Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 13, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:09:14

Ep. 148: Post-Superbowl Viva & Barnes LAW FOR THE PEOPLE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The behavior of the extreme MAGA Republicans speaks for itself.
	And I'm confident that the overwhelming majority of the American people found that aggressive, childish, petulant behavior by the extreme MAGA Republicans who were yelling and screaming on the floor of the House during President Biden's State of the Union address to be distasteful.
	The behavior of the extreme MAGA Republicans speaks for itself.
	And I'm confident that the overwhelming majority of the American people found there.
	Am I projecting?
	Do I have a chip on my shoulder?
	Or does it actually look like he's laughing at how stupid he must think everyone around him is to buy into this rubbish?
	Do I have a chip on my shoulder?
	Is this my oppositional defiance disorder manifesting itself as an adult?
	He looks like he's laughing at me.
	He looks like he's laughing at anyone who is stupid enough to believe the diarrhea that is coming out of his mouth.
	That aggressive, childish, petulant behavior.
	I can't believe they're buying this.
	Are people actually buying this?
	By the extreme MAGA Republicans who were yelling and screaming on the floor of the House during President Biden's State of the Union address to be distasteful.
	Distasteful.
	Distasteful!
	Distasteful, Mr. Hakeem Jeffries.
	Kind of like tearing up the State of the Union address, front and center behind the president?
	That type of distasteful?
	Now, I will actually agree.
	In part, although I've heard compelling arguments...
	For why it's not my initial polite Canadian reflex.
	Just reading some of the chats.
	I don't think it's the proper thing to do.
	Only because it allows the hypocritical jackassery of the other side to pull the moral high ground because nobody has a bloody memory anymore.
	Or they just don't care that they're the biggest flagrant hypocrites.
	On God's green earth.
	Like, people don't remember Nancy Pelosi tearing up the State of the Union speech while this buffoon lectures the rest of the world on what's distasteful and what's not.
	So that's the only reason, tactically.
	Strategically save the jeers, even though it is the floor of democracy, and democracy means the right of the people and politicians to openly express their scorn for a pathologically demented, dishonest president.
	I've heard compelling arguments for both sides.
	My main argument as to why don't do it?
	Just because you give the fodder to the flagrant, relentless hypocrites.
	To take the moral high ground.
	Now they get to say, that's distasteful.
	But when Nancy Pelosi's rubbing her fists together like she's trying to turn coal into gold, tears up the speech.
	Okay.
	I'm late.
	I was late because Google Maps is screwing with me.
	I've gotten to a point now where it's like the fabuleux destin d 'Amélie Poulain.
	I think everything is screwing with me.
	The banks.
	Visa.
	I have car insurance on the Visa.
	They can't seem to figure out a claim for the windshield, so I paid it out of pocket, and now I've got to go after Visa to get reimbursed.
	My bank, Verizon.
	Someone's trying to make me think I'm going crazy.
	And I had to pee so badly that being late for the stream tonight, I don't like being late.
	I had a vested interest to be back here at 5.30 because I had to pee like a racehorse when I first left my live interview with Dave Rubin this afternoon at the local studio.
	Ho!
	Okay, anyways, I made it back and I did not wet myself.
	I did not pee myself.
	Okay, and now Barnes is in the backdrop and I can see him laughing.
	But before we get started with Barnes, because he is undoubtedly...
	There will be Amos milk jokes tonight.
	There's no question about that.
	But this stream has an official sponsor.
	And it's Field of Greens.
	Now, are we seeing the Field of Greens?
	We are seeing the Field of Greens.
	Now, you can enjoy that beautiful screen while I tell you about Field of Greens.
	Junk science.
	That's what the doctor called many of those fruits and vegetable supplements.
	Junk science because they use extracts.
	How many times have I told you this, people?
	Extracts of common produce.
	Extracts.
	Field of Greens is not an extract.
	Field of Greens is whole organic fruit and vegetable, not a watered-down supplement, and it's backed by Better Health Promise.
	Each ingredient in Field of Greens was scientifically chosen to support vital organs like heart, lungs, kidney, bladder.
	They don't have the bladder in here.
	Others support autoimmune, blood pressure, metabolism, and healthy...
	Look, I've been telling you about this, people.
	Everybody knows you have to have a lot of fruits and vegetables, five to seven doses a day, and most people don't have that.
	I happen to eat so much vegetables, I have evidence for eating too much vegetables, TMI.
	Most people don't.
	A healthy alternative to that bad energy drink or the Coke or the whatever, one spoonful twice a day will give you nutrients, antioxidants, all of the good stuff.
	Where's my...
	Darn it.
	It's no longer on my desk.
	Field of Greens is desiccated fruits and vegetables.
	It's not an extract.
	It's not a supplement.
	It's USDA organic, made in America.
	Not enough people eat healthy.
	Get some healthy habits.
	Field of Greens is one of them.
	Go to fieldofgreens.com.
	Use promo code VIVA.
	You'll get 15% off your order.
	VIVAfieldofgreens.com.
	And it's good.
	It is a healthy...
	Alternative to the bad habits, which I'm still having trouble shaking.
	But I get my fruits and vegetables in raw format and desiccated, desiccated format.
	Fieldofgreens.com.
	Promo code VIVA.
	The link is in the description of both Rumble and YouTube.
	Now let me see that we are in fact, we are live on Rumble and YouTube.
	And let me see, I've added the plug on.
	For the Rumble Rants, so I should be able to see them.
	I'm not touching it.
	It's working right now, so I should be able to see this.
	As I bring Barnes in, everybody, you know the rules.
	No legal advice, no medical advice, no election fornification advice.
	We're probably going to talk about all of it.
	What else?
	Rumble Rants, for anybody who wants to support the channel, you can do it in any number of ways.
	You can go to the merch store, vivafry.com, and pick up merch.
	YouTube Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of all Super Chats.
	These little things like these right here.
	Cheryl Gage, thank you very much.
	Would you consider doing a vlog from your car again for old time's sake?
	Maybe, and I'll explain why at some point this week if I do it.
	You know what?
	I'll do one for old time's sake.
	There's a good reason to do it, and it's going to be amazing.
	So YouTube takes 30% of these things.
	Deep breath, Viva.
	Oh, quick and surreptitiously check blood pressure.
	My pulse is still under 60 right now, despite what you might think.
	Thank you very much.
	So YouTube takes 30%.
	If you don't like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has Rumble Rants.
	They take 20%.
	Best place to support us?
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	You can join as a member and not pay, and then you have access to virtually everything, but there's stuff that's exclusive to paying members.
	And if any of you were already a member, you would have seen...
	Maybe if you're a supporter, you would have seen Robert Barnes's Hush Hush on COINTELPRO.
	And we're going to talk about it tonight.
	But I think you would have seen it even if you were a member, but you wouldn't be able to comment unless you're a supporter.
	I forget how it works.
	Okay.
	Robert, get ready.
	3, 2, 1. Robert is back home.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Shout out to all my Chiefs fans out there.
	Also to the subscribers at Sports Picks.
	We had another big, profitable Super Bowl Sunday once again.
	Up a lot of money.
	Made a lot of money.
	Always nice.
	Some folks were sweating it, but those of good faith had no doubt.
	And it was a nice, profitable Super Bowl Sunday, even with the weird show and the kind of boring ads.
	Good game, just as a football game.
	I know some folks have tuned out the NFL after its politicization a few years back.
	But great game.
	A lot of Kansas City, Missouri, old school, conservative state.
	And so, yeah, it was a good Super Bowl Sunday.
	And a testament to Barnes.
	Robert, not to share all of our text messages, I just said, Robert, hypothetically, if I were betting on the game, Who would I bet on?
	LOL.
	Chiefs was your one-word answer.
	I did not bet on the game.
	Probably better off not.
	Can you bet in Florida?
	Is it legal there?
	I don't know.
	I haven't even checked.
	I think it is.
	I think Florida is.
	I lack discipline.
	They make it so hard to get your money out that you end up just pissing it away on random gambling.
	So I just avoid it.
	I don't do it anymore.
	Robert?
	They're making it easier and easier.
	FanDuel, DraftKings, you can just PayPal it in, PayPal it out.
	Less than 24 hour turnaround.
	So it's easier than a lot of the online sportsbooks used to be.
	That's amazing.
	Some of them, like when I invested in crypto through, I won't name the platform and try to make them look bad, but they ask for like a copy of your passport.
	It takes forever.
	Then they give you these forms.
	So I've just stopped entirely.
	But Robert, on our locals community.
	The Hush Hushes are available to everybody, but only supporters can comment?
	Oh, no.
	It's only available to subscribers, period.
	The Hush Hushes are exclusive to subscribers.
	So it's only them.
	There's 68 up.
	We had to put one up yesterday or so, the day before, on Skull and Bones.
	One before that on the Freemasons.
	We'll talk about, and before that, an update on the January 6th ones, which we'll be discussing tonight.
	We got a nice long list, rich list tonight.
	You know, James O 'Keefe, Project Veritas.
	We'll save that for the Rumble portion of the video.
	Given some of the topic matters, same with the Proud Boys, January 6th case, and some developments in that, that if you watch the hush-hushes, you won't be surprised at, but a lot of other folks are still surprised at.
	We have Sidney Watson against the Blaze.
	We have the Brett Favre against Pat McAfee.
	We got the Murdoch trial continues and some continued craziness in that case.
	We have medical spying by insurance companies.
	We have whether the wealth tax is constitutional and whether a recent Ninth Circuit decision opened the door to a federal property tax.
	We got a lawsuit over being...
	Just friended, being stuck in the friend zone over in Singapore.
	Somebody suing for intentional infliction of emotional distress because she was like, no, no, we're just friends.
	We got the Department of Justice and a bunch of states suing Google over its ad tech antitrust violations.
	We got a big First Amendment win for being able to pray during lockdown.
	It's kind of shocking that you have to sue over that, but they did.
	Alec Baldwin may win a major challenge to his criminal charges.
	We got a lot of issues on vaccines being added to the COVID kids list, being the law that passed the House of Representatives to change it so people can travel internationally here.
	It hasn't passed the Senate yet.
	Biden hasn't signed it yet.
	We got doctors being prosecuted either by medical boards or being sued or being even criminally prosecuted for having dissident opinions on issues of hydrology.
	Ivermectin or the vaccines.
	The Arizona election contest has now been fully briefed on the Kerry Lake case, and there's updates on the Attorney General's side as well.
	When can somebody sue for false criminal charges?
	We have a big Second Amendment case against the ATF's attempt to...
	Basically relabel a bunch of guns as short-barreled rifles that now are subject to possible criminal punishment and court-martialing from millions of Americans and members of the military.
	We got the Nord Stream grounds to impeach Joe Biden, given the Seymour Hersh report.
	We got the FBI targeting...
	Traditional conservative Catholics because a liberal media organization told them to do it.
	We have Missouri TransCenter whistleblowers that's raising major legal issues as to whether they were violating rights there in Missouri.
	We got bartenders being threatened with going to prison because they didn't moderate the drinking of their customers.
	We got Meta, Facebook's lawyers.
	Big corporate lawyers being sanctioned, finally, by a court for their discovery, abuses, and violations.
	And the big case, last week's big case was Kim.com.
	We heard from him.
	Thanks for covering his case.
	That was cool.
	This week, the big case, thanks to the members of the board, is Pepsi.
	Where's my jet?
	We'll be discussing that documentary and the legal case about it.
	And last, and maybe least, we got a case about...
	Killer hair.
	When does hair cause cancer?
	Many of the big hair products out there, targeting Black Americans especially, are they whacking them early?
	It turns out L 'Oreal's hair products might look like a Bill Gates vaccine.
	In terms of its medical effects on people, but we'll get to that a little bit later.
	Well, Robert, I guess the question is, what do we even start with on this?
	Let's start with the one that we were supposed to get to last week that we didn't.
	It's Super Bowl Sunday, the day after now, so there's probably been a lot of this.
	The bartenders facing criminal charges for over-serving drinks.
	Now, the case that I read last week, it's not the same one as this week, but a bartender, forget the jurisdiction, a guy shows up and starts drinking at...
	11, like early on in the day, is hammering them back like one after the other within short intervals, has something like, I think it was like 15 double shot drinks over the course of several hours.
	There's video of him, you know, being drunk, gets in a car, gets in a fatal car accident, not for himself, but for others.
	The bartender being pursued criminally for having over-served a patron.
	She should have known serving him that much within such a short period of time could reasonably cause intoxication, whatever.
	I mean, where do you even start making sense of this imposition of an obligation of what is exactly the purpose of many people when they drink in the first place at a bar?
	Where does it end?
	And, you know, other than the fact that everyone has different levels of tolerance, how can this be criminalized for the bartender doing their job?
	That's my concern with it.
	And my concern is the over-criminalization of a wide range of issues.
	When is it a bartender's duty to determine how much a person should drink?
	When is it similarly?
	I mean, are we going to extend this to waiters and waitresses and cooks in restaurants about what people eat?
	Are we going to say, ah, you know what?
	Your weight looks a little bit too big.
	I'm afraid you can't get that ice cream sundae.
	Where do we draw the line here?
	I'm a little concerned that this line is getting away from individual choice and towards state coercive power to dictate to people what to do and what not to do.
	It's in a context people are going to be sympathetic to the government's position because nobody wants drunk drivers out there causing harm, and they know that bars make money off of...
	Serving drunk drivers.
	The same issue was always the drive-thru.
	I always found it funny, the drive-thru liquor stores.
	I was like, just the thing for the drunk on the road when you can't walk into the store, just go to the drive-thru.
