Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 13, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

01:27:06

Kash Patel GOES NUCLEAR on Petty Crime? Canada GOES NUCLEAR on U.S. Bourbon! & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We will not take a lecture on decorum from a party that incited an insurrection.
	I appear to live rent-free in the minds of some of my Republican colleagues.
	I wish that they would spend even a fraction of the time that they spend thinking about me thinking about how to lower the costs for American families.
	I wish they would spend a fraction of the time that they spend thinking about me Figuring out how to make government actually work better rather than making it work worse in order to prove that government can't work.
	They are obsessed with culture war issues.
	The Republican Party is obsessed with culture war issues.
	It is weird and it is bizarre.
	And the American people deserve serious legislators, serious elected officials who are focused on bringing people together.
	To deliver real results for the American people.
	Not to play games.
	And not to engage in schoolyard taunts.
	Not to engage in schoolyard taunts.
	From the person who referred to the chair as Madam Chair when the person clearly wasn't a madam.
	We're going to play this through.
	And once you can observe the confession through projection, you'll understand everything.
	That's McBride.
	Source of controversy because the chair of some congressional meeting yesterday referred to him as Mr. McBride.
	And then the other white knighting Democrats said, I have you no decency?
	And that was right after McBride referred to the chair as Madam Chair.
	Ha ha.
	Everybody's making stupid jokes.
	Just appreciate, by the way.
	Making the accusation of living rent-free in someone's head when this jackass set aside everything about McBride.
	That could be, I don't care, gender, anything.
	That that idiot, four years later, is still referring to the events of January 6th as an insurrection and then accuses somebody else of having McBride living in their head rent-free.
	It's like they lack the introspection to understand who exactly is obsessing ruminating over the most idiotic of theories for years on end.
	We will not take a lecture on decorum from a party that incited an insurrection.
	The party incited...
	McBride is so flippin' happy with all of this.
	The vocal fry, first of all, man, woman, child, is annoying.
	I'm not gonna take an A. From incited an insurrection.
	McBride, how many people were charged with insurrection?
	Convicted of insurrection?
	Oh, that's right, a big fat zero?
	Living rent-free in someone's head?
	I appear to live rent-free in the minds of some of my Republican colleagues.
	I wish that they would spend even a fraction of the time that they spend thinking about me.
	McBride's been taking some gesticulation lessons from Hakeem Jeffries and Gavin Newsom.
	I wish they would.
	Thinking about how to lower the costs for American families.
	I wish they would spend a fraction of the time that they spend thinking about me.
	Nobody thinks about you, McBride.
	Nobody.
	This is illusions of delusional grandeur.
	Figuring out how to make government actually work better rather than making it work worse in order to prove that government can't work.
	Now you know exactly what Democrats at large are doing.
	Make things worse so they can show that government doesn't work.
	Sort of like killing tens of millions of birds so that you can jack up egg prices so that you can then blame it on the incoming administration.
	Sort of like something like that.
	Rent-free living.
	My goodness, the sooner McBride is forgotten, the better.
	The only person bringing up McBride is McBride.
	And McBride's White Knight.
	I wanted to make the joke, McBride's not going to sleep with you, White Knight Democrat.
	Have you no decency?
	You will call this biological male a she, even if you know damn well.
	We all know that she's not a she, but you're going to call her a she.
	And if you don't, we're going to say that you have no decorum.
	It's absolute madness.
	This is the state of the Democrat Party.
	Keep it up, because it's working wonders.
	Good afternoon, everybody.
	I've got to check my DMs here, because we're going to have two special guests.
	Perfect.
	Boom.
	Come right on in.
	All right, so we're going to talk about it because it's like everyone's got to talk about it, but it seems that you mentioned certain words on YouTube.
	I couldn't give a sweet bugger all.
	The funniest thing, the most dangerous words to mention in the first eight minutes of a YouTube video, earmuffs for anybody who's sensitive to swear words.
	It's not fuck.
	It's not shit.
	It's Jew, Israel, and Hamas.
	You mention those words in any video.
	Well, you have just entered yourself into the sweet market of algorithmic suppression.
	And I'm saying it because it's so flipping, inorganic, the suppression that occurs with videos where you put Israel or Jew in the title.
	And I couldn't give a sweet bugger all.
	Law of Self-Defense is going to come on at 1245. And we're going to talk about his law of self-defense.
	Man, am I misgendering Joe Branca?
	No.
	Law of self-defense is coming on at 12.45.
	We're going to talk about Mahmoud Khalil and the entire green card revocation situation.
	And then Jose Vega is coming on at 1 o'clock.
	And we're going to get both sides of this.
	I put out a video yesterday.
	It's an amazing thing.
	It's mildly discouraging.
	Because it's not a question of trying to be objective.
	You try to just make sure that you understand things before taking a position, and you understand exactly how things work on both sides to some extent, because humans are humans.
	And it's not a question of, I'm just asking questions like, is it not true that they did 9-11?
	No, I'm not asking questions like that.
	You want to get clear on the facts.
	And if you haven't seen the video that I put out yesterday about Mahmoud Khalil...
	Who is a green card holder married to an American citizen who's eight months pregnant.
	Had his green card revoked.
	They tried to deport him.
	He got a court injunction precluding his deportation.
	And the argument was that...
	Well, people were making the argument he didn't even break the law.
	He hasn't even been charged or arrested or convicted, whatever.
	And then others were saying, rightly so, this doesn't matter.
	You don't have to break the law if the state determines that you are a threat to national security.
	They can decide to revoke your green card, which is something of a contract.
	So you don't even have to have committed a crime so long as they've deemed you to be a threat to national security.
	People don't seem to like that argument.
	They don't seem to like that matter of fact.
	It doesn't matter.
	And then you say, okay, fine.
	What concrete acts, gestures, words, utterances did Mahmoud Khalil, state, publish, whatever, That would allow the state to say, okay, we now deem you to be a threat to national security and we're going to revoke your green card because when you applied for it, we gave it to you under certain conditions and you undertook to respect certain conditions and we now think that you violated those and quite frankly, it's a privilege and we don't want you here.
	We don't like you.
	We don't like what you are exposing and we consider it to be a threat to national security.
	You say something like that.
	First of all, you try to retort to the arguments he does not need to have committed a crime and then people start accusing you of not respecting free speech.
	Oh, it's a free speech or by issue.
	To which you respond with the absolute correct answer.
	He doesn't need to have committed a crime.
	And then I say, well, I'm curious to know what he specifically said, posted, or did, even if not illegal, that could be deemed to render him a threat to national security.
	Viva, how are you not arrested when you return to Quebec?
	Certain statements are verboten here.
	But this is sort of like the joke that...
	That I say, you know, like, I posted a selfie with Enrique Tarrio and had Kamala Harris gotten elected.
	Encrypt us.
	If you can find that selfie with Enrique Tarrio, I remember it was the Friday after his press conference.
	I mean, had Kamala Harris gotten elected instead of Trump?
	Well, A, that picture wouldn't have happened because Enrique would still be rotting away for the rest of his life, for the better part of his life in jail.
	But who knows who's going to be the administration in four years from now?
	And if a radical leftist president becomes president in 2028, and they say, Viva, depending on what your immigration status is in 2028, we don't like that picture that you took with Enrique Tarrio because we think that's subversive.
	And so willy-nilly, you're gone.
	Well, I didn't say anything.
	I didn't do anything.
	I sure as hell didn't break the law.
	And I'm not taking any position in this for self-preservation purposes because...
	I'm lucky and unlucky.
	Where someone will say, Viva, you're taking the position that they can't revoke his green card because of your future aspirations, self-preservation.
	Others are going to say, Viva, you're a Jew.
	And so you obviously want this guy to get deported because you don't want pro-Hamas guys in America.
	So I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't one way or the other, but it doesn't matter.
	My motivations for this are irrelevant.
	My purpose is just to understand it and get the correct assessment.
	But yeah, I took a picture with Enrique Tarrio.
	I openly say I think the guy's a pretty decent guy.
	He's got a criminal record.
	He's made some mistakes in his life beyond pre-Jan 6 and pre-burning a BLM flight for which he was sentenced.
	Proud Boys are a designated terrorist organization in Canada.
	I mean, they can't really do anything to me in Canada because I'm a Canadian citizen.
	So it's not analogous in that sense.
	It's also not analogous because the Proud Boys are not analogous to Hamas, period, in my mind.
	I don't care anybody who wants to bastardize it and say, well, some people would say, some people are idiots and some people make equivalencies where there are no equivalencies.
	But one can understand the arbitrary, politically motivated retribution in the absence of concrete gestures.
	Hamas is a terror group.
	It's not free speech.
	It's criminal.
	Deport him and all the others.
	Yay, God.
	So then I just said, okay, fine.
	I appreciate this position.
	If he said anything remotely overt, like I support Hamas, I support Intifada, like some people are saying, he said, in quotes, I support Hamas.
	I was like, okay, great.
	I'm not defending him.
	Show me that so that I can actually understand that.
	The only statements that are publicly attributed to him are ones that are not just innocuous.
	They're almost like unifying, like, okay, there'll be no peace until the Jewish people and Palestinians are free, yada, yada.
	Some people might say, there is, look at this.
	What is it?
	Why is my face so red?
	Why do I look like I put on 15 pounds in here?
	Some people might say, hey, look, another administration comes in and they deem the Proud Boys to be subversive.
	Viva, sorry.
	You didn't commit a crime.
	You didn't say anything that promotes violence, but you took a picture with a guy that we think is subversive.
	You go now.
	But I just asked, okay, if he said a quote, I support Hamas, where?
