Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 1, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:12:25

Ep. 180: Government Shutdown? Trump NY "Fraud"; Musk at the Border! AND MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Behold the hero.
	And I'm gonna do an audio check after we get started.
	To a country.
	We don't take an oath to a tribe.
	We don't take an oath to a religion.
	We don't take an oath to a king, or a queen, or a tyrant, or a dictator.
	And we don't take an oath to a wannabe dictator.
	We don't take an oath to an individual.
	We take an oath to the Constitution.
	And we take an oath to the idea that it's America, and we're willing to die to protect it.
	Every soldier, sailor, airman, marine, guardian, and coast guardman, each of us commits our very life to protect and defend that document, regardless of personal price to a country.
	He sounds like an absolute gangster of the lowest intellectual order, like out of a movie.
	If they were going to make someone sound like this.
	Chat, let me know if my volume is off.
	I'm trying to figure out.
	Can you imagine?
	He's indirectly, but obviously talking about President Trump.
	In theory, what he's saying is fine.
	To the extent that the oath that he took, he actually respected.
	This is General Milley.
	Let's just hear this one more time.
	We don't take an oath to a tribe.
	We don't take an oath to a religion.
	That sounds like two anti-Semitic references right there.
	If I'm not mistaken, Milley, I don't want to read too much.
	I'm joking.
	We don't take an oath to a king or a queen or a tyrant or a dictator.
	A tyrant or a dictator or a wannabe dictator.
	This guy, he's taken high school creative writing.
	It's very powerful.
	We don't take an oath to a wannabe dictator.
	We don't take an oath to an individual.
	I don't care to hear the rest of this.
	You know who tweeted this segment out?
	Liz Cheney.
	This is a patriot.
	Thank you to General Milley for his service to our nation.
	Now, ordinarily, I am reflexively inclined to thank anyone who has served, even if I disagree with them ideologically, in a material way.
	They are braver than most, and they have sacrificed more than most, myself included.
	This is General Milley, and the question here is, how good is everyone's collective memory?
	Does everybody remember who General Milley is?
	Above and beyond being one who allowed gender ideology to infiltrate the military, the one who talked about white rage, and he wants to understand why white people have rage.
	Does everybody remember...
	A very interesting part of General Milley, and I don't think everybody does.
	Where the heck is the article?
	Oh, that's right.
	I lost the link.
	Hold on one second.
	General Milley, I'm just going to go Milley heads up China.
	Does everyone remember this?
	Ah, yes, yes, yes.
	Here, this was just a mild, a mild, nothing of a scandal.
	He's a hero.
	He's a patriot.
	He doesn't serve a dictator or a wannabe dictator.
	He said that he would give China a heads up.
	Admitted.
	Gosh, these websites with their overlay ads are borderline useless.
	This is from the New York Post from September 29th, 2021.
	Milley admits he would tell Chinese general if U.S. launched attack.
	It's like they speak in these beautiful platitudes like heroes, like people with principles who respect the Constitution.
	As though we've forgotten all about this.
	How long is this video here?
	No intent to attack.
	And it was my task to make sure I communicated that.
	And the purpose was to deescalate.
	I am certain, guaranteed certain, that President Trump had no intent to attack.
	And it was my task to make sure I communicated that.
	And the purpose was to deescalate.
	You shared all that earlier, I understand.
	Just say, did you or did you not ask, tell him that if we were going to attack, you would let him know?
	As part of that conversation, I said, generally, there's not going to be a war, there's not going to be attacked.
	But if there is.
	And if there was, the tensions would build up.
	There'd be calls going back and forth from all kinds of senior officials.
	I said, hell, generally, I'll probably give you a call, but we're not going to attack you.
	Trust me, we're not going to attack you.
	Hell, I'll probably give you a call.
	I will undermine the President of the United States.
	The Constitution to which I pledged an oath.
	Hell, I'll call you.
	If things look like they're going to really hit the fan, I will call you undermining the President of the United States.
	I'm fairly certain there are several laws that prohibit such conduct, but it was only an admission.
	These are two great powers, and I am doing my best to transmit the President's intent, President Trump's intent, to ensure that the American people are protected from an incident that could escalate.
	I understand your intent, but I think you articulating that, that you would tell him, you would give him a call, I think is worthy of your resignation.
	I just think that's against our country, that you would give our number one adversary that information and tell him that.
	Mind-blowing.
	We don't need to watch the rest of that.
	By the way, how many people in the chat knew of that or remembered that?
	Liz Cheney, a woman who considers herself to be the utmost of patriots.
	Daughter of a war criminal, praising a man who says, I would undermine the commander-in-chief and give a heads-up to our biggest nuclear ideological adversary in the event that the shit was going to hit the fan.
	Mamacita, buenas noches, no es bueno.
	Good evening, everybody.
	Let me go to Rumble, make sure everything's good on Rumble.
	There's that persisting glitch, which...
	Looks like it's been fixed.
	I've opened up Rumble in two separate windows.
	When I open it in one banner, sometimes I don't get to see the chat or the Rumble Rant plug-in.
	So we're good on Rumble.
	Actually, I don't know that we're good.
	I checked.
	Let me just, you know, before going any further, let's see that we're good on Rumble.
	We're good on Rumble.
	Looks like we're good based on the comments.
	We got...
	Alberta Rosie says, he is a criminal.
	Psychedelic Math says, I don't actually speak Spanish.
	I speak French.
	Canada has become a country governed by tyranny.
	We'll get into it during the show tonight.
	You've seen the newest thing, the newest headline.
	The CRTC, which was governed.
	To issue its own directives as to how the Online Streaming Act is going to be implemented.
	They're going to regulate any platform that hosts a podcast that makes more than $10 million a year.
	And, oh, don't worry everybody, they're going to stop at $10 million.
	They're never going to lower it to $1 million.
	We'll get there, we'll get there.
	Alright, but before we get there, before we get into the Rumble France, you all may have noticed...
	This video contains a paid sponsor because it does.
	We're going to talk about the RNC debate tonight, but I met the Field of Greens sponsor in person.
	They like me.
	Yes!
	They like me, I like them, and it was fun to meet the people who actually facilitate your online existence.
	Sponsors that you like, that like you, that you like working with, and that you like endorsing.
	I met the people from Field of Greens and they're amazing.
	But Field of Greens is a sponsor for tonight, people.
	The link is in the chat.
	It's in the description and you know what to do.
	But I'll just give you the lowdown on Field of Greens.
	Powdered Greens.
	Desiccated Greens.
	Some people think that I have a lisp, which I do.
	A minor lisp.
	But when I do those Twitter spaces on the iPhone mic, my goodness, it sounds like I'm saying th instead of s.
	And some people like, or it sounds like I'm wearing, nothing wrong with wearing dentures, but I have a lisp.
	So, desiccated greens, not defecated greens.
	Desiccated, it's of the origin of French, sec, or desicqué, I don't know.
	It's dried, pulverized greens.
	Fruits and vegetables that you, you know, they pulverize it into this powder.
	You take one spoonful twice a day.
	One spoonful is a serving of fruits and vegetables with all of the antioxidants.
	The next best thing to eating raw fruits and vegetables, most people don't know you're supposed to have five to seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables daily.
	Most people do not have that.
	Before this stream, I went out to get my daily dose, and I took some cilantro and ate it with a chili pepper, which was a lot spicier than I thought it was going to be, as my wake-up before the show.
	But when I travel, it's sometimes very difficult to get fresh fruits and vegetables.
	Having this as a healthy alternative to McDonald's crap Burger King boycott, don't support them.
	It's good stuff.
	Made in America, USDA organic approved because it's a food, not a supplement or an extract.
	You go to fieldofgreens.com, it'll bring you to BrickHouse Nutrition, but promo code VIVA for 15% off your initial order.
	The description is in the link.
	Hold on, we have a guest.
	What do you want?
	Get over here.
	All right, Winston is in the house.
	Look at this doggy.
	Oh, now that you're here, I'm actually going to look at your paw.
	He wasn't letting me look between his toes.
	I think he might have had something in there that he was nibbling at.
	Okay, get out of here.
	So we've got a show tonight.
	So let's see.
	I've got a couple of videos to play up front.
	The first one, I'm starting light with General Milley.
	Before I get into that, actually, let me do the standard disclaimers.
	No medical advice.
	No election fornification advice.
	But we're going to be talking about election fornification.
	No legal advice ever.
	Be weary of anybody who would give legal advice over the interwebs and be especially weary of anybody who would take legal advice over the interwebs.
	Cheryl Gage says, Luke Rudkowski definitely has ADD.
	That was a wild 15 minutes running around with him.
	So we were at the RNC debate.
	I put together a 15 minute vlog on the main channel.
	That did not include the walk around with Luke Rudkowski.
	He might have ADD.
	Who would I be to criticize him for that?
	But he's got a wealth of knowledge of the occult.
	Barnes is the legal brain.
	Grobert...
	And Hunley are the JFK conspiracy brains.
	And Luke Rutkowski is the Bohemian Grove occult symbology brains.
	Everybody out there, when you see those wonderful things, they're called Super Chats on YouTube, Rumble Rants on Rumble.
	YouTube takes 30% of these.
	So if you want to support the channel, the best way to do it, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Seven bucks a month, 70 bucks a year at a discounted rate.
	Or more if you so choose.
	People do that.
	Or on Rumble.
	Rumble takes 20% of the Rumble rants, the YouTube equivalent of Super Chats.
	But for the rest of the year, they take zero.
	Or you can get some merch.
	We'll talk about the merch afterwards.
	You look funny with a naked face.
	Well, it's been 48 hours, so I've got my 5 o 'clock shadow back.
	In some sense.
	I had to exfoliate.
	I had to get sun on my face.
	It had been a long enough time.
	And I had played with my beard a little bit, so I had a few bald patches which were irritating me.
	So I had to shave it, start anew, exfoliate, tan, and we shall regrow.
	Phantom Lord DJHO7 says, General Milley is the modern day Benedict Arnold and should be treated in that manner I don't know what that means.
	I hope that means nothing bad.
	And also said he would not follow the orders of POTUS.
	He's a traitor.
	There's no question about that.
	I knew about it.
	Okay.
	I will leave that.
	Ginger Ninja.
	Thank you very much.
	So I started soft with General Milley.
	Let's go hard.
	Oh my goodness.
	I met Patrick Bet-David again at this conference.
	He has grown on me rapidly.
	I mean, I love his demeanor.
	He's like the stern father, the stern, loving father that everybody is sort of scared of, but that everybody secretly wants.
	The guy who looks at you, judging what you have to say, being critical, but also he has a very loving...
	A look in his eyes.
	It's gonna sound a little weird.
	He's got a very sincerely caring look in his eyes.
	When you talk to him, he's listening to you to understand you.
	And some people say to a flaw because he had on...
	Who was that guy?
	Here, this guy.
	What's his name?
	Steve Schmidt.
	We got another Schmidt for brains.
	All right, sorry, sorry.
	Spoiler alert.
	I wasn't very polite with him on Twitter and he blocked me.
	I don't blame him.
	But I guess he's not going to do a podcast because I called him.
	Anybody who compares January 6th to 9-11, I'm going to say it unabashedly.
	They are a shameless, incorrigible piece of shit.
	Period.
	Period.
	Oh, and I wasn't comparing...
	Let's hear.
	I think this is it where he says it.
	I wasn't comparing January 6th to September 11th in terms of casualties.
	More people died on September 11th, but January 6th was a more serious attack on our democracy.
	Pieces of shit say things like that.
	Pieces of shit try to equivocate January 6th to Pearl Harbor, to September 11th, to...
	Can't even think of another one.
	So, yeah, I called on that and he blocked me.
	Fine.
	Understood.
	My bad.
	Attack on the 6th was incited by one of the 44 people in the history of the country who raised his hand and swore the 35-word oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
	Patrick Bet-David listens to people to understand them.
	To my fault, I probably would have said, hold it there, Schmidt for brains.
	What did he do specifically to incite what you just referenced there?
	What did he do to incite it?
	Oh, is it when he said, go down to the Capitol and protest peacefully and patriotically?
	Is that in your demented mind incitement?
	But let's let the man speak because, you know...
	Some people fault Patrick Bet-David for even giving this guy a platform to spew his absolute idiocy.
	And I say good on Patrick Bet-David.
	Stupidity needs a bullhorn, not a wet blanket.
	Period.
	Period.
	It was the most grotesque betrayal and abdication of presidential responsibility in American history.
	Oh, that was!
	Protest peacefully.
	This was a fraudulent election.
	That's the biggest abdication.
	Hillary Clinton running around for three years saying he's an illegitimate president is not.
	Obama spying on Trump incoming as president is not.
	No, this is.
	This is.
	I did a podcast with Troy Goldenberg where it's out.
	I'll send the link around.
	I wanted people to listen to it.
	You know, he's a young libertarian kid.
	He'll learn.
	He's young and naive.
	But he says...
	It was, you know, he doesn't support Trump's violence, the violence that ensued the transition of power.
	And it's like, A, there was no violence coming from Trump.
	There may have been a violence at a protest turned into something of a riot.
	Fine.
	But you don't think unlawfully spying on your incoming president from the outgoing administration is violence?
	It's political violence.
	You don't think calling him an illegitimate president, a Putin tool, a Russian asset is not violence?
	It is.
	So, horse crap, Schmidt for Brains.
	It was the most, oh, whatever the hell he just said.
	But let's let this bullhorn keep going here.
	It constitutionally disqualifies him, in my estimation, from holding, oh, Peter Schmidt for Brains is now also the lead dictator of the world.
	Screw you, plebs.
	You don't get to decide who you vote for.
	Schmidt for Brains does.
	Holding office ever again.
	How could anybody look at what happened?
	Look at him.
	It was a tour?
	Yeah, it was.
	How fucking dare you?
	How fucking dare you?
