Ezra Levant critiques CBC’s Jonathan Montpetit for a biased smear against Elon Musk, ignoring actual extremism while pressuring advertisers like Bell and Samsung to abandon X. Musk visited Israel post-Hamas attacks, unlike Trudeau—the only G7 leader not to do so—while B’nai Brith defied CBC pressure. At COP28 in Dubai, UAE’s Sultan Al-Jabber rejected alarmist climate goals, exposing UN’s politically driven 1.5°C target via Climate Gate emails. Western nations push fossil fuel bans while locking African land for carbon offsets, despite polls showing climate change is a low public priority. Rebel News was banned from COP28 by Trudeau’s government, suggesting media collusion to silence dissent and control energy sovereignty. [Automatically generated summary]
I want to take you through the CBC's latest hit job, a smear against Elon Musk.
And it's so lame and it's so awful.
And it's done by one of the worst journalists in the entire Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, who was recently chided by their own ombudsman for his lack of ethics.
Well, he's at it again.
I'll take you through it line by line.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
It's eight bucks a month, which I know that's not a ton of dough, really.
That's like half a Starbucks drink, I know.
But it means a lot to us because eight bucks here, eight bucks there really adds up, and we pay half our payroll with that.
And we need that because, of course, we don't take a dime from Trudeau and we're being demonetized by YouTube.
So please go to RebelNewsPlus.com if you can.
Here's today's podcast.
Tonight, Trudeau's CBC State Broadcaster does their best to smear Elon Musk.
It's December 12th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you sensorious wubug.
No, I'm on Twitter and TikTok on my phone and both track me through my phone.
I'm the same person.
Whatever I type, whatever I search for, whatever I read, whatever I say into my phone, both apps get the same information from me.
So it's amazing to see the difference between what those two social media platforms serve up to me based on their algorithms of the information I'm giving them because I'm giving them both the same info.
And I should tell you that there's about 100 times more raw anti-Semitism and anti-black racism on TikTok than there is on Twitter.
I mean, deep pro-Nazi stuff like old Hitler speeches done up in a cool meme or Holocaust denial stuff or more often, Holocaust romanticization stuff.
I can't tell you how many times Nazi war songs have been served up to me on TikTok.
Obviously, I'm Jewish.
I'm not a Nazi.
I am not searching for this stuff.
It is being pumped at me.
And that was before the October 7th Hamas terrorist rape and murder spree in Israel.
That added a whole additional layer of more up-to-date anti-Semitism to my TikTok feed, but not my Twitter feed.
Sometimes I laugh when people publish ads.
They take a screenshot of an ad that shows up on a website they're watching and they complain about that ad.
Usually they say, oh, all these dating sites are these sexually suggestive sites.
And it's funny because that person obviously doesn't realize, of course, that the ads served up on any given website are personalized.
They're tailored to the individual user.
So if you're getting ads to meet single women in your area, it may be you, not the website you're on.
You may have been Googling that.
But I promise you, as a Jew, I am not searching for Nazi stuff or anti-black stuff on my phone.
And if it were the algorithm responding to me, I would imagine that Twitter would be serving up the same stuff too, but it is not.
My point is, TikTok really is a pipeline of cultural propaganda, hate, anti-Semitism, anti-black racism, pro-Chinese Communist Party, and pro-Hamas ideas, and actually pro-transgenderism.
There's no escaping it on TikTok.
And it goes right into the minds of young people in the West.
Young kids aren't really on Twitter talking politics.
They are on TikTok, which is controlled by Communist China.
Which leads me to our story today.
I don't know if you remember a few months back, but Blacklock's reporter broke the news.
CBC's in-house ombudsman, who usually just whitewashes the state broadcasters' ethical lapses, was so grossed out by one CBC story that they actually chided their own reporters for smearing Trudeau's enemies as conspiracy theorists.
The reporter's name in question is Jonathan Montpetit, and he's really Trudeau's hatchet man at the CBC.
You can look through his stories over the years.
Here's his homepage on the CBC website.
They call him an investigative journalist, but I don't think that's quite accurate.
He just calls himself that to make himself seem classier, I think.
He's really just a mud thrower rehashing left-wing gossip about conservatives, never doing investigations of the government, God forbid, or of the left.
He just goes after conservatives, Trudeau's enemies list.
Let me just pick one of his examples.
This one here.
Can you imagine?
Inside the fundamentalist Christian movement that wants to remake Canadian politics.
Really?
I mean, seriously, we've got thousands, tens of thousands of pro-jihad extremists, most of them Muslim, marching in our city streets, calling for violence.
That's what an intifada revolution is.
Calling to exterminate the Jews.
But the CBC's Trudeau hatchet man thinks a sleepy Christian church is the extremism problem in Canada.
Here's another one.
I'm just picking these almost at random.
How the American anti-LGBTQ hate machine is posing a threat to Canadians.
Hate machine, is there a machine that says hate?
Is that even a news story or a news headline?
These are editorial, these are tweets, really.
They're extremist gossip rebranded as investigations.
Here's another one.
On its own climate change.
On climate change, Quebec's parties propose leaving the hard work for future generations.
Sorry, that's not an investigation.
That's an op-ed.
And they're often bigoted and extremist, and they're all partisan.
Their partisan takes pretending to be journalism.
The one that was so bad that Montpetit got called out on it by his own company was this one that mentions Rebel News and other conservative media.
