Viva & Barnes - Ep. 84 Viva & Barnes LIVE! What a Week!

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 24, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:00:23

Ep. 84 Viva & Barnes LIVE! What a Week!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Alright, it has been a long day.
	I drove from West Virginia, or it was Maryland, or it was Virginia.
	I forget which, but I think I passed through all three of them at some point today.
	I passed through Pennsylvania, New York State.
	I'm not sure if I touched on Vermont.
	I don't think I did.
	I drove a thousand kilometers today, and I stopped for all of two minutes, excluding the border, because I just got back from a weekend in...
	Maryland, West Virginia, or Virginia.
	I forget which now.
	Oh yeah, so for anybody who doesn't know, Robert Barnes and I were on Timcast Friday.
	I think everybody does know that.
	We spent the weekend down there.
	I met Robert Barnes in person for the first time.
	I met Eric Hunley in person for the first time because Eric drove up.
	I don't exactly know where he lives, but it was a few hours away.
	He drove up.
	We ended up sharing a hotel room last night, which is...
	I felt like a teenager having a sleepover.
	And we ended up after the party.
	There was an after party last night that Tim threw for his supporters, his fans, his subs.
	We ended up sharing a hotel room.
	I left at 6 in the morning and drove straight to Montreal so I could make it here for tonight.
	And it was awesome.
	Starting from the beginning, let's get the disclaimers out of the way right away.
	First of all, I ran out of clean shirts, so I had to pull out the oldest of the vlog merch.
	I'm going to pull up some comments here, then we're going to get into it.
	I got a notification this time.
	YouTube must have made a mistake.
	Or someone put in a good word for me.
	I'm joking.
	Thank you for being here, Harry Dairyman.
	Fauci the Beagle exterminator.
	We're talking about this tonight.
	And F, late, late on TimCast2.
	So, let's start from the beginning, everybody.
	I just drove a thousand kilometers to and from to do the TimCast Live IRL, and it was well, well worth it to meet people for the first time and to have that opportunity.
	But to escape Canada, now that the land borders are still closed for non-essential travel, was an experience.
	To get down into the United States and into states where...
	There's a different perspective of constitutional rights, fear in general, response to all of these measures.
	It's a world of difference, like an actual, tangible, palpable difference in environment, in ambiance, in overall stress levels.
	And it's fascinating to experience and then to come back to.
	I loved the appearance on Timcast.
	I loved the whole dynamic.
	I know some people were saying, Tim should have let us talk more.
	I think people were expecting a different...
	It was a roundtable discussion of current events.
	And I think, by and large, everybody already knows Robert and I's backstory.
	So there wasn't necessarily the need to go into that.
	But people are always going to be disappointed one way or the other.
	It was phenomenal.
	I loved every minute of it.
	And just to show you some things that I came back with.
	Some more gifts for myself.
	This is not alcohol.
	This is Fair Hope Favorites, made in Alabama, Moonshine Original Hot Sauce, non-alcoholic people.
	This is clear hot sauce, and it's kind of good.
	And then I haven't opened this one yet up, but I had to get it when I saw it in a store in West Virginia.
	Rebel Yell Redneck Hot Sauce.
	I don't even know if this is offensive souvenir stuff, but...
	I saw it.
	I bought it.
	I'm going to taste it.
	I also got a proper 12 from Conor McGregor because we don't have that in Quebec for a number of reasons.
	Okay, let's see this here.
	Viva and Barnes reenacting John Candy and Steve Martin.
	Please tell me you didn't have your hands between the pillows.
	I shared the room with Eric Hunley, but Robert, we all got the same hotel at the same Hotel 6 the night of last night, which was good timing.
	Okay.
	Really enjoyed your appearance on Timcast IRL, Viva, and Barnes.
	Just a pity it was not a Fargo attempt at escaping from Kanakistan.
	I had the thoughts, but we're not there.
	It felt like escaping the Iron Curtain, and then coming back, they pulled me over for a random COVID test, even though I have a negative antigen test from Wednesday.
	I have a negative PCR test from Friday.
	I get pulled over for a random test at the border.
	11 people that I counted working under a tent, I guess they're government employees, 11 people employed by the government to administer random tests because the requirements for PCR testing are already there.
	Who's paying for all this stuff?
	For a border that's closed to non-essential travel.
	So very, very interesting.
	I'm still waiting on the results from those, but I suspect it's going to be the same as the other four tests.
	Disclaimer.
	For those of you at Oberlin, this stream is hosted by two cisgender males.
	Is anything going on with Oberlin?
	Okay, good.
	Let me just get the disclaimers out of the way.
	No legal advice.
	No medical advice.
	No counter-fortification advice.
	Superchats.
	YouTube takes 30% to Superchats.
	If you don't like it, I understand that.
	You can give us Rumble Rants at Rumbles if you want to support the channel.
	We are live streaming on Rumble as well.
	I will not get to all the Super Chats if that's going to niff you or upset you.
	You're going to feel riff, ruch, whatever it is.
	Don't do it.
	I don't like people feeling bad after a stream.
	So what else?
	Let's...
	Oh, let's see here.
	That hot sauce may not be offensive now, but expect our prime...
	To make it so.
	Progressive...
	Jeez Louise, I'm going to get in trouble for reading streams.
	Inquiring minds want to know, when you stand next to Tim, were you able to see over his beanie?
	Tim is a good three inches taller than me.
	I think everybody I met last night and at TimCast now fully appreciate just how small of a human being I actually am.
	I'm like, I'm 5 '6 with my shoes on.
	But no, Tim is substantially taller than me, at least by my standards.
	All right.
	But it was a phenomenal experience.
	Got to meet Robert.
	The Saturday I went to Harper's Ferry, which I had no idea was such a historical town with an amazing history.
	And amazing as in fascinating.
	Basically, the epicenter of where the Civil War effectively started, broke out.
	And I went to, I forget the name of the mountain that I did a tour on, but...
	Harper's Ferry changed hands between the Confederate and the Union forces five times during the Civil War.
	It was a strategic asset for the war in terms of accessing the South or fighting up to the North.
	It had arms that were being held at this armistice, not the word, an armory.
	Fascinating, fascinating history, especially for a Canadian who, you know, I was never really interested in history until you get to a certain age and then it becomes interesting.
	While we wait for Barnes to get into the house, I'll take some chats and take some comments, but also non-super chats, because I want everyone to participate.
	We all complain about Wokas ruining this country.
	Okay, I didn't read that one before I brought it up.
	Don't be kind, internet.
	We're talking about Alec Baldwin tonight, because it's a rapidly evolving situation, but there's what to discuss.
	I practice law and try cases.
	My phone is off.
	The effing hook with mandate issues and way to connect offline.
	I'm getting a lot of...
	I get tons of emails, tons of requests.
	People don't fully appreciate that even if I were still an active practicing attorney, I'm only certified to practice in Quebec or federal issues in federal court.
	I can't handle Ontario mandates because I'm not certified under common law in Canada, even less so United States issues.
	Yeah, so let's see this.
	We had Scott Adams on Viva Barnes and Viva and Barnes on Tim Pool.
	It was a big week.
	It was a great week.
	Oh, what does my shirt say?
	Oh, okay, fine.
	Thank you.
	The shirt says, know the vlog.
	Old school merch.
	One of my older shirts, but I don't have any clean buttoned up shirts for tonight's stream.
	Sorry, Viva.
	I don't mean to get you in trouble.
	I just don't respect the office of the Prime Minister 2021.
	The amazing thing is, I'm in Westmount NDG riding, and there's a lot of people on the street who tell me the same thing.
	Unless it's a vocal minority in private, but a silent minority, or there's a very big silent majority that just doesn't talk, I don't meet very many people who are happy with what's going on in the world right now.
	Certainly less our government.
	And I just don't know...
	A third minority government.
	We'll see what happens in two to three years when they call another election.
	Totally miffed.
	Mike Pierce.
	That's a great avatar.
	Barnes schooled Ian.
	It was great.
	So there was a discussion at the end.
	Everyone should go watch the live stream.
	It was great.
	But he didn't school.
	It was a fair discussion.
	I think the whole discussion between natural law and human rights law, it's a question of semantics.
	Everybody is ultimately saying the same thing.
	They're just giving it a different name.
	I'm not bringing up mean comments.
	I want to bring up, does having had COVID equal being vaxxed?
	Not that I believe in Canada.
	I do not believe they recognize prior infections and antibodies as an excuse not to get vaccinated.
	My understanding.
	Okay, so for tonight on the menu, Fauci, there's some news on Fauci, going to be well worth discussing.
	Alec Baldwin, going to be very interesting to discuss.
	Vaccine mandate updates.
	I think there's updates in pending lawsuits that are coming.
	But we'll all get into it when Robert gets in the house.
	Let's see.
	While we have some time, and I will forewarn everyone.
	Oh, that's what I wanted to do.
	Book review.
	No rant this morning.
	When you drive 10 hours, Audible is the most...
	This is going to sound like an ad.
	Maybe Audible should sponsor me.
	Audible is, for me, it's fantastic.
	Or at least just audiobooks are fantastic.
	On my way down...
	I read a book that Eric Hundley recommended to me.
	It wasn't...
	Well, we're going to get into that.
	We're going to get into it.
	Because apparently, you know, what people understand is prop guns versus real guns are different things.
	But we'll get into that tonight.
	Eric Hundley suggested that I read a book called Never Split the Difference by a hostage negotiator, FBI dude, Chris Voss.
	Has very good strategies for negotiating, for understanding human discourse when bargaining.
	Very interesting read.
	I listened to that one on the way down.
	If anyone's read the book Winning Minds, it's very similar to Winning Minds.
	It gives you tactics for arguing.
	I call it manipulation.
	Some people call it negotiation.
	I believe it's manipulation because it is applying tactics to manipulate your interlocutor into effectively giving you what you want, but making them believe it's what they want.
	But it's a good book.
	Well worth listening to or reading.
	If you've listened to a bunch of other books, it might be similar along the lines of Winning Minds.
	The one I'm listening to now, I'm 10 hours into it, and it's intense, and everyone should read this so that we maybe stop complaining about Halloween and things of the like.
	With the Old Breed at Pelulu and Okinawa by E.B. Sledge, narrated by Mark Vietor and Joe Mazzello.
	It perfectly illustrates the horrors of war, the irrationality of war, but it also highlights the old saying that hard times make hard men, hard men make safe times, safe times make soft men, soft men make hard times.
	And when we read and appreciate the history of what our forefathers, men and women, incidentally, because it was not just men involved in World War I and II, when we read about What our forefathers sacrificed to give us the freedom that we have.
	And we've taken that freedom and that comfort and that safe life and turned it into a world where we have to cancel Halloween because it's a complex holiday that makes people offended and uncomfortable.
	Soft times make soft men and soft men make hard times.
	All right, with that said, I see Robert is in the house.
	Let's bring this in.
	Robert, how you doing?
	Oh, can you hear me?
	Can you hear me?
	Okay, I can hear you.
	I can hear you.
	Can you hear me?
	Yeah, I can hear you now.
	Robert, it feels like we just saw each other yesterday, a thousand kilometers away in a different world.
	Where are you tonight?
	Ooh, you might be very pixelated, Robert.
	Okay, wait.
	While I think...
	Anyone in the chat, tell me if Robert is frozen for you.
	But...
	And while we do that, I'm going to read this super chat.
	Everyone in the chat, is Robert frozen for you as well?
	Let me see here.
	He's not in a suit.
	Choppy.
	Okay, let's see from the chat.
	Is it my house?
	Frozen.
	Okay, Robert's frozen.
	Robert, if you can see me, maybe come out and try to get back in and we'll see how we can do this.
	And while you do that, I will take up some super chats that I missed.
	Okay.
	Let me bring Robert out and then when he comes back in...
	Do I want to remove?
	I'm going to kick from studio.
	Kick...
	Oh, he's out.
	Okay, and he might be coming back soon.
	I missed a lot of super chats.
	SurfingNerd621 says...
	Oh, no, I got that one.
	Enjoyed you and Barnes on TimCast.
	Wish they would have let you guys talk more about a good show.
	Plus, you met Barnes for the first time.
	Was everything you dreamed of.
	Love all you do and rock.
	That is SurfingNerd621.
	I've been told to slow it down when I speak.
	So, enjoyed you and Barnes on TimCast.
	Wish they would have let you guys talk more about a good show.
	Plus, you met Barnes for the first time.
	Yes, it was the first time ever.
	And Huntley, I did not get to meet Nate again.
	Nate Brody going down through New York because we didn't have enough time.
	BGWillia21207 says, Inquiring minds want to know when you stand next to him.
	I got that one.
	Sorry about that.
	Okay.
	While we wait for Robert to get back in, he's frozen.
	Okay.
	But the book, the story with the old breed, it's...
	It's unfathomable what people went through in an age where people became sufficiently hysterical to actually engage in the Second Great War and what war does to people.
	Otherwise, good people, it drives them mad in every sense of the word.
	I'm not finished yet.
	But it's as impactful as anything gets.
	You feel sick listening to it.
	And I get as much visual from listening to someone read to me as I do from reading myself, and I don't fall asleep when someone reads to me.
	So, alright, Robert's back in the house.
