Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 3, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:31:12

Viva Taco Tuesday - Leaked SCOTUS Judgment & MORE! (No Johnny Depp Though ;)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Fertilizer shortages are real now because Russia is a big exporter of fertilizer.
	And even though fertilizer is not sanctioned, less fertilizer is coming out of Russia as a result.
	We're working with countries to think about natural solutions like manure and compost, and this may hasten transitions that would have been in the interest of farmers to make eventually anyway.
	So never let a crisis go to waste, but we really do need this financial support from the Congress to be able to meet emergency food needs so we don't see the cascading deadly effects of Russia's war extend into Africa and beyond.
	fertilizer.
	...
	Never let a crisis go to waste.
	She actually said the quiet part out loud.
	First of all, I'm going to replay this just for a second.
	And I want everyone to focus on the eyes.
	The eyes are the window to the soul.
	I'm going to put myself on mute and just stare at her eyes.
	And just tell me if these eyes ring of sincerity.
	Or absolute insincerity?
	Maybe I'm projecting, but I'll explain in a second.
	Fertilizer shortages are real now because Russia is a big exporter of fertilizer.
	Can't do it.
	Look at the fake feigning of concern.
	Maybe I'm projecting.
	I see deadness in these eyes.
	I see deadness in these eyes, and I want people out there in the world to tell me, if you see deadness in my eyes, or apathy, or boredom, or fatigue, if it looks like I don't love doing what I'm doing, I want people to tell me.
	Now, it might be because I'm tired or stressed or don't actually love doing what I'm doing, or it might just be a bad day.
	But I need to know.
	Because there is...
	In my humble opinion, I can tell when people look disingenuous, when they don't look like they believe in what they're saying, or when they just look like, please take me out of here.
	I would like to be anywhere else but here.
	And if I ever look like that, doing what I'm doing, that might be the day to end it.
	But I have no doubt.
	What's this person's name?
	I forget what her name is.
	I have no doubt that this person just wants to be out.
	Of where she is.
	Much of the same way Saki does.
	I look at Saki's eyes and maybe I'm projecting.
	I see someone who doesn't believe in what she's saying for the life of her just wants to get out of it and never wants to be back in that position because I think they now fully appreciate that in order to be the mouthpieces of liars, you yourself have to be a liar.
	Oh my god.
	But can you believe what she's actually saying?
	I mean, you know what?
	Let's just go back to the substance of this.
	I forgot.
	That's why I brought it up.
	Listen to the substance of what she's saying.
	There's food shortages.
	There's fertilizer coming out of Russia is on the decrease because lo and behold, there are various ways of fighting what some might consider to be unlawful sanctions.
	Because Russia does export a lot of stuff that the rest of the world needs to eat.
	And even though fertilizer is not sanctioned, less fertilizer is coming out of Russia.
	As a result, we're working with countries to think about natural solutions like...
	We're working with countries to work on natural solutions because feeding a global population, it's the type of thing you wing.
	It's the type of thing you figure out on the fly.
	It's the type of thing you figure out how to resolve once you've created an international potential food crisis.
	We'll figure it out.
	This is like the most incompetent corporation saying, yeah, we'll cause global structural infrastructural problems to feed eight.
	How many people are on the earth now?
	8.5 billion?
	We'll figure it out.
	Because we'll implement it overnight.
	Like, you know, the green energy that Obama tried to do.
	Let's just go throw a bunch of money at some green energy companies.
	Saw how that turned out.
	We'll figure out how to feed the world's population after the big bad boogeyman Russia decides, you want to sanction me and seize assets from oligarchs and declare an all-out war on us for what is a regional conflict?
	Yeah, I know, but you don't want to buy our oil, but you need our fertilizer to actually feed the global population.
	We'll figure it out.
	Details.
	Like manure and compost.
	And this may hasten transitions that would have been in the interest of farmers to make eventually anyway.
	So never let a crisis go to waste, but we really do need this financial support from the Congress to be...
	It's going to hasten what would have been in the farmers' interests in any event.
	So this is now a politician saying, we've done screwed up.
	And we're now telling the farmers what would have been in their interest.
	If you don't have an alternative to fertilizing the soil, it's not in your best interest, in your interest, or in any interest in the realm of humanity to say, we're going to futz with your ability to produce food.
	It'll be in your interest to find an alternative way of doing it, a greener way.
	I don't exactly know what that would look like.
	It'll be in your interest anyhow, but now that we've actually made it your problem, now it's even more in your interest.
	Never let a crisis go to waste.
	Never let a crisis that we caused go to waste.
	If this were, I won't say, potentially criminal, potentially criminal, to cause the havoc and then to say, let's not let this havoc go to waste.
	My goodness, let's scream fire in a crowded theater.
	Hey, but now that people are on the ground getting trampled, let's test out our new ambulance system.
	Never let a crisis go to waste.
	Never let the crisis that we initiated go to waste so that we can now give ourselves more work to do to resolve the crisis that we initiated because you never let a crisis go to waste, even when you caused it.
	Be able to meet emergency food needs so we don't see the cascading deadly effects of Russia's war extend into Africa and beyond.
	The deadly effect of Russia's war.
	It's like a child that cannot accept responsibility for their own actions.
	It's Russia's fault now that the rest of the world is going to be in an emergency food situation because Russia is not...
	While being sanctioned, continuing to give the world what they need, while being denied what they need by the rest of the world.
	Russian citizens, through these sanctions, and I've now come to appreciate that sanctions are basically a form of economic warfare against civilians, the rest of the world is depriving Russian citizens of what they need to survive in an attempt to get them to turn on their government to use civilians As political tools of war, there's a word for that.
	But while the rest of the world does that to Russia, Russia is expected to continue to give to the citizens and civilians of the rest of the world what they need in order to live while being deprived of what they need in order to live.
	But yeah, it's Russia's fault.
	The gas hike, which started well before Russia's war on Ukraine, that's Putin's fault.
	The food shortages.
	Which are now starting as a direct result of foreign policy as relates to that war.
	Russia's fault.
	I mean, it's amazing.
	It's absolutely irresponsible.
	It's childish to a comedic level.
	Except this is resulting in people dying everywhere.
	Never let a crisis go to waste.
	She said it out loud on national television.
	I don't know.
	Actually, I don't know where that was.
	That was national television.
	All right.
	Well, that was the intro.
	So, what are we talking about today?
	Not Johnny Depp, people.
	We are not talking Johnny Depp.
	This is going to be the not Johnny Depp for anybody who wants to break away from 24-7 Johnny Depp on the law tubes.
	It's going to be talking about the obvious biggest news of the day, the apparent leak of a draft of the SCOTUS decision that would seemingly, by way of 5-4 majority decision, overturn Roe v.
	Wade, which would be, by all accounts, cataclysmic to women's rights.
	There's so much to it, by the way.
	We're going to talk also what I just saw on the news this morning.
	I'm not going to get to live stream the Don Lemon trial because it seems that there has been something of a resolution in the dispute.
	We'll get to that.
	Heiss seemingly...
	I'll have to get the exact wording.
	I have no more details, even though, you know, I have no details on this above and beyond what I read in the article.
	And everyone should know that even if I did, I'm a vault, and you would never know that I did, but I would not.
	Being a vault means it has certain responsibilities.
	But I know nothing more of the story than what I just read in the article.
	And I'm not going to get to stream it.
	Disappointing.
	Disappointing.
	But litigation is a miserable existence regardless, so whatever.
	And as we'll get there, the leak.
	There are so many diverging tangents to this story, things of relevance, like the actual substance of the decision itself, the implication that this could have on the law, theorizing behind the leak, who did the leak, which side, what was the purpose of it, theorizing on whether or not it could be just an absolute hoax.
	It could conceivably be an absolute hoax, and we'll get there.
	But setting all of that aside, what this is revealing in the blue checkmark crowd on the Twitterverse, the utter mind-numbing, mind-blowing.
	It's beyond hypocrisy.
	It's beyond hypocrisy.
	It's like, I can't think of a word.
	I need to think of a word.
	Let's do this in the chat, if we can do this.
	For something that is beyond hypocrisy.
	It's beyond hypocrisy, beyond intellectual disingenuism, if that's a word.
	The people out there reacting to this, it's idiocracy-level idiocy.
	And it would be funny if it were not so serious, if it did not risk actually causing so much...
	Actual, real social upheaval.
	Okay, but you know, before we even get there, standard disclaimers.
	Superchats.
	YouTube takes 30%.
	If you do not like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	I'm going to make sure that we're there.
	Rumble has these things called Rumble Rants.
	Same thing as a Superchat, except Rumble takes 20%.
	And now I see there's a lot of people streaming on Rumble right now.
	Sticks, Hex, and Hammer is streaming.
