Rebel News Podcast - September 07, 2018


“Trump is stronger today than he was before the NYT printed that anonymous ‘insider’s’ op-ed”


Episode Stats

Length

46 minutes

Words per Minute

168.90532

Word Count

7,830

Sentence Count

515

Misogynist Sentences

5

Hate Speech Sentences

13


Summary

The New York Times published an anonymous attack on Donald Trump that they claim was written by a senior Trump administration official. Is it possible that the Times is part of the resistance to Trump's agenda, or is it part of a media company that colludes with him and enables him?


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Tonight, the New York Times runs an anonymous attack on Donald Trump
00:00:04.320 that they claim was written by a senior Trump official.
00:00:08.240 It's September 6th and you're watching The Ezra LeVant Show.
00:00:16.800 Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
00:00:20.660 There's 8,500 customers here and you won't give them an answer.
00:00:24.360 You come here once a year with a sign and you feel morally superior.
00:00:27.340 The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it
00:00:31.320 is because it's my bloody right to do so.
00:00:37.840 The New York Times, which is owned by Carlos Slim, the richest man in Mexico,
00:00:43.660 they hate Donald Trump. They're obsessed by Donald Trump.
00:00:47.360 The Washington Post newspaper is pretty bad too.
00:00:49.980 It's owned by Jeff Bezos, the richest man in America.
00:00:53.260 Now that's worth keeping in mind when you read newspapers in 2018.
00:00:56.560 Almost every newspaper in the world is losing money so they have been bought up by men
00:01:01.220 who use newspapers as their playthings, as political tools to promote their own interests.
00:01:06.800 It's the same here in Canada.
00:01:08.340 The Globe and Mail loses buckets of money but it's an important propaganda machine for its owners.
00:01:15.000 The Thompson family, who are, you won't be surprised, the richest family in Canada.
00:01:19.720 I don't think you should ever take a media company's reporting at face value
00:01:24.080 without first knowing who pays for it.
00:01:27.480 Isn't the most obvious example Trudeau's state broadcaster, the CBC?
00:01:31.700 Okay, so back to the New York Times.
00:01:33.280 Last night they published this op-ed by, well, that's the thing.
00:01:37.560 They don't say who it's by.
00:01:40.020 They just say we have to take their word for it.
00:01:42.360 It's a top Trump insider disparaging Trump himself.
00:01:47.080 Here, let me read a bit of it for you.
00:01:49.580 I am part of the resistance inside the Trump administration.
00:01:55.540 The resistance, eh?
00:01:57.180 There's something grotesque about that very phrase, the resistance.
00:02:00.880 That's what the French and the Polish and other European partisans in the Second World War,
00:02:05.600 who were fighting behind enemy lines against the Nazis,
00:02:08.680 that's what they called themselves.
00:02:10.240 These are patriotic Poles and Frenchmen and others who didn't submit to the Nazi occupiers.
00:02:18.020 They were loyal to their own countries.
00:02:19.940 They knew they would one day be restored.
00:02:22.460 The Nazis were illegitimate, as well as being evil.
00:02:26.020 And so these partisans, they were the resistance.
00:02:29.420 That's what they were called.
00:02:30.560 How dare anyone claim an analogy between fighting against murderous Nazis
00:02:35.840 who had invaded their countries, comparing that to fighting against a democratically elected president.
00:02:42.500 That is a sign of moral extremism to say that.
00:02:46.400 Right away, you know who you're dealing with here,
00:02:48.840 or at least who the Times claims you're dealing with here.
00:02:51.580 Someone who has apparently told Trump that he is a loyal officer,
00:02:56.720 what, a cabinet minister or a senior aide,
00:02:59.120 who has signed an employment contract,
00:03:01.240 probably signed a non-disclosure agreement,
00:03:03.640 probably has some sort of security clearance,
00:03:06.400 so sign contracts there.
00:03:08.240 Because to be senior, you have to see classified material.
00:03:11.340 If they are indeed a high-level appointee,
00:03:13.720 someone who every day claims to be loyal and honest and diligent,
00:03:17.260 but who in fact is disloyal and dishonest and a promise-breaker, a contract-breaker, an imposter.
00:03:24.100 And yet someone's so proud of that that he calls himself without resistance,
00:03:27.220 but not quite proud enough to reveal himself.
00:03:29.380 And so the New York Times is part of that resistance too, aren't they?
00:03:32.820 By colluding with him and enabling him, aren't they?
00:03:35.500 But look at this, look at this, the next part here.
00:03:37.360 I work for the president, but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed
00:03:41.000 to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
00:03:45.500 Thwart his worst inclinations?
00:03:50.000 Okay, let me be positive here.
00:03:53.040 I suppose part of the job of being a staff member,
00:03:57.020 especially in a political context,
00:03:58.540 is to give advice as strongly as necessary
00:04:01.380 to correct what you think are mistakes made by the key man.
00:04:05.700 Now, you give this advice in the course of your job to that key man directly.
00:04:10.340 I suppose every human being has their worst inclinations.
00:04:13.480 I certainly know what they were for Bill Clinton, for example.
00:04:17.400 We know what they are for Justin Trudeau, for example.
00:04:20.320 I suppose an assistant helping to correct a leader's flaws
00:04:24.080 is actually part of the job description of any staff.
00:04:27.740 But what exactly does this anonymous underminer say
00:04:30.960 are Trump's worst inclinations?
00:04:33.260 And mind you, he's not telling this to Trump.
00:04:35.040 He's telling this to the New York Times to undermine Trump.
00:04:37.600 So he's not really helping the inclinations, is he?
00:04:39.620 He's helping himself.
00:04:40.320 Well, we'll get into those inclinations in a minute.
00:04:42.980 But you already have a hint.
00:04:44.360 It's Trump's agenda.
00:04:47.480 But Trump's agenda is well known and has been known for years.
00:04:50.980 It was put in writing and called his election platform.
00:04:54.040 It was elaborated on by Trump himself in countless speeches and rallies.
00:04:57.820 It was tested in countless interviews with the media,
00:05:00.960 in debates against Hillary Clinton herself.
00:05:03.680 Trump's inclinations, his agenda, his policies, his platform,
00:05:06.780 it was scrutinized endlessly and criticized endlessly by a hostile media
00:05:11.360 and yet had won the election.
00:05:15.100 Whatever you think of Trump, he has done what he has said he would do,
00:05:17.720 from foreign policy on China and Mexico and Iran and Israel and North Korea
00:05:22.240 to trade policy, to tax policy, to energy policy, everything.
00:05:27.260 Is there anything in Trump's agenda that is democratically illegitimate?
00:05:33.000 Well, if it is, then courts will stop him.
00:05:36.920 And they haven't been shy about doing so.
00:05:40.060 Though Trump usually prevails on appeal,
00:05:42.140 that's one of the official roles of a court,
00:05:44.180 to review legislation to make sure it's constitutional
00:05:46.800 and to thwart legislation that isn't,
00:05:49.780 to use the New York Times op-eds language.
00:05:51.980 We have checks and balances.
00:05:54.860 It's all open for scrutiny.
00:05:56.660 It's an official part of the government.
00:05:58.200 Thwarting a president is what the Constitution is built for.
00:06:02.460 But since when does some secret infiltrator have the moral authority
00:06:04.740 to thwart Trump's agenda dishonestly,
00:06:07.240 under false pretenses, from the inside secretly?
00:06:10.260 Yeah, that's not resistance.
00:06:11.900 That's what conservative critics have been calling the deep state,
00:06:14.900 a permanent governing class that refuses to accept the will of the people,
00:06:19.140 that claims honor and history and moral authority,
00:06:21.340 but in fact is undermining democracy through narcissism
00:06:24.780 and a sense of entitlement to be perpetual rulers.
00:06:27.980 People who used to complain about the deep state,
00:06:30.760 about abuses at the CIA and the FBI,