Canada's convoy movement waved the Dutch flag.
Then conspiracy theories swirled about fertilizer and bugs.
Yeah, except it's not a conspiracy theory that the Canadian government wants us to eat bugs.
They say they do.
And they're giving government grants of taxpayers' money to, for example, there's a factory that produces insects as food, both for pets and for people.
But here's the headline, far-right media.
Conservative politicians stoking misinformation about an early plan to cut emissions.
Except it's not information.
It is literally the stuff Trudeau brags about.
It took me about 30 seconds of investigation to find this press release on Google.
This is literally the statement put out by Trudeau's cabinet about the big insect farm that they are using your tax dollars to support.
I say insect farm because they want you to eat them.
My point is, Jonathan Montpetit isn't actually investigating anyone or anything.
Certainly, he's not speaking truth to power.
He's not investigating the liberal government.
He works for the government.
He works for power, smearing power's critics as a, you know, he calls them kooky or goofy conspiracy theories.
He uses the word misinformation, but only for Trudeau to those enemies.
See, Trudeau himself never says anything false.
And he and the CBC call himself an investigative reporter as he does it.
I bet he wears a little toy sheriff's badge too, because he's an investigator.
He's not a smear.
No, sirree.
It's like those fact checkers who are just really opinion columnists, but they call themselves fact checkers to imply that they're above the rest of the journalists who actually do journalism.
Here's what the CBC's own ombudsman said about that article by Montpetit calling everyone who hates, who everyone he hates at disinformation.
Here's what the ombudsman said.
I will take this opportunity to stress to programmers at CBC.
They assume a great responsibility when they choose to use terms such as misinformation and disinformation in their stories.
When they do so, they had better be right.
Because if it turns out down the road that the information proved to be correct, they can do great damage to their reputation.
As I often remind them, precision is key, and labels should be employed with great caution.
Sometimes it would be safer to say that there is no evidence for something rather than proclaiming it to be false.
I wonder why they didn't name Jonathan Monpetiti in the ombudsman report about his story.
Anyways, Mompetiti, Trudeau's hatchet man, was at it again today, going after Trudeau's latest enemy, Elon Musk, and Twitter, now known as X.
It was a pretty boring, extremely long.
It was 2,000 word-long story in the CBC that I think was actually written to please Trudeau and his chief of staff, Katie Telford, more than actually get anyone normal to read it.
But let's go through it a bit.
I want to show you the anatomy of a smear job, and I just printed it out.
It's so long.
And by the way, it's huge.
It's so American.
It doesn't actually cite any Twitter users or any problems in Canada or any experts in Canada.
It really feels like they just downloaded the Democrat talking points to take on Twitter.
Let's just go through it.
The headline, Bell Media, Angus Reed, and other Canadian brands halt ads on X amid extremism concerns.
Advertisers increasingly reticent since Elon Musk took over platform a year ago.
Okay, I'm excited.
We're talking about extremism in Canada in December 2023.
So we're talking about jihadists, right?
We're talking about people saying death to the Jews, maybe the people behind the Molotov cocktail attacks and the shooting of the schools and synagogues in Montreal.
No, no, that's not the extremism concerns.
The extremism concerns are Jonathan Monpetit's extremism concerns.
Pay no attention to the riots on the streets.
Pay no attention to people wearing machine gun earrings and saying Hamas did nothing wrong.
That's not of interest to Jonathan Monpetiti, who has not done a single investigation into that.
No, he knows where the real extremism is.
By the way, I've gone through this article and he does, I mean, he's never criticized radical Islam.
He doesn't find them extreme or if he does, he doesn't dare say it.
But he sure goes after the Jews, which again is a Trudeau kind of move.
You'll see in the story I had, he talks about Libs of TikTok, which is an account that basically just republishes some of the goofy things that liberals say on TikTok, by the way.
It's run by an Orthodox Jewish woman named Kaya Raychek, Jewish.
He attacks a Jewish YouTuber from the United Kingdom named Carl Benjamin, sometimes known as Sargon of Akkad.
He goes after Mike Cernovich.
All of them foreign, none of them extremist or racist in any way.
They're just conservatives, but that's the extremism.
But I think the key lie in this, I've already told you the main lie in the article.
This was not an investigation by Jonathan Monpetty.
That's not the essence of this story.
This was Jonathan Mompetty using his CBC letterhead to contact advertisers and basically, in the guise of interviewing them, actually threaten them.
I've seen this email before.
We see that you're advertising next to racist accounts.
Will you cancel your advertising?
I'm doing a story on this.
I need your reply in two hours.
That's not actually journalism.
It pretends to be journalism.
And the signature field in the email claims that Mompety is a journalist, but that's not journalism.
That is pressing a company to boy, that's making the news, that's manufacturing the news, pressing an advertiser with false information ginned up by the CBC, which is a competitor to Twitter.
So CBC has two conflicts of interest.
They're government-run, so they run errands for Trudeau.
And second of all, they're a competitor with Twitter.
And so this is not a news story.
They have made the news, which is they have a couple of tweets that they think are mean.
They call up advertisers and they basically say, we are going to embarrass you in a story we're going to run tomorrow.
You've got two hours to avow or disavow Elon Musk.
And most of the advertisers being conflicted first say, okay, fine.
Okay, fine.
You're right.
You're right.
We'll quit.
Ta-da!
You've just created the news story.
So that's not investigative journalism.
