Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 4, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:54:15

Viva le Hump Day - Double-Standards, Hypocrisy and Lack of Insight - Viva Frei LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Where abortion is illegal.
	And we are not going back.
	Not ever.
	So say it with me.
	We are not going back.
	Wow, people.
	So first of all, my camera doesn't work.
	So I got to go with the...
	I got to make sure I look at the right camera.
	I've got to go with the computer built-in camera, which sucks.
	But so long...
	It not only sucks, but as I type...
	Maybe not.
	It's going to shake.
	But more important than the video is the audio.
	So everybody, let me know if my audio is working well here.
	Let's just see if we can...
	See this?
	Good day, Viva and friends.
	Much love to all the Hippocrates.
	The Hippocrates matrix.
	Yeah, let me know if the...
	Oh, there was an echo because I'm...
	Hold on.
	Am I using the proper mic?
	Settings?
	Audio?
	Speaker?
	Okay, now we're good.
	Yeah, there might have been an echo because I got to make sure to look at the camera today.
	May the 4th be with you.
	Yes, it is the Star Wars day.
	Everyone is very much enjoying that joke.
	May the 4th be with you.
	Although it's only going to be a matter of time before that becomes a cancelable joke because one is making fun of speech impediments of lisps, which I have been told I have a small one of.
	Okay, let me see.
	Audio is all good, brother.
	Amazing.
	Good.
	Excellent subs.
	Your subs are...
	Oh, why that will?
	We'll see if they take a...
	Look, I'm not covering the Johnny Depp trial daily, but everyone has the event that they are there for.
	I was there for the Ottawa protests.
	Rakeda was there for the Rittenhouse trial, although we were all there for the Rittenhouse trial.
	And there are Emily D. Baker covering the Johnny Depp daily.
	Legal Bites covering it daily.
	Rakeda covering it daily.
	There are actually so many people covering it daily.
	I'm surprised that given the...
	I won't say the market's been saturated because it hasn't.
	I am amazed at the level of...
	I'm amazed at the level of audiences of all...
	Given that there's so many people covering this in real time.
	Interesting chats in there.
	Let me see here.
	Before we get into this, because it's going to be an amazing...
	You know, we're not going to talk about the Johnny Depp.
	And at this point, I don't think we need to.
	I think we need to talk about other things which are, I won't say more pressing, but of more national import.
	The Johnny Depp trial, it's very interesting.
	It's interesting from an academic perspective, conducting cross-examinations, you know, watching lawyers do it in real time, especially now that they're interviewing.
	They are deposing, they're having the...
	Experts testify.
	So cross-examining an expert witness is different than cross-examining or examining an ordinary witness.
	Carly, here, I'll bring it up so you can stop doing it because the only thing that actually gets banned on the channel is spamming.
	So let's all read it together.
	Hey, hey, ho, ho, Viva Frye has got to go.
	Hey, hey, ho, ho, Viva Frye has got to go.
	Carly, you said it.
	If you keep spamming it...
	That is the only rule out here.
	We have other rules of violence, doxing, and the Russian sex bots.
	So you had your 30 seconds.
	I hope you enjoy it.
	Now, with that said, it's interesting watching depositions of experts versus depositions of regular witnesses.
	For those of you who don't know the difference, witnesses of fact testify on fact.
	They're there to testify what they experienced and not what they believe.
	And it's the exact opposite for witnesses who are expert witnesses.
	They are there to only testify on matters of opinion.
	They don't have to have experienced anything directly.
	In fact, they don't experience anything directly.
	They go and assess.
	They read.
	They study.
	They do experiments based on not having had personal experience with the incident.
	If they did, in fact, have personal experiences...
	And we're testifying on fact, they wouldn't be there as experts.
	You'd have a witness who could otherwise be an expert witness, but testifying on fact, what happened to them, when and where.
	So you're hearing these witnesses give their opinions, meet with the parties, and provide expert reports.
	In order to file an expert report, you file it, and you come in and you testify on your conclusions, your assessments, and everything.
	So it's interesting watching what's going on right now because...
	It's an interesting thing.
	People don't necessarily appreciate this in the practice of law, but experts are supposed to be independent.
	They're supposed to be experts.
	And they're supposed to give their opinion and come to expert opinions that are not influenced by one's own personal opinion, by one's own biases, etc.
	They're supposed to be objective, neutral.
	And although they're mandated by one party...
	They're supposed to be experts and come to the truth regardless of what that truth is.
	The only quirk about the practice of law is that it always seems to be the case that in any given dispute, the experts on both sides are going to come to mutually, I will say not incompatible, but mutually divergent positions that represent the interests of their clients despite the fact that they are You know, experts who are supposed to come to the truth.
	And for whatever the reason, they seem to come to two diverging truths, which conveniently seem to represent the interests of their clients.
	And then it's up to the other party to cross-examine the witness and then, you know, determine which witness, which expert witness the court is going to rely on.
	So that's what's going on in this trial right now at the Johnny Depp stage.
	We've got, you know, both experts for both sides.
	One, Dr. Curry, for those of you who aren't...
	Necessarily following this in great detail.
	Dr. Curry, from what I understand, was a court-appointed expert who was there to assess Amber Heard's PTSD, alleged PTSD.
	And in Dr. Curry's expert assessment of Amber Heard, came to the fact that actually not only does she not suffer from PTSD, but she actually suffers from borderline personality disorder, BPD.
	That ended up being the expert witness called by Johnny Depp.
	Right now, they have Amber Heard's expert witness who's coming in to say that, no, no, no, Dr. Curry's wrong.
	She's an expert.
	She's wrong because she's an expert in another matter.
	I'm right.
	I'm an expert, and I'm right on this.
	Amber Heard does, in fact, suffer from PTSD, going through methodology, etc., etc.
	Cross-examinations.
	It's fun.
	It's interesting.
	But, yeah, it's...
	No shortage of people covering it in real time, or you can watch it in real time.
	And let me see here.
	Do I see another ease-up on the spamming?
	Yeah, people...
	I've slowed the slow-mo down to 15 seconds, but...
	Okay.
	Anyway, so that's what's going on with Johnny Depp.
	It's a fun watch, but my goodness, with what else is going on in the world...
	Let's just play this again, because I noticed something in this.
	And we are not going back.
	Not ever.
	So say it with me.
	We are not going back.
	We are not going back.
	Not ever.
	Never.
	Woo!
	Yay!
	you It was that moment there that I found peculiar and I had to look.
	You still can't lose your sense of humor in the madness of the world.
	One for good luck.
	He struck the child.
	Did you see that?
	You can't lose your sense of humor, even if at times you can feel it being sucked out of your body, depending on which hole.
	It could be your front hole or your back hole, depending on who you ask.
	Oh, hold on one second.
	Okay, we have our first super chat of the day.
	Let me just bring it up.
	And then standard disclaimers.
	God, I'm going to be looking reflexively for the camera up here.
	I've got to look there.
	We've got Swell to see you at Ottawa.
	Sylvain, go freedom, freedom for Canada.
	He's back at Ottawa on the weekend.
	Standard disclaimers.
	Gotta look at the right camera.
	No legal advice, no medical advice, no election fortification advice.
	We are streaming on Rumble and on YouTube.
	Rumble gives these things called Super Chat.
	YouTube gives these things called Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of all of these.
	And if some people don't like that, and I can appreciate it.
	We are simultaneously streaming on Rumble, where they have Rumble rants, where Rumble takes 20%, better for the creator, better to support a platform that actually supports free speech.
	And what else was there?
	Yeah, I think I'll be able to get to the Super Chats.
	If I don't bring it up and you're going to be upset, don't give the Super Chat.
	I don't like people feeling upset.
	We're witnessing something, like, not revolutionary.
	It's one crisis after another.
	It's one, I'll say...
	Fabricated crisis after another because this is what media and politicians thrive on.
	And it's when you watch things like this.
	I was watching this with someone.
	She said, these people are actors.
	They're just actors.
	Look at her face.
	Look at the lack of sincerity.
	We are not going back.
	Not ever.
	So say it with me.
	We are not going back.
	We are not going back.
	Not ever.
	They are...
	It's acting.
	It's professional acting for political purposes.
	And what's amazing about watching all of this debate occur in real time, and I guess I've had an awakening that's taken a long time to kick in.
	They're not just actors, by the way.
	They're liars.
	This is...
	Elizabeth Warren.
	I won't go by the joking names who lied about her own heritage.
	For those of you who don't know, I don't know who out there does not know that Elizabeth Warren lied about her heritage.
	She lied about having Indigenous Native American blood.
	She reaped some benefits for having misremembered or misrepresented her genetic ancestry.
	You know, she reaped some social benefits for that.
	The explanation for which she said that she, you know, wrongly believed that she had indigenous blood, based on what some might consider to be stereotypes, apparently her high cheekbones.
	It was because she had high cheekbones that her family believed they had indigenous blood, Native American blood in them.
	And apparently...
	Elizabeth Warren actually statistically has less Native American blood in her, something like one one-thousandth of a percent, or one one-thousandth, versus a standard random American with standard American ancestry.
	Pick a random American out of a crowd will statistically have more Native American blood than Elizabeth Warren herself, who represented professionally.
	I believe on two occasions to have Native American blood.
	Maybe she did it because she believed it.
	Maybe she did it because, you know, identity politics is a fun card to play when it can procure certain benefits and when you can cut in line by doing it.
	So it's not just that they're actors, but they're liars to boot.
	And they get there and they whip up a crowd.
	They whip up a crowd.
	Feign human emotions for political purposes while factually misrepresenting everything.
	Having lived through it now, we are witnessing the same misrepresenting of what's going on with this leaked SCOTUS draft purportedly overturning Roe versus Wade.
	We're seeing the same misrepresenting of this that we saw with the don't say gay bill out of Florida.
	Politics is a disgustingly dirty business and...
	I'll say both sides try to go with a certain branding because branding works.
	I mean, branding works in selling things.
	Branding works in marketing for a product or for a political idea.
	So one side says the bill is don't say gay bill.
	The other side says it's an anti-grooming bill.
	Both are trying to, you know, label, give a nice, neat, catchy label to the product they're selling, which is their legislation or their opposition to the legislation.
	The only difference is sometimes you can assess whether or not the labels are sufficiently accurate.
	And I'll give the Democrats and I'll give the liberals in Canada credit for coming up with catchier labels that also conveniently misrepresent the essence of that which they're trying to market for obvious political purposes.
	The Don't Say Gay bill, it's been recognized by many on the left.
	It actually, it doesn't say Don't Say Gay.
	Some people have astutely pointed out It doesn't say don't say heterosexual either.
