Donald Trump’s judicial appointments reshaped the Supreme Court, with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett striking down Cuomo’s pandemic restrictions in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (Nov 27), exposing bias against Jewish synagogues while favoring secular businesses. This ruling contrasts sharply with prior cases like South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, where liberal judges dissented, and underscores the court’s lasting conservative influence. Meanwhile, Parlor faces potential deplatforming like Gab in 2017, as Big Tech targets free-speech platforms, while Trump’s Middle East deals—Israel-Bahrain-UAE-Sudan—risk reversal under Biden. A legacy of judicial power may outlast policy shifts, but censorship and corporate lobbying threats loom over dissenting voices. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I take you through an outstanding Supreme Court ruling.
You know, those American rulings are great.
Canadian rulings sometimes are hundreds of pages long.
Sometimes they are.
And they're so contradictory and so hard to understand.
This Supreme Court of the United States ruling I'm going to take you through this week is concise, written beautifully, and I know they have bright clerks helping, but it's great.
And it's very exciting to see the three Trump judges weigh in and change the direction of America for the better.
I'm going to take you through a very important court ruling that just came out this week.
Before I do, let me invite you to become a Rebel News Plus subscriber.
You get the video version of this podcast.
It's $8 a month.
Just go to RebelNews.com and click subscribe.
You get my video show.
You get Sheila Gunread and David Munzies.
They each have a weekly show.
And you get the satisfaction of knowing that your $8 a month keeps the Rebels strong.
Okay, here's the podcast.
Tonight, do you want to see Donald Trump's greatest legacy?
Well, take a look at this ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.
It's November 27th, and this is the Azure Levant show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government will watch just because it's my bloody right to do so.
Trump's Impact on U.S. Courts00:05:52
There's a chance Donald Trump could still win the election.
I don't care what CNN says or the CBC says or what Joe Biden says or what Justin Trudeau says.
That's not how the president is actually chosen.
The United States Constitution describes how the president is chosen.
It's something called the Electoral College.
And right now there are lawsuits in various jurisdictions challenging some close votes in different states.
That's nothing new, frankly, nothing weird there.
Back in 2000, Al Gore fought in court for more than a month until the Supreme Court finally weighed in against him.
So I say there's still a chance Donald Trump will win.
Here's some proof.
All the betting houses, all the gambling companies that allow people to bet on political outcomes, they're not paying out yet.
They're waiting until it's official, official, official.
I mean, could you imagine if they paid out now for Joe Biden only to have Donald Trump win an election recount?
CNN doesn't care if they're wrong.
They're in the propaganda business, not the paying out money business.
But let's, for the sake of argument, say that Donald Trump will not prevail and that Joe Biden will be inaugurated in January, and that he will be a sort of figurehead president, making a brief 10-minute appearance every day, speaking less and less as his cognitive abilities continue to recede, becoming more and more of a recluse as Kamala Harris becomes the face of the Democrat White House, and probably someone else, who knows who, behind the scenes actually makes the decisions.
Let's say that's what's going to happen.
And then I ask again, what will be Donald Trump's greatest legacy?
He changed the Republican Party for the better, I think.
He made it more populist.
He made it the party of the working class, a nationalist party.
He called out China.
He called out America's allies who weren't paying their fair share in NATO.
He brokered seemingly impossible peace deals in the Middle East three in a row, though you wouldn't know it from the total lack of media coverage of it.
He brought the economy roaring back.
And after the pandemic hit, he brought it roaring back again.
It's still not where it was before the pandemic, but the unemployment rate is back down to 6.8% and getting stronger every month.
Here in Canada, by contrast, it's 8.9%.
And look at this headline from Statistics Canada.
Employment growth slows as new COVID-19 restrictions are implemented.
We're still doing that?
Yeah, you bet.
So it's not the virus anymore.
It's the lockdown now.
And in case you think you can just go to work at a company you built with your own hands for decades, Canada's worst politicians will literally send 100 police and riot horses to stop you.
I think Trump's greatest failure was his failure to build the wall with Mexico.
Sure, he built part of it, but not much.
And sure, Congress got in his way, but he had a majority Republican Congress for his first two years.
And many decisions can be made unilaterally by the White House.
