Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 21, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:51:46

Harvard Plagiarist! Trudeau Math! Proxy War Pigs! & MY BROTHER! Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I hear Vinny.
	I hear Vinny.
	This is selfie inception, people.
	I'm going to be one of the guests today, so...
	Vinny!
	All right, so everybody, this was the...
	My second choice for starting videos, for intro videos, because I'm going to play the one that I originally wanted to start with because it loops into the original subject matter of this stream a lot better.
	But I wanted to play that because what they're doing over there, that's at Valuetainment, that's Vinny Oceana, who's a hilarious stand-up comic, if you don't already know.
	They're doing something great there.
	And I've been, you know, guest appearing or they've been inviting me and I've been, you know, Humbly accepting invitations.
	The show is called The Unusual Suspects, and it's a great concept, it's a great platform, it's a great show that I think deserves a little more exposure.
	Not just because I enjoy frequenting it as a guest.
	It's good stuff, and good stuff deserves to be highlighted.
	And bad stuff deserves to be highlighted as well.
	And blasted!
	And that's what we're going to be doing today.
	What I wanted to start with is, let me just make sure before we go on.
	Because I'm a bit of an idiot.
	Okay, we're live on Rumble.
	That's good.
	are we live on viva barneslaw.locals.com we're good And I see my brother in the backdrop.
	Oh, his hair's looking even grayer than it was before.
	It's my actual brother from the same mother.
	So you all know him.
	We'll get to him in a second.
	Good morning.
	Good morning.
	It's not afternoon.
	I gotta get these streams out when I can because it's Christmas holiday, people.
	Like, kids are out of school now, and I'm going back to what I politely refer to as Commie Canada tomorrow.
	Gotta see my parents.
	All the siblings are, you know, coming in, and we're gonna have a party, see my mother-in-law.
	If you don't know who I am, welcome to the channel.
	Viva Frye, Montreal litigator turned Florida rumbler.
	We're live.
	We are live on Locals.
	I just see someone saying, we're live, right?
	We're live, right?
	I think we're live on Locals.
	If you don't know who I am, welcome to the channel.
	It must be a weird thing stumbling across this randomly, having no idea who this lunatic is.
	Montreal litigator, former, turned current Floridian rumbler.
	We start on YouTube.
	Rumble and VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Then we end on YouTube because I've been calling YouTube Commitube as well.
	People have been accusing me of using the term communist inaccurately.
	Yes, people, it's not supposed to be a totally accurate insult.
	It's just supposed to be the colloquial insult lumping together of people who censor free speech, support kangaroo courts, medical intervention of other people's bodies, and censorship.
	Yeah.
	All right, so we're live everywhere.
	Thanks for being around, Viva.
	I hate this holiday everyone leaves.
	Oh, I'm just thinking like, oh, it's a tough time of year under ordinary circumstances, and it's tougher under certain circumstances than others.
	It's tough because of solitude, and it's also tough because you end up having to see a lot of people who...
	Interesting dinnertime conversations.
	Okay, all that to say, this is my actual brother.
	He's in the backdrop, but before I bring him in, I'm going to bring in the video that I wanted to start this show with.
	Because it relates to the subject matter.
	And it's one of those things where you watch the video and you don't know if it's parody for a good 30 seconds.
	Listen to this.
	Booster this, booster that.
	They expect you to get a booster, but ain't nobody told you what it is or how it worked.
	Yup.
	Over time, your immunity wanes.
	Antibodies ain't nothing but protein and they get endocytocin broken down.
	And while immune memory is a thing, as they say where I'm from, stay ready.
	You ain't gotta get ready.
	Introducing COVID-19 boosters on the mRNA platform.
	Stop.
	By way of vote, one being, yes, this is parody.
	Two, no, this is serious propaganda.
	I'm getting this far.
	I'm like, okay, when's the punchline?
	Because I'm waiting for it to say, like, all of the stuff that we now know.
	It's like that scene from Eurotrip where the guy's watching a movie and it's a dirty movie and he's waiting for the girls to come and he's like, "The girls never arrived!" The joke never comes.
	"Modified nucleicides to get inside your cytoplasm for three reasons: Re-mind, Re-fine, Re-up.
	Remind, Re-fine, Re-up." Now you know it's propaganda.
	All the pillars of marketing.
	Give it a name, give it a brand, give it a catchy rhyming thing so that the soft brains out there will remember it.
	I forgot what they were.
	Except for re-up.
	I remember re-up.
	I'm not playing the rest of this.
	I want to know how much that man was paid for this.
	Drew comments.
	How much was he paid for this?
	It wasn't a joke, by the way, people.
	It wasn't a joke, and I've been following his feed now.
	It's not only not a joke, it's a sick, sad joke.
	So speaking of that, you know, here, go get your propaganda.
	It's that time of year again.
	Go pull a Chrystia Freeland and go get your second booster and whatever the hell you need.
	But also, let's get an update on the Vaccine Injury Support Program out of Canada, the VISP.
	It's tough to say when you have a lisp.
	You say the VISP with the lisp.
	I'm going to bring in my brother now.
	He's going to give us the latest.
	Daniel, sir.
	Daniel, son.
	Are you ready to come in, son?
	Too late.
	Daniel.
	Bro, that ad inspired me.
	I think I want to go get a booster, a triple booster or whatever.
	I'm ready to go.
	Your whole beard is white.
	Is it the lighting?
	Yeah, it's the lighting.
	Sometimes people say, yeah, I guess my streaks look a lot whiter on camera than they are in real life.
	Dude, no, it's got good music.
	What was it?
	It was two re's and a re-up.
	On the mRNA platform, it's like the...
	Anyhow.
	Was it paid and was it disclosed?
	Dude, okay, so first of all, what's going on?
	How you doing?
	Things are well, bro.
	Things are well.
	Can't complain.
	Yeah.
	You can always complain.
	Yeah.
	One can always complain.
	Rage Farm.
	We've got to Rage Farm.
	Rage Farm pays well, right?
	Well, yeah, but I think truth pays better.
	I mean, the funny thing is, people get accused of rage-farming.
	It's not rage-farming when you get enraged because you discover that they're paying influencers to push propaganda and then tell them not to say it because it would be embarrassing for the government if they were disclosing being paid.
	Can you believe that?
	He wasn't the only one.
	I posted something about the mayor of Toronto.
	She did a similar pitch.
	It's Wong, right?
	Deborah...
	Olivia...
	Olivia Chow.
	Sorry.
	Olivia Chow.
	Hold on.
	Let me see if I can find you.
	Tell me what she did.
	She...
	It's not my thing.
	But she basically, in a press release, just kind of out of the blue, talked about...
	It came out so bad.
	It was the one where I overlaid it with the bad flute music.
	Yeah, the sad flute music.
	But it's where she basically, on a whim, basically was promoting getting a jab because the holiday seasons are coming up.
	And...
	It just, it was a real train.
	Like she didn't even know which number she was getting.
	She's like, just get it.
	I have, and their reasoning didn't really make sense, but it looked like she was being kind of inspired by federal partners or some private public partnership to give that little three minute rant.
	It's unbelievable.
	I'll see if I can find it while you're talking, but Dan, what have you been up to these days in terms of the good work and your recent posts about the, you're going to have to flesh out what's going on with the vaccine injury support program.
	You've talked about it many times before, but.
	Yeah.
	Re-up our memory on what you're doing.
	Well, no, I just, I like to track these things.
	I think the vaccine injury support program has always been the canary in the mind.
	Like, that thing can't really lie about what's going on.
	And so I've been tracking that ever since, well, with you, like, almost a year and a half ago, two years ago, right?
	You couldn't even talk about the thing on YouTube, right?
	So I've been tracking it just to see, because they have to update it.
	It's a contract that was then called RCGT Inc., a private Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton, to manage a budget for the federal government to pay out these vaccine injuries from day one, right?
	But it's a private contract, so how it works is kind of a bit elusive.
	You kind of have to learn on the go.
	And so I've been kind of doing that.
	Helping a few people trying to, and it's really slow.
	It's like embarrassingly slow.
	But at that, they've paid out 138 claims already, right?
	And that's part of the contract to disclose that.
	And the total average is about $120,000 per, $110,000 per.
	Okay, so I'm bringing it up.
	For everybody who doesn't know, so Canada has, what's our adverse event reporting system called in Canada?
	Is it CARES?
	There was.
	Canadian Adverse Event Reactions.
	I think it was called CARES, which is ironic.
	Nobody's reporting anymore.
	It's like done.
	We have our own CARES system, but we also have our own vaccine injury program, and it's called the Vaccine Injury Support Program, the VISP.
	And you've been tracking it.
	I'm just going to bring up here.
	I'm going to highlight what you highlighted in your tweet.
	Total amount paid to claimants.
	And this is as of what date?
	This was as of December 1st, 2023.
	As of December 1st, for the safe and effective Jibby Jab, is this specifically for the COVID jab?
	By the way, they forgot the dollar sign in front of that.
	This is for...
	Okay, no.
	So good point.
	This is for all vaccines.
	But the reality is, I mean, just going to go on a limb here and say, I'm guessing a good 95 plus percent are for, you know, the C19.
	Do you have any comparables to last year?
	Like, are you able to track this number?
	Yes, right, because you can't.
	So, for some reason, when you go to archive.org, it's not tracking this particular link properly.
	I don't know what's working, but basically, the budget was $2.8 million per year, okay?
	Okay, that's a problem.
	That's the budget, which is low.
	But when this program was launched, Trudeau, in that infamous press release, says that it's one in a million.
	Serious injuries are one in a million.
	Bro, this thing's already paid out 138.
	So, and the population of Canada is not 138 million.
	So he's about, you know, just off by 4x, whatever it is, 5x.
	But really, there's more here because these are only serious and catastrophic like this.
	So that's the screening criteria here.
	So these are major injuries.
	They've led a whole bunch of ones.
	Go that are not considered serious.
	And they've also denied the ones that we know are, I mean, by all logical accounts, seem to be patently obvious.
	The big one in particular being Sean Hartman.
	So, right.
	So the deaths are not even...
	I'd be very interested in if there were any deaths that were paid out from this program, because how do you prove that?
	You have to do autopsies.
	Nobody wants to do the autopsies.
	Any time there's a death from an injury within a week or 30 days, nobody wants to do that.
	It doesn't happen.
	So I don't think any of those are for deaths, even though I think that would be the easiest and most affordable way for Sean Hartman to proceed.
	He filed an amended, I believe he submitted an amended statement of injury because he got the expert report confirming, at least from their expert, what the cause of death was.
	Right, and kudos to you, by the way, for getting that out there, because I know he regularly mentions you.
	As much as anything can be put on blast of that nature.
	The sick, tragic irony is that I had on another family, and their daughter died.
	Three weeks or a few weeks after the second jab, which she got three weeks after the first jab, and they put as cause of death, even though now she's gotten the medical records, and they'll disclose what they want to disclose, but they diagnosed the death as a COVID-19 death because after her second shot...
	Which was three weeks after the first, which already raises questions.
	She then got COVID-19 and then went to a hospital and suffered three heart attacks and then passed away weeks later.
	They put COVID-19 as the cause of death on the...
	Wow.
	Wow.
	That's crazy.
	It's mind-blowing, but it's atrocious.
	Well, but also what they do...
	So the program, the vaccination support program relies on an expert panel and they in turn rely on the latest studies, right?
	So as new studies come out linking different conditions to, you know, the jab, then a claim has a better chance of being recognized.
	So a lot of people that maybe got rejected a year ago or two years ago come back and say, no, now there's a causal link established in the literature, you know.
	Have a second kick at the file and maybe change your opinion.
	And so that's where we're at on a couple of claims.
	But that thing...
	Okay, so listen to this.
	Okay, there was a whistleblower who spoke about another issue.
	Oh gosh, it was the fund, the Green Fund.
	Okay, I don't know if you saw that.
	Are you following that?
	Nope.
	Basically, the way Canada set up a fund to give money out to green causes and the whole thing was a slush fund.
	It was a total kill.
	I do know what you're talking about.
	Right?
	So Elizabeth Blower came and it all comes from what's called a contribution agreement.
