All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 15, 2023 - Viva & Barnes
02:09:23
Ep. 182: Israel at War; Trump Ineligible for Ballot? Malone Lawsuit Dismissed!AND MORE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And so SMRT.
Policy training.
Question one of seven.
In a video, a creator says that nobody in Jamaica has died of COVID-19 because it's an island and islands were not really affected by the pandemic.
Is this a violation?
Now here's a little free...
Let me just pause it here.
First, I'm going to give everybody the link.
Embed URL.
I think this is it.
If you haven't seen this video...
Let me take myself out.
Do the proper introduction here.
If you haven't seen this video yet...
I did post it on YouTube and Rumble.
That's the Rumble link.
Ironically, posting it on YouTube.
Look, this is...
Okay, let's back it all up to the beginning, people.
I've been a good boy.
I'm a good boy.
I don't break rules.
Occasionally, I swear.
I've been told I swear too much, so I'm going to try to keep it cool.
I'm going to go back to the front door instead of the F, and I'm going to go shut the front door.
All right.
In my thousands and thousands and thousands, because I think it's literally up to 4,000 videos, give or take, on YouTube, I have received all of one warning per channel, and one of the warnings was an interview I did with Dr. Francis Christian.
On the street interview during the Ottawa protests, which was flagged as medical misinformation.
Oh yeah, that's right.
The other warning I got was on my main channel.
My interview with Francois Amelaga, the Cameroonian Quebecois who was jailed for violating the COVID rules, the tickets, etc.
Medical misinformation.
And I tweeted out and I dare say kind of irritated YouTube.
I was like, can you just tell me what part of the video qualifies as medical misinformation?
Whatever.
All right.
YouTube has implemented a new policy because hitherto, or up until now, they would give you a warning, but the warning never goes away, so basically it's just like an extra strike.
They give you a warning.
We won't tell you what you did wrong, but we think you might have done something wrong.
Here's your warning next time you get a strike.
Now I just totally lost my train of thought.
Oh, that's right.
Now they've changed their policy a little bit to allow you to take a re-education training seminar.
That allows you to have your warning removed if after passing their seminar, you don't break the rules like a naughty boy for another 90 days.
So I did a whole video breaking it down yesterday because it's Orwellian Kafkaesque, whatever the hell it is.
It's ridiculous.
But, and I forgot to put it in the video yesterday, I think that they're implementing the exact same protocol that Barnes and I worked into the Rumble Terms of Service, which are that...
Certain things have to lapse over time.
There has to be a period of time after which warnings, strikes, they just get erased.
Period.
A year.
I don't know, six months.
I forget what the exact term we put on it was.
There's that.
There's also the idea...
That you can't retroactively flag videos that might not have been contravening of whatever the hell the terms of service were at the time later on.
The Francois Amelaga warning that I got on my main channel for medical misinformation from the man who was jailed for, I forget how long, for violating COVID protocol, fined almost $100,000.
That warning came three months after the interview.
The warning of the medical misinformation from Francis Christian.
I think he might have actually been proven right in whatever he said during that interview.
So their warning for medical misinformation as of February 2022 might not be medical misinformation as at, I have no idea what month it is.
I'm looking at my computer.
October 2023.
It's all preposterous.
It's all ridiculous.
But the questions, and I want to bring up one question in particular, because I was so flabbergasted by this question.
I didn't know what to think of it.
Advice for anybody taking an LSAT?
Let's just go to the question.
It was about the shmushmortion.
No, not the cell tower.
Here we go.
Was it this one?
Was it this one?
Come on.
Not Pablo.
Was it Safiya?
Here we go.
Listen to this.
Listen to this.
It's going to blow your mind what they throw in to their re-education camps on YouTube.
Because in case you thought certain...
Smoshmortion procedures might be risky.
They're telling you.
Seven.
Safiya recorded a conversation with her friends where she claimed she became infertile after a chemical abortion using the prescription medications myfepristone and misoprostol.
Safiya urged her friends to avoid chemical abortions or else they will also become infertile.
Is this a violation?
That's right.
This example violates our policy because it promotes misinformation about the side effects of the chemical abortion method, which is deemed safe by health authorities.
While we may make exceptions for content in which creators describe their or their family's firsthand experiences, we do not allow content promoting misinformation about safe abortion methods, such as telling others that they will become infertile after using methods deemed safe by health authorities.
Now, I did...
Okay, so I'm stopping it there.
Safe...
And by the way, just so this doesn't get a warning on YouTube, yes, that's right, that was medical misinformation.
And you know that there are medical misinformation when they come up with these examples that are always categoric.
Alls, don't do it, this will happen, definitive, whatever.
But what a peculiar example in their re-education camps to get you to conceptually internalize it's a safe and effective...
Okay, anyhow, so that's what I did yesterday.
While the kids were, while I was solo parenting, going crazy all week, holy crab apples, on Friday I had three kids out of school for whatever the reason, pet day or something, two friends with them, we went to a petting zoo, we went to Strawberry Girls, this place where you can, you know, petting zoo and whatever.
Life is expensive when you have, I'm the youngest of five kids, you take five kids to McDonald's, holy crab apples.
You take five kids to a petting zoo, they want ice cream.
Holy crab apples.
Alright, and by the way, I know I shared with you my shopping faux pas, errors of the week, where I bought gluten-free Annie's pasta, and then I bought vegan Annie's chicken strips.
These things were in the aisles with regular chicken strips and regular pasta.
I forgot to highlight the other blunder that I made.
Also in the pasta section, I got mac and cheese.
Wakanda forever version.
I opened it up and I'm looking and I was like, why do the mac and cheese look like that?
I didn't realize I got Wakanda.
I'm not a pervert, but can we agree that they're highlighting boobies here in a way that's not normal?
Wakanda forever mac and cheese.
I'll tell you what.
I want politics to be out of my food.
Anyhow, I'm told it doesn't taste any different, but the pasta looks a little different.
All right.
Good evening, everybody.
How goes the battle?
We're going to see when Barnes gets here.
It's another week where it's tough to remain optimistic.
It's tough to be distracted by the stupidities of life like Wakanda forever mac and cheese when the world seems to be burning.
And our elected officials are the ones throwing the gasoline on the fire.
We know what's going on.
We're going to talk about it tonight because you can't not talk about it, but then we're going to talk about some other stuff because it also, you know...
Cripe, at some point, I mean, people want to stop talking about it, but what a luxury that some have to not want to talk about the wars that are afflicting other parts of the world.
The world is on fire.
It's gone from...
uh ukraine on fire to the middle east on fire yet again and when i say that our elected officials are bumbling idiots corrupt buffoons who are i don't know if it's accidentally or deliberately gleefully or reluctantly throwing gasoline on the fire they are appreciate the world that we're living in not so long ago We were, and I say we, as in the Canadian government, saluting Nazis in Canadian Parliament.
Financing, subsidizing, arming Nazis in another part of the world.
The US government, as we're going to talk about tonight, arguably, but not so arguably, financing terrorism.
The US government, arguably, but not so arguably...
Abandoning billions and billions of dollars of weapons in a debacle, an impeachable debacle of a withdrawal from Afghanistan.
And where do those weapons seem to be ending up?
You guessed it, everywhere.
And it's not like they're out of their pay scale, they're out of their competency scale.
They are.
We've got a drama teacher, and I never held this against him.
Because a drama teacher can still be a perfectly competent human being.
It just so happens that the drama teacher that we have as Prime Minister of Canada has proven himself to be a woman groping.
Yes, you can look it up.
He apologized for it.
Two times ethics breaching.
Yes, confirmed.
Broke the Conflict of Interest Act twice.
Blackface wearing more times than he can count.
Vitriolic, awful...
Scum of a human.
I forgot what the point of this sentence was.
We've got that guy leading Canada, and then we've got these other underlings.
They get elected, so we've got no one to blame but ourselves.
This is Melanie Jolie.
Ironically enough, I won't say relying on her looks, she's a...
Jolie in French means beautiful.
And I don't know other than, you know, pretty smiles and nice photo ops.
What makes her competent for the job that she's adopting now?
But when I say that her boss is a drama teacher playing dress-up, and then it looks like she's a drama teacher playing dress-up, this is her military guard, people.
This is like, when they're addressing the conflict in the Middle East, they've got to dress the role.
And I have no doubt she went to army surplus and said, look, I got some serious stuff to deal with right now.
I'm a very busy woman.
Because that was her excuse for why they were so slow, arguably, or why they were not all that fast to evacuate Canadians.
From Israel and the conflict there.
Remember the time when I was pressing Mark Garneau, the man who got elected in my writing where I ran for federal office, the astronaut.
I was like, hey, Mark, nice that you're campaigning in this federal election.
How many Canadians are left in Afghanistan?
How many Canadians are left in Afghanistan?
I kept on tweeting this at him like a pain in the ass because I am one.
I can full-heartedly recognize it.
Sorry, I took out the wrong person.
I kept on tweeting at Mark Garneau.
How many Canadians were just abandoned in Afghanistan with that debacle of a withdrawal?
I never got an answer from Mark Garneau, but I'll tell you what tweet did get an answer from him.
When I said, everybody hates Justin Trudeau, even Mark Garneau hates Justin Trudeau.
And then he had to protest a little too hard.
How dare you say that?
You keep my mouth, his name out of my, you keep my name out of your, something all the time.
Garneau never had an answer for how many Canadians were left in Afghanistan.
When asked why Canada's response was seemingly slow to the crisis in the Middle East and getting Canadians out of Israel, her response, according to Blacklock's reporting, and I didn't read the context, I didn't read the full article because it's behind the paywall, I'm a very busy woman, is what she said.
Busy playing dress-up.
And I said this, I really want to know this question.
Where the hell did she get this outfit?
And how much did it cost?
Imagine, like, the world's at war now, and so Melanie Jolie has to go out and get the most Soviet-looking brown shirt of a military garb to play the role.
Where did she get it?
I want to know first off.
And how much did it cost?
Now, relying on the aggregate knowledges of the interwebs, if we look here, I am certain smarter people than me can determine Where this came from based on the pins.
Now, I don't know if it's fancy.
I don't know if it's literally secondhand.
How much did it cost?
Where'd you get it?
And if anyone is wondering why I'm asking this, I'm not trying to be petty and juvenile.
Our country is being destroyed by an ethics-breaching, woman-groping, blackface-wearing drama teacher and his incompetent underlings who think leadership is a question of playing dress-up.
They do, and it irritates me.
Alright, now.
Oh, the flipping clock behind me.
Whoever got that for me, I don't know why it keeps dropping an hour.
I don't know why.
It's supposed to be an atomic clock, and now I'm getting a little bit scared about...
Atomism.
All right.
Good evening, everybody.
I hope everyone's not too frustrated.
Standard disclaimers.
You too, big brother.
I took my class.
I'm very good.
I now know that Mephistosone is a safe and effective way of giving yourself the shmishmortion.
Totally safe.
And now because they made me provide that as an answer, now I question and wonder.
And I assume the exact opposite.
But what do I know?
I'm just a buffoon lawyer.
All right.
Cheryl Gage has a nice $10 super chat, and then we're going to get to the rules, all the stuff, and then Barnes is going to come in.
Question number eight.
A certain Canadian doctor is later proven right.
YouTube will A, apologize, B, remove strikes and warnings, C, just kidding, you still have to undergo re-education.
I will have already undergone it.
Cheryl Gage, thank you very much.
Everybody, I appreciate all of these super chats, rumble rants.
Bear in mind, YouTube takes 30% of that.
So if you want to support the channel, Without also supporting YouTube, there's two ways to do it.
One, there's three ways.
Rumble rants on Rumble.
Rumble typically takes 20% of that.
The rest of the year, they're taking zero, and then they're going to go back to that later on 2024.
Better to support also a platform that actually supports free speech.
The best way to do it is to go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and for seven bucks a month or a discounted rate of $70 a year, There are tons of exclusive goodies at vivabarneslaw.locals.com and some people actually support us with more because they love what we do.
There's a third way and I should probably plug our merch more often than I do.
Merch.
If you go to vivafry.com I happen to have broken my...
Wanted for president coffee mug, so I'm gonna have to order another one.
But I still got the shot glass on my desk.
I keep saying to the kids, don't bring glass into my office, and then I do it, and then sure enough, it breaks.
Hold on.
Dude, I'm taking myself out again.
Wanted for president.
It's beautiful.
So you can go to vivafry.com and get merch.
But let's do this here.
What's up with Barnes boy, Alex Mercurius, going full simp for Hamas?
He basically...
I don't know who that is.
Oh, Alex from the Duran.
I have not heard what he said about it.
And I'm not going to...
Look, there's a lot of people with wildly different perspectives on this.
And I don't know what he said, so I can't characterize it or accept that characterization is accurate.
