All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 26, 2025 - Viva & Barnes
01:08:56
Banning the Burning of the Flag? Raja Jackson Assault & Some Insanely Stupid Takes! NYC Chems & MORE
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen of the Interwebs, I present to you the most concrete example of lowered expectations and the soft bigotry or hard bigotry of said lowered expectations.
Behold.
Hey, Sarah, yeah, I have confirmed that Fed Governor Louis Cook is here in Jackson Hole, is actually in the room.
And we had said earlier, you asked me if she was there.
I said, I didn't see her last night, but I didn't notice that she was actually in the room here.
Obviously, FHA FHA director Bill Poulte uping the ante this morning, doing something that you had pointed out yesterday, Sarah, which was that the apparent violations that are being talked about were not committed during the time that she was at the Fed, but now the idea that Bill Pulte is saying today, well, she filled out a Fed form.
Well, that creates the possibility that maybe there was some of that issue with the allegations that does actually relate directly to that work and the president this morning obviously saying he would fire her if she did not resign.
My understanding is she's in the room in the conference here at Jackson Hole, Sarah.
My understanding is that she's now since been fired.
We're going to get a timeline on this and we're going to pull some other highlights.
Let's just let this finish for a second..
I guess the question now from her is what kind of response do we get?
And it seems like it has to come sooner rather than later, because the president is making it very clear of his intentions.
If she wants to defend herself and explain the paperwork and produce, you know, more evidence that she should do that.
The problem becomes, Sarah, I think you're absolutely right from a political standpoint, from a Federal Reserve reputational standpoint.
However, she is now in legal jeopardy.
And I believe I'm not obviously an advocate, but I've covered enough of these things.
The advocate would say, don't say anything until you're charged, right?
I'm not an attorney, but I did stay at a holiday inn.
If she has documentary evidence to support the claim that she simultaneously had two primary residences, she should probably produce that.
No, I'm going to plead the fifth while insisting to retain my position at the Fed.
Yep.
Joe Biden appointee, by the way, just remember that.
Right.
So there is this balancing of the reputation of the Fed, her own reputation against the legal jeopardy she faces, maybe a little hamstrung.
As you know, she did issue a statement saying she would not be bullied to leave office by a tweet and she was going to be gathering up to check the documents which she didn't have handy there.
They're about four or five years old.
So yeah, we're waiting, obviously, for a response and very strong comments from the president, from the FHA, FA director about the need for her to resign.
And obviously, Ed Martin yesterday from the Washington Attorney General's office.
So there's a lot of pressure on her, but also she faces this legal jeopardy, Sarah, because a lot of pressure on her because she lied to get a more favorable rate on a mortgage allegedly.
She'll have her day in court, presumably at some point, and she had better because she has since been fired.
Steve, no reports or information about how she's been received at the symposium by participants.
No, I haven't had a chance to see that yet.
My guess is she will be received well.
Well, according to Poulte, this is US Director of Federal Housing, he says Lisa Cook showed up and the journalist who asked her questions about her alleged mortgage fraud was kicked out.
We're going to get to a little bit more of this in a second.
Let me just give everyone the links so that the homework is documented.
It has since come to pass that Lisa Cook has been fired.
Lisa Cook, are we looking at the same tweet tweet right now or not because I didn't share it yet.
Lisa Cook.
What was her position again?
She was one of the governors or, yeah, one of the governors on the Fed.
One of the people making decisions as to when to raise, lower or not alter the federal interest rates.
Nick Sorator tweets out, this was earlier today, yesterday, august 25, breaking Trump has officially fired Federal Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook after Bill Post exposed her for mortgage fraud.
Cook was appointed by Biden in 2022.
Good 2022.
Good riddance.
And I say to bad rubbish.
Dear Governor Cook, pursue my authority under Article 2 of the the Constitution, yada yada yada, you are hereby removed from your position on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve effective immediately as set forth in the criminal referral dated August 15, 2025 from mister William J. Poult, Director of the Federal Housing Agency to miss Pamela Bondi, Attorney General, yada yada yada.
There is sufficient reason to believe you have made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements.
For example, as detailed in the criminal referral, you signed one document attesting to a property in Michigan would be your primary residence for the next year.
Two weeks later, you signed another document for a property in Georgia stating that it would be your primary residence for a year.
She was deciding.
She was making some important decisions, guys.
Come on.
It is impossible that you intended to honor both statements because, spoiler alert, you cannot simultaneously, by definition, have two primary residences.
Period.
By definition.
Goodbye.
The amazing thing is you'll appreciate some of the defenses that people are raising.
Here's the link to that tweet.
Some people are suggesting that this is racist.
Some people are suggesting that this is unjustified because her allegedly false statements came in 2021, where she was only appointed in 2022.
So it doesn't directly relate to her functions as a governor on the board of the Fed.
Holy hell, you know who's dumb enough to make those arguments?
Who's the dumbest person in all of Washington?
It's it's it's very much tied right now for a number of people.
Hakeem Jeffries is one of those dumb people.
Hakeem Jeffries writes this was yesterday statement on Donald Trump's baseless attack on Doctor Lisa Cook.
Hold on a second.
What does Doctor Lisa Cook, Fed Reserve, have a PhD in?
Let me see this.
I'm curious.
Is she a?
She's definitely not a medical doctor.
She has a PhD in economics from the University of California, Berkeley.
Well, she's doing them a wonderful service right now by not being able to identify which primary residence shall be her primary residence when procuring a loan from and how much do they end up saving based on these lies?
It blows my mind.
This is what Hakim Extreme Jeffries has to say, a man who will never not see race, which makes him the most blatant racist on earth.
He writes, Dr. Lisa Cook is the first black woman to serve in the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
So Joe Biden should have probably picked better.
Donald Trump is trying to remove her without a shred of credible evidence that she has done anything wrong.
Apparently, Hakeem Jeffries doesn't know how to read to the extent anyone is unfit to serve in a position of responsibility because of a deceitful and potentially criminal conduct.
It is the current occupant of the White House.
The American people are not buying your fake projection and slander of a distinguished public servant.
It's very funny, eh, the projection and slander accusation from someone who is projecting and slandering.
Her being black is irrelevant to everything.
Save it except for the fact that, um, given the prominent figures who are involved in rampant corruption, some people are going to say, hmm, there's some statistical overrepresentation.
representation in terms of who's gone after Donald Trump.
And that goes both ways.
You got judge Juan Marchand, New York nipple judge Engel Run, judge Kaplan in the Jean Carroll case.
Then you have Leticia James.
Then you have Big Tish.
No, hold on.
That's Leticia James, Fanny Willis.
Then you got George Soros funded AGs and district attorneys across the country.
The fact that she's black and that Hakeem Jeffries thinks that serves as a defense to her not lying on mortgage documents is what we refer to as bigotry by lowered expectations.