	Are they going to shut those down?
	Tennessee, we had a great law.
	It was called the Pass the Beer Law.
	You weren't allowed to have an open alcoholic beverage in your car, but your passenger could.
	The cop pulls you over, you just pass the beer.
	A lot of these things are, I think...
	Over-criminalization, too much state power.
	To me, I mean, there's a bunch of civil laws on the books that prevent a bar from being sued in these contexts.
	Now, some of those are being eroded and challenged.
	We talked about a case in New Mexico, I think, where they're going after a gas station, as I recall, just for letting someone buy alcohol, legally purchased alcohol to an illegal adult of age to purchase.
	I find all this an attempt to use...
	Controversial cases where there's public sympathy for the government's interaction to extend and expand state power and places it has no business to override individual control and allow the state weaponization of the civil justice process or the criminal justice process or the regulatory licensing process.
	They're now using all three to basically control what people are allowed to eat or drink for themselves.
	This should still be an individual choice question, in my view, outside of extreme recklessness situations.
	Well, I'm trying to like steel man the argument, which would be you see someone who's clearly physically intoxicated getting into a car, getting behind the wheel, driving off, and you don't report it.
	And even then, I mean, what would be the obligation under good Samaritan laws?
	I mean, I don't know what would be the obligation of a citizen who knows that someone's drunk versus the bartender who might be under the same circumstances.
	And I also just like imagine at a nightclub, people go to nightclubs deliberately to get shit faced.
	And, and some of them also don't have the same tolerance.
	So now it's going to be presumed as to what the level of tolerance is and whether or not they were over the limit, but not totally drunk and getting into the same type of.
	Yeah, I mean, that sort of depends.
	Some licensing requirements of bars impose that obligation on them.
	And I'm not a fan of the licensure provisions.
	It just strikes me as an attempt to supervise To strip people of individual choice in the name of protecting the public safety.
	And sooner or later, that goes places most people don't like.
	And so I'm always going to come down on the side of individual, as often as possible, individual responsibility, accountability, and control against the state.
	It's how the government asserted its control over our medicines, now trying to assert control over our food.
	It's all the same predicate.
	It's for your safety.
	It's for your security.
	More often than not, it means the end of your liberty.
	And for those who think that this is a dangerous path to go down, as far as what Barnes is talking about, like someone said, it's strict in Canada.
	We recently passed a law, I don't think it's been challenged yet, that makes it...
	There's a presumption of having driven under the influence if you are intoxicated at your destination within a certain period of time of having arrived at your destination.
	And basically, you could have a neighbor that says, I saw my neighbor come in weaving and turning and parked their car and I think they're drunk.
	Come in and test them now.
	And if they're drunk when you test them at home, there's a presumption that you were drunk while you were driving the car because they were trying to counter the defense of, what was it called, bolus drinking, I think?
	If you were not over the limit, you get pulled over and then you chug something down and you say, well, I wasn't drunk then, but I might be drunk now.
	And so we got to anticipate that defense at home.
	So now, even if you're drunk at home, within a certain period of time, if I haven't gotten home, it creates what I think is a wholly unconstitutional presumption of intoxication while driving.
	So slippery slopes become cliffs faster than you know it.
	Robert, I guess, okay.
	So that was the one that we left over from last week.
	Lighthearted.
	We'll start off on a lighthearted one.
	Chinese spy balloons, Robert.
	Because this merges Canada and the US.
	What the hell is going on now?
	Now I'm starting to think it was, in fact, nothing but a distraction so that Joe Biden and now Justin Trudeau can use it to distract from everything else that's going cataclysmically wrong with their respective regimes.
	What has been the latest that we know of now?
	There's been six of these balloons, multiple have been shot down, and we don't know anything, and the government's not talking?
	Yeah, I mean, it's just unidentified flying objects, in terms of at least what we've been told, whether over Canada or Lake Huron.
	And I mean, the legality is, it depends on where they are in the airspace.
	Because you as an individual have a certain right to a certain amount of airspace above your property.
	Then the government has a certain right to its airspace above that.
	And at some point, they don't.
	At some point, it gets high enough up.
	It's like being in international waters.
	We don't know precisely in terms of where in the sky these items were shot down.
	There's nobody else complaining.
	There's just the claims of the Canadian and the U.S. government about what took place.
	There's nobody saying it was an illegal entrance.
	China itself reported unidentified flying objects over its country.
	It's got a lot of people spinning about.
	You know, UFOs.
	Elon Musk made a joke that it was just his aliens coming to visit.
	So, we'll see.
	It's one of those sort of unknown stories as to what exactly is going on, what exactly is the intention of everybody.
	It's, at this point, very unclear.
	Is it a good time?
	Do we go over to Rumble?
	That's been great.
	Yeah, sure.
	Because we got James O 'Keefe, we got COVID vaccines, we got election cases, so we got a lot of cases that are more apropos for Rumbles as the platform.
	And just so nobody thinks we're doing it so we can go break YouTube's rules on Rumbles, I put these streams on YouTube.
	I put the stream up with Dr. Shiva, the entire stream that I did Friday.
	I'm not doing anything to circumvent rules or to self-censor.
	Period.
	We're going to go now to the free speech platform to reward the good.
	There is no cancel culture clause in the Rumble contract.
	Unlike the Silicon Valley Wire contract.
	We are ending on YouTube now.
	Link is in there.
	Go to it.
	Thanks to the sponsor.
	One more time, fieldofgreens.com, promo code VIVA.
	And we shall end on YouTube now.
	All right, Robert.
	Before we get into the frickin' drama, we're going to get into Project Veritas, but I think it's...
	I watched your hush-hush on COINTELPRO.
	Which, how dumb I was.
	Last time, I'll make the joke.
	I thought, once upon a time, when I saw the term Cointelpro, I thought it was like a laundry.
	I thought it was a product where you put coins in.
	It's how stupid I was.
	And now I've listened to your hush-hush on Cointelpro.
	I listened to a podcast today.
	And I'm thoroughly convinced that what's going on right now might be something similar.
	Because why not do it again if you've done it in the past?
	Cointelpro, a government operation that went on and spanned decades.
	In which they used intelligence to infiltrate activist organizations to foment strife and discord among those activist organizations which were being very successful in influence on the social market.
	And they falsified letters.
	They actually put bugs and chips and everything.
	How's it going?
	I'm live.
	Get out.
	They bugged buildings.
	They got secrets which they would then leak to the press or leak to other people that they would send letters around saying we know the dirty secrets and everyone thought they were.
	I see something very similar happening right now with all of the drama, starting not the least of which and probably the most of which with Project Veritas.
	Even before that, speaking of COINTELPRO, an apt comparison would be the January 6th Proud Boys case development this week.
	Okay.
	What was it, Robert?
	I didn't get all of my homework done.
	So right now, the floor is for the Proud Boys, including the founder, Joe Biggs, and some others.
	This is the case that Norm Pattis is part of the defense team.
	He won, to his credit, he won.
	We will have him on sidebar at some point.
	He won his argument in the Court of Appeals in Connecticut that he should not be immediately suspended, based, in my view, on the wayward, corrupt actions of that rogue judge in Connecticut that made an embarrassment of the rule of civil law in the Alex Jones proceedings.
	But it's part of the case that he was part of.
	It's interesting that there was an effort to try to remove him from that case, using the Alex Jones case to do it.
	But so they are being charged with seditious conspiracy.
	I think they violate First Amendment principles and Fifth Amendment principles.
	They've always been abused to target political dissidents throughout the entire history.
	Going back to the first version of it, the Alien and Sedition Acts passed that Thomas Jefferson threw out.
	Then, again, we reinstated them before World War I, and once again, abused against congressmen, abused against Eugene V. Debs.
	There's a great book I'm going to be recommending as a book club reading for vivobarneslaw.locals.com that's by the same guy who wrote King Leopold's Ghost about the extraordinary misuse and abuse of those statutes.
	It also has a story in there about Mennonites and Amish being abused in ways that people don't know has happened in the past.
	January 6th edition conspiracy case, the prime evidence they're using is a document, a document called 1776 Returns, the storming of the Winter Palace, named after the Russian Revolution.
	Now, this document has been attributed as being authored by, approved of, agreed to by members of the Proud Boys, even though there's no evidence they ever wrote it, no evidence that even all of them shared it, no evidence of them even knowing much about it.
	Well, it's come out because Politico got a hold of a witness deposition that the January 6th committee is trying to hide from everybody.
	Because remember, they're trying to seal it for 75 years, their own investigative reporting.
	And it was a deposition taken of a man by the name of Samuel Arnaz, who, according to Politico, is a former special operative from the State Department.
	So how does this guy end up in the middle of this?
	Well, it turns out he is the original author of 1776 Reports, which he said he was doing as a war games exercise, which he said that had been his practice when he was employed by the State Department as a special operative.
	He claims he was recruited by the CIA and the FBI while in college.
	People can watch the...
	Hush-hush about Skull and Bones, combine it with a hush-hush about COINTELPRO, combine it with the two hush-hushes about January 6th, and you'll have seen this coming in advance.
	And he said that he wasn't sure how this report got into the hands of the Proud Boys.
	It turned out he used another woman who was in what looks to me like a honeypot operation on the Proud Boys to plant it.
	Not only that, the same guy, just coincidentally, ends up connected to the Oath Keepers that were being recruited and solicited for doing January 6th.
	It's a guy that's like a Michael Jackson impersonator somehow is connected to all this.
	It's like the story gets crazier and louder.
	But not only that...
	He is in the crypto space.
	And you have to wonder, what exactly is he doing in the crypto space, given the FTX issues that we now see?
	Is there an overt effort by the government to infiltrate the crypto space for corrupt political purposes in the same way they did in the January 6th case?
	So this guy is a character right out of a James Elroy novel, right out of a John le Carré novel, right out of a hush-hush template.
	And it turns out that the explosive inflammatory evidence being used against the Proud Boys in the case was, in fact, government-planted evidence all along.
	Now, when you say government-planted, is it planted as in literally planted or planted as in they plant the seed, they bring it and they say, hey guys, read this, you might like it.
	Yeah, they planted the, not only had they had informants there, they were planting the idea, planting the architect of the structure, planting the evidence that would then be used against them later.
	Robert, no matter how cynical you get, it's tough to keep up.
	They do this while simultaneously claiming to have not had advanced warning of the act for which they were involved in the plotting of the seditious conspiracy.
	It's not possible to make sense of it.
	And I was talking with Ruben about this earlier today.
	You know that you can judge what's true based on how the media ignores it.
	And the media is outright...
	It is a fundamentally incongruous position from intelligence.
	We didn't know it was coming.
	That's why it happened.
	That's why we were unprepared.
	But we had infiltrated the Proud Boys and knew what they were up to.
	That's why we're prosecuting them for seditious conspiracy.
	It's like the media's attempt to ignore the Seymour Hersh story.
	So for those that don't know, Seymour Hersh has exposed more government misconduct over the last 60 years than any...
	A close second would be Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.
	But the consistency of Seymour Hersh's reporting is what's so significant, going all the way back to Vietnamese war atrocities.
	A guy who exposed what was going on in aspects of Gitmo in Iraq.
	A guy who exposed what really happened with Osama bin Laden.
	I mean, just one afternoon.
	He's always had very high-end sources.
	That leak information concerning government misconduct.
	And he just started a substack, so now he's got no editorial limitations on him for the first time in his life.
	And we've seen with Glenn Greenwald, that really frees them up to talk about whatever they want without the limits of...
	Cancel culture clauses and contracts without the limits of billionaire sugar daddies or corporate advertisers.
	And it's more along the Alex Jones model.
	The audience is what dictates the financial success of what you do, much as is the case for us.
	And it's a model I encourage other people to utilize for that very purpose.
	But what he reported is that what I talked about with the Duran a day or two after it happened.
	And our guest, most timely this Wednesday for Sidebar at 1 p.m. Eastern Time, because they're over in Europe, will be the Duran to talk about this and other topics in the one-year anniversary from the last time we talked to him.
	And what he reported is the U.S. government planned and plotted it.
	They basically used an exercise or an operation and under disguise used it to plant the bombs on the pipelines that were then set off, according to Seymour Hersh, by the Norwegians at a later date as ordered by the United States government.
	This is pure terrorism.
	There's no other way to call it.
	It's classic terrorism against civilian infrastructure, mostly detrimental to Germany and Europe more so than Russia, because Russia had other ways to get its oil and gas to whom it wanted to.
	It just made it much more expensive for Germany to get access to it.
	It's something that Victoria Nuland came within a whisper of publicly bragging about in front of the House committee, and I think some of the people who leaked this may be proud of it.
	They want the world to know, yeah, we did it.
	We blew it up.
	But it appears to have been under direct orders of Biden without consultation to any member of Congress.
	And even Senator Mike Lee, who's been more on the war-oriented side of the equation as a senator, said this is deeply problematic and disturbing.
	And I think it is the first clear evidence of a truly impeachable offense.
	Because my view has always been, whether it's Biden, whether it's Clinton, whether it's Trump, An actual high crime or misdemeanor.
	There could be no higher crime than what is effectively infrastructure terrorism.
	It did not have the legal approval or authorization of Congress that would have been required when there was no declaration of war with Russia.
	And so this was a clear impeachable offense.
	The question is whether the Republicans in the House will have the guts or the gall to challenge it because it exposes more bad acts related to the Ukrainian war, which many of them have been horrors for that war.
	But clearly an impeachable offense.
	It was great to see.
	Mike Lee, of all people, to be honest with you, say, hold on, this is really problematic.
	We weren't even consulted on this.
