Rebel News Podcast - Arson or global warming？ Australia's brushfires turn political

00:00:00.000 Hey there, I'm glad you're tuning in today. I've got some news for you. I take you through

00:00:03.760 some of the 200 cases of arson that police have arrested people for in Australia in the last few

00:00:12.980 months. Did you know those wildfires are from arson? I'll prove it to you. But before I do,

00:00:21.120 let me invite you to become a premium subscriber. It's eight bucks a month. You get the video

00:00:26.080 version of this podcast, plus Sheila Gunn-Reed's show, plus David Menzies' show, plus the

00:00:30.540 satisfaction of knowing you're helping the rebel stay strong. That's premium.rebelnews.com. Okay,

00:00:37.960 here's the podcast.

00:00:43.620 You're listening to a Rebel News podcast.

00:00:46.040 Tonight, did global warming cause the fires in Australia, or did 200 different arsonists?

00:01:01.280 It's January 7th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.

00:01:06.040 Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?

00:01:09.600 There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.

00:01:13.960 The only thing I have to say to the government about why I'm publishing it is because it's

00:01:18.340 my bloody right to do so.

00:01:25.300 Big brush fires in Australia, huge, and people have died. That happens with big fires. It used

00:01:32.220 to happen a lot more in history, though. 50, 100 years ago, we didn't have live international

00:01:39.420 24-hour TV news channels, let alone the internet and everyone with a cell phone with a camera.

00:01:45.480 The world was less economically developed, so while human disasters were far more painful

00:01:50.380 and caused many more deaths, there was less GDP carnage. Here's a graph produced by Danish

00:01:58.260 scientist Bjorn Lomborg, who calls himself the skeptical environmentalist. Deaths from climate

00:02:05.220 events were half a million people a year a century ago. Now they're one-tenth that, mainly in the

00:02:14.040 third world, of course. There are certain deaths that have nothing to do with the climate, earthquakes,

00:02:18.800 volcanoes. But the climate stuff, it's usually solved by technology and industry. Try fighting

00:02:26.760 brush fires before the age of the automobile, before pumper trucks and pipelines with water,

00:02:32.780 let alone water bombers, before evacuations could be done en masse and speedily and safely.

00:02:40.200 I was reading the shock jock coverage by CNN, and it sure did sound bad, and it is. But really,

00:02:47.980 huge fires and 24 people dead altogether, that's 24 tragedies, of course. 14.7 million acres burnt.

00:02:55.380 That's a lot of brush. But by comparison, I mean, just 30 years ago, in China, there was a bigger fire.

00:03:05.040 It was so big, they called it the Black Dragon. Hundreds of people killed, hundreds more burnt.

00:03:13.660 It was on both sides of the Russia-China border. Let me read a few lines from the New York Times

00:03:18.520 back in 1988.

00:03:19.780 The Soviet decision not to fight the huge fires east of the city of Chita was utilitarian.

00:03:28.040 There was no thought of ecological consequence. The Russians possess such vast forests they do not

00:03:33.980 plan to cut in the Amur region for 100 years. By then, they think the forest will regenerate.

00:03:39.660 Why waste men and money? Let it burn. 1.00

00:03:41.640 The Chinese thought differently. The Black Dragon constitutes China's last large timber reserve,

00:03:49.600 half the commercial timber in the country. The fire cost one-third of that reserve.

00:03:54.720 The Chinese had no water-dumping helicopters and not many bulldozers, but they put 60,000 men

00:04:01.340 on the fire lines to beat back the blaze with swatters. Swatters.