That's a shakedown.
Look at the caption on the photo there.
X, formerly known as Twitter, the unchecked rise in hateful content.
Is that true?
Has there been an unchecked rise in hateful content?
Is there any source for that information?
In fact, it's the opposite.
Elon Musk has shown that the number of hateful or bigoted or anti-Semitic tweets has declined.
And it not only has declined since he took over, but is lower than other social media apps.
Not only did the investigative journalist at the CBC not provide any facts, he provided disinformation.
The fact is that Twitter has far less hateful content than the other platforms, especially TikTok, which for some reason the CBC itself continues to use.
And by the way, the CBC is on Twitter.
That's where I found this story.
I say again that this whole thing is being called an investigation by CBC News, but they really didn't investigate, did they?
They just called up advertisers and threatened them.
And again and again in this piece, they call Elon Musk an anti-Semite.
You can see here Elon Musk's seeming endorsement of anti-Semitic and other far-right conspiracy theories, but they don't actually name one.
I don't think Elon Musk is an anti-Semite at all.
In fact, I'm pretty sure he's not.
He went to Israel recently and he toured the areas that were attacked by Hamas terrorists.
And he actually met with a family member of someone who was held hostage who gave him a necklace with the names of the victim.
And Elon Musk has said he will wear that necklace, sort of like dog tags, until that person is free.
Justin Trudeau hasn't gone to Israel.
Elon Musk did.
Justin Trudeau hasn't stood in solidarity in that manner with the victims of terrorism.
He's actually run interference for the terrorists.
Justin Trudeau remains the only G7 leader who has not visited Israel out of solidarity, other than the Japanese prime minister.
I think this is the CBC projecting its own anti-Semitism.
And the funny thing is they never actually name what Elon Musk did that was anti-Semitic.
Justin Trudeau's Solidarity Gap00:11:45
But look at further down, they talk about one of their experts, the Tech Transparency Project, a watchdog group.
Okay, so we got investigative reporters, we've got fact checkers, and we've got watchdogs.
So that's your signal that you're not supposed to look into who they are because they're better than you.
Just like Jonathan Mompetite isn't a mudslinger, you see.
This is investigative journalism.
So who is the tech transparency project, a watchdog group?
Again, I did my own investigative journalism using a machine called Google.
And in less than 30 seconds, I found their website and I found their about us page for who pays for them.
And George Soros pays for them.
And then Soros mini-meme, Pierre Omidiar, also an internet censor, pays for them.
So the CBC state broadcaster wants to gin up hatred for Elon Musk.
They want to call him a hater.
But what's their source?
They don't have, they're not a source themselves.
They didn't do any investigating themselves.
They contracted out their journalism to George Soros, who has a bit of an adversity with Elon Musk, but they didn't disclose that.
Jonathan Monpetty quoted the Tech Transparency Report project, but it's not very transparent, is it?
Don't you think it's relevant that the CBC is quoting George Soros in an attack on Elon Musk, but doesn't tell you it's quoting George Soros?
Jonathan Monpetty didn't do his investigative journalism, or rather, of course he did.
He just hid that fact from viewers.
The next paragraph, in addition, Samsung ads were spotted in the feeds of Libs of TikTok, which LGBTQ advocates say stirs up anti-trans hatred.
Okay, so you yourself don't have any facts, but someone who you don't name, LGBTQ advocates, you don't say who they are, say that Libs of TikTok, which is run by a Jewish woman, stirs up hate.
You don't have any proof of it.
You don't actually mention anyone.
You say, didn't we just read the Ombudsman telling Jonathan Monpetit that he has a duty to be precise and not just name-call and smear?
I think it's pretty obvious that Jonathan Mompetit doesn't listen to any executive at the CBC.
He only listens to what the PMO tells him to do.
Samsung's Canadian office did not respond to several emails sent by CBC News requesting comment.
They weren't requesting comment.
They were demanding action.
If Samsung didn't immediately cancel their ad campaign, the CBC would smear them, as they just did.
I'll scooch down a little bit.
Pathways Alliance, which lobby, they're going after some oil and gas companies, had ads appear in Carl Benjamin's feed.
Benjamin has been kicked off other social media platforms in the past for making racist and misogynist comments.
Now, first of all, Carl Benjamin himself is Jewish.
And second of all, I think I'm familiar with the instance, and it was a joke he told.
But again, the CBC calls him a hater, does not give you the viewer the information, does not cite what he was kicked off for.
This is in violation of what the ombudsman just told this little liar to do.
But the thing about liars is they don't really respond to calls to tell the truth because otherwise they wouldn't be liars.
Jonathan Monpetiti is Justin Trudeau's most reliable liar at the CBC.
And to hell with what the Ombudsman says and to hell with any journalism ethics, they're going to call him an investigative reporter for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but there really isn't any Canadian content here at all, is there?
They're citing foreign experts and foreign donors and foreign websites about foreign companies like Samsung.
But this is what the CBC gets $1.5 billion taxpayers dollars for a year.
What's funny, my favorite part of the story is that the B'nai Brith, which is one of the pro-Israel, pro-Jewish lobby groups, community groups in Canada.
It's actually over 100 years old.
They call themselves Canada's oldest civil liberties group.
They refuse to quit Twitter just because the CBC tries to bully them.
I think the B'nai Brith is a little bit tired of the CBC.
