All Episodes
Previous Next
June 11, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
02:02:10
YouTube Chicanery; Jan. 6 Buffoonery; and MORE MYSTERY! Viva Frei Live!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we have a culture where the difference is guns can be used for hunting or for sport shooting in Canada.
And there are lots of gun owners and they're mostly law-respecting and law-abiding.
But you can't use a gun for self-protection in Canada.
That's not a right that you have in the Constitution or anywhere else.
Try and buy a gun and say it's for self-protection.
No, you don't get that.
You get it for hunting.
You can get it for sports shooting.
You can take it to the range.
No problem, as long as you go through our rigorous background checks.
But there's a difference around the culture.
And one of the things that we're seeing with the debate in the States is you get more and more of the American-style right-to-carry self-defense arguments filtering up through the usual more right-wing communications channel.
I'll keep that in the backdrop.
We might have to pop back into that to break it down a little bit.
Technically, under the letter of the law, Justin Trudeau is 100% correct.
I followed the firearm safety course for long arms, for rifles, for hunting.
Very useful course.
Teaches you a lot about firearms, rifles, which I think everybody would do good to take such a course.
But in Canada, you cannot own...
A firearm for the purposes of self-defense.
In fact, in Canada, you can't own a taser.
You can't own a taser, period.
Self-defense or not.
Tasers are illegal.
You can't carry around pepper spray for self-defense.
You can't carry around any object if the purpose of you carrying around that object is self-defense.
And Justin Trudeau actually makes an interesting point here.
In that, leave it to Justin Trudeau to actually revive what, up until now, was no longer really an issue of debate.
Why can we not have certain...
I'm not saying weapons.
Why can we not have certain tools for self-defense?
Let's hear what Justin Trudeau says specifically.
We have a culture where the difference is guns can be used for hunting or for sport shooting in Canada, and there are lots of gun owners.
Mostly law-respecting and law-abiding.
But you can't use a gun for self-protection in Canada.
That's not a right that you have in the Constitution or anywhere else.
If you try and buy a gun and say it's for self-protection, no, you don't get that.
This is true.
By the way, if you try to say it's for self-protection, unless you apply for a special permit, show a specific need, you will get rejected.
Period.
Hunting.
Sports shooting.
Not self-protection.
Interesting question, Justin.
You say it's not a right that we have.
By a gun, you say it's for self-protection.
No, you don't get that.
You get it for hunting.
You can get it for sports shooting.
You can take it to the range.
No problem, as long as you go through our rigorous background checks.
But there's a difference around the culture.
And one of the things that we're seeing with the debate in the States is you get more and more of the American-style right-to-carry self-defense arguments filtering up through the usual more right-wing communications channel.
Oh, okay.
Forget that.
No, you don't get that.
That's not a right that you have in Canada.
That's not a right that you have in the Constitution or anywhere else.
Okay, interesting.
Interesting affirmation, Justin.
It's not a right that you have in the Constitution or anywhere else.
Let me just stop screen share and just go to our Constitution.
And let me just see what our Charter of Rights says.
The Constitution's Act.
Charter of Rights.
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law, guarantee of rights and freedoms.
Now, we've talked about this at length, but Justin Trudeau says you have no constitutional right to have a firearm for the purposes of self-defense.
It's not a charter right.
Interesting.
Leave it to Justin Trudeau to bring up a new debate that has pretty much been silent for a long time.
No constitutional right, eh?
Legal right.
Life, liberty, and security of the person.
This is in our charter.
This is not the U.S. Constitution.
This is in our charter of rights, which we know is not worth the digital paper on which it's printed.
But it's in there nonetheless.
So when Justin Trudeau comes up and says, it's a different culture.
You don't have a charter right.
You don't have a constitutional right to self-defense.
Life, liberty, and security of the person.
Everyone has the right to life.
What does that mean?
Now that you raised the argument, Justin, what does this mean?
You have the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person, except we are outlawing, we are making illegal the means of protecting your life, liberty, and security of the person.
You have the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, but you don't have the right To guarantee that for yourself.
You don't have the right to actually protect your security of the person.
You don't have the right to protect your life.
It's an interesting thing.
You have the right to something that you don't have the right to protect.
But thank you for actually raising this argument because I genuinely now think firearms law, the right to self-defense and the right to own for the purposes of self-defense is now going to become a debate in Canada.
And leave it to Justin Trudeau to give that debate a rebirth of sorts.
I have a feeling you're going to get the likes of politicians like Pierre Poilievre.
I know Maxime Bernier's position on this already.
I have a feeling you're going to actually start a political debate as to why exactly our Charter of Rights says everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, but the government says you don't have the means or we're outlawing the means for you to actually ensure.
Your life, your liberty, and your security of your own person.
The argument is going to be, yeah, you have that right to life, liberty, and security of the person, but it's the government that gives that to you, and it's the government that bequeaths that to you.
It's the government that protects you, not yourself.
So you have that right, and it's in trust with the government because we are the only ones with the means to actually protect your life, your liberty, and your security of the person.
We're also the only ones with the powers to actually take it away.
And deprive you of it.
But, Justin, hold on one second, actually.
This is not mere hyperbole.
Gun sales Canada.
What do you think happened last week, by the way?
After Justin Trudeau came out and said, we're going to freeze all handguns in Canada.
Freeze all sales, transfers.
What do you think happens?
What do you think happens in the States every time a politician comes in and says, we're going to take away that right?
Massive surge in local handgun sales as Canada looks to toughen gun laws, shop owner says.
So not only is Justin Trudeau actually going to give rebirth to a debate that has very much been quiet over the last years, if not decades, he's directly bringing about the exact opposite outcome to that which he purportedly wants to ensure.
So that's the intro for today.
Leave it to Justin Trudeau to actually cause people to question, why exactly do I not have that right?
I'm sorry.
The charter says you have the right to property, but you don't have the right to protect your property.
The charter says you have the right to freedom of assembly, but no guarantee of that right.
You have to go to the government to make sure that they respect that right that they've protected in the charter.
You have the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person.
You just don't have the right to insure it for yourself.
You have to call the government so they can come and do that.
You're going to cause a rebirth of this argument, Justin Trudeau, and blame it on right-wing media trickling up from the States.
You might just be opening people's eyes to the fact that maybe the government in Canada has gone just a little bit too far.
You have the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
You just don't have the right to protect yourself.
Okay.
I'm going to take this off for now because I hate the headphones.
So we are live.
It's a Saturday.
It's a beautiful day outside, but I'm going to stay out of the sun from noon to two and then go outside afterwards.
So much chicanery and so much buffoonery.
I was going to do a video, a 10-minute summary of the first two hours of the Jan 6 committee hearing.
I shot the content in my car yesterday because I was going to do one of the car vlogs.
And I didn't get around to editing it because it just didn't happen.
And I think I'm just going to do, in this live stream, a 10-minute summary of the first day, the first two hours of the January 6th committee hearings.
Because to call it a kangaroo court...
It would be an insult to Australia.
To call it a sham would be an insult to Sham Wow.
It would be an insult to Shamu the whale.
People are saying kabuki theater, but I forgot to look up what kabuki means.
It's theater.
It's political theater of the highest order, and it's atrocious.
And I said as a joke, I've watched it so that you don't have to watch it.
But I know that a lot of you are going to be watching it again with me Monday when I go live stream day two of, I think it's four days of hearing spread over months.
They had to kick it off, like the inaugural hearing, prime time on a Thursday.
And I suspect, you know, I had half as many live viewers as did some of the other C-SPAN that was broadcasting it.
But...
A lot of people were watching it, probably not as many as they were hoping for.
It was pure political rubbish.
Pure political rubbish of the highest order.
But we're going to get there.
So I'm going to do a 10-minute summary.
I've got the articles pulled up as to why.
I've got the articles, the links, to summarize in 10 minutes why the day one was pure show.
But it's been a while since we've had to deal with YouTube chicanery.
And you know what?
First things first, before we even get there, no medical advice, no legal advice, no election fornification advice.
If you want to support the channel, we've got these things called Super Chats on Rumble on YouTube.
YouTube takes 30% of those.
If you don't like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble, a free speech platform that actually respects free speech while ensuring, you know, a platform that is still fun to use for everybody.
Rumble has these things called Rumble Rants, and they take 20%, which is better.
Better for the creator, better to support a platform that you like.
Okay, let's get into the chicanery of what happened.
I live-streamed Thursday night, the first night of the January 6th committee hearings.
I was sharing the C-SPAN hearing, which had a reporter at the beginning.
And during pauses, commentating.
I did the stream.
As per usual, within about five minutes of streaming, before I even got into it, the stream was demonetized because I suspect there may be people maliciously brigading, reporting because they may not like me.
Maybe that.
Maybe it's whenever YouTube hears Justin Trudeau's voice, it automatically demonetizes a video.
Although today, started off with Justin Trudeau, not yet demonetized.
So par for the course, and it happens every single time, pretty much, my stream gets demonetized within a few minutes.
I ask for manual review because I know that I respect the rules, and it gets re-monetized after manual review.
The January 6th hearing was a little more interesting because I don't know if I said it live.
I think I did.
It got demonetized.
I asked for manual review while we were still streaming, and then it got re-monetized.
During the stream, which is actually rare.
It doesn't always happen.
It got re-monetized during the stream, which was great.
Booyah.
Very nice.
Carry on commentating on the January 6th ShamWow of a kangaroo court.
And then it gets demonetized again.
But it gets demonetized again, and it still has...
We're reviewing it to see if it's advertiser-friendly, because I had already asked for the review before it got...
Switched back to green during the stream and then switched back to yellow during the stream.
And then it got switched back to green again during the stream.
And then it got switched back to yellow again.
Fine.
Then I wait.
Then, by the way, the stream gets copyright claimed because I used 45 seconds of some news clip when we were there discussing with Nate Brody after the C-SPAN stream had ended.
It got copyright claimed.
It wasn't Warner Brothers.
I don't want to wrongly accuse anybody.
It got copyright claimed.
Okay, fine.
I don't care.
I didn't really care to have that clip in there.
Anyhow, it was somebody saying how Jussie Smollett was low-key noble in his false accusations of a hate crime.
Okay.
Got copyright claimed.
I said, I'm not going to claim fair use, even though I think it's fair use.
Just clip the portion out.
I don't care.
Clip the portion out.
And then it gets re-monetized, and I get an email from YouTube confirming, after manual review...
Great news!
Hold on, let me just get it.
Let me just get this here.
Here.
Let me just get this here.
It's the one on the left that says yesterday.
Let me just make sure we're looking at the same thing.
This is after my request for manual review.
I get an email from YouTube saying...
Your video is suitable for all advertisers.
Jan 6th committee hearing live stream with Canuck lawyer commentator Viva Frye.
If you go down to the message where I highlighted, maybe it's a little too dark, it says, Great news!
After manually reviewing your video, we've determined that it is suitable for all advertisers.
January 6th committee hearing live stream with Canuck lawyer commentator Viva Frye.
Sincerely, the YouTube team.
Okay.
I go to bed happy.
I go to bed satisfied.
