Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 3, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

01:39:07

Trump Tariff War IS ON! Canada's Political Prisoners Sentenced! Eric Adams Runs as independent?

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm actually going to start with something that might shock all of you.
	After I play this video, or a portion of it, I'm actually going to say something good about Pierre Poiliev.
	Or at the very least about his campaign.
	Because it wasn't even him that said it directly.
	How has the arrest affected your life?
	Tamara Lynch!
	Tamara Lynch!
	All of us thought that when the trucks left Ottawa that was going to be the end of it.
	But we didn't realize that was just the beginning.
	We made a promise and going back to this trial is kind of poetic because I'm going back to fight again.
	The blue collar community has actually stood up and look at what they've done to try and put us down.
	I really hope that they will listen.
	Is there a reason that you can give us for why you will not have any negotiations with this particular group?
	I have attended protests and rallies in the past when I agreed with the goals, when I supported the people expressing their concerns and their issues.
	Never in a million years thought we'd be there three weeks and have not one single person even come to ask us a single question.
	The federal government has invoked the Emergencies Act.
	Please promise we will let them retreat peacefully.
	There's no leadership or they're intent on violence.
	Fuck! Fuck!
	Fuck! you Average Canadians had enough of the mandates and they wanted somebody to stand up.
	My strengths are logistics, organization and administration.
	How can I help you?
	And took her up on that.
	I'm gonna pause this here for a second.
	For those of you who don't know what you're watching, Quite yet.
	This is the trailer for a documentary that Trish Woods.
	Let me just go ahead and show you this.
	Trish Wood put together.
	This was the basis for the government's hysterical invocation of the Emergencies Act has been debunked by a jury in Lethbridge.
	Watch the new trailer for our film that will expose how it all happened and please donate to the production if you can.
	I'm going to play through this and just pause periodically to refresh everybody's memory.
	As we venture into the biggest news coming out of Canada today, which is that Tamara Leach, a half-Indigenous, for whatever that matters in the minds of people who play identity politics all day long, half-Aboriginal woman, who organized, allegedly, partook in raising funds to mobilize this protest, was found guilty of criminal mischief today by a court in Canada.
	Oh, along with Chris Barber.
	I don't mean to undermine Chris Barber.
	Just to highlight, you know, that the blackface-wearing, racist, misogynist, two-times-ethics-breaching, son-of-a-beasting Justin Trudeau stands for women's rights when it's Kamala Harris, but not when it's Karina Gould and Chrystia Freeland.
	Stands for women's rights when it's not Tamara Leach being locked up in pretrial detention for weeks.
	Let me play this again.
	It was almost like a salvation.
	Nobody in this convoy will be inciting violence or uttering threats.
	That is not what we are here to do.
	Look at this you guys, oh my god.
	I am an eight-year-old.
	We wanted to show our support again by providing you with some of our favorite snacks.
	People that would come up and open the door and put You feel like you're going crazy living this through again.
	A small...
	Why do I see something here?
	That's the wrong video.
	A small group of Canadians holding unacceptable views.
	Like, a patronizing parent doesn't talk to their child like that.
	Do not represent the views of Canadians.
	Hello fringe minorities!
	I don't know if I'll ever forget this.
	We're fully supported to be here for as long as it takes.
	We are the Jacuzzi making peace.
	I walked those streets for three weeks straight.
	I've seen the low.
	I felt the truth and I saw the lies.
	Honk honk!
	Which is an acronym for Heil Hitler.
	This actually happened in the serious country of Canada.
	What's her name?
	Yacker... Oh, I forget what her name is.
	This is a member of parliament suggesting to the world that Honk Honk was an acronym for Heil Hitler.
	They started calling us names.
	Racist terrorists.
	Russian actors who would be continuing to fuel things.
	The government and the media made all kinds of allegations against the protesters.
	We were coming to rape and pillage.
	There was an apartment building that was set on fire.
	Accusations that there were protesters planning to bomb the children's hospital, stealing food from the homeless.
	The truck drivers all had weapons in their trucks.
	And none of them were true.
	I would have phrased it the other way.
	All of it was lies.
	Do we want to finish this up?
	No, we'll take it out now.
	All of it was lies.
	The apartment building that allegedly someone was going to arson, nothing to do with the protest.
	The story of truckers stealing food from a homeless shelter, lies.
	When Marco Mendicino got up in front of Parliament during those hearings and suggested that the truckers were there to sexually assault women, lies.
	Every single piece of it, lies.
	Perpetrated by, ratified by, so-called Canadian fact-checkers, and Canadian media subsidized by the very government that brought down the Iron Fist on the most peaceful protest you'd ever seen.
	And what happens today in Canada?
	Tamara Leach and Chris Barber are found guilty on mischief charges.
	It's unbelievable.
	And we're going to...
	I'll get to the, I'm going to say something good about Pierre Poiliev's campaign.
	Oddly enough, a tweet coming from Melissa Lantzman, who's been the only conservative, so-called conservative, you know, taking to social media in a meaningful way.
	For those of you who don't know, Tamara Leach was on trial.
	For those of you who don't know, it was a trial for mischief, counseling, intimidation, and there, for the grace of God, goes...
	goes, um...
	There's a technical issue to deal with here, but I'll deal with it in a second.
	The trial lasted...
	Let me see what...
	I have to actually have Grock do the math to put it together.
	The trial was the longest trial for mischief the world has ever seen.
	I'm exaggerating now.
	How long was Tamara Leach mischief trial?
	This is after the woman was locked up for, I mean I forget how long it was now, like 50 some odd days because they locked her up in pre-trial detention, denied her bail for a couple of weeks when she was originally arrested.
	Tamara Leach's mischief trial alongside co-accused Chris Barber is noted as the longest mischief trial in Canadian history.
	The trial began on September 5, 2023.
	And concluded with a verdict on April 3rd, 2025, initially scheduled to last 16 days, it extended significantly due to the complexity of the legal arguments, large volume of evidence, and various delays.
	The trial spanned 45 days of court proceedings over a period of 19 months from its start to the verdict.
	Can you understand this?
	The government has all the money in the world.
	Okay, let me just see what's going on.
	Apparently it says the raid failed because we have the wrong link.
	That doesn't matter anyhow, people should find it.
	But what was the...
	Okay, whatever.
	They'll figure it out afterwards.
	When you spend 19 days of trial with a judge, you have to have the same judge.
	You have to, you know, the lawyers, the Crown, they're prosecuting other serious crimes, by the way.
	In order to schedule that among judge, Prosecutors, defense counsel, witnesses.
	Oh my goodness, you don't just do 19 days in a row.
	At least, even if you did 19 days in a row, it would still take two months.
	You do four days a week.
	That would take a month, if you're lucky.
	You don't even get to do that.
	What you do is you have to schedule, reschedule, according to everybody's availabilities.
	You have a crown raising complex legal arguments about the mischief, the alleged mischief, and the counseling to intimidate.
	It's Kafka-esque insanity.
	And the Crown is working on taxpayer dollars to do this.
	They can go for as long as they want.
	It's their job.
	It's their job to draw this thing out.
	The judge gets paid taxpayer dollars.
	Prosecutor gets paid taxpayer dollars.
	The entire administration paid by taxpayer dollars.
	The only people who have to pay for it out of their own pockets, twice, are the defendants.
	They gotta hire their own counsel, and their own prosecution is financed in part by their tax dollars.
	So they had their trial, and it lasted damn near two years.
	Of course, it's 19 days over however many frickin' months that is.
	And they got convicted today.
	Trish Wood, whose documentary I showed you coming into this, is there talking about it.
	But we'll go to an article, just see how they're describing this in the news.
	By the way, I should also preface this.
	445 George Gammon.
	You know him because he's awesome.
	He's coming on to talk about the Trump tariff.
	So we're going to get to that in a bit.
	Freedom Convoy organizers Tamara Lich and Chris Barber found guilty of mischief.
	This is Toronto Star.
	Encryptus, while we're on this, can you pull up the Toronto Star montage about the cover that they had once upon a time?
	About how vaccinated shouldn't get treated in hospitals.
	They had an infamous cover of their news.
	Same Toronto Star.
	Lich and Barber were both charged with mischief, intimidation, and counseling others to break the law in relation to their roles in the 2022 protests.
	Ottawa Freedom Convoy protesters Tamara Lich and Chris Barber have been found guilty of mischief for their roles in the 2022 Freedom Convoy mass protests in Ottawa.
	Lich and Barber were key figures and organizers of the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests that saw hundreds of vehicles and thousands of people occupy downtown Ottawa, saying they would stay until COVID-19 public health mandates were removed.
	Ontario Court Justice Heather Perkins McVeigh.
	Let's just go see who nominated her.
	Says the evidence shows that the duo routinely encouraged people to continue to remain and join the protest despite knowing the adverse effect it was having on downtown residents and businesses.
	Does this mean we get to go now lock up all of the pro-Palestinian protesters?
	Oh no, of course not.
	First of all, you don't even necessarily want to arrest those guys.
	They don't go like Tamara Leach goes, politely and quietly in the night.
	The defense had argued Leach and Barber called for peaceful protest and blamed any disorder on police and city officials.
	An abbreviated version of the 100-page verdict is still being read in an Ottawa courtroom.
	The pair also face five additional charges, That need to be decided, including counseling others to break the law, and Barbara is charged with counseling other to disobey a court order.
	This is 105 pages, people.
	Like, it's like, you get to the point where you think, well, how do we get around this?
	Well, we're going to draft 105 page judgment that is absolute mental gymnastics and verbal diarrhea.
	expect people to read it and expect that the length is somehow a testament to the thoroughness of the decision.
	Sigh. Thank you.
	I kind of want to go back to this video now.
	I think we have to go back to this video now that we've got that.
	We're gonna get there in a second.
	This operation was able to proceed without death or serious bodily injury.
	There was bodily injury to participants.
	We investigated for interference and we do not see threat to the security of Canada.
	You didn't see any intelligence of sabotage or anything in support of sabotage?
