in the rankings and then it puts us in front of more people's eyeballs, which helps us make more converts to, well, as I like to say, being left alone by the government, which I think is the ideology over here at Rebel News.
But it also helps us beat CBC in the podcast rankings.
And that's just a little something that you can do for your old pal Sheila because CBC just gets so much of your money to create content that you just don't care about.
Wouldn't it be great if the people you did actually care about beat them in those rankings?
Anyway, thank you.
I'll shut up now.
enjoy the show.
The NDP have just promised to help the liberals regulate the internet even further.
It's January 5th, 2023.
I'm Sheila Gunread, but you're watching the Ezra Levant show.
If I were an NDP voter and it's hard for me to put myself into the mind of one, I would like to think that I would be upset that my leader Jagmeet Singh is constantly propping up the liberals.
I'd like to think that there's a reason why normal NDP voters vote for the party that they do as opposed to the other progressive party on the left, the liberals.
But here in Canada, if you voted for the NDP, you're disenfranchised.
Your vote really doesn't count because a vote for the NDP is, as always, at least under the leader Jagmeet Singh, a vote for the Liberals and their weird symbiotic relationship with Justin Trudeau.
No matter what the Liberals do, no matter what the Liberals say, no matter how corrupt they are, no matter how they get things wrong, no matter how they stomp all over the rights of Canadians to assemble, to protest, to speak their minds, and in the case of the internet, to express themselves without fear of reprisal, the NDP party apparatus is simply the socialist caucus of the Liberal Party, propping up Justin Trudeau without question or consequence, which makes me wonder, why did these people vote for the NDP in the first place?
Why didn't they just vote for Justin Trudeau?
And if they didn't want to vote for Justin Trudeau, then why aren't they demanding a change in leadership of their own party?
I have so many questions for NDPers because as a conservative, it's very difficult for me to understand any of this.
Because one of the things that makes the conservative movement great, but also makes it difficult for the conservative movement to win elections, is that when they have a leader who's not listening, who is not conservative enough, the conservative movement just throws them out, right?
Erin O'Toole, right?
Andrew Scheer?
Right?
Jason Kenney?
Anyway, the Liberals want to shut you up.
And as always, the Liberals are going to do everything they can to help them.
Take a look at this from the good people at Blacklocks Reporter just this morning.
25 new Democrat MPs will pressure cabinet for legislation this year to regulate legal internet content, party leader Jagmeet Singh said yesterday.
Regulations should include censoring, quote, misinformation, he said.
The liberal government has not done the job of making sure platforms are following the rules around making sure hate and misinformation are not being spread, Singh told reporters.
That puts the responsibility back on the government to do what it should be doing.
We are going to continue to pressure the government to do this.
The government has a responsibility to play in making sure social media platforms are adhering to proper guidelines around misinformation, around hate, and why we have been saying for a long time the responsibility to keep people safe from misinformation and radicalization cannot rest in the hands of private companies, said Singh.
It has to be the government taking responsibility.
Cabinet to date has not reintroduced a censorship bill that lapsed in the pre-election 2021 Parliament, Bill C-36, an act to amend the criminal code, proposed $70,000 in fines for internet users responsible for legal content deemed, quote, likely to foment detestation or vilification.
Now, thank God for that, that Bill C-36 hasn't been reintroduced, much to the NDP's chagrin, because even though the Liberals have two new laws right now proposed and working their way through committee to censor critics like me, the NDP don't think the Liberals are doing enough.
The problem with the Liberals is that anything they don't like is now misinformation, no matter how true it is.
And I think the Liberals have earned detestation and vilification from Canadians.
If the NDP get their way and they just might, because the Liberals need the NDP to stay in power, it might become illegal to show how much you dislike the government, how much you detest the government, because others may join you in your disgust.
You might foment something.
You would be fomenting detestation.
What I'm doing right now, this show where I'm critical of the government, I could be hit with a $70,000 fine if the NDP had their way.
And who is Trudeau to be the arbiter of misinformation anyway?
Actually, you know what?
Maybe he just is the man to decide, given his familiarity with it.
Do you know how bank tellers or people who handle cash all day for a living are able to determine counterfeit bills from the real ones?
It's their familiarity with the authentic that makes the fraudulent so evident to them.