	He didn't.
	The statement that he made, some might even say is self-serving.
	Yeah, he'll say the stuff politically properly when what he's actually supporting is Hamas.
	Then they say his organization is the thing called the CUAD, the Columbia University Apartheid, Columbia, the U, I might be getting mistaken here, Apartheid and Divest.
	It's a conglomerate of 100-plus student organizations, and he was the lead negotiator during the encampments.
	And I said, okay, fine.
	So we're getting a little close.
	It's not his organization as far as I know.
	He didn't found it.
	Some people, like Branca, say that organization has made explicit pro-Hamas statements.
	And that is where we get very close.
	And then I put out a video, and then after the video comes out and you keep looking into things, you can't have all the information at one time, I get a video of a statement Khalil actually made.
	Which I would say, as far as getting close to statements that could be misconstrued as, why don't I have it up here?
	I know I had it because I posted it last night.
	As far as statements that could be misconstrued as or argued to be in support of active disruption and potential national security threat.
	In the context of what the context was at the time.
	Oh, that's right, because it doesn't let me play it in incognito.
	It's funny.
	Some videos you can't play in incognito, which means that there's some restrictions that we don't know on them.
	This is the one that comes as close as I think you're going to get.
	And when you're dealing with something discretionary, we'll allow someone to build the argument that he qualifies as a national security threat.
	This is in the context of the encampments at Columbia University, where students were being harassed.
	And I'm not saying by Khalil.
	Full stop.
	There's, in fact, very little video evidence of him saying anything overtly instigating.
	There's, as far as I know, zero video evidence of him harassing whatever.
	But he's the lead negotiation, lead negotiator for these student organizations that have been encamping in the university and harassing students, objectively.
	As of now, there are no assurances from the university that no NYPD or any other law enforcement, including the National Guard, will be brought into the university.
	Yes.
	So, yesterday we had a very long session with the university negotiators.
	We spent 11 hours in the negotiation room.
	Today we spent about an hour as well.
	Clearly, there are, as Sueda mentioned, we are at a stage where kind of an impasse.
	The university is not acknowledging the movement and the extent of the movement.
	Not his movement.
	And what they're willing to offer is mostly just the statements.
	OCCs and committees.
	Once again, our movement here, when they tried to hear it last week, we prevailed.
	If they want to once again bring NYPD or any law enforcement, we will prevail.
	Our movement is not only this encampment.
	It was not that encampment.
	Our movement is very, very large, and we will have our own ways in order to make sure that our voices are heard.
	There you go.
	Had I seen this video before I put out the vlog, I obviously would have included it.
	We will make our voices heard, our movement, and if they don't listen to us, we will have our ways of making our voices prevail.
	I see Branca in the backdrop, and I'm going to bring him in right.
	Did I see Joe before?
	I meant Andrew Branca, for goodness sake.
	There's too many lawyers here.
	Andrew, sir, how goes the battle?
	Great.
	Life is great.
	And I have a lot of Joe Branca relatives.
	Joe is a very common Italian name.
	Well, I'm not going to make the mistake anyhow, but Andrew, this is like twice in a month now.
	This is a new record for us.
	Yeah, it's great.
	I was watching you live before I went live because I think as far as the interpretations go, yours is the best argument for why he...
	I haven't heard Barnes yet, so we're going to talk about it on Sunday.
	Sure.
	So the argument is we heard what I think is now a statement that could be...
	Reasonably construed as being one that could qualify when you're under the privilege of a green card, subverting the country that is giving you the privilege of staying in the country.
	What is your take on it?
	Well, to me, it's a very straightforward analysis.
	By the way, this is my grounds for deportation.
	The one I've been discussing is not the one Marco Rubio is raising.
	He's raising a second justification for deportation.
	He's saying, listen, if I just feel I don't like this guy in the country, I can throw him out.
	What I've been arguing is you don't need to rely even on that because immigration law says that if you're the representative of an organization that endorses terrorism, you shall be thrown out.
	It's mandatory.
	It's non-discretionary.
	So if CUAD is an organization that endorses Hamas, a government-sanctioned, government-designated terrorist organization, and he's a representative of CUAD, then it's done.
	The deal's done.
	It doesn't get any more complicated than that.
	Actually, I keep bringing up the wrong one here.
	This is it.
	So terrorist activities, in general, any alien who is a representative of a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity.
	And so these are the rules that apply to green card holders or any visa.
	Any alien.
	It doesn't matter what kind of visa you have.
	It's alien.
	It's just anyone who's in the country who's not an American citizen.
	And so some are saying, well, and I'm trying to steal, man, because I don't want to get accused of coming to a conclusion based on what people are going to call my own religious prejudices.
	Espouses is not necessarily been convicted of or even charged.
	It's going to say, I think that this guy's issued statements that align with terrorist organizations.
	It doesn't even matter what he said.
	So that's key.
	I mean, people are getting confused here.
	It matters what the group that he's a representative of does.
	He doesn't have to endorse terrorism.
	If he's a representative of a group that endorses terrorism, he's done.
	And CUAD incontrovertibly endorses Hamas.
	Hamas' activities, the Hamas attack that occurred on October 7th.
	There's thousands of social media posts they've made.
	On the one hand, it's the problem, and it's also, I'm sure, going to be their defense.
	Well, we've got 100-plus student organizations.
	We can't be responsible for all of them.
	They're not being punished.
	Also, I've been trying to sensitize people who are very much supporting Khalil to the idea that it's not criminal, and it's not...
	It's constitutional.
	It's contractual to some extent.
	I don't know what goes on when someone signs on for a green card.
	They make an undertaking.
	And they are also compelled to do certain things like renounce other citizenship if they want the green card or if they want citizenship.
	And they swear to abide by the condition, to not trigger conditions for deportation.
	And there's a lot of them.
	There's like these two main statutes, 1182 and 1227, if you add them together, it's 100 pages of things, ways that you can screw up your green card.
	And get deported.
	There's a lot of them.
	You have to not do any of them.
	What are some of the ones that would not be technical crimes that might be constitutional rights for natural-born citizens or naturalized citizens?
	If Mahmoud Khalil was going out on the Columbia University as an individual and endorsing Hamas, that would be fine.
	That would be free speech.
	But when he does it as the representative of a group, he triggers this provision.
	So, I mean, I'm getting more sensitized to the argument that it is black and white.
	And even if someone wants to say, well, he didn't make the statements, it's that of the CUAD, which itself is a conglomerate of 100 plus.
	That statement, the one that I'm fairly certain we can now definitively attribute to Mahmoud Khalil himself, says our movement and we will have other ways if the police show up.
	So it's incontrovertible that he is a leader, a representative, a spokesman.
	Clearly a spokesman.
	And by the way, the same statute identifies what representative means, and it includes spokesmen.
	I think it's incontestable that he was acting as a spokesman for CUAD. He's in front of the media constantly.
	Well, see, I didn't raise the contrarian argument.
	I said, like, lead negotiator might be the guy they bring in almost as a third neutral party.
	Which would be fair, except who else has he ever been a lead negotiator for?
	Well, I don't know.
	Some people are saying he's not even Palestinian.
	He's of a Syrian descent.
	Some people are raising some questions as to how he got a green card so quickly in the first place.
	I can tell you that.
	Oh, hold on.
	Do it.
	I'm going to star that one.
	I'll come back to it.
	Do you know how?
	Yeah, so he came into the country in 2022, about 30 years old, and miraculously, you know how many, I'm sure you have friends, I have friends who have trouble finding love, right?
	They go year after year, they wish they could find a husband or a wife.
	It's such a struggle, the dating market sucks.
	But not Mahmoud Khalil.
	He comes into America in 2022 and instantly finds the love of his life, happens to be an American citizen that he marries, and that accelerates his provisional green card.
	Very interesting.
	What a miracle of love.
	The only thing that might make that more suspicious is if someone gets divorced and then remarried to an American.
	And by the way, the fact that it is a green card through marriage is something that the US government has always found very suspicious.
	They're very wary because they're very wary about pretextual marriages for people to get green cards.
	That's why if you get a green card through marriage, it's a two-year probationary period.
	So there are some exceptions that a green card holder can try to raise in an immigration court why they shouldn't be deported even though they broke a law.
	You don't get any of those if you're still in the provisionary period, which he is.
	I want to bring this one up because this is something that...
	Again, people are not...
	First of all, nice avatar because I do love Pulp Fiction.
	Khalid's group and organizers include literally a ton of American Jews.
	I love how Republicans hide that.
	Nobody's hiding anything.
	I saw the guy speak before Khalil in that video.
	He was a Jewish kid.
	The issue is not even one of First Amendment free speech because as a green card holder, you undertake to do certain things that natural citizens or naturalized citizens don't need to do.
	And free speech, the First Amendment, does not protect you from immigration law any more than it would protect me if I was drunk driving and got pulled over.
	I mean, these are different things.
	So he has been arrested, detained.
	Did I understand that he's in Louisiana?
	Yes, very clever.
	And I don't want to laugh at the lawfare.
	How the hell does that happen?
	Because he's arrested in New York or New Jersey.
	Well, everybody knows that the Southern District of New York is a hostile legal environment.
	It's a corrupt...
	It's a traditionally corrupt hellhole.
	Everybody knows that.
	Right.
	So they grabbed him in his apartment.
	Nine minutes later, they're processing him in Federal Plaza in New York City.
	And an hour after that, they have him over the river into New Jersey.
	So he's already out of the jurisdiction of the Southern District of New York.
	And then overnight, they flew him to Louisiana, where they have him in a detention center there now.
	So, of course, you know, his lawyers filed a motion for habeas relief here to have him released.
