Ezra Levant critiques Conservative MP Garnet Genuous for accepting York University’s speech ban without legal or public resistance, despite past advocacy for pipelines and opposition to carbon taxes—policies that clash with his oil-rich district’s interests. Franco Terrazano argues Mark Carney’s carbon tax will hike consumer costs while 70% of countries lack such measures, dismissing its necessity for selling Alberta oil amid global demand from regimes like Russia and Iran. Levant ties this inaction to broader censorship threats, warning that surrendering to bans or flawed economic policies risks eroding free speech and economic freedom, undermining conservative principles. [Automatically generated summary]
I have a slightly sad, slightly infuriating story for you today.
A member of parliament for the Conservative Party was banned from speaking this Friday at York University, and he just accepted it.
He just said, okay, sorry about that.
Anyone who wanted to meet me, just phone me.
No, no, that's not good enough.
You're a member of parliament.
I'll explain what the member of parliament should do when some student activist says you're not allowed to come to campus.
I was sort of disappointed.
That's the show today.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to what we call Rebel News Plus.
This is the video version of this podcast.
Just go to rebelnewsplus.com, click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month.
Might not sound like a lot to you, but it sure adds up for us.
And, you know, we don't take any government money, so we really rely on it.
Tonight, a member of parliament should not let leftists bully him into silence.
It's January 8th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Garnet Genuous is the member of parliament for Sherwood Park, Fort Saskatchewan in Alberta.
That's actually Sheila Gonread's writing.
And he's one of the good guys.
At least in his heart, he is.
Sometimes he lacks the courage of his convictions, though, which always breaks my heart.
I remember when I interviewed him a few years ago about why he would go along with one scheme to endorse the Paris global warming targets, which meant a carbon tax and all sorts of net zero BS.
I honestly can't remember if the Red Tory leader at the time was Andrew Scheer or Aaron O'Toole, but it doesn't really matter.
You'd think an MP from Alberta with major oil and gas operations right in his district would stand up for his people rather than appease some placeholder red Tory leader.
I asked him about that and I was not impressed with the answer.
I'm not interested in telling the story about what we're doing.
I'm interested in selling oil.
You say that those two go together, obviously, right?
I mean, we don't know.
No, not obviously.
Obviously, we're not going to say that.
You don't have to tell in a sort of telling our story kind of sense, right?
I feel like I'm listening to the duck speak, the Kim Kardashian talking points of Catherine McKenna and Justin Trudeau and Rachel Notley.
You don't need to tell a story to sell oil.
90 million barrels of oil are bought and sold every day, much of it from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela.
They don't need to tell a story.
They just need to sell oil.
And you're lying about balancing the economy and the environment.
What on earth does that have to do with being subject to some UN scam?
You have utterly absorbed the talking points of Catherine McKenna.
She has said those exact things.
You know, sorry, but that is completely unfair, right?
Like every single day, conservative MPs stand up to fight back against the carbon tax.
Not this day.
Not this day.
Those are the things that matter to my constituents, opposing the carbon tax and getting pipelines through.
And taking an approach that doesn't fight on ground we can't win on and that chooses to fight on ground that matters so much more and that we can win on.
That's the responsible approach that I think we need to take.
And, you know, it doesn't mean people are always going to agree with us.
It doesn't mean we're always going to agree with you, but we got to have a respectful conversation here about the reality that what matters to my constituents is achieving results for the energy sector.
And how does it do that?
How did that happen?
In this motion or in the accord that takes away from our ability to do that.
It's the liberal plan to supposedly implement it that we take issue with and have always will and will continue to.
So you say with honesty and belief that you believe being part of the United Nations Paris Agreement makes it easier to sell Alberta oil.
Is that what you're saying?
Ezra, I think that if we were to say we are one of a very small number of countries that are outside of it, in certain environments, it would make it much more difficult.
For instance, in Europe, right?
We have, I think, an opportunity by getting the energy pipeline built to market our oil resources to Europe.
And that requires us to sell what our policy mix is to show Russia.
You know who sells oil to Europe?
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia.
Do they have to sell their policy mix?
You are sounding like Justin Trudeau.
Does Saudi Arabia have to sell it?
