Ezra Levant and Joel Pollack analyze the Iran war's impact on Trump's midterms, noting U.S. naval blockades cripple Iran's economy while splitting Democrats who oppose the conflict despite previous anti-threat rhetoric. Pollack argues high gas prices won't hurt Trump, as Gulf allies strengthen against Tehran while Europe hesitates due to Muslim voting blocs. The discussion highlights China's role in Iranian oil purchases, criticizes PM Mark Carney's pro-China stance, and speculates JD Vance or Marco Rubio might lead the GOP post-Trump, concluding that regime collapse depends on communication networks failing after active fighting subsides. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
California Jungle Primary Politics00:08:03
Hello, my friends.
Big show today with Joel Pollack.
He's going to take us through the Iran war from America's point of view.
What will this mean for the midterms?
What will this mean for the reshaping of alliances in the region?
We'll talk with him all about that.
We'll also talk about the interesting politics in California, including something called a jungle primary.
Have you ever heard that before?
It's a very strange story.
I think you'll find it interesting.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
It's the video version of this podcast.
Just go to rebelnewsplus.com, click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month, which Might not sound like a lot to you, but boy, it adds up for us.
It's how we pay our bills around here because we take no government money and it shows.
Yeah, one more thing.
Are you wondering how you can support your favorite independent news outlet while also sharing your opinions in a unique way?
Head over to Revenustore.com and check out our merch.
We have got incredible t shirts, hoodies, mugs, and winter gear.
We ship.
Internationally, and if you use the code ALEX10, you will get 10% off your order.
Go and take a look today.
Tonight, what does the war in Iran mean for Trump's midterm election prospects?
We'll talk to Joel Pollack, the new opinions editor of the California Post.
It's April 20th, and this is the Ezra Levance Show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Well, in Canada, the timing of elections is something that politicians can manipulate for their advantage.
For example, in British Columbia right now, I think the BC New Democrats are contemplating a snap election using the Indigenous land title issue to catch their Conservative counterparts unprepared.
Federally, you see the opposite with Mark Carney bribing MPs to cross the floor to give them an artificial majority government.
So many shenanigans around our parliamentary system and its movable election date.
In the United States, it's different.
They have fixed election dates for Congress, for Senate.
And so it's the events that are sometimes manipulated.
You've probably heard of the October surprise or even the November surprise, last minute events that are machinated based on the timing of the elections.
And I can't help but think of that given the Iran war that the United States and Israel are so deeply involved with, what they're trying to achieve, its effects on the price of oil and gasoline and so many other things.
Of course, the great power of our age changing the world, not just within America, but around the world from Venezuela to Iran to perhaps Cuba next.
I love the fact that we have so many friends in the United States that we can check in with, so we're not just foreigners pressing our nose up against the glass.
And one American we love to talk to has recently switched his career.
He is now the opinion editor of the California Post, that's a cousin newspaper to the famous New York Post in New York.
I'm talking about Joel Pollack, and he joins us.
Now, Joel, great to see you again and congratulations on the California Post.
Does it have the same flavor as the New York Post, a little bit irreverent, a little bit of a tabloid feel?
Yes, exactly right.
That's the tone we have.
And of course, it's got a bit of a California edge to it.
So it's not exactly the New York Post.
It does have that same irreverence and the same puns and the headlines and things like that.
But it is also distinctly Californian.
Well, I wish you good luck.
I mean, the LA Times is so left wing.
Its owner is, in some ways, a caricature of a left wing.
Tycoon who made his money as a capitalist, but now promotes every kooky idea.
I mean, the politics in California is pretty awful, but even that place, it's almost like they realize they've gone too far in a number of ways.
Give us a quick report from California before I ask you some questions about national and international concern.
How's it going in the Golden State?
Well, it's interesting.
You mentioned the LA Times, and the owner is Patrick Sun Xiong.
And I guess you could describe him as left of center, but he's actually tried to bring the paper back towards the middle, and he has not succeeded.
So I think there's a story there as well, and just how difficult it is to bring change to the newsrooms, to bring change to the legislature.
But California has a chance.
There are elections this year in the nation as a whole.
We call them the midterm elections.
They are the elections for the House of Representatives.
Every single member is up for re election every two years.
One third of the Senate seats are up every two years.