	In that case, it's called a contribution agreement and that's how the program is managed, how to give out the funds.
	Bro, that's what this thing, the Vaccine Injury Support Program is operated under the same idea, the contribution agreement.
	And I'm seeing it firsthand, what the contribution agreement says and how it's being operated.
	Some whistleblower besides me needs to come out and talk about what's going on because there's some discrepancies.
	The way the administrator's handling the claims, the way they're handling appeals, not being transparent, privacy, not respecting privacy, like phone calls recorded that you're supposed to tell the people about.
	Like, I've got it all, and it's a major problem.
	Leaving aside the whole issue about You know, how many claims are really outstanding, how many claims should have been paid.
	Like, there's this whole administrative side of it that somebody's got to blow the lid on.
	Dan, I'm going to double check our volume here.
	Chat, and I'll go to locals to make sure I'm not getting trolled.
	Did I just fix the audio?
	Do a mic check, Dan.
	Well, we'll do a real-time mic check.
	I've upped my volume and adjusted yours.
	So the vaccine injury support, they've paid out $11 million.
	That is to date.
	As of December, and it starts as of what date?
	Is that for the year or is that for the life of the program?
	That's from the life, so from 2021, which if you look at the numbers, it's supposed to be 2.8 per year, so we should have been up to about 7 or 8 million.
	Take your mic away from your mouth.
	I think, no, I got to balance it with equals here.
	Say that again.
	So that's lifetime.
	So it should have been, but based on budget, it should have been 7 or 8 million.
	They're up to 11. So they're 30% over budget, okay?
	Which is good, because they're recognizing that, right, that the thing is causing some serious problems.
	Bad because, well, it shows that there are serious problems.
	But it also shows, right, that this claim, this idea of safe and effective, right, people at that program know that that claim is not really fair to make, and they knew it for a while, and nobody was saying anything, right?
	Except for anti-vaxxers on banned social media accounts.
	But when you have this many claims and you have now objectively the metrics to show, like, I don't know.
	I don't know, man.
	Well, it's there now.
	Okay, I'm just trying to...
	Yes, he was referring to Dave's voice.
	Thanks.
	Okay, let's see.
	Viva, too low.
	Now his brother, too loud.
	What did I do?
	I turned him down.
	I didn't turn him up.
	Edit mic settings.
	Who?
	You and me?
	I forgot to do two things today.
	One was check the audio and one was check locals.
	Locals were live on locals.
	Mic volume.
	Don't do yours.
	Edit mic settings.
	I'm going to bring your mic down a little bit, Dan.
	Your show.
	And we're going to see if it's...
	It's my show.
	One day I'll get the hang of it.
	I need to get a mixer.
	Not yet a producer.
	It's fine, Viva.
	Okay, we're good now.
	Okay, good.
	So, have you been...
	Well, without getting into what's protected privilege information...
	You're working on people who are filing claims.
	Have you had any updates, any progress on a professional front?
	On the vaccine, so it's a slow move.
	Basically, you're dealing with getting medical records, which takes a significant period of time, and then structuring the appeal.
	So it's all in the pipes.
	It's a slow-moving program designed to be that way to delay the inevitable recognition that these things characterized them as safe and effective was not.
	We need the year-over-year data, actually, just for the first two years.
	Year-over-year?
	To compare the amount of claims this year versus the amount of claims last year.
	Because you're going to want...
	The Vaccine Injury Support Program is a new program, and if it's going to cover all vaccine injuries, there's no baseline pre-COVID to know how many people were making vaccine injury claims prior to the jab?
	Right.
	There was zero because we didn't have a federal program.
	You had Quebec, so that would be your...
	A good benchmark.
	So Quebec has a separate program.
	So I guess that would be the way to track it, right?
	Look at how it trends in Quebec.
	And interestingly, their numbers have stayed flat.
	So they started anew.
	So that tells me something.
	You can ask, who's the famous stats guy?
	Ed Dowd was on the show at least once.
	Oh, you got Dowd, okay.
	Roncourt is his name?
	Anyhow.
	The Quebec stats are wonky because they've opened up this new COVID program and the claims have remained flat.
	And you know that that can't be the case.
	But they've gotten more people applied.
	I think there's 98. Well, I've got to tell you something.
	There's a very easy explanation as to how it could have remained plateaued because they're just attributing a death jab to the euthanasia in Quebec, which is now the third leading cause of death, and say, well, they both come from a needle, so how does it matter how we categorize it?
	Bada bing, bada boom, it's a sick joke.
	You know that Quebec, Dan?
	Third leading cause of death for a while was medical assistance in dying?
	Isn't that Canada, too, or Canada's fourth?
	Well, no, Canada was four or five, but Quebec was ahead of Canada because, as people know in the chat, Quebec is always different.
	It's a unique province where they euthanize their elderly, and they're still having overloaded a healthcare system worse than, maybe not than Nova Scotia, but then the rest of the Canada.
	Yeah, I mean, it's...
	Yeah, Maid's a whole other topic, but that's actually we're dealing on a show tonight talking about Maid in Canada.
	Maid in Canada.
	Who are you going on with?
	That's with Natasha.
	What's her name?
	Natasha Montreal.
	Oh, she was on the radio?
	No, it's the Spaces.
	No, no, but it's not the Natasha from the Natasha show.
	Oh, I mean, I don't know.
	Anyhow, the point is, and yeah, now they're talking about offering made to vaccine-injured people.
	It's pretty dark.
	It's dark, and I'm going to get into it later on in the show.
	Dark, especially when you then say, well, how are they compensating for that decline in population?
	And it's just artificial growth to conceal what they're doing.
	But are they hiding it?
	Because it's very clear how many new people are coming in versus the debt.
	Well, it's clear if you know to even ask the question.
	I mean, it's not clear when they say population is hitting record growth and they say, well, we're bringing in 500,000 immigrants a year.
	And then they don't tell you that there's a record exodus of immigrants leaving Canada.
	So it's like...
	Oh, is there?
	I didn't know that.
	Google it.
	It's record numbers of new immigrants leaving Canada.
	So that's the objective stat.
	Anecdotally, we know people who came to Canada, to Quebec, were paid to learn French and then left to go back to their undisclosed homeland because they hated it in Quebec and Canada so much.
	I'm hearing so many anecdotes of people going to Mexico.
	Something's going on in Mexico.
	Everyone's going to Mexico.
	And I've heard the same, and they tell you, it's not as crazy as you think it is.
	So long as you stay out of X, Y, and Z area, it's not as bad as the media says.
	It's like, well, you still got to get from the airport to your area.
	But then again, you know, see what's going on in Canada.
	It's all a trade-off.
	There's no right or wrong decision.
	It's just trade-offs.
	Another interesting thing I discovered about the Vaccine Injury Support Program.
	Is that they're making people sign releases to get their money.
	So meaning, even if a person does prove their injury finally, to get your check, you have to say you're not going to sue the program administrator, you're not going to sue this person.
	Have you seen the release?
	Yeah, I've seen that release.
	It makes sense to me.
	I mean, if you're getting compensated, then you can't reserve your rights.
	No, okay, right?
	You think it makes sense.
	It actually doesn't make sense.
	Here's why.
	For personal injuries, if you sue someone in court and you win, there's rest judicata, so you can't sue again for the same injury.
	That's just built into the nature of it.
	But the court never makes you sign a release.
	And even if you win to get your proceeds after a successful litigation claim, you don't have to sign a release once the court orders it.
	It's only if you settle.
	Then people sometimes negotiate terms of settlement, and they try to get a benefit.
	Yeah, well, and then the distinction would be that you don't need a release because you're being compensated for the damages as of, and you don't relinquish future rights to future claims.
	This is what people have to understand, that this release, I don't think it overrides the rights that a person has within the way the program was designed to set up.
	So meaning, if a person does get money under the Vaccine Injury Support Program, and later discovers more injury, don't worry about Like, my thought is don't worry about that release because the program is designed to recognize that there may be additional discoveries that you can't sign away.
	So that's just...
	Sign a release, get a free burger.
	Hey, you got the free burger that got you.
	It's no, no, no, no.
	They owe, the injuries cause, you owe the thing.
	No release being signed.
	Like, pay the darn money.
	You've proven the thing, right?
	It is, and just to answer this question, wait, are you both lawyers?
	I'm still a...
	Trained lawyer, just not a practicing lawyer.
	I don't lose my training.
	My brother, Dan, is still a practicing lawyer.
	But it's an interesting way to put it is that they're compensating you for an actual loss, and so it shouldn't be predicated on, here, I stole money from you.
	I'll give you the money back.
	That's just righting the wrong or compensating the loss, and it has nothing to do with relinquishing future claims for punitive damages, exemplary damages.
	Have you seen the result?
	Yeah, I posted it.
	See if you can get it and I'll pull it up.
	But who's included in the release?
	Everyone and anyone?
	Government officials?
	Pfizer?
	Is Pfizer in it?
	Well, Pfizer is already indemnified.
	Until it's revealed.
	That there were manufacturing misrepresentations, and then I think we're going to see the opening of the door and the breaching of the dam for lawsuits.
	Because it's one thing, if they got a release for what they were contractually bound to produce, it's becoming exceedingly clear that what they were producing was through neglect or through whatever, not what they were contractually bound to produce, setting aside fraud vitiating everything.
	If you got it, send it in the private chat.
	Yeah, send it in.
	Put it in the chat.
	I just clicked you liked.
	Yeah, give me one second.
	I'll bring that up.
	Let's see.
	Technology.
	Technology right over here.
	Put it here.
	Okay.
	Bring it.
	Let's see this release.
	I want to see who's in this release.
	It's...
	Is it going to let me do this?
	If it doesn't let...
	You know what's funny?
	I'm telling you, Dan, you might be in Twitter's bad books as well.
	Why?
	Okay, there we go.
	No, never mind, never mind.
	Because sometimes it doesn't let me bring up certain people's tweets in incognito.
	And it's very weird.
	Okay, so this is a lie in advocacy.
	The vaccine injury support program does something quite insidious that few Canadians know about.
	When an injured party finally is about to get their money, they must sign a release.
	This makes victims wrongly believe they can no longer apply for newly discovered injuries.
	And let's see this here.
	Oh, let's see this here.
	Oh, this is coming from the government.
	Everyone understand, this is a government program.
	It's run through Raymond Chabot.
	This is the incident.
	It's like a private public partnership, right?
	So it looks like a court, but it's not quite a court.
	But it's supposed to behave like a court.
	Let me read this for whomever can't read it or is listening on podcast afterwards.
	This is page two.
	Vaccine Injury Support Program.
	I confirm that I am fully responsible for my use of the payment provided by the VISP, including the selection of third-party contractors and service providers, as well as the quality type or standard products selected and were performed by those third parties.
	What the hell does that even mean?
	I think you're getting money.
	Fully responsible for my use of the payment.
	Okay, so you're accepting the money.
	I guess it means you're accepting the money.
	Wherever it goes, you're responsible for it.
	Oh, and the provider.
	So when they do injury assessments, you're using their assessors.
	So you're releasing.
	In exchange for the receipt of the payment made pursuant to the VISP and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiently of which I acknowledge by signing this payment condition for my hereby freely bullshit, voluntarily bullshit, you don't get your money unless you do it.
	And without duress bullshit or undue influence.
	Okay.
	Fully and forever release and discharge the administrator.
	Who's the administrator defined?
	You'll tell me later.
	It's there.
	It's the first paragraph above on the page above.
	It's RCGT Consulting Inc.
	That's the private stuff.
	Okay, well, they have little to do with this.
	The administrator from and expressly waive any and all liability claims and demands of whatever kind of nature, either in law or in equity, that may arise from, relate to, or have a connection with the Vaccine Injury Support Program.
	I agree not to make or bring any such claims or demand against the administrator and fully and forever discharge the administrator.
	All right, so long as it's limited to the VISP, then I think you still preserve your rights against other parties who might be responsible.
	But, right, so as long as people understand, first of all, it is coercion because why do I have to give up a right to get money?
	The Vaccine Injury Support Program.
