TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Liberals are proposing a law where a minister can ban me from the Internet, my Internet service provider ban me from the Internet, and neither of us be able to say anything about it. Matt Strauss, who's a doctor and a physician and also a member of parliament, said that you need to be concerned about bill c eight. It allows Melanie Jolley to kick anyone off the Internet with no trial and no warrant. Worse off, you won't be able to say that you've even been kicked off. And this is the Emergencies Measures Act on steroids, only permanent and secret? "Watch this. Ministers order if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunication system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption, degradation, the minister may by order and after consultation with the minister of public safety, prohibit a telecommunications service provider from providing any service to any specified person, including telecommunications service provider." "The order may also include a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence or some or all of its contents by any person." "This is crazy." "The minister may require any person to provide to the minister or any person designated by the minister, meaning she's able to designate whoever the heck she wants, within any time and any subject to any conditions that the minister may specify." "Any information that the minister believes on reasonable grounds is relevant for the purpose of making, amending, or revoking an order under section 15." "This is insane." "This is a minister that will have the sole power to kick you off the Internet at their will, then ban you or anyone else from being able to speak on this." "If the conservatives did this, there would be an uproar all over the media, all over the world." "They would call them a dictatorship. They would call them communist. They would say this is Nazi like." "But the liberals are doing this, and now everyone's quiet." "Come people have to speak up." "I promise you, if this bill goes through, it's gonna be ugly for everyone." "And if I get kicked off, I'm going to break that ban." "I will talk about it. I will let the world know that a totalitarian state, a communist state of the Liberal Party is trying to silence its people at its discretion, not the police, but the government." "Ridiculous."

Host: You mentioned at one point that CDC management actually prevented you from interviewing Conservative leader Pierre Pauli on your show. Can you describe what happened there? Guest: Well we I mean I basically wasn't allowed to pick the phone and and talk to conservatives. I have some g chats here which I just want to you know read you part of this. I'm talking to my senior producer I'm saying okay, you know this is an editorial discussion. Can we get a Conservative perspective on this is essentially what I'm saying. It is a no to the Conservatives I'm told. We can't chase anyone from the entire party. The chase is with P and P. So if power and politics is not able to secure a conservative, or, you know, somebody that presents an alternate perspective, then we are not allowed to. I'm told at one point we're sure that there's a myriad of other types of interesting guests that you can chase outside of the Conservatives. Can I be included on conversations with power and politics? That's not how we work. I say to management by playing petty office politics we feed into Conservative narratives that we have a bias against them. Canada tonight is a melting pot of news of the day and politics and decisions, from it largely impact Canadians. So we need flexibility to to respond to emerging stories. So yes, I wasn't even allowed to pick up the phone and call to request Pierre Pauliev. Host: Look at what happened when I had Melissa Lanceman on my show, right? That I was threatened to be pulled off the air which CBC then said in a news statement they didn't threaten to do that. There are recordings of them trying to do this. Why Guest: I mean there's an effort to essentially, protect those in Ottawa in in terms of their perspectives on these things, in terms of who they want on the show. It should be about you know, we did an interview with Karen Johnson, my cohost on the new podcast I'm doing. She's another former CBC employee that is talking about the toxic culture. She said that she alleges that she was called a brown Barbie, a bimbo, but she says that it's it's a very high school culture. And these are things that this is fine if you if you have hosts doing that it's not fine but it okay but management you are responsible for dealing with that and so if management is not going to do anything, if the President of the CBC is going to come here and expect a tongue lashing and then be able to go back to the CBC and continue to get funding without accountability, these practices will continue. So shame is clearly not enough to get the CBC to a place where they will hold themselves accountable so it's incumbent upon this committee to do that.

I'm willing to collaborate with anyone serious about censoring Americans and pushing a progressive agenda, but the problem is they're just not serious enough. Try to violate our First Amendment rights, and we'll respond by exercising our Second Amendment rights.