	Therefore, you can't teach heterosexual sex to kindergartners, to grade theorists.
	Therefore, you can't have gender labels on bathrooms, so you should remove those too.
	Yeah.
	So the honest members will recognize the misrepresentations in the labeling, but the left does a good job at branding, at marketing, and at selling misrepresented concepts.
	I'm filtering through Twitterverse, and it's like, it feels like an endless barrage.
	It feels like you're swimming upstream of a, I won't say a tsunami, of a torrent of misinformation.
	From Elizabeth Warren.
	I mean, you have to listen to what she says here.
	Let's listen to the words of what she says, because words are relevant.
	Words mean things.
	Not ever!
	Is illegal.
	Where abortion is seen the world.
	Where abortion is illegal.
	And we are not going back.
	Woo!
	outro Thank you.
	This is the talking point.
	The Roe v.
	Wade leak is making the act illegal again.
	That's the talking point.
	It's trickled down.
	It's trickle-down misinformation from Elizabeth Warren right to Ethan Klein's of the world.
	And I would dare say it's actually...
	Elizabeth Warren trickles down to fewer people than influencers propagating this misinformation.
	But it's misinformation as to what the impact of the Roe v.
	Wade draft decision that was leaked is.
	We now can take for granted it's a legit...
	Leak.
	Chief Justice Roberts has seemingly confirmed it, launched an investigation to see how it leaked, who leaked it.
	We're going to get into one of the theories we discussed yesterday because someone else, who seems very smart as well, given their credentials, mentioned the idea as well.
	But now we'll get there.
	People are misrepresenting what the leak means.
	And I'm just a Canadian lawyer trying to understand things.
	Does the Roe v.
	Wade leak?
	Actually mean that we're going to be going back to the world in which, as Elizabeth Warren says to her crowd of fawning supporters, in which the act is illegal.
	And the bottom line is no.
	Where are you going?
	You going outside?
	Okay, go.
	The bottom line is no.
	It's not going back to a world in which the act is illegal.
	It's going back to a world in which it's up to the states to legislate.
	The parameters of what they are going to authorize by way of the act.
	Too complicated.
	It's much easier now to have, you know, the minions running around saying, this draft is going to illegalize the act.
	It's going to set us back.
	I don't know, set us back.
	I mean, I have a problem with the phrasing of that, but it's going to make it illegal again.
	It's not true.
	It's not true, but you repeat this, this gets amplified.
	This gets amplified by social media influencers, blue check marks.
	Doesn't get flagged for misinformation.
	Quite the contrary, from what I can see.
	And then you get people just propagating the lie over and over again, where you get, you know, people everywhere now thinking, oh my goodness, this is the draft that is making the act illegal again.
	As opposed to punting the legality of what ought to have been a state law question to the state legislature.
	To the elected officials of that state and overturning perhaps what was and what was recognized at the time as being a constitutionally specious judgment, enshrining the act in Section 14 of the Constitution under privacy, an act not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, being read into it.
	So that it could become a constitutional issue and therefore not subject to state legislation.
	It would be a constitutional issue and therefore above and beyond the independent powers of the state.
	What is truly, truly fascinating in this is also we're going to get into the...
	I mean, at some point you can make fun of it and you can laugh at it, but at some point it becomes almost too much for comedy.
	Hypocrisy, double standards, sucking and blowing at the same time in a way that is just...
	It's too much to actually appreciate that people don't notice it, that people don't have a problem with it, or that people find a way to rationalize it to themselves.
	You have Elizabeth Warren here clamoring for the preservation, preserving of a constitutional right.
	The act, which actually was never specifically provided for in the Constitution, but she is arguing it's a constitutional right what the Supreme Court in Roe v.
	Wade read into the Constitution, but now they're arguing it's a constitutional right and the courts cannot now come and overturn this constitutional right.
	They are trying to protect, under the pretext of a constitutional right, something which was not specifically provided for in the Constitution.
	While simultaneously denying, seeking to undermine, seeking to overturn, seeking to restrict specific rights that were specifically provided for in the Constitution.
	And you all know what I'm talking about.
	Second Amendment, for one.
	But now also, to some extent, the First Amendment.
	And it's even if, let's just say even if, the Act were in fact specifically provided for in Article 14. You have Elizabeth Warren on the one hand saying, We want to strike down the Second Amendment while preserving the 14th Amendment.
	I love the Constitution when I love it, and I want to overturn it when I disagree with it.
	That's what pledging a loyalty to the Constitution means to intellectually dishonest, morally corrupt mental acrobats.
	But it's great.
	They've now labeled this leak as evidence, good timing, you know.
	Coming from midterms.
	Evidence that Republicans want to, once again, go back.
	I don't know.
	When did the act become illegal?
	When did it become legal?
	As of when was it outright illegal in the United States?
	Hold on.
	Let me just...
	Anyone in the chat knows.
	Let's just go open up a window.
	Here we go.
	New window.
	Google.
	Share.
	Let's do this together.
	Come on.
	Come on, man.
	Share.
	Share screen.
	Chrome tab.
	Google.
	Okay, let's see this here.
	When was legalized in the United States?
	73. So it's Roe v.
	Wade that legalized it up until then.
	The current judicial interpretation of the U.S. Constitution regarding the act following the Supreme Court in the 1973 landmark decision, Roe v.
	and subsequent companion decisions is that it's legal but may be restricted by the states to varying degrees.
	Okay, so it seems that it was illegal.
	We'll operate on the basis.
	I'll have to go do a little more independent verification.
	We'll operate on the basis.
	It was...
	Looking for the wrong camera.
	Illegal up until 1973.
	Or at least in certain states, I guess, outright illegal.
	I don't have to look into that.
	I'm interested in that.
	But it is being now passed off and repeated from the top down that this leak is evidence that they're going to make it once again outright illegal as opposed to passing the buck to the states who are going to respond to the people who elected them in a manner that those, you know, That they think appropriate or that reflects the intention of their electorate.
	Okay, now I've been skipping the super chats a lot here.
	Not skipping, but going to read them.
	I'm confused at the inquiry about the Emergency Act.
	NDP is now saying it shouldn't have been implemented.
	I'm going to have to look into that.
	I'll keep this question started and we'll get back to it afterwards.
	Acting...
	Or not.
	Their lies and manipulation will result in cultists resorting to violence to achieve political means.
	I believe there is a word for that.
	And we're going to get to that when we talk about Steve Chappelle.
	Just, you know, people seeing the political permission slip that they perceive to be given to them.
	Hey, hey, ho, ho, these 60s chants really blow.
	All right.
	And that RVW leak was on purpose to help restore Brandon's...
	Cratering approval rates.
	Interesting.
	Going to keep that one flagged for later.
	Canadian minister just said, USA women can have the act in Canada.
	And Canada doesn't have any, as far as I understand, doesn't have any laws.
	It's a question of finding a doctor who will perform it at any given stage of the pregnancy, depending on the reason.
	And then we got, as an Oklahoma City native, I apologize for Elizabeth Warren.
	Fortunately, our governor just signed a...
	Six-week act ban into law.
	So now, what was I going to do?
	The R versus W leak.
	Yesterday, we were talking about it.
	We cover all angles.
	Why was it leaked?
	Who leaked it?
	Who might have leaked it?
	Do we know?
	Someone shared with me yesterday a tweet from an individual whose operating theory is that it was a righty clerk and not a lefty clerk.
	Okay, Amy Kapczynski says, I clerked at the Supreme Court last night.
	Hold on, let me just see if we're seeing the same thing together here.
	StreamYard, we are good.
	Last night, I'm not going to read the entire thread.
	I assumed a liberal clerk leaked the draft opinion, overturning Roe.
	Now I think much more likely it was leaked by a conservative fanatically committed to every word of Alito's monstrous opinion.
	And there was another part where it said the timing.
	Here we go.
	This was one of the things that I found to change.
	Because I noticed this also.
	The draft was dated February.
	And if someone on the left were so angry about it that they wanted to out it, they would have done it then and not necessarily waited two weeks.
	Although I think midterms is a decent reason to assume...
	Well, the midterms is a decent reason to think that maybe the timing worked out better now than February where people might have forgotten about it by the midterms.
	Timing.
	This draft was circulated in February.
	If a liberal was mad about it, why wait until April to send it to Politico?
	The op will be out in June.
	What are the benefits of releasing it early?
	And a big downside, the focus on the leak itself instead of the opinion.
	Well, anyways, I'll clip this in here.
	You can read it.
	It's an interesting theory.
	I think, as far as I'm concerned right now, the definitive element...
	As to why I think this was probably more...
	Unless it was an outright hack via computer or whatever, we'll find out.
	If it were, in fact, someone who was disgruntled with the decision, I'd have to say it was a lefty, for lack of a better word.
	You know what I mean.
	Someone on the political left angry about the decision that wants to release it, that leaked it.
	Because what I'm finding interesting is the...
	Why would a conservative send it to Politico?
	Also a good point.
	What I find interesting is that in all the discussion, the outrage, the rage, the political rage, nobody is outraged about the leak itself.
	They're only outraged about the substance of the decision itself.
	Whereas, if it could be pinpointed that this leak in fact came from a conservative clerk or a conservative justice, you know darn well then.
	That the political left would have a problem with leaks again.
	Anything you can weaponize against your adversaries to the detriment of your adversaries or weaponize it for your own benefit, like weaponize leaks when it's Trump in the office.
	But if a conservative leaks something that they shouldn't have, go after them with the full force of the law because leaks are illegal.
	If it were a conservative justice, a conservative clerk, or there were any evidence or indication of that, I'd...
	The political left would be all over it.
	Don Dussault, thank you very much.
	I hope you did not mean to put in a comment.
	If you did, please put it in.
	I want to address this.
	Just a parenthesis.
	The distraction argument applies for everything that one individual thinks is not as important as something else that they think is important.
	You know, people are saying the Johnny Depp trial is a distraction.
	Well, first of all, people are saying that to me when I spent Sunday talking about non-Johnny Depp stuff.
	When I spent all of yesterday talking about non-Johnny Depp stuff, but then I tweet something about something else and people are like, distraction!
	There's enough time in the day to cover all of it.
	But the distraction argument always works depending on what one individual finds to be of interest versus another individual.
	So, why would a conservative send it to Politico is the question.
	And if it were a conservative or any indication that a conservative had leaked this, the left would be all over it.
	As it is now, what's shocking yet again, You know, preserving the integrity of the most sacred institutions of the United States of America, secondary to a decision that people don't like, even though even justices on the left at some point in time did comment that this decision was...
	What's the word?
	Not tenacious.
	Was specious in law.
	Hold on.
	Get over here.
	Oh!
	Get over here and say hi!
