Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 5, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:32:39

Florida LEGISLATION! Kim Gardner RESIGNATION? Time Magazine DISINFORMATION! And MORE! Viva Frei

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Okay, passes 11 to 3. Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	There's no notice of motions.
	Okay.
	This will require some context.
	General information on other business?
	Please.
	Okay, we're number 12, notice of motion.
	Are there any notes?
	So this is, let me just refresh this.
	Let me refresh this so that you can see the tweet from my brother.
	He texted me after the stream earlier this week when I improperly described Twitter feed.
	It's not lying law.
	It's lying advocacy.
	That is my brother from my actual mother, despite the fact that we look, I think, wildly different.
	Look at that man.
	That's a good-looking man.
	We look wildly different.
	That's my brother.
	He is involved in advocacy work as relates to COVID-type stuff up in Canada.
	The video that I just showed you very briefly, I want to start off with something good today that's not going to make you want to gag.
	As most of our other stuff, intro videos, is a woman who is crying or getting emotional as she announces that they finally, the city of Hamilton has finally revoked, withdrawn, what was the word here?
	They've removed the vaccination, and I'm putting it in quotes, people, so you can snip and clip that and call me whatever name you want.
	The vaccination, the jab, they've eliminated it.
	For new hires.
	Voted down, finally.
	So I'm watching this video the first time, possibly reading the tweet, possibly one of the most emotionally powerful moments I've seen in a council meeting.
	I think it's definitively so.
	Council meetings are notoriously boring, except, you know, when Alex Stein is there.
	The chair's reaction when she realizes City of Hamilton C-19 jibby jab mandate for new hires will finally be voted down.
	True leadership.
	Empathizing with the suffering of so many constituents.
	And you can see the person's getting emotional.
	Let me just press play again.
	Here.
	Two, three.
	And then I had...
	Thank you.
	Her name is Esther Pauls.
	When I first watched it, I didn't know exactly who Esther Pauls was.
	And for a second, I thought this was someone who had voted for the mandates.
	Now...
	You know, trying to get in the goodwill and the good graces of the people that have been harmed by these mandates for the last three years.
	No.
	Esther Pauls did a minor due diligence, a minor breakdown.
	Esther Pauls, from the beginning, had been very critical of the vaccine mandates.
	She got lambasted as being an anti-vaxxer, you know, one of those double-jabbed anti-vaxxers.
	From the beginning, 2021, she had tried to put down this...
	This mandate.
	These mandates.
	These requirements.
	Unsuccessfully.
	2022.
	Tried again.
	Was foiled.
	It didn't happen.
	Esther Pauls.
	You can look her up.
	She's been against it from day one.
	Not against the jibby jab.
	Not against vaccines in general.
	Against this.
	She got lambasted for it.
	She got demonized for it.
	And it finally freaking passed.
	11 to 3, which means that there's still three people on that city council voting to maintain these jabs as a precondition for employment.
	So that was the good news of the day.
	My brother, Lion Advocacy, is the tweet.
	I just feel like I just messed something up here.
	Everything's working correctly, right?
	Let me make sure if I'm...
	Are we good?
	So that was the good news.
	We don't always have to start with stuff that makes you want to puke in your mouth because it's Justin Trudeau.
	Or it's Obama talking about how they're...
	What it takes to preserve democracy.
	It doesn't always have to start badly.
	It can start off on good stuff.
	Esther Pauls has been a warrior throughout and finally saw the fruits of years of her...
	Labor, opposition, and justice.
	Whether or not they're going to go back and...
	I don't know who got fired for not getting the jab.
	Whether or not they're going to rehire, back pay, whatever.
	No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fortification advice.
	You can read that comment if you want.
	Okay, so I was going to go do a car vlog.
	And I said, for what it's worth, it's too hot right now to go do a car vlog.
	I'm probably going to do the car vlog.
	Later on today, on the Time article that just came out, let me just flash the headline for you.
	I'm going to do a car vlog on this later, but we're going to talk about it regardless when we go over to Rumble afterwards.
	And not because I don't want to talk about it on YouTube because I'm scared of the censors.
	I'm making a car vlog on this, and we're going to talk about it later today.
	Just to whet everyone's appetite as to what's coming today.
	Some fun stuff.
	It's a big day, like subtle but big.
	Kim?
	Yeah, Kim Gardner, that corrupt DA who prosecuted the McCloskeys, maliciously ran her re-election campaign on prosecuting the McCloskeys, Soros-funded, if it's not directly, Soros-funded, has resigned.
	The DA, I think they call it the DA, the circuit attorney, whatever they call it, who failed to show up to a trial for an alleged attempted murderer, is out.
	Resigned.
	Some Florida laws that are being passed, which are being, on the one hand, misrepresented to some extent, and on another hand, certain Florida laws being passed get ready to get shocked, with which I don't necessarily agree.
	We'll talk about it.
	What else do we have on the menu?
	We've got some good stuff on the menu.
	Here, hold on a second there.
	Okay.
	We have...
	We got good stuff.
	But hold on.
	We don't start off by gagging.
	We're going to start off with another cute one.
	It's the next chapter in the continued assault on Tucker Carlson.
	The more leaked video to Media Matters that's being slowly but surely leaked to the public as though...
	Someone's going to think that this somehow justifies what Fox News did, had to do.
	Going to convince the general public what an awful, evil man that Tucker Carlson is.
	And you tell me if this makes you like or dislike Tucker Carlson more.
	The latest in the leaks.
	Hold on, look at this, look at this, guys.
	Matt Gertz, senior fellow at MMFA.
	And it's not mixed martial arts for America.
	It's not something good and interesting.
	Media matters for America.
	We've seen him earlier this week because they're running one leak after another.
	Someone at Fox News has decided it's in their best interest now to work with Media Matters.
	This is one of the latest videos leaked showing what an absolute, awful, awful man Tucker Carlson is.
	Look at this.
	Getting makeup before a show.
	Can I ask you a question?
	You don't have to answer.
	It's personal.
	I'm not speaking of you, but more in general of ladies.
	When they go to the ladies' room and patter their noses, is there actually nose patterning going on?
	Sometimes.
	I like the sound of that.
	Most of the time it's lipstick.
	Do pillow fights ever break out?
	You don't have to?
	Not in the back.
	That'd be more a dorm activity.
	I'm sorry.
	You are such a good sport, such a good person.
	Thank you.
	I know you do, but you do not deserve that, and I mean it with great affection.
	I got you, ma 'am.
	Which way do you want to go?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Sorry.
	Let me tune in!
	Okay.
	This is it.
	This is the dirt that they're pulling up.
	I mean, I guess they've given up on Tucker Carlson's, you know, the clips that they got from him on Bubba the Love Sponge from 2008.
	They need to move on to more recent stuff.
	This just makes Tucker Carlson look like the biggest monster on Earth.
	First of all, people, Because I don't have an inherently perverted mind that I know of.
	Question, we don't have to answer, it's personal.
	Not speaking of you, but more in general of ladies.
	When they go to the ladies' room and powder their noses, is there actually nose powdering going on?
	Okay, so is that a drug joke?
	Or is that supposed to be, I don't know, some thinly, poorly-veiled, what's the word I'm looking for, when you come on to a woman?
	I can't remember the word for that.
	Is that supposed to be a drug joke?
	Is it supposed to be like powder the nose as in cocaine?
	Or is it supposed to be some dirtier thing that I'm not getting?
	Sometimes.
	Okay, whatever.
	That's the latest leaks from Tucker Carlson.
	They're not yet done.
	Let's just throw out a bunch of stuff and hope something sticks.
	Powder your nose equals makeup.
	Powder your nose equals makeup.
	Yes.
	But what he's saying, do you actually powder your nose?
	Was it supposed to be...
	A cocaine reference.
	Now, hold on.
	Deepfake, ComCom says, you're the second person that I've seen say this.
	Someone said it on the Twitter tweet.
	It's not a deepfake.
	Chat, let me know, please.
	Is that a deepfake?
	He thinks it's makeup.
	Fox is stupid.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	Seriously, that's nothing.
	I agree.
	Salty indignation.
	And nose powder equals...
	That's what I thought.
	So the joke is, are you doing drugs?
	Like, not...
	I don't know what they think they're doing by showing these videos.
	I mean, we've seen, like, the Bill O 'Reilly meltdowns when nobody's looking.
	The effort will do it live, which, I mean, makes them look a little irritable.
	But I don't even know what they're thinking with this.
	But we'll see how far it goes.
	If it's a deepfake, why?
	That's what I was thinking.
	It would be much worse than that.
	And I think it would have been more than one or two people saying it's a deepfake.
	I think the whole idea is this is not even a deepfake.
	This is just Tucker Carlson being a funny guy making a joke to the woman who's getting close to his face.
	It's an uncomfortable thing to get powdered.
	I don't put on makeup, which is why my forehead shines, which is why my blemishes are for everyone to see.
	But when I did the interview with PragerU, which I think is going to be broadcast sooner than later, they put powder on.
	So nasty, that stuff.
	Like, you got to rub it off your face afterwards.
	And it looks good from afar.
	You don't shine and everything, but then you get close and you can really see the foundation.
	But it's weird.
