Sheila Gunn-Reid features Tracy Wilson of the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights (CCFR) defending Ottawa’s six-party legal battle against the Liberal government’s 2020 gun ban, which struck 1,500 semi-automatic models via an Order in Council. Facing $2M in costs and federal lawyers with four-chair teams, Wilson argues the ban violates property rights and procedural fairness, citing the government’s dismissal of a "social contract" and its selective use of the Mass Casualty Commission report—despite no evidence linking legal firearms to the crime—to justify further restrictions. The case warns of broader threats to private ownership if precedent sets, urging public support via donations at ccfr.ca or shared documentation on propertyjustice.ca. [Automatically generated summary]
Right now in Ottawa, there's a major court challenge for procedural fairness and property rights taking place and you might not know about it if you get all your news from the mainstream media, but you're here.
So that's probably not you.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed and you're watching The Gunn Show.
Taking place over the last week or so in Ottawa has been one of the largest federal court challenges in modern Canadian history.
It's being brought by six parties, including the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights against the Liberal government and their May 2020 gun ban that was shoehorned through outside of parliament through an order in council.
Through the stroke of a pen, the Liberals banned 1,500 models of Canadian shotguns and long guns.
Now, this court challenge that's taking place in Ottawa right now is being live tweeted by my friend Tracy Wilson from the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights.
But I should let you know that it has thus far cost the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights $2 million just to have their case heard.
But it's costing Canadians a lot more because according to Tracy, and you'll hear it in the interview today that we recorded after she finished the arduous process of live tweeting federal court.
I've done it.
I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, let alone my friend like Tracy Wilson.
But the government is throwing everything they can at the six parties involved in the court challenge.
Rooms full of federal lawyers to fight against Canadians who simply reject the idea that they are responsible for the explosion of crime in Canada's progressive cities.
So joining me today in an interview, like I said, we recorded yesterday afternoon after Tracy finished court is Tracy Wilson, my friend from the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights, to tell you not only why gun owners should be paying acute attention to what's happening in federal court, but why anybody who cares about property rights should care about their court challenge too.
Take a listen.
So joining me now is my friend, Tracy Wilson from the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights.
Tracy, you've been in court for the past few days fighting with the government.
Tell us exactly what's happening there right now.
Okay, so this is probably the largest federal court challenge in the history of the country for gun owners.
And what's going on is back in May 2020, you'll remember the government decided on, you know, on a whim, using the backdrop of the Nova Scotia shooting to ban over 1,500 models and variants of firearms, mostly semi-autos, the AR-15 included.
So they did this through an OIC, an order in council, which for our American friends is similar to an executive order.
It basically avoids the entire parliamentary procedure.
There's no democracy.
There's no vote.
It just happens and that's it.
So your only real recourse to this, well, there's two, to fight them in court, which we're doing, or an election, which we're trying for that as well.
So there's six different parties that have sort of been lumped together under case management.
The CCFR is sort of the big lead case.
There's a couple smaller cases underneath.
But, you know, all in all, we've all got the basis covered and we are challenging the federal government's ability to use an OIC in this manner, challenging their decision that these guns are no longer suitable or reasonable for hunting and sporting purposes, which we've been using them safely and without issue for 60 years in this country or longer.
And yeah, I know for the first five days, everybody's been following my live tweets, which is great.
Thank you for everyone watching those.
It's really sort of difficult because I'm doing it in real time in the room, but I'm hoping that it gives some perspective from inside the courtroom.
The problem with gun owners and conservatives is we all work, so I recognize people can't sit and watch the live stream.
So, you know, this is a way that they can read this when they get home and, you know, see what happened during the day.
So over the first five days, people have been commenting, saying, you know, it's going really well.
I really appreciate this.
These are great arguments.
I feel like it's going in our favor.
And then, of course, here we are on day six, and it's like, you know, hitting a brick wall because it's the first day that we're hearing from the government.
So, of course, it seems like everything's going splendidly when we're only listening to our side, you know, see a whole echo chamber thing.
So today, the government had an opportunity to respond tomorrow as well.
They'll be taking most of the day tomorrow.
And their idea is, of course, just to kind of rapid fire, try and, you know, eliminate all of our arguments from all the various legal teams.
So there's a whole bunch of disinformation, a whole bunch of sort of leading things to the judge.
