Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 22, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:17:27

Viva Frei-Day! Gonzalo Lira ALIVE; Obama's ADMISSION; Food Plant BURN & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And yet, despite the fact that we've now essentially clinically tested the vaccine on billions of people worldwide, around one in five Americans is still willing to put themselves at risk and put their families at risk rather than get vaccinated.
	People are dying because of misinformation.
	I have to get to my tweet response to that.
	Let me just, what was it that I tweeted?
	Oh yes, right here.
	No one is quite as eloquent as Obama when publicly admitting to have committed crimes against humanity.
	Let's actually just hear exactly what he just said, and he laughs when he says it.
	But my goodness, his pacing, his delivery, his mesmerizing eloquence, it's beautiful.
	He's the best speaker of any president.
	That I've seen with my own eyes.
	And yet, despite the fact that we've now essentially clinically tested the vaccine on billions of people.
	It's so funny.
	We've now effectively done, in theory, what was supposed to have been done before disseminating this to billions of people.
	No, gotta do it again.
	Gotta do it.
	Yeah, yeah.
	We have to hear this.
	And the way he laughs at how humorous it is.
	We got away with putting the carriage in front of the horse this time.
	Despite the fact that we've now essentially clinically tested the vaccine on billions of people worldwide.
	Unbelievable.
	Unbelievable.
	But he's so eloquent when he does it.
	He's so handsome and he's so thoughtful and his delivery is beautiful.
	You have to give him credit that it's beautiful delivery.
	He's good.
	He speaks well.
	And my goodness, when he tells the truth, even by accident, what a wonderful thing.
	People should appreciate what exactly is being recognized there.
	Now, I have to be fair to Obama when I say he's admitting to what is arguably crimes against humanity by effectively...
	Clinically testing on billions of people through trial and error in real time.
	He wasn't president when that happened.
	That probably falls on someone else, but he seems to be taking credit for the system, reveling in the system that effectively took to market and effectively did it in real time.
	And I'm just saying what Obama said.
	I'm not even saying what Obama said.
	I'm just repeating.
	I'm playing what Obama said.
	Let's just see if this is demonetized.
	Still green.
	I guess if President Obama admits to it so eloquently with his charisma and his charm.
	I wonder if he was in his $15 million mansion when he said it.
	But no, when he does it, it's so palatable.
	It's so easy to swallow because Obama said it.
	Imagine if Trump had come out and said, we've effectively just tested on developing nations.
	We've used other humans as effectively guinea pigs.
	Imagine if Trump had said that.
	The only problem is it seems to have occurred under Trump's watch.
	Now, I didn't want to say it because I didn't know if Nate was going to be able to make it here, but I see Nate is in the backdrop and we're going to bring Nate in because I can't have a fellow lawyer waiting at an hourly rate of however much the going rate is in New York.
	Nate, the great lawyer, is in the house.
	Yo!
	How you doing?
	What is up?
	I'm doing all right.
	I'm doing all right.
	I'm just relaxing.
	Yeah, I wasn't sure this was going to work, and I didn't want to hype it in case he didn't get here.
	Then, you know, people might have felt they would have felt good.
	Yeah, or they might have thought we had a fight.
	Nate, what's the good word?
	Nothing.
	I'm just watching the whole Amber, her Johnny Depp fiasco happen and just, you know, just trying to make good content out there for you people.
	Did you see the study that came out?
	With CNN?
	Maybe.
	We'll refresh my memory.
	All right.
	So this is crazy.
	So CNN does Brian Stelter, your favorite journalist.
	That's a person who you love.
	This man loves Brian.
	So Brian Stelter, it was classic confession through projection.
	It's your thing.
	I'm surprised you didn't do a video on this.
	I may have to now.
	I'm going to Google this while you're talking.
	All right.
	So essentially, let's look at my video.
	I did a video on it.
	So what happens is that CNN brought two researchers to CNN to do an interview with Brian Stilter on reliable sources.
	Now, the research was about the mainstream media and bias in media.
	Whoever at CNN only read one part of the study.
	Where they paid Fox News viewers to watch CNN, but they didn't read the second part of the study that paid CNN viewers to read Fox News.
	So they had the researchers on, and so Brian is like, yeah, we've been telling people that for years, that Fox News is corrupt, and they're hiding stuff from their audience, and the researcher had to say, what?
	You know we actually did the same thing for CNN 2 and found that CNN is just as bad as Fox News.
	So then you get that whole piece of it.
	So it was fascinating to see how he was trying to get out of it, but he's like, oh my god, I found out.
	Matter of fact, I can play the clip for you.
	What am I talking about?
	If it's your clip, go for it.
	Bring it in.
	I'm going to remove Obama from the stream.
	Oh my goodness.
	The things they say, And it's just...
	He doesn't say anything wrong with it.
	Okay, sorry.
	Nate, let's see.
	Do you share the screen?
	Yeah, I'll share it.
	I'll share it.
	I've got to pull it up.
	Now, in the chat, let me know if...
	I brought down Nate's audio a little bit.
	I think it might be even.
	Let me know how it sounds between the two of us.
	And then, Nate, are you watching Marjorie Taylor Greene?
	No!
	What happened with her?
	We'll get to it.
	We'll get to it.
	Let's do it.
	We're just going to do a summary because I've been watching some of it live.
	Alright, alright.
	I know she's...
	Go for it.
	No, no.
	You were saying she's going through something.
	There's a lawsuit where they're trying to prevent her from running for office again under the 14th Amendment of having participated in an insurrection.
	Nate, it's the most...
	If anybody's talking about an attack on democracy, this hearing to try to remove a democratically elected official from ever running for office again is more of an affront to democracy than January 6th.
	But we'll get there.
	That's kind of crazy.
	I don't know where they're getting at.
	Here is the thing.
	First, this is definitely in your wheelhouse.
	First, listen to the question and then listen to the response.
	Basically, you're proving what we've sensed for a while, which is Fox viewers are in the dark about bad news for the GOP.
	One thing also, look at the...
	The bottom part was the study explores what happens when Fox fans turn to CNN.
	Oh my gosh.
	Now listen, this is careful.
	Listen to what the researcher says.
	That's right.
	Fox and CNN cover different issues, and Fox News predominantly covers issues that make the GOP look good and make Democrats look bad.
	And on the flip side, CNN engages in this partisan coverage filtering as well that we find.
	For example, during this time, the Abraham Accords were signed, and these were the agreements where Israel, the UN, signed a major peace agreement.
	And we see that Fox News covered this really major accomplishment about 15 times more than CNN did.
	So we established both networks are really engaging in this partisan coverage filtering.
	It's not about one side, it's about the media at large.
	Now, this is the part that's going to make you laugh.
	Listen to how Brian responds to it.
	You can hear it, right?
	Wait.
	I know what's going to happen, but this is...
	Listen to what Brian says.
	Listen.
	I think you're engaging in some both sizes in there, Josh.
	Now he's brought them on to speak about the study that was about both CNN...
	And Fox News.
	And then when a guy's like, well, hold on, you left out the CNN party.
	He's like, you're engaging in both sides, Jim, Josh.
	He's like, no, I'm not engaging.
	But listen to how the guy responds.
	He's like, the study is about CNN, you idiot.
	But the guy does a good job.
	Watch how the guy responds.
	I'm not trying to lay out a moral equivalency.
	It's not about what an objective standard is.
	It's really about how all networks do engage in this.
	And in order for viewers to get a realistic picture of the world, we We need viewers to see all types of information.
	And unfortunately, what we find in this study is that the viewers don't want to engage in watching all sides.
	So as David mentioned, we see that viewers, we pay them for four weeks to watch CNN.
	But then after those payments stop, they go back to watching Fox News.
	So even though we try to watch both Fox and CNN, they don't want to engage in that hard work.
	They want to really just...
	Watch the side that makes them feel good.
	And this is why the media has such an important responsibility, too.
	They have to pay people to watch CNN.
	But you see how he...
	The beautiful part about this clip is that Brian was doing exactly what they were saying that he does.
	They were taking the news and filtering it for a political spin.
	And they tried to do that with the report!
	That says that they're doing it.
	So it's a beautiful case study.
	Sorry, I got a whole video on breaking it down, but it's great.
	It's great.
	This shows you exactly how biased CNN is so biased that when a report that says their bias comes out, they read the report and forget to put the port out that they were biased.
	Sorry about it.
	I'm long-winded here.
	No, no, that's funny.
	You wonder if they didn't read it or they did read it and then deliberately choose to ignore it because The thing is this.
	Oh, I see another person in the backdrop.
	This is turning into quite the party.
	Booyah!
	Now I'm going back this way.
	I'm going to put myself on the bottom so that I can cover my face.
	Eric, how are you doing?
	All right.
	We gave you a few minutes to rant and then you started.
	I was like, oh, shit.
	I'll bring you guys out at one.
	What time is it now?
	It's one o 'clock.
	You're already on.
	It's live.
	No, no, no.
	I'll take you guys out at 2 o 'clock to get to some of the other Canadian stuff that you may not want to be heard of.
	Okay, well, that's very funny.
	I'm going to go watch that, but that's...
	I know you're going to do a video on it, because it's your thing.
	That's right down your aisle.
	Exactly what you're doing.
	I love his defensive posture to when he gets caught misleading again.
	Oh, you look like you're in about a whataboutism.
	You're in both sideism.
	You did it too.
	We're not here to talk about me.
	We're here to talk about Fox.
	Unbelievable.
	It is Fake News Friday, isn't it?
	Didn't you used to do Fake News Friday?
	You kind of have to do that video.
	I used to do Fake News Friday, then I used to do the vlog Thursdays, and now it's just turned into live stream life.
	Live stream every day, baby.
	Yesterday we had Salty Cracker on.
	For the person who said we had 10,000 on here, we had 10,000 on YouTube, and then another 6,000, I think, on Rumble.
	He's got a very, very...
	Dedicated base.
	It was phenomenal.
	And I love that.
	I think they were all happy to see Salty get interviewed.
	Oh, that's cool.
	They love Salty rants, but the Salty interview was great.
	So hold on.
	What did we want to start with?
	Are you guys following the Gonzalo Lira story?
	He's alive.
	He's alive.
	Okay, so we'll get to that later on.
	He's alive?
	He's alive.
	He's turned up, and I'm going to give the breakdown.
	I don't want to waste you guys' time with that, because he's alive, everybody.
	Now I'm going to cover both sides of the event because I know people are skeptical, but we'll get there.
	No, Nate, Eric, are you watching the Marjorie Taylor Greene hearings?
	I am not.
	No, I'm not.
	Let's get to...
	I'm going to pull up the argument.
	The article explaining what's going on.
	You both see this article here?
	I saw something about that they're trying to bar her from being elected, which seems completely unconstitutional and crazy.
	14th Amendment.
	You know what?
	Before we even do that...
	No, you know what?
	I want to bring up that article.
	Hold on one second.
	Oh, come on.
	You guys don't see it now.
	14th Amendment.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene appears in court.
	The Guardian.
	You see this article from The Guardian?
	Wait until you see how this is drafted.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene appears in court over attempt to bar her from Congress.
	Effort brought by voters and liberal groups to ban Republican for aiding the Capitol attack.
	Comes under the 14th Amendment.
	We'll get to the 14th Amendment.
	This is from The Guardian.
	The far-right Republican.
	Already editorializing.
	Yeah, they pre-frame it.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene appeared in court in Georgia on Friday for a hearing in an attempt to bar her from Congress for aiding the insurrection.
	They're using the word...
	Oh, no, no, no.
	They're using the word insurrection now.
	This article starts off with far-right, jumps right into insurrection, which the FBI has concluded did not exist on January 6th.
	The effort brought by a coalition of voters and liberal groups to Bar Green comes under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
	Passed after the Civil War, it was written to prevent anyone from sitting in Congress if they have, quote, engaged in insurrection or rebellion, end quote, against the Constitution, quote, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
	Now, you know, but you know why that was put inside the 14th.
	So just so everybody understands what happened, after the Civil War, right, we won.
	But then after the election, the Confederate states, they sent all these, everybody who was like the heads of the Rebellion Army and the Confederacy, those are the people who went back up to get their seats in Congress.
	Okay, let's just go back to Congress.
	So they were like, well, how are we going to let that, they just lost the war, now they're going to come back and, you know, they would have a lot of voting power, right?
	It was half the states.
	So they would have half the voting power in Congress, they'd have all these representatives.
	So they said, well, we want to pass the 14th Amendment to Barr.
	Those people who were in the Confederacy from serving in Congress.
	And that's what they did.
	So that was the way to do it.
	Ironically, Lincoln would not have done that.
	I will play Spetz right now.
	That was definitely a Johnson move, complete with the Secretary of Defense.
	No, because Lincoln was all about, remember, he said, let everybody go home.
	Just put down your arms, go home.
	No foul.
	He deliberately was trying to go against any kind of reconstruction and the carpetbaggers.
	A lot of the strife that's going on right now is because Lincoln was killed.
	Because Lincoln, and this goes all the way back, by the way, America's Untold Stories, check out the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and we go a lot into it and why he was a giant problem.
	For the people who wanted to, let's say, pick up all the nice juicy contracts, go down there, get all the spoils.
	He was very into healing.
	I don't know if you've read anything he was writing at the time.
	Remember, they wanted to lock everybody up.
	They wanted to lock Lee up.
	Lee was granted leave.
	Go home.
	Go home.
	The whole thing was just everybody go home.
	Put down your arms.
	Let's heal.
	But then Johnson, he...
	What's it called?
	He pardoned the whole Confederacy, right?
	So there was no criminal.
	There couldn't be any criminal charges against him because they were all pardoned.
	It was the whether since you've now rebelled against the Republic, could you now serve in that role on the federal government?
	And that was the 14th Amendment piece to it.
	I understand that, but my speculation is that they would not have done that.
	And by the way, how many of the Southerners that came back into Congress voted on that 14th Amendment?
	And how many of the Southern states ratified?
	Exactly.
	So you managed to consolidate your power in a way to prevent anybody from coming back in.
	I'm going to read this and then I'm going to ask a question and see which one of you knows it.
	No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress or elector of President and Vice President or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or under any state who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or as an officer to the United States or as yada yada yada to support...
	Shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, and given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, but Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
	So, interesting question, though.
	The way you describe it, Nate, and I understood that to be the history.
	How was what the South did a rebellion against the Republic, or an insurrection, if it was too?
	Keep in mind, there are people who argue now, legal scholars, that the secession was legal.
	That it was actually written in the Constitution that when the states came together to create the nation, they did have a right to secede if they didn't like what was going on.
	Technically, that was in there.
	But guess what?
	The winner's right history.
	I forgot what it is.
	I don't know about that.
	1983, I believe, is when they signed it together.
	I'm not too sure about that, because this may be just a technical legal thing.
	You have things like incorporation, things of that nature, the insular cases, which they do talk about this whole perpetual union piece of it, and then it'll go back to the Articles of Declaration.
	So I don't think there's any context, because the Supreme Court has already ruled that there's no context in which you can...
	Leave the Union.
	Leaving the Union, if you're in incorporated territory, is illegal.
	When did they rule?
	And also, keep in mind that before the Civil War, it was the United States of America are, and after the Civil War, it was the United States of America is.
	So there's some very significant things in there.
	I'm saying legally, no state can leave.
	When you're in, you're in for life.
	And again, there's the case law.
	That's the reason why, for instance...
	Well, now that's true, Nate.
	That is true because the North won the war and they put that into effect.
	So technically it's true.
	Hold on, but that was what the war was about, right?
	The war was about, can you leave?
	And the North said, you can't leave because it's a perpetual union.
	And the South said, we can leave because we're going to leave.
	And you're right, whoever won the war decided.
	So if the South would have won, they would have been able to leave.
	If the South had followed the Constitution, though, and they felt it was their right, but they lost that right because of a war, they didn't technically have an insurrection.
	It's all I'm saying.
	It was an insurrection.
	They didn't have that right.
	I'm out of this party.
	I'm done.
	You're trying to have people's ways of saying it was lawful when it was never lawful.
	You're trying to say it was lawful for them to do.
	I'm saying it wasn't.
	I do think it was lawful.
	I'm saying it was totally not lawful.
	It was never lawful.
	But if you think it was lawful before that, it's definitely not lawful after the war.
	We all agreed about after.
	Winners write the history.
	We agree on that one.
	But I'm saying that technically speaking, go look it up.
	Well, okay, let's...
	Yeah, I'd say, everybody go look it up.
	But no, it was before the war.
	It was illegal to leave.
	That's why they had the war to solidify that.
	Just like it was a whole bunch of other stuff that was illegal before the war.
	I'm going to be sure to ask Robert on Sunday because we're definitely going to go over this.
	But setting all of the history, the debate over the history, my understanding that the 14th Amendment has not been used except under those circumstances.
	The 14th Amendment is one of the most used amendments in the Constitution.
	The 14th, this section to borrow someone from holding Congress.
	No, no, the 14th Amendment as the amendment.
	But this section I don't think has been used before.
	But the 14th Amendment is what's called the incorporation statute where all the, you know, the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights is incorporated to the states where before the 14th Amendment, if a police officer who was a state cop Could violate your freedom of speech, could violate your freedom of religion, because those rights didn't apply to the state government.
	After the 14th Amendment, it applied those rights to the state government.
	And that's why now the state can't violate your freedom of speech and those rights.
	It's called incorporation.
	So it's one of the most used vehicles in the Constitution.
	I meant specifically the depravity, handicapping, or what do they call it?
	Disabling someone from holding office.
	Actually, let me just pull up the article because it's just phenomenal.
	The framing, Marjorie Taylor Greene appears.
	Okay, I highlighted that section.
	And then we're going to get to some of the questions because the argument is that Marjorie Taylor Greene aided, abetted, encouraged, wanted people to get violent.
	And what they're asking her in this hearing from what I heard is out there.
	But listen to this.
	This is where it gets amazing.
	Well, some people in the room in Atlanta cheered and applauded as Green took her seat.
	We can skip that.
	Supporters of Trump attacked the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to stop certification of his defeat by Joe Biden.
	An attack mounted in service of the 45th president's lies about electoral fraud.
	Caveat, no legal advice, no election fortification advice, no medical advice.
	A bipartisan Senate committee connected.
	Listen to this, and you know you're being lied to right now.
	They connected seven deaths to the riot.
	One of the deaths was the, I won't call it, the killing of Ashley Babbitt.
	The individual who was shot.
	Was the killing of Ashley Babbitt.
	Murder is a legal term.
	Killing is the technical term.
	The other deaths, Brian Sicknick connected.
	He died of a stroke.
	Now confirmed it was natural causes, not related to any fire extinguisher or anything.
	Two other medical emergencies.
	Which were, I believe, heart attack, and I think there was an issue of potentially drugs.
	The deaths connected were connected only insofar as when 150,000 people gather, save and except for Ashley Babbitt, who was actually shot and killed, people died the day of, and therefore it's connected.
	Anybody who knows the deaths, they were medical emergencies.
	And misrepresented at the time, but whatever.
	Or the New York Times said they were together, so technically the Guardian can go quote and say they were connected.
	Whether it was true or not doesn't really make a difference.
	They'll say they were connected.
	New York Times ran that story.
	He dreamed of being a Capitol Police officer, then was beaten to death by a crowd of angry Trump supporters.
	That was Brian Sicknick.
	I love this.
	Trump was impeached for inciting an insurrection, bearing in mind it has been confirmed by intelligence.
	It was not organized.
	It was not orchestrated.
	It was not an insurrection.
	But they say it again.
	But acquitted when Senate Republicans stayed loyal.
	Okay.
	So this is what she's...
	And now there's a lawsuit to try to bar her from holding office under the 14th Amendment, Section 3. I think we can...
	I'll cut and clip this so everybody can go read this hyper-partisan rubbish.
	But the first question I have just real quick is, who's suing?
	Because who has standing to sue?
	Well, it said voters.
	I mean, I guess I presume voters and whatever political organization is doing it.
	And so I'm just watching the hearing today.
	The argument is that it was an insurrection, which I think is flawed to begin with.
	Someone has to explain to me, and I'll ask Barnes on Sunday, how...
	What's his name?
	The guy who was facing the sexual allegations.
	Johnny Depp?
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Another politician.
	He got out of the lawsuit in that they found an exemption of this clause to him.
	Someone in the chat's going to get it.
	When they get there.
	You know who it is.
	It's the Texan guy.
	Oh, come on, people.
	The chat's not populating fast enough.
	Come on!
	You know who it is?
	The guy who was accused of having taken underage...
	Gates, Matt Gates, thank you.
	He also was facing a similar lawsuit, but had it dismissed as relates to him.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene did not get the same exclusion.
	I don't understand it, so I'm going to ask Barnes on Sunday.
	But they're talking to her about whether or not she promoted violence and violent insurrection, and they're quoting her.
	And they're quoting a CNN article that is quoting her, asking her to corroborate what CNN said she said in this article.
	It's the wrap-up smear taken to the lawfare stage.
	From what I've heard, the judge does not seem to be really taking it, buying what this lawyer who's doing the cross-examination is selling.
	But it's fun to watch if you guys are not doing it.
	Check it out.
	My prediction is that it's not going anywhere, but the idea that they want to twist anything that Marjorie Taylor Greene said to bar her from office on the basis that she...
	Supported an insurrection.
	I mean, it's...
	I would like to see how they are defining this term, insurrection.
	It's a violent uprising against the government.
	So, is she supporting a violent uprising against the government?
	How about when Maxine Waters tells people to go harass their politicians, get in their face?
	I mean, if this is...
	Yeah, it's inciting people to intimidate elected officials.
	I mean, Maxine, she shouldn't be barred from office.
	I think it should be a political solution.
	She should be censored for it.
	I think it would be censored, right?
	Or if they say, stop that crap, write it on the record, we don't appreciate it, something like that.
	They don't lose office, but they just kind of get a little bit of a spank.
	Oh, censure, censure, yeah.
	Yeah, censured, yeah.
	Anyway, we'll see.
	I think it's going nowhere, but maybe when it comes back live, we'll pop it up and just say hi to that.
	Yeah, I'd like to see it.
	I agree with you guys.
	There's nothing that I've seen.
	What are they saying that she did?
	Was she out there beating up cops?
	I don't understand what they're saying she's doing.
	They said, don't get violent, but if we have to, let them know that we can.
	We have to think that we might.
	Look, she's undoubtedly said some pretty outlandish things on her Twitter feed.
	I mean, but this is the thing.
	That is an elected solution to a problem, not abusing of the Constitution to undermine the democratic process to begin with.
	She says nothing more crazy than AOC.
	It's just from the improper side.
	Let me see if it says pretty much very similar things of they won't pay attention to us unless we do blah, blah, blah, you know, and crap like that.
	They throw it out there all the time, but that celebrated the other side.
	Oh, hell no.
	And speaking of that, I don't want to hijack too much, but have you guys seen that Tulsi Gabbard has written a cease and desist against Mitt Romney?
	No.
	And Keith Olbermann, to a lesser degree, because who cares about him?
	He's a whack job.
	But yes, she literally wrote a cease and desist letter to Mitt Romney that he has to remove all references of...
	Remember, he called her a traitor.
	Yeah.
	No, no, treason.
	He specifically said the word treason, which is a crime.
	It's the highest crime we have.
	The only one in the Constitution, as she pointed out.
	And he literally said she was committing treason.
	That, I think, may fall under defamation.
	You guys help me out on that.
	But he is naming a specific crime.
	He is saying she's treasonous, and she's calling him out.
	Well, for her to sit and assist, this is good, but...
	It all depends on where he said it.
	He did it on Twitter.
	It's like calling Rittenhouse a murderer.
	It's the public figure piece.
	Is he using it in a colloquial sense?
	Is he using it in the legal sense?
	You start ringing all that bells.
	I think it's going to be a hard case, but I think the smart thing to do, what she's doing, is that what you would do is to overcome actual malice.
	You send a cease and desist and say, this is false.
	This is the reason why it's false.
	If you say it again, now you've been on notice and I can overcome actual malice.
	So as of right now, I don't think she can sue, but if he now says it again after getting that thing, then he's on notice.
	Well, she's demanding he takes it down.
	If he doesn't take it down, that could be seen as a reinforcement, right?
	Because he's not acknowledging that it was an improper statement.
	Yeah, it's possible.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Because what you would do is you would send it in a correction.
	Eventually, she's asking for a correction.
	And the smart thing for him to do is just take it down.
	But he may not.
	And then you could have a cause of action then.
	I'm trying to pull up some of the tweets that are allegedly insurrectionists.
	She said something two years ago.
	Quote, when we...
	Well, let me see.
	We might be able to hear it.
	When we rise up, we can end all of this.
	We can end it.
	We can do it peacefully.
	We can.
	I hope it doesn't.
	We don't have to do it the other way.
	I hope not.
	But we should feel like we will if we have to.
	End quote.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene said, over two years ago, this is from a tweet from Scott Dworkin.
	So, a two-year-old tweet among the evidence to suggest that Marjorie Taylor Greene...
	Participated in insurrection or aided and abetted the enemy of the state.
	That's nothing even close to aiding and abetting.
	It sounds like support.
	I think it's loose with the loose language, though.
	I think you shouldn't be implying any type of violence, but I don't think that's enough to kick out of Congress.
	It's hot talk, but it's nothing crazy.
	Teddy Roosevelt, speak softly, carry a big stick.
	That implies violence.
	This is different though.
	This is different.
	This is not walk softly and carry a big stick.
	Her statement is a little bit more contextualized than that.
	But again, I don't think it's...
	When did she even get elected to office?
	How long has she been in office?
	It's recently though.
	Maybe about two terms?
	She's new.
	And all these different agencies and the courts and all these different offices.
	They stand in the way.
	They push papers aside.
	They stop policies from happening.
	They don't tell the truth.
	They won't pass on information.
	All of those obstructionists and resistance, they are nothing compared to the American people.
	Do you understand that?
	See, all of us together, when we rise up, we can end all of this.
	We can end it.
	We can do it peacefully.
	We can.
	I hope we don't have to do it the other way.
	I hope not.
	But we should feel like we will if we have to.
	Because we are the American people.
	America, listen to me.
	America is the light of the world.
	Do you understand that?
	I want to let it roll.
	But I want to say this.
	I agree with Eric.
	This is pretty much walk softly and carry a big stick.
	That's what I'm getting from this.
	And what we represent, we're the light to the world.
	If this generation, if all of us allows our freedoms to fall, if we allow ourselves to be pushed into socialist programs, like the stupid $15 an hour living wage, if we allow ourselves to go into complete socialism, If we allow ourselves into gun control, do you understand that we are just allowing that light to be dampened and to be covered and we're allowing that light to go out?
	Are you going to do that?
	I'm not.
	Oh, hell no, I'm not.
	That's terrible.
	This is a nothing burger.
	Yeah, this is a huge nothing burger.
	That's just one of the tweets.
	Oh yeah, and this is what they've given the governor a quote for?
	That's nothing.
	She should, matter of fact, sue them for wasting her time.
	Well, they're trying to extract it.
	I can tell you what they're trying to extract.
	She said, we want to do it peacefully.
	You don't want to be something else, but so what?
	That's just like...
	That's nothing, yeah.
	They're accusing her of having used code words to encourage the events of January 6th.
	That's BS.
	Oh, we know that's BS.
	Oh, I love code words.
	You know what?
	If the word is a code, then it's not a word, okay?
	Let's go resurrect Alan Turing to resurrect our language, you assholes.
	You can't have implication.
	You can't have implication, but that's not...
	I don't want to even get into it because that's not even close to this.
	That's not even close to what we got here.
	When Trump said, do it peacefully, he meant violently.
	It's when you hear dog whistles everywhere, up is down, left is right.
	Do it peacefully, they don't mean it.
	This is a nothing burger.
	Oh, and someone said, no, I know that video was in 2019.
	That was the guy saying...
	That's part of what they're using.
	That's part of what they're using.
	Yeah.
	Is there anything better than that?
	Because that's absolutely nothing.
	There was...
	I dropped the article, but you can go.
	Just Google her tweets.
	There was one where she used a code word, which was stop...
	It was basically stop the certification, something along those lines.
	But...
	Her and Lauren...