00:04:07.580 Now that fire was officially 18 million acres, so bigger than the Australian fire. And it was mainly

00:04:15.020 a fully treed forest, as you heard, not just scrub and brush. And of course, neither the Soviet Union 0.95

00:04:21.200 nor Communist China is really known for being accurate and honest in public about how big the

00:04:26.300 problems are. We know that from Chernobyl. They lie because any bad news is regarded as a political

00:04:33.560 embarrassment for the Communists. So I'd say double the actual size of the fire. But if you care about 0.69

00:04:40.260 the environment, nothing touches the massive fire in Indonesia just a few years back, not that long

00:04:47.240 ago. From 1997. So in our lifetimes. Nothing ancient here. 20 million acres. Largest fire in recorded

00:04:57.000 history, apparently. It wasn't just trees. It was the peat bog underneath, that mossy, muddy

00:05:03.180 stuff that burned and burned and burned and released nearly three gigatons of carbon dioxide. That's

00:05:12.780 equivalent, they say, to half of all fossil fuels burned on purpose by people in a year. Just one fire.

00:05:20.000 I bet you hadn't even heard about that fire because it couldn't be blamed on the West or Donald Trump,

00:05:26.180 really, could it? So the Australian fires are smaller than these other ones I've listed by

00:05:32.380 every measure. Less loss of life, thank God. Fewer trees burned. Fewer emissions, though of course CO2

00:05:40.120 is the stuff of life. It's what trees breathe in through photosynthesis. Nothing grows back faster

00:05:45.260 than a burnt forest. Rich nutrients return to the soil. Lots of CO2 in the air. Forests grow back fast

00:05:52.180 and green, which is why smart forest management often includes controlled burns.

00:05:58.820 Here, listen to an Australian political leader. Barnaby Joyce is his name, the former Deputy Prime Minister

00:06:03.200 of Australia. Listen to this for a bit. I'm going to let this run for three solid minutes, but listen to him

00:06:08.480 and you tell me what you think.

00:06:10.260 Well, it's an area that you know better than most. How does it compare to fire seasons in years gone by?

00:06:19.000 OK, well, this is something I think is really important, Kieran. I don't have a problem with

00:06:23.100 people who vote Greens, and I certainly don't want to go sort of argument and ad hominem against

00:06:28.400 Green voters, because it's nothing to do with that. What it is, is certain, let's call them

00:06:33.780 conservation policies or green policies that I think have exacerbated this fire. And I'll name

00:06:40.340 three. One is the lack of controlled burns, fire reduction burns. Because as you know, if you keep

00:06:46.620 on piling vegetation, dry vegetation on top of dry vegetation, which was never burnt as the

00:06:52.900 aboriginals did when they were here, they were very aware of the dangers this caused. Then when a fire does

00:06:58.000 come, and they always do come, they are horrific. They are like a holocaust. And that policy needs 0.99

00:07:04.480 to be changed so we can get those control burnt. Now, speaking to people from the, you know, from

00:07:10.800 the Environment Department, and they say, well, they won't go on the record. They say it's just

00:07:15.280 so bureaucratic. It's bureaucratic for the purpose of not letting you do it. And of course...

00:07:20.440 But this morning we spoke to the RFS incident controller at Warhope. Jason McKellar spoke to us,

00:07:27.820 and my colleague Peter Stefanovic asked him, are you able to hazard reduce as much as you'd

00:07:34.300 like? He said, we do. Yes, we do as much as we can. We can't turn the place into a wasteland. There's

00:07:40.220 got to be a medium between burning and the asset protection zones. What do you say to that?

00:07:45.660 I have a difference of view to them. And as much as I can, it's probably the crucial word there,

00:07:51.660 because if the regulations had changed, they could do more. Now, I'm taking that on the basis

00:07:58.140 of other people who work in the forest, work for the department, who've said quite clearly,

00:08:03.180 we need more hazard reduction burns. And I've also taken that from people who would definitely

00:08:08.060 be green voters, who've said to me, one of the biggest problems was the fuel build up. And they

00:08:13.580 quote, you know, the history of Aboriginal management of the land. And so we have two

00:08:18.220 different views. And I have the reality and the fact that the fire is absolutely hellish. So I'm

00:08:24.860 looking at something that is burning. And it's not burning because they burnt off. It's burning

00:08:29.740 because they didn't burn off. And that's just a fact. The next two things is they've got to have