	You got someone up in your face, like, getting close, and you got to find something uncomfortable to talk about with them, to lighten the tension, to ease the tension, baby.
	Just easing the tension.
	That's a happy Gilmore reference.
	Nothing more than that.
	Okay, let's get started.
	Let's get started on Kim Gardner.
	It's...
	I don't know that it's...
	There's no justice in this.
	It's like, oh good, she's resigning now.
	She's got her comeuppance, you know, after she maliciously...
	Oh, masks.
	After she maliciously prosecuted the McCloskeys.
	Does everyone remember the McCloskeys?
	Am I sharing the screen?
	Take this down for a second while I...
	Lose it on the McCloskeys.
	Does everyone remember the McCloskeys?
	When you had a group of, I think it was Black Lives Matter protesters, looking for the mayor's house or something, going through the streets of a gated community that they had busted down the gate on, and remember the disinformation on that story?
	Oh, it was just protesters in the street, and these big, bad, burly white folks came out with an AR-15 and pointed it at the crowd.
	And then it came out that, yeah, this group of protesters broke down a gate.
	And the road that they were on is on a private community, and they were threatening to burn down the McCloskeys' house and kill his dog or something.
	And so the McCloskeys come out, you know, two elderly white folk, lawyers, been doing very well for themselves as lawyers if they can own that mansion, and I say that without judgment, come out.
	Mr. McCloskey, Mark McCloskey, has an AR-15, and the wife comes out with, like, this little now-we-know-not-functional firearm.
	And then they get charged for brandishing firearms.
	And then we found out in the context of that, well, the A, that Kim Gardner was running her re-election campaign, saying I want to prosecute, using that incident to raise money for her re-election.
	Brandishing firearms, as we learned at the time, required the firearm to be readily capable of lethal use.
	We found out that the handgun that Mrs. McCloskey was holding...
	Was not readily capable for lethal use because it had been used as a prop in a lawsuit they were involved in and it had the firing pin removed so that it wasn't actually even a functional firearm.
	But in order to make it one so that they could prosecute the both of them, Kim Gardner and her investigative team disassembled the dysfunctional gun and reassembled it so that it would be functional so they could properly charge Ms. McCloskey with brandishing a firearm.
	Does everyone remember that?
	So there's no justice that can be happening here just because now she's embarrassed or resigning and whatever.
	But, you know, I don't know who's going to complain.
	St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner to resign June 1 after weeks of resistance.
	By the way, I don't know if this article gets to it.
	I hope it does.
	Apparently, from what I understand, she's blaming racism.
	St. Louis Circuit Attorney, that's right, not District Attorney, Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner arrives at the Mel Carnahan Courthouse.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	By afternoon, news emerged that Gardner submitted her resignation to Governor Mike Parsons.
	St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly H. Gardner announced Thursday that after weeks of blistering pressure from Missouri lawmakers, she would indeed resign.
	In a letter addressed to Governor Parson, Gardner made no mention of the turmoil in her office, nor the extensive staff departures in recent weeks.
	It's like the rats jump ship when the ship starts sinking.
	And maybe that's not nice to imply that all the people resigning are co-rats of the same enterprise.
	But maybe the poopoo just got so disgusting and so insufferable, even for the staff that had been with her for so long, they decided to resign.
	Yeah, but everyone jumps ship.
	Instead, she said she was stepping down effective June 1st to prevent the state legislator from passing a bill that would strip her of most of her power, permanently remove the right of every St. Louis voter to elect their circuit attorney.
	The most powerful weapon I have to fight back against these outsiders stealing your voices and your rights is to step back.
	Oh, do they ever pretend to be the victims of the victimizers?
	I took this job to serve the people of the city of St. Louis.
	And that's still my North Star.
	News of her departure said shockwaves through.
	They were debating a bill to strip her of her power.
	That's just a woman who maliciously prosecutes, maliciously fails to prosecute.
	Do they give the examples here?
	Officials across the region on Thursday welcomed Gardner's departure, but many shared a deep concern about who would handle upcoming hearings, communicate with victims, and pick up the pieces of an office that has now roughly...
	What did I just do here?
	Oh, oh, oh, okay, here we go.
	It's unbelievable.
	Who, what, did this person get their talking point from Ayanna Pressley?
	Talking about Neely, the New York City metro victim who died, a lynching.
	Gardner's supporters remain steadfast.
	We just witnessed a modern-day lynching, said Adolphus Pruitt, head of the NAACP, way to desecrate the history of actual racial lynchings in America.
	This is a racial lynching.
	It's so disgusting because it's such soft bigotry of low expectations.
	The idea...
	That you cannot compel the resignation of someone who is not just wildly incompetent, but deeply corrupt.
	And if you do, it's racism.
	It's shameless.
	It's unfortunate that all the forces against Kim Gardner chose to make it impossible for the office to function in the way it needed to.
	It wasn't functioning in the way it was supposed to.
	In so many ways, chased away talent that might...
	Oh, I don't think that's the takeaway.
	She came under scrutiny within months of taking office for staff departures.
	Then about a year into office, she indicated sitting Governor Eric Greitens for taking a partially nude photo of a woman without her consent.
	But the charges were eventually dropped, and investigators she hired pleaded guilty in federal court to concealing documents in the case.
	And Gardner herself was reprimanded by the Missouri Supreme Court and forced to pay $750 in an ethics...
	Well, no, no, it's racism.
	It's a lynching.
	She continued to face public scrutiny over her exclusion list.
	Why is it doing this?
	Of St. Louis police officers whose work she didn't trust.
	And also for her decision to charge the Central West End couple.
	That was the McCloskey's.
	Gardner was re-elected for a second term in a landslide.
	She pledged to continue fighting.
	This is the problem, by the way.
	I mean, she was elected.
	She was voted.
	People voted her back in knowing, I guess, to some extent.
	Maybe they didn't.
	In February, scandals intensified when a car speeding through downtown streets crashed, pinning between two vehicles, a teen visiting St. Louis for a volleyball game and leading to the amputation of both of her legs.
	The car's driver, Daniel Riley, had remained free after court delays despite violating his bond dozens of times.
	Gardner's office was widely blamed for delaying Riley's trial and not filing to revoke bonds.
	She in turn blamed the judge for not accepting a bond reduction request.
	This is not the time for finger pointing, she said then.
	What else do we got here?
	Years to clean up this mess.
	Senate Minority Leader John Rizzo, a Democrat from the independents who said Gardner reached out to him.
	Rizzo told Gardner that Republicans were serious about appointing a special prosecutor to take on violent crime cases in St. Louis.
	Okay, whatever.
	I think we got enough of this.
	My goodness.
	How much more?
	The most powerful weapon I have is to fight back.
	All right.
	All right.
	You're gone.
	Good riddance.
	The damage that Kimberly Gardner has caused will indeed last year.
	But, like, endless.
	Endless corruption.
	Endless incompetence.
	Politically motivated.
	Ideologically motivated.
	And let me just do one thing here.
	We've got to double check.
	We're going to do this in real time.
	Just to make sure.
	Soros has good taste in prosecutors.
	Yeah, let's see this.
	There we go.
	Soros-backed prosecutor mired in scandal resigns.
	It's amazing.
	He hires very progressive prosecutors.
	Soros-backed Kim Gardner could be held in contempt after a team fails to show at murder trial.
	It was murder.
	It wasn't attempted murder.
	A George Soros-backed prosecutor in Missouri accused of neglecting her duties may be held in criminal contempt of court after no one from her team showed up to a murder trial.
	I remembered this.
	St. Louis Circuit attorney Kim Gardner finds herself in more hot water.
	Judge Milken filed a motion following her team's failure to show up in court on Monday against Jonathan Jones, 18, who is accused of fatally shooting a man in 2021.
	Yeah, it's a modern-day lynching, that tells you.
	The injustice and the horror of making sure that she no longer holds office.
	Apparently she was going to night classes as a nurse.
	I guess she saw the writing on the wall and needs to plan for the future, so she was moonlighting in nursing school for her second career, but you can accuse me of holding a grudge.
	I would not want Kim Gardner.
	Helping me with anything that required medical attention.
	I would not want a Soros-funded anyone who is clearly politically motivated, ideologically motivated, doing anything to me that required medical attention.
	So Kim Gardner's out, and we'll see who replaces her.
	Will they be better?
	Will they be worse?
	Who knows?
	Find out on the next edition of George Soros.
	Tries to destroy America.
	I'm sorry.
	He tries to reshape America.
	I think this is the way he said it.
	All right.
	Story number one.
	Let's do one more quick one here before we head on over to Rumble exclusively.
	Do we go with this?
	Oh, let's go with this one.
	Let's do this one.
	This is beautiful.
	We'll end on another video.
	This one might have made you gag if you watched it.
	If I had started off with this, Cernovich tweeting out, global warming is the largest scam in human history.
	This long, we've got to go through it just so we can really let the full impact of the absurdity of the experts who are dictating public policy testifying.
	Their expert testimony is in my heart of hearts, and you'll see this.
	Senator Kennedy.
	I don't mind the guy who's asking good questions.
	Mr. Secretary, thanks for being here.
	I want to tap your expertise for a moment.
	Give me your best estimate, just an estimate I know, of how soon you think the United States of America will be carbon neutral.