Trudeau's like that, but in reverse, he's got a real familiarity with the fraudulent as far as information goes.
For example, Justin Trudeau accused the conservatives of spreading misinformation about Justin Trudeau's new gun control legislation, Bill C-21.
C21 absolutely bans millions of Canadian hunting rifles because the legislation targets center-fire semi-automatic rifles and shotguns capable of holding a five-round magazine.
That means anything from a good old, reliable, cheap SKS to your grandpa's 12-gauge shotgun.
Here's the clip.
I'm not going to engage into hypotheticals.
They've said that they might do it, yes.
But the reality is Canadians are overwhelmingly worried about gun violence, want to see stronger gun control.
We have mandate, we have a mandate to do exactly that, and that's what we've done.
We've banned assault-style weapons.
We've frozen the market on handguns, and now we're ensuring that there is a definition going forward, so assault-style weapons remain banned.
Now, there's been a lot of misinformation and disinformation around it, and I'll be entirely honest.
There are some guns out there, not many, but some, that hunters are now using for hunting that are overpowered or have characteristics that make them assault-style weapons, and the definition will probably catch those.
And there are some people who hunt with a gun that is considered an assault-style weapon who will have to change weapons on that and will have a buyback for that weapon because they're not criminals.
But we are changing the definition to make sure that guns designed to kill the largest number of people as quickly as possible have no place in this country.
Did you screw up the legislation, though?
No, we continue to move, we're continuing to move on.
Well, I think everyone you've been very criticized by everybody under the sun, the NDP, First Nations, Conservatives, other groups.
So, that indicates to me that it's not right the way it is.
It indicates to me that it's a hard thing to do to move forward on gun control in a country where the gun lobby holds a lot of sway in a lot of places.
The Conservative Party is moving hard, and they have successfully weaponized a pitting of urban Canadians against rural Canadians.
But that's not our focus.
Our focus is on making sure that the guns that have no place in Canada because they're assault-style weapons are continued to be banned.
But the Conservatives have been very, very clear on it.
They want to reverse our ban on assault-style weapons.
I think most Canadians actually are in line with wanting to make sure that assault-style weapons are.
I think it's interesting that you think the Conservatives are pitting people against each other because they would say the same about you, and particularly that you are, as they may be, also entrenching division between rural and urban voters.
Now, here's the problem.
Even though Justin Trudeau said that the Conservatives were spreading dangerous misinformation about his gun law banning hunting rifles, misinformation that internet broadcasters like Rebel News could be penalized for publishing, Justin Trudeau admitted later that his new law would ban hunting rifles just a few days later.
Take a look at this.
A year of challenges and divisive issues that remain unresolved, including the controversial Liberal government's gun ban, with Justin Trudeau admitting that some of those rifles, even those used legally by hunters, will be banned.
There are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt and say, but we're going to also make sure that you're able to buy other guns from a long list of guns that are fine.
And then, of course, there was Justin Trudeau telling you to get a vaccine to stop the spread of COVID.
If you can stand to watch Freeland in the background of this clip having some sort of seizure while she wears a mask outside for some reason.
There are a lot of different reasons people are deciding to get vaccinated after having been unsure for a number of months.
And I'm just so pleased that they're doing that.
It was a combination of I need it for work, I'm doing it for my kids, I want to get back to the things I care about.
These are all good reasons, and we need people who still haven't been vaccinated to choose to get vaccinated.
We have, as of a few months ago, received enough vaccines for everyone who's eligible in this country.
So please step up and do what you need to do to keep yourself, your family, your community, and indeed our country safe.
We know that getting vaccination rates up is the way to ensure not only we're keeping our loved ones safe, but we're keeping our health systems from getting overloaded.
We're keeping away from having to do further lockdowns in our communities, and we're allowing our economy and normal life to get back as quickly as possible.
But here is Justin Trudeau triple-boosted, getting COVID allegedly for the second time, perhaps to avoid dealing with the convoy for freedom.
So misinformation isn't untrue things.
Misinformation is information that's inconvenient to the liberals.
Justin Trudeau wants to ban hateful rhetoric along with his friend Jogmeet Singh from the internet, but he doesn't mean hateful rhetoric directed at you.