But there are also state elections.
And here in California, we are going to have a new governor.
Gavin Newsom is not running for reelection.
He is barred by the state constitution from serving more than two terms.
So he is going to set his sights on the presidential nomination in 2028.
And in the open seat that remains, there's a very crowded field.
And the problem Democrats have is that there are too many Democrats.
And we have a strange primary system in California.
We don't have the parties nominate their.
Respective candidates through separate primary voting processes.
What we have instead is what we call a jungle primary.
All the candidates are thrown into one common pool, and the top two vote recipients advance to the general election.
This was a kind of reformist idea 15 years ago that was supposed to produce more moderate candidates.
In fact, it's produced the opposite, it's produced more left wing legislature, more left wing governance than ever before.
But because there are too many Democrats, they're splitting the Democratic Party vote between them, and there are only two major Republicans in the race.
So, in many polls, the two Republicans have been in the number one and number two slot, which does hold out the possibility, though it's still remote, that you could have two Republicans advance to the general election, which would guarantee a Republican governor in California.
So, there is a possibility, however slim, of some change here in California.
Plus, there are some ballot initiatives that voters are going to decide, like whether you need to show ID at the polls.
In California, you do not need to show any form of identification.
And a lot of our voting happens by mail.
So, it is susceptible, at least to the suspicion of fraud.
And there's a movement now to make voter identification with a photograph, a photographic ID, some proof that you are actually who you say you are and that you're a citizen, you registered to vote, going to require that the way many other states do.
And Democrats don't like it.
And you have to ask yourself why.
I mean, is it because they are relying on fraudulent votes?
I mean, I don't know.
But it is a very important conservative initiative, and that may succeed here in California as well.
Well, that's incredible.
I just want to take one more minute on the so called jungle primary.
I've heard it described as a sneaky way.
To literally ban Republicans from the ballot.
Because if, you know, you would assume that if all the Republicans and all the Democrats were in the same primary, that the Democrats would be able to, because it's California after all, have the top two slots.
At least that's how it was described to me.
So to see the possibility of two Republicans, I just, it's so astonishing.
It feels like it's boomeranged on them.
And my theory, and listen, I'm thousands of kilometers away, so you tell me if this is wrong.
There was this candidate who was running for governor as a Democrat, Eric Swalwell.
Who had an alleged affair with a Chinese spy and he was always getting into trouble.
And recently, a whole bunch of internal dirt on him was released.
Iran Strait Realignment Concerns00:13:28
It's sort of shocking about sexual assault, et cetera.
And he resigned from the race in disgrace.
I hate to say it, but it sure looked to me like the Democratic Party was saying, we've got to nuke a few of our vote splitting candidates.
We got some dirt on Swalwell.
Let's release it now because it's not like these were new allegations.
I don't know.
It sounds like the dirtiest politics since.
Obama won his first election in Chicago.
Yes, the timing is rather odd.
The accusations are quite severe.
And Swalwell is accused of sexual assault.
He's now being investigated criminally for rape.
And there are all kinds of other accusations, as well as questions about campaign financing did he spend money on personal expenses and so forth?
And all of that has come out now.
And you're right, it does seem rather suspicious.
And the Democrats could be trying to reduce the number of candidates in the field.
It could also simply have been one of his rivals trying to take him out.
And many fingers are pointing in the direction of Katie Porter.
Who was the favorite for a long time until she stormed off the set of a CBS News interview several months ago?
She is still in the race and still quite formidable.
Although, again, the problem the Democrats have is a numbers problem.
They are just splitting the vote among too many candidates.
Just really interesting.
Now, I want to talk about other things.
You know, Donald Trump, since the 1980s, has been talking about Iran, and he has felt that Iran is an enemy that needs to be bombed.
You can find probably 10 examples of him saying, here's a clip of him, and I'll just use the mouth for fanning.
He says he wants to bomb the shit out of him.
They want to go after our civilians.
They want to kill not only our civilians, all over the world.
And it's going to be stopped.
It's going to be stopped.
Somebody criticized me the other day because they asked me what I'd do, and I said, I'm going to bomb the shit out of them.
It's true.
I don't care.
I don't care.
They've got to be stopped.
I mean, he's been saying this since day one.
Some critics on the isolationist right would say that's not in keeping with his America First.
