This is Issues and Answers, a production of the national television network. Welcome, my name is Jesse Leance. In the next half hour or so, we're going to engage a panel on the rollout of the securely minted digital version of the Eastern Caribbean dollar, coined, no pun intended, de-cash. The public rollout did commence. It started on March 31st, 2021. But in order to get all of Saint Lucia as part of efforts to get all of Saint Lucia up to speed with this development, we have Joining Us Via Zoom, the executive marketing manager at First National Bank, Mr. Robert Favrier. His is the first financial institution on Ireland to transact with de-cash. We also have Joining Us Via Zoom, the first merchant to transact with de-cash here in Saint Lucia. He is Mr. Jimmy Francis of City Foods Rap City. And Joining Us Via Zoom as well from the ECCB all the way in Bastere is Sharmin Powell. She is the chief risk officer and chairperson of ECCB's fintech working group. Good afternoon, lady and gentlemen. Good afternoon. Wonderful. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Wonderful. Wonderful. First question, I want to direct to you, Ms. Powell. Saint Lucia is one of four island economies that participating in the initial rollout of de-cash just starting this past March. Talk to us about ECCB's rationale. Why should a consumer participate in the pilot and use de-cash, first of all? And perhaps if you could go even deeper, what makes this digital currency fundamentally different to paper cash? So if we were to start out with our objectives for actually launching this de-cash pilot, we wanted to address the issue of financial inclusion and also the issue in terms of the payment system and efficiencies in the payment system. So for some time now we've been, persons in the public have been experiencing some frictions in terms of the payment system efficiency in terms of cost and the speed of payment. So sometimes we have payments taking a long time to settle and of course there are some costs associated with financial transactions which have prohibited persons from enjoying the full benefits of the financial transactions offered by some financial institutions. So some of these frictions are what we try to address with a de-cash. And in terms of financial inclusion, recognize that there's some persons out there who may not have a bank account and may not be able to transfer things like wire transfer and other financial transactions, just online payments. And so we wanted to ensure that there was an avenue where all of our citizens can in fact enjoy the benefits associated with digital payments. And so this de-cash solution is another option to our citizens for making payments. Now if you're to compare it physical cash, it is definitely a safer option to physical cash because whereas currently there are security issues in your walk-around with a lot of cash, there's the issue of being robbed, there's the issue of losing your cash. So the de-cash, it cannot be stolen. It is stored on the blockchain and your digital wallet, which is in fact an app through your smart device through which you can access the de-cash. The digital cash is stored on the blockchain so it cannot be lost. So even if you lose your device, if you lose access to your device, you can in fact, once you get access to another smart device, you can regain access to your digital cash compared to if you lose your physical wallet. The chance of you retrieving your physical cash that is in that wallet are slim to none. And another aspect of the de-cash that we try to emphasize is the whole issue of financial management because through the de-cash app, the digital app, you can actually track your expenses. So whereas in physical cash, you spend the cash and very often you're not aware or you can't remember how your cash was spent. With the de-cash, you actually can track your transactions. Every transaction that is done using de-cash is stored in transaction history. And so you can see how your money is spent and that can help you as well in your financial management. And it can prevent overspending. If I was to compare with say, David Carr, just swipe and swipe and swipe and you end up spending more than you should spend in some instances. With your de-cash, you can only spend as much as you have transferred to your de-cash wallet. So there are a number of benefits to the citizens for using de-cash. OK. Now getting into this pilot launch, talk to us about the execution, what St. Lucian's and the three other, before other island, three other island economies can expect in this instance. So in terms of the pilot, what we have, we have two types of digital wallets. We have the registered-based wallet and the value-based wallet. And those two options allow everybody to be part of the pilot. So every citizen can actually sign up and get a de-cash wallet, whether through a financial institution or an agent. So for persons who have bank accounts at a participate in financial institution, whether it is a commercial bank or a credit union, they can have a registered-based wallet where they download the app, they fill out the online application using a code that is provided by the financial institution. And once the KYC didn't know your customer checks are done and the wallet is approved, they can then transfer funds from their existing account to their digital wallet and then they can transfer in de-cash. Now for persons who don't have a bank account or whose financial institution is not participating in the pilot, what they would have to do, they can now get a value-based wallet where they download the app similarly and fill out the online application using without a code and that would be approved by an agent and they can then take physical cash to an agent or a merchant teller who offers that service and convert their physical cash to digital cash. Now once that is done, there are a number of merchants that we have across all four countries and the merchant listed isn't increasing as we go along and they can now go and transfer any merchant that accepts de-cash. So once they will have signage that shows that the merchant is accepting de-cash and so once a merchant accepts de-cash, they can use their digital cash, the de-cash, to go in and transact whether it's by groceries, pay for gas, by medication, whatever service that merchant offers and they accept de-cash, they can now go to that merchant and use their de-cash to do their spending similarly to how they would have done with their physical cash. Okay, so prior to the rollout on March 31st, we did have a testing and St. Lucia was part of that. We had the first merchant here on Ireland as well as first financial institution participating in this test. Tell us about that and how it went. So what we have is a closed pilot. So we decided to do the launch in phases. So the first phase was a closed pilot and in that closed pilot phase, we had all the participating financial institutions as well as select merchants and select end users and the agencies actually carry out de-cash transactions and go through the process of preparing themselves for the public launch. And this was very important because we wanted to make sure that when we launched publicly, you would have a good user experience. So during this period, the financial institutions were able to get acquainted with the app, with the de-cash app and the process by which they have to onboard customers, onboard merchants and making sure all the internal procedures were properly ironed out. Any kinks, any bugs that were in the system were ironed out so that when we get to the public launch at the end of March, that they would be fully... They were fully understanding of the system and so it would be a seamless process. But during this time as well, we had merchants onboard it and so these transactions, for example, the one at Rap City, these were to demonstrate that the de-cash actually works and how it works so that these merchants as well were able to get acquainted with the process so that they can serve the public efficiently once we did the public rollout. So it was a matter of gradually introducing de-cash to the market so that we can have good user experience at the public launch. Wonderful. We are speaking to Ms. Sharman Powell over in Bastere. She is the Chief Risk Officer and Chairperson of ECCB's FinTech Working Group. We have also via Zoom the first merchant to transact with de-cash here in St. Lucia, Mr. Jimmy Francis of City Foods, Rap City and the first financial institution on Ireland to transact with de-cash, Mr. Robert Favri is representing Executive Marketing