	Hypothetically, I don't think it would include future injury if you find out that you're...
	It definitely wouldn't.
	But again, why as a condition for getting money that a person has been injured, like they've received, they're injured, there should be no release.
	This is unconditional.
	It is basically like a court order and courts can't order you to sign a document.
	You think it's normal because it looks like a private contract and they can put whatever.
	But this is where the private-public partnerships get...
	Totally abused.
	A person who's owed money because of a vaccine injury gets the money done.
	There's no condition under duress.
	These people are.
	So some of them are injured and they just need that money.
	They'll sign whatever just to get the money.
	And so it's just, look, maybe people won't get why this is a bit of a canary in the mine or a bit of a badge of something a bit nefarious here.
	This is not normal.
	You do not put strings attached to this kind of payment.
	You don't have to be a dirty lawyer to even just understand that somebody down the line would say, well, you can't even...
	Pfizer, Bourla might say, you can't sue me even if I did have fraud because you already got compensated for the injury of my fraud, even though that was a contract between you and a third party.
	You could say you don't get compensated twice for the same injury.
	I would say if the administrator was offering an additional amount of money to get the release, I would say, okay, sure, then I'll release the...
	Like, give me an extra $5,000, and I'll sign a release, and I'll release the Vaccinator Support Program Coordinator.
	Fine, sure.
	But here, there's no consideration, except that they're doing their job that they're supposed to do, which is give out the money that the government's given them.
	Well, now that I ask the question out loud, is the administrator is, in fact, defined as...
	You know, whoever's administering the funds.
	But I mean, if it's a public-private partnership, is the administrator also not technically the government?
	And so are you not also releasing the government?
	No, it says, it defines the administrator as RECGT Consulting Inc.
	So this private party.
	But do you even have a claim?
	Yeah, so you have to have your claim would be against Public Health Agency Canada or Health Canada or whatever.
	That hasn't been extinguished, right?
	But anyhow.
	Well, it's also, it's an interesting thing.
	It's the cycle, not a psychological deterrent, but maybe people just think, well, I have no more further claims.
	So if it works on eight out of 10 people and it doesn't work on two out of 10, what are you taking care of eight?
	And that's what they did with the right of appeal.
	People don't understand the appeals process in this silly program.
	I did a Freedom Information Act request to get more details on how the appeal worked.
	They were dragging their feet.
	But basically, the appeal is pretty open-ended and they make you think.
	In the correspondence from the Vaccine Injury Support Program, it makes people think that they don't have a clear right of appeal or if new information comes in about their injury, but they do.
	And so you'll get an email or people will get an email from the claims administrator saying they have 30 days to appeal.
	Otherwise, they get kicked out of the program.
	I'm like, no, no.
	Where are you getting that from?
	This isn't make-up rules on the spot, and nobody can answer it.
	Nobody can answer these questions.
	I'm like, where are you getting these self-made rules from that self-serve the administrator, that self-serve Health Canada?
	That's not how the program works, and that's not how they should be communicating to the public.
	So, wild stuff, man.
	But the point is, the point from all this is that, first of all, this is a lot better than the United States of America, because US, I don't know if you know, the program there is terrible.
	I have not heard anything about it.
	I mean, I'll Google it in real time, but I don't, yeah.
	Yeah.
	It's crazy.
	So this is much better than the U.S. program, but much worse than other jurisdictions.
	Like I've always talked about Thailand, which is paid out like indiscriminately now in some of their jurisdictions.
	They're just paying out because they recognize.
	But Canada's got a massive institutional conflict of interest in all this stuff, right?
	The whole system, because in bed, Health Canada with Big Pharma, they can't indiscriminately hand out the money like other jurisdictions have because to have a whole network of safe and effective and coercion worked.
	So it's pretty wild in that regard.
	What else are you working on?
	What else on the advocacy front?
	I could talk to you about the Canadian Bar Association.
	Go on.
	Is this with respect to you or in general?
	Well, it's about a lot of legal aid clinics had vaccine mandates for new incoming staff.
	So, like these legal aid clinics are all across Ontario, you had to, the lawyers and paralegals to get a job had to be vaccinated way beyond, up until July 2023 was one of them.
	Explain that one to me.
	So...
	I mean, I can explain it.
	I can explain it, but I'd sound crazy for explaining it.
	So my point of this is you're creating systemic problems when you only hire people, especially in the legal community, because the whole diversity thing, you're not hiring a diverse perspective of people with different medical and religious beliefs.
	So I contacted the Canadian Bar Association.
	I said, hey, let's do a task force here.
	And let's initiate some investigations here about whether this is the right thing to be doing, given the mandate of the Canadian Bar Association for access to justice and all this stuff.
	And so I'm a member of the Canadian Bar Association, and members can bring forward motions at the annual general meeting, right?
	So I'm like, okay, my motion, I want to do a task force, a member-driven task force to investigate all this.
	But I'm getting pushback.
	I'm getting pushback on this.
	I think I was told it was against the bylaws.
	The bylaws don't allow it.
	Only directors can make tax for it.
	I'm like, the members of any organization are the ones that determine who the board of directors are and can amend the bylaws.
	They're the ones that drive the organization.
	To tell me if I get all the members together to bring forward this task force that I can't do it because the bylaws don't allow it?
	I'm like, okay, I'll amend the bylaws.
	Members can do everything.
	So I'm seeing...
	Institutionally, how all these things are weaving together in a very bizarre fashion.
	And I'm just kind of, you know, tracking it all, but I think it's important to get it out there, right?
	How all these systems are operating in a very bizarre fashion.
	It should not be hard to bring a simple motion at an AGM, you know, to start a task force, to look at access to justice issues.
	From an organization, that's mandate includes looking at access to justice.
	It's bizarre beyond bizarre.
	Dan, I'm pulling it up in real time.
	This seems to be from November, and it's from an MCT law.
	I'm just trying to find an answer in real time.
	Allegedly, only six individuals have received compensation for COVID-19 vaccine injuries through the CICP, each getting an average of $2,900 payments.
	Oh, is this American?
	This is American.
	Yeah.
	So I haven't been able to find...
	Here we go.
	Reuters, here we go.
	Let's see.
	This is from April.
	And it says...
	I have my theories about why this is, by the way.
	COVID-19 yields small payouts from the U.S. government.
	So it looks like the finding is sufficiently accurate.
	Maybe it's 10 people now.
	Here's why.
	I think my theory is Big Pharma is much more interweaved, interwebbed with...
	Oh, I like this guy.
	Okay, cool.
	He's my brother, just so you know.
	My actual birth brother.
	I was going to tell the story about the time we fought over...
	I don't remember what we were fighting over.
	Was it a grilled cheese sandwich?
	It was a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
	It ended with me scratching your face like a child.
	There was a shortage of Kraft peanut butter.
	I'll find that picture and then I'll share it with everybody.
	Kraft peanut butter, man.
	I don't think we want to accept Kraft as a sponsor, nor would they sponsor us.
	Okay, look, your theory from the first two sentences sounds like a pretty obvious theory, Dan.
	Well, here.
	Regulatory capture.
	It's regulatory capture.
	But it's in Canada, too.
	But for some reason, there's less of it here.
	This is what I don't get.
	But actually, CDC, okay?
	CDC still was blocking.
	Are they still blocking people from getting visas?
	Up until May 2023, you couldn't get into the U.S. I think they still have the requirement then.
	There's something there.
	I'm just hoping that they still recognize a two-year-old jab as being fully vaccinated.
	I mean, that's not going in me ever again.
	And the U.S. was the last country that had the vaccine requirement to enter for non-citizens.
	Right.
	After Canada.
	The irony is that I had made the decision to leave Canada because of their, you know, disgusting vaccine policies.
	This was before the U.S. implemented the travel restriction for non-citizens.
	And then lo and behold, the U.S. under the Biden administration was the last one to have that stupid policy in place.
	And right, with Homeland Security, it's like some bizarre institutions in the States that are blocking.
	Unvaccinated, up until way beyond any other country in the world.
	And there's no explanation for that, for a land as free and as democratic as the United States.
	I mean, except for everyone coming in without permission from the South.
	They just come in.
	There's no checking.
	So something bizarre is going on there.
	And the only thing I can explain is that the interweaving of big pharma and the legislation there and the CDC is driving.
	Have you read a...
	RFK Jr. is the real Anthony Fauci?
	I started getting through that.
	Yeah, it's regulatory capture.
	I mean, when you have the people who work at the, you know, I forget which way it goes, but they work in the government or they end up at the FDA, they end up at the CDC, they end up at Pfizer.
	And it's a big incestuous relationship where everybody's greasing everybody's wheel with money and maybe with other more sinister stuff.
	But yeah.
	Yeah, and it's hard to break.
	I know there's some folks on Twitter, very knowledgeable folks that know how the CDC and the FDA work, and they're trying to get in there, and they're like, you know, some outstanding FDA studies involving kids and myocarditis and the vaccine, and they're still like, they haven't updated it yet, or like some really weird stuff, and it's like...
	Why is no one within the US government taking more initiative and force to get information that should have been disclosed under these studies?
	It's just...
	I don't know, man.
	Have you heard about the most recent case of vaxxed to the max died suddenly in Canada?
	The journalist?
	There was a guy that...
	There was a journalist and a partner.
	I have been meaning to...
	It's not a deep dive.
	I have not looked into it sufficiently yet, but it seemed like there was a journalist and her partner who, within two months of each other, November, December, died, and they had previously tweeted things indicating vax to the max, and then people were asking obvious questions.
	Here's the reality, okay?
	I think the experts say that COVID itself has an effect on the vascular system, right?
	So separating all these deaths from...
	COVID versus the vaccine.
	Like, how are you going to do that?
	How are you going to say that these people attribute it to, you know, to the vaccine?
	It's the same.
	It was Shawna Carroll, her daughter, where she died three weeks after the second jab, which was three weeks after the first.
	And then they say, well, oh, it was COVID because COVID causes, you know, you can get myocardial reactions.
	Dr. Drew explained it as well.
	How do you distinguish likelihood, proximity?
	Like, if someone dies within two weeks of COVID, Why would that be a COVID death if they also died within two weeks of a jab?
	Logically, it doesn't make sense.
	And that's assuming that, you know, I don't know that there have been any cases of teenagers dying from COVID.
	I mean, six max?
	If they didn't have any underlying conditions?
	I mean, this is why I forget.
	Was it Thailand, Japan, Singapore?
	One of them is they're just paying systematically.
	If there's been a death within 30 days of the vaccine, then they're just paying.
	That's called logic.
	That's called logic.
	I mean, because I don't know what more of a definitive correlation you can get.
	And then in the case of Sean Hartman, where you have an expert determine that there's spike protein in, I forget which glands they were.
	I mean, it's like...
	Yeah.
	The poor girl did not die from COVID.
	I mean, it's...
	Anyhow, the point is there's different organizations, different entities that we can use affordably, one of which is the Canadian Bar Association.
	To go in there and to do these investigations and to work to figure out...
	It's the cheapest thing to do because it doesn't require the courts and tons of legal...
	It just requires getting members to be interested and to take some initiative.
	And so CBA, Canadian Bar Association, has 38,000 members across Canada.
	And they're all in different positions that can help out here.
	And so the idea is if we can penetrate the cabinets and get these members who are in different positions of power across the country to...
	To look into stuff, some of which can be the mandates for, you know, legal clinics, but other stuff.
	Like, there's no limit to what you can do with some of these organizations.
	And it's just, it's tough to, it's a tough sell because people want to put all behind them.
	You know, people are zoned out.
	They just want to move on.
	But, man, it's just, there's too much unresolved stuff to let it all go, right?
	There's too much unresolved.
	I see it on the Twitters about, you know, In healthcare, people that still can't get jobs.
	Dude.
	Healthcare.
	I mean, okay.
	But it's ideological control.
	It is so that you can determine ideologically, politically, who gets the job.
	And especially when it comes to government institutions, it's a way of coercing ideological capture on your employees so that the system runs according to the ideology of its...
	Puppet masters.
	I mean, it's obvious.
	It's the same thing in the military.
	You can control the ideology by controlling certain practices or rules of admittance.