	Rakata Law is streaming on Rumbles.
	The lead attorney is?
	It's all Johnny Depp.
	Skip that.
	Skip that stuff.
	Enough Johnny Depp.
	Let me see where my channel is and make sure that we're successfully live.
	We are.
	We are.
	Okay, good.
	Oh, and there was a rumble rant already.
	Let's see this.
	Tatone.
	Only two votes stand in the way of no filibuster.
	And without that, we have court packing.
	DC statehood and Fed election take over with HR1.
	Something that people act.
	Dems will burn down the system to get their way.
	We'll get there.
	No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fortification advice.
	If I do not get to your super chat and you're going to be miffed if I do not bring it up and read it like such, do not give the super chat.
	I don't like people feeling miffed, but I thank you in advance for your support.
	Tell farmers to use manure.
	They already do.
	Chemical fertilizers exist because they're needed to meet demand.
	There is no way manure compost can meet the demands of modern agriculture.
	Certainly not when you're feeding 8 billion people.
	8 billion dollars.
	Certainly not when you're feeding 8 billion people.
	And as if manure is itself without environmental impact, I mean, I can tell you out in the eastern townships.
	Manure running off into the waters has its own problems.
	I believe its phosphates causes growth of algae, which itself causes toxic water to some extent, blue algae, green algae.
	There's no right or wrong answer, to quote Thomas Sowell.
	There are only trade-offs.
	Okay, we're going to see.
	This was leaked by a leftist.
	I am sure this is done to rally the leftist troops to action because they're set to lose the House and Senate in 2022.
	We're going to get to the theories.
	We're going to get to the theories.
	But let me, before we even do that, read the super chats that I have flagged.
	Oh, I don't need to go all the way down it.
	Oh, there's where they are.
	Start.
	My goodness, I lost the section.
	Here.
	Just going to do these quickly before we get into the matter.
	Before we get into the subject matter for the day.
	Fringe Canadian.
	Good to see you again.
	Every child matters, unless the mother just doesn't want the responsibility, I guess.
	The left never fails to demonstrate their double standards.
	Wait until...
	We're going to start with Andrea Horvath.
	Horvath.
	Super sticker, thank you.
	We're going to start with Andrew Horowitz.
	It's a joke.
	It's a joke.
	There's no way people can say simultaneously A and not A without looking like idiots, but they need someone to rub their face in their idiocy.
	We're going to get there.
	The Supreme Court confirmed that Roe v.
	Wade draft ruling is authentic and ordered an investigation into how it was leaked via the Wall Street Journal.
	Damn it.
	Well, there goes one of my theories that I would have looked very, very smart if it turned out to be real.
	Trudeau has kept Canada in crisis for four years, and he'll keep doing it for the rest of his tenure as the most hated man in Canadian politics, because it's a lot easier to lead a country in crisis than to address your own ethics violations, corruption, and inability to lead.
	Viva!
	I love Mexicans.
	I don't know what that means.
	I don't know what that means, but I think I might be in trouble.
	The draft is confirmed, as Roberts confirmed it a few hours ago.
	Okay.
	Darn.
	Well, my chance to look like the smartest man in North America is over, but I'm still going to read my tweet.
	Tell former students when you were they already do.
	Okay, so we got that.
	It is inconceivable that people can seriously, with a straight face, without being laughed out of the room, say simultaneously A, and not A, unless you're Andrea Horvath and you presume that everybody's stupid.
	You have to operate on the basis to say A and not A simultaneously at different points in the week.
	You have to assume everybody's stupid.
	You have to assume they're gullible.
	And or you have to assume they're too ignorant to ever know that you did it.
	Where is the tweet that I wanted to bring up?
	I had one in particular.
	I'm just going to have to scroll through.
	And some people, I don't have a memory.
	I just have a system of saying, okay, someone says something.
	Let me just do a quick search to see if at any point in their Twitter timeline, they said the exact opposite of what they are now currently saying.
	Let's start with Andrea Horvath.
	For those who don't know who she is, Mom Hamilton Ontarian, leader of the Ontario NDP.
	That explains everything.
	I only knew that she was the official opposition.
	I don't know how the NDP is the opposition to the Liberal government now that they've joined forces.
	She, her.
	That's not the part that I'm suspicious about.
	What is this?
	Is this a peach?
	Is that...
	It's an orange.
	Oh, it's an orange because...
	I'm sorry.
	I'm dense sometimes, people.
	It's an orange because I guess, you know, the NDP...
	Okay, so I'm an idiot.
	It's not a peach.
	Still think it's kind of peculiar.
	But this is what Andrea Horvath, who is a member of the most shamelessly hypocritical virtue signaling party, the NDP, maybe second only to the liberals, although the liberals, I think, have always been pretty overtly dishonest in their shameless virtue signaling.
	The NDP purported to be the party of the people at one point in time.
	I'm going to read this.
	This is what she tweeted.
	I don't know if it's solicited.
	I don't know if anybody asked her to put in her take on American politics.
	She's a Canadian politician, so I guess she has to.
	And as much as Jagmeet Singh comes out and says he doesn't want Donald Trump to win, stick your nose into foreign affairs, whatever.
	I say that with full awareness of confession through projection people that I comment on American politics, but I'm not a Canadian politician.
	Distinction.
	Plus, I find it interesting.
	Let's read what Andrea Horvath has to say for those who have not already read ahead and done your homework.
	Cue the virtue-signaling hypocrite music in the background.
	If I had a violin, people are scared, sad, and furious that the U.S. may again deny women and non-binary folks their reproductive rights.
	I don't know what she means by the reproductive rights of non-binary folks.
	I'd be curious to know.
	I'm genuinely curious to know, but let's set that aside.
	We discussed this yesterday.
	Non-binary folks have reproductive rights as well, I guess.
	I just don't know if they're the same as the rights currently at issue in this decision.
	People are scared, sad, and furious that the U.S. may again deny women and non-binary folks their reproductive rights.
	First of all, this is wrong.
	This is legally wrong.
	This is legally ignorant.
	This is legally mis...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Misleading.
	This is misinformation.
	We're going to get into what would be the impact of this draft, even if it became the judgment issued next week.
	We'll get into it.
	And it's not this.
	It's not denying women the right or the accessibility to the act.
	And you know what I mean by the act.
	Capital A. Even if that draft decision, which now seems to be confirmed as a leak.
	Were to be the judgment issued by the majority tomorrow, this is wrong.
	So Andrea Horvath, congratulations.
	You've just misinformed whoever reads you and trusts what you have to say.
	But we'll get there.
	People are scared, sad, and furious that the U.S. may again deny women and non-binary folks their reproductive rights.
	We have a right to control our own bodies and to make our own choices about our health.
	This is not negotiable.
	Not now.
	Not ever.
	We have the right to control our own bodies and to make our own choices about our health.
	This is not negotiable.
	Not now.
	Not ever.
	Unless, unless, just hear me out, people.
	These are two tweets.
	Oh, no, sorry, this is the first one.
	This is what Andrea Horvath said.
	Oh, darn it, I cut the date out so I don't know when.
	Recently.
	I fully support mandatory vaccinations of healthcare and education workers based on science and public health.
	Talk to me about science when you're, you know, go back to your other tweet.
	Talk to me about science there, depending on what you meant by the reproductive rights of non-binary folks.
	I hate the word folks, by the way.
	I hate it.
	I hate the way it's used by politicians.
	But talking of science...
	Tell me what you meant by the reproductive rights of non-binary folks.
	Do you mean to suggest that biological males who transition to females could have the ACT rights?
	They could have reproductive rights as relates to the ACT?
	They would be governed by the subject matter of Roe v.
	Wade?
	If that's what you meant, you might want to go back to science class.
	But she fully supports mandatory vaccinations of health care workers and education workers, while simultaneously asserting that we have the choices over our the control over our bodies and to make choices about our own health.
	This is the best part.
	I made a mistake yesterday raising charter rights.
	I was wrong.
	I was wrong to raise charter rights.
	On the one hand, I'm simultaneously suggesting that women have a constitutional right to the act, while simultaneously saying, Charter rights.
	Under the Canadian Constitution, charter rights are enshrined in our Constitution.
	So on the one hand, she is arguing that women have a constitutional right to the Act, while simultaneously saying, I was wrong to raise charter rights in our Constitution.
	It's impossible.
	It's impossible.
	Now, someone is going to say, because I appreciate it, I will steel man the argument.
	That she fully supports mandatory vaccinations for healthcare workers and education workers.
	There's a certain circumstance in which it's not your body and it's not your choice, and that's when you are in a field where you need to be vaccinated for the safety of others.
	Fine.
	I can appreciate that.
	Still think that nothing takes away from the idiocy of saying, I made a mistake.