	He can turn to Vinny on Patrick Bet-David's podcast and say, how fucking dare you?
	And then he blocks me for calling him a world-class piece of shit.
	Hmm.
	You can dish it.
	Schmidt for brains.
	You certainly can't take it, especially when you're called out for being an absolute raging idiot.
	You compare Jan 6 to 9 /11, you're an idiot.
	The guy was supposed to be this crazy wild man.
	Okay, here's my question.
	Steve, how do you explain the countless FBI agents in plain uniform that Congress won't even tell us how many?
	Because it didn't happen.
	It didn't happen.
	It didn't happen.
	And Ray Epps just got charged with one measly misdemeanor.
	Three years later, after being on the FBI's most wanted list, for actions that put other people in jail for 17 years.
	It didn't happen.
	Listen to me, I'm telling you it didn't happen.
	Oh yeah, by the way, let me see this.
	Oh, now you're going to go to Tucker Carlson.
	People are fucking rotting in jail for 30 years.
	Because they're criminals.
	What does that look like?
	What does that look like to you?
	Look at the violence.
	I don't give a shit.
	Just because you're yelling doesn't mean you're right.
	No, it doesn't matter.
	That's one piece of video.
	Why don't we show the hours of footage of them breaking down?
	Tucker Carlson.
	So it's gotta be wrong, but I'm, I'm what's his name?
	Steve Schmidt from the Lincoln project.
	So I've gotta be right.
	Carlson here.
	We got a, we got a guy.
	We got Tucker Carlson.
	We got a guy who's got his own show on Russia.
	God rest her soul.
	We got the king of replace.
	Look at this violence.
	Domestic.
	Domestic terror.
	I say let Schmidt talk.
	I would have had him on to push back a little bit more on certain substantive matters.
	Oh, it didn't happen?
	They didn't know how many FBI agents were in the crowd.
	Tarek Johnson, former Jan 6 Capitol Hill lieutenant, knows that they were there, admitted as much, recognized as much, didn't know why they were there.
	They had infiltrated the Proud Boys.
	I say allegedly.
	They had infiltrated the Proud Boys.
	They had infiltrated the Oath Keepers months in advance as evidence of the seditious conspiracy and violent insurrection overthrow of the government that they knew was coming on January 6th, and yet no cops.
	How do you explain that?
	Schmidt for brains.
	So after that...
	Yeah.
	He blocked me.
	But I can understand it.
	Nobody likes being called names on Twitter.
	Oh lordy lordy.
	So that was another one.
	That podcast is painful to listen to because you want to jump in and you want to interrupt at every step of the way where he comes out with absolute, utter horse crap.
	Now, before we get into the actual part of the show, we'll have a little bit of lightheartedness.
	I went on a, not a drift boat, but a charter boat.
	We went fishing.
	It's called Real Floridian Fishing.
	R-E-E-L, Floridian Fishing.
	They're on Instagram.
	I wish they were on Twitter, because I've been tagging the heck out of them.
	Look, when I was a kid, my dad took me out once on a boat, and I remember we hooked a mahi-mahi, and it jumped out of the water and threw the hook.
	I remember the day was uneventful on the boat, and that damn...
	Oh shit balls.
	Thank you.
	It still works.
	It still works.
	Okay.
	It lost a bit of the frame.
	I'm going to fix that afterwards.
	Gosh darn it.
	Okay.
	We went fishing, and it wasn't the greatest experience.
	And it was like...
	And then I tried to take my kids out once before.
	And it's like, it's expensive and it's long.
	And if you're not catching fish, you have kids coming back with my childhood memories.
	And you have the adults saying, ugh.
	We went yesterday.
	People, the video is coming.
	Look at these beautiful beasts.
	They are beautiful and I appreciate this might make some people unhappy to see a fish dying and getting killed.
	That fish last night, and not all of it because we got some in the freezer, it was flipping delicious.
	We get out on the boat.
	Within an hour, we had already caught two kingfish.
	They were small.
	I mean, big kingfish, beautiful keepers.
	And I was like, okay, we're good enough.
	We're good enough this has not been a flop.
	The bull was jumping out of the water like you've never seen.
	That we landed them is amazing.
	And oh my, the kids were freaking out.
	We hooked a wahoo.
	Which took out about 400 yards of drag on this reel.
	For 30 seconds.
	And we were fighting it and it came off.
	But it was the experience that I've always...
	I've never had an experience like that before.
	It was absolutely incredible.
	And even the stuff that didn't go so good...
	Look at this.
	This is classic.
	I call it taxation without representation.
	Kids hauling in the fish.
	The kid would have had no chance of reeling in.
	The kid would have had no chance of reeling in one of those big ones.
	Okay, we're gonna skip ahead here.
	Okay.
	Oh, so hold on, check this out.
	Kingfish, but it's a little less than it was before.
	Oh, it happened.
	It happened.
	Something ate it.
	Oh, who did that to our fish?
	How did...
	What happened there?
	Wayne, Tay, see the tooth bark.
	Look at those teeth barks.
	Okay, that's crazy.
	So, I call that taxation without representation.
	It's a metaphor of life, by the way.
	We are the fish, and the government is the shark in the water.
	They just want a piece of everything that we have.
	Or, we're the fishermen, the government is the shark, and our livelihoods are the fish.
	Okay, now I feel like I was literally just watching Billy Madison, and I feel like I'm...
	So, even when it went badly, you know, we lost that fish, we lost the wahoo, but what an amazing...
	Real Floridian fishing.
	Fantastic.
	And then what was I going to say?
	Oh, the wahoo that got off.
	Doesn't matter.
	And the fish was delicious.
	We had the kingfish.
	We had the mahi-mahi.
	And we had what they call a porker of a porgy.
	A very fat, juicy, beautiful porgy as well.
	Delicious.
	The lobster of the sea.
	Okay, now as Barnes is in the backdrop, let me see one thing here.
	I'll do the rumble rants afterwards.
	Everything is good all around.
	You have the link.
	To YouTube, so get your butts over there because we're going to end...
	Sorry, you have the link to Rumble.
	We're going to end on YouTube in seven or eight minutes.
	Robert, you good to come in?
	Oh, he's fixing his tie.
	Booyah.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Okay, Robert, now I'm going to ask you because I noticed it.
	You got a new book over your shoulder.
	What book is it?
	Oh, it's a little shout-out to Dave Rubin.
	We're still on Cary Lake's side here, Dave.
	Good luck to you.
	The, uh, you know, the, uh, Carrie likes grid book, unafraid, uh, which is out that people can get.
	And, uh, she was at the debate where we were at that we, uh, she had to endure it along with us.
	Uh, the, I guess we should probably still keep a secret that, uh, Dave Rubin privately confessed that, uh, he's on the wrong side and he's waiting to come back to the Trump side.
	The, uh, but, uh.
	Rubin accused Carrie Lake of...
	I think the word he used is lying.
	I'll say at the very least, there is discussion to be had because Carrie Lake was on...
	It was on Patrick Bet-David as well, right?
	I mean, Patrick Bet-David.
	Yeah, yeah, she was on Patrick Bet-David.
	And then she said that DeSantis shut down the beaches in Florida, closed the nightclubs, and Dave Rubin...
	I want everyone to understand.
	I love Dave Rubin.
	The only reason I'm not chiming in on Twitter is because this just gets misunderstood too easily.
	Rubin tweeted out, this is a lie.
	You need to push back on it.
	DeSantis never shut down the beaches in Florida.
	And I want to come in there and say it's a little bit nuanced because he did in March or April 2020 say...
	Gatherings of no more than 10 on beaches.
	He did shut down the nightclubs for a little bit and bars.
	So whether or not she oversold the shutting down of the beaches, it's not as simple as saying he never did anything because he did restrict free movement on open beaches, if only for a short period of time.
	I don't want to get involved in the fight.
	Ruben called her a liar for lying about DeSantis, and then she unfollowed him on Twitter and apparently said, don't take it personally.
	And Ruben is not going to not take that personally, so he made a funny joke online.
	But, Robert, who's right in that battle?
	You know, I've told the DeSantis camp for a while.
	People wanted me to sue DeSantis.
	People forget DeSantis, through much of the 2020, had basically the same position as Trump.
	I know DeSantis fans don't want to recognize that.
	I lived through it, so I remember it very well.
	So when Trump was better on the pandemic, DeSantis was generally better on the pandemic.
	When Trump was bad on the pandemic, DeSantis was generally bad on the pandemic.
	It was in 2021 that DeSantis, late 2021, DeSantis had his own version of Fauci there in Florida.
	One of the great myths that DeSantis people push is that he fired him.
	No, he didn't.
	He extended him all the way through to late 2021.
	And DeSantis was mostly saying, Pro-Fauci things through large parts of 2020, unfortunately.
	And he promoted the vaccine far more than Trump ever did.
	What he gets credit for, deservedly, is two things.
	Siding with Trump towards the end of 2020 and reopening the state.
	He didn't fully reopen until September of 2020, for those that don't remember.
	But credit to him for doing so, because he got a lot of criticism for the New York Times and a lot of other places for it.
	And then in 2021, late 2021, he hired a great Surgeon General, and he turned course and rejected the vaccine in ways Trump should have done.
	So those are things that Santis deserves credit for, but there's a lot of myth-making out there of trying to re-litigate the pandemic.
	And in my view, as Steve Dace even admitted when I was on his show, Nobody gets a lot of credit on either political party side or the Trump or DeSantis side for how the pandemic was handled in 2020, at least from my perspective.
	It was me and Alex Jones initially.
	We were up against everybody.
	Steve Bannon was screaming for lockdown.
	Jack Posobiec was cheering on lockdown.
	Mike Cernovich.
	He changed midway through, but he wasn't great.
	You know, large part Scott Adams was go vaccine.
	Jordan Peterson, go vaccine.
	Ben Shapiro, go.
	That's the other problem I have is that some of the people that are big DeSantis fans right now, they were some of the worst during the pandemic.
	Like Ben Shapiro, you know, put on the mask.
	Remember?
	I mean, hey, I love Dr. Peterson, but he said just shut up and take the vaccine.
	I give credit for all these people's willingness to reverse and recognize they were wrong.
	But the only major national political figure that was really right early on the pandemic was Bobby Kennedy, who came out in April on Patrick Bet-David's show.
	We got a chance to meet him out there at the debate, which was, you know, like I said, the first debate was like putting your head in a vice and just going to see how it works.
	The second one was like double that.
	Well, we're going to we'll do our review of it afterwards.
	Who was the first Surgeon General in Florida before, I forget his name now.
	The original one was, by the way, one that DeSantis actually appointed was a huge Fauci fan and was all for lockdowns and a bunch of stuff.
	Like, where there's still critics is there are people in Florida who are unhappy about how DeSantis not only handled it early, but at stages he let a lot of Democratic cities do a lot of crazy stuff.
	He was still talking about shutting down bars and restaurants in the summer.
	Over how many people they let in.
	He was inconsistent on masks.
	Again, he deserves credit for reversal when he did.
	It's just, there's this fantasy land version that he was always standing up against.
	Actually, you know, there are eight states that never issued the lockdown orders that DeSantis issued that he kept in place all the way up until the fall of 2020 in part.
	And so I get for people that move to Florida, experience the whole, like Ruben did.
	The horrors of California.
	Florida was definitely a lot better than California.
	But Trump and DeSantis mostly were in sync really until mid-2021 when DeSantis started to flip on all of it, started to change the surge in general and change the position on the vaccine, opened up a grand jury.
	But what I've been telling people is rather than trying to re-litigate...
	The pandemic, which is not going to be a long-term successful strategy anyway, in case they haven't figured that out yet, with him sinking to third and fourth in some surveys, do use the power of the governorship.
	He has a tool that Trump does not have, that almost none of the other candidates have.
	He is a current governor with actual power.
	Rather than running around on book deals and campaigning in Iowa and elsewhere, Go use your power as governor in Florida and deliver on that grand jury that you promised that was going to investigate Pfizer and Moderna for illegal behavior in Florida.
	That would be his most useful tool to boost his candidacy.
	But who that would conflict with is a lot of his current big donors who wanted that to be a nice show for the press and the headlines but don't want it to do anything.
	And I can tell you as of now...
	They have done nothing.
	You know, Brooke Jackson is one of the key witnesses in that.
	To my knowledge, they haven't even reached out to her.
	So, you know, DeSantis is not helping himself.
	It's a kamikaze campaign anyway.
	But for all the DeSantis supporters out there, advocate for him to use his power now to make a difference with where the power he has rather than re-arguing 2020 over and over again.
	Yeah, and I also just think it's not good to be fighting among friends, even if it's just political banter and you take it, you know, take it with a grain of salt.
	But, Robert, just so that nobody thinks I'm making stuff up, this is the Ron DeSantis website.
	The date is March 17, 2020.
	Bars and nightclubs under the direction of Governor DeSantis.
	All bars and nightclubs throughout Florida will close for the next 30 days.
	Yada yada.
	The beaches.
	The governor is directing parties accessing public beaches in the state of Florida to follow the CDC guidance, limiting their gatherings to no more than 10 persons.
	So for Carrie Lake to come out and say he shut down the beaches, that's just a question of interpretation in terms of restricting movement.
	Okay, he said limited to 10 as per the CDC guidelines, which I think were don't gather.
	Regardless.
	So is that a lie?
	Is it a lie worth fighting over?
	And is it a lie worth, I don't know, breaking political alliances?
	Because what's going to happen is DeSantis is not going to be the nominee.
	Trump will be.
	And will you have said too many things to take back in terms of saying, okay, now I go and support the candidates?
	Want to join these kamikaze campaigns.
	Because that's what they are.
	I don't think it's the best idea.
	We've been saying that from the very beginning, from very early on when the writing was clear.
	But Carrie Lake's a rising national figure.
	She's on the right side a lot more often than not.
	Also, if I was in the DeSantis camp...
