Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 11, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:33:24

They Are LITERALLY Coming for Your Kids! The Gaslighting CONTINUES & MORE! Viva Monday!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Yeah, I'm late because I got angry in a tweet and then had to reply and forgot that I was going live.
	Let's all back this out.
	Brrrr, brrrr, brrrr.
	Brrrr, brrrr.
	There's lots on the weekend edition of the Countdown Podcast about how John Eastman inadvertently reignited the entire Chuck Grassley Electoral College Count controversy of January 6th.
	But I'd like you to listen instead to the Elon Musk segment because the tipping point is here.
	Musk is now interfering with American foreign policy, he is now aiding the enemies of this nation, and he's now following the instruction of Russian propagandists.
	The tipping point is Elon Musk has become a danger to the United States of America.
	Walter Isaacson's new book reports that in 2022, Musk ordered his engineers in secret to make sure that Starlink was not available to Ukraine so that a Ukrainian submarine drone attack on the Russian naval fleet would fail.
	Keith Olbermann.
	I know that I oftentimes use the Mark Twain expression.
	Judge a man by the adjectives he habitually uses to describe others in conversation.
	I understand if there are people out there who therefore think that I might be a psychopath because I use that word relatively often, but only when dealing with psychopaths.
	Keith Olbermann is a psychopath.
	He's mentally unhinged, mentally deranged, whatever you want to call it.
	He's got a good radio voice.
	I'll give him that one.
	This just in.
	I am full of crap and spewing disinformation and misinformation, and I am a raging hypocrite with absolutely zero principles.
	My name is Keith Olbermann.
	Here, let's let him finish with this.
	Fail it did, and Ukrainians died.
	Why did Musk do it?
	Because Musk...
	What is the it to which you are referring, Keith Olbermann?
	Because I think...
	You might have a flawed premise in here.
	I think you might have formed your wildly insane, your wildly dangerous opinion based on flawed premises because you are also wildly ill-informed taboot.
	Taboot, eh?
	Let's see what else Keith, psychopath, Olbermann has to say.
	Musk was afraid the attack would be viewed as a, quote, mini Pearl Harbor and provoke a Russian nuclear response.
	And he did it also after Ian Miles Chong, who has worked for RT, the Russian Propaganda Network, suggested it to him.
	Can you imagine that Keith Olbermann...
	I forget who he worked for.
	We're gonna have to find that out.
	He is faulting Ian Miles Chong for having worked for RT, a Russian propagandist network.
	Where did Keith Olbermann work again?
	MSNBC?
	Holy crap!
	It's not...
	I know the expression.
	It's not a hypocrisy.
	It's hierarchy.
	I don't say...
	I don't say that.
	Because this is not about hierarchy anymore.
	This is about lawlessness.
	These people, it's not that they're hypocrites.
	It's that they are lawless individuals who would use and abuse any and all powers that they have to suppress and to tyrannize their ideological adversaries.
	This man is accusing someone else of having worked for a government propagandist network?
	I'm going to have to find out where Keith Olbermann worked before, but hold on.
	The kindest interpretation is that Elon Musk is now under the influence of Russia.
	The kindest interpretation is that Elon Musk is now under the influence of Russia.
	And this nation must, if possible, deport him.
	All that and more in the weekend edition of the Countdown Podcast, available now wherever you podcast and also available on YouTube.
	Shaco.
	I'm channeling.
	I'm channeling.
	What's his name from Happy Gilmore?
	Kevin Nealon.
	Psycho.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I'm actually channeling Happy Gilmore from Happy Gilmore.
	Psycho.
	He worked at ESPN and MSNBC.
	Oh, no, but he gets to complain that someone else worked for RT, state propaganda.
	But the most thing that we have to conclude from this, Elon Musk has been captured by Putin.
	He is now taking orders directly from Putin, and we should deport him.
	It's unbelievable.
	I was just fighting with someone on Twitter who doesn't seem to understand the distinction that people on the left now think they've got the right in a gotcha where the right says you can't subject people to experimental jibby jabs.
	Also, you can't allow children to mutilate their bodies for gender dysphoric reasons.
	And the left...
	Thinks that this is somehow a gotcha.
	Oh, you want to tell a kid what they can't do with their bodies while telling adults that they don't have to be compelled?
	They can't be compelled to do things with their...
	They don't understand the differences.
	Keith Olbermann says deport Elon Musk, a law-abiding citizen who, as far as I understand, he's a naturalized citizen.
	Hasn't broken any laws, although I don't know that you can even be...
	I mean, I don't know the law, but once you get your green card or permanent residence or whatever, if you're a naturalized American citizen, can you be deported if you break the law?
	I don't think so, but hold on.
	Deport him.
	Where is the video that I have of that psychopath?
	No, not this one.
	Hold on one second.
	It was a bit that he had from one of his segments where Keith Olbermann was talking about the inhumanity of Trump that he wants to deport people.
	Angry.
	This is it.
	This is not it.
	Now we've got MetaViva.
	Hold on one second.
	Do we want to get it?
	I know that I had it.
	Oh, cripe almighty.
	Hold on.
	We need to see this because it's the full circle of the hypocrisy or the lawlessness.
	Keith Olbermann said this yesterday was when I believe that I saw it.
	And then you just have to know, where would the hypocrisy lie when someone like Keith Olbermann comes out and says, deport Elon Musk?
	Well, you know, the hypocrisy would lie in any position that he might have had prior to that, in which he criticized anybody who ever spoke of deporting Americans or deporting illegal immigrants.
	Here we go.
	This is it.
	Keith Olbermann, above and beyond being a raging, wildly ill-informed psychopath, which we're going to get to the ill-informed part in a second.
	It's also just a lawless hypocrite.
	Where is it?
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	Do you remember the exact moment you became the psychotic demon you railed against?
	Listen to this.
	Let's just play that one more time, Keith, from whatever, five, six, seven years ago.
	The Trump gang already shaming us for all of history by rounding up good, honest, law-abiding Americans without criminal records and with families who they have started and raised here and forcibly sending them back to countries they barely know or do not know at all.
	Law-abiding Americans.
	There are some out there.
	I'm not saying I'm one of them, but the steel man argument is an illegal immigrant by definition is not law abiding because they broke the law to get into a foreign country.
	There are some who would say that, but let's just even take all of this for granted.
	Keith Olbermann, you raging hypocrite.
	The Trump gang already shaming us for all of history by rounding up good, honest, law-abiding Americans without...
	Rounding up good, law-abiding Americans...
	Without criminal records...
	Without criminal records...
	And with families who they have started and raised here...
	With families who they've started and raised here...
	And forcibly sending them back to countries they barely know or do not know at all...
	Deport Elon Musk.
	You could make this hypocrisy up, but no one would believe that someone has the bald-faced audacity of being such a wild, raging hypocrite.
	Nobody!
	It's like, nobody would say, could the same person have said both of those things?
	No, of course not, because they'd have to rely on people's aggregate stupidity, willful blindness, or partisan hatred to say, yeah, when Keith Olbin was dumping on Trump for rounding up law-abiding Americans with families here and sending them back to countries that they hardly recognize, nobody would ever think that that same man...
	Five years later would say deport Elon Musk.
	And by the way, why do I say that he's wildly ignorant and ill-informed?
	In his rambling, incoherent tirade of a response, for which I award him no points and may God have mercy on his soul, you notice how he implied that Elon Musk did something proactive.
	To foil Ukraine's or Zelensky's attempt to defend against Russia.
	Elon clarified on Twitter, nothing proactive was done.
	All that Elon did was refused to do something proactive at the request of a warring nation.
	Because apparently, from what I understand, there was no Starlink satellite, whatever, over Crimea.
	The area where Elon was asked by Ukraine.
	To implement that.
	So Elon was proactively requested to participate in war, to which he said, I'm not doing or not doing anything.
	That's it.
	And then as a result of that, whatever happened, happened.
	Elon did not come out and proactively do something.
	He was requested to proactively do something and said, I'm not doing something that might very well provoke, if not a World War III.
	At the very least, I am not participating in war proactively.
	I don't know that Keith Oldman knows that.
	I don't think it makes a difference.
	He's unhinged, ill-informed, a propagandist of the highest order, which is why I suspect he sees propagandists in everyone else.
	And yes, everybody, I am fully aware of hashtag confession through projection.
	But when you have the insight, you're always asking yourself the question even before other people ask it of you.
	Now!
	Good morning, people.
	I was going to take today off because...
	We've got a big day tomorrow for live streams, but tomorrow's two live streams, and there are back-to-back with a half-hour break in between, are going to be amazing.
	And so I was going to take today off, but then if I take today off and tomorrow during the day off, I don't know, people might miss me.
	I might miss people.
	So I had some stuff left on the back burner from yesterday's stream that I had lined up for the intro, and we're just going to cover it today because they say they're not coming for your kids.
	They're literally, and I mean literally, literally, literally, not Rachel Maddow literally, literally coming for your kids, and not just that, while simultaneously saying parents have no right to know.
	We're going to get into it.
	Tomorrow night, the two live streams, and they're going to be monumental.
	7 to 8.30, Tarek Johnson, who's the Capital Six police officer.
	Let me just double check.
	I confirmed.
	Yeah, we're good.
	Tarek Johnson, he did a Twitter space last week.
	Just to read his bio, you may have seen a tweet that he put out recently calling out some of the Capitol Police.
	Former lieutenant with the U.S. Capitol Police, my goals are January 6th justice and to create national unity.
	Tarek Johnson, whom I follow and follows me.
	He's coming on at 7 o 'clock tomorrow to 8.30.
