Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 10, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

01:12:46

Sidebar with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I was one second late.
	Good evening, everyone.
	Someone told me, actually, that I should have an intro to the show.
	Who was it?
	It was...
	Oh, I forgot.
	Someone in the chat said that I should have an intro because otherwise they miss the first 30 seconds because of the ad.
	I never realized that could be a fringe benefit of an intro.
	I'm going to think about it.
	I don't know how intros work, but I'll figure something out.
	Now, you may hear some noise upstairs.
	Normal for some reason.
	And everybody, new shirt.
	It's an old shirt, but it's the first time I'm wearing it.
	I used to wear this as a lawyer back in the day with a nice thin black tie, and it was beautiful.
	Alright, so this is going to be another special one.
	I mean, we've had some amazing guests on the sidebar, and we've had some infamous, famous, notorious, awesome guests.
	I think...
	That Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is probably the second most demonized individual on social media right after AJ.
	And I spent the better part of today watching interviews, reading up, trying to understand why he is so loathed by big tech, by social media, by people out there.
	I actually came across an article from McGill University, where I did my undergrad in philosophy, talking about the fact that, you know...
	RFK Jr. is basically evil because he's anti-vax.
	He's anti-all vaxes.
	And when I read the article, you get two paragraphs into it and you can just vomit because of the strawmanning misrepresentations.
	But, you know, all of this stuff, it does so well in silos where it just spins around in a circle and everyone's just so happy to hear it because it's all they want to hear and nobody steps out of the silo to double-check anything that they're reading.
	All right, so with that said, Robert is not yet in the backdrop.
	I figure we'll give a couple of minutes to come up with the notifications for everyone.
	I sent out a poll in Community and asked if people had been unsubscribed, and I noticed that within an hour of that poll, 250-some-odd people, I think, had resubscribed, and I got a lot of messages saying that they had been unsubscribed or notifications turned off.
	So check your notification status if you want to get notified.
	Now, let's see here.
	That shirt is so much better than the tablecloth shirt.
	Thank you for saving our eyes.
	You know, the only reason I don't like this shirt is the inside section is not sufficiently different from the outside and it's not tailored.
	But it's a good shirt.
	I think I'll wear it from now on and it doesn't create the rippling effect.
	One more super chat we got.
	Hi, Viva.
	Can you address the issue why you can't get unlimited data by any internet provider in Canada?
	Yeah, I had a US SIM card which had unlimited data through roaming when I was living in Canada.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	There is no unlimited.
	Now there's effectively unlimited.
	On my Rogers plan, it's 65 gigs a month, but they don't cut you off after the 65 gigs.
	They just limit your high-speed upload capacity.
	So I've never reached it.
	I came very close when we were on the road.
	But yeah, I don't know.
	All that I do know, and it's an apropos turn of events for tonight's stream.
	Supreme Leader Francois Legault is now implementing a vaccine passport in the province.
	They're going to roll out the test as of September 1st, where I have found from the beginning that referring to it as jabs, needles in arms, is a very dehumanizing way of describing this, regardless of how one feels about everything.
	You know my personal status, you know my position, so assess accordingly.
	I have found it to be dehumanizing talk from the beginning.
	And now, as if it wasn't enough, you know, hearing our Prime Minister say, we've got to get needles in arms like we're just cattle going through...
	I haven't worked on a farm to know the terminology, but you know what I'm getting at.
	Now, in Quebec, Supreme Leader Francois Legault is talking about vaccine...
	They're doing it.
	They're going to unroll it, unravel it, whatever it is.
	Roll it out.
	That you need to...
	Have proof of double vaccination to go to certain non-essential services like restaurants, gyms, cafes.
	And we're seeing a video out of Paris, which I didn't retweet because I can't vet it and I don't like highly edited, without context videos.
	You never know what's happening.
	But, you know, police seemingly walking around asking to check people's QR codes on their phone.
	Like, they're no longer humans right now.
	They are barcodes, QR codes, and the government has...
	Full say over everything that relates to the most private thing that you could possibly own on this earth, your body.
	And it's depressing.
	And at the same time, you have François Legault, for anybody who follows me on Twitter, talking about how, you know, there shouldn't be platforms.
	People should not be allowed to use their influence to misinform people on the internet.
	This is coming from the same premier who at one point, not more than a year ago, February 2021, said how he was a proponent of free speech on campus.
	But once dictators, once petty tyrants get that taste of unbridled, uncontrolled, limitless power, any challenge to that then becomes an affront to their existence, to their grasp on the world.
	All right, I'm going to bring up some chats here.
	Please investigate the message from the eminent scientist Jean-Bernard Fourtillon screenshot.
	I don't know what that is, but I'll look into it.
	And I'm going to bring up one more super chat, then the standard disclaimers.
	And there's a bigger disclaimer for this stream.
	Just wanted to tell Viva he'd be jealous of the fly fishing trip I just returned from.
	There's no question.
	I want to catch a brown trout one day and that looks like the most beautiful brown trout ever.
	Yes, I trimmed my beard.
	I didn't see the second part of that chat.
	I trimmed my beard and my eyebrows, people.
	So I look a little less...
	I won't go with the second half of your chat.
	I'll say I look a little less like Eugene Levy now and a little more like someone who listened to his wife's good advice.
	Okay, so Super Chats.
	When Robert gets here, I'm going to bring up...
	I'm not going to bring up any of the Super Chats.
	I don't want to distract from the conversation, but I'm going to thank you in advance for the Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of the Super Chats.
	If you don't like that, and I understand some people don't, you can support us on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	You will only hear Robert say it 10 times.
	What else?
	No legal advice, no medical advice, and no undermining the fortification of elections.
	Let's just see what this one says.
	If it involves a phone app, buy a separate phone just for that app.
	Data Qatar contact tracing required full access to all data on your phone.
	We're losing it, and we're losing what we knew of a free society, and it's going to take some loud voices to try to make people realize that.
	We have become very complacent in Canada, and I would say dangerously so.
	Now, I don't see RFK, but I see Robert, so maybe I want to bring him in, and we shall discuss until we bring in the man of the hour, RFK Jr.
	Robert, how are you doing?
	Good, good.
	Sound good?
	It's very good.
	It's very good.
	Now, I just saw you on Chrissy Mayer, and that, I presume, wasn't live because you were totally differently dressed.
	Yeah.
	No, that was...
	She did it live, I think, on the weekend, but then just...
	And then she reposted it this week.
	All right.
	Excellent.
	It's a good discussion.
	I mean, we were talking about a lot of the same stuff.
	I didn't know who Chrissy Mayer was, and then someone said on Twitter, I had to go follow and watch you there, so I went.
	Robert, I mean...
	You touched on it with Chrissy.
	I get a lot of the messages.
	I can't respond to all of them.
	It looks like everywhere and every government is now trying to push mandatory vaccination for federal employees.
	They're talking about it in Canada.
	They're talking about worse stuff in Quebec.
	Talking about it in the US.
	People are asking, what can they do to fight this?
	What can they do to oppose it without losing their job?
	What is the answer to that question in the States?
	You know, I mean, it's going to require people to push back is what's going to happen.
	So the issue and risk of vaccine mandates has been around for a while.
	In fact, if he's able to make it tonight, Robert Kennedy Jr. has been on top of this before all of this developed.
	He was talking about it in Ohio in 2019, other places that this was a direction that the state wanted to go.
	And, you know, I continue to get bombarded with people who are at least being threatened with it.
	Now, often they're backing off.
	A lot of the pilots, for example, pushed back, and most of them got the airlines to agree not to mandate it for their employees.
	Seeing that in a lot of circumstances where they are providing...
