Ezra Levant critiques Justin Trudeau’s attack on journalism, exposing his push for taxpayer-funded media "jockeys" who suppress dissent—like CBC’s exclusion of climate skeptics or pro-life voices. Polyev’s strategy redefines "hate speech" as Trudeau’s personal dislikes, while the Online Harms Act risks banning political criticism, mirroring North Korea’s censorship. Levant contrasts Trudeau’s selective free-speech stance with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s direct, fact-based social media approach, including her $250B+ Alberta Heritage Fund plan and net-zero contradictions amid oil reserves. Smith’s pragmatism, despite past conservative failures, may secure UCP dominance, while Nahid Nenshi’s left-wing ties limit appeal. The episode also examines Rebel News’ legal defense of protest coverage, like the Coots IV trial, and funds Chris Carbert’s case, underscoring media’s role in holding power accountable. [Automatically generated summary]
I was in Lethbridge, but I'm back in Toronto, and I've had a time to go through some videotape of Justin Trudeau talking about journalism and how we no longer have an agreed set of facts for life.
And I'm thinking, who is he to say we all have to agree with him on facts?
And isn't life about a clash of ideas, a marketplace of ideas, competing ideas?
Who is he to say there's only one idea that is true?
I'll take you through the videotape and I'll give you my thoughts.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this show.
And I think today's a good time to get it because I show so many video clips.
I'd love for you to see them.
Just go to rebelnewsplus.com, click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month.
You get the video version of the show and you support Rebel News, which we need because we don't take a dime from Trudeau and it shows.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, Justin Trudeau says he's upset that Canadians have other news choices besides CBC and CTV.
It's February 22nd, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug!
Oh, hi everybody!
It's great to be back in the studio.
I was down in Lethbridge the last few days for the pre-trial hearings in the so-called Coots 4.
There's only two of them left.
The other two have pled out.
You can see all my reportage there at truckertrial.com.
By the way, the Coots 3 have their pre-trial hearings next week.
That's sort of the leadership team of the Coots blockade truckers.
And I'll be out there again.
And we're assigning our trucker trial reporter, Robert Kraitzik.
You probably know him from covering Tamara Leach's trial in Ottawa.
He'll be down there in Lethbridge too.
So a lot of trials going on.
It's incredible how two years later, the authoritarian lockdowns still continue to reverberate.
Anyways, I wasn't the only one who was in Alberta.
So was Justin Trudeau.
And he did an interview with a left-wing radio host named Ryan Jesperson.
I should say he's no longer a radio host.
He was sort of let go from his radio position.
Now he's got an online show.
And good for him.
He's an independent citizen journalist who's got a bit of an audience.
And I salute him for that, even though I disagree with most things he says.
Good for him.
I want to show you a clip that Justin Trudeau did when he was on this friendly radio show.
I'm actually going to break it in half because there's two chunks.
Here's the first part.
It's only 30 seconds long, but Trudeau says quite a lot in 30 seconds.
There is out there a deliberate undermining of mainstream media.
There are the conspiracy theorists, there are the social media drivers who are trying to do everything they can to keep people in their little filter bubbles, to prevent people from actually agreeing on a common set of facts the way the CBC and CTV, when they were our only sources of news, used to project across the country, at least a common understanding of things.
Some of what Trudeau says there is actually true.
I think he's just putting the wrong spin on it.
So he says that independent journalists, citizen journalists, are deliberately undermining the mainstream media.
I don't know.
Maybe that's what you call healthy competition in the same way that Coke is deliberately undermining Pepsi and the liberals are deliberately undermining the conservatives.
It's called a clash of ideas.
Or more to the point, a marketplace of ideas where people vote with their dollars or where they click.
He says that we're breaking down the mainstream media.
And I think it's because the mainstream media has failed to incorporate other voices in it.
Trudeau is suggesting that this is bad that people are abandoning those regime media.
I think it's actually a good thing because people who are shut out from the national conversation hosted by global CBC and CTV.
For example, when was the last time you ever saw anyone who was a global warming skeptic on the regime media?
Or anyone who was pro-life?
Or anyone who's worried about transgenderism in women's sports?
Or anyone who's pro-firearms or pro-Donald Trump or pro-Canadian oil or anti-unlimited immigration.
Never is the short answer.
In fact, some of the TV stations like the CBC have an official editorial policy against having people who are skeptics of global warming.
They say, we don't debate flat Earth.
So the mainstream media has failed.
You heard Trudeau say that phrase, the mainstream media.
And I use that phrase sometimes too.
I prefer to say the media party or the regime media.
But really, why are we calling them mainstream anymore?
And I just, for example, I went to the CBC's annual report.
It's really easy to find if you go to Google and just type in CBC annual report 2023.
And on page 18 and 19 and 20 there, I won't get deep into the details, but you can see year after year, their audience is falling.
How's that possible?
The population of Canada is growing.
The budget for the CBC is enormous.
They have such an enormous advantage.
How is it possible that month after month and year after year, the number of people watching falls here?
Just for one example, here's a statistic.
You can see right there.
The CBC says they have about 20 million visitors a month.
There's 40 million Canadians.
So if they have 20 million visitors a month, that means on average, every Canadian clicks on a CBC story once every two months.
I mean, and it's declining.
That's what's incredible here.
I don't know if you can see that chart year after year.
They're not mainstream anymore.
If the average Canadian only clicks on a CBC story six times a year, which is what their own report is, that's not mainstream.
That's fringe.
He calls everybody else a conspiracy theorist.
That's just an insult.
A lot of the conspiracy theories have been proven correct, of course, whether it's about the extent that Trudeau would go for vaccine mandates or even some of his bizarre theories like blaming Israel for a rocket attack on a hospital in Gaza that was done by Islamic Jihad.
He says that the internet keeps people in their bubbles.
I think it's actually the opposite of that.
The internet has freed people from the bubbles of CBC, CTV, and Global.
You're allowed to find your own bubble.
I am, I guess, in a conservative bubble, but I'm still overwhelmed with media from the left.
I think I probably have a more diverse group of news that I sample from than Trudeau does.
But the one thing that got me the most from Trudeau's comments was his phrase, a common set of facts, like CBC, CTV, and Global used to project across the country.
He's admitting it.
He's saying that he misses the ability of those three regime media to control what we say and control what we believe is true.
But we're not about a common set of facts.
I mean, I think there's certain things that we no longer debate, like, you know, the earth is round or the earth is flat.