	By the way, we're demonetized.
	Who could have thunk?
	Request review.
	Yeah, of course.
	Can't point out government hypocrisy.
	That's wrong think.
	I can understand that caveat.
	We'll get to it in a second.
	But nothing can take away from the idiotic statement, the Act is a constitutional right for women in the States, but I was wrong for talking about our constitutional charter rights in our Constitution.
	Cannot reconcile those two pegs.
	You cannot fit that square peg into the circle hole.
	You can't.
	But on the issue of she was talking about healthcare workers and yadda yadda.
	Okay, fine.
	All right.
	I found another one from Andrea Horvath.
	It's this one right here.
	This one was from, what's the 11th month?
	November.
	November 3rd, 2021.
	So November, December, January, February, March, April.
	My, how much changes in five months?
	What did I just do here?
	By refusing to mandate vaccines.
	Doug Ford, by refusing to mandate vaccines, Doug Ford is catering to anti-vaxxers at the risk of our vulnerable loved ones.
	Now, she might still be talking about the healthcare.
	By the way, the party supports mandatory vaccination.
	They support Trudeau's vaccine policy.
	They support masks.
	It's a non-starter to suggest this is just one...
	Small corner of the constitutional charter that they want to, you know, fold up for a second.
	But then to equate not compelling it to being anti-V.
	Yeah, I'm grateful to the vast majority of our healthcare workers who've already got their shots.
	They deserve government working to protect them and their patients.
	Not their body, not their choice.
	And if you dare say otherwise, you're an anti-V.
	You're catering to those, what Jagmeet Singh called the selfish far-right extremists.
	sigh
	Extremists.
	So anyways, I had to point that out to the general public.
	It's preposterous absurdity, is what it is.
	There's no other way.
	It's beyond disingenuous.
	It's gaslighting hypocrisy.
	I don't even know how you can reconcile it as being not ill-intentioned.
	You want the credit.
	You want the social media virtue ethical credit for respecting bodily autonomy while simultaneously violating a person's bodily autonomy.
	You want the credit for being a hero, for saving someone, while simultaneously drowning them.
	It's not even the same as saying, I'm putting their head underwater, I'm going to pull them up and save their life.
	This is...
	You want credit for being a good person while simultaneously being a bad person.
	That makes you worse than just being a bad person.
	At least when you're a bad person.
	Like T.S. Eliot, I think he said?
	At least villainy sleeps.
	The ill intent of trying to portray yourself as a hero while simultaneously acting like the villain, that never sleeps.
	At least...
	In war, they say, you know, you deal with traitors before enemies because enemies you know are your enemies.
	Traitors pretend to be your friends.
	The idea that these politicians, they want all the virtue, all the goodwill, all of the credit that goes with being thoughtful, respecting constitutional rights, respecting individual rights.
	They want all that credit while simultaneously taking the Constitution, crumpling it up multiple times so it gets nice and soft, and then wiping their backsides with it.
	And if anybody hasn't seen Harold and Kumar, not go to White Castle, that's classic.
	Harold and Kumar escape from Guantanamo Bay.
	It's one of the funniest movies ever made.
	But that scene when Harold and Kumar get arrested.
	No, it wasn't Harold and Kumar.
	It was the brothers, the Doobie brothers.
	When they get arrested and the bald guy from the late night show, he's interrogating them and then they say, don't we have constitutional rights?
	What about the Fifth Amendment?
	And then the guy tears out the Fifth Amendment from the Constitution, puts it down his backside, rubs his backside with it, and then throws it back to them on the table, and it's filthy.
	And then the guy says, why is your butt so filthy?
	And he says, don't ask questions you don't want the answers to.
	Classic movie, but that's effectively what they've done with our Constitution.
	But they want credit for preserving it while desecrating it.
	Okay.
	That'll be that for that.
	Viva, even the liberal justices have stated that Roe is bad law.
	Can you add anything to help explain what that means?
	Yeah, we're going to get into my understanding of why it's bad law.
	Robert and I have talked about it.
	I understand it to a limited extent.
	I'm not a constitutional expert.
	There's a lot of the backstory to Roe v.
	Wade that I'm not familiar with.
	Canada has enough manure for farmers.
	The reason why I think fundamentally it was a bad law, it was a bad decision in law, and this is my understanding and take it for what it's worth with a grain of salt, is that it enshrined in the Constitution the right to the act, which obviously is stated nowhere in the Constitution,
	by reading in the right to that medical procedure into the 14th Amendment privacy, where they basically said, If you want to get this procedure and you're denied from doing it or you have to have issues with doing it, it's basically a violation.
	It's an intrusion onto the privacy of one's life guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
	And so they basically read into the privacy provision of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution a right to the act because to deny women's access to the act would be an intrusion into their privacy and therefore a constitutional violation.
	So they read that specific act.
	Into the Constitution, whereas it's not in there anywhere.
	And if the logic is you're going to read in certain specific medical procedures into the privacy provision of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, apply that mutandis mutandis to a number of other things which are not specifically provided for in the Constitution.
	And therefore, you know, the Constitution becomes limitless in what it applies to that is not specifically or otherwise provided for in the Constitution.
	The reason why Andrea Horvath is legally, factually incorrect and misleading anybody who reads her idiotic, hypocritical tweets is because even if Roe v.
	Wade is overturned tomorrow and it's no longer the precedent applicable jurisprudence to the land, it does not deny a woman the right or the access to the act.
	It merely punts the issue down to the states because the whole issue was...
	With Roe v.
	Wade, they said the act is enshrined in the Constitution, so it's not a state issue.
	It's not a state law issue.
	It doesn't fall within the purview, within the jurisdiction of state laws, because it's in the Constitution, which is federal and constitutional and applies to all of the states.
	So they said it's not a state law issue.
	A state cannot make a law infringing on the Constitution.
	We've read this into the Constitution.
	Therefore, no state law can restrict the right.
	Or no state law can restrict the right because we've read it into the Constitution.
	Therefore, it's not a state law issue.
	It's a constitutional issue.
	If Roe v.
	Wade is overturned tomorrow and this draft, which is now seemingly confirmed to have been an authentic leak, makes law tomorrow, it doesn't deny a woman's right to the act.
	It merely says it's punted down to the states to enact their own laws because it's not a constitutional issue.
	It's not a constitutional law issue.
	It's not in the Constitution.
	So it will be up to the state legislatures to enact laws that reflect the will of those who elected them.
	That's all that it would mean.
	It would certainly mean that within certain states, with certain political leanings in their legislature, you would enact a bunch of laws which would, I don't think outright restrict the act, but it would certainly meaningfully restrict it, and to many, unjustifiably so.
	Or it would be far too intrusive, like you have the Heartbeat Act in Texas and...
	In Alabama, I think, where once there's a heartbeat detected, you no longer can have access to the act, with certain exceptions, one of which does not include the worst type of assault of a sexual nature that you can have, or incest.
	We'll get to all these.
	We're on the arguments now, so let's get there.
	So the issue would be Roe v.
	Wade overturned.
	That precedent is no longer binding.
	It says it's not in the Constitution.
	It was wrong of the Supreme Court to have read it into the Constitution.
	It's a state law issue now.
	Go to your states and have them enact laws that you think reflect the legislature that the people who put them into power wanted them to pass.
	And then if the states do that on a state-by-state basis, that's how it would end up.
	Many states have already started passing the heartbeat laws.
	Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, I think.
	Which would ban the act as of a heartbeat, week six, give or take, with certain limited exceptions.
	I think the health of the mother.
	And without other exceptions, such as incest and assault of that nature.
	People's argument there is going to be, how can you do that?
	I saw Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
	I think it was her.
	Who was it?
	Tweeting.
	It was AOC.
	She tweeted out, even if you are...
	Assaulted of that nature, it prevents you from getting the act.
	And I thought that was hyperbolic, and I had to go double-check.
	And the argument is there because the argument that AOC is raising is there.
	After six weeks, even if the pregnancy was the result of that, after six weeks, after the heartbeat, you can no longer have access to the act under these laws.
	So, from a political rhetoric perspective, the statement is true.
	It would preclude as of six weeks or as of the heartbeat the act, even if the act came about from the most heinous of certain types of aggression.
	The flip side argument to that is going to be typically people know when such an incidence of that nature has occurred and they can take the proper precautions to make sure that they do what they need to do within the time frame allowed by law.
	That's going to be the obvious response.
	There's going to be some...
	Exceptions to that were, you know, certain types of date type aggression when you don't even know that it had happened could be one of the rare exceptions where you might not even know that you have, in fact, been subjected to that type of assault, okay?
	But typically, the argument's going to be, you know when it happened, you know what you need to do to make sure that, you know, of your physical state, and therefore you can take the proper precautions within the six weeks, within the heartbeat.