	The first thing people need to do is find out what the actual policy is, then find out if there are any exemptions for religious exemptions or medical exemptions.
	They may have those and not fully realize that.
	There's a wide range of grounds to object on religious grounds, and there's a wide range of grounds on medical exemptions.
	And so people may not know they had it previously.
	There are doctors that think that is grounds for a medical exemption because they see that a previously infected individual...
	Is simply not nearly as at risk as someone who has not been previously infected from COVID-19 and that the vaccine may provide more risk than reward.
	So it's find out what the real facts are, see what the real policy is.
	A lot of employers are threatening it without actually putting the policy into print.
	And then once the print is there, then all of a sudden they're seeing that there's a big difference.
	Now, I mean, and I'm bringing this up because I want people to appreciate this.
	Peaceful protest, because all that happens if it gets slightly unpeaceful is you have the January 6th weaponizing and effectively using that as an excuse to shut down any further protest.
	People get discouraged with peaceful protest.
	But, I mean, Robert, what do you say?
	You know, if the courts work, they work themselves out in time.
	If people are losing faith, what do you say to re-encourage them?
	Well, I mean, the only way you can know whether you can win is to push back.
	I mean, so far, a lot of employers and a lot of government agencies have backed down from trying to do a broad mandate that doesn't have any exceptions or exemptions in it, doesn't have any accommodations in it.
	The other thing is many more places are doing accommodations.
	There are accommodations a lot of people don't necessarily like, but they're much less intrusive.
	I still have legal issues with that, but that's far less problematic for many people than being forced to take a vaccine they don't believe that they should take for themselves.
	The informed consent is what everybody's...
	What Bobby Kennedy Jr. has done his whole life is he has no opposition to vaccines.
	He's called and labeled an anti-vaxxer.
	That's never been true.
	He opposes the...
	Forcing something onto people without there being accountability.
	There lacks informed consent in many of these areas.
	And there's a lack of responsibility and accountability because of the broad-scale wholesale immunity that's been given to a certain select set of drug makers.
	You just label it vaccine and all of a sudden you can't be sued if you did something wrong.
	Okay, you know what?
	Now, I hope Robert's coming, but until he gets here, let's lay out some of the groundwork that might be relevant knowledge so that we don't have to go over it with Robert.
	The immunity for vaccine manufacturers, when did that start?
	And by the way, sorry, bring your mic a little closer.
	People are saying you might be a little soft.
	How about now?
	I think it's good enough.
	We'll live with it.
	I mean, I'm right on top of it.
	It doesn't look that way by camera, but it's like a little inch away.
	Two fingers.
	When did the immunity for vaccine makers start?
	And I guess, what is the distinction between a vaccine and a medication that justified or allowed for this immunity in the first place?
	So, they had different excuses that they offered, but effectively, you know, Big Pharma, well, I'll put it the way Bobby Kennedy Jr. did back at the, you know, not that long ago, which is that, you know, in the late 80s...
	Two things happened.
	One, Congress gave something they've given to nobody ever, which was complete, other than to themselves, which was wholesale, whole-scale immunity for any negligence of any kind to anybody who was involved at any level.
	And to give people an idea, that's not just the company that designed the vaccine.
	That's who's supplying the ingredients for the vaccine.
	That's who's manufacturing the vaccine.
	That's who's distributing the vaccine.
	That's who's administering the vaccine.
	That's who's medically advising the vaccine.
	So that all of them could not be sued outside of very, very limited circumstances.
	They established a compensation, vaccine compensation court, but that did not have a right to a jury trial.
	You didn't have elected officials running it.
	It had a lot of limitations on it.
	And so it was very unique.
	And what pharmaceutical companies said at the time is that they were going to quit making many of these vaccines unless they were given immunity.
	And so whether that was a bluff, whether people should have gone along with it, it's a policy debate for another time.
	But the other aspect that happened around the same time is we also started to, once they had immunity, all of a sudden we started dramatically expanding the number of vaccines that were either recommended or in some cases required as a condition of public school admission.
	And then, of course, after that, certain health issues arose that some people wanted to know whether there was a correlation, and that's still subject to an open debate.
	But when you remove, that was their excuse for it, but when you remove immunity like that, and basically, the other question is, what constitutes a vaccine then?
	Because all vaccines are just drugs made by pharmaceutical companies, fundamentally, by big pharma.
	So why do they have some separate treatment?
	What gives them that separate legal treatment?
	And essentially, if it just provided any antibodies to any disease.
	Now, most people understood a vaccine to be what's called, in the medical literature, a sterilizing vaccine.
	So that was a vaccine that often had a portion of the virus in it that would sterilize you so that you could not get, from that vaccine, you could not get infected.
	However, there's many vaccines that are non-sterilizing vaccines.
	And so even though the common understanding of vaccine is something that provides immunity, there's actually a good number of vaccines that really don't.
	They're kind of a prophylactic, kind of a therapeutic.
	They reduce the effect of it.
	They may reduce the risk or rate of transmission in some cases.
	In other cases, they just may reduce the impact or effect of it.
	The other thing is there was a lot of literature about the, like, for example, in New York, there was a measles outbreak.
	It was blamed on unvaccinated people.
	And when you dig into the particular data, what they were worried about did no longer pose the lethal rate of risk that it did, you know, half a century ago.
	And that's interesting.
	So I think that was within the Hasidic community, if I'm not mistaken, which led to some other social issues.
	But then that is what I think I heard people refer to as the vaccine measles, which was a less potent version that apparently, I don't understand the science to this or the history, but it apparently spun off from the vaccines in the past so that it was not the original highly lethal measles version that everybody had known hitherto.
	Exactly.
	And the other aspect is they also started combining vaccine shots.
	So there used to be a single shot for...
	Mumps, a single shot for measles, a single shot for, I think it's rubella.
	They started combining that into one shot.
	They changed the age schedule in which people got it, and that ended up triggering a lot of controversy politically over time.
	And the way Bobby Kennedy Jr. got involved in this is his son had a peanut allergy that may have been in response to a vaccine.
	And so he just started researching it, and he spent most of his career As an environmental lawyer, there's two kinds of environmentalism in my view.
	There's esoteric environmentalism, which is big models about what might happen 100 years from now on energy source issues, etc.
	And then there's everyday environmentalism.
	And everyday environmentalism is when big companies or the government or in collusion dump a bunch of crap in your backyard, in your water, your land, your air.
	That's been his focus of his entire legal career, has been dealing with and disproportionately impacted the same places that medical experimentation has disproportionately impacted.
	Let the jokes in the chat start.
	Exactly.
	Which is poor, working class, and minority communities.
	I mean, that's where they dump the crap.
	That's where Ford wants to dump a bunch of sludge.
	They choose a poor indigenous community in part of New Jersey that politically has very little leverage and power.
	And that became a famous documentary.
	Mann vs.
	Ford, which was one of the cases that Bobby Kennedy brought.
	He helped bring the case against Monsanto and a bunch of others, and has had unique success, like the Civil Action book that became a movie of Civil Action with John Travolta.
	Kennedy has basically lived that life for 30 years, and the only difference is he's won a lot more often than the lawyer in that movie did.
	I'm going to bring up Cleopatra to say just a hello and thank you to David and Robert.
	I have been out lately during live streams.
	David, you're looking great.
	Thank you very much.
	Robert, you've lost weight and you're looking great too.
	Thank you for doing this.
	And I'll bring up another chat while Robert texts.
	I presume I know who he's texting.
	Any comments on Anquomo resigning?
	We might get there.
	We're going to have some extra time.
	If Robert does not show up, don't have any ill feelings, people.
	People have tremendously...
	Tremendously busy schedules.
	Yes, no doubt about that.
	And especially right now, because there is a swamp.
	This is the biggest effort to mandate vaccines in America's history.
	You could argue world history to a certain degree, but definitely Western democracies.
	There's never been anything like this, and particularly for a vaccine that is still at the emergency use authorized status.
	Now, apparently today the military backed down a little bit.
	There was talk yesterday.
	It was a reported rumor, but that the head of the Marines was strongly objecting to trying to impose this on the Marines and had told the Secretary of Defense, Austin, that precise thing, and apparently in an animated conversation.
	We can't confirm that, but that's what the story that circulated.
	And maybe that corresponds, as well as pushback from potential litigants, why the military is now apparently saying that they will honor exemptions.
	So there's a lot of people who are looking at suing in that space.
	You look at the pilots.
	They pushed back.
	They said they were going to sue.
	And the airlines folded.
	Now, apparently, United has kind of folded.
	It has a bunch of caveats, apparently, in their union agreement.
	So that's still something that may be subject to future suit.
	But a lot of employers, they're testing out what they can get away with.
	They're often leaking information or emailing information without an actual official formal policy.
	And this will be vetted by a lot of lawyers.
	So look into what the actual policy is.
	But if you're in his, there's very few lawyers.
	There's probably no lawyer in the country that has more understanding of the legal issues concerning this and the civil rights issues concerning this than Bobby Kennedy Jr.
	I'm sure he's swamped at the moment.
	This is the hypocrisy that drives me nuts.
	Everyone says Bobby Kennedy is not a doctor.
	You have no business listening to him.
	And yet the mouthpiece for this entire movement is Bill Gates, who's not a doctor either.
	But his two decades of philanthropic work doing whatever he's been doing, that's worth something.
	But RFK Jr.'s decades of...
	Public service in the environmental sphere and the work he's been doing, the research he's been doing as a lawyer, agree with him or disagree with him, that's worth nothing.
	And it's just a question of demonizing your adversaries and deifying your allies.
	And it's another reason why the public debate has been so limited.
	I mean, I shared what the fact sheet is for these vaccines that has been legally required that's supposed to go to all recipients of the vaccine and to doctors.
	And, you know, many of the people responded on the I did that on the locals board and did a little video description of it.
	Many people responded, said that they had never heard that, that even people who got the vaccine.
	That information was not shared directly with them.
	And this is part of the problem.
	In other words, if the doctor turned out to have failed to give informed consent, he still can't be sued.
	If the pharmaceutical company failed to do it, they can't be sued.
	If it's the local Walgreens or CVS, they can't be sued.
	And when you have no skin in the game, when you only can get reward but have no risk, that's usually not a good combination for good science.
	And Robert, I mean, it's one step.
	They're doing the vaccine lotteries where you're going to incentivize people to make a medical decision in the absence of the person who should probably be giving them the medical advice, their doctor.
	And in Quebec, they've taken it one step grosser than that.
	There's a monthly drawing for a COVID lottery and for the minors, 12 to 17, because Lotto Quebec cannot give them lottery winnings.
	They can get a bursary or something.
	It's beyond what I could have ever imagined even a year and a half ago.
	I'm just going to bring this chat up because it raises an interesting question.
	Luke Blanche, I've got five family members to subscribe to your locals just last week, Viva.
	Did you see Alberta has labeled COVID as an influenza and said we have to learn to deal with it from now on?
	Small correction, they did not relabel COVID anything.
	What they said, or at least what Hinshaw said, is they're going to deal with it the way they deal with other respiratory viruses.
	So it's a semantic distinction, but it's the one that's going to make for more accurate relaying of information so nobody says that you're saying something that was not said.
	Luke, thank you for the super chat.
	But yes, they did not say it was the common flu like Stu Peters said.
	They just said they're going to treat it the way they treat other respiratory viruses.
	And Dina Hinshaw incidentally got flack.
	For her op-ed where they said they were lifting a lot of these measures to try to go back to some sense of normalcy.
	But people need to appreciate that's what has to happen.
	We've spent two years not doing anything to actually resolve the problem.
	On the contrary, I think we've done things to make the problem worse, such as locking people up, no exercise, no vitamin C, constant sanitization.
	And meanwhile, the majority of people dying are no better protected now than they were before.
	No doubt.
	And I think it's, you know, the unique, to some degree, the unique family history of the Kennedy family, but also Robert Kennedy's own legal professional experience with doing everyday environmental cases for ordinary people.
	What you learn is two things.
	You learn you can't trust government regulators.
	They're often colluding with the various people they're supposed to be looking to prevent from doing bad or looking to remediate harm.
	People can just watch the Man vs.
	Ford documentary and see how frequently the EPA failed in that context.
	And you learn that big corporate power lies all the time.
	And so if you're accustomed to that for 20, 25 years of witnessing it and seeing it, and you come from a family that's been targeted to the point of assassination for taking on institutional powers of the most corrupt kind, then you're more willing to have an open mind when it comes to whether or not...
	Everything related to a...
	Just because we label a drug, Big Pharma puts a fancy label on a drug and calls it vaccine, doesn't mean we should suddenly abandon principles of informed consent.
	Doesn't mean we should abandon the same skepticism we would have about any other form of institutional power.
	Someone is asking, have I heard of Tennessee Executive Order 86?
	I haven't, Robert.
	I'll take a look into that.
	I don't think it means what people think it means.
	That's the short answer.
	I'd be surprised if it does, put it that way.
	Now, what were we saying just about two seconds ago was...
	I totally forgot my train of thought.
	Oh, Robert F. Kennedy, the history.
	It looks like he might be a no-show, so maybe you can actually...
	I can ask you questions that I would have wanted to ask him but might have been too shy to do.
	So I was just reading up on why his father might have been assassinated.
	I couldn't find...
	I know we've discussed it.
	I know Mark Grobert talked about it.
	But could you elucidate what the story was?
	JFK, I think most people can more easily understand, but what was it that made his father a target?
	Oh, arguably, to some degree, he was more of a target by certain people by 1968 than his brother was in 1963, even though his brother was president at the time.
	So Bobby Kennedy Jr. talks about this pretty substantially in his book, American Values, that came out in 2015, Bobby Kennedy Jr.
	He's also publicly gone on record as to what he thinks happened in the assassination, and that he doesn't believe Saran Saran is the principal person responsible.
	And there's a parole hearing upcoming with Saran Saran, and Mark Robert is doing a documentary on the assassination process at the same time.
	And one of the things that he talks about is that beginning in the early 60s, while they had a lot of political adversaries, the family did, that the primary...
	The most powerful adversary they had was the CIA.
	Robert Kennedy Jr.'s Uncle John planned on dispersing the CIA because of everything that happened.
	Fired Alan Dulles, who was the architect of the CIA, along with his brother John.
	Fired Richard Bissell, who was one of the other key people, and wanted to replace the CIA.
	Thought it got out of hand.
	Test time to eliminate it and replace it with something else.
	And I was looking at replacing it with a defense intelligence agency that wasn't as compromised from the very inception as the CIA was.
	And it tells a broader family story, too.
	Because, you know, I was always curious why the family politically had this history of particularly, you know, Robert and John, but all the way down after that.
	Of standing up for underdogs in ways that you wouldn't actually think.
	The easy path would have been not to stand up for underdogs.
	Joe Kennedy was one of the only Irish Catholic millionaires in the 1930s.
	The other one was Robert Kennedy Jr.'s maternal grandfather.
	And so they easily could have gone just to sitting on their wealth route.
	But if you dig into their history, both the Kennedys, you know, they grew up as Irish Catholics in a town dominated by Boston province, by the old WASP elite.
	And they re-experienced that in schools like, I forget which ones they went to, Andover and Exeter, but that was reinforced.
