Ezra Levant warns of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s potential politically driven arrest of Donald Trump on March 21st, despite Secret Service protection, while criticizing selective enforcement against figures like Hillary Clinton or Hunter Biden. He highlights Bragg’s $1M Soros donation and Canada’s Justin Trudeau’s censorship-like news legislation, comparing it to global trends like China’s and Russia’s media control. Janine Eunice’s lawsuit against the Biden administration reveals over 100 officials pressuring tech companies to suppress dissent, with hearings in May—suggesting a dangerous pattern of state-backed speech restrictions undermining democracy worldwide. [Automatically generated summary]
Today we're going to talk about the Manhattan DA's plans to arrest Donald Trump.
That was the best million-dollar campaign gift that George Soros ever made, don't you think?
Then we'll talk to my friend Janine Eunice about her lawsuit against the Biden regime.
Very interesting stuff today.
But first, let me invite you to go to RebelNewsPlus.com.
That's our video version of this podcast.
We put a lot of effort in the video.
I'd love for you to see it.
It's just $8 a month.
Go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe.
And you'll also have the satisfaction of supporting Rebel News because you know we don't take any money from Trudeau and its shows.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, are they really going to arrest Donald Trump like they do in Banana Republics?
It's March 21st, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you censorious f**k.
I don't think it's happened yet, and all we have to go on is rumors and leaks, but they say that Donald Trump, the former U.S. president, could be arrested at any moment in f**k.
In fact, today was supposed to be that day.
Now, it's all just leaks and speculation, but it appears to be serious enough that the various law enforcement agencies at hand are meeting each other.
I mean, you've got Donald Trump's Secret Service detail, as all ex-presidents have, that's armed and on 24-hour duty to protect him from anything and everything, including terrorism, kidnapping, revenge, just even ordinary crimes.
So he's really got this personal police detachment with him with serious counterterrorism training.
So how does police force A arrest a man protected by police force B?
And for what, by the way?
Stormy Daniels and whether or not Trump gave her a payment to hush up something that he did do or didn't do, but she said he would do.
That whole thing is being litigated to death.
In fact, litigation, she had to pay Donald Trump hundreds of thousands of dollars after their court battle.
Stormy Daniels lawyer, Michael Avenatti, is in prison right now.
I remember when the left said he was going to be the candidate for the Democrats in 2020 and beat Trump.
So it's hard to imagine that that would be the crime that would cause the former president to be arrested, handcuffed, jailed, and prosecuted, especially by the New York City District Attorney, given the skyrocketing crime in that city.
I mean, if we're suddenly going to prosecute crimes, really?
The Stormy Daniels stuff, not actual political crimes like Hillary Clinton destroying tens of thousands of documents, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton, who was running the Clinton Foundation when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, steering hundreds of millions of dollars of donations from countries she was making decisions about as Secretary of State.
Those countries would pay money to the Clinton Foundation.
No charges there, no investigations, no raids on their homes, only a raid on Mar-a-Lago.
How about Hunter Biden?
The crimes that you can see him committing in his own selfie videos and his laptop.
Forget about Hunter.
He's not actually a politician.
He's just a gateway to his father, the big guy, Joe Biden.
As we mentioned on our live stream the other day, Democrats and Republicans alike see that a million dollars, records of a million dollars paid to a Biden family member.
Why?
For what?
And Biden just simply denies it.
No investigation.
It's just Trump that obsesses the left.
You know, in many other countries, sitting politicians, sitting legislators are immune from criminal prosecution.
Now, I always, whenever I heard of that, I always thought it was a terrible idea.
I always thought it obviously encouraged corruption.
If being a politician meant you got to get out of jail-free card, you could never be criminalized for what you do, then surely criminals would all want to become politicians.
How would you ever root it out?
But I now see the logic of that in a corrupt country.
It's a logic that only works in banana republics where charges against political leaders are trumped up and used for political gain.
I don't know if you saw, but the Oscar for his foreign documentary called Navalny.
Navalny is the name of a Russian opposition leader to Putin who was charged with corruption.
I think he's in jail right now.
That's the kind of thing that countries, authoritarian regimes with bully rulers do.
They arrest and trump up charges against their critics.
But that's what's allegedly, purportedly, reportedly going to happen in the United States, maybe even today.
At whose direction?
Well, the district attorney of New York County, really the DA of Manhattan.
This guy, Alvin Bragg, you've never heard of him before?
Don't feel bad.
Most people have.
And he was elected district attorney.
They do that in the states.
They vote for their prosecutors, and he won.
And typically we hear of sheriffs or prosecutors running on a tough on crime platform, a hang-em-high platform, but not on the Democrat side in the U.S., not in the blue states.
They run on the opposite.