Don't get involved in foreign wars.
But I think Trump has been clear since before he was in politics, Iran is an existential threat to America and more immediately to Israel and Europe.
How is the U.S. led?
I don't know if I would quite call it a war.
Because it's mainly right now just shooting, like it's just a bombing raid.
I mean, they're having a few unfortunate casualties, but there have really been no troops on the ground that we know of.
Tell me a little bit about it.
Is it even a war?
And has it split the Republican Party base at all?
Or am I putting too much stock in internet far right nicks like Tucker Carlson?
Well, it's definitely a war.
It's a naval war right now with the United States Navy blockading all of Iran's ports.
And the Iranians say that they are going to use mines and small speed boats and other small weapons to attack any shipping that they don't approve of going through the Strait of Hormuz.
So it is a naval war.
It is one the United States is winning decisively and one that over time the United States will continue to win because Iran does not have a way of earning foreign currency unless it goes through its ports.
Very few overland trade routes.
It can't really fly goods out of the country or into the country very easily.
So its currency is facing major challenges.
Its inflation rate is through the roof and it simply is cut off from the world.
And Trump has imposed that blockade in response to the Iranian attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz, again, not by blockading it, but by threatening terrorism, essentially against global shipping, which only actually hurt the Iranians in terms of their moral case.
They made it clear that they are not to be trusted.
They're not a power that can be tolerated, really, because any country that threatens all and sundry and attacking global shipping and neighbors that have never done anything to Iran, for example, flying drones to attack the Qataris and so forth, I mean, this is a very good reason that the regime needs eventually to be replaced.
And I think that Trump is winning this confrontation, and the U.S. Navy is doing what the U.S. Navy does so well, which is impose blockades.
Of course, it's also an aerial war.
There was a first stage of the war that The United States and Israel are bombing Iranian leaders, Iranian nuclear sites, Iranian military targets.
And really, the final stage is going to be either a deal that allows the United States to go into Iran and physically, personally remove the remaining uranium supplies that Iran still has, or there's going to be regime change and the people of Iran will rise up and take control of their own country.
But there is no real split in the MAGA movement about this.
You look at the polls, Republicans overwhelmingly support the president and overwhelmingly support the war, and they believe it's going well.
Democrats, of course, believe the opposite, but of course, Democrats, you know, if Trump cured cancer, Democrats would vote for cancer.
I mean, Democrats basically are knee jerk against anything Trump does.
One of the reasons that Democrats have become so anti Israel lately is simply because Trump is so pro Israel.
I mean, there is the rise of a large Muslim voting bloc and the far left and anti Semitism in the Democratic Party, but a lot of it just has to do with this reflexive opposition to all things Trump.
On the Republican side, the podcasters and so forth, they've made a lot of noise on social media, but they don't really have a lot of traction with voters.
Yeah.
You know, I think you're right on Iran.
The Democrats have often talked tough on Iran themselves.
I mean, the senior senator from New York himself.
I mean, I think every single Democrat senator at one point or another has talked belligerently about Iran.
Here's a quick example.
Here's Chuck Schumer.
Take a look.
Iran's nuclear weapon program represents a severe threat to American national interests because their acquisition of nuclear weapons could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the Middle East and beyond.
Ending any hopes for a nuclear weapons free world.
We've had a lot of divisions between Democrats and Republicans, but on the issue of making sure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, we're united.
The threat, the specter of an Iranian nuclear weapon can bring Democrats and Republicans together.
So I think you're right.
A lot of it is, you know, they want to put Trump in a no win situation.
If he's prosecuting the war, they'll accuse him of that.
If he stops the war, they'll accuse him of backing down and blinking.
They have this phrase, taco Trump always chickens out.
I think you're right.
By the way, I mean, you mentioned Chuck Schumer.
In the beginning, Schumer said, Trump never follows through on his threats on Iran.
And then Trump followed through on his threats on Iran.
And Schumer said, oh, Trump doesn't know what he's doing and we need to get out of this war now.
You know, it's.
Nothing Trump can do is right, except if you actually look at what he's achieved, this war is a stunning success for the United States and for Israel and for the West.
But the Democrats won't admit it, and Europe is deeply ashamed of not having participated.
And the only people celebrating are the Israelis and the Gulf Arab states.
