Ezra Levante examines J.D. Vance’s ties to the antisemitic "Nick Fuentes Wing," exposing Fuentes—a 20-year-old neo-Nazi who admires Stalin, denies the Holocaust, and mocks Vance’s appearance and family—as a radical troll amplified by TikTok. Levante highlights Vance’s evasive responses to anti-Israel conspiracy theories at Turning Point USA, where he downplayed Jewish influence while defending Israel’s Christian rights, raising concerns about conservative movements’ tolerance for extremism. Meanwhile, Alberta’s Teachers Union pushes unlikely strike demands, including restrictions on the notwithstanding clause, a democratic tool to override judicial overreach, while federal Liberals strategically oppose it in Quebec but avoid it for child pornography laws. The episode reveals how ideological fractures risk normalizing bigotry and undermining conservative principles. [Automatically generated summary]
Today we're going to talk with Lauren Gunter about the possibility of a general strike in Alberta.
But first, I had a bit of a back and forth with JD Vance today.
He is not pleased with me.
I'll tell you what I wrote about him and my thoughts with his reply.
Also, should Republicans and conservatives accept anti-Semitism in the name of uniting with the far right?
I'll take that on, but really I want to get you to get the video version of the show.
I'm going to show you about 15 video clips about a guy named Nick Fuentes, and of course of Tucker Carlson.
I want to show you 15 clips because I want to make sure you know what I'm talking about when I say anti-Semitism and other crazy ideologies.
I want you to learn who is trying to take over the Republicans.
To do that, you're going to need what we call Rebel News Plus.
Go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month.
Not only do you get the video content, but the satisfaction of keeping us strong and independent.
As you know, we take no money from the government and it shows.
One more thing.
You like the hat?
Me too.
Same strong message about making Canada great again, but in a really cool color, black and gold.
There's other colors available and it's an all-Canadian site.
So if you want to signal your tribe or trigger a liberal, go to mcgahats.ca today.
Tonight is anti-Semitism seeping into the conservative movement.
It's Halloween, and this is the Ezra Levance Show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
If you're over 50, you might not know who Nick Fuentes is.
And that's because he's not generally in mediums that people over 50 use.
He's not on TV, but he's online.
He's on fake TV, YouTube TV.
He's online.
And he's definitely on TikTok.
He's everywhere on TikTok and other social media.
TikTok, I signed up for it a couple years ago, contrary to advice that it was spyware and malware.
I signed up to it for one reason.
It is my primary source for anti-American propaganda.
And I'm pro-America, as you may have detected, but I want to know what America's enemies have to say.
And by setting up an account on TikTok, and I don't behave any differently on TikTok than I do on Twitter or other social media, the algorithm over the last few years, now it might change when that company is sold to Americans at the end of the year.
But I had never seen the Russian side of the story, the Iranian side of the story, the Chinese side of the story, or the Hamas side of the story put forward like a, you know, like a Niagara Falls.
Like it was a huge torrent.
You would get the odd scrap on Twitter, but I actually joined TikTok because I wanted to hear what the bad guys were saying.
Why TikTok Matters00:03:49
And you get overwhelmed.
It's so different.
You can tell.
I mean, listen, there's comedy in there.
There's movie clips.
There's dancing.
There's karaoke.
There's fun stuff too, for sure.
But the algorithm is so different.
That's where you learn about Nick Fuentes.
And Nick Fuentes, if I have to sum it up, I'd say he's a 20-something neo-Nazi.
Although that doesn't quite work because he's also for Stalin, the arch communist.
And that doesn't quite work either because he's for the Democrats and he's against Trump.
It's confusing.
I think the best way to look at him is a troll who will basically blame the Jews and the blacks for anything, but he just sort of bounces around with whatever outrageous thing he says next.
I want to show you some examples.
Here's Nick Fuentes.
And if you have a child or a grandchild on TikTok, I guarantee that they have been bombarded with this guy.
Here he is just randomly talking about how he wants to rape women.
I'm not surprised why women don't support me.
Women are irrational and sensitive.
It's just like my whole life, my whole life, because I was always like the class clown.
I was always like bullying women.
And women have always been like simultaneously charmed, but also like, oh, stop it.
Oh, oh, you're so annoying.
You know what I mean?
That kind of thing.
That's how women are with like with this, with like my personality type.
You're like a rascal.
You know, you're like, you're like a bastard.
And they're kind of like, because I'm like a rule breaker and stuff.
And so women simultaneously are intrigued by that, but they also have to pretend like they're not because women, it's sort of like how women, a lot of women want to be raped.
And when I say raped, I mean like, that sounds bad when I say it like that.
But there's like a lot of women that really want a guy to beat the shit out of them.
But also they have to pretend, but part of it is they have to pretend like they don't.
That's not so ideological, but it shows you who he is.
Here he is saying that Hitler is really cool.
Hitler was a pedophile and kind of a pagan.
It's like, well, he was also really fing cool.
So, you know, time to grow up.
We're not children anymore.
Am I right?
Am I right?
Am I right, boys?
Am I right?
Let's go.
He was also really fing cool.
And any boy knows that.
Anybody who watches these videos where he's rolling down the street and stuff, it's like, this guy's awesome.
This guy's cool.
Here's a longer clip.
This is actually the first video I ever saw him do, talking about how Auschwitz, the concentration camp, could not have killed more than a million Jews.
It just couldn't have, he said.
Hitler was a German statesman.
And was there concentration camps?
Were there death camps?
I think so.
I think there were death camps.
I do.
But there were also death camps against the Germans.
And there were lots of camps.
There were camps everywhere.
We were in a global war.
We had Japanese internment camps.
There were lots of camps.
There were lots of atrocities going on.
But Hitler was the most uniquely evil guy in the world.
And we get these cartoonish depictions of electric floors and mattresses made out of human hair and lampshades made out of lips.
And we created this completely cartoonish, nonsensical narrative.
And then that's the standard.
That's the myth.
Iran's Influence on Views00:15:11
That's the narrative that defines all of our politics now.
Here he is talking about Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA and how he was going to screw it over.
He actually used a different word.
Take a look.
Whether he chooses to confront me or not, whether he has dignity and honor or not, it's just a matter of time.