	It's a problem.
	It's a problem.
	And, you know, how Ontario is doing in their hospitals.
	And, you know, politically, I think even...
	I don't know if we've done it with newcomers to Canada with the COVID-19 statuses there.
	I think...
	I think they've eased up on it.
	We should check that out.
	But yeah, it affects the whole system.
	It affects the whole system.
	Holy cows.
	Some of them, they don't update the website, so they intimidate people.
	They're like, oh, we don't enforce that.
	It's not actually current.
	Look, it's not current.
	Revise the thing.
	I just went to a place yesterday, a mall.
	They still had six-foot signs, a six-foot distancing, social distancing sign.
	Yeah, it's nuts, it's nuts.
	As of December 19, it looks like there are no COVID restrictions for immigrants coming into Canada.
	Okay, that's good.
	But, yeah, you see, a lot of people don't realize, if it was an emergency, you stop an emergency when the emergency's over.
	So the six-foot signs, take those down.
	No, no, they want you to still live under a state of perpetual fear, Dan.
	The arrows, peel off those arrows.
	It's quite clear.
	The arrows did their job in the grocery stores.
	Those were very effective.
	They saved millions of people.
	So take the arrows off the aisles now.
	Emergency management has to call an end to the emergency at some point and take action, like take off all the signs and stuff.
	But yeah, you're right.
	They leave the stuff on.
	They leave these things in place.
	And in the legal clinics, they leave the vaccine mandate on for new employees up until...
	Gosh, there's some industries that still have it.
	Oh, summer kids in Whitby.
	For working for the government in Whitby, you have to, like, summer kids need to show that back.
	I'm like, oh, graciousness.
	It's atrocious.
	That's it.
	Dan, I don't want you to get into trouble because you have to go somewhere, I think, right?
	Yeah, thanks for the reminder.
	Okay.
	Get out, Dan.
	I'll see you the day after tomorrow.
	Always a pleasure to be on the Viva Fry Show.
	Yeah, well, we're going to have a Viva Fry Show in person when we go see Mom and Dad over Christmas.
	When are you going to be there?
	I should be there Tuesday.
	All things, yeah.
	We'll fight over a peanut butter and jelly sandwich again.
	I think I put my money on you these days.
	You're looking like ripped and wear.
	No, bro.
	I gained some weight.
	I don't know how.
	I gotta get...
	We'll try.
	We'll wrestle it out.
	Maybe we'll do a special event for your guests.
	For anybody who's gonna get the UFC reference, I'm the Carpenter Clay Guida, and you are Kenny Kenflo Florian, and I put my money on you in a fight.
	I appreciate that.
	Go, Dan.
	We'll see you later.
	Bye.
	Have a good one.
	Bye.
	All right, everybody.
	That's my brother giving us the latest updates on Canada.
	Vaccine Injury Support Program has now paid out 11 million bucks over the life of its program.
	Questions to look into are the percentage that are for COVID claims, COVID jab claims versus non-COVID jab claims, and the year over year.
	Because I presume, I'm not going to say I assume because that would make an ass out of you and me, bada bing, bada boom.
	I presume that that number is going to, there's going to be a big...
	Bell, that's going to go up, not exponentially, but significantly for a short period of time, a few years, and then it's going to level off.
	But we'll see.
	That is my brother, Mr. Hat.
	Holy shit.
	And by the way, I saw your other comment about when you look, when your eyes are looking up, it means you have no idea.
	That's not at all true.
	And you go listen to the behavior panel.
	They actually say looking up and to the left, or up and to the, is it up and to the left?
	It's up and to the left, like I just did there, is about accessing memories.
	So that's at least according to the behavior specialist, what they think.
	And my recollection is that, or not my recollection, my experience is that that is the case.
	They have the same lists.
	I just noticed this today.
	Damn it.
	Kenzie Kraken.
	All right.
	Oh, I love that.
	That's a West Highland cow that you got in your avatar, and it's damn beautiful is what it is.
	All right, so that's the latest update from my bro.
	My actual bro.
	And now we're going to go on over to Rumble, because now that we've covered all the stuff that gets you in trouble on YouTube, come on over to Rumble, or if you are so inclined, come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And I'm just going to go.
	I ran a poll just to see very quickly if anyone's not yet bored.
	I put out two videos breaking down the Colorado judgments.
	Yesterday's video, I didn't have time to pull up the...
	So I put up a poll.
	Should I cover it again?
	And how do I see what we're at here?
	76% say yes, and 24% say no.
	It's a very small poll because I just started running it, but I'm happy with the results, so we're going to do it anyhow.
	On Rumble, we're going to talk about Claudine Gay.
	What's her name?
	Dr. Claudine Gay.
	Got to see what her...
	Doctorate is in, because I'm not sure that it's medicine.
	And I'm starting to get frustrated with people insisting on being called doctors when they don't have actual MDs, but maybe that's my own hang-up.
	Claudine Gay.
	I called it two weeks ago.
	I said by the end of the month, within a month, she's going to resign or be fired.
	And it's not a question of cancel culture.
	It's a question of not being able to do the job that she was hired to do.
	And they're coming hard on the plagiarism now, and I think my prediction is still going to stand.
	We're going to cover that.
	We're going to cover the Colorado decision, at least the highlights that I mentioned yesterday in my vlog.
	If you haven't seen it, it was a short 24-minute unedited talkie vlog, just so that people don't go overboard in their interpretation of the Colorado judgment.
	I'm going to talk about McFaul again, the U.S. ambassador, just the propaganda.
	Like, we are victims of propaganda.
	They treat us like we don't know.
	And I believe 90% of us don't understand the degree to which...
	Public sentiment is swayed, shaped, and crafted by overt propaganda.
	And then there's a bunch of other stuff.
	I forget what it is.
	Then we're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Let's get the number of viewers under 600 on YouTube so that we bring them over to Rumble.
	Give the link one more time and then we're going to do this.
	Okay.
	Boom shakalaka.
	And that's my brother, Lion Advocacy.
	At Lion Advocacy on Twitter.
	Oh, I didn't get the superchats here.
	That's a good one to do here.
	Viva, I know why Canada sucks so much.
	They don't have good tacos.
	I think Abbott should send Trudeau some people to fix that.
	And wait, you're both brothers?
	Yes, we are.
	Okay, so that's it.
	Now we're heading on over to Rumble exclusively, the free speech platform, rumbling, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	But, oh my goodness, before I do that, it's Christmas time, isn't it?
	And we don't have a sponsor for this show.
	Hold on, get this out of here.
	Oh, it's in Scotland.
	Nice.
	Yeah, that's where I saw the North Highland cows for the first time, driving through Scotland.
	Their antlers were like six feet wide, the most beautiful animals I've ever seen.
	And I went up, and they're docile, friendly, and I went up and felt their horns, and the horns were all warm.
	Because you don't appreciate that the base of the horn has blood in it.
	And so it's warm.
	It's not like a cold object.
	It's the body temperature up until a certain point where the blood stops flowing.
	Before we go, I was just going to say this.
	It's Christmas, people.
	You want to get someone something?
	It might not come for Christmas, and it probably won't, but you can go to our merch store, Viva Fry, and get some good, good merchandise if you want to support the channel.
	And look cool doing it!
	The tumblers are coming out with all of the great expressions.
	Hold on, I just texted it over to our...
	To our merch guy.
	We're going to have good, good, distrust, and verify.
	Three eternal truths.
	Populism fixes everything.
	Politics ruins everything.
	Fed, fed, fed, and don't feed the feds.
	And other catchy phrases on Tumblrs and whatnot.
	So that's coming, so stay tuned.
	If you want to go, Viva Frye.
	You can get all your merch stuff there and Christmas presents for the kids and all that jazz.
	Okay, ending it on YouTube.
	See you on Rumble or vivabarneslaw.locals.com in five, four, no?
	One more thing.
	Zara?
	Got me a gift from our community.
	She got me a phone case with the serenity prayer so that I'm never again going to have trouble remembering it.
	God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
	It drives me a little crazy because I think it needs a the in the courage.
	God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
	I was thinking of getting a tattoo of it.
	This is much easier and it will not make my father go ballistic.
	So that's it.
	We're ending on YouTube now.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Okay.
	Let's do quickly the Colorado decision.
	I'll leave the chat open and see if there's any questions about it.
	Not that I'm like the one to answer questions, but if there's questions I can answer.
	That's the Alcoholic Anonymous slogan too, Viva?
	Says Molten Salt.
	Well, I'm not there yet.
	Still enjoy my evening march.
	Who knows?
	Maybe it's the birth.
	Maybe it's the starting point of faith.
	Or at the very least, it'll be the starting point of sanity and the ending point of driving yourself crazy, not being able to accept the things that you cannot change.
	I'm not there yet.
	I can't do it.
	I'm not sure that I'll ever get there, but at least I can take a deep breath and say the serenity prayer.
	All right.
	The decision, people.
	I'm going to bring up the highlights, which I think are...
	Nothing has changed in this decision.
	People are calling it a nothing burger, and I think that's selling it a little short.
	In case you've been living under a rock, I don't think anybody watching has, but we all heard about the Colorado decision that came out of the courts the night before last, and the headlines were immediately Colorado court orders Trump removed from the ballot, and people started losing their shit.
	I apologize, I'm gonna swear.
	People started losing their shit, flipping their shit.
	And I read the headlines, I'm like, holy shiot, they didn't.
	And then I go read the decision, and lo and behold, they didn't.
	And I talked about that in my first video, which was, everyone out there, don't go ballistic.
	They haven't taken Trump off the ballot in Colorado.
	He will be on the ballot until January 4th, and then indefinitely, unless they forget to appeal the decision.
	So I explain that.
	Don't panic.
	This is intended to trigger people.
	I talked about this a little bit yesterday on a spaces, a Twitter spaces with Roger Stone, I forget, and the Honey Badger.
	You know, I said jokingly at the beginning of the stream, Christmas time is a very distressful time for people, and it is.
	People are lonely, people get depressed, and I'm fairly certain Christmas holidays...
	Self-harm.
	I'm not saying this to be glib.
	I'm fairly certain that self-harm spikes during the Christmas holidays as compared to the rest of the year.
	And I believe I'm right.
	So, it's not a coincidence.
	People who are lonely have that loneliness amplified by what they perceive to be everyone else who's meeting with family, etc., their joyousness.
	It's also very stressful for people who have family.
	They go there, they start fighting because now they have another thing to fight about, this decision about Trump being removed from the ballot.
	And so people do, you know, harmful things to themselves over the holidays because they get distressed.
	And I don't think it's a coincidence, the timing of the release of this misleading headline of a story and this outrageous sham of a court order, removing Trump from the ballot, that to many people is the end of democracy.
	It's the beginning of communism, fascism, whatever the hell you want to call it.
	And that is enough to drive people who might have already been on the edge, over the edge.
	And I don't think it's an accident, and I don't think it's a coincidence.
	I think it's by design.
	So A, don't do any of that.
	And that goes to don't feed the feds.
	I think anybody calling for that is a fed, or at least is serving the fed interests.
	It's also not what happened.
	The court order 4-3 said...
	He's disqualified from being on the ballot, but we're going to stay our own decision, leave him on the ballot, and pending an appeal to SCOTUS, we're going to leave him on the ballot until further mandate or orders from the Supreme Court.
	So he's on the ballot, but they've just issued this absolutely outrageous decision, which sets something of a jurisprudential precedent until overturning that other states can now rely on to render equally idiotic orders.
	But for the time being, Trump is still on the ballot, so don't freak out.
	Then I have time to go through the order, and it's the most outrageous steaming pile of judicial dog shit, as I said in my original video.
	But I want to give credit to Vivek here.
	Now, Vivek posted this, I suspect, before people fully appreciated, that the decision did not actually remove Trump from the ballot physically and in reality, but only set that precedent legally, but stayed its own legal outrageous precedent.
	And he puts out this video.
	December 19, two nights ago, 8.54.
	So, like, within an hour of the decision, I don't think he understood this nuance, but it doesn't matter because the rest of this is right on point, and although I didn't freeze it at a particularly flattering point, look at that.