	That's correct.
	He went down on his knees, put his hands behind his head and then still gets beat up.
	I was completely destroyed.
	I peed blood.
	That hate comes from all the misinformation, the lies that were being fed to those police officers.
	I want to go for a coffee.
	We see you again, it'll be different.
	of here.
	Years ago, there was supposed to be a hockey game in Ottawa.
	That never happened because the Emergencies Act shut us down.
	We've been busy on the defense, raising money.
	Shaba and Jody, come up and do the ceremonial puff drop.
	Try not to stay up at night worrying about being in jail, but...
	No one gets left behind.
	We have to make sure that we have good representation because now I've seen the difference between what a good lawyer can do and what a not so good lawyer can do.
	Let me pause it there.
	You know what even the best of lawyers cannot do is fix partisan political corruption in a system.
	There's the old expression, you know, a good lawyer knows the law, a great lawyer knows the judge.
	And the best lawyer works for the government in highly politicized, Partisan, malicious prosecutions.
	How's your client feeling right now?
	They just don't want people to ever protest against them again.
	You have to understand that there's a lot of things at work here that need to prevent this from being a success.
	This is my hill.
	That's how they arrested Tamara Leach.
	Give, send, go slash convoy doc if you can help.
	Trish Wood does great stuff and great work and that's that.
	So I don't know what the sentence is yet.
	I don't know if the sentence has been out.
	We have Trish Wood who's been covering this in real time and I have her feed up on the backdrop here.
	But this is what this is what's going on in Canada.
	And I put out a tweet earlier today.
	I'm taking some flack for this and I don't care anymore.
	I think now would be a great time for Pierre Poilievre and the so-called Conservative Party to come out and reassert, reaffirm, or maybe just assert and affirm their respect for constitutional charter rights.
	Maybe. Maybe now is the time that they come out and say, what was done during the Ottawa protest was wrong.
	What was continued to be done afterwards was wrong.
	And this judgment, in all its 105 pages that I haven't read yet, is wrong.
	You know, the amazing thing is, and I said it at the time, I've been saying it for years now, that Pierre Poilievre did not support the truckers, period, until it became somewhat cool to do so.
	Then he goes and then he does his photo op over breakfast with some of the truckers.
	Then it becomes uncool because people start calling it an occupation, a racist, xenophobic, Russian-funded operation.
	And then he no longer supports it.
	And then afterwards, when the Rouleau Commission's coming around, then it's like, oh yeah, maybe I'll get back on board with supporting this thing.
	And then Rouleau, the commission that was looking into the, not court proceedings, but a parliamentary inquiry into the invocation of the Emergencies Act, because by law you have to have one done, non-judicially but parliamentary, within 18 months of the invocation in order to go over all of the context.
	When Commissioner Rouleau comes out and says, yep, it was ratified, it was justified, then Pierre is no longer vocal about supporting it anymore.
	He refers to the protest as an inflation protest.
	It would be a damn good time for Pierre if he wants to salvage any dignity among his actual core base, and maybe among those Canadians who might not be quite as vocal as me, but are looking for any freaking excuse to say thank you, Pierre, for standing up for the rights of Canadians.
	Maybe now would be a good time for him to say, this is rubbish.
	Mischief? For raising funds for a protest?
	There wasn't a lick of violence there.
	I was there.
	I don't need someone to tell me, Viva, you should go read the 105 page.
	I was there.
	I asked the police when I was there.
	Anybody commit any acts of violence?
	One cop jokingly said to me, yeah, there's a broken window up the street over there.
	I was like, okay, cool.
	Where is it?
	I'm going to go there.
	He's like, just joking.
	It had nothing to do with the protest.
	There was no violence.
	There was no hate.
	There was no racism.
	There was no xenophobia.
	There was no transphobia.
	There was no antisemitism.
	There was nothing but the most glorious peaceful protest ever, and now they basically said to Canadian citizens, much like you heard Justin Trudeau say in that montage, well, I've attended many protests that I've agreed with the goals of.
	Well, that's not what you have protests for, Justin Trudeau.
	It's an amazing thing.
	I was having a discussion with my kid today, and we're talking about free speech, because I was in a bit of a rage about this.
	And he's like, of course, of course I respect free speech.
	My kid's a young kid.
	Undoubtedly repeating things that he's heard me say.
	And then I say, okay, well, that's good.
	So, you know, limits of threats, violence, extortion, fraud.
	He says, yeah, and some words.
	And I say, well, what words?
	We don't need to mention the words.
	Like, well, then it's not really free speech.
	If you say you can't say bad words, you need to protect the language you don't like, not the language you do like.
	It's very nice Justin Trudeau goes to the protests that he agrees with.
	And then comes out and criminalizes and beats the ever-loving piss out of the attendees of a protest he doesn't agree with.
	And now you have his court ratifying the beatings.
	And you have Pierre Poiliev mum silent.
	And the fights that I have to have with people on the internet?
	Well, if he comes out and says it, he's gonna piss off the middle grounds and he won't get elected.
	He won't get elected if he keeps showing his political cowardice!
	I love it!
	They got every excuse under the sun for Pierre Poiliev being a political coward right now.
	Well, he can't come out and say he supports free speech because then they'll call him Trump-esque.
	Well, he can't come out and say that there shouldn't be men in women's sports because then they'll call him Trump-esque.
	Well, he can't come out and not start a fight with Trump because then they're going to call him Trump-esque and they're still calling him Mini-Trump.
	Every excuse under the sun for why he's not doing what he needs to do because if he doesn't, he won't get elected.
	He won't get elected if he doesn't do it.
	And they're gonna demonize him anyhow.
	Oh, Viva's not Canadian anymore?
	I'm still Canadian.
	I don't know if that's meant to be an insult or it's just a matter of fact that I'm living in the States, but I'm still a Canadian citizen.
	Carney now saying America is an important ally.
	No, Carney's stealing all of Pierre Poliev's plays.
	But the excuses that everyone comes up with is he's got to be unprincipled, cowardly, and not stand up for what his base wants him to stand up for because he might piss off the media that's already calling him a far-right extremist Trump supporter.
	So congratulations.
	I left Canada.
	I had the same fight with Aaron O'Toole where they're Promising to repeal Bill C-11 after the conservatives get elected.
	That was the online stream act.
	It was one of the censorship acts.
	I was like, oh, here's an idea.
	How about you just fight to prevent it from passing now instead of promising to repeal something, which if you ever got the reins of power, you might suddenly decide you want to keep there because it might be a good tool for you to retain power.
	absolutely no principles every excuse under the sun and people think it's more fruitful to vilify me and demonize me and call me a paid ppc shill instead of addressing the political cowardice coming from the leader of the so-called opposition all I found that graphic for you, if you'd like to see that.
	Wonderful. It's amazing.
	I'm gonna bring this back up here.
	Hold on, I'm gonna cough one second.
	Yes, by the way, I have a bit of a cold.
	I think I'm coming down with.
	Yeah, I've got a better version of it.
	No, that's good enough, man.
	This is the Toronto Star.
	This is Canada.
	You can't speak out against this.
	Toronto Star, I don't know how much they get from the government.
	This is printed press, so you know they got at least 600 million of a bailout.
	Toronto Star, if an unvaccinated person catches it from someone who is vaccinated, boo-hoo.
	Too bad.
	I have no empathy left for the willful unvaccinated.
	Let them die.
	I honestly don't care if they die from COVID, not even a little bit.
	Unvaccinated patients do not deserve ICU beds.
	At this point, who cares?
	Stick the unvaccinated in a tent outside and tend to them when staff has time.
	Simmering divide over who isn't vaccinated.
	I'm still reading the cover.
	It's a polarizing debate, but patience and understanding for those not getting shots is in short supply, as well as look to heal from pandemic, as we all look to heal from the pandemic.
	This is the Canadian media.
	Oh, but my goodness, just imagine if Pierre Polyev came out and said how atrocious that was.
	How insane it is that you are criminalizing, under the guise of mischief, lawful constitutional protestors.
	Imagine how more unpopular he'd be.
	My goodness, he'd be losing, he'd be losing, he'd only be at 10% in the polls.
	Right now he's at 12. Thank goodness he's doing this.
	It's working wonders.
	Prepared Citizen says, Viva, I was finally able to make time to get back in here for the live chat.
	The oral migraine you mentioned previously is called scintillating scotoma.
	I eliminate mine by making sure to increase my water and potassium intake on days where I have insufficient sleep and or caffeinated beverages.
	Well, that would be every day for me.
	Given how much caffeine you typically consume, I'd look into hydration sleep angle.
	Ask Grok how much extra water per milligram of caffeine Okay, I'll look for that in a second.
	And then we got this one.
	Verak says, Viva, section 58 of the most recent class action filing is trying to sue people who contributed to the convoy after February 4. Verak, thank you for reminding me because I almost forgot about this one.
	The class action lawsuit, which withstood a motion to dismiss.
	Class action, Ottawa, what was it?
	300 million?
	Look at this.
	They've got a dedicated web page for it.
	It's beautiful.
	Ottawa Class Action.
	Zexi Li vs.
	Chris Barber et al.
	I tweeted out there.
	It's amazing.
	Criminalized mischief.
	That court just gave the go-ahead, to some extent, to this bullshit $300 million class action lawsuit against the organizers, participants, and apparently donors, potentially.
	I love my community so much, I'm heartbroken.
	By the trauma that is being inflicted on me and my neighbors to feel like a prisoner in my own home by people who claim to stand for freedom.
	Oh, I'm sorry, Zexi.
	Weren't you just a prisoner in your own home for the last two and a half years under COVID?
	Weren't the businesses shut down for the last two and a half years because of COVID?
	I don't mind it when my government makes me a prisoner in my own home, literally.
	I don't know if they had a curfew in Ottawa, but we have one in Quebec.
	I don't mind when that happens.
	But when there's a protest outside, Ottawa had never been safer in my lifetime, and it will never be safer again in my lifetime.
	Listen to this.
	Recent developments.