	But they filed it in the Southern District of New York because that's where they thought he still was.
	But the government had swept him out of the jurisdiction so quickly that they missed him.
	Well, let me ask you.
	So, first of all...
	What's the legal rationale for that?
	I mean, I can understand the strategic, but the legal to remove somebody so they can be tried in another jurisdiction where they weren't arrested or where none of the charges...
	Well, there's no charges yet.
	I mean, they can move them anywhere.
	It's ICE. It's the federal government.
	They have detention centers all over the country.
	It's at their discretion where they want to hold them.
	And the law is that a habeas petition has to be filed.
	Remember what a habeas petition is.
	Show me the body.
	Do something, right?
	To produce a body.
	So you have to, it's an order that's issued to the person who has possession of the body.
	That's the relevant jurisdiction, where the body is, where the warden is.
	And so that's where the petition has to be filed.
	And this is longstanding.
	Not only is it longstanding, I mean, this is like from the founding of America.
	This is, well...
	After the Civil War, Congress made this into statute because there was so much forum shopping.
	You know, people would find a judge in Montana or something for somebody who was being held in New Jersey.
	So they wanted to stop that.
	They said, listen, from now on, habeas petitions have to be in the jurisdiction where the person is held, period.
	And in fact, the judge in which...
	This habeas petition for Mahmoud Khalil was filed.
	He has multiple cases where he said, listen, I don't have jurisdiction over this alien because he's in New Jersey and I'm in New York.
	You've got to transfer it to New Jersey.
	If you're playing a dirty lawfare game, you can continually move the body so that it makes it virtually impossible to file an effective habeas corpus.
	And the Supreme Court has addressed that concern.
	So the Supreme Court has said, listen, if that's what's happening, if the government's repetitively moving someone to avoid habeas relief, that's misconduct to such a level that will allow you to file anywhere.
	But that's not what's happening here.
	Well, I'm also...
	So I was watching you live beforehand, and there's a...
	Crumble rant over on the side that says, watch your last video on this.
	No, your analysis is great.
	I don't know how people have to disagree with the facts and not the person.
	Watch the law of the self-defense.
	The newest video on this.
	He's the head of the group that calls for the destruction of the West and supports Hamas.
	That is from Sezzle.
	I would only be...
	Weary, not in terms of defamation or anything, in terms of being accused of mischaracterizing, the lead negotiator for the CUAD, which itself is a conglomerate of student organizations on Columbia University, the argument is going to be that it's a legal, lawfully formed organization and that he shouldn't be held accountable for the bad words or bad acts of any one organization that's a member of the CUAD. But I think, Bronco, you just addressed that.
	I'm surprised, watching your analysis of the habeas, that the NYA Southern District, SDNY, did not...
	grant themselves jurisdiction to order the body to be brought back.
	They might.
	I mean, they haven't made a decision yet.
	The government just filed their motion for transferring to Louisiana yesterday.
	So I don't think the judge has made a ruling yet.
	If they do, it's contrary to all existing precedent.
	And it's contrary to this judge's prior decisions in essentially identical cases.
	So it would clearly be a political ruling.
	So when they revoke, what is the due process?
	Because some people do say there's due process even for illegal aliens.
	Yeah, of course.
	Yeah.
	I mean, and I don't want to be at the risk.
	I get called also.
	I got called a Nazi and a Zionist in response to the same tweet today.
	Some people say he's entitled to due process.
	My response is he's getting it.
	He's getting it.
	He's challenging it.
	The judge ordered a halt to the deportation.
	Do you have any idea?
	Like, I'm not sure how familiar you are with immigration law, but what are the next steps for him?
	Well, I mean, he should.
	If I were him, if I was his lawyer, I would file a habeas petition, but I think he's going to have to file it in Louisiana, which, come on, given the resources, I mean, I checked yesterday, he's got 16 lawyers working for him, you know, filed with the court.
	So he's got plenty of legal representation.
	He's not under-resourced.
	They can file a habeas petition in Louisiana.
	The difference is, in Louisiana, they're not going to get the kind of judge they would have gotten in the Southern District of New York.
	So I don't think they're going to get habeas relief, especially not with the Secretary of State characterizing this as a national security risk.
	Very difficult to get, you know, pre- Pre-trial release, in this case from immigration court, if you're deemed by the federal government to be a national security risk.
	So he's going to be held, and it's going to go through the immigration process, the immigration court process, and they're going to look at the government's...
	If they do it Marco Rubio's way, Marco Rubio's just going to have to produce a statement saying, I formally state that I find this guy to be a national security risk, and the judge can...
	Then the only alternative is the judge to say, well, I find your conclusion to be unreasonable.
	I mean, is the judge going to infringe the separation of powers to that degree?
	Well, considering what was the most recent one where the judge...
	They're doing it a lot now, but they're doing it out of the District of Columbia and the Southern District of New York.
	Is a Louisiana judge going to do that?
	It is interesting.
	And the argument here in terms of justifying pretrial detainment is not that he's a flight risk for leaving the country, but that he's a flight risk to never come back to answer for his immigration charges and might disappear and never show up for his...
	Next hearing.
	I mean, I presume that risk can be mitigated with an ankle monitor.
	I don't know what interim release measures they could impose to ensure that he doesn't disappear into society.
	As far as the government's concerned, he's engaged in some degree with advocating terrorist activity.
	There are terrorist events occurring in America right now, right?
	All these Tesla service centers being set ablaze.
	These are acts of domestic terrorism occurring right now.
	And the government's saying, listen, this guy is part of that greater scheme.
	I mean, he advocates for this kind of conduct.
	We want him isolated.
	We don't want him free to be coordinating with people, to be a spokesman for people who are advocating for this kind of terroristic violence in America.
	And I think it's going to be very difficult for a judge to say, nah, I'm going to just let him go.
	Amazing.
	Andrew, I take for granted everybody knows you, but...
	Someone here said, where's this guy from?
	Just before you go and work.
	Are they asking that in a nice way or a mean way?
	You never know on the internet.
	But just so everybody knows, this was like two minutes before the show.
	I just DM'd you because I was listening to you and then you popped on for 15 minutes and thank you.
	Where can people find you?
	Lawofselfdefense.com.
	I would mostly, for this kind of political analysis stuff, I would just go to my YouTube channel, which is also Law of Self-Defense.
	At my website, I mostly do use-of-force analysis, shootings, trial analysis of self-defense cases, Rittenhouse, George Zimmerman, that kind of stuff.
	But our YouTube channel is mostly the kind of stuff you're talking about here, political analysis.
	Okay, amazing.
	And maybe they meant me.
	Where's this guy from?
	I'm from Canada.
	I'm in the States.
	I'm on a visa, and my goodness, am I sure to abide by, not do anything that can possibly cause the state...
	Pretty soon you won't need a visa, right?
	Canada will be the territory of the United States.
	I might need a visa to go back to Canada.
	Andrew, thank you very much for coming on.
	Sure, my pleasure, man.
	Have a good day.
	You too.
	Bye-bye.
	And now we're going to get the other side of the coin here.
	You know Jose Vega.
	I have to remember, refresh my memory as to where, how we got in connection with one another.
	But now we're going to have Jose Vega, who...
	You can always impugn or attack people's motivation and say, oh, he's saying that he's an anti-Semitic, yada, yada.
	You can have those beliefs.
	You still have to address the arguments.
	And in as much as I might disagree with some of the statements Jose makes, I think he's a reasonably thoughtful person and I'm not going to impugn his positions based on what I presume to be his intentions.
	With that said, Jose.
	All right.
	Hi.
	So are you going to have to tell everybody who you are?
	Because I know that people are not going to know, at least some on my channel.
	We've actually interacted for years, actually, because I'm famous for yelling at politicians.
	I'm famous for confronting.
	I think one particular intervention I did was I did the Columbia School of Journalism.
	The head of the New York Times was there, as well as the head of the Washington Post, LA Times.
	Basically, all the executive editors of these papers were at Columbia, and I stood up.
	This was at the height of Seymour Hersh's revelations on the Nord Stream pipeline.
	I stood up and I said, oh, hey, is this the lecture hall with Seymour Hersh?
	And then basically for like...
	Three minutes.
	I just went off on them, and that went super viral.
	Or maybe you might remember me from when I confronted AOC back in October of 2022, and that one went like...
	We got in touch in...
	I'm just checking our DMs in Twitter.
	It was August 2023, which is when we connected.
	I've done like 25 things where I've confronted tons of politicians, and they've all gone super viral.
	You've also run...
	Am I not mistaken, or did you run for office as well?
	I did run for Congress.
	And I'm doing it again, by the way, votevega.nyc.
	How did it go?
	This was not a needle, by the way.
	I, too, ran for federal office.
	I got more votes than Mark Carney, the newly anointed prime minister in Canada.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	I got 1,500 votes in an area that is so liberal it would make Washington, D.C., as far as it being Democrat, look pale by comparison.
	How did it go when you ran?
	Well, I ran here in the Bronx.
	This is the poorest congressional district in the United States.
	I mean, there are parts of Mississippi that don't even have plumbing.
	And somehow this area, this congressional district is the poorest in the entire country.
	I ran against Richie Torres as an independent.
	I was not a Democrat.
	I was not a Republican.
	I was an independent.
	And, you know, we got about two and a half percent of the vote.
	That was about 4,000 people or so voted for me.
	And I'm doing it again.
	I have an infrastructure now.
	I've got an office.
	I've got resources.
	I'm not giving up.
	Do I know that I've had interactions with Richie on Twitter?
	I'm just going to Google and see.