I think we all accept that the earth is round.
But most other things we allow disputes and debates on.
As Richard Feynman, the former Nobel Prize winner, once said, science is the belief of the fallibility of experts.
Experts are wrong, and science is constantly trying to prove they're wrong and improve the theories of life.
And we don't have common facts.
We have debates over the facts.
Our entire society is set up that way.
A court case has a plaintiff and a defendant, or a prosecutor and a suspect.
We're not all on the same side.
We argue it out.
Same thing in politics.
We have the government, but we have the opposition, an official, institutional, permanent opposition, because we know the truth is not owned and monopolized by any one side.
Science is absolutely about skepticism and challenging things.
Who is Trudeau to demand that we have a common set of facts?
Oh, let me guess.
I'm just going to go out on a limb here.
The common set of facts that we all have to have is the one he himself believes in.
All right.
I spent a lot of time talking about 30 seconds.
Let's watch the end of that clip.
Any government that chooses to step up and say, well, this is the mainstream view, will, if we're not careful, actually compromise those organizations as being mouthpieces for a mainstream view that people on the bottom of fringes are.
Exactly.
So how do we actually shift that?
I think one of the ways you do it is create opportunities for strong, clear voices like yours, like this show, to be a source of news, where people are actually drawing on real conversations and evidence-based presentation and thoughtful exposition and investigation where necessary.
Like there are massive changes that need to happen in our media landscape.
And government can try and create conditions and incentives for it to happen.
But ultimately, it does come down to Canadians saying, you know what?
I don't want to accept the encratification of news.
And quite frankly, the number of followers you have, the number of great podcasts people are out there getting their news from, the way people are consuming their stories from around the world in more thoughtful ways, that is a good thing.
But where it's lacking is that local content is the stories about the closure of this street that's going to cause trouble in this neighborhood.
As soon as you get to a certain size, as soon as you have audience across the country, you can't spend a lot of time on what's happening down at the end of Main Street in your community.
He said a lot of weird things there, too.
He said that any media that jumps on the government view will be called a government mouthpiece that's bought and paid for.
But they're saying that because that's actually the factual truth of it.
As you know, 99% of Canadian media do get grants and subsidies from the government.
That's not a conspiracy theory that's happening.
Trudeau boasts about it.
Most media companies don't like to talk about it because it's clearly compromising their independence.
But when the media echoes and repeats what Trudeau says and we say, oh, look, you're in the pocket of Trudeau, that's not a baseless allegation.
It's because they are paid by Trudeau.
And there's a reason why in newspapers and TV channels, an ad is marked as an ad.
So you know that they're selling you something, not telling you something.
What Trudeau has done is blurred the line between telling you and selling you because he's actually buying the journalistic coverage himself.
He says, though, I mean, and he can't help himself.
He's just ideologically incoherent.
He says that he wants the government to, quote, create opportunities for strong, clear voices.
What?
The government's going to create...
And let me guess.
I'm just going on a limb here.
The strong, clear voices are journalists who like Justin Trudeau.
Just a guess.
And then he says, oh, and what we really need is local coverage, like potholes and roads and stuff.
Hang on, I thought you were worried about conspiracy theories on grand things.
Justin Trudeau is a mishmash of ideas.
All he knows is this.
He hates people who don't like him.
He loves people who do like him.
And he believes that cash is the way to get him.
You know, I don't know.
I'm not sure what a common set of facts is on a pothole, but I don't think you should put too much stock in anything Trudeau says.
I thought that was a very interesting video clip, but even more interesting, perhaps, is watching Pierre Polyev, the conservative leader, and how he tackles Trudeau in a way that I've never seen before.
Trudeau's been prime minister since 2015, and he was a candidate for years before that.
And conservatives have always been on the back foot.
What I mean by that is always playing catch-up, always on the defensive, always reacting rather than acting, and always waiting to be sucker-punched by the woke media and Trudeau as racist, sexist, anti-gay, whatever.
I mean, it's almost like we've been handed a script by the left, and they attack us, and we sort of try and defend and say, oh, no, please don't call me that name.
Polyev did something the other day that I've never seen before.
He was asked about Trudeau's hate speech bills, the Online Harms Act.
We've talked a lot about that over the years.
And Polyev flipped it around immediately.
I'll let you watch the clip, but Polyev said, Trudeau, to him, hate speech is speech that he hates.
And that's very clearly.
And then he went on that hate line a bit and saying, Trudeau is the hater because Trudeau was an active racist in real life for the first half of his life.
A reference to the fact that Trudeau dressed up in blackface in his teens, his 20s, and even into his 30s.
He went on the offensive.
He took the liberal stick of, you're a racist, you're a racist.
And instead of waiting for it to be deployed against him, he harpooned Trudeau with it.
Take a look at Polyev saying that.
Have you ever seen this before?
I point out the irony that someone who spent the first half of his adult life as a practicing racist who dressed up in hideous racist costumes so many times, he says he can't remember them all, should then be the arbiter on what constitutes hate.
Why doesn't he, what he should actually do is look into his own heart and ask himself why he was such a hateful racist, despite his enormous personal privileges of a multi-million dollar trust fund, being the son of a prime minister, growing up in mansions, traveling the world, why he had so much hate in his art, that he was such an awful racist.
And what he should do is actually explain where that ugliness came from.
And maybe in that way, rather than through coercion, he could help us all in the fight against real hate.
Thank you.
Trudeau's a lifelong racist.
I've never heard it put that way before.
Everybody in the media knows exactly what he's talking about.
Protecting Our Kids Safe Online00:10:20
I think a lot of Canadians know exactly what he's talking about.
And how can you dispute it?
The media either are going to ignore it or because how can they debate it?
How can they dispute it?
Everyone knows that Trudeau got a pass for wearing blackface.
Now, Trudeau was challenged with this because this was actually exciting for journalists.
And he was asked about the blackface comment.
And he didn't do what conservatives typically do.
He didn't say, but well, let me explain or you have to see.
He just ignored it and said, well, the conservatives are throwing insults.
Watching Polyev go on the attack with what is normally a woke attack, you're racist, and watching Trudeau defend by ignoring, this is new territory.
Take a look at that.
Dealing in facts, actually reading a piece of legislation before he starts telling people what he think it does, and then having a rigorous debate in parliament about how to best protect kids.
He's not interested in that.
He's interested in hurling insults, in distracting from the fact that he has no plan on housing.