	Now, spoiler alert, I've heard what Tarek has to say, and it's not like he's...
	We're probably going to disagree on a few things.
	And I fully disclosed my position to him as to what I think January 6th was.
	And listening to him last week, I think he's more in the center than I might be in terms of like, he might be giving people the benefit of the doubt.
	He might be saying, you know, the January 6th violence was worse than some people want to admit.
	So it's not just going to be two people who are...
	Aligned on fact and interpretation.
	But it's going to be fantastic.
	7 to 8.30.
	Then, 9 to 10.30, give or take.
	Dave Smith, libertarian, stand-up comic, modern-day philosopher, more educated, more informed than 98% of people out there with Barnes at 9 o 'clock Eastern.
	So it's going to be 7 o 'clock Eastern to 8.30.
	Little break, pee break, come back, start a new stream.
	Dave Smith, 9 o 'clock.
	Now, Viva Fro.
	Yes, but I didn't wash my hair this morning.
	I conditioned it, detangled it, and then I put in some argan oil so it looks especially greasy.
	All right.
	Good evening.
	Standard rules.
	We are simultaneously on YouTube, Rumble, and Locals.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com for now.
	In about...
	17 minutes at most.
	We're going to end on YouTube.
	Go over to Rumble.
	The link is in the pinned comment where we carry on on Rumble and Locals.
	And then we end on Rumble and we have the after party on Locals where I take some questions, answer some tips.
	I might have a discussion in Locals that I'm not going to have on the main streams.
	Not for any nefarious reasons.
	When I publish this to YouTube, it'll have it.
	But it'll be something special for Locals.
	Pasha Moyer with a super chat says, YouTube takes 30% of those Super Chats.
	In Rumble, they have a thing called Rumble Rants, which...
	Rumble takes 20% of it ordinarily, but now they're taking zero for the rest of the year because they want to promote it and promote the creators.
	So 100% of it goes to the creator.
	Let me just bring up one last shameless self-promotion plug.
	It's not even self-promotion.
	It's for everybody.
	Go to vivafried.com if you want the best merch ever.
	Wanted for president?
	Mugshot shot glass.
	Mugshot coffee mug.
	Shirt.
	Above average.
	I love this.
	Everyone in our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community is above average.
	So you can get some merch there if you're so inclined.
	Okay.
	We're going to cover the coming for your kids story.
	But this is like, we're going to have a theme of gaslighting.
	Today and for those of you who don't know what gaslighting is, it comes from the 1956 movie called Gaslighting where a husband was psychologically abusing his wife and then telling her that she wasn't actually being abused and it had to do with the term that I think he was he was diminishing decreasing the the lighting in the room but telling her that she wasn't doing it and she said I don't gaslighting it means make someone think that they're going crazy oh and uh they're doing it Boy,
	howdy are they doing it.
	I'm trying to keep an ongoing diary of this, which is if my Twitter feed is good for nothing else, it's going to be good for that.
	Here, let's see this.
	This would be the one definition of gaslighting.
	Remember back in the early days of the COVID pandemic?
	I almost want to put that word in scare quotes, but I won't because people hold mutually incompatible conspiracy theories, you know, like it was a government bioweapon and it also doesn't exist.
	It was a plandemic, scamdemic, shamdemic, and it didn't exist.
	Also, it was...
	Gain-of-function research in a lab in Wuhan, China that was deliberately released to, you know, reset the world.
	Two mutually incompatible conspiracy theories.
	I believe the virus existed.
	I was diagnosed with COVID at least twice.
	And, you know, my biggest questions those days were, do I jog five miles or three miles?
	But you will recall in the beginning.
	One of the not conspiracy theories was that in order to justify emergency use authorization for an experimental vaccine, quoting the NIH, it was on their website, in order to justify even implementing Operation Warp Speed,
	although that might be a little bit more complicated in terms of the scope of what OWS was supposed to be, but in order to allow, authorize, implement emergency use authorization, There had to be no alternative existing treatment for the emergency.
	And some people back in the day were hypothesizing, conspiracy theorizing, which likely turned out to be probably true at the end of the day, that in order to ensure that there were no alternative treatments to the RONA, allegedly, theoretically.
	They had to block certain treatments and demonize certain treatments.
	And I won't say criminalize certain treatments, but not far off from that.
	And one of which was the I-word, ivermectin.
	And back in the day, they said, you know, you remember the FDA saying, you're not a cow, you're not a horse.
	Seriously, y 'all, just stop it.
	And we covered that lawsuit where they just got spanked by a court which said, yeah, the FDA can issue information and it can issue...
	Not opinions, but it can issue facts to enlighten, but it can't issue medical advice.
	And when the FDA said, you're not a horse, you're not a cow, come on, y 'all, stop it.
	Referring to what they now recognize as the human version of ivermectin.
	Well, a court said, you were ultra virus, you're constituting authority, which is to advise but not provide medical advice.
	Sorry, inform but not provide medical advice.
	They're now pretending that they never did that in the first place.
	They're now pretending that they never outlawed, prohibited, criminalized, deterred, demonized ivermectin as a treatment.
	They're now pretending that doctors were always allowed to prescribe off-label use of medications.
	Some people rightly pointed out whether or not they were always authorized if the pharmacies didn't fulfill those prescriptions.
	Well, that's kind of a distinction without a difference.
	But there was testimony last week.
	And this is what, who is it there?
	Jared Kelson, Ashley Chong Honnold, the rep of the FDA.
	This is what the rep of the FDA said.
	It's at minute 28 and minute 32, give or take, of the hearing.
	Listen to this.
	Your Honor, FDA has multiple overlapping sources of authority that I'm happy to walk through.
	I don't want to judge a voice.
	That is annoying.
	I may be reading into it.
	That sounds condescending and patronizing.
	I'm going to repeat what she says because it might be a little low for those who are listening to this on podcast.
	Your Honor.
	Your Honor.
	FDA has multiple overlapping sources of authority that I'm happy to walk through.
	FDA has multiple overlapping sources of authority that she's happy to walk through.
	That gives FDA authority to...
	Convey information.
	Here, FDA was not regulating the off-label use of drugs.
	Here, the FDA was not regulating the off-label use of drugs because using ivermectin, even if you think and even if you trust the studies that say it's not effective at treating COVID, that would be an off-label use of it.
	Ivermectin is a dewormer, a parasitic thing that is used in humans and in animals.
	A miracle drug by all accounts.
	And the idea that some have is that it...
	What was it?
	It prevented replication of a virus.
	So using it off-label to treat COVID would have been legitimate.
	Doctors have their medical expertise to provide their own medical opinion on a patient-by-patient basis.
	Well, now the FDA is saying we never told people they couldn't do it.
	Even though if there was an off-label use of an existing drug, it would have frustrated or impeded the emergency use authorization that Pfizer, Moderna, and the others handsomely benefited from.
	These statements are not regulations.
	You're just not a horse.
	You're not a cow.
	Y 'all just need to stop it.
	Speaking in the vernacular of what they think everyday Americans can relate to.
	No legal consequences.
	No legal consequences.
	They don't prohibit doctors from prescribing ivermectin to treat COVID or for any other purpose.
	Doctors from presquences.
	They don't prohibit doctors.
	They don't prevent doctors from prescribing ivermectin to treat COVID or other stuff.
	That's what this person from the FDA is now saying.
	Three years later.
	Quite to the contrary.
	There are three instances I'd like to point the court to in the record that show that FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID.
	Explicitly, the FDA explicitly acknowledges doctors have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID with or without getting their licenses revoked, with or without having a pharmacy refuse to fulfill that prescription.
	Holy, this is what you call gaslighting.
	We know what happened.
	We lived through it.
	I can no longer trust anything in history that I no longer lived through because even living through it, I am now being gaslit to say, Did they really say two weeks to flatten the curve?
	Because if you Google it, it's very hard to find that statement.
	Did they really not allow ivermectin to be prescribed?
	I remember them doing it in real time.
	I remember the legal basis for which they did it.
	And now they're telling me they never did it?
	On page 974, FDA recommends that consumers talk to their healthcare providers about available COVID treatment options.
	And they explain that your provider...
	Can help you determine the best option for you based on your health history.
	Your provider can help you, whatever the hell she just said, find the best prescription for your particular situation.
	Then what the hell was the FDA coming out for after Joe Rogan took Ivermectin and saying, you're not a horse, you're not a cow, come on y 'all, just stop.
	What the hell were they doing then?
	Well, forget that.
	That was just a tweet.
	On page 976.
	On page 976.
	This is the April 2020 FAQ.
	Frequently asked questions.
	FDA advises consumers not to take any medicine to treat or prevent COVID unless it has been prescribed to you by your healthcare provider and acquired from a legitimate source.
	Oh!
	I thought you said acquired from a legitimate source, prescribed by your doctor.
	Then what the hell was your tweet about?
	There's a second part.
	Listen to this.
	FDA is clearly acknowledging that doctors have the authority to prescribe human ivermectin to treat COVID, so they are not interfering with the authority of doctors to prescribe drugs or to practice medicine.
	They are clearly.
	You're not a horse, tweet FDA.
	You are not a horse.
	You are not a cow.
	Seriously, y 'all.
	Stop it.
	FDA.
	Why you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	When was this from?
	Oh, August 21, 2021.
	Gaslighting.
	thoroughly incorrigibly and remorse and shamelessly Oh, no, they never said that.
	They never got in the way of a doctor.
	It's very discouraging.
	It's very discouraging because if I hadn't lived through this, lived through it paying more attention to it than I would say 95% of the people out there, even I feel like, oh, shit, maybe I misremembered.