	What is it?
	Lauren Beaufort or something?
	The one in Colorado just makes them crazy.
	I love her, though.
	I love her.
	She's a gun-toting beauty queen, right?
	It's hilarious, though, because that makes them bonkers.
	They hate them more than anybody since Sarah Palin.
	They just cannot stand that.
	Any female who's going to come out and be strong like that, or you know what, they're like female Clarence Thomases or something.
	It's like, nope, cannot stand going against it.
	One thing I love is how Berbert called out AOC about the riots, when AOC was like, oh, I was, I was, and she was like, no, you weren't.
	What are you talking about?
	They weren't even in our building.
	We were across the street.
	What are you talking about?
	Then she had to come out and say, oh, so.
	Yeah, it's crazy.
	Well, and even accusing Tulsi Gabbard of treason.
	Look, I don't think it's going to go anywhere also because the treason itself, Nate, I think you have to be in a time of war in order to be able to...
	She's an active member of the military, dude.
	She is literally serving in it.
	Yeah, but who...
	No, the question is this.
	Who's going to take that literally?
	This is like when...
	What's his face?
	Tucker Carlson accused the...
	Was it Stormy Daniels or one of them?
	Tucker is a pundit.
	He's not a sitting senator.
	He's right.
	Eric's right.
	True.
	Look, I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone takes that literally.
	So it's not like anyone's going to say, holy crap, she's sitting in a car.
	No, there are people who really do take it seriously, starting with Keith Overman, who's a moron, but there are other morons in our country.
	But that's not the standard.
	The standard isn't if anybody would take it seriously.
	It's would a reasonable person take it seriously.
	And that's what I think what Viva's getting to.
	Because even with Tucker Carlson.
	There are people who took that seriously, but the court said no reasonable person watching an opinion show, watching this type of, in this political climate, would take that statement to be serious.
	And I think the same argument I would use for Marjorie.
	I have trouble with Mitt Romney, though, because we're talking about the runner-up presidential candidate.
	We're not talking about somebody who is a news pundit.
	Who is deliberately saying things out there.
	We are talking about a duly elected senator who was serving the Constitution, who took the same oath as she did.
	That's something she pointed out.
	So he knows the oath.
	He knows the ramifications.
	For God's sake, he was almost president.
	Not quite the same.
	It's not quite the same, but in my mind, it's close enough where when he says she's guilty of treason, nobody thinks he's making a judicial determination.
	I hear, as opposed to saying guilty of a form of assault of a very personal nature, that is an accusation of a specific act.
	A treasonous.
	I mean, the other thing is, it goes both ways, because everyone accusing Biden of being treasonous, I don't think they should be prosecuted, even if they are members of Congress saying what he's doing is treasonous.
	I think it has a hyperbolic...
	Non-literal way that they use it.
	I think it's stupid.
	Not stupid.
	I think it's hyperbolic to the point of not being taken.
	But no one is seriously thinking Tulsi Gabbard is guilty of treason.
	I don't know.
	Oberman's an idiot.
	Ask Kamala what she thinks of Tulsi Gabbard.
	I can name a lot of people.
	If it's anything like what she thinks of space and time, it's going to be a wonderful soundbite.
	I just published that clip on the Viva Clips.
	I wanted to get you guys to react to something, if I could.
	Please.
	What is it?
	I want you guys to react to this montage.
	From Libs of TikTok.
	We're going to shout out Libs of TikTok.
	Why?
	Because they are trying to ban them from everywhere, and we are going to free them.
	So what I want to get you guys to do, hold on, let me let this add up.
	They want to ban Libs of TikTok, which consists of nothing more than reposting their own stuff.
	It's not commentary.
	It's commentary in the technical way.
	It's commentary in the same way Sargon of Akkad's re-editing of Akilah.
	Yes.
	Pequila, obviously.
	But they're just reposting.
	It's not like there's no voiceover.
	There's no text on their stuff.
	No, they do say, this is what they're trying to do to your kids.
	Then they will put it up.
	So they do put a commentary so they can caption what it is, but they don't change the content in any way.
	Exactly the way Sargon of Akkad did with...
	Except he had more.
	Alright, I'm bringing it up.
	If you watch this episode, don't say nothing.
	We'll go through it.
	Everybody understands.
	This is not doctors.
	These are people who put this stuff up on their own publicly.
	Facebook, Twitter, they put this up publicly for all to see.
	All they did was take those videos...
	And just correlate it up.
	Nobody's been cancelled by Viva.
	Before you do it, Nate, hold on.
	Someone says, Viva, she doxes people all the time.
	Now, is this the libs of TikTok?
	No, no, no, that's Taylor.
	Lorenzo Taylor.
	By the way, doxing people by reposting their content, I make sure that I'm not punching down if I repost someone.
	Even though it's public, you are going to draw attention to them.
	But I don't believe reposting some idiotic tweet.
	It's not doxing.
	They put it up there on their own.
	Yeah.
	If you make it public...
	Lorenz published a link to her real estate license, which identified her name, her home address, her location.
	That is doxing.
	Not taking their content, which is already public on TikTok, and saying, repost here this already viral public content.
	By the way, just bringing it back a little full circle, talk about dog whistles.
	I'm just posting their address.
	I'm not asking anybody to do anything, but that's a dog whistle.
	That's code in that everyone knows darn well.
	That's horrendous.
	That's horrendous.
	Okay.
	Shame on Lorenzo, whatever her name is.
	What's her name?
	Taylor Lorenz.
	Taylor Lorenz.
	Yeah.
	Hi, my name's Az, and I'm a preschool teacher.
	Recently, we started wearing pronoun pins, and the kids get to pick a new pronoun pin every day.
	We have some that pick, like, she, her every single day, and we have some that change it up.
	Now, before we move to the next one, I think that's ridiculous, right?
	I don't want a preschooler.
	Back it up for a second.
	Just back it up.
	Go ahead.
	No, you're fine.
	Oh, no, I just want to hear the one thing I'm the most curious about.
	Does she have trichotillomania?
	Or did she pull out her eyebrow?
	Or is that a style?
	Well, that's a style.
	People shave their eyebrows?
	Yeah, you put slits in your eyebrows.
	Why?
	Why would you do that?
	It's a style.
	It takes forever for an eyebrow to grow back.
	No!
	Uh-uh.
	David, this is TikTok, okay?
	We have females who shave their heads and have, like, a fake beard going with these giant sideburn crazy things.
	It doesn't mean that she's killed someone.
	Like, you don't get one.
	No, no, no.
	Teardrop.
	Okay.
	She looks like a stalking killer.
	She's in the woke gang.
	Yeah.
	But you know what, though?
	But if you think about this, though.
	If I heard that my child's preschool, because preschool is what?
	Four, five years old?
	If I heard, under that, if I heard my child's preschool teacher was doing this, I would be highly upset.
	What the hell are you doing?
	You're confusing her.
	You're supposed to teach her so she can understand this stuff later.
	Giving them these pins, oh, you're a big boy or a girl.
	That's not what I want my three-year-old.
	This is called training.
	This is indoctrination.
	Some might call it grooming, if that's the word.
	I was choosing indoctrination to not go fully down that path.
	It is a mind control.
	I don't mean in an adult.
	People who suffer from gender dysphoria or body dysphoria or dysmorphia.
	I forget which one it is.
	That's an adult issue that adults have to deal with.
	If you were to give genders to kids or pronouns to kids, you could give them literally animals.
	What do you want to be?
	You want to be a dinosaur?
	You want to be a T-Rex?
	You want to be a pterodactyl?
	You want to be an otter?
	It's confusing.
	This is when DeSantis Bill comes in and says, don't talk about any of it.
	Don't do it to three-year-olds.
	If a three-year-old, they're learning what boys are, here's what a boy is, here's what a girl is.
	Those are the fundamentals.
	She's confusing them all.
	It's ridiculous, but let's move on to the next one.
	We have some that pick like she, her every single day.
	And we have some that change up.
	So I'm a non-binary preschool teacher.
	And my kids know I'm non-binary.
	They know I'm not a girl or a boy.
	I use they, them pronouns in the classroom.
	We work on it.
	Not all the kids get it.
	That's okay.
	Pause it, pause it.
	Can you imagine she's now making her life decisions an issue for the kids in terms of how they address her?
	Yes.
	How about your name?
	Let's simplify it.
	What's your name?
	And they'll call you your name.
	This bothers me because this now, someone says, everyone is entitled to their own preferences, but the second you start making it other people's issues, if you're kosher, good for you.
	It's not my problem and it's not my decision.
	You live with that and don't make it my issue.
	Oh my goodness, okay.
	David, the kids don't even really think that way.
	The kids actually already are kind of non-binary.
	That's teacher fill in the blank.
	They're not really worried about sex.
	This is like introducing the concept to them of a quote gender or anything else.
	They're more concerned about their homework and if they get to play at play hour or whatever.
	So this is injecting craziness just early on.
	I'm saying this with respect and this is not to mock.
	I can understand a kid.
	They get confused.
	Is this teacher a Ms. or a Mr. if they're going to call them by their last name?
	It happens.
	Listen to the rest of it, though.
	I go by mixed gray in the classroom, not Miss or Mr. That answers your question.
	Mix gray instead of Miss or Mr. Do they go by first names?
	Because you know at preschool, they've got to call you Miss or Miss.
	My problem with this is that Preschoolers are learning how to speak, learning what pronouns are, and they are confusing them right off the gate, right?
	You're a boy, she, she, this, this, this, this.
	I've noticed...
	I'm going to cover my face.
	Mike, I've been noticing some of your chats more strawmanning.
	This will be the only one that I bring up today because I think...
	David, he's famous for it.
	We all know.
	I don't know.
	How do you know she's shoving it in...
	How do you know she is shoving this at kids?
	Can you replay this?
	She said it.
	She literally said it.
	Should I replay the clip?
	Go back?
	Go back.
	Go back.
	Which one?
	Which one?
	No, the one, the Mizzy.
	Well, I'm a non-binary preschool teacher, and my kids know I'm non-binary.
	They know I'm not a girl or a boy.
	How do they know that?
	I use them pronouns in the classroom.
	I teach the pronouns in the classroom.
	I teach the pronouns in the classroom.
	We work on it.
	Not all the kids get it.
	That's okay.
	We work on it.
	We work as training.
	Put on bars.
	Put on bars.
	What happens when a kid doesn't get it?
	You got it.
	You got it.
	We work on it.
	Shove it.
	Okay.
	Sorry.
	She just said it.
	Done.
	I'm glad.
	That was the easy one to get.
	That was the easy one to get.
	Okay.
	Back it right out the park.
	Whoa.
	By the way, I do not make fun of people's hair.
	Why?
	Because it would be...
	Someone would look at me and say, who are you to comment on someone else's physical appearance?
	So I say it.
	I respect it.
	It's their decision.
	Me and Eric are going to comment on this woman's hair.
	This woman's hair is kind of ridiculous.
	I'm going to say it.
	I know your hair looks crazy too, Vivo, but it's not as crazy as this one we're looking at right now.
	Abby Hoffman.
	Let's listen to what this one's got to say.
	Y 'all thought me teaching the children about me being poly was crazy.
	But not only that, but they also know that I'm gender fluid.
	So her teaching the kids about her being poly, you thought was crazy.
	But I'm gender fluid.
	But the thing is, why are you teaching my three-year-old this crap?
	Don't teach it to my three-year-old!
	I would feel no less uncomfortable if I found out that my heterosexual...
	Kindergarten teacher is telling my kid that he's heterosexual or she's heterosexual.
	I don't agree.
	It's nothing to do with gender orientation.
	It's to do with subject matter.
	It would be weird, perverted, for a daycare teacher to tell the kid that they're engaging in heterosexual sexual activity.
	Period.
	Yes.
	Keep your sexuality out of my kids.
	That's for sex education.
	They don't get that until the 9th grade or 8th grade or something like that.
	Not in preschool.
	Just a fun anecdote.
	One of my three high schools that I went to, our sex ed teacher, his name was Mr. Dixon.
	You can't make this stuff up.
	You can't make that up.
	We had our moments, Mr. Dixon.
	I'm going to give you my explanation about what it means to be transgender as well.
	So when babies are born, the doctor looks at them and they make a guess about...
	Okay, so the baby's born...
	Your wife literally works as a doctor, but what does she do?
	Does she flip a coin, Nate?
	Help me out.
	How does she decide the gender of the child?
	Let's listen to some more time.
	...about what it means to be transgender as well.
	So when babies are born, the doctor looks at them and they make a guess about whether the baby is a boy or a girl.
	Hold on, pause, hold on, pause.
	In fairness, it could be a penis or it could be a very enlarged clitoris on a newborn girl.
	It's an innie or an outie.
	They get everything, huh?
	In fact, by the way...
	It's so not guessing when the baby's born.
	They can determine it before based on the metrics of the pelvis.
	I learned the interesting way.
	You don't actually see the penis when you're doing the ultrasounds early on.
	You see a distance of the pelvis bone.
	It's a guess.
	I'm looking at this thing.
	I see a penis and two balls.
	I don't know what it is.
	We're going to need a nurse on this one.
	It's really cold when they come out of the womb, David.
	It's just silver cold.
	But one thing, now you start seeing that ideology starting to play out in schools.
	What is a woman?
	What's a woman?
	What's a guy?
	It's just a guess, right?
	It's a guess when the baby comes out.
	My goodness, it's an even bigger guess when the rabbi comes in and does the circumcision.
	The moil, he's got to sit there analyzing whether or not he's performing a circumcision on a On a vagina or a penis.
	Some of them do it orally, which is very weird.
	They suck the blood.
	We got to go fight with Joe.
	Good logic.
	He likes the moil.
	It's a religious piece to it, but I'm not a religious person.
	I think that's a step.
	That's a step too far for me, even in terms of what you could tolerate for religious freedoms.
	He had a defense, and I will not mischaracterize it.
	I just vehemently disagree with it.
	God bless, but I am very uncomfortable with the idea.
	Because three and four are actually aware of their gender identity, even if they don't ask about whether the baby is a boy or...
	Sorry.
	Sorry.
	No, you're going to go back to that person.
	Three and four are actually aware of their gender identity, even if they don't have the language for it.
	Say that pre-K through third grade are not...