	He's a diehard Democrat.
	I've got a Jamie-esque producer in Cryptos in the back who is able to find things.
	I know that I've laid into Torres on Twitter repeatedly because he's a pathological liar, but until I have the evidence, I'll just leave it at that.
	Jose, so I've been following your take on this as well, and I'm trying to...
	I'm not trying to be middle of the ground, you know, a fence sitter on this.
	I understand.
	I'm now more in line with the justification of the actions and not the injustice of it.
	But, I mean, tell the world what your take on this is.
	Well, you know, I've thought about it a little bit more.
	And I saw your video that you posted about 15 hours ago, you know, really recapping the situation.
	And I actually want to put this in the context of what's actually...
	What I think is actually happening, I think the Mahmoud Khalil situation is a smokescreen for what's actually going on.
	You saw the Trump administration recently has been dealing with Hamas on the back end.
	Maybe you read this report that they have people talking directly with Hamas without Israel involved, right, because there are American hostages.
	This is how the Trump administration was justifying it.
	And then Marco Rubio comes out and he makes a whole statement about how, well, that was just a one-time thing and it bore no fruit.
	Then you have Tulsi Gabbard, who was trying to get somebody in as her second-in-command.
	I forget the guy's name.
	His name was, what was it?
	It was Dave Greer.
	Colonel Davis, that's right.
	He is an outspoken anti-Israel.
	He's not anti-Israel, but he's been very critical of what the Israelis have been doing to the Palestinians.
	And this was supposed to be somebody who was supposed to be the second-in-command of Tulsi in the office of the Director of National Intelligence.
	The ADL, the Jay Forward, a lot of the press just ran an entire smear campaign on this guy, and suddenly he is not considered for this position anymore.
	So what you see happening with Mahmoud Khalil, oh, and on top of the fact, of course, that Colombia lost $400 million in federal funding, I think what's going on is that the Trump administration is trying to appease certain forces that are acting upon his administration and putting a lot of pressure on his administration, and he has to throw them a bone.
	Which is, okay, well, we'll show you that we're serious about combating anti-Semitism and we're big supporters of Israel.
	So we're going to deport Mahmoud Khalil, who was the spokesperson for the Columbia encampments that were happening all of 2024. So is this necessarily a free speech issue?
	Again, because I saw your video and I was reconsidering it.
	I was like, not exactly.
	But when I say that...
	Like, for example, you replied to a comment I made on X where I said, well, then you don't believe in free speech.
	I meant it more as a principle rather than as a law.
	I believe that anybody born, whether you're born in North Korea, China, or here in the United States, you are entitled to the right of free speech as an individual.
	I think that is something that is just endowed to you because you were created by God.
	That's why you should have free speech.
	You know, I think to hold, you know, what does that say about the United States as a country where it's like, we'll let you come in, we'll give you a visa, we'll give you a green card, so long as, you know, you only promote what's in the interest of the state.
	Well, but how can I ever be critical?
	I am a citizen, so I guess I'm safe, but how can anybody be critical of the United States if they are a green card holder and they disagree?
	You know, for example, to be a patriot of a country, to love a country, is to always be critical of your country.
	That's why I ran for office.
	I ran for office because I think Richie Torres sucks.
	And frankly, I don't think he should be in office.
	I think I should be dictating policy instead of him.
	I actually love the Bronx.
	He doesn't mention the Bronx.
	And I'm a patriot.
	But I understand that the role that my country has taken in the actions that have been happening in Palestine, Gaza, also in initiating the war in Ukraine, also in the destabilization of Syria, requires me to be critical of that.
	And I think Mahmoud Khalil was exercising those exact same rights of being critical of the United States and their role in not acting in good faith.
	He was being critical of the Biden administration.
	You know, the closest we've seen or the closest we've come to actual peace was what Trump did with the ceasefire, because at least it stopped the bloodshed.
	Now, I don't agree with the plans going forward.
	You know, like, hey, we might actually have to relocate a lot of Palestinians.
	But excuse me, but I think Mahmoud Khalil.
	He's just being targeted right now to appease certain parties, and it's not about whether or not he deserves to be here on a green card.
	It's just so that they can score political points with whoever's pressuring them.
	See, that is where things get problematic, and I'm using that as a Scott Adams word, and I appreciate it, but that's where someone might accuse you of hypocrisy, or at least going after the intention instead of the underlying...
	Incident itself.
	People in the chat are saying violent crimes.
	So let me bring this one up here.
	Violent crimes are not free speech.
	Disingenuous argument.
	First of all, nobody's even accusing him of violent actions.
	Some people will rightly say that that organization that he was a spokesperson of or the lead negotiator of, the CUAD, which itself is 100-plus student organizations, certainly did.
	They did stuff.
	They harassed students.
	It's inexcusable and indefensible, although I only presume what your position is on the encampments.
	I don't assume it.
	Others are going to say to you, Jose, like, first of all, you want to come into a country to undermine its government as though it's a right, piss off and go do it from Syria, if that's what he wants to.
	If he wants to undermine the American government, do it from a foreign country.
	I appreciate the argument that if you think in order to get the green card, you have to toe the political line of the party that's in power in order to have it granted and then not have it revoked.
	That, I think, is a bit of a straw man because they didn't say what he has to say.
	They just said that he can't engage in that which is a national security threat, which some might regard his statements and his actions as being.
	Well, the problem here is we've seen the kind of greater context of like, OK, look, Colombia clearly lost.
	I don't think you can only look at this in the weeds of the law.
	I understand that there are contingencies that happen when you come here with a green card.
	There are contingencies that happen when you come here with a visa.
	For example, I love Ireland.
	If I want to apply for Irish citizenship, I'm not going to go there and start criticizing their government.
	That goes without a doubt.
	But I think the United States is a little different because, frankly, we were founded in overthrowing our fathers.
	For example, there was no United States until we made one.
	We had to be oppressive against the British Empire in order to actually form our country.
	We are founded on the foundation of free speech.
	I'm somebody who's very critical of the Israeli government, and I don't think that that should be grounds to remove my...
	Green card, because I'm critical of a foreign country.
	You know, everything I've seen from Mahmoud Khalil has always been, he's been working with lawmakers here in the United States.
	I mean, you might remember, although actually they kicked AOC out of the encampments.
	That I thought was like a win for them.
	You might remember this, right?
	That they kicked AOC out and some of these other progressive squad members, you know, from the encampments and stuff.
	That was great.
	You know, I mean, they've gotten help from people like Rashida Tlaib, you know, who happens to think along the same lines as they do, right?
	I'm just saying, like, I believe freedom of speech is more about freedom of thought.
	You know, if somebody wants to criticize what's happening in Syria right now and the United States' involvement in Syria, you know, as Tulsi Gabbard did when she testified in front of the Senate Intel Committee, you know, she said the United States, through Operation Timber Sycamore, was funding al-Qaeda.
	Now...
	If I was a green card person and I went out and I said the United States was funding Al-Qaeda, would my green card be revoked?
	That goes against our national security interests.
	This is where it becomes a question of whether you're going to give hypotheticals that are not totally analogous.
	In this particular case, the irony in this particular case is it's only because of how vitriolic and how...
	Overtly supportive of Hamas, some of the other statements of the CUAD or the related student organizations have been that Khalil's statements seem pale by comparison.
	The issue though is, yeah, America was founded off rebelling from the tyranny of the Brits.
	It doesn't mean that you're going to allow it to be, I mean, enemies domestic and foreign.
	You're not going to invite foreign enemies to make them domestic so that they can then undo the fabric of the American society from within.
	And the idea is like, yeah, nobody in their right mind would think that you go to Russia or you go to China and you criticize the government.
	Some might say, well, that's because of how authoritarian it is.
	And the West is so democratic and open that it's going to support free speech as it's being used to undermine the very fabric of the free and democratic society.
	And that's where the heads butt here.
	That's effectively what they did.
	And his only statement that I found now that is really It's our movement.
	If law enforcement comes in, we'll find other ways to get what we want.
	When you're on the privilege of a green card in a foreign country, whether or not he thought it would ever happen, you are certainly asking for trouble when there's discretionary remedy available to the state that is giving you the privilege of being on its soil.
	Well, while I understand that, then there's some kind of hypocrisy that comes in with that.
	I mean, for example, if the United States is saying we will welcome anybody who wants to come here and be a citizen so long as you are not critical of our allies or of our national interests or our foreign policy, well, then maybe the United States should update its guidelines to that and just say that that's what we're about.
	I would not agree with that.
	You know what I mean?
	I don't think the United States should do that, but that's how it's acting right now.
	They'll say it's open for anybody who wants to live by our values.
	And our values are what is laid out in the Pledge of Allegiance, what's laid out in the Constitution.
	Now, your argument is going to be, well, I love the government so much, I have to undermine it from within because it's for its own good.
	And so I've got to criticize it.
	And it's not even a question of criticizing the Allies.
	It's ostensibly lending moral support to outright terrorist organizations.
	And I've got to ask you the hard question.
	Do you acknowledge or don't you acknowledge Hamas as a cut-and-dry terrorist organization?
	Set aside their designation as one.
	Why is that a hard question?
	I don't condone or I don't endorse the actions of October 7th.
	No, no, but the question is only...
	Oh, no, no.
	I do think Hamas acts like terrorists, you know?
	But that's already washy.
	Well, because it's the only government that and the PLA are like the governments of Palestine.
	You know, do I think that they're terrorists?
	Yeah, I mean, sure.
	But at the same time, it's also the government that the United States is actively negotiating with in order to get the hostages out.
	So, you know, can I, like, come out and say, like, full throttle, they're terrorists?