	During the Freedom Convoy's occupation of downtown Ottawa, the plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction.
	When is this from?
	On March 13, 2023, the Ontario court...
	Ugh, this is nonsense.
	There was a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and the motion was dismissed.
	So now they get to proceed at least they haven't yet been certified.
	It's a class action that requires certification.
	But it survived a motion to dismiss.
	So now they get to proceed to the stage of potential certification for this class action for $300 million.
	Encryptus, see if you can pull up an article about that.
	It was, we don't need to get into more details on that.
	But it's just I don't remember if it's only $300 million, the lawsuit.
	Odin of the North said, these tariffs are effing fucking retarded.
	If they stay, we will have new two-party rule, Democrats versus Socialists.
	We were so close to ending the Democrat party, then he pulls this stunt.
	Odin of the North, I gotta disagree with you, but I'm gonna wait for George Gammon to get here for that because I appreciate when I don't know something and I think I understand it sufficiently just to ask the obvious questions, but we will get to there.
	King of Biltong says, you were awesome on Crowder today, Viva.
	Thank you very much.
	I was on Crowder earlier today.
	Talking about this in part, but we hadn't had this news when I was on Crowder earlier today.
	But that's what's coming out of Canada.
	So, the most peaceful protest you've ever seen.
	They have now ratified the pre-trial detention of Chris Barber and Tamara Leach.
	The absolutely, insanely onerous bail conditions that they got.
	They tried to lock her back up because she took a photo with one of the other participants, Tom Marazzo, at an event that she was allowed to go to by the judge.
	They shut her off of social media.
	They gagged her publicly.
	This is Canada.
	And then you've got people saying, well, Pierre, he really needs to buy his time.
	He can't come out and say this is all bad, because if he does, then he'll really lose the election.
	As it is now, he's just going to lose the election.
	Better to lose like a hero than lose like a coward.
	I would say it's even better to lose like a hero than win like a coward, but I think people might disagree with that.
	Now, I did say I was going to say something nice about Pierre Poirier.
	And here it goes.
	And I give it about five seconds for Kamala 2.0 Mark Carney to steal the idea.
	Huge news, says Melissa Lansman.
	I've opened invitation to Melissa Lansman.
	I know that Pierre Pollier probably can't come on the channel because I've got too much of a potty mouth and I've got too many incendiary tweets telling, you know, Justin Trudeau to go fuck himself.
	I appreciate that.
	I wouldn't even hold it against him.
	But my goodness, it would be awesome if he did.
	Melissa Lansman, Conservative MP, says huge news!
	Pierre Poitlièvre announces a Conservative government will axe the GST on purchases of made-in-Canada cars and trucks.
	This will save car buyers $2,500 on a $50,000 vehicle.
	This will save jobs in Canada, period.
	That's a great...
	That's... Do you know what's amazing about this?
	Do you notice how many times you see the word Trump?
	Zero. This is a good policy, That I agree with?
	That would encourage people to buy Canadian?
	By the way, do you know how many cars are made in Canada?
	I was actually mildly shocked because I didn't realize quite so many were.
	Hold on.
	Let me bring this out.
	I'm going to keep it back up here because I might want to come back to it.
	If you don't know how many cars were made in Canada.
	Which cars are made in Canada?
	It will surprise you.
	While we wait for Grok to think.
	GM. Chevrolet Silverado assembled at Oshawa Assembly in Oshawa, Ontario.
	Chevrolet Bright Drop Xevo electric commercial vans built in Ingersoll, Ontario.
	Honda Civic, which is one of the more popular cars you see out there.
	Sedan hybrid models produced at Honda of Canada manufacturing at Alliston, Ontario.
	Honda CRV.
	So you know what?
	Instead of doing something stupid, like imposing a 100% tariff Retaliatory tariff on Tesla.
	Because you still like EVs.
	And you still like Made in America, I presume.
	Maybe you don't anymore.
	Maybe you prefer Made in China.
	And I don't know what components of these cars are made in China.
	But maybe what you do instead of tariffing Tesla, you incentivize to buy local.
	It's an amazing thing.
	So, I said I would give him credit.
	I like it.
	It's a good move.
	Why Melissa Lansman has become something of a de facto spokesperson for Tesla.
	Pierre Poiliev, instead of Pierre Poiliev going and doing podcasts and talking about this Viva Voce, bringing up to the world's knowledge that Mark Carney is a globalist whore who has been at the helm of the Trudeau campaign for five years.
	No, don't do that.
	They might call him a far-right extremist if he goes on Patrick, bet David.
	They might call him Trump-esque, even though they call him Trump-esque at every term.
	I think that's all we got from Canada, people.
	Encryptus, are there any questions that I should have asked?
	Or that have been asked that I think Pierre F things up on his own.
	Sorry, don't care if you like him or not, says encryptus.
	Sorry, I didn't read the name before I started reading the comment.
	And then you drop find that article for you about the $300 million lawsuit.
	Oh, yeah, stick that in there in the private.
	Do you text?
	Text? Yeah, I let people get mad at me like, hey, by the way, accuse me of whatever you want.
	Let's even I won't even say it out loud, because I want to snip it and clip it.
	Everything you say about me could be true.
	It doesn't change the fact that Pierre is screwing everything up.
	All right, if he was a coward, he left to Canada.
	First of all, I ran for the federal party, the PPC admittedly, to try to actually get the voice out there.
	2021 to 2025, we are four years later in the rubbish that is the Canadian political landscape, and it hasn't gotten any better.
	It's just gotten exponentially worse, and I dare say it's because you don't have the A real conservative leader who's adopting proudly real conservative principles because he's afraid of pushing away fence-sitting liberals?
	Here we go.
	$300 million.
	Oh, this is from 2024.
	No, 2023.
	This one's going to be old.
	It doesn't matter.
	They filed a motion to try to dismiss it.
	They said it's a constitutional protected right, whatever, but it doesn't matter.
	So congratulations.
	Yes, giving a no GST on the purchase of Canadian vehicles.
	Well done.
	It's value added to Canadians will increase value for Canadians will save Canadians money.
	You don't have to mention the word Trump.
	You don't have to mention a reciprocal or other type of tariff against Tesla and you don't have to look like flagrant hypocrites because you're starting to 100% tariff, the EVs that you say are critically necessary for the survival of the human race.
	All right.
	Now, what else?
	Let me see here.
	I'm just going to go to crumble and see what's going on here.
	I put some coin down on several Maytag products last month.
	They are priced.
	Okay, fine.
	It's a great idea.
	If only, could, how can I not, how come I'm not seeing the full chat here?
	The conservative party is bought W E F China shits is lady magic too.
	I don't, I don't, no, I mean, there are less, first of all, Pierre Poiliev is not, you know, he's one of the few that doesn't even have a landing page on the WEF, so I wouldn't accuse him of that.
	I know people, first of all, people accuse Maxime Bernier of being WEF globalist.
	I don't think the Conservative Party has that particular issue.
	Certainly not to the extent that the Liberals do.
	But my goodness, I mean, it's, it's, you're gonna, you're gonna slow walk yourself into a defeat.
	Because you're afraid to stand up for anything.
	And like I said on Twitter, it's great.
	Okay, so he can't talk about this because they'll call on Trump.
	Great, you've allowed your adversary to dictate your strategy.
	How do you think that's going to work out?
	Now talking about adverse strategy.
	Eric Adams people, we're going to come back to America, then we're going to do the tariffs when Gammon gets here.
	And I'm going to have, oh, and apparently the mix up was, I've agreed to moderate a debate tonight between Roy Gutman and Scott Horton.
	You may remember Scott Horton from such debates as the Israeli-Palestinian debate with me, which wasn't really a debate.
	I just wanted to explore Scott Horton's views.
	In as much as I'm moderating and I'm not gonna be, you know, it's at seven o'clock tonight.
	It's gonna be cross-streamed across a number of platforms.
	In as much as people might think I'm gonna have it in for Scott because of his political views, A, I wouldn't even on a normal day.
	I think I'm gonna be more inclined, more amenable to Scott's perspective, which is, No interventionism, no regime change.
	And at the risk of stating up front where I'm inclined to go with this because of positions I've taken in the past, I'm curious to hear Roy Gutman's position on this.
	Seven o'clock.
	But apparently what happened is I have two live streams, or I had them set up simultaneously, so the wrong one went to the front page of Rumble, but we'll have to tinker with that.
	It's not often I do two live streams in one day, but today's the day.
	Eric Adams, people.
	Yesterday we talked at length about what I believe to be a politically motivated corrupt dismissal with prejudice of the charges against Eric Adams that were brought by a Biden administration, which were dismissed by a Biden-appointed judge because Trump wanted to dismiss without prejudice so that, according to the judge, Trump could, for political reasons, hold as a sword of Democles over Eric Adams' head the, what I felt to have been, bullshit charges from the get-go.
	I agree with the judge's decision, even though I think it's corrupt motivated reason for which he did it.
	I agree with dismissing with prejudice, because I think the charges were garbage.
	The judge, who said, it's very funny that the timing of this happens, and I don't know when Eric Adams announced that he's going to run as an independent, I think it was temporally after this judge said, Trump is using these pending charges to coerce behavior out of Eric Adams.
	And now I got to think about this, actually, is it Beneficial or prejudicial to the Democrats that Eric Adams has announced that he's running as an independent, but the bottom line, after that wonderful, insightful analysis, if you read it, listened to it, heard me talk, Eric Adams has now announced that he's running, but running as an independent in the New York City mayoral race.
	Where is it?
	It's right here.
	I had to put it in the archive link.
	From Politico, which is Politico trash, but I want to hear what the enemies are saying.
	Eric Adams ditches Democratic Party, will run for re-election as an independent.
	This is the day after that judge, what was his name?
	Judge Ho, what was his first name?
	I don't remember, maybe it was Justin?
	Doesn't matter.
	It was a day after a Biden-appointed judge dismissed with prejudice so that nobody could ever bring those charges against Eric Adams again, charges that his appointing boss brought.
	Before the election said, this is all this is used for political coercion.