00:06:33.240 about illegal spying on political opponents,
00:06:35.420 about illegal leaks, about abusing the power of the government,
00:06:38.340 they were called conspiracy theorists.
00:06:41.080 Well, the New York Times just published an op-ed by someone
00:06:43.580 they claim really is in the inside undermining things.
00:06:46.780 This is the diary of the deep state.
00:06:50.400 Now, before I read more of the essay itself,
00:06:52.980 let me read a bit from the New York Times editors.
00:06:56.320 They say,
00:06:56.760 The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous op-ed essay.
00:07:03.080 We have done so at the request of the author,
00:07:04.840 a senior official in the Trump administration,
00:07:07.420 whose identity is known to us
00:07:09.100 and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure.
00:07:13.540 Why?
00:07:14.300 Would he be fired?
00:07:16.420 Well, of course he would be fired,
00:07:17.360 because he's breaking his contract.
00:07:18.880 He's breaking his oath of office.
00:07:20.100 He's breaking his oath of loyalty
00:07:21.620 to the office and to his boss.
00:07:24.260 He may be breaking the law
00:07:25.260 in terms of confidential information.
00:07:27.120 So, yeah, it's true.
00:07:28.060 He would be fired.
00:07:28.680 But the thing about anonymous accusers,
00:07:30.800 and the reason why we don't allow them
00:07:32.360 in any real court system, for example,
00:07:34.280 is that you have the right to confront your accuser,
00:07:36.640 whatever it is.
00:07:37.140 You have the right to know
00:07:37.980 who is saying you did something wrong,
00:07:39.860 because who accuses you,
00:07:42.100 tells you so much?
00:07:43.900 Are they a spurned rival?
00:07:45.540 Are they someone with a personal grudge?
00:07:47.880 Are they someone who maybe, I don't know,
00:07:50.140 asked for a promotion or a raise,
00:07:51.600 but was denied it?
00:07:52.740 Are they someone who has a history of lying?
00:07:54.760 Are they someone who isn't really
00:07:56.160 who they say they are?
00:07:57.160 Someone who is exaggerating
00:07:58.580 or telling tall tales
00:07:59.600 in which they just happen to be the hero?
00:08:02.820 Are they someone whose story actually holds up?
00:08:05.340 Like Omarosa.
00:08:06.420 Remember her, the reality TV crank,
00:08:08.980 who met Donald Trump on the show
00:08:10.840 The Apprentice a decade or more ago?
00:08:12.880 Well, Trump actually hired her
00:08:16.540 in the White House to do black outreach.
00:08:20.340 And then who was fired by Trump's chief of staff
00:08:22.300 for misconduct.
00:08:23.920 And who then went on to publish a book
00:08:26.800 with all sorts of accusations.
00:08:29.320 That book actually made it to number one
00:08:30.740 on the New York Times best list.
00:08:31.920 You see, right there,
00:08:33.600 you know so much about Omarosa
00:08:36.380 before you even open the book.
00:08:38.940 If you ever watched The Apprentice,
00:08:40.540 you know she is immoral.
00:08:41.820 And unethical.
00:08:44.040 And a perpetual liar.
00:08:46.160 And not to be trusted.
00:08:47.160 You know that because you know Omarosa.
00:08:50.220 Or you know enough about her.
00:08:52.120 Or others know enough about her
00:08:54.020 that they can answer her.
00:08:55.740 I mean, just for example,
00:08:57.080 Pierce Morgan,
00:08:58.060 when he heard of Omarosa's
00:08:59.420 accusations against Trump,
00:09:00.860 he reported that Omarosa
00:09:02.820 really weirdly
00:09:04.320 offered to have sex with him
00:09:06.880 as part of a dramatic TV plot
00:09:09.340 on The Apprentice.
00:09:11.060 They were on The Apprentice.
00:09:12.100 Yeah, that is gross.
00:09:12.780 That is weird.
00:09:13.220 That is bizarre.
00:09:13.800 But it tells you something
00:09:14.760 about Omarosa, doesn't it?
00:09:16.980 And Omarosa's specific claims
00:09:18.820 could be challenged.
00:09:20.480 Look at this from pollster Frank Luntz.
00:09:23.040 He says,
00:09:23.460 I'm in Omarosa's book
00:09:25.860 on page 149.
00:09:27.180 She claims to have heard
00:09:28.060 from someone who heard from me
00:09:29.460 that I heard Trump
00:09:30.420 use the N-word.
00:09:32.420 That's a lot of degrees
00:09:33.320 of separation, isn't it?
00:09:35.460 Luntz says,
00:09:36.400 Not only is this flat-out false,
00:09:37.820 I've never heard such a thing,
00:09:39.320 but Omarosa didn't even make
00:09:40.540 an effort to call
00:09:41.260 or email me to verify.
00:09:42.740 Very shoddy work.
00:09:45.940 Do you see my point?
00:09:46.620 If you know the name
00:09:47.960 of your accuser,
00:09:48.920 you can fight back.
00:09:50.220 You can answer with facts.
00:09:52.000 You can understand motivations,
00:09:53.820 grudges.
00:09:54.500 You can call BS on claims.
00:09:56.640 You can say,
00:09:57.140 Oh, they're a track record
00:09:58.080 of lying.
00:09:58.740 But you can't do any of that
00:10:01.260 if it's a secret source
00:10:02.740 writing secretly
00:10:03.760 about secret things.
00:10:04.800 I mean, seriously,
00:10:05.240 how can we even trust
00:10:06.500 Carlos Slim's New York Times?
00:10:08.880 It does what he tells them to do.
00:10:10.980 But let me get back
00:10:11.720 to this anonymous attack
00:10:12.960 in the New York Times.
00:10:13.940 I'm not going to read it all.
00:10:14.760 It's actually pretty boring.
00:10:16.860 Very self-serving,
00:10:18.240 very self-congratulatory,
00:10:19.500 and really nothing that new.
00:10:21.120 And the only new thing about it
00:10:22.860 is that it claims to be written
00:10:24.420 by someone on the inside.
00:10:26.340 Let me read.
00:10:27.860 The dilemma,
00:10:29.400 which Trump does not fully grasp,
00:10:31.340 is that many of the senior officials
00:10:32.740 in his own administration
00:10:33.660 are working diligently from within
00:10:35.600 to frustrate parts of his agenda
00:10:37.200 and his worst inclinations.
00:10:38.940 I would know.
00:10:39.880 I am one of them.
00:10:42.600 Is it really true
00:10:43.660 that many senior officials
00:10:45.160 are working to frustrate
00:10:46.340 Trump's agenda?
00:10:47.900 I don't know.
00:10:49.120 We can't check, can we?
00:10:51.580 Did the New York Times check?
00:10:53.060 They don't tell us.
00:10:53.680 How could they check?
00:10:54.680 How could they confirm it?
00:10:56.300 Why would they let someone say that
00:10:59.140 if it can't be confirmed?
00:11:01.400 But if it is confirmed,
00:11:02.640 how is that a knock
00:11:03.600 on Donald Trump anyways?
00:11:04.920 Isn't it a knock
00:11:05.760 on these dishonest underminers?
00:11:08.100 I don't know.
00:11:08.500 Maybe they were holdovers
00:11:09.280 from Barack Obama's time,
00:11:11.040 possibly career bureaucrats
00:11:12.420 who are violating
00:11:13.420 their public service oath
00:11:15.080 of being non-partisan.
00:11:16.340 Who knows if any of it's true?
00:11:18.200 The Times must think it's true
00:11:19.940 or enough of it's true
00:11:21.440 or maybe they just hope it's true.
00:11:22.740 But how does that make Trump look bad?
00:11:25.300 I suppose if he hired these people,
00:11:27.160 it's on him in part.
00:11:28.200 But to me,
00:11:28.980 it just proves Trump's own thesis.
00:11:31.160 He needs to drain the swamp,
00:11:33.360 as he says,
00:11:34.280 to get rid of the perpetual
00:11:35.600 governing lobbying class
00:11:37.240 that believes it knows
00:11:38.360 better than everyone,
00:11:39.260 especially better than
00:11:39.980 the deplorable voters.
00:11:42.500 This proves everything
00:11:43.280 Trump has ever said
00:11:44.260 about Washington, doesn't it?
00:11:45.640 And about the media party,
00:11:46.800 doesn't it?
00:11:47.560 Let me quote some more,
00:11:48.480 and this is sheer arrogance here.
00:11:49.580 Look at this.
00:11:51.880 Although he was elected
00:11:52.960 as a Republican,
00:11:53.940 the president shows
00:11:54.800 little affinity for ideals
00:11:56.360 long espoused by conservatives,
00:11:58.320 free minds,
00:11:59.060 free markets,
00:11:59.660 and free people.
00:12:01.320 At best,
00:12:02.080 he has invoked these ideals
00:12:03.320 in scripted settings.
00:12:04.640 At worst,
00:12:05.040 he has attacked them outright,
00:12:06.360 unquote.
00:12:08.140 So that's your big bombshell here?
00:12:10.740 That's your big criticism.
00:12:12.320 You really got him now?