He has no plan on child care.
He has no plan on fighting climate change and creating good jobs for the future.
He has no plan in terms of building and protecting the kinds of jobs here in Alberta or across the country that people are going to rely on in a transforming world.
What does he have a plan for?
He's a plan for stoking division, creating fear, throwing out personal insults.
That's not leadership.
Canadians deserve a government that is focused every day on building a better future for them.
That's what I'm doing here today.
He can throw whatever insults he like.
I look forward to having substantive debates on how we're going to fix the challenges Canadians are facing because we're busy doing that while he's busy ranting.
I sort of like that.
And you know that that's going to blunt the Liberals from making that same attack on Polyeville.
And by the way, Pierre Polyev's wife is a woman of color who's an immigrant to Canada.
And I don't know if you know Polyev's story.
He was adopted by a family, yada, yada.
And his dad later came out as gay.
And I say that only to say, how do you attack a guy like that for being anti-gay or anti-minority or anti-immigrant?
You can't do those things to Polyev that you could do in the past.
Now, it was never based on fairness.
They would say that about anyone.
But look at Polyev.
He doesn't take it lying down.
He goes on the hunt.
He preempts.
I like it.
I like it.
Let me show you one more thing.
So Trudeau felt like he had to come back at that online harms thing one more time.
And let me play.
And so unprompted, without a question, Trudeau weighed in on the subject one more time.
Let me play just one more clip.
Thanks for your patience.
But I find these clips very interesting.
There was a question about online harms that people are asking about.
And I think I was talking about this with my MPs earlier.
The reality is I think everyone agrees how incredibly important it is to keep kids safe.
We keep kids safe in the schoolyard.
We keep kids safe in our communities.
We need to do a better job as a society keeping kids safe online.
Keeping them safe from child sexual exploitation, from bullying, from the kinds of mental health distress that far too many of our young people are going through.
That's why we're moving forward with online harms legislation that will be introduced soon in the House and that will be robustly debated.
Because I think it's something that all Canadians count on, that governments do what they need to keep all of our kids safe.
Now, the fact that Pierre Polyev and the Conservatives, without reading the legislation, without knowing what's in the legislation, are not just opposing it, but spreading lies about it, is concerning.
What's also concerning is instead of stepping up to stand for protecting our kids through responsible, serious legislation, he's proposing that adults should instead have to give their ID and their personal information to sketchy websites or create a digital ID for adults to be able to browse the ebb where they want, where they want to.
That's something that we stand against and disagree with.
We think we need to responsibly protect kids, but we need to do it in a way that is acceptable to all Canadians.
So I think this is yet another example of Kier Polyev being irresponsible and not serious and choosing to play politics instead of actually focusing on what matters, which is how to keep our kids safe.
Now, if you've been watching my show for a few years, you know we've talked a lot about the so-called Online Harms Act.
I've always said that there were four pieces of legislation that Trudeau was putting in in order.
And there was a logical order.
The first one was C-11.
That basically gave Trudeau dominion over the internet.
Until that moment, the government media regulator called the CRTC only regulated TV and radio and cell phones and cable and stuff, but it didn't regulate the internet.
C-11 gave the CRTC dominion over websites.
And one particular section, you know, we've talked about this before, gives Trudeau the ability to alter the search algorithms, which is terrifying.
C-18 was the next one, which basically said if you're a trusted media organization, Trudeau is going to scoop up $100 million a year from Facebook and Google and pay it out to his favorite media companies.
Facebook said, yeah, thanks, but no, thanks.
We're not going to play.
But Google's playing along.
So C-11 nationalized jurisdiction over the internet.
C-18 basically wrung out $100 million from Google and is going to parse it out to Trudeau's favorite media companies.
Then there's C-36, which died on the order paper, but Trudeau said he'll bring it back.
That basically criminalizes offensive words.
We'll talk about that another day.
But the last part is the so-called Online Harms Act.
And the government has really disclosed a lot of its plans.
They did this before the last election.
And you might recall that Stephen Gilbo, the atrocious current environment minister, was the Heritage Minister at the time.
I want to remind you what Stephen Gilbo said the Online Harms Act was about.
Let me show you this, and I'm going to show you what Trudeau claimed it was about yesterday.
Here's Stephen Gilbo reminding us that the real purpose here is to stop lowly citizens from criticizing politicians.
He said it.
Take a look.
We've seen too many examples of public officials retreating from public service due to the hateful online content targeted towards themselves or even their families.
Oh, and if you don't shut up and if you don't stop criticizing politicians, there's always the nuclear option, his word, not mine, nuclear option of actually banning a website from Canada.
That's what North Korea does.
And Stephen Gilbo, that's just normal to him.
Here's him saying it.
Envision having blocking orders.
I mean, that's maybe.
It's not, you know, it would likely be a last resolve nuclear bomb in a toolbox of mechanism.
You heard him.
You heard him.
It's about stopping criticism of politicians, and they'll delete a website from the very internet if they have to.
Here's Trudeau yesterday claiming, no, no, no, this is all about keeping kids safe.
Yeah, that's it.
Keeping kids safe.
Take a look.
We know, and everyone can agree, that kids are vulnerable online to hatred, to violence, to being bullied, to seeing and being affected by terrible things online.
We need to do a better job as a society of protecting our kids online the way we protect them in schoolyards, in our communities, in our homes across the country.
We need to make sure, and I think we can all agree, we need to protect our kids online.
Now, how to go about do that is a very careful balance.
We need to make sure we're protecting freedom of expression.
We need to make sure we're protecting the freedoms and the rights of Canadians while we protect kids.
That's why we've spent years working with different community groups, with advocates, with minority communities, with experts, with people in all sorts of different backgrounds to make sure that what we're doing is actually protecting kids.
And I look forward to putting forward that online online harms bill, which people will see is very, very specifically focused on protecting kids and not on censoring the internet as misinformation and as the right wing tends to try and characterize it as.
I think everyone, wherever they are in the political spectrum, can agree that protecting kids is something governments should be focused on doing.
That's a very long answer.
And it's the first time I've ever heard Justin Trudeau criticize digital ID.
He's the guy who gave you a $6,000 fine if you refused to use the ArriveCan app.
And now he's against digital ID.
He's referring to an idea that Polyev seems to be supporting requiring people to show ID to use pornographic websites.
I think there's some risk there in requiring people to show ID to websites.
I'm not sure if it's a good idea.