The system works.
I am sassy sometimes, but always respectful and always operating within the rules of YouTube.
This is just for monetization anyhow.
Fine.
I go to bed and I wake up this morning and the video has been demonetized and age-restricted.
Age-restricted.
And I say, well, this doesn't make any sense because you reviewed it yesterday.
Confirm, great news.
Here you go.
It's...
What did I say, sorry?
It's suitable for all advertisers.
A human at YouTube looked it over and said, we wrongly demonetized this yet again, as we did with a number of other streams in the past.
We've manually reviewed it with human eyes and a human brain.
And we say, congratulations, great news, Vivo.
It's suitable for all advertisers.
That was yesterday.
Then I wake up this morning, age-restricted, demonetized.
I get on YouTube chat with...
Chat support, which I now am thoroughly understanding are actual robots.
They're not humans.
I asked them what their favorite band was, and they didn't say Oasis.
So I know they're robots.
Okay, I'm joking.
Age-restricted and demonetized.
And I go on chat, and I say, this doesn't make sense.
And we chat on chat, and they say, well, did you file an appeal?
Okay, so I filed an appeal.
Not before I went onto YouTube and said, Team YouTube, this doesn't make any sense.
We're seeing the same thing.
Okay, so close this.
Not before I went on to YouTube, and I said, there's a problem, Team YouTube.
Yesterday, after manual review, my live stream of the January 6th hearing was determined to be suitable for advertisers.
This morning, it's age-restricted.
Please fix ASAP.
Fine.
I reach out to Team YouTube on Twitter, and I get on chat with the bots.
I mean, to say I'll steal man YouTube's position in a second.
To say it makes no sense is an understatement.
It makes no sense.
It's quite clearly something has been changed within what is getting flagged on videos today compared to yesterday, and it seems that it has to do with January 6th committee hearings.
But it still doesn't make sense, and I'll get there in a second.
It doesn't make sense.
Manually reviewed, congratulations, advertiser-friendly, it's suitable for all advertisers.
Then this morning, no, it's not.
Within five minutes of ending that chat, I get an email saying, we've reviewed your appeal, and no, it's right here.
On the right-hand side.
Let me see if I can do that.
Yeah, right here.
We've reviewed your appeal for the following.
This was within five minutes of ending my chat with a robot on YouTube.
January 6th, committee hearing live stream with Canuck lawyer commentator Viva Frye.
We've reviewed it, and it violates our violent or graphic content policy.
This was a live stream commentating of C-SPAN.
And I'll tell you why this doesn't make sense either in a second.
We know that this is probably disappointing news.
Oh, yeah, because yesterday you said great news.
It's good for all advertisers.
But it's our job to make sure that YouTube is a safe place for all.
We will continue to age restrict your content as we don't think it's suitable for younger audiences.
This means that it will not be visible to users who are logged out or under the age of 18 or have restricted mode enabled.
It also won't be eligible for ads.
Yeah, but that was yesterday.
This is today.
So, it won't be viewable if you're logged out.
Logged out, eh?
Not good for ads.
Okay.
First of all, it doesn't make sense.
So, anyone try to make sense of that?
Godspeed, but I'll help you along in a second.
Why it doesn't make sense?
Let me just go...
No, not there.
It's on YouTube.
Oh, here.
Watch!
January 6th Capital Rye Committee holds first primetime hearing.
WFAA.
When was it streamed?
Hold on.
Are we looking at the same thing here?
Now, I'll tell you why this doesn't make sense.
We're looking at the same thing.
Let's bring this up.
When was this streamed?
Oh, this was streamed live June 9, 2022.
Whoa, what's this?
That's an ad.
Now, I don't care if it's a low-quality ad.
That's an ad.
That's an ad.
On January 6th.
Some have pled guilty.
That's an ad on the hearing.
On content.
Oh, do we get another ad?
I think we're getting another ad right now.
We are.
How fast can you buy home insurance?
Five minutes.
See for yourself.
This January 6th capital hearing is totally fine.
Two unskippable ads.
And we're going to get a third one that I can skip.
We're back to the hearing.
So this one's...
Showing ads.
And by the way, what else?
Not age-restricted, because I'm in incognito mode, and these are all, January 6th hearings are all viewable.
There's no thing that President Trump was well aware of the violence as it developed.
White House staff urged...
The same content on Wall Street Journal.
All accessible while being locked out.
Sorry, logged out.
But...
A lowly Canuck whose content has already been manually reviewed and manually approved by YouTube, which does nothing more than commentate over these streams a day after it's approved gets disapproved.
Okay.
Let's steel man it.
Let's steel man it so that no one accuses me of straw manning.
YouTube is going to say, yeah, we reviewed it for advertiser guidelines, but not for community guidelines.
So what we previously reviewed with our own eyes and said it was good for all advertisers, that was with the myopic blinders of advertising, not with respect to community guidelines.
Now we've re-reviewed what was otherwise reviewed and deemed okay for all advertisers.
Now we've reviewed it from another perspective, and we said from this new perspective, we now get to overrun our prior decision, which...
We gave after reviewing it with our own eyes.
That's as steel man as you're going to get of it.
They're going to say we reviewed it with other considerations in mind, not just advertiser revenue, not just advertising for advertisers, but for terms of service, community guidelines.
And when we reviewed it, re-reviewed it with that in mind, with that perspective, now it's no longer good, even though it was good the day before.
Except even with that in mind.
Because we saw in the tweet, what does it mean?
It's going to be age-restricted and you're not going to be able to view it when you're logged out?
Well, all the other MSM streams of this are clearly not age-restricted because they're all viewable when logged out of YouTube.
Chicanery.
It's chicanery and it's, you know...
Chicanery.
Okay.
So that's it.
Anyhow, I've reached out to Team YouTube on Twitter despite the AI chat that I had.
And within five minutes of that, it was confirmed.
And we'll see.
Worst comes to worst, it doesn't matter.
Okay, fine.
It's age-restricted now.
It was a live stream at the time.
The advertising revenue is...
For a live stream, it'll be a day of work and having lost a portion of the revenue for that work.
I know most people don't...
Some people don't tend to think of this as work, nor do people who love doing it because you'd be doing it one way or the other.
It's chicanery.
On the one hand, YouTube is, you know, they'll still run ads and it's not demonetized.
It's just they're running limited ads.
So you get like 10 cents on the dollar for what would otherwise be good ads if it were fully monetized.
What does it do?
Within YouTube, it suppresses the commentary to the benefit...
Of the MSM, C-SPANs, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN.
It suppresses the independent commentary because, first of all, people go look up January 6th live hearing.
They're not going to see mine if they're logged out right now.
And even if they're logged in, it's going to be age-restricted.
And even if they can log in, YouTube's not going to go ahead and promote a video on YouTube that is age-restricted and not monetizable because it's not in their best interest.
So it is the vicious circle, the wrap-up smear of...
Demonetization so you can control the narrative, set aside deterring people from covering it.
Because if I go and cover Monday now and they're going to demonetize that after, it's fine.
There'll be the super chat revenue during the stream.
I can snip and clip portions, you know, whatever.
But it's soft censorship through deterring content creation coverage, independent media coverage.
And then within the system itself, it is just more soft suppression because if it's demonetized, if YouTube says we've demonetized it, we're sure as heck not going to promote it.
Because why would we promote something that we can't run quality ads on and make more money for ourselves?
So as a result of our own decision, which is arbitrary, capricious, and I dare say maybe even malicious, given the day before they reviewed it and approved it, they now get to say internally, algorithmically, we're not going to promote that Canuck.
We're just going to promote C-SPAN, MSNBC, and the like.
Okay, so that's the chicanery.
That's where we're at with that.
Not the funnest way to wake up in the morning, just because it's so...
It's like, it's psychologically abusive.
YouTube says, yesterday, we've reviewed it.
Great news.
It's suitable for all advertisers.
I go to bed.
They don't notify...
Well, they did notify me because I saw an email when I woke up.
Oh yeah, no.
Age restricted.
Yeah.
All right, let's see what Pasha Moyer says.
Viva, I tried but failed to watch.
I got physically sick to my stomach and had a bad headache, all from what I was seeing.
Thanks for summarizing.
Well, I'm going to summarize it now so that it'll be even better summarized.
The sheer lunacy of day one.
But thank you, Pasha, for the super chat and thank you for the...
Yeah, no, no.
It's extremely frustrating for people who know what's going on to watch this.
MSN gets mad when someone else is successfully shaping the narrative.
I'm sure Viva is on the list.
I'm not even shaping it!
You know, when they go ahead and cite as evidence...
A signal message or a social media response from someone who is a known and allegedly prolific government informant, FBI informant.
And they cite that as the affirmation that, you know, because it was in response.
I'll get there.
For people who know better, it's over the top.
Watching it is extremely frustrating.
It's the reason why I have such great difficulties sitting in court, even as a lawyer, listening to an adverse party, a witness.
You know, spout misinformation, spout lies.
You know, imagine being Johnny Depp and Johnny Depp's team when you have to sit there and listen to Amber Heard being examined by her own attorneys.
And you, you know, you can object, but you can't interfere with testimony.
And you have to sit there and listen to someone lie through their teeth without getting up and screaming, without getting up and saying, that's a lie.
And here's what.
You got to take notes.
You got to wait patiently.
And then you got to retort, reply when you have your opportunity to do so.
It's a similar thing to this.
I mean, I'm sitting there watching this, and you hear Benny Thompson saying these things which are outlandish.
You hear Benny Thompson recognizing himself.
I'm going to get there.
Recognizing himself for questioning, and then proceeds to give a 60-second testimonial with no question whatsoever, and then ask a question totally unrelated to the 60 seconds of testimony that he just gave.
That he empowered himself to give.
So it is extremely frustrating to watch.
But I'll sit there and I'll commentate over it with the knowledge that I have and sometimes make some mistakes and then correct if that happens.
Who was the coach that was just sanctioned?
Coach punished.
There's a coach who's just punished for Jan 6 comments and fined $100,000.
Oh yeah, commanders fine DC Jack Del Rio.
Okay, so I don't know what this is.
I didn't know what the NFL was, but listen to this.
Talk about soft censorship and suppression of freedom of speech.
They're not suppressing freedom of speech.
You can still say what you want, but there's sanctions.
Listen to this.
Commanders, I don't know what team that is, fine D.C. Jack Del Rio $100,000 for comments on Capitol riots.
Eric Hundley just sent me this link this morning.
I hadn't heard about it.
Wait until you hear this.
The Washington Commanders.
Oh, because they...
I didn't know that.
I guess that's the formerly known as...
Can't repeat the name.
The Washington Commanders fined defensive coordinator, so not a coach, defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio, $100,000 after his comments this week comparing the 2020 protests in the wake of the death of George Floyd to the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Let's hear what he had to say.
This is interesting.
The team announced Friday that Commanders coach Ron Rivera...
Levied the fine on Del Rio, which will be donated to the United States Capitol Police Memorial Fund.
Quote, What's the DMV?
As we saw last night in the hearings, what happened on the Capitol on January 6, 2021 was an act of...