00:12:13.000 That's your silver bullet, eh?
00:12:15.320 Is that the excuse
00:12:16.300 for the disloyalty
00:12:17.160 and the undermining,
00:12:17.880 that he's not the right
00:12:19.120 kind of Republican?
00:12:20.400 He's not a Jeb Bush Republican.
00:12:22.300 He's not a Marco Rubio Republican.
00:12:24.040 He's not a John McCain Republican.
00:12:26.160 Yeah, exactly.
00:12:27.380 He beat them.
00:12:29.640 He beat them all.
00:12:30.540 He won the Republican nomination
00:12:31.640 fair and square.
00:12:32.960 And his views,
00:12:34.280 he's accused of deviating
00:12:35.420 from Republican values.
00:12:36.580 Well, if so,
00:12:37.500 is that not his right
00:12:38.520 to do so
00:12:39.180 as the president
00:12:40.260 to be his own man
00:12:41.220 and campaign
00:12:41.760 in his own style?
00:12:42.800 And is any of what he says
00:12:44.140 or does a surprise?
00:12:46.120 Has he not,
00:12:47.340 for decades,
00:12:48.140 for example,
00:12:48.620 said he would rip up
00:12:49.560 America's trade deals?
00:12:51.280 Why does some secret
00:12:52.740 inner guard
00:12:53.480 get to veto
00:12:54.600 what tens of millions
00:12:55.420 of Americans voted for?
00:12:57.140 By the way,
00:12:58.020 I think Trump
00:12:58.740 is a great conservative,
00:13:00.100 best judge is appointed
00:13:01.300 in a generation,
00:13:02.560 great work
00:13:03.140 at untangling America
00:13:04.340 from the United Nations,
00:13:05.520 from corrupt countries
00:13:06.680 like Turkey
00:13:07.320 and Pakistan
00:13:08.220 and Palestinian terrorists
00:13:09.740 like the PLO.
00:13:10.600 I love Ronald Reagan,
00:13:11.620 but in some ways
00:13:12.580 Trump is even bolder
00:13:13.480 because Trump
00:13:13.900 is a disruptor,
00:13:15.100 not a smooth operator
00:13:16.720 like Reagan was.
00:13:18.800 But again,
00:13:19.260 so far,
00:13:19.640 how is any
00:13:20.800 of this criticism
00:13:22.300 legitimate?
00:13:22.920 Isn't this just
00:13:24.080 some liberal
00:13:24.880 or more likely
00:13:25.580 someone with a personal grudge
00:13:26.840 who just burrowed
00:13:28.440 their way
00:13:28.860 into Trump's confidence?
00:13:30.260 Where's the scandal
00:13:31.720 for Trump here?
00:13:33.440 There's no proof
00:13:34.160 or even an allegation
00:13:35.760 of any misconduct
00:13:37.460 in this op-ed.
00:13:38.220 I thought maybe
00:13:39.340 that's what they would be here.
00:13:40.280 If Robert Mueller,
00:13:41.980 the special investigator
00:13:43.960 with $20 million,
00:13:44.940 the power of subpoenas,
00:13:46.100 a team of Democrat prosecutors,
00:13:48.160 if they can't find
00:13:49.460 any wrongdoing
00:13:50.340 after two years,
00:13:51.180 if the worst
00:13:51.760 they've come up with
00:13:52.380 so far
00:13:52.780 is that one of Trump's
00:13:54.340 former staff
00:13:55.280 cheated on his taxes
00:13:57.040 a decade ago,
00:13:59.000 if that's all
00:13:59.820 they got on Trump,
00:14:00.560 I don't think
00:14:01.300 some coward
00:14:02.060 in the New York Times
00:14:03.200 op-ed page
00:14:04.020 will have anything
00:14:05.440 that's a bombshell.
00:14:07.760 But this next part
00:14:08.480 is just dumb.
00:14:08.960 Look at this.
00:14:10.240 In addition to his
00:14:11.120 mass marketing
00:14:11.940 of the notion
00:14:12.820 that the press
00:14:13.500 is the enemy
00:14:14.240 of the people,
00:14:15.020 President Trump's impulses
00:14:16.340 are generally anti-trade
00:14:17.800 and anti-democratic.
00:14:20.300 Really?
00:14:21.240 Huh.
00:14:21.760 What's anti-democratic
00:14:22.980 is undermining
00:14:23.820 an elected president.
00:14:25.720 That's the official job
00:14:27.060 of the opposition party.
00:14:29.080 That's the job
00:14:29.800 of the checks and balances
00:14:30.840 in the U.S. Constitution.
00:14:32.560 That's not the job
00:14:33.720 of cowardly deceivers.
00:14:35.380 You want to block Trump?
00:14:36.420 Run as a Democrat.
00:14:37.480 Go be a judge.
00:14:38.700 And on trade,
00:14:39.680 Trump uses tariffs
00:14:40.860 to make threats
00:14:42.120 against countries
00:14:42.860 that aren't letting in
00:14:44.080 free American trade.
00:14:45.180 But tariffs
00:14:45.760 are his threat
00:14:46.620 to get to what he wants,
00:14:48.040 which are open markets.
00:14:49.680 He's not doing tariffs
00:14:50.560 because he wants
00:14:51.040 the tariffs at the end.
00:14:52.440 The tariffs are a means
00:14:53.440 to an end,
00:14:54.120 a free trade deal.
00:14:54.980 But even if that weren't true,
00:14:57.320 even if Trump liked tariffs,
00:15:00.240 that's a policy decision.
00:15:01.640 He's the president.
00:15:02.340 He's an executive.
00:15:02.980 He can make that choice.
00:15:03.840 How is that a high crime
00:15:04.740 or a misdemeanor?
00:15:06.000 Let me read some more.
00:15:07.840 There is literally
00:15:08.700 no telling
00:15:09.360 whether he might
00:15:10.100 change his mind
00:15:10.800 from one minute
00:15:11.420 to the next.
00:15:12.200 A top official
00:15:13.020 complained to me recently,
00:15:14.680 exasperated
00:15:15.360 by an Oval Office meeting
00:15:16.580 at which the president
00:15:17.600 flip-flopped
00:15:18.220 on a major policy decision
00:15:19.500 he'd made
00:15:20.160 only a week earlier,
00:15:21.280 unquote.
00:15:21.600 This snitch complains
00:15:24.840 that Trump sometimes
00:15:25.780 changes his mind.
00:15:27.460 He flip-flops.
00:15:28.860 I'm sure he does.
00:15:30.480 I'm sure many politicians do.
00:15:32.700 I know Barack Obama did.
00:15:34.880 I think in the Oval Office,
00:15:36.400 that's where you want
00:15:38.000 these conversations
00:15:38.940 to be held.
00:15:40.160 Candid debates
00:15:41.240 going back and forth
00:15:42.560 where Trump
00:15:43.000 is actually open-minded
00:15:44.200 to criticism
00:15:45.380 and might even accept it.
00:15:47.020 That's where a mind
00:15:47.760 should be changed.
00:15:48.720 And then a policy
00:15:49.360 announced and followed.
00:15:50.480 What I see here
00:15:51.360 is that Trump
00:15:51.800 is open-minded,
00:15:52.460 not rigid,
00:15:54.280 but that he is
00:15:55.760 simply surrounded
00:15:56.460 by haters
00:15:57.560 who gossip about him.
00:15:59.520 Isn't the real test?
00:16:01.160 Isn't the real test
00:16:01.720 what Trump
00:16:02.240 says and does
00:16:04.400 after the debate,
00:16:05.500 after the internal
00:16:06.180 decision is made?
00:16:07.060 I'm sure making laws
00:16:08.320 and policies,
00:16:09.240 it's sort of like
00:16:09.700 making sausages.
00:16:10.740 It's not pretty.
00:16:11.800 It's not pretty.
00:16:12.800 But what happens
00:16:13.640 at the end
00:16:14.000 is what counts.
00:16:14.800 What a whiny op-ed
00:16:15.920 this is.
00:16:16.320 What whininess.
00:16:17.460 I'm not going to
00:16:17.960 go through it all.
00:16:18.540 It really reads
00:16:19.320 like some earnest
00:16:20.360 college kid
00:16:21.180 whining in
00:16:22.180 like a model
00:16:22.760 parliament or something.
00:16:24.120 Frankly,
00:16:24.440 it reads like
00:16:24.800 an Obama speechwriter.
00:16:25.960 I'd say there's
00:16:26.700 a non-zero chance
00:16:27.900 that it is
00:16:28.440 an Obama speechwriter.
00:16:29.740 But here's my
00:16:30.500 favorite line
00:16:31.120 to hate.
00:16:31.980 Here's this
00:16:33.040 anonymous insider
00:16:33.940 describes his
00:16:34.660 little team
00:16:35.420 of underminers
00:16:36.200 this way.
00:16:36.500 This is classic.
00:16:37.100 He says,
00:16:38.500 this isn't the work
00:16:39.440 of the so-called
00:16:40.200 deep state.
00:16:41.540 It's the work
00:16:42.300 of the steady state.
00:16:44.760 Ah,
00:16:45.320 the steady state.
00:16:46.480 I bet you worked
00:16:47.440 on that for a while.
00:16:49.180 It's so comforting
00:16:49.900 to know that there
00:16:51.320 is a group
00:16:51.740 of high priests,
00:16:53.260 of people
00:16:53.700 smarter than
00:16:55.020 all of us,
00:16:55.640 better than
00:16:56.160 all of us,
00:16:57.700 taking care
00:16:58.800 of all of us,
00:16:59.580 taking so much
00:17:00.180 care of us
00:17:00.680 that they will
00:17:01.500 stop us
00:17:01.960 from hurting
00:17:02.400 ourselves by
00:17:03.100 making the
00:17:03.600 wrong democratic
00:17:04.740 decisions,
00:17:05.540 a steady state.
00:17:06.760 Someone should
00:17:07.360 pass that on
00:17:08.120 to the dictators
00:17:08.740 of China
