Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 2, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:17:03

Taco Tuesday and the Two-Tiered Justice System - Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Why is the Biden administration building a border wall in Arizona?
	So we are not finishing the wall.
	We are cleaning up the mess the prior administration left behind in their failed attempt to build a wall.
	And I just want to be very, very clear here.
	Be very clear.
	Be very clear.
	The $8 billion the prior administration took from our military, we gave that back to the military for military families, for schools, for bases.
	This is a joke.
	That's what that money was being used.
	That's what it was taken away from.
	And so, again, what we're doing is cleaning up the mess.
	Cleaning up the mess.
	Talking point number one.
	President Biden, when he was a candidate, said, there will not be another foot of wall constructed in my administration.
	So what changed?
	We are not finishing the wall.
	Ah, okay.
	If walls work in that part of Arizona, is this the administration trying to get migrants to cross somewhere else, like in Texas?
	What is the plan?
	That's the third time.
	That's the third time for that too.
	Not finishing the wall, cleaning up the mess.
	This is what the prior administration left behind, that we are now cleaning up.
	Fourth time.
	By finishing the wall, is this...
	We are not finishing the wall.
	By filling in, finishing...
	We are not finishing the wall.
	By filling in...
	He's got such a nice smile.
	Is this racist?
	What, Ducey?
	You said that it was his racist...
	So how is this any different?
	I'm just having a hard time understanding how is this any different.
	I'm not sure how you get to your first question, to this question that you just asked me.
	I will say this.
	We're not finishing the wall.
	I'm answering your question.
	A border wall is ineffective use of taxpayer dollars.
	So it's ineffective.
	Oh, it's ineffective of taxpayer dollars, but not ineffective.
	Interesting.
	We're going to play this again and just skip to a couple of things.
	And that we're giving to Ukraine now, but set that aside.
	...to build this wall that he wanted that is ineffective, by the way, which I just said.
	It's so ineffective.
	They're finishing it.
	It's so ineffective.
	We're going to go back to the intro to this, people.
	Before I do, let me know that my audio is good.
	Audio should be good.
	Listen to this!
	Why is the Biden administration building a border wall in Arizona?
	So, um, we are not...
	By the way, when I said it before, this is just the best example of modern memory.
	So, let me get my lie straight.
	I've asked you a question.
	Why are you doing...
	Why are you...
	Building a wall.
	Why is the Biden administration building a border wall in Arizona?
	Finishing or not, they're building something.
	So let me get my lie straight while I try to divert the question and say, why are you building a wall?
	Was the question.
	Because they are.
	Finishing or not?
	Cleaning up a mess or not?
	Effective use of taxpayer dollars or not?
	You are finishing something or completing something or adding to something.
	So however you want to qualify it, pathological liar.
	You're building something.
	You're not not building something.
	You are putting something there that is not currently there.
	That's building.
	Why are you building the wall?
	So I'm a liar.
	We're not finishing the wall.
	We're also not going to the moon.
	So we're not going to the moon.
	Cleaning up a mess.
	Cleaning up a mess.
	The administration left behind in their failed attempt to build a wall.
	It's a failed attempt, by the way, because they went after the people who were funding the Build the Wall, even though it was private donations.
	They went after the policy by calling it a racist policy.
	It's a failed attempt because we sabotaged it, and now we're cleaning up the mess, building a portion of a hole in the wall, although it doesn't work.
	Walls don't work.
	Border walls are ineffective.
	That's why we're building a portion of it.
	It's enraging.
	It's almost as enraging as listening to the judge in the Alex Jones trial, but we'll get there.
	And I just want to be very, very clear here on day one.
	So I want to be clear.
	I was going to give a finger.
	Lies, lies.
	We returned the money, the $8 billion the prior administration took from our military.
	We gave that back.
	I'm sorry, and how much money have your administration given to a foreign conflict?
	Good or not, righteous or not, how much money has your administration, Madam Press Secretary, given to Ukraine?
	Oh, I'm sorry, that's right.
	Building a border wall for national interests, that's ineffective use of taxpayer dollars.
	Let's go ship it to a foreign war so we can fight a proxy war with Russia.
	Okay, I can't listen to that garbage anymore.
	Absolute garbage.
	Delusional.
	Pathological.
	They're not just treating people like they're idiots.
	They're treating people like they enjoy being abused and lied to.
	At one point I said it's like they're spitting in your face and calling it rain.
	They've taken it to the next level.
	Now they are dumping on your face and calling it chocolate pudding.
	Sorry, I went one notch too far.
	I'm sorry.
	That was too much.
	They are slapping you and they're telling you that it's not happening.
	They're lying to your face in real time in a manner that if that were a court of law, a normal judge would say, not responsive, pathological, liar.
	I saw that because Brandon Strzok shared the clip.
	It's like once you know, you don't even need to have any sort of insight into the human condition.
	Why are you building the wall?
	So we're not finishing the wall.
	Thank you.
	Didn't ask you that question.
	Thank you for answering a question that nobody asked.
	You're like little Lisa Simpson.
	The answer to the question nobody asked.
	How about you just answer the question?
	So there's that.
	So there's that.
	By the way, guys, in case you're idiots, they're not finishing the wall.
	They're cleaning up the mess that the former administration left.
	Because walls don't work, that's why they're building a portion of a wall.
	They're ineffective uses of taxpayer dollars, which is why they're building or filling in a portion.
	But they're not finishing it.
	They're just cleaning up a mess.
	Okay, there you go.
	Are you all happy?
	You're all satisfied with that response?
	Biden administration, they're not hypocrites.
	They're not using the cages now that Biden built under Obama or that Obama built with Biden.
	They're not filling in a wall, which is racist and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
	And you should be satisfied with that answer to the question because she's just answering the question.
	Corn pop.
	I peed.
	Did anyone miss me?
	Nope, I'm banned.
	You're not banned.
	We're going to get into Alex Jones later on because I'll tell you something.
	The only thing that raises the blood temperature more than listening to press secretary...
	I forget her name.
	I forget her name.
	Jean-Pierre.
	The only thing that's more enraging than listening to Jean-Pierre's press secretary talk is listening to the judge in Alex Jones.
	I couldn't take notes fast enough to write down...
	We'll get to it.
	We've got three major subjects, and, you know, we'll probably touch on other stuff in the meantime.
	But first things first.
	I know that I missed a super chat before we even got started, which was to the effect of...
	Let me open up the thing.
	It's from Tim Jacobs.
	It says, if Alex Jones can be sued for defamation and IIED, intentional infliction of emotional distress, for suggesting that no one died at Sandy Hook, then anyone suggesting that no one has died from the COVID vaccine...
	May also be sued.
	Thoughts?
	Let me make sure I don't close the window.
	Okay.
	We'll get to it.
	Remind me.
	Anyone denying that JFK didn't die the way he did or didn't die?
	Anyone denying that Elvis Presley is still alive can be sued by the Presley estate for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	People who have whatever whacked out theories that they want to have out there and say them publicly can get sued for emotional distress.
	It's the dangerous example because, in fact, it is illegal in certain jurisdictions.
	Deny certain historical atrocities, you can get sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	Deny JFK.
	I don't see how denying the moon landing could lead anybody to intentional infliction of emotional distress, but it's conceivable.
	Deny that Elvis Presley died, that he's still alive, that he didn't actually die, and that he's somewhere in, I don't know, Argentina with Adolf Hitler.
	Hypothetically, nowhere near the same level of situation as with Sandy Hook.
	Hypothetically, when this precedent gets set and the slippery slope begins to steepen or get muddier, we're not far from there.
	Claim that people were injured or passed away from a certain Fauci juice, if people say that that's not true and you are spreading disinformation that is hurting, The victims of people who died from the RONA?
	Intentional infliction of emotional distress?
	Bankrupt you.
	Bankrupt you.
	We'll get there.
	We've got Guy Refit, one of the January 6th defendants, who has now, I think, received the harshest sentence of any of the Jan 6th defendants.
	This is the guy who showed up with a firearm.
	Not a good idea.
	Didn't use it.
	Didn't brandish it.
	In fact, I think no one even knew that he had it on site.
	Until after the events where he was texting his friend or his son, recorded him boasting about having gone with a firearm.
	Maybe they even discussed bringing it.
	Oh, no, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry.
	They discussed bringing it beforehand because, according to Guy Refit at trial, he said, better be tried by 12 than carried by 7, 6. I'm an idiot.
	So he brought it and he had planned to bring it before.
	Didn't brandish it, didn't commit a crime with it, although he committed other crimes, arguably.
	Seven years.
	His son thought it was noble, thought it was the right thing to do to surreptitiously record his father, and then contact the FBI tip line.
	There's more going on in that family dynamic than I think we know about, but we'll get there.
	And we're talking.
	We're talking Justin Trudeau today.
	We have to.
	Because it has occurred to me that people still don't know everything there is to know about Justin Trudeau.
	Now, before we even get there, though, however, I have to bring this up.
	The Alex Jones trial hearing of today was really shocking, to say the least.
	I only caught, basically, the afternoon, as of 1 o 'clock, Lewis, the plaintiff, testifying, and then Alex Jones, and then the judge going off, and then plaintiff's attorney announcing they're going to make a motion for sanctions.
	Not only against Alex Jones, but against his attorney.
	We'll get there.
	While I brought that up and this up to say, light giver, I can answer that.
	Carrie Lake is running for governor, an amazing Republican woman.
	They want Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, to win.
	Hobbs will take credit.
	I don't know what that's for, but I want to say this.
	Thank you for the super chat and standard disclaimers.
	Hold on.
	Did I miss a super chat?
	Oh, no, I got that.
	Standard disclaimers, people.
	No legal advice.
	No election fornication advice.
	No medical advice.
	Whatsoever.
	Though we will be touching on some stories today that relate to the field of medicine.
	That dovetail into Justin Trudeau being...
	If he's not the worst person on Earth, he's tied with all the other worst people on Earth.
	No medical advice.
	No election fornication advice.
	No legal advice.
	Superchats.
	YouTube takes 30% of all superchats.
	If you do not like that, we are or ought to be simultaneously streaming on The Hrumbles.
	Rumble has these things called Rumble France, which is effectively the same thing as Super Chat, except Rumble only takes 20%.
	So better for the creator, better for the platform.
	And we are currently live on the Rumbles.
	Rumbles.
	Whew.
	Thank you.
	The wall.
	I'm guilty of thought crime.
	I hope the internet is good.
	We've moved on from where we were in Texas.
	Internet seems good.
	Oh, my God.
	It's...
	Okay, so let's just start.
	I'm going to get this out of here.
	On Rumble.
	Okay, we're good.
	We're good.
	Been having interesting issues with the YouTubes.
	They're up to more of the chicanery.
	Nick Rakata, his seven-day suspension was lifted after 10 days.
	He's back live, and I'm sure he's explained.
	What happened in greater detail?
	Because YouTube suspends someone for alleged strikes and then doesn't allow them to explain to their community why they can't go live.
	Oh, why are they building the wall in Arizona, Viva?
	Well, I don't know.
	But when they find out that a certain population might be voting more Republican than not, they might be building the wall straight across the border.
	They frustrate...
	Cubans' abilities to migrate, immigrate, to come to America, but facilitate other immigrants who they bank on voting a certain way or at least garnishing certain types of political support.
	I swear to you, I could not be getting more cynical if I tried.
	What was I just listening to?
	Oh my goodness!
	Total sidebar.
	I haven't seen South Park in a long time.
	And it popped up on the television.
	And it was the episode when Cartman...
	Is it Cartman or is it...
	It's Cartman.
	Or maybe the main character.
	I forget his name.
	Where he starts becoming cynical and all music just sounds like people farting, pooping.
	Because everything sounds like S-H-I-T.
	And they said, you know, at 10 years old, you're too young to become cynical because...
	The old stuff sounds like garbage, but the new stuff, Bob Dylan, still sounds like garbage, so he's become cynical.
	Everything sounds like crap.
	Stan is the name.
	Thank you.
	I haven't seen South Park in a long time, and it was good.
	Above and beyond the swearing, it was good.
	It had a good message.
	I'm not cynical yet, but my goodness, the world can make you cynical when you realize that politicians will welcome certain immigrants.
	But not others based on political leanings or political statistics, likelihood of voting one way or the other.
	When you realize how certain politicians, open borders for some, but not for others.
	Not for Cubans, but for South Americans, no questions asked.
	Until, and if the day ever comes, where they don't vote the way the people who are encouraging them to come want them to vote, they'll build a wall.
	It'll all of a sudden become effective and a useful expense of taxpayer dollars.
	Buzzy Jimmy says, I wish I had half your hair.
	Well, Buzzy, you look a little bit like, the avatar looks a little bit like Billy Corgan or Bruce Willis.
	Hair is one thing, but there are plenty of people who rock a smooth cranium, as they say.
	Okay, what do we start with?
	Okay, we actually have to start with this.
	This will dovetail.
	Dovetail or loop it.
	This will...
	What the heck is the word?
	This will lead, transition, naturally, to Justin Trudeau.
	You will recall the other day I posted, reposted, Dr. Kieran Moore specifying, this is Dr. Kieran Moore, Chief Medical Officer of Ontario.