	I wouldn't make Carrie Lake my adversary.
	I just don't think that looks good.
	I don't think that sells well.
	I mean, you'd think at some point when his numbers are going down and down and down, people would get the message.
	But some folks are just too emotionally committed, I think, invested in him to recognize the counterproductive nature of their current campaign.
	All right, now, Robert, I made a joke on Twitter that we've already been demonetized on YouTube, so to hell with you!
	Oh, we're back on.
	We're back on now.
	It's so ridiculous.
	I do think I may have dropped a few too many shit bombs when I'm talking about Steve Schmidt.
	Robert, before we go on to rumble, well, we'll just get everything started there in two minutes.
	The link is in the pinned thing in the chat.
	What is this thing about Steve Schmidt, The Lincoln Project, and underage boys?
	Oh, well, you missed your chance to ask Karl Rove about that when you were out there.
	That would have been a more viral moment than anything that came out of the debate.
	Viva Fry Canadian challenges Karl Rove outside.
	So Steve Schmidt's background is he was a John McCain guy.
	He was one of the key people along with What's Her Name, who's now on MSNBC.
	Who sabotaged Sarah Palin's vice presidential bid.
	I mean, while they're supposed to be working for them.
	So, that's Steve Schmidt's MO, modus operandi.
	He's just a grifter looking for the next check he can get.
	And he initially was kind of pro-Trump in certain respects because he thought that would line his pockets.
	Then he realized being anti-Trump would line his pockets.
	The guy has no moral principles of any kind.
	Never has.
	Anybody associated...
	With what happened to Sarah Palin, where they were deliberately undermining her.
	I mean, these are her consultants hired by McCain, spent the entire fall bashing her to the press and leaking negative information about her to the press because they see populism as a greater threat to their grifting than anything else.
	But once he realized he wasn't going to be able to get on the Trump train in a way that would line his pockets, he became an obsessive anti-Trumper.
	He knew that would get him a lot of media gigs.
	And he knew that would get checks from dumb donors.
	And that's what the Lincoln Group really was.
	I mean, they're all full of hustlers and grifters.
	A percentage of them are war whores.
	But, you know, Schmidt could care less.
	Schmidt's solely there to who's going to line his pockets.
	I mean, that whole debate was like a brothel advertisement for the military-industrial complex.
	And it turns out that the queen of the hoes is neocon Nikki Haley herself.
	I don't know, but they're all competing for it.
	Yeah, it was a tough one between her and Pence.
	If Ukraine falls, then...
	Or you can be throwing Christie.
	I mean, it was just, they were all insane, insane on it.
	Credit to DeSantis, who at least said common-sense words and Vivek, that we got to get out of there.
	And now trying to make it somehow to be, we have to fight Russia in order to fight China, though fighting Russia actually hurts our effort to fight China.
	These people couldn't think their way out of a paper bag.
	So Schmidt was part of the group that joined the Lincoln Group, just a huge grifter group, but unsurprisingly it had key people amongst them, John Kasich advisors, others.
	Who have been, who Karl Rove has known for more than a decade, were involved in grooming and underage and young, you know, solicitation of young men for sexual activities.
	And so Karl Rove kept that secret for a while.
	It finally came out that Steve Schmidt's buddies were doing this.
	Schmidt has never honestly fully come to terms with it.
	But it's who these people are.
	I mean, they're the bottom of the barrel.
	They're part of the problem with the country.
	And they represent that.
	And in fact, I mean, the response of the ordinary Republican to that debate is the response to the Steve Schmitz of the world in general, which is they want nothing to do with these people.
	I mean, the only people that have any future out of that, DeSantis, maybe, if he doesn't torch it entirely between now and election day, primary day, and Vivek, who's running on a Trumpian platform.
	The others are done.
	Mike Pence is done.
	Tim Scott, if anybody had any illusion that he was useful, they realize no.
	You know, Neocon Nikki is going to get the board gigs and the publishing gigs and the media gigs and the university professorial gigs.
	She's never going to be in the White House.
	And if any other than DeSantis or Revec, any of those other candidates, I would not vote for.
	Period.
	Ever.
	I don't care who their opponent is.
	There's not a chance in hell I'd vote for these people.
	They would be George W. Bush part two.
	It'd be war and economic collapse.
	I think Burgum is accepting.
	Oh, Burgum is okay.
	He actually did the best of the debate.
	It's not going to matter because he can't get above 1% and he doesn't placate the Murdoch crowd so they won't boost him.
	And I gave my assessment of the debate on Friday's show.
	An absolute joke.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I mean, it was fun with Luke Rutkowski being out there and meeting up with the Rumble crews, doing a good job out there, presenting it.
	The nicest people I thought there were the people who work at the Reagan Library.
	Credit to all of them, the volunteers.
	They were very Reagan-esque.
	That combination of kind of an older definition of America, like a 1950s view of America, sort of patriotic and optimistic, despite the...
	What would seem like difficult circumstances to most people.
	They're always cheery.
	It doesn't matter what happens.
	That was Reagan.
	I was like, some of those volunteers are just like him.
	All the people, they're cheery, they're nice, they're friendly, they're sociable.
	The crowd inside, all those donors and grifters and political class people.
	I mean, I made a joke to somebody.
	This is probably going to get us into trouble, but I'll go ahead.
	I was like, you know, if there was any place for a mass shooter that people wouldn't regret, you know, if that was one of them, I was just like, these people are a waste of space.
	I can't even stand being in the physical presence of 90% of them.
	There was a dirty feel to it.
	And I mean, like, spiritually dirty.
	I had never actually been...
	In Milwaukee, you know, there were 6,000, I don't know, 5,000, 6,000 people.
	You're in a crowd, you're with people.
	Here it was like, not rubbing elbows because I wasn't talking to anybody, but you see these people and you understand what's going on.
	It was smarmy.
	It felt dirty being there.
	And yeah.
	I think you could go to an Indian brothel or an arms runner get together and feel you're around more moral people than what that crowd was like.
	Oh, there was one thing about that debate that was interesting.
	So the walk around with Luke Witkowski was fantastic.
	There was the same security guard who kept on catching...
	Telling me I shouldn't have been where I was.
	I started from the top of the mountain.
	I thought it was a roundabout because I saw cars parked up there.
	It turns out it was a helipad and ordinarily not open to the public.
	And so then I'm walking down and then we were looking at the stealth bomber in the back.
	But this was as the candidates were coming up.
	So that security guard was like, guys, get out of here.
	These are the candidates.
	It was a joke.
	It was an absolute joke.
	It made everybody look bad.
	I still like Vivek, but it was clear that he didn't have his best night, and they were coming gunning for him for his China connection.
	Superficial stuff.
	I'd like to know what Nikki Haley's China connections are.
	A bunch of hypocrites accusing him of what they do.
	All right.
	Let's end this on YouTube while we're on the subject.
	Come on over to Rumble, people.
	Oh, that was what I was going to say.
	Here's the vlog.
	It's a 15-minute vlog of my two and a half days in California.
	It includes the day of the event, but, you know, a life vlog.
	So check that out on Rumble.
	Now we're ending on YouTube and we're going to get on with the show.
	Before we do it, Robert, what's the menu for the evening?
	And then we go to YouTube.
	Rumble.
	We have 12 topics for tonight's show on Rumble, and we got a few bonus topics for the after-party exclusively on Locals.
	And if you have a question, make sure you can tip at Locals, $5 or more.
	We'll try to answer every single one of them at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	The 12 topics tonight, we have Democrats setting off fire alarms that they thought was an exit sign.
	We got big food and farm reform bills going through Congress.
	Great efforts by Thomas Massey.
	Amazon sued for being a monopoly.
	Supreme Court, two major cases that they took up this past week, including the Texas and Florida bills to try to stop social media censorship.
	And standing in the test cases about when do you have the right to sue when you're testing something out to prove it's illegal.
	Trump is the top topic voted on tonight by the board.
	And that's primarily his New York civil suit, but there's also news in his D.C. case and suing Christopher Steele.
	The Bodega, wrongfully prosecuted Bodega, suing the New York D.A. for his racially discriminatory patterns.
	Biden's impeachment inquiry commences.
	What would make it constitutional?
	The Second Amendment in California and Maryland.
	Trans laws from Tennessee and Kentucky get approved.
	By the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	A abortion ban upheld against the Biden administration's attempt to claim that federal law mandates abortion accessibility.
	Michigan election lawsuit that raises some old issues that would go to the 2024 election.
	The Tupac.
	Finally, they arrested somebody almost 20 years later.
	More than 20 years later.
	In the death here in Vegas.
	And some bonus topics exclusive to the after party.
	Robert Francis Kennedy Jr.
	Can he run as an independent?
	Is that what he's going to announce on October 9th?
	What is the impact?
	Eric Conley and I are openly disagreeing, but I told him neither of us have any hard feelings.
	He thinks it's going to siphon some of the Republican vote, and I think it's going to hurt the Democrats more.
	Robert, I'm going to defer to your assessment, even if I stubbornly stick to mine.
	Yeah, we'll give some of the assessment of that and what some of the backstory may be.
	Who the heck is the governor of Arizona?
	Since that actually managed to get confusing last week.
	When is the groomer label not liable?
	California is trying to impose mileage limits on your car.
	Wants to track your car.
	And that's the nuttiness coming out of California.
	And a lawsuit involving Better Call Saul and Liberty Tax Service.
	I have questions about this, Robert, because I...
	I have questions about it.
	We'll get there.
	Okay.
	Ending on YouTube.
	Get your butts over to Rumble.
	The link is in the pinned comment, but it's Viva Frye on Rumble.
	Ending in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Okay.
	Closing it down here.
	Let's make sure that we're good.
	And how many are we?
	We're over 15,000 already on Rumble.
	Magnificent.
	What's topic number one?
	I got to pull up my email with this.
	Oh, it's the Democratic fire alarm.
	Oh, Robert.
	Okay.
	Do we need to see the picture?
	So, okay.
	They're voting on whether or not the spending bill which would avert a government shutdown.
	The accusations now are that the Democrats are the ones who are trying to delay the vote so that there is a shutdown.
	I thought they were criticizing the Republicans for that last week, saying that they're playing hostage with Americans.
	apparently there was a stopgap a stopgap pay vote going on and if it got through there'd be an extension to averting the shutdown and jamal bowman for those of you who don't know he was in the news for i think it was him who who had something of a uh accosted someone um with some questioning in the hallway i think that was him i made me not mistaken either way the dude not apparently pulled the fire alarm which then
	evacuated the building caused delays but apparently they still got the vote in anyhow and Was accused immediately of having broken the law and tried to interfere with official congressional proceedings.
	He says, his explanation is, I pulled the fire alarm because I thought it would open a locked door because I was in a rush to go vote.
	I wasn't trying to delay anything.
	I was trying to get there fast and I couldn't open the door and I thought this thing that's a fire alarm would open the door.
	I don't know if he thought by sounding the fire alarm it would unlock the door.
	That's what I think.
	Is his explanation, not that he thought it was a lever to open a door?
	Just a few questions for the context.
	The government shut down.
	We're going to get to that in a second, or this is part and parcel of this?
	What's the issue right now in terms of why they might not have, why the government might have to shut down?
	I mean, basically, they didn't want the vote to occur, so he put on the fire alarm to delay the vote.
	And according to the Biden administration, that's obstruction of an official proceeding that belongs 20 years in federal prison.
	You can guarantee, like they keep saying, no one's above the law unless you're a Biden, a Clinton, a Democratic congressman, a Democratic protester, or any other Democratic-aligned group or individual.
	Then you're all above the law.
	So, I mean, it's such, it's so Orwellian, their perversion of phraseology, and this is just the latest example of, this is the congressman that went nuts on Congressman Massey earlier in the year.
	I mean, the guy's clearly a little bit kooky.
	And Congressman Jamal Bowman.
	This is a tweet that he had, and I believe it's about Trump.
	I don't have the date on it.
	No one in this country is above the law, except for him.
	So his excuse has got to be the dumbest excuse ever.
	The idea that pulling a fire alarm he confused with opening doors.
	He didn't know that somebody had said, fire alarm, don't pull unless fire.
	It meant it was a fire alarm.
	No, but now that I say it out loud, maybe I'm thinking his explanation is the door was locked and I thought by pulling the fire alarm, it would automatically unlock the door.
	Why would it do that?
	Well, because you need to get out of the building and it's a fire, so you hit it and then the doors become unstuck.
	There's some places that have...
	It wasn't to get out of the building, it was to get into a building.
	Oh my goodness.
	I mean, the guy's a liar, obvious liar.
	It's an obvious lie.
	And here's the irony.
	While he is going to face no consequences whatsoever for his attempt to obstruct proceedings, Speaker McCarthy is secretly working with the Biden administration to do what a majority of Republicans in the House said not to do, and Senator J.D. Vance and Senator Rand Paul are leading the efforts not to do no more money to Ukraine.
	I mean, the Ukrainian minister of defense bought like, what was it, seven mansions or something?
	He was like, hey, I did my job.
	I'm out of here now.
	He resigned minister of defense, you know, killed a couple hundred thousand of my own fellow citizen, Ukrainian civilians, many of them drafted and forced into the war in between arresting priests and opposing press and opposing members of the political parties.
	And he was buying mansions all around the world.
	I mean, it's the biggest grift pit of maybe of all time.
	And it's just one that also endangers the whole world's peace with World War III.
	While the Brits are talking about escalating and sending in British soldiers and the Germans are talking about escalating.
	It's just insanity all around it.
	And so Senator Vance and Senator Paul led the effort in the Senate saying no more money.
	And the Democrats were willing to shut down the country to fund Ukraine.
	Now, that should have been the talking point for Republicans.
	The majority of Republicans in the House have now agreed no more funding for Ukraine.
	So it's only the Democrats that are keeping it alive.