	And then you got people out there who never knew in the first place to even forget or think that they forgot who are now going to say, yeah, the FDA never did anything, you crazy conspiracy theorists.
	Nutcase Viva?
	They never said anything like that.
	Okay, here's what we're going to do because we're going to get into some good stuff now.
	Copy the link to Rumble.
	And let's just go.
	We've given YouTube more time than they deserve.
	Link to Rumble.
	Rumble.
	Here we go.
	I'm not going to read this because I don't want to even be perceived as giving medical advice.
	But I have spoken with people who couldn't get their existing prescriptions filled for those medications because of the ban that never happened.
	It's unbelievable.
	Hold on.
	Let me make sure that I'm not going totally crazy in my memory here.
	Let me just see something here.
	Did they not destroy destroyed batch?
	I thought I remembered...
	There was an incident, but it might have been the other one.
	HCQ, whatever.
	I thought there was an incident where they actually destroyed an existing stockpile.
	Chat, you're going to be smarter than me and faster than me.
	Was there not an example where they actually destroyed existing batches?
	Pretty sure there was.
	Okay, so let us go on over to the Rumble side because 25 minutes, 26 minutes is more than enough.
	Link to Rumble is there.
	It's in the pinned comment.
	If you want to come over to Locals, Because we will have a special.
	We'll have a discussion after everything for our locals community where everyone is above average.
	Come on over there.
	The link is there.
	But for now, we're going to end on YouTube.
	So, ending on YouTube in 5-4.
	There's 505 people.
	Should be migrating over to Rumble.
	Come on, people.
	It may not be as pretty as some of you might want it to be, but...
	Substance over form every day of the week, although the form is still pretty damn good, but the substance is on Rumble.
	Ending on YouTube right now.
	Alright, so the gaslighting.
	We are not yet done with the gaslighting.
	This is another amazing thing.
	Like I said, the gaslighting is so bad, I'm wondering, did I misremember the two weeks to flatten the curve?
	Oh, hold on one second, hold on one second.
	I sent myself a link so that I wouldn't lose it.
	We can flatten the curve.
	We know how to do it.
	Here it is.
	I need to memory hole.
	What's the opposite of memory holding?
	I need to perma.
	Permapreserve.
	Let me see if I can get it here.
	Permapreserve these things which we're going to forget ever happened.
	No, that's not the right one.
	That one's okay.
	That was just intruded, but there's a second one that's even better.
	Let me just get the second one.
	Here we go.
	YouTube.
	Yeah, that's it.
	Copy link.
	You try to go find the statements where they said two weeks to flatten the curve.
	It's very difficult to find them.
	It wasn't just something they said.
	It was the premise of everything they did.
	Two weeks to flatten the curve.
	This was three years ago.
	Rideau Cottage.
	March 28th.
	Remember this date.
	Coming into the document and the story that we're going to cover after this.
	March 28, 2020.
	And we're not watching the full 12 minutes because it will be a barfarama, to quote, stand by me.
	This was when Trudeau was in his bad boy beard, goatee stage, when he decided he had to rebrand and look rugged.
	This is, okay, so here, listen to this.
	March 28...
	It's like, what, a week and a half after they announced the end of civil society, the end of free society as we knew it, because it was very serious.
	Happy Saturday, everyone.
	Saturday's usually a time where we get to get together with friends, spend some time with the kids, with family.
	But not now, because now the government tells you what to do, when you can see your family and friends, and what you can do on a Saturday.
	I know it's exceptional.
	We'll surely give this power back to you after we're done.
	We'll give you this privilege back to do what the hell you want with your own life on a Saturday.
	But right now, big brother government is telling you what to do, who to do it with, who you can see, what you can read, and where you can go, and what you can put in your body.
	But hold on.
	Obviously, this is another different Saturday as we've had over the past few weeks.
	We need you to continue to stay home.
	We need you to continue to do everything we can to flatten the curve.
	Flatten the curve.
	We need you to stay home.
	And then they're like, remember when they had to change it to plank the curve?
	They went from two weeks to flatten the curve to plank the curve.
	Obviously, there are sacrifices we're all making, but it's beginning to work.
	We see promising news out of BC that over the past couple of weeks, the measures taken in place by so many Canadians, the choices that Canadians have made have had an impact on the overall numbers, but we need to keep it up.
	This is March 28, 2020.
	This was never two weeks to flatten the curve.
	And not just that it was never like they made a mistake.
	They knew it was never two weeks to flatten the curve.
	They knew it.
	But don't trust me.
	Or you can trust, but verify nonetheless.
	Here, I'm going to give everybody that link so everybody can go eternalize that.
	I'm going to save that.
	I'm going to snip that.
	I'm going to clip that.
	They knew from day one it was never going to be two weeks to flatten the curve.
	Now, talk about gaslighting.
	How do we know that?
	There's a document that was produced as a result of the Canadian equivalent of FOIA request.
	Where is it?
	It's right here.
	There was a document that was communicated here.
	Let's just see.
	What do we call it?
	We call it released under the ATIA, the Access to Information Act.
	That's what we call it in Canada.
	Minister de la Securité publique et de la protection civile.
	Public safety, emergency preparedness.
	What's the date on this document?
	Oh, it's two days after Justin Trudeau's continue to stay home and flatten the curve because it's working.
	It's working.
	Oh, my God.
	Oh, it worked.
	I mean, depending on what your goal was, it certainly worked.
	This is a letter coming from...
	Move this document so I can see it.
	All the way, go to the bottom.
	Honourable William Sterling Blair.
	What was he?
	He was Minister of something in the Army.
	Going to Harjit Sajan.
	We know who she is.
	Minister of National Defence.
	Listen to this.
	Dear colleague, I am writing to follow up on recent communications between our department officials regarding the employment of Canadian Armed Forces.
	The military.
	Just remember, whenever you see CAF, it's not the Canadian Air Force.
	It's not Canadian American Friendship Society.
	Canadian Armed Forces.
	Assistance in support of the whole of government response to COVID-19.
	As the situation continues to evolve, and as we move toward the mitigation phase of the response plan.
	I'd love to flesh out what some of these terms mean.
	Two weeks to flatten the curve.
	March 28, 2020.
	Just...
	Couple more days, couple more days, flatten the curve, plank the curve.
	There is a need to ensure that the whole of government is able to respond to an anticipated wide number and scope of requests for assistance from the military, from all levels of government, as well as civil society and the private sector, some of which may require Canadian Armed Forces support.
	courts they're telling you it's two weeks to flatten the curve stay home on just another Saturday while they're literally mobilizing the military for what is quite clearly known two days after that pathological liar just It may be appropriate.
	This is the best part.
	To address the natural disaster season in conjunction with the COVID-19 response.
	Now, admittedly, what they're saying here is Canadian Armed Forces is always ready if there's a hurricane, if there's a, you know, not a tsunami, not so much in Canada, hurricane, forest fires, flooding, you know, whatever.
	They're ready.
	You know, it takes a little while sometimes to get to the East Coast in a hurricane.
	And then, you know, government doesn't necessarily have the funds for the East Coast because they've already laundered all of that through Ukraine.
	So they make the East Coast actually go out and fundraise for their own subsistence.
	But set that aside.
	So they say, OK, look, we have a natural disaster season and we want to offer our support, Canadian Armed Forces, for your COVID response.
	Let's just lump these two things together.
	Does it make sense actually now what you see going on with the climate crisis and what they're recommending by way of similar measures?
	When you have the forest fires out in the East Coast, stay home, can't go through the forest, can't go outside.
	I want to read that again.
	It may be appropriate to address the natural disaster season in conjunction with the COVID-19 response.
	To this end, a coordinated effort that provides for the appropriate degree of flexibility will enable the whole of government to respond quickly and decisively to both natural disaster and COVID-19 emergency activities concurrently.
	Accordingly, I assessed the Canadian Armed Forces assistance to the overall response in the national interest and requested you authorize the Canadian Armed Forces to assist with whole of government response.
	In support of all levels of government, civil society, and the private sector through the provision of logistics and general support, transportation, infrastructure support on a case-by-case basis as jointly coordinated by our senior department officials.
	Two weeks to flatten the curve, people.
	And you go down to what they were requesting authorization to be able to do.
	Therefore, pursuant to the National Defense Act, yada, yada, yada.
	CAF is requested to provide the following types of support, including but not limited to.
	Providing planners and liaison officers Thank you.
	Establish dispersed command and control nodes in support of lead department as agencies.
	Provide infrastructure for use of interdepartmental, intergovernmental teams.
	Facilitate the evacuation of designated communities and vulnerable populations by providing support.
	Assist with the monitoring of critical infrastructure.
	There was a part where they were talking about, you know, well, here we go.
	Conduct wellness checks for designated vulnerable populations when directed and advisable to do so.
	We now know that the vast majority of deaths occurred in the vulnerable populations.
	So, yeah, not only did you not succeed at what you were trying to do, if what you were trying to do was a generational culling, you did succeed.
	Water purification, yeah, yeah.
	It goes on.
	The point here, people, this was also a document that the, for whatever the reason, the government wasn't too keen on providing willingly and it required an Access to Information Act request in order to be procured.
	It was never going to be two weeks to flatten the curve.
	They knew it from day one.
	They lied to your faces while they took away each and every one of your most fundamental and sacred rights and liberties.
	While mobilizing the military to deal with any, you know, government-at-large response.
	You know, whatever they need them for.
	Canadian Armed Forces is there.
	And while we're at it, why don't we just couple our COVID response with our natural disaster response?