	Carbon neutral.
	By the way, just listen to every sentence.
	According to the climate scientists around the world and certainly the cutting-edge scientists that we need to rely on here in the US.
	Can you believe anybody with a serious straight face saying the experts, the scientists, the cutting-edge scientists that we need to rely on across the world, given the debacle that was their COVID response, their COVID modeling?
	Can we understand that for one second?
	And this idiot thinks that he's being smart.
	And thinks that he's smarter than other people for deferring to the very same expert idiots who absolutely blew pretty much every aspect of the COVID response, COVID modeling, COVID jibby jab?
	We've got to get carbon neutral by 2050, and I'm very comfortable with that target, and I think that's the appropriate target.
	By 2050.
	Didn't AOC say that there's only 12 years left?
	So what good does it do getting carbon neutral by 2050 if we've only got 10 years left now?
	27 years.
	That is not a long time away.
	And how much will that cost?
	So the cost that I focus on even more is all the costs.
	So how much is it going to cost?
	So the cost that I focus on even more is if we don't do it.
	I don't have that number either, but it's more.
	How much will it cost to get us carbon neutral?
	It's going to cost trillions of dollars, and it'll cost tens of trillions of dollars if we don't get our act together.
	How many trillions?
	I don't have the estimate or the numbers in front of me.
	I've seen a variety of different estimates, but it's a large amount.
	Fundamentally transforming our energy economy is a big deal.
	Tell me the estimates that you've seen.
	I don't have those numbers.
	I don't have those numbers.
	We're not asking you to the nearest dollar.
	Was it $10,700,854,900,000?
	The number!
	If I saw an estimate that's $50 trillion, I would not need to have those numbers in my hands.
	In order to understand the cost of the proposal that I am putting forward to the government.
	It's right on hand.
	So you're advocating that we become karma neutral, but you don't know how much it's going to cost.
	So there's an awful lot of estimates out there.
	It depends on...
	I appreciate it, by the way.
	Deputy Secretary, United States Department of...
	The joke here is that it literally looks like every single person in the Biden administration holding a position of power is an absolute bumbling idiot.
	I mean, I can't think of ones that are not.
	And Secretary Yellen, bumbling idiot.
	David Turk, bumbling idiot.
	Rachel Levine, bumbling idiots.
	Bumbling idiot after bumbling idiot.
	And these are the people governing the most powerful nation on earth.
	Knowledge and improvement and other kinds of things.
	You're the expert.
	I know with the certainty of all the experts I've spoken about, it's cheaper to get our act together than it is to not get our act together on climate change.
	Then tell me the cost versus the cost if we don't do it.
	I think it's orders of magnitude.
	I think it's orders of magnitude.
	I know that, but you don't have a cost?
	You want us to get there, but you can't tell the American taxpayer how much it's going to cost?
	Is that your testimony?
	It's going to save us money.
	And there's a lot of jobs.
	Well, how do we know if you don't know how much it's going to cost?
	I don't have the number.
	It's going to cost us more.
	It's going to save us money.
	Just throw a bunch of crap out there in the hopes of not being pursued to provide an answer to the question.
	This is what it looks like when children become adults and obtain undeserved positions of power.
	Cost.
	I'd be happy to pull up the latest numbers that I've seen.
	How about $50 trillion?
	Is that right?
	It's going to cost trillions of dollars.
	There's no doubt about it.
	Okay.
	If we spend trillions of dollars...
	Listen to this!
	By the way, he just got it out of him.
	Kennedy knew the estimates are $50 trillion.
	Just a cool $50 trillion to reshape the energy sector as it's currently understood.
	$50 trillion.
	I was trying to put zeros in it.
	I don't know how...
	It goes million?
	100 million?
	Billion?
	100 billion?
	Then I guess it goes into trillion.
	Steve, some of your colleagues estimate 50 trillion.
	And it disappoints me that you're not willing to give the estimates.
	I hope you're not telling me you have no idea how much it's going to cost.
	That creates a whole new host of problems.
	That noise is coming from the video.
	But if it costs $50 trillion, as some of your colleagues have testified, to become carbon neutral by 2050.
	And I'm all for carbon neutrality, by the way.
	How much is that going to lower world temperatures?
	Or how much is that going to reduce the increase in world temperatures?
	But can you appreciate...
	I mean, I was listening to this last night, just basking in the stupidity of the human mind.
	We're the smartest animal on Earth, in theory.
	If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral, how much is that going to reduce or...
	I mean, they can't predict the landfall of a hurricane.
	I mean, they can do it relatively accurately, I guess.
	They're asking, what's going to be the weather in 27 years when they can't tell us the weather in a week?
	If we do something that involves...
	Becoming carbon neutral, what are the other effects that might...
	But if we do this, how much do you think we're going to change the weather?
	Let me know.
	And by the way, I know the same experts that you're relying on now were the ones talking about global cooling in the 70s, but that's because they were dumb back then.
	It's the same ones that were talking about global warming in the 90s, but since we're not really global warming, it's got to go to climate change.
	Imagine the ignorant arrogance of a human saying, if we do all sorts of things, how much can we change the weather in 27 years?
	So every country around the world needs to get its act together.
	Our emissions are about 13% of global emissions.
	Yeah, but if you could answer my question, if we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral in the United States of America by 2050, you're the Deputy Secretary of Energy.
	Give me your estimate of how much that is going to reduce world temperatures.
	So first of all, it's a net cost.
	It's what benefits we're having from getting our act together and reducing all of those climate benefits.
	Let me ask again, maybe I'm not being clear.
	If we spent $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050 in the United States of America, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?
	This is a global problem.
	This is a global problem.
	You know how much it's going to reduce global temperatures?
	Zero!
	Because China, for the life of it, is not going to do anything about this.
	India, for the life of it, is not going to become carbon neutral by 2050.
	It's going to do jack squat.
	In fact, I might even just venture a hypothetical educated guess.
	It'll probably make it worse because what's going to happen in order for America and Canada under Trudeau to become carbon neutral, they're going to outsource their pollution to countries that will not cripple their own economy.
	For the hypothetical, theoretical betterment in 20 years' time of one degree of the Earth's global temperature, they won't do it.
	So, hey, good, you'll cripple Canada, you'll cripple the states, it'll cost $50 trillion, and it will produce nothing, because all you're going to end up doing is outsourcing your pollution to countries that are not going to cripple themselves for some hypothetical, theoretical, and probably just as ill-founded stuff as what we saw in the 70s.
	Let's see what he has to say.
	So we need to reduce our emissions, and we need to do everything we can.
	How much, if we do our part, is it going to reduce world temperature?
	So we're 13% of global emissions right now.
	You don't know, do you?
	You don't know, do you?
	You can do the math.
	So we're 13% of global emissions.
	If you know, why won't you tell me?
	If we went to zero, that would be 13%.
	You don't know, do you?
	You just want us to spend $50 trillion, and you don't have the slightest idea.
	Whether it's going to reduce world temperatures.
	Now, I'm all for carbon neutrality, but you're the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy, and you're advocating we spend trillions of dollars to seek carbon neutrality, and you can't, and this isn't your money or my money, it's taxpayer money, and you can't tell me how much it's going to lower world temperatures?
	Or you won't tell me?
	You know, but you won't?
	In my heart of hearts, there is no way the world gets its act together on climate change unless the U.S. leads.
	Tell me how much.
	In my heart of hearts.
	There you have it, people.
	Trust the science.
	In my heart of hearts, I know it will help.
	And if I'm wrong, sorry, at least my heart was in the right place.
	Fifty!
	Trillion dollars.
	Okay.
	There's one super chat here, which I'll get to before we head over.
	Why was Gardner going to nursing school also?
	She's planning.
	She knew what was coming.
	I mean, I don't know.
	How long in advance did she know?
	Maybe she didn't like what she was doing.
	Okay.
	Bucklebrush Jones.
	Good to see you again.
	Thank you very much.
	Let's go on over to Rumble.
	Let me get the link so I can give it to all of you again.
	And then after we're done on Rumble, we will go over to locals as well.
	Here.
	So one more time.
	Link to Rumble.
	Let me just see here.
	China and India have millions of people, but only 2%.
	Okay, sorry, I didn't leave that.
	No, but China and India, so the U.S. is number three, I think.
	Even if we assume that emissions are the actual problem, as far as I have understood, carbon emissions have become the, what is it called?
	The be-all and end-all of pollution.
	What consumes carbon dioxide?
	Trees?
	Algae?
	What produces the most oxygen?
	Is it algae or phytoplankton?
	I think it might be phytoplankton.
	So this idea, even if we accept what might be a potentially fundamentally flawed premise that carbon emissions are the only, the end-all and be-all of all pollution, I think China and India are number one and two, if I'm not mistaken, and then US is number three.
	But then you have to, you know, then you have to...
	Play with that a little bit and go by per capita.
	Per capita, China is not as bad as the US because it's a 2 billion population country.
	Oh, okay.
	Without CO2 wildlife, life will end.
	What is it?
	I think it's phytoplankton.
	It's phytoplankton that are the greatest consumers of carbon dioxide and the greatest emitters of oxygen.
	All right, let's do it.
	Let's go on over to Rumble, people.