	McCarthy agreed no more funding for Ukraine, but according to the Biden administration, cut a secret deal to provide money, and that's what the Bowman stunt was all about.
	It's all about money for Ukraine.
	It's not about keeping the government open or closed.
	It's not about, I mean, essential services keep going anyway, so people think the government's closed.
	We've been through this now several times.
	You don't lose your Social Security checks.
	No basic services go missing.
	You realize when the government shuts down how much we don't need everybody who shut down.
	Because you're like, nothing in my life is worse now.
	In fact, usually it's better.
	Put some IRS people on furlough?
	That's good for everybody.
	So that's really what's...
	But the back story, it's all about Ukraine.
	It's all about Schumer and McConnell and Biden.
	And apparently in secret McCarthy, who while Bowman will face no consequences, because Matt Gaetz is raising this issue with Marjorie Taylor Greene in the House, there's now talk that he's going to try to get the Ethics Committee to recommend expulsion, so they're going to try to expel Matt Gaetz instead.
	That's how insane and divorced from reality the political leadership is in Washington.
	They're almost, well they are, as divorced from reality and as morally deformed.
	Robert, I'll just bring this up so that people understand this, talking about the funding for Ukraine.
	The war has also impacted Ukraine's financial standing, with the country's economy contracting by an estimated 31% last year.
	The U.S. government is subsidizing small businesses in Ukraine, including Tatyana Abramova's knitwear company, to keep it afloat.
	What else is there?
	They're paying salary.
	We are basically paying Ukraine.
	I think on average they estimated $232 million a day.
	The U.S. government has given to Ukraine to fight this stupid, dumb, counterproductive, dangerous war.
	5% of the military budget.
	Where was it?
	It's 5% of the military budget is going to Ukraine.
	Here we go.
	The U.S. has spent just over $43 billion since Russia invaded.
	I thought they were at $135 billion, but maybe that's loans or whatever.
	That's the equivalent to about 5% of the defense budget.
	Was that Tim Scott who said that?
	It was like, how are they going to get paid back when the Russians come in and take it over?
	You think Vlad's going to pay back the bill?
	I didn't know it was an investment.
	When they said it was an investment in freedom, I didn't know they meant an actual financial investment.
	And in which case, what's up with that?
	What is the actual purpose of this war?
	So that Russia can own Ukraine or America?
	Less political freedom in Ukraine than almost any nation in the world.
	Less religious freedom than almost any nation in the world.
	Less speech freedom than almost any nation in the world.
	Less press freedom than almost any nation in the world.
	And their kids are being dragged out of their homes and threatened with deportation if they live in another country to go die on the front lines in a needless, useless, counterproductive war.
	You have heard that they've apparently started conscripting women now, 18 to 60?
	Yeah, they're going to drag the women to the front lines now.
	It's amazing.
	For the accusations, if I could...
	Have my response to Konstantin Kissin that I would have had where he accused Russia of wanting to expand into Ukraine.
	When you talk about it as an investment in Ukraine so that you can own the resources and you can get paid back on your investment, who is it exactly that is trying to own Ukraine in all of this?
	And the other thing is, like, Trump's position on China is always the reasonable one, which is they're an economic competitor, has used unfair trade advantages because of the Bush administration's WTO policies to disadvantage American manufacturing.
	We should not be...
	Thinking about waging war against China.
	That's one of the dumbest things on the planet.
	And yet that's what all of them were up there talking about at the debate that night.
	So it's about we've been co-opted by a deep state with functional control of the American government.
	And we're just seeing it in live time against the interest of the American people.
	And this latest illustration with the Democrat fire alarm and the budget issues and the debate all wrap up into the same conclusion.
	The deep state has to be overthrown if democracy is going to survive here at home or we're ever going to have peace abroad.
	Speaking of deep state and the government controlling everything, food reform, Robert, what's going on?
	Thomas Massey, once again, I don't always agree with Massey.
	I know other people don't, but Massey is one of our greatest leaders in Congress by a long mile.
	A true freedom fighter across the board.
	And as to the national security state, as to war, and as to food especially.
	His Prime Act bill is currently being debated in the House.
	There was two very dangerous efforts by the Biden administration.
	One was to get rid of herd share arrangements.
	And the other was to stick vaccines into our food.
	I think it's called trans-edible vaccines or some crazy thing.
	So they were going to try to vaccinate us against our will or our knowledge through food.
	And the herd share agreements are how people get direct products from the farmer.
	Now, legally, the government has long contested the enforceability of these herd share agreements.
	But for the moment, they haven't litigated it aggressively.
	There was a movement afoot in the U.S. Department of Agriculture to completely ban them.
	And these herd share agreements are basically where you go to, you want your meat or you want your milk from a particular farmer.
	And so what you do is you agree to be a part owner of it.
	And by being a part owner, that's a herd share.
	And by being a part owner, you're exempt from a range of federal laws.
	Now again, the U.S. government...
	It takes a different view, and it views that you're not really exempt from those laws unless you strictly meet certain limitations of the herd share agreement.
	And most herd share agreements out there need to be written in a lot better way.
	But the USDA was trying to get rid of it entirely so that you could never be able to buy food directly from such farmers under a herd share structure.
	And Thomas Massey led the effort in the House to defund that, say if you can't spend a single penny.
	Nickel, dime, or dollar enforcing such a rule, and it passed the House.
	So again, credit to Thomas Massey recognizing the problem and taking aim at it right away.
	He also recognized the danger of these sticking vaccines in our food, defunded that, also got a successful vote on that.
	And his Prime Act is a great bill that really unleashes food freedom and farmer freedom in America to the greatest degree it's been in the last half century.
	And it is still being debated through the House.
	And it would be a beautiful piece of legislation if it gets through.
	And once again, he's taken the lead in ways that no one else, frankly, consistently has.
	So people support Congressman Massey and support what he's doing in that area because it's essential to all of our freedoms.
	Probably a good not on the subject matter, but any updates in Amos Miller's situation?
	Well, this would all impact it.
	If they were allowed to enforce a ban on herd sharing, then that alternative would no longer be even available to his customers.
	And if they were trying to force you to more and more chemical...
	This is where the whole point is.
	Amos Miller refuses to use certain chemicals on his food, and that's why the U.S. Department of Agriculture continues to block his efforts to sell meat.
	Certain meats to his customer base.
	Now, they have approved allowing him to sell other people's meats to his customer base, and we're going to see how that works, and he's going to locate the meat that is the safest of that available meat.
	It's still USDA-regulated meat, but the USDA claims that there's a whole bunch of provisions that have the least chemical problems or controversies.
	Well, we're going to test that out, see whether that's true or not true.
	So we have achieved that part, but the ultimate objective so that people can buy everything.
	I mean, right now they can buy a bunch from Amos Miller, amosmillerorganicfarm.com.
	That you can get from him.
	But the USDA has made it as difficult as possible for him.
	And so right now, there's a bunch he can sell.
	There's a bunch he's trying to be able to sell.
	But the ultimate solution requires real food freedom in America, which was going to require legislative reform, part of which is in this bill.
	So this bill directly impacts, obviously, him.
	But it also impacts everybody.
	You're right to decide what goes in your body rather than the government.
	Well, but Robert, they don't know better.
	Everything when it's governed by big government regulations is better, except it's not.
	There was the documentary on Netflix called...
	It wasn't called Poisoned.
	I think that was...
	No, I think it was called Poison, about how, you know, the biggest problems and outbreaks that you have are at these massive facilities, not on the smaller, you know, farmer to individual scale.
	And as we discovered in the pandemic, you can suddenly have price shocks because we have de facto monopolies in the meat industry.
	I mean, in poultry and meat.
	And there's a bunch, yeah, there's still certain meats that are exempt from coverage.
	I think it's like water buffalo, some other things, like some of that you can order direct from Amos Miller.
	But a lot of stuff you can't.
	I mean, imagine if we got to the point where when you went out fishing and brought all those fish back, the government says, no, you can't eat them unless they go to a fish factory first.
	I mean, that's the insane.
	It's basically big agriculture has taken over the government.
	And they're in business and in bed with the deep state.
	And it puts not only our food choice at issue, it puts our food security at issue.
	Yeah, they would prohibit me from giving some of those fish fillets to neighbors in the neighborhood.
	All right.
	Very interesting.
	I like Massey, and I don't know very much about him, but I've discovered him late and recently, but it seems like an amazing...
	He's from a great town, Covington, Kentucky.
	A little town that I'm familiar with.
	All right.
	Now, so speaking of one government monopoly to another, FTC suing Amazon for monopoly unfair...
	I don't know if it's unfair business practices, monopolistic practices.
	And it's an interesting thing.
	I read the actual FTC filing.
	They say there's going after them for monopolistic behaviors, but not on the basis that Amazon is a monopoly, but abusing of its power to basically impact the market, to deter competition, to artificially inflate prices by, for example, I didn't know that they do this.
	It's glorious to sell stuff on Amazon.
	If you sell something at a lower price than what Amazon favored...
	Companies are selling it at.
	They bury you in the search results.
	They make the discovery impossible or discoverability of other industries or other companies impossible based on their algorithm.
	They artificially promote their own preferred customers or their own products.
	It's interesting, the FTC is going after them.
	What conclusions is the FTC seeking from Amazon?
	It's not going to be a breakup, but what's it going to be?
	To stop all those practices.
	And then a bunch of state attorney generals joined it.
	So one of the better appointees that Biden had was a person who's good on antitrust issues and monopoly issues to the FTC.
	And this is a good FTC action taken joining all the state attorney generals.
	Most of the state attorney generals are Republican state attorney generals.
	But what people don't realize is, it's like, how does Uber continue to get...
	Good stock valuations when it never makes money.
	Because its entire model is built on building a monopoly.
	That's what big tech has really done.
	I mean, the lawsuit that Rumble has against Google is exposing that on a regular basis and will continue to expose it.
	That you dig into these businesses and their entire business model is to recreate Standard Oil and the big trust of the late 20th century, late 1900s.
	That led to our first antitrust and consumer practice protection laws and the like.
	Their goal is entirely...
	So how does Uber exist?
	Uber's entire premise is they will put everybody else out of business by undercutting them on prices.
	And then as soon as they get a monopoly, they're going to double and triple those prices.
	And screw their own workers by cutting wages even more.
	So it's not a productive, healthy model for the future of free enterprise.
	A free market...
	Depends on competition.
	These are anti-free market protocols.
	This is where there's a big gap between the populist right and the corporatist right.
	Jim Jordan, sadly, is often on the corporatist right, especially when it comes to big tech.
	Benji Shapiro is deeply in bed with the corporatist right.
	We saw that at the Republican debate.
	Here you have a major UAW strike.
	And where's Donald Trump?
	And rather than being at the debate, he's there talking to those striking workers.
	Up in Michigan, because he understands it.
	Where's Josh Hawley?
	Where's J.D. Vance?
	Josh Hawley's out on the picket line with him.
	J.D. Vance is in support of him.
	Because what's happening with those workers is they're getting screwed because of the Biden administration's favoritism of green alternatives that are not economically productive and that ultimately are unnecessary environmentally.
	And so these workers are getting shafted by a lot of the raw materials, raw earth materials.
	A lot of the original batteries and other production is done in low-cost countries, whether it's China or low-cost, non-unionized areas.
	And that's why the workers are getting hit.
	And that's why they're striking.
	That was a perfect opportunity.
	And yet, I think it was only the governor of North Dakota who said anything about the debate.
	The rest, you know, they were trying to figure out how they could be anti-union without sounding ridiculously anti-union.
	Ben Shapiro was happy to tell everybody how much he hates unions, including the United Auto Workers.
	And people think a Benji Shapiro-type candidate would do well in the industrial Midwest.
	What are you smoking, people?
	There's a reason why working-class northerners don't trust the Republican Party.
	They're a bunch of country club corporatists.
	And no better example in the law than on antitrust.
	Because it has been the corporatist right, going back to Bork and others, frankly, who gutted antitrust law and made it so that it's almost impossible to enforce because they think monopolies are just fine.
	And a lot of them are in bed financially with those monopolies.
	And that's anti-free market.
	True free markets believes in the little guy, believes in competition, believes in a free market.
	And that means you don't get to be a monopoly.
	And you don't get to abuse.
	And the idea that some people go, oh, they're a monopoly just because they're the best in the business.
	Nobody who has studied these business practices or the history of monopoly...
	Could believe something that stupid.
	And reading the Amazon FTC versus Amazon and how Amazon's modus operandi, it did make me immediately think of Rumble's claim against Google.
	Google has the largest search engine on Earth.
	It also has the largest video hosting platform on Earth.
	What does it do in its search engine when you look for something?
	It refers you to its search results in YouTube.
	So much so that something could have been on Rumble only and the search results would direct to something unrelated on YouTube.
	Or it could be reposted onto YouTube and it won't go to the original source.
	It'll go to YouTube.
	And lo and behold, it screws Rumble out of traffic, out of ad revenue.
	And lo and behold, they use one monopoly to benefit their other monopoly.
	And it sounds exactly like what Amazon is doing for search results.
	Absolutely.
	I mean, and they do it in multiple levels.
	They do it in their contracts.
	They do it in what's called illegal tie-ins.
	They leverage...
	They get a monopoly in one space, and then they leverage that monopoly to create a monopoly in multiple other spaces.
	It's what Google did with Android.
	And said, oh yeah, this will be great.
	We'll make it open source.
	And so a bunch of people put their apps on Google.
	Oh, by the way, you can't remove Google Store anymore.
	And oh, by the way, you need to be able to be on Google Store in order for anybody to get your app.
	So, oh, and by the way, you're going to have to pay us a percent.
	And so all of these big businesses in the modern big tech age are the new big trust of the 21st century that were set up in such a way that mirror what happened at the end of the 19th century and early 20th century.
	And it was the populist wing of the Republican Party, Teddy Roosevelt and others, that led the effort against those monopolies, recognizing that they are a danger to freedom.