00:08:34.220 central watering points. They decommission dams, as they call them, so they push them in. So we don't

00:08:39.260 have central watering points in the state forest and the national parks, which the helicopters can

00:08:43.820 collect the water from. And the next one is the Labor Party, their policy was to get rid of,

00:08:48.300 or to let run into disrepair, the fire trails, the fire breaks, so we get access to it. These are facts,

00:08:54.380 Kieran, and these are facts that need to be changed. Well, look, it's just a fact. Fewer controlled burns,

00:09:01.900 fewer fire breaks, fewer dams with water. That's what's going on in Australia. But that's pretty boring

00:09:09.500 when the enemy could be global warming. I mean, take it from Jennifer Aniston at the Golden Globe Awards.

00:09:15.820 Make no mistake, the tragedy unfolding in Australia is climate change based. We need to act based on

00:09:22.620 science, move our global workforce to renewable energy, and respect our planet for the unique and

00:09:29.100 amazing place it is. That way we all have a future. Well, a Hollywood actress just settled the question.

00:09:36.060 The only person dumber than Jennifer Aniston when it comes to science is Catherine McKenna, who was 1.00

00:09:42.620 demoted from the global warming ministry last month by Trudeau, but she just won't stop talking about it. 0.97

00:09:48.140 Here she is. Climate politics are changing fast. It's becoming even more clear that the cost of an

00:09:53.660 action is much greater than the cost of grappling with the challenge. Leaders who refuse to pay attention

00:09:59.180 and take action could pay a political price. So they should. Yeah. And right after she tweeted that,

00:10:06.780 the liberal repeaters embedded at the CBC chimed in, sucking up as they always do. Here's Erin Wery. 1.00

00:10:13.820 It was not long ago that some Canadian politicians were touting the fact that Australia had repealed

00:10:19.180 its carbon tax. I suspect that won't be touted again. Yeah. I mean, Australia did have a carbon tax,

00:10:25.180 and then they repealed it. It was so hated. Is that what caused the fire, that they repealed the carbon

00:10:31.340 tax? Or was it the lack of a controlled burn policy, the lack of firewalls, lack of dams?

00:10:37.660 Would paying more taxes to politicians have somehow stopped the fires? Is that how fires work?

00:10:45.580 Would that have worked in Indonesia and China and Russia or just Australia?

00:10:53.660 Canada's worst fires in recent years were all started by arson, says the RCMP. But you still saw

00:10:59.660 McKenna and Justin Trudeau himself claiming that those BC fires were the result of global warming.

00:11:04.700 29 arson fires in BC in four years. So what about Australia?

00:11:09.260 Australia? Well, Australia's Spectator magazine meticulously went through the news reports town

00:11:17.420 by town in Australia and added up all the arrests for arson. And there are 200 of them. 200 cases of

00:11:29.180 arson in Australia since the fall. Let me read a little bit of the list. According to my calculations

00:11:36.620 and estimates, the number of individuals around Australia whose arson has contributed to the

00:11:41.580 current bushfire crisis has now passed 200. Now, the author here is not a global warming skeptic.

00:11:48.300 He just likes accuracy. Let me read some more from him. Australia has a fire bug crisis. It will no

00:11:54.780 doubt be up to a future royal commissions and inquiries to calculate exactly what proportion of the current

00:12:00.780 loss and destruction can be attributed to human action. But I suspect it will be a significant one.

00:12:05.340 Mankind may be causing climate change, but man is most definitely making fires start.