Congratulations, Hakeem Jeffries., you're a racist.
She's out.
The fact that she did this in 2021 and was only appointed in 2022, Joe Biden probably should have done a better job vetting his appointed.
But hey, when Joe Biden, the racist, the actual bona fide racist Kamala Harris said it herself is looking for a black woman to fill a position.
He'll pick any black woman, even if she can't identify what a woman is.
Oh, good morning, everybody.
And why am I saying good morning?
Because this is not my time slot, but I will not get to go live this afternoon.
I'm on the road.
I got a family event in New York and I was not able to go live yesterday.
It was simply impossible.
So we're going to Do it early today and those who are used to my three o'clock time slot can watch it again or watch it again later this afternoon and I'll be back to my regular time the day after tomorrow.
We are in transit back to the free state of Florida tomorrow.
So I have to get up early.
The lighting here, I'm in a hotel and I've been told that nothing brings out wrinkles better than hard sunlight from one side and this yellow light from the other, but doing the best on the road.
So forgive the bad lighting.
Good content is always better than bad lighting.
And we've got something to talk about today.
We've got a bunch of stuff to talk about today, but we're going to spend a lot of time on the Raja Jackson, the son of Rampage.
Jackson, brutal, violent, malicious, premeditated assault on an amateur wrestler named Psycho Stew and some of the insanely idiotic bad takes from people that are the kids' fathers, such as Rampage Jackson and people that are the kids' friends, such as Shell Sonnen.
We're going to get to that.
We're going to get to what else did we have on the menu today?
Oh, the flag burning.
We're going to start actually with the flag burning executive order.
The executive order purportedly banning flag burning, which many people are saying is unconstitutional.
We'll get into that in exactly one second, people, but not before.
Not until we thank our sponsor of the day, Venice.ai, VNICE.ai.
Everybody, Sam Altman, that dude who some people don't trust, said ChatGPT will get to know you over your life.
ChatGPT has the former director of the NSA sitting on the board right now, a move which Ed Snowden has called a willful, calculated betrayal of the rights of every person on Earth.
Alexa listens to your conversations and recommends things in real time.
Also checks your Google.
We're in New York.
My wife just said holy crab apples.
I am now getting ads for every event in New York museums, zoos.
It's listening to you pretty much all the time.
There's a solution to that.
Venice.ai uses leading open source AI models to deliver text image generation to your web browser.
There's no downloads, no installations or anything.
They don't spy or censor the AI results that you get messages are encrypted and your conversation history is stored only on your browser.
AI can be extremely valuable, but we shouldn't need to give up our privacy in order to use it.
They offer a pro plan which will unlock the full platform's features, including PDF uploads that summarize things and give you they make you smarter than you are insofar as you can digest information faster than you'd ever be able to do it on your own.
It gives you the ability to off safe mode for unhindered image generation, the ability to change how Venice interacts with you by modifying the system prompt, limitless texts, et cetera, et cetera.
Go to Venice.ai, use promo code VIVA.
If you want to use the premium thing, you'll get twenty percent off the pro plan using Venice.ai forward slash VIVA.
It's fantastic.
I've been using it now pretty much as a default and/or a comparison to make sure that the results I've been getting are accurate and that the results I've been getting from other AIs are in fact inaccurate.
Check it out.
Image generation is actually also very good.
Uh, it's actually better than Grock, but links in the description and let's get into it.
Donald Trump has issued an executive order, which people are claiming is unconstitutional, suppresses freedom of speech, violates the Supreme Court ruling on the lawfulness or at least the constitutional protection of burning the American flag.
When the, I think vast majority of people haven't read the executive order and or don't fully appreciate exactly what the executive order says.
Now, I did an interesting.
here.
This was not a question of people's assessment of the executive order itself.
This was just to test our locals community viva barns law dot locals dot com comma how they feel about an outright prohibition criminal statutory offenses for burning the flag, the American flag versus Twitter.
The results were quite interesting.
So I posted this this morning.
The poll is still ongoing, but you'll get the gist of it when you see this burning the American flag.
This is our locals community post.
Curious to know how the community leans.
This is a legal leans, not LEANS.
Okay, leans typo whatever.
Do you think burning the American flag should be?
a criminal statutory offense.
Let's just say roughly thirty but twenty eight point eight percent in our local community say yes and seventy one point two percent say no it should not be.
You may or may not have already seen the poll here on Twitter.
It's virtually fifty to fifty but a little bit less, forty five percent say yes, fifty five percent say no, which means in our local community, which is above average, on the one hand, people are more pro-free speech, even if they don't like that speech because at the end of the day burning a flag is a form of expression.
They're more pro-free speech and I dare say they are more in line with the understanding of the law and/or the executive order that Trump issued, which we're going to pull up because people don't seem to have actually read it.
Is there an article that I wanted to bring up?
See, I want to bring up the article first, which is, um, Fox News portraying this as Trump's flag burning order draws rare fire from conservatives.
Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag was protected by the First Amendment in 1989.
Uh, are they, is that, are they going to go with the Brandenburg test for that one or that was another case?
We'll get there in a second.
President Donald Trump's new executive order targeting flag burning draws rare criticism from conservatives today.
I suspect many of the conservatives who criticized the executive order may or may not have read it.
And if they did read it and still criticized, may or may not have understood it, my bottom line conclusion for the executive order, it doesn't do anything that hasn't already been confirmed as legal will get into the wording.
The question then is, what did it do?
If it didn't do anything new, I think it's creating a sense of or trying to promote a sense of patriotism and create a sense of not not tolerating a lack of patriotism, but making it uncool.
But we'll see if it achieves that goal.
The executive order announced on Monday directs the Attorney General to prosecute violations of laws involving flag desecration and to pursue litigation that would clarify.
the scope of the First Amendment as it relates to flag desecration.
The order additionally directs Attorney General Pam Bonte to refer flag desecration cases that violate state and local laws to the appropriate authorities.
We're going to get into the double standard of the criminality of burning the Pride flag or, uh, I don't know what prosecutions have occurred, but certainly the social taboo of burning certain books.
We'll get there.
The order followed months of protest.
American flag burning.
Yeah, okay.
Trump faced unusual pushback from the right on social media after signing the order as conservatives largely defended flag burning as a First Amendment right, which leads me to believe that those doing that didn't necessarily read the executive order.
Quote, banning flag burning is absurd.
It's anti free speech and peak snowflake behavior.
I would never burn the American flag because of what it symbolizes to me, but the act of burning it of it runs more contrary to American.
Let me rephrase that, but the act of banning the burning of it runs more contrary to American values than burning itself ever could.
Evolutionary biologist Colin Wright wrote, and there you have it.
Well, it seems that he did read it because he's linking to it.
Radio host Jesse could have said, I would never in a million years harm the American flag, but a president tell me I can't has me as close as I'll ever be to lighting one on fire.