DT people.
You know what?
Wow.
I noticed that the committee was even reluctant to use that terminology too much.
They said domestic enemies is what they said, because even this might be too much for the committee members to repeat over and over again.
A group of citizens attempted to overturn the results of a free and fair election, and as a result, lives were lost.
And the Capitol building was damaged.
Coach Del Rio apologized for his comments on Wednesday, and he understands the distinction between the events of that dark day and peaceful protests, which are a hallmark of our democracy.
Is this individual suggesting that when he compared it to the 2020 Kenosha riots, the Summer of Love, Chaz, Chop, whatever, is he suggesting that those were peaceful protests?
Or slightly fiery, but mostly peaceful protests?
He does have the right to voice his opinion as a citizen of the United States, and it most certainly is his constitutional right to do so.
However, words have consequences, and his words hurt a lot of people in our community.
I want to make it clear that our organization will not tolerate any equivalency between those who demanded justice in the wake of George Floyd's murder and the actions of those on January 6th who sought to topple the government.
You have freedom of speech, and even when it's not unlawful exercise of Freedom of speech, even when it is lawful exercise of freedom of speech, we're going to fine you $100,000.
There's consequences.
Imagine there's some analogies that you can compare with that.
You have the right to say something, but I'll financially slap you back.
After reflecting on the situation and the circumstances, I have decided to find Coach Del Rio $100,000, which the team will donate to the United States Capitol Police Memorial Fund.
I feel strongly that after our conversation this morning, he will have a greater understanding for the impact of his language and the values that our team stand for.
This is literally, not literally, it's quite literally not literally, it's metaphorically the scene from 1984.
When they compel Winston to say, I love Big Brother.
They sit there, they pull his teeth out, they abuse him, they destroy him, they make him look at his destroyed, shattered image of a human in the mirror so that he doesn't even recognize who he is.
And he gets out and says, 2 plus 2 equals 5 and I love Big Brother.
After talking with him, fining him $100,000, telling him that if he ever does anything like this again, his life will be ruined.
He understands the impact of his words.
He won't do it again.
I want to hear what he said here.
The $100,000 punishment.
Punishment.
It's amazing.
Comes after the 59-year-old posted a tweet comparing the protests and insurrection.
On Wednesday, Del Rio defended his opinion during a press conference, downplaying the insurrection, calling it a dust-up.
All right.
Might be wrong on it being a dust-up.
Might be a little bit more than a dust-up.
Might be a little bit more than a dust-up.
It's freedom of speech now, but if you say something which is even factually incorrect or I disagree with, $100,000 fine.
Enjoy your freedom of speech.
It's not so free anymore, though.
People's livelihoods are being destroyed.
Businesses are being burnt down.
No problem, Del Rio said at the time.
And then we have a dust-up at the Capitol.
Nothing burned down, and we're going to make a major deal.
We're going to make that a major deal.
I just think it's kind of two standards.
After his dust-up comments went viral...
Del Rio later released an apology saying his terminology was irresponsible and negligent.
I love Big Brother.
Two plus two equals five.
And they got him to say it.
And as if there's going to be any forgiveness.
Del Rio's comments drew scorn from Washington players, other NFLers, and scores of media members.
Oh, okay.
The NAACP called for Del Rio to resign or be fired.
Can you imagine?
You have freedom of speech, by the way.
Say something we don't like.
This is not a call for violence.
This was not a racial slur.
This was not any ethnic denigration.
This was not...
Heck, this wasn't even election fornification commentary.
A dust-up saying one summer of violence was worse than this, and they didn't make a big deal of that, but they're making a mountain out of this molehill.
That hurts people.
That is $100,000 fine worthy.
Okay, and I think we don't care about this.
Several commanders players were asked how they felt about Del Rio's comments.
Defensive captain Jonathan Allen.
Oh yeah, ask them how they feel.
You just saw the public execution of the guy who said it.
Ask other people how they feel about it.
See what they say.
Oh, I totally stand by it.
Yeah, that's what's going to happen.
I don't care about his opinion.
As long as he shows up every day and he works hard, that's what I want from my defensive coordinator.
Good answer.
Yep.
No, no.
Ask other people what they think of his opinion after they just saw the public execution, proverbial public execution of him, and see if they agree with it or if they're going to be prone to vocally express their approval of the message, even if they did approve of it.
Viva, you definitely are not from the Northeast.
That's the DMV.
The DMV, the Northeast.
What's the DMV?
The District...
No, the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Is it the Department of Motor Vehicles?
Or is it the Democratic Movement of Virginia?
I don't know what it is.
Oh, did you do two Super Chats?
Karin, I hope this was not an accident because occasionally what happens is it doesn't look like the Super Chat went through and then you hit it again and it goes through a second time.
Karin, if you only intended this to go through once, Thank you.
This one is not quite as big as the one that I had to actually manually return to someone.
Someone accidentally gave a $400 super chat instead of a $40 super chat.
And I made the joke and it turned out to have been a typo.
And that's a big typo.
And I actually reimbursed the individual myself because YouTube doesn't let you reimburse super chats.
In full, even though YouTube takes 30%, I don't care.
That was a costly typo.
Five bucks?
If it was a typo, thank you very much.
That'll be, you know, not a big deal.
But thank you very much for the super chat.
Yeah, it's...
Oh, yeah, okay, so it's Department of Motor Vehicle.
I could have gotten it eventually.
I'm pretty good with acronyms.
So that's, you know, someone calls it a dust-up.
Someone says it wasn't...
Let's say it wasn't a dust-up.
Was it as big of a deal as they're making it out to be?
To go on a 500-day investigation.
Persecution of...
There are still over 40 people in pretrial detention as a result of the events of that day.
If there's anybody who thinks it was that big of a deal, that you could suspend civil rights, effectively desecrate or just ignore the Constitution.
Excessive bail.
The right to life, liberty, and happiness.
From what Julie Kelly mentioned in her Twitter space...
There are over 40 people still in pretrial detention for the events of January 6th.
Whereas, as we saw the other day, the Molotov cocktail-throwing lawyers, they got out on $750,000 bail, which I think people raised for them.
They got out of jail.
One of them threw a Molotov cocktail at a police officer's car and the other one drove getaway.
They got out of jail.
QAnon shaman.
Jake and Jelly, the dude with the spear and the mask, whatever, the face paint and the Wolverine thing, 41 months in jail for what he did.
And he's in there.
Your free speech will only cost you $100,000.
What a deal.
And a lesson for the future.
Make sure you exercise your free speech in accordance with the guidelines that I believe you have to abide by.
So anyways, that's the story.
I mean, I forgot that Washington...
Formerly known as the name that cannot be spoken anymore.
I wonder if they're going to go ahead and delete all previous videos and images and superimpose the commanders?
If they're going to superimpose the commanders logo on the logo that once was on uniforms prior to the name change.
That's true also.
I don't know if both did or just the one who threw it, but they were handing out, you know, not the good type of cocktails.
Not the ones that people enjoy having.
As we say in French, 5 to 7. Not those cocktails.
Pat King in Canada, still in jail.
Over three months.
Mischief.
But yeah, no, no.
Let's just compare the events.
Compare the response and compare the treatment of the accused and anybody who thinks, whether or not they're analogous, let's just say you even think January 6th was worse than the summer of love, Chaz, Chop, Kenosha, whatever.
Let's just say you think it's worse.
If you think anything that happened that day could justify pretrial detention 500 days later of over 40 individuals, solitary confinement for some, five-year sentences for others, If you think the Brandon Strzok treatment is in the slightest justifiable, even if January 6th was what you think it is, I would respectfully submit that you have a very, very bad understanding of justice, the law, and the Constitution.
Daily donkey salty dabs.
Okay, I'm not reading it because I don't want to be accused of supporting your avatar if we see how words get taken out of context.
Daily donkey salty dabs.
The National Capital Region portion of the Washington Metropolitan Area is also colloquially known by the abbreviation DMV, which stands for the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia.
Okay, so maybe it was that DMV, not the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Come on, people.
Thank you.
No fires?
There might have been some fires.
There was pepper spray.
There was tear gas.
There were people who were clearly doing bad.
Yeah.
But...
Peaceful...
It was slightly fiery, but mostly peaceful.
And January 6th was an insurrection.
And if you believe those two comparables are comparable, you're entitled to your opinion.
I will defend your right to have it.
But I will defer to my better judgment and not to your grotesque distortion of reality.
That's what I would say to that.
Okay.
I'm going to try to do it.
40 minutes in.
Stop shaking the camera.
Ten-minute summary of day one of the January 6th committee hearing.
Where do we start?
We start with the committee itself.
The committee itself is being billed as a bipartisan committee.
Bipartisan because it has members of both parties on it.
You would think bipartisan would be equal or somewhat proportionate.
This is being billed as a bipartisan committee when there are, in fact, only seven members of this committee.
Which might affect the actual legitimacy of this committee, which we're going to get to in a second.
Seven members, five of which are Democrats, two of which are Republicans.
One of those two is none other than Liz Cheney.
And apparently, not only is it Liz Cheney, but the Republican members of this bipartisan committee had to be approved by Nancy Pelosi herself, from what I understand.
Let's start off on the basis, steelmanning it.
It's a bipartisan committee that might not have met the requisite quorum conditions to be a lawfully formed congressional committee.
Bipartisan in that five of the seven members are Democrats.
We're going to see who they are in a second.
And the two Republicans, one of which are Cheney, had to have been approved by Nancy Pelosi.
So people want to talk about controlled opposition and what that looks like when the leading forming party gets to handpick who the opposition is to form this bipartisan committee.
Some might call that controlled opposition.
Others might just call it not a bipartisan committee and a purely partisan committee.
Now, Steelman again, it is true that the reason for which there are not other Republican members on this committee is that apparently the GOP decided to effectively boycott or protest this committee, which they think is unlawful, purely partisan, and a witch hunt.
So they were offered...
The possibility to participate, but declined.
Therefore, it's sort of bipartisan by refusal, in that Nancy Pelosi goes and personally approves of who is going to be the Republican opposition in this committee.
But let's meet the committee members, shall we?
Okay, here we go.
Meet the members of the select committee investigating the January 6th insurrection.
Because CNN is fake news, they're still using the term insurrection, even though the FBI has come to the conclusion that it wasn't.
What it was probably...
At worst, was a violent protest or a protest turned violent.
But whatever.
CNN gonna CNN and, you know, be the most reliable name in news.
Whatever.
The House Select Committee investigated the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection holds the first primetime public hearings on Thursday and is expected to give an overview of their findings from the past year.
We're going to get to the overview from the first day.
The hearings are expected to shine a spotlight on the nine-member committee.
Nine?
I thought it was seven.
Oh, so, sorry, it's nine members, seven of which are Democrats, two of which are Republicans with all of the same comments I just made.
Benny Thompson, who was the chair, I believe, and we're going to get to some of his opening statements because they're just glorious.
Benny Thompson of Mississippi is the chairman of the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th attack.
Here they say attack, not insurrection.
It's curious.
Thompson also serves as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, the first ever Democrat to hold the position.
