All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 16, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
02:05:19
Ep. 96: SCOTUS; Baldwin; Rogan; Canadia; Djokovic & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good evening, people.
How's everyone doing, peeps?
This is Winnie, proof of life, although everyone has had their proof of life of Winston.
I'm going to put him on the floor because he's dirty.
Oh, man.
So I'm hoping Barnes is going to be here.
Barnes has been...
I was going to say he's had a cold last week, but then I don't want anyone accusing me of equating things.
Apparently, for anyone watching last week...
Barnes may or may not have gotten the big O. Or the big D. I don't know what...
Okay, take that back.
He may have gotten the Rona.
And he has been tired and resting all week.
But he's alive, he's well, he's been tweeting, DMing.
So, he may or may not be here.
We'll see.
If he doesn't come, I'm going to blast out the link to our Twitter DM of lawyers.
So that we can...
Whatever, maybe have some discussions about some things that I would not be the authority on.
But yeah, no, sorry.
He got the D and it led to the big O. So, okay, no, the D was for the Delta and the O was for the Omicron.
Okay, me and my big fat mouth.
But we've got, look, we've got a good bunch of stuff to discuss regardless because there's never a dull week.
In a world gone mad.
Now, first things first, how is my audio?
Mic check one, two.
It should be good, but every now and again I realize that I've blown out the audio later on.
We can start to...
Oh God, wait.
I just saw this tweet.
This super chat has triggered my intro rant.
Strange fact.
Videos that start Winnie the Westie are on average 35% better.
You know what?
I actually didn't read this properly.
I thought I saw the word Walmart in there, which is going to bring me into the opening rant, because it's just nuts.
But I'll get to some super chats.
I actually got the notification this time.
Good day, y 'all, from Down Under.
Beer on me.
Man, well, hairy dairyman.
Hairy dairyman.
We're going to be talking about what's going on Down Under.
Because it's upside down, which I guess Down Under would be right side up.
Bada bing, bada boom.
Viva, I ordered a thesaurus online.
When it arrived, all the pages were blank.
I had no words to describe my disappointment.
Jonathan Bailey, I think you might have been the person that DM'd the dog giving bread to ducks at a park and they didn't like it because it was pure bread and I didn't get the joke when I read it.
I think that might be you.
That's not a bad one.
Not a bad joke.
We got Beavis Wallace in the house.
It's called the Delta-Coviflumaromicron.
Uh, see, okay, I thought there might have been a next-level joke in there.
First of all, Beavis, thank you for the chat.
It's called the Delta-Covid flu Omicron.
Or the Koof.
Or the Rona.
Or the My Sharona Cyrus.
Or the whatever it is.
Bambuga in the house.
Don't forget to read my opening salvo of Super Chats.
Okay.
So, standard disclaimer.
YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats.
If people don't like that, and I can appreciate they may not like that, we're simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
Rumble has a thing called Super...
No, Rumble Rants.
Rumble takes 20%.
So you might like that alternative better.
We are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
Rumble recently merged with Locals, so you can find a link to our Locals community.
Hold on.
VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com If you want to get some of the discussion that we can't necessarily have on YouTube and a lot of exclusive content, much of it has to do with my fish tank upstairs, which is now translucent enough to see through the entire tank.
Because I got some product called the Green Killing Machine, which is a UV light that filters out and kills algae bloom in the fish tank.
The Viva Fro is fabulous.
It's getting there.
It's getting there, man.
Thank you.
I like your avatar and I like your mustache and beard.
That's not a mustache.
It's beyond a mustache.
All righty.
First things first, some opening rants.
I did a podcast with Dr. Mike Hart.
Mike Hart.
His name is Mike Hart.
Okay, I'm just...
It's not a...
One of those jokes.
He's a doctor, an actual doctor, not like a non-MD PhD like my wife, for those of you who don't know.
He's an actual doctor.
And we did a podcast, and I believe he put it up on YouTube.
And from what I understand, it was removed for the standard disclaimer of medical misinformation.
Now, I am always...
Very clear about the fact that although I'm a hypochondriac and I may diagnose myself with things that I do not have and sometimes do have, I don't dispense medical advice.
But Dr. Mike is an actual doctor, like an actual MD.
And you got YouTube taking down actual MD stuff on the basis that they are, they, they, non-licensed medical experts, or they're not even medical experts.
They're non-licensed.
They're beyond quacks.
They are unlicensed individuals.
Ostensibly dictating medical information.
And I wonder if there's an argument in there that it's practicing medicine without a license or giving medical advice without a license.
Because if you say that something is medical misinformation and you're not an actual MD to say that, I wonder in virtue of what authority you can say that.
So I'm waiting for the news on that as to whether or not his video is going to be restored or reviewed.
In that podcast...
We talked about the absolute sheer insanity in Quebec.
Now, these videos, when I make them, have limited international appeal, although I think outsiders do enjoy looking and gawking at the train wreck of Quebec medical and political society because it's nothing shy of a mangled car wreck on a highway that passerbys crane their neck at as they say, thank goodness, that's not me.
Because...
It's gonna be the first video of the day.
My Twitter feed, by the way, I'm not referencing my Twitter feed because I think it's genius.
It's just, it's a walking diary of the, I'll call it my descent into madness, but F on audio.
Who said F on audio?
Let me get this first video.
Share screen, people, at the risk of share screen.
Okay, every time I do this, I feel like I'm going, taking big chances here.
Alexa Lavoie, who works for Rebel News.
Alexa Lavois shared this video.
I may have called the politician a moron, and I may have felt bad for that the next day, because it is name-calling.
I agree.
And I generally am averse to name-calling.
But at some point, you have to look at the emperor and say, the emperor has no clothes, and they are spiritually and intellectually ugly, and you have to call them out so that people realize you're listening to actual morons.
Now, I'm going to play this.
And I want to, like, use it to go into a little bit of body language reading.
I'm not an expert.
I just know that I'm pretty good at reading people.
It's in French, so you'll have to read the subtitles.
But already starting off with Francois Legault, this is the PM, not the PM, the Premier of Quebec.
This is the leader of Quebec.
Already he looks baffled, confused, embarrassed, because the question that he has just been asked is, explain the protocols that are going into effect.
In Quebec, vaccine passports are going to be applied to big box retail.
Not the shopping centres, only retail within shopping centres that are above a certain square footage.
Someone's asking the question, he can't answer it because of that furrowed brow that you have.
They're like the, that's like, it's like, I mean, this is the international image of buffoonery that I don't know how to answer the question.
So let me just pawn it off to Horatio Arruda, who has since resigned.
There are some shoes, because there are some shoes at 1,500 meters.
There are some shoes.
You answer it.
Look at his hands.
Plus que 1 500 m2 ou à peu près 150 000 pieds carrés.
La seule exception, c 'est pour ceux dont ce n 'est pas la principale raison, c 'est soit la nourriture ou la pharmacie.
Donc, le plus bel exemple, c 'est un Costco va devoir demander le passeport vaccinal.
Walmart va devoir exiger le passeport vaccinal et même les magasins de 1500 m² et plus dans un centre d'achat vont devoir le demander.
Ce qu'on ne voulait pas surtout, c'est avoir cette exigence-là, comme l'a dit le premier ministre, pour les plus petits Okay, so for anybody who doesn't understand what's going on, first of all, first things first, just to get to the human side of this, this face is an uncomfortable face.
I have been caught.
As a moron.
And I want someone else to field the question for me.
Look at him.
You answer this question, because I can't possibly answer it.
Look at his hands.
The hands of a nervous, fidgeting...
It's simple, he says.
There's one rule, and it's so...
Convoluted and stupid, he can't even repeat it, but that rule is that any store of 1,500 square feet or more, stop sharing here so I can see some of the chats, must exige.
And he said at first, il va falloir demander le passeport vaccinal.
You're going to have to ask for it first.
And then he realized, no, they're not asking for it.
Il va devoir l 'exiger.
So he went in one explanation, convoluted explanation, from they're going to have to ask for the vaccine passport, to they're going to have to require it.
Exiger means require, demande means ask.
And then he's like, 1,500 square feet, unless they principally sell food, in which case, no, but 1,500 square feet, even in a shopping center.
And by the way, then he gives the Costco example.
Like, am I stupid?
I've been to Costco.
I think it's principally food.
I think Costco is where my wife goes.
Not that I don't go there.
That was not that type of statement.
I'm not allowed going to Costco because whenever I go, I come back with $500 worth of meat.
So I know what Costco is.
It's principally groceries.
And now they're going to require a vaccine passport to get groceries.
And Gina Carano, I'm going to apologize.
Frequently, because I think my original comment on that tweet or Instagram post a while back might have gotten more traction than my apology.
We're in the realm now where you have people in the States talking about not letting the unvaccinated go anywhere.
Emmanuel Macron, the French president.
We're going to make the lives shit.
That's what he said.
I'm not swearing for the sake of it.
That's what he says.
Émerder is an expression to make life difficult.
Yeah, no, no.
And no, make life difficult for the unvaccinated as though they're the, you know, what's going on here.
Thanks for keeping the line.
David Knox and Albright, thank you very much.
I got more videos, by the way, because that's not even the half of it.
So nice to see that the ghost with the fro from Eric Ali's show has got some color back.
Yeah, I had just gotten off the treadmill.
I was nervous because Eric said I...
He couldn't find Mark Robert on America's Untold Stories.
I jump off the treadmill, rinse off, still sweating like a beast.
Okay, I see Barnes is in the house, so let me just get two more videos because you're going to puke.
You're going to puke, people.
Share screen.
You know what?
I'm going to bring Barnes in for this.
Robert, proof of life.
We have it.
How are you doing?
Surviving.
Surviving.
Okay, well, you actually sound better than you did last week, but Lord knows.
The psychology, Robert, I mean, first of all, are you publicly disclosing, you know, what has happened to you over the last week?
I mean, I'm pretty sure I got COVID.
Okay.
Now, with that said.
And the Omicron variant, and it's pretty consistent with that.
In fact, you know, for my, everybody in my Vegas side of the team also got it at the same time.
It's like most people describe it, Dr. Zogg and some other people, in that apparently it doesn't often attach to the lower lung, so it doesn't have the same risk in terms of severe consequences.
So that's the good news with Omicron.
I think it depends on the individual, depends on the strain and all that, of course, but it's like a severe flu.
So it just knocked you out.
I mean, I haven't been able to work all week.
And it was a bad week not to be able to work because I had a lot of stuff I had to do.
So it's like you get little tiny bits of clarity and then the fatigue drives me nuts.
It's how you described what you thought you might have had COVID way back.
You know, temperature, the jackhammer headache.
When I can't think, it drives me insane.
So that's been the most...
A frustrating part.
Well, let me ask you the psychological question, and it's going to be potentially invasive.
You'll let me know if it's too invasive, but once you know, suspect, and pretty certain that you haven't, how did you find the psychological aspect of it?
Because we have been proponents, or we've been free speech advocates, we've discussed a lot of things.
Psychologically, do you sit there like a neurotic individual like me saying, my goodness, if something bad happens to me, people are going to laugh at me, they're going to weaponize what happened to me, they're going to have front page news, Barnes and Viva, you know, because we got it a while back as well.
And I'm thinking like, okay, I know what's not going to happen, but if it does happen, I can think of 50 people offhand who would relish in it.
Did that go through your mind, or do you not even have those types of waste?
No, that concerned me.
There are people on my team that are vaccinated, triple-vaxxed.
They got hit just as hard.
In fact, I found it relaxing that people were getting a lot of the same symptoms.
Because that told me, okay, this is not something specific to me that I've got to worry about.
Pretty much the nature of the virus.
And it's just the body fighting off the virus.
That's the...
It took a little...
It was taking longer than I would like.
But other than that, I think what people are...
The general...
Well, put it this way.
My experience and the experience of people I know is consistent with what other people have described out there in the South African data and the rest.
So I would say...
I would hope people find it reassuring that this is not...
That's scary of a virus for most people.
And just be prepared.
I know people who got Delta, for example.
I mean, Rob Dew got Infowars.
He got it really bad.
The Omicron is nowhere near as damaging as Delta was by at least the people I know.
Again, that's just a limited set of experience and no medical advice, as usual.
But I also have always felt you can't worry about things you can't control.
And you worry about that too much, your life will be miserable.
So that's been an MO, modus operandi for me for my whole life, pretty much.