	This is not some schnook lawyer from Canada who...
	This is not some dumb bum lawyer from Canada.
	This is Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health.
	Gave a talk, CPAC, one of those CPAC interviews, or speeches, whatever, discourses, and specified that there are always risks to administering any therapeutic.
	His words, not mine.
	In reference to the Fauci Jews.
	There's always risks of administering a therapeutic, and they are now in Ontario adopting the risk-based approach.
	Now.
	Risk-based approach because any therapeutic carries with it certain risks.
	As Dr. Kieran Moore went on to testify, to specify in his answer.
	As he went on to specify.
	Risk-based approach.
	A young, healthy individual, minimal risk of hospitalization from the Rona.
	There's a small risk.
	I want to pull it up because I don't want anyone.
	Especially not the YouTube overlords saying that I am offering medical advice.
	So there's a small risk of something called Mario Carditis, inflammation of the heart.
	Small risk.
	One in 5,000.
	Very small risk.
	It goes from bad to worse, people.
	And I can't even...
	I'm not cynical because I'm still going to be vocal and quite stubbornly vocal about this.
	This I just recommend it to everybody instead of saying it's a personal decision.
	Risk-based.
	I think we're doing a risk-based approach.
	Risk-based.
	What's the risk?
	There's always a risk to having any therapeutic, therapeutic, therapeutic, therapeutic, therapeutic, therapeutic versus a benefit.
	You want to make sure there's a very strong benefit.
	Strong benefit.
	If we're an 18-year-old healthy individual, the risk of getting hospitalized, if we have no medical illness, is very, very low.
	We know there is a risk, a very small risk, one in 5,000 that may get myocarditis, for example.
	Just a very small risk.
	We'd have to have that discussion on the risk-benefit of a complication from the vaccine versus a benefit of decreased hospitalization.
	5,000 that may get is very, very low.
	We know there is a risk, a very small risk, one in 5,000 that may get myocarditis, for example.
	Okay, so look, I will not be able to rage against that accidental admission harder than I currently am.
	I could be more salty cracker level expletive.
	It's enraging.
	It's enraging.
	And it should enrage each and every one of you out there.
	Small risk.
	One in 5,000 of myocarditis for healthy 18-year-olds.
	Oh, crap.
	I was just about to look up something.
	Doesn't matter.
	I forgot what I was going to look up.
	Small risk.
	One in 5,000 risk of myocarditis for a healthy 18-year-old.
	And I interviewed Dr. Francis Christian last week.
	Check out that sidebar with Barnes and his attorney.
	Very small risk.
	One in 5,000 of myocarditis.
	What were the risks of hospitalization for that healthy 18-year-old to begin with?
	Probably much less than one in 5,000.
	And they tell you myocarditis, mild.
	It's no big deal.
	Just inflammation of your heart.
	I don't know.
	I know that a lot of people, a lot of professionals, a lot of people who are smarter than me, who do this for a living, have said there is no such thing as mild heart inflammation.
	It's not a thing.
	It's a concoction of fake news.
	It's a concoction of government, subsidized media, running hardcover for what many might rightly believe to be tantamount to crimes against humanity.
	I was very reluctant to get to this point of using that term, crimes against humanity.
	When the government is knowingly pushing a therapeutic on a demographic which is exceedingly not at risk, when they know a small risk of a potentially, not just irreversible, but a potentially more serious condition, when the government accidentally slips up and tells you the truth.
	Well, then, media comes in and does a hardcover.
	And check this out, by the way.
	Kieran Moore, one in 5,000.
	Right on cue.
	I know we've talked about this the other day, people.
	You're going to have to bear with me if you've seen it, because it's part of the rage.
	Oh, oh, look at this now.
	City News Toronto comes in.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	What's that?
	You have $600 million for us, Justin Trudeau?
	Well, then, hold on one second.
	This is the type of headline that a billion dollars can buy you.
	Much lower than 1 in 5,000.
	Doctors take issue with Dr. Moore's myocarditis claim.
	Doctors take issue with the chief medical officer of Ontario's claim.
	I'm sorry, other doctors contradicting the official narrative.
	You are misinformation.
	Who should be deplatformed?
	That's how this works, right?
	Contradicting the who?
	Contradicting the chief medical officer of Ontario?
	Other doctors are now saying the chief medical officer is wrong?
	Oh, I'm sorry, because when other people say that the chief medical officers are wrong, They're spewing medical misinformation and they deserve to get deplatformed.
	But no.
	But by the way, City News is not saying it.
	City News is just saying other doctors are now saying that Dr. Kieran Moore is wrong.
	By the way, Kieran Moore is wrong.
	Spoiler alert, it's not 1 in 5,000.
	The German government has now just confirmed it's 1 in 5,000 per dose.
	We'll get there.
	Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Ontario was asked this week why he was not recommending the second...
	COVID-19 booster to everyone, even though he had opened up eligibility to those 18 and over.
	Okay, we saw it.
	We know there's a risk.
	A small risk, a very small risk.
	One in 5,000 that someone may get myocarditis, answered Dr. Moore.
	Myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle that can reduce the heart's ability to pump blood.
	Can you appreciate this euphemism?
	It may reduce the heart's ability.
	To pump blood.
	Why not just say it may reduce your ability to live?
	I mean, yeah, it's going to deprive your heart from pumping blood to your blood.
	It might do.
	There's a 1 in 5,000 chance it might cause inflammation, which can be a mild reduction in the heart's ability to pump blood.
	It's just a mild reduction.
	Temporary.
	Goes away.
	No problem.
	And if you say anything different, you're misinformation.
	It's a known possible side effect of the COVID vaccine.
	But some doctors don't believe.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	They don't believe.
	It's as great a risk as Moore suggests.
	They don't believe.
	It's not that they don't know, they don't think.
	They don't believe.
	You know what I don't care about from a doctor?
	What you believe in.
	I would like to know what you know, what you have stats for, and I don't give a sweet bug roll what you believe.
	Because, by the way, a very good doctor can believe in God, and I will respect his or her decision to do that.
	But I am not going to rely on a doctor's belief.
	I'm going to rely on their professional assessment, which is typically not belief, because belief can't really be substantiated, contradicted, or verified.
	Opinions can.
	Opinions can be substantiated.
	They can be contradicted.
	And by the way, way to cover your ass.
	I didn't say it wasn't as high as Moore suggested.
	I just said I didn't believe it was.
	I'm not making a statement.
	I'm just sharing my belief.
	The incidence of, quote, The incidence of myocarditis after vaccination is much lower than 1 in 5,000.
	Kate Hanneman, Director of Cardiac Imaging Research at the Peter Monk Cardiac Center, told City News.
	She says the center has, quote, seen an increase in the number of patients referred for imaging assessment of suspected myocarditis in the last few years.
	Oh, oh, I'm sorry.
	I don't believe the number is as high as 1 in 5,000, but I've seen an increase in the number of patients referred for imaging assessment of suspected myocarditis in the past two years.
	In the past two years.
	What year is it?
	We're going into 2023.
	But that the leading heart center at the Toronto General Hospital has performed approximately 65 cardiac MRIs.
	65 for suspected vaccine-associated myocarditis.
	Oh my God.
	You keep reading, it gets even worse.
	I don't believe the number's that high.
	Yeah, we've seen a lot more patients being referred for imaging of their hearts for suspected myocarditis, but I don't believe the number's that high.
	When asked what research he was looking at to make his 1 in 5,000 claim, Dr. Moore's office pointed City News to a Public Health Ontario report titled Adverse Events Following Immunization.
	The document says that the highest rate of myocarditis is in males 18 to 24-year-old at 198 per million or about 1 in 5,000.
	However, the same report also details the relatively small total number of myocarditis cases seen in Ontario as a result of vaccination.
	Hey, people, do you know when you're getting lied to?
	Right here.
	As a result of vaccination, I suspect a great many of the cases that have been referred to, you don't know what caused it.
	You just can put two and two together.
	As of July 3, there have been 775 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis, which is the SAC or something.
	I don't know the difference.
	Someone explained it and I forgot it already.
	Following receipt of COVID-19.
	That's equivalent to one in 16,000.
	But those are just reports.
	Oh, those are just the ones that are reported, by the way.
	Those are not the ones that are not reported.
	People who don't know, people who think it's gas, chest pain, whatever.
	Those are the ones that are reported.
	And they're going to tell you that those reports are not substantiated.
	So it's probably higher than that.
	Whereas it's probably actually lower than that because people don't go to the hospital.
	Probably because some of them feel too ashamed to even think that they might have had an adverse reaction.
	One in 16,000, by the way, is still too much.
	I don't believe it.
	I believe Dr. Kieran Moore accidentally told the truth.
	And that's reported cases, not actual cases.
	Reported.
	There's probably a lot of people who never reported it, which would make that number probably in reality a lot higher.
	Yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada.
	Okay, skip this garbage.
	I think it would be important to highlight that estimates of coincidence, of incidents, vary at the rate.
	One in 5,000 is in a very specific population.
	Yeah, that's pretty much what he was talking about.
	So they just admit this.
	They bury the lead and into the article, they admit that it's true.
	I think it would be important to highlight that estimates of incidents vary and that rate, one in 5,000, is in a very specific population.
	Males aged 18 to 24 years after the second dose.
	That's exactly what he said.
	You effing liars.
	This doctor is pulling the wool over your eyes.
	City News is pulling the wool over your eyes because they just, in this same article, admit that Dr. Kieran Moore was right in his assessment.
	City News, doing good work for Justin Trudeau.
	That rates the rates in other populations, and certainly the average incident is much lower, says doctor.
	Yeah, no doubt.
	It's probably lower in 80-year-olds, in 75-year-olds.
	Dr. Francis Christian explained why.
	They bury the fact that Keir Moore was right, but probably still wrong because he wasn't even...
	His number was still an underestimate.
	I just want everyone to appreciate.
	We read an article that said, as a headline, Many doctors take issue with Kieran Moore's estimate or statement of 1 in 5,000.
	The article goes on to confirm that Kieran Moore was right for the specific age group about which he was talking when he was answering that question as to why they're not recommending the booster or the second booster, whatever it is.
	The number was right.
	The headline said doctors took issue with it, buried in that article from state-sponsored media.
	Propaganda arm of the Justin Trudeau government is the admission that Kieran Moore, Dr. Kieran Moore, was right.
	And he was wrong.
	Why was he wrong?
	Because it's 1 in 5,000 per dose, according to a German report.
	Now, here, by the way, I'll tell you what I do.
	I'll explain to you my MO.
	I don't happen to think that Children's Health Defense, Kennedy.
	Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
	I don't think he's a propagandist.
	I don't think he's a liar.
	I think he's doing his best to do good work and to be honest.
	I believe that.
	I don't know his intentions.
	It doesn't matter.
	Because despite the fact that he'll say something, I will still verify it on my own.
	This is from his publication, The Defender, Children's Health Defense News and Views.
	What date are we here?
	July 21st, 2022.
	Stunning.
	One in 5,000 COVID shots caused, quote, serious side effects.
	German health officials admit.
	So first you get Kieran Moore accidentally admitting it's one in 5,000 for myocarditis among young, healthy individuals.
	One in 5,000.
	He may or may not have intended to lie, but it's not one in 5,000 at large.
	It's one in 5,000 now confirmed by German authorities per dose.
	And according to Justin Trudeau, as of September, you're not going to be up to date unless you keep getting successive doses every nine months.
	One in 5,000 for a certain demographic every five months.
	The government's going to come out and say, don't worry, we're not forcing anybody in that demographic to get it.
	If you choose to do it, you're playing Russian roulette or you're playing Fauci roulette.
	Ooh, hashtag Fauci roulette.
	Nobody's forcing them.
	We're only forcing...
	You to do it if you want to avoid quarantine, if you want to travel, if you want to avoid certain restrictions, if we go into variants...
	I don't even know what next variants is.
	We're not forcing you to do it.
	But if you're not up to date by getting each successive booster, which carries with it a 1 in 5,000 for 18 to 24-year-old males, for example, if you travel across the border, you'll have to go into quarantine for two weeks.
	If we re-implement the vaccine passport...
	You won't be allowed into Canadian Tire.
	You won't be allowed into big department stores of over 1,500 square feet because these idiots have thought about everything.
	Or walk in public.
	We're not there yet, Davina, but we'll see.
	So I read this article from...
	Children's defense.
	And it's Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
	He's been called an anti-vaxxer, conspiracy theorist.
	They've attempted to deplatform him.
	They've certainly maligned him and defamed him to the point where if you cite Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or anything he's written, that's Robert F. That anti-vaxxer, he's crazy, isn't he?
	I heard he's as crazy as Alex Jones.
	But Alex Jones got something wrong once, so therefore everything he's ever said has to be wrong and he should be shut up and deplatformed and bankrupted.
	Same thing goes for RF Kennedy Jr. people.
	If you thought this was going to end with Alex Jones, wake up and smell the Red Bull.
	So, I read this article.
	The German Federal Ministry of Health on Wednesday posted a, quote, stunning tweet.
	I don't know who they're quoting.
	Let me see who they're quoting.
	Admitting that one of every 5,000 COVID-19 vaccinations caused, quote, serious side effects.