	We should not be doing acts of international terrorism in general, and we sure shouldn't be doing it without any approval of the legislative branches who our founders constitutionally gave the only and sole authority to declare war.
	Hopefully it will also be used to change the Iraq War Resolutions Powers Act, the variations of it and its amendments over time that gave too much authority to the president to unilaterally do military action without consultation and the consent of Congress, which effectively can at least represent some degree of public opinion.
	But I think it's clear evidence of the most impeachable offense there is.
	And again, this is an international crime.
	This was a true crime.
	All the things they accused Putin of, basically...
	I'm going to bring this up just because I found it when Googling that they're going to demonize Seymour Hersh now as a conspiracy theorist.
	They have to.
	They've got to discredit him somehow.
	Igor Sushka, I don't know who this person is.
	I just know that I couldn't see it in my Twitter feed because I'm blocked, apparently.
	Seems to be a former race car driver born in Ukraine, which might explain some pre-blocking.
	He's come out and said, the same Seymour Hersh who had, quote, sources to come up with the wacky conspiracy theory, On Osama bin Laden, he presented as fact and work of intensive investigative journalism, now has a source that told him the exact Kremlin talking points about Nord Stream 2. Because of all of the possibilities that make sense, the Kremlin sabotaging it makes the most sense.
	As opposed to Joe Biden, who said it publicly, Victoria Nuland, who said it publicly, the CIA that gave the heads up to German authorities, and...
	You know, I read Seymour Hersh's article, and it just puts the whole how behind what all of us pretty much already knew, that America did it one way or another if Russia invades Ukraine.
	We'll put an end to the Nord Stream pipeline.
	How are you going to do that?
	It's in Germany.
	We'll make it happen.
	Joe Biden.
	And you talk about...
	Anyway, we'll see what would have to happen.
	Because you would have to have some sort of concrete evidence.
	Would there have to be inquiries, commissions in order to gather concrete evidence?
	That's what should be done.
	I mean, the reason why I, aside from sort of a certain template of analysis that I recommend people utilize, so suspected the U.S. involvement right away, for the reasons you mentioned, the U.S. bragging about its intentions to do something like this, was members of our board.
	And there were other sources that emailed me.
	At the time.
	And they said, here's what happened.
	And I was like, well, I mean, and it was clear they had information that was not publicly available at the time.
	I said, is there any open source information to confirm it before I went public with it with Duran?
	And they sent it to me.
	They sent to me, you know, people there at the time, who they're affiliated with, who they're associated with.
	And I was like, okay, so this makes the most sense as to how it happened and why it happened.
	And it's clear.
	And so a full congressional hearing can subpoena those people.
	It can subpoena, including anybody that was connected to the SEAL unit that Seymour Hearst has identified as being responsible.
	And those guys won't lie.
	Those guys will tell the truth about what happened.
	And much like, and if they're going to do, if Jim Jordan is serious about a real weaponization of government, if Kevin McCarthy is serious about meaningful examination of the Biden administration, this should be priority one.
	Now, it will undermine the war agenda in Washington, which I'm sure some people won't like.
	But, you know, that's the same context to our biggest topic of the night, is some of the people that are coordinating and conspiring to get rid of James O 'Keefe from the organization he built, Project Veritas.
	We're not getting there yet, Robert.
	We're going to save that one, but I want to read, now that I'm using this function.
	The plugin for Rumble.
	Let me just see which one it is.
	It's this one right here.
	Let me bring it up so I can read them.
	LostCore23, says Barnes.
	Hush-hush on Operation Chokepoint.
	What is that about?
	I think Viva would be interested, given his close attention to Jeremy McKenzie's debanking.
	My mind went somewhere else based on the name of that operation.
	But this, Robert, don't know if you have anything to offer about it, but it does speak to the media ignoring truth when it's very inconvenient.
	Ohio disaster being covered up.
	Robert, I was going to start today's stream with a video clip of a young blue-green-haired lady who you would think might not be in that area of the internet where you realize the government has always been lying to you and is continuing to lie to you.
	This might have been someone who might be lining up to follow the government's orders under certain circumstances.
	Now basically coming to the realization she knows people who are in East Palestine, Ohio, She knows people firsthand saying everything in the river is dead.
	There's a toxic cloud all over the place.
	And the media is saying nothing about it.
	It's all good.
	It's all healthy.
	Go back.
	Like the air was clean over Manhattan after 9-11.
	Like certain things are safe and effective for 5 to 11-year-olds.
	Do you have any insights other than the obvious on what's going on in East Palestine?
	So the train derailed, over 100 cars went off the road, and they unleashed a very dangerous chemical into the air, and it caused a fire that may still be burning, and the air now can impact the air across several states, West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania.
	It's unclear how bad it could get.
	So that's why some people are calling it the Ohio Chernobyl.
	Now, three lawsuits, class action lawsuits, were filed within a day of it occurring.
	So there are plenty of lawyers racing into the courthouse to try to get their claims in first.
	The claims being currently brought are nuisance, negligence, strict liability, fraud, trespass.
	Those are the five combination of claims.
	Trespass is, people forget, trespass can be caused by simply an obnoxious item.
	You don't have to physically be your own body on someone else's property.
	If you cause some obnoxious item...
	To go into the other person's property, it is a trespass claim.
	And you don't have to show anything beyond a trespass.
	You don't have to prove anything in great detail beyond that.
	So it looks like they do have a solid trespass claim.
	The second is a public nuisance claim.
	Public nuisance laws are getting a little bit misused in certain contexts, in my view.
	They're being elasticized in such a way that it could become too politicized.
	The nuisance claims here, this is the classic version of a nuisance.
	It's where even if you don't intend to do anything, you create something that's a public health disaster for people.
	That's a classic definition of nuisance, public nuisance.
	Now the other claims are strict liability.
	Negligence and fraud.
	Fraud will depend on what happened.
	The negligence claims will depend on why this event happened, whether it was a design defect, something else that went wrong in the train.
	Was it within the control of the train to have avoided this had they taken proper professional action within the standard of care for a train operator?
	And then last but not least is strict liability.
	And the strict liability claims go all the way back.
	The best explanation of this, best closing argument ever given in this was the case against Kerr McGee involving radiation getting out.
	And the case was prosecuted.
	Plaintiff's lawyer was one and the only Jerry Spence.
	And he explained to the jury the concept of strict liability.
	He said, you know, way back in the day.
	Folks like to keep all kinds of things on their farm and their property.
	One fellow got the idea to have a lion on his property.
	And so the law had to be changed and say, well, even if you didn't do anything bad yourself, if your lion gets away and causes harm, you decided to keep a lion, so you're going to be liable for it, period.
	And he brilliantly said, if the lion got away, Kerr McGee must pay, in the classic brilliant line.
	So the question here is, was the transport of dangerous chemicals an abnormally dangerous thing like keeping a lion, such that...
	No matter what happens, the train folks are liable for any damage it caused.
	Now, on top of that, there'll be the EPA, the state version of the EPA in Ohio, which can hold people responsible for the cost of any cleanup of an environmental disaster of toxic chemicals.
	So that responsibility will be there for sure.
	But the lawsuits have already been filed.
	It could be a bankrupting lawsuit, depending on the degree of damages and the severity of the harm, which appears to accumulate.
	Some people had asked about...
	I think one of the YouTube chats was about what to do.
	I have no idea in the sense of medically, professionally, how to monitor the air, how to monitor water supply.
	There are some concerns because near Amish farms and whether it will disproportionately hurt Amish farms as well.
	So in terms of what health things you should do, I'm not the expert in that category.
	But legally, the trained folks are in big trouble.
	Yeah, we had a similar one in Lake Megantic in Quebec where it was a fertilizer train and it crashed and exploded and annihilated, like evaporated an entire town.
	I don't know.
	I forget how many people were immediately incinerated, like one of those fertilizer plant explosions.
	But media silence, Robert.
	Like the media is just not talking about it.
	Why it would be that...
	Do we have any idea?
	The chemicals on the train that they were carrying?
	Yeah, they described it.
	Something chloride, as I recall.
	It's one of the most dangerous and toxic chemicals out there.
	You saw some images, and people are getting wise to the fact that the government, they lie, they conceal.
	The media that has turned into their lapdog and not their watchdog are ignoring this story.
	I heard people were getting arrested for reporting on it, but that's probably because they're trying to access an off-limits area.
	Pure, pure horror.
	But people in the chat are saying the episode of White Noise when the exact same thing happened in East Palestine.
	Yeah, apparently a TV show predicted this.
	I'll have to go look into that.
	I mean, that's...
	It's always a little suspicious because one way in which you test ideas is like that guy who was wargaming something that somehow ended up being used against the Proud Boys.
	Sometimes the way they test these wargamings is they test them through either novels or television shows or films.
	So a lot of people have always pointed out the Lone Gunman episode that predicted the World Trade Center being taken out by a terroristic plane attack.
	That episode aired, I think, about six months before 9-11.
	And some people suspected that it was a way of one, it was a white hat trying to say this was coming.
	The other possibility was it was the government or other bad actors testing.
	Public response to it.
	Does this come across as credible?
	Believable?
	How do people respond to this?
	And so forth.
	And so people have talked about the pandemic.
	There's episodes of the X-Files.
	There's other TV shows that predicted certain things related to it that seem uncanny.
	Sometimes that's how that can come about.
	Other times it's just because people are good at understanding what could happen down the road.
	And that's why we were talking with Mark Robert.
	on a Freeform Friday about how novelists and fiction writers and TV shows screenwriters and film screenwriters often are trying to predict and preview realistic expectations of how something could come about and sometimes are just very prescient at doing so.
	Let me bring this back in here because maybe we might have to segue into it right now, Robert, not keep people waiting too long.
	It is two more Rumble Rants.
	I love the system now.
	Grey clouds forever.
	It says, Veritas reminds of the mystery of a drudge report, what happened and what is happening.
	And Pasha Moyer, P. Moyer says, let's go, PV.
	All right, Robert.
	COINTELPRO.
	It stood for, was it Communist Intelligence Program?
	Counterintelligence.
	Counterintelligence Program.
	Counterintelligence.
	Counterintelligence Program.
	The same people, by the way, who ran Russiagate operations.
	It was out of the counterintelligence unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
	The man who ran COINTELPRO was, of course, actually Mark Felt, who was the real deep throat, by the way.
	The man who actually caused the coup against Richard Nixon.
	People think it's vinyl chloride as well.
	Yeah, vinyl chloride is what got released in Ohio.
	Okay, Robert.
	So the people behind COINTELPRO are still current players in modern society.
	Project Veritas.
	What the heck is going on?
	There's more information than there was when I covered it on Friday.
	That information is TimCast, in fact, got access to or published an 11-page letter, or it was an 8-page letter penned by 11 employees, basically going through their grievances of what it's like working for James O 'Keefe as a boss, and apparently he's very demanding.
	Apparently he berated some employees.
	Apparently he blamed...
	Some of the employees for not capturing something on recording.
	When James showed up to one of their undercover operations and the subject moved away from the people with the recording to him, apparently James yelled at an employee in front of the jury during a trial that he subsequently lost.
	The media has to remind everyone of that because he was hungry.
	And then he took a sandwich from an eight-month pregnant woman, Robert.
	This memo leaked, or this memo has been published, and this memo does sound exactly like the struggle session that was described in that dude's Twitter thread, who I don't know who the guy is from A Hole in the Wall.
	So it does look like the pretext of the paid leave of James O 'Keefe, his much-needed personal time off, was because a bunch of employees came together and said, he's a big, bad boogeyman of a boss, and we don't want to work here if he's here.
	That's the extent of it.
	The board members, I'm not sure who has voting power and who doesn't.
	The executives, you know, put him on paid leave for a couple weeks.
	He hasn't said anything publicly.
	What's your take, Robert?
	James O 'Keefe, I assume most of our audience is familiar with him, he founded Project Veritas as a way to do expose undercover reporting on topics that the institutional media was not covering.
	And started out more in the cultural, political space, exposing organizations like Acorn using government funds to promote things like how to take a tax deduction or get a benefit if you're a pimp.
	Stuff like this that shocked and put Acorn kind of out of business.
	From that point forward, Democrats and some of the liberal media have opposed him ever since and attacked him ever since.
	He's been the subject of ongoing harassment by the New York Times and the Biden administration.
	He's continued to keep his commitment to exposing whatever topic or corruption is not being covered by the mainstream media, regardless of where it goes.
	So now Project Veritas was founded as a 501c3 portion and as a 501c4 portion.
	Those are non-profit charities that entitle people who give money to it to take a tax deduction under certain circumstances.
	I've long voiced criticism of the structure because it gives the Internal Revenue Service power to inspect where the money is going and where the money is coming from.
	Taking that tax deduction tells the IRS, by the way, who you're giving money to.
	I don't think people have always put that together.
	That's why when I created with some others the Free America Law Center to support things like the Covington kids' cases, medical freedom, food freedom, free speech, etc., it was an LLC.
	It was not any 501c3, 501c4.
	I've litigated those cases in a wide range of contexts.
	In addition, a 501c-type charitable organization is also governed by state laws.
	The state attorney general can often come in and take it over.
	You're required to have a board that is not connected to you frequently, which means you have no control over the functioning of the organization.
	You might be the CEO of it, but can be removed tomorrow if the board so chooses.
	Now, you look at where O 'Keefe has gone that has caused the most controversy over the last several years.
	It's that he has uncovered and reported on election fraud.
	That led to the New York Times smearing him and defaming him in the press.