	That's going to be the argument.
	The flip side argument to that, that's steel manning the policy decision.
	The flip side to that is they're going to say oftentimes people who are victims of incest, among other types of that type of assault, don't want to come forward, can't come forward, and oftentimes don't until they have no choice but to address certain issues.
	So there's going to be some social, political, not political, there's going to be social pressures for people not to come forward when they're victims of certain types of acts, which would then put them at a...
	You know, in a very, very precarious, unfortunate, bad position, if they are then told later on, well, you came forward too late, and now you have to live with it.
	So those are the arguments.
	And then where you situate on this ideological spectrum is up to you.
	So that's it.
	That is the bottom line, is that Roe v.
	Wade, if it's overturned, does not deny, does not outlaw.
	It simply says states do it.
	On a state-by-state basis, it's the jurisdiction of the state because it's not enshrined in the Constitution.
	Period.
	Okay.
	So, that's the issue.
	But now, let's just get to this.
	Let's just get to this.
	The leak itself.
	Setting aside all of the law.
	The leak.
	I wish I could have been...
	I saw this story breaking yesterday.
	Everybody.
	Left to right.
	Blue check marks on both sides, retweeting with their various takes.
	Some saying unprecedented.
	The end of the institution.
	Some, you know, Tim Poole is a little hyperbolic with it.
	I think his one o 'clock show is going to be talking about the potential social descent into madness that Tim is often accused of talking about regularly.
	Hold on.
	There are people who believe.
	We'll get there.
	See who hacked it.
	Blue check marks left to right.
	Everyone has their own take on it, but I'm sitting there looking at everyone reacting to this leak.
	A purported draft.
	It was a 90-some-odd page decision, although the last 30 pages were an appendix.
	Talking about this leak.
	And it's going to be conflict.
	It's the end of the institution.
	And I'm thinking, holy crap, if this turns out to be a hoax, everyone would look stupid for jumping on this, retweeting it, amplifying the story if it turns out to be an outright hoax.
	And I remembered, back in the day, back in the day, people may or may not remember this.
	Because it happened in Montreal, but it made the headlines everywhere.
	Let me see this.
	Okay, I'm going to click on this, so you're not going to see it, so I'm going to have to pick it up here, close this, put it here, put it here.
	Okay.
	We're going to switch gears now, though, to a video that is going viral overnight.
	Wait till you see this.
	It appears to show an eagle swooping in and grabbing a baby and lifting the baby up for a few seconds.
	Don't worry, the baby is just fine, but it raises the question, is this real?
	So, I mean, who remembers this story?
	Because very few, well, not everybody might know.
	This is Mount Royal Park, where I live in Montreal.
	And I know exactly where this section is.
	The parking lot, if you could, yeah, you could see the arrow.
	The parking lot is right over here.
	There's like, back this way, there's a little coffee shop.
	The house is called the Smith House, I think.
	Anyhow, this is Mount Royal.
	I know exactly where this is.
	When this story went viral, and...
	Mainstream news started picking up the story.
	It was 2012.
	I don't think I was active on social media.
	I don't remember where I said it, but I said, this is fake.
	I said, this is fake in my opinion.
	I was trying to go by shadows.
	I said, this is fake because I know where that is.
	Although we have these things called golden eagles in Quebec, I don't know that we have golden eagles, which is a type of evil, living in Mount Royal Park.
	We might.
	But I didn't think we had it at the time.
	There were some issues on the weather because I think it was wintertime.
	And there was green grass in the background.
	I said, this is fake.
	And it turned out it was fake.
	And it was students trying to make a video to see if it could go viral.
	And they succeeded.
	But how?
	Because it made it to U.S. news as a viral video.
	And so it was amazing.
	At the time, you learn a lesson from this.
	If you incentivize a potential hoax, if you incentivize...
	We've learned it many times since, but there's a lot of interesting examples where incentivizing a hoax can actually bring about people trying very hard to create a hoax, like these kids did with the CGI for a film class.
	I think it was...
	Hold on, let me see what I said in my tweet here.
	I'll bring that back up because I clicked from an article.
	Share screen.
	Uh, wrong one.
	Chrome tab 10 years ago here.
	Okay.
	Yeah, 10 years ago, this video of a golden eagle snatching baby went viral.
	It was fake.
	The work of students in 3D animation digital design programming.
	Drafting and leaking a SCOTUS decision so well written, MSN would run with it, would be right up there.
	And I was thinking like, man, it would be, it would be really, really funny.
	But it would be a tremendous project for someone to say, I'm going to draft a decision.
	So well-drafted, so well-crafted in every respect, from the footnotes to the layout, that it could be mistaken.
	That intelligent, discerning readers would take this to be an actual SCOTUS decision.
	I mean, it would be the greatest project for law students, for high school students, for someone who just wants to show that they can draft and they can replicate somebody's style of writing so well.
	That it would be misconstrued by the public as fake.
	Now, it turns out that theory looks like it might not.
	If it's confirmed by the court itself, that's what I said.
	There goes my chance to be the smartest person in the room.
	And there was one other reason why I thought maybe.
	Something struck me as a little odd if I wanted to overthink things.
	If I wanted to have the Alex Jones sort of, I now suspect everything.
	There was one part in it brought to my attention by...
	Hold on one second.
	Hold on one second.
	Brought to my attention by the intelligent folks we have following us at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	A great community.
	People, you can check us out there.
	You don't have to support if you don't want to.
	There's a massive amount of people who are members, get a lot of access to a lot of content that's only on Locals, but then there's some exclusive stuff for the supporting members.
	But this was brought to my attention by someone.
	On Locals, they sent this page from the decision, and it was just one thing in it where I'm reading this, and the way it was drafted, I was like, that strikes me as not necessarily being SCOTUS drafting.
	Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain the act.
	Zero.
	None.
	And I was like, ah.
	That gave me the idea, but...
	What a project it would be.
	Students, do it.
	Whoever can do it.
	Whoever can draft a phony Supreme Court decision in all respects that is indistinguishable from a legit one to a discerning, scrutinizing public, welcome to the FBI.
	Anyhow, so it looks like it's not...
	It looks like it's not...
	My theory is not going to pan out.
	And it would have also been such a great way to discredit all of the right-wing blue checkmarks.
	They're as susceptible to fake news as the left, which everyone pretty much is.
	Someone in the chat, I'm not bringing up anything that is naming anyone.
	I'm not doing that.
	I'm not bringing up anything in the chat that purports to identify the leaker.
	Read it in the news, and if it's in the news, I'll maybe cover it then, but I'm not.
	Partaking in one of those Reddit-esque false doxing and unleashing a social media mob on someone who actually did not do it or even someone who did actually do it.
	It's not my role in life.
	I love this.
	Because I would be reading the news and I would be going ballistic over these hypocrite tweets on my own.
	I may as well share that with the world and find my ikigai.
	What I'm good at?
	What I love, what I can make money doing, and what the world needs.
	When all those overlap, people, that is Ikigai.
	So apparently it's a legit leak, so there goes my opportunity.
	But then the question is, who leaked it and why did you leak it?
	Some people are going to say, obviously, like I brought up at the beginning, it was a lefty leak because they want to put pressure on those who would support the decision to change their mind.
	Lest we have another summer of love in the United States.
	Understood.
	Some people are going to say, by leaking it, you're going to put pressure.
	Now, you know, you can have protests.
	And to the extent it's peaceful, peaceful protests against what you believe are policy issues.
	But we know that it won't be as peaceful as the Ottawa protests.
	If I had to bet over under, I would say it's not going to be.
	Any protests will not remain as peaceful as the Ottawa protests.
	But some people are going to hypothesize.
	It was leaked to put pressure on the majority to make them flip.
	Wouldn't be the first time this has happened, and we'll get to another article later in a sec, but that's one theory.
	Another theory, non-implausible, because it's a double-edged sword outing people under their purported support.
	If you out them, if they do flip, they become lying hypocrites.
	So there is the thought of, I don't know, something of an inside job?
	Leak it so that you...
	You corner the five justices so that they can't flip-flop.
	So now that it's publicly known that they were going to support this, if they don't now, you've got some splaining to do.
	One theory.
	It's the one you know someone's going to want to go with because it's good for the narrative.
	Russia.
	Russia hacked the computers.
	Russia paid someone to leak this to sow discord in American society for political Russian gain.
	Someone's going to do it.
	And then, you know, bottom line, it's unacceptable that the institution that is the highest court of the land and arguably, you know, the highest court in terms of influence in the world can succumb to politics.
	I want to pull this up, actually.
	There was a tweet and I went down a rabbit hole.
	No, that's the Dustin Heist.
	I don't want that.
	Made the mistake.