I am a free American citizen, and if I ever feel like torch torturing one.
I will.
This is garbage.
Okay.
The flag burning is vile, but the government has no right to control speech or expression radio hosting.
It's very funny.
We're going to get to the actual wording of the executive order and at the risk of being a Canadian who errs on the side of free speech, even if you don't like it.
And then some people are going to say viva is a Canadian committee coming down here and saying you can burn the American flag.
I can direct you to a country where you can see the radical consequences of the suppression of freedoms and freedom of speech.
But let's just get to the executive order to see what it actually says.
Conservative commentator Eric.
Erickson.
This is actually not brilliant.
While I agree with the sentiment, it will unfortunately, it is unfortunately well established constitutional law that burning the flag is a matter of freedom of speech and the executive does not get to create crimes.
Another one, I know nothing matters and you are not allowed to criticize your own side, but I'd like to return to a time when presidents didn't sign unconstitutional executive orders for a show.
Okay.
Washington Examiner contributor Kimberly Ross.
I don't think the federal government should take equity stakes in companies.
So I think we agree with that.
And first amendment protections apply to burning the American flag as much as I abhor the action.
Follow me for consistently good takes of Harriet here.
Okay, whatever.
I think we got we got the gist here.
How long has this been going on for just taking everybody's positions here.
Let me give you that one and let's get to the executive order.
I see a comment that says burning the flag is a direct threat and should be treated as such.
Well, it certainly wouldn't pass the direct threat of the Brandenburg test, nor incidentally does the executive order seek to prohibit that at all or at least criminalize that which the Supreme Court already ruled is not criminal.
Let's get the executive order, if I can find it, because I know that that icon looks substantially like the Twitter icon.
I'm just going to pull out here.
Give me one second.
I know that I sent myself the link this morning.
And the executive order, Peeps, is right over here.
Okay.
Bring it up.
Prosecuting burning of the American flag.
And let's just make sure we're looking at the same thing.
And we are.
Prosecuting the burning of the American flag, the White House, by the authority vested in me as president by the constitution and laws of the United States of America.
It is here by order.
Listen to this.
Preambles are important.
Our great American flag is the most sacred and cherished symbol of the United States of America and of American freedom, identity, and strength over near nearly two and a half centuries.
Many thousands of American patriots have fought, blooded and died to keep the stars and stripes waving proudly.
Everyone in America agrees.
Well, I should say this.
Every patriotic, God fearing, God loving, freedom loving American agrees with this.
And the following here, the American flag is a symbol, I love that it's capitalized in our national life that should unite and represent all Americans of every background and walk of life.
Desecrate it is uniquely offensive and provocative.
I think it is, but provocative speech, depending on the context, is not criminal speech.
We'll get there.
It's a statement of contempt, hostility and violence against our nation, the clearest possible expression of opposition to the political union that preserves our rights, liberty and security.
Burning this representation of the American America may incite violence and riot.
And here's where we're getting to the nuance of what I think means.
This executive order is drafted exactly in accordance with the existing constitutional law.
American flag burning is also used by groups of foreign nationals as a calculated act to intimidate and threaten violence and Americans because of their nationality of birth.
This is adding a specific caveat to the typical flag burning when it comes from certain groups that say support terrorism, say support violence against America.
Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's ruling on the first amendment protections, the court has never held that flag desecration conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action or that is an action amounting to quote fighting words is constitutionally protected.
We all know about the Brandenburg test.
Everybody says, you know, you can say you can threaten violence, but it has to be specific targeted.
I say individually targeted or within a certain realm of a group temporally specific and prone to imminent lawlessness.
My administration, going back to the executive order, will act to restore respect and sanctity to the American flag and prosecute those who incite violence or otherwise violate our laws while desecrating this symbol to the country to the fullest extent of the law.
I'm not defending Trump on this for the sake of defending Trump.
I'm not even sure that I'm defending the executive order on this.
I'm reading this executive order and I don't see it doing anything that is not already the law of the land.
All that they're basically saying is, if we determine your act of burning the flag to be an act of imminent incitement of violence or contemporaneous with other acts of imminent incitement of violence will prosecute it as such.
I'm having some difficulty envisaging a situation where burning the American flag is an imminent incitement to violence or lawlessness as per Brandenburg test.
I mean, I can imagine it if you're burning it using it as a wick of a Molotov cocktail.
I can imagine it if you're committing a violent crime while burning the American flag or assaulting someone and then burning the American flag or burning the American flag and saying death to blank death to x and go and attack.
All that this executive order does is verbalize what the existing law.
is in my humble Former Canadian attorney point of view, take it for what it's worth, people.
The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement to the fullest extent of our nation's criminal and civil code laws against the desecration that violate applicable content neutral laws while causing harm unrelated to expression consistent with the First Amendment.
This may include, but is not limited to violent crimes, hate crimes, which I think many people already very much disagree with.
My personal view is all crimes are hate crimes.
You punch someone in the face because they're Jewish or black.
Not much different than punching them in the face because you want their money.
And the hate crimes only amounts to politicization of the application of provisions of the Criminal Code, like we're seeing up in Canada, set that aside.
Illegal discrimination, already illegal, or other violations of America's civil rights, crimes against property, yada, yada, yada, in cases where the Department of Justice or another executive department or agency determines that an instance of American flag desecration may violate applicable state law, applicable state or local law, such as open burning restrictions.
So this is again not about burning the flag, but about the manner in which the burning is occurring, disorderly conduct laws, again, which is not unique to preventing flag burning, just the manner in which it is being done or destruction of property laws.
We can go on.
I don't think we really need to go on.
I'm curious if anyone thinks that I'm way off base here.
This executive order does nothing but effectively repeat existing law.
Yeah, you burn the flag in a manner that is violating open burning laws.
It's going to be a crime.
You burn the flag in a manner that is going to violate orderly conduct laws.
It's going to be a crime.
You didn't need an executive order to do that.
But what this executive order does is, I think, in the mind of the one who drafted it, Donald John Trump, reiterate the fundamental quasi, and I don't use this in a bad way, religious importance of the American flag for the American Zeitgeist and to make it back.
back into something that is to be revered.
And if anyone is going to burn it, you know, make sure you do it.
If you get a protest permit, little perimeter, make sure you're not burning it in Times Square where it might violate local public burning laws or disorderly conduct.
And if you do it in conjunction with an act of terrorism, an act of violence, well, that's going to be an aggravating factor in prosecution.
But the bottom line, outright banning of burning the American flag, in my humble view, should not occur, has not occurred and does not exist under this executive order.
