All Episodes
Previous Next
May 2, 2024 - Viva & Barnes
01:25:52
Trump Judge Contemplates MORE Contempt! TERRIBLE Bill out of New York; Daily Wire DRAMA & More!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I was going to start with a video that will give you indigestion, but I think we'll start with the sponsor that would prevent indigestion.
But I'm not playing the whole thing.
Most apples have been grown for sugar content.
Look at some of the labels.
Sugar bee apple.
Now, that ought to tell you what's in there.
How about a honey crisp apple?
That ought to tell you what's in there.
But if you're in the apple section, grab some crab apples.
One bite is going to tell you they're pretty doggone bitter.
They have more of what you're actually looking for, which is the polyphenols.
And these make a great addition to salad.
I'm not playing the entire thing because then there's going to be no purpose to go over and watch it, people.
Speaking of indigestion, which we might get today.
It's caused by potential toxins in the food that we think are so-called healthy foods that scientists have been telling us to eat with the fraudulent food pyramid.
By the way, Joe Rogan was just talking about this recently where they were saying, compare the so-called healthy fruits and vegetables or the healthy fruits today to what was in still life paintings from hundreds of years ago.
And the fruits are virtually unrecognizable because they've been bred or whatever it is, refined to be so sweet that sometimes they actually say they can't even feed them.
To zoo animals.
No joke.
It was on a podcast with Rogan.
I forget which one.
All that to say is that some toxins might be causing digestive issues.
According to Dr. Gundry, the guy who just saw, a world-renowned cardiologist, which is affecting millions of people nationwide.
Warning sides include weight gain, fatigue, digestive discomfort, stiff joints, even skin problems.
Dr. Gundry explains that these side effects are often mistaken for normal signs of aging.
I'm going to see if there's something about my sciatic nerve that can be resolved through diet.
Digestive issues typically take years, if not more, to materialize.
The good news is you can easily fix these problems for yourself from home.
It's very simple.
Go watch that video.
The description is in the link.
It is at gutcleanseprotocol.com forward slash viva.
That's gutcleanseprotocol.com forward slash viva.
We might play a few more seconds of this.
Because after years of research, Dr. Gundry has decided to release an informational video to the public for free, uninterrupted showcasing exactly which foods you need to avoid.
GutCleanseProtocol.com forward slash GVL.
Let's do it up 30 seconds.
Avocados are really one of the best foods that you can eat.
They're almost pure fat and fiber.
I eat a lot of those.
Fiber that your gut buddies love.
You will actually lose weight by eating avocados.
Good.
Stop tomatoes.
That's it.
Ooh.
Hold on, I want to see.
Tomatoes good or bad?
I'm going to say bad.
Now, remember, tomatoes are not a vegetable.
They are a fruit.
And the scary thing about tomatoes is that the peel and the seeds have lectins.
In fact, fairly nasty lectins.
So if you have issues with joint pain, arthritis, this is not your friend.
Stop.
I'm going to leave a little bit of mystery for everybody.
As I welcome everyone to the stream, And share the link here.
Link here, and it's in the description, so check it out.
I don't know.
I'm going to have to watch that to the end.
I saw, it's very funny, I've been getting ads for sciatic nerve pain, and it's very weird.
Some of them say, don't drink cold water.
Good afternoon, everybody.
I forgot.
What's amazing is, like, I don't go live with news coverage for a day.
Yesterday, I had Kareem Asad on.
We were talking about some madness up in Canada.
I don't go live for a day.
And the news builds up so fast, you should see my tabs that I have in the backdrop because they're wild.
It's Trump.
It's, oh, Glenn Greenwald dropped.
I would call it something of, not a groundbreaker, earth-shattering, but, you know, something that doesn't necessarily make the Daily Wire look good.
Through their conduct.
I will steel man the Daily Wire's position when we get there.
And a bunch of other stuff, you know, AstraZeneca, just some small news there.
A ton of stuff that we're going to talk about today, but we're going to start off with, before we head over to Rumble exclusively, what's going on with the Trump trial.
But before we get into any of that, people, I have been irresponsible in making sure that I am not live, or that I am in fact live, across all the various platforms.
Humberdue says locals.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Hold on one second.
Humperdoo says locals, locals, locals.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Son of a bee sting.
Oh, Viva, you damn idiot.
I added the RTP.
I'm sorry, guys.
Hold on.
Locals clip added.
Did I not hit save?
Let me just double check.
Locals, hold on.
It's coming.
Thank you, Humperdoo.
One.
Step two.
It's just me and you.
Step three.
Okay, and we're going to...
No, I know that I saved it.
I know that I saved it.
Okay, now I'm going to go down here and save.
Do carnivore for a month and see how you feel.
I eat a ton of meat, but I also eat a ton of vegetables.
And then I also binge like an idiot.
Okay, set that aside.
Let me go make sure and refresh on locals.
I know that I was...
Sorry, guys.
I think I must have forgotten to hit save.
There's my ugly punim.
Locals, how's it going?
Sorry about that.
If you missed the intro video, it was drgundry at gutcleanseprotocol.com forward slash viva.
gutcleanseprotocol.com forward slash viva for a video on all of the good fruits to eat and the bad ones to avoid.
Interesting information there.
Okay.
Now, for those of you who are new to the channel.
And you don't know who I am or how this goes.
Viva Frye, David Frye, former Montreal litigator, current Florida rumbler, talking law, doing long-format interviews.
I'm exclusive with Rumble.
And what we do, we vote with our eyeballs, we vote with our feet, and we vote with our dollar.
We start off on YouTube, Rumble, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com, the best, most above-average community out there anywhere.
We stop after a certain period of time on YouTube and we head over to Rumble.
And then when we're done with the stream on Rumble, we go over to the locals for the after party.
These beautiful things called Super Chats, YouTube takes 30% of that.
So if you want to support me and the work that I do, there's a number of ways.
Sharing is free.
Sharing is caring.
You can go over to Rumble.
Let me make sure I have the thing open here.
And they have these things called Rumble Rants, which...
Rumble takes 20% typically, but I think for the rest of the year, they take 0%.
The best way to support?
VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
$10 a month or $100 a year if you get the entire year.
Now, someone on Rumble is saying, sound on Rumble, sound on Rumble, sound on Rumble.
And I'm not sure if that's trolling, but it looks like it's working.
Viva, your personality, strong thumbs up, stay honest, and inform us some more.
Well, we'll do it today.
The joke about the, you know...
More gag, less justice.
I'm going to go over some inner-city press coverage in real time, but the story of the day is that Trump is debating contempt yet again in front of Justice Marchand.
I don't think we say justice in the States.
Judge Marchand.
Judge Juan Marchand, who, as I have been making known since it's been made known, and will continue to say it because the gag order applies to Trump, but not to...
Legal analysts and commentators, Judge Juan Marchand, who has demonstrable, visible, palpable, vitriolic disdain for Donald Trump.
Back in 2019, according to Judge Marchand's daughter, he and his daughter were having a discussion, and he said to his daughter how he hates politicians who use Twitter.
This is obviously referencing Trump.
It's unpresidential, unprofessional, etc., etc.
His daughter...
Who's an executive or a president or involved in a PR firm that does political work for Adam Schiff, a political action committee from the Democrats, I forget what it's called, raising tens of millions of dollars as a result of this prosecution.
He refused to recuse himself, issued a gag order against Trump, issued an expanded gag order against Trump yesterday or the day before.
I think it might have been yesterday.
Issued a ruling on the first ten charges of contempt and found Trump guilty.
Criminal contempt for nine of the ten charges.
For stuff that's retweeting an article from the New York Post about Michael Cohen being a pathological serial perjurer.
Among other stuff.
He's before him again this morning on contempt.
Now hold on one second.
On the issue of the gag order.
Many of you may not know.