	So they were kind of their own underdog despite being privileged because of that Irish Catholic heritage and because of particularly the ancestral, political, religious, cultural conflict.
	Of the time they were growing up, 30s, 40s, 50s.
	And so the CIA was made of WASPs.
	That's what it was.
	It was up buying for WASPs.
	Old money, old Ivy Leagues, old family history, deep ties to corporate Wall Street.
	And so there was a sort of, to a degree, it was a dispute that went back from the time they were kids, culturally.
	But the CIA, of course, they decided it was just a problematic institution.
	It was always trying to stir up and cause trouble.
	It was not being productive and positive.
	We're seeing that.
	I don't know if it's the CIA as much as the FBI.
	I don't really know that there's much of a meaningful difference between the two other than their acronym.
	But we've all been awakened to that somewhat in the last...
	Two years, or four years, or five years.
	Jeez, it's been five years.
	No doubt.
	And so he identifies the CIA.
	And for example, the CIA, Eric Hundley's Unstructured podcast is doing a great interview series with Mark Robert, going into how the CIA has infiltrated other institutions.
	And this includes how they have done so in publishing.
	And Robert Kennedy Jr. has tied a lot of the smear campaigns against his entire family.
	To certain key CIA actors within the publishing industry.
	And he goes into it in the American Values book.
	And also, as he explained in an interview he did with the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco and some other places, that basically he sees the CIA as being at war with the family ever since the 1960s and that they haven't stopped.
	And he has his reasons for why he believes that.
	I don't know if he's talked about it in his book or if you've ever asked him.
	Does he have?
	I mean, I know how I would feel in those shoes.
	It's been probably a lot of projection.
	Does he have concerns?
	Does he feel the sort of Democles of the family history constantly hanging over his head?
	Or how has he grown to cope with that?
	The influence of his family history, which is really sort of reflected in why he wrote the American Values book.
	Is that, you know, he grew up, he talks about it.
	He grew up like the house in Virginia was basically the satellite White House.
	That was, you know, his father's house.
	So it was basically literally a satellite White House, an extension of the White House during the week.
	And in the summers, the family compound in Cape Cod was the summer White House.
	He talks about, you know, there's a red, you know, as a kid, he probably could have picked up, there was an actual red phone.
	He could have picked up and seen if, you know, Khrushchev answered.
	So that's the kind of...
	And also it was kind of eclectic because his mother's side of the family, very independent.
	I think the grandfather originally from South Dakota.
	There's stories about them shooting each other by accident, all that kind of thing.
	And to give an idea for the house in Virginia, they had a sea lion in the pool for like two years.
	They had a baby sea lion.
	So his mom would...
	Ride horses through the house.
	There's, like, horses all around.
	He says, you know, at different times, you had Green Berets on the roof.
	You had Bay of Pigs CIA people outside.
	You had CIA spies and KGB spies, you know.
	He said it was just a wild time to be alive and something to be immersed in.
	But he talks about how from the time he was very little, that the main value he was instilled in was the great thing to be was to be a hero.
	So he sees things entirely differently.
	In other words, he doesn't see it from a depressive standpoint, doesn't see it from an adverse standpoint.
	He sees it as an opportunity to do the right thing and to be utterly unintimidated and unafraid and to expose those who are doing bad no matter the consequence.
	That's why for him going from environmental law to dealing with...
	Issues about big pharma in the vaccine context was a natural extension.
	For his political allies, they didn't understand it because they thought one was sacrosanct and one was okay to do.
	But for him, it was a no-brainer.
	So he's been very verbal about this.
	He's documented who he believes killed his father.
	The connections that that person had was to the defense industry and to intelligence aspects.
	There were intelligence people brought in to do the investigation in L.A. to the assassination.
	So he has not been bashful about pointing that out.
	And the and that that he thinks.
	I don't know what his current position is, but in the past it was that Saran Saran was not responsible for his father's murder and should be paroled.
	And of course Saran Saran was like Manchurian candidate times 10. But he's said that the greatest enemy the Kennedy family ever had was the CIA.
	It's interesting.
	Actually, I did read somewhere that he met with Saran Saran and came to the conclusion that he wasn't responsible, that there was someone else there.
	I mean, this is stuff that I never really dabbled into until we started doing these streams, Robert.
	It's another world.
	I mean, there's so much knowledge.
	And there's so much information, misinformation, and that which is dubbed conspiracy theory, where if you dare question what's in Wikipedia, you're a conspiracy theorist.
	Alright, well, I think we can all come to grips with the fact that RFK is probably not making it tonight.
	I don't want anyone being angry with him, and I don't want anyone thinking there's any nefarious reasons.
	I'll let Robert...
	I haven't heard from him either way, so something must have come up.
	So, everyone, we apologize.
	I mean, it's what it is, but do not have any ill feelings towards RFK.
	We'll reschedule.
	In the meantime, I guess, Robert, we'll just go for a little bit and talk about a few things.
	Well, I mean, the other fascinating, I mean, like, some of his environmental cases are really extraordinary.
	He also set up one of the first meaningful legal clinics, the Pace Legal Clinic, where he got approval for these kids to be law students to take real cases, because I think he understood the value that the best form of legal education would be to try real cases for real clients, for real people, against really difficult adversaries.
	And so it was an extraordinary success, really expanded the ability to get what I call everyday environmentalism.
	And things like when they're wanting to shut down a park in a poor blue-collar neighborhood, getting that park preserved and protected.
	When somebody's contaminating a local creek or a local stream, holding those people accountable and responsible.
	And that's what he did basically for the better part up until most recently, dealing with the vaccine context issues.
	And has been willing to stick with it.
	Even when he's been defamed repeatedly.
	Instagram famously removed him based on a flat-out fraud.
	Total lie.
	That was one of the questions.
	I don't even know the post for which he was removed, but I'm nervous about asking what the post was that they deemed to be sufficient misinformation to end his account there.
	I don't even know what it was.
	Well, mostly, I mean, there are three things going on.
	Bobby Kennedy currently with the Children's Health Defense has a major claim against Facebook that's going up before the Ninth Circuit because he was one of the first people to out the degree of collusion that was taking place between the government and Facebook and Big Tech.
	So that was part of it, that he is the most successful, prominent face of challenging and contesting Big Pharma power.
	We need to be honest.
	We need to have an honest and robust debate.
	And he accelerated his criticism in the COVID context about a lot of these public health interventions.
	He was saying these lockdowns...
	These mask mandates do not conform to civil rights.
	The vaccine mandate definitely doesn't.
	A rush to do a vaccine has a lot of risk and a lot of danger historically.
	This is the one thing that I actually just want to highlight.
	And everybody says, you know, why is there vaccine hesitancy?
	Because you can't deny that there is.
	The lack of transparency is one thing.
	The pressure, the bribing, all of that doesn't help.
	But the fact that you have the soundbites of these Democratic lawmakers when Trump was developing the vaccine, saying, who's going to trust a vaccine that's being rushed through in a political season, in an election cycle?
	Who's going to trust it?
	And you have their soundbites.
	And then they wonder.
	I mean, this is what the expression is, reaping what you sow, the chickens coming home to roost.
	This is now why people...
	The irony, though, is that it's the other side of the political spectrum that might be a little more reluctant or skeptical, but I don't think it's...
	Because of what these Democratic politicians said, I think it's just because people want to be free to make their choices regardless.
	But Robert, this is a good question.
	I like it.
	Travis Vernier.
	Robert, you're on an elevator with the judge.
	What's your 60-second pitch for why the mandated COVID vaccines are unconstitutional?
	Two reasons.
	One, does the judge want to be responsible if it turns out the vaccine causes more harm than the virus to the person it's mandated upon?