And they're probably confused about why the CBC is going after the B'nai Brith and going after Elon Musk instead of going after the actual hate in this country.
But then again, the actual anti-hate network that is funded by Trudeau has been pretty silent the last two months, too.
I just want to quote from Michael Mostin, the CEO of B'nai Brith, who said, despite his organization's concerns about anti-Semitism on social media, it had no plans to stop advertising on X. That's what they call Twitter now.
B'nai Brith has made a conscious decision to remain on social media, he said in an interview.
And the funny thing is, so has the CBC.
So has Jonathan Monpetit.
Why is the CBC still on such a hateful platform?
It's a bit weird, eh?
For the CBC and their hate journalist, Jonathan Monpetiti, to be on Twitter telling other companies to get off Twitter.
It's almost like they don't mean it.
I just want to read one more.
They went after Bell Media, of course.
They're trying to shake down all the advertisers.
Bell Media suspended advertising on X after it was informed that an ad for a subsidiary, the news division of Quebec TV network Nouveau, appeared in the feed of the far-right fitness leader.
And they're not really clear of which far-right fitness leader they're referring to.
I don't know who they mean.
Is there a far-right way of being physically fit?
I don't know.
The ad appeared over a post that called journalists priests of ruin and featured the slogan, all journals are bastards.
Well, I would stop for a second and say that doesn't make you right-wing to hate journalists.
It makes you Canadian.
I think most Canadians don't trust journalists, and smear assassination attempts like this are the reason why.
But again, look at the devious and deceptive language.
Bell Media suspended advertising on X after it was informed.
That's the passive voice.
It's like saying mistakes were made.
By whom?
What mistakes?
Bell Media canceled their ads after it was informed.
By whom?
And what did that information say?
It wasn't Jonathan Mompety just emailing them and telling them that if they didn't quit, he'd do a story about him, was it?
See, the CBC is not a neutral player of the game here.
They are a party to the story.
They are a stalking horse for Justin Trudeau.
The laugh is they call rebel news activists, and sometimes we are.
While they themselves have taken it upon themselves to be part of the ad boycott to instigate an ad boycott against Elon Musk, but they don't have the courage to admit it's in their that they themselves did it.
Bell Media was informed, passive tense, was informed.
They were informed by you.
How unethical can you get?
Let me skip ahead where Mompetiti says: social media users from TikTok to X are being exposed to a deluge of different Islamophobic and anti-Semitic tropes.
Is that a fact?
The Islamophobia?
I know Trudeau says that all the time, but is there really a rise of Islamophobia in Canada?
Have you seen any anti-Muslim hate marches?
Have you seen people throwing Molotov cocktails at mosques or shooting at mosques or tearing down pictures of kidnapped Muslims?
Have you seen any of that?
Because I haven't, but Trudeau says it, and the CBC says it again with no proof.
They just assert it.
But let me finish the sentence.
Social media users are being exposed to a deluge of different Islamophobic and anti-Semitic tropes, some of them perpetuated by people like Elon Musk, the owner of X.
And again, they don't have any examples of that.
But where is, so they mentioned TikTok in passing.
So where's the investigation of TikTok?
You'd think it would be a very sexy target.
It's the number one app for young people in the world.
It's absolutely got young people obsessed.
It's controlled by the government of China.
And by every measure, it really is a tornado of hate and transgenderism and pro-Hamasism.
So where's the investigation into that?
Well, the same place that Jonathan Monpetid's investigation into extremist mosques is.
It doesn't exist.
This is not an investigative piece.
This is an attack against Elon Musk.
And it's almost completely done through foreign sources, foreign experts, foreign people they cite.
They make another citation later in the article, the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism.
And how do they describe that expert source?
A nonprofit that monitors far-right activity and has worked with Twitter in the past.
Okay, so do they follow far-left activity?
Do they follow extremism on the left like Antifa?
No, that's just not interesting and not newsworthy.
Again, 30 seconds worth of Googling, and you can see that they're funded.
And they're alumni of the George Soros-funded Southern Poverty Law Center.
Again, not a Canadian source, but again, the money going back to Soros.
It's so crazy that the people who tell you George Soros is definitely not into any conspiracies.
He's definitely not the boogeyman the right says he is.
All of their sources are Soros-funded, and none of them are disclosed.
I'll just read a little bit more because it's getting boring.
This whole article is quite boring.
On November 15th, Musk endorsed an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, drawing widespread condemnation, including from the White House.
Which one?
Can I see the conspiracy theory?
I can't because I'm not allowed to see it.
I have to take the CBC's word for it.
Now, maybe it is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, or maybe I just have to believe this serial liar who's already been called out on it by his bosses.
I'll just read one last.
I think the lawyers probably added this at the bottom of the article.
These companies and organizations were not the only ones whose ads appeared in the feeds of extremist accounts.
I guess Chaya Raichik of the Jew behind Libs of TikTok is an extremist now.
CBC News also revealed several hashtags and extremist accounts on X that contain no ads at all.
Oh, so he just threw that in.
But we don't have the information.
They don't publish their work.
They don't show how many tweets they went through or how many times they had to search and search again to get just the perfect snapshot of all this hate.
Look, you just can't trust the CBC.
They are a state broadcaster in the worst sense of that word, and you have to pay for it.
They hate you.
They lie to you.
Here's their chief mudslinger, Jonathan Monpetit, who has actually been called on the carpet before for doing exactly this, for not being precise, for smearing Trudeau's enemies, for not giving viewers the information.
