Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 19, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:12:07

Ep. 187: Trump Victories? From Colorado to NY Gag; Biden FEC; Israel War Crimes& Viva & Barnes!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I screwed up the, um, lining things up for the intro, so, um, ignore the three seconds delay.
	Brr, brr.
	Brr, brr.
	Actually, before we even get started with this video, can we look at the perv face on Adam Kinzinger?
	I didn't notice this until I was, oh my goodness.
	Yeah, that's a perverted face that Adam Kinzinger is gazing lovingly and adoringly at Donna Brazile.
	Wait for this clip.
	Sorry, ordinarily I'd start with the straight-up intro, but you've got a double intro.
	And Vivek needs to just shut the hell up and go home.
	I'm sorry.
	We all hate Vivek.
	Okay.
	It's Vivek.
	Vivek.
	Well, whatever.
	Vivek.
	Whatever.
	Would you say that about other athletes?
	Donna.
	I'm Donna.
	Vivek.
	Is it Vivek Ramaswamy?
	Ramaswamy.
	That's funny.
	Thank you so much.
	I know you so much when I come on this show.
	I know.
	Vivek.
	Vivek.
	Vivek needs to go home.
	I agree.
	I just feel like there's something wrong with everybody refusing to learn to say his name.
	I just feel there's a little racism there.
	There's just a little...
	Vivek, Vivek, I'll say it.
	There's no racism there.
	Vivek, go...
	Vivek, Ramaswamahamao?
	What was your last...
	Go home, Vivek.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Do you mean more generally than America, Donna?
	Did you mean go home to your house?
	He needs to shut up and go.
	I'm going to play from the beginning because there might have been a little section there that we might not have heard properly.
	I know we don't like him, but you know, just say his name right.
	You're the first one I've ever heard say that.
	I could be wrong.
	Maybe it's not so vague.
	No, it is.
	It is so vague because I heard him do a rap and he said it rhymes with cake.
	Okay.
	All right.
	This is what the CNN audience needs to know.
	I don't actually think it's mispronouncing his first name that is a problem.
	I'm sure he gets Vivek all the time.
	I think it was more the Ramaswamahama.
	Oh, like, it is a difficult last name to pronounce, Donna.
	To make fun of a foreigner's last name, a foreigner, an American, with a name that is non-American.
	Oh my goodness, can you imagine if they did that with fill-in-the-blank other demographic?
	But play this from the beginning just one more time here.
	And Vivek needs to just shut the hell up and go home.
	Shut the hell up and go home.
	He needs to, though.
	I mean, this is...
	I will admit I am guilty every now and again of potty mouth myself.
	This is political analysis of the...
	I want to refresh everybody's memory as to who Donna Brazile is.
	Shut the hell up and go home, Vivek?
	Oh my goodness.
	If a white man were to have said that to a minority woman with a...
	A last name that is not quintessentially or stereotypically American, what would happen if a Republican would have told a woman of color to shut the hell up and go home?
	What do you think would happen?
	Oh, I can give you one hint.
	And it would involve cancellation.
	We all hate the vet.
	We all hate the vet.
	What the?
	Listen.
	We all hate Vivek.
	We all hate Vivek.
	Who said that?
	What is this?
	Is this high school?
	I mean, it is.
	I've always said that high school never ends.
	It just gets bigger.
	We all hate Vivek.
	You've got a Democrat with a capital D, which usually also means demonic.
	Democrat.
	Vivek Ramas...
	Oh, I didn't get to the best part of it.
	Sorry, making fun of his last name.
	Okay.
	I don't know what that is.
	I don't know what that is.
	It's Vivek.
	Vivek.
	Well, whatever.
	Vivek.
	Whatever.
	Would you say that about other athletes?
	Donna.
	I'm Donna.
	Vivek.
	Is it Vivek?
	Rama-sama?
	Rama-sama?
	Does anybody remember who Donna Brazile is?
	Confirmed liar, confirmed cheat, and now confirmed racist.
	Let me just refresh all your memories, because it's like, there's so much that has happened.
	This was in 2016.
	Back when I was still keeping my big mouth shut.
	Donna Brazile is a liar and a cheater.
	This is coming from Real Clear Politics.
	So it's opinion.
	But what's not opinion in this, and I'll refresh everybody's memory, are hard facts.
	I give Donna Brazile just a few points for finally fessing up after lying and denying that she stole and supplied CNN debate questions to Hillary Clinton, helping the establishment candidate triumph over insurgent Bernie Sanders.
	So it seems that...
	She cheats for the woman against...
	Let's play identity politics all the way through because that's what they do.
	She cheated to screw old man Jewish Bernie Sanders, so she must be anti-Semitic.
	Now she's telling Vivek Ramaswamy to shut his mouth and go home, so she must be also racist.
	Anti-Semitic, racist Donna Brazile, who is a liar and a cheater.
	And remember, oh gosh, I wish I could pull up the videos where she suggested at the time...
	Because she was being confronted with having stolen questions.
	Slip them to Hillary Clinton in advance of the debate.
	She suggested that the attack on her was racist, racially motivated.
	Oh!
	Yes.
	Evil.
	Terrible, terrible people.
	That's it.
	I wanted to start the stream with the video of my turtle fossil.
	Which you might see right over my shoulder right here.
	Yes, that's a fossilized turtle shell.
	I'm going to show it to you anyhow.
	But I saw that and I'm like, okay, well, we've got...
	Nobody cares about fossils as much as people care about hypocrisy of the highest level.
	But we're going to get there.
	Now, remember Seth Rich.
	There are many theories as to how Seth Rich was shot...
	I believe in the back at four in the morning in DC in an attempted bungled robbery where not his watch, neither his wallet, nothing was taken from him.
	It's one of those worst robbers of all time.
	Shooting Seth Rich, killing him in a botched robbery where apparently nothing of value was attempted to be taken except for the man's life.
	Seth Rich was, according to lore, according to conspiracy theory, perhaps the person responsible for...
	Disclosing that the Russian hack was not a Russian hack or was the one who provided some information.
	I forget exactly how the theory goes.
	But as far as the theory goes that he was killed in a botched robbery where nothing was taken.
	Yeah, you can believe that.
	Oh, okay.
	What was I going to say?
	Good evening.
	It's Sunday.
	Oh my goodness, have we got what to talk about?
	We're going to get there.
	It's Sunday.
	It's vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Oh yeah, I should have checked that we're live everywhere.
	That's what I meant to do.
	We are live.
	For those of you who don't know, I take for granted everybody is a returning viewer here.
	I am Viva Frye, David Fryeheit, a Montreal litigator turned Florida rumbler.
	We do our Sunday shows with Barnes.
	I do weekly live streams depending on the day, whenever the time is available.
	Ranting and raving about the...
	Insanity of the world.
	Trying to make sense of it and trying to cope with it myself.
	We start on YouTube Rumble and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	End on YouTube at about a half an hour in.
	We give them some presence.
	We give some exposure so that people know where the true free speech platform is.
	And it's on Rumble.
	Then we end on YouTube, bring it over to Rumble.
	And after we're done on Rumble for the stream, we go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	For our after party, we take the tip questions, answer questions, have a little Q&A.
	I'm in the chat right now in vivabarneslaw.locals.com and our community, which is above-average intelligence, without a question.
	Ronald B. says, Seth Rich was thought to have provided WikiLeaks with the correspondence proving that the DNC rigged the primary and gave it to Hillary illegitimately.
	That's right.
	Thank you for the refresher of my memory.
	Because they said that, you know, WikiLeaks got the emails from a Russian hack and there were many people who were saying there was no Russian hack, period.
	Someone provided it to them.
	Some people were hypothesizing that that might have been Seth Rich.
	Seth Rich was subsequently killed in a bungled robbery at four in the morning in D.C. That's it.
	Now some...
	Oh, wow.
	So John McGarvey in our community is showing a quartz crystal that is so crystal clear.
	Pun intended.
	So that's what we do.
	I'm going to get to the super chats in a second, the rumble rants.
	No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fortification advice.
	But I do want to share this with you because it's not that I don't care that everybody might not be interested in fossils.
	Everybody should be interested in fossils.
	Everyone should love them.
	And it's not a question of nerding out.
	It's a question of holding a piece of the cosmos and understanding that we are but stardust in the universe.
	Yesterday was the annual, the 56th annual West Palm Beach Gem and Rock Show.
	And I went last year.
	I saw a tortoise, a turtle shell, and I didn't get it.
	It wasn't the same one.
	This one was a little bit more expensive, but I regretted it ever since.
	I said, why didn't I get that?
	I'm an idiot.
	And we went back yesterday.
	And I did not leave empty-handed.
	This is, by the way, this is a video that is on Rumble, on my Viva Random channel on Rumble, so it's absolutely nothing related to politics, although I still wear my merch in there.
	Look at this.
	As I sit here slaving over dinner.
	Yes, I made dinner last night.
	Making breaded chicken.
	And looking at our hauls of the day.
	Look at this.
	Oh, we're cooking a turkey?
	A turtle?
	It's magnificent.
	Look at this.
	It looks like...
	It looks like a turtle shell.
	We caught a turtle.
	And emptied it out.
	And took its body parts out.
	Look at this detail.
	An albino turtle.
	And it weighs like 30 pounds.
	Oh, it's so beautiful.
	We're talking here.
	Adults are talking.
	Look at the bottom.
	Look at that.
	Look at the bottom of that.
	Our locals.
	It's the indent of the bottom.
	It's amazing.
	I did it.
	It's pretty cool.
	Do you want to see what I got?
	No one's even asked me what I got.
	My wife.
	Because it can't be better than this.
	I'll skip to what my wife got.
	That's actually beautiful.
	She got one of these things.
	Come on.
	That's very nice.
	It's called something, where you put spice in it and you grind it up.
	I got the turtle.
	I'm not going to leave it there.
	And it's sitting on a Marco Polo Hunter Biden laptop book, which I'm not going to use as a base either, but I don't want to put rock on rock.
	Oh!
	I said, we are butt stardust.
	And by the way, how smart and above average is our locals community?
	Ginger Ninja, the man who made me this chess set behind me, Ginger Ninja on Local said, the pronounced indentation on the bottom side of the shell is an indication that it was a male because it's more concave for the purposes of mating.
	So, I did it.
	I did it.
	Oh, mortar and pistol.
	Look at this.
	Mortar and pestle.
	Mortar and pestle.
	Who the hell are those?
	She's like, I got a mortar and pestle.
	I was like, what the hell is a mortar and pestle?
	Forgive me, but we used it.
	And that's it.
	And hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Oh, if I drop it, I would cry.
	Look at this.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	Doesn't smell like anything.
	Okay.
	So that was that.
	Okay, that's the intro.
	Good evening, everybody.
	Barnes is going to get here in a second.
	We've got one heck of a show tonight because the news is crazy.
	The lawsuits that Barnes sent me Friday that I could do my weekend homework are fascinatingly interesting, except for the one that has to do with redistricting.
	I tune out of those immediately.
	But the big news of the weekend, or at least coming into the weekend, was Speaker Johnson Putting up a website and putting out some of the video footage of January 6th.
	We're seeing some interesting video footage now.
	And it's an amazing thing.
	You see Adam Kinzinger, by the way.
	Stop that.
	You see Adam Kinzinger in pure panic mode, as with the other Democrats, as with the propagandists.
	They've got to maintain the narrative that January 6th was an insurrection.
	And what do they do in order to do that?
	They keep reverting to their highly edited...
	It's nothing less than propaganda video promotion that they made for their kangaroo court January 6th committees, and they keep saying, "Look how violent this was." I talked about it on Friday.
	A 31-second video that had 15 hard edits in it.
	A 31-second video to synopsize all of the insurrection that occurred in the 44,000-plus hours of footage.
	That's the thing.
	The best that they got was a highly edited, highly editorialized Video montage that they run as evidence.
	Well, here's another video.
	Just, you know, check it out.
	Insurrections.
	It's like you hear somebody breathing while watching this camera, but for those who are listening on podcast, this is inside the Capitol building.
	There's a group of insurrectionists apparently being led around by a police officer who just led them.
	They're carrying an American flag, a Trump flag, another Trump flag.
	One of them just waved at the officer.
	Who I believe just waved back.
	I'm not sure.
	I think that's what happened.
	Walking in orderly two by two.
	That's not me breathing, by the way.
	One of them's got a, you know, the don't tread on me snake thing.
	They walk past the officers, accompanied by another officer.
	This guy's, one of the guys is recording with his iPhone as he goes through.
	Officers seem to be having a discussion.
	Nobody seems interested in the parading...
	Oh, there you go!
	That guy just waved at the cop.
	The cop waved back.
	Insurrection.
	I got into a little tiff with somebody on Twitter who I will not name because it's not a question of putting any people who I like on blast.
	Talking about the insurrection narrative.
	The convictions of seditious conspiracy.
	And now there's even some on the DeSantis camp who are running with the...
	Narrative that it was an insurrection and that they had planned to do it.
	And they just, you know, they would have done it.
	They would have done it.
	They would have done that which they could have done but did not do because they didn't think during an insurrection to bring firearms.
	You know, they made the conscientious decision to travel with firearms as is your God-given right in America.
	And you'll appreciate that right when you no longer have it.
	Maybe take a trip to...
	You know, north of the border.
	See what it's like when you are not allowed to defend yourself.
	But they travel with their firearms, leave them in the hotel for the purposes of going to a protest, and that's the insurrection.
	They would have done it if they had just remembered to bring their darn firearms to an insurrection.
	But instead, they did not do that which they could have done, and therefore that's the evidence of insurrection.
	Oh, and they got convicted, the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, of seditious conspiracy, which is still not insurrection.
	That's the evidence.
	You got it right there.
	Oh, lordy, lordy.
	Okay, now let's get some super chats before we get too far behind here.
	Cheryl Gage, $10 super chat, says, who in their right mind turns down a grilled cheese sandwich in favor of a Pop-Tart?
	Thanks for the translation of that video.