My ideas are already there.
I've already impregnated your organization.
I took Turning Point USA and I fed it.
I took your organization.
I took your baby, Turning Point USA, and I fed it.
And I've been fucking it.
And that's why it's filled with Groypers.
That's why your whole crew.
That's why the people around you.
That's why you're chapter presidents.
That's why you're attendees.
They're all Groypers.
So whether you choose to confront me or not over the honor of your Turning Point USA, it's immaterial to me.
I'd like it.
I just get a sick satisfaction out of it because I like to win.
He hated Charlie Kirk so much.
And he would say that his goal was to undermine Charlie Kirk.
And sometimes he used unfortunate language like, turn your guns on Charlie Kirk.
Here he is not long before Charlie Kirk was actually assassinated.
Let's focus all our firepower on Charlie Kirk.
Why are we doing this?
It's because Charlie Kirk is a fake patriot, a fake Christian, and he hates his people.
He's anti-white.
This is our angle.
Like I say, Nick Fuentes is not a conservative.
I don't even think he's deeply thoughtful and principled.
Here he is saying that he's against Trump and for Kamala.
In my opinion, if you're a Catholic, you can't vote for Trump.
You cannot vote for somebody who is now frequently supporting abortion rights, frequently.
It seems like every week he supports abortion.
Catholics should not support Trump.
If you are anti-war, you cannot support Trump.
Trump is the war, World War III candidate.
Trump is talking about wiping Iran off the map.
That's where the war is going to go nuclear, not Ukraine.
You can't vote for Trump.
If you're an immigration restrictionist, you can't vote for Trump.
They're not deporting any illegals.
Okay, that's not happening.
They admitted as much.
And they're going to bring in more legal immigrants than ever before.
She's a good candidate.
I'm not going to lie.
I know a lot of Republicans don't want to admit it.
She's likable.
She's good looking.
She's likable.
Good energy.
Just saying.
Now, the thing is, he doesn't have a big backer or a sponsor.
He's not polite company.
But because he has so many views, this Nick Fuentes, and because he's a good talker, he's glib and he's quick with his, he's very articulate in his nonsense, he has attracted a large audience, particularly of people who are rebelling against various things, including censorship and young men who are rebelling against a society that is anti-young men.
He's sort of the younger, dumber, more radical version of Jordan Peterson, who at least has a calm, practical, hopeful purpose in life.
So for, I think, mainly the reason that Fuentes is getting views, and I don't know how many of those views are, like I say on TikTok, promoted and pumped up by Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela.
So just the other day, Tucker Carlson, who also is a very large online platform, had Nick Fuentes on, and it was an extended love-in.
I mean, let me just show you a few of the craziest parts.
Here's Tucker Carlson hearing from Nick Fuentes that Fuentes loves Stalin so much that he marks Stalin's birthday.
So it was like mid-December, mid-late December.
It's actually funny.
It was December 18th.
I remember because that's an important date to me.
And it's Joseph Stalin's birthday.
I'm a fan.
You're a fan of Stalin's.
Oh, he's an admirer.
But we don't need to go into that.
Okay, let's get back to this.
We'll circle back to that.
It was weird because the reason I mentioned that, it was almost like because I woke up that day and I was like, oh, it's December 18th.
And I was just like very acutely aware of like, today's like a strange day.
This is the day that the attempt happened.
Spoiler alerts, they never did come back to that little thing.
I mean, contrast that to when Ted Cruz last went on Tucker Carlson's show.
Oh my God, I've never seen Tucker savage a guest like this before.
You saw how gentle Tucker was with someone promoting Stalin.
Here's Tucker promoting, attacking Ted Cruz.
Take a look.
How many people live in Iran, by the way?
I don't know the population at all.
No, I don't know the population.
You don't know the population of the country you seek to topple?
How many people live in Iran?
92 million.
Okay.
Yeah.
How could you not know that?
I don't sit around memorizing population tables.
Well, it's kind of relevant because you're calling for the overthrow of the government.
Why is it relevant whether it's 90 million or 80 million or 100 million?
Because if you don't know anything about the country.
I didn't say I don't know anything about what's the ethnic mix of Iran.
They are Persians and predominantly Shia.
Okay, this is no, it's not even, you don't know anything about Iran.
So I am not the Tucker Carlson expert on Iran.
You're a senator who's calling for the one throwing the government.
You're the one who don't know anything about the country.
No, you don't know anything about the country.
You're the one who claims they're not trying to murder Donald Trump.
I'm not saying that.
Who can't figure out if there's a good idea to kill General Soleimani and you just said it was bad if they're trying to murder Trump.
Yes, I do.
Because you're not calling for military strikes against them in retaliation.
If they really believe they're carrying out military strikes today.
You said Israel was.
Right.
With our help.
I said we.
Israel is leading them, but we're supporting them.
Well, you're breaking news here because the U.S. government last night denied, the National Security Council spokesman Alex Pfeiffer denied on behalf of Trump that we were acting on Israel's behalf in any offensive capacity.
We're not bombing them.
Israel's bombing them.
You just said we were.
We are supporting Israel.
You're a senator.
If you're saying the United States government is at war with Iran right now, people are listening.
Tucker has gone on from there saying he hates nothing more than a Christian who supports Israel.
He says they're a virus.
They're the worst people in the world.
He despises them.
Here, take a listen.
How do you explain Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz?
And they're a lot like that, John Bolton.
I mean, I've known them all, George W. Bush, like Karl Rove.
I mean, all people I know personally who I've seen like be seized by this brain virus, and they're not Jewish.
Most of them are self-described Christians.
And then the Christian Zionists who are, well, Christian Zionists.
Like, what is that?
And I could just say for myself, I dislike them more than anybody, you know, because like what?
Because it's Christian heresy.
And I'm offended by that as a Christian.
That's why.
So I don't like, why not?
Like, I'm pissed at the neocons, very pissed.
I've said that a million times.
I've been mad since December of 2003 when I went to Iraq.
And so like I went and hassled or hassled asked straightforward questions to Ted Cruz because that seems like he was a sitting senator who's like serving for Israel by his own description.
He seemed like a worthy target.
I'm not going after MTG, who's like the most sincere person.