00:12:12.140 Where's the proof, you ask? Below is a sample of news reports from around the country over recent

00:12:18.700 months. All right, let's just scroll down the page. I'm not going to read all 200 examples. I'll just read

00:12:24.500 some of them. Three teenage girls have been arrested for arson over 13 grass fires, police allege,

00:12:30.220 were deliberately lit on the New South Wales mid-north coast. New South Wales police believe 12 bushfires

00:12:37.180 may have been deliberately lit by arsonists during Tuesday's catastrophic fire conditions. A suspected

00:12:42.460 arsonist was arrested after a chase through the Royal National Park south of Sydney by an army Blackhawk

00:12:48.860 helicopter. The crew of the 6th Aviation Regiment unit in the Blackhawk spotted a man acting suspiciously in

00:12:55.500 the northern area of the park, the Daily Telegraph reported. Here's another one. Police allege a

00:13:01.100 teenager started a central Queensland bushfire that has destroyed 14 homes. Police say the 16-year-old

00:13:06.860 boy has not been charged with arson, but will be dealt with under the state's Youth Justice Act.

00:13:12.060 Here's another. Last week we learned that the Binnaburra fire, which destroyed the historic

00:13:16.460 Binnaburra Lodge in southeast Queensland, was started by a carelessly discarded cigarette. And the Gold Coast

00:13:24.060 hinterland bushfires the week before may have been started by army live-firing exercises at the

00:13:29.420 Kokoda Barracks, a spokesman for the Australian Defense Force, has conceded.

00:13:36.140 I'll just read a couple more. More than half of the 18 people who have been dealt with by police

00:13:39.740 over recent Queensland bushfires are children. Police have revealed since the state of emergency

00:13:45.660 was declared in Queensland on November 9th, police said they have taken action against 18 people for

00:13:50.220 deliberately lighting fires. Now I'm not going to read it all, but this journalist in each case is

00:13:55.820 citing and linking to other published reports in reputable newspapers of record. He's just adding

00:14:01.500 them all up. He's just putting them all on one big list. This is one of the craziest here.

00:14:06.780 A volunteer firefighter in Australia has been charged with deliberately lighting blazes

00:14:11.500 during the nation's bushfire crisis. Police arrested the man, 19, for seven counts of alleged arson

00:14:17.260 in an area south of Sydney, New South Wales. A fireman charged with arson. 72 people charged in

00:14:23.980 New South Wales alone. As firefighters remained on high alert, police revealed 103 of the destructive

00:14:30.700 fires that have lashed Queensland since September were deliberately lit. Figures obtained by AAP

00:14:37.020 reveal 98 people, 31 adults and 67 juveniles have been dealt with by Queensland police

00:14:41.980 for deliberately setting fires. So that's another 98 in Queensland. Okay, so who are these people?

00:14:48.700 Are they psychopaths? Are they murderers? Well, some of them may be. Are they environmentalists trying 0.72

00:14:54.620 to get a narrative going? Don't rule that out. These wildfires are political gold for opportunists like

00:15:00.540 Catherine McKenna and Aaron Wary. Here's what the author of this piece says in The Spectator.

00:15:06.140 There are no conspiracies here. Though arson has been tried and called for before as a tool of terror,

00:15:16.380 the Australian fires seem to result from the actions of unconnected individuals who are either disturbed or

00:15:22.060 reckless. This is nothing new. As ecological criminologist Paul Reed wrote back in November,

00:15:27.660 a 2015 satellite analysis of 113,000 fires from 1997 to 2009 confirmed what we had known for some time.

00:15:37.260 40% of fires are deliberately lit. Another 47% are accidental. That's 87%, by the way.

00:15:46.860 This generally matches previous data published a decade earlier that about half of all fires were

00:15:51.420 suspected or suspected or deliberate arson and 37% accidental combined. They reached the same

00:15:56.140 conclusion. 87% are man-made. It looks bad on TV and it is bad and 24 people have died, but it's been

00:16:06.140 much, much worse before, far worse before for people. Today, fossil fuels are the tool to fight fires,

00:16:13.820 fire trucks, water bombers, just plain evacuating people. We now have insurance to cover catastrophic

00:16:19.820 losses. Most people, thank God, we'll be okay. Accidents are accidental. Arsonists are criminals.

00:16:26.700 We have to fight both. And maybe we can listen to the former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia who cited

00:16:33.660 aboriginal fire practices of controlled burns. But that's all too boring for the carbon tax set, 0.88

00:16:41.900 even in Hollywood and even here in Canada, isn't it? Stay with us for more.