He was undermined by the swamp within his own party, within his own White House, by Republicans in name only.
I think most of his work was undermined.
I don't think that's a controversial thing to say.
I'm worried that some of Trump's achievements will be easily undone.
I think foreign affairs is an obvious example.
Biden loves China.
Biden loves Iran.
He'll change both of those policies immediately.
And it's terrifying to see John Kerry back in charge of anything again.
Remember this guy?
There will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world.
I want to make that very clear to all of you.
I've heard several prominent politicians in Israel sometimes saying, well, the Arab world's in a different place now.
We just have to reach out to them and we can work some things with the Arab world and we'll deal with the Palestinians.
No, no, no, and no.
I can tell you that reaffirmed even in the last week as I have talked to leaders of the Arab community.
There will be no advance and separate peace with the Arab world without the Palestinian process and Palestinian peace.
Everybody needs to understand that.
That is a hard reality.
Yeah, I don't think there's ever been anything he's been right about.
He's been wrong more than possibly anyone else in history.
I think he will actually try to wreck Trump's new peace deals between Israel and Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates in Sudan.
I actually believe John Kerry would rather wreck those peace deals than let them happen.
But the one Trump legacy that cannot be easily undone, at least if the Republicans could hold the Senate to stop court packing, the one thing that Trump exceeded expectations on, that Trump probably did better than any president before him, was appointing excellent judges.
He nominated them and Mitch McConnell, the quirky Republican leader in the Senate, agreed to push them through using all means.
And he did.
I love this whiny headline.
How Trump has already transformed America's courts.
Let me read this.
Today, almost a third of all active federal judges on the U.S. appeals courts were appointed by Mr. Trump.
It's amazing.
And of course, three on the Supreme Court, and these aren't just good enough judges.
They are the best possible.
They're outstanding judges.
Sometimes they're called strict constructionists, which means it's a fancy way of saying judges who interpret the law as the laws were written.
People who follow the Constitution, not people who think that a judge's role is to be an unelected lawmaker.
Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and most recently, Amy Coney Barrett, or ACB, as some people call her.
FBI Investigation Allegations00:04:54
They were strong from the beginning.
And of course, the abusive way that the Democrats in the Senate attacked these three judges surely only hardened them.
Remember the literally insane accusations against Bratt Kavanaugh, accusing him, seriously, of being like some serial rapist or something?
Maybe that?
All three of the women who have made sworn allegations against you have called for an independent FBI investigation into the claims.
You've been asked during the course of this hearing by four different members by my count at least eight times today and also earlier this week on national television whether you would call for the White House to authorize an FBI investigation.
Each time you have declined to do so.
Now you know, I know you do, that the FBI is an agency of men and women who are sworn and trained law enforcement, who in the course of conducting background investigations on nominees for the Supreme Court of the United States and others are charged with conducting those background investigations because they are sworn law enforcement and they have the expertise and the ability and the history of doing that.
So I'm going to ask you one last time.
Are you willing to ask the White House to authorize the FBI to investigate the claims that have been made against you?
Well, I'll do whatever the committee wants, of course.
And I've heard you say that, but I've not heard you answer a very specific question that's been asked, which is, are you willing to ask the White House to conduct an investigation by the FBI to get to whatever you believe is the bottom of the allegations that have been levied against you?
The FBI would gather witness statements.
You have witness statements.
I don't want to debate with you how they do their business.
They just made that craziness up.
Just throw mud.
Well, he's on the court now.
Do you think he's going to be harder or softer on leftists than he was before?
Let's ask Clarence Thomas.
Committee will please come to order.
Judge, it's a tough day and tough night for you, I know.
Let me ask, do you have anything you'd like to say before we begin?
I understand that your preference is, which is totally and completely understandable, that we go one hour tonight, 30 minutes on each side.
Am I correct in that?
That's right.
Do you have anything you'd like to say?
Senator, I would like to start by saying unequivocally, uncategorically, that I deny each and every single allegation against me today that suggested in any way that I had conversations of a sexual nature or about pornographic material with Anita Hill,
that I ever attempted to date her, that I ever had any personal sexual interest in her, or that I in any way ever harassed her.
A second, and I think more important point, I think that this today is a travesty.
I think that it is disgusting.