I don't know enough of the details, but what I do know is this is the first time Justin Trudeau has ever been for freedom online, is for pornography.
Justin Trudeau has been a critic of freedom of speech.
He has been rolling back freedom of speech in real life, in press conferences, on TV, on the internet.
This is the first time in eight and a half years I have ever seen Justin Trudeau come out for privacy and freedom of speech, and it's for pornography.
That's Justin Trudeau's mind.
I think it's very interesting, and I think these are battles that we haven't had before.
I think that conservative leaders in the past are absolutely terrified to talk about these kinds of things.
Terrified to Talk00:07:13
They're terrified to talk about cultural matters, terrified to talk about personal matters.
But in the last couple of months, Pierre Polyev has not been resting on his laurels.
I mean, he's got almost a 20-point lead in the polls.
A lot of that is due to outrageous housing costs, outrageous inflation, grocery prices, crime, traffic, crazy waiting.
I saw a website the other day showing the official, like the government of British Columbia has official wait times for disparate hospital emergency rooms around BC.
They were five to ten hours each.
An emergency room, emergency room, average wait 10 hours in some of them.
People are beyond.
And you would think that, you know, to play it safe, Pierre Polyev could just talk about housing, talk about these things.
But in fact, he's actually using some political capital to talk about immigration, to talk about transgenderism.
Did you see this the other day when our friend David Menzies asked him a question?
Here's the question and the answer.
Good morning, Mr. Polyev, David Menzies with Red Bull News.
Mr. Polyev, for the last few years, our news organization has been covering what can only be described as a war on women.
Biological males are pretending to be females, and these men are invading female safe spaces.
This includes female sports ranging from volleyball to rugby.
As well, men pretending to be women are gaining access to female shelters and even female prisons.
This has collectively led to real women and girls being emotionally abused, physically injured.
My question, sir, is: should you form the next federal government, will you make female safe spaces safe again by introducing legislation that bans so-called transgender women from participating in female sports and getting access into female shelters and female prisons?
Female spaces should be exclusively for females, not for biological males.
You asked if I introduced legislation on that.
A lot of the spaces you described are provincially and municipally controlled.
So it is unclear what federal legislation would reach federal legislation would have to change them.
But obviously, female sports, female change rooms, female bathrooms should be for females, not for biological males.
I think that's a really fair answer.
It's a limited answer.
He's not saying I'm going to go in and mind the province's business.
He's not saying he's going to go into a swimming pool owned by a city, tell them what to do.
But he's making a principle statement that transgender, female, male-to-female transgenders should not be in change rooms with real women.
And I think that's a position 80% of Canadians suggest, and the polls attest to that.
I guess one of my favorite clips of Polyev talking about things that he's not supposed to, hey, you're not supposed to talk about that, is when he talked directly about media bailouts.
This is a little while ago when he was asked about Bell Media laying off a lot of journalists, and Trudeau just smacked right back at the reporter and saying he would not give subsidies to companies.
Take a look at this.
You're talking about tax dollars for media.
Isn't CBC your biggest?
I can answer.
I asked regulatory.
You want to answer?
The party wants to grant $100 million in regulatory relief to the mainstream media.
When would you like me to respond?
Okay.
Good.
Okay, great.
So, of course, you are a tax-funded media outlet and spreading Justin Trudeau's message.
So you're interrupting me again.
I am answering the question.
Do you regret granting $100 million in regulatory relief to the mainstream media in the United States?
Your question is false.
So if you can allow me to correct your falsehoods, then we can answer the question directly.
So, false.
Canadian Conservatives do not believe in giving tax dollars to media outlets.
That's Justin Trudeau.
Okay, if you don't want me to answer the question, I'll move on to someone else.
You're a tax-funded mouthpiece to the PMO.
That's the reality.
Question and answer.
You come in with the money.
I'm trying to.
I'm trying to, but you're heckling.
Are you going to let me answer the question or are you just going to heckle on behalf of Justin Trudeau?
Which is it?
I would love the answer.
Great.
So our party does not support tax dollars for media outlets because that's when we end up with bias media like you who come here and articulate the PMO talking points rather than delivering real news to the Canadian people.
Justin Trudeau gave Bell Media and other media tax dollars supposedly to protect media jobs.
And then what happened?
They all got laid off.
So the supposed justification for giving Bell all this money was that it was going to save media jobs.
Well, they all got fired.
So I guess that wasn't the real reason for giving tax dollars to the media.
The real reason was for him to buy support from the media, which is what it actually did.
So we believe that media should be driven by readership, viewership, and listenership.
And that's what allows it to represent the Canadian people rather than taking marching orders from the PMO.
Yeah, that's a lot of clips I've shown you today, but I feel really good about them.
I feel really good about Pierre Polyev taking principled stands about immigration and transgenderism.
I feel absolutely great about Polyev just taking a baseball bat to Trudeau over a lifelong racist.
It took me about half a second to say, what is he talking about?
Well, that's because no one's ever called it like that before.
And you saw Trudeau's response.
Trudeau didn't know what to make of it.
Just ignore it and say, oh, stop insulting me.
Really?
That's your playbook, buddy.
It's fascinating to see it deployed against him.
But it's also interesting to realize that Trudeau is not done censoring people yet.
If he had, as well, you heard that Ryan Jesperson interview.
He hates the fact that he no longer controls the narrative.
He hates the fact that there's conspiracy theories out there, although he's actually one of the most prolific conspiracy theorists around.
I don't know.
I feel like we're in interesting days.
I feel like Rebel News is on the forefront of a lot of these issues.
We've been talking about things like transgenderism, David Mendy's great reports, or immigration before anyone else was.
And we're actually trying to do things about censorship by going to court.
interesting days.
Well, one of the things I like about the new generation of conservative political leaders in Canada is they're not afraid to go directly to the people.
Pierre Polyev has done a great job of that, producing what I would call mini documentaries talking about housing prices across the country, talking about inflation.
I find them actually pretty highbrow.
Danielle Smith's Heritage Fund Plans00:15:59
They treat the viewer with respect.
They have lots of facts in them.
They're plain spoken, but they assume that Canadians may not be particularly informed on a subject, but it treats Canadians as intelligent.
I really think it works, especially compared to the pablum and the fog that emanates from so many liberal cabinet ministers.
I like Pierre Polyev's move.
And you know who's doing a great job in that same vein?
Danielle Smith.
