Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 3, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:57:48

NO JOHNNY DEPP! Deep Vein Thrombosis? Biden Fact Check Silence! Rittenhouse & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I was wondering what you guys were doing when you're on today.
	Rock on, San Diego.
	What the heck, man?
	Get the mic over here.
	Those were the days, people.
	Good evening and welcome to Tucker Carlson.
	No, no, no, no, no, Tucker.
	No, we're closing this down.
	Don't want to get copy-striked.
	Oh, I'm not on the good camera?
	Hold on, this is unacceptable.
	Unacceptable.
	What's going on?
	What's going on?
	Yep.
	Yeah.
	Yep.
	Okay, we might have to go with the bad camera.
	This is terrible.
	Is the mic good at least?
	What's going on today, people?
	Default, UMC.
	Okay, well, I have to move this out of the way.
	This, by the way, you're all going to see my massively amazing setup.
	It's a camera on a broken box of zip ties that acts as the base.
	Okay, well, we're going to have an ugly...
	Camera today, but audio will be good.
	I'm just going to have to remember to look into that camera screen.
	Yeah, actually, the built-in camera on the Mac is pretty good, and I don't have to look two inches above, so I'm going to be able to look here, look down, see the chat.
	Thank you very much, Oreo.
	I think people know I love this, and I love being called brother.
	Hold on, do I want to bring back that opening video?
	They don't all have to be horrible, annoying voices.
	Let's just do this for one second.
	I want to watch that again.
	That makes me happy.
	This is our youngest, way back in the day.
	And what I love is the kids laughing in the background.
	Rock on San Diego.
	When we say on the interwebs that people can find fault in anything, you give someone a rose and people will complain about the thorns.
	I actually recall that was posted on Facebook at the time.
	People were like, You gotta be careful with the baby's arms.
	You're very rough.
	You almost pulled it out of the socket.
	I'm doing a Red Bull.
	Oh, shoot, boss.
	I'm doing a Red Bull today, people.
	Yeah, the kid's laughing and a good belly laugh.
	A good belly laugh of a kid is a very nice thing to hear.
	All right, well, so we didn't start off with Justin Trudeau, Joe Biden, Teresa Tam, Henry Bonnie or Bonnie Henry, whatever it is.
	We started off with something good today.
	There's not really all that much to talk about today.
	Apparently Johnny Depp is live on his channel.
	If I'm reading this chat correctly, people, and I can't compete with Johnny Depp live, nor am I going to even try.
	There will be no Johnny Depp today on this channel.
	I may post some clips to the Viva Clips channel.
	I have been posting clips.
	For everybody who says I don't have time for a three-hour live stream, I guess that means I'm doing a bad job.
	Promoting my Viva Clips channel.
	Good clips, meaningful clips, and random videos, I post on Viva Clips now.
	Because Viva Fry, the main channel, for good or for bad, I think it's for good, is definitely going more of the long-form, live-stream format.
	I've explained the strategy shift before, but the vlogs, I love them.
	But they take like three to five hours for one video, for one subject.
	And these days, you know, we're talking about three, four, five subjects in a day.
	If I spend five hours in a day researching, editing, cutting, producing one vlog on one subject, it takes too long.
	And I don't get to cover other stuff that I want to cover.
	The longer format live stream, I think people like it.
	I think people love it.
	It involves, it allows for interactive discussion like this.
	Thank you very much, Carissa Demke.
	Let's see the bike.
	What kind of bike is that?
	It's a road bike.
	I love beautiful road bikes, but I'm more into mountain bikes.
	It allows for interactive, real-time, back and forth with the audience while we go through a variety of subjects in real-time as they occur.
	So, in as much as I'm not good at...
	Promoting Viva Clips as the second channel for clips.
	Shorter clips from the main live streams or other videos.
	Viva Family for some random stuff.
	Viva Merch is at vivafry.com.
	Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30%.
	If you don't like that, I'm simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	They have Rumble Rants, the same thing, where Rumble takes 20% so you can feel better getting more to the creator and more supporting a company like that actually supports freedom of speech.
	Best place to support me and Robert, if you're so inclined, vivabarneslaw.locals.com for lots of exclusive content and an amazing community.
	Now, angle is still bad.
	There we go.
	That's a little better.
	Yeah.
	No, that's not good.
	That's annoying.
	That's better.
	In the news today that we're going to talk about, chicken or pork hero.
	I need to know quick.
	I would go towards the pork hero just because it's the sinful food of my childhood.
	So therefore I find it more alluring.
	Lower fat, I think, than chicken.
	But I gotta tell you, between one or the other, both are equally good.
	But the pork has a little extra sinful deliciousness.
	In the news, people, no Johnny Depp today.
	I made the best meme vlog yesterday that I think I've ever done.
	If it doesn't get 10 million views, I know that the YouTube algorithm is out to get me.
	Hashtag sarcasm.
	So no Johnny Depp.
	Kyle Rittenhouse has seemingly retained the services of McMurdy.
	I think his first name is Tom McMurdy.
	When I heard that Rittenhouse was working with a lawyer that was involved in the Covington Catholic, for a second I got excited, thought maybe it was Barnes, but then I read it was the lawyer who represented...
	Nick Sandman.
	Then I got nervous because I thought maybe it was Pierce.
	John Pierce.
	McMurdy.
	Seems to be working with Rittenhouse.
	Looking into whether or not they're going to start suing people.
	We're going to talk about that.
	We're going to talk about not about the documentary.
	I haven't seen it yet.
	I saw one clip of it yesterday to which I responded.
	I'm going to watch that and maybe talk about it later.
	Maybe do a documentary review of that a la 2000 Mules.
	Some deep vein thrombosis, just an article that just is remarking a sudden spike in a killer of women younger than 40. Deep vein thrombosis, blood clots in their legs.
	I will not be making any medical conclusions or medical commentary whatsoever.
	We're going to walk through an article, and we're going to walk through another article.
	Yannick, this is Y4NNICKX, which actually looks like Yannick, which is a Frenchish name, saw a CAC ad before joining.
	Oh, the irony.
	CAC is Coalition Avenir de Québec.
	That is the government in power now in Quebec, the one that locked us down in curfew for five months.
	Curfew for five months under the regime of Supreme Leader François Legault.
	I voted for them twice, as my grandmother would say.
	The first and the last time.
	I would not support the CAC.
	I would never tell anyone how to vote, but I am contemplating spending $5,000 on a billboard to say, je me souviens de la dictateur Legault.
	Je me souviens, it says, I will remember.
	That's on the license plates in Quebec.
	Je me souviens.
	I will remember.
	I want to buy a billboard.
	Je me souviens de...
	La tyrannie de François Legault.
	I will remember the tyranny of François Legault.
	I'm not telling you who to vote for.
	I'm just saying that's what I might think of doing come next election season.
	We're going to talk about this article.
	Just bizarre, bizarre coincidental timing.
	And we're going to talk about...
	Jeez, Kyle Rittenhouse.
	Okay.
	The deep vein thrombosis.
	What's the other...
	Let me just go back to my notes here.
	Jeez Louise, I'm senile.
	Losing it.
	I blame the kids.
	Rittenhouse?
	Sandman?
	Oh, Rittenhouse?
	Ah, whatever, we'll get to it.
	Yeah, it'll be interesting stuff.
	So, anyone with any questions in the chat, let me know.
	Especially what Eric Duhem said the other day.
	Yeah, apparently...
	Apparently, Eric Duhem specified that all the other political parties are requiring vaccination proof of for any candidate who wants to run with those parties.
	All right, so let's start with this article.
	That's where I was going.
	No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fortification advice.
	I'm not even going to connect dots.
	I'm just going to go through it, and I'm not even going to say what I'm thinking, but you're all going to know what I'm thinking.
	DVT is the curse of live streaming.
	Do jumping decks.
	So you know what?
	First things first.
	S-T-F-U-F-F-S.
	Thank you for the super chat.
	Let's just go.
	I didn't pull this up myself.
	Let's just go and look at what deep vein thrombosis is.
	Anybody who's above a certain age, you know what it is.
	Especially if your mother's neurotic and makes you into a compulsive neurotic hypochondriac.
	Deep vein thrombosis is what occurs in certain people if they remain inactive for too long, sitting on planes, sitting on trains.
	DVT symptoms.
	Deep vein thrombosis from the NHS.
	DVT, deep vein thrombosis, is a clot in a vein, is a blood clot in a vein, usually the leg.
	It can be dangerous.
	Get medical help as soon as possible if you think you have DVT.
	Let's see the symptoms.
	Throbbing or cramping pain in one leg, rarely both legs, usually in the calf or thigh.
	Calf or thigh.
	Swelling in the leg, rarely both.
	Warm skin, red, darkened skin around the painful area.
	Anybody who wants to get nervous and think you have DVT right now.
	Swollen veins that are hard or sore when you touch them.
	The symptoms can also happen in your arm or tummy.
	That's a weird way of saying it.
	If that's where the clot is.
	Okay, look at that.
	So it's a clot.
	Who is more likely to get DVT and why?
	Typically inactions, inactivity sitting on one part of your body for too long.
	Over 60?
	Overweight?
	Smoke?
	Have had DVT before?
	Take a contraceptive pill like HRT.
	I don't know what that is.
	Oh, contraceptive pill or HRT.
	Hormone replacement therapy.
	Have cancer or heart failure?
	Have varicose veins.
	How DVT is diagnosed, yada yada.
	Treatment of DVT.
	You may have an injection of an anticoagulant, blood thinning.
	Then you have to watch out for strokes that arise from, you know, bleeding in the brain from too thin blood.
	After the DVT is diagnosed, the main treatment is tablets of an anticoagulant medicine, such as warfarin or rivaraxaban.
	You will probably take the tablets for at least three months.
	All right.
	So that's what DVT is.
	Anybody who's got a neurotic mother, was brought up in certain milieus where neuroses and hypochondriacy is a thing, we've known what it is.
	And that's why they say when you're flying long periods of time, more than three hours, get up, walk around, stretch out the veins, let the blood flow through.
	So how does this work to what's going on today?
	Hold on one second, I see a super chat that I feel morally obliged to bring up.
	No comment.
	Tree Climber.
	To buy a letter on that billboard.
	It might buy an accent aigu.
	It might buy one of those little slanty things on the E's.
	And then I saw this chat from, was it Etienne de Gaulle?
	See, this is what I love about it.
	Yes, I recognize now avatars.
	I recently broke my leg and after six weeks of no weight, limited movement, earlier in the week I had a severe pain in my thigh.
	Ultrasound showed that I had multiple clots in every major vein except one.
	And now, my understanding is what can happen with these clots, not medical advice and certainly not related to anything else that's going on in the world, the clots can either stop circulation or break off and then go up and cause pulmonary and heart problems if the clot breaks off and goes through the veins.
	That's my understanding, but I ain't no doctor.
	Just a lawyer and a hypochondriac.
	DVT killed Captain Phil on the deadliest catch, by the way.
	So, I'm reluctant to read anything that can be construed as legal advice, medical advice, but you can read that while I bring up the article.
	So, that's what DVT is.
	And there's been an article that's been doing the rounds on the social medias, which says, urgent warning to women under 40. Here we go.
	I am just reading, people.
	Just reading.
	I'm going to take that down.
	Okay.
	Boom shakalaka, thank you.
	Take it down.
	Let's go back to this article.
	Killer signs.
	Urgent.
	This is from The Sun.
	I will still approach articles like this with the requisite degree of skepticism.