I think that this hearing should never occur in America.
This is a case in which this sleaze, this dirt, was searched for by staffers of members of this committee, was then leaked to the media, and this committee and this body validated it and displayed it at prime time.
And from my standpoint, as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for oppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves.
Oh, by the way, it was a racist bigot named Joe Biden who led the smear against Clarence Thomas.
Amy Coney Barrett isn't just a great judge.
I think she's a great person.
But still, this is how they did it to her.
To ensure the fitness of nominees for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench or to any of the other positions for any of the committees on which they appear, I ask each nominee these two questions, and I will ask them of you.
Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
Google's Propaganda Stream00:15:42
No, Senator Hirono.
Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
No, Senator.
Yeah, these were good people.
They were great judges.
They were good people.
And the Democrats tried to destroy them.
I don't think these judges will forget that.
Now, John Roberts, the Republican in name only, who was appointed by George W. Bush, he's undermined conservatives ever since he was appointed.
He cast the designing vote, saving Obamacare, the nationalization of American medicine.
Trump's three judges are not like him.
And all this is a preamble to the amazing ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States just this week.
It's called Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York versus Andrew M. Cuomo, governor of New York.
So as the name of the case shows, the Catholic Church in New York sued the governor for shutting them down.
A Jewish synagogue made the same arguments.
Both were heard at the same time in an emergency hearing of the court.
And in a five to four ruling with John Roberts joining the Democrats, the court struck down Cuomo's restrictions.
Three out of those five judges were Trump's judges.
Imagine if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016.
Imagine if Trump had made weaker appointments or didn't have the chance to make appointments at all.
It's not hard to imagine earlier in the pandemic, before ACB was on the court, churches in Nevada and California sued in the same vein.
And that was when leftist Ruth Bader Ginsburg was on the court, and the court ruled against the churches.
So in Nevada, casinos can stay open, no problem, but not churches.
That's the opposite.
That's the difference Trump made.
Now there's no doubt at all that Andrew Cuomo targeted Jews and Catholics too, but he really seemed to dislike the Jews.
I think that's very odd for a New York governor.
I have to say to the Orthodox community tomorrow, if you're not willing to live with these rules, then I'm going to close the synagogues.
It's funny, Trump restricted immigration from some Muslim-majority countries, and it was universally called a Muslim ban.
Because to the media, Trump equals racist.
But I wonder why the media didn't call Cuomo's rules the Jewish ban.
That's sort of what it was.
Here, let me read a few paragraphs from this week's great ruling.
Let me read a few lines from Neil Gorsuch, Trump's first pick.
I'm going to read from the judgment.
New York's governor has asserted the power to assign different color codes to different parts of the state and govern each by executive decree.
In red zones, houses of worship are all but closed, limited to a maximum of 10 people.
In the Orthodox Jewish community, that limit might operate to exclude all women, considering 10 men are necessary to establish a minion or a quorum.
In orange zones, it's not much different.
Churches and synagogues are limited to a maximum of 25 people.
These restrictions apply even to the largest cathedrals and synagogues, which ordinarily hold hundreds.
And the restrictions apply no matter the precautions taken, including social distancing, wearing masks, leaving doors and windows open, foregoing singing, and disinfecting spaces between services.
And now get this.
At the same time, the governor has chosen to impose no capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers essential.
And it turns out the businesses the government considers essential include hardware stores, acupuncturists, and liquor stores, bicycle repair shops, certain signage companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents are all essential too.
So at least according to the governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians.
Who knew public health was so perfectly aligned with secular convenience?
Isn't that great?
That's the Supreme Court today.
And that's the point about casinos, right?
I mean, in Nevada, casinos are big business and the source of the big taxes.
Everyone's pro-casino in Nevada.
They wouldn't shut those down.
But churches, ah, who cares?
Shut them down.
Same in Canada.
Churches, synagogues, mosques shut down, but Walmart keeps the doors open.
No restrictions there.
Let me read some more.
Nor is the problem an isolated one.
In recent months, certain other governors have issued similar edicts.
At the flick of a pen, they have asserted the right to privilege restaurants, marijuana dispensaries, and casinos over churches, mosques, and temples.
Exactly.
Now let me quote the two hard left-wing Obama judges.