	Because again, the people who are at risk are taking the vaccine overwhelmingly.
	We're at 80% plus numbers amongst the elderly and people who have comorbidities.
	So in terms of people who are at risk from the virus.
	Whereas by contrast, some of the people who could be victimized by the vaccine may not be as much at risk from the virus.
	And an example of illustration of that is a young girl who's in a wheelchair who participated in the...
	The clinical trials and her family attributes her current medical condition to the vaccine.
	So if you're a judge, do you want that to happen?
	Do you want that to be on your conscience that you forced this person to take it?
	It turned out to be a total disaster.
	That's the practical one.
	The philosophical principle is shouldn't people have informed consent?
	Nuremberg Code of 1947 was all about medical choice, medical freedom, informed consent.
	We will never allow medical experimentation to take place ever again on any citizenry or population ever.
	And what they're asking is to do precisely that.
	And so if we really care, if we don't want to go back to the eugenics era, we don't want to have the...
	The set of what the Nazis did, then we need to stay as far away from that and honor the principle of informed consent.
	Let people choose.
	Trust people to make choices about their own body.
	Because once we don't do that, we're opening a very dangerous Pandora box.
	My argument in all of this would have been that it's not a question of being anti...
	Any particular vaccine.
	The irony is in Quebec, there's never been a mandatory vaccine, period.
	There's never been a vaccine passport for any, for mumps, measles, rubella, whooping cough, whatever, until now.
	And it's, I mean, people are going to look at the risk factors and the novelty of the vaccine.
	And it is a question of evidence.
	You get in front of a judge, and in order to justify these infringements...
	That can be justified in a free and democratic society.
	There has to be the compelling need, and there has to be compelling assurances of safety, which you simply cannot have but with the passage of time.
	And one of the arguments I'm having with people on Twitter arguments, you know, the back and forth, I say people compare it to measles, mumps, and other vaccines.
	And I say, well, two fundamental differences.
	This virus is not smallpox, and this vaccine is not the smallpox vaccine.
	It has, you know, still emergency authorization use and no FDA approval.
	Their response is, okay, so when this gets FDA approval, you'll support compelled vaccination.
	And not, again, not anti-vaccination at all, just you will support compelled vaccination.
	To which I say, like, if we're going to see the FDA get weaponized now and just abandon all their historical criteria for issuing approval, then I'm going to have another problem.
	It's going to be another problem.
	Robert, what has been historically, typically, the duration, the criteria to obtain FDA approval on a vaccine?
	Twelve years.
	Twelve years.
	And the reason is because of so often it's children that are going to be getting it, that you just need a lot of data and you need a lot of clinical data and some data you can only develop with time.
	For example, the FDA approved fact sheets specifically state that they don't know if there's a how long the vaccine works or is in fact effective.
	That's because they haven't had enough time to study it.
	Now there's data coming out of Israel.
	There's data coming out of other places that's raising questions about exactly how long it does work.
	Because again, the unique thing here is not only is this at the experimental stage of a vaccine, it's using experimental technologies to try to achieve and attain the benefit.
	And we have no idea how an mRNA vaccine works a long time.
	We can guess, we can speculate, but we don't know.
	And that's why usually they want to be very, very careful.
	Before they authorize it and approve it.
	And the other thing they're supposed to do as part of the right to petition under the First Amendment, the right to have informed consent as part of any medical process, and the right to have participatory information just to make sure you get the right medical decision is people file citizen petitions.
	One of the main citizen petitions in this context was filed by Robert Kennedy Jr. on behalf of Children's Health Defense all the way back in May.
	And it just identified all the risk points.
	Has this been researched?
	Has this been investigated?
	What about this data point?
	What about this issue of concern?
	Including a bunch of doctors and scientists who joined it or filed comments in response to it and said, yes, we have this concern here.
	We have this concern here.
	We have this concern here.
	We need this data here.
	And the president himself, Joe Biden, President Biden, said all throughout the campaign, nobody.
	I think he said it like a dozen times.
	Transparency, transparency, transparency, transparency.
	And the point that Bobby Kennedy Jr. made was we need to get that transparency.
	Unfortunately, the FDA has failed to answer.
	A single comment or a single question or a single issue raised in that citizen petition.
	And yet they're talking about approving it in a few weeks?
	That's terrifying because they're supposed to answer each one of those citizen petitions.
	Give a response.
	Here's why we've looked at this and it's okay.
	We've looked at this and it's okay.
	The other thing that's missing from this in particular, these set of issues that Bobby Kennedy highlights, One, we have an extraordinary level of suppression and censorship of the debate concerning it.
	So if you're a doctor and raise your head about this, you get attacked.
	Or you get censored.
	If you're a doctor, lawyer, member of the public who raises questions, massive censorship like they've done to Bobby Kennedy Jr., who had almost a million followers, maybe more, on Instagram at the time they censored him.
	And by the way, they censored him for simply quoting the information in the government's own database.
	That's all he did.
	He said, here's what they're reporting.
	And historically, they know that the database has limitations.
	There's arguments about whether it overstates the risk or underreports the risk.
	There's more evidence, frankly, if I was in a trial, for it underreporting the risk than overstating it historically.
	Alex Berenson, another liberal ex-New York Times reporter, has been reporting on this extensively, documenting this.
	He found information that someone had leaked that shows that Some of the big pharmaceutical companies making these vaccines are having adverse events reported to them three times higher what's in the government database.
	But all he did is historically what the FDA has always done is they take it as a safety signal.
	They know that it's not a perfect database.
	Maybe they think it overstates it.
	Maybe they think it understates it.
	But they know it's a signal that there may be an issue.
	Historically, any vaccine that has had the number of adverse events that this vaccine has Already been reported in, in the same VAERS system, vaccine adverse event reporting system.
	They have pulled the vaccine.
	So this is one question, because we know that there's a lot more reports in the VAERS.
	I presume, and it's a safe assumption.
	About half a million, I think, currently.
	There's a European version of this, too.
	In the U.S., I believe, at the very least, the amount of people who've received one vaccine...
	Am I wrong in thinking that it's half the population, give or take?
	Yeah, my understanding is that over 150, 160 million have taken the vaccine.
	So you're taking a year where you're going to have obviously a record amount of people getting a vaccine.
	You're going to have a record amount of various reports just statistically.
	I don't know, proportionately.
	Is it disproportionate this year than the previous years?
	It's both.
	It's both.
	Not only is the volume off the charts, but you're right, the volume of the vaccine.
	But this is also part of the issue.
	This kind of mass vaccination with an emergency use vaccine is something we've never done before.
	So a lot of people, Brett Weinstein and others, have said, we should really think this through and make sure we've really debated this.
	And what happens when we've shut down the debate?
	We don't allow the citizen participation to take place through the citizen petition process with no answers.
	We don't allow any doctor or anyone else to say anything about this without threat of losing their license or having their reputation tarred and feathered.
	Or if you keep going on, they just censor you entirely and remove you from the discussion and the debate and the dialogue.
	And so, I mean, the degree of mathematical, I guess they call it innumeracy, you know, illiteracy.
	My thought process on it, but it is extraordinary.
	Like, what I said the other day was, if you took the people that have concerns about the vaccine for them personally, and you put people who are really supporting the mandates, and you ask them some basic questions about both COVID and the vaccine, I have no doubt who's going to pass that test and who ain't.
	And it ain't going to be the vaccine mandators.
	It ain't going to be the Philly DeFrancos of the world who passed that test.
	If Phil wants to be as arrogant and condescending as he is on this issue, I'll be happy to debate and discuss it with him anytime, anyplace, anywhere.
	I'm not saying this to be mean.