And if you don't, you will now.
I was on with the unusual suspects yesterday.
And I do.
I go there to visit, and they invite me, and I love the show, and I love the gang.
And I had to give our boy, Joe Nierman, good logic, the shout-out that he deserves.
My segment yesterday was on the Donald Trump gag order contempt finding.
Go check this out at TheUnusualSuspects on Twitter.
Why they aren't streaming on Rumble?
I don't know.
I'll have to nudge someone at Valuetainment.
But I'll, for the time being, here's the highlight that I posted to Twitter.
You make a good case for it?
Like, can you name a case that a gag order is in place?
Yeah, witness identification, disclosure, potentially of some evidence that other potential witnesses might then destroy.
You could think of very rare, I mean, extreme examples, or in the case of minors.
You could think of some cases where...
The exception to the rule of public hearings can possibly be warranted.
In this case, the judge is saying we got to gag Trump on his First Amendment rights in order to protect the administration of justice.
Bullshit.
Allowing people their constitutional rights is the administration of justice.
First of all, a little shout-out to Joe Nierman.
Good logic.
A New York attorney actually filed, it's a Rule 78, I forget what it's called, to challenge the gag order.
Joe Nierman, good logic, L-A-W-G-I-C, went to court.
And said, this gag order is unconstitutional, but not just for Trump.
For my rights to hear what he has to say.
This is an election season.
I want to hear what the candidate has to say.
It's not his right to speak only.
It's my right to hear.
And then the judge officially said, no, come back with a bigger name and maybe we'll reconsider this.
In the ruling, the judge in the conclusion ordered Trump to remove two truth posts.
Or two posts from his campaign website.
I mean, you've seen this.
I put out a short video about this yesterday.
He ordered him to remove two posts about Michael Cohen from the campaign website.
To which I tweeted out, this is election interference.
You're telling a candidate to remove information that his...
Clients are his clients, that his constituents want to see.
Remove it from your campaign website in an election season while you're being tied down for six weeks of trial, gagged during the six weeks of trial.
This is lawfare election interference, and everybody has to see it for that.
And the judge really wants to put Trump in jail.
It'll be...
See it?
Say it.
If you see something, say something.
When you see election interference, say something about the election interference.
What do I have to say for the end of this?
Be glorious if they cross that Rubicon.
And he took those tweets down, correct?
Or the posts on True Social.
I'm not going to call him a coward.
I believe he did remove them as per the judge's order.
The question is going to be if he comes out and tweets something, gives his presser in the morning, judges just waiting.
They're just waiting.
I don't know if you can hear, but there's a dog vomiting in the corner of my home studio.
This is why...
Not only can I not have nice things, but I can't have guests at the home studio.
So that was yesterday.
That's a highlight from my segment on The Unusual Suspects, where I talked about the contempt ruling yesterday.
They're back before the judge this morning, and Inner City Press is live-tweeting.
I don't know how he does it unless he's just dictating, but it's amazing what Inner City Press Matthew Russell Lee is doing.
Thank you, Not A Banned Account, for being a factual source for news.
See, not knowing if I think not a banned account is a parody account, I don't know if this is intended to be.
I'm taking it as a compliment.
Thank you very much.
They're back before the judge today.
The trial is going to keep going on.
The trial is revealing nothing but the most egregious bullcrap of all time.
Barnes was spot on, and he blew my mind Sunday night when he said, David Pecker, the...
Braggs Pecker.
You got Pecker, you got a gagger, and you got...
Okay, there's a lot of stuff going on in this case.
David Pecker, what was he?
The executive or the president of AMI, which owns National Geographic.
And the question came up at one point during this trial, why the hell would AMI buy the rights to the doorman Trump fathering a child out of wedlock when they knew the story was a lie?
And then Barnes is like, well, because they were involved in something of a very...
Casually or a very subtly disguised extortion ring.
Buy rights to a bullshit story that you know is bullshit.
And they say, hey, Trump, you want to pay us for this?
I mean, it's bullshit, but we'll run it if you don't.
And it'll still do the damage it'll do, even though it's bullshit, even though we know it's bullshit.
Sorry for swearing so much.
So the idea that AMI was running something of an extortion ring, also, in retrospect...
Explains why they signed a non-prosecution agreement with the government back in 2018.
I couldn't understand why they did that in 2018.
My initial 2D level interpretation was that AMI signed the non-prosecution agreement with the state of New York because they were afraid of being prosecuted for an in-kind campaign contribution.
I think that's probably a legitimate interpretation as well or a legitimate hypothesis.
It's the obvious one.
The lesser obvious one is...
They might have been involved in something of an extortion ring on their own, buying the rights to stories and saying, we'll publish them unless you kill them.
We've caught them.
Now you kill them.
And so they signed a non-prosecution, you know, protecting themselves from prosecution because A, they don't want to get accused of an in-kind campaign contribution that they didn't declare, disclose, and B, maybe extortion.
Okay.
The trial's bullcrap.
But the hearing from this morning is...
Ultra, mega, super-duper bullcrap.
Now, I've opened the X thing up on the...
Hold on one second.
I opened up the thread in my...
I created not a burner account.
I've called it VivaBurner because I don't want anyone thinking I'm doing something untoward.
I just don't want to accidentally, at any point in time, open up my DMs and have people see someone's...
Number that they're not necessarily supposed to see or whatever.
Where is this freaking window here?
Hold on one second.
Okay, it's right here.
So I see it.
Keski Spouse window.
Ah, there we go.
It's this one.
Yeah, this is it right here.
Let me see here.
Okay, good.
We're seeing it right here.
So this is Inner City Press live tweeting.
I'll do a sort of the Robert Gouveia thing, but I'm not going through all of these tweets, but we're going to go through the essential.
It started earlier this morning.
Trump arrives at court and they say all rise, yada, yada.
Okay.
They are starting off the day with the hearing on the contempt.
So Justice Marchand says here, up at the one where you see this little cursor, I will have the hearing on contempt.
The defense provided close to 500 pages in total.
People, why don't you go through each of the violations and explain?
Listen to what they are alleging is a violation for which Trump should be fined even more.
But don't worry, they're still only going for money.
They're not going for jail time yet.
Defendant is claiming that the order was not intended to allow the others to attack him without being able to respond, but he's already found to have violated that order nine times and he's done it again.
Yeah, I highlighted this part of the judgment yesterday where the judge says, in the order, this protective or this gag order was not intended to be used as a sword as opposed to a shield by the alleged witnesses who need protection from the gag order.
Some of them might have been using it as a sword.
Hey, look at that!
Trump's got the old Zed's Dead ball gag in his mouth and he can't talk back.
So I'll call him Mr. Von Shittenpants on Twitter.
Stormy Daniels can come out and needle him every day and not in the way that she's used to needling people.
So they're saying, hey, he's gagged and we can take a dump on him over social media.
And if he does respond, he risks going to jail.
So the judge was addressing this and now they're arguing it.
But he carved out a section in his judgment.
Don't know if you're...
Saw the video that I said.
He says, well, on a going-forward basis, we might have to consider that.
But, you know, it's very convenient that six days ago now, Michael Cohen said, I'm going to stop posting on social media.
Maybe I'll just shut my big, what is it, convicted perjurer mouth now, according to Arthur Engelam.
Okay, so that's it.
So they're saying, look, they're attacking him, but he's already violated the gag order on April 25. Reporters were questioning him.
I think it was all part of the plan.
This is Intercity Press really doing it.
Quite verbatim.
They asked about David Pecker.
Defendant said he's a nice guy.
The classic carrot and stick.
He selectively responded to this question and not others.
The prosecutor is going to say in an interview to a Pennsylvania TV station, he said Michael Cohen is a convicted liar and has no credibility.
Can you imagine?
They're trying to hold this against Donald Trump.