	And if we don't dismiss with prejudice, Trump is going to use them to coerce action, cooperation, compliance out of Eric Adams.
	And the day after Eric Adams says, I'm not running with the Democrats anymore.
	So who does that?
	Who does that help encrypt us?
	We'll think about that in a second.
	The mayor has been at odds with his party and wants time to recover from now-dismissed federal charges.
	Eric Adams.
	Mayor Eric Adams is opting out of the New York City's Democratic primary and running for re-election as an independent, embarking on narrow path.
	Embarking on narrow path as he further isolates himself from the city's dominant political party.
	Someone's gonna tell me if I'm wrong.
	I believe this hurts the Democrats, and I believe he's doing this out of spite.
	Not out of spite in any negative way, but it proves quite clearly that Trump didn't need the sword of Democles of those charges in order to get some form of cooperation out of Eric Adams.
	I think Eric Adams has had the full awakening of what a corrupt shithole his so-called Democratic Party truly is.
	Because he's going to pull some Democrat votes, he's going to split it, but is that going to have any impact?
	I have to think about this.
	I'm not sure I understand it well enough to have a definitive opinion.
	The mayor confirmed his plans exclusively to Politico.
	In an interview Monday, Adam said he would mount a real independent campaign that relies on a solid base of people outside Manhattan with an emphasis on ethnic minorities who boosted him to victory four years ago.
	He lamented how the bribery charges federal prosecutors hit him He lamented how the bribery charges federal prosecutors hit him with in September, which a judge dismissed Wednesday, handcuffed him, and he promised to be quote, uninhibited on the campaign trail.
	Quote, I have been this racehorse that has been held back, he added.
	I want peacock!
	I want to fly!
	This is so unnatural for me.
	The result is likely to be chaotic spectacle in the nation's largest city, which shifted slightly to the right last November.
	The showdown between a pugnacious mayor who has irrevocable ties.
	God, irrevocable.
	He's an apostate.
	Encryptus, when were we talking about this?
	That the people who defect from the party become apostates.
	Elon Musk, Donald Trump.
	They become worse than anybody on earth.
	Immediate outcasts.
	Irrevocable ties to President Donald Trump, winner of the Democratic Party, which Andrew Cuomo is leading.
	Adam plans to submit to the The requisite 3750 signatures due May 27. Adam spoke optimistically of his plan despite the enormous challenge persuading New Yorkers who typically pick Democrats to select a politically unaffiliated incumbent with a 20% approval rating defending a record of criticizing his own party more than he has Trump and running at a financial disadvantage after being denied more than $4 million in public matching funds.
	It's amazing.
	I want to know why that actually happened.
	I'm going to open that up as a separate window.
	I'm realistic to the race and I'm not running on the Democratic line.
	It's just not realistic to turn around my numbers and to run a good campaign from where we are right now.
	It hurts like hell.
	The maneuver offers Adam more time to recover from the reputational fallout.
	They've got to remind everybody, by the way, that was the reason why Biden brought those charges.
	Retribution because Eric Adams broke rank, broke file, and dared to defy Biden on his immigration policies.
	It gives the mayor a chance to connect with the city's growing population.
	It's all a gambit.
	Absent extraordinary circumstances like the crime wave of the 1990s that lifted Republican Rudy Giuliani, a former prosecutor to office, or the September 11th terror attacks that elevated Mike Bloomberg, and see how that turned out for him, New York generally elects Democrats to lead their city.
	It's an amazing thing, actually.
	They write it, and they're so close to understanding.
	So horrible crime leads to a Republican who resolves the crime crisis.
	But terrorism, I mean, that's a little bit beyond the scope of New York City.
	But horrible crime that results from shitty Democrat policies results in the election of Rudy Giuliani, who fixes that city.
	Because I remember what it was like in the 90s.
	I went down there in 1996 with a school trip.
	And they were like, oh, dude, you don't...
	First of all, you don't go out at night, but...
	Oh, okay.
	Well, he's short on funds and friends.
	They've got to remind everybody, by the way, Democrats, you hate them.
	Because he suffered reputational damage from the charges, and he's short on funds and friends.
	He's got a...
	Okay, whatever.
	So that's what's going on with Eric Adams.
	I don't think we need to read the rest of this, but what was the issue about him being denied funds?
	I didn't hear this.
	New York City's mayor campaign denied millions in public matching funds.
	When is this from?
	December 16, 2024.
	Or is it the 16th, the 12th day of the 16th month?
	Election officials on Monday denied a request from New York City Mayor Eric Adams' 2025 campaign for millions in matching dollars.
	The decision, based on bookkeeping irregularities and a federal criminal case against Adams involving straw donors, deals a body blow to the beleaguered mayor.
	Wow, do they fight effing dirty when they fight.
	You think they didn't know that was going to happen when they decided to do that and put those charges against Eric Adams?
	So that's the news from Eric Adams in America.
	Do we want to cover like the lesser who gives a sweet bugger all news?
	I think we're going to in a second because we have a few minutes until...
	Encryptus, I heard a noise.
	What happened?
	Yeah, before you do that, I dropped a couple really good chats into our private chat there.
	One from Rumble and one from Locals.
	Can I...
	So here's a default thing.
	I can't bring up the private...
	I can't highlight the private questions that I'll request.
	Um, uh, rumble studio to fix in crypto says, great question from Hey Viva!
	Since anything illegals have in this country was gotten through illegal activity, how fast would they self-deport if we used civil forfeiture to take everything they own?
	I don't know, couldn't venture a guess on that, and I don't like civil forfeiture, period.
	And I would not like to use something that I don't like only because it can be abused for these very reasons against people that I decide it should be used against.
	The civil forfeiture, I mean, flag that one for Friday.
	I'll pick Barnes's big brain on that.
	The civil forfeiture is legalized theft.
	Nothing short of it.
	Abusive, intended to crush people while they go through civil proceedings or while they go through proceedings.
	So I don't like it.
	And I certainly don't like it because it can be No, it was by Biden's DOJ, the SDNY.
	Excuse me.
	It's by the most corrupt district on earth that they decided to do, you know...
	It was never Biden's bidding in the first place, but I'd say Biden brought those charges because he thought they were good.
	The judge who was appointed by Biden says we got to dismiss him now with prejudice because Trump is going to exploit them for political pressure?
	Horse crap.
	All right.
	Now, the one thing, the news that we're gonna...
	Just very quickly, because it's a dabble in the...
	What's the word?
	Flippant. Where's Natalie Winters' tweet?
	I saw Natalie Winters at the event in Washington, D.C. That part of my brain, it's not shut off.
	I'm a married man, so I don't have these thoughts.
	But Natalie Winters has a...
	She's made the headlines for being well-dressed and an attractive young woman.
	And by the way, she's young.
	I think she's 21. Encryptus.
	22. What is it called?
	National Press Club.
	Now, I've asked who were some of the notable members of the National Press Club, because I don't know.
	I don't care.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	Just to get back to the article, because it's, you know, it's hard-hitting journalism.
	The White House correspondent known for wearing provocative attire?
	They had a trans person flashing his fake titties on the White House lawn.
	Now, admittedly, people took issue with that.
	And rightly so.
	I don't think I've ever seen Natalie wear anything provocative, unless you're a dirty old man that looks at young fledgling.
	Hey, little girl, that's mighty provocative.
	You got that nice dress.
	You got that skinny wearing perfume.
	That's mighty provocative perfume.
	Don't worry private provocative has been denied membership to one of Washington DC's most prestigious social clubs for journalists.
	Go F yourselves with your prestigious bullshit clubs.
	I guarantee you that she's more proud of the rejection.
	It's like being denied a Nobel Peace Prize.
	You're going to be you didn't get a Nobel Peace Prize, which was given it to such other prestigious people as Yasser Arafat to think of what who's the other one that I think they gave one to did they give one to Netanyahu?
	Encryptus fact check me on that one.
	I have to be fair in my in my critique in terms of who People who did not do it.
	Oh, they gave one to Obama.
	We can all agree he didn't deserve that.
	National Press Club.
	The century-old association where reporters and other media professionals hear from senior government officials has turned down a membership application from Natalie Winters, the 24-year-old house correspondent and co-host of Steve Bannon's War on Battleground.
	Winters took to her social media to post a screenshot of the email she received from the club.
	Thank you for your interest in that.
	Okay, fine.
	Winters wrote on X that she was denied despite being, quote, hosting one of the largest shows on the right All that anybody says when they say that this is provocative is that...
	I'm not even allowed saying it.
	George, how you doing?
	I'm sorry.
	What a time for you to come in.
	No problem.
	Yeah, just look at that picture.
	Wow. What kind of live stream did I come on here?
	A woman with breasts.
	That's, I mean, it's just, it's crazy.
	I mean, I can understand for the side that, you know, doesn't know what a woman is and they see one like, oh, that's provocative.
	Turn around and go home.
	That's the lighthearted news of the day.
	George, thank you for coming on, on such short notice.
	I should have gotten my Rebel Capitalist shirt.
	It's upstairs.
	I'll see if I can get someone to get it.
	George, for those who don't know who you are, we're getting into the tariff question, but for those who don't know your credentials, please tell them what your credentials are.
	In as much as they might think you have any political bias, your brain is big and sharp enough to be objective in analysis.
	Who are you?
	Well, I almost flunked out of high school.
	I've never taken an econ class in my life.
	Nor have I ever taken a finance class.
	Shit, this is starting off badly.
	No, seriously, but that is true.
	I started a YouTube channel in 2019 called George Gammon where I do whiteboard videos on macroeconomics.
	I'm totally self-taught.
	As you can tell, I retired in 2012 and I just I became completely and totally obsessed with macroeconomics.
	And then in 2021, I started another channel where I do live streams called the Rebel Capitals Channel, where we not only talk about macroeconomics, but we also talk about topics like freedom, liberty, free market capitalism.
	I got my channel taken down in 2021 for talking about what I call the Cervasius sickness.
	You guys can probably guess what my position is there.
