Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 6, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:03:13

Rekieta Law NUKED! "Conspiracy Theory" CONFIRMED! "Fact Checkers" are The Devil's Wordsmith! Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The president recently praised a group of Coast Guard rescue swimmers.
	One of them reportedly faces termination because he isn't vaccinated.
	I'm curious, given the threats that we're facing abroad, would the president ever reconsider that vaccination requirement or consider issuing more exemptions?
	So, as you can imagine, the president has the deepest respect.
	Flip those pages!
	Flip those pages!
	If this were a deposition, and I were the lawyer, and she were the witness, I would ask her to stop right now and say, What question did I just ask you?
	Or ma 'am, what question are you answering right now?
	Do you recall the question I asked you?
	Can you please repeat the question I just asked you?
	Let's refresh everybody's memory.
	The president recently praised a group of Coast Guard rescue swimmers.
	One of them reportedly faces termination because he didn't vaccinate it.
	The president recently...
	He complimented Coast Guard rescue people.
	One of the people that he complimented says he faces termination because of his medical status not being vaccinated with a vaccine that we now know has been referred to as a therapeutic by one Dr. Kieran Moore.
	We know, by all accounts, does not prevent contracting, carrying, or transmitting the virus.
	Allegedly, purportedly reduces severity of symptoms.
	We know all of that now.
	This man...
	Apparently, by his account, from this question, stands to lose his job.
	At the hands of a policy of a man who just complimented his heroism, can you comment on that, Press Secretary Jean-Pierre?
	I'm curious, given the threats that we're facing abroad, would the president ever reconsider that vaccination requirement or consider issuing more exemptions?
	So, as you can imagine, the president has the deepest respect.
	For the U.S. Coast Guard.
	That is something that you would hear from him directly.
	And the country, the president and the country are grateful for all of the U.S. Coast Guard heroes that have led the effort to save lives in Florida.
	We have seen that with our very own eyes these past couple of days.
	I would refer you specifically to the U.S. Coast Guard on this issue.
	I don't want to answer the questions.
	It's not something that I would comment from here.
	There, of course, have been multiple vaccination requirements, as you know, in place for quite some time.
	But again, I'm not going to comment from here on an individual case.
	Verbal diarrhea.
	That was nearly two minutes.
	No, that was not nearly two minutes.
	It felt like two minutes.
	That was a minute and six seconds.
	Maybe, say, 45 seconds of pure verbal diarrhea.
	And I've got to say, what the hell is she doing?
	Flipping pages as though there's going to be some miracle answer in her documents as this man is asking the question.
	And then she never gets...
	What's she flipping?
	The president recently praised a group of Coast Guard rescue swimmers.
	One of them reportedly...
	Looking up?
	Looking up?
	Uncomfortable?
	Let me start flipping pages.
	I'm curious.
	We'll just start flipping pages.
	Yeah, there you go.
	Flip it.
	My answer's going to be there.
	Oh my goodness, people.
	Oh my goodness.
	And do you know how much press secretary Jean-Pierre gets paid?
	You guessed it.
	180,000 United States dollars per year.
	To do that as a job.
	To not answer questions.
	To, uh, the president has said a bunch of generic things.
	Let me flip through my page.
	And I don't want to answer that question.
	Go ask the Coast Guard.
	Go ask the guy.
	And the fact checkers.
	The fake news fact checkers.
	I'm actually going with a new term now.
	Wordsmiths of the devil.
	That's what I'm saying the fact checkers are.
	They're no longer fact checkers.
	I don't know if they ever were.
	They're not just liars.
	Because at least a liar, it would be very easy to show the lie.
	They are wordsmiths of the devil.
	Pick on little words.
	Twist the meanings of things to get the truth that you want.
	And then it makes it ever so difficult to disprove because it's not an overt lie.
	You actually have to read.
	You have to know facts to know why it is the so-called fact checkers are lying to you through their teeth, through your teeth.
	Good morning, everybody.
	Sorry for the odd hour for the stream today.
	It's Thursday.
	I got something at 2, had something at 10. I was on RT this morning.
	And it seems that the discussion was supposed to be more focused on Hurricane Ian, Hurricane Fiona, how the government, the federal government can find billions, and I mean billions of dollars, to finance foreign conflict.
	But then...
	Has to scratch the bottom of the bucket to provide immediate, dire financial resources to people who have been impacted in Florida by Hurricane Ian and on the east coast of Canada by Hurricane Fiona.
	But it seemed like there might have been a confusion and the questions were along a different line that I was...
	I like challenges and I like having to think on my feet.
	But I had done all my homework.
	On stuff that I then knew, which weren't necessarily the questions that were asked.
	So it was fun and interesting.
	Thus is the risks and perils of live interviews in all their glory.
	So that's what I did at 10 o 'clock, 2 o 'clock, something else.
	So it's going to be 11 until however long this goes.
	And we've got some stuff to talk about today.
	Nick Ricada nuked from YouTube.
	I call them...
	Fake checkers.
	I call them F-U-C-T checkers.
	That's the French United Connection Kingdom.
	No, what was it?
	Oh, it was F-C-U-T.
	French Connection United Kingdom.
	That's what it was.
	So on the menu today, we're going to get to the fake fact checkers just to kick things off.
	Before we head over to Rumble, and now people are starting to appreciate, A. The importance of Rumble.
	And B, the importance of clear terms of service community guidelines.
	Barnes and I drafted and crafted the terms of service community guidelines, whatever we want to call them, for Rumble.
	Some people don't like them because they say, it still sounds like some speech might be prohibited.
	Yeah.
	Except it's going to be clear what speech is going to be prohibited.
	And it's going to be clear how the rules are going to be implemented in a non-partisan, non-viewpoint-based manner.
	And it's going to be subject to the scrutiny of a community with the final say on the platform itself as to, you know, did we make a mistake here?
	It's not going to be willy-nilly, capricious, arbitrary, murky, is the word not, what is the word I'm looking for?
	Opaque.
	Opaque terms of service, community guidelines.
	That can apply to anybody and anybody at any given point in time, depending on how we want to interpret the words, but seems to be applied with a strong viewpoint bias.
	Oddly enough, something that seems to be remedied by new legislation in Texas, and the discussion is going to be, you know, does this open the potential for a lawsuit in the state of Texas if what YouTube did to Rakeda is deemed to be viewpoint discrimination?
	But hold on.
	Standard disclaimers.
	No legal advice, no medical advice, no election fornication advice.
	Superchats, YouTube takes 30%, but that will only be a warning for the first half hour of the stream before we migrate over to Rumble.
	Not so that I can do things that I can't do on YouTube, so that I can reward the platform that is walking the walk and talking the talk literally.
	This is as bad as the Veep and Kamala mashup.
	Have you seen it?
	I haven't seen that, but we're going to get into some of the fact check stuff.
	So we're going to move this over to Rumble.
	21 minutes, give or take.
	On the menu, fake news, fact checkers, wordsmiths of the devil.
	Canada, conspiracy theory of yesterday, confirmed fact of today.
	French Connection was a long time ago.
	It was the one that said F-U-C-T, fucked.
	That went to the Supreme Court.
	That was the recent one.
	But what did that stand for?
	The fucked, it was a brand.
	I'm not swearing for the sake of it, people.
	I like you rewarding the platform reasoning.
	Thank you, political foolishness.
	What did F-U-C-T stand for?
	It stood for Friends Under...
	Chat, who's going to get this first?
	F-U-C-T was the brand that went to the Supreme Court.
	Their trademark was rejected because it was lascivious or whatever.
	It was...
	Friends you can trust.
	No, friends you can't trust.
	That was the most recent one that went to the Supreme Court about a couple of years ago.
	Friends you can't trust.
	Good.
	Well, we tied there, but I think you might have gotten it first, Rodfer, because I'm on the StreamYard's comments and it's delayed.
	But we're going to go over Nick's situation.
	We're going to go over it.
	I've queued up Nick's stream on Rumble where he explains the situation.
	We'll look it over and see whether or not anyone...
	I'm sure there are a ton of people who think this is justified.
	The question is going to be, is it arbitrary?
	Is it justified?
	Is it double jeopardy or triple jeopardy?
	Nick is on Crowder.
	That'll bring some attention to it.
	So anyways, we're going to go with fake news.
	Wordsmiths of the devil.
	Because, oh my goodness.
	The pieces that they just put out for Kamala Harris talking about equity in the funds to be dispersed for disaster relief.
	Ooh, they've got to fact check that.
	Wordsmiths of the Devil.
	What was the other fact check?
	Fetterman.
	Fetterman releasing one-third of dangerous criminals according to a MetMetOz ad.
	Fact checked.
	And you can see the wordsmithing.
	Depending on the narrative that wants to be promoted.
	It can be, the answer could just as easily be yes or no, with the exact same reasoning, just placing the emphasis on a different syllable.
	And then we're going to go to Canada.
	Confirm now this, what is it?
	Known Digital Identity Traveler.
	It's Known Digital Identity Traveler.
	Some platform.
	Sounds like ArriveCan, but it sounds like ArriveCan on steroids.
	Let me just see if...
	Hold on just one second.
	And I've never got a call.
	I've never got a call.
	Give me two minutes, people.
	Nothing dire, just unexpected stuff.
	Hold on, please.
	Okay, people, we might be getting various interruptions.
	I might have a sick kid at school that I might have to go pick up, so we're going to see about that.
	While I wait for a call, so bear with me and forgive me because this might interfere a little bit with the stream.
	Where was I?
	And it might distract me.
	So I've got a kid.
	I might have to go pick up a sick kid.
	We'll see what happens.
	But before we get another call, let's just put this on pause and let's go.
	StreamYard is now calling it present.
	Let's go present what Kamala Harris said and how these wordsmiths of the devil fact checkers fact check things.
	This was making the rounds.
	It comes from RNC Research, so you might want to, you know, view this video with the requisite skepticism because it's a partisan by definition.
	The families in Florida, in Puerto Rico, with Fiona, and what we need to do to help them in terms of an immediate response and aid, but also what we need to do to help restore communities and build communities back up in a way that they can be resilient, not to mention adapt to these extreme weather conditions which are part of the future.
	On the point that you made about disparities, you know, when I was back, when I was district attorney of San Francisco, I was elected in 2003.
	I started one of the first environmental justice units of NEDA's office in the country focused on this issue.
	And in particular...
	Environmental justice.
	She created it.
	The disparities, as you have described rightly, which is that it is our lowest income communities and our communities of color.
	That are most impacted by these extreme conditions and impacted by issues that are not of their own making.
	Absolutely.
	And so we have to address this in a way that is about giving resources based on equity, understanding that we fight for equality but we also need to fight for equity, understanding not everyone starts out at the same place.
	Resources based on equity.
	Resources based on equity.
	Let's just refresh this and see what the RNC had to say about it.