	The New York Times colluding with the U.S. government, the Department of Justice under the Biden administration, to try to bring criminal charges against him because he had access to the Biden diary, the daughter diary, which reported...
	extraordinary information concerning her father, including extraordinary personal misconduct by her father.
	He didn't even publicly disclose that, but because he simply had access to it, the government He reported extensively on election issues.
	He reported extensively early on on the falsification of data and information concerning the pandemic and the lockdown policies.
	And over the last year, he's been going after Pfizer.
	And reporting on extraordinary corruption and what took place in the vaccine.
	Multiple exposes getting undercover reporting.
	And his last one just a couple of weeks ago with someone that...
	You know, people in the media were trying to pretend didn't work for Pfizer or other things.
	Turned out the guy absolutely did work for Pfizer, did have the position that the Project Veritas verified, and he was disclosing all the concerns with the vaccine and that Pfizer had notice and knowledge of them and that Pfizer was even seeking to profit in certain instances from them.
	More variants, more vaccines, more money.
	Things like that.
	And whether they were actually exploring creating variants themselves for the purposes of promoting the vaccine and whether you had another risk of leakage or even deliberate leakage as being another potential risk factor.
	Is it really a coincidence that within a week of that story going global, arguably the biggest story he's ever broken, all of a sudden the board members at Project Veritas are trying to kick him out of his own organization?
	Let me stop you there just for one thing just to add before I forget.
	The subject of that video, the guy that was caught undercover in the follow-up when James confronts him says, I was lying to impress a date.
	And can you imagine that even Project Veritas in their press release did not use that as an excuse or as a defense?
	And the media did not cover it.
	So you got your three check marks for how you know this is true.
	Project Veritas did not even raise as a defense the lie.
	Who did I say?
	Pfizer, yes.
	Pfizer did not even raise that as a defense in their press release, that the guy was lying to him president.
	It was a giveaway.
	In fact, they took days to respond, and when they did respond, they actually kind of admitted the worst aspects of what he said, that they were, in fact, experimenting with variants and things of that nature.
	So, you know, soon thereafter, all of a sudden, he's suddenly suspended from Project Veritas.
	That suspension has been extended.
	And he's been ordered not, people asking why doesn't he talk about it, he's been ordered not to talk about it.
	And if he does talk about it, that will be used as a separate breach to terminate him fully.
	The thing is, there's a lot of money now at Project Veritas.
	When he started out, it was like a couple hundred grand.
	Now, over $20 million in the last report of the year.
	My guess is that may be up to $30 or $40 million this year.
	Now, some of those donors are organizations like the Donors Trust, connected to the Koch brothers, and connected to other corporate interests.
	The Koch brothers have their own ties to Big Pharma.
	The Koch brothers have publicly come out and also said that they're going to do everything possible.
	The one that's alive, the one's still alive, and their foundation and organizations.
	They're going to do everything possible to defeat Donald Trump in the 2024 election.
	James O 'Keefe was seen as an ally of Donald Trump.
	The Trump Foundation is one of the donors to Project Veritas.
	And so you look at who's behind it.
	On the board is ex-Goldman Sachs people.
	Another board member is a yacht guy connected to old Yankee Republican money.
	Another guy is the son of a Polish emigre, Matthew Timbrand, I believe his name is.
	He is obsessively anti-Trump.
	You go through his Twitter feed.
	He's been promoting DeSantis for a while.
	He tried to hustle and grift cash in Poland in some years before.
	Got in some controversy over that.
	Brought a bogus defamation suit in Poland that got dismissed because he was trying to, I guess, claim he wasn't connected to Trump.
	Frequently been on War Room with Steve Bannon, whoring for more war in Ukraine.
	And these people, you dig in deeper, some of the people defending Matthew Timbrand that were publicly critical of me this week on Twitter, in part because they misunderstood what I had said.
	Oh, there was a New York Times journalist.
	I'd never heard of him who put out...
	A tweet that it was accusing you of spreading lies when the tweet...
	I had to go back.
	I had to go and listen to what you said.
	Go back and listen.
	The tweet was such an outrageous mischaracterization.
	It's only fitting that it came from the New York Times.
	But then I'm saying to myself, why the hell is the New York Times interested?
	Maybe they're trying to get smart, but the fact that New York Times journalist comes in to spread a misleading tweet about what you said in one of the Bourbon with Barnes, I thought that was already very curious and showed some of the players.
	Some of these people are big DeSantis backers.
	There was a story in Politico, another one in the Daily Beast, another one in Axios, that reported that some people in the DeSantis camp...
	We're recruiting social media influencers in Florida to promote a DeSantis candidacy.
	It's not clear how close they actually are to DeSantis.
	That's kind of still an open question.
	But what's interesting is that they tend to parallel one another.
	So after these statements came out, you had people that were associated and affiliated with this making public statements supportive of what Project Veritas was doing, or saying you should wait and see.
	The board is made up of rock-solid conservatives.
	Now I'm putting it together, what you meant, but when I got involved with David Rayboy...
	On Twitter, where he said, you know, let's wait and see what's coming out.
	This is one of those situations where you wait.
	And I'm like, no, this is sort of like the raid on Mar-a-Lago.
	This is like, you don't wait and see what the government's going to come up with by way of an excuse when they've dropped the nuclear bomb.
	They better have their damn answer right away and almost, you know, simultaneously or shortly thereafter.
	But when Project Veritas boots James O 'Keefe, not from the company, but puts him on paid leave within a week of the Pfizer story.
	There's no waiting there.
	There is a presumption that something is way, way wrong, and I find the idea of waiting to be giving the board...
	A benefit of the doubt that they don't deserve.
	Absolutely.
	This is an all-out assault on James O 'Keefe, and people need to rally to him if they want to continue to see good quality reporting and don't want to see Project Veritas co-opted by corrupt actors, people who I think are aligned with various deep state aspects within the government.
	Some are simply anti-Trump.
	Some are simply looking at the money.
	There's 20 million bucks there to divvy up amongst their own friends and allies.
	And the fact that you had some of these people...
	Saying the exact same thing, whether it was Reeboy or some of his pals, saying the almost exact same thing at the same time.
	And then some of them came after me.
	And some of them were making claims that didn't even make sense on Twitter, where they were saying that they had never said anything about Project Veritas or James O 'Keefe when they had said exactly stuff about it, just as you mentioned, the day before.
	So a lot of these guys, it does raise questions about some of the people pushing DeSantis, what their motivations are.
	Their motivations might not actually be to help DeSantis, but might be to hurt him.
	Whatever it is, you're seeing these people show up in some interesting places.
	And so the fact that there is this collective effort, some are trying to pretend that Jack Murphy...
	Who ends up, by the way, in our discussion today, he's going to show up twice.
	This is one of them.
	Some of them pretending that I even had somebody on the locals board saying, oh, Barnes, you're lying.
	Jack Murphy's totally apolitical.
	Has been for a year.
	Double check his Twitter feed, brother.
	Not so much.
	And James and Jack Murphy's associated with some of these people.
	And there's just sort of an unusual...
	They came on my screen a couple of months ago when they started accusing anyone of supporting Trump of secretly taking money to support Trump.
	That'd be the only reason they could possibly do it.
	And I was like, well, first of all, that's nonsense.
	But second, that's a confession through projection.
	These are people who are getting secret funding to try to get DeSantis to run.
	And in my view, it's not in DeSantis' own interest to run.
	So these are some...
	You look into these people and it's often like...
	How do they get their money?
	Where do they get paid?
	They don't seem to have a real job.
	They don't seem to be actually popular.
	Well, in fairness, some people might say the same thing of me, but I think we have...
	Everybody knows where you get your money.
	You get it from Rumble, you get it from locals.
	Everybody knows, okay, you're a contact.
	Pretty much.
	But these guys, you can't tell.
	It's like, are they getting lobbied?
	You dig into Reboy, and there's like foreign registrations and working for foreign governments and all kinds of spooky kind of stuff.
	So I just don't think it's a coincidence that you're seeing these people lined up to try to take out.
	I mean, I've been subject to all kinds of special scrutiny from Pfizer.
	They attack me with the federal court all the time when I'm representing the whistleblower in that case.
	They often take out things out of context and plug it in to try to get the judge mad at me because they don't like certain public criticism.
	Bottom line is, Pfizer is one of the biggest criminals.
	It might even be the eternal truth number three.
	Pfizer is a criminal.
	They always have been.
	They always will be.
	That's who and what they are.
	Second, two of the top three biggest criminal civil penalties ever imposed on a pharma company.
	Pfizer, $2.3 billion.
	Johnson& Johnson, $2.2 billion.
	And I suspect the only reason Moderna is not on the list is because they never had a product to market before the vaccine.
	And now, I understand the way you see it.
	It's interesting.
	I was cynically disappointed to see that there are people who...
	Act as undisclosed spokespeople.
	Brooklyn Dad Defiant.
	I always found his Twitter feed to be very bizarre.
	Erica Marsh.
	These accounts, which I just found to be bizarre.
	I'm not sure that I put Murphy in the same category.
	Raboy.
	When I thought Raboy's take was not justifiable, I let him know on Twitter.
	But I was surprised.
	Brooklyn Dad getting paid lots and lots of money to put out pro...
	Democrat, I think it was pro-Biden tweets.
	It's surprising.
	There's a good amount of that going on with these people when you see unusual behaviors and unusual patterns.
	And the fact they jumped in, it was like, why are they even talking about this?
	And least of all, why are they defending it?
	And then you find out...
	Friends with Tim Brand in several of these cases.
	Friends with Jack Murphy, and that could explain some of Jack Murphy's role.
	And then you go deeper with a group that appears to have been hired to promote DeSantis and to promote a DeSantis-Trump conflict.
	That's not in the interest of my view of either one of them.
	Just raises, and then you look and you're like, well, how do they make their money?
	It's not clear.
	Very ambiguous.
	They have weird lobbying histories in some of these cases.
	And so, yeah, I think it raises major questions.
	Now, this board, I think, underestimated the public blowback.
	Well, how stupid can someone be?
	You have your angle, and it's an interesting one.
	I take what I think is the more simple angle.
	Having been at Goldman Sachs, having been involved in a yacht, Airbnb-type business, I just assume that they're very easy to have dirt on.
	And someone says, yeah, James went a little too far this time.
	And you get him either through bribery or through extortion.
	And he went too far.
	Fix it and make sure it never happens again.
	That's where my mind goes.
	It's always possible.
	And some of the money people connect.
	I mean, the odd thing was this connection to DeSantis supporters in donors, board members, and public defenders of the action of the board from what most people considered surprising sources and locations.
	So there's definitely a coup effort against James O 'Keefe.
	I have no doubt it's tied to his unvarnished independent reporting.
	Where they're running risk is, those board members can be sued by a range of people because it's a 501c3 and 501c4.
	Other donors, other attorney generals, other people.
	So I think what you get at a lot of these cases...
	It was like in the Hush Hush, they talked about Skull and Bones.
	A lot of the founders of the main trustees of big charities in America were all disproportionately bonesmen.
	It was another one of those weird things.
	But they often come from that kind of background.
	And a lot of the board members here seem to have those affiliations.
	And they often are a little clueless about their legal and political exposure, consequently.
	But that's where people need to rally to James O 'Keefe's defense, because O 'Keefe can't...
	Without being a separate grounds for his termination.
	All these other efforts are efforts to, you know, the efforts of these other people, like Reeboy and others, is to discourage a public blowback.
	And that's exactly why you need a public blowback.
	Expose people like Matthew Timberant.
	God bless Steve.
	I mean, the other thing they pointed out is that, and I had pointed this out to James O 'Keefe's people, didn't talk about it publicly at the time, but...
	I did not think it was a brilliant idea for their defamation lawyer to be Dominion's defamation lawyer.
	I had personal experience with Louis Libby.
	I may have got the first name wrong, Mrs. Libby.
	But she came out on Tucker Carlson, publicly attacked me for saying I would sue congressmen for the Covington kids, publicly attacked me for saying I could bring a class action by getting basic law confused about that, misled Tucker, misled his audience, promoted Lin Wood instead, by the way, for Nicholas Sandman's representation.
	She has a very...
	She represents a lot of very questionable, corrupt politicians.
	It's not a coincidence she's representing Dominion.
	Whoever at the board told Project Veritas, James O 'Keefe, to hire her was putting James O 'Keefe at risk.
	I don't think it's a coincidence that her potential involvement in these coup attempts.
	Steve Bannon pointed that out.
	Now, Steve Bannon put Tim Brand all the time.
	Maybe he's got to realize, exercise a little more judgmental.
	Excuse me, Steve.
	But the, you know, the whore for the war in Ukraine, which Steve has slowly come around to recognize, oops, shouldn't have done that.
	Kind of like his early position on the lockdowns, which was terrible.
	As a whole, I'm a big Steve Bannon fan.
	But the fact that Bannon was pointing that out is probably not a coincidence.
	I mean, Bannon's pointing out, hey, look, there's some interested connected dots here.
	What exactly is going on here?
	This is a coordinated effort to take out James O 'Keefe because of his expose of Pfizer.
	I think the chronology makes that quite clear.
	And everyone should continue to rally to his defense.
	But Virginia donors have already got together, already told the board they're going to sue the board if the board doesn't reinstate James O 'Keefe.
	Let me stop you there.
	There's two questions I have.
	A, let's just say they don't reinstate him.
	PV goes to shit.
	Can the employees sue the directors for basically having sabotaged the company that employed them?
	For breach of fiduciary duty.
	It kind of varies because it's a charity.
	So you get very specific laws that govern the situation and circumstance.
	So I've litigated those cases over many, many years, and it depends on the state.