Okay, that's one.
Liz Cheney of Wyoming.
Apparently she's no longer going to be the GOP candidate of Wyoming in a couple of months if the polls turn out to be true.
She's one of two Republicans on the panel appointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
A Democrat from California after House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy pulled all five of his selections because Pelosi would not accept two of his picks.
Bipartisan, but it has to be accepted by Pelosi.
Adam Schiff.
Monsieur Schiff.
Monsieur Schiff, the Schiff man who lied about having seen concrete evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
Lied about it, knowing that no one could disprove it because in order to disprove his knowing lie, it would involve...
What an insidious liar and lie that is and he was, is.
Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California.
He serves as the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Schiff's on it.
Okay.
Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland.
Previously served as the lead impeachment manager for Democrats during Trump's second impeachment trial.
This man came out during the second impeachment and spewed misinformation in support of the second impeachment, which was indisputably more abusive than the first impeachment.
He's on the committee.
Elaine Loria, I don't know who she is, representative, is a Democrat from Virginia Beach area who represents a community with a significant number of constituents connected to the military.
Okay.
She's a Navy vet, served 20 years as an officer on Navy ships.
Okay.
Pete Aguilar, a Democrat from Southern California, another Democrat from California.
Zoe Lofgren, another Democrat from California.
This is the bipartisan committee, people.
Stephanie Murphy, a Democrat from Florida.
I guess they couldn't have found any Republicans from Florida.
I don't know if there are.
Adam Kinzinger is one of the two Republicans of the committee and broke with his party by accepting the appointment of Pelosi.
He accepted the appointment.
The bipartisan committee members, those who make it bipartisan, were appointed.
So these are the members of the committee.
It's bipartisan, possibly in name only.
Bipartisan in name only.
We're going to call it a bino.
It's not a rhino.
It's a bino.
Okay, that's the committee.
The legitimacy of the committee.
We touched on it in that article.
The legitimacy of the committee has been called into question.
And let me just pull up an article from...
I believe it's from the Associates.
Oh, it's from Politico.
Take it for what it's worth, people.
The important thing here is not to agree with the arguments.
It's just to understand them.
Confirm my choices.
Okay.
This is from Politico.
When's it from?
It is from, it looks like January 13th or March 1st, 2022.
Who's going to get that joke?
That one I just made up on the spot and I like it.
Ow!
It's God punishing me for flattering myself.
Okay, let's read the article.
Bino.
Bipartisan in name only.
So this is the argument on the legitimacy of the committee.
January 6th committee rebuts challenges to its legitimacy, citing Katrina and Benghazi pros.
House counsel Douglas...
House Counsel Douglas Letter noted that there is precedent for a select committee operating without a contingent of members appointed by the minority party.
Okay, so they're basically saying, it's probably invalid, but we have accepted this type of partisan invalidity in the past, and here's why.
Because it was wrong in the past does not mean it's not wrong in the present, and I was not politically conscious back in the day when this occurred.
To know how I would have reacted at the time if I were to say this is a bipartisan committee operating without the requisite actual bipartisan contingency.
But this is the argument.
A 2005 select committee that Speaker Nancy Pelosi once derided as a partisan sham is now the House's chief defense against claims that its own Democratic-controlled select committee investigating the January 6th attack on the Capitol is valid, even though Republican leaders haven't appointed any members.
In a late-night court filing defending the January 6th panel's structure, House Counsel Douglas' letter noted that the 2005 committee, which consisted entirely of 11 Republicans appointed by then-Speaker Dennis Hastert, proved that there is precedent for a select committee operating without a contingent of members appointed by the minority party.
This is the same panel or select committee that Nancy Pelosi once derided.
Complained, criticized, shredded as a partisan sham.
So what was a partisan sham then is now justifiable because they got away with it then and now we get to do the sham.
This is why, by the way, having standards that are consistent without political affectation, if that's the word, it's good to have because you could appreciate the arguments.
Back then, I don't even know what this committee was about.
Aboot.
They say, we're not participating in it.
It's a political witch hunt.
We're not participating in it.
And they say, okay, well, we're going to do it without you.
Your refusal is partisan.
Your continuation to pursue it without our approval is partisan.
Everyone's sitting around, you're partisan, you're partisan, whatever.
But they did it before to the moaning and groaning of Nancy Pelosi, but now they're going to do it, and that's the precedent.
Well, they did it to us back then, so we can do it to them now.
It's the House's first attempt to fend off a crush of lawsuits challenging the Select Committee's authority to subpoena, phone, and banking records from a slew of close allies and associates of former President Donald Trump.
They were allowed to subpoena, as we've seen.
Here we go.
2021.
Let's just see what this is.
Here we go.
We're going to get to the bulk of this.
But Letter noted that the resolution creating the January 6th committee explicitly gave Pelosi power to appoint all of its members.
Those same rules contemplate the possibility of vacancies and do not require the panel to simply shut down because it doesn't have the full slate of members.
Perhaps more significantly, Letter argues, his name is Letter.
It's got to be tough.
Republicans lodged no formal objections when the House debated and voted on two key actions by the January 6th select committee.
Resolutions holding Trump advisors Mark Meadows and Steve Bannon in criminal contempt of Congress.
Republicans could have raised formal points of orders challenging the select committee's validity at the time, letter noted, but they did not.
Okay.
Then they talk about Katrina.
Like the Katrina select committee and a subsequent GOP-led panel to investigate the deadly attack on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
committee only required Pelosi to quote consult with McCarthy before making appointments and the procedures don't specify how extensive that consultation must be or whether Democrats must heed McCarthy's input okay um um I guess we can get to this.
More fundamentally, Letter argues that suing the committee to force it to return documents is prohibited by the Constitution.
Whatever.
So bottom line, there's an argument as to whether or not the committee's valid.
Apparently, it's been done in the past.
So if it were invalid in the past, it's just as invalid now and therefore valid.
Or if it was valid in the past, but they were just pissing and moaning for political purposes, well, now it's the Republicans' time to piss and moan at the invalidity of the committee.
But too bad.
Moving on.
Okay.
So there's that.
The hearing itself.
I'm going to go to my Twitter feed because the hearing, they call it a bipartisan hearing.
I'm looking at this and saying, this does not satisfy any legal burden of evidence.
This is like, there's nothing lawful or courtroom-ish about these.
These hearings.
There's nothing court-y about it.
There's nothing court-TV.
There's nothing lawful about it because this is not legal procedures.
This is a purely political procedure.
It's purely political and therefore rules of evidence don't apply.
There's going to be whatever rules and regulations that they've adopted for themselves, that's what's going to apply.
There's no hearsay.
There's no cross-examinations.
There's no adversarial party to all of this because the adversaries in this bipartisan committee Or Liz Cheney and the other guy who seem very much on board with all of this.
So there's no actual opposition in any of this, whether it's because the Republicans wrongly chose not to participate or whether they were right not to participate and therefore this is an entire sham, whatever.
But the absolute classic part...
Hold on, I'm not incognito right here.
I'm just going to go ahead and close that and make sure I don't screw up.
I want to go incognito because I don't want to accidentally pull up any of my own messages.
Twitter.
So, the amazing part, they've made the rules for themselves.
And quite literally, Benny Thompson, at one point in time, at one point in time says, I recognize myself for questioning.
And then proceeds to...
He recognizes himself for questioning, and then proceeds not to ask a question, but to give one minute of testimony of stuff that nobody had testified to yet.
Listen to this.
Pursuant to Section 5C8 of House Resolution 503, I recognize myself for questioning.
He recognizes himself for questioning.
As you saw just a few minutes ago.
The Proud Boys instigated the first breach of the Capitol just before 1 o 'clock p.m., where rioters pushed over barricades near the Peace Circle at the foot of the Capitol.
Our two witnesses tonight were both there at the time of that first breach.
This is supposed to be a question.
He has recognized himself for questioning.
This is his question.
He's testifying for the witnesses.
Officer Edwards was standing with other officers behind a line of bike racks that marked the perimeter of the Capitol grounds.
She bravely tried to prevent an ambush angry crowd from advancing on the Capitol.
Unfortunately, she was overrun and knocked unconscious as the crowd advanced on the Capitol.
That is terrible.
That's exactly what happens when people get rowdy when they shouldn't.
The video that they showed of that, they conveniently omitted, spliced, edited the people who came to her help, which were the violent protesters.
So, partial evidence, no one's going to be there to cross-examine it.
The video they showed, where she fell over, struck her head, and was knocked unconscious, they splice and edit out the portion where the people there who were there protesting, We're aiding her and giving her first aid.
Okay.
By the way, we're still in his question that he's recognized himself to ask.
I haven't yet heard a question, Mark.
Mr. Quickstead was a few yards away from Officer Edwards taking footage of the Proud Boys as part of his work on a documentary film.
Most of his footage has never been shown publicly before we shared it this evening.
Officer Edwards, I'd like to start by asking if you could tell us why you believe it's important for you to share your story this evening with the committee and the American public.
That was 90 seconds after he recognized himself for questioning.
60 seconds of testifying.
Officer Edwards.
Sorry, it was actually maybe 75 seconds of Benny Thompson testifying.
To evidence that had not actually even been presented by the witnesses yet, if ever.
And then he proceeds to ask a question totally unrelated to his 60 to 75 seconds of testimonial evidence.
I mean, and this is, yeah, I'm sitting here saying this is outrageous.
This could never happen in court, nor would it ever.
But this is not a court proceeding.
This is a political theater, for lack of a better word, of people who've given themselves the rules.
To empower themselves to basically tell the story that they want to tell with no adversarial process and no one fact-checking in real time except for the people who do it who then get their videos radically not promoted on YouTube.
So that was one aspect of it.
Benny Thompson as part of this show trial.
I now understand what McCarthyism is.
I now understand what show trials are.
This is prime time.
No adversaries.
Pursuant to the rules which we have drafted for ourselves, I'd like now to empower myself.
I authorize myself to ask a question with no one to fact-check me, no one to interrupt, no one to cross-examine, and then I proceed to testify and not ask a question for about 60 seconds, testifying, putting words in the witnesses' mouths, or at the very least...
Saying things that have not yet been proven or shown by the actual witnesses.
And then I ask a question totally unrelated.
That was one part of it.
Where else does it get ridiculous?
The evidence.
Let me just pull this out.
The evidence that they put together a video montage.
The police officer testifies.
She testifies to what happened.
She was behind a bike barricade because, you know, the FBI intelligence knew that this massive insurrection was coming.
They knew that this was planned in advance because they actually did testify to that.
They knew that Proud Boys were going to be there because they actually testified to that.
They knew what was supposed to be happening and they called it like wild dreams and whatever.
What was their response to all of this advanced knowledge of what was supposed to be, you know, the greatest threat to democracy ever?
Bike racks.
Or as someone in the chat corrected me, French barricades.
This police officer testified to the fact that she was not trained in any of this.
She had no backup.
They had nothing but a bike rack.
And her and I think it was one or two other officers against this mob.
And this committee, instead of investigating why it was grossly understaffed by police, why it was grossly unprotected because it just necessarily was, why the police opened the doors for anything, instead of looking into that...