	Resources based on equity.
	Environmental justice.
	What does that mean?
	Kamala Harris suggests hurricane and disaster relief should be based on race.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Scary.
	That's the claim.
	That's the video.
	What does the fact check say?
	What do the wordsmiths of the devil do?
	That's so good.
	That's so good.
	I don't know.
	I can't put on a shirt because nobody's going to want to wear a shirt that says wordsmith of the devil.
	What does the fact checker say about this?
	Let me go to the fact checker.
	That's the Mehmet Oz fact check.
	That's not the...
	Where's the...
	Where's the...
	Did I...
	The fact check said...
	No, she didn't say it.
	I need to bring up the fact check.
	Why don't I have that in my...
	Oh, son of a...
	Nerds.
	I'm going to have to pull this up.
	I have the video from the link.
	Is it this one?
	Ugh, for goodness sake.
	Give me two seconds.
	I'm gonna have to go find this.
	The fact check said no.
	Kamala Harris didn't say that.
	Mala Harris, here we go.
	Hurricane fact check.
	No, she didn't say that, you idiots.
	Who are you going to believe?
	Me or your lying ears?
	No.
	They always start off that way.
	Kamala Harris said about Hurricane Ian that if you have a different skin color, you're going to get relief faster.
	I think we can all agree that that was not intended at any point.
	If Rick Scott said that verbatim, that was not intended to be a verbatim quote from Kamala Harris.
	The question is, did she effectively say that in the policy that she specifically touted as being relief based on equity?
	Equity being the politically correct term for different race, gender, lower income, as she said in the interview.
	Let's just say, no, Kamala Harris didn't say Hurricane Ian would be based on skin color.
	Okay.
	Harris did not say any particular race would be prioritized in relief efforts.
	She said it would be based on equity, and then did specifically mention women when the announcer asked about women, and other.
	Ethnicities.
	No particular race would be prioritized, but it certainly sounded like, arguably, a specific race would be deprioritized.
	The White House said in her comments about equity referring to long-term bipartisan investment in underserved communities, not in immediate hurricane relief.
	That sounds like wordsmithing.
	She's not talking about Hurricane Ian right now specifically.
	They're just talking about equity.
	The White House said her comments about equity were referring to long-term.
	Oh, not short-term.
	Don't worry.
	It's not going to be based on race because it's long-term, not short-term.
	Bipartisan.
	Oh, okay.
	So both parties get behind this arguable discrimination.
	Investments in underserved communities.
	By the way, they go to...
	Let's just see here.
	After Hurricane Ian made landfall, she's giving this interview.
	She's making these statements in the wake of the hurricane.
	She does an interview.
	She was speaking with actress Priyanka Chopra-Jonas on September 30th before the DNC...
	That's my wife.
	Hold on one second, people.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	All right, I'm back.
	You know what the biggest curse for OCD hypochondriac is?
	Everything is an immediate panic with me.
	And I know this.
	I have to get this under control.
	So that's it.
	Now she's talking to mom, so we might be able to do this a little more smoothly.
	That's the article.
	But you've had time to read this.
	I'm going to unpack that question, Harris, and respond with a laugh.
	Okay.
	The statement is that relief is going to be based on race or gender or equity, whatever that means.
	We heard the statement.
	They link to the interview, but I'm just going to play it one more time, actually, from the interview itself, because the before and the after are relevant.
	And I know that I at least have the interview on YouTube.
	Here, listen to this.
	This is the point at which it becomes relevant.
	The crisis is real and the clock is ticking.
	And the urgency with which we must act is without any question.
	And the way that we think of it and the way I think of it is both in terms of the human toll.
	And I know we are all thinking about the families in Florida, in Puerto Rico, with Fiona.
	And what we need to do to help them in terms of an immediate response and aid.
	Context is typically relevant, especially when it undermines the conclusion.
	Oh, she wasn't talking about Hurricane Fiona or Hurricane Ian.
	She was talking long-term bipartisan relief based on equity.
	Well, that's the context leading up to the statement.
	But also what we need to do to help restore communities and build communities back up in a way that they can be resilient.
	Not to mention adapt to these extreme weather conditions, which are part of the future.
	On the point that you made about disparities, back when I was district attorney of San Francisco, I was elected in 2003, I started one of the first environmental justice units of NEDA's office in the country focused on this issue.
	And in particular on the disparities, as you have described rightly, which is that...
	It is our lowest income communities and our communities of color that are most impacted by these extreme conditions and impacted by issues that are not of their own making.
	And women?
	Absolutely.
	And so we have to address this in a way that is about giving resources based on equity, understanding that we fight for equality, but we also need to fight for equity, understanding not everyone starts out at the same place.
	Giving resources based on equity in the context of what she just identified as women, people of color, low income.
	Some might say the association in there is itself Almost as prejudiced as the policy itself.
	Sometimes we have to take into account those disparities and do that work.
	Clap.
	That's the statement, people.
	In all its glorious context.
	What did she mean by it?
	Is it as bad as it sounds?
	Is it worse than it sounds?
	And what do we make of the fact checker?
	Please make this stupid stuff right.
	Mortimer Duke.
	My dad's name is Mortimer.
	What do we make of the fact check in all of this?
	No, she didn't say that.
	What she basically meant was, oh, it's bipartisan.
	It's old news, dude.
	It's barely a week old.
	What's the date?
	And yeah, it's not a question of being old or new news.
	It's a question of fake fact checkers or fake fact, period.
	Wordsmiths, all they do is work away, work around what was actually said.
	In order to easily recontextualize it, in order to recontextualize it so that it can mean what they want it to mean as opposed to mean what it actually meant.
	And on that similar vein, Fetterman, running against Mehmet Oz, you want to talk about...
	Twisting things...
	No, I'll say not twisting.
	Just reading into things so that you can make them say what you want them to say and not what you don't want them to say.
	What was the hit piece on...
	Or the hit piece.
	The recent criticism of...
	I want to say...
	Is it John Fetterman?
	John Fetterman.
	This is a tweet from Cernovich.
	Fetterman.
	The state's prison population could be reduced by one-third.
	And if you think that Fetterman didn't say that, I've got the video receipts to show you coming up.
	Fact check.
	It's mostly false to claim that Fetterman wants to release one-third of prison.
	This is platform manipulation and voter suppression.
	They are flagging Fetterman on video saying to release one-third.
	This is the fact check.
	This is a good montage and I checked it up and these are all legit screen grabs.
	Mem and Oz, apparently in one of his online campaign ads, I couldn't find the original ad.
	I don't know if Oz took it down.
	Fetterman wants to release one-third of dangerous criminals back into our communities.
	Oz is saying, not quoting Fetterman as having said, I want to release one-third of dangerous criminals back into our communities.
	John Fetterman wants to release one-third of dangerous criminals back into our communities.
	What do the fact checkers say?
	Oh, look, in Pennsylvania Senate race, Mehmet Oz distorts John Fetterman's stance on releasing prison inmates.
	Fetterman has not called for releasing one-third of dangerous criminals.
	In 2020, he said he agreed with what he said was a comment by Pennsylvania's Correction Secretary that state's prison population could be reduced by one-third without a risk to public safety.
	Fetterman said, we're actively trying to audit our population to identify those inmates that are most deserving.
	And does it make sense?
	I think there's one more page to this.
	In a virtual panel discussion, Fetterman stated, I was on a panel with Secretary Wetzel earlier before the pandemic hit, and he said something remarkable that I agree with.
	We could reduce our prison population by a third and not make anyone less safe.
	And that's a profound statement.
	In July, he tweeted, we could reduce our state prison population by one third.
	Make us no less safe, save a billion dollars a year.
	In April 2020, PennLive reported, Fetterman said that he could cut inmate population by one-third by releasing nonviolent offenders and convicts.
	Shall we get a little montage?
	It's by the RNC again.
	A little montage of what Fetterman actually said.
	We're going to hinge on the word dangerous, everybody.
	He said he could reduce the population by one-third, but he didn't say anything about releasing dangerous criminals.
	And so instead of it being mostly true, I don't know, mostly true, he said he wants to reduce the population by one-third.
	It's mostly false because he never said dangerous, he just said, I guess convicts would be the right word.
	Let's see another montage by the GOP.
	You'll notice why this is partisan.
	In style, in form.
	And whether or not there's context, the context that we can always give.
	He's not talking about dangerous criminals.
	He's just talking about convicted criminals.
	Reduce it by one third.
	He said something remarkable that I agree with.
	He said we could reduce our prison population by a third.
	Throw in scary music for full effect.
	And not make anyone less safe.
	If we could reduce our prison population, we could return these individuals back to their families, back to their communities.
	And everyone is safer or better off, and the outcomes are more just.
	Why wouldn't we want to do that?
	I was on a panel with our director of corrections, and he said something that I...
	They've got to use.
	I suspect there are more flattering images out there, but they've got to use this one.
	...is that we could release one-third of our inmate population and not make anyone less safe.
	So there's the interesting issue with all of that.
	I think a great many of us would agree on releasing non-violent, petty drug offenders.
	I think most of us would agree with that.
	I certainly agree with releasing non-violent, low-level marijuana possession criminals from jail.
	Whether or not what he has in his mind is reducing the prison population.
	I don't know if he means jail or prison in terms of severity of crimes.
	If he means reducing it by one-third as a number to get to, regardless of the infractions, that's a policy issue.
	If he means release low-level, non-violent, petty drug offenders, that's another issue.
	That's a policy issue.
	The inability to describe that in a way that is more nuanced than saying we can reduce the population of the prison by one-third.
	Multiple times say it over and over again.
	And then he has to have the fact checkers come in and say, he never said dangerous criminals.
	He just said criminals.
	He never said...
	It's mostly false.
	He never said dangerous criminals.
	He just said reduce the population by one-third criminals.
	Oh, let's see here.
	Hold on a second.
	13% of federal prison population is on cannabis crimes.
	That's a lot.
	I think we all agree with that, by the way.
	The other thing is one-third of the prison population To be released without it making anybody less safe?
	It's nice to repeat a talking point.
	I'd like to see the homework behind that.
	We could all agree on the basic policy.
	Non-violent, especially now that it's been decriminalized.
	I know it can't be done federally, but non-violent petty possession of marijuana, we could all agree on.
	As a hard and fast rule to say as a policy, reduce the prison population by one-third.
	Yeah, take issue with the dangerous qualification in there and not the policy in and of itself.
	Okay, we're 35 minutes in.
	Before we go this, I'm just going to text my wife.
	All right.
	Mom with the vehicle is on it, but if I have to cut this short...
	We might have to.
	Kamala also said we are proud partners with North Korea and noticed the smug edits she had while saying it.
	Shameless, utterly shameless.
	Anyhow, so even non-violent hard drug offenses.
	Agreed.