	Oh!
	The dog would like to say hi to everybody.
	He's getting that...
	Wet carpet smell again.
	Yes, you are.
	Yes.
	I've embarrassed him.
	It's really quite dirty.
	It's like, it's fertilizer season now, so people are like putting, laying salt on the grass and he's picking up a lot of that dirt.
	So I believe if it was leaked, let's just take one example.
	Let's go to the SCOTUS's, let's go to the Supreme Court.
	Joe Biden commenting on this.
	Because it's an amazing commentary.
	It's an amazing press release.
	But not because of what it says.
	Specifically because of what it does not say.
	Let's get out of here.
	How do we do this?
	Go back.
	Go back to the Avatar.
	Where was it?
	Where was it?
	Oh, we're going to get into language, people.
	Speaking of language, we're going to get into it.
	But where was POTUS's...
	Okay.
	Let's read POTUS' statement.
	My statement on the reported Supreme Court decision draft.
	My good God, people.
	And I just realized this in real time.
	My statement on the reported Supreme Court decision draft.
	No, Joe.
	That's a leaked draft.
	Not a report.
	Unless we want to play semantics.
	It's not a lie because of the news reported on the leaked draft.
	But no, Joe.
	That's a leak.
	It should say my statement on the leaked Supreme Court decision draft.
	Words are important, and liars know how to use words very well.
	And I know what some of you are thinking out there.
	Confession through projection.
	I must be a good liar because I know how to pinpoint and pick apart the words of liars.
	Wrong.
	I actually have an outright phobia of lying, and I have a phobia of being thought of as a liar.
	I have a phobia or a fear of making mistakes that people would attribute wrongly.
	To dishonesty as opposed to innocent mistakes.
	But this is, it's shocking.
	I'm reading it out loud to myself again now.
	My statement on the reported Supreme Court decision.
	First of all, I mean, you don't have reported drafts.
	Even if this were a decision, it would have to be a reported decision, and you have decisions that are not reported, not cited.
	Liars.
	This is a lie.
	This is a lie.
	This is misrepresenting, misleading.
	This is misinformation.
	It is not a reported Supreme Court draft.
	It's a leaked draft.
	In other words, it has been leaked unethically and unlawfully.
	But moving on.
	And they repeated again.
	Hold on.
	I want to get out of there.
	Oh yeah, I guess we can go into that and then can I make it bigger?
	Yeah, I can make it bigger.
	Look at that.
	For immediate release, May 3rd.
	That's yesterday.
	Okay.
	A statement by President Biden on reported Supreme Court decision draft.
	We do not know whether this draft is genuine or whether it reflects the final decision of the court.
	Let me just also parse through that.
	We do not know if this draft is genuine.
	Yes, you do.
	I believe Roberts has now confirmed it and confirmed it as at the time of this publication.
	This, if I'm being totally neurotic and paranoid, is a veiled threat.
	This is, here's your window, Supreme Court.
	Either claim it's not genuine or claim that it doesn't reflect the final decision of the court.
	I mean, by definition, by definition, I'm just reading a chat.
	By definition, a draft is not the final decision.
	I mean, by definition.
	And now, you know, it is interesting.
	Now, staged leak, reading it with the drafting of SCOTUS' press release, it's looking more like a staged leak than it looks like that.
	So this is sort of like a veiled thread.
	We don't know if this is genuine.
	So you have SCOTUS, five members who allegedly penned this non-final reported draft.
	It may not be your final decision.
	It would be a shame if something happened to your final decision.
	While that...
	With that critical caveat, I want to be clear on three points about the cases before the Supreme Court.
	So right now you have a sitting SCOTUS commenting by way of tweet and press release on pending cases before the Supreme Court.
	I'm going to spoiler alert.
	When did we not have a problem with that?
	When did the left have a problem with that before?
	Does this qualify as interference in the judicial process?
	Seems to me it was a problem when Trump tweeted on pending cases.
	And from NPR.
	Trump's public comments in tweets could affect legal cases.
	It's not even double standards.
	It's just outright dishonesty.
	But I spoiled the punchline.
	This is SCOTUS commenting on a pending lawsuit, on a pending case before the Supreme Court, now with the benefit of having seen the draft.
	The draft order.
	With that said, he wants to make clear three points on the Supreme Court apparent draft.
	You better listen, Supreme Court.
	POTUS is talking to SCOTUS.
	First, my administration argued strongly before the court in defense of Roe v.
	Wade.
	We said that Roe is based on a long line of precedent recognizing the 14th Amendment's concept of personal liberty against government interference with intensely prejudiced.
	Yes, you made that argument, and now you're seeing what seems to be the majority decision saying, we heard your argument, we disagree with it.
	As I pulled up yesterday, one of the pages from the decision, until this decision, Roe v.
	Wade, there was no mention of it, none, zero, in the Constitution or in jurisprudence.
	I believe that a woman's right to choose is fundamental.
	Roe has been the law of the land for almost 50 years, and basic fairness and the stability of our law demand that it not be overturned.
	That is the principle of jurisprudence, that it has to be, you know, you can't have the highest courts overturning the highest courts because it does create judicial instability, insecurity.
	Who knows if what the highest court says is law today?
	If they can overturn it in five years, it does create insecurity in law and in spirit.
	That being said, there have been bad decisions in the past from the highest court that need to be addressed and that need to be remedied.
	And I can think of what Barnes and I refer to as, you know, the Holy Trinity.
	I think it's not our term anyhow, but Buck v.
	Bell, Korematsu, Dred Scott.
	I mean, there are decisions that are wrong.
	And whether or not they come from the highest court of the land, they have to be righted.
	Because worse than committing a wrong is failing to right that wrong when it becomes clear that it was a wrong in the first place.
	So he's basically talking directly to the sitting court as they're drafting their decision, saying, we've made our arguments to you.
	Maybe you want to rethink our arguments.
	Second, shortly after the enactment of Texas law SB8 and other laws restricting women's reproductive rights, I'm shocked and appalled with the use of women here and not birthing persons.
	We're going to get to this.
	It's faux outrage.
	I'm not outraged at the use of the term women here.
	I'm outraged at the use of the term birthing person by other people in non-ironic, serious terms.
	We'll get there.
	Second, shortly after the enactment of Texas Law SB8 and other laws restricting women's reproductive rights, I directed my Gender Policy Council and White House Counsel's office to prepare options for an administration response to the continued attack on abortion and reproductive rights under a variety of possible outcomes in the cases pending before the Supreme Court.
	We will be ready when a ruling is issued.
	Issue the wrong order, Supreme Court.
	We'll fix it.
	By the way, why do you need to tell the Supreme Court that you're going to legislate a resolution to a problem that you think exists?
	I mean, that's what you do.
	That's the separation of the powers.
	Legislative, executive, judicial.
	One makes the laws, one enforces the laws, the other one interprets the laws.
	Why are you telling the one interpreting the law that if you make the wrong decision, we're going to try to find a legislative solution to it?
	Why are you doing that?
	You're basically saying, make the right decision, because even if you don't, the right decision.
	We're going to fix it by way of legislation, and you're going to have been put on blast for the next however many months to a horde of angry people that are being misled and whipped up into a political frenzy by irresponsible, dishonest politicians.
	That's what is being said right now.
	Third, if the court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation's elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman's right to choose.
	His egregious, repeated...
	Callous use of the term woman in this should be shocking to everybody on their side, on that side, on Joe Biden's side.
	At the federal level, we will need more pro-choice senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law.
	For all those who thought this might have been an orchestrated leak.
	An organized effort.
	It just seems in this third paragraph that this just became a political pitch in time for...
	When are the midterms?
	2022.
	This just became a political pitch.
	If you do it, if you guys do it, Supreme Court, it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November.
	That is what you call a political rallying cry.
	This is campaigning, by the way.
	This is campaigning from the POTUS via press releases on commenting on pending SCOTUS decisions.
	This is a campaign pitch.
	If you do this, Supreme Court, we're going to have to elect more pro-choice officials in November.
	We'll need more pro-choice senators, pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe.
	I mean...
	I'm not being...
	Am I being cynical?
	Am I being cynical?
	Am I seeing things that are not there?
	That's the question.
	Am I seeing things that are not there?
	Because that now, that third paragraph, it went from a veiled threat, in my humble opinion, to stating the obvious, which is itself meaningless, except for the pressure it could put on SCOTUS members.
	Drafting a pending opinion.
	And then it goes into an outright political pitch.
	Oh gosh, if you guys do this, just in time for November, we're going to have to use this as a rallying cry for midterm elections.
	This is POTUS turning this press release into a campaign pitch.
	So, oh my gosh, my back hurts.
	Style, boys.
	No merch today.
	This is Lonely Island merch.
	So hold on.
	That's the press release.
	But by the way...
	Close the window.
	Come on, man.
	Come on, man.
	My statement on this...
	By the way, one thing acutely missing from this entire press release...
	It's got veiled threats.
	It's got opportunistic political campaigning by way of immediate press release from the President of the United States.
	One thing that's missing...
	Guys, we saw, they don't even mention the word leak.
	They refer to it as a reported Supreme Court draft.
	It's a reported draft.
	There's not one mention of the word leak.
	There's no condemnation of the corruption of the most, and I think that the Supreme Court remains, or remained at least, the most venerable political institution, or apolitical, you know what I mean, the most venerable institution in preserving the fabric of a free, democratic, And functional society?
	There's not one word of the corruption that led to the leak of what would be one of the most monumentous Supreme Court decisions in the history of the court.
	Not one word.
	They don't even call it a leak.
	It's a report.
	Someone did their job.
	Someone didn't break the law.
	Someone did their job.
	Someone did their civic duties by reporting this draft.
	Yep.
	So that's it.
	Acutely missing is not even condemnation, but even recognition that this was an unlawful, unethical leak that compromises probably the most important institution in the United States.
	Is the Supreme Court more important than politicians?
	Yeah, because it's supposed to keep them in check.
	Is it more important than faith in the...
	Prosecutorial system?
	Yes, because it's supposed to keep prosecutorial abuse in check.
	We now have corrupt politicians, corrupt prosecutors, and now we have corruption, infiltrating, oozing from the Supreme Court itself, and the current sitting president doesn't have one word of condemnation for it, doesn't even recognize it.
	And while the current sitting president makes public tweets speaking directly to the court that is sitting on a case, That POTUS argued, you know, not one peep from the media saying, my goodness, didn't the media go nuts when Trump did the same thing?
	I mean, this is effectively, in law, ex parte communications with the judge.
	I mean, not ex parte, but after the fact.
	You know, are they going to, is the plaintiff, or sorry, who are the parties, is the other party in this lawsuit going to now issue public statements pleading to the Supreme Court?