	Free markets, free enterprise, free society, free civilization.
	No better example of that than what is happening in the social media space, which the Supreme Court took up to.
	Big cases this week.
	Okay, before we get there, because I don't want to fall too far behind, first of all, some of you might be asking what I'm drinking.
	None of your business.
	The question is, what am I drinking it out of?
	I'm drinking it out of the Mugshot mug glass, and it came out of the Mugshot shot glass.
	Hold on, I'll show you, everybody.
	If you go to vivafry.com, and you can get a piece of history.
	It can be replicated at any point in time, but we did it first, and we did it best, Robert.
	Vivafry.com.
	I was wearing that shirt.
	Wearing a one-in-for-president shirt this weekend, and I was winning all my bets, and then I took it off, and I started losing my bets.
	So it's also a lucky shirt for people out there.
	Oh, the gambler's logic.
	But it looks good, people, and it feels good.
	Now, what I was going to say before we even get further into this, I haven't done any of the Rumble rants over on Rumble, and I think we might have gotten 20,000 live on Rumble, people.
	Beautiful.
	I'll do it fast.
	Not one breath, but I'll go fast.
	Cupo Sooth says, even Vivek knows Barnes is wrong about birthright citizenship.
	What is that?
	Andres Burchens.
	Miss Piggy and Millie sitting in a tree selling out the U.S. for the CCP.
	That's good to the CCP.
	Ian Mack says...
	What I wish they asked this Muppet, if we play the plan this attack game, how many steps do you get through before you talk about weapons?
	The right wing went in unarmed.
	There was no plan or plot.
	No, it was a riot that got out of hand.
	Or it was a protest that turned into a riot in certain places.
	Allowed to because they wanted it.
	Effets says, I will get to see PBD on Friday at the Timcast event in Miami.
	When is the next Viva and Barnes event in Florida?
	Maybe I'm going to try to make it down next weekend for the event.
	Look at the head of hair jelly antipathy.
	Sean Joe says, Viva Fry, you are the breath of fresh Canadian air.
	Barnes is a legend!
	Agreed on both fronts.
	A 6 '4 midget.
	Never shave again.
	Just trim Fry.
	I had to exfoliate.
	We've got a new member.
	I can't read that.
	Scan Joe is now a monthly supporter.
	Welcome to the club, Scan Joe.
	Scan Joe, they're up there.
	Jack Flack, DeSantis became the great COVID defender about the time he decided to run for president.
	Pretty sure dates math out.
	He got wise earlier on, but the question is, nobody was perfect, and the question is not to pretend anybody was perfect, because nobody was.
	Some were better than others, and some got there sooner than others, and they deserve credit in as much as they came to the right decision sooner than later.
	Nikki Haley is a Hillary Clinton of the GOP.
	My international law professor told my class that we should be thanking Zelensky for defending us and that Putin is a Nazi fascist.
	So I know that an Ivy League doctorate is worthless.
	The Bet David podcast with Kennedy was one of my first red pills of 2020.
	Power to the podcasters.
	They want to regulate them in Canada.
	I'll get there after this.
	Lindstrom says besides Doug Burgum, do anybody really care about feudalism anymore?
	With the announcement from the Canadian government on Friday, do you think Rumble will actually register with the government?
	And then we got W.D. Adams as a new monthly supporter.
	I'm going to get to that in a second, retired geek.
	Amazon isn't just a monopoly online, but they have hands in trucking, warehousing.
	They also run, I think, 40% on the back of the internet.
	Going to keep asking you guys to do a sidebar with the Council on the Future Conflict screen grab.
	I think Stan's take would interest you guys.
	And then we got Alex, Davey, Duke.
	David, thanks for going nuclear on Health Canada.
	Still promoting COVID vax as being safe and effective.
	But Phase 3 trial isn't complete until December 23rd.
	What the fuck?
	Give the vax to children.
	Criminal.
	And I agree.
	Robert, did you hear what they want to do out of Canada?
	They want to force any podcast hosting platform with an annual revenue of more than $10 million to register with the CRTC, the Canadian Radio, Television, Communication, whatever, to govern online content.
	And some people are going to say, oh, it doesn't apply to small podcasters, blah, blah, blah.
	If anybody thinks they're going to stop at revenue of $10 million, you're idiots.
	They're going to squeeze the blood there.
	They're going to start there so that some people say, oh, it's only $10 million.
	It's only going to be Rumble.
	jeez louis rebel news is more than 10 million post-millennial oh they're coming after everybody register so that we can make sure that you're you know adequate and if we don't decide to certify you whatever that's going to mean good for you okay but speaking of such uh social media censorship efforts uh that the texas and florida laws uh supreme court has agreed to take up those cases uh It probably enhances them taking the Biden case,
	the Biden censorship case up as well, all at the same time.
	But these are the big cases that are going to govern the ability to limit social media companies' capacity and power to censor, either with collusion of the government or without.
	So these were the legislation that was specifically crafted in Florida to stipulate that social media companies could not.
	And Texas, yeah.
	And Texas.
	And they were challenged.
	I forget what the state of them are.
	Supreme Court's going to hear them.
	The decision is going to come down this...
	So within, what are we now, September?
	By April?
	By June.
	Okay.
	And this is all about, is there a First Amendment right to censor?
	So the Fifth Circuit, in majority opinion, was by far the best decision, which explained why it wasn't.
	And that even if it was, that it met...
	First Amendment scrutiny.
	Basically, what Texas law said, one, it said we only apply to the dominant markets.
	So we're only applying to people that are the equal to common carriers in the field of communication.
	So this doesn't apply to 99.9% of people that have comment boards or message boards or anything else.
	It only applies to people that have a de facto monopoly on the digital public square within their space.
	E.g.
	Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Google, Twitter, etc.
	The second component is all it did is it said they can still ban illegal content.
	They can ban content categorically if they want.
	If there's certain content they don't want, they can just ban it all.
	They don't want medical advice.
	They could just say, we banned medical advice.
	What they can't do is deny service to people based on their viewpoint.
	If you deny service based on their viewpoint, then you can be sued and joined and have to pay attorney's fees.
	You don't even have to pay damages.
	It's just you have a right to reinstatement and any legal cost you incurred to get reinstated if you were denied service based on viewpoint discrimination.
	And the big tech apologist, which include people like Jim Jordan, sadly, but almost all the university and legal academy has been bought off by big tech.
	Have argued, you know, you're David Frenchies of the world and all that, those kind of types, has been that these big corporations have a right, First Amendment right to censor.
	And here's the problem with that.
	One, censorship is an action.
	It's not speech.
	It's not any act of speech.
	And then they point out very well in their cert petition in Texas, the main problem with all of this, which is Section 230 exists.
	Based on the factual belief and assumption that merely providing a platform that other people talk on doesn't make it your speech.
	Their speech isn't your speech.
	If a venue hosts an event, it's not the venue's speech.
	If a platform hosts an event, hosts speech, it's not their speech.
	Section 230 clarified that based on that saying you can't You, Twitter, cannot be sued for any speech that occurs on your platform because it's not your speech.
	So if providing service doesn't constitute speech, how does denial of service constitute speech?
	It doesn't.
	And that's why they should prevail, and the Supreme Court should find that denial of service...
	It does not constitute permissible First Amendment protected activity.
	I know you've explained it before, and I still refuse to, not refuse, I do not understand how they get around this.
	The whole thing about Section 230 was, if we exercise...
	No, to the extent we do not exercise editorial control, we cannot be sued for defamation for all these other things, for First Amendment violations.
	The argument here is we want to exercise editorial control and also not be susceptible of sued under Section 230 immunity.
	I don't understand how this argument is not the very argument that would strip them of Section 230 immunity protection.
	I know you've explained it.
	It should have been, but what happened is courts gutted that part of Section 230 and interpreted Section 230 as just granting immunity without limit.
	Immunity without limit merely for operating as a platform.
	One consequence that Texas and Florida are arguing is, by definition, that means they cannot be, if providing service is not speech as a congressionally found fact that thus extends immunity to big tech.
	Then denial of service cannot be speech either that has any First Amendment protection.
	Again, these laws don't impose any limits on their ability to put fact checks on things, content warnings on things, any of that.
	It only prohibits them from denying service to a user based on that user's viewpoint.
	Now, if it's...
	Denial of service based on categorical prohibitions or illegal conduct, no problem.
	It's only you can't deny service.
	And that was supposed to be in Section 230.
	You had to have a good faith basis and all of that.
	Courts have eviscerated that meaning as well.
	They've just cowered and kowtowed to big tech.
	Congress has been so deeply in their pocket, they've refused to reform this.
	The Biden administration likes it because they use it to weaponize censorship.
	And now the Supreme Court's going to hear all of it.
	They're going to see how the Biden administration's weaponizing it in the Biden versus Missouri case.
	And they've got the two Texas and Florida cases saying, we've got serious problems.
	This is the remedy.
	And the Supreme Court has recognized this in a multiple set of other contexts.
	They said merely providing a platform doesn't equal speech, which means denying access to that platform for venues and other people or laws limiting it don't limit the First Amendment rights of that venue.
	So the logic is clearly applicable here.
	And so now what happened, four justices we already know align with the states.
	The question is, what is Barrett going to do?
	What is Kavanaugh going to do?
	I mean, I'm sorry, not Kavanaugh.
	What is Barrett going to do?
	What is Roberts going to do?
	So all they need is one of those two to recognize this is within the First Amendment rights.
	With Roberts, there's other language he's used in other cases that he agrees this isn't a First Amendment right to deny service.
	And it's a major problem if we start saying to deny service is First Amendment protected activity.
	That has all kinds of problems.
	Well, it's a Zanonian paradox.
	To deny someone else's First Amendment rights is your First Amendment right, and yet...
	If you're not responsible for it, then how could it be a problem for them to express it on your platform?
	Especially when you have the immunity under Section 230, and yet you don't want to host the speech that you can't get in trouble for because of Section 230.
	Yeah, that's called sucking and blowing in the political sense.
	Robert, do we get to this?
	No doubt.
	Of course, the big challenger to all of these corrupt sources of power, whether it's big agriculture, Whether it's big tech, whether it's the big media, whether it's the Biden administration, is the one and only Donald John Trump.
	Well, my segue into that was going to be, speaking of sucking and blowing and stupid decisions coming out of New York, bada bing, bada boom.
	Okay, we talked about it last week, but it was during the week.
	It was during one of my week streams.
	I think you were on with Ruben from the event, and I don't know if you touched on the fraud case.
	I know you talked about it during a bourbon with Barnes.
	The latest news is that a judge out of New York in the Donald Trump civil suit brought by the state of New York against Donald Trump for fraud against the state.
	No bank bringing it, no investor bringing it.
	They brought a case for fraud against Trump on the basis that he overvalued certain assets, certain real estate assets to a bank.
	And supposedly overvalued his brand.
	Yeah, so that he could procure beneficial terms on loans from the banks only to satisfy those loans, pay back the bank, pay them on time.
	And to say there's no victim in this is an understatement, but apparently the corrupt state of New York thinks that they're the victim.
	So they take a civil suit for fraud against the state.
	The judge doesn't move for it, but there's a motion for summary judgment, and the judge grants a motion for summary judgment.
	To the effect that Trump fraudulently overvalued assets to procure beneficial terms on loans from banks.
	The issue about a summary judgment, as far as I understand, Robert, you'll correct me if I'm wrong, I'm a Quebec schnook, is that there have to be agreed upon facts, which there weren't in the context of this motion for summary judgment, but the judge stipulated one of the agreed upon facts...
	Was that Mar-a-Lago is worth $18 million.
	Now, as we went fishing yesterday and we're driving down the canal, one of those inlets, or what are they called?
	The intercoastal.
	We're looking at properties, and I'm like, Marion, Google it on MLS to see how much that sells for.
	You know, they weren't $18 million, but they were $3 million for little bungalows on the intercoastal, not for 23 acres on Mar-a-Lago on the ocean.
	The judge, in his judgment, came to the conclusion it was an agreed-upon fact between the parties when it was absolutely contested and implausible that 20-acre Mar-a-Lago with however many thousands of feet of beachfront is worth $18 million.
	to say that Trump is guilty of fraud.
	Take it from there.
	Explain the scope, breadth, and consequences of this decision for Trump's businesses in New York and outside of New York and what the chances are on appeal and how patently absurd this decision is.
	I mean, really, it's these dangerous state laws that linger on the books that give the state the right to bring suit without any finding that the state itself has ever been defrauded.
	I mean, it shows you what a joke standing doctrine is.
	They don't allow the vaccine injured to sue because somehow they don't have standing.
	But not just the immunity laws.
	We challenge the FDA.
	Oh, no, you don't have standing.
	But if you've not been defrauded a penny, nickel, dime, or dollar, you have no complaining victim, the state has lost no money.
	In fact, the state has gained money.
	Then you get to sue and destroy someone's business.
	So there were two aspects that were absurd about this.
	The other aspect is they didn't just sue the Trump organization.
	They sued Trump and his kids.
	I mean, his kids had nothing to do with this.
	Eric Trump is part of this judgment.
	I mean, Donald Trump Jr. is part of it.
	And they knew that the kids had nothing to do with it.
	It's pure retaliation.
	As Carl Benjamin said, former Sargon of Akkad from the social media part of the Lotus Eaters podcast, when he was on Tim Pool, he's like, you don't have a country anymore.
	You're fighting over what the scraps are going to be.
	But when you have the open, overt weaponization, where you're locking up your political opponents, where you're locking up the leading presidential candidate, or trying to, and you're destroying his business based literally on nothing at all, then you don't have a country.
	You don't have a rule of law at all.
	So this corrupt political hack of a judge...
	Who shouldn't have presided over the case to begin with.
	The case should have been transferred to the commercial division.
	He refused because he's a rogue partisan hack.
	And there's a lot of corrupt judges in New York.
	Probably per capita, the king of corrupt judges in America is New York.
	A pretty close second is the District of Columbia.
	If you wonder why the prosecutors are so corrupt in both jurisdictions, look at, you know, you read Billy Walter's book, The Gambler, about his experience with the Southern District of New York.
	He said he underestimated just how corrupt they were.
	He dealt with corrupt government officials his whole life, but he said nothing like what you see in the Southern District of New York because the judges are in on it in New York.
	The judges are in on it in the District of Columbia.
	So the case has no grounds whatsoever, no legal factual grounds whatsoever.
	The problem is a statute that even exists that allows the state of New York to just go steal people's business whenever they feel like it and just say, we feel we've been defrauded.
	Even if you haven't been defrauded.
	Can't prove a penny, nickel, dime, or dollar fraud.
	Ever happened.
	The idea that a bunch of the world's most sophisticated banks lent money without knowing what the value of the Trump brand is is utterly preposterous.
	They could not have been defrauded.
	They never claimed to have been defrauded.
	Not an attempt to defraud.
	Not an existence of defraud.
	Because they will have had their own.
	These were massive deals.
	They would have had their own independent appraisers, their own independent brand assessors.
	Robert, oh, okay.
	I was going to bring this up as you're saying it.
	Panther AI says, if you can find...
	Oh, sorry, no.
	It's Ignotum.
	Don't the banks in the Trump case need to affirm their appraisal approvals?
	Won't the judge have to go after them as co-conspirators to make the bogus charge stick?
	Well, you can't because they're the so-called victim.
	So you can't allege the victim is in on it.
	So that's why it's levels of absurdity that all of these cases are...
	What we're seeing is how dangerous the legal system is when it's weaponized by people for political and partisan objectives.
	And the question is, is the Supreme Court going to be asleep while the country collapses?
	Or is it at some point going to wake up and step in?
	Because these trial courts don't recognize these limits.
	They're used to abusing their power.
	They're used to misusing their power.
	Prosecutors are used to misusing and abusing it, quite frankly, due to a lot of Republican judges over the past five decades who have completely covered up for corrupt prosecutors and corrupt police.
	The leading people doing so have been Republican judges, sadly.
	You know, I have a case about to go up to the Supreme Court in a petition for cert.
	Out of the Seventh Circuit, where they created an exception that said, here's your two exceptions.
	One is, you're not allowed to go into somebody's house to arrest them for a misdemeanor.
	So what you do is you just grab them, throw them out of the house, and then magically the rule doesn't apply anymore to these three Republican Seventh Circuit corrupt judges who think they're going to be up on the Supreme Court.
	And I say corrupt because I say they're...
	Corrupt for partisan purposes.
	I don't mean quid pro quo corruption.
	The second component is that it's part of a case I had before the Tenth Circuit, too.
	It's okay to shoot somebody dead, tase them, or beat them as long as they're not yet arrested.
	So that's not excessive force, you see, because you only have a right against excessive force, according to these conservative judges, if you're actually in custody.
	Until then, we can beat you, shoot you, and tase you.
	Ha ha ha.
	I mean, this absurdity has come out of the conservative wing of the legal academy, and now we're seeing when you greenlight abuse for prosecutors, you greenlight abuse for the police, you greenlight abuse.
	I mean, that judge that was going to be on the U.S. Supreme Court, that was buddies with Pence, that's out saying to take Trump off the ballot, he was a big right-wing Federalist Society judge.
	Is that Lawrence Tribe?
	No, no, Tribe is the commie.
	This is his buddy.
	Sorry.
	The buddy from the Fourth Circuit.
	This is a guy who said...
	You can strip Americans of all civil rights and civil liberties without constitutional protection as long as the president calls them an enemy combatant.
	It was a bunch of right-wingers there.
	Woo-hoo!
	Ben Shapiro was woo-hoo!
	Cheerleading that kind of nonsense.
	I mean, you don't have to follow Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, or a lot of them, but Jeremy Boring.
	Well-named, boring, to realize their authoritarian tendencies, their fascistic proclivities, quite frankly, are barely under the surface.
	They're all excited about El Salvador's method of cracking down on crime because they think mass arrest is a wonderful thing.
	They've never met a prosecutor they thought was bad.
	They never met a police they thought was rogue.
	They never thought an executive action that was done during the Bush administration was problematic, and that's why we're here.
	But now the left has just openly, overtly weaponized it using that green light, using that open door.
	And it's an outlandish and outrageous case against Trump.
	And the reason why it should matter to everybody is it goes way past Trump if they can establish this precedent.
	You can defraud nobody.
	You can have done one of the most sophisticated business deals in the history of man.
	You're talking about deals in the eight figures, deals in the nine figures.
	The idea they didn't know.
	I mean, Trump had gone through a bankruptcy before.
	You don't think the banks didn't know exactly the value of the loan, exactly the value, the likelihood of paying back that loan?
	That's utterly ludicrous.
	Back it up even to the going after Trump, Eric, people personally.
	That's the concept of piercing the corporate veil.
	It's just punish the family.
	It's North Korea.
	I mean, how does North Korea keep a lid on everybody?
	You act up, they punish your family member.
	That's why they keep their mouths shut in North Korea.
	That's why a lot of them don't try to flee.
	Because unless they can get their whole family across, their act they're trying to flee, it's their daughter that gets punished, their son that gets punished, their parents that get punished.
	I mean, this is the same...
	I've been trying to tell people the left today in power...
	Thinks like the Soviets.
	Thinks like old school communists.
	Robert, the left today in power.
	Think like the left of yesteryear in power as well.
	Don't think 1960s.
	Think 1930s.
	That's who these people are.
	They love authoritarianism.
	They love secret service agencies.
	They love deep state activities.
	They love war whoring overseas.
	As Glenn Greenwald pointed out, it's the Democratic Party leadership that is leading the fight on Ukraine, not Republicans.
	And it's Republicans who are the only ones pushing back against it.
	At least the ones that are honest and honorable enough to keep their oath to their representatives, to the people.
	So it's ludicrous on its face, but Trump defrauded nobody.
	The fact that he's been found guilty of civil fraud when they cannot say that there was a single victim ever.
	That everybody was richly rewarded, including the banks.
	They cannot prove that the banks thought they were ever misrepresented.
	There's no testimony in the record.
	The banks think that anything was ever misrepresented to them.
	But the banks evaluated the assets themselves.
	There's no question about that.
	And what the judge is trying to hide is the fact that the banks came in with the same valuation that Trump came in with.
	So putting all of that...
	No one was defrauded.
	There's no victim.
	The fraud is the judgment.
	It's applied to punishing family members that had nothing to do with the underlying transactions.
	It's North Korea.
	It's New York pretending they're North Korea.
	It's a denial of right to trial by jury.
	It's in the wrong form by not being transferred to the commercial court system there in New York.
	It's a threat to everybody's civil rights and civil liberties because what they're saying is if we don't like you politically, we'll weaponize some one of our many vague laws on the books to go and destroy your business.
	Just destroy and destroy your family.
	Just do it.
	We don't have to have proof of fraud.
	Everybody can refuse that there ever was fraud.
	Everybody can agree that in fact the person was fully paid back.
	That there couldn't be fraud.
	Literally.
	Couldn't be fraud.
	Couldn't be an attempt on fraud because it was independently verified by both parties who were sophisticated to the transaction.
	It's utterly ludicrous.
	Everybody recognizes the bank couldn't sue and the bank has never said that it wanted to sue or thought it could sue.
	So how can the state bring suit when they were enriched?
	By tax dollars, by the deals and transactions that got done.
	These were two questions I had and I want to ask them knowing that the person can answer them.
	If you overvalue a property, fraudulently overvalue the property.
	Are you still not paying property taxes on the overvalued or business taxes?
	Well, because usually it's done for different purposes.
	So one of the things the judge did here, the thing that was made an easy mockery, and some of the people were covering up for him, saying, well, he didn't specifically find this was the value.
	Yes, he did.
	He had to for the purposes of saying there was material fraud.
	So you got members of the media and legal communities just lying to cover for this judge.
	What the judge did is he looked at the property appraised value is done on an entirely different standard.
	It varies entirely by city, county, and state, and often has no correlation to the market value of a property for credit purposes.
	You can debate it, and whether that's good policy or bad policy by cities and counties and states to have.
	But by the way, they profit from it when the government comes in and takes your property.
	Government comes in and takes your property.
	They argue, oh no, it's the lowest possible value that's equal to the appraised value, not the value you could actually get on the open market for it.
	So if you deal with eminent domain litigation, you deal with this all the time.
	So is the government always defrauding people then, according to this definition?
	Don't wait for the state of New York to make that claim anytime soon.
	But the one that the Trump people wisely...
	He emphasized, because it symbolically signified the utter absurdity of the judge's actions, is that he used the low-end real estate tax-appraised value of Mar-a-Lago, which has nothing to do with its market value for credit or sale purposes, because the two don't use the same standard, which this judge lies about.
	Hides that fact.
	He lies by omission.
	And said Mar-a-Lago was worth $18 million.
	And the reason why everybody in the real estate market was like, that's one of the most absurd statements we've ever heard.
	They don't realize judges lie every single day in America.
	Probably nobody lies more in office than judges do.
	They have to to get to the conclusion they want to get to.
	So they mostly lie by omission, but there's plenty of times they lie by commission.
	And in this instance...
	Properties next to Mar-a-Lago, you can do an easy Google search.
	Rush Limbaugh lived nearby, other properties.
	Properties that did not have the same acreage.
	Properties that weren't on the ocean.
	Properties that didn't have both ocean and intercoastal waterway access.
	Properties that did not have a brand associated with it that has sold well in the service and real estate industry for almost half a century.
	Nor a product that is affiliated with a known existing popular resort.
	And public figure that are valued at $100 million or more.
	I'm trying to bring it up.
	$100 million or more.
	Mar-a-Lago's half a billion easy.
	It was a 2.3-acre lot.
	I'm just trying to find the actual listing.
	I had to double-check it.
	A 2.3-acre lot that's been on the market for $150 million.
	Something that's 10% of the land with none of the brand value, with none of the prestige value, is worth $150 million.
	So you multiply that.
	There'd be plenty of appraisers, by the way, who would go in and say Mark Logo is worth more than a billion.
	And all he did was list a valuation that was less than half a billion.
	It's like between $340 and $500.
	I mean, that was a low-end valuation of Mar-a-Lago, and the banks knew it.
	That's why they were happy to lend them the money.
	But Robert, the steel man is going to come in and say, well, there's heritage conditions on the property.
	There's a destination that they have to adhere to.
	It has to remain a country club.
	All of which would have been factored in by the banks and the appraisers that put in that valuation.
	And again, those limitations aren't real limitations when you're talking about Mar-a-Lago.
	Because it's real value in terms of its brand, in terms of its reach.
	Some of those heritage deals are generally boosters of value rather than reducers of value.
	And let me just maybe have an original thought that might be wildly intelligent.
	Robert.
	Even if the argument is that he overvalued them to get better terms on the loan.
	So let's just say he says, okay, if I overvalue them to a half a billion, I'll pay 3% interest as opposed to 5% interest on a $100 million loan.
	I'm no math magician, but that doesn't make any sense if you could say, give me a smaller loan and I'll pay higher interest, but it's going to be lower aggregate than if I overvalue it and pay a better interest rate on a half a billion.
	And the idea that a bank, these sophisticated, some of the most sophisticated banks in the world, Leticia James.
	Selective prosecution in violation of the First Amendment.
	But because the federal courts refused to step in in New York, refused to step in in Florida, that's why we're here.
	We have courts that are asleep at the wheel.
	They're watching the country burn in live time because they don't understand what's happening.
	And that's what happens with corrupt elites when you combine incompetence with them.
	I often say, stupid people okay, criminals okay, you combine the two and give them power, you're in trouble.
	And that's what we have.
	We have stupid criminals in positions of power.
	And they're being enabled and facilitated by a cowardly court system that refuses to step up to the breach and do its duty.
	And I hope the Supreme Court at some point steps in.
	Now, this judgment is unlikely to be executed anytime soon.
	There's appeals.
	You can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.
	It's not executable against most of his assets because they're no longer domiciled in the state of New York.
	But what this also is, if you're in real estate, get out of New York.
	Get out of California.
	Get out of Illinois.
	Do not stay in these states, folks.
	If they can target Trump and take away everything from him, they will do it to you whenever somebody gets sideways with you.
	Get out of there.
	I mean, I understand some people literally can't.
	If you literally can't, I get it.
	Anybody else, get out.
	Get out and get out now.
	That's the message from New York.
	I think that covers it.
	It's a load of shit.
	The other hack judge in District of Columbia who, of course...
	Denied the motion to disqualify because she's too dumb to understand what a disqualification motion is supposed to be based on.
	And I said she wouldn't because that's what a corrupt judge is, the kind of judge who would never disqualify.
	An honest judge is one who often will disqualify.
	And by definition, the kind of judge who will disqualify themselves is one you don't need disqualify because they're honest enough that they would have been honest enough to preside over the proceeding.
	That's always been the irony.
	Now, here Congress can fix this.
	They should grant an automatic right of substitution, like some states do, number one, to any party.
	And number two, they should change the disqualification rules.
	They should change it so that a different court has to handle it, rather than have the same judge decide their own qualifications.
	Because the problem is the very nature of bias being so unavoidable that you can't stop your prejudice from impacting your proceedings is exactly why you'll never recognize that bias for disqualification.
	We have the same rule, at least in Quebec.
	You make a motion to disqualify.
	It's the judge whose disqualification is being sought who adjudicates.
	That's great.
	Imagine pissing off the judge and saying you're biased piece of rubbish.
	Recuse yourself and they're going to say, screw you, not only will I not, I'm going to keep myself in and good luck for the rest of the file.
	Exactly.
	That's the problem.
	They never should have done this.
	They should have established a different procedure.
	An honest judge would transfer it to someone to rule on anyway, but these judges are not capable of that.
	Her main legal error, though, is that she didn't even use the right standard.
	The standard is, could someone, may is the language in the law, someone perceive She explained why she wasn't biased.
	That's not the standard.
	The standard is whether someone might perceive her statements as biased.
	And so she didn't even apply the right standard.
	Now, fortunately, this is an appealable issue as this judge decides on the illegal unconstitutional gag order being sought in the case.
	And so I'm glad they brought it.
	They now have issues they can run up the flagpole.
	And then the same in So, I mean, that's the update.
	So we'll see where that progresses.
	And then Trump is taking proactive action.
	He sued Christopher Steele for his conspiracy in Russiagate and everything related to it.
	So that was good to see him proactive on that side of the aisle.
	Now, hold on one second.
	There was one more question I had about the judge Chutney.
	She does not recuse herself and she gets to adjudicate now on the pending motion for the gag order.
	So there has been no order on the gag order being sought by Jack Smith, which is...
	Narrowly circumscribed like my...
	Oh, that's what I was going to say.
	I was going to say like my ass.
	If you see me moving around, it's not my hemorrhoids.
	I believe I have a sciatic nerve that has been pinched.
	And so my leg is under a little bit of pain.
	So I'm trying to relieve the pressure.
	Sitting on my butt all day long.
	It's having its impact.
	So she denied the motion to recuse.
	She's going to stay in and judge for now.
	They're going to go make a motion for permission to appeal.
	The gag order is coming.
	And what was the other thing?
	The DC stuff.
	Oh, so yeah, Trump is suing Steele.
	Robert, I mean, I like that he's doing it, but am I wrong in thinking he's got a 0% chance of any form of success against Steele, considering that a court authorized...
	Steele will say, look, okay, I made a mistake, but the court authorized this, so how wrong could I have been or how much...
	No, but not him.
	In other words, he was complicit in a wide range of behavior, but he was not a government agent when he did what he did.
	So he can't rely on any court-ordered authorization when his deceptions to the FBI were part of how that court order came about.
	He can't profit from his own fraud.
	So factually and legally is good grounds.
	It's whether there'll be a court that will hold Steele accountable, which is an open question.
	What jurisdiction did he file in?
	You know, I'm not sure what the...
	I thought for a second it was the UK, but I haven't seen the actual filing, so I don't know.
	Not like anybody needs any evidence that Steele lied.
	It was a fabricated piece of rubbish done specifically at the request of...
	Who was it?
	The DNC leaked to the FBI by Sussman, who gets acquitted.
	It all paid for by laundered money through Mark Elias and Perkins Co., disguised as federal election legal expenses.
	Oh, God, yes.
	And also, when they get busted, the DNC pays $135,000 for mislabeling the funding.
	Hillary Clinton, $8,000, but Trump faces a 36-charge indictment out of New York, and no one's above the law.
	Jamal Bowman.
	Oh, that's a lot.
	Speaking of insanity out of New York, someone else is fighting back against New York corruption.
	Hold on.
	Who, Robert?
	The bodega.
	Remember the bodega?
	Oh, yes, yes, yes.
	Please, take this one because you know more than I do about it.
	It's basically the headline, but for those people who remember, this is the bodega that defended himself against an attempted armed robbery.
	Charged with murder for stabbing the guy who was kidnapping him at some sort of weapon point.
	Charged for murder because of political pressure.
	And then they dropped the charges because of political pressure.
	And now he's suing.
	Yep, and his point is that he's exposing the New York DA's racially discriminatory prosecutorial preferences amongst others, and saying that the prosecution was brought for racialized reasons.
	In this case, it's the black district attorney targeting non-black defendants for special prosecution, while if it was a black defendant, he doesn't prosecute at all.
	And so there's multiple examples of this with Alvin Bragg.
	So Bragg is now facing a major civil rights suit over his wrongful prosecution of the Bedegh.
	Fantastic.
	I mean, it won't go anywhere.
	These are coming out of corrupt districts, which it'll go nowhere, but good to see, I guess.
	Yeah, we'll see what happens in New York.
	It's a different kind of theory being pursued than the typical theory.
	So we'll see if the New York courts are capable of impartial administration of justice, which so far they have failed to answer that question in the right way.
	All right.
	Do we do the Tennessee trans?
	Oh, well, before that, we have, speaking of corrupt politicians, the Biden impeachment inquiry commenced this week.
	Okay, hold on.
	Before we even get there, just the Menendez update.
	Menendez entered his plea of not guilty, said that he had gotten the gold bars and withdrew cash because he was afraid of the Cuban government seizing his assets.
	I said I'd give Menendez the benefit of the doubt.
	That benefit has long gone now because Menendez, Robert...
	Born in America, so in theory doesn't have assets or salary that could be seized in Cuba.
	And what was I about to say about that?
	So I now no longer believe that he's innocent.
	He was let out on bond of $100,000, his wife on $250,000, and the other co-defendant on a $5 million bond.
	Some people are left asking the questions as to why he's let out on so little.
	He's a politician.
	Maybe he's not running.
	His wife is a little bit more of a flight risk.
	The third dude, I forget his name.
	It's probably, you know, has a criminal record.
	So five million bond.
	He has to put up $300,000.
	Dude's guilty.
	That's it.
	Now I've changed my opinion.
	I gave the benefit of the doubt.
	His explanation for this is doesn't make any sense.
	I have now gone to guilt.
	Okay.
	Speaking of other guilty, corrupt people, politicians, Biden impeachment, the inquiry has started now, correct?
	Not any impeachment proceedings.
	It's the inquiry.
	And I just made a tweet while we were live, Robert.
	All of these lefty dipshits running around saying no evidence.
	It's the catchphrase.
	Google it.
	It's like build back better.
	It's like MAGA Republicans.
	No evidence is the biggest, dumbest lie you could ever imagine.
	It's Bart Simpson saying, I didn't do it.
	No evidence.
	There's evidence.
	They started the inquiry.
	We talked about it, but I mean, I know you believe there's strong grounds for an impeachment.
	I believe there's strong grounds for an impeachment.
	It's the no evidence when we now know that Hunter Biden got a wire of a quarter of a million dollars from a Chinese-related CCP individual, CPC individual, who Joe ended up writing a letter of recommendation for his kid.
	They're meeting in China.
	The wire comes through with Joe Biden's home address as the beneficiary.
	Robert, flesh it out.
	More than that, this is a legit impeachment inquiry.
	Well, especially if they go develop it in the right direction.
	So I agree with Dershowitz that what it requires is that there be, from the Constitution, felonious conduct while he's been president.
	That's part one.
	And part two, as my view, is the remedy of impeachment should only be utilized when an election cannot remedy the problem.
	So it needs to be not only felonious conduct while president, It needs to be felonious conduct while president that endangers the country in a way that can't be remedied in the next election.
	And there are circumstances involving Joe Biden with that.
	And it's not what happened in the past.
	It's how he has weaponized the Justice Department to cover up what has happened in the past.
	If I could stop you there, the argument is going to be, even if it's true that he took payments or his son got payments in 2019, He wasn't president yet, though he was running.
	Is there any way to be given to the idea that it starts counting as when he was running for president?
	I don't know.
	Only once he's been president.
	So in my view, if all they had was things that he had done, his lifelong commitment to corruption that dates back to the 1970s, but if it stopped...
	When he walked into the White House and there was no effort to cover up on it, no effort to act on the quid pro quo for which you previously received those bribes, while weaponizing the power of the White House, then I would agree with Dershowitz that is not impeachable.
	What is impeachable is a misdemeanor or serious misdemeanor, high crime, which I consider serious felonious conduct.
	That while he was president, that's part one.
	And then part two is why it can't be remedied by an election, but only impeachment.
	Recognizing the Senate's never going to convict him anyway.
	But we should stick within those constitutional standards.
	I don't think Clinton's lies about Lewinsky were an impeachable offense.
	I think there are other things he did which were impeachable, but they chose not to go that route because it endangered their deep state allies and the Bush family.
	As Clinton famously bragged about to Arkansas security guards, as reported in Roger Morris' book Partners in Power about the Clintons.
	Still the best biography of the Clintons ever written.
	Comes from a left populist guy, by the way.
	So in this instance, what makes those past issues relevant is whether or not it has impacted presidential policy from the White House, whether or not he has taken efforts to cover up that criminality, By weaponizing the tools of the White House, obstructed proceedings, criminally interfered in those proceedings, misusing and abusing his power, and in particular, the most compelling evidence concerns Ukraine.
	He got bribed by Ukraine all the way back by various oligarchs and elements within Ukraine that are now within the government.
	For the purposes of suppressing criminal investigation and demonic laundering and other illegal activities taken by those oligarchs and allies of those oligarchs.
	And one of the main oligarchs he was protecting at the time, who's now persona non grata in the West, but that oligarch is the one principally responsible for the election of Zelensky and enriching Zelensky.
	So right now we're experiencing the quo part of the quid pro quo.
	Because he's weaponized the White House to fund a Ukrainian war in order to repay the people who previously bribed him.
	That is an impeachable offense.
	It puts the country at risk.
	Blowing up Nord Stream is an impeachable offense.
	It puts the world at risk and it's an act of global terrorism unauthorized by anybody legislatively, by Congress or anything else.
	The action he is engaged in in the Justice Department If he had no role whatsoever,
	his Justice Department had no role whatsoever in any problematic aspect of what was going on with Hunter Biden or the investigation into him or his family, if they weren't weaponizing power to take out his leading political critic and opponent...
	If he wasn't massively funding and endangering the world with Ukraine, then you'd have an argument.
	He hasn't engaged in impeachable conduct.
	But he has done all three.
	So if the House is smart, they tie those two together.
	They tie the past criminality to current policy.
	The past criminality to current dangerous weaponization of executive force, selective prosecutorial power.
	And they tie that prior criminality...
	To the current world being in a dangerous place.
	That an election won't be able to cure if we have nuclear war before them.
	The election won't cure if Donald Trump, they try to put him in prison before the election can even occur.
	The election can't cure a problem that Biden's criminal acts are prohibiting from being the cure of.
	And that should be the focus, and that's constitutionally good ground.
	The question is whether they have the guts to do it.
	Because it will implicate deep state allies on the Republican side, on the Bush family side, on all their protégés and others, Senator Cornyn as one example, amongst others.
	It will implicate the deep state currently.
	It will implicate the CIA, the NSA.
	It will implicate the same people that tried to take out Trump in Russiagate and Ukraine-gate.
	So does the Republican, does Jim Jordan have the guts to allow the committee to go to where good constitutional grounds exist is the open question.
	There's no doubt good constitutional grounds exist to impeach Biden.
	Impeach and convict, Robert.
	If he gets impeached, okay.
	There's too many corrupt hacks in the Senate to assume he'll ever be convicted.
	But the worry about him being convicted should not influence whether or not he's committed a...
	True.
	And I say, the funny thing is, thinking out loud, and I can see how in a year and a half, this soundbite, this clip might be more prophetic than anything.
	Hey, if Biden becomes such a liability of a president as a candidate, and this is how they have to take him out, is by impeachment and conviction.
	You could see a realm in which it happens, and they make an example out of him, and then, I don't know.
	They'll never do that in my view.
	No, I'm allowed to have a dream, Robert.
	As I sit here stroking Winston, I can dream.
	If they impeach, to me it's an absolute no-brainer in terms of what he's done.
	And it's an interesting distinction had he just stopped.
	It's not about what he did before being president.
	It's about everything that he's doing while he's president in order to persecute and prosecute.
	This isn't just about individual quid pro quo corruption.
	This is about the corruption of our policies, the endangerment of our economy, the endangerment of global peace that tie the two together.
	Now, that means going after some of their corporate allies, going after some of their deep state allies.
	But that's what they need to do to make it both a compelling presentation in the court of public opinion and to make it a constitutionally correct impeachment.
	Okay, now let me, I'm going to read a few of these Rumble Rants.
	I forget where we left off here.
	I'm not a fisherman.
	Unless I've been to Bath, Illinois, I'm going to look at this.
	If this is noodling, I will never noodle.
	Sticking my hands into unknown holes.
	I'm not doing it.
	In life or in fishing.
	Panther AI says, but here's a real question.
	If all of this is fraud, isn't the judge committing fraud as well?
	Since I bet the loan they took for their place doesn't match the values of the standards.
	Okay, we talked about that.
	Chiropractor Viva, see one weekly.
	You have kids.
	They give you DAD, aka degenerative ass disease.
	It's just streaming.
	It slowly eats away at your butt.
	And then we got Truth Puppet.
	Nice time is over.
	Act like Democrats and just impeach.
	Okay, good.
	I was nervous this was going to be a violence promoting one.
	Impeach.
	Absolutely.
	Hey, they set the standards.
	I have now gotten very comfortable with holding those bastards to the standards they have set.
	I'm doing it.
	Daily.
	Whether or not I would have...
	If I impose that standard in the first place, I will hold my enemies to their own standards.
	And that's about all the advice I'll take from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
	Robert, now we're off our list, so I don't know which one we're going to go to next.
	What's the segue?
	Up next is the couple of Second Amendment cases.
	The Firearms Policy Coalition and others continue to bring good suits.
	In Maryland, they got a successful injunction against Maryland's attempt to impose a range of gun control.
	There's a bunch of gun control cases that are going forward in California.
	The Ninth Circuit issued a temporary administrative stay that multiple judges correctly dissented from.
	And they pointed out that when it comes to abortion and guns, the same judges that say you have to stick to certain procedural standards and you have standing and all the rest, they throw all that out the window when they want a certain outcome.
	Robert, I'm an idiot.
	The reason why I was not following the right list is because I was looking at the email you sent me.
	Two days ago, not the updated one with the list.
	Okay, the Second Amendment, California, Maryland.
	This was the darling of the right.
	What's his name?
	Benitez?
	The judge who issued the great ruler.
	I think he is a former Cuban judge.
	Yeah, the Dems, they like open borders until they come from Cuba.
	This is the judge that issued the ban on the legislation that...
	Limited.
	I forget.
	I'm going to screw it up now, Robert.
	This had to do with high-capacity magazines, right?
	It was 10 bullets or more.
	And the judge Benitez came in and said, no, this is unlawful.
	This is the right decision I'm thinking of.
	This is when the court comes in and says, no, no, we got to hear this on an emergency basis.
	Strike it down.
	Break all of our own rules in order to hear this.
	To stay Benitez's order.
	And then the court comes in and says, you guys are just willy-nilly breaking the rules, making your own rules so that you can treat Second Amendment cases differently than every other case.
	There was a case of a death penalty that was being requested for special review.
	And you said no to that, but we're going to hear this.
	And the majority came in and said, That no...
	They stayed the stay, correct?
	That's what happened?
	Yes.
	But it's only an administrative stay, so whether or not the stay will stay in place, we'll see.
	Happens too many stays.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Ultimately, I think these laws will ultimately be struck down on the grounds Benitez granted.
	But what it reveals is the ongoing efforts to...
	Discipline these states who are ignoring the Bruin decision.
	And probably sooner or later, the Supreme Court is going to need to take one of these to reinforce the Bruin decision.
	Now, most of the gun cases have been successful.
	Most of the Second Amendment cases have successfully struck down I think over 100 state or local laws since Bruin.
	And I think that's where this one will go in California.
	And they won a good one in Maryland concerning all these different efforts to restrict.
	Second Amendment rights.
	So we're seeing mostly robust good law in this arena, but there'll be procedural hurdles and delays as the gun control crowd tries to throw wrenches into them as they proceed to final judgment.
	I remember highlighting certain parts of this, and I have to look over my glasses like an old man, Robert.
	It said, I can't even do it.
	This is from the decision from the majority, where there is a phenomenon that has long been recognized in abortion cases, sometimes called abortion distortion, that describes the court's willingness to jettison procedural norms or other normal rules of decision-making when a case concerns abortions.
	As the Supreme Court recently observed in Dobbs, abortion cases have led to the distortion in legal doctrines ranging from the severability, yada, yada.
	And they say we're now seeing a similar thing in Second Amendment cases where the courts are saying, screw it all, we're going to make our own rules, break our own rules, break our own rules so that we can get to the results that we want as relates to Second Amendment cases because they're very important to us.
	And maybe do a little bit of reverse order because that's a good bridge into the abortion ban that got upheld out of Idaho.
	And this was a good appellate decision.
	So this is where, for a while, people have been saying these efforts to link money in certain ways to federal program was really a backdoor way for the federal government to take over things that are not their business, like the state's governance of medical care.
	And so we have two instances of that.
	We have the abortion ban on the one hand, and we have trans treatment bans in Tennessee and Kentucky on the other.
	And in the abortion ban context, Idaho passed a law banning abortion outside of the life of the mother.
	Biden administration sued, and they got a friendly district court to agree with him, that a law that only governs emergency care, that just said, you hospitals that take Medicare, you cannot deny emergency care to people based on their inability to pay.
	So that's all it does.
	In fact, the law specifically says this doesn't change any state law.
	This doesn't govern the standard of care.
	This doesn't govern what care must be provided.
	It only says that you can't use their economic status as grounds to deny them when you're receiving federal funds.
	This was a law.
	I was trying to see if I highlighted it.
	It was a six-letter emergency medical treatment where you could not turn someone away.
	EMTALA.
	EMTALA, the emergency treatment, whatever the rest goes for, which stipulates you have to stabilize a patient in the ER before anything.
	Because abortion is stabilizing care.
	Because the law already allowed in the case of the life of the mother.
	It's basic old school self-defense doctrine.
	Then you can take whatever, you can do an abortion.
	You just can't do an abortion for any other reason.
	And the idea that providing emergency care for the poor was in fact a mandate to do abortion that no state could override is nowhere in the law, but it's the misuse and abuse of federal funds.
	And it's the misuse and abuse of the Justice Department that should be part of Biden impeachment.
	And it's the misuse and abuse of federal preemption principles.
	It's because this is an area that they don't govern.
	They don't govern the practice of medicine.
	So I have this issue in a range of vaccine and other cases.
	The FDA, not supposed to be in the state regulating medicine context, supposed to be in the honest labeling context.
	They've gone long away from it.
	You give them a little bit of light and they steal it all.
	To the credit of the Court of Appeals, they said there is no federal preemption here.
	Nothing about this law even deals with abortion, so it can't preempt.
	The law itself said it doesn't try to preempt.
	There'd be constitutional problems if it did try to preempt.
	And there's not even any kind of conflict in practice, least of all with the law, given that if stabilizing the patient, it pointed out many times stabilizing the patient may mean the unborn fetus, in the case, depending on your perspective on life, that the state of Idaho has already made a decision on.
	This is up for the legislature of Idaho to decide.
	They've decided the federal law can't preempt it, and they reversed that so that Idaho's abortion ban is now enforceable in the state.
	And in the same context, using similar principles, the Tennessee and Kentucky laws passed that banned certain kinds of trans treatment with the same sort of courts at the district court level that rushed in Tennessee to to stop that those laws from going into force.
	Six Sixth Circuit also oversimplified.
	Yeah, Robert, I got flabbergasted by the dissenting judge in that case.
	I was trying to find the name and look up history, but the judge said something I tweeted out before, like, if you're an accident of birth, referring to gender dysphoria, And as though it's an accident of birth that these people are born into the wrong bodies and not that they have a psychological condition that requires treatment that does not involve child genital mutilation.
	And I'm just flabbergasted by the mental gymnastics that a dissenting judge will go through in order to find a way to say we should allow children to mutilate their genitals because everybody basically understands what they call puberty blockers or puberty pausers.
	Cause lifelong damage.
	Hormone replacement therapy, lifelong damage.
	Double mastectomies, all of it, lifelong damage.
	And I forget which, Tennessee passed the legislation.
	It says you can't do any of this unless it's for medically necessary, medically, not psychologically, precocious period or accidents.
	I don't know what they mean by accidents.
	And you have a dissenting judge saying, oh no, these poor children, but by accidents of birth are born into the wrong bodies.
	Okay, so...
	This was another one of those stays on stays.
	The legislation will be permissible and will no longer be stayed, is the bottom line.
	I like the logic of this decision better than some of the others.
	Because the danger in these decisions is that they greenlight state invasion of parental power and bodily autonomy.
	And here the court made a big difference.
	Unlike some of the prior decisions and arguments being made, It did recognize the right to refuse treatment.
	It did recognize the right to bodily autonomy.
	It did recognize the right of parental authority over children's choices and care.
	So that was very important.
	And how it separated the two is it said the right to refuse care has never been interpreted as the right to receive care using the right to die cases that went up to the U.S. Supreme Court where they said there was no right to die.
	The Kevorkian case is out of Michigan.
	And so that was a critical distinction because that preserves the constitutional protection of bodily autonomy.
	They also went on the way and said they agreed the parent has a right to choose the child's medical care.
	But that, too, only extends to the same right the parent has that right.
	So if a parent as an adult has a right to reject care...
	Then the parent can reject care on behalf of the child without the state being able to change that unless it could meet strict scrutiny, compelling need, narrowly tailored mechanism to meet that compelling need.
	And they said in this context, the parent as an adult doesn't have the right to receive these forms of unusual, unconventional treatments.
	So the parent has no right for the child to also receive These unconventional, unusual treatments that the state cannot regulate.
	And so on that basis, and then it made clear what's always been true.
	I always thought the equal protection claim was gibberish.
	Because there's old Supreme Court law that says just because something only impacts one gender does not make it gender-based discrimination to have legislation governing that.
	And they said so in the medical context particularly.
	Otherwise, you could never ban or limit abortion in any way.
	Requisite disposal of tampons will only affect women.
	Correct.
	Exactly.
	And so they said that there is no discrimination based on gender.
	Just because this treatment disproportionately impacts one gender more than another doesn't make it something that discriminates on the basis of gender.
	So the two-to-one decision overturned the district court, reinstated the ban in Tennessee and Kentucky on these trans treatments, noting fundamentally there's no deeply rooted tradition of preventing, of a right to receive certain medical procedures.
	And they said if we did recognize such a right, it would create a wide range of problems and a wide range of contexts.
	So I like how they clarified these provisions.
	Now, for those out there, by the way, these cases don't help people that wanted to get ivermectin or things like that.
	So these cases do undermine some of the legal theories being pursued there.
	And some on the right haven't fully...
	They so embrace the outcome, they haven't cared about the means to that outcome.
	And this decision was more careful at not harming those underlying rights to get to the outcome.
	It also contained, I guess, I don't know if it's relatively accurate, but more thorough history of gender dysphoria and studies.
	Well, Levesque is right.
	It's a disease.
	That's what it is.
	It's a disease.
	It's a mental illness.
	And once upon a time, there was no shame in saying it.
	All of a sudden, now they're saying, if it weren't a mental illness, it wouldn't cause distress to not accommodate to.
	So it's a mental illness.
	You know, my nephew told me somebody years ago, he was like, one of his friends didn't know he was a boy or a girl.
	And I was like, you know, I'm pretty sure God gave him a clue.
	He caused a little controversy at the time, but around the old Thanksgiving table.
	But so, yes, and so these are laws that are targeting the right issue.
	And the key is that the means to get to that remedy need to be done in such a way as to be clearly...
	And not invalidate bodily autonomy and not invalidate parental autonomy and not empower injudiciously the state along the way.
	People at the Daily Wire don't care, right?
	Because, like I said, they're basically authoritarians in hiding.
	The mask drops down and you see it ugly and up front.
	And that's been my issue with these cases.
	But this decision does the best job of limiting...
	All right, Robert.
	Excuse me.
	I'm going to read a few Rumble rants, and then I think we might...
	The only one we have left to discuss on Rumble is briefly the arrest in the Tupac murder.
	Okay, now let me do this real quick.
	Bruin was a reinforcement of the Heller case.
	That's from Stingray.
	GoldenCharms79.
	Hi, Viva.
	Could you give any advice as to why I can't watch locals on my TV Amazon fire stick?
	Alex Davey Duke: Please cover federal court of appeal Premier Brian Peckford.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Dude, I got my...
	This is a federal court of appeal that's coming up.
	I forget when, but I've got my link to chime in.
	So unless something happens, I've got my Zoom link.
	It's October 11th, so I'm good for that.
	I'm in there.
	Alex David Duke, nice to see you again.
	Into the veld.
	The FBI colluded with the social media platform to censor millions of voters before the elections, making the January 6th protesters patriots and the agents...
	Oh, crap.
	Tech employs the actual insurrectionists.
	I agree with that.
	I hull 86 point of order.
	He is a known Saint Benitez.
	And then we got that.
	And there was one that just came in here.
	Trump puppet.
	No, sorry.
	Truth puppet.
	I became pro-life when I watched people go out on the ice to save baby seals.
	Same people would not protect babies.
	All right, Tupac Robert, it's 20 some odd years later, the dude is 60 years old, apparently goes on, not podcast, but wrote a memoir that says, I gave the gun and gave the order to kill Tupac.
	I mean, you'll tell me the legal stuff behind this.
	My life question is, how long does this guy have to live?
	Because if you admit to being the one...
	He didn't kill him.
	He didn't pull the trigger.
	He allegedly gave the order and boasted about having given the firearm to the dude that went out and shot the rap legend Tupac Shakur to death.
	This guy's not long for this world, but what do you make of this at this point in time?
	The dude is 60 years old.
	Can justice be had?
	I mean, there's no statute of limitations on murder.
	And so it's constitutionally and statutorily permissible to charge him.
	He was identified as an early suspect.
	So I guess we can get the real answer to the Vegas mass shooting probably 20 years from now, too.
	You know, this was always an ongoing embarrassment to Vegas that they did not prosecute anybody connected to this.
	There's been multiple movies made about this.
	I have a hush hush about what really happened in the murder of Tupac that you can find at...
	VivaBarnesLoth.Locals.com I'll probably pin it up so people can find it easily this week and you can get maybe the real story behind the murder of Tupac.
	I've given everyone the link and we're going to go now, Robert.
	We end this on Rumble.
	This will be exclusive to the After Party Act.
	VivaBarnesLot.Locals.com If you want us to answer a question, put in a tip of $5 or more.
	We'll be covering the following five bonus topics.
	Robert Kennedy Jr.
	Can he run as an independent?
	Will he run as an independent?
	Does he have ballot access to run as an independent?
	What is the impact of his presidential campaign?
	And if he runs as an independent, why is everybody missing the boat on the real impact of such a campaign?
	Arizona governor.
	Who the heck is it?
	Is it somebody else?
	I mean, give them to this person or that person.
	What's going on over there?
	When calling somebody a groomer is not liable.
	What are you going to do in California when they start putting limits on how much you can drive your car?
	And you have to disclose where it is at all times, particularly if you have any of those old polluting cars.
	And last but not least...
	When can you sue Better Call Saul for making fun of your tax service?
	I got questions about this one.
	Robert, we're going to Locals, everybody.
	You have the link.
	Also, last but not least, the Michigan election lawsuit that could impact 2024.
	And I've got highlights from that because I screen grabbed with some highlights.
	Okay, ending on Rumble.
	Robert, do you have any appearances next week for the world to know?
	No, I got a busy week next week.
	Okay, and now, do I have anything next week?
	Things are going to be coming up, so stay tuned.
	We're going to end on Rumble, going to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	See you all there, and if you're not going to be there, see you tomorrow live throughout the week.
	Enjoy the evening, people.

▲