Arthur Angeron called Michael Cohen a convicted perjurer.
So are they saying now Trump cannot cite with approbation?
Arthur Enkron, a judge's own words?
They're trying to.
He got in trouble.
He did some back to the bank.
Okay, fine.
On April 22nd, outside the door of this courtroom, in this little pen that's up, whatever, he stood there for nine minutes, spoke about witnesses that will be here at some date in the future.
Oh, he just spoke about witnesses.
We didn't speak about any.
Just said, oh, what did he say?
Hold on a second.
We understand the court's concerned about Michael Cohen, yada, yada, yada.
Blanche.
Prosecutor Mr. Blanche right here said his client understands the gag order, so we have met our burden.
We are asking for the maximum of $1,000, yada, yada, yada.
Okay.
Then Blanche gets up and says, on Tuesday, the court said to us that the purpose of the gag order is to shield those fearful of reprisal from the defendant.
That's a reason to deny these four.
They're talking about four of the charges because they're provoking him.
Let's keep going in here.
I'll focus on the rest of the statements.
Last week, President Trump's rival, Joe Biden, said in the public forum he talked about a witness in the trial.
He said, you might call it stormy weather.
Ha ha ha.
Judge says he can respond to Biden.
He just can't speak about witnesses in this trial.
First of all, the witnesses shouldn't be reading the news anyhow, but set that aside.
He can reply to President Trump, but he can't reply to the General Administration of Justice.
Holy hell.
Okay, they talk about removing some people from the gag order because some of them are opening their big fat mouths.
Let's see.
That's the one I want to go to.
Here.
Trump's lawyer.
Every word that's being recorded here is being reported in real time.
President Trump has to respond.
What's happening in this trial?
Merchant says, it's not surprising we have press here.
The defendant is the former president.
Oh, what do you freaking do?
Merchant says, the defendant is the leading Republican candidate now.
I don't have the authority over the press.
No, but I don't have authority over the press, but I can sure as hell extend a gag order to Trump.
He went to them, not the press to him.
Oh, I can't gag the press, but I can make sure that a defendant cannot address the press, cannot make statements about an ongoing criminal proceeding, cannot make political statements in the year that he's campaigning.
It's outrageous.
Let me see where this goes here.
They talk about Cohen doing...
Cohen's doing some crazy stuff on TikTok, like psychotic.
Not like wild and stupid.
Psychotic.
I mean, it's crazy if you've seen what Michael Cohen is doing.
The hearts and the...
It looks like he's possessed by a demon while he's trying to talk.
You listen to this.
This is my favorite.
They're talking about...
What's his face?
What's the guy's name?
Michael Cohen.
He doesn't need protection.
What about the comments he made about the jury, says Merchant.
Oh, come on.
Don't do that, David.
What about the comments he made about the jury?
Blanche, it was 15 seconds from a 20-minute interview.
Listen to what Marchand says.
He said the jury was rushed through.
Does that violate the gag order?
To which I would have responded, not a go F yourself, Elon Musk.
I would have said, you said the jury was rushed through, Judge Marchand.
You said we got jury selection so quickly, Trump can go to his kid's graduation.
Did Marchand say that?
I think he did, but I know one thing.
The media said that the jury was rushed through.
They said it was done so quickly, it was surprising.
I'll show you that in a second.
And then they wrap it up.
Okay, that's it.
So, no, no, no, no.
Hey, hey, Marchand, you know who else said the jury was done quickly?
You.
Oh, so Trump can say that it was done quickly when it's praising you and your conduct, but he can't say it was done quickly as a fault?
Huh.
So now not only are you saying what he can and cannot say, you're crafting the way in which he can say that which you say he can say while restricting his ability to say things that you don't want him to say.
Hold on.
Don't take my word for it, people.
Oh.
No, that's not it.
Hold on.
We're going to put a couple of people on blast who are pathological liars, but in due time.
Here we go.
No, no, no.
Oh, where is it?
Interesting section.
From the judge's ruling.
I'll get there in a second.
See, this is where having two computers might be useful.
Here we go.
This one right here.
This is in response to Matthew Russell Lee.
He said the jury was rushed to do.
Does that violate the gag order?
Trump, he wasn't speaking about a particular juror.
Yada, yada, yada.
What was the end of that?
Let's wrap it up.
But let's just, you know, just a couple articles here.
This was from law.com.
The New York judge presiding over Donald Trump's criminal case may have shocked the country when he impaneled seven jurors on Tuesday following just two days of juror selections.
But observers say it shows the jurist is in complete control of the proceedings.
So it was done really quickly.
It was rushed.
But it's a good thing.
So you could say it's rushed as a good, but you can't say it's rushed as a casting questionable.
Possibilities about having a jury that's rushed through in a 85% Democrat, Hillary Clinton-loving, corrupt state.
Okay.
Oh, here's another one from Lawfare.
Ironic name.
And we have a jury faster than expected.
Can he quote this?
Because by quoting this, according to Justice Murchant, Judge Murchant, he's making the words his own.
It's as though he formulates that thought, puts it out there, makes it his own for contempt purposes.
A dispatch from the final two days of the jury selection in Manhattan to turn a case against Donald Trump.
Okay, so Lawfare says it was done quickly.
What was the other one?
What was the other one called?
Law.com says it was done quickly.
Judge Murchant says it was done quickly.
But when Donald Trump says it was done quickly, contempt.
By the way, if you saw my face like this for a second, I thought I accidentally just shut the window of the entire stream.
Tracking Canada's decline is antisemitism rising.
Overall, intolerance is rising.
The intolerance is...
It's funny, like, okay, let's just say antisemitism is rising.
I mean, I don't know how you can deny that, seeing what's going on.
Intolerance is rising.
It's an amazing thing what happens in a society when intolerance is on the rise.
It materializes itself and metastasizes itself.
In all directions.
Churches are burning.
Okay, churches are burning.
There was one in Nova Scotia the other day that just burnt.
Intolerance is rising and it has been rising under the Trudeau divisive, progressive, racialized identity politic agenda since that son of a bastard took...
That's funny.
I was going to call him a bastard or son of a bitch.
I couldn't figure out which one.
So son of a bastard works also.
Since that bastard took office.
It's an amazing thing.
When intolerance rises...
It materializes and metastasizes across the board.
So, yeah, anti-Semitism is rising.
So is anti-Christian sentiment.
So is anti-vaccine sentiment.
So is intolerance for citizens.
We're going to get into that in a bit with this New York bill, but you want to make society safe and tolerant, you focus on all of society.
And the safety of all Canadians and Americans, and not just the safety of specific groups, because that just drives a wedge between everybody else.
Joe has a give-send-go to retain some help.
Check out GoodLogic and everything there.
What I was going to say now, I think that's it for Trump.
Let me just make sure that I've got nothing in the backdrop about Trump.
And we're going to get into speaking of the rise of anti-Semitism or the rise of intolerance at large, the rise of effing madness.
You're going to see a New York proposed bill from a guy who's not Jewish, but if he's a mole trying to exacerbate anti-Semitism, keep on doing what he's doing because it's only going to achieve that perspective.
Let me see here.
Why is this one up here?
This is the interesting section from the judge's ruling.
Listen to this.
Talking about provocation of witnesses.
You've all seen this if you watched the vlog yesterday.
It is of the utmost importance of this court that the expanded order not be used as a sword instead of a shield.
By potential witnesses.
Consideration of such usage will be weighed by this court when ruling on the willfulness of any future claims.
But not any of the past claims.
When the convicted purger called Trump Mr. Von Schitts and Pants and made this other joke.
So yeah, that's it.
Alright, I think that is it for Trump now, officially.
Okay, good.
I want to put...
I want to bring something to the attention of the general public.
Lawrence Tribe is a pathological liar.
Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law.
And I'm saying Harvard Law not because I'm doing that thing where I don't think he can get fired.
If he's still there, he's tenured or he's whatever.
I'm not saying that as the get him fired, cancel culture type thing.
I'm saying that as in how the hell does a confirmed, demonstrable, Partisan hack of a pathological liar.
Not humiliate his university to the point where they might say, look, we can't do anything about it.
We're not going to.
But he doesn't reflect us and he doesn't reflect the quality of our institution.
Listen to what this man said.
Tribe law.
He's got a Ukrainian flag in his profile for some reason.
Look at that.
Look at that face.
Okay.
He's the single best overview ever written of the impeachment process by the man who got his ass handed to him 9-0 by the Supreme Court on the 14th Amendment bullshit argument that he concocted and that he sold as gold.
That's Lawrence Tribe.
We're living through a revolt against the future.
The future will prevail.
Yeah, that's great.
That's wonderful.
HLS, Harvard, EGU.
He's faculty.
Dudes.
Okay, so I'm not going crazy.
He's a university professor of constitutional law, emeritus.
Okay, so he's retired, I guess.
That's Lawrence Tribe.
Oh, for goodness sake.
Did I lose the...
Oh, did I do this?
Now I've lost the tweet.
Oh, for goodness sake.
Oh, I'm so stupid sometimes.
Yeah, it's not going to work.
He put out a tweet that basically said...
Not basically, it's verbatim.
Trump is going to make it impossible for all women to have...
He's going to make all women submit to medical exams as he just reported to Time magazine.
Trump is going to make all women submit to periodic medical exams that prevent things like abortion.
All women.
Based on what statements he purports were made in a Time article magazine.
I went and did the responsible thing and actually went and read that Time article magazine.
And it's like...
You'd think that they don't have the five minutes it takes while they're, you know, sitting on the toilet in the morning to go read it and know exactly what it says.
I have to go get the original tweet now.
Sorry, guys.
Give me a second.
No, that's not it.
Time.
Looking for Time magazine in my timeline.
It was from yesterday.
You'd think, like, they don't take the five minutes.
Or they do, but they know that nobody else is going to.
So look at this here.
Let's bring this up.
Actually, I'm just going to live dangerously for a second and go to my actual Twitter account here.
Well, this I'm responding to Daniel Goldman, who also comes out and says, we don't need to speculate about what a second Trump term would look like.
He's telling everyone women would be prosecuted for having an abortion.
See, Daniel Goldman, being the wordsmith weasel that he is, didn't say all women.
He just said women.
So long as any women would be prosecuted for having an abortion, even according to him.
What did the Time Magazine article...
What did he say?
I mean, it's such juvenile writing.
It's like a five-year-old idiot wrote this.
Put simply, the current patchwork system in which every state's abortion policy is different is exactly how things should remain in Trump's mind.
In other words, he's respecting a Supreme Court decision.
That overturned Roe v.
Wade and said it's a state decision, not a federal decision.
He would respect the rule of law, the tyrant dictator who would overthrow democracy.
It would stay the way it is now that Roe v.
Wade has been overturned.
And by the way, Roe v.
Wade, for those idiot, moron, lying scumbags out there who say it criminalizes.
Abortion?
All that it's said is that it's a state decision.
Send it back to the states.
Kick it to the states.
Let each state do it.
You don't like what Alabama has to say by way of abortion?
Go see Gavin Newsom.
The state of affairs is bound to leave both supporters of reproductive rights unsatisfied as well as those who view terminating a pregnancy at any stage as tantamount to murder.
In Trump 2.0's America, red state's gonna red state, blue state's gonna blue state.
Get that moron a Pulitzer Prize.
They're liars.
And they're liars and they lie so bold-faced because they know that nobody's even going to take the five minutes it takes to check the actual article.
But that's a Harvard professor.
At one point, do I have this one here?
At one point, I have to, if I have it.
He came out and said, verbatim, let me see if it's here.
Oh yeah, here, this is it.
I don't have the entire tweet.
He came out and said, verbatim, Trump's repeated calls for mass deportations of foreign-born U.S. citizens.
Trump's repeated calls for mass deportations of foreign-born U.S. citizens, including his February 29 promise to use local police as well as federal troops to round up people and move them to camps for deportation.
Yada, yada, yada.
This is a Harvard professor emeritus.
Lies.
Now, maybe I should have been a little more polite.
My wife says, do you think you're going to get him to respond when you say that?
And I was like, I could say pretty pleased with a cherry on top.
And that scumbag liar is not going to respond.
So I may as well do it in a way that's going to capture somebody else's attention.
Show me where Trump has called for deportation of, quote, foreign-born U.S. citizens, end quote.
I fucking dare you, you pathological liar.
And not in a throwaway.
Do it!
Prove me wrong.
Oh, would I eat that tweet if I could ever find it?
By the way, he never said it.
Remember that time you lied and said Trump threatened to deport foreign-born U.S. citizens and I called you a liar and dared you to provide the evidence and you never did because you're a liar?
You wouldn't be doing the same thing here, right?
Would you?
As relates to the Trump...
Oh, here we go.
Trump just told Time Magazine that in his second term as president, he'd force every pregnant woman to submit to constant government monitoring to ensure that she's doing nothing to endanger her, quote, unborn child like, say...
Abortion.
Hmm.
Because it's almost like a fetus means the unborn offspring of a mammal, which some people might call a child.
It's almost like fetus by definition means an unborn child, but set that aside.
And it's almost like an abortion might be ending the life of a fetus, that being an unborn child.
Okay.
And whether or not you think that the window should be open, even if it's immoral and wrong to do, set that aside.
He's a godforsaken, shameless...
Rapacious, indefatigable liar.
And he's Harvard emeritus because that's the quality of Harvard.
I wonder why Harvard is having the problems it's having now.
Ah.
Ah.
Thank you.
Someone doesn't like the topics?
Why would they come to our concert just to boo us?
I think I put the topics in the title.
Anyways, by the way, we're going to end on YouTube now.
So come on over to Rumble, where we are at 3,200 strong, give or take.
There's about 1,000 of us on YouTube.
So take the party on over to Rumble.
And let me just see if there's any...
Let me go to the locals.
VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com for a second.
We've got a picture of Fannie Willis and AI or montage that looks like...
Little Miss Piggy, but okay, that's not very nice.
Who did that?
Don't do that.
What do we got here?
We got Bill Brown with a $3 tip says, price of gas, watch the price of gas.
Up, up, up.
It's a cat in a hat rhyme.
Up, up, up.
Watch the price of gas go and we can all thank the perv and the hoe.
That's fun.
Okay.
And then we got Mandelichi, $5 says, I do hope everyone has seen OMG James O 'Keefe's explosive video of CIA that was just released.
Seriously damaging for CIA and should be top news.
Will, we looked at that yesterday.
You know what?
Yeah, let's move on over to Rumble.
We'll talk about that in a second.
We had an exclusive watch party in our Locals afterwards.
Link to Rumble.
And if you're so inclined to skip the line and come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Link to Locals.
Boom.
We're going to get into this New York bill, which if your goal was to create anti-Semitism, This is the bill that you would propose to the general public.
Do I be stubborn and wait for that number to go under 800?
VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com And I'd like to thank our sponsor one more time, GutCleanseProtocol.com forward slash Viva.
Go check out the video and know what to eat and what not to eat.
As a man with IBS myself, I have been told to not eat certain things.
Caffeine, alcohol, red meat, to which I say poo-poo!
If you think I'm going to live a miserable, bland life, but there's other things that I know that I should not eat.
Onions, anything with like radish, chive, that garlicky stuff.
That upsets my stomach.
Okay, that's it.
OCD shall be annoyed thoroughly today.
So, boom.
Ending.
Ah, there we go.