	Well, yeah, I mean, October 7th kind of showed that.
	I don't, you know, I think the atrocities that happened on October 7th were horrible, and nothing really justifies why they did that or what they did.
	You know, I can understand why people think they were pushed to do that, you know, and I just think that none of this would, like, for example, there's this guy, maybe, you know, Shai Devadai from Columbia.
	He also was, I think he's also a green card professor at Columbia University on the other side, right?
	You know, very pro-Israel, you know, he was there on the encampments.
	He was going around the campuses at Columbia trying to film himself.
	Please, someone hurt me.
	Someone harassed me.
	Everyone just ignored him.
	He was begging people to try and, like, harass him so that they would get some kind of evidence from the encampments.
	See, they hate Jews.
	They're violent and stuff.
	But, I mean, I was at the encampments, you know, for full...
	Transparency.
	I wasn't, like, staying there.
	I wasn't squatting with them.
	I was just there.
	I was visiting.
	I live in New York City.
	Columbia's, you know, relatively down the street from me.
	I was there, you know.
	I didn't see anybody blocking access to the campuses or the classes, you know.
	So I know how kind of exaggerated a lot of the claims are right now, you know.
	And again, you know, I'm somebody who gets called, like, a Hamas supporter all the time.
	And then when I advocate for something like the Oasis plan, I get called a Zionist because I happen to believe that both Israel and Palestine deserve development.
	Both Israel and Palestine are way under the UN standards of what makes a developed nation.
	400 gallons of water per person is what's required to be considered a developed nation.
	I think Israel only has like 250 gallons of water per person.
	Even less.
	So I believe that if you want to stop the conflict and the war, you have to develop a solution where both regions, both of these states, get access to mutual development.
	They both need access to water.
	They both need infrastructure.
	They both need things that make society run.
	And I think that is the basis of a solution.
	So I'm not like a radical college campus.
	And there are people, by the way, I will be the first to acknowledge, who are radically pro-Hamas, pro-terrorism.
	Like, yes, you know, we need to overthrow the apartheid state, the colonial settler, you know, that stuff.
	That's not productive, in my opinion.
	Now, all that to say that at the end of the day, I'm sticking with my guns, that this is politically motivated against Mahmoud Khalil as a bone to appease the interests and the pressures that are being put on the Trump administration.
	This would not be happening if Colombia did not lose $400 million of funding.
	It sure as hell would not be happening if Kamala Harris had won.
	They might be giving Khalil the Medal of Honor.
	But no, actually, just to come back to one thing, the attenuating of Hamas as a cut-and-dry terrorist organization because they're the Palestinian government, to me, because you said, like, yeah, I do, but they're the government, that, in my view, highlights exactly the problem of Hamas, and it highlights the problem.
	It's not because they...
	Happen to be a terrorist organization who have terrorized their way into leadership.
	Some people will disagree with me on that and say the vast majority of Palestinians want Hamas.
	I might be more inclined to think that the vast majority of Palestinians have no choice and are terrorized into voting for Hamas.
	Everybody else gets killed.
	But the fact that they are a terrorist organization who is the government of Palestine is exactly the problem.
	And I would say, at some point, I say you can't not negotiate with the government.
	But that's the crux of the problem here.
	How the hell do you get rid of Hamas?
	Well, but the last time they had elections was 2006, when half the population was under 18 years old.
	So that's the other tragedy of this, is you're holding a population accountable for the actions of its government that they didn't really elect.
	And I don't...
	I mean, I know there's factions within Palestine right now.
	Some people aren't really happy with them, like the PLA, which mostly runs the West Bank.
	But that's why I keep coming back.
	Like, there is a solution.
	You know, it's the OASIS plan.
	It's been proposed, you know, for the last 50 years or so.
	But even President Eisenhower had a solution after the 57 war where he said, well, wait a minute.
	Why don't we just build desalination nuclear power plants?
	You know, because then, like, everyone has access to water.
	Everyone has access to energy.
	And various organizations have access to nuclear potential.
	I mean, that's not...
	Well, but this is 57, and this is when Eisenhower had his Adams for Peace thing.
	Well, but see, this requires people kind of taking a leap of faith.
	All right, well, I had a whole thing prepared coming on here, but I'm just going to...
	There's something...
	You may remember his name, the poet Rafat Al-Arir, the man who was killed by a drone strike.
	He was a poet in Palestine.
	This was a very big deal that he was killed early on after October 7th.
	See, he's somebody who worked in a Gaza university in 2007. And what he did was he would have his students, his Palestinian students, they would read Shakespeare.
	You ever read The Merchant of Venice?
	Back in the day, yeah.
	Oh, you're a lawyer.
	Well, yeah, but I read that in high school.
	I remember they used to call, well, that's where the term Shylock was frequently used.
	He would have his students read The Merchant of Venice and Othello, and he would ask his students, who do you sympathize with more?
	And his Palestinian students would say, with Shylock.
	You know, maybe Shylock did deserve his pound of flesh.
	And he was quite surprised at this, you know, that the Palestinian students would empathize with this Jewish character who was being mistreated.
	You know, I mean, like, there's that famous monologue, had the Jew not eyes, do I not breathe like you, and yet you spit on me, right?
	And so they completely empathized with, you know, the people who were holding guns at them.
	And they even would write, like, his students would write short stories on...
	They had to imagine what it was like being an Israeli soldier.
	You know, there was something that happened in 2008 where Israel had gone into a Palestinian school and they had ended up killing like 15 children.
	One student, one Palestinian student who was in Rafat Al-Arir's class wrote a short story from the perspective of a soldier who shot a child who then had to go home to his family and have nightmares because he also has a kid the same age that he shot and his wife and he couldn't sleep.
	There were attempts to try and empathize the youth of Palestine with Israelis.
	And I think that the only way we're ever going to actually reach a real, lasting solution is if people decide, I'm going to try and sit down and talk with these people, not blow them up.
	That's where I'm coming from.
	I didn't ask, and I'm trying to Google it as you're talking.
	How old are you?
	You're a young man.
	26. Oh, a baby wet behind the ears.
	I mean, and it gets into the whole cycle of violence, and it gets into my whole despair when even engaging in these discussions regarding Israel.
	It's the same cycle literally over and over again, just every 20 years.
	How do you have discussions with people who want you dead?
	How do you change the mind of the people who want you dead?
	And then you have to get into historical revisionism.
	Whose fault is what?
	Who does the land belong to?
	And I know all the arguments from both sides, and it never goes anywhere, and it never goes anywhere cyclically in the context of great violence.
	Treaty of Westphalia.
	Treaty of Westphalia.
	Do you know about this?
	I can't pretend I know it offhand.
	Europe.
	30 Years War.
	I mean, these are some of the most brutal, atrocious...
	Crimes against humanity were committed in the 15th, 16th century.
	It was just war, factions fighting amongst each other.
	Nobody remembered who was right and wrong.
	And the way it ended was they came together, they wrote a treaty, they defined their borders, and they said, look, at the end of the Treaty of Westphalia, it says, we're not going to get into who was right, who was wrong.
	For the sake of humanity, for the sake of posterity, we're just going to move forward.
	We're not going to get into who was right, who was wrong.
	We're going to forgive everything that happened because we need to.
	And I think that principle is going to have to apply here right now.
	That's what the OASIS plan is about.
	It's like, okay, well, if we want to develop the region, and I think Palestine should have elections again.
	They have to get to a point where they can have elections.
	I mean, there is Bagouti.
	He's somebody who's very favored, both on the Palestinians and the Israeli side, who can actually be a very good prime minister, I think, or president of Palestine, should we ever get to that.
	My long-term solution, people tell me it's totally unrealistic, but an international organization needs to come in and govern Palestine, and Hamas needs to relinquish any form of government and renounce to any form of violence.
	And then some people say, well, why does Israel get to have their government?
	And others are going to say, well, why would I trust any international organization?
	The UN already has a shitty track record in the Middle East in supporting terrorism in the first place.
	Dude, okay, so you're in New York.
	This is...
	I think we're absolutely getting to everybody's going to have to say, in law, the action is justifiable, but we think it's weaponized or selective application, which you might be right and you might be wrong, and it's fundamentally undisprovable.
	I'm trying to think of any light.
	What do you think of when Dr. King says, you know, there are laws that can be broken if they break a higher law, a moral law?
	You know, that was the foundation of the civil rights era.
	I agree with that.
	But I'm just saying in this particular case, the argument is not that it's the argument is that it's justified or it's legally justified, but being arbitrarily imposed on Khalil and others are being ignored.
	I'd be curious to see if there were some hardcore, hardcore, like, you know, the Black Hatter Zionist who says.
	We don't even need to give Palestine any territory.
	That's ours as well.
	And they were engaged in some subversive acts in America.
	That's why I brought up Shahid David.
	I'm going to go check him out.
	He sounds like a jackass who's just looking to get punched and isn't getting punched.
	That being said, the true victims of the harassment weren't asking for it.
	There were.
	I saw the encampments in Montreal.
	It's just interesting.
	You knew it wasn't safe for certain people to be there, especially when you had face-covered Antifa types on corner streets looking to see who was entering them.
	If there was an analogous, a similar example where these rules of green card privileges were not applied, I could hear it.
	But then the question is ultimately, only bottom line, forget motivation.
	Khalil might have pushed the limit a little bit too close to what's permissible.
	Or at least what can trigger discretionary revocation of a green card.
	Yeah, but I'm sure that happens all the time.
	In this specific instance, though.
	Well, I might say, yeah, it's because it wreaked havoc on Columbia, and it also wreaked havoc on Columbia students.