	Sorry, I'm going to have to go back to this tweet and just find where I am.
	An article back in the day by this guy who put out a Twitter...
	What are they called when you just keep responding to yourself?
	A Twitter thread with himself.
	So Jonathan Peters wrote, this was retweeted by Jake Tapper, It's remarkable the leak of what appears to be an initial draft majority opinion.
	SCOTUS generally has kept its secrets and has confidential and has kept confidential its internal process.
	And then you get into a long, long, long series of examples.
	But I found the original article, which was from 2012, by the same guy, Jonathan Peters.
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no later.
	It goes over a bunch of examples, arguably different because none of them were, as far as I could tell, I tried to look up a bunch.
	None of them were the actual leak of an actual draft judgment.
	They were the leak of the outcome, like which way the court was going to go, but not leaking the actual draft decision.
	As far as I can tell.
	I may have to pick up a kid from school.
	Okay, we'll see how that goes.
	Text me in a bit, period.
	I'm live streaming right now.
	Cripe!
	So you can go through the article.
	I'll clip it and paste it so people can read.
	But it was the last line which I found.
	This was back in 2012.
	I forget what the leak was at the time.
	Whether the Roberts leak is accurate, of course, we have no idea, but it's important to recognize that it's not in a category of its own.
	Same theory as this time.
	Supreme Court leaks are rare, but they are hardly unprecedented.
	The court, just like other public institutions, is made up of political animals.
	We shouldn't be shocked when they act that way.
	Now that I think about it, I'm not sure if you can see the article that I was just looking at, because I...
	darn it.
	Yeah, you were not seeing the article that I was just talking about.
	Gosh darn it.
	Hold on, people.
	What I do love is that the guy effectively just called whoever leaked this an animal.
	That can get him in trouble with the crowds, people.
	Supreme Court leaks.
	Here's the article in Slate from Jonathan Peters.
	And I'll just go to the bottom so you can see the line that I was talking about.
	The court, just like our other public institutions, is made up of official political animals.
	We shouldn't be shocked when they act that way.
	All right, I think I can close that.
	But I gotta tell you, politics ruins everything, especially the law.
	The idea that you're going to weaponize...
	We know it happens.
	We've seen it happen.
	We've seen it happen in trials.
	We've seen it happen in a number of public protests that have occurred over the last little while, intimidating the decision makers.
	I'm not an animal.
	I'm a human.
	That's from The Elephant Man, one of the greatest movies ever made.
	I watched that movie.
	I cried myself to sleep that night.
	I was young.
	Elephant Man with William Hurt, if I'm not mistaken.
	I am not an animal.
	I am a human.
	I think he said I'm a human being.
	But yeah, no, no, it's...
	It's serious.
	It's a meltdown on social media that arguably, but I don't think arguably, the most important decision in the history of Supreme Court decisions, which is going to overturn One of the most important decisions in Supreme Court history got leaked beforehand and well beforehand.
	I think they were only supposed to render this decision in a couple of months by summer.
	Well, it's pretty close to summer.
	John Hurt.
	I mean, it's huge.
	It's compromising of an institution.
	It's a political beast.
	It's a political animal, and people shouldn't be surprised when those working there behave like political animals.
	Yeah, that is called normalizing corruption.
	People should be surprised.
	They should be shocked.
	They should be outraged.
	They should be outraged when institutions that are not supposed to be political resort to political pressure tactics, when they resort to political corruption.
	To achieve the ends, the political ends of what are supposed to be apolitical institutions.
	You know, hey, it's not the first time that an FBI lawyer falsified evidence to submit to a FISA court in order to obtain unlawful spy warrants against, you know, a president or a presidential campaign.
	It's not the first time.
	It's not unprecedented.
	Well, you know what?
	It should be shocking.
	It should be dealt with, I would say, arguably more severely, but at the very least, as severely as other legal transgressions.
	And not less severely.
	And to say, well, it's not unprecedented, that is, as I referred to it in Jake Tapper's tweet, finding a way to normalize political corruption.
	Had this been, by the way, let's just, you play the game again.
	I hate the game.
	This would be so scandalous if one could find a way to blame it on political adversaries.
	As of now, what's scandalous about it?
	Not the fact that the political institution that is, sorry, what is supposed to be the apolitical institution of the Supreme Court is now acting just as corrupt as all the other political institutions.
	That's not the shocking scandal to this.
	The shocking scandal is that the Supreme Court is actually going to reverse what even the liberal justices, from my understanding, have said was bad law under Roe v.
	Wade.
	They're enraged about the substance of the leak and not about the fact that the Supreme Court has now effectively been compromised by whomever leaked this, if it's a bona fide leak, to the detriment of...
	If it's not the core institution of the United States, it's one of the three core institutions of the United States that actually maintains the integrity or the cohesion of a civil society.
	You want to get into a world now where there's going to be leaks from the SCOTUS and then social pressure and arguably threats of violence or intimidation to force SCOTUSes to change their decisions based on leaks of how their decisions are going to go?
	I don't go to Tim Pool's extent, but great.
	The Supreme Court of the United States is going to be as well regarded as the court system in Russia.
	Congratulations.
	Congratulations.
	Okay.
	Let me read some chats.
	Oh, if I have to go get the kid.
	Let me see here.
	I told them you to try to be there a little before two.
	Okay.
	I can do that.
	Well, there goes the entire day of streaming, but we'll make it count with the time that we have.
	My biggest problem is like, you know, Scott Adams has a schedule.
	Tim Pool has a schedule.
	Nick Ricada has a schedule.
	It's 24-7.
	I can't have a schedule.
	It's impossible.
	Two working parents.
	I have a more flexible schedule, which means that my schedule for live streaming, when the opportunity arises.
	People forget that Roe v.
	Wade was for privacy of doctors, not the women.
	It was to keep doctors who performed the act out of jail.
	Okay, I'm not sure.
	Well, okay, interesting.
	I'm going to ask Robert Barnes that question, and then I'm going to defer to the opinion of those who I know know more than me about certain issues.
	50 members of the U.S. intelligence community say that Supreme Court leak is Russian disinformation.
	That, I think, is...
	Theophrastus 3.0.
	That, I think, is intended to be parody for now.
	Come tomorrow.
	If Babylon Bee runs that headline today, tomorrow that's going to be the reality.
	Not sure I concur with your politics ruins everything statement.
	Politics is the art and practice of negotiating the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
	I'd say activism ruins everything.
	I disagree with your definition of politics, actually, Alex.
	I would say politics is the struggle for power, which is why politics is not unique to politics.
	Politics infiltrates business.
	It's the struggle for power.
	It's the jockeying and jostling.
	Jostling?
	It's the fight for power.
	You have politics in the office setting, which is not political in nature, but it is the game of politics.
	Backstabbing, lying, covering your ass, throwing other people under the bus.
	And no, this is not hashtag confession to rejection.
	This might just be my own lived experience.
	Not as the perpetrator of these things.
	Politics is as much art as lobbying is art.
	I agree with that.
	There's no question.
	Joseph, beautiful avatar.
	And then we have...
	How lovely all those professionally printed signs were first thing this morning.
	Also, how well-worded were all those Democrats' tweets and public statements when I read it 5am?
	I'm going to double-check about the printed signs.
	That would be interesting.
	That I learned from my run for office federally in the last federal election when they called the election.
	And I'll fully recognize my campaign was not ready to go at the drop of a hat, but my goodness, the NDP, Had signs at every street corner the day they called the election.
	Which leads me to believe that some knew the election was going to be called on a specific date before others.
	Or they just sit around with massive tons of cash and have a number of signs just ready to go for if and when.
	Or they just planned ahead and knew that it was inevitable and, you know, the ant that worked through the summer.
	Or was it the grasshopper?
	Ah, you know what I'm getting at.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Well, people don't appreciate that in Canada, we actually don't have laws against it.
	But it's just a question of, you know, if you want that act, trying to find a doctor who will perform it at certain stages.
	Husband first, dad second, job, no us third.
	The other thing is, tonight, I'm on Eric Duhem's channel.
	The leader of the Conservative Party of Quebec, we're going to have an interview.
	So I need to exercise before that and not be sweating for the stream because I don't want to look like I'm nervous about something.
	So that's the leak.
	Then the question is leaking it.
	Then there was the idea, if it were to be a hoax, like a well-drafted, well-crafted hoax, it would be genius because it would then spur the discussion, even if it turns out to be a hoax, about court packing.
	The idea that it was a leak from the left.
	To get that ball rolling?
	Well, now if we know that it's going to be 5-4 overturning Roe v.
	Wade, let's start packing the court now.
	Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry.
	Expanding the court.
	Let's expand the court with two appointees or appointments from the Biden administration so that it won't be 5-4 overturning Roe v.