You know, we were talking about people's inability to file a Section 74 challenge because of the way this was done, which is something that, you know, the average person could probably do with a very limited amount of legal advice.
And the attorney general's lawyer comes back and says, well, you know, they could, they can't do that, but they can file a judicial review.
That's like a three to five year court battle.
We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars.
They know full well Canadians aren't going to be able to do that.
So it felt like a huge slap in the face when they said that today.
And then one other little highlight I want to share was: it's funny.
I often talk in interviews about the social contract that gun owners have made with the government.
You know, here in Canada, we've got probably one of the strictest gun control regimes in the world.
There's a whole bunch of, you know, rules, regulations, and laws.
And we follow them regardless of how ridiculous they are.
And I feel like we've made a social contract with the government where we've said, okay, fine, we'll get the license.
We'll go through the training.
We'll store them carefully.
We'll follow all those rules.
We'll transport them carefully.
We'll follow every single precaution and rule that's been set up over 30 or 40 years of gun control madness, but leave us alone.
And Solomon Friedman, who's the lawyer in the Parker case, good friend of, I think, everybody on our side of the table, but a really talented lawyer.
And he made an argument the other day in his submissions where he called it the bargain that we've made.
And it's the same idea, right?
Social contract bargain, just different terms.
And today, the Attorney General's, the Attorney General's lawyer was almost appalled that we would even say that.
And he stood in court and said, there is no bargain.
There was no deal made with gun owners.
I don't know where you're coming up with this.
There's no deal for you.
And it just sort of made me think like at this point, you know, I try my best to be a really careful person and to obey the law and respect my country and respect authority.
But just him saying that really changes the way I think about my relationship with the government.
You know, I've done everything you've asked of me.
And you just flat out said in court, it's not enough.
There is no deal.
It doesn't matter what you do.
We're going to do whatever we want to you.
And you're going to take it.
That's a problem for me, right?
Yeah.
Yeah, it sure is.
And, you know, there's one thing that you missed in all that.
As gun owners, every single day we submit ourselves to a background check.
Whether you want to or not, if some it's very invasive to become a gun owner in this country, you are sacrificing your privacy to the government.
And it, you know, and you are knowingly, the day you get that gun license, you know, you will be scapegoated going forward by the government for the failings that they have committed and their progressive policies in places like Toronto and Vancouver and Montreal and their failings to address gun trafficking at the border.
That you know, you know, because it's what always happens that they will come after you.
And then for them to stand up in court and say, well, there's no, I mean, you know, we you submitted yourself to all these things and we don't have to do anything.
We can actually do whatever we want.
That's basically what I'm saying.
Well, yeah.
And part of the, you know, there's about seven different legal arguments to our challenge.
And one of them is it says right in the law that a gun cannot be deemed prohibited or restricted if it is reasonable for hunting or sporting use, right?
So, you know, that that's sort of like a protection for gun owners, that they're not going to come along one day and ban all your stuff.
Well, here we are.
They've been probably half of it.
And the attorney general's lawyer stood up today and said, you know, well, the only thing that determines whether, you know, the reasonableness of a firearm is the GIC's opinion, the governor and counsel's opinion.
So what if they decide that no guns are reasonable for hunting?
You can hunt with a bow or a stick or just don't hunt.
Gun Owners' Struggle00:14:46
I don't know.
Like they're just seem, they seem to believe that there is no limitation on their powers.
There's no checks and balances and there's no recourse for gun owners.
So, you know, I'll be interested to see what comes out tomorrow in the rest of their argument.
And then, of course, we'll have closing arguments.
We get half a day for six teams to go forward.
So they'll have to be very limited in the scope of their sort of their final, you know, argument back and forth with the government.
And then the judge will go away for probably several months and mull over everything, all the evidence, all the testimony, all the cross-examinations, everything that's been presented over the eight days of the hearing, and then come back with a decision.
So it's been a long time coming.
It's been years in the making, millions of dollars of expense.
And just to see the flippant attitude from the, you know, the massive legal team.
This is something else you'll find interesting.
I don't want to take too much time.
No, but I'm so sitting in this courtroom.
It is a federal court, but it's being heard in the Supreme Court of Canada building because they have a larger courtroom.
So we've already had to move to a fairly substantial size courtroom.
And I'm sitting at the very back.