	Is this guy a doctor?
	Is this person a doctor?
	No, these are all teachers.
	These are all teachers.
	This individual is now purporting to have a degree in psychiatry or psychology of the developing mind.
	It's fantastic.
	Meanwhile, this individual is telling you what a three- and four-year-old can understand in terms of gender identity, but a Supreme Court nominee cannot explain what a woman is versus a man.
	I hate you guys.
	You're going to make me laugh at this craziness.
	All right, here we go.
	Let me pull it back a little bit.
	That pre-K through third grade are not ready for such topics is actually internalized homophobia and transphobia.
	Oh, my.
	So to say pre-K through third grade is not ready to talk about these things, it's transphobic.
	Everything is transphobic.
	Everything is transphobic.
	This is crazy.
	Don't do this.
	I want to bring this chat up.
	Viva, I find it strange when people publicly announce they're trying to have a baby.
	Okay, fine.
	I thought that said they're having a baby.
	I find it funny when people...
	We're pregnant.
	And there was a joke.
	It's like, congratulations, our genitals work.
	People announce that they're trying to have a baby.
	It's a little weird.
	They are just announcing life plans, which might explain why they're not drinking or whatever.
	It might be more to explain life behaviors.
	Do y 'all not find it weird to publicly announce that you're finishing Inside Nightly?
	No snip on stick.
	Yeah, I mean, there's a joke in there.
	Well, if they go into full details, yes.
	If they were to say, we're trying to have a baby and this is our position of the night, yeah, you go from a life plan to an evening plan.
	Actually, what would be really weird, David, is we're trying to have a baby and...
	They're gay.
	Then I'd be really confused.
	You have surrogate mothers?
	Surrogate birthing purpose?
	Okay, let's keep it.
	How long is this?
	It's almost over.
	Say that pre-K through third grade are not ready for such topics is actually internalized homophobia and transphobia.
	That was it.
	So, you know, I say this to all this stuff.
	Why is it so bad to say don't teach sex education to two-year-olds?
	When did that become like this radical idea?
	So now it's transphobic to say don't teach sex education to three-year-olds or four-year-olds.
	Wait till they're older where they can understand it.
	That's what it means to be transphobic now?
	Is that where they're going with this?
	I know exactly why they're doing it, Nate.
	This is when minds are developing.
	You deliberately confuse the language, so you destroy the idea of a gender identity as early as possible, so as they grow older, they can choose if they wish to be trans or anything else.
	Now, what is that all about?
	That is nothing more than an attempt to get consent pushed down, and there are some devious players in there that will then take the whole line of consent into something else, and it does involve grooming.
	That is why this is going on.
	It is very disturbing, but there are some dark people involved who quite literally want to confuse the language, and they will use things like transphobic and everything else.
	These are terms to shut down, just like others will just call me a racist if I say something wrong or whatever, just to get me to shut up out of a conversation.
	Same principle.
	The grooming procedure does allow some...
	Nefarious things to occur down the line.
	That's all I'm saying.
	And I'm not getting you demonetized here.
	No, no.
	Forget it.
	But it's not even the trans.
	It's not even the gay, the lesbian aspect.
	It's the sexuality.
	Yes, that's where they're going.
	Talking about it too early with kids.
	Yes, that's what it's about.
	I'm heterophobic too because you don't...
	Nobody talks to my kids about these things.
	I might have the discussion if we're watching...
	Yeah, when they're 12. I was watching Liar Liar with my youngest yesterday.
	And, you know, there's this scene where they have sex.
	One of the funniest lines in the movie is, how was that?
	And Jim Carrey says, I've had better.
	So you have that discussion.
	But that's between the parents.
	It would be just inappropriate to discuss any sexual issues with a kindergartner.
	And I'll step into grade three.
	If they see lions humping at a zoo, you explain it.
	If they see dogs humping at the park, you explain it.
	And the parent does it.
	Not some other guy, like, with a deep voice.
	Right up to about puberty time.
	When they start to feel odd things, then it makes sense.
	Yeah, you gotta, you know, there's something happening in their body, hormonically or whatever, then yeah, you go, okay, you know, boys feel a little weird this way when they climb a rope or whatever, and girls feel that way.
	That's all, then it's understandable, but you don't shove this on them early.
	Well, I think there are two parts to it.
	I understand...
	The LGBTQ people trying to say, well, we would like people to understand this topic, you know, but I think they forget.
	They're saying it's transphobic to not introduce this topic to children.
	Right?
	Because we want to somehow hide gay people.
	But I think Viva's response is exactly how I respond.
	I don't want even heterosexual, I don't want you telling them, I want you, you know, that you're supposed to have sex with women or, you know, even if in a heterosexual context, because they're too young to understand the implications of this.
	Right now, at two years old and three years old, you're supposed to be learning how to read, what these words mean, and how to communicate, right?
	The fundamentals.
	And how it means in the larger world context.
	That's for me to...
	Or for you to introduce at the appropriate age.
	And that's what the Florida bill said.
	The Florida bill wasn't, you can't say gay.
	It was, you can't speak about sex to two-year-olds.
	That's the difference from what the media was telling people and what it actually was.
	Go ahead.
	There was a libs of TikTok individual who said, oh, it also says, don't say heterosexual, so now we need to take off the gender signs on bathrooms.
	And the individual did not make the point that they thought they were making.
	But everybody's saying, well, it's going to alienate same-sex couples.
	No, it's not.
	You can tell someone that a man can be with a man and a woman can be with a woman without expanding it to genitalia.
	So a man can marry a man.
	A woman can marry a woman.
	And that's it.
	That's why Jimmy has two moms or two dads.
	To go from there to say, oh, now he needs to know how it happens and how they do these things or what their orientation is, that's an absolutely inappropriate next level to take it to in as much as a married couple, heterosexual couple.
	You don't talk about their sexual habits, period.
	You brought up a good point, too.
	I'm thinking if I was a teacher, the last thing I'd want to talk about to kids that aren't mine is sex.
	Why would any teacher even want to talk about it with children?
	That's weird.
	The only people I can think of who desire doing that, I start to question if they're in the right profession.
	Because I don't see why they'd want to.
	It's a weird desire to have.
	I'm sorry.
	I want to ask you guys both, though.
	Let's say you have a transgendered preschool teacher, right?
	Looks like a guy and then goes to the class and says, I want the students to call me mess, right?
	So they do that.
	And the students start asking questions.
	How do you get around that?
	Because I think that's what they're confronting, right?
	They're trying to confront that.
	I'm not, even though I look like a woman, I'm not a mess.
	Even though I look like a guy, I'm not a mister.
	That type of thing.
	So what would be the, how do you confront that?
	Or do you not let them work in that field?
	Or do you say, okay, well you can, they can call you by, you know, mister.
	That's not teaching them about sex.
	That's just a label.
	I don't really care.
	That's what I'm talking about.
	That's what I think they're trying to combat.
	But I think they're just doing it the wrong way.
	You know what I mean?
	Go ahead.
	I view it as.
	It's analogous to religion.
	And if someone comes in with a kippah, someone comes in with a turban, someone comes in with a cross, or someone who happens to be a bishop, I'm just going to take an example, who also is a daycare teacher and says, I insist that the kids call me bishop.
	I might say, well, look, your religion is your personal choice and I respect it, but let's not mingle it with your profession as a teacher.
	So someone being bi, trans, whatever, as a teacher, that's a personal life choice for which they don't deserve any discrimination.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	In as much as being Muslim, Jewish, whatever.
	So then, if you say I'm coming into class now and I insist you call me rabbi, I insist you call me imam, or I insist you call me bishop, well, now you're saying I'm making religious choices and I want the kids to identify them.
	I might say, look, tell us what you want it to be called, and the kids will do it.
	If they have any questions, the principal will deal with it.
	But, I mean, is it going to be as confusing as, you know, calling Me, a Miss, if I said to call me Mrs. Viva.
	I've got a solution for it.
	Don't forget, teachers, when kids come in, they learn.
	You call all your teachers Miss, Mr., Miss, Miss.
	That, I think, is the problem.
	Would you just say Jennifer?
	Because that then doesn't teach them about the higher.
	How about this?
	I've got a solution for it, Nate.
	You were a cop.
	I was in the military.
	What do you call another cop?
	Call him by their last name.
	Officer, sergeant.
	No, you call them by their title.
	It's officer, officer, or in the army, a private specialist.
	So why not teacher fill in the name?
	And then you're done.
	You don't have to worry about it anymore.
	This is Teacher Smith and Teacher Fry.
	I like the teacher thing, yeah.
	But I'll play not devil's advocate.
	I'll just play advocate for the other side.
	They're going to say, well, when it's a Ms. and a Mr. They get the Ms. and the Mr., and now you are disappearing my identity by saying that they can't call me Ms. or Mr. You know what?
	Your job, it is your job to be a teacher.
	You are in a role.
	The same way as a soldier, you're right.
	We did erase your identity.
	Your gender doesn't matter.
	You're a teacher.
	Do your job.
	Shut up.
	Just like if you're a soldier being a male, I'm not Mr. such and such.
	I'm private or sergeant or officer or captain.
	Warrant officer.
	I think that maybe we need to remove that a little bit.
	Because it's not about your ego.
	It's about teaching kids.
	In other words, you're talking about like in college, you call them professor, professor, blah, blah, professor.
	So there's no gender attached to it.
	But in preschool, the gender is attached because you're teaching them about gender.
	It's a way to teach about gender without...
	Overtly teaching about gender, right?
	I know, but we can pull it all out.
	We can pull it out of the equation and resolve the problem that David was just talking about, right?
	Yeah.
	I like the teacher thing, though.
	The teacher blank, or, I mean, first name.
	I think you don't need to necessarily go by Mr. or Ms. until you're...
	Even in a strict school, your teachers, you can go by first name.
	Or...
	Teacher blank.
	And then have it cross the board.
	So no Mr., no Ms., just teacher and last name.
	And principal and janitor and whatever their role is, librarian, blah, blah, blah.
	And you know what?
	You're also teaching them about the different positions that people have.
	This is firefighter this.
	This is teacher that.
	There's nothing wrong with it.
	And it takes out the whole thing.
	And then mom and dad, when they introduce to the neighbors, can say this is Mr. or Mrs. or whatever.
	The whole bathroom gender debate, that was sort of the similar solution there.
	Make single stalls everywhere and then just remove the sign.
	But just have one stall or single rooms where there's one person at a time and then you don't have to worry about it anymore.
	Or you could do the European thing and have everybody bathrooms.
	Pooping in front of the opposite sex is a very, very embarrassing thing.
	Because the law school I went to, we had gender-neutral bathrooms.
	And it was like an event that was happening, and it was a whole bunch of beautiful women.
	So I ran to the bathroom thinking I was going to be...
	But the next thing I know, when you pee, there's this long little thing to hit the water.
	So it's loud for guys, right?
	Really?
	Tell us about it, Nate.
	You're painting a picture, Nate.
	I want to see the whole thing.
	But I want to be...
	So I was like, oh, and I'm sitting in the bathroom thinking that it's a guy's bathroom.
	So I'm like, oh, God, thank God, you know?
	And I'm like, oh, shaking and everything.
	So then I come out the store, and there's a whole bunch of women who are doing their makeup, and I farted and everything while I'm pissing.
	So I come out the store, I see all these beautiful women, and I'm like...
	How are you doing?
	I said, the guy in the next stall has got a problem, hopefully.
	Woo!
	He's stinking it up.
	And I ran out the place.
	But it is embarrassing when you take it, because, and it was one of, you know, it's one of those, because I was in the bathroom alone at first, so I was one of those, I could get everything out, right?
	I've been holding it all in.
	So, you know, and I left them in there.
	It was a tough, you know, it's tough to be in there.
	But...
	It is very embarrassing.
	But what can you do, though?
	What can you do?
	It's the new normal, but it is what it is.
	Adults in bathrooms, shared bathrooms, I've never had an issue with, but I do understand, especially depending on your movements, I prefer solitude.
	I don't even like it when other male individuals are there.
	I just hold it in all day.
	Oh, this is James Topps, who I interviewed yesterday.
	Well, okay, look.
	You guys are here.
	You're sticking around.
	I'm bringing up the Gonzalo Lira story.
	I've got to actually go here in just a minute, David.
	It's two, right?
	Yeah, I've got like two, three minutes, and I've got to run.
	Okay.
	I'll do Gonzalo Lira.
	Eric, everybody knows who you are, but what do you got on for today?
	We're doing the second half of General Edwin Walker, who is an amazing, crazy historical figure surrounding the JFK assassination.
	This guy is...
	His story is quite remarkable.
	I mean, really, really, really remarkable story.
	We're finishing that one out.
	We'll have more Baldwin coming up next week.
	There's some things dropping.
	And...
	That's essentially it.
	Nate and I have a show that we do every Sunday on unstructured.locals.com and we're doing other stuff on YouTube once we get it out.
	Just like as you saw with the whole libs of TikTok and us reviewing that.
	That's exactly what we're doing, baby.
	So come join us Sundays.
	Come join us Sundays on Locals.
	Viva, I don't care what Nate says about you.
	You're okay, Nate.
	Someone is trying to sow discord within the law lawyers community.
	You guys all know where to find Nate and Eric.
	Unstructured America's Untold Stories.
	Nate, the lawyer, Nate Brody on...
	You're both on Locals.
	Locals, YouTube, just Google Nate the lawyer and you'll find me.
	He's the one and the only.
	Gentlemen, thank you for coming.
	Later.
	Thank you for having us.
	Do I remove...
	How do I remove them from...
	There we go!
	Oh.
	Oh, yes.
	Ricardo Matalban.
	No, that's not going to work.
	Yeah, we're going to talk about Gonzalo Lira because I know what some people are thinking.
	You have to address the thoughts and you have to address the possibilities honestly without having blind faith in anybody or any one source.
	That was fun.
	My goodness.
	The libs of TikTok.
	The libs of TikTok stuff.
	The only reason I'm very reluctant to repost or share those things, because despite their absurdity, people post silly things to the interwebs.
	They don't appreciate that it's there forever.
	Even if they delete it, it's there forever.
	These young individuals, I think, will grow to realize how insanely idiotic some of the things they've said are.