I think a lot of people were having some knee-jerk reactions to the headlines which were saying Trump signs executive order banning flag burning when it doesn't do that, whether or not it's useful or superfluous to be determined, but the executive order itself doesn't do anything that is not already illegal under existing criminal law and merely reiterates the fact that if any,
you know, let's just say foreigners, people on visas, people who might openly support terrorist organizations that pledge death to America, if they burn the American flag under the context or circumstances which might lead to other charges or might be in conjunction with other charges,
well then they're going to get the book thrown at them and Trump is going to continue with his administration's push to not grant visas to those who seek the destruction of the country granting the visa to it.
And I would, so stupid, never.
I mean, it's not even never.
I wouldn't burn the Canadian flag.
I wouldn't.
The idea of burning something, A, it's juvenile, but B, to be in the country and then burn the flag of the country that you're in.
If you hate it that much, get the hell out.
And then that applies.
That's not even like a foreigner statement.
that applies to locals.
If you hate your country that much, if you consider your government to be that much of a treasonist government, that much of a criminal government, that you feel the need within that country to burn the flag, leave if it's that bad.
It's nice to have the freedom to burn the flag.
I mean, that's, I guess, you're exercising your expressive speech.
Whereas in other countries that are truly the terrible ones, you would in fact have your hands cut off for burning the flag.
You would in fact go to jail and or be killed for burning the flag.
There they don't do it.
So if you have the freedom to burn the flag, the country of the flag that you're burning is not all that bad and you might be the baddie.
But that's what the executive order says, and I don't think a lot of people have actually gone through the Five minutes it takes to read it.
Yes, if burning the American flag is itself a crime under existing applicable state or federal laws, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
And whether or not the administration is going to use it as a pretext to go after people, maybe, but using it as a pretext to go after the criminality of people who clearly hate the country in which they live.
You may or may not have the sympathy of those who love the country in which they live and love that flag and that for which it stands.
And viva rant.
Dapper Dave over in our locals community says the executive order language says leading to incitement.
will lead to arrest and prosecution.
The ultimate question is who gets to decide what considered incitement.
It's a slippery slope.
Well, it's a slippery slope, except for the courts have already adjudicated on what leading to incitement is or incitement.
So they can prosecute.
And if they get a bunch of cases where they prosecute and the courts toss the cases, they'll look like idiots.
And so presumably they'll pick and choose in accordance with facts that support the existing interpretation of the law.
Jameson, 2012 says, we know that the executive order is merely symbolic.
We know that by the simple fact that Pam Bondi was placed in charge of him.
That is the same thing as putting Kamala Harris in charge of the border.
That's actually mildly funny.
All right, people, let's get to the other.
Well, let me see what's going on in our Viva Barnes Law dot locals dot com community.
The executive order is just to encourage Pam Bondi to actually do something, says Elijah Ha'ar, which I can agree with.
And Vitage 21 says it feels like the purpose of the executive order is to give a topic of conversation to commentators.
I don't see any other result to it.
Well, no, it's just it's unfortunate that a lot of a lot of reflexive knee jerk reactions to the executive order as though it outright banned burning of the flag or criminalized it, which it didn't.
And so I believe my interpretation is the correct one.
All right.
Raja Raja, Raja Jackson, for I believe that this platform, Kick, is worse poison to the minds and souls of aspiring influencers, whatever the hell you want to call them, than TikTok.
I don't know much about Kick.
I know that it's like Twitch, and I know that.
I know that what I've seen now, which was live streaming on Kick of the most repulsive nauseating assault imaginable.
I don't want to show the video, and I don't think anybody wants to see the video.
If you haven't already seen it, you can surmise what happens in the video, and I'll describe it it and I'll read it a tweet from Colin Rugg.
But for those who don't know the players in this and for those of you who don't care, okay.
But Raja Jackson is the son of Rampage Jackson, who is a UFC, I think he's a Hall of Famer, a UFC great Rampage Jackson was actually known for his slams and Rampage Jackson, from what I understand, on a personal level is described as among the nicest people on earth despite his public persona and despite his brutal UFC capabilities.
Raja Jackson is his son.
And Raja Jackson was participating in some amateur WWE type event.
And basically, I mean, it's not even the the word pummeled is an understatement.
Assault is an understatement.
The the attack was so bloody violent was so nauseating.
This is not the one.
It was so nauseating.
I watched it and then I felt sick for the rest of the day.
It's like the internet is filled with awful demonic videos.
And, you know, for those of you who have been around since the advent of the internet in the early stages, it was only about terrible videos, accidentidents, maiming, decapitations, et cetera.
And there's some stuff that you watch and the sheer brutality of the violence just sticks with you.
And I'll show right up until the first punch.
And then you just need to know that what happened was 22 brutal punches to the face of an unconscious man.
And it was almost cartoonish, like you've seen movies where someone just keeps punching hand over hand.
And it's like, oh, it's funny in the movie.
I think it was in the movie.
It was a movie with Jim Carrey where he's punching someone.
He's like, I'm winning, I'm winning.
Uh, conceptual movies like, uh, Shawshank Redemption, When they describe the guards beating one of the inmates until there was pretty much nothing left to beat.
And just those words have always stuck with me, even though I don't really think that movie is as good as everyone says it is.
It's the most repulsive act of violence you can see because it's basically on it.
It's on a unconscious man and it's nauseating.
I'll just read Colin Rugg's description of what happened here.
New Rampage Jackson released a statement after his son brutally beat a wrestler, reportingly sending him to the hospital.
He sent it to the hospital.
Apparently the guy allegedly potentially flatlined on the mat, but broken teeth, broken bones, concussion.
Obviously, apparently he almost choked on his with his own blood.
Raja Jackson said he carried off the attack because he was tired of people playing with him.
That's in a after the attack video.
In response to the incident, Raphael Rampage Jackson released the following statement.
I want to clarify some misinformation about my son Raja.
I've been asked to confirm that the wrestler Stuart Smith AKA Psycho Stu is awake and stable.
Raja was unexpectedly hit in the side of the head moments before Smith's match.
And this is a lie, by the way.
I'll show you the videos hours before, not even at a different event.
I'm going to play a portion of it and I'm going to stop right before it gets more violent than anyone cares to see.
way too loud.
Now the man is already unconscious because that slam knocked his head back against the mat and he's unconscious.
And I'm stopping it right there.
It's 22 to the face, brutal punches with the specific and stated intent of causing grievous bodily harm to the individual.
I'm not going to show all the.
I'll just take this one.
I don't want to accident.
It makes my stomach turn just looking at it.
Okay.
Then there was video after the incident, but I'll show you the video before the incident, which Rampage Jackson, who didn't have to say anything because it's his freaking kid and he shouldn't have said anything, could have just been quiet, but couldn't and takes to public say, yeah, oh no, he was hit in the head with a can of beer or something.
Where is that video?
Hold on a second.
Darn it.
I had it on the backdrop here.
Hold on.
Let me see if I can find it.
Rampage Jackson, let me see here.