	And then we're going to talk the Neely incident, CNN covering that, Mark Elias covering the Carrie Lake, Florida laws, and there's something else I forget.
	Okay, everybody, come on over to Rumble.
	We're ending on YouTube in three, two, one, now.
	All right, let's make sure we're good.
	Are we still good?
	Robert Tanner, the biggest scam ever, America.
	The biggest scam ever attempted.
	Climate change to bankrupt America and enriching communist countries and others with more intelligent leaders.
	Yep.
	Oh, boy.
	Okay.
	Piss off YouTube, says ASCII blue.
	Buy you noobs, says the mockeries.
	And then what else we got here?
	Government officials made...
	Okay.
	Everybody.
	Let me see what I just got on my phone here.
	Okay, I'll come to that later.
	All right, let's get to this here, this here.
	Let's bring up, it was a tweet from Mark Elias.
	It doesn't really matter.
	It was a tweet from Mark Elias.
	So the news of the day yesterday, Barnes talked about it last night on vivabarneslaw.locals.com, the news in Carrie Lake that her lawyers were sanctioned $2,000 for...
	Making a factually incorrect statement, that statement being that something in the evidence was undisputed, or it was undisputed when the factual element was in fact factually contested, they were ordered to pay a $2,000 fine.
	The news of the day is that Carrie Lake's attorneys sanctioned.
	Did I get it here?
	Let me see if I got it here.
	No, I didn't get it here.
	And Mark Elias, whose firm is representing...
	Katie Hobbs, in that case, puts out a tweet and says, Carrie Lake lawyer sanctioned.
	Don't mention the amount, I don't think.
	They also don't mention what is arguably but not arguably the most important part, which comes right at the end of the article linked in the tweet that just mentions how Carrie Lake lawyer has been sanctioned.
	Election contests filed by Carrie Lake.
	This is from December.
	I don't know why he's linking this.
	This was to support the claim.
	Because the news was that the lawyer got sanctioned for that false statement.
	But does it mention that on March 23rd, they rejected Lake's seven claims and sent the remaining claim regarding signature matching back to the trial court for further review?
	That decision came out, and the news of the day is the...
	$2,000 penalty and not the judge saying, get this back and go take care of the signature verification, which is the big news, which is the biggest news.
	And the sanction, which we're going to talk about it more on Sunday.
	Robert thinks this is sort of a procedural type sanction.
	I don't understand.
	Sanctions in the U.S. seem to be handed out like candy.
	Sanctioning of the lawyers seems to be handing out like candy at Halloween.
	In Quebec, in particular.
	At least the last time I practiced, and I don't think those rules have changed.
	Sanctioning a lawyer was like, I mean, it was the most outlandish prospect you would have to have done.
	Even sanctioning the other party for legal fees in Quebec is only exceptionally done.
	Sanctioning a lawyer, it's virtually unheard of in the absence of like an egregious ethics violation.
	In America, at least it seems that they hand out like candy, like Dershowitz got sanctioned.
	It seems to be politically motivated.
	But the news is Carrie Lake's attorney sanctioned.
	They don't really mention 2,000 bucks.
	Not that it's not the end of the world.
	It's embarrassing and it's going to make the headlines.
	The true headlines, the judge is sending it back and saying, get on the signature verification.
	And that, as per Carrie Lake, when we had her on a couple weeks ago or a few weeks ago, is the big story.
	And we'll see where that goes and if we have any news on that.
	Oh, what do we do?
	Okay, this one, throwing this one out.
	This is news that I only heard of as I was reading the chat coming into this.
	Pro-Russian blogger Gonzalo Lira detained in Kharkiv.
	This is Yahoo News.
	This is arguably the second time he was detained.
	There was still some controversy.
	The first time Gonzalo Lira, who's a pro-Russian blogger blogging out in the Ukraine, started off all of the streams with, where is Tiffany Dover?
	He's got his answer now if he's watching NBC and believes that.
	The first time he got detained, people were concerned.
	And thought it was very serious and very dangerous.
	There were some people suggesting he lied about it.
	Before I accuse someone of lying, I'm going to make sure I have adequate evidence to make that statement.
	This is now the second time, and it's in Yahoo News.
	Pro-Russian blogger Godzilla Lira detained in Kharkiv.
	According to investigation, the man is a citizen of Latin America country.
	But has lived in Kharki for several years.
	Law enforcement authorities accuse him of supporting Russian occupation and valorizing Moscow's apparent war crimes during the war.
	Additionally, he is said to have engaged in attempts to discredit Ukraine's highest military and political leadership.
	In spring 2020, he filmed provocative videos showing the faces of Ukrainian soldiers and insulting the country's defenders.
	Posted videos on YouTube, Twitter has nearly 300,000 followers.
	SBU, which is the Ukrainian Special Police Unit, He has also accused him of denying the facts of Russian missile strikes on Ukrainian cities after the mass killings of civilians by the invading forces.
	During a search of his possessions, law enforcement officials found mobile phones and a computer that contained evidence of his illegal activity.
	This has to have been translated.
	He has been remanded in custody by the court and the investigation is ongoing.
	Let's just assume that this reporting is accurate.
	You do remember when people were railing against Putin the authoritarian for jailing journalists, for arresting journalists.
	He's a tyrant.
	He's an authoritarian war criminal.
	He's arresting journalists.
	It's an amazing thing that you can only think of your comebacks after the discussion sometimes.
	But when Russia does it, it's a war crime.
	It's an authoritarian regime that has to be ousted and deposed at all costs.
	When Ukraine does it, Well, they're in war.
	They've got to control the information.
	And this was basically the exact argument that, I would say, this was one of the arguments that Konstantin Kysin brought up when we had the discussion.
	When Ukraine does something, it's necessary because they're in a time of war.
	They've got to control information.
	They've got to suppress information.
	They've got to arrest journalists.
	They've got to shut down.
	Churches, they've got to do all sorts of bad things because they're in war and it's the way to preserve their integrity, their sovereignty.
	When Russia does it, it's a war crime and it's evidence as to why they have to continue fighting this war.
	And I won't place more blame on one party than the other.
	I think all of these wartime measures, and as much as it's a wartime measure in Ukraine, it's as much of a wartime measure in Russia, this is all battling among governments that are themselves fundamentally corrupt, which is maybe one of the reasons why, you know, other nations should not be shipping trillions and trillions of dollars to these governments that are so fundamentally corrupt.
	A third of the money...
	You got your Ukrainian officials, for whom corruption is just a way of life, all vying for their cut of the aid that's coming in.
	But when they do it, it's to preserve democracy.
	When they suppress free speech, arrest journalists, jail people, jail dissidents, it's to preserve democracy.
	And when Russia does it, it's to promote autocracy, authoritarianism.
	So if the news is true, whether you love Gonzalo Lira or hate him, it's quite clearly a very serious problem and a real risk for him because these are not countries I would be in.
	And these are not countries I would want to get detained in.
	But someone brought that up, so I have to go Google it and double-check.
	What do we want to do now?
	Let's do the one that's going to make me very angry.
	Does everyone remember the Time magazine article where they described how they didn't steal the election, they fortified it?
	Time magazine cabal.
	Does everyone remember that?
	The secret history of the 2020...
	The secret history of the shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election.
	We've talked about this over and over again, and I will not talk about it again except to read my favorite passage.
	That's why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told.
	Even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream, a well-funded cabal, when some people use that word, it's anti-Semitic, when time does it, it's fortification, of powerful people ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perception.
	Change rules and laws, steer media coverage, and control the flow of information.
	They were not rigging the election, though, if that's what you were thinking, you dumbass.
	They were fortifying it.
	And they believe that the public needs to understand the system's fragility in order to understand that democracy in America endures.
	So you read that article, and what they're basically telling you is, they rigged it, they stole it through lawful means, and let's spin it so that...
	You are somehow convinced that nothing wrong was done to the system or to you.
	They are now doing the exact same thing with the COVID vaccine.
	The COVID vaccine.
	The Jibby Jab.
	Time magazine, or Time, whatever the hell this is.
	Listen to this, people.
	Share this.
	And let the world know, not only are they confirming what they had called conspiracy theory of the past, they are lying to your face.
	Treating you like the biggest idiots that they think you are.
	And this shit is going to work on some people.
	Remember when they told you that safe and effective.
	How can you know it's safe if it hasn't been around for more than nine months?
	Oh, because it's safe and effective.
	How do you know it's effective when you didn't test it for transmission?
	You know what?
	If it were just not effective, it wouldn't have been a problem.
	Safe.
	Is what they told you.
	Conspiracy theorist anti-vaxxers.
	Oh, what's that?
	You say it causes myocarditis?
	You're a conspiracy theorist anti-vaxxer.
	You should be censored, deplatformed, and maligned.
	Oh, what's that?
	You say it interferes with...
	Oh, by the way, then a year later?
	Yeah, it causes myocarditis.
	One in 5,000 if you're a young male.
	No biggie.
	Just don't jog for, you know, a little while.
	It causes interference or problems with women's menstrual cycles.
	Liar conspiracy theorist anti-vaxxer 2021.
	Look what they're saying now, by the way.
	But listen to this headline.
	Listen to this headline.
	COVID-19 vaccines aren't strongly linked to menstrual changes, study says.