	German health.
	And by the way, we'll get there.
	I'm showing you my homework.
	The data included 5,862 reports of suspected adverse reactions in children and adolescents.
	You know, only the people with the most lifespan left.
	Only them.
	Only, quite literally, the future of humanity.
	You know, think about that episode from The Simpsons.
	Children, children, future, future.
	The children are the future.
	That's a total cliche, but only the future of humanity.
	How many years does a mild case of myocarditis strip from the life of a healthy adolescent?
	I've heard wildly varying estimates.
	It's just mild myocarditis, 1 in 5,000 per dose per 18-year-old healthy male.
	Science people.
	And if you don't do it, you're a selfish bigot, extremist who has no business.
	You take up space, according to Justin Trudeau.
	Holy crap, Apple said my heart.
	No, I'm good.
	The Federal Ministry of Health, BMG, on Wednesday posted a stunning tweet admitting one...
	Okay, we got that.
	Although likely an underestimation due to voluntary reporting, according to Alex Berenson, who stepped in the duda by venturing out of COVID and into Alex Jones, whatever.
	The admission implies almost 300,000 Americans and Europeans have experienced a severe adverse event after receiving a Pfizer, BioNTech, or Moderna vaccine.
	So we see a tweet here.
	It's a screen grab.
	Never trust a screen grab.
	Never trust a screen grab, people.
	Translated, the tweet says one in 5,000 people is affected by a serious side effect.
	After a COVID-19 vaccination.
	If you suspect an adverse reaction, get medical attention and report your systems to PEI Germany.
	And know that does not stand for Prince Edward Island underscore Germany.
	It stands for the Paul Ehrlich Institute, I guess.
	It uses the handle PEI Germany is Germany's federal institute for vaccines and biomedical drugs.
	Okay.
	By the way, they corrected their tweet.
	So the 1 in 5,000 people experience a serious reaction is actually...
	Oh, sorry.
	I just skipped the punchline.
	Okay.
	During that time, 172,062,925 vaccinations were administered in Germany.
	Of those, 17.1% were spike facts.
	Okay.
	During the same period, PEI received nearly 300,000 reports of suspected side effects.
	The reporting rate was 1.7 per 1,000 vaccine doses.
	For all vaccines combined.
	And 0.2 serious reaction reports per 1,000 doses.
	So the 1 in 5,000, by the way, that Kieran Moore presumably was also referring to because, spoiler alert, an 18-year-old German kid's heart is probably not much different than an 18-year-old Canadian kid's heart.
	Probably citing similar statistics because they're going to be similar across the board.
	Probably.
	Human biology being what it is.
	So the 1 in 5,000 people experiencing a serious reaction is actually 1 in 5,000 doses.
	PEI on Thursday corrected its tweet to reflect accurate numbers.
	Okay.
	Don't trust children's health defense because they're wacky conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, selfish extremist bastards, and they can't be trusted.
	Son of a beasting.
	I don't have that one lined up.
	Hold on.
	Don't trust them.
	Someone's screaming in the house here.
	Don't trust them because they can't be trusted.
	Because the media says they can't be trusted.
	Let's just go to the actual tweet itself.
	You can't argue with the source.
	Although you could undermine the source, but whatever.
	Here we go.
	Look at this right here.
	Boom.
	This is the website.
	This is a screen grab, but I have the link to the tweet right here.
	This is the tweet.
	I have no idea what I just read, but I know what it says because I went to translate.
	Correction.
	According to PEI Germany, the reporting rate for serious reactions is 0.2 reports per 1,000 vaccine doses.
	0.2 per 1,000 doses.
	That's one per 5,000 doses.
	Not one in 5,000.
	That's one in 5,000 per dose.
	And that's just the, quote, reporting rate from the, quote, news from the Federal Ministry of Health verified Twitter account.
	Thank you.
	So, Kieran Moore was actually wrong.
	But for the wrong reasons, people.
	I've been spending a lot of time in a car.
	I've got pent-up energy.
	Kieran Moore was indeed wrong.
	And wrong for the wrong reasons.
	1 in 5,000.
	Very small risk.
	1 in 5,000 per dose.
	Per dose, people.
	So, just let that sink in.
	As our government, and I'm saying ours and Canadian government, continues to push these Fauci juices on...
	Six months and up.
	Sorry.
	Because you won't believe me.
	And I know you will believe me because people know.
	COVID-19.
	Six months in Canada.
	You need to see it.
	Because you wouldn't believe that humans could be up to such depravity.
	And I am saying...
	Criminality at this point.
	This is Government of Canada.
	Health Canada authorizes use of Moderna COVID vaccine in children six months to five years of age.
	But don't worry, guys.
	They don't get myocarditis.
	It's only 1 in 5,000 for 18-year-old healthy individuals.
	July 14, 2022.
	While all this is happening, Kieran Moore comes out and admits it's 1 in 5,000, but he's wrong.
	It's 1 in 5,000 per dose.
	CTV...
	Propagandist mouthpieces.
	Pravda.
	Canadian Pravda come out and say, oh, some doctors believe that Keir Moore is wrong.
	Germany comes out and confirms correction.
	Corrections.
	Okay, we can't do it.
	It's actually one in 5,000 per dose.
	All of this is happening in the same month that July 14, 2022.
	Today, Health Canada authorized the use of Moderna spike facts.
	Where did we just see that?
	COVID-19 vaccine in children six months to five years of age.
	This is the first COVID-19 vaccine authorized in Canada for use of this age group and marks a milestone in Canada's response to COVID-19.
	It marks a milestone.
	It marks a milestone.
	What's the word for a threshold that has been breached?
	It marks a milestone of moral, ethical, and I'm going to say criminal depravity.
	It's unconscionable.
	And I'll only give my legal advice.
	I'm not giving any legal advice.
	I'm just going to give you my opinion.
	It's unconscionable.
	I have been very reluctant to say that Hillary Clinton, lock her up.
	It's fun at rallies.
	Whether or not you get locked up for destroying emails, I don't know.
	Whether or not you get locked up for actually leading to people getting killed.
	A lot easier to justify.
	People need to stand trial for what they've done now.
	You literally have chief doctors talking about the most serious of adverse effects.
	And then you got state media downplaying the severity while the government continues to push what is becoming increasingly apparent.
	It's very, very serious and has potential.
	One in 5,000 serious side effects.
	It's enraging.
	It's enraging and there has to be accountability at some point in the future.
	There has to be.
	But that's it.
	No, no.
	Health Canada approving the vaccine now for six months to five years as a parent.
	I can say that.
	It doesn't add credibility to, I always said, anyone who starts a sentence with as a blank, it does not add credibility or weight or legitimacy to what follows.
	It adds understanding to that person's experience in life as a parent.
	Anybody who contemplates this needs to have their head examined.
	Just relying only on the words coming out of the mouths of Canada's top doctors in real time.
	Head examined.
	But Trudeau continues to push it.
	And what else would we expect from a pathological abuser of all humans?
	But in particular, we're going to have a parenthesis on Justin Trudeau.
	Let me just get to my Twitter feed.
	Justin Trudeau celebrates Emancipation Day yesterday.
	Justin Trudeau...
	Oh, I caught that.
	Justin Trudeau comes out yesterday and celebrates Emancipation Day.
	Hold on, I gotta get to my Twitter feed for this.
	I mean, it's the type of gaslighting you can't believe anybody could do with a serious face.
	Justin Trudeau...
	Let me see here.
	Oh, we're gonna get into a nice...
	We're going to get into a nice Twitter feed.
	Here we go.
	Justin Trudeau celebrating Emancipation Day.
	The man who has caused more suffering than anyone, I would say, in modern history.
	He might be tied with leaders of other countries.
	Justin Trudeau.
	Here, guys, look at this.
	Trudeau.
	Today we acknowledge the painful history of slavery in Canada.
	Sing it.
	Sing it, Trudeau.
	You.
	These words coming out of your mouth touch my heart.
	We also celebrate the strength of Black communities who fought and continue to fight for justice and equality.
	Together, let's keep building a more inclusive Canada.
	Unless you just happen to be those Black Canadians who are reluctant or choose not to get vaccinated, maybe in large part because there has been a history of government abusing.
	The black population, through surreptitious, secret medical testing, if you haven't heard of the Tuskegee experiments, they lasted, you know, just a few decades.
	Telling the black population they were being treated for syphilis, and in some cases, they were not being treated for syphilis so that the government could see what untreated syphilis looks like in humans.
	In some cases, they were being proactively given syphilis.
	It was just the government lapse of reason and human ethics, you know, just for a few decades.
	Oh, and that residential schooling thing, you know, the Indigenous Canadians, who are also reluctant to get a vaccine shot, who are also reluctant to bend over and just do what the government tells them, because the government also has a bit of a history of, you know, residential school abuse and medical experimentation on Indigenous Canadians.
	They're also reluctant to get the shot.
	Oh, and the Latino community in Canada, who is also reluctant to get the shot, but now Justin Trudeau, who has imposed a vaccine mandate.
	Which has had a disparate impact on ethnic minorities, Black Canadians, Indigenous Canadians, Latino Canadians.
	He comes out and he has the gall to talk about the strength of Black communities who fought and continue to fight for justice and equality against a government that has in the past and in the present continued to perpetrate injustice against Blacks, Indigenous, Latino Canadians.
	In light of justice, this was not my best tweet on the subject.
	Hold on, what was the other one?
	Oh, here we go.
	You are a racist who implements racist policies which have a disparate impact on black Canadians.
	You are a disgraceful, evil, gaslighting tyrant.
	A stain on our nation.
	I'm not going to say it felt good to say that because that tweet...
	It's predicated on people actually suffering because of Justin Trudeau's actual policies.
	And then I get someone saying, "Oh, what's racist about it?
	What policies exactly?" From a proud Canadian liberal, what policies?
	Vaccine, and I respond, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, prohibition on unvaccinated from planes and trains, quarantine hotels, forcing healthy children to quarantine because they're unvaccinated.
	Is that enough, you proud Canadian liberal?
	Still waiting for the racist side of it.
	Still waiting for what makes it racist.
	Policies, this is a principle of law.
	It's not a rule.
	It's not a hard and fast rule.
	Sometimes you can have a policy which has a disproportionate impact on certain minorities.
	And it's not a racist policy in and of itself.
	But if you happen to do it knowingly, knowing specifically that it's going to have a disparate impact on certain ethnic minorities and you still implement it, that's a racist policy.
	And by the way, this is an argument that, let's just say one side of the aisle, I'll say the Democrats, use quite often.
	Voter ID, according to Democrats, is a racist policy because according to Democrats, they think minorities can't procure government IDs.
	Who's racist in that thought process?
	I'll leave that to you.
	I know what I think.
	It's people who think that minorities can't get IDs.
	But they use this argument all the time.
	Republicans want voter ID laws because they're racist, because it has a disparate impact on racial minorities.
	And minorities can't get government IDs.
	They use the argument all the time.
	Wrongly, I would suggest, but they use it all the time.
	Policies that have a disparate impact on minorities are racist policies.
	Knowing, because we know this, and I show my homework.
	Vaccine hesitancy, StatCan says Black, Latinx, Latino Canadians least willing to take the shot.
	Okay, that's one.
	And then this is another one confirming the low vaccination rate among Indigenous Canadians for the reasons I mentioned prior to.
	Residential schools, by the way, they didn't just rip Indigenous children from their families for the purposes of assimilation for their own good.
	When the government did it, by the way, they did it.
	Justifying their obscene actions on the idea that it would be for the good of the Indigenous children.
	Assimilation at the time was seen as the only way to assimilate Indigenous Canadians or the Indigenous into the Canadian population.
	They did it for the good of the children when they ripped them from their parents, put them in these residential schools where they were abused in all a variety of ways, including medical experimentation.
	You just have to look into it.
	Sometimes they were not given medication that they needed.
	Other times they were being surveyed.
	They were being sort of assessed as they were starving to see what effect deprivation of certain nutrients had on the indigenous children who were ripped from their families, put in these residential schools, subjected to the most inhumane types of abuse.
	But at the time, the government was doing it for their own good.
	They were just too obtuse to understand it was for their own good.
	The only way.
	Indigenous people will have a future in Canada is if they're fully assimilated.
	And knowing it, because the government knows it, have nonetheless implemented policies.
	They may as well say, Blacks, Latino Canadians, Indigenous Canadians, you've got to quarantine.
	We're going to make you quarantine at a higher rate than white Asian Canadians who are statistically more likely to get vaccinated, probably because they haven't had the same history.
	As Black, Latino, Indigenous Canadians.
	Knowing that Black, Indigenous, and Latino Canadians are in fact less likely to get vaccinated, enacting these policies effectively renders them second-class citizens.
	Unless, you know, as the good liberal says, unless they just have to do what the good liberal says.
	I'm liberal.
	I know what's best for minorities.
	And just do it.
	Just shut up and take the shot, ethnic minority, because it's for your own good.
	Like we said way back in the day, like we said throughout history, which is why you are in fact reluctant to heed to the words of the government unquestionably because you've been systematically abused by the government and now you're being systematically abused by the Trudeau government.