He was just called out on this like a month ago, and he's back doing it because he doesn't answer to the readers, and he doesn't answer to journalistic ethics, and he certainly doesn't answer to some toothless ombudsman at the CBC.
He knows who signs his paycheck every two weeks, Justin Trudeau.
Fossil Fuels and Lies00:07:30
And it shows.
Stay with us.
more ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Well, the UN Framework Commission on Climate Change, if I've got that right, that's a fancy way of saying the UN Global Warming Conference is wrapping up in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.
There's a lot of interesting things about that.
The first is that the Emirates, of course, is a fossil fuel superpower in a fossil fuel region.
It's near Saudi Arabia and Iran and Qatar and all these oil and gas-rich regimes.
And as you may know, the United Arab Emirates has become famous in recent years for its international airlines.
Qatar, Abu Dhabi, Dubai.
These are not enormous places population-wise, but each of them have enormous airlines.
You've probably heard of Emirates Airlines based in Dubai or Etiyad in Abu Dhabi or Qatar Air.
These are some of the largest airlines in the world, some of the most successful and obviously some of the most long-range flights span the whole world connecting through their capital cities.
I should tell you, having recently been in the United Arab Emirates, that nothing in that place moves without fossil fuels.
For one thing, it's in the middle of the desert.
When I was there earlier this summer, it was in the mid-40s Celsius.
That's extremely hot.
And everything is air conditioned.
In other words, as our friend Alex Epstein says, it's not climate change.
It's climate mastery.
Through fossil fuels, they have been able to master the desert, use energy to desalinate the sea for drinking water and cool it so people can live and travel.
It's actually a city that would be impossible with fossil fuels.
So what an ironic destination for the COP meeting, Conference of the Parties, which is what they call these UN climate gatherings.
Now, early in the summer, the chair of the conference said, look, fossil fuels aren't going away anytime in the near future.
And that caused a bit of a ruckus.
That was his point of view.
But inside, tens of thousands of delegates were talking about just that, banning fossil fuels.
I understand it was actually one of the largest UN global warming conferences ever in terms of the count of delegates.
And why not?
Who wouldn't want to go to Dubai?
It's like Vegas in Arabia.
Well, one of our friends was there, and he was there to critique, not to support.
He is, I think, the leading watchdog in the free world when it comes to what's going on at these global warming conferences.
I'm pleased to be joined now by our friend Mark Morano of climatepot.com, who just got back from Dubai.
Mark, great to see you again.
Thank you, Ezra.
I appreciate it.
And I might add, I am a big believer and fan of Dubai and that city.
I mean, it reminded me there's no crime, beautiful architecture, no crumbling infrastructure, safe, no homeless, no needles, kids running around 10 o'clock at night.
Their parents could be a block away.
It's just a model city.
It reminds me of what Western cities could actually achieve when they don't let the woke agenda get in the way of, you know, we need the needles for the drug addicts.
We need the homeless park over here.
We need the homeless encampments.
We know, you know, we don't, we're not going to spend the money on infrastructure.
It is probably the prettiest city I've ever been to, a marvel of both economics and architecture.
I, you know, I long for that in the Western world, whether it's Canada, the U.S. is an amazing city.
And would you agree with me?
And I think you would, that it is all based on heavy industry, fossil fuels, steel, which can only be made by coal.
Like it is a kind of city that Ayn Rand's novels would be written about.
That's what I thought of.
Yeah.
In fact, I went up the longest, the tallest building in the world.
Amazing feat.
It takes you one minute to go 144 stories to the top.
And it reminds me of what, say, the United States, the 1950s, the idea of just that uninhibited economic growth without all this.
You know, there's no agenda like, oh, you know, we got to have massive endless environmental impact statements and bureaucratic and what's the carbon footprint.
No, they're building stuff because it's the right thing and it's just unbridled.
I hate to say unbridled because you think of unbridled capitalism, which apparently is a negative term, but unbridled development that I just wish the West would once again embrace.
We're going the opposite way.
Everything is going to be about limits, austerity, regulations, and cutting back.
Whereas I got to tell you, the United Arab Emirates did not get that memo.
And as you mentioned, the COP president didn't get it because he ridiculed the UN.
Actually, the COP president was from the United Arab Emirates, Al-Jabber, Sultan Al-Jabber, and he literally said there was no science to support the net zero 1.5 degrees Celsius.
You can lead by example.
And like I said from the beginning, I accepted to come to this meeting to have a sober and a mature conversation.
We do not, I'm not in any way signing up to any discussion that is alarmist.
I am here factual and I respect the science.
And there is no science out there or no scenario out there that says that the phase out of fossil fuel is what's going to achieve 1.5.
1.5 is my North Star.
And a face down and a phase out of fossil fuel, in my view, is inevitable.
It is essential, but we need to be real, serious, and pragmatic about it.
But the real serious and pragmatic doesn't take into account that we are in.
I mean, I respect that you've done a lot of hard work preparing for this COP and that you've listened to the science.
The science is very acute now.
We don't have any time.
They say six or seven years.
We've got to peak by 2025 latest in fossil fuels.
And your company is investing in a lot more new fossil fuel.
And that's going to hurt women.
Ma'am, you've just accused me of something that isn't correct.
I'm sorry.
I don't take it.
Now I ask you to prove that.
I read that your company is investing in a lot more fossil fuel in the future.
