s who say what if he gets away with that in California and he does it in my state? It's going to be talking about that tomorrow and I'm going to pay. Because Gavin Newsom did this clever thing in California that is the most disqualifying issue of all issues I've ever seen. I mean he literally would be running for president on a platform that he won't guarantee not taking money from white people to give it to people of other races. Not just taxes but just take their money because they're white and give it to Black people because they're Black. How do you get elected with that? It's impossible. Yeah no there isn't any way he can be elected to national office.

So all those of you who said — and by the way I used to think this too — that he would have a serious shot at getting elected, no he can't. As long as reparations is out there he cannot get elected. There's no way he's going to get enough white votes to make that happen.

Rumble is under attack. Big surprise because you know Rumble's a source of free speech and so you had to know that the government would come after them. Sure enough there's this short seller. This is a claim from the president of Rumble that a short seller put together a report, sent it to the SEC, and the SEC said we're looking into it because somebody had reported it. Then the same person who reported it goes to the press and says hey don't look at me but the SEC says this is serious.

Now what a short seller is is somebody who makes money if they can identify a company whose stock is going to drop like a rock. So one of the dirty tricks they do is create the news that makes the stock drop so that they can make that quick cash. And so Rumble's story is that it's completely illegitimate, will be easily dismissed. The claims against them are something about whether they properly accounted for something financial. The response again not in a legal context but just from the president is that they always anticipated this kind of attack and so they had bulletproof accounting exactly for this reason and all they have to do is show it and it'll go away.

But in the meantime yeah it's like swatting. That's exactly right. In the comments on Locals somebody said it's like swatting a stock. That's exactly right. It's like swatting a company. So is there anything to the claim? Well we don't know. But we do know that the person making the claim according to the president of Rumble is a financially motivated person who would benefit whether it was true or not, right?

So the claim from Rumble is that the source of the accusation is somebody who would make a lot of money even if it's not true. So you should judge its credibility at exactly zero. Does that make sense for a risk management kind of understanding the world basis? It doesn't mean it's not true. It doesn't mean it's not true. But you should judge its credibility actually zero because there's somebody who has a financial motivation, a gigantic one, and they're in the business of doing this very kind of thing. So no, this is not a believable accusation.

But like I say sometimes accusations are true even if they don't seem credible when they're made. So you can't rule anything out but I wouldn't give it any credibility at this stage.

And oh I guess I full disclosure — I'm sorry I should have disclosed this — I am a stockholder in Rumble. So I owned an initial investment, very small one in Locals which got acquired by Rumble which allowed my stock to roll over into Rumble. So I'm a stockholder at a much higher price and the last I saw it was in the threes I think. It went public around 12 and now the short seller drove it down to about three. So the short selling works. I mean it's a dirty trick but it works.

So I'm holding my stock considering doubling it but that is not financial advice. That would be pure gambling. Let me say that again. I'm considering doubling my holding but it would be a super risky play. I do not recommend you do that. It's pure risk,