00:16:49.820 Well, as you know, Andrew Scheer has announced his intentions to resign future tense as the leader of

00:17:08.940 the Conservative Party. He said he was going to resign, but then that seems to be delayed. He's still

00:17:15.660 enforcing discipline, hiring and firing staff. He's still living in Stornoway, taking the

00:17:21.740 salary top up. But the Conservative Party directors, the trustees, the governors, have decided that there

00:17:28.780 will be a leadership race in June. That's when it's going to be. With a whopping entry fee and other

00:17:36.780 rules, here to give us the update, is our friend Andrew Lawton with TNC.news. That's the True North

00:17:43.900 folks. And we'll talk to Andrew in a moment about his new show there. Andrew, great to see you. Happy New

00:17:49.260 Year. Bring us up to speed with the Conservative Leadership Race. It's, it'll be here in about six

00:17:55.900 and a half, about six months. Am I right? Yeah, it's going to be coming in June. And we have a

00:18:01.580 significant field of potential candidates. Few people who have said definitively they are in fact

00:18:07.820 running. And a growing number of people saying, maybe it's time to sit this one out. But I think

00:18:13.020 you touched on something important with the entry fee. The party is going to have a $300,000 entry fee,

00:18:19.660 which means even if you raise, let's say $500,000, you only really have to run a campaign $200,000

00:18:26.940 left, because $300,000 is going to the party. And this is done very deliberately to keep outsiders

00:18:33.100 out of the field, to keep people that don't have a hope of winning and aren't able to fundraise

00:18:37.500 nationally out of the field. And the other thing that's distinct this time from the leadership race

00:18:42.540 when Andrew Scheer won is that we're only dealing with about a six-month field of runway here,

00:18:47.900 rather than the year and a half long campaign that had at 1.15 candidates in the field.

00:18:54.140 So there are some changes. It's going to be a much smaller field this time around. And I think

00:18:59.020 that is going to be very determining to who is in it. And also Lisa Raitt, who's the co-share, 1.00

00:19:05.020 has said that people have 10 days to make up their mind. So it is really a snap judgment we're going

00:19:09.980 to see here. Yeah, I got to tell you, I think that there needed to be earlier winnowing last time

00:19:17.500 around. But this, in my own reaction, is this is much too high a hurdle. I mean, $300,000. If I recall,

00:19:27.740 it was $100,000 last time. And I think to raise $100,000 is a sign you're serious. That's a real amount

00:19:34.700 of money. But $300,000 to triple it. That seems so conspicuous, Andrew, that I'm going to call that

00:19:44.780 the Peter McKay, Jean Charest rules. If you're a plugged-in insider who's got lots of money, then you like

00:19:56.140 these rules because it keeps out a more grassrootsy populist opponent. I mean, $300,000 would be nothing

00:20:05.660 for Peter McKay or Jean Charest, but some grassrootsy reform party style or even PPC style MP or outsider,

00:20:16.620 that's probably insuperable in the short period of time they have. That's my own reflex. What do you

00:20:21.980 think? Well, I think there's a truth to that. And one of the things that you'd know, Ezra, I mean,

00:20:26.860 you've been in this political scene for quite a while, is that the conservative fundraising strategy

00:20:31.980 as a party has always been those little $20 donations at a time. And in fact, everyone has

00:20:37.660 this image of conservatives of being the deep-pocketed wealthy types. But when it comes to election financing,

00:20:43.580 conservatives have always relied on grassroots donations. So it is interesting that this leadership

00:20:50.300 model in many ways is skewed towards the alternative to that, which is, okay, you know, someone like

00:20:56.620 Jean Charest, call up 300 of your friends, get them each to give you $1,000, and then you're off to the

00:21:01.660 races, which is basically a single cocktail party for a lot of those people. But at the same time,

00:21:07.340 I'm not convinced that it's a bad idea to have rules that constrict the field. I would much rather

00:21:14.780 have it where you're out if you don't have a certain support level or something like that. And I don't

00:21:19.980 know what that would look like, but base it on support and not money. Because you could raise,

00:21:25.340 to go to the old rules, $100,000, you could raise that in one riding. If you were a popular MP that

00:21:31.420 had no hope of leadership, you could get that, because that's how much you spend on an MP campaign.