You know, there's a bit of a realignment going on.
I think the United Arab Emirates, I think this war has brought them in some ways closer to Israel.
They've actually been hit with more rockets than Israel.
I saw a count of it.
I was sort of surprised to see that.
Is that true?
Is the United Emirates, which has actually had a fairly warm relationship with Israel since the Abraham Accords, how would you characterize those Gulf states?
Like you say, Iran's lashing out at everyone in the region, including Oman, which has always been sort of a neutral broker and even hosted talks between Iran and the West.
Can you give me a quick rundown of the small Arab Gulf oil rich countries?
Would you say any of them are now actually.
Allied, that's too big a word, but on the side of Israel?
Has the reality of this war and Iran lashing out at them changed the politics there?
Well, the Emiratis are closer to Israel.
You're correct about that.
The Bahrainis and the Omanis are more anti Iran than they were before.
And the Qataris are just bewildered by the Iranian attacks.
And the Iranians have tried to argue they're not attacking these nations, they're just attacking U.S. assets, U.S. bases in those nations.
They aren't buying it.
And the Emiratis are particularly angry about Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz.
And they have said that we do not respect Iran's attempt to do it.
And we have the right to ship through that strait.
And you don't own the entire strait just because your country's on one side of it.
Oman is on the other side.
And we depend on that strait as well for other things.
And so they're very, very angry.
Has this realigned things?
I think it has.
I also think it's just united the anti Iran coalition even more strongly because now they understand.
That Iran is a threat to all of the states, whether you're anti Israel or pro Israel, Iran is the real threat in the region.
Now, Europe is an interesting case.
It's almost, if it weren't sad, it would be funny.
The difficulties that the United Kingdom has had marshaling any resources.
They have some fighter jets in the region, it's true, but they've been trying to send a ship to protect their base in Akrotiri, Crete, I think it is, or Cyprus.
And the ship, they could only field one ship and it had to go in for maintenance.
I mean, the Royal Navy, which once ruled the world, Can't muster anything.
And they recently had a meeting, the UK, France, and others, of what they would do in the Strait of Hormuz once America wins the war.
So they're not there.
They're not helping, despite Trump asking for help.
But they've got all sorts of plans about what they're going to do when America's done.
It's sort of a laugh.
I mean, it just feels like they're as impotent as Canada, even though I know France and the UK actually do have a bit of an army.
But there's bad blood.
You have the Spanish thing, they won't allow any.
Americans to use their base there anymore.
How had, I mean, to me, it is, I suppose you could think it was a stretch for Trump to say, hey, NATO, come help me fight Iran.
But they've been saying that to America to fight in Ukraine.
I mean, this really feels like a set off.
If America spent $100 billion in Ukraine for a war in another continent that wasn't really their war, couldn't NATO come and at least morally and symbolically give alliance?
To America, even if they weren't actually doing anything real, could they at least pretend to be friends?
I don't know.
Maybe this is a stupid way to think about wars.
Who's on your team?
Who showed support?
But there's something funny going on in Europe.
What do you think?
Well, the electoral considerations have to come into play.
And you have large Muslim voting blocs in these countries.
And the European left is afraid of those Muslim voters.
And so it tries to appease them in this way.
By the way, again, much of the Muslim world is not happy with Iran.
So it's not clear to me there are many votes to be won.
But there is a knee jerk response to this again because the United States and Israel are seen to be working together, and Israel has become not just a pariah state but a target state for many of these European governments.
I mean, prior to the war, you had the Spanish cutting off relations and engaged in a diplomatic spat with Israel completely unnecessarily, and other European nations also taking the same stance.
And so, I think Europe is caught in a whirlpool that is not going to be easy to leave.
This is a bragging down that feeds on itself.
And you're seeing it here.
I mean, they're completely incapable of defending themselves to the point where some have even suggested that if Argentina wanted the Falkland Islands, they could just take them.
Because as you said, Britain is having trouble putting a navy on the waves.
Yeah, I really think that.
I mean, studying the Falklands War, I was only 10 when it happened.
I was riveted by the newspaper stories.
I didn't realize then how important America's role was.
America offered an aircraft carrier, America provided an enormous amount of jet fuel, America provided I think the Brits could have done it on their own, but I know they couldn't do it now.