Yes, ma'am.
You're reading your own media, which is biased and wrong.
I am telling you, I am the man in charge, and it is wrong, ma'am.
You need to listen to me, please.
I'm very pleased to hear it.
I'm very pleased to hear it.
It is wrong.
You guys write a lie and you believe it.
And he's right.
You know how we know, right?
The UN scientists admitted it.
It was in the Climate Gate emails, Ezra.
They said it was pulled from thin air.
It's a political goal.
The whole idea of the two-degree or 1.5 degrees Celsius.
So he was way ahead of it.
Of course, he was vilified by the media and he ended up, his spokesman started it backtracking.
He backtracked, tried to act like it didn't happen.
They had to go with the narrative in the end.
So sadly, he backed away, but there was a moment of truth that was nice.
Covid's Political Legacy00:17:02
Isn't that interesting?
I want to say one more thing about the United Arab Emirates before we really dig into the conference, which is there are no pro-Hamas riots or rallies or hate marches in the streets there.
In fact, I saw an image the other day of them lighting a Hanukkah menorah in the United Arab Emirates.
And that's a way in which the UAE is superior to even our own cities in the West, where these anti-Semitic hate marches are on the prowl.
That's just a personal observation on my part.
But let's get back to it.
I will also add there was a lot of nativity scenes set up.
I'm sorry, not nativity scenes, Christmas trees, Christmas scenes, no nativity scenes, and no crucifixes, but everywhere you went was Christmas theme.
So they're open if our.
And one last point.
Even if you look it up, LG DPQ marriage, you know, people say, oh, it's a repressive Muslim dictatorship.
No, even that, even the worst critics have very little to say.
They have a lot of old laws, which apparently aren't enforced.
So it's not like they're jailing and imprisoning that I was able to see or even research.
It really is an amazing city that the West could learn a lot from.
Well, we're both fans of Dubai.
And I think, I mean, you tell me, if I'm not mistaken, this was the largest turnout for any of these conferences of the parties.
And I can understand why.
First of all, the city can handle it.
Dubai has the infrastructure for it.
It's got the air connections.
I just mentioned how Emirates, one of the largest airlines in the world, is based in Dubai.
But everyone wants to go.
Everyone has heard about Dubai, seen the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world, seen the buzz.
So who wouldn't want to go?
And that's one of the things about these annual UN conventions is that it's like an annual reunion of all the fancy people, the diplomats, the bureaucrats, the lobbyists, the politicians, the press.
They go from exciting city to exciting city.
And Dubai is one of the most exciting cities in the world.
Like I say, one of the most carbon intensive cities in the world.
But hey, they don't care.
They're going for their fancy trips, luxury hotels.
So tell me what they were talking about while they were scolding, while they were enjoying the fruits of carbon-intensive energy.
Tell me what some of their kooky ideas were.
And I don't know if you had an eye on Stephen Gilbo, Canada's environment minister.
I don't think he's a player anywhere around the world.
I don't think really anyone takes him seriously.
Only in Canada, he thinks he's sort of a big deal.
He recently had to pay us $20,000 for blocking us on Twitter.
I don't know if you followed that whole scenario.
I did see that.
Yes, I did see that.
So let me know if Gilbo showed up on anyone's radar.
But why don't you tell me some of the highlights and lowlights of the past week?
Well, this summit I call the Great Reset Summit.
It's building on what they were doing last year in Egypt and Sharm el Shakedown, Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt.
This summit began right before with two important things.
Number one, 200 medical journals urged the World Health Organization to declare climate part of a public health emergency.
Number two, UN delegates signed on to a letter against natural gas for the Western world, particularly the United States.
It opened with a call to phase out all new coal production.
This was endorsed by Al Gore, by John Kerry.
And this was pretty frightening because coal is the most strategic of all the energy sources.
A country with coal in the United States, of course, is the Saudi Arabia of coal.
You have your own domestic supply that doesn't require all of any kind of importing and begging hostile regimes or even friendly neighbors for any of your energy.
They're going after what would be considered the ultimate national sovereignty energy source, and we're giving it away.
It's not like the UN is imposing it on us.
We're begging the UN to include this in their treaty.
And when I say begging, I mean the entire U.S. delegation.
Then you had Kamala Harris, our vice president of the United States, come and pledge from tens of millions that the Biden administration has given to this UN climate slush fund to $3 billion plus.
What is the UN climate fund?
It is literally the United Nations picking the poor nations leaders, dictators in many cases in Africa or South America, who are best able to keep their citizens locked in poverty.
They're the leaders who are going to get the most of the UN climate fund because they're doing a good job.
They're making Mother Earth smile by socialist policies, by authoritarian policies that crush economic growth, crush energy development.
And they're the ones that are going to get this money.
And so it's the white, wealthy Western world's way funneling money through the UN to keep people of color in the developing world locked in poverty so that we can have, you know, the earth will smile at us.
And in addition, Financial Times critically reported about this conference because Edgar, one of the other themes of this conference was a radical expansion of the carbon offsetting programs.
Well, these offsetting programs, according to the Financial Times, again, not, you know, some obscure publication, we're locking up land from wealthy nations through their emissaries, locking up up to 25% per nation in the poorest nations in Africa, locking up 25% of the land so that white wealthy Westerners in Europe and the U.S. can pat themselves on the back and say they're buying offsets.
They're not allowing the poor nations to develop their own and have access to their own natural resources.