I mean, I can dispense that advice.
I just can't take it.
And then I end up literally and spiritually pulling hairs out.
You sound good.
And you actually sound better than you did last week.
So I'm also relieved.
I'm just sitting there thinking, like, the world is so disgusting.
That people would not appreciate.
Well, people would weaponize it.
People would mock it.
You'd have that idiot who wrote that article that it's ghoulish to mock the deaths of...
And I'm saying anti-veers in the sense that they're using it even though they're just abusing terms.
But at some point, people don't realize something's going to get you in life.
And it's going to get you whether or not you're a coward or a hero.
My view has always been that it should be people's choice.
I know many of my family members got vaccinated.
I didn't go around telling them what to do.
I wanted them to have the right information, but I'm not a doctor, so I'm not going to purport to be the ultimate expert on that.
But my view is choice.
It should be the individual's choice, not the government's choice, not the employer's choice.
Not anybody else's choice.
Not the school's choice.
The ordinary, everyday individual.
That's why we have the Nuremberg Code.
That's why we've been abandoning it now for two years.
But that doesn't change.
If this virus was the Spanish flu, I'd have the exact same opinion.
Because my opinion about the law and the constitutionality of the matter wouldn't change.
I might more strongly encourage people, based on the available data, to get vaccinated.
But my view of the law of it wouldn't change one iota.
And luckily, we saw the Supreme Court wake up from its slumber and do one of the most important rulings in the history of the Supreme Court this week.
And we'll get there.
But before we get there, actually, I want to bring this one up.
Charles Fisher says, I miss Viva, but the sidekick bad guy from Home Alone is an acceptable substitute.
Daniel Stern, my kid today, literally said, you're that bad guy from Home Alone 1. And I see it.
I see it a little bit.
But Robert, before we get into the SCOTUS, I want to bring up another video, which if the Francois Legault one didn't make your stomachs turn because it was in French and you couldn't really immediately digest it without reading the subtitles, then I realized I now have the cursor over.
This will, and I have a question for Robert because I may have to attenuate my hyperbolic claim in the tweet.
Share screen.
Screen.
Screen.
Share the screen.
Chrome tab.
Oh, two ones.
Two ones, actually.
Let's just go to this one.
Share.
Justin Trudeau, people.
Listen to this.
I want to end today by speaking directly to kids once again.
I know many of you are in virtual school again.
Many of you have made more sacrifices over Christmas, over the holidays, not seeing your friends, not seeing your loved ones, having to hunker down, having to help out around the house as your parents are working virtually.
This is not easy.
And I know almost half of kids across this country have gotten their vaccine from ages five to 12. We need to get more.
So please ask your parents if you can get vaccinated.
Getting vaccinated protects yourself, protects your family, protects your grandparents, protects vulnerable people.
But it also supports our frontline workers who are working incredibly hard, our neurodegenerative When he says it sucks.
We know, kids across this country, you've been doing the right things over these past long years, and it sucks, but you've been amazing, and we need to keep doing everything we can to get through this.
Okay, and then we get into the French part.
Robert, you can all read the hyperbolic tweet where I said it's, you know, illegal in any civilized country with a moral compass.
And then people...
This is why you should not be hyperbolic, because hyperbole is necessarily an exaggeration, and then if people want to nitpick, they can say, it's not illegal, it's only self-regulated in the States, and then people say it's wrong.
Okay, so there's a bunch of countries where it's outright illegal.
In Quebec, you can't target children 12 and under for advertising.
Yes, it's not advertising.
It's even worse, in my humble opinion.
But Robert, settle a question that we've...
I tried to look into it, and I think I already understood it a bit.
What are the rules in terms of advertising to children in the United States?
How heavily regulated is it?
Is it self-regulated or is there actual regulation state by state or whatever?
There's discouragement and disincentive of it.
And the way it kind of works here is the FDA controls.
What the FDA really is is a labeling agency.
People have never quite put that together.
I mean, the FDA was never intended as some super scientific agency.
That was never its role, never its objective, never its place.
It's been a disaster when it went that route.
It's got a lot of disturbing ties to eugenics organizations over the years, people that keep popping up in key positions of power at the NIH, or people like Fauci.
We'll get to that in a little bit.
Because that was my other thinking during most of the week.
I was going to introduce myself by saying China is asshole.
Because, you know, experiencing this virus from a Chinese lab, almost without doubt.
Allegedly, Robert.
Allegedly, of course.
But I was thinking, you know what, how would you, people who experience the virus and the consequences of the virus and some of the politics responding to it are going to be naturally enraged to a certain level when this was avoidable, if in fact it was manufactured out of a lab.
So how do you get those people to not be mad at the people who use biosafety?
Incorrectly.
And created this virus and let it get out, either deliberately or accidentally.
Well, you create a different enemy.
And that enemy is somehow the unvaxxed.
The unvaxxed are the unclean, the unworthy.
And I guess it's supposed to be a coincidence that these people disproportionately come from demographics of people that have been maltreated by governments, in the West in particular, over the past century or plus.
More.
We're talking about Native Americans, Latinos, African Americans, working class whites in the Appalachian region in the South.
And I don't think that is a coincidence at some level.
It's what happens when you let the Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci's of the world run the world.
But so technically the FDA kind of controls advertising.
So for example, but here's one example.
The FDA is not, no drug is allowed to be labeled safe and effective unless it has a biologic license from the FDA.
Yet we have heard this vaccine be referred to as safe and effective repeatedly, even though the only vaccine that has been made available in the United States.
Has been the emergency use authorized vaccine, which by law cannot be marketed or advertised as safe and effective.
How have the FDA got around it?
They're using, as you point out, state actors instead.
So Pfizer's not calling it safe and effective.
Moderna's not calling it safe and effective.
J&J's not calling it safe and effective.
The government is.
CDC is.
And they believe they're immune.
I mean, we're looking at bringing another suit, but we've been looking at studying for...
A couple of months now, how to bring suit when all the courts are saying, if the FDA is the one lying on the marketing, can't sue.
That's what the federal court's ruling in Tennessee was.
No standing, no standing, can't sue.
So it's like, hold on a second.
I mean, the FDA exists to prohibit private companies from misleading advertising.
Isn't it a lot worse when it's the government itself doing the misleading advertising in violation of the rules?
And so that's where...
They're not supposed to market this as safe and effective to children because no biologic license at all has been given for any COVID vaccine for children yet.
There's been an emergency use authorization, not a biologic license for anyone under the age of 16. And so by that logic, no one can advertise for it.
And you're not seeing Pfizer advertise that or Moderna or J&J, but the government is.
The government's doing it.
The President of the United States is doing it.
They're doing it through Big Bird, for crying out loud.
I mean, that's even worse than Tourneau up there, is what we did with Big Bird.
I thought that was parody.
It's impossible.
It's impossible.
And then you got one puppet interacting with another puppet when, no, I was going to say Trudeau, Biden retweeting freaking Big Bird telling you, oh, I got a vax in my wing.
It's upside down clown world, but...
Okay, so that's the answer.
It was a hyperbolic statement, yes, not every country in the world has anti-children marketing ads, and maybe it's not advertising.
It's a universal ethical principle of medicine.
Absolutely.
In fact, it's more insidious.
Someone said, well, he's not advertising because he's not selling anything.
It's like, no, he's not selling it, giving candy away for free and targeting children and saying, go tell your parents.
Setting aside that what he said, true to himself, Has been contradicted by, I don't know, the CEO of Pfizer himself.
But I'm not getting into that discussion.
I'm just saying, on paper, there's that.
One last one, Robert.
One last one.
Sharing this.
This is a beautiful one.
Chrome tab.
Someone said, make it bigger when you do it.
Share this.
Okay, this is it.
This is Seamus O 'Reagan Jr.
I'm not trying to put him on blast.
I don't know who the person is, but from Canada.
Celebrating that, as of today, it is illegal to intimidate doctors.
It's illegal to intimidate nurses.
It's illegal to intimidate patients.
It is illegal to obstruct them from providing care or receiving it.
The law was passed unanimously in the House of Commons today, and it comes into force.
I said, that's very good.
Let me just back up here.
And I said, that's good.
This was all already covered.
This was all already illegal.
But way to go adding redundant law, which I'm sure the government will not exploit and abuse for nefarious purposes.
And in case anybody had any doubts, this is just a screenshot.
Of some provisions from the criminal code, but I like the one intimidation.
Section 423.1.
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for...
Yada, yada, yada.
Where do I go to?
Who?
Wrongfully and without lawful authority for the purposes of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing.
So you have these...
I don't want to call people names anymore.
I'm going to close this and hope I don't ruin the stream.
You have these people adopting laws which are already, you know, to cover acts which are already governed.
And I said, I cited Cicero, more laws, less justice.
And people are going to say, well, what's the big deal?
Redundant laws are just redundant.
No, because if you already had a law to govern these things, someone's going to look at this new law that was passed and say something has to be new and novel about it.
More specific application.
Otherwise, why would you have created a new law when you had existing laws to govern it?
And so they're going to say one day.
What is intimidation of a doctor or a nurse?
That is unique from intimidation that was already covered in the criminal code, and I would hypothesize that one day they might take certain tweets saying you should have your license revoked, you're violating your Hippocratic oath, you shouldn't be allowed to practice as being that type of criminal intimidation that would not have otherwise been governed under that section of the code.
Robert, I mean, would you like to explain to the people, and then we're going to get into the SCOTUS, what Cicero meant by more laws, less justice?
Just the very nature of it.
Because in the end, it's similar to what Gorsuch started out his concurrence in both decisions as saying, which is this is about who decides, not necessarily about what gets decided.
And the more laws you have, the more power you're shifting to bureaucrats of some type or another.
And the more power you shift to the professional class, the more power you shift to the state.
Inevitably and inescapably, that power will not be used to the benefit of ordinary and everyday people.
That's the history of government from the beginning of governments.
All right, I'm going to read this, and then we're going to get into the discussion.
Dr. Fi, or D.R. Fi, or Dreyfee, says, I've been against the mandate since the start.
Got both facts to keep my job.
They may still want me to get the booster.
Still got COVID last week.
Had the sniffles and the cough.
Isolated for a week, and I'm fine.
And that will be the experience from most people.
Many people, yeah.
Going through.
And then the issue is going to be the fundamentally unverifiable, would it have been worse?
Would my symptoms have been worse but for?
And the but for arguments are arguments that are illogical.
They're very hard to tell, at least from the data we're seeing out of Europe.
It doesn't appear, actually some data that came out of Quebec, it doesn't appear that vaccination is much of a protection against Omicron at the moment.
And there's that big caveat.
Delta, yes, there were stats that reduced symptoms.
Omicron, by all accounts, no.
And that's the history.
There's a reason why we've never had a successful coronavirus vaccine in history.
Because it evolves and mutates very quickly.
From my limited lawyer understanding, I'm not an expert.
The hope was that this experimental technology could change that.
There are a lot of people who are skeptical of that, and that skepticism has ultimately been warranted.
And you have people that are...
Critical of the mandates, like Dr. Malone and others, who themselves have got vaccinated.
And it's not about being anti-vaccine.
It's about private choice and respecting private choice.
And it's about...
And I personally will never take a drug or will try never to take a drug that is immune from suit.
I'll never trust a drug that fits that category, period.
And it's a bizarro, upside-down clown world where the double-vaxxed...
Can still be called anti-vaxxers if they do not support legislation compelling vaccination.
It's just what happens when you bastardize and abuse language.
But Cleopatra, people!
Good to see you again.
It's been a while, Cleo.
I'm never on YouTube anymore, but I am thrilled to see Robert back.
No one can understand the theory we, who had original C-19 or the variants, feel against Fauci, Obama, Bill...
Okay?
And the CCP.
God bless and stay well, Robert and David.
Cleopatra, thank you very much.
And it's good to see you again, because I noticed last week, it was two weeks ago maybe, people were, we hadn't seen you in a while, and we're asking.
So, good to see you back.
Okay, Robert, let's get into it.
The first one of the night, SCOTUS, because I've got questions.
Now, I did not read the decisions in thorough detail at all, but the two questions that I have, we'll break it down.
The OSHA mandate...
Was overturned on appeal, sent back to the lower courts for adjudication, but ultimately on the injunction, overturned in terms of the application of what they were trying to enforce, 6-3.