00:17:09.920 or Cuba.
00:17:11.420 We're not
00:17:12.160 dictatorships anymore,
00:17:13.420 guys.
00:17:13.880 We're a steady
00:17:14.900 state.
00:17:15.540 We're so steady.
00:17:16.900 You just can't
00:17:18.180 unelect us.
00:17:20.260 Donald Trump
00:17:20.660 says he's upset
00:17:21.240 with this op-ed.
00:17:21.920 I bet he is.
00:17:23.120 He probably thinks
00:17:23.900 that even if
00:17:24.400 the Times is
00:17:25.020 exaggerating
00:17:25.820 this person's
00:17:26.720 credentials,
00:17:27.240 and even if
00:17:27.640 this person
00:17:28.180 is exaggerating
00:17:29.520 his circle
00:17:30.060 of underminers,
00:17:30.840 there's a grain
00:17:31.260 of truth to it.
00:17:32.500 And Trump
00:17:33.040 has had problems
00:17:34.000 with leakers
00:17:34.620 since the beginning.
00:17:36.780 Last night,
00:17:37.520 Trump tweeted
00:17:38.020 one word,
00:17:39.860 treason,
00:17:41.000 or treason.
00:17:41.640 Now, I don't
00:17:43.320 know about that,
00:17:43.900 but again,
00:17:44.380 who knows
00:17:45.020 what security
00:17:45.740 clearance this
00:17:46.320 insider has,
00:17:47.160 and who knows
00:17:48.280 what he had
00:17:49.160 broken either here
00:17:50.040 or on other
00:17:50.740 occasions.
00:17:51.240 I don't know.
00:17:52.520 But here's what
00:17:53.240 I do know.
00:17:55.100 Everyone who
00:17:55.680 has ever suspected
00:17:56.560 that things are
00:17:57.180 stacked against
00:17:57.940 Donald Trump,
00:17:58.600 that the system
00:17:59.260 is rigged
00:17:59.940 against Donald
00:18:00.580 Trump,
00:18:00.920 that it is
00:18:01.500 corrupted
00:18:01.960 by undemocrats,
00:18:05.180 well, they
00:18:05.580 just got their
00:18:06.380 proof from
00:18:08.660 no one less
00:18:09.700 than the New
00:18:10.600 York Times
00:18:11.020 itself.
00:18:11.320 There's absolutely
00:18:11.960 nothing new
00:18:12.460 in this op-ed
00:18:13.040 and absolutely
00:18:13.820 nothing damning
00:18:14.640 in this op-ed
00:18:15.260 unless you're
00:18:16.340 new to the
00:18:16.720 accusation that
00:18:17.400 Trump is a
00:18:17.780 different kind
00:18:18.160 of president
00:18:18.540 than John
00:18:19.380 McCain would
00:18:19.900 have been.
00:18:20.720 John McCain
00:18:21.240 who this
00:18:21.640 snitch praises.
00:18:22.520 So there's
00:18:23.420 nothing new
00:18:23.880 in here other
00:18:24.600 than Trump
00:18:25.280 can now say
00:18:26.760 with absolutely
00:18:28.160 impeccable evidence
00:18:29.400 that he must
00:18:30.500 take a blowtorch
00:18:31.800 to the place
00:18:32.360 to reveal,
00:18:33.440 as is his
00:18:33.920 constitutional right,
00:18:35.200 the truth
00:18:35.680 about the
00:18:36.420 unlawful
00:18:37.020 surveillance against
00:18:37.960 him by the
00:18:38.580 FBI and the
00:18:39.840 NSA and the
00:18:41.180 deep state,
00:18:42.000 steady state,
00:18:42.780 whatever the
00:18:43.220 hell they're
00:18:43.600 calling themselves
00:18:44.200 today.
00:18:44.760 I think this
00:18:45.800 doesn't actually
00:18:46.540 harm Trump's
00:18:47.200 argument.
00:18:48.140 I think it
00:18:48.500 proves it.
00:18:49.960 I think Donald
00:18:50.580 Trump is stronger
00:18:51.640 today because of
00:18:53.200 it than he was
00:18:54.440 yesterday.
00:18:55.720 Stay with us for
00:18:56.520 more.
00:19:12.620 Well, I have
00:19:13.680 said it before,
00:19:14.540 the number one
00:19:15.220 issue of our
00:19:16.120 age, because it
00:19:17.600 touches on all
00:19:18.440 the other issues,
00:19:19.940 is the censorship
00:19:21.000 of alternative and
00:19:22.760 conservative and
00:19:24.020 dissident thought,
00:19:25.120 that, not by
00:19:26.160 government, but by
00:19:27.500 the titans of
00:19:29.140 Silicon Valley.
00:19:30.500 Never before has
00:19:32.000 such a small
00:19:33.420 cabal of tycoons
00:19:35.520 controlled so much
00:19:37.060 information.
00:19:38.460 Twitter, Facebook,
00:19:39.480 YouTube, Google,
00:19:40.540 Amazon, between
00:19:41.780 them, not only are
00:19:42.680 there hundreds of
00:19:43.460 billions of dollars
00:19:44.280 of wealth, but they
00:19:45.800 are a chokehold for
00:19:47.160 everything we know
00:19:48.240 about the world,
00:19:49.140 whether it's an
00:19:49.720 internet search or
00:19:51.020 what we can share
00:19:51.800 with friends and
00:19:52.420 family on Facebook,
00:19:53.500 or what we can say
00:19:55.140 about the passing
00:19:56.440 parade on Twitter.
00:19:57.980 Well, this censorship
00:19:58.760 has come to the
00:19:59.700 attention of Donald
00:20:00.500 Trump.
00:20:01.420 Of course, the
00:20:02.260 internet is how he
00:20:03.560 won his 2016
00:20:05.100 campaign, to the
00:20:06.600 surprise of Hillary
00:20:07.460 Clinton and the
00:20:08.260 establishment.
00:20:09.420 They have thus
00:20:10.500 come out with a
00:20:11.260 vengeance against
00:20:12.040 conservative thought
00:20:12.720 on Twitter.
00:20:13.140 Donald Trump
00:20:13.480 himself has
00:20:14.800 spoken about it,
00:20:15.760 and yesterday, the
00:20:17.660 president and
00:20:18.380 founder of Twitter,
00:20:19.380 Jack Dorsey,
00:20:20.140 appeared on Capitol
00:20:21.000 Hill to be grilled,
00:20:22.920 sort of, by
00:20:25.020 congressmen.
00:20:26.060 I'm not sure who
00:20:27.440 got the better of
00:20:28.140 it, but our friend
00:20:29.160 Alan Bokhari, who is
00:20:30.520 the senior technology
00:20:31.600 correspondent at
00:20:32.320 Breitbart News, was
00:20:33.620 watching it, and he
00:20:34.300 joins us now with his
00:20:35.640 review.
00:20:36.300 Alan, great to see
00:20:36.860 you again.
00:20:37.880 Great to see you,
00:20:38.340 Ezra.
00:20:38.700 I'm glad that Jack
00:20:39.900 Dorsey attended on
00:20:41.600 Capitol Hill, because
00:20:42.640 Google, they're not
00:20:44.920 even going, are they?
00:20:45.980 They refuse to send
00:20:47.060 people these days,
00:20:47.700 don't they?
00:20:49.240 Yeah, Google are just
00:20:50.480 holding out on
00:20:51.580 lawmakers, and
00:20:52.860 actually Marco
00:20:53.760 Rubio called them
00:20:55.240 out, and that is at
00:20:56.460 the Senate hearing
00:20:57.060 yesterday as well.
00:20:58.760 They've had a recent
00:20:59.620 spate of really
00:21:00.280 embarrassing stories
00:21:01.240 for them, both from
00:21:02.820 the left and from
00:21:03.540 the right.
00:21:04.080 The right has pointed
00:21:04.800 out that there's all
00:21:05.800 sorts of bias in
00:21:06.480 Google search results.
00:21:08.160 There was a
00:21:08.640 conservative journalist
00:21:09.700 who did a search
00:21:12.640 for Donald Trump on
00:21:13.720 Google News and found
00:21:14.660 like 96% of the
00:21:15.760 results were from
00:21:16.340 liberal outlets.
00:21:17.060 And you'll think
00:21:18.360 with Google having
00:21:19.700 personalized search
00:21:20.900 that show a
00:21:22.820 conservative journalist,
00:21:24.080 someone interested in
00:21:24.920 conservative topics,
00:21:25.800 more sources from
00:21:26.860 conservative news, but
00:21:27.640 instead they showed a
00:21:28.280 96% liberal mainstream
00:21:30.880 results.
00:21:32.620 So you have to wonder
00:21:33.480 what liberals and
00:21:34.820 independent voters are
00:21:35.760 seeing.
00:21:36.820 And there was an
00:21:37.240 argument there that
00:21:38.000 it's the way search
00:21:39.120 engines in general,
00:21:40.620 not just Google,
00:21:41.600 are structured because
00:21:43.380 they rank, the way
00:21:46.100 they determine whether
00:21:47.600 a news source is
00:21:48.740 authoritative, it's
00:21:49.440 whether other news
00:21:50.580 sources link to them.
00:21:51.420 And obviously the
00:21:51.860 mainstream media links
00:21:52.620 to other mainstream
00:21:54.860 outlets, but they
00:21:56.480 don't link to
00:21:57.180 right-wing media.
00:21:57.840 So that might be
00:21:58.320 why the bias occurs.
00:21:59.020 It's still a problem
00:21:59.720 though.
00:22:00.480 And Google as the
00:22:01.920 top search engine
00:22:02.780 needs to address it
00:22:03.540 even if the other
00:22:03.960 ones need to address
00:22:04.520 it too.
00:22:06.080 And also there are
00:22:07.060 other examples of
00:22:07.940 Google bias you can
00:22:08.920 look at.
00:22:09.400 You can, if you
00:22:11.100 search idiot on
00:22:13.360 Google images, you'll
00:22:14.960 find pictures of
00:22:15.500 Donald Trump right at
00:22:16.100 the top, if you