	And it might have wreaked havoc on international application to certain Ivy League.
	I don't think Columbia's Ivy League, but reputable universities.
	So it might have caused economic damage to America to have this guy doing what he was doing.
	Well, you know, I mean...
	I just go back to the same thing.
	The law is only being applied right now just to go after this guy, and I think that in itself is an injustice.
	I mean, whether the law is right or not, that's for the lawyers to decide.
	You seem to have, hey, a pretty solid case that maybe he did, in fact, break the law.
	And I just think it's wrong that he's being politically persecuted for the interests of another country and another government.
	I mean, I don't believe that.
	I don't think that for me to take a U.S. citizenship test, I have to, you know...
	Recite the Israeli national anthem.
	I just don't...
	You'd have to recite the American Pledge of Allegiance and if you said, I don't want to do that because American freedoms mean I don't have to say that.
	Well, get the fucking...
	Get out!
	Where is this guy being anti...
	But then you get into a whole other thing.
	What does it actually mean to be anti-American?
	Am I anti-American because I think our foreign policy is atrocious?
	No, I don't think you're anti-American for that.
	I think a lot of people might call you anti-American for different reasons, but supporting communism or socialism is probably fundamentally anti-American.
	Well, yeah, I agree.
	I'm not a communist or a socialist, so there you go.
	You seem mildly reasonable.
	Everybody seems much more reasonable.
	Well, not everybody.
	Some people seem much more reasonable in person, and others reveal themselves for the buffoons that they are in person.
	I know it's much better talking in person like this than just over X. The X, it's despairing because literally you never know who is being insulted.
	Are they addressing me or the person to whom I'm responding?
	And then it's like you're dealing with everybody's opinions all the time and there's no rationalizing it.
	You answer to one person, someone that makes the exact same criticism, doesn't know, and then...
	You have to understand, I was watching your vlogs way before you were political.
	I remember that world.
	I know.
	That's why I'm surreal.
	There was a time when all I cared about was watching those vlogs and you were just talking about your family and vacationing.
	The amazing thing is there's two in particular that I remember where trying to remain neutral or trying to present both sides was very tedious.
	Bill C-16 with Jordan Peterson where it's like, okay, this is the law.
	Bad cases make bad law.
	And Jordan Peterson was right and turned out to be wildly right.
	And the Christina Blasey Ford analysis was like, okay, you try to steel man how a woman waits 35 years before coming up with these charges when everybody knows it's effing ridiculous.
	So yeah, that was back before it was family.
	Then it was not disclosing my opinion.
	And then I think at some point people are within their rights to know your opinion in order to know how to assess.
	Your analysis.
	I remember those days.
	The Jordan Peterson days.
	That's what actually got me really involved in politics.
	Because I remember when he was a professor, I was just watching his lectures.
	I even bought his book, 12 Rules for Life.
	You were 16 when that happened.
	Pretty much, yeah.
	It's amazing.
	Youth is a beautiful thing.
	I know.
	Ten years later, here I am on a podcast with you.
	Anyway, that's just one whole...
	I mean, look, ultimately, I would just tell people, your audience, look, I'm not necessarily asking for people to completely agree with me on this or that.
	I mean, the reason I set out this campaign, the reason I do what I do in the Bronx is because I'm trying to build a truly independent movement where people can say whatever they want and think whatever they want.
	You know, I have a lot of people who support me, whether they're like Ultra, MAGA. Republicans, I love them to death.
	Sometimes they're more reasonable than my friends on the left, but that's, you know.
	And then I have people on the left who support me, but I'm actually trying to build a free speech movement here in the Bronx, in the country as a whole, too.
	I mean, that's why I named, when I confronted AOC in October of 2022, she accused me of being a Trump right-winger Nazi.
	That's what she called me.
	And so I made my YouTube channel called Declaring Independence because I wanted to be able to talk to anybody without the prejudice, without the labels, without whatever.
	I just thought I need to have the freedom to be able to discuss topics that I want to talk about with whoever I want to talk about.
	And it's quite an interesting thing when you see the conservatives who are in power now and how they don't stand for the same things that they once did before they were in power.
	I mean, I'm sure you saw the Ben Shapiro clip that I posted that has gone kind of viral.
	Right now on my profile.
	No, but let me go get it.
	Sure.
	It's like in one of the last few posts I made.
	It has almost 10,000 likes now.
	Maybe I can put it in.
	I didn't share this out.
	I'm such an idiot.
	Okay, well, I just saw that we have our live on your channel and I realized I didn't share this out and tag you.
	Oh, don't worry about it.
	I think it's this one.
	Breaking Ben Shapiro issues a statement of Congress urging the defense of my...
	I'm suspicious already when I see a 26 second clip only, but let's see what this says.
	Maybe there was more to attenuate what he was getting at here.
	Look how young baby Ben is here.
	So let me suggest that as a legislature, your chief job is to ensure that my taxpayer dollars in this state go toward making sure that people like me and people with whom I disagree get to speak in places like college campuses and not toward regulating what speech you find good and what speech you find bad.
	And there's speech I don't like, there's speech you don't like, but if we can't agree that there is a difference between speech and violence, we're not going to be able to have a free state, let alone a free country.
	Yeah, okay.
	Easily distinguishable.
	But superficially, it could be argued that it's quite easily distinguishable on the one hand because some people will say what he was supporting Khalil with the organization was actual harassment and violence.
	And others are going to say that's all fine and well for natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens.
	But when you're here on a visa, you are a guest and you abide by the host's rules.
	Yeah, but see, it's the thing.
	I was on these campuses.
	I was at many campuses with many encampments.
	This, you know, violence or the harassment or even blocking students from going to class.
	Some people will call you, maybe you had blinders on.
	I've seen it.
	I wouldn't say it defined the entire movement.
	It absolutely happened.
	That could be true.
	I don't think it defines the entire movement.
	You could be right that there were examples of it.
	And, you know, maybe I'm ignorant for thinking that it never happened.
	So, honestly, you're probably right.
	Like, maybe I should say, like, yeah, there were examples of it.
	I don't think, but that's the thing.
	I don't think you can judge the whole movement based off the actions of, like, this is what they did to Dr. King during the civil rights marches.
	He would host marches, and then some people, part of his movement, would go and start breaking windows, bashing cars, and then the media would say, oh, see?
	The non-violent Dr. King, you know, leads to riots and rampants and breaking windows and stuff, you know?
	I mean, it's like the same playbook that we saw all 16 years ago.
	Except I would say that once the BLM adopts the power glider as an act, as a symbol of whatever...
	Oh, is that real?
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	But I would say, I think it's the type of...
	I think, unfortunately, it does define the very movement and the occupation.
	But then everyone gets into the Ottawa occupation, in quotes, the January 6th insurrection, to analogize it or compare it to what was going on there.
	What was going on there was beyond the pale, but the violence was not incidental, it was strategic.
	Or the harassment, I should say.
	Well, you know, I would be interested to know, maybe we should talk more at some point, but what do you actually make of all of this?
	I've been hearing you give me what other people would say in response to what I say.
	I want to know what you...
	I think Khalil is definitely a borderline example, or at least they're making an example of him, there's no question.
	I think it has intended political incidental consequences, but also it's to let people know.
	America is not open for those who want to destroy it, and America will not be the capitalist that sells the communists the rope with which to hang them.
	So there's a limit.
	And I think they've gotten to that limit.
	And I'm 100% with you.
	But at what point do you distinguish the destroying of America?
	I mean, if you're a communist, socialist, radical who's like, we need to invert the government and we need to institute radical socialism.
	I don't necessarily, I don't agree with that period.
	I just don't agree with that period.
	I don't think that's the way forward.
	That being said, I have a lot of friends who are socialists and communists who do great work in their communities, who do mutual aid, who, you know, say, you know, we can't rely on the government.
	And you look at places like this community here in the Bronx that has just been forgotten by the federal government.
	I can understand why someone would say, we need to look out for each other.
	We need a socialist, communist government, you know, that will actually care for people.
	I don't happen to think that the solution is socialism or communism.
	I happen to be like an FDR kind of person.
	I think that more government can be good if used by the right people.
	But that being said, I don't think that what Mahmoud Khalil was doing was destroying America.
	You know, is it not in the Declaration of Independence that when the government becomes destructive of these ends, you know, for our rights, for our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that it is our right to alter or abolish it?
	I mean, that is in our Declaration of Independence.
	If that's what you think he was doing, no green card for him.
	I don't know.
	That would be one hell of an admission as to what his underlying motivation was, but no, the bottom line.
	Lending moral, spiritual support, negotiating for and on behalf of an organization that supports Hamas.
	You're asking for trouble.
	You can't complain when you get it afterwards.
	But, like, did he support Hamas?
	That's where I can understand he'll have an argument.
	But when you're out there saying our movement is doing X, Y, and Z, if the police come in here, we will find other ways to achieve our ends.
	It becomes more difficult to say that he was a third-party independent negotiator for and on behalf of trying to find a resolution for.
	But look, the bottom line, and I think we've made headway, and I think even I have been able to walk myself through this.
	What was a little bit disconcerting were the amount of people who came to hard conclusions of opinions without even having bothered to ask the very same questions that they would have demanded be answered if the political tide returned.
	I think that's very fair.
	I think it's very fair.
	I mean, I got caught up in that a little bit, too.
	I couldn't find anything.
	It's like, oh, he said this and that.
	Finally, after 24, it was like after 18 hours, you get a video of him saying something, which I think is close enough that I don't need to find anything more extreme.
	That enough is enough to trigger the discretionary act of Marco.