	It was really funny.
	Cheryl Gage is talking about what is called the tête à clac.
	Tête à clac means like the face that you can smack in French.
	It's French-Canadian.
	And they had the greatest video ever.
	It's the greatest thing to ever come out of Quebec.
	Second, maybe.
	Where they had these kids.
	It's like, you know, they put the mouths over this face and it's all...
	I did a translation.
	It's the best thing ever.
	Okay.
	We got Pasha Moyer.
	Viva, I'm getting to gently chide you on this.
	You said Vivek's last name isn't American.
	You didn't really mean...
	I meant it is a...
	Well, first of all, that is not what I meant because there's no such thing as an American last name, but I did qualify that afterwards by saying what a stereotypical last name.
	Freiheit is not a typical American last name either.
	I'm not going to be politically correct for the sake of being politically correct.
	It's quite clearly an Indian last name.
	He's a first-generation son of Indian immigrants.
	And as far as it goes for...
	Apple pie and things like that.
	Ramaswamy would not be what you would think of as a stereotypically quintessential American last name, but the American experiment is that which brings in everyone from everywhere across the world into the melting pot.
	That is the American democracy.
	So you know what I meant, and that's what I meant.
	And there's that.
	And now we've got Lelius and your butt starters.
	Okay, good.
	Now Barnes is in the house.
	Let's do this.
	Robert, sir, you're good to go?
	Booyah.
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	You're feeling better?
	You were a little under the weather last week, but it looks good?
	Yes, yes.
	Okay, I'm going to let the audio level out here, and then if one of us is off balance, you'll let me know.
	Robert, what's the book you have over your shoulder?
	Because that is new.
	That looks like the Constitution.
	Yeah, it's a book from one of our board members at vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	They sent it in as a gift.
	It's by a German scholar, so that will be rather interesting.
	And no cigar this week?
	Oh, yeah.
	No, I do have one.
	Is it Que D 'Orsay or Que D 'Orsay?
	Oh, Que D 'Orsay.
	That's French.
	That's the port of D 'Orsay.
	Yeah, it's named after that.
	It's a Cuban cigar named after that.
	How do you say that again?
	Que D 'Orsay.
	Que is the doc.
	D 'Orsay is...
	And I was going to say, I didn't think the French made cigars, but I don't smoke cigars.
	All right, Robert.
	What do you think I meant?
	Don Pasha, come on.
	Not everything comes out a thousand percent smooth with me all the time.
	Robert, what do we have on the menu for tonight?
	And we might have to add two.
	People wanted us to add.
	Oh, the media matters, but we'll talk about that afterwards.
	What do we have on the menu as it stands?
	Trump's up first.
	His ballot wins.
	His gag order wins.
	And his mistrial motion in New York.
	Then we have, did Biden take over the internet with the FCC?
	That was the top-voted topic on the board poll.
	Then we have a bunch of cases up at SCOTUS, Florida drag shows, ethical code, wealth tax, professional censorship, the right to honk, and solitary confinement.
	We have the question of Israeli war crimes, the self-defense win in Washington, D.C., involving the Second Amendment, no less.
	Malcolm X, the person who was falsely accused, is bringing lawsuit against the U.S. government, including the FBI, for the false accusations and the conspiracy of the assassination of Malcolm X. Standing for BLM-related groups, which might have broader impact than just them, in the voting rights suit in Louisiana.
	And a little bit of what happens when you store certain photos on your phones and random T-Mobile employees have access to it?
	It blows my mind that people still do this, but what do I know?
	I'm an old man who keeps his schmeckle in his pants.
	Robert, can we actually add two off the top?
	One will be the Media Matters, and the other one's going to be the one that I have a question about.
	But everyone needs us to talk or has asked us to talk about the Media Matters.
	The allegations that Media Matters put out a hit piece saying that, you know, they basically ran a test that showed that there were ads running next to anti-Semitic or racist tweets or whatever, and they put out a hit piece as well on Rumble.
	And now apparently, according to ALX on Twitter, who seems to have inside connections with Musk, there's an allegation that...
	Twitter is confirming, or X is confirming, that they never actually ran an Apple ad, or there's evidence to believe they did not run an Apple ad by side one of the alleged tweets that Media Matters for America put out.
	First things first, assuming that their piece is mildly accurate, that they create a separate account to sort of fabricate results that are actual results, is that tortious interference?
	And if they've actually doctored a tweet, where does it go from there?
	Well, Musk is going to sue.
	So I think once we have the suit, then we can make an assessment of the credibility and plausibility of the claims.
	So I know people wanted it, but until we know what the suit actually is, it's hard to make an assessment because there's different allegations out there.
	We don't know which ones will show up in the suit.
	Different theories out there.
	We don't know which of those will show up in the suit.
	And not as a private media matters is a political hit organization, has been for a long time.
	And that's what they do.
	They were orchestrating the cases against Alex Jones in substantial part.
	They knew many of the allegations against Alex Jones were false, and yet continued to propagate the falsity of those claims.
	So it's who they are.
	It's no surprise.
	I'm sure they engage in all kinds of shenanigans.
	Now, they're not an organization.
	I mean, they're an organization you'd sue, and they would just fold up shop and start with a new name.
	So I'm not sure how much you quite achieve.
	I mean, you know, it's probably worth it, but it's not like they're the Rockefeller Foundation.
	They're, you know, another NGO, fly-by-night organization created by David Brock.
	And he's shifted sides.
	He's been a grifter his whole life, his whole career.
	He was an anti-Clinton guy in the 90s and then weaseled his way into the Clinton camp thereafter by using the extortionate threats he developed from his efforts in the 90s.
	So it's just who the guy is.
	But he knows how to solicit donors and how to get those donors to target the causes that they choose.
	It is really weird to go after Musk.
	In the current environment on anti-Semitism grounds, given all the other places that currently has all kinds of, where anti-Israeli sentiment has been quickly bleeding over into anti-Jewish sentiment.
	Not all anti-Israel sentiment is anti-Jewish, though saying things like from the river to the sea can only have one meaning, but fundamentally that isn't necessarily because someone's Jewish, it's because it's Israel and they're Jewish.
	But to blame Musk for that, it seems to be a distraction campaign from the fact that so many of the left's allies are deeply anti-Israel and their anti-Jewish biases have been coming to the fore in ways that have shocked some old-school Jewish moderates and liberals.
	Okay, and that's a very judicious response.
	Wait until we see what's actually alleged.
	The second one, this is for my own personal edification, Robert.
	Last week, Laura Loomer put out a tweet in which she showed that, allegedly, Riley Gaines had been paid by the DeSantis camp for a speaking event or whatever.
	And in it, it was, you know...
	Purportedly, it was from the FEC filing, which had an address on it.
	I don't know if it's a home or an office or a business or whatever, but an individual's address.
	And Laura, to her credit, took down the original tweet, put up a sort of a defense of, I did nothing wrong, but I'm doing the right thing now anyhow.
	When it comes to that, publicly available versus publicly put on blast, illegal versus legal, illegal versus doxing, or just contrary to terms of service, Would something like that hypothetically be contrary to Twitter terms of service, even if it's publicly accessible somewhere?
	Oh, it could be Twitter's terms of service.
	Because I was going to say that, you know, in a general rule, you know, your address is public information, typically.
	While we call those things doxing...
	Very rarely do those things constitute actionable legal claims.
	Now, they may be actionable social media claims or employment claims, depending on the circumstances, that go beyond the scope of the law itself.
	That, you would have to look at what X's rules are in place at the moment.
	Okay, and it does say addresses, but it puts home addresses under private information, but most people don't fully appreciate most home addresses are not private, and so I presume it would have been violative of the terms of service of Twitter.
	Okay, and setting that aside, at least she did the right thing in due course after the damage was done.
	Better late than never.
	All right, Robert, so the Trump, where do we start?
	Where do we start?
	Do we start with Engeron's gag order being lifted by or being stayed by an appellate judge in New York who said, we have some First Amendment violation concerns of this.
	I don't know.
	Apparently, Engeron has issued four orders that have been overturned by a higher court in New York, but I couldn't name all of them with the exception of the gag order.
	I don't know if you know offhand what other orders Engeron had issued that have been overturned.
	Well, it shows up in the mystery.
	The mistrial motion, one of them, which was he was delaying ruling on the summary judgment motions until the eve of trial, which basically ambushed the Trump team into not knowing what to prepare for trial for until the appeals court finally ordered him to issue an opinion.
	Before trial.
	So, you know, he's been game playing the entire time in ways that have been adverse to the Trump team, even when he's been overturned on appeal.
	He also tried to immediately disband the Trump organization, which would have led to mass unemployment for the Trump employees.
	And that the Court of Appeals also stepped in and overturned and invalidated.
	The Court of Appeals, I think, could have done more.
	This is a case that I think should have been shut down by the federal courts for selective prosecution, should have been shut down by the Courts of Appeals for being a baseless case from the inception.
	But they have sporadically and belatedly got in, but when they have, they've usually corrected his rulings that have been to the extreme.
	And their motion for mistrial reveals the scale and scope of the problems.
	But here again, once any judge looked at the grounds he overturned the gag order was precisely the grounds we discussed, where a lot of legal scholars and so-called legal analysts didn't even comment on.
	Which is, there is no right of judges to prevent criticism of them or their staff.
	That has never been a basis of prior restraint.
	Has been certain kinds of national security information, and even then, as the New York Times case, the Pentagon Papers should remind everybody, even then, that usually that isn't even grounds.
	Otherwise, it's just immediate impact of the jury.
	Let's say you had excluded evidence as a judge, and the prosecutor, as the jury was walking in, screamed what it was.
	That's what you could claim as a gag order to prohibit.
	That degree of illicit influence on a jury.
	That is literally it.
	And there's no other grounds.
	And this judge is just doing whatever he wanted, as he's done throughout the case, no matter how many times he gets reprimanded by the appeals courts, no matter how many times he gets criticized.
	So I was not surprised that the gag order was overturned and joined, that the fines are probably going to be set aside, that gag order will be further evidence and already was evidence introduced in their motion for mistrial.
	Which, there were things in the motion for mistrial that I even didn't know had happened.
	Now, I'll go over some of them, because the extent of the Alison-Greenfield relationship, I never, like, it's funny that a visual really puts things in a different perspective, but seeing her on the bench with Engeron, just sitting next, I think it's on his right, like two Stalin-esque decision-makers.
	It really put into perspective what they're complaining about in terms of constant back and forth of notes.
	What's her name?
	Alison Greenfield.
	I'm going to focus on Greenfield.
	You'll get the other ones that I miss.
	Donating in 2022 over-the-legal-limit contributions to political activist organizations, including Leticia James.
	I think it was either her re-election or something to do with actually endorsing supporting Leticia James, who's persecuting Donald Trump.
	And campaigned on that.
	And campaigned on persecuting Trump.
	The behavior of Engron towards the Trump defense team, accusing, I forget his name, Kais of misogyny, because he's commenting on Alison Greenfield sliding notes back and forth with the judge, seemingly directing this entire trial.
	Oh yeah, she also chummy chummy with Chuck Schumer.
	That mistrial motion...
	If you didn't know what was going on, you wouldn't believe it was true.
	Which ones am I missing, Robert, that you want to highlight for us?
	The one that I didn't know about is that the judge himself has been bragging in his newsletter to the school about his actions in this case.
	And that's patently inappropriate, unethical, unprofessional conduct.
	That goes beyond just the obvious partisan bias we can all witness.
	But there are certain...
	Basic prophylactic rules that exist.
	The judge can't comment on a case outside of the courtroom.
	He's been doing that repeatedly.
	So not only did they catch his wife sharing memes and a whole bunch of things about the case, hostile Trump on social media, so it's a member of his family, but he himself has been doing this.
	So when he's not showing photos of his abs, he's busy showing memes and articles about how he's screwing Trump and bragging about it.
	She campaigned on this.
	She referred to it indirectly as the real estate case, but when she was campaigning for a judgeship herself was talking about how she's the co-judge in the case, how they're out to get him, how her objective is to be a partisan judge.
	I mean, these are extraordinarily shocking things to be explicitly and expressly stated.
	I don't think this case, this judge is so insane, I don't think this case has any chance of being affirmed, even from a corrupt, partisan, democratic New York higher court system, because it's so embarrassing and so humiliating to the judiciary of New York.
	Actually, good mention.
	I had talked about the anger in his Wheatley alumni paper, in addition to the nudie pick, which is inappropriate but not judicially corrupt.
	Posting links to how he's screwing Eric Trump, the decisions he's made.
	And that's right, what's-her-face, having run for judgeship and lost and calling herself the co-judge.
	It's insanity.
	And saying that her goal was the partisan goal of her constituents.
	Said, I'm not here to make precedent on law.
	I'm here to make precedent based on the goal, partisan objectives of my constituents.
	I mean, this is overt, open, blatant.
	Well, we can all witness.
	But most corrupt judges are smart enough not to tell the world how corrupt and partisan they are.
	These two nitwits can't do that.
	It's shocking.
	So a higher-level judge, one judge from the Court of Appeal lifted the gag order, said, this isn't a criminal trial.
	There's no jury in here to intimidate.
	I got First Amendment rights concerns lifted.
	We'll see what that does.
	There's nothing else coming out of the New York case that I know of.
	No, the other one is, I mean, you get a sense for, I think part of this is Robert Kennedy's campaign and some other factors, but you know how insane the legal arguments are against Trump when liberal Democratic judges or judges in liberal Democratic states or anti-Trump Republicans like those in New Hampshire, like those in Michigan, like those now even in Colorado.
	Say that Trump cannot be removed from the ballot.
	And interestingly, the Colorado judge made the exact argument I made that certain legal scholars said, oh, that doesn't apply.
	You can't make that argument.
	That's crazy.
	And even the liberal Democratic Trump-hating donating to Trump opponent organizations said exactly the same thing.
	It's quite clear the 14th Amendment doesn't even apply to the President of the United States.
	Couldn't even apply to ballot access for the President.