Like, why not go after Ted Cruz?
I don't understand.
That's really weird.
That's contrary to what Tucker Carlson has said in the past when he was on Fox News or CNN or other stations before that.
And it coincides with him being very friendly to Qatar and having Qatar's prime minister on the show.
And here's a bizarre statement he made about Sharia law.
I can tell you that Tucker Carlson was against Sharia law at Fox, but he loves Sharia law now and recommends it.
You should know, Seth, that the real danger is Sharia law.
Sharia law.
And you can tell when you go to a place like Abu Dhabi or Riyadh, like, oh man, I hope we don't ever wind up with a society like this with a rape rate of zero where you leave your keys in your Lamborghini and don't ever worry about it being stolen.
And, you know, if people want to get wasted, they do it at home.
You know what I mean?
Yeah.
Boy, I hope we don't wind up with that.
Yeah, I think that, I mean, Sharia law is obviously just a punchline.
I don't know that too many people actually believe in the reality of that.
And I mean, sure, like I said, you know, I'm a lawyer.
I actually studied legal philosophy.
Sharia is not that different from Other legal codes.
A lot of our own legal code, the Anglo-Saxon common law, Anglo-American common law, derives ultimately from religious authorities.
He said that Vladimir Putin was the most popular man in the world.
He's the most popular leader in the world, by the way, by far.
I mean, if you travel, yeah, I don't think that's true.
And I mentioned Qatar lobbying.
That's not an accusation.
Qatar actually registered under the foreign agents registry, indicating they spent 200 grand to get on Tucker Carlson's show.
It's quite something.
It's not just detonating allies and conservatives today.
Tucker Carlson is trying to revise history.
He's actually had historians on who say that Churchill was the evil one in the Second World War, not Hitler.
And I'm American.
I'm not English, so I don't have any weird motive in asking this, but how would you assess Winston Churchill?
I got in trouble with my podcast partner, Jocko Willink, one time because he's a New England Dutchman who's his family, it's near and dear to their Dutch, but very near and dear to their heart that Winston Churchill is a hero, right?
Well, everyone thinks that.
He really thinks that.
And I told him that I think, and maybe I'm being a little hyperbolic, maybe, but I told him, maybe trying to provoke him a little bit, that I thought Churchill was the chief villain of the Second World War.
Now, he didn't kill the most people.
He didn't commit the most atrocities.
But I believe, and I don't really think, I think when you really get into it and tell the story right and don't leave anything out, you see that he was primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did, becoming something other than an invasion of Poland.
Anyways, this alliance between Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes is astonishing.
Tucker is smarter, better educated, more experienced, much older than Nick Fuentes, but they're fast friends.
And I think it's because they want to normalize and platform each other.
But what's scary to me is that Tucker, at least, if not Fuentes, is part of the larger conservative movement.
I mean, you may know even I was on Tucker's show a few times when he sent a camera crew up to Canada to do a story on Rebel News.
Now, that was actually deleted because right before the documentary was about to be aired, Tucker was fired from Fox and the documentary never saw the light of day.
But I'm concerned about Tucker, and I'm no longer worried.
I think it's all my worries have been proven true.
I think he really is working for the bad guys now.
I simply don't believe that Tucker Carlson is conservative anymore by any definition of that term.
If you host people who, and he's a 9-11 truther as well, something he used to be against.
He used to say that if you were a 9-11 truther, you were anti-American because you were trying to excuse America's enemies and blame America itself.
I don't think that what Tucker stands for, and certainly not Fuentes stands for, is conservatism.
Being anti-Semitic is not conservative.
Being anti-Zionistic, why would you be against having a homeland for the Jews unless you're against Italy, for the Italians, France, for the French, unless you're against every nationalism?
But just to say the one people in the world that don't get a country are Jews in the land of the Bible.
Like, why would you say that?
He's anti-Israel.
He's anti-Christian.
He hates Christian Zionists.
I think it's anti-American.
He's anti-Trump.
And both Fuentes and Tucker Carlson went to bat for Iran, saying that if Donald Trump were to shoot at Iran, it would start World War III, 100,000 deaths in America.
In reality, seven B-2 bombers dropped 14 bombs without Iran even knowing they were overhead.
There was no war.
It was basically a whimpering end to Iran's 12-day war.
Tucker platforming Fuentes, though, I think it's a tipping point.
And I never really understood what the term woke right meant, but this is what it means.
It means, does the right, does conservative, this is mainly an American issue, but it's splashing over in the UK and in Europe and in Canada too.
This is what woke right means.
Is the conservative movement, is the Republican Party in the United States, is Canada's conservative movement, will it abide our version of the crazies on the left?
What I mean is on the left, the Democrats, and a lot of Democrats are normal people.
I mean, they do get almost 50% of the vote.
There's a lot of people who were normal there, but the Democrats have succumbed to the most radical elements within them, the Ilhan Omars, the Zorhan Mamdanis, the green-haired transgender activists, the Black Lives Matter movement.
The Democrats have given the power and the energy in their party to the woke extremists.
And I think it's an important reason why Democrats are losing.
They're so out of bounds when it comes to normal issues for Americans.
Will the Republicans do the same thing?
Will they say, we have to accept this, no enemies to the right?
But like I said, how are Fuentes and Tucker and their minimis, they're people like Candace Owens, again, a former Democrat who says she hates Trump.
How are they conservatives?
Why would non-conservatives who have said they hate Trump, why would they even be in the conservative movement of the Republican Party?
Now, I did a bit of a tour last month, you might remember, talking to some people who were getting swept up in this anti-Israel extremism, which I think splashes over into anti-Semitism.
I found that, and I'm grateful to the people who debated with me, but I found that in general they were low information.
They had shallow knowledge.
Debating Heritage's Flip Flop00:12:47
They had read something on TikTok or Wikipedia and suddenly became experts in the Middle East and the Jews and Arabia and things like that.
And so they would have these mantras, these one-liners that they would keep repeating back to each other.
But there was no depth to it.
Of course not.
These people just, you know, this is the right's version of the latest thing.
You know, we always criticize the left for being, well, what's the latest thing?
Okay, today you care about Ukraine.
Tomorrow you care about Gaza.