	But the proud Canadian liberal, no, dude, just do it.
	We know what's best for you as we did back in Tuskegee, as we did back in the residential schools.
	We, the liberals, we, the know-all of knowing all Canadians, we know what's best for you.
	You're stubborn.
	You're obtuse.
	You're incapable of knowing what's good for you.
	You need us to tell you that.
	And so shut up.
	Take the shot.
	And if you don't, well, enjoy your 14-day quarantine just because you're not vaccinated if you decide to travel.
	Or you know what?
	Just don't travel.
	What are you?
	Spoiled?
	You think you get to see the world?
	So that's what's going to segue into just...
	I need to remind everyone what an awful, lamentable, Disgusting human being Justin Trudeau's and arguably two times ethics preaching.
	So I can officially say, you know, he violates the law.
	Twice, at least.
	Now I saw a super chat that I don't want to miss because I haven't been seeing the super chats for a while.
	I never corrected a comment.
	I'm banned.
	No, you're not, corn pop.
	Here, sorry.
	Maureen Brown.
	It's my birthday.
	And I'll cry if I want to.
	Spend this money on your children for the years I've traveled around the sun.
	So you're 65. Happy birthday.
	They make me happy and you do too.
	Maureen Brown, happy birthday.
	Thank you very much.
	We're on vacation in Texas.
	Travel with three kids, man.
	I'm not complaining.
	It's fantastic.
	Stressful.
	Five people in one hotel room.
	Oh boy, can you make a mess fast?
	But thank you very much and happy birthday, Maureen.
	65. It's a good number.
	Okay, I'm going to just...
	I want to...
	What did someone say here?
	Hold on.
	A little too much soapbox on residential schools, Viva.
	I don't know what that means.
	I listened to a number of podcasts after the residential schools became...
	The trending issue in Canadian politics as though they were just recently discovering mass graves.
	They had no idea.
	It's like they just recently discovered these mass graves of which they have been aware for the last seven years since the Truth and Reconciliation Committee gave them all the names of all the kids.
	Government did nothing for seven years.
	Come election time, Justin Trudeau's literally posing over what he purports to be the graves of dead Indigenous children.
	But if anyone needs Justin Trudeau.
	I tweeted out today.
	In 2000, he groped a reporter and apologized for it.
	In 2016, he elbowed a parliamentarian woman in the chest.
	It was known as Elbowgate.
	They call it Elbowgate.
	I would have gone with Breastgate because Elbowgate makes it sound like it's about the elbow.
	When it was about Justin Trudeau, like a tyrant buffoon that he is, goes across, manhandles one member of parliament, and...
	In the incident, elbows a female parliamentarian in the chest.
	And I've been told that that hurts women.
	That's as sensitive to them as getting kicked in the chichis is for men.
	That's what he did in 2016.
	2019, he fires Jody Wilson-Raybould, demotes her, ruins her career because she would not adhere to his corrupt demands not to prosecute this company called SNC-Lavalin for corruption when they were guilty of corruption.
	He defames Alexa Lavoie and Rebel News, but Alexa in particular doesn't answer her questions, calls for misinformation.
	He assaults his RCMP, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, during one of the protests.
	At point-blank range, discharged a tear gas firearm into Alexa Lavoie's leg.
	While she was wearing her press credentials, carrying a microphone that said Rebel News, accidental discharge, point blank into her leg.
	And I said, what is it about Justin Trudeau that he gets off abusing women?
	And I just, everyone needs, we need to just occasionally refresh our memories as to what a, what a disgusting entity.
	A horrible entity.
	That he's been re-elected three times or twice blows my freaking mind.
	People don't know who Justin Trudeau is.
	Trudeau!
	This is four years old, people.
	It's old news.
	Forget about it.
	Water under the bridge.
	I apologized to a reporter behind a groping claim.
	Canada PM very confident he did not act inappropriately at music festival in 2000.
	Oh, was that when he was also not acting inappropriately by dressing up like a black person?
	By dressing up like a Sultan?
	Or what's his name?
	Aladdin.
	He's confident he didn't act inappropriately while he was dressing in blackface.
	That was about the same time, I believe, actually.
	The Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, has for the first time publicly acknowledged that he apologized in 2000 to a reporter who alleged he groped her, but said he was very confident he did not act inappropriately.
	Well, of course, when you're the king, you can't act inappropriately.
	Not take to your advances for groping them.
	And by the way, let's just parse this out a little bit.
	He apologized to a reporter who alleged he groped her.
	Do you know what most people wouldn't do?
	They wouldn't apologize to someone if they didn't do something that would potentially ruin their political life.
	He apologized to someone who accused him of groping her.
	That means he made contact.
	And the only question is...
	Was it deliberate or accidental?
	And if it was deliberate, was it invited or was it uninvited?
	The unsigned editorial.
	Oh, sorry.
	The accusation first appeared in a local newspaper a few days after a music festival in British Columbia that Trudeau, then a 28-year-old teacher, was attending.
	By the way, there's another story out there.
	I know people like to talk about it, an alleged NDA.
	Until it's confirmed, it's going to be rumored that I might believe to be true, but it's going to be rumored nonetheless.
	The article that published it, something Beaver, the conservative Beaver, something Beaver.
	It's not a real publication.
	So until it's confirmed, it's something that I've heard rumorings from peoples.
	But it remains rumor until it can be confirmed.
	But the unsigned editorial, advance...
	Crescent Valley events accused Trudeau of groping and inappropriately handling an unnamed reporter who was covering the event.
	These types of things don't happen by accident.
	Now, I am very much inclined to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
	This is not an accusation that comes 35 years later, by the way.
	So when we talk about, you know, like plausibility of certain stories and the fundamental right to a defense in real time, this reporter, as far as...
	These incidents goes, did it properly.
	The complaints came in real time contemporaneously with the event, not 35 years later, not 20 years later, not when someone decides to run for office 10 years later.
	At the time, in real time, and Justin Trudeau apologized.
	He admits it.
	He admits it also.
	So it's not like one of those things where it's categorically denied.
	I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
	When I say I did not, I mean I did.
	And with that woman, I mean...
	He admitted it.
	So the accusation came in real time, contemporaneously with the events, and Justin Trudeau admitted something happened, and he apologized for it.
	While the editorial offered no specifics on what had happened, it claimed the reporter felt blatantly disrespected, and Trudeau had apologized for his behavior.
	I'm sorry, the editorial, I'm sorry.
	The editorial alleged Trudeau to have said, if I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I never would have been so forward.
	Where does it get to?
	Trudeau addressed the allegation briefly on Monday, describing the day of the event as a good day, I'm sure it was, and one in which he did not recall any negative interactions.
	Of course not,'cause the king never recalls negative interactions'cause everyone should be amenable to the advances of the king.
	After calls for an independent investigation into the claim and opposition criticism of his initial response, Trudeau addressed the issue at length I've been reflecting very carefully on what I remember from that incident almost 20 years ago, he told reporters.
	I do not feel that I acted inappropriately in any way, but I respect the fact that someone else might have experienced that differently.
	He touched her.
	He's admitting he touched her.
	When asked about why he had apologized to the woman after the alleged incident, Trudeau said, if I apologize later, it would be because I sensed that she was not entirely comfortable with the interaction that we had.
	Hmm.
	Pressed further, he acknowledged he had atoned for his actions at the time.
	I apologized in the moment, he said, without giving details.
	This is the same guy who has his...
	Officers manhandle Drea Humphrey from Rebel News.
	A woman.
	A black woman, if that matters to anybody.
	Because not just a woman, an ethnic minority, while Justin Trudeau apologizes for, you know, emancipation.
	While he celebrates Emancipation Day.
	By the way, Drea Humphrey Trudeau manhandled.
	There we go.
	Just another incident where he apologizes.
	He apologizes.
	You can go read the story.
	I remember it occurred.
	I'm sure he apologized to her.
	I apologize if Drea felt uncomfortable by the way my police manhandled her and removed her from the scene.
	So just a refresher.
	He did that.
	Then, what was the other one?
	Elbowgate, people.
	Elbowgate.
	Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action.
	Elbowgate.
	This is coming from Wikipedia, so you know if they admit something that's negative to Justin Trudeau, it's got to be twice as serious as it otherwise would be.
	Elbowgate was an incident in which Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau came into physical contact.
	He just came into physical contact.
	He didn't initiate the physical contact.
	He just came into physical contact.
	It just happened.
	It was like a meteorite just crashed through the room and shuffled everyone together.
	He came into physical contact with two opposition members of Parliament in the House of Commons on May 18, 2016 during the parliamentary session.
	During the incident, Trudeau grabbed Conservative MP Gord Brown by the arm and then inadvertently elbowed NDP MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau.
	In the chest, Trudeau subsequently apologized and was not subject to parliamentary sanctions for the incident.
	Hold on, people.
	Let's see if we can find this.
	Elbowgate Trudeau.
	Skip this ad.
	I don't need fiber, people.
	I don't need fiber.
	That has nothing to do with my...
	Look in the corner right here, people.
	Oh, yeah.
	Like a bunch of...
	Look over here.
	If there's no slow motion, I'll replay it.
	I think I missed it.
	Humans are the smartest species on Earth, people.
	Look over here.
	Like, oh, right there, right there.
	Right there.
	Ow, you see it?
	Right there.
	Look at the blonde lady right there.
	Who knew about this, by the way?
	In the chat, one, I did not know about this.
	No.
	Two, yes, I knew about this.
	Elbow game.
	It doesn't stop there, people.
	It doesn't stop there.
	This is the Prime Minister.
	Why would anyone expect a man who systematically gropes, abuses, assaults women?
	Why would he behave any differently now?
	In fact, he would and probably does feel empowered because he's gotten away with it for the last 20 years.
	And now he's figured out the best way to get away with it.
	Buy off the media.
	Buy off the media.
	And at least buy you some time.
	Let me see if I can't find Drea Humphrey.
	Trudeau.
	Let me see if we can find this here.
	Nah.
	Too many other stories coming up.
	Why would he behave any differently?
	Good.
	A lot of people are...
	What other scandal should we do with Trudeau?
	I've talked about Aga Khan, where he was...
	Taking all-inclusive paid vacations to the Aga Khan's private island, taking the RCMP, who apparently were renting jet skis, ran up a bill of $65,000.
	Didn't think it was necessary to disclose that gift from a man who's petitioning the federal government for $50- $60 million in federal funding and getting it.
	What else did Trudeau do?
	SNC-Lavalin fired the first Minister of Justice who was Indigenous.
	He was so proud.
	He was so proud to have nominated the first Indigenous Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
	He took credit for nominating her.
	He then fired her when she refused to adhere to his pressure not to criminally prosecute SNC-Lavalin for corruption in Libya, I think it was.
	Fires her, demotes her, ruins her reputation.
	Abuse.
	It's just one thing after the other.
	Okay, that's Justin Trudeau.
	We've gone an hour and five minutes.
	We've got to get to two other stories.
	Guy Refit and Alex Jones, man.
	Holy crab apples.
	But first, what are your thoughts on Roxham Road?
	You either have borders and you have a country or you don't.
	This is not rocket science.
	The whole idea that...
	The world has mobilized to defend the Ukrainian sovereignty from Russia invasion.
	However you feel about that conflict, the world has mobilized to protect the sanctity of the nation of Ukraine, the borders of Ukraine.
	And then they willy-nilly disregard our own national borders and you're a racist politician if you say we need to control immigration.
	I don't understand how it works.
	I've seen the videos because Rebel News is among...
	The few outlets covering.
	Roxham Road is basically like our southern border where people from all different countries literally walk across the street into Canada.
	And one of the excuses was that under Trump, a lot of immigrants or a lot of aliens, I don't even know what the word is anymore, illegal immigrants, no longer felt safe in America, so they were coming to Canada where they felt safer.
	A country has a border or it doesn't exist.
	That border is respected or it doesn't exist.
	And borders are not only good for Ukraine and other countries.
	And if it's racist to protect a border in Canada or the US, guess what?
	What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
	And that logic should apply everywhere or that lack of logic should apply nowhere.
	Add on the women with menstrual cycle effects.
	Oh, yes, yes, yes.
	Well, we're not getting there.
	Welcome to Florida.
	I just moved here in October and my only regret is not doing it sooner.
	Hashtag Gulf Coast.
	Good-looking, cute-looking, good-looking kids.
	Actually, you can't say other people.
	It's a beautiful avatar.
	Sorry, otherwise it just looks weird.
	It looks weird to say someone else has cute, handsome kids or whatever, so sorry.
	I just made it so much worse.
	Should have stopped.
	Instead, I tracked all that poo-poo around the house.
	You say Trudeau like Seinfeld says, Newman.
	Hello, Trudeau.
	Emancipation for me, but not for thee.
	He'll apologize for the historical wrongs committed against Blacks, Latino Canadians, Indigenous Canadians, while literally committing a variation of those same wrongs again today.
	Except his only defense, I guess, is he's doing it to all Canadians who choose not to get vaccinated.
	That the disproportionate, or that it disparately impacts certain minorities.
	It's just a coincidence.
	Rumble is the new YouTube that doesn't censor truth.
	Viva is there and you can...
	Oh, Viva is there and you can send super chats.
	Rumble France.
	And 80% goes to the creator versus 70% to YouTube.
	Jason B. I love that avatar.
	Very professional-looking avatar.
	Led Zeppelin Cashmere.
	I am a traveler of both time and space.
	Van COVID.
	Don't apologize for getting worked for about six months and up.
	It's sickening.
	Parents are...
	It's...
	Can you imagine that people are going to wake up?
	They're going to probably recognize one day they've sacrificed more than they know.
	How do you get JT out?
	What's your intuition on his...
	He has no popular support.
	He didn't even have popular support in the re-election.
	It's just that he won the slimmest of minority governments.
	And thank goodness for...
	I was going to say scumbag.
	That might be too easy.
	Justin Trudeau.
	Not Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh.
	Thank goodness for turncoat Jagmeet Singh, who is now...
	I didn't ban Corn Pop, people.
	I didn't.
	I don't ban anybody.
	And Corn Pop is not a Russian sexpot, so if it's a joke, stop it, because I didn't ban him.
	Justin Trudeau has no support.
	People hate him.
	People loathe him.
	He relies on two things to get re-elected by the slimmest of minority governments.
	Absolute ignorance, because there's people out there who know nothing about him.
	And media that he has bought off to sell not Trudeau, but at the very least the liberals.
	People still think they're liberal because they vote liberal.
	They think they're liberal because they vote liberal while literally implementing racist policies, while literally supporting the most tyrannical, autocratic, fascistic government you can imagine.
	They think they're liberal just because they carry the name.
	That's what they rely on.
	He only got like...
	Twenty-some-odd percent of any meaningful vote.
	But when you have the NDPs getting 20-some-odd percent, you have the Conservatives getting, I don't know, 18%.
	I'm off on the numbers.
	But when you have the NDP, Conservative, Liberals, you've got the Green Party getting some, the Marxist Party, PPC.
	When you have multiple parties, to remain in power with a minority government, you could be the most detested human on earth, as I think Justin Trudeau is.
	And somehow...
	Enough ignorant people out there who have no idea who Justin Trudeau is.
	A lot of smart people don't know about these scandals.
	So that's it.
	Corn pop is done.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So we're going to move off of Justin Trudeau because we don't want to have the lingering taste of vomitus in our mouth for too long.
	Let's go to Guy Reffitt, by the way.
	Speaking of...
	Well, no, the two-tier justice system is the transition from Guy Reffitt...
	To Alex Jones.
	Hold on.
	Let me just see on the rumbles.
	Good.
	We got people on the rumbles, people.
	Jagmeet is hated everywhere.
	People are saying...
	Okay, and it goes too fast for me to actually read.
	Check out what Australia admitted, Viva, coming from SS113.
	No one wants Trudeau, but you have no remedy.
	Stuck with him.
	WS84.
	You missed the rumble rants.
	Ah, crap.
	Okay, I missed the rumble rants.
	Sorry, people.
	All right, Guy Refit, peeps.
	The amazing thing is that people out there conflate defending a principle with defending a person.
	People conflate saying that a wrong was done to someone who might nonetheless be guilty.
	As though to say, if you acknowledge that someone is being...
	Too harshly punished for the crime they may have committed.
	Or, notwithstanding anything, they're being treated unfairly despite being guilty.
	People conflate that with, why are you defending someone who's guilty?
	Guy Refit, for those of you who don't know, is one of the Jan 6 individuals, came from Texas with a firearm to the Capitol to protest.
	Everything is fine in that equation, except potentially for the firearm where...
	You're asking for so much trouble by doing it.
	We'll recognize and we'll admit that Guy Reffitt did certain wrong things.
	He might have even actually broken the law.
	Now what?
	Seven and a half years?
	And not just that.
	He broke the law in such an egregious manner that it took his son ratting him up to the FBI, forensic video evidence, to find out what he did on that day.
	He definitely partook in a violent protest.
	He partook in a protest that got violent.
	He had an active role in it.
	I'm confident he probably broke the law.
	I'm confident he should do some form of community service, minimal jail time, to punish him.
	I think most of us could agree with that.
	Seven years, and the prosecution wanted terrorist enhancements on sentencing.
	So let's just hear the story.
	Are we looking at the same thing, people?
	I think we are.
	Politico, StreamYard, Guy Refn.
	Ooh, yeah.
	Okay, hold on.
	Texas militia member.
	There you go.
	Framing right off the bat.
	Framing is everything, people.
	Texas militia member gets most serious January 6th sentence yet, just over seven years.
	But don't worry, he should be thankful.
	The judge declined prosecutor's request to treat Guy Refn as a terrorist under sentencing guidelines.
	A Texas militia member on Monday received the longest sentence to date of any participant in the January 6th, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
	Seven and a quarter years in prison.
	49. He was the first January 6th defendant to go before a jury and was convicted in March on five felony charges, including interfering with police during civil disorder, obstructing the tally of the electoral votes, and threatening his children.
	If they reported him to authorities.
	This is where the story takes Mao Zedong level twists.
	However, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, who is a Trump appointment, so there's that.
	Bear that in mind, however you want to digest this.
	It means that Guy Refn was either so guilty that even a Trump appointee sentenced him to seven and a half years, or, you know, end that sentence the way you want.
	"Declined the Justice Department's request to treat Refit's crimes as terrorism, which would have substantially increased the recommended sentence under federal guidelines.
	It was federal prosecutors first request to draw tougher punishment for a January 6th defendant by classifying his actions.
	Well, why shouldn't they?
	The January 6th committee in their House resolution called it domestic terrorism over and over and over again in that resolution.
	Why shouldn't the prosecutors demand that it be treated as domestic terrorism when the January 6th committee says it is?
	The more severe?
	Wow.
	There's a lot of cases where defendants possessed weapons or committed very violent assaults.
	By the way, or I don't believe there's any accusation that Guy Refid committed any violent assaults.
	He had a weapon.
	There's no question about that.
	He participated in the riot, the protest, however you want to call it.
	I don't believe there was any evidence or even accusation that he committed violent assaults or even any assault for that matter.
	Frederick noted, highlighting that the most severe sentences handed down in January 6 cases thus far were a little more than five years.
	By the way, I'll get to it after.
	Remind me about the terrorist enhancement charges later on, people.
	Five years while prosecutors ask for a 15-year sentence against him.
	Just kill him.
	Send him to jail for 15 years of his remaining 40 years if he's lucky.
	The government is asking for a sentence that is three times as long as any other defendant and the defendant did not assault an officer.
	There you go.
	Ultimately, Friedrich found that Refit's case was more like the more serious January 6th cases already sentenced, yada yada.
	Friedrich made clear, though, that she considered his plans dangerous, and she rejected as absurd his rationale for them as a means of throwing off government oppression akin to that facing American colonists in the 18th century.
	These are frightening claims that border on delusional.
	In a democracy, the answer to those frustrations is not rebellion, because that's what he did.
	No violence.
	Showed up with a firearm.
	No assault.
	Rebellion.
	And it's really disturbing that he repeatedly persists with these views that are way outside the mainstream.
	These are just flat.
	His claims are wrong, she said.
	What he and others who attacked the Capitol on Jan 6th did is the antithesis of patriotism.
	The officers at the Capitol were patriots.
	Those are the patriots.
	Those who stormed the Capitol are not.
	Not only are they not patriots, they are a direct threat to our democracy and will be punished as such.
	That's from the judge.
	Either side could appeal, yada, yada, yada.
	Oh, here.
	This is when, you know, he...
	I love Big Brother.
	Sit there, abuse you, make you say I love Big Brother in the hopes that they'll show leniency.
	And I guess the judge did.
	She didn't give him 15 years for terrorist enhancements.
	She only gave him seven and a half years.
	In retrospect, it was unclear whether Reffitt's decision to address the court was a wise one.
	While the former oil field worker sought to be conciliatory, his remarks were disjointed and peppered with at least nine profanities.
	"I did want to definitely make an apology, multiple apologies, and accept my responsibility.
	2020 was a little too crazy.
	I was a little too stupid and I was not thinking clearly," Reffitt said.
	"I want to apologize to my family, to the court, to the legislators and their staff, everyone who is affected by my actions." I love Big Brother.
	I love Big Brother.
	I don't want to have anything to do with any groups, militia-like, any kind of stupid shit like that, the defendant added.
	I'll be lucky with my mouth if I get into a church group after this.
	My mouth is biggest enemy.
	My enemy of my enemy is my friend.
	So that's it.
	This is a two-tiered system level of justice, by the way.
	Let me just refresh everyone's memory.
	Everybody remember this story?
	Everyone remember this story?
	The New York lawyers who pleaded guilty in Molotov cocktails.
	You want to talk about...
	You want to talk about situations where potentially terrorist enhancements might be warranted?
	I'm not even saying that they are necessarily, but where they might be and where I think they were and then subsequently dropped.
	Does anybody remember this story?
	New York lawyers plead guilty in Molotov cocktail case.
	Shorter sentences likely.
	Have they been sentenced yet?
	Yuuj Rahman, 33, and Colinford Mattis had pleaded guilty last October to possessing a destructive device and expressed regret, but fought federal prosecutors' efforts to brand them as terrorists, more than doubling their potential sentences to 10 years.
	Under revised agreements, the defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit arson and possess an explosive device, with prosecutors recommending sentences of 18 to 24 months.
	They had their pleas.
	They agreed to a plea, by the way.
	And then the prosecutors reduced their plea.
	Oh, they said, I wish I had made better, different and better choices that night, Mattis told Kogan.
	Raman also said she regretted her actions.
	They had their sentences reduced.
	Their plea deal reduced.
	Let me just see if I can find this in real time.
	May 11. No, that's not it.
	They initially agreed to a plea, and then prosecutors came in and reduced their plea deal.
	Summer of love.
	Those Molotov cocktails were, you know, it was a cold night.
	They were just trying to, you know, think about maybe helping officers stay warm in their cars.
	Two-tier level justice.
	One person is now going to jail for seven and a half years.
	He brought a firearm to the protest.
	He definitely participated in the protest, never used the firearm, never committed any act of violence.
	These two lawyers, I believe, were handing out Molotov cocktails, or at the very least, possessed Molotov cocktails.
	What's this?
	Hold on.
	I actually have to refresh my memory.
	Did they throw the Molotov cocktail?
	Um...
	Thank you.
	You're going to see how I...
	Let's just see.
	Let's just get the story.
	So they plead guilty.
	Charged with firebombing a New York City Police Department.
	So they were charged with actually firebombing a New York City Police Department vehicle.
	So they did it.
	They did it.
	Were they also handing out Molotov cocktails?
	They actually firebombed a vehicle.
	They have their guilty plea reduced by the prosecutor.
	Guy Reffitt doesn't commit any act of violence, but brings a firearm to a protest seven and a half years of a 49 year old man's life.
	I won't say the two lawyers ought to have known better than Guy Reffitt.
	I have no doubt the lawyers knew what they were doing was wrong.
	It's not that they didn't know what they were doing was wrong.
	Guy Raffin.
	It's a more defensible claim to say I didn't know that my Second Amendment rights did not allow me to carry a firearm in certain areas.
	I think that defense becomes slightly more difficult when you're talking about the circumstances of January 6th and going into the Capitol building carrying a firearm.
	Even his own rationale during his trial was better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 because if something happened, he had that firearm for a reason.
	But to say it's a two-tier level justice system, it's an understatement at this point.
	It's become a meme.
	It's become a meme.
	The sickest part of that story, by the way, is, for those who don't know, Guy Refn was turned in by his son.
	And, I mean, in Mao Zedong's China, they got children to rat out their parents for crimes, for defying the government.
	They got...
	They managed to put out enough propaganda to actually brainwash children to rat out their own family for government wrongthink.
	Now, there is a lot going on in this story that might explain certain things.
	There might be a history of family violence in this story, and I don't know.
	There has to be more to this story to explain why a son would do something like that to their parent.
	Not to justify it and not to disregard it.
	I think there might be more going on here.
	But like I said to someone, someone says, why are you defending Guy Rethit?
	The guy's an idiot.
	He clearly participated in the protest and brought a gun.
	He's an idiot.
	He's an idiot.
	He deserves to be punished to some extent.
	Seven and a half years for what he did compared to what was given to those lawyers who pleaded guilty.
	Had their plea deal reduced?
	If it were...
	Equal injustice to both, I'd be complaining about both.
	If it were similar punishments for both, I probably wouldn't be complaining about either.
	It's like that line from Magnolia.
	John C. Reilly.
	What's his name?
	John C. Reilly?
	So sometimes people need to be forgiven, and sometimes they need to go to jail.
	I don't know where this fits on that.
	You know, I think...
	There are other ways to rehabilitate or to, you know, to make someone repent in a meaningful way without breaking them.
	There's no point turning someone who was not, up to that point in their lives, a criminal into a criminal as part of the rehabilitation or punitive process.
	There's no point turning non-criminals into criminals.
	That being said, every now and again, even a non-criminal will cross a line where they're only, you know, they need to go to jail.
	Not necessarily for seven and a half years.
	So, setting all that aside, there's clearly something going on with this family dynamic.
	A son explains why he turned in his father over the January 6th attack.