Remember this clip when Justin Trudeau was saying hateful things about you?
You deserve a government that's going to continue to say, get vaccinated.
And you know what?
If you don't want to get vaccinated, that's your choice.
But don't think you can get on a plane or a train beside vaccinated people and put them at risk.
Oh, no.
Justin Trudeau wants to ban hateful rhetoric directed at him, like those F. Trudeau flags that populated the Freedom Convoy and became an avatar of the anti-lockdown resistance.
Those flags might foment detestation, according to the NDP.
I have attended protests and rallies in the past when I agreed with the goals, when I supported the people expressing their concerns and their issues.
Black Lives Matter is an excellent example of that.
But I have also chosen to not go anywhere near protests that have expressed hateful rhetoric, violence towards fellow citizens, and a disrespect not just of science, but of the frontline health workers and, quite frankly, the 90% of truckers who have been doing the right thing to keep Canadians safe, to put food on our tables.
Canadians know where I stand.
This is a moment for responsible leaders to think carefully about where they stand and who they stand with.
Now, let me be clear: I don't think saying untrue things on the internet should ever be a matter for the government to intervene upon anyway.
You know, there are laws that already exist around hate speech, incitement to violence, death threats, threats of violence, and of course, libel.
Those are all already on the books.
You don't need new laws for that.
Justin Trudeau's new censorship laws are proposed to shut up his political enemies, either by forcing internet companies to shadow ban them to make them undiscoverable, or if the NDP get their way, to fine and censor the users of social media platforms for the crime of not liking the government.
Twitter's Censorship Feedback Loop00:16:12
And the NDP, if they ever morph back into a real party, one I disagree with, again, let me be clear, they need to know that they would be voting for a law to outlaw their own criticism of Justin Trudeau too, if they ever become critics of him again, like they once were.
Canadians aren't stupid, although some of them keep voting for Justin Trudeau.
I think more information is always better than less.
And I think people are smart.
They can weed through things.
They can make up their own minds.
And if your ideas are good, then they can withstand scrutiny, disagreement, examination, and debate.
And you wouldn't seek legal compulsion to shut people up.
And I think the peek behind the curtain at Twitter, now that Elon Musk is in charge, reveals a lot.
We know that governments have colluded with big tech all along to censor citizens and political opposition.
But governments no longer have control of Twitter.
And thus, there is this rush to codify censorship elsewhere.
They have to mandate it before all is exposed and they finally lose control.
Stay with us.
Rebel News journalist and Elon Musk Twitter friend Ian Miles Chong joins us after the break to discuss the recent Twitter files leaks.
Big tech loses its monopoly on information, particularly I'm talking about Twitter no longer being held by the hands of liberals, but perhaps maybe a more free thinking billionaire named Elon Musk.
I think the calls for censorship are going to get more intense from the left.
And I think the Canadian government's going to be happy to oblige.
But in the meantime, the leaks coming out of Twitter are telling us some pretty, frankly, unsurprising things.
I don't think that there's anything that I've seen in the Twitter leaks that have actually surprised me.
It's just interesting to see them confirmed in action.
And one of the memes that was on Twitter for the longest time was sort of that everything I don't like is Russian misinformation.
And it sounds as though that was an official policy at Twitter.
So joining me now to discuss the latest installment of the Twitter leaks is our friend Ian Miles Chong.
He's a journalist here at Rebel News, and he's also a bit of a Twitter friend with Elon Musk himself.
Ian, please tell us, what is the latest installment of the Twitter files?
What's the most important information that was dumped in all of that?
Because, you know, for the longest time, like I said, if you said something that sort of cut against the narrative of the liberal mainstream media, you were a Russian agent.
But that actually seemed to be the censorship policy down at Twitter.
Absolutely.
And that is the subject of this, well, the latest two Twitter drops, Twitter files drops.
So according to, and this is not something that Twitter came up with at first.
This is actually the result of pressure from the US State Department and a number of other agencies.
They were building off the narrative, the Russia disinformation hoax, the Russia collusion hoax, I should say, you know, the one that claimed Trump was installed by Putin himself.
They were building off of that.
And Twitter, in fact, could not find any evidence of Russian bots or Russian disinformation campaigns.
And in fact, they had trouble finding such accounts.