You care about Greta Thunberg and Green.
We sort of mock the left for just being faddish.
This is the latest madness on the right.
It's a maniac hysteria.
Is it for the cliques?
Is it for the traffic?
Is it for the fake sense of being taboo?
And that's the irony for people who say the Jews control the media.
Well, the media certainly is just serving up an enormous helping of anti-Semitism from Tucker and Fuentes.
Is it the money?
I think that's part of it.
Is it just the exhilarating feeling of hating someone?
It can be exhilarating.
It's a different hatred than other groups, though.
As I mentioned the other day, Haviv Redegur said anti-Semitism is a special kind of hatred because the Jews aren't just responsible for this one thing or that one thing.
They are this cosmic barrier to heaven.
If we could just get rid of the Jews, things would be perfect.
You know, I talked to some folks in Ireland.
I generally don't raise Jewish issues when I'm in Ireland.
That's not why I'm there, but for some reason, a country with 0.05% Jews, like there's only 2,000 Jews in the whole country of Ireland, it's one half of one-tenth of 1%.
And there are some people in Ireland, typically on the left, who are so anti-Jewish.
And I'm just thinking to myself, there hasn't been a Jew in the Irish parliament in more than a decade.
There's only been a handful over the course of time.
It's not your universal scapegoat.
And if you finally do triumph over the Jews, it's not going to suddenly make, like, there's this belief, I think anti-Semites, in many cases, have decided the Jews are such a cosmic, demonic, supernatural force that to get rid of them would instantly fix every problem and every problem can be ascribed to them.
Certainly they won't shut up about the Jews.
It's really crazy to me.
Anyways, yesterday things came to a head when Heritage Foundation, one of the largest conservative foundations in America that historically has been very pro-Israel, by the way, very anti-anti-Semitic, the head of Heritage, put out a video, apropos of nothing, I don't know why he felt compelled to do it, standing by Tucker Carlson and saying he always will no matter what.
And those who are against Tucker are venomous and globalists.
Here, it's actually not that long.
Let me play the whole thing for you.
It just came out of the blue.
Take a look.
I'll have more to say on this in the coming days, but today I want to be clear about one thing.
Christians can critique the state of Israel without being anti-Semitic.
And of course, anti-Semitism should be condemned.
My loyalty as a Christian and as an American is to Christ first and to America always.
When it serves the interest of the United States to cooperate with Israel and other allies, we should do so with partnerships on security, intelligence, and technology.
But when it doesn't, conservatives should feel no obligation to reflexively support any foreign government, no matter how loud the pressure becomes from the globalist class or from their mouthpieces in Washington.
The Heritage Foundation didn't become the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement by canceling our own people or policing the consciences of Christians.
And we won't start doing that now.
We don't take direction from comments on X, though we are grateful for the robust free speech debate.
We also don't take direction from members or donors, though we are inherently grateful for their support.
And we're adding more every day.
This is the robust debate we invite with our colleagues, our movement friends, our members, and the American public.
We will always defend truth.
We will always defend America.
And we will always defend our friends against the slander of bad actors who serve someone else's agenda.
That includes Tucker Carlson, who remains, and as I have said before, always will be a close friend of the Heritage Foundation.
The venomous coalition attacking him are sowing division.
Their attempt to cancel him will fail.
Most importantly, the American people expect us to be focusing on our political adversaries on the left, not attacking our friends on the right.
I disagree with and even abhor things that Nick Fuentes says.
But canceling him is not the answer either.
When we disagree with a person's thoughts and opinions, we challenge those ideas and debate.
And we have seen success in this approach as we continue to dismantle the vile ideas of the left.
As my friend Vice President Vance said last night, what I am not okay with is any country coming before the interest of American citizens, and it is important for all of us, assuming we are American citizens, to put the interest of our own country first.
That's where our allegiance lies, and that's where it will stay.
Now, I like loyalty.
I try and show loyalty, and I think it's a very important personal trait.
But are you truly loyal to someone no matter what they think and say?
You may know that I was once pretty close friends with Jason Kenney.
In fact, I'd say he was one of my best friends.
I haven't had a word to say to the guy in three years.
And that pains me, but because as Premier of Alberta, I mean, he was one of my best buddies.
We would talk frequently.
He led a vicious crackdown on the province, including on churches, on the truckers at Coutz.
He brought in painful COVID mandates.
I was shocked by it.
And we had to speak out and we had to criticize it.
And frankly, it's painful to lose a friend.
But if you're in the opinion business and the commentary and the news business and the activism business, like we are, we just have to speak the truth.
Can you truly say we will always stand by Tucker Carlson?
Really?
Even if he platforms people who are Nazis and Stalinists and people who say that Hitler was better than Churchill, will you really, on behalf of the Heritage Foundation, which is millions of donors and decades of work, will you really always stand by him no matter what he says?
Because he's changing wicked fast?
Now, the answer is debate and being collegial, says the head of Heritage, except for those venomous Jews and Christian Zionists, I guess.
I mean, who was he blaming?
Who is he blaming when he said that Tucker was under attack?
And why did he feel that he had to stand up for Tucker?
I thought it was quite odd.
Now, some Heritage Foundation staff and others in the Heritage Orb, it's a huge organization, Heritage.
I haven't looked it up, but it's got to be tens of millions, probably $100 million a year in conservative donors working on everything from justice files to education to foreign affairs.
And by the way, they're quite pro-Israel over there.
So this came out of the blue.
Some Heritage staff started to rebel in a particular way.
Here's Preston Brashers, who made this tweet, which I thought was perfect.
It showed free speech.
That's an iconic painting of free speech, but that were against Nazis.
And I'm worried that Preston Brashers is going to be fired.
There's got to be a huge battle behind the scenes at Heritage right now, because for such a flagship conservative project to endorse Tucker's interview with Nick Fuentes, it's just startling.
I mean, is it true?
No enemies to the right.
Is it true that we have to abide outright haters?
Put aside the Jewish thing.
I mean, I'm Jewish, so perhaps I'm conflicted.
Let's say there was a huge movement on the right that was anti-black or anti-Asian or just or anti-Quaker or anti-Mormon or something.
Would I have to abide it to be a good conservative?