	Even a near commie is admitting this truth.
	So, I mean, at this point, you know, the argument is open and shut.
	And I think their ballot, and especially the constant threat of Robert Kennedy absorbing those votes anyway, but I think is a reinforcing factor behind these liberal Democratic judges being a little less eager to get Trump off the ballot.
	But legally, this is the common sense conclusion that can be reached.
	Now, but Lawrence Tribe was the one who had been promoting this idea as a legitimate and actually...
	And that political hack that Mike Pence relied upon for his bogus January 6th impression, who was that right-wing nutjob that a bunch of federal society people wanted to put on the Supreme Court until his decision that you could lock up and kill Americans without any constitutional due process was seen as maybe a little too far.
	So, I'm picking on Lawrence Tribe because he's a Harvard graduate.
	I believe he's a Harvard professor.
	Legal mind.
	He was the one who from the beginning, I don't think he believes it as far as he can throw my beautiful fossilized turtle shell, but promoting the idea that it's a legitimate and really a legal theory to be reckoned with.
	And it's out the window now.
	Now that his initial.
	Robert, how the hell does a civil judge Come to a conclusion in a civil proceeding of insurrection.
	I mean, is that not a criminal act?
	I mean, I just consider that all nuts and irrelevant because she wanted to take her shots at Trump.
	Fine.
	Take your shots at Trump.
	It has no meaningful bearing.
	There was no discovery in the process.
	It was a shortened proceeding.
	It was primarily a legal matter.
	So her conclusions aren't worth the paper they're printed on in terms of the factual claims that she made.
	There's no collateral estoppel or anything else there.
	There was no meaningful due process to adjudicate that part of the process.
	So it has no bearing.
	On her nutty conclusions.
	But the fact that someone that nuts acknowledges and admits there's no constitutional basis to deny ballot access by a state official for Trump should tell everybody on that ballot denial side that they have a very uphill battle.
	They always did.
	The question was would their political predicate, political basis, override that?
	It doesn't set precedent.
	There's no factual precedent from what the Colorado judge said about anything factually.
	It's not precedent even legally.
	It's just legally it establishes even left-wing Trump-hating judges, as reflected in the rest of the order proceeding, are having to admit that they can't keep them off the ballot.
	Well, I just, I mean, legally non-binding, it's just the fact pattern as per this judge in that case.
	It will allow the media to run with the narrative.
	It'll allow the media to now shift and say, judge found insurrection.
	They were already running with that narrative.
	Yeah, but no one has even been charged with insurrection.
	They were charged with, at worst, seditious conspiracy.
	So they're going to appeal it.
	I presume the plaintiffs.
	There's no reason for Trump to appeal it, and my guess is the Republicans that try to keep Trump off the ballot probably won't appeal it.
	Maybe they'll try, but it's highly unlikely.
	They're not going to get any higher court to overturn.
	They're not going to get a higher court to step in and try to keep Trump off the ballot.
	Again, if you can't win in front of a liberal Democratic judge, and some of the Michigan judges had different political backgrounds, depending on which ones, but several different ones came to the same conclusion.
	And I put up a Supreme Court brief I filed years ago.
	There's a long history of this, and the courts constantly come in on the side of ballot inclusion, not ballot exclusion.
	They know what the ballot's really there for.
	It's for voter choice.
	And anything that tries to restrict the ballot is something they've generally...
	They've disfavored.
	Now, if it involves really minor third-party or independent candidates, they might screw them at the lower levels, but the higher levels have ultimately stepped in.
	And that's because they know that if the ballot doesn't remain free, people's perceptions of America's, how democratic it is, will be severely impaired around the world.
	That's where I thought, you know, I've said all along that I didn't think courts would go this far.
	I mean, it was becoming increasingly concerned of the risk of it.
	To the degree that I think Robert Kennedy's campaign provided some deterrence from Democrats doing it.
	But putting that aside, constitutionally there's no basis for it, but also just public policy-wise.
	It's how suicidal are the courts, right?
	And we're seeing that in the New York case.
	Are the New York Court of Appeals willing to be suicidal?
	So far, no, they're not.
	As suicidal as the trial court judge wants to be, they're not willing to go down with him.
	And as much as they want to get Trump, These tactics are backfiring on them in the court of public opinion to such a degree that the judiciary itself is at risk, and historically, the judiciary isn't willing to commit political suicide.
	We'll see.
	I mean, maybe they will in the end.
	Maybe they'll let Trump get locked up.
	Maybe they won't overturn any of these cases.
	Maybe they'll let him be excluded from the ballot.
	But I think these cases are increasingly showing the same pattern.
	Even Trump-hating judges and secretaries of state are saying, no, this is a bridge too far.
	Now, the finding in Colorado, which says ultimately that the 14th Amendment doesn't even apply to the president.
	Yeah.
	People were raising the argument that this is a victory for the primaries but not for the general.
	Does that argument not apply to Mutatus Mutandus?
	Yeah, of course it would apply to the general.
	So basically this is, despite Lawrence Tribe...
	Al, trying to save face because their legal opinions are becoming increasingly.
	I mean, the Minnesota Supreme Court, Democratic Court, these are all Democratic, for the most part, Democratic states or Democratic courts saying, no, you can't do this.
	And if you, I mean, I've been doing this area of law for a quarter century.
	If you knew this area of law, you would know how utterly unprecedented what they were asking was.
	And so my initial reaction was, no chance.
	And then you saw these political hacks willing to cross every Rubicon known to man, and you're like, well, maybe.
	But the fact that they've lost all of these, now again, I think practically that some aspect of this is being influenced by Robert Kennedy's presence on the ballot in these states coming up.
	I think that has a little something to do with it, given the survey showing the kind of support he has, that basically they risk losing Minnesota and Colorado and New Hampshire if they took Trump off with Kennedy on.
	Biden would lose it to Kennedy, and all of a sudden they're in the same, they're in a worse boat than they were beforehand.
	So, because those are three states they should, Biden should win, won by close to double digits or better in 2020.
	The fact that it was those states not willing to remove Trump from the ballot means this is almost already DOA.
	You've now had, including some other cases that have been brought where it was jurisprudential grounds that was dismissed, I think eight or nine cases or elected officials who've rejected the request to remove Trump from the ballot.
	Especially, they all can read polls.
	There is no election official that really is eager to commit political suicide, however much they hate Trump.
	And if you go back, that goes back to Wallace's campaign, Perot's campaign, Anderson's campaign, socialist people's campaign.
	You know, they got away with it some against Nader, but ultimately the court stepped in and later, after the fact, remediated and said, actually, this shouldn't have happened.
	Nader should have been on the ballot.
	They don't like looking like they're manipulating democracy, even when they want to manipulate democracy.
	And when it's so open, so overt, so blunt, so blatant.
	That's when it gets too far.
	And I think this judge knew that if she had denied Trump ballot access, she would have got overturned on everything and then would just look bad in retrospect.
	So that's where I think that's the probable trend to continue, especially with Robert Kennedy being a likely independent candidate.
	On all the ballots.
	He is already declared as such.
	And he may have to fight to get on the ballot in some states because of all the crazy laws and crazy rules they try to set up to rig the game.
	But his continued presence will be a continued deterrent to Democrats eager to try to kick Trump off the ballot.
	Even California, which initially was talking about it, suddenly has gone quiet about it.
	So I think...
	80% of this is what the law is so overwhelmingly on.
	And judges don't like to commit pure political suicide.
	Take risks, yes.
	Political suicide, no.
	Look to the conservatives during the New Deal era.
	We'll talk about some of the cases they issued then.
	But they were ready to undo most of the administrative state from the get-go until all of a sudden there was such a public blowback.
	They're like, well, now that we think about it, the administrative state's just fine.
	I mean, they reverse themselves en masse within a year.
	Judges are not politically tone deaf.
	That's why the court of public opinion ultimately doesn't always reach them as it should, but usually reaches them when you need it the most.
	One last question before we head over to Rumble people.
	I'll put the link in the chat now, but it's the pinned comment.
	So New York gag order getting overturned or stayed on appeal.
	The motion for mistrial was heard by Angeron dismissed.
	That's going to be a pill as well.
	Oh, it's all without merit!
	It's all without merit!
	He had no meaningful substance of a response to many of those things.
	He didn't deny that factually most of them were true.
	He just pretended it somehow didn't mean anything.
	It didn't have any consequence.
	He's setting himself up to just get easily overturned.
	He thought he would be a hero, and instead he's becoming a villain.
	He lives in such a bubble.
	He didn't understand that the abuse of power that these judges are used to with less famous defendants can't do against Trump.
	I mean, that's the scale that all of these judges and prosecutors and state elected officials and others have misgauged.
	That, you know, they were like, I got away with it for years.
	You know, the prosecutors like James and other contexts got away with it for years.
	And all of a sudden, it's backfiring on them.
	I mean, it's like the prosecutors in Kenosha didn't expect the Kyle Rittenhouse case to backfire on them.
	They thought they'd become heroes, not villains, because they don't understand the court of public opinion on some of these cases, but also, I mean, similar to the efforts of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in harassing Amos Miller, which, by the way, you can go to Pinned.
	Tweet a pinned comment at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Doing a special fundraiser for Amos Miller for Free America Law Center supporting his cause.
	You can get yourself some apple butter just in time for the holidays.
	Homemade by the Amish farmer Amos Miller.
	But, you know, the part of the public backing him was a key reason why we've been able to get him to a place where, you know...
	He's allowed to sell, still not as broad as we want it to be, but at least he's allowed to sell some meat, allowed to sell some operations.
	His farm didn't close.
	They didn't seize it.
	But all that happened because all of a sudden the public stories weren't all bashing him.
	The court of public opinion always matters, regardless of what anybody tells you.
	Does that mean the court of public opinion is always determinative?
	No.
	But the idea that it's insignificant, inconsequential, you're seeing in live time in these Trump cases, even liberal democratic courts that I guarantee you hate and despise Donald Trump personally, are saying, ah, no, we're not willing to go that far.
	And now, does this have an impact on, what's her name, Fannie Willis and or Jack Smith?
	If they're seeing the way these are going in New York and Colorado and Michigan and New Hampshire, wherever it is.
	Well, Fannie's just trying to buy time, and her so-called proffers with lawyers leaked, and there's nothing really...
	In fact, it makes her case look weaker rather than better.
	And she basically just wanted to bring the charges, because the trial's not happening until after Election Day, which means who knows what happens after Election Day.
	But my guess is if Trump was elected, those charges are going to go away in Georgia.
	So that was more theater.
	Then it was reality.
	The Florida case, because there you have a decent judge, and so she is unwilling to allow those cases to progress in an impermissible manner.
	And so those are getting delayed to probably after Election Day.
	So all of their eggs are really in one basket, and it's the D.C. case.
	And my guess is that D.C. case's judge's gag order is going to be overturned before Christmas Day.
	And that will be another loss and more egg in the face.
	While the Supreme Court is likely to take up some January 6th cases and start to reverse some of the things that have already taken place.
	So I think that what they're doing is they're setting themselves up for failure and an embarrassing failure.
	The greatest threat to the president is still the D.C. case.
	And hopefully somebody steps in and does something to put that case back on the right track.
	Maybe we go through theater.
	People ask what happens if Trump is jailed.
	Doesn't matter.
	What happens if he wins and he's in jail?
	It'll make the entire federal judicial system look like a joke.
	And at that point, my guess is either the Supreme Court or somebody would step in and set it all aside.
	Now, my hunch is still that Biden's going to do this on the federal charges.
	If he loses, to cover for his own family, he'll disguise it as a broad political pardon to restore order and help integrity, because that's Joe Biden.
	He likes to bring people together, especially over bribes.
	Then he really likes to bring them together.
	Even though he was running around kissing up to G this past week.
	Asking where that money is, or maybe I'll have to send some more ships to the sea.
	But I think we're seeing at least some promise.
	While we're still seeing ridiculous actions against President Trump, we're at least seeing some restraint start to step in by the judicial branches.
	That, okay, maybe we shouldn't go too far.
	So hopefully that side of the judiciary continues to show promise, even while Joe Biden is trying to take over the internet in the interim.
	Okay, now we're going to do this.
	We're going to head over to Rumble, and I'll give everyone the Viva Barnes link, but I seem to have gotten rid of that live link.
	One more time, here's the link to Rumble, people.
	Come on over, because we're going to end now.
	Let's see the number go down.
	2872.
	2887.
	That's the wrong direction.
	Come on over.
	Okay, and let me just give the link to the live chat if everybody wants to go for it.
	On Tuesday on YouTube and Rumble, I'll be live at 1 p.m. Eastern time with the Durant to discuss the Argentinian election where it looks like a good right-leaning populist just got elected president to discuss what the heck's going on in Catalonia and Spain.
	To discuss Biden and Xi.
	To discuss the U.S. political perspective on the Israeli-Hamas conflict.
	What kind of consternation is happening at the State Department and the Biden administration and the intelligence apparatus amongst the ordinary voters.
	Why Scott Horton needs to go to the nuthouse for a little while because of how crazy he is about Israel.
	And he needs to quit lying about Robert Kennedy just because he hates Israel.
	We'll be talking about that and other things on the show on Tuesday, 1 p.m. Eastern Time.
	Community, remind me not to go live Tuesday at 1 o 'clock.
	Okay, we are going to end on YouTube.
	You all have the links to both Rumble and VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Ending on YouTube in 3, 2, 1. See you all there.
	Okay, now let me go to the list, Robert.
	What's next on the list?
	We've got Scoat.
	The big one, the top topic, the number one topic on the board poll.
	This was going to be the 10th topic.
	We'll move it up to the fourth topic.
	Is Joe Biden trying to take over the internet?
	Now, here's one where I didn't tune out because it's redistricting and I get bored or gerrymandering and I get bored from it.
	I tune out because I don't understand it.
	I understand the words I'm reading on a page, but not how they come together.
	Biden apparently has issued rules, or the FCC has issued rules basically to treat the internet like a utility, which I thought was good.