The only account that they found which purchased ads from Russia in any significant amount, meaning more than $10,000 a month, was RT.
And that's a legitimate organization, right?
It's out there in the open and it's buying ads for RT.com.
So that was all they could find.
And they were pressured by the State Department to start looking for more Russians.
And the State Department, what it would do, and this is all in those files, is they would collude with journalists in the AFP, in Vice, in NBC, right, NBC News, the so-called disinformation experts.
And they would publish a piece that was damning for Facebook, Twitter, Google, using their own quote-unquote research, which claimed that there were Russian disinformation bots out there.
And so Twitter was compelled to act. or face the wrath of Congress because Democrats in Congress in particular were keen on seeing results.
And given that there were no results, they had to manufacture them.
So tens of thousands of users, in fact, over 250,000 users were flagged for removal on Twitter by the State Department.
And among them were the Canadian Armed Services, in fact, because they were following two accounts or more that were Russian accounts, Russian diplomatic accounts.
And that was enough to flag them as a Russian disinformation bot.
That is fascinating.
Like white supremacy, the supply never quite meets the demand when it comes to Russian bots, does it?
So we have journalists, or I guess we have the government asking Twitter to be an investigative tool of the state.
So we have this sort of confluence of this private company acting as a tool of the government.
I believe there's a term for that.
And then you've got, so they're getting pressure from the government.
They can't find what the government insists they must find.
So journalists now become tools of the state.
Again, I think there's a term for that.
And they create, you know, the Russia hoax, really.
And then Twitter now has to produce evidence of a hoax they know is a hoax and start purging innocent people because of the red scare that completely doesn't exist.
Am I understanding this?
That is correct.
Yeah, it's a feedback loop because the State Department, using whatever analytical tools they have, which is perhaps non-existent because it's probably just some guy in an office, an analyst, providing his opinion on what is a bot, sends it to Twitter.
Twitter says no.
So he leaks it, right?
The State Department leaks it to a journalist, which then publishes that information claiming that they found evidence of Russian disinformation bots.
Now, none of the characters are named.
No accounts are named in those reports.
But then Twitter gets bad press.
And then congressmen call up Twitter saying, hey, why don't you act on it?
If you don't act on it, we'll take away your Section 230 free speech rights, your ability to remain immune from liability, right?
And that's a big deal.
If you're a social media company, you don't want to get sued for what users post on their website.
So they're compelled to act.
And if they don't act, then they lose their immunity.
They're at risk of essentially losing their freedoms.
So they feel compelled to act.
And then the government's happy.
And bit by bit, and this was revealed in the files, it showed how many different government agencies started to get in on it.
First, it was the FBI, then it was the State Department, and then literally every state was demanding that they take action against various accounts.
And now, while some of these requests are certainly legitimate, you know, like taking down terrorists or actual criminals who are using Twitter to facilitate their crimes, I understand that.
But for the most part, when they send them large Excel files, sheets of tens of thousands of users and tell them to delete it, and they don't, then there's a problem.
The government demands immediate action.
And so eventually, Twitter became a sort of a hand of censorship.
This is the foundation for the so-called disinformation governance board, where they decided the government, the DHS, decided to expand its censorship of social media because it wasn't enough for them to just get rid of Russian disinformation bots.
They had to start getting rid of anyone who spoke out against the narrative.
Now, fortunately, it was shut down thanks to the efforts of journalist like Jack Posobiec last year.
But before it was, I mean, they were starting to target people who were critical of the vaccine narrative, the origins of COVID-19.
If you said it was from China, that got you censored, right?
That was actually part of the State Department where they started to censor anyone who talked about how the virus may have come from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
And now it's, you know, it's anyone's guess as to why they would do that, but that is certainly what happened.
It's quite frightening, actually, how quickly Twitter allowed itself to become the ministry of truth for the American federal government, because that's really what happened here.
Because of the First Amendment, the government cannot censor you directly, but it's a neat little trick they did by doing it once removed through a social media company that they were pressuring.
And the social media company being a left-leaning, or at least left-managed company, they were pretty happy to do it because they had the same political enemies.
Also, as you were talking there, I thought how quickly they moved to remove innocent people who were alleged to be imaginary Russian bots.