I just don't think I could.
I don't think I would.
I mean, put aside the morality of it.
You're literally giving ammunition to your critics.
Just think practically for a minute.
Conservatives are always accused of being Nazis and racists.
Even I'm Jewish.
I'm accused of being a Nazi all the time by the left.
Obviously, it's not true.
It's just a trick to put us on the back foot and be defensive.
Imagine accepting crazy Nazis and Nazi enablers.
You're handing ammunition to the liberals, to the Democrats, to the left.
All those things we always told you about conservatives.
Well, they're true.
They accept these crazy Nazis.
I don't know why the boss of heritage is going this way.
I could understand why a youth movement, Turning Point USA, very college-oriented, because the kids are following this on TikTok and they don't have a strong history or they don't have good moorings.
Like, there's no boomers or Gen Xers supporting this stuff.
It's kids.
So I don't understand why an organization made up of boomers and seniors, funded by boomers and seniors, would try and get a piece of the Nick Fuentes action.
It's really crazy to me.
You know, the racism is astonishing, and none of it was brought up by Tucker Carlson.
Here's Nick Fuentes doing a little rant on JD Vance and Gavin Newsom as the potential lineup for the 2028 U.S. presidential race.
Take a look at this, comparing the race of the two families.
So this is the image of Gavin Newsome.
And we'll zoom in on it so you could get a better look.
This is Gavin Newsom's family.
Okay.
Now, this is who the Republicans want you to think is literally the devil.
Okay, this guy is Satan.
This guy is evil.
This guy is woke.
He is a left-wing socialist Muslim.
He's a radical Muslim socialist like Barack Obama.
But, you know, right off the bat, we could just make some observations.
You know, he's white.
He's tall.
He's handsome.
His wife is also white.
She's tall.
She's good looking.
His children, four of them, are beautiful and they're all white with blue eyes and blonde hair.
And they're in California.
Or maybe this is Hawaii.
I don't know.
But they're in a beautiful state, our beautiful land, their beautiful blood, and our beautiful land in America.
If only there was some way to combine those things.
Their beautiful genetics, their genes.
Weren't Republicans just talking about that?
Beautiful genes.
Look at these beautiful genes.
It's really a sight to behold.
This is our enemy, they say.
Now, here's the other image: this is our fearless leader, the entity known as JD Vance.
The entity known as J.D. Hamill since the last operating system update is now JD Vance.
This is his family.
Now, let's make some observations here.
So, this is our fearless leader, the entity known as JD Vance.
He's fat.
Okay, he's visibly.
We'll just zoom in here just so you could get a better look.
He's visibly obese and very ugly.
He's got a fat face, no jawline, no chin, and he's quite ugly.
He had to grow a beard because his face was so ugly.
The Ozempic didn't even help.
Let's make some other observations.
His wife and kids are not white.
Attitude Towards Israel00:11:37
Okay, you know, a lot of people debate whether I'm white.
People say, Your last name's Fuentes.
Are you white?
Well, maybe I am.
Maybe I'm not.
I know this is definitely not white.
Okay.
Brown skin, black hair, a Hindic phenotype.
This is an Indian woman, as a matter of fact.
She is from the subcontinent of India.
Her parents are Indian.
They're actually from India.
Yeah, she's first generation.
Yeah, like I say, Nick Fuentes is no conservative.
He's no Republican, and he hates Jews a lot, but he hates others too.
Now, that video was on my mind because I saw that.
And it was on my mind when I saw this question and answer put to JD Vance at a Turning Point USA event.
Just take a look.
We won't play the whole thing, but here's, actually, I think we will play the whole thing here.
Take a look.
And yes, my wife did not grow up Christian.
I think it's fair to say that she grew up in a Hindu family, but not a particularly religious family in either direction.
In fact, when I met my wife, we were both, I would consider myself an agnostic or an atheist, and that's what I think she would have considered herself as well.
You know, everybody has to come to their own arrangement here.
The way that we've come to our arrangement is she's my best friend.
We talk to each other about this stuff.
So we decided to raise our kids Christian.
Our two oldest kids who go to school, they go to a Christian school.
Our eight-year-old did his first communion about a year ago.
That's the way that we have come to our arrangement.
But thank you.
My eight-year-old was also very proud of his first communion.
Thank you, guys.
I'll tell him that old miss wishes him the best.
But I think everybody has to have this own conversation when you're in a marriage.
I mean, it's true for friends of mine who are in Protestant and Catholic marriages, friends of mine who are in atheists and Christian marriages.
You just got to talk to your, the only advice I can give is you just got to talk to the person that God has put you with, and you've got to make those decisions as a family unit.
For us, it works out.
Now, most Sundays, Usha will come with me to church.
As I've told her, and I've said publicly, and I'll say now in front of 10,000 of my closest friends, do I hope eventually that she is somehow moved by the same thing that I was moved in by church?
Yeah, I honestly, I do wish that because I believe in the Christian gospel, and I hope eventually my wife comes to see it the same way.
But if she doesn't, then God says everybody has free will.
And so that doesn't cause a problem for me.
That's something you work out with your friends, with your family, with the person that you love.
Again, one of the most important Christian principles is that you respect free will.
Usha's closer to the priests who baptize me than maybe I am.
They talk about this stuff.
My attitude is you figure this stuff out as a family and you trust in God to have a plan and you try to follow it as best as you can.
And that's what I try to do.
Now, I tweeted that I thought JD Vance was throwing his wife's religion under the bus to appease the Nick Fuentes wing because there was a mass of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel questions that always show up at the Turning Point USA.
The Fuentes people try to invade.
And I thought that by publicly talking about his wife and how he preferred it if she would become a Christian.
I know, I guess I'm just not used to personal family discussions like I want my wife to become Christian.
That seems like a strange thing to me to talk about in public.
That feels like a conversation maybe you have in private with your wife.
And I thought airing it, I don't know, I thought it was, I guess maybe I was oversampling the Fuentes BS.
So I thought it was a way that JD Vance was repelling that attack.
And to my surprise, JD Vance replied to me, to my tweet.
He said he was disgusted with my comment and thought it smacked of anti-Christian bigotry.