Manager at First National Bank. Stay with us. When we come back, we speak to Mr. Favri and Mr. Francis of City Rap Foods on the experience in the closed pilot. Stay with us. What's in the food you're eating? Do you really even know? All the chemicals and horrors used to accelerate their growth. All the artificial flavoring, sweeteners and colors too. We consume and we don't spare a thought for the damage that they'll do. No. Think about the children. Think about the children. How will we save it? Chemicals and GMOs are not the solution. Use organic enjoyment. Excessive agrochemical use, additives and genetically modified foods are harmful to health and the environment. Join the Good Food Revolution. Grow, buy and consume organic. A message from Rye St. Lucia and the Ministry of Sustainable Development with funding from the GEF Small Grants Program, UNDP. Good Food Revolution. Thank you so much for staying tuned. This is Issues and Answers of Production of NTN. We continue with our panel discussion on the rollout of the securely minted digital version of the Eastern Caribbean dollar, DeCache. We just came off of the break speaking to Ms. Powell over in Bastere. She's the Chief Risk Officer and Chairperson of the ECCB's FinTech Working Group on of course the rationale of what DeCache is in terms of being fundamentally different from paper cash. And at this point in time, we're also speaking on the closed pilot which leads me to my next engagement at this time. The first financial institution on Ireland to transact with DeCache within the closed pilot was First National Bank and Indigenous Institution. And today we have representing the Institution Executive Marketing Manager, Mr. Robert Favrier. Good day to you, Mr. Favrier. Once again, talk to us about this experience during the closed pilot and the onboarding process with merchants. Good day, good day to you. This experience was one which was very, very exciting for us. Working closely of course with guidance from the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank, from Ms. Powell and her team. What we did, we engaged our staff because as you know, charity begins at home. So we used our staff actually to test the DeCache and what we also did to encourage and to incentivize them, we decided that we would give them each 105 staff members qualified for $100 in their DeCache wallet so they could spend. So we had a little bit of a competition and so we had at least 50 staff members actually signed up for DeCache in the initial phase. We needed a minimum of much less than that. Maybe a minimum of 10. But they got really excited about it. Again, a lot of them are young staff members and as you know, this is where the world is going. I want to applaud the Central Bank for taking this initiative, especially in this COVID time where DeCache, as you know, is also contract less. And so we follow the social distancing and that sort of thing. It was very timely for us to have launched this product from the ECCB. So the staff got involved, they tested it. We also tested in terms of the support because it's one thing to use the DeCache. But of course, now you have the back office function whereby persons have to indicate their interests via the DeCache info at firstnationalbankslu.com. This was the email address that we used, that we're using now actually for customers who are interested or persons who are interested in applying for DeCache. So we went through that internal process whereby they used the DeCache, where they were transfers as well from the account into the DeCache wallet. And we physically actually executed and went to Jimmy Francis CityRap Foods to actually execute a DeCache transaction from beginning to end to ensure that the transaction was successful. It was very seamless, it was very easy. I don't even know, it's a three step. So it's probably, I don't know, three seconds maybe. I mean, and the tagline is faster, cheaper, safer. You cannot go wrong with DeCache. And so we are encouraging. We have, as a matter of fact, from the time we, ECCB launched on March 31st, we have been working hard to sign on at least 300. We have over 300 customers have applied for DeCache. So as we speak, we have our people in the back office processing those registrations.  It is an exciting time. It is the place that the world is going really. And then even with travel, I think Ms. Powell mentioned the security. You don't have to carry all of that cash around with you. If you lose your device, your money is still safe. You don't have to worry. So this is the way we are going. And as an Indigenous institution, we're very proud and we thank the ECCB for allowing us and giving us the opportunity to participate in such an innovative product. Wonderful, you mentioned Jimmy Francis there. I now want to head on over to him. Mr. Francis of City Foods Rap City, you were the first merchant to transact with DeCache here on Ireland. Tell us about your initial thoughts about DeCache and your thoughts thereafter when the process, the first transaction was done. Well, initially I thought it's futuristic. I thought they were taking a big leap into the future, which is why I thought this is an opportunity. To take my business into the future also. I was excited from the moment I heard about it. We have had practice on the pilot and the whole system itself seemed to be very easy to use. The process is easy. It's exciting. It's much safer, which is very good for both, my business on the whole, including staff where there will be less cash transaction. We're all excited about it. And I think customers are very much excited about it and looking forward to actually using DeCache to pay off for their bills. Okay, wonderful. Tell us a little bit about your business. What do you provide and tell us how the DeCache plays into that in terms of the hours that you operate and so on? Sure, sure. So I own an umbrella company called Cities Foods. Under this company, I have about three other businesses. I'm Rhapsody being the major one. We are fast food business, which operates anywhere from 9 a.m. and when curfew will permit again, up to 3 a.m. in the morning. So having DeCache on hand makes it, as I said before, very safe. We have a wide variety on the menu, so people purchase from breakfast to lunch to dinner. As I said, and with DeCache in the later evening, we've had issues in the evenings. And I think having DeCache cashless process will make it much safer for us. And we appreciate that and we're looking forward to it taking off and becoming what it's supposed to be, become a cashless society. Wonderful. Ms. Powell, I want to come back to you. Aside from businesses and commercial activity, DeCache is able to do far much more. Tell us a bit about the options that are available in terms of being able to send money to family and friends and so on. Yes, so we have what you call peer-to-peer transactions. So an individual can send money within their country or even across country. So we have four private countries currently, Antigam, Barbuda, Grenada, St. Lucia and St. Kitton, Nevis. So any individual in one of these countries can send to the other. So I can send funds from St. Kitton, somebody in Grenada, once they have a DeCache wallet and it's the same three seconds. Once I know their username and enter their amount, I swipe to pay and it goes off to them. My balance is we choose immediately and they can get the funds right away as well. So that peer-to-peer transfer is critical because then persons, you may have an emergency transaction or you may want to actually carry out the transaction in another country. So that helps tremendously. And it's the reduction in time for these transfers compared to other methods, helps tremendously as well. Okay. Usually we have transactions being hampered by perhaps if you're using an app, you must have a minimum amount of money to be able to transfer. Also, there have been concerns in terms of transferring monies online with the high fees and so on. Speak to us about the use of the DeCache app. Are there any restrictions in that respect? There are no restrictions. Once you have the funds in your DeCache wallet, you can transfer. So the only restriction is that you kind of transfer more than you have and there is a limit to the wallet. So for example, for registered-based wallets, there are three tiers. And so once you are within that limit, you can transact. And similarly for the value-based wallet, there are two levels in terms of the limit for the transaction. And these limits are based on your risk profile really. So the wallet limits for the registered-based are set by the