00:21:36.780 So the $300,000 forces you to look nationally, it forces you to look outside of your immediate comfort

00:21:42.380 zone. But I'm more interested in the timeframe they've set to make up your mind. Because one of,

00:21:48.700 I think, the most motivating factors to getting into a leadership race is if you're not happy with

00:21:53.660 the field of candidates. And if they're saying you've got, you know, with basically less than

00:21:57.980 two weeks to get in, well, that says to me, you can't wait and see. And then if there's no one there,

00:22:03.020 then get in the race. It means that they're really picking from a field that's already determined,

00:22:07.980 which is the people that everyone thinks are going to run. Yeah. And I mean, I haven't seen

00:22:11.820 the details of the rules, but I have to imagine even making those 300 phone calls that you talked

00:22:18.060 about, that takes days and days and days to make those phone calls. I don't know if someone could

00:22:22.700 chip in like 10 grand. I don't know what the limits are. But well, no, but this is an important point,

00:22:29.340 though, because in April, Kevin O'Leary is actually taking the elections,

00:22:34.220 Canada, taking elections, Canada to court. And there's going to be a trial over that very

00:22:38.860 question because Kevin O'Leary incurred a lot of leadership debt. And he thinks he should be

00:22:43.580 able to just pay it off with a personal check. But he can't because of that. I think it's $1,600 limit.

00:22:50.220 Well, you know what, even that is saying, well, you got two weeks or 10 days to raise 300 grand,

00:22:55.420 but you have to do it in small chunks. It just seems like a strange way to vet.

00:23:00.620 I do think there has to be some vetting. My big quarrel with the way it was done last time,

00:23:06.620 and Andrew, you correct me if my memory is wrong, is that there was really no way to know the various

00:23:12.220 strength of a candidate until it was over. As we can see in the US Democratic presidential primaries,

00:23:20.380 every week or so, someone drops out because they just can't sustain it. There's polls all the time,

00:23:25.580 there's spending. So the field is narrowing. It was that way four years ago with Donald Trump

00:23:30.220 and the Republicans. One of the problems I think that there was last time in the conservative

00:23:35.580 party leadership race is that there was really no vetting, no way to know who was ahead or not

00:23:41.340 until the very end. So there was no way to sharpen the focus. So there was 14 candidates right until the

00:23:48.940 last day. And that resulted in a lot of strange first choice, second choice balloting. I don't

00:23:54.940 know. I think that the rules last time elected everybody's second choice, Andrew Scheer. I know

00:24:01.580 that's what happened. And that's not enough to convince Canadians to make him the first choice.

00:24:06.620 I think the rules this time look like they're just going to give us some red Tory retread from the 80s.

00:24:12.220 I don't know. That's just how I feel. And I feel like these rules have been gamed already by insiders.

00:24:19.260 I'm pessimistic. I don't want to be, but I feel pessimistic based on these rules.

00:24:25.020 One of the big problems with ranked balloting is that it rewards mediocrity in a way,

00:24:29.500 because ranked balloting suggests that you have to be the consensus choice or you have to just blow

00:24:35.580 everyone out of the water on the first ballot. And if you look at Stephen Harper, 2003, that was what

00:24:39.820 he did. He had more than 50% of the vote on the first ballot, but it was also a very small field

00:24:44.940 of candidates. I think three at the time. And if you look now with a field of 14 candidates,

00:24:51.340 the ranked balloting is actually a bit of a farce for the first, you know, nine or 10 rounds because,

00:24:55.740 or I guess seven or eight, because, you know, the first one, it's okay. You know,

00:24:58.780 we now apportion 0.6% of the vote. And then now we reapportion 0.8% of the vote. And it was revealing