00:22:16.560 search fascists, you'll
00:22:17.420 find pictures of
00:22:17.960 Donald Trump right at
00:22:18.620 the top.
00:22:19.540 So there are all kinds
00:22:20.520 of examples you can
00:22:21.180 look at.
00:22:22.260 Yeah.
00:22:22.580 And now those are, as
00:22:23.440 you said, those are the
00:22:24.100 critiques that
00:22:24.660 conservatives would
00:22:25.320 bring, but conservatives
00:22:27.080 and even genuine
00:22:28.700 liberals who are
00:22:29.520 concerned about freedom
00:22:30.900 and human rights, they
00:22:32.760 would probably be
00:22:33.500 grilling Google, if
00:22:35.400 they ever showed up,
00:22:37.040 about work that's
00:22:38.240 being reported of
00:22:39.200 Google working in
00:22:40.420 cahoots with the
00:22:42.000 communist government of
00:22:42.940 China to provide a
00:22:44.160 communist filtered,
00:22:46.640 censored form of
00:22:48.080 Google suitable for
00:22:49.440 that tyrannical regime.
00:22:50.520 Do I have that
00:22:50.980 right?
00:22:52.280 That's absolutely
00:22:52.980 correct.
00:22:53.360 Google are moving
00:22:53.980 into China and
00:22:55.100 that's probably another
00:22:55.960 reason why Google
00:22:56.560 didn't want to show up
00:22:57.300 because one of the
00:22:58.160 things that Twitter and
00:22:58.900 Facebook were able to
00:22:59.940 say to senators
00:23:00.500 yesterday was they
00:23:01.820 are banned in China
00:23:02.660 and they have no
00:23:03.600 plans for going back
00:23:04.460 there.
00:23:04.740 But, you know,
00:23:05.180 Google wants to go
00:23:06.460 into China.
00:23:08.220 It's kind of bizarre
00:23:09.440 that a company, one of
00:23:11.920 the wealthiest and most
00:23:12.860 influential companies
00:23:13.680 in the world wants
00:23:14.840 even more to the
00:23:15.740 extent that they're
00:23:16.220 willing to work with
00:23:17.080 a really tyrannical
00:23:18.740 authoritarian regime.
00:23:20.600 I remember in the
00:23:21.520 early days Google had
00:23:23.340 sort of a goofy motto,
00:23:25.920 don't be evil.
00:23:27.740 And everyone laughed
00:23:28.700 at it because it was
00:23:29.480 so blunt and so
00:23:30.640 obvious.
00:23:31.520 Of course, the hard
00:23:32.100 part is what does evil
00:23:33.140 mean?
00:23:33.420 And we all agree,
00:23:34.060 don't be evil.
00:23:34.920 But I don't think
00:23:35.520 Google even says that
00:23:36.480 anymore because they
00:23:37.300 have decided, well,
00:23:38.980 that's naive.
00:23:40.320 That's when we were
00:23:41.120 idealists.
00:23:42.200 Now we're, you know,
00:23:44.020 we can't afford such
00:23:45.640 niceties and look,
00:23:47.240 that's the way the
00:23:47.840 world is.
00:23:49.380 The fact that they
00:23:50.320 won't even talk about
00:23:51.440 that, I think,
00:23:52.520 is cause for concern.
00:23:55.020 Yeah.
00:23:55.800 Everyone mocked that
00:23:56.920 slogan as Google
00:23:57.980 just evolved into this
00:23:59.460 all-powerful company.
00:24:02.260 Their official mission
00:24:03.300 statement is to organize
00:24:04.440 the world's information,
00:24:06.260 which is, I can see
00:24:08.740 why they want, when
00:24:09.920 you've got a mission
00:24:10.500 statement as radical
00:24:12.620 as that, which
00:24:14.040 involves so much
00:24:14.800 power concentrated in
00:24:15.680 the hands of one
00:24:16.200 company, organizing
00:24:17.060 the entire world's
00:24:17.860 information, you'd
00:24:18.660 probably want to
00:24:19.220 couple that with a
00:24:20.980 statement like, don't
00:24:21.740 be evil, because
00:24:22.380 otherwise people will
00:24:24.280 ask questions like,
00:24:25.220 you know, why should
00:24:25.980 one unaccountable
00:24:27.360 corporation, a few
00:24:29.700 executives in Silicon
00:24:30.600 Valley have the power
00:24:31.420 to organize the entire
00:24:32.400 world's information?
00:24:33.540 But that's exactly
00:24:34.100 what Google's done.
00:24:35.460 And they now spend
00:24:37.380 more on lobbying.
00:24:38.260 I believe this is
00:24:39.260 true.
00:24:39.480 They spend more on
00:24:40.020 lobbying in D.C.
00:24:40.760 than any other
00:24:41.520 company.
00:24:43.960 So Google, along
00:24:45.940 with other Silicon
00:24:46.460 Valley companies,
00:24:47.060 there aren't these
00:24:47.420 sort of nice insurgents
00:24:48.960 with these sort of
00:24:50.200 nice, cute slogans
00:24:51.180 anymore.
00:24:51.440 People know they're
00:24:52.400 the real power.
00:24:53.220 They're the real
00:24:53.780 corporate overlords
00:24:55.980 of today.
00:24:56.900 And they control
00:24:57.880 what we see.
00:24:58.960 They control what
00:24:59.580 we're allowed to say.
00:25:01.260 And, you know, if
00:25:01.960 they wanted to, they
00:25:02.660 could influence how
00:25:04.320 we vote.
00:25:04.740 They could swing
00:25:05.040 elections.
00:25:05.440 Yeah, well, that's
00:25:07.680 the thing you have
00:25:08.860 written before, how
00:25:10.460 tweaking the search
00:25:12.220 results, you've
00:25:13.260 written how a
00:25:14.980 scientist has shown
00:25:15.720 tweaking the search
00:25:16.560 results can torque an
00:25:19.060 election outcome
00:25:20.100 amongst voters by a
00:25:22.160 double-digit change.
00:25:24.680 Now, the news of
00:25:26.500 yesterday was that
00:25:27.560 Jack Dorsey did, in
00:25:29.000 fact, attend on
00:25:30.600 Capitol Hill.
00:25:32.520 He's an interesting
00:25:35.120 character.
00:25:35.820 He had a little flash
00:25:36.840 of humor yesterday.
00:25:37.780 I guess he wears a
00:25:38.840 Fitbit or some sort
00:25:40.160 of a health medical
00:25:42.460 app.
00:25:43.320 And he will show
00:25:44.380 this on the screen
00:25:45.040 now.
00:25:45.380 He posted a little
00:25:46.660 video of his heart
00:25:48.300 rate, which was very
00:25:50.960 funny.
00:25:51.320 He showed that he was
00:25:52.220 obviously quite stressed,
00:25:53.360 a bit of a sense of
00:25:54.600 humor there.
00:25:57.400 But I think...
00:25:58.700 Sorry, go ahead,
00:25:59.360 Alan.
00:26:00.300 In fact, he did
00:26:01.060 have to do two
00:26:01.600 hearings, first the
00:26:02.360 Senate in the
00:26:02.780 morning and then the
00:26:04.240 Energy Committee in
00:26:05.260 the House in the
00:26:06.160 afternoon.
00:26:06.820 So, yeah, that was
00:26:08.280 quite funny.
00:26:09.120 It was funny.
00:26:10.600 It shows he has a
00:26:12.620 bit of a sense of
00:26:13.280 humor.
00:26:15.100 I remember when
00:26:16.240 Zuckerberg attended
00:26:17.560 Congress.
00:26:18.540 He was extremely
00:26:19.580 disciplined.
00:26:21.360 He had obviously
00:26:22.060 been through a lot
00:26:23.760 of rehearsals.
00:26:25.200 And he mainly gave
00:26:26.320 non-answers.
00:26:27.600 But I think the
00:26:28.160 chief strength that
00:26:30.480 Zuckerberg had a few
00:26:31.560 months ago and Jack
00:26:32.520 Dorsey had yesterday
00:26:33.520 is that the
00:26:34.920 congressmen who are
00:26:35.900 grilling Jack Dorsey,
00:26:37.320 they are not native
00:26:38.780 Twitter users.
00:26:40.620 They are often people,
00:26:42.980 as you would expect
00:26:43.960 congressmen and
00:26:45.860 senators to be there
00:26:46.640 in their 60s and
00:26:47.640 70s, which is what you
00:26:49.380 want in the Senate, or
00:26:50.260 it comes from the
00:26:50.880 word for senior.
00:26:52.520 You know, you're the
00:26:54.060 seasoned oldsters who
00:26:56.100 have a lot of
00:26:56.540 experience and wisdom.
00:26:57.820 You don't want 20-year-old
00:26:59.500 whippersnappers on
00:27:02.880 your Senate.
00:27:03.600 But when you're trying
00:27:04.620 to grill a Zuckerberg
00:27:06.080 or a Jack Dorsey and
00:27:09.000 you're not as fluent in
00:27:11.120 the details of Twitter
00:27:13.100 and Facebook, you're
00:27:14.640 going to ask questions
00:27:16.000 that give these guys a
00:27:17.680 lot of wiggle room.
00:27:18.420 Was that your general
00:27:19.580 assessment, that most of
00:27:21.040 the questions just didn't
00:27:22.040 land a punch because they
00:27:23.220 were asked awkwardly or
00:27:25.080 not properly followed up
00:27:26.360 on?
00:27:27.800 Yeah, there's a sense that
00:27:29.120 some congressmen, you
00:27:30.440 know, a lot of these
00:27:31.280 people are quite smart
00:27:32.040 guys.
00:27:32.480 Some of them are not so
00:27:33.520 smart.
00:27:34.400 And some of them are
00:27:35.480 getting their heads
00:27:35.980 around it.