Let me read.
Oh, I can't even get it.
Rampage Jackson's tweet on this.
Hold on a second.
I have to put it up in my.
In my.
Un.
Un.
Non incognito.
Rampage Jackson writes the following, and it's grotesquely inaccurate.
I want to clear up misinformation about my son, Raja.
I've been confirmed that the wrestler Struz Smith is awake and stable.
I'm not sure about that, but that was august 24.
Raja was unexpectedly hit in the side of the head by him moments before Smith's match.
Raja was told that he could get his, quote, payback in the ring.
I thought it was part of the show.
Yeah, people thought it was part of the show.
I guess that's why nobody intervened for 22 blows.
It was bad judgment.
Hmm.
That's one way of describing attempted murder and a work that went wrong.
Oh, yes, it was, it was all part of the work.
Wait until you hear Chael Sonan's take on this.
Raja is an MMA fighter, not a pro wrestler and had no business involved in events like this.
Even an MMA fighter, and especially an MMA fighter, knows to stop when a player goes limp.
I don't condone my son's actions at all.
That's awesome not to condone them, but maybe condemn them categorically vehemently.
He suffered a concussion from sparring only days ago and had no business doing anything.
remotely physical to physical contact.
As a father, I'm deeply concerned about his health and the well being of mister Smith.
That said, I'm very upset that anything of this happened.
But my main concern is now that mister Smith will wake up speedy recovery.
I apologize on his behalf and to kick for the situation.
To which I had to say, sir, your defense of your son is temporary insanity, sparked by an alleged commotion days earlier that compromised his ability to react to a minor incident at the wrestling event, leading to your son nearly killing a man by striking him twenty two times while unconscious.
Your son belongs in jail for a long time and Lord willing will go.
Let me bring up one of the amazing bad tales.
bad takes on this, which is Chael Sonan.
Chael Sonan actually put out a very long video, 12 minutes.
And other than the fact that we spent a lot of time looking up his nostrils, which I don't think anybody wanted to see, I'm going to play some of this just so you can hear the wildly insane stupidity as though.
Nothing can be done to prosecute Raja unless Psycho Stu asks it to be done.
And if he does ask for it to be done, his career in whatever that amateur wrestling was will be over because effectively saying nobody likes a snitch.
And if you say that this was out of character or you break character and say that this was bona fide assault, if not attempted murder, premeditated, that you'll lose your career in the amateur WWE, whatever that career is.
Listen to this.
You have a police department that is in possession of this information and has not done an arrest.
Why?
Yet.
Well, if Stu comes out and says this was all part of the spot, If he just says those words, no matter how much you're reworking reality and history, if he says those words, the police then look like fools.
If Stu doesn't say those words and say, hey, this was not script, and as a matter of fact, he's even given a confession, he's saying that he's doing this for retribution for something else that I did, you have a legal right to defend yourself.
That's true.
But there's a sustainable difference between defense and vengeance.
And one of them.
is instantaneous and one of them is premeditated.
So the police are in possession of a video which is highly against the law unless Stu comes out as a performer and says this was agreed upon.
And you have no idea how far Stu would stake that.
Stu is clearly unconscious.
In real life, he's unconscious.
But is he going to come out and say that?
Or is he going to stick to K-Fabe and stick to the character and say, no, the whole script was I let him spin me and Wendy.
I come down.
I act like I'm unconscious.
All we did is follow the script.
This is, it's insane to be plausibly suggesting this.
Stu could just as easily be dead right now.
He's probably going to have some form of brain damage.
And I don't mean that in like a vegetative.
He's going to have commotions, migraines, traumatic brain injury, scarring on the brain.
He's going to have a lifetime of potential rehab and probable brain injury.
He could just as easily be dead and Chael Sonin, if I don't like where Stuong is right now, and Chael Sonin is out there saying it was part of a shtick.
And unless he comes out and breaks character, well, nobody can do anything.
And he's better off staying in character if he wants to maintain a career.
Stu hasn't spoken yet.
if stu was to come out it would effectively end his time in professional wrestling it's over chail back in the territory days there was a number of bookers that would would tell the boys you know everybody's got it everybody's got a camera now you got it you got it right on your phone but it didn't used to be that way back then and these guys would go out to the taverns and the the the promoter and booker would tell them openly You can go out and you can go to the local bars.
If any of you get beat up in a fight at the local bar, you're fired.
If any of you break.
I'm stopp a Canadian attorney, civil law in Quebec, never did criminal, but you have basic understandings of criminal law.
You have to study it.
You have to pass it.
And there are certain provisions of criminal law which are going to be pretty much standard uniform across civilized Western societies.
You cannot consent to someone assaulting you to a certain degree.
Yes, you can consent to a certain degree of assault.
If someone spanking you with a belt when you're engaging in sexual activity, if someone decides to cut you because you're into that.
Yes, you cannot consent to grievous bodily assault in advance.
And the idea that people seem to think unless.
Stu, psycho Stu files a complaint, Raja can't be prosecuted is the height of stupidity because it's a crime against the people that the state initiates.
It would be like saying, well, you can't have someone filing a complaint if they murdered you.
So you can't ever prosecute someone for murder.
You can't prosecute someone if you don't have the cooperation of the witness is not the case.
It makes it more difficult in certain types of situations depending on the evidence, not when there's video evidence of the assault, video evidence of the premeditation.
And so this idea that people are floating, well, if psycho Stu decides to play with it and it's in his interest to do so, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
that they can't prosecute Rajah.
If they don't prosecute Rajah now, they will look like idiots.
The public outrage to this is off the charts.
They will, by the way, this is my prediction and it's a easy one.
They're going to prosecute Rajah.
He is going to jail.
That's my prediction.
It's my hard prediction.
Now, everyone who's unclear about the timeline here, let me bring this up.
This was the incident that Rampage is suggesting preceded the assault.
You don't know me?
No, no.
Yeah.
I think that's what.
Oh, you're.
He's not a fucking worker, bro.
Oh no.
Yeah, who the fuck was that?
Now, by the way, a lot of people are saying that as Stu that Stu began you could see I think people are saying the can was only half empty and that Stu starts crushing it with his hand.
The bottom line to this misunderstanding is that this is being streamed on Kick, presumably with Raja plus who got humiliated because of this and then decided to try to kill the man when he had the opportunity when he was unconscious.
That this was part of the shtick and that of the actual WWE type stuff and that psycho Stu didn't know that Raja is not in on this type of cosplay.
He's not a fucking worker, bro.
Calm down.
Yeah, what the fuck was that?
What the fuck was that?
You don't sell it?
No, he's not.
What the fuck was that?
No, I will fuck your mind.
I will fuck your mind.
I don't play that shit.
No, I will fuck your mind.
I know you.
I got you.
I don't play that shit at all.
So that was the misunderstanding.