	Oh, any suggestion on how to write a religious exemption request?
	Well, it's a good segue, Robert.
	Oh, there, you're much smoother now.
	Yes, yes.
	I'm here in lovely Kenosha, Wisconsin this cold Sunday.
	But yeah, so it's good to be trying to make sure that everything, that an innocent kid gets rightly acquitted.
	And sometimes it's always interesting who your allies are and who your adversaries are in that process.
	But I'll leave it at that for the time being.
	Hopefully we get that done because he's innocent and he deserves to be acquitted.
	Actually, let's start with this.
	Of what you are able to publicly discuss, what are the updates?
	What's any information that you can publicly discuss?
	What's going on with Kyle?
	Trial starts next week.
	Yes, so on Monday is going to be the government's Daubert hearing of the government's expert witness that they didn't discover until months after the deadline.
	They were supposed to produce that, as the judge made note of, in August.
	They didn't produce it until a couple of weeks ago.
	So in my view, they really shouldn't have an expert be allowed to testify, except maybe...
	As a rebuttal expert.
	But we'll see what his testimony is.
	Mark Richards will be in trial or will be in court to cross-examine him potentially.
	But the prosecution will preview what his expert testimony purportedly will be.
	The court may make a clarity.
	The court's already given some direction that Kyle Rittenhouse's expert will testify in all likelihood based on what the judge has said.
	And that includes a lot of very helpful evidence.
	This is a very respected...
	Well-regarded, law enforcement-oriented expert witness who said that what Kyle did was clearly and incontrovertibly in self-defense.
	We'll see if this government expert has anything to really rebut because almost nobody who's looked at it concludes anything other than self-defense.
	And in total fairness, if anyone thinks it's a partisan issue, even the New York Times detailed expose came to the ultimate conclusion, not a court of law, totally different.
	You know, no standards of evidentiary hearing, whatever.
	But they came to the same conclusion.
	What did you say the name of the hearing was?
	A Dobson hearing?
	Daubert.
	So it's after a United States Supreme Court case.
	D-A-U-B-E-R-T.
	And what it is, is the judge is supposed to only allow expert testimony when the subject matter of the expert's testimony is beyond the ordinary understanding of the jury.
	The concern is that either you'll have someone who's not an expert try to pretend to be one, or you have someone testify as an expert where that's the province of the jury and is fully within their common knowledge.
	Here, how to handle these kind of circumstances or situation is not within the ordinary knowledge of the jury.
	So an expert would clearly be relevant, and we, the defense, properly identified him many months ago.
	The prosecution tried to sandbag, tried to hope to not allow any expert testimony because they don't want the jury to hear from a well-respected person who has witnessed this kind of incident many times before, these kind of issues many times before, and noted how extraordinary Kyle's behavior was.
	Kyle was very reluctant to engage anybody.
	He tried to flee everybody, only engaged in any degree of self-defense when literally at the last second.
	If he'd waited a half second later, he'd be dead.
	Other people would probably be dead.
	And that's what the expert effectively testified to.
	On our behalf, we'll see what their expert is.
	And then next Monday, November 1st, jury selection begins.
	And so I'm bringing in people from around the country to be of assistance on that.
	And believe we will be able to be of assistance on that.
	And then on top of that, to their credit, a group of great defense lawyers have made themselves available to be advisory counsel throughout the trial.
	And this includes, you know, sometimes you say this person has, you know, written the book on something, you know, when you want to say they're such an expert.
	Well, it includes people who have literally written the book on these issues.
	So many of them have offered generously to be available.
	That's a fantastic resource.
	And sometimes the only hurdle you run into are people who don't necessarily want you to bring such resources to the equation.
	But we will have those resources available.
	And it will, of course, be up to Kyle to decide what he wants to do.
	But we want to make sure he has every option available to him and he has the maximum available defense to him because he's an innocent kid the system's trying to railroad.
	So an expert on self-defense would literally be the person who, if you take a self-defense course, tells you how to hold a firearm, how to approach a situation, how to defuse a situation, when you resort to lethal force.
	It would be effectively an instructor of that nature.
	Exactly.
	And his testimony, people can already go look up and you can see how impressive his testimony was.
	It was very, very impressive.
	The judge repeatedly referenced him by his doctor title.
	So it's not just your wife that is a doctor.
	And so it was excellent testimony.
	It was very thorough, very thoughtful testimony.
	What it is, is in Wisconsin, and like most states, Wisconsin has some really good, robust self-defense laws, but issues that people don't often think about.
	I recommend the book Law of Self-Defense by Professor Andrew, as I sometimes call him.
	Other people will know him from his web presence.
	He's also been on Tim Pool, like we recently were.
	He has also articulated why Kyle is completely innocent and was completely right within self-defense.
	But his law of self-defense book is fantastic because he goes through every single state law.
	He goes through the variations of it, issues of provocation, issues of when you have to escape, issues of duty to retreat, when that's applicable, when it's not, when defending property doesn't matter, when defending a person doesn't matter, when defending a third party doesn't matter.
	And what you have here is a combination of issues in Wisconsin that really an expert benefits the jury to explain.
	In other words, when is this a reason?
	Because under almost all self-defense, there's an objective component and a subjective component.
	The objective component is what would a reasonable person do?
	And the subjective component is what was this person thinking when they did it?
	People often forget in the criminal context, objective reasonableness sometimes becomes a factor.
	It can never replace subjective.
	I've talked to military people who said they couldn't have exercised that degree of discipline that this 17-year-old kid did.
	A lot of people would have lost it.
	You're being attacked.
	Someone's trying to kill you.
	It happened in Iraq.
	It's happened in war situations.
	Kyle exercised extraordinary discipline and only exercised self-defense when it was Absolutely at the last second.
	I mean, he really took a gamble with his life in so doing, but he was trying to preserve and protect life as much as he could.
	I know we've discussed it before, but I think we have a lot of new people watching.
	So one question that people are going to bring up from a culpability perspective, he's 17 years old.
	Did he cross state lines with the firearm?
	Was he entitled to have it?
	And even if it is, hypothetically, take the culmination in abstractum, that would have been self-defense.
	Showing up to a bar fight with a gun, for example, does that not create an element of culpability that might haunt him at the end?
	Or create responsibility, legal responsibility?
	Really what's happened in this case, and it's the reason why a majority of the people in Kenosha have incorrectly presumed him guilty, is the prosecution has done a very good job running hit pieces on him with false claims in court and false claims in the press.
	And so, for example, people believe that he crossed state lines with a gun.
	That never happened.
	People believe he wasn't legally entitled to have the gun.
	As the judge recently noted, that law is likely void for vagueness because there's a reasonable interpretation that that law did in fact legally entitle him to have a gun.
	Most of the gun law experts that I've talked to agree that he was legally entitled to have it.
	At a minimum, if you can interpret the statute...
	To say otherwise, then the statute's void for vagueness, which is a constitutional Fifth Amendment provision.
	Also, the analogous one under Wisconsin State Constitution would also apply.
	So I think that particular charge will ultimately be dismissed by the court.
	And the only thing he's going to trial on is did he intentionally kill anyone without self-defense?
	And did he engage in reckless endangerment without any privilege of self-defense?
	And it is the prosecution's burden to prove that beyond any reasonable doubt.
	And there's what's called provocation and escalation.
	But here, what took place is all the evidence of provocation was on the side of the other people.
	He wasn't trying to provoke anybody.
	When he's running by people, he's saying, friendly, friendly, these people that were trying to ambush him, including one of the people that was shot that night that chases him, was waiting in the cars, waiting to ambush him.
	He comes by, he sees him, and the kid is so innocent, he goes, friendly, friendly, all good.
	He doesn't know they're there to try to kill him that night.
	That's who he is.
	So he brought his medical kit with him.
	Was trying to even treat the guy that he shot.
	He turns around, and then he sees local daily caller reporters.
	They're treating him.
	He's calling, trying to figure out what to do, how to get help, when a bunch of people rush him and try to hurt him and ultimately try to kill him.
	I'm like, one of the people attacks him with a skateboard.
	People should look at how physically heavy and strong is.
	Well, we know from visiting Tim Pool, skateboards are not small little things.
	Anybody who's ever skateboarded, I mean, it's no joke, and it's not to be glib.
	They hurt.
	They're sharp.
	I actually knew someone in high school who got seriously beaten with a skateboard and was in the hospital for a week.
	And they were swinging at his head.
	It wasn't like they were going for a knee.
	They were swinging at his head.
	And then the other guy pulled a gun.
	And later told a buddy of his the only thing he regretted was not putting a bullet in Kyle Rittenhouse's head.
	That was my next question.
	So that apparently was a Facebook post.
	Do we know if that Facebook post or those statements are going to be admitted as evidence or are they now?
	Or does that come via cross-examination of the victim, the witnesses?
	The via cross-examination.
	And so one of those people brought suit against the city of Kenosha.
	It's frankly a frivolous lawsuit.
	There's no grounds to it.
	These were rabble-rousers.
	These were troublemakers.
	These were outside agitators, many of them from far away, as far away as Seattle and Portland.
	This was reported by other liberal YouTube press at the time that was from Kenosha.
	People who lean left, who are like, these people are not from Kenosha.
	And that was the cave.
	Many of them had a criminal record as long as my arm or could keep going.
	Many of them were actual convicted pedophiles.
	And I think if you look at Kyle, a kid with big eyes, you can get a sense of why these criminal sociopaths targeted him that night.
	He was there trying to put out fires.
	He was all the things they hated.
	This nice, innocent, sweet-hearted, straightforward American trying to protect his community but not try to cause any harm who wanted to bridge the gap between people.
	And instead, what they did is they wanted to kill him for it.
	And they want to pretend that they're going to get it.
	There's people that are going to get on the stand.
	They're going to try to lie.
	My advice to all of them is don't do it.
	Assume that whatever you think nobody knows is known because it is known.
	We have had a big investigative team on this case.
	And so people who have made statements that they think nobody's ever going to find, nobody's ever going to catch, some of them want the judge to not disclose their name to the public because they're hoping they can hide their lies behind anonymity, ain't going to work.
	So if they're smart, they don't commit perjury on top of anything else and testify honestly.
	And if they don't, they will get caught and it will be shown to the jury.
	And not that, look, ordinarily you don't victimize the alleged victims.
	The people who got shot were very unique three characters.
	One had some serious, was on a suicide mission, apparently.
	You'll correct me if I'm wrong, Robert.
	Another one was a convicted P-word, as we say on the interwebs.
	And another one was just, I think, the one who literally said he wanted to empty his round into Kyle had he not been shot in the arm, who showed up to the protest with a concealed weapon, not the way, think whatever you think of it, not the way Kyle showed up with his quite clearly visible weapon.
	For the purposes of protecting a business, what do we know of the three victims definitively, not urban legend or rumor-wise?
	So two of the people that were shot that night, that died, they had long, extensive criminal histories.
	Now, their criminal histories will not be introduced into trial at this point.
	If the prosecution, however, because they're careless and they're reckless, may open the door.
	How do they do that?
	I mean, I think I know how, but how do they go about allowing that door to be opened?
	A lot of different ways.
	So in self-defense cases, to the degree you know anyone's history, that can come in.
	So if for some reason you know their history because of any kind of prior interaction or anything else, that's how it can come in.
	Otherwise, it only comes in when a prosecution opens the door by trying to claim there are these nice, sweet-hearted, innocent people who just love protest and wanted nothing to do but protest and never had done anything bad in their lives, that kind of thing.
	Then they open the door to be, eh, that's not who these guys are.
	One of them was running around all night long saying how he wanted to be shot, very suicidal, as you mentioned.
	Another one, both of them that were perished that night, were both had long criminal histories and were engaged in extreme violence and intended to engage in extreme violence in their past.
	And then, of course, the gentleman who's suing the city of Kenosha, who wanted to empty his round into Kyle Rittenhouse, has been telling lies to a lot of people.
	There's going to be a lot of witnesses get up on the stand to tell lies that will tell fanciful...
	Fantastical stories about Kyle.
	They might want to think about that FBI video that's out there that shows where they were that night.
	So, for example, if you're going to get up on that stand and say, oh, I heard Kyle say this and this and this and this, and then we put up the video and the video shows you never were within 100 feet of him, good luck with that perjury.
	And how long do you think you'll be protected?
	So I think there'll be a lot of perjured testimony, suborned perjury from the prosecution, and that's the only hurdle we have to overcome, but they'll be effectively cross-examined.
	And so the key becomes as long as we get a constitutionally fair jury.
	That means they presume Kyle innocent as the law requires, as the Constitution compels.
	And that will be one of the biggest hurdles in the cases, but we're equipping Kyle with the team and the means so that he can have the best possible defense.
	And people are rightly noting in the comment section, I should have said victims because I know all the facts in this as much as they're publicly available now.
	Those victims, one of them was firing the gun from what we've seen from video to trigger this type of panic.
	The other one visibly assaulting a dude with a gun with a skateboard.
	And they could be victims, but deserving victims and had gotten what they asked for type thing in a bad way.
	But Robert, okay, so actually for anybody who wants to help Kyle, I guess one question is...
	Is there a place that people can help knowing that it's actually going to go to help Kyle and not others?