Commercial Banks Auto Credit Union based on the customer's risk profile. And we have preset limits for the value-based based on the information provided at the sign-up. So that is the only restriction in terms of the limits. But when you're transacting, once there are funds in your DeCache wallet, that can cover the transaction, the transaction can go through. Now for the purpose of the 12-month pilot, there is no fees attached to the use of DeCache, neither for the financial institutions, agencies, merchants, or end users. So all DeCache transactions are free. Okay. Now someone wants to get in on the action. How can they participate as a user or a merchant in this pilot ongoing? So I'll start as a merchant. If you're a merchant and your financial institution is participating in the pilot, then you just reach out to your financial institution, request a code, and then you do the sign-up via the app to be a participant in the pilot. Once your financial institution reviews the application, goes to the KYC and know your customer information and review, and they approve that application, then your digital wallet is approved and you can now transact. So all merchants have to have an account at the participating financial institution. And the reason for this is the risk profile and the fact that the value that merchants would transact is significantly higher than an individual. So they would need to have a relationship with a financial institution, a participating financial institution, to be able to access the wallet. Now for individuals, there are two ways they can access the pilot. They can be part of the pilot. They can have a registered-based wallet, which they would access to their financial institution. So they will do the online application. They will submit it to their financial institution using a code that was provided by the financial institution. And once their wallet is approved, then they can transfer funds from their account and they can do that using the various online platform with this online banking or mobile banking and they can transfer funds from their account to the digital wallet and then begin transacting. For those persons whose financial institution is not in the pilot or they don't have an account, they can go and have a value-based wallet where they complete the application online similarly and it goes to an agent. We have named agents in the four territories. The agent will approve the wallet and then they can take physical cash and exchange it for digital cash. So they take physical cash, we have the agents, or we have merchant tellers that will be identified that offer that service where they take the physical cash and they can be exchanged for digital cash. So there are two ways which the end users can be part of the pilot. But in this way, anybody can be part of the pilot. Nobody is excluded. Okay, wonderful. Mr. Favre, I want to come back to you. First National Bank stands ready to receive clients in that respect. We are very, very ready. We have received clients from the 31st since the launch. We continue to receive clients. We actually wrote to our clients, actually inviting them and encouraging them, telling them about the cash. The ECCB was very proactive in sending a lot of information our way. We utilized that information for our social media and also through our software. We have a software called Constant Contact that we reach out to all of our customers to give them that information, specific information. So that is why we have such high numbers registering because we did our homework during the close pilot. We did what was required because we realized that is a product that is worth investing in. And like our customer, CityRab, just said, it is cashless, it is very safe, especially he operates three hours of the morning and that's a concern. We know that crime is on the rise, is on the increase, but at the same time, we do have to make a living. We do have to provide a service in whatever sector that we are in and we want to know that we are safe. We want to know that our staff are also safe. And that is what D-Cash provides because it is a cashless product. And I want to put a plug for Jimmy in that he has the best wraps on the island. So if you haven't been there, he's located in Boseju as soon as you enter on the left, he didn't say that, but his wraps are very, very, very good. And that is why people are flocking there and using the D-Cash at CityRab, Rab City. Mr. Favrier, the role of financial institutions in this pilot is not just to facilitate the setup of the account, but I understand it's also to provide information. Tell us about the training of your staff in assisting clients to use D-Cash because it's been said that it's user-friendly, but should somebody have difficulty, are they on standby to assist in that respect as well? They are on standby. The email is D-Cash-info, at FirstNationalBankSLU.com. And First National Bank is always 1ST, like when you come first in a race or first in an exam, it's 1ST, NationalBankSLU.com. And of course, we have a number of branches all around. As you know, we've just acquired RBC over the weekend. So we have two additional branches in Baywalk Mall and on Miku streets as well. So they can call in, they can come into any of our branches. The number is 457,000. So that's an easy number to remember. 7,000 is the number. And the email again is D-Cash-info at FirstNationalBankSLU.com. We have been doing the training, but I have to tell you, and I think Ms. Powell alluded to that, it is so easy. It does not require a whole heap of training. It is not rocket science. You don't have to have a PhD. You don't have to have a degree. I mean, it is for the simplest, the ordinary man. Once you have a device, it's a three-step approach. It's really, really very simple. And once you get into D-Cash and you sign up, you will not want to go back to hard cash. It is that simple. So you actually have a digital wallet. Can you imagine you have gotten to a point where we have a digital wallet? I mean, that is just what I think. And I have to commend again the Central Bank. I have to commend Ms. Powell and her team, the governor, Mr. Timothy Antoine. I mean, this is just amazing for this part of the world.  And I'm sure we can go anywhere and transact once the pilots roll out and everything goes the other islands come on board. You could well imagine how seamless because we are learning from the pilot as we go along. We are learning, we have taken up all of the bugs by now. Ms. Powell is working very hard with her team. And I'm sure by the time the rest of the islands come on board, I mean, that D-Cash will take off in a very big way. I'm hoping that you too, Jesse, will sign up for your D-Cash. Thank you, Mr. Favrier. But if I'm able to convert D-Cash to physical cash, Mr. Favrier, Ms. Powell, that is possible, yes? Yes, you can. That is possible, yes, yes, you can. Okay, wonderful. Yes, you can. Cash is cash. It's just that we're giving you the cashless option for your safety. And remember, it is faster, it is cheaper, and it is safer. Okay, wonderful. We've run out of time for this installment of Issues and Answers, but Ms. Powell, I just want to offer you the final words on the D-Cash rollout in these four islands. I just want to advise as well that coming soon, by the end of this month, we also have the e-commerce functionality. And what that allows you to do is to use D-Cash to make online payments. So any merchant that loves online payments and is using D-Cash, you can then use your D-Cash to make online payments as well. So you don't need a debit card or credit card. Once you have D-Cash, you can also make online payments. And I want to encourage all our citizens across the ECCU. And even those where the pilot has that rollout, yet prepare yourself to be part of this game change and this revolution in the ECCU. We have made history, and we need to continue to make history together. So I encourage all persons to sign up and get D-Cash, or safer, faster, cheaper method of payments. Wonderful. Thank you very much, Ms. Powell. Ms. Sharman Power there coming to us from Bastere, ECCB in Bastere. She's the risk officer and chairperson of the ECCB's FinTech Working Group. Also, we spoke to the first merchant here in St. Lucia to transact with D-Cash. Mr. Jimmy Francis of Foodz, RAPCITY, and Mr. Robert Favrier, executive marketing manager at First National Bank, the first institution here on Island to transact with D-Cash. We'd like to thank you so much for watching. Do stay tuned for more NTN programming. My name is Jesse Layall, signing off for now. Goodbye.