Now, I don't know if she's quite got the production quality down pad, which is interesting because, of course, she comes from the media.
I'm sure she'll get better and better all the time.
But she's going straight to the people with Twitter videos and Facebook videos that I think are quite effective.
First of all, they make her look really likable, I think.
And that's so important when your CBC opposition is trying to demonize you.
And second of all, she's being substantive.
Let me show you, she did this just a couple of weeks ago on the transgender issue, and I thought she hit a home run there, by the way.
Let me show you her latest.
It's around eight minutes.
I'm not going to play all of it now.
It's talking about how Alberta is going to handle the boom and bust cycles of oil and gas and her plans.
Just watch a couple of minutes of her talking about saving money.
Take a listen.
Let me propose an alternative solution.
Peter Loughed had the foresight to create what is today commonly called the Alberta Heritage Fund.
The initial purpose of this fund was to invest a portion of Alberta's non-renewable resource revenues each year, so the investment income earned on the fund would eventually grow large enough to eliminate our province's reliance on resource revenues when they ultimately declined.
Turns out that vision was well ahead of its time.
In fact, several countries, such as Norway and many other oil and gas-producing nations around the world, adopted that same strategy and now boast sovereign wealth funds large enough to entirely eliminate their nation's reliance on resource revenues.
In fact, these nations now earn enough each year in their funds to make massive investments in world-class infrastructure and other public benefits that were not previously possible.
In Alberta, if we had just reinvested the income earned in our heritage fund from the Loughheed government's initial deposits of about $12 billion in the late 70s and early 80s, even without investing another extra dollar, our heritage fund would be worth over $250 billion today, earning between $12 and $25 billion per year in revenue.
This means we would have been earning enough interest today to make us entirely unreliant on resource revenues.
But for a variety of reasons from both within and without Alberta, we did not do this as a province.
Of course, now's not the time for us to bemoan what might have been.
In my view, the time has come to act decisively and end any further procrastination.
Last year, our government passed a law mandating that all income earned in the Alberta Heritage Fund must be invested in the fund rather than spent.
During the current budget year, we hope to invest and reinvest approximately $3 billion of surplus and investment income back into the Heritage Fund, increasing its value to almost $25 billion.
That's up from $17 billion just a couple of years ago.
This puts us back on the right track.
In addition, I have instructed our finance minister to limit government spending to below the legislated rate cap of inflation plus population growth, not just during lean years with lower oil prices, as we expect next year, but also in years when high oil and natural gas prices result in billions of surplus provincial dollars.
Instead of spending all that non-renewable surplus cash on the wants of today, we will be fiscally disciplined, invest in the Heritage Fund annually, strategically pay down maturing debt, and slowly but surely wean our province's budget off the volatile roller coaster of resource revenues.
In my view, our province has one last shot at getting this right.
We still have several decades during this global energy transition where nations will desperately need our oil and gas resources for their people, and we will provide it to them with the most advanced environmental technology on earth.
So despite this coming year's predicted global economic slowdown, I believe our province is on the cusp of an unprecedented and prolonged energy resource boom, one that will include both hundreds of billions in investment and tens of thousands of new jobs, not only in oil and gas production, but also in designing and building the most advanced emission reduction technologies on earth.
It is going to be an exciting time for our province and for Canada, especially once we finally get a federal government that acts like a strategic partner rather than a delusional adversary.
Prior to the end of this year, our government will publicly release a long-term financial plan charting a path to a heritage fund of between $250 and $400 billion by the year 2050.
2050 is also our target for achieving a carbon-neutral economy.
Meeting these two goals simultaneously with Alberta technology, determination, and ingenuity will leave an invaluable legacy for future generations of Albertans and Canadians.
There is no doubt in my mind we are capable of achieving these goals, but we need to start today and stick with it fervently, year after year.
I ask for your support as our government commits itself to placing our province on this path to prosperity that will last long after our last barrel of oil has been produced.
We, our children, and their children deserve nothing less.
You can watch the whole thing on her Twitter feed or we'll have a link to it on the page.
I think she sounds great.
I think she sounds smart.
I think she sounds conservative, but also futuristic.
I don't agree with every word of what she says in the video.
She talks about, you know, carbon offsets or a zero carbon economy.
I think that's baloney.
But I think her comments about now are pretty good.
Let's ask someone who follows this very closely, our friend Lauren Gunter, senior columnist with the Post Media Newspapers in Edmonton.
Lauren, great to see you again.
Thanks for taking the time.
Yeah, you're welcome.
Happy to be here.
I like the fact that Danielle Smith is going straight to the people, and I think every conservative politician should do that because I think too often the mainstream media acts as a kind of filter.
Putting that outside comment aside, what about the heart of her message?
Do you agree with it?
Do you think it's smart for Alberta?
Do you think it's politically popular?
What do you think of her message today?
I think it's good.
I do think it's sensible.
It's not as dramatic as it might have been.
For instance, it doesn't acknowledge that the provincial government has a spending problem.
It doesn't matter which party is in office, whether it's the Conservatives or the NDP or now the UCP, they all spend more and more and more money every year.
In a column I have today in the Edmonton Sun and the Calgary Sun, I talk about the fact that in 2013, Allison Redford, who was the PC premier at the time, talked about the bitumen bubble and how it was impossible to avoid deficits when we had to rely on oil and gas revenues.
And then in 2016, Rachel Notley talked about the revenue roller coaster and how it was impossible to avoid deficits because we have to rely on oil and gas revenues.
And they have all done this.
I mean, I remember going back to Don Getty whining and whinging about the fact that they couldn't count on non-renewable resource revenues.
That's what they call the line in the budget every year, non-renewable resource revenues.
Because some years, as Smith pointed out this year, it's like $16 or $17 billion in revenues, whereas two or three years ago, it was three.
Yeah, it's tricky for sure, but nobody ever looks at the fact that 20 years ago, they were spending just a little more than half per capita adjusted for inflation of what they're spending now.
So they've increased spending by about 80% over 20 years in real dollars, and they never acknowledged that.
So were there things about her speech that I didn't care for?
Yeah, I mean, I think it could have been much more transparent that way.
But in general, she said, look, we're not going to do this with taxes.
We're not going to do, we're not going to find some stability in our revenues by putting in, for instance, a provincial sales tax.
Now, she didn't specifically mention the PST, but that's always, always, no matter who the premier is, that's always one of the options that's thrown out there is, oh, you know, if only Alberta had a PSP, it would all be okay.