	Yeah, I just don't think you can ignore the political intention behind this.
	I mean, that, I think, outweighs anything Mahmoud Khalil has done.
	I really do think that.
	You know, you can't just persecute somebody because...
	Well, I say, but the risk is by persecuting perhaps the most moderate one of the movement, you might achieve the exact opposite ends of what you want.
	The moderate one saying we need a peace between the Jews and the Palestinians and we won't have freedom until they're both free.
	Might not be the one you want to make the example of.
	Go take the one who was harassing people and, you know, putting the emblem of the power glider on things.
	That's probably who you want to make the example of.
	Yeah, but the problem is that that person, the more radical one, was not the spokesperson, was not the face of this thing.
	No, probably also a citizen.
	So you can't come down with the same fist that you can off someone who's here on a privilege.
	You know, and of course there's the other part where it's just like, his wife is a U.S. citizen.
	I guess legally that doesn't mean anything.
	I guess, I'm not saying that snarkily.
	I mean it, I guess.
	It doesn't mean anything.
	And also, she's eight months pregnant.
	That makes it a tragedy.
	That doesn't give him a better argument.
	I like this one.
	It's because Viva's Canadian and very foolish to allow this interview.
	See, what I don't like is people are going to say, oh, Viva now interviewed Jose Vega, who defended Mahmoud, so now let's go revoke Viva's visa.
	Yeah, you're a Hamas supporter now, right?
	No, I mean, look, I hung out with Enrique Tara.
	I did a podcast with him.
	Oh, so you're a proud boy.
	If another party comes into power and says...
	But, bottom line, it was only a question of understanding the facts and the law in this particular case, and I think I'm satisfactorily at that point now where the action can be explained, justified, and I'm going to see what Robert Barnes has to say on Sunday night about this.
	I do still respect his perspective.
	I will tune into that.
	Him and I, I think, disagree on things.
	A lot.
	I think, you know...
	Where can people find you?
	Well, people can find me at votevega.nyc.
	If you don't completely hate me and you want to support our efforts, you can go to votevega.nyc and donate.
	You know, we are running.
	Our campaign isn't, our election isn't for another year and a half, not until November of 2026. We are running against Richie Torres, and quite frankly, I do welcome disagreement.
	Not everyone on my campaign staff, volunteers, thinks exactly the way I do, and I love that.
	I genuinely do.
	I am looking for people who are independent-minded, free thinkers.
	I don't look for agreement, and I don't necessarily look for disagreement either.
	I just look for people who are principled.
	And that's why I really appreciated your Twitter thread, breaking with people like Dave Rubin, who are just ready to put out evidence.
	But you're like, well, no, no.
	I want to see, like, what are people saying?
	What are people saying?
	Like, that, to me, makes a lot of sense to do.
	And I do hope we can do this again.
	It's also so that they can make the strongest arguments in support of their position.
	Yes, he did not need to break the law.
	He did not need to say anything overt.
	And this is what he did.
	And that's why it's sufficient.
	And Marco Rubio could have fleshed that out as well.
	But whatever.
	It's easy to play backdoor.
	What is it?
	Backdoor.
	Monday morning quarterback.
	Backseat driver.
	But yeah, but people can find me at VelvegaDeadNYC or at my social media handle at HoseBTrigger.
	I apologize.
	I was 14 when I made that.
	HoseBTrigger.
	J-O-S-B Trigger.
	Okay, I don't know what it means, but Hose A was taken, so Hose B, you know.
	Anyway, yeah.
	Amazing.
	We'll stay in touch.
	We'll do something.
	We'll talk as things go on.
	And if anything happens in the future, we'll come back on and we'll do a longer version.
	All right, great.
	I'm sorry.
	I hope your audience doesn't hate you for having me.
	No, I don't think they hate me.
	And I think some of them actually see hope in the future for you because you're actually mildly reasonable.
	And the older you get, the more you learn.
	So we'll see what you're like in 10 years.
	You're going to look like me.
	Oh, God.
	I'll grow my hair out for you.
	I'll grow my hair out, and then your hair will be longer, and I'll be where you are.
	And then yours is going to be longer, and mine's going to be all fallen out.
	Well, thanks for having me on.
	This was great.
	And, you know, if there is anything we can all agree on, where the hell are the JFK Epstein files?
	Well, that's what I'm going to talk about in the last 20 minutes of the show, is Patel's going hard against insurance fraud.
	But that's not what we want.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Well, there you go.
	Great segue for you.
	Thanks for having me on.
	Have a good day.
	Take care.
	Bye-bye.
	We got 20 minutes left, people, until I have to do another interview with Trish Wood, which is pre-recorded, not live.
	So locals, there will be an after-party later this afternoon.
	But we're going to end the stream on Commitube, because we've been here for far too long, longer than they deserve us.
	And the thumbnail, and I feel bad when I do the thumbnail story over, not on Commitube.
	Come to Rumble, and then you can...
	Oh yeah, we'll do it in case we'll do it.
	Come over to Rumble.
	I don't know if I put the link up there.
	And we're going to do the story here.
	It's not going to be a particularly long story, and I'll do a car vlog on it later anyhow.
	Link.
	He's young, and he's idealistic.
	Too young to truly understand the history, I think, in the Middle East.
	And idealistic.
	If you're not a liberal when you're a teen, you have no heart.
	And if you're not a conservative when you're an adult, you have no brain.
	And plus, if you pick a fight with AOC... He's going to find himself in that no man's land of RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard sooner than later.
	Link to Rumble.
	Here you go.
	Hold on.
	No hate on Viva, but bad decision to interview.
	I disagree and I couldn't disagree with you more.
	This is not a man who's on par with people who I will not have a discussion with because they laugh at the murder of innocent, patriotic Americans.
	This man is sincere in his beliefs.
	And he's not entirely out in left field.
	He can understand when he's come to the point that, okay, I understand it's justified, but I think it's political.
	That's a fair position.
	Ending on Commitube, now.
	And we'll keep it on the rest here.
	Let me go to VivaBorne's Law, datlocals.com, because it's a $5 tip in here, from Ganthet.
	Let's see if this one's going to be...
	Ganthet is always good.
	Good in quotes.
	Or good with an asterisk, I should say.
	The only problem with that, Jose, Hamas and Palestine in general is focused on the extermination of Israel and all Jews everywhere.
	I do not support the right of a country to develop...
	I do not support the right of a country to develop who is intent on the eradication of another race for religious reasons.
	They do not have the same values, morals, or beliefs as you do.
	They have different...
	They have a different culture.
	Yeah, and then the argument is going to be what is...
	What's the defining element of the CUAD? Is it defined by supporting Hamas?
	You notice I went to their website.
	Check this out.
	It's very funny.
	Everybody learns how to cover their asses as time goes on.
	Is this it?
	A statement from CUAD. The use of imagery that glorifies violence is a breach of our values.
	As we have said repeatedly, discrimination and promoting violence or terror is not acceptable and antithetical to what our community stands for.
	And now you're just going to have to go back.
	Let me screen grab this for posterity.
	And then just go look at all the posts of this entity on X. Oh, jeez, I don't want to share that.
	Get this out of here.
	Jeez Louise, I'm going to get in trouble.
	Let's go find some posts from...
	The CUAD and to see how opposing terrorism and violence they were.
	One thing I can tell you, I never have to issue statements like that because you'll never find anything that I've ever said that promotes violence or anything of that nature.
	Although I guess every time I say do not succumb to violence because it will do exactly what your adversaries want you to do, I guess that is the warning.
	All right.
	Patel.
	Kash Patel.
	Let me just go to the tweet.
	Look, it's easy.
	I'm not just here to criticize for the sake of criticizing.
	And then there's some levels of criticism which you have to take with more of a grain of salt than others.
	And I'm not saying Kash is a big fat failure and he lied to all of us and the administration is pulling the wool over our eyes because of this one story.
	This is sort of like a half-assed criticism or it's just an observation.
	Because we know that Kash Patel, we all wanted Kash Patel in.
	He knows where the bodies are hidden or buried.
	He knows where the skeletons are.
	He knows.
	Kash Patel wrote the book American Gangsters.
	We love Kash Patel until proof to the contrary.
	When he said he's going to come in and clean up house and eradicate corruption within the FBI, the bad players, the corrupt ones, the ones who have been responsible for undermining democracy in America.
	Peter Stroke, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith.
	We know who we're talking about and what we're talking about.
	He puts out this tweet, and I was like, oh my, yeah, get some, whoever this person is that he's talking about in the tweet.
	Cash Patel, FBI Director Cash.
	Today, following efforts with our interagency partners, I can report that a career director-level employee at U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been charged with allegedly attempting to defraud FEMA. As well as lying to federal agents.
	This is part of the new FBI's renewed efforts to crack down on public corruption and deliver accountability.
	That crap.
	For the American people.
	Justice will be done, people.
	Thanks to our partners, A.G. Bondi, Justice Department, and the FBI Detroit team for their work.
	You read this, and I've already probably poisoned the well.
	I've preloaded.
	Your thoughts.
	You read this and you think, holy shit, this is a big, this has to be a big effing bust right here.
	I mean, you don't just drop justice will be done for petty crime.
	We caught the shoplifters, people.
	Justice will be done.
	They will return the Snickers bar.
	That's not what you think of when you hear justice will be done.
	That's not what you think of when you hear top director-level employee at Custom Border Protection attempting to defraud FEMA. You know damn well what you're thinking about.
	You're thinking about institutionalized corruption, the person committing fraud via their title as a federal employee, a director of customs.
	That's what you think of.
	I don't know how many people are going to go read the actual document.
	I did.