No argument for me that there are huge problems environmentally in terms of human rights.
You think China doesn't want our oil?
Yeah, I raise these issues repeatedly, the human rights issues themselves, as well as the fact that Canadian energy is a much better alternative than this.
You haven't answered my question.
But I'm just saying we should put our best foot forward here, Ezra, right?
You need to recognize that.
I think that we can put our best foot forward and we can fight on the issues that matter on carbon taxes, on pipelines, and we can get better results if we actually position ourselves for success in that argument.
Yeah.
You know what?
Rachel Notley has been using those exact lines for two years.
She's saying if we just stab ourselves in the eye, if we just stab ourselves in the eye, we'll buy social license.
That's what you're saying.
We'll buy social license.
If we commit because the Paris Agreement doesn't stab us in the eye, the Paris Agreement has no negative impact on us.
Have you read the Paris Agreement?
Have you read it?
Like, Ezra, knowledge form.
Have you read it?
The Paris Agreement involves Canada setting our own targets, which are ultimately non-binding.
Have you read it?
We take issue with the carbon tax that Rachel Notley is proposing, that Justin Trudeau is proposing.
We are opposed to the carbon tax.
And that's a critical difference.
That's critical.
Have you read the Paris Agreement?
Acting With Freedom00:15:15
Yes.
You've read the entire Paris Agreement.
Yes.
Were you whipped into doing this?
On every, not every, but almost every vote, we receive a recommendation from the WIP.
Personally, I don't know what other conversations other members had.
I never discussed it with the WIP because I was convinced and remain convinced that our vote was the right decision.
I mean it when I say he's one of the good guys, but the thing about being a good guy is you have to do it.
You have to act on it.
You can't just be good in your heart quietly.
That's not enough.
At least it's not enough for a member of parliament.
I mean, look at the word parliament.
It comes from to speak out, to advocate.
Ordinary private citizens can keep their own counsel.
Ordinary people have the right to remain private.
You don't have to jump into every battle.
But if you positively signed up for the battle, if you signed up for politics, if you ran on a promise to say certain things, the battle of ideas is actually your job.
You got to act on it.
Now, I really do like Garnet Genuous in case you're in any doubt, but look at this that he wrote late last night.
You tell me if you are as disappointed as I am.
He wrote this on X, now called, or used to be called Twitter.
He said, I have disappointing news to share about further attacks on free speech.
My event at York University scheduled for this Friday is now canceled due to a decision of the student union not to allow it.
I'm pretty surprised.
We've done the same event concept at universities in four provinces without incident.
I stand in a public area in front of a banner and talk to students as they walk by about jobs and unemployment.
But the student union at York won't allow it.
York students who want to talk about jobs and unemployment should please contact my office.
I still want to hear your stories.
So that's it.
Instead of going to the students where they are with the hope of meeting people, not just die-hard conservatives, but people who aren't political, people who aren't convinced to engage them and convince them, you think it's a substitute to tell them to phone your MP's office, actually not even their own MP's office, to phone you out in Fort Saskatchewan.
Who came up with that one?
That is not a substitute.
That is not good enough.
Here's what I wrote in reply to Garnet Genuis on Twitter.
And I tried to be my friendliest, the friendliest version of myself.
I said, hi, Garnett.
I think you could have a different response than just accepting this outcome and tweeting about it.
Number one, I think you should go to court.
The student union may be governed by the Charter of Rights and therefore have an obligation to respect your freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, etc.
Even if they're not governed by the Charter, there are likely other procedural rules of fairness that apply.
It's already Thursday, but you should go to court anyways because you could reschedule the York University meeting for another day.
Number two, the student union may have the ability to eject you from their property, e.g., if you were set to speak in a building owned by them, but they wouldn't have the ability to ban you from anywhere else on campus.
There are plenty of meeting rooms, even auditoriums on campus, where they have no power.
Number three, most people who are banned from campuses don't have the money, know-how, or large media presence to fight back.
You have all three.
I think it behooves you to push back against the censorship, not only for yourself, but to set a legal and political precedent for others.
And number four, frankly, why wouldn't you just show up?
What are they going to do?
Arrest you?
At most, they'd give you a trespass notice, which you'd ignore and continue to talk.