	Media loves to create panic in all respects when it's justified and when it's not justified.
	With that said, I'm not jumping on the urgency panic bandwagon just because I find the subject matter of interest.
	Urgent warning to women under 40 after sharp rise in sudden killer.
	Women under 40 are increasingly dying of a sudden killer disease, a campaigner has warned.
	Blood clots can occur in people of any age and strike those who are seemingly fit and healthy.
	Yes, anything can happen.
	What we care about is not whether or not it can happen, rather statistically whether or not it's likely to happen, and also comparatively if statistically what was statistically less likely or very unlikely to happen two years ago, now for whatever the reason seems statistically more likely to happen compared to two years ago.
	Data from Scotland shows an unusual spike in the rates of deaths caused by blood clots in the past five years.
	Okay.
	This measurement is going to be relevant when discussing another issue.
	Another article from New Brunswick that I'm pulling up to compare this to.
	It's over five years.
	Let's see if they break this down.
	Sub-break it down.
	Five years is good because we know that that encompasses two times.
	We used to have BC, like before Christ and AD, Anno Domini.
	Now we're going to have BC, which is before coronavirus.
	AC, after coronavirus.
	I'd like to find a way to get DC in there.
	After Coronavirus Disease Center, ACDC.
	So BC and ACDC.
	That's the new one.
	So this is five years, which includes BC and ACDC.
	The information was requested by a doctor, a dad whose daughter died of deep vein thrombosis at the age of 23. Let's see the number here.
	There were a total of 73 deaths in under 40 women.
	73. In under 40 women between 2002 and 2006, where a blood clot was the underlying cause, that rose to 81 in the five years leading up to the COVID pandemic.
	That rose to 81. So we got 73 in four years.
	It rose to 81 in five years, which seems like it's following the same graph or the same trend.
	73 over 4 years is about 18 per year.
	And then if you go to 5, give or take, unless I'm making a mistake, or unless the 2002 to 2006 is 5 years, whatever.
	From 73 to 81, even over the same time frame, I don't know how shocking that is.
	So it rose to 81 in the 5 years leading up to the pandemic.
	See now, this was despite a drop of 44 deaths.
	Okay, whatever.
	Although the numbers are small, they do not fit with the overall trend of women all ages.
	Listen to this now.
	This is where it gets interesting.
	There were 684 deaths from clots in the female population in 2002, which almost halved to 361 in 2019.
	Fine, so it goes down.
	The figure jumped again.
	It jumped to 4 to 46 in 2020.
	So that's still under what it was before.
	But let's see.
	In relation to the COVID pandemic, as the coronavirus can cause...
	Well, here's an interesting framing.
	The figure jumped again in 2020 to 446 in relation to the COVID pandemic as the coronavirus can cause blood clotting.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	McPherson said he was puzzled by the jump in fatal blood clots in younger women prior to COVID.
	He said, you would expect to see it going down.
	I don't understand.
	It's very disappointing.
	People need to be aware of the risks.
	Out of the blue, let's just see.
	Let's get to some more modern times here.
	Okay.
	Are we not actually going to get to the modern time?
	Because you have an article that says this is urgent.
	An article saying it's urgent and it's only talking about up until seemingly up until 2020.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Well, this is very interesting.
	Now I'm trying to think if this is the same article that I saw earlier.
	Out of the blue, Okay.
	Well, for goodness sake, now we're going to have to see what the number was for 2021.
	Let's see if we can do this in real time here.
	Google 2021 DVT deaths.
	Let's do Scotland.
	That article seemingly is incomplete.
	Ugh, I have to accept.
	Okay, let's see here.
	Close this down.
	Oh, it still won't let me.
	Gordon McPherson requested a breakdown and it doubled from...
	What is going on here?
	Pulmonary embolism?
	Okay, fine.
	It's not even going to give me the article.
	Garbage.
	Well, they're showing an increase in blood clot.
	So, again, we're going to have to see a more detailed breakdown as to what...
	What is happening when?
	But they issue an urgent article right now.
	And seemingly, according to this article, stop counting as of 2020.
	It reminded me of another article that I saw out of New Brunswick.
	By the way, the third subject matter was Biden talking about holding gun manufacturers responsible.
	We're going to talk about that too.
	It reminded me of this article.
	We discussed this relatively recently on the channel.
	It was a different article that I read the last time, but this is out of New Brunswick, where excess deaths in New Brunswick during pandemic need study, experts state.
	Statistics Canada says 908 more people than normal died in the province in the first 10 months of 2021.
	We're going to have the same explanation, by the way, but 908.
	More people in New Brunswick.
	We looked it up the last time.
	New Brunswick has a population of 700,000.
	That's a lot.
	That's a lot compared to the baseline from previous years.
	908 more excess deaths in 10 months.
	And actually, this is even more because in the other article, I think it was like 350 for over four months.
	Listen to the framing here.
	National health and population academics are pointing to high excess mortality numbers as an important riddle for promises to solve their understanding of the human cost of the COVID-19 pandemic.
	I'm glad they're talking about it.
	There's going to be the one classic catch-all.
	There's lingering effects from an infection that cause excess death.
	Other people who are going to try to be more honest but still a little deceitful are going to say, yeah, well, you know, stress, unhealthy living, being locked down, anxiety, that can also lead to excess deaths.
	And that is not a defense.
	People are going to jump to one conclusion.
	People are going to try to sweep it all under the rug of post-COVID infections, excess deaths, that explains everything.
	Other people are going to reflexively or...
	Spiritually go towards the other explanation.
	This is all following something else that occurred at that exact timeline.
	And then other people are going to say, well, you know, it's overall people were unhealthy, people were stressed, people weren't eating properly, people were in their homes.
	To which I would say to that, yeah, that was something that a lot of people, and I'm going to say myself included, were saying pretty early on.
	That these measures are in a generation, in a few years, going to cause problems that we're not seeing today.
	So when you look at this through a myopic scope, well, what do we do to eliminate one COVID death today?
	Well, it looks like you just increased 900 excess deaths next year.
	So just, you know, related to the COVID pandemic, some people are going to say, well, COVID infection and the stresses and everything else.
	If the excess deaths result from policy, whether it be compelled Submission to medical procedures or compelled curfew, lockdown, whatever.
	Those policies killed people.
	So whatever the policy is, those policies killed people.
	But New Brunswick, with some of the most puzzling numbers in Canada, is resisting the idea it has underreported deaths.
	In the legislature on Wednesday, opposition leader asked what the province knows about excess deaths in New Brunswick in 2021, which were among the highest in Canada.
	Okay, they're alluded to something is wrong.
	Yeah, I don't understand what's going on.
	Something's going on, people.
	We can go into the article.
	It doesn't really matter.
	Last month, it reported that New Brunswick recorded an estimated 7,000 deaths in the first 43 weeks of 2021.
	According to the agency, that was 908 more than it would have expected over the weeks in the absence of the pandemic.
	In the absence of the pandemic and all policy issues resulting therefrom.
	It is one of the highest excess mortality rates observed in Canada in 2021 and is in stark contrast to death counts in neighboring Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island during the same 43-week period.
	They were below normal levels.
	Well, not meaning to draw any connections, and I'm not going to, but in the first 10 months of 2021, let's just pull up another article from November 2021.
	January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November.
	Ten months.
	This is what they're reporting at the time of what they are now reporting issues from.
	New Brunswick says 87% of eligible residents now fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
	75 new cases.
	You're going to say, well, Nova Scotia and the neighboring provinces didn't have the same problem.
	And then it's going to be a question of who's counting what and how.
	And whether or not, as far as I'm concerned, blame it on one thing or blame it on COVID policies at large.
	It's a distinction without a difference.
	Government policy, in the long run, has caused excess deaths in ways that we're only now starting to appreciate, whereas people were warning about it from day one.
	I don't think you guys need the links to that.
	You'll believe me on that.
	Policy failure of the highest order.
	I remember Robert Barnes and I talking about it early on, before our live streams took on a weekly and then more pace.
	There is a statistical correlation to excess deaths with every percentage point increased unemployment rate.
	There's an increase in crime.
	There's an increase in everything.
	Bad.
	But at the time, they were measuring hospital admissions.
	When they were not distinguishing between hospitalized with COVID versus hospitalized from COVID, they were counting deaths without distinguishing deaths from COVID versus deaths with COVID, and they were just trying to reduce that number at all costs through the most draconian, unscientific, unconstitutional measures, not stopping for a second to think about the long-term repercussions of that.
	And now we're just seeing random stuff.
	Random stuff, which, you know, random dots.
	And if you dare connect these dots, you get called names.
	Let me just bring up my personal favorite in the most cynical of senses.
	It was this article.
	My personal favorite.
	We'll see if CNN changed the headline yet.
	Look at this.
	Let's just go here.
	One dead, 15 injured.
	Look at this, guys.
	Look at this headline.
	One dead, 15 injured.
	One dead after finishing Brooklyn Half Marathon and 15 others injured.
	And I said it on social media.
	When I read this headline, I thought we had another Boston-type issue.
	But no. 16 unrelated injuries.
	And I love how they call it an injury.
	An injury implies...
	I wouldn't call a heart attack an injury.
	I mean, that's...
	Unless...
	I mean, maybe CNN is drawing some connections here because I wouldn't call a heart attack or a stroke or sunstroke...
	I wouldn't call that an injury.
	I would call breaking a leg an injury.
	I would call getting hit by a car an injury.
	Stress, but less...
	No, thank you.
	But I read that headline and I'm not stupid.
	And that headline, injured.
	Having a stroke, even if it's from sunstroke.
	Heat stroke, heart attack, after running a marathon, I don't call that an injury.
	I don't think most people would colloquially understand that to be an injury.
	They would call that a medical emergency.
	Yes, I did.
	Had to answer the government again.
	Tell them when and which.
	When and which.
	Show my papers.
	I had to show my papers to prove that I was a clean citizen, that I could enter the country with no restrictions.
	Yeah, I think we just answered the question there.
	Look, I was open about it.
	I'm totally neurotic.
	Heart condition runs in my family also.
	Anyhow, whatever.
	We are reading stories now, one after the other after the other.
	And if you dare even ask the obvious question, you're demonized and potentially even worse.
	One after the other after the other.
	New emergencies for women under 40. Excess deaths in New Brunswick for the first 10 months of November of 2021.
	But, no, don't ask that.
	It's all related to something else, and if you dare ask whether it's related to something else, it's heresy.
	I posted a good link in our locals community and on Twitter of an article in the NCBI of a doctor who, not mincing his words, calling it like it is.
	I'm not a doctor, so I know to stay in my lane.
	Jeff Pearson, I'll just say one thing.
	It's obvious that by locking people down, not getting sunlight, not getting exercise, stressing the living hell out of them.
	You don't have to be a doctor to know that that hurts people.
	And then you get Bill Gates now saying the quiet part out loud.
	Generational...
	Issues for children.
	And it's going to affect inner-city kids and underprivileged kids more than his kids.
	They're not going to have any deficiencies at all.
	They're private school.
	Get everything they need.
	It's going to affect kids, education, training, economy, livelihoods, health.
	And all of it ultimately comes down to reducing overall lifespan.
	And there were studies coming out now, actually, showing how the average life expectancy is going down by like two years.
	And when it goes down by two years and it goes down by more with certain, again, underprivileged groups, for it to go down two years, it's not because very old people are dying like one or two months or six months early.
	It's because young people are dying early, which brings it down radically quickly.