	We can read your lips.
	Don't worry.
	I talk as though I would accidentally have forgotten to put it on mute in the first place.
	I'm transparent to a flaw.
	So that's the fake news aspect of all of this.
	I don't know when.
	Has PolitiFact always been this bad, and I just never knew it?
	Or have they gotten progressively worse and worse as the world has become hyper-partisan, hyper-politicized, hyper-tribalistic, politically speaking?
	But I felt we had to just go over those.
	Fetterman said it repeatedly.
	Whether or not you think it's a good or bad policy, whether or not you understood him to say, we're not going to release dangerous criminals.
	But we're going to reduce the prison population by one-third.
	And whether or not the mere fact that he can't enunciate, elucidate, no, that's not the right word, but that he cannot phrase a policy in a manner that's coherent is in and of itself a problem.
	Whether or not Mehmet Oz is any better, that would be one of those...
	That would be one of those...
	Personal decisions.
	That's none of my business.
	Okay.
	Let me just see something here.
	I think we're going to move it on over to...
	Because we're moving on up.
	Yeah, we want to talk about Rakeda.
	The ban heard around the interwebs.
	People, here's the link.
	Rumble.
	And we're going to flesh this out.
	Rakeda.
	I know him.
	I like him.
	I think I know him personally, although we've never met.
	Have we met in person?
	We've never met in person.
	Is Eric Hundley here?
	If Eric Hundley's here, maybe I'll flip him the link and we can get him in.
	Nuked.
	Overnight.
	I'm sure he got a very nebulous reason, if he got a reason at all.
	Everyone's trying to hustle and, you know, take credit for it.
	We're going to talk about it now.
	Okay, go on over to Rumble, and hopefully, let me see what I have left on the menu here.
	Oh, and then we're going to talk about the WEF stuff.
	Not because we couldn't talk about it on YouTube.
	I'm posting my streams to YouTube the day later.
	I think the worst that has happened thus far is one got demonetized, which I really don't care about.
	But someone called me a milquetoast fence sitter.
	I don't push the envelope of rhetoric.
	I don't push the envelope of language or humor.
	It might make me a little more boring, but it's what I feel comfortable doing.
	I swore on Twitter the other day.
	And I felt bad about it for a couple of days later.
	Because I'm an idiot.
	I am an idiot.
	Okay.
	Reketa was on crowd.
	Okay, very cool.
	Let us all mosey on over, people, to the Rumbles and talk about Nick's nuking from the platform of YouTube.
	I don't know if there's been any news as of the last hour or so, but we are ending it on Rumble.
	We are ending it on YouTube in 3, 2, 1. I think we're alone now.
	Yeah.
	I'm wearing a black shirt today, people.
	I might be sweating like you've never seen under my armpits, my chest, but you won't know because black does not show sweat and certain whites do not show sweat.
	But grays?
	Oh, you better believe they show sweat.
	All right.
	So Nick Ricada had his YouTube channel nuked.
	And, you know, it starts, it makes its waves throughout the interwebs.
	It happens.
	People are watching.
	Apparently it went down live.
	People start tweeting about it.
	What happened?
	The law tubes gets mobilized.
	And, you know, people freak out.
	People freak out because, first of all, a lot of people like Nick.
	A lot of people like him.
	Nick is edgy.
	He knows he's edgy.
	I think he even, at one point in time, recognized, you know, that he was on Borrow Time on YouTube because of the nature of his comedy, the nature of his analysis, the nature of his commentary.
	Let me see something here.
	But he gets nuked, and people start freaking out, and I just, you know, call it milquetoast, call it cautious.
	I don't want to jump to conclusions, even though I know what I'm thinking.
	I want to give people, even YouTube, the opportunity to explain.
	And also, from a more, what's the word, Machiavellian perspective, I'd like to give YouTube the opportunity to make a mistake by saying something.
	And I don't want to make YouTube's job in justifying, justifying, nuking Rakata's channel any easier by taking untenable positions or making statements that might turn out to be unsubstantiated or false because I don't know all the facts as of yet.
	So when Nick gets nuked, when Nick gets nuked, I take the milquetoast, polite, fence-sitting position.
	Hey, YouTube, why was Rakata Law's YouTube channel nuked?
	Tagging Team YouTube.
	The community will need and deserves a specific response to be sure that this was done in good faith and justifiably.
	One of the problems with YouTube that we've been discussing for a while are opaque terms of service community guidelines.
	No threats or harassment.
	If it's serious enough, they can nuke the channel right off the bat.
	Three strikes of harassment, violence, whatever.
	And then you get nuked.
	So, Ricada had made, I don't want to say made the news, but Ricada was, he made some waves on social media.
	I don't know enough of the details.
	I think I know a bit of it, but...
	Kiwi Farms and what's the person's name?
	The other one there.
	Keffel?
	Keffel, I think is the name.
	He got a first strike recently from some statements that he made about Keffel.
	I'm going to go to his stream where he reads one of his ethics complaints because now what happens is you make commentary online and if you're a lawyer, people think the appropriate thing is to go file ethics complaints with your state Or provincial bar.
	So in the stream yesterday explaining it, Rakeda reads through one of the complaints that references some, but I don't think the specific impugned statement as relates to Keffel, and we'll listen to it so you can hear it.
	But here's the most important part.
	Determination that discipline is not warranted without investigation.
	So they didn't look any further into it than the surface level.
	There is...
	Like it says, without investigation, but as we'll see there, this is actually a minor amount of investigation.
	Kind of interesting.
	But yeah, so this did not stick.
	There was no...
	And worth noting, by the way, people were hypothesizing as to why he got his channel nuked.
	Some were saying that he was directing people over to locals from YouTube to dox the people in some complaints that he was going over.
	He's redacted addresses here.
	Not the name of the complainant.
	In a disciplinary complaint made by someone who's never had any professional dealings with Nick, not about his practice as an attorney, but about comments he made online, which this person argued was unbecoming of a member of a professional order.
	So let's carry on here.
	Nothing happened.
	After reviewing the documents you submitted and the publicly available videos on YouTube, they had to watch the Kettles video.
	Oh.
	Okay.
	The director has determined not to investigate your complaint.
	The reasons for the director's decision not to investigate this complaint are as follows.
	Complaint summary.
	Attorney Nicholas Ricada has publicly posted...
	Someone in the chat, Benola, said that's not true.
	I'm just saying what some people who want to take credit for this, who want to explain what happened, are saying some people are saying that he was directing people over to locals to docks.
	Nick's not stupid, so I don't think he would be doing something like that.
	Nor do I think Nick would even have that malicious intent, even if he wanted to do that.
	He's not stupid.
	He's not malicious.
	But moreover...
	And most importantly, he's not stupid.
	So he's not going to say, hey guys, come on over to Locals.
	I'm going to dox the people who filed complaints, which is why I've redacted the addresses or identifiable information, meaningful identifiable personal information in what I'm covering on Rumble.
	So I'm not saying, I'm not even lending credence.
	I'm just saying people are all running out of the woodwork to explain and take credit.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	But he's going to quote the ethics complaint.
	That references the statements he made in the stream.
	And you'll assess those statements, as you will, based on your own good judgment.
	YouTube channel, wherein he made statements regarding a transgender activist who posts under the name Keffels, Lucas Roberts.
	In reference to Keffels, Mr. Ricada stated, quote, I'm quoting here, YouTube.
	Get the exponent already, because I...
	Ricada's quoting here, and I am only allowing Ricada...
	Playing Rakeda, quoting an ethics complaint against him.
	Legal commentary, people.
	I have something to hang on it.
	You know what?
	Get a cross ready and get the expletive chainsaws ready.
	You believe these statements are unbecoming of a lawyer.
	I say, I disagree with this person, by the way.
	I think those statements are very, very becoming.
	So those are some of the statements.
	Which one could say violated YouTube community guidelines to explain away the overnight nuking of Reketa's channel.
	Okay, and so you didn't redact anything.
	Nick redacted their personal info.
	Peggymck, I'm not saying I redacted their info.
	I'm playing from Reketa's rumble stream.
	That is what Reketa's stream looked like.
	He redacted the addresses.
	What I am saying, if it's not clear, is that some people on Twitter yesterday, in an attempt to wrongly or explain away, had said that I reported him because he was referring people over to locals, to docs, to provide information that he was not providing on YouTube because it would violate YouTube's terms of service, community guidelines, whatever.
	I don't for a second believe that Reketa would do that.
	Other people were saying, You know, it's...
	Boozy is taking credit.
	Christopher Boozy is taking credit for having gotten Ricada's channel shut down, if only implicitly.
	Keffles is saying, you know, I don't know who these people are, but from the clips I've seen from some of these streams, Keffles is saying that Keffles got the channel taken down.
	Those are the words.
	You've heard, at the very least, it is...
	Attorney Nicholas Ricada has publicly posted a video.
	Are we still...
	Did I share the screen?
	No, hold on.
	I'll just read.
	What is in the complaint of things that Rakeda acknowledges that he said on YouTube?
	Get the expletive wall ready because I have something to hang on it.
	Because everybody knows what there's a, you know, Rakeda has, channels have coined their terms.
	You know, we've got good, good.
	Confession through projection.
	Rakeda has, his community has made some terms, you know, branded them with the channel.
	Late end, I won't say it.
	And maps, you know, something about maps.
	Get the expletive wall ready because I have something to hang on in.
	You know what?
	Get a cross ready and get the expletive chainsaws ready.
	You believe these statements are unbecoming of a lawyer.
	Well, okay.
	One can be a lawyer without being a lawyer at all times when one is, say, commentating on things that are not necessarily legal.
	I'm sure doctors say a lot of...
	Well, whatever.
	It doesn't matter.
	Parentheses closed.
	That's one of the statements that Reketa made.
	Whether or not that's the one that led to any one of his two or ultimate strike on YouTube is...
	I don't know the facts yet.
	I am fairly certain that one statement he made...
	I'm not playing the video.
	It was a clip that went around on Twitter.
	I think it was Keffels that started sharing the clip, purporting that Reketa threatened specific violence against Keffels.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	Okay, so it looks like I'm in the clear at least because we only have one car anyhow, so my wife is going to tend to this.
	Now I lost my train of thought.
	A statement about Keffels, which Keffels then tweeted this short clip, purported that it was a specific call to violence against Keffels.
	Misrepresented, to some extent, what Reketa said in it.
	Where Reketa said, you know, get on the wall, there was no mention of being shot.
	Now, some are going to argue, well, that's what it means.
	Therefore, when Keffel says it meant it was a direct call to violence, others are going to say, no, it was a direct reference to one of the, not memes, but one of the catchphrases on the channel.
	Certain things belong on walls.
	Maps belong on walls.
	That's what one of the common phrases on Rakata's channel is.
	We all know what maps means in today's culture war context.