That's ridiculous.
So what she said was, over the next 25 years, we're going to try and hold spending to the increase in inflation and population.
If there's any surplus, we'll use it to pay down debt and reduce debt servicing costs and then put more into the heritage fund.
Because, and I think this was one of the keys in her address.
She said, if the heritage fund had simply been left alone, if we had reinvested the interest from the heritage fund, it was about $12 billion when Peter Lawy created it in the late 70s and early 80s.
If we'd left that $12 billion alone, the interest from that money plus the investments that it funded would now be giving Alberta about $250 billion in the fund, which would generate up to $25 billion a year in interest and investment income, which would even out all the problems that they have with non-renewable resource revenue.
So this is sensible.
And I agree with you entirely that she accepts that Albertans might not know this, but she trusts that they're intelligent enough to understand it if she explains it to them.
I mean, she did, you talked about the one she did a couple of weeks ago on transgender issues.
She did another one in January, where she talked about all of the different environmental initiatives that the Trudeau government has and how that was hurting Alberta.
And it was about four minutes long, four and a half minutes long.
And I thought it was very good.
But like you, I think the production qualities needed to be worked on.
I told her to stop walking.
She made me motion sick watching that one.
She never stopped walking.
She walked around the legislature ground and she talked and stopped and walked and walked walk.
But it was intelligent and it was full of all sorts of really good information.
And so was the one on Wednesday night in the province-wide address.
Yeah.
Those are great points.
I haven't checked this math recently, but I bet it's true.
I bet that the province of Alberta under a so-called conservative premier, that's what the UCB stands for, United Conservative Party.
I bet they spend more per capita than the NDP government of British Columbia or the fake conservatives in Ontario.
I bet, in fact, Lauren, I bet you know this off the top of your head.
I bet that Danielle Smith spends more proportionately than Rachel Notley did.
No, no.
I think they're actually about even.
Well, even that is shocking.
Even that.
They haven't ratcheted up.
You know, Thatcher used to say this about conservative governments in England, is that they would come in and they would hold the line on spending done by the labor governments before them, but no one ever ratcheted down this until she came along.
And aside from the first four years of Ralph Klein's tenure, nobody has ratcheted back the spending.
Yeah, this first time 30 years ago was the only time in Alberta history they actually cut, and they cut by a minuschool amount.
So by the way, the first four years, the first three years, they did a tremendous amount.
They cut 18% in real dollars.
Like that was huge spending that they cut back.
But then thereafter, Ralph just spent.
And by the time he left office, they were spending the same amount per capita that they had spent under Don Getty, who was considered the spendthrift at that point.
But ever since that time, they've crept up and crept up.
I call it expenditure creep because every year the expenditures go up until Kenny and Smith came in and they've pretty much held steady.
And I'm keen to see next week will be the provincial budget.
We'll see whether or not they hold steady again because they've made all sorts of very expensive promises, like more money for first responders, more money for health care.
There's tons of money in the healthcare budget in Alberta.
But they just have to fire about 10,000 bureaucrats whose jobs are not particularly, it's not particularly obvious what the hell they're doing.
So you could find a lot of money there.
You find billions of dollars by reducing the amount of bureaucracy there.
So let's see if they can do that.
Let's see if they can hold spending at the natural increase of population and inflation and then find more money to spend on services by making efficiencies in the bureaucracy.
You know, the new leader of Argentina, who's got sort of wild hair and he's always making wise cracks.
He's quite a dramatic personality, a little bit like Donald Trump between the hair and the comments.
He's a real libertarian, but not just, you know, slogans.
He understands Milton Friedman and economics.
He campaigned on absolutely shutting down more than a dozen government departments and cutting other things to the bone.
And you know, Lauren, I think he did it.
In fact, just recently, for the first time in more than a decade, Argentina turned a surplus.
And I don't think 99% of Argentinians even noticed a difference in their life because these bureaucracies were self-serving.
And so it is possible, but unless you have a radical revolutionary like Javier Millé, you're not going to get that.
And Danielle Smith, she has a libertarian streak.
She has a radical streak.
But I think some of that's been pounded out of her just by the realities of being government party.
She could take a much more aggressive libertarian approach to fiscal stability in Alberta.
There's no question she could do that.
But I think that this is sensible.
It doesn't upset people.
It's not going to rankle the markets in any way.
This is a very plausible, sensible way of approaching things.
It's long-term.
It's kind of like Flaherty.
You remember Flaherty when he was a guy?
Yeah, Mike Harrison's finance minister.
And Stephen Harper's finance minister, Flaherty, he was a very go-slow approach kind of guy.
He looked at per capita GDP and the effects of deficit spending on our debt load.
This is kind of like that.
It's not going to rock the boats too much.
You can bet that the NDP and the public sector unions are going to complain that they're so far behind now that just holding the line on spending will make them fall further and further.
In fact, there's a billboard campaign in Alberta right now by the Alberta Teachers Association that Alberta has the lowest spending on education in the country, which is, I'm not even sure how you figure that.
That's the new math.
Exactly.
Alberta's, this is where I thought you were going to go earlier.
Alberta's expenditures per capita, which is the only way of looking at expenditures, is how much do you spend per person in your province.
Alberta's expenditures per capita are second only to Newfoundland.
Newfoundland has the highest expenditures.
They're constantly in fiscal trouble.
We're lucky because we have more resource revenue than even Newfoundland does.
But we have the second highest per capita spending in the country.
And Newfoundland gets enormous subsidies through equalization.
Newfoundland's Fiscal Dilemma00:03:11
So a lot of that's not even their own money.
Now, Danielle Smith, I think she likes newfangled ideas.
That's something you could admire about her.
She's open-minded.
She is open to talking about things in an experimental or, you know, for the subject of debate, let's just talk about this amazing idea, even if we're not going to put it into effect.
There's something to praise about a politician who's open-minded like that.
But there's also a risk there that you've caught on to particularly strange ideas that aren't going anywhere.
And the whole idea of net zero or net zero carbon or carbon neutral, I think that's one of those things that sort of technocrats like.
And it's sort of, you know, if a futurist is giving a talk, they're going to say net zero.
But I think it's BS.
And it's been a while since I've looked at the stats, but I remember when I wrote my book, Ethical Oil, the Case for Canada's Oil Sands, at that time, at least, the number of proven reserves in the oil sands was about 170 billion barrels.
And, you know, that was, I think, three centuries worth of production at current rates.