If they finally did call real police, then slowly leave.
And let that be the defining image for York University in 2026.
Spark a larger debate about freedom, get the board of governors and the university president on the record.
It is not acceptable for a student union to ban an MP from speaking on campus.
Going along with it strengthens it.
That's what I wrote.
What do you think?
There's other points I could have made too, like maybe they're breaching a contract or inducing a breach of contract.
I'm thinking like a lawyer for a second.
It almost doesn't matter.
The point is to fight and to show a bit of courage, not to back down at the first whiff of wokeism.
I mean, if a member of parliament can't stand up to censorship at York University's student union, how is an ordinary student expected to do so?
I mean, you're a grown man with a lot of power.
And if you can't stand up, how could some 18 or 19-year-old stand up?
Isn't part of being in public life, part of being a leader, isn't it being a role model, setting an example?
Some loser left-wing student who says, no, you can't come, and you say, um, okay, anyone can phone me out there in Fort Saskatchewan.
Now, after I posted my response, Garnett Genuous wrote this.
He said, some people have suggested that I proceed with the event anyways.
Yeah, me.
I am willing to do so-called unauthorized events on campus.
I did one previously at Concordia.
I don't believe that student unions should be able to shut these things down.
In this particular case, I've been working with a group of local students to facilitate the events.
I don't want to create a situation in which they could face indirect consequences.
I'm always ready to deal with controversy.
Are you really, mate?
Are you really?
But I don't want to leave someone else holding the bag.
Well, isn't that what you just sort of did?
So, bottom line, I expect to be back at York, but not this Friday.
I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
I don't want to create a situation in which they could face the indirect consequences.
They're precisely the ones who have to suffer the direct consequences of you bailing.
You quit their event because some woke student said you can't do it.
And what consequences are you referring to?
Is there some threat against them?
And if so, you've just accepted that.
Or you're letting it stand without pushing back.
I'm sorry, I just don't think that's good enough.
You can't be the cowardly lying.
You've got to have some courage.
Not when you have the power of an MP's office behind you.
You have nothing to lose.
You can't be fired.
Your expenses are covered.
You're your own boss.
You're very strong as an MP.
You can challenge this petty ruling.
If you get in trouble, Parliament's Board of Internal Economy will take care of you, for example, paying for your legal defense.
I know that.
You've got access to every journalist in Canada.
You could send an email and get on CBC, CTB, Global News immediately.
You have power, but you're bending the knee to some woke urchin.
You need to channel a bit of that U.S. senator from Louisiana, John Kennedy, not the late president, but this guy.
I'm talking about the cultured cosmopolitan goat's milk latte drinking avocado toast eating insiders elite.
Why not have some fun?
Why not make this a free speech moment instead of just slinking away?
Why not name and shame the person who's censoring you?
Why not put them on the back foot?
Why not make them justify themselves?
Put them on the defensive instead of mumbling your justifications.
Why not act like an MP?
Why not act like a free man?
Why not act like a Canadian and say, you are un-Canadian?
I'm not going to cancel.
I'm going to come to talk, and you can arrest me if you don't like it.
Why don't you strap on some balls?
Why not make them send out police to threaten to arrest you?
The police will not want to do so.
At the very least, you'll walk out when they arrive and not be arrested.
But it'll be a scene the entire country will watch, and it'll be a great shame on York University.
Why didn't you even name the person who did it to you?
The university itself will surely be compelled to clarify its support for free speech.
Or if you want to be a bit braver, frankly, why not let them handcuff you and drive you off?
They're not going to keep you in prison.
They'll be out in an hour.
You know they're not going to charge you.
They'll release you in an hour.
If they do charge you, it's under the Trespass Act.
You'll get a $100 fine.
My point is: why are you acting like you are the outsider?
You were the problematic one.
You were the unusual one.
Instead of just saying no.
I mean, whoever would seek a ban to ban a Canadian MP from talking to students, that's the unusual one.
That's the weirdo.
That's the one deviating from our national beliefs.
I'm sorry, I'm disappointed.
At Rebel News, our main job is to report the news.
And sometimes we get illegally hassled by security, by protesters, by police, even.
And we fight back every time.
Even though we don't have a public budget, even though we're not MP after our name, we fight back.