	So I got my Homer Simpson.
	That's good.
	And then I read...
	Then I see other people analyzing this, saying it is Biden trying to control, regulate, and nationalize the internet, which is bad.
	And I don't know even which way to go.
	You sent me the guidelines, the broad guidelines, and I can't digest it.
	So flesh it out to make sense to me.
	They want to treat the internet like a utility, impose net neutrality, which I always thought was good.
	You don't want people banning or companies banning, censoring, etc., etc., for the content of the speech.
	Where does it become bad?
	Well, I mean, really, what you have is a mixed deal.
	So you have aspects of this regulation that I think are actually good and positive, as you note.
	And then you have aspects that are risky and dangerous for censorship and state control.
	And the truth is somewhere in between.
	The problem is a lot of the Republicans and conservatives pushing that net neutrality means the government's going to run everything.
	Quite frankly, aren't doing it because they really care about censorship or state control.
	They care about rate regulation.
	They care about protecting the broadband and big tech companies.
	When you see people who have been a long time in the pocket of big tech companies, who never said boo about big tech censorship, suddenly deeply concerned about whether Biden's taking over the internet, be a little skeptical of what their motivations might mean.
	Because as you note, there's aspects of this that are good, and there's aspects of this that are risky.
	And people are getting either the glamorized version or the demonized version and not getting a balanced version.
	It's kind of like Israel, right?
	It's either all love them or hate them, and you can't get any geopolitical realism from anybody.
	Everybody loses their mind.
	Mearsheimer loses his mind.
	McGregor loses his mind.
	Everybody just starts to go berserk when the word Israel comes up.
	Dave Smith, God bless his soul, he loses his mind.
	Tom Woods, God bless his soul, loses...
	They lose their mind when it comes to this topic.
	Ben Shapiro, he's always...
	I mean, he lost his mind years ago, but I mean, now really loses his mind when it comes to this.
	Even people like Joel Pollack and others at Breitbart that I like, they kind of lose at least a little bit of their mind when it comes to this topic.
	Mark Levin, he's totally gone.
	But the same sort of imbalance occurs in this FCC internet debate.
	Because now the legal question is, the FCC has the right under the Communications Act of 1934 to govern telecommunications carriers.
	They also have the right to govern information service providers, but they have far fewer rights to govern the latter.
	Now the question is, can they just designate broadband providers, telecom, Rather than information service providers.
	Historically, the courts say, yes, the FCC has that power.
	From that power stems all of these rules.
	Here's the good part.
	They regulate broadband as a common carrier.
	That means all the common carrier duties apply, and that means a lot of censorship and other rules actually are less able to censor, less able to block, less able to do these things.
	More accessibility is supposed to be the driving purpose behind this.
	So, for example, a lot of the net neutrality rules, I never understood.
	Drudge hated them.
	Other people were scared of them.
	I mean, here's what the net neutrality rules actually say in the proposed rule.
	An internet service provider, a broadband company, Cannot block you.
	Cannot throttle accounts.
	Cannot do paid prioritization.
	This diminishes censorship, not increases it.
	It provides the possibility to improve access.
	And honestly, rate regulation doesn't bother me in the telecom context.
	So I'm for extending these.
	I've been treating them as common carriers all the way through.
	So I'm not going to suddenly reverse now because of the Biden administration.
	Where there's some legitimate concern is some of the other things they talk about in their notice, and people can send in comments on this because they only put this out in October because it's a notice of a proposed rule change, is first that they should be allowed the FCC to block certain internet service providers in the name of national security, in the name of public safety, in the name of consumer protection.
	That I would have a problem with.
	Because that's not power they've really ever utilized, but very rarely with foreign-owned communications companies.
	That just displaces the current problem of censorship and takes the power away from the company and gives it to the government, which is probably even worse.
	Exactly.
	For the net neutrality rules, I'm opposed to these other ideas they're saying that they can utilize in the context of treating it as a common carrier.
	And now that you mention this and you mention the price or regulating the prices, now that I think about it, one of the analyses I saw or the speeches was, I think it was McCarthy from about a month ago saying, you know, there hasn't been any inflation in rates and we don't want them regulating the rates.
	And now that makes sense in terms of what you're saying now to put that together.
	Okay.
	And what it is, is some of this is digital access, that broadband is not as accessible to a large part of the population as it could be, that it's very well present in urban areas, but not in rural areas, not in underserved economic areas, where it's just not economically competitive to provide it.
	But if you treat it as a common carrier, then you can require them to provide access there.
	I honestly have no problem with that.
	I mean, these are common carriers.
	So all the rules and regulations, they're like the public commons.
	And we've always recognized that there are limits to private property when you have a public monopoly over the public commons.
	That's a very different animal.
	And I've long made that argument.
	I'm not going to reverse now because the Biden administration wants to abuse that power in certain respects.
	We should focus on the abuse of the power, not the proper, correct use of the power.
	So that's where there's a lot good in these laws, and there's a fair bit dangerous.
	It's not a case of either no control or all control.
	There is a median in between.
	And by the way, conservatives should think about this because it's this very power of the FCC that they are themselves championing to take away TikTok because of its Chinese influence.
	So which is it?
	Do you think this power exists or not?
	That they're cheering for and limiting foreign ownership of real estate in America.
	Similar kind of power constitutionally.
	So it's strange that they suddenly take objection now when this very power they themselves are citing for political objectives that they want.
	And I think they haven't thought this through thoroughly because it's the Biden administration and because so many conservatives are really running a lobbyist campaign disguised as a public policy campaign.
	And a lot of stuff that's being circulated is being circulated by big broadband providers who don't want to be a common carrier.
	And the common carrier provisions is a key to limiting the power of big tech in ways conservatives generally want.
	And that's where they should be careful about.
	There's a balanced approach here to take with how this is done.
	Okay.
	Very cool.
	Robert, if I may...
	Constitutionally, here's their problem.
	Even though there's this long history of precedents saying they can just designate somebody a telecom provider rather than information service provider, in the current economic structure, this may be called a major question.
	And the major question doctrine set aside, and they may also completely eviscerate cheffron deference.
	And the Supreme Court may come in and say, maybe this is a good policy idea, maybe it's not, but it's for Congress to establish.
	These limitations on broadband, not the FCC, when this hasn't been explicitly given to the FCC and it's an impact question.
	I think constitutionally they're not likely to ultimately prevail, despite the long history of them always winning on this precise question for the last 20 years.
	Okay, fascinating.
	Now, Robert, before I get too far behind, because I think I already am.
	Let me deal with some Rumble brands.
	Hold on, stop right there.
	Because I didn't get to any of these.
	Devon Graham 31, Donna Brazile is married to Mayor Muriel Bowser in a lesbianic relationship.
	Imagine it.
	I had no idea that that's even true.
	Devon Graham 31 says, Imagine the lesbianic connection between...
	I don't know what I'm reading right here.
	Okay, I have no idea what that was, but thank you very much, Devin.
	Now I think I understand it a little better.
	Hawk Gomez says, "Viva, I'd like to send you a rather longer message.
	I don't know where to send it, so I'd appreciate your guidance.
	I don't want to spam this chat." Can you find me on Twitter DM?
	That might be the best way because I still get those DMs from people who I'm not following.
	Ryby 94, big win for the right populism with Javier Mellon.
	I was Googling that to see if we could get an update.
	Thank you.
	I'm not your buddy.
	Guy says, I am not a sycophant for Israel, but it pisses me off with the disinformation occurring and people trusting a terrorist organization.
	I brought that up just to point out the flaws in people's reasoning.
	everyone's saying show me the pictures of the beheaded babies or it's propaganda then say oh no i believe everything that hamas tells me about the al-shafi hospital about the babies on incubate it's like they don't apply the same standards which shows the underlying bias i and i apply the same standards I don't believe anybody.
	And it's a very, very tough thing to deal with these days.
	Okay, Devin Graham, let me skip over this one.
	National security, urban...
	Okay, there's a threat to national security.
	Five dancing massages must be examined very closely.
	I'm not your buddy guy.
	Even this stupid argument on equivalency.
	What do you want Israel to grape...
	Okay, the same number of women, kill the same number of babies, etc., etc.
	Devon Graham, is ethnic cleansing okay when Israel does it to Palestine?
	Well, there's an argument now that they've changed the definition of ethnic cleansing genocide to include displacing of a population.
	So now technically people can use the word accurately, even though it doesn't mean historically what people understood it to mean.
	Devin Graham says, is Barnes too old?
	I'm not going to be mean to anybody here.
	I'm not your buddy guy.
	Did you see how China has removed Israel from its military?
	I don't think that's new.
	I think that's actually old.
	Because I remember that happening in the last Intifada.
	I'm supposed to join the IDF.
	At least it's better.
	Hey, Barnes, I'm sure on Tuesday on the Duran, I'll get a lot of...
	Well, when you're getting your Jew check, Barnes, how much do you like kissing up to the Jew?
	You can kiss the Jew ring, don't you, Barnes?
	Jew haters.
	That's the thing with these guys.
	Like, oh, no, my opposition to Israel is totally based on geopolitics.
	And then you just scratch a little beneath the surface and the Jew hatred just starts pouring out.
	They can't help themselves.
	But to the question, there is a common confusion about net neutrality.
	It does not mean there has to be equal content providers on both sides or equal access.
	It's not like the FCC rule involving talk radio.
	Net neutrality means they have to be neutral to the content of the provider.
	The internet service provider can't throttle someone or block someone because of their content if it's lawful.
	That's all it means in the context of this rule.
	And you can read the rule for yourself to confirm that.
	All right.
	We've got two more rumble runs.
	Chats that I missed are super chats.
	2020 election was most secure in history from not a band account.
	Oh, yes.
	That's a joke, by the way, guys.
	John, the man says, did the founders have a blind spot?
	Were they unable to foresee the obvious holes in the judicial system that allow for this childish leftist lunacy to go on?
	Not the real founders.
	In my view, the real founders are the anti-federalists.
	I say that because the entire Barnes family were anti-Federalists at the time.
	Voted no on changing the Constitution until the 10 Bill of Rights were added to it.
	And what they said at the time was this is too much power to the judiciary.
	And it was the elitist side of the founders that said, don't worry, the judiciary will work just great.
	And the anti-Federalists were once again, you look at a lot of the arguments anti-Federalists made, they were much more accurate than the Federalists were.
	about the problems of the Constitution.
	Franklin himself said it was a tortured compromise, and he just hoped it worked.
	So there were aspects of the Constitution that were always frail.
	The best aspects of it were the Ten Amendments that were not in the original Constitution.
	Bill of Rights that they were forced to adopt because the Anti-Federalists were winning in the court of public opinion so much that they had to promise to add those amendments in order to get secure passage of the original Constitution.
	Which, by the way, was illegal in a coup under the Articles of Confederation.
	But I'll occasionally get somebody to argue, can I argue I'm under the Articles of Confederation government or the Northwest Ordinance?
	And I'm like, good luck with that.
	Legally, you might have a claim.
	Practically, not so much.
	So you've got to deal with the reality of it.
	All right, now one more before we get into the next subject.
	I'm not your buddy, guys.
	Again, I'm not a sycophant for Israel, but call me crazy.
	But I can only conclude it is just simple Jew hatred.
	Otherwise, why are Jews in Canada or pick a country being threatened?
	The argument is going to be that they're not.
	It's only because they're supporting a genocidal apartheid regime.
	I mean, basically what's fascinating is how much confession through projection there is.
	Because the Palestinians are basically, have been built.
	On a segregated genocide regime of politics.
	What they believe in.
	And, you know, you can agree, disagree with Israel.
	You can hate, like, whatever.
	The failure for them to recognize who Palestinian cause is, is extraordinary.
	I'll get people to say, why are you so hostile to Palestine?
	I'm like, I'm not hostile to Palestine.
	I just listen to what they say and look at what they've done.
	Name the group that's engaged in terrorism once every 10 years on a guaranteed level for more than a century.
	The Palestinians are the only ones in the entire world that have that prominent achievement.
	And why is that?
	Study their culture.
	Look at the political viewpoints.
	Look at their cultural viewpoints.
	The people that have decided to stay in Palestine.
	Remember, there are plenty of Palestinians that have left and have nothing to do with the so-called Palestinian cause.
	But the ones that are there, they're not bashful about this.
	And for political correctness purposes, saying otherwise.
	Now, that does not mean...
	You can justify civilian casualties deliberately and intentionally.
	Those are two very different concepts.
	And I'll play the devil's advocate, but I'll also just, I can steel man the argument.
	People are going to say, and Robert, I've heard you say it, and it's the argument.
	They voted Hamas in.
	They voted Hamas in in 2006, and there haven't been elections since.
	So that's one thing to consider.
	We don't know exactly how much they are fully embracing.
	But here's the reality.
	You know who Hamas fears might take their power?
	More radical groups.
	I mean, that's just the nature of the Palestinian mindset, sadly.
	But it's been that way for more than a century.
	And in part, it's because nobody has called them on it with any consistency in large parts of the non-Israeli world.
	I mean, when I was alive in the 90s, there was a robust Israeli peace movement.
	There's not now.
	And for the same reasons.
	Bill Clinton was just talking about this.
	So this part, Clinton was like, I gave them, Palestinians, everything they said they wanted.
	I gave them all of Gaza.
	I gave them 97% of the West Bank.
	I gave them huge amounts of money in exchange for any land claims they could have ever had on Israel.
	And you know what?
	They said, screw off!
	Yasser Arafat said, I don't want to become like Sadat.
	So they don't want the definition of Pan-Arab nationalism, of Palestinian nationalism, is that no Jewish state exists, period.
	Until people realize that, they're not going to understand the conflict.
	Now, you can agree with that.
	You can disagree with that.
	But geopolitically, you can't pretend that's not the case.
	And that's what so many of these people are doing.
	Without embracing the position of the hardliners that say this justifies mass murder on a mass scale.
	Like that loony Israeli general talking about nuclear weapons.