	And the pun is that maps are maps.
	People hang maps on walls, like maps of the earth.
	And so there's a pun in there.
	The underlying tone of the pun, hyperbolic, whatever, It becomes a question of interpretation, and under American law, from what I understand and from what I also believe, it is not a true call to violence, a true threat, under the jurisprudential standards.
	Whether or not that would be true under Canadian legal speech standards, I'm not so sure anymore.
	But Keffels was circulating this tweet, it had a clip, and it had a quote saying, get lined up for the purpose of getting shot.
	So that, as far as I understood, led to the strike and two-week suspension on Rakata's channel.
	Okay?
	And it was big news.
	Nobody knows what happens.
	You get a strike.
	You can't communicate with your audience.
	You're off what is the biggest platform in terms of numbers for two weeks.
	And that's what I understood to be the violation, which to the extent that these rules are applied equally so that when Rakata says, you know, Things get up against the wall as a hyperbolic figure of speech critique.
	He gets a two-week strike.
	To the extent that these rules are applied equally to, I don't know, say like an Ethan Klein who talks about bombing an NRA facility, bombing it with love.
	If they're applied equally, at the very least, people can know the rules and govern their own conduct accordingly.
	If they're applied based on viewpoint, based on politics, based on audience, based on demographic.
	That's when you run into problems.
	And when you don't have any sort of oversight as to how these guidelines are being applied, well, then you end up with a situation where people believe, and I will say rightly so, that the hammer tends to fall a little bit right of center as far as sanctions on YouTube content goes.
	It hits the left every now and again.
	There's no question about it.
	And when it does...
	All of a sudden, you know, the people who supported censorship or viewpoint discrimination, not censorship because it's not a public company, I'm sorry, it's not a government, it's a private company, then they start complaining.
	So, the first statement, setting aside the whole ethics complaint, the first statement, Nick was sanctioned, had a two-week suspension, came back on.
	Not sure what the second one was, and then overnight nuked.
	Now, People take to Twitter and they say, you know, this is unfair, this is censorship, this is whatever.
	I'm sure even Nick would acknowledge that he pushes the envelope from time to time.
	It's part and parcel of the brand.
	Pushing the envelope is not necessarily a bad thing, and the world needs envelope pushers for people to actually, well, engage, understand, and appreciate what the issues are.
	But before I jump on and say...
	Just let YouTube explain it.
	Let YouTube justify it as they should.
	You nuke a channel with, what did they have, a half a million subs?
	One of the most popular law channels on YouTube.
	You nuke it and you don't provide a statement to the community, to the millions of people who watch this content monthly.
	You don't provide a clear explanation for how you took the nuclear option of sanctions with no warning and no, I don't know, right to remedy.
	You don't come up with a statement like that.
	And you expect people not to freak out and assume the worst from a company that has been abusing of its discretionary power for a long time now?
	So that's it.
	And then you got, let me see here, who was it?
	You got everybody on earth claiming to take credit for this.
	Here, this is the, I believe this is an accurate screen grab.
	Oh, I'm not sharing it, so you can't see that yet.
	Hold on a second.
	Here.
	I believe this is an accurate screen grab that says, you threatened to line me up against the wall and shoot me, which is the...
	Whether or not it was implied, whether or not it's part and parcel of the double entendre, the and shoot me part was never in the original quote.
	And I remember that Nick was having a back and forth on Twitter and says, yeah, if you're going to quote me, it's weird to put something in quotes that I didn't say even in the clip that you sent, that you tweeted.
	You got everybody under the sun now wanting to take credit for having silenced their ideological adversary.
	Let's see.
	Let's see.
	I tweeted it.
	Here we go.
	This is Nate the Cash.
	My goodness, the internet has a sense of humor.
	You got Christopher Boozy.
	Tweeting out, Nate believes it's all coincidence.
	But what Nate doesn't understand is coincidence takes a lot of planning.
	To be fair, Nate doesn't understand a lot of things.
	Oh, God, this is so witty.
	P.S., where is the lawsuit?
	A lot of donors are getting impatient.
	Oh, the internet drama.
	Then you got Keffels.
	You threatened to line me up against the wall and shoot me and then doxxed all of my followers who sent complaints about your conduct to the Minnesota bar.
	This, I happen to know, is a particularly...
	Confession through projection will be my catchphrase from the channel.
	Christopher Boozy's Twitter feed is a masterclass in confession through projection.
	For anybody who's not blocked and cares to go view it, masterclass.
	Let me see that one here.
	As is Keffel.
	You threaten to line me up against the wall and shoot me and then dox all of my followers who sent complaints about your conduct to the Minnesota bar.
	I haven't seen evidence that Rakeda doxed anybody.
	What I have seen evidence of, is it here?
	No, I'll go back.
	Is that I did see a tweet from Keffels saying that anyone on Kiwi Farms, I'm going to dox anybody on Kiwi Farms.
	And not only am I going to dox them, I'm going to go to their employers.
	I'm going to see if I can find that tweet in a second.
	And then a third person, which is what I was talking about earlier.
	I don't know who this person is.
	I can confirm this happened because his stream in which he read out the names of people who filed ethics complaints against him and directed people to his local page where he would be posting full docs.
	Okay.
	I reported the stream live when it happened.
	All right.
	Well, we have a culprit.
	And the question is going to be this.
	Did that happen?
	Did this happen?
	It's not a...
	Does YouTube think it happened?
	Is YouTube, like other institutions have, catering to the will, the pressure, and a brigade of people spreading false information?
	False information along the lines of, he was doxing people.
	I reported it.
	Did it ever happen?
	Does YouTube conduct any form of investigation before imposing the ultimate sanction based on what I can only presume are anonymous complaints or brigading complaints in the first place?
	If it would turn out to be the case, people out there, you might love Nick.
	Let's just say he had a total lapse of reason.
	He said, hey guys, I'm only going to say the names here.
	Come over to my local pages and I'm going to give you their home addresses.
	If Ricada had done that, would we then say, yeah, the ban is unfair?
	Some people might say, look, their home addresses are public if they put it on a complaint.
	So don't file a complaint if you don't want your home address to be known.
	Some people could say that.
	I can imagine some people saying that.
	Other people, and I think the most people out there, would say, if he did that, that might change my initial assessment of the situation.
	I strongly doubt Rakeda said, here are the names here.
	I'm going to dox them on locals.
	I strongly doubt he would do that because I think that would lead to whatever.
	So I strongly doubt he would do that, but that's what someone is saying.
	Now, when YouTube comes in and says, oh, we've received a complaint that someone says he was directing people over to another platform to dox them, do we do an investigation?
	Do we have hard evidence of this?
	or do we nuke the channel on brigade complaints, anonymous complaints alone?
	To be determined.
	And YouTube has some explaining to do.
	If that is what YouTube did...
	Let them say it.
	If YouTube has concrete hard evidence of a third violation to warrant the ultimate sanction, let them say it.
	Let them show it and let them prove it.
	Mr. Gray says it isn't doxing if they are starting a lawsuit with him.
	True.
	These are ethics complaints, however, so they're not lawsuits.
	And then the issue would be, nonetheless, there is...
	It was Taylor Lorenz's defense.
	I didn't dox anybody.
	It's already public.
	I just made it more public.
	Something being obscurely hidden in a tweet with two retweets, and then if you get the likes of Taylor Lorenz in to amplify it to a million, I don't know how many followers she has.
	If you want to say that's not doxing because it was already there, then the only form of doxing that anyone or a person who subscribes to this viewpoint would say is legit doxing is getting information that's not publicly accessible.
	The idea is that doxing is amplifying or making public.
	Something might be there.
	The only way you can get it to make public in the first place is if it's publicly accessible.
	It's not like going through someone's garbage.
	Well, they threw it out.
	All that I did was go through their garbage, which they have no expectation of privacy over, then make it public.
	I think most people would say that's doxing.
	Taking a less extreme example, someone with no following tweets someone's home address.
	And then someone with a massive account retweets that and amplifies it.
	Is that doxing in a legal sense?
	I mean, not every place even has laws against doxing, but I think many people would consider that to be doxing in the meaningful sense.
	So the fact that they even had to include their addresses on an ethics complaint, even if it's technically public, to take that and then make it more public to a million people online, I think many people would agree is doxing.
	Where was the tweet from Keffles?
	I don't know if I'm going to be able to find the tweet from Keffles that had the overt...
	Well, no, it was a tweet that said, if you're on KiwiFarms, I'm not only going to dox you, I'm going to contact your employer.
	Some might say that that is a little bit of the hashtags, confessions through projections.
	But the bottom line is, we don't know...
	All the details.
	I haven't seen Nick on Crowder, so maybe he has more details there.
	But I prefer to take the line.
	Let YouTube explain it.
	And if they have good reasons, then we might have to take issue with the policies that allow this to happen.
	Or some people might say, holy crap, I didn't know he did that.
	I'm changing my opinion.
	I'd be very skeptical if that's actually going to be the case.
	Just looking to see if it's in the replies here.
	Can't seem to find it.
	So that's it.
	Now, Rakeda yeeted from YouTube.
	We'll see if his channel comes back.
	And it's highlighting the importance of Rumble, not as a secondary platform, because I think Rumble is going to quickly become a primary platform on par, if not in terms of sheer numbers, because you can't compete with 2 billion users.
	Just yet.
	Substantively, from a perspective of influence, from a perspective of public discourse, what's the word I'm looking for when you impact policy?
	Nick is considering suing YouTube.
	We hear well.
	Well, yes, I believe...
	Again, I'm not sure if this is true, but I believe seeing somewhere that...
	Nick's channel is registered in Texas.
	Texas has that new law.
	Whether or not it's registered in Texas.
	But, yeah, let's see.
	If Nick sues, I mean, the problem is you know that people are going to go find the most over-the-top things that Nick has said in order to justify YouTube's sanction.
	The issue is this also.
	Once a channel becomes the object of a brigade and people say, oh, Nick has pissed off the wrong person now, let's go back and fish through his Several years of seven-hour-long streams to take one clip to say, YouTube, take down this guy's channel.
	Show me the man and I'll find you the crime.
	Show me the man and I'll show you the crime.
	YouTube will be able to do that.
	The question is, as a matter of equity, and these are provisions that Robert and I have crafted into Rumble, if something's been up there for a certain period of time, As a matter of equity and not in environmental justice type equity, as a matter of procedural fairness, I've gotten warnings or, you know, warning.
	What did I get?
	A video demonetized from a year ago that had been monetized for a long time.
	All of a sudden, I know something changes in the algorithm and they go back and demonetize a video.
	Okay, that's not the end of the world because it has no impact on your channel, but the idea that they can go back and penalize you for something that they've tolerated on their platform for an extended period of time, that's fundamentally unfair.
	You want to talk about creating expectations, that creates an expectation, not only with respect to that particular video, but with respect to anything along the same vein.