	Talking to my colleagues in New Brunswick, one paramedic crew transported three kids into the ER on Monday in Moncton in January.
	The odds of one crew doing that, I don't know.
	And I don't, you know, I'm reluctant to share anecdotal evidence or even, you know, what people tell me because it is ultimately their anecdotal evidence and I can't vet these things, but everybody is hearing similar stories.
	Viva, found this on the NIH.
	High prevalence of mortality associated with upper extremity deep venous thrombosis in hospitalized patients at a tertiary care center in Lukashen.
	Yeah.
	So.
	That's the DVT.
	I mean, it's good to know about these things anyhow, not to make everyone as neurotic as me.
	When I was somewhere, and I either think I'm having a panic attack or a heart attack, and I'm doing this and taking breaths and pushing in this muscle.
	It feels like it's tight and taking my pulse.
	And then someone says, you okay?
	I was like, yeah, I'm okay.
	I know my own issues, but tightness in the chest.
	But everybody.
	Has been living through hell.
	And it was a hell that was, in my politically inspired opinion, absolutely unnecessary for virtually everybody.
	Back in the early days of the pandemic when people were saying, all you're doing is complaining, what would you do differently?
	And I said, categorically, unequivocally, you lock down the sick, you protect the vulnerable, and you let everyone else go about their lives so that you don't cause those who are not vulnerable, not at risk, Problems that will affect their lives vastly negatively and do nothing to protect those who are vulnerable or those who are sick.
	So we got various terms here.
	I'm just going to say, you know what, whether or not it was a scam or a plan, you know, whether or not people say it was planned in advance.
	You know what, it doesn't matter.
	Co-opting something that occurs in real time for political purposes, it's an old concept.
	Never let a crisis go to waste.
	Never let a crisis go to waste.
	It doesn't matter if you set up that crisis through a false flag or exploited an actual crisis.
	That's the politics of life.
	For those who are in power, want to get into power, or want to take out those who are in power, never let a crisis go to waste.
	Okay.
	No comment.
	No legal advice.
	Thank you for the super chat.
	I do not watch Jimmy Dore's show routinely or religiously.
	I know that I like Jimmy Dore.
	As a character, as a personality, I know I've heard him say a bunch of things that I agree with.
	I'm sure he says a lot of things that I don't agree with.
	But I don't hate people for their politics.
	I hate people because of their demeanor.
	I don't hate him.
	I do not dislike people because of their politics.
	I dislike them because of their demeanor or their unwillingness to respect others.
	Even Jimmy Dore has some crazy policies, politics, whatever.
	Wouldn't bother me.
	I think he's pretty funny, pretty insightful, and pretty down-to-earth.
	Okay, so that was that.
	We're going to see a lot more of these articles come out.
	You can't ask the obvious questions, but one day sooner than later, we will be allowed to ask these questions.
	Because I think one day sooner than later, these questions are going to have to be answered and the political will of the people.
	I hope will be one that demands answers.
	There is, in my mind, in my black-pilled side of my heart, the feeling that a lot of people who were duped into this, who have been victimized by this, who are suffering the consequences from this, themselves, their family, their children, they're going to be...
	It would be too much for them to even accept that any of this could be true, and they're going to want to forget and just move on.
	Forget what has been taken from me, forget what has been done to me, because I've been duped, and if I have to admit it now, It's like when people ask boxers or football players, when they're suffering from concussive injury later on in life, and they say, well, would you do it again?
	You can't do it again.
	It's an unfair question to ask someone if they can do it again.
	And so when you're faced with, my goodness, my children are indebted.
	I have lost massive amounts of wealth.
	I've incurred tremendous amounts of stress, which might shorten my lifespan.
	I've done things which have compromised the people I love, and I did it.
	To them willingly, voluntarily, based on what I was being told at the time, and now I realize I was lied to, some people will not be able to admit that, and they're going to want to bury the lie so they can live with it, and live not thinking that they were idiots, ignorant, gullible, or that they actually caused harm to the people that they loved, thinking that they were protecting them at the time they did it.
	So, yeah, the cognitive dissonance is palpable.
	So all the while, all of this is occurring, and one day it might be cool to talk about it, to ask the questions which right now are verboten on social media.
	But, you know, what might it do?
	Well, who knows?
	These companies have been given immunity.
	Diplomatic immunity!
	The pharmaceutical companies have been given immunity.
	Which brings us to our next topic.
	Joe Biden.
	I didn't want to start with it, because I didn't want to upset anybody.
	But let's listen to this.
	Let me just make sure we're all looking at the same thing.
	I have not heard that any immunity has been recalled, and I don't think it can or will be.
	I don't think it will or can be.
	Lethal Weapon 2. Booyah, STFU.
	Yeah, Mark Hicks, getting upset does nothing.
	I say that.
	I'm the worst person to take in my own advice.
	Chill out, don't stress, smile, laugh it off.
	Oh, man, do I obsess over these things?
	Like the stream, please.
	Wouldn't mind if you do.
	All right.
	Diplomatic immunity.
	It's just been revoked.
	And when I was a kid, I didn't understand what he said, and I thought he said, it's just been provoked.
	And then my parents had a good laugh when I thought that was the line.
	Okay, my nose is itchy, and don't start any rumors.
	The older you get, children, the more hairs you get in your nose.
	And sometimes those hairs, as you breathe in, tickle as you breathe in with your nose.
	Very embarrassing.
	My kid asked me why I have so much hair in my nose.
	Straight out of Uncle Buck.
	Thank you, truckers, bikers, streamers, WestJet, and now tourism.
	Yep.
	It'll be cool to turn the policy around.
	I don't know that it's ever going to be cool to admit they're still pushing for certain things for certain age brackets, which make absolutely no sense in my mind in the States.
	So I don't think people are going to be able to admit that they may have actually caused harm, potentially, to the people they loved because they were reflexively jumping on a bandwagon.
	But speaking of diplomatic immunity, Joe Biden...
	Wants to do this.
	Or he wants...
	This is what he said.
	Don't listen to me.
	Trust...
	Don't listen to me.
	Listen to the...
	Where is the mute button so that I can mute myself?
	One day, I'll have a proper studio and maybe...
	Maybe a proper producer.
	I do not consider myself to be a proper producer.
	I am a makeshift.
	Okay, hold on.
	Here.
	We should repeal the liability shield.
	That often protects gun manufacturers from being sued for the death and destruction caused by their weapons.
	They're the only industry in this country that has that kind of immunity.
	We should.
	We should.
	And I'm an idiot.
	You know what's funny, actually?
	That's some powers up there protecting me.
	I called him stupid.
	And I said that that was not polite of me.
	And I was muted.
	Nobody heard it, but now I just said that I said it.
	You cannot be that stupid.
	I'm sorry, I'm saying it again.
	Nobody can be that stupid.
	Certainly not someone in a position to know.
	I can understand that there's people out there who actually do not know that the pharmaceutical companies have been given immunity for the...
	EUA Emergency Use Authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine.
	I actually want to see one thing to see if I can still refer to it as such without getting in trouble.
	Because this is something...
	That's NIH.
	Good.
	So it hasn't been updated yet, but this is on the NIH.
	Experimental coronavirus vaccine, highly effective.
	This is just reading from the NIH.
	So people refer to the vaccine as the E word.
	And I can understand that there are actually people out there who don't know that the pharmaceutical companies were given immunity for the emergency use authorization use of this vaccine, which the NIH described as experimental at the time.
	So I can understand some people not knowing that because I've actually had discussions with people, citizens, not uninformed but uninterested citizens who didn't know.
	Does that change your view on anything now that you know?
	Does that change your view on anything?
	You've been told to take something that is safe and effective and the companies that manufactured it have been given full blanket immunity from any liability.
	Does that change your opinion on anything and everyone to whom I asked that question?
	Everyone of whom I asked that question?
	Every whom of which I asked that question to?
	By the way, I forgot I'm wearing the shirt.
	Everyone whom I asked that question to said, no, it wouldn't change my opinion.
	I have faith I trust.
	I'm an idiot.
	But I can appreciate that there are some citizens who actually still do not know.
	That they were given full immunity for this.
	I do not accept that anyone in government, anyone who considers themselves to be a voice on any of these issues, anything related tangentially, could not know that they were given immunity.
	So when you have the President of the United States of America coming out and saying this, how do I get back to it?
	How do I get back?
	Let's hear it again, people.
	Let's hear it again.
	We should repeal the liability shield that often protects gun manufacturers from being sued for the death and destruction caused by their weapons.
	They're the only industry in this country that has that kind of immunity.
	The only industry in this country that has that kind of immunity.
	Can you imagine what would have happened if Donald Trump had said this?
	You would have had FactCheck, AP, Snopes, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, USA Today.
	You would have had everyone pouncing down his throat, calling him a moron, calling him a liar.
	And I just want to know any fact checkers jumping on this one.
	AP, PolitiFacts, Snopes, I forgot, factcheck.org.
	Maybe Pfizer and Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, want to confirm and deny or deny the truthfulness of POTUS's statement.
	And I was thinking about the patent absurdity of...
	What the president is suggesting as a matter of policy here.
	So let's just set aside the fact that he's factually incorrect, yet again misleading a nation, deliberately or accidentally, or maybe he just misspoke.
	Maybe his scriptwriters, maybe his handlers, whoever's preparing his speeches, you know, pull the fast on him because they know this guy, like Ron Burgundy, is going to read whatever's on his sheet because he doesn't know what the heck is going on.
	So let's just, setting all that aside, as a matter of policy, Joe Biden, It's a law that's been in place to protect people from suing gun manufacturers for the criminal acts carried out with proper functioning firearms.
	And I hope this is not going to be boring to people who already have appreciated this nuance, this dynamic of the debate.
	It's not as though any company was given liability, except for...
	Potentially pharma.
	Setting aside the pharma example, the immunity that was given to them, set aside that, we'll come back to it.
	We call that bookshelf that?
	Put that little asterisk over that?
	Setting aside the pharma company.
	It's not as though, I don't know that there's any company that has been given liability, immunity, immunity from liability for malfunction of their products.
	You know, this is the nuance.
	Biden wants to lift the law that shielded gun manufacturers from liability for criminal use of proper functioning firearms.
	Firearms are designed to do certain things.
	Biden wants to repeal the law that gives immunity from suit for people who choose to do criminal acts with proper functioning firearms.
	This is not like giving liability for improper defective functioning.
	Think Firestone tires.
	Think defective products.
	No one would say give liability to companies for defective injury or loss of life caused by defective products.
	Tires blow out.
	You go after the company if it's a defective product that causes loss of life.
	Tires work properly.
	You don't go after the company if someone decides to use those tires to run somebody over.
	So this is...
	Liability was put in place for political reasons to shield companies from people who would want to sue them for criminal use of proper functioning products, firearms.
	Compare that actually to the immunity given to the pharma companies who are in fact immune blanket from even improper or potentially nefarious side effects.
	Potentially from improper or...
	Blanket liability.
	Not just from things that work properly, but potentially things that don't.
	And I was trying to think of a good analogy.
	Everybody says, okay, well, you know, imagine if you lift the liability on gun manufacturers, they're going to go after car manufacturers next for people who decide to use their cars to plow into crowds and kill people.
	And then people are going to say, well, cars aren't designed to kill.
	They're designed to go places.
	Anybody who decides to use it for criminal purposes, well, there's a distinction to be drawn there.
	Guns are designed to kill.
	No, they're not.
	No, they're not any more than cars are.
	Guns are designed to fire.
	Knives, let's take a less hyperbolic example.
	Knives, they're designed to cut.
	They're not designed to cut human flesh.
	So someone takes a knife, which is designed to cut, uses it in the manner for which it was designed to be used, and it's a proper functioning knife and uses it to commit a criminal act.
	Would anyone think you want to go after the knife manufacturers for the criminal use of a proper functioning knife?
	I don't think so.
	Someone tell me if they think that that's a logical thing.
	Now, let's just say, hypothetically, you have a locking blade Spyderco knife and you're trying to...
	I don't know.
	Cut a fish.
	And the blade is supposed to be locked.
	And the blade unlocks, cuts you or cuts somebody else.
	Well, can you sue the company for the defective operation of what is supposed to be a proper functioning knife?
	Yes.
	Would you ever think about shielding them from liability for that?
	No.
	So people say, no, cars are designed to drive.
	They're not intended to kill or maim.
	And so anybody who does that, it's different.
	We won't go after the car companies.
	Knives are intended to cut.
	They're intended to cut flesh.
	But they're not intended to cut human flesh.
	Firearms are intended to shoot.
	Target practice?
	Geese?
	I mean, is the theory now that people would feel comfortable going after Remington for criminal use of a proper functioning 12-gauge shotgun if it's used for criminal purposes and not duck hunting?
	I don't think anybody would when they really think about it that way.
	So...
	And I had a...
	Whatever.
	I'm not sure if I'll use the analogy because some people might find it offensive or insensitive even though I think it's intended to illustrate the absolute absurdity.
	But I think the knife probably is the easiest analogy to understand.
	Knives are intended to cut flesh.
	They're not intended to cut human flesh.
	Firearms are intended to shoot projectiles.
	They're not intended to shoot projectiles at other humans unless cops are using them or unless you're in war.
	Which brings us to the other argument, by the way.
	Okay, Biden, lift the liability on firearm manufacturers and enjoy getting sued by every other country, I don't know, Russia, where you're shipping guns to kill people.
	Unless it's just pinpoint drafting legislation for, which some people think is probably the case, for excessively specific political purposes, if you lift the gun manufacturer's liability, are you going to get foreign countries suing?
	And if they sue the firearm companies and they go bankrupt, do they get to sue the government?
	Do they get to sue the government for shipping those firearms into foreign countries to kill people?
	I'm going to check the chat to see if anybody has found any actual logical problems with my arguments.
	The scalpel.
	Okay, well, good one, Paul Harley.
	Yes.
	Criminal use of the scalpel.
	That is the threshold.
	Not lawful use.
	Of a weapon intended to potentially cause harm.
	Lawful use of a proper functioning anything versus unlawful use of a proper functioning anything.
	In China, there have been about two dozen sledgehammer attacks in preschool since 2008.
	I don't see China prosecuting the sledgehammer factors.
	Oh, knife attacks in China.
	That's a decent analogy as well.
	Rat poison used to kill someone, you sue the poison company.
	Very good one.
	My analogy is it's Viagra.
	I mean, that's my analogy.
	You're suing a company for the proper functioning of their product if it's used for unlawful purposes.
	An impotent man who takes Viagra and then commits assault.
	The product functions properly and then the individual decided to go commit a crime relying on the proper functioning.
	Do you sue Viagra?
	Is Viagra vicariously liable for assaults?
	The answer is obvious.
	The only problem is that in times of panic, in times of crisis, people look for a quick solution even if it's the wrong solution.
	And COVID has, if nothing else, has taught us that.
	Acid attack in London.
	Acid attacks in London.
	Go after acid manufacturers.
	Battery manufacturers.
	Okay, now I missed a bunch of super chats.
	Let me see this here.
	Etienne de Gaulle, I recently broke my leg.
	Okay, this one I got too.
	Did you see in House of Commons the MPs wear their masks still?
	Talk about Mouton.
	That means sheep in French.
	There's a part of me that feels bad for anybody who is...
	I see people who I know, who I've known for years, wearing masks outside.
	I want to ask them.
	I want to have the discussion, why are you possibly doing this?
	But I can't possibly even ask the question without feeling that they're going to think I'm being judgmental.
	And I'm sure their answer is going to be, well, I just want to show solidarity.
	And in which case, back in the day when everyone said, you know, it was a virtue signaling of a physical order.
	And then I just see other people who are just terrified.
	They're absolutely terrified.
	Kid's teacher says, when she passes people outside, not my kid.
	A kid's teacher.
	When they pass people outside, they put on their mask because they don't want to get COVID.
	Sad.
	It's sad.
	In Spanish, we have a word.
	Pendejo.
	I don't know what that means.
	I think I know what that means.
	I've seen a few movies.
	Yeah, Biden, a good idea.
	You and Trudeau should have no immunity from being sued for damages caused by the deaths caused by your domestic and foreign policies.
	I agree.
	Excuse me.
	Enlightened despot.
	Or is it enlightened depot?
	I'm joking.
	Despot.
	Government is a false god.
	This was not a super chat, but I brought this one up because I agree.
	I went to D.C. It was actually...
	How long ago was it?
	It's going to be three years?
	I went to D.C. It had to have been before COVID.
	And I get in there.
	The buildings, the monuments erected for government.
	It's no different than the churches in France erected to reach the gods.
	To scratch the skies and reach up to the gods is what these churches were built to do.
	To impress the lowly citizenry who paid for them with their tithes, their taxes.
	It was done as a sort of a religious, spiritual shock and awe.
	I went to Washington and that's what it looked like to me.
	You know, it looked like Vegas in its opulence, except they were quality, like quality constructions.
	It was buildings, temples erected to the false god of government.
	And I was shocked.
	Some of it's beautiful.
	I didn't actually get to see the big Abe Lincoln on the chair.
	But it's not because I like Abe Lincoln or the legacy of Lincoln.
	It's idolatry.
	It's just pure and simple idolatry intended to lull the lowly citizenry into a false adulation of the elite political class.
	There is no reason why government should have the most beautiful buildings.
	Systematically.
	Beautiful on the outside and disgusting on the inside, which I think is quite apropos for government.
	But yeah, Biden's past brain injury and now dementia.
	I don't know about that.
	I'm not diagnosing anyone at a distance.
	So can we sue Ford and the SV driver who drove through the Christmas parade in Wisconsin?
	Oh, you mean Ford, the company.
	Sorry, I thought you meant Doug Ford.
	That's where it goes.
	Unless you just make one law and one law only, because ultimately we all know.
	The Second Amendment.
	Oh, maybe the freedom to drive is next on the list of the petty tyrants.
	Sorry, there's a lemon seed.
	Because in my Red Bull, I like to squeeze a little lemon.
	Yeah, that was, you know, and I discussed with Barnes some things I know I don't know, but he said, if you're a gun manufacturer, you do not want to exist or do business in certain states.
	Alcohol manufacturers, fertilizers.
	We had this with cigarettes, except they were suing the cigarette companies for willingly, knowingly concealing the damaging effects of their product.
	So that's another thing.
	That's a distinction between a proper functioning firearm used for criminal purposes, a proper functioning knife or scalpel, sir, whoever correct me, used for criminal purposes, any proper functioning potential weapon.
	And I say potential weapon, not that firearms are weapons and there's a distinction.
	Any potential weapon used for criminal purposes, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
	Go after Dunlop or whoever makes baseball bats if someone decides to, you know, do whatever.
	So, it's preposterous.
	It's purely political.
	It's ill thought out.
	Ill thought out.
	That's very Canadian.
	But I guess very fitting for...
	Very fitting for the current climate and the current government.
	And I've said it before and I like it.
	The government is not looking for the solution.
	They're looking for their solution.
	Even if it is actually not the proper solution.
	Louisville Slugger.
	I'm coming out of the booth!
	I got you, man.
	Louisville Slugger.
	I'm coming out of the booth!
	Oh, yeah.
	The good old days of when Adam Sandler was funny.
	Viva, did you cover Bill C-11 in Canada?
	I did multiple times.
	But...
	Fellow Canadian YouTuber, JJ McCullough.
	You know what?
	Hold on.
	I'm going to get it.
	JJ McCullough went up in front of Parliament and gave a good speech.
	Now, I don't want to play the whole thing because I don't want to get into trouble and I don't want to look like I'm stealing his hard-earned work.
	I will, however, put him on the most deservative blast, although he gets...
	I don't think he needs me.
	To promote his work.
	He's destroying it.
	Hold on here.
	I'll show you the first 30 seconds.
	Not stop camera, Dave.
	Get your stuff together here.
	Share.
	JJ McCullough went to Parliament and gave a good five-minute speech.
	Speech.
	Stop screen.
	I'm not an idiot today, man.
	Share screen.
	Not stop cam.
	Okay.
	My statement.
	Here we go.
	This is it.
	This is JJ McCullough, peeps.
	We see this.
	Good.
	I'll just play a few seconds.
	JJ McCullough is awesome.
	I don't know if he wants me endorsing him, but I think we're aligned ideologically to some extent.
	He's much more polite than I am these days, though.
	Okay, so he went to Parliament to give a good speech, and I'll clip this and share the link in here.
	There we go.
	Boom.
	Hello, friends.
	My name is JJ McCullough, and I am a professional YouTuber from New Westminster, BC.
	Today I hope to teach the committee about Canada's vast YouTuber community and why so many of us fear Bill C11.
	Alright, I'll stop there.
	And his aboot, I think it's like the fro, it starts off as a gag and then it becomes second nature.
	Or he said aboot like a stereotyped Canadian forever.
	So check that video out and then maybe JJ will do a follow-up.
	But yeah, I talked about Bill C11.
	It's obvious what it is.
	You may as well call it.
	You may as well call it the True North bill or the Rebel Media bill.
	It's about...
	It is about...
	It is a boot reestablishing...
	That boot was insane.
	I think it's become his...
	One of the pillars of branding.
	It is nothing shy of trying to reestablish the advantage, the home team advantage for the state-subsidized media that they've lost to the freedom.
	And the democratization of the information on the internet.
	Regulate independent creators on the internet where we have crushed legacy media so that legacy media can be promoted.
	Because bottom line, Bill C-11 is about governing content creators online under the Broadcast Act, which is the same act that governs radio, television, CBC, whatever.
	It imposes content requirements for Canadian content.
	It imposes fines and sanctions if there's not enough.
	They want to, under this bill, basically force platforms, force social media platforms, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, whatever, to prioritize or favor algorithmically content that they deem to be compliant or respecting the provisions of this bill and suppress or do not promote others that don't.
	So Canadian content creator, Viva Fry, if he talks about too much American stuff, well, they're going to say YouTube.
	He's not Canadian enough under this act.
	Suppress him.
	Promote others.
	Promote JJ McCullough, who does pretty much exclusively Canadian stuff.
	And what I like about JJ, back in the day when this was a young issue under Bill C-10, he's like, I don't even want you to help me.
	I don't need you, YouTube, to promote me.
	And I don't want to succeed by you wrongly promoting me while wrongly suppressing others.
	I want to succeed or fail on my own merit, as he has been doing and as I hope I have been doing.
	But all that it is, this Bill C-11.
	It's an attempt to penalize, suppress independent voices, give CBC the advantage yet again by coercing YouTube to promote CBC, CTV, Global News, Radio Canada, to the detriment of the independent voices that have succeeded on their own merit, Rebel Media, JJ McCullers, but he's not necessarily as controversial as others, True North, Postmillennial, suppress...
	The independent voices that are critical of the government, that are not on their payroll, and promote your propaganda mouthpieces that are fully subsidized.
	It couldn't be more clear than that.
	Jesus, Dave, you need a producer.
	Time to teach your oldest daughter the ins and oots of the live stream production.
	Sam Cooking Guy's son is his producer.
	You know what?
	From an income-splitting perspective, that's a very interesting thing.
	Anyways, one day I will.
	The risk there also, you don't want your kid living in the shadow of the parent's profession.
	Reputation or whatever.
	Confession through projection.
	I'm thinking back to my childhood.
	Was I forced into law because of my dad?
	I'm joking.
	I'm absolutely joking.
	Okay, let's see.
	We got John Riddorf.
	Just up in time to distract me from my joke.
	I just joined the stream, so I'm not sure I missed out.
	But everyone who's holding Depp as a hero seems to forget when Depp asked when, quote, was the last time an actor did something to a president.
	Okay.
	I said no Johnny Depp, Amber Heard.
	But I didn't say no Johnny Depp with his stupid statement suggesting that someone should do something bad, a la John Wilkes Booth to Abraham Lincoln.
	I don't think anybody's putting Johnny out as a hero regardless.
	In the context of this trial, he's not a hero.
	He was just right.
	With that stupid comment, he's an idiot.
	Nobody is like a hero all the time, ideologically aligned all the time, or not an idiot sometimes.
	I love Angels and Airwaves.
	I absolutely loathe Tom DeLonge's politics.
	But you know, I gotta tell you something.
	Tom DeLonge could not say anything so dumb and so offensive that I would stop listening to Angels and Airwaves.
	So Johnny Depp, he did say that stupid thing.
	Let's just pull it up here.
	He was at the Cannes Film Festival and he said, when's the last time an actor...
	Depp, Cannes, Festival, Trump, Lincoln...
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Here, he makes a smash nation joke.
	So he said, I won't bring it up.
	Can we bring Trump in?
	Depp asked the crowd during his opening remarks.
	I think Trump needs help.
	There are a lot of dark places he could go.
	I'm not insinuating anything.
	By the way, this will be in the press and it will be horrible.
	But when was the last time an actor did something bad to a president?
	Okay, so he's politically probably as much of an idiot as many other people in Hollywood.
	In this particular case, he was just right versus wrong.
	Nobody was...
	What's the opposite of demonizing?
	What is the opposite of demonizing in terms of making someone into a hero?
	There is a word for that.
	Chat.
	Without forcing me to go to Siri Dictate, what is the word...
	I can yada yada it so that I don't...
	You know, trigger, you know, spiders crawling for certain words in videos.
	And also, I don't want...
	Glorifies is not the word I'm necessarily...
	Heroizing, if that's a word, Louis Lynch.
	Idolizing, I was...
	Deifying is the word I was looking for.
	Yep.
	Praising is not the word, but good.
	Glorifying, that was one I hadn't.
	Canonizing?
	Idolizing?
	I love this.
	Edifying.
	Okay, it might be edifying.
	I'll have to go look at a few of these afterwards.
	Okay, so that was Joe Biden spewing an outright factually incorrect statement.
	No one is going to correct him, unless they will.
	Maybe they will.
	Needs context.
	Needs context.
	Joe Biden was not talking about anything in the medical community, so therefore his statement is technically correct.
	There is no other company in the non-medical...
	Context.
	That has received immunity.
	Oh, hold on.
	The opposite of demonize is lionize.
	Is that true, or is that a joke?
	Because that actually sounds like it could be a good joke, or...
	Analize?
	No!
	Okay, I'm going to analyze.
	I just read it like Trebek.
	I'll take anal bum coverage for 800, Trebek.
	Deifying is a bit much.
	Maybe lionizing is it.
	Okay.
	Okay, moving on, people.
	Moving on.
	Okay, Ian Wolfe seems very, very intent on lionizing, lionizing, lionizing, lionizing.
	Okay.
	Hold on.
	Someone just said something funny.
	Learning with Viva.
	We can do that.
	By the way, I'm going to try to do a live stream fishing on the Viva Family channel this weekend.
	My only concern is if I mortally hook a fish, I think people might...
	Be sensitive to watching someone club a fish on the head to make sure it's dead.
	So I'll have to figure out a way to do that.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	So that's it.
	Let's see if the fact checkers come and fact check Joe Biden.
	Not holding my breath.
	Okay.
	Last subject that I had.
	All right.
	That's a boot.
	A boot JJ McCullough.
	Share screen, people.
	Rittenhouse, people.
	Rittenhouse might be on the...
	Is that a bad analogy?
	He might be on the warpath for suing people for defamation?
	Look, I was wrong in my initial assessment of Johnny Depp suing for defamation where I said Johnny's going to come out looking bad.
	Hold on.
	I was wrong in my initial assessment in which I said Johnny's going to come out looking bad and it's not worth the risk of the trial.
	I didn't say that.
	I said I might recommend that he not if I were his lawyer.
	Because of the risks.
	Johnny probably knew his evidence more than anybody else.
	In this case, there's no risks.
	There's no analogous risks to the risks for Johnny Depp suing Amber Heard for defamation.
	Here are the only questions of the costs.
	Costs compared to the likelihood of success.
	In law, the question is going to be, let's just say he decides to sue, and let's just say that the statements are objectively false.
	You know, before we...
	Let me pull this one out and share another screen.
	Stop screen.
	Let's operate on the basis that the statements are objectively false.
	And there's one that I had in mind.
	Objectively false.
	It was in the Independent.
	Listen to this.
	This was in the Independent.
	This was the day of his acquittal.
	And I remember seeing it with my own eyes in real time.
	I couldn't find my tweet.
	This was the day of the acquittal.
	The Independent.
	Writes, as a headline, Kyle Rittenhouse cleared of murder after shooting dead two Black Lives Matter protesters.
	Now, The Independent is still referring to those three individuals.
	Let me see if I can remember their names.
	There's Grosskreutz, there was Rosenbaum, and there was the third guy.
	Forget his name.
	Someone's going to remember his name.
	To suggest that they were BLM Black Lives Matter protesters is factually incorrect, bordering on stupidity and dishonesty, because there's no way the Independent could not have seen everything.
	Those people were protesters in the same sense that if I attend a basketball game, I'm a player.
	They were not protesters.
	There were some protesters there, or there were protesters.
	The three, who was the...
	Jump kick man?
	No.
	Grosskreutz?
	Yes.
	Rosenbaum?
	Huber.
	Anthony Huber.
	They were not protesters.
	They were clearly there for other vandalistic purposes.
	So, fine.
	But that I don't think is the issue.
	Underneath.
	Full story.
	Teenager who shot three black men with rifle found not guilty on all charges.
	Okay.
	This is a factually incorrect statement.
	He did not shoot three black men.
	He shot three white men.
	The question here would be, okay, he didn't shoot three black men.
	He shot three white men.
	This is a factually incorrect statement.
	The question is going to be like we saw in James O 'Keefe versus CNN.
	Is the truth just as bad as the lie?
	Is the truth just as bad as the lie as far as reputational damage goes?
	Is anyone going to say...
	It's almost stupid.
	I didn't shoot three black men.
	I just shot three men.
	Okay, dude, that doesn't change much in my mind in general.
	Except the implication here is that it was racially motivated.
	Presumably.
	So the imputation here, the prejudicial...
	Aspect of this factually incorrect statement is not that I didn't shoot three black men.
	I just shot three men.
	Well, that doesn't make much of a difference to me.
	No.
	The underlying statement here is that it was racially motivated and the suggestion is that he was racist.
	He was a racist man who deliberately shot three men because of race.
	Okay.
	But then the question is going to be, well, had we just said he shot three men with a rifle found not guilty in all charges?
	That would be factually correct, actually.
	It would not be prejudicial.
	So this is one of the statements where I think he's got as clear-cut of a claim against anybody just because of the sheer objectivity of the factual inaccuracy, the factual incorrect nature of the statement.
	The issue is if they want to go after other media and go after things like he had the gun illegally.
	With Rittenhouse, there's going to be two legal questions.
	Is the truth just as bad as the lie?
	And or...
	Does he have a reputation susceptible of damage?
	Because once you're accused of a criminal matter, put through trial, the argument is going to be there's not really much that people can do to damage your reputation, except the obvious retort is going to be I'm found innocent, legally innocent.
	To continue to suggest that I'm a murderer and a racist murderer at that is an issue.
	But then it's also going to be a question as to when these statements were made.
	Pre-conviction versus post-conviction.
	So there's a number of interesting legal questions.
	It'll be very interesting to see who, well, first of all, if he sues anybody, and who he sues, and on what basis, in virtue of which statements, and when those statements were made.
	Salmon Lawyer, so let's just, we'll go through the article.
	See, I don't think it had any, it didn't have enough of the details.
	Salmon Lawyer joins Rittenhouse team, says Zuckerberg.
	Zuckerberg, a top target of numerous solid lawsuits.
	A Rittenhouse lawyer says he's confident there are 10 to 15 solid cases against large defendants.
	You don't want to sue small, insolvent defendants.
	As everybody, you know, in the Covington Catholic kids, in the Covington Catholic kids defamation case, the Nicholas Salmon, everyone's like, why don't you sue the native elder, Nathan Phillips?
	I presume he was insolvent or sufficiently insolvent that it would make no difference to go after him.
	He wouldn't be able to contribute to a settlement and you probably wouldn't be able to get much out of him by way of judgment even if he got to a judgment.
	I presume.
	The lawyer who represented the Covenant Catholic Kid, Nicholas Salmon.
	Okay, so we saw that he's going to go after him.
	Here we go.
	This is it.
	This is the interesting part.
	I've been hired.
	A lot of you are going to be asking why he didn't get to Barnes.
	I don't know.
	Maybe I'll ask Barnes.
	It's an interesting thing.
	The industry.
	I've been hired to head the effort to determine whom to sue, when to sue, where to sue.
	Todd McMurdy, I think you need a shirt, who now represents Rittenhouse, told Fox News Digital in an interview.
	We're going to look at everything that's been said to determine which of those comments are legally actionable and proceed from there.
	McMurdy's team said this is pretty much assured.
	There's 10 to 15 solid cases against the defendant.
	And then we get into the story.
	Let's just see if there's anything more interesting in here.
	Here we go.
	So this...
	Actually, let's go to the Zuckerberg.
	Yeah.
	Let's use, for example, what Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg said about Rittenhouse.
	They said that he was involved in a mass murder incident, McMurdy explained.
	This was not a mass murder incident.
	It was clearly factually false.
	This is where you're going to have the legal questions, people.
	And I don't...
	I mean, I want to play devil's advocate literally and metaphorically.
	Zuckerberg is going to say...
	Calling it mass murder.
	Murder is a...
	Homicide is a legal determination, unlike homicide.
	Homicide means a death occurring at the hands of someone else.
	Murder is a legal conclusion as to culpability.
	So the question is this.
	If you accuse someone of a crime before conviction, is it defamatory?
	When Tucker Carlson accused, was it Stormy Daniels or one of the two who tried to extort, in his words, This is extortion.
	Is it opinion?
	And is it opinion and not an actual accusation of saying Mr. X is a big P?
	If it was made before the acquittal, that's going to be exquisitely relevant as well.
	And I believe these statements were made before the acquittal.
	Then the question is going to be a mass murder incident.
	As opposed to a mass homicide incident.
	So I would say, if these statements were made before the acquittal, I would imagine Zuckerberg is going to have robust defenses to any such defamation claim, given the factual nature of what actually went down.
	Because until he's acquitted, it's neither murder nor self-defense.
	It's a question of what you think the situation is.
	And it's going to be the same defense that I think is valid for Tucker Carlson.
	When he said these ladies committed extortion, I don't think it's defamatory because I don't think anybody's looking at that and saying it's a legal determination, especially if there has been no trial.
	So when Zuckerberg comes out and if he said it this way, it's a mass murder incident, there's been no trial, there's been no conviction, so is it a matter of opinion or is it sufficiently true at that point in time given the facts that are known?
	Is this archived?
	I don't know.
	Let me put it here.
	I mean, this has to.
	Everything's archived real quick.
	To call somebody a mass murderer is seriously defamatory.
	And then to use the power of social media to basically censor any views that would take opposition to that mass murderer statement is a serious effort to destroy his character.
	And it was seriously mistaken and seriously defamatory.
	I mean...
	Or it's just seriously opinion up until the...
	Time when he gets acquitted.
	Because if you were convicted, by the way, all of a sudden that statement is no longer defamatory.
	Now, the social media attack is a totally separate issue, but hypothetically, if you were convicted and even convicted and then acquitted later, that statement becomes true.
	So it's the outcome that changes the nature, the potential defamatory nature of that statement.
	Not clear if it's defamatory at the time it was made when all that was known is that Kyle Rittenhouse, in fact, killed, not murdered, killed, Later determined in self-defense, two individuals and shot another.
	Let's see.
	Here we go.
	That's the more summarizing of the story.
	McMurdy added that Zuckerberg is certainly going to be at the top of your list when examining what potentially false statements are legally actionable because he has an outsized voice.
	Facebook has an outsized voice and they can do a lot of damages compared to somebody maybe who is a small blog with 100 subscribers, but we're going to look everywhere.
	We're going to look at everything.
	That we have access to and that's been published and decide which ones are actionable.
	Okay, I think the rest is not interesting.
	Let's see, which politicians?
	Well, right now we're still looking at quite a few politicians, celebrities, athletes.
	Whoopi Goldberg.
	Whoopi Goldberg is on the list.
	Rittenhouse said on Fox News, Tucker Carlson.
	She called me a murderer after I was acquitted by a jury of my peers.
	She went on to still say that.
	And that...
	That is objectively defamatory, in my view.
	It's going to be a question of whether or not it was hyperbolic opinion, and we all knew that not to take it literally, especially since it was said after the acquittal, but accusing someone of a crime that they did not commit?
	Yep.
	So, to be continued, I mean, if there is, if this, I mean, if that ever were to get to a civil trial, can you imagine the level of interest that would follow with that?
	Oh, I missed the super chat.
	Let me see if I cannot find it.
	Hold.
	Oh, there we go.
	I can still bring it up.
	Thank goodness.
	Okay.
	John, is this the one?
	I'm sorry for bringing that up.
	That was not my intention.
	I am late to the show and missed the precursor.
	The second super chat is dedicated to Barnes because he laughed at and keeps saying my election fornication post.
	Well, a good joke is a good joke, especially one that's catchy and that people are not likely to forget.
	Election fornication.
	What does it say?
	Your statement is utterable.
	If you follow your dad into a profession, your fondest wish is to be one-tenth the man he was, backed up by 2,000 years of Jewish tradition.
	The whole thing is that nobody wants to feel...
	Well, as a lawyer, I can just say this, not as a lawyer.
	As my dad's son living in Montreal with my dad's reputation, and my dad had...
	I'm not trying to stroke his ego.
	My dad has.
	An incredible reputation.
	He was known as a bulldog throughout his life.
	Children, and you don't live in the shadow, but kids look at their...
	Not kids.
	People look at the kids of a bulldog lawyer whom they might have had some bad experiences with.
	And the kids live with that.
	But there is something sometimes of a pressure of children to take over the parents' business.
	They don't necessarily want to.
	It's not different.
	But no, it was a joke in any event.
	I never felt the slightest bit of pressure.
	To go into law like my father.
	I never felt pressure because to me, there was never really a choice.
	What am I going to do?
	Be a philosophizer?
	Get philosophy degree, go into law.
	It was either that or medicine, but I was too late to go back to CEGEP and take the sciences.
	Never felt pressure.
	And I always thought I would love the practice.
	So never felt pressure.
	Always thought I would love it.
	Never loved it a day more the day later than the day before.
	If Zook's words influenced the Facebook fact checker, Meh.
	Or if Zook's words were based on the Facebook fact checker.
	Well, our third-party fact checker, the people that we pay to fact check, said it.
	So I'm morally justified in saying it because I was just relying on the fact checkers that we pay to say things.
	So that is it.
	Let's see what else I had on the menu.
	I'm contesting a ticket.
	I'm contesting that school bus ticket.
	Gotta do it.
	I was called the bulldog.
	I was called the pit bull in the practice.
	Viva, you look a little like a bulldog.
	I was called the pit bull in the practice and I was called the roadrunner when I played squash because I ran around like a chicken without its head or a roadrunner.
	Viva, give, send, go, campaign for the billboard.
	Also, I know a graphic designer who does billboards.
	Yeah, we'll see.
	We'll see what happens there.
	Okay, now, hold on one second.
	Yes, who's been around long enough to remember the third farty pact checker?
	Oh, that was a good one.
	Okay, hold on.
	I actually just want to read that article about the independent.
	And to McMurdy, if you're listening, this would be one that I would go after.
	The Independent falsely claimed that Kyle Rittenhouse shot three black men after he was acquitted of all charges Friday for shooting three white men in self-defense during the August 2020.
	By the way, do you know how fast they edited that title?
	Quite fast.
	So that'll go to mitigating.
	You know, we made mistakes.
	Sorry, here.
	Oh, here we go.
	Full story.
	Teenager who shot three black men with a rifle.
	Found not guilty on all charges, the Independent wrote in a bullet point on the main page of its website Friday.
	The error was quickly corrected, although the outlet did not publicly acknowledge or apologize for the mistake.
	The Independent then altered the page to correct the error, although the article linked to it in the bullet did not include a correction note from the editor to acknowledge the mistake.
	The article's SEO description Still incorrectly stated that three men who were shot were black as of Friday afternoon, but has since been updated.
	When is this from?
	This is from 1120, so November 20th, 2021.
	The police shooting, okay, we got that part.
	Journalist Glenn Greenwald said that the same error had occurred in numerous Brazilian newspapers, as well as in a Dutch publication Friday.
	Now, there might be some jurisdictional issues there.
	I'm going to go ahead and put this article in the chat.
	And if anybody knows Tom McMurdy, link him this.
	I'm sure he'll find it relatively interesting.
	Hallelujah is back in the house.
	No guns, no shooting.
	That would be a correct statement.
	Do you know what would be the problem with it?
	There will never not be guns because the shootings, the guns that are doing the criminal shootings are illegal black market guns.
	So that's that.
	And then if you want no guns, you want to take all the guns out of the world everywhere.
	That means your army doesn't have any.
	And I'm sure China and Russia would very much love that.
	Ban shootings.
	Let's ban crime.
	People don't know the stats.
	People just don't know the stats.
	They don't know the stats on which guns are responsible for the vast majority of homicides.
	In the States, people don't appreciate that the number that you often see for firearm-related deaths include the self-inflicted nature, which now, shockingly, is over 50% of firearm-related deaths.
	54% are self-inflicted.
	That's shocking.
	And that is not a firearm issue.
	That is something else that needs to be addressed.
	You don't hunt ducks with a handgun.
	I agree.
	And that's why the handgun is the weapon of choice.
	And I'm saying weapon because it's used, procured easily through the black market for criminal activity.
	People who go through a two-day course...
	To get their PAL license, to have a handgun or a small arm at home.
	Don't allow them to be thefted very often.
	And certainly don't go out and commit crime with them.
	Because the government has your name, your address, your registration.
	And the people, you don't need a handgun to go hunting, true.
	You don't need a Ferrari to take your kids to school either.
	So, you know, using something for illegal purposes should not render that object illegal.
	It should render the conduct illegal, and guess what?
	It already is.
	Anyhow, okay.
	So, did I put this in here?
	I put this in here.
	Okay.
	This is the link.
	Newsbreak.
	Send it to McMurdy, although I'm certain he already knows it.
	But yeah, the vast majority of firearm-related homicides, With small arms, and the vast majority of that, illegal.
	Black market, unlawfully procured firearms.
	It's actually, it's a fraction of overall firearm deaths that result from mass shootings with AR-15s and the like.
	There's an argument to be made that it's a fraction of a very large number, and therefore even that fraction is still excessive.
	There's no one out here who's going to say that these things are not, that it's not a problem.
	Because it's a fraction, it's therefore not of a concern.
	Period.
	So anybody who strawmans it like that, there's not really much of a point of having the discussion any longer.
	But the issue is, it's a problem.
	What's the solution?
	And the solution is, call me conservative, call me whatever you want.
	The solution is not make it illegal for law-abiding citizens to have lawfully procured firearms with which crime is typically not committed.
	The solution is tougher sentence on gun crimes, not easier sentences.
	Is it California, people?
	Is it California or is it Canada?
	It's one or the other.
	I think it's California, where they basically not decriminalized but made it not a felony to be possessing a firearm while committing a crime unless you use that firearm in the actual specific act of the crime.
	Have you ever seen a chicken running without a head?
	No.
	Oh, that's a...
	That's a French dog.
	It has a French name to it.
	I just saw one the other day and I...
	Not a BC...
	Oh.
	Dave Riches, I have not seen a chicken running around without its head.
	What kind of dog is that?
	I know what kind of dog that is.
	While true, you do not hunt ducks with handguns.
	You can hunt with handguns.
	Happens all over the world from Africa to America.
	Just because you do not hunt ducks does not mean you do not hunt.
	But by the way, I don't hunt ducks with a handgun.
	You use that in theory for self-defense, for home defense.
	And the hunting argument is not the argument in the United States of America.
	It's the Second Amendment.
	In Canada, that's how the debate goes now.
	You don't need it for hunting, so therefore you don't need it.
	Well, you know, like I said, you don't need a car with a certain horsepower, so let's just reduce everything to what you need.
	And once you do what you need, and the government gives you and limits your freedoms to what they decide you need, that's called communism.
	In Canada, what occurs when, say, a gun on a father...
	So there is an obligation under the law now.
	I presume you mean, like, dies of natural...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Transfer of ownership.
	If there's a death and the registered owner of the firearm passes away, anybody who takes ownership of that gun has to register it in their name.
	But I would presume if the kid is not licensed to have a small firearm, they would have to effectively give it back to the government.
	Give it back to wherever you get it from.
	Give it back to the commissioner.
	Because if the son does not have the license for a small arm, and those are restricted in Canada, even before Justin Trudeau's outright ban, you can't own it.
	You can't procure it.
	It becomes a criminal offense for an unregistered, unlicensed owner to inherit a firearm.
	I don't think there's any grandfather clause anymore for...
	Passing that down in that way.
	In fact, I'm certain.
	So...
	Yeah, they're talking about inheritance.
	Yeah, but bottom line.
	And right now, even with the unrestricted firearm, like a shotgun, you can't transfer it to someone who doesn't have a license to have it.
	So that becomes unlawful criminal possession by the possessor.
	And if the person who transfers it is alive, that becomes like, that's effectively like black marketing a registered firearm.
	But you'd never do that, certainly not in Quebec, because the government has a registry and would know.
	Oh, I was responding to the other person in the chat.
	I do not need any reason to own a gun in America.
	I own them because I want them.
	But that's selfish.
	You own them because you want them?
	I'm being tongue-in-cheek.
	First of all, people who don't hunt just don't understand it.
	True.
	You don't need an AR-15 with a magazine of 12 to hunt.
	True.
	The argument is not that I need an AR-15 with a 12-round magazine to hunt.
	The argument is that self-defense and the Second Amendment, like it or not, it's the core document of a country for a reason in its inception, in its being maintained, and in its being respected as borderline.
	Sanctimonious?
	Not sanctimonious.
	Borderline cannot be violated.
	Inviolable.
	Well-regulated militia shall not be infringed.
	And we read it the other day.
	The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
	And there was a historical, political, geopolitical necessity reason for which that was put in the Constitution.
	We should have the same rules here to some extent because I think self-defense is a fundamental human right.
	And in Canada, they've made it illegal to possess any weapon for the purpose of self-defense.
	It may not be infringed.
	All right, Viva.
	You cannot give back to the government something they never owned.
	We discussed this the other day also.
	The buyback, it's not a buyback.
	It's a confiscation.
	It's a compensated confiscation.
	But if the mob comes to me and says, we're buying back your home, it's like, sorry, that's my home.
	We're buying it back.
	You can buy it back for all the money in the world.
	You're not buying it back.
	You're stealing it, confiscating it, and you think you're giving me money to legalize or to render legal what would otherwise be unlawful seizure.
	No, I'm just talking about the gun itself is registered to an individual.
	So if that individual passes away, they can't bequeath that to anybody who's not registered to own it and without transferring the ownership of it.
	If only Kane had a background check for The Rock.
	So, hold on, let me bring this one back up.
	This was the article that we were looking at, just to see if it gets any more interesting.
	Okay, so we got some tweets, got Rittenhouse.
	I said I wouldn't talk about the Johnny Depp trial, but you want to talk about someone with PTSD and what it looks like when someone goes into a full-blown panic attack.
	Hold it in, bottle it up, bottle it up until you finally break down on the stand, a la Rittenhouse, versus try to force it out, try to force it out, try to force it out, so you can just barely squeeze one fake tear out.
	In the other trial.
	The largest media outlets in Brazil had to retract their articles on the Rittenhouse case because they claimed it was a case of a white youth having shot and killed two black men.
	I mean, that goes to show you the impact of the statements across the world where they're not necessarily following the trial with as much scrutiny as the law tubers who the media wants to dump on now.
	We all knew that.
	But elsewhere in the world where they think of Americans as racist, gun-toting, whatever, Fake news resonates throughout the rest of the world, which is more detached from the truth and the true story than Americans per se.
	Okay, nothing more there.
	So, that's that.
	That's all I have to say about that, but I do want to pull up some of the other bad takes on the Twitterverse.
	Oh, by the way, people!
	It's confirmed.
	I think it's Brendan Strzok, not Brendan Strzokka.
	I've been saying Strzokka, but apparently it's pronounced Strzokk.
	Brendan Strzokk, who was just on Timcast earlier this week, Sunday night.
	I don't know if we'll call it a...
	No, it's not the sidebar.
	We're not going to call it a sidebar.
	It's just going to be Viva cheating on Barnes with a non-lawyer.
	Barnes will not be...
	He will not be miffed, and he will not be jealous.
	Firearms that cannot be transferred to a beneficiary get surrendered to the RCMP for destruction.
	This applies to all firearms.
	Steve Britton, thank you very much.
	Canada is screwed.
	I think I did say that to Jim Carajalios after Viva Fry cheating hour.
	It might be two hours, but anyways, Brendan Strzaka, who was just on Timcast earlier this week.
	Man, one hell of a story.
	He's coming on Sunday night and it's going to be fantastic.
	Fantastic.
	So stay tuned and start spreading the word.
	I'll create the link Saturday night because I do plan on potentially going live tomorrow.
	What I wanted to bring up in my Twitter feed, which is my running diary of life.
	Oh, Robert Barnes, this is law, says that apparently under Virginia law, Amber is not going to be able to bankrupt herself.
	Out of the amounts owing because you cannot bank yourself out of deliberate tortious conduct.
	And I think she's going to be equally screwed on insurance because insurance typically does not cover deliberate acts of tort.
	So she's in big, big, big effing trouble.
	The only question is going to be, will Johnny again be, what does she refer to as in the chat?
	Will he take the high road and say, I'll lessen the amount to something, donate it to charity.
	Will he do that?
	We'll see.
	She can't bankrupt herself out of the judgment, nor will I think she get coverage through her insurance company for the judgment.
	That's not what I wanted to bring up.
	Okay, let me just go through this here.
	No, I don't want to sign up.
	Okay, we did the Rittenhouse.
	Oh, listen to this, by the way.
	Okay, so here, by the way, we brought it up the other day where someone said it was the well-regulated militia that shall not be infringed, and I said, no, I don't think it is.
	A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
	So the shall not be infringed was not only in respect of the well-regulated militia, it qualifies both a well-regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state and...
	The right of the people to keep and bear arms, capital A arms, shall not be infringed.
	Is there a sex bot in the house?
	Where?
	Where?
	Where is it?
	Where is it?
	I typically can see because...
	Oh, there it is.
	There it is.
	Oh, hey.
	How you doing?
	You're blocked.
	Okay.
	I'm not blocking for substance.
	I'm blocking for sex bot spam.
	I don't need sex bots.
	I'm a married man.
	Listen to this take of the media.
	The media is now intimidated by what has borne out on the internet.
	I love how they just...
	Pitfall.
	A pitfall.
	A pitfall of...
	Kate Tanbarge, NBC News reporter.
	A pitfall of going to YouTubers and TikTokers.
	First of all, I take offense.
	To synonymizing.
	To equating YouTubers with TikTokers.
	Okay?
	I'm sure there's some very educational material on TikTok.
	But I take offense.
	TikTok is...
	There's some funny stuff on it.
	There were some really good memes.
	I think they're different.
	But let's hear about the pitfall of going to YouTubers and TikTokers for coverage.
	Is that these creators aren't beholden to any editorial standards.
	Replace that word with...
	Predetermined narrative.
	We're not beholden to a narrative.
	That's why people come to us.
	And by the way, call me a YouTuber?
	I've got an honors degree in philosophy, a law degree, 13 years of practice.
	You can call me a YouTuber.
	Sorry, it's like 16 years of practice now.
	15. You can call me a YouTuber.
	And like someone said yesterday...
	Oh, the problem with listening to people who graduated from grade 3 is that, you know, they're idiots.
	Yeah, well, I graduated from grade 3. I also graduated from grade 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, Sage Jeff, honors philosophy at McGill, law degree at Laval, practice for...
	I also have that.
	So in addition to being YouTubers, some of us and most of the law tube are much, much more.
	But let's just see.
	We're not beholden to any editorial standards or journalistic norms.
	And by the way, you know how I know...
	That this journalist intended to use the words narrative here?
	One is not beholden to standards.
	One is held to standards.
	One is governed by standards.
	Beholden is sort of like idolatry in and of itself.
	You're beholden to a narrative, to a belief.
	You're not beholden to rules.
	You are governed by rules.
	This is, in fact, they're incentivized to break them.
	Oh, really?
	To fit the narrative and make money.
	You don't make money if you break the rules on YouTube.
	You don't make money if you put out bad information on YouTube.
	You don't make money as a YouTube creator.
	The sole basis for your success is the accuracy, the trustworthiness, and the value added of your content.
	You go out there and you put out crap and you put out misinformation, you don't make money for very long.
	But this is just, it's pure confession to projection in that incentivized to break the rules to fit the narrative?
	You mean like vice coming?
	Oh, it doesn't matter.
	Okay.
	So it's just, it's crazy.
	But there's a now, there's a war.
	I say a war.
	There's a jealousy spat between the MSM that sees it slipping away in real time.
	They are losing their grip on the narrative.
	There's a reason.
	Why the same people who didn't see this verdict coming down, didn't see inflation, didn't see Trump winning, didn't see Rittenhouse getting acquitted, because they live in an ideological silo.
	Because all they do is promote a narrative to feed the narrative.
	What happened here?
	Hold on a second.
	Uh-oh.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	Gonna cough and it's not the Rona.
	Damn it.
	I forgot to put on.
	I didn't get mute in time.
	Okay.
	Oh, let me just say this.
	Second aid gotten so freaking twisted in the US on purpose, intent 100% to protect me from my tyrannical government.
	In my understanding of it now, and I've lived through the learning curve, absolutely.
	That is the historical context in which it was born.
	Viva.
	If only Canada could hold weapons in trust.
	So no transfer of ownership because the trust owns them and the officers of the trust can possess them.
	We have them here in America.
	Really helps when it comes to settling estates.
	I'm not sure that...
	Would that...
	What would that resolve?
	In terms of...
	That would not resolve anything of the problem.
	And I wonder...
	No, trusts?
	I don't know that trusts could...
	How would a trust own a firearm in terms of...
	It has to be registered.
	It's like an intuitive persona thing.
	It's something that has to be attached to a human and not an estate.
	And it's interesting.
	I don't know how that would work.
	I have to conceptualize how that might work.
	And then I just got the super chat.
	Okay.
	By the way, with what I just said about TikTok, you might end up seeing some of my content on TikTok because I'm exploring the idea of finally outsourcing.
	Some of the shorter cut content for Viva Clips so I can free up some time and free up some psychological stress and maybe so I can post more consistently on Instagram and maybe the TikTok.
	But it's only going to be quality analysis.
	None of that dance stuff.
	Interesting.
	Okay, hold on a second.
	Superchats.
	Only 70% goes to the YouTuber and that gets taxed also.
	Don't remind me of taxes.
	People don't appreciate.
	In Canada, we effectively pay more than...
	If you make above a certain amount, 50% goes to tax.
	50%.
	And that's not including property tax, sales tax, license, your licenses, all these things that you get.
	It's just up the wazoo in Canada.
	Love your content.
	Do my own.
	Would you kindly check my vid on Knife Laws today for accuracy?
	Greetings from Newfoundland, all!
	Fight Castro's tyranny.
	Newfoundland was one of the most beautiful places I have ever visited.
	Gros Morne National Park.
	It was like being on Mars if Mars had mountains that were Martian mountains with grass on the lower parts.
	Just beautiful.
	Let me screenshot that and see if I can do it.
	Ardent party.
	Ardent party.
	No endorsement until I see it.
	I'm going to watch your video and share it around.
	No endorsement, but thank you for the super chat.
	I don't know if you have matter on your channel that could get me in trouble.
	I'm joking.
	STFUFFS.
	Incentivized to get yeeted and banned for life.
	Is she talking about Amber Hearn?
	It's pure projection.
	And they're so nervous now.
	Can you imagine, by the way?
	Emily D. Baker had, I'd say maybe she was under 200,000 people, but she had 175,000 people watching her live analyze and break down a trial.
	I don't think CNN gets 175,000 people.
	I don't know, maybe they do, but can you imagine, I won't say jealousy from the legacy media, but can you imagine the frustration?
	They spend millions.
	They've got infrastructure.
	They've got overhead.
	And they don't draw those numbers.
	Emily, she's got a beautiful setup.
	She's got a good mic.
	She's got a good brain.
	And she's drawing in no advertising.
	She's not running ads for CNN, the most trusted.
	And she's drawing them in simply on the basis of the quality of her analysis.
	Quality, entertaining, consistency.
	And they're freaking jealous.
	And they're freaking panicking.
	Because with their overhead, they don't survive for long without revenue.
	My best friend just texted me.
	He says, I have to admit it.
	I missed the trial.
	I don't.
	I'm so happy it's done.
	I'm looking forward to the next one.
	The next one that's going to be of interest.
	And where we're going to have the opportunity to broadcast live.
	Viva, Emily made enough in Super Chats from one day.
	Of those dreams to buy a small house in 2005.
	They made a lot of money.
	They deserve it.
	There's an old expression.
	Who told of me?
	It's an old expression of business.
	How does it go?
	The bottom line is it has to be you sell a few things.
	You sell one.
	For goodness sake.
	What was the idea?
	You got to reach a lot of people and all you need is a small amount from each person as opposed to making one big sale and reaching fewer people.
	And I forget the exact expression, but the concept is reach hundreds of thousands of people and all you need is a minor contribution that people would be happy to give versus trying to get one big...
	It's sort of like when you're crowdsourcing for a political campaign.
	It's sort of like, you know, you can get $10,000 from one person, but, you know...
	If you can reach a million people and get a buck from each.
	But bottom line, they've earned every penny of what they've done.
	It was not exploitive, the coverage.
	It was accurate.
	It was value-added.
	Everyone was happy to give that money to Emily, to Legal Bytes, to Nick Ricada, and they deserved every single penny of it.
	Let's see here.
	Okay, so...
	Okay, we got that already.
	I said no, Johnny Depp.
	Then there's some frustration with the outcome in Ontario.
	Congratulations to Doug Ford on his team and his team on a strong majority win.
	That wasn't me.
	Damn it.
	I said, or, you know, maybe criticized the guy who enforced lockdowns, police state curfews, mandatory vaccines, and the like.
	It's not because he got re-elected that he's not a tyrant.
	This is why I would not survive in politics.
	I could not come out and say, congratulations, Trudeau, on your re-election.
	Congratulations, Doug Ford, on your re-election.
	I would come out and say, what did you not learn, Ontario?
	Oh, but it was the lesser of the three evils.
	It was either that, the Liberals, or the MVP.
	Well, good for you.
	You just ratified everything that that tyrant has done over the last two and a half years.
	And you think he's not going to say it was a mandate to affirm?
	Locking you down, shutting down your businesses, empowering the police to stop and frisk if you're out of the house?
	Look at those shoes, by the way.
	Where are they?
	They're upstairs.
	Murph's Kicks.
	Murph's underscore kicks on Instagram sent me these beautiful custom shoes.
	I was almost afraid to wear them because I don't want to get them ruined or dirty because I get shoes dirty, but I'm wearing them.
	Let me see what we got in the chat here.
	Yeah, Johnny has a channel.
	I couldn't find it when I quickly looked.
	I don't.
	I don't blame Dominion voting machines.
	I'm telling you this.
	And people call me controlled opposition for not blaming them.
	We have a different system in Canada.
	And you know what, bottom line?
	They don't need to cheat in Canada.
	They've got the media to do that for them.
	And the bottom line reality in Canada?
	There's some truth to the argument.
	You are effed one way or the other.
	NDP, Liberal, or Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario.
	Okay, I'm not sure which one is worse.
	I mean, I know which one I think is worse, but you have no good choice.
	But then I get people telling me, well, I voted PC, progressive conservative, Doug Ford, because otherwise, you know, I didn't want to take a chance on the Liberals or the NDP winning.
	Good for you!
	What were you afraid the Liberals or the NDP were going to do?
	Lock you down?
	Impose vaccine passports?
	Fire unvaccinated workers?
	Make it illegal to leave your house after 8 o 'clock?
	Were you afraid the NDP and the Liberals are going to do that?
	Because that's what Doug Ford did, and you just ratified all of that.
	Hey, here's an idea.
	Vote with your principals.
	Vote with your principals.
	You're going to get...
	Good.
	You just selected Doug Ford.
	Anyhow, progressive conservative.
	Progressive conservative is like a pregnant virgin.
	I mean, it's not that there's anything wrong with being pregnant or being a virgin.
	There's nothing wrong with being progressive or conservative.
	They are mutually...
	It's jumbo shrimp.
	Progressive, conservative.
	I'm a very forward-thinking individual who sticks to conservative principles.
	Emily and Viva, both incredibly fun to watch here, no matter you guys talking about.
	Thank you very much.
	I gotta say, though, I was watching Emily.
	I was watching to pick her brain on her channel just to make sure I could get things right and not make a mistake myself.
	Trust but verify.
	But before any of that, you gotta know who to listen to.
	Progressive, there's nothing wrong with being progressive.
	There's nothing wrong with being conservative.
	There's nothing wrong with being pregnant, and there's nothing wrong with being a virgin.
	But you're not a pregnant virgin unless you're Mother Mary, and then you only get to do it once.
	Oxymoron.
	Yep.
	320.
	I can go for a few more minutes.
	I've got to pick up a kid, but I'm not going to have enough time to exercise before picking up a kid, but I am going to go for a bike ride after I pick up the kid.
	Spread love, not hate.
	Doug Ford is only trying to protect our children.
	Stop spreading hate, Viva.
	Techno, you think he's trying to protect our children by implementing policies that are causing a massive uptick in psychological distress among children?
	That's resulting in self-harm, ideations of self-harm, increased rates of self-harm, increased rates of drug abuse, drug overdose?
	I don't care what his intentions are.
	I'm not arguing Ford's intentions.
	If he sincerely believes he's trying to protect our kids, good.
	He's doing it wrong because he's damaging the kids.
	I'm not spreading hate.
	In fact, Well, I'm not spreading love or hate.
	I'm spreading basically common sense stuff.
	If you want to protect the kids, you don't protect them by locking them down, screwing them up psychologically, stunting their development, compromising their education, forcing them into self-harm, drug addiction, overdose.
	That's not how you protect them.
	And with protection like that, leave me alone.
	Sorry, I did not mean to get mad at you and I don't mean to put you on blast, but that is my response, my respectful response.
	To this comment, to the extent it was not a troll.
	If you wanted my honest response, that was it.
	I don't care if he's trying to protect my children.
	First of all, I'll protect my children.
	Alright, what else?
	It's just a pain in my muscle and my arm.
	Oh, and I'm going to crack my back.
	Oh yeah, that was good.
	And listen to this, people.
	I did it yesterday.
	Is it going to happen again?
	I know you heard that out there.
	I think I broke my nose.
	Did you all hear that?
	That one clicked twice.
	Did you hear my nose click twice?
	Something's wrong.
	It's like, it hurts, but you heard it.
	Okay.
	Sorry.
	Now I've got a perma-broken toe and a perma-broken nose by the looks of it.
	Okay.
	I'm not going to a doctor for this, but I'm just telling you, that's weird.
	Okay.
	Don't do it again.
	Someone said, okay, I'm sorry.
	Whoever got, not myth, but whoever found it uncomfortable when I cracked my knuckles.
	Well, now I've got another bone in my body that I can crack, and it's my nose.
	What are the odds?
	Okay, I think I got through everything on the Twitterverse.
	Okay, the Rittenhouse.
	Yeah, and this was from yesterday, so we're good.
	All right, people.
	Let me go see if I missed anything on Rumble just before we wind it up.
	Am I still green here, actually?
	Let's see.
	Nope, I'm not green.
	Of course.
	Well, I can understand.
	This is why it picks up words sometimes, and then manual review tends to be good.
	Oh, no.
	Tell me I was live on Rumble the entire time.
	My content.
	No Johnny Depp.
	We are live.
	841 watching.
	Good.
	Okay.
	And we got...
	I see one Rumble rant.
	One Rumble rant to end the day.
	Gwendolyn Young says, Viva, what can you find about Peter Navarro being arrested by FBI?
	Yeah, I saw that.
	I'm going to go look that up and then maybe...
	Did I just miss a bunch of super chats here?
	I'm going to go look that up.
	Peter Navarro, I heard about that.
	Catholics claim Mary's mom was also a virgin, by the way.
	What movie was it where they...
	It was a human thing.
	It's like, you can only use immaculate conception as an excuse to being pregnant if alleging you're a virgin once before in the history of human kind, humanity.
	Was it...
	It wasn't easy A. Was it easy A?
	It was a movie where they said, you only get to use that excuse once.
	Viva, when you disagree with me, you are hating me.
	My identity is tied up with my political opinions and feelings.
	Stop the hate.
	Just kidding.
	Well, first of all, Britt Cornway, thank you for everything.
	Thank you for the support.
	But sometimes people put up a comment, then I respond, and then I get accused of putting people on blast.
	The purpose is to have a discussion.
	And it's not a discussion if I can't respond.
	Yes, I have the bigger end of the mic just because...
	I have more characters, and I'm not limited in whatever, but people put up a comment, presumably it's so that I might engage with it.
	But I'll tell you one thing.
	The last thing on earth that I spread is hate, because I believe it to my core.
	Hatred is a consuming force.
	It turns everything black, even the person, and especially the person who harbors it.
	Keep it up, Viva, and your nose is going to start looking like nicks.
	Did Nick break his nose?
	Well, my nose is always going to have more volume to the side than length on the front.
	But you guys want to see something horrifying.
	Hold on a second.
	Without my glasses, my nose takes on epic proportions.
	And look, it gets tanned before the rest of my face.
	So when I get sunburnt outside, it's the front of the nose and my, like, Neanderthal brow.
	Someone said they can crack their ear.
	That's an odd one also.
	All right.
	So with that said, I think we've done good today.
	We've covered some material.
	I'm going to post the clips to Viva Clips.
	So if anyone does not have time for a two-hour live stream, and I understand most people do not, the clips, the worthwhile clips, are going to be on the second channel, Viva Clips.
	And I put up some good highlights with our interview with Dinesh D'Souza on that channel also.
	So go check it out.
	All right.
	Shutting that down.
	I saw one more super chat from, I remember, Stephen Thompson.
	Oh, yeah.
	I'm not sure if that's the Kool-Aid guy.
	I agree.
	I agree, David Langford.
	I have so many jokes, I can't make jokes.
	Look, I grew up with Blanche Knott's dirty joke book.
	I know all of the jokes.
	Mob Gnarly, happy Friday.
	Everyone, take care of yourselves.
	Check in on friends and family and make sure everyone around you is doing okay.
	There's a lot of people.
	The funny thing is, people don't appreciate it.
	Everybody is struggling.
	Everybody has just the standard baseline stress in life, and most people have a lot more of that.
	Be understanding to that.
	Be sympathetic.
	And even the strongest people are having their issues.
	And so be understanding.
	Be sympathetic.
	And above all else, listen.
	Discourse.
	Treat humans like humans.
	Not like objects or means to an end.
	And I'll probably see you tomorrow.
	Who am I kidding?
	I can't go along without streaming, without connecting with the community.
	But I might do a live stream on the Viva family channel, which is live stream capable.
	And live stream phishing.
	Yep.
	Okay, peeps, go.
	Be gone.
	Sunday night, Brandon Strzok.
	Gonna be a fun one.
	Saturday, be sure to check it out.
	Stay tuned for good stuff.
	Get out, exercise, sunlight, health, happiness, and beyond.

▲