	I bet you this is in the mobile trailer thing.
	PR?
	What does that stand for behind him?
	Either way, let's listen to this video.
	They have just tried to bar President Trump from the Colorado ballot using an unconstitutional maneuver that is a bastardization of the 14th Amendment to our U.S. Constitution.
	This was a provision, Section 3, that was designed to bar Confederate members.
	People switched to the Confederacy from actually being able to serve.
	That's very different than what's at issue here, to say the least.
	This is a hollowed-out husk of what the country was built on.
	The basic principle that we the people select our leadership, not the...
	Unelected elite class in the back of palace halls.
	That's old world Europe, not the United States.
	I love it because it's exactly what is going on.
	And don't be fooled.
	Oh, we're doing it not to disenfranchise people because if you have an ineligible candidate on the ballot, you're disenfranchising everybody who votes for him because he's not.
	Bullshit.
	It's such bullshit that not only is it a bullshit argument, first of all, the people, if they want to elect a criminal, they will elect a criminal.
	If they want to elect a pervert, they'll elect a pervert.
	Of course, they don't know half of these people are perverts by the time they elect them.
	But if they want to elect that person, that's their God-given right to do.
	Until you have people in their whatever ivory palaces behind closed doors saying, well, we don't like this person, so let's find a way to get him off the ballot.
	Oh, the insurrection disqualification.
	What a very creative way to do it.
	Lawfare.
	That's why I'm making a pledge today that I will withdraw.
	I pledge to withdraw.
	From the Colorado GOP primary ballot unless and until Trump's name is restored.
	And I demand that Ron DeSantis and Chris Christie and Nikki Haley do the same thing or else these Republicans are simply complicit in this unconstitutional attack on the way we conduct our constitutional republic.
	I refuse to be complicit in that.
	This is the important part.
	First of all, for my own neuroses, now I have obtained confirmation that That is, in fact, an RV.
	And it's called Prevost, the ultimate motorhome.
	Look at that.
	Man, I kind of want one of those.
	It's beautiful.
	See, the only problem with mobile homes or motorhomes is where do you park them when you're on route?
	I mean, you're not getting a mobile home so you can park it in front of a Florida mansion.
	But yeah, that's what it is.
	Hashtag not an ad.
	I was just trying to satisfy my own curiosity.
	So Prevost mobile home, that's where he's giving the speech from.
	Okay, let's get back to the speech.
	I think what they're doing is wrong.
	And I think it's up to Republicans to step up and stand up with a spine for our country's future.
	That's really what's at stake.
	Whether we the people actually have a say in deciding who leads this country.
	What I love here, I don't expect more from Nikki Haley.
	I don't expect more from Chris Christie.
	I expect and expected more from Governor DeSantis.
	When Ramaswamy comes out and says, if you don't object to this, you're complicit in it, he's 1000% right.
	And my biggest critique of DeSantis right now is he is very actively complicit in this because he sees it as a method for political profit for his own presidential aspirations.
	You know, I don't know what goes into hush money payments.
	Well, that's the wrong answer.
	That's you being complicit in the weaponization of the system for your own political profit.
	Some might say that Ramaswamy is doing this for his own political profit as well because he knows he has no chance of becoming president.
	But, you know, maybe he's going to gain some goodwill by doing this.
	All right, you know what?
	That's a good thing.
	You want people like Ramaswamy in a future Trump administration.
	So everyone's doing it for their own political profit, good or bad, for good or for bad.
	Yeah, I'd rather them be doing it for their own political profit for good.
	So when Ramaswamy does this, whether or not it's for his own political profit, he's right and it's good.
	When DeSantis comes out and says, you know, It comes out and says, I don't think a felon, a convicted felon, should be running.
	I don't think he will run.
	I don't think the party will nominate him.
	That is DeSantis' exploiting of this weaponization by Democrats or by the deep state or by the unit party against Trump for his own political profit.
	And by not objecting to it vehemently and vocally, as he should, he is complicit in it.
	And that's not hate.
	That's criticism, constructive criticism, of someone who I appreciate and respect as a governor.
	Otherwise, I wouldn't have moved to Florida.
	Yes, it would be easier for other Republicans like me who are running in this race to say, hey, if Trump is sidelined, there's our opportunity.
	No doubt other candidates are probably privately celebrating with their corporate sponsors.
	That's not the right thing to do.
	I think the most useful thing that every GOP candidate can do right now is to join me in that pledge.
	I'll say that I will withdraw from that Colorado GOP primary ballot until Trump's name is restored.
	This belongs to the people, not to the unelected Democratic cabal of judges in Colorado or any other state.
	And I demand that Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley and Chris Christie do the same thing or else they're complicit in what the security state is trying to do to shut down Trump.
	I stand by that and I expect them to do the right thing.
	Testify.
	You know, and like when they said, will you still support Trump if he's convicted?
	And Ramaswamy didn't hesitate, raised his hand, and then looked judgmentally, left and right and rightly so.
	So that was before I suspect everyone understood that Trump is actually not removed from the ballot, won't be removed from the ballot.
	Unless, it would be such an amazing twist if Trump campaign says, we're not contesting it.
	Go ahead and do it.
	They're not going to.
	They're going to contest it.
	This is...
	This is future-shaping precedent that is being doled out in real time.
	The ultimate irony, and we're going to get into it, is, you know, Ramaswamy Vivek.
	I don't know which ones, which ones.
	I like saying Ramaswamy.
	Ramaswamy says, you know, it's a Democrat cabal of judges.
	He's right and he's wrong.
	It's a Democrat cabal of judges.
	All seven of those judges were Democrat-appointed judges, and yet three of them said, this is a Rubicon too far even for us.
	Those three judges...
	This is what I'm hoping and this is what I'm actually thinking is going to happen in real time.
	People could be and should be dismayed at the majority decision.
	They should be encouraged that three Democrat judges said, this is a bridge too far even for me.
	You guys are destroying this country, you four Democrat judges.
	You're destroying this country as we knew it.
	I wouldn't be surprised if those three Democrat judges vote Republican.
	I wouldn't be surprised if there's a great many Democrats right now who say, we are the baddies.
	And by we, I'm going to extricate myself from that we.
	They are the baddies.
	This is not democracy.
	You're not preserving democracy, you hypocrite mental gymnastics judges.
	You're not preserving democracy by restricting democracy.
	You are ruining democracy.
	You call yourself Democrats.
	You're filthy tyrants.
	Sorry.
	I'm not bringing up a comment.
	It was from YouTube, and I just realized...
	Okay, so I got distracted by a troll comment, which I will not bring up because feeding the trolls is like feeding the feds.
	So that's the underlying issue behind the judgment.
	Now, I went through it thoroughly.
	The dissenting opinions are very nice.
	It's amazing to see them say no and bad, and I will not be a part of this.
	Those three dissenting judges?
	Have more political cojones than some of the GOP candidates.
	So, all that to say, that's the reality of the decision.
	I went through it yesterday thoroughly.
	And above and beyond, let me see, above and beyond quelling everyone's concerns to not do something radical and stupid, this is an act of judicial provocation.
	Period.
	I said this on the Twitter space yesterday.
	This is as violent, a non-violent act of provocation as you can get in the real world.
	When the cops were unleashing tear gas, concussive grenades, rubber bullets on the otherwise or hitherto peaceful crowd on January 6th to violently provoke a response, that was a violent act of provocation.
	This is a judicially violent act of provocation, and don't take the bait.
	The highlights that I got out of this decision, I'll bring one up after another.
	I mean, this is how motivated reasoning...
	Barnes always says it.
	Maybe it's going to make for a good one.
	Motivation is the master of reason.
	Hold on.
	Got to get that one on a shirt as well.
	Mario.
	Here.
	Also, colon, motivation is the master of reason.
	Motivation is the master of reason.
	You want to come to the decision.
	You want to come to the conclusion.
	That you need to find a way to get Trump off the ballot.
	You need to come to the conclusion that Trump engaged in insurrection.
	Back it up.
	That there was insurrection.
	That Trump engaged in that insurrection.
	That Trump is an officer under Article 14, subparagraph 3 of the Constitution.
	And therefore, that's how you get to the conclusion.
	Well, how do you get there?
	You got to work backwards.
	You got to work backwards and say, okay, we got to get Trump to be an officer under the 14th Amendment.
	How?
	Well, we'll say that he called himself an officer.
	They say the president is an officer of these United States, and so therefore, he's an officer under Article 14, even though Article 14 specifically mentions the officers to whom it applies and does not mention the president.
	That's how you get there.
	Engaged in.
	How do you get to the engaged in the insurrection?
	A tweet.
	A speech.
	Not doing something.
	Literally, they got to engaging in insurrection because Trump did not do something.
	That being apparently calling the National Guard.
	That's the engaged part.
	How do you get to the insurrection?
	Well, you can't get to the insurrection because of the legal definition because nobody was charged or convicted with insurrection.
	Not Trump, not anybody.
	So you got to get away from the legal definition and go to the colloquial...
	Merriam-Webster definition of insurrection.
	And that's how you do it.
	Just work backwards, people.
	And they do it masterfully.
	Masterfully, dishonestly.
	This is why people hate lawyers.
	This is why people hate judges.
	This is why people hate the judicial system.
	This is why no one has faith in it.
	But when people don't have faith in the judicial system, that spills out into society in very negative ways.
	Someone had asked Barnes on one of the Bourbon with Barnes, you know, is America the most litigious society in the world?
	In the courts?
	Yes.
	So that it doesn't spill out into the streets.
	You can go to a great many countries where the court system doesn't work and the violence, the judicial violence, carries out into the streets.
	But anyhow, paragraph 3. The court found clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section 3. But the court concluded that Section 3 doesn't apply to the president.
	Well, we've got to find a way to get around that.
	How are we going to do that?
	Let's just...
	How do I...
	How do I do this?
	Okay, there you go.
	I don't know why I'm missing the arrow there.
	Oh, and they say we do not reach these conclusions lightly.
	We are mindful of the magnitude of the weight of the questions now before us.
	We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law without fear or favor, without being swayed by public reaction to the decision that the law mandates we reach.
	Oh, the law...
	There is an old, it's often attributed as an anti-Semitic trope.
	I don't even want to say it because someone's going to clip it badly and then make me look like a self-hating Jew.
	But the anti-Semitic trope is they lash out, they cry in pain as they lash out at you.
	Or they cry out in pain as they strike you.
	And it's often attributed as an anti-Semitic trope.
	I don't know where the expression originates from, but...
	Whether or not people used it for anti-Semitic purposes in the past, I don't give a sweet bugger all.
	It's a classic act of the narcissist.
	The aggressor purports to be the victim while they victimize the victim.
	It's DARVO.
	Deny, attack, reverse victim and offender.
	So the fact that that expression, they cry as they lash out at you.
	Has been used for anti-Semitic purposes.
	I don't care.
	I'm using it right now because that's what's going on right here.
	These judges, these four majority judges, are the aggressors.
	They are the violators.
	They are the victimizers.
	And they try to portray themselves as the heroes and the victims.
	We have to reach this as the law mandates.
	And we won't be swayed by what we know is going to be public outrage at the absurdity of this decision.
	Darvo.
	Later on in the decision.
	How did we get to the insurrection?
	People don't necessarily understand this.
	They admitted, they allowed as evidence, the January 6th committee report.
	The unlawfully formed, bias, hack kangaroo court that was that January 6th committee, they allowed that report, notwithstanding all of the issues of hearsay.
	They allowed it.
	It's a government report.
	I mean, they might be deferential to certain matters of hearsay in the report, but it's otherwise a reliable report.
	The January 6th committee was illegally formed from the get-go.
	It didn't have the requisite quorum.
	It didn't have the requisite bipartisan representation.
	The people placed the blame.
	They said, oh, well, that's because they suggested people that Pelosi didn't want.
	Pelosi offered it to people who didn't accept.
	And then ultimately, she just appointed two Republicans, Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney.
	Adam Crybaby Kinzinger and Liz the War Pig Cheney.
	That was the bipartisan committee.