	I forgot we're on Rumble.
	I forgot.
	Oh yeah.
	Oh yeah, and by the way, you know what's crazy is on YouTube, so I've got the two main channels, like I said, the whiteboard videos on macroeconomics and then the live streams where I kind of just free flow my thoughts on what's happening in the news.
	And with the whiteboard videos, it's more just explaining kind of what's going on with quantitative easing, like how does that work, just as an example.
	I went over this new Fed's bailout facility that they're proposing where they're proposing to bail out these hedge funds and you know what the hedge funds are doing that might require a bailout.
	There's this thing called the basis trade.
	So I'm kind of just explaining these things and kind of doing it a lighthearted way.
	And what I do is I dub those channels into different languages.
	So as an example, I've got for the whiteboards, I've got a Russian channel, I've got a French, I've got Hindi, I've got Mandarin, Spanish.
	And it's just the exact same video, but it's just me speaking Spanish as an example, just through AI.
	And I just got the Russian channel on whiteboards, macroeconomics, that was taken down by YouTube, and the rationale they gave, no strikes, no warnings, no nothing, it's just the rationale they gave me was misinformation.
	And then I went ahead and did an appeal, With YouTube and they denied it.
	They probably denied it in less time than the actual stream was because that's how it works with them.
	And this is on economics.
	Now, by the way, just because I happen to know this because I'm an economic master, that quantitative easing is the monetary policy tool used by central banks to stimulate the economy when traditional methods like lowering interest rates are no longer effective.
	It involves the central bank Purchasing large amounts of financial assets such as government bonds or mortgage backed securities from commercial banks.
	I'm just going to finish reading the AI summary and other financials.
	Sounds like you're reading the AI.
	Oh, no, I certainly am.
	Just, you know, simplify that AI summary of quantitative easing.
	I don't know if it's going to be relevant to the tariff discussion, but what the hell is I know we talked about it the last, I think, What the hell is quantitative easing, now that you mention it?
	Oh, it's not even that tough.
	It's just the Fed going out into the marketplace through a primary dealer and just buying treasuries or mortgage-backed securities.
	Okay. They buy them.
	They've got to pay...
	No, I'm sorry.
	They receive in...
	Who are they buying them from?
	Just... It's an open market operation is what they call it.
	So, it's just whoever the seller is.
	So, if the seller is a bank, then they're buying from a bank.
	If the seller is just a non-bank entity, average Joe and Jane, We're doing it again this year, so you're more than welcome to come down.
	I think you brought your son last time.
	He's welcome.
	Barnes is going to be there.
	And we've got guys like Kiyosaki, Robert Kiyosaki, Kenny McElroy with real estate, Jeff Snyder that's an expert in the Eurodollar system, Brent Johnson, a lot of the, Chris McIntosh, a lot of the people in the macro space and the real estate.
	And to your point, we're just trying to give people better financial education and help them prepare for whatever is coming our way in 2025 and that they can get their tickets at rebelcapitalslive.com.
	Okay. And now we're into this, the tariffs.
	I mean, I'll ask the first question in your, in your expert, whatever people want to call it, opinion.
	Are they, is it a good move or is it a bad move?
	And irrespective of your answer to that, what is the argument for why it's a bad move?
	Okay. So what I really want to encourage your audience to do is never start off by thinking of economic policies in terms of good or bad, because they're going to be both.
	They're always, always, always going to be both.
	One of my favorite economists, Thomas Sowell, says, there are no solutions, there are only trade-offs.
	So you always have to do a cost-benefit analysis.
	So for the tariffs, there are absolutely 100% going to be certain businesses and individuals that benefit.
	But there are going to be costs.
	So then what you have to do, as objectively as possible, As you have to look at all the variables and then come to a conclusion as to on net balance, is this going to be positive or negative for society at large?
	And what we do, Viva, and we do this in just human nature.
	So we do this in politics, we do this in economics.
	We always start off with a bias and then unfortunately if our team, let's say we're on the red team, And they favor tariffs, then we're just going to look at the benefits and we're going to totally ignore the costs.
	Or if we're part of the blue team and we don't like tariffs, then we're going to completely ignore the benefits and we're going to solely focus on the costs.
	That is the opposite.
	Of what you want to do, and that's what I want to encourage your audience to always go through that proper cost-benefit analysis and think about things in terms of trade-offs.
	So on that note, what Trump did yesterday was quite remarkable.
	I mean, over 180 countries and territories, he put a quote-unquote reciprocal Tariff on and the reason I say risk quote-unquote is because the calculation or a lot of the tariffs had nothing to do with other tariffs because it's it's kind of the narrative where okay if Let's just say France has a 20% tariff You know if you kind of combine everything together if they have a 20% tariff on
	the United States well a reciprocal tariff Would mean that we are going to put a 20% tariff on them.
	And I think a lot of people that are in favor of tariffs thought, OK, this is a good idea.
	That was their rationale.
	And you can understand why.
	But what we got is nothing really like that at all.
	And in some cases, the tariffs are almost strictly based on the trade deficit that we have with the individual country.
	And then for that, as far as I can tell, the calculation that was used, and again, this is kind of, we don't have all the pieces of the puzzle because they weren't that specific, the administration.
	So in terms of a country where they just focused on the trade deficit, I think what they did is they just simply said, okay, Viva, you are a country and I am a country.
	You send me $10 worth of goods every single year and I send you $5.
	So that means you send me a hundred percent more stuff than I send you.
	And so what I'm going to do is I'm going to put a hundred percent tariff on you.
	And then what he did in addition to that is he came out and said, okay, well, that's my first calculation.
	Then the second calculation is just timesing by 0.5% because his rationale is literally because I'm a nice guy.
	And we're like, okay.
	So in some cases, my point here, in some cases, when you look at that chart that you just pulled up that showed the specific reciprocal tariff amounts, in some cases they are in regards to a tariff.
	In other cases, they have nothing to do with a tariff and they have everything to do with the specific trade deficit.
	And then in other cases, and this is where It gets really interesting for me because we get into the psychology as to why he's actually doing this and what his endgame is.
	He's doing it, from what I can tell, just because he is saying the country is somehow cheating.
	Now, how is he defining cheating?
	Or what constitutes cheating?
	I don't know.
	I don't think so.
	Go ahead.
	No, I could hypothesize an example.
	I mean, what I would argue he means by cheating, which is, you know, Vietnam, Cambodia are some would argue fronts for China.
	And so China circumvents, um, you know, whatever tariffs they had by going to Vietnam and Cambodia and manufacturing things like, uh, panels, solar panels as the, as the prime example.
	So that's what I would imagine he means by cheating.
	But I guess it's, it's, it's he's, when he says the word cheating, he uses it, uh, Sometimes it means a VAT tax.
	I've heard him talk about it in that context.
	I've heard him talk about it in the context that you were just referencing.
	I've heard him talk about it in the context that they're not paying their fair share for military.
	So it's kind of...
	It's fluid in some ways.
	It's funny because to leave it fluid like that and it gives them options to pick and choose, You know, if you like him, you say it's a good strategy.
	If you don't like him, you say he refuses to hammer down the exact reason.
	How do we respond to this?
	Yeah, but my point, my earlier point was it could be both.
	And I want people to, you know, just have an open mind to that possibility.
	And if it is both, then we have to determine if on net balance it's a positive or negative for American society or the economy at large.
	Now, so getting back to the psychology, When I actually looked at a couple countries, such as Australia, such as Singapore, and Chile, and there's a few others there, I can't remember off the top of my head, where they have no tariffs against the United States, and we run a trade surplus with them, and he still put a tariff on those countries.
	So to me, based on what he's saying his objectives are, That didn't make a lot of sense.
	And just to give you a really funny story there that I just love telling because it cracks me up every time I tell it.
	I was going through the list that you just brought up there, Viva, on yesterday's live stream.
	And I noticed, you know, all the way at the bottom, there's a 10% tariff on the herd islands.
	Encryptus, can we bring that one back up?
	That's the list of all the countries.
	I saw Bosnia-Herzegovina and Congo.
	I can imagine what we get from those countries.
	I don't know in what volume.
	There it is right there.
	I'm circling something that I can't circle.
	It's the second to last on the list.
	It's the Herd and McDonald Islands.
	Is that a country?
	Here's the great part about it.
	This is the honest truth.
	So I looked into it and I found on Twitter, a couple of people mentioned it, that the Heard and McDonald Islands have a population, Viva, of zero.
	Literally zero.
	They're right off the coast of Antarctica or something like that.
	And the only living creature on the island are penguins.
	Oh now I get the meme!
	I saw a meme of Trump saying you'll pay the tariffs and it was a bunch of penguins saying no thank you.
	That's what they're talking about.
	Oh that's well at least now I get the joke.
	See that's where some of the memes are failing because they presume knowledge that not everybody has.
	Okay, so that, hey, by the way, left, that's a good meme.
	So anyway, not that that really matters.
	And I'm sure he's doing that because they're part of Australia.
	And I'm sure that if he left that loophole open that a lot of countries might try to, who knows, incorporate in the herd islands and therefore somehow, you know, get around those tariffs.
	So I'm assuming he's doing that.
	I just think it's absolutely hilarious.
	So anyway, getting back to it there.
	So The fact that he put tariffs on Australia or Singapore or a lot of these countries that do not have tariffs against the United States and we have a trade surplus with them, so by his definition we're cheating them, it brought me to the conclusion that most likely, no one can get inside of his head, but most likely what he's trying to do here in his mind is just make sure that we have a better deal.
	And I'm not talking about that we have a better deal that we have now.
	And I don't really, even to be honest with you, think he's considering the trade-offs back in the domestic economy.
	I think he just wants to feel good that we have a better deal than we had before.
	So as an example, the fact that we now have a 10% tariff on Australia and they have a 0% tariff on us, I think in Trump's mind, that means that we have a better deal.
	And therefore, I did a better job.
	And whereas, you know, some people have come up with the hypothesis that Trump was kind of playing 5D chess here in order to bring down all tariffs globally.