	This is from March, and I covered this back in the time.
	A soft-spoken 19-year-old told jurors he felt uncomfortable after he decided to alert the FBI about, quote, surreal and scary text messages from his father in the weeks before the January 6th, 2021 assault.
	Apparently, he did not.
	Oh, no, I think he did notify the FBI before as well.
	Testifying in the first trial.
	Related to the insurrection.
	Where's this?
	NPR.
	Still calling it an insurrection.
	Jackson Reffitt said his father, Guy Reffitt, warned that he and others were about to, quote, rise up, end quote, in a family text chain on Christmas Eve 2020.
	Quote, what's about to happen will shock the world.
	Guy Reffitt typed to his family only a couple of weeks before a violent mob stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to stop Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential elections electoral votes.
	As the heated text piled up, Jackson Reffitt performed an internet search from his bedroom in a Dallas suburb.
	Jackson said he felt, quote, paranoid, but the Justice Department said his suspicions proved correct.
	Big brother, thanks you for reporting your father.
	Googling that to report my father, saying it out loud is pretty weird, said Jackson, who wore a dark suit and white shirt with no tie.
	his brown hair spilling loose several inches.
	What the heck are they?
	Are they, it's like a Fabio, What the fudge is this?
	Who comes in here, son?
	I'm yelling at the interwebs.
	Be gone!
	Or at least come back.
	Oh boy.
	The FBI didn't give out until the worst assault since the War of 1812.
	His father is the first one of them to go to trial at the federal courthouse just down the street of Greffett.
	Okay, bye.
	Guy Reffett faces, this was before he got it, to build their case, authorities are using Guy Reffett's own words against him in the form of text messages, video that Reffett captured himself amid the chaos in Washington last year, and recordings that Jackson Reffett made of his father on his cell phone when he returned home a few days later.
	This kid then...
	Oh yeah, get out of here, dude.
	Get out of here.
	Go.
	Take this, take this, take this.
	Yeah, okay, take my phone and get out of here.
	And then...
	You know my password.
	Don't say it out loud.
	The internet's listening.
	Get out of here.
	He recorded his father after the fact.
	There has to be a family history here.
	To me, there's no question about it, but like I said to someone who accused me of defending Guy Refit, the January 6th trials are not, you know, an alternative to family court.
	Where was I?
	Where was I?
	This is, you know...
	Oh, we just got demonetized.
	Doesn't matter.
	I guess we...
	Guy Refit.
	Maybe YouTube is sensitive to children ratting out their parents.
	Maybe YouTube just had a strike of good conscience.
	This has to be...
	There's more to the family story here.
	I have no doubt the relationship between the father and the son.
	But the January 6th trials are not an alternative to family court if there are family issues.
	It's not the place where you take out family grievances.
	To build their case.
	Oh yeah, sorry.
	The video that Refford captured himself amid the chaos, yada, yada, yada.
	and recordings that Jackson Reffitt made of his father on a cell phone when he returned.
	He recorded his father after the fact and then sent it to the FBI.
	I felt pretty gross and I felt pretty uncomfortable for even thinking about doing something like this, but I knew that it would help immensely.
	Help what, exactly?
	Jackson testified Thursday about his decision to record his father last year.
	Better safe than sorry.
	I have a feeling this will help immensely with something.
	That is related to January 6th, I'm going to take a guess and say probably not.
	He said the decision to turn his father into authorities and share evidence against him was difficult, but was what he called, but was what he called, with some emotion, the best case scenario.
	One recording presented Guy Refn on the evening he returned from the trip, narrating to his family video footage of the crowd.
	Your father was there when an epic historical thing happened in this country.
	He had come back.
	Had committed no act of violence.
	Had not used the firearm that he brought with him.
	Didn't do anything more than, you know, the protest and storm and, I don't know, try to prevent the tallying of the vote.
	He did not use the firearm that he had.
	And he did not commit any violence.
	But somehow the kid had convinced himself that, you know, he had to record this because it was the best case scenario.
	Like his father was going to go back and do something worse when he was already there and didn't do anything all that bad.
	Although potentially and arguably something that still deserves some form of punishment.
	Of his actions that day, Refit said, I didn't make it in, but I started the fire.
	I didn't make it in, didn't assault anybody, didn't commit any act of violence, but I started the fire.
	And the government doesn't chalk this up to illusions of grandeur.
	They chalk this up to admissions of actual arson.
	Hashtag not actual arson.
	Let's just hear some more stuff of what he said.
	We're taking the Capitol before this day is over.
	He bragged when he got home that night when the Capitol was not taking over when after four hours they were back to certifying the electoral votes.
	Yeah, that's what he said during the day of and then came back to his house when nothing of what he said was going to happen had happened.
	They had certified it four hours later, six hours later.
	But yeah, referencing.
	Ripping them out by their hair, every effing one of them.
	Pelosi's coming out on her effing ears, dragging the bee out hardcore, he added, soon after.
	None of it happened.
	He didn't commit any act of violence, but he certainly has a colorful vocabulary of what he thinks he did that day.
	During other bits of footage, Reffitt said many people in the crowd were armed that day.
	Everyone's came in hot, he said.
	If it's one effing law I'm breaking, I'm okay with that.
	If it's one effing law I'm breaking, I'm okay with that.
	The son redded him out because after he came home, after effectively having done nothing violent but a bunch of stupid things, the kid thought he had to do it.
	Nobody was moving forward until I climbed that banister, reference said, in the Zoom meeting.
	I couldn't even see, but I kept screaming, take the house!
	And nothing happened.
	He went home.
	They certified the vote.
	He didn't commit any violence.
	He had a firearm.
	And I think but for...
	Prosecutors said Refn waved on the crowd to surge past him and enter the building.
	Refn's lawyer said as soon as he was pepper sprayed, that was the end of it.
	Family torn apart by political rift, Refn told children.
	Traitors get shot.
	Oh, that's right.
	He threatened his kids.
	Let's just see where he said that.
	Jackson said his father grew distant about six years ago.
	Oh!
	Oh, actually, I haven't read this one, and now I feel vindicated.
	Jackson Reffitt said he moved out of the family's home in early 2021 and feels sad about how little they communicate now.
	Jackson said his father grew distant about six years ago, and the gap between them grew as their political opinions diverged.
	No, I think I did read this before.
	Jackson spoke out online and attended protests in support of Black Lives Matter and LGBTQ rights.
	What are the chances?
	There's not something of that issue with this kid and his dad.
	What are the chances?
	Guy, meanwhile, wore a t-shirt that bore the insignia of three percenters, a right-wing militia group.
	Oy.
	Yeah, there's undoubtedly, undoubtedly more to that story.
	And the kid admits as much, but may he live long enough to appreciate that.
	He just sent his father to prison for seven and a half years.
	I'll say, you know, the dad could have used two months in jail.
	A reasonable punishment for what he was found guilty of.
	I don't know what the sentencing guidelines are, if there was a minimum sentence.
	You know, one could have understood a few months in jail.
	Community service and maybe a penalty, maybe a fine.
	Seven and a half years in jail.
	This kid...
	Has it destroyed his family?
	It was probably destroyed before.
	Now I'm thinking maybe there was some fatherly disapproval of a son's life choices.
	I'm not projecting, by the way, because short of criminality or drugs, my kids will be welcome to do whatever they want to do with their lives without any judgment from me.
	If I think it's a bad idea, I might try to talk them out of it.
	But I think there might be some fatherly disapproval.
	Of son's actions here.
	Certainly political divergence.
	And the kid recorded his father and then ratted him out to the FBI.
	And now the father's going to jail for seven and a half years.
	It's just filth.
	Kid doesn't care.
	Amy Winehouse documentary, people.
	Life can teach you a lot of things if you live long enough.
	This kid is going to live long enough to regret.
	That's my projection.
	A kid will live long enough and realize how atrocious what he did was.
	This is not a case of a serial killer, you know, Walter White crystal meth producing dealing situation.
	The father talked a big game.
	Went down, talked a lot of smack when he was down there.
	Didn't commit any violence, got pepper sprayed, went home.
	And when he gets home, after having had that experience, bragging, boasting about it to his family.
	The damage by the time he got home was already done.
	And the damage was not that serious as to what this individual did himself.
	And the kid recorded it and used it.
	And it was evidence that was used to sentence his father.
	To find him guilty and to sentence him for seven and a half years.
	Maybe he'll get a reward.
	I'm sure he's going to get a pat on the back from his community.
	From his political community.
	Alright, we're greenlighted again.
	Let's just see what happens after.
	Let's see what happens after we talk about Alex Jones.
	Because that's where we're going now.
	The two-tier system of justice, people.
	Let me bring up what...
	What was tweeted yesterday?
	We're going back in the thread here.
	And, you know, it's fun watching debates online.
	This is not so much of a debate.
	It's just a response to a tweet.
	If someone got it more right than wrong, Sernovich got it more right than wrong.
	If someone got it more wrong than right, Nate Brody, my friend, and I like him and I respect him, even if he gets things wrong, and even if I get the better of him on Twitter, Every exchange we have got it more wrong than right.
	And then at the end of the day, I got it right.
	Okay, I'm joking.
	So this was in response to a tweet from Cernovich.
	Alex Jones is on trial now.
	They're entering week two of a trial on damages because Alex Jones was found guilty by default verdict.
	Didn't go to trial.
	No jury verdict.
	The judge said, you did not...
	Adequately comply with the discovery process, which leads me to conclude in law that you do not have a meritorious claim on your defense, therefore I'm just granting victory by default after foreclosing you from pleading, from defending in this case, because I've said you did not comply enough with discovery requests, indicating to me that you think you have no legitimate defense to this claim, so I'm just going to save you the constitutional burden, the constitutional right that you have to a defense.
	Sort of it writes, Judge in one case demanded Jones turn over Google Analytics data.
	Google banned him.
	No way to access it.
	Judge pretended he could and then said not turning it over violated a court order.
	I don't know what part of this is wrong because this is my understanding of it as well.
	Alex Jones, even a court...
	Alex Jones was, he did not refuse to participate in the discovery process.
	Again, by the way, don't confuse defending a principle with defending Alex Jones.
	I think Alex Jones said some bad things, some factually incorrect things, and in a rational realm of the universe, could in theory be ordered to pay justifiable damages, whatever that might be, for those statements, if any.
	Not 75 million punitive or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	not 75 million reasonable justifiable damages that are commensurate with standards for IIED, intentional inflation of emotional distress and defamation.
	I don't know what's wrong with what Cernovich said here, and I'm not sure that anything is wrong with it.
	Because when the judge says, when the judge leads the public to believe that Jones did not comply with discovery, by the evidence in court, Jones was deposed five times, communicated.
	Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of emails, some of which had never been opened, turned over pretty much everything, was faulted for not providing specific answers to specific questions which arguably could never be provided given the fact that Jones was and had been at the time deplatformed and had his videos removed from all of social media so that he couldn't access YouTube.
	He couldn't access Google to find out.
	How many videos he put out on Sandy Hook, for example?
	Maybe he has them on the back end.
	Maybe he doesn't.
	I don't know.
	Sometimes when you go live, you don't necessarily keep the back end stuff.
	My stuff is on Rumble as well, which will never get taken down in theory.
	So Cernovich here is more right than wrong.
	And I don't know what element of this is wrong, period.
	This was the basis for putting Jones in default.
	And foreclosing him from defending, thus resulting in a judgment, a verdict, for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	And we're going to get to what the judge said today because it's over the top.
	Nate, who I think has the wrong, I don't think he has a sufficient understanding of the nature of the default and the case as a whole.
	Cernovich has been following it for longer.
	I think I've been following it for longer, or in more detail.
	I think.
	I think I have a sufficient understanding of this to understand the injustice that most people don't know, or don't understand, or don't appreciate, because all that they hear, Jones defaulted on discovery.
	You don't get to decide how much discovery you provide, and so he didn't do it, therefore you're foreclosed from pleading.
	Even in law, even if assuming that's true, you don't get foreclosed from pleading for not complying with discovery.
	Maybe civil contempt?
	Maybe a penalty?
	Maybe negative inferences from documentation that is not provided.
	Maybe.
	Foreclosed from pleading.
	I've only had that in my experience as a lawyer 13 plus years, by the way.
	Once it occurred in America.
	And in Canada, they said, we're not homologating that judgment.
	To the best of my recollection, I hope I'm not misremembering this.
	We're not homologating that judgment because that's an injustice.
	You don't get foreclosed from pleading and have a...
	Hundred plus million dollar judgment rendered by default, and then you take that insane judgment over to Canada and expect the courts of Canada to homologate a several hundred million dollar judgment by default for failure to plead because the judge precluded the defendant from defending in a court?
	So even if Alex Jones did not turn over documentation that he did in fact have, civil contempt, penalty, and negative inferences typically are the punishment.
	Not being foreclosed from pleading.
	Not a verdict by default because the judge says, I conclude from this that you don't think you have a meritorious claim on the defense.
	J-Mill, I know you're, um, I know, oh yeah, I saw the fish.
	Speaking of two-tiered, catch what happened in Pelosi's husband's trial?
	Changing of the judge the night before.