	First of all, this is a lie of a headline, and we're going to see why in the body of the article.
	It's not strongly linked to menstrual cycles.
	You know what?
	Screw it.
	Let's just get to the end here.
	The strongest association was in post-menopausal women of interference with menstrual cycles.
	The headline says...
	They're not strongly linked to menstrual cycle changes.
	And then, if you get there, the strongest association was among menopausal women.
	And when they say it's not strongly linked to menstrual changes, and you're going to see this in a bit, what they're actually misrepresenting is that they're saying it's not strongly linked to menstrual changes, when what they are basically actually forced to admit is that it is linked.
	But not to strong menstrual changes.
	So they are conflating, strongly linked to, with linked to strong menstrual changes, which we're going to see in a bit.
	I mean, it's lying Soviet-style.
	I mean, this is Soviet-style lies.
	But let's read this.
	While the COVID-19, they've got to start off safe and effective.
	While the COVID vaccine...
	While the COVID-19 vaccines have made a dramatic difference in controlling the pandemic, researchers are still learning about the ways that the shots may affect people's health.
	You told us they were safe and effective.
	This is a little too late to be telling us this now.
	What are you saying right now, by the way?
	That you're still learning about the ways the shots may affect people's...
	Oh, in other words, you're still experimenting on people?
	You are engaging in what Obama already admitted was basically...
	Clinical testing on 2 billion people?
	That is what you're saying, Tom.
	That is what you're saying right now.
	We're still learning about the ways that the shots may affect people's health.
	Meaning, when we told you it was safe and effective, we lied to you.
	And we tested it on you in order to see whether or not our lie would pan out to be true.
	And now it seems that our lie is not panning out to be true.
	Still learning about the ways the shots may affect people's health.
	One of the questions surrounds how the vaccines might impact menstrual cycles.
	Reports of women experiencing changes in their cycles, either in the intensity and frequency of bleeding or the length of their period, have prompted more rigorous investigations.
	I'm sorry.
	We were told that that wasn't happening at the beginning.
	You can go back to those.
	There was an article in The Guardian, from what I remember, that said...
	Don't worry.
	In the UK, they said it's safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	So you're saying it...
	We recognize it might affect your menstrual cycle, but it wouldn't have any other impacts on the reproductive system.
	The latest study published by BMJ, professor of epidemiology, physician specialist at the Swedish medical products, looked at the medical records from nearly 3 million Swedish women, aged 12 to 74. They focused on those who had sought care from healthcare professionals for menstrual changes from December 2020.
	To February 2022.
	It's funny, I remember them telling us in December 2020 it was safe and effective.
	They told us that.
	And we're able to see when the women were vaccinated and how long after their immunization they sought care.
	Well, that's a very important qualification because it might have interfered with even more, but they didn't seek care so they don't make it into the list of the study.
	That analysis found no strong connection between COVID-19 vaccines and the changes in menstruation, or at least bleeding events that were severe enough for women to seek medical care.
	They're not saying that there was no strong association between the vaccine and seeking medical care.
	What they're actually saying is that there was no strong association between the jab and then the seriousness of the reaction to seek medical care.
	There was an association.
	Between the jab and interference with the cycle, but just not so serious that so many had to go get medical care.
	This is helping me flesh out my upcoming raging vlog against this article.
	The strongest association was in postmenopausal women.
	After a third dose of either the mRNA or the Pfizer, women had a 28% increased risk of bleeding in the first week after the vaccination, 25% Yeah, vaccination.
	Leung says the pattern doesn't necessarily suggest an association between the two events, especially since a similar increase was not seen among postmenopausal women.
	Premenopausal women, I'm sorry.
	Leung says that the association among postmenopausal women could be confounded by a number of sure.
	We're dumbfounded.
	What's the meme?
	Doctors are...
	Oh, there was a meme.
	There was the whole thing like they're baffled.
	Doctors are baffled.
	Oh.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Okay.
	And then we get to the end.
	The results don't necessarily contradict the growing number of reports of changes in menstruation following the vaccination.
	Periods can be affected by any vaccine.
	But the current study shows that those changes might not be serious enough to require medical attention.
	It's a bit reassuring that there doesn't seem to be an increased risk of more severe menstrual disturbances.
	I'm sorry.
	That's not what your own reporting just said.
	Still, doctors don't fully understand why immunization against COVID-19 could affect menstrual cycles, so more research is needed to appreciate how developing immunity against SARS affects health.
	Oh, more research is needed?
	It's a little too late for that.
	It's a little too late for that, experts.
	You've already told us it was safe and effective.
	You've already injected 2 billion people with this.
	Baffled.
	The word...
	Of the last two years.
	Herb Green.
	URS8243 says, I'm glad I still own actual encyclopedias.
	This is starting to feel like Animal Farm.
	Starting to feel.
	It's freaking Animal Farm.
	Jabari308.
	I don't know if that's a pun.
	Jabari says, still don't know why some parents got their minor children vaxxed.
	When they have no risk, it's criminal.
	And Sariel says, censorship is what cowards do, Fry.
	That's Time magazine.
	They're spinning this the same way.
	It wasn't rigging the elections.
	It was fortifying it.
	There's no strong correlation.
	There's a correlation.
	It's just not so strong that so many women had to go to seek medical care.
	Imagine how serious the interference with a menstrual cycle has to be for a woman to go seek medical care, and that's their threshold, which they still acknowledge.
	We need to do a little more research.
	I'm sorry, that's what you were supposed to do before you stuck that in someone's arm.
	Call them a misogynist for not wanting to do it, an anti-vaxxer.
	And then go to Scotland and check out the stillbirths, the miscarriage rates.
	Anyhow, that's it.
	It's outrageous.
	It's enraging.
	And the camera just started moving again here.
	Hold on one second.
	Okay.
	Let me just go.
	Again, disable the tracking function.
	Done.
	All right.
	Let's see what's going on in Florida, people.
	The latest news of the day.
	No, let's stick to Canada.
	Let's go to Canada for one second.
	Remember that little thing, the Bill C-11 that they just passed?
	Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act.
	Which is about preserving, protecting Canadian content on the internet.
	They don't want to govern individual social media accounts, but they're removing that exclusion from the law, and they're going to go after individual accounts if they act like a broadcaster, impose Canadian content requirements.
	The CRTC, the Canada Radio Telecommunications something, now that it has become law, now that Bill C-11...
	Is now the law, the Online Streaming Act.
	Because there's ambiguity, they don't exactly know the scope and the application of Bill C-11.
	Pablo Rodriguez, the Minister of Heritage, has to issue a directive or ask the CRTC to define the scope and how they're going to implement this bill.
	Because the bill is so clear that they need the governing body, the CRTC, to issue directives as to how they're going to interpret this law.
	And now apparently...
	If we believe the National Post, the CRTC is considering banning Fox News from Canadian cable packages.
	An LGBTQ rights group asked the CRTC to ban Fox News over, quote, false and horrifying claims.
	Horrifying.
	Made by host Tucker Carlson regarding transgender individuals.
	CRTC has opened a public consultation on the complaint from an LGBTQ rights group asking the broadcaster to ban Fox News.
	Interested parties, yada, yada.
	We can talk.
	Eagle Canada First said in April, it will file an application asking the CRTC to ban Fox News over false and horrifying claims made by Tucker Carlson.
	The group published an open letter, yada, yada, yada, coverage to provoke hatred of the...
	Okay, they provoked it.
	The group said Carlson made false claims about those communities include painting them as violent and dangerous.
	No comment, but I know what everyone who knows the news is thinking right now.
	The segment aimed to provoke resentment and violence against 2STNBGN, I don't even know what that is anymore, through false claims and malicious mince information.
	During the segment, Carlson made the inflammatory and false claim that trans people are targeting Christians.
	At least one person was.
	To position trans people in existential opposition to Christianity is an incitement of violence against trans people that is plain to any viewer.
	Pretty sure there are religious rules about that, but I'm not a Christian.
	Nor do I know the rules to a sufficient degree to purport to be an authority.
	The letter also accused the segment of stoking resentment against 2STNBGN2.
	I mean, I don't even know what that acronym is.
	I'm not trying to be funny.
	2STNBGN individuals through misinformation, including that trans people are given preferential treatment in employment and other opportunities.
	That might be wrong.
	That doesn't seem hateful.
	Carlson has also been fired from Fox.
	The CRTC maintains a list of international channels, cable, satellite, and IPD that it can include in their packages.
	In March, the CRTC removed Russia Today and RT France following the invasion.
	Who could have seen that coming?
	There was one who, let me just pull this up, because there was a tweet to the effect that referring to transgenderism as a contagion is hateful.
	Let me see if I can pull that up, because I had a not a witty retort, but rather just a logical retort.
	Let me pull up that tweet.
	Here we go.
	Oh, yes, that's right.
	It was Rachel Gilmore.
	Man, Twitter is putting her tweets in front of my eyes because they know that I cannot help but reply to that incessant deluge of disinformation.
	Listen to this.
	They know I can't resist.
	I can't help myself.
	I'm sorry.
	Is Canada going to ban Fox News from cable packages?
	Maybe.
	Here's what's going on.
	Canada's broadcasting regulator, the CRTC, got an application from an LGBTQ rights group, EGAL Canada.