They run on sanctuary cities.
They run on, for example, not charging anyone if they are shoplifting less than $1,000, not getting involved at all.
It's insane.
The race to the left is the opposite of tough on crime.
And this guy, this DA, won the Democratic Party primary for being the DA with just 85,000 votes.
Really, if you're in New York City, you know the Democrat's going to win.
So it's Democrat versus Democrat.
He just squeaked by his competitor in the primary who had 77,000 votes.
So just by a 10,000 vote margin with fewer than 100,000 votes altogether.
Oh, but he had something going for him.
A million dollars from George Soros.
Of course, we have to find out about that, as we often do, in the UK press.
As I say, crime is way up in New York City.
Small crime, petty crime, big crime, racial crime, crimes against Jews, crimes against shopkeepers.
I didn't know this, but it was this DA who made the atrocious decisions in the Jose Alba matter that we covered.
Jose Alba was a shopkeeper, and he was attacked in his shop, and he defended himself, and in the tussle, he killed his attacker in self-defense.
Bragg wanted to throw the book at Jose Alba, demanded a half a million dollars bail.
He couldn't come up with that money.
The judge lowered it to $250,000.
The attacker's accomplice, his girlfriend, also stabbed Jose Alba, the shopkeeper, but no charges against her.
That DA that would throw a shopkeeper to the wolves and free his attackers, that is the Soros DA coming for Trump.
And it's brilliant.
I mean, think about it, a million bucks for a DA in New York City.
That's a bargain at twice the price.
Certainly easier and cheaper than beating Trump in 2016 or in 2024.
And you know what?
It divides the United States against itself.
It demoralizes half the country and teaches the other half that you can game the system and have an inside job.
It makes conservatives.
This is the worst part.
It makes conservatives lose respect for law and order and police and prosecutors and the rule of law.
And that is a huge win for the left, too.
Demoralize half of America, the law and order half, the support the cops, back the blue half.
Turn them against their institutions, just like they turn them against their institutions in football with the taken knee.
You know, there is no justice anymore for conservatives or Republicans in blue counties.
This is what happens.
Now, will the red counties, will the Republicans respond in kind?
Will they prosecute Hillary Clinton or Obama or any leftists for their crimes?
Well, we know the answer to that.
They will not.
We know that because they did not.
Even Trump himself didn't use the power of the prosecutor to go after not just his enemies, but those enemies committing crimes.
I think part of it is that conservatives respect the rule of law.
They don't want to weaponize it.
They want to follow the rules, whereas the left will do anything for power.
I think this whole circus, and that's what it is, is to demoralize America, but it's also a distraction from terrible things that are happening right now.
Xi Jinping is in Moscow visiting Vladimir Putin.
They are teaming up against America and the West.
You know, that was a major strategic victory during the Cold War to break China away from Russia.
It was an enormous accomplishment because those two together could have, the thinking goes, overwhelmed the West.
And now they're forged as a union, as allies.
That's on the foreign front.
There's the Ukraine war and the hundred billion sent over there.
Then there's the bank failures, the runs on the banks.
And then there's the domestic drug crisis, the open border with Mexico, which is related.
Arresting Trump will take those stories off the front page.
We'll keep an eye peeled for that story.
It's an incredible one, and I feel very bad about it.
But back to Canada.
Tyranny of the Majority00:03:31
I want to talk a little bit about a speech or a couple of speeches that Justin Trudeau gave.
I've watched too many speeches from Trudeau, and I really find it hard to pay attention to them because really it's like listening to a substitute drama teacher.
He used to give speeches for $20,000 or $30,000 a pop almost always to teachers unions or some government-oriented group.
They weren't really paying for him to give a speech.
It was like he was reading a bunch of clichés.
It was really a form of money laundering.
Pay $30,000 to Trudeau to spend an hour with him, buy influence with him.
You're not paying to listen to what he has to say.
You're paying to pay him, and the speech is just the legal way to give him a tip.
But I saw part of this, and I certainly would never suggest that anyone watch the whole hour-long video.
You'll lose 10 IQ points just listening to it.
But just the tone-deafness of Trudeau, who enforced the brutal lockdowns, the demonization of the unvaccinated, who enforced banning the unvaccinated from planes and trains, who said, should we even tolerate them?
This is the Trudeau who's talking about protecting minority rights and stopping the tyranny of the majority.
Listen to this guy.
Does he even have any self-awareness?
One of the challenges in democracies is known as the tyranny of the majority.
When you say, well, it's a democracy, we'll vote on it and we'll do the right thing as we move forward.
That's the principle we run with.
Democracy, the majority is always right, except, of course, when it isn't.
If you were to imagine a scenario in which someone proposed to pass a law that said people who are right-handed will pay fewer taxes and they'll be compensated by people who are left-handed.