00:27:36.620 Like, you know, Ted Cruz,
00:27:37.500 for example, unlisted a
00:27:39.100 social media issue very,
00:27:40.100 very quickly.
00:27:40.680 He's been talking about
00:27:41.720 this since January and
00:27:43.300 probably was looking into
00:27:44.300 it even before that.
00:27:45.400 So there are congressmen
00:27:46.120 who get it.
00:27:47.180 There are other
00:27:48.040 congressmen who don't get
00:27:49.060 it so much.
00:27:50.400 There was a particularly
00:27:50.920 funny moment with a
00:27:52.200 Democratic senator.
00:27:53.740 His name escapes me at
00:27:54.940 the moment, but he was
00:27:58.220 asking the executives of
00:27:59.600 Facebook and Twitter if
00:28:00.620 they thought he was
00:28:02.980 warning that, you know,
00:28:03.800 Pokemon Go would be
00:28:05.320 would become a conduit for
00:28:06.860 Russian foreign propaganda.
00:28:08.040 So that was an interesting
00:28:10.200 moment from the first
00:28:11.040 hearing.
00:28:12.780 That's funny, but it
00:28:14.640 avoids the big issue,
00:28:16.300 which is the censorship.
00:28:18.080 I mean, give Jack Dorsey
00:28:19.580 credit.
00:28:20.000 He was the one social media
00:28:21.260 company of all of them
00:28:23.360 that didn't on the same
00:28:24.540 day decide to un-person
00:28:26.960 Alex Jones and InfoWars.
00:28:28.980 And whatever you think of
00:28:29.720 Alex Jones and his
00:28:30.540 personality and InfoWars
00:28:31.760 and their editorial slant
00:28:33.160 for Facebook, YouTube,
00:28:35.500 Google, Pinterest, LinkedIn,
00:28:36.960 Apple, iTunes, all of
00:28:41.080 these places on the same
00:28:42.380 day within six hours to
00:28:44.260 decide to absolutely
00:28:45.520 eradicate not only him
00:28:47.880 going forward, but any
00:28:48.900 historical work he had
00:28:49.960 ever done to un-person
00:28:51.200 him.
00:28:52.400 I don't care what you
00:28:53.200 think of Alex Jones.
00:28:53.980 That's terrifying.
00:28:55.440 Give Jack Dorsey credit.
00:28:56.520 He was the one social
00:28:57.340 media outlet that didn't
00:28:58.160 do that to him.
00:28:59.820 That's true.
00:29:00.540 And he received a lot of
00:29:01.280 flack for it.
00:29:01.860 And he gave Alex Jones a
00:29:03.660 temporary suspension later
00:29:04.920 on.
00:29:05.300 But again, I don't think
00:29:08.540 we should be necessarily
00:29:09.760 be praising these social
00:29:10.980 media executives for doing
00:29:11.840 the right thing.
00:29:12.760 Or in Jack Dorsey's case,
00:29:14.600 partly doing the right
00:29:15.560 thing.
00:29:15.940 Because he's still suspended
00:29:16.960 Alex Jones for, you know,
00:29:18.220 dubious reasons later on.
00:29:19.460 And he also kicked off
00:29:20.560 Gavin McInnes for extremely
00:29:22.180 dubious reasons.
00:29:23.100 Oh yeah, and our own, I
00:29:24.260 mean, Gavin McInnes, he's a
00:29:25.480 rebel alumnus.
00:29:27.000 Tommy Robinson, rebel alumnus.
00:29:29.580 So many rebels soon find
00:29:32.900 themselves unperson.
00:29:34.460 There's something that you
00:29:35.380 pointed out.
00:29:35.860 Let me just refer to your
00:29:36.820 article, which is, and I've
00:29:38.680 said this on the show before,
00:29:39.780 and I know you must think I'm
00:29:40.960 just sucking up to you.
00:29:41.820 I'm not.
00:29:42.360 I'm trying to communicate to
00:29:44.360 our viewers what I think is
00:29:46.220 the leading issue of our day.
00:29:47.760 And that is censorship.
00:29:49.560 I was censored at the hands of
00:29:51.500 the Alberta Human Rights
00:29:52.340 Commission a dozen years ago.
00:29:53.960 And that was bad enough, but
00:29:54.980 there were checks and
00:29:55.620 balances.
00:29:56.080 There was some transparency.
00:29:57.400 There was some procedure.
00:29:58.520 There was some route of
00:30:00.200 appeal.
00:30:00.580 There was some ways to fight
00:30:03.280 back, even though it was
00:30:04.240 abusive.
00:30:05.680 But tech censorship done in
00:30:07.740 secret by corporations has
00:30:09.180 none of those things.
00:30:10.000 No warning, no appeal, no
00:30:11.120 rationale, no transparency, no
00:30:13.820 time frame.
00:30:15.460 So let me refer, and this is
00:30:16.540 your beat, let me refer to
00:30:17.480 your latest story.
00:30:18.720 The headline in Breitbart.com
00:30:20.060 is, Jack Dorsey says Twitter
00:30:22.040 is a public square more than
00:30:25.300 five times.
00:30:26.020 And I think we have a video
00:30:26.900 clip of that.
00:30:27.320 I just want to play it.
00:30:28.440 And then I'd like you to share
00:30:30.460 with me and our viewers why
00:30:32.060 you believe that is such a
00:30:33.260 key concession or admission
00:30:35.900 by Jack Dorsey.
00:30:37.280 So let's take a quick look at
00:30:38.160 that clip.
00:30:39.460 We believe many people use
00:30:40.680 Twitter as a digital public
00:30:42.100 square.
00:30:42.860 And we believe that the people
00:30:44.440 use Twitter as they would a
00:30:46.780 public square.
00:30:47.680 The value of what they're
00:30:49.300 giving to that digital public
00:30:50.620 square.
00:30:51.340 We believe many people use
00:30:52.780 Twitter as a digital public
00:30:54.540 square.
00:30:55.200 Twitter cannot rightly serve as
00:30:57.140 a public square if it's
00:30:58.760 constructed around the personal
00:31:00.420 opinions of its makers.
00:31:02.760 We believe a key driver of a
00:31:04.560 thriving public square.
00:31:05.920 We believe it was important
00:31:07.280 for us to continue to increase
00:31:09.460 the health of this public
00:31:10.500 square.
00:31:10.820 We believe we're used as a
00:31:12.360 public square.
00:31:13.400 Yeah, that was quite a few,
00:31:14.720 quite a bit more than five
00:31:15.960 times.
00:31:16.640 Now, public square, we know
00:31:17.720 what that means.
00:31:18.320 In the center of a town is a
00:31:19.720 square where the public can
00:31:20.780 congregate and communicate.
00:31:23.140 In some places, it's
00:31:24.360 formalized like the traditions
00:31:25.800 at Hyde Park in London.
00:31:29.140 The concept of the town hall.
00:31:33.000 This is part of Western
00:31:34.800 tradition, leafleting, posters,
00:31:39.780 campaigns, debates.
00:31:42.000 What is the importance of Jack
00:31:45.080 Dorsey confirming so repetitively
00:31:47.300 there that he sees and he wants
00:31:50.880 Twitter to be a form of a public
00:31:54.400 square?
00:31:55.600 So here's why I think that's
00:31:56.720 important.
00:31:57.740 Public squares in the U.S.
00:32:00.220 has a very specific legal term
00:32:01.860 because whether a public square is
00:32:03.860 privately owned as Twitter is
00:32:05.440 or publicly owned like an actual
00:32:08.220 municipal town hall in the center
00:32:10.100 of the town, the First Amendment
00:32:13.100 applies that.
00:32:13.780 You can't stop people expressing
00:32:15.320 themselves.
00:32:16.520 You can't stop the lawful speech
00:32:18.780 in a public square.
00:32:19.540 So there was a Supreme Court case
00:32:22.500 back in the 1940s, Marsh v.
00:32:25.700 Alabama, where you had an entire
00:32:28.780 town that was privately owned by a
00:32:31.020 shipbuilding company.
00:32:33.080 And the town used trespassing laws
00:32:36.760 to eject a Jehovah's Witness who was
00:32:39.940 handing out religious materials.
00:32:41.660 So their argument was because they owned
00:32:43.400 the entire town, including the sidewalks,
00:32:44.740 then they could use trespassing laws to
00:32:48.080 stop lawful First Amendment
00:32:49.760 protected speech in that particular town.
00:32:52.740 The Supreme Court said no.
00:32:54.600 Even if a public square is privately
00:32:57.580 owned, in that case it was,
00:32:59.420 then the First Amendment still applies.
00:33:01.280 And we've seen similar cases with
00:33:02.520 shopping malls more recently in recent
00:33:04.800 decades.
00:33:06.520 So it's been well established that if a
00:33:09.420 private company owns a public square,
00:33:12.000 then they have to protect the First
00:33:13.040 Amendment in that space.
00:33:15.260 And Twitter obviously isn't doing that.
00:33:16.660 There's all sorts of lawful speech
00:33:17.920 that's banned on Twitter.
00:33:19.860 So Jack is admitting that it was a
00:33:21.720 public square.
00:33:22.200 That's an important concession.
00:33:23.660 Maybe he wasn't getting the correct
00:33:25.000 legal advice.