I say there is nuance to this entire debate, but not when it comes to Hamas, just when it comes to the proportionate proper response that will actually...
Potentially, for once and for all, resolve the problem instead of just contributing to this cyclical, decades-long, vicious circle of violence.
But there's a lot of people taking some interesting positions out there on the interwebs.
Okay, now let me just go check out something here on Rumble.
Rumble is good, and let me go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, and we are good on Rumble.
And VivaBarnesLaw.
Oh, Barnes is in the house.
Okay, good.
I have a couple more things.
I will get to the rest tomorrow.
I'll go live again later this week and touch on some of the Canadian stuff.
And for those who don't know, we start live on YouTube, Rumble, and Locals.
We end in, we'll do one or two subjects on YouTube.
Then we end on YouTube, go to Rumble exclusively.
Then after that, we go to VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
For the after party, we take the tips there, answer some questions, and have a great time.
All right.
And I haven't opened it yet.
but a hawaiian gin is on the menu for tonight okay barnes coming in three sorry that was too fast two one sir how goes the battle good good what do you have over your shoulder if i'm looking wait that looks like america i can see the the proverbial wang of america the florida part um what book do you have robert It's Kevin Phillips, the emerging Republican majority, one of the great political analysts and populist advocates over the past half century.
He passed away this past week, so it's an honor and recognition of him.
And if you want to understand American politics, this book was published in 1969, written actually in 1966.
It's a great political biography.
Of American politics going back to its founding.
And he's, without question, the greatest political analyst in the history of the United States.
Now, Robert, I'll bring up the chat because maybe, look, I've heard briefly what the Duran's position is.
They're definitely more, I guess more...
Yeah, McCorris has not been simping for Hamas.
So, in fact, he was very critical of what Hamas did.
He just laid out the geopolitical circumstances and has been on other shows with people who voice more of a Palestinian sympathizing perspective.
But he hasn't been on the Hamas side.
There's some people who think that unless you're for everything that Israel is doing, that you're pro-Hamas.
In the same way that there's people that think that if you're unsympathetic to the Palestinian political leadership, that you're just a token of Israel's politics.
Reality is most people are in between.
The most people, like a poll on our board, you know, the most Americans, similar to the people on our board, overwhelmingly choose Israel over Palestinian.
but you have about a third or so, give or take, different times that are neutral on the subject.
In other words, don't want us to be involved.
They don't want us to be engaged directly ourselves in there to make it worse.
But, you know, there's very few people in the United States outside of the left and That's pretty small.
There's more people that side or say they sympathize with Palestinians.
But that number generally, the more people...
And on our board, it's by a 12 to 1 margin.
Even within the Democratic Party, they still lean Israel, even though the millennial generation is the least pro-Israel amongst Democrats of any group.
But there's a tendency to polarize in this context, that either you're an Israel simp or you're a Hamas simp when the balance of arguments...
Presents some difference between the two, I think.
I guess we know a little bit more of the initial terrorist attack and the delayed response or the time it took to get a response.
Some explanations as to they were relying too much on the Iron Dome and neglected the portion above the fence and below the Iron Dome.
Yeah, a real good video on that by History Legends.
I think he's a Canadian.
I used to follow him before he started breaking down the Ukrainian war, and a lot of his analysis was really apt.
I think that History Legends, I think, is the name of the channel on YouTube.
But he did a real good breakdown on his explanation as to why he thought, essentially, Israel has become over-dependent on technology and surveillance, and that the Hamas successfully exploited.
That over-dependence.
And he thinks that's the most likely reason for its security gaps.
Israel has an advantage militarily historically because of its technological edge, but it may have become over-dependent.
I think that's why there's an internal debate currently within Israel as to the next steps.
Beyond targeting Hamas as they have with the various air attacks and other attacks over the past week, there's a legitimate, it appears to me, debate within Israel about whether to go into a ground war.
I don't think that's a well-advised idea, personally.
I don't think doing what Hamas wants is probably a tactically savvy decision.
And I think at least some are going back and forth on what to do about it.
And then also credit to Joel Pollack, editor at Breitbart, who understandably initially reacted with anger at what took place, but has subsequently retracted some of his statements and clarified the objective.
So I think some people are...
Taking a more reasonable position.
I do think some people in the West are a little bit shocked to discover the degree of Hamas sympathies within our universities, on our campuses, within the Arab Muslim community in places like Dearborn, and the various Muslim migrant communities in London, in France, in Germany, in large parts of Western Europe.
I think, you know, they thought that this was so horrific that there wouldn't be a bunch of people rallying to the Palestinian side on this issue, and yet, unfortunately, that's what we've witnessed.
Well, and I've been watching a lot of this.
I mean, I'm not pulling the both sides stuff.
You can find a video of Israel supporters saying, turn it into a parking lot, you know, annihilate them, in as much as you can also find, you know, people on the other side saying, This was a successful military operation.
I forget who the guy was and I forget where that was.
Literally called this, knowing what it was, a successful military operation.
But I've seen enough of the videos of these protests where there are people who, they're either lying or they genuinely don't know what actually happened, saying, what terrorist attack?
We don't know the degree to which it was that.
I don't believe you when you tell me these atrocities that they committed.
And then I wonder, are people living in their TikTok silos where they actually, I think there's some people out there who actually,
genuinely, sincerely don't even know what happened or think it was like a military outpost.
You asked a question last week, Robert.
What is it?
The qui bueno or qui bono?
Yeah.
What's the actual word?
Qui bono, qui bono.
Latin phrase.
Who benefits?
Who benefits?
There are people who are going to say now, who benefits is either going to be Netanyahu as a political entity.
He'll be distracted by this wartime prime ministership or the state of Israel in the broad sense in that if Netanyahu does what...
I think would be a mistake.
And this is not out of sympathy for Hamas.
It's actually just out of strategical having lived through the cycle.
People are going to say if he goes in, evacuates or orders the evacuation of one million Palestinians, they're never coming back.
They're never going to come back to that land.
And so there are people who are going to say this is part and parcel of Israel's broader plan to expand into all of the Gaza Strip or the occupied territories, knowing that that's what's going to happen.
And que bueno, that's going to be the answer to the question.
I mean, what do you make of the argument or what do you say to the argument that if they force evacuate a million people, go in on a ground war, that that land would ever go back to Palestinians?
And it won't just be the land that they got in a war that they didn't start like 1967?
Yeah, I think there's a couple of problems with the blame Netanyahu assumption.
One is by most Israeli observers.
That I follow, including Elon on our own board, this has done very major damage to Netanyahu in Israel.
The Israelis are, according to public opinion, blaming Netanyahu for this.
So I don't see how it benefits him in the near short term to put him in the conundrum of the dilemma of what to deal with Hamas, who hides behind civilian targets to commit their terror.
The second, as to whether Palestinians would be forcibly evacuated, where to?
No one in the Middle East will accept them.
So they're not going anywhere.
So then the question is, what do you do?
Maybe they move to the southern part of the Gaza Strip.
Again, I don't see any...
Maybe they can build a bit of a buffer zone bigger than what's currently present.
I don't know.
I mean, it's pretty small, the Gaza Strip.
Israel itself is a country.
Geographically, it's pretty small.
So it looks to me right now, the only...
And this was Alexander McCorus.
It was the first to point it out.
He said he wasn't sure that this is what happened, but he said you couldn't, you know, if you're looking at it from a quibono analysis, the first initial beneficiary was Iran.
Because Iran severed the Saudi ties to attempts to normalize their relations with Israel along the Abraham Accords that Trump had put into process.
And in fact, for the first time under this current Saudi leadership, they talked directly to Iran.
And Iran's on a current war against Israel tour.
It's a meeting in Qatar, where the Hamas leadership is safely ensconced.
Kind of odd that that's the case.
Why has the U.S. never requested extradition of the Hamas leadership there?
Why does Qatar evade public scrutiny for their funding and support and safe harboring of Hamas?
It's a lot of their media networks that are heavily involved in this, maybe because they basically bought the Brookings Institution in D.C. and have bought a lot of lobbyists.
People would be surprised at who might be.
A lot of high-profile Republican conservatives are on Qatar's payroll.
So maybe that's why there isn't much discussion of it.
But right now, it looks increasingly like Iran was the primary beneficiary of this.
That does relate to our first...
This is an actual one.
It's brought a lot of effective, successful litigation.
They sued on behalf of prior victims of terror by Hamas and others that have been paid by the Palestinian Authority.
The suit is...
That the Biden administration, as soon as it took over, released half a billion dollars, 500 million dollars, to NGOs whose money then, on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, whose money then went to Hamas.
And that by their admission, some of it probably went to facilitate this terror attack.
Problem with that is Congress passed a law after a soldier who was killed by one of these terrorists.
And the reason relates to Palestinians.
This is the difference between the Palestinian side and the Israeli side in terms of political leadership.
You won't find an Israeli document in current existence committing itself to rewarding people who kill Palestinians or kill Muslims.
Instead, Israel is still the only religiously diverse group with Jews and Muslims having a substantial presence in any country with equal rights anywhere in the Middle East, whereas Jews have been effectively expelled from all of the Arab Muslim countries where many of them had lived for...
We had generations going back centuries.
Israel has about a 20% Arab Muslim population who has full, complete protection and rights.
By contrast, the reason for the Taylor Act prohibiting money to the Palestinian Authority or any other organization related thereto is because the Palestinian Authority has what's called a pay-to-slave program.
That if you murder an Israeli or someone simply visiting Israel, the act is named after a U.S. soldier who happened to be just visiting Israel as a graduate student, and the person who killed him and killed others was rewarded by the Palestinian Authority, that you're given a lifetime salary.
The more you kill, the more you get.
But it's not limited to soldiers.
It's purely someone visiting Israel or someone who's in Israel.
That's it.
That's it.
Doesn't matter whether it's a 5-year-old or a 50-year-old or a 95-year-old.
The Palestinian Authority will write you and your family a check for life.
The more you kill, the more money you get paid.
Somehow, the Scott Ritters and Aaron Mates and Max Blumentholz and Scott Hortons don't seem to mention the Pay to Slay program.
It's somehow absent.
Somehow there's some amnesia they start to suffer when they have to talk about the long, century-long historic commitment of the Palestinian cause to killing all Jews and expelling them entirely from the Middle East, which has been their sole and whole objective from the inception.
That's why they've rejected every two-state solution that has come down the pipeline, despite the various pretenses and pretexts that may be offered by their apologists.
But the federal law prohibited the Biden administration from doing it.
They did it anyway.
America First Legal brought suit on the eve of this incident.
Maybe it was right after this incident occurred.
And a federal court has ordered expedited discovery saying just what they have so far.
It's substantial evidence that the Biden administration violated federal law by giving money that they knew was going to go to the hands of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority that would be used for terroristic purposes, given both have refused to stop their pay-to-slay program.
Expedited discovery has been ordered, and we're probably going to get a lot more embarrassing documents.
The Biden administration basically is directly culpable in funding and financing terrorism, including this incident that just killed 14 Americans and took many others hostage.
It says it's the motion, yada, yada.
Plaintiffs claim a recent production of records shows that the government knew its ESF funding in the West Bank and Gaza was benefiting Palestinian terrorists, thereby increasing the risk of terrorist attacks against the Palestinians and others similarly, plaintiffs and others similarly situated.
And then, let's see here, Americans are so ordered.
This was for...
Sorry, what was the order?
It's to get expedited, limited discovery related to the jurisdictional question to see if they violated the law, given the initial evidence suggests they absolutely did.
Now, but Robert, this segues into, before we go over to Rumble, everybody, exclusively here, I want to bring up the tweet from John Kirby.
Let me just get my hand down here.
Here it is.
The tweet from John Kirby, where they're saying, look, we have no evidence that Iran has any direct involvement in this, other than the fact that...
Iran funds Hamas at large in general.
But whether or not they knew of this plot that apparently we're now learning was two years, give or take, in the making, which makes it a lot more inexplicable that Israel wouldn't have had any human intelligence on this.
And it makes it a little more probable that Egypt, in fact, did give advance warning to Bibi several days before.
Kirby says in a statement, I don't know what wittingly means.
Robert, when they deny it, now I'm just inclined to believe that they knew.
But my response to that was...
This is a self-serving affirmation if it turns out that the Biden administration has been directly or indirectly funding these groups, directly or indirectly funding or releasing funds to Iran, and that if Iran had a hand in this directly or indirectly, so too directly or indirectly did the Biden administration.
Tell me why I'm wrong.
Well, and this money, by the way, doesn't relate to the Iran money.
So this is money that was going directly.
To the Palestinian Authority and Hamas visa, non-governmental organizations disguised as economic support fund payments, which Congress has specifically said cannot go to these organizations until there has been a certification by the Secretary of State.