Here's the apology for those who didn't also appreciate that this was so far in advance that Stu apologized, didn't understand that Raja wasn't in on the whole thing.
I'm sorry bro.
Hey, it's gonna all work out.
Yeah, I appreciate it.
I didn't know I was thinking we're working.
We're always working.
I get it out.
Now you're under.
You know what I'm saying?
We're always working.
This was hours before and then when they get in the ring he knocks them unconscious and then pummels them 22 times only after streaming that he was going to do it.
He was on kick.
Let me see if I have this incredible, incredible evidence of premeditation.
This is Raja streaming this before he gets in and knocks Stu unconscious and beats his unconscious face with 22 I don't even call them sucker punches, attempted murder punches.
How many subs to knock him out?
How many subs to knock him out?
That's a good question.
I don't know.
Oh!
I'm not really sub farming, but 50 subs knock him out.
50 subs.
I ain't really sub farming, but 50 subs to knock him out.
How many subs to try to kill him?
Oh, that that's going to cost you a little more.
100 subs and I'll and I'll beat him 22 times until he's almost dead.
Let me see if there's what there was there was some there was some more here.
I think there was this was the incident here.
I'm just I want to make sure that I keep the receipts for all this.
This was the beer on the head.
Here I'll give you that link as well.
Link, bang.
And what else do we have by way of evidence of the premeditation?
Well, there is an interesting video that popped up.
It's an amazing thing.
The internet is forever and the MMA guru has been doing amazing work pulling these clips and compiling these clips.
This is a clip reading the MMA guru that says in hindsight, the signs were there from the start with Raja Jackson.
This video of Rampage discussing the time Raja tried to blindside Sucker Punch KO him when they were having a fight in the house.
I wonder what that the argument was about.
Maybe Rampage hit him with a prop can.
Now, by the way, I haven't been able to independently verify the context of this particular clip.
And if it doesn't say what MMA guru is what MMA guru says, it is correct me please so that we can correct it.
But it sounds like the description is sufficiently accurate for my ability to independently verify.
Listen to this.
We already got into a fight once.
Oh really?
Two years ago?
Yeah.
He sucked a punch on me.
Oh, I saw the slam.
How that was that?
And what did you slam him on the head?
That fuck went to the hospital that day.
Yeah.
Don't play that.
We fight.
We fight.
He's talking about his kid right now, by the way.
That motherfucker went to the hospital that day.
I'm going to let it play and I'm going to stop interrupting.
A kid who's sucker punching his father allegedly, trying to unconscious him.
Father retaliates and whether it's just a joke hyperbole, that motherfucker went to the hospital that day.
No, no, no.
We already got it probably.
Oh really?
A couple of two years ago?
Yeah.
He sucker punched me.
Well, I saw the slap.
How that got off was that?
And what did you do?
Did you slam him on his ass?
Oh, yeah, that motherfucker went to the hospital that day.
Yeah.
Don't play that.
We were fighting three on one though, two big bitches came out of the room too.
Leave our man alone.
He's like, Oh my god.
No, you know what?
I felt bad about kicking his ass that day.
And to this day, he's the only person I ever guillotined.
Oh my god.
I never get guillotined on nobody.
I didn't want to keep punching him, so I guillotined him, and he wouldn't tap out.
Oh, you put him to sleep?
Yeah.
Wow.
Because when he sucker punched me, he almost rocked me, and it was right by, like, I got, like, this 100-year-old door that turned into, like, a table.
Yeah, it's haunted.
It's like 200 pounds.
If I would have hit my head, I would have died.
But hold on.
What was the fight over?
He's not going to want me to tell what that fight was over.
It was embarrassing for him?
Yeah.
Something stupid?
Yeah, I didn't want him to talk about it.
Why?
because...
It happened?
got in the fight it's um it's unbelievable here give you the link to that one i'm curious to know what that fight was about now And I think that's pretty much it for the there was a there was a video of him after after the assault talking about how he's fed up with people playing with him.
And so basically what this was was straight up, I want to say like Joe Pesci at a casino, like, yeah, we're cool, we're cool.
And I'm going to come and kill you when you're not expecting it.
I'm going to exploit of my apparent olive branch and truce in order to try to kill you when I get the chance.
And he damn near killed him and Keith would Woods, who's doing amazing work on this, is looking to see, I think they've set up a go F me, unfortunately.
I would have, you know, I think he found it.
I'll see if I can find that.
But Keith Woods has been doing amazing work on this.
If anyone can put us, this was from the other day, and I think they subsequently found a fundraiser for Psycho Stu.
If anyone can put us in contact with him or his loved ones, there are many people who would like to support him with a fundraiser.
My DMs are open.
And I'll just play this here.
I forgot to mention it early on.
Psycho Stu is a veteran who apparently suffered from PTSD and amateur wrestling was his way of coping with the PTSD he suffered from his experience as a veteran.
Just, you know, for what it's worth, this, this, this scumbag POS of a, what's the word I'm looking for?
Troubled youth.
What's the word I'm looking for?
Really, whatever.
Scumbag.
Damn near killed a man who served his country, who was doing this as a method of coping with the trauma he experienced serving this country.
Delinquent is the word I was looking for.
And in as much as I ever thought I liked Rampage Jackson, I hadn't seen that side of him.
I hadn't heard those clips.
And I would be very curious about any father.
father either taking pride of having hospitalized or unconscious their child and boasting about the fact that or having an incident in which their child nearly sucker punches them because they're fighting and then whatever.
Okay, listen to this.
In 2009, I had just got out of the military, probably about six months earlier.
I got out of the military, I joined Knox Pro, you know, because I needed something to focus on.
I needed something to help me adjust back into civilian life.
You know, a lot of veterans, it's hard for them to readjust into civilian life coming from the life of the military.
I'm an American soldier that suffers from PTSD.
Being in front of a crowd, it doesn't give me as much anxiety and aggression as I thought it would.
Bro, in 2009, I had just got out of the military.
That's who Psycho Stu is.
And everyone is wishing a speedy recovery, but this is going to result in the arrest of Raja sooner than later.
And if there's any justice in the world, it will be conviction.
You're dealing with someone who has shown premeditation, malice, and more importantly, like a rabid animal.
Like someone that made the comment, like even dogs stop fighting when the other other one has submitted.
Only the most vicious of predatory animals continue attacking when the other element has been subdued or if you're, you know, attacking to kill for either eating or whatever.
Even dogs in a dog run stop fighting when the other dog has submitted.
Psycho Stu was unconscious while this guy was trying to pummel him into another realm.
All right, to be continued, I'm going to follow up on it and we'll see where that goes.
But let me get to some of the chat because I think there might be some questions here or at least comments on this particular story before we get into the other lighter stories of the day, people., Ginger Ninja says, I consider myself a free speech absolutist, but the burning of the American flag should be illegal and the law should come from Congress and override the judiciary.