Because, you know, left-handed people keep cutting themselves with the wrong-handed scissors and they open doors the wrong way and there's more addition to, sorry, one lefty appreciates that.
You know, it's a ridiculous thought, right?
But imagine for a second people decided, okay, I'm going to vote with my self-interest, and you had a bill pass, 80%, that was unfair to people who can't help the fact that they're born left-handed, no matter how many nuns wrapped on their knuckles when they were in school, to try and force them to be right-handed.
They're just left-handed.
You can't change anything about that.
That wouldn't be fair, even though you can imagine right-handers voting massively and therefore, hey, it voted on it.
It's a democracy, that's decided.
Well, no, it doesn't work that way.
And that's why most, if not all, democracies have some sort of recognition of fundamental, inalienable rights that can't be taken away by governments making laws that please the majority.
This is the prime minister who campaigned in 2021.
Should we tolerate them?
Should we even tolerate them?
If you're not vaccinated, you cannot sit on the plane.
This is the guy who's talking about the tyranny of the majority, the one who demonized the minority for his own political benefit.
You deserve better.
You deserve a government that's going to continue to say, get vaccinated.
Laws and Liberty00:02:14
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 besides vaccinated people and put them at risk.
You know, it's incredible.
And I wonder if he even listens to himself or if he's just playing some message track that he memorized.
And then there's this substitute teacher level lecture.
Oh my God, take a listen to this.
We increasingly live huge parts of our lives online.
We get our entertainment.
We talk to our friends.
We learn new things.
We share stories.
We engage in politics.
We shape our communities.
The connectivity and the access to information that you will have all your life is going to be incredibly empowering.
But at the same time, it comes with real risks as well.
Because there is a lot of bad stuff out there on the internet.
And we have laws against hate speech and we have laws against incitations to violence.
And we have laws that are out there to try and protect kids and protect people from the bad things on the internet.
One of the things about the internet is you can have access to just about anything, everything, all the time.
And any government that wants to try and limit what people can access on the internet has to be very, very, very careful.
Because in a free society, there are places around the world where the internet is very carefully controlled.
Places like China or Russia, where it's very, very difficult for someone to actually find out anything that is critical of the government.
Not the case in Canada.
Really easy to find things critical of the government on the internet in Canada and in other democracies.
But we need to make sure people continue to be able to have access to their freedom of speech, their freedom of expression, the freedom of information.
But there are real challenges around that in terms of keeping you safe, in terms of keeping your community safe.
Challenges of Internet Safety00:15:38
He was asked by someone in the crowd about internet harms, and he immediately says that China and Russia are bad, apparently, because they make it hard to find criticism of the government.
But that aspect is specifically in legislation that Trudeau himself is introducing in Parliament, the power for Trudeau to alter the discoverability of news that he doesn't like, to force YouTube and Facebook to hide critics of his regime, like Rebel News, and make it so if you type in Rebel News into Google or YouTube or Facebook, you go through page and page and page and page of CBC and CDB and Global News before you get to Rebel.
That is literally in the legislation that he's imposing in Parliament.
He's criticizing China and Russia for making it hard to find their critics online while he is copying them.
Here's another excerpt from the same town hall.
Right now with the internet, people can find themselves in little corners where all they hear is what they want to hear.
And they're surrounded by people who think exactly the same of them and they get spun up into a world that is increasingly disconnected from the world.
I remember a few years ago, before the pandemic, before much of this, I got fascinated with the idea of flat earthers.
Now this is an entirely new phenomenon.
There wasn't really any moment back in recorded history, not the ancient Greeks or the ancient Babylonians or the Incas or whoever else, who actually wondered whether the earth was actually flat or not.
Christopher Columbus, they knew the earth was round.
There was no danger he was going to fall off the edge of the world.
That wasn't what people worried about when he was setting off to discover the Americas or discover a shortcut to India.
There are a whole bunch of people out there who have decided that the earth is flat.
And they hang out with each other and they find different ways of proving to themselves that the earth is flat.
Now that may not seem like a very serious thing because someone who believes the earth is flat is not going to necessarily cause tremendous harm to everyone else.
But the ability to start to believe something that simply isn't true because enough people are telling you and reinforcing that around you actually starts creating real problems.
I think he's just telling old stories that he used to tell at those $30,000 speeches.
There's no flat earth ever in history.
People always knew the earth was round.
He's just, what an awful substitute teacher he would have been.
But flat earthers, that's his new name for people who disagree with him on the vaccine.
The vaccine, as we now know, does not stop transmission, does not stop you from getting COVID.
The vaccine has more side effects than were known, and yet he dares call skeptics the flat earthers.
Never him.