	And I hope that's true.
	I hope that's true.
	Well, to say, some people say it's either stupid or irrational.
	He'll say, I'm making a concession.
	This isn't necessarily only about trade deficits.
	This is about No tariffs whatsoever, which we'll have.
	I'm just trying to see what America sells to Australia.
	It's 34 some odd billion versus 16 some odd billion.
	And it looks like transportation equipment, machinery, industrial supplies, chemicals.
	So not massive, but it looks like it's agricultural products.
	And that which is related to agricultural products, petroleum.
	Yeah. So, but again, in that case, if he were trying to just reduce, because let's say he's a free market guy.
	And he was trying to bring down tariffs globally because he thought that's what was best for, not just the United States, but that was best for all 8 billion people in the world.
	Then I don't know why he would tariff Australia.
	I understand why he would tariff China, and I understand why he would tariff the UK.
	And the reason I bring up the UK is because we have a surplus with them, but they have tariffs on our goods.
	You see what I'm saying there?
	I'm just guessing, but I'm assuming that his main objective isn't necessarily from a free market standpoint, I want to reduce global tariffs.
	I think it's more that I just want to feel good that that we have a quote unquote better deal than we had before.
	And that in his mind, the way he quantifies that is, do we have higher tariffs on them than they have on us?
	I'm looking to see, so the countries that have a surplus, or the countries with which America has a surplus seem to be Hong Kong, Netherlands, South and Central America as a region, Australia and the UK.
	So it's agricultural stuff to Australia.
	What accounts for the surplus in sales to Hong Kong?
	I would assume financial stuff, but I'm not, I don't know.
	And I'll see if I can get that answer.
	Energy, maybe.
	It says financial services, royalties and license fees, transportation and travel and tourism.
	And it seems to be relatively similar with the UK.
	Okay, so I guess the argument of the thinking is it makes no sense to impose tariffs on a country with which you have a surplus.
	And a zero tariff if your main objective is taking that free market approach that you want to reduce, your endgame, is you want to reduce global tariffs.
	Now, I think if he was taking that approach, what he would do is he would start to tariff countries that have tariffs against us and use that as a negotiating tactic, you know, regardless of what the first round of tariffs, you know, what the calculation was, and use that as a negotiating tactic to bring down their tariffs and then to bring down our tariffs that we have against them to the point where it's basically free trade between the two countries.
	Well, now that you mention it, and I guess we can look up the question, but Trade surplus being one thing, what tariffs do Hong Kong, Australia, Netherlands impose on American goods?
	So Australia, none.
	Because we have a free trade agreement with them.
	Okay. So the only thing I can think of there, if I'm trying to steel man his argument, would be they are quote-unquote cheating, maybe because they have a VAT, or maybe because we help them out with military, something like that.
	Okay. Interesting.
	I'm gonna mull that over because actually I had that was not even a thought that had occurred to me because I wasn't information that I had.
	Yeah, we're looking at this through the lens of manufacturing, taking this back home to the domestic economy.
	I want to encourage people to not only think about the workers involved here, but I also want people to think about the consumers.
	So because at the end of the day, the workers are consumers.
	And at the end of the day, you know, All 350 million people in the United States are consumers, and so you can't just say, okay, this is going to bring back 10,000 manufacturing jobs, therefore it is good.
	It is good for those people to get the job, and it might be good for that business, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's good for society at large.
	It all depends, right?
	So an example of this that I like to use, Viva, and I actually used it in a whiteboard video This morning, so it's kind of fresh in my mind, is peanuts.
	Now, I didn't even know this before doing the research, but I wanted to try to find some tariffs that the United States had prior to Trump.
	So this would precede 2017.
	And we have a 100% tariff on peanuts, peanut imports, above and beyond a certain level.
	So as an example, I don't know if Brazil's a peanut producer, but let's just say they are.
	So if Brazil imports, let's just say 500 pounds of peanuts, then they pay like a 5% tariff or something like that.
	But if they import over, or if they export, we import over, let's just say 500 pounds, then they pay a 100% tariff.
	And that is because they want, we need to fulfill a certain demand potentially, but we don't want to drown out the local market, or at least bankrupt the local market.
	Would be the rationale?
	That's correct.
	Because what you're doing, it's the same argument for tariffs, if you're looking at it through the lens of manufacturing jobs and all these things.
	Because you're going to protect American industry, and therefore you're going to protect those workers.
	By creating an additional cost or an additional tax for the people that are bringing peanuts into the United or people that are exporting peanuts into the United States.
	And therefore, we're going to pretty much exclusively use peanuts that are manufactured here or a lot of times they'll subside the cost.
	So that means more money is going to the pocket of the actual producers.
	So it's protectionism.
	Right? And this is basically the argument if you look at the domestic economy for these tariffs outside of a negotiating tactic.
	So, right now, we have 4,900 peanut farmers in the United States.
	So, you could say that if we didn't have those 100% tariffs, then a lot of those peanut farmers would probably go out of business.
	And you're absolutely right.
	You are absolutely right.
	And they would lose their farm, and this may have been a farm that's been in their family for 200 years, and we all know the arguments for this, okay?
	But what we have to look at, that's the benefit at what cost.
	So now what we're doing is we're increasing the jar of peanut butter.
	We're increasing the cost, let's say, by $2.
	I'll just throw that out there to keep the example simple here.
	Now I looked it up, and in the United States, We buy, as Americans, we buy 578 million jars of peanut butter every single year.
	So let's just assume that this is adding $2 of cost.
	That's $1.1 billion that is coming out of the pocket of the average Joe and Jane.
	And I would argue it's disproportionately affecting the poor and middle class because that's taking up a larger percentage of their paycheck.
	And we're doing this just to make sure that 4,900 peanut farmers Don't struggle or don't go out of business.
	Now if you take the 1.1 billion and you divide by 4900, that's about $224,000 per year per peanut farmer.
	So it would be far more efficient and easier on the taxpayer if we just gave them $100,000 a year and told them not to do anything.
	And then let that benefit accrue to the consumers that were buying those jars of peanut butter, it would save the taxpayer theoretically $124,000 a year.
	So I'm not saying, you know, I don't want to make up people's mind here on tariffs, but what I do want to encourage people to do is think about it from all angles, right?
	And it's not just tariffs are good for the US economy.
	Maybe they are.
	Maybe they aren't.
	You've got to look at the impact on workers, and then you've got to look at the impact on consumers as well, and then determine, you know, based on those two variables and those inputs, if it's a net positive or a net benefit.
	Or excuse me, a net positive or a net negative.
	The idea, to enter a world that's tariff-free, that would be free trade in its purest form.
	Just so I understand, that's not wrong to say, right?
	I think that's right, yeah.
	Okay. Uh, so by imposing tariffs, I mean, first things first is why would there be, uh, why would there be countries upon which we haven't imposed any tariffs whatsoever in the first place?
	Like why certain countries no tariff?
	Why would we not want a tariff on a country?
	No, no, no.
	Why would there, why would there have been a case where there's some countries that have massive tariffs and other countries that have none at all?
	I mean, does it, is it not reflective to some extent of what we even get from those countries in the first place?
	Well, most of these tariffs, it's like handing out visas.
	I think it's a pissing match between politicians, unfortunately, at the end of the day.
	But to be specific here, your question is, if Argentina has a high tariff on us, why don't we have a high tariff on them?
	That would be a better way of phrasing a terribly phrased question, yes.
	Okay, so the answer to that question is, who are we hurting and who are we benefiting?
	Right? Because if we have a tariff on Argentina, then that means it's the same thing as the peanut tariff.
	Right? If, let's say, Brazil has a 0% tariff on peanuts going to Brazil from the United States, but we have a 100% tariff, you know, aren't we winning?
	Don't we have the advantage?
	Isn't that a better deal for the United States?
	Well, it is if you're a U.S. peanut farmer.
	But it isn't necessarily a good deal if you're a U.S. peanut consumer.
	So basically, I mean, look, the oversimplification then is whatever the tariff is, it adds the cost to people who want to buy that.
	If it's if it's exorbitant, let's just say it's a thousand percent tariff on peanuts.
	Well, people will just stop eating peanuts.
	It's either too expensive to buy locally and too expensive to bring in because of the tariffs.
	So people just stop buying peanuts.
	Right. And not knowing the details on all of these tariffs, might this be a method of just This is a great point.
	And what I talk about on my channel all the time is trying to go through the thought experiment And asking the question, what is wealth?
	What is wealth?
	Right? So most people, if you ask them that question, they would say, well, it's dollars in my checking account, or it's my income with my job, it's maybe the amount of gold I have, because gold is real money, or it's Bitcoin, or it's silver, it's something like this.
	But when you actually think about it, wealth is goods and services.
	That's all it is.
	Because if you're on a deserted island, let's say, and you have a chest full of a billion dollars, but all you have are a couple coconut trees and sand and salt water, you are poor.
	Even though you have that chest full of 1 billion dollars, why?
	Because you don't have any stuff.
	Well, it's sort of like I always say about gold is like, gold is good.
	You can't eat gold.
	And if the shit hits the fan, good luck chiseling off, you know, $5 worth of gold of a gold coin.
	But why would you chisel off?
	Because you need the stuff.
	You need that.
	So I agree that it would be nice if we lived in a Culture that was less driven by consumerism.
	But that's not, when I say that wealth is goods and services, that's not really what I'm referring to.
	Because if we have more goods and services, if we have more stuff, Viva, what's gonna happen in a free market is that's gonna lower the cost, right?
	But usually what you have, and the late 1800s is a perfect example of this, is you have nominal wages going up.
	So you have nominal wages going up, but you have the price of stuff going down.
	And the only way that can happen is if there's more stuff, not less stuff.
	So then what ends up happening is the purchasing power increases.
	But it increases disproportionately for the poor and middle class, which gives them more time off, more time to spend with their family, which gives them a better quality of life and a higher standard of living.
	So we have to start, our starting point, If our goal is to increase the standard of living for Americans, our starting point has to be, is this creating more stuff or less stuff?