00:33:25.620 Who knows?
00:33:27.080 It was very interesting.
00:33:28.760 And, you know, in Canada, we don't
00:33:30.880 have a First Amendment.
00:33:32.680 We have Section 2B of our Constitution,
00:33:35.700 which guarantees freedom of expression,
00:33:37.540 including freedom of speech in the media,
00:33:39.040 et cetera.
00:33:39.320 But it is much weaker than the U.S.
00:33:41.920 First Amendment because it is subject
00:33:43.500 to any infringements as justified in a
00:33:46.520 democratic society, as in we have a
00:33:48.720 First Amendment but, whereas the United
00:33:51.360 States just has a First Amendment.
00:33:53.440 And I think that's why some people from
00:33:56.480 Canada, from the U.K., from around the
00:33:58.300 world are startled at American tolerance
00:34:01.440 for radical speech in airports, in
00:34:03.900 shopping malls.
00:34:05.000 You're accosted by people pitching you the
00:34:07.220 Moonies, you know, or other religious
00:34:08.780 group, and sometimes it's a bit of a
00:34:11.180 nuisance.
00:34:12.160 But if you understand that it's because
00:34:14.540 Americans have the freedom to do that,
00:34:16.940 it's actually a wonderful revelation.
00:34:19.920 And the case you referred to, Marsh v.
00:34:23.520 Alabama, and you cite that in your
00:34:24.900 article, it's very illuminating.
00:34:28.400 Alan, I've got to say, using that phrase,
00:34:31.680 he probably said it almost 10 times there.
00:34:35.420 I can't imagine that was accidental or
00:34:38.980 coincidental.
00:34:39.960 Here's a theory I'd like to put to you.
00:34:42.520 Maybe Jack Dorsey actually wants to be
00:34:46.000 declared a public square to remove from
00:34:49.580 him the entire hassle of being the arbiter
00:34:53.680 of taste and politics.
00:34:55.980 Now, some people in Silicon Valley get a
00:34:58.380 Messiah complex, a God complex.
00:35:00.880 They want to, I think Zuckerberg has this
00:35:03.940 for sure, they want to tell everyone what
00:35:06.020 to think and feel.
00:35:07.880 Maybe Jack Dorsey, this is his way of saying,
00:35:11.380 please regulate me.
00:35:12.960 Let me get back to the tech business.
00:35:15.380 Sure, we'll stop terrorists and true crimes,
00:35:18.800 but get me out of this political BS that I never
00:35:21.460 wanted to be in when I was a kid.
00:35:23.020 It's entirely possible.
00:35:25.640 I mean, remember, he is Twitter's co-founder
00:35:27.860 and Twitter was founded as, you know,
00:35:29.800 the free speech member of the free speech
00:35:30.980 party.
00:35:31.400 That's what they were originally.
00:35:33.400 And in many cases in these companies,
00:35:36.560 and I hear this is the case in Twitter as
00:35:38.160 well, you've got very radical left-wing
00:35:40.440 employees further down the food chain inside
00:35:42.380 the companies who are pushing for harsher
00:35:44.480 censorship, and you've got CEOs trying to
00:35:47.120 resist that.
00:35:48.600 So it's possible that's the case in Twitter.
00:35:50.340 And also, you've got that internal pressure
00:35:53.320 combined with external pressure from, say,
00:35:54.860 the Democrats and the media urging platforms
00:35:57.420 to take responsibility for what's on their
00:35:59.660 platforms.
00:36:01.480 So it's entirely possible that Jack Dorsey doesn't
00:36:04.140 want the hassle anymore.
00:36:05.600 And the only free market Republicans don't really
00:36:08.920 understand this very well.
00:36:10.700 One of the only ways you can ensure free speech
00:36:12.980 on social media is if you have regulation,
00:36:15.040 because otherwise CEOs, whether they want free
00:36:20.480 speech on their platforms or not, they won't
00:36:22.140 be able to withstand the pressure from
00:36:23.640 advertisers, from politicians, from the
00:36:27.160 mainstream media, and from their own
00:36:28.500 employees.
00:36:29.060 They will not be able to withstand that
00:36:30.280 pressure unless there's a regulation that
00:36:32.420 says you've got to guarantee free, you run a
00:36:36.000 public square, you've got to guarantee free
00:36:37.260 speech.
00:36:37.600 So I do think it's entirely likely that some
00:36:42.500 CEOs do want regulation forcing them to have free
00:36:45.620 speech on their platforms.
00:36:46.520 It would certainly make their lives a lot easier.
00:36:48.560 Yeah, especially if they could say, well, don't
00:36:49.980 blame me, guys.
00:36:50.960 My hands are tied.
00:36:52.280 This new, you know, public utility, public square
00:36:55.320 law, I can't fight that.
00:36:58.280 Oh, well, we have to go along with the law.
00:37:00.860 I mean, I was talking with Gavin McKinnis the other
00:37:03.520 day about this.
00:37:04.220 It's, it would be like if a phone company was
00:37:09.400 listening in to your calls and said, we don't
00:37:11.040 like what you're talking about on our phone, so
00:37:13.400 you can't use the phone anymore.
00:37:14.740 And I've talked to all the other cell phone
00:37:16.300 companies, they don't like it either, so you're
00:37:17.880 banned from phones.
00:37:19.020 I mean, telephone companies, correct me if I'm
00:37:21.460 wrong, Alan, they are in the same sphere, public
00:37:25.480 utility, they're not publishers, they're a
00:37:27.980 platform that anyone can say what they want.
00:37:30.640 If someone uses a phone to utter a death threat
00:37:33.860 against you, you don't sue the phone company
00:37:36.620 because they had nothing to do with it.
00:37:38.280 That's the same, that's the analogy here, right?
00:37:40.840 Yeah, indeed.
00:37:41.800 And Section 230, which is kind of a flawed piece
00:37:45.120 of legislation, it needs to be changed.
00:37:47.860 It says that platforms aren't going to be held
00:37:50.480 legally liable for things that are said on their
00:37:53.240 platform, because, you know, why would they be?
00:37:55.260 It's not, they're not taking any editorial role
00:37:58.140 in what a user says unless they start moderating content
00:38:02.460 and saying some content is allowed, some content isn't,
00:38:04.480 some content is going to be prioritized, some content
00:38:06.360 isn't, then they start acting like a publisher.
00:38:08.120 But unfortunately, that piece of legislation also says
00:38:10.280 that platforms have this protection that allows them
00:38:13.860 to do good-faith blocking so they can block content
00:38:16.640 on behalf of their users.
00:38:17.880 That's the part of Section 230 that really needs to come out
00:38:20.180 because, as you said, it's as bizarre as the phone company
00:38:23.440 saying that two people aren't allowed to have a conversation.
00:38:26.560 It's like, you know, you've got two people,
00:38:28.300 Person A and Person B.
00:38:29.660 Person A agrees to hear what Person B says,
00:38:32.020 Person B agrees that Person A can listen
00:38:35.640 to what they have to say.
00:38:36.980 And what we have in Silicon Valley is a third party
00:38:39.640 coming in between those two people saying
00:38:42.400 you're not allowed to have that conversation.
00:38:43.880 It's completely bizarre.
00:38:44.760 It's an interference in consent between two people.
00:38:48.260 Yeah, what two consenting adults want to do
00:38:50.700 in the privacy of their own phone.
00:38:53.280 I mean, I remember when Tommy Robinson was kicked off Twitter,
00:38:56.360 he had 400,000 followers.
00:38:58.180 By definition, those people pushed a button indicating
00:39:00.640 I want to hear what Tommy says.
00:39:02.440 Now, you might not like Tommy, you might think he's a scallywag,
00:39:06.340 but why should 400,000 people not have their wish
00:39:11.880 and why should Tommy not have his right to grant their wish
00:39:14.600 because someone in Silicon Valley said,
00:39:17.160 well, I don't like the cut of his jib.
00:39:19.520 Yeah, absolutely.
00:39:20.260 And it's even more bizarre when you consider the fact
00:39:22.140 that there are way more tools available to users
00:39:24.460 to block and filter content they don't want to see
00:39:27.000 than you have on a telephone.
00:39:29.440 I mean, nowadays, with modern telephones,
00:39:30.820 you have blocking and so on.
00:39:31.860 Back in the day, I mean, there were very little ways
00:39:34.280 to stop, you know, nuisance phone calls.
00:39:36.460 If you want to, there was very little ways to stop that.