776.
Oh, that's a good number.
Done.
Off YouTube on Rumble.
People, check this out.
Let's just say, I'm going to get called names one way or the other.
We're going to go with...
I hate talking religion.
I don't like talking about these protests either because it's complicated.
I hate it.
Everybody is just out there looking for their gotchas.
You had Caitlin Collins thinks she got her gotcha against J.D. Vance.
So you think people who violently break into buildings and smash windows should be arrested?
Yep.
Oh, excuse me because I think I remember.
That you seem to have stood up for the January 6th.
Oh, here it is.
Look at that stupid face on her.
I'm sorry.
Police people for being anti-Israel or pro-Israel, you can't police people for violating the law.
We have seen some of that with some of these protests.
Okay, so you agree that people who break in and vandalize the building should be prosecuted?
Exactly.
Okay, I'm just checking.
Because you did help raise money for people who did so on January 6th, which was, you know, impeding an official proceeding, breaking into a building.
Notice how the first one she started with didn't involve vandalism?
They weren't allowed to be in and vandalizing the Capitol.
Well, Caitlin, I know that this is the obsession of the national media to talk about what happened two years ago, three years ago on January 6th.
It's not an obsession.
I'm just seeing if it's a double standard.
No, let me answer the question, Caitlin.
I mean, look, here's been my basic argument about January 6th.
If you beat up a cop, of course you deserve to go to prison if you violate the law.
You should suffer the consequences.
But there are people who protested on January the 6th who have had the complete weight of the Justice Department thrown at them when, at worst, they're accused of misdemeanors.
Nonviolent, non-destructive.
And that's a problem.
Impeding, obstructing official proceedings.
Black Lives Matter protesters who rioted and vandalized goes free when you have people who were actually peacefully protesting on January the 6th who have the book thrown at them.
That's the double standard that I'm most worried about.
That's a good answer.
I don't think there's an obsession with January 6th, but it is a...
I don't think there's an obsession with January 6th.
Holy crabapples, that's because you're an idiot or a liar.
Oh, yeah, no, there's no obsession with January 6th.
You have people comparing it to 9-11 in Pearl Harbor, but no, no, it's the darkest day in American history, but no obsession whatsoever.
Prosecuting over 1,100 people, over 860 man years in prison, but there's no obsession whatsoever.
Oh, my goodness.
Liars.
But, and I said this also, like, For those who are violent, you still don't get to lock them up and throw away the key.
There was a guy who fended off a police officer with a flagpole sentenced to three years.
Holy hell, you got two Molotov cocktail-throwing lawyers out of New York who get, what did they get, one year?
Less?
Oh my goodness.
You get it, the summer of love in which like 150 people were killed?
Burning buildings, slightly fiery but mostly peaceful protests?
What time did they serve?
Who else was out there?
Enrique Tarrio wasn't even there to be violent.
22 years.
So there's no double standard.
The punishment should be proportioned to the infraction.
But I'll tell you this.
If you want to exacerbate, you know, in the face of all of this chaos, which is just, it's just fundamental intolerance.
It's fundamental lawlessness.
It's materialized in this way now.
You want to make things worse?
You're going to do exactly what Congressman Michael Lawler...
What's his last name?
What's his name here?
Michael Lawler.
Oh, there's a UFC fighter named Lawler.
You'll do what Mike Lawler wants to do.
If you want to exacerbate anti-Semitism, this is how you do it.
Mike Lawler, Congressman out of New York, proudly serving New York's 17th District Member Financial Committee and House Foreign GOP, husband, father, small businessman, former New York State Assemblyman.
All right.
Good for him.
I'm proud of the bill.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
Don't say anything yet, Mike.
We're not there.
I'm proud of my bill, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, AAA, just passed the House of Representatives 320 to 91. The bill has broad bipartisan support and will begin the process of cracking down on anti-Semitism we've seen run rampant on college campuses across America.
You've seen lawlessness running rampant across campuses across America.
It materializes in a great many ways, and right now it is turned into the meme of protesting Israel, and somehow this should be done on campuses by occupying buildings and smashing windows and denying Jewish students the right to access campus based on some of the videos.
Why I'm not chiming in too much on this, I don't know how much of it is exaggerated, the way the violence on January 6th was exaggerated to define a moment.
That wasn't necessarily or ought not have been defined by violence.
I don't know how much is being used exaggerated the same way that Nazi flag up in the Ottawa trucker protest was used to malign.
You know, if these kids are protesting on fields, and I've seen a lot of the video, but if they're protesting on fields, hey, hey, ho, ho, whatever, fine.
When they start breaking windows and occupying buildings, even the January Sixers who did that should suffer the reasonable proportionate consequences.
All right.
So, I'd say that.
It's lawlessness, not specifically anti-Semitism, and right now the lawlessness is materializing as anti-Semitism.
In 2020, it was lawlessness that materialized itself as burning the shit down because they were angry at what they thought was a racial injustice that actually wasn't.
Okay, let's hear what Mike Lawler has to say.
Hey everyone, it's Congressman Mike Lawler.
I just want to say how proud I am that my bill, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, just passed the House of Representatives.
320 votes to 91. This bill has broad bipartisan support and will begin the process of cracking down on the anti-Semitism that we've seen run rampant on college campuses all across America.
This is a big day and a big win.
Now we got to get it through the Senate and signed into law.
I look forward to working to get this across the finish line.
Hey everyone, it's Congress.
At the risk of being called a number of names, my first question is always going to be, this is a nice new law that you're trying to pass here, what dearth or non-existence of a law is this intending to satisfy?
What What absence of law does this now rectify?
Are the existing laws not enough to deal with exactly what this purported law purports to cover?
Now, it's a very interesting thing, and actually people have to appreciate this.
The answer to that is going to be typically, no, this law actually does give more power that doesn't currently exist under the law.
That's going to be the answer.
That's going to be the wrong answer if the power that it gives under this new proposed law is actually not power that should be given to the state.
The question is asked in the sense of, do we not have existing laws to address the problems, the purported problems, or the problems that serve as the basis for this law?
The answer to that under this is going to be no.
Many of you rightly pointing out in Rumble, breaking windows?
Already a law.
Already a crime.
Vandalism?
Already a crime.
Harassment?
Criminal harassment?
Already a crime.
What does this bill seek to do?
Oh, it seeks to do something that's not already illegal.
It seeks to criminalize constitutionally protected speech.
Don't trust me.
Well, you're going to trust me because I did my homework.
We'll get there in a second.
When we asked about that border bill, remember the so-called bipartisan bullshit border bill?
Call that the BBBS.
That's like triple bullshit.
Bipartisan border.
The BS bipartisan border bill.
No, sorry.
It's the bipartisan border bill bullshit.
Three BS, whatever.
When I asked the question there, it's like, okay, this border bill, which is the strongest border bill ever, it's going to secure it.
What does it offer that doesn't already exist by way of securing the border?
It offered a couple of things that didn't already exist in terms of securing the border, one of which was giving exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of D.C. to adjudicate on any border issue involving a state.
It's true, Biden didn't have that power, nor should he have that power.
What other powers did it ratify?
It basically legalized up to 5,000 illegal immigrants crossing the border illegally a day.
That power also didn't currently exist and shouldn't exist.
Everything else, Biden has executive authority to do what's necessary for the border.
What does this bill seek to do?
Well, it wants to criminalize hate.
Oh, hate speech.
It wants to criminalize harassment.
Okay, that's already criminalized.
It wants to criminalize what we're seeing on campus.
That's already criminalized.
Okay, hold on.
Where is the bill?
I got the bill.
I got you.
Look at this.
It's also what I love is it's not that long, so I could actually read it.
HR 6090.
Let me just make sure it's the right one.
We look up here.
It's Rep Lawler introduced.
I'm not sure.