	And you were crazy to have said it at the time.
	If anybody said it at the time, you were a whacked out conspiracy theorist, demonized by the very same media, demonized by the very same government that is lying to your face and coordinating with the military for preparedness.
	And by the way, the very same military that some of you may or may not have forgotten about this if you didn't know, who remembers this one?
	I mean, I've talked about it a number of times.
	I'm taking another article this time from the CBC.
	Oh, the very same military that's talking about coordinating their COVID response with natural disaster season.
	You know, we need to be ready to mobilize in the private and public sector.
	But that military campaign was involved in a campaign to influence public opinion and it continued after they shut it down.
	Listen to this.
	Military scoured social media in Ontario and launched a fake wolf scare in Nova Scotia.
	The original article that I cited time and time again, the headline was, The military saw the COVID pandemic as an opportune time to test propaganda techniques on Canadians.
	That's longer than the actual headline, but that was the gist of it.
	Department of National Defense denies it has used psychological warfare techniques honed during the Afghan war on Canadians.
	However, the line between psychological warfare and information operation campaigns has become increasingly blurred over the last...
	It hasn't become blurred.
	They have blurred it.
	It hasn't become blurred.
	They relabeled it.
	Oh, what was the relabeling?
	When we get into the gender dysphoria.
	And transgenderism.
	And whether or not it's a social contagion.
	They've relabeled.
	They call it rapid onset gender dysphoria.
	I think that's the term they came up with.
	A clinical term.
	A clinical term to relabel a social contagion.
	A fad.
	Mass formation psychosis.
	It's not a social contagion, dummy.
	That would mean that it's sort of society influenced.
	It's rapid onset.
	Gender dysphoria.
	They've given a clinical term to the phenomenon.
	Here, they've just given psychological warfare techniques developed and used in Afghanistan, but now being used on Canadian citizens, they've relabeled it, so you should think about it differently.
	It's not psychological warfare.
	It's just information control information operation campaigns Portions of the military information campaign meant to influence the Canadian public during the COVID-19 pandemic Continued to operate months after the chief of the defense staff whatever they ordered it shut down in spring 2020 How shortly after that memo?
	March 30, 2020.
	Yes, the Canadian Armed Forces would like to offer their support to test propaganda techniques on Canadians.
	The Canadian military recently conducted four reviews of controversial initiatives.
	A copy of one of those reviews was obtained by CBC News under Access to Information Legislation.
	Oh, transparency, eh?
	Let me just bring this out here.
	The review shows that...
	When was this again?
	This was August 2021?
	June 2021.
	Okay.
	The review shows that even after the then Chief of Staff, Jonathan Vance, verbally called off the overall influence campaign.
	Oh, it's not psychological warfare.
	It's an overall influence campaign.
	Some influence activities.
	Not psychological warfare.
	Influence activities.
	So now George Orwell has taught you how to think about this new term.
	It's not bad.
	It's good now.
	It's not genital mutilation.
	It's gender-affirming care.
	It's not a social contagion.
	It's rapid-onset gender dysphoria.
	It's not psychological warfare.
	It's influence activities.
	Aimed at Canadians, carried on for another six months.
	The public affair, yada, yada, yada, okay, fine.
	The review's conclusion is significant because Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan assured Parliament last year that the activities were halted almost immediately after they got underway.
	This is the same guy, isn't this the same guy who confirmed that Canada's no longer training Chinese soldiers on Canadian soil?
	I think it is.
	I'll just Google that afterwards.
	But a variety of problematic initiatives carried on for months after Sir John made a statement, including a propaganda training exercise involving fake wolves in Nova Scotia.
	Let's hear about this.
	The review conducted by the CBC...
	I'm going to skip over this.
	No, we're not going to skip over this.
	Public affairs staff and members of the military's civil military cooperative, whatever, didn't catch the ambiguity and didn't see the obvious link between what they were doing and what Vance saw as a violation of federal rules.
	I want to know about the wolf.
	The wolves.
	Come on, where is it?
	Wolf.
	Wolves.
	Crying wolf.
	Here we go.
	Let's just go to this.
	It's unbelievable.
	The military launched another investigation after a reserve unit specializing in information warfare conducted a propaganda training exercise in September 2020 in Nova Scotia involving a fake letter warning of gray wolves wandering around.
	The military apologized and called the exercise a mistake, but even if it was inadvertent, it did amount to a psychological operation used on Canadians to influence their mindsets.
	Many Nova Scotians believed wolves were on the loose and the provinces land and forestry department had to respond publicly saying Can you imagine this?
	And they want to tell us that the government is not abusing us psychologically, physically, spiritually, economically.
	They lock everybody down.
	Isolate them.
	Tell them to stay home.
	Don't get sunlight.
	Don't get exercise.
	Lock up parks.
	Lock down outdoor dog runs.
	Chain up swings on playgrounds.
	Block basketball nets.
	Tell you who you can see, when you can see them.
	They've got a running death count Chiron on every news outlet out there.
	And then while they're doing all of this to you, they run a bullshit story about wolves being on the loose in Nova Scotia.
	Jail.
	I mean, I'm not trying to whip myself up.
	People need to go to jail for this.
	Oh, no, it was inadvertent.
	Inadvertent?
	Jail.
	Deliberate?
	Longer jail.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	We ran a psyops campaign.
	Telling you wolves were on the loose.
	Stay home.
	It'll make it easier to stay home if you don't want to stay home.
	Bad people who actually want to go for a jog?
	It's atrocious.
	And I don't think people know about this.
	In the chat.
	One, you did not know about this.
	The wolf thing out of Nova Scotia.
	One, you did not know about it.
	Two, you did.
	These reviews again concluded that members and leaders lacked formal training.
	Policies...
	Lacked formal training, policies governing psyops, psychological operations, were not well understood, and adequate control measures were not in place for this type of training.
	Jail.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I didn't know.
	I didn't do good.
	It's not an excuse for a civilian.
	Sure as hell cannot be an excuse for those people who are supposedly supposed to be in charge.
	And the ones with the power to use deadly force.
	No, it's my first day.
	The directive says it is clear that various information operation tools the military is deploying in Canada have suffered from a lack of institution-wide direction to ensure the appropriate authority and oversights are in place.
	Jail.
	Let me rephrase.
	Trials.
	Trials first.
	And then, if convictions, jail.
	And then the, oh, we didn't do it on purpose.
	Well, that'll be your excuse for lesser jail time.
	Here, I'm going to give everybody that link.
	Here we go.
	Boom.
	Link.
	We got a few twos.
	Didn't know.
	Fear equals control.
	Crazy.
	So we got a couple of twos, a few ones.
	Wolves.
	Okay, one.
	I would like for all psych warfare and propaganda to cease immediately and anyone caught doing it if convicted, jail.
	Who was that guy that I was supposed to look up?
	His name, the defense minister.
	I want to bring that one up too.
	Let me see.
	I'm fairly certain.
	Harjit.
	Harjit Sajan.
	Let's just do this here.
	Google Chinese soldiers.
	Not that there's anything wrong with it.
	Don't want to demonize communist soldiers being trained by Canadians on Canadian soil, but wasn't it him?
	Canadian soldiers no longer training Chinese troops, defense minister says.
	Is that him?
	Uh-oh, what's wrong with that guy's butt?
	Yes, it is.
	Harjit Sajan has confirmed Canadian soldiers are no longer training members of the Chinese military amid scrutiny following a report that senior civil servants opposed a decision last year to stop training activities in the regime.
	Why is that guy touching his butt?
	We're looking at an ad.
	Oh, hemorrhoids.
	That is undoubtedly because Google has heard me talk about hemorrhoids.
	That is the same Harjit Sajan.
	Training Chinese communist soldiers on Canadian soil for wintertime combat.
	But they're no longer doing it.
	Using propaganda techniques on Canadian citizens, psychological warfare, or what I'll just call psychological abuse on Canadian citizens.
	Oh, it was an accident.
	Oh my goodness.
	They never did this though, guys.
	They never did it.
	And if they had their way, and they might be having their way in Canada, you won't be able to know that they did this because it's only going to be so much longer that you'll even be able to hear the truth from people who have been paying attention since the beginning.
	In Canada.
	Mass indictments followed by mass trials followed by mass convictions.
	Okay, that's IED.
	So that's one element of the gaslighting.
	I'll save some lighter stuff to the end.
	So let's get into the other stuff.
	They're coming for your kids, but they're not coming for your kids, but they're coming for your kids, but they're not coming for your kids, but they're coming for your kids, and you parents don't have the right to know about it.
	We're going to get into the relabeling of a social contagion psychological fad for rapid onset gender dysphoria that just happens to afflict, afflict, not inflict, afflict children who have never had any symptoms of gender dysphoria, and then all of a sudden it's a rapid onset.
	It's certainly not a social contagion because that would mean that it might be external forces doing it to children.
	It's rapid onset.
	Out of the blue.
	Out of the blue.
	All right.
	This is an article that actually ran in the Toronto...
	Is this it?
	Get out of it.
	The Toronto Star.
	It's a privilege, not a right, to know your kid's gender identity.
	Set that headline aside.
	It should be a crime for any other adult to be discussing gender identity with anybody else's kid without their parents being present.
	Because I think that if the parents are present, maybe other adults wouldn't be discussing gender identity issues, sex issues with kids.
	There's a word for that.
	But hold on.
	Just want to make sure.
	Toronto star headline vaccine death.
	I just want to make sure this is the same.
	Toronto Star.
	Toronto Star cover page.
	Images.
	Yeah, it is the same Toronto Star.
	Remember this one?