00:39:38.440 There are tons and tons of ways to stop content
00:39:40.960 you don't want to see from appearing on your feed.
00:39:42.400 There are shared block lists.
00:39:44.760 There are word filters.
00:39:46.260 If you don't want to see a certain word,
00:39:47.820 there are all sorts of ways to give consumers choice
00:39:50.820 about what they can and can't see on social media.
00:39:53.300 So there's absolutely no reason for executives
00:39:56.060 in Silicon Valley to take those decisions
00:39:57.820 on behalf of their users.
00:39:59.780 It's anti-choice and it's anti-consumer.
00:40:01.640 And I think the only reason they're doing it
00:40:02.960 is because they're scared of advertisers,
00:40:04.380 they're scared of democratic politicians,
00:40:05.820 and they're scared of the mainstream media.
00:40:07.540 Yeah.
00:40:07.900 Yeah, you take those fears away through a law
00:40:10.080 and all of a sudden they can get back to tech work.
00:40:11.860 Well, listen, Alan, it's great to talk to you.
00:40:13.320 You really are one of my favorite guests.
00:40:14.820 Not only do I like you,
00:40:16.220 but I just really wish other journalists
00:40:19.720 were covering the truest threat to our speech,
00:40:23.820 which is, I mean, when I was,
00:40:26.020 a dozen years ago, before social media was big,
00:40:29.740 the threat was from governments.
00:40:31.660 But I absolutely, as a veteran of those free speech wars,
00:40:36.680 I know in my bones,
00:40:38.380 I have far greater threats from YouTube executives
00:40:42.300 than I do from any prosecutor in this country.
00:40:45.640 And that's what terrifies me.
00:40:47.160 It's great to have you on, Alan.
00:40:48.080 Thanks.
00:40:48.400 Keep writing these great stories
00:40:50.500 and we'll keep talking about them.
00:40:51.680 I can assure you that.
00:40:53.140 Thanks, Ezra.
00:40:53.720 Great to be on.
00:40:54.400 Right on.
00:40:54.960 There's our friend Alan Bokari.
00:40:56.600 As you know,
00:40:57.340 he is the senior technology correspondent
00:40:59.500 at Breitbart News.
00:41:00.960 And I've said many times
00:41:02.340 that I believe that beat
00:41:03.620 is the most important political beat
00:41:06.400 in the Western world these days.
00:41:08.980 Stay with us.
00:41:09.660 More ahead on The Ripple.
00:41:21.200 Hey, welcome back.
00:41:22.300 On my monologue yesterday about Trudeau
00:41:24.160 wanting to lose NAFTA
00:41:26.240 so he can blame Trump in the next election,
00:41:27.800 Liza writes,
00:41:28.640 Trudeau wants to protect Canadian media companies
00:41:31.680 from U.S. ownership
00:41:32.480 when they are already owned by U.S. companies?
00:41:35.300 Huh?
00:41:35.840 And he's using that false premise
00:41:37.160 for not doing a deal with Trump?
00:41:38.500 God, I hope Canadians aren't as stupid
00:41:40.300 as Trudeau thinks they are.
00:41:42.940 Yeah, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
00:41:46.020 And even on Canadian-owned networks
00:41:48.700 like Global or CTV,
00:41:50.440 we're mainly watching American shows.
00:41:53.980 I mean, stop and think about
00:41:54.720 all your favorite shows.
00:41:56.520 They're American.
00:41:57.400 And even the knockoffs are American.
00:41:58.860 Remember when they had Canadian Idol?
00:42:01.000 Well, what's that other than the local franchise
00:42:03.260 of the international American Idol,
00:42:04.760 pop idol franchise?
00:42:06.400 I mean, sports, music,
00:42:10.620 to pretend that we are not already awash
00:42:14.680 in American culture,
00:42:16.020 either directly or indirectly,
00:42:17.000 is foolish.
00:42:17.480 And anyone with a Netflix account
00:42:20.260 or an HBO account
00:42:21.400 obviously likes it that way.
00:42:25.340 Lawrence writes,
00:42:27.040 didn't Trudeau himself say
00:42:28.120 that Canada has no real identity?
00:42:29.960 And now he says he won't give up
00:42:31.660 our sovereignty or identity
00:42:32.500 to the U.S. and the NAFTA deal.
00:42:34.680 Well, that's a great point, isn't it?
00:42:36.440 Justin Trudeau flips some flops on that
00:42:38.120 when he wants to.
00:42:38.880 When he's praising extreme multiculturalism,
00:42:41.000 he says,
00:42:41.400 we have no core identity.
00:42:43.860 Our identity is diversity,
00:42:45.920 university in diversity,
00:42:47.480 whatever.
00:42:48.620 So he says we're nothing
00:42:50.180 but a hotel room
00:42:51.820 when it suits him.
00:42:53.200 But when he's fighting against Donald Trump,
00:42:55.560 boy, he wraps that flag around
00:42:57.120 him, the same flag.
00:42:58.780 And he's just such a Canadian identity guy.
00:43:01.000 He's all for taking down
00:43:02.580 Sir John and MacDonald,
00:43:03.660 whether it's a statue in Victoria
00:43:05.820 or stripping him from the $10 bill.
00:43:08.840 Don writes,
00:43:09.340 Yeah, I think you're right,
00:43:24.680 but I'm puzzled by why they would
00:43:26.920 risk the auto industry.
00:43:30.220 It's dominantly in Ontario,
00:43:32.380 but there are automakers
00:43:34.000 in Quebec as well.
00:43:35.220 If I'm not mistaken,
00:43:36.240 I mean, things are waxing and waning.
00:43:37.620 I'm not an expert in the auto industry,
00:43:39.340 but I'm pretty sure
00:43:39.760 they make some in Quebec too.
00:43:41.740 So they're in,
00:43:43.100 it's not like Alberta,
00:43:44.000 which the liberals hate
00:43:44.980 and they know they're going to lose
00:43:46.380 their handful of seats there anyways.
00:43:49.480 Although auto industry
00:43:51.160 is a heavy industry
00:43:52.320 that uses steel
00:43:53.380 and obviously cars run on oil,
00:43:56.240 it is not being denormalized
00:43:58.600 the same way oil and gas
00:43:59.640 and the oil sands have.
00:44:00.480 So it's not like they find
00:44:01.620 the auto industry yucky.
00:44:03.240 Like they find pipelines
00:44:05.420 or oil and gas yucky.
00:44:08.420 So these are real jobs
00:44:10.400 for who they probably think
00:44:13.080 could be liberal voters.
00:44:15.600 And of course,
00:44:17.100 those companies pour so much
00:44:18.740 into the economy.
00:44:20.100 That's what I don't get.
00:44:21.800 Why would you risk that industry?
00:44:25.020 An industry, remember,
00:44:26.020 that just 10 years ago,
00:44:27.860 federal and provincial governments
00:44:29.440 poured billions of dollars
00:44:30.540 into to bail them out.
00:44:31.760 I don't know if you remember that.
00:44:33.780 Just give me a minute on this.
00:44:35.220 In the 2008 crisis,
00:44:36.800 Barack Obama said to Stephen Harper,
00:44:39.460 I'm bailing out the auto industry.
00:44:41.300 If you don't bail out
00:44:42.400 the auto industry proportionately
00:44:44.240 in Canada,
00:44:46.260 I'm going to take those factories back.
00:44:47.820 So if I'm putting in all the dough,
00:44:49.160 Barack Obama said,
00:44:50.820 you Canadians are better put in the dough
00:44:52.200 because I'm not putting in American money
00:44:54.640 to bail out Canadian factories.
00:44:56.740 Do you understand?
00:44:57.400 And I'm against bailouts,
00:44:59.660 but if you're going to bail out
00:45:01.080 GM,
00:45:02.720 Chrysler,
00:45:03.440 whatever,
00:45:04.420 and if Canada doesn't chip in equally,
00:45:06.860 you can imagine why Obama
00:45:07.900 wanted those factories back.
00:45:09.360 So Stephen Harper,
00:45:10.120 and I think it was Dalton McGinty at the time,
00:45:11.620 did in fact bail out the auto industry.
00:45:14.640 Well,
00:45:14.880 why did you bail out the auto industry
00:45:16.420 if you're just going to give it up
00:45:18.600 for free to Trump anyways?
00:45:20.620 Well,
00:45:21.000 only a liberal can figure that one.
00:45:23.220 That's our show for today.
00:45:24.460 I think that last letter writer is correct.
00:45:27.600 I think they really don't understand the economy.
00:45:30.180 They don't care about the economy,
00:45:31.820 but boy,
00:45:32.860 they love to virtue signal
00:45:34.100 and nothing will look better on them,
00:45:35.720 they think,
00:45:36.380 than being the anti-Trump country of 2019.
00:45:40.840 They won't lose their job.
00:45:43.080 Well,
00:45:43.680 I don't think they will.
00:45:45.760 That's it for today.
00:45:46.700 Until tomorrow,
00:45:47.620 on behalf of all of us here
00:45:48.700 at Rebel World Headquarters,
00:45:49.640 good night,
00:45:50.360 and keep fighting for freedom.
00:45:51.460 We'll see you next time.