David Menzies was arrested five times.
We always got him out of jail.
We're suing the police.
He never actually spent overnight in jail.
We would always get him out, even if it was midnight.
We fought back and we're still fighting back.
It's one of the most expensive things we do because the government has unlimited budgets.
Well, that's the thing about being an MP.
He has a big government budget, too, by the way.
And if he's ever sued or prosecuted, he has an unlimited budget.
Now, I'm disappointed.
I've reached out to Garnet to invite him to come on the show and talk with me about this.
I sort of doubt he'll come on, but I hope he will.
I'm worried that the Conservative Party of Canada is losing some of its verve.
You know, my colleague Sheila Gunreed reached out to Pierre Polyev's officer for a year-end interview like so many others are doing.
And by the way, Pierre Polyev has done a lot of podcasts and influencers.
He's, you know, I saw him do an interview to the trucker Pleb, who's a really good guy.
And there's just so many.
He did one with Juno News.
He's doing a lot of them.
But Rebel News just couldn't fit in their schedule, they said.
Okay, well, Christmas is over.
How's your schedule looking now?
Or is it that we're slipping back into that era, that Aaron O'Toole, Andrew Scheer era, when they would let the mean girls of the regime media bully them?
Are we back to don't, Aaron O'Toole saying, don't talk to those trucker people?
We talk to, don't talk to rebel news.
What's going on?
Why wasn't Sheila Gunreid allowed to talk to Pierre Polyev?
If the conservative member of parliament from the conservative province of Alberta in the conservative riding of Sherwood Park Fort Saskatchewan, you know, I know he's got it in him.
I mean, look at this speech he gave at a citizenship ceremony a couple years ago.
We weren't settled through the leveling down of a censorious state.
We were built by fearless pioneers like all of you, seeking opportunity and freedom.
That is the freedom to speak to advance your own deeply held convictions.
That's good stuff.
You see, he's got it in him.
He's using the language of freedom and anti-censorship, but he said it in a speech with no risk.
It was just in front of a bunch of new Canadians who were just listening to a politician before they got their citizenship.
I mean, there was a no-risk situation.
How about giving that same speech delivered tomorrow at York University instead of letting them run you off with just a mean tweet?
Stay with us for more.
Well, you know, one of our favorite guests to go to is, well, frankly, anyone associated with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, because it seems like all we hear from are people who want to boost taxes.
They don't quite say it that way.
They say, we need you to make an investment in, oh, I don't know, $50 billion for electric vehicle batteries.
But the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and I believe in them, for one big reason, is they don't take government money, so they are not compromised.
The leader of this fighting force is our friend Franco Terrazano, and he joins us now via Skype from Ottawa.
Franco, great to see you again.
Happy New Year to you.
2026, before we get into the details of your latest memo, are you optimistic or pessimistic for this year from a taxpayer's point of view?
Well, I always like to think of myself as a happy warrior.
So I'm a little optimistic, but I'm also not naive, right?
And I think one of the big issues that we're facing here in Canada is the crushing federal government debt.
Right now, more than a trillion dollars, interest charges on the debt alone costing us more than a billion dollars every single week.
So, you know, the next time you're standing there in that checkout line, well, every single dollar you're paying in federal sales tax is now going to pay interest on the debt.
I got a question for you.
I mean, I hear this from Mark Carney's apologists, and I even hear this from some provincial Ontario conservatives who are sort of chummy with Carney.
And they say to me, Ezra, Mark Carney is more conservative than anyone since Stephen Harper.
Well, okay, that means more conservative than Justin Trudeau.
They say he used to work for Stephen Harper, which I guess is technically true.
He was the Bank of Canada governor back then, I think.
And they say that he's undoing some of the radical nature of the Trudeau government.
You know, Trudeau would never have signed an MOU for pipelines, even though I don't think the pipelines will likely happen.
There's at least the fact that Stephen Gilbo is having a hissy fit over it is maybe a good sign.
And they point to the fact that there is a small $190 tax cut from 15 to 14% for the lowest income earners.
And they're trying to say, no, no, no, this is sort of, this is Paul Martin all over again.
This is the fiscally conservative liberals.
I don't buy it.