	Yeah, so the main site for that is FreeKyleUSA.com.
	I'm going to be putting up stuff on our Locals page, VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com, to give people leads.
	In addition, there's another group that's setting up an independent website where people will be able to go as a one-stop shop to find out all the information they need to know concerning the case, to stay informed, to stay apprised, because we know the media won't provide honest coverage.
	Because one thing that's important that people need to understand...
	It's not only about getting acquitted in court.
	You need to protect a client's public reputation so he's not destroyed afterwards.
	That's George Zimmerman.
	I mean, George Zimmerman won in court.
	He had his life destroyed.
	He hasn't been able to meaningfully put it together since then.
	And so that's true for many people.
	I mean, whatever you think about O.J. Simpson, he was acquitted.
	Didn't help him in the court of public opinion because people came to convict him in the court of public opinion, no matter what the jury did.
	And they convicted him in another case, probably because they thought he was guilty in the first case.
	Question about Kyle that I just had, which was, yes, is the trial someone had asked?
	Is the trial going to be broadcast the same way Chauvin's was?
	Yes, Court TV.
	So Court TV will be broadcasting it.
	There's a bunch of people.
	There's some media and crew and there's some places.
	So yeah, you'll be able to watch it from gabble to gabble every day.
	The jury selection will start Monday.
	You won't see the jury, obviously.
	But throughout the trial, you'll never see the jury or the people being picked for the jury.
	But you'll see everybody else.
	The witnesses.
	Now the prosecution.
	Has asked the judge, there's a couple of our witnesses that don't want the world to know who they are.
	It's supposedly for safety purposes.
	I don't think so.
	I think it's some witnesses who don't want people to know.
	Hold on a second.
	I know George.
	That was the guy that lied about the...
	Or he's lying right now.
	Perfect timing.
	I bring this one up.
	Eggplant Barnes.
	How will you defend against what happened with Chauvin activists lying into jail?
	I mean, exactly.
	Activist witnesses will be more of the issue this time.
	As it relates to what we're talking about now.
	But they don't want the public seeing their face.
	They don't want the aggregate knowledge of the internet finding out who they are to maybe prove what they're saying on the stand is wrong.
	Well, and that's why, you know, any good defense work, you prepare in advance everything you find out about.
	You have a highly sophisticated forensic investigative crew that does detailed research and review.
	Other people have been responsible for that in this case, but I'm confident that they've done so.
	On top of that, in terms of jury selection, we're bringing in people to make sure that people are not able to lie to falsely get on the jury.
	I've been doing this for 20 years, and so we're confident in the team.
	This will be the best.
	Jury selection team made available to Kyle in the history of criminal cases in the United States.
	That's who we put together.
	Some fantastic people who've been very generous with their time.
	Many of them are doing this without any advance payment at all.
	Some are coming in on their own dime and their own time.
	I'm covering for some other folks.
	But it's a fantastic team of people who understand that Kyle's case is much bigger than Kyle.
	This isn't just about an innocent kid getting fair justice and the innocence that he deserves and recognized in court.
	But it's about the right of self-defense, period.
	Because if Kyle Rittenhouse can go to prison, all of us tomorrow can go to prison.
	Self-defense is dead in America.
	People are just going to say, well, all you have to do not to have this issue is don't show up anywhere with a firearm.
	But the question is, I mean, we're seeing it in other cases.
	No, I mean, the U.S. Supreme Court never took the case, unfortunately.
	We'll see if they someday step in.
	Now, they do have a lot of good Second Amendment cases coming up.
	The one out of New York, for example?
	Yes.
	Oral argument, I think, is next week or the week after.
	And so there's a long litany of good...
	I think they have three other big Second Amendment cases coming up.
	And I think the Supreme Court will expand the right of the Second Amendment across the board.
	And hopefully they will embrace the right to self-defense as part of that.
	Now, in Wisconsin, a lot of good law is here.
	So unlike Oregon, where the law has got really squirrely.
	But in Wisconsin, it's still pretty good because it's still fundamentally a blue collar state and a populous state in terms of its political predilections outside of the Communist Republic of America.
	I thought you were going to say Canada for a second, but Robert, just so anybody who doesn't know, Michael Strickland is the journalist who pulled a weapon while being literally chased and threatened and assaulted by a gang of angry individuals.
	So the Supreme Court did not take up his case, which means he's served his full punishment.
	Oh, yeah.
	I mean, we were hired after the case.
	We were hired at the sentencing stage.
	We weren't hired before that, unfortunately.
	It would have been fun to have been part of the case.
	I think we would have got a different outcome.
	But that ship had sailed by that point.
	The sentencing outcome was a very light sentence by traditional terms, so that he wasn't facing any additional prison time or jail time.
	And again, people can follow him at Laugh at Libs, I think is his channel.
	Funny guy, interesting guy.
	He was the canary in the coal mine on how various Soros-style prosecutors were going to come for self-defense and try to strip us of our right of self-defense as to the threat we face in the public or from the state, potentially.
	Second Amendment is self-defense in general.
	Credit to him because he could have just stayed quiet, played nice.
	Instead, he raised the issue somewhat to his own personal detriment.
	That's where Kyle's case is so significant because they're accelerating.
	He faces life in prison.
	That's what people need to know.
	He faces life in prison.
	One more question on Kyle after this.
	The New York case is the N-R-A-S-P So the Supreme Court did take that one up?
	Yes.
	And in fact, I think they took up three others as well.
	I think they're going to clarify that the Second Amendment goes past the home, that the Second Amendment, it does incorporate everything related to the self-defense.
	And I think the theory that I raised on behalf of Strickland before the U.S. Supreme Court that the U.S. Supreme Court didn't ultimately take, I think you're going to see that show up.
	I know it's a long shot to take a case up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	It's a lot of work.
	You have to print all these little petitions.
	You've got to pay five grand just to print them for the judges and all that jazz.
	It's useful because you're educating them on an important issue.
	It's not very often you get to say hi to nine Supreme Court justices and 36 law clerks that work for them.
	Law clerks are going to go on to be professors and judges themselves.
	The fact that we made those arguments and now we're seeing those arguments echoed.
	In cases they're actually taking is a reason why you always push it, even if you don't think, even if it's a long shot for your case itself to be taken.
	Now, there was a 99 cent super chat.
	It was a super sticker, fire starter.
	I thought it said something farter, which is why I was going to try to bring it up.
	I couldn't bring it up.
	So, okay, what else do we want to know about Kyle?
	Anyone, slap in some questions right now if we didn't address anything on the latest updates in Kyle.
	We're going to see this in real time, so we'll know what strategy ultimately is adopted by the defense as this trial gets going.
	Yeah, exactly.
	In a week, one way or the other, we'll see.
	My job is to give Kyle all the best options.
	What he does with it is always his.
	I'm a strong believer in client empowerment.
	Not to force things on clients.
	Not to coerce them into things.
	To say, here's your options.
	Here's why I think they're a good idea.
	And it's up to him where he wants to go.
	But my job is to make sure he has the best possible options available to him.
	And I've delivered on that.
	And we'll be delivering on that.
	And hopefully we'll get to March 4th together to see full acquittals for him.
	All right.
	And now the prosecutor.
	That was the last question I had.
	Is the prosecutor still on the file?
	Oh, yes.
	Same, same guy.
	Mr. Binger, I believe his last name is.
	You know, he seems to fix his hair a lot.
	He's one of those, he's a politician in disguise as a lawyer.
	And I think he's deliberately said a lot of false things in court to inflame the court of public opinion to where a lot of people think they know things about Kyle that they're wrong about.
	Kyle was never part of any militia.
	Kyle's never had a racist bone in his body.
	Kyle's never been, he didn't go there for any vigilante purpose.
	He went there to try to protect people and to help people.
	He's someone who split time deciding, am I going to be a nurse or am I going to be a police officer?
	That's the kind of guy he is.
	The people who want authority and all the rest, they don't think about being nurses.
	That's who he is.
	That's what his mother was, an 80-hour work kind of person.
	So he's got sisters and siblings that have been threatened through all of this nonsense.
	So he was just a kid.
	Who tried to defend and protect people from more harm?
	Because, I mean, you drive around Kenosha, there's buildings that still have boarded up.
	I mean, this was an attack on middle America by a bunch of Antifa radicals.
	And this was a kid who was just trying to keep people safe and keep people well off.
	And because that very fact enraged the sociopathic criminal elements in the audience, so much so that the prosecutor is begging the judge to say, please, don't let the defense talk about rioters.
	Please don't let them use even the word rioter.
	Don't let them use the word looter.
	Don't let him use the word arsonist.
	Please rig this case in the way that the prosecutor is trying to rig it in the court of public opinion.
	I don't think that's going to be successful.
	This court has been diligently fair, dedicated to making it as apolitical as possible, making sure we do get a constitutionally fair jury.
	He's made that clear so that we'll get enough information and questions so that we can make sure people don't get on the jury, like the Chauvin jury, who already had convicted the defendant before the trial.
	And all we want is that people that presume him innocent to be the only 12 people in that box.
	And as long as we get that, Kyle will be acquitted because the facts will set him free.
	And two questions without going into specific strategy.
	We've discussed it before, but should he, will he testify?
	What's your overall opinion without necessarily strategically speaking on this?
	That's always a defendant's choice.
	So under the Constitution, there are certain choices that are given to the lawyer.
	Tactical choices.
	But one of them is not.
	Whether the defendant testifies.
	Whether the defendant testifies is solely or wholly the choice of the defendant.
	Now, what they are told with the jury instructions is they cannot use that against him.
	Prosecution, if he chooses not to testify, the prosecution cannot even reference it in their closing argument.
	Now, this prosecutor seems to have a moral compass that was broken from birth.
	So we'll see what he does.
	So it's entirely up to Kyle.
	And I think usually in these kind of cases, a defendant waits.
	To see what happens at trial before they make that decision.
	So, you know, he's someone who is extraordinarily innocent, and that comes through in his testimony.
	So from that perspective, there'd be arguments for his testimony.
	My general view is, for defendants, if you can, you like to structure your case so that the defendant does not need to testify.
	You make it ancillary.
	In other words, you use the government's own evidence, the government's own witnesses to prove your case, because that's even more powerful.
	And I believe there's an opportunity for that to happen here, too.
	But ultimately, that's entirely a choice that Kyle Rittenhouse himself makes.
	And your job as a lawyer is to give him the best information.
	Here's why we think it could help.
	Here's why we think it could hurt.
	Here's what your risks are.
	Here's what your upsides are.
	But ideally, I think the video is so clear that he won't have to testify, but it'll be up to him whether he wants to or not, given the lies that have been told about him for a year.
	And I guess one more question before we close.
	Wind this one up until next week.
	Do you know how he's doing psychologically?
	I think it was...
	Let me see if I can find the chat.
	Nope.
	Does Kyle have Hispanic heritage?
	Do you know if he has Hispanic heritage, Robert?
	He has mixed race relatives.
	Absolutely.
	And that's where the idea that he's racist is insane.
	And they know that's not true.
	In fact, it was one of the people that he had to defend himself against, defend the community against that night.
	Who was out saying racist things.
	People can find the language he was using.
	That was the person dropping certain words.
	Not Kyle Rittenhouse.
	They did a colonoscopic review of his social media and found nothing.
	Found nada, zero, zilch, zunca.
	He should be acquitted.
	We'll see how it ultimately...
	My job is just to give him all the best options he can.
	Give him all the best tools in the toolbox for him to use.
	It's up to him what he wants to do with it.
	All right.
	I think we got to all of it on that.
	We're going to follow up on this next week anyhow, in as much as you can speak about it when it's an ongoing matter.
	I guess speaking of Supreme Court, do we talk about the abortion case that the Supreme Court is also about to take up in the next cycle?
	Yeah.
	Fundamentally, they've taken up two cases, is my understanding.
	One big one out of Mississippi.
	And I assume they'll take up the Texas one at some point.
	Because the Mississippi one, we covered the Texas one a while ago.
	It sounded identical.
	These are virtually identical pieces of legislation that are at issue?
	Yeah, I mean, well, yes and no.
	So the key is, I mean, what Roe was based upon, predicated or premised upon, was the idea that at a certain, and its successor decisions, was that at a certain point, the state has an interest in protecting fetal life, but only up to that point.
	And then it no longer has an interest.
	So, for example, in the third trimester, the state has a strong interest in preventing fetal pain of the fetal life.
	Second trimester, a little less.
	First trimester, they say none at all.
	The Mississippi case, like the Texas case, challenges that.
	It says that when that was determined, the medical evidence was assumed there could be no fetal pain in the first trimester.
	We now know that's false.
	We now know there's a heartbeat.
	We now know there's brain activity.
	We now know they can detect pain as early as eight weeks.
	And so their view is, if the goal is to prevent fetal pain, and that allows the state to local government to regulate abortion, then that should be the standard.
	Whenever you can first feel pain, not based on some antiquated, outdated notion of when that was based on science that's no longer applicable.
	And that's Mississippi's position.
	The opposite side, the pro-choice side, Is that, hey, look, the Supreme Court set a hard line of first trimester.
	You can't restrict abortion.
	That should stay the law.
	There's no reason to reverse that, even though the scientific and medical evidence has changed that most abortions happen between the 10th and 15th week.