	That video has been up there for six months.
	You never had a problem with it.
	You start creating content that, you know, along the same lines.
	And then they penalize you for that one.
	When you've been acting in accordance with what has been tacitly, if not explicitly, accepted conduct on the platform, that's a problem.
	You shouldn't be able to do that as a matter of pure procedural fairness.
	More importantly, YouTube says, okay, well, we've made enough money off Rikada right now.
	We've made enough money off Rikada, both in terms of the traffic he's brought to us, the other creators he's brought to us, because the LawTube community...
	has brought new LawTube community creators to the platform.
	It's brought new audiences to the YouTube platform.
	Ricada, and I'm not saying this to indirectly pat myself on the back, there's no but.
	Ricada has brought business to YouTube.
	He's brought traffic.
	He's brought advertising revenue.
	And I would say maybe most importantly, he's brought a buttload of money to YouTube through Super Chats, through Super Chats in particular.
	Yeah, Wave GGG says, no ex post facto laws.
	Absolutely.
	Reketa has brought value to YouTube.
	And then YouTube says overnight, thanks for the value.
	Piss off.
	I mean, there are a great many legal arguments that I would think would be very tenable.
	You didn't just tolerate my presence.
	You monetize my presence.
	And then one day to the next, you say, Thanks for the money.
	Thanks for the super chat, 30%.
	Thanks for the traffic.
	Thanks for the brand recognition.
	Thanks for creating a niche or having a role to have played in creating a niche on YouTube that I suspect is one of the fastest growing niches on YouTube.
	I think slime, fishing, cooking have all been saturated.
	Thanks for building up our platform, PissOff.
	Okay, let me just read a couple of chats because I see them here.
	Rob A says, Viva Fry, isn't there a convention in law that recognizes how things have been before in a certain matter?
	Yes, and that is the way it is.
	Therefore, it is how the court can rule.
	What's the word?
	It's not latches.
	It's not clean hands theory.
	It's the theory of having created a reasonable business expectation.
	I'll open up a funny parenthesis on that in a second.
	Ari Berry says, On that video, he specifically told listeners not to contact any of those people, and they weren't worth our time or energy.
	And we got Caligula says, don't forget Google's and many Silicon Valley companies close ties with governments.
	This kind of thing is far beyond my private company.
	Oh, we'll see.
	Look, it's going to get to the Supreme Court sooner than later.
	Section 230 aspect of it, at least.
	But Robby, creating a reasonable business expectation?
	It was one of my most soul-crushing losses in law, but I had a client who was the owner of a property and had a tenant, commercial tenant, just bounced one check after another, just bounced check, 18 bounced checks over a year or so.
	And the judge actually said, and then when my client came down with the hammer and said, that's it, that was your last bounced check, get out, went to court.
	And the judge said, by virtue of you having tolerated that business practice over the course of a year, 18 months, you created the expectation that he could bounce checks without you bringing down the hammer.
	The judge ordered him to be allowed to remain in the premises.
	The tenant never paid any rent while we appealed the decision and then absconded.
	But that was it.
	I just forget what the exact term is.
	It's not precedent.
	Whatever.
	That's the idea.
	Now, they did sanction him recently, but if they sanctioned him recently, and then the idea is, well, now we're going to go back and find what we need to find to sanction you permanently, that's problematic business dealings in my humble view.
	Momo Fred says, Nick had too much influence with the wrong population, can't have that leading up to the midterms.
	Now, the problem is, some people might be inclined to say, okay, look, I can see how it happened to Nick.
	He said some bad things, things that go against the community guidelines, even if they're not direct calls to violence in the legal sense, which should be the standard.
	They violate the community guidelines.
	Okay.
	Well, when it comes to a question of interpretation, where you say, fight like hell, that gets Trump deplatformed, but get in their faces and harassment, no problem there.
	Well, that's not necessarily terms of service.
	That wasn't on the platform.
	I'm trying to think of another good one.
	But when you get into this interpretation and viewpoint application of community guidelines in terms of service, that's where you have a problem.
	And then it's only a matter of time before someone says, go to any given channel.
	I'm thinking, let me try to think of legal bites.
	I want to take a channel where I think one could safely say there has never been anything remotely controversial that could justify a sanction from YouTube.
	But then someone says, I don't know if you use the word simp.
	Oh, that's derogatory.
	That's targeted harassment.
	Amber Heard simps.
	Oh.
	Or you call...
	No.
	Let's just change what is offensive today so that we can go after another channel based on viewpoint leading up to a period of time where we need to control the flow of information to craft, to shape minds.
	There is no channel.
	There is no creator who would be shielded from anything, save and accept ones who say nothing, but then at some point even silences violence.
	So the issue is make YouTube show its homework.
	They did something, can't get much more serious as far as content creators go.
	Nuke a channel that's been there for how many years?
	How many thousands of hours of live stream?
	Quality content, set aside whatever issues people want to take with specific statements and specific things.
	That is no longer there for public consumption.
	To quote the church lady, well, isn't that convenient?
	That's not the church lady.
	The church lady was, isn't that special?
	Let me see what the chat has to say about Reketa.
	Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech or the press.
	Yes, the argument, that is from Narek Zero.
	Congress shall make no laws.
	The argument is that...
	YouTube is not Congress.
	YouTube is a private platform, can create its own rules.
	The issue is...
	What were we just talking about?
	That was the chair, by the way.
	That wasn't a fart.
	Just to show you again.
	I'm joking.
	That was a fart.
	It was not a fart.
	It was the chair.
	Who was it that was saying, you may not like the rules, but at least you're going to know the rules and you can make a decision accordingly.
	I mean, that is basically...
	The ethos of the rules for Rumble.
	That is the ethos for having no misunderstandings.
	Like the platform or not, let us know the rules.
	Let us know what we can do specifically.
	And let us not be living under the proverbial viewpoint sort of Democles.
	Ron Q. Bacardi says, simp derives from simpleton and describes people who throw money at thoughts.
	For a jiggle.
	And now I know that thoughts stands for that hoe over there.
	I don't know how this is.
	Thoughts.
	Banned.
	And now we're going to go back to everybody's video to see who used thoughts in a manner that we want to weaponize against their channel.
	So anyways, that's the latest on Reketa.
	And it's a dumb, dumb decision if they don't have the receipts.
	And even if they did, when you make a decision like this, you better have the explanation ready with the decision and not catching up after the fact.
	When was it with the Mar-a-Lago raid?
	Raiding an ex-president's office, a former president's office.
	You know, unprecedented.
	You know people are going to be freaking out.
	Scott Adams said, I'm going to apply my 48-hour rule here.
	Let the government...
	Explain their actions.
	Give them 48 hours to explain it.
	While I would typically agree with that, not under those circumstances.
	The 48 hours is to explain away a mistake or to apologize or to clarify.
	When you are raiding a former president's house, you have your explanation ready for a press release contemporaneously with the issue so that people don't spend 48 hours Hypothesizing why.
	And so that nobody accuses you of having taken 48 hours to craft a response in response to a backlash that was unanticipated.
	It's not hard.
	YouTube.
	We made this decision today.
	Here's why we made it.
	It's not just for the creator.
	It's for the community.
	And it's for trust in the entity itself, which I think everybody has already lost.
	Anyhow.
	We'll see where it goes.
	Reketa is going to undoubtedly now focus more on Rumble, undoubtedly focus more on Locals.
	And this drama, whether or not someone thinks it's justified for Reketa, it's going to highlight what a great many people already knew.
	And for those who knew it, it's going to be the reminder.
	YouTube is looking more and more like a highly politicized weapon.
	For manipulating public sentiment.
	And we are heading into the midterms.
	Okay.
	Did I miss anything, people?
	All right.
	Let me get to some other stories of the day because there's good ones.
	Canada, people.
	Conspiracy theory of yesterday.
	Proven fact of today.
	Proven fact of today.
	If I can get it.
	Oh, no.
	Speaking of reminders, people.
	I'm showing this again, and I'm going to remain quiet.
	Dina Hinshaw, the Chief Medical Officer of Health of Alberta.
	This is the person who is making the most important decisions or having a role in making the most important decisions for Albertans.
	She tweeted something out yesterday about data not being ready in Alberta.
	Wait a few days.
	Guys, I'll get back to you.
	And I said, oh, that's never stopped you from lying before because this was the woman who lied.
	And I'm saying lied because she knew when she made the statements that they were false.
	About a 14-year-old teen having been the youngest Albertan to die from COVID when the teen was known to have been in stage 4 brain cancer, was in a coma when they tested him before he died.
	This propagandist took that story, exploited the misery of that family to try and enhance the fear that COVID claimed a teenager in Alberta, the youngest COVID victim yet.
	She walked it back the next day or a day later when the sister called her out and when the public called her out.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I should wait before making determinations.
	We won't announce the cause of death for kids.
	Liar.
	Liar, liar, liar.
	But I forgot about this video.
	This is, back in the day, I posted this, oh my god, that's already over a year ago.
	Bask in the psychotic madness that is this video.
	The chief medical officer of health of Alberta getting up to give her daily briefings.
	Watch this.
	Sorry, no, we've got to get right to the beginning.
	She took off her mask.
	Now she's got to disinfect her hands again.
	She starts speaking at the podium.
	Good morning, everyone, and thank you for coming today.
	She finishes speaking.
	And I will now turn the podium over to Minister LaGrange.
	She finished speaking.
	Nobody touched her.
	No kid came up and sneezed on her hands.
	Disinfects again.
	Puts her mask back on.
	Does she disinfect a fourth time here?
	No.
	Then Minister LaGrange comes in.
	She's like, God, I can't believe I have to do this stupid charade as well.
	Let me take your stupid thing.
	Minister LaGrange speaks.
	Thank you, Dr. Henshaw, and good morning to everyone.
	Thank you.
	Good morning, Dr. Henshaw.
	You said in your comments that eight times more children were hospitalized for anxiety disorders than for COVID during these past 18 months.
	Was this as a result of the lockdown?
	It's a cloth mask, by the way.
	And how does this differ from previous pre-COVID years?
	Do you have any hard numbers on that?
	Thank you for the question.
	Psychotic.
	It's...
	Hold on, I just doubled the window.
	It's purely, purely psychotic.
	Some people are saying, look, she might have OCD, she might have psychological issues.
	Okay.
	She should not be the chief medical officer of health of Alberta if she's got such serious problems that she makes a spectacle of what her job is supposed to be.
	It's psychotic.
	And by the way, I don't think it's any form of OCD.
	Maybe I'm being judgmental.
	I think that is pure charade of the highest and the worstest order.
	Terror, like her own body, is a toxic entity that is like...
	Looking to kill her.
	She talks.
	Nobody touches her.
	She's got to disinfect her hands again.