The punishment could be mild, but burning the flag should be the same as denouncing citizenship.
You don't get to burn the thing that I've seen men buried under that was my brother that my brother was buried under that I will be buried under.
The question, the only argument is going to be that the, you come to a, then the only question is also the disparate, the disparate treatment in burning, putting tire marks on a trans flag on the street is criminally prosecuted, but maybe under, you know, different laws like reckless driving.
I am very much amenable to to both arguments there.
There is something spiritual and uniquely important about the American flag, and I can understand this.
The argument is only going to be that the free speech that that flag protects protects the free speech to burn that flag to show discontent and the flip side., Ginger, you know, then, then what, criminalized through Congress hanging the flag upside down.
Old man Toby says, Vivi, you should look into the mass transit incident.
I don't think Raja will get off, but this case may be used in his defense.
The mass transit, I'll see that.
The Romantic says, Stu apologized and shook his hand after the beer incident.
Did you see that clip?
Said, oh yeah, no, no.
And then spoke too soon.
No, I've seen everything.
I see him walking down the street afterwards, looking psychotic.
Let me see if I can't bring that up.
looking like like a bona fide having someone having a mental break but that's not gonna be uh let me see here stew no we're gonna do raja jackson raja jackson uh street there was one with him walking down the street and it was crazy like like someone on drugs and not that that's gonna i think it was this one right here yeah this is it it was um it was like someone on drugs or
someone who's who's who's who's had a psychotic break but i'm not gonna you know plead insanity in order for him to get off here look at this this how the motherfuckers playing with me bruh real sick one of them the bitches will fucking bit me.
I'm tired of everybody fucking playing with me and shit.
I think I'm always playing and shit.
Call me bits and shit.
No, no fucking bits, bro.
At the end of the day, I'm a stand up for my fucking self because I'm tired of everybody fucking playing with me, bro.
This is crazy.
This is like, this is like salt bath crazy.
Bath salt's crazy.
No shit.
Come on, man.
We're leaving, man.
We're walking away, bro.
Let's not take this shit.
Let's go.
Come on, Roger.
Let's go.
Let's go, Roger.
Let's go.
Roger, let's go.
Roger, I'm telling you, let's go.
You listen to me, listen to me, Roger.
You need to listen to me right now, Roger.
Let's go.
I're not gonna do shit to me, bro.
You can't do shit to me.
You can't fuck with me, bro.
You can't fuck with me.
Come on.
Let's go.
Let's go.
Yeah, some people will say psychotic break.
Others are gonna say absolutely zero impulse control.
And either way, bars behind.
Dude wants to fight.
Plenty of plenty of time and plenty of places to fight in jail.
For a long time he deserves to be there.
I saw something come in from King of Bilton in the house says King of Bilton.
Increase your protein intake by adding some tasty high high protein meat snacks.
Built Tong is packed with B12 iron, zinc, creatine and more.
Get some at builtongusa dot com code viva for 10% off.
Let me just show everyone builtongusa dot com.
You gotta see what it looks like.
That's because I spelled a typo there.
Hold on a second.
Ah, come on.
I can't get my builtongusa dot com.
Ever.
I can't do it.
Builtongusa dot com.
Here we go.
It's not letting me go to the web.
I'm on, I'm on the hotel landline here.
It's telling me.
Oh, no, it's right there.
Okay.
Good.
Finally, Tabah.
Noosh, go get some Built T on people.
It's made in Texas.
The Anton is from South Africa.
It's a South African beef jerky treat.
It's delicious.
It's healthy.
Look at that.
How can anyone say no to that?
Do it.
Built on USA dot com code viva for ten percent off.
Not a sponsor of the today's show.
That is Venice.
AI.
And what do we have in our local community?
Viva.
Sadly, another example of commentators failing to read, says Elijah Harr.
I think that's in respect of the executive order.
Yeah.
Well, it's a problem.
I mean, look, I we're all guilty of it at some point.
You just don't want it to be over too big of a problem.
But that executive order, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't do anything that violates the constitution.
I don't think it does anything, period, other than maybe just reaffirm a new zeitgeist of American pride and spirit.
All right, last one.
What do we have here?
Hold on a second.
Last subject of the day.
Is this the last subject of the day?
I know we've got at least one or two more, hold on, hold up.
Wait a minute.
Something ain't right.
Brandenburg.
Lisa Cook.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
There's two.
There's two.
All right, let me let me let me let me do the unpopular one.
The war in Gaza and Israel is entering two, three years now.
And yesterday, news, which is devastating even in time of war when you bomb a hospital and then moments later strike it again and kill journalists who are there documenting it.
And in war, there's going to be casualties.
There's going to be, what's the word I'm looking at?
Collateral damage.
I saw a tweet yesterday and I, again, like this is, this is where you can, can impugn my intentions or attack my intentions you could say i'm either criticizing this to be critical of Israel or I'm criticizing this, uh, in support of Israel.
I mean, you, you could go both ways.
This is the exact same argument that I use when I righteously criticize, uh, something that I disagree with that the Trump administration is doing.
Some of you can say, why are you anti-Trump?
You're doing it to criticize Trump.
And I could say, well, how do you know that I'm not doing it to better Trump?
So you can impugn the intentions.
It doesn't change anything as it relates to the substance of the critic.
I read this tweet and I swear to you, I had to go click on the profile to make sure it wasn't parody because I thought it was a parody tweet, attempting to make Netanyahu look bad because I had heard the news.
And then I see a tweet that's that reads as follows..
Benjamin Yahya says Israel deeply regrets this.
The tragic hassle that occurred today at the Nasser hospital in Gaza.
Israel values the work of journalists, medical staff and all civilians.
The military authorities are conducting a thorough investigation.
Our war is with Hamas terrorists.
Our just goals are to defeat Hamas and bring our hostages home.
They say that the perfect parody mixes in elements of what would otherwise be true and you wouldn't question with elements that are so absurd.
You say, holy crap.
The incident at issue was the bombing of a hospital with two strikes.
One strike occurred and then journalists gathered at the location to document the strike.
And then another strike occurred and killed five of the journalists, for my understanding as it now fog of war open for revision or further details.
When I saw the word mishap, I'm like, you know, look up the word mishap.
The word mishap, excuse me, has a couple of definitions, but the most prominent is an unlucky accident.
Although there were a few minor mishaps, none of the pancakes stuck to the ceiling.
I mean, this is literally the definite, a mishap, an unhappy, an unlucky accident.
A fair proportion of major accidents are generated by minor mishaps.
Axe, when I read this, I'm like, when you're going to apologize for what many people are going to refer to as an act of war crime, and I'm not saying I agree with you, you're in war, innocent people are going to die.