	The Toronto Star.
	This is a Toronto Star headline.
	What was the date?
	It was August 26th.
	Can I not see the date there?
	2021.
	This was an actual cover.
	Not Babylon Bee.
	This is the quality of the Toronto Star rag.
	Not even worth rubbing on my hemorrhoidy butt.
	That's what it is.
	Plus it would hurt.
	Shit.
	It's hateful, vitriolic shit.
	And I appreciate there's some irony in me calling out hateful vitriol with what some might consider to be vitriol.
	Shit.
	And people who work at this seem to be equally shitty people.
	Not that I can know them personally, but in as much as I can surmise anything about them as people, based on social media postings, Also bad.
	Toronto Star headline.
	If an unvaccinated person catches it from someone who is vaccinated, boo-hoo, too bad.
	In bold, I have no empathy left for the willfully unvaccinated.
	Let them die.
	Bold is off.
	I honestly don't care if they die from COVID.
	Not even a little bit.
	Back in bold.
	Unvaccinated patients do not deserve ICU beds.
	And then we got to no jab.
	Could be no job for Air Canada employees.
	And then another headline that says simmering divide over who isn't vaccinated.
	That is the shit rag that is the Toronto Star running now a story called Headline.
	It's an opinion, by the way.
	It's an opinion, so take it for what it's worth.
	As they do say, opinions are like hemorrhoidy assholes.
	Everybody's got one.
	Well, maybe not hemorrhoid.
	Opinions are like buttholes.
	Everybody's got one.
	And everybody thinks that theirs don't stink.
	Although I think everybody acknowledges...
	Okay.
	Too much talk about hemorrhoids today.
	It's a privilege, not a right, to know your kid's gender identity.
	It's a hard truth that some kids live with parents who are transphobic.
	It's not just that they want to talk sex with your children when your parents are not there, but they're not coming after the kids, people.
	Oh, it's not sex.
	It's gender identity.
	It's totally different.
	It's sexual expression, gender expression.
	Oh, gender and sex are two different things.
	We're not talking inappropriate sexy time stuff with your kids.
	We're just talking their gender expression.
	And not only are they saying, it's not a right for the parents to know what's going on, which presumes, I mean, basically presupposes that someone else is entitled to information about a minor that they withhold from their parents.
	Set that aside.
	They're not just doing that.
	They're actually trying to demonize parents to their kids in the absence of their parents.
	Beyond the control of their parents.
	Hey there, kid.
	You're not suffering from a social contagion.
	You're suffering from rapid onset gender dysphoria.
	If your parents try to tell you this is a phase, maybe you should stop watching TikTok videos.
	Maybe you should just go outside and get some exercise.
	Maybe you're just gay.
	Maybe there's that.
	If your parents try to tell you that, they're transphobic.
	And your parents are part of the problem.
	And you should have a problem with your parents.
	And Mao, out of Mao's revolution, you should publicly denounce your parents.
	That's also what this author is trying to do.
	It's a hard truth that some kids live with parents who are transphobic.
	No province should forcibly out gender nonconforming.
	I think they're missing a hyphen here.
	No province should forcibly out gender nonconforming kids to these parents.
	The province should keep secrets from a kid from his parents or her parents.
	And those are transphobic parents and they deserve to be punished under the law, right?
	I mean, that's where this goes.
	Julie Molbagot.
	Molbagot.
	Molbagot.
	I don't know what the hell.
	It doesn't matter.
	And just so you know, this is her kid.
	She's just using her kid for the most divisive political purposes.
	Imagine, you could write this entire article without...
	Without using your kid as a tool, but they're not coming after the kids.
	My son Zach is transgender.
	What date is this article?
	September 10th, 2023.
	Yesterday.
	Just remember the date for the timeline here.
	My son Zach is transgender.
	He told us nonchalantly at bedtime.
	That might be an indication of something already.
	Three years ago.
	He's only 11. So far his transition has been strictly social.
	He told his parents at eight, nonchalantly, I'm a boy.
	I don't know if this kid went from, you know, is a girl and is now being told or affirmed as a boy.
	I don't know which way it goes.
	I think that's it.
	I think the kid's a girl.
	He told us nonchalantly when he was eight years old, I'm a boy.
	And his parents, unquestioningly, as we're going to see later, reaffirm it.
	Okay, thus far, his transition has been strictly social.
	New pronouns, new clothes, new haircut, new name.
	With few exceptions, it's been as nothing burger as it sounds.
	That doesn't sound like a nothing burger, you raging...
	If ever I want to invite this person on for a stream, I'll have to be as respectful as I would be if they're here.
	That doesn't sound like a nothing burger.
	That sounds like psychological abuse of a child.
	We just changed her name.
	Clothes.
	What else?
	Pronouns.
	What are the pronouns, by the way?
	Is it another one of the he, they?
	Is it another one of those absolutely idiotic she, they pronouns that make no sense whatsoever?
	That are nothing more than a test of the patience and tolerance of a society that loves being polite and accommodating?
	New pronouns, new clothes, new haircut, new name, nothing burger.
	My goodness, do you not know what a nothing burger is?
	Madam Parent.
	By this time, by the time he's had his first appointment at the Sick Kids Gender Clinic in August 2024, he'll be 12 and a half and will have been on the wait list for 18 months.
	If four years into his transition, he chooses gender-affirming medication, it will not be an impulsive decision because at eight...
	He made a decision at 12. He made another decision, impulsive.
	Every decision a kid makes pretty much is impulsive.
	That's what makes them kids.
	What do they call it?
	Delayed gratification?
	There's a reason why kids don't have the concept of delayed gratification.
	Kids don't think 10 years, 20 years, 50 years into the future.
	Every decision, virtually, that most every kid aged 8 to 12, maybe even up to 25, is impulsive.
	Holy crap.
	This is not long, this one.
	As an urban, liberal, agnostic Canadian, the hardest part, and by the way, they're going to give the 12-year-old kid medication.
	Gender-affirming medication.
	Give it a nice name, gender-affirming medication.
	It's not fucking up a body for the rest of the kid's life.
	It's not going to be sterility.
	Bone issues, depending on which way this is going.
	It's not going to be micropenis if it's going a boy to try to make a boy body into a girl body, which you can't do because we're not Frankenstein.
	Gender-affirming medication for a 12-year-old because it's not an impulsive decision.
	I mean, when she was eight, she nonchalantly told me that she thinks she's a boy.
	And we've done nothing but affirm that for the last four years for the kid.
	Nothing to do with, you know, whatever pleasures, notoriety, fame the parents get out of this.
	As an urban liberal agnostic, the hardest part of parenting a trans kid has been watching the anti-trans groundswell, particularly in the UK and US.
	As of this month, states are banning gender-affirming care.
	Gender-affirming care.
	Genital mutilation in children.
	Despite evidence that this care does more good than harm.
	Bullshit.
	Holy crap.
	I've cried often for those kids and their parents, and I've cried for fear.
	These baseless laws will make their way north of the border.
	And now it has begun.
	Or now it begins.
	The Conservative Province is New Brunswick and Saskatchewan.
	Parental consent is now required before a student under 16 can use their preferred pronouns or name at school.
	Can you imagine a human being on Earth thinking this is a violation of anyone's rights?
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Children under 16 now require parental consent before they can use their preferred pronoun at school?
	There's not a thing that a kid should do at school that a parent should not know about and consent to.
	Now, I know some of you are going to be out there to steal men.
	Well, you know, if a kid comes to school and tells a teacher about bona fide physical abuse at home, you don't just go run and tell the parent because that's going to cause even more problems.
	So now we've bastardized language.
	Ideas and thought itself to say not letting a kid use their preferred pronoun is tantamount to the same type of physical abuse that would warrant getting the authorities involved.
	That is where it's gone.
	In British Columbia, there was a judge in an obiter or, you know, a part of a decision said deliberately misgendering a kid could be deemed to be, you know, child abuse under the law.
	On the surface, they've opened the door to similar policies, saying parents must be fully involved and fully aware of what's happening in the life of their children so that they can support their kids.
	They're not coming for your kids.
	They just want to be able to do this without even letting the parents know.
	On the surface, I couldn't agree more, but let's hear the but to this.
	This has been my experience after all, because Zach trusted us enough to share his gender identity at the age of eight.
	My husband and I have been fully involved, fully aware, and fully supportive of the nonchalant decision of an eight-year-old.
	Who the hell is the parent in this relationship?
	We were the ones, not Zach, to have the conversations with the school about changing his pronouns.
	Oh, that sounds very interesting.
	We were the ones, not Zach, going to school to change his pronouns.
	Not because it was our right to do so, but because we earned the privilege of Zach's true self.
	But not all kids have the luxury of an LGBTQ plus tolerant home.
	According to the...
	yada, yada, yada.
	Fewer than one in three transgender or non-binary youth find their home to be gender affirming.
	Oh, so if a kid wants to, if a 13-year-old comes in and wants gender-affirming medication and a parent says, hell no, now they live in one of these non-gender-affirming homes.
	Here in Canada, hate crimes targeting people for their sexual orientation rose by 60%.
	Oh, I'd love to see how they break that down.
	It's a hard truth that some kids live with parents who are homophobic and transphobic.
	Oh my god.
	Okay, in the worst case, I have to weigh my words.
	No province should be making policies to forcibly out gender non-conforming kids to their parents.
	If you truly are the sort of parent to support your kid's gender identity, you don't need policy to codify your right to do so.
	You simply need to be open, caring, kind.
	This is what this mother thinks she's doing with her kid.