I'll just quote one of them, Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Kagan joins dissenting.
She says, Amidst a pandemic that has already claimed over a quarter million American lives, the court today enjoins one of New York's public health measures aimed at containing the spread of COVID-19 in areas facing the most severe outbreaks.
Earlier this year, this is my favorite part, earlier this year, this court twice stayed its hand when asked to issue similar extraordinary relief.
See South Bay United Pentecostal Church versus Newsom, that's a governor of California, and Calvary Chapel, Dayton Valley versus Sisillac, that's the governor of Nevada.
I see no justification for the court's change of heart, and I fear that granting applications such as the one liked, filed by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn will only exacerbate the nation's suffering.
So let me translate.
She's talking about the Nevada case and the California case, same arguments, but decided earlier this year with the majority of anti-religious leftists.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg cast the deciding vote then, but now it's Amy Coney Barrett.
Sotomayor is correct to ask, what changed?
The answer is Trump.
And Amy Coney Barrett is just 48 years old.
May she live as long as Ruth Bader Ginsburg did.
That is Trump's legacy.
Here in Canada, we've got even worse anti-church lockdown laws, like zero churches in Wellington County in Ontario.
They just completely shut down the churches, 100%.
And like Trump, Stephen Harper appointed an enormous number of judges.
Harper was around for nine years, not just four.
Harper appointed many of the judges on our Supreme Court right now, except for whatever reason, he just didn't really care about their ideology.
Maybe one of his Supreme Court appointments could be called a conservative.
Maybe it was Harper.
Maybe he just didn't care.
Maybe he delegated it to his lazy, conservative and name-only justice minister for so long, Peter McKay.
Whatever it is, we've got a court full of Ruth Bader Ginsburgs appointed by our side, which is why we're less free and will be for a long time.
Stay with us.
Welcome back.
Well, I firmly believe that in a debate with such close margins, anything that would filter the news of the election, even by a few percent, well, that made all the difference in the world.
And what do I mean by filter?
I don't mean the particular biases of a particular newscaster or a channel.
I mean, the left has its ABC, NBC, CBS.
The right has Fox News.
I'm talking about your ability to even find out the news, to see what other people are saying.
I'm talking about invisible filters on social media.
Your ability to share your own views on Facebook or Twitter or YouTube.
How the rankings are when you type in keywords like Donald Trump or Joe Biden.
Are there positive stories at the top or negative stories at the top?
Well, those things were controlled by the social media tycoons.
I believe they made a difference in this election, but the thing is they haven't stopped.
After the election, well, it's just got worse.
Joining us now via Skype is our friend Alan Bokari, senior tech editor for Breitbart.com.
Alan, great to see you again.
You know, we saw this coming like a mile away.
It was an accident in slow motion.
The social media companies started censoring a little bit months ago.
There was no pushback like a child finding its boundaries.
They pushed more and more and more and nothing ever snapped back.
Literally nothing has ever happened to them.
So of course they censor the president all the time.
What do they care?
Yes, they've been doing this for four years ever since they realized what internet freedom could do to their control over the narrative.
They saw that in 2016 and I think Silicon Valley collectively took a decision to make sure nothing like it could happen again at the next election.
I wrote a book about this called, you know, Deleted Big Tech's Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election.
And I think they did steal the election, frankly, because as you said, those margins were so close.
And given that Silicon Valley has been manipulating people's opinions and suppressing the conservative movement over the past four years, I'm sure that had an impact.
And I think you can actually see it in the polls.
If you look at the polls, the undecided voters were much lower throughout the course of the election year than they were in 2016.
And I think one of the reasons for that is because Silicon Valley has been bombarding undecided voters and everyone else on the internet with propaganda for the past four years by adjusting its algorithms to promote what they call authoritative sources like CNN and the New York Times and suppress what they call partisan sources like the Rebel News and Breitbart News.
And we got confirmation of this with this story about Facebook's post-election suppression.
Yeah.
Well, let's talk about your two latest stories.
One of them is called Facebook Suppressed Breitbart Promoted CNN following the election.
So this is the new normal.
This is a perpetual state of affairs.
Even after the vote, you know, digesting the vote, analyzing the vote, writing history, so to speak, Facebook won't allow conservative voices to explain what happened.