Journalists who go on scene are not, I didn't say making themselves legitimate targets because they're not legitimate targets, but they're making themselves potential for collateral damage to refer to it as an unhappy, almost I thought it was a joke, like legit checked on the account and it wasn't.
And some will say with Viva, you know, when they come for the Jews, they're going to come for you too.
So being critical or whatever, it's not going to spare you.
I don't have any illusions if that ever happens.
This is not trying to placate my enemy.
This is not a question of trying to placate terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, because there's a whole hell of a lot of them that are going to jump on this tweet right now and use it in support of their arguments.
And so I could just as easily say, no, no, this is criticism intended to not have the leader of Israel.
After a tragedy that people will call a war crime, put out a tweet that looks so callous in its drafting that it almost looks like a needle, an insult to the injury.
Yeah, it's an accident.
I could have drafted that fifty different ways that would have been better than the way Netanyahu drafted that.
And some people say, as a response to me, Viva, you're criticizing them.
Hamas doesn't apologize for killing innocent civilians.
I was like, good, do you understand what you just did with that?
Right now, by you coming back and retorting to me, Viva, Hamas never apologizes.
Why should Netanyahu?
You are reducing Netanyahu and the Israeli government to the level of Hamas.
Like, you people don't understand this.
You don't hold a democratic government or a purported democratic government to the same moral and ethical standards of a terrorist regime period.
And so people say, well, Hamas never apologizes.
So Netanyahu's better for putting out the tweet it was an accident.
That's a self-owned.
And that could have just been drafted in much more.
You could have skipped the first line.
It's a horrible tragedy.
We will investigate.
It is not our intention to target civilians or journalists.
We will investigate this to see how this atrocious error occurred.
We are waging a war with a terrorist organization that routinely uses civilians as shields.
And we are doing our best.
But in times of war, there will be, unfortunately innocent civilian casualties, and we do everything in our power to mitigate such consequences.
The only problem is going to be there's going to be a ton of people saying, you can say you're doing everything to mitigate those consequences.
The actions, uh, might indicate otherwise for those who want to expose that belief.
But that was what was in the news yesterday that was atrocious.
I said we were going to get to something lighter.
I'm not even sure that this one's any lighter.
Let me go back to the chat and see what's going on here.
Rajah's behavior walking down the street is that of a man who has anger issues in retaliation to his father.
He wants his father's respect and probably doesn't have it.
It is not, that is not an non-insight.
That is an insightful observation.
There was a show, I forget what show it was on on MTV, where it was a rage show.
And I remember there's one episode where the guy punched a street sign because he was angry or something and broke his own fist.
And I do appreciate that I have the propensity of attributing to, you know, I call people, I say people are crazy and, you know, OCD.
I tend to like, what's the word?
When you diagnose, oh, there's a word for it and it ends in IZE.
Pathologize.
And as I tend to reflexively say crazy, sometimes tongue and cheek, but or drugs.
And that's not confession through projection, because I don't think I'm crazy and I know that I don't do drugs.
But yeah, I don't know what rage issues like that look like in terms of someone who.
So can't control their rage and impulse control that they can kill a man.
You get angry sometimes where you're like, you get angry.
I mean, frustrated, but to that level, no.
Vitage twenty one says by the time Netanyahu is finished, Israel will have more enemies than three years ago, I am afraid.
But it's an interesting discussion because I have it with friends with whom I agree is like, obviously, Hamas is a terrorist organization, period.
Israel, I have been skeptical and critical of a lot of stuff since October 7 itself.
But I'll live in Israel over Gaza any day of the week.
I'll live in Canada over Israel any day of the week.
And I'll prefer to live in America over Canada any day of the week.
There are high levels of nastiness and I don't trust any government anywhere on Earth, nor do I believe any government is pure and righteous.
And that holds true for the Netanyahu administration, that they're not as bad as the terrorist Hamas organization, or that they're not, you know, that they might be a government like all other governments for a nation that I think is a more tolerant nation than other nations does not mean you sit idly by and be quiet when everything that they're doing right now.
is exacerbating.
And some people are going to say, well, there's nothing they can do that won't.
Okay.
So this is the argument that I had with a friend who said, A, you know, they're going to come for you you like they're going to come for everyone else if they come.
It's like, you're right.
And appreciate the reductio of that.
So I have to then, in order to be on the tribalist side and not make enemies with the side by criticizing what I think is behavior worth criticizing, I have to then support everything and anything, no matter how much I object to it, because after all, the worse the behavior gets, the worse the backlash gets and the worse the backlash against me will get despite everything else.
And therefore, I must get even more tribalist and tolerate exceedingly more worse behavior.
I don't know if I've expressed that.
I've tried to express it a couple of times.
What, Netanyahu?
that that tweet is a wrong tweet for the error that he is admitting occurred.
And if you're going to admit that an error occurred, A, you're admitting it and you do it in a manner that's only going to cause people to say, holy crab apples, is he serious, not making the situation better for anybody.
And at this point, given the last two years, it makes it exceedingly difficult for anybody to say now that they're not trying to basically create just a massive wasteland of a buffer zone because that is.
what they require in order to have any sort of security.
And yeah, it's a terrible situation and the discussions never go anywhere.
And that much is true anyhow.
All right, now what we're gonna do is we're gonna save the last story for vivabarneslaw.locals.com for those who are coming over.
And then we're going to, here's a link to Locals.
Come on over.
Let me read the chat a little bit.
Who do we raid?
I'll see who's live right now on Rumble.
Steven Crowder.
Let's go raid Crowder.
It's not often that I'll Go and just say hello Viva sent you and I'll get to feel more important than I am for five minutes here.
Go raid crowder.
Come on over to locals.
Viva Fry for merch.
Louis the Lobster.
Get a book.
And that's it.
Confirm raid locals.
Here we come.
Let me just go make sure that the raid has been viva raid.
Booyah.
Not my normal time slot on the road.
Peace.
There we go.
Okay, let's see.
We have raided and it's on.
Perfect.
Okay, let's go to Locals and oh, so I'm going to try to see something.
I'm trying to figure out how to activate the Rumble premium content people who have that.
And it doesn't seem I'm going to work it out because it seems I'm missing the little unlock that allows me to continue streaming to Rumble exclusive.
So if you're watching your Rumble exclusive, come over to Locals.
I'm going to figure this out with the team imminently.
So we'll do that.
But for now, let's just go over to Locals and see what's going on with the community.
Do one last story involving Enrique Taurio, an op ed that he put that he wrote in.
Gateway Pundit, thank you for being here.
Godspeed Rumble.
I will see you tomorrow.
It'll be later in the day and Thursday.
I'm back home tomorrow, but later on in the day.
So hopefully I'll be able to get live at 3, but if not, it'll be a little later.
And then Thursday, we're back on regular schedule.
So go forth, prosper and enjoy the day, locals.
▲
Export Selection