David Menzies compares Anheuser-Busch’s 2023 Bud Light "Dylan Mulvaney" ad—a virtue-signaling misfire—to Schlitz’s 1970s brewing disaster, which collapsed market share. The campaign alienated conservatives (Kid Rock, DeSantis) and leftists (Goldberg), while Coors Light gained, mirroring J&J’s 1982 Tylenol crisis response. A later 9/11-themed ad faced backlash from activists like Ollie London and Tom Fitton. Menzies ties this to broader "wokeism" overreach, warning it may deter future corporate activism, while also critiquing U.S./Canadian inaction on Chinese police stations aiding espionage or war, despite cases like New York’s 2023 arrests linked to Democratic donors. He calls for defunding mainstream media like CBC amid perceived liberal bias. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, the Bud Light fiasco continues to rage, but is there something more at play here rather than Americans simply boycotting a brand of beer?
It's Thursday, April 20th, 2023.
I'm David Menzies, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you sensorious bug.
Given the events taking place in the beer biosphere for the last several days, I was thinking about one of my favorite business books from yesterdecade.
It's entitled The Misfortune 500, subtitled The Worst Bosses, The Dumbest Strategies, The Most Disastrous Products.
In particular, I was thinking of the tragic beverage tale that appears on page 10, namely the Schlitz beer saga.
I shall read verbatim from the Misfortune 500, quote, in the early 1970s, Schlitz was the second best-selling brew in the U.S., the beer that made Milwaukee famous.
But then blunderheaded management changed the taste and created a beer that made Schlitz infamous.
In a cost-saving move in 1974, management decided to radically shorten the brewing process.
Schlitz substituted cheap corn syrup for some of the costly barley malt and rushed through batches in half the time that most brewers spent.
The patented brewing process called automated balance fermentation not only ruined the taste, but left visible flakes of yeast floating in the beer.
To make matters worse, drinkers couldn't find a head on their draft.
Entire markets were lost virtually overnight.
Sales nosedived from 24 million barrels to 15 million in 1980.
Schlitz reverted to something close to the original taste, but by then it was too late.
By 1985, the brand had only 1% of the market.
End quote.
Obviously, the head honchos at Schlitz nearly 50 years ago were motivated by greed, the strategy being that by lowering input costs, the end result would be a more robust profit margin.
Hey, as Gordon Gecko said in the 1987 film Wall Street, greed is good.
Well, maybe, sometimes, but the Schlitz executives probably should have paid closer attention to another classic business adage, that being, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Indeed, what do you want to bet that the folks at Anheuser-Busch feel likewise now that they are collectively suffering from buyers' remorse vis-a-vis the marketing initiative that is the Dylan Mulvaney Bud Light debacle?
Unlike Schlitz, Anheuser-Busch, their prime directive, well, it had nothing to do with greed really, but rather it was all about virtue signaling and proving how woke the brewery is, all for the sake of, well, virtue signaling and proving their wokeness.
It was all about unnecessarily taking a knee to the cancel culture mob as if Anheuser-Busch was preemptively waving the white flag of surrender, even though there were no soy boy barbarians at the gate to begin with.
Bizarre.
And much like Schlitz's ill-fated brewing experiment half a century ago, the end result for Anheuser-Busch today is the same.
Sales of Bud Light are tanking.
Indeed, at one point, Anheuser-Busch's share value had plunged by US$5 billion.
Yikes talk about a bitter aftertaste.
In any event, allow me to provide a post-mortem on a marketing campaign for Bud Light that seemed to be all about inexplicably destroying a brand as opposed to bolstering it.
Bud Light's Mad March Madness00:08:37
Now, the idiotic call to action begins with hiring Dylan Mulvaney, who identifies as a trans woman, which is to say he's a biological male who might very well be experiencing mental illness.
Yeah, that's exactly the sort of person I want as my brand ambassador.
Take it away, Dainty Dylan.
Hi.
Impressive carrying skills, right?
I got some Bud Lights for us.
So, I kept hearing about this thing called March Madness, and I thought we were all just having a hectic month.
But it turns out it has something to do with sports.
And I'm not sure exactly which sport, but either way, it's a cause to celebrate.
This month I celebrated my day 365 of womanhood, and Bud Light sent me possibly the best gift ever, a can with my face on it.
Check out my Instagram story to see how you can enjoy March Madness with Bud Light and maybe win some money too.
Love ya!
Cheers!
Go team!
Whatever team you love, I love too.
Okay.
Love ya.
Okay, break a leg.
Just wondering, in this day and age of wokeism, has the feminist movement completely gone a wool?
Because if I was a female, especially a female sports fan, that ad would be akin to a slap in the face whether the commentary was coming from a real woman or a fake one.
Indeed, Dylan plays up the very worst female stereotypes.
You know that women are scatter-brained and can't possibly comprehend sports.
But March Madness is surely the second biggest sporting event in the U.S. after the Super Bowl.
Even those who aren't into NCAA college basketball know full well what March Madness is.
Oh, but not for fake femme Dylan.
You know, I have no idea if his so-called conversion to womanhood meant having his wedding tackle sliced and diced to resemble a fake vagina.
But it seems as though Dylan thinks that being a real woman means that he has to pretend as though he just received a lobotomy.
Again, where are the feminists?
Or are they too busy chanting trans woman or real woman as they throw real woman under the bus?
Now, undoubtedly, the Dylan Mulvaney creative was atrocious, and the response to it, at least the response by actual Bud Light drinkers, it continues to be overwhelmingly negative.
So what does Anheuser-Busch do in the Department of Crisis Management?
Well, this corporation doubles down on stupid by having Elisa Heinerscheid, Bud Light's marketing VP, explain to all the Neanderthals out there why the company was using a transvestite to promote Bud Light.
Alas, her pithy prose only had the effect of throwing high-octane gasoline on a raging dumpster fire.
Check it out.
I'm a businesswoman.
First of all, what's a businesswoman?
I mean, there's a female U.S. Supreme Court judge who cannot define the word woman.
After all, so I'm already terribly confused.
Let's continue.
I had a really clear job to do when I took over Bud Light, and it was this brand is in decline.
It's been in decline for a really long time.
In decline, really?
Folks, do you have any idea what the number one selling beer is in America?
It used to be Budweiser, but for years now, the numeral Uno brew in the U.S. has been drumroll, please, Bud Light.
So tell me what exactly had to be remedied here.
Let's carry on.
And if we do not attract young drinkers to come and drink this brand, there will be no future for Bud Light.
So I had this super clear mandate.
It's like we need to evolve and elevate this incredibly iconic brand.
And my, what I brought to that was a belief in, okay, what does what does evolve and elevate mean?
It means inclusivity.
It means shifting the tone.
It means having a campaign that's truly inclusive and feels lighter and brighter and different and appeals to women and to men.
And representation is at sort of the heart of evolution.
You've got to see people who reflect you in the work.
And we had this hangover.
I mean, Bud Light had been kind of a brand of fratty, kind of out-of-touch humor.
And it was really important that we had another approach.
Okay, this marketing genius wants Bud Light to be more inclusive.
And in order to accomplish inclusivity, she wants to exclude one of the biggest demographics for Bud Light, that being Frat Boys.
You know, those guys carrying out cases of Bud Light from the liquor store for their weekend parties.
Say, do you think that Dylan Mulvaney is even capable of hoisting a six-pack without breaking a nail?
Actually, do you think Elisa Heinerscheid knows what March Madness is?
Do you think Elisa Heinerscheid is still the marketing VP for Bud Light?
If so, why so?
In any event, we know what happened next, which is to say B is for Bud Light and B is for backlash big time.
My favorite response vis-a-vis the backlash file is Kid Rock expressing both his first and second amendment rights at the very same time.
Check it out.
Grandpa is feeling a little frisky today.
Let me say something to all of you and be as clear and concise as possible.
Fuck Bud Light and fuck Anheuser-Busch.
Have a terrific day.
You know, I think I'm going to buy some more Kid Rock songs this weekend.
Meanwhile, sales of Bud Light continue to tank.
Perhaps Anheuser-Busch thought they had a beer monopoly, but here's the deal: they do not.
So who needs a preachy Bud Light when one can kick back with a sermon-free Coors light?
Currently, a Bud Light boycott remains in full force, and this boycott shows no signs of ebbing.
In fact, it's growing.
It's certainly a fashionable cause to pursue in many conservative circles and in some other circles for that matter.
More on this aspect later on.
Now again, in the Department of Damage Control, what did Anheuser-Busch do?
Well, they could have taken a page from Johnson ⁇ Johnson, which wrote the book on crisis management decades ago.
Back in 1982, the company was broadsided by the tainted Tylenol tragedy.
That's when some psychopath purposely laced Tylenol tablets with cyanide.
Seven people died.
Johnson ⁇ Johnson immediately apologized, even though the vast majority of consumers realized that the company itself was not to blame and was actually also being victimized by this saboteur in terms of brand reputation.
As well, Johnson ⁇ Johnson recalled billions of Tylenol tablets all over the world, even though all the poisonings were confined solely to the Chicago area. The company then went on to pioneer tamper-proof packaging to help make certain that such a tragedy would never occur again. Tamper-proof packaging is now an industry standard the world over. Now,
when the tainted Tylenol story originally broke, many commentators predicted that Tylenol as a brand name was deader than disco. But they were wrong. Today, Tylenol, thanks to the way in which Johnson ⁇ Johnson handled the crisis,
Bud Light Fiasco Backlash00:11:01
actually has greater market share in the pain relief category than it did back in the early 80s. The lesson here is clear. The public is very forgiving as long as the offending corporation is transparent and sincere in making amends. But this has not been the case with Anheuser-Busch. Last Friday,
for example, Anheuser-Busch CEO Brendan Whitworth didn't issue an apology, but rather he offered up a nothing burger statement. Check it out, said Whitworth, quote,
as a CEO of a company founded in America's heartland more than 165 years ago, I am responsible for ensuring every consumer feels proud of the beer we brew. We're honored to be part of the fabric of this country. Anheuser-Busch employs more than 18,000 people,
and our independent distributors employ an additional 47,000 valued colleagues. We have thousands of partners, millions of fans, and a proud history supporting our communities, military, first responders, sports fans, and hardworking Americans everywhere. We never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people. We are in the business of bringing people together over a beer,
end quote. That's it? What? To quote Mr. Horse. No, sir, I don't like it. Speaking of horses, after the CEO statement went over like weak-old flat beer,
Anheuser-Busch resorted to Plan D, or is it Plan E by this point? Namely, the company's ad agency hastily created a wannabe good old-fashioned piece of patriotic creative heavy on those famous Clydesdale horses and trumpeting the American dream. It was all about the USA in the good old days, You know, when men were men and women were women and drag queens were confined to gay bars as opposed to public libraries.
Check it out.
Let me tell you a story about a beer in the heart of America found in a community where a handshake is a sure contract for those who found opportunity and challenge raised by generations.
Willing to sip, share, risk, remember. This is a story bigger than beer. This is the story of the American spirit. Whoa,
hold your horses, Budweiser, because you've now gone from tiny transgender time to exploiting the horror of 9-11 to get out of a communications crisis, to get back to selling more Bud Light beer again. Are you kidding me? Indeed, as my colleague Ian Wiles Chong stated in a recent written piece, quote,
prominent figures like Red State senior editor Brandon Morse and actor Matthew Marsden have taken to Twitter to criticize the advertisement. D-transition activist Ollie London called attention to Anheuser-Busch's failure to apologize for the backlash,
while Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton accused corporate owners of trying to pretend their support of a transgender extremist never happened, end quote. Then again, folks, on the bright side, Anheuser-Busch's exploitation of 9-11 wasn't as bad as the most appallingly tasteless 9-11 themed commercial ever filmed. Actually,
what I'm about to show you might be the worst and most appallingly tasteless commercial of all time, regardless of the category. It comes courtesy of the marketing geniuses employed at Miracle Mattress in San Antonio, Texas. Buckle up for this one, folks. In Texas, poor taste doesn't begin to describe this ad from a local mattress retailer. What better way to remember 9-11 than with a twin tower sale? Right now,
you can get any size mattress for a twin price. Store by itself all day long. Oh my god! We'll never forget. Anyway, in a statement,
the owner of Miracle Mattress says the ad was tasteless and crude, and the employees behind it will be held responsible. Incredible. And methinks, here's another lesson for Anheuser-Busch. Do not commercially exploit tragedies. That is something fraught with danger. But Anheuser-Busch's Bud Light fiasco continues to devolve from simmering crisis to outright boiling catastrophe. And suddenly,
Anheuser-Busch, thanks to its own doing, finds itself in a no-win position. Which is to say, these days, it is being denounced by all sides. For example, those on the left are now lambasting Anheuser-Busch for not standing up to so-called anti-trans sentiment. Check out this column by John Casey in theadvocate.com. The headline and deck says it all. It is entitled,
Boycott Budweiser for Validating Trans Hate. The subtitle states, quote, rather than defend its partnership with trans activist Dylan Mulvaney, Budweiser's CEO poured alcohol all over an extremist's fire, end quote. So this marketing disaster is now in unprecedented territory. I mean,
when you have Florida Governor Ron DeSantis boycotting Bud Light on one end and a left-wing loony tune like Whoopi Goldberg boycotting Bud Light on the opposite end, and both camps are boycotting the beer for completely different reasons, the question arises, is anyone currently drinking Bud Light? Because right now,
Bud Light is not America's number one selling beer. It's more of a punchline, really. In fact, it's now fashionable to parody this beverage. Check this out. Are you a young drinker who is looking for a beer to drink? Do you feel that you want a beer that has evolved and is elevated? Do you want a beer that is inclusive,
has shifted the tone, feels lighter and brighter and different? Then you need a beer that represents the heart of evolution. Are you tired of beers that are fratty and use out-of-touch humor? Do you feel it's important for a beer to have another approach? Then make it a Bud Light because Bud Light is made for a man who wants to be a girl. In the final analysis,
the story of the still ongoing Bud Light fiasco is not so much a modern-day retelling of the Schlitz beer disaster of yester decade. In fact,
this story isn't even really about beer at all. Rather, in the bigger picture, I think the Bud Light backlash is a turning point in terms of those Americans and others across the globe who are just sick and tired of political correctness being shoved down our collective throats. Indeed,
in 2023, the virus that is wokeism, it's everywhere from government and academia to professional sports and Hollywood. Bud Light crossed a line. It ignited a fuse and millions of people who are sick of perversity being the new diversity are now screaming,
enough is enough already. I totally get it. Hey, when I go to a hockey game, I don't want to see some grotesque drag queen show break out during the second period intermission. When I watch a movie, I don't want to be lectured about privilege and or white supremacy, especially when the lecture is emanating from perhaps the most privileged white people on the planet, i.e. the Hollywood elite. And when I buy a case of beer,
I don't want to hear some phony baloney female mocking real women as being brainless bimbos. And I also don't want to be lectured by some moronic marketer as to why the brewer would much rather prefer to sell its beer to a demographic that doesn't care to buy the stuff while this same idiot denounces the brand's core consumer base. In fact,
unless you're an Anheuser-Busch shareholder, I believe the Bud Light fiasco is a good news story. For example, in light of the current backlash,
do you think any other companies that were about to launch some woke ad campaign featuring a creepy transgendered spokes thingy are still plowing through with those plans? Methinks those campaigns have already been scrapped and buried. It's back to the drawing board unless the unspoken agenda is to commit corporate suicide. The moral of the Bud Light story is clear. When someone reaches for a beer,
they want the suds in the can, not pompous propaganda. They don't want political messaging. They don't want a lecture. They don't want to be told how stupid they are. Anheuser-Busch just experienced its Hillary Clinton-like basket of deplorables moment. Yet,
given that this beer behemoth still has yet to issue a genuine apology to try and win back its once loyal consumer base,
the question arises: has Anheuser-Busch actually learned anything at all from this moronic marketing fiasco? Finally, Some good news to report regarding Chinese police stations operating in other sovereign Nations.
Chinese Influence in North America00:15:21
Earlier this week, two New York City men were arrested for allegedly acting as agents for the People's Republic Of China.
They were also charged for obstructing justice by destroying Evidence.
We will watch how their trial unfolds in the weeks and months Ahead.
But as the U.S. Is apparently getting more serious about illicit Chinese police stations operating on American soil, what is the situation in Canada?
We have previously exposed that such police stations are indeed operating in Canada, yet all the RCMP will say,
dating back to last September, is that the matter is under investigation. But the questions arise: what's going on here? How is it even possible that Chinese police officers are stationed in Western democracies in the first place? And what sort of law enforcement are they responsible for? And joining me now to try and make sense of it all is columnist,
author, and lawyer Gordon G. Chang, whose most recent book is The Coming Collapse of China, and he can be found on Twitter at Gordon G. Chang. So first things first,
thank you so much for joining me, Gordon. Thank you, David. And what I'm really trying to wrap my head around with this story, Gordon, is what is the ostensible policy reason for Chinese police stations operating in countries such as the U.S. and Canada in the first place? With regard to the U.S.,
and that was the police station in Chinatown, which was shut down, Beijing said, well, they're just merely helping Chinese citizens with routine administrative matters like driver's licenses. But we know from Chinese propaganda that those who were assigned to the Chinese police station in the United States were helping with law enforcement matters, Getting Chinese officials back to China, those who had fled, also Chinese dissidents in the U.S.
So really, this was an attempt by Beijing to make sure that it could get what they considered to be Fugitives.
And the broader issue here is that Ministry OF State Security agents and consular officials had been regularly violating American sovereignty almost openly for Decades.
And so it's understandable why the Chinese felt that they could get away with actually establishing a formal location.
This was the result of American Feebleness.
And so the Chinese just took advantage of It, And I'm sure the same is true in other countries like Canada.
You know, Gordon, This to me is Outrageous.
I mean, how do they get away with it in the first place?
I know in Canada, I mean, Justin Judea infamously said 10 years ago that he has admiration in his heart for the basic dictatorship of China in terms of getting things Done.
It's astounding how a future leader of a Western democracy would admire a regime like Beijing.
The level of admiration I actually have for China, because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say we need to go green as fast as.
But you know, in terms of these police officers operating, in terms of these quasi-police stations springing up, I mean I'm not even certain how they got away with this in the first place.
Isn't this a direct attack on the other nation's sovereignty?
Yeah, it certainly is.
This is a gross violation of sovereignty.
Um, you know Western leaders, and you can see this in the U.s.
They wanted to cooperate with China.
They felt that if they were indulgent, China would sort of reciprocate and that Beijing would eventually come to see that it had an interest in maintaining the existing international order.
Um also um, on a sort of more base explanation would really be that.
Well, there are elements in the American society that were making money from China, and so that they were influential in Washington in making sure that the?
U.s government didn't protect American sovereignty, because that would cause friction, and friction would inevitably affect business.
So i'm sure the same motivations were in Canada as well, but clearly the Chinese just took advantage of this and they felt that they were going to go full bore on it, and so we should not be surprised.
This is the direct result of American policies in our case, and i'm sure it's the same north of our border and Gordon.
In terms of reciprocation, I can't for a second believe that Beijing would welcome with open arms the FBI, the CIA, the RCMP CSIS, etc.
Into Chinese territory.
So it's a bit of a double standard, isn't it?
Yes well, we have not insisted on reciprocity, so the Chinese have not felt that they had to open up their country, and this is not just police stations.
This is when we talk about, for instance, tick tock.
American apps are not allowed in China, but we allow Chinese apps in our country, so the Chinese are taking advantage of us, and so we shouldn't be surprised about that.
But the American people should be outraged at American presidents, who have known about this and allowed this to continue, and this is not just a recent phenomenon.
This has gone on for quite some time.
China violating our sovereignty.
And Gordon, can you tell us what do we know about those two individuals that were arrested in New York City earlier this week?
They were politically influential.
There's that infamous photograph of one of them, um Standing next to Eric Adams, who is now mayor of New York, and Chuck Schumer, the majority leader in the Senate. So we know that they made large donations to the Democratic Party. We have known this for quite some time,
and it's only now. The thing about this, David, that is interesting is that we didn't learn about these police stations from our own government. We learned about it because of the Spanish-based NGO, Safeguard Defenders, who wrote a report about a year ago and who've updated that report to show the increase in the number of Chinese police stations around the world. So the FBI in the United States,
they're just reacting to pressure. They weren't going to do this on their own. And that really shows how influential China is. China is more influential in the United States than the American people. And we ought to take note of that and understand that our republic is at risk. You know,
Gordon, this is scary to me because, I mean, the fact that this is okay with the Democratic Party, one of the ongoing stories we have right now in Canada is that the Chinese government was influential in the last two Canadian elections of 2021 and 2019,
and perhaps even earlier. I guess what I'm getting at is that China on the international stage, it's a bad actor. It's not a nation you want to get in bed with. Even if it's politically expedient,
it almost sounds treasonous to me. I know that's a harsh word that you would allow a regime like that to carry out law enforcement again in a Western democracy. Yeah, that's a great word for it. But,
you know, whatever the motivation is of American Canadian leaders, we know that they're not defending their countries. Their highest obligation, most solemn obligation, is to defend the United States and Canada from foreign attack. And they've completely failed to do that. So we have to understand that I don't think it's possible to accommodate China for various reasons. And that means we need to remove Chinese contacts from American soil,
from the United States, because we have not been able after decades to find a way to accommodate it on an acceptable way. And, Gordon, in our country,
we've been working on this story. We haven't been getting much cooperation. The RCMP will simply say it's under investigation. Other than that, no comment. I have gone to the alleged three buildings that are supposedly hosting Chinese police officers. One is a Chinese-Canadian business association in Markham. Also in Markham,
just a residential house and in the Scarborough area of Toronto, a convenience store. To me, it's surreal. And I'm just wondering: are they purposely housed in, I guess, fronts like that to avoid suspicion? Probably, but also they're housed in locations where there are a lot of Chinese. So it gives them cover. There's a lot going on here. But, you know,
whatever the reason is, they're not acceptable in any location. So, you know, it's up to the Canadian people to demand that their leaders start removing these locations. And it's going to be the same dynamic in the U.S.,
that it's going to be up to the American people to force President Biden to do what he doesn't want to do. But we've seen a change in American political opinion. And I would hope that there would be a similar change in Canada as well. I hope so too. And tell me,
Gordon, I've had off-the-record conversations with people that are on this file. And what they tell me is that they're not like typical police. They don't wear a uniform. They don't have a badge. They don't even carry firearms. And basically, at least in Canada, the situation has been they've identified people who are so-called enemies of the state, that is to the government of China. And they basically do the soft sell. They go, listen,
we can do this the easy way or the hard way. You can either get back on a plane and go back to China and face discipline, or we know who your friends and family are back in China. We can have our associates in the homeland take care of things. It's almost like extortion to me. And I think if that is true,
this makes it even more outrageous. Gordon, your thoughts. Yeah, certainly. And the other issue here in the U.S. is that Chinese consular officials have been involved in these activities and others that violate American sovereignty. And we've known about this for decades,
and nothing was done. You know, fortunately, when Mike Pompeo was Secretary of State in July of 2021, they closed the Houston consulate. And they said the official explanation was that it was because of espionage being conducted there. Well,
if that were the explanation, the Trump administration should have closed all five Chinese consulates. But what was occurring in Houston, I believe, is China was providing logistical and financial support to violent protesters in the United States. And that was more than just subversion, David. That's an act of war. So really, the Chinese will engage in attempts to destroy the American government. And I'm sure they'll do the same thing in Canada as well,
if they're permitted to do so. And we've got two political systems that have accommodated China in ways that are inimical to the countries. So it's up to the Canadian people. It's up to the American people to make sure that it is politically impossible to allow China to move against Canada and the United States. And Gordon,
since you mentioned former U.S. President Donald Trump, I can see why the Democrats would go easy on China. But certainly former President Trump, he took a hard line on China. I'm just wondering why there wasn't more house cleaning regarding this matter in the U.S. when Mr. Trump was in power. Well,
China was not the number one issue when Trump took over in 2021. So there was, sorry, in 2017. But there really is now a growing awareness of this. And let's got to be clear that the Democrats are not the only party in the United States who are at fault. The Republicans have had atrocious China policies as well,
Sometimes worse than the Democrats.
So this is a bipartisan failure in the United States.
And it just so happens right now that Joe Biden has views of China that are outdated.
He's trying to reach cooperation with China.
China doesn't want to cooperate with him.
And so he is not taking those measures that I believe he's constitutionally required to take.
But this will be up for the American people in the next election, because China is becoming increasingly political in the United States, which is a good thing.
People are now looking at it with a much harder eye, And it is going to be an issue where it hasn't been in the past.
Interesting.
Gordon, one last question. I'm going to ask you to do a little crystal ball gazing. What we see with the two men in New York charged is this maybe the unraveling of Chinese police stations,
not just in America, but maybe the world over. Or is this maybe just a statistical blip? It's a one-off and business as usual shall go on. This is the start of a trend. It's not a one-off. There are six other police stations in the U.S.,
and I suspect that they'll be closed fairly soon, though not soon enough. China has crossed the line in the U.S. with, for instance, that spy balloon that entered U.S. airspace on January 28th and also crossed across Western Canada. So I think that there is no going back. The issue is,
will the American and Canadian publics move fast enough? And I believe that they will, because what we're seeing is a change of opinion. And I don't think there's anything right now that China can do to change it. It has done too much and it has crystallized opinion, at least in the United States. And as I mentioned, I hope in Canada as well. I hope so too, my friend. Well, thank you so much, Gordon, for your insight. I greatly appreciate it. Thank you, David. Thank you. And folks,
Rachel Notley Press Controversy00:02:41
that was Gordon G. Chang. And you can follow him on Twitter at Gordon G. Chang. Please stay with us. More of the Ezra Event Show to come right after this. Well,
folks, lots of feedback on Sheila Gunn Reed's monologue on the liberals' controversial online streaming legislation and her interview with our colleague Alex Dalliwall, who was frog marched out of a Rachel Notley press conference. Despicable. Now, in reference to the online streaming act, James Friedman writes, This BS is brought to you by tolerance and compassion.
Yeah, it's funny.
It's always about tolerance and compassion when it comes to a dictator telling you how you're going to live your life or else.
I go back to election night 2015, when Blackface said this was going to be the most transparent and honest government in Canadian history.
It's proven to be neither.
And with regards to Mr. Daliwell being kicked out of the Rachel Notley press conference, Mark Blaine writes, Notley is into censorship.
That alone is a reason not to vote for Notley and the NDP.
You know, you're absolutely right. And here's what I say. At another press conference, I remember Rachel Notley calling out a staffer with Western Standards. She said she wasn't going to answer questions from him until he apologized for alleged homophobic content. Well,
you know something, folks? Given that our colleague Alex Daliwal is Muslim, maybe we should fight fire with fire, which is to say, hey, Rachel Notley, how dare you be Islamophobic by kicking a Muslim reporter out of your own press conference? Despicable. Greg Pearson writes,
start throwing the CBC, CTV, and global out of conservative events. But you know what? I don't think so. We're not like them, folks. Let's not get in the trough with the pigs. Let's show that we're better than they are. I say simply defund these entities,
see how they will fare in a free market economy. Oh, that'll be a blood sport worth tuning into. Well, folks, that wraps up tonight's edition of the Ezra Levant Show. She'll be back here tomorrow, Friday, April 21st,