	It depends on the issues as to where and when and how you can sue.
	But speaking of employees suing, the other political case we have where Jack Murphy makes another magical appearance.
	Sidney Watson is suing the Blaze.
	Yep, and this is another potential COINTELPRO.
	Hold on, I'm just going to read two chats here, Robert.
	Now that I can do it, it's just fantastic.
	Grey clouds forever.
	DeSantos may become the president of Florida.
	Hey, if there's a balkanization of America after the political divorce, I don't know if they won't name the presidents, but...
	And Fleet Lord Avatar says, interrupting Robert Barnes with rants.
	Also, do you see the rant asking Ruben...
	To hire locals coin by limit from $500,000 to $10,000.
	I actually just messaged that over to the CEO of Locals.
	So we'll see if that happens.
	Yeah, Robert.
	So the latest, Sidney Watson suing the Blaze.
	She's suing Elijah Schaefer.
	She's talking about Elijah Schaefer, but he's not a name defendant.
	Okay, so she's suing the blaze for having created a hostile, toxic work environment, misogynistic discrimination based on her atheist viewpoint.
	And some of the allegations, I don't know, I didn't read through the lawsuit in its entirety, so I don't know if it's lacking sufficient specificity, but some of the allegations seem relatively serious already.
	That Elijah Schaefer...
	They allowed an environment in which Elijah Schaefer would be intoxicated on set, in which Sidney would be put into situations where she would read super chats with what they called...
	Is it not trigger words, but code words or dog whistle words that would then lead to some sort of mockery, abuse.
	They cited the Jack Murphy incident.
	Everyone freaked out about that incident at the time.
	I didn't think it was as bad as everyone...
	I think maybe his attempt to explain away his reaction might have made it worse, but I don't think that that's like, as far as toxic work environments go, that has to be just one example of many that she's going to evoke.
	But bottom line, she's going after the blaze now for having tolerated the creation of a toxic work environment that led to her quitting.
	And from what I understand, they fired Elijah Schaefer a few months ago for allegedly groping another woman's boobies.
	Yeah, at a theater.
	I knew some people that had listened to a Twitter...
	I get invited to those a lot, but I'm just not a big fan of Twitter spaces.
	Well, if you get involved, just be assured they will see your name and they might call you up to talk.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's why I try to stay out of those for the most part.
	I appreciate the invites and everything, but it's just not practical.
	And not something I'm all that desirous of doing.
	But there was discussion there amongst a group of women, and there had been a discussion about issues concerning Elijah Schaefer.
	And there was also...
	Conversations on a Simpcast.
	That's the well-named cast by Chrissy Meyer, who we've interviewed before.
	I represented briefly on some legal matters some time ago.
	And she has a really interesting presentation.
	It's an interesting voice.
	They had a Simpcast this past week that was about what are good Valentine's gifts.
	And they gave some good practical advice.
	I was like, oh, that makes sense.
	Yeah, that makes sense too.
	I assume you've already got your gift.
	You already got that lined up?
	Nope.
	Damn it.
	No, it's tomorrow.
	It's manana.
	I always have to remind my brother.
	I remember my brother was thinking about doing a...
	We're going to go ice fishing here in a little bit.
	And he first listed the dates.
	I was like, you know that's Valentine's, right?
	He's like, oh, yeah.
	Yeah, you're right.
	Sorry.
	I have to remind him on occasion so he doesn't get himself into trouble.
	He's always nice and naive in that respect.
	I'm going to be going to Home Depot tomorrow to get a potato.
	Not a potato.
	A tomato plant.
	That's what I get for marrying for...
	It's the gift that keeps on giving.
	But sorry, Robert, yes.
	But they'd also discussed some of these issues when Elijah Schaefer was on there.
	My own view is that this was a mismatch of brands by Blaze.
	I'm not yet convinced that this claim is a real strong legal claim.
	Because the legal claim is that she was discriminated against because of her gender and her religious beliefs.
	The thing is, if this was a random office setting, Then yeah, I could see some of these being claims, actionable claims.
	But you're on a show that's about religion and politics and gender issues.
	So that, I think, throws a whole different wrench into it.
	The second component is, and usually that's taken into consideration from a discriminatory intent and business necessity analysis.
	I mean, the second was, it's not like this was a big shock in terms of...
	The demeanor of Elijah Schaefer.
	He named his other show Slightly Offensive.
	So, you know, I mean, his brand is he's in the middle of the action, goes into Antifa, other cases, films things live, gets live evidence.
	And it's more of a, you could call it a masculine vibe.
	I mean, a lot of the complaints in The Complaint are about him making various gay sex jokes.
	I mean, it's that kind of...
	That's always been, as far as I knew, his demeanor and disposition.
	And you have someone like Sidney Watson, who's much more of a serious, wants to do deep dives into substantive topics, wants to talk about them in a serious, substantive way.
	She's not, you know, even though she does the...
	I think people got some confusion.
	I mean, she does the live stream with the quartering, but if anyone's ever watched that, it's not childish or juvenile in the way that some people perceived Elijah Schaefer's work.
	He was being real aggressive with some of the people he was platforming, and she complains about this in the suit.
	I never understood the brand.
	I was like, these two personalities don't blend together at all.
	Their brand are totally contrary to one another.
	I think she was rightfully agitated that she was stuck and saddled with a show and with a partner that totally conflicted.
	And that she was almost being set up as kind of the fall girl, if you will.
	In other words, why don't you read something embarrassing?
	Why don't you read something that makes you look bad?
	Why don't we platform and invite people like Nick Fuentes, who's going to sit there and talk about women should be treated the way they are in the Taliban?
	Why don't we...
	Because, you know, some people have been, you know, sending in super chats about his article in favor of cuckolding years before.
	They hadn't even found the fact that he liked to stick stuff up his rear end and videotape it for money.
	That was separate.
	But I think her agitation now I understand about Jack Murphy is the broader context of her being stuck in a situation that was completely contrary to her brand.
	And the whole pitch of Blaze was, come here and we'll promote you.
	You know, like the Daily Wire pitch, what will promote you when they were arguing why they had their standards to Steven Crowder.
	And instead, she's like, this did just the opposite.
	This undermined who I was, this undermined my brand, this weakened, and it made life utterly miserable for me on a daily basis.
	I don't doubt any of that.
	What I doubt is that any of it was because of her gender and religion.
	It would be like, in my mind, Robin Quivers deciding to turn around and sue Howard Stern.
	Exactly.
	That's who Shafer was.
	That's his style.
	I didn't know anything about Shafer before this.
	I'm reading reviews on this lawsuit.
	He sounds like a bit of an a-hole, but he also sounds like he might be something of a...
	I think it was by some people, not by other people.
	I had heard various stories circulating for a while.
	But I think she only did this to the Blaze.
	She claimed Elijah Schaefer made false statements to other people about her.
	That would seem to be an individual...
	Action against Schaefer, as opposed to the Blaze.
	I guess they're kind of attributing it to the Blaze.
	Now, the lawyer involved is Kurt Schlichter.
	I know Kurt, he does a lot of good legal work.
	But I know him more as, I didn't know him as an employment lawyer.
	So I would just say, having done those cases and knowing how difficult they are, from a legal perspective, she's got an uphill case.
	Moral perspective, business perspective, I think she's got the much better argument that the Blaze mismanaged this badly.
	From a legal perspective, I'm not sure that...
	I mean, Schaefer's going to make those same jokes if she's a man.
	It wasn't about her gender that those jokes were made.
	And he's going to get drunk?
	This is not condoning the alleged assault that apparently ultimately led to Schaefer being terminated.
	I would say, by the way, apparently that person...
	Didn't consider it an assault.
	So, I mean, I guess, I mean, it's some form of miscommunications when you just go around doing that.
	You know, like the Gropenator.
	I'm thinking of...
	I'm good enough and doggone it.
	People like Al Franken.
	I'm thinking of Al Franken as well.
	A sleeping woman does not consent.
	I don't know what argument for consent.
	Purportedly, the woman that's involved in the Elijah Schaefer incident didn't consider it sexual harassment.
	Purportedly.
	I don't know that for sure.
	I just heard from other people that.
	But I think as a whole, it's just legally not the strongest suit.
	I think she's got also, for the same reason you mentioned with Crowder getting into a public war.
	From a business perspective moving forward, there's definite downsides to Watson bringing the case.
	Again, I thought Blaze badly mismanaged her brand.
	I think she has a very good right to have a general grievance that they really completely undermined her career and future with just really bad decisions.
	I'm not even sure what they were thinking.
	It was like they were trying to replicate.
	Crowder, and they thought they could create a version of Louder with Crowder, with Schaefer.
	That's really not, you know, but Sidney Watson doesn't fit into that.
	Aside from being an unwilling, unconsenting fall girl to sort of satirize and mock.
	I mean, that's where she's got a legitimate complaint.
	It's just, it's not clear to me that that's a gender or religious discrimination complaint in the context of this particular show.
	It would have been, I mean, it might have been better to go from just a Unfortunately, there's not a lot of legal remedies there.
	And the question is, what does she hope to accomplish by this lawsuit?
	Let me read this super chat up on the top left, Rumble Rant on the top left.
	Matt G. Hammond, I know that name, and I thank you, sir, for being here.
	Sydney released a video four years ago about the Me Too movement ruining workplaces.
	Her complaints are part of what she is suing about.
	So I watched a few of her videos.
	She made a video.
	Explaining the whole situation back in the day?
	My question is only what the hope is to accomplish with this.
	Well, I think it's speculation, but a possible explanation is that the Blaze really mismanaged the brand and she wanted them to compensate for how...
	How they had damaged her brand and caused her just a year of harassment and difficulty.
	And they, I guess, chose not to.
	And that's probably why the suit has been brought.
	But it always will limit future employment.
	There'll be a portion of the conservative audience that will tune her out now because of the suit and all that.
	I think she also...
	The Blaze keeps doing this.
	They keep mismanaging certain brands.
	They need to have better people at the top, in my view.
	The other thing is, this is probably a product of a poorly drafted contract in terms of Sydney's interest.
	Because normally, this would be a breach of contract claim.
	It would be, here's how you said you would be to promote and protect me.
	You didn't.
	That's a breach of contract.
	That's really what the argument kind of is.
	But since that isn't the focus of the complaint...
	The impression I get is that her contract doesn't provide that opportunity for remedy.
	And I don't think, I just think it's a real long shot.
	They're going to have to get lucky with the court, the draw of the court for this case to get much past summary judgment.
	And one more rumble while we're here.
	Jack Flax says, part of the claims amount to...
	Failure to white knight.
	Other cringe aspects.
	I was just reading the chat.
	It seems to be pretty divided.
	It is.
	People that follow the quartering and that follow her see her perspective.
	I always saw her perspective from a branding perspective.
	I found a lot of people would recommend the show.
	I was like, I only like the show.
	No offense to Elijah Schaefer, but he's not my cup of tea.
	I had heard...
	Various stories over time, so I was aware of the backstory.
	And I didn't know the initial...
	Her reaction seemed over the top at the time to the Jack Murphy stuff, but now I understand it much more clearly.
	But it was a bad business decision by Blaze more than it was, we want to discriminate against you because you're atheist or because you're a woman.
	That's where I see the legal gap is.
	And people might be shocked that she also got...
	It was 1.4 some odd million.
	I think it was up to that, and I don't think how much it actually ended up being paid.
	But if they had that kind of investment in her, why make her the fall person?
	And this is the problem.
	This is where I side more with Crowder than Daily Wire.
	The problem with a young content creator giving over their control to some corporation is their interest may be completely against promoting your career.
	They may want to use you for what would make them the most money, but would actually make you look like a joke and undermine your career or force you into positions that undermine your future.
	You might end up like Jordan Peterson talking about, you know, let's have a regime change in Iran.
	Stick to what you're good at, Jordan.
	Let us stay away from the warmongering if you can.
	God bless them.
	You get locked into positions that really aren't, you know, your cup of tea.
	And I think that's one of the, I think the Sydney, what the real lesson is from the Sydney Watson case is if you're a young content creator, be very careful who you align with and make sure you have a good contract that locks in expectations.
	Fantastic.
	The show is called You Are Here.
	It was driving me crazy.
	I thought I knew it was TAH or something AH.
	Okay.
	I never even understood the name of the show.
	I didn't understand it either.
	Well, you talk about interesting suits.
	There's a guy in Singapore, this will be the brief one, suing for $3 million in damages because he had befriended a girl over Facebook and he wanted to take it to the next level and she said, no, no, you're staying in the friend zone.
	So he sued her.
	For $3 million in emotional distress because she stuck him in the friend zone.
	So I don't know what Singapore law is, but that's an interesting claim.
	Well, I didn't even know.
	I didn't understand anything about it.
	He sued in Singapore.
	So I thought maybe it's some ridiculous claim like the guy who sued God in America.
	Sued in Singapore.
	What did she do to keep him in the friend?
	What did she just say?
	I'm not interested.
	She just said, hey, I just want us to be friends.
	And apparently that caused him such emotional distress and weakened his reputation so badly that he's having to sue for millions of dollars in damages.
	That'll go far.
	That'll go about as far as their relationship.
	On the more important stuff, people want the vaccine.
	Say it again?
	People want the vaccine.
	Vaccine loss.
	Oh, there's many, many updates on the vaccine front.
	But before we get there, there is one more fun little defamation case brought.
	Brett Favre, the great quarterback, the Super Bowl champion Green Bay Packers back in the day, I was always fond of and a fan of, is suing Pat McAfee for defamation in state court in Mississippi.
	Pat McAfee has a very popular podcast.