They're just going to look into going after each and every person with absolutely exaggerated charges, destroy the lies, go after political adversaries, go and arrest Ryan Kelly for being there in a restricted area, and he ought to have known it was restricted.
But after that, what's the evidence that they actually adjuiced?
Well, oh God, it's that picture again.
What evidence?
At one point...
Benny Johnson plays a video.
You know what?
I should go get this on C-SPAN.
He plays a video montage that they prepared.
It's a video montage.
January 6th, committee, live C-SPAN.
It's a video montage that they prepared.
Clips and snips of video.
Overlaying of audio.
Splicing together different shots at different times.
And at one point...
Oh, this one.
Oh, so C-SPAN is age-restricted.
Okay, well, we're going to go away to...
Now you can see, by the way, that some are and some are not.
This one is...
Not.
The committee investigating Donald Trump...
Oh, no, hold on.
That's something else.
Interesting.
Interesting.
This happened in real time, people.
This happened in real time.
This one's not age-restricted.
Okay.
We will identify Ellen.
That's interesting.
This one's not.
The other one's...
I think we witnessed this happen in real time, Peter.
Edwards is a graduate.
Okay, so now we get to the testimony.
And I thank you for being proud, boys.
Here we go.
Here we go.
Look at this.
Now, my mistake was...
I was commentating over the stuff too much during the hearing.
I'm going to play this.
And this is Benny Thompson now empowering himself to adduce his own evidence during the bipartisan committee.
He has conducted extensive investigative work to understand what led the Proud Boys and other rioters to the Capitol on January 6th.
We've obtained substantial evidence showing that the president's December 19th tweet calling his followers to Washington, D.C. on January 6th Energized individuals from the Proud Boys and other extremist groups.
Okay, now watch the evidence.
I'd like to play a brief video highlighting some of this evidence.
My name is Marcus Childress, and I'm an investigative counsel for the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol.
What do you want to call him?
Give me a name.
Give me a name.
White supremacists and white supremacists.
White supremacists and white supremacists.
Stand back and stand by.
After he made this comment, Enrique Terrio, then chairman of the Proud Boys, said on parlor, standing by, sir.
We're going to stop it there.
This is the evidence that this bipartisan committee is presenting.
A highly edited narrative.
This is a movie.
This is a highly produced movie.
Now, it might be a documentary movie, but it's nonetheless highly edited.
It overlays video and audio.
Unrelated video to audio that's being played, or unrelated audio that's being overlaid with video, splicing together screenshots, etc., etc.
But this, they're citing the response on Parler, I believe, from Enrique Tarrio that Trump motivated this group to do what they did that day.
Enrique Tarrio, now this is a known fact and this is something that also requires clarification, is apparently...
A known or a prolific FBI informant from something that occurred back in 2012.
And the whole point is actually not to demonize Enrique Tarrio.
Because what informant means under any given circumstance can vary.
I just watched Black Mass with Johnny Depp.
So there's that type of informants.
And then there's others who cooperate so as to alleviate their own sentence because they're being persecuted or prosecuted.
Proud Boys leader was government informant Records Show Associated Press.
And this is from January 2021.
The leader of the Proud Boys, who was arrested in Washington shortly before the Capitol riot, previously worked undercover and cooperated with investigators after he was accused of fraud in 2016.
Now, I understand he was on Timcast and explained the circumstances.
The issue here is not to say it was all a setup, and this man was in on the setup, although there are going to be some people who might believe that.
The issue here is that you're talking about evidence, what is supposed to be evidence, and what is being relied on as evidence to show the incitement that Trump allegedly incited a month prior in a tweet, a response from this individual who, in an ordinary court of law, credibility would be able to be easily attacked.
But that's the best of their evidence, is someone who collaborated with FBI previously in his life.
They're now relying on what could argue be even a self-serving response of a tweet, which who even knows who saw it at the time, as their best evidence after 500 days of investigating the events.
And this is the best that they had to offer.
This was the grand opening, the grand overture of the culmination of 500 days.
A response on parlor from an individual whose credibility could be easily impugned, to say the least.
And you could even go one step further in terms of impugning that source of information.
It's the best that they have.
Hearsay is an understatement.
This was the exact same thing that the lawyer in the Alex Jones deposition got such...
Barnes gave him such a hard time for.
If it's a court hearing, if it's actual evidence, you can't splice together the evidence.
You can't manipulate the evidence.
This is...
Benny Thompson has empowered himself to produce a highly edited video production with an investigator that was mandated by Benny Thompson and the committee to look into this without any meaningful opposition, without any meaningful due process, Without any meaningful satisfaction of any evidentiary burden.
And that's the best that they have.
And that's just from day one.
The testimony of the police officer who struck her head, you know, it's what I always say is you give the government an excuse and they're going to exploit it to the fullest extent of the political powers that be.
And the problem is, though, even in Canada, when you don't give the government the excuse, the government makes up the excuse.
They had two witnesses testify at this primetime hearing.
I guess three witnesses if we include Benny Thompson.
And the best that they could come up with for this 500-day investigation, for a primetime broadcast, after detaining people for over a year, 500 days, pre-trial detention, the best that they came up with was Donald Trump in the debates.
And a response from a Proud Boy founder, who is also a known FBI informant, albeit under different circumstances, to an event that was coordinated and planned in advance.
They had their permits.
The people had their permits for the protest.
It was all known in advance.
And the government's response was not to have extra security there.
French barricades, bike racks, and when the poop hit the fan in certain pockets of this massive area where it got out of control, where some parts got out of control, Weaponized to the fullest extent of the political capabilities to prosecute individual accused.
I think there were like something like 500-600 people who were prosecuted.
The FBI said, sparing no expense, we're going to be knocking down doors in Alaska.
500 days later, indicting the Proud Boys.
500 days later, criminal complaint against Ryan Kelly, who's running against Gretchen Whitmer and other Republicans in the primaries in Michigan.
Arresting him on four charges of misdemeanor charges.
Yep.
It was a convenient happenstance that January 6th happened.
There were some individuals whose initials are AJ saying it was all a setup, stay out of the Capitol.
If you help your country, it can later be used against you in a show trial.
Nice.
Cameron Vesey, nice to see you again.
That is the summary of day one of the January 6th committee.
Hearings.
To be continued Monday, 10 o 'clock in the morning, I will be live streaming it.
No deterring for me.
I will be live streaming it.
Did I just see sexbots in the house?
I did.
And now the sexbot is blocked.
sorry sex bot Yeah.
All right.
So that was day one summary.
A little bit more than 10 minutes.
And now we're going to go to other news items.
What are the other...
Oh, what's this one here?
Viva, you're a tough guy to get a hold of.
I wrote the number one book on how the premise is still for you.
Sorry to no avail.
Hit me up on Twitter.
You know what?
I'm doing it right now.
Jeez, Max.
I remember you.
I'm not...
You can get a hold of me and then I just forget everything that goes on.
Max Power.
That's my name.
Max Power, what is your avatar?
People.
Just another version of you, creative.
Is this the Max Power?
Hold on, people.
What is Max Power on Michigan?
What is Max Power on Twitter?
This can't be you, Max, because this is not active enough to be you.
Let me see here.
Max Power.
Come on, man.
I'm looking for your avatar.
What's your handle on the Twitter?
Same pic in the chat, okay?
And it's at Max Power.
Let me see if I can do this.
Max Power.
I don't want to say his name.
Same pic is in the chat.
Okay, well, I'll find it afterwards.
Max Power.
I can't find it.
I can't find it.
Okay, I'll find it afterwards.
Okay, done.
That's what's going on with the January 6th hearing.
So, to be continued Monday.
Daytime.
Probably, we can stop that.
We can continue that Monday, as I will.
And we'll follow and see what goes on with Boomer Moment.
Well, at least I'm not chewing on my sweater, Craig.
I'm joking.
You look like you play poker.
All right.
The real max power.
Okay, well, that explains it.
I was looking at just the ordinary max power at real.
My goodness, that's max power.
Real max power.
Dude, and I'm still not seeing it.
Oh, if I go to people.
I am not seeing real max power because I'm spelling it improperly.
Okay, there we go.
Real Max Power.
Boom.
Okay.
Screenshotted.
Done.
I'll text you.
Want to get an Amazon affiliate link for that book.
Okay.
Gateway Pundit under American Gulag has all the names of arrests, custody status, and what they did to get arrested.
Yep.
Oy.
Okay.
No, because David Langford, it was Max Power without the E. All right.
So that's the January 6th committee hearings live Thursday night to be continued Monday over the next weeks.
And we'll see.
What's amazing actually is also not just the lopsided.
It's not lopsided.
It's one-sided.
And that's fine.
The media then runs with this and you have, oh, who was it?
Maria Shriver.
You have all these people.
This is like rehashing this from January 2021.
When, inasmuch as it got unacceptably violent in certain pockets of the protests, okay, fine.
How long do you exploit that to go after political adversaries?
How long do you exploit that to distract from what is actually crushing Americans and American lives?
Not, what's his name?
Cernovich put out a tweet and said, inflation...
That Americans are currently going through, and Canadians as well.
I don't know if it's the same in Canada.
Inflation has basically wiped off a month and a half of people's earnings.
Prices are going up, but your salaries are not.
Our salaries are not.
Prices go up.
Salary doesn't.
The average American has lost a month and a half of work.
But these committee members are paying themselves handsomely.
To sit around for 500 days to investigate this.
Much in the same way in Canada, the government is sparing no expense in the judicial system, the prosecutorial system, the police system, to stifle Canadians' fundamental rights.
They're paying themselves very well.
All the while, inflation here.
All the while, you know, what is it called?
The labor force shrinking.
No, that's it.
But in America, Cernovich pointed out, the average American has lost a month and a half of salary.
But this is what the political powers that be are parading around for the distraction.
It's sort of like sports, except it's politics.
Theophrastus says, I have zero sympathy for rioters, whether 1-6, BLM, or Antifa, but they must receive equal treatment under the law.
I'll go one step further.
Not equal unfair treatment.
They just need to receive fair treatment under the law.
Equal fair treatment.
I wouldn't want to see BLM rioters treated this way.
Swift trial, fair punishment.
Period.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Okay, so what else?
Let me see.
Share screen.
Because there was another issue.
I got all of those.
There will be no comment on this.
We've heard the news of Justin Bieber.
There's going to be no comment on this.
No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fornification advice.
Justin Bieber has recently been diagnosed with...
Hunter...
What's it called?
Hunter...
Ramsey-Hunt syndrome.
His wife, three months ago, was released from hospital after a blood clot found in the brain.
And, you know, you can't even have...
You can't even ask questions anymore.
You can't even...
When the news on Bieber broke...
And let's close this down.
When the news on Bieber broke.
And it's an amazing thing.
Are we even allowed asking certain questions?
Can we even ask the question?
And then someone responded to this.
How do I say this?
Someone said, now every health issue is going to be attributed to something.
I was like, we're not even there yet.
Can we ask the questions?
You're never going to find what caused something if you don't ask the questions.