Ever heard the old phrase, strike when the iron is hot? Well, it's never been hotter than now. All this month at Appalachian Wireless, you can get the Samsung GS6 or the GS6 Edge for just one penny when you send them for service. The Galaxy S6, normally 49.99, now just a penny. The Galaxy S6 Edge, normally 99.99, now just a penny. Strike now while supplies last. Better service, bigger savings. Serving you for the last 25 years at Appalachian Wireless. Kentucky State Police has confirmed human remains have been discovered in Martin County. Police have released very few details, but told EKB News the remains were found in a wooded area in Milo Tuesday morning. There was a call that came in from Martin County advising that they had located what was believed to be human remains. Arriving up on the scene, it was determined that we suspect this to be human remains. Proper identification will have to be done by sending the remains to Frankfurt. The discovery was made around the area where William Scotty Fannin was last seen before disappearing December 10th. However, police say there is nothing linking Tuesday's discovery to Fannin's disappearance. As of now, detectives with Kentucky State Police say the two cases will be investigated separately unless proven otherwise. We don't want anybody to speculate because until they do a proper identification, we don't know who the person may be. So we would like to refrain from anybody to having accounts speculations on who it may be until we can properly say for certain that it is who this person may be. EKB News will continue to follow this story and bring you information as it becomes available. Reporting in Milo for EKB News, I'm Shelby Steele.


A 26 year old Coon Rapids man has pleaded not guilty to 19 felony charges in connection with the death of a 5 year old girl near Motley. According to Forum News Services, Zachary Todd Anderson entered the not guilty pleas on Wednesday in Cass County District Court in Walker. A grand jury previously indicted Anderson on the 19 charges, including charges of first degree murder, first degree criminal sexual conduct and kidnapping. He's accused of kidnapping Elena Erdal from her home in Meeker County in August of 2016 and taking her to his family's cabin in Motley where he allegedly sexually assaulted her and killed her. The jury trial for Anderson is scheduled to begin April 4th if convicted Anderson could face life in prison. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.


To think-tech, it's the one o'clock block here on a given Thursday, and our special guest here on Global Connections, Historical Connections, in a way, is John David Ann. He is a history professor and a historian in the fullest sense, okay, at HPU, welcome back to the show. Thanks, Jay. I'm glad to be here once again, yes, definitely. Once again, we're glad to have you, and, you know, we agreed to talk about impeachment today. The title of the show is, Impeaching Mr. Trump, a Comparative Analysis. It was historical perspective, and so just in the way of, you know, prologue, you know, I think a lot of people are concerned, including in Congress, that this president is pulling the government apart.  This is a, may I say, using his term, he's a loser president. His popularity is way down. What he's doing to our allies is shameful, and what he's doing to our social safety net is worse, and an environment is worse. I can't think of anything good here. You know, his initiatives on health care are scary, and tax reform, which is a euphemism, that's not tax reform at all, also scary. So going forward, it just looks bad. You know what they say? It's going to get worse before it gets worse. Sean, you look at this from the point of view of an historic. Where are we in the possibility of getting him impeached? I mean, soon. Yeah. So it's hard to judge, of course. These things are very fluid, and you know, there are new revelations every week, so that's kind of disturbing, and that certainly has brought about the discussion of impeachment. But if we use history as a guide, then impeachment, you know, when you look at impeachments that happened in the past, there were actually two impeachments in the House of Representatives. No president has ever been fully, been removed from office after having been impeached by the House, which means, essentially, the House of Representatives does the initial inquiry and votes to impeach, and then the Senate does the removal, and the Senate has never— This is a trial. That's a trial. That's correct. It's a trial, and that's—the Senate has never gone that far. So in the previous two impeachments, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, then the Congress was controlled by the opposition party. I think that's quite significant. In 1867, when the Republicans controlled the Congress, and Andrew Jackson, who was a Democrat, was the president, then the House of Representatives voted to impeach him. It's a complicated story, but it's just the kind of a short summary of it is the House—the Congress had passed a law in 1867 intended to put handcuffs on the president, not literal handcuffs, but to handcuff him in terms of removing appointees, in particular, the Secretary of War, who was himself a radical Republican, had been appointed by Andrew Johnson early on in his administration. Johnson wanted him out because Johnson wanted more control over the military operations in the South that were ongoing in the late 1860s. And this was all sort of—trying to settle down after the Civil War. That's correct. What's settled yet? That's right. The Republicans had voted to send the military back into the South after Johnson had allowed southern states back into the Union, and the Republicans revoked this. They turned the South into five military districts and sent the army back into the South. They were angry. They were angry, and Johnson didn't like this. So he wanted to get control over the Secretary of War and end this. And so this gambit, which is going back and forth, then the Congress passes a law called the Tenure of Office Act, in which they handcuff the president. They said, you cannot remove one of your appointees without the approval, the consent of Congress. And so Johnson—and there was a clause in here that said a president can remove an appointee during a recess, but then the Congress has to come back after the recess and approve that removal, right? He has other guys gone already. That's right. So Johnson does this. He removes Stanton during a recess, and then the Congress came back. They were outraged. They refused to grant approval to the removal. And then they looked into impeaching the president, and they started impeachment.  The House agreed to impeach. The Senate came within one vote of impeaching the president, of removing the president. Well, the grounds were that he had violated the law by trying to meddle in the affairs of Congress. When they came back in and voted to reject his Stanton's removal, then Johnson didn't recognize it. Johnson didn't know, no, no, I'm going to remove him anyhow. So in effect, he was violating the law. The executive of Congress is going to announce it. That's right. Yeah. And he was violating this law, and the truth is the law was later removed. Yeah. And it was revised even shortly thereafter. In fact, maybe. I'm not kidding. Maybe we do. I mean, you know, this is the age of the imperial president. The CIA, for example. Maybe we put some handcuffs on the president. So that's a kind of a strange one, but they're all strange, quite honestly. So Johnson was able to serve out his term, but he was a defeated man. He got nothing passed. Both houses of Congress were supermajority. So they had no problem passing stuff over his veto. And so it was a very contentious time, of course, you know, due to the Civil War itself and reconstruction. But so that was the first time impeachment was used. Yeah. So it— Put a note to that. What he had amounts to, though, is they took his wings off for the rest of the term. He ignored them? OK, they're going to ignore him. They ignored him and essentially reduced his power. Yes. And query is a very interesting question proposed now. Query, if Congress did that—and I'm not saying it would, because it's all Republican right now—but if hypothetically Congress did that, these days, with the power of the presidency, they wouldn't be able to remove much of his power now. The thing is the power of the