	I've been a fan of his show now for a couple of years.
	I'll say this.
	So the allegation is that Pat McAfee reported on allegations that Brett Favre had stolen funds, if you will, misdirected charitable funds.
	That was a case we covered at the time.
	And said at the time, I was skeptical of the government's claims.
	I wasn't seeing evidence that he had really done anything criminally wrong.
	Basically, it was whether or not he encouraged the state to help fund a volleyball court.
	For his alma mater as part of an obligation to raise money for it.
	I was like, how exactly is that?
	Stealing from poor people?
	But those are some of the statements used.
	Thief, stealing from poor people, etc.
	What the complaint doesn't detail in Pat McAfee's defense is he said, we always said, allegedly.
	And we were just reporting on it.
	And then he had fun with the allegedly throughout his podcast.
	He was saying, remember...
	This is just allegedly.
	Now, he said he wasn't going to hire a lawyer and he was going to defend himself.
	I wouldn't recommend that in state court in Mississippi, just FYI.
	In fact, it would be wise for McAfee to remove that case, given it's between parties in different states, over 75,000 in the federal court.
	If you know anything about the state courts in Mississippi and you've got a local hero like Brett Favre doing there, you definitely don't want to be pro se defending yourself in that setting.
	I didn't know this.
	So Brett Favre, he's from Mississippi?
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Went to Southern Miss, torched the Florida State a couple times while he was there, drafted by the Atlanta Falcons, had a little fun down in New Orleans that caused a little controversy out of Mardi Gras, got himself traded to the Green Bay Packers, where his legend was built up, finished up his career at the New York Jets and the Minnesota Vikings.
	I saw his last great game in the NFC Championship game against the New Orleans Saints, went to overtime in the NFC Championship game.
	I know a lot of stories about Favre, good, bad, and otherwise, but mostly known for his charitable acts, by the way.
	He does a lot of charity across the board.
	I don't think the suit against Pat McAfee is the best suit, if McAfee is correct, that he repeatedly said allegedly and he was talking about reporting it and so on and so forth.
	But I think McAfee having fun with it on his podcast is one thing, suggesting he would represent himself pro se, not wise in state courts in Mississippi.
	The extent of my knowledge of Brett Favre is limited to there's something about Mary.
	Yeah, that's what I figured.
	All right.
	Okay, so that's another fun one.
	And Schaefer, what's the guy's name again?
	Pat McAfee?
	Pat McAfee, not Schaefer.
	Pat McAfee, if you're listening, you might want to heed to the wise words of Robert Barnes.
	Yeah, get a lawyer and take it to federal court.
	All right.
	Now, on to the serious stuff, Robert.
	What's the latest?
	There's a lot.
	So this week they added the COVID vaccine to the kids list.
	What that, as a recommended vaccine for kids, their excuse for it was it would help poor kids get it for free.
	Who's the they here?
	It's not the CDC.
	The CDC.
	The Centers for Disease Control.
	There's an advisory committee that's purportedly independent that recommended it.
	We're looking, Bobby Kennedy and I are looking at potential litigation that can be brought related to this because once it's put on that list, it's sometimes automatically added as mandatory in a bunch of states.
	And so far, the great efforts by Children's Health Defense has stopped that mandate in California, in D.C., in a bunch of places, but it'll be now more problematic because of this being added to the kids list.
	It also extends potential immunity from legal claims against the makers of the COVID vaccine by being added to the kids list because that triggers potential certain federal laws of recovery.
	Oh, yeah.
	So the two things, just to flesh that out.
	Some people are going to say, Robert, that's not accurate.
	It doesn't become mandatory at the state level.
	But if it becomes de facto mandatory, just because the states defer to the guidance of the CDC, if someone's going to respond to that argument counter coming from...
	Democrats or the left, they're going to say, you're lying, it's not mandatory.
	Is the proper retort, well, it's a de facto mandatory because states defer to CDC guidance?
	No, what it is is some states that have laws on the books that say if the CDC Advisory Committee puts it on the list, it's automatically mandatory for school children.
	I think last we checked, there's 14 states.
	So every state doesn't, but there are 14 states that have it automatic.
	Now, there's some suggestion that the states will try to Those states will try to change that, but it's not clear they're going to.
	And so that's the risk for school kids is come the next class year, school year, the fall of 2023, that if they follow their own state law, they have to now make it mandatory as a condition of admission to the school.
	Okay.
	And now flesh out the second element of that, which people were saying, why on earth would they do this?
	And some are saying, well, it's pharma lobby, but in so doing it, now pharma benefits from immunity because it's on the childhood recommended list.
	And therefore, Robert, that's accurate.
	That's true.
	Robert Kennedy predicted this over a year ago.
	He said, first, they'll keep it as emergency use authorization for as long as possible because of PrEP Act immunity.
	And then when that expires, they'll put it on the kids list so that then they have immunity because it's on the kids list.
	And that's precisely what's taking place.
	I mean, imagine, I think almost two years ago, they made the emergency use authorization for this at the same time that a biologic licensed drug was available.
	And they said, it's not.
	It's available only because it's not been manufactured yet.
	It's never been manufactured.
	It's never happened.
	It stayed under emergency use authorization the entire time.
	An emergency that goes on and on and on.
	We're three plus years into this so-called emergency.
	The abuse of these laws that some of us predicted at the time have come to fruition in full bloom.
	And so no question that that's the goal.
	Because the second aspect is PrEP Act immunity.
	Some people have asked, when can somebody injured by the vaccine sue?
	The problem is the PREP Act is very broad and there's been a bunch of people that have just flat out misconstrued it.
	So the PREP Act says if something is a covered countermeasure, any list of people that are involved in promoting it, developing it, designing it, manufacturing it, administering it, recommending it, you name it, are completely immune, period.
	Preempts all state law claims, preempts everything.
	The only exception is for willful misconduct.
	And so some people think, oh, you could just sue for willful misconduct.
	No, you can't.
	It is only considered willful misconduct if the federal government joins it.
	If the federal government doesn't join it, you can't sue for even willful misconduct, even for overt fraud, even for deliberate murder.
	You still can't sue.
	So right now, the PREP Act is so broad, so expansive in scope, and is being interpreted this way by a bunch of courts already, that nobody can sue for being vaccine injured.
	Now, you might be able to sue your employer if they mandated it under a theory of either assault or workers' compensation.
	We're investigating and researching that option.
	The other thing we're looking at, Bobby Kennedy and Children's Health Defense and I, is to challenge the constitutionality of the PREP Act.
	Because the PREP Act's scope is so broad, it stripped people of their constitutional right to trial by jury in matters of civil tort.
	It strips citizens of their right not to be experimented on.
	I mean, this was described...
	It's not mean, it's not anti-vax rhetoric.
	It's described as an experimental gene therapy on the NIH website once upon a time.
	And Robert, for anybody out there who calls me an asshole for really harping on that Jessica...
	Rob incident, the CTV news journalist who had a medical emergency on air and then her employer comes out.
	Although I think she might have also made some statements shortly thereafter.
	Her employer comes out with a self-serving statement on Twitter.
	She's feeling fine.
	She thanks you.
	And it had nothing to do with the vaccine when they could potentially be liable if it did under Canadian law.
	Because the immunity does not necessarily extend to employers who mandated it.
	It's a major problem.
	So we're looking at trying to find ways to sue who can be sued, ways to challenge and contest it.
	But people should be aware it's very difficult to sue for a vaccine injury.
	It just is.
	And that this is a problem with the laws that currently exist.
	What needs to happen ultimately is legislative changes to strip.
	In the Barnes brief today at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, I was responding in part to Scott Adams and others who have argued that anyone who said the vaccine was a bad idea was just lucky.
	And I was like, as I said at the time, there was one overarching reason why I did not support the vaccine, wouldn't recommend it, wouldn't take it myself.
	Immunity.
	Exactly.
	I was like, it's skin in the game.
	It's a basic analysis.
	Now, the irony is Nassim Taleb, who helped write the book on skin in the game and explain it and explicate its theories and its applications, himself went utterly berserk during the lockdown.
	I recommended to him, I was like, what if the black swan is you, Nassim?
	Not the pandemic.
	He then immediately blocked me and would not interact with me anymore, Mr. Independent thinker and debater.
	But the point of skin in the game is that when somebody...
	Can only get rewards and no risks.
	Then it completely distorts the incentives.
	And so your big drug companies were guaranteed profits because the government was the payer.
	So you're guaranteed billions of dollars in profits with zero risk.
	Zero risk.
	You could argue your fiduciary obligation to your corporation, and this goes back to the corporations as being soulless, the documentary about how it actually encourages psychopathic behavior.
	This is an example of that.
	If your goal is to the stockholders, is to increase profitability, isn't your goal to do everything possible to push and even lie about this drug when you lie about its safety, lie about its efficacy, when lie about whether it's even a vaccine, when you have guaranteed profits and zero risk?
	It's like, I'm not taking a drug from a drug company that has all the reasons in the world to lie to me and no reason at all to make sure it's actually safe and effective.
	And that was true from day one.
	And now we're seeing the consequences of that.
	There's a reason why Pfizer required this of every country in the world to mimic the PrEP Act's immunities extended to them.
	We've seen the government play games with the emergency use authorization, now the kids' authorization on this.
	And now we're seeing consequences as more and more data pours in about excess deaths attached to the timing of the vaccines, about countries that did not have big vaccine usage seeing lower excess deaths than countries that did.
	Including even so-called COVID-identified deaths.
	And we see another example of it with doctors and what's also happening this week.
	So there have now been a lawsuit brought against America's frontline doctors for promoting hydroxychloroquine by somebody who blames the death of someone on their advice about hydroxychloroquine brought in Nevada, brought against the doctor and America's frontline doctors.
	We have also seen ethics charges brought in the state of Washington against a doctor licensed in multiple states solely because he was challenging the orthodoxy on the COVID vaccine.
	And we've seen criminal prosecutions brought against a doctor in Utah by the federal government trying to lock him up for life because he did what his oath required him to do and what his patients asked him to do, which was to not administer the vaccine.
	And so what's happened, for every doctor out there, you would be insane not to recommend the vaccine in terms of self-interest if you ignore your Hippocratic Oath.
	Because the obligation is, if you're a doctor and somebody comes in and you tell them, hey, you need to take this vaccine, if you kill that patient because of the vaccine, you still can't be sued.
	You won't have any ethics challenges brought by any of the ethics boards.
	You won't have any criminal cases brought against you.
	But if you tell them, I think there's problems with this vaccine.
	And anything goes wrong, then you can be sued into oblivion.
	You can and will have ethics charges to try to disbar you as a doctor.
	And you can be criminally prosecuted, as already happened.
	Robert, look at this right here.
	That is my grimace wrinkle.
	It's permanently in my head now and here.
	That's my unhappy face.
	It's so preposterous.
	And I just, you know, I interviewed Dr. Shiva last Friday.
	He says, you know, basic common sense stuff of the practice of medicine, which is the right medicine for the right patient at the right time.
	I mangled it.
	But the idea now that medicine is a practice in as much as law is, and it was up to the discretion of the doctor, knowing their patient intimately, to make personalized decisions, as did lawyers in the context of their cases.
	And now you've got overarching bodies, the licensure, saying, you do it the way we tell you to do it.
	Basically a formula for applying what is fundamentally an intuitive person.
	A second time in one day I used that.
	A person-to-person relationship.
	And you incentivize cowardice from the practice of medicine and all the while fudging the numbers so that nobody really knows what's going on here.
	It's video games, supplements, climate change.
	What were some of the other good ones?
	The other ones.
	It's anything but causing the obvious problems.
	Someone had asked, actually, hold on, let me bring this up real quick.
	It's a good question.
	Sami says, can you talk about the likelihood that the states mandate the shot can well crack down on homeschooling regulations?
	Can they actually outlaw homeschooling?
	No, because of the Amish.
	So the Amish, in fact, Amos Miller.
	His grandfather was one of the people to challenge it.
	And so they first tried to force public education, government schools is what I like to call it, on everybody.
	And they used the Amish as their test case, and the Amish were resistant.
	They wanted to educate their children in the way they had traditionally historically done, consistent with their religious values and cultural values.
	And so they risked contempt charges.
	They risked going to jail.
	They risked all of it, went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	And the U.S. Supreme Court said that their right of religious expression and association precluded the state from denying them the right to educate their children as they saw fit.
	And so, once again, it was thanks to the Amish.
	Much as food freedom right now depends heavily on the Amish as well, defending, in the case of Amos Miller, against the U.S. Department of Agriculture and some of its associated entities and bureaucracies that are trying to remove that capacity for Amos Miller.
	A lot of people have been ordering food on our board from amosmillerorganicfarm.com and complimenting how all of it is awesome.
	I was just up there last week, and all of it was above average.
	All of it.
	I mean, they even make kefir drinks above average.
	They make yogurt above average.
	They make ice cream above average.
	Every single thing I had was just fantastic.
	What's a kefir drink?
	They even make better popcorn than normal popcorn.
	Oh, I had some apple pie that was delish, delish.
	I mean, it's just amazing.
	So if you want to support...
	Good food for yourself and support a critical person fighting for your food freedom.
	Go to AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com and order your food today.
	It can be delivered in 24 hours.
	I think there's some coming to your house, right?
	I think that might have been the good Valentine's Day gift.
	Milk.
	Delish Amos Miller or milk.
	Fresh milk or fresh milk.
	I got some myself.
	I didn't mean to distract you with that super chat, the rumble rant, but so on the vaccine front, so you have the CDC trying to add it to the childhood recommended list, which would extend, broaden the immunity already given to the vaccine manufacturers.