	Even though we might not want to encourage that consumerism.
	It's not about consumerism.
	It's about increasing the purchasing power to increase the quality of life for Americans.
	Well, I mean, I guess one question would be, is there any Is there any statistical correlation between the absence of tariffs or disproportionate tariffs on cheap made-in-China crap and quality of life?
	I mean, and I do say, like, I say, you go to Walmart, you get a one of those shitty Zebco fishing rods, and it does what you need to do for 50 bucks, as opposed to buying a made-in-America rod, which is a hundred and some odd bucks and performs better, but is only so good you need a fishing rod to be.
	The flip side, is it not just a question of tailoring out over time or tapering out over time the disproportion?
	But if I can get it made in China for cheap or we can figure out how to make it cheap back home and that will take some time.
	But there will never be that impetus so long as we have these imbalances and allows you to buy it for cheap in China.
	Who don't respect civil rights, human rights, whatever work conditions and that.
	We need to figure out a way to be more efficient back home.
	And it might never be on par with a country that doesn't care about the environment or human rights.
	so this is a great point.
	So, can we do that back in the United States?
	The answer is yes.
	The answer is absolutely yes.
	So, let's just think through one example of a tariff yesterday.
	I think it was Vietnam.
	We had a quote-unquote reciprocal tariff there of 47%.
	So, if you look at CNBC, they're talking about how this could have a huge negative impact on Nike.
	And I'm assuming a lot of retailers, or let's just say this really impacts the shoe industry.
	So, within the next six, let's say these tariffs stick, within the next six months, a year, I mean, you could go to Foot Locker in your local mall and it could look like a grocery store in 2020, where the shelves are pretty much completely barren, except for, you know, a couple shoe brands that might be manufactured in the United States.
	That's definitely a possibility.
	Now, does that short term give the consumer, the American, a lot less choice?
	Does that raise their prices?
	Does that potentially lower their standard of living?
	Yes, it absolutely does.
	But to your point, does that also incentivize over five years for that manufacturing to come back to the United States from Vietnam?
	Possibly, absolutely.
	But here's the key.
	If we want, if that's our end game, Then we have to start by focusing not on tariffs, but we have to start by focusing on regulation, bureaucracy, and red tape.
	Because I don't care how...
	Many tariffs you have, or what the calculation, or what the method is, or how good of a negotiator Trump is.
	If you have the current level of bureaucracy, you're not gonna get that shoe manufacturer to drop a billion dollars and take that risk of setting up a plant in, let's just say, Tyler, Texas, or something like that, to make those Nikes, or those Adidas, or whatever it is, in the United States.
	So, I would prefer If I'm trying to, you know, if I could just wave a magic wand here.
	If I was trying to get manufacturing back to the United States, I would start with that.
	I would start with that and I can almost assure you that that is going to move the needle a lot more than setting up a 25% tariff on XYZ country or a 10% tariff on Australia or something like that.
	It's interesting.
	I had never thought about it.
	I get very frustrated that you can't find shoes that are made in America, that you can't find good clothing that's made in America, because it's all Vietnam, Bangladesh.
	But I didn't realize.
	So New Balance makes, I don't know what percentage, it says 70% domestic content.
	New Balance seems to be number one on made in America.
	Did I just close this?
	Now, the interesting thing, though, George, is that New Balance are not much more expensive than Nike's, if at all.
	And so now that you mentioned this, Is it not just the case that the greedy corporations are...
	They could be made here, I don't know if the margins of profit for New Balance are less, but that it actually doesn't...
	They're the same, give or take the same price, roughly.
	So the only question is, is New Balance making less money than it would if it made them abroad, and do we force the corporations to come back and not make as much money if they want to make any money at all?
	And not that I'm anti-capitalist, just saying like, all right, Nike, They're not much more, they're the same price as New Balance, but they're clearly probably netting more only because they go and exploit China and Chinese labor.
	Yeah, but again, so we're just looking at this based on the domestic economy in the United States, right?
	So if we're just, because we talk about child labor in China, that's a completely other...
	Non-monetary.
	Because then you got to ask the question, if those kids weren't working in the factory, what would they be doing?
	And the answer is probably prostitution.
	So is it better for them to be a prostitute, you know, on the streets with drugs and a pimp and whatnot?
	Or is it better for them to work for $2 an hour and a shoe factory to support the family that other without that job, they would go hungry and die.
	So that's a very long kind of rabbit hole.
	So again, focusing on the United States here, it's very true.
	That we've got manufacturing in the United States and we could bring manufacturing back home.
	What I am saying is that if you want to do that, if you really want to move the needle by reducing regulation, bureaucracy and red tape, you're going to have a bigger impact than just by putting up a tariff on XYZ country, Bangladesh, Vietnam, whatever it is.
	Because, you know, I was talking to a guy today just at lunch who happened to recognize me as a fan of the channel.
	And he was telling me about his business that he's had for 25 years in Washington DC, and he's got another branch in Baltimore.
	And he was telling me he was going down this laundry list of things that he had to do just to set up a new office in, I think it was Baltimore.
	And so he had to have inspectors come in like every single week to make sure that the wiring that he was using for the internet was a certain thickness.
	I mean, he was, it was, Mind-blowing what he had to deal with.
	And he's like, you know, I'm at the point right now, George, where my margins have shrunk so much.
	And I, it's like a full-time job just dealing with all of the red tape, the bureaucracy and the regulation, not just at a federal level, but at a state level.
	I would have actually probably thought more at the state level.
	If you're talking about DC and, and, and Baltimore's in Maryland.
	Yeah. Interesting.
	So the idea is like, bring it all back, but even the red tape to bring it all back would be.
	Could be prohibitively complicated and thus add factors of a cost to bring in manufacturing back, notwithstanding the tariffs.
	Yeah, because those other shoe factories, you know, outside of New Balance, they're obviously doing a risk-reward analysis.
	And for them, you know, right now, based on the way things are, the reward didn't outweigh the risk.
	For this guy, his point was, you know, when I first started this business 25 years ago, he said I had workman's comp.
	I had like a blanket liability coverage just in case someone slips on the sidewalk and maybe one other and now he went through like 20 different insurance policies that he has.
	He was talking about how a couple of employees sued him.
	Because supposedly, you know, they got a cold or something like that in 2023 and they claimed that it was the Cervasius sickness and, you know, he made him work and all.
	I love how you're so conditioned to not say coronavirus.
	That's the power of censorship.
	I'm joking.
	I'm just needling you.
	Right, right.
	But you get his point that he says that the risk reward back 25 years ago made a lot of sense.
	And that's why I started the business and that's why I continued with it.
	But he says today it's getting to the point where It's overwhelming.
	I'm drowning in regulations.
	I can't do anything.
	And I'm at the point where why would I want to grow my business?
	So he's actually now either going to shrink his business down to where he has very few employees, or he's just going to sell the business and get out and take his money and go somewhere else.
	That's so, I mean, okay.
	And I appreciate that.
	I very much agree with Thomas Sowell.
	You know, there's no right or wrong answer.
	There's just trade-offs.
	But now they're saying like, OK, because of the existing bureaucratic infrastructure, we need to not have tariffs so that we can buy from countries that don't have an existing bureaucratic infrastructure that makes their goods cost more than they should.
	So, I mean, we've seen that Trump is willing to cut corners and cut red tape, especially when it comes to Operation Warp Speed.
	So maybe the next step is to cut regulations I hope so.
	I mean, if I was him, that's the approach that I would take.
	I would hold off on the tariffs right now because I wouldn't want to, you know, going back to the peanut example, and then I'd solely focus on the red tape and hoping to do that.
	Then I would step back and say, is this working?
	And if so, why?
	If not, why?
	The timeframe on that and also the incentive to blue states to say, we're not going to lift the red tape, so you're never going to be able to get the tariffs gone.
	But then I guess you could do it at the red state level.
	Yeah. And then you've got that competition within states, which makes the U.S. so incredible.
	I mean, again, COVID is a great example of that, where the states could actually compete with one another based on their policy.
	And we could see and you could quantify the results.
	Okay, who's doing better?
	Is it Florida or is it California?
	Oh, I see.
	It's Florida.
	So everyone moves over there because they want to get the hell out of Dodge and therefore they get the tax receipts and they get the capital investment and their economy grows to a greater degree than California.
	And I think that if, you know, whatever they did at a federal level, if they are able to at least influence what's happening at a state level, Then instead of this guy that noticed me there, I'm sure what he would do is he would just say, okay, I don't want to go to Baltimore anymore.
	I'm just going to shoot down to Florida because I know this business like the back of my hand.
	I've got an edge.
	I know that I can compete with anybody at a local level.
	So I'm just going to go over here.
	But I'm assuming that he has thought about that.
	And the red tape is still at a level where the risk-reward doesn't make sense, even in Texas.
	You know, I did a video the other day, Viva, on the housing market.
	Because, you know, I try to be as objective as I can.
	There's a lot of things that Trump does that I really, really like, and there's some things that I don't like.
	And I just try to be as honest as I possibly can.
	You know, it's funny on my videos, I don't know if you get this, but I will be on the exact same video On the exact same comment I made...
	You'll get two...
	I get called Mossad and a Nazi.
	People calling me a Trump fanboy.
	And then I will also get people telling me that I have Trump derangement syndrome.
	For the exact same comment, and the exact same video...
	I attribute it to the fact that sometimes readings the written word, it can be interpreted in the exact opposite sense in which it was intended to be written.
	I get the exact same thing.
	It's crazy.
	The only time I don't get it is when I...
	My tweets on Canadian politics, everyone just calls me an anti-conservative, which is also not true.
	But I think the idea of moving to a red state, the costs of doing that are so prohibitively expensive, it's almost not realistic.
	And starting from scratch.
	Yeah, I mean, that's another thing that you have to factor into the equation.
	And, you know, this is complex stuff.
	There are no easy answers.