But Twitter, for the longest time, had the absolute most evil proliferation of child and revenge porn for a very long time.
And the platform said that there's nothing they could do about it.
There's no way that they could manage it.
But they could, after pressure from journalists and the government, wipe innocent people right off the platform for doing nothing except following a Russian account because that's where they wanted to focus their resources.
They always had the means to do these things, but they would allow content that was created through child abuse to remain on their site while censoring a grandma who followed a Mitroyshka account.
That's right.
I mean, and this is largely in part due to the FBI itself, because there were so many agents.
Well, maybe not agents, but analysts working for the FBI who were positioned inside of Twitter.
They were in these internal Slack channels.
They had an onboarding process.
There were so many agents to the point where they had an onboarding process at Twitter.
Now, we can only imagine how big these presence was at Google, at Facebook, at Instagram, at TikTok.
I mean, we have no idea, right?
Because we don't have those files, but at Twitter was 80 plus people working for the federal government deciding who to censor.
And they were flagging accounts that told jokes.
There were celebrities who were even flagged for telling jokes.
There was one of the Baldwin brothers.
He told a joke about the elections and he was flagged for disinformation.
Now, granted, he's a celebrity, so he kind of got away with it.
And that's fine.
But so many other people were banned for telling the same jokes.
They would say, hey, go and vote on next week instead of on November 8th.
They would make jokes like that.
And that would get them flagged for disinformation and subsequently terminated from the service.
This is happening everywhere.
It still happens on YouTube and on Facebook.
If you make jokes like that, you'll still get flagged.
You'll still get banned for disinformation, of course.
But here's the thing.
So you mentioned that there was a lot of child sexual exploitation on the site.
And that's true.
And what's, you know, I guess maybe not amusing, but what is interesting is that the FBI, instead of focusing its resources on catching people, you know, child pornographers or busting all these people up, you know, all these rings, these pedophile rings, it instead chose to focus all of its energies on Russian disinformation and on election misinformation, whatever you want to call these things.
So they had the manpower for it, but they were told from, you know, higher up to only focus on the issues that were important to the political class in the United States, not to the issues that were actually victimizing children or women, right?
They didn't care about any of that.
Yeah, they were focused on protecting Hillary Clinton and then Joe Biden after her instead of victimized children.
Interesting set of priorities they have here.
I wonder when Elon Musk downsized Twitter, did he just fire all the feds?
Yes.
Yes, he did.
He fired Jim Baker.
Yeah.
Jim Baker was one of the lead counsels for Twitter, and he was responsible for much of the censorship.
If you're not familiar with this guy, he's responsible for the so-called Russian disinformation, I mean, Russian collusion hoax.
He was the one who brought it to the interests of the FBI way back in Hillary's days.
And he ended up working for Twitter for some reason.
And, you know, it's anyone's guess as to whether he was planted there by the feds, but he was certainly amenable to what they wanted.
And so when Elon found out that he was still working there, he fired him on the spot.
And that was after the drops of one of the Twitter files very recently, like three weeks or two weeks ago.
So yeah, there were lots of feds there.
And it's interesting how, you know, after firing about three, 4,000 people, Twitter is better than ever.
It has, you know, it still manages to function despite all of the doom and gloom that was in the media saying that Twitter would be dead by the weekend, that it wouldn't be able to handle any of the burdens because all the people's expertise were fired.
And it turns out that most of the people who got fired were diversity commissars.
That's who they were, right?
Their only job was to keep everybody else in line politically, not to actually contribute to the development of Twitter as an app.
And now with Elon in charge, Twitter is faster than ever.
It's unveiling or releasing a lot of new features in the coming weeks and months.
And we've seen a lot of these features already added.
The Spaces, for instance, works a lot better than it used to.
So it's really fascinating to see where Twitter will go in the future.
I mean, he only recently re-enabled political advertising.
So now if you're a right-wing organization like a Judicial Watch, you can actually buy ads on Twitter, whereas before they didn't let you.
So it was very one-sided as to who got to have a voice versus now who has a voice on Twitter.
Yeah, when Elon Musk first took control of Twitter, I was of two minds and I didn't really care what the outcome was.
I thought, okay, if he buys it and makes it better, great.
And if he buys it and it ceases to exist in a week from now, also fine.