	And you know what the story is?
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Who knows?
	You know what the story is?
	Someone who happens to be an employee at Customs and Border.
	Claimed damage to her property from a natural disaster, was compensated, was given federal emergency funds to stay at a hotel and do the repairs, and they found out that she didn't stay at the hotel or do the repairs.
	Holy shiat, people.
	It's been blown wide open.
	Justice shall be done.
	Serena Bakerhill, 55, of Detroit, is a career employee at Custom Border Patrol.
	Following a series of floods in the Detroit area in 2023, Michigan's request for federal disaster, it was approved, which allowed residents to apply for FEMA assistance.
	Bakerhill applied for FEMA assistance for flood damage, and FEMA inspector determined there was damage to her basement.
	During the inspection, Bakerhill informed the inspector that she was not able to live safely in the home while the repairs were being made.
	Consequently, FEMA approved benefits for her to To assist her home repairs and for two months of rental assistance.
	Two months of rental assistance.
	$4,000 if she's lucky.
	The approval letter from FEMA indicated that the rental assistance money was to be used solely to help Baker Hill pay rent.
	And essential utility costs while she was in temporary housing.
	According to her bank records, none of the FEMA money was used for rental, hotel, or utility expenses.
	She just took that $6,000.
	The fact that they don't mention the amount to you is also probably a good indication as to how minimal it was.
	She took the money.
	Surveillance video showed her and her husband, they continue to live there after receiving the rental assistance funds.
	Additionally, records from the home do not show significant drop in utilities.
	How much did they spend on this investigation?
	It seems to me that they spent more on the investigation than she stole.
	So maybe I'm just being nitpicky, but when we're in the wake of the botched failure to launch disclosure of the Epstein files, and then you have Kash Patel taking to Twitter to tout a massive...
	Oh, someone says police show larger.
	A massive smashing fraud bust.
	And what you actually have in this is that the woman...
	Took FEMA assistance when there was actual damage to her house and they said stay in a hotel and you gave her a little extra for that and she didn't stay in the hotel.
	She pocketed that thousand.
	That's not what we mean by government corruption.
	That's not even fraud committed in her capacity as a federal employee.
	If she had collaborated, colluded, conspired with other federal employees to appropriate a million dollars on the basis that it would be sent out to Michiganians and then If they didn't and she kept it, that would be fraud in her capacity as a federal employee.
	This is some woman who had some damage to her property, got some funds, and then didn't want to spend them.
	She said, I'll tough it out.
	I'll live in the house and I'll pocket an extra $4,000.
	Yeah, I exaggerated.
	Big freaking deal.
	This is not a smoking gun of justice shall be done level touting your successes on social media.
	In my humble opinion, but maybe I'm just turning into a crank, a cranky critic.
	Who, unless he gets what he wants, will criticize for not getting enough.
	But I don't think I'm wrong.
	Come on!
	Bernie Sanders won't even complain about this.
	Fraud is fine.
	It's fine whatever he does.
	Fraud is fraud.
	It's fine whatever he does.
	I don't know what that is in direction from.
	That's Katamine.
	Let me see what's going on here.
	JP Morgan where Stanley was...
	What is going on in the chat here?
	So was this set up as an easy win investigation?
	Seems like smoke to avoid the real shit we care about.
	It's not even that.
	I assume that the FBI is going to go after petty fraud like this.
	This shouldn't be what they tout as successes on social media.
	I almost think for what the woman's accused of, it's almost unfair to put her on such blast.
	People are going to think that she did something really, really horrible.
	A mild insurance claim?
	I mean, yeah, it's fraud.
	Pay it back.
	Interest.
	Maybe some community service.
	I wouldn't send anyone to jail for that.
	But like, put her on blast.
	Okay, that's it.
	That's it.
	That's the story.
	Apparently, all of Wall Street are on Jeffrey's plane ride.
	Okay, we're talking about Jeffrey Epstein.
	Okay, whatever.
	What else was it?
	There was one other thing that I was going to talk about.
	We got time.
	We got five minutes before I... Locals, Miscuzis, I'll come and we'll do a locals Viva Martini this afternoon.
	I'm going to go on with Trish Wood.
	We want to talk about some Canadian stuff.
	And speaking of the Canadian stuff, which is what we're going to end this with here today, and stay tuned for some big news that's coming, people.
	After my discussion with Unlearn16 yesterday, where she said, you swear too much sometimes on Twitter.
	And I said...
	Motherfucker, sometimes you've got to cuss the people that need cussing.
	And you've got to shake up the people who don't seem to be learning from their mistakes, people.
	I've got to show you.
	I've got to pull it up.
	I put it up.
	When did I put it up?
	Yesterday or this morning?
	Ah, we don't.
	Check ça bien.
	Check ça bien, les gars.
	Oh, je vais le mettre ici.
	On va lire une belle petite tweet que j'ai tweeté hier soir.
	When I saw a picture of what they're doing in Canada, and not these people, Canadians, us as a collective do not seem to be understanding when we are being manipulated by a malicious, manipulative government.
	I'll show you one picture.
	When was this picture taken?
	And I'll show you another picture.
	When was this picture taken?
	For those of you who are listening on podcast, and holy crap, I've got to remember to put this back on podcast.
	One picture.
	is a picture of birthday cards that are behind a wall of saran wrap with a picture on it that says, notice, conform in accordance with the new rules that are in effect as of December 2020 to January 10th,
	2021. These products can't be sold because they're excluded From the list of essential items for ordinary everyday life.
	I guess no coupons either.
	This is from 2020 where your idiotic government that was abusing you psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, and financially was telling you you couldn't get these items because they're non-essential.
	So within a store where you could still go, you couldn't get these items.
	The picture now that we're looking at is what these jackass idiots up in Canada are doing, I'll say, at the liquor stores.
	Plasticking off American liquor and American wine and then it says, buy Canada instead.
	And I had to say, I'm sorry, people.
	Remember during COVID when Canada closed off sections of pharmacies for non-essential items by saran wrapping them off from the other sections of the store to create fear and compliance among the general population?
	Does this look familiar?
	First picture from the tariff war, closing off American alcohol with saran wrap.
	The following three are from COVID. If you fall for this, you are a fucking idiot who has learned nothing from the past.
	Your government does not like you.
	Your government has nothing but contempt for you.
	And if you're stupid enough to fall for this shit again, they are right to have nothing but contempt for you.
	By the way, somehow they decided that hair products were non-essential.
	The one I love here, I'm looking at the bottom here, razors, and I believe those are batteries.
	No, those are the razor cartridges.
	Razors, non-essential.
	And I remember seeing batteries, non-essential.
	And I remember seeing something which I still regret having not done anything about.
	At Alexis Neon, the pharmacy in the basement there, where incidentally Alexis Neon, corner St. Catherine and Atwater, they found a dead Aboriginal man in the basement just recently.
	Wasn't murdered.
	I think probably just died of a drug overdose or died whatever and was dead there for however long before anybody noticed because there's so many homeless people and disproportionately aboriginal who sleep in the ground level of that Alexis Neon shopping center.
	It was a pharmacy at that shopping center.
	There was a homeless man.
	Who had holes in his shoes and I could see his bare feet in winter trying to buy socks and the clerk at the counter was saying, I can't sell you these socks because they're a non-essential item and I'm not allowed.
	And I'm like, this has to be a fucking Borat skit.
	The guy, the homeless person, has to be a Borat shtick.
	And I'm sitting there flabbergasted and then the guy walks off and then it ends.
	I'm like, I should have just gone up there and ripped the effing socks out of that idiot's hand, put $20 on the table and said, piss off.
	And I didn't.
	First, nothing out of cowardice.
	I could not believe it was reality.
	So that's it.
	I hear there's a child who's homeschooling who's...
	I can hear you through the door!
	Okay, people.
	We've got to end the show anyhow because I've got to go with Trish Wood.
	Thank you all for being here.
	Tomorrow is Friday.
	So tomorrow, I'm doing The Unusual Suspects at 4 o'clock in the afternoon.
	We'll have a show at 12.30.
	There will undoubtedly be more to talk about.
	Talk a booty.
	I'll do a quick car vlog this afternoon, either on Kash Pateli or on the Canadian stuff.
	And now I'm going to go with Trishwood.
	If you don't know her, go check her out to talk about what's going on in Canada.
	Did I get everything here?
	Let me make sure I didn't miss anything over Viva Frye in his younger days.
	I'll show this because it's beautiful.
	And it's...
	Totally inaccurate.
	I still look like that is why it's inaccurate.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Oh, you see that one?
	My right arm, for whatever the reason, is still substantially larger than my left arm, and it's from my bowling days.
	Anyhow, that's not what I look like.
	The guy's obviously much taller than me.
	Let me see what's going on in Locals and what is going on on Viva Barnes Law.
	Send the link.
	Oh, it's not, Noah.
	This is Teeley1776.
	It's not live, so it's pre-recorded.
	And I don't know when it's going to be published, but it's going to be published soon because tomorrow, Canada has their newly anointed, unelected, globalist shill of a newly elected, unelected Prime Minister, Mark Carney.
	Did you guys see this, by the way?
	We're going to end on this.
	Mark Carney, the newly unelected, anointed.
	They've already updated his profile on the WEF. It's beautiful.
	It's beautiful.
	This is how you totally know he's not...
	Look at this.
	Here you go.
	WEF quickly updates and praises their Prime Minister-designate Office of the Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney.
	WEF globalist whore.
	Unelected tyrant of Canada.
	Go and enjoy the day, people.
	Godspeed.
	God bless.
	Thank you all for being here, and I will see you tomorrow.

▲