	It would be useless because, but for the top-level talking points, it's safe, it's effective, get vaccinated.
	He knows nothing.
	He understands nothing.
	It's complicated stuff.
	It's not stuff that anybody can just pretend to understand.
	Like Patrick King coming out of Alberta.
	When people are talking about things, you can understand a certain amount of it, you can get to a certain level, but then everybody has to recognize where their appreciation and understanding of the sufficient degree of expertise ends.
	And then you have to defer to people who I do think, even if I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, I take for granted.
	I know that Robert RFK knows more than me.
	I know that you know more than me.
	And the funny thing is, there can be two people who objectively know more than me.
	With two diverging opinions, and that's where my own common sense comes into play.
	Well, precisely.
	I mean, to give an example, you have a lot of employers out there and people in the press saying that the FDA has already declared this vaccine safe and effective.
	Yeah, because Jen Psaki comes out and says it.
	She says it not so directly.
	That's a material lie.
	The FDA, that's specific legal language.
	The FDA, in their own fact sheet, says these vaccines at this point are unapproved.
	What that means legally is the FDA has not determined whether they're safe yet, has not determined whether they're effective yet.
	They think it's hopeful.
	They think maybe it's safe.
	Maybe it's effective under the emergency use authorization.
	But they haven't made that certification.
	So to see people say this, like I saw a report, somebody, a prominent media person, or it actually may have been the government of the city of Richmond, Virginia, come out and say the FDA has found this to be safer and more effective than almost any other vaccine.
	That's patently false.
	That's misinformation.
	That's medical misinformation.
	Like Phil DeFranco was talking about how anyone who has...
	Who opposes vaccine mandates or anyone who has any reasons to doubt this vaccine being applicable to them is a grifter involved in medical misinformation.
	No, that describes Carl Franco.
	Hashtag confession through projection is all that that is.
	And in fairness to Jen Psaki, what she said was not overt.
	It was not overt.
	It is FDA approved.
	She said something like vaccines like this, which are FDA approved.
	So there was wiggle room for dishonesty.
	There's a lot of that going on.
	A lot of that going on.
	I was definitely misleading.
	Definitely misleading, and we'll allow people to take the top-level understanding which is going to be wrong.
	Robert, I guess we'll go for a few more minutes, but I hear some...
	Oh yeah, we can just make it open for a live stream.
	So it'll be in the spirit of Robert Kennedy.
	So one thing that Robert brought up was that in an interview with...
	I forget who it was, but it's an interview on YouTube, so I feel comfortable that we can discuss it.
	Robert's point is that...
	Many of these vaccines are not, what is it called?
	Double blind tested?
	I forget the acronym, but they're not blind tested so that there is no actual safety research done on these.
	And I looked up that point and one explanation for why this is the case, why this was not the case with polio, but it is the case now that double randomized blind testing, I think is what they call it, is that ethical issues that you cannot take sick people and give them placebos.
	In order to treat an illness.
	So therefore, with vaccines, just as a pure matter of fact, ethically, you cannot do the type of testing that Robert F. Kennedy is faulting the vaccines for not having done.
	Can you feel that?
	We need time.
	In other words, let people who are willing to voluntarily participate in the process.
	And the only way that works, both to measure the effects over time, some things we can only know in time.
	I mean, there's certain things we cannot know in six months.
	I mean, like one of the concerns Alex Berenson raised out of the gate.
	How do we assess the safety and efficacy of a vaccine over time?
	If we're only relying upon three months of data or six months of data, then we don't know what's going to happen in a year's time.
	And many big pro-vaccine advocates were pointing out that doing a mass vaccination campaign during a pandemic It has certain scientific medical risks that Brett Weinstein talked about.
	And the only way to know one way or the other, it's why the FDA fact sheet repeatedly says over and over again, we don't know if this lasts.
	We don't know what the duration is because we can't, because we don't have enough information.
	And that's where, I mean, the rationale to rush this, I mean, almost throughout the whole history of rushed drugs, when you find a drug that went wrong, Including when a vaccine went wrong.
	It was almost always rushed.
	In 1976, swine flu came about.
	Panicked people.
	They rushed through a vaccine.
	The vaccine ended up being a disaster.
	And it's what I tell my friends that are on the very strong pro-vaccine side.
	I say, if you want to destroy public confidence in vaccines going forward, rush this vaccine and force it on people.
	Because when that backfires...
	You've just done more damage than any quote-unquote anti-vaxxer could have ever done.
	And that's the point is that, you know, I say rushing the vaccine.
	Fast-tracking it, it was a great thing to have done for those who are actually the most vulnerable to this.
	And you didn't need pressure or coercion or passports in order to get those who felt at risk to take a vaccine that they trusted because science is amazing these days.
	But then you go from there.
	And where we're going in Quebec.
	It's compelled.
	It's coerced vaccination of children 12 to 17, and our health director at one point in a press conference maybe said the silent part out loud that they are thinking of going as young as six months.
	When you start pushing that, when the demographic that you're targeting was never at any meaningful risk, and then the argument becomes we need to do it to this demographic in order to protect the other demographic, you then have...
	You have compelled coerced vaccination of people who are not at risk, purportedly for the benefit of those who are, who would be willing to take the vaccine in the first place.
	And it's not just how you get distrust and vaccine hesitancy.
	It's how you stir upheaval.
	It's how you divide society.
	And it's how you divide families, because you create this world in which a child now, 12 to 17, in Quebec at least, is going to be denied privileges unless they get a vaccine.
	And then they're going to be known at school as the children of the anti-vaxxers because now apparently being anti-vaxxed means thinking that children should not be compelled to take an emergency authorization use vaccine.
	It's beyond creating vaccine hesitancy.
	It is fundamentally dividing a society.
	Some will say by design.
	I don't even care if it's by design.
	If it's by accident, the outcome is the same.
	And it's disproportionately trying to take away these basic rights to go to a restaurant, go to a bar, travel, have a job, that are going to fall on working class and lower and poorer communities and minority communities.
	And so, like in New York, the mandate will disproportionately discriminate against the black citizens of New York.
	Is that a world we want to go back to?
	Because, I mean, that's some of the other consequences.
	Aside from all the science medical consent debate, About the vaccine, and I tell everybody, people sometimes get confused, I'm neither pro-vax nor anti-vax.
	I'm pro-informed consent.
	I think that should be your choice, not my choice.
	I shouldn't be able to dictate to you yay or nay.
	You should decide yay or nay based on adequate information and legal protection.
	That's what we designed after World War II.
	We said, oh man, look what the Nazis did.
	We shouldn't do this again.
	Now, that didn't stop our government from doing it in secret.
	With MKUltra?
	What does MKUltra produce?
	MKUltra produces Ted Kaczynski.
	Ted Kaczynski was an MKUltra guy.
	What Bobby Kennedy has done is he understands don't trust government.
	You can't defer to authority.
	Don't trust big corporations.
	They lie to you repeatedly and routinely.
	Do your own investigation, your own research.
	Empower the ordinary person and particularly be skeptical of any policy.
	That disproportionately profits a few at the expense of the many.
	That disproportionately hurts and injures the least politically protected and most vulnerable communities in the world.
	I mean, this is a guy who's gone to Cuba to fight for certain rights there, all across Latin America, Asia, Europe, and has stood up repeatedly for those communities.
	He's doing the same thing now, and he's getting a lot of criticism for it, a lot of hate for it, and that's part of the problem.
	Part of the problem is how can we have...
	I don't have confidence in a process that doesn't have robust debate.
	I don't have confidence in a process that censors and suppresses dissident information.
	Because, I mean, as a lawyer, we've been taught this is how you get to truth.
	When I see those processes not in place, I don't have to get into the details myself.