The Palestinian Authority has ended its pay-to-slay program.
And so they just violated.
So this is more direct violation than the indirect funding of Iran.
I mean, Iran's...
Touring with Hezbollah, meeting with Hamas, threatening Israel that they will directly intervene in the conflict.
And they're the first and primary profiteer from this.
They were able to sever the ongoing Trump-led, originally, efforts of the Abraham Accord to separate the royal governments of Arabia from the more religiously driven governments of Arabia.
And again, Alexander McCourse was the first one to highlight that for me.
I was unaware of the degree to which that conversation was taking place of the Durant.
And then I watched how Iran started to profit from it immediately thereafter.
It's like, well, from pure qui bono perspective right now, the only clear profiteer from this, we don't know how it's all going to play out, but as of right now, it is Iran.
There are a lot of Iranian sympathizers in the Biden administration.
He controversially put some key people in positions of power that have a long legacy of saying nice things.
Oh, you know, Hamas is not just really a terror organization.
They're this and they're that.
All that kind of garbage.
And the 19 Americans dead.
Eight verified hostages.
I mean, they killed everybody.
Not just Jews.
They killed Israeli Muslims.
They killed people who were visiting.
Filipino nannies.
I mean, they were Filipino nannies.
Yeah, they killed people from all over the world.
That's who they are.
That's who they've always been.
Just read Hamas' covenant.
I mean, you know, they're not bashful about this.
All the Scott Hortons and the rest of the world just pretend not to read or listen to what Palestinian leaders themselves have said for more than a century as to what they plan on.
There's a reason why the founder of the Palestinian movement, al-Husseini, was aligned with Himmler and Hitler.
He volunteered for them, wanted to work for them beginning in 1933, did work for them between 1939 and 1945.
It was their leading advocate, and Himmler wrote love letters to the guy, effectively.
That's not a coincidence, folks.
You can say that at the same time, think that strategically there may be bad decisions made on their side, but probably the biggest bad decision has been the Biden administration.
The Biden administration thought they could get in bed with some of the hardliners.
For what purpose, I've never fully understood.
I didn't understand the Obama administration's approach towards Iran.
I don't favor the neocons wanting to, you know, Lindsey Graham, let's just bomb everybody.
The Babylon Bee headline read it right.
Lindsey Graham says America should bomb every other country in the world because that's who he is.
But that still doesn't, right?
Why would we be giving money?
Essentially, we thought we could buy them off is what appears to be the case.
And that has never worked.
And so I think that, but now, but this case is explosive politically, because if it turns out that they gave money to the Hamas organization, directly or indirectly, and knowingly facilitated this aid, and then you go back into your first question of Quibono, I mean, there are Iranian elements that are pro-Iran within our intelligence service, within our state department.
Biden put a lot of them, promoted a lot of them.
They were starting to leak right away.
Don't blame Iran for this.
And now they may have been neck deep in this.
Did some of those people have intelligence that they didn't share?
Because Israel's intelligence is clearly limited as it applies.
Whatever Mossad's reputation in the past, its over-reliance on surveillance and technology has backfired, as this incident revealed.
They are way too confident in that technology.
They clearly had useless intel and great limits.
And, you know, Egypt's warning was kind of a vague warning in that regard.
But Egypt probably has better intelligence than Israel does.
But you know who else does?
The Five Eyes have better intelligence as to activities outside of Israel.
And so did somebody in the U.S. intelligence deliberately sit on this information because it might embarrass Iran?
And now it turns out, or were they all doing it to cover up the fact that they helped fund it and that they don't want to get embarrassed that U.S. tax dollars were used for some of those weapons, for some of the tactics used, and for other things that are connected to the incident, given Americans died.
The Biden administration, he already drone-bombed innocent families in Afghanistan because he couldn't figure out who was who based on bad intel, bad information, including U.S. allied individuals there.
And now he may have done far worse.
So this case is a politically explosive case, depending on where the discovery goes.
I'm just trying to Google while you say this.
Why is it called the Five Eyes?
I know it's Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States.
Why are they called the Five Eyes?
So it's just that there's five open the eyes.
They have eyes around the world.
Let me just bring this one up here for the other perspective on the Cui Bono.
The Five Eyes is how they laundered Russiagate in efforts to do Spygate against President Trump.
So the high-ranking participants in the Five Eyes in Australia and the UK were deliberately, knowingly, completely involved in the conspiracy to prevent President Trump from being elected and from then from derailing his presidency while he was president, including efforts to derail the Abraham Accords going on here.
We've got people that aren't on the Israeli side that have a lot of positions of power in the Western intelligence branch.
And I'll make the prediction just based on the fact that they've made a statement and they're liars.
Iran, they have evidence that Iran was involved and they have evidence that they knew.
There was intelligence that they had that is going to come out because when they come out and say, well, we don't, they've been lying every step of the way they're lying now.
That's my prediction.
The qui bono, Robert, Israel was on the verge of a civil war before the attack due to the government wanting to remove Judea.
Not really.
There were multiple efforts to create political turmoil concerning those efforts, but that was going to be resolved between the parliamentary branch and the judicial branch sooner or later.
And in fact, that had been de-escalating rather than escalating on the lead-up to this.
So that's mostly overstated and exaggerated.
And now I'll just bring up these last two chats before we head on over to Rumble.
History Legends does the best Ukraine battlefield coverage.
His Israel-Hamas stuff is top rate as well.
History Legends.
Yeah, completely.
I mean, he just does.
His ability to do independent military analysis without buying into propaganda is really impressive.
Whichever side you're on, you can get a pretty good...
And he's been predictive.
And particularly as to Ukraine.
He was the one that explained what he thought the Russian strategy was before the summer offensive began by the Ukrainians.
He said the Russians are just going to sit there and swallow them up and recreate the Battle of Bakhmut just along the entire front and just consume Ukrainian equipment and people.
And that not much will budge in terms of the line.
That's exactly what happened.
In fact, they admitted this week that the counteroffensive is already over, and it was clearly obviously unsuccessful.
I'm now subscribed to History Legends, Robert.
All right, we'll go to the last one.
If somebody knows him, I would love to have him on a sidebar.
He'd be great.
He's a Canadian.
I will be able to find him and reach out.
We'll get this done.
Pastor Moyer says, isn't it ironic that YouTube prohibits you from giving medical advice while doing so themselves?
Maybe they should block themselves.
Well, on that note, and it's the perfect one, we're going to leave YouTube and go over to Rumble.
Here's the link one more time, and I'll get to the Rumble.
I'll briefly give over the topic.
Oh yeah, please.
So yeah, we're going to be covering, there's a lawsuit challenging the PrEP Act, which gives immunity to vaccine manufacturers over the COVID vaccine.
A challenge that the law is unconstitutional as applied to the COVID vaccine context.
We've got trans bathrooms and locker rooms issues in court.
We got drag queen story time in court.
We got Chevron, the doctrine that empowers the administrative state.
Two major cases taken up by the Supreme Court.
We got Georgia election law in court.
Trump's ballot access in court.
TikTok sued in another effort to basically take apart big tech's power.
Logan Paul's fiancé sues the boxer that just recently got whooped by Logan Paul for various revenge porn allegations.
The Trump classified document case, a good white paper from America First Legal.
We got another federal judge decides that Washington Post can lie and libel about Robert Malone all they want.
And they gave immunity to Washington Post for suit.
And we got a big win in the vaccine mandate context on two fronts.
Big one is the First Amendment case.
The other is a big attorney's fee that the government had to write for the people to fee those lawyers that led the effort to defeat the federal vaccine mandate.
All right.
And with that said, everybody, let me see.
Is this the link one more time to rumble?
We're going to end it here.
So let me just...
Oh, there's 2,000.
Let's wait until we get under 2,000 and I'm going to go end it.
And of course, if you want to do a tip, we'll have an after party at thevivabarneslaw.locals.com.
All $5 tips will be answered.
Yeah, you know what?
I'll send that link here one more time before we leave.
This is Locals, people.
vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
And we are ending it in 3, 2, 1. We just dipped below 2,000, as I said it, Robert.
So now my OCD has been satisfied.
Okay, hold on one second.
Oh, I'll do the rants in a bit.
What do we start with now that we're on Rumble?
The Robert Malone-Wapo case.
Okay, so Malone was suing Washington Post.
He's suing a couple of other doctors simultaneously as well for defamation.
You know, the standard stuff.
I hadn't been following the suit.
But, I mean, you'll tell me, Robert, this judge sounds like a...
I guess the judge sounds wildly partisan.
I don't know who the judge is or what the history is.
But the judge didn't slap Malone with...
Pun intended because it's an anti-slap argument raised with the legal fees for the Washington Post, but said that if he continues with his defamation lawsuits, someone somewhere down the line might consider his lawsuits to be frivolous and worthy of being imposed legal fees for the other party.
Sued the Washington Post and the judge basically says they're exercising First Amendment rights on an issue of national importance, COVID, etc., etc.
for slap provisions or the anti-slap provisions apply and they tossed Malone's lawsuit.
He has two other lawsuits that are currently pending against the doctors.
Although the judge did fault Malone, I think, for having gotten new counsel or what was the, did I make a mistake on that?
Either way, Robert, Washington Post is off the hook.
What's your take?
And is this just more of the same rules for thee, but not for me?
Yeah, because I mean, what the Washington Post said about him was that he made statements that were, quote, discredited, that he was, quote, spreading misinformation, that he, quote, repeated falsehoods, that he, quote, was not accurately representing the information, that he made unfounded claims and maybe most significantly, they accused him of fraudulent conduct.
Historically, that is actionable as libel because you're implying that there's a factual statement that he has made that is untrue.
So how did the judge evade that?
The judge decided that all that was just hyperbole, rhetoric, opinions that didn't apply any fact at all, which, quite frankly, is a ludicrous interpretation of the complaint.
What he's doing is he's substituting himself for the jury, which he's not supposed to do, because he kept talking about how he, quote, fairly read the complaint, fairly read the article.
That's not the job.
The question is whether any reasonable juror could draw an adverse inference about a fact concerning Robert Malone that's not true about Robert.
When you're accused of, quote, spreading falsehoods, then quite clearly that could be the allegation in this context.
The other claim he made is that you can't prove that they acted with reckless disregard for the truth, even if they violated their own ethical duties.
Now, in the past, ethical violations have been evidence of recklessness when suing a journalist.
Here, totally reverses that.
If you read the Alex Jones case, of course, they come to the exact opposite interpretations in every single instance.
It shows you that they see an outcome they want, and they just rig the rules to get to that outcome.
It's not an impartial application of the rules.
Now, what the judge referenced was that Malone's lawyer was the one who represented...
Devin Nunes, and that lawyer has not had success bringing a lot of these kind of cases.
I was surprised anti-slap was being applied in the federal courts, because generally speaking, federal courts have found anti-slap doesn't apply in federal courts.
It's not clear to me that Malone's lawyer made that argument.
I think his complaint could have been tighter drafted.
I don't think it would have changed the outcome with this judge, but might have increased his chances on appeal or a right to amend.
But to say that there's no reason, what I'm seeing consistently in these cases is judges getting to the outcome they want.
Rather than looking at, it could a reasonable juror conclude that the Washington Post made a false statement of fact about Dr. Malone.
And anyone reading that article would conclude that he's deliberately, knowingly giving false information.
And the judge's excuse was, well, this is just a debate.
And the judge went on to quote how wonderful the article was and how detailed the research was.
Clearly the judge sides with that article.
He's on the side of, but what's happening is McCullough, Malone, others that are bringing these suits, they're not allowing, just like John Stossel's suit, just like Candace Owens' suit.
They favor institutional media.
They favor the official narrative.
And so they're reinterpreting defamation and libel law to prevent those people from being able to sue.
Because down deep, they don't agree with the person suing and they agree with the people libeling.
Well, I mean, I say in fairness, you know, they're applying sort of the Maddow defense where it's a matter of opinion, calling it...
If, you know, saying someone is providing disinformation, misinformation, or whatever, that is the rhetoric of the day.
And I can understand a judge saying, well, you know, that's not going to be actionable because everybody on the internet is going to have a claim.
But that when they apply the Rachel Maddow defense to the Washington Post, but not to the Alex Joneses, who they barely even recognize as media.
Yeah, it's motivated reasoning where they get to the conclusion that they want to get to and they just find a way to get there.
And my first exposure, like, in this Sandman case, when the judge, and I forget who it was, parsed through all of the statements of Sandman and said, well, you know, this could be based in fact and this could be substantially true and therefore I'm not even going to submit it to a jury for them to determine.
The judges have gone crazy in the States, or maybe they were always crazy in usurping the role of the jury, Robert.
I mean, is that as old as time?
I mean, it is.
They've just been more aggressive in these cases, in these politically oriented cases, towards getting to the outcome that they want.
And so, in particular, in libel law, they often use the actual malice standard to get there with contradictory applications of that.
And here, contradictory applications of what constitutes an implied false statement, factual statement.
If they had just said he's a misinformation person...
That may be a close call depending on the context.
But here they said he was not accurately representing the information he was putting out, and they said that he was acting in a fraudulent manner.
Well, that's a much more specific allegation.
That's not disagreement and debate like the judge liked to pretend it was.
That was accusing him of misrepresenting the facts in the study.
He didn't misrepresent the facts in the study.
They disagree with that study.
They want to call the study a bad study, so on and so forth.
But that's not what they, the allegations, the allegations went beyond that.
And that's where I think they crossed the line between a debate and a little defamation.
And the judge doesn't want to recognize it because he doesn't agree with Dr. Malone and he agrees with the Washington Post.
It's amazing.
I remember the first time they said, you know, they contradicted Malone as being the, one of the initial adventurers of mRNA.
They said, well, that, that.
Is also misinformation, and they went and edited his Wikipedia page, and then there was a bit of a battle over that.
All right, so he's, as we say, SOL, straight out of luck.
Or just contrast it to the way Trump is getting indicted for things.
They're saying that Trump spread misinformation, and that's so fraudulent it's criminal.
But somehow them saying misinformation that is in fact false is somehow not even subject to civil suit.
So you're seeing two totally different definitions of misinformation, depending on the political target of the case.
Well, I guess that might be getting ahead of the list, Robert.
But while we're on that, this is the Trump.
We'll go to the one where he's trying to be removed from the ballot in Colorado, correct?
Yes.
All right.
It blows my mind, Robert, because thus far, other than the seditious conspiracy convictions of the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, no one has been charged with convicted of insurrection, period.
And yet, now, Tribe Law—oh, I got the tweet, actually.
I'll bring it up in a second.
Tribe Law has floated the theory that the Colorado case is legit.
It's a serious position, and it needs to be addressed by the courts to remove Trump from the ballot because of the 14th Amendment, third paragraph, which prohibits from being on the ballot anyone who's participated in insurrection.
And they're actually saying that Trump's speech challenging the results in his view.
Of the 2020 elections was insurrectionist speech warranting of him being not included or denied from being on the ballot.
And Trump made a motion to dismiss based on First Amendment rights.
And the judge, you'll tell me who the judge is, but I can only anticipate.
Now, this is a serious enough case.
We're going to let it go to the merits, which might be good because if it gets dismissed on its face, I guess they don't ever address the issue.
But this is getting one step closer to the judge actually saying, yeah, we're not going to include Trump on the ballot because of the words that he spoke are insurrectionists and therefore you don't get to vote for who you want.
It was his motion to dismiss was dismissed.
So this proceeds forward.
Do you know who the judge is, Robert?
It's a liberal democratic state court judge.
And what the judge said was that there's a strong public interest in, quote, only constitutionally qualified candidates being on the ballot.
In fact, no court has ever found that before.
That a court has any interest in this whatsoever.
That it's not subject entirely to the voter choice and the choice of elected politicians in Congress in particular.
So that's the dangerous sign.
There was some misinterpretation out there.
Those people thought that the court ruled that he could not be on the ballot.
This is only about being on the Republican nominee's side, by the way, not whether he's on the ballot in the general election.
The court didn't rule on that.
What the court said is that that issue...
Could go to a full trial at the end of the month, which is just nuts.
And what it shows is there's going to be enough crazy judges out there that are entertaining the idea of weaponizing their judicial power to prohibit Trump from being on the ballot, that that's a serious concern, and that it'll probably require higher courts step in to clear up that that, in fact, has never been a judicial power.
It's not up to the judiciary to keep people off to deny voters the right to choose whom they want on the ballot.
That's up to the people.
That's up potentially to Congress in the capacity of the presidential election, depending on certain circumstances.
But clearly, they're so used to abusing their power that they're going to try to do so here.
The only political restraint on them from doing so, despite enraging half the nation, And taking apart the country and its constitution.
The only other risk is, let's look at the practical fallout in Colorado.
If they were to somehow prevent Trump from being on the ballot, ultimately, in the general, it wouldn't impact how he's going to get nominated anyway.
But if the same doctrine was used to apply to the general election, then that would mean you'd have Joe Biden and Robert Kennedy on the ballot.
The risk in Democratic states is that Trump's never going to win Colorado.
Denver's so liberal now that despite the ruby-red rural areas, they can't counterbalance the Boulder-Denver-Aspen combination of Democratic dominance.
But you know who could?
Biden could somehow lose its electoral votes.
How?
Because if you add...
You know, 10% or so that Kennedy gets.
A place like Colorado would be a state he could do above average in, by the way.
And if all the Trump voters who can't vote for Trump decide to vote for Kennedy, then all of a sudden Biden doesn't get those electoral votes.
And what happens if neither candidate gets to over 270?
It goes to the House where they vote by state delegation.
And that favors Trump, the state delegate, because each state gets one vote.
So, in that context, that's where Kennedy being on the ballot is the only political restraint on the Biden folks wanting this to occur.
If Trump's not on the ballot, they have a risk of losing to Kennedy everywhere.
I mean, there's not a single state where, between Kennedy's independent vote and the Trump vote, they couldn't overcome the Biden vote.
But Robert, I think that the bigger risk would be if one rogue state, which might not ever turn red, does this, then that sort of sets the precedent or gives the justification for battle states or battleground states.
Yeah, but they have the same problem in every single one of those.
Well, they create one of two situations.
Either there's a split.
There's going to be some states, indubitably, Trump's on the ballot then.
So what they do is they almost guarantee it goes to the House.
It goes to the House.
It would help Trumpian Republicans running in the congressional elections, but it would guarantee Trump wins.
So that's their practice.
That's where Kennedy is a major hurdle to this strategy of trying to take Trump off the ballot.
It was always constitutionally without any foundation.
It's not within the court's providence.
If the court misunderstood, this is how dumb this judge is, misunderstood what political doctrine references.
Political doctrine isn't whether you're prejudiced because of politics.
Political doctrine is that the decision is subject to the political branches elected to power, not the judicial branch.
That's what political doctrine.
I don't know what political doctrine does.
It doesn't matter which party he is.
How dumb can you be?
I mean...
Basic, didn't understand what the political doctrine was.
This is one, but that means you have a political hack, midwit, nitwit, low-level judge, and you're going to have enough of those and enough state courts to probably make this issue go up the flagpole.
But that's where I've said for a while, Kennedy's presence is the political deterrence to courts with more political awareness.
Making this decision.
There's no constitutional basis to keep Trump off the ballot, but you do have some judges who don't care.
But, Robert, how does this go up the flypool and how far up the flypool does it go?
The Supreme Court doesn't regulate or doesn't govern state law, so how does the Supreme Court...
Oh, no, no.
These cases will go up the U.S. Supreme Court because it concerns a presidential election.
Okay.
Good.
And how fast can that happen?
The election is in...
What month are we?
October?
The election's in a year, so how fast can this get resolved?
If there's a nutty ruling from one of these judges, then it could go up there pretty quickly.
Let me bring this up from...
My prediction is that if Robert Kennedy had not been running, there would be a much greater risk that the Supreme Court might stay out of it and let courts do this nutty stuff at the state level.
But the sort of deep state and political establishment...
Is more terrified of Robert Kennedy than they are of Donald Trump.
They're not going to do anything they could possibly.
And then there's the secondary impact that it goes to the House and they know the House, whatever its biases, is not going to deny Trump the presidency under these set of circumstances when the states, when you vote each day as one vote, Trump's going to win that.
So that's where Kennedy being on the ballot completely blows up this strategy, the anti-Trump strategy they're trying to do.
Speaking of which, I'll read the anti-Trump strategy from Lawrence Tribe, Harvard Law.
This is talking about the recent disinformation about what Trump said about Hezbollah being very smart for having attacked Israel.
Apart from his constitutional disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, Trump disqualifies himself by his conduct and his comments almost daily, proving himself totally unfit to hold public office and an existential danger to our nation's security and to our democracy.
And this nut educated more, was the mentor of more liberal judges and law clerks in America than any other judge.
This is in the wake of the attack in Israel, under the watch of Biden, under all of the policy failures of Biden, finding a way to call Trump the existential threat.
But then, so I read this, and I just have to go back and figure out what's going on here.
And then I have to go back to the initial...
Tweet.
It's so amazing how the disinformation laundering works.
You got Dan Egan from the Washington Post.
Speak of the devil, literally.
Trump faults Netanyahu, calls Hezbollah very smart amid the Israeli war.
Then you go to Daniel Goldman.
I forget Daniel Goldman's position.
He's the deep state congressman from New York who's been neck deep in covering for Biden and going after Trump.
So he retweets the hack with the New York DA Alvin Bragg.
So he retweets, quote tweets, Dan Egan and says, After the worst terror attack in Israeli history, Donald Trump criticizes Israel and praises the terrorists, yet again tacitly giving aid and comfort to our...
Forget about the guy who might have actually given aid to the enemies, Biden and his administration.
This man is a danger to national security and must never be in public office again.
Because it's going so well under the guy that's in office.
Then you get Lord's Tribe, quote tweeting Goldman, who quote tweeted Egan's disinformation.
And I just had to put it all together and say, this is how the disinformation laundering works, folks, in three easy steps.
It was really a dumb one.
Trying to convince people that Trump is secretly pro-Ezbollah.
It's so stupid.
Yeah, you gotta play into a narrative.
If you're gonna push something that's not accurate or not true...
That at least it has to push into a narrative.
It can't push against a narrative.
And that's Lawrence Tribe, the one who thinks that there's a sound argument for disqualification under the 14th Amendment third paragraph.
Lawrence Tribe has also been going ballistic about Robert Kennedy running.
Because he understands the problem.
So he's just hoping that somehow that that ship has sailed.
So Kennedy will be an independent candidate for the presidency, announced this past Monday in Philadelphia.
It's going to be a very populist campaign.
So you can't remove Trump from the ballot without Trump getting in anyway, probably through the Congress, or risking Robert Kennedy as president.
And, you know, somebody asked in the chat, why is the deep state fear Kennedy more than Trump?
They see Trump as a threat.
They see Robert Kennedy as an existential threat.
That's the difference between the two.
So, Robert, it's going to go to trial.
What are the chances that this trial goes to trial at the end of the month?
She's nuts.
Yeah, it goes to trial at the end of the month.
This judge will issue an order pretty quickly, so she issues a crazy order.
She'll have a chance to go up the flag.
What goes into a trial like this?
What evidence goes into a trial to disqualify?
I mean, that's the problem.
That's why she never should have allowed a Dakota trial.
It's not within the court's providence or power or prerogative to decide who the people get to choose on the ballot.
That has never been a judicial power.
It still is.
Robert, just in time, I said to the chat, when we hit 20,000 live, drop a comment and hit the thumbs up.
We just broke 20,000 live on Rumble.
And I'll make sure to tweet that out before it gets too unmanageable.
On Rumble, let me just bring up the chats here, the Rumble rants.
Let me see if we can see them so I can read them.
I'll go by very quickly here.
Sad Wings Raging says, good, good, $10 rant.
Thank you very much.
Shisko says, huge, intense bombing over Gaza as we speak.
Insane, horrifying.
Mandatory carry says, Niner 17 is in Israel.
It's coming here and proved Ukraine 2022 is Poland 1939.
I'm beginning to believe maybe Scott Ritter is paid by Putin before I wouldn't consider it.
I know nothing of that.
If it's talking about the maps...
I saw something about that, but I have no more knowledge on it than that.
I'm Not Your Buddy Guy says, can we please get a campaign going to get SCOTUS to intervene and prevent this from occurring from any rogue judges?
This way you won't have to risk waiting until post-2024 ruling.
And then we got DeltaRose1 says, what do you think of Cenk Uyghur's BS ploy to try and get naturalized citizens the right to run for president?
Robert, have you heard about that from Uyghur?
So yeah, he's talking about running for president.
Whether or not he's a U.S. citizen, I don't know the answer to.
My understanding is he wasn't born in the United States, but nor was John McCain.
So John McCain was born in Panama.
The grounds being a military facility, he was considered a U.S. citizen.
Both his parents were U.S. citizens.
The issue with Barack Obama was that at the time...
Even if he had been born overseas, his father was not a U.S. citizen.
And at the time, federal laws required that that be both be the case to be a U.S. citizen.
So I don't know the status of whether his parents were both U.S. citizens and thus he might qualify or not.
I don't know the full deal.
I know people assume that just if you're born outside the United States, you can't be qualified for the presidency.
But John McCain disproved that theory.
All right.
Okay, what's next on the list, Robert?
We got a bunch.
But in another good, speaking of elections, the Georgia election law went back to federal court this past week.
Now I've got to refresh my memory because I know the Georgia election law.
Oh, yes, that's the one that was being challenged, which limited the number of drop boxes, which made it a little bit more difficult to, not more difficult to vote, I should say.
Oh, Tabernush, Robert.
Made it more difficult to steal ballots.
That's what it really did.
Sorry, it was a favorable ruling.
There were five aspects of the law that were being challenged.
Take it from there, and I'm going to pull up the judgment if I can get it.
Sure.
So essentially, Georgia, after 2020, passed laws dramatically limiting the number of drop boxes, the location of drop boxes, the supervision of drop boxes, who had to supervise those drop boxes, dramatically restricting the amount of drop box location use in the 2022 election.
They also prohibited, you know, come and vote and we'll give you gifts because you're in line.
You know, that routine.
Food and drink.
They need food and drink because they're waiting in line for so long that if they don't have it, it'll be a deterrent that will disparately impact.
Everybody knows they're doing it to say, hey, if you come out and get in line to vote, we'll give you free food and drinks.
In 2020, were they not also giving gift cards and other things?
Oh my goodness, okay.
Also, the deadline for applications, if they imposed a real deadline, not one that could flood the system at the last minute, how votes were counted and qualified, and you have to provide your voter identification number, your driver's license, social security number, both to apply for the ballot and when you send the ballot envelope in.
According to Democrats, this was wratheth, wratheth, wratheth.
They had a simple problem.
There was an actual election in 2022.
Second problem, 99.8% of black voters, according to surveys, said they had no problem whatsoever voting in Georgia in 2022.
So instead, they had to take these small numbers and they're like, well, we're trying to disproportionately get Democrats to be able to vote this way in order to not really vote, but to take their ballots.
That's the dirty little secret behind it all.
And the court was like, how can you say this is racist, even in impact, when 99.8% of Georgia's black voters say...
That was just fine an election.
No problems at all.
Not only was there no intent evidence, but there was no impact evidence.
And so the judge denied the effort to enjoin it.
So all of those restrictions and rules will stay in Georgia.
For the 2024 election.
Now let me pull it up.
Is it in?
Here it is.
Okay, boom.
The identification provisions.
All Georgia voters are permitted to vote absentee.
To vote absentee, voters have always had to comply with certain identification.
They're objecting now to voter identification where they literally, just to pull up the trope.
And it's free, by the way.
In Georgia, they follow Robert Kennedy's proposed solution, which is to give away free IDs, but require ID to vote.
That's what Georgia does.
Georgia gives you free IDs.
If you don't have it, you can bring your utility bill, other information in to get a free ID.
It's totally free.
And they were just saying, well, you know, what they weren't saying is, hey, Judge, there's 6% or 7% of the voters whose ballots we can steal.
Come on, let us steal these ballots, Judge.
Well, what are you doing?
You're going to let Trump be president with an honest election.
So that's the dirty little secret, right?
They're like, 7% of these people, in other words, that's the group of ballots we're going to steal.
What they couldn't produce was any evidence from those 7% saying they wouldn't go get a free ID if they wanted to vote.
Because that would be the case with all 7%.
And so instead, really what is it?
They want to steal those people's ballots.
And then the judge concluded that there was certainly no racially disparate impact on this.
There was no prejudice suffered whatsoever.
But Robert...
Do we then understand that this was the MO in 2020?
They tightened it down and they objected to tightening it down, but that's to say this is what occurred in 2020.
In Georgia.
In 2020, you had Dropboxes Everywhere.
That was the basis of Dinesh D'Souza's 2000 Mules.
Are you going to be there for the...
Oh, yes!
I got a couple things.
I'm going to be there for the Police State thing.
I think I even get a plus one with my wife.
Ah, there you go!
And I got Dinesh D'Souza interview coming up soon.
So that's going to be in local studios sooner than later.
Yeah, sweet.
So yeah, there will be a premiere, Rumble-sponsored premiere at Mar-a-Lago of Dinesh D'Souza's new film, Police State.
I may be there as well because I'll be going to the Children's Health Defense Conference with Robert Kennedy in early November in Savannah, which I think the tickets are still available at the Children's Health Defense site.
It's always a great conference.
Great lawyers, doctors, others get together to talk about the next wave of advocacy on these issues.
In that respect, if you want a...
To support Free America Law Center, we're going to have election lawsuits coming up.
We're doing, obviously, all the medical freedom stuff.
But we're also going to be doing food freedom continually with Amos Miller.
And Amos Miller is doing a fundraiser.
So you get special handmade pumpkin pies from Amos Miller.
It takes a week or two, a couple of weeks to get it all in and sent in because they're literally handmade there.
His kids are involved.
And that fundraiser will be up and going for a little bit of while at amosmillerorganicfarm.com.
There's a link at vivabarneslaw.locals.com that will take you to it so that you can order it.
But basically, I get some people to say, why is it a $100 pumpkin pie?
Because it's a fundraiser.
I wanted to pull it up.
It's meant to help support Free America Law Center so we can do all these cases.
In the vaccine context, do it in the food rights context, do it in the political freedom context.
We've done everything from the Covington kids to the vaccine mandate cases to Amos Miller's case to a range of other cases.
We're going to be involved in defending the rights on Bitcoin and other aspects.
Government's ongoing war against Bitcoin escalating in a range of settings.
But what makes it possible is support.
And you get the best, like usually a fundraiser, you get a mediocre gift.
This is handmade, fresh pumpkin pies from Amos Miller.
You don't get a better gift than that.
Look, I'm skeptical about pumpkin pie in general, but my wife ordered one.
We're going to have it.
It's going to be delicious.
And everybody, I put the link in there, amosmillerorganicfarm.com.
I was trying to pull up a picture of the pumpkin pie itself, but you guys got the link, so you know where to go.
Okay, Robert, hold on.
So what do we do now?
Well, we'll get to one of the popular topics on the board, which was the Chevron issue at SCOTUS, which is big.
But the other Trump case, the classified documents case, an excellent white paper put out by America First Legal, same Stephen Miller-based organization that is exposing Joe Biden funding Hamas and the terrorism in the Middle East.
They have put out a white paper pointing out how absurd it is.
For the Presidential Records Act to be interpreted to give Congress the authority to exercise control and dominion over every presidential document.
That, in essence, the only way the Presidential Records Act can be constitutional is if Trump has a non-reviewable, undelegable, irreversible, full discretionary duty to decide what he's going to leave with Congress and the archives and whatnot.
And so their point is that the Presidential Records Act cannot constitutionally supersede the president's authority over all papers he designates as personal.
It doesn't matter whether someone thinks they're presidential or not, as the prior Clinton-Sox drawer case, as Trump calls it, previously established.
They point out that this goes all the way back to George Washington.
Every president took home all their papers.
In fact, George Washington's heirs...
Filed suit against somebody else who published those papers and they won on copyright infringement grounds because they said all presidential papers are the personal property of the president once he leaves and takes them with him and that you couldn't republish them.
They're not public papers.
Under that context, they're generally not considered public papers under Freedom of Information Act laws or Open Records laws or Privacy Act laws.
So under that context, their point is the Presidential Records Act has to be interpreted in the way we talked about previously.
Oh no, I was going to say, so the Presidential Records Act from this white paper, it's a 14 or 17 page, it's an argument brief, goes through the history of...
The presidential rights and authority and what the Presidential Records Act was intended to do.
Robert, in 1978, in response to Nixon, and let's see, I mean, we'll take this for what it's worth.
This is from the government.
It says the PRA, the Presidential Records Act, was intended to establish public ownership of all presidential records and defines the term presidential records.
Requires the vice presidential records be treated in the same way.
Without getting into the 15-point bulletin, to summarize it, The president owns his records, but what was the purpose of the Presidential Records Act in the first place?
The only constitutional basis the courts have ever recognized in Congress's right to regulate this concerned the Watergate tapes and Nixon's intention to destroy them.
And what the court said is that Congress's legitimate legislative and investigative interest in support of legislation That's it.
Then later on, Congress dramatically expanded its claim of interest under one interpretation, the one being asserted by the special counsel in the Florida case that says these documents are forever Congress's documents and the archivist documents.
The problem is that violates executive privilege.
That violates the president's right of legal title in those documents, an issue unaddressed by the Supreme Court previously.
And it far exceeds their only permissible legislative purpose and thus violates the balance of power and the separation of powers.
That what legislative purpose could it serve for them to own everything or declare an ownership interest?
So their point is there is a constitutional saving way.
To interpret the Presidential Records Act, and it happens to be the way that's consistent with the entire history of the presidency.
It's also history with the prior decisions concerning these records in other contexts and cases, from George Washington through to Bill Clinton.
And what that interpretation is is that the president has a unilateral right to declare what he considers personal and what he considers he's going to give to them.
And that what he takes with him are his.
End of story.
Let me stop you there.
His and not also whatever authority exists under the PRA.
So it's unilaterally his and solo his.
He doesn't have to share.
It's not like they have it and he can have it.
He has it.
They don't get it.
That doesn't even make any sense.
So they said maybe you could make a claim for copies.
But whatever he takes, he gets.
Period.
And that that's his and it can't be Congress's subject to regulation.
If their interpretation is accepted, which I think it's the constitutionally correct interpretation, backed up by case law, backed up by history, backed up by precedent, backed up by executive privilege, backed up by the separation of powers, then the Florida case would have to be dismissed entirely.
And the idea would be that the Presidential Records Act was basically to preserve the documents that are created under the president because they belong to the country.
To some extent.
And must be preserved.
Really, they were sort of brought...
They just wanted the Watergate tapes not destroyed.
And it was in that hot incident, that kind of limited, unique fact pattern, that the court said okay.
But the court never said, you have complete title and you could just take whatever you want.
And they pointed like, I mean, as a point like, what if the president not only declared you, senator, have to now give all your documents to that senator?
It went against all of history.
The reality is they made bad.
They made a bad decision in the Nixon case, which they have subsequently not followed.
When Poppy Bush went in and deleted a bunch of records and information, it was left unchallenged.
So, I mean, he actually destroyed records, destroyed information, and it was considered permissible.
So, you know, when Bill Clinton took information that clearly was presidential records under the definition of the law, then what did the court say?
The court said, I can't review that as a judge.
That's a non-reviewable decision exclusively vested in the president.
So under that interpretation, that would constitutionally save it, to say whatever records the president decides to leave and give to them.
The other difference is Nixon was claiming the records after he left.
You could argue it was a mistake, but he resigned.
Then requested the records.
Unlike here, where Trump took these records before he left.
And even if the rationale were they want to prevent the destruction of potentially incriminating documents, they could be both the presidents and you can't destroy them.
Whereas with Trump, it was not a question of destruction.
It was a question of them saying he should never have had them and he had to return them and not keep a copy himself.
And that's what makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Because even the Presidential Records Act explicitly states he has to be guaranteed access to those records permanently, continually.
So how could he have to not have physical access to them?
It makes zero sense whatsoever.
Now, it's a beautiful document, and it's a very well-crafted document to the history, the case law, the precedent, the policies, the constitutional issues.
I mean, where does it go?
Like, it's a white paper.
Who gets it?
Do they send it around?
It's publicly circulated.
Okay.
And I mean, it's long and it's thorough.
I mean, I'm sure Trump's lawyers are obviously going to get it.
And the goal probably is for it to be, it's arguing the court of public opinion, but for Trump's lawyers to borrow and copy it and include it in a motion to dismiss the Florida case.
Have we shared a copy of this?
Not yet.
We're going to.
Okay, good.
So, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, people.
And you'll be able to read.
It's out there, but it'll be more accessible.
All right.
Where do we go from here, Robert?
Well, we could bridge in briefly to a more fun topic.
How about Logan Paul's fiancée?
Well, I would say the more fun topic might be the debacle of a fight.
I don't know.
Look, I thought his name is Dylan Dannis.
I thought he was a good fighter.
I'm thinking this whole thing is just fake to begin with.
It was all a big fake hype and whatever.
Dylan Dannis, as far as I remember...
Was a talented Brazilian Jiu Jitsu mixed martial artist.
Was fighting Logan Paul or Jake Paul.
I forget which one it is.
The bigger of the Paul brothers.
And they had their fight last night.
And it was apparently an absolute shut the front door show of a fight.
Dennis got disqualified for throwing punches after the fight.
Whatever.
But it was a clean card for Paul.
That's the side story of all of this.
In the lead up to the fight.
Apparently, I couldn't find the pictures because I was trying to do my research.
Apparently, Dylan Danis was, you know, to taunt Paul was sharing pictures, allegedly unlawfully procured or without consent procured nudes of Paul's fiancée, who happens to be a Swedish or Danish or Dutch model.
And she sued for harassment for basically revenge porn, saying he posted non-consensual nudes from a decade ago.
I'm not saying this to be glib or whatever.
I don't know if they were unaltered or the accusations that they were digitally altered.
I couldn't find the originals to see what it was in the first place.
Didn't look very hard.
And it looks like it's an actual lawsuit and they're actually mad at each other.
The fight's come and gone and now Danis is going to have a lawsuit on his hands.
And that's it.
I don't know, Robert.
I mean, what do you make of it?
And were they real pictures?
There were no exhibits to this lawsuit, very disappointingly.
But what do you make of it?
Well, I mean, if she is correct, Danis is in serious trouble.
Because what people don't realize is federal law, they extended and amended the Violence Against Women's Act to include a federal revenge porn law.
And under that law, all it has to be is you have an intimate photo that you disclose publicly using interstate communication, which is what the internet is, and you don't have consent.
Of the individual who is depicted in the photograph.
And that's it.
And so unless it's already in the public domain in a way that reasonably infers consent, you can't publish those photos or videos or anything else.
And he did apparently several of them, seemed to acknowledge he was doing them.
And the problem is it's $150,000 per violation.
Statutorily.
Guaranteed.
Do you have to prove damages?
Do you get damages on top of that?
Plus attorney's fees.
Plus the stated invasion of privacy claim.
So if Dan is...
I hope that payday was worth it in the boxing game.
I'm just looking up...
Because otherwise he's going to be writing checks to her for forever.
I'm just looking up what his purse was.
And I don't know if I'm going to find it fast enough.
But the one thing I couldn't find...
And again, it's not to be glib or obscene.
I read that they were digitally altered photos, that it wasn't actually her nude.
Then the lawsuit says it was her actually nude.
Apparently he was on, I think it was the Full Send podcast, saying he acknowledged it was illegal.
So they're bringing up his statements, but I don't know if these were digitally altered pictures.
Some of the ones that I could find on Instagram, I don't even know what's going on in the pictures, but people should be aware of that.
And then the question is whether or not they were already out there in the first place.
How he got them, I don't know.
There was some description.
She said that was a Snapchat discussion, but she said it was not publicly available and somehow was obtained.
So his only defense will be that these photos were in the public domain and that thus they had an implied waiver of consent and authorization.
But people had got away with revenge porn for a while.
And now there's either state or federal law that's been passed everywhere, and they don't realize how broad these laws are and how easily liable they will be.
So if you don't have clear, indubitable proof that this is in the public domain, by golly, don't be sharing it.
And not just that, if it happens to be kids doing this, then you're entering another slew of problems which everyone should be sensitized to and should sensitize their kids to.
Okay, well, that's the fun one.
But my goodness, I didn't see the actual...
I think I did see the end of the fight.
You know who might have a claim on this, by the way?
Go on.
Well, think about who could sue a lot of whose photos have been publicly shared over the last two years that were not in the public domain.
Robin, why do I feel stupid for not immediately knowing where you're going with this?
Hunter Biden.
Oh.
A lot of people better stop being very careful about sharing certain intimate Hunter Biden photos.
Just FYI.
Well, holy shit, Robert.
Okay.
Very interesting.
I say that...
Never mind.
I won't even say what I was going to say now.
Oh, that's okay.
Well, interesting.
All right.
What now?
We're off the list, so I'm just going to...
Oh, speaking of social media and kids, these kind of issues, TikTok.
Getting sued.
It's another request for class action.
TikTok deliberately makes a product that they know is addictive, tweaked to make it more addictive, concealing the fact that it is addictive, targeting the children for their addiction.
Robert, I couldn't understand why they were redacting in the lawsuit some information as to how many times a day people were retweeting things.
So I didn't know like...
You'll tell me why they were redacting that information, but this is a lawsuit along the lines of all the other social media lawsuits.
I happen to think it is about time.
I've got three kids and even YouTube shorts I think is a problem, but we've managed to wean off of TikTok.
Why were they redacting the stats of the impact of the lawsuit?
Sorry, of the impact of the app.
I assume there's some, because it's the state of Utah bringing suit through the Attorney General's Division of Consumer Protection, bringing it, it's sort of de facto a class claim on behalf of all the people of Utah, because it's the Attorney General representing the interest of all the people of Utah.
It may have been the case they obtained some of that information in a manner that there's still a protective or confidential provision applied to.
That's all I could assume.
Otherwise, I didn't know why.
By the way, I love it when Robert politely corrects me.
It wasn't a class action.
It was the Attorney General of Utah, where apparently, I didn't know this, Utah has the highest per capita rate of children in the country.
Those Mormons have a lot of kids.
I was going to say, I can understand why easily.
All right, so that's interesting.
So they might have redacted it because they...
They're still getting consent for the...
This is like the last prong of big tech.
Like you have the monetization of people's information and use being attacked as unjust enrichment in the Oracle suit.
You have...
Google and Apple and all of them, but right now Google, the primary focus, they're leveraging one asset to secure a monopoly in another asset area or economic area, being challenged in the antitrust suit that could break them apart permanently and force them to sell YouTube.
And now this is the third prong, which is that one of the great harms that this suit highlights...
Is that the major levels of social media use are directly correspondent to dramatic increases in mental health illness amongst young people.
You can time it directly and you have, you know, like the thin line or something like, I forget the title of it, but the creepy line.
I think creepy thin line, something like that.
Multiple documentaries by people who helped create a lot of these social media apparatus have said that this is very detrimental.
And what it is, is one, it's badly harming the mental health of children.
That's the legal basis of the injury that they're seeking to remedy and preclude from continually occurring.
The consumer fraud part, because it's brought by the Consumer Protection Division, is twofold.
It's one, that they're manipulating their technology to increase...
To manipulate the dopamine of vulnerable population, namely children, to increase addictiveness, knowing it then leads to mental health illness, but also that they have committed fraud because they lie in their product saying to the public in Utah and around the world that they don't cause harm, that they are, quote, safe for children.
They know that statement to be materially false.
So this goes beyond whether there's a side effect that you know about that you're causing mental health illness and goes to Them lying about what their product does and lying about what they're doing to impact children as well.
If you take out this prong where if they can't manipulate anymore, if they can't monetize anymore, and they can't monopolize anymore, big tech is dead.
And that's why you add that to the ability to regulate big tech as a utility in the Texas-Florida case before the Supreme Court.
In the next two years in courts are going to determine the fate and future of Big Tech.
It's interesting.
Someone in the chat says, John Jelaine says, the kids are developing TikTok brain.
Yeah, 50% spike in mental health problems.
In some cases, five-fold increases in self-harm amongst young girls who use the most social media.
It is undeniable.
I forget who the former CEO of Facebook was who did his TED Talk and announced it.
It is amazing that they were harvesting the data and they get spanked for it.
And now it's developing what they know is an addictive product, lying about it, but directing it to children.
Because they're the most vulnerable population and the best to monetize.
Phenomenal.
Are there other states doing this, Robert, as of now?
I know there's various ones looking at it, but I think what we'll see is how this case progresses and proceeds.
Other states will likely copy it because they have the same interest in consumer protection, the same rights to enforce those laws, and the same standing to protect the interests of children.
I think what it is is the creepy thin line in these other documentaries awaken them to the problem they were witnessing in their school and medical data.
Which is severe mental health problems for an entire generation of people.
Particularly girls, but just an entire generation.
Younger millennials and Zoomers.
TikTok is particularly noxious in that it will...
I mean, who was it?
We had her on the show.
It will create mental illnesses, mental issues by promoting stuff to people who are already looking at it and then conditioning them to think that...
It's normal.
Now, strategically good to target TikTok because it's a politically unpopular target as opposed to Facebook or Google or YouTube, I should say.
Yeah, though I think there are other suits challenging them in process as well.
But challenging TikTok in Utah is probably the best political path to setting the most positive precedent, but it applies to all of them ultimately.
Robert, hold on a second.
Someone said something here in the Rumble Rants.
The pumpkin pies are no longer available, sold out, or not yet open for sale.
They've got to be sold out because we got one.
Oh, no.
I was told this morning they're still available for sale.
So just go to the link that's at...
I've also put it on my Twitter page.
But the link to it, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
It's pinned.
It's one of the top three.
And that will take you to one of the two links.
You probably have to go.
He's reserving...
The pumpkin pies only for this group of people to help support Free America Law Center.
All right, we've got Shofar, which I think is a pun with Shofar.
The book, See Something, Say Something, Haney Moore foreshadowed what's happening today.
Oh, foreshadow what's happening today.
Did I get this one?
Okay, we got that one too.
All right, now, Robert, what's next on the menu?
Well, speaking of kids, a federal judge thinks drag queen story time is good for your kids.
Well, what the judge said was that if parents want to opt out, they can opt out.
This was legislation in what state again was it?
Montana.
Montana.
I can understand this one.
If you want to have drag time show and take your kid to it, that's fine.
It was legislation intending to prevent or prohibit.
At schools, libraries, and parks with minors present.
No more drag queen story time.
Well, apparently there shall be that availability.
And if you don't want your kids going to it...
First Amendment right now!
First Amendment right!
Take them out of school that day.
Don't let them go to the park that day.
Or if you're one of the degenerate perverts, send your kids to school and give them small bills so they can stick them into the panties of the...
Okay.
But Robert, in this particular case, the decision was that it was sort of too broadly defined.
It was...
First Amendment speech.
Principally what they're really aimed at is that you can debate whether or not the obscenity laws apply to drag queen story time.
The argument is that they don't, quote, necessarily appeal to the prurient interest in sex.
And so the legislatures, to get around that, have just banned it outright.
What now multiple federal courts, including this Montana federal judge, have done...
is say that unless you limit it to prairie and interest, we're going to call it First Amendment-protected speech because it's a viewpoint content-based limitation on speech.
And they say it doesn't apply to strict scrutiny.
Now, two things stand out here.
One is, to a degree, legislatures have made a mistake, in my view, not developing robust evidence.
There's plenty of evidence out there that this is not good for kids.
But they're not presenting it in the legislature.
And they're not presenting it in court defense proceedings.
And some of that may be because some of the Attorney General is defending these cases.
I suspect lawyers in those offices.
Are all for these laws getting struck now.
Or they're not drafting them in sufficiently clear and concise terms.
The only clear and concise terms this judge would allow and the other courts would allow is you have to limit it to the Praurian interest.
So he had other problems with aspects of like the park definitions and so forth, but he could have just struck those provisions.
He struck the whole thing.
Towards the end, he says, my eyes are so bad.
It says, Montana law already prescribes...
Proscribes, not proscribes, prohibits subjecting minors to obscenities.
So the judge in this case said you already have lots.
He's referencing that prurient interest.
He's saying that you have to include that because what's happened is the legislature has determined this already does appeal to the prurient interest.
He's saying he's not going to recognize the legislative finding.
and instead you have to include within the law that a jury also determines separately and independently of you, the legislature, that this appeals to the prairie and interest, or I'm not going to call it obscenity and I'm not going to allow Now, that's one aspect of where these courts are coming.
This particular judge went out of his way to cite a bunch of art studies and other things.
He clearly thinks drag queen story time is great for your kids.
He isn't really bashful about that.
He said, quote, this serves the public interest.
He seriously believes it.
You can tell he's a Barack Obama federal judge.
He's one of these people that believes this is good for people.
he's worried about the two-spirit people and all the trannies and all the rest being able to expose their trans ideology to kids because he sees that as good not based in fear and hate Robert, I'm just going to show you this.
I haven't posted it yet, people, because I only screen grabbed it before going live.
This is from the CBC.
You can't actually see it.
This is from the CBC.
It's an individual giving basically a PSA.
Not that I judge anybody.
Listen to this.
On Wikipedia, this person goes by She.
He's got one blue eye, one pink eye, a yellow dot in his forehead, and this man is giving advice.
And the reality is most parents don't like this at schools and public libraries.
Who the hell would you?
I don't want strangers talking to my kids, let alone strangers with bizarre proclivities.
Good for them, but holy crab apples.
Yeah, and I think what's becoming clear from how these courts are ruling, and until and unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in, the only effect the legislatures are probably going to be able to have in these law contexts is to, one, build up an evidentiary record.
And have it ready to be presented through the legislative process and into the court.
But otherwise, rather than ban them, as this judge himself recognized, just defund anybody that allows it.
Because that's different.
Then nobody's got standing to sue.
You can do what you want with funding.
Just say any school that allows this, no more funding.
Any park that allows this, no more funding.
Any place of access to children that allows it, you don't get any state funds.
That will get rid of the 90% of the problem.
Trying to ban it is not going to work because the federal courts are going to block it, unfortunately.
That's now become very apparent.
Multiple courts, multiple jurisdictions have done the same thing.
Now on the good news side, the Idaho law about bathrooms...
At least that law was uphill.
Yeah, that one was the one that said you have to use the bathroom of your designated sex at birth.
None of this gender nonsense.
And that the strongest argument that the plaintiffs, I forget who it was now, the appellates, they said...
It would violate privacy in terms of compelling someone who's transitioning to use the bathroom that does not correspond with their biological sex.
So they're allowed, by the way, under the Idaho law to have facilities that are designated other, that are not designated by male or female.
Not just that.
It's so stupid because the gender...
Choice can vary by day, so they can go from one to the other interchangeably.
And the other key, like Idaho law was smart, it didn't try to limit trans men or women.
Biological sex, period.
Biological sex.
And here, sex-separate facilities have been constitutionally permissible for forever.
And they try to make a Title VI argument.
The problem is, as the 11th Circuit said, and then this court said in the Idaho case, Title VI has a specific exception that says nothing in it shall be used to deny...
Locker rooms and restrooms being separately done by biological sex.
So there is no constitutional...
And that's where they try to argue, well, what about our constitutional interest and our gender identity not being publicly disclosed?
And they said that's not a fundamental right, and you have the choice of another facility anyway.
So you're balancing out the privacy interest, and the privacy interest overwhelmingly is in the favor of...
Particularly girls not sharing bathrooms with boys, locker rooms with boys.
They addressed the security concern in that, where they said it's not a question of security, but rather...
Privacy.
The interest in privacy of not...
I mean, this was, by the way, several years ago, a South Park episode.
Cartman pretends to be a girl because he finds out he can identify as a girl and starts using the girls' bathroom.
So he's like, you know, I mean, we have South Park reality.
Now, there's a split within the courts.
So the Supreme Court's probably going to have to rule on this because some courts have said, no, you have to allow the trans people in.
And other federal courts have said, no, that's never been the requirement.
So hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court will step in and clarify.
that's not what they meant by employment law protection for trans people was that suddenly we have to ignore biological gender in all contexts robert i i was at a business nearby my place of residence and they had on their bathroom it said gender neutral it was a unis it was not a unisex it was a one no it was a one stall bathroom it's like of course it's We used to call that airport family bathroom.
Which I love those because I was like, screw going to the men and the women.
I was going to the family ones.
People would always look at me like, hey, that's supposed to be for kids.
It says family, dude.
I'm going in.
It's your own personal bathroom.
They raise the privacy argument when necessarily when you express your gender identity, you're revealing that it doesn't correspond to your...
Birth sex.
So there is no privacy issue anymore.
You're publicizing your privacy issue.
If you listen to the federal judge in the other case, he was like, you should have a right to bear your breast as part of gender expression.
That was part of his decision.
It's okay for drag queen story time to show whether you're not really a woman anymore or you are suddenly a woman, according to him.
I can understand that.
If you say, well, show me...
Well, except a woman's breasts are genitalia because they're used in procreation.
A man's breast is not.
But I have no problem with any law that says cover your man breasts when you're outside.
You're saying you have a first-woman right to expose him to the world.
First of all, I'm joking, people.
I want to not have to wear a shirt in public when I go to the beach.
All right, so that bathroom law was upheld and probably because it was easily circumscribed.
Sex at birth.
It was well crafted.
Yeah.
All right.
Hold on, Robert.
I got to bring in the good news right here.
Hold on.
Oh, geez, Louise.
I got something else.
Oh, yeah.
We got Liff or that is L. Fulganzi.
I just bought a Freedom Pumpkin Pie.
It's $100, but it's a fundraiser.
And thank you.
F. Fulganzi.
All right, Robert.
It's the best deal you get for any fundraiser out there.
Support a great cause and uniquely get a pie that only you can get from Amos Miller's Organic Farm.
And I'll make a video when we get it and I'll eat it.
Pumpkin pie.
It'll be good.
It's the right season, too, for pumpkin pie.
I don't know what season it is, Robert.
I live in Florida.
All that I know is that the sun is rising later and later every morning.
But other than that, it's still summer here.
That's true.
That'd be totally different from Canada.
Yeah, I don't know.
Is it already freezing up there?
My wife just got back from Montreal.
She had a scarf on the airplane.
I was like, ha ha, LOLs.
I don't know what you're wearing on your neck.
No, it's crazy and it's destabilizing because I don't know what season it is.
It's summer all year long.
For good and for bad.
This is not a flex.
This is like, I don't know what season.
It's October because I can see it on my computer.
I hear a kid screaming.
Oh boy.
Robert, what's next on the menu of the day?
So we have two big vaccine cases, which we'll get to at the end.
The next big one is the one that was voted by our board, one of the top topics for tonight.
Which is the Chevron doctrine at SCOTUS.
Well, now, I can summarize the Chevron doctrine, but then you're going to have to take it after this.
The Chevron doctrine is deferring to the authority of agencies to enact, implement, and adjudicate on their own internal rules as to the application of the regulations that was bestowed on them by the government, which governs their conduct.
And we've seen the way it's gone crazy.
I say...
Canada has gone one direction on the Chevron deference, whereas the U.S. seems to be going another direction.
That's my 30,000-foot overview.
Robert, what are the details of this?
Did you see the fact pattern of this particular case?
It might be up your hobby's line of thinking.
I did, but remind me, does it have to do with drones?
Fisheries.
Damn it, it was drones or fishing?
Fishing, yes, of course.
What is it?
So fisheries are required.
Oh!
This is the one to pay the government regulator to sit on the boats and...
Okay, I see.
This is where sometimes I get nervous because I don't remember that I know it.
This is the one where the government enacted a regulation that says you need to have federal oversight or government oversight as to how you're carrying out fishing.
And we're going to give you a government regulator or whomever to make sure that you're complying with the law and you're going to have to pay for it out of your own...
Business operations, and it can be very costly, Robert.
Okay, geez, Louise.
Okay, so I did read this.
What happened, Robert?
Yeah, so I mean, the law itself just said that it gave a right of federal regulators to be on the boat to oversee that you're complying with various regulations.
It exempted and excluded boats that were too small to be able to put an overseer on there.
So what does the agency do?
The Congress chose not to fund most of these as a way to limit how invasive they are.
So what does the agency do?
The agency says, oh, we have a right to force you, the fishermen, to pay for that person to be on your boat.
So not only do you have to put them on your boat, even if you were previously excluded or exempted, now you have to pay for them to be on your boat and tell you how you can't fish or try to lock you up.
Or try to fine you if they think you didn't do it the way they want you to do it.
So even though there was nothing in the legislation that authorized this.
So the Chevron Doctrine said that in a bunch of contexts, administrative agencies can, quote, interpret law, and that the courts have to exercise deference to an agency's interpretation of the law.
That was a usurpation of the judicial rule given to the agency of the government.
The second part was the ability to create law out of thin air in the first place.
They gave it that by saying you can write law called regulations, subject to certain notice and comment and whatnot, but they are there usurping the legislative role.
And they often said that the same deference applies to the agency's writing of law, because under the theory that they're just interpreting it.
Now the agencies are usurping the power of the purse from the legislative branch.
Where Congress has not authorized money, they're authorizing it.
Based on what?
Making you pay for it like an individual tax.
And Robert, if I imagine if it's anything like USDA organic or, you know...
The beef regulation, it's going to be very costly.
Particularly for your smaller, this is designed to help your big folks run off the small folks using the cost of regulation to create a competitive edge.
It's amazing, and we call them in Canada administrative tribunals, specialty tribunals.
They are empowered, like the CRTC, to apply the Online Streaming Act.
How is it going to apply?
We don't know.
Let them decide for themselves.
And they create their own rules, enforce their own rules, interpret their own rules.
And now, oh my God, it's so outrageous.
Make you pay your judge, jury, and executioner on your boat who's only there to find fault and to hold you to it.
Completely.
And so this, along with several other cases, has gone up to the Supreme Court.
They accepted this one plus another one, which is their...
Gorsuch has already said the Chevron doctrine is unconstitutional.
Thomas has said the Chevron doctrine is unconstitutional.
Kavanaugh has said the Chevron doctrine is unconstitutional.
Alito has said the Chevron doctrine, as construed, is unconstitutional.
We don't know what Roberts and Barrett, where they will fully go yet.
What about Kataji Jackson Brown?
She might get this one right, Robert.
We'll see.
I mean, generally the liberal Democratic judges love the administrative state.
And the administrative state has effectively replaced the legislative branch, the elected part of the executive branch.
We see that in the Trump classified documents case.
And the judicial branch.
Because here the judges aren't interpreting the law.
The agencies are.
The legislature isn't writing the law.
The agencies are.
The judicial branch isn't basically really enforcing the law in terms of interpretation and execution.
The administrative agency is doing by setting up these separate tribunals.
So it's long been proven that deferring to the agencies was always a bad idea.
Chevron has been a disaster and a debacle.
There's been conflicts all across the federal courts in the context of the fisheries.
Some courts have said the agencies don't have this power.
Other ones have said they do.
So it depends on where you're fishing as to which rules apply to you.
That's how nuts it is.
What struck me about this was that it's so ridiculous that the government will create these obligations and then make you pay for them when they then take your very same tax dollars and then, I don't know, ship them to a foreign nation to fund war.
We can do that, but we can't...
Pay for the regulation that we enact and impose on you.
You're paying your executioner.
And if the agencies have the power to tax, that's what this is, everybody's liberty is in danger immediately.
In fact, the First Circuit went further than that.
It said the default rule is now that agencies have the power to do this.
That unless Congress prohibited them from doing it, they have a default right to do so as part of the...
The Supreme Court will finally recognize that the Chevron Doctrine has gone way out of hand and completely gutted.
Administrative agencies should only be investigating and bringing enforcement actions.
They shouldn't have their own judiciary.
They shouldn't be writing rules.
They shouldn't be writing laws.
They shouldn't be interpreting laws.
They shouldn't be adjudicating laws.
They're not the judiciary.
They're not the legislature.
And they shouldn't be overriding the elected president of the United States either.
So it's time the administrative state be gutted.
It's the greatest threat to liberty and, quite frankly, to a successful economy in the modern American age.
And hopefully the Supreme Court will finally gut it.
And these cases present excellent examples of how and why they need to do so.
I'm going to make the prediction now.
You can snip and clip everyone out there.
They're going to gut the Chevron doctrine because I'm charting it only on the direction of Canada compared to the direction of the United States.
Canada is going to reaffirming doctrine of the Chevron thing, and the U.S. is going to defy it.
Now, that's my prediction right now.
But, Robert, I see colors here.
Have I brought it up?
I do.
Look at this.
Hold on.
Hold on here.
What are these reds?
The red says...
I can't read the black on the red.
It says RumbleRick331 is now a monthly supporter.
RumbleRick, welcome to the party, pal.
And then this RumbleRick is now...
Okay, so we got that.
Tell Amos to do a sweet potato.
You know what?
Pumpkin pie and sweet potatoes.
Those are my two, like...
If Marion's listening, she's going to get angry with me.
But tell them to do a sweet potato casserole.
Pumpkins are for smashing.
Does she like both pumpkins and sweet potatoes?
She loves pumpkins and sweet potato, and I do not like either.
But she's actually won me over on the sweet potatoes, french fries, and the pumpkin pie I think I'll do.
Well, speaking...
Sorry, go ahead.
Sorry.
Very disappointed in how many closeted, unobjective Zionists we are seeing.
Robert.
I think that's an attack, Robert.
The amount of riddles solved if we assume Hamas is Mossad-controlled and this was an op is not explored.
Really?
So, I mean, the problem is all the people that want to pretend that the Palestinian cause hasn't been dedicated to the erasure of Israelis and Jews from the presence of the Middle East are just not listening to the Palestinians.
And everybody wanting to blame...
Now, I've been very critical of how Western intelligence, including how Israel, has intervened in various countries across the Middle East to their detriment rather than to their betterment, like they think.
Putting one enemy against another enemy, thinking it's going to work and it backfiring over and over and over again.
So that criticism is fair criticism.
Pretending the Palestinian cause isn't dedicated to mass murder is just ignoring who they are.
That's ignoring 120 years of history.
They sided with the Nazis for a reason, folks.
It's not devil's advocate.
I'll just...
I'll steel man...
Oh, jeez, who was it?
I forget.
I'll steel man that position.
When you have soundbites quotes of Netanyahu saying, we're going to fund Hamas so that we can make them continue to fight with Fatah or the Gaza, the West Bank, sorry, so that we can ensure that among the fighting, we can create a reality in which there will be no Palestinian state, you can understand how some people might think the long game of a Netanyahu who's been in power now for like 20 years over the course of decades, on and off, he's going to say, We don't want a Palestinian state.
We don't want a two-state solution.
So let's fund Hamas, build them up so that they can then create the problems that we're experiencing now so that we have the pretext, A, to not only not have a two-state solution, but B, to go and evacuate an entire area and then appropriate it either for ourselves or for the international hotel community, whatever that is.
I can understand how some people think that.
How do you counter it, is the question.
That argument in particular.
It's ignoring the agency of Palestinians.
Palestinians elected Hamas.
Pretending that they...
Did they elect Hamas because of Israel?
No, they might have elected Hamas because Hamas was going around killing Palestinians and saying, vote for us and we kill you, and we'll kill your political adversaries too.
But they've been...
By various polls, they've always been popular.
There's not really much doubt about it.
Now, they clearly don't have full confidence that they would win every election because they haven't held any in a while.
But when they do polls, the majority of Palestinians in Gaza side with Hamas.
There's been no political rebellion against Hamas in the Palestinian world.
And it's not like they're not capable of political rebellion.
They see a Jew and all of a sudden they can rebel real fast.
But not when it comes to Hamas.
So that doesn't justify any kind of collective punishment of non-combatant civilians.
But pretending that everything that the Palestinians have done wrong in over a century is somehow secretly the Jews' fault, it's ignoring the agency of the Palestinians.
Just listen to them in their own words.
They're not bashful.
It was a Babylon Bee headline.
It was Hamas terrorist, very saddened by the fact Western world won't listen to why he's saying he wants to kill all the Jews.
You know, I mean, they have been unbashful in this.
This is why they have programs called Bay to Slay, where they reward terrorists for killing random Jews.
I mean, it's ridiculous that it would pretend otherwise.
Yeah, I see.
The solution might just be...
I mean, there have been two-state solutions.
On the table for close to a century.
And the Palestinians have been the ones to reject it every single time.
And my theory is going to be a compelled two-state solution and have the international community come in as the government for Palestine.
Well, that's what Trump was moving to, but the key to that was getting the key Arab countries on board that now are not on board because of this incident.
So again, who really profited from this?
Key bono, Robert.
All right, what do we have next on the menu on the list?
Well, speaking of insane court processes...
A great challenge brought by the Informed Consent Action Network and his counsel, that's Del Bigtree, that's involved there, and his counsel, Aaron Seery.
Children's Health Defense has also brought their own challenge.
They're looking at bringing additional challenges, and it's to the PrEP Act.
This is what gives immunity to all the big vaccine manufacturing companies, period.
But they're bringing it as applied to the COVID vaccine injuries in particular.
Well, and so at the risk of misrepresenting this one, they're challenging the...
I guess we have to back it all the way up.
What is the PrEP Act, Robert?
What was the intent of the PrEP Act and how has it been abused in the context of COVID?
So the PREP Act was passed to allow so-called emergency use authorizations and other aspects to be extended to all the childhood vaccines.
And it said certain kinds of vaccines are now immune from any manufacturer is immune from suit, no matter what bad acts they did.
There's supposed to be a limited exception for willful misconduct, but they effectively gut that by having to get the U.S. government involved.
If they don't sign off, you really can't get anywhere anyway.
So instead, you're put into this separate compensation program.
But this compensation program, you have no right to a hearing, no notice of the evidence, no notice of even who's deciding your case, no notice of what experts are being used.
So it's a pure star chamber, black hole type proceedings, judicially.
None of the due process we'd normally require for any property right.
And on top of that, when they do issue awards, well, they deny awards in 97% of cases.
So most of the COVID vaccine injured are not being compensated.
And when they do get an award, the average award is about $2,000.
So it's a complete crock.
So it's a complete joke.
It was sold at the time that this would be a totally effective alternative to make sure we could get emergency assistance during a pandemic that at the same time wouldn't leave the injured out to dry.
So the ICON has brought the suit challenging this is unconstitutional on two separate grounds.
Fifth Amendment grounds and Seventh Amendment grounds.
So I have often...
I've been for this kind of challenge being brought, and I've been trying to encourage a range of people to look at it and debating it and discussing it with a range of people in our political and legal circles.
Because to me, your rights, I mean, I would add additional constitutional components, but this is Congress trying to take away a right you had at the time of the American Revolution, which was at the time of the Constitution.
Which was your right as an individual.
It's supposed to be reserved to you under the Constitution.
To petition the government.
Well, it's right to petition the government, but also for redress of grievances.
Right to a trial by jury.
A right to all property and liberty being protected under due process of law to the Fifth Amendment.
A right to trial by jury in the Seventh Amendment, but also your rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment that are preserved to you unless explicitly and expressly given to the federal government.
There's nothing in there that says you can take away my right to sue somebody for screwing me.
The right of negligence towards state law, common law cause of action, has always been established and was there at the time of the Constitution.
Nothing in the Constitution gave that power to Congress.
So Congress just comes in and unilaterally strips everybody of it.
And they unilaterally strip it and create a so-called substitute that's not a substitute at all.
It's not a substitute by process.
It's not a substitute by result.
So you're losing who gets to decide the process.
The way the process is decided is a crock.
And you're denied your state property interest in your common law cause of action, which is protected under the Fifth Amendment.
So I think there's First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment violations by this.
They're bringing it under the Fifth and Seventh Amendment violations.
And they're like, look, this procedure...
Well, here's what's happened in the past.
States...
In some federal proceedings, have removed causes of action for select kinds of injuries, most commonly workers' compensation.
They created a workers' compensation system so they could no longer privately sue.
You instead had to go through the employer system, workers' compensation payment system.
However, the courts approved that because they said it was, quote, a reasonable substitute for the available alternative.
Nothing about the PrEP program is a reasonable alternative to your right to a jury trial to sue a vaccine manufacturer for the injury their negligence produced.
In the States, you don't have the car accident type thing where you can't sue anybody individually because it's governed.
In fact, our personal injury lawyers can make almost all their money based on personal injury accidents.
So that's your ability to sue in court.
This is what bankrupted it up in Canada, where they had the SAQ, the Associated Automobility, whatever, where they basically took out faults on the roads.
And you go into a bank.
If you get injured, you go in and typically the injury can be compensated, manageable.
But yeah, it has its pros and its cons.
Coming to the vaccine injury, though, the PrEP Act basically says...
In order to incentivize these pharma companies to do this, you're going to be stripped of your rights to sue them or the government.
Yeah.
And so in my view, this was always unconstitutional.
I've never understood how Congress purports to have the authority to take away from states and take away from individuals how this is governed.
Their property interest and their common law cause of action.
Justice Marshall and others in the past have pointed this out.
That this wouldn't make sense and that the prior case law doesn't go that far as this does.
And the COVID context presents the most compelling case to challenge it and question it and contest it.
And so we'll see.
The courts in the past have gone to great lengths to cover for these efforts of stripping people of their individual rights on behalf of powerful corporate interests.
So we'll see if the courts step up to the plate or fail once again.
But you couldn't have a better, more compelling fact pattern than this.
And constitutionally, they're absolutely correct.
The PREP Act was never constitutional, in my view.
And it's never been challenged, Robert.
This is the first time...
Aspects have been challenged in the past, and the courts have refused to entertain it.
But not on this scale.
Now, I'm going to bring up this Rumble rant only because it reminded me of something we haven't talked about.
Adriana Valentino, Australia, says, Barnes looks like he's lost 20 pounds.
He looks slimmer.
Robert, that's not why I brought it up.
First of all, Valentino, thank you very much.
I thought that was Ariadna.
Robert, we didn't put this on the menu.
How did we not put this on the menu?
Ariadna is now authorized to sue.
Taylor Lorenz for defamation because on, I forget which claim it was, it doesn't really matter which, she's now been authorized by the court to continue in her lawsuit against Taylor Lorenz, the Washington Post, for defamation, among other things.
We should get her back on for an update on this, but that was the good news.
That's what I thought.
Yeah, the New York Times and Taylor Lorenz defamed her, libeled her, invaded her privacy, tried to destroy her business, and tortiously interfered with it.
And she is going to get to the discovery stage of the case, pass the motion to dismiss with her amended complaint.
So congratulations to her and good for law.
Well, and on a limited, it's more limited.
She doesn't get to go through all the complaints, but she doesn't need to go through all of them to get to the discovery, which might, I don't know, potentially redevelop.
And I just want to say, why did I say that?
It was Adriano Valentino, Australia.
And I thought it said Ariadne.
So that's the good news there.
Oh, and the other big news on the vaccine front is the First Circuit revisiting its First Amendment legislation, this time involving the Massachusetts steamship operators.
This was employees who were fired for not getting the jab, sued.
It was dismissed back in 2022.
And it has been slightly overturned and remanded for further consideration.
Robert, above and beyond that 30,000-foot overview.
What was key here was what they're recognizing in the First Circuit is stepping back from its early direction that was just going to greenlight all of these restrictions.
They already did it in the main context where they stepped back and they said, well, if you're treating people differently based on whether they asserted a medical accommodation or religious accommodation.
That would be First Amendment discrimination.
And they recognized that's what was happening in Massachusetts.
You got a medical accommodation.
You were allowed to work.
If you asked for religious accommodation, they said, that's an undue burden.
We can't allow you to work.
And the judges and the courts finally recognized that doesn't make any sense.
That's treating religious people different than medical people for no reason that's in the interest of the state policy.
And so the First Circuit reversed and remanded on those issues, and they were trying to allege it was an undue burden somehow to give religious people accommodation, but it wasn't an undue burden to give medical people the same accommodation being sought.
So it is religious discrimination, good reversal by the First Circuit, so those First Amendment claims against state action can go forward and also prevent and preclude.
Future such mandates from the governmental level.
But from a practical point of view, when it gets reversed and remanded, it goes back to the original judge who issued the wrongful ruling in the first place.
Yeah.
What does that mean for a judge?
He has to reconsider it, reconsider the evidence.
I think he'll get the clear direction.
Based on that, he's got to allow that part of the case to progress and proceed.
Okay.
Oh, and we got one more from Adriano Valentino.
Australia says, I love you guys.
Viva Barnes.
Let's go, Brandon.
Oh, who remembers Let's Go Brandon?
Okay.
Robert, what do we have next?
All that's left is answering questions at the after party on Locals.
So now hold on one second.
Let me just see.
Okay, so we are...
Let me see what's going on in Locals.
There's a lot of...
Oh my goodness, there's a lot of stuff in Locals.
I'm going to give everybody the link to Locals.
Jeez, it's so amazing.
My wife is back, and I'm not getting bombarded by children anymore.
Because parenting is a two-person job, people, and a full-time one at that.
Okay, what we're going to do, I'm going to thank everyone for being here.
Robert, do you have any appearances coming up next week?
Anything of interest?
I don't think so.
Are you going to go on the Duran?
Have you been on the Duran recently?
No, at some point we'll be back on with them.
We were on and got America's Untold Stories over the 100,000 subscriber mark with Eric Hundley and Mark Robert on Friday.
Now, people want to poo-poo on me.
Not necessarily you.
I don't know what flack you deal with.
Why are you promoting YouTube?
Look, people, it's a monumental milestone whether you love or hate YouTube.
Let them enjoy it.
Let them get there.
Let them get there.
This is what it turns into.
It turns into something that sits under your table stuck to a Peter Frampton album.
Let him get there.
It's a beautiful thing.
It's marketable.
It's monetizable.
And it's actually just value added all around.
They got to the $100,000.
It might take him a little time for YouTube to recognize it.
YouTube might say...
We don't recognize it.
Who knows?
One last component of the vaccine cases.
The federal government had to write a $1.8 million check to the lawyers who successfully beat them in the vaccine mandate cases down in Florida.
Well, good for them.
They pay that with whose money, Robert?
With taxpayer dollars.
I see that.
It's good.
Maybe they'll disincentivize them to do that in the future.
So what we're going to do right now, I'm going to give everybody the link one more time.
Come on over to Viva Barnes Law.
We're going to have the after party.
You can think of supporting us and you can think of not supporting us, just becoming one of the members above average.
See the meme?
I'm going to see it in two seconds.
And we'll all see it in two seconds if you come over there.
I'm ending this stream on Rumble.
This week, Public Square CEO interview on Friday.
I've got somebody coming on Wednesday.
I don't remember who it is.
I'm still working on Vivek Ramaswamy.
It's going to happen.
And I'm going to say it's going to happen now because I'm going to put some pressure on it.
It's going to happen.
I'll try for this week.
So stay tuned, everybody.
It's going to be amazing.
Ending on Rumble.
VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com now.
Okay, now let's see.
Robert, am I naked?
I was told there was a meme of me being naked.
I know there was one that, for Halloween, suggested you putting up candy vending things.
If you want the candy, you've got to put in 25 cents.
Okay, that's not bad.
I heard something bad.
That would totally screw with kids' heads.
Do you ever do the taxation thing for the kids?
▲
Export Selection