And there's 10 times as much oil in place.
That means we see it's there.
We know it's there.
It's just not economic at today's technology and prices.
But theoretically, there's 10 times as much resource in place.
So the idea that, like she said, when the last barrel of oil is produced, I don't know if that's going to happen in the next century.
And the idea of being carbon zero, the other day she talked about doubling oil production, if I recall.
So I think there's certain inconsistencies there.
But what I like is that a conservative leader is talking about saving money, talking about holding the line and making it tough for people to call her crazy.
I like what I've seen.
Yeah.
I mean, I think she's like an awful lot of energy company executives.
They do the whole ESG, you know, environmental, social, and governance dance.
They mouth the net zero.
Yes, we're working very hard with carbon caf.
You've seen the oil sands companies all got together and they now have these ads talking about, yeah, we're as concerned as you are about emissions.
And that's why we have the largest carbon capture project in the history of the world.
And we're funding that.
That may just be a cost of doing business.
And the cost of doing politics, maybe you have to pay lip service to net zero, even though you don't believe that it's realistically possible.
It's certainly not possible within the 11 years that the federal liberals think that we could be able to do it.
And I don't even think it's possible within the 25 years that Smith has talked about.
It doesn't make sense.
It's just some artificial idea, net zero power.
I mean, it's an element on the periodic table.
In the Netherlands, when I interviewed the winner of their election of Feard Vilders, he was talking about the war on nitrogen and nitrogen.
We got to get nitrogen.
I thought, you sound like a crazy man.
Well, no, we sound just as crazy.
They hate nitrogen.
We hate carbon.
Lay off the periodic table of the elements.
It's just sort of crazy.
Anyhow, how do you think?
Winning the Campus Vote00:04:30
I got one last question for you.
Thanks so much for spending so much time with us.
I know you've got to run.
Rachel Notley, who achieved something no other new Democrat in Alberta has, broke through and became government.
It was a disastrous term.
Thank God it's over.
But she's retiring and well-deserved, I suppose.
There's a raison to succeed her.
Some of her cabinet ministers are putting their toe in the water, but I think the biggest name that seems to be getting the most attention is the former mayor of Calgary.
My former high school or college debating partner, by the way, a left-wing liberal named Nahid Nenshi, is, I think it's pretty clear he's going to jump in.
What do you think of his possible candidacy?
I think it's powerful.
The NDP is dominant in Edmonton.
Nanshi at least pulls some votes in Calgary, we know.
Being a minority, he may have some appeal to people who value that, you know, diversity and equity.
Do you think he's going to run and do you think he's got a shot?
Yes, and yes.
I think he's going to run.
I think he does have a shot.
I think that there will be an ABN campaign within the NDP.
There will be a consolidation of a lot of their...
Anybody but Nenshi, is that what you mean?
Anybody but Nenshi because they think he's a liberal.
And I think they're right.
I mean, the whole time he was mayor, he said, no, no, no, I don't belong to any party.
I don't have partisan affiliation.
But everybody assumed he was a liberal and he's very tight with the current liberal government.
So I think he is not as popular in Calgary as he likes to think he is.
I think that the big factor in the next provincial election will be Smith's acceptance among UCP members.
There were about 40 or 50,000 UCP voters in Calgary who did not come out in the 2023 election.
If half those people come back, if three quarters of those people come back, I don't care who you run as the NDP leader.
They will not win in Calgary.
And they won't win in rural parts for sure.
Well, Nenshi's never going to win any more than two or three of the 44 rural ridings in Alberta.
And so there's 80, you got to get 87 ridings, 44 of them, wow, let's say 40 of them go right off the top to the UCP.
You have to win all of Edmonton and almost all of Calgary in order to be the NDP premier of Alberta, unless there's a split on the right.
And if there's no split on the right and Smith doesn't scare voters like she did in 2023, that she's looked more rational, more reasonable, as you say.
I think her videos are doing a lot to help that out.
I don't think there's, I don't care who they run as the leader of the NDP in the next provincial election.
I don't think they're going to win.
Well, I like her.
I mean, I've known her since we were both in university at the same time.
She was the head of the campus conservatives.
I was the head of the campus reformers.
So we've known each other for a while.
I like what she's doing, and I think it's important that she wins because Alberta's success is not just to its own credit, but a strong Alberta really does lift the whole country.
I mean, the amount of wealth being generated by the oil sands, despite what that radical ideologue, Stephen Gilbo says, it's one of the reasons Canada hasn't fallen further behind.
Just one last fact, and then let you wrap up.
In January, there were headlines that in January, Canada created 37,000 new jobs, and that was way more than the economists had expected.
Over half of those jobs were in Alberta.
So that's what Alberta is doing.
for the national economy.
Interesting stuff.
Listen, great to see you.
Thanks very much for taking the time and for your smarts.
And we'll check out your colour.
What's the headline of your column, the one that ran in both Calgary and Emerson?
You'll write the headline.
I'll check it.
We'll put it on the page for people to click through.
I'm sorry I don't have it in front of me.
Great to see you, Mr. Speaker.
I know either.
Okay.
Take care.
You too.
There you have Lauren Gunter from the Postmedia newspapers, the Calgary Sun and the Emerson Sun.
Stay with us.
more ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
It's great to be back.
I've been traveling around, and I am going to go back to Lethbridge for the pre-trial hearings of the Coots 3.
Search Warrant Secrets00:07:35
That's what the prosecutor calls the leadership group.
And Robert Krachik will be out there.
I'm really excited.
If you've been following Robert, he went to the Tamara Leach trial every single day.
I went once and I realized that I just can't cover one story every day for two months.
I just can't.
I have other obligations.
But Robert did a great job, and he's not done yet.
That trial is just on a hiatus.
So in the meantime, we're going to set him up in Lethbridge.
And I think he's had great practice, so to speak, with the Tamara Leach trial.
So he's a good guy.
We'll both be out there in Lethbridge at the beginning of the week.
Then I'm going to come back, but he'll be out there every single day.
He's going to do great.
And that's going to be a very interesting trial because unlike the Coots IV, who were charged with very serious offenses, the Coots III, it's more like a Tamara Leach situation, just mischief-type minor civil disobedience charges.
They're trying to get that, quote, leadership group.
When I was in Lethbridge yesterday, that's how the Crown Prosecutor referred to the Coots III.
So we're crowdfunding for them.
And of course, we're also doing the journalism.