Now, I wrote back to the vice president saying I accepted his explanation that this was how he does his Christianity.
He's always trying to move people over.
Okay, I accept that.
But not his implication that perhaps I'm anti-Christian.
But I did ask him a few more questions while we were talking, like, does he think Tucker is anti-Christian?
You saw Tucker smear conservative Christians.
And why did he let this question go unchallenged?
Here's another question that was put to him.
Israel, sometimes they have similar interests to the United States, and we're going to work with them in that case.
Sometimes they don't have similar interests to the United States.
And this example, the most recent Gaza peace plan that all of us have been working on very hard for the past few weeks, the president of the United States could only get that peace deal done by actually being willing to apply leverage to the state of Israel.
So when people say that Israel is somehow manipulating or controlling the president of the United States, they're not controlling this president of the United States, which is one of the reasons why we're able to have some of the success that we've had in the Middle East.
Now, you ask about, you know, sort of Jews disagreeing with Christians on certain religious ideas.
Yeah, absolutely.
It's one of the realities is that Jews do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.
Obviously, Christians do believe that.
There are some significant theological disagreements between Christians and Jews.
My attitude is: let's have those conversations.
Let's have those disagreements when we have them.
But if there are shared areas of interest, we ought to be willing to do that too.
For example, I really care about one thing I really, really care about is the preservation of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.
Christians believe that that is the site where Jesus Christ was crucified and also that his tomb is right there as well.
My attitude is if we can work with our friends in Israel to make sure that Christians have safe access to that site, that's an obvious area of common interest.
I am fine with that.
What I'm not okay with is any country coming before the interests of American citizens.
And it is important for all of us, assuming we're American citizens, to put the interest of our own country first.
That's what we're going to do.
That's what we try to do every single day, I promise you.
Thank you.
Is it true that Israel and Jews persecute Christians?
I've been to Israel and I've been to Iraq and I've been to the United Emirates and I've seen other countries that I haven't been to.
I know that Egypt is a place where Coptic Christians are killed by Islamic terrorists all the time.
I know that Christians have been purged from Lebanon and from Iraq.
I've been to Bethlehem and I've seen how the tiny Christian community is being pressured by the Muslim majority.
Israel is actually the only country in the Middle East where Christians have their full rights.
Hopefully the United Arab Emirates in Bahrain are slowly moving in that direction too.
But to accuse the Jews of persecuting Christians is something that I think in his day, Charlie Kirk would have swatted down.
But JD Vance just sort of accepted the premise of the question and said that no one controls this president, implying that maybe other presidents are being controlled by Israel and saying that he wants Israel to protect access to Christian sites like the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Yeah, Israel does.
I just found it so weird that JD Vance did not rebut or counter or even just put on the record that he disagreed with any of those things.
Charlie Kirk would have smashed those questions.
I don't know.
Maybe it's asking too much for the vice president of the United States to fact-check people at a town hall, but he did sign up for that project.
So I put to JD Vance three questions, given that I had his attention.
I said, do you think Jews of Judaism do persecute Christians?
Do you think Israel is a threat to Christianity in the Middle East?
I mean, we all remember those horrific ISIS pictures of them beheading the Coptic Christians in Egypt.
Do you really think Israel controlled other U.S. presidents, like Barack Obama maybe, like Joe Biden?
Like, which ones?
And I wrote, P.S., I'm a fan.
Probably the biggest Trump supporter in Canada.
Not an easy thing to be.
I said, I like your style too.
I do.
But I say, you say I've misinterpreted your comments about your family.
And I obviously accept your explanation, but I'm hoping I've misinterpreted your other comments too.
Looks like you're trying to appease an insatiable racist movement led by a troll who praises both Hitler and Stalin and who has repeatedly called for opposition to both you and President Trump.
Say it ain't so.
Anyways, obviously, I don't like quarreling with the Trump administration.
If I had to score them, I'd give them an 11 out of 10 on literally everything they're doing.
They're not just saving America, they're saving the world.
Even though it might not feel that way in Canada right now on the tariffs, I believe that Donald Trump and his administration not only are bringing peace to the world, they're bringing prosperity to the world.
And in so many ways, there's what's stopping the world from falling into violence and chaos.
I mean, imagine a world where America wasn't the key country, but where China was, which is, I think, the alternative.
In terms of Jews in Israel, no president has been a better friend to Jews or Israel than Trump, by the way.
And no one would have been worse than Kamala Harris.
I mean, Zorhan Mamdani is the center of the Democrats now.
I just find it incredible that so many anti-Jewish activists who claim to be pro-America are either silent on the actual threat posed by Islamism, or like Tucker Carlson, they positively go to bat for Islamists in Qatar.
Look, I'm worried about anti-Semitism in the Republican Party because I think it's a corrosive socialist mindset.
I think that blaming all the Jews is a way of absolving yourself from responsibility in your own life, and it's collective punishment of an external group.
I think it's false.
I think Israel and America have been true allies.
And I think that when you compare the costs of Israel's friendship with America, it's much lower than the costs of Qatar, where America has a $10 billion a year base, or Turkey, where America has a $10 billion a year base.
Do you know that America even stores its nukes in Turkey?
There's so many ways that this U.S.-Israel relationship is positive.
And I think it's being poisoned in part by funding from Qatar.
I do think I overstated the case on JD Vance discussing his wife's religion.
And I think he took it personally, which is fair enough.
But I really would like to hear his answers on the other questions.
Is Tucker Carlson also anti-Christian?
Or is that okay?
You know, Tucker Carlson's son works for JD Vance.
I wonder what that's all about.
Does JD Vance really think Israel and the Jewish religion itself persecute Christians?
Can you really say that in the Middle East, where ISIS would purge entire Christian towns in Iraq?
It's not his job to rebut every conspiracy in the world, but when you agree to take questions at a TPUSA event, you sort of make it your job for an hour.
I'm not against JD Vance.
I sort of like him, and I think he's strong on freedom of speech.
I love watching him talk in places like Europe and Munich and talking to the British Prime Minister about free speech.
But I am a bit worried by him.
Not by his comment about his wife, which I think I now understand, but about his lack of comments on other things.
You tell me, what do you think?
Notwithstanding Clause Controversy00:11:20
Stay with us for more.