That's what I'm picking up from your story.
That's absolutely right.
What I found interesting about the story is that it actually confirms something I reported in my book, something a whistleblower told me, which is that every one of these Silicon Valley companies has something called a quality score that they use to rank and downrank content.
So the New York Times story that we covered yesterday at Breitbut confirms from other sources inside Facebook that they have something called a news ecosystem quality score, a completely hidden ranking that no one knew about until now, unless you've read my book, of course, that they can turn up or down like you're turning up or down the volume on a TV.
They can do that to news sources, and they have done that to news sources.
They've done that to Breitbart in the days following the election.
And they've also turned up the volume on the mainstream corporate media.
They've artificially boosted CNN and the New York Times.
So we're in this situation now where by adjusting these hidden scores, big tech companies can pick winners and losers in the media.
They can decide which media companies are going to succeed and which ones are going to fail.
And it's incredible to me that nothing has been done to rein in this kind of power.
The potential for the, well, what we're seeing now, the monumental abuse of power this allows for is just completely outrageous.
Yeah, you know, we know this directly.
We have a representative from YouTube, which is owned by Google.
And we ask her questions.
I mean, the chief benefit of having a representative is we can put questions to a real human who eventually answers us.
It's not like we're just sending an anonymous email to some, you know, unchecked email box.
And she tells us, quite frankly, like sometimes we type in the exact name of a video, like the exact headline, and a video outranks us, comes up early on the search engine by CBC Canada's state broadcaster or Global, you know, a private sector media company that's very far left.
They rank higher in the search than our own video with the exact title and with many more views.
And we said, what's going on?
And she said, we boost quality.
That was one of the phrases, quality.
I think you were saying authoritative.
So even if people want our video, even if grassroots people voting with their finger clicking choose our video, you've got to eat your vegetables.
You've got to take your medicine and listen to the CBC or Global, even if you deliberately search for us.
And we're not running an election.
Imagine how bad it was for Trump.
You search for something about Trump.
Let's say you're searching for the Hunter Biden laptop.
Eat your vegetables.
Read the New York Times.
Nothing to see here.
I think that's what they're doing.
I'll tell you, exactly the same thing happened to Breitbart News and is still happening to Breitbart News.
You will search that, you can search the exact string of characters on a Breitbart News headline.
What will come up often is results from, you know, completely no name, never heard of before websites.
Some of these websites even plagiarize our articles, and the plagiarized version of the articles appears higher in Google search than the Breitbart News article itself.
We even in an exclusive interview with President Trump a few months ago, and you couldn't find it on Google, even if you searched for the exact headline.
So it's complete and total suppression.
And I think Google is actually probably the worst.
You have to consider how this impacted the election.
I don't think stealing the election is a conspiracy theory, because if you're an undecided voter and you were looking for results, looking for information about Joe Biden or Donald Trump in the run-up to the election, and you went on Google, all you would find would be a stream of propaganda from outlets and broadcasters that are hostile to President Trump.
So it's absurd to say that that didn't have a massive impact on the election, in my view.
Yeah.
And the thing is, if you're a grassroots person, a severely normal voter, to take the time to try and look into something deeper, that's unusual to begin with.
Most people are too busy.
They're not particularly interested in politics as much as you and I are.
So to have a truly undecided person, a normal person, do that is a miracle in itself.
And for them to be frustrated, oh, I can't find what I was looking for, or find what they're looking for, but it's the rebuttal.
Quite often I find when people switch for a conservative point of view, They'll get that exact issue, but not the conservative point.
They'll get the pre-buttle or the rebuttal to it on the left.
So you can't get the actual conservative story.
You get the debunking of it, which is probably the fake news junk journalism in the first place.
Yeah, and I also want to push back on this idea that they're boosting authoritative sources over non-authoritative sources.
Because as I was saying, oftentimes when you search for Breitbart headlines, you're going to find completely junk websites that just plagiarize our articles.
Pressure On Parlor00:06:55
These are not authoritative sources at all by no one's definition of the term, yet they're ranking higher than Breitbart News.
So this is clearly an effort, I think, to suppress effective conservative media, conservative media that had an impact in 2016 and would have an impact if Silicon Valley wasn't rigging the playing field in favor of the Democrat-aligned media.