	To say, I'm not trusting the outcome here because we've not allowed one side to present their side of the story.
	We've not allowed one side of evidence to even be put into evidence.
	We've not allowed one side to even ask questions, to participate and partake as the law was supposed to require in the case of citizen petitions.
	So that's why I have doubts.
	All my friends out there that are big believers in it, God bless, don't trust a process that inherently will produce a bad result like this process is doing.
	Preach Barnes, Don Jandro.
	Okay, let me think of some other questions that I think...
	Actually, maybe we can do this one.
	Which is why people brand RFK as an anti-vaxxer.
	He equates the...
	What year was it, incidentally, that the U.S. really ramped up and increased the list of vaccinations?
	I'm thinking 1982 or something, but when was it and why was it?
	My last day is 1989.
	It was about a year after they made all the vaccine makers immune.
	Bobby Kennedy draws these, like, all of a sudden we get all this immunity and all of a sudden we have to have a whole bunch more vaccines now that there's only reward and no risk.
	So it's 89, give or take, late 80s, that the list increases.
	Robert F. Kennedy draws some conclusions to frequency of certain disorders, certain illnesses, allergies in the United States.
	Because they explode.
	There is a correspondence.
	The debate is whether there's causation.
	But there's a variety of medical ailments that only start occurring at a certain scale in the same time frame as these vaccines, as the vaccine numbers being exploding.
	And a lot of the medical standards for the approval of those vaccines shrinking.
	And the legal, because there's no legal responsibility if it turns out they're wrong.
	And that's why, and here's the other thing.
	When I first got into this, because so many people in the professional class just hate anybody that raises a single question.
	All of a sudden, you take a drug, put the word vaccine on it, and all of a sudden it's like the Pope put some holy water on it.
	It's like perfect now.
	Like our Pope, Fauci, that we have going on.
	And Bobby Kitty's got a great book coming out in September on Fauci.
	He's also been a big credit of a certain software maker.
	A former software maker known as Bill Gates.
	And he drew some connections with them and Epstein before other people did.
	But basically, that sort of historical context of these diseases exploding.
	For example, with almost everybody I've ever met that's big on what I call the informed consent movement, what the media calls the anti-vax movement.
	I've met very few that are actually anti-vax.
	I've never met one that said, never, ever take any, I've never met such a person.
	I've met people that are like, I'm worried about this one, I'm worried about this one, I'm worried about this one for my kid, so on and so forth.
	Almost all of them share one thing in common.
	They were people who were big believers in vaccines, who had their kid make sure their kid took everything, and then something went wrong.
	And when they researched it, they found a correlation and then found a medical establishment that wouldn't listen to them, a court system that was closed, a media that wasn't willing to investigate.
	How did their media become so docile, the Big Pharma?
	I mean, if you're a proud investigative journalist, you shouldn't be pipping out Big Pharma.
	Well, Robin, Alison Morrow, check her out on Locals, follow her.
	We discussed it.
	When Fox News is getting Big Pharma ad dollars, money corrupts.
	You become beholden to it.
	You're not going to piss off your sponsors.
	Exactly.
	I mean, Big Pharma is one of Fox's biggest contributors.
	That's why they were never going to get into this debate.
	I mean, now, to Tucker Carlson's credit, he has repeatedly had Bobby Kennedy on over the years.
	But Tucker's the only guy that's willing to be bold there.
	The rest of them are going to run for cover and cower.
	We have Senator Rand Paul, a United States senator, banned for a week from YouTube for just pointing out basic...
	He's an actual doctor, unlike Bill Gates.
	He's a real doctor, Rand Paul.
	It's sick, Robert.
	It's sick.
	And what do you tell people?
	That YouTube...
	The tech giants, they need to get sued for the damages that result from censoring medical information.
	They are effectively playing the role of doctor.
	And other than getting sued civilly, I thought it was illegal to purport to be a doctor if you're not a doctor.
	It would seem, I might argue, and I'm saying it tongue-in-cheek, it won't hold up in court.
	Censoring a doctor means you're the doctor.
	To be the king, you have to beat the king, whatever.
	I would make that argument somewhere.
	Find a way to get into it.
	But the fact that they're censoring a doctor...
	For government work, no less.
	I mean, it's a double whammy.
	Where does it end and what can people do?
	Like, what can we do?
	Well, it's also, in the court of public opinion, where this is going to matter a lot, as we've already seen.
	So when people tell me, you know, it shouldn't be a problem to ask someone their vaccination status, ask someone whether they've been previously infected and so forth, my immediate comeback is, oh, okay, I agree.
	Would you please tell me your entire sexual history?
	Because I now think that's somehow relevant.
	And then people are like, well, hold on a second.
	But where's the limit?
	Once you say you can ask, you can ask.
	People don't appreciate this.
	I'm open with the dirty...
	Everyone knows I had shingles a year and a half ago.
	February, right before the COVID broke.
	Apparently, one of the potential trigger side effects with, I think it's Pfizer, is that it can trigger a relapse of shingles.
	If I don't want to get it, and I'm going to have to tell people I have shingles, I'm not embarrassed about these things, but some people might.
	Some people might have herpes.
	It's about medical privacy.
	It's about core rights.
	I had this debate years ago.
	When I was representing Wesley Snipes because he opposed them taking a forcible DNA test from him because the allegations were patently absurd.
	They knew the allegations were ludicrous.
	I mean, the person who was making the allegations had had visions.
	She thought Snipes was her secret husband.
	They had eight kids together.
	Oprah had stolen her face and Prince had stolen her lyrics.
	This was someone who had had a mental break years ago.
	Bad, tough history.
	Saw the movie Blade.
	And thought, you know, came up with this fantasy.
	And the government agents knew it.
	She had disclosed all of this.
	In fact, one of the tests was, can you identify anything about his body?
	She couldn't identify anything about his body.
	And she said tattoos, maybe.
	Because she didn't know if the tattoos from Blade were real or fake.
	And yet, they were trying to do a forcible DNA extraction of snipes.
	And Wes was like, yeah, government's not taking a piece of my body.
	No, thank you.
	We're going to fight this tooth and nail.
	Did the bailiff come and give him a glass of water during a break and then come and take it away to some back lab?
	Well, I mean, they actually, the Family Court of New York got Interpol to issue an international warrant for his physical arrest for forcible DNA extraction.
	That's how insane it got.
	I mean, we were on the phone talking to the airport folks who were going to arrest him once in a particular country.
	We're like, this is going to happen, this is going to happen, this is going to happen, unless he walks right through that door.
	They got a sudden motivation.
	We're like, okay, screw this.
	I'm not getting involved in the middle of this.
	But ultimately, we won the case with a civil rights case.
	But I remember debating people at the time.
	They're like, well, why is he, if he has nothing to worry about, why is he worried about the government taking his DNA for whatever reason?
	And I'm like, okay, so if you don't have anything to hide, you don't mind if I put a camera in your bedroom, right?
	Make sure you're not doing anything illegal in there, right?
	There's got to be limits.
	I've had these discussions with people.
	You either...
	I mean, I guess I can think of a way that you get around it.
	They'll have a QR code that the government knows their medical issues, but no one else will.
	So you get the QR code that says, you may pass, like in total recall.
	So maybe there's a way to get around that, but then you might have issues.
	Psychological issues that you don't necessarily want to tell the government.
	You don't want the government necessarily knowing.
	And either that, or you get denied privileges, or you're the only person in there, the red light goes off, and they say, oh, go in medical condition.
	This person is exempt from the double vaccination.
	People have not stopped to think about it, but they've also just not stopped to think about how it is that the areas that these are being required in pretty much apply to demographics that are at minimal risk by everything we know now.