That was just for openers of where this conference began, Ezra.
Well, let me ask you a question because I've been looking at opinion polls very deeply in Canada, but also in the United States too.
And I feel like public opinion is shifting on a number of issues, shifting towards taking care of number one, as in, can we afford groceries?
Can we afford cost of living?
Can we afford in Canada?
Housing is in a crisis.
Houses in Canada are twice as expensive proportionately as in the United States.
You can imagine how difficult it is for young people to get into that first house.
It really is something.
And I see there's fatigue in the United States with, for example, funding the war in Ukraine.
And you add all these things together and people, I think that if we're not in a recession officially, we're as good as in a recession.
I think inflation is making it hard for people to live.
And what I've seen in polls in both countries, especially in Canada, is that climate change as an unprompted priority is extremely low.
I don't have a particular poll in mind, but typically the first three items are all cost of living, housing prices, grocery prices, inflation, which is all describing the same thing, really.
And you have to go much, much lower before someone says, oh, I care about climate change, because it was just sort of a luxury item that you would say you cared about that to virtue signal when everything else in your life was going well.
But when things in your life are not going well, you don't talk about that.
So my question to you is, given what I think is a souring of the mood in North America and a lot of European parts too, Geert Bilders, who won the Dutch elections a couple of weeks ago, his number one issue is stopping mass immigration.
His number two issue was stopping taxes, carbon taxes, nitrogen taxes.
So I think everywhere I look, people are sort of saying that whole carbon tax, global warming thing, it is not important to us right now.
Is that reflected in any way in the conference you just attended?
Yes, but you're not going to like the answer.
It absolutely is.
And this is why, Ezra, the UK Guardian a few days ago had an exclusive article of the United Nations IPCC climate scientists now wanting, instead of being in an advisory role like they've been since 1988 when the panel was formed, they want the power to implement policy.
They're no fools.
They know what happened with COVID.
They were jealous about what happened in COVID, all the stuff they had wanted for years they could never get through democracy.
And they realized they got it all.
The same policies were imposed upon the public in COVID, during COVID, lockdowns, vaccine mandates, et cetera.
And so what they're now doing, and I think it's a direct recognition of everything you just said, they know even recent polling right before that showed the American public doesn't buy the climate change scare anymore and they're not willing to spend money on it.
They know that.
That's why they want to bypass democracy.
And that is why they want to make this, the 200 journals, want to make it a medical issue.
And then you have IPCC scientists, I call them now science dictators, literally openly with their names put to quotes, according to the UK Guardian, saying we no longer want to be in advisory role.
We want to implement policy.
We want to be able to impose these because we're in a climate emergency, direct copy from COVID.
So, yes, they are aware of it, Ezra, and they are trying to go about it.
And we also had the horror of during this conference, CNN Travel posted an article basically saying that travel is coming to an end.
We got to stop tourism and we need, quote, carbon passports.
Not making that up.
Carbon passports in order to limit people's travel.
And at the same summit, Ezra, they had people, I went to the fashion.
Yeah, I'm the official Rebel TV fashion correspondent now.
They had red carpets.
They had multiple sustainable clothing events.
I interviewed, exclusive interview with the fashion Maven there asking about this C40s report about limiting people by 2030 to three new items of clothing per person per year.
This was, of course, funded by Mayor Bloomberg, by IKEA, by Google.
And the answer that the UN representatives gave was, well, it depends.
If you get basically cockroach or some kind of organic hemp clothing, you can get more than three items a year.
But if you're getting any synthetic fabric, you're not going to be allowed.
They know that they are coming and they are doubling down on these restrictions.
They're calling daily.
They were calling for a phase out of all fossil fuels globally.
So they know the window's closing and they know this blowback and they're doubling down using the COVID model.
You know, I'm glad you were there doing these interviews and we'll have to keep an eye peeled for when you publish those and we'll perhaps embed them on our website.
As you know, Mark, because we've seen you there, we have attended a great number of these global warming conferences over the years.
However, the UN, at the request of the Liberal government, has banned rebel news from being formally accredited.
Now, that doesn't stop us.
We go and report from the outside.
We report from the alternative events.
That's our style.
We're sort of guerrilla citizen journalists like we did with Albert Burla at the World Economic Forum.
Trouble is, you can do that in Switzerland.
That's where we got Albert Burla, because Switzerland is a free country and the police are very respectful of civil liberties.
However, this year in Dubai, last year in Egypt, next year in Azerbaijan, those are partly free countries.
Now, you and I just praised United Arab Emirates at great length, but the kind of guerrilla journalism that we do is actually not permitted in the United Arab Emirates.
And so this is the second year in a row we could not attend because we would be arrested.
And I don't think Azerbaijan, I haven't looked into it closely.
I don't think Azerbaijan is a free country by any stretch.
So I just want to explain to our viewers why we're not there because we would be arrested.
And we were told in Egypt we would be jailed.
And I certainly didn't want to put our journalists in that position.
I will have more to say on the credentials issue later this year when we seek legal remedy.
Anyway, I just wanted to explain to our viewers why we ourselves were not there.
It's because we need the accreditation to exist in those countries, whereas we don't need that accreditation to be in free countries where we've been recently.
Hey, last question for you, Mark, and thanks for letting me just explain myself.
In the past, there have been good guys or sort of good guys at these conferences.