Yeah.
Oh, exactly.
When I say authoritative, I'm just using their word.
I think you can tell Canadians so few Canadians watch on any given day.
We have more viewers of our videos than CBC's flagship national newscasts.
So Canadians do not regard the CBC as authoritative.
They regard it as partisan as a state broadcaster, which it is.
I mean, it's incredible to me that it would be called authoritative.
That's just from the point of view of the left.
I want to ask you about a breaking news story.
I think it just happened last night.
There's a new network out there.
There's Fox News.
Everyone's heard of Fox News.
But there's a couple of up-and-comer, not quite as established or well-funded, but they're trying.
I enjoy them.
News Max is the name of one of them.
And One American News, or OAN is another.
And they're not as many bells and whistles.
They don't have the same budget, but they've got a lot of heart.
And they're a little bit more to the right, I'd say, of Fox News.
And all of a sudden, YouTube gives them what's called a strike, demonetizes their vids, and I think they're suspended for posting new vids for a week.
You suspend us for posting new vids for a week?
Frankly, we're almost out of business.
That's our lifeblood.
Absolutely.
And this is one of the other big impacts of Silicon Valley censorship, how they can just strip someone off their livelihood.
If you build a business on Facebook or YouTube or an Instagram page or anything like that, Silicon Valley has the power to take that all away from me with a snap of their fingers and with no legal due process.
I mean, if a landlord tried to evict someone, an owner of a physical business, they'd have to get a court order.
But you could have hundreds, thousands of employees dependent on an online business in Silicon Valley could suddenly decide by executive decision to take that all away.
Now, One American News is an interesting story.
They're increasingly favored by President Trump.
They've come under scrutiny by the mainstream media.
And YouTube's excuse for censoring them was the fact that they supposedly violated YouTube's COVID rules, which is interesting because it was a One American News correspondent, Jack Bosobeck, who was calling for a ban on travel to China way back in January, long before any Democrat did the same.
So this was actually a network that was earlier to recognize the dangers of the pandemic than many in the mainstream media.
And now we have YouTube censoring them for allegedly violating their COVID rules.
Yeah, and who knows what those COVID rules are to begin with?
That was the same reason that Amazon used to take down my book, China Virus.
They banned it for two months, then they unbanned it for a week, then they re-banned it, and then they re-unbanned it.
I mean, you can't even take it seriously.
We're talking with a friend, Alan Bokari.
He's the author of the book, Deleted Big Tech's Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election.
I remember when we spoke about this book in the run-up to the vote, I hoped and prayed you were just being pessimistic, but I think it looks like they pulled it off.
I got one last question for you, my friend.
You mentioned One American Network, OAN, is Trump refers to it a lot.
He likes them.
It's his favorite because they're a little bit more partisan towards them, I'd say.
That's fair to say.
Parlor, which is sort of like Twitter.
I think it's the closest analogy.
And it's getting a lot more traffic.
Ivanka Trump joined it the other day.
Who knows?
Maybe they have to strengthen their systems.
If Donald Trump says, I'm going to Parlor, you could theoretically have 10 million new people signing up in one day.
You really could.
So they better be ready for that crush of traffic.
But I see already the media party, the tech rivals trying to denormalize and destabilize this rival.
I saw Brian Stelter and a guest say that this is dangerous to have a conservative outlet like that.
No doubt you'll have deep internet infrastructure questions like, will anyone process their credit card?
Will they lose their host?
I mean, I don't even know the phraseology, but I mean, something's always built on a deeper foundation.
Are you worried that just like One America News is being cut off of the knees, this new social media app called Parlor will be destroyed because it's not part of the team?
I think they'll certainly try.
And this is the whole problem with the build your own argument, you know, just to build your own alternatives to the social networks.
It's great what Parlor is doing.
It's great that they're having success.
But what they're going to encounter, I think, is the same thing that happened to Gab, which was a similar free speech social network alternative that gained traction a few years ago, which is that the mainstream media is going to relentlessly target this new platform.
They're going to relentlessly go after Parla.
And they're going to pressure Google and Apple, number one, to cut them off from the app stores, thus cutting them off from a worldwide market of smartphones.