	Didn't meet quorum, wasn't lawfully formed, wasn't bipartisan.
	And that's the evidence that this higher court allowed in, in order to come to insurrection.
	Just argue in reverse and life is a lot easier.
	The report, this is talking about the January 6th committee report.
	Let's see if we can go up here a little.
	First, the report cited a newspaper article stating that the election was called for President Biden.
	Although this is hearsay, this is paragraph 172, the court did not rely on the statement in its analysis that Trump was impressed.
	So we allowed in a report that had evidence that they say the court did not consider, so no prejudice.
	Okay, then why allow it?
	There's no reasonable problem.
	Second, the report explained that the Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, told White House Counsel Pat Cipollone that President Trump, quote, doesn't want to do anything, engaging in insurrection by not doing anything to stop the violence.
	The fact that this statement is hearsay is irrelevant.
	The district court expressly noted that, quote, it has only considered those portions of the January 6th report which are referenced in this order and has considered no other portions in reaching its decision, end quote.
	And it did not mention this statement in this order, nor did it rely on it to reach any conclusion.
	Thus, President Trump's embedded hearsay argument is unavailing.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Can you believe it?
	I say, can you believe it?
	Oh, then we get into the engaging and insurrection.
	Let's see this here.
	Listen to this.
	Paragraph 176.
	I think they meant civil war.
	I think they meant aiding and abetting the...
	Confederate forces.
	I think they meant that.
	I think they meant aiding and abetting the seceding forces from the U.S. government, from the U.S., these United States.
	Mindful of the differential standard awarded to the district's factual findings.
	I explained this in the video yesterday.
	The lower court, whether or not they're playing 4D chess, came to the factual finding that Trump engaged in insurrection, but then came to the legal finding that he's not subject to the 14th Amendment.
	Third paragraph.
	One is a finding of fact, the other is a finding of law.
	In appeal, the appeals court have much greater discretion in overturning findings of law than overturning findings of fact, because only the original judge is the one who hears the witnesses, sees the facts.
	The Court of Appeal is just as good, if not better, at assessing the law.
	That's why they're the Court of Appeal.
	So they don't reassess findings of fact, but they can reassess findings of law.
	So when the lower court came to the finding of fact that Trump engaged in insurrection, the higher court can come to a different finding, overturn the finding of law.
	That yes, Trump is in fact subjected to Article 14, the third paragraph.
	Mindful of the differential standard afforded to the district's factual findings, we conclude that the court did not clearly err, including the events of January 6th constituted an insurrection, and that President Trump engaged in that insurrection.
	How did he do it?
	How did he do it, people?
	Hold on, I gotta go to the next one here.
	Okay, that's the fourth one.
	Let's go to the next one.
	I had part two to that.
	Oh, I can't get part two.
	Hold on one second.
	Part two of two is here.
	Okay, well, I'm going to bring it up in incognito.
	Then I'm going to get to the chat and see if anyone has any questions that I can answer.
	I'm not in the best position to answer questions that I haven't already looked into myself to make sure I understand.
	I was just so giddy with joy when Barnes confirmed that my understanding of this decision is accurate.
	I felt smarter than I deserve to.
	Listen to this.
	Listen to this.
	Well, you know, they go to the Webster's Dictionary.
	Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines insurrection as an act or instance of revolting against civil or political authority.
	Revolting against civil or political authority.
	Protest is now insurrection.
	Just so you all know that, you lefties who love this decision.
	When you had your autonomous zone in Chaz, that's actual insurrection, by the way.
	That is actually saying...
	The laws do not apply to me here.
	The Webster's Dictionary defines it as, you know, revolting against civil or political authority, yada yada, or an act or instance of rising up physically.
	Well, I get an insurrection every morning then, okay.
	In light of these and other proffered definitions, the district court concluded that, quote, an insurrection as used in Section 3 is one public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to three to hinder or prevent execution of the Constitution of the United States.
	Everyone who ever engaged in protest to prevent the confirmation of a judge insurrection.
	Everyone who sat there and protested what they didn't like in terms of trans laws.
	Insurrection.
	Everyone who sat or protested the passage of a law as relates to Second Amendment rights.
	Insurrection.
	Enjoy it.
	I'm sure it won't come back to bite you in the ass.
	Substantial evidence.
	How did Trump engage in the insurrection?
	We've gotten here.
	It's like the full mental gymnastics.
	Sure, the court came to a legal finding that we don't like, but we agree with their factual finding.
	We're just going to overturn their legal finding.
	How did Trump engage in insurrection?
	And this is where I put out a tweet that went quasi-viral and for all the right reasons.
	I don't think the court understands what they admitted to here.
	How did he engage in it?
	Finally, substantial evidence in the record shows that Trump's unified purpose, oh I'm sorry, not Trump's, the mob's unified purpose, was to hinder or prevent Congress from counting the electoral votes as required by the 12th Amendment and certifying the 2020 presidential election.
	That is, to preclude Congress from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power.
	As noted above, soon after breaching the Capitol, the mob, not Trump, Trump's not even there.
	The mob had done this before Trump even finished speaking, before he even spoke.
	The mob did this, reached the House and the Senate chambers where the certification was ongoing.
	Let me see if I just want to read the rest of this, even though I didn't highlight it.
	The breach caused the House and the Senate to adjourn, halting the electoral certification process.
	In addition, much of the mob'sire, which included threats of physical violence, none of this is coming from Trump, was directed at Vice President Pence, who in his role of yada, yada, yada, was constitutionally tasked with carrying the electoral count.
	As discussed more fully below, these actions were the product of Trump's conduct in singling out Vice President Pence for refusing President Trump's demand that the Vice President decline to carry a...
	The insurrection is the mob breaching the Capitol because Trump...
	Singled out Pence in tweets and statements.
	Can you believe this?
	That's how he engaged in insurrection.
	Oh, but also he retweeted somebody.
	And on January 1, 2021, President Trump retweeted a post from Kylie Jane Kramer, an organizer of the scheduled January 6th March for Trump, that stated, quote, The Calvary, sick, is coming, Mr. President.
	January 6th.
	President Trump added to his retweet a great honor.
	Do you want to know why this is the most damning thing on earth?
	When they say, we admitted portions of the January 6th report despite hearsay problems?
	I'm not disclosing anything private.
	I asked Kylie Jane if I could disclose that she confirmed this to me in DMs, but someone else confirmed it on the Twitter space yesterday.
	Y 'all know what sick means, right?
	Sick means there's a typo in the tweet and we are...
	Not correcting the typo, and we are republishing the tweet with its typo.
	They put sick because they are suggesting that it was a typo for cavalry.
	I mean, anybody who watched the second impeachment is going to know where this is going.
	They put sick in this to suggest that Kylie Jane Kramer meant to say the cavalry is coming and not the calvary is coming.
	And I remember the argument at the time being...
	No, she meant the Calvary because it's a religious symbol for where they crucified Christ.
	She was with religious people with her church group at the time and she meant to say Calvary.
	She did not mean to say Calvary.
	She confirmed this to me privately and I asked her if I can confirm it publicly and she said yes.
	It's also been confirmed publicly as well.
	She did not mean to say Calvary.
	Cavalry.
	She meant Calvary.
	They would have known that had they allowed her to testify so that they would not have misled the general public into suggesting that this was a typo for cavalry.
	As if that would have even been a call to violence.
	The foregoing evidence establishes that Trump's messages were a call for his supporters to fight and that his supporters responded to that call.
	They didn't mean cavalry, you dumb bums.
	Doesn't matter.
	Doesn't matter.
	Just let that sink in.
	They have allowed false evidence because of the January 6th bullshit kangaroo court committee who didn't hear, presumably they didn't hear Kylie Jane talk about this or they didn't ask her to testify.
	And then the Colorado court repeating disinformation, misinformation because they have allowed hearsay evidence without hearing from the person who herself made the tweet and it was not a typo.
	The sick is misleading and that's that.
	Along the same lines, the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation received many tips regarding the potential for violence on January 6th.
	This is one of the tips.
	They think they will have a large enough group to march into D.C. armed and will outnumber police so they can't be stopped.
	They believe that since the election was, quote, stolen, it's their constitutional right to overtake the government, and during this coup, no U.S. laws will apply.
	The plan is literally kill.
	Their plan is to literally kill.
	Please, please take this tip seriously and investigate further.
	Other than the fact that this tip reeks of a Fed laying the groundwork for future arguments, They have admitted here, the court has admitted that the FBI had advanced warning and the FBI did nothing.
	The FBI had advanced warning and did nothing.
	We now know that the FBI was embedded with Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, in their plot for seditious conspiracy for weeks to months prior to the attack.
	We now know that as a matter of fact.
	So the FBI knew for weeks to months, allegedly, of this...
	Conspiracy.
	Seditious conspiracy to overtake the government.
	We now know from this court order the FBI had received multiple tips before the actual January 6th attack and did nothing.
	And they fault Trump and attribute that he was in charge of these federal organizations and he did nothing as his engagement in insurrection.
	You can't make this rubbish up if you tried because no one would believe you.
	And that's it.
	That's how they got there.
	Now you understand the decision better than 99.9% of the general population.
	The most outrageous hogwash on the face of the planet.
	The dissenting opinions are great.
	I'm going to do a dedicated talkie-walkie-vlogie to that later on, but that's what you need to know for now.
	Okay, let's go to the chat here to see what's going on.
	Echo Pius.
	Hey, Viva.
	Much love from Jacksonville.
	I'd love to invite you to a clay shoot for charity in Jackson March.
	Want to set up some clays?
	Hold on one second.
	Let me go ahead and screen that.
	That means clay shooting with shotguns.
	I know this.
	You got to call it the Salt and Pepper Fry Show.
	I screen grabbed that one as well.
	All right.
	Thank you very much.
	I'm going to look into that, Ecofeus.
	I know your username so I can find you.
	Am I getting in trouble with family here?
	Okay.
	Now let's just go to the chat at large and see what's going on in the chat at large.
	Salty army men in the house.
	Good.
	Kennedy spread...
	Okay, I'm not going to read that one.
	Diagon doesn't mean an actual country, says Blangivre.
	January 6th truly was the Dems Reichstag fire, says Matt underscore R. It's unbelievable.
	The term cavalry means nothing.
	Salty army doesn't mean an actual army, says Desert Rider 1234.
	Even if she meant cavalry...
	It would not be any...
	What are they?
	They're going to come in on a horse now?
	Oh, no.
	Bring in the cavalry is a metaphor for more armed resistance that never came.
	Bring in the cavalry doesn't mean literally bring in the horses.
	It means bring in other stuff that was never brought in.
	Other than the fact that she meant calvary because it was a religious...
	What is it?
	It's the place where Christ was crucified, I believe, isn't it?
	So the idea being that Trump is being sacrificed.
	I understand it.
	I don't think she's lying about what...
	What would have been easy to admit is a typo.
	Whatever happened to the pipe bomber, says Molten Salt.
	She could say she identified as dyslexic and switched the L. No, she confirmed, and it's...
	Okay, so that's it.
	Anyways, that's the judgment.
	Now, what else are we going to move on to?
	We've got to go to our subject matter of the day.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to take a lot of stuff out of the backdrop here.
	No, no, no.
	Let's see something like this.
	Okay, get this out of here.
	This is...
	Okay, that's about Giuliani.
	We've talked about that.
	I have a few bookmarks that are left up on the back.
	Okay, I don't know what that is.
	Okay.
	Okay, so that's it.
	Now, breaking!
	Breaking news, people.
	I called it.
	I don't know how long ago I called it.
	I'm gonna have to go check my thing.
	I don't want anybody falsely portraying me as supporting cancel culture.
	When someone has a job and the manner in which they express themselves publicly...
	In their capacity as that position in their job, compromises their ability to do that job, that's not cancel culture.
	That's being unfit for your job.
	Getting fired for being reckless, for being incompetent, for being corrupt on the job is not cancel culture in the sense that we all use it.
	So when I say that Claudine Gay should be forced to resign or be fired because of her inability to respond to...
	Elise Stefanik's clear and unambiguous question.
	That's not cancel culture.