	The group asked the regulator to consider banning Fox News from cable packages.
	And according to the National Post, they're looking into it.
	But can they actually do that?
	Yes.
	The CRTC has a list of international channels that can be included in TV packages.
	And in the past, it has removed controversial ones.
	Like, it ditched Russia Today and RT France after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
	The group argued that non-Canadian broadcasters are subject to the same rules as Canadian ones.
	And Canadian ones aren't allowed to incite hatred based on identity.
	But that's what Agal Canada says Fox News has been doing to the LGBTQ community.
	And while the letter uses former Fox News host Tucker Carlson as an example, he's certainly not the only one who's come under fire.
	One contributor called trans women a, quote, social contagion.
	That's a statement.
	A social contagion.
	I don't know if they refer to trans women or the transgenderism as an ideology, as a social contagion.
	Hold on.
	Social...
	Contagion definition.
	Let's just see what the definition of a social contagion is.
	This effect is called social contagion.
	According to psychology today, it refers to the tendency of people to mimic the behavior of others who are either nearby or whom they have been exposed to.
	Seems like an innocuous definition.
	What would be good evidence for something to be a social contagion if it indeed were a social contagion?
	It's not perfect.
	Google Trends might be a good way to determine if something happens to be something of a social contagion or something that just makes the news.
	I mean, it's not a perfect way of looking at it, but it's a pretty damn good indicator.
	This is the Google Trends for the term transgender.
	I forget exactly how they measure it, but baseline...
	2023.
	That's transgenderism, but maybe it's just one word.
	Trans...
	Look at that.
	I mean, it's like right around the same time.
	And then we had one more.
	Gender-affirming care, which is the one that I thought was most surprising to me.
	Totally not a social contagion, though, that it just happens to be like a spike that if this were on the stock market, you would accuse it of being a pump and dump.
	Yeah.
	But calling transgenderism a social contagion.
	Is hate speech.
	Once upon a time, they called goth a social contagion.
	They called bulimia, anorexia, social contagions.
	Suicide itself can be a social contagion.
	It's a known fact that it does spread, which is one of the reasons for which media is not supposed to or should not report or publicize too much on suicides is that they do incite others and cause something of a contagion.
	But, you know, massive unreasonable spikes in search terms on Google is a pretty good indicator.
	You know, it's sort of like the VAERS of social contagion measurements.
	Not perfect, but it's an indicator.
	What's the word?
	It's a signal.
	Oh, now, that's going to be hate speech in Canada?
	Referring to something of an ideology that is being so pervasive that it's to be taught in schools to kids, introduced to them at young ages, have books written on it?
	To call that a contagion is going to be now hate speech in Canada?
	What can possibly go wrong with that?
	Anyhow, that's it.
	That's the absolute state of Canada.
	But speaking of the absolute state of Canada, I guess it's a good segue to get into the absolute state of America.
	Let me see if I missed anything here.
	No, we're good.
	I'm going to see some of the chats.
	Okay, I'm going to see.
	Dark Sidious, don't spam people.
	That's the one thing is don't do.
	All hate speech laws need to be removed, says TZ Burton.
	We're seeing where it goes in real time.
	You know, they start off with hate speech laws, which are objective, like, I don't know, death to Jews.
	I mean, there's things which are objective hate speech.
	Objective in hate, as in inciting hatred.
	And then you see the problem.
	You say, well, I want to start with the easy, good examples.
	You know, like the same thing with censorship with Alex Jones.
	I want to de-platform the most toxic ones, even though you might not believe that they should be.
	Banned in the first place.
	Someone wants to say, I hate Jews?
	Okay.
	So long as it remains only speech, knock yourself out.
	When they start with Alex Jones, because he's such a detestable character because of the way the media portrayed him so that nobody objects to him being deplatformed.
	Where could it possibly go from there?
	It's going to stop at Alex Jones.
	He's the extreme example.
	No.
	He's not the extreme example exception.
	He becomes...
	The new baseline.
	Get this camera here again.
	I don't understand why it keeps happening.
	I now understand why it is problematic.
	And I would dare say, I've understood it before.
	Something of a free speech, not absolute.
	It's because you don't have the right to defame and you don't have the right to issue death threats.
	But you should definitely err on the side of more free speech than less.
	And now we're seeing in real time where hate speech goes.
	Imagine if you had adhered to the ideology that death to Jews is hate speech and it should be illegal.
	And now referring to an ideology as a contagion is hate speech.
	My goodness.
	I mean, do we agree with that?
	And if someone says, I agree with that, well, where does it end?
	So that's what's going on in Canada, but what's going on in the States, where does it end?
	You go to Florida.
	And you have legislation which precludes certain types of speech.
	Ostensibly.
	The new...
	Let's see.
	I hope this is the right version of the Parents Act bill.
	I'm fairly certain it is, that this is the one that everyone's, you know, that some people are pooping their pants over.
	Referred in Senate March 27, 2023.
	Pretty sure this is it.
	So the news of the day, and I'll be talking about it tomorrow when I go live with...
	Unlearn 16, 5 o 'clock.
	It's going to be interesting whether or not you like the person or what you think you know of the person based online persona.
	5 o 'clock tomorrow, Unlearn 16. Teacher in Toronto.
	And we're going to have an interesting discussion.
	The disinformation, or at least the misinformation of the day, is Florida is passing legislation that is censoring free speech.
	It's precluding people from compelling others to use specific gender pronouns and precluding others from telling other people what pronouns to use if they do not align with their sex at birth.
	So this is the I'm fairly certain this is it, but let's just read some of the word pronoun.
	Here we go.
	It tells the school that the school cannot withhold certain information from the parents.
	Let me see this here.
	Parents right to know.
	Section 113 of the Elementary and Secondary School Act.
	It's expanding when you cannot expose children to sexualized content.
	Now it's going from kindergarten to grade 8. It's protecting parents from stuff that's going on behind without their knowledge.
	So Section 1112 of the Elementary and Secondary School Act is amended.
	We can go to a bunch of these by redesignating paragraphs.
	So now where was the one here?
	The right to know if a school employee or contractor acts to change a minor's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name.
	Can you imagine like some teachers are saying, we get to do this with a student, we don't have to tell the parents, we get to do it behind their back?
	Gender markers, this is the part I think people have a take issue with.
	As a condition of receiving federal funds from the Department of Education, any elementary school as such term is defined, yada, yada, yada, or school that consists of only middle grades that receives such federal funds shall be required to obtain parental consent before changing a minor's childbirth, child's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form or allowing a child to change a child's name.
	Seems reasonable to me.
	Let me see.
	There was more.
	The bottom line of this.
	There more?
	The news of the day is that it's a violation of free speech because it's telling people what they can't say and what they can't tell others to say.
	And it's an amazing inflection point that we're at right now because we're literally at a point in history where two rights are conflicting, both of which are claiming are based and predicated on the idea of free speech.
	I have the free speech dignity.
	If I identify as whatever, you have to refer to me as that, and if you don't, you're violating my rights.
	Whereas the other person is going to say, by you telling me what I have to refer to you as, you're violating my rights.
	And now, is it a violation of free speech to tell someone that they cannot compel or tell other people what pronouns to use?
	It is.
	Is it a violation of their freedom of speech rights to protect the other person's rights and not to be compelled to say something?
	It is.
	And how do we get past this?
	John Stuart Mills, I think it was John Stuart Mills, who said, Your freedoms end.
	Was it him who said, your freedoms end where my nose begins?
	Something along those lines where I think Dershowitz afterwards took it a step further and said, your freedoms end.
	Don't end where my nose begins because I can inhale your freedoms and so you have to go get a jibby jab.
	I think it was Dershowitz that said that.
	Hang on.
	One person's freedoms end when they conflict with the freedoms of another person.
	And I would dare say that...
	Restriction of speech versus compulsion of speech are, I'll take the prohibition on compulsion of speech.
	And when someone says, well, you can't really tell me what to call you and don't tell me your preferred pronouns.
	I mean, I guess it's a limitation of free speech.
	Only under certain circumstances.
	But that's one of the pieces of legislation that's going through now.
	But there's another one, the death penalty.
	So Florida is now making the news because decline.
	They're passing laws.
	AP encountered an error.
	What?
	I had this before.
	Okay, here we go.
	They're passing laws that are violating freedom of speech, and they're passing laws that would allow for the death penalty for non-murder.
	So we'll go through this real quick.
	DeSantis signs death penalty bill, crime bills as 2024 run-lose.
	This is going to be one of those cases where I'm going to disagree with DeSantis on the law.
	Because I happen to have changed my view on the death penalty, not because I don't believe in the death penalty in principle.
	In practice, it's not something that one can support because of the room for error, the room for abuse, and the historical confirmed abuses of the past.
	Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a bill allowing the death penalty for child rape convictions despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that banned capital punishment in such cases.
	That's the case of Kennedy.
	Kennedy versus the United States, and I think that was a case which basically said that you can't have capital punishment, the death penalty, for crimes that don't involve capital murder.
	Something along those lines because it was a case similar and explicit.