	Wade.
	It'll be 6-5 reaffirming Roe v.
	Wade.
	So hoax or legit leak from the left?
	Do it so that we can start entertaining the discussion about expanding the court, court packing.
	That's going to happen if it hasn't already started happening.
	Yeah, I think my hypothesis, the theory that maybe it was someone from the right trying to put pressure on the five to stay true, less likely than likely.
	No, that's not, I can't take that call.
	Yeah, Viva, any plans on watching Dinesh's new documentary, 2000 Meals?
	It has to do with the 2020...
	Rumble Watch Party.
	I will get in touch with some of the people at Rumble.
	That might be a good event to plan.
	But yeah, a thousand percent I'm going to watch it.
	Not necessarily going to say I'm going to agree with it or everything in it.
	I'm going to watch it.
	Watched Hoaxed.
	I watched Ukraine on Fire.
	You watch these things and you watch them with a critical eye.
	But for anybody who says, I'm not going to watch it because it's against my principles, well, that's very nice.
	Your underlying principle is the adherence to ignorance.
	Not you, sir.
	Anyone who says, I'm not watching it because it would upset me too much.
	Maybe.
	Dinesh might be a joke.
	It doesn't mean that you don't...
	First of all, even people who are jokes can still occasionally say serious things.
	What's a sass burger?
	Oh.
	Full of sass.
	Did I see Jagmeet Singh discussing changing the voting age to 16?
	No, I didn't see that.
	It can't be for real.
	And then this is the most logical theory.
	It was leaked to rally Dems for the midterms.
	The problem is this.
	I don't think quite as many people...
	How do I phrase this?
	I don't think there's quite...
	The level of vocalness about overturning Roe v.
	Wade versus the level of support that I suspect is among the general population for the underlying issue, you're dealing with a spectrum of whether or not the act should be permitted from never from conception to always until, if we're asking Norfolk, until after.
	Until after delivery.
	So you're talking on those two ends of the spectrum.
	Outright never, pretty much outright...
	Never restriction.
	If anybody doesn't know what I'm talking about, it was Norfolk, right?
	The guy who was caught on a podcast saying, what if the woman opts for the act after delivery?
	And he says, well, we'll keep it comfortable.
	We'll keep he or she comfortable until the mother makes her decision.
	Shocking and horrendous stuff.
	But between those two ends of the spectrum, I think the vast majority of the people fit within what could be agreed upon as Reasonable limitations for something that people do not like, regardless.
	Regardless of whether or not you support the act or a woman's right to have access to the act, whether or not you support that, it doesn't mean that you like it.
	And it doesn't mean that people feel good about doing it.
	It's sometimes people, you know, they still believe you should have the right to do something that you might even not want to do, but it's the lesser of the evils at that point in time.
	Or the lesser of the hardships, sorry, at that point in time.
	And remind me, I'm going to get to the debate I had, the discussion I had at the House party on this issue, which led to people in tears and me not being invited back.
	But on the two ends of the spectrum, I think the vast majority would probably be, 80% of the people would be found within 80% common ground.
	No to never, and certainly no to whenever.
	And then it would be, yes, with certain restrictions, which I think the vast majority of the people could probably agree upon.
	with certain exceptions, that the vast majority of people could probably agree upon.
	So, what the heck was I just talking about?
	Tabernush, I forgot.
	Oh, no, that's it.
	So, the vocalness of the Twitter groups and the politicians and the activists who...
	Feel very strongly as they're within their rights to do, and I would defend their right to do it, period.
	I think it's 10% pretending to represent the 90%, when it's probably more vice versa.
	People, they want the option, but within certain humane limits.
	And I know that some people will say there are no limits that are humane, and people on both ends will say that.
	Wrong here.
	I'm curious.
	Matty Potpie, please elaborate.
	In fact, no, elaborate.
	I'm interested.
	So, oh, unless you mean I'm wrong on the fact that the vast majority of you...
	Okay, I don't know what you mean, so tell me.
	So that's it.
	I think...
	People are just afraid that if Roe v.
	Wade is overturned, it's going to outlaw or the states are going to outlaw it and then outlaw people from traveling to states that have not outlawed it to benefit from it.
	Oof.
	Ray Anderson.
	Viva is always wrong.
	I know for a fact that that's wrong.
	So you may not always be wrong, Ray Anderson, but you're wrong now, for sure.
	I'm not always wrong.
	Okay, so...
	That's the discussion right now.
	Who leaked it?
	Why did it leak?
	Is it a legit leak?
	Looks like it's a legit leak.
	What's going to be the impact of this?
	Is it actually going to sway the justices who are five to four on the issue?
	And then the bottom line, even if it stands, what then?
	You're going to have it be decided on a state-by-state issue, and people who want access to the act are going to move to states that are going to provide easy access to the act, and people who want the act to be restricted or severely limited, rare, safe, and what's the other word?
	They'll move to states that reflect their beliefs, and that's, you know, in theory, some will say that's how democracy works.
	Others are going to say that there's no democratic justification for the act.
	I appreciate the arguments.
	That's where it's at.
	But now this is...
	Is this...
	Oh, no, this is another one of Horvath's idiotic...
	I made the mistake of...
	I won't get over it.
	I made the mistake of raising constitutional rights.
	No, so this, before we get into Dustin Heintz, and before I even get into the story, I'm going to close this down.
	Before I even get into this anecdote of university, when philosophizing Dave thought you could have very serious, albeit thorny, philosophical discussions with people on very sensitive issues at house parties when alcohol is being consumed.
	People...
	Do not discuss religion or politics at parties.
	It's a good rule.
	It's a good rule.
	Of course, what's left...
	I'm not going to a party if I can't discuss politics.
	Or, let me rephrase, the law.
	We can always discuss the law.
	And whatever overlap is there, it's not my fault.
	Viva.
	I and my best friend speculated on probabilities of next created outrage when George Floyd's riot waned.
	This one topped our list since October 2020 and predictable as Joe Reed crying racist.
	Well, here, Marcia Levine, it's interesting.
	It was the obvious one on which there would be mobilizing for political and ideological reasons.
	The only problem is if you keep making renewed predictions and then eventually they come true, I'm being hard on you.
	But no, this was the big one.
	There will always be one.
	No one could have really foreseen Ukraine becoming the next, you know, I'd say media and politically exacerbated, encouraged outrage.
	No one could have foreseen that, or at least the degree to which the media has really tried to nationalize that foreign conflict.
	But this one, yeah, this was, it will always be there.
	This one, and any Second Amendment issue.
	We'll always be front and center on the political four of the United States.
	The fact that it requires so many qualifications attests to individual states being the only legitimate venues to decide.
	Yeah, and if you don't like the state or its policies, you leave.
	You vote with your dollar, you vote with your feet.
	Speaking of feet, my foot is itchy.
	Here is where rare, safe, and legal is the saying, however, the left stopped using because rare connotates that it's morally negative position.
	I think Clinton at one point in time said it's a necessary evil.
	Nobody wants it, but everyone wants to have access to it.
	But no, so this is a decent segue.
	Hold on, let me see this.
	Thank you.
	Michael Fowler, I could steel man this argument as well.
	And so, incidentally, I, once upon a time, I still have the same theory.
	We were at a party, story time, with Viva Frye.
	We were at a party, and it's a philosophy I adopt in life.
	It's the unnecessary taking the life of anything.
	And I'm not stupid, people.
	I know, and I have mics.
	I say, if you...
	Take the life of an animal to eat it.
	That is an ethical thing.
	It's within the DNA of what we are as creatures.
	And I know that people say, well, you don't have to live off animals and yada yada.
	I know that.
	Except I know scientifically there are certain brain development that requires, or at the very least for now, necessitates certain types of proteins that people get from meats.
	That evolution...
	Human evolution sort of went on an increased overdrive when we started consuming certain cooked proteins.
	But I'm at a house party.
	This is back in McGill.
	Back in McGill days when I'm studying philosophy and I studied feminist philosophy.
	Andrea Dworkin, the likes, didn't get a very good grade in that class.
	Apparently, I, on one of my, not theses, one of my essays.
	I wrote the teacher's name.
	I wrote Ms. Whomever.
	And I did not write Ms. to be degrading because I wrote Mr. for all professors.
	I never once had this incident with anybody.
	Except in this particular class, I wrote an essay explaining why I disagreed.
	I think it was Andrea Dworkin who said that sex is a male-dominant act by its very nature.
	And I did not agree with that statement or that theory.
	That anything that is inherently natural could be inherently immoral in any way, shape, or form.
	Hence, you know, eating meat.
	So I wrote an essay saying why I disagree with it.
	I think it's fundamentally illogical to moralize acts of nature.
	Like, lightning is not immoral.