00:25:05.980 that the entire conservative leadership system is based on who's the least offensive, who's the

00:25:12.300 most palatable to the most number of people. And that's not really how elections are run. We don't

00:25:17.020 have ranked balloting in ridings. We don't have ranked balloting nationally. So I do think there

00:25:21.500 is a concern with that. The conservatives also weight very heavily ridings nationally. So there's

00:25:29.420 regional representation, whereas people in the Quebec conservative party, for example,

00:25:35.180 get a huge say in who becomes the conservative party of Canada leader, even if the leadership

00:25:40.780 strategy is not really rooted in Quebec support. So there are a lot of question marks about whether

00:25:47.020 the leadership system is really producing the best candidate for the conservatives or the most

00:25:53.260 viable candidate. And I'm not sure that it does. At the same time, I also don't think no one wants to

00:25:58.060 uproot that system right now, because it's the only one the party has ever known.

00:26:02.300 Yeah. Well, you're referring to the dairy cartel, of course, that helped put Andrew Scheer ahead of

00:26:07.660 Maxime Bernier. We'll never know what would have happened had that not been the case. Let me ask you

00:26:13.740 this, and then you've got a little bit of news I'd like you to share with our viewers.

00:26:19.020 Just your opinion. If you had to choose your ideal leader for the conservatives,

00:26:24.140 put aside the rules, put aside the details. I'm talking about your dream team here, fantasy

00:26:30.460 football style. Who would you choose that you think has the right combination of conservative chops

00:26:38.220 and winnability?

00:26:40.380 And of the people who are contenders, there isn't anyone that's really lighting a fire under me.

00:26:46.620 I do think, though, that stylistically, there needs to be someone who's very high energy.

00:26:51.340 You know, one of the things that I learned covering the campaign is that Trudeau is,

00:26:55.340 for all his faults, very high energy. He is very electrifying to his crowd and certainly to the

00:27:01.340 media. And there are a number of reasons for that. But I think conservatives need to not beat him on

00:27:07.260 the substance or beat him on style, rather. But conservatives need to have someone that can at

00:27:11.660 least compete in that arena, someone that has energy, someone that has a bit of fire, and someone who isn't

00:27:17.420 just really just posting along and hoping that the policy is going to sell. And I was a fan of

00:27:23.580 Maxime Bernier in the 2017 leadership. I know he's not in the conservative party now. But I do think

00:27:29.260 someone like him is what the party needs.

00:27:31.420 Yeah, I think you're right. Donald Trump has incredible energy. I mean, it's hard to believe

00:27:38.140 that he's in his 70s, if I'm not mistaken. I mean, Justin Trudeau just got back from a 16-day vacation,

00:27:46.620 and he's taking two more private days. I don't think Trump has taken more than one day off since

00:27:52.300 he's been president. He works at all hours. I mean, sure, he has visits at his own golf club and maybe

00:27:57.980 plays the odd round. But he's a high energy president. But I think that I think the issues,

00:28:04.860 I think it's not enough just to be high energy. I mean, in his own way, Jagmeet Singh, he danced

00:28:10.060 around and he had some energy. I think high energy, yes, for sure. But you got to be unafraid to tackle

00:28:16.700 the issues that so many conservatives are afraid of because the media tells them not to. You guys at

00:28:23.500 True North specialize in immigration. And that's, in my view, one of the number one issues. But oh,

00:28:30.220 my God, was Andrew Scheer afraid of that? I think high energy is great. But you talk about that issue,

00:28:35.900 you're going to get a lot of conservatives revved up no matter what your style is. What do you think

00:28:39.660 of that? Well, I think you raise an important point there. And part of that energy and that fire

00:28:44.780 I'm talking about is pushing back against the media, which conservatives are often afraid to do.