He's the guy who thinks if you raise the tax when you buy gas, that will make the weather cooler by raising a tax that will change the weather.
But you're the flat earther.
He knows the truth.
You don't know your place.
Well, listen to him when he talks more about censorship plans.
Take a listen.
It's a reality.
Our job is to keep you safe.
And we're working on it as a government.
One of the challenges, though, and this will be my last thought, one of the challenges is governments used to have the ability to protect people.
If a shipment of Nazi propaganda was coming over to Canada, well, border guards could stop it at the border and make sure that it wasn't distributed in bookshops across the country.
We had an ability to make sure that if someone walked up to someone else and said terrible things and were spewing hatred or taking a swing at someone in the public square, we had tools and structures and police officers and rules that could respond to that.
Governments could keep their citizens safe.
But now, the internet means there's a lot of people spending a huge amount of time in places that governments have no ability to keep you directly safe from.
Internet companies, specifically the web giants like Facebook and Google and others, have a huge responsibility on how we shape our democracies, how we get along, what we see.
They are using algorithms that pick the right YouTube videos for you.
You show you the cat videos or the baby videos that you love to watch to make you giggle.
I mean, there are really, really powerful choices going on every single day in terms of what you're seeing when your homepage pops up, when you're surfing the web.
And it's learning constantly what is going to distract you better.
There is a responsibility we all need to start having and that those companies need to have for the impact that they have over your lives.
Right now, we're seeing a moment where both Google and now Facebook are threatening to prevent Canadians from being able to access the news because they don't want to make sure that journalists are properly paid for the work they do.
That's the fight we're having right now with the big internet giants.
Our job is to keep you safe.
You know, I don't think that's his job.
That's certainly not in the Constitution.
In fact, the word Prime Minister does not even appear in our Constitution.
But what does he mean to keep us safe?
To keep us safe from ideas?
I suppose part of the job of a government is to keep us safe through a military and a police.
But he's not talking about keeping us safe from crime.
He's not talking about keeping us safe from foreign marauders.
He is specifically talking about ideas that you get on the internet.
Well, who chooses which ideas he's going to keep us safe from?
Well, him, of course.
And look at him live.
So weird.
Take a look at this clip.
The journalist who wrote this article should receive compensation if you're going to share that article on your platform.
That journalists should be paid for their work.
It seems pretty obvious to me that that's something we have.
But the internet giants are so worried about having to actually pay our journalists for the professional work they do, they'd rather remove people from having access to the news.
These are the kinds of things that we're struggling with as a country, and that we're going to have to have really important debates about.
Because access to news and information is that foundation that we can all build a better society from.
No, Facebook and Google are not mad that they're being asked to pay for showing some journalist work.
That's not what the law says.
The law that Trudeau refers to is a law that would require Google and Facebook to pay for even linking, just for a link to someone's story, which makes no sense because every journalist and every media company loves being linked to on Google and Facebook.
It's how you get traffic.
I think there's a reason why Trudeau is lying about his bill because it makes no sense.
And if he describes it in a way that it is not, maybe it's more appealing.
I think that Justin Trudeau and his substitute teacher-level blather, I think he's hypnotized the media who've never been critical towards him before.
They're just trying it out now with this China stuff, and it looks good on them.
I hope they keep it.
I think Justin Trudeau is just as corrupting a force in our democracy as the New York DA is.
Stay with us for more with Janine Yunus next.
Well, there has been an enormous amount of information that has been publicly released by Elon Musk since he bought and took private Twitter.
It reminds me in some ways of when the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union and its allies tumbled down.
And a lot of material was shredded or burned, but a lot of it was preserved and later studied to prove the diabolical nature of the Soviet regime.
There are to this day museums dedicated to the KGB and the Stasi.
So people know what happens and learn and try not to forget about it.
That's the feeling I get when Elon Musk takes secrets from deep within Twitter and reveals them, which is fascinating because he owns the company.
And at first glance, you would think, what is he doing?
He's destroying the reputation of Twitter.
No, it's the opposite.
He's showing what he bought and one of the reasons he bought it.
And he's showing that he is not like that.
Well, even before Elon Musk was voluntarily revealing what Twitter had done, one of the friends of the Ezra Levant show was going to court to prove it on her own with people who had been silenced and censored by Twitter at the behest of the government.
You know who I'm talking about.
Janine Yunus, staff lawyer at the new Civil Liberties Alliance in Washington, D.C.
She joins us now via Skype from that city.
Jeannie, it's great to see you again.
It's wonderful to have Elon Musk willingly disclose and declassify, so to speak, internal Twitter documents.
But you went to court to prove the same thing, not just with Twitter, but other social media companies too, right?
Yeah, that's right.