They don't have, I mean, they have two aircraft carriers, they're both in port.
Like, I think that if Argentina grabbed the Falklands now, and I'm not, and I don't want them to, and I don't think they should, but Argentina, by the way, you know, interestingly, remarkably, they said to Trump, we'll help however we can.
I don't think they followed through, but at least morally, they were in favor.
It's a very strange time.
But let's bring it back to what we talked about 10 minutes ago.
You know, the price of gasoline is high, not as high as it is in Europe, let's say, where they're actually having farmer protests in the streets of Ireland.
But there are some Americans who are saying, hey, we are paying a price at the gas pump, and that, you know, food prices are maybe higher because of it.
Vance Rubio China Angle Debate00:08:15
How will this war look in the midterms?
I mean, sometimes Americans rally around the flag during a war, but this one feels a little different.
Well, I think if the war is successful and it does seem to be heading in that direction, then I think it's good for the president and his party.
I think the high gas prices are a bit of a problem, although they're not higher than gas was a few years ago.
And I think that it may be a lost cause anyway.
I mean, Republicans may already be set to lose the House in the midterms just because of the nature of the margin and the redistricting that's gone on.
And they may have a tougher fight to keep the Senate, but I think they will keep the Senate.
But we'll see.
I think you have to win the war regardless.
In a way, it's almost like you're looking at a politician in Trump who doesn't have to be reelected.
We always wonder what would happen if these men and women didn't have to worry about being reelected.
Now you're seeing it.
He's doing what he believes is right because he doesn't have to face election again.
If it hurts his party, he's okay with that.
He's still commander in chief.
I mean, obviously, not okay in the grand scheme of things.
He'd like to have more control, he'd like to retain control of all three branches of government, essentially.
But he knows that might not happen.
He knows that the changes that he puts in place have to last into Democratic administrations, whether in 2028 or much later.
So I think Trump is taking the right approach to all this.
He's basically saying, look, What is the right thing to do on Iran?
Not really looking at the political considerations just yet, although I do know there are people in the White House who are deeply worried about the high gas prices and what effect they could have.
I'm trying to understand the China angle here.
And again, that's something that Donald Trump has been talking about for decades, even before he got into politics.
China was, and I think still is, the number one purchaser of Iranian oil.
And it got it at a steal because the Iranian oil was subject to sanctions.
And some others would buy it at a deep discount.
China was also a big buyer of Venezuelan oil, if I'm not mistaken.
I know Venezuela always sold to Cuba, too.
America has now taken over the oil industry in Venezuela, and we're not sure how it's going to end in Iran.
Is there a China angle to cutting off the choke points of oil to America's largest rival?
Well, I think that's a major achievement.
First of all, that the United States has shown it is capable of blockading Iran and cutting China off.
But look at all of the other straits where the United States has now established a presence.
The United States has naval base across from the Bab al Mendab where the Houthis have been firing and shipping.
You don't hear much from the Houthis nowadays, even though the Iranians are threatening to use them.
You've got various other straits that the U.S. Navy is either moving into or where American control has been cemented in some way.
The United States controls the choke points of international trade once again.
And it has done so by moving, as you hinted earlier, I think, from one important oil supplier to the next.
We've got the Maduro presidency in Venezuela.
The regime is still there, but eventually now it's an American functionary.
And it's moved now to Iran.
And ultimately, the idea is to cut China off from cheap energy that it's enjoyed for the better part of two or three decades.
I should tell you, up here in Canada, our prime minister has positively talked about pivoting towards China just over the weekend.
Mark Carney did an incredible nine minute televised commercial where he said that our proximity to the United States is now a problem.
Our reliance on the American market is now a problem.
He's flown to Beijing and talked about a quote, new world order.
He's called China a partner.
He came back from China without investment in hand, but promising China to allow 49,000 Chinese made electric vehicles a year into the Canadian market.
I'm worried that while Donald Trump is going around the world flipping countries from China and Russia's columns into American columns.
Canada, I don't know if it's, I don't know, maybe it's just rhetorical.
Maybe it's just to whip up anti Americanism for his own domestic political needs.
But I've never seen this kind of anti Americanism before, even during Pierre Trudeau, the Marxist himself.
He never was this overtly hostile to America.
I don't know, is this even registering in the States?