I didn't really know what I was cheering for there.
Now, how does this most recent Twitter leak, this Twitter files leak, thread back through some of the previous ones?
So what is sort of the overarching theme that is coming together the more Twitter leaks we get?
Okay, so I think we have to look at the first leak, right?
The first leak showed how Twitter very slowly became a vehicle for censorship and how it censored Donald Trump, right?
That was what the first Twitter files drops was about and how they ceased to follow their own terms of services and decided willy-nilly to start banning people.
So we had a snapshot of Twitter from, say, 2019 to 2020 where this happened.
But now we're getting to understand the government's involvement in all of the censorship.
So Twitter wasn't always like this.
It wasn't always a place to censor people's political speech.
It was something that happened gradually over a period of time where, you know, at first, Yolrof, you know, the former head of trust and safety at Twitter, was willing to offer pushback against the federal government when they demanded that he censor things.
Government's Gradual Censorship00:05:28
But eventually they had come to.
you know, become subservient to the federal government because they had been giving in bit by bit by bit to the point where they started to feel special.
I mean, Twitter was paid $3.5 million to perform these acts of censorship because at one point in the latest drops, they showed how Twitter executives were complaining about how their inbox was completely full, just full of requests from various state and federal government agencies demanding that they censor hundreds of thousands of people.
So they couldn't cope with it anymore.
So they just had to, you know, they just offloaded it to a bunch of moderators in places like the Philippines to have them deal with it.
And the algorithm was tweaked to make it automated.
So, you know, the instant you said anything about election fraud, even if you were having a discussion about it, you got flagged and subsequently removed.
And if they wanted to reinstate you, well, you know, it's a crapshoot, right?
Maybe you got reinstated, maybe you didn't.
And many people were not.
So are we expecting more Twitter leaks?
Yes.
Yeah.
The next one will be about Sauchi and how all of that was covered up.
Oh, I'm sure you're going to be all over that one, aren't you?
Oh, yeah.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Well, Ian, I have no idea what time it is, where you are, but I feel like it's probably either late at night or very, very early in the morning.
So I want to thank you for taking the time to come on the show with me today.
And I want to thank you for your hard work covering the Twitter files, but everything else that you cover for us here at Rebel News.
Absolutely.
Thank you.
Well, friends, stay with us.
your letters to Ezra read by me up after the break.
We've come to the portion of the show where we open it up to you.
You become the star of the last segment of Ezra's show, but also of my show, too.
We actually care about what you think about the work that we do here at Rebel News.
Unlike the mainstream media, we don't have a sugar daddy named Justin Trudeau who can just give us somebody else's money to create content that you don't care about.
That's why we like to take the temperature of our audience.
So today's letters are on David's monologue about the trans criminal Amber McLaughlin.
Now, Amber McLaughlin stalked, terrorized, raped, strangled, and stabbed a woman 19 years ago.
Three years ago, while on death row, the good taxpayers of the state of Missouri paid for him to transition into his true self.
He was like a caterpillar just emerging from a chrysalis as a butterfly, a murdering butterfly.
But nonetheless, his execution will go down as a female killer being executed at the hands of the state and a big victory for diversity in that he is also apparently the first transgender person executed for murdering a woman.
I suppose in his final act of misogyny, he's counted as a female.
Previous to murdering his victim, he was incarcerated for raping a 14-year-old girl.
Anyway, SlimUnique 84 writes, raped and stabbed a woman, then transitioned into a woman to avoid being prosecuted.
Let the shit show begin, folks.
You know, the good news is the governor of Missouri didn't fall for it and he met his death.
And I guess my great umbrage with all of this is that it took 19 years for him to get the needle in his arm he so rightly deserved.
Lousy 5 writes, Yep, I think anyone who premeditates a murder of any kind should be executed.
It's not that anyone wants him executed because he's transgender.
It's the left that doesn't want him executed because he is a transgender.
I don't care who you are or what you identify as.
You commit a premeditated murder in a state with the death penalty, you get exactly what you deserve.
Justice be done.
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
I don't think I could have said it any better than Lousy 7.
I don't care how your hair was done when you went into the death chamber.
I don't care what was surgically attached to your chest or otherwise altered on your body.