	Making babies is not immoral in any way, except in any way that the human wants to impute morality to an otherwise natural act.
	I put Ms. Whomever, and if she's watching right now, she might remember this, on my thing.
	I said, this is the essay titled by David Fry for Ms. Maroon.
	I get the essay back.
	In addition to getting a C-, the teacher had crossed off Ms. and put doctor.
	I knew I was in trouble.
	So that isn't even the story.
	But I had never, like, this was not a gender.
	I do Ms. and Mr. for every professor never once before and never once after ever had that problem.
	And I have not resorted to saying doctor because you don't know when the professors have a PhD.
	Sometimes they don't.
	That would explain the grade and that would explain the class.
	That's not the story.
	So I'm at a house party.
	And we start talking about the act, whether or not it should be legal.
	And I am...
	I'm not playing devil's advocate.
	I genuinely believe in the...
	The unnecessarily taking of any life for convenience or for minimizing harm is morally questionable.
	I'm not joking.
	Killing a mosquito just because it's on the window is wrong.
	Mosquitoes are satanic creatures.
	They deserve to burn in hell.
	Killing a wasp just because it's in your house and you can kill it is morally wrong.
	Put it in the cup.
	Take it outside.
	I'm serious.
	You know, I'm trying to think of where we kill animals for no better purpose.
	But the taking of the life of any living creature for convenience or for minimizing inconvenience is immoral.
	That's the premise of my life philosophy.
	And applying it to the act in question, where people who decide to avail themselves to the act, the underlying question is why?
	It's either, I don't want it now, I'm too young, I don't have enough money, I didn't mean to, yada yada yada.
	And so the underlying reason, and it's the admitted justification by the individual themselves, is it's going to be better off this way than the other way.
	And so in that sense, one is engaging in the act in order to minimize their own suffering or their own inconvenience.
	And that's the motivating factor.
	Whether or not you believe in whether or not people should have access to it, that's the underlying moral question.
	And that's the way I feel about anything.
	It doesn't have to be a human life.
	Go around killing birds with a BB gun, even if they're in your backyard ruining your plants, is morally wrong.
	Whether or not you decide to do it afterwards, that's up to you and whatever else is up there in the cosmos.
	And it turns out that the people with whom I was having this discussion had their own personal stories and relations to the act, and it quickly led to tears, and it quickly led to me feeling very bad and realizing that despite having discussions in abstractum, you can't do it.
	And I never did it again.
	And that's why, for the longest time, even on the interwebs, I'm reluctant to even...
	Get into the discussions where you know by virtue of your position, even if you think it's morally justified, legally justified, factually justified, you're going to upset some people.
	But that's it.
	It ended in tears.
	How could you?
	You have no idea what you're talking about.
	And it also introduced me to the world of one's personal experience.
	Trump's Any actual discussion?
	And it precludes having the discussion with people who cannot or have not had that same life experience.
	So it basically limits...
	It's what's being done in current politics to limit who can discuss what.
	Oh.
	All right.
	Oh, and here, hold on.
	Hey, hey, hey, no killing coyotes.
	We keep you cats out of other yards.
	People kill coyotes.
	People cow...
	You know, the deer because they cause car accidents or because they eat people's crops and like, eat it, eat it.
	If you're going to kill the coyote, eat it afterwards.
	If you're going to kill a deer, I have no problem with consuming it.
	But even still, higher order animals, you can't eat dolphin, you can't eat monkey, even if you'd want to.
	Oh, I hear the dog has found her way downstairs.
	I hear her behind the door.
	And so that's it.
	I'm not bringing this up to be glib or facetious.
	I'm just going to go to a tweet.
	This is the other thing.
	Talking about holding mutually incompatible views simultaneously and trying to reconcile them.
	We'll get to Don Lemon in a second.
	Talking about it.
	We live in a world where people are simultaneously holding mutually, logically, factually incompatible beliefs.
	And how they manage to justify them to themselves or just to fail, to refuse to address them, it's amazing.
	It's amazing in that it's the human condition.
	You want to believe a lie.
	The easiest person to convince on this earth is yourself.
	Oh yeah, here's the one where I said...
	Here, let's just see.
	Where did I say it?
	Here.
	Considering the next SCOTUS appointee can't define what a woman is, who does this allegedly leaked SCOTUS opinion apply to?
	And this goes back to Andrea Horvath.
	Non-binary people might have sexual reproductive rights that don't involve things that are scientifically from someone who trusts the scientists.
	Unavailable to them, even if they wanted them.
	I mean, you have the Supreme Court justice saying, I can't identify what a woman is, while people are simultaneously saying that this leaked document is an attack on women's rights.
	It's an attack on women's rights.
	What's a woman?
	I don't know.
	I can't define it.
	I'm not a biologist.
	Who's it an attack on then?
	I don't know.
	Women.
	What's a woman?
	I don't know.
	I mean, it's...
	And then this, the political left, and I'm saying political left because I don't...
	The political left, the act is a woman's right.
	Also the political left, biological men can be women.
	Therefore, it's also a men's right.
	I mean, you cannot work your way around these things.
	You have to bite the bullet somewhere, even if it means you're going to get cancelled by your own tribe, or you just cannot mutually hold the same thoughts at the same time.
	There's no two ways about it.
	And the bottom line, You either have to be dishonest, disingenuous, or just broken.
	You cannot simultaneously hold two mutually incompatible, mutually exclusive beliefs.
	You can't.
	And if you think you can, something's wrong up there.
	That's what we've got here.
	What's this?
	Vegans only exist because they're meat-eating ancestors.
	Well, not just that.
	I mean, not just that vegan.
	Well...
	I have a theory.
	If all that a cow eats is grass, if I eat a cow, am I not only eating grass?
	Prove me wrong.
	Spider Jerusalem, I'm late to the stream in case you addressed it, but there is a crazy amount of rumors that a Canadian general, Kadzir, was captured in Azovstal.
	Thoughts if true, not true.
	I've heard it.
	I don't want to be a part of amplifying what might be inaccurate.
	Misinformation or rumor.
	I've heard it.
	Thoughts if true?
	It would confirm what a lot of people already believe.
	Yes.
	Yes, by the way.
	It's science, people.
	It's logic.
	You see, there you go.
	That's what I like, Fox, Fox.
	I don't like being told I'm wrong.
	I mean, sure, I'm wrong, but not always wrong.
	That's just...
	Alright.
	So that was that.
	It's literally saying men can be women and that's a fine belief to have.
	And then the act is women's rights.
	Okay?
	You have to follow it through.
	You have no choice.
	Logic.
	Facts don't care about your feelings.
	Logic doesn't care about your feelings.
	Logic doesn't care about anything.
	Logic is like gravity.
	It's going to happen whether you like it or not.
	You can deny that you're falling.
	But you're going to hit the ground eventually.
	It's a woman's rights.
	It's an attack on women's rights.
	I can't define what a woman is, and men can be women.
	Put that on a shirt.
	Okay, well, what else was there?
	Was there any other angle to this story that I thought was of interest?
	No, I don't think there was.
	One day I'll get my wife on for a sidebar.
	And she will explain, you know, the proteins that are required for brain development that come from meat.
	Viva, haven't you heard?
	Logic is the...
	Oh, okay, you know, I went somewhere else with that R word.
	You mean the ist, the R-ist word.
	I haven't turned into a troll today.
	I don't know what a troll...
	No, a troll is disingenuous just trying to start fights.
	I am the honesty troll.
	I am going to rub people's noses into their past words.
	And I'm also not going to let people forget of their awful, awful past words.
	The bad things that they've done while pretending to be the angels now.
	Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh, Conservative Party of Canada.
	I got a good memory.
	For certain things.
	Is this about state sovereignty or the right to choose?
	Well, I mean, that's the other issue.
	It's about state rights.
	I think we've sufficiently milked this subject from all angles.
	It could still be...
	Hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Let me see.
	See, the thing is this.
	I'm going to show my own bias.
	I don't even care if Justice Roberts...
	I don't care which...
	Let me see here.
	Roberts confirms leak.
	Roberts confirms, let me see, SCOTUS?
	Where is here?
	Oh, okay, here we go.
	One hour from USA Today.
	Now I'm going to say, oh, I don't trust USA Today, and it can still be a hoax, and I can still be the smartest man in the room.
	Here we go.
	Are we sharing this?
	Yeah, we are.
	Spring showers won't stop this sale.
	Yes, it will, sir.
	Okay, Supreme Court verifies authenticity of leaked opinion in the case, but says decision...
	Oh.
	Oh, will there be...
	I mean, this is...
	Well, of course the decision's not final.
	That's why it's called a draft.
	Now, are they just trying to pacify?
	Pacify the large gathering of individuals with nefarious intentions.