I mean, maybe it's so unimportant compared to everything else.
People are noticing it, but more.
With a kind of raised eyebrow, this is somewhat humorous.
I mean, how are you going to detangle yourself from the United States?
Canada has a very long border with the US.
Most major Canadian population centers are near the American border.
There's a huge amount of cross border trade.
I don't think Carney is credible on any of these points, and I don't think he's succeeding very well.
He certainly hasn't left a good impression in the United States with his attitude toward the war.
Canada benefits if Trump is successful, so why not be supportive rather than trying to cut through and cut apart the relationship?
Last question.
I really appreciate your time today.
I'm interested in the American future after Trump.
And I know there's some people who float the idea that Trump would run another time and they have their complex constitutional theories about that, how that would happen.
I don't think it's going to happen.
Trump turns 80 this year.
I just, I mean, he's got a lot of energy, but I just don't see it happening.
I think the two favorites on the Republican side to go up against Gavin Newsom are.
Are usually mentioned JD Vance, the vice president, and Marco Rubio, the secretary of state.
And I tell you, Trump has put a lot of praise on Rubio, and I think with good reason.
I don't know how JD Vance is doing.
He was allied more with Tucker Carlson, but he just recently let go of Tucker Carlson's son from his personal staff.
Buckley Carlson was working for JD Vance.
I don't know if that's relevant at all.
But if you had to look into the future, what would you think?
Maybe there's another name that hasn't emerged yet.
But what do you think of the 2028 prospects for a post-Trump Republican Party?
It's too early to say, but I do think the president is playing Vance and Rubio off against each other, perhaps in a healthy way, a kind of team of rivals sort of way.
He has brought Vance into the diplomatic process with the Iran war.
He sent him to lead American negotiations in Pakistan.
And by all accounts, Vance did a very good job.
So he's got these two potential rivals, both handling foreign policy.
Of course, they both also have many different jobs.
Rubio famously is also the national security advisor, doing many other things as well.
And JD Vance, yes, he had some trouble with his Tucker Carlson connection.
Buckley Carlson used to work for him.
There's another Buckley Carlson, not to be confused, by the way.
Buckley Carlson is Tucker Carlson's brother.
So Tucker's son and his brother, same name.
And irony is, of course, Buckley chased the extremists out of the Republican Party, out of the conservative movement.
So why, at least the brother, who's really a rabid anti Semite on social media, why he thinks that's appropriate, I don't know.
But anyway, it's really a fringe phenomenon.
I do think probably the association became a problem for J.D. Pence.
But it's hard to see which one of them will come out on top.
If you had to predict for the Iran war, you said there's two ways it can end regime change, or somehow America goes in and removes the nuclear materials.
I'm waiting for the ordinary Iranian people to stand up.
I mean, I don't know.
I'm waiting.
It's been months.
Is it a likelihood?
I'm sure the CIA is busy on the ground, but I just, I'm worried that.
Those two options you outlined won't happen, and that Trump will, quote, declare victory, which he's done several times, and just go home without achieving a permanent solution.
And then we just know that no, I mean, if Trump doesn't finish the job, I don't think any other American president, especially a Democrat, would.
What do you think about the fact that we're two months in and they haven't risen up?
The people, the Shah, son, no one's done it.
Predicting Iran War Endings00:01:11
Well, they have no internet.
I mean, the Iranian regime has blocked them from speaking with one another.
So, in order to help them rise up against the regime, you have to provide them a way to communicate with each other.
So, I think all of that is in the works.
But the war is still here.
And Trump suggested right from the beginning that he was not going to encourage people to go into the streets while there was still active fighting going on.
And there's still active fighting going on, if it's in the Persian Gulf.
But that still might be dangerous enough to keep Iran on a war footing and to keep Trump from openly encouraging people to take back their country, as he said.
So, I think they just don't have the means yet, but I think the means will be coming.
Well, maybe we need to drop 100,000 Starlinks into that country.
Joel Pollack, great to catch up with you.
And what's the website for people to check out the California Post?
Just californapost.com or nypost.com slash CA.
Right on.
Great to talk with you.
Thanks for spending so much time with us.
Thank you.
There he is, Joel Pollack.
He is the opinion editor of the California Post, the West Coast version of the New York Post in that.
Well, that's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night and keep fighting for freedom.