	Not this particular clip, but some of the people who post stuff on TikTok in general.
	I wouldn't want to be a part of a Justine Sacco pile-on.
	And for those of you who don't know about Justine Sacco, read.
	So you've been publicly shamed by John Ronson or Ron Johnson.
	I forget which.
	John Ronson.
	Viva, this is your agent.
	We've worked out a spot for your program on CNN+.
	You know what's funny?
	I did have an offer from a news entity.
	I don't want to blow it out of proportion.
	I had an offer.
	You realize you cannot...
	Once money exchanges hands, integrity becomes questionable.
	It sometimes becomes compromised.
	But even if it...
	I believe I'm uncorruptible.
	But once money changes hands, integrity can be questioned.
	And I can understand how.
	You go on CNN Plus.
	I was thinking about it.
	If CNN invited me on as a paid contributor...
	Some people might say, well, it really shows CNN is broadening their horizons.
	Others might say, viva selling out.
	Now we can't trust his opinion.
	I can assure everyone on earth, my opinion will not change.
	I'm going to be as honest and transparent and conduct myself with as much integrity as ever, but they will not believe it or they will always have a lingering question.
	What do you have to say about Gonzalo Lira?
	Okay, I'm just going to try to read you.
	I can't.
	I don't want to...
	Mispronounce.
	But Chuck, what do I think of Gonzalo Lira?
	Well, this is the story, people.
	Gonzalo Lira, Coach Red Pill.
	He's been posting daily, quite frequently, from Ukraine.
	He was in Ukraine, Chilean-born.
	I mean, I knew of his backstory.
	He used to be a life coach.
	You know, you can have your doubts on those things.
	I'm always a little skeptical of...
	Life coaches.
	What do they call them?
	Spiritual advisors.
	I'm also skeptical of everybody.
	I'm always honest, but I'll be blunt.
	I'm skeptical of everybody.
	When I look at people who call themselves life coaches or spiritual advisors or, for that matter, psychologists or cognitive behavioral therapists, therapists, lawyers, when I know how dysfunctional The professionals are.
	I'm very skeptical when professionals claim to be professionals in fields where I know they, on a personal level, are just as dysfunctional as the people they treat.
	Life coaches, everybody's life is a struggle.
	I'm not sure that I could ever act as a life coach because I don't believe that my life and my psychological well-being is so in order that I'm in a position to guide other people on how to cope with the stresses of life.
	So I'm skeptical.
	Whatever.
	Be that as it may.
	The fact that someone might have been what people call, what do they call Coach Red Pill?
	Not a scam artist.
	Whatever.
	He reinvented himself.
	He was a failed life coach and whatever, giving men advice in the manosphere, which I never, you know, I had heard that term only because of the interview I did with Karen Strong.
	I learned about the manosphere.
	So he's given advice in the manosphere.
	People are skeptical.
	I know what my underlying preconceived notions and judgments are, but I set those aside.
	He reinvented himself as a journalist as if being a journalist requires any credentials other than being at a location to report on an event and possibly add some insight and information.
	Gonzalo Lira was in Ukraine.
	Apparently, that's where he was doing other stuff on the interwebs.
	The invasion occurs, the war begins, and he starts reporting very much regularly.
	And I'm not saying this because I'm defending Gonzalo Lira.
	It's my observation.
	He was by no means a Putin supporter at all.
	In fact, I'm fairly certain he had very, you know, unflattering things to say about Putin, but he had very, very unflattering things to say about Zelensky.
	Very unflattering things to say about politics in Ukraine.
	Very unflattering things to say about the Ukraine's government, the government of Ukraine's response to this whole conflict, and whether or not they are arguably sacrificing their own citizens for political gain, as opposed to negotiating, if people think that that's what should be done under the circumstance.
	So he was...
	Gonzalez seems a bit dodgy.
	The guy does not look like he was held captive by a death squad for six days.
	Okay, we'll get there.
	So, Gonzalez was in Ukraine.
	He had made previous videos about alleged attempts to get him.
	The SBU, which is the, you know, Secret Service or the Secret Police of Ukraine.
	I don't know what it stands for, and I keep thinking it's Special Victims Unit, but no.
	He had been posting.
	Allegedly, there had been attempts to get him.
	To nab him.
	He draws attention to a number of journalists who have disappeared, been disappeared, been arrested in Ukraine by the Zelensky government for reporting on things, you know, highlighting the fact that influencers in Ukraine have been arrested under the Zelensky government.
	And then he had always said, if you don't hear from me for 12 hours, assume I've been picked up by the SBU.
	And then people didn't hear from him for 12 hours.
	He interviewed Scott Ritter, former National Security Advisor, I think.
	He interviewed Scott Ritter sometime last week.
	That was his last interview that he did.
	Zuby had interviewed him.
	And then he was supposed to be on the mother of all talk shows, I forget the guy's name, and didn't show up.
	And then he went missing for more than 12 hours.
	In fact, he went missing for about a week.
	And he People were wondering what had happened.
	Another parenthesis is the Daily Beast.
	Let's pull up the Daily Beast.
	I'm not pulling up the Daily Beast article.
	The Daily Beast ran what can only be described as a massive hit piece at best, but arguably a hit piece in both the metaphorical and literal sense because the Daily Beast disclosed his location of sorts, disclosed his importance.
	To the government of Ukraine.
	Daily Beast.
	I'm going to bring it up.
	And effectively notified the Ukrainian government to the rough whereabouts of Gonzalo Lira, why he would be important, because he's a very vocal, outspoken critic of the Zelensky regime, or the Zelensky government.
	Don't mean to use partisan language.
	And the Daily Beast did this article.
	I'm just going to show you a bit of it.
	Gonzalo Lira, how a sleazy American dating coach, a lot of opinion terms in there from a journalist, became a pro-Putin shill in Ukraine.
	And it's long, man.
	It's long and it's like...
	It's nothing but a hit piece.
	But bottom line, it was intended to highlight...
	Gonzalo's importance to pinpoint his location more accurately.
	And the Daily Beast reached out to the Ukrainian government, apparently, or officials, to ask them what they thought of Gonzalo Lira being in Ukraine in Kharkov reporting.
	And Gonzalo Lira took that not as a dog whistle, as an overt attack, threat, call for bad things to happen to him.
	And he said, if you don't hear from me for 12 hours, assume I've been picked up, and assume it's the fault of the Daily Beast, because they're in Kharkov now, and from what I understand, regardless, they can't leave.
	It's a state of emergency.
	From what I understand, men aged 16 to 60 can't leave Ukraine, because they might be called up as reserves, but nobody can leave Kharkov, so he can't even leave to safety, despite the risk that he might be under, because he can't leave the city.
	So anyways, that's it.
	He went missing.
	Nobody heard from him.
	A bunch of rumors.
	There was some journalist who had taken credit for getting him captured by the Azov Battalion, and he was gone.
	He was missing for a week, and people thought he was the worst.
	People thought the worst, and for good reason.
	Now he shows up, or he was on the Duran this morning for a long livestream, which didn't have video, but he was on the Duran for a few moments.
	And it did have video.
	Here we go, Gonzalo Lira.
	And I'll just bring this up.
	Won't play too much of it.
	The Duran are good people, but I don't want to play all of it.
	You can go watch it.
	Hold on.
	Are we seeing this?
	Did I bring it up yet?
	Producer, come on, man.
	Get your stuff together.
	Let's do this.
	Okay, here it is.
	Okay.
	Gonzalo, I think we are live.
	I think we should be live.
	One sec.
	I see zero people are watching.
	There's a lot.
	No one's watching.
	No one's watching, man.
	Let me put you on.
	It's Friday, April 22nd, 2022.
	Okay, so there you go.
	Proof of life.
	I'm going to take that out.
	Okay, now people, now you see this?
	It's an interesting thing.
	This is where Underlying bias is going to impact how people see this.
	Some people say he looks stressed out.
	Other people say he looks relaxed.
	Some people who think this guy's a sleazy coach who's a fraud or whatever fake the whole thing.
	Some people are going to say it was a publicity stunt.
	It was to garner attention.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Lira has over 150,000 subscribers.
	He's definitely not a nobody.
	He's not a nobody.
	There's no question he's not a nobody.
	And he provides insight.
	Whether you like it or not, he provides insight.
	So that's it.
	That was the video from earlier today.
	People are saying he looks extremely stressed out.
	In that five-minute clip, he explained he can't talk about anything.
	Can't talk about what happened.
	If it's legit and it's not a hoax and it's not a publicity stunt, pretty obvious to imagine.
	Why he can't discuss it?
	I mean, we'll get to the analogizing this to what's going on in Canada in a second, but that's where it's at now.
	He has resurfaced.
	Proof of life.
	Yesterday, Navy Hato?
	What's his YouTube handle?
	Black Pigeon.
	Black Pigeon speaks?
	Jeez, I'm forgetting words now.
	Anyhow, there was apparently a newly created Twitter handle that purported to be Gonzalo Lira yesterday.
	Black Pigeon Speaks retweeted it.
	Unverified new account purported to be Gonzalo.
	I'm not retweeting that as proof of life.
	And apparently he's been locked out of his social media accounts.
	He doesn't have his phone or his computer, if you believe Gonzalo Lira.
	Others are going to say, don't believe him.
	He's a pro-Putin shill.
	This is a publicity stunt trying to make Ukraine look bad, whatever.
	I'm saying, at the end of the day, the fact that he was held for a week and released, it might make the Ukraine government look...
	Look reasonable.
	The fact that the worst did not occur, if this were intended to be a ploy, a publicity stunt to make the Ukraine government look bad, it's a bad publicity stunt in that if he's a pro-Putin shill trying to make Ukraine look bad, he comes back with a bloodied face.
	He doesn't come back seemingly intact.
	For other people...
	Hold on one second.
	I just saw a chat that actually...
	Okay, sorry.
	Viva doing the hair flick like a diva.
	Viva diva.
	People are saying he looks too good for someone who just got back from a week in prison.
	Okay.
	I don't know how many people know people who've been in jail for a week.
	You don't look good, but I don't think he looked good.
	His eyes looked like they were welling up.
	We can all look at him and see what we want to see based on what we think.
	If we think he's a liar, we're going to say he looks good.
	If we think he was actually detained, we're going to say he looks stressed.
	Bottom line, a week without word, and now he's come back and said, I was detained for a week, and they let me go, can't talk about it.
	Let me see this.
	They didn't kill him because we made it clear it did not appreciate them killing our citizens while they pocket our money.
	Then there's some people saying, maybe the public pressure made it such that this is not a nobody individual who can be disappeared without...
	International consequence, because Chile had gotten involved.
	The Chilean embassy had gotten involved.
	America, the United States government didn't really, and the media wasn't really jumping all over it.
	But anyways, look, bottom line, if you think it's a hoax, whatever, he is now back.
	He's alive.
	He's been released.
	He can't leave Kharkov, from what I understand.
	And that's it.
	Now the question is going to be, You'll make what you make of it.
	I do not think this is a publicity stunt.
	I don't think it's a hoax.
	And that might be my own projection because I can't imagine very many people who are willing to sacrifice their integrity for what would undoubtedly be uncovered as a hoax.
	These YouTubers who pretend to be sick and then get busted.
	I don't understand how anyone's so stupid to think they can get away with that.
	I don't think people...
	If someone's so stupid that they're going to do something like that, I have a demographic.
	They're going to be young and they're going to think everyone around them is stupid enough to fall for dumb tricks.
	I don't think Gonzalo Lira is going to piss away everything.
	His integrity, for those who do respect him, because he's got people who respect him, he's going to piss that away because this is not the type of hoax that you can cover up for long.
	In fact, I would say if this is a hoax, it'll come out sooner than later.
	If it was a publicity stunt, it will come out sooner than later.
	So I don't think he's going to risk everything that he's been working hard to develop in terms of reputation following on the social medias with a publicity stunt.
	Especially since, even if it were a publicity stunt, it's not going to make the Ukrainian government look bad, which is what he's been railing against for a long time.
	So the fact that they held him and released him after a week arguably makes the Ukrainian government look better than the Canadian government, who is still holding people in jail, Pat King, after more than two months.
	After being arrested.
	So, I don't think it's a ploy.
	I don't think it's a stunt.
	I understand that people do.
	And I think they might be reading it to satisfy their foregone conclusion.
	Cameron Vesey, most drug addicts look better after a week in jail.
	That's an interesting point, actually.
	Most drug addicts look better after a week in jail.
	Because you forcibly have a clean life.
	Now, I don't think Gonzalo Lira was a drug addict going in.
	Did I miss a...
	Hold on one second.
	I missed a chat here.
	Let me see if I can find it.
	Orange.
	I'm looking for an orange chat, people.
	The war in Ukraine is so political, the problem is Putin is only broadcasting what he wants the Russians to hear.
	It's a communist country like China, but there is the dark web where the Russian people can learn the truth.
	True.
	This is relatively true of Canada and, well, not the communist.
	This is true of everywhere.
	The Ukrainian government is silencing the critics.
	They're promoting the news they want to promote.
	They do the same thing in Canada and the U.S. They've banned RT.
	They've de-authorized.
	Or they've removed the...
	Not certification, but they've de-promoted RT in Canada.
	It's not outright banned.
	It's been removed from television and radio.
	But they've downgraded it so that social media platforms are suppressing it.
	Canada does the same thing.
	Canada promotes the news it wants, suppresses the news it doesn't, and people can go get it because they haven't outlawed dissenting news.
	They've just found ways to suppress it.
	But if Bill C-11 passes, they'll find more creative ways, lawful ways to suppress misinformation.
	They do it in the States.
	It's a propaganda war throughout the world.
	And I'm not defending Russia or Putin and there's no but.
	I'm not moving to Russia anytime soon.
	I would not feel comfortable being a dissenting journalist in Russia.
	I wouldn't go to Russia and criticize Putin too hard.
	Because I would have no doubt that Putin would come down on vocal popular critics pretty much just as hard as Justin Trudeau comes down on vocal critics like he's done in Canada.
	It's all done.
	And I have a bit of a preconceived notion about Eastern European countries and the governments being a little more corrupt than Western countries.
	But I say that, and now I've seen how corrupt Western governments are in Canada and the US.
	So I'm now learning my preconceived notions might have just been my own biases of having gotten used to or been unaware of the corruption in my own backyard so that it's easy to judge the corruption in other people's backyards.
	So anyways, that's it.
	With Gonzalo, he's out.
	Make what you will of it.
	Alex Ambrose, Ukrainian government has been evacuating civilians out of Kharkov for weeks and asking people to evacuate.
	If Lyra claims he's not allowed to leave, that's a lie.
	Okay, that's an interesting disagreement on fact, at least from what Gonzalo is claiming.
	Alex Ambrose, the question I would ask to you, are fighting-aged men allowed to leave Kharkov?
	So I'm not asking for another super chat.
	Don't do it.
	I'm not.
	It'd be an interesting way of increasing super chat revenue.
	Asking questions to the super chat.
	But Alex Ambrose, serious question.
	Are men aged 16 to 60 allowed to leave Kharkov?
	I don't know the answer to that.
	Wasn't a dissenter journalist killed by Ukraine in the last day or two?
	Isn't that something to discuss?
	That looks like Putin in your avatar.
	There's been a lot of stuff to discuss.
	I would defer to the Duran.
	I would defer to other sources who are closer to the ground.
	Obviously, Patrick Lancaster as well, who's reporting from the ground.
	When people thought that Gonzalo Lira had been taken and the worst had been done to him, they were saying, Patrick Lancaster, now we're coming for you type thing.
	I think the one thing it does show, I think it does show a bit of power of crowdsourcing information and attention.
	If he was detained by the SBU, he would have been taken to Kiev for investigation.
	Kharkov is on the front lines.
	Anyone arrested is taken to secure...
	Alex, I'm neither confirming nor denying what you're saying.
	It's another perspective, and thank you for the chat, and thank you for the perspective.
	But getting back to the fact that, you know, this...
	Lira just said he's wanting to stay home.
	Okay, but I don't know if that means in Kharkov or going to Chile or wherever else.
	Lancaster is embedded with the DPR.
	Ukraine can't get to him.
	Okay, and I don't know that.
	Okay.
	Now, getting back to whether or not this was a hoax, if Gonzalo Lira says he was detained by the SBU and released after merely a one week in detainment in custody, that's better than Canada.
	And I'll pull it up.
	Let's see here.
	Do we see my tweet?
	Do we see this tweet of knowledge?
	Tweet of Sass.
	This is Viva Sass on Twitter.
	Gonzalo Lira was detained by Ukrainian authorities for less time than Tamara Lich and Pat King were detained by Canadian authorities.
	Let that sink dot in.
	I did not do the dot for emphasis.
	Let that sink in.
	I hate it when people do that.
	I did it as a typo because I'm an idiot.
	Assuming that it's true.
	If you were detained by Ukrainian forces, and it's not an outright lie, and if Gonzalo Lira turns the likes of me into unwitting liars, because we take, not as gospel, but we believe what he's saying, because short of being there with him, there's no way of knowing if it's true or not.
	If he makes liars of the people who were looking out for his well-being when he was detained, that's how you...
	That's how you lose friends in life.
	And that's why I think nobody's going to risk their integrity to that degree by turning people into liars.
	Gonzalo Lira was, assuming it's true, detained for one week.
	Tamara Lich was detained for two and a half weeks before finally being granted bail on misdemeanor-related charges.
	Pat King is still in jail.
	He was arrested on February 18 in Ottawa.
	He's still in jail.
	And the amazing thing is, the longer he stays in jail, the more charges they magically find to lay against him.
	Let me just go see on Rumble if I've missed any Rumble rants.
	The longer the man sits in jail, the more charges they've found.
	They just find more charges against him.
	It's great.
	Now they've charged him with perjury for allegedly lying under oath during his bail hearing when he was asking to get out of jail on mischief-related charges.
	But, so...
	Lyra detained, if it's true, for a week, released.
	I don't know what terms he's been released under.
	It seems that he can't talk about anything.
	No different than Canada, by the way.
	They muzzled Tamara Lich by the bail conditions.
	I'll get to that in a second.
	So...
	Yeah.
	So, if it's a publicity stunt intended to make Ukraine look bad, it actually doesn't, which is why I don't think it is.
	But on the issue of Canada...
	On the issue of Canada.
	Let's just see the latest in Pat King.
	Here we go.
	Still in jail.
	Still in jail.
	No thanks, Global News.
	The only reason I get this is because it's going to be as unforgiving as possible on Pat King and Ottawa Convoy organizer.
	And I still think it's a disputed fact as to whether or not Pat King was a convoy organizer.
	My understanding is that he wasn't.
	He was not.
	And there was some distancing from Pat King and the convoy itself.
	The convoy that arrived in Ottawa.
	The registered, the federally incorporated not-for-profit.
	Ottawa organizer Pat King charged with perjury, obstruction of justice.
	Ottawa convoy organizer Pat King is now facing perjury and obstruction of justice charges related to testimony he gave at his bail review hearing last week.
	This is...
	April 19th, which is three days ago.
	King was arrested on February 18 on charges related to his involvement in the three-week protest against COVID-19 restrictions that overran the streets of Ottawa.
	It overran, if we call it that, at the very most, four streets and six streets on Parliament Hill.
	He was denied bail on February 25, but on Wednesday last week, King appeared in court for a bail review so his lawyers could argue for his release while he awaits his trial, because people bear this in mind.
	Some might say, I'm downplaying his charges.
	There was obstructing police, advising to violate a court order.
	He was initially jailed on four charges, mischief-related.
	Two of them were mischief-related, advising to commit mischief, committing mischief.
	One was counseling to defy a court order.
	Which is basically like telling people to commit contempt.
	And the other one was obstruction of police.
	He is not legally guilty yet.
	He has not been convicted yet.
	He has not had a trial yet.
	He has been in pretrial detention on these, I won't call them bogus charges, I'm just going to call them relatively mild charges for what people are denied bail.
	He has been denied bail for over two months.
	Gonzalo Lira, assuming what he says is true, was picked up by the SBU in Ukraine, detained for a week, and he was released.
	He was released, despite the fact that in a time of war, what he's doing could arguably, I have no doubt that there are a number, there's a slew of laws, in theory, laws, that could...
	You know, be used to rein in an individual like Gonzalo Lira for what he was saying in a time of war in the country in which that war is occurring.
	Especially when you're attacking the government who has now declared a state of emergency.
	We've seen what a government can do when they declare a state of emergency even in free societies like Canada.
	They can silence.
	They can muzzle.
	So I have no doubt there's a slew of laws that the Ukrainian government could use to go after Gonzalo Lira for saying what he was saying in Ukraine about the Ukrainian government in a time of war, in a declaration of emergency.
	He's out after a week, unless he's lying.
	Pat King is still in jail.
	The three counts of perjury and three counts of obstruction of justice, as well as the reasons for the charges, were read aloud to King on Tuesday.
	The details of the testimony that led to the allegations are protected by a publication ban.
	This is Canada, people.
	This is not North Korea.
	This is not Russia.
	This is not Ukraine.
	This is Canada.
	There's a publication ban on these hearings that have resulted in Pat King being detained for over two months in pretrial detention on essentially mischief-related charges and lying under oath, allegedly.
	Okay.
	King's here, and then we get into why.
	And in fairness, in fairness to the court.
	King has been seemingly burning through attorneys.
	I think he's on like fourth or fifth different attorneys in the file.
	Never a good sign.
	However, it's also a big problem when attorneys don't even feel comfortable representing individuals like Pat King because they know damn well politics ruin everything.
	Politics ruin everything to the degree that lawyers representing these accused individuals involved in the convoy have been seeing non-political Client complainants filing ethics complaints against lawyers for representing people who are accused of crimes in the protest.
	Yeah, someone says, what the F about January 6th?
	Canada's not a free society.
	You just admitted that, Viva.
	Oh, I think I've been complaining about Canada being a police state for a long time.
	I've been trying to make very sensible, very intelligent people who I consider to be smarter than me.
	I just want people to admit it.
	When you can't leave your house after 8 o 'clock, it's a police state.
	When you can't have private gatherings in your house, it's a police state.
	When you can't have protest on the street without having a bank account.
	When you can't donate to a protest without the threat of your bank account being frozen, it's a police state.
	It's a polite police state, eh?
	Sorry about that police state you have to live under, eh?
	I'm sure it's very, very tough, eh?
	But it's for your own protection.
	I missed the super chat, and it's gone.
	And it's gone.
	Oh, no, it's right here.
	I'm not reading it.
	I'm not reading it.
	Okay.
	I am not in the position to have a comment on that.
	Australia got autoed.
	It's a two-day...
	Dude, I don't even know what that means, but seize the day.
	Nice to see you again.
	Anyway, so that's the latest with Pat King.
	I mean, it's...
	Yeah, and he's still in jail.
	It's two plus months.
	And the officers of the peace, or whatever they call them, the judges, but they're like sort of a lower level than a judge.
	I always...
	It's a mental block.
	I've been told the name.
	The judges who were in charge of the bail hearing are not judges.
	They're one step down.
	I'm going to continue talking until someone in the chat reminds me of what they are called in Ontario.
	Officers of the Peace, I believe, they actually, almost literally, verbatim but paraphrasing, said, to release Pat King, to release Tamara Lich, justice of the peace, thank you, to release them would undermine people's faith in the judicial system.
	This is the Kafkaesque world in which we're living.
	To release someone from pretrial detention who is legally innocent on a non-violent charge.
	To release them would undermine the judicial system.
	Not to imprison them.
	To imprison someone who is legally innocent, has not had a trial yet, indefinitely, on non-violent charges, when they're not a flight risk, that undermines the judicial system.
	But this judge, this justice of the peace, managed to twist it around and say, if I were to release them, it would undermine the judicial system.
	My sweet, merciful goodness.
	Ramble on 63. Welcome to the channel.
	Justice of the Peace.
	I love it.
	Now, there may be...
	Oh, you're relishing in someone rotting in jail.
	Okay.
	When battling monsters...
	Is your name...
	Yeah, hallelujah.
	Ironic.
	Unless it's a troll, unless it's sarcasm, but I think I remember your avatar and it's not.
	Relishing in a legally innocent individual accused of a non-violent crime rotting in jail.
	Well, we have different moral standards, if that's a serious comment.
	Oh, and by the way, just by way of comparison, the individual who rammed his car into four pedestrians in Winnipeg, rammed his car into four protesters, got bail.
	It was a hefty bail, but is free, is breathing fresh air.
	And even the terms under which Tamara Lich was released, muzzled, can't attend protest, constitutionally muzzled.
	Can't attend protests, can't post on social media, can't express any opinion on certain issues.
	They did the same thing to Randy Hillier, a sitting member of provincial parliament, on charges that I believe trumped up would be an understatement.
	Accused him of the same mischief, nonsense, encouraging a protest, whatever.
	They charged him with assault on a police officer for moving a barricade.
	Assault and intimidation.
	A sitting member of provincial parliament, and he's not allowed going on social media to post about certain issues, COVID restrictions, certain matters of policy.
	He's not allowed traveling within a certain portion of Ottawa itself.
	A sitting member of provincial parliament.
	And that's Canada.
	And we're going to have a discussion as to whether or not Canada has descended into a police state.
	It's not a discussion.
	All right.
	I feel better now.
	I'll tell you, this is therapeutic for me and I hope for you.
	How can these bail restrictions be allowed?
	Hold on a second.
	How can these bail restrictions be allowed?
	It is the reality of court.
	First of all, the parties agree to them, at least in Randy Hillier's case.
	And in Tamara Litch's case, they agree to the terms.
	If they don't agree to the terms, they rot in jail.
	In Randy Hillier, they were negotiated.
	And people get pissed and they say, Randy, how can you agree to those terms?
	Or they get pissed at the attorney.
	And I happen to know him, David Anberg.
	You're throwing your client under the bus.
	No.
	Your client sits in jail otherwise.
	And if you can negotiate things, you can control the outcome.
	Leave it to a judge.
	Leave it to a justice of the peace.
	You can't control the outcome.
	And knowing how these justices of the peace have been issuing orders, denying bail, not just issuing onerous bail, denying it, you control the outcome.
	You've already got a certain, you've got hands on your own fate as opposed to leaving it in the hands of a highly politicized court system.
	If you plead not guilty and found guilty, have you committed perjury?
	It was a matter of opinion.
	No, that's funny actually, but no.
	So that's Canada.
	Now let's get to another one.
	700 Americans are still incarcerated for January 6th.
	It's not just unconstitutional, it's inhumane.
	I don't care what you think of January 6th.
	I don't even care if you consider it to be an insurrection.
	I'll grant you that for the sake of argument.
	January 6th was an insurrection for the sake of argument.
	The individuals involved in it are accused of insurrection for the sake of argument.
	By the way, they're not.
	None of them have been accused with insurrection.
	None of them have been accused with any serious crime except for trespass, And obstructing congressional proceedings?
	None.
	Okay, let's go there.
	It was an insurrection, like you believe.
	They committed acts.
	They're not accused of insurrection.
	Even if they're accused of insurrection, they deserve their freedom until they are convicted.
	Unless they are an absolute flight risk, an absolute risk of recidivism, recommitting hyperviolence, recommitting...
	Serious offenses.
	The idea that Pat King and Tamara Lish were at serious risk of recidivism.
	What the hell is the word?
	Repeating the crimes.
	Okay.
	Even if I take for granted that, they're at serious risk of recommitting mischief.
	Let them go recommit mischief and then you can justify detaining them.
	Let these guys go out and recommit trespass, interference with congressional proceedings.
	Then you can deny them bail.
	Maybe.
	Until then...
	Even if it was an insurrection and even if they're accused of insurrection, give them bail.
	Give them restrictions.
	Travel restrictions can't leave the country.
	There's a way to...
	By the way, you know what a good cure to a flight risk is?
	I think you can take the passport.
	Unless you think that they're going to go get on a private jet like what they thought Ghislaine Maxwell was going to do.
	It's inhumane.
	It's unconstitutional.
	And it is the effects.
	Politics ruins everything.
	All links to merches are in the pinned comment of videos.
	And by the way, we're working on a merch shop with someone who does it for a living, and it's going to be fully integrated to a website with multiple stuff, not just shirts.
	He knows what you're watching.
	Let's make this happen.
	It'll be great.
	The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been under an insurrection by the Trudeau Liberals since they took office, the judges doing their dirty work.
	Like I discussed, who was it with the other day?
	Tabarouet, who was it with?
	Where we said, I don't think it's that level of corruption.
	It's not Justin Trudeau placing a call to the court system.
	It's just the political frenzy into which society has been whipped.
	You get media politicians telling everyone they were under attack.
	Ottawa was under siege.
	They were there to overthrow the government.
	You whip everyone into a frenzy.
	You create social expectations.
	And the judges come in and get these cases.
	They're as whipped up as everyone else.
	They're watching CBC, CTV, Global News, Radio Canada.
	They're as whipped up as everyone else.
	And they think Ottowonians, Ottawa citizens, want this.
	And they think that they're doling out justice by doing what they're doing.
	Ottawa, aka police, taking down protesters today.
	We'll go have a look.
	So that's it.
	That's what's going on in Canada.
	Now, let's go to the States again, because I love it.
	Let me see something here.
	It was on the Twitterverse.
	It was on the Twitterverse.
	Oh, my goodness.
	I have officially unfollowed Nikki Fried.
	I don't know how she popped up in my Twitter feed, but she did, because she's running for governor of Florida, and I was following that.
	Yeah.
	I don't know how I started following Nikki Fried or Nikki Fried.
	I think it might be Nikki Fried, actually, for...
	Hi.
	Because it's German.
	It's of Germanic descent, so I suspect it's Fried and not Fried, but...
	I have officially unfollowed her.
	I can't stand it anymore.
	But listen to this.
	You want to talk...
	This is motivated reasoning.
	This is the definition of...
	Oh, jeez.
	Son of a beastie, I might have to pick up a kid.
	Two kids!
	I'm just going to...
	I'm just going to put my phone on silence for a second.
	I got one upstairs.
	I know that much at least.
	Okay.
	Nikki Freed says DeSantis raised taxes to punish those defending gay people.
	He's a tax and hate governor.
	This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life.
	It's so dumb I said I don't understand something.
	It's impossible.
	She has had some dumb tweets.
	This is right up there.
	There were a couple that were just over the top dumb.
	But she's running for governor of Florida.
	From what I understand, she has absolutely no chance even to win the Democratic nomination to run.
	DeSantis raised taxes to punish those defending gay people.
	I didn't know what the hell she's talking about because it's the first time in my life that I've seen a Democrat object to raising taxes.
	So I'm sitting there like, what the heck is she talking about?
	But he's raising taxes to punish those defending gay people.
	Now, for those of you who don't know, they passed...
	I'll come back to the tweet.
	Motivated reasoning being, you don't raise taxes, you're a heartless bastard who doesn't care about the poor people.
	And now he's raising taxes, by her own admission, but he's a heartless bastard and he's doing it to hurt people who are defending gay rights.
	I mean, it's...
	Stop screen.
	I know.
	I know.
	That's what I'm getting there.
	She's talking about Disney, people.
	As though Disney is...
	What a world we're living in.
	Democrat politicians want a censor-free speech, are protecting big pharma, and are protecting big corporations.
	I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
	Please let this war us in a minute.
	Thank you.
	Please let this war send a message to the rest of the world that we are not in control, money and power is.
	There's no question about that kitty kitty six six with two dogs in the avatar.
	That's confusing.
	Okay, she's talking about Disney.
	So let's just pull up the article.
	Florida lawmakers have stripped...
	Get this out of here.
	I don't want to join that.
	The only reason I go to these sources is because if it's in fact inaccurate...
	Well, I'm blaming the BBC and I'm not blaming myself.
	Florida lawmakers have stripped Disney of special tax status.
	So, by the way, it's not even as though DeSantis, from what I understand, or Florida, is saying we're going to tax Disney more.
	We're going to impose a specific tax.
	They're just now stripping...
	They're stripping an exemption, a special tax benefit from which this massive corporation benefited.
	So, don't strip it.
	DeSantis is an evil Republican who favors big business and gives them tax breaks.
	Strip it.
	DeSantis is an evil anti-gay governor punishing people for defending gay rights.
	Motivated reasoning.
	It's as good as lying.
	Nikki Freed is effectively a political liar.
	But let's just keep going here.
	Florida lawmakers have voted to strip Walt Disney of its special self-governing status amid a political clash between the company and the governor.
	The status gave Disney.
	Powers to levy tax, build roads, and control utilities on the lands of its city.
	It's very fascinating, actually.
	Giving Disney the powers of government to levy tax, build roads, and it's almost like the municipal, the incorporated city, the municipal city.
	The entertainment conglomerate did not respond to a request for comment.
	The move is widely seen as retribution for Disney's opposition to a bill that bars many primary school classrooms from discussing sexual orientation.
	By the way, give BBC credit.
	Sexual orientation, not homosexuality or other.
	Sexual orientation at large.
	So give them credit for being mildly honest.
	The move is widely seen as retribution.
	If a company that is benefiting from government...
	Special government permissions wants to oppose that government and take an adverse position to the government on the government's job?
	Is it retribution or is it just treating things equally now?
	I would like to flesh it out a little more because I'm curious as to what these special privileges really allowed Disney to do.
	Disney owns a town.
	From whom is it levying the tax?
	Or on whom is it levying the tax?
	It's interesting.
	On Thursday, at the urging of Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, the State House passed a bill that would rid the company of its near total power over the special district where its theme park is based.
	It had already passed the Senate.
	So, at the urging.
	It goes through the Democratic process.
	I don't know what the composition of the Senate is in Florida or the House.
	I'd like to know the composition, actually, and what the split was, but maybe they'll say it in the article.
	Governor DeSantis had previously made it clear that he will sign...
	The measure into law.
	Following the vote, Disney's special district will be dissolved on June 1, 2023.
	So they still get a year.
	Its special status had effectively allowed the company to operate as its own municipal government with its own board of supervisors and fire department and meant Disney could even build its own airport or nuclear power plant if desired.
	I'm amazed that Democrats were ever...
	Democrats like Nikki Frye were ever comfortable with this.
	Build its own airport?
	It has its own fire department?
	I mean, it's fantastic.
	Talk about privatizing government infrastructure.
	All right.
	And that's the rest of it.
	All you can go read it.
	But yeah, so now it's retribution.
	It's retribution.
	You can do no right with the intellectually dishonest.
	You can do no right with the intellectually dishonest.
	Kitty Cat, did you mean to put another super chat there with no comment?
	And if you did, don't put it in again.
	Okay, I don't know what that's about.
	Trust the...
	Oh, no, I don't trust them, but you know when they say certain things that are...
	You know when they say certain things that you can't trust them, but at the very least, you know that if it's not...
	If it's mildly against the narrative that they, in theory, poll, then you can trust it a little more.
	Sweet and merciful goodness.
	I have 20 unread text messages.
	Okay, that's fine.
	Now, that was the Nikki Fried, Nikki Freed.
	Did you see the math question being asked in books DeSantis removed?
	The Daily Caller showed a few examples.
	Hold on.
	I did see it.
	I didn't bring it up.
	I didn't bring it up, but let's go ahead and do this.
	We are going to share screen.
	Chrome tab.
	Nikki Freed.
	Share it again.
	And we're going to go to Google.
	Daily Caller math question.
	Florida.
	My name is Florida.
	Okay, let's see this.
	I haven't seen it.
	Okay, okay.
	Alrighty, alrighty.
	I'm skeptical, people.
	I don't know if this is accurate and I don't like if I were to retweet this and it turns out it's not a real example and we got caught retweeting fake news, I would feel morally guilty.
	So with that caveat, let's just go see what it says.
	I'm going to have to get close.
	Application exercises.
	The bar graph shows the differences among age groups on the implicit association test that measures levels of racial prejudice.
	Higher scores indicate stronger bias.
	Okay.
	Measuring racial prejudice by political identification.
	I don't know if anybody can see that.
	I don't think you can.
	Are we seeing this thing together here?
	Oh, we're not, because I pulled up the second chat.
	Ah, darn it.
	Sorry, guys.
	We'll get this out one of these days.
	This is the chat.
	Okay, here's the image.
	Okay, now you see it.
	Sorry.
	And then the tweet itself says, Florida's Department of Education, it's Chrissy Clark, blue checkmark, released examples of the CRT-inspired material in math textbooks, and here you have it.
	Kids are being told that conservatives are more racially prejudiced than liberals based on data from a debunked test.
	Yeah, that's offensive.
	If you can't ask a question without politicizing the question, don't ask the question.
	If it's a math question...
	Okay, so that's that.
	That was...
	I hadn't seen that.
	It's preposterous.
	And the people doing this, the people promoting this, are going to say that they're doing it to promote racial equality.
	They're promoting racial equality by reducing everyone and every issue to race, so that all you end up doing...
	Total grooming.
	This is racial grooming.
	It's racial...
	It's indoctrination.
	I mean, it's just...
	You're fighting racism by reducing every individual to nothing more than a race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, or gender.
	That's how you fight it?
	By reducing everyone's essence to these aspects of political identity.
	There's another one that's worse than that.
	You can go look it up, people.
	It's not a coincidence that it was under Obama that I noticed from Canada things started getting...
	Very racially divided in the States.
	It was under Justin Trudeau.
	Because it's 2020, man, I've never noticed more racial tension in Canada than under Justin Trudeau's leadership.
	Because when all you do is get on Twitter and talk about everyone by religion, race, creed, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, when all you do is define people by these aspects of their identity...
	You just indoctrinate people to look at someone and the first thing you see is, what are they, not who are they?
	It drives me nuts.
	It drives me nuts.
	I don't want Justin Trudeau taking to Twitter to, you know, apologize for whatever he's apologizing for that day that just creates division.
	I don't want him getting on Twitter and making, you know, pitting one religious or ethnic group against other people in Canada.
	But that's all he does.
	And then all that happens is everybody looks at everybody with a stink eye.
	Did they say that to me?
	Did they make a money joke to me because they know I'm Jewish?
	Did they make a certain joke to me because I'm black?
	Did they make a certain joke because they think I'm gay?
	Whatever.
	Everyone looks at everyone with a stink eye when everyone has been reduced to aspects of political identity.
	I don't even think that they think they're unifying anything.
	They know damn well that they are just creating more divide.
	They're making people see people not as people, but as check marks on a box.
	One day there will be a political pendulum swinging back the other way.
	But it's not a coincidence that under Justin Trudeau, things have never really been worse in Canada.
	At least in my memory.
	Racial tensions, religious tensions, political tensions, ideological tensions have never been more tense.
	They've never been worse than they are right now.
	When you pit the unvaxxed, when you pit the vaxxed against the unvaxxed, the privileged against the unprivileged, it's just, they know damn well what they're doing.
	There I swore.
	Meredith.
	Two years ago, Dems in Florida proposed to strip Disney of special status.
	Bill got...
	Bipartisan support.
	Okay, look, I got distracted by your dog, Meredith.
	That absolutely looks like a Pitbull and an Akita mix.
	Pitbull lab.
	Beautiful dog.
	Looks very smart.
	Well, I saw someone said, preach, Viva.
	It's just so damn irritating.
	There it is.
	There it is.
	It's just terrible.
	You know what the funny thing is?
	In the law tubes on the interwebs, in our community, nobody...
	We don't play these stupid games.
	Nobody asks the questions and nobody operates on the basis that anybody else is operating on that basis.
	But when it's your political framework, it's all that you do.
	It's walking around.
	And it can happen to everybody.
	Everyone talks about privilege.
	You got Michelle Wemple.
	What's her name?
	Michelle Wemple, the conservative MP, saying...
	Apologizing for her privilege of being a white cisgender female while claiming victimhood because she's a female in a male-dominated world.
	The ideal permanent oppressor, the white male, well, white males if you're not gay.
	White males if you're not Jewish in a non-Jewish society.
	White males if you're Catholic in an Irish society.
	Sorry, Catholic in a Protestant society or Protestant in a Catholic society.
	You know, a white male, if you don't have a speech impediment, a white male, if you don't have it, everybody, if they look hard enough into their souls and into their political identities, can find something to claim victimhood on.
	And it's like, and the ideal oppressor, you know what, you know who the ideal oppressor is?
	It's not, it's in my view, in my humble opinion, it's not race, religion, creed, ethnicity, or anything.
	It's money.
	It's money and it's political capital.
	Those are the ultimate oppressors.
	And they can be white, black, male, female, Asian, Jewish, Muslim, Christian.
	It is when you have political power and when you have financial power.
	It can be used for good, but my goodness, can it be used for bad?
	And my goodness, can it be used to procure some benefits, some privileges that are not accessible to the general public?
	Okay, now the rant is over.
	Super sticker, Kitty Kitty.
	Thank you very much.
	And hugs to Winston.
	Yeah, let's do it.
	Oh!
	Oh my goodness.
	Oh my back.
	The older I get, the more my back starts to hurt.
	Winston?
	What do you have to say?
	I will take over the universe.
	I am Winston.
	Overlord.
	He's having a bath one of these days.
	If you smell him, he smells like a sweet, wet carpet.
	And everybody out there, for those who don't know, he is blind.
	So I do...
	Let's see if I can get...
	Just going to see if we can see the...
	Here, let's see.
	No.
	Oh, there you go.
	There you go.
	There you can see it.
	That whiteness in his eye is the lentiglo...
	lenticonis lentoglobus.
	Let's see right there.
	I'm going to put him down.
	So I do notice, actually, his vision is...
	It's worse because I think he might see shadows, but it's...
	It's very bad when it's bright out, which leads me to believe that when the light hits that whatever's on his eye, it diffuses all...
	I mean, you can't even see anything.
	And then we got to Pudge the paralyzed Poggle upstairs, who's...
	She hasn't found me in the basement yet.
	Okay.
	So that's it, by the way.
	He's not blind because of the hair in front of his eyes, and I'm not trimming it because I like the way he looks.
	I don't like the way he smells all the time, but...
	All right.
	What else did I have on the menu?
	Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	Oh, the food burning plants.
	That's what I wanted to talk about.
	Oh, gross.
	I just dirtied my glasses.
	First of all, what time is it?
	Okay, we got time.
	Time for one last story, people.
	There's a story.