00:28:50.620 But going along with them never wins their love, never wins their affection. I mean,

00:28:54.860 a great example just from today is that there was when the conservative convention entertained a

00:29:00.540 motion on birthright citizenship in Canada and whether to do away with it. The media just went

00:29:06.140 nuts saying, oh, this is racist. And how dare the conservatives and how dare the conservative

00:29:09.980 members. And just today, CBC is running a feature on birthright tourism or birth tourism in Canada

00:29:17.420 and how it's this terrible thing. So now all of a sudden the media has come around to what it was

00:29:22.300 maligning people for being. And the nature of immigration and a lot of other issues is that

00:29:27.660 the truth will ultimately come out as people see the truth of reckless immigration policies,

00:29:33.660 as people see the truth of all of these areas of the government or the media saying you can't talk

00:29:38.940 about this. And people will eventually come around. You've got to have a politician that's prepared

00:29:43.260 to be a leader on those instead of a follower. Yeah. I think anyone who studies Quebec politics

00:29:48.860 and the shocking breakthrough of the brand new party, Francois Legault's CAC party, he's now the

00:29:54.140 premier there, would see that far from being electoral kryptonite, it's electoral gold. At least that's my

00:30:03.740 view. And there's a reason why Justin Trudeau and no other party is willing to really take on Quebec for

00:30:10.860 its immigration policies, its burqa ban, because they know that's extremely popular no matter what 1.00

00:30:16.540 the CBC says. That's my view. Andrew, you are starting your own TV show in Canada at TNC.News.

00:30:24.620 Tell me a little bit about it. Yeah, so many people may know I actually did for a long period of time

00:30:30.860 a daily talk radio show and I've always loved that medium. I've always loved that format. So I'm bringing

00:30:36.140 back the Andrew Lawton show. Really, it's going to be and I shouldn't even say bringing back because

00:30:40.620 it's going to be a new show with the same name where we're going to talk about these issues,

00:30:44.780 be irreverent. We're going to promote free speech. We're going to really be a voice on the issues

00:30:49.180 that the mainstream media is not covering. And the Andrew Lawton show is going to be launching

00:30:53.580 within the next couple of weeks. So looking forward to getting that going as a podcast.

00:30:58.220 Well, that's great. Will it be video as well or just audio?

00:31:01.580 Well, it's going to be a podcast on video rather than a TV show. So there are going to be visual

00:31:05.900 elements, but I'm really going to take the inspiration of format from my talk radio days.

00:31:10.540 Got it. Great. Well, I tell you, sign me up. I think I'm already a minor donor to TNC.News,

00:31:16.460 but if there's a subscription fee or whatever, I look forward to it. We're always grateful when

00:31:20.940 you come on our show and I can hardly wait to see you in your own natural habitat, which I'm

00:31:27.980 looking forward to. So good luck to you, my friend.

00:31:30.220 Thank you very much.

00:31:31.100 All right. There you have it, our friend Andrew Lawton. You heard it here. He's having his own

00:31:35.100 video podcast and he tells me that'll be at TNC.News. Stay with us. More ahead on The Rubble.

00:31:52.060 Hey, what do you think about my monologue about the 200 cases of arson in Australia? Look, I mean,

00:31:58.700 I'm not downplaying how bad the fires are. They're shocking. They remind me of the wildfire in Fort

00:32:04.700 McMurray that was also to blame on a lack of controlled burns. And in that case, Rachel Notley 0.93

00:32:10.700 had canceled all the water bomber contracts just a week or so before the fires. Terrible to look at.

00:32:16.940 Great tragedy. Great loss of property. Thank God no one lost their life in Fort McMurray. But oh my God,

00:32:23.900 did all the pagan global warming worshipers blame Mother Earth or actually they blamed mankind, didn't

00:32:30.460 they? No, that's not what started the fires there. And that's not what started the fires in Australia.

00:32:35.900 But boy, Catherine McKenna wants to get her politics out of it and Greenpeace will get their fundraising out

00:32:41.820 of it. All right. That's the show for today. Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at

00:32:47.020 Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night and keep fighting for freedom.

Rebel News Podcast - January 08, 2020

Arson or global warming？ Australia's brushfires turn political

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript