Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 4, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:03:56

Bad Legal Takes, Jan. 6, Canadian Tyranny AND MORE! Saturday Night Viva Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Mr. Speaker, today I'm taking another step to give Canadians back control of their lives with the Prevention of Government-Imposed Vaccination Mandates Act.
	Mr. Speaker, this bill would ban the government from imposing vaccine mandates as a condition of travel or employment.
	If the bill passes, the government would no longer require...
	Be able to require federal workers to get vaccinated in order to keep their paychecks and jobs.
	It would also ban the federal government from requiring vaccines in order for people to travel.
	In other words, it would allow all Canadians, regardless of their personal medical decisions, to continue to work in the federal sector or travel on trains, planes, and other federally regulated modes of transportation, regardless of whether they are vaccinated.
	Mr. Speaker, we are an outlier in Canada today.
	Most countries have removed mandates for travel, including the UK, Germany, Italy, Thailand, Poland, Argentina, Chile, and many others.
	All provinces have now removed vaccine mandates.
	The five big banks have done likewise, and public sector unions have even begun legal actions to remove these discriminatory mandates.
	Countless people and heard endless tragic stories of people separated from family members by their inability to get on an airplane or who are languishing without a paycheck despite having a spotless track record serving their employer over many years.
	These mandates have become nothing more than a cruel attempt to demonize a small minority and they are absolutely unnecessary and without any scientific...
	basis.
	And so I call on all members of Parliament to end this discrimination, give people back control of their own personal medical decision and their bodies by passing this bill, banning the federal government from imposing these mandates, and allowing Canadians to take back control of their lives.
	Thank you very much.
	Commissioner Purnieves.
	All right.
	Okay.
	What is that?
	What is that?
	What happens when the prostate enlarges and the urine channel gets tight?
	Why would I get an ad like that?
	There's no reason.
	No reason for which I'd be getting an ad like that.
	I say farewell to you, sir.
	Remove.
	People.
	Good evening.
	Let me see something here.
	Okay.
	You're going to notice the fro is going to grow in real time.
	I took a shower after jogging today.
	I oiled up the hair with some soul glow.
	That's an oldie but goodie.
	And it's still a little wet, and as it dries, it's going to gain in volume.
	I played the entire clip.
	Pierre Poilievre finally doing the right thing.
	I've said this, but I'll never tell anybody who to vote for.
	No, but I wouldn't even tell them to vote for me if I ever chose to run again, which I probably won't.
	I will say this.
	Even if Pierre Poilier wins the leadership for the Conservative Party, I won't vote Conservative until they've proven beyond mere words that they've actually earned the vote as opposed to promised to earn the vote going forward.
	I have a problem with Pierre Poilier, however.
	From that speech itself, the wording is interesting.
	And you all know that for the longest time...
	While Canada was going to hell in a...
	Let me rephrase that.
	While it was going to unconstitutional hell in a handbasket, it wasn't just that the Conservative Party were silent.
	They were aiders and abettors.
	You had that flipping guy there, Aaron O'Toole, kicking members of his own party out because of their views on vaccines, on board with...
	Carbon tax.
	On board with vaccine passports.
	On board with lockdowns, curfews, shutdowns.
	And they contributed to this mess.
	Now, I appreciate that Poilier is taking the lead now.
	To come out now.
	What year is it?
	It's 2022.
	Halfway through 2022.
	Now.
	Two and a half years into this mess.
	To say, the world has changed.
	Various countries no longer support these measures.
	The provinces have pulled them back.
	Companies are complaining about them now.
	Now that the public opinion has swayed, now I'm going to come out with measures to fight the tyranny and the unconstitutional overreach that has been plaguing Canada with the help of the Conservative Party for the last two and a half years.
	You know what that's called?
	That's called playing politics and not playing principles.
	Maxime Bernier, Roman Baber, from the very beginning.
	Have been complaining about this.
	Before it was cool to do it.
	Before anyone had the backing of Air Transat.
	Before anyone had the luxury of saying, oh, other countries have pulled back the measures.
	Before it was popular and cool to support freedom and individual medical choices, there were some people who were supporting those principles, and there were others who were not.
	And now it's very convenient.
	It's almost, dare I say, politically savvy.
	Or just plain pure political to say, now that the public opinion tide seems to be changing, now I'm going to come out and vigorously defend that which is now popular.
	That's not how principled politics works in my book.
	Not to poop on Pierre.
	He's been good.
	He's been better than most.
	But he has been silent, as have not just...
	Silence in his party.
	They've been proactively fighting against constitutional rights for a long time.
	I appreciate now that he's seeing the tide turn so that it becomes politically expedient or politically defensible to stand up for constitutional rights.
	But I'll say, it's not to say, why didn't you make this decision a week ago?
	That's never the fair thing to say.
	Why weren't you standing up for these principles throughout?
	And anybody who just stands up for principles when it becomes popular to do so, that's politics.
	That's not principles.
	Okay, so that's what I think about that.
	Just wanted to intro with it, show at the very least there's some silver lining.
	Maybe we're at the end of the unconstitutional tyranny in Canada.
	Maybe if Pierre gets elected leader of the Conservative Party, maybe they become a viable party that people can go to who are fed up watching the Liberals and the New Democrat Party destroy Canada.
	But I've got...
	I've got my problems in that, like I said, it's easy.
	It's easy to right now stand for these principles specifically because of all the people changing opinions, getting a little fed up.
	You've got the backing of big corporations.
	You've got the backing of other nations who have switched their laws.
	So it's convenient.
	But politics change.
	Principles shouldn't.
	All right.
	With that said, standard disclaimers as we get into this, people.
	Superchats.
	We'll keep the same laws for the rest of our lives, Communist Canada.
	I like Pierre's suggestion of a law.
	Too little, too late.
	And politically convenient, but the tide might change.
	Unless people want it.
	And if people want it, enjoy your very safe prison.
	You know you're going to eat three meals a day of government gruel.
	Joseph, Viva, what is the path forward for Canada?
	I have plenty of insights from the USA, but not from Canadians themselves.
	It seems Canada is backsliding.
	It is.
	Period.
	Fear has become a virtue in Canada and the rest of the world.
	Compliance with government has become a virtue.
	The idea of freedom has become a demonized concept.
	It's selfish to expect individual freedom, individual rights to be respected.
	But I'll tell you one thing.
	Things are going to change real fast when I think what is going to come out in the news is going to start coming out in the news.
	And in as much as it's now becoming popular to talk about certain political constitutional ideas, in the very near future, it's going to become very popular to talk about other things, the consequences of the decisions and policies that have been implemented and coerced on Canadians and the world for the last two and a half years.
	It's going to become very popular to talk about that.
	I won't do it on YouTube.
	But I think you all know where I'm going with that.
	And when that poop starts hitting the fan, like I said a little while back, you're going to have governments of the future in not so many years, not so many generations, apologizing for the atrocities of past governments.
	And as much as Justin Trudeau sits around like a smug, arrogant, pompous, higher than, holier than thou, high and mighty politician apologizing for the atrocities of previous governments, including that of his own father, we're going to have future politicians apologizing for the atrocities of the Trudeau government in real time today.
	Viva, what is your opinion on Trudeau's new disinformation tools he just announced?
	I'm not sure which ones they are, but I'm sure I'm going to find them absolutely fascistic, authoritarian, and totalitarian.
	Don't know what they are.
	I haven't seen them, but if it's new to today, I was caught up in the Taylor Lorenz drama.
	All right.
	Superchats.
	YouTube takes 30% of each and every one of those Superchats that you just saw.
	If you don't like that, we're simultaneously streaming on Rumble, where Rumble has the equivalent called Rumble Hrantz.
	And Rumble takes 20%, so the creator gets more.
	You can feel better supporting a platform that actually supports free speech.
	And let me just see if we haven't had any.
	Okay, good.
	Best way to support us?
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com if you want to support Barnes and myself in our venture there.
	Otherwise, you can get me here on YouTube.
	Rumble.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com is the place to be.
	On the menu for tonight, people, sweet, merciful goodness, it's YouTube drama and it's YouTube legal drama that I don't mind getting into because it involves...
	A person who is proving herself to be among the most toxic humans on Earth.
	I don't like the word toxic because it reminds me of the word that they use.
	They.
	The media.
	Toxic masculinity.
	Toxic this.
	But there are toxic personalities.
	People that you know you have to avoid at all costs.
	And there are people who are toxic in that they infiltrate your breathing space.
	Taylor Lorenz is toxic.
	Like, objectively toxic.
	She's a hypocrite.
	She's a liar, like a proven liar.
	I don't know how she still has writing gigs.
	I don't know if she's employed by the Washington Post or she's an independent freelance journalist.
	I don't know how she still has gigs after what she's done, after what she's done.
	And whatever the deal is with Taylor Lorenz, she seems to only go after women.
	She seems to only go after women, successful women, successful women whom I dare say if I'm, you know, you can accuse me of Confession through projection, but I always have that reflex, so I think it's just insight.
	Successful women who Taylor Lorenz sees as being more successful than her.
	She went after Ariadna Jacobs, wrote the hit piece against Ariadna Jacobs, and employed some of the same smear tactics, the same hit piece tactics, that she used against Legal Bites.
	Legal Bites, who is arguably one of the gentlest lawyers.
	On YouTube.
	I mean, if you don't know, I guess I should have to give the context, the curse of knowledge.
	Not everybody might know what's going on.
	We're going to start with Taylor Lorenz versus Illegal Bites because it's going to lead us into Lisa Bloom, a lawyer who, speaking of putting out bad takes on the Johnny Depp trial, put out the worst.
	The worst, most stupidest, if I can say that, idiotic take on the Johnny Depp trial.
	And then, my goodness, it's an amazing thing when someone puts themselves on the spotlight, or let me rephrase that, when someone puts themselves in the spotlight, under the spotlight, and seem to forget that the internet is forever, well, you know, there are some outrageous previous takes, but we'll get there.
	Lisa Bloom has had some gloriously hypocritical, I will say misogynistic tweets from the past.
	I'll also say, abuser defensive.
	Abuser defending tweets of the past.
	And I'm not talking about Harvey Weinstein, whom she happened to represent.
	Oddly enough, while talking about how Amber Heard is a victim and you have to believe all women.
	Overt defense.
	Admission of guilt of Joe Biden, but nonetheless, defense of Joe Biden.
	Because politics, man.
	Tribal politics.
	Trump principles.
	There's a really pretty disgusting story about a January 6th defendant whose kid basically secretly recorded his dad admitting to a crime.
	I don't know how the recording went down exactly.
	It could have been a little family entrapment.
	And the dad's probably going to go to jail for years as a result.
	It's horrible.
	It's Mao Zedong's China in...
	The Western civilization.
	Children ratting out their parents to the government for government and political adulation.
	We'll get there.
	Hold on a second.
	Viva, did you see JJ McCullough at the C11 hearing?
	Yes, I played his video.
	I didn't play the video.
	I played like one minute of JJ McCullough, who's a Canadian YouTuber, his video yesterday.
	It's great.
	Everyone should watch it.
	I haven't seen the full version if he released the longer version of the video.
	Viva just can't even with politics anymore.
	There's no escaping it.
	Politics ruins everything.
	I haven't worn that shirt in a while because I've been wearing the new merch, which you can find at vivafry.com.
	All merch consolidated into one website.
	Barnes hats.
	We got truckers hats, aprons.
	www.vivafry.com for all your merch.
	It's not as cheap as I would like it to be.
	The shipping is expensive to Canada, but at some point also, you know, it's a way to support the channel.
	It's a way to support me.
	It's not the most cost-effective way, but at the very least, at the end of the day, you get something to show for it.
	You have a shirt and, you know, the shipping.
	There's nothing we can do about shipping.
	Okay, let us start with Taylor Lorenz.
	Taylor Lorenz.
	I'll refresh your memory.
	Taylor Lorenz wrote a hit piece on Ariadna Jacobs, who was a founder of Influences or Influencers.
	An agency that represents influencers or talent.
	Wrote a hit piece on her.
	Effectively destroyed Taylor Lorenz's life.
	Taylor Lorenz is...
	Sorry, Ariadna Jacobs is suing Taylor Lorenz for defamation and the New York Times.
	I had Ariadna Jacobs on a little while ago.
	Fantastic interview.
	A lot of people didn't like the business that she's in representing influencers and thinks it's exploitive, yada, yada.
	And I totally understand that.
	Not...
	Every walk of life is for everybody's feet.
	Taylor Lorenz wrote a hit piece on Ariadna Jacobs.
	Taylor Lorenz doxed the founder of Libs of TikTok, who happens to be a religious Jewish woman.
	It doesn't change anything.
	I was just surprised myself when I heard that.
	Doxed the founder of Libs of TikTok, subjected her to all sorts of online harassment, justified her doxing.
	Her justification is I didn't dox it.
	I didn't say anything that wasn't already published.
	Somebody else published her real estate license, her address or whatever.
	I just repeated what was already published.
	But when Taylor Lorenz with her amplification repeats what a small social media account repeats, that's called doxing.
	I didn't dox anybody.
	I just repeated what was published in a database.
	That's pretty much doxing.
	Whether or not there's a legitimate reason to dox libs of TikTok in that they're public figures, you can't expect to do that anonymously for too long.
	That'll be your argument and your moral bridge to cross.
	She doxed the libs of TikTok, but it was like two weeks after herself either sobbing or trying to sob.
	Lamenting the horrors of her own doxing and how everybody uses every piece of information on the internet to go after you and say the nastiest things.
	Sobbing in an interview.
	How terrifying it is to get doxed and have people bombard you with emails, texts, whatever.
	She sobs her eyes out in an interview about the horrors of doxing and then goes out and doxes an anonymous account.
	Libs of TikTok was an anonymous account.
	Doxes her.
	With all the consequences that she knows that that entails.
	And I might suggest that Taylor Lorenz's support base, or her fans, I won't say her fans.
	The milieu in which Taylor Lorenz operates, those trolls are probably not the funnest to have on your back.
	Trying to stop.
	I mean, I played it a little while.
	For anybody who's ever...
	I've had experience, like, cross-examining people.
	There's the old expression, like, when they start to cry, you know they lie.
	And then there's also, when they fake the cry, you know they lie.
	I mean, that's, when they can't even cry properly, and you know that it's a totally insincere, disingenuous attempt to elicit sympathy.
	13 years of commercial litigation, depositions, examinations, it'll teach you something and it's how to sniff out bullshit.
	I mean, you can sniff it out.
	Sometimes you get it wrong.
	But I think I will rely on my assessment and think it's accurate 95% of the time.
	I'll get it wrong 1 in 20. So after sobbing, oh, it's so scary.
	I'm so sorry.
	She sobbed.
	She breaks down.
	Can't take it.
	She doxes the libs of TikTok.
	Well, she recently wrote a piece, which I didn't read the entire original piece, nor do I care to, in the Washington Post, where she's criticizing two accounts on YouTube, alleging that they are exploiting the Johnny Depp trial.
	Let me see here.
	Hold on.
	I pulled up the article.
	Here we go.
	This is from National Review.
	I'm going to read an article of it, because I don't want to read the article.
	Okay.
	She writes a hit piece on Alita.
	And in the piece...
	Oh, we'll get there.
	We'll get there.
	Okay, here.
	Let's see what the drama is.
	YouTubers claim WAPO's Tale of Lorenz lied about requesting comment for hit piece.
	Hmm.
	Why is it important if someone did or did not request comment or give a sufficient amount of time to provide the answers?
	You will recall, people.
	Maybe you won't, but maybe you will.
	In the Ariadna Jacobs case...
	I believe Taylor Lorenz pulled something of this strategy as well, as in bombard the subject of the hit piece with a slew of questions that you know they will not be able to answer meaningfully by five o 'clock or publication time.
	Here, here's one hour.
	Here's 50 questions.
	Publications in an hour.
	Please give some answers.
	Oh, they didn't respond for comments, so I get to say it.
	It's truthful, but it's a bloody lie.
	In this case, it seems to be even more of a lie than the...
	Tactic that Taylor Lorenz tried to pull with Ariadna Jacobs.
	Because in this case, it doesn't even seem that she reached out for comment until she was called out by Alita Legal Bites on Twitter.
	Then she reached out, you know, 10 minutes later.
	Okay.
	Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz is facing scrutiny, again, for allegedly lying, again, in a recent piece about whether she had requested comment from two...
	YouTube personalities, who she accused of monetarily exploiting the I'm going to get to my tweet at the end of this.
	Just remind me about the exploiting.
	Exploiting.
	Imagine.
	Remind me about it.
	In the story published Thursday, Lorenz, who recently gained notoriety for exposing the identity of the anti-woke libs of TikTok Twitter account, claimed that a handful of, quote, content creators capitalized on the Hollywood actor's courtroom genre.
	to bolster their followings and revenue streams.
	Imagine faulting someone for doing something, doing work, and expecting to make money from the work that you're doing.
	Is that the new definition of exploiting now?
	Imagine those McDonald's workers who go into work seeking to exploit people's hunger to bolster their revenue.
	Imagine those shameless McDonald's workers.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	She's making videos on YouTube, so it's somehow any different in terms of expecting remuneration for the work that you put in?
	And you're not twisting anybody's arm.
	You're not even asking.
	I mean, you're not even really asking people.
	Some people give super chats.
	Thank you all very much.
	You're not frauding anyone out of money.
	You're not begging.
	You're not shaming.
	You're just doing work.
	And yeah, if the work's good, you expect it to bolster your revenue stream.
	The trial...
	Listen to this.
	Listen to this.
	This is the beauty of the insanity.
	The trial offered a potential glimpse into our future media ecosystem.
	This is the truth.
	It is.
	And do you know what's in the future of that media ecosystem?
	Not you, Taylor Lorenz.
	Not the Washington Post.
	Not Fox News.
	Not...
	Who was the other one that just put something out that was idiotic?
	Not Vice News.
	Who was the other one?
	Not NBC News.
	You're right.
	It is offering a glimpse into our future media ecosystem.
	It's called people who actually know what they're talking about because they happen to actually be lawyers.
	They happen to gather information from multiple sources, have panelists on.
	It is the future of our ecosystem.
	And you know what's not going to have a place in there?
	Fake news, narrative-driven, MSM drivel.
	Sorry.
	Where content creators serve...
	As the personalities breaking news to an increasing number of viewers.
	Oh, does that make you jealous?
	Taylor Lorenz, Washington Post?
	Some people's viewers are going up exponentially.
	Some people have more viewers than legacy media itself.
	Legal Bytes?
	She was streaming to 75,000 people live.
	Emily D. Baker?
	175,000 people live.
	That's bigger than the biggest stadium in the United States.
	Live.
	Yeah, yeah, they're getting increased viewers, and legacy media is losing them.
	And in turn, define the online narrative around major events.
	Confession through projection, much tell Lorenz?
	There's a difference between defining an online narrative versus reporting and allowing people to come to their own narrative, their own conclusions.
	There's a reason, by the way, LawTube predicted the outcome of this judgment.
	More accurately than legacy rubbish.
	There's a reason.
	Sorry, I'm not interrupting too many times here in this quote.
	The creators can also bring in major personal profits in the process.
	God forbid!
	Imagine those lawyers representing those people at those big law firms charging $1,000 an hour, exploiting those cases to profit personally.
	They can also make some very big profits.
	Should we start shaming lawyers?
	In this new landscape, every big news event becomes an opportunity to amass followers, money, and clout.
	You don't do that if you put out rubbish.
	That might be why the Washington Post is losing followers, losing clout, and losing revenue, because it's publishing rubbish that no one's interested in reading.
	And the Deppert trial showed how the creator-driven news ecosystem can influence public opinion based on platform incentives.
	Projection, again, much.
	It can influence public opinion.
	I'm sorry, that's more jealousy than projection.
	Although, it lets you...
	It's an indication as to how Taylor Lorenz thinks.
	What she wants to do is influence public opinion.
	She wants to determine the narrative.
	And when other people are actually influencing public opinion, but I will dare say without the filter, without the narrative-driven filter, jealousy and anger.
	Jealousy is the highly motivating factor of the week.
	Okay, let's get into the scandal.
	Sorry, I'm getting distracted.
	Two social media figures whom Lorenz targeted.
	Legal Bytes host Alita Mazika.
	Mazika?
	How do you pronounce her last name?
	Mazika?
	If I had to say like my name, F-R-E, I would say Mazika.
	That's how I would pronounce it.
	It's not how it's pronounced.
	And an anonymous user named ThatUmbrellaGuy, who got massive shoutouts during the trial, say that she never asked him for comment, even though she said she did in the piece.
	In the story, Lorenz said that, quote, Mazeika and ThatUmbrellaGuy did not respond to requests for comment.
	Then Alita comes out on Twitter and says, I can confirm that she never reached out to me until I called her out on Twitter.
	After I did, she reached out to me by Twitter DM, providing her phone number to me.
	She never attempted to make an appointment, facility, whatever.
	Additionally, by the way, this is where it gets very interesting.
	Additionally, and I think importantly, she left out my name.
	She left out the name of my channel and the fact that I'm an attorney.
	You can imagine she says a YouTuber and that umbrella guy.
	So you might think that I have no idea who that umbrella guy is.
	He might be a lawyer.
	He might be a highly trained professional.
	He might be whatever.
	I have no judgment for the person.
	I've seen some of the tweets.
	It's interesting stuff.
	But imagine if Taylor Lorenz had mentioned that one of these YouTubers is a practicing attorney who's providing legal analysis in real time of legal proceedings.
	And then Adair accused her of exploiting.
	We'll get to my tweet leader, but I said, imagine accusing a lawyer of exploiting legal proceedings by providing legal analysis of legal proceedings and letting people come or not.
	No, here, here.
	Listen to this.
	Lorenz, citing the reporting of Business Insider, which said Mazeca earned $5,000 in one week by pivoting the content on her YouTube channel to nonstop trial coverage analysis.
	First of all, pivoting the content of her channel sounds like her channel was not already law-based.
	Pivoting the subject matter...
	It would just be a stupid thing to say because you don't report on one legal matter on a channel indefinitely.
	So it suggests that she's pivoting the content as if to say she might have been like a food review channel and now she's pivoting.
	Legal Bites has always been a law channel.
	There was no pivoting of the content of her channel.
	There was only pivoting of the subject because legal stories change from week to week.
	$5,000 in a week.
	First of all, I can probably also tell you it was much more than that, Taylor Lorenz.
	Does that upset you?
	Does someone making money through ad revenue because eyeballs are being drawn to the quality of their content, does that make you angry?
	They don't have to rely on ad dollars like the Washington Post does.
	They don't have to be beholden to anybody telling them what to publish in order to get those ad dollars.
	They give unfiltered, honest analysis, and they thrive.
	I can see that being aggravating to legacy media.
	The columnist also said that that umbrella guy earned up to $80,000 last month, according to estimates by social media and social media.
	Oh, good.
	But the worst part was, where does it get here?
	The scandal also is...
	The Washington Post changed the story.
	After the YouTubers brought Loren's incorrect statement to the Internet's attention, the Washington Post appeared to quietly remove it, but without an editor's note acknowledging the mistake.
	Hmm.
	Maybe there's a reason.
	Why everybody hates the Washington Post and Taylor Lorenz?
	Because they're liars.
	One is a liar, and the other is concealing, covering up for their liar.
	And by the way, that should be cause for immediate dismissal.
	Taylor Lorenz turned the Washington Post, well, the Washington Post were already pathological propagandist liars, but Taylor Lorenz has caused Washington Post to be liars.
	Taylor Lorenz, in the Washington Post, for and on behalf of, lied.
	By all accounts, and by the way, between Taylor Lorenz and Alita at Legal Bytes, I'm going to believe Alita.
	So Taylor Lorenz turned Washington Post into liars, and the Washington Post, after having published the lie, ratified the lie, they're secretly going to just reaffirm the lie by not acknowledging the lie and apologizing for it.
	It's...
	Hey there, that umbrella guy is a mental health specialist.
	Interesting.
	I was drawn to his Twitter feed immediately after it came up in the court, and it was kind of interesting.
	Let me go to screen here.
	I'm going to bring this back up.
	I need to remember my thoughts on this.
	Where were we?
	Yeah, it's this one.
	Okay, so let's go to Twitter just for one second.
	My diary of thoughts is going to be my bullet points for a little while.
	Oh, we'll get into Lisa Bloom.
	We'll get into Lisa Bloom.
	Go away.
	I don't want to.
	Oh, she blocked me on Twitter.
	That's another thing, by the way.
	I just discovered that I was trying to tag her in the post, in the original post, and then I discovered I'm blocked by Taylor Lorenz.
	I would have had her on the channel so we could talk about it.
	It would probably be a very heated discussion.
	Why does Taylor Lorenz seem to systematically go after other successful women?
	And why does Taylor Lorenz accuse them of doing things that she seems to be doing herself?
	We all know the answer to that question, people.
	Can you imagine being so dishonest and disingenuous so as to accuse a lawyer of exploiting a lawsuit by providing legal analysis of legal proceedings and relying on the quality of that legal analysis for success in the field of online legal commentary?
	It's disgusting.
	These lawyers should stay in their lane and let Washington Post determine the narrative.
	And speaking of, you know, people getting it wrong.
	People getting it wildly wrong.
	And then they don't understand why.
	The people who are complaining that other independent voices are driving the narrative get it so fundamentally wrong.
	This is not about Johnny Depp, people.
	The tweet is about Johnny Depp.
	But we're going to break it down for law.
	Hashtag no legal advice.
	And before we get there, let's get to some super chats.
	Viva, is your mercy only available in U.S. dollars?
	Oh, merch only available in U.S. dollars.
	Thanks for all you do.
	I think the listings are in U.S. dollars.
	But I know it ships to Canada.
	Viva Frey.
	For anybody who doesn't know, my last name is Freiheit, which means freedom in German.
	Frey is free.
	Height is the state of being.
	Hence Fahrenheit.
	Fahrenheit is warmth.
	Height is the state of being.
	So it's the state of warmth, hence measuring temperature.
	It used to be Freiheiter when my granddad was in Poland.
	He escaped to Argentina.
	And I think it's when he came to Canada, he dropped the ER.
	Freiheiter was freedom fighter.
	Freiheit is just freedom.
	So it's a little ironic.
	I guess it's fitting because my grandfather fled for freedom.
	He didn't, I guess that doesn't count as fighting for it.
	From freedom fighter just to freedom, because that's what he sought.
	Social media is being weaponized.
	People from outside Canada, people from inside Canada pushing extremist views, trying to foment anger and discord.
	These are a few comments posted on Locals.
	Hold on, let me just see this.
	Social media is being weaponized.
	People from outside of Canada, people from inside Canada pushing extremist views, trying to foment anger and discord.
	These are a few comments posted on Locals.
	Well, I don't know if they're talking about me, but I mean...
	Anybody who accuses me of pushing extremist views.
	It's laughable as far as an accusation goes, but the idea of being against coerced medical procedures makes you an extremist.
	I guess according to Jagmeet Singh, being against face masks makes you an extremist.
	A selfish, right-wing extremist who doesn't care about community, who doesn't care about social programs, Who doesn't care about their neighbors.
	And then, a week later, Jagmeet Singh is caught without a face mask.
	Breaking his own rules that he just specifically stated, if you didn't support them, you're a right-wing extremist.
	And a week later, he got caught breaking them.
	Hello, you vivacious and valiant vixens of vociferators.
	I don't know what that means.
	Now I have to go Google that.
	Thank you for the super chats.
	I'm exploiting the thirst on the internet for knowledge, entertainment, education, human connection.
	I'm sure Taylor didn't get paid for that drivel.
	She had to, but I've got to tell you something.
	I think the rates of getting paid for published articles is shockingly low.
	It's shockingly low, and I can see...
	Not jealousy.
	I can see people just being flabbergasted at how much these online commentators make.
	AdSense revenue, super chats, paid sponsorships.
	I can see...
	Look, for anybody who wants to be jealous, you can be jealous.
	For anybody who wants to, you know, maybe success leaves clues and say, oh my goodness, what are they doing?
	And maybe I should think about getting in there as well.
	That's another lesson to take from it.
	For people who...
	Would never be able to do that on their own.
	And I'm lumping the Taylor Lorenz's in that place.
	Taylor Lorenz could start a YouTube channel tomorrow.
	People might watch it in as much as they crane their necks when they see a car accident on the highway.
	But Taylor Lorenz could not draw the crowds that Emily Baker and Illegal Bites drew.
	And so the people who are writing articles for legacy media, it pays what it pays.
	I'm not sure how well it pays.
	There might be a great amount of animosity towards these very successful young women that Taylor Lorenz seems to have a problem with.
	But anyhow, that's it.
	My father always said success leaves clues.
	You can react the way you want.
	Jealousy, admiration, respect.
	But success leaves clues.
	And also, when people succeed, the field that we operate on, which is...
	Come if you want.
	Stay if you want.
	Leave if you don't like it.
	It is what it is, and the indications are there.
	Okay, but now getting into people who want to continue to control the narrative.
	And now, by the way, it is believe all women, even when they're lying.
	And this was, by the way, this is what it morphed into with Jussie Smollett.
	You will recall.
	Even those who said, okay, fine, Jussie Smollett, it looks like a hoax, but gay men and the LGBTQ community goes through this every day.
	Jussie Smollett, okay, it doesn't matter that it was made up.
	This happens to real people all the time.
	Okay.
	That is the twisted way of writing off the hoax by saying, yeah, this was a hoax, but the bad stuff happens.
	Yeah.
	And the hoax is...
	Make the real bad stuff that actually does happen harder to believe for many and actually do damage to the actual victims of actual criminal behavior by virtue of their hoax.
	So while some, through their tribalistic, motivated reasoning, want to explain away the hoax by saying it happens in real life, so although this was fake, we need to take it seriously, they've got it bass-ackwards, as we say.
	The carriage in front of the horse, you need to...
	Reprimand the hoaxers even harder because they do actual damage to actual victims in that they make it harder for victims to be believed and, by consequence, harder or more reluctant for victims to come forward.
	Because now they're going to say, no one's going to believe me because Jussie Smollett set the standard.
	Actual victims are going to say, I can't come forward now because people are just going to call me the next Amber Heard.
	You want to tribalistically write it off, justify it?
	You are actually doing violence to actual victims.
	But, speaking of people who want to continue to control the narrative with their propagandist misinformation, listen to this.
	Lisa Bloom.
	I don't know her history.
	Apparently her mother was a famous lawyer for...
	I don't know.
	I just read some comments.
	I'm learning.
	I started from scratch with this stuff a couple years ago, a few years ago now.
	Try a lawyer fighting for victims of discrimination, harassment, and abuse.
	Vegan proselytizer.
	That's where I...
	Hold on, hold on.
	That's where I got suspicious.
	I have nothing against anybody who believes in something for themselves, but the second people start to proselytize on anything...
	Let me just make sure that that word means what I think it means.
	Proselytize.
	To convert or attempt to convert someone from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
	Yeah.
	I have a problem with proselytizers in general.
	Discussors.
	Sharers of opinions, sharers of beliefs, I have no problem with.
	Trying to tell someone else what to believe and to change their beliefs, I have a problem with it.
	And when I saw that, that she's a vegan proselytizer, and I'm sitting here thawing out my...
	15 bucks, by the way, people.
	15 bucks for 200 grams of beef.
	That's 15 Canadian, so that's like $11.50 US.
	When I hear someone vegan proselytizing and I'm staring at my evening steak thawing out...
	It's funny.
	It's ironic.
	But proselytizers in general, if you love your beliefs and you believe in your beliefs, it doesn't matter if anybody else believes in them.
	That should be enough for a true believer.
	I do appreciate people genuinely want to help other people.
	I would then refer to it not as proselytizing per se, but rather share your thoughts.
	If they are good thoughts, compelling thoughts, it will make people subscribe to your newsletter.
	Pushing too hard is never a good thing.
	But listen to this.
	Lisa Bloom, a lawyer.
	Let me just go back.
	A lawyer fighting for victims of discrimination, harassment, and abuse.
	This was her takeaway for the trial.
	I had to advise two women today that if they speak out about their sexual assault, the essays, they can be sued.
	Even if they don't name their abuser, even if they don't identify him by job or relationship, one wept at being silenced.
	The fallout from Johnny Depp v.
	Amber Heard.
	I can't pretend to have this thought because it wasn't my thought.
	I'm going to go back to my thread and see who it was that raised this.
	When you read this, by the way, read it as though she just threatened two women not to make allegations of abuse because she would sue them.
	Read it not as though these were her clients.
	Read this as though two potential victims came to her and said, I'm going to rat out your clients because they abused me.
	Read it like that.
	Let's go ahead and read it first.
	Probably the way in which it was written, which was she had two clients.
	Let's read it as her clients first.
	I had to advise two women today that if they speak out about their sexual assaults, they can be sued.
	Even if they don't name their abuser, even if they don't identify him by job or relationship, one wept at being silenced.
	The fallout from the Johnny Depp versus Everheard.
	Now read it as though she threatened two people into silence.
	I had to advise two women today that if they speak out about their assault, they can be sued.
	Even if they don't name their abuser.
	Even if they didn't identify his job or relationship.
	One wept.
	One actually wept at being silenced.
	The follow from the Johnny Depp v.
	Amber Heard.
	Can we read it like that?
	Now that I read it with that potential, she never mentioned if it's a client.
	Or an alleged victim coming to her about one of her clients.
	And it can be read both ways.
	In the context following up on her follow-up threads, it looks like she was giving advice to people.
	To which I said...
	Oh, we'll get to that one.
	We'll get to that one.
	Hold on.
	Then you gave them terrible legal advice based on a lack of understanding of law and facts, and they should seek proper counsel.
	Now let's just go through this element by element.
	She spoke to two women today.
	They can be sued if they come forward about their essays.
	First of all, this is a truism.
	Anyone, anywhere, especially in the United States, can get sued pretty much for anything.
	You slip and fall, you can get sued.
	You know, you stick your hand in the vending machine and you get your arm lacerated trying to get a coke out of the machine.
	The vending machine can get sued because they shouldn't have had, you know, sharp things in there.
	They know people are going to stick their hands in there.
	And so it's a trap.
	It was, you know, one of those...
	It was a trap.
	They should be able...
	In the United States, it's a highly litigious society for good and for bad because it does have its pros and it does have its cons.
	To say you can be sued for saying something, it's a truism.
	It's a non-starter.
	It's a non-statement.
	You can always pretty much be sued for anything and anything.
	It just depends on whether or not it's a frivolous lawsuit that gets tossed on a motion to dismiss or a substantively well-grounded lawsuit that proceeds.
	Okay, so if you come out and you make allegations against someone, you can get sued.
	Fine.
	Even if they don't name their abuser, the legal implication of what's being said here is that Amber Heard didn't name Johnny.
	And therefore, one of the legal theories loosely floated was that Johnny wasn't identified, so the allegedly defamatory statements were not of and about Johnny because it didn't mention his name.
	And basically, this lawyer here is saying, even if you don't name your abuser, you can get sued.
	Well, yeah, if it is known that the statements are of and about someone, even if they didn't get named.
	And this is defamation 101.
	The fact that you don't name someone is not necessarily a protection if everybody within the community knows who you're talking about.
	A CEO of a very powerful food company.
	A CEO of an executive of GoPro.
	I shouldn't even say that because they're nice people.
	A campaign manager for the Clinton campaign.
	I didn't name anybody, but I just made it clear.
	So if one is saying, don't come forward, because even if you don't name them, you can still get sued.
	Yeah, if you don't name them, but you give sufficient details that everybody knows who they're talking about.
	And by the way, if Amber Heard had used this as a defense, a real defense in her case, I wasn't necessarily...
	I was talking about someone from 20 years ago.
	She might have had a better chance, but she admitted it doesn't matter.
	So the idea that even if you don't name your abuser, you can still get sued?
	Yeah.
	Because in law, if you make it clear, and it is known within the community who you're talking about, not using their name, but using other identifiable factors, is not a defense.
	Even if they don't identify him by job or relationship.
	Well...
	That goes back to the other one.
	The fallout of the Johnny Depp trial.
	No.
	It's not the fallout of the Johnny Depp trial.
	It's the fallout of gaslighting disingenuous attempts to misrepresent the facts so as to misrepresent the law.
	But it gets better.
	Do we get to some super chats before it gets better?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Let's get to some super chats that I missed before we get to the better stuff.
	Famous IJIT, Gloria Aldridge, IJIT, daughter Bloom.
	Gloria Aldridge.
	Oh, is it?
	Well, is that?
	But hold on, where did the Bloom come from?
	Gloria Aldridge might have been Gloria Bloom, and then she took on her husband's name.
	Everybody who may not know this, in Quebec, women cannot take their husband's name, even if they want to.
	It's a law from the 70s, which, you know, to protect women's rights.
	Not only did not require women to take their husband's name in marriage, forbade them, prevented them from doing it even if they wanted to.
	So in Quebec, I have a different last name than my wife because my wife did not take my last name because the law specifically prohibits it.
	You know, the irony is that Quebec, women's rights in Quebec means that women don't even have the choice to do it if they want to.
	Fish market, what does this mean?
	Believe?
	I don't want to get in trouble.
	I don't know what that means.
	I don't know what that means.
	Okay, and we got here.
	Those are the comments Trudeau made about Canadians.
	Okay, so maybe he's talking about me.
	I know they know of the channel because in as much as that umbrella guy got his name dropped during the Depp trial, they were talking about my interview with Keith Wilson, the lawyer for the convoy, during the Tamara Litch hearing.
	Truckers gave her a glorious drubbing a few years ago.
	I don't know what that means.
	$20 from Juan.
	I hope you didn't mean to put a comment in there, but you missed it.
	If you did, I'll try to get the comment afterwards.
	Proselytizing people to plunder their purity is pathetic.
	Cameron, nice to see you again, one way or the other.
	Yeah, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay.
	At the drive-thru.
	Really?
	Oh, hold on.
	She also told...
	Tara.
	Oh, yeah, we're getting there.
	Okay, yep.
	We got ahead of the curve here.
	Let's go here.
	Let's see this.
	So, who is this Lisa Bloom?
	And what else?
	It's like, people forget the internet is forever.
	And it's not a question of also about having a good memory or remembering all these things.
	When someone says something arguably stupid, everyone should have the reflex.
	Go to Twitter.
	Go to Google.
	Just look up certain words that you might expect to find in a tweet.
	That is the diametrical opposite to the virtuous tweet of the day by whomever's making it.
	Yeah, we're going to get to the January 6th one in a second.
	Oh, here we go.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	So, by the way, apparently she represented Harvey Weinstein.
	We'll get there.
	The aggregate knowledge of the interwebs.
	I saw this screen grab, and you cannot trust screen grabs even if it comes from a source that you trust.
	Let me see something here.
	Okay, comma.
	Next time, period.
	Maybe next week, question mark.
	I was thinking of having a last-minute guest, but apparently they can't come.
	I saw this screen grab, and I said, gotta double-check this.
	Before I retweet this, I need to make sure this is true.
	This is what the screen grab says.
	Lisa Bloom represents victims of abuse.
	I believe you, Tara Reid.
	I believe you, Tara Reid.
	You have people who remember.
	You told them this.
	We know he is handsy.
	I mean, everyone needs to appreciate what was just said there.
	We know he is handsy.
	Thus far, you may not know who they're talking about.
	We know he is handsy.
	You want to talk about dog whistles or euphemisms?
	Handsy means he can't keep his hands off other people's junk.
	And by junk, maybe not junk junk, but like...
	Personal space.
	Uncomfortable personal space.
	Hansy is not a pat on the shoulder.
	Hansy is a pat on the butt.
	We know he is Hansy.
	We know it.
	We know it.
	We're talking about Joe Biden, people.
	You're not asking for money.
	You've obviously struggled mightily with this.
	You're so thoughtful and understanding, Lisa Bloom.
	You are truly the advocate of women victims of abuse.
	You truly are.
	But I still have to fight for Trump, so I will support Joe.
	But I believe you.
	And I'm sorry.
	I mean, by the way, we have to defend a groper in order to beat a man who we're faulting for groping.
	Remember, this is the...
	No one's ever really accused...
	A few people have accused Trump of improper conduct, but the Billy...
	Bush recording, grabbing them by the...
	They have to defeat that groping pervert at all costs.
	So they're going to support another groping pervert, even though they believe that a woman was actually a victim of his groping perversion.
	I just thought, it's too ridiculous to be true.
	So I had to go find the original tweet.
	Oh, it's still there.
	It's still there, by the way.
	So as at the time of recording this, we are in Twitter.
	I got the original tweet, not just a screen grab.
	Showed my homework, people.
	Because if I ever make a mistake and wrongly accuse someone of...
	If I retweet a fake screen grab, I will feel terrible.
	This is the original tweet.
	I believe you, Tara Reid.
	You have people who remember you told them about this decades ago.
	We didn't listen to you then either.
	We know he is Gropey McGropstein.
	That could trend.
	Hashtag groping McGropstein.
	You're not asking for money.
	You've struggled mightily with this.
	But I still have to fight for Trump.
	So I'm going to go support your groping assaulter.
	But I believe you.
	But F off.
	Politics over people.
	And I'm sorry.
	Let's just see if...
	Oh my goodness.
	And then you can go in there.
	I guess I don't see the actual...
	Just...
	atrocious.
	Thank you.
	And then you got...
	That doesn't matter.
	Outrageously.
	Outrageous.
	Translation.
	It really is all about politics.
	Yep.
	Yep, yep, yep, yep.
	But it gets even worse, I think.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	I think it gets even worse.
	No, that's as bad as it gets.
	Let me just see something here.
	I believe Lisa Bloom typed properly, represented Harvey Weinstein.
	Looks like I'm not the first person.
	The Guardian.
	Lisa Bloom.
	Ugh, yeah, fine, I'm happy.
	Lisa Bloom on Working for Weinstein.
	Attorneys represent a lot of distasteful people.
	Yeah, but attorneys with standards and principles don't represent victimizers.
	Period.
	If you know your client is guilty, you don't represent them on the basis of their innocence.
	And I've had this discussion before with criminal lawyers, with my dad, with Dershowitz.
	If you know your client is guilty, you do not represent them on the basis of their innocence.
	You try to negotiate a better deal.
	You try to negotiate a better settlement.
	You shut your mouth and make the prosecutors prove their case.
	But you do not represent them on their innocence.
	So it's not about...
	Having distasteful clients.
	It's about representing abusers when you purport to be the defender of abusers.
	You represent them, you defend them, and you tell the victims to stuff it in no uncertain terms, in no uncertain unequivocally.
	I believe you, but too freaking bad, I'm going to go support your abuser for President of the United States of America.
	Oh yeah, and I'm also going to go represent Harvey Weinstein because, my God, talking about exploiting situations to line your pockets.
	Before representing five of Jeffrey Epstein's victims, the lawyer advised the producer on how to discredit his accusers.
	Does she have any regrets?
	Yeah, people found out.
	Okay.
	I don't even care to read it.
	Here, go in here and look at this.
	You can read it, people.
	Let me go to the aggregate learned internet.
	Ew, that's awful.
	Hansy is not the same as what she said he did.
	No, because Hansy is her political...
	What's the word when you wash something?
	Whitewashing.
	Hansy is her whitewashing...
	What's the opposite of a dog whistle?
	I guess a whitewash whistle.
	Hansy is the whitewash whistle of grope, assault, and all these things.
	He's sniffy.
	I am a lefty.
	I believe, Tara.
	I did not vote for Biden.
	These crazy times transcend parties.
	Believe all women, except the Clinton or Biden accusers.
	Believe all women when they're accusing your adversaries.
	Sorry, politics.
	Be politics when they're accusing your people.
	Tribalism is what it is.
	There are no friends, there's no loyalty, there is tribalism, and there are allies.
	And if you're not an ally, you're an enemy.
	I was going to go with adversary, but I meant enemy.
	So that's Lisa Bloom's story.
	White huash.
	The white huash.
	Let me see this here.
	Nihilism.
	The rejection of all religious and moral principles is the belief that life is meaningless.
	Well, I wouldn't call what these moralist, vapid politicians are nihilists.
	They are tribalists.
	Oh, let me crack my back.
	That didn't work.
	The crack did nothing.
	Let's see this here.
	Bringing up a chat does not mean it's an accurate chat.
	In fact, most of the times I don't actually read the chats before bringing them up and then I get nailed every now and again.
	Her mom went after Cosby but didn't go after Hugh Hefner, who was the person giving people the mm-mm, videotapes them and mm-mm.
	Kind of weird, right?
	Well, I'm sure she would have defended Hugh.
	You know, it depends on who's paying what and what is politically convenient and financially expedient to do.
	Okay, let me bring this back.
	We're not going to stay on this story.
	You know what?
	We're not going to stay on this story, but let's just see if there was nothing else about the wickedly awful takes of Lisa Bloom.
	I believe you, Tara Reid, but F off because politics trump victims.
	Unbelievable.
	You'd think they remember.
	You'd think they remember what they said that's idiotic.
	Like that should have been a sufficiently traumatizing tweet in terms of ratio, commentary, backlash, that you should remember that it's out there.
	Oh, no.
	No.
	Why does he keep asking me that?
	You give terrible legal advice.
	Okay, fine.
	All right.
	Okay, okay, okay.
	We're going to...
	I'm not going to pay any attention to that.
	I saw a raccoon yesterday that looked like it...
	That looked like it's invested in Bitcoin.
	And you have to get to the joke of the punchline.
	Oh, yeah.
	The devil eyes.
	Invest in Bitcoin.
	This raccoon is investing in Bitcoin.
	Okay.
	Physiologically, it's actually stunningly amazing how much light the eyes of a raccoon absorb, given the fact that they operate in darkness.
	When you see it, that was the flash from my camera, just like the little light lighting up that raccoon's eyes.
	Okay, let's get to something meaningful.
	Speaking of tribalistic politics...
	Speaking of tribalism, speaking of turning children against their parents, this story is shocking.
	Now, the bottom, oh, sorry, my eye is itchy.
	The bottom line or the top line 30,000 foot overview to this story is a kid, 19-year-old kid, went and recorded his dad talking allegedly or confirming that he broke the law.
	On January 6th, and then submitted it to the FBI tip after Googling anonymous tips to the FBI.
	He basically turned his dad in.
	Now, you know, I am sure that there's probably more to this story, like they're more in the family dynamic, that there might very well be abuse in this family.
	I don't know.
	I've read some comments to the effect that the father was abusive, whatever.
	Abusive or not, this story shows how...
	Politics can actually be used to weaponize the prosecutorial process itself.
	Let's just assume that there was, in fact, abuse in this story between father-son, father-wife, whatever.
	If a kid is now using politics to find ways to weaponize the prosecutorial system against an abusive father, that would be interesting from a cynical perspective enough.
	And it would show the problems, you know, weaponizing something for what might be a good reason.
	Doesn't change the fact that the system can and is being weaponized.
	Can be and is being weaponized.
	But let's read this story because it's fascinating.
	And I think, you know, until even if those other details, if they do come out and they turn out to be true, it's still shocking.
	The kid, I'm not trying to put any specific person on blast.
	It's in the article.
	You can read it.
	Son of a January 6th defendant Googled the FBI tip line to report his father.
	He took the stand Thursday as a witness for the prosecution in the trial of his father, the first January 6th defendant to stand trial.
	The first January 6th defendant to stand trial.
	No, maybe to stand jury trial.
	We had the acquittal of the other guy who stood trial, but...
	He spoke of sitting in his bedroom while his father was at home and secretly Googling the FBI tip line to tell the Bureau about his father because he was worried about what his father might do.
	Back in the day, by the way, let me put that on hold.
	Back in the day in Canada, CBC, Joys of Snitching, Neighbor.
	Back in the day, CBC...
	Which some people call the Communist Broadcasting Corporation.
	Put out this article.
	April 2020.
	This was right, you know, a month into COVID lockdowns.
	This was a month into two weeks to flatten the curve.
	And it's a real article.
	The pleasure and peril of snitching on your neighbors during a pandemic.
	What is the CBC promoting by way of idea here?
	They lock you down.
	They isolate you from friends and family.
	They destroy the fundamental pillars of society, religion, education, family.
	And then they go out and write a piece pushing, promoting, suggesting, planting the seed of the idea that there might be pleasure on snitching on your neighbor in a pandemic.
	Experts say reporting on neighbors offers a sense of control, but adversely affects minorities.
	The problem with it...
	It's not that it makes neighbors snitch on neighbors.
	It's that it might adversely affect minorities.
	Screw the white majority.
	It doesn't matter if it affects them.
	It might affect minorities.
	That's the problem of snitching on your neighbors.
	Not turning neighbor against neighbor, desecrating the very fabric of society.
	That's not the problem.
	The problem is that in doing it, sure, you'll screw a whitey, but they deserve it.
	It might get minorities, and that could be a problem.
	I don't even want to go into this.
	So anyways, it goes into...
	So far this month, 383 people have called the city about physical distancing.
	People called...
	I mean, this was back when everyone was freaking out and didn't know better.
	And yeah, it doesn't matter.
	The problem with snitching is not that people are snitching and destroying the fabric of society.
	It's that it might adversely affect minorities.
	Otherwise, it's totally fine to do.
	Go ahead and do it and knock yourself out.
	Atrocious.
	Okay, so listen to this.
	So he's secretly Googling an FBI tip line to turn in his dad because he's worried about what his dad might do.
	When prosecutors called his son to the stand, Guy Riffett immediately began to cry, wiping his eyes through his white mask, his face turning red.
	Now, I'm wondering, is he crying because of the actual betrayal, or is he crying because he knows he's going to go to jail because he was a bad man?
	His son did what he had to do.
	He entered the courtroom wearing a pink shirt, dark suit, long hair, and a black mask.
	That gives you a hint of what's coming, by the way.
	Because...
	Here it is.
	Pretty great, Jackson said, when he took the stand, and he told Drew about his relationship with his dad, explaining that...
	The two grew more distant after he spent some time abroad in 2016 to live in Malaysia.
	Yeah, they grew more distant.
	And I can't imagine...
	You know, I was thinking the other day that there's no worse feeling for a child than disappointing his father.
	From a spiritual and overall perspective, I cannot imagine the feeling of a father being so betrayed.
	By his son or his daughter.
	And this kid, may he live forever.
	Like from the movie 300.
	May you live forever to be an old man and possibly have lost your father.
	Because his dad might be going to jail for a long time given the charges.
	May you live forever, son.
	I didn't like the movie 300.
	That was the only scene that actually stuck with me when they tell that golem type creature.
	May you live forever.
	And he immediately understood the awfulness of what he did.
	At one point, Jackson discussed the far-right extremist group his dad belongs to, the 3% militia.
	I'm going to Google this after because I've never heard of it.
	I'm curious to know if it's actually far-right extremist.
	I don't know what it is, and I don't know what far-right extremist means anymore.
	Now that we've seen that, apparently, if you're anti-mask, you're a right-wing extremist.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	His mother's crying.
	It felt gross to be Googling a way to tip the FBI about his dad to report my father, Jackson.
	Okay.
	19. Said that his politics differ from his father's.
	As he put it, where he goes left, his father goes right.
	And then we get into the charges because they're serious.
	He's accused of transporting firearms from Texas to Washington, D.C. Now, this is where, like, crossing state lines.
	I don't understand the nature of these laws or what laws he might have broken.
	I understand the nature.
	I just don't know the exact law.
	Jackson identified the 3% as a logo on clothing belonging to the dad.
	Stickers, whatever, yada, yada.
	He said his father has told him that the group's name is derived from the American Revolution.
	That sounds totally extremist.
	The founding fathers of America.
	His father wouldn't let him stay in the house when the group met there.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	He testified that Guy Refit pretty much all the time keeps his Smith& Wesson gun on his hip.
	That's the gun Refit is accused of carrying during the riot at the Capitol.
	In photos showed by prosecutors, Jackson identified a handgun on the nightstand in his father's bedroom and a Trump hat Guy Refit would wear every day or so.
	Oh, listen to this.
	And then he's talking about his dad.
	Jackson testified about messages his father allegedly sent to his family, including one that read...
	We did it in the Civil War, and now we are doing it again.
	It's the government that is going to be destroyed in this fight.
	Jackson first learned of his father's participation in the attack when he returned to the family's home to see his mother and sister watching news coverage.
	I'm curious to know how they even knew that his dad had a fire on there.
	Prosecutors then played for the jurors multiple audio recordings Jackson said he took of his father upon his return from January 6th attack.
	Quote, I had a very epic point.
	I had a very epic point in my life, guys heard saying in one recording.
	I felt so patriotic.
	He told his family, adding that Donald Trump's presidency was not the issue.
	It was the, quote, disgusting people, end quote, inside the Capitol who needed to be removed.
	We're going to get to this afterwards.
	Prosecutors allege that Guy Refit specifically targeted Speaker Pelosi and Mitch McConnell.
	According to the recordings played for the jury, Jackson captured his father, admitting...
	And I'm wondering what the evidence is, other than this recording, that he carried a gun outside the Capitol, an offense that carries years in prison.
	You carried a weapon onto Capitol grounds, Jackson has heard saying.
	Okay, guy responded, adding later, I did it.
	I did bring a weapon on property that we own.
	Well, let's just see here.
	Listen to this.
	As if it was not gross enough.
	If he had just turned in his dad for politics, it would have been one thing.
	And soon, the prosecutor, Reese Bukowski, closed a question in the courtroom who silenced when Jackson said he didn't regret turning his father in.
	I think this is the best case scenario, he said.
	I think it probably is for you.
	Jackson set up a GoFundMe account worth $158,000 from donations after he told his story to the media and had to move out of his parents' home out of fear of conflict.
	He said the money made him feel guilty because his family is struggling too.
	May you live forever, son.
	This is the issue.
	If there's underlying abuse going on here and this was a way of getting back or a way of protecting, that'll add a whole new dynamic to the story.
	It would still show how politics can be used to weaponize the prosecutorial process, but from the sounds of it, that's not what it sounds like.
	Guy Refit's attorney tried to poke holes in his son's testimony asking questions about the defendant's alcohol and Xanax use, his mental health status, all supposed defenses for his actions, and implied that the son should have known to stop the conversation before his father had allegedly made the threatening comment.
	His attorney suggested Wednesday that he'll argue the case against Guy Refit is a lot of hype, that he's prone to brag, he exaggerates and rants and uses a lot of hyperbole.
	Yeah, well, that defense might work on Michael Sussman with a D.C. jury.
	That defense probably not going to work on Guy Reffitt with a DC jury.
	Okay.
	If convicted, Guy Refitt could face a maximum sentence of 60 years in prison.
	It's atrocious.
	Hands down, without qualification, atrocious.
	If there's nothing else that might explain the necessity of it, atrocious.
	Okay, let's do some super chats.
	By the way, before we do the super chats, just listen to this for one second.
	It's absolutely quiet here.
	I'm alone.
	I'm alone for maybe another hour and a half.
	No kids, my wife, not here.
	Hi.
	I love the kids and I love the family.
	We're not on a break.
	The kids are playdates.
	I happen to have two hours, which is why I put together this stream.
	Now it's not quiet because the ventilation just went on.
	Silence.
	Absolute silence.
	Nobody's nagging me.
	I don't hear kids screaming and fighting.
	I was out at Beaver Lake earlier today with Winston and two kids.
	Feeding the goldfish.
	Parenting is endless stress.
	I'm dragging a dog that doesn't want to walk.
	The kids are running off.
	Kids are defined by their lack of awareness of the existence and needs of others.
	That's what makes a kid a kid, and that's what makes an adult an asshole, by the way.
	It's an amazing thought I had.
	Kids, it's not through malice.
	It's not through selfishness.
	They just don't yet understand other people exist and other people have needs as well.
	When a kid turns into an adult and has that same perspective, that makes them an a-hole of an adult.
	What makes a kid a kid is, in an adult, what makes an a-hole of an adult.
	So they're dragging a kid, dragging a dog, chasing after two kids, and I...
	It's like endless stress.
	Okay, all that to say.
	I'm joking.
	This is an old one from yesterday.
	Okay.
	Super chat.
	Off topic.
	Have you ordered your copy of the children's book, How the PM Stole Freedom?
	Bestseller on Amazon before it's taken off the market.
	No.
	But what I am going to do is go make an Amazon affiliate link and put that out there.
	Call it opportunistic, people.
	I will promote that book and...
	Try to make a living off of it as well.
	I screenshot that, so we're going to see.
	Okay.
	This story undoubtedly played out similarly during the Third Reich.
	Congrats, globalists.
	We're going to read it.
	It's Mao Zedong's China.
	It's Soviet Russia.
	It's Nazi Germany.
	It's all totalitarian, authoritarian, fascistic regimes.
	Abolish religion.
	Abolish family.
	Appropriate education.
	It's not...
	This is my own personal thought process here.
	It's not an accident the way the government went after this.
	The government wants to replace God.
	We talked about it yesterday.
	The government wants to replace God.
	They want to replace parents.
	They want to replace family.
	They want to replace education.
	It's what they've done in all fascistic, totalitarian, authoritarian regimes.
	And the way you do that?
	Control education.
	Out.
	Outlaw religion or become the new religion and turn community on itself.
	I mean, it's...
	Viva, now Tell Lorenz is blaming her editor for inserting the error into her article and is the, quote, victim, end quote, of a smear campaign via a series of tweets.
	She keeps doubling down on her lies.
	Sorry for being cheeky the other day.
	Dude, I remember you being cheeky.
	It's a beautiful cloud.
	I don't know if that...
	Warshak test.
	Anybody else see a genitalia in that picture?
	Is that why?
	It's a beautiful picture of clouds.
	I see a male genitalia in that, and I don't know if that makes me a pervert.
	First of all, I don't apologize for being cheeky.
	I don't even remember that you were cheeky.
	What does this behavior sound like?
	This sounds like Amber Heardish behavior.
	This sounds like Elaine coming out blaming the judge.
	For allowing inadmissible evidence.
	Blaming the jury.
	For watching the news when they're being influenced by the news.
	Blaming Johnny Depp for the smear campaign.
	Blame, blame, blame.
	Pathological.
	It's a beautiful catastrophe.
	I like that.
	That's a good name for a band.
	Or at least a song.
	Beautiful catastrophe.
	That actually has to be the name of a song already.
	So...
	Oh, I'm nagging you about missing my 487th superchat.
	Real Bambuga, you've fallen back on the superchats that you're nagging me about.
	You were much higher than that before.
	Okay, hold on.
	We got Pasha Moyer, always the 514.
	I heard a similar story from the mouth of a babushka in Ukraine in 2007.
	Babushka.
	What's a babushka?
	Beautiful Disaster is the name of the song.
	Yeah, have they...
	They haven't showed up today, the sex bots.
	That's the story.
	I'd like to know more of the details about the family dynamic.
	I guarantee there's more in there.
	It's a grandma.
	What else do we got?
	If we've got any questions, I'm going to go see in my...
	In my share screen, what do we have in...
	Huh.
	Oh, so let's go here.
	We're going to go back to the Guy Reffitt story.
	So that's the Guy Reffitt story.
	We'll see.
	The guy's going to get convicted.
	I'd like to know the evidence.
	Maybe we've got to have Julie, if Julie Kelly can come on.
	Well, hold on a second.
	I think she is coming on, but in a bit.
	I'd like to know what evidence was a juice.
	Do they have photographic evidence of this individual with a firearm on his side?
	Or is it strictly the recording?
	And does it even matter?
	This dude's going to go to jail for a long time because he's not getting any Sussman treatment.
	Justin Trudeau misinformation.
	What does anyone want to talk about right now that we can get by?
	Hold on.
	Four days ago.
	Well, let's see this.
	Trudeau's new gun agenda, nothing but misinformation.
	This is from four days ago.
	On Monday, now for anyone who doesn't know, everyone knows because I think Tim Kass talked about it, Crowder talked about it, the total freeze on handguns in Canada, where there had effectively already been a total freeze, in that you have to go follow a multi-day course to get a specific license.
	For restricted firearms, which are anything not long arm.
	And you can only use it for target practice and collections.
	You can't transport it.
	I believe recently, actually, they amended the law so that you could not transport it without getting permission of a firearms officer or one of these commissioners.
	He came out this week and said, now, total freeze on small arms.
	Can't buy, sell, trade, whatever.
	Talked about the buyback on long arms.
	You know, it's going to cost $750 million to buy back firearms that the government never owned in the first place, but that was not news.
	That was actually from the 220 Order in Council.
	Let's just see what this has to say here.
	On Monday, Justin Trudeau portrayed his new gun control laws as being about freedom.
	Not the freedom to own a gun, but the freedom to be able to live your life without fear of gun violence.
	People should be free to go to the park or to a birthday party without worrying about what may happen from a stray bullet.
	Because that always happens from lawfully acquired firearms of people who spent days following the course, registering the license, getting vouched for by family, background checks.
	I agree with that.
	We shouldn't have to worry about gun violence upsetting our lives, but under Trudeau's watch, gun violence driven by gangs and organized crime has only increased.
	I like this article already.
	The shootings that he says he wants to stop won't come to an end due to this legislation, no matter what he claims.
	Of course not.
	Because it's a known fact that the gun violence in Canada are black market, unlawfully procured firearms, which is not going to change by freezing lawful ownership.
	You want to increase penalties on gun crime?
	Go right ahead.
	You want to increase sanctions on illegal gun ownership?
	My goodness, they're over the top as it is.
	Maybe the court system should actually implement them.
	True to invoke the names of two innocent killed during gang shootings targeting other people.
	He's milking the tragedy of others to push policy that won't respond to the cause of that tragedy.
	He cited Alfred Wong of Vancouver and Meriem Bendawi of Montreal saying that nothing can bring them back but that his government has a responsibility to act to prevent more tragedies.
	If he's doing that, they'll be fine, but he's not.
	There's nothing in this bill to target gangs and criminals responsible for Wong and Bendawi being shot.
	The legislation is aimed squarely at licensed legal gun owners, not the organized crime networks that smuggle guns across the border, sell them, or use them without care.
	Oh, and what did he come up the other day?
	He came up the other day and said, it's not going to affect gun shops.
	Quote, I think people need to be careful about misinformation and disinformation in this.
	We've explicitly and specifically not targeted law-abiding firearm owners.
	I mean, this is gaslighting of the highest order.
	He specifically and only, maybe not only, he has specifically targeted lawful gun owners because that's what the freeze and for restriction on transfer and acquisition targets.
	I mean, it's just gaslighting insanity for people who are too ignorant.
	Too lazy or too partisan to care.
	He clearly hasn't read his own legislation if he believes those words.
	The legislation will make it impossible for licensed gun owners to buy a handgun, but not the criminals who will continue to shoot up our streets.
	Last summer, two men with criminal records and court-ordered gun prohibitions shot up a child's birthday party.
	The kind Trudeau says we should all be free to go through without fear of gun violence.
	A five-year-old was terrible.
	Nothing in this legislation would prevent that from happening again.
	I mean, you want to know why?
	Because there already is legislation to prevent that from happening in the first place.
	And then, I mean, gun violence, it's up everywhere.
	It's up, I read the Montreal Gazette paper, and they're talking about shootings in a place called Rivière des Prairies, RDP, which is just off the island, everywhere.
	I mean, it's up everywhere.
	It's up in Canada.
	Now, one argument, and the obvious argument is going to be, it's up from very low numbers, so...
	Don't make too much of that spike in gun violence.
	Don't make too much of that spike in gun violence.
	It's going to be one argument, on the one hand, while they suck, and on the other side, while they blow, they're going to say, gun violence is going up.
	We need to make it even more criminal for law-abiding citizens to have firearms.
	Shootings are up across the country for a variety of reasons, including changes in policing, the rise of the opioid crisis, and the fast money to be made.
	Lately, handguns have been showing up in the increasing numbers in carjackings.
	People using guns in these situations are using smuggled handguns from the United States, not legally purchased ones.
	This will not change.
	Okay.
	We need more, yada, yada.
	Canada deserves a prime minister who will champion causes like this, not spread misinformation that he's tackling crime.
	Justin Trudeau is what he warns us about.
	He is the misinformation that he warns about.
	He is the divisiveness that he warns about.
	He is the racism that he warns about.
	He's the misogyny that he warns us about.
	Justin Trudeau truly is that which he warns the rest of Canada about.
	Aboot.
	Oh.
	So now you see, by the way, very much soul-glowish curls tonight.
	I'm going to go to Rumble just to make sure I haven't forgotten or missed anything.
	Viva for PM.
	It's not going to happen, people.
	Drop that.
	Drop that idea.
	Someone on Rumble said, the unholy alliance between the NDP and the Liberals will have the Liberals in power for you.
	You want to also go pathological gaslighting, insanity, schizophrenic, not in the medical sense, in the...
	I guess it would be split personality and not schizophrenic.
	Jagmeet Singh on Twitter railing against how the Liberals have rigged the system, how they're corrupt, how they're screwing Canadians by causing...
	Big tech CEOs to make more money at the...
	And Jagmeet Singh and the NDP have partnered up with this corrupt regime to hold them up for another three years.
	Why not outlaw murder and theft?
	That should end those crimes.
	Oh, wait.
	It's...
	You need to think of the worst shooting in Nova Scotia.
	The man broke laws.
	It did not happen because you had a citizen who acquired these weapons lawfully.
	Actually, I shouldn't say that.
	I'm not 1,000% certain about that guy.
	I'm fairly certain a number of them were not lawful firearms.
	It's certainly not lawful to impersonate a police officer, which is what that individual did.
	Known to the police for 10 hours when they didn't disclose it to the public.
	But, hey, government screws up.
	What do they do?
	Give themselves a raise.
	Give themselves a raise both monetarily and in the power that they hold over the citizens whom they've just failed because of their incompetence.
	Government is the only institution where you fail up.
	Where when you fail, you give yourself a raise.
	Where when you fail the citizens, you create more laws to further crush the citizens while further empowering yourself despite your repeated incompetence.
	Okay, hold on a second.
	Someone...
	Oh, I just...
	Oh, no.
	I just saw something that I wanted to get to.
	Oh, I saw an OMG and then I didn't get to...
	Oh, here it is.
	I'm not going to get to it.
	Okay, hold on.
	I just want to get to the super chats that I missed so I don't miss them.
	Here, a green one is coming up.
	Boom.
	I love the aspect that is about forwarding the sudden aspect of the individual changing.
	I love the aspect that is about forwarding the sudden aspect of the individual changing.
	It's poetic.
	I'm going to have to think about it to see if I understand it.
	Marvin Carlson, thank you.
	And then there was one down here.
	I want to see if I can find the OMG one that caught my eye for a second.
	Viva, did you hear about the Stand for Freedom Speech Constitution of Canada has never been accepted in 1982?
	Viva, did you hear about Stand for Freedom Speech?
	Constitution of Canada, never been accepted.
	Okay, I think I know what you're getting at, but no, I'm not getting into that discussion if it's what I think it is.
	But, yeah.
	How much did Ford get paid for lockdown compliance?
	Good job, Ontario.
	Oh, but he was the lesser of the evils.
	Couldn't have a liberal majority, so instead you just...
	Doesn't matter.
	I talked about that yesterday.
	I don't want to talk about it again.
	Shane D. You want to look in the future, Viva.
	Chicago has a zero-tolerance approach to any firearms.
	For some strange reason, criminals don't follow the law.
	Shocker, I know.
	Dude, Toronto and Vancouver are not anywhere near Chicago levels, but we know what's going on there.
	We know what's going on there.
	But it's the Parkinson's law of politics.
	Trudeau does not have an easy way to fix that problem.
	So, you know, talk about where to put the water cooler.
	Everyone in the office is going to have an opinion.
	It'll take you 20 minutes, 30 minutes.
	Where do we put the water cooler?
	I always use this analogy because it's great.
	Do we put it by the window at the front desk?
	No, the sunlight's going to cause some mold to grow in there.
	Let's put it in the coffee room.
	No, it's going to block the door to the fridge.
	Everyone's got an opinion.
	Talk about how to restructure the company.
	Five minutes because nobody understands it.
	Talk about how to resolve the illegal gun violence in Toronto that's plaguing Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver.
	Talk about how to resolve the opioid crisis.
	Forget that.
	Easy, easy fix.
	Let's make guns super-duper mega-illegal.
	As if they weren't already, by the way.
	Viva, in your scholarly opinion, is the Second Amendment enough to stop the current administration from pulling something like Trudeau?
	Love their Constitution.
	They love their freedoms.
	They love their First Amendment.
	They love their Second Amendment.
	Much more so than, well, we have no Second Amendment in Canada, but the Constitution, I don't want to say it's almost religious in its value, in its importance.
	It's almost unfathomable as to how well-crafted the Constitution is and the American experiment.
	The founding fathers, they had foresight in the sense that they learned from history and they learned from their experience to say, how do we make sure this doesn't happen again?
	You want to avoid the tyranny that you just fought to gain your freedom from.
	Identify the problems, ratify it, and make sure that it never happens again.
	And that's why you have the Constitution.
	That's why you have the First Amendment, the Second Amendment.
	Freedom of speech, The right to bear arms and to bear a well-regulated militia, the right to bear arms of the people shall not be infringed.
	Because at the end of the day, you have to fear citizens in a sense.
	You need to protect yourself from the citizens.
	You also need to protect yourself from the government in the sense that totalitarian regimes come about and the freedom that is the American experience, the American experiment, is the anomaly.
	It's not the rule.
	I mean, historically throughout the history of humankind, it has not been the free, amazing society that was born out of the American experiment.
	It has been feudal society.
	It's been authoritarian.
	It's been ruled by Genghis Khan, ruled by pharaohs.
	People have been ruled, and they haven't been free to live.
	So the Constitution itself, when you appreciate it in that historical context and how it stood the test of time, it's got meaning to it.
	And then you get into countries like Canada, don't have the same value for freedom of speech, certainly don't have the same value for firearms self-defense, and you get what you get.
	It's a safe society in certain respects, but not others.
	I have not watched the Putin interviews by Oliver Stone yet, but I saw Ukraine on Fire, which had a portion of an interview with Putin, and it was interesting.
	I mean, it clearly...
	It was not framed either from music, from angle, from anything to demonize Putin, which, you know, obviously pisses a lot of people off.
	Yeah.
	There's another one.
	Sports show host lives in Vancouver, said he saw druggies doing mm-mm on the street, but got yelled at by cops for drinking a beer.
	This is another old phenomenon.
	I get sometimes when I'm biking.
	And people think I'm biking on a trail that I'm not allowed to be biking on.
	They yell at me.
	And they, you know, they'll get very attitudinal with me.
	Whereas if I looked burlier, if I looked maybe a little more menacing, they probably wouldn't feel so comfortable daring to be that rude with me.
	And it's like, it's the irony.
	And it's sort of, there's another Parkinson's law in here somewhere is that people will berate someone who they're not intimidated by or who they don't feel threatened by, but they'll be very quiet with someone who they do.
	You're like, I can't help but look like this.
	Oh, am I in focus?
	There.
	And when you look friendly, people will assume you're friendly and they might feel more comfortable being ruder with you than they would with someone who doesn't look friendly, looks a little burlier.
	And when it comes to the cops, it's very easy to give the law-abiding citizen the ticket when you want, no, on the one hand, they're not going to fight back, they're probably going to pay it, and you're going to avoid confrontation.
	But try to go give a ticket to someone who...
	It might escalate.
	You know they're probably not going to pay it.
	And it might lead to some sort of serious confrontation.
	You know which way he's going to go.
	And this, by the way, not anecdotal, but this was told to me by somebody who seems to know better or is closer to the inside.
	In the early days of the pandemic, when they were issuing, Quebec issued like $35 million in tickets for COVID violations.
	When the cops were going around, they would pick.
	Who they decided to give a ticket to based on who they thought would pay the ticket.
	A, based on who they thought might be breaking the rules, which when you're talking about violating social distancing rules, you can imagine some discriminatory suppositions that went into stopping people who they thought might have been violating social distancing.
	But they also went and gave the tickets to people who they thought would pay them, who looked like they would be less likely to contest them and more likely to pay them.
	It's no different there.
	It's just the way it is.
	What else?
	Let's get to some AMAs.
	I haven't done any AMAs recently.
	Let's see what we got in terms of questions.
	Hold on here.
	Vancouver is such a joke, no smoke.
	I once drove through East Hastings in Vancouver just to see how bad it was.
	And this was like 15 years ago.
	It was bad.
	It was bad then, and I can only imagine how much worse things have gotten in certain cities now.
	Okay, let's see what we got here.
	Viva Fry, Conservative MP removed from Parliament grounds over vaccine rule.
	Hadn't heard that, but I'd like to see it.
	Viva, easier said than done, but I think it's time you start seriously considering leaving Canada.
	We could use you in the US.
	No, I'm open about it.
	I'm seriously considering it.
	Long-term, short-term.
	Near future.
	I said it when it came down.
	Bill 15 is a red line for me.
	Bill 15, let's just pull up an article on that.
	It'll be maybe a little repetitive for people who know what Bill 15 is.
	Then you gave them terrible advice.
	Okay, we got this one here.
	Bill 15 removes parental supremacy from...
	The Youth Protection Act, which basically...
	Projet de loi.
	Bill 15. Yeah, let's go.
	I covered this article before, but boom.
	This is fact-checked, by the way.
	When they say no, it has not passed law reducing parents' rights over their children in the headline, boom, it has.
	Bill 15, which removes parental primacy, has passed.
	Government replacing parents is yet another element.
	And this article goes on to explain how it doesn't remove parental primacy and the government's not usurping parental rights.
	There haven't been the problems that people have warned yet, but it basically says now the child's interest.
	The child's interest is the guiding principle under the Youth Protection Act in Quebec.
	Who decides the child's best interest?
	Well, it's not the parents anymore because parents have been stripped of parental supremacy under this law.
	Now it's the state.
	In the event of a dispute, the state determines what's in the best interest of the kid, which in my view was always the case regardless under the law.
	Like a parent who says, I want to abuse my kid and it's my rights, my parental supremacy rights to do it.
	Already laws to deal with that.
	But now the law has specifically been amended to remove parental supremacy as the guiding overarching principle.
	And now it's the...
	Best interest of the child as determined by the administrative state in the context of conflict.
	And I said to my wife a year ago, if this passes, that's a red line.
	And in the dead of night, it passed.
	And we're predicting it.
	It's going to be weaponized by children who are fighting with their parents.
	And the government is going to come in to administer medical treatments to kids despite parental opposition.
	Hormone therapy, transition therapy for kids, despite parental opposition, it's going to happen.
	And it's only a matter of time.
	And when Boom says, no, it hasn't happened yet, yeah, it hasn't happened yet, except it kind of has.
	So, yeah.
	True, that's why policing in Democrat-run inner cities is a joke.
	Why should cops risk their lives to arrest someone who will get let go in a few hours?
	And it's the self-fulfilling prophecy.
	You don't?
	You reduce the policing.
	First of all, you criminalize the police when they make a mistake, a good faith mistake, a la Kim Potter.
	Chauvin will leave that example out.
	But you criminalize police when they make what were obviously, and by all accounts, good faith or accidents.
	Good faith mistakes or accidents in the practice.
	You deter them from intervening in the future.
	You thus allow criminality to run rampant.
	And then you will, which results in innocent people getting shot.
	And you say, look how many innocent people are getting shot.
	Well, what's the solution?
	Take away more rights of law-abiding citizens.
	Take away more rights of law-abiding citizens.
	I want to see what, oh, no, we won't talk about that.
	If you can leave NA, it's a better idea.
	Bad things coming here.
	If you can leave North America, I don't know.
	No, Americans, Americans.
	Love freedom.
	And the pendulum will swing.
	The only question is whether or not certain provinces, certain countries get to a point of no return, or even if the pendulum swings, you know, it's going to hit a wall and not going to swing back.
	In the United States, I feel the pendulum swinging everywhere.
	But my goodness, do you need to undo the damage?
	You need to undo some serious legislation in Canada.
	Viva, we love you and can see how the government's abuses are eating away at your soul.
	Stay strong.
	Well, let me see.
	I haven't pulled out too much hair recently.
	Hair looks dark after the...
	Oh, look at that.
	His hair had burned from dark into bright white.
	Who knows that song, people?
	But, no, it is...
	The amazing thing is it's interesting just seeing people who just don't care.
	No big deal.
	Well, so what?
	It doesn't affect me now.
	I don't have any...
	I'm not in the youth protection system.
	I'm not in the court system.
	Okay, I'm just trying to figure out what this is.
	I'm not reading it out loud.
	Oh, hey, there's a dog under the couch.
	I'll get you in a second.
	Thank you for the super chat.
	Eric Mugisha.
	I saw Meshuga for a second, which...
	Meshuga, which means...
	You know, for cocked in Yiddish.
	Liberty Not Licenses.
	Love you, Viva.
	Why are so many of our Canadian neighbors not visiting Florida?
	Their homes are empty.
	Can they not come if not vaxxed?
	Do they lose medical care if coming?
	Can they even travel within Canada?
	So I don't know exactly how unvaccinated Canadians are able to get across the border.
	I think they can.
	I don't know, and I don't want to get in trouble for saying that they can cross by land but not air.
	I know that I've gotten calls from people.
	Who have been denied entry, denied boarding on a plane because they're unvaccinated.
	Even though they have arguably an exemption or even though they have some permission, denied.
	I think you can cross by land border more easily, but I don't know what that rule is.
	It's atrocious.
	But travel is excessively expensive.
	It's exceedingly difficult.
	Try to do it with kids.
	It's like...
	It's exceedingly difficult, excessively expensive.
	And you come back into Canada, for anybody who doesn't know, you've got to fill out that Arrive Can app.
	You've got the government hounding your butt for the next two weeks.
	And it's like, it's so...
	For people who don't understand how absolutely disconcerting it is, going back to the chat or the comment before you're seeing it's eating away at my soul.
	You get a call from the government.
	They have all of your information already.
	I got a call from the government talking about my kid.
	I came back.
	They came back accompanied by a vaccinated adult.
	I was like, why are you asking me these questions?
	You know all of this already.
	I uploaded it to your Arrive Can app, and now you're calling me a week later to ask me questions that I know that you already have the information for.
	I said, why are you calling me?
	And I didn't get an answer.
	It's like the mob is just letting you know they know your number.
	But, um...
	Canada right now is going through the largest emigration in the last 25 years.
	People are leaving this country.
	They're going to leave it.
	It's going to be brain-drained, it's going to be finance-drained, and we're going to be left with a country that can't even support itself, a country that's going to collapse the same way Venezuela collapsed.
	David, video link I just sent you a few minutes ago in normal chat was filmed where you and I were standing at Rolling Thunder Friday night in Ottawa.
	Cop says, organized protest, now illegal in Ottawa.
	I'm going to go see if I can find that.
	Post the link again, VNA, and I'm going to see if I can't find it right away.
	People are coming into Canada without doing that.
	Don't come here.
	We have enough people already.
	I'm not sure what that means, Squeezer.
	So that's that.
	That's it.
	Let's see what else is going on.
	Give me one second.
	I'm going to pull up.
	Share screen.
	I'm going to take some more questions in the chat here.
	Tomorrow night, by the way.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Tomorrow night, Brendan Strzok.
	If it's Strzok with a silent A. Brendan Strzok was on TimCast earlier this week.
	I've got the thumbnail.
	I'm setting up the links immediately after this.
	Tomorrow night at 7 o 'clock.
	I'm cheating on Barnes, but not with a lawyer, so it's okay.
	T.S., if they leave, maybe I can afford to live in Vancouver again.
	But this is the other problem, by the way.
	The solution is not that simple, and I mean this sincerely.
	The solution is not that simple, because on the one hand, there's going to be hyperinflation.
	The prices are not going to go down because people are leaving.
	Inflation is going to go up, especially when people take their wealth with them.
	And the issue also is that the prices are not going up.
	My understanding, by the way, of the housing issue here and why one of the explanations is that they're not building enough houses in proportion to the amount of people immigrating to Canada.
	I don't think that's the problem.
	The problem is that there has been a lot of foreign interest buying up local property and a lot of wealth buying up property.
	People paying cash for houses.
	Foreign investors buying up land in Canada, whether or not that can be resolved with a ban on foreign investments, restrictions on foreign investments or purchasing real estate, maybe.
	But people leaving is not going to make the problem better.
	It's going to make the problem worse, actually.
	Trudeau's solution to gun violence by outlawing guns is about as sensible as outlawing paramedics and doctors from using fentanyl when treating patients.
	It's a decent analogy.
	JL, I've inspired you to set your hair free.
	May your hair flow freely and beautifully.
	Government watching has replaced God is watching without the messy need to respond to prayer.
	It's atrocious.
	Let me see this here.
	Yeah, the far anything, I guess, are extremists, but...
	Oh, that was it.
	The 3% militia.
	That's what I wanted to look up.
	Here, give me a second.
	Let's see what that is in real time, people.
	The kid knows.
	He's sending his father to jail for years.
	Where he goes left, I go right.
	I'm sure that had nothing to do with it.
	It had nothing to do with the decision to snitch on your father, setting aside the Caveat of potential abuse.
	Oh, they're in the Southern Poverty Law Center.
	Let's see what the SPLC says.
	Okay, three percenterism is not a group but a sub-ideology or common belief that falls within the larger anti-government militia movement.
	I'd like to them to define their terms, please.
	Three percenters, also known as the three percenters, threepers.
	Claim that only 3% of American colonists fought against the British during the American Revolution.
	A claim that has never been proven.
	Interesting.
	I'd be curious to know if it is a claim that has never been disproven.
	3%ers often draw parallels between the U.S. government today and the British government of the 1700s, arguing that the current U.S. administration is tyrannical and actively working to infringe on Americans' constitutional rights and liberties.
	Well, when you hear Joe Biden saying the Second Amendment is not absolute, I mean, okay, I can see people feeling this way.
	Now, where does it get into something that would qualify as dangerous?
	They believe a small force of armed individuals can overthrow a tyrannical government and many three percenters engage in paramilitary training and organizing to do so.
	Appreciate this, people.
	The only difference between paramilitary training and fire range is intent.
	I know plenty of people who go to the firing range for target practice.
	I know plenty of people who shoot skeet.
	And I guess the only difference between shooting skeet and paramilitary training of shooting skeet would be what intention you impute behind the training.
	It really is just when you read through words, everything...
	It takes on a new meaning.
	Like, you're reading this where some people are going to read this literally.
	It's like, oh my goodness, they engage in paramilitary training.
	Well, if that involves going to the firing range, and I know plenty of people who are not paramilitary training who go to firing ranges and shoot skeet and whatever, the only difference between standard target practice and paramilitary training is the intention that you impute to the same act.
	Okay, so here's the thing.
	I don't know what vanguard extremist movement that claims...
	Three percenters often include...
	Okay, in its own words.
	In its own words.
	Get an indictment presented to the sheriff.
	If they don't uphold the law, that's where the militia come in.
	Okay.
	Wouldn't recommend people make those statements publicly.
	Some people could misinterpret that, depending on how it's meant.
	Obviously, this is what we would call hate speech in Canada.
	Who is this person?
	Okay, so we've found some objectively objectionable statements.
	Let's go to Wikipedia.
	It's going to make some people unhappy here.
	Hold on.
	Where's the stream?
	Where is the stream?
	Here it is.
	Okay.
	3% of a 30 million population is an enormous number of people.
	This is American.
	3% of 360 million.
	That would be 3 million.
	That would be 30 some odd million.
	What's my problem?
	330?
	No, 3 some odd million.
	Hold on.
	Let me not lose this.
	Boom.
	3% Also, we're going to read more of the same.
	I have never had any first-hand experience or knowledge of this group before hearing the word.
	So if anybody in the chat knows what it is, let me know.
	No, paramilitary training.
	Okay, hold on.
	We're going to do this.
	We're going to read this.
	I'm going to get to the super chats that I am flagging right now.
	Okay.
	Shrink this up.
	Let me read this.
	3% is an American and Canadian far-right and libertarian anti-government militia.
	The thing about now that I have a big problem with is the term anti-government.
	Because if you fault anybody for being anti-government, or you equate anyone who's anti-government with an anti-government militia, or if you just even qualify the term as being anti-government as being somehow extremist, now I've got a problem with the colloquial use of anti-government.
	I am anti-Trudeau government because they're corrupt, unethical, two-times ethics-breaching, society-destructing government.
	I believe there should be as little government as necessary to maintain infrastructure, safety, and preserve people's ability to be free.
	Would someone call that anti-government?
	And would they do it in a derogatory manner?
	I think so.
	The gun advocates gun ownership rights.
	Oh boy, that's terrible.
	And the resistance to the U.S. federal government.
	Resistance.
	In what sense?
	The group's name...
	Okay, so whatever.
	We're going to get more of the same.
	The movement has been characterized as part of the broader patriot movement.
	Founded in 2008, it was given the impetus by the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States.
	Members believe that Obama's presidency would lead to increased government interference in the lives of individuals and particularly stricter gun control laws.
	Hmm.