Well, the other day we talked about the possibility of a general strike in Alberta.
Those aren't things that happen in Canada a lot.
There was a general strike in Winnipeg about a century ago.
My research tells me the last general strike in Canada was actually in 1976, almost 50 years ago.
And funny enough, it was about wage and price controls imposed by Pierre Trudeau.
Now, if I've missed a general strike out there, let me know.
But the idea seems so old-fashioned and sort of, well, a little communist.
The idea that everyone would strike in general disgust, I suppose that's sort of a in emergency, press the red button, you know, like a fire alarm that you pull.
I suppose it is like an emergency button.
And if things got to that stage, maybe it's a sign that democracy is off the rails.
But in this case, it's the Alberta Teachers Union who, having been offered the highest wages in Western Canada, want a little bit more and want a little bit of political control in the classrooms.
Well, I was delighted to read in the Edmonton Journal just today an article by Lauren Gunter entitled General Strike.
Very unlikely, but UCP could survive one.
I read the article very carefully, and it also suggests that the UCP might not survive.
120 May Now is the author of this article, our friend Lauren Gunter, who joins us via Zoom.
Lauren, great to see you again.
Thanks for taking you.
I read your piece and you thought there was a chance that there's enough burning anger there, but I don't know.
Like, would other unions break their agreements?
Would private sector unions care at all?
Like, what do you think would happen?
I don't think so.
I think if you tried to get, say, pipe fitters or unionized plumbers to go out of work, to go out off of work to support the teachers' demands, you'd be really hard pressed to find any of them who would.
Why would they give up a paycheck to go and help teachers who are making, we're going to get a 17% raise, most of them, out of this deal.
And really what they're fighting over is the use of the notwithstanding clause in the back-to-work legislation.
So that might animate some other unions, but it's a pretty obscure reason to go out on a strike.
So I'm not confident.
And besides, the Alberta Federation of Labor, which is behind the general strike talk, has been has now a two-point plan in place before they would do a general strike.
Well, a general strike has to come when the anger is there.
It's got to be immediate.
If they're not out on strike within about 10 days, they're not going.
And the AFL says, well, we want you to go and start recall petitions against UCP MLAs.
And we like you to volunteer for the opposition parties, work for them to get rid of the UCP.
Wow, that's not two weeks from now.
So I don't think a general strike is going to happen.
So the notwithstanding clause was invoked for the right to strike, but has it also been used, and perhaps I misunderstood this, it seems to me that a lot of teachers and the NDP and the Alberta Federation of Labor, they also don't like a particular ideology, Danielle Smith, on transgenderism.
Or have I conflated the two issues?
Because it seemed to me that one of the things that teachers were really dead set against was Danielle Smith having some say about what books were in libraries and maybe even gay straight alliance clubs.
Have I inadvertently confused the two issues?
No, but the second part didn't come up much in labor negotiations.
So it is a problem.
There are a lot of teachers who are upset with the provincial government's policy, which says if a student wants to change pronouns at school, you have to notify the parents and you're not allowed to start pushing puberty blockers and things for people under 16.
So there was some pushback on that a few months ago, but I think that the heat has come out of that for a while.
But the province has talked about using the notwithstanding clause on that too.
So there is a general concern that the notwithstanding clause is going to be used more often.
And therefore, the province is going to step on fashionable progressive rights.
And so the union leadership with the ATA, and to some extent the AFL, doesn't like that.
And so they want to see that curtailed.
But there's a very fascinating study by a couple of academics in Ontario that said that up to 2014, only 30% of provincial laws that went to the Supreme Court were overturned on constitutional grounds.
Since then, over 60% have been overturned.
And so the provinces are getting tired of watching the Supreme Court dismantle that legislation.
Notwithstanding clause was put in the charter specifically to deal with that.
And so now more of them are starting to use it.
Yeah.
And, you know, I just can't think of anything more removed from everyday ordinary life for most severely normal people.
I mean, when you say notwithstanding clause, first of all, those two words, what does that even mean?
Like, I think a lot of people, their eyes will start to close and have a nap.
And I'm not looking down on anyone.
I'm just saying it's such an abstract technical thing.
And even if you explain it to people, I don't think people are outraged by it.
I mean, I know the fancy people, oh, well, of course you're against the notwithstanding clause.
It's an attack on democracy.
But if someone says, well, what is it again?
Oh, it allows the legislature to not be overturned for a period of five years, but they have to chill.
Like, it's so inoffensive.
I don't know.
I just don't see that as motivating people.
I don't see it.
And I think the one thing that people have to remember is that if it weren't for the notwithstanding clause, there would be no charter.
Because there were six provinces at the time of charter negotiations in 81, 82 who didn't want the charter.
And they only agreed to allow it to go ahead with the notwithstanding clause because it also includes earlier in the document the right for judicial review, which had not been an enumerated right in Canada before that.
But it says judges have the right to invalidate laws based on constitutional grounds.
And so the province's six provinces said, look, you could do that.
We need to have something to counterbalance it.
So put the notwithstanding clause in.
Yeah.
Well, I think it should be so normalized.
My own view is that the notwithstanding clause should be added in like salt and pepper into almost every dish just to get over this weird fake taboo.
And let me switch gears, if I may.
I really appreciate your info on the province, but I want to switch gears just for one second to an example of where I think the notwithstanding clause is just, it was designed for this moment.
Earlier today, Lauren, the Supreme Court of Canada came out with a ruling striking down Stephen Harper, I think it was Stephen Harper's policies on mandatory minimum sentences for child pornography.
And it was a five to four ruling.
So nine judges, if just one of them had gone the other way, the mandatory minimum would have been upheld.
So basically one human being, one judge, and I bet you not one in 100 Canadians could name all nine Supreme Court judges.
I'd be proud to do it.
I bet you it wasn't one in 100,000.
Yeah.
I mean, we probably know more American Supreme Court judges because they're in the news more.
So one unelected judge that no one could even name, it's one person, or you could say nine people.
You could say nine people have made a decision that in my bones I know 90% of Canadians are against.
And what are you going to do?
The notwithstanding clause would say we're going to judge-proof this law for at least five years.