	I can't believe it, but it's so stupid.
	It's so stupid because I don't even know how you use nuclear weapons on such a small...
	It logistically doesn't make sense, but it's just also rhetorically offensive for obvious reasons.
	And I also don't like hearing people say, turn it to glass and level it, whatever.
	Half the population is...
	People don't want to do mass bombing and all the other stuff.
	It'll be a fun discussion with the Duran on Tuesday, I'm sure.
	The chat's going to be aflame.
	Duran always tries to sort of just stay realistic, geopolitical analysis, and not give...
	That's the hardest topic to do that in, is the topic of Israel.
	Because people who love it or hate it to such a degree that geopolitical realism is very hard to find, sadly.
	But, you know, a place where we need some geopolitical realism is going to be the Supreme Court of the United States in some upcoming cases.
	Well, hold on.
	Before we even get there, we might just want to get the Israel war crimes topic.
	Oh, sure.
	Yeah, while we're at it.
	But let me just bring this one up because I want to address this one.
	Hold on.
	How do I find it?
	Where did it go?
	It says...
	Okay, hold on.
	Where is the best place to book and read on the Federalist Papers?
	Okay, Robert, where do we do that?
	On the Anti-Federalist Papers?
	I can find those.
	Okay.
	Pepe Pants says this, devil's advocate, what reports on journalism do you believe in this conflict?
	The same reports in news that lied about all the other stuff.
	We don't know what we don't know.
	That is the sad truth.
	Well, that is all that I'm saying.
	I don't believe anything.
	The one thing I believe is I believe that Hamas and the Palestinians do what they want.
	I take them at their word when they say this is our objective.
	Our objective is to abolish Israel.
	Our objective is to repeat the Acts of October 7th over and over and over again.
	I say, okay, that's what the Palestinian cause has been about for more than a century.
	So I take them at their word on that.
	Well, that would be not the glib, but the rhetorical response is, I don't believe everything the IDF says.
	I don't believe everything Hamas says when they come out and say hospital bomb.
	Or the reporters that were on, you know, taking photos of those horrific October 7th events working for the Associated Press and Reuters.
	What does that tell you about how unreliable the media is in the Palestinian world?
	And yet, the Aaron Mates, the Max Blumenthal's, the Glenn Greenwald's, they all lose any common sense when it comes to Israel.
	They will regurg Caitlin Johnston's, the Scott Horton.
	I mean, Scott Horton lied about Robert Kennedy because everybody on the anti-Israeli left is enraged that Kennedy is pro-Israel.
	And so they have the best.
	Peace candidate the left has proposed in arguably American history.
	And they're refusing to support him because they're so obsessed with their Israeli hatred.
	And Scott Horton went around lying to everybody in between excusing Bin Laden and excusing everybody else, saying that all the terrorism is Israel's fault.
	Hmm, that's funny.
	I thought it didn't come from Israel.
	I thought it came from Israel's critics, Scotty.
	But he went around lying about RFK's campaign.
	He said, Robert Kennedy has lost his entire field campaign.
	And I was like, hmm, since I know some of those people and it's about 50 plus people, how could that be?
	It turned out Scott Horton was just lying because he's a big fat fraud when it comes to topics like this.
	And how can you trust him on anything else?
	Whenever I hear someone call Gaza an open air prison, I completely disregard that person at that point.
	I'm like, you're not a serious person.
	You're not serious about this topic.
	McGregor has been saying ludicrous things.
	Turkey's going to get involved.
	Erdogan has been all talk, no walk his entire life about these kind of issues.
	This is not playing devil's advocate or playing semantics.
	There's some areas that are impoverished.
	And when I say I don't trust anything, I don't trust anything.
	They had also their videos that they were showing how, you know, the beach resorts and all these things.
	Bottom line, if people can't leave or travel freely, most people will call that an open-air prison.
	It just might be, you know, a better prison than others.
	Not open-air prison.
	That doesn't make any sense at all.
	It's hyperbolic.
	I mean, anybody with passport controls.
	I mean, by that definition, every country that has some level of passport control, some part of their population is in prison.
	That doesn't compare to an actual prison.
	True, but I would have referred, and I think I did refer to Quebec, as something of an open-air prison where we couldn't go more than three kilometers from our house.
	Well, when you had real lockdown restrictions.
	Yes.
	And again, there, that's not Israel.
	that's mostly Egypt that has secured that border and won't let people in.
	And on the West Bank, mostly Jordan, not Israel.
	And the why people don't actually know or understand.
	They don't want to know.
	They don't understand that everywhere the Palestinians have gone, they've created a disaster.
	So nobody in the Arab world wants them.
	Jordan doesn't want them.
	Egypt doesn't want them.
	Lebanon doesn't want them.
	That's why, because every time they go in there, they try to overthrow the government and try to kill people.
	That's what happens when your entire movement is based on, legitimizes terror, as I mean, and some of it's, you know, it reflects a difference of opinion.
	I mean, Islam is never going to be a popular religion in the West, and definitely not in America, and frankly, for good cause.
	And, you know, it's one of those politically incorrect things you're not supposed to talk about, but it's like there's only one religion that has been used to justify terrorism for the last century.
	And that's been Islam.
	And it's not a coincidence because unlike Christianity, unlike Buddhism, unlike Judaism, unlike many of Mormonism, unlike other religions, Islam is unique at explicitly saying in its religious text and its supportive text that, hey, you can kill your enemy.
	You can enslave your enemy.
	You can rape your enemy.
	You can treat other religions as lesser people and destroy them and do whatever you want with them.
	Islam is relatively unique in that respect.
	It's because it arose in combination with political regimes who used it to justify their colonial imperialistic expansion.
	That's why it's always so ironic to hear Arab Muslims talk about how they hate imperialism?
	Hate colonialism?
	How do they think they got there?
	Now you could be like, you know what's fascinating?
	A bunch of Palestinians have convinced themselves they're really the original Philistines.
	I mean, that's how nuts this is.
	They're delusional.
	They make the Klan look like a group of moderate tolerance.
	This is just, you've got to deal with it as a reality.
	While at the same time recognizing that that doesn't mean that Israeli tactics are always morally good, legally good, tactically good, or politically good.
	You can have a balance between the two.
	But sadly, you can't if you just hate Israel.
	But take the war crime allegations.
	Aside from the double standards being imposed, you're seeing people on the right repeat left-wing Marxist nonsense.
	Just to even stop you there, even if you have a gripe against the Israeli government saying they're bombing densely populated civilian areas, knowing that there's going to be civilian casualties, some might say...
	That's pretty much every war since World War I. Some might say, welcome to more, it's a terrible thing.
	If they want to hold the Israeli government to war crimes and then want to pretend that Hamas is not the government of the Palestinians, even if we grant Israel has committed war, let's just say if.
	Hamas is the government.
	Are they not going to say that what they did on October 7th is a war crime?
	And now the new narrative, by the way, of the day is...
	We heard some of their apologist excuses.
	They're always so lame.
	We didn't plan on landing in a concert.
	But once we were there, why don't we just go rape and murder some civilians?
	We didn't know it was there.
	The Palestinian mindset that all the Scott Hortons of the world apologize for.
	But it is delusional where they say, oh, Hamas didn't know in advance of that attack on the concert.
	They were just there.
	And they saw it.
	And then Hamas gave the last minute okay.
	So they're not committing horrible war crimes.
	I've seen like a report.
	I mean, they use ambulances to transport troops in arms.
	They use hospital schools and mosques to make to fire weapons.
	Clinton himself talked about.
	This has been the case throughout their entire history.
	I mean, what?
	Palestinian terrorism?
	Is something new?
	It's something that's been steady.
	It's the one thing you can bet on year after year.
	Within the next year, within the next five years, within the next ten years, we'll have another Palestinian terroristic event towards civilians because we've had it consistently for more than a hundred years.
	More than a hundred years of uninterrupted terrorism by the Palestinians.
	And when they lose, they just bitch, whine, and moan about it and demand everybody come in and give them back what they lost because their terrorism failed.
	That's the Palestinian cause writ large.
	And that's why nobody sane supports them.
	While at the same time, the arguments for Israel committing war crimes, they're very weak.
	They're insubstantial.
	So the International Criminal Court filings, who cares?
	Israel's not a member of the International Criminal Court.
	The International Criminal Court is a complete joke.
	It's a political hack.
	It's the places where people like Jack Smith got tutored on how to abuse the law.
	They're trying to put the death penalty on Putin, for crying out loud.
	What's fascinating is, GodblessKim.com, he recognizes the International Criminal Court as a joke when it comes to Putin, and then magically it's a very important case when it comes to Israel?
	Come on, quit losing your mind, bro.
	The allegations of war crimes, for the most part, are very weak.
	There are examples of it in the past against Israel without question, like there is against the United States, like there is against every government in the world, though it would still pale in comparison to the criminal record of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian leadership.
	What would be the best example that you can think of offhand of a bona fide, quasi-legitimate accusation of Israel war crimes?
	Would it be Sabah Shatila massacre?
	There's one throughout history where there's substantial evidence that they knew it was a civilian target that did not have a military purpose of the attack.
	To me, what people are kind of ignoring is the laws of war.
	The fact that you're going to inflict more civilian casualties on your enemy than were inflicted on you is not the definition of proportionality for war.
	Proportionality is defined.
	Here, Joel Pollack for Breitbart has been very accurate at defining this.
	He's a lawyer himself as well.
	The proportionality is dual use.
	America has used dual use more than anybody.
	And what does dual use mean?
	If the civilian infrastructure could be used...
	For war purposes.
	Don't even have to prove it is.
	Just could.
	Then it's a legitimate target.
	We've bombed the hell out of everybody.
	We use bombing far more than Israel ever has.
	We use it more than any country in the world has.
	We firebombed Tokyo.
	Killed a lot more people than the nuke did.
	We firebombed Dresden.
	Even though it was a place of anti-Nazi resistance.
	Some people say the Allies firebombed Dresden because Germany was doing the I mean, they called Curtis LeMay.
	Curtis bombs away LeMay because of how much he loved doing it.
	I mean, there's a reason why all the generals from World War...
	So many of the generals from World War II portrayed in Dr. Strangelove.
	He's portraying actual generals in that film, by the way.
	People don't know it.
	They're based on very specific characters.
	Mark Grobert has talked about this with Eric Hundley on America's untold stories.
	I think they're going to be in...
	Aren't they going to be in...
	They're in Texas.
	They're in Dallas right now.
	They're having their show.
	They've been in Dallas since Friday, so they're very busy.
	At the 60th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination.
	But all those generals had no problem with nuclear weapons.
	Why?
	Because they were like, nuclear weapons are less destructive than what we did in World War I and World War II in terms of civilian casualty losses.
	So proportionality has been defined legally.
	And again, this is here...
	Good Logic did a good breakdown.
	He said all of international law is not quite law in the same sense, in that you don't have an established code and an established agreed court that enforces it.
	You have international customs and practices.
	You have treaties and conventions that have been adopted over time.
	And they're a source of authority, but they're not often a binding or determinative source of authority.
	Unless you're a signer or signatory to that convention or treaty, such as the Geneva Convention for Prisoners of War, and so on and so forth.
	But whereas almost all of the Hamas tactics are war crimes, by definition, very few of the Israeli tactics, in fact, Israel tends to go out of its way to avoid the adverse consequence of treating Hamas as the military enemy that it is.
	I mean, look at how carefully they tried to go into that hospital that is clearly the staging ground of Hamas activities, that has tunnels underneath connected to Hamas.
	It had been reported by Hamas-oriented groups as a command center for Hamas going on decades.
	Why?
	Because way back when the Israelis fully occupied it, it was an Israeli command center.
	That's why they knew it was likely the Hamas command center.
	But did they bomb the hotel to a hospital?
	No, they didn't.
	We've done that in the United States, World War I and World War II.
	I mean, again, we nuked.
	We firebombed entire civilization, knowing that it was going to be 90%, 95% civilian casualties, 99%, 99.99% slaughterhouse.
	Women, children, everybody included.
	Why?
	Because we believed it was militarily necessary to defend our soldiers and our people.
	And now you can argue about that.
	But study how nuts the Japanese fascism was.
	It's almost as nuts as the Islamofascism of the Palestinians.
	So to those people that say we shouldn't have used it, why did we drop the second one?
	They are asking the wrong question.
	Why didn't they settle after the first one fell?
	Why is it that they actually tried to kill the emperor before he could do a peace deal in Japan?
	Here it's...
	Hard geopolitical realism that is just not often dealt with.
	And it's mostly hatred of Israel that motivates this very partisan interpretation where all of a sudden all the laws and customs that we should respect and recognize get eviscerated.
	And the problem with that is it does allow the hardliners in Israel to commit real violations because people are used to hearing wolf being cried about Israel.
	And what happens is that means Israel's hardliners can say, oh, this is just another exaggeration.
	This is just another false accusation.
	This is just more Jew or Israeli hatred.
	And they have an easy premise because they can point to the lies that people like Scott Horton tell and that so many of the others on the anti-Israeli left tell.
	But there clearly are limitations.
	Israel has, I think, been, you know, you can legitimately make cases for a range of cases of treatment of Palestinians in a range of contexts as war crimes, but it's mostly exaggerated their degree of it, and the recent issues don't show war crime behavior, in my opinion, but under the law, now you can maybe disagree with that law, but down deep what you're saying is you disagree with war.
	You're saying war is illegal.
	War is immoral.
	Yeah, it's a position I many times have sympathy and empathy towards.
	It's just not a geopolitical, realistic one to have.
	And I'll just preface so that nobody thinks when I reference the Sabra Shatilla that I'm going to misrepresent it.
	That is often cited as one of Israel and Ariel Sharon's biggest war crimes.
	And people think it was actually Israel or the IDF that perpetrated the massacre against Palestinians in a refugee camp when it was actually, I forget what the Christian militia was called, but the accusation that Israel is responsible for that was that they were the guards while Christian militias broke into a Palestinian refugee camp and killed Thousands of people over a few days.
	And people don't even know that because they hear the word and they think Israel did it themselves.
	That relates to Lebanon because when the Palestinians came there, they tried to overthrow the Christian majority government and has caused the disaster that Lebanon has been ever since.
	You just read the Wikipedia and it's like that massacre was in response to another massacre that the Palestinians carried on the Christians and they attempted assassination.
	It's like massacre after massacre, retaliation.
	For one act after another.
	Okay, Robert, before we go, before we move on, before we move on to this, let me just...
	Yeah, we got a lot of great SCOTUS cases.
	I know, I know.
	So let me read this.
	Independent of all the Israel stuff.
	We're going to get off this after this.
	I'm going to read these chats.
	Sad Wings Raging says, Palestinians kill children, then hide behind their own children.
	A blithering skinheads.
	Sports fish.
	Well, and there is video, but you have to take it with the skepticism that...
	Hamas says Israel just bombed civilians.
	Israel says Hamas is executing Palestinians that are trying to flee.
	And you don't know what sense to make, but you can make your own sense of it.
	Sportfish 177.
	Barnes talks truth to power.
	And for anyone who lives in the U.S. that thinks Israelis are occupiers, you are the occupier too, unless you are Native American, Indian, hypocrites.
	And even then you're not.
	Almost every Native American tribe wasn't born where they were at when we got here.
	almost every single one took over from other Indians.
	So everybody, Take Russia, right?
	Most of modern-day Russia wasn't born that way from the duchy of Moscow.
	The duchy of Moscow wasn't that big when it started out.
	You know what they did?
	They went and conquered it.
	They went and occupied it.
	Everybody everywhere is a conqueror-occupier.
	So that's when I see these right-wingers start using these left-wing victim narratives that deny agency to the Palestinians and thereby deny accountability and responsibility to them.
	Also, we're really holding them in contempt as a form of pity, like the left does in general to its so-called victim class.
	That's why liberals, for example, are notoriously more racist by almost any social interaction mechanism.
	It's always the liberal guy traveling through the black neighborhood that suddenly the liberal lady's putting on the locked door, double-checking, making sure everything's locked real quick.
	I've had that experience with some liberal friends of mine.
	I was like, uh-huh, yep.
	They're the more racist in general.
	We'll see how it all progresses.
	It'll be fun to talk with the Duran.
	I'm sure they can't wait for their chat to be lit up by discussing any aspect of this on Tuesday.
	It'll only be one of the topics, because there's so many good topics.
	The great Argentinian elections, what does it mean?
	Spain, what the heck's going on in Catalonia?
	Why was Tucker Carlson just there?
	What is the backstory there?
	What is the continued fallout from the Zelensky curse?
	One side effect of Israel is that Zelensky's not in the news anymore, and some of his money and cash is getting diverted.
	And, like, the meme is, I said Himars, not Hamas.
	Himars, not Hamas.
	You know, from Zelensky.
	You know, he's going to have to settle soon, or most of Ukraine is going to be back to speak in Ruski.
	But it'll be a fun conversation on Tuesday, even with all the haters can pour in.
	Just remember, if you want to troll...
	You gotta pay the toll.
	And by the way, just for everybody asking, Barnes is not Jewish, but as many an anti-Semitic...
	I'm Shabbos Goy!
	I'm Shabbos Goy, Barnes!
	I do like the picture of me, though, as the meme with Nick Fuentes as an Arab terrorist and me as an old Jewish scholar.
	I was like, that's pretty good.
	I look like good logic's dead.
	I'll stick with the more politically correct one, which is you don't have to be a Jew to be Jewish.
	So Robert is Jew-ish by many people's standards.
	Okay.
	Oh, I hate that subject, Robert.
	We're over it and we've done it.
	Now, Florida.
	Let's just, you know, talking about moving to Florida.
	All right, so what happened here?
	This is Florida.
	They passed a law.
	I don't know how the law was actually stayed because of deemed unconstitutional, which prohibited bars from knowingly allowing in children for adult-themed events.
	That's as far as I understand what the original law was supposed to be.
	Anything that would be considered obscene for a child to see.
	And the law was challenged by a bar.
	Hold on, the name of the bar was...
	Oh yeah, Hamburger Mary's.
	Hamburger Mary's.
	Which, by the way, I once went to Hamburger Mary's in Palm Beach.
	And then I was like, man, the bartender's awfully nice.
	And then I was noticing, I looked around, I was like, oh, I'm in a different kind of bar.
	Literally, I needed to protect my ass to get out of there.
	But Hamburger Mary's has that reputation.
	First of all, I did not know that.
	There's nothing wrong with that.
	That's a time-filled joke, right?
	Not that there's anything wrong with that, Robert.
	You go to Hamburger Mary's.
	I presume it's a gay bar of sorts, or a gay-oriented bar.
	At least the one in Palm Beach here was.
	Robert, I don't want to draw.
	I don't want to...
	And they challenge it and say, well, that's a violative of our First Amendment rights.
	And a court, I mean, the lower court said, yeah, it is.
	Presumptively, we don't think you're going to succeed on the merits.
	We're going to stay the application of the law.
	But, Robert, if the judicial system is what it is, you take it with the good, you take it with the bad.
	What was it now that the Supreme Court did not hear the case because they said, we're not going to undo the stay, and so the stay will stay pending adjudication on the merits of the disputes?
	Because you don't have a chance.
	Sorry, go for it.
	And it's because Florida only challenged one aspect.
	Now, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch would have reversed the stay.
	This is an issue we talked about all the way back to COVID and Trump's immigration orders, which is the...
	Federal courts are only supposed to have the power to enjoin the parties before them.
	The issue is here, what they took up to the Supreme Court was not the First Amendment ruling, but what they took up to the Supreme Court was the application of the law to places other than hamburger marriage.
	And what Kavanaugh and Barrett stepped in, and they were the ones to deny, they were the two key votes to deny the reversal of the stay.
	Because they said this case isn't useful for that question of federal jurisprudence over injunctions because of the First Amendment context, we often have approved broad injunctions outside of the parties, which they're right about.
	So what it reflects is also, I think, Barrett and Kavanaugh and Roberts, what I said when Kavanaugh was nominated, and when Barrett was nominated, quite controversially, was that these people were going to vote more with Roberts than they were going to be voting with the Scalia's of the world.
	And that has been, whereas I thought Gorsuch would be a true libertarian, populist-oriented conservative in the Thomas mold, and he has become that.
	But consistently now.
	Kavanaugh and Barrett want to stay in the middle.
	They don't want to jump into some of these controversies.
	They're going to be deferential to corporate power, deferential to state power in general.
	But on these cultural topics, they're being careful how they step in.
	And I think that was a little bit of a pretext to avoid the substance because they could have got to that substance without getting the issue they were talking about.
	But it will get to the substance.
	Well, right now it's at the 11th Circuit and then that final, the First Amendment ruling will presumably go up to the Supreme Court.
	My recollection when we discussed this law before is that it probably could have been better worded.
	On certain aspects.
	So that was some of the limitation on some of these words.
	But a lot of these are liberal judges who think that trainees should have access to your kids.
	They should let, you know, have adult-themed shows at bars, allow children in knowingly, but it's in the name of diversity and inclusion and not transphobia.
	Sex education.
	I was discussing with Nick Ricada last week and Megan Fox.
	I saw some of that.
	The First Amendment when we had against...
	Against Wauwatosa, the school board, for trying to censor Megan Fox.
	But all of that arose from the fact that Wauwatosa was teaching young school children things that most of us would call obscene.
	And it's like, what are you doing doing that?
	They didn't like being exposed for that, so they tried to silence and censor.
	Speech, which we successfully sued and got a nice settlement on.
	But it reflects the ongoing, a lot of the liberal judges believe this is just fine.
	They think it's part of good sex education, of normalizing these deviant behaviors and what most people consider obscene conduct for children to see.
	Robert, we have hit, if I'm not mistaken, 20,000 live viewers right now.
	I've forgotten to do this, and it's fortuitous that I forgot to do it.
	Some people were saying that politics ruins everything was too critical, too negative, and didn't have a positive connotation to it.
	So we will announce tonight our newest something about this.
	Looks like I want it as a bumper sticker.
	This is our newest thing, Robert.
	Populism fixes everything.
	I hope it's true enough philosophically.
	It's the response to politics ruins everything.
	It's on vivafry.com, the merch place where you can still get the Trump yes.
	Yeah, there, that's, see, I'm getting this.
	I'm getting this for my car.
	It's already, it's already met.
	How do I do this?
	I don't want to add to view.
	Okay, there you go.
	Populism fixes everything.
	That's nice.
	I like that.
	Yes.
	I might be bumper-stickered out on my car, but I'm going to do it anyhow.
	Populism fixes everything on vivafry.com.
	Okay, so that's Florida.
	So they'll deal with the merits, but in the meantime, the law will stay stayed.
	So you can take...
	Hey, you want to take your kids to a little drag show at a bar, Hamburger Mary.
	Hamburger Mary's.
	Mary is undoubtedly a reference to the Bible.
	And that is what it is.
	Okay.
	What's the next one we had there?
	We got a bunch.
	We got counseling censorship.
	We got wealth tax.
	We got car horns.
	We got solitary confinement.
	All four up at the SCOTUS.
	Okay, so the horn one is cool.
	The horn one was coming out of California, right?
	Yep.
	Okay, so the horn one was, Robert, call me a fascist.
	I did not mind the way the law was drafted.
	They said you cannot honk your horn for a non-urgent highway need because people were honking their horns in support of protests.
	The plaintiff or the defendant or whatever, someone was honking their horn in affirmation of a protest, 12 short honks, boop, boop, boop, boop, boop.
	And I appreciate it, and I think that it's nice to be able to honk your horn for a protest.
	If you have a political, ideologically neutral law that says you cannot honk your horn if it's not an emergency, Okay.
	They sued.
	And now I forget exactly what happened at the Supreme Court.
	So, I mean, the district court in the Ninth Circuit said it was fine, the state law in California.
	And even though the state could not produce any evidence whatsoever that honking your horn in support of a protest presented any form of traffic or safety risk.
	They couldn't cite any studies, any surveys, any examples ever in the history of the state.
	Of somebody honking their horn in a protest causing any kind of traffic problem in the history of the state.
	And just for the clarity, the issue would be that they enacted that regulation and they said it was First Amendment violative and they said, well, show me the reason, the logical reason to implement it, which is where I can sort of understand it.
	My goodness, they don't have any case that says honking your horn if it's not an emergency only creates more distraction.
	They had no evidence for that.
	And particularly honking your horn for a protest.
	So here the issue was they just had a broad rule.
	It said, never honk your horn unless it's an emergency.
	But the basis for that rule was just an assumption that honking a horn would be disruptive to somebody and that someone could interpret it as something other than a warning sign if it was allowed for anything other than a warning sign.
	Even though, quite frankly, when it's used in traffic is rarely as a warning sign.
	It's usually as an FU.
	Really as an emergency.
	Never have I heard a horn in an urgency, emergency situation to warn.
	Typically, if you're in that much of an emergency, you don't have time to say, you fucking asshole!
	You've talked me out of my original position, Robert, and you didn't even finish your sentence.
	Please go on.
	Yeah, so the First Amendment says if it's expressive conduct, so not speech, but expressive conduct, then you don't have to show...
	Compelling interest.
	You don't have to show the most narrowly tailored, but you do have to show a strong government interest and that you at least examined less restrictive alternatives to the restriction you had.
	And the problem here was the Ninth Circuit and the District Court disregarded that.
	Because the state didn't produce any proof that this was even met a legitimate government interest, nor that it was the least restrictive means to that, because they just had always assumed that it worked, not that it actually served the purpose they claimed.
	Randy Edwards' statement is a precise thing.
	I didn't realize I could do this.
	This is so cool now.
	I can just go like this?
	Oh yeah, look at that.
	On the Rumble Studio, apparently you can pull it up to the bottom.
	Robert, I'm just waiting for confirmation from our team that Rumble Studio is good to go and I'm going to be broadcasting with that only going forward.
	You can bring up Rumble, Locals, YouTube, all comments.
	Okay.
	If you go to a tailgate and you want to honk your horn because your team just won, take it.
	I can understand the public policy aspect.
	The problem right now is you get fined.
	The other thing I suspect here is this was probably a protest the cops or the state didn't like.
	And that's why they ticketed this person for honking at a protest.
	Because that is not normally done.
	So I think...
	So we'll see.
	I think the challenge to the law is up to...
	The Supreme Court hasn't yet agreed to take the case.
	So we'll see.
	But I think, you know, Carhawks are fun...
	You know, I thought it was a fun case.
	And it's the kind of case that's fun enough that maybe it'll get the Supreme Court's attention that will reaffirm First Amendment principles.
	This is Pudge.
	I haven't picked her up in a long time.
	We're going to see if she's pooping on me as we talk.
	She's a good dog.
	The dog...
	She's the Terminator of dogs.
	She will not die.
	Okay, sorry, that's not nice.
	I love her.
	All right, so that was the honking.
	So, sorry, hold on.
	What's the next step now?
	Well, it's up to the Supreme Court.
	She's only just filed her petition for cert.
	So I filed a petition, like the petition for cert I just filed.
	So it hasn't yet been taken or addressed yet by the Supreme Court, whether they'll take it.
	But I think it's fun enough that it might grab their attention, they might snag it.
	Yeah, and they could look cool for allowing people to honk, and they're gonna say, "Yo, the Supreme Court's not so not cool." Okay, awesome.
	Let me see.
	What's the next one, Robert?
	I'm familiar with these.
	Well, speaking of speech-conduct distinctions, one thing a bunch of governments are doing is trying to relabel everything professional ethics.
	Oh, yes.
	Okay, so this is the...
	Is it a psychologist?
	It's a therapist who cannot...
	It's the same thing we have in Canada.
	A number of these were, I was thinking like, oh, the honking case, similar to Canada.