What should I say the next time I encounter someone trying to say, no, no, no, Mark Carney is really a fiscal conservative?
What should I say to them?
What's fiscally conservative about borrowing $80 billion in one year?
Yeah.
What's fiscally conservative about planning to borrow more money than Trudeau even planned?
I mean, look, like, if you're going to tell me that somebody's fiscally more conservative, right, more fiscally responsible than Trudeau, I'm going to be like, well, you just put the bar on the floor.
I mean, Trudeau is the prime minister who doubled the debt in 10 years.
And look, let's look moving forward.
Okay.
Carney plans to add what, about $320 billion to the debt over the next handful of years.
Well, over those same years, Trudeau was planning to add about $1,50 billion to the debt.
So Carney's planning to borrow twice as much as what even Trudeau was planning over those same exact years.
Come on.
Yeah.
I want to let you know I wasn't buying it, but I just wanted to ask what your response would be.
And by the way, lowering that tax rate by 1% on the lowest income earners, I mean, of course, it's better than nothing, but it's offset by so many tax increases.
Why don't you go through some of them?
I mean, an obvious one is the booze tax, isn't it?
I mean, I'm not a big boozer myself, but it's something that people use.
Tell me how alcohol taxes are looking to go this year.
Well, I'm going to get into alcohol taxes in a second, but first, let's talk about another income tax hike.
Okay.
Why Not A Booze Tax?00:09:33
Because not only do you pay income taxes, you also pay payroll taxes to the federal government.
So that's the big answer.
Yeah.
Yes, right there, right?
So look, yes, is an income tax cut better than no income tax cut?
Yes, it is better.
Okay.
But the income tax cut from Kearney is going to save the average taxpayer like $190, right?
That's according to the parliamentary budget officer.
But in the same breath, Kearney is also hiking payroll taxes this year.
Okay.
So if you're making $85,000, let's say you're paying an extra $262 in payroll taxes this year.
So look, like, okay, you're saving a couple hundred bucks on income taxes, but many Canadians are also paying a couple hundred bucks more in payroll taxes.
And Ezra, all of this debate over one tax cut versus one tax increase misses the entire point.
Canadians are already way overtaxed.
Okay.
Right.
Like more than 40% of the average family's budget is going to governments, all levels of government.
So think about it this way, and it makes me want to puke.
The average or for the average family, their biggest expense is not the house they live in.
It's not the food they eat or the clothes they buy.
It's the taxes they pay.
Yeah.
You know what?
I'm so glad.
I wish I had some of these talking points at my fingertips when I was having a debate with my friend.
Tell me a little bit about the carbon tax that's going up because, of course, Mark Carney in part won the election by canceling the consumer retail carbon tax.
Justin Trudeau was the centerpiece for him.
But what about that industrial carbon tax, especially in Alberta?
Tell me a little bit about what Carney's doing there.
Yeah.
And first, let's set the stage because, hey, I'm not going to sugarcoat it.
The reason that the liberal government canceled their own favorite tax, that consumer carbon tax, was because of ordinary Canadians.
Right?
It was ordinary Canadians who told these politicians: if you want to keep your cushy political jobs, you better end that consumer carbon tax.
But then, you know, on the other side, Carney didn't end all carbon taxes.
He's cranking up this hidden carbon tax on Canadian business.
And look, that will make your life more expensive, right?
Because a carbon tax on refineries that makes your gasoline and diesel more expensive.
A carbon tax on utilities, that makes your home heating more expensive.
And a carbon tax on fertilizer plants drives up food for farmers and makes your groceries more expensive.
But not only that, folks, okay?
An industrial carbon tax is an economic sucker punch to Canada's economy, right?
That's what it is.
Like it's going to push our entrepreneurs to cut production here and set up shops south of the border.
You asked me specifically about the agreement with Alberta.
Well, Ezra, after Carney signed that agreement, he held a press conference and he bragged to the media that it meant a six times increase in the industrial carbon tax.
You know what?
I think you're right.
He was trying to shore up that Stephen Gilbo base.
You know, I saw a picture the other day on Twitter and I just checked it.
I can't find it, but I remember seeing it.
That the price of gasoline at a particular gas station in Alabama was $1.99.