	It's show of the most insincere order conceivable.
	Dina Hinshaw.
	My gosh.
	So that was not what we wanted to talk about.
	I had to get that off my chest.
	All right.
	We all heard once upon a time of this thing called the digital...
	What was it called?
	The known traveler...
	Digital Identification Program.
	KTDI.
	There.
	This thing that we were being told was part of a WEF initiative to basically control every aspect about a human's identity when it comes to travel.
	Well, let me see your show.
	Yeah, okay, who got...
	Dr. Leland Lewis, who is a parliamentarian that I like, despite the fact that she's with the Conservative Party.
	She tweeted out yesterday, said yesterday, yesterday, the government finally admitted that they have a $105 million contract with the World Economic Forum for the known traveler digital ID.
	Take a look at this order paper.
	It's no longer a conspiracy.
	It's a contractual fact.
	Let's look, shall we?
	I'm just going to put this up here.
	Here.
	Let's see what this document is.
	Close this up here.
	Enhance.
	Enhance.
	Rotate.
	Government of Canada, Inquiry of Ministry.
	This is prepared by Ms. Lewis.
	June 14. Question.
	With regard to the known traveler digital identity, KTDI.
	Prototype or pilot project announced by the government in January 2018.
	What were the start and end dates of the pilot project?
	How many Canadian travelers opted into the pilot project or have opted in to date if the project is still ongoing?
	Were travelers able to withdraw their consent to participate in the pilot project?
	And if so, how many withdrew their participation?
	For travelers who participated in the project, what kind of...
	A lot of questions.
	The response.
	This is beautiful.
	Hold on.
	I've got to make sure.
	I'm neurotic.
	I've got to make sure that we're still good.
	We are.
	Okay.
	No, that's not the right window.
	Get out of there.
	This one's the right window.
	All right.
	The known traveler digital identity project was officially announced in January 2018.
	However, the pilot project has not been launched.
	So, by the way, why is that relevant?
	Arrive Can was not the pilot project.
	Arrive Can might have been the finger dip in the political waters to see if a population would put up with this rubbish, whatever it means.
	The pandemic has also meant a shutdown of non-essential travel, and as such, project planning and implementation delays.
	Part A. There currently is no identified launch date.
	Who knows?
	Maybe with enough political pressure.
	From our WEF-penetrated Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh, Chrystia Freeland.
	Maybe there will be no launch date to this, for whatever it means.
	But we're going to get back to what it means based on the 2018 announcement.
	This information is not available.
	However, the volume of participants would be decided by participating air characters.
	Information not available.
	However, by design, the pilot would be completely voluntary for eligible travel.
	Oh, completely voluntary.
	The travelers remains in control of their data throughout the journey.
	Bullcrap!
	And can opt out at any time.
	Bullcrap!
	And manual processes would remain in place for travelers choosing not to participate.
	Information not available.
	Proposed information to be shared will include elements derived from the e-passport used for the pilot.
	Okay, what is this?
	Okay, not available.
	Not available.
	Verifying travel.
	Okay.
	Verifying travel documents and travel identity is integral to aviation industry.
	We already have it.
	It's called a passport.
	As well as to the service delivery.
	The current practice of manually verifying various pieces of travel or identification, passports and boarding pass, that's two.
	And one of them is not for travel or identification, it's for getting on the plane.
	At multiple points, air travel can be a resource intensive, unsanitary, oh my god, and subject to human error.
	Have there been?
	Serious errors in passport and boarding pass verification.
	The envisioned benefits to problems that don't exist depend on their ability to use touchless technologies at the airport.
	Facial biometrics, people.
	Okay, not applicable, not applicable.
	Here we go.
	This project is based on voluntary contributions from project partners.
	All project partners are responsible for their respective costs associated with participation.
	Project partners include the Government of Canada, Hmm.
	The government of the Netherlands.
	Hmm.
	Air Canada, which is, I don't know, arguably a corporate enterprise, but it's not.
	Royal Dutch Airlines, Toronto, Montreal, and Schiffel International Airport.
	And the World Economic Forum.
	Our government has not just been penetrated by the World Economic Forum.
	Right now, it's partnering up with them.
	It's based on voluntary contributions.
	How much has the WEF promised for this project?
	Transport Canada has to date spent a half a million dollars on salaries, $220,000 on non-salaries, whatever, travel costs, IT, software license.
	Budget 2021 proposed $105 million over five years starting in 2021-2022.
	$105 million.
	It's not that much.
	It's not that much.
	What was the damage done in $700 million projected insured damages on the East Coast?
	Insured damages, which is going to be much less than actual damages because the insurance is going to exclude a lot of damage.
	Let's blow a billion dollars on vaccine passports that were rescinded within a year.
	And let's spend $105 million on a pilot project for a known traveler digital identification.
	Let's see what else we got here.
	Oh, this is the French version.
	It's the French version.
	Okay, so there's that.
	It's very interesting.
	Let's just go back to...
	It's going to blow your mind.
	Let's go back to 2018.
	Nobody was paying attention to these things.
	Let me rephrase.
	That's not nice.
	That's not fair.
	That assumes the people who were paying attention were at my 2018 levels of ignorance.
	I was not paying attention to this.
	I consider myself to be reasonably smart, reasonably interested in the state of the world.
	I was much less involved in 2018, but getting there.
	I was much less involved in 2016.
	2018, getting into it, discovering Alex Jones.
	We'll get to that as well.
	But I wasn't paying attention.
	But some people were.
	And the people that were were raising the flags and everyone was like, you're crazy.
	Nobody cares about WEF.
	They're not penetrating our government.
	The Government of Canada, this is from January 25, 2018.
	This is official Government of Canada website.
	Someone said thinking is hard.
	The government of Canada to test cutting-edge technologies to support secure and seamless global travel for air passengers.
	2018.
	Davos, Switzerland.
	You know what else happens in Davos, Switzerland?
	The WEF annual meetings.
	It's not a secret cabal of well-financed, rich individuals meeting...
	What's the Belberberg?
	What's the name of the hotel?
	The Bilderberg?
	Bilderberg.
	It's not a secret cabal of people meeting in the Bilderberg Hotel.
	It's a very public cabal of political and financial elites meeting in Switzerland, Davos, with the WEF.
	It is the Bilderberg, right?
	Let's see here.
	The Government of Canada will collaborate with the World Economic Forum and partners to test emerging digital technologies and how they can improve security and the seamless flow of legitimate air travellers.
	Legitimate air travellers.
	What the hell does legitimate air travellers mean?
	With the launch of the Honorable Navif Baines, Minister of Innovation, Science of Economic Development, highlighted the initiative today on behalf of the Honorable Mark Garneau, the man who defeated me in the Westmount riding when I ran for federal office.
	Minister of Transport during the World Economic Forum's annual meeting taking place in Davos, Switzerland.
	They're telling us what they're doing as they do it, and then they're calling us...
	Conspiracy theorists for calling them out on it.
	The known traveler digital identity system takes digital technologies such as advanced biometrics, cryptography, and distributed ledger technologies to give travelers control over and the ability to share their information via personal mobile devices with governments and travel providers to facilitate and expedite progress from departure to destination.
	Wow, it really sounds like the Arrive Can was the pilot project for the known traveler digital identity program.
	And not enough people objected to Arrive Can.
	So now the government knows they can probably get away with it.
	I just got to say this.
	Legit.
	Legit.
	Legitimate air travelers.
	What the hell does legitimate air travelers mean?
	What's it going to mean?
	Because I have a feeling, It might gonna mean, at some point in the not-so-distant future, people who are up-to-date.
	Oh, what's that?
	You're not up-to-date on your therapeutic?
	You're not a legitimate air traveler.
	You're not going anywhere.
	Oh, what's that?
	We've got everything down with biometrics, eye scans on your digital phone?
	Oh, you're not going anywhere.
	You're not legitimate.
	It's only a matter of time.
	And I try to look for a definition of legitimate air traveler.
	I couldn't find one.
	I will put the link here if anybody wants to just go ahead and read that.
	If anybody knows what legitimate air traveler means, if it's defined somewhere in the law that I didn't see, please let me know.
	Royal plague.
	Moving all viewing to Rumble and locals, this is what they did to Salty Cracker and Alex Jones.
	Bad hair day, Viva?
	Hold on, let me see.
	This is the best hair day I've ever had.
	By the way, stick around.
	Go to Twitter after this.
	I shared the link on Locals.
	I got my Florida license yesterday.
	And my goodness.
	There's a side-by-side comparison of my Quebec license to my Florida license.
	It might break the internet.
	I don't think it will, but we'll see.
	Yeah, someone says vaccinated for legitimate air travelers.
	Oh, what's that?
	You have some mean social media posts?
	You're not a legitimate air traveler.
	You're not going anywhere, Viva.
	So that's it.
	You know, they made the press release in 2018.
	They've partnered with the WEF in Davos.
	Who was paying attention to what was going on in Davos with the WEF back in 2018?
	Much fewer people that are paying attention to it now.
	They're doing it.
	They're doing it in real time.
	They're taking our taxpayer dollars to actually oppress us in real time.
	And then they're not, you know, using our taxpayer dollars to actually help the people who need the most assistance within our own borders right now, that being in the East Coast.
	And while they oppress us with our own tax dollars, they then take the other portion of our tax dollars and siphon it off to fund foreign conflict.
	It's responsible government.
	And to suggest that they shouldn't do this makes you A Putin shill?
	A national socialist?
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	A nationalist.
	Makes you a nationalist.
	To suggest that your government should not squander your tax dollars on tools of oppression and financing foreign conflict.
	Just a parenthesis to get to my bullet point notes that I was going to talk about in the RT interview this morning.
	The insured damage in estimated costs in the Maritimes, $700 million.
	That's the insured damage.
	Now, a lot of people out there didn't have flood insurance or surge insurance.
	I forget exactly what it's called.
	Specifically excluded because of, you know, incidents which are prone to occur on certain areas.
	So there's going to be a ton of uninsured damage above and beyond the insured damage.
	So you're looking at in the billions of damage.
	On the East Coast.
	And they have to resort to fundraisers begging the federal government for some of their own taxpayer dollars to help them in this time of crisis.
	Billions.
	While Canada, I can't even get my head around the number yet, has, I believe, already provided $1.2 billion in aid, whether that comes in financial, military aid to Ukraine and promised a $1.6 billion loan.
	And like, To finance destruction in a foreign country, foreign conflict, while Canadian citizens are literally homeless, destroyed homes on the East Coast, homeless for other reasons elsewhere, overdoses, no clean drinking water for certain populations of Indigenous Canadians.
	And in the US, what was it?
	In the U.S.?
	Oh, God, no.
	For Hurricane Ian, we're talking something like $47 billion in insured damages.
	Insured.
	Same caveat.
	A lot of it's not going to be covered by insurance, so the damages are going to be even higher than that.