	There's a bunch of stories going around about food plants burning in the U.S. And this is another one of those situations where I'm reluctant to retweet because it could be one of those things where you don't know if it's being reported more, if fewer incidents are being...
	Emphasized more because people want to draw connections between dots that might exist.
	In Canada, in the early stages of the church burnings, and I put them in quotes in the early stages, because at the early stages, like, arson happens all the time.
	You know, there's spray painting swastikas on synagogues and, you know, throwing ham sandwiches in front of mosques, which, you know, incidents that happened and the prevalence.
	Of these occurrences might not warrant the coverage of these occurrences.
	So when I started hearing of church burnings and vandalism in Canada, I did approach it with that requisite degree of skepticism.
	Quickly learned that there were a spate.
	And a spate meaning a significant number within a short period of time of church burnings.
	Now, and legit, straight up legit, media had to cover it at a certain point, but never covered it the way it should have.
	Now, similar stuff.
	Potentially happening with food processing plants in the United States burning.
	I noticed people asking in the chat last stream, is it happening in Canada?
	And I hadn't really heard that it's happening in the States, and I just went to Google it.
	And so here, let's just bring up one story, and you have to be careful where you get these things from.
	I'll go to the Google search afterwards.
	I went to Reddit for a second.
	People, I did not go to Reddit for news.
	I actually went there to remind me.
	Of why I hate Reddit and why...
	So here we got an article.
	What's going on with food processing plants burning down?
	Because TimCast did a video on it.
	Let me actually...
	Oh, this is an article from TimCast.
	So that's the spoken Tim.
	You don't see that because it's in a new window.
	So I'm closing it.
	Then I say...
	Oh, a friend...
	Then you got the moderators.
	Friendly reminder that all top-level comments must start with answer, colon, comma.
	Reddit is like an institution for people who need stupid rules and for teacup dictators who feel the need to impose, implement, sanction stupid rules.
	This is why.
	Goodbye.
	And then I realized, setting aside the substance, the mods, who are pure dictators in Reddit.
	Then I get to the answer.
	And then I realize why.
	Answer.
	The only other sites I can find with this sort of story are incredibly unhinged.
	And frankly, anything involving Tim Pool falls into that same category.
	I can't see any reason to believe that this is a real pattern rather than a conspiracy theory for clicks that's working because of a recent fire about a week ago.
	Okay, so...
	Get rid of that pertinent.
	Tim Pool's unhinged.
	Yeah, he's unhinged.
	He's a great many...
	He gets accused of being a fence sitter and unhinged.
	Try to reconcile those two aspects of identity.
	But the reality is this.
	I go to Google and just see what is going on.
	Is it a spate or is it a lot of reporting on a few incidents and people thinking it might be a sign of bigger things?
	So the one thing that...
	The one did come up.
	Food contained.
	There's a Salinas plant fire.
	That occurred.
	This is a week ago and it's been reported.
	Oh, sorry.
	My search term was food plants burning.
	Maybe arson might be better.
	Food plants arson.
	We didn't stop the fire.
	This is food processing.
	NBC fire burns at Salinas.
	Then you got NBC Bay.
	Okay.
	Fire at Salinas.
	So there was clearly one at Salinas.
	And then the question is just how many incidents of arson at food plants have there actually been?
	And then, you know, the question is, in an ordinary year, how many incidents of arsons would there have been?
	So, the bottom line, I don't know what's going on.
	I've been reading a number of stories.
	I'm just, as of yet, unclear as to whether or not this is a spate.
	These are verified numerous and higher than average incidents.
	Whether or not these are suspected arson or whether or not food processing plants tend to be high risk for fire in the first place.
	And some of these might not be arson, but might actually just be run-of-the-mill issues that you more often have at food processing plants than, say, at other factories or whatever.
	So I don't know.
	That's the long of it.
	The long and short of it is, I don't know, we'll see eight food plants in a 30-day period.
	Now, Lightgiver, this is the question.
	Is it eight arson?
	Is it eight fires?
	What is the severity of the fires?
	It's sort of like...
	Approach it the same way as the incidents of alleged anti-Asian hate crimes, where when people are looking for golf balls in the forest, everything that's, you know, white, you'll think it's a golf ball.
	When the narrative was a spike in anti-Asian hate crimes, or when the news was looking for that, and they said, look, we had 50 last week.
	It turns out, you know, some of them might have been exaggerated.
	Others might have been incidents that would have otherwise never been reported as anti-Asian hate crimes, but are now being considered that.
	Others might have been bona fide legit.
	And then the question is, does the reporting on these incidents or these alleged incidents actually spur more copycats, more people to go out and do these incidents?
	So, eight food plants in the 30-day period.
	My questions.
	Arson or fires?
	If there are fires, how serious?
	Serious fires?
	Or incidental that are now getting reporting because people are looking for these events.
	And that's it.
	And then what would be the average?
	What was it?
	Eight over 30 days.
	Okay, but what is it typically?
	Kitty Kitty.
	Dude, Kitty Kitty, I hope you're not trying to put chat in here by doing this.
	But thank you for the support.
	My concern always, some of the chats yesterday coming in on Rumble were so big that I felt like people might have been making typos.
	I will feel good.
	It happened once.
	Someone accidentally put in $300 instead of $30, and I messaged them, or they messaged me.
	I said out loud, was that?
	I think I did.
	Anyway, it happened once before, and I actually...
	YouTube does not allow you to cancel Super Chats.
	I took care of it, because I don't want any...
	That would make me feel very bad.
	But Kitty Catty, if you're doing this to show support, thank you.
	You do not need to.
	From Rumble says, Dan Bongino covered the food plants the other day.
	I'm going to go check that out.
	And Grandma Barb.
	My mother's name is Barbara, and she's a grandmother.
	Mom?
	Salty Legion.
	Salty Army is Legion.
	Queensland, Australia.
	Contingent reporting.
	Re.
	Thank you very much.
	Okay, so that is...
	I'm going to go check out Bongino.
	But it is a question.
	Bongino's a smart, responsible...
	I don't know if he's a journalist, analyst, whatever.
	He's a good man.
	And so the question is, you know, eight food plants in 30 days.
	Sorry, I already brought that up.
	Those are my questions.
	I will ask.
	I'm going to go watch Bongino, and if I still have the same questions, I'm going to ask them.
	Do you really think I can break them down on here?
	Even Tucker Carl did.
	Okay, I'm going to go look.
	I'm going to go look.
	Kitty Caddy, can I just say Hollywood since the early 20th century has been in charge?
	They have certainly been influential.
	And by the way, Kitty Kitty, just so nobody's concerned, I don't take that as any form of discriminatory trope.
	I think Hollywood is media.
	And it's unquestionable.
	Media controls the mind.
	Through music, through film, through propaganda, through everything.
	Through politics.
	Because media has money, money has influence.
	And money in politics.
	It's not an irrelevant factor.
	Please check out Black Conservative Patriot and get together with it.
	He's so cool, just like you, Viva.
	And he touches upon what you just mentioned.
	Zen Waters?
	Screenshotted.
	I will reach out.
	This has been another beautiful stream, people.
	It's a beautiful day outside.
	I might actually have to go get my bike and go biking after I get the children.
	But my wife and I are playing tag team parenting, so she's now working and I'm going to have to be parenting.
	So maybe I'll jog alongside one of the children while they bike.
	Great stream.
	Viva.
	Have a great day.
	Friends of freedom.
	Pete Collins.
	Thank you very much.
	Boycott Hollywood.
	I have great difficulty watching stuff that I used to love watching.
	Knowing what a filthy cesspool that place is.
	Okay.
	Actually, let me just make sure on my notes, which is my Twitter.
	We got Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	Is she back?
	Is she back?
	Live.
	Hold on one second.
	I guess I might have just missed it.
	Are we seeing this?
	Do we see the same thing I'm seeing?
	PBS.
	Oh, yeah, we are.
	I would do a Marjorie Taylor Greene live stream, but not going to.
	Let's just see what's going on.
	It is really fun watching these things.
	People, you should watch them so that you can know.
	You learn so much in terms of how to ask a question.
	How to follow a question.
	How to read a room.
	How to read a judge.
	How to take cues when things are not going well.
	They're learning experiences.
	They're absolute gong shows and, what's the word?
	Grandstanding garbage a lot of the time.
	Congressional hearings in particular.
	But this is an actual, I think it's an actual deposition in a court file or witnesses testifying.
	Well, we came at the most exciting point in time, quite obviously.
	Is anyone on the stand?
	That's Matt Gaetz.
	I think I saw Marjorie Taylor Greene on the stand.
	She had the aqua turquoise shirt.
	This is interesting.
	You can see what's on that screen right there if you have enhancing capabilities.
	All right.
	Whatever.
	I'm going to go back and listen as I drive.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene should be somewhere right there.
	All right, people.
	We came in at the worst possible time, so let's just bring this back up.
	Go watch it.
	Should be interesting.
	Viva gonna walk in the hop, then bike into Ottawa with bikers.
	Oh, I'm gonna be back in Ottawa to document.
	To document the next...
	It's not a protest.
	It's just veterans, I believe, reuniting at the War Memorial.
	If you're taking guest suggestions, talk to Rob from Speak the Truth.
	He's been spot on the Ukraine coverage and is an avid fisherman.
	You'll like him.
	If I already have something in common with them and it's fishing, I'll definitely like it.
	And let's just see what we got here.
	Viva Live from the Shed just loaded a video from the Peace Man.
	It's a good little commentary.
	Alrighty.
	I'm going to see this.
	The problem is there's not enough time in the day to actually keep up with everybody's content.
	So you have to like...
	Now I got to go watch Bongino and Tucker on the food plants burning.
	The People's Convoy.
	Okay.
	Oh, and BioWars, I know you've been putting this up.
	Viva spoke about microparticle plastics, also known as NPPs.
	Such a great topic for it needs to be discussed, but really, it needs to be dealt with.
	Help us do so, BioWars.
	Thank you, BioWars.
	Okay, I can't watch Hollywood either so bad.
	You try to watch anything with Drew Barrymore as a kid?
	I mean, now you know what goes on there.
	It's impossible.
	It feels like you feel dirty watching it.
	Speaking of feeling dirty watching a movie, I just watched Big.
	I was on the treadmill.
	Couldn't stand.
	I have hair privilege.
	I'm going to get to Big in a second.
	Hair privilege.
	Things beyond your control are not privilege.
	They are fortune.
	I definitely have good hair fortune.
	And this is what people don't appreciate is they use the terms privilege and good fortune interchangeably.
	Having two parents is not privilege.
	It's definitely good fortune, but it's not privilege because privilege by definition is something that is reserved for a specific class or group that is not available to others.
	Everyone, in theory, Everyone has access to a two-parent household.
	Not everyone has one, and it's quite clear.
	Statistics are statistics, and you can't change them.
	Not having a two-parent household, it is not as favorable to development as having a two-parent household.
	But that is not privilege.
	That is good fortune.
	Coming from a wealthy family is not privilege.
	It's good fortune.
	Privilege is something that is given to a specific group and not given to another.
	So access to clubs is definitely a privilege if the criteria are certain criteria that are beyond the control of the human.
	But so people use privilege and good fortune interchangeably, and it's fundamentally wrong.
	Because there's a lot of stuff that people are lucky to be healthy.
	You're not privileged to be healthy.
	You have just a good fortune.
	Yeah, and that's it.
	That's all I have to say about that.
	Speaking of Forrest Gump, big.
	I washed big while I was jogging.
	It's a fabulously inappropriate premise of a movie.
	It's about a 13-year-old kid who becomes an adult and engages in adult activity with an adult.
	Magnificently beautiful woman, by the way.
	I was distracted as to...
	I know it's not natural beauty because they're wearing makeup and whatever.
	The main actress in that movie, just stunningly beautiful.
	But we lose track of the fact that it's about a 13-year-old kid who...
	Ultimately did things with an adult.
	That's wildly inappropriate.
	At least by today's standards.
	The other one.
	Watching in retrospect.
	Wildly inappropriate.
	Clueless.
	Is about a 16-year-old girl who engages in an amorous relationship with her stepbrother.
	I don't want to feel like a sensitive ninny.
	I might be being conditioned by the time.
	I don't actually find it offensive.
	I watch like, man, this gets you cancelled today.
	This is...
	This is inappropriate by the standards that have been set by the woke, I don't know, by the ultra-sensitive crowd.
	Big, he told her afterwards that he was 13 years old.
	Did I just ruin the plot for everybody?
	He told his girlfriend in the movie that he was 13 years old, and after he told her, she could no longer kiss him on the lips because she knew it.
	That doesn't change what they did the night before.
	Anyhow.
	What are you doing, stepbrother?
	Yeah, I didn't realize.
	What's her name?
	What's her name?
	I'm going to forget her name.
	Chat's going to get it before I'm going to get it.
	Everyone had a crush on her growing up.
	Everyone had a crush on her in Clueless.
	A, B, C, D, E. What's her name, people?
	What's her name?
	Come on.
	What's her name from Clueless?
	Wow.
	Chat has not gotten this one, at least on StreamYards.
	Anyhow, she falls in love with Paul Rudd, her brother, Alicia Silverstone.
	Damn it.
	Everyone was in love with Alicia Silverstone when they were teenagers back in the day.
	Everyone.
	Okay.
	Let's do it.
	People, thank you.
	I may go live tomorrow.
	It might be a car vlog if I can't do a stream on the weekend, but we'll see.
	Sunday night, definite, not sidebar, definite stream with Robert Barnes.
	And I've got a lot of...
	We've got a lot of interesting guests coming up.
	I think I can confirm it.
	I don't have the date yet, but Eric Duhem, the conservative politician in Quebec, I'm going to be on his channel, and I think that is confirmed for next week, Tuesday, but I'll send it out, and he's going to come on my channel.
	We just haven't confirmed the exact date.
	So, Eric Duhem.
	Who else?
	There's just a ton of people.
	We just have to confirm the dates.
	But stay tuned, and...
	We'll see what the news brings up.
	Right now, I'm going to go listen to Dan Bongino and Tucker Carlson as I go to pick up child duty.
	All right, people.
	Enjoy the rest of the day.
	Get outside, exercise, sunlight, fresh air, healthy stuff, and check in on everyone around you.
	Peace.

▲