	The Washington court on Tuesday verified the authenticity of a leaked draft opinion.
	Okay.
	Ah, it's fake news.
	USA Today's fake news.
	It could still be fake.
	I could still be smart.
	And yeah, it is also the world in which we live.
	You just can't trust anything.
	And I was almost reluctant to even mention the story from back in the day because You know, people go, but it's like, it would not have been the craziest thing in the world that this could have been a hoax.
	It's just, we've seen work, we've seen crazier.
	Like, the Steele dossier was a very long document, a very well, meticulously, I say well, meticulously and creatively drafted document.
	But I guess it's like, yeah, so that's it.
	Are we having fun yet?
	I'm not sure.
	It's like, yeah.
	Hold on one second.
	Mr. Wonderful Me Too, but lab meat that would be indistinguishable from meal meat would be even better.
	We are the reason that people suffer.
	You take your personal benefits over animal suffering.
	Well, here's an argument that I've always had as well.
	Cows will simply cease to exist if we do not cultivate them for food.
	They will not exist in the wild.
	So if you stop eating cows, they stop existing.
	Within short order, unless the argument is going to be we're going to continue breeding them for other purposes.
	All right.
	Let's just do the Don Lemon before we forget.
	We're at 122 in already.
	I haven't yet gotten...
	Yes, I have.
	Okay, we'll get there in a second.
	Dustin...
	Oh, so hold on.
	Let's just go here.
	What was the issue?
	I was going to go get the Don Lemon.
	Okay, here we go.
	I know you can't see it yet.
	I'm just going to come and see.
	Yeah, I was excited to go meet Don Lemon in person.
	Just in, Don Lemon accuser drops lawsuit in its entirety, says he misremembers events.
	What am I looking for?
	Stream here.
	I don't want to make sure we're looking at the same thing.
	Wish we are.
	Don Lemon is breathing a sigh of relief after a lawsuit alleged he did very, very bad things.
	The Lemon drop stuck his hands down his groin.
	Allegedly, and I always said allegedly, Don Lemon.
	Hashtag no defamation.
	Allegedly, and there's litigation privilege, but allegedly, you know, stuck his fingers down, rubbed them, put them in someone's nose.
	It was dropped.
	Dustin Heiss filed the lawsuit back in 2019 claiming he'd encountered the CNN host at a bar and Lemon had put his hand down the front of his...
	Shorts.
	And Vigory rubbed his genitalia up.
	John Lajoie, for anybody who doesn't know, go watch Show Me Your Genitals by John Lajoie from Montreal.
	Or he's from Longueuil, just south of Montreal.
	Removed his hands, shoved his index and middle fingers into plaintiff's moustache under plaintiff's nose.
	Heist received a flood of publicity appearing on Fox News.
	This is what you want publicity for in life.
	His case rapidly fell apart after discovery phase.
	And Lemon's attorneys began investigating the case and questioning witnesses.
	Litigation, man.
	It's not...
	Everyone is going to be up for the absolute scrutinizing under the microscope that is the litigation process.
	Let's see here.
	One of his co-workers even retracted his prior testimony.
	You can read this in any one of two ways.
	Heiss ended up removing these witnesses from his witness list and Pelosi updated the defense's witness list to add those exact same witnesses.
	Needless to say, it's a rare civil litigation for any witness cited in the original pleadings to switch sides.
	For two to do so is particularly unusual.
	Anyways, and then we got some failure to comply allegedly.
	Man, litigation is a slog and it's an unpleasant slog.
	Yeah, when your witnesses switch sides and not knowing what on earth, I mean, I can imagine what might have happened.
	You know, litigation is not just unpleasant on the plaintiff and the defendant either.
	Litigation is unpleasant on all of the witnesses, especially the ones who, for whatever the reason, get deposed prior to trial.
	But especially for those who get hauled to trial.
	Sometimes in litigation, you make business decisions as to whether or not you litigate based on who the witnesses are going to be.
	You don't want to call in your employer.
	You don't want to call in business partners.
	You don't want to call in people who don't want to waste their time in court and being compensated for a day at court is not worth their while.
	Also, witnesses can get intimidated.
	And witnesses can decide to change their story out of convenience for themselves.
	Out of strategic convenience to hopefully end the lawsuit so they don't have to be called as a witness and be subjected to the litigation process as well.
	So that's it.
	So unfortunately, I will not be going to...
	Where was this supposed to be?
	I think this was supposed to be in New York.
	I won't be going.
	Barbara, hold on a second.
	Can't watch anymore.
	You are too distracted and go down too many tangents, so there's no coherent thought.
	Sorry, when you are Will Barnes, things go so much smoother.
	Slow down, calm down.
	If you say you can't watch me anymore because I'm too distracted and go down too many tangents, this might be your first time watching me.
	I am distracted and I am tangents.
	So, yeah, that's like saying you don't like Coke because it's too carbonated.
	I admire YouTubers dealing with nasty, unnecessary comments.
	Viva has a good humor dealing with them.
	There might be some truth in them.
	Yeah, I'm excited.
	And I go down tangents.
	And I gotta say, if you don't like that...
	I don't think you will like this.
	Okay.
	Anyway, so that's it.
	I should probably go and do the dad thing and go get my kid and take him here and plop him in front of the TV and then I'm going to hop on the treadmill and get some of that energy out.
	So that's it for today.
	It's fun stuff.
	But my goodness, yeah.
	The madness on Twitter yesterday and following into today and what's going to happen over the next months because there will be mobilizing to put pressure.
	Now that it's confirmed, there will be mobilizing to put pressure.
	Political, legitimate, non-political, illegitimate, and I might even dare say questionably lawful pressure to change the way this looks like it's going to go.
	Maybe it's going to get weaponized for expanding the court.
	It's certainly going to get used to mobilize for the midterms, but I don't think that's going to do a darn thing.
	And ultimately, maybe people are just going to appreciate the law is the law, the Constitution is the Constitution, even by the accounts of some of the liberal justices, and this will be a state's right issue, and you will then vote with your feet and support the legislatures and the laws that you like of the states that you like, and leave the ones that you don't.
	There is no better way.
	To show your support or your lack of support or disdain than by voting with your dollar and voting with your feet.
	I love your format to show you move as fast as my brain moves.
	Yeah, that's right.
	I can't stand watching the trial.
	They move so slow.
	I know the end of the question before they even finish it, and I know what the answer is going to be before they do it, but you've got to sit there and wait for them to do it at the court pace, which means slowly, so the judge can take notes, so the judge can follow you, so you can, you know.
	Inflect.
	So you can plead in a way that is going to be convincing.
	I know that that's how it's done.
	It drives me crazy.
	All right.
	Let's do it.
	Get out of here.
	Go.
	There's a lot of time left in the day.
	1.30.
	Well, 1.30 Eastern time.
	Get some exercise.
	Get some sunlight.
	Talk to people in real life.
	Tonight, I'm going to be on with Eric Duhem.
	So I'm going to share that link around as soon as I get it.
	5.30 tonight.
	Tomorrow, sidebar with revolver Darren Beatty.
	It's Darren Beatty.
	Thursday, something is happening Thursday.
	And then Friday, I've got Roman Baber, who's running for the leadership of the Conservative Party at federal level.
	Going to be on at one o 'clock.
	Sim Inkslay says, hello, if you're a fan of space fantasy and cyberpunk comic books, check out Tales from the Natverse, number two, on Indiegogo, Winky Face.
	Story and art by yours truly.
	Best use of $5 out there, people.
	Check it out.
	I'm not so much into space fantasy and cyberpunk or comic books, but I'm going to leave it up for another couple of seconds while I see if there's any questions.
	Okay, we got, yeah, I have questions for him.
	Okay, good.
	There is life in your eyes.
	Good.
	I'm going to go get a, not a Red Bull, I found an alternative called Yerba Mate.
	And if I can get them as a sponsor, I would feel good endorsing that product.
	45 calories, 50 milligrams of caffeine, natural tea, and it tastes good.
	And it doesn't have that thick, syrupy glucose fructose that you have in Red Bull, although I still like Red Bull.
	Candice Magnus says, love your show and locals.
	Your fro is my spirit animal.
	Thank you very much, Candice.
	Oh, okay, what else do we got?
	Okay, I'm not bringing up that.
	Okay, Yerba Mate is great, yeah.
	I'm gonna go reach out to them right now.
	Okay.
	Yerba mate is great stuff.
	Well, there was another one.
	People like yerba mate.
	Okay.
	I'm going to go do it.
	My only problem with it, it's too small of a container.
	Okay.
	Go, people.
	Enjoy the day.
	I will see you.
	For those of you who watched tonight, see you tomorrow and probably live stream tomorrow.
	See what comes out in the news.

▲