	Can find billions and billions of dollars to finance foreign conflict with no oversight.
	Just think back to that CBS documentary.
	Got to correct it.
	They have to correct it.
	Now there's oversight, which we haven't seen yet.
	While...
	The citizens that the government is supposed to represent are frantically scrambling trying to get federal aid, resorting to fundraisers, lemonade stands and slime stands that we did in the community here, donations from private citizens.
	I'll put the link out for that as well.
	Hold on one second.
	It's called VolunteerFlorida.org if anybody wants to.
	Donate.
	VolunteerFlorida.org Yeah, that's it.
	And you're a bad person if you criticize your government for acting this way.
	Been banned for two years from Twitter.
	Three banned accounts for calling out potato files.
	That's royal plague.
	Well, by the way, creating an alternate account to evade a ban.
	That's a bannable offense.
	It's like a paddling.
	That's a paddling.
	Oh, we wronged you once and you just wanted to try to, you know, have a voice in this town square?
	That's a bannable offense.
	Ban evasion is a bannable offense.
	So that was the parentheses about the government of Canada, but...
	Nah, I totally lost my train of thought there.
	Oh, that's the...
	Okay, that we've already covered.
	The pilot project, $105 million.
	They can find a billion dollars for discriminatory and unconstitutional vaccine passports.
	And then they make people, at the hardest of times, beg for federal assistance.
	Jump through hoops to get federal assistance.
	And then they actually contemplate prioritizing that federal assistance based on Equity, which is just a euphemism for race or gender or other form of identity politics.
	Okay, I think we've actually done everything.
	So that's what I had on the list.
	But by the way, so just the other big news.
	Musk is going to buy Twitter, it looks like.
	There's probably some procedural stuff that they have to go through in order to get the sale approved.
	But he's announced he's going to buy the company for the $54.20 per share.
	Which has people asking a lot of questions.
	He sued on the basis that the bot issue was a problem that would materially affect the price.
	And I've been saying for a long time, if that's the case, you know, why would anyone with half a brain buy into a potential lawsuit if after doing their due diligence, they now realize that there might be a problem that could reasonably lend to something of a meaningful class action lawsuit?
	From advertisers who paid advertising dollars based on certain warranties and representations as to actual monetizable accounts, that was actually materially false.
	If Elon is saying now he's going to buy it for the $54.20 per share, well, he's either satisfied that the problem is not there, he's either satisfied that the problem is not as big of a problem as he once thought, or he's just saying it's going to be worth the risk.
	People out there are going to be asking the question, why would he sue?
	And then acquiesce to buying it for the price that he originally offered to buy it for.
	Some of the theories out there, and this is what Barnes mentioned in a Barnes brief on VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	I think it was the fourth.
	His theory, and it's a very plausible theory, that the lawsuit itself might have been a justifiable but lawfare-ish type way of buying some time.
	Because in order to finance the sale, it might have required liquidating other stock and it might not have been a good time to liquidate the other stock.
	So if you have a legally justified basis to sue, buy a few months, and then figure out the finances for financing the purchase, do it, and then settle the lawsuit.
	That's one way of doing it.
	Or other people are going to say, he saw the books and it's not as bad as he thought it was and he's satisfied.
	But that's it.
	It's going to be...
	I mean, watching people freak out, it's just, it's so hypocritical.
	I cannot explain, I can't get over how hypocritical it is.
	Nobody has a problem with Jeff Bezos owning Amazon, the Washington Post.
	Maybe some people do.
	Nobody had an issue with him buying the Washington Post at the time.
	No, it's because it's an ally.
	In this war of tribalism, he's an ally.
	He'll do something that I would hate if my ideological adversary did.
	I'll tolerate it when he does it.
	But when someone on the right, and as if Elon Musk is on the right, it's the end of times.
	Lou Skunt.
	Oh my God, I just said it.
	That was a rumble rant.
	Lou Skunt79.
	Well, you got me.
	You said you rule, Viva.
	Thank you very much, Lou.
	You got me.
	And you know why I didn't pick up on it?
	Because the first thing I thought of when I saw Lou...
	People in the chat on Rumble, what do you think the first thing that I thought of when I saw the name Lou?
	Oh.
	First person to get it.
	I love it.
	Is anyone going to get it?
	Lou.
	I'm not sure that anybody...
	It might be too obscure.
	You see that sign outside?
	It said Lou's Tavern.
	I'm fucking Lou.
	That is Fight Club.
	So when I saw the loo, I only thought Fight Club right away.
	You got me.
	Say it again.
	No, not saying it again.
	So that's it.
	Elon's buying the company.
	Twitter world is freaking out.
	No one man should have all that power.
	Unless it's Jeff Bezos, because I like the message that he propagates in his political propaganda rag, the Washington compost.
	I think it's going to be net positive for everybody.
	I think I'm a free speech absolutist in the sense that I operate on the basis that free speech or protected speech does not include the right to harass, threaten, defame.
	I think people out there are going to say, Viva, you're not a free speech absolutist if you think that you should be able to sanction people for lying, threatening, harassing, whatever.
	Okay, libertarian, I will agree to disagree with you on that interpretation of what protected free speech means.
	But I think people should grow some thicker skin, quit being such a bunch of sensitive babies, and learn how to deal with actual open discourse.
	Oh, what's that?
	You want to talk about ivermectin?
	Won't someone think of the children?
	No.
	Elon is going to be good for free speech on Twitter.
	Whether or not, I know people have issues with Elon in terms of his neural plan of whatever.
	Deviation says, or DVH says the plan, the deal has been approved.
	Yeah.
	If he's buying it at the purchase price, I imagine they just have to settle their outstanding court documents, and I suspect the SEC might have not something to say in it, but there might be some loopholes to go through.
	People need to understand that freedom of speech is a two-way street.
	And when it's not being used as a two-way street, it's being used as a one-way street to run over.
	Lou Scott.
	Skunt says, what?
	It's my real name.
	Is there something wrong?
	Lou?
	Nobody's last name is K-U-N-T.
	Nobody.
	Hold on.
	Let me just, before I say that.
	This is going to be like Meet the Fockers.
	But does everybody appreciate in Meet the Fockers they had an issue with that title until they had to prove that there was a family with the actual last name Focker?
	Kunt.
	Last name.
	Kunt is a Turkish surname.
	It means strong or durable.
	I'm pulling this up so that no one accuses me of actually making this up.
	Hold on.
	I love last names, by the way.
	This is what.
	Kunt, and I'm going to pronounce it that way, is a Turkish surname.
	It means strong or durable in ancient Turkish.
	Notable people with the surname include Barakana Kunt, Turkish soccer player.
	I tell you, people, you learn something every day.
	And that...
	Just make it bigger so people who need bigger type can see it.
	That is...
	That's new to me.
	Well, okay.
	That's my information of the day.
	It means durable, strong or durable.
	I mean, that's funny for other reasons as well.
	Okay.
	People, we've learned something new and that's...
	Okay, so Elon Musk is buying Twitter.
	That's the news there.
	It's all good news.
	There was something else to get to it.
	Okay, Twitter.
	I forget what it was, but we might...
	Sorry.
	Oh, that's right.
	I want people to appreciate this.
	The Waukesha killer, the man who drove the car into a crowd in Wisconsin.
	Is representing himself pro se, as he should be allowed within his rights as a defendant.
	I appreciate it's a criminal case, and Alex Jones is a civil case for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, but the judicial process, while it may be slightly more fundamentally important when it comes to matters of actual life and liberty, the judicial process itself, I'll just generalize, is broadly essential to a civil society.
	That individual, despite his overt mockery of the court, I'm not saying his name.
	I'm not saying his name on purpose.
	Is entitled to defend himself more thoroughly than Alex Jones was allowed to defend himself in civil court.
	I'm going to bring up the pictures of him making a mockery of the court.
	And this individual, Is being, what's the word?
	Privileged?
	It's not a privilege.
	He is having his rights to defend himself, protected in a manner that was greater than Alex Jones.
	And some people out there are going to say, Alex Jones, all he had to do was comply with discovery and he would have been able to defend himself.
	If the rationale is that, and I know it's criminal versus civil.
	If the rationale is that Alex Jones made such a mockery of the judicial process through his failure to comply with discovery, that he could rightly be subjected not to a trial in which he couldn't defend himself, but in which the plaintiffs still have to prove their case, but a default verdict.
	But this individual...
	Oh, we're not seeing the picture.
	But this individual...
	This individual gets to defend himself more meaningfully.
	Where is it?
	Here.
	This individual gets to defend himself more thoroughly than Alex Jones?
	Let that sink in.
	Don't mistake in this to say that this individual should not have the right to defend himself.
	He should, despite the mockery he makes of the court and the victim's families.
	I hope we appreciate this.
	Royal Plague says at least it's not Louis Butts.
	Louis Butts?
	I don't get that one.
	He gets to defend himself and make a mockery of the court.
	Alex Jones, default verdict.
	And people are somehow willing to tolerate that.
	Well, it's a criminal case.
	It's a matter of life and death, life and prison.
	He should get to defend himself.
	Alex Jones, all you have to do is comply with Discovery.
	Yeah.
	I think...
	I'll go to the chat and just see if I've missed anything.
	Just go to my running diary of the world's descent into madness.
	The Brooks, okay, we got that.
	Nate the lawyer, we got that.
	Okay, we got...
	Oh yeah, we got that, eh?
	Absolute madness.
	Oh, some other stuff, which...
	Look at this, guys.
	Look at this.
	Look at this.
	This is Dark Brandon.
	The river looks more like a stream.
	There's a lot going on.
	And I think the one thing this has finally ended is a discussion about whether or not there's climate change and we should do something about it.
	But Hurricane Ian has ended the discussion as to whether or not there's this thing called climate change and whether or not we should do anything about it.
	The way he takes off his sunglasses in a setting Where he should never have been wearing sunglasses in the first place.
	I have sunglasses, people.
	I don't like wearing them anymore.
	I never liked wearing them even when I did the videos on my roof.
	Because I find it rude to wear sunglasses in front of other people.
	He should never have been wearing sunglasses here.
	I don't even know where the...
	I mean, looking at DeSantis' face, it doesn't look like it's a head-on sun.
	The way he takes them off, like he thinks, he just...
	He's top gun.
	He's Tom Cruise.
	Colorado River looks more like a stream.
	There's a lot going on.
	And I think the one thing this has finally ended is a discussion about whether or not there's climate change and we should do something about it.
	Look at DeSantis' face right there.
	Folks, I also want to...
	Jill and I have had you...
	But folks, after politicizing Hurricane Ian, right in front of the face of the man who's governed the state through this crisis, better than anybody that I could ever imagine, right after I play politics, I want to just move on.
	I got my jab in there.
	Now we just move on.