	Um, you just have to kind of, you know, the other thing too is, and one of the reasons I hesitate with, uh, the tariffs is it's, it's, it feels to me in a way, a lot like COVID and a lot like Russia from the standpoint of the, one of the arguments that I was making back then was, uh, people were saying, well, we have to do something.
	Well, we have to lock everyone in a cage.
	Why? Well, we have to do something.
	We can't just do nothing because we've got this virus coming and yada yada yada.
	And I'm like, well, actually, we don't have to do something.
	If we look at this and come to the conclusion that we're just shooting ourselves in the foot and we're going to make things worse, then the logical answer is to not do anything.
	Well, that's not what government's for, George.
	And the funny thing is I asked Harrison Fields that question.
	He's the deputy assistant to Trump when I was at the White House.
	And it was in his answer.
	And I know I heard him when he said it.
	I was like, people are going to get irritated by this.
	Well, you know, the world was going crazy.
	We had to do something.
	That's how you make unnecessary mistakes.
	But because it was in respect to my question about Operation Warp Speed and, you know, that and getting a jab.
	I was like, well, we had to do something.
	And I disagree with that as a philosophy, especially when it comes to government.
	Yeah so just to really summarize that that's my point on all this is I want to encourage people to think about not just the workers but think about the consumers think about things from a cost-benefit standpoint and then if it were me and I was taking and I was trying to consult with.
	Trump on you know how the best way to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States.
	It would definitely be with the red tape bureaucracy and I would hold off on the tariffs because you know at the end of the day even if they you're taking a lot of risks there because we're dealing with global supply chains that are so complex and I totally I don't understand the argument that if a country has a 50% tariff on us, we should have a 50% tariff on them.
	I totally, totally get that argument.
	But it doesn't necessarily mean that the tariff they have isn't negatively impacting their economy when you do that same cost-benefit analysis.
	So just because someone is shooting themselves in the foot, it doesn't necessarily mean that we need to do the same thing.
	Well, and I see people saying, you know, do both.
	I saw some comments in the chat.
	What do I care about?
	I care.
	Our government is here to look out for our children and not worry about what children in developing nations are going to do if they don't have that exploitive job.
	And I appreciate that.
	I also appreciate the argument.
	My father, you know, brought me up with that, not justification, but that argument just to understand, all right, if they don't have that job, what happens there?
	The argument is obviously, it's not that I don't care.
	It's that we've got children on the streets here and we've got people dying here.
	So No, no, no. Go ahead.
	Nobody cares about that island up in the Congo.
	I don't know what we get from Congo.
	I imagine it's fruits or vegetables.
	Bosnia, Herzegovina, I don't know what we get from them.
	But it's irrelevant for 95% of the countries on that list.
	And this is specifically to respond to China's exploitation, both directly and indirectly of the United States.
	I don't understand that argument.
	Because, like, let's use Singapore, Australia, the UK.
	I don't know why we would be tariffing them to get at China.
	No, no, we would be, well, okay, fine, but you picked the only ones that might not be the best examples of it, but on the list of the countries that didn't have the tariffs.
	So I guess you're saying is he could do the exact same thing without penalizing countries that might not be being used to exploit America.
	But India, it looks like the ones that had none.
	So the argument would have been then, don't tariff, certainly countries with which you have a surplus of a trade deficit, and don't go after Europe.
	Because even regardless of where you fall or where you land with these tariffs, I think that most people would say their ideal would be if there were no tariffs at all.
	Like, no tariffs on U.S. goods.
	China didn't have tariffs on us, and we didn't have tariffs on them.
	But I think that the main argument there, from the people who are pro-tariffs, is this is a way that if they're going to play unfair, and if they're going to quote-unquote cheat, that we have to cheat to the same degree to have that level playing field.
	But ideally, the level playing field would be at a zero tariff instead of a 50% tariff.
	Okay, interesting.
	So I sort of understood it a little bit better than I even thought I did.
	George, let me see if I can bring up some questions here.
	I'm Not Your Buddy Guy says, I think the tariffs are a good idea to push Canada to remove its tariff.
	Heck, Canadians will win if we drop the tariffs because America product will flood the market, lowering prices.
	We got Sad Wings Raging who says, for almost a century, we Americans have shouldered the burden on tariffs that allowed all these countries that used the tax To dabble in socialism.
	We will now bear that burden for our own folks.
	George has some great videos on the history of tariffs versus an income tax in the USA.
	The goal is more goods and services.
	Can I touch on that, Viva?
	Yeah, please.
	That's a very good point here.
	And it's something that is another possible unintended consequences, unintended consequence, excuse me, that people really need to think about.
	So I went through yesterday and just looked at a couple blurbs on CNBC as far as kind of the carve outs that Trump has regarding beer.
	And so there's a different policy from beer that is made from malt, which I thought all beer was, but I guess not.
	There's a different policy for beer that comes in containers that are over 20 liters.
	And there's also a different policy for beer that comes in aluminum cans as opposed to glass bottles.
	Now, how you're going to keep track of all this, I don't know.
	And then I looked up how many shipping containers actually come into the United States daily.
	It's about 91,000.
	And so now I had a couple people that are in the The export import business and they said that it's it's it's hard but it's not that it's not impossible because you have codes for everything that that kind of everything that's coming in has a specific code so you can kind of track it but my point is you're creating a lot more logistics than you had right now so it's like how many people does doge have to fire in order just to compensate for
	the additional A flat tax on purchases?
	Yeah, so there was tariffs.
	You know, Trump obviously points that out.
	He's correct.
	But what's fascinating is to go back and read the arguments people were making as to why we should get rid of the tariffs.
	And this was back in the early 1900s and why we should actually go, why it would be beneficial to go to an income tax.
	And almost every one of their arguments, Viva, revolved around corruption.
	They said because the tariffs, you know, they renewed every year and sometimes there would be carve-outs for this specialty group or you know this crony over here would get this and that and then it created so much corruption within the government that they said this has gotten completely out of hand and we've got to get rid of it.
	We just have to completely get rid of it and the best thing to do would be to go to a lesser evil Which was an income tax.
	That was the argument back then.
	So what I want to encourage people to do when they're going through this analysis is think about the if, I'm not saying it will, but think about the possibility of this increasing corruption above and beyond what we had during the Biden administration, if that's possible.
	And, you know, is DOJ going to be effective enough to on net balance lower the amount of corruption or is this just going to give us another layer of corruption that we now have to worry about that once Trump is out of office let's remember he's only going to be here for three years let's say so when or three or four years so when he's out of office let's say that Kamala Harris is now here and she takes the reins on these tariffs that we have on 180 countries
	And then she goes over to Hunter Biden and says, ha ha, how can we leverage this?
	Now this is the gravy train and we're going to go ahead and sell favors.
	You want to reduce your tariff, Nike?
	Yeah, we might be able to get that done.
	Just go ahead and, you know, contribute my campaign, do X, Y, or Z. And the next thing you know, the tariffs on Vietnam go from 47% down to 20% and the American worker be damned.
	So again, complex issues we have to think about here.
	Okay, that's amazing, actually.
	Let me bring this one up here.
	It says, tariffing Australia might be a tactic to show good negotiation when they come and talk to him about it and the tariff decreases or vanishes.
	Yeah, but what are you trying to negotiate when they don't have a tariff against us and we run a surplus with them?
	Well, I mean, I guess they mean in...
	Something to negotiate, but I'm just asking what it is because I don't know what it is.
	Security? I'll have to think about that one.
	But when you're talking about made in America products, King of Biltong, made in Texas, it's Biltong.
	This is not a sponsor, but he's always here and it's fantastic stuff.
	Now available, US Wagyu Peri-Peri Biltong.
	Great Wagyu flavor and some mild heat.
	50% protein, B12 creatine zinc.
	Go to BiltongUSA.com.
	It's amazing.
	George, if you haven't had it, Anton will hook you up.
	It's amazing stuff.
	Okay, this is about Trump did not ask for the case to be dismissed based on the merits.
	That analysis was not done.
	I support Trump, but this was clearly a pretty quid pro quo.
	No, he asked for it to be dismissed without prejudice, without looking at it.
	Yeah. But if it was good for Biden, it should have been good for the judge.
	Okay, get this out of here.
	George, can I get you for another 10 minutes, 15 minutes?
	We'll take some specific questions at locals.
	Yeah. Okay, everybody, if you are so inclined, go and rate.
	If I missed any, I apologize because Yeah, I did miss a few here, I think, but I didn't have this at George.
	No, I think I got everything.
	Go raid Kim Iverson if you're so inclined.
	I gotta go forward slash raid, and here's the link.
	It's not gonna work if I don't spell raid properly.
	Raid. And I do this, and now it says confirm raid.
	Go, if you are so inclined, and let her know from where you came.
	Seven o'clock, stay for the link.
	It's gonna be an interesting discussion between, uh, not George Gammon, between, um, come on, Scott Horton and, uh, Roy Gutman.
	A debate on Syria.
	So we're gonna see.
	I gotta go.
	I like Scott.
	Yeah, I like him too, despite some of his views.
	It's like you don't have to hate somebody because you think they're wrong on an issue.
	George, thank you.
	Okay, we're gonna go over to Locals for the after party.
	Come if you are so inclined and don't if you're not.
	I should probably give everybody the link to that as well.
	And we're gonna take some specific Q&A.
	Here's the link to that.
	And that is it.
	I'm gonna update.
	I'll see you all tomorrow.
	And how do I do this?
	I go update.
	Am I?
	I feel like I'm going crazy or like I forget something from one day to the next.
	How do I end the stream without ending the stream?
	I'm in studio.
	I have no idea.
	What the heck is my problem?
	Do they change something and I don't...
	I really feel like I'm going crazy.
	It used to be I can update the stream.
	Encryptus, am I going crazy?
	Probably. They did make some changes today.
	Yeah, so where's that little thing?
	Oh, here we go.
	Oh, premium ICY.
	I'm going to go local supporters only.
	They did change it.
	It's no longer a little crisscrossing thing.
	It's a lock.
	Updating the stream.
	Rumble, thank you for being here.
	See you tomorrow, locals.

▲