And it might be not the wrong question.
The answer might be, you know, no.
But there is going to be a collective trauma now when we start seeing what I think are more of these types of stories.
It's possible, as with other stuff, that it's just being reported more and these things have always been around.
That's a question of discretion.
And judgment.
And I may or may not prefer mine to others.
But can you even ask the question?
And it seems that you can't.
You can't ask the question even if the answer would be the negative.
And it's just one thing after another.
And if you even ask the question, you'll be branded as a whatever.
I feel bad.
And then the other issue is everything gets politicized and weaponized, even stuff that might be unrelated.
But we're living in a world where we can't even ask the questions.
We can't have a free open discourse on this.
And that is deliberately or indirectly contributing to the very problem.
You don't quell conspiracy theories by not allowing people to ask the questions and not allowing the discussion to occur because if something's unfounded, aggregate knowledge typically will reveal that.
If something is a disgusting, intolerant idea, it will typically be outed as such and people will respond accordingly.
But one story after the other...
Young people.
And now, Ramsey-Hunt syndrome, you're going to hear this because it's true, is apparently a potential side effect of shingles.
Shingles, however, is a potential side effect of a number of things.
I got shingles, by the way, February 2020, right before the world shut down, right before all of this occurred.
But typically, Ramsey-Hunt syndrome...
Is in older people.
Typically, shingles is as well.
But shingles can lead to Ramsey-Hunt syndrome, facial paralysis, deafness in the ear.
And that is, and once upon a time, was just a known potential risk of a number of things.
As was GBS, which, if you've had it in the past, you know, these are things that you need to know before doing things in the future.
Can't even ask the questions.
Can't have the discussion.
And it's not just that...
The people get shunned for asking the obvious questions and expecting to have an open discourse on it.
The people who shut down the conversation feel virtuous and what's the word?
Superior in doing it.
They feel intellectually and morally superior in telling people what they can and cannot say, shutting down the obvious questions, and stifling the obvious discourse.
This inflation is part of the Great Reset.
Once upon a time, the Great Reset was a pure conspiracy theory.
Once upon a time, The Great Reset was a conspiracy theory.
Anyone who mentioned the words, it was 2020 on YouTube, they were verboten.
And if...
Don't believe me.
Don't believe me.
Hold on one second.
Add to stream.
Add to stream.
Don't believe me that The Great Reset was once conspiracy theory.
It was.
How do I get to this one?
Which one is it?
It's not that one.
It's not this one.
Within three months now.
So close this.
Close the committee.
Close the committee.
Where's my window?
Here.
It seems that some people still do not know.
It was a PDF.
This is from the World Economic Forum.
This is from the World Economic Forum website.
The Great Reset.
Ooh, I will reject your cookies.
When is this from?
September 24th, 2020.
Once upon a time, anyone who said that there was this thing by the World Economic Forum being promoted, this idea called the Great Reset, because you were dubbed and labeled a conspiracy theorist.
And you were shunned.
And the people who said it didn't even know that it existed, but they felt empowered.
They felt morally and intellectually superior in...
Deliberately trying to stifle or suppress or demonize anybody who would say these words.
There is an urgent need for global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis.
To improve this...
First of all, this is a fragmented sentence.
Maybe you guys want to learn how to draft at the WEF.
WEFforum.org.
Okay, this is right.
To improve the state of the world, the world economic...
Oh, sorry, it is not a fragmented sentence.
It's starting.
The Great Reset Initiative.
Now, let me just make sure that this is not a fake URL.
Yeah, good.
And there you have it.
But once upon a time.
Thank you.
Let's see.
Let's just see.
Back in the day.
Let me see.
Maybe we'll go with...
If there were one entity.
Here we go.
CBC.
The Great Reset Politics and Conspiracy.
Two years ago.
Last week, after a video of one of his speeches went viral, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had to address the growing controversy over, quote, the Great Reset.
The term means different things to different people.
To the World Economic Forum, it's a vague goal to make the world more equal and address climate change in the wake of the pandemic.
And before that, this is the old deny, and when it becomes undeniable, admit but minimize, and then when you can't minimize it anymore, spin it and say it's for the better of the world.
This is exactly what the CBC actually did with the convoy itself.
There is no convoy.
Okay, it's a small convoy in British Columbia protesting road conditions.
Okay, it's an actual big convoy heading to Ottawa, but they're racists, xenophobes, anti-black racists, transphobes, whatever.
Extremists.
Look how young Pierre Poilievre was back then.
Oh, yo, yo.
It was conspiracy at the time.
And anyone who dare talk about it on YouTube, you know, found out.
There's a number of things that reactivate shingles.
There's also a number of things that can trigger GBS.
Any infection.
Or any foreign invasion into the body can trigger Guillain-Barré syndrome.
So the thing is this.
If you allowed the discussion to happen, people would actually realize that any viral infection can actually trigger shingles or GBS.
Any viral infection can trigger GBS.
And I happen to know this from family experience.
We had someone in the family who got GBS.
It wasn't as a result of any jab or anything.
It was well before.
But it's a known fact.
And in fact, if you go look at any...
Any side effect of any of these medical interventions, these are just known potentials.
So if you even have the discussion, you might demystify what some people are going to think, oh, it can only strictly be as a result of the Fauci juice.
Well, no.
Any viral infection can trigger shingles, can trigger GBS, can trigger a number of things.
We know they're lying.
They know they're lying.
They know we know they're lying.
We know that they know that we know they are lying, and they still continue to lie.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
It's a good expression.
And then you have to make sure not to get caught retweeting bunk, false, fake stories.
There was one involving CTV News and the monkeypox.
It turned out to be a fake headline, fake news, and anyone who retweeted it...
We'll now get accused or blamed for having retweeted false information.
Speaking of which, by the way, anybody watching W5 tonight, they are going to be issuing a correction.
Hopefully just a proper retraction and correction for what they mentioned about me in their previous report on W5.
So I just hope it's making right of what I hope was just a mistake.
And I hope it's not just going to...
I hope they're not going to try to find a way to like...
Jab and needle even in their correction.
I'm told that W5 will be issuing a correction tonight on their broadcast.
So everyone, give it a watch.
I'm going to try to record it.
If anyone out there can record it, please record it and then tweet it to me so that I can hear the correction.
I'm not going to make a wall of shame like James O 'Keefe.
I'm not going to have the alpaca thingy thing.
But I am just going to be happy that my good name...
Will have been preserved.
And all it took was a little bit of diligence.
The price of freedom is eternal diligence.
Okay, so there's that.
What else is it?
There was something else on the Twitter that I wanted to get to.
Yeah, this was Hayley Bieber three months ago.
I don't want to go.
I mean, it's just...
Can't even talk about it.
Can't ask questions.
And the suppression of freedom of speech, the demonization of ideological adversaries has become morally virtuous.
And may we live to see the day when it's not cool to stifle free speech and where it's cool to love free speech and let people say things even if you don't like what they have to say.
And I corrected myself here.
Michael Tracy.
In a sassy tweet, he said, the funniest part of Jan 6 was definitely when Trump told the crowd, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, I'll be there with you.
And then he went right back home to watch TV and tweet.
And I hadn't seen that exact quote, but I didn't think he had said quite that.
But it turns out that's quite literally, at least verbatim, what is in the transcript of his speech.
But I did say, probably for the best, apparently merely being present on the Capitol would have been a criminal offense.
Ryan Kelly is now learning that.
But I did correct myself because Michael Tracy...
Is right.
I was inaccurate.
And I have to correct it.
And publicly so.
Apparently, this is from his speech.
It says, now it's up to Congress to confront this egregious yada, yada, yada.
And after this, we're going to walk down.
And I'll be there with you.
We're going to walk down.
We're going to walk down.
Very important to correct when you are not 100% correct.
Or when you're wrong.
Okay.
Let's just see here.
There was another thing to discuss on the day.
Making sure for context.
I'm not playing Camacho.
Camacho got...
Camacho got copyclaimed on my second channel.
I made a meme and that got...
That got...
That got claimed.
So, Jack Posobiec put this up.
And Jack Posobiec has proven himself to be quite reliable.
Put my headphones on.
But I still like to trust...
Are we looking at the same thing here?
I still like to trust and verify.
Trust, but verify.
So, Poso.
MyPillowGuyPoso.
Promo code Poso.
Put up this soundbite of Joe Biden talking yesterday.
And I heard it.
And I said, I need to be sure about something before I retweet this.
This is what Poso clipped.
You know, I have to admit to you.
A lot of us have elected officials been in office for a while.
Every once in a while, something you learn makes you viscerally angry.
Like if you had the person in front of you, you'd want to pop up.
No, I really mean it.
You know, I have to admit to you, a lot of us have elected officials been in office for a while.
Every once in a while, something you learn makes you viscerally angry.
Like, if you had the person in front of you, you'd want to pop them.
No, I really mean it.
I heard that clip, and I said to myself, surely the next sentence out of his mouth had to have been, but no, violence is never the answer.
That would be wrong.
You should actually fight those primal urges to the extent that you even have them.
I've got to tell you something.
I get plenty angry about some politicians.
I never have the fantasy of popping them.
I never have the fantasy of carrying out any act of violence.
Maybe it's because I'm a sissy.
Maybe it's because I'm a baby and I'm a beta male.
But no, Joe.
I don't have that urge.
But I said, I heard this, and I said, no.
The next sentence out of his mouth had to have been...
But no, you can't do that.
That's not how democracy works.
That would be terrible.
So I had to go find the soundbite in its entirety.
And I did.
And Poso did not betray me.
This is the clip in its entirety.
Well, the relevant portion in its entirety.
You know, I have to admit to you, a lot of us elected officials have been in office for a while.
Every once in a while, something you learn makes you viscerally angry.
Like if you had the person in front of you, you'd want to pop up.
No, I really mean it.
There are nine major ocean line shipping companies that ship from Asia to the United States.
Nine.
They form three consortia.
These companies have raised their prices by as much as 1,000%.
So everything coming from Asia.
They get 90-some percent of the stuff coming from Asia.
They've raised it by 1,000 percent.
That's why I called on Congress to crack down on their foreign-owned shipping companies that raised their prices while raking in, just last year, $190 billion in profit.
A seven-fold increase in one year.
Seven-fold increase.
$190 billion.
The Senate passed legislation.
I'm hopeful the House is going to act soon to crack down on these companies, as I've asked, and lower the cost.
I'm grateful to two Californians, Speaker Pelosi and John Garamondi, for leading this effort.
And we've passed legislation.
I hope it gets by.
And if it doesn't, I might just get so angry that if I had one of those politicians in front of me, I would just pop him.
It's actually worse in its full context.
This is why what's interesting is sometimes you can take things out of context and they're actually totally, not totally innocuous, but justifiable in context.
Had the second half of that sentence been, sometimes you want, but that's not how we do things in America.
That's not the American way.
That's nothing I would promote.
You pressure your lawmakers and you never, you never, you never, what's the word I'm looking for?
You never, Fall victim to the urge.
That might have attenuated the first half of his statement, although I think it would still be reckless in today's political environment.
In context, it makes it even worse.
Sometimes you just want to...
They do something, it's so bad, you just want to...
If you had them in front of you, pop them.
These companies are making record profits.
These shipping companies, this consortium, they make...
And I put something to the Senate, and if it doesn't pass...
Well, then it just went from being a reckless statement to actually being potentially a veiled threat.
A dog whistle.
A dog whistle, if some people are interested.
In context, it's actually worse than snipped, where he might have said something to attenuate the improper nature of the prior statement.
But no.
And it's shocking.
When Donald Trump, in his speech, says, we're going to go down and peacefully protest.
We're going to fight like hell, but peacefully.
Patriotically.
Go home with love.
That's impeachable incitement.
When Maxine Waters says, get in their face and harass them.
When AOC says, fight, fight, fight, I'm paraphrasing, I'm not sure.
When Joe, not Joe Rogan, when Joe Biden says, sometimes these politicians, they just, they get you so angry.
If you had them in front of you, you'd want to pop them.
That, hey, it's not hypocrisy.
It's not even a hierarchy.
It's politics.
It's terrible.
It's terrible.
And in context, it's even worse than what I thought it was originally.
Because not only was it not attenuated, it was aggravated.
It was exacerbated.
This is another point on the substance.
It's the government's fault everything comes from China and not made in the USA.
Yes.
You imagine this.
Reliant on foreign countries for...
For essential raw materials, for electronics, for medicines.
And then the very same government that allowed this dependency on foreign nations to occur in the first place cuts down national oil development, national energy independence, so that the price of it goes up as well.
So you're dependent on foreign countries for things that should be made at home.
Because I say dependence on foreign countries for things like medicine, for essential stuff, it's a national security risk.
Dependent on foreign countries for stuff that are necessities.
Exacerbate gas prices so that what has to come in from these foreign countries goes up in price, obviously.
The interesting thing is, in those stats that Joe Biden cited, on the one hand, he goes from percentages.
You know, he says something went up a thousand percent.
Then he doesn't use a percentile to compare another stat.
He just says profits went...
Oh, he just goes for a dollar figure.
They made 190 billion, whatever, sevenfold.
So the thousand percent increase in cost, apparently, even if it's true, only resulted in a sevenfold increase in profit, doesn't mention the increase cost of doing business.
I mean, this is the way statistics lie.
Hold on.
I want to hear it again, actually.
I want to hear it again because I'm going to stop it and just, you know, critical thinking and critical analysis and how stats can be used to lie.
Okay.
Let's go back here.
I don't need to hear the problem.
You'd want to.
I don't really mean it.
Here, listen.
There are nine major ocean line shipping companies.
By the way, the nine major line ocean shipping companies are probably responsible for 90% of the global carbon emissions and pollutions out there.
Set that aside for the time being.
Take away all the cars in North America.
It would have not even a dent on global emissions because of these freight liners, but set that aside.
Discussion for another day.
It's shipped from Asia to the United States.
Why is that, Joe?
Why are we importing?
And that's not just true of the United States.
It's in Canada, too.
When the pandemic first hit, and I realized what amount of our medicines and the raw materials came from foreign countries, not just China, India.
Foreign countries on whom we are dependent for necessities.
Essential supplies?
It immediately woke me up to the sad state of Canadian and American dependency on foreign interests for our own national security.
Nine.
They formed three consortia.
Fine.
These companies have raised their prices by as much as 1,000%.
Okay, so they've raised their prices by as much as 1,000%.
Which does not translate into 1,000% increase in profits.
So there's a reason for that.
And that's because they've raised their prices because the costs have gone up.
So they've raised their prices 1,000%.
Okay.
So everything coming from Asia.
They get 90-some percent of the stuff coming from Asia.
They've raised it by 1,000%.
That's why I called on Congress to crack down on their foreign-owned shipping companies.
That raised their prices while raking in, just last year, $190 billion in profit.
So by the way, you notice, it may not even be relevant.
It might not prove what I think it might prove.
But just notice how he went from, they increased their prices 1,000%.
Their profits didn't go up 1,000%.
And that's why Joe Biden here, or whoever wrote his speech, went from...
A percentage increase in costs to just a dollar figure, which will be shocking.
Because 1,000% increase in price is shocking.
But if it only represents a seven-fold increase in profit, that's not quite so shocking.
What would be more shocking?
Throw it a massive number that no one knows what to compare it to.
And then that's exactly what they did.
1,000% increase in pricing and profit.
A seven-fold increase in one year.
Sevenfold increase.
How much have cost of goods, cost of doing business gone up, Joe?
How much has oil gone up?
How much has the costs of their business gone up in the last year to justify this?
What does it say?
How about suffrage shenanigans?
Hold on a second.
What is this?
Oh, I can see that.
How about suffrage shenanigans?
I'm not sure what that means, Rick Slingerland.
But thank you for the chat.
So, 1,000% increase in costs.
$190 billion in profits.
Sevenfold increase.
$190 billion.
The Senate passed legislation.
I'm hopeful the House is going to act soon to crack down on these companies, as I've asked.
Crack down on these companies.
Or, you know, Joe, I'm no economist.
I'm just a lawyer.
Or, maybe look to bringing back manufacturing of essential stuff so that we're not, neither you nor...
Neither U.S. nor Canada are reliant, are dependent, utterly dependent to the risk of our own national security on foreign imports, maybe.
But the strategy there, by the way, it's so subtle, the manipulation.
You go from percentage increase to dollar figures, which you don't know what it compares to, then you throw in the sevenfold, and all that in the context of...
You get so angry with politicians sometimes that if you just have them in front of you, you just want to pop them.
And what was the context of that statement, that incitement to violence this week?
Most people know.
Monetization is back on, people.
Monetization is back on.
Screenshotted.
Let me just get a screenshot with the time.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Okay, so what else?
Anyone got any questions in the chat?
Let's get some questions that are not necessarily super chat.
And I'll see if I can get them.
Did I miss anything that I had in my Twitter running diary?
So that was Joe Biden.
Joe Biden.
Let me see what else I got in my stuff.
At some point, the administrative state...
I think at some point, this is going to affect everybody at some point.
This grotesque incompetence.
And I know people like the Great Reset.
This is part of the plan and yada yada.
And it might very well be part of the plan of the idealist vision of the future of these people.
But at some point, it's going to affect too many people.
And you can parade around these primetime kangaroo court show trials.
The average American has lost a month and a half of the salary.
And that should irritate everybody.
Unless, you know, you want to pull a George Takei and say, well, that's the price I'm willing to pay to keep my ideological adversaries out of power.
I am willing to suffer worse consequences than what I fear would be the case if they were in power in order to keep them out of power.
Okay, we're going to see what happens with the YouTube.
I'm going to stay on that.
Tracy was right for his speech.
Although I think the underlying point was...
I'm not even showing that.
Not showing that.
Justin Trudeau, why don't we have the right to self-defense?
But thank you for raising the debate.
I think you've sensitized a lot of Canadians and Americans to the insane state of the right of self-defense in Canada.
Let me see something here.
Okay, we got the Justin Bieber.
Got a deep thought.
Not showing Camacho.
Not showing a story on Fox News.
Okay, then we got that.
We got that.
And then we got that.
Oh, no.
Thank goodness.
Hey, guys.
You want to know why the world could probably do without politics in the size of the government sense?
Listen to what we're doing in Canada, people.
This is gloriously stupid.
It is like, it's something where...
It's a thought that only idiot politicians who need to justify not only their own existence, but their further need, could come up with something so stupid.
Because apparently there are some politicians who still believe people are unaware that smoking is bad for you and smoking is addictive.
Apparently.
So much so, they think not only are some people still unaware of that, they think that those people are still unaware of that.
Even once they've gotten past the packaging, which has...
I don't know what the packaging looks like in the States.
I don't smoke.
Let me just go ahead and...
Wait, let me just do this here.
I'm going to refresh this.
I don't know what the packaging looks like in the States.
Let me just see here.
Look at what it looks like.
I think it might be the same.
Yeah, there you go.
Okay, we've got the same ones.
Okay, so there's some people, apparently, who still don't know that...
Cigarettes are bad for you, excuse me, and are addictive.
Some people apparently don't know that.
And the politicians, at least in Canada, think that there are people who don't know that and there are people who are actually...
What's going on here?
What did I just do?
Who still don't know it and who can't see it on the packaging when they open it up to start doing it.
So what do they need to do now?
Warning on each cigarette, not just packaging.
Proposed in Canada.
Canada is poised to become the first country in the world to require that a warning be printed on every cigarette.
To be the first country in the world or the first person in the world, it's not always a good thing.
Like, you could become the first person in the world to impale yourself on a Coke bottle that you put dry ice in and shook around.
You could be the first person in the world to actually...
Impale yourself on a plastic Coke bottle.
You wouldn't want to be the first person in the world to do that.
Canada's poised to become the first country in the world to require that a warning be printed on every cigarette.
You might not want to be the first country in the world to do that because that might make you an idiot.
But I'm printed on each cigarette.
If they mean printed as in you smoke the part that's printed on it, wait until you find out one day that smoking the printed part is even worse for your health than smoking a cigarette.
Addictions minister.
I didn't know we had an addictions minister.
Caroline Bennett says the proposed measure is meant to reach more people, including youth, who often share cigarettes and don't encounter the packaging.
Oh, my.
You think that people don't encounter the packaging.
I don't smoke and I encounter the packaging.
It's on the ground.
It's at bus stops.
It's on the street.
It's in the garbage.
A consultation period.
A consultation period.
They are making work for themselves through the dumbest initiatives on earth.
It's set to begin Saturday.
75 days consulting.
How much does Caroline Bennett make?
Hold on.
Hold on.
Let's just...
Caroline Bennett, Minister of Health Salary.
How much does she make?
Caroline Bennett, net worth is estimated...
I'm sorry.
Net worth $5 million?
Career, family physician, politics, yada yada.
Hold on.
Oh no, what did I just do here?
What did I just do?
What's her salary?
What's her salary?
180 to 450.
Oh, Bennett's salary ranges from $150,000 to $450,000.
$180,000 to $450,000.
Okay.
Oh, now I've messed up the story here.
Boom, shakalaka.
They're paying themselves handsomely to create committees to print on each cigarette a warning because that's needed.
Now we're going to set up a consulting period of 75 days where this is going to be her number one project, by the way.
Carolyn Bennett, her mission in life now is for the next 75 days consultation to hear what people think about printing warnings on each individual cigarette.
You know what I think would be even more effective than that?
Tattooing from birth.
Everyone should be tattooed by the government that says smoking is bad for you.
And so they'll never forget.
In fact, get them before they even get addicted.
That way...
It'll be a deterrent to even ever do it in the first place.
Preposterous.
Preposterous.
Oh yeah, meanwhile, they collect the taxes on the product too.
But they need to do that for the healthcare system.
It's the tax that smokers pay, which was the same rationale to justify a vax tax because people who are so unhealthy that they smoke, they should pay a tax into the system that they're going to probably be more likely to use.
So should the unvaccinated.