So this case, the allegation is that the government was basically co-opting private industry, in this case, the tech companies, in order to censor the voices of Americans it didn't like on topics ranging from COVID to the elections.
But our clients were all about COVID.
And the judge granted discovery a while ago back in June in relation to an early motion in the case.
So we obtained a lot of information from the companies showing that the government has been coercing and pressuring them to censor in accordance with its own views.
Yeah, I mean, if companies do that on their own, it's very frustrating.
There are strong arguments about private property, private companies.
I mean, there are arguments that they are the new public square and they should have some First Amendment requirements.
When the government is threatening, cajoling, pushing, carrot and sticking those companies, then they become agents.
They really become de facto bureaucrats when a private company does the bidding of the federal government.
And whether or not they're sympathetic to begin with, when the president of the United States or when senior officials ask you to do something, there's an implied coercion because they have the power to hurt you, right?
Right.
And to be clear here, it wasn't merely asking.
They were actually making threats saying, you know, we're going to look at repealing Section 230, which gives companies liability for the content that people post on their platform forms.
So Section 230 is really important to the tech companies.
They, you know, have said things like, we'll make sure they're held accountable.
We're going to find out, you know, we're going to find ways to make sure they're held accountable.
So these are actual threats.
And the case law is pretty clear in our country that the government can't use private companies to do what it can't do directly.
And the government can't punish people or censor them for expressing certain viewpoints.
And that's exactly what's going on here.
They're using the companies to establish, sorry, to accomplish what they can't do themselves.
And so that's a First Amendment violation.
Now, I understand that the other side of this battle went to court with a motion to dismiss this whole lawsuit.
In Canada, I don't think that those motions to dismiss are as commonplace, but there's a lot more costs for frivolous lawsuits.
There's some differences between our systems.
I think the American way, you correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not an American lawyer, is that in shakedown lawsuits, in political lawsuits, and hopeless lawsuits, there is a lot of screening at that very first stage.
Am I right?
And that's what the defendants tried to do here.
They tried to say, oh, this is a fishing trip.
This is a political battle.
There's no real case.
But the judge said, no, no, there's enough here to warrant a full hearing.
Have I described both the U.S. system and what the judge said in the motion to dismiss here?
That's about right.
Yeah.
So motions to dismiss are filed in nearly every case and certainly constitutional law, which is the area I practice in.
So they, you know, the government just always tries to see if it can get the case dismissed.
So yes, here the judge said, you know, nope.
You know, they've stated a claim that a valid claim.
The allegations in the complaint substantiate those claims.
And so we're not throwing it out.
And he said he used a lot of language that was very good.
I think, you know, indicates that he may be on our side for the long haul, not just a motion to dismiss.
And the crucial part is the state action theory that I was discussing earlier, because the government's defense is, oh, no, no, these companies want to do this.
This is what they had, you know, COVID misinformation policies, other misinformation policies before.
They were just asking the government for advice and help, which they can do.
And I acknowledge that they can do that if that's what was going on.
But I think, you know, the emails and other communications that we've got combined with the public threats make clear that's not what was happening.
The companies weren't seeking input to enforce the policies that they wanted to have.
They were being coerced by the government first into adopting certain policies and then into enforcing them along the lines.
Sorry, the way that the government wanted them to do, which it can't do.
That's incredible.
So the judge who ruled in your favor on this motion to dismiss is seized with this matter all the way.
It'll be the same judge who'll be hearing the substantive case?
Yes.
Now, I do think there's going to be a, it's kind of, these cases are very complicated.
So on a separate track, we had filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.
That's emergency relief.
That was actually filed some time ago.
So there's going to be a hearing on that in May.
And that, I think the losing party there will appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
That's the Court of Appeals.
So, and that will be a very important, what happens in the Fifth Circuit is going to be very important.
So this is certainly not a quick lawsuit, and you wouldn't think it would be.
You've got, on the one hand, tech companies with bottomless pockets, and you've got the government, which is limited, literally unlimited resources.
So they're certainly not going to make it easy for you.
But so far, you've had some surprise.
I don't know if it's surprising, but pleasantly surprising, let me put it that way, successes.
I feel like it's going well.
Well, yes, it's going very well.
I mean, it's a pleasant surprise in some ways because it really establishes that, you know, we have a strong case.
Digital Free Speech Fight00:08:23
It's unfortunate on the other hand, because it was sort of beyond my wildest dreams in terms of what it turned out the government was doing and the expansiveness of these efforts.
So it turned out there were so far that we know of over a dozen federal agencies involved in these efforts, up to 100 federal officials that we know of now.
We keep finding out more.
And the coercive tactics that were employed behind the scenes, sort of backdoor tactics, aggressive tactics to get these companies to do what they wanted were really surprising to me.
I actually didn't expect it was going to be that bad.
So that's disappointing to see that we really have an administration and a lot of agencies that don't expect, sorry, don't respect Americans' First Amendment rights.
Here in the United States, a different court system.
And of course, your First Amendment is very robust.
In Canada, we don't have the same freedoms and we don't have as strong a public interest law firm tradition in this country.
Our version of the ACLU basically snoozed for two years during the pandemic and the lockdowns.
And I really don't see the kind of public interest litigation that you're doing up here in Canada.
But I have to say, Janine, I am most certain that the same sort of censorship that you are discovering in the United States, how could it not be happening in Canada, in the United Kingdom, in Australia, and especially in continental Europe, countries where in some cases like Germany, they're proudly pro-censorship, at least on certain issues.
They say it's their historical legacy from the Holocaust, frankly.
If you ask Germany about freedom of speech, they have large carve-outs for censorship.
I think that what you are revealing in your lawsuit surely is happening around the world.
What do you think of that theory?
Oh, I think that's almost definitely true.
And I mean, in Canada, for instance, I think, you know, we've even seen pretty overt efforts to silence doctors and other people who dissented on COVID.
So it's not even a secret.
They don't have to keep it a secret because they're not violating the law because, you know, you have its robust free speech protection.
Now, the Twitter files, as they're being called, when Elon Musk releases tranches of these internal documents.
And by the way, it was incredible for me to learn that there were FBI or other government-affiliated staff who remained with Twitter after Elon Musk bought it and beavered away within new Twitter to try and quash some of the release of this information.
I thought that was amazing.
And I think it caught Elon Musk by surprise if we're to take him at face value.
I think it's amazing what he's doing.
I think I now look at Twitter and other social media as really just a giant intelligence agency.
You know, we can say that easily about TikTok being spies for China, but I think that Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google really were the same for the, and again, I don't want to sound like I've got a tinfoil hat on, but really was government agencies from the CIA to the FBI to health agencies.
Like it really was a government operation to filter information in and out.
I think free speech was the least of its purposes.
It was all about control and propaganda and filtering.
I mean, it's just so clear to me now, Elon Musk bought himself a digital, a digital FBI, a digital CIA.
Yeah, I think that's right.
And what we're seeing now, I think, sort of exemplifies or illustrates why we have a First Amendment and why free speech is actually the way to go rather than these censorship regimes, like as you mentioned in Germany.
So, I mean, the way this actually started was the fear of Russian propaganda, Russian disinformation interfering with elections.
And okay, that sounds reasonable.
Yes, sure, the FBI should be able to make sure that Russians aren't infiltrating Twitter and Facebook and convincing Americans to vote a certain way based on false information.
One can sort of understand that.
Or Russian bots who are just basically spreading propaganda.
But then what happens is that starts to filter in to censoring the views of Americans who just disagree and think Trump won the election or Trump should have won the election.
And so I think this sort of shows why we don't want the government making these decisions.
We don't want them involved in this.
The best way to deal with bad ideas is to let good ideas come out.
And you do that through more free speech, not less.
You know, a related weapon besides censorship are these government-backed so-called fact checkers.
I recently learned, for example, that News Guard, which purports to be a fact-checking agency, it's actually hardwired on some web browsers, that they got a major government contract from the Pentagon.
And I'm not sure if I've ever told you, but Rebel News, we learned that defense contractors at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, nothing to do with Canada.
I've never been to Arkansas.
We have no connection whatsoever.
But the U.S. Navy hired defense contractors in Arkansas to work up a memo on rebel news.
Were we a foreign psyops information op?
It was the craziest thing I ever saw.
I don't understand it.
In my mind, I'm thinking, well, maybe Trudeau wanted to do that, but he asked his American counterparts to do it for him in case it would violate Canadian law.
And maybe America asked Canada to spy on it.
I mean, I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole.
I was, I got to tell you, I was completely shocked to see that the U.S. Navy was spying on rebel news.
We don't even have any boats, I got to tell you.
And it was so bizarre.
And we started doing access to information requests.
Our viewers know this because it was quite a story when it happened.
And I learned just how much of this so-called fact-checking of domestic political conversation.
And by the way, we're critical of China.
Like we are on America's side on the China issue.
It's the military that's fact-checking us.
I find that super creepy.
And I bet you 99% of people do not know that it is the Pentagon financing and in some cases commissioning these so-called fact checks.
I think that's crazy.
And I wonder if it's related in any way to the kind of stuff you're doing in court.
Yeah, I mean, it is.
You know, nobody's brought a case yet, but there's some other, relatedly, this, and this just came out last month.
There's the U.S. State Department has been funding an organization called the Global Disinformation Index in Britain.
And that organization rates news outlets by how reliable they are.