And for clarity people, so no one accuses anybody here of misrepresenting, the OSHA...
It was not a vaccine mandate.
It was rather a testing mandate.
So it didn't compel vaccination.
It just said, if you're not vaccinated, we're going to compel testing of 80 million employees, anyone working for a company with 100 or more employees.
And it was defeated on the injunction 6-3, sent back.
Now, that's the first question, is what does that mean?
Because people think it's over and done with.
It may be in reality, but in legal, it is not.
What does that mean that at this stage it was dismissed on the injunction but sent back to the lower courts for litigation?
So, I mean, this was whether preliminary injunctive relief should be granted to prevent it from going into force.
And given the nature of this particular rule requirement, I seriously doubt they're going to try to litigate it at the lower courts.
So this probably is the end of the OSHA rule.
Not yet the end of the Medicare rule, but the end of the OSHA rule.
Because their whole purpose was to get it done now.
They're not going to fight on these terms.
They might try to go back and go through notice and comment and retry, but I don't think so.
I think that's pretty unlikely given the nature of the breadth of the ruling.
And so the OSHA decision was probably the most accurate prediction I've probably ever made.
I mean, because my thought was that it's a 3-3-3 split and at the 3...
Corporatist or centrist or whatever you want to label them, would ultimately, at least two of the three, would say no to the OSHA mandate.
All three said no to the OSHA mandate.
But the three conservatives were much stronger.
Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito.
Gorsuch is clearly the heavyweight intellectual amongst the Trump appointees.
Barrett and Kavanaugh and Roberts went along because of the nature of the OSHA rule being too broad, too big.
And that's where they ultimately went.
This is not within the congressional delegated power.
It's doubtful whether it's within the commerce power in the first place.
It's attempting to rewrite the whole nature of governmental power and executive power, and we're not going to let that happen.
So it was a per curiam majority, and then three concurrences and three dissents.
The three concurring opinions.
Or by Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas.
And they made clear that all of this is crap.
And all of it should be tossed.
And with really smart, strong language across the board.
Because they started out saying this is about who decides.
And not about what is going to be decided.
And so in the three dissents, the liberals are gung-ho for any rule that, in their mind, the emergency of a pandemic justifies anything.
So they made that.
It was what I thought would happen before oral argument.
It's what happened at oral argument.
It's what happened in the opinion.
But the OSHA one matters the most because it was the one with the far biggest impact on employees.
Tons of people were waiting to see what would happen.
My guess is a majority of employers now will not mandate vaccines or will walk back.
Any future intentions of continuing to mandate vaccines?
There'll be some that still go forward.
I got clients that are going to be suing people.
So there's some that are still marching forward.
But most will say, okay, enough.
So this was the big Hail Mary attempt by the Biden administration.
And it was not just, in my view, about vaccines.
It was about federal power.
They could use emergency power to just...
Start doing whatever they want without even going to the legislative branch or have a meaningful review in the judicial branch.
Then they were going to just do this writ large.
And so that's where that 6-3 decision was by far the most consequential.
And probably the logic of that decision will be the more likely logic followed in the Head Start mandate and the federal contractor mandate.
We'll see about the federal employee mandate.
That's a little bit more flexible range therein.
The one they approved, the Medicare mandate, was still going to keep getting litigated at the lower court level.
They said that they removed the injunction on the grounds that they don't believe it's clear that the Biden administration will lose.
And what happened was Roberts and Kavanaugh flipped.
Kavanaugh was a surprise.
But explain this.
Okay, I'll get back to the question I had earlier, but explain how Roberts and Kavanaugh flip, because it seems to me you can't flip on the reasoning.
So how did they justify the flipping from the OSHA saying, this was congressional power, if Congress wanted to do it, they ought to have done it.
They didn't, therefore this was not under OSHA.
Somehow, though, in Medicaid, because it relates to a more limited field of employment.
It was within congressional power?
I don't understand the flipping of the logic there.
It was really...
I agree.
That's where I thought that legally, if you followed the logic through, once you said no to the OSHA mandate, you say no to all of them.
They figured out a way to carve out an exception, I think, for political purposes.
I just think that...
And the three political reasons that are actually overtly cited, in the opinion, is first, that who they're trying to protect is different.
That in the OSHA rule, they're trying to protect the unvaccinated from themselves.
And Kavanaugh specific made that point during the OSHA oral arguments.
However, in the Medicare ones, their excuse is defending patients, protecting patients, particularly old and vulnerable patients.
So the politics of it was very different.
That's the first part of it.
The second part of it, now again, you're right, that doesn't apply to the law.
That's a political exception for it.
What they considered a trickier case.
The second excuse that they had was that historically, hospitals had in fact issued these kind of mandates.
So this is not so extraordinary, out of the norm, unusual.
Once again, that's not really a good legal argument.
That's a political argument.
But that was another argument that they relied upon.
The third aspect was, and this is an interesting one, whereby...
People might have claims now that they didn't have before, which is, you know, there are people on our board that were, you know, edgy about the outcome.
And my point to them was, remember, the court went out of its way to say that the Medicare mandate requires religious accommodations be granted and medical accommodations be granted.
They said it more overtly than, frankly, the rule does.
And I think this was probably an argument they used to get Kavanaugh to flip.
To say, well, look, you know, anybody that's really bothered by this, no biggie, you can always assert a religious accommodation.
Because right now the problem is hospitals not allowing religious accommodations in New York and Maine and Massachusetts and elsewhere.
Now the question becomes, is there now a right to religious accommodation that might not have existed before because of the court's interpretation of this rule?
That effectively this rule becomes a rule on all hospitals.
Yes, you have to issue a vaccine mandate.
However, you also have to give religious accommodations.
It's now independent of and on top of Title VII.
So I think people may actually have additional remedies that they didn't have before because of the nature of this opinion.
It was kind of buried in the middle of the opinion, that language.
They're much broader than the rule is.
But clearly that can now be cited by any nurse that, hey, you know, Medicare mandate came down and this mandate is effectively, the way to think of it is two things.
It's a vaccine mandate and it's a religious accommodation mandate.
And so now I think hospitals that have been denying it might want to recheck the effect of that rule.
They might have been better off, some of them, without that mandate being affirmed because it had an additional component in it.
So they did it for political purposes.
And it's not clear to me that ultimately the Medicare mandate would be upheld.
Kavanaugh also was the guy who flipped initially on the eviction issue moratorium.
And, you know, said, well, it's almost going to be over anyway.
And then Biden went and extended it right after.
Right after that, they kind of mocked Kavanaugh.
So then Kavanaugh had to come back and say, okay, no, enough's enough.
But I think it's the practical politics of it.
There are different legal issues in the sense that the Medicare mandate doesn't get into issues of the Commerce Clause because it's a spending issue.
But I think people were saying, oh, that means they're going to extend it wherever they're spending.
I don't think so.
That was your most sensitive set of facts.
It was, you know, old people in the hospital who are very vulnerable.
Many of them poor because they're on Medicaid in some cases, not just Medicare.
And this is nurses in a hospital context.
And the other thing they pointed out was that there was almost no nursing association, no employee group, no hospital group, no employer group, for the most part, fighting it.
It was just the governors fighting it.
And so to them, that made a very big difference between that and a bunch of employers complaining in the OSHA context.
So it shows how political the cases are.
I'm bringing this up.
This is not a flex.
This is actually a sincere request.
Marion Holtzman, thank you tremendously, unless that was a typo.
And if it was, I promise you, I will reimburse all of it, even the 30% that YouTube takes, because if you meant to do this, thank you very much.
And if you didn't, and it was a typo...
Reach out to me in any way possible.
But otherwise, thank you.
I'm going to read it.
Biggest crime against humanity ever done.
I said it at the beginning.
I say it now.
I will not read the hashtag.
I don't know what it means.
I know what it means.
I kind of know what it means.
I was very reluctant to ever break out the term crime against humanity.
Now I'm much less reluctant to be reluctant to say that.
Because what they're doing right now...
The Nuremberg trial was the ultimate crime against humanity, and that was all based on informed consent.
If this was an accidental period mistake, email me and whatever.
But otherwise, thank you very much.
From the beginning, I would not use crime against humanity.
I was even reluctant to get into the Nuremberg stuff, the Nuremberg code.
I think it was Malone, or it might have been McCullough.
When you become hyper-focused on one number, Ignoring all others.
I mean, yeah, at some point you're killing people and you have to understand that you are.
And then the question is, are you actually saving anybody?
How do you measure the people that you're saving versus the people that you know that you are killing?
And if you start getting into the area of ignoring the people that you're killing and just fudging all the numbers so you don't even know and you can't even say, we don't know.
But today we got, oh my God, sorry.
In Quebec, Robert, our premier tweeted out.
There were 258 people in ICU today in Quebec and 570 in Ontario.
Quebec has a population of 8.6 million people, Ontario 14.7 million people.
That's 850 people in ICU for 23 million people.
And the question is, who's dying as a result?
Who's not getting diagnosed for breast cancer, for skin cancer, for heart issues?
Who is dying but it's not attributable to COVID?
I didn't know if he tweeted that.
To say we should open up or it's so serious.
Look, 300 people in ICU in a province of 8.5 million.
And we also know that they don't know who's there because of or with COVID.
Okay.
Robert, my question with the OSHA, going back to the OSHA mandate, and because I've been having the discussion on Twitter and legit questions, people say, okay, it wasn't a vaccine mandate.
We know that.
Nobody's going to try to incorrectly frame it.
It was a testing mandate.
The costs of which were to be borne by the employer to the extent they decided to, but I think they could also flip those costs to the employee if they so chose.
If I'm wrong with that, correct me.
But then the question is going to be, all right, well, OSHA already allows for drug testing.
Spontaneous, random, or after an accident.
And that's for workplace safety.
So how do you reconcile those two elements?
OSHA allows for drug testing, but cannot compel COVID testing.
But it's very limited when they can do drug testing.
And they've lost a lot of those kind of claims.
So that's been the...
Normally it's something very specific, very particular, and also...
Frequently, it's more of an allowance than a mandate, things like that.
And so they've often lost a lot of drug testing cases that they tried when they tried to do it back in the day, railroad workers, etc.
The government lost the ability to try to mandate it, force it on people, considered a Fourth Amendment violation, amongst other things.
So normally, a lot of those testing, it's permission rather than requirement.
And it's under specific circumstances that are very particular work-related.
And it's not a permanent medical thing.
I mean, that's the other aspect here.
And even though the testing was not permanent, only the vaccine taking it would be, they put so much pressure on employers to mandate the vaccine instead of the testing that the court saw it as more of a vaccine mandate than a testing mandate.
That technically it was a testing mandate, but functionally it was a vaccine mandate.
Okay, and one argument that I was having trouble reconciling, I said, okay, the testing mandate, one of my arguments was, It's invasive.
Even if it only goes up the nostril, invasive.
But if it's the PCR that rubs your brain like an Egyptian mummy, invasive.
Someone said spitting.
The spitting is not invasive, but my immediate reflex was, first of all, giving up my DNA is invasive.
Having to give my body fluids is invasive.
Is there a tenable legal argument to reconcile?
Those two statements that I find sticking something in my body invasive and withdrawing something from my body to be invasive, legally speaking, is that the same type of invasion?
Legally, yes.
Okay, good.
Sorry, I feel better about that.
No, because of the spitting.
It's good.
Hey, imagine they said, you know, the only way to test for COVID was of a sperm test.
Go in the bathroom, come back and give us your sperm.
Like, I'm not giving my DNA to people.
Who the hell knows what's doing with anything?
Oh, especially...
Getting back to some Canadian crap.
You know, Robert, the government of Canada has designed, it's called AppWell or WellApp.
It's a mental wellness app because Justin Trudeau, who has now taken it upon himself to talk to my kids without my consent.
That's what perverts do, just so we're clear.
After two years of abuse, after all they've done, they've made a mental wellness app so you can check in, you can get resources, whatever.
In the same context that, as we know, the military in Canada has been testing propaganda techniques on Canadians during COVID because they saw it as an opportunity to test new propaganda techniques.
The health agencies have been spying on 33 million devices in Canada, tracking movement during COVID for our protection to know where we've been going.
Also wants you to download a mental wellness app.
And I didn't have...
My wife is here.
She's coming.
And I also...
Didn't even have the thought until someone said it.
For firearm ownership, if you download this app, or if you have a firearm and you download the app, they can come and get you.
And then people were saying, they've done this in the States.
Have they done this in the States?
Because someone mentioned the idea, then I was like, yeah, okay, I took the course.
I know the questions they ask.
Has it been done in the States where by downloading an app or by disclosing information requested by the government, they have then come to seize lawfully owned firearms?
I don't think so.
None of the states.
Because the crazy thing is like in Canada, when you apply for it, you have to fill out some forms.
You have to answer some questions.
And some of the questions are very specific to mental wellness issues, consultations, doctors, yada, yada.
If you've downloaded this app, you might have just inadvertently put yourself on a never getting even an unrestricted firearm license.
Oh, okay.
So I think that answers it.
Is there anything we haven't gotten to for OSHA, Medicaid?
I mean, it's...
Yeah, it covers it for a big, big win because it stopped the executive branch from overreaching in a wide range of cases.
And there was some great language by the three conservative justices, and Barrett joined him in the Medicare mandate dissent.
That was a 5-4 decision, including some strong language about the permanency of a vaccine.
And how that's very different and we should be respectful of people's interest in that regard.
So that's some of the most aggressive language against forcing vaccines on people in the history of the Supreme Court.
And a critical ruling cabining the power of the executive branch to just use an emergency to seize whatever it was.
So on both of those accords, huge, huge rulings of great importance moving.
It could have been better, but it was still pretty darn good in the end.
Awesome.
And now I'm bringing this up because one Bravo Crunchy, I remember.
Viva, sorry to interrupt the topic, but this is the white pill I told you about last week.
My son, Daniel Andrew, was born January 15, 2022.
817, 7 pounds, 0 ounces.
Baby and mom are doing great.
Going home tomorrow.
11 Bravo Crunchy.
Congratulations.
God bless.
Godspeed.
You should also know Daniel is my brother's name.
Andrew is my middle name.
Although 7 pounds is kind of a lightweight, I was 10 pounds 5 ounces, I believe.
I was a chunky bread box of a baby.
Okay, so we got that.
Congratulations, 11 Bravo Charlie.
Really beautiful stuff.
And yes, that is White Pill.
But we have to protect the future that our children are going to have, which is going to be a battle.
Oh, Robert, I lost where I had a beautiful segue.
First of all, 11,000 people watching here on YouTube.
I'm going to go check Rumble.
Light up that comment section with a comment just to celebrate everything.
Okay.
Oh, I'm sorry.
That was it.
It was the chat that I brought up before, which is gone now.
Look, Robert, we've probably received the same lawsuit coming out of India, going after Bill Gates for crimes against humanity, seeking the ultimate of penalties.
Have you looked into the Indian lawsuit against Bill Gates at all, crimes-seeking...
I'm aware of it, but I don't know the details about it.
I know that Gates has been controversial in the past because of prior vaccine issues involving him and whether he tried to bribe his way into government agencies and a bunch of other stuff.
He has a reservoir of a lot of people who dislike him in India.
So it doesn't surprise me that that would develop there.
But I don't know what the ultimate consequences of that suit are, what its probabilities are, anything like that.
I'm going to check if it's a Well app, because the Orwell app would be very good.
So, look, I've glossed it over.
I'm not paying much attention to it, because I don't think anyone's getting a condemnation of life in India, even against Bill Gates.
But, yeah, I have not delved into it in any great detail.
But, Robert.
All right, I guess now's a good time to get into Fauci.
The recent controversy about his employment, not his employment, but rather his remuneration.
Are you able to elaborate on that?
Because I thought everybody knew.
Fauci is the highest paid federal employee in the United States.
But apparently what that senator was asking him for was not necessarily publicly available information.
Could you elaborate on that?
Oh, I don't know about that aspect.
Okay.
This was one of the questions where there was a hot mic, he called him an idiot.
He's like, oh, it's all very public information.
Apparently it's not so public as to, you know, Fauci's sideline remunerations, but these are secondary issues that were not on the menu for tonight.
But getting back to what was on the menu for tonight, Robert, what was on the menu for tonight?
We've got...
I mean, I guess it's...
Is it public now, the rumble aspect?
Well, he's talked about it.
For anybody who didn't see, Chris Pavlosky was on Rumble with Tim.
He was not on Rumble.
Chris Pavlosky, the CEO of Rumble, was on Timcast talking about, look, it'll be finalized when it's finalized and it'll be a work in progress when it's in progress.
Yeah, but he said, you know, Chris disclosed that we are going to be helping to frame the free speech aspect.
Terms of Service for Rumble.
And if anybody hasn't seen the podcast, you should watch it because Chris was on Timcast answering some of the hard questions.
Some people might not like some of the answers because some of the questions for which he takes flack is Rumble Terms of Service, they look like YouTube Terms of Service.
They include things like hate speech, anti-Semitism, racism, yada, yada.
And nobody knows how to define that.
So the issue is going to be how does Rumble...
Gauge itself, sell itself, and actually operate and conduct itself as a platform that respects free speech, even if ostensibly their terms of service have to abide by legal standards in order to sell an app beyond the Apple and Google app stores.
And so Chris said, you know, he's working with us, and we're going to figure it out.
So it's interesting times ahead, Robert, but we'll see where it goes.
Yeah, and so it's good and promising.
The goal is to create a desirable service.
So that means walking, it'd be politically neutral, non-discriminatory, not discriminate based on political content, and make sure the rules are clear about that.
And as he pointed out, he wants rules that are specific and clear.
Typically what he would be advised is to keep the rules vague.
Getter's rules, for example, are very, very vague.
And so forth.
And he said he wants to actually go beyond what he has to do and instead wants to be able to establish rules that are predictable, that are clear, that are transparent, and that are sufficiently specific so that you know what's okay and what's not.
And what I've explained to people from day one is, you know, you don't have to have a pure free speech zone because that's not what a lot of people are looking for in social media services.
And what I mean by that?
I mean, people aren't begging for trolls and haters to be bombarded with their materials on a daily basis.
For example, I mean, there's First Amendment protection for pornography.
Nobody wants to turn on Twitter or YouTube or...
Rumble or anything else and be bombarded with unwanted, undesired pornography.
So how do you handle that?
You create rules that you can only use this content in a particular manner, but the rules are clear.
They're not vague with language like, oh, hate speech.
Well, who knows what that means on a given day.
So the goal is to use the existing laws.
We have laws all across the country, all across the world, actually, that give clear definitions of what is illicit.
What is illicit discrimination?
So, you know, if you're going to use content in order to discriminate and target and harass someone based on their race and religion, that's something that's prohibited in a wide range of employment and other contexts.
So it would just be taking those rules with specificity and clarity that everybody can look at and say, okay, that's...
That's fair.
Fair notice.
If you don't like it, you can always go to Gab.
You can go to other places that are the places where other people like to populate.
That's more power to them.
But the goal for Rumble is to be able to have real reach, to be able to have the reach equal, ultimately, to YouTube.
And in order to do that, they need to have manageable rules, sustainable rules, and that includes not having a bunch of crap on there, while at the same time...
Not politically discriminating and not being subject to whim, to random whim.
You don't know what the rules are going to be tomorrow.
And so Chris has met that objective by bringing in people like us and others to design the rules to make them specific and clear in ways he doesn't have to do because his ultimate objective is to have a very robust platform, non-discriminatory, politically neutral platform.
That's a desirable place for people to go, where you won't at the same time be bombarded with trolls and haters.
This is what people actually sort of confound, is that free speech, in the meaningful sense, is not just having a platform where everyone can run around shouting the N-word just because they can.
Now, admittedly, that is free speech, but that is the type of free speech that actually deters or detracts from a platform.
But setting that aside, the issue is not unbridled.
Relentless free speech for the sake of it.
The question is establishing rules that you know are not going to be weaponized politically against one channel versus another.
So if nobody can use the N-word, nobody can use the N-word.
Period.
Don't like it?
Don't go on the platform.
If you think that's not free speech, don't go on the platform.
But that means it's going to be blanket applied universally to all channels, to all videos, to all comments.
Where it gets problematic, and this is where it happens on YouTube, is medical misinformation.
That which was medical misinformation two years ago is now truth.
That which was conspiracy as to the origins of coronavirus, potential origins, two years ago was bannable.
Now it's the truth.
So some channels got booted.
Election stuff?
Well, it depends on how we interpret what you say.
Violence?
It depends on how we interpret what you say.
So the question is not creating an expectation of willy-nilly, you know, you can come and say whatever you want, and if you get booted for saying something wrong, You're off.
And that's not exactly what violating the free speech in terms of the meaningful sense means.
And so it's a question of just establishing the criteria, the expectations, the rules of the game, so that people know when someone says cracker on one channel and someone says cracker on another channel, they're not going to say, yeah, you meant it in a derogatory sense and you meant it as in the cracker barrel sense.
So that's what it is.
How do you do it?
If we gave away the secrets for free, we'd have little to do.
Speaking of free, and I'm going to say this every time and I'm going to stop saying it, if this was another typo...
Let me know.
I don't want anyone hitting send and then saying, oh my goodness, I've just given away a month of rent and I can't do it.
If ever it happens, just let me know.
But Ellen Dodgel, I actually want to field this one.
Have you heard about Japan's new warning on vaccines?
I believe I've heard about their warnings, their full disclaimer.
You can't compel it.
Employers can't compel it.
We think it's good.
Do it if you think it's good.
We think it's scientifically justified.
Take it if you want to.
Do not take it if you don't.
And we can't discriminate against you if you don't.
I've heard that.
I've actually seen someone send me the screenshot.
Where I have an issue is that I know someone very personally, this is not hearsay, it's not unverified information, who travel to Japan, and they have perhaps the most stringent travel measures, which is 10 days to 14 days in a windowless room where they literally feed you, if not under the door, they open it, give it to you, until you...
Pass your quarantine period.
And then maybe you can live the freest of lives in Japan.
So I don't know how to reconcile public disclaimers, positions they take in publicly versus how they're applied locally.
I just know that I'm not traveling to Japan anytime soon until things change.
In my experience with Japan, they're very protective of their own.
So that explains that otherwise apparent contradiction.
In other words, they're not going to subject their own population to harm.
But that means they're not going to force them to take a vaccine and give them fair warning of what the problems are with the potential with the vaccines.
Well, at the same time, they're going to be very discriminatory on outsiders.
Their whole culture is kind of discriminatory towards outsiders.
I once went there around the holidays, and I must have been the only non-Japanese person coming in there.
I mean, it was interesting and enlightening.
Well, let's qualify that.
Their foreign policy, their internal policy, is racist by any North American standard of diversity is our strength.
You could say it.
I don't necessarily agree with it.
It might be self-interested.
It might be cultural preservation.
They do not abide by...
Japan does not adopt a policy of diversity is our strength.
It is very protective of culture.
And some people in the West have dubbed that racist.
So, with that said...
Robert, how familiar are you with the civil lawsuit in the Alec Baldwin case against the prop company who provided the dummy bullets to Hannah Guterres-Reed, who brought them on set?
Have you read that lawsuit?
No.
Robert, I'll go...
Hold on.
Do I bring it up?
I'm going to bring up only the conclusions, because I don't understand the causes of action.
I don't think you need to have read the lawsuit to get there, but...
Robert, I'll tell you the basis of the lawsuit.
Hannah Guterres-Reed, who is the expert armorer in that case, in that case, I'm sorry, in that death situation, she has sued the prop company and the owner of the prop company, Seth Kenney and PDQ Props, because she alleges somehow a box of what were supposed to be dummy rounds arrived on set.
Nobody knew where they came from, but they came from PDQ and Seth Kenney's company.
They contained, allegedly, seven live rounds in the 50 dummy rounds.
Allegedly, one of them found its way into the gun that Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger of.
Forgetting all that, she, in her lawsuit, says...
It's a gossip lawsuit through and through.
I might do a separate breakdown of it, but I think it's too gossipy to be of legal import.
But she basically, in her lawsuit, admits that at some point, despite being the armorer on set, she was wearing two hats.
She was also doing a prop master stuff.
That she left the firearm unattended with two other individuals, which is a problem in and of itself, but that she knew that those two individuals whom she delegated custody of this firearm to had left it unattended, and by the allegations in her own lawsuit, the firearm was unattended by all accounts by anybody for at least five minutes.
And then, you know, all the other issues going into it.
But I'm going to bring in...
Share.
And let me just see it.
Screen share.
It's just the conclusions, Robert.
Chrome tab.
No.
Window.
Entire screen.
Let's get...
No, I'm going to see the windows going in.
Okay, I may not be able to do this.
So, Robert, let me just...
Uh-oh.
Did I take Robert out of the stream?
No.
Okay, fine.
If Robert is still watching, let me just...
I'm going to pull up the lawsuit.
Nobody sees this right now.
I'm just looking at my own computer.
And I'll get to the counts.
And then I'm going to bring this down and see when Robert comes back in.
You know what?
While everyone's watching, count one is violation of the New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act, which alleges that defendants' acts as described above constitute unfair methods of competition, and they constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of commerce, both of which violate New Mexico law.
One is representation of a particular standard that props were dummy rounds and safe when they were not.
And then the defendants provided ammunition with Colt 45 dummies labels and they were not, allegedly.
And then creation of dangerous condition, strict product liability.
Count three, strict product liability, false and deceptive product labels, and false and materials misrepresentations.
Let me see if Robert's back in the house.
Am I?
Okay, I am.
I'm back in.
Robert, did you hear that as I read it?
Yeah.
Okay.
I mean, look, I see.
The entire lawsuit, I'm saying, okay, it's going to be defamation.
It wasn't.
It's going to be liability.
It wasn't.
I have no idea what those headers or counts of law are.
How do they possibly apply?
I mean, I guess, I mean, what she's saying is sometimes if something is inherently dangerous, then any mishandling of it, even if it's not negligence.
It creates liability.
That would be strict liability.
So I assume that kind of saying that they are on the hook.
Now, how is it that she was injured, though?
Well, I've had...
Oh, that's a good question.
I'd have to go back and look.
I don't know that answer offhand, Robert.
I mean, it's the...
I get...
Hold on.
I'm going to bring you down.
I'm not...
I can't bring it up because I don't know how to share my screen.
It says, yada, yada, count for breach of contract.
Oh, she made payment for the bullets, I guess.
She owned some of the stuff.
Defendants as sellers had reason to know that at the time the contract was made that the props were purchased for a particular purpose and that Hannah was relying on the defendant's skill or judgment to select and furnish suitable props.
As a result, there was an implied warranty that the props were fit for purpose.
I guess her damages are going to be psychological.
I'll have to look through it, but fair.
I mean, I can see some reputational injury, but normally strict liability is when you've been...
Physically injured by the screw-up.
Or you can be economic, I guess.
Or psychological.
She is economically damaged reputationally, I suppose.
What she's saying is, I relied upon their competency, and they turned out to be incompetent.
Well, what she has said in that lawsuit, I mean, the theory, and we're trying to decide as to whether or not it was just...
A civil lawsuit to create the plausible deniability for criminal wrongdoing.
But my goodness, she admitted that she was the prop master and left that firearm with two people who were not the armorers and then knew that it was unattended for at least five minutes and then still, you know, handed it off.
It's nuts.
Thoughts on Canada, provinces, Supreme Court upholding these crazy laws?
Is there any hope for us?
I don't want to blackpill anybody in Canada.
People en masse need to start publicly mocking the politicians for their idiocy.
And until such times as they do, and until such times as the majority of people actually support this idiocy, it will never change.
Non-violent, peaceful, non-doxing, non-harassing.
If it's not a groundswell of the people, it will just be fodder for the tyrants.
To do what they want to do all along.
I love this dog.
That is a Westie in the avatar.
I only super chat so my dog can see her face on the TV.
Hi, Winston.
Robert, what was...
Oh, goodness.
Are you up to speed on the Jan 6 indictment of the Oath Keepers?
Only bits and pieces.
They finally went after Stuart Rhodes, but it's not clear whether they're really going after him or not.
And they're trying to now throw in the word sedition.
Though it's not quite clear how they got there.
I saw the outlines of the story, but not the details.
I read through the indictments.
There's three of them.
They start off by talking about the electoral process, the certification process, which to me doesn't seem like allegations you'd include in an indictment in the ordinary non-politicized run of things.
First of all, I knew nothing of the Oath Keepers, so I said, tongue-in-cheek, Merrick Garland, if his goal is to...
Give the Oath Keepers the best advertising possible in mission accomplished.
I've never heard of them.
Based even on their Wikipedia description, Wikipedia reflexively calls everyone alt-right extremists.
I think they might have recently labeled Glenn Greenwald a far-right journalist.
Had you heard about the Oath Keepers?
A left-wing journalist.
I mean, a hardcore left-wing journalist.
I agree with him on a lot of issues.
Disagree with about some others, but nobody's ever confused Glenn Greenwald with being a right-winger until now.
Wikipedia has, but had you heard of the...
I don't know if it's an American thing.
Were you familiar with the Oath Keepers as an entity beforehand?
Yes.
I don't want to downplay it if they are in fact...
I don't even want to compare them to Proud Boys because I never knew of the Proud Boys until Canada decided to label them a terrorist organization.
Are the Oath Keepers...
In any meaningful way, are they actually violent extremists?
Or are they...
The way Wikipedia described it is they want to encourage defying laws which they believe breach the Constitution.
I mean, had they had any criminal, seditious, conspiratorial, in a meaningful sense, history prior to this?
Not in a malicious sense.
I mean, they were sort of a conservative organization.
And that was kind of it.
Keeping oaths was the principle of it.
It had sometimes, occasionally, militia overtones, but nothing really big in that direction.
Mostly just older conservative men, typically, who are for keeping the Constitution.
You know, that's the kind of principles they had.
They weren't radical, to my knowledge.
You know, didn't show up in any violent actions previously.
So they, I mean, similar to true, really, with, like, the Proud Boys.
And the Proud Boys started out as just a fun idea of Gavin McInnes to hang around a bar and, you know, be proud men, that kind of thing, and proud Western culture and so forth.
You know, the not...
You know, anything racist or chauvinistic or violent.
And then what happened was they began to defend people at speaking events from Antifa.
And then they got a reputation for being physically confrontational.
And then it kind of devolved, frankly, from there at times.
But there's still a lot of people that are in the Proud Boys who are just...
Good old boys.
Not trying to do anything.
People that were agitated at what they saw as the street theater violence by the left and that no one...
No one defending people against that, things like that.
But the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters.
Now, interestingly enough, the Boogaloo Boys have mostly dodged all this, which is interesting.
They're kind of apolitical.
They're all over the place politically, wearing the Hawaiian shirts and all that jazz.
But I think that there has been a significant effort by the government.
To recreate, or parts of the government, to recreate the militia movement of the 1990s.
There's reason to believe the government was part of the militia movement's rise in the 1990s, too.
Because, I mean, you can find it out, Operation PACCON.
It was started by the FBI in 1990, before there was any so-called big militia movement in the United States.
Created a fake militia for the purposes of...
We're connected to some organizations and people that ended up in Oklahoma City.
You can go and find that at one of the Hush Hush episodes at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
And I think that aspects of what QAnon was doing had the same attributes of that.
And what's fascinating to me, in many of these indictments, the January 6th committee, nobody seems to want to inquire into QAnon.
And exactly what and who QAnon was and what its ties to the government were or were not.
It's an amazing thing.
Look, I looked up Oath Keepers.
It said that at least 10%, I forget the number exactly, but a substantial portion are retired police officers and military.
10% active are allegedly law enforcement and military.
The guy, Rhodes, never heard of him before, but I've got to tell you.
Kind of badass from the picture.
I mean, it's not to be glib.
Look, an eyepatch is an eyepatch.
Everyone has a reflex when they see someone with an eyepatch.
But the guy's a lawyer.
I believe he's Yale trained.
It's one of the good, you know, schools.
Lawyer, ex-military paratrooper.
As far as I know, doesn't look like a bad person, but I don't know the Oath Keepers.
And I read the indictment.
And okay, fine.
There's some charges that they were carrying around weapons.
For the purposes of mobilizing on January 6th.
Being cynical and skeptical, I'm saying like, okay, I don't even know what carrying around weapons means anymore, because it could be a totally lawful transport that we're only going to find out in defense, but when you throw it in in an indictment that these individuals were carrying guns, you're allowed to do that in the States.
So like, I don't even know how to make...
How to interpret the allegations, but the bottom line is they say, okay, they were organizing.
There were some DMs.
They're using Signal.
They're using these apps that the government doesn't like.
They're talking about being prepared for a fight, metaphoric or physical.
I don't know, because based on what happened, it was a very minimal fight.
No weapons other than the dude with the spear.
So I don't know what to make of it.
But, you know, they come up with their seditious conspiracy charges, which is going to give everyone the...
The O-face that they've been looking for for the last year.
I just want to bring this one up here.
Mike Pierce says to buy firearms in U.S. No felonies, no violence or weapons misdemeanor in 10 years.
Not been in a mental institution in the last five.
Never found guilty by reason of insanity.
Found incompetent to stand trial or placed under conservatorship.
And I can tell you in Canada, other than having to get the permission of your wife or your spouse, renewed every two to five, I think it's five years.
They ask questions such as...
Have you consulted with doctors for mental issues?
And so Canada's next level.
And I believe Canada's next level so as to criminalize gun ownership and not to regulate gun ownership.
That's been my theory since having my experience that I've had.
But Robert, seditious conspiracy.
I mean, look, we know what it says.
How many people in the history of the United States have been charged, let alone convicted, of seditious conspiracy?
Under United States Code, Section 2834, whatever it is.
It's extremely rare, and when it's been used, it's usually been used in very problematic ways.
They went after Eugene V. Debs and World War I protesters on this grounds.
So that's why I told my left friends from the beginning, you don't really want to reinvigorate.
These laws should have stayed dead.
They should be taken off the books, frankly, because they've historically almost always been used to target political dissidents.
I just want to pull it up.
Seditious conspiracy.
Seditious conspiracy.
I want to just read the chart because it's so ambiguous.
Yes.
An example of why the law shouldn't exist.
Okay, 2384, not 2834 because I'm dyslexic.
Listen to this.
If two or more persons in any state or territory or in the place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States conspire to overthrow, put down...
Lord knows what that means.
Or to destroy by force the government of the United States.
Or to levy war against them.
I don't know what any of these words mean.
Or to oppose by force the authority thereof.
I don't know what that means.
Or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.
Just think about what that could mean.
Or by force to seize, take possession, take or possess any property of the United States Is theft seditious conspiracy?
Contrary to the authority thereof.
Let me say that one again.
Or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.
That sounds like theft.
They shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned, not more than just a minor 20 years, people.
Robert, what the hell does that mean?
It's basically a catch-all to criminalized dissidents when they like to.
When they're in emergency situations, that's typically when it's been applied.
So it was used to apply to draft resistors.
I think Eugene V. Debs was put in under the grounds that his calling for resisting the draft was sedition.
They used it.
I think they at least thought about using it.
I'm not sure how many times they actually did use it, but in the 1960s, if you destroyed draft cards, things like that, that was suddenly sedition.
You know, I mean, sedition should be reserved for something extremely rare and unusual.
You know, not for, you know, riots at the Capitol.
And here we go.
Rox Day Murray says, everyone, do not comply.
Are you egging people to not comply with the authority of the United States?
This sounds very seditious, Rox.
I'm joking.
I'm joking, but I'm not kind of joking because that's how ambiguous that provision of law is.
Okay, so I mean...
Look, I read through it.
Garland, under tremendous political pressure, a year later, almost a year to the day celebrating it, gets his seditious conspiracy charge.
First of all, do you know who, if I may ask, who the council is?
Are you up to speed with any of that?
I'm not.
Okay.
Let me just see this.
Barnes didn't get COVID.
COVID got Barnes and Barnes won.
No, the idea that we've moralized, we've weaponized, and we've, you know, I would say moralized a cold.
If you got COVID, you must have done something wrong if you were unvaxxed, and thoughts and prayers if you were vaxxed.
I'd like to thank the effectiveness.
It's disgusting when things get weaponized to the point where you wish ill on those who get sick, if they're enemies, adversaries, and you, you know...
Law of prayers if they're allies.
Oath keeps were established in response to the Katrina ordeal.
Interesting.
I had no knowledge of them before and they were established in 2009.
When was Katrina?
I thought it was 05. The name whose name we cannot speak.
What next do we have on the menu?
By the way, we are 2,700.
On Rumble, which is beautiful, which means between the two, almost 15,000 people.
It's beautiful.
Let me go to the menu of the evening.
Okay, we got to Fauci and his liars, the fake facts, Roseanne Boyland in January 6th.
Robert, what do we do next for our subjects?
I do not know.
Okay, hold on one second, people.
Hold on, hold on.
I'm going to go to the actual header of our live stream tonight.
Goodness, I can't even get it.
I can't even get it.
Sorry, hold on.
What's his face?
Don Lemon.
Any developments?
When is he going to trial?
Do we know?
Don't know yet.
They're asking because...
I defended Dustin Heiss in the court of public opinion.
They're asking that no jury trial be granted and instead it go back to being a bench trial.
And we're opposing that, of course.
You have a right to defend your client in the court of public opinion.
This is commonly misconstrued by some lawyers who want to sort of monopolize the court of public opinion.
They were saying I was trying to...
the only thing you're not allowed to do is to substantially prejudice the jury pool.
And so, and that's really pretty rare, pretty, frankly it's pretty hard to do that.
And so the, but when you're a lawyer defending your client in a court of public opinion, I think the odds that any juror actually heard anything I said on Megyn Kelly or anywhere else was more than 10,000 to 1. And I was speaking to the national audience,
whereas the plaintiff's defense lawyer for Don Lemon was really trying to target local New York audience by talking to New York Post and New York Daily News.
Even then, not many people are going to read and watch that.
And it's easily dealt with by jury selection, which in a case like this, that needs to be anyway.
And I just made the point that the reality is a lot of CNN people are under investigation.
And you have two people that are...
We're facing criminal charges for sexual misconduct.
You have Frito, who has left Cuomo because of apparently other sexual misconduct.
And I suspect and have said that I think that Don Lemon has done things before and other than what he did to Dustin Heiss and that he hasn't been forthcoming in discovery about it.
And so they're like, that's horrendous that Barnes has said this.
We cannot allow a jury now to hear this case.
Barnes has questioned the ethics of the great Don Lemon, who manages to have almost no discovery in this case, no emails, no text, nothing.
I mean, my client got sanctioned for not keeping everything, and he produced about a thousand times more than Don Lemon did.
And so, you know, I get that I'm facing an uphill jurisdiction in the sense of the politics doesn't favor, my client does favor Don Lemon.
It's New York.
Not a whole bunch of Megyn Kelly fans, conservatives, or anything like that.
But my defending Dustin Heiss in the court of public opinion was entirely ethical.
But it's the nature of the animal.
You get these lawyers that are just nasty lawyers and Don Lemon's lawyers and nasty lawyer.
What happened was Megyn Kelly was doing an investigation of Don Lemon, talked to Dustin Heiss, my client, but not me.
I wasn't there.
He confirmed why he believed...
He explained what his story was and why other people should believe his story.
And then Don Lemon's lawyer went and attacked Megyn Kelly, went and attacked Dustin Heiss, targeted the local New York media to do so.
So Megyn Kelly asked, well, Robert, will you come on to defend not only my story, but defend your client?
Of course, that's my ethical duty.
So I did and pointed out that I believe that Don Lemon has lied during the discovery process.
I believe he's a bunch of things that are true.
And the only question is what I will be able to prove or not prove come trial.
But I don't have hardly any doubts about it at all.
I have no doubts about my client's story, and I have serious doubts about Don Lemon's version of events, especially given what he managed to have almost no text about this, no messages about this.
He's never been – no one's ever accused him before, ever, really.
So, you know, we'll find out.
We've seen Don Lemon on CNN New Year's Eve specials.
I mean, the dude has a propensity for getting excited.
Especially when he drinks.
He behaves in an inappropriate manner.
I mean, that's the core of what happened here.
He went and sexually harassed.
They also got mad that I referred to it as sexual assault.
That's what it is under the federal rules.
We had already debated this with the prior magistrate because the magistrate didn't know it.
It was amazing that he had this federal magistrate who didn't know the federal rules of evidence.
He was going to say, oh, no, Mr. Martin, where do you get this idea you can get into any prior issues of somebody, of any other people?
And said, that's actually the explicit law under the federal rules of evidence.
And what happened here?
Specifically fits that definition.
So it's going to be a battle after battle.
They've made his life, Dustin Heiss's life, kind of a living hell for the last two years.
And that's a common practice.
It's the Harvey Weinstein defense model is the one that Don Lemon has chose to employ.
And we're going to keep going forward, fighting it anyway.
And we'll see how it all shakes out in the end.
I want to see...
Robert, that might not be the best analogy.
See how it shakes out.
Okay, sorry, my childish humor.
Supreme Leader Legault is currently on the French CBC Canada Broadcasting Company channel.
I brought this up not only because it's a super chat, but I appreciate referring to him as Supreme Leader.
I'd like to thank him for getting our evenings back as of tomorrow, although I will not be going into an SAQ, or I will.
The SAQ is Société des Alcônes de Québec.
If I go in, I'm not showing a passport, and if I get arrested...
I will have a GoPro somewhere on my body.
But, Robert, and just for everybody out there, by the way, so we can appreciate what CNN is, you got Andrew Cuomo, Chris Cuomo's brother, done what he done in New York, not just killing tens of thousands of people or being responsible for excess deaths, then the sexual stuff, then you got Chris Cuomo, the sexual stuff, then you got Don Lemon, the sexual stuff, then you've got these producers, upper-level producers for Cuomo, I believe, And Jake Tapper, the other one.
One of them was a producer for Jake Tapper.
And Tapper likes to get on his moral high horse about that issue a lot.
It's like, hmm.
You know what bothers me?
Jake Tapper's dog is named Winston.
Ever since I discovered that, I love Winston, but it hurts my heart.
Jake Tapper's dog.
And kind of looks like Winston, but like a different type of poodle thing.
Okay, so that's beautiful.
I mean, we'll see where it goes.
And Robert.
My plan is to come down and pull an inner-city press documenting the Don Lemon trial.
Me on scene.
We'll see if we can make it happen.
Or we'll see where we are at that time.
But Djokovic, people want to talk about it, and we have to talk about it because it's an absolute outrage.
Not sure how up to speed you are with it.
I was just watching Avi Amini.
Avi Amini, who's been on our channel, this channel, I think it's twice if not three times.
Avi Amini.
Oz Olyashev, he works for Rebel News.
He's a reporter.
He's in Australia.
You may not like the guy, but if you don't like him, it's because you probably don't know him well, or you think you know things you don't.
Dude's got courage and stamina.
And he was on Fox News talking about Djokovic, dispelling some myths.
Now, we all know the chicanery that's afoot with Djokovic being expelled from Australia.
It was alleged that he had lied on his visa application.
It went to court.
Bottom line, he was just expelled from the country because the issue, whoever the guy's name is, Hawk, H-A-W-K-E-M-P, you can find him on Twitter.
Because visas are discretionary, and this is my question from U.S. law, because visas are discretionary, after they lost their court battle against Djokovic, they exercised their unilateral discretion to revoke the visa that they had given him.
On the basis that his presence, there's no other way to say it, could encourage an anti-V sentiment in Australia, that his freedom of choice could disrupt the tyranny.
And so Hawke, whoever is the member of parliament that issued the visa, withdrew it and kicked him out.
There's discussion as to whether or not he lied about his passport, his vaccination status.
Apparently he might have said that he got a positive test.
Arguably didn't.
I don't know.
And we may never know.
Bottom line, he was not kicked out of the country because of a court order or because of lying on his vaccine, his application.
He had his visa revoked by the premier or whoever it is in Australia on the basis that he could be, he could encourage independent thought in Australia.
And if any of the...
It's very easy for me here.
I'm not a tennis player.
I'm not tall enough, agile enough.
It's very easy for me to say, I think I would withdraw from the competition, make them pay with their dollar.
I think I would.
I'd like to think I would, and maybe I would actually, but maybe I wouldn't.
Who knows?
Everyone should withdraw from that competition.
It's a load of crap, and they've taken out the number one dude on this bullcrap reason.
But Robert, visas in general, purely discretionary?
Like, what recourse?
Hypothetically, this is in the US.
What recourse would anyone have if their visa were unilaterally revoked by the powers that issued it?
Historically, very little power, though the whole Muslim ban case, quote-unquote Muslim ban case, challenged that because all of a sudden the courts found an excuse to suddenly state that you have more rights than typically you have.
Typically, you don't have any right to a visa, and typically you don't have much rights beyond due process.
And how that visa is, whether it's revoked or not.
And it's just complete control over the borders, generally speaking.
Sometimes refugee circumstances that can be triggered and treaties that can be implicated and things of that nature.
But outside of that, most of the time you have carte blanche to do whatever you want.
Unless the politics is of a kind like the so-called Muslim ban, suddenly all of a sudden the courts are saying, oh no, no, now you can't actually.
Force a government to take a visa.
But, you know, historically, you can't.
Historically, the visa powers up to the government to do whatever it wants with, for the most part.
Yeah, it's...
I'm just reading some of these chats, which I'm not going to bring up, but it's an amazing thing.
Just so everybody knows, I tweeted out Avi Yamini on Fox News.
Go watch it.
It's just...
It's Orwellian in your face, where...
And this was another thing that someone sent me, Robert Malone, just talking about how, you know, in 2019, we looked at China and we said, my goodness, they can't surf the internet.
They can't travel freely.
You know, the government says what they can say, what they can't say, what they can learn, what they can't learn.
And us in the West, we're like, that's terrible in China.
We have freedom.
We have the internet.
We have freedom of mobility, yada, yada.
And then five years later, we are now where...
China arguably was in 2019.
I don't even know if China's there anymore.
And Australia in real time says we're kicking out a tennis player.
I didn't bring this tweet up because I wasn't sure.
I didn't think we were going to get here.
Well, this is actually Avi Amini says Djokovic was not deported for being unvaxxed.
The immigration minister conceded the tennis star had a valid exemption.
Hawk deported Djokovic because he deemed Novak's presence in the country a threat of spreading dissent.
Isn't that insane?
It's insane.
They said it in no uncertain terms.
I think in the pleadings they refer to him as an independent thinker.
Swear words in my head but not coming out of my mouth, but it's bull garbage.
It's bullplug.
Okay, Joe Rogan.
There was something interesting that happened with Joe Rogan, which was, oh sweet, merciful goodness.
It was his discussion with the guy there, Josh Zeps, coming out of Australia.
Robert, we're not going to get into it in the medical advice misconstruing sense.
But the question was, studies that Josh Zeps, Josh Zeps, I don't know who he is or what his credentials are.
I think he's a journalist, but he's out of Australia.
And he...
I schooled Joe Rogan.
This is why I think the media ran with it for a while.
That allegedly, based on stats, myocarditis was eight times more likely in the younger demographic who get COVID infections than from the vaccine.
Joe Rogan said, if anybody's going to embarrass me on my show, I'm glad it was Josh Zeps.
He's a great guy, and I've learned.
Then the question became whether or not the stats were accurate, how the VAERS reporting has been dealing with it.
And I don't want to be accused of or even walk that line.
The question is this.
How has the broad question?
What has happened and how has the VAERS reporting system been dealing with the reporting in the last two years?
Are you able to feel that?
I know you're involved in some specific case, which we don't need to get into, but how has the VAERS reporting changed over time and how is it being dealt with now?
So, I mean, it's a clear safety signal because causation is always tricky in a circumstance like this.
So what is not in dispute is that there has been a spike in myocarditis, particularly amongst younger men and especially within athletes and other heart-related issues.
Now, the one explanation is that this is a side effect of COVID.
One of the problems I have with that is that...
The spike in myocarditis appears, at least from a contemporaneous perspective, to be more contemporaneous with the mass vaccination campaign than with COVID, an initial coming on the scene.
So that's where there's some doubts.
We have a year's gap worth of data.
We have a year's worth of data where we can see what COVID was doing, and then another year's worth of data where we can see what the vaccine is doing, at least potentially.
And that's where I have doubts about those people trying to reallocate.
And again, myocarditis and pericarditis are recognized risks by the CDC for the vaccine.
And Robert, I'm bringing this up.
I can't see you, but I know that we're still here.
This is, if anybody, Robert's not giving medical advice.
He's not giving any, he's not hypothesizing.
I Google trended it because it's actually just very interesting.
A tweet, Viva Friday, Viva Friday.
Interesting Google trends on the term myocarditis.
I'm sure it's totally unrelated.
It might have been sass.
And this is it.
Now, bearing in mind that COVID hit, give or take, around here.
So let's just say, because we're in June 2020, COVID hit in March 2020.
So you start seeing a spike there.
And so to support the argument that there was myocarditis related to COVID infections, you can find the stats to support it.
And then, you can also hypothesize what happened right about here, because this is current day, so 2022.
It's about 2021 right there.
So, bringing that down...
There's just a lot more evidence, just by observational data, of myocarditis being tied to the vaccine, the rollout then being tied to COVID.
It doesn't mean it's right or not.
It's just that the evidence is...
Not as clear as those who are willing to attribute it solely to COVID or mostly to COVID.
And it's especially true when, again, the CDC has acknowledged that the vaccine can cause myocarditis and pericarditis.
That's no longer in dispute.
They tried to run from that early on, but ultimately conceded it.
It's in the risk factors listed and identified.
Whenever I hear a certain certainty of that kind of data, I'm almost immediately skeptical because they're making a lot of assumptions that just aren't well established.
If anybody hears what's going on here, do I show it?
It's called Au Pire, Spices of the Orient.
It's a London dry gin, but I thought it was Quebec.
Am I allowed?
This is what it is.
This is not to give it any sort of advertising, but I thought it was Quebec.
Maybe it's not.
How do I see where this thing came from?
Product of Angleterre.
English.
Because in Quebec, by the way, whenever you sell anything, it's got to have English and French labeling on it.
This is a produit de l 'Angleterre, which is a product of England.
You know, it's the crazy thing about the times we're living in is that everybody knows that any and all...
Anything foreign entering the body can trigger responses.
It was uncontroversial until it became controversial.
That graph is very interesting.
You can go look it up.
I tweeted it.
You can't deny the Google trends.
The only question is going to be causation versus correlation.
Robert, what was the other question?
Nadal, fine.
Rogan, I think we're good on Rogan.
SCOTUS.
We've done SCOTUS.
We're going to have to maybe even just...
Because it was a...
I call it a slow week of the legal world.
Maybe we'll just go to some...
Taking some questions.
But...
Okay.
So this is another interesting question.
So these were the questions that I had for Josh Zeps.
One of which was...
Because you can't even find the numbers anymore.
I just wanted to Google myocarditis in general.
It's a condition.
Same as testicular cancer, same as hemorrhoids.
I do not have either.
I may have one, but not the other.
Don't want anyone thinking that's a confession through admission.
We know these things, so you get stats, but you cannot even, unless you have the access to sources where you can get through the noise, you can't even find those numbers anymore.
Number one question, what was myocarditis rates before COVID?
Just in general, haphazard.
How many people out of 100,000 came down with myocarditis, like allergies, like whatever?
Second question, in Canada, Robert, I mean, I don't follow soccer, but it's a big deal.
Alphonso Davies apparently is going to sit out three matches leading into whatever cup they're going into.
And by all accounts, from people that know more than me who message me, it's going to be more than that?
And we'll see if that turns out to be a true prediction.
By all accounts, it's going to be more than three games.
The CBC article discussing his myocarditis, they call it heart inflammation in the headlines sometimes, and then it's only where they bury the lead getting into it.
They refer to it as myocarditis.
But the true burying of the lead is that we all know now, in order to compete competitively with soccer, football, Tennis, by all accounts, you need to be vaccinated.
And so we all know that they are vaccinated.
So when they get sidelined from myocarditis now, what's it because of?
What's it because of?
And there are some, I won't call them spin doctors, but I'm thinking that they might be, saying they had a year hiatus and they are the hardest trained athletes in the world.
And now it's like they're going back and it's a vigorous sport.
So it only makes sense that you're seeing more of it.
Okay.
If you believe that, that's fine.
That's an explanation that some of the experts are giving.
Others are saying it's all correlated.
Then you get into the splitting of the hairs.
It's correlated.
Is it because of a COVID infection or is it because of the vaccine?
Then when you get into the realm of Alfonso Davies, who was talking about bearing the lead in the story, it was mentioned once and it was in the description of the headlined photograph.
He's been sidelined for myocarditis.
Yada, yada, yada, yada.
Alfonso, who is fully vaccinated, that was it.
Might be whatever.
So now it becomes a question of someone who is fully vaccinated, who contracts COVID, and then who gets the condition.
Robert, I mean, no medical advice, legal analysis.
How in the name of God's green earth are they going to distinguish between the cause of that?
Is it even possible?
From a legal evidentiary standard, it's tricky.
And the other problem is nobody trusts a lot of the people in power because they're not being very honest with the information they're getting, frankly, or at least not to the kind that would inspire confidence in what they're doing.
And so that's the problem when you don't have liability so that no court will ever determine whether it's...
Proper or not, what was true and what wasn't.
And then you compound that with a lot of suppression of relevant pertinent information and attacks on whistleblowers and attacks on dissident thinkers, then it becomes difficult to know what is in fact true.
And then you step back and look at general observational data.
And like the, what a lot of people fall back on is, okay, let's just look at excess death data in general, uh, against the broader background and context.
And it's like, why is it?
I mean, this was really a parent and Briar's own questions, uh, which was, you're saying, look at how dangerous COVID is right now.
And it's like, yeah.
And we just had mass vaccinations for a year.
So how, so doesn't that tell you something that if, if the vaccines work that like Kagan and Briar and Sotomayor said it, they do, um, So that wasn't supposed to happen if they were right.
Clearly, something is different than what they keep claiming.
But they just keep claiming it.
And when anybody questions it, they do things like get a bunch of doctors together.
It turns out a bunch of them weren't actually doctors.
A bunch of them were post-grad students to say that Joe Rogan is the greatest threat to world peace and good health.
I'm going to read this.
The weight of my heart is an avatar with a dog in it.
I'm telling you off end.
What is the difference in SCOTUS surrounding federalists, originalists, and constitutionalists?
I understood to what was supposed to be traditionally three of each needing to convince the others.
Yeah, so what you have is three, I would just call them more traditional constitutional conservatives, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas.
And then you have three politically motivated centrists.
Who occasionally, which are Barrett, Roberts, and Kavanaugh.
And then you've got three liberals in Alito, not Alito, but in Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
And the liberals these days believe that the ends justify the means.
That's just where they've got to.
That wasn't always the case, but they are now.
I mean, they cited some of the older...
Brennan and others who were very critical of OSHA's expansive power in the past.
I mean, so you had some old school liberals that didn't, they had a different approach than the current ones do.
And it's their approach to the state and their approach to who decides.
And what you have is there's just a very political court because you got three centrists that are willing to make contradictory legal rulings back to back in the same set of cases.
Because they think the politics on one side is more manageable than on the other.
On the Tyson Food case, they moved to dismiss on grounds that even though they got into federal court by getting the court to accept the idea that they're an agent of the federal government, which is now a little harder to claim that they can make because of the OSHA ruling, now they're turning around and saying that, well, that doesn't mean that we are responsible as if we're a federal agent.
They want the power to be a federal agent and none of the accountability.
And we'll see what the judge does.
And so we filed, or we're in the process of filing our opposition to that.
We'll know sometime in the next month where the court's mindset is, and then that will dictate the second set of strategies to be employed, which will be filing EEOC complaints against Tyson in a range of states and jurisdictions, and go from there.
EEOC is what?
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in order to certain kinds of claims.
My view is because you're asking for injunctive relief and other things, you should not have to go through the EEOC first before you file suit.
But sometimes courts prefer that.
And so to be on the precautionary side for our next range of cases, we're going to file first with the EEOC.
I want to say this.
Zenz, you know what?
If you had seen Robert and I together, I think you might be right.
I think Viva and Barnes would create the perfect human being.
Tell me if I'm wrong.
All right.
But no, more serious question is, Barnes, my employer has required me to report my vaccine status.
There are no legal consequences if I don't respond at all.
Correct?
No legal advice.
Robert, how might you answer that question, bearing in mind?
I don't think there should be.
But the practical reality is, if you don't disclose, your employer may use it to terminate you.
And what you can do about that is right now limited.
So that's the practical reality of it.
The practical reality is your best argument for dealing with that is to seek a religious exception or accommodation.
And I want to point this out, by the way.
I'm not saying this to complain, and it's not a question of begging.
We've been tremendously fortunate and lucky.
This stream has been demonetized, which I've requested a manual review because I know two hours in, we've done nothing bad.
But I put up a tweet, Robert, the other day.
Of the last 100 videos that I put out, 58 were demonetized, and only one was confirmed demonetized after manual review.
And then people were rightly noticing.
So they re-monetized it after, that's 50% of the last 100 videos, and I've got a ton, that they then re-monetized and said, okay, yeah, we made a mistake, you're good.
But by the way, that one, whenever I...
If I put up another one that violates the rules, they will go back to the one that happened three months ago.
Look, it's why we need some responsibility on YouTube, some change on YouTube, or some pressure coming from Rumble, and maybe all of it at the same time.
I want to be very careful here that nobody accuses me of anything.
I didn't read this one.
Okay, and I've heard...
There's people that believe that the manner and method by which people are receiving the vaccine may be the source of the problem rather than the vaccine itself.
But it's unclear.
And again, it's because they're not...
Theirs data is congressionally required.
I mean, they would never gather it otherwise voluntarily.
I don't believe.
It's compelled back when they did all these laws to immunize vaccine makers.
The quid pro quo was don't worry, we'll track whether it's a problem by using the vaccine adverse event reporting system.
You know, Robert Kennedy was kicked off of Instagram solely for citing the VAERS data.
VAERS data is way off the charts by any historic metric.
In terms of the number of adverse events people are reporting is way, way, way, way much higher.
Even when you adjust for the fact more shots are being given.
Okay, and that's one thing.
Now, adjust for the fact that you have your brigade, your trolls, you have campaigns of, you know, go swamp it.
I've never filed a VAERS report, although I did think of it, but I didn't.
But Robert, what is required when you submit a VAERS report?
It's not a willy-nilly thing, right?
Is there any verifiable information you have to give?
Yeah, you give a lot of info.
Historically, VAERS underestimates the number of injuries, not overestimates it.
And there's really no reason to believe that's any different in this case.
And again, that's because this is an experimental vaccine.
So we have no idea what this vaccine would do.
Robert, why do you sound like John C. Reilly, who has been in such classics such as Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Step Brothers?
Oh my goodness.
So we've got that digital drum set in the basement, and I came into the digital drum set earlier today because the kids have been home for the last two effing weeks of school.
And by the way, school's canceled tomorrow because of the snowstorm.
I came in, someone touched my drum set.
Someone tinkered with the snare drum, and I was like, who touched the drum set?
And I immediately envisioned.
Someone's scrotum on a drum set.
If anyone has not seen Step Brothers, watch it.
And if anyone has not seen MacGruber, don't watch it with kids.
Holy crab apples.
I watched MacGruber, not with my kids.
My kids are fine.
I watched MacGruber with someone else's kids.
And I had some explaining to do.
Beavis Wallace says, from McAllen, Texas, Barnes, please discuss border lawsuits from the property damage caused by Biden's open border policy.
And other border issues you promised from last week.
Yeah, we'll have to.
Unfortunately, I didn't get to it, so we'll get to it next week.
It will be next week.
Do not give this Super Chat next week.
We will get to it.
Yeah, Barnes has been out, and I'm just glad Barnes is alive well so that I don't have to field any more questions and then answer questions that I'm not sure it's even my business to be answering.
What else?
Let's get some questions in, but let me get one more from the header of this stream, which was...
Hold on, hold on, people.
Details?
No, I think we got to everything here.
There has been nothing more important coming out of the Supreme Court that we know of.
And now I'm going to go back to my week in law tubes.
I hear kids coming down the stairs.
I hear them coming down now.
The dog is perking up.
The door is opening up.
Okay, Trudeau, we've done that.
Seditious conspiracy, family rights, liars, vax tax.
Oh, the vax tax, Robert.
Robert, did you see us on the news in America because we made CNN headlines?
No.
Francois Legault, the supreme leader of Quebec, said that he's going to impose a financial burden on the unvaxed.
A substantial financial burden.
$50 to $100 is not enough, so it's going to be more than that.
They're going to impose a tax on the unvaccinated because, take their word for it, the unvaccinated are creating increased labor in the health system.
And you know what?
This is a good segue.
It's a good question, Robert.
Just tell us, a lot of these, the HIPAA laws.
Where they said you're not allowed to ask for personal information.
Had to do with HIV.
How did the HIV epidemic, pandemic, whatever you want to call it, play into some of these laws?
I don't think people truly appreciate that.
Yeah, I mean, what happened was nobody knew initially what was causing the HIV epidemic and how the HIV...
For example, one of the things that the Supreme Court missed is they're like, this is the worst pandemic and epidemic in American history.
And it's like...
It's not even anywhere close to the HIV epidemic.
It's like, how in the world did you forget that?
But, you know, it's the nature of the animal these days.
And so because there was so much paranoia and fear, people like Fauci were running around saying maybe you could get HIV in your kitchen, nonsense like that.
There was a lot of politics behind it all in the sense that you had people who didn't want to...
You know, demonize any group because of related to issues of HIV.
And so the combination of those factors led to a lot of misunderstandings about the nature of HIV, how you could get it, etc.
Magic Johnson had to ultimately retire from the Lakers early on prematurely because other NBA players thought bumping into him might get them HIV.
And you had horror into stories.
We made a movie, Philadelphia, won Oscars about it.
About the, you know, really horrendous treatment of people based on paranoia and fear of their health.
And it led to things, I mean, Matt McConaughey, one of, you know, the Dallas Buyers Club, and which actually, if you read, you know, The Real Anthony Fauci by Robert Kennedy.
That story will come into play there as well, how Fauci mishandled the alternative treatments that could have been available.
And so the net effect, things like somebody's mother would be taking care of their son who had HIV, and employers and other people would discriminate against the mother because they were paranoid that that meant she could somehow spread HIV to them.
And so the whole goal was to change the ADA laws and expand the HIPAA protection laws so that these kind of things did not happen again.
And that's why merely the perception of disability was the basis of bringing illegal action.
It didn't require an actual disability anymore.
And yet we ran right back to it.
And some of the same people who, you know, championed opposing...
Who championed these laws getting passed in the first place have been, sadly, some of the first people to abandon these laws, Hollywood and the institutional press in particular.
But if people ever wanted to know how does the world go insane, they're witnessing it.
If you want to know how things happened like this in the past.
This is how.
I mean, for example, back during one of the ways the Nazis dealt with trying to suppress information and knowledge about what they were doing in the pogroms and the ghettos and whatnot in places outside of Germany as well.
They pretended that it was a quarantine zone and that there was a dangerous disease afoot.
But never to this scale has the pandemic been used to justify a massive power grab and a self-righteous pitch in the process.
And it continued to do so when the factual evidence keeps mounting against their proposition.
And I was like, when these people came out with a vaccine in the first place, give me a prediction as to how much this is going to reduce COVID over the next year.
Well, you know, how much is the excess death rate going to decline?
And of course, they didn't want to give any of that data.
Now, finally, the CDC is going to be forced by a federal court to start disclosing documents and disclose everything related to the Pfizer vaccine and other vaccine information over the next eight months when they wanted 75 years for it.
And you have to wonder, why is that?
What's in that data that they were so scared of that they now know is going to come out?
I mean, some of the early data that's come out, it goes to the myocarditis issue and what they knew and what they dealt with it.
I represent a whistleblower who exposed everything that was happening at the clinical trials in Pfizer.
And so they actually libeled her and pretended that she didn't work there, which was, you know, I have the papers, the documents, the proof, of course, the emails, you name it.
But that's the degree of despair that they've gone into because they saw it more as a power grab than an opportunity for actually caring about public health.
And it might have also related to the fact that what Fauci was being cross-examined for, what Project Veritas exposed this week, was more evidence and more information that Fauci and others in the U.S. government were complicit in the various virology work being done in Wuhan that may have actually led to the development of this particular disease in the first place.
I pulled up a few chats, some of which were saying, yeah, free healthcare.
Hey, guys.
first of all, government healthcare seeing what you can and cannot get and how quickly you can and cannot get it is one problem.
And then you've got this problem, which is hey guys, It's government healthcare, and we think you should do this, and if you don't do it, you're going to pay for it.
It's no longer government.
It's no longer free Medicare.
What it is is it's weaponized.
Weaponized.
So you're all learning a lesson.
You can see what's happening here and how long until they apply it to overweight people, to drinkers, to smokers.
Although people say drinkers and smokers already pay their tax on the product itself.
Yeah, thanks.
They'll forget that when you're occupying someone's bed.
Who's there because of a car accident and you've been there because of smoking?
It's atrocious.
And then the...
I forgot my next thought there, Robert.
It doesn't matter.
Let me see.
I'm going to take one more Super Chat.
That will be the ultimate distraction because the Super Chats are the reminders of where my brain meant to go.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
No joke.
Fauci implied mosquito stings spread HIV in the 80s.
So this was where I was going to go.
Thank you very much.
Shut the F up.
Just so everybody knows, that means shut the F up for F's sake.
If anybody doesn't know acronyms.
Lawrence Tribe, Robert, I know you love him.
He was on Twitter saying, after the Supreme Court decision came down, saying, these issues, workplace safety is always beyond the realm of the employee.
And what they were trying to do here is basically protect employees from other infectious employees.
And I said, great, now do...
Should they bubble themselves off?
Should they have segregated areas in work?
Should they be otherwise forced to disclose that they even have HIV?
To which someone else who's a very smart person says, well, COVID's airborne and HIV isn't.
At that point I know, troll.
Because at that point I know, first of all, HIV at a given point in time was thought not only to be airborne, but was thought to be Technologically, but you're in your kitchen, you can get AIDS.
So not only did they think it was airborne at some point, but even assuming that we now know, despite what they said at the time, HIV is not airborne, but COVID is.
How do you respond to anybody saying, we will treat airborne viruses different than contact-borne viruses for the purposes of this type of discrimination at the job place, employment force?
Yep.
I mean, no question.
I mean, it's sad to see us go revisit the depths of this in a worse format.
Just a decade or two after we said we were never going to let this happen again.
And a few decades after we said it would also never, certain things would never happen again in the Nuremberg Code context.
Naivider, people.
Naivider was never again.
And I remember I had a coin.
It's a very...
On my tombstone, it will be Kierkegaard's expression, life can only be understood backwards but has to be lived forwards.
I had a coin growing up because, yes people, I'm Jewish.
Brought up Jewish.
I eat shrimp and I love lobster.
But setting that aside, I had a coin that said, which is German for never again.
And we're not just seeing it.
Okay, fine.
They're not shipping people off in trains to concentration camps, but they're literally putting people in government detention facilities while they are prepping society for excluding a demographic from function.
In France, make their lives shit.
In Canada...
Tax them.
And if they can't pay their taxes, seize their assets.
And once you're done with that, put them in jail.
I mean, for God's sake, it doesn't have to be identical to be sufficiently analogous that you can't ignore it without being an idiot.
And if you're ignoring it at this point, you're an idiot.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I called you an idiot.
If you're of that persuasion, you deserve it.
You deserve it.
And people need to start speaking more bluntly.
Sorry.
My husband's Pablo birthday is on Tuesday.
We watch Viva and Barnes every Sunday.
Never miss it.
Thank you for all you do.
This is another weird thing.
It's like, to be part of other people's Sunday nights is weird.
It's weird.
It's beautiful.
It's a privilege.
It's an honor.
And thank you.
It became a crime to get sick.
In Canada, Dina Hinshaw, Robert.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Getting excited.
And we'll end this soon because I know Robert...
Robert's got the Rona.
He's got a...
I don't want to push them too long.
Don't want another clip on the interwebs.
Dina Hinshaw said, if your kids have sniffles, any sign of a common cold, isolate them.
Five to ten days, whatever the hell the rules are.
And once upon a time, locking your kid up in isolation was a crime and not a virtue.
But we are literally living in times where crimes and virtue have been swapped.
Just because of context.
And when you live in that type of era of malleability of morals, you have no morals whatsoever.
And I'm going to say it out loud.
I called Dina Hinshaw.
She should have her license revoked.
Is that harassment under this newly passed law?
We'll see.
It's very close.
Andrew Floosh for guest recommendation.
We'll see.
Oh, Robert, do we have a guest for this coming Wednesday?
Not that I know of, no.
What does your next week look like?
Assuming that you are going to be able to go and intermingle with human society, what does your next week look like?
I'm just trying to get better.
Once I'm better, then I'll figure out the next step.
Okay.
Now, with that said, people, that is a cue for us to wind this down.
Speaking of airborne, did OSHA not mandate masks for all the lead we put in the air via gasoline during the 20th century?
That is airborne and a risk to my health.
Robert, I don't know about that.
Did they mandate masks?
I mean, no, they didn't.
But he's making the point that they often haven't cared about certain health risks.
And someone else said, oh, if you're worried about the invasion of your body, earplugs are an invasion of your body.
The ones that you stick in there.
And I was like, okay, fine.
But you have the ear over ears, which are not an invasion.
But by the way, okay.
All right.
Okay, people, with that said.
We are two hours in.
We're going to wind it down.
Robert and I are going to talk and mingle afterwards and see where the next week goes.
We will have a sidebar Wednesday.
It will be beautiful.
Last Wednesday, we had Nate and me debating it.
I think I won the debate.
But it's only logic versus facts.
I like Nate.
I'm not trying to be glibber or mean.
Robert, I'm going to tell you this because this is coming from my own personal dark space.
I am having increasing trouble being optimistic and hoping for a white pill.
And you might maybe feel good for the next five minutes, and then I'm going to go back to feeling bad.
But people are in dire straits psychologically, spiritually, economically.
How do you give somebody a white pill that they can deal with and that they can actually believe, looking forward to the future?
Well, just look at, you know, two years ago, Alan Dershowitz said that no vaccine mandate would ever be struck down by the Supreme Court.
And I mean, I respect him.
I disagreed with him, but I understood where he was coming from.
No vaccine mandate ever had until the OSHA case.
So to me, that's the most constant.
And you read the concurrence by Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas in there, and then the dissent in the Medicare case.
Where they are really aggressive about being protective of the rights of individuals to make their choices, about limits on executive power, it's always about who decides.
They've really come around and awakened to a constitutional position that no Supreme Court in the past has ever articulated.
So to me, that ruling is one of the biggest white pills to come out of all of this that could possibly come about and is something that a lot of people should thank themselves for because by arguing in the court of public opinion, their voices ultimately do get heard at the highest court of the land and ultimately that mattered for a lot of people.
For millions of Americans and for the core rights that are implicated thereby.
So to me, this week was one of the best weeks we've had in Supreme Court history, period.
I'm going to bring this up because I don't want to be accused of ignoring it.
Howezy says, I was able to stay, been following Djokovic's case closely and checking Avi's claims.
The majority of it seems to be...
At best, selective reporting.
Novak admitted to errors in the visa application.
He had no valid exemption for entry.
Okay, from what I've read, I'm not even citing Avi Amini on this, he may or may not have made a mistake or there may have been an issue on whether or not he tested positive for COVID when he reported having tested positive.
Bottom line, the visa was revoked by unilateral authority of the issuing visa authority.
So we can even set all that aside.
I agree with you.
Let's just say I agree with you.
His visa was revoked by the unilateral authority of Hawk, who issued it.
And he said the reason for it wasn't that, is my understanding.
He said his reason for it, according to the reports I saw, was independent thinker.
Don't want those around Australia right now.
Verbatim, by the way.
Independent thinker.
And it's Niemals Vida.
Yeah, I was accused on my reading of German in one of my previous vlogs as well.
Okay, so people, this was beautiful and it was fantastic.
And Robert, I'm glad to see you're feeling better.
And here we go.
Feel better, Robert.
Be better, Robert, because I don't want to inflate your ego.
You are a national treasure.
And my only contribution to society is that I think between the two of us, we're bigger than each of our parts.
But the world needs you.
So please...
You will rest, you will be well, and you will get back to...
Not to Dustin Heights, sorry, to Don Lemon.
People, everyone, thank you very much.
Cut, clip, share this, and you know what to do.
Wednesday, we will have a sidebar.
We will be here next Sunday.
And...
Robert, thank you.
People need not false white pills.
They need constructive direction going forward.
I think we've gotten it.
Everyone in the chat, thank you very much.
Super chats, regular comments, everything.
Thank you.
Robert, stick around.
We'll say our proper goodbyes and enjoy the rest of the weekend, people.
▲
Export Selection