	And so if you ban late first semester, early second trimester abortions, then you'll be preventing most abortions from being able to occur.
	So that's the argument on their side.
	I think that there's strong, there's a lot of, you know, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, a majority potentially, have all voiced criticism at some point in their professorial or legal careers about the Roe and Webster's standards in this context.
	So I think Roe versus Wade is probably the most widely misunderstood case out there.
	I read somewhere that the...
	Or the Roe, who was it?
	The woman in the case, was it Roe?
	Or it was Wade?
	Yes, yes.
	I think, yes.
	No, Wade was the state official.
	Roe was like Jane Doe, but it was Jane Roe, as I recall.
	I read somewhere that after the impact of that decision, she apparently regretted the outcome of the judgment itself.
	And I mean, I don't know if it's true.
	I don't know if it's urban legend.
	Can you, I mean, for those of us who don't really understand what Roe v.
	Wade was in terms of an essence of a lawsuit and the principle it set out.
	And did the plaintiff or the subject matter actually regret what the outcome was?
	Yes.
	So there's, of course, a famous family guy skit that ultimately ended up on the cutting room floor because it was considered too controversial even for the family guy.
	At the time before they got woke, which is probably that.
	Where he's actually part of Roe because he's the actual husband.
	He's the actual father.
	And he's excited for, obviously, the wrong reasons after the case ruling is wrong.
	But very family guy, Seth kind of humor.
	But yes, she did regret it.
	She became a pro-life activist years later.
	And this is true for a lot of women who get abortions, that a good number of them, like one of the myths out there is that this is a male-female dispute, that the men are the pro-life people and the women are the pro-choice people.
	Totally false.
	On both sides of the abortion debate is almost exclusively women that are passionately involved.
	The strong pro-life group are almost all women.
	The pro-choice group actually has a little more men in it than the pro-life group does.
	So, you know, the mythology that the media tries to push is not really a women's issue, not according to the pro-life women, because to them it's about protecting pregnancy, about protecting fetal life, about protecting the most vulnerable life in the world.
	And so for people that are on the feminist side, they see it as solely an issue of bodily control.
	And the more honest ones, in my view, understand the issues about...
	If this is a fetal life, it doesn't have some rights.
	There's sophisticated feminist philosophies that have given a pretty good argument for why there can be certain limitations, but not complete limitations.
	That would be a deep dive longer than talking to Ian about natural rights versus civil rights.
	We'll skip the scope of it, but that gives a general sense.
	But what happened to Roe v.
	Wade, really, there was a good part of it and a bad part of it from a constitutional perspective.
	Independently, my view of abortion is what you think about fetal life determines how you view it.
	Because if you don't think fetal life has any value...
	Then, yes, the woman's right to privacy and bodily autonomy controls the process.
	If, on the other hand, you think fetal life is worthy of moral legal protection, it has 14th Amendment value, then you have to do a very different analysis.
	Now, that doesn't rule out cases of rape or incest or other issues because then you have a different set of coercion questions constitutionally.
	Nor would it rule out the question as of the time frame as of which...
	One of those elements would be into play going into the other.
	So like you say, third term has rights.
	Second term, it might be more questionable.
	And then first term, less so.
	So there would be a way to work in the timeline and all of that.
	But it's true what you're saying.
	In certain jurisdictions, cause of the death of an unborn child can be a crime in and of itself, whereas aborting that same child would not be a crime.
	I guess that's what you're going at with the distinction?
	Yes.
	To the political genius, whatever people think of it, of the pro-life movement, has been tying this to heartbeats.
	That a lot of people are uncomfortable with abortion once the fetus has a heartbeat.
	And what is the heartbeat is 10 weeks, typically.
	Sometimes a little earlier, sometimes a little later.
	But Richard Barris, People's Pundit, has done extensive polling on this.
	And the heartbeat bills are overwhelmingly popular all across the country.
	Most people say, okay, once there's a heartbeat, you shouldn't allow it.
	Up to that point, okay.
	And that still gives you, on average, eight weeks to have an unlimited right of abortion.
	But once there's a heartbeat, then it's got to be a different dynamic.
	And there's got to be some restrictions on it.
	And that's what most people believe.
	And so the media doesn't like that.
	The media likes to pretend these are very unpopular, but they're not.
	They're popular positions politically.
	Whether you agree or disagree yourself.
	But with Roe, the right part of Roe was the right of bodily autonomy.
	But that really wasn't the basis of Roe.
	What the Stevens and Brennan and the rest of them, they were basically deferring to doctors.
	And what they were really saying was, whatever a doctor thinks, that's what governs.
	So it wasn't really a bodily autonomy case.
	It was an empower the white lab coat crowd case.
	And I've never been comfortable with that.
	I don't think we should be delegating anything to so-called experts as we are seeing in our current environment.
	I was going to say, that'll be the good segue to the next subject when we get there.
	So the bottom line is then, in the Mississippi case, or is it Mississippi or Alabama?
	It's Mississippi.
	It's Mississippi, though there's some other laws passed.
	What it comes down to is, also I'd say it's an issue of who chooses.
	Does the U.S. Supreme Court determine when you can and can't do an abortion?
	Do the state governments get to control that?
	Is that not the bottom line question?
	That the Supreme Court is going to say, this is a state issue.
	You all make your own state laws.
	If you want to live in a state that allows fill-in-the-blank, go move to that state.
	And if that state prohibits what you want, find the state that does it.
	Although, I think crossing the border to perform the procedure, is itself illegal in certain states?
	No, no.
	So then it would just be a question of if you like the policy, it's a state issue, let the states make the decision, but could they not make a federal crime to deal with that in any event?
	Yes, and I mean, the other issue is always the other life.
	So if you recognize that a fetus is a person within the 14th Amendment at the time of a heartbeat, then arguably you have to prohibit almost all abortions from that point forward.
	Now, one way they can dodge that is they can just say, this is a question that's beyond us as the Supreme Court to determine.
	So we're going to allow state legislatures to determine that.
	And we're not going to say one way or the other so that we don't have to either prevent the law or permit the law.
	We can just allow the states to decide what the circumstances are.
	I think there's a lot of inclination towards that on this court.
	But we'll see.
	Trimester standard didn't make a lot of sense.
	They also always had a viability standard.
	That never made sense to me.
	The idea that, okay, if you can live outside of the womb, then suddenly you're a person under the 14th Amendment, but not two seconds before in the womb.
	And that's a problem.
	And also the science there has been changing.
	Now they can survive outside of the womb much earlier than it used to be the case.
	But this is the interesting thing.
	It's a spectrum of options.
	It's either life begins at conception, therefore never.
	Heartbeat, viability, or whenever you want.
	Yeah, more like brain activity.
	I mean, I've always argued our standard for death is lack of brain activity.
	Shouldn't that be our standard for life?
	Now, a lot of my pro-choice friends don't like that because that can be as early as 10 weeks.
	But, you know, that's where I do think the heartbeat made a lot of sense.
	I think brain activity makes a lot of sense.
	And in my view, you know, you can still...
	And again, what is it?
	It's not that you no longer have a right to bottle your autonomy.
	It's that you have an obligation to this other life that you're now carrying.
	Particularly when you didn't exercise the option to have birth control before then or even up to the eighth week.
	So I think that that's where it's going to come down.
	And I think probably the biggest thing the pro-choice people have going for them is so many abortions happen between the eighth week and the 14th week.
	That's what will be, and then the Supreme Court as a whole hangs out with a bunch of socially, culturally liberal people.
	That's actually, it's a very interesting way of really putting it on the spectrum is that It's either all or nothing.
	That's never or whenever.
	And then if it's neither of those two extremes, then when is it?
	Heartbeat, brain activity, viability seem to be the only three middle grounds.
	Robert, I don't think you've ever done it, but have you done a deep dive or a, sorry, a hush-hush?
	No, I haven't.
	No, there's some interesting Planned Parenthood stories there.
	There's a lot of...
	It connects up to the eugenics movement.
	I mean, there's a lot of...
	They don't like to talk about it, but Planned Parenthood has a deep, deep...
	The main abortion provider in America has a deep history that I personally experienced in the eugenics industry in terms of a conversation I had at Yale with one of the top people there from Planned Parenthood.
	Let's just say they were true believers in eugenics for racialized purposes.
	I mean, it was a shocking conversation.
	At least shocking for me.
	You know, I didn't know that about that.
	There's a lot of history there, and there probably will be a future hush-hush on a certain aspect.
	Margaret Singer would be a worthy topic, and some of the things that she has said over the years that the media tries to pretend she didn't say.
	There also might be some famous environmentalists that people might be surprised have certain histories.
	I had a Wisconsin law professor who wanted me to do a project on a famous environmentalist because he had suspicions, it turned out to be correct, that he had certain Nazi.
	History and his ties.
	Environmentalism was about the purity of the race.
	Other things going on there.
	Well, I'm bringing this one up.
	If either of you has a time, what are the legal arguments for forcing a woman to carry the offspring of a term?
	That's where feminist philosophers have done much better arguments and have made some really good analogous arguments for when it's been coerced, when it was not consensual activity.
	If you have up until eight weeks, and then, now, it presumes, what about those people who don't know at week eight?
	Okay, that might be a little bit different dynamic, but if you have eight weeks to do something and you choose not to do something, at what point does that then still become your responsibility?
	And that is the argument with sexual assault.
	I mean, one knows when it's happening.
	It's not like you get to that point without knowing that there's something to look into.
	It's the issues of...
	You know, accidental pregnancies where most people don't, or some people don't realize they're pregnant until three months.
	Then it's a question of personal responsibility.
	You know, like incest cases, other cases, you might have people who don't know what's happening.
	Yeah.
	And I think there's good arguments on that from a philosophical and legal perspective.
	I think from the pro-life perspective, the focus is on the innocent, vulnerable life.
	And why should that innocent, vulnerable life have it be taken?
	Just because the means by which it came into existence was something that was coerced or morally reprehensible.
	And I'll say one thing, because one of my bigger red pills, and it might border on the black pill, was reading what I discovered about Planned Parenthood and the black market for certain things.
	I talked about it with Pantelis on his podcast, but Robert, if you did a hush-hush on that, man.
	It would open people's minds.
	I recommend people look up Alex Jones doing a great imitation of the current Virginia governor about how they handled the little baby.
	He said it.
	Norfolk said it.
	He can deny it.
	He can attenuate it.
	He said something that can never be unsaid because that thing that he said does not slip out of a mouth as a Freudian slip by accident.
	Okay, now people want to talk about...
	We have to do it.
	Let's do the update on Alec Baldwin.
	In as much as we have information now, there's a lot of very sassy memes going on out there, but the situation seems to really be getting very suspicious.
	Now, I brought up a chat.
	Someone said that the cinematographer was the wife of someone who's involved with something of a Clinton thing.
	I don't know if it's true, and I don't want to repeat a meme if it's not true.
	So in the chat, if anybody knows, I asked earlier if that's true.
	Let us know and I'll bring it back up.
	But Robert, so right now we're hearing they're shooting a Western.
	This is the Alec Baldwin issue.
	Death.
	They're shooting an 1880s Western.
	They are using, for whatever the reason, actual weapons on set.
	There are set issues where apparently crew are complaining about...
	Issues on treatment of crew, safety issues, not dealing with firearms properly.
	They're talking about a prop or a firearm that misfired days earlier.
	Apparently hours before the incident, the crew walks off set, which begs the question as to how this even occurred after the crew walked off set.
	Alec Baldwin is handed a prop.
	You're going to have to tell me what a prop is and what a prop isn't.
	Turns out it's an actual loaded firearm.
	Discharges under circumstances that we don't yet know.
	Was Alec toying around with it?
	Was it part of the movie?
	Ends up killing the cinematographer, striking someone else on the set.
	The first question, I'm going to go to the chat while you talk, Robert.
	Elucidate us on all of this stuff.
	What is the law in the United States about having actual firearms on set?
	And where can this go?
	Well, remember everybody, guns don't kill people.
	Alec Baldwin does.
	But aside from that meme, And I recommend, I won't give it away, I recommend people pay attention this week to Eric Hunley's Unstructured, and he's restarting his, you know, his, what's the title of it with Mark Robert?
	It was Untold American Stories because he got...
	Copyright trolled, but how?
	So he's got a new channel.
	I don't know.
	Maybe I'll try to find the link and post it actually while you say this.
	So you carry on.
	I'm going to get that.
	So he may have some real inside information that will be an exclusive.
	So I know he's investigating it.
	So he's got a fascinating set of connections in the law enforcement world and elsewhere.
	And so I think that will be very helpful.
	And I recommend everybody subscribe to it because if you didn't know, he and Robert's efforts got...
	Apparently they struck a nerve with certain people.
	And got struck by YouTube overnight.
	So legally, I mean, all prop guns are real guns.
	So sometimes people think a prop gun is some sort of fake gun.
	There's actual fake guns.
	Yeah, it's normal because you're a prop gun and you assume, okay, that must mean not a real gun.
	All it really means is a gun that's being used as a prop.
	And so now what's supposed to happen is there's very strict protocols on this.
	There's been a range of incidents over the years.
	There's the death of Brandon Lee, the son of Bruce Lee.