So risky, you know, it's considered misinformation, not risky, not misinformation.
Now, if you look at the list of organizations deemed risky and not risky, it's laughable.
It's just conservative are the risky ones.
Liberal are the non-risky.
I mean, they have Huffington Post, which is ridiculous in the non-risky because it's liberal, obviously.
So what you have going on there is it's effectively a government censorship regime.
They're just doing it through the third party.
So I think these cases are all going to be very interesting and how they come out will really impact things for a long time.
Well, I tell you, if there's ever an action against some of these fact checkers, we're taking Facebook's fact checker in Australia to court.
And I don't know how that's going to go, but we're doing that on behalf of our Australian correspondent.
You know what?
I don't know.
I mean, it's very hard to do that when in court they say, oh, no, no, no.
We're just offering our opinion.
Oh, hang on.
I thought you said you were a fact checker.
It's quite a defense for a fact checker to plead, oh, it's just our fair opinion.
You can't censor us.
If ever there is action against these so-called fact checkers for being government agents, boy, we'd love to get a piece of that as a plaintiff.
I just thought I'd throw that your way.
Hey, you know what?
It's been great to catch up with you on this very important case, but I want to leave on sort of a, I don't know if this is a fun note or amusing.
I found it fulfilling, satisfying, entertaining.
Anthony Fauci's Skepticism00:07:08
It's a video.
I think it was taken a couple of years ago.
Like, I don't think this is very recent.
This is Anthony Fauci, St. Fauci, walking through the neighborhoods of Washington, D.C. with the D.C. mayor and just encountering regular folks.
And he had his camera crew in tow.
I think this was a PBS documentary.
And he was going to be, of course, the star in this.
I can't believe this footage was released.
And he encounters a lay person who I'm going to call severely normal.
Obviously not a scholar, obviously not a researcher or a journalist, but someone who's got more common sense and is pinky.
And they go back and forth.
They spar.
And then finally, Fauci just sort of sulks away.
And the last scene of it, if we have the right version, he's in his car putting on lots of hand sanitizer after this grubby encounter.
Janine, I'd love to watch this clip with you for a minute and then get your feedback because this was one of the most interesting, entertaining, and revealing videos I've seen about Fauci in a while.
Let's take a look and then I'd love your thoughts on it.
Here we go.
People in America are not settled with the information that's been given to us right now.
So I'm not going to be lining up taking a shot on a vaccination for something that wasn't clear in the first place.
And then you all create a shot in miraculous time.
It takes years to vaccinate.
Well, it used to take years.
You know how many years were invested in this approach?
About 20 years of science to get us to be able to do that.
20 years is not enough.
And nine months is definitely not enough for nobody to be taking no vaccination that you all came up with.
The only reason I'm talking to you right now, as close as we are, is that I've been vaccinated.
But if a lot of thousands of people like you don't get vaccinated, you're going to let this virus continue to percolate in this country and in this world.
Something like the common flu, then, right?
It's much more serious than the flu.
Well, the flu kills a lot of people anyway, too.
You know how many people died of the flu the last year?
I mean, not this year, virtually none, but the previous year, about 20 to 30,000.
You know, how many people have died from COVID-19 in the United States?
600,000 Americans.
Well, the number that you all giving that died, that's once again, that's you all's number.
You're going to pass.
Yeah, definitely.
Because when you start talking about paying people to get vaccinated, when you start talking about incentivizing things to get people vaccinated, it's something else going on with that.
Something else.
Something else going on.
It is something going on.
There's something else going on.
You're right.
But I'm glad millions of people like me and almost everybody here didn't get an incentive.
You know what their incentive was?
Protecting their health and protecting the city.
I won't keep doing the old.
It's okay because my incentive, y'all campaign is about fear.
It's about inciting fear in people.
You all attack people with fear.
That's what this pandemic is.
It's a fear.
It's fear, this pandemic.
That's all it is.
Oh, I just love that ending.
He ran away.
Like, he walked away mid-conversation.
He didn't even say goodbye or thank you or agree to disagree.
Or you're very, he just sort of stomped away and then he put the hand sanitizer on.
That's just wonderful editing.
I can't believe that that video was released.
I'm shocked he didn't say delete that video right now.
Let me ask for your reaction to that clip.
Well, I love that guy.
I think he's been reading our Twitter feeds too.
He just, I mean, he was, he knew so much more than them.
He made so many good points.
I mean, you typically test a vaccine for much longer than this one was before you start to widely distribute it.
This pandemic of fear, he just, he, you know, he was so much more knowledgeable, had so much more common sense than those two.
And they it showed Bowser and Fauci both treated him with contempt.
And the things that they were saying were anti-science.
You know, she's she's saying, the only reason I'm going to talk to you now is because I'm vaccinated.