	That is Claudine Gay publicly wearing her hat of president of Harvard, displaying that she's incapable of serving that function, assuming that position.
	And I've been having this argument with people where they say, nobody was calling for genocide on the Harvard campus.
	You're a liar.
	Neither I nor anyone who's being honest or informed about this is saying that.
	I am not saying that people were calling for genocide on the campus of Harvard.
	I'm not saying that when people with no understanding of history say from the river to the sea that they're actually calling for genocide.
	I think most of them don't even understand the origin of that expression.
	When they use it, they're not actually calling for genocide.
	That was never the discussion in all of this, whether or not people were actually calling for genocide on the Harvard campus or the Penn campus.
	The actual issue here is that Elise Stefanik...
	Asked all of these presidents, the one from Harvard, the one from Penn State, and I forget the third one, is calling for genocide against Jews a violation of the campus' bullying and harassment policy?
	That was the question verbatim.
	Not, someone said this, is this a call for genocide?
	The question was predicated on, are calls for genocide violative of abuse and harassment policies?
	And these three idiot presidents of universities could not unequivocally say, Calling for genocide of an identifiable group obviously violates bullying and harassment policies.
	That was the question.
	Not whether or not it was actually occurring, which is where people who want to defend this under the guise of free speech will say, well, no one was actually doing it.
	It doesn't matter.
	That was not the question.
	Not whether or not people are actually doing it.
	Is doing it violative of the policies for abuse and harassment?
	Not free speech.
	Campus policies.
	And they couldn't answer.
	They should all be fired.
	Period.
	Incapable to do their jobs.
	I predicted that she's good.
	And by the way, it's an amazing thing.
	Who would have thought that being someone who could not unequivocally say that calling for the genocide of a group of people is morally wrong and violative of abuse in her house?
	Who would have thought that someone with such an absence of a moral compass would have aspects of moral degeneracy in other aspects of their life?
	Turns out that she's not only incapable of condemning.
	Or confirming that calling for the genocide of Jews would be violating the abuse and harassment policies.
	She's also a plagiarist, allegedly.
	Harvard admits more instances of duplicative language.
	Remember, people, it's not plagiarism when you like the person.
	It's duplicative language.
	If it were conservative, if it were a white male, for example, I think they would have found a way to call it plagiarism.
	But it's, fill off your, fill off your, what is it called?
	Oppression Olympics check card.
	Black woman.
	And they like her, ideologically, I guess.
	So they'll call it duplicative language.
	Found in President Gay's work amid plagiarism claims, Harvard President Claudine Gay to request three corrections to her 1997 PhD dissertation.
	Oh, this is...
	I'm not paying for an article from Fox News.
	Are you crazy?
	Hold on.
	Pay Fox News.
	I feel dirty using Fox News.
	Oh, come off it!
	Forget it.
	Let me pull up who's been covering this.
	Christopher Rufo's been covering this.
	Hold on one second.
	Paid Fox News, my asshole.
	All right.
	Christopher Rufo.
	Doing the Lord's work.
	I think he was one of the earlier ones to call out her history of alleged plagiarism.
	We won't be able to read how they go.
	Duplicative language.
	Plagiarism!
	You're out!
	Oh, Claudine.
	Oh, shit.
	Uh, well, okay, look, what's plagiarism?
	You're copying somebody else's work, so you're duplicating the manner in which they express themselves, language.
	All right, for you, Claudine Gay, we'll call it duplicative language.
	New York Times has just published a bombshell article analyzing five instances of Claudine Gay's plagiarism in depth, showing exactly how she lifted passages and violated the rules.
	This is damning, and it's coming from the left.
	Here are five examples of work.
	Did they use the duplicative language here?
	Here.
	Excerpts from Dr. Claudine Gay's work.
	If she lifted the language, if it's duplicative language, it's not really Claudine Gay's work now, is it?
	We'd have to go find out whose work it is.
	This is from the New York Times article.
	I also will not pay New York Times to read their rubbish.
	Harvard President Claudine Gay.
	Dr. Claudine Gay.
	Which is a doctrine.
	Is accused of lifting words, phrases, and sentences from other sources without proper attribution.
	This is amazing.
	So Harvard says duplicative language and the New York Times says lifting.
	For those of you who don't speak British, if you lift something from a shop, it's called shoplifting.
	It's called stealing.
	It's called theft.
	And when you thieve an idea and you steal an idea, it's called plagiarism.
	Most, if not all, of the examples below are written in technical and academic jargon, not meant to convey sweeping or original ideas.
	But her papers sometimes lift passages verbatim from other scholars and at other times make minor adjustments like changing the word adage to popular saying or black male children to young black athletes.
	Here are five examples of Dr. Gay's work that are under scrutiny comparing her writing with that of the scholars listed.
	I want to hear what it is.
	Let's see if we get this here.
	Do we go a little more here?
	There we go.
	Hold on.
	I want to go back, actually.
	Hold on.
	How do I go back?
	Oh, son of a bee sting.
	Hold on one second.
	How do I go back?
	Oh, what are these days?
	Oh, there you go.
	I can go back like this.
	So I think we're getting the first one here.
	Dr. Gay is accused of plagiarizing two sentences in the acknowledgments of her 1997 Harvard dissertation from the acknowledgments of a 1996 book, Facing Up to the American Dream, Race, Class, and the Soul of the Nation by Harvard political scientist Jennifer L. Hothschild.
	Rothschild says, "Sandy Jenks showed me the importance of getting the data right and of following where they lead without fear or favor," adding later that Mr. Jenks "drove me much harder than I sometimes wanted to be driven." Dr. Gay thanked her thesis advisor Gary King who said, "Reminded me of the importance of getting the data right and following where they lead without fear or favor." She also thanked her family who "drove me harder than I sometimes wanted to be driven." I'm trying to actually be very forgiving on her.
	I would have said, you know, without fear or favor, we saw that in the judgments that we just read.
	You know, we have to go where the law mandates us to go without fear or favor.
	That's an expression.
	That's...
	That's quite similar.
	Another allegation cites language from a 1993 paper that Dr. Gay published on the journal.
	The paper Between Black and White, The Complexity of Brazilian Race Relations, was written while she was a graduate student at Harvard and analyzes the role of race in Brazilian society.
	In a lengthy section, Dr. Gay discusses the formation of a coalition called the United Moon.
	She describes the expulsion of four young black athletes from the volleyball team.
	I don't think we're going to get to the rest of it.
	Is that all we got on here?
	Oh, we might have to do this.
	Hold on.
	New York Times Claudine Gay Lift.
	Let's see if we can get it here.
	Here we go.
	Okay, that's 10 hours ago.
	We got to read these.
	Oh, I'm not doing this.
	Get out.
	What did I just do here?
	Okay, are we looking at the same thing?
	Make sure that we're looking at the same thing before I get any...
	We're not.
	I brought up a new window.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Archive.
	Close this.
	Stop.
	Okay, hold on a second.
	Just go like this here.
	Claudine Gay.
	We're getting it.
	Am I getting in trouble?
	Who's calling me?
	No.
	Present excerpts from Dr. Gay's theses.
	See, we're going to get it.
	We're going to get it.
	Okay, here we go.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Drove me harder than I wanted to be driven.
	Another citation in one lengthy citation.
	Here we go.
	She describes the expulsion of four young black athletes from the volleyball team Hmm.
	That's bad.
	That's not only stealing someone's words, that's stealing someone's work.
	The results of their work.
	In a statement Wednesday, Harvard said, while Gay's 1993 works in the Origins Journal was initially included in the scope of the Independent Review, the independent panel and the subcommittee of the corporation considered the article outside of its purview due to the age of the article.
	Okay, so we're not looking.
	Close our eyes.
	Let's see another example.
	Gay is also accused of copying language with slight modifications in her paper between black and white.
	Okay.
	The Andrews paper says that the, quote, rhetoric and aspirations of a younger generation of Afro Brazilians with, quote, one or more years of university study and, quote, seem to remove from those poor slum, seemed removed from those of poor slum dwellers.
	Dr. Gay's paper, you.
	uses the term aspirations and rhetoric, reversing the order of the words and refers to one or more years of university education rather than university study.
	Her article does not credit Dr. Andrews, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, but lists a book by him suggested for further reading.
	Ooh.
	That's dirty.
	And let's read this one.
	How many more do we have here?
	Dr. Gay writes: Theoretical arguments predict an interaction between partisanship of voters and party control of state government.
	Democrat countries are expected to receive more transfers when the state is under democratic control.
	Dr. Gay writes: Theory predicts an interaction between country, Partisanship and party control, such as the more democratic a country, the more LIHTC allocations it would receive.
	Dr. Gay Seitz, both MIT at the time and now professors, but not in this particular passage.
	Are we getting a little nitpicky is the question.
	Critics have also pointed to similarities between...
	Okay, let's see.
	Dr. Skidmore, the Brazilian adage that we are becoming one people rests on an implicit assumption that this final amalgam will be at worst a light mulatto phenotype and at best a Moorish Mediterranean physical type.
	"The ideal of whitening differs so categorically from the white, European, and North African phobias about race mixture." Dr. Gay writes, "Brazilian concept of whitening symbolizes the popular saying,'We are becoming one people,'represents an ideology of the world.
	Okay, she does not attribute the passage to Dr. Skidmore, who died in 2016, but she does list him twice among suggestions for further reading.
	Okay.
	Do you all know the, uh, while we're at it, mulatto, mulatto?
	Do we all know the, uh, definition?
	It's not a good one.
	It's a racial classification to refer to people of mixed African and European history, and I believe that it has the origin in it of the mule.
	Yeah, there you go.
	Which is why I believe it's now considered an offensive term, because mulatto is as a mule, which is a mix between a donkey and a horse, I believe.
	So those are the accusations of the plagiarism against Claudine Gay.
	The question is this.
	Is that sufficient?
	If that's the best they can come up with, with years of work, is that sufficient?
	I'm going to look in the chat, actually, and just see here.
	Okay, one, the number one is good, or number one or yes, it's sufficient.
	Number two or no, it is not sufficient for accusations of plagiarism.
	I'm on the fence, I think, for now.
	And as much as I despise the woman, the person, because of that answer and the arrogant pomposity.
	One, yes.
	Two, no.
	That is sufficient for accusations of plagiarism.
	Or sanctions for plagiarism?
	Or sanctions for plagiarism?
	I haven't...
	I haven't seen a two yet.
	We can't run polls.
	Can we run polls?
	Enable slow chat.
	Enable history.
	Ooh, look at that.
	I didn't notice we had this function.
	All right, well, thus far...
	Thus far, 1.5, says Construct.
	Anyway, that's it.
	So, I refuse to give leeway to the left anymore.
	They've gone evil.
	Yeah, one, only because of her position.
	Well, that's the other thing, is you know damn well that she...
	Oh, my goodness, if they discover this against a conservative...
	Oh, boy, they put his ass in jail.
	Okay, well, that's the funny story of Claudine Gay.
	I'm still saying she's going to be out within a month, and it's not cancel culture.
	It's consequence of not doing your job properly, applying double standards, which make you unfit for your position, and basically alienating students.
	It's like, you know, they say that enrollment is down 17% at Harvard, subsequent to this, you know, the rise in anti-Semitism.
	If I'm any...
	Identifiable group.
	I'm not going to feel safe at Harvard if they don't confirm publicly and unabashedly that they'll obviously state the obvious as it relates to all students, regardless of a group.
	An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere.
	I forget exactly what Martin Luther King's statement was, but that's it.
	Oh, and then we got this.
	Hold on, hold on.
	Before we forget, this is from Christopher Rufo.
	Almost forgot about this.
	Well, that depends if the student is white, black, Jewish, not Jewish, gay, straight, trans, black.
	It depends!
	I mean, let me know who I'm judging so that I can know what conclusion I'm expected to arrive at.
	Because, you know, white cis male, well, he'll get kicked out.
	He'll get charged with a crime.
	A black woman, professor, we stand by her.
	International lead.
	Is Harvard University really holding its president, Claudine Gay, Dr. Claudine Gay, to the same standards when it comes to the plagiarism that it would assail for students?
	Committing the same offense?