Very interesting.
Hey, here's some letters.
PSL says, a police officer doesn't show up for a court date.
This is in traffic court.
This is a very serious trial.
In fact, could be the most important trial in Canada right now.
That's fishy.
Yeah, you're talking about what happened is to challenge a search warrant, which is what the Coots IV are doing.
They wanted to cross-examine some of the police officers who drafted the information to obtain the search warrant.
That's a legal document that's filed in court and shown to a judge ex parte.
That is, the other side's not there because you need the element of surprise for a search, right?
So drafting that document that you show to the judge has to be done very carefully and very fairly.
You can't exaggerate.
You can't leave out weaknesses in your case.
You have to put strengths of the opponent's case, even though he's not there.
It's a very unusual document.
So you have to be full, frank, and fair are the three Fs for an information to obtain.
You can't trick the judge.
And so the question is, was that information to obtain drafted properly?
One cop who swore the document was there yesterday and he testified, but another senior cop was supposed to be there at 2 p.m.
Everyone was waiting and he didn't show up.
So, I mean, that's not good.
That in itself is not going to cause the men to be freed from prison, but it shows, you know, he's had two years' notice of this trial, but he just couldn't bother to be there.
I think that was atrocious.
I don't think the judge was impressed.
Tracy Short says, you absolutely discredited yourself by ranting about Moran like that.
We will be canceling any future funding.
Well, I'm very sorry to hear that.
You're referring to Jerry Moran, who It took a plea deal where he signed a paper agreeing to plead guilty to a relatively minor charge involving firearms.
Basically, he agreed to take firearms down to the blockade.
In fact, when he was arrested, he had firearms in his vehicle.
Let me just say what I said yesterday.
Absolutely, that does not deserve a two-year prison term.
No way.
But absolutely, that is not a civil liberties violation.
When you agree to bring guns to a peaceful protest that's surrounded by cops, that's stupid at the very least.
And apparently, it's a crime.
I'm not here to weigh in on the wisdom of the plea deal.
Jerry Moran obviously had his own lawyer.
And as I said yesterday, it's possible that he was just tired of being in jail and he would sign anything in front of him just to get out.
That could be.
But I was shown a video actually by Jerry Moran's wife where she talked at great length about, you know, probably too much great length about what Jerry Moran did.
And that's what I said yesterday.
You can say these men were overcharged by police and prosecutors.
You can say two years in prison before trial is outrageous.
You can say this was all a political pretext to trump up the situation to give Justin Trudeau cause to bring in the Emergencies Act.
I believe all of those things.
But I also believe that it is stupid and perhaps criminal to agree to bring guns to a peaceful protest that's surrounded by RCMP.
How does that story play out?
In your mind, what's the plan?
You're going to shoot first, or you're going to shoot if they come in?
Or you like to bring a gun suggests you want to use a gun.
What's the plan there?
You want to have a massacre?
Let alone taking away the moral authority of the protest.
So yeah, I can say Jerry Moran should not have been in jail for two years and was overcharged and it was a political charge.
I can say all that, but also say if it's true, and he swore it was true, he signed that it was true, that he agreed to bring guns to the protest.
Yeah, that is not a civil liberties defense.
And I don't think he deserved two years in jail, but that was an atrocious thing he did.
Nevo Media Solutions say it's absolutely crazy that they cannot discuss this openly as we all watch what is going on with the ArriveCan app.
And this at the same time, it seems as though they are doing their best to keep everything quiet and away from cameras.
What a state of being that we cannot speak openly.
This should be a wake-up call for those who are unaware of the current state of Canada.
I hear what you're saying, but let me explain again why I can't describe what was said in court yesterday.
Now, of course, you can go to court and you can hear all these things for yourself.
So in that way, it's not a secret court.
You just can't publish it.
Now, why is that?
Because in a court case, a judge, or more importantly, jurors, can't go into the case with predetermined ideas about the facts.
And remember what I just said a moment ago about what an ITO is, an information to obtain.
That's a list of accusations shown to a judge without the suspects there.
It's done in secret because you need that element of surprise to convince a judge to give a search warrant.
So those are unproven allegations.
You know, that's an undercover officer writing something without that undercover officer being cross-examined.
That's perhaps a recording of a wiretap that isn't tested scientifically.
Was this legit?
It's a bunch of, I'm not going to say hearsay, but it is untested evidence.
So you do not want that in the newspapers every day if you want the accused to have a fair trial.
When that information is introduced in court in the trial, it will be public.
And by the way, if the court throws out the search warrant, which is what the hearings were about, then you'll surely learn about it then.
So it's extremely frustrating for you not to know what's going on.
And believe me, it's frustrating for me not to be able to tell you what's going on because there were some actually startling things I learned yesterday.
But do you see why I can't say them?
Because if I were to say these five startling things were said by police to the judge to get the search warrant, well, you would assume they were true.
Or at least it would be on your mind.
And there would be no rebuttal to them from the other side.
And how is a guy going to get a fair trial if that's in the media?
If the Lethbridge newspaper and the Lethbridge radio stations, the Lethbridge TV stations are all running with those untested accusations.
So it's very frustrating, but that frustration should end when the trial begins and those facts are admitted and challenged and cross-examined.
So I wouldn't call that an unfairness.
Frustration and Fairness00:01:36
I would call it a quirk.
I would call it a frustration, but understand the reason for it.
But for the earlier writer who said she's no longer going to donate to Rebel News because I criticized the guy who wanted to bring guns to political protest, I'm sorry.
We just disagree.
I think what happens is a lot of people are so mad at how the Coots IV are being treated that instead of having shades of gray here, you're either all in or all out.
Either you agree with everything these four men did, or you're in league with Justin Frudeau.
It's not that way.
I don't know if there's anyone in Canada who fights against Justin Frudeau as much as we do, other than, I suppose, the conservative opposition parties.
I mean, our entire existence is challenging his bad ideas.
No one was more active during the lockdowns and the pandemic and the convoy than us.
But if you can't say that the idea to smuggle, to agree to smuggle guns into a blockade surrounded by cops, if you don't think that's a bad idea, I think that you've gone too far down the rabbit hole.
I don't know.
I look forward to other feedback from other viewers.
Feel free to send a note to Ezra at RebelNews.com.
By the way, we are crowdfunding for one of the remaining accused.
His name is Chris Carbert.
You can go to helpchris.ca and you can learn more about that case.
That's our show for today.
What a show.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.