	The therapy case, similar to Canada, where we have the conversion ban bill, which prohibits therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, Jordan Petersons of the world, from talking people out of transgenderism.
	It says it makes it illegal.
	Out of homosexuality.
	Some people actually want to be talked out of it, in as much as that's politically incorrect to say.
	Some people say, I don't want to feel this way.
	Help me.
	The government says, no, you can't help them go from gay trans to straight, but you sure as hell can help them go from straight to gay trans.
	And so this is a similar case.
	What state is this coming out of, Robert?
	Washington.
	All right.
	And so they basically, they've enacted a law.
	This was a petition for cert as well.
	Basically saying this is unconstitutional to criminalize my practice as a therapist because I can no longer even have discussions with my client without running the risk of running afoul of the law.
	Take it from there.
	And it reflects a more dangerous propensity that the Ninth Circuit greenlit in this case to relabel speech conduct because conduct has less restrictions on it in terms of what the state can do.
	Especially any rule that governs the content of that speech is automatically subject to strict scrutiny and great degree of skepticism as to the state's action.
	Whereas if you call it conduct, state can get away with a lot.
	And what they've done is they've misapplied an old doctrine.
	The older doctrine was that rules governing physical medical procedures were rules governing conduct, not speech.
	In other words, even if some part of it is your diagnosis, Your verbal diagnosis, the conduct, it isn't the diagnosis that's being limited.
	It's the actual procedure that can be limited.
	And they're like, that's limiting conduct, not speech.
	They've taken that and said, well, really what this is about is if it involves anything medical or professional, it's all conduct, not speech.
	Which ultimately will be applied to lawyers, psychologists, clerks, priests, doctors, you name it.
	It's how they used a lot of the medical professional licensure rules to go after dissident doctors during COVID.
	Saying, oh, no, no, that wasn't advice you gave.
	That wasn't a public comment you gave.
	That was medical conduct.
	And medical conduct is subject to a different level of state restriction and less judicial scrutiny.
	And so this case is big because the two other federal circuits have correctly recognized, unlike the Ninth Circuit, that this is speech.
	I mean, this is clearly speech.
	The law literally says you cannot talk about these things.
	And so that's a content-based restriction on speech.
	And just because it's disguised as professional ethics doesn't change anything about that.
	And so hopefully the Supreme Court takes it and reverses.
	I brought that up.
	That's just on point.
	I'm Not Your Buddy Guy says, just let that sink in, folks.
	For the state of the world when it becomes controversial to not want kids in sexual bars.
	Okay.
	What's the next one, Robert?
	Two.
	Left.
	One.
	This is sort of the black pill case.
	The other one is a white pill case.
	So your pick, which one we go first?
	Go black pill just so I can put it together in my head.
	Which one was the black pill?
	Oh, it was the prisoner.
	Yes.
	Yeah, there you go.
	So this prisoner, he was a black man.
	I had to look it up just to make sure because things don't really make sense sometimes, but sometimes it's just terrible.
	I don't like thinking this way.
	This is a prisoner who was in jail for, I don't know, it was a three-year sentence.
	It wasn't even that bad.
	It was armed.
	Not even armed.
	It was burglary, I think.
	I forget what the initial conviction was.
	But then he got convicted in jail of other stuff because he was locked in solitary confinement, bipolar, mentally ill, mentally unwell, put in solitary, not given sunlight.
	Air, circulation, exercise, any of this.
	And then penalized for one infraction after another.
	And the reason why I'm so sympathetic to this now is because Owen Schroyer is sitting in there for his 60-day sentence and has spent the better part of the 29 days now.
	In solitary, because he broke the rules, apparently, after his one week of solitary for bullshit COVID rules.
	And so, you get the unsavory characters without the means, without the ability to defend themselves because this guy's mentally ill, and I'm saying that non-judgmentally, mentally ill, manic, bipolar, whatever, has no lawyer, was not given legal aid, had to draft his own rebuttal to the memorandum, and had to finish his own handwritten rebuttal with, I can't finish this because he's so mentally unwell.
	He's been in jail for three years.
	It's basically caging an animal.
	I forget what the relative size of a parking space is how they defined his prison.
	Not no sunlight.
	Light all the time.
	No circulation.
	No exercise.
	He had to clean his own cell and because he's mentally unwell, didn't clean it well enough, I guess.
	And they wouldn't give him certain supplies.
	They said he had to pay for supplies to clean his cell.
	He had to pay for cleaning supplies.
	They then punish him for not cleaning his cell, penalize upon penalty and whatever.
	It's the most horrific thing that I could ever imagine.
	Three years, he finally gets out, and then he's suing for Eighth Amendment violations, I think, if I'm not mistaken.
	And then what happens?
	They don't take it up.
	The Supreme Court doesn't take it up.
	And then Katanji Jackson Brown writes the dissenting opinion, with which I think I agree.
	I agree with it.
	In principle, I just don't know if in law she's right because she made a distinction between Eighth Amendment violations in terms of penalties versus compounding penalties.
	Some triviality in law that the six justices got away with by saying, well, the original punishment wasn't violative of constitutional rights, and then they compound on each other, and therefore we can justify them.
	So, blackpilled.
	The guy...
	We'll not get, I mean, he's not going to get justice.
	He's not going to get any sort of retribution for this.
	What have I missed?
	No, I mean, and it's, again, the conservatives that are the problem.
	The three liberals wrote the dissent.
	Like, if people want to know why is Owen Schroer stuck in solitary confinement based on an unidentified violation of an unidentified rule for the entire term of his misdemeanor 60-day sentence, thank conservatives.
	Thank the Federalist Society.
	Thank conservative judges.
	Thank conservative jurists.
	Thank conservative lawyers.
	Thank conservative Republican politicians, because that's who created that law.
	They eviscerated the Eighth Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment clause, because they cower in front of the military-industrial complex.
	They cower in front of the prison-industrial complex.
	They cower in front of the prosecutorial and police abuse of power.
	That's the reality, and it's one that conservatives don't honestly address.
	When they tell me, oh, so-and-so is a great constitutionalist.
	Not on the Eighth Amendment, they often are not.
	On bail and cruel and unusual punishment, conservatives are often AWOL, and they're the ones often abandoning and eviscerating the Constitution from its plain words because they don't like the constituencies it protects.
	Highlight this, Robert, because this people will not ever be able to forget after tonight.
	Oh, it's just 60 days.
	He's only going to 60 days for speech.
	And then, oh, he goes only for 60 days and only it's five days or seven days for COVID, solitary confinement.
	It went from 60 days in jail for not, you know, people arguing over speech to 60 days, solitary confinement.
	That went from a bullshit two months in jail for a bullshit charge, conviction, whatever, to two months of human torture, period.
	And this case where I'm reading this, where they were talking about, they didn't give him one hour a month for exercise.
	He was locked in a cell that was the size of a parking space.
	And I don't know what type of car, but even give it a Hummer.
	He's in a cell and he has to clean his own shit and piss off the wall without tools because they don't give him the tools because...
	He has to pay for them.
	And then when he lashes out because he doesn't do it or whatever, then they punish him again.
	And then the conservatives said, well, the cumulative punishment is not something we're going to get into.
	And I find myself saying, holy crap, Katanji Jackson-Brown is right on this.
	Oh, completely.
	And so is Sotomayor.
	So is Kagan, just as Breyer and Ginsburg were before them.
	It's being good on these issues.
	The conservatives are the ones who are AWOL and abandoning the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
	And when people wonder why do the January 6th defendants languish in horrible conditions, why is Owen Schroer on a misdemeanor in basically 60 days of torture?
	Because solitary confinement is not just solitary.
	It's not just social isolation.
	The size of the cell is tiny.
	Sanitation is constantly not properly provided.
	Ventilation is constantly not properly provided.
	Light is constantly left on in such a way as to make it very difficult to sleep or focus.
	You are deprived of all social access.
	In this case, he was deprived of all exercise for three years.
	Three years they tortured this mentally ill man.
	And they got away with it because the so-called constitutionalists on the court didn't give a damn about the Constitution when it came to prisoners.
	And hopefully more people on the right, thanks to Dinesh D'Souza's police state, which we saw down at Trump's Mar-a-Lago, will start to recognize what D'Souza recognized.
	He was like, you know what?
	I was wrong about these Patriot Act laws.
	I was wrong about empowering the police state.
	I was wrong about these prisoner-inmate provisions, pretending that they're all given cushy treatment.
	Because now I see the horror that's happening to people that I know he himself experienced as a victim of the system.
	But the most disappointing case was that not one conservative judge would have taken up that case.
	Because if they would have granted cert, they all knew they would have to reverse because it was intolerable.
	The Eighth Amendment says deliberate indifference to a known risk to an inmate's safety or health constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, regardless of the reason for it.
	And what the Seventh Circuit said is you can torture all you want as long as you're not torturing for a trivial reason.
	And that's never been the law.
	That has never been the Eighth Amendment.
	Those Seventh Circuit judges, I've been in front of plenty of them, and they're often lousy on the issue of civil rights, were lousy once again.
	And mostly it comes from conservatives and Republican appointees and Federalist Society embraced individuals, like the guy who supported...
	Trump being off the ballot and supported Pence denying his role in 2020 was the guy who was the one who said, yeah, you can imprison an American without any due process of law and subject them to torture in the name of national security as part of presidential power.
	That's the dangerous statist.
	Quite frankly, fascistic side to the corporatist institutionalist right that has disproportionate influence in the conservative side of the legal academy.
	And this case is another example where Justice Jackson was the much better justice than every other justice on that court.
	Okay, let me just bring this up here.
	I'll do this.
	I have to take the critique as well.
	It says, still waiting.
	Two years, Viva Barnes interviewed Jovan Pulitzer, did the forensic part of 2.1 million ballot audit.
	Four times, he offered anyone to challenge him for his work.
	Well, you could put him and Dr. Shiva on, because Shiva has been one of Pulitzer's biggest critics.
	I only honked a dry attention to my finger.
	Some guy with cancer says, the Washington law reminds me of the moron Mueller, she wrote, wanted the government to license people to prevent misinformation.
	Yes, which Barack Obama's always been happy to do, too.
	I hope you're okay there with some guy with cancer.
	Sad Wings Raging.
	White Sparrow thanks you for helping her dog, Viva.
	I do wonder who that is.
	I'm going to have to look this up.
	Sad Wings Raging says, G. Gordon Liddy sued the prison and won.
	I miss G-Man.
	I don't know what that is, Robert.
	You know, Mark Robert and Eric Conley did a whole breakdown of Gordon Liddy's crazy career, which is just wild.
	He's a Watergate guy.
	But speaking of the more white pill SCOTUS moment is some promise we got from a case we've talked about several times before.
	But now the Supreme Court has taken the case, which is the wealth tax, repatriation tax.
	So, Kate, you might have to do this because I'm going to have to open up the lawsuit again.
	This is where they wanted to tax a husband and wife on reinvesting their profits into the company on unrealized gain.
	By saying, you didn't realize your gain, but you had it, and you're reinvesting it, but we want to tax you as though you had cashed it out, even though you reinvested it.
	Did I get it close enough?
	Yeah.
	I mean, the key is it goes back to the 16th Amendment.
	And the reason what's lurking in the background of this case, this is the mandatory repatriation tax pushed by Paul Ryan that Trump signed and that this aspect he shouldn't have signed.
	And it should tell you a lot about who Paul Ryan really is.
	Buried in this law that was supposedly about cutting taxes, supposedly about standardizing global taxes of corporations, that had a lot of good things in it, but as always with the Paul Ryans of the world, buried in it was one of the most dangerous tax laws ever passed.
	And it was disguised as a mandatory repatriation tax.
	But really what it was, it's Congress trying to assert their authority to impose a property tax, a national federal property tax, which Elizabeth Warren likes to relabel a wealth tax.
	But if you think it's going to start with a wealth tax, I remind you of what a congressman said in 1916 when they passed the Revenue Act of 1916.
	He goes, this tax, and when they passed the 16th Amendment before that, 1913, said this tax will not tax a hair on a working man's head.
	Well, you can see what it's done to my working man's head.
	That's how that tax is for.
	So the nature of this is buried in the mandatory repatriation tax is a right to tax you on your property.
	Earnings.
	And in this case, the tax allowed a tax even without you making anything.
	It was simply, did you have stock in a foreign company during this time frame?
	We are going to treat it as if you had a distribution.
	Even if you didn't have a distribution.
	Even if you couldn't have requested a distribution.
	Even if you had no control over it.
	So it's unretained, unreceived earnings.
	They're being treated simply for appreciation of the value of the stock.
	So the problem with this, of course, is this would allow a stock tax.
	This would allow a house property tax.
	This would allow a car property tax.
	You name it.
	A national federal property tax.
	And I made the same joke the last time.
	They'll tax you on the unrealized gains, but you will not get a deduction for the unrealized losses.
	Bullshit!
	That's absolutely the case under this provision.
	You don't get the losses.
	So the problem with that is our Constitution, back at the time they were designing it, the anti-federalist types, even within the Constitutional Convention, were deeply concerned.
	The Articles of Confederation didn't allow, didn't give any federal government taxing enforcement power for a reason.
	Didn't trust it.
	I mean, they'd just gone through a revolution to stop a centralized government from being able to tax them directly.
	And the most hated tax is what's called a head tax, a tax just for existing.
	It goes all the way back in old English history and before in almost every society and civilization.
	And people didn't want tax on their property either, just for owning a farm or anything else.
	And so the law was there'll be no direct tax without apportionment.
	And the goal was apportionment required the state.
	It made so that one state couldn't say, well, we're going to screw you.
	We're just going to tax the people in that state.
	And that was part of what was behind all of this, was this apportionment requirement is almost impossible in the modern age, and it was even then, to actually enforce, to actually do.
	You couldn't do a tax that honored apportionment without political massive backlash and procedural administrative bureaucratic enforcement nightmares.
	Throughout history, they have occasionally avoided this.
	There was a carriage tax that a bunch of justices said were okay, that somehow they claimed it wasn't a direct tax.
	That was garbage.
	But for the most part, the federal government relied on external taxes, excise taxes, tariffs, etc., for their control over the borders, where they did have taxing authority.
	During the Civil War, Lincoln used it as a pretext to put in an income tax before it could ever be fully struck down.
	They got rid of it in 1865, 1866.
	And then they brought it back in the early 1890s, went up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	The Supreme Court said, no, you can't do this.
	One justice dissented, the justice who dissented in Bruchaber, said, no, the income tax could be constitutional if you were only taxing gain.
	Now, what that always meant was unclear, but it means you're only taxed when you actually receive a gain.
	You weren't taxing property.
	You weren't taxing labor.
	You were taxing a gain you received from it at the point of distribution.
	But that was the dissenting judge.
	The 16th Amendment comes in.
	It says Congress doesn't have to worry about apportionment when it's taxing income.
	Definition of income is not in the amendment.
	Goes back up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	That dissenting judge is now chief judge.
	What do you think the chief judge says?
	The chief judge, in interpreting the Revenue Act of 1913, and it's, by the way, the reason why every Revenue Act since then, every Revenue Act of 1916 forward, it says, in lieu of the Revenue Act of 1916, they never mention the Revenue Act of 1913.
	And the reason for that is what the Supreme Court did in 1916.
	Pollock was the original case.
	Bruce Schaber was the follow-up case.
	So the dissenting judge in Pollock, now the chief judge in Bruce Schaber, he says, you know what the word income means?
	It means what I said when I dissented back in the Pollock case.
	I was right all along.
	And so what income is, is gain severed from the source.
	And that's the constitutional definition of income.
	And it's the limited constrained definition of income.
	Congress just can't label anything it wants income and thereby tax it.
	They have to accept my definition of income as being the 16th Amendment because of my dissenting decision back in the year.
	That's why Congress ever since has begrudged that decision.
	And has always wanted to expand its taxing power, so it decided to never define income ever again.
	Now, in the history of English-American, Anglo-American legal jurisprudence, that should mean every income tax is unconstitutional.
	But good luck finding a judge or an IRS auditor or politician who will go along with you, as the tax protester movement has found out, unfortunately, the hard way.
	They're not going to cut their paychecks anytime soon, and that's who do you think pays them?
	So, consequently, they've avoided this legal limitation of their power.
	And every now and then, they try to get a little bit more, and they try to get a little bit more, and they try to get a little bit more.
	I mean, that's why the definition of income is actually circular and self-referential, as the Supreme Court recognized in an issue about a decade ago.
	Because the word gross, it's called gross income.
	It's all income from income received.
	And you start to figure out, hold on a second, you still haven't defined income.
	And there's also a missing liability section.
	Who is it supposed to pay?
	That's because, again, they're trying to dodge what the limitations on their power are.
	And now the mandatory repatriation tax, they're going right for it.
	They're saying, we have the right to tax unrealized earnings, unrealized gains, and just pretend they're gains.
	So we're not taxing property.
	We're just taxing the increase in the value of your property.
	Which is otherwise known as taxing property.
	So that's why this case is as consequential to Congress's taxing power, and the power to tax is the power to destroy, and is the ultimate state method of control, is probably, in my opinion, the most consequential case before the Supreme Court this term.
	Was that the cert?
	It was the petition for cert, so they're going to hear it now.
	And the Supreme Court's already taken it, yeah.
	Okay, good.
	And the decisions come down by...
	By summer.
	So June 2020...
	It wouldn't surprise me if this one came down like February or March.
	Holy crap.
	Robert, before we even get into anything else, let me just share a screen one more time.
	This is The Guardian, so if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
	Argentina presidential election.
	Far-right libertarian Javier Millet wins after rival concedes, Robert.
	It turns out 133% inflation is not a good thing to get re-elected.
	That's Putin-flation, Robert.
	He didn't obviously run the proper campaign.
	Oh, what a loser.
	Just go with a Putin price hike and you'll get re-elected by 81 million votes the next time you have mail-in ballots.
	He wants to make the dollar the currency of Argentina.
	The American dollar.
	Yeah.
	Because he wants to take away Argentina's version of their central bank's entire power to operate.
	Okay, that's cool.
	I think I'm so ignorant.
	I don't even know the question to ask.
	What is the current currency in Argentina?
	The Argentinian peso.
	I think it's peso.
	And that's the one that's inflated out of control.
	And they also have a lack of access to the euro-dollar market, which is the, you know, Jeff Snyder really explains what the euro-dollar is.
	It's the U.S. dollar, but not really.
	It's the U.S. dollar, but it's never printed by any Federal Reserve or U.S. Treasury.
	It's printed on little numbers on a screen by big banks around the globe.
	Well, that sounds like the Federal Reserve, Robert, if I'm not mistaken.
	Yeah, but it's their own thing.
	It's private banks.
	So it's private banks that decided to issue their own currency.
	And they just called it the U.S. dollar.
	They started doing it more than half a century ago.
	And the inability to understand it is a big limitation on many geopolitical economic analysts to this day.
	And the person who best understands is someone who I want to get on a sidebar.
	Like History Legends, who was a lot of fun this past week, I want to get one on with Jeff Snyder at some point in the foreseeable future.
	Everybody watching now can tweet out a Jeff Snyder.
	20,500 people tweet out a Jeff Snyder.
	I didn't even know what the Federal Reserve was five years ago.
	Most ordinary people don't either.
	I've been trying to explain that to my friends on the right for quite some time.
	Though I'll probably have an announcement sometime soon.
	If Twitter and Elon Musk will ever reinstate George Gammon's account, I don't know who I've got to scream to and protest to get George Gammon's account reinstated, but someone hacked and stole George Gammon's account.
	He's pretending to be George Gammon.
	George Gammon is charged every single month for being a paying subscriber.
	And Elon's talking about he wants to make Exum a bank?
	Nobody's going to put money in your bank, Elon, if anybody can hack it and you can't reinstate it for months with someone with several hundred thousand followers and who's paying you money for the account.
	So hopefully he can reinstate George Gammon's account.
	Maybe in time for when we announce our lawsuit against the Federal Reserve on Freedom of Information Act issues, which will be forthcoming pretty soon.
	Maybe it'll be a Christmas gift to the Fed.
	Might be an apropos timing.
	Something tells me the Fed doesn't smell, doesn't celebrate Christmas.
	Well, they do.
	They just do it like the Grinch.
	What do we have next?
	We got four remaining cases.
	We'll figure out which one's here and which ones we'll discuss over on Locals.
	Big self-defense win in D.C. Malcolm X, the truth of his assassination, coming out again in another federal civil suit by a man falsely accused.
	Standing rights, including in this case, Black Lives Matter, their voting version.
	And what happens, be careful about those using those regular phones and not signal.
	Like, who knows at the T-Mobile who might be looking and go, ooh, that looks nice.
	I want to keep a copy of that.
	Let's do the self-defense case here.
	And I'm going to give everybody the link to Rumble so we can go over there afterwards for the after party.
	Because the self-defense, look, I know all of these cases.
	There you go.
	Come over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Robert, the self-defense case is a convicted felon who's not allowed to own a firearm, who, for whatever the reason, is on the street with some other people and gets involved in a drive-by shooting.
	However, he becomes in possession of a firearm, fires the firearm back at the people who are firing at him.
	His friend on the street dies in the shootout.
	And then the question becomes him being a felon who was not allowed to possess a firearm.
	And the question at law is, how did he become in possession of the firearm?
	And what's the time frame within which he has to relinquish lawfully, through whatever the means, a firearm that he was not lawfully entitled to own in the first place?
	Without explaining why I have my own personal questions for asking that question, Robert, what was the outcome in this case?
	So people forget that the Second Amendment right of self-defense is a Second Amendment right of self-defense.
	And so that even if you legally were not entitled to own a gun, if you were using it for self-defense, you cannot be convicted of unlawful gun possession or possession while a felon or any other related gun possession law.
	And the issue here was the D.C. lower courts were trying to Limit that to the moment of self-defense and said, okay, the moment you're no longer needed for self-defense, you have to drop it immediately and run away, which made no sense.
	What made more sense is that you had a reasonable amount of time to relinquish the weapon in a proper way.
	And as the court pointed out, that's more consistent with the Second Amendment self-defense right and the common law self-defense right being recognized in this exception to unlawful possession laws.
	In noted, the lower courts are kind of idiots, along with the dissenting judge in the case.
	They're like, you want people to just drop guns on the random street and run away?
	Why would you want that?
	You want them to return the gun in a proper, in a manner that at least has the risk of the gun being in the hands of wrong people.
	The way I read it is they don't want even convicted felons to pick up a gun to defend themselves, die, and be happy when it happens.
	Right.
	They want state monopoly on guns.
	That's what the gun control left has always wanted.
	And so they look for any pretext to do it.
	But it was the right decision coming from no less than the D.C. District Court of Appeals, which I think is the Supreme Court of D.C. This is the state court system, not the federal court system.
	But good ruling and a good Second Amendment ruling and reminding in the self-defense aspects and how broadly that can extend and expand.
	And they're correct about When you have to get rid of a gun to be able to keep that self-defense right against unlawful possession.
	All right, now before we head over to Rumble, of locals, sorry for the rest of this, I want to bring up some Rumble chats.
	Some guy with cancer says I'm doing much better than my prognosis.
	Thank you.
	I'm a tax accountant.
	The tax case makes me nervous because I'm sure the IRS would provide their usual terrible service but still put you in jail, says some guy with cancer.
	Looking at the avatar.
	We got I to the cloth E. Populism can fix my failing relationship?
	Yes.
	Everything.
	What didn't you read on that shirt, sir?
	It's a joke, but not a joke.
	I'm not your buddy, guys.
	I take back the stupidest idea I've ever heard of is communism.
	Taxing unrealized gains would destroy the economy overnight.
	It's possibly the stupidest idea I've ever heard of.
	Thanks to you, too, and Nick Ricada, I have become more of a constitutionalist than a party affiliate.
	I have become, quote, woke to the atrocities of the system.
	Thank you and God bless.
	Long live the Republic.
	A 6 '4 midget.
	Dude, you're not a midget.
	TX Texas Lady Jane.
	Larry Lawton of Jewel Thief got put in solitary and was tied down, nude, and cops peed on him, from what I understand.
	Because a lot of the people that are attracted to prison jobs are sociopaths, unfortunately.
	Not everybody, by any definition, but too many.
	And the people excusing them are the conservatives in Congress and the conservatives on the court, more than anybody else.
	What we're going to do right now, everyone is going to come on over to Locals if they want to see the rest of this.
	Yeah, Malcolm X!
	What's the real backstory?
	If it's my hush-hush, now is an official lawsuit that my hush-hush talked about a year or two ago.
	You can get at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com And remember, if you want, and we got a case about standing, when can you sue?
	This is the BLM version of voting rights, but it might have broader application to a case in New Orleans coming up in January.
	And a brief update on what happened in the meeting with the U.S. Department of Justice in the Brooke Jackson case.
	We'll have that over at Locals, where on the second pinned comment, you can still get...
	Amos Miller's Apple Butter and Support Free America Law Center before Thanksgiving.
	No, Robert, before we move over, can you send me the link?
	Because I'm trying to find the pinned comment, but I can't find it off my link.
	Send it to me in the private chat, and I'm going to post it now.
	Get your butts over to locals, people.
	You don't have to.
	If you don't want to, I think Salty Cracker is live sooner than later.
	It's so funny.
	Okay, hold on a second.
	I'm going to go to Privates.
	It's in Star.
	No, Private Chat.
	Put in the Private Chat, Robert, and I'll bring it up, and then I'll be able to bring it up.
	Because it's the Apple button.
	It's the third pinned one.
	Yeah, but I can't find any of the pinned ones.
	And it's not because I'm an idiot, although I am, but I just can't find it.
	Private Chat.
	But you were in the Rockstar parking today.
	Rockstar parking.
	Yes, I was.
	That was your wife's joke.
	Because it was a...
	Rock.
	So now you're trying to get me in trouble with Marion because I don't know her.
	Gosh darn it.
	Okay.
	Here is the link to Amos Miller's Apple.
	I'm going to post it as many times as I can.
	Nope.
	You've sent too many.
	Too fast.
	Please try later.
	Okay.
	Now we're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	What I'm going to do is end.
	So you're on the Duran, 1 o 'clock Tuesday.
	What do you have coming up this week, Robert?
	Oh, that's the main thing.
	It's Thanksgiving week in America.
	Oh, shit.
	That's right.
	Yeah, so we'll have a...
	So otherwise, just a lot of work.
	We're working on the Brooke Jackson case, the opposition to the motion to dismiss, and a couple of other cases that we got some big work on.
	Amazing.
	So we're going to end this now on Rumble.
	Everyone who's not coming over, enjoy your night.
	It's Thanksgiving week, which means my kids are out of school.
	My mother and father are coming from Montreal.
	So it's going to be an interesting week.
	Okay.
	Yeah, do Canadians celebrate Thanksgiving or no?
	We celebrated it like in October.
	So hold on, hold on.
	I'm going to do this.
	This might mess everything up.
	There.
	There.
	Yes, sir.
	That's where it is.
	That's my American flag.
	I'm going to bring this back here.
	And oh, it's all crooked now.
	Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
	We'll say happy Thanksgiving next week because Sunday will still be the next Thanksgiving week.
	The dogs have taken liberties on the floor.
	And I'm going to do one more thing before we go.
	I'm doing it.
	I don't care.
	No, hold on one second here.
	I'm going to go back to the stream and refresh.
	I'm going to give everybody the Amos Miller link so you can go get the fundraiser apple butter.
	You can get 8 ounces or 16 ounces of homemade apple butter.
	And now we're going to end it.
	We are ending it now.
	Everyone enjoy the night.
	I'll be live tomorrow, not Tuesday at 1. That's it.
	Go.
	Enjoy the night.
	-Mersh.
	-Oh, the dogs.
	The dogs.

▲