	I'm open, loving, caring, and kind to let my 12-year-old kid, after four years of thoughtful consideration, take gender-affirming care medications, which will impact the kid for the rest of their lives, even according to the mother's own acknowledgement.
	But not everyone is that sort of parent.
	Julie Magba works as an account director, graphic design.
	She lives in Toronto with her husband, kids, and pets.
	Okay.
	There's a cat joke in there that I'm not going to make.
	So I went and I just had to find another article written by this person.
	I went just to see, you know, I would love to have a discussion with this person.
	And I would preface it by saying, I think what you're doing to your kid is child abuse.
	I think it should be illegal.
	I think your kid is going to grow up to have massive amounts of resentment towards you at best.
	And a lawsuit at second best and then other stuff potentially at worst.
	At worst.
	I think there's going to be, this is, you have no idea what you're doing.
	And I think it should be illegal.
	I'll preface it with that.
	But I found another article written by the same person, and I just want to highlight.
	Inadvertent admissions of absolute madness.
	This one is from March 30, 2021.
	Stop asking me if my 8-year-old trans kid is just going through a phase.
	This is what, after the kid nonchalantly said I'm a boy, stop asking me if he's going through a phase.
	Accepting that my kid is trans was easy.
	Flipping years old.
	Eight years old, and this mother is treating it like the kid knows what he's going to, you know, kids don't even know what they're going to be when they're adults.
	This kid now knows what they want to do to their body.
	Oh my, it's just, it's just, it's actually just, it's horrific.
	Accepting my kid was not easy.
	Dealing with other people's skepticism that he is who he is, not so much.
	Okay.
	I just want to go, this is an article, I'll give it all to you.
	But I just want to go to...
	Uh, rock.
	Here.
	Listen to this.
	Listen to this.
	This is the kid that the adult is listening to.
	My kids' hearts are fickle but true.
	What the hell does that mean?
	Yes, they are sincerely fickle.
	They are fickle nonetheless, which means that they make decisions now that they might not like in two years.
	What evidence do you need?
	How about your own godforsaken experience?
	After years of happily attending Charlie's dance and art classes, there were no signs before Zach asked to try rock climbing.
	Amazing!
	Yet we didn't worry whether it was a true passion or a passing fancy, or if he'd get hurt.
	We simply enrolled him in a climbing program, brought him some handshake, and sent him to the gym with our most sincere wish, Darling Boy Ascend.
	Because lopping off genitalia, taking life-altering medication, is exactly the same as saying, now I might be interested in rock climbing, which has other beneficial effects on the body, and I might not be interested in that in two years.
	I might be, I think I'm a boy now, but in two years, who knows, maybe I'll be interested in rock climbing.
	Was it a phase?
	What if he changes his mind?
	Those are other questions people ask.
	But hold on.
	Here we go.
	What if it's a phase?
	If it's a phase like his love for the DJ Marshmallow or the Green Peppers, we will let Zach guide us out the same way he guided us in.
	This is the thought process of someone now who is deferring to the demands, apparently, of a 12-year-old child.
	And I would venture to say...
	I think most of this is not coming from the child, but rather might have been.
	In as much as another one of her tweets said, my kid thinks she's a giraffe.
	This is what I got.
	This was from before.
	I said, oh, when are you going to begin the surgery for your kid who thinks she's a giraffe?
	Rock climbing, maybe, is also a phase.
	After two years at the climbing gym, and again without warning, Zach told us he wants to learn to play the drums.
	It's loud and it's noisy and it seems fun.
	I love that Zach is curious about new activities and exploring new aspects of his identity.
	So I will sign him up for drum classes when registration opens, if he's still interested.
	This is the kid that this woman is relying on to make decisions about gender-affirming care.
	Gender-affirming care.
	About mutilating their bodies through puberty blocking or hormone therapy.
	This is the same person.
	They don't see it.
	This is the person now lecturing others who think I'm not deferring to the fickle whims of a child.
	That parent is transphobic.
	Writing op-eds for the Toronto Star.
	They're not coming for your kids, people.
	Bullshit.
	And the ones that are coming, they don't even have intellectual consistency of their own thoughts and ideations.
	So that's it.
	I don't think she'll accept an invitation to discuss.
	All right.
	I think that's it on that story.
	Maybe there might be a tweet in a second.
	Let me bring up some Rumble rants just to see if anybody has any comments on that.
	Oh my goodness.
	Ginger Ninja, 1776.
	Good to see you again.
	After about 8 to 10 months, I stopped screaming about COVID and the tyranny because I was blocked by everyone who needed to see and lost my friends, but now I can't point back to it.
	Maddening.
	Ginger Ninja says they will push things until you either look like a psycho or do something psychotic or lose motivation.
	Then, if they continue to win...
	There will be a lull where we that see are securing ourselves for when they come to our doors.
	They won't stop.
	Everything we must do must be defensive, but we will have to do it.
	Sorry for the black pill.
	Echo Fius says, look into Edward Bernays, the father of the propaganda nephew of Freud and the father of Netflix, Mark Randolph.
	Ginger Ninja, if gender is completely separate from sex, a medical sex change makes no sense.
	Sex equals gender, and you know it.
	They know it.
	Don't let them redefine reality before your very eyes.
	That's what they say.
	They say, trans kids are perfect just the way they are.
	So give them medications, lop off healthy body parts, and screw them up for life physically.
	It's atrocious.
	I mean, it's flat-out atrocious.
	Okay.
	Let me just make sure here.
	So we got that.
	All right.
	So now we're transitioning subjects now.
	Pun intended.
	Speaking of the gaslighting.
	Oh, you see, I can't see the original tweet because I'm incognito.
	I have never seen such a meltdown of liberals, liberal supporters, Trudeau supporters, and brain-dead idiots.
	That I've seen over the last few days on Twitter.
	It's actually stunningly amazing.
	Stephen Guilbault, the former heritage minister, that guy with the beard, the one who scaled the CN Tower, the one who's a bumbling idiot, liar, has no place in government.
	He's become active on Twitter.
	Talking about how bad the conservatives are.
	Bruce.
	Oh, we're going to get to Bruce afterwards.
	But let me just bring this tweet up because we have to see the original.
	Tweet.
	There we go.
	Okay, we got this.
	Here.
	We got this.
	Anthony Housefather, the man who sat there and so eloquently explained why Canada was rushed into securing contracts for a jibby jab from a company that bypassed all normal safety protocol research, etc., etc.
	And the tweets coming from the liberals and Trudeau supporters, they're all like this.
	Conservatives vote in favor of no restrictions for anti-vaxxers to protect their bodily autonomy right after they voted to take away the right of trans kids and teens to make medical decisions even if their parents are also in favor.
	Exclamation point!
	I mean, I swear to you, I read this tweet and I think Anthony Housefather is trying to get Pierre Poilier of the Conservative Party elected.
	Conservatives vote in favor of no restrictions for anti-vaxxers.
	Call us whatever.
	Call us.
	I mean, I should say.
	I'm a double-vaxxer.
	I don't consider myself to be double-vaxxed anymore, but I'm an anti-vaxxer that took two of those shots back in 2021.
	You'd have to strap me down to get a booster into me.
	I guess I'm an anti-vaxxer now.
	Take your stupid name-calling and shove it up your stupid butt.
	And yes, I appreciate the name-calling there.
	But let's take out the term anti-vaxxer.
	Conservatives vote for no restrictions to protect the bodily autonomy of people who do not want to be subjected to the experimental jab that Anthony Housefather explained was experimental.
	That's a bad thing?
	And right after they voted to take away the right of trans kids, the right to make medical decisions on their bodies, Even if their parents also are in favor?
	Under Canadian law, you cannot consent to assault.
	There are some gray zones where, you know, if you accept mutual combat, you can't really complain if you get a broken nose afterwards.
	But one cannot consent to allow someone to kill that person.
	Someone who says, kill me, there was a case of this in Germany.
	Kill me.
	I want to die.
	I'm suicidal.
	Kill me.
	The person who does it...
	Will get arrested and convicted of murder.
	You cannot consent to certain serious forms of assault.
	I don't give a sweet, merciful crap that a parent out there like the one that we just read in the Toronto Star consents to authorizing mutilating medication or treatments for their kids.
	I don't care that a parent says I authorize the abuse of my kid.
	I don't care!
	It's like a parent saying, I authorize somebody to beat my kid.
	Can't do that.
	I don't care that a kid says, yeah, I really know the future.
	I'm going to take this medication.
	I'm down with it.
	And my parents are down with it, too.
	Don't care.
	And, I mean, to me, it's a meltdown, but it really feels...
	They're all saying the same thing, by the way.
	It's crazy in unison.
	Why was I late to the stream today?
	Because somebody else...
	Out there was saying the same thing.
	Captain?
	Kobe?
	I'm not sure who this person is.
	I know that they've been popping up on my feed, and I think that's because Twitter wants the engagement.
	But another person failing to understand the obvious.
	Why is the party who constantly spews shit such as, quote, our body, our choice, and my personal favorite, mandate freedom, have a vote on restricting what others...
	Do with their own bodies.
	To which I replied, eloquently and in caps, partially, so people are going to think that's crazy, because we know where they're going with this.
	For those who don't understand the distinction here, because children cannot consent to certain things, even with parental authority, tattoo a kid's face if a parent allows it.
	They're going to get in trouble.
	I don't know if they go to jail for that.
	Kids cannot consent to mutilating their bodies, nor can their parents provide that consent for them.
	Adults, I have not met a sincerely transphobic person because I think most people that I know do what you want to do with your body.
	Live and let live.
	Where that line is drawn in the sand is at the age of majority.