Maybe it's not the most up-to-date version because it looks like it was introduced on October 26, 2023.
To provide for the consideration of a definition of anti-Semitism.
Set forth in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance for the Enforcement of Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws Concerning Education Programs or Activities and for Other Purposes.
It seems to me that you already have a Civil Rights Act, I think.
Where was the interesting thing here?
Here we go.
Let's see.
It is the sense of Congress.
That sense of Congress.
Okay.
The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2020.
Maybe they have another one for 2024 and maybe I didn't get the most recent version.
Doesn't matter.
All intents and purposes, this is going to be the good one.
Here, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin.
Okay, fine.
So we got a law there.
While such title does not cover discrimination based solely on religion, individuals who face discrimination based on actual perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics do not lose protection under such a title for also being a member of a group Okay.
Does it not cover religious discrimination?
The Civil Rights Act?
Okay, let's go here.
I want to go down.
Findings.
Anti-Semitism is on the rise in the United States and is impacting Jewish students in K-12, kindergarten through 12 schools, colleges, universities.
You know what else is on the rise also in America?
Anti-Asian crime.
Forget statistically who's committing that crime.
We don't want to get into trouble.
Anti-Asian crime is on the rise.
Apparently, if we believe what they're telling us, transphobic crime is also on the rise.
It's an amazing thing.
How about, just floating this out here, Crime is on the rise.
Just a crazy idea.
How about when crime is on the rise, people become the victims of crime?
Anti-Semitism crime is on the rise?
Okay.
Asian motivated hate crimes are on the rise.
Transphobic, allegedly, on the rise.
There's some discussion exactly as to where the violence in the trans community comes from, but set that aside as well.
I might say that, you know, some anti-white hate crimes are on the rise.
It's an amazing thing.
Crime is on the rise.
But let's just focus on anti-Semitism as a crime and let's go to protect the Jewish community specifically as though we should give more protection to one group and not just protect society as a whole.
I'm an old school man.
On December 11, whatever we got here, 2018, definitions for the purposes of this act, the term definition of anti-Semitism means the definition of anti-Semitism adopted on May 26, 2016 by the IR...
I-H-R-A, which is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.
We're going to get there, people.
So they want to adopt the definition of antisemitism in that I-R-H-A, which we're going to pull up in a second, which has been adopted by the Department of State and includes, listen to this, contemporary examples of antisemitism.
Okay.
That's all we needed to see.
I keep saying I'm going to give you all the links and then I don't give you the links.
So hold on a second.
So they want to adopt the definition of anti-Semitism in the IHRA, and they want to include contemporary link.
What is this one?
Is this the tweet?
That's the Lawler's tweet, okay, in the chat here, and I'll give it to locals, and I'll give the link to this piece of legislation.
And I saw the question, who decides?
No, we're going to get there.
So they want to have the definition of anti-Semitism, but also it's the very, very important one.
It should include the contemporary examples of anti-Semitism.
I got this now.
Wait until you see the contemporary examples of anti-Semitism.
Quote Adam Sandler, it will blow your freaking mind.
Someone put out a tweet in response to Mike Lawler's praising his...
Relentless the fear of infringement on constitutionally protected speech.
And they said, I'm a New Yorker.
I'm against anti-Semitism.
But for real, what the fuck are you doing?
Are you trying to have Christians like me jailed between open borders, high inflation, and crime?
Don't you have better things to do?
Now, I see this thing.
This is how neurotic you can't trust anything on the internet.
It looks kind of like it's being passed off as an original document.
And it looks like someone's holding it on the left, but it looks like it's typed.
And I can't figure this out.
Okay, antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews.
Rhetorical or physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and or their property toward Jewish community, institutions, religious faith.
Here we go.
And they've highlighted using symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism, e.g.
claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel, to characterize Israel.
Now, I see this, and I think, holy cows, I can't trust anything you see on the internet.
And I don't even go by the trust but verify.
I just go with the verify.
It's a lot easier.
You skip a step.
So I went to pull up the IHRA document, and this is what we got.
Understood.
Okay.
This is from the IRJ.
I presume this is the right thing, and if I made a mistake, please someone correct me.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.
Working Definition of Antisemitism.
Read the full text of the IRJ's non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism.
It's non-legally binding until a Mike Lawler passes it into law, then it becomes legally binding.
Adoption of the following non-binding working definition of antisemitism.
Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews.
Can you imagine you tell people you can't...
I mean, I know it's a terrible thing you shouldn't hate, but can you imagine telling someone you can't hate someone?
Or you can hate them, but you can't say that you hate them?
It's weird.
First of all, I want to know who the people are out there that hate Jews as a blanket group.
I want to know who the people out there that hate Blacks as a blanket group as if you can hate categorically.
Everyone of a certain group.
I mean, it's an amazing thing.
I'd want to know who they are.
Certainly, if someone says, look, I hate Jews in their CV, I may choose not to select them as a babysitter.
If they said I hate blacks, I probably would not choose them as a babysitter.
So I would like them to let us know.
And so long as what you do is say it and don't do anything about it.
I mean, and also hatred doesn't even necessarily mean you want to cause violence.
It might mean you hate cottage cheese.
You're not going to go to the grocery store and start smashing it on the ground.
You don't have to make...
So this is exactly what we saw in that document.
But then here we go.
Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace.
Because they want to include this in that bill.
It's in the bill.
Calling for aiding or justifying the killing of harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology.
Or an extremist view or religion.
Let me just ask you.
I'm just a stupid former Quebec attorney.
I'm fairly certain calling for the killing of somebody, if it's a true threat under the Brandenburg definition, it's already illegal.
I'm pretty sure about that.
I'm fairly certain aiding in the killing of someone is already illegal.
Justifying the killing is a weird one.
I'm not sure that that's illegal.
I'm not sure that the government should...
Control that aspect of speech to say that was justified or not.
Also, it might prevent legitimate public debate.
I mean, I can't imagine a circumstance there, but okay, so that's one.
By the way, it says it wants to outlaw calling for aiding or killing the Jews or harming in the name of a radical ideology.
So can it be done if it's not in the name of a radical ideology?
It's a weird caveat.
Seems like you might have just wanted to stop the sentence there, if I'm just being critical.
Making mendacious, mendacious.
Dehumanizing.
What the hell does that mean?
Demonizing.
What does that mean?
Stereotypical allegations about Jews as such, or the power of Jews as collective.
So can we say that there's a statistical over-representation of Jews who have won Nobel Peace Prizes?
Would that be...
Oh, no, wait a minute.
No, no, hold on.
Would that be typical anti-Semitism?
Such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about world Jewish conspiracy, or the Jews controlling the media, economy, government, or other social institutions.
Can't say that.
This is so wild.
They want to include this so that it should be illegal.
To make mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews.
Well, pretty much every Mel Brooks movie is going to become illegal.
You morons.
Oh, lordy.
You guys know who Mel Brooks is?
I presume.
accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews, denying the fact scope mechanisms or intentionally of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of the Nazis, accuse the Jews as people or Israelites,
I mean, this is wonderful.
You pass a law like this, it will certainly quell anti-Semitism.
It will certainly quell some of the above-sought, restricted speech.
But, I mean, it gets even more absurd, actually.
Here we go.
Okay, no, this one.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel.
You cannot do that.
This would be outlawed in New York if Mike Lawler's motion goes through.
And I'm, by the way, you will not hear me say, as a Jew, I don't even think.
No.
As a reasonable person with half a brain.
The fact that I am Jewish makes my opinion no more legitimate than someone else's.
And it makes someone else's opinion no less legitimate than mine.
You can be from India and read this and say, how the hell do you think this is going to stifle anti-Semitism?
You're telling me that I can't accuse a Jewish citizen of being more loyal to Israel than to another country?