And Canadians might be saying, oh, well, that's, wow, we pay $1.20 or whatever.
But of course, in Alabama, they measure in gallons.
So that's like four liters, right?
Is it 3.8 liters to the gallon?
So that would be like, I don't know, 50 or 60 cents a liter in Alabama.
I don't think they have a lot of oil in Alabama.
We've got so much oil in Canada, and our gas prices are, I think, about triple what they are in the U.S. You know, I want to read something from your latest column.
You wrote a column in the Toronto Sun.
This was just before the new year called Canada Needs Serious Tax Cuts in 2026.
Let me read just one line.
I'm reading your own column back to you, Franco.
You said just 12% of Canadians believe Carney that businesses will pay most of the cost of his carbon tax.
Talking about the industrial carbon tax.
According to a Leger poll, nearly 70% of Canadians say businesses will pass most or some of the cost on consumer.
Well, of course they are.
What else could they do?
Of course.
Of course.
Right.
And look, we kind of already talked about how obviously it doesn't matter what type of lipstick you put on your carbon tax pig.
All carbon taxes make life more expensive, right?
Obviously.
And Canadians get that.
But one of the reasons we asked Leger to do that national poll is because we want to see if Canadians are buying Carney's carbon tax spin.
Because early in 2025, right, during the election season that was going on, you had Carney essentially running around saying, oh, don't worry, folks.
It's just big businesses that'll pay this carbon tax.
Well, clearly, Canadians aren't buying his carbon tax spin.
Obviously, a carbon tax makes life more expensive.
It doesn't matter what a politician tries to call it.
But, Ezra, here's another point.
Okay.
Regardless of who is in the White House in the United States, whether it's a Democrat president, whether it's a Republican president, none of them are bringing in national carbon taxes.
Okay, so this is a fundamental hit to Canada's economic competitiveness.
You know, it drives me crazy for a decade now when Justin Trudeau and his environment minister, Catherine McKenna, and then Stephen Gilbo and Mark Carney, who spent his whole career pushing what he calls net zero, they all have this weird manufactured factoid that I've never seen anywhere else in the world.
They say we need to have a carbon tax and net zero on our oil and gas to sell our oil and gas, as if countries would not buy our oil without it.
Listen, there are countries out there buying oil from Venezuela, from Russia, from Iran, China, India.
They're desperate.
They'll buy oil from anyone.
They buy oil from Sudan, which is a genocidal, you know, they slaughtered their own people in Darfur.
There is no such thing as an oil buy.
It's not like you're a fine wine.
Oh, I'm tasting this wine.
I'm tasting that wine.
I'd never be associated with that wine.
People buy oil because they need it.
The idea that they wouldn't buy Canadian oil if we don't have all these bizarre carbon taxes or carbon capture.
I've never heard anyone else in the world say that, but no one ever challenges Carney Trudeau when they say such kooky things.
Ezra, so when I, shameless plug, when I wrote my book, Axing the Tax, the Rise and Fall of Canada's carbon tax, I had to do obviously a whole bunch of research.
So maybe the numbers are slightly different because this was last year.
I looked at the World Bank.
Ezra, 70% of countries don't have a national carbon tax.
And that was according to World Bank data, right?
So the vast majority of countries around the world do not have a national carbon tax, including some of the world's largest emitters.
Yeah.
Right?
So like, so like that was just bogus from the start.
But here's another question, too, right?
If your whole priority is how to reduce emissions, I have a simple question for you.
How much emissions do you reduce globally when a Canadian business moves down to the United States?
Yeah, great point.
Or when, you know, it's not like anyone is going to stop driving their car.
You know, they're either going to buy their oil from Canada or the United States or another ethical oil producer, or they'll buy it from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, you know, Nigeria, whatever.
My point is, you could shut down every barrel of oil produced in Canada.
Not a single car would no longer drive.
We would just be buying 5 million barrels more per day from OPEC conflict countries.
I mean, it's not like shutting down Canadian industry will stop anyone from driving.
They'll just buy their oil from the bad guys.
Well, I tell you, we're in, you know, that old saying, we're in the best of times, we're in the worst of times.
I can't say we're in the best of times.
I just think we're in the worst of times from an economic point of view.