I don't care about the hormones surging through your body, whether they were estrogen or testosterone, synthetic or natural.
I mostly only cared that your body was teeming with adrenaline because of the fear you felt as you were being executed for the crimes that you did commit.
On David's interview with Jesse Johnson, now Jesse Johnson is the man behind Without Papers Pizza.
He lost his business because he refused to discriminate against his customers by checking their vax pass.
He refused to be a part of a system that forced him to discriminate against his unvaccinated customers.
And for that, his business was destroyed by the Alberta government and the Calgary municipal government.
Stand Up For Peterson00:05:15
Gord Tron writes, thanks for standing for the thinkers, Pizzaman.
There's no excuse for the people who participated in this disgusting segregation of society.
It's true.
And people like Jesse paid the ultimate price of their business, their dream.
He lost it all, but he lost it all with dignity because he did not violate his conscience to do it.
He did not go along to get along.
And he stood with his friends and his neighbors and treated them all the same.
And for that, Jesse is a very, very good man.
Well, friends, that's the show for tonight.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
I am also hosting the show tomorrow night for Ezra as he takes a little bit of an extended break.
Thanks, everybody behind the scenes in the studio in Toronto for putting the show together.
And as Ezra always says, keep fighting for freedom.
The College of Psychologists' job is to make sure that psychologists practice psychology in an ethical way.
For example, if a psychologist were to take advantage of a patient, but they've been hijacked by activists, by people making complaints against Dr. Peterson, not for anything Peterson's done to them as patients, because none of them are patients.
The complaints are about Dr. Peterson's political comments on Twitter.
Seriously, let's go through some of the offending tweets.
When one Twitter user claimed that the planet was overpopulated by human beings, Jordan Peterson tweeted, you're free to leave at any point.
When the Ottawa police chief Steve Bell threatened parents participating in the Freedom Convoy with having their children removed from the area prior to the start of any police action, Dr. Peterson tweeted, children removed, how exactly?
Why exactly?
By whom exactly?
Sent where exactly?
And for how long exactly?
Think this through, Canadians.
This is a bad idea.
In response to a New York Post article about Sports Illustrated putting an arguably obese model on their cover, Jordan Peterson tweeted, sorry, not beautiful, and no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that.
What on earth does the College of Psychologists have to do with Peterson debating public political issues of the day?
Now, you can agree or disagree with any of Peterson's political views, but where does a group of censors with the power to end someone's career get off telling them what they can and can't say about non-psychology things?
Of course, they would never dare to do this to a left-wing psychologist.
And of course, we wouldn't want them to do that either.
Not only are they censoring Dr. Peterson, or at least they're trying, they've demanded that he submit to a coaching, a re-education about what to say in public politically.
Some unknown censor now gets to tell a leading public intellectual what he can and can't say.
And if he doesn't comply, he'll be banned from treating patients.
That's just wrong.
So pick up the phone and call this group, the College of Psychologists of Ontario, at 416-961-8817.
Now remember, please, do not be mean.
The person who answers the phone is likely just the receptionist and not the people demanding Peterson be censored.
Be firm, but please be polite.
Let them know that this is a witch hunt against Canadian values like freedom of speech and the right for people to hold a variety of opinions, including opinions that the establishment doesn't like.
That's really the whole point of free speech, isn't it?
To be able to criticize power, not just obey it.
Tell these people to drop their case against Jordan Peterson.
That number again is 416-961-8817 or go to savepeterson.com where you can see it again.
At savepeterson.com, we'll also have a one-click button that you can press to send an email to every single one of the 19 people on that censorship committee so you can put your disagreement to them in writing too.
Dr. Jordan Peterson has changed lives.
He's even saved lives.
His books and lectures and videos have inspired millions of people, especially young men looking for meaning in life.
That's why the left hates him.
And that's why they're trying to censor him now.
It has nothing to do with how he treats patients and everything to do with his politics.
So go to savepeterson.com.
Call the number there during business hours to talk directly to the College of Psychologists of Ontario.
I bet we can get more than a thousand people to call that number, more than they've probably ever had in their history.
And at savepeterson.com, you can also click one button.
It's very easy to send an email to all 19 censors over there to let them know that you're on to them and that you see exactly what they're doing.