They're going to do a 75-day consulting period to see if they should print warnings on each individual cigarette.
It's damned one way or the other.
The only way they can do this is either they individually wrap each individual cigarette with a wrapper that has a warning on it, which would be waste.
I mean, it would be garbage.
It would be bad for the environment.
Or they print something on the cigarette that you are then supposed to smoke.
And I would just hope it's a healthy ink to smoke.
I mean, it's gamacho.
It's gamacho-level idiocracy.
Okay.
In Chile, we have these stickers that go on every packaged food about high calories, high sugar, etc.
You ask anyone.
What do the four labels say?
No one will be able to answer.
No one cares about warnings.
That's interesting.
No es nada.
No es nada, which means no is nothing.
I don't mind the calorie stuff, but this is where I'll say, I don't mind that because I'm interested in calories.
I do find it a little invasive when I go to the States.
When?
Those many times when I go down to the States and you go to order a steak and it says 1,200 calories.
That's a little...
Requiring it by law on menus, again, gets a little too much in my face.
I would like to know, if anybody in the chat knows, calories in a 700...
Let's just say calories in bubble tea.
I like bubble tea.
I still have not been able to determinately figure out how many calories, how many grams of carbohydrates, sugars, are in a standard bubble tea.
I'd like to know that, but I don't want people rubbing in my face when I order a steak or, you know, beans with butter, 1200 calories.
Okay, it's good, but you know what?
Make it available if people ask.
But the printing, the printing on each individual cigarette as though there's anyone on God's green earth, blue earth, I guess, who doesn't know that cigarette smoking is bad for you and addictive.
I don't think there's anyone on earth that doesn't know that.
And by the way, if a kid doesn't know that, that's not the government's fault.
That's the parent's fault.
Stop yelling.
Sorry.
Sorry.
I'm going to tone it down a little bit.
Calories in fast food restaurants are ridiculous.
I don't go to a fast food restaurant to watch my caloric intake.
Well, the other thing is calories are not the end of...
Calories are not the be-all and end-all.
There's calories in protein.
There's calories in good stuff.
It's useful, but not the most useful.
400 to 500 calories per drink is very much too much.
That's too much.
Now my kids are going to be angry because I think we're going to have to radically cut out bubble tea as a sinful afternoon pleasure.
I smoke sometimes and I never cared about the package looking horrific.
Just care about that smoke.
Smoking is something...
We did it as rebellious teenagers.
Always made me sick.
It's the grossest thing I can think of.
I say that non-judgmentally because I have other habits that I'm sure someone else would look at.
How can you enjoy eating a steak?
How can you enjoy a martini?
Everyone has their own sinful pleasures.
And everyone can judge other people's habits judgmentally.
Stephen Britton says, next the government will ban cigarettes and demand they be replaced with special biodegradable cigarettes that break down in water because turtles.
Or they're going to do what they did in the States.
Ban certain flavor cigarettes because those are more popular with kids and minorities.
And this is actually what the Biden administration had used as a justification.
Let me pull it up so no one thinks.
When I talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations, ban menthol minorities.
Ban menthol.
You guys think...
I hate that I know certain things.
I hate because it makes me feel like I might actually get blackpilled at some point.
FDA agrees to ban menthol to protect African Americans.
This is from the ama.ask.org.
Washington, D.C. Today, the Food and Drug Administration announced that it will promulgate a rule banning menthol cigarettes.
I covered this back in the day.
Finally responding to a citizen petition submitted to the agency in 2013 by 19 public health organizations.
The FDA...
Overdue response to the petition was prompted by a lawsuit filed by the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council.
Yada, yada, yada.
Yada, yada, yada.
Here we go.
They're banning tobacco.
The word is going to be popular.
The rationale was that menthol cigarettes...
Are more popular within the African-American community, which I never knew.
So they're going to ban it to protect full-grown adults who can make their decisions on their own without the help of the government.
And the government thinks that they need to protect...
If menthol cigarettes are more popular with the African-American community, that would seem to imply that regular cigarettes are more popular with the Caucasian or Asian community.
So why would you ban what one minority group wants when it's just as unhealthy as what another group wants?
Some people might call that soft bigotry of low expectations or just bigotry.
They're banning menthol cigarettes because they're more popular among African Americans.
So they're going to go make African Americans smoke regular cigarettes?
Okay, they're going to deny full-grown adults the product of their preference because the government knows what's best for minority communities.
And, you know, the whites and the Asians can go smoke whatever.
They can go continue smoking what they prefer, which is not menthol.
If it makes sense to anybody.
Oh, someone just quoted from the FDA so I can see that here.
They banned menthol here in Sweden a few years back because children smoked it, but it didn't stop them from keeping trying...
That was the other rationale, which is equally as offensive, because basically what they're saying is African-American adults need as much government protection as children.
That's effectively what it says, the policy, the motivation.
The FDA agrees to ban menthols to protect black people.
It's systemic soft bigotry of low expectations, or just systemic bigotry.
But the other rational, to steel man, the other justification is that menthol was more popular with kids.
I was a kid.
I can attest that that was not the case.
And by the way, as has been shown in other countries, it doesn't do anything.
It doesn't actually deter children from smoking.
Children are not smoking because they like the way it tastes.
They're doing it because they're rebelling, and they think it looks cool.
So maybe instead of...
Banning menthol cigarettes for full-grown adult African Americans.
Maybe get some of the Hollywood types to not glamorize smoking in movies so that it doesn't look quite so cool to young, impressionable children.
Maybe.
It's low-key noble.
You know, I would put that on a shirt, but I find it so offensive.
It can't even be merchandised.
It has to be forgotten.
Okay, so that's it.
I think we have nothing more here.
That is what we have on the menu for today.
Let me see if I didn't forget anything else on the Twitter.
Tomorrow night, I'm not sure if Barnes is back.
I'm going to have to go speak with him and see, but otherwise we'll have a stream regardless.
We got to the menthol Camacho.
Packaging of the cigarettes.
I don't want to get back to January 6th.
I had thought that Benny Thompson Had said that the documentary filmmaker was embedded with the Proud Boys.
It was actually the commentator on C-SPAN who said it.
And I think that's it.
No, you know what?
We're going to leave with this.
We're going to end with...
We're going to end with a meme.
A meme vlog.
A meme vlog.
Not a meme vlog.
A meme vlog.
Let me see here.
Wherein...
Through nothing more than an individual's own words and the power of images, we show the hypocrisy that is these lying, hypocritical political elite.
Political elite, because I do not consider them to be elite to me.
Whatsoever, in any respect whatsoever, but listen to this.
Hey everyone, bonjour tout le monde.
I'm in California today with Governor Newsom.
We're signing an agreement to make sure we continue the deep partnership we've had on fighting climate change, on protecting our environment, in creating good green jobs and moving forward in ways that really matter to people.
It's a great pleasure to be able to work so close with California on the issues that are important for Canadians.
Governor Newsom, talk about this partnership.
But you don't have to speak the same language to understand that we're all in this together.
Divorce is not an option.
And so we're here on the issue that extends, I think, a global consciousness, and that's the issue of climate change.
And you're in a state where we're experiencing the extremes.
And so we're on the leading and cutting edge of not only dealing with the realities of it, but also the opportunities.
And that's why it's so wonderful to have you down here, Prime Minister, to focus on those partnerships and the opportunity advance together.
We only build a better world if we're doing it together.
And gathering like-minded partners like California and Governor Newsom is the way that we make this better future a reality for everyone.
I'm very happy with all the work we're doing.
We're going to continue to do it together.
We're going to progress.
Thank you.
Just awful.
What the heck was Gavin Newsom doing with his hands?
I mean, I recognize.
I gesticulate.
Was he doing like Tai Chi while he was talking?
God, he made like hypocrites.
Justin Trudeau is literally gallivanting around the world on his private jet, government jet, not private jet as in the opulent private wealth manner, but rather in the wasteful carbon footprint manner.
There was a stat that showed that Trudeau emits a carbon footprint that's 5,000 times greater than the average Canadian, but he has to.
He's worth it.
L 'Oreal.
Hold on.
David.
We feel like you do about courtrooms, but if you were asked to be a judge, prosecutor, or a witness against Trudeau Biden, would you return in any legal capacity to a courtroom?
Not as an advocate.
As a witness, I'd probably have no choice.
And there was some discussion as to whether or not, you know, whether or not, you know, if my video, if any of my documenting the Ottawa protest, if any of that...
As a witness, yes.
As an advocate, I don't think any...
Let me rephrase this.
I think it's too realistic a risk that my online and out-of-court persona would have an impact in the court in terms of a judge either hating me or a judge loving me.
But I think it would be more likely than not that a judge might...
Not share my views on government and policy over the last two years.
It's possible.
In which case, you can't have an attorney who's a liability for their client.
An attorney has to be the advocate.
And if the attorney carries too much baggage going into the courtroom, it's problematic for their client.
Okay.
I'm going to go find RealMaxPower and talk with him.
And get an Amazon affiliate link for that book so that y 'all can buy it.
And yes, Amazon will make money by the book being sold through Amazon.
And yes, Amazon affiliate links give a kickback to the person.
Anyone who wants to boycott Amazon by not getting the book, you're going to be punishing the author of this book more than anybody else.
So I'm going to go check out the book.
I've heard about it and we'll see what happens.
Okay, so that's it.
Two hours.
It's two o 'clock.
I'm going to go meet up with the wife and kids and do something fun, hopefully.
What was I going to say?
See you tomorrow night.
Thank you all for being here.
You know what to do.
Like, share, subscribe.
Word of mouth for the spread of the channel because the YouTube algorithm is not necessarily favoring me anymore.
Certainly not when...
Doesn't matter.
All except Liz Cheney is an impartial participant if she'll let Nancy Pelosi's husband drive her to and from the hearings.
And Republicans sent Jim Jordan and Banks to January 6th, but Nancy Pelosi refused them.
Okay.
And I believe that is it.
Hold on.
Yes.
Candace Magnus.
Live the day to the fullest.
Purple hearts.
Agreed.
God bless all.
Have a nice weekend.
Ms. Jamie, I agree as well.
And I'm seeing some chats about the Nova Scotia incident.
One day, maybe I'm going to find someone who can clarify that incident.
I have a minimal understanding of it.
Sent tweet Stanford criteria must read.
Sent tweet Stanford cafeteria must read.
Viva, you did Canada good with your coverage of the convoy.
Hey, it was out there.
I said it then and I'll say now.
If anything bad...
Were to have happened, it would have been in real time.
No one could have denied it or covered it up.
It's going to be a testament to anybody who wants to actually know what happened.
But...
What's the name of the book?
The book is...
Hold on.
The book is...
There's a hashtag, Trudeau is destroying Canada, but I don't think that's the book.
Here.
It's called...
Dr. Seuss-esque lampoon of our beloved leader.
The Prime Minister stole freedom.
Okay, I'm going to go create a link right now.
People, I'm going to tweet it out.
Go and enjoy the day, and I will see you all sooner than later.
Tomorrow night, for sure.
Peace out.
▲
Export Selection