But hopefully Canadians will wake up to that.
Franco, and I know you guys are going to fight like hell.
You always do.
Thanks for taking the time with us today, as you always do.
Hey, it was my pleasure.
And folks, keep up the fight.
Don't get discouraged.
Good.
That's a good point to end on.
I don't want to be all mopey.
It's just we got our work cut out for us.
Thanks, Franco.
Thanks.
There he is.
Franco Terrazano, the boss of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
Stay with us.
letters to me next.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me.
140 says 85% of Greenlandic people said no in February 2025, and 6% said yes to becoming American.
The U.S. had 17 bases in Greenland during the Cold War.
They shot all of them down.
They shut all of them down besides one Patufik space base with 150 servicemen.
Greenland and Denmark has never had any problem with the U.S. opening them again.
Denmark can't sell Greenland.
It is in the Danish constitution, as is Greenland's right to choose independence if they say so.
Look, I'm not saying that this isn't somewhat complicated, but my point yesterday was to show the countries buy and sell land all the time, from Alaska to Louisiana to buying those Caribbean islands from Denmark itself.
So this is not weird.
U.S. Bases in Greenland00:03:51
Truman offered 400 million bucks, if I recall, in gold.
So it's not weird.
I don't think Denmark is treating Greenland as a priority because it's not a priority.
It's not an economic priority.
And Greenland has a baby-sized budget.
You heard Donald Trump the other day saying he wants to expand the U.S. defense budget from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion.
Just a reminder that the Danish defense budget is 10 billion.
So this would be 150 times bigger than the Danish budget.
Of course, they don't have the means to defend properly.
Why not let the Yanks in?
I'm not saying, I'm not the decider here, but Denmark is not in a position to properly defend the Arctic.
It's just not.
I'm not being mean about it.
Canada isn't either, by the way.
Sandy Stanley says Trump threatens to invade Canada.
Canadians disarm themselves, elbows up, logic.
Yeah, you know what?
I see a lot of people saying, let's not buy the F-35.
Let's buy that Saab Gripen fighter just to show the Americans.
Well, the first thing I would say to that is Canada's already spent billions of dollars on the F-35.
And we're scheduled to take delivery of the first ones this year, actually.
The bulk of them won't actually arrive till 2028, which is Trump's final year as president.
So making a decision about fighter jets, which are going to last us for decades, to poke at Trump in his final year of his presidency seems pretty short-sighted.
I mean, I was in Israel a couple years ago and I saw the F-35 in action.
I saw the F-15 first, which is an amazing aircraft.
And then I saw the F-35 behind it.
And it is the most incredible aircraft in the world, that and the F-22.
And to say, no, no, we're going to buy a 30-year-old Saab jet that no serious frontline country is buying just to spite Trump is so dumb.
And by the way, you don't think America is going to have a tit for tat if we break our deal there?
It's just so foolish.
On the interview with Melanie Bennett of Juneau News, I like Melanie, Toronto Homestead says about that curriculum.
Remember the Islamophobia curriculum?
None of this is appropriate to be in the school system.
Islam is not an ethnicity.
It is a belief system that gets forced on a people.
The Iranian people are currently in day 12 of a countryride revolution, trying to free themselves of an Islamic regime that was forced upon them 47 years ago.
Yeah, it really is a terrible convergence of wokeism and Islamic extremism.
And the crazy thing is, I mean, I've actually been to a couple of Muslim countries.
I went to Iraq, the northern part, Kurdistan.
I went to United Arab Emirates.
And they don't have the craziness over there.
They just don't.
They don't have people blocking streets to pray like they do in Toronto and Montreal.
They don't have the Muslim Brotherhood extremists.
The grown-ups of the Muslim world stop all that stuff.
It's the West that lets that insanity go.
Anyways, I'm going to keep my eyes peeled on the Iran uprising.
I'm so hopeful that something comes from it.
Boy, to free the Persian people would be amazing.
It would change the world because that's been such a source of terrorism, of radicalism for Islam.
And of course, it's a regional destabilizer.
I am hoping for Iran, for Iran's sake, will be free, but I'm also hoping for it for our sake and America's sake and Europe's sake.
We'll see how that goes.
That's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.