	No, but I'm going to look into it and talk about it Sunday night with Barnsley.
	So, so with that said, I think Nate is wrong.
	He's entitled to be wrong.
	Doesn't matter.
	Nate says this post is blatant misinformation for the purposes of making Alex Jones seem innocent.
	No, it's not.
	Because at no point in there did Cernovich say that Jones was innocent.
	What he simply said is that it is false to assert that Jones did not comply with discovery requests.
	The discovery request was for, quote, how many videos Alex and company released concerning Sandy Hook.
	That's the one in the clip you have here, but not necessarily the one that we're talking about in another case.
	They refused to turn over the information.
	Do not trust me.
	Here is the judge saying it.
	Let's listen to this.
	I am very upset.
	I'm very upset.
	I have tried to imply to the jury that we know how many videos about Sandy Hook were released by your clients when we don't because they refused to respond to discovery.
	So I do not want you to do that again.
	By the way.
	I don't know why Law and Crime gets to share some clips, but they only get to share certain clips, like when the lawyer is getting berated by the judge.
	Listen to what she said, by the way.
	...about Sandy Hook were released to the jury, that we know how many videos about Sandy Hook were released by your clients, when we don't.
	They don't know how many videos were released by AJ and company.
	They don't know how many.
	Except they have a list of videos.
	They have thousands of hours of videos.
	They have their own videos of Alex Jones talking about Sandy Hook.
	But here, just, we don't know how many.
	We know how many videos about Sandy Hook were released by your clients.
	Performative.
	When we don't, because they refused to respond to discovery.
	It's almost like she knows that she's been recorded for a documentary and she's performing.
	Her best role yet.
	So I do not want you to do that again.
	And I don't want you to argue with me about it.
	I don't want you to argue with me about it.
	That is the rule of this case.
	That is the rule of this case.
	She has said.
	It's a rule of this case.
	You cannot contradict the fact that you are in default.
	You cannot assert that you have complied with discovery.
	You cannot assert that you apologized.
	You cannot assert that you did not intentionally cause emotional distress because she found him guilty by default verdict of that.
	So it's a rule now.
	It's the rule that she made up because of what she found based on her own assessment of Alex Jones's Failure to comply with discovery.
	And by the way, she attenuated this statement.
	She attenuated this categorical somewhat today.
	I can't play the video because I'm not allowed, because I'm not law and crime.
	But I took notes.
	That's it.
	They didn't respond.
	We don't know.
	They didn't respond.
	We don't know.
	They didn't respond.
	We don't know to how many videos they released, but they turned over their emails.
	They turned over unread and read messages.
	They turned over text messages.
	They turned over videos, but they didn't know how.
	We don't know how many.
	So denied a defense?
	Let that sink into anybody who's thinking that it's justifiable that Alex Jones was denied the right to defend because this judge said he didn't confirm how many videos he produced or put out on Sandy Hook.
	Because YouTube took him down and deleted the videos.
	Because he no longer had access to Google Analytics, Google data.
	I'm still talking.
	Petty tyrants with power.
	I'm not really being asked to do anything except tell you to follow the rules.
	I'm not really being asked to do anything except today they're asking for sanctions and they're going to make a motion for sanctions against Alex Jones and counsel.
	And the judge is going to go for it.
	I feel like I've done many times already.
	We've had multiple conversations about how I know, you know what the rules are, and you know, you know what the rules are.
	So it's almost like she's performing.
	It's almost like when she asked Karpova, do you think this is a staged event?
	What does she say?
	Not a staged event.
	But you've chosen not to follow them on occasion.
	And I'm asking you again, follow the rules.
	We are not going to take up sanctions in the middle of this trial.
	So if somebody wants to file a motion for sanctions, we'll take it up.
	That's the judge.
	That's the judge inviting the plaintiff's attorney to make a motion for sanctions.
	If somebody wants to make a motion, who exactly, other than plaintiff's counsel, might want to make a motion for sanctions?
	That is the judge from the bench telling the plaintiff's counsel, make a motion for sanctions.
	Do it.
	If somebody wants to file a motion for sanctions, we'll take it up at the conclusion of the trial.
	We'll take it up after.
	But hold on, hold on.
	I have to play it one more time.
	I'm very upset that you have tried to imply to the jury that we know how many videos about Sandy Hook were released by your clients.
	When we don't, they refused to respond to Discovery.
	They refused to respond to Discovery.
	That's what she said.
	They refused to respond to Discovery.
	That's a lie.
	That's a lie.
	So when we're going back to Cernovich's tweet, that's a lie.
	They didn't refuse to respond to Discovery.
	The allegation is that they did not fully comply with Discovery, that they provided some information.
	They sat down for five depositions, six depositions, I don't know how many.
	They provided hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of emails, both read and unread, from junk mail, from inboxes, text messages, videos.
	They did that, but they didn't confirm how many videos on Sandy Hook.
	So she said they didn't comply with Discovery.
	Which is not true.
	It's just not true.
	And I said, I mean, it's funny, I was going to tweet that yesterday.
	But I didn't want to get into the fight just then.
	It's not true.
	And by the way, today, she walked it back.
	It's not an accident that she walked it back today.
	Because the thing is, when cameras are rolling and you're performing for the camera, it's a double-edged sword.
	Because they capture what you say.
	And when you say, when the judge comes out and says they refused to provide discovery, that's not true.
	It's demonstrably not true.
	And she had to walk it back today.
	But by the way, you can't question that in front of the judge.
	Let me just go back to my notes.
	You can't question that.
	Because the judge has...
	Hold on.
	Someone just said something.
	She's talking about the plaintiff.
	Okay, no.
	Someone said she was talking about the plaintiff.
	She was talking about Alex Jones.
	They did not comply...
	Because they did not comply with discovery.
	False.
	And what did she say today?
	Let me just get to the notes I was taking on this.
	Okay, that's...
	Here we go.
	Alex Jones said...
	I'll get to the...
	I'll describe the testimony in a bit, but I took...
	Where was it?
	I took...
	Did I not take it down in real time as she said it?
	Basically, what she said today is...
	Oh, no.
	you Oh, crap.
	Now I'm going to forget what she said if I didn't take it down as a note.
	She basically attenuated it today and said, you didn't provide certain answers.
	You did not fully comply with discovery, is what she said today.
	It's over the top.
	Today, all that I saw of the trial was Ms. Lewis, the mother of one of the victims of the shooting, testifying.
	I cannot begin to imagine how any parent When you're a parent, you can only imagine that horror, but it's unfathomable as to how anybody heals from that.
	A parent who loses a kid, it's life-altering and breaks you.
	In some cases, It breaks you to the point of irreparable brokenness.
	And in other cases, you manage to live.
	You manage to survive.
	And when you have another kid, as Ms. Lewis does, you have something to survive for.
	How anyone gets over that grief, how they put that grief to good use, Ms. Lewis is doing it.
	She started a foundation, wants to reach out to kids so that nobody ever finds themselves in that.
	In the position of the actual shooter of this case.
	Don't need to mention his name.
	And helping kids.
	And it's laudable.
	It's laudable.
	And her testimony is what it is.
	Her kid was killed by a madman with a gun.
	Now, she wants...
	I don't know.
	She wants...
	Healing for the trauma that she's gone through.
	The question is, how much of the trauma is induced by the events versus induced by Alex Jones?
	We've been yellow-lighted again.
	It's bouncing back and forth in the algorithm.
	I don't care about that anyhow.
	How much of it is from the incident itself and how much of it is from Alex Jones?
	So setting aside the horror, the trauma.
	Setting aside that Ms. Lewis seems to be a very strong woman who has made something of a positive purpose out of this immeasurable tragedy.
	In cross-examination, she was asked, did she even see these pictures?
	Did she even hear these episodes at the time?
	Did she see them herself?
	Did she watch Alex Jones?
	And the answers to those questions were no.
	And so it becomes a question in law, despite how...
	People might think about the distastefulness of questioning, of allowing people to express theories, which might be hurtful to the people who have suffered.
	In cross-examination, above and beyond everything, she didn't hear it in real time.
	She didn't listen to Alex Jones's episodes.
	She was made aware of it by other people.
	And so the question is, you know, of the trauma that Ms. Lewis has suffered in her life, what percentage can properly and reasonably be attributed to anything Alex Jones said, setting aside the disputing whether or not Alex Jones...
	Said it was a hoax in that it never happened, whether or not he said it was a hoax in that it was a false flag, an event that in fact happened, because he acknowledged it many times, but was allowed to happen, whether or not it happened, but was a total unplanned, unprovoked assault, but was subsequently weaponized by the media, by politicians.
	Setting all that aside, what percentage of the trauma that Ms. Lewis suffered in her life is attributable to Alex Jones and not the event itself?
	When she didn't hear the statements Alex Jones made, this came out in Cross directly.
	They occurred years later, after she had written a book talking about her path to healing.
	I do appreciate that some things people said would reopen wounds.
	I also would appreciate that when people make outlandish claims, you don't, you know, for the trauma and the overcoming of adversity that Ms. Lewis has gone through in her life, if people want to say outrageous things, you know?
	That might pale, and probably does pale in comparison to the trauma itself, although it might rehash some of those emotions.
	So she testified.
	She seems like an amazingly strong individual who survived with lifelong damage, but nonetheless will live for her kid and will live for a purpose that she has found in life.
	That being said...
	In her testimony, we're on a trial for damages now.
	She is confirming in Cross that she didn't hear the statements at the time, she didn't listen to Alex Jones, and it was hurtful.
	But she said things which I thought were, you know, if I'm on a jury, if I'm opposing counsel, my ears are perking up because they're telling.
	She was asked by her lawyer, what do you hope to accomplish with this lawsuit against Alex Jones?
	And she said, I hope to accomplish an era of truth.
	That's what she said in response to the question of what she hoped to accomplish.
	I hope to accomplish an era of truth.
	And that is part and parcel of the risk that people are raising with this trial.
	And this is her own statement.
	This is her own words.
	I'm paraphrasing if I got it wrong roughly, but that's what she said.
	I hope to accomplish an era of truth.
	When Alex Jones and other people out there are saying, this is not a question of defending stupid, factually incorrect statements Alex Jones made.
	This is about defending against this process, which is now being weaponized by an over-the-top bias judge.
	Over-the-top, for political purposes, to silence...
	What people deem to be misinformation, questioning official narratives, discussion of alternative hypotheses, however offensive to some that they may be.
	You had someone from the jury framing a question.
	Is this lawsuit an appropriate way of going after election deniers?
	From the mouth of the plaintiff herself, this is about I hope to accomplish an era of truth.
	As in, I hope to shut people up who contradict what we're being told is the truth for the election.
	To contradict what we are told is the truth for the Rona, for the Fauci juice.
	We're not far off of this slippery slope from saying, if you say you don't believe the narrative for JFK assassination...
	The family can sue you for intentional infliction of emotional distress for daring to contradict the official narrative.
	We're not far off of a world where you say, I don't believe that Elvis is dead.
	Totally different incidents leading up, but hey, you're denying something happened, and the family's going to say, I find this inflicts emotional distress.
	You can't even talk about it.
	From her mouth.
	And this is what...
	Alex Jones is suggesting that this trial is about.
	And this is what other people hate Alex Jones as much as you want.
	Alex Berenson, I'm looking at you.
	It is about accomplishing an era of truth.
	And that means there's no COVID discussion wrong, think Berenson.
	You're next in line for massive lawsuits, for people who say you are causing them emotional distress through the theories that you are floating on the social media.
	Thank you.
	Oh, why did the judge want to look?
	No, then someone came in chewing gum, and the judge berated them for chewing gum.
	What's in your mouth?
	I mean, it's so over the top.
	What's in your mouth?
	People are going to think I'm crazy for being stickler for the rules.
	There's no chewing gum in this court.
	So that was Lewis's testimony.
	It should raise flies, and it seems to confirm the essence of this lawsuit.
	Might be about some intentional infliction of emotional distress, but it might be weaponizing the judicial process to set a precedent to silencing any form of what is deemed to be dissident speak that contradicts official narratives and in doing so causes people emotional distress.
	Then Alex Jones came up on stage, man.
	I'll tell you what.
	Jones came up, was explaining that he's got a torn larynx, which I didn't know, by the way.
	It would explain why his voice is the way it is, I think.
	He's got a torn larynx.
	He was coughing.
	I think he was the one coughing a lot in the courtroom as well.
	Coughing and said, it's not a cold.
	I have a torn larynx.
	Drinking water.
	Talking about his torn larynx, which I think might be the medical reason for which he was not going to attend the trial in its entirety.
	Alex Jones started off by saying, first of all, I'm not making fun of his voice to make fun of his voice.
	It has to be done.
	I just want to start off by saying I'm sorry to the, you know, I never meant to inflict any emotional distress.
	The judge cuts him off.
	Objection, non-responsive, sustained.
	Mr. Jones, I have to remind you, this is not a conversation.
	We're not having a conversation here.
	Answer the questions and only the questions.
	This is not your show.
	You don't get to say whatever you want here.
	Answer the questions.
	Non-responsive.
	All that he started off doing was trying to explain the apology.
	And by the way, it becomes clear why he can't talk about the apology later on.
	And it gets worse.
	At one point, Jones mentions that Infowars is bankrupt.
	I think he meant it, what's the word, not colloquially, informally, in that Infowars, or free speech systems, I forget which one, or both, file for bankruptcy protection.
	reorganization last Friday.
	Apparently the judge says she doesn't know this.
	She heard it outside the court, but doesn't.
	Jones said...
	Okay, there's a...
	An objection or a sidebar.
	They kick the jury out of the room.
	The judge says, go.
	I'm not sure that you're going to come back today.
	We need to discuss this.
	Jones apparently is not allowed mentioning that the company is bankrupt.
	The judge said, you may not tell this jury that you complied with discovery.
	That is not true.
	You cannot tell the jury that you are bankrupt.
	You may have filed for bankruptcy, but that doesn't mean you're bankrupt.
	You need to tell the truth.
	This is not your show.
	That's what the judge said.
	So the judge says, you're not allowed telling them about the bankruptcy.
	You're not allowed telling them that you complied with discovery.
	You were given rules.
	You were told that you're not allowed doing this.
	And did your lawyer not explain to you the rule?
	Did your lawyer not explain to you?
	What were the instructions your lawyer gave to you?
	The judge asked Alex Jones, when the jury was not in the room, what instructions did your lawyer give to you as relates to your testimony?
	As if solicitor-client privilege Doesn't exist.
	What instructions did your lawyer give to you?
	Why would the judge ask that, by the way?
	Why would the judge violate the most fundamental principle of constitutional rights?
	I'm fairly certain it is a constitutional right, solicitor-client privilege.
	If it's not constitutional, I'm pretty sure it's constitutional.
	Solicitor-client privilege.
	Mr. Jones, tell me what legal advice your lawyer gave you.
	This is coming from the judge.
	The one who, as we just saw from that clip yesterday, said, if someone wants to file a motion for sanctions, I'll hear it after this trial.
	Now she is asking Jones to provide evidence to the plaintiff's counsel in the court as to what instructions he did or did not receive from his counsel.
	Because it's one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't, regardless of the answer.
	Based on the answer, plaintiff's counsel either gets to file a motion for sanctions against Jones or against Jones and his attorney.
	Because either Alex Jones got proper instructions from his attorney and defied them, and he sanctions against Jones, judge invited plaintiff's counsel to do it yesterday, or Jones confirms that he didn't get specific instructions about the rule from his attorneys, sanctions against both of them now, because the lawyer did not advise Alex Jones properly, based on the court ruling.
	This is the judge asking Jones to confirm.
	Sorry, I didn't realize this was still up.
	To specify what legal advice, what instructions he got from his attorney.
	Oh, I see the sex bots have taken over the chat.
	Sorry, people.
	It's over the top.
	And then she goes on to say, you may not tell this jury that you complied with discovery.
	That is not true.
	No.
	He didn't comply entirely.
	You may not tell.
	It's not true.
	It's a fact.
	It is a foregone fact that despite your five depositions, the millions of emails, hundreds of thousands to millions of emails that you communicated, that you turned over, including unopened emails, videos, it's an indisputable fact.
	It's a rule.
	You did not comply with Discovery.
	You cannot tell the jury that you complied with Discovery.
	And if you do tell the jury that you complied with Discovery, you can be held for sanctions, which I'm sure he's going to be now.
	You cannot tell the jury that you are bankrupt.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	He can't tell the jury that the company cannot meet its financial obligations as they become due, the definition of bankruptcy?
	You cannot tell them that.
	You may have filed for bankruptcy protection, but you're poisoning the jury by telling them that Infowars...
	How does that poison the jury?
	The plaintiff's lawyer said he's poisoning the jury by telling them that InfoWars and free speech systems are bankrupt.
	How does that poison the jury?
	In fact, as far as I'm concerned, if I know the company's bankrupt, I'm more inclined to give them a $75 million judgment.
	Good luck paying it.
	You cannot tell the jury that you're bankrupt.
	You may have filed for bankruptcy, but that does not mean bankruptcy.
	You need to tell the truth.
	This is not your show, says the judge.
	Who is quite clearly and shamelessly putting on a show for the cameras that she knows is in the courtroom.
	You believe everything you say is true, but it isn't.
	That sounds like a defense in law, by the way, Judge.
	The judge actually said this, not verbatim, paraphrasing.
	You believe everything you say is true, but it isn't.
	Well, if he believed what he said was true, that sort of plays against an intentional infliction of emotional distress, Madam Judge.
	Thank you for making his defense very loud and clear.
	Inadvertently, of course, for the cameras.
	You believe everything you say is true, that sort of puts a damper on intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	It sort of puts the damper on defamation, specifically as relates to a public figure, which in Cross, they sort of did a good job proving that Ms. Lewis was.
	Doing the rounds, writing a book, giving interviews, being politically active.
	If Alex Jones believed what he said was true when he said it, even if it wasn't, certainly not intentional, infliction of emotional distress, or at the very least, a decent argument against it, and certainly not malicious, actual malice in terms of statements, if he believed it, made with regards to a public figure.
	What else did we have today?
	I might have been it.
	Oh.
	You may not elicit testimony that would lead Jones to test...
	This is what the judge said.
	Paraphrasing.
	You may not elicit testimony that would lead Jones to testify that he did not defame plaintiffs or intentionally inflict emotional distress.
	She said this to the counsel.
	You may not do it.
	Now, by the way, in law, a lawyer cannot elicit testimony that he or she knows to be untruthful.
	You can't.
	You cannot elicit a witness to lie.
	In this case, she's already found.
	It's a verdict.
	It's a rule.
	He did it.
	He intentionally defamed.
	He intentionally caused emotional distress.
	It's a rule.
	It's a fact.
	It's a juridical fact.
	So the judge is telling the lawyer, you can't do anything that would elicit testimony from Jones to the effect that he did not intentionally do it.
	Can't.
	What's left?
	This is Bannon-level.
	Bannon-level kangaroo court on steroids.
	The judge, by the way, she's saying this in front of the cameras.
	Not in front of the jury, though.
	I'm thinking, you know, the publicizing of this trial is going to be interesting.
	Let me do some super chats before we wind this up here for the day.
	That's it.
	So that's the latest.
	We'll see what happens tomorrow.
	By the way, sanctions are coming.
	A motion for sanctions is coming.
	The judge invited it.
	The judge solicited some of the evidence that I'm sure plaintiff's counsel is going to use for it today.
	The judge herself.
	Judge, jury, and prosecutor all in one.
	It's coming.
	A motion for sanctions is going to come against Jones and counsel.
	Because counsel, he knows what he was doing.
	You know the rules.
	I know that you know that you know the rules.
	I know that you know that you know that I know that you know.
	You know the rules.
	You've elicited testimony.
	You invited Alex to mention his bankruptcy.
	You invited Alex to break the rule.
	And now I've just asked Alex to confirm that you, in fact...
	Did or did not give him proper instructions for testimony.
	So that's either going to add fuel to the Jones sanctions or add fodder to the Jones and Council motion for sanctions.
	Over the top.
	Fun fact, if you are adopted through CPS in Texas, the state will pay your tuition to any state-funded university.
	Very interesting.
	We're not looking to adopt, but that is interesting.
	I guess that is an incentive.
	That's an incentive for parents to adopt.
	That's not bad.
	Not sure if you're aware, but this is the same kid that has raised nearly $200,000 on GoFundMe over this.
	His latest post on it today is disgusting.
	I did know that he raised a fair bit of money.
	It wasn't $200,000 the last time I checked.
	That's back to Guy Reffet's son who turned in his dad and is making bank off of it.
	Speaking of two-tiered, we got that one.
	She is elected.
	I believe she's elected.
	You know what?
	I'm not sure.
	I'll double check that.
	I am Texas attorney, 29 years, and read the kinetic...
	That's court records.
	Default is 100% remedy in Texas.
	It was appealed and upheld.
	It was refusal to give financial data.
	It was admitted.
	Don't mess with Texas.
	Well, appealed by...
	Let me screen grab this.
	Trust but verify.
	Rubia, thank you very much.
	Appealed by which court?
	Was it the Travis Division Court of Appeal?
	Because my understanding is that...
	That might be more judges along the lines of the existing judge.
	Refusal to give financial data.
	Okay, why I'm skeptical about this is because today Jones was talking about gross income, net income.
	So I'd be curious.
	I'm going to look into it.
	Rubia, thank you very much.
	Can't the Texas Attorney General step in and stop this injustice?
	I don't know.
	I'll ask Robert on Sunday.
	Love you, Viva.
	This driving my blood pressure through the roof.
	Yep.
	None of your business, Your Honor.
	That would have been my response.
	Oh, non-responsive.
	Non-responsive.
	I am the judge.
	She said, I am the only one.
	Oh, and then she says, I'm not done with Alex multiple times.
	Let's see if we're green again.
	Let's see if we're green again.
	The words are bouncing around in the algorithm.
	Yeah, it's green-lighted again.
	I think people can tell based on whether or not when they come back in if you see an ad running.
	So that is the latest.
	I don't have my phone to see what's going on on the Rumbles.
	Let me just see if I can do it here.
	Kid's probably draining my battery.
	No, I can't see any old Rumble rants.
	So people, I can't see it on Rumble.
	Sidebar tomorrow night, I've forgotten with whom.
	But we have a sidebar tomorrow night.
	I'll be listening to the trial in as much as possible.
	We've got some interesting sights to see tomorrow, so stay tuned for that.
	Thank you all, as always, for being here.
	Sorry for the sporadic schedule.
	I'll get back more on schedule when the kids are in school.
	And for those who don't know, in Florida, school starts early.
	So we'll get back on a normal schedule sooner than later.
	But hey, done is better than perfect, and sporadic schedule is better than...
	None.
	What else?
	Oh, yeah.
	Drop some comments.
	Make the chat go crazy.
	Let me see what we got here.
	A lawyer being delighted by a kangaroo court is disheartening.
	Sicklect.
	Okay, that probably is not a conversation for me.
	Thank you, Viva.
	My pleasure, as always.
	I mean, listening to this, my kids and my wife are getting a crash course in law as well.
	Move to Texas.
	Texas is too far away from Quebec.
	There's more Quebecers in Florida than there are sometimes in Quebec.
	That's a joke, but no.
	Florida is closer to Quebec, so I still have family there.
	Viva, Big Pete, where can I send you a video?
	Oh, okay.
	Don't, Big Pete.
	I'll check my DMs, but don't be angry or miffed if I don't get back.
	I get a lot of emails.
	I'm not an investigative journalist.
	I cannot vet stuff that I get, and so unless I can do it very superficially...
	I don't report breaking news.
	But I would say send it to the other journalists who do Posobiec and others.
	Kicks on the way from Murph's Kicks.
	Awesome.
	Thank you very much.
	You have to listen to her to appreciate how over-the-top it is.
	Nobody can listen to that and not have a visceral emotional reaction.
	The only thing is if you hate Jones and you want him to get it, you'll love it.
	But that should be an indication to you as to how wrong it actually is.
	Viva, please tell us Senate to vote no for Sweden.
	Please tell USA Senate to vote no for Sweden to join NATO.
	Off to see what's going on in Canada.
	They seem hell-bent on doing everything to antagonize Russia, everything to antagonize China, and so no one misunderstands or misapprehends my tweets.
	Standing with Taiwan is the right thing to do, and it was the right thing to do from the beginning.
	But when you have demoralized your own military, arguably depleted some of your weaponry by shipping it to a foreign conflict, when you have empowered China politically at every step of the way, to randomly now say, I'm going to publicly say we're standing with Taiwan and I'm going to perform what is arguably a tardy and potentially pointless act of provocation, it's a little too late.
	Because you've screwed up, you know, the foundation that you needed if you were going to take that hard line that you ought to have taken from the beginning.
	I analogize it to letting a dog run wild with poor behavior, you know, for years.
	Letting that behavior set in, you don't just randomly go up and start disciplining that dog because that's how you get bitten.
	It requires a steady approach and consistent behavior.
	Not, you know.
	Worrying about uniforms and hair pattern, hairstyle in the U.S. Army.
	Worrying about pronouns in your bios.
	Worrying about the FBI creating an inclusive work environment.
	Demoralizing the military.
	Depleting their arsenal by shipping, whether or not it's old stuff or usable stuff off to Ukraine.
	Empowering China.
	And then saying, now is when we put our foot down.
	That's how you get your toes stepped on.
	Okay, people.
	I'm going out for dinner now.
	And I think we might be going to a red lobster.
	The kid has been saying, I want lobster.
	He wants to see a lobster.
	I'm going to see what his reaction is when he sees a cooked lobster.
	We'll see.
	Okay, people, thank you all.
	Snip, clip, share away.
	You know what to do.
	Thank you for the support.
	Thank you for being here.
	I'll see you tomorrow night for certain.
	And there may be some Viva Family videos coming on Viva Family.
	And people, Viva Clips!
	All of the short snippet and clippets go to Viva Clips, so check it out there.
	Be sure to subscribe.
	If we ever hit 100,000 on Viva Clips, it'll be awesome.
	Okay, go.
	Enjoy the night.
	See you tomorrow.

▲