	You want to be a kinky freak in the sexual sense as an adult?
	Go have at it.
	There's a distinction between what adults can do with their own bodies and among consenting adults and what children who cannot legally consent can do, can consent to, can do among themselves, and can do even with consenting adults.
	There's a difference.
	I know people understand it, but they seem to be getting relatively thick for political partisan purposes.
	But that's the talking point.
	Conservatives want to allow anti-vaxxers to not be coerced into experimental medications while simultaneously Preventing experimental medications on children, even if the child consents, which they can't in law, and even if the parent consents to something which is unlawful for their kid.
	And if it's not unlawful, it should be.
	All right, but we are going to get into the lighter stuff of the day, I promise.
	I promise.
	Okay, let me see here, just see if I'm missing anything in the chat.
	I'm not.
	Okay.
	Okay, okay, okay.
	They at the drive-thru.
	If anybody gets that movie, good on you.
	okay the good stuff We're going to start with just a random, totally random, but again, as far as hypocrisy and gaslighting goes, Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunitz, are they still married?
	Are they married?
	It's a good-looking couple.
	I don't care.
	I don't care about them personally.
	Those are two good-looking people right there.
	On a purely superficial basis.
	Because I'm sure they're loathsome spirits.
	Maybe.
	I don't know.
	Listen to this.
	So, I did not follow the Danny Masterson trial where he was convicted.
	I didn't follow it.
	I understand that he was convicted.
	And I understand that there are people on both sides saying, totally convicted, got what he deserved.
	Others are saying, based on hearsay, yada yada.
	I did not follow that trial enough to have any sort of deeply held belief.
	But Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis apparently wrote a character letter in support of Masterson after the conviction.
	And now it seems they might be getting in trouble for it.
	And what do they do?
	Because when you have no anchor, the wind will just blow you in every direction.
	Listen to this.
	We are aware of the pain that has been caused by the character letters that we wrote on behalf of Danny Masterson.
	We support victims.
	Could this be any more, A, orchestrated, and B, insincere?
	And I love it when people talk in the passive.
	We are aware of the pain caused by it.
	Now, if you wrote a letter and your letter caused pain, why is it difficult to describe it accurately?
	Passive, it's beyond me.
	I had nothing to do with it.
	We wrote a letter in support of Danny Masterson's character to, I don't know, attenuate any conviction.
	And people found out and people aren't happy.
	We are aware of the pain that has been caused by the character letters that we wrote on behalf of Danny Masterson.
	We support victims.
	We have done this historically through our work and will continue to do so in the future.
	On a level of 1 to 10, how authentic is that?
	I mean, I'm going to give that a solid zero.
	That's like insincere, rehearsed, staged, and I might also add absolutely incoherent.
	We support victims.
	We have always supported victims.
	And we just wrote a letter of support, of character, of a convicted victimizer.
	Whether or not you think the trial was...
	If you think the trial was bullshit, and you think that he got wrongly convicted, just say it.
	No.
	We support victims.
	But we also support victimizers.
	Until we get outed, and then we go back to supporting victims.
	A couple months ago, Danny's family reached out to us, and they asked us...
	Look at her lips.
	To write character letters.
	To represent the person that we knew for 25 years.
	So that the judge could take that into full consideration relative to the sentencing.
	Cue Mila.
	The letters were not written to question the legitimacy of the judicial system or the validity of the jury's ruling.
	Am I biased or do I think that Ashton Kutcher comes off as much more sincere in all of this?
	And I like Mila Kunis.
	They were intended for the judge.
	In the actress, actressy sense.
	What movie was she in?
	She did a voiceover in a movie that I liked.
	I'll have to remember.
	Hold on.
	And not to undermine the testimony of the victims or re-traumatize them in any way.
	We would never want to do that.
	And we're sorry.
	We're sorry.
	Our heart goes out to every single person who's ever been a victim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or rape.
	And they couldn't edit out that part of the video?
	Do you know what Ashton Kutcher's, I'm sorry, sounds like?
	Who remembers this?
	It's like the best scene of the movie.
	Uncle Buck, I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry!
	Here, we gotta watch this.
	We gotta watch this.
	Adult version.
	Good.
	Did you do anything to bug?
	Skip it here.
	Skip it here.
	No, it gets...
	No, no, no, no.
	Here, here, here.
	I'm sorry.
	You fucking shithead!
	I could have suffocated in here!
	Best movie of all time, by the way.
	You know what I'd like you to do?
	I actually could be doing both of us a favor.
	I'd like you to apologize to the lady, please.
	I'm sorry!
	I'm fucking sorry!
	Okay, asshole!
	I'm sorry!
	I don't know if I told you this or not, but I'm an amateur.
	This was the apology that Ashton Kutcher just gave.
	Oh, yes, he is.
	Oh, who ruined this video?
	This.
	I'm sorry.
	And now let's just go back to Ashton Kutcher.
	Can we?
	I'm sorry.
	It's classic.
	How do I get back here?
	Here.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	We're sorry if that has taken place.
	Our heart goes out to every single person who's ever...
	If that has taken place.
	I want to do that.
	And we're sorry if...
	We're sorry.
	All right.
	We have to cleanse our palate every now and again because...
	Oh my goodness.
	It's like when you have no anchor of principles, the wind will blow your morality any which way on any given day.
	You wrote a letter for somebody.
	You thought you knew the person.
	I mean, I don't know how you write that letter and then apologize about having written that letter after the fact.
	And the family reached out to us.
	The letter was written.
	People were offended.
	How about I stand by that letter.
	I thought I knew Danny Masterson.
	And that's it.
	Or how about, I should have written the letter.
	We, we, I don't know.
	We, we got, no, but we're sorry, but we're not sorry.
	Sorry, not sorry.
	Oh, lordy, lordy.
	All right.
	Hail Uncle Buck Savage.
	Yeah, Jacob Cash.
	I hadn't seen that clip.
	Whoever, whoever edited that ruined it.
	Some, some remixes are better.
	Uncle Buck.
	There's a, I think I can think of offhand three perfect movies.
	Uncle Buck.
	Princess Bride.
	And there's one more in there.
	The Jerk.
	Those are perfect movies.
	Perfect 100%.
	Other classic comedies of all time, which I can always watch and will always make me happy.
	Happy Gilmore.
	Billy Madison.
	Dumb and Dumber.
	Best comedies ever made.
	Alright, what do we move on to now that we've cleansed our palate with that?
	And, oh yeah.
	Well, on the...
	Oh, this is amazing.
	I'm going to try to get Mike Lindell on the channel.
	I don't know if he's giving interviews.
	There's pending litigation.
	Mike Lindell gave a deposition, or at least the deposition was published.
	I didn't get the full context of this yet.
	I said objection.
	I didn't get the full context as in when this is from.
	I suspect it's relatively new.
	I don't know.
	Who's Old Roe Swig?
	Old Roe founder.
	I don't know what that is, but he's got the spud McKenzie dog.
	This is so flipping awesome.
	There's no question about it.
	This is going to make you laugh.
	It's going to make you smile.
	It's going to make you say, if ever I get deposed, this is how I would do it.
	Okay, we're going to go through this.
	I'm just going to pause it periodically because it's absolutely classic.
	This is why people hate lawyers.
	This is why people have no faith in the judicial system.
	This is why people...
	That's pretty much it.
	Non-responsive.
	Let me explain a few more things to you.
	What?
	Let me explain a few more things to you.
	Let me explain a few.
	So this is the opposing counsel doing a deposition of Mike Lindell.
	So it's technically a cross-examination.
	You can treat him like a hostile witness, which he is.
	And as most lawyers do in deposition, and I was guilty of doing this when I was a young, arrogant prick in the practice, you think you're scoring points by...
	Thinking that you're intimidating a witness.
	You think you're scoring points for a judge who's going to read this by coming off as an arrogant, condescending prick.
	Because at the time, you don't appreciate that you're coming off as an arrogant, condescending prick.
	You think you're coming off as someone who's under control of the situation and is really, really bringing out the non-responsiveness of the witness.
	When in reality, you just look like an arrogant, condescending prick as this lawyer does.
	Whether or not Mike Lindell's response is going to hurt him.
	If and when the judge reads this, who knows?
	One thing is for certain, any lawyer, any judge worth his or her weight in salt is going to look at this lawyer and say, you had four bloody minutes, and all you did in that four minutes of this clip was look like an arrogant, condescending prick.
	Listen to this.
	Have you given a deposition before like this?
	I've given a ton of depositions.
	Okay, so you understand the process somewhat.
	Sure do.
	Okay.
	When I ask you a question...
	You understand the process?
	Sure do.
	Ask the question.
	Sure do.
	When I ask you the question, what you need to do, see, because you're the inferior and I'm the superior, you need to answer that.
	Listen to how long this lawyer goes on.
	You need to do your best to respond only to my question.
	Are you going to arrest me?
	I'll say whatever I want.
	And if we have extra, that's too bad.
	There's no rule that says I can't give a full answer.
	I'm telling you the rules.
	Have you ever been in a deposition where they can't stand who you are?
	Have you?
	A lot more than you, sir.
	Have you ever been in a deposition where they can't stand who you are?
	A lot more than you, sir.
	Oh, accidental honesty.
	But I love this.
	Good.
	Keep going.
	Don't tell me about my depositions.
	You're not my boss.
	You're just some frivolous lawyer in here.
	And you bring in this frivolous case to me.
	And especially against a company that had nothing to do with anything.
	You're disgusting.
	Keep going.
	I want you to understand.
	The lawyer cannot leave it there.
	You're disgusting.