	There's been other deaths we talked about with Tim Pool on Friday's TimCast, which was a lot of fun about that.
	And what Tim Pool noted was that anybody, and people can see it in Tim Pool's own history, right?
	He's been familiar with guns for just a couple of years, but is trained, very familiar with it now.
	And he knows it, as having been around enough guns over two years, that there's almost no way Alec Baldwin isn't at least negligent.
	If not criminally reckless in this gun being used to cause a death.
	Because he has been around guns used on movie sets for decades.
	Now here's an interesting little tidbit.
	There's a movie called State in Maine, written by David Mamet.
	Great film.
	A fun film.
	Everything written by Mamet's great.
	Three Uses of the Knife is one of the greatest books.
	One of my top ten lists for anybody out there.
	If I was back in the library, I'd have David Mamet's book behind me, but I'm on the road.
	But the...
	Then State in Maine, there's an actor who gets involved in some criminal activities that causes some trouble that they have to hush-hush.
	Guess who played the actor who created the trouble?
	Because it's a movie within a movie, State in Maine.
	Alec Baldwin.
	So it's like some sort of preview.
	And then, of course, you may have the Clinton curse.
	Maybe you also have the Trump curse.
	Because this is somebody else that made a lot of fame making fun of Trump.
	And now, all of a sudden, maybe he's in deep trouble.
	The Trump curse became a meme because it seems that, for whatever the reason, people with hate in their hearts end up getting into trouble in their lives.
	And I think that's just a broader application.
	But they had the Trump curse going on for a while now.
	Alec Baldwin has been a vocally toxic person for a long time.
	Not just politically.
	Just ask his 12-year-old daughter.
	I didn't want to get into that.
	But yes, he's not been a very nice person.
	Setting is like, the problem is whatever cosmic karma, someone else got punished for it, but it's not to revel in it.
	It's a tragedy.
	It's terrible, but sorry.
	Yeah, I mean, so what you would look at, first of all, it's like, why could he be culpable?
	Well, if you've been familiar with guns on set, you should, when you get the gun, and this is what Tim Pool was also explaining, he was like, you should know something's wrong almost right away because there shouldn't be any, there shouldn't be a live round in the gun.
	So how did he not know that?
	Secondly, why wasn't it looked at and reviewed and apparently it was a revolver?
	Why didn't he double check it before he was like, hey, let's see what it sounds like going on?
	You know, so you have that issue.
	You have why was he aiming at someone?
	There's that issue.
	So I think there's a lot of issues with criminal recklessness with him.
	You would have to investigate the backstory about whether or not there's some history between him and her.
	You have the whole union issues where apparently the union people weren't there.
	It was a non-union.
	Unions are going to make a huge deal out of this.
	And everybody's going to get sued.
	There's so many levels of being blackpilled where you say, okay, maybe the union...
	To show how there was no safety for firearms, stuck a live bullet in, thinking it would be a gag.
	Got away with it.
	Now, next level blackpilling is maybe this is the media now trying to blame the union and not Alec Baldwin for being reckless with the firearm.
	I don't know where to stop with the cynicism, but these are all the alternatives that are on the table, people, if you want to.
	It's a detective mystery, naturally made narrative.
	And so in my guess, what stuff Eric was finding, this story is going to get a lot more interesting before long.
	Alright, and now I'm putting it up right here.
	I spelled subscribe wrong.
	Like an idiot that I am.
	Eric's channel is in the chat now.
	The new, new channel, because it's the new, new channel.
	If it were an Elroy novel, Robert...
	How do you see it playing out?
	I mean, is everyone guilty or is there like an evil mastermind behind the stage saying...
	I think it's somewhere between James Elroy and Elmore Leonard.
	And so I think there's going to be like dark comedy along the way.
	And I think everybody's going to end up partially culpable.
	Because my thing is that when people say prop guns, I always imagine replicas.
	They're not susceptible.
	You think of the gun that shoots out.
	Bang.
	I think of a carved piece of metal that doesn't actually have a...
	Why do you need it to be a real functional firearm to be a problem?
	It should never be, period.
	It looks better.
	It looks and works better for filming.
	That's why they do it.
	So he gets the firearm.
	They say it's inactive or not loaded.
	And does he do something like a gag?
	Or is it just shooting the movie and he has no idea?
	We'll see.
	Never fire.
	I mean, like you tell your little ones, don't even shoot the Nerf.
	Don't aim the Nerf gun at daddy's head.
	The toy.
	So I pulled a cool dad move.
	I got the kids gifts yesterday at Harper's Ferry.
	I got the girls earrings and I got the boy.
	Probably not the best gift.
	It's a bow and arrow made in North Dakota.
	It was made in America.
	I thought you got a John Brown shotgun ready to start the revolution to bring back freedom to Canada.
	My wife doesn't like that.
	So a bow and arrow I can get away with.
	So it's a bow and arrow.
	Made in America.
	Beautiful.
	It's got a rubber tip dart.
	You don't point it at people.
	And don't even point it in the direction of people.
	It's got safety all the time.
	And then, by the way, at the border, after I say I have nothing to declare, the border agent says, is that a crossbow in the back of your car?
	It's a bamboo bow and arrow toy.
	I had to show it to them.
	No, it's bottom line.
	But if he was just acting out, reenacting the scene, then I'll give Alec Baldwin a little bit of benefit of the doubt.
	It's like, okay, here, it's not loaded.
	Don't worry about it.
	Act out your scene.
	If they say, hey, it's not loaded, hey, hey.
	The weight should have been different.
	There's a bunch of things.
	And then why is he pointing it at someone?
	These are the problems.
	And then maybe if he's not pointing it at someone, like maybe if she was in the background while they're shooting a scene and it's not...
	You know there's a video of it.
	That's the thing.
	He's done enough training to know what he did was wrong is my problem.
	So it's at a minimum criminal level negligence.
	Yeah, well, we're going to see now.
	Some people are saying getting...
	Further blackpilled.
	No charges will be pressed because of the jurisdiction.
	That's what I was asking.
	I don't think we got to that on Tim Pool.
	Where was he?
	What county was he filming in?
	I don't know why San Antonio is in my mind, but that might have been because of where the movie was.
	If anybody knows in the chat where this occurred.
	Let us know.
	We'll take 30 seconds.
	It depends, because you've got a lot of places where they would love to bring charges on a celebrity.
	New Mexico.
	That's what her is, New Mexico.
	So that might be a local county that does things by the book.
	And all that I'll say, oh, by the way, I can't believe I never thought of using this cup for the streams.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com Even Turley.
	I mean, Turley's...
	When is Turley going to realize that he's not left anymore?
	Or if he thinks he is, he's not loved by the left anymore.
	Even he wrote a piece today.
	I think it was aired in Fox News.
	He might be guilty.
	Criminally guilty of something.
	And this is not a rebel in anybody's misery.
	This is misery and it should never have happened.
	But if he's responsible, he should be held responsible.
	Someone says liberal hellhole.
	I presume you're talking about New Mexico.
	All I know about...
	Yeah, Albuquerque.
	The state, yes.
	Albuquerque, but maybe Albuquerque would be different.
	But some of the rural counties, very conservative.
	Oh, someone says, prop house manager, former as of this year.
	I wonder why, Daft, does that have anything to do with mandates?
	What people don't realize is that there's no definition of prop gun other than anything used to represent a gun, anything ATF, including ATF.
	Interesting.
	One article that I just shared on Locals before tonight's stream for everyone's homework was that apparently the...
	What do they call them?
	The armor specialist or the armor person for the movie set was not confident in her own skills apparently as of relatively recently.
	So I said, look, I know the jokes, I know the comments that...
	I know the jokes and the comments, but bottom line...
	Even the armor specialist for this movie, who apparently certified the prop before giving it to Alec, was not confident in her own skills and capabilities.
	So all around the house, it looks like everyone is to blame.
	Even if it's sabotage from an angry crew to protest lack of safety, the fact that it gets through that easily, everyone shares criminal and civil negligence.
	We'll just see how and when.
	Okay, speaking of criminal.
	Fauci.
	I'm not saying he's a criminal.
	I'm just saying it's a segue in my brain.
	The big news of Fauci this week, Robert, I mean, it goes from bad to worse.
	And my bottom line question is, will there be sanctions?
	And I think I know the answer.
	But bottom line, even Variety is now turning on former sexiest man of the year, Anthony Fauci.
	Because it turns out his testimony before Congress might not just have been inaccurate, and demonstrably so at the time.
	This confirmed outright lie now in that apparently emails have been disclosed.
	Was it as a result of a FOIA request?
	In part.
	And so a lot of this information was going to come out sooner or later.
	Some of it had already come out through the FOIA information.
	Some of it was going to come out in the FOIA information.
	Some of it was coming out through independent investigative research.
	And clearly, and this to his credit, there, Francis Boyle, who has often been on Alex Jones network.
	He's a well regarded, but whatever you think of Alex Jones, let's say you put that aside.
	Boyle is a well-regarded law professor at the University of Illinois, a top 50 law school in America.
	He's written bills on biosafety issues for years and decades, in fact, and has been the number one whistleblower about some of these issues for a long time.
	He was the one to say right away this came from a lab.
	But the reason is he understood and he's been tracking because he's been wanting to get rid of bio BS level.
	I mean, it's actually called BS.
	Can't make this stuff up.
	Bio safety.
	The level four labs.
	And because level four labs are what's called gain of function, which they're actually trying to change what that means too.
	Just like they change what vaccine means.
	They want to change what gain of function means.
	But to give you an idea of what gain of function is, that's really only something that can be a weapon.
	They pretend, oh, well, what is it?
	Somebody else might develop this weapon that just somehow miraculously is just like how we developed the weapon, which never made sense to me.
	And so we have to prepare the defenses for this weapon.
	No, what they're doing is they're preparing a weapon they can use on other people and purportedly are getting defenses for your own population.
	And there was long allegations.
	And what happened is Boyle has been doing fantastic work on this for decades, helped write the original bioterrorism laws to limit the scope and scale of biosafety labs available.
	They call it biosafety.
	It's amazing.
	These are bioweapons labs, is what they are.
	And after anthrax and after other issues, he's been highlighting the problems with this, the risks with this.
	And so it got publicly outed in part during a particular scandal in the second term of Obama.
	So Obama promised, okay, we're not going to allow this anymore.
	And instead, they allowed Fauci through the NIH to do it indirectly and in a hidden way.
	And they did it using both U.S. facilities and Chinese facilities.
	And what they were clearly doing was developing a bioweapon that looks an awful lot like a certain virus that's been going around.
	And so it is likely the case that what people say, oh, that's an Alex Jones conspiracy theory.
	Now it's pretty much proven fact, at least large parts of it.
	The only question is putting certain pieces together, but the pieces are all there for the puzzle.
	There's an expression when the defense is a stupid defense, it's probably a bad defense.
	Their defense is, yeah, we did it with that case, with that bat for another virus, but we didn't do it for this one.
	It comes to the point where they have to think we're stupid.
	They have to think we're stupid to believe this.
	Which reminds me of two things from last night at Tim Pool's party where Tim Pool said, they think you're stupid and the person asking the question thought Tim Pool meant the crowd thought you were stupid where he meant the authorities, the powers that be have to think we are stupid to believe that, okay, first we lied about it.
	No, sorry.
	First we did it.
	Then we hid it.
	Then we lied about it, and now we know that you did it, but it didn't happen in this case.
	So forget about it.
	How stupid do they think we are, Robert?
	Well, and mostly it's because they're relying upon media suppression.
	I mean, as I talked about on Tim Pool's podcast, there's going to be a major whistleblower story coming out in the next couple of weeks of someone I represent that's going to shock people about what happened in key aspects related to what's happened over the last year and a half.
	And it will be another one.
	And what they're really banking on is they're hoping that the media, the institutional media suppresses the story.
	Because that's what, I mean, that's why Alex Jones did COVID land.
	A documentary where he mostly took the government's own press conferences and just put them together and said, look at what they said here and look at what they said here.
	And it's a great, well-presented, I think it's an eight-part series he's doing.
	You know, he's fronting to all the cost himself.
	You know, it's very well done.
	And it's because it's shocking the scale and scope of it.
	I can't ever say his name.
	Soloshnitsyn.
	Someone will remind me.
	But the Russian who said they're lying.
	Solonheim.
	That's it.
	They're lying.
	They know they're lying.
	They know we know they're lying, and they don't care.
	And that's the place we've got, which is a dangerous place to be for any civilized democracy.
	We're going to have to get into the Beagle stuff, because I've seen images.
	I haven't actually seen the original reference, but what they denied a year ago, what would have gotten you kicked off social media a year ago, is now basically confirmed fact.
	It's only a question of whether or not it happened in this particular case.
	What I was going to say, the gain of function.
	The gain of function as a concept is making something that prior to is only transmissible between animals and allowing it to be transmissible from animals to humans.
	Yeah, it's twofold.
	Make it more transmissible and more lethal.
	And that's what they've been doing.
	And now that's what, I forget who it was, there's two reporters this week reported a bunch of details showing this was exactly what was going on and how analogous it was to our current, and that's when the NIH guy, you know, they let him say, oh yeah, we're sorry.
	You know, they let him retire.