	Because that's the kind of president I am.
	The unifier.
	The unifier.
	Taking jabs in the state territory of a governor who has handled a crisis better than anybody I've ever seen.
	Okay, I think we've got that.
	Oh, no.
	Oh, no.
	Almost forgot about this.
	Just fun stuff, people.
	Okay.
	The internet.
	First of all, if you post a picture of the internet.
	You'd better be damn sure to know what's in your background.
	I say that.
	I say that knowing full well my backdrop is a convoluted mess.
	By the way, I unpacked another box.
	I found our pine cone.
	I got this with my wife.
	She was girlfriend at the time in 2002 in British Columbia.
	The pine cone, when we got it, was fully sealed, fully smooth.
	And I said, oh, this is the biggest pine cone I've ever seen.
	Let's take it home to Montreal.
	We took it home, and by the time I got home, it blossomed.
	And in between each and every one of these ridiculous spikes was a seed in there.
	And I had a bag of the seeds, and we were going to try to grow one of these massive things.
	And then I lost the bag of seeds.
	If you're going to take a picture and post it to social media, you better know that people are going to scrutinize everything.
	And I mean everything in the background.
	People, including myself.
	The first thing I did was to go see over here.
	Do we see this?
	Oh, I'd like to see what they're reading.
	Oh, they're reading Stephen King.
	That makes a lot of sense.
	Blowout.
	I don't know what that is.
	I didn't look that up.
	A colony in a nation.
	I was taken aback by the Stephen King.
	Then I moved over here and I was like, oh, I'm sorry.
	I can't zoom in anymore.
	Do we all see that right there?
	I think we all see that.
	That's what it looks like.
	Oh, loose butt.
	Royal plague.
	Thank you for rolling my loose butt.
	That's what it looks like.
	That is a swastika.
	And then I say, oh, that's very curious.
	Then it looks like something that says something front.
	And when you really zoom in, it's S-T-I-A-N front.
	It's like, okay, I'm going to Google this.
	It happens to be, and I'm not making any determinations or judgment.
	It's just Christian Front.
	I just looked it up.
	Christian Front United States.
	It was an anti-Semitic political association active in the United States from 1938 to 1940.
	And I was like, I'm just curious, Chris Hayes, why was that on your journalists?
	Fine, you might have been doing a report on a 1938 to 1940 now defunct anti-Semitic organization.
	I'm not sensitive to it because if it happens to be anti-Semitic, I quite frankly couldn't care less what this individual reads.
	And I'm not more sensitive to that for any other reasons than if it had been, I don't know, a racist organizations.
	Hey, hey, hey, hey.
	Oh, oh.
	So I'm just curious.
	Winston says hi.
	And I ask, you know, got to hang with my buddy.
	I don't know what that is about.
	I'm sure there's an explanation.
	So I'm just going to ask, what's up with the Christian front document, Swazika, under your right elbow?
	Just very curious.
	Because, you know, my backdrop might be a total mess, but I know it's there.
	Whether or not I put it there on purpose or whether or not I just don't care that it's there, like, yeah, whatever.
	It's one thing, but oftentimes people deliberately place things in the backdrop either to make a statement or they accidentally have things there that they're working on and they don't think about before they snap a picture and then post it to the social media for millions upon millions of people to see.
	What was that about, Chris Hayes?
	I just want to know.
	Just want to know.
	It says it was a flyer.
	Nice pine cone from there.
	So I don't think I got a response.
	I don't have notifications turned on, but I was curious about that.
	All right.
	And I think that's going to end it for the day.
	I ordered the GoPro Hero 11, and I've got to go create content with the GoPro Hero 11. No, we're going to end on this.
	This is what we're going to end on.
	Winston, what do you say?
	Okay, put it down here.
	Oi!
	Political cartoonist, Theo Moudakis.
	Where's he from?
	Let me just see.
	Not from, like, where, what organization is he with?
	Oh, the Toronto Star.
	Oh, he's with the Toronto Star.
	Oh, that's interesting.
	Hold on.
	Theo, before we get back to your pro-Trudeau propaganda...
	Toronto Star, correct?
	That's what I just read?
	I think I just read Toronto Star.
	Yes.
	Toronto Star.
	Let me just save this.
	Toronto Star cover.
	Do we all remember this?
	Images.
	It all makes sense.
	Toronto Star.
	Cover.
	If an unvaccinated person catches it from someone who is vaccinated, boohoo, too bad.
	I have no empathy left for the willfully unvaccinated.
	Let them die.
	I honestly don't care if they die from COVID, not even a little bit.
	Unvaccinated patients do not deserve ICU.
	Simmering divide over who isn't vaccinated.
	No jab.
	This is the Toronto Star.
	This is the quality and political ideology of the Toronto Star.
	Through their government propagandist, Theo Moudakis, please enjoy my cartoon for Wednesdays.
	When was this?
	Oh yeah, this was two days ago.
	This is a man whose truck says, dictator Trudeau, tyrant Trudeau, arrest Trudeau, jail Trudeau.
	I need your help, pal.
	And then you got Tristan Trudeau with a little brown briefcase.
	It's small.
	Standing there in disbelief.
	This savage.
	This buffoon, this extremist who criticizes the government, then expects help with a bag of money of his own gosh darn taxpayer dollars, Theo Mousakis.
	Moudakis, sorry, Moudakis.
	It's his own taxpayer dollars.
	And by the way, show us what the respective briefcase for Ukraine aid looks like.
	That one's going to be slightly bigger.
	This is a man who works for the most vitriolic propagandist outlet out there, tied with all the other ones, who's now trying to shame the people in their greatest time of need for expecting the federal government to help them out with their own gosh darn taxpayer dollars, despite the fact that they are within their constitutional rights to criticize that very government.
	Imagine thinking, because this is, you know, talk about entitlement.
	That this individual, Theo Moudakis, thinks citizens should be grateful for government support that comes from their taxpayer dollars, as opposed to expecting it as a reflex.
	And I said as a joke, let me see, what was my joke here?
	Ah, come on.
	I said, as a joke for Moudakis, that's called bad political propaganda.
	That's bad political propaganda because the actual way to read that should be Justin Trudeau shipping our dollars off to foreign countries to finance foreign conflict with the Canadians standing there with their hands out saying, what about us?
	Oh, anyhow.
	Please enjoy my cartoon of the day.
	Oh, that's right.
	And then I went to his profile and then I...
	Discovered that this individual who works for the National Post, for whatever the reason, suffers from Trump derangement syndrome.
	It's a very bizarre thing.
	It knows no bounds.
	It knows no temporal limits.
	It knows no geographic boundaries.
	TDS is real.
	And I say this tongue-in-cheek.
	The political derangement that was triggered by Trump is real.
	And it's, I won't say a form of...
	Mass psychosis.
	It's a form of absolute political overwhelming vitriol.
	It knows no boundaries in terms of time, geography.
	And two years after the man is no longer in office, while there's someone in there who seems more hell-bent on getting the world involved in World War III than rebuilding his own country after a natural disaster, people still have in their banner profiles anti-Trump, Political vitriol.
	And they think that we're the ones who are filled with hate and extremist.
	Confession through projection, people.
	Okay.
	Go now.
	Prosper.
	Enjoy the day.
	What time is it?
	It's one o 'clock.
	Thank you all for spending time with me.
	This feels good.
	I took yesterday off.
	It was Yom Kippur, but I'm not a religious person.
	But there's almost a part of me, and not even in any organized religion, the more references that I hear about, you know, biblical verses that if one were to view the Bible as sort of an Aesop's fable that applies mutatis mutatis throughout the history of human development, there's a lot of lessons to be learned in there.
	But I am superstitious and I, a number of other things, but I took a day off yesterday.
	Our sidebar got canceled and the kids were out of school anyhow, so it was impossible to find the time.
	And it did good.
	It did good because I listened to a book that says you have to take time off to invest in yourself so you can rest and then be good.
	I hope everyone had a good day yesterday, but thank you for tuning in today.
	Thank you for being here, spending the afternoon with me.
	Take to Twitter.
	Ask Team YouTube to justify their decision to...
	If they don't have a good reason, they need to be held to some sort of public opinion account and called out for what they're doing.
	If they have a good reason, let them show it.
	But democracy dies in darkness, as the Washington Compost well knows.
	And regardless of that, someone said stop shilling for Rumble.
	I'm not going to stop shilling for Rumble.
	Rumble is the platform.
	That is going to take over and be the real meaningful place for open political discourse.
	Some people may not like some of the rules, but you're going to know them.
	They're going to be applied evenly and apolitically and not viewpoint-based.
	And there's going to be transparency and scrutiny as to how the rules are applied.
	Plus, we are open.
	I say we.
	Rumble is open and took public comments on their rules.
	And we're integrating modifications into the latest iteration.
	So, you know, YouTube has a way of forcing people's hands, but it's where the trajectory is going, and rightfully so.
	So, with that said, people, you all know where to find Rakeda.
	If you're into that and you like his stuff, and if you don't like it, I'm a fan of, if you don't like Dave Chappelle's comedy, don't buy the Netflix Chappelle comedy and then complain.
	More important than that, if you don't like Dave Chappelle's Netflix comedy, don't complain for other people.
	Vote with your feet.
	Vote with your dollar.
	Vote with your fingers.
	You don't like it?
	Turn it off.
	You don't like it?
	Don't turn it on in the first place.
	Now, I'm going to go exercise, maybe get something to eat, and get on with the afternoon.
	Everybody, I'll see you tomorrow.
	Sunday night stream is coming up.
	Saturday, I'll try to do a video that's not...
	Anything related to the state of the world, which can make people feel overwhelmed and exhausted.
	But, oh, let me see here.
	Actually, I'll go to the chat for a second.
	God bless you, Viva.
	You should believe in God.
	He is the creator.
	I believe in, that is from Lou D. I definitely believe in something.
	But the idea of a Jewish God versus a Christian God versus a Muslim God, I'll believe in something that is universal.
	Cosmic?
	Karma?
	I don't know.
	Something along those lines.
	Chappelle is the goat.
	That means greatest of all time.
	That is from TwistedNTX.
	Oh, no, hold on.
	I'm going to get something to take us out on here because I keep forgetting that I have to have a video to let the video play so that when I end the stream, it doesn't cut off in YouTube.
	Let me see here.
	Viva family.
	Let's see here.
	I'll get something good.
	Ah, forget it.
	We're going to go out with the fish again, people.
	Oh, son of a beast thing.
	Oh, I forgot to do it.
	I forgot to do the home title lock ad and I put in the paid sponsor and forgot to do it.
	We're going to do it tomorrow.
	I don't want to...
	We'll do it tomorrow.
	That's funny that we've got a home title lock ad over the stream.
	Here, people.
	Enjoy this.
	Go.
	Enjoy the rest of the day.

▲