	Gyms.
	Coffee, you know, these are not places where you're going into old persons' homes, hospitals.
	And this is a prediction I'm making because in Quebec they're saying it.
	It's only going to apply to non-essential services.
	If the rationale is that this poses a risk for people out there to not be double-vaxxed, the place where you'd want to do it is in the essential services.
	You don't want un-vaxxed, risky people going to a hospital to infect everybody in the hospital.
	So it is only a matter of time before they start setting up divided services, essential services.
	For the unvaccinated.
	And all of it, for this particular virus, with these particular stats, at this particular time, given this particular vaccine, the governments have collectively lost their mind or they have collectively realized the people are not pushing back hard enough and it's an all-grab.
	No doubt.
	So, you know, it's enough.
	And the first part of that process is people being informed of their rights.
	Just people asking questions of a lot of their employers and other government agencies has got many of them, not all of them, but got many of them to pull back.
	I mean, even the Biden administration keeps saying they're going to mandate it on the defense military, but they just haven't got around to signing any actual order.
	Now, on the flip side, take the Tyson Corporation in Arkansas.
	And this is we'll see if Sarah Huckabee Sanders is the real deal or not.
	She and her father, she's running for governor.
	Her father's former governor of Arkansas.
	Tyson Foods, which has an interesting history in terms of hiring illegal immigrants and some other things, but we'll put that aside for the moment.
	They have told their employees that they have a right.
	They're going to mandate it, number one.
	And number two, but they have a right of a religious exemption.
	So several of them have filed a religious exemption.
	And Tyson then demands more information, which you really shouldn't get into because that opens the door to religious discrimination, which is protected under various laws, including in Arkansas.
	So the person actually comes back and gives him the detailed information that, in particular, aborted fetus cells was used to confirm the virus.
	Now, the response was they did not recognize somebody having a pro-life, religiously-based objection.
	As a legitimate religious objection or moral position to hold.
	Tyson Foods in Arkansas now is going to decide what's an okay religious view to have and what's not an okay religious view to have.
	The other problem, and here they're being deceptive, there's people that have, nobody is saying any of the vaccines have aborted fetus cells in the vaccine as an ingredient.
	And so often when employees are coming in and saying, I object because they used aborted fetus cells in the process of creating this vaccine, some employers are saying, oh, that's fake news.
	I have my PolitiFact check right here.
	It says there's no ingredients that include it.
	That's not the objection.
	The objection is a lot of people who are deeply pro-life don't want to support a medical product that has anything to do.
	With aborted fetus cells.
	And it is undisputed.
	People can look up Nebraska, other places.
	It's undisputed that Pfizer and Moderna used aborted fetus cells to confirm the vaccine in the process.
	So employers are just, you know, it's amazing.
	They think if, unless PolitiFact said it or confirmed it, then somehow it can't be true.
	Because this is part of the sort of downstream of misinformation.
	That the media, big tech, and big media, and big government are colluding to influence public opinion.
	That's where we see polls, and we see what risk do you think you'll die if you get COVID?
	You see people think they have a 30% chance of dying if they get COVID.
	I had a discussion with someone who's very intelligent, said that my demographic has a 4% chance of dying if you contract, because 4% of all fatalities were 40 to 50. And I said, that's not what it means.
	And the fact that that's how you interpret it is to show how radically tainted by fear you have become that those statistics in your own mind, you equated them, and it didn't seem unreasonable to you to think that 4% of people aged 40 to 50 who contracted would die.
	It's an amazing thing.
	People have just lost the perspective because they're so enveloped and enwrapped in fear.
	Oh, completely.
	I mean, and like, you even had that reporter who was bragging about She being in the hospital for side effects from the vaccine and saying she was still thrilled because she said it's much better to get a side effect than if you get COVID-19 and die.
	And it's like, unless she has certain comorbidities, her risk of dying was never very high in the first place.
	But she seems to be completely unfamiliar with this.
	No, the argument is always going to be that some people don't know that they have comorbidities, so you have an ostensibly healthy 39-year-old who might be...
	Overweight, to say the least, that might have a problem.
	But sometimes you don't know the underlying comorbidities that you do have, and then you find out the hard way.
	But the statistical anomalies that they have turned into the rule to traumatize everyone is part and parcel of what the media does to generate clicks.
	It's extraordinary.
	They exaggerate the risk on one side and pretend there is no risk on the other side, and then don't allow people to publicly discuss it.
	And if any professional sticks their head up, they whack them.
	That is not the way to get to truth.
	That's a guarantee to get to something that's not truth.
	And just the process.
	That's what I've told people.
	Three things concern me in this context.
	One, I don't trust a process that doesn't allow for robust debate and, in fact, overtly discourages it.
	Secondly, I don't trust a process.
	That has a history of failure, like rushing things like vaccines, like developing a vaccine for coronavirus that before this vaccine, we've never had any success against ever.
	It's one of my quick facts when I'm debating with someone.
	I tell them, how many successful coronavirus vaccines before this one have there ever been in human history?
	Zero.
	Big fat zero.
	It's not like they haven't tried.
	They've been trying for a century.
	And as much as I understand that I understand, I understand why it's very difficult to develop a coronavirus vaccine because it mutates quickly.
	It is effectively a strain of the common cold.
	It's existed for decades.
	It's why you already had coronavirus warnings on disinfectants, you know, 99.9% of germs.
	I don't know if, you know, I think it kills coronavirus, but we have seen these labels on things for a long time because it's existed in some form or another for a long time.
	Whether or not the previous versions had Arguably what some suspect might be gain-of-function adaptations, we don't know.
	Robert, let's call it early, because I told my wife that we were only going to go for what Robert said we had in terms of time, and I hear family upstairs who are in from Toronto that I haven't seen in a long time.
	So everybody, we'll get Robert F. Kennedy again sometime.
	Who do we have next week?
	I got to double check.
	So there's a range of people coming up within, I think, the week after is Jordan Peterson's daughter is going to be on.
	The drain is going to be on at some point.
	Matt Stoller, the great antitrust.
	He comes from the left, but he's a great antitrust.
	Legal mind is going to be on.
	Michael Tracy at some point is going to be on.
	And there's a range of other people who have said, yes, I just have to align them with dates because my own calendar.
	Has been a little bit crazy of late.
	But I'll be over at...
	I'll join the after-party live chat at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And I'm providing detailed videos and other information.
	Not only there's examples there if people want to see what other letters have other employees used that have been successful.
	It's not a guarantee of success.
	Never legal advice, of course.
	You're free to do what you want.
	No copyright.
	But there's examples of those letters of religious exemptions and legal exemptions.
	And I'm doing breakdowns of the fact sheet, breakdowns of the various lawsuits that will be throughout the week.
	And I'll be doing some live streams probably later Friday and Saturday at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	And you know, someone said we should do a sidebar with Marion.
	And I said, one day if we have a guest that doesn't show up, that would be the perfect opportunity, but she's upstairs entertaining.
	So the next time, one day we'll have Marion on.
	Okay, we're live Sunday.
	We're going to have a lot to discuss.
	I know people are asking about the Apple.
	Apple in particular.
	And I do notice a lot of people are asking questions that we've answered, let's say, multiple times in the past, which is good because it means we have new faces here.
	Can you sue your employer?
	We've answered these questions.
	So I would say go back, check some of the older streams for the letter template.
	Check it out on Locals.
	And if you ask the question and we've answered it a few times, I don't always bring them back up, so I do apologize.
	But look, we'll get Robert F. Kennedy up here one of these days.
	Robert, I'll try to tune into the chat in a bit after I say hello, but I'll see you Sunday, if no, later.
	Absolutely.
	Thanks, everybody.

▲