	The person did not murder someone and therefore cannot be subjected to the death penalty, and there's a lot of rationale as to why that would be the case, not the least of which is if the penalty is death for a crime that is not capital murder, you effectively eliminate any reluctance that the awful human would have had to not finish whatever awful, awful crime they're committing with murder itself.
	The counterargument to that is you're destroying a life.
	By this type of crime, and so therefore you should forfeit your right to existence.
	That's in the cases where you know definitively that the conviction is bona fide, unquestionable, etc.
	Then you read cases like Glosson, the Oklahoma case of this guy who's on death row and was scheduled to be put to death now three times, who by all accounts is absolutely innocent to the crime, but...
	Got convicted and is going to get put to death unless there's a stay of his upcoming execution.
	DeSantis is passing a law that goes against, that is contrary to Supreme Court rulings.
	And so some people say win-win.
	It either shows that he's taking a hard stance against certain types of crime that are popular to take a hard stance against.
	Either knowing that it's going to get overturned, but he made his attempt anyhow, or as an indication to the courts, maybe you should reconsider this 1980s Kennedy ruling and allow for the death penalty in cases that don't involve capital murder.
	DeSantis Republicans signed two other components of this criminal justice legislative package during a ceremony at a museum.
	The governor, who is expected to announce a run for president in the coming weeks, has leaned into an aggressive conservative agenda on crime and on other issues ahead of his expected candidacy.
	Strategically, it's pretty good.
	I mean, you're living in an era now where people are going back to the Bernie Getz of the 60s, you know, Death Wish, Dirty Harry, people fed up with crime and want tougher on crime laws and not what we see happening the exact opposite in crime-filled cesspool of cities now.
	He's faced widespread criticism.
	That's a little framing that's absolutely irrelevant.
	He's doing it to divert from his criticism over Disney.
	We're really delivering a big agenda, he said.
	So this is an important one, but admittedly a very small part of an overall large agenda and very bold agenda that's really going to be setting the terms for the country, quite frankly.
	Death penalty loss, the Santa sign that's intended to get.
	The conservative-controlled U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the 2008 ruling that found it unconstitutional to use capital punishment in child sexual battery cases.
	Florida is among a handful of states with existing laws that allow for capital punishment on child rape but has not used the punishment given the high court ruling.
	Legislation goes into effect October 1st, yada yada.
	DeSantis said he believed the Supreme Court's decision was wrong.
	Adding, this bill sets a procedure to be able to challenge that precedent and to be able to say that in Florida, we think that the worst of the worst crimes deserve the worst of the worst punishment.
	You know, the funny thing is, it's not a question of principle that people don't agree with this.
	It's a question of having seen the wrongfully convicted, the wrongfully executed, and how the state can abuse of these ultimate powers.
	And then it gets into the situation where you're legislating.
	Based on the exceptional cases where you wanted a specific outcome that probably was the proper outcome in that case, and because you didn't get that specific desired outcome in that case, you then legislate in a way that will arguably, but probably not so arguably, necessarily result in wild abuses and further injustices.
	And the next case is the other legislation that he passed, which is the death penalty.
	After a conviction has been found, no longer requiring unanimity or unanimity less one, he passed a law, and it's law, that if someone's been convicted of murder, it now just takes a jury eight to four to impose the death penalty.
	And this is, you know, for that Parkland shooter cruise kid who didn't get who got convicted or who pled guilty.
	And then on sentencing, didn't get the death penalty, despite what the family wanted, the families wanted.
	Last month, the sentence also signed a bill to end a unanimous jury requirement in death penalty sentencing, allowing capital punishment with a jury recommendation of at least eight to four in favor of exorcism.
	I mean, it's great, because I think in the Cruz case, was it three who said no?
	And so the death penalty wasn't imposed.
	Put in a piece of legislation like this, what do you think is going to happen?
	I mean, a number of things can actually happen.
	On the one hand, you might get jury members acquitting.
	Individuals because they are not convinced that the death penalty is a proper sanction and that even if they convict, it only takes eight to four to impose the death penalty.
	You might get people actually, I don't know if it's jury nullification, but you might not get them convicting on a crime that they would have otherwise convicted if they were relatively comfortable that these stringent requirements for a death penalty imposition would be followed.
	I did a panel with Eric Hundley.
	America's Untold Stories, Laidback News, Eric Hundley on YouTube and Rumble.
	And there were a bunch of other lawyers.
	And one of the lawyers, I think it was Runkle of the Bailey, said that historically this was actually the case.
	Back in the early days of the country, when you would have the death penalty for poaching, you could have the clearest cut case of poaching and the jury's going to say acquitted because we don't believe in giving this guy the death penalty for poaching.
	So, you know, if a jury is convinced that it's going to take the strictest and most stringent of unanimity, To impose the death penalty, they might be much more inclined to convict on the murder, knowing that to impose the death penalty, it's also going to require something equally astringent.
	If now they know, if they convict, it's only going to take eight to four, they might actually be far more reluctant to convict, and it might have actually quite the opposite effect.
	Okay, then I think we do this here.
	The third bill, which one is it?
	Okay, forget that.
	The Republican supermajority in the Florida Statehouse has focused heavily on the governor's legislative priorities with DeSantis expected.
	Okay, we got that here.
	All right, so that's it.
	That's what's going on in Florida.
	I'm not convinced on the free speech violation laws.
	I think, you know, having rules and regulations that people cannot be compelled to require others to use gender pronouns that don't actually reflect reality, biological reality.
	I'm not convinced that that's enough of a concern.
	Of a breach of First Amendment rights?
	The death penalty?
	I disagree with on that.
	And then, you know, the question is, you say, vote with your feet if you don't like the legislation.
	Between legislation that would allow minors to consent to gender-affirming care and a state that would impose this, well, I know which state I would vote with in terms of my feet because I would be less fearful of the social consequences of this law, but I, you know...
	The death penalty is something I've grown to understand.
	It's good in principle.
	You have clear-cut evidence.
	You have the most concrete of evidence and the most evil of people.
	Yeah, in theory.
	But then who does it?
	First of all, who pulls the trigger?
	Who pulls the lever?
	And also, do you do it on people who are absolutely mentally unwell?
	I see a mother's joke in the chat.
	I see a mother's joke in the chat.
	Okay, I'm not getting involved in the chat.
	Okay, so that's what's going on in Florida.
	I have a sneaking suspicion that the death penalty for pedophilia, the legislation will get overturned.
	The rationale behind which you don't have capital punishment for certain types of non-capital murder crimes makes sense.
	It's a politically popular thing to do.
	If it gets overturned, he tried.
	And if it doesn't and they reconsider that decision, he affected legislative policy.
	So win-win for DeSantis.
	But I disagree with it fundamentally.
	Life in prison with no possibility of parole.
	It's not fair that people get to live after doing certain things.
	But the concrete historical examples are enough to say you can't execute one innocent person and say that that's the price you have to pay to tolerate the death penalty.
	That's my personal view.
	All right.
	What else do we got?
	Well, speaking of...
	The flip side of not having strict laws on criminality, you end up having a revolving door bail system like they have in New York.
	You have people who are accused of, convicted of very violent crimes.
	Let out on the street because you don't want to criminalize too many people.
	You don't want to lock people up for too long unless it's Donald Trump and it's a flipping entry dispute on accounting documents.
	Lock them up for life.
	But when it's, you know, violently assaulting women in the subway multiple times over many years, you'll still have the media deified.
	We talked about this yesterday.
	Jordan Neely is the man who was choked to death in the New York subway.
	A homeless man, a busker.
	Everything you're going to see now is he was just an innocent, peace-loving individual who was dancing Michael Jackson.
	I'm not trying to vilify a person in any manner that is not relevant to what happened.
	Full stop.
	Neely, as we now know, had over 40 arrests.
	Several of them were for violent assaults.
	One outstanding warrant for violent assault.
	And that's not to say...
	That he got what he deserved because on that day, even though he was just sitting there quietly, some vigilante guy knew about his criminal history and decided to choke him to death.
	It might just possibly add some details, some relevant considerations to what might have happened that led up to him acting aggressively, apparently threatening people on the subway, a Marine subduing him with a chokehold that he obviously did not do properly that ended up killing the guy.
	So, not to say...
	Vigilantism is the answer.
	No, no but.
	It's to say that there might be additional facts to this story that have not yet come out that might explain what happened and the sequence of events that led to what happened.
	But never let a good crisis go to waste.
	You got Ayanna Pressley taking to Twitter, calling it a lynching.
	You got AOC coming out onto Twitter, calling it murder.
	You've got the media deifying this individual before they even really know what happened.
	Listen to this reporting from CNN.
	Is it from today?
	It's from today.
	Jordan Neely, the man killed in Chokehold on New York subway, is remembered as an entertainer shattered by his mother's murder.
	I can guarantee you that that's not how he's remembered by at least three women.
	And we'll get there in a second.
	Can you imagine running this headline?
	I'm sure he's remembered to some as that.
	I'm sure he's remembered as something much, much different to others.
	We don't...
	There's video footage out there, and I suspect people know what that footage might show, which is why they have the media running such hardcover right now to deify this man, to racialize this incident.
	And, you know, like when Alex Jones was on a little while ago, he said, like, they have the same playbook every time.
	How do people not see it?
	Here's the playbook.
	Not lie, misrepresent what happened.