	Here's a bigger question.
	Does anybody still watch Jake Tapper and CNN?
	You might recall Dr. Gay, along with the presidents of MIT and Penn giving...
	MIT.
	Generally seen as disastrous testimony on Capitol Hill earlier this month.
	They failed to explicitly say that calling for the genocide of Jews on campus would violate their campuses' codes of conduct.
	That, as well as Gay's commitment to progressive policies, have made her many right-wing enemies who have...
	Right-wing enemies.
	I mean, these people are pathological.
	It means that to the left, not condemning that is acceptable.
	It means that the left agrees with it.
	If they're going to identify that only the right-wing conservatives are taking issue with it, it means that the left and the Democrats tacitly, if not explicitly, accept it.
	But regardless of the provenance of these allegations, there is also the matter of whether or not they're true.
	Harvard's top governing body said a review revealed, quote, inadequate citations by Dr. Gay in a few instances, but, quote, no violation of Harvard's standards for research misconduct, unquote.
	Now, Harvard's guide on sourcing says this on plagiarism, quote, in academic writing, it is considered plagiarism to draw any idea or any language...
	Well, I would say that it has to be unique language because there's expressions that are colloquial.
	There's ways of phrasing things like don't give someone the keys to the car as a metaphor.
	I mean, geez, that's not plagiarism.
	It has to be unique and it has to be the product of their own work, like with the studies of the volleyball team, for example.
	So whether or not that if I'm if I'm being a lawyer and I'm thinking critically.
	That definition.
	In academic writing, it is considered plagiarism to draw any idea or any language from someone else without adequately crediting that source of paper.
	It's got to be original idea and original language.
	I would have added that word.
	Otherwise, you can get plagiarism from just repeating cliches.
	Now, critics of Dr. Gay and Harvard's review of the allegations say that there is a double standard going on here.
	CNN's Matt Egan...
	Oh, that's it?
	Okay.
	She's being covered.
	She's being covered.
	I don't know if it's cover cover or being covered, but she's being covered.
	Oh, man.
	Oh, man.
	It's a circular firing squad at some point in time, people.
	When you don't have principles and you're not, you know, when you don't have principles, it ends up being a circular firing squad.
	What else do we have up here?
	I had something that I wanted to talk about.
	Oh, yeah, we're going to end with McFall, and then we're going to go on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	But when I say the words end, there's like a practice that I say, don't say you're coming to an end because then people start leaving.
	This is going to be the best one of the day.
	So there's that.
	Leave now if you don't want the best story of the day and then the after party at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	This is, it's just amazing.
	Liars will lie, says Honor 253.
	That's what they do.
	Is she a doctor of lesbian?
	Hold on, actually, before we go on.
	Dr. Claudine Gay, Wikipedia.
	I guarantee you it's like philosophy or arts.
	It's going to be the arts.
	Here, let's bring it up.
	It's Wikipedia, and I know, but all that I want is one specific matter of fact.
	Academic career.
	After graduating, Gay was an assistant professor, tenure professor.
	Gay was a fellow at the Center for whatever.
	Oh, Advanced Study in Behavioral Sciences.
	I'm right.
	Okay.
	How do we get this?
	PhD doctorate?
	Oh, here we go.
	Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, hold on.
	No, no, no.
	Where's her doctor?
	Oh, hold on one second.
	That's because I changed the page.
	Hold on here.
	Okay, here.
	Dr. PhD?
	Okay, PhD in what?
	A PhD in what?
	Okay, we're going to find it.
	This is going to drive me crazy.
	Her research, okay, it's race identity.
	She was recruited by Harvard to be a professor in 2020.
	After graduating, Gay was assistant professor.
	Stanford, okay.
	Academic, early life in education.
	She got her PhD.
	Here we go.
	Jeez Louise, what's wrong with me?
	I was right.
	Gay earned her PhD in 1998 from Harvard, where she won the university's Toppan Prize for Best Dissertation in Political Science.
	I'm sorry.
	Someone with a PhD might get angry with me.
	Someone with a non-science PhD.
	I'll extend the doctor to a PhD in the sciences, but not political science.
	Excuse me.
	Political science is art, and there's nothing wrong with being very, very fine-tuned in the arts.
	If I had a PhD in philosophy, I only got an honors degree in philosophy.
	Even if I had a PhD in philosophy, I would never ask someone to call me Dr. Freiheit.
	Dr. Freiheit, I've got a bad case of pain in my sciatic.
	What do you think?
	I can't help you with your sciatic, but why are you sitting that way?
	Okay, that's it.
	That's my funny.
	Doctor in political science.
	Well, well, well.
	Okay, it's a PhD and a useless degree.
	It's not science, says 2nd CH, political philosophy.
	Warmongers is the same as traditionalists.
	I'm not finishing the rest of that sentence because I do not contone violence at all, even if it was a metaphor.
	I'm not reading a lot of these comments, people.
	Okay, so now let's get into the final story of the day until we go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Let me see.
	I gotta get the right order.
	McFall.
	I did a vlog on him earlier this week.
	In responding to Dmitry Polyansky, who is first deputy permanent representative of Russia to the UN, rejects hate speech, lies, and fake news.
	Dog lover views of my own.
	Retweet does not equal endorsement.
	Dmitry.
	Dmitry says this.
	Very clear and true diagnosis.
	Only warmongers and Zay regime's apologists like McFall continue to mislead Americans, making the aftermath of Kiev regime inevitable collapse more painful for the U.S. and catastrophic for Ukraine.
	That was in response to a tweet from David Sachs.
	We've got to go down the hole here.
	Ukraine has lost Crimea, Donetsk, Luansk, most of Kherson and Zaporozhye forever.
	If it doesn't negotiate a peace deal now, it will also lose Kharkiv, Odessa, and the rest of Kherson and more.
	The flag wavers who think, oh, the flag wavers who think they're helping Ukraine I agree with David Sachs right now.
	You've got to know how to negotiate from a position of weakness.
	And the argument that, well, why would the one who's kicking my ass want to negotiate right now is exactly why you need to negotiate.
	Why would they stop kicking your ass?
	I mean, unless you just take it, it doesn't matter.
	So, now, Dmitry says, very clear and true diagnosis in response to David Sachs.
	Only whoremongers and Zay regime's apologists like McFaul continue to mislead Americans, making the aftermath of Hiv regime's inevitable collapse more painful for the U.S. and catastrophic for the Ukraine.
	For Ukraine.
	To which McFall says, Does it go somewhere else after that?
	A, we just read through the thread.
	Was that what he said?
	That was not what he said.
	At all.
	Not at all is that what he said.
	Doesn't matter, though.
	Who's going to go down that Twitter hole to find out that what McFaul was saying was actually not an accurate representation of the tweet to which he was responding?
	Then I had to go to this, which was, let me just go to the original.
	Here we go.
	This is his tweets.
	Here he's stating the goal is the collapse of Kiev.
	That's not what he said at all.
	Doesn't matter.
	I replied to him and I said, weakening the military regime to cause its collapse is literally the stated objective of the war pigs who keep pushing this proxy war at the expense of Ukrainian blood.
	Confession through projection is what narcissists and pathological liars do, McFall.
	And I'm quoting Tim Scott, who basically said, and this is actually the quote verbatim from the fourth debate where I was just, my jaw dropped, every day we get closer to the degradation of the Russian military, and that's good news.
	And I'm fairly certain that was the statement in response to the Ukrainian blood that the Americans are spilling relentlessly.
	It's worth it because it's weakening the Russian regime.
	And, you know, what did that Dmitry say?
	He says, you know, the only people like McFall who are lying to the public over and over again are the war pigs and the warmongers.
	Y 'all remember this?
	This is a tweet from McFall.
	It'll be a year old.
	In two weeks.
	No, it'll be a year old in a month.
	What the hell's my problem?
	It's 11 months old.
	McFaul tweets, Ukraine is winning, Russia is losing, and Putin knows it.
	Not even a year ago.
	A, it was a lie at the time, and they knew it was a lie at the time.
	But that's what he said.
	What is he tweeting out today?
	What's he tweeting out today?
	For nearly two years, Ukraine's armed forces have stopped the vastly larger and much better armed Russian army from seizing their country.
	In 2023, Russia's army made almost no gains.
	To achieve so little, Russia has sacrificed 315,000 casualties.
	This is called success?
	Really?
	I'm sorry.
	It was 11 months ago you said Ukraine's winning Russia knew it.
	And then I just have to pull out some...
	Some gold.
	I mean, the internet is forever.
	A Ukrainian victory will dramatically diminish the threat from Russia.
	And then he goes, the war's outcome has clear implications for U.S. security interests in Asia.
	Maybe I can understand that one.
	The war's outcome will affect the global U.S. interests.
	The outcome of the war will have a major implication for the contest between Democrats and autocracies.
	Democracies and autocracies.
	You know, the same democracies that keep people off the ballot so that people can't vote for them.
	Because they abuse of the laws to come to bullshit decisions to interfere with democracy.
	That's what McFaul is purporting to be the democracy that's in a position to criticize what they call autocracies.
	The democracies in Canada and America are the autocracies they criticize.
	Confession through projection.
	I asked for his P.O. box to send him a shirt.
	I doubt he's going to send it to me.
	Okay, actually, and I said that we were going to end with a good joke.
	I'm going to save something for Locals because it's gold.
	It's gold, and if you want to watch the gold, you're going to have to come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	So that thus will end our broadcast on Rumble.
	I'd like to thank all of you for being here, for being members of this wonderful community.
	Could not load chats.
	Oh, what's going on here?
	Are we having a problem?
	Okay, let's see if this is going to refresh.
	Russia one months ago, says Honor234.
	Colorado kind of democracy, says Hoochoo or Hooch000.
	Thanks, Viva, says BillV35.
	Well, you don't have to leave now.
	You can come over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the after party.
	If you want to, one last reminder, I know the shipping is not cheap.
	And so we're working on it.
	But if you want to get some merch, it won't come for Christmas.
	But you can order and give someone the receipt and say, I got you a Christmas gift.
	It'll come when it comes.
	VivaFry.com for the best merch ever.
	Do we see the...
	Well, hold on.
	I got to show you the mugshot shot glass.
	There you go.
	Mugshot shot glass.
	Mugshot coffee mug.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, look at that.
	Fantastic.
	All right.
	That is it.
	We're going to end it on Rumble.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	If not, I will see you.
	Tomorrow I'm traveling.
	I might try to get a late night one in.
	And if I can't, I'll at least do a video.
	Saturday, I'm going live.
	I'm going to try to do a co-stream with Pantelis.
	10 o 'clock-ish in the morning on Saturday.
	And then stay tuned for all the good stuff.
	Sunday night is Christmas Eve.
	I don't know if it's sacrilegious, but maybe we'll do like a short live stream from like 5 to 6 or something.
	5 to 7. I'll go out and in the...
	Maybe I'll do a live stream.
	Cold plunge.
	Winter.
	Polar bear swim because the lake has not yet frozen.
	But it would be embarrassing if I went into the cold plunge and had some sort of cardiac issue on a live stream.
	I'll weigh this one out.
	I'll figure it out.
	But maybe we'll do something just a Christmas special early so everybody can go celebrate and have that much fun.
	So that's it.
	Great show, says DesertRider1234.
	Thank you very much.
	Merry Christmas.
	BillV35, Merry Christmas to you as well.
	And typically I do my streams in tight underwear.
	Let's just say the cold has embarrassing implications on those who are predisposed for that in the first place.
	So we might not do it.
	Okay, I'm going to end this on Rumble.
	Thank you all for being here.
	I'll see you before Christmas, but I'll say it anyhow.
	Merry Christmas.
	And I'll see you before New Year's, but I'll say it anyhow.
	Happy New Year.
	Thank you all for being here.
	If you're not coming over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, I'll see you tonight, tomorrow, whenever.
	Peace out, Rumble.
	Locals, here I come.
	Just got an email at the exact...
	Oh my gosh, my ear.
	Oh, it's so itchy.
	Oh, that has been itching me for so long.
	Still itchy.
	Sorry.
	Oh, God.
	These earphones are great.

▲