I'm sitting with self-rep Christine Generoux, who's absolutely nailing it, by the way.
But I'm sitting at her table in the back because I'm not an applicant.
The CCFR is and Rod Giltaka and a number of other people.
But that's why I'm able to go and live tweet because I'm not actually involved in the case itself.
So the room's divided in two halves.
And on one half, you've got a number of rows of tables and chairs.
And that is to accommodate all six legal teams.
So all six, like we've all got our own lawyers to argue our own arguments.
And then the other whole half of the courtroom is the government's lawyers.
And there's three chairs per table.
I noticed this morning when I went in, on the government side, they've had to increase it to four chairs per table and it's full.
So you've got, you know, it's like the David and Goliath, right?
A whole bunch of little Davids over here that make up, you know, less than half the courtroom.
And then this massive team of taxpayer-funded lawyers who are there with this flippant attitude.
Like, there's no deal for you.
It doesn't matter if you follow the laws.
We can take whatever we want from you.
And what I want Canadians out there listening to this, even if you're not a gun owner, you should keep an eye on this case because this will be a determinant on the question, can the government walk into your life, even though you've done nothing to deserve it, and take your legally acquired property without doing anything to warrant such an action.
Can the government do that to you?
And if the answer is yes, I think we've got some problems.
So I would look forward to a change in government and maybe enshrining some kind of property rights in our Constitution because this is our charter, because this is very, very concerning just as an average Canadian.
It sounds a lot like the Public Order Emergency Commission, where it's just nothing but government lawyers.
Yeah.
And, you know, all the other people, the interveners, the people who are invested in it, you know, you only get two minutes or three minutes because you're all lumped together and you don't get an equal say up against this behemoth of the government.
And kudos to you for live tweeting.
I live tweet court cases all the time and it is intellectually exhausting because you're not paying attention to what they're saying, but tweeting what they just said.
And you're trying to be as accurate and verbatim as possible.
So thank you for taking the time.
I want to ask you about some of the other cases because you said there are sort of a bunch of you lumped together thanks to case management, which the government gets the benefit of.
Yes.
Who else is there with you?
So we've got Solomon Friedman.
He's in charge of the Parker case, so Cassandra Parker, who is, I believe, an Alberta woman.
Her and her husband owned a firearms business.
Of course, they've since gone under.
No wonder in this environment, right?
But really nice lady from Alberta.
There's the Eichenberg case, which has a number of different applicants on it.
I believe the Ontario Landowners Association is sort of involved with one of them.
Ed Berliu is there doing arguments for the Hipwell case.
John Hipwell is the retired original owner of Wolverine Supplies, who's actually an applicant on our challenge.
But he's representing him as a business owner.
Alberta's there intervening, which is wonderful.
God bless Alberta, I always say.
So thank you for that.
And then we have our huge legal team.
We probably got the biggest legal team, JSS out of Alberta, who's so much work for us.
They are like experts in their field.
And yeah, they've just been stealing the show.
But yeah, our Katie Bushelev has been doing a fantastic job.
Solomon Friedman, you know, I don't want to single anybody out, but they've been doing a really good job with an extremely difficult case.
But yeah, I feel bad.
I will tweet out all six case numbers and names so everybody can get them.
I can't remember them offhand.
But, you know, there's a lot of similar arguments, but everybody's sort of tackling it from a different direction, which, you know, it's not one of those things where you throw the spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks.
But at the same time, you don't want to go too narrow in scope because there's different areas of law, administrative, you know, whatever, charter challenges that the judge may take a different opinion to.
So that's why we've approached it in this way with various different parts of the challenge.
I'm so happy to hear that you have JSS on your side.
They are such great lawyers.
They do so much great work for us here at Rebel News, but also through the Democracy Funder, the civil liberties side of the business.
I wanted to ask you, because you sort of mentioned property rights there and people being under attack for something they didn't do.
I actually heard somebody describe it as, you know, if a car stolen in Toronto, a black car stolen in Toronto, runs somebody over and then you wake up in the morning and the government has outlawed your black pickup truck in Alberta.
That's what it's like to be a gun owner these days.
Oh, yeah.
But all of this, as you pointed out in the beginning, stems from the Nova Scotia mass casualty shooting.