	They had their day in court.
	The court is drafting its judgment, and now POTUS is seizing and exploiting an unlawful and unethical leak of a draft decision to continue pleadings to that very same court without the same benefit privilege being imparted on the other parties to that suit.
	I mean, it's unethical from top to bottom.
	Okay, let me see what we got in the super chats here that I think I got before.
	Far left, always focus on small number of fringe examples and pretend they're the norm.
	It makes for terrible laws that harm everyone.
	They cause misery.
	So what my labor law professor said at LaValle University, you don't make the rule from the exception.
	And if there are exceptional cases that require their own specific rule, you don't make an exception to the rule.
	You just make a separate rule that governs the exceptional cases.
	And the rule...
	For all should not be based on the exponentially small minority of individuals, exceptions in the technical sense, who could be not exempt from the applicable rule, but rather just subject to another rule.
	I will not read that, but I will let everyone else read that.
	This leak is to promote narrative to get people to vote Democrat by presenting Republicans as...
	Bad.
	Protecting rights.
	Done also with voter ID.
	Fox, Fox.
	Okay.
	This one we got to now that we've discussed the theory behind the leak.
	What do we got here?
	I'm confused with the...
	Oh, yeah.
	Sorry, I'll get to that one later.
	And...
	Yeah, we got to that one.
	I'll bring that one out.
	Okay.
	So, I mean, that's it.
	I haven't seen...
	Any of the politicians on the left.
	Elizabeth Warren.
	Joe Biden.
	Who's the one?
	I haven't seen anybody complaining about the leak itself.
	It's just...
	Well, this is by the French Canadian.
	I won't read this, but this is something that Barnes and I have also discussed during our streams.
	It's the logical inconsistency.
	On the one hand...
	The act should be legal.
	The act is not a crime.
	On the other hand, go to California.
	If someone assaults a pregnant mother and causes the death of the unborn child, it is a crime.
	So you can't have it both ways.
	You can't have it both ways where you recognize it as an independent life for the purposes of punishment under certain assault and criminal charges, but not as an independent life, punishable by the same punishment for similar.
	You can't have it both ways.
	And so what you could do, legislatively, if you need to reconcile two principles of law, at a certain point in time, the law has to recognize it as such for the purposes of application of the provisions of the law.
	For good and for bad.
	Whether some people like it and whether they don't.
	So you can't have these third trimester terminations.
	You can't have what Norfolk is describing.
	Post-delivery.
	You can't have it and have it not be that which is already illegal if it were a third party who did it to the very same entity.
	With the consent of a mother, in law, consent to assault is not a defense.
	You cannot consent to being assaulted.
	You can't consent to someone ending your life and then say, well, I have it on video.
	They said they wanted me to...
	End their life and cook them.
	I mean, this is an actual case out of Germany.
	So yeah, it's the mutual inconsistency, the incompatible mutually or simultaneously held beliefs.
	In California, you know, the most liberal of states, if someone assaults a pregnant woman and causes the end of that pregnancy, it's murder.
	If the mother, you know, chooses to do it, it's a protected right.
	You cannot simultaneously hold those two beliefs.
	I'm trying to think of a way that you can't.
	You can't.
	You can't.
	How do you know that the POTUS response was written on May 3?
	It could have been written weeks ago in anticipation of the leak, especially if the leak was part of a political campaign.
	Well, if I were going to...
	It's a good point, by the way.
	And if I were in the business of making FOIA requests, I would ask for the metadata on that document.
	When was it created?
	When was it drafted?
	It was definitely edited.
	It was definitely drafted and edited multiple times.
	There will be previous versions of it.
	I'd like to see all previous versions of that date.
	The date of the document was created.
	All proposed amendments or all modifications to the draft.
	I'd like to see that.
	People don't appreciate this.
	Metadata in electronic documents can contain, what do they call them?
	Easter eggs?
	Beautiful Easter eggs.
	I wouldn't mind knowing when was that document created.
	Because it's sort of a...
	It's not well drafted, but it didn't take five minutes.
	Although, I mean, I think I could have drafted that in five minutes.
	The timing argument doesn't work.
	Clerks get limited time with the draft.
	They could have been taking a picture a day, taking three months to get the full doc.
	No, I mean, look, respectfully, I would say no.
	They get the entirety of the draft.
	They've got to forward it.
	They make the changes.
	The clerks, it's not the Supreme Court justices that draft that.
	It's the clerks that drafted.
	They submitted to the Supreme Court justices for their review, but they work on the drafts.
	You can be certain that the Biden administration had a role in this leak, possibly even initiated the entire scheme.
	There's nothing they won't do.
	Politics is dirty.
	Some people wouldn't even say that's corruption.
	They'd say it's good politics.
	It's good politics when we do it, and it's an impeachable offense when they do it.
	So...
	Yeah, not one mention of the potential illegality of the draft, of the leak.
	And it's mind-blowing.
	But what I found particularly also shocking about that document was the gratuitous use of the word woman.
	Because we now live in an absolute bizarro universe where some represented officials...
	Don't even feel comfortable using the word woman.
	Apparently, it's an offensive term.
	It's an offensive term.
	What they think is more appropriate and less misogynistic is referring to a woman as a bag of meat for the purposes of birthing.
	Just make sure that we're seeing the same thing here because this is just next level.
	It's not even funny anymore.
	It's not funny anymore.
	But I mean, you can't help but laugh at the absolute idiocy.
	So Rep.
	Francisca Hong.
	I don't know who she is.
	Official Twitter.
	Account for Representative Francesca Hong, Wisconsin's 76th Assembly District, she, her.
	Black Lives Matter, wear a damn mask.
	She's an elected official.
	Birthing bodies have the right to freedom.
	I first saw this.
	I thought it was a parody account.
	Hold on, hold on.
	I'm going back.
	No, look, it's a blue checkmark, and it's not a parody account.
	Birthing bodies have the right to freedom.
	Deciding if or when to become a parent is one of the most personal, life-changing decisions.
	I absolutely agree with that.
	Access to the act and reproductive care is a decision we must trust each person to make based on what's best for their health and their future.
	What is a birthing body?
	Let's just see what happens to this person who asks basically anyone with a uterus, including trans men and non-binary folks.
	My wife came to me the other day and said, my God, Twitter is just a black hole.
	You go down these rabbit holes.
	It's a biological woman.
	The term is strangely reminiscent.
	Of A Handmaid's Tale.
	Scary stuff.
	I gotta watch Handmaid's Tale.
	I haven't seen it.
	But bottom line, people?
	Birthing bodies.
	They may as well call them a bag of reproductive meat.
	I mean, that's birthing bodies.
	They're not even humans anymore.
	They're flesh and bones, the purpose of which is to birth humans into this world.
	Once upon a time, referring to a woman as a baby maker was actually misogynistic.
	It was actually totally offensive to reduce a woman to the biological function or the biological attributes of a woman.
	To refer to a woman as a babymaker or that part of the body as a babymaker is offensive.
	It is, was, will be the reduction of a human and a reduction of half of humankind to a function.
	But now it seems...
	Now it seems that not only is it not offensive, but it's cool.
	It's cool to deny women their very existence.
	It's cool to deny women their very identity.
	You're not a woman.
	You are a bag of meat that serves for the purposes of birthing.
	I'm so tolerant.
	Aren't I tolerant?
	I've denied your existence.
	I know you fought for your rights for 100 years.
	I know you did.
	You fought for the women's right to vote.
	You fought for equality.
	You fought for...
	You fought for independence so you could drive cars, open your bank accounts.
	I know you did, but you're not a woman.
	You're a birthing body.
	You are what you do.
	Now get to it.
	I mean, it's over the top.
	And it doesn't end with birthing bodies.
	Where was Cernovich's tweet from earlier today?
	And these are real people.
	These are real.
	Do I want to do this?
	Chest feeders, birthing persons, front holes.
	You don't believe.
	I think people are skeptical.
	Let's just go front holes definition.
	Ooh.
	It could be risky.
	This could be risky.
	Wiktionary.
	Now, front hole.
	Plural front holes.
	At least they pluralized the proper word and didn't go front hole.
	Uncommon.
	A vagina.
	You see, I could actually appreciate that definition because it is surgically possible to...
	And that's what physical transition therapy would look like.
	And I've seen the surgery.
	It's fascinating from a medical scientific perspective what can be done to transition physically from one...
	To recreate those organs on someone who was not born with them.
	So I can actually understand referring to it as a front hole for a trans man.
	But I've got to tell you one thing.
	I would find that offensive as a trans man.
	Basically, you're reducing what I believed I felt as my misdesignated but gender of spirit.
	You're not referring to it as a vagina.
	You're referring to it as a front hole.
	That's the best they could have done with me?
	Just make a hole on my front side?
	People don't even realize.
	This is objectification of humans writ large.
	This objectifies women, and this objectifies trans men.
	I know you wanted to be a woman, Mr. Transman, but we're not even going to call it a vagina as if there's something female.
	I mean, of essence.
	Of a vagina, but not a front hole.
	We understand you were born biologically male.
	You feel...
	That you ought to have been a woman or you feel like a woman.
	You want to transition.
	We're not even going to dignify the physical surgery you've gone through to transform your body.
	We're not even going to dignify it as a vagina.
	We're going to call it a front hole.
	You will always be known not as the woman that you wanted to be with a vagina that you've now surgically gone through a great deal to have.
	We're going to call it a front hole.
	We are so tolerant by reducing your very existence to names and words which actually, in my very humble opinion, degrade your very existence while degrading the existence of others, but we get to use it as political goodwill for our political existence.
	What was the other one?
	What was the other one we're going to take a chance and get risque on the lies?
	Chess feeders.
	You got...
	Look, you guys want irony?
	You want irony?
	What is chest feeding, and why is it so important?
	In a publication called Motherly, you better change that publication, Motherly, to Personally, because you're calling it chest feeding and not breastfeeding, presumably to cater to the very crowd that you're alienating by the very virtue of the name of your publication itself.
	We're so tolerant.
	We don't see gender.
	We don't see breastfeeding or vaginas.
	We see front holes and chest feeding in a publication called Motherly.
	Let me just make sure that this is a fair assessment of the absolute hypocrisy, double standards, lack of self-awareness.
	There are many ways to feed a baby, and all of them are pretty fantastic.
	Most people have heard of breastfeeding.
	Oh, okay, fine.
	Breastfeeding, bottle feeding, pumping, and maybe even cup syringe.
	But there's another type that deserves attention, chest feeding.
	As all parents who have ever fed a baby know well, chest feeding can be beautiful and really hard often at the same time.
	For many, chest feeding carries with it additional complexities that deserve attention.
	What is chest feeding?
	Chest feeding is the process of feeding a human child milk from a person's chest.
	It's a term that can be used by anyone.
	But often is used by transgender and non-binary people for whom the words breastfeeding or nursing are not an ideal fit.
	In your publication called Motherly...
	So that's it, people.
	You got it now.
	Chest feeding is a thing.
	What was the third one?
	Someone had said...
	Oh, frontals.
	So...
	You could make this stuff up, but no one would believe it.
	I mean, it's the stuff that you see in Idiocracy.
	But...
	Just tone down a touch so that it's not as absurdly idiotic as idiocracy.
	This is not a joke.
	Birthing bodies.
	Women no longer exist.
	They have been erased from humanity.
	Their very existence is an offense to the tolerant people who substitute the word woman for birthing bodies.
	Abject objectification of half of humankind.
	Very progressive.
	Oh, man.
	Reality has become stranger than fiction.
	It's the Vigoda Urban Dictionary.
	I'm not sure I can do that while live.
	That might be too much of a liability.
	Holy crap, I've missed a lot of comments.
	I see chesticles.
	Interesting.
	You mean it's a chest-feeding assault?
	Wow.
	Someone said in response to one of my tweets, if the vagina is called a frontal, what are they calling a penis?
	What are they going to call a penis now?
	The crying snake?
	Are they going to call it a leaky pipe?
	If it's offensive to some people, and I don't really think it is, I don't think there's anybody who actually gets offended, even a trans individual who surgically has a vagina, Done medically.
	I don't think they find it offensive.
	I think it's white knights running around the world, finding a fence, fabricating a fence, so they can then pretend to be the saviors of people who never took a fence in the first place.
	But, but, I cannot pick her up.
	No.
	I have a doctor's appointment.
	If vagina is offensive and in order to be tolerant and hip and with it, politically speaking, you've got to call it a front hold.
	What are we going to call the penis now?
	You've got to find a new word for the penis because otherwise that will also be alienating to some.
	Leaky pipe or, I don't know, chat.
	Go with creative terms.
	Maybe we could come up with something that will substitute for the gender-based Highly offensive, exclusionary term, penis.
	Never thought I'd be talking about penises on a live stream.
	I'm confused at the...
	Oh, why do I keep bringing this one up?
	Timing argument doesn't work.
	Okay, I got that one.
	Birthing persons...
	Seeking the act.
	Birthing person means giving birth, doesn't it?
	Giving birth to what?
	A fetus?
	You can't make sense of it.
	You can't make sense of it.
	You're playing chess with rules that keep on changing.
	Women need to grow up and be pro-choice prior to having sex and use one of the 30 forms of birth control available for little cost at the ACA.
	Nobody cares about my opinion on that.
	We can have a discussion later on.
	You know, these are discussions that you shouldn't really have because bottom line, people are going to have their beliefs.
	You're never going to convince anybody else.
	It might be useful to know if someone is in on the Norfolk end of the spectrum versus the, you know, life begins conception spectrum.
	I know which side of that spectrum I would rather hang out with.
	Biden can't mention illegality as the source will eventually be revealed.
	If they lose in November, an approval of illegal action will impeach them.
	I don't even care.
	We know it's illegal.
	We know it's unethical.
	And by failing to actually condemn it, that's a tacit endorsement.
	So I think he's screwed one way or the other.
	We got the scrotette front stick.
	So scrotette is nice, but in French that actually sounds like...
	I once knew a girl whose name was Babette.
	I was in love with her for a bit in camp, Babette.
	She was so beautiful.
	So no, scrotette I think is actually...
	Scrotette.
	No.
	Front stick.
	Front pillar.
	By the way, if I'm going projection through convention, one guy referring to it as a stick and another one as a pillar.
	I would have gone with...
	Can't make dingy jokes.
	Inverted pipe.
	Dipstick thingy.
	Okay.
	Forget it.
	Clutch.
	Clutch.
	This one might be my favorite.
	A peener.
	Expandable urinary.
	Okay, well, that's funny stuff, people.
	I'm going to have to just rub my eye here.
	It is people fabricating outrage, feigning outrage for the protection of people who they clearly view as their...
	Spiritual, intellectual inferiors in that they need someone to fake outrage for their protection because they're unable to do it themselves.
	That's the way I see it.
	Maybe I'm wrong.
	Maybe I'm being too cynical.
	It is people white knighting and they're chasing windmills so they can fight something.
	They are creating victims so they can white knight for victims.
	And on that subject...
	Beautiful.
	It's almost like I thought of that segue itself.
	On the idea of creating the victims so that you can find someone to protect.
	No one's doing it better than Ethan Klein these days.
	Where is Ethan Klein's tweet?
	Oh, look at this.
	I mean, this pairs everything into one tweet.
	lies to influence millions, to stoke faux outrage, while purporting to create a new class of victims so that you can then come out and be the savior to them.
	Ethan Klein.
	I don't know why I follow him, but whatever.
	I guess it's for...
	You need to know what people are saying.
	That's how I justify it to myself.
	Women are officially second-class citizens in America, now with Roe v.
	Wade overturned.
	Hmm.
	Hasn't happened yet, by the way, even if it is going to happen.
	But according to Ethan Klein, he sees women as second-class citizens now, as of now, even though it hasn't been overturned yet.
	And even if it were overturned, it would not...
	I don't know how it would turn women into second-class citizens.
	It's a very bizarre way of viewing it.
	That even if...
	If all women were subject to a specific law that is specific to women reproductive rights, they would be second-class citizens in that they would not be able to...
	They'd be second-class citizens to whom?
	Anyhow, it's also just factually incorrect.
	Almost a lie.
	If the individual making the statement knows that it's false.
	The very basic right to control your body is lost.
	Also false.
	It's just going to be passed down to the states to regulate certain acts that can be done with questions that necessarily implicate more than just one person's body.
	Hence the idea of birthing persons because you're birthing something and it's not an inanimate carbon rod.
	Maybe that will call it the carbon rod.
	No.
	It's a scary time to be a woman in America.
	Who are you talking for, Ethan?
	And I'll support you with everything I can.
	Oh, thank you.
	And by the way, it's just everything about this is...
	And then you can go read through the responses, and it's people who buy into this characterization of events.
	And then I just have to say, you hear that?
	Women.
	Your knight in shining armor is here to save you, to support you with everything he can, which for the time being is a dishonest, factually misleading, and equally patronizing tweet with a very suggestive avatar.
	I mean, it's just, everything about it is wrong.
	Everything about it is wrong.
	It's just, I'll support you.
	You need me.
	You need me to support you.
	And the way I'm going to support you is by misrepresenting the very subject that I say you are so deeply affected by.
	That was one.
	No, I don't want to do that.
	There's so many, but there was another issue that I wanted to talk about on this particular subject before we move on at some point.
	Maybe we covered it all.
	Oh no, here we go.
	Talking about tweets.
	Again, dishonest, inaccurate, misrepresenting tweets.
	And the irony behind him that you could not make up...
	I mean, it would be great if someone drafted this.
	So I guess...
	I don't even know what's going on.
	I don't know who the individual is.
	John Newf, he says, men shouldn't be making laws about women's bodies.
	Men shouldn't be making laws about women's bodies.
	One, two...
	I guess he ran out of characters to repeat the same sentence.
	One, two, three, four, five times.
	Men...
	Shouldn't be making laws about women's bodies.
	Does John Knopf, does he get cancelled for not referring to women as birthing persons?
	Or allies get forgiven, adversaries get cancelled.
	The joke is there, it's just so obvious.
	In the context of this debate, are you saying women?
	That's an offensive term because I think we're supposed to be saying birthing persons now.
	Who are you to decide?
	Who's a man and who's a woman?
	Are you a biologist?
	Because you know that KBJ, Ketanji Brown Jackson, when asked to define a woman, said, Supreme Court nominee in the confirmation hearings, I can't define a woman.
	I'm not a biologist.
	Well, it seems that John Knopf is a biologist because he can identify a man and a woman.
	And if you go to his Twitter feed, oh, it says I take photos now.
	It didn't say I take photos before.
	It did not say, I take photos before.
	What it said before, I'm not a biologist.
	I screen grabbed it.
	And I just, it was too funny.
	The individual, defining men and defining women quite clearly, he can identify them, but Katanji Brown Jackson can't.
	Because she's not a biologist.
	In his own bio, I guess before it got changed, I'm not a biologist.
	Not a biologist.
	Now it says, I take photos.
	Is this, are there two different...
	I don't know how you can tell.
	Whatever.
	It literally said, not a biologist.
	I mean, this is the type of irony that can only be born from total indoctrination and absolute lack of self-awareness.
	And it's only going to be a matter of time before they have to start deleting these tweets because it's going to be offensive and it's going to be a cancelable offense to have had the audacity to presume what a woman is.
	I don't know what a woman is.
	I just know that this law is an attack on...
	A group of people whom I cannot identify.
	That's very, very logical.
	Oh, I don't know.
	Is there anything more on this subject, people?
	I don't know.
	Let's see here.
	We got salty legion in the house.
	Booyah.
	A woman is a human born with female parts.
	Let me see this here.
	What are you after you cannot give birth anymore?
	What are you after you cannot give birth anymore?
	I don't know which way this is supposed to go.
	I presume it's supposed to be ironic.
	And yes, duly noted.
	Duly noted.
	But let me see.
	I'm just going to go refresh.
	It's a world of absolute limitless irony, hypocrisy.
	Humor is the best way to address it because humor spreads and humor is the best means of making the point in a manner that most people will accept.
	Violence is obviously not the right way to do it.
	It's just not because it doesn't achieve...
	First of all, it's wrong.
	And second, it doesn't achieve the intended goals.
	Humor does.
	And there's a reason why...
	You know, there's a reason why the court jester existed in the first place, and there's also a reason why tyrants have to censor the comics first.
	Because you can be exquisitely poignant through humor in a way that you can't be through aggression, in a way that you can't be through violence, and you can be convincing through humor in a way that you can't be through other means.
	Hold on a second here.
	A human female that cannot give birth anymore, why are we trying to legislate intent?
	Old bodies.
	Okay, whatever.
	It's a battle of words when words cease having meaning.
	And people are calling it Marxism, and I wish I didn't understand enough of the term Marxism to throw it around.
	But one thing is clear.
	And I think it's Totally fabricated outrage.
	And it's politically motivated.
	It actually demeans and degrades the people that the people invoking all of this terminology are purporting to protect and purporting to represent.
	It's just politics.
	These are tools and weapons of war for politics.
	Get that out of there.
	Come on over here.
	But what else?
	So anyways, that's it.
	On the leak.
	I don't think it was a righty clerk or a conservative clerk or a conservative justice.
	If it were, we would have known about it by now.
	Everything else that's going on...
	Oh, look at this.
	Oh!
	Almost forgot.
	How dare they!
	Hold on.
	What's going on here?
	Stop.
	Stop, stop, stop.
	I'm going to close this window.
	Where is the window that I had open?
	This is classic.
	It's classic because I didn't know it, but I made it into a...
	A New York Times Magazine article.
	Here we go.
	Not that that was the goal, but that's illustrating the point that humor goes further than rudeness or aggression.
	Where was it?
	It was Kamala Harris talking on the subject.
	And the inconsistency between...
	Here we go.
	How dare they?
	How dare they tell a woman what she can do and cannot do with her own body?
	How dare they?
	How dare they try to stop her from determining her own future?
	How dare they try to deny women their rights and their freedoms?
	music
	I'll be the first to admit I'm not a master memer.
	I'm not particularly good at it, but you have the thoughts.
	They're sitting there talking about how dare anybody tell a woman what to do with her body.
	These are the same people who spent the last, I don't know, as of when the Fauci jab or the Fauci juice became available, the same people telling people what they have to do with their body.
	Oh yeah, but that's because it's contagious, so you have to be told what to do with your body, but you know.
	Spreading a virus is different than spreading a life.
	Okay?
	We can tell you, you have full medical control over your body when it's good for us.
	But we own your body when we say we own your body.
	I mean, again, mutually incompatible statements.
	And there's only so many times you can say it in a day.
	But I found also that repetition is the best way to go about making a point.
	Because, why, just yesterday.
	Just yesterday.
	Here we go.
	Let's look at this guy.
	Just yesterday, you have the Liberal Party of Canada.
	Women's rights are human rights.
	That's why we're proudly pro-choice.
	Women's rights are human rights.
	That's why we're proudly...
	I believe the vaccines should be mandatory for travel and planes and trains.
	I believe the vaccines...
	How many times in one day can you point out the endless rampant hypocrisy?
	Repetition allows the message to get to even the most...
	Reluctant, the most indoctrinated.
	But you have some people saying birthing person's front holes, and then you have other people saying women and her.
	What is it?
	And then I made a tweet, which seems to have gotten into...
	Where was the...
	This is not a joke.
	It was in a Fox News article.
	Where was it?
	Hold on, hold on.
	Fox News, Viva Frye.
	News?
	Oh yeah, here we go.
	Conservatives, I'm conservative apparently.
	Mock Kamala Harris, how dare they speech.
	And where was it?
	In a viral clip of her statement, Harris asked defiantly, how dare they?
	How dare they tell a woman what she can do with her own body?
	How dare they?
	How dare they try to stop her from determining her own future?
	Conservative Twitter users blasted Harris.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Greta Thunberg.
	Kamala Harris.
	Where was it?
	Oh yeah, here we go.
	YouTuber and conservative Viva Frye.
	My goodness.
	Provided a sarcastic critique of the vice president's speech.
	Kamala Harris, in a wanton act of bigotry and misogyny, callously presupposes the gender and definition of woman.
	Or worse, she deliberately denies the existence of non-woman birthing persons.
	She's cancelled, right?
	Them's the rules.
	There's no consistency in any of this madness.
	The one consistency is that they will be deliberately inconsistent and politically motivated, stirring up divide so they can better their chances of re-election.
	Divide and conquer.
	It's what Justin Trudeau has done very well in Canada, and it seems to be, at the very least, what the current administration is doing.
	Very well on the states.
	You know, the interesting thing is you're going to see states' legislatures enact laws, and you're going to actually see what the public sentiment is.
	I don't think the public sentiment, as being described by the blue checkmark MSM political types, I don't think it's accurate.
	I don't think it's accurate.
	I actually think it's wildly inaccurate.
	I think that, you know, the vast majority of people Probably agree on, I would say 90% of people out there agree on 90% of the debate of this particular issue.
	Safe, what was it?
	Oh, safe, legal, and rare, I think were the terms.
	Population control, before birth, current topic, and inner city for afterbirth.
	Think about it, but first.
	Psalm 127, colon 3. Behold, children are a heritage of Adonai.
	That is God in Hebrew for those who don't know.
	The fruit of the womb, a reward.
	Satan hates God and his heritage.
	And I can tell you this, people.
	You know that I'm not religious in that sense.
	The Bible, you can appreciate.
	What did I just do here?
	You can appreciate the stories of the Bible even if you don't believe in the Bible as the religious side of it, but rather the historical or at the very least the moral side of it.
	What is that?
	I saw a super...
	Okay, I'm sorry.
	Chico, come on, man.
	We're adults here.
	That distracted me from exactly what I was just saying two seconds ago.
	My goodness.
	I absolutely forgot.
	Oh, no. 90% of people agree on 90% of this.
	I think it's the vocal minority that makes what is actually a minority opinion Look or feel like a majority opinion.
	If not in opinion itself, in consequences for those who dare disagree.
	Viva, you hilariously go off in tangents and get easily distracted.
	I love it.
	Some people don't, but I gotta tell you, if some people don't like the tangents, this is not the channel for you.
	What was I talking about before I got confused?
	Anyhow, that's it.
	So I made it into Fox News, I guess that's...
	I now understand how they do it.
	They just go and look through for blue checkmark Twitter handles to take the perspective.
	It's good.
	This is the only reason why I wanted the blue checkmark on Twitter.
	It was not for the clout.
	I didn't even know that there were perks.
	You could directly DM other blue checkmarks.
	I didn't know that and I have not done that.
	I wanted it to dilute the madness of the blue checkmark crowd on Twitter.
	And I think...
	I hope I am succeeding in that goal.
	That and I also didn't want people pretending to be my account and making, you know, offensive tweets purporting to be me so that there can be scandal after scandal.
	But where?
	Where's this girl?
	Where is it?
	I'm joking.
	There's a dog down here, but he's sleeping.
	I wanted that blue checkmark so I could dilute the ignorance and stupidity and dishonesty of the blue checkmark crowd on the Twitterverse.
	And I hope I'm doing it.
	Okay, now, moving on.
	What was the other piece of news that I pulled up the article on?
	Son of a beasting.
	Hold on.
	No, no, this is a problem.
	There was chat.
	What did I want to talk about today?
	Other than this, there was news that was interesting.
	Give me two seconds or I'm going to read through some of the chats.
	And yeah, I'm not going to bring up Chico's.
	All right.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Give me 30 seconds, people.
	It wasn't Johnny Depp.
	It was...
	Oh, by the way, tonight we have Darren Beattie, writer at The Revolver, coming on.
	It's going to be amazing.
	It is going to be amazing.
	Like, objectively.
	So tune in for that.
	I couldn't create the link beforehand because...
	I cannot have two simultaneously links.
	Two simultaneous live streams on Rumble for a reason I think they're going to get to.
	They're going to fix that sooner than later.
	Oh, Tabarnouche.
	Oh, there's that.
	Talking about hypocrisy, by the way.
	This is something that I think the photograph has been sufficiently confirmed that I can share it without fearing that I've been caught in a trap.
	You know, a picture is worth a thousand words.
	A picture defines a politician.
	A picture defines a party.
	So there's that picture of Hillary Clinton.
	Picture of Hillary Clinton at that MET gala.
	Donning this beautiful, beautiful...
	I mean, I don't find it beautiful, but I don't care about the fashion side of it.
	Donning this beautiful dress, posing for pictures at their Hunger Games event.
	Unmasked.
	And then I don't care that the individual happens to be black.
	I mean, it just makes the image look even worse.
	It's the fact that the lessers, you want to talk about creating second-class citizens?
	The workers have to wear masks around their physiological superiors while they're working on their dresses.
	I googled it in TinEye, and I did not see it in their searches.
	And I believe Hillary Clinton...
	Dress, M-E-T.
	See, the funny thing is, you don't see that picture in most places.
	And I want to see...
	Oh, yeah, the embroidery.
	I just needed to make sure that that...
	There you go.
	No, it's real.
	Okay, boom, right there.
	Look at this, guys.
	How do I...
	No, I dismiss.
	I'm not signing up.
	I don't...
	How do I maximize the screen?
	I can't.
	Look, it's like...
	The lowly employees have to wear masks.
	Everything about it is so damn disgusting.
	It's just damn disgusting.
	And you have Supreme Leader Hillary Clinton.
	It's like something out of a picture book from 75 years ago in worst times of American history, of human history.
	Look how beautiful it is.
	I'm going to go see what the embroidery is.
	I couldn't care less what the embroidery says.
	It's, oh yeah, her masked servants flaying out her dress so that Queen Hillary, unmasked Queen Hillary, because she's not a worker.
	She doesn't have to wear a mask.
	That's for the, someone said grunts in here?
	No.
	That's for the peasants.
	You wear your masks when you straighten the dress of the royalty.
	It's disgusting and it's shocking.
	That was not exactly what I wanted to talk about.
	The outright hypocrisy that it's everywhere and they pretend to be morally virtuous while engaging in it.
	But the funny thing is that that image which was circulating, I don't know if Tin Eye is politically motivated, but I found it very curious.
	That I could not find that image on TinEye.
	Screen share.
	TinEye reverse image search.
	Zero.
	TinEye searched over 53.6 billion images and didn't find any matching this.
	I have trouble believing that.
	Anyhow, and then some humorous stuff.
	Elon Musk.
	I had to do it.
	Sometimes I make good memes.
	But Elon Musk said, sunlight is the best disinfectant on Twitter.
	And I made an image.
	Where I said this is disputed.
	I won't lie.
	Trying to do something funny enough that Elon retweets it.
	This is dangerously close to medical misinformation, Elon Musk.
	Yes, this is photoshopped.
	I've got to make sure that Twitter doesn't flag me for sharing photoshopped doctored images.
	It's a satirical image just so that Twitter does not flag my tweet as disinformation.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Okay, so that's it.
	Look, I think I'm going to...
	I can't remember the story now that I was going to talk about.
	No, no, no.
	No.
	Oh, I was on...
	Did an interview with Eric Duhem, leader of the Conservative Party of Quebec.
	All right.
	I'm going to go to the chat and just take some questions before we wind this down.
	And then maybe I'm going to go back to listening to the Johnny Depp trial.
	I had the perfect comment, but Hillary deleted it.
	Okay, what do we got here?
	Oh, so sorry.
	Coming back to the subject from earlier.
	I'm confused.
	At the inquiry about the Emergency Act, NDP is now saying it shouldn't have been implemented.
	So, for everybody who doesn't know, this is coming out of Canada.
	Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act to violently suppress what had otherwise been a nuisance, but a peaceful protest that lasted three weeks in Ottawa.
	Came in with the police, busted people up, literally.
	A war veteran who fought and gave a limb in Afghanistan.
	Three of his comrades in Afghanistan died in the same attack where his body was blown apart.
	They physically assaulted him when they arrested him, cuffed him, made him stand up in the freezing cold for two hours with his arms tied behind his back, didn't give him his pain medication, then hauled him off outside of Ottawa like a bag of garbage.
	The only reason Justin Trudeau was able to do this is because he invoked the Emergencies Act.
	Because existing laws were insufficient to deal with the crisis.
	And he came in, didn't come in with the police, didn't bring in the military, sorry, but brought in a highly militarized police force.
	Well, he invoked the Emergencies Act.
	It's a law that had never been invoked in Canadian history under the current form, Emergencies Act.
	It was the War Measures Act, once upon a time.
	It had been invoked twice, I think, and once by Justin's father back in the FLQ crisis in the 70s.
	But under that law, once you invoke that act, you are legally required under the law to cause an inquiry to be held looking into the reasons, the declaration of the invocation of that act.
	Now, looking into the reasons for the invocation of the act doesn't mean reinvestigating that which was at the core of invoking the act.
	It means...
	Assessing the government's decision to do it.
	It's for transparency of the government decision, not a prosecutorial weapon for those that the government said were the reason for which they invoked the act.
	Now Justin Trudeau has to call that inquiry within 60 days of the rescinding or ending of the declaration, and it was rescinded or revoked.
	And now the NDP, the filthy, hypocrite, bald-faced liars that they are, who voted along with Justin Trudeau to ratify the...
	At the House of Commons level, the same hypocrite, lying politicians who supported Justin Trudeau's decision to invoke it, who voted for it, are now, from the looks of that tweet, I haven't seen the article, pretending it ought not have been declared.
	I tell you, the NDP is worse than the Liberals.
	The New Democratic Party, they're worse than the Liberals because at least you know the Liberals are dishonest.
	The NDP pretends to be honest while being dishonest.
	Jagmeet Singh.
	When Justin Trudeau invoked the act and was arguing for why it was necessary, Jagmeet Singh came up in front of Parliament when they were debating this in the House of Commons and said Trudeau mismanaged the entire protest, incompetent, called him corrupt, called him a dangerous politician, divisive, and then voted along to give that same corrupt, divisive, incompetent leader unprecedented powers under the Emergencies Act.
	That's the NDP for you.
	Terrible.
	I have no doubt they're going to turn face down.
	It should have never been declared.
	We didn't know what we were voting for.
	I have no doubt they're going to do that because they're lying hypocrites.
	Can't be trusted as far as they can be thrown.
	So I'm going to go check out that article, but that's the news there.
	That's the answer to that question.
	I have no doubt they're going to pretend they never supported it in the first place, even though Jagmeet Singh, the leader of the party and the other NDP members, voted for it.
	Because allegedly, in their ever...
	Good judgment in their ever-loving wisdom.
	It was needed because there were no existing laws to deal with a national emergency.
	A national emergency, which was a protest with bouncy castles, parked cars, and hot tubs on Parliament Hill that lasted three weeks.
	I'm not downplaying the inconvenience of that protest.
	But if anybody says that that protest, which was geographically limited, was a national security issue that warranted invoking the Emergencies Act, I say you're entitled to your opinion and you're entitled to be wrong and grossly ill-informed and uneducated.
	Respectfully submitted.
	May the fourth be with you.
	Re.
	All right, what do we got here?
	Chico Gomez means political prostitutes, meaning they will get in bed or sing whatever show they are paid for.
	Yes.
	But I think there was a double entendre with that particular comment because Kamala Harris has a relatively known history as to how she allegedly, according to some, rose the ranks, politically speaking.
	And it involved...
	It might have involved body.
	Might have.
	I don't know.
	GOP will rid us of attorney-client privilege next.
	GOP will rid us of attorney-client privilege next.
	I don't think so.
	In fact, I'm fairly certain they won't because that was one of the reasons which Trump used to oppose a lot of the congressional subpoenas and banning as well, solicitor-client privilege.
	I believe it's what James O 'Keefe is arguing was grossly abusive about.
	Actually, now that you mention it, Mark Bruno, it's a good point.
	It's not the GOP that's trying to remove that.
	It's the Democrats.
	It's the FBI.
	It's the DOJ.
	You know, the very same ones that seized James O 'Keefe's personal cell phone, which contained correspondence between him and his counsel, and the New York Times, the lefty Democrat institution that leaked the memos, which were themselves solicitor-client privilege.
	So let me just go back and bring this up because I'm happy with myself right now.
	I'm happy with this because it's funny.
	Mike, first of all, Mike, thank you for the chat.
	You're contrarian, but you're entitled to be.
	But no, it's not the GOP that will rid you or rid us of attorney-client privilege.
	Next.
	It's the Democrats.
	It's the politicized DOJ, FBI, and their counterparts with whom they work in close connection.
	The New York Times, who then take the unlawfully seized solicitor-client privilege documents that the FBI and the DOJ seized from Project Veritas, leaked it to the New York Times so the New York Times could then publish it.
	So you're correct, but wrong political party.
	Thank you for allowing me to elaborate that to the rest of the world.
	There has been no news in that that I know of.
	There's been some other publications coming out of Project Veritas, but I won't do that.
	What else?
	Oh, no.
	Everybody, I'm going to...
	Where did I put that link up?
	I'm going to send the link for...
	No, hold on.
	You know what?
	I'm going to do it right now.
	Everybody needs to go read...
	The Grey Lady Winx.
	Sign in.
	Let me just go get...
	Let me get something here.
	Sign in.
	Give me two seconds.
	I'm going to get my two-tier verification.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	Grey Lady Winx.
	If you want to know the degree to which...
	I mean, everybody knows of Project Mockingbird.
	What's going on here?
	Everybody knows of Project Mockingbird.
	If you don't, you should look into it.
	Darn it.
	Let's try this again.
	But the degree to which the New York Times has historically worked with intelligence.
	And now they're doing it again.
	And in this particular case, doing it to violate solicitor-client privilege.
	Let me just go get this.
	How do I do it?
	Product links.
	Yes, people, it's going to be an affiliate link on Amazon.
	We're going to make Jeff Bezos rich, but we're going to be able to, you know, someone will sell their book when their book is doing good stuff.
	The book is, here we go, Grey Lady Winks.
	When people write a good book and they want to sell it, and if it's on Amazon, You may as well get it there.
	Here we go.
	Booyah.
	Here.
	Okay, let's do this like this.
	Copy.
	Sorry, that took much longer than it's supposed to.
	Go read it.
	Because the Grey White Lady Winks.
	The chapter that I just got to, which was the New York Times working with the American military after dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
	On the one hand, the Times suppressing articles and news relating to the extent and gravity of World War II and the Holocaust.
	Setting that aside.
	Downplaying the numbers, downplaying the atrocities.
	Why?
	There were people who didn't want war and there were people who had a lot to lose financially if the U.S. went to war with Nazi Germany.
	At the end of the war, after the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the New York Times went in there to basically peddle intelligence propaganda, military propaganda, that it was only the bomb and the bomb itself, the force of the bomb that killed people, and nothing else.
	To downplay the radiation poisoning that was killing, I think, from what the book says, a thousand people a day.
	The New York Times got embedded with intelligence and basically became a spokesperson for intelligence to downplay what would have been, you know, rightly deemed to be, what would have been rightly negative public opinion at the devastation, above and beyond the initial devastation, of dropping the nuclear weapon of nuclear weapons, the nuclear weapon.
	And it was no different then than it is now.
	And now you have the New York Times.
	Working hand-in-hand with intelligence to violate the most basic of things like solicitor-client privilege.
	It's no different now than it has ever been.
	It might be worse now, but it's more known now.
	So in that sense, I guess it's better.
	But go read that book.
	It's a great book, and I'm listening to it.
	I'm almost done.
	It's a short listen as well.
	I think it's seven and a half hours, and I'm listening to it at 1.4, so it's going by faster.
	Okay, let me see this.
	Oh, and then it gets into...
	Sorry.
	Yep, and they went on to shoot hundreds more in tests and then spout off global warming.
	Well, without tying it to global warming, the further tests they did, I forget on which islands it was called.
	They tested on the islands and then they, you know, wrongly said it's safe to go back.
	Led to birth defects.
	It led to, you know, horrible things.
	Horrible, horrible...
	Disease, deformations, birth defects, reduced life expectancy.
	But you have the New York Times telling the public, nothing to see here.
	It's all safe and it's all good and your government's good and they're not doing anything bad.
	And yet this is the same New York Times, for people who don't know all of this, that is whipping up American society into a military frenzy with the conflict, with the war between Russia and Ukraine.
	But it's, I mean, and once you know, and once you see how they did it in the past, you see how they're doing it now.
	When CNN was talking about the mostly, slightly fiery but peaceful protests, I mean, it's egregious and it's in your face.
	But when the New York Times was covering up incidents in Germany, post-World War II Germany.
	Where you had these attacks on Jewish bystanders, Jewish civilians in Germany at shopping centers.
	And this is before the Olympics were going to be held in Berlin.
	So you don't want public opinion being swayed against hosting the Olympics in Berlin.
	You don't want people...
	If you want to avoid the war and you want to avoid people getting into the war, you want to pacify the anti-war types and you want to...
	Also serve the interests of those who have a lot to lose if they go to war.
	Well, what do you have to do to cloak these incidents, which are overt examples of that, which is the very big problem leading to war?
	Ignore them.
	Downplay them.
	They weren't attacked because they were Jewish.
	They were just attacked.
	Don't mention it.
	Don't mention race or ethnicity when it's a problem, but harp on it when it fits the narrative.
	Much like Waukesha.
	You know, when it's white on black, even if it's absolutely unrelated to the actual incident, whip it up.
	Whip it into a frenzy.
	When it's the other way around and it's actually documented to be motivated by that, ignore it.
	No one even did it.
	It was a vehicle that drove its way into a crowd.
	It was an accident.
	You know, run the fake story that it was an individual fleeing an arrest and it was an accident.
	And then, you know, correct it later, but after people have already had that initial impression.
	They did the exact same stuff that they're doing today for the biggest events in the history of humankind.
	Dropping of the nuclear bomb over Japan.
	World War II.
	The Ukrainian famine.
	The Holodomor.
	I keep getting mixed up.
	I think it's...
	I have to remember by the acronym.
	It's Holodomor.
	Because the L comes before the M. Because I kept on saying Homolador for a bit.
	Holodomor.
	I mean, they covered up...
	The Holodomor.
	They covered up the Ukrainian, what people call the Ukrainian Holocaust, which was deliberate starvation of the Ukrainian population by the Soviets.
	Why?
	Because maybe the New York Times thought they had something in common with the Soviet government or the Soviet ideology, communist ideology.
	Maybe they didn't want to make it look that bad.
	And it's just, it's never been any other way.
	I just think now there's a lot of spotlight on it and people are becoming aware of it, but too many.
	Hold on.
	Is it Holodomor or Hodolomor?
	And I'm not doing this to be...
	This is not to be glib whatsoever.
	Holodomor.
	It's the Holodomor.
	The Holodomor famine.
	I mean, and for anybody who doesn't know, let me open up a window just so we can...
	I know certain people have taken heed because they don't view it the same way as others, but Google Holodomor.
	Once you read these things, once you become aware of these things, it's just you have to understand history to understand the present.
	Life can only be understood backwards, yet must be lived forwards.
	Kierkegaard, I think it's my favorite expression ever.
	Because you look back at the way the New York Times misrepresented what was going on in Germany, when they misrepresented what was going on in Ukraine during the famine, when they misrepresented and worked with the military.
	For covering up the atrocities that resulted from dropping the nuclear bomb, whether or not you thought dropping it was the only way to avoid a land invasion of Japan that would have killed 200,000 American soldiers, they hid it.
	They hid it, and they hid it for your benefit because you can't lose faith in the institutions, and they hid it to serve the interests of the military and the military complex, the political elite, and they lied to the people who relied on them for news.
	It's Wikipedia, people, so don't give me a hard time.
	I appreciate it.
	Just so people understand.
	3.5 million to 5 million death toll.
	Are we all seeing the same thing together?
	Let me just make sure.
	Hold a little more.
	Derived from, I cannot read that, to kill by starvation, also known as the Terror Famine, or the Great Famine, was a famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1932.
	Bear in mind, people, that's like less than two years.
	That killed millions of Ukrainians.
	The Holodomor Famine was part of a wider Soviet famine from 1932 to 1932, which affected the major grain production areas of the country.
	That's under two years.
	Millions of people through starvation.
	There is argument, disagreement as to whether or not it was targeting Ukrainians because they were Ukrainians or whether or not it just targeted everyone under Soviet control.
	There's arguments as to whether or not the Soviets deliberately, I don't think there is actually, the Soviets deliberately exacerbated it by seizing the foodstuffs of certain people by, bottom line, millions of people.
	And I consider myself to be reasonably educated, reasonably informed.
	I hadn't heard about this until adulthood.
	Why would the New York Times cover it up?
	Political motivation, political interests.
	Not serving the people they're intended to serve and defying all journalistic integrity.
	They didn't have it then.
	They certainly don't have it now.
	And the fact that anybody still relies on them for this?
	Yep.
	I don't even know what that sound was.
	Let me go to Rumble and just see what's going on there because I realize now I haven't been on Rumble in a while.
	Okay, if I missed any Rumble rants, I do apologize.
	So that's it.
	99% of everything we've been told is a lie.
	But it becomes like you lose your mooring.
	I keep going back to the Alex Jones, you know, I was in a form of psychosis when I...
	But when you realize that it's always been this way, you have to then go back and reassess basic history that you took for unquestionable granted, learning and growing up.
	And you have to go back and look at all of it.
	And it's very, not disorienting, but it's unmooring.
	I don't know if that's the word.
	It is destabilizing because you realize that things that you took for granted did not happen the way they did, and things that you've never even heard of happened.
	And you're like, how the heck did I not know that?
	How did they not teach me that?
	How did that get swept under the rug of history?
	After the carpet bombing of Tokyo, Japan sued for peace, and the U.S. denied peace, and the next day they dropped the bomb and later dropped a different type of nuclear bomb.
	Oh, and by the way, hey, where have we seen testing in real time?
	I mean, did I finish this chapter?
	I did finish the chapter.
	I'm going to look into this, but hey, why not?
	It's a great excuse to test out some new weapons, see how they see the long-term impact of them.
	Basically, clinical trials on billions of people in real time.
	Let's test out our military weapons in real time.
	Got a good excuse.
	Hold on a second.
	When I told my teacher that there is no way the history is correct, she told me to shut up.
	Well, you see, the problem is this.
	You may not have known why you were right at the time.
	You might have been right, but had no reason to know that you were right.
	So that's like the thing of...
	A child or a kid might be repeating the correct points.
	But they need to be able to defend them and they need to know why they are in fact correct.
	But yeah, it's...
	Not true.
	Japan did not sue for peace.
	That is a lie.
	I don't really think that element doesn't matter.
	What I would have no difficulty conceiving of is that the military saw it as a good opportunity.
	Much like...
	In Canada, our military saw COVID as a good opportunity to test propaganda on Canadians.
	I have no doubt that the military of World War II saw this as a good opportunity to flex some muscles, test some new weapons, and reap the incidental benefits of seeing the long-term impact of those weapons while relying on their corrupt media that works with them, embedded with them to...
	To really hide from the public or downplay the most serious, shocking, devastating consequences of the use of this new weaponry.
	Okay.
	The Ottoman Empire killed millions of Armenians because they didn't like their god genocide.
	And yet there's still disagreement as to whether or not the Armenian genocide should be recognized as genocide.
	Politics ruins everything.
	Because it's politically...
	Unpopular.
	Given the players to outright recognize the Armenian genocide as genocide, that doesn't happen.
	But other genocides get recognized as genocide and laws built around it because there's more political support for it.
	Okay.
	Let's do it.
	What time is it?
	1.48.
	If anyone is interested in going back to watch...
	I'm going to stop it.
	To watch the Johnny Depp.
	I mean...
	It's good.
	I'm going to go probably listen to it and run around and do some messages.
	But tonight, Darren Beattie, sidebar, 7 o 'clock.
	Tomorrow, I have someone to...
	Oh yeah, Eric Duhem is coming on tomorrow.
	I don't know when yet.
	I'm going to see what the schedule looks like.
	I said if Amber Heard testifies, I'm going to live stream her testimony.
	So I'm going to try to find a way to...
	I'm going to try to find a way to try to...
	I just got distracted.
	I'm going to try to find a way to work that in the schedule.
	That's tomorrow.
	Friday, Roman Baber, who is running for leadership of the Conservative Party.
	So we've got a full week and it's going to be fun.
	Marc Marc, thank you very much.
	Oh, so Eric Duhem is the leader of the Quebec Conservative Party.
	You know, they're making big gains in Quebec because people are fed up with the tyranny of Supreme Leader Francois Legault, but not enough people.
	So he's going to come and we're going to have a talk tomorrow.
	I was on his channel yesterday for a live...
	It was in French.
	I thought it was going to be in English, so I sent the links around.
	I guess some people who don't speak French would have been disappointed.
	So Eric Duhaime is coming on my channel tomorrow.
	It's going to be in English, and I'm going to work in some other content with it.
	Tonight, Warren Beatty, the revolver.
	Robert Barnes will be there.
	And then Friday, Roman Baber, who is a member of provincial parliament in Ontario, running for leadership of the Conservative Party.
	He is the one, um, liked you better as a newbie Viva Frye liked you better as a newbie.
	What the heck does that mean?
	What does that mean?
	Roman Baber presented a bill to Parliament which he knew was never going to get passed, suggesting that members of Parliament have their salaries reduced or cut while they shut down businesses during the COVID pandemic.
	And the MPPs turned it around and cut his salary.
	As a gesture of, you know, malice.
	Never actually turned into any law, but...
	So that's it.
	That's on Friday, and we'll find a way to work that into whatever's going on.
	So that is it.
	Let's do it, people.
	Go.
	Enjoy the rest of the day.
	Do I have one star to super chat?
	Okay, no, I got that one.
	Off.
	What about having new blue party?
	I've had Jim Carajal.
	I've had Jim and...
	Oh, geez, I forgot her first name.
	Belinda Carajalios.
	I've had them on at least once.
	And I've been on with them at least once.
	Jim Karahalios, the new blue party in Ontario.
	I've had them on.
	I'll have them on again before elections because I like them.
	And their message deserves to be heard.
	And they're running almost a full slate of candidates in Ontario, which is amazing.
	Which is amazing.
	I think people are done with, in the States at least, they're done with the Rona, even for midterms.
	No, for midterms, this is the scandal, the leak of that.
	Draft decision.
	They kicked Jim Carahalios out.
	No, they kicked her out.
	They kicked out Belinda for not being jabbed.
	Did they kick out Roman Baber?
	And I like Roman Baber as well.
	Still not voting Conservative personally.
	Nothing's going to change that this election cycle.
	But I do believe Roman Baber should have a voice and should have his voice heard.
	You rock, Viva.
	Thank you very much.
	Harley Harlots.
	Holy Harlots.
	And any plans to go on Timcast?
	I'm going to message him, see if we can get back on, because I would love to do the road trip again, and there would be lots to talk about again.
	So, yeah, I'll message him.
	And there's big news that I can't talk about yet, but one day, sooner than later, I'll be able to talk about it.
	Have you ever heard of the rods from God?
	They are tungsten rods dropped from space that are more destructive than...
	I have not heard of it.
	And I think I hear it.
	Ethan?
	Okay.
	I mean, I definitely have to go.
	I just like reading the comments.
	Why are venison balls the best deal at a grocery store?
	Because they are always under a buck.
	I get that joke.
	But you can actually go get, you know, you can get them.
	And they're pretty decently priced as well.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	No rumors.
	Not another baby.
	I wouldn't mind, but I think 40 and 42. We'll see.
	We'll see.
	But no, it's not that.
	I'm not having a baby.
	And that's it.
	Yeah.
	Damn that family.
	One kid's home from school today.
	Not because...
	You want to come say hi to the world?
	Okay.
	This is going to be...
	Come here.
	Get over here.
	Say hi.
	Let's lift up the mic.
	Oh, yeah.
	Here we go.
	What do you have to say?
	Hi.
	Let me remove this here.
	Okay.
	What have you been doing today?
	Playing outside.
	Very nice.
	Actually, you have the odor of a kid who's been playing outside.
	What do you want to do now?
	You want to go for a drive?
	No.
	Oh, he said yes.
	I didn't say yes.
	Okay, get out of here.
	I'll be out of here in 30 seconds.
	Okay, people, that's my cue to exit.
	We're going for a drive.
	I would dare say.
	He's even going to take a nap.
	He might take a nap.
	Okay, people, I'm in trouble.
	Time to go.
	Enjoy the rest of the day.
	See you all tonight in five hours.
	Five hours.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	Talk soon, peeps.

▲