Why?
Who the hell do you think you are?
Can we do it to a Frenchman?
Can I say like Jean-Luc Picard?
Well, Jean-Luc Picard is not French.
I was sick of the other guy.
What's the guy's name?
The classic.
Gérard Depardieu.
Can I accuse Gérard Depardieu of being more loyal to la France than to America?
That's fine.
But I can't accuse, I don't know, I can't even think of an example.
It's so stupid.
I mean, it's beyond words stupid.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel.
Oh, Jewish citizens, not necessarily Israeli citizens.
Okay, that might be the catch there.
Or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide than to the interests of their own nations.
That's weird.
What about dual citizens?
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination by claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
So you can't even debate whether or not the state of Israel should exist.
Can you deny whether or not the province of Quebec should exist?
Or we're not the country of Canada should exist?
I mean, it's applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
What the hell does this even mean?
This is the one that got...
Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism, i.e., e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel to characterize Israel or Israelis.
You can no longer draw comparisons.
Of contemporary Israeli policy with the Nazis.
You can't.
I mean, this is what Michael Lawler wants to put into law in New York and expects it to help the Jewish community.
I'm telling you something.
If Mike Lawler was a mole whose undeclared, surreptitious goal was to exacerbate anti-Semitism and bring hatred and scorn on the Jewish community of New York and at large, this is exactly how you do it.
So I trusted.
I didn't trust, sorry, but I verified.
And that's what they want to put into law in New York.
Absolute wild.
All right, and that's it.
That's coming out of New York State.
Now, we see two super chats over in the Rumble section over here.
We got Andy Pearson says, I want equal protection under this new infringement of the First Amendment.
F-hate crime and other bovine excrement laws.
And speaking of the exact opposite of bovine excrement, but it comes from bovine because it is bovine.
King of Biltong in the house.
Good afternoon from Anton's Meat and Eat.
Free shipping of your Biltong using code VIVA for a $30 rumble rent.
www.biltongusa.com www.antonusa.com Biltong is perfect for your carnivore, keto, or high-protein diet.
It's delicious stuff.
It's like soft.
Soft beef jerky.
So that's what's coming out of New York.
Not going to make anything better whatsoever.
It's only going to make things worse.
Predictably so, or at the very least, you ought to have seen that coming so.
But while we're talking about classical antisemitism, or was it classic or classical antisemitism?
And apparently, you know, there was an entire debate as to whether or not saying Christ is king is antisemitic.
And I took the position that, no, it's not, and that's a ridiculous thing to say.
And then someone will say, well, the Groypers come around, and they go in your face, and they say, Christ is king, Christ is king.
I was like, all right, so you're not talking about the words anymore.
You're talking about the person, and that person can literally come up to you and say, I love you, and you'll know that they're not being sincere, in which case, it's not the words whatsoever.
It's the person and the intent, in which case, there's absolutely, in and of itself, nothing wrong with saying Christ is king, especially for those who believe it.
But there were accusations that Candace Owens was anti-Semitic and was calling the folks at the Daily Wire names and attacking them in a way that made her anti-Semitic.
And then they parted ways and then there was some chicanery and some poo-poo hitting the fan.
They, I'm looking for, here they go.
They, the people of the Daily Wire, or at least the general public, were accusing Candace Owens of being anti-Semitic.
There was discussion about holding a debate.
We're going to debate this issue about Israel and Palestine and all this stuff.
And, you know, the Daily Wire said, we're going to do the debate, do it Monday.
And Candace is like, I can't do it Monday.
I'm overseas and you know that.
So this is stupid.
And they say, do it at our studios.
And she says, I'm not doing it at your studios.
This is stupid.
Let's find a neutral ground.
And, you know, they say, oh, look at that.
We offer her a debate and she declines.
Glenn Greenwald put out, I call it a banger of a release.
Let me see here.
He put out a banger of a piece today.
This is on his Locals.com.
Glenn Greenwald, hold on, let me refresh.
Greenwald.locals.com.
As the Daily Wire publicly negotiated a debate with Candace Owens, it secretly sought and obtained a gag order against her.
Due to a prior restraint order against Owens, the much-anticipated Israel debate with Ben Shapiro appears to be on.
Glenn Greenwald, three hours ago.
I won't go through the whole thing.
Everybody should go and check it out for yourselves.
The bottom line of this, and again, I engage in do not trust and verify in as much as you can, but if Glenn Greenwald is making this assertion...
I'm not going to trust Glenn Greenwald as a human, but I do.
But I'm going to trust that Glenn Greenwald, knowing what he knows about journalism, would not...
He has to have verified and vetted his sources and has the information.
Because apparently this stems from an arbitration dispute or a dispute that was submitted to arbitration.
And they're not public like court hearings.
That's why people go to arbitration.
So you're not going to go to a docket and look for this arbitration and find it.
Here.
Link to locals.
And I'll bring it back up in a second.
I just wanted to close the window to share it with everybody.
I think I shared it with locals already here.
Boom.
And don't close the screen.
Let me open this up.
Present.
So yeah, this comes from...
Not the right one.
Shared post.
Here we go.
Apparently he got knowledge that there were arbitration proceedings that were initiated by Daily Wire to compel...
You know, enforcement of a non-disparagement clause in the contract that Daily Wire had with Candace Owens, and they presumably had a contract that presumably provided for arbitration so that they could arbitrate their legal issues privately without having everybody, you know, go through the court proceedings the way they always do in their public.
That's the benefit of arbitration.
Let me just see where it was that he put that word in here.
Okay.
But the debate was never going to happen.
That is because the Daily Wire, in secret and unbeknownst to its readers, sought a gag order.
Sought a gag order to be placed on Owens after she called for the debate.
They did this under the cover of secrecy before a private arbitrator at the exact same time they were claiming in public that they wanted to debate and were even negotiating the terms with her.
To this date, the Daily Wire has not informed its readers seeking to understand why the much-anticipated debate had not yet happened that they sought and obtained a gag order against.
Candace Owens.
Okay.
So that's what we need to know.
Go read the article because it's a good article and I don't want to read the entire thing because then you won't go read the article.
Arbitration, they go.
They say, we've got a non-disparagement clause.
She's calling us implying that...
I don't know.
I don't actually know the specific accusations or what Candace is even alleged to have said.
Apparently, she's hearting tweets or retweeting tweets.
Not even hearting.
Liking tweets or hearting.
I don't know.
Hearting doesn't necessarily mean liking.
Tweets that are critical of the Daily Wire.
So they say she's disparaging us, she's insulting us, she's maligning us in our contract, which is submitted to arbitration.
We have a non-disparagement clause, so gag her so that she can't say anything disparaging.
I will steel man the Daily Wire's position, as I did on Twitter, as I did in our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community.
They're going to come out and say, look, she's free to debate.
And we still want this debate to happen.
She's just not free to disparage.
So come and have the discussion.
But don't call me a Zionist.
Don't call me loyal to the state of Israel more so than constitutional values.
I don't even know.
Is that disparagement?
Who the hell knows?
But they'll say she can debate lively, healthily, openly without disparaging.
So there's nothing mutually incompatible with the gag order that we apparently sought and got and Candace participating in a debate.
She'll just have to weigh her words, which is a nice way to have a little bit of a leg up in the debate.
But that's the breaking news.
I mean, it's drama.
It's dirty infighting.
I don't like it, but it is what it is.
Now I'm reading the chat here.
Okay, I can't read half of the comments going on in the Rumble section, so that's what's going on with The Daily Wire, Candace Owens.
I would love to interview Candace Owens, or even Ben Shapiro's in the neighborhood.
Something tells me they don't like me, but I don't know why, and that might just be a chip on my shoulder.
But I would interview any of them and or all of them.