presidency, but, you know, California, the state of California has passed laws on climate change that Trump doesn't agree with at all. Oh, yeah. But so the issue of these emerging sovereignties, state sovereignties, is this is something that's relevant in a way that it wasn't a couple of decades ago. Agreed. And also, you know, the problem with Trump is he's this terrible minority president. I mean, terrible—I'm using the word terrible to define minority. He might be a terrible president. He might not. You know, most people, I think, at this point, think he's not a very good president. His ratings are really low. His ratings are very low in the 30s. But so the problem is that—or maybe the possibility is that Congress does take more power. I mean, the budget that Trump has—the Trump administration has put out is—as it stands, it's pretty much DOA. Yes. The Republicans don't like it. I mean, one of the head of the Freedom Caucus said, Trump proposes eliminating meals on wheels to senior citizens. That doesn't work for me. Get serious. So the problem is that Trump has defined himself with this minority of voters and continues to do so. He is a minority president in a very severe way. You know, remember, we talked about this before. Can Trump become a national president instead of appealing to this— It looks less and less like that's possible. No, at least in the short term. He is not in any way. In fact, he's become more and more of a minority president. In battle now. That's right. So it's possible that we might be seeing the erosion of the imperial presidency. And Congress might want to take more power. We'll have to see about that. But in terms of impeachment, then you have—of course, you have the second case. So we have to move ahead quite a long period of time to the 1990s. And then after we get done with Clinton, we'll skip back to Nixon and talk about Nixon, because Nixon was a case where he would have been impeached. And so, Bill Clinton. So Clinton is accused of obstruction of justice and perjury, lying to a grand jury. And I think— And to the American people. Yeah, I think, in fact, he probably did, on a technicality. Right.  That's right. Which is interesting. As a technicality, that was true.  So, but the House of Representatives votes yes on two articles, perjury and obstruction of justice. It goes to the Senate. The Senate has to vote in two-thirds majority in order for removal of office to take place. Fifty senators voted for obstruction of justice, and 45 senators voted for perjury. So it wasn't really close to the two-thirds. It was disturbing, I think, to the country to see that impeachment was being done over something which seemed to be a technicality, almost like an entrapment. And so—but in doing so, the Republicans, I think, opened the door, because what's interesting about this—and we'll get back to Nixon in a second—what's interesting about this, when you look at public opinion polling in the succeeding administrations, Bill Clinton steps down in 2001. The Bush—George W. Bush administration, 30 percent of the voting poll, the poll population, thought that George W. Bush should have been impeached. This is quite high, I think. Yeah, that's extraordinary. Was there a crime there? Well, not necessarily, but this is the nature of a country divided between Republicans and Democrats. It's almost like recall, you know? Right, but the thing is, the impeachment of Clinton opened the door to this possibility to the other side. Sure. I think that's part of why you see that 30 percent. It was in play. That's right. The Republicans put it in play in a way which I think was not impartial and not objective in a constitutional sense. It was partisan. Yeah, that was too partisan. You can't eliminate the partisanship, but you can certainly not let it get out of control like the Republicans in the 1990s. So then, when Barack Obama took power in 2009, then 30 percent of the polling population believed that Barack Obama should be impeached. So this is an—unfortunately, the Republicans opened the door to impeachment as something other than what it was kind of intended as a constitutional remedy. And so I think we're going to continue to see this conversation about impeachment, even if Trump is not impeached. Now, let's go back to Nixon for a second, if that's okay. So Nixon is the third case, and Nixon was not impeached. Nixon resigned before he could be impeached. How far did it go before he resigned? There were—the Articles of Impeachment were passed by the House Judiciary Committee, and that's when Nixon said, I'm gone. Before a vote by the House. That's correct. There was never a— It's early in the process. There was never a full vote by the House. Yeah. And so Nixon— But he would have been impeached, don't you think? Oh, yes, yes. So once again, opposition party is in power of the Congress. The Democrats were in charge of Congress, and I think they were preparing to impeach him. But not over—okay, I'll make a comparison here and maybe a judgment, but the Bill Clinton impeachment, trivial compared to the Nixon impeachment possibility. Nixon actually broke the law in several different ways. Now there is this question, how much did he actually know or direct personally? But he broke the law several times, and he also obstructed justice very severely. It's kind of there's some things about— Substance of level. That's correct. At a national initiative level. That's correct. He wanted his attorney general to fire the independent prosecutor who was looking into it. His attorney general refused, and he fired his attorney general and the so-called midnight massacre. And so he was definitely trying to obstruct the process of justice in this case. Now is Trump trying to obstruct the process of justice in firing Mr. Comey in the midst of the FBI investigation? It looks like it's possible. Okay, we'll know more when James Comey testifies in front of Congress, in front of the Senate. Well, he's trying to escape that characterization. You know, when it first happened, I think he wasn't fully aware of that characterization and how risky that was in light of Watergate. But now he's trying to back off that and create what he always creates, a distraction from the point of law. Right, right. But so—but it's going to be hard. Honestly, his attempts to create distraction—Trump's attempts to create distractions have almost always led him into further trouble. We saw this in the campaign as well. This is a guy who steps on himself all the time because he can't seem to stop talking, to stop showing his cards. So this is a real problem. So Nixon, of course, the whole Watergate scandal, the break-in at the Democratic National Headquarters, et cetera, et cetera. But what's interesting about the Nixon case, because it might be the best comparison to the current case, because Trump has already maybe obstructed justice, just like Nixon did. So the people, the American people actually—so Nixon wins reelection in November 1972. By May 1973, there are actually Senate hearings on the Watergate issue. And millions of Americans, estimated 73 percent of Americans watched the Watergate hearing. It's astonishing. This was really played in Middle America, you know. It must have been Dan in no way. Well, I don't know. Maybe it was the sudden or Sam Irvin, right? He was a hero. He was charismatic. Let's take a break for a minute, John. That's John David Ann. He's a history professor at HPU. We're examining the historical perspective of the possibility of an impeachment from Mr. Trump here on Global Connections. Think tech away. We'll be right back after one minute. You'll see. Aloha. My name is Stephen Philip Katz. I'm a licensed marriage and family therapist. And I'm the host of Shrink Rap Hawaii, where I talk to other shrinks. Did you ever want to get your head shrunk? Well, this is the best place to come to pick one. I've been doing this. We must have 60 shows with a whole bunch of shrinks that you can look at. I'm here on Tuesdays at 3 o'clock every other Tuesday. I hope you are too. Aloha. Foundation for a Better Life. Not to watch the polls, but Congress does. They know. OK. OK, we're back. And I just want to, you know, John, talking about impeachment in both the Nixon situations and the Clinton situations. But recently there was a, you're going to love this. Recently there was an article in The New Yorker by a columnist by the name of Barowitz there. Barowitz is a funny guy. And I caught this on somebody sent me this article and I was reading it. It was something about impeaching Trump. And it was an interview with Trump. Some reporter suggested to him that he might be impeached. And his response was, you know, I might be impeached, but it'll be the best impeachment you ever saw. I will have the best ratings for my impeachment. My impeachment will be like no other impeachment in American history. Yes. I don't know if you saw that. And I read this article and said, my God, you know, this happened. It's so real. Come to find it was all tongue-in-cheek. OK. But I mean, you know, it's tongue-in-cheek, but things are funny because they're essentially true sometimes. Right, right, right. And I think that's the way he sees it.  