You know, so he's just a disease vector.
Well, first of all, he had no symptoms, so unlikely to spread it.
They're outside, unlikely to spread it.
And the vaccine also doesn't protect you from getting it.
So that doesn't actually make any sense.
So I don't know.
It was just a very telling clip.
Oh, there was.
And even his comment, I think you heard him say, you were in, why do you have to incentivize people to take such a miracle drug?
I thought that was a clever point, very succinctly said.
And even just challenging the authority of this, I am science.
Oh, well, that's your data.
Remember when they were arguing numbers and the fella said, no, that's your numbers.
Right, right, right.
Showed an inherent skepticism.
And I don't know what neighborhood that was.
I'm going to guess that was a lower income neighborhood in Washington, D.C. I'm going to guess that that fella there has had a hard knock life.
And this is just, that's just a pure prejudice on my part and stereotype.
And I hope I'm not off base there.
But the reason I say that is because he had so much common sense because I'm guessing he has to be skeptical in life because he deals with bamboozlers all the time.
And here's a bamboozler who's got a you know a lab coat and a clipboard and the mayor.
And unlike the media party, unlike the woke elite, he's got a built-in skepticism in life as opposed to an automatic trust and conformity.
And oh, well, this is the new thing.
Everyone's going along with this.
I will obediently accept this.
I think that that gentleman had a natural skepticism that, you know, as Orwell said, it's the proles who will save us.
And that ordinary working class man had more common sense in those two minutes than and better questions, succinctly put.
And he wasn't rude, was he?
There was no reason for Fauci to run away.
He didn't swear.
They were rude to him.
Yeah, well, yeah.
That's my point.
They ran away.
He didn't swear.
He didn't call them names.
They came to his house.
He didn't come to their house.
And I thought that was just so perfect.
I've watched that clip several times, and I see online it's had 10 million views in a day.
That just made me feel good.
That gave me hope for America, really.
I know that sounds a little bit much, but that gave me hope that people like that are out there.
Janine, great to see you again.
Thanks for your making time for us.
And thanks for your great work fighting for freedom and standing up for the First Amendment in America.
Hopefully, some of that will splash over to us up here in Canada.
Thank you so much, Ezra.
All right.
There you have it.
Janine Eunice with the NCLA.
It's a new Civil Liberties Alliance in Washington, D.C. Stay with us, Moorhead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me.
Jane says, hi, Ezra.
Big Money and Tides00:02:54
It's terrible what has been happening in women's sports.
These athletes worked so hard for years.
My heart goes out to April.
I think there is a big money behind the trans agenda, and I do believe it's part of the globalist agenda to mess with the roles and relationships of people in our society.
There's obviously big money behind it.
I remember when Hollywood rolled out a show called Transparent with Jeffrey Tambour, and I thought, who's watching this?
Who's financing this show?
I don't believe that broke even.
I think that was a bought and paid for propaganda film out of Hollywood, which is what Hollywood's so good at.
Daniel Charles Films, probably one of the only men lifting professionally in the women's event and has the Alberta Bench and Deadlift record already.
The faster we can get more men into the women's events, the faster people will realize.
I think it's only a matter of time before the entire podium, first, second, and third place, is men.
I mean, why not?
If you see one guy beating two gals, every other guy could say, oh, I can do that too.
I could get praise.
I could get attention.
And a bulletproof vest, if you dare say the word against me, you're transphobe.
I'll get media coverage.
I'll be important.
I can't compete against the guys, but I can crush those girls.
Clone 42 said, ever heard of tides?
Unless the photos were taken in identical times a day, conclusions cannot be drawn about sea level change.
Photos taken at low tide, then high tide could equally be contrasted to construct a doomsday narrative.
And I think climate hysteria is psychotic and that higher CO2 concentrations have potential to increase human flourishing by increasing crop yields.
But I still know what tides are and recognize that presenting a comparative argument using these photos is flawed reasoning.
Yeah, that was the point made by all those fact checks is that we did not know resolutely what the tide level was.
Okay, so you don't know.
That doesn't mean it's wrong.
There's still some value in seeing the two photos.
And you raise a point which is we cannot conclusively, based on that photo, not knowing when the tide, well, you're talking about that photo of Fort Dennison in Seattle.
See, you're saying it correctly, which is we don't know how high or low the tide was when that photo was taken.
So we actually don't know precisely if the water levels are higher or lower.
Okay, fair enough.
But every single fact check I showed you called it a lie, propaganda, meant to deceive.
And they resolutely said it's false instead of, well, we don't really know because what was the tide at then?
I think, and we talked about it with Janine today, all these fact checkers are government propagandists.
They're all on the government dime.
That's our show for today.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night.