	Misrepresent the individuals involved.
	And then when you get called out on it, move on.
	It happened with Sandman.
	It happened with George Floyd, to some extent.
	It happened with the guy with the knife in the car who got shot and paralyzed.
	It happened with the cop who shot the black girl when she was about to stab another girl.
	Every single time.
	It's the same MO.
	It's the same playbook, and yet people don't learn and people don't see the patterns.
	This is CNN now.
	He's remembered as an entertainer shattered by his mother's murderer.
	Before Jordan Neely was killed on a New York City subway this week, he was known for his swift Michael Jackson dance moves that entertained many, yet he struggled with the trauma his mother's murder had left him with at an early...
	I have no doubt that he had trauma from a violent incident that occurred to him when he was a kid.
	No doubt.
	He told me about how much his mother's passing impacted him.
	He disclosed that she was murdered and her body was put in a suitcase.
	Jesus.
	Harper and Neely became friends quickly in 2009.
	When she took him under her wing, Neely opened up to her about losing his mother at a young age.
	It traumatized him.
	He was not expecting that, the brutal way she was taken.
	That had a big impact on him.
	The brutality behind that, that traumatized him.
	The kid has cried in front of me.
	That hurt him.
	Of course.
	Of course, his death triggers protests that are being fueled by reporting like this, which is making this guy look like a broken man who was savagely and inexplicably assaulted on a metro station, on a subway station.
	Let's just get to the kicker of this.
	Passengers are not supposed to die on the floor of subways.
	Okay, let's see where the...
	Before he was keeled, Neely said, I don't care if I die.
	I don't care if I go to jail.
	I don't have any food.
	I'm done.
	At some point, Neely took off his coat and threw it on the train's floor, repeating he was ready to go to jail and get a life sentence.
	As the yelling continued, many passengers became visibly uncomfortable and moved to other parts of the train.
	Neely did not appear to be armed or looking to attack anyone.
	That's something that you can only be wrong about once.
	Then a rider came up behind him and put him in a chokehold, with the two eventually falling to the floor, and Vasquez, who noted Neely did not interact with the passenger at all prior to the attack.
	In the video, we see the video.
	After a while, Vasquez noted Neely stopped moving and stopped talking.
	When police arrived on the subway, 2.30pm, they administered first aid to the unconscious Neely, who was taken to the hospital and pronounced dead.
	Always a dancer.
	I just want to bring up the...
	You have to kick your hair.
	Look at this.
	If anybody makes it all the way down into the article.
	Neely also had his run-ins with New York police, a law enforcement source told CNN's John Miller.
	Including 42 arrests on charges including petty larceny, nobody cares.
	Jumping tubways, subway turnstiles, nobody cares.
	Theft.
	I wouldn't care.
	Oh yeah, and this little...
	And three unprovoked assaults on women in the subway between 2019 and 2021.
	Just those pesky three unprovoked assaults on women in the subway between 2019 and 2020.
	Did those assaults on those women leave any trauma on those women?
	He's remembered as a dancer.
	A Michael Jackson dancer who was crushed by his mother's murder.
	As well, I have no doubt that he was.
	You think those three women suffered any trauma from the unprovoked assaults that he carried out on them over three years?
	You can go read the rest.
	This is what happened.
	You have a broken system.
	Trauma indeed causes trauma.
	Violence indeed causes trauma.
	And you have a system in which crime is to summit, not normalized, but, you know, on the rise.
	Crime is, to some extent, tolerated, given the revolving door bail system that New York has now implemented.
	And you have this guy who's having a mental health crisis.
	I don't care if I die, I don't care if I go to jail for life, are never things you want to hear from someone who's having a mental health crisis, who was not behind bars for whatever the reason, had an outstanding warrant for one of those violent assaults.
	And that is not to say that he deserved what happened to him if he was just sitting there peacefully doing nothing on the day of.
	It certainly adds a little bit of detail and a little bit of color to what might have happened leading up to this.
	But he's remembered as a man who was broken by his mother's murder.
	How do you think those three women who were assaulted randomly by him, unprovoked on a Metro feel about him?
	How do you think they feel reading this?
	Yeah.
	243 says, I would have been thankful for these men.
	And if you put me in that jury, I would never convict any of them.
	Molten Salt says Neely was putting them in a situation where they felt they needed to defend themselves.
	Okay, someone who is...
	It's clearly spamming the chat.
	It's now going to be on mute for five minutes.
	Stop spamming the chats, please.
	Okay.
	So that's Neely.
	And that's it.
	It's the same playbook every time.
	And then the information is going to come out.
	The damning information probably is going to come out.
	It's going to make everybody look at this in a totally different way.
	People moving away from the guy.
	You're stuck on a metro car with someone having a mental health crisis saying, I don't care if I die.
	I don't care if I go to jail for life.
	This is...
	Okay.
	What do we got here?
	Hold on a second.
	I think we've done everything we had on.
	This is my Twitter.
	This is not what I want to bring up at all.
	Stop screen.
	I think we might have done everything, people.
	Hold on.
	Okay.
	That's YouTube.
	Peeps, we did it.
	Everybody, we got them.
	No, that's it.
	We've covered all of the stories.
	Let me go to the chat before we go over to Rumble.
	Before we go over to Locals Exclusively, I'm going to put the link in the chat.
	And I'm also going to play us out with...
	I'll play the video from yesterday.
	Viva family.
	My day yesterday.
	I'm going to show the results of the poll that I put to Locals.
	They picked my day.
	And it's funny.
	It's eight minutes.
	I'll play that, and then we're going to go over to Locals.
	And what was I going to say?
	Oh, yeah.
	Viva Family is another channel you can subscribe to.
	Viva Clips on YouTube.
	There's Viva Random on Rumble.
	Support the channel, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	You can get some merch at Viva Fry.
	Let me go to the chat and just make sure that I'm not forgetting anything.
	Thank you.
	Do I want to look at this video of Nelly allegedly?
	Okay, I'm going to have to see what that is.
	Well, I'm not showing those videos.
	Okay, everybody, let us watch the video.
	It's a good video.
	And I'll meet you all in locals in T-minus eight minutes today to play us out, people.
	Thursday's local poll, what do I do today?
	We'll abide by the poll.
	LOL, I knew what was coming.
	Enjoy.
	I'm going to go to the little boys' room.
	Wait, why do I?
	Oh, because there's no...
	While this happens, I'm going to go pee.
	I'm going to go pee.
	Do you mind being a victim?
	Don't get to the question yet.
	Do you mind being in a video in the clothing you're currently wearing?
	It's too late.
	We know what the answer to the poll is going to be.
	It's going to be everything, so...
	All right, I'm done.
	All right, so it seems I left in too much of a haste this morning.
	Can you just assure the world that I put the stuff in the dishwasher properly?
	Dammit.
	Well, I will ensure that you put the stuff in the dishwasher.
	Alright, paddle.
	I forgot the paddle.
	Alrighty, see you soon.
	Okay, have time.
	Don't forget your tripod.
	Yes.
	Alright, we're here.
	We're at the spot where I'm going to go fishing.
	I've drifted in very calmly to not disturb the fish.
	I'm going to catch a fish on my first cast.
	Guaranteed.
	Hashtag not a guarantee.
	Using a jig.
	Bloodworm jig.
	Alright.
	First cast.
	Right there.
	Second cast.
	Second cast.
	It's gonna happen.
	Right in there.
	Yes.
	Third cast is always the good one.
	Fourth cast.
	Right in there.
	Yes.
	I'm actually more scared of snakes than I am of alligators, but I'm also not comfortable with alligators, so I'm gonna get out of here.
	Just one fish.
	We just need one fish, then we will have Checked off the fishing and the kayaking.
	Just one fish.
	That's all we need.
	You know, this might be too boring.
	All right, what we're going to do...
	We actually caught a real fish.
	It's gone.
	I caught the fish.
	It's gone.
	We can stop kayaking.
	We've gone kayaking and fishing.
	Now, bite.
	Watch the technique here.
	I tickle her so she properly evacuates her bladder.
	Hold up, hold up, hold up.
	Wait a second.
	All righty.
	All righty.
	On that note, people, I will put the link in the chat.
	You can all go watch it.
	Oh, it's on Rumble as well.
	I'm such an idiot.
	Okay, go watch the full video, everyone on Rumble.
	Heading over to Locals, going to give you that link one more time.
	And that is it.
	Enjoy the weekend.
	Tomorrow, 5 o 'clock, people.
	It's going to be fantastic.
	Don't expect animosity or...
	It's not going to be like a...
	It's not going to be like a Vaush or like a Young Turks type.
	I'm not that type of person and nor do I think Unlearned 16 is.
	So it's going to be fun.
	Five o 'clock tomorrow.
	Everybody, come one, come all.
	Hear ye, hear ye.
	See you all soon.
	Ending on Rumble.
	I've got to end on Rumble by going to live.
	Okay, so I've got to go to live streaming and hit end.
	Okay, now we're ending it.
	See you on Locals in about 30 seconds.
	Booyah.
	Hey, locals.
	Sophia Agape, my mom's 89th birthday is tomorrow.
	First of all, happy birthday.
	And I was about to say, man, that's freaking old, but my dad is 80 now.

▲