In fact, he sees it as ratings and popularity. He'd like to occupy the newspaper every day all day. Right, right. And an impeachment would give him the chance to do that. It's a perverse moment. OK, let's hope this moment moves, you know, that we need to move on from this moment of kind of, you know, this kind of Kim Kardashian of politics being in the presidency. You know, we don't need any more reality TV stars to be president, in my opinion. It's not serious enough. They're very serious matters, and we need to take it more seriously. Well, it is indeed.  They don't see a good future here. And they wonder who's going to resolve this, who's going to step into the job, who's going to make it right, who's going to return us. Talk about making America great again. How about making America the way it was a few years ago under Obama? That would be better. Well, so the thing about impeachment is that this could go on for a while. That's part of the lesson of the Nixon impeachment process, is it took a long time. But what would it be on the basis of, you know, there's a few things here, the three things that come to mind. Number one is, substantively, what happened with Russia? Yeah. You know, we've got all this distraction, one thing after another, from sessions on, sessions confirmation hearing at the outset. Right. You know, and now we have all kinds of other distractions. But the main thread here is, what happened in Russia? Yeah. Because all the connected dots at times had an article laying out the evidence they knew. Right. All the evidence that we know about suggests there was really, you know, fire under the smoke. Yeah. And there was something there. So one possibility, he's going to get caught red-handed somehow. It's possible that he was using Russia to influence the election in his favor. Yeah. Second is, as you mentioned, obstruction and lying about things. Yeah. That's interesting. It's not the same thing as the substantive approach. Right. Second is, general unpopularity, because of other things, other reasons, other decisions. Yeah. Well, poor leadership. Yeah. Things have gone from bad to worse to worse in this White House. And it's just, he doesn't seem to be able to escape it. So, but the thing is, I think, and I'm no legal scholar, but I think the obstruction of justice could potentially be the thing that undoes him. Whether he's impeached or not, it just, it's one of the articles that Bill Clinton was impeached under obstruction of justice. The test for obstruction of justice is pretty severe. It's pretty strict. So, Comey would have to have more, probably, than he'd say so. If he's got a memo, if he has his own tape, that would be damning. Even the memo. Even the memo. Not quite as much, but it would be damning. No, the memo's certainly something written. We're going to find out in a few days. We are indeed, yeah. So, you know, the thing is, Nixon re-elected in November 1972. It's August 1974 before this whole thing ends. So, and again, this could go on for a long time. There are some Democrats who, of course, who have signed on to an impeachment goal for Trump. But there are many Democrats, especially in the Senate, who say, wait, wait, wait, wait. You have to go through the process. We have to find evidence here. We've got to, you know, this is going to take some time. It's not going to happen overnight. So, we're just going to have to wait on this. But you know, this is going to be different. It's going to be different than Johnson. It's going to be different than Nixon. It's going to be different than Clinton. I mean, for other reasons. One is he's really becoming very unpopular. Every day he gets more unpopular. People really can't tolerate that, even the ones who voted for him without thinking about it. And then, you know, the other thing is that he's not going to take this lying down. He's not going to walk away to the helicopter, you know, the way Nixon did. He's not going to do that. He's going to fight. He's going to, you know, wring all his guns in and fight everything right along the way.  But the fact is he'll be in the press every day. This will be a national contortion for as long as it takes. If they find something, you know, substantive that happened with Russia and, you know, hand in the cookie jar kind of thing, I think it will be quicker. Yes, I think absolutely. Because that's, you know, that's very bipartisan, OK? That's an easier case to make. And it's not just bipartisan. It's also national security. I mean, we can't protect the security of our elections if we've got our own leaders conspiring to tilt the elections. Right. You know, colluding with a foreign power. Wow, wow. That would be every sensibility. I mean, if Trump wants history, that will make history. Yeah. OK. That will make him an infamous figure in the annals of history. I will be talking about Trump in my lectures from here on out if that's the case. There will be no blip on the screen. So, but we'll have to see about that. That's not clear yet. Yeah. But it will be different. And it's so interesting to predict how it would roll out. I mean, you know, John, even though it might take two years to finish, it might start pretty quick. Now that he's back from Europe, now this investigation is proceeding. Now the special counsel is involved. I think the thing is, so you have to get some folks to start spilling on this, right? You have to get somebody to actually start telling what actually happened. We haven't gotten that yet. Maybe Michael Flynn is going to do that. To me, Flynn is the key to the Russian connection. But now we find that— Kushner. Yes, Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, is deeply involved in this connection. He was trying to create a back channel after the election. Can I kind of offer this thought, though? Yeah. You know, it's—yes, just like Watergate, it's the question of who comes forward? Who is the deep throat? Yeah. Who is going to reveal all? Because somebody out there knows in detail what happened. Yeah.  Yeah. There's a certain, you know, you don't want to bring him down. Right, right. You don't want to be the guy who changed history in a negative way. Right.  But now he's alienating all the people around him. They're bailing out of the White House. They won't come into the White House. No, that's right. And Trump is singular in his ability to alienate both friends and folks. And it's unbelievable how quickly he has just, you know, gone down the path of just alienating everyone. So—and the other thing to think about is, you know, the thing is, Trump has this kind of populism, but you think about Nixon in 1972. Nixon won a landslide election, you know, 67 percent of the vote. So it—you know, even the mighty can fall, and even those with strong populist kind of base can fall. So, yeah, I think we have to stay tuned. We'll see what happens here. But look at the larger picture. We only have a couple of minutes left. Yeah. And then how is this—historical point of view, how is this affecting our country? How is it affecting the relationship of John Q. Citizen with the federal government? Yeah. Well, you know, there was, of course, tremendous alienation against Congress and against the government in general before the election, and Trump has simply enhanced that.  Trump becomes the government. They hate Trump. So left, right, center, people are becoming more alienated from the government. You know, it's—you know, if it's a post-national moment or if it's post-national America, where we don't really—we can't find a consensus, we can't come to agreement, then Trump has just pushed us further down the pathway to alienation. And, quite frankly, so domestically, I think you see this continuing erosion of national—the possibility of a national consensus. I mean, it might not ever happen again. And can a country function well in that I think the founders established a system because of the state's sovereignty, because of the federal system where states have power, enumerated powers, the federal government has other powers. I think you could see a time where the government can function more effectively from the states than from the center. It's happening now. Yeah. In California, as you mentioned. That's right. And in other places. And like all of the West Coast is involved in that. That's correct. Without a schism or a secession, this secession talk is nonsense because we're so tightly knitted together economically. Yeah. So I think it's possible that you could see that, that the nation could adjust to this kind of more—you know, we had this before the 20th century, where the states had more power and the federal government less power. One wrinkle this points out is that, you know, people assume the federal government will keep on. You know, then I think their confidence was shaken when they found that we went to the cliff every year and trying to get it funded. Right. Right. But now, it seems to me that the government is in convulsion. Yeah. And many, many of the agencies don't have heads yet. Right. FEMA, for example, doesn't have a head. Right. My—you know, we expect some bad weather this year without a head at FEMA. This is risky business. Yeah. So, you know, it raises a question as to whether the government is properly—can properly operate with all these, you know, problems around Trump and perform its function in a time when we needed to perform its function. Yeah, yeah. Well, I think the thing is, Trump has—of course, he's alienated the bureaucracy. Right away, he's alienated. They didn't like him from the start, but he's further alienated them. And yes, there's going to be very little leadership out of the White House. But I think he hasn't done much to actually destroy bureaucracies yet. So, I think the bureaucracies in the short term can continue to function to make American government function, you know, to the—to some satisfaction of the American people. So, but it's—this is short term, okay? We haven't had a budget fight in the fall yet. We haven't had, you know, a lot of executive orders, which might mean something down the road, but don't necessarily mean anything right now. So, we'll have to wait and see as to whether or not this, you know, causes a—not just a crisis of governing, but a crisis of the American system. Yeah. The American federal system. It's a—it's a historian's delight. Yeah, well. Everything that's happening is changing. We live in interesting times. Yeah. Thank you, John David. Sure. That's great to have you here. You've got to do it again. Okay. It's so much more to come. Yeah, yeah. Fine, Jay. I'm glad to do it. Thank you.


on education.com here with our 14 tips for cutting hair better. This is tip number 12. So thank you for hanging in there. It's been a while. We're going to work on weight control. And when you talk about weight in a haircut, I'm not so much talking about if it's going to be heavy or weak in the haircut. What I'm talking about is how we're passing the weight along in the haircut. So we're going to look at this more horizontally here. I'm going to use a comb with wider teeth. Normally, with a wet cut, I like the 334 comb This is our Mizetani comb. I like the 334 because of the tightness in the tension and how tiny it is, because it allows me to work in tight spots. When I worked with dry cutting, this is a 332 comb. I like a comb with wider teeth. So any comb that you have that has a wider teeth, that's what you're really looking for. So now I've cut this bob just in a blunt line. And what I want to do is just work through that and show you guys how shifting weight can really change your cut. All right guys, so we're going to focus on how the weight moves on the head. And like I said before, we're not going to focus on how much elevation we're doing and how much weight we're removing from the initial, the graduation or the layering. But what we're going to focus on is the shape and how we're kind of pushing weight and where you want that weight to go. Because a lot of people just over-direct too far, and then you're pushing too much weight in here, and you just don't understand what happens. So I want to really go in here and show you guys the different ways to shift the weight. So we're going to take a vertical section out of this. And basically the deal is here, I'm doing this dry so that you guys can see the weight distribution, but normally I would not do this dry. This would be more in the wet cut. So we're going to cut this vertically.  So really just trying to keep everything consistent in the back, no over-direction whatsoever. So I'll pull a little bit of that guide in, but not much. And we're going to work our way across the head, over-directing everything straight out as we work through. Now, what you will notice is as this is working through, the head starts to curve away. So I'm going to show you, we'll take this last section here, the head starts to curve away. So what I want you to see is in this line, can you see that line, Dad? OK, so what you can see, what happened, everything came out vertically straight out from the head. But what happens is the head starts to curve around. And as the head curves around, there starts to be over-direction. Even if you're not thinking that in your mind, it starts to over-direct slightly. So what you can see within the weight is it travels across the head pretty consistent until that bend happens. And then as soon as that bend happens, you're slightly over-directing more and more. So now, you get that slight line because the hair gets a little bit longer because the head is further away and it just starts to dip the hair down. So you need to be cautious of these things as you're cutting hair because of the fact that if I were to follow this line and bring everything back, now as I start pulling hair further and further away from where it lives, it just gets heavier and heavier and longer and longer. So that's why when you cut an A-line bob, it just gets too heavy in the front. So you want to follow that corner around slightly, still over-directing slightly back, but just because you're worried about cutting out this behind the ear, don't be worried about that.  And as long as you have your line cut previous, so you can see that we cut the line first, then if you follow the head around, you're still going to have that length, but you're not going to have this heavy weight in here. So this, as it kind of works its way around, is going to fall too heavy. So it just depends. Doesn't mean that this is wrong. All I'm saying is that be cautious of how you're pushing weight because right away you see this dip dive, all of that's going to get heavier and heavier as it goes. So just make sure on the weight control. Now that's as I was cutting it vertically. Now the reason we might want to cut horizontally is because as I'm holding this straight out like this, this is actually, I'm holding that whole entire line in my hand. So it's, what do you want to focus on? Do I want to focus vertically and focus on how much weight I want to remove this way? Or do I want to focus on it horizontally and focus on how much weight I want to remove this way? That's really the only difference in cutting horizontal and vertical. I like to keep it as comfortable as I can be. So whatever situation makes me the most comfortable. You know, on top of the head more, I like to work vertically. When I'm down below, I like to work horizontally. Just focus on those two aspects. How you're holding it here and what line you're working here and the line that you're working here and how the head shape is moving away. All right guys, so I hope that tip helped you. It's really just, I can't stress enough the importance of weight control in a haircut and that's what this tip is all about. Just focus on what's going on, how you're holding the hair and where the head shape is going and you're gonna be good to go. We're gonna move on. We got step 13 and then 14, two more left to go. So I hope these are helping you guys. Make sure you subscribe to us on YouTube, follow us on Facebook, freeslawneducation.com and we will see you on the next video. Thanks.