	Seems like that prediction might have come forward, might have come true.
	Co-founded by, yeah, from Alabama.
	I'm going to cough.
	Hold on.
	That is not the Rona.
	That is a dry throat now from talking for too long without water.
	Okay, whatever.
	So I think we've...
	Ideology, the group's website states it is not a militia and not anti-government.
	I wouldn't believe the words.
	I would believe the actions.
	According to the ADL, 3% just constitute a major part of a broader anti-government militia whose ideology they share.
	People, give me one second.
	I'm going to get water.
	That was my toe.
	That was my toe.
	Okay.
	All right, so we've got enough.
	We've got enough.
	I don't know that the three...
	Well, actually, one more thing.
	Has the three percenter...
	Have the three percenters been involved in any acts of violence?
	That's what I would like to see.
	Three percenters.
	Let's go back here.
	Three percenters.
	Acts of violence.
	Let's see.
	So...
	Interesting.
	Reuters.com 2021.
	Canada puts US 3% militia on terror list.
	Cites risk of violent extremism.
	Have they committed an act?
	Have they committed an act?
	Canadian officials cited January 6th riot.
	This, Canadians officials cited the January 6th riot in their listing.
	Public Safety Minister Bill Blair said the group had an active presence in Canada and were interested in recruiting members of the police and people with military training.
	By the way, this story, that horrible story, apparently was not motivated by the reasons that people think it was motivated.
	Well, If we cannot find an immediate act immediately from Googling it...
	Okay.
	Well, that's it.
	It's amazing.
	You can't...
	Put on the watch list.
	Put on the list.
	As were the Proud Boys in Canada.
	I don't think most Canadians even knew who the Proud Boys were until that news.
	And I think most people still don't know them.
	Certainly know that they have not...
	3% 3% would be 3 million.
	Yeah, my math is not unbelievable.
	It's just terrible because I'm trying to do it quickly.
	So 10 million.
	Yeah.
	Sounds about right.
	Don't make fun of my...
	Don't judge me for the math.
	That's why I have a calculator.
	Viva Fry.
	I was denied entry to the hospital when my mom died because of the VAC.
	Now they're telling me no transport possible.
	Trust me.
	You know, who was it?
	It is not going to be enough to have the courts declare these laws fundamentally unconstitutional.
	Yeah.
	SPLC, Southern Propaganda Libel Center, allegedly.
	And the other thing is, my math gets worse when I get nervous and when I know that I need to...
	3% are not a myth.
	I just want to know if they're violence.
	I just want to know if they've actually committed any acts of violence that would allow people to feel comfortable.
	qualifying them as a terrorist group.
	Okay.
	Let me go here, because there was this.
	Viva, now Teller is blaming her editor.
	Okay, I got that one before.
	This story undoubtedly played out similarly.
	Okay, I got that.
	Have I not read these?
	Conservative Member of Parliament, Cathay Wagenthal, was removed from the grounds of Parliament Friday for violating COVID-19 vaccination requirements.
	I'm going to go ahead and Google that after we're done.
	Oh, it's 8.30.
	Jeez Louise.
	You and Barnes should watch DUI Guide's vid of him fighting in court.
	Would like to know Barnes' opinion of them.
	He uses the law and challenges cops on the stand for dismissal.
	Great content.
	And Heal Law Tube.
	Thank you for...
	Thank you for...
	I don't know what that means.
	I'll watch that.
	Screenshot that.
	If the Skeets ever invade, I don't know what that means.
	I don't know what that means.
	Okay, government sending local mill workers in the Kootenays who took the jab for tests.
	There are so many things that are just...
	I can't talk about them.
	Can't talk about them.
	Can't even ask the question.
	And I had a discussion with someone.
	Meaningful experience.
	First-hand experience.
	Can't even ask the questions.
	Can't even bring up the issues.
	I got it.
	Okay, Theo.
	All right, people.
	So that's it.
	I think unless there's any more questions in the chat, we've had a wonderful evening together.
	My quiet time is coming to an end.
	I'm thinking of the classic movie I should watch with my oldest kid tonight.
	In the chat, let's see this quickly before we go.
	What movie, classic, should I watch with my oldest child?
	My math degree, LOLs at Lib Art Majors Math Fails.
	And I can hear my father, my grandmother, who grew up, you know, born in 1916?
	1916.
	Before calculators, she could do math in her head up until her last day.
	And me, I can do it roughly.
	Like, I just go by three in a million, multiplied by, so that's three.
	Then you got 100, so that's 33. Then you times three, so that's nine.
	My grandmother.
	Evil Dead, no.
	So, American History X. Okay, not bad.
	Not bad.
	I'm thinking Trainspotting is where I'm going.
	Okay, a good comedy.
	Citizen Kane.
	Neslo Hikes.
	Let me tell you a story about Citizen Kane.
	My parents forced us to watch that one New Year's Eve.
	It was an unpleasant experience for everybody.
	My parents didn't have Uncle Buck we've seen 15 times.
	Fight Club we've already seen.
	Goonies we've seen.
	Everyone was moaning and groaning, making jokes during the movie.
	My parents were going crazy that no one was taking Citizen Kane seriously.
	Hot Rod, we've already seen.
	And so they learned a lesson.
	Don't make five kids watch a boring movie.
	I don't care if it's the best movie ever made.
	When you're aged 8 to 15, it's not the best movie.
	It's just unpleasant for everybody.
	Ashley Lauren from Canada.
	Beautiful dog.
	I love that beautiful dog.
	Do you think freedom is winning?
	The Libs NDP look more ridiculous all the time, but every time I think the narrative will crumble, they just double down and look more idiotic.
	What needs to happen?
	They need to be publicly shamed.
	And publicly shamed, publicly mocked for their...
	Oh, you know what?
	Ashley, thank you for reminding me.
	Hold on.
	Before we depart for the evening.
	Let me bring this up.
	Okay, there's Twitter, my diary.
	They need to be publicly mocked for their policy.
	No throwing gravel, no throwing stones, no...
	I don't even say...
	Don't even swear.
	No.
	Where was the doctor?
	Oh, I think I pinned the tweet.
	I pinned the tweet.
	Here we go.
	Jean-Yves Duclos.
	Who is Jean-Yves Duclos?
	He is the papa economist.
	He's a father and an economist.
	Deputy de Quebec.
	He's a Quebec deputy.
	Ministre federal de la santé.
	Federal Minister of Health.
	So I only presume that this man is double vaccinated and who knows, boosted, twice boosted, thrice boosted.
	This morning, I tested positive to COVID-19.
	As per public health guidelines, I will be isolating for 10 days.
	First of all, I thought the guidelines for vaccinated people were five days.
	I thought it was five days.
	So I'm not sure if I'm wrong on the dates or this guy might not be vaccinated.
	I doubt that.
	Whatever.
	Doesn't matter.
	I'm sure I can find a picture of him getting the shot and saying how wonderful he is.
	He's got COVID.
	Let me just see in this thread where my avatar turns up.
	Scrolling down, scrolling down, scrolling down, scrolling down.
	I don't know if it's shadow banning or whatever if I'm on the naughty list.
	Scrolling down.
	Chat, let me know when you see my...
	You see the black avatar.
	It's quite noticeable.
	Quite striking.
	There we go.
	All the way down.
	By the way, I've got 65 retweets on a response to his tweet.
	And that's how far down my tweet is when anybody wants to scroll and find it.
	But you can still board a plane and a train, whereas an unvaccinated Canadian citizen who does not have COVID can't.
	Because you, quote, trust the science, you unscientific petty tyrant.
	And when this starts to get more traction than the idiotic, unscientific, unconstitutional, virtue-signaling rubbish, people might start to change.
	Maybe.
	Maybe not.
	There are people who still look at me like I'm the bad guy.
	Like I'm the guy.
	Just do it, Dave.
	Just do it.
	Vaccinated, 2x boosted.
	2x vaccinated, boosted.
	Still gets COVID.
	But he can travel on a plane.
	Minister of Health prevents unvaccinated Canadian citizens without COVID from boarding planes, trains, because he trusts the science.
	Petty tyrants is what they are.
	Power hungry, petty tyrants.
	And I like the alliteration.
	So that's the answer.
	And you won't get people to change their views if you are...
	Too abrasive, maybe, but if you resort to any unlawful activity, violence, threat, you won't change people's views.
	They're just going to write you off as being the nutcase.
	But it has to be from the bottom up, maybe with a little help from the top down.
	So, Poilievre, get in there and enact a law that says the government can never do it again.
	Maybe that'll do something.
	End the monarchy.
	I don't think the monarchy is the problem in Canada.
	The problem in Canada...
	It's an absolute fascist state.
	I mean, that's the reality.
	People don't like hearing it because people don't really understand what fascistic means.
	We have a government which controls the media, which controls the internet, which wants to control the internet more, but you have big tech, big government, and the media working together in an incestuous cycle.
	Have a good night, you sexy cranky beast.
	Thank you, Tiff.
	Well, let me see if my steak has thawed.
	You have the government subsidizing the media, colluding with big tech.
	That's what fascism actually technically means.
	So, Canada, the problem's not the monarchy anymore.
	The problem is...
	Back to the Future, we have seen so many times.
	Groundhog Day, we've seen.
	Untouchables might be good, but holy grail.
	Okay.
	Jacob's Ladder.
	Who remembers those gyrating, pulsating heads?
	That's the thing I remember from that movie.
	That and dumping Tim Robbins in a bathtub of ice.
	So Blazing Saddles might be good.
	Might be good.
	Okay, I'm going to take all these under consideration.
	I had Trainspotting.
	In my mind.
	Shaun of the Dead could be good.
	My kids started watching Stranger Things, which I think I might have to get into.
	All right, people.
	So that's it.
	I'm going to go set up the link for...
	Ugh, I just spat on my keyboard.
	I'm going to go set up the link for Tomorrow Night with Brendan.
	I'm going to go re-listen to his interview with Tim Cast.
	Find some scandals.
	This is a man who literally...
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	The Big Lebowski.
	Oh, oh, oh.
	I'm not sure that she saw that yet.
	That might be the one.
	We might have a winner.
	And it might be the Big Lebowski.
	I saw a European, a Euro.
	Here we go.
	Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.
	That's a classic.
	Jaws, Planes, Trains.
	Those are all very good choices, Alan.
	Rupert, don't take the cork off the fork.
	Cher.
	I'm going to just, we're going to end it tonight by giving a teaser for tomorrow.
	We want to go to not Viva Frye, but we want to go to Brendan Strucker.
	That's not the right one, obviously.
	Damn it.
	We'll get it, people.
	Brendan...
	Unless I spelled it Brandon.
	I did spell it wrong because I'm an idiot.
	Brendan Strucker.
	Here we go.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Walk away.
	Hashtag walk away.
	I like this.
	Once upon a time, I was a liberal.
	Well, to be honest, less than a year ago, I was still a liberal.
	I'm stopping it there.
	Stop.
	I like this guy.
	A lot.
	And I can't wait to have the discussion with him.
	Tomorrow night, people, 7 o 'clock.
	Alright, so with that said, I'm gonna go.
	I'm gonna go.
	It's going to be good.
	Trainspotting has some...
	It's a fair point, actually.
	I didn't appreciate the age of the Scottish woman in the movie.
	The Full Monty.
	But you can't watch The Full Monty until you've seen Begbie in his natural settings.
	Yeah, okay.
	I've been following Brendan for three years.
	He is awesome.
	Yeah, it's going to be amazing.
	It's going to be amazing.
	So that was the teaser for Tomorrow Night, people.
	I'm going to go start the...
	Set up the link so I can share it around.
	Make sure I didn't miss any Rumble rants on the Rumble world.
	And then some big news, by the way, coming up for mid-June that I'm going to release next week.
	Frysters Unite.
	Frysters.
	Frysters Unite.
	That's a shirt.
	Thank you all for coming.
	Thank you for coming on short notice.
	I got to get better at scheduling, but it's working out.
	So thank you all.
	Tomorrow night's going to be amazing.
	Next week is going to be more of the same, more amazingness.
	We'll try to find an interesting trial to cover and exploit and not happening.
	I'll be a spiritual prime minister.
	I'll be a symbolic prime minister.
	I can do that.
	Okay, go.
	I'm going to go have dinner and decide on a movie.
	All right, peeps.
	Be well.
	See you tomorrow night.

▲