	Then they say, yeah, you know, it was probably that guy who's really responsible.
	You know, pretending that Fauci wasn't the real guy responsible.
	And now for those out there who just don't fully appreciate the one degree of separation.
	Fauci was asked and grilled by Rand Paul, are you funding gain-of-function?
	He says, at the time, we are not funding gain-of-function.
	Then the question became whether or not they are in fact funding it, the NIH, through a third-party NGO.
	You don't remember offhand what the NGO was, right?
	You know, I can see it's Peter, whatever his name was.
	It was his organization that was being used.
	The guy who was going to China for the World Health Organization to let everybody know it couldn't come from a lab was the guy who helped send it to the lab in the first place.
	I'm just looking on Rumble to see if we have any chats there.
	So they say, at first they deny it.
	Then it becomes clear that they're actually doing it indirectly through third-party NGOs.
	And then it becomes a question of, well, that wasn't really gain of function.
	And now it's pretty clear.
	And even Variety is turning on...
	Variety being close to the leftist of MSM, sort of turning on Fauci, but still with a somewhat plausible spin to it.
	Do you know what the business is about the beagles and the testing on dogs that people are talking about now?
	You know, I don't know all the details about that.
	I mean, I know all the hybrids that they're making right now, so there's all of that.
	I mean, it's a South Park episode come to life, too.
	It's like Babylon Bee come to life, South Park episode come to life, all together, all at once.
	It's a fair enough comment.
	It's not that they think we're stupid, it's that they think they know what is best for everyone and they are justified in everything.
	It's a fair way of characterizing it.
	No doubt about it.
	But that does imply that we're too stupid to know that it's for our own good, therefore they have to, you know, lie to us because we wouldn't understand otherwise.
	And so now I'm going to ask the stupid question because I know it's stupid already.
	Fauci will never see a day of justice for this.
	I mean, what would have to happen?
	I mean, he should, but I don't think he ever will.
	And now maybe if Trump gets in in 2024, maybe somebody does something.
	You know, there's always that possibility.
	Yeah, there is a hush-hush on that topic in part already.
	But there'll be more coming.
	And for those that don't know, Hush Hush is our episodes.
	We do it.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com Hold on a second, Robert.
	You've got to back that up so I take this chat off.
	We are at one hour and 18 minutes.
	What did you just say, Robert?
	Yes, so you can get the Hush Hush episodes at VivaBarnesLaw.com Locals.com, where we do alternatives to the institutional narrative, where if you'd been following it, you would have got sneak previews of the news about three months in advance, as to January 6th, as to this coming from a lab, as to other dynamics as well.
	But it's a lot of fun, and there's a bunch of topics I'll be covering once I get back home to Vegas, whenever that may be, sometime in the next year.
	Plug, plug.
	Yes, MZ.
	MZ be about.
	Oh, just to satisfy my own curiosity, so in order for Fauci, does he resign?
	Does this even have political consequences for Fauci?
	So, well, yes, it definitely has political consequences.
	The man's radioactive.
	I don't know how long they can keep pretending he's viable.
	You know, I mean, so we'll see.
	If they were smart, they would have already put him at the pasture, in my view.
	But, you know, I mean, look at who our president is.
	Metaphorically, Robert, nobody means...
	Oh, yes, yes.
	When I say patty, yes, of course.
	Purely rhetorically.
	Not like Ed Orgeron telling somebody he's going to take him Louisiana Fission before he had to retire there, resign there at LSU.
	No, just the proverbial pasture.
	Okay, now, the question was, what do we talk about now?
	I was going to look to our list to see.
	First of all, I just want to point this out.
	We're 11,600 here, Robert, which is massive by recent standards.
	We're 2,000 on Rumble, simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	I'm going to go there and see if we have any Rumble rants.
	What were the other things we were going to talk about tonight?
	So obviously we have a major vaccine mandate update in a range of cases.
	Let's do that right now.
	So in my Tyson Foods cases, they removed them all to federal court.
	To the credit of the federal court, the federal court has ordered an emergency hearing this Thursday in Jackson, Tennessee.
	So I'll be taking a little trip down to Jackson.
	People may remember the Johnny Cash song about going to Jackson with June Carter.
	It's a great song.
	I like Jackson.
	And hopefully the judge remains at the state court or gives some clarity on some things that can get relief or remedy for the folks at Tyson.
	And we're looking at filing suits for Tyson Foods folks all across the country, waiting to see how this case shakes out because that will shape where we end up having to sue.
	I won't get into certain things.
	Tyson may have created opportunities to sue them that they didn't realize because they're so desperate to avoid state courts.
	And I'll explain that after it comes about.
	Also representing a wide range of people, and I won't disclose their employers, but helping a range of people from a range of employers go through the employee exemption process, and so far have met with a lot of success, which has been very good to see.
	So, so far a lot of employers are recognizing religious accommodations, are recognizing medical accommodations, and a lot of people were nervous that their employer wouldn't because they put out a rumor campaign that they wouldn't, but they are in fact are granting them so far.
	And we're confident that that will continue to happen at a very high clip.
	There was additional suits.
	And then third, we filed our opposition this week to the FDA.
	The FDA is moving to dismiss our claim against the FDA for what I talked about on Tim Pool, which is the bait and switch the FDA pulled on the vaccine, which has now got even worse because military...
	Doctors are actually doctoring bottles to make them look like they're the approved vaccine bottle when they're not.
	So you have the Biden high-ranking military medical personnel are now fabricating, because what happened is soldiers read our suit, and a lot of other people read our suits, and they're incorporating it in their claims, which is great.
	But they looked at this, and so the soldiers said, hold on a second, doc.
	You're telling me I'm getting the FDA approved one.
	What the Secretary of Defense said is that I don't have to take one unless it's the approved one.
	Can you show me the bottle?
	And they're like, oh, no, no, trust us.
	It's absolutely the approved one.
	I'd like to see the bottle.
	And of course, the bottle did show it was not the FDA biologic licensed approved one.
	So in order to get around that problem, they started doctoring the actual bottle labels.
	Which is incredible.
	So we filed our opposition, cited that and other evidence in our arguments.
	The FDA made a very interesting argument in the sense that what's missing, the FDA doesn't say a single thing we're saying about them really is false.
	They don't deny a single meaningful allegation or accusation.
	They don't even make an argument really for why the injunction shouldn't issue.
	Instead, they say, we're the FDA.
	We're above you, the courts.
	We're above what the laws are of Congress.
	We're above what citizen petitions file.
	You don't have standing to sue.
	In fact, nobody has standing to sue.
	We can do what we want, when we want, where we want, shove off Judge from East District of Tennessee.
	Now, I don't know if this is exactly on the same point, but in as much as the government has already given immunity to the vaccine manufacturers, does that not presuppose that the FDA...
	What immunity would the FDA have?
	They wouldn't have sovereign immunity.
	I mean, would they have administrative immunity because they're acting for and on behalf of the government?
	They know they can't argue immunity in this context, so they argue standing instead, which is even greater because it's nobody can ever sue us because nobody has standing to sue.
	Isn't that nice?
	So it's because their claims, I mean, we have the Children's Health Defense represents millions of people and has members from all across the country.
	Including a bunch of military members who've signed declarations under penalty of purchase and go to prison if they lied.
	And so the idea, if they don't have standing, they're going to be directly injured by the mandate that came about because of what the FDA did.
	The FDA is pretending, oh, really, it's these other people that are creating the trouble.
	We're not mandating it ourselves.
	No, but you're the ones who created the bait and switch that allowed them to do the mandate and the source of the problem.
	But are they saying you don't have standing because we are the FDA?
	Or on this particular case, under these particular facts, you don't have standing because...
	They say no one ever has standing to sue for any issue related to emergency use authorized drugs of any kind.
	That they get to interpret Congress's law however they want.
	They don't dispute that we said you authorized this when you couldn't under Congress.
	Under the congressional law.
	They say we interpret Congress's law differently and you don't get to challenge it, nor does Congress or the courts.
	This is executive agency abuse at its peak.
	But in the procedural posture where you're at right now, are they saying that?
	On a substantive level or merely not addressing it on the motion to dismiss level?
	What they did is they brought it as a motion to dismiss.
	So their opposition to our stay request wasn't to actually oppose the stay request.
	It was solely, we move to dismiss on standing.
	They don't make any other arguments.
	Which is striking.
	To move to dismiss on standing, that is the same criteria where they have to give the plaintiff the most beneficial interpretation of the facts, which basically means presume them to be true.
	Correct.
	So if we don't have standing, nobody does.
	It would mean the FDA is completely above the law, above the courts, above the citizens.
	Even a citizen petitioner who filed a citizen petition that was wrongfully denied and relief wrongfully withheld under the Administrative Procedures Act cannot even file suit on behalf of and with the people who are being directly injured by the FDA's action, and imminently so.
	Can you remind the audience and the world at large of the big pharmaceutical companies that are involved in the world right now, which ones have had a relatively dirty history within the relative recent history?
	Well, the one we're suing on the FDA is concerning Pfizer.
	And Pfizer has the biggest fines in the history of big corporations, period, over billions of dollars in fines for a long history of criminal behavior.
	If any of us did it individually, we would be serving life in prison.
	Instead...
	Pfizer is allowed to profit from this bait-and-switch that the FDA facilitated for them.
	Because down deep, the FDA works more for big pharma than they do for the people.
	And we're going to find out.
	I hope the court has the courage to step in, recognize this for what it is, and give the requested relief.
	But we'll find out.
	If we don't get requested relief at this stage, we'll appeal it.
	We'll also be filing suit to challenge the attempt to extend it to children.
	That will be filed with them as soon as the FDA says they're doing it.
	We'll be filing suit the very next day.
	So that's all of our suits.
	There are also about a dozen more vaccine mandate suits filed all across the country.
	Several filed against the Biden administration related to a Navy SEAL.
	I broke that down in detail.
	I put it up.
	They'll put up the whole suit in my highlighted version of it.
	at vibabarneslaw.locals.com so you can download it, read it yourself.
	I'll be doing different videos on this as we get time.
	But I'll be uploading a lot of those cases to the Locals page because it includes a lot of medical information that here at YouTube they don't like us to publicly discuss.
	So go to vibabarneslaw.locals.com for that info.
	It might be misconstrued by whoever wants to misconstrue it that way as medical advice and not rather just legal analysis or legal pleadings.
	I'm not a doctor, and to be honest with you, neither really is the FDA.
	And it's arguable what Fauci is at this point.
	He sounds like an experimentalist, which, you know, once upon a time, different eras just changed the year, changed the country.
	Things look a lot different.
	Now, I know we've discussed it before.
	I just want to address a question we get often, especially by new people, HIPAA.
	Everyone says HIPAA.
	You can't ask me for my vaccination status because it violates HIPAA.
	It violates ADA.
	I want one clean soundbite so we can address that for everybody.
	How does HIPAA and the ADA apply to demands to show proof of vaccination?
	Sure.
	So HIPAA only applies in general to what employers can disclose to third parties.
	It doesn't apply generally to what they can request from you.
	And there's been a lot of misleading media factoids that pretend HIPAA has no application.
	That's not true.
	HIPAA does limit what your employer can tell other people in your employment setting and third parties, including vendors who may be tracking your medical record information about your vaccinated status or anything concerning your medical records or documentation.
	What the ADA requires, the Americans with Disabilities Act, there's also the Rehabilitation Act, which covers certain educational institutions and government bodies, and there's a lot of state versions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, such as the Tennessee Disability Act, etc.
	And what those do is those limit the ability of your employer to...
	Do a medical exam as a precondition of employment, except under limited circumstances.
	The Trump's era EEOC said that that would limit the ability to ask about vaccinated status.
	Intel's corporate lawyer told them not to ask about vaccinated status because of the legal risk that it involves.
	Biden administration's EEOC has flip-flopped on that, now says it's okay to ask about vaccinated status.
	That's going to be a controversial issue to be determined by the courts.
	As a practical matter, You're in an uphill situation right now if your employer is asking for that information.
	I think you're legally entitled to withhold it, but your employer's reaction may be termination.
	And so you have to make a practical choice about what you want to make a stand on and where you want to make that stand.
	And that's very individual because everybody has a different level of obligations.
	Okay, let's...
	I was going to mention some additional...
	Oh, go for it, please.
	Yeah, on the other great news on the vaccine mandate front.
	The governor of Florida taking affirmative action.
	It's now under consideration in multiple states after Florida announced it.
	They're going to look at passing laws in a special legislative session to ban vaccine mandates and to prevent employers from discriminating against people based on their medical status, including their vaccinated status.
	And that needed to happen.
	That is better than any of the courts taking remedy or anything else, because that could be a lasting, lifelong remedy to prevent this from happening again.
	Credit to Governor DeSantis, and I hope a bunch of other states, I might be consulting in some of those states, so there's some more states coming along with what the governor of Florida did, and hopefully that will pass through Texas, pass through Tennessee, pass through Arkansas, pass through a bunch of states that are looking at it, and hopefully we'll have 30 to 35 states that have this because there was a fascinating Harvard study that came out.
	And YouTube has been allowing this to be publicly discussed, which is the Harvard study did, is there a correlation between a county or country's vaccinated status and the rate of infection and spread of COVID?
	And what we're seeing, we're seeing things out of Florida in particular, I presume that's disproving some things.
	The short answer is they found the only correlation that existed was the more vaccinated a place was, the more likely COVID spread.
	Otherwise, they found no connection between increasing vaccination and reducing COVID spread.
	That's a problem for all these employers mandating this vaccine because their whole premise, aside from their bogus premise that asymptomatic risk is a real risk or that testing isn't a much better solution than vaccines anyway, if that was your concern, it's that the vaccine doesn't prevent spread.
	And their whole pretext for all of this is we have to prevent spread in our employment setting.
	Well, there's increasing evidence, at least as to that aspect, vaccines don't solve it as it relates to these variants.
	And everyone, if you have three hours or two hours at one and a half, go watch Joe Rogan's episode 1717 with Alex Berenson, where you'll get things you can't necessarily talk about here, even though Berenson's not a doctor, he's just going over stats because he's a thorough journalist.
	There's stats showing that the spread of the COVID variant, Seems to be more prevalent or faster among the vaccinated for reasons that I didn't fully understand the explanation of, but stats are stats if you want to report them accurately.
	So everyone should watch that.
	Joe Rogan, Alex Berenson, episode 1717 on Spotify.
	On the OSHA rule that has not yet been fully announced, a bunch of attorney generals have announced they will sue immediately.
	So that as soon as Biden actually issues the OSHA, issues their mandate on employers, that expect immediate litigation.
	And I think they've been deliberately delaying that mandate because they kind of never wanted to do it.
	And if they did do it, they wanted to prevent litigation from happening quickly that could undermine all the other vaccine mandates.
	And so I think now we did see the First Circuit Court of Appeals not intervene in a religious accommodation case.
	First federal court to not intervene favorably.
	The U.S. Supreme Court did not take up the case.
	They could have.
	Now, some people interpreted that.
	This was another media false headline that Supreme Court approves main decision.
	No, they didn't.
	They didn't approve anything.
	They just did not intervene at the emergency injunctive stage.
	And there's other cases coming where other justices are going to get a chance to take a shot at that.
	And so hopefully they will.
	I mean, not necessarily, you know.
	And Alec Baldwin-style shot at it, but some shot at it.
	Everybody is breaking out the malice memes here.
	I want to bring this one up.
	Wyoming legislature has a special session on Tuesday to vote on banning vacuum mandates from passwords.
	I just crossed the border, and I saw the world in which you live, Robert, if only for 70 hours.
	In Canada, you have our prime minister tweeting, literally, verbatim, as soon as Health Canada approves...
	The Fauci juice.
	We're then going to campaign for administration of 5 to 11-year-olds.
	We've already secured the doses.
	And so you have the Prime Minister saying, as soon as my government agency that operates under my authority approves a vaccine that I've already now stated, I've already purchased, then we're going to find people to administer it to.
	It's ass backwards.
	Or it's bass-ackwards.
	I didn't mean to swear.
	Damn.
	It's...
	It's bass-ackwards.
	And, like, I see what's happening in the States.
	It's a different culture, and it's a different level of saturation of fear and irrational response to a perceived fear that in certain parts of the world, the people are just saying, anything to make me feel safe, do it.
	When I cross the border, subject me to a random test and just do it.
	Make me feel safe because the government's there.
	whereas in the states you're seeing different stats you're seeing different procedures uh politically and it's uh it's eye-opening but i i want everyone that that tweet from trudeau saying as soon as my agency approves this we're going to administer that which i've already bought in anticipation of my administration approving this for science sorry that was my rant that encouraging.
	Let them impose laws that prohibit vaccine mandates and let people make their own darn decisions.
	Period.
	Everyone should listen to Alex Berenson.
	This will all make a little more sense if you do that afterwards.
	What are the big stories, Robert?
	I was on the way up here.
	I was trying to listen to some more news to see what the good, juicy stuff was for the week.
	What do you have on?
	I mean, that was about it.
	That was all that I had this week.
	I mean, it was a very absorbing week, obviously.
	But because of these legal issues and the Rittenhouse case being on the eve of trial and the vaccine mandate cases having litigation everywhere and following not only the existing cases, but my own cases.
	So we were just, you know, it was 24-7 kind of week.
	Well, okay, so let's go over our weekend in...
	So where was I, Roger?
	I was in West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland.
	Yes.
	I'll let you talk about that.
	I've got to power this up real quick, so I've got to grab the plug.
	Go for it.
	Now, someone had asked, by the way, in the beginning, did I have any interesting meals?
	This is going to be probably the stuff you don't want to know about.
	And then I'm going to read some Super Chats.
	So I don't eat out very often, but I was not at a hotel that had a kitchen with a dining...
	I ate out every meal for the last three days, but only two meals a day.
	We had one thing at a...
	It was called The Anvil in Harper's Ferry.
	After I did my leg tour, did a vlog on Alec Baldwin, met Robert, met Eric, and we went to a place called The Anvil, which had a smoker parked out in the front, and it was emitting smoke, and it was the most delicious odor you've ever smelled.
	And I had the best smoked turkey sandwich of my life.
	Robert had smoked ribs, and they were delicious.
	That was the best meal I had there.
	I had the best breakfast burrito at the hotel that I stayed at on 6.20 Saturday night.
	It was a travel lodge, I think.
	And the diner, if anybody knows the name of the diner, I had the best breakfast burrito ever.
	Now, while Robert comes back...
	Oh yeah, so here, by the way, it's episode 1717.
	Boom, yeah, that's it.
	And...
	Oh, and yeah, so that's it.
	I'm going to bring up two super chats and then read some that I had in the...
	In my phone.
	CDC said they may change the definition.
	Dude, I said that for a while in Quebec when our premier said, you know, these rules are going to apply to the adequately vaccinated.
	And I said, adequately vaccinated is not an accident.
	Robert knocked over his camera.
	I'm going to read three super chats.
	From C-Wave Doctor says, now the FDA is pushing on MSM.
	The safety and efficacy of vaccines for kids.
	Where have we seen this happen before?
	People should be asking questions about this.
	At the very least, ask your doctors to pull a tin pool.
	Cause Diver, Mexican $500.
	It's Mexican dollars, people.
	It says the FDA works for big tobacco as well according to the newest approval of a new product.
	Andrew Hugh says that's why they are so against the dewormer.
	The dewormer because if it worked and killed...
	COVID vaccine.
	Then the vaccine emergency approval becomes null and void as there's an alternative.
	That theory has been floated around for a while that there was no money to make with certain treatments, whereas there's a ton of money to be made with new, novel, patentable treatments.
	And then Chris Winans says, Booyah!
	Been a member for a couple of years, but never more proud of you, gentlemen.
	Then on TimCast the other night, albeit wish you had more of a chance to speak the truth, Viva Barnes is the most important podcast on earth.
	Godspeed.
	Okay.
	Sorry, Robert.
	Yeah, so yeah, it was a fantastic weekend.
	I think a lot of people, you know, great setup there.
	A lot of idealistic people who have very sincere beliefs.
	He's built a real crew there that's really nice people.
	Ended up playing poker with him in the early morning hours.
	A lot of fun, laid back crowd.
	So a very great crowd that was at their get together later of just ordinary everyday people trying to make a difference the best way they know how, creating a community in the process.
	And so I think it's fantastic work that they're doing.
	And I'll encourage it and hope it continues to go forward unabated.
	And Tim has been one of the best people on the issue of the mandate.
	So he's been somebody very honest, very straightforward, very blunt.
	And I think he's right to encourage Joe Rogan to look at suing.
	It's time for Joe to step up.
	Joe made plenty of money.
	Joe can step up.
	He wouldn't be suing for him.
	He'd be suing for all the other people who've also been defamed and destroyed by CNN.
	He hasn't been destroyed.
	He's just been defamed.
	But he can stand up for them by suing, and he should.
	CNN decided to double down and triple down with a false factual allegation, an accusation they know to be false.
	They're showing their actual malevolence in the way that they're reporting and discussing this.
	So it's time for Joe Rogan to step up and step into the game, step into the arena, not just report from outside, and give some shots for the American people against what CNN did to him on behalf of all the people who can't fight back the way Joe can.
	I was re-watching Joe's interview with Sanjay.
	It's funny now, watching the way it played out, and I was watching the interview.
	For anyone who hasn't seen it, watch it.
	It might be the expert in manipulation from Joe, and I say this as a flattery, not as an insult, when he started off with Sanjay, and at first he flattered Sanjay for being able to admit that Sanjay was wrong on his take on marijuana.
	So he starts off by flattering Sanjay in his ability to admit when he's wrong, which was laying the brickwork for later on.
	Then he goes into Sanjay...
	Talking about how media lied about marijuana back in the day and how fake news media basically created an impression of marijuana that has lasted 100 years almost because it was mainstream media's way at the time of demonizing marijuana or hemp so that it was not used as a competitor to established industry textile, whatever it's called, fabrics.
	It's glorious to watch Joe work because you see what he did is he flattered Sanjay to say, you can admit when you're wrong.
	Then he got him to recognize how fake news has been fake news for the last hundred years.
	And then he went at him about CNN being fake news now and spreading lies.
	And can Sanjay admit that they were wrong?
	And he did it.
	And I think it was a masterclass in manipulation listening to it again.
	Absolutely.
	But they tripled down on that.
	It's endless.
	Absolutely.
	And Sanjay's...
	Culpable at this point.
	But Robert, here's why we didn't talk about this actually.
	Oh yes, that's true.
	A couple of weeks ago.
	The Texas kid, we may have touched on it, but the Texas kid shot two people at his school.
	A teacher from what I understand in the back.
	A student that he was having a tiff with.
	Out on bail.
	24 hours later and posting on social media.
	We've talked about bail before, Robert.
	For anybody who's new, explain your position on bail.
	And in this particular context, how should the bail provisions be used legally, ideally, and as a matter of safety?
	So I didn't have a problem with the kid getting bail because my view is that bail is underutilized in America, that it's lost its constitutional respect.
	The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is very clear.
	Bail is basically constitutionally required.
	And the Due Process Clause reinforces that.
	The First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, in my view, reinforces that.
	Because when you don't get bail, you now don't have right of free speech.
	You don't have free access to the press.
	You don't have free exercise of religion, not in a meaningful way, not inside a jail.
	You don't have your Second Amendment right of self-defense.
	Try defending yourself without any means of that defense inside of a jail with people who know how to hurt.
	You no longer have a Fourth Amendment right against evasions of your privacy on a daily basis.
	You can't even shower in private.
	You don't have a Fifth Amendment right meaningfully to do most things in terms of due process of law.
	Your Sixth Amendment right of access to counsel is substantially restricted.
	Just look at what's happening to the January 6th defendant.
	And that's what the Eighth Amendment is.
	It secures all the others.
	By saying no unreasonable bail, period.
	In my view, is the presumption of innocence attaches.
	That's part of it.
	Part of the Fifth Amendment due process right as well.
	So the mere accusation that you committed a crime should not be the basis of denial of bail outside of extraordinary circumstances.
	I have said this even for Jeffrey Epstein.
	Remember everybody?
	Eternal truth.
	Jeffrey Epstein did not kill himself.
	The eternal truth, number one, depending on the circumstances.
	Eternal truth, number two.
	Sally Yates is still corrupt.
	And eternal truth number three, well, we all know what that is, don't we?
	But I argued for Gillian Maxwell to get bail because, again, I don't like this presumption of guilt.
	I don't like the denial of every constitutional right based solely on an accusation.
	So now where people are right is that if this had a different racial dynamic, if this had a different political dynamic, he would have been denied bail.
	And what's also interesting, I mean, my view was Kyle Rittenhouse should have been given reasonable bail, and $2 million was not reasonable bail.
	He was able to meet it anyway.
	But you look at this individual, he got $75,000 bail.
	And the case against him is much stronger.
	Kyle Rittenhouse is innocent, even with people who read the accusation.
	People could look at Nick Ricada or Robert Grueler watching The Watchers, both did great breakdowns, and said this affidavit of accusation.
	A quits, Kyle, written out.
	By contrast, this gentleman doesn't appear to have any obvious clear defenses.
	Being bullied is not an excuse to shoot people.
	His defense was bullying.
	That's just not a legal defense, folks.
	Being bullied is not, hey, you bullied me, bam, let's shoot.
	Oh, the teacher got in the way.
	I don't think that, from what I understand, someone correct me if I'm wrong that the teacher was shot in the back, but something tells me the teacher wasn't bullying him either.
	The teacher tried to get in the way of the shot.
	Well, not in the way of the shot.
	She was trying to stop the incident.
	Or the teacher was.
	I don't know if it was male or female.
	And that's how they got shot.
	But, you know, I get being mad at bullies.
	I get all that.
	That's not illegal.
	That's not self-defense.
	If you're right in the middle of the person causing you lethal danger of harm, you can defend yourself.
	But what you can't do is, hey, they beat me up last week.
	I'm coming back and shooting today.
	I imagine posting, you know, gleeful pictures on social media.
	This is one of those cases where I tend to agree with you on bail.
	This is a case where I could have thought $75,000 seems a little low.
	When does it become excessive?
	I don't know.
	And how quickly is this kid going to stand trial for what he did?
	And just compare to others.
	Do we have any updates in Jan 6 or no meaningful news?
	I mean, just they're continuing to try to suppress the information that's coming out that shows that they didn't have a credible grounds to accuse a lot of these people, that they're covering up a lot of government misconduct and complicity.
	There was more reports of that, of course, highlighting that.
	I think there were some questions in Congress this week, if I recall, where they pointed out people the night before and two days before saying things that were instigating, trying to instigate.
	trouble, and yet these people have never been accused and indicted themselves that appear to potentially have been some form of Right now, the FBI is too busy worrying about dangerous teachers, critical race theory, showing up.
	That's the other case we can talk about.
	Loudoun County, in terms of what happened in Loudoun County, we were briefly in Loudoun County this week.
	We were in the very outskirts of it.
	When you cross over from Maryland to West Virginia, you first cross through Virginia, that's Loudoun County, actually.
	I did not know that.
	Oh, by the way, before we get into Loudoun County, I just need to bring this up.
	Talex001, the meme master, says, next time you guys meet, there needs to be at least a live chat in locals.
	Bet he had a stream.
	We do have some explaining to do.
	We wanted to.
	And then what ended up happening Friday when I got down to Timcast.
	And then my wife says, you know, you need a PCR test to get back into Canada.
	Then I went to a...
	My entire afternoon was ruined chasing Walgreens for a PCR test.
	We showed up to Timcast.
	Then it was too late.
	And we wanted to do one Saturday.
	But then I was out of a hotel.
	And we can't really do that on the street very easily.
	So it will happen next time.
	At least people will have something to look forward to the next time we meet in person.
	If I can escape the Iron Dome.
	Yeah, they can see some of the greenroom stuff at TimCast.com.
	Some of the backstage stuff they can see there for TimCast members.
	Yeah, they had cameras all night everywhere at TimCast at the event.
	So there'll be some good behind-the-scenes stuff.
	But yes, 1,000% next time we're going to do it.
	And what do you call it?
	Is that skeet ball?
	That little ball thing you throw it up there?
	What is that called?
	I don't know.
	The circus game where you get the concentric circles.
	I wasn't terrible at it.
	I had a promising future there.
	Yes, but you were getting them in by accident because you're not supposed to bank off the side to do it.
	But first of all, it was surreal, not surreal meeting.
	It's just funny meeting someone who you already know so well in person for the first time.
	Because of the insanity of this pandemic.
	I mean, what it's done to deny people human interaction.
	It's deeply evil and pernicious at heart, what they've done to people.
	I can't imagine people who haven't been able to talk to a loved one in the hospital on their deathbed.
	I mean, people who haven't been able to go to weddings.
	People who haven't had meaningful funerals.
	These are outraged.
	And someday we'll recognize these for the outrageous behavior it was by our government.
	And people have gotten used to it.
	They're like, yeah, there's a risk.
	There's a risk.
	So, you know, I'm better off just at home.
	And it's soul-crushing, really.
	Absolutely.
	When you visit America again, you would love Gettysburg.
	Not only the turning point of the Civil War, but it has become...
	A city just overflowing with history.
	Can't suggest it highly enough.
	1,000%.
	My brother's a big fan of John Brown.
	John Brown would probably help put the whole Civil War into motion there in Harpersbury.
	Oh, well, you know, let's talk about one thing, Robert.
	The Rachel Levine appointment to four-star general.
	Is the Biden administration, like, they literally go with Brandon in the wheelchair, knowing what's going on with Let's Go Brandon.
	They appoint Rachel Levine, four-star admiral.
	I've read all of the...
	Oh, a history channel.
	I forget the name of the full channel, but a well-known history channel watches us and posted a very elaborate explanation as to why it's not exactly the military, so it's not that offensive, but still kind of...
	Is the Biden administration trolling America right now?
	I think they really believe this stuff.
	I think the people that run things at the West Wing are a lot of these kids.
	It's like dealing with the FDA in the suit.
	It's like, you really thought you were going to get away with this?
	That you're just going to stick in the footnote?
	Okay, actually this biologic licensed drug isn't actually available for anybody.
	But even though it's going to be the one that's mandated, is this one that's totally unavailable?
	Yeah, they expected to get away with it because they are so accustomed to living in their own world.
	It's a combination of safe space culture, fear of kidnapping when these kids were young, so they didn't have play dates.
	They didn't go out and...
	Well, if they did go out on a play date, it was a play date.
	We didn't have play dates when I was a kid.
	We ran out back, got into trouble, tried to hide in the house before mine got home.
	You know, that was it.
	I mean, the neighbor hated us so much, he put up a barbed wire fence to get us to stop going through his yard.
	And all we did is we said, okay, we'll use your fence as a goalpost then.
	So, you know, I mean, that was, you know, and it shows, especially when you're out in the country, when you're out in West Virginia and you're in the western part of Maryland and you're in the northern rural parts of Loudoun County.
	You see a different America.
	You see an America that hasn't changed in part in 40 years in a good way, that believes in preserving and protecting their tradition, preserving and protecting their community, caring about it.
	They're not going to have critical race theory being taught to their kid.
	They're not going to have any of this.
	And if somebody assaults somebody in the bathroom, they don't care about political correctness.
	They want something done so that doesn't happen again.
	And so, you know, that's why Loudoun County is in such trouble.
	It may sink the Democratic candidates, governors for Virginia.
	May lose just over that.
	There's so many people upset in the state of Virginia.
	I mean, they're so upset in western Maryland, they want to legally secede.
	They want to join West Virginia.
	And they did this week.
	The county's officially begged.
	The Maryland legislature, please let us out of here.
	Please let us go to the great state of West Virginia and sing about my country home, John Denver style.
	Legally, by the way, all they need is the Maryland legislature, the West Virginia legislature in Congress to approve it.
	And who knows, maybe some Democrats who don't want to have the burden of rural areas will actually go along with it.
	Those folks will be freed from the nuts in Baltimore and Annapolis.
	So we'll see how it goes.
	But I think that...
	It's broader reflection that you see such a gap.
	There weren't a bunch of people wearing masks in rural Maryland.
	No, it was amazing.
	It was like people were not living in terror.
	It was a very bizarre thing to see.
	By the way, if anyone ever has the luxury of traveling with you, Robert, for everyone out there on the internet, Robert is a walking historical tour guide.
	We sat in a diner, and Robert basically explained the history of the Civil War to me as relates to Harper's Ferry and Battle...
	It's...
	It was phenomenal.
	I mean, I was smarter after that meal.
	Now I'm going to pull this one up.
	It says, I just did a search online about Simpkins.
	Arlington police chief Al Jones said bullying was not involved.
	And it's very interesting.
	I should know better than trusting mainstream media.
	Run a favorable defense to a criminal accusation.
	And if it turns out to be false, even people who follow the news will not necessarily hear the correction.
	And a lot of school incidents like that, the individuals who did it, the perpetrators, often blamed bullying in the past.
	It's like that's just not a legal excuse for that behavior.
	year.
	I'm just pulling up some chats now while we wind this one down.
	Conservative states should create laws to protect family members' rights to see ill family in hospitals.
	No exceptions.
	It's the same with weddings.
	To be honest with you, it's the right to association in the First Amendment, in my view.
	The right to association is the right to intimate association of your choice, including for family members at memorials, at funerals, when they're in the hospital, at weddings.
	This is, in my view, constitutionally protected areas of law.
	Our courts just didn't enforce it like they should have.
	Our legislative branches kind of went to sleep, and our executive branches figured they could just ignore it and eviscerate it.
	I mean, it goes to things like, look, we have a massive supply chain disaster right now.
	And the way we're going to solve it is our vaccine mandates that are going to leave truck drivers, railhouse workers, and warehouse employees unemployed suddenly.
	So you're going to have a labor crisis on top of a supply crisis.
	I mean, these are people that don't know what they're doing, frankly.
	And the only question is, can we survive their inanity and insanity long enough to correct it and remedy it?
	And those problems you describe in America?
	On steroids in Canada.
	In British Columbia, public health officials had apparently reported you could dance at weddings and then somebody had to say, no, we got that wrong.
	You can mingle if you're fully vaccinated, but still no dancing at weddings in British Columbia.
	And we have such a health care system crisis that we need two weeks to two years to flatten the curve.
	Oh, and by the way, we're firing healthcare workers.
	Even if they've been infected and have natural antibodies, we're firing them if they don't get vaccinated.
	Nuts.
	It's a manufactured crisis.
	You can't blame people for thinking it's deliberate at this point.
	A little-known West Virginia fact.
	If you ask for directions in West Virginia, they're not flipping you off.
	They are showing you a map of the state.
	Okay.
	I don't know what that means, but it sounds funny.
	And then, can unions mandate their members to get the jab?
	SAG AFTRA.
	It's mandating members to get the shot.
	My friend doesn't want to, but needs the work.
	I don't think so, and I am looking at suing SAG because I think it's a violation of their rights.
	One, that's not part of the membership agreement.
	You didn't give up your body.
	I mean, does SAG really think the casting couch was a model of employment mechanism for Hollywood?
	They seem to think so.
	And so I think there'll be legal action on that.
	I'm going to turn to that once I get my head up for a little bit of air next week.
	Now, it says, I cannot fact check this.
	Rachel Levine is not the first four-star admiral.
	It was Michelle Howard, a minority woman.
	Okay, it's interesting.
	I didn't know that.
	No more Super Chats.
	You don't read them.
	Ooh!
	Checkmate, ATX.
	All right, so Robert, who do we have on this Wednesday?
	Chase Hughes.
	One of the great body language guys on the Body Language Behavior Panel.
	Great book called Ellipsis.
	Just read the introduction.
	You can understand what a genius he is.
	He's in high demand around the world for his abilities for hypnosis, his abilities for interrogation, his abilities for detecting deception, his abilities for jury selection.
	A wide range of things.
	Great guy.
	Very nice guy.
	A lot of So we expect him to be Wednesday.
	And according to Eric, Eric Hunley, check out his new channel.
	Chase can hypnotize you if you're not careful.
	Now, I still think I'm unhypnotized.
	There are people that, I mean, I think he, within 10 minutes flat.
	And so that was like, I mean, for a while, Eric was like, I'm not sure I want to meet him without a witness present, just in case.
	I don't want to suddenly be doing all of his laundry for reasons I don't understand.
	So the genius guy, but you're talking high, high, high, high end.
	But a very nice guy too.
	Yeah, it's going to be phenomenal.
	Their channel is the Behavior Panel.
	I mean, I think everybody knows about it because it's massively popular and massively applicable to today.
	It's like things happen, you know, given the era.
	And it's an era now for detecting liars and reading body language.
	Robert, what do we have to look forward to then this week?
	We've got Chase and then...
	Going forward next week, what do we expect?
	Well, on Thursday, we'll find out.
	There's a lot of hearings scheduled.
	On Tuesday, a big hearing scheduled in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on the vaccine mandate case there in New York about religious accommodations.
	On Thursday, I have a big hearing on federal remand case for the Tyson Foods vaccine mandate case.
	It's my understanding that several other vaccine mandate cases will have hearings next week.
	And by the week after that, the court's going to be issuing rulings on the FDA.
	I believe there's a major, major whistleblower case about to go public in the next week or two.
	May come out this week about some of the shocking things that happened connected to a particular shot that may be out and about and being mandated right now.
	And that will surprise a lot of people and more stuff like it.
	So we live, as the Chinese proverb says, may you live in interesting times.
	We most assuredly do.
	But credit to seeing all those folks that got together with Tim Pool's folks and seeing all the people that worked there with him was very encouraging and a white pill moment because you saw a lot of conscientious people, a lot of them young kids, wanting, willing, and ready and doing what they can to make a change.
	And as I said at the get-together there in West Virginia last night, when Connie Buck was, they were wanting to forcibly sterilize her so she could never have kids again.
	And you can see her interview on a Virginia PBS broadcast 20 years later.
	That is heartbreaking.
	Nobody came to her defense.
	Millions of people around the world are coming to the defense of the right to bodily autonomy now.
	So in the words of Samuel L. Jackson, my fellow Chattanoogan, we're going to fight like mother...
	I'm glad you said that because...
	I didn't capture that moment last night.
	I got the second one.
	But what you said about that decision, it's phenomenal.
	Yes, some people suffered in silence in the past.
	And today, with the advent of social media and communities and networks, you can band together and fight peacefully, politically, democratically, and via public opinion to have them start rolling back some of these absurd...
	Unconstitutional measures they've been rolling over us and steamrolling us with for the last few years.
	Lasting legislative reform that will last for generations, like we're seeing in Wyoming, like we're seeing in Florida, like we're seeing discussed in Tennessee and Texas, like has already happened in Montana, and more of that should happen.
	So people who may feel powerless or weak don't.
	You're having a great effect, and you're changing things, and you're able to take on the billionaires like the Bill Gates of the world and win.
	And I believe we're going to continue to win.
	And hopefully in a few weeks, Kyle Rittenhouse can be a free man for good.
	All right.
	From your words to God's ears, everyone in the chat, thank you very much for tuning in.
	Thanks for the support.
	Share this away.
	Cut clips.
	You don't spread it around social media.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone else, see you all Wednesday and enjoy what's left of the weekend.

▲