In fact, I could even host the debate, but I don't think they would think I'm neutral, nor would they think Patrick Bet-David is neutral.
Eric Hunley would be neutral.
Tim Pool.
I don't know.
Tim Pool could be kind of neutral because he's got one radically anti-Israel person on staff and he sort of seems to be pretty pro-Israel.
Whatever.
This infighting and this catfighting.
So I'm going to go to tip comments and cleanse the palate a little bit.
Bill Brown, $3 tip, says they keep honest people honest, nothing more.
Now, I don't know what that is in relation to.
Mandelichi says, I do hope everyone...
Okay, we got that.
Let's go into the comment section of Viva Barnes Law.
Ben Proving why he and DW are scum, says USA Now.
I defended the Daily Wire in the Stephen Crowder dispute.
I'm not a fan of recording and releasing in the absence of an absolute dire emergency to release private surreptitious recordings.
Plus, I've seen those types of contracts.
That Daily Wire was asking Crowder to sign, and like, okay, I've seen them, and you don't have to sign it if you don't like it.
I don't think it's an evil con ink thing.
That was my personal opinion, and everyone was free to disagree.
This seems dirty, but what do I know?
How about a stop whining clause, says Tony DeMarco.
Okay, so what do we got here?
We got Viva.
Look what I found.
What is this?
Oh, boy.
Okay.
I'm not playing that video.
Sorry, that's on locals, so I don't even know what that is.
But if you're in our locals community, you could have seen what I just saw.
Let me just see.
I'll ask for more context.
USA Now, what was that?
Is that a video of the...
USA Now, in the chat, is that a video of the kid who shot the teacher?
That was not a video of anyone getting shot, but is that the kid who shot...
There was a six-year-old kindergarten kid who shot his teacher, Amy...
Zwerber, I think, was her last name.
Okay.
Let me know, USA, now, if that video was evidence as to the culpability of the mother in that case where a six-year-old kid brought a gun to school and shot his teacher.
Okay, we'll cleanse our palate with something funny.
Why did you make me watch that video?
Nothing violent happened in the video.
That's just very sad, and that's terrible what I just saw.
Let's have a laugh.
Oh, God.
I look at this guy's face, and I just want to vomit.
This is Greg Fergus.
This is coming out of Canada, where Pierre Poilier referred to Justin Trudeau's policies as wacko.
He called Trudeau wacko with wacko policies.
And this smug...
Like, if you were to look up the definition of smug, arrogant pomposity...
And apparently there's some scandal brewing with this, because apparently there's some falsifying documentation.
I haven't seen the full scandal yet.
This is...
This is Greg Fergus, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the man who was hired to replace the man who resigned because he invited a Nazi to Parliament and everybody clapped and cheered.
This guy's an ethics-breaching political hack.
Everybody knows this.
Let's just watch this.
One last time.
One last time.
To please withdraw that comment and simply withdraw that comment.
Arrogant pomposity makes me want to pew.
This is like the exact opposite of palate cleansing.
I have to name you for disregarding the authority of the chair.
Pursue it to the authority granted to me by standing order 11. I order you to withdraw from the House for many participation by video conference for the remainder of this day's sitting.
It's so...
It's...
This face.
One last time.
One last time.
Look at that face.
Look at...
Dead eyes.
I mean, he kind of looks like Pepe the Frog Beam a little bit, but...
That face exudes repulsiveness.
One last time.
One last time.
I'm telling you what to say.
Let me put words in your mouth.
Let me take words out of your mouth.
And then let me expel you.
So they kicked out Pierre Poilier for the day.
It's nothing serious at all.
It's just a stupid...
Talking point that they can run with in the media.
But now that we've cleansed our palate from anything related to discussion that I hate.
Okay.
Speaking of discussion that I hate, Christy Noem doesn't know when to just, you know...
Discussion that I hate involves shooting dogs.
No, I'm not jumping on this joke here.
I'm bringing this up because my brother, one of my brothers...
Said something, a wise piece of advice.
Here, take Christine out here.
We all step in shit every now and again.
This is a metaphor, people, but bear with me.
We all step in shit because sometimes you're not looking where you're going.
Sometimes shit just happens and you step in shit.
When you step in shit, the thing that you don't do is go running around your house, jumping on your bed, you know, kicking your pillow.
When you step in shit, you stop.
You take your shoe off.
And you clean it off before doing anything else.
So stop spreading that shit around.
Sometimes we step in shit through our own faults.
Like we write a book and we brag about how we shot our dog because it was a 14-month-old dog that was misbehaving.
And instead of training, finding a new home, we swiftly take the dog who we also admit that we hate, take it over to a pit, shoot it, and throw it into a pit.
Now, I appreciate...
I mean, I just saw a video of this morning, which also I did not want to see, and Ian Miles trying, I don't know why he puts these videos without a warning, of pit bulls going down the street, I think it was in Maryland or Chicago, attacking people and then cops have to kill the dog.
Even though that dog needed to be killed, it makes me sick to look at.
There's circumstances.
There's financial circumstances.
I can understand some people will shoot a dog.
I'm of the opinion, take the extra hours and splurge the hundred bucks, take it to a vet and do it humanely.
Unless it's in the process of mauling somebody on the street.
She bragged about it in her book.
Has taken nothing but, you know, justified flack for the last little while.
But she's doubling down!
Move on!
Move on!
Just never talk about it again.
Well, Sean, you know how the fake news works.
They leave out some or most of the facts of a story.
They put the worst spin on it.
And that's what's happened in this case.
I hope people really do buy this book and they find out the truth of this story.
Because the truth of this story...
Hey, Christy!
Christy!
When you're accused of being a dog murderer, the best thing to not do is also look like...
I don't use the word grifter or shill, and I'm not going to use it now.
I'm just going to say that some people might say, yep, if you want to find out the truth about why I shot my dog, go buy my book.
Oh my goodness!
Now you're doing jumping jacks on your bed with your shitty shoes.
This was a working dog, and it was not a puppy.
A working dog?
Then find another working house!
It was a dog that was extremely dangerous.
It had come to us from a family who had found her way too aggressive.
We were her second chance, and the day she was put down was a day that she massacred livestock that were part of our neighbors.
She attacked me.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be mean.
Massacred livestock?
Silence would have been better than this.
If she had sat there for a minute and a half and just stared at the camera.
Like Frank T.J. Mackey out of Magnolia.
Don't say anything.
It would have been better than this.
Massacred chickens.
And it was a hard decision.
And the reason it's in the book is because this book is filled with tough, challenging decisions that I've had to make throughout my life.
And I hope that people understand from this that...
What the point of this story is, is that most politicians...
If I don't like you, what the point is, if I don't like you and I think you're aggressive, I'm not going to say it.
They will run from the truth.
They will shy away and hide from making tough decisions.
I don't do either of those.
No, I take the dog out and blast it.
I tell the truth and I make tough decisions.
People attacked me during COVID for keeping my state open.
They're doing it again now with this.
I just hope people will read the book, find out the truth, because this was a dangerous animal.
And I had a choice between keeping my small children and other people safe or a dangerous animal, and I chose the safety of my children.
You know, I was shocked when we learned that Joe Biden, and he has a German Shepherd, that when all was said and done, 24 Secret Service agents were bitten by a German Shepherd, by a big dog.
Yeah, some people are going to say, well, by the way, I don't know much about Kristi Noem.
I know what I think about her politically.
And so, you know, if there's a silver lining to her...
Uh-oh.
No, I'm in the...
Oh, gosh.
I thought I closed it down again.
If there's a silver lining to her political misfortune, it's that she won't be Trump's VP pick at this point.
Because I don't think puppy killer...
The dog wasn't a puppy.
I don't think dog killer is a good pick for a VP.
So, in as much as I politically think I don't like her...
The only silver lining is she won't be the pick of the candