All Episodes
June 26, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
02:14:40
SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade; Protects 2nd Amendment; Religion; FBI Raids; Canada & MORE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We were just flying the DJI, um, what's it called?
Mini.
The DJI Mini 2. And as we were flying, we saw what looked like a cloud underneath.
And it was honeybees, wasps, or bumblebees.
Yep.
Can I look?
You could see the wasps attacking the drone underneath.
There's a lot of them.
Look at that.
You can see all the wasps, and I go up, and the wasps go up with it.
Go forward, and they follow it.
I want to try to move away from them, not move into them.
They're swarming it.
Okay, we're going to go fly forward.
And they're just following it as it flies away.
Okay, well, I've never seen that before.
It looked like a cloud.
It was bees or wasps seemingly attacking the drone.
They swarmed it and were attacking it.
And when we brought it back, that's like wasp gut.
It chopped up on the blades.
Now I'm traumatized.
How is the audio, everyone?
Is my audio crackling?
Is the audio good?
I'm not going five minutes.
Again, with Domo Arrogato, Mr. Roboto.
How is the audio?
I need to know that the audio is good.
Good.
I unplugged every component in this microphone.
Blew on it.
Shook it.
Kissed it.
Kicked it.
Put it back in.
It looks like we're good.
Now, I'm not going to show you the punchline of that video.
Instead, I'm going to remind everyone that there is the lighter side of the world, Viva Family.
And the spoiler alert, anyhow, is I spent the better part of this morning wiping off dried bee guts or wasp guts from my drone.
And I was doing it like thinking that somehow it would be conceivably possible to get stung by the mashed up stinger of a bee a day later on the drone.
If everybody's saying murder, I genuinely felt very, very bad about what happened.
And we stopped flying the drone, and I'm not going back there.
I don't know what happened.
I'm flying the DJI Mini 2. It weighs 249 grams at takeoff, which makes it legal to fly without a license, even though I have my license for the drone.
This is, you know, this is Mavic or DJI's way of getting around Canadian regulation because they regulate drones with a takeoff weight of 250 grams or more in Canada.
And, you know, just to show you once in a while, we don't have to start off a live stream with Justin Trudeau, who makes you want to puke, or the sound of his voice, I should say, makes you want to puke.
We don't have to start off with Joe Biden, Chrystia Freeland, Jagmeet Singh.
Press Secretary Jean-Pierre or Press Secretary Psaki.
We can start off with some...
I mean, I guess it was interesting and fun.
Flying the drone.
Only to get into a rant.
So I didn't want to go back to that park today, but I wanted to teach my kid how to fly the drone.
So we go to Beaver Lake.
And we bought a croissant.
We bought a croissant to feed the ducks and to feed the goldfish in Beaver Lake.
And we were.
And we were having fun.
And I'm flying the drone over Beaver Lake and we're having fun.
And then literally two cops on massive horses come up to us and they say, you're not allowed feeding the ducks.
You're not allowed feeding the goldfish.
And you can't fly your drone here either.
The government ruins everything.
I'm going to bring this one up, Brad Hobbs.
Killing bees is fun and I...
I don't know if it's sarcastic or not, but just in case anyone had any slight confusion, I was just flying the drone.
And that has never happened to me in...
I've been flying drones since 2014, 2015.
That's never happened to me before.
The purpose was not to go out and chop up bees.
The purpose was to fly in Murray Hill Park.
And I saw it.
And as I saw it, first of all, I didn't know what it was at first.
And then I'm thinking, I'm not bringing the drone back if there's a swarm of bees attacking it.
And so I...
Flew some maneuvers to try to get away.
And then I noticed as I flew a little lower, they eventually stopped following it.
I don't feel good about killing anything.
And I felt bad when I brought it back and I saw bee guts all over it.
I thought for a second, maybe they were just, you know, attracted to it, but not getting too close.
And now I'm actually thinking that if there's something that is emitted by way of frequency with this drone or drones in particular, but it's never happened to me.
I've flown the DJI Phantom 1, 2, 3, the Mavic, the Spark.
I've flown them all.
This has never happened before.
So if there's something interestingly going on with this particular model that attracts bumblebees, maybe they need to work on changing the frequency of the blades.
So, no.
Let me see here.
No, they stopped following because you killed them all.
No, that's actually not true because I saw as I was...
I'm not going to get into it.
I did not feel good about killing bees.
Period.
In fact, we stopped flying for the day.
Okay.
On that note, but if you want to go watch the video, Viva Family.
And I'm going to see if DJI actually mentions anything as to what this might be by way of problem.
If it's systemic to the newer versions.
Maybe it's like in Australia, once upon a time, it was either a beer company or it was a drink company that made a bottle.
And the bottle happens to be the exact same color.
I think it was of a crab, of a female crab.
And what they noticed is that people were throwing these bottles out into the, you know, they were polluting, littering.
And male crabs were being attracted to this particular color of a bottle.
I think it was crabs, but it was an animal.
And they were mating with this bottle, thinking it was a female.
And then they noticed as a result of this, there was a rapid decrease in the population of the animal.
And the company had to go and change the color, the hue of the bottle.
To prevent this accidental mating, which was actually affecting the population, I think it was of crab.
So maybe if there's something in the new drone that is causing this to happen more frequently or as a new phenomenon, DJI might want to look into it.
Okay, on that note, we're not talking drones all week.
We're going to be talking about how the Canadian government ruins things.
It's going to be a huge week because you got your Second Amendment.
Landmark case from SCOTUS.
You've got your Roe versus Wade overturned.
I've been around the internet for long enough that I remember it being a conspiracy theory.
It'll never happen.
Roe v.
Wade will never be overturned.
Lo and behold, we're there.
We're going to get into some nuance of this decision and some questions that people asked yesterday that I've been spending the better part of today thinking about.
We're going to get into with Barnes.
I'm going to pull up one of Elizabeth Warren's violence-inducing, inciting tweets.
Because if she doesn't know what she's doing, let me be the honesty troll on the interwebs to let her know what she's doing.
Her tweets are violence-inducing, encouraging, promoting, demonizing.
And if she doesn't know it, she'd be well to know that it's the case.
But I suspect that she knows it.
Know it or don't know it, the effect is the same.
Okay, before we even get there, first things first, Super Chats.
YouTube takes 30% of all Super Chats.
If you do not like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
Rumble has a thing called Rumble Rants.
Rumble takes 20%.
Better for the creator, better to support a platform that actually supports free speech.
And best place to support Robert Barnes and myself, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Read some Super Chats.
Viva wishing you and your family happy Canada Day.
They're going to criminalize Canada Day in Canada.
I'm telling you now, they're going to criminalize it come July 1st.
I always get mixed up between Canada Day and Independence Day.
They're going to criminalize it.
Justin Trudeau is going to outlaw any form of what he perceives to be protest in Ottawa on Canada Day.
Mark my words, we'll see.
May I be wrong?
Why does your child wear a rainbow flag?
I don't know that he does or doesn't.
Killing bees is fun.
I've addressed that already, and I hope you understand that I don't...
Mosquitoes are the only thing I kill without feeling bad.
Jeez, accidents happen, people.
Lighten up.
No, I didn't even understand.
It's not even an accident.
There's nothing I could do about it other than in a park.
Bring back the drone with a swarm of bees, as far as I know.
A blessed good evening, JRC1.
A blessed good evening, Mr. Fry.
The new apron looks good, as I saw it this morning in a photo on YouTube of the missus wearing it.
I'm getting one for my sister.
They are good.
The new merch stuff is, other than the fact that it's not as cheap, not as affordable.
It's not cheap.
It's a little expensive, but that's it.
How dare you?
The media is trying to make us panic about the bee population.
Well, some people in the chat were saying the bee population is actually a big one.
A bee flew into my drone.
Amber Heard, probably.
There's a joke in there somewhere.
Okay, first bee mayhem and then crab romantic attractions.
Going to be a solid stream.
So what do we have on the menu tonight?
We have a lot.
Oh yeah, the religious decision coming out of SCOTUS.
There's a lot.
And it's going to be big.
But, you know, we didn't start off with something that makes you want to puke.
Let's move into one that's going to make you want to puke.
Because we have time until Barnes gets here.
Okay, there's an argument about bees in the chat.
Just know, people.
I did not go out and antagonize a beehive with the express desire to cause bee massacre.
I didn't even know what was going on.
The bee murder comments with sarcasm.
Okay, good.
Jesus.
You never know.
But I'm also sensitive about it.
I genuinely feel bad when it came back and there was bee guts and gore.
I don't know if it was bees or wasps.
I genuinely felt bad.
Hold on.
Let me just open up a window here.
It's not possible.
It's not possible that these politicians don't know what they're doing.
They have to.
But I'll set all of that aside.
They sat there.
For four freaking days crying Trump insurrection, he incited an insurrection with his go down peacefully and fight like hell for your country.
Go home in peace.
Insurrection.
Listen to this.
Clarence Thomas made it clear.
Right-wing extremists aren't stopping at shmushmorshin.
And by the way, she's not talking about...
I can't even think of a group that I would actually feel confident calling right-wing extremists other than, like, Yahtzees.
She's talking about Supreme Court justices.
She's talking about Clarence Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett.
Let's see if I can get the other two.
Alito.
And...
Well, it's pretty good for a Canadian.
Clarence Thomas made it clear.
Right-wing extremists aren't stopping at the Big A. They're coming after marriage equality.
No, they're not.
Contraception?
Not that I understand, but we're going to talk about it tonight.
Anyone who doesn't live and look like their idea of the ideal American.
What the heck does that even mean?
But the Supreme Court won't get the last word.
The American people will?
If that doesn't read like an actual overt call to violence or threat, I don't know what does.
Elizabeth.
Mrs. Warren.
I don't mean to be degrading.
I would have called a man by his first name.
Elizabeth.
The Supreme Court does get the last word on matters of judicial discretion.
They do get the last word.
And unless you mean...
If the American people don't like it, they can elect officials who can then affect change in Congress and yada yada.
Unless that's what you mean.
But given you're referring to them as extremists, it's ambiguous to say the least.
It's ambiguous enough to potentially motivate someone to pull another Republican soccer game incident.
This is not just everything they accuse Trump of doing.
This is objectively abject.
Is there another word that rhymes with that?
This is incitement.
This is...
Political permission slip to bad actors out there to do what any person would think justifiable with extremists.
The Supreme Court doesn't get the last word.
The American people will.
Anybody else?
Anybody else?
Let me rephrase.
Anyone else on another side of a political spectrum gets yeeted off of Twitter for this.
Inexcusable.
It's inexcusable.
They know what they're doing.
It's what Barnes refers to as the political permission slip for people to act out their psychopathy.
Okay, and I see Barnes in the backdrop.
So let's bring in.
Bring on the Barnes.
Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
Good, good.
You're looking good again.
You're looking younger and younger.
I went and got a beard trim, a little haircut.
You're looking good.
I was thinking of doing the same thing, but...
Then I would feel depressed for weeks.
Robert, before we forget, I think you mentioned this during the stream with...
Oh, jeez.
The Alex.
Eric Hundley and Mark Robert or the Duran?
It was one of them.
But what's the book?
What's the cigar before we get going?
Yeah, so this one we talked about with Mark Robert and Eric Hundley on Freeform Friday, which you can find at America's Untold Stories on YouTube.
And you can find them at locals at unstructured.locals.com.
Great fun conversation.
Everybody loved it.
It was the magical quartet.
Viva learned some new words as well in the process.
But this is A Farewell to Justice about Jim Garrison by Joan Mellon, who's written some really good text.
And this is a punch cigar, actually.
What does that mean, a punch cigar?
Well, that's the brand name, Punch.
Okay.
Copperfagia was the word, people.
Don't look it up.
Don't look it up.
Okay, Robert.
I mean, we have so much on the plate, but the big ones.
The big ones we have to start with, I guess.
Well, first of all, even before we get there, any developments in any of the suits that you're in?
Whistleblower?
Anything big coming up on the horizon?
No, not at the moment.
I mean, we have some pleadings and other things that are being filed, but no imminent hearings or trials.
And yeah, tonight we got Roe, we got the Second Amendment, we got Religious Freedom, we got Miranda, we got Habeas, we got Hobbes, we got Medicare reimbursement, we got voter ID, we got somebody's involved in price fixing.
And it sounds a lot like the German company.
Tyson Foods.
A First Amendment case involving an animal welfare agency and about a half dozen other interesting cases.
So we'll see what we get to.
We'll see what we get to and we'll see where I can add some hopefully insightful questions.
I think it's going to be in the big ones for the week because that's what I've been focusing on.
Robert, let's start with Roe v.
Wade being overturned.
Majority decision.
Hold on.
Which one was 6-3, 5-4?
This one was 5-4.
This was basically the...
Oh, it was 6-3 as to affirming the statute, 5-4 as to overturning Roe.
Okay.
What is the dissenting opinion as to why not to overturn Roe?
So Roberts did want to overturn it, frankly, for political reasons.
You know, he didn't have a lot of good legal arguments.
And the dissent, you know, is a strong believer they like abortion rights.
And they want to keep them.
And that's it.
I mean, they didn't have the best legal argument.
They had to concede a lot of things that was referenced in the majority opinion.
Okay, now, I guess this is going to be my question.
The bottom line of the decision, abortion was never a right in the Constitution.
It was never a constitutional right.
It was read in in the privacy provision.
Some chat's coming.
I'm going to flag this.
It was read in.
In the privacy provision.
Now, Nate Brody, lawyer, former cop, also used to teach law, made the good point and made people, it's the right point, is that a lot of rights are not specifically in the Constitution but are read into it.
What was the problem in reading into the Constitution abortion as a specific right versus a number of other rights which the courts have recognized exist under the Constitution despite not being specifically enumerated in the Constitution?
So the simple version is that in order for there to be an implied right under the 14th Amendment, to be part of the liberty defined under the 14th Amendment, and Thomas, by the way, would find no rights under that.
He would say any rights need to be under the 9th Amendment or under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution instead.
That's why he wrote a concurring opinion on the case.
Didn't limit the legal effect of the decision.
It just made that clear.
But in order for it to be an implied right, it needs to be rooted in the tradition and text.
It's not anywhere directly or indirectly in the text, so that means it needs to be robustly found in the history and tradition at the time the 14th Amendment was added at a minimum, arguably if it's relying upon some other constitutional provision.
For the 14th Amendment's definition of liberty, then it needs to be at 1791 when the Constitution was passed.
The goal here is twofold.
One is to respect those people who passed it at the time, that nothing that they didn't agree to is included as a right when they didn't agree to it at the time, or wasn't considered a right under the Ninth Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause either.
And co-equally with that...
And the same with 1868, the time the 14th Amendment was passed, but also to be a limiting factor on the court, that unless the court imposes some objective metric for finding when a right is present, the great risk is that the court will just make up whatever rights it wants.
And impose its own values using a sort of living constitution, so to speak, to just continue to impose things that the public has never agreed to and that are not in the constitution.
So if you're going to source your authority to do something in the constitution, it needs to have some historical...
The problem is, in 1791, abortion was a crime in almost all of America.
The same was true in 1868, the time of the passing of the 14th Amendment.
Abortion was a crime in almost all of America.
Even up to 1973, abortion was a crime in most of America.
In fact, as they point out, there's no state court case, there's no law review article, there's no scholarly treaties, there's no broad public opinion commentary, anything that suggested that Abortion was a constitutionally protected right, part of the liberty of the 14th Amendment or any of the other rights within the rest of the Constitution pretty much up until they decided Roe.
And so the point is that...
That if we're going to root the Constitution's rights in history, the least credible claim is that abortion is rooted in the Constitution.
It's just not.
They made it up because they like it.
Now, the reality is they also liked it for eugenics purposes.
To protect the women.
I mean, the feminists came on a little late to the abortion cause.
It wasn't always a cause celeb within even the feminist legal community, going back to the 50s and even parts of the 60s.
But it had always been a cause celeb of the eugenicist movement in America.
Ginsburg is on record saying things to this effect herself.
Acknowledging this.
So the only reason it stayed alive was because the professional class wanted to keep it alive.
So after Roe, the Supreme Court was supposed to or expected to overturn it in the 1990s when a majority of the justices appointed were appointed by presidents who promised to overturn Roe.
And what they did is they saved it instead, saying, we know better.
We've decided we're going to keep it.
So everybody shut up and go home.
Of course, that didn't work.
And that's the other point the court made.
In terms of stare decisis, valuing precedent, this had the weakest claim to valuing precedent.
In part because there's no real reliance interest.
It's not like somebody chose to get pregnant because they thought they were going to get an abortion based on Roe.
Right?
So that doesn't really happen.
So there isn't real reliance interest in it because it's a spontaneous, unexpected, unanticipated, unplanned event in the first place.
And then all of the other reasons, the quality of the arguments, the quality of the reasoning, the quality of how well it's held up, how it's bled into other and contaminated other areas of law, all of that pointed to the same thing, which was this was an unsustainable opinion.
And then the only question was, do you recognize...
The fetal life as a human life under that same 14th Amendment, and then the states are not allowed to allow abortion.
Or do you say that's not a decision that we, the court, should make?
That decision about whether that's a life worthy of certain protection should be a state legislative choice.
Your hardcore pro-lifer...
Didn't want this decision.
They wanted a decision that said it's a life under the 14th Amendment.
But they'll take it because it at least empowers them at the local and state level to limit abortion.
So I thought I was such a smart person for thinking of that option.
Why would this not be a question of recognizing, or has it just not been posed that way, whether or not a fetus is a human in the sense of the law that benefits from 14th Amendment protections?
Such that no state or the state would have to recognize it as murder as opposed to a right.
Why hasn't that question been asked?
Has it or has it, I should say?
It has.
The liberals just ignore it.
Pretend it doesn't exist.
The court goes throughout and notes two things.
One, through a long history, this was seen as murder.
I mean, throughout almost all of American history, all of English history that we borrowed into our common law.
This abortion was seen as murder, pure and simple.
There was often a rule called quickening, but quickening was simply an evidentiary means of knowing whether a woman was pregnant or not, for sure, that there was a live fetus present.
We now have science and data that allows us to determine that without relying on quickening.
But there was a mistaken focus on quickening as if that had some other significance beyond its limited evidentiary significance.
Anybody who studied the history know they considered the killing of a live fetus.
Murder, period.
So that was where all the history was.
But they didn't want to talk about that.
One of the other key points the court repeatedly made, the media misrepresentation about the case is that, one, it's a federal ban on abortion.
It's not.
It's now up to the states what limits they want to impose or not impose.
All such limits will now only face...
Rational basis review, and the court listed a whole bunch of factors that can be considered in limiting abortion in that context, which basically means the states can do whatever they want on the issue of abortion going forward, but it's not a uniform federal rule either way.
And the second part was the court emphasized over and over again how unique this was, that unlike...
Same-sex marriage, unlike same-sex behavior, unlike birth control, unlike every other decision that concerned privacy, as an example, where it was extended to protect family and intimate relationships, interracial marriage, for example.
Unlike all of those cases, what is distinct and unique about abortion is the impact it has on another life.
And that whether or not a state has a right to give value to that other life is the core key constitutional question.
And that removes it from all those other cases.
The court said about a dozen times.
I put up a little law school version of the case at vivabarneslaw.locals.com that people can go into.
It's about an hour long.
But they repeat over and over and over again.
No, it doesn't.
Because in every single instance, they said what's completely unique about this is that this guarantees the death of another life.
There's no other context where that's true.
And they said repeatedly this case has no bearing whatsoever on any of those other cases.
None.
Is there no pro-life advocacy group that specifically took the question to recognize a fetus as a human life?
Oh yes, they've been doing that repeatedly all the way through.
But it was clear that the court was never going to go that far.
They were not going to constitutionally ban abortion.
Or constitutionally ban it as of a certain date, where you just can't.
Yeah, I mean, basically the question became, is this a court question or not?
And the court determined it's not a court question.
They're doing this in a lot of context.
I don't like a lot of the consequences of some of their decisions.
In some cases, I don't like their policies or thinking either.
But they're being pretty universal, especially this term.
It's unless it's clear in the Constitution's history, unless it's clearly laid out by the legislature.
They're not going to create new law, new rules, new restrictions, new rights.
And if there's a right that was created by the court, even Miranda, they're not going to consider it a right unless it was clearly defined as a right and described as a right and understood historically to have actually been one.
And so that combination is a pretty consistent set of policies that just had this particular consequence and probably the most consequential.
At least in terms of the public's perception, a Supreme Court case, maybe since Brown v.
Board of Education.
I also cannot get over the fact or the idea that people are passing this off or promoting it, Elizabeth Warren to Maxine Waters as an attack on women, where all that it's saying is go back to the states.
The states can decide.
If you don't like the laws of one state, presumably you can think of moving to another.
It's also just a flat-out lie because more women are pro-life than pro-choice who vote.
Richard Barris has shown this.
Patrick Basham has a piece in The Express today on this.
Overwhelmingly, the group of people who care about abortion enough to vote on it alone are pro-life women.
The people that are hardcore pro-choice.
Our men, their Barstool Sports, their Dave Portnoy, going, oh, I don't have abortion to bail me out of the latest random chick I banged at the bar.
You know, maybe if you didn't bang so many random chicks, you wouldn't have all the problems and accusations you have, Dave.
Maybe, you know, practice a little birth control, Dave, rather than rely on baby killing to get you out of the trouble.
But that's the political reality.
There's upscale women who really care about this issue.
They are way outnumbered.
By religiously conservative women, predominantly, but not universally, who value life, who see abortion as an attack on motherhood and a deprivation of women's rights, as was noted in the opinion that, you know, if we wanted to get political, the court notes, look, they want to attack pro-life movement as being conservative and misogynistic and so forth and patriarchal.
But the other criticism is that, in fact, its longest history is in eugenics, and the demographics bear that out.
Disproportionately, abortion kills young black kids, young black babies, more than any other group by a long margin.
And it was the target group of Planned Parenthood beginning in the 1920s.
So I'm sure Bill Gates is crying tonight, but deservedly so.
That's how it really plays out, contrary to the lies of Elizabeth Warren and AOC.
13% of the population is Black.
38% of abortions are Black children.
Robert, you've got to flesh this out a little more.
I think we've touched on it a couple of times.
Margaret Sanger, never knew her by name.
I knew roughly of the origins of Planned Parenthood.
I know you've talked about it before.
Can you go on a bit of a rant and let people know what the origins of it was, who Margaret Sanger was, and where these initial pro-choice Yeah, I mean, they are population control instruments.
Planned Parenthood has always been obsessed with limiting population.
It's kind of like, you know, Bill Gates' favorite recent drug, little concoction that's out there and about, that seems to be having the same effect.
If people have been studying the data, data's coming out of the United States, data's coming out of Germany, data's coming out of other countries, Switzerland.
Where there's been a sudden, dramatic, unexplained decline in pregnancies.
And it corresponds to when a certain drug got mass introduced in the public.
People have identified...
Bill Gates is open about this.
He's obsessed with controlling the population.
Malthusian beliefs about controlling the population.
The Great Reset, the World Economic Forum, obsessed about controlling the population.
It ain't going to be Klaus eating the crickets.
It's going to be you and me.
Eatin' ze crickets.
And Planned Parenthood was always about.
This was a population control mechanism.
Anna Navarro, that scuzzbag fake Republican on The View, used to work at CNN, who defamed the Covington kids and is still facing an appeal regarding that issue.
She came out and said real specific what these people believe.
Because she said, look at my own family.
We have disabled kids in our family.
Implying, wouldn't it be better if we could have aborted them?
Can you imagine somebody attacking their own family members for considering them lesser than?
That should tell people exactly who these people are and what they've always been about.
And that's the real agenda for abortion.
And all these companies that won't give you maternity leave, but they'll make sure to pay you for your abortion?
It's not about protecting women's rights.
It's about eviscerating motherhood, which is an essential fundamental aspect of women's rights in America.
And that's why it's going to be a net winner, contrary to conventional wisdom.
For the Republicans come November.
I'm going to read a couple of chats because there was a question specifically on this.
And if I can't find it quickly enough.
We have, yeah, because people are asking, can Congress override this?
Can Biden override this?
Can the Pentagon override this?
Can DAs just ignore it?
Can the FDA override it?
Because all of those claims were made this week by various Democratic politicians.
The same people who said...
Insurrection is scary, scary, scary.
We're all calling for it this week.
Calling for it meaningfully.
Screw the Supreme Court.
We're going to defy the court order.
The Justice Department saying, we're not going to abide by the Second Amendment ruling either.
We're going to save lives.
We don't have to listen to one branch of government.
I don't know if this was it.
When you get to Roe, ask Barnes if SCOTUS addressed abortion in the context of Ninth Amendment.
We did that.
And how that will affect some states' laws going forward.
It will have, this will have no impact on any other law.
Thomas mentioned that he would like the court to reconsider whether the 14th Amendment should be the basis of all of these rules instead of the privileges and immunities clause in the 9th Amendment.
People interpreted that to mean Thomas is going to overturn every privacy ruling in history.
That's not what he meant.
He believes many of those can be rooted in the 9th Amendment or the privileges and immunities clause.
He's never like...
You know, doing this through the Liberty Clause of the 14th Amendment.
He always thought that was a mistake.
And there's good arguments for that.
I don't fully embrace that argument, Thomas, but that's where that is.
But there's been a lot of deliberate misinformation out there about what this case means.
Now, going to the so-called solutions, Biden does not have the power to override this.
The State Department doesn't have the power to override this.
The Pentagon, for the most part, I'll get to where the Pentagon has a little bit of a weasel way out, mostly can't override this.
Local DAs, again, there's some limitations to what they can do.
And the Justice Department, Merrick Garland, claimed the FDA can override this because over half of abortions today in America are done by pill, done medicinally.
And he claims, well, the FDA has approved the pill, so that means no state can ban the pill, which is not at all.
What the FDA law allows and reveals how abusive allowing any claim or pretense to that power.
But Congress doesn't have that power.
And this was, you know, here's where the left screwed themselves.
When the Congress passed the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, they applied it to state governments.
The left was enraged at this because it reinstated a robust definition of the First Amendment.
They took it up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court said Congress doesn't have the power to determine what is and isn't a constitutional right.
They can't overturn our precedents that way.
They can create other rights, they can establish other remedies, but they don't have a right to get into governing religious affairs of local governments.
So yes, the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act can apply to the federal government, but it cannot constitutionally apply to the state government.
Commerce Clause ain't that broad.
So you extend that to abortion.
Congress can't legislate Roe.
They have no power to legislate Roe.
They can legislate whether it happens on army facilities.
They can legislate whether they spend money for it, things of that nature.
But they can't force...
A national abortion law in the country.
They don't have that authority.
Biden doesn't have that authority through the executive branch.
The Pentagon, the FDA doesn't have that authority.
The FDA has the authority to say whether you can label a drug between states.
It has no control over the practice of medicine.
Indeed, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act specifically states it cannot be interpreted to impose any obligation on the practice of medicine.
That's why doctors are currently suing them for how they tried to screw around with Ivermed.
They can't determine those things.
So the FDA's approval of the labeling of an abortion pill cannot override a state's law prohibiting those abortions.
And what the attorney general did was call for legal nullification of a Supreme Court decision.
Basically, take every accusation that has been made against Trump when he was president.
It was all confession through projection.
Family members making corrupt deals to steal elections through overseas countries' involvements in a country that speaks Russian.
That was Joe Biden.
And here we have presidents who disregard the law, disregard the rule of law, disregard the Supreme Court, disregard the Constitution, think they're above it.
That's Joe Biden and the Democrats.
But none of these remedies that Democrats are laying out are remedies.
Their only remedy is to win at the legislative level and to convince people that their desire to have more babies killed is popular.
Political reality is, there's polls that will say, do you approve of overturning Roe?
Most people think that just means, do you approve of banning abortion in all cases?
That will get you two-thirds support.
When you break it down and you ask people, aside from breaking down who actually votes on it, overwhelmingly a pro-life group, putting that aside, you ask them, do you support abortion after the baby has a heartbeat?
Do you support abortion when the baby can feel pain?
Do you support abortion when you can see the baby on an ultrasound?
Do you support abortion when there's brain activity taking place?
Overwhelmingly, Americans say no, no, no, no, and no.
And here's the other reality.
Most of the world bans abortion after 12 weeks.
We're there with North Korea and China at some of our crazy rules.
So over half of abortions happen in less than 10 weeks.
So in reality, the majority position will be that these rare, dangerous, frightening, gruesome, baby-killing tactics will be over, like they should be in much of the country.
Now, if you still want it, California, Illinois, Northeast, it's still going to be legal in those places, probably for...
As long as it is now or even longer.
But the net effect of the decision is it's now back to the states.
The federal government can't overturn it, override it.
Now what the army can do is they can set up abortion on army bases.
What they can't do is recruit people from off the army base to use it.
This goes back to the military having exclusive jurisdiction on army bases.
The state government has no power.
Over an army base.
It's always been problems with that.
Comparable issues with tribal reservations.
But tribes, in my view, have a better argument for that.
But it appears the...
So to the degree that what the Pentagon is saying is that they're going to allow abortion to occur on a military base regardless of the local state law that military base is within.
They may be within their legal rights, depending on the circumstances.
But what they can't do is completely ignore it, and a military member can't go off base and get an abortion and avoid criminal prosecution.
So that's basically where it's heading, coming forward.
Now, this is one of the things that people have been talking about, Clarence Thomas talking about prohibiting contraception.
Now, is that a play on words here?
He didn't say that at all.
All he said was that all of those rights should never have been within the definition of liberty under the 14th Amendment.
They should be within the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
And we should make that clear going forward because that's a more manageable process.
He did not say that the Privileges and Immunities Clause would not protect birth control, protect interracial marriage, protect any of these other things.
So people misunderstood what he was saying in that context.
Now, based on his prior rulings, It's likely that he would not extend it to same-sex marriage.
He would likely say that is not within the privileges and immunities clause because he also didn't see it within the liberty provision of the 14th Amendment either.
But people misconstrued, the media deliberately misportrayed what he was saying to make it sound like all privacy was gone.
This case has, as the Supreme Court said about a dozen times, has no impact on any other privacy right.
Okay.
Something that people are freaking out about, another aspect of misinformation, fear-mongering panic, that one state can make it illegal to travel to another state to have an abortion.
Now, I'm thinking, Robert, I mean, there's federal murder statutes, then there's state murder statutes.
Why could not one state consider it to be murder committed in another state based on their own state?
Laws as relates to murder and then apply it to anybody who goes out of state to get it in California.
For the same reason that none of the state's laws apply to conduct in another state.
The limits of territorial jurisdiction, number one, the state's power is limited to its power over the land that it has the right to govern.
And then second, the Constitution has an interstate right of travel that has been interpreted to say you can't use, one state cannot impose its rules on another state.
This most often gets litigated actually in land disputes and tax disputes.
So that often like the state of California lost a big suit, had to write a bunch of checks to a bunch of other states because they try to impose their taxing power on citizens of other states or activity that took place in other states.
So that's the territorial limit is pretty strict in the context of the state.
That's why you don't see like Illinois can't prosecute a murder in Nebraska.
Same principle.
Now, the federal government could probably pass a law protecting the right to travel between states for an abortion to the degree they thought that was necessary.
On the grounds that it's interstate activity, particularly that it's interstate commerce, calling abortion interstate commerce is kind of interesting.
But put that aside, that would be the pretext by which they could govern it.
Now, they could include the abortion pill within the Controlled Substances Act.
And that would re-trigger that old debate, whether or not under interstate commerce they could regulate the abortion pill as interstate commerce and thereby preempt various state and local laws governing the administration of that pill.
That's why some of us said drug law is a bad idea because they're always going to encroach on constitutional liberties of the individual and the local governmental participatory power of the individual through that government, which is precisely what's happened in the Controlled Substances Act context on multiple occasions.
Hence, for example, someone who was growing marijuana for their own purposes for medicinal reasons who was not even in interstate commerce could be banned by the Controlled Substances Act from doing that because marijuana as a whole had an interstate commerce component to it and even interstate activity could impact it.
And that was the Supreme Court's excuse.
Thomas, I think, descended from that case, but Scalia was in the majority.
Another case where some of these great conservatives managed to drift away from the Constitution when they didn't like the political consequences of the case, sadly.
So that would be the only way they could do it.
They could put the abortion pill within the Controlled Substances Act and try to use that.
Though, again, the point of the Controlled Substances Act is to restrict.
Drugs not to guarantee or expand their supply.
And then you have, it's not within the, they could amend the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act to try to actually make the FDA the governing medical authority, but that's going to have major constitutional fights across the board.
So they could, but all of them would be legally risky and unconstitutionally questionable territory that might require the court to re-examine some of its prior assumptions in these old cases.
All right, I'm going to bring this up because I saw a few people asking, what are Canada's abortion laws?
They don't exist.
Canada, from what I understand, is the only nation in the world that has no federal prohibitions on abortion at any stage of pregnancy.
That's the legal side.
I think you might be right there with North Korea.
Well, I looked it up.
All sources say the only nation.
I don't know what they mean by nation.
We have no federal laws prohibiting abortion at any stage of the pregnancy.
There are provincial regulations.
But the practical reality is, despite that legal possibility, no doctor will perform it after 23 weeks and 6 days in the absence of a compelling medical reason.
I'll ask some of the questions in the chat.
Could a state require an ultrasound before getting an abortion?
Yes.
I mean, the court laid out a lot of rational basis review is the lowest possible level of review, and they laid out all the grounds that are permissible grounds.
This just included respect for the medical profession, as an example.
They could now robustly require parental consent.
They could require spousal consent or significant other consent.
You know, the Biden legislation is expanding whose gun rights can be taken away based on how close they are.
Basically, an intimate partner increasingly can be almost anybody.
It can be somebody you met on Tinder, and they can, you know, red flag you and get your gun taken away from you under the Biden proposed legislation, which we'll get to later.
But, you know, it's good for the goose, good for the gander.
You know, I've always thought it was problematic that you could allow someone, the woman can abort the...
Baby.
But if the woman chooses to have the baby, the man is on the hook for 18 years in child support.
It's like, okay, how can there be responsibility and accountability without any empowerment?
So a state clearly could go in and say, there has to be the other partner's consent before the abortion can go forward and things like that.
So they could impose a lot.
I think here's what's most likely to happen.
Some states had automatic provisions that completely banned it.
In the most conservative states, they're likely to exempt rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
Those abortions are very rare, by the way.
Very few people identify as that as the reason.
Abortion is mostly done as a matter of convenience by the person, and in my view, eugenics by the people promoting it and pushing it and pitching it.
But what will most likely happen is that a majority position with states will be something like up to 10 weeks, 8 weeks.
You know, if you do a heartbeat, the heartbeat increasingly can be very early.
So that might be five weeks, six weeks.
But you're going to see some have a complete ban.
Some have a ban with those three exceptions.
Some have a ban after a five-week period.
Some after 10 weeks.
Some after 15 weeks.
And then you'll have a few California kind of positions that will be, hey, maybe we can kill it afterwards, after it's born.
That kind of thing.
Nate, you draw the distinction that if a woman can choose to have an abortion without the consent of the spouse, a significant other, whatever, and yet if she chooses to have it, the significant other pays for 18 years.
I go to the California double standard, which is seemingly, Robert, we've got to talk about this in a bit.
Seemingly, you can do it right up until and then potentially even something happens within eight days, no investigation.
But if someone, an assailant, strikes a pregnant woman in the belly at six months, It's murder.
And sorry, and kills the unborn child.
It's murder.
I don't know how you can conceivably, conceptually, intellectually, legislatively reconcile those two incongruencies.
Robert, I googled it yesterday.
I went live for a couple hours yesterday.
Someone said, what about that law in California where you can end the pregnancy within eight days after delivery?
I go look it up.
PolitiFact says, no, that's not what you can do.
You're an idiot for thinking it.
And then you read into it.
And it doesn't say you can do it.
It just says, if there's a death resulting from, what do they call it?
Criminal, criminal abortion.
No investigation.
No, I don't know, no autopsy, whatever.
Robert, am I misunderstanding something in the legislation where they're basically saying...
It was a patent attempt to legalize killing a baby infanticide up to 28 days afterwards.
They can label it any language they want.
They can put any...
As the old saying is, you know, you can take a pig, dress her up, take her to the prom, pig still a pig still a pig, or put him in there, whatever category you want to put.
And that's what that law was.
That was an infanticide law.
And the fact checker frauds are back to being frauds once again by claiming it's anything but what it is.
Because, again, as I always say, there's no right without a remedy.
There's no responsibility without a punishment.
So, you know, if there's no punishment, there's no responsibility.
So that's not a law either.
So that's what the effect of what they were trying to do.
And we had about 80 district attorneys.
We won't enforce the law in our state.
Extraordinary.
This is the biggest call by major political actors, including prosecutors from the Justice Department on down, calling for a legal insurrection in the United States against this court's decision.
Again, what they accuse Trump of is who they have always been and they've exposed it in just 48 hours.
It's outrageous.
By the way, I'm taking it off.
The earphones make me feel like I'm muffling my own speech and I can't hear myself properly.
If there's an echo, let me know.
Would the Department of Defense providing abortions on military installations violate the Hyde Amendment?
I think at this point, yes.
So they would need to modify that.
So the Hyde Amendment said no federal funds can ever be used for an abortion.
Okay.
Let's get to some of this.
There were some questions there on point before we get to the next issue.
Can a state can get them for...
Oh, interesting question, Robert.
I'm sorry.
If you plan a crime in one state, even if it's to occur in another state, can you not in theory be charged for...
It depends.
That's not as simple as that statement presumes.
I'll put it that way.
For example, the person who conspires to commit a murder in another state can be prosecuted when he committed acts of conspiracy in that state.
So if the theory is abortion is murder, someone conspires with someone else to go to another state to commit that murder, Usually that's done on a conspiracy basis or an attempt basis.
It's pretty rare you see them attempting to say, well, you planned the intentional murder here.
It doesn't usually work that way.
So the JFK Jim Garrison case involved prosecuting a New Orleans person for his actions in New Orleans to conspire to kill Kennedy.
That the state of Louisiana had jurisdiction over.
That's usually how that comes about.
Conspiracy type.
Aiding and abetting, things of that nature.
I suppose, hypothetically, a state could try to do that.
It's very uncommon, I'll put it that way, in the law.
And of the states that have now abortion bans, which are just largely restrictions, what is the strictest of the states?
Is it Alabama or Mississippi?
Maybe Texas.
It may actually be Texas, because I think Texas automatically went in with no exceptions, I think.
Maybe Missouri, too.
A couple of states are automatically triggered like no exceptions, is my understanding.
We'll see how.
There are 26 states that actually joined asking the Supreme Court to give them back the power, and presumably those 26 states will restrict.
Okay, so hypothetically, even if a state can go after an individual for conspiracy to commit abortion, which would be planning with a doctor in another state, it would have to be at a stage beyond whatever the requirements are.
You know, it's an interesting, you know, I guess hypothetically, all these corporations virtue signaling about paying for abortion might be considered criminal co-conspirators under local state law.
So they probably should have consulted with a lawyer before they put out those public statements.
Though I did like the fact that Dick's Supporting Goods was one of the first ones to say, we'll support your abortion right away and help pay for it.
Very apropos.
It seems strange that the Disinformation Governance Board was suspended just before this ruling.
It would be working overtime with the less interpretation of this ruling.
Forget that.
There's more than enough people doing it for free now.
Why doesn't territorial limit prevent California from taxing a resident's income in another state or country?
Because it's a violation of constitutional provisions as well as an excess of California's jurisdiction.
So, I mean, when we designed the Constitution, the Interstate Travel Clause and other rights was designed to prevent precisely this kind of event, mostly for the most part, from occurring.
That states respect the ability to travel within the states and that you have kind of a certain right that they can't go and impose their rules on another state.
And there were particular reasons at the time as to why that was particularly paramount in a lot of people's minds.
But it is a good point the person raises about conspiracy is an exception for even if part of the act takes place in another state, that can be.
And that would be, I mean, which law ends up most pro-life?
I think Arkansas does have a complete ban, actually, right now.
I think that's right.
Because we discussed it last year.
Because there's some people, when I, we predicted it last week, predicted it back when Dobbs draft opinion got leaked, but predicted it long before that.
Go back in the fall, when this case was argued in front of oral argument, I said then, Roe is dead.
And a lot of other people were like, no, you don't know, you're wrong.
There are people arguing with me on our local board this week, saying you're too optimistic, you're too idealistic, it's not going to happen.
Well, not only did Roe get reversed, the other big prediction been making now for months, ever since the argument, gun rights were extended broadly across America in the Second Amendment in a great opinion penned by the one, the only, the inimitable, Justice Clarence Thomas.
And I think he did so on his birthday.
Well, okay, but before we even get there, Robert, we're at 13,400 people watching now.
On Rumble, we are at...
3,500.
There was a rumble rant, which I want to get to.
Be a tractor.
I have a similar experience.
It occurs when I weld aluminum outside.
It only happens when I use a special welding called double pulse.
It modulates between a high and low voltage very fast.
I'm going to try to get in touch with DJI and see if they've had complaints about this.
Second Amendment case, Robert.
Another case where people coming out.
I mean, I see these tweets and I'm like, it's not possible the Justice Department is saying, thanks, Supreme Court, but up yours.
We're not going to allow this.
We're going to continue with our laws.
I think it was a legit tweet or a legit public statement.
We're not going to abide by this decision.
We're going to save lives.
We're going to defy the court.
The court basically, you've got to explain Heller in its context what the issues were in this particular case.
But ultimately, the court came to the conclusion that the standard of...
Oh, what was it?
Where are my notes?
Oh, here we go.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
We can do this.
No, this is the note.
Sorry, hold on.
Proper cause to warrant...
I hope I didn't just jack up my mic.
Proper cause to get a concealed carry permit in New York was too discretionary, arbitrary, didn't have any definition, burdened an individual's right to exercise their Second Amendment specifically codified at the time of the Constitution right.
And the court said, no, the state can't do this.
It's a constitutional violation.
Did the Justice Department actually come out and say, thanks, but no thanks, we're not going to abide by this?
But it's a fair interpretation of what they said.
And there are a range of cities and states and others that had similar language.
California was already talking about how they were going to try to evade the decision because the decision goes beyond the New York case.
Because the left's first argument was that the Second Amendment did not apply.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, is what the Second Amendment says.
They interpreted that to mean only the people that are in an active militia.
That was initially.
That's what Heller said.
No, you're wrong.
Then they said, well, the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states through the 14th Amendment.
So the Supreme Court came out in McDonald's and said, no, you're wrong, it does.
How could you even make that argument?
You say the Second Amendment of the Constitution doesn't apply to states because of the 14th Amendment.
Is there a hierarchy among the amendments of the Constitution?
What it is, is the court was slow to adopt all of the first eight amendments into the definition of liberty and property to be protected under the 14th Amendment, which didn't make sense because the 14th Amendment was protected to guarantee freed slaves the same rights as all other U.S. citizens against state government specifically.
That should, by definition, include all of the rest of the rights preserved and protected under the Constitution, including the Privilege and Immunities Clause, Interstate Travel, and the rest.
But either way, the Supreme Court resolved that.
So their next argument was that the left did is they did a combination of two things.
One, they watered down the standard to say...
Yes, you should look at the text of the Constitution, and yes, you should look at the history and whether there's been analogous restrictions in the past using that same analysis they applied in the abortion context.
But even if the history says that it's a secure right, you can still say the law is fine, the restriction, the gun control law is fine, as long as you apply some version of...
Intermediate scrutiny.
You say that the ends justify the means under these circumstances, etc.
You basically play super legislative or you're anxious to approve what the legislature did in the gun control context.
Hence, the Ninth Circuit, quite infamously, as the dissent called them out last year for doing, said they haven't found a gun control law they've yet found unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court came.
So that's one position.
Another position has been that the gun rights only apply in the home.
Doesn't apply outside of the home because it's about the right to self-defense and the right to self-defense is only in your home.
So that too was put as part of the excuse for these laws limiting your ability to keep and bear arms outside of the home.
The Supreme Court struck all that down.
They said the people, the definition of the people in the Second Amendment includes any...
Now, that means a felon or non-citizens or others can have their rights limited, but any law-abiding citizen is protected under the Second Amendment.
Part two, they said, and that there's no distinction whatsoever between the home and between being outside the home, whether it's the home, the business, on the street, in the public.
There is a right to what they call peaceable public carry.
They note that the history has only supported limitations on people who either were not fit within the definition of the people under the Second Amendment or offered either open carry or concealed carry, but you had a right to carry.
You could just carry how you carried it could be regulated.
Or it was people who were identified based on specified factual findings as having a wrongful criminal intent.
To carry a weapon in a particular location, that person could be limited.
But nobody else in all of history had been limited throughout the history of the Second Amendment, whether you looked at 1791 or whether you looked at 1868.
They do a long, detailed historical analysis.
They go back to point out, back in the old English days, you could carry a dagger around, and that was the most common useful means of self-defense.
They further made clear that in defining the word arms under the Second Amendment, that includes anything that is used today.
That is commonly used today for self-defense.
They did a great job of reminding everybody.
An argument I had brought up to the cert petition of the Supreme Court earlier this year in another case that they ultimately didn't take, but a lot of the arguments and language in the cert petition ended up in this case.
That's why I encourage people to bring those kind of cases.
It is a credit to Michael Strickland, who helped, you know, he was the guy whose case it was brought up on behalf.
You can find him at Laugh at Liberals or Laugh at Libs.
Out in Portland, Oregon, makes fun videos, and it was wrongfully prosecuted by the Portland authorities.
But the right of self-defense is what the Second Amendment is all about, and that includes right of self-defense from other people and the state, which the Supreme Court explicitly and expressly said in this provision.
Because one of the other arguments that the left was making to undermine the Second Amendment was saying, well, where you have police, you don't need a guard.
That the Second Amendment was only because you're out there in the fields with no police nearby.
If there's police nearby and it's a crowded place, that's a sensitive place that should be outside the Second Amendment.
They said, nope, that's wrong.
The other argument was, well, certain guns that are commonly used for self-defense now weren't used as commonly as self-defense back then.
Supreme Court said that's misapplying the principle.
The principle is what you look at for historical analogy.
And the principle is, is it...
Today, used as a common self-defense arms.
That's why that part of the case will strike down a bunch of other gun control laws, especially in California, but in other states throughout the country.
There's a bunch of gun laws that are about to go cascading down because of this decision.
And they reversed.
They said no more intermediate scrutiny.
The only analysis is text and history, text and tradition.
What does the text say?
What does history say?
That's it.
And if it says that the states were not broadly restricting guns in this particular manner and that gun is something that's owned by a law-abiding citizen and that gun is something that is commonly used for self-defense purposes, then you can't have that law.
It violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Okay, see, now that's where we're going to...
First of all, Robert, I got a little distracted because the sex bots have now morphed.
They're no longer just selling sex bots.
It was probably that term you used at the beginning.
No, but this is nuts.
Now they're using Kurt's face, Neerman's face, and the sex bots have now gone into actual trolling, which is...
Now we've got to nuke the troll sex bots.
Okay, hold on.
Winston's going to say hi and bye.
Yep, go downstairs.
Get on the floor.
Okay, so the question is, I don't understand legally, conceptually, practically, when restrictions become unconstitutional impediments to the exercise of a right.
So is it limiting your right of self-defense when you're exercising that right of self-defense with a weapon that is commonly used as a means of self-defense?
So if it does that, it is presumptively unconstitutional unless the state can prove...
That the particular gun control law they have in place has a long history in the tradition, particularly at the time of the founding and in the 1860s.
All right.
And so now speaking of the, I guess, the new gun laws, the bipartisan gun laws, which are going to, let me think if I can remember all of them, implement red flag laws.
Give money.
Okay, and so funding red flag laws, they are increasing the wait times or the background checks on individuals aged 18 to 21. Now, a point there, the court noted that there's two kinds of permit states.
One are states that are called shall issue.
That's 43 of our states, our shall issue states, which means that there's almost no discretion given.
And all you're allowed to do is to make sure the person is, in fact, a law-abiding citizen.
So basic background checks, etc.
Then there's only six states that, along with New York, in addition to New York, that have these other, what's called May issue.
Those are all may issue laws are all going to be struck down.
The shall issue laws, they went out of their way to note as related to the Biden legislation that Biden just signed because a bunch of Republican senators once again betrayed their base to grandstand and virtue signal for useless means of securing the public.
In fact, as Justice Alito's concurrence opinion points out documents in detail.
The wide, broad use of guns in America, almost every meaningful empirical study shows, reduces violence and saves lives because it's used for self-defense purposes more than 2 million times a year in a wide range of contexts and capacities, and most of the time saves lives without ever having to take another life or do any violence to another person because it is the most effective deterrent for self-defense that exists.
Not everybody can be like Putin and be sitting on a bunch of food and fuel and have nuclear weapons and other means of self-defense.
But he went out and detailed what those facts really are.
Despite that, they passed him.
But one of the other things the court noted was, even in the shall issue cases, that if they start coming up with long delays for background checks, and if they start imposing excessive fines and financial amounts to get the permit, that they would likely consider both of those Constitutionally dubious and suspect.
Well, I'm trying to just...
Coming from the Canadian perspective where I'm reading some of these proposed limitations and I'm like, geez, in Canada, this is already criminal, like, you know, on steroids.
Shall issue versus may issue.
The shall still is something of a may.
They shall issue the permit if you have no criminal background.
Is it felonious criminal background?
It depends on the jurisdiction.
But there are, usually, in terms of the federal law, it's usually any felony period, is my understanding.
Now, I haven't seen all the text, and there's some debate discussed it with Nick Ricada on one of his eight-hour live streams at night.
I don't know how that guy does it.
But one of his long live, especially, you talk about a live with chat, holy cow.
That's a whole different animal over there.
Great credit to Nick, who's being targeted now because he's been successful.
He blazed the path by which a lot of other lawyers, to be honest, have also got successful thanks to Nick.
Nick often introduced them to people.
Nick showed them how to do it with how he covered the Rittenhouse case.
Law and crime sort of mimicked him.
First tried to shut him down and then tried to...
You know, they'd end up paying money to YouTube to get on the front of the algorithm.
But the issue was the exact text of the law, not crystal clear.
But looking at this, because some are saying that there's actually really good, robust, due process limitations on the use of red flag money in the law.
And we went through some of them and it wasn't clear.
It looked to me like maybe.
But I want to see the actual law when it's all codified together.
Because these laws look like a mess when they're getting proposed.
It's we're amending 22.7, you know, and we're amending another one over here, another one.
You got to see it all codified after it's passed to get a sense for here's exactly what they in fact did.
But I think red flag laws are still constitutionally suspect.
Now, some people misconstrued that case that we talked about.
The old guy who got a call.
And they went in and took the gun and arrested him.
And the court ultimately, Supreme Court said that was a Fourth Amendment violation.
That does not mean every red flag law is a Fourth Amendment violation.
They didn't get a warrant in that case.
They didn't have a probable cause in that case.
Now, to search someone's home, to seize someone's property within a home, still requires Fourth Amendment compliance.
Red flag laws don't get to go around that.
The risk, you often have a...
Court procedure or administrative hearing involved.
The problem is the principle of giving Amber Heard the power to possibly take away your gun.
And that's the problem with greenlighting any of these in the first place.
Well, not just take away the guns, but that will take swatting to a new level, which is danger to themselves or others.
They have firearms.
What's going to happen when police show up to take those away?
I mean, it's gasoline on fire.
So the devil's in the details about the law.
People ask me, could it be constitutionally challenged?
The answer is yes, but it really depends on what did the final legislative language look like?
And there's some debate about that because the arguments about what they did for 18 to 20 year olds, they backed off a complete ban that they talked about early.
It's more of a robust background check and it's not clear whether they did ban some things or didn't.
That wasn't crystal clear to me.
The red flag laws, not clear how bad that...
Again, it's not red flag laws themselves.
It's money for states to do red flag laws.
But if they imposed a bunch of additional due process protections, like somebody told me that there's a right to counsel now in order for the state to get money for its red flag programs, they have to give counsel to anyone.
Accused of something that could cause him to lose his gun.
So I want to see that because that will actually limit a lot of bad aspects of red flag law.
So that's why I want to look at all the law before we look at it.
But aspects of it could clearly be challenged if it's going after lawful citizens, if it has too much delay or excessive financial penalty to it, if it violates the Fourth Amendment principles the court established just last term.
All of those would be still restrictions and restraints on how it ultimately translates in the real world.
Okay, I'm going to get to a bunch of Super Chats after we finish up on this one.
I'm reading some of these proposed bipartisan gun measures.
And the idea for me, a Canadian, I had to go through a two-day course.
Then I had to pass the test.
Then get a background check, which took months.
Then the idea of someone having to wait seven extra days to come home with a firearm.
I mean, I'm sitting here saying, what on earth are you complaining about?
But the idea that the legal challenge would be this only applies to 18 to 21-year-olds, whereas the standard background check or delay would be three days.
Now they're going to add on another seven days to do a more robust background check.
First question I ask is, what does that more robust background check mean?
Apparently, from some of the added elements of background check, they're going into types of domestic violence, which are...
Not arguable, but fluffy or not necessarily felonious.
They want to maybe broaden what would be exclusionary.
You know what the other thing they're doing?
It's creating a massive list, right?
It's a massive list and it's more data in that list.
That's what they want.
It's a pretext.
I think this is as much to do with it as guns.
They want to develop a roster of as much people's personal history, legal, criminal, medical.
As they possibly can, and they're using it as the pretext, we'll do a good background check before you get a gun.
And the real goal is just to have that data.
I mean, I brought the biggest Bivens class action against the IRS, maybe the biggest Bivens period in American history, because Obama had the IRS gathering everybody's medical records in order to enforce the private mandate.
And just coincidentally...
It had everybody's private medical information in there.
The government was going to have access to all of your medical records.
Why do you think Obama was really big on, we're going to save money by digitizing all the records?
Because digitizing all the records allowed the government to more easily access those records.
This had everything about Major League Baseball players, movie directors, screen actors, every judge in the state of California.
If you wanted to know which movie director had a foot fetish, It was right in there.
If you wanted to know which actor had four undisclosed heart attacks such that he couldn't be bonded, it was right in there.
If you wanted to know which judge was seeking special treatment for sexual addiction, it was right in there.
So I called it J. Edgar Hoover's wet dream of secret information.
And I think that's what they're really using this for.
Under the guise of gun control, they're massively gathering everybody's records and information.
They just need to make sure it includes...
Family records, domestic issue records, civil litigation records, and mental health records.
I'm just texting my wife.
I hear something banging upstairs, make sure everything's okay.
For a noob like me, what...
The little one's already enraged.
These red flag laws are totally unjustified.
He's enraged and we can't fly the freaking drone.
One place we're killing bees, the other place we're not allowed to fly.
We can't do anything fun in Canada.
What typically, in my view...
As far as I understood it, background check, criminal record.
What else would they go into?
Have you consulted a doctor?
Orders of protection, domestic violence, mental health, all of it.
That would be the other categories they're going to do.
School records.
I understand the legal argument.
What's the tenor?
Or what's the plausibility, the strength of the legal argument?
You're treating 18 to 21-year-olds differently than 21 to...
Dead.
And that's what the Ninth Circuit just said the state of California couldn't do.
And other federal circuits are moving in that direction.
So I think that the age restrictions are very dubious.
I mean, what the Supreme Court said is if they're a law-abiding citizen, they said you could restrict gun access to people who are not law-abiding citizens.
But clearly they're getting into people that don't fit that category.
So that's where I think there's major issues.
And apparently their domestic abuse definition is being expanded the way one person put it.
And again, I'll wait to see the actual language of the law.
But the fear or the concern was that the law was so expanding that as the basis to lose your gun that I call it the Amber Heard rule.
Amber Heard doesn't like you.
She can call it up and you can have your gun taken away.
And that's a serious problem.
Now, again, that's based on local and state law.
The federal law just gives money to encourage it.
And it really depends on what restrictions they impose on that money as to how dangerous that money can be misused.
And not to name names, who are the Republicans that voted for this bipartisan gun control law?
Not that I disagree or agree with it in its entirety.
Some of it to me seems, my goodness, if only we had that in Canada, we'd have less to complain about.
But who are the Republicans and what do you think it's going to have by way of political repercussions?
I think Justice Thomas once again saved the Republican Party because the fact that they passed that law on the same day he issued the great Second Amendment decision, the Second Amendment decision will have much more political impact and weight than the federal bill that got passed.
But some of those senators will never be re-elected again.
Most of them are either way away from facing re-election or aren't running for re-election.
So there's a few, though.
I think it's Capito, West Virginia, Cassidy, Louisiana.
Maybe Lindsey Graham will run again in South Carolina.
I think some of them will not be re-elected just because of this vote.
Collins will keep, if she wants to keep her seat, she's in Maine.
Murkowski's up now in Alaska, and she's angling to the Democratic side.
Last time she won with Democratic votes, not Republican votes.
Romney's probably not running again in Utah.
Portman's already retiring.
Cronin's likely retiring.
A lot of the others are likely retiring.
Yeah, Alex, Davey Duke says, yep, the deep state and Democrats are creating an enemies list.
Getting the membership list for the NRA was...
For this purpose and Obamacare.
Okay, Robert, let me blast through some super chat so I don't feel too bad because I got 19 flagged.
Contraception means stopping conception before conception happens.
No mainstream religion I know, save the early 20th century Catholics, has an issue with contraception.
Post-conception, it's no longer contraception.
Follow up to my last question yesterday.
What happens if the order is reversed?
Woman gets an A, the big A, and DNA is on file for alleged violation.
The state gets your DNA and matches it to the old case.
Both question the act.
So, Robert, this was one of the concerns where when assault of a very specific nature is an exception under the law, it would incentivize women who want to get the procedure to say, I was wrongly say so.
So they get DNA, and then they potentially wrongfully charge someone else who might be arrested for whatever other reason for the assault.
Is that conceptually possible?
Oh, that's always...
False accusations are always conceptually possible.
It happened in the welfare context.
We have a pretty good sense because there are people who claim somebody else was the father to protect the real father all the time.
Now, escalating it to false criminal allegations will happen, but that won't happen with a high degree of...
And again, if somebody really wants the abortion, they're going to go to the state where it's got liberalized rules.
You know, in all likelihood.
Now, it probably does mean that the democratic exodus...
To red states, it's probably going to start to reverse and go in the other direction.
Well, so here's another thing.
To respond to a point someone made yesterday, where he said, vote with your feet, just leave.
If you need the procedure or you want it, go to a state that allows it.
Some people say, can't afford it.
Generally speaking, underprivileged or impoverished people.
Robert, first of all, as I understand it, even if the procedure is allowed, it's still not free.
And so some of these agents raise money so people can go and have it subsidized by fundraising.
Am I not wrong in thinking, well, these agencies are just going to shift their fundraising into providing transport to and from states?
Well, you've had a bunch of employers already say that.
I mean, it will reduce the number of abortions in America without question, because so many of them are done for convenience sake.
And if it's inconvenient to get the abortion, a lot of them will not actually go get the abortion.
And so that's, you know, it will reduce the number, it won't eliminate it.
All right.
And also remember, most abortions now in America, over half, are done by a pill.
At what stage are the pills done?
You can't take it after 10 weeks.
Okay.
10 weeks, and that would be within the limits of even some of the relatively strict heartbeat laws out of Mississippi or Missouri.
Mississippi was 15 weeks.
You know these people saying the Statue of Liberty was going back to France.
And it's like Mississippi allows abortion later than they do in France.
People don't.
They don't know, Robert.
You can blame them, but then you have to understand if not necessarily forgive.
Heard about Mr. Whiteman, who was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre syndrome within 30 days of something.
Regarding Elizabeth Warren, she has room to speak since there's no proof she lives and looks like...
Okay.
Okay.
Yes, and...
Well, I'll just...
Go on to the next chat.
Thoughts, Barnes Viva, on Americans having a legitimate adult conversation about the unborn rights on both sides of the gender table with men and women?
Disproportionately, it's women who are women babies who are killed.
And like I said, you look at the voting, who actually votes on abortion?
It's pro-life women way outnumber pro-choice women.
Kennedy based...
Here, I know I'm not going to know what's going on in this chat.
That's the same-sex marriage case.
Okay.
Out we go.
And I get people to say all these things connected to Roe.
Doesn't matter.
Supreme Court made crystal clear this decision has nothing to do with any of those because of the very unique issue that another life dies in abortion.
They said that, I think, 12 times.
Almost that.
If we argue the universities and student loan providers are well aware of the low value of activist degrees, is there any grounds for a class action lawsuit?
I'm going to go out and say buyer beware when it comes to that.
Okay, here.
If it were probable that a brain-dead person could regain brain function, no one would think it's okay to pull the plug.
For a fetus, it is expected that it will gain brain function.
So why would we pull the plug?
Yeah, agreed.
I mean, there's a big medical and philosophical debate, but one key part to the decision.
Going back to my eugenics thesis, you look at a lot of people's definition of personhood, and there's a lot of scholars whose idea of personhood would legally justify, morally justify infanticide, particularly for the undesirables.
So, you know, that's my view on the topic.
This is an interesting question.
I think the answer is probably going to be that the decisions have been drafted well in advance.
But question, do you think Biden's refusal to condemn protesters at the Supreme Court justices' private homes had an influence on their Second Amendment decision?
There were some people that said, like one popular meme was Justice Thomas saying, you know, give everybody a right to conceal and carry for self-defense the day before you issue the Roe decision.
So there were a range of like those kind of memes that were out there.
You know, Justice Thomas is the only guy who thinks about giving a birthday gift to 330 million Americans on his own birthday.
Yeah, so there's a lot of those kind of things out there.
But, I mean, even more significant is the fact they have taken no action to protect the justices is that on TikTok, a liberal put up all of the home addresses of the Supreme Court justices.
And last I heard, all of them were being stalked at some level outside their home, and several have been taken into special custody for their security.
I'm going to read this, Cynthia.
I know I've seen your...
Something, by the way, that never happened during the election challenge.
When the Supreme Court, in my view, made a wrong decision on the election challenge, not one conservative harassed a single justice.
That's the difference between law, real insurrection, what they're doing right now, and the false accusation of insurrection for the January 6th folks.
There's no question.
Except everyone's going to harp on the January 6th as being, well, they didn't harass justices, but look what they did on January 6th.
It was the be-all and end-all.
They walked through the lines on the red carpet.
We're the most armed country in the world, and we had the biggest unarmed insurrection.
We're all unarmed.
Someone stole the pew-pew thing.
I don't even know what it was.
And smiled on the way out.
Became a famous meme.
I'm going to read this, Cynthia, because I know you've been here before, and this is not a troll.
I cannot, Viva, the lack of humanitarian perspective for women in this chat is incomprehensible to me.
Keep talking, boys.
It's the boys part that leaves me that this is not a...
I specifically bring up women's comments, or at least women names, and you never know who's behind the avatar, who are supporting overturning Roe vs.
Wade.
I don't...
There's...
Can't be too simple.
Again, it's overwhelmingly women.
If you know the pro-life movement, it's overwhelmingly women.
Men are on the opposite side, generally.
I had never thought about the idea that a lot of irresponsible men are like, yeah, pro-choice, pro-choice.
Just go look at Dave Portnoy's crying video.
Or look at Freedom Tunes, who did a whole Bros for Hoes pro-choice little cartoon.
I've studied this for 50 years.
Well, for as long as I've been alive, which is in 50 years.
But I've studied the data going back 50 years.
And it's been very consistent.
And so women are disproportionately, the ones that vote on this, the ones that organize on this, are pro-life.
The men who are really active on this issue are disproportionately pro-Joyce.
I'm not going to read the entire...
Medical tourism is a multi-billion dollar industry.
Now the big A will become...
Tourism will become even more so.
The left should be ecstatic.
We understand it's not an outright ban.
States will make their own laws.
And if you want to live in California, go to California.
And if you need it, travel.
If you can't afford it, you probably couldn't afford the procedure in the first place.
Organizations to fundraise.
And that's it.
That'll be how it works.
I mean, the best summary of it is one of the strongest pro-life advocates today is Jane Rowe, who the case was named after.
What everyone says that Roe v.
Wade was based on a lie and that Jane Roe, the Roe from Roe v.
Wade, regrets the outcome of that decision.
Robert, can you flesh it out?
Oh yeah, she regrets it and she became a strong pro-life advocate and an opponent to the case.
By the way, that's surprisingly common to people that don't know it.
A lot of women have a whole range of psychological consequences that they don't anticipate because they're not given good counseling before they make an abortion decision.
I'm going to bring this one up.
Hatwit says, Cynthia, I'm a woman.
More female babies are aborted.
More women realize too late.
They took a life because they were too fooled into thinking it wasn't.
I just asked China.
That's why they have a huge male-to-female gap because during their one-child policy, there are girl babies disproportionately floating in the river and were aborted.
Okay, do we move on to...
I don't know what...
I guess another...
We have about a half dozen other big...
Well, somewhat big Supreme Court cases that were issued.
And then we got another half dozen fun suits so we can go through them at whatever speed.
Okay, well, we can do one Canadian one in a few minutes.
Oh, yeah, we can go ahead and do the Canadian.
We'll talk about this one.
Is that the same guy we interviewed?
Yes, yes, it's Dr. Francis Christian.
Just to highlight, earlier in the day I posted a tweet that said the soft censorship of YouTube.
The stream, in its entirety, gets manually approved after...
Sorry, it gets re-monetized after manual review on my main channel.
I post clips of it onto my second channel, automatically demonetized.
I gotta wait for however long to see the highlights.
And then sometimes, they get removed from my second...
Well, not sometimes.
It happened only once.
And it was Dr. Francis Christian.
Gets removed from the second channel for whatever reason.
Whereas it got manually approved after review on my main channel, which leads me to believe there's a lot of problems in the algorithm, manual review, etc.
We interviewed, or I interviewed at first, Dr. Francis Christian.
He's an Indian-born doctor.
I interviewed him during the Ottawa protest.
It was at the Iconic Cafe.
During the Ottawa protest, we talked for about an hour.
His story's amazing.
Credential doctor is an understatement.
I'm not going to go through his credentials.
Good standing, leadership roles, teaching at universities.
At some point during the pandemic, comes out and says, enlightened consent is at issue here.
People are submitting to a procedure.
They think they know what they're submitting to, and they don't.
Or they just don't, and they're being coerced into it, and these are big problems.
Dr. Francis Christian.
We then interviewed him, and I believe...
It was the one time when we started on both Rumble and YouTube and then went exclusive to Rumble.
Wickedly smart guy.
Wickedly good person.
He's a person of faith.
He's a person of poetry.
He's the doctor that spoke out at a press conference.
Just said, you know, it's not clear that people are knowing what they're consenting to or are consenting in full awareness of fact and in law.
It was Saskatchewan.
He gets basically terminated from his job.
He gets defamed by other members of the professional order, slandered, life ruined, turned into a right-wing extremist, conspiracy theorist, etc.
And he's suing.
He's suing for charter violations because they're federally regulated entities.
And he's suing for defamation for the individuals who said he's a conspiracy theorist.
They apologize for his misinformation.
They apologize for the things he said about...
Potential side effects, which are now a statement not going to be completed because I'm not a doctor.
And he's suing for defamation, suing for declaratory relief and damages under charter right violations, federal charter right violations and defamation.
And I was texting him yesterday.
I said, I hope the courts finally get it right because they haven't been getting it right in Canada.
This guy is a man of principle and all he wants is...
His name cleared, but above all else, to set the precedent that this is not how science and medicine can possibly work.
When doctors come out and exercise their practice in accordance with the rules, they should not be defamed.
They can't be told what to do by the governing bodies in terms of what procedures they have to implement, what exemptions they cannot give, what statements they cannot make in public with their own expertise.
So he's suing, and we're going to have him on.
It's going to be a Rumble exclusive.
We'll start on both and we'll go to Rumble exclusive.
Break down the lawsuit.
I just hope at some point in time the Canadian courts start turning the way the Supreme Court has turned in the States and start saving our country before it's too late, whether or not it might be there.
Well, Trudeau was crying this week about our Supreme Court.
He said he couldn't believe anybody would say the government has a right to dictate what happens to your body.
Can you imagine him saying that with a straight face?
It's just, he literally, I mean...
I went on yesterday.
I won't do it again today.
Trudeau, he comes out and says, no government, politician, or man should tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.
He didn't even qualify it with the big A in the tweet.
He just said carte blanche.
Robert, this is my thought.
I don't know if it's revelatory.
It's not hypocrisy.
It's not politics that's going to destroy the Western world.
It's going to be virtue signaling.
Because my biggest revelation in all of this, the doctors and the medical, you know, the leaders of the professional orders who go after doctors, in some of the impugned statements that they hold against Dr. Francis Christian, some of the statements of the people that we, no one should, people are dying from this horrible disease.
No one should have to experience the trauma of listening to a doctor spread misinformation.
They're virtue signaling at the medical level, and it's killing people.
Period.
And the politicians of virtue signaling, the doctors of virtue signaling, because a culture around COVID has been created where questioning it is murderous discourse.
And the virtue signaling is going to kill us.
It started off as just scoring points on Twitter.
It's going to kill us.
Literally and spiritually and politically.
That's Canada.
Robert, what was the religious decision coming out of Maine?
SCOTUS.
So, this is reaffirming that the First Amendment goes back to my debate with William Kunstler many years ago at Yale.
The point of the First Amendment was that the state would be neutral as to religion.
And that meant neutral both ways.
It would not favor a religion.
It would not discriminate against a religion.
It was misconstrued by the left to be a strict prohibition of the state and the church.
That's not ever what it was.
It was that the state would be neutral.
And would not discriminate either in favor or against religion.
It had been misconstrued for several decades by various federal courts to mean you were supposed to discriminate against religion.
And what happened in Maine is there's some parts of Maine that don't have a public school.
And so instead, the state gives you money to go to a private school.
But they said you can't go to one that's religious.
And the Supreme Court said that is precisely what the First Amendment prohibits.
You can't discriminate in favor of or against religion.
And that's why they said that law is unconstitutional.
That expands school choice options across the country and re-puts the First Amendment on where it's supposed to be.
Is the state discriminating in either direction as it relates to religion?
If it is, it violates the First Amendment.
If it's not, it doesn't.
The fact it's giving money to a religious institution does not mean it's discriminating in favor of that religious institution, unless that's what the rule itself provides for.
What was the rationale about that restriction in the first place?
The government says we don't want to...
That the state can't help religion at all.
Can't give money to religion, can't give directly or indirectly.
It was this misconception that the First Amendment was about no church in state in an almost Jeffersonian way that's beyond what the public wanted.
What the public wanted was no state religion, which means not the state.
In discriminating in favor of a religion, not given how religious our populace was at the time, meant to say the state must now discriminate against religion.
But the latter part is how many courts had interpreted it.
Robert, a real hydro PX.
Random question.
Can Barnes ever talk about Jim Cramer?
Do you even understand?
You mean that idiot who you just bet the opposite way, whatever he says on the stock market?
That's the only thing I know about Jim Cramer.
Jim Cramer is mad money, right?
I think so.
Okay.
Unless we're talking about another Cramer.
Hello, Cramer.
Viva, say my name.
No.
I'm going to say your name, sir.
Nice try.
Well played.
Best two bucks you spent all week.
Guaranteed.
All right, Robert.
I know I saw some of the other...
I started reading some of the other lawsuits.
I read the hemp lawsuit.
Okay.
The only one that I can ask a reasonable question about...
This was a lawsuit that was challenging legislation that prohibited the commerce of hemp as relates to smokable products, not as relates to clothing and other products.
And this hemp companies challenged it, saying you can't regulate a certain aspect of commerce as relates to this product, but not others.
From what I understand, lower court said the regulation is unlawful.
And the appellate court, I forget what state it was in now, said...
No, it was not unlawful, Texas.
We can, in fact, regulate a certain product for commerce as relates to consumption through smoking versus consumption through wearing.
Why is it a meaningful court ruling?
So it was the it's about the degree because this is a Texas Supreme Court in the quest.
It had a lot of good language in it about you have a right to pursue your occupation, a right to pursue your profession, a right to pursue your calling.
That's very good language that would be helpful in a lot of other cases.
Texas Supreme Court has struck down, I think it was like eyebrow something or other, licensure requirements as being ridiculous in restricting the right to pursue your occupation.
This is an area of law that has been pushed down by the courts for about a century.
The great judge-based stickman.
Relied upon it in striking down originally the lockdowns that were being imposed.
So that's the good part of the decision.
The second part is a debatable one.
But what they highlighted is you have to be pursuing a lawful occupation.
And smoking hemp is not a lawful occupation in Texas.
So consequently, that was not limiting your right to pursue your occupation because that's limited to lawful occupations and historically smokable hemp.
Creating it and selling it has not been a lawful occupation in the state of Texas, much like gambling and some other things.
It might someday become one, but you don't have a constitutional right under the Texas state constitution to pursue it.
I do draw a distinction at whether it's smoking or consuming.
Things that go into your body should be subject to...
Apparently, I guess you could do the brownies because I guess that's not limited.
You didn't say anything about brownies.
No, but as far as I understood, smoking the hemp...
It had nothing to do with an effect, right?
It just had to do with an alternative tobacco product?
There's no THC or whatever in the hemp.
Smokable hemp?
I think they have other intentions with it.
I just kind of assumed.
It seemed like a pot smoker case in disguise.
I went the other way and I thought it was like an alternative to vaping case in disguise.
Okay.
Oh, hold on.
Though the FDA is shutting down Juul, I don't know enough about it, but I know it's triggering controversy.
A federal court has already stopped it from going forward for the time being.
We'll see.
And then, of course, the Biden administration is apparently launching raids on people for supporting Trump's election challenge.
I don't know enough about the cases.
I just know that it's happening.
No, no, and that's it.
And I got, well, the James O 'Keefe was, there was no news about the FBI raid.
They're just, I think that they want to.
What was it?
It was something did come out about it, though.
Oh, I know.
The diary was never stolen.
So the FBI probably lied in the probable cause affidavits to get the affidavit to even execute those searches against James O 'Keefe and Project Veritas in the first place.
The FBI doing something unlawful, Robert?
Who knew?
Call me silly.
There's a line of U.S. Supreme Court cases.
They decided that Miranda's not a constitutional right.
It's just a guideline as to how to avoid violating a constitutional right so that you have no right to bring in a 1983 suit if somebody violates your Miranda rights.
I disagree with that decision, but that ship has now sailed.
I agreed with the dissent.
The dissent's point was Miranda is a constitutional right, has been called a constitutional right.
It's a means of enforcing a constitutional right.
Pretending it's not really a constitutional right is undermining the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.
Or being compelled to be just a witness against yourself.
People forget, I agree with Justice Thomas, that's beyond just verbal testimony in my view, but the rest of the court hasn't gone along with him yet.
It's obviously named Miranda after the case.
Why is it called Miranda?
What was the case?
Miranda v.
State of Arizona.
And it basically just said that if you didn't give certain warnings, it would be presumed that you coerced the testimony.
So the question was, okay, you don't give those warnings.
You then use the testimony against the person.
Can the person sue under 1983 grounds?
The court said, nah.
So, you know, I'm not a fan of that decision.
But it had a bunch of those.
I mean, gutting Bivens' rights for a bunch of people.
And there was people who were saying that they had said it was now legal to do some of those things I was described in the Bivens case we described last week.
Still not legal.
They just said you as a person, if you're the one injured by it, you can't sue and get remedy until Congress changes the law.
So I think they should change the 1983 laws to make clear that violation of Miranda is in fact a 1983 violation.
But this just encourages police and prosecutorial misconduct.
How about at one point you say there's judicial knowledge to STFU when you get arrested by...
If you don't know it, live with the consequences.
Two rumble rants, actually.
Hold on a second.
Facts matter.
People.
YouTube hates free speech.
Come to rumble.
Barnes, how many people have finally admitted you were right on Russia?
I'm going to go with zero.
Oh, no, there's a few that have come around that were really sincere pursuing the issue.
They accepted the institutional narrative.
And as people are witnessing it, well, I mean, honestly, as I discussed with the Duran this past week, there is a deep, deep state divide.
And it's playing out on our newspapers.
New York Times saying one thing, Washington Post saying another thing, CNN saying one thing, Sky News now saying something else.
Because even the more intelligent members of the deep state realize this is not going the way as planned.
The delusional folks are still marching onward.
They now want to ban gold, ban the sale of gold from Russia.
I mean, it's easy to get gold in.
That won't hurt Russia at all.
Just allow some middlemen to get a little extra cash or China to get it a little cheaper than normal.
But yeah, no surprises there.
But yeah, people can watch the Duran.
I think we were on for like about three hours.
It was a lot of fun, great conversation.
Robert, I was jogging and I realized I'm running 18 full minutes.
You may have taken a breath, but my goodness, it was the fastest 18 minutes I've ever jogged.
But hold on.
Everyone can go watch the Duran.
And we both encourage you to mightily subscribe, follow them on Locals.
But Robert, just if you could, go into that a little bit.
The deep state divide, that there's one part of the government that wants this to end immediately with the smoothest off-ramp possible.
There's another part that does not want this to end ever.
And they're battling it out in the media, in the court of public opinion, in the public messaging.
If you could flesh that out just for a few minutes, because people need to understand.
And there's a middle group that wants some sort of exit ramp at some point, but wants to see how much money they can squeeze out before then.
So the State Department folks, the George Soros crowd, they want the war to go on forever.
The Treasury crowd and the finance and Wall Street crowd want an exit ramp now because they're in big economic trouble in the West, including the United States.
The Fed came out and said inflation may get to double digits officially, which probably means 20% plus using the statistical methods we used in the 70s, which means worse than the 70s inflation.
So they just want an exit ramp out of here now.
No more sanction problems, self-imposed punishment ongoing.
And then in the middle of the Defense Department, which knows that Ukraine's not going to win the war, so they don't want to be blamed for it, so they would like an exit ramp at some point, but they would like to cash in as much as they could for the military-industrial complex and defense lobbyists in the interim.
It's amazing, but I gotta tell you, I don't know how many, like, what is the method?
What goes on where sex bots come in and put Kurt and Joe's face?
Banning?
I wonder what Kurt's been up to.
But I don't even blame him, unless Joe's been up to it too.
They want to talk about banning buying gold from Russia.
Robert, I got to ask the question.
How stupid does anybody have to be to think that that's going to resolve anything?
I mean, it'll have no impact.
It just, you know, Russia will just shift it around other ways.
It was like all the oil.
I mean, some oil wasn't banned, some was.
All you do is if you're Russia, you put in 49%, somebody mixes 51%, or they just say that's the case, because how are you going to really tell?
And it just comes back in anyway.
I mean, it's a waste of...
That's what the New York Times article today said.
You know, the...
Yeah, I think it was today, or maybe it was yesterday, said this has all failed.
All these efforts have backfired.
Russia's doing better than ever.
The Ukraine war is a disaster, and the West is sinking fast.
But the political leaders are still kind of cray-cray.
So yeah, it was fun.
I was on the Duran.
I was on with Jackson Hinkle.
Comes more from a left position.
Buddies with Jimmy Dore, but that was a fun conversation.
And then Freeform Friday might have been the best fun of all with Mark Robert and Eric Hundley, which you can find in America's Untold Stories.
Copperfagy, people.
Copperfagy.
Don't look up.
Now, speaking of various Supreme Court other cases.
So they did say yes to the right for a prisoner to bring a 1983 claim challenging a particularly gruesome method of execution.
So what they did basically is they said, if you're challenging your sentence.
Or you're challenging your conviction.
That has to go through the habeas process.
So there was another case where a defendant wanted a court to allow him to be transported for the purposes of developing medical evidence in support of a habeas claim.
Supreme Court said, nah, All Ritz Act doesn't.
People will often send me stuff that says, hey, the All Ritz Act says the courts can do whatever they want.
They routinely gut that law all the time, unfortunately.
But they did so again here.
They said you have to already have your evidence even to request the ability to get your evidence.
God bless the Supreme Court for that nonsense.
But at least they did say if it's method of execution, that you can bring a 1983 claim for because that's not challenging your sentence.
That's not challenging your conviction.
So that was a trilogy of cases that came out in the last two weeks.
The state of Washington provided special workers' compensation provisions for federal workers who were working on nuclear cleanup in the state of Washington.
U.S. Supreme Court struck that down because under the Supremacy Clause on the grounds that it provided special benefits to federal workers that did not apply to other workers within the state.
So those workers got screwed on their workers' comp.
Good ruling.
They said a robbery under the Hobbs Act, which does not require you to commit as an element of the crime, commit an act of violence, does not count for all the violence enhancements under federal criminal law.
This is good because what the courts had been doing before this...
Is they've been analogizing crimes, not requiring it be an element of the offense and say, this is kind of like a violent offense, so we're going to jack up your sentence even if you committed no violence and there was no element of the crime that required you to commit violence.
And the court's saying, no, if the element doesn't require violence, you can't enhance a person's sentence on it.
So that was a good decision.
Interesting split on Medicare reimbursement, which is all about poor people's hospitals getting funding from Medicare functionally.
The analysis was a hyper, highly technical statutory analysis due to the absurdly, what the court itself called an unbelievably complex set of Medicare reimbursement rules.
What's interesting is the split.
I think because the impact, because the statute you could argue either way, because the impact was on hospitals in poor areas, Justice Thomas and Justice Barrett joined the three liberals and said, let's make sure they interpreted the statute to allow more funding to hospitals that serve poor people.
The four conservatives argued it was a strict other conservatives, or three conservatives along with Roberts.
So Roberts and Kavanaugh, the corporatist, and then Gorsuch and Alito, the more...
Libertarian, corporate-friendly conservatives, frankly, just didn't care about the hospitals.
Said, no, we shouldn't be good.
The law doesn't allow that.
But credit to Justice Thomas for, in my view, voting the right way.
The law was clearly ambiguous enough.
You might as well vote for poor people's hospitals to get a little more money rather than other insurers.
And then, oh, there was a case that was misinterpreted on the voter ID cases.
There was a meme that went out and said, eight to one decision.
Supreme Court says voter ID is legitimate.
No, it had nothing to do with that.
It was about whether the legislatures have a right to intervene when laws like voter ID laws are being challenged by a bunch of Democrats, usually, in a court.
And the U.S. Supreme Court said, yes, the legislatures.
Do have a right to intervene to protect their interests in making sure the litigation surrounding that issue is fairly and fully litigated, consistent with their intention in passing the law in the first place.
And that wraps up the Supreme Court.
Now, apparently they saved a few cases for Monday.
So it looks like there's a few last cases, including a big EPA case, some other cases that may come out tomorrow.
But then that should be a wrap, and that'll be the end of the Supreme Court for this term until the fall.
Okay, that's interesting.
Now, I'm just thinking of one question I had about banning Russian gold.
Will that not have the effect of increasing the price in gold?
A lot of people think so.
Well, people, stay tuned.
There might be the second sponsored video stream at some point early next week.
Might be on point.
Speaking of dumb laws, we discussed it briefly last week, but we said we'd get to the rest of it this week.
The rent control provisions in Minneapolis are being challenged as a violation of due process, as a rule that has no rational basis, as a law that's actually counterproductive and is an unconstitutional takings, as well as a violation of the state preemption principles under Minnesota state law.
And what they point out, what's really interesting in the case, and I put it up on our locals board, the highlighted version of the case, which people can find there, is that if you dig into it...
What you find with rent control is that it mostly doesn't produce any of the outcomes liberals claim.
In fact, it's almost all counterproductive, as is already happening in Minneapolis.
They've already lost massive amounts of real estate investment, new projects that were online, number one.
Number two, they're already seeing major property devaluations.
And three...
What's happening with rent is it allows the existing rent holders, and often disproportionately over time, those are upscale rent holders, to gentrify and get the disparate benefit.
And what happens is you look at where rent control takes place and what you find is a lack of new development, which leads to stratified, gentrified housing patterns that discriminates disproportionately against the poor and the working class and favors the affluent.
So their point is it doesn't even meet rational basis.
Their second point is that it's a takings because it doesn't have the exceptions that other rent control laws have.
So even when the person moves out, you're not allowed to change the rent.
And they're saying not only is this going to crush the local real estate development here, particularly for more affordable rent, but it's also going to, is a taking because it deprives them of the value of their property without meaningful compensation under the Fifth Amendment enforceable against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The question will be whether the regulation truly devalues the property by enough to constitute a taking.
Well, here's my question, because how would it result in gentrification if at the same time it results in devaluation of the property?
Because if someone says...
That's what's interesting.
What happens is you get upper middle class people who get cheaper rent, which in turn devalues the value of the property of the landholder, landowner.
Okay.
Makes sense?
Well, yeah, I mean, kind of.
And basically, there would be no exception even if the land...
It's welfare for rich renters.
That's the short answer.
It comes at the expense of the economic value of the landowner.
No, we have it in Quebec because in Quebec, you can only increase the rent a certain percentage every year if you justify it based on improvements to the building.
Even if you do, the tenant can contest it.
Even if it's 2.5%, whatever, they can contest it.
You go to the Régis du Logement, which is the...
Oh, the administrative body for rent control.
And the tenant, the landlord has to prove the justification for the rent increase.
The headache itself is enough to deter anybody from doing it because you just don't do it.
What ends up happening?
You get a bunch of fortunate people who stay in there and lock in the prices.
The landlord has no incentive to improve the property, to do anything.
They have incentive to fabricate reasons to evict the entire building so they can then do some changes and then...
Either change the destination of the building.
It screws everybody.
But above all else, I would have invested in real estate, residential real estate, but for these laws because it's a headache and an absolute pain in the ass in every sense possible.
Robert, one of my longest trials was at the rental board because an affluent individual claimed that there was mold in a property and was suing for damages even after the individual had left the property.
We ended up spending...
12 or 15 days in front of the rental board.
Nuts, nuts, and nuts.
And this guy's like, this was just an inheritance.
All that I wanted to was make, you know, earn some money off of it.
Every dollar I made in rent over two years was eaten up in litigation fees and cost experts, experts up the wazoo.
Speaking of the First Amendment case, there's a First Amendment suit.
And against the art therapy program, I think it's the Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville.
It may be a fire organization, the organization that supports free speech more consistently these days than the ACLU does.
And what happened was they misinterpreted, as some other people have done recently in another context, how discriminatory harassment rules work.
So it's a university, so they're covered by the First Amendment.
And their rules, actually, if you looked at them, were probably designed by a lawyer to make sure they were First Amendment consistent, which said you can't harass someone for discriminatory purposes directed at them that creates an objectively reasonable fear for their well-being, right?
So the classic, you know, little quasi-commy university administrators with all the lefty art therapy people were mad that one of their art therapy students was conservative.
And she voiced on social media her conservative opinions on BLM, on the Rittenhouse trial, on a range of matters.
So they complain and they have an anonymous process.
They don't go through due process.
They don't provide notice.
Instead, they just out of the blue issue in order to this student, conservative student, that she has been in violation of the rules and she can't have contact with people and she basically better self-censor, etc.
The moment they get a letter from the lawyer.
Because she hires a lawyer for this organization.
All of a sudden they say, oh, we apologize.
Sorry, we take all that back.
Because, of course, if you actually looked at their rules, they were interpreting their rules to prevent any harmful speech, any offensive speech, but legally that speech that is protected by the First Amendment, and that's not what the rules actually provided for.
Whoever drafted the rules understood there's a difference between discriminatory harassment directed at an individual to create a reasonable sense of fear, otherwise known as stalking in many legal contexts, versus you don't like what somebody said on social media.
But to her credit, went forward because of what took place to deter it from happening again to anyone else.
They brought a federal civil rights suit on those grounds, and so we'll see how it goes.
And for people who have been asking about the discriminatory harassment provisions of the Rumble Rules, those rules are just proposed.
You can go to rumblerules at rumble.com if you have ideas, additions, edits, suggestions, recommendations, etc.
Now, if you're a race-grifting, race-baiting, fraudulent bum known as Andrew Torba at Gab, Then you can just shove off.
But for those of you who have to have sincere concerns, you can voice them through that email process.
Robert, that is such a pro-Zionist thing to say, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
No, I'm a Shabbos Goy.
He called me Shabbos Goy.
All these people want to defend this guy.
Why is he constantly using references to Judaism for his arguments?
It's because he's either a bigot...
Or a grifter?
Or both?
And in my experience, Andrew Torba, the CEO of Gab, who censors people all the time, by the way, doesn't respect free speech at all at Gab, repeatedly strips people he doesn't like.
He just wants a safe space for haters and race grifters and race baiters like he is.
I had one question.
The thing is, I don't want to give him more attention than he did.
No, that's going to be all my wrap-up.
I might occasionally put out some...
It's different stories related to Torba over the years, his involvement with fraudsters, his involvement with criminals, his involvement with felons, his involvement with people with very disgusting personal habits.
Just to point out to people and remind them who he is, but that's all I have to say about the Rumble matter.
Now, Torba is a based Catholic.
No, he's not.
He's a fake Christian.
No real Christian talks like he does.
I don't believe he's an honest, honorable Christian at all.
He doesn't deserve to put that label.
He defames the name Christian by sticking the name label next to his name.
And I have no comment there except to say maybe he thought it was funny to refer to me as Jewish lawyer David Freiheit in one message and then shapeshifter in another.
But my question is only this, Robert.
He is deliberately misunderstanding the debate.
For the purposes of framing it around hate speech, which is illegal in Canada.
And if you don't like it, don't do business in Canada.
And that's one of the problems about Canadian law.
If Bill C-11 passes through with the hate speech, with the potential gender identification being potential hate speech in Canada, people might just say, we're not doing business in Canada.
And then Canada might become a de facto North Korea, not through any repressive tyrannical laws, just through...
Repressive, tyrannical laws that deter business.
My question and only question is this.
Actually, before I even get there.
Hate speech under the United States is not recognized.
And so the awful but lawful, save and accept for targeted harassment, which is otherwise criminal, is awful but lawful in the States.
Hate speech in Canada, different criteria for companies that operate in different jurisdictions.
My question is one question only.
Can you go on Gab and threaten to kill somebody?
Specific?
Can you do it?
Oh, you probably can, because he's selective.
He likes hate, as a general rule.
Hate is fine, but if you say something he doesn't like on something else, you can get suddenly disappeared from Gab.
You can just Google it, or search it with any search engine you want, Brave or anything else.
There's a long litany of people who've been suddenly and summarily censored and suspended from Gab for no reason at all, while there's also a bunch of people that are just complete.
Race-hating, race-baiting, race-grifting, illicit incitement, criminal behavior, who are free to reign freely on Gab, depending on the circumstances.
So in his rules, he doesn't provide notice.
He doesn't provide opportunity.
He didn't provide a participatory process.
The guy's not only a race-grifter, he's a fraud when it comes to free speech.
And not, and not.
And by the way, he started all this.
He decided to attack me, to attack you, attack him the way he did.
You know, if you don't want to fight, don't start it.
And I don't mind it.
I'll protect his right to do it.
But I would venture to say one thing.
You cannot go on Gab and threaten to kill somebody.
And therefore, one of two things is true.
Either Gab itself is not a free speech platform, or they're breaking the law.
So it's damned if you do.
It's damned one way, damned the other.
And I don't care about getting...
I've been called worse.
One of my...
I don't harp on these things.
At one point in my life, I was working at a sports shop where the owner told me not to speak English on the floor because it upset the French-Canadian clientele.
I don't think he was right.
I didn't play victim.
I just quit and found another place to work.
At one point in Quebec City, I went to a pro-Palestinian discussion because it was during the second intifada, I think, if I've got the dates right.
And I was just raising arguments as to, Why there's an impasse in the Middle East.
And then one person looked at me and said, The guy over there who's clearly pro-Israel, if he's not a Jew himself, I don't care about these things.
I move on.
I don't care what we call the Jewish lawyer.
I just want to understand one thing.
Are you allowed to go on Gab and threaten to kill somebody?
Because if you're not, even Gab is not...
Free speech.
Because people are misunderstanding free speech from protected speech.
And if you are allowed to go on gab and threaten to kill somebody, it's a platform that allows for unlawful activity.
And hey, if you don't like the laws, petition your legislature.
Yeah, exactly.
And in the U.S., discriminatory behavior, harassment, stalking, doxing, defaming, not legal either.
So the things that are, like people ask questions, can you be on, and people would.
I don't know whether they were sincere or not, but people were asking, on Rumble, can you be critical of Israel?
Glenn Greenwald is one of the biggest people on Rumble, and he's one of the harshest critics of Israel in the entire country in the public policy arena.
So the answer is clearly you can be.
Can you question the politics of transgender identity?
There's tons of people who do that.
What you can't do is use it to violate the law.
You can't target people in the United States, that is.
You can't target an individual and go after them and try to discriminate against them, harass them, and stalk them, and put in them an objectively reasonable fear of their well-being.
But that's what it means.
It doesn't mean all this other nonsense.
Just because you have people in some parts of America that have misconstrued the discrimination rules to mean something they never did.
But if you're out there and you think the rules can be written better, that's why they're not permanent.
That's why they're not even established yet.
These are just proposed rules.
Review it on Rumble's site.
Go to Rumble and then email at rumblerules at rumble.com and say, here's where I see a problem.
Here's where I think it's going to be better.
That's the participatory process that Rumble is using that is unique in all the social media space.
And I like our community, what we call community review.
Trusted content creators who are going to make sure that it's not turning into a YouTube radicalized sort of politicized platform.
Here, David, Torba is implying Canada's laws will, I think you meant, alter the rumble content available to Americans more than Google or Google or Google.
It doesn't.
It doesn't.
It follows American law.
It's the same thing Musk said.
It's going to follow the law in the jurisdiction you're in.
So wherever you're at, that jurisdiction's law is governed.
And to Viva's point, if you don't like...
Where you live, the laws where you live, change the laws where you live.
Don't ask Rumble to break the law and be kicked out of that jurisdiction.
But in America, it would be America's laws that govern.
That's why they're written.
The rules are written exactly the way they're written.
And that's what I was having in discussion with another lawyer.
I said, why not just say it's unlawful?
Unlawful content will not be tolerated.
Well, it's good to illustrate what types of unlawful content exist within this.
Yes, people want transparency about that.
Yeah, because that was Torba's point.
Me being a shape-shifting Jew lawyer have nothing to do with that.
But it's fine.
It's fun.
Maybe he's trying to illustrate how free speech Gab is.
And by the way, I told Torba, or like I said in the message, dude, I don't even think he should be kicked off of Twitter if that was a tweet he made on Twitter.
He wants to be a jerk or he wants to be funny and edgy.
He wants Gab to be the safe space for hate and hate alone.
That's who he is.
That's what he is.
And pretending he's anything else is a lie.
And the funny thing is, talking about Christians and Catholics and religious, I was in the park, it was yesterday, and I came across someone who I thought I recognized, but lo and behold, they were not from my end of the religious spectrum.
They were actually Church of Latter-day Saints proselytizing individuals, going around and talking to people.
We had a great conversation.
I said, you have no luck in proselytizing me because I'm not godless.
I'm of all gods, but we had a great conversation.
One brief point where Russia's law is horrible is they hate Jehovah's Witnesses.
They did some more laws recently that discriminate against Jehovah's Witnesses.
That's up to Russia, but that's another place where their laws are bad.
There's only two other cases ahead.
One was...
The good folks at Hen Harbor in the city of Santa Cruz have been defending chickens and birds for many times, have been constantly harassed by the animal welfare unit in Santa Cruz, went in and tried to steal a bunch of their birds to kill them, that kind of behavior.
It's amazing how many of these animal rescue people end up not rescuing anybody out of the government.
And because she had been publicly critical of them, they continued to harass her.
She filed a First Amendment suit, amongst other claims, against what they've been doing to her.
And they said, well, we didn't succeed in shutting her up, so she shouldn't have a First Amendment claim.
And the court denied their motion to dismiss this week and said, it's whether you're trying to do so and whether a reasonable person would, in fact, feel pressured to shut their mouths.
You can't punish someone for refusing to shut their mouths and deny them their civil remedy that they're entitled to under the civil rights laws.
When you were violating those laws in the first place.
So credit to Han Harbor.
Credit to the court.
Hopefully that case marches forward and reaffirms that critical principle that you don't have to lose your rights to assert your rights.
And then the only last one is...
Wait, wait, wait.
Before you even get there, let me do this one because this is a deep question.
I am a pro-Second Amendment.
For Robert, if someone has documented mental health issues, do you see the issue of limiting access to obtain a gun?
If criminals cannot have guns, why should mental health persons...
Not cleared by doctor.
Well, and here's the problem.
If you're a vet, say, that you should get mental health, but maybe there's a stigma around it, mental health treatment.
If now you know you could lose your gun rights and self-defense rights, if you go to a therapist, are you going to do it?
That's all this ever does.
It discourages and deters people from needing help from getting it.
That's why I oppose it entirely.
And talking about an analogy to Canada, the government gives you this free mental health app.
While simultaneously staying, we're going to go enact some more gun laws.
Download the app.
See when they come to your door to protect you from yourself or to protect others from yourself.
If they know you have a gun, which they will know because in Quebec there's a registry, and for small arms there's a registry across Canada.
So, point well taken, Robert.
Sorry, what was the last case that I'm going to bring up some chats while we do it?
The people have been wondering.
You know, there's these cattle deaths, what's going on out there, meat prices.
Major class action lawsuit filed against Cargill.
And Tyson Foods, remember Tyson kind of sounds like the Tyson of the Nazi company that had a similar sounding name.
Just pointing that out.
That they have been engaged in a massive cartel to manipulate meat prices in America for the last half decade.
That there have been patterns that a lot of people that have looked at it say don't make any sense, that look like monopolistic abusive conduct by Tyson and Cargill.
And now some whistleblowers have come forward and said they've seen the documents, they've seen the information.
A high-quality firm has brought the case that is alleging massive criminal behavior, really, by Tyson Foods, but the lawsuit is civil.
For their attempt to fix meat prices in America by manipulating the available supply of cattle and meat in America because of their disparate monopolistic control over the marketplace in this area.
So very interesting suit.
You know, it might be because I'm on a Tyson Foods legal news alert that it came across my board.
But interesting case.
Never forgive and never forget.
Hold the line, Robert.
I think Tyson is up there.
And by the way, people.
You're not going to eat bugs unless the cost of meat gets too high.
It might be part of a scheme.
Bugs are not bad, by the way.
I was eating bugs before it was cool.
We found a great Mexican restaurant at the Jantelon Market that sold dried crickets and dried grasshoppers.
And the kids actually liked them.
To that super chat, you know, the clearly disgraceful behavior by the school safety response system, police and others in Uvalde.
The sad situation is, watch the only people who have been sued so far.
The gun company that makes the gun.
Not the politicians.
Not the school officials.
Not the safety folks.
Not the police.
Not anyone else.
That's where the focus should be.
Sadly, so far, it has not been in terms of civil litigation.
Someone says, Viva, how did Quebec just ignore the Supreme Court ruling about the long gun registry, by the way?
I actually don't know because Quebec is the only province in Canada that still has a long gun registry, the rifle registry.
And I don't know.
If it was left to the provinces or overridden, I mean, I would be shocked if they're defying a Supreme Court ruling.
Somebody in the chat says, Barnes doesn't know the law.
Gun manufacturers can't be sued.
Yes, they just were.
Go back and see Remington, Sandy Hook.
They paid a huge, wrote a big check.
I agree with you.
Federal law says they're not supposed to be sued, but the courts aren't enforcing that federal law, so they are being sued.
So, by the way, if you're going to chat and say I don't know something, you should probably know something yourself.
By the way, anybody who chats and says Robert doesn't know something, lesson learned.
It's amazing how they get it wrong.
You've got to be at least a little bit right.
It was like Torba talking about Gab had high IQ.
I got all these emails from people from Gab.
Proving they were probably some of the lowest IQ people I've ever interacted with in my life.
I mean, I almost felt dumber just by talking to them.
Some of them were sending me stuff like, you should learn about the lockdowns.
Do you understand the lockdowns were bad?
Do you understand that there's problems with the vaccines?
It's like, I'm the lead lawyer in the country on most of those categories, Nimrod.
At least Google me before you take the time to write me an email.
Robert, on that note, what do we have coming up this week?
Wednesday's going to be good.
Yes, the one, the only, Jacob Drazen.
It's going to be on to break down the military analysis.
He speaks Russian, speaks Ukrainian.
You can find him at the Drazen Report, D-R-E-I-Z-I-N, online.
But we're going to break it down, have a good sort of conversation on his own understanding, his background.
But he's been following everything in Ukraine for a decade.
He's predicted pretty much everything right.
I only have one grievance with him.
He didn't let me know about his stock investment idea in a Canadian fertilizer company about a year ago.
It was a Canadian one that he turned five grand into a quarter of a million on.
So he's actually made money with his predictions.
Other people have made money on his predictions.
He's been the most accurate.
Analyst in the Ukrainian context by a long mile.
He's a big Trump fan.
He's a big Let's Go Brandon fan.
So he'll be a fun guy to chat with.
Lives in the D.C. area.
Has a military background and a good language speaking background.
Am I an idiot?
Or is it Dreizen?
Like Dreizen?
Like 13 in German?
I've heard him pronounce it Dreizen.
Okay.
I always thought it was Dreizen.
But I was on his email list.
It wasn't until I heard him talk.
And apparently it's Dreizen.
Okay, I immediately hear Dreizen, like 13 in German.
So that's Wednesday.
And then throughout the week, who knows?
Yeah, there'll be a bunch of stuff on...
Last week was a busy week for me.
This week will just be Bourbon with Barnes, Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday nights at 9 p.m.-ish New York time.
There'll be a couple of hush-hushes up.
There'll be a new hush-hush on Watergate.
There'll be a new hush-hush on MKUltra.
Another new hush-hush probably on the Kennedy assassination based on some new information that Mark Robert and others have apprised me of.
And then next Sunday, I'll be back two Sundays from now.
I take off Friday for the July 4th weekend, then have a work trip.
And so we won't be here this coming Sunday, but we'll all be back the Sunday after that.
All right, I'm going to get two rumble rants.
Daddy Dragon says, Putin was rushed to the Kremlin.
I think it was because of the 80-plus Polish soldiers killed by Russian missile in Ukraine.
The question is, why were Polish NATO soldiers there?
And then we got Amaru says, groomer teachers will get your young impressionable child to elect to chemically do something to themselves.
Okay, well, thank you for the rumble rant, Amaru.
And just so people know also.
I will read Rumble Rants without necessarily endorsing them or agreeing with them, but I thank everyone for the support.
And that's what it means to be on the Viva Barnes Locals community.
Yes, I read every single...
If you want to reach me or communicate with our way above average audience, introduce me to the great film They Live this week, which was great.
I had no idea that's where a lot of the memes come from.
Oh, yeah.
The VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
I read every single post, and I usually...
Like them to signify that I've read them doesn't mean I always agree with them.
But it's a great community.
In fact, I'll be on the live chat there after the show in a little bit.
And some funny comments.
I don't mind eating new things.
I will not give up meat.
Period.
Robert, amazing show.
Fantastic show.
Everyone, thank you for being there.
Thank you for tuning in.
I'll be going live throughout the week.
I want to try not to go live at the exact same time you're going live with the Duran.
Oh, yeah.
Well, I'm not on any other shows this week.
I was on Jackson, he called a Duran, Nick Rickey to Freeform Friday, but I'll only be at vivabarneslaw.locals.com other than our Wednesday show.
By the way, I'm such an idiot.
I feel bad about it forever, but Robert is a man who is as understanding as he is intelligent, which makes for a good relationship among adults.
Robert, stick around.
We'll say our proper goodbyes.
Everyone in the chat.
Snip, clip, and share away.
I know some people enjoyed one of Barnes' earlier rants from the show.
Clips are going to go on Viva Clips.
And stay tuned for Wednesday, big news, and more live streams next week.
Export Selection