The Liberals sort of seized upon that as their moment to do the thing that we know liberals always want to do, and that is take guns from law-abiding Canadian gun owners.
I wanted to ask you a little bit about the Mass Casualty Commission report because it just came out and you have on the CCFR website on firearmsrights.ca, you've got the Casualty Commission report linked there.
But can you give us sort of a breakdown of what that means for gun owners, what sort of things they were throwing our way?
Yeah, so this was depressing.
As you know, we held a seat on the commission itself as a participant.
Rod Giltaka, our CEO and executive director, went, did multiple presentations, and he was tasked with the job of looking at the issue of access to firearms.
Now, of course, the perpetrator in this horrific crime, which by the way was three years ago today, obtained all his firearms illegally.
He had, I believe, four firearms, three he smuggled illegally from the United States with his easy access Nexus card, just drove right across the border without any questions.
And then the fourth gun, he did source it in Canada illegally through a bequeathing.
So in any event, he had these guns.
The police knew he had these guns.
There were 16 times that the police were advised that there was illegal guns in his home.
Not only did they do nothing about it, but some or at least one of the RCMP officers befriended him, became buddies with him.
He had replica police cars, uniforms.
He had everything.
So, you know, I have often said, and Rod says the same, that the most effective weapon that that perpetrator had was his car, right?
Usually when you are in trouble or you need help, you would look to a police officer.
So when he's pulling somebody over, you would think, oh, thank God the police can help me.
And it's not the police.
I can't even imagine the tear of that.
But in any event, so this public inquiry, which the liberals fought in the first place, the families demanded it.
Bill Blair denied them that opportunity.
And after huge backlash, he eventually had to give in.
So they assembled this commission, put a couple of retired judges and cops on the commission, went forth and two years and probably $25 million later, we've got this report.
And now there's a number of measures in there as far as police response or notifying the public that there's some sort of emergency going on.
That was all a complete failure through that whole two-day horrific event.
And most of those, we, of course, support.
I mean, yeah, of course, you have to let people know.
And the police, of course, this is not, this is an outlier.
These things generally don't happen in Canada.
So I understand.
It's so shocking.
Yes.
It's so shocking.
These things don't happen here.
Right.
So I understand how confusing it was.
He was very easily able to hide from the police because he was disguised as one, you know, working in a rural area, back roads.
Like, I get it.
I'm not oblivious to the difficulties that law enforcement face.
At the same time, you know, there's a lot we can learn there.
So those kinds of things we support.
But of course, there were a number of gun control measures that they suggested or are promoting with this report, which to me, you know, as somebody who's sort of been really following this, working on it, you know, Rod's been, you know, I've been working with Rod on his stuff to find out that this is once again used for gun control, knowing that that perpetrator was not a licensed gun owner.
He had no relationship with the firearms community in Canada.
He didn't acquire his guns legally.
There is no gun control or further law that would have prevented what happened.
And that's the idea here.
We want to prevent this from ever happening again, right?
So, of course, they put forward that they support, you know, a full ban on basically all semi-autos, handguns, which right now are frozen, but not technically banned from ownership, magazine restrictions.
They had a whole bunch of stuff in there.
And to me, it read like the Pauli Susuvian wish list, right?
Which, you know, oddly enough, they also, you know, didn't submit any sort of affidavits or any evidence in our court challenge.
And I have a feeling because they probably are the evidence, right?
But in any event, yeah, it sort of read like a gun prohibitionist dream, right?
And at the same time, you've got the lawyer that's representing the families of the victims.
So don't forget, for every victim that is taken, there's an entire family left grieving and horrified and forever changed because of what's happened.
And the lawyer comes out that represents these families and says he can't believe that this has been used as an opportunity to promote liberal gun control.
And of course, they wholly reject it.
I mean, again, this is a rural area.
Most of the families are gun owners, right?
And it's just, to me, it's just, it's, it's hard to maintain faith in our institutions, our systems, and the framework of our society when it seems like, I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it almost feels like the fix is in on everything.
No matter what we do, no matter what kind of evidence or science or data is put in front of these people, they just jump to their preconceived conclusion every time, no matter what.
And that's that's the story of the last three years.
Yeah, for sure.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So I find it disappointing.
And I feel that it's a huge abuse and further assault on the families of the victims who were probably, you know, they probably, there's a lot of measures in there they'd support.