They're going to pressure payment processes, as you said, to cut off payment processing, credit card processing.
They're going to pressure their DNS registrar, which gives you your website URL to cut that up as well.
They're going to pressure their web hosting companies.
They're going to pressure Cloudflare.
All of these infrastructure providers that every website or app needs to survive.
They're going to pressure them to de-platform Parla.
This is the playbook.
They did it with Gab.
We're seeing them start to do it with Parla too.
But I will say, Parla has enjoyed extraordinary growth.
I have about maybe a tenth of my followers on Parla that I have on Twitter, but I'm already seeing engagement that's equaling Twitter.
So it's no surprise to me that this has got the left and got the mainstream media into a panic because they really don't like the idea of a free and open platform where people can organize and speak freely.
They saw what they did in 2016 and they were determined to kill that idea, that technology before 2020.
Yeah.
Well, Rebel News has an account on Parlor, and I'll be honest, I haven't paid a lot of attention to it, but maybe we ought to put a little bit more effort into it.
Mentioned DNS registrar.
In 2017, out of the blue, our DNS I don't even know the terminology contacted us and said, guys, we're kicking you off.
You have 24 hours notice.
Why Parler Matters00:03:46
Good luck out there.
No explanation, no appeal.
We moved as quickly as we could, but it took about three days for our new I don't even know the terminology DNS registry to propagate throughout the internet.
So our entire company was offline, depending where you were, for one, two, even three days.
Some anonymous staffer will never know who at a company we didn't even know existed, deep underground that we didn't even know we stood on.
That's how vulnerable things are.
And that was three years ago.
I want to give one more shout out to your book, Alam, because although it was focused on the election, the things you talk about there, as we've just described, are perpetuating.
Let's show it one more time on the screen.
Deleted, big tech's battle to erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election by Alan Bokhari.
I've said it before and I meant it.
It's not just that I like you, Alam.
I truly believe you are the most important journalist in this critical field.
You have the sources, you have the understanding, and you see, you saw this clearly.
For four years, you've been warning about it.
If anyone cares about this issue, and we all should, click the Amazon link under this video to get yourself a copy of Alam's book, Before Amazon bans it.
And I've proved that they'll do that.
Great to see you.
Keep it up.
We'll keep watching Breitbart until you're deleted.
Thanks, Ezra.
Great to be on.
Right on.
There he is, Alan Bokari, one of our favorite guys.
Stay with us.
Hey, welcome back to my show last night.
Sean writes.
People should show up to City Hall with barbecues of their own and have a massive barbecue protest.
Now, that's my kind of protest.
Alexander writes, American Store Costco is essential.
American Walmart is essential.
American Starbucks or Wendy is essential, but Canadian small businesses and restaurants are not.
Is Ford working for USA or for Canada?
Well, that's a good question.
As I mentioned in the various live streams I did yesterday, two of Ford's staff, someone named Melissa Lanceman and someone named David Tarrant, were hired by a large Arkansas company.
You may have heard of them.
They're called Walmart.
They were hired to lobby Doug Ford.
They got that private meeting between the CEO of Walmart Canada and Doug Ford.
And that's where Walmart twisted and bent and the malleable Doug Ford.
So, yeah, I don't know if Ford himself is for sale, but his staff are.
And what's super gross is that one of those staff, Melissa Lanceman, I call her Lockdown Lanceman, she's now running to be an MP for the Conservative Party.
She's seeking the nomination to be a Conservative candidate in Thornhill, Ontario.
Super gross.
Crystal writes, us Albertans would never allow it.
Kenny knows that.
We appreciate his apology, but I still can't open my small business.
The East allowed this socialism.
Fair to a degree.
But listen, sister, who voted for Rachel Notley?
I mean, I'm not saying you did, but Albertans did.
And boy, the NDP, they sure think they can come back in.
And sometimes I look at the media party out there and I fear they might be right.
So yeah, I mean, the worst socialism in Canada has always come from Ontario and Quebec.
But don't think there's none of it out west, too.
That's our show for today.
Thanks for watching.
What a busy week it's been.
So many videos coming out.
Please visit our YouTube channel.
There's so much good stuff.
And RebelNews.com is better than ever, of course.
Until Monday, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.