Senator Ted Cruz expressed significant concern about the power of large tech companies, arguing that Google, in particular, has unprecedented control over information and acts as a monopolist. He stated that Google’s motto used to be “don’t be evil,” but claimed it now appears to be “evil,” and described Google as taking a new step by demonetizing or threatening to demonetize a conservative journalistic outlet over items allegedly found in comments sections posted by third parties. Cruz said he sent a letter to Google’s CEO, noting that he is the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, demanding an explanation for why Google is “censoring free speech.” He questioned why this standard is not applied to left-wing sites that also host comment sections, insisting there are thousands of offensive comments on those sites as well. Cruz emphasized that Google owns YouTube and asserted that thousands of racist, bigoted, and offensive comments exist on YouTube, yet Google is not applying the same demonetization standard to its own wholly owned subsidiary. He argued that Google’s actions demonstrate an abuse of monopoly power to silence competitors, labeling this behavior as contrary to the law and dangerous for free speech. He underscored the contradiction that Google, and other tech companies, claim they are not responsible for comments on external platforms while simultaneously policing comments on external sites and not applying equivalent standards to their own platforms. In a vivid comparison, Cruz described Google as having become “like the empire in Star Wars,” suggesting that the new step represents Google “testing the Death Star” by granting itself the power to demonetize not only individuals but media organizations as well. He warned that such power could be used to go after outlets like Fox News and any media organization the company disagrees with, arguing that this must be stopped to prevent abuse of monopoly influence over speech. The segment ended with Speaker 0 acknowledging Cruz and noting that they would watch the story closely and have Cruz back to discuss it further.

It's great. Even in death, Charlie keeps winning debates. The media this is what's disgusting. The media is trying to make Jimmy Kimmel into their Charlie Kirk. Sorry, guys. He's not a victim. The victim is Charlie Kirk. The victims are his family. Jason Bateman predicts a reckoning over a Kimmel suspension. Stelter that Don't say that. Stelter tried to get us off the air and we're on a private airway. Why they were doing this? They were promoting rhetoric that demonized people with different viewpoints. So, aren't there isn't a both sides here. You can't turn Kimmel into Kirk. Mutually assured destruction, like what Trump is doing with lawfare. You hunted us. You hunted conservatives. Well, maybe you won't hunt us anymore if we hunt you.

There's an article in The Wall Street Journal today about, Kimmel. And I said this last week on News Nation that this Kimmel suspension and then reinsertment into the ABC lineup wasn't what the press was reporting. It had nothing to do with freedom of speech at all. And the journal today, lays out what I said last week, is that the talent agencies in Los Angeles, all left wing, 100%, threatened Disney and Bob Iger and said, if you don't put Kenmel back on the air, a lot of our clients are not gonna do business with you. That means you're not gonna get actors and producers and writers and directors. Take it to another studio. Eiger surrendered on the spot, and then Kimmel went back. Now think about that. Think about the power that the left in Hollywood has to bring a company like Disney to its knees

This is, very abrupt. Very abrupt. The discussion centers on jawboning and public pressure: “This is all about jawboning. It's all about public pressure.” “license revocations are extraordinarily rare.” “The threat is not that the FCC's actually going to take away a license. It's about the public noise. It's about the shame and embarrassment.” “Brendan Carr going on podcasts and embarrassing ABC.” “Trump vowed retribution on the campaign trail, and he's getting it.” “For every reaction, there is reaction.” “Stephen Colbert has already been joking about getting hired somewhere else.” “Kimmel will probably end up somewhere else.” “We're gonna see more of that.” Van Jones: “There was nothing hateful about And what was even hateful speech is protected. This is this is not acceptable.” Congressman Garcia: “the idea that someone is gonna get pulled off a news program, off a news a channel that's supposed to be independent, and that ABC is making this decision because of possible political pressure through the president is is both stunning and outrageous.” “This is a red line that has been crossed for our industry, for the First Amendment, for the right of people to speak.” “Here's Jimmy Kimmel.”

I don't care if it's a small business or a large corporation; when the government threatens you, you should take it seriously. Blame the government for the issues we're facing. Those upset about free speech now are just mad they can't control the narrative anymore. For years, they've spread misinformation and now they're worried about others doing the same. It's not about the danger of misinformation; it's about losing control. They were wrong about everything and forced compliance, and now they resent others having the same freedom. It's absurd to pretend their concerns are about safety when it's really about power.

Europe has changed dramatically, and there is no freedom of speech anymore. Pavlov, the head of Telegram, was removed from his airplane in France. Thierry Breton, chairman of the European Commission, allegedly threatened Elon Musk with criminal and civil prosecution if he interviewed Donald Trump live on X spaces. Brazil censored Twitter and other social media sites three weeks ago. This rise of censorship and totalitarianism is occurring worldwide. The only hope to prevent that in the U.S. is Donald Trump; otherwise, this is what will happen if Kamala gets in.

FCC chairman Brendan Carr explains that "Broadcasters are different than any other form of communication, including here." "Fox News doesn't have an FCC license. CNN doesn't." But "ABC, CBS, NBC, those broadcast stations do. And with that license comes a unique obligation to operate in the public interest." He says the FCC "walked away from enforcing that public interest obligation," and that "I don't think we're better off as a country for it." He notes that "President Trump ran directly at these legacy broadcast outlets, and he exposed them to these market forces." Affiliates said, "we're tired of carrying this stuff." "Late night shows, something's gone seriously awry there." They went from going for applause from laugh lines to applause lines, from court gestures that would make fun of everybody in power to being court clerics and enforcing a very narrow political ideology. Nexstar "stood up and said, look, we have the license and we don't want to run this anymore." Sinclair did the same thing. "There’s more work to go, but I'm very glad to see that America's broadcasters are standing up to serve the interest of their community." "We don't just have this progressive coming out from New York and Hollywood."

"Speaker 0: 'You know, when you look at the conduct that has taken place by Jimmy Kimmel, it appears to be some of the sickest conduct possible.' He notes 'avenues here for the FCC' and says this is not an isolated incident, citing Swalwell's tweet that 'Charlie Kirk's killer was a straight white male from a Republican family that voted for Donald Trump.' He alleges Kimmel 'to play into that narrative that this was somehow a MAGA or Republican motivated person.' He stresses broadcasters 'have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest.' He explains two buckets: 'national programmers' and licensed TV stations, and says 'news distortion' and 'broadcast hoaxes' are prohibitions. Potential actions include 'suspension,' fines, or 'license revocation.' He notes Disney will have a chance to 'put in, their arguments' before a vote."

Speaker says this network has not been friendly to this administration and a threat would not matter. "They made a decision because Jimmy Kimball said something that was extremely insensitive and a flat out lie about the president of The United States, and there was no excuse for it. There is no excuse for making a joke. I don't care if you're a comedian or who you are to making a joke about an assassination. There's no room for that at all, and ABC made that decision." He notes Fox did the same with Tucker Carlson and argues the claim of silencing free speech is hypocritical, since "these are the same people that didn't stick up for Tucker Carlson when he got fired for speaking his mind about COVID on Fox." Regarding Friday in the House, he cites the resolution about Melissa Hartman: "Condemn the assassination and honor the life," and contrasts it with Charlie Kirk's name: "That same resolution with the name changed Senator, I have Charlie Kirk, what happened Senator," followed by voting details: "50 vote no, 38 ... Voted present, 22 chose not to vote."

So, you called Elon Musk a fascist and implied he's a national security threat. But is that really more of a threat than, say, sleeping with a Chinese spy? What's fascistic about exposing government corruption? I know you just had dinner with lobbyists, and I heard you like to be with only attractive people. So, do you want to comment on any of this? You think Elon Musk is a national security threat, but you sleeping with a Chinese spy isn't? You don't want to comment on that at all? Looks like guilty is charged.

I hate drama. I hate influencer drama. I hate Internet drama. I hate the theatrics of it. And so I want to tell you something. The only reason that I'm going up against Crenshaw is I am sick and tired of watching government officials and people in high places try to silence and bully regular American citizens. I'm sick of saying it. Somebody's gotta stand up to this shit. It might as well be me. It might as well be me. On 12/09/2025, I received a legal demand letter from lawyers representing congressman Dan Crenshaw. They are threatening to sue me for defamation because of comments I made on my podcast about a message that he sent me. So this all transpired from a conversation that I had with Tulsi Gabbard. And I was concerned... Although I didn't mention his name in the interview... I wanted to know how a newer congressman can afford to hire a mainstream DJ, Steve Aoki, to spin at his fortieth birthday party. I didn't just make this up. Somebody sent me the invitation that he had sent out to everybody for his fortieth birthday. And so that's where I got this from. Anyways, here's the clip with Tulsi. Is there any direct money? I mean, know, you see all these people you see all these people show up in Congress, the Senate, the cabinet, whatever, and, you know, not wealthy. Yeah. Speaker 1: I don't have firsthand experience in this. I have often questioned the same thing. I know a big factor is the insider trading that goes on in Congress. And again, some people will say, well, like, hey, I didn't know anything about this. I'm just making investments for my family or my wife or my husband is making investments. I don't know anything about what's going on. Maybe they're being honest, maybe they're not. But the reality is you're in a position where you're making decisions, either in committee or on the House floor, that influence our markets, that influence the outcomes of certain industries, either causing some to tank or others to skyrocket. And the mere perception of insider trading shouldn't exist. This is legislation, again, I introduced in Congress years ago. No member of Congress should be allowed to do any trading of any stocks, neither should their spouse, neither should their senior staff. Period. These are the people who have access to proprietary private information that's not open to everybody in the public, or certainly before it becomes public. And the possibility of the abuse of power in trading on that information should not exist. It's interesting because as we're seeing there are some members of Congress who say that share my view on that, but who are continuing to trade stocks themselves. The Senate just passed, I think out of committee, first step legislation that would reflect similar to banning members and their spouses. We'll see where it goes. In the Senate we've heard a lot of talk coming from leaders from both parties, but no action has been taken. That to me is the most obvious way that people are going from being elected and having no money and you make, what, dollars $160 a year or whatever the salary is now to literally becoming multimillionaires. That is the most obvious way. There are kind of stringent requirements of financial reporting that every member has to do certainly at least once a year, more often if you are actively trading in stocks. But it I think it would be a little hard, not impossible, but a little hard if somebody's just coming and bringing you a sack of cash. Speaker 0: So after the conversation with Tulsi, that's when I got the text or the message on Instagram from congressman Crenshaw that I find threatening, telling me he spoke with his boys at six. Here's a screenshot. Hey, Sean. You have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich. Some of my boys at six told me about your indirect swipe at me. Some of my beliefs are based on trendy narratives instead of facts. And just so you know, I mean, Dan does have a history of threatening people. Once again, here is Dan threatening to kill Tucker Carlson. And then, again, he reaffirms that he's not joking. Speaker 2: Have you ever met Tucker? Speaker 0: We've talked a lot. He's the worst person. Okay. So I get the message. I take it is extremely threatening. It is a tier one unit, the best, most effective tier one unit in the world, deadliest unit. But I don't do anything. I move on. And then a little over a year later, I'm interviewing, oh, a member from SEAL Team six. Maybe he's one of Dan's boys at six. So he brought up the fact that he had asked a congressman with an eye patch, didn't wanna mention his name, to help him with his book debacle. He received no aid. I filled in the blank. I said, oh, you must be talking about congressman Crenshaw. Let me share my experience with you, my interactions with congressman Crenshaw. So I shared him. I told him about the Instagram message, and I told him that I found that threatening. And then I asked Matt if he was one of Dan's boys at six, Maybe he was here to come beat me up. Matt assured me he wasn't. Here's the clip. Speaker 2: I'll give you another example. In the height of my my issues, I contacted a former SEAL. I won't name names, but he has an eye patch, And he's a congressman out of a state You Speaker 0: mean Dan Crenshaw? Speaker 2: I'm not naming names. Speaker 0: Another one of my Speaker 2: favorite Sir, here's my situation. You know, Dan? Speaker 0: Dan actually sent me a message. I should fucking read this to you. But, basically, he tells me I brought something up about him, and I never even met I gave him the courtesy of not even mentioning his fucking name. It was about his birthday party where he hired Steve Aoki to to DJ his birthday. I mean, that can't be fucking cheap. Right? Especially on a congressman's salary. And I brought that up. And Dan sends me a message that says his boys over at six are really upset with me that I brought that up, and they're gonna they might come beat me up. Speaker 2: Boys at six. Speaker 0: His boys over at six. Speaker 2: Well, to infer he's got I don't know why congressman would be Speaker 0: threatening me with seal team six, but I'm still fucking waiting. This is actually a couple years This Speaker 2: is threatened quite a Speaker 0: have not had my ass kicked by a couple of guys over at six. But Dan Crunchy he fits with all these fucking people you're talking about. Speaker 2: So I called him. Right? He's a sitting congressman. He's a former officer. And drum roll, please, he was getting ready to release his book. So I call him up. I get a conversation with him. I said, sir, here's my situation. I hired an attorney. The attorney gave me bad advice. Book was published. I've given up attorney client privilege, cooperated everything I can to to fix this. They've still come after me. We can get into all the the other stuff that I'm dealing with. I said, sir, can you help me out with this? He's like, well, you know, I'm I'm about ready to publish my book, and I'm I'm not getting it reviewed. I'm like, well, sir, same same letter of the law that they came after me for failure to seek prepublication review. I didn't get prepublication review because my lawyer told me I didn't have to, and he could do it. Like, in your case, you know you have to get reviewed. I'm here telling you, confirming you have to get reviewed or the government's gonna come after you. He's like, yeah. No. But I'm not gonna write anything classified in my book. I'm like, there's nothing classified in my book. They they said there was. They went through it. They said, nope. There's nothing classified in it. You just failed to seek review. I'm like, so if I only thing I failed to do was seek review, you're willingly going around that obligation, and you don't give a shit. He's like, yeah. But I'm not gonna write about anything classified in my book. That was his answer. Never talked to him again. So he published his book. No review. Nothing's happened. He's kept his money. He's a sitting congressman. I got a payment plan. So so to say I've been alone So Speaker 0: I guess I guess you're not one of Dan's boys over at six. Speaker 2: That's kinda Definitely not Dave Boys at six. That's a pretty ridiculous statement if I've ever heard one.

The Biden administration's plan to regulate internet service providers and take control of internet infrastructure in the US is being criticized as a power grab. Brennan Carr, head of the FCC, opposes the plan, stating that it gives the administrative state control over all internet services and infrastructure. The plan allows the FCC to regulate the entire internet sector for the first time ever and impose unfunded build mandates and monetary fines on ISPs. The final vote on the plan is scheduled for November 15. Without Commissioner Brandon Carr, this major story may have gone unnoticed.

That is why we exist, not to knuckle under, not to do what we're told, but to stand up and to say, listen, if you want to pull these licenses, then we're going to go to court and we'll be in the court of public opinion. But you don't get to go on a podcast and set policy for American media, for an American media institution that's been around a lot longer than me, you or Donald Trump. This a red line that has been crossed for our industry, for the First Amendment, for the right of people to speak. There was nothing hateful about And what was even hateful speech is protected. This is this is not acceptable.

"President President Trump ran directly at these legacy broadcast outlets, and he exposed them to these market forces." "It would it was not remotely market market forces. The market was operating before. It was pure government coercion and threats from Brendan Carr and from Donald Trump and the brow beating of corporations who need the FCC's approval for various broadcast licenses and so on to go and do this." "He is openly broadcasting the fact that this was what we call under the First Amendment viewpoint discrimination. He doesn't like what they're saying." "Under the First Amendment to the constitution of The United States, you have the right to engage in speech that is distasteful and offensive and disagreeable to other people."

Speaker 0 thanks people who don't support his show but back his right to share beliefs, naming Shapiro, Clay Travis, Candace Owen s, Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz, who 'believe it or not, said something very beautiful on my behalf.' Speaker 1 declares, 'I hate what Jimmy Kimmel said. I am thrilled that he was fired,' then corrects, 'Oh, wait. Not that. The other part.' They warn that if the government bans media for not saying what it likes, 'That will end up bad for conservatives.' Speaker 0 agrees, 'Ted Cruz is right. He's absolutely right,' and muses, 'If Ted Cruz can't speak freely, then he can't cast spells on the Smurfs.' Despite disagreements, they praise those who spoke out against the administration, credit their courage, and urge followers that government cannot be allowed to control what we say on television and that we must stand up to it.

What bothers me even more than that guy are the Republican senators and congressmen who blindly follow along. They don't believe in any of it. They're just scared he'll trash them on Truth Social and they'll lose their jobs. They're doing whatever he says, which is a dictatorship. After everything I've done for you over the last two years, standing up for you, you're going to treat me with disrespect? If I could take back your letter of recommendation, I would. Don't ever talk to me like that again, personally. You disrespect me like that after I stood up for you? You got your letter, your grade, so now you can treat me like that?

Conservatives responded to disagreements with Bud Light by ceasing purchases. Democrats, however, react to disagreements with companies like Tesla by behaving like ISIS.

ABC suspended his late night show indefinitely; he was spotted storming out of the studio and hopping into a getaway car. 'Jimmy Kimmel was fired because he had bad ratings more than anything else, and he said a horrible thing about a great gentleman known as Charlie Kirk.' 'Kimmel said, no way, Bob.' 'Charlie Kirk's body isn't even buried.' 'Almost half of ABC's affiliates were threatening to blackout his show that night.' 'Advertisers were burning up the phones.' 'Disney boss, Bob Iger, wanted Kimmel to apologize.' 'Kimmel's monologue... took aim at MAGA.' 'This is a red alert moment.' 'Charlie Kirk got murdered in cold blood for speaking his mind.' 'This isn't about censorship, this is about math.' 'Kimmel's ratings have dropped; he assassinated his own numbers.' 'This could have all been avoided if Kimmel had just cleaned it up the next night.'

I'm alarmed by Chuck's angry outburst. His threats are unacceptable. He's warned Gorsuch and Kavanaugh that they'll "pay the price" for their actions, and he's threatened to unleash the intelligence community against them. This isn't the first time Chuck has abused his power to intimidate opponents. His recent tirade against Trump is particularly concerning. This behavior is dangerous and needs to stop. Who is he even talking to? His actions are reckless, and he needs to face the consequences. He should get legal counsel. The situation is incredibly serious.