But of course, all of that good work, you know, working on, you know, new policies for law enforcement, working on new policies for alerting the public that there's some kind of crazy danger going on.
Those things have all been overshadowed because, of course, now they're talking about gun bans again.
And it's just, it just feels like if we never get out of this crazy circle that we are constantly in, we're never going to come up with credible solutions to make a safer country.
So I don't know.
Maybe that's maybe that's not the goal that other people have, but that is my goal.
Yeah, I don't think turning Canada into Chicago, which is a gun-free zone, is helpful to anybody.
And I can't imagine the heartbreak of these families who they want answers.
They want answers and policies that make people safer, but their loved one has become just another vehicle for a liberal policy item to get checked off the list.
I mean, some of this stuff is a lot of innocent until or guilty until proven innocent things.
Like if you're charged with something and your charges are stayed, dropped, you beat the charges, maybe it wasn't even you, mistaken identity.
But it doesn't matter because now you have to prove that you didn't do anything wrong, even though somebody already said you didn't do anything wrong, to get your pal back.
That's great.
It's impossible.
Yeah, it's impossible to prove a negative.
How do you prove something didn't happen when it didn't happen?
It's, I don't know.
It just, it feels like we're in an upside-down world every single day.
I almost dread getting up and coming down to make a coffee and flicking on the news because it's just, you know, it's a complete clown show.
And it doesn't have to be this way.
Guilty Until Proven Innocent00:05:41
I don't know.
Maybe I'm a little naive.
I feel like it wasn't always this way, but it's, yeah, it just, it feels a little, a little out of control.
And I just sort of miss when we could sit down as a country, even if we're on different sides of a debate and at least find common ground.
I feel like that's gone.
There is no common ground.
Yeah, it used to be that the people with whom we disagreed, we didn't think they were evil.
We just thought they were wrong.
And I think that has shifted drastically for sure in the last five or six years where the liberals have taken to dehumanizing and demonizing their opponents that, you know, if you have a different viewpoint on COVID, then you're just a grandma killer.
If you think, well, maybe we should, maybe we should be worrying about the gangs and not the duck hunters, then you don't care about the people who die.
Right.
I mean, it's, I don't know.
I don't know how we undo this.
I think it's healing to be done.
And it's actually the opposite.
Like they're saying, you know, if you don't support gun bans for all these crimes that are happening, these, you know, daily shootings in Toronto or horrific crimes like the Nova Scotia shooting, you know, then you, you know, you, you don't promote public safety.
But it's actually the opposite.
Like the fact that you're using those things at the same time, you know, banning guns from licensed firearms owners for the crimes committed in the violent streets of Toronto, while at the same time lowering sentencing and easing up on bail conditions for repeat violent offenders is crazy town, right?
Like it's the opposite of public safety.
And, you know, I don't know.
I can't imagine that it would be intentional, but these are not stupid people.
And the people behind the scenes who are putting forward these policies and crafting this legislation for them are not stupid either.
So what is it, you know?
Yeah, it's where all my conspiracy theory hackles go up, where, you know, if it were just about them and us having a different viewpoint on how to achieve the same public safety goals, but when they are, as you say, lowering the sentences for violent crimes, then it's really not about public safety, is it?
It's really about disarming the population.
And then, you know, who knows what they want to do after that.
Now, you mentioned, I don't want to take up too much of your time because you were in court all day.
It is very, very exhausting.
I relate.
But please, you mentioned that you are in a David and Goliath battle for people just like me who can't be in court.
So tell us how the public can support the very important work that you're doing to hold the government to account and protect property rights for Canadians, because that's really what this comes down to.
Yeah, it's guns today.
It could be anything the government decides you don't need tomorrow.
Tell us how people can get involved and please plug your merch store.
You guys have the best merch.
Yeah, time for a new hoodie for you, by the way.
I know, I know.
Yeah, so if you visit ccfr.ca, you can find our website there.
And there's a button right at the top where you can donate to the legal fund.
If you're, and that I want people to understand, this is not the CCFR's court challenge.
It's the Every Canadian's court challenge because this is for everybody and for property rights.
And you're right, we are the canary in the coal mine.
If they can take my guns today, they're going to take your SUV or pickup truck tomorrow.
And who knows what else the day after, right?
Emergency.
It's my SUV.
Yeah.
For the greater good is probably one of the most evil phrases on earth.
But and then because we feel that this is everybody's court challenge, we also have been sharing all the documentation, everything, like we have put everything public.
And you can find that on propertyjustice.ca.
So it's a huge repository of all the information.
You can read the arguments, cross-examinations, transcripts.
Of course, the hearing transcripts will be up there, but it'll probably take a few weeks after the hearing.
But we put all that public.
And then, of course, on ccfr.ca, you can hit the store button and head over to the CCFR store.
Any way you can help us out at all is a huge help because at the end of the day, we can't do any of this if people aren't there supporting us.
And people have been great, but even this hearing alone is probably, oh, I don't know, $150,000.
Like we're just, we're bleeding money, right?
So yeah.
Yeah.
Great lawyers cost money.
You get what you pay for when it comes to winning.
And you guys have some of the things that we're doing.
Definitely.
Yes, they're great.
Tracy, thanks so much for taking the time.
Thank you so much for the advocacy you do for just the normal people who want to be left alone by the government.
That's all we ever asked for.
That's the goal.
So thank you so much.
Say hi to Rod.
I will see you guys in court.
And I'll have you back on again very, very soon.
It was really good to see you.
YouTube.
Well, friends, we've come to the portion of this show wherein I welcome your viewer feedback.
Unlike the mainstream media, and I say this every single week, and I realize it gets redundant, but I actually care about what you think about the work that we do here at Rebel News for good or for bad, because without you, there really is no Rebel News.
Church Closures Impact00:03:17
We don't take up any from Justin Trudeau, and how could we ever hold him to account if we did?
I mean, clearly, we've seen the impact of that on the mainstream media, have we not?
Now, today's viewer feedback comes from my show last week that I filmed with my friend and colleague, Kian Simoni.
He's our head of documentary filmmaking here at Rebel News.
And I don't know if you know, but he and I are cruising around the country on a very tight and grueling travel schedule, filming our new documentary.
It's called Church Under Fire, Canada's War on Christianity.
And it details the attacks on the brave pastors who resisted the lockdowns.
And you can learn more about it at savethechristians.com.
And now on that show, Cheryl Lell or Cheryl L writes, what happened to the church in Aylmer that was an attack by the LGBT group?
I think you mean the Church of God in Aylmer, Ontario, and that is pastored by Henry Hildebrand.
I watched the group start on Facebook and grow with the purpose of stopping churches from opening and serving on the streets.
That pastor had made enemies within his own small town from people who maybe were once members of his church but went to the gay community.
I don't know if that's true or not, but there were attempts made to divide Pastor Henry from his community after so long in building and forming relationships and trust.
I think that's really going to be some of the hardest damage to repair within Canada is where pastors who had built so much trust and goodwill in their communities, certain people were willing to throw everything they knew about those pastors and those congregations out the door simply because the government told them to.
Anyway, let's keep going.
The hatred they had for him was poisonous.
Every time they found out that he was going to be open for services, Facebook alerted the activists to be there to protest.
I can't wait to see the full documentary.
So I should let you know, we did head out to Aylmer, Ontario.
We flew out from Alberta last week, although I'm losing track of all the traveling because it's been a lot.
And we met with Pastor Henry to hear his story and to go around Aylmer and just to see what was allowed to be open while the church was closed and to hear about the impact that it had on him and his congregation, him personally, his family personally, and the people who consider the Church of God their family.
Now, I should tell you, if you want exclusive access to the behind-the-scenes making of the documentary, including me chasing some seagulls in St. John, New Brunswick, might I suggest you go over to savethechristians.com, where you can select your level of support for the work that we're doing on the documentary.
You give us some money to make the documentary, and we give you something back in the form of perks.
Level Support Perks00:00:50
And there's something for every level.
But if you do support our work, you do get to see some of those behind-the-scenes vignettes of Sheila and Kian driving across the country in a rental car, eating beef jerky and drinking bad road coffee to tell the other side of the story, the story that the government wants you to forget and the mainstream media never told.
That's at savethechristians.com.
Well, everybody, that's the show for tonight.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
I'll see everybody back here in the same time in the same place next week.
Jesse, my producer, thank you so much for bearing with me as I dealt with just absolute technical catastrophes today, but I'm doing my best to be a good sport and I hope you are too, Jesse.