	Funny thing, actually, before I forget, Stephanie DeGarry, Maddie DeGarry's mother, actually said that her daughter and her family are even more screwed because they participated in the trials.
	They have even fewer recourses for the alleged injuries sustained by Maddie.
	But everyone pretty much is shit out of luck anyhow.
	Yeah, it shows.
	And Lula in Brazil is now requiring, if you want access to basic social welfare benefits, and remember Brazil is a country that at various times has had as much as half the country qualify for that because of its economic up and down and very large share of the population that at various times has been in poverty, that you have to have your kids vaccinated.
	And this raises questions about Lula.
	So Lula got in under suspect circumstances.
	Any effort to challenge the election is now being used to investigate criminally, to purge people from the Brazilian military and police, to try to criminally prosecute and punish Bolsonaro and his allies.
	Probably a reason why Bolsonaro went to Florida was to not be easily locatable within Brazil for wrongful criminal prosecution and punishment by Lula's regime.
	It further affirms the various criticism that Glenn Greenwald has provided of Lula and the censorship efforts by his allies in the Brazilian Supreme Court and raises questions about what the Biden administration was doing down there, promoting Lula's campaign in particular and what other activities are maybe up to.
	There may be developments I can't get into, but there's more suspicion.
	That of U.S. government and foreign intelligence being involved in the promotion of the Pfizer vaccine in particular.
	That may be information that will come about in the future.
	Beyond that, what's publicly known currently.
	And I know you have your reservations about the WEF and who's on their website, but Lula is, technical degree, former metalworkers union leader, 1975 elected president, metalworker trade, yada, yada, yada.
	But above and beyond that, he seems to be now, Acting in a manner that would make the WEF very happy.
	He's acting according to an internationalist script.
	So when he was president last time, there were controversies concerning him.
	Corruption allegations I had personal familiarity with that his administration was absolutely guilty of concerning the Clintons.
	And a very big donor to the Democratic Party here in the United States.
	And I was helping expose it at the time.
	So some of you have misconstrued comments I'd made about Lula as being, I said that Lula would not probably be very different than Bolsonaro as it applies to the Ukrainian conflict.
	That does not mean there isn't big differences between Bolsonaro and Lula and everything else.
	Lula's always fancied himself an international leader, has always wanted to be recognized as such, and it's clearly he's listening to somebody else's script at this point in terms of his administration.
	But it shows the dangers of where this is all going, this effort to continually control the human body as to food, as to medicine, as to all of it.
	In my view, in violation, as you mentioned, the contravention of the Nuremberg Code, Sadly, our federal courts are refusing to enforce right now because they're saying only governments can enforce it, which is nonsense.
	And what was I going to say about Lula?
	Oh, yeah, sorry.
	For everybody out there who may have seen a video translating Lula's recent speech, be aware one of the translations is not...
	Accurate.
	When he says if you don't get the vaccine to go to school, you're going to lose your benefits.
	If the mother doesn't want to vaccinate their children, you're going to lose them.
	And one translation was saying lose them as in lose your kids.
	At least from what I understand, they're not talking about taking the kids away yet.
	Only a matter of time.
	But taking away the benefits, state benefits, if a mother doesn't get their kids vaccinated.
	This is the insanity.
	I mean, he's a long ways away from his days as a labor guy.
	And it's like, we know there is no logical reason.
	There's no scientific reason.
	Let's say on that front, on the good news side, there was a court that affirmed that a mother could not force the vaccination over children without certain issues being further developed as to the safety and efficacy and necessity of the vaccine for those children.
	So that was a good sign by one court standing up and saying, hold on a second, we need to double check this.
	We need to take another look at this.
	We need to not be weaponizing our judicial power to force this on vulnerable children as more and more data comes out that this is utterly unsafe for young children.
	Yeah, some silver lining.
	That's not much of a silver lining, Robert, but yeah.
	But the fight back will continue.
	Now, you know, a guy who may win a good big claim is Alec Baldwin.
	Oh, this is interesting.
	I want to pull up the actual motion because the wording is very good, but Baldwin's looking to get the enhancement dismissed, not the charges.
	And this is big because the enhancement is...
	Oh, yeah, so the enhancement's a minimum mandatory five where...
	We were looking at it, or I was, and I'm saying, like, I don't even see how he gets out of the enhancement, but do I read it or do I share it?
	No, basically, I'll say, the bottom line, they're referring to it as an unconstitutional and elementary legal error by charging Baldwin under a statute that didn't exist as drafted at the time, and apparently the enhancement at the time only related to crimes where a firearm was brandished in the commission of a non-capital felony.
	And it defined brandish to mean displaying or making a firearm known to another person while the firearm is present on the person of the offending party with the intent to intimidate or injure a person.
	That is the standard legal definition of brandishing.
	And if Baldwin can get the mandatory enhancement tossed, he's looking at a maximum of 18 months, not a minimum of five years.
	Robert, I mean, look, people know New Mexico law better than others.
	What do you think of it?
	I think Baldwin's lawyers are right.
	So there's no allegation in the indictment that he brandished the weapon.
	And the law at the time of the incident, I think they called it the accident, almost caught them suckering me with their words.
	But the time of the incident, it required it.
	And they changed it after that, but the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution, as well as the ex post facto clause of the New Mexico Constitution, make clear you can never apply a criminal law retroactively.
	So if you change a criminal law somewhere down the road, you can't retroactively apply it.
	Now, there's certain civil laws you can, but most criminal laws, well, no criminal law can do so.
	So you can't say after somebody's done something, you know, I really wish it should have been punished this way.
	I really wish it could be labeled a crime for this reason.
	That can't happen.
	So because the indictment doesn't allege brandishing, and brandishing was required at the time, they can't impose the new version of the law.
	He'll get that dismissed and dramatically lower his risk in this trial.
	Well, I mean, it's...
	Who knew that the law was amended so recently?
	But whichever lawyer, I mean, they're going to get a bonus because it seems like a no-brainer.
	It was not brandishing a firearm by any means because the intent was never to...
	Cause fear in anybody.
	Unless you have your interpretation.
	They could add those allegations to the indictment.
	Oh, son of a beasting.
	I'm smarter than I even know that I am, Robert.
	You're right.
	If he did pull that trigger to scare her because thinking it was a blank, there you have it.
	They could have added that allegation.
	They chose not to.
	So I think in order to get brandishing back in, they have to add that allegation and convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he did in fact brandish the gun before it fired.
	That would be known as a superseding indictment?
	They'd have to go get that approved by a grand jury again?
	It depends.
	Sometimes in the States, you can bring a criminal complaint and then it's clear the court determines probable cause as opposed to a grand jury.
	It looks like that's how the process they're pursuing here in New Mexico.
	The court is going to determine whether he's bound over, as they call it, and makes a probable cause finding.
	They're moving to only dismiss the enhancement, but they're also saying the court should not find probable cause to bind him over on that enhancement since it's not part of the current allegation.
	But they could always bring an amended criminal complaint that the court could then add that potential claim to it.
	My guess is they don't want to make that.
	They're not pursuing that theory.
	They're pursuing more of the recklessness theory rather than proving the personal deliberate intent theory.
	And if that's the way they're going to go, they're going to lose the enhancement.
	And then he typically would get six months in jail if that, even if convicted.
	Typical law.
	So that's a massive, massive reduction of risk.
	Unless they go back.
	Now, like you mentioned, go see my original analysis and amend accordingly.
	Robert, I'll do two rumble rants.
	I love this function.
	Sammy says New York State passed a law in 2019 saying children under 18 cannot use religious exemptions to opt out of vaccinations and attend public school.
	Would this be used to say you cannot homeschool in New York?
	And before you answer that, I'll just say, Hamartix, as a teacher in a blue state, watching the toll this has taken on my kids is infuriating.
	I hope they can't also start mandating boosters on teachers.
	They're supposed to update the U.S. requirements, banning, not allowing unvaccinated foreigners from coming in.
	The House passed it.
	It's up to the Senate, the Biden administration, whether Biden passes it or not.
	He said he's going to get rid of it by May.
	They're trying to accelerate that timetable.
	Credit to Thomas Massey.
	A few Democrats did cross the line in support removing that restriction and restraint.
	I mean, even Canada doesn't have that restraint now.
	That's the ultimate irony in all of this.
	Canada's still off the deep end, but now the restrictions are actually coming into the States and not going into Canada.
	No doubt.
	Someone had challenged me, Robert.
	Just a general rule.
	I don't block people on Twitter, but if someone says, why don't you cover the Arizona audit, are you afraid?
	That's not the best way to get me to do anything, and it's a stupid thing to say about everything that I've ever done on the internet.
	Yeah, I'm afraid of covering the Arizona audit.
	We covered it.
	People can go back.
	We covered the trial live.
	We had two whole days of covering the trial live, so you can go back and look.
	I'm controlled opposition.
	I'm a coward.
	I'm not talking about the real risk.
	Okay, Robert, what's the latest on the Arizona audit?
	Because I don't know.
	So there's two parts.
	The Attorney General candidate has zoned challenge, and he has pointed out that provisional ballots, these are ballots that were cast by people who, for some reason, were denied the ability to vote on the day of the election, that the number of provisional ballots is more than enough to show that he actually won the election.
	So that's taking place in the Arizona trial courts.
	Meanwhile, Carrie Lake's challenge going up to the Court of Appeals, she's filed her reply brief now, so it's a fully briefed case, and she's laid out the...
	Key errors made by the Arizona trial court.
	And basically, it's the exact same errors we identified at the time, which is, first of all, Arizona law does not require you to prove intentional fraud.
	It's fraud or mistakes.
	The whole goal of this, an election contest is simple.
	Is there something about the way the election was conducted that leads you to have doubt, just doubt, about who won the election, about what the intent of the voter was?
	That's it.
	It's that simple.
	That's been the math and the law for over a century in Arizona and elsewhere.
	They've set aside governors almost a year into a governor's term by determining it wasn't actually the will of the people for him to be elected.
	Based on simply abnormalities, simple anomalies.
	You don't even have to prove negligence.
	You don't have to prove fraud.
	And here the trial court required clear and convincing evidence of a deliberate intentional misconduct that was equal to fraud that actually caused any doubt about the election.
	There was an extra one there.
	That was intended to cause...
	Yes, intended to cause.
	Even if it did in fact cause it, if it wasn't intended to cause it, oh, well then, according to this judge, the impossible burden that he laid out...
	A burden you could never meet under the compressed timeframe of an election contest, which often has to be litigated within days or weeks of the actual election.
	You're not afforded normal discovery at all.
	And so laid out that that was clear, that the clear and convincing evidence standard was just made up by the court, that the fraud standard was directly contradicted controlling Arizona.
	that the causation standard directly contradicted Arizona case law and all of it directly contradicts the public policy at issue here which is all about what was the will of the voter.
	So they laid that out.
	The other compartment they laid out was that one of the anomalies in the election was the constitutional issues, that that is an anomaly is constitutional violations that occur.
	And so the court's complete dismissal of those claims was its own legal error.
	And then last, well, two other components.
	They pointed out from a causation perspective, Richard Barris' testimony, the People's Pundit, clearly met the evidentiary standard, that generally you prefer someone with real-world experience in the profession more than...
	And this attempt to limit expertise to academic publication doesn't even make sense when the government is relying upon, the state of Arizona is relying upon, the 538.
	And guess how many academic studies 538's ever published?
	Big fat zero.
	So they're like, oh, 538 doesn't like Richard Barris.
	These other sites list them as in the top two of all posters of independence and accuracy over the last 10 years.
	FiveThirtyEight doesn't like him, but who cares?
	Because according to the government's own claims, they're not published either.
	What you want is real-world experience, which he indisputably and irrefutably has, and they could have done their own polling, the state.
	They didn't, because they knew it would have shown the exact same thing that Richard Barris' data showed.
	So that they did produce substantial evidence that it had a consequential effect on the election, that the tabulator errors and chain of custody errors were sufficient to raise doubts about the election given the very small margin of victory in the case, about 17,000 votes.
	And then last but not least, that the court was completely wrong in striking the signature verification challenge.
	The court's excuse was a combination of latches and the idea that you had to bring that challenge because you were challenging the procedures themselves.
	But as they laid out, they weren't challenged.
	They were saying if the procedures had been properly applied, there were a bunch of ballots that were counted that shouldn't have been.
	A bunch of signatures did not match.
	By law, they had to match.
	Their procedures required that they match.
	They didn't match, and they counted them anyway.
	And so that is its ground.
	So legally, excellent argument by Carrie Lake's counsel.
	They should prevail.
	The only question is the Arizona courts, with a notorious reputation of corruption, by the way.
	I'll be a future hush-hush about how the Arizona courts tried to and did corruptly interfere with a district attorney and other people in Arizona that tried to expose misconduct as to court funding.
	Long, notorious history of it.
	The hurdle is either the political ineptitude, the Pontius Pilate approach of many courts to election controversies.
	When the dissident candidate is on the ballot, or just flat-out corruption, is the only hurdle, in my view, because the law is clearly and compellingly on Carrie Lake's side.
	The only question is, will the law be enforced by the Arizona courts?
	Yeah, it'll be the...
	Not that...
	It'll be the last...
	He who laughs last, laughs hardest.
	And when it comes to Mark Elias...
	Relishing in the outcome.
	They do good work, but it's easy to play on the home court.
	No doubt about that.
	And again, Mark Elias is the chief money launderer for the Clinton regime that should have been criminally prosecuted years ago when he was at Perkins Co.
	I know nothing of this.