What is going on guys welcome back to the channel critical overload here? So this will be my ending explained for halloween kills So obviously of course spoilers will be involved no need to be watching this if you haven't seen the movie But at this point in time after it almost being like a week since the movie came out I think a lot of us who If you watch me, I feel like you've already seen the movie at this point Those of you who primarily watch me and interact with me on social media I feel like a lot of you've already seen it and you're watching this video because you've already seen the movie So this video is mainly for you guys, so I'll just be jumping right on into where the movie was kind of already ending after Tommy Doyle Who was played by Anthony Michael Hall this time around Tommy Doyle spent the movie leading this brainless mob all throughout Haddonfield hunting Michael Myers down after they have irrationally take Made a innocent man who escaped with Michael Myers another escaped mental patient from that bus after they forced him into taking his own life from terrorizing him all around Haddonfield Memorial because they were under the impression that was Michael Myers after he kills himself we jump to Cameron his father Lonnie Elam and Allison in a car in the backseat Discussing the pattern of how Michael Myers his kills seem to be leading right to his childhood home Which we know is now being inhabited by the characters of big John and little John who at this point have already been killed by the shape So they make their way to the Myers home Lonnie goes in after telling Allison and Cameron, you know, basically stay here. He goes inside They don't hear back from him for a while Cameron decides to go inside at that point in time After he doesn't come out quick enough for Allison. She goes inside while Cameron's inside He goes upstairs. He's stumbling around the house with a gun pointed Excellent blue tents here. I would say also this that whole sequence. I thought was beautiful a beautiful visual to look at You have him camera just wandering around the house upstairs. He's hearing noises Something he hears from above him. He looks up and there's his father, of course stashed There's the dead Lonnie stashed in like the attic While he's looking up in horror and of course, I would assume heartbreak Michael Myers is on his way in front of him He lunges at Cameron pushes him against the wall start stabbing him and then after he has presumably Killed him down at the bottom of the flight of stairs Allison is demanding that Michael put him down. Let him go. Of course Etc. Etc. He makes his way down to Allison Who's challenging Michael Cameron who for whatever reason decided to keep on showing signs of being alive got a final blow When Michael snaps his neck Michael makes his way down to Allison the two have a confrontation.  It looks like Michael of course does not die from this after being stabbed in the back Michael falls Cameron stomp or not Cameron But Karen stops on him stumps on his neck. I believe it was now why she only did this one time first mistake Don't know why she did that but after doing that instead of doing it again She decides to take his mask. He ends up getting up Allison is left there with an injured leg also because she stumbled down the stairs from her encounter with Michael Myers She takes his mask goes outside Michael gets up sees Karen holding his mask and She makes the statement you want your mask come and get it She's basically leading Michael throughout the town all the way through until it seems like he is alone with Karen He finds his mask in the middle of the road. I Don't know how he didn't really see this. He's he's so ignorant of his surroundings Honestly, but I will say that the way that when he was unmasked how they kept him The use of lighting to keep his face hidden and not show us show us that trying to honor Everything that the shaping bodies even while he's unmasked. I appreciated that there was no tears like Halloween 5 He ends up finding his mask in the middle of the road He's actually at this point been surrounded by the mob who were just lying away. It was a trap Karen has led him to another trap I mean at this point she did it but she did it before I don't know why Michael honestly followed her He should not have followed her Under estimating Karen at this point Karen led him right to the mob After he finds his mask and notices a that they have him surrounded Sheriff Brackett. It's not Sheriff Brackett But you know Brackett is seen holding a gun saying it's Halloween Michael everyone's entitled to one's good one good scare Tommy is present other members of the mob are present Michael being defiant doesn't care. He doesn't he won't care one way or another who's there He wants his mask he goes to put his mask on when his mask comes on They start going to town on him beating him with whatever they have in their hand bats pitch forks There's even some gunshots fired into him They're beating him down pretty good very reminiscent and resembling anyone who played Friday 13th the game I'd say and for some reason again these people they don't decide to finish the job They don't decide to finish the job. They just leave him there as if that's enough to kill him But in meanwhile while all this is going on Lori Strod is in the hospital going over how the more he kills the more he transcends, you know, trying to give us this mega hyperbole I would say For everything Michael Myers embodies even though David Gordon Green is being adamant that he is very much human flesh and blood He's not supernatural and I would say that yes While nothing on screen that we saw him survive is nothing that a human can't survive It's the I would I believe where you're losing some audience members is how these things that people we know can Survive they're all happening to Michael all at once and he's somehow just still alive But you know anything's possible. He could very much survive all of that. It's not it's not impossible It's just the way you're framing it might not might be believable to some people. So after that Karen Stumbles on to them stumbles back to the Myers house She imagines the little Michael Myers up in the window of Judas room being naive again She goes into the house stares out the window and Michael Myers somehow got up After killing the rest of the members of the mob including Tommy Doyle after they again left him there like fools He got up somehow after killing the mob He went back to his home. No one saw him I guess he made his way upstairs and Karen while looking out the window realizes the shape is behind her She is stabbed to death and then the movie ends with Laurie strode and Michael Myers looking off into their different Perspectives and we're having quick shots of their faces back and forth to kind of set us up for okay It's game on at this point and we know Laurie strode will of course Find out about this and she will be after this man a hundred percent in Halloween Now there's gonna be a four-year time jump after this I don't know how this will make sense a four-year time jump I don't know but we'll see what they have in store for us But that is my ending explains for Halloween kills if you like this go ahead and give it a thumbs up You have a rare question be sure you subscribe turn on post application and miss a video in the description I have links to my social media accounts on Facebook Twitter and Instagram You can message me there of course If there's any movies or reviews let me to cover in the future with all that in mind guys I will see you in the next video