And so, I think that the liberals now have a choice to make federally: do they use the notwithstanding clause to preserve this mandatory minimum sentence for child pornography?
No, they don't.
Because on another matter that's before the court, on Quebec's Bill 21, which is the secular law that you know, no public servant or teacher or police officer can wear a turban, a hijab, a kippah, a cross.
The feds are there fighting at the Supreme Court to have the notwithstanding clause nullified.
So, they're not going to use the notwithstanding clause on this bill.
And Kearney has said many times that he thinks the notwithstanding clause is anti-democratic.
No, it's precisely the opposite.
Yeah, you have elected officials in every province and nationally who should have the last say.
They shouldn't do it willy-nilly, they shouldn't do it trivially, but they should have the last say because they have the mandate from the people in order to change these things.
But that decision at the Supreme Court is weird because the case before the court was two men from Quebec who pleaded guilty to being in possession of child pornography that showed violent acts being done on children as young as three.
And the Supreme Court's, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, it's cruel and unusual punishment to give them a one-year minimum.
Give them a five-year minimum.
I mean, it seems so obnoxious to me what they were doing that they should go away for a very long time.
But the court's reasoning was: well, technically, if an 18-year-old had a salacious picture of his 17-year-old girlfriend on his phone, he might be considered to be in possession of child pornography.
And so, because of that hypothetical, we think that the minimum is unconstitutional.
Well, first of all, there are many provinces that are going to tell their crown prosecutors to prosecute an 18-year-old boy because he's got a salacious, titillating picture of his girlfriend on his phone.
And the consent laws in Canada clearly say that you can have sexual activity with underage people if they are consenting and there is no relationship.
You're not their guardian, you're not their boss, you have no authority over them, you're not a coach, none of those things.
And so, the hypothetical that the court came up with is ridiculous.
Petitions and Elections00:05:59
Yeah, well, well, I tell you, um, that is a crazy case for anyone to die on.
And it'll be amazing.
I think you're right.
I think the liberals will not use the notwithstanding clause because of this other attempt they have to denude the constitution of that clause.
You know, I forget who it was who once used this phrase with me, and it really clicked.
All decisions will be held decided by vote.
The question is: is it a vote of nine people in a court?
Will it be a vote of 340 people in parliament, or will it be a vote of millions of people in election?
It will be a vote.
The question is, how democratic or how elite will it be?
I don't know.
There's some wiggle room in that idea, but I sort of thought, yeah.
I mean, basically, these nine super citizens think that by a one-vote margin, they're going to strike down, as you say, quite a lenient mandatory minimum.
I don't know.
I think that's, I've just seen the reaction to that ruling so far, and it's shocking to me.
Yeah, me too.
Well, we'll see what comes next.
Want to ask you one last question before you go.
I should have asked it before we switched over to the federal scene.
In your article, and you mentioned it about 10 minutes ago today, that one of the things in Alberta they're looking to do is have MLA recall.
In Alberta, you can actually get a petition.
And if you get a certain number of votes, you can force a special election, a by-election.
And I think that's great.
And if I'm not mistaken, Danielle Smith has lowered the hurdles for these because Jason Kenney had them absurdly high.
I'd have to check that to know for sure.
Do you think there are any conservative MLAs who are at risk?
Because my understanding of the map is most conservatives are in fairly friendly territory.
Edmonton was basically a desert for them.
And that this is basically an empty threat.
You tell me if I'm wrong.
I couldn't tell you how all 83 or whatever number the MLAs are, but is it an empty threat?
It's going to be really hard for them to get a recall vote on any MLA because the standard is still fairly high.
You have to get 60% of the number of people who voted in the last election.
60% of the people who voted.
You don't have to go and find all the names on the electors list and make sure that these people are now signing a petition.
It could just be 60%, but the people have to be living in the riding.
And they have to be over 18.
And, you know, so it's going to be tricky.
There's already a recall petition that's been accepted by Elections Alberta against the Education Minister.
And it was started by a dissident teacher.
But they said to her, okay, well, we're going to accept that this is a valid recall or recall question, but you now have to get a petition with 16,000 signatures on it, all for one writing.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, if they can organize that, then maybe they do have a rebellion on their hands.
Again, I'm a skeptic, but you never know with Alberta.
It's a rambunctious place.
Hey, Lauren, great to catch up with you.
Thanks for spending so much time with us today.
No worries.
All right.
There he is.
Lauren Gunter.
We've been talking about his article in the Edmonton Journal called General Strike.
Very unlikely, but UCP could survive one.
Stay with us.
your letters to me next.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me.
The first one on my conversation with Drea last night about the land grab that's coming in BC and other places.
Nellis Frozier says, everyone better read Bill C-15 UNDRIP.
That's the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous People, which is Canadian law.
The wording of that bill makes it seem like everywhere a land use declaration is used, the property is traditional land and the Indigenous own it.
You know, Drea said the court ruling was 800 pages long and I have not read it, but the very fact that it's 800 pages long shows that it's a like if you can't elucidate a ruling in 100 pages, the very fact that it's 800 pages sounds insane to me.
It's designed to be impenetrable to ordinary people and it makes me scared.
If you start messing with people's property rights, that's the building blocks of the economy.
Not just the economy, of your life, of your home.
Imagine investing everything you have in your home and then hearing it's not your home.
On my monologue last night, Marilyn Hagerman says: everyone should know, understand, and remember that all unions countrywide are far left-leaning, riddled with Marxist-communist ideologies, taking down a province and creating unrest.
Hatred and bankrupting fiscal responsibilities are just some of their playbook tools.
Can the post-unions fall under these same tactics?
Union CEOs and senior officials are focused not on your kids, but on their own communist ideologies and their highly paid salaries.
I don't know if I'd go so far as to call every union that way, but a lot of the government sector unions are really political unions.
We've been talking with Lauren Gunter about how the unions in Alberta are effectively the NDP opposition.
There really is no dividing line.
I think that the traditional idea of a union was protecting workers, I mean, from the industrial age, the industrial revolution, maybe to protect children or basic health and safety.
I really think society has moved a lot away from that.
And if you look at who benefits from unions now, it's not the poorer working class.
It's the pink clawler government workers who are typically six bigger earners.