	All that I know is that I now know that Mark Elias, his firm is the one that was representing Carrie Lake, not Carrie Lake, but Katie Hobbs.
	Yes.
	He promised that he would get a bunch of attorney's fees paid, which he did not get.
	Yeah, he was asking for 500 and some odd thousand.
	Absurd, absurd amount of fees.
	Meta Facebook lawyers, this will just be briefly, got finally, a court finally sanctioned them for their extraordinary discovery abuses.
	I think it's Gibson Dunn was the corporate firm involved.
	It was a big corporate firm.
	So it was good to see them finally suffer some accountability and responsibility, though I'm not a big fan of the power of courts to sanction, period, because I think they circumvent the requirement of monetary judgments by trial by jury, and they're most often used to target dissidents.
	But it shows you how egregious Facebook conduct was.
	Now note, people are just having to pay...
	Sanctions.
	Know what doesn't happen when big corporate people notoriously and flagrantly violate discovery rules.
	They don't get default judgments issued against them, do they?
	Just a little reminder of the disparity and discrepancy that highlights the abuse that took place against Alex Jones in his Texas and Connecticut cases.
	But we got a big Second Amendment case, a big First Amendment case, and a big wealth tax case left to discuss.
	Not to rush you, Robert, but I'm getting the nudge that I'm almost running out of time here.
	Okay, you go for them, and I'll ask my questions if I have.
	First Amendment case is real basic.
	Some folks were told that they couldn't publicly protest without wearing masks and socially distancing.
	So a local church who had been basically ordered to be locked down during the COVID pandemic went out and protested and refused to honor the masking or social distancing requirements.
	And they simply sang psalms.
	And for singing psalms, opposing churches being closed, they were arrested.
	And a court brought suit.
	I mean, they brought suit, alleging various violations, and the federal court noted that the actual law itself said it didn't apply to First Amendment conduct, and that this was expressive conduct under the First Amendment, this was speech conduct, associational conduct, this was right to petition conduct, this was religious affiliation and expression conduct, and as such was invariably and indisputably protected and thus exempt from the law, and they never should have been arrested in the first place.
	Robert, but hold on, because we are scientists here, Robert.
	Okay, we trust the science.
	Are protests dangerous?
	What experts say may depend on who's protesting what.
	So BLM protests, knock yourselves out.
	Church singing hymns.
	Everyone knows that singing is more dangerous than screaming, Robert.
	Okay, absurdity.
	Second Amendment.
	No doubt about it.
	The Second Amendment case, big Second Amendment case brought by the state of Texas and several other states and gun owners of America against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
	ATF has proposed a new rule, which would basically make a criminal of millions of Americans by changing the definition of rifles and pistols in such a way that if you use a stabilizing brace on the gun, it is now considered a short-barreled rifle or otherwise criminally...
	So this is another attempt by the Biden administration to circumvent the legislative process, ignore Second Amendment rights, and try to more broadly restrict the ability to sell guns, make guns, or own guns in America.
	So they brought the challenge on multiple grounds, a lot of them administrative procedures at grounds, that certain notice and comment wasn't properly afforded, that it was arbitrary and capricious in what evidence was ignored, and what reliance interests were already present because the ATF had previously interpreted the same rule throughout its entire history.
	To not be exactly what they're now saying, that this is now a legally prohibited gun simply by using a stabilizing brace, and that it subjects millions of Americans to criminal felony charges, forfeiture of weapons, loss of license to sell a gun, and court-martialing risk on top of other potential penalties, including state crimes they could be faced with.
	In addition, it required people to disclose a particular information on a form.
	That would then be shared with local and state governments that the very information being required on that form would be an admission against interest that would be allowed to be used as evidence against them for criminal prosecution.
	This is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court had already struck down almost 50 years ago concerning the National Firearms Act of 1934, that the Registration Act violated the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.
	Which applies outside of just an actual criminal prosecution context.
	They're also bringing a challenge that the law is notoriously vague and how it applies because, once again, the ATF plays games with its verbiage in such a way as to make anyone possibly suspect to the law that wouldn't know it.
	That's what's called the void for vagueness doctrine in violation of the due process clause.
	And maybe they bring a Second Amendment challenge.
	They're saying that the requirement is the gun must be both dangerous and unusual and have a history of regulation.
	It doesn't.
	They have a bunch of great photos in the complaint.
	I'll put up a copy of the complaint at vivobarneslaw.locals.com of all the historic guns that are just like this that they're now suddenly saying is illegal, that have never been regulated or restricted before in America's history, particularly at the time of either the passing of 1789 or 1868 at the time of various amendments that were passed that may be applicable in this context under the Bruin decision in New York.
	And last but not least, they have an interesting challenge that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed as a taxing act, as an act of taxing power, because this was before interstate commerce became the excuse for a lot of federal regulation.
	Now, of course, that was always a lie.
	They admitted when they passed the bill, the point was to have such a prohibitive tax that it would prohibit the sale of particular guns in America.
	But because it's sold as a taxing act, that means any implementation of it has to be consistent with it.
	So they're challenging it under the West Virginia decision that says this is a usurpation of legislative authority, violation of separation of powers of the branches of government.
	But also they're challenging it as an unapportioned direct tax.
	And that relates to our wealth tax case coming up.
	To give some broader context that relates to both cases, the U.S. Constitution prohibits any direct tax, that's the language, direct tax, unless it is apportioned equal to the population as determined by a census.
	Now, apportionment is almost impossible to enforce or even administer in the modern age.
	Consequently, what that means is a direct tax is always unconstitutional unless it comes within the exception in the 16th Amendment.
	Which provided that a tax could be a direct tax on income, regardless of the source derived.
	Though there's controversy about the meaning of the 16th Amendment and whether it really restricted that.
	There's some Supreme Court case law that says it didn't.
	It just enforced what another justice said previously.
	What happened is in 1895, Pollack's decision goes up to U.S. Supreme Court.
	U.S. Supreme Court says an income tax is really a tax on property.
	So consequently, it's a direct tax.
	It's not apportioned.
	It's thus unconstitutional.
	A dissenting justice said, no, when you're taxing the profit and gain from an activity severed from the property itself, when you're not taxing someone because they own property, but because they have profit and gain from the property, then the source rule allows the taxation to occur without apportionment because it's not a direct tax.
	That justice was the chief justice when they challenged the Income Tax Act and the 16th Amendment.
	The Revenue Act of 1913.
	And that justice said, all this amendment did is say I was right all the way back in 1895 and say the sourcing rule removes it from a direct tax.
	Under that interpretation, any direct tax is still unconstitutional, even if labeled an income tax.
	So the question is, under the Firearms Act and this final rule, is they admit it's not going to generate any revenue.
	And consequently, your taxing authorities are only grounds to do anything pursuant to the National Firearms Act.
	This is a direct unapportioned tax because you're taxing someone for the privilege of ownership, period.
	Owning the gun triggers the obligation to pay the tax.
	That is classic direct unapportioned taxes.
	That relates, and so that'll be an interesting part of that Second Amendment challenge and ATF challenge.
	But the other provision, the way that also applies, is the Ninth Circuit just affirmed a...
	Change to the foreign tax laws, foreign tax credit application, and other aspects of foreign sourcing, what's called controlled corporation rules, under the federal tax laws.
	That was actually passed by Trump in 2018.
	And the challenge was, what was happening is, if you had owned shares in a foreign company, they changed the imputation rules to say if merely owning shares will be considered income.
	As if you received the profit from it, even if you hadn't received it yet.
	The challenge was, well, that's taxing me because of ownership.
	You're not taxing me because of the receipts of profit.
	You're taxing me because I own shares.
	The Ninth Circuit ignored that.
	The Ninth Circuit said, nah, no problem.
	You can go ahead and do that change.
	The problem that raises is people in the tax legal community were like, hold on a second.
	That seems like a green light to impose a...
	Wealth tax, like Elizabeth Warren wants, which is basically a federal property tax to tax you on your property.
	And this goes all the way back.
	The original goal was to not be able to tax someone for existing, called a capitation tax or a head tax, as it was known throughout England.
	But it goes beyond that.
	The great fear was a centralized federal power's capability to either have a standing army...
	Or have the means of direct taxation would basically strip individual liberty from the ordinary American and the power of state governments to control their own affairs and local governments to be the most democratic form of government and more responsive to the local population and its needs.
	And so the goal was the federal government could only tax tariffs.
	That was really the goal.
	Tax money coming in and coming out.
	Customs tariffs were assumed to be the main one.
	In fact, customs tariffs were the main source of not only federal revenue, For actually a lot of patronage and other stuff that went on back in the day.
	So there's a good argument that the direct tax should be a lot more broader than the courts have been willing to interpret it.
	But the Supreme Court approved the carriage tax in D.C. some years back early on in America's constitutional history.
	But that was a time when the Supreme Court justices would each issue their own opinion.
	You had no one opinion.
	And they all had different arguments as to why.
	But ultimately...
	To me, a wealth tax or property tax is clearly a direct tax.
	It's a tax on the privilege of ownership merely for the privilege of ownership.
	That is an indisputable, irrefutable direct tax under the best legal scholastic analysis.
	So a wealth tax should still be unconstitutional despite this questionable construction application to the unique kind of context of controlled corporate, controlled CFCs, controlled foreign corporations, that has some unique application to it and unique constitutional issues because it...
	It concerns a foreign corporation.
	So it's more analogous to the customs and tariffs that were allowed than the direct taxes that were prohibited and precluded.
	So I don't think the decision goes as far as some of its most concerned legal analysts think.
	But it's an issue to still come about.
	In my view, the exit tax is also an unconstitutional direct tax as well.
	And I think tax on one's labor is that in certain contexts.
	But courts have generally not been willing to go that far because who writes their checks each year?
	All right, Robert, that's a lot to digest.
	Now I see that I actually have to...
	I have to go, Robert.
	We only have one last fun case to cover.
	Okay, hold on.
	Then we have to remind everyone what our schedule for the week is.
	What's the last case?
	So there's two cases we'll cover next week.
	The Google Antitrust case we'll cover next week and when you can sue police or sue medical examiners when they falsify testimony.
	We'll cover both those next week.
	But the last one this week is Killer Hair.
	It turns out, according to this suit, Bates v.
	L 'Oreal?
	L 'Oreal.
	It's French.
	I knew it was something fancy.
	But they basically target black women to straighten their hair, which is an old sort of European definition of beauty that's been controversially, culturally kind of imposed on the black community for a long time.
	They reference this throughout the lawsuit.
	But basically, it turns out...
	The hair straightener has a lot of very toxic chemicals in it.
	They call them, I'll mispronounce this word, but fatalates or fatalates or something like that.
	P-H-T-A-L-E-A-T-E-S and endocrine and endocene disruptors.
	I can't pronounce medical words.
	Not good stuff that should go on your skin and hair.
	Basically, it's carcinogenic.
	It causes cancers and interferes with the core function of the biology of the body, including has almost like Bill Gates vaccine desirable effects, causes problems with being able to have children, infertility issues, a range of other health issues, diabetes, you name it.
	And so they're bringing claims as negligence, consumer protection, warranty claims, fraud claims, that the allegations they've known for a while.
	That these products have extraordinarily dangerous chemicals in them, and they brought on behalf of a woman who suffers from uterine cancer, which is a particular risk of these hair straighteners, but it's another big corporate consumer product that somehow skipped the FDA's regulations and controls when it's these big corporations.
	They're worried about Amish farmers making nice, good, delicious meat for us instead of worrying about the big companies making dangerous products, killing us off by things like cosmetics.
	Yep, no, no.
	And they didn't give L 'Oreal immunity, so L 'Oreal doesn't have that arrow in their quiver.
	Phylates.
	Somebody says in the locals' chat it's called phylates and endocrime.
	Endocrime apparently is the pronunciation of the other word.
	All right, I've got some leftover rants, which I'll read tomorrow when I go live.
	But by the way, it's a busy week.
	In about 12 hours, I'm going to be live with Dr. Asim Malhotra tomorrow morning.
	I don't think I'm going to be able to do another stream after that tomorrow.
	And then Wednesday, whether or not I do something during the day, Robert, we have the Duran.
	One o 'clock Eastern is the Duran.
	Oh, one o 'clock.
	That's right.
	Okay, so one o 'clock Eastern.
	Good!
	I won't do two streams on Wednesday.
	Thursday, people, this is going to be interesting.
	Dr. Eugene Gu, who, if anyone's been listening to the Twitter spaces, he's a...
	I don't want to attribute politics.
	He believes in the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.
	And he's thus far been the only one on one side of the spectrum who has agreed to come on and discuss.
	So that's going to be phenomenal.
	Six o 'clock Eastern Thursday.
	And Robert, you've gone full pixelation here.
	I don't know if that's my internet or yours.
	But Robert, this has been phenomenal.
	So we've got a busy week.
	What else?
	What's your schedule, Robert?
	Any other appearances?
	No, just bourbon with Barnes at Viva Barnes Law.
	That, local staff.
	Oh, he's gone full robo, unless it's just me.
	Wait, no, let me see what the chat says.
	Okay, and Robert, you are going live tonight?
	Yes.
	Okay, if anyone can hear that, that was a robotic yes.
	Okay, everybody, good timing, I guess.
	Everybody in the chat, thank you for being here.
	I've got some rants.
	I'll read them tomorrow on Locals.
	I'll do an exclusive Locals tomorrow after I see Dr. Mahatra, and it's going to be amazing.
	So everybody, see you in the morning.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	The stream will be on podcast format tomorrow, and you know where to find the clips, Viva Clips.
	So everyone, enjoy the night.

▲