When Donald Trump was president, the United States took a very different approach when Stephen Harper was prime minister.
Is there any world leader or any delegation that's speaking truth to power?
I don't know what Hungary's delegation says.
I can guess based on the Hungary first orientation of Viktor Orban, is there any country that was standing up for its citizens, for free use of energy, for common sense and science?
Are there any good guys here?
Well, the closest good guy, and it's again, kind of ironic, is Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is being vilified, led in a New York Times article for trying to block a global deal to end fossil fuels.
So they're doing it.
They're not necessarily doing it out loud and pumping their chest, but they're inside essentially trying to torpedo all of this utter virtue signaling nonsense with real effects.
So I hate to say it, but kudos goes to Saudi Arabia right now, which we're going to end up all being dependent on our oil because they're the only ones who won't be shutting down due to the UN climate deal.
Isn't that ironical?
Listen, Mark, it's great to catch up with you.
I'm glad you're back safe and sound.
And hopefully next year, we will be there in Azerbaijan with you.
We just need that credentialing that Trudeau has been personally blocking.
All right, folks, stay with us.
more ahead for the cbca i mean they're just acting like this is their final battle I mean, they have an atrocious CEO who, did you see this clip the other day?
They announced 600 layoffs right before Christmas, which is very nice of them.
And the president refuses to say she won't give herself a bonus.
And I see in La Press today that she just flew off on a junk into Australia.
She just fired 600 people and then she went on a junk into Australia.
Just look at this clip the other day with Adrian Arsenault.
Just curious about something.
I'm going to presume no bonuses this year.
I mean, the Canadian Taxpayer Federation said a freedom of information request showed 16 million were paid in bonuses in 2022.
Can we establish that that is not happening this year?
It's too early to say where we are for this year.
We'll be looking at that like we do all our line items in the coming months.
So there's a chance bonuses could still happen at a time when jobs are being cut?
Again, I'm not going to comment on something that hasn't been discussed at this point.
So.
Yeah, the CBC, they're so gross.
They know they're in deep trouble.
Their own staff hate them, by the way.
So they know their only chance is to have Trudeau re-elected.
So they're going to do anything they can.
Their main enemy, of course, is Pierre Polyev.
He's on the ballot.
But Polyev's main opportunity is social media and especially through Twitter.
That's why they're trying to demonize Twitter.
Anyways, here's a couple of letters to the editor from my interview with Sheila.
Super Lucky TA says, I have great respect for Danielle Smith.
She is an honest person who cares about the normal development of Canada, not just Alberta.
Well, I think you're right.
I think she is pro-Canada, but her job is to be pro-Alberta, even if that puts her at odds with other provinces, which it generally does not, or with the federal government, which it often does.
And this is by nature.
If you've ever looked at the Constitution Act, which used to be called the British North America Act, when in 1867, the law that basically set up Canada, Section 91 and Section 92, not to get too technical, outline the different powers that the feds had and that the provinces had.
So, for example, under Section 91, those are the federal powers.
That would be like the criminal law.
So that's why we have one criminal code for the entire country, not a different one province by province.
In the United States, it's a little bit different.
Obviously, currency, international matters like, you know, telecommunications, for example, and pipelines and railways.
On the provincial side, you have more local affairs like hospitals and schools.
Anyhow, I don't mean to get too technical there.
My only point is that by design, the powers of the government are split up.
So by nature, you're going to see the feds and the province clashing over who has the authority to do certain things, the environment being a great example.
Is that a federal jurisdiction?
Is it a provincial matter?
So it is normal for a premier to fight against the feds.
And that doesn't mean they're unpatriotic.
In fact, it might mean they're being very patriotic and very loyal to the Constitution.
Don't mind me for a little trip down BNA Act Lane.
It's now called the Constitution Act of 1867.
Elon Musk Reinstates Alex Jones00:02:07
Next letter on my interview with Sheila regarding Elon Musk, Sean DeLap, 8587 says, Elon Musk reinstating Alex Jones to Twitter is the best thing that he's ever done.
I think that might be overstating it.
I'm glad of it because I don't know if I ever told you this story.
We were briefly assigned a manager, you know, minder, babysitter by YouTube who allegedly was going to help us.
She did not help us at all.
But she was like a human liaison with YouTube.
So we didn't just have to fill out forms online.
And I asked her once if there was ever a path back for someone once they were banned from YouTube.
Like, is it a life sentence?
Or if someone did something wrong or dumb or neither wrong nor dumb, but just against YouTube's weird rules, could they ever come back?
Was there parole or probation or second chance?
Was there redemption?
And the answer was no.
The answer was no, absolutely not.
And I do think that's the only time in history that liberals or leftists believed in a life sentence for anything.
Because they know the people they're banning are the people they actually hate, conservatives, skeptics, nonconformists, populists, people like Alex Jones.
So it is wonderful to see him reinstated.
Our old friend and alumnus, Tommy Robinson, reinstated.
And I think it's good.
Now, you say it's the smartest thing Elon Musk ever did.
I'd have to ask you by what measure, because I bet you that that will end up costing Musk tens of millions of dollars in ads being pulled by Democrat-oriented ad agencies being pressured by agitating advocates like Jonathan Monpetiti at the CBC.
So it probably felt pretty good for Elon Musk to do it, but it'll hurt him in the pocket.
But good news is he's the world's richest man.
And as you heard him say the other day, he just doesn't care if advertisers are trying to blackmail him.