	He just insulted me.
	I'm the big dog here.
	I'm the arrogant prick here.
	I'm not going to leave it at that.
	I could have just started asking my question and then leave it at that.
	But no, no, no.
	Listen, the dude's got to teach him another thing.
	Understand another thing.
	What's that?
	This case is pending in federal court in Colorado.
	I don't care.
	What does that have to do with anything?
	Do you understand that?
	Yes.
	Alright.
	There's a federal judge that's going to likely be reading and watching this deposition.
	I don't care.
	Do you understand that?
	No shit, Sherlock.
	That's the point of a deposition.
	There's nobody who doesn't understand that.
	Could you ask a question already?
	Like, a minute and 13 seconds.
	Can you ask a question?
	I don't care.
	She should have dismissed this a long time ago.
	She hasn't ruled on that.
	There's a problem.
	I got a problem with her too.
	The judge has practice standards on how...
	No, the judge...
	Why is he arguing with the witness about the practice standards of the judge who hasn't issued a ruling on the motion to dismiss yet?
	he has not asked a substantive question yet and spoiler alert he doesn't ask a substantive question at all in this four minute clip did not dismiss this case we put in to get it dismissed and she ruled an unfair ruling saying well go ahead and do discovery and waste all your time while i'm sitting there not doing nothing that's what that judge is doing so don't tell me what the judge is doing and you just let me worry about the judge reading this okay I just want you to understand that.
	No, you just don't.
	I just want you to understand that, you see, because I'm looking out for your interests, Mr. Lindell.
	Oh, my God.
	Don't worry about me.
	You're not out for my benefit, okay?
	He's out for my benefit, not you.
	So you can do it.
	Don't worry if I say something that offends the judge, okay?
	You just let me worry about that.
	You got that?
	I'm in love.
	Yeah, I got it.
	Okay, good.
	Keep going.
	The reason I bring that up.
	The lawyer can't stop.
	He can't stop and move on.
	I mean, it's pathological.
	This is why people hate lawyers, but this is also like, it's a good law 101, how not to conduct a deposition.
	As if the judge is not pleased with your conduct in this deposition.
	Thank you, thank you.
	There may be penalties.
	Wouldn't you want that, Mr. Attorney?
	I mean, this is four minutes of wasted time for Lindell, but that's the purpose of the deposition, at least according to Lindell.
	Okay, good.
	You tell her, you go ahead.
	Thank you for worrying about old Mike.
	You're really, it's great.
	It seems like you bring a frivolous case up.
	You really have my back.
	Go ahead.
	Keep going.
	That judge, you put this in the record, that judge, it's a big problem I got.
	If someone didn't have the money and time to sit through this garbage, when I put into her summary judgment last summer, and she hasn't ruled on it, either say yay or nay.
	It's disgusting.
	It's disgusting to our country that she couldn't make a ruling.
	Go ahead and do deposition.
	If it was some guy that didn't have money, you would put them under just in this garbage.
	Wasting my day.
	Wasting my time.
	I think if it was someone on the street, don't you care about people?
	This is disgusting.
	This judge should have ruled a long time ago that you're yea or nay, frivolous or not.
	But she did.
	She said, go ahead and do discovery while I sit and decide what I'm going to do.
	That's disgusting.
	I got no problem with you on that.
	I got a problem with the judge not making a ruling.
	So there.
	Now go ahead.
	Now that the judge has that on record, now you don't have to worry about what me and the judge think of each other.
	All right.
	Objection, non-responsive.
	Objection, non-responsive?
	You haven't asked a question in three minutes and 21 seconds.
	What question was he non-responsive to?
	You didn't ask one.
	Oh, do you understand how the deposition worked?
	Oh, that was a very responsive question to the last question.
	That was a very responsive answer to the last question you just asked him.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Three minutes, 21 seconds.
	Wasted time.
	And this is what...
	A lot of the practice of law is about lawyers sitting there trying to...
	Here's another thing that I need you to know, Mr. Lindell.
	If the court determines that you're...
	Not being responsive or acting in good faith today.
	We may have to come back and do this some more.
	You're there now.
	It's been three and a half minutes and you haven't asked the substantive question.
	And then he's going to say, oh my goodness, I spent three minutes trying to lecture him on whether or not he understands how a deposition works instead of just asking the questions.
	And I want you to understand that.
	Oh, I got that.
	And if that's the case, I will be asking for...
	Attorney's fees and costs for us to do it.
	I'm already asking for them.
	I might just come after you guys for the most frivolous case ever when this is done.
	If there's a way to sue you, believe me, I'm doing it.
	Okay, just so you know that.
	Beyond anything you've ever seen.
	So be prepared.
	I'm committed to being polite and professional.
	Okay, go ahead.
	We're getting through that.
	Now you know where I sit.
	Let's get on with it.
	Okay.
	That is enough to make anybody...
	Who did not yet hate lawyers.
	Hate a lawyer.
	It's classic.
	It's phenomenal.
	It's phenomenal.
	Now, hold on one second.
	Ginger Ninja says, Ahamadali is a spammer, maybe a bot.
	Let me see here.
	Is that person still in the chat?
	Oh my goodness.
	It's the most glorious thing and the righteous indignation that Mike Lindell was exuding there.
	And I'm going to look into the context a little more, but it obviously sounds like he made a motion to dismiss what he considers to be a frivolous lawsuit filed against him last summer.
	And the judge, unlike in other cases where they suspend...
	They pause depositions when they don't want there to be discoveries.
	In this case, they said, no, look, while I'm thinking about granting your dismissal or not, go ahead and do discoveries anyhow.
	You remember in James O 'Keefe versus New York Times, they suspended the...
	They did not allow James O 'Keefe to proceed with depositions while the judge pontificated the New York Times motion.
	But in...
	Because, you know, they don't want James O 'Keefe...
	Deposing the New York Times, they might reveal some prejudicial information.
	In Lindell's case, by the sounds of it, oh, I'll contemplate your motion to dismiss or your summary motion to dismiss.
	And if I grant it, well, you'll have just sat through however many days of deposition or however much that costs.
	And Lindell is right.
	And this is why people absolutely hate the lawyers, the legal system and everything to do with it.
	A day of that.
	If you have a lawyer there, a day of a lawyer.
	Just bear this in mind.
	Say six hours, say 500 bucks an hour.
	If you're being reasonable, 3,000 bucks.
	The stenographer, another 1,000 bucks.
	You have 4,000 bucks spending money for most people who are not making money while they're spending that money.
	So it's a net loss in addition to the burning of the money.
	Lindell, billionaire, has the money to say F you, has the money to survive this lawfare.
	And it's not everybody that does that, but even he.
	Expressing his rage and frustration.
	So that's it.
	I mean, I just watched it.
	I was like, that is what most people want to do.
	It's not necessarily advisable to have done what Mike Lindell did.
	He might get sanctions.
	A judge might say, oh my goodness, you were non-responsive.
	What was the question?
	A lawyer, lawyer man, what question did you ask to which he was not responding?
	But I bet you it felt good, and it's probably worth whatever money it's gonna cost him.
	Now, Ginger Ninja, she's Meg from The Family Guy.
	That's why I like her.
	That's where you like her voice from.
	By the way, I like it when people don't apologize.
	Stand on your beliefs for being actors.
	They aren't very good at acting.
	Lolz.
	Oh, now we're an hour and a half in.
	Let me just see what I have left in the backdrop.
	Okay, so we got...
	We've got something to discuss in terms of statistics for gun violence in cities or states.
	I think maybe we're going to do that over at Locals.
	And then I think Anthony House, by the way, got that.
	And that's it!
	Okay, so we're going to save one story, one exclusive story, and that is going to be when people cite gun violence statistics and they go by state and they say red states.
	I look into the districts and the mayors and I'm noticing a trend.
	Now, with that said, we should probably...
	I haven't played us out in a while with a video that's fun.
	I'll play us out with a fun video.
	Got the bait fish.
	We got that one.
	Got that one.
	Let me get something fun just so that we can actually...
	Play a video so that at the end it doesn't get kind of...
	Oh, fishing in Canada.
	You know what?
	Forget about it.
	We're just going to go over to Locals.
	Come on over to Locals.
	Tomorrow is going to be an amazing day.
	We're going to have Tarek Johnson, January 6th police officer, at 7 o 'clock.
	Dave Smith at 9 o 'clock.
	It's going to be insightful.
	It's going to be enlightening.
	Thank you all for being here.
	Anybody, you know, if you want to get the merch shirt.
	Viva Fry!
	Oh, that's it.
	Come on over to Locals.
	Now, let me just make sure that I didn't miss anything in the chat here.
	Upcoming schedule, Hoopy Hooper says, so for tomorrow, that's the schedule.
	Wednesday, I'll be live.
	Thursday, who the heck knows.
	Friday, you betcha, it's gonna be a Friday.
	An F-R-E-I day.
	And that's it.
	Okay, you know what?
	I better go now because I actually have to do something at 2.30, so I want to make sure we have enough time for our local stuff.
	Come on over to locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, and if you're not coming, I'll see you tomorrow evening.
	Thank you all for being here, and now we will end transmission on Rumble in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Okay, and I need to tap the aggregate knowledge of our above-average crowd here in...
	In chat.
	Okay, so I'm here now.
	I'm going to go to the tipped questions.
	And I'm going to say, I'm going to read them.
	Let me just make sure I'm here.
	Well, hold on.
	Are we all good here?
	View all.
	Hello.
	Are we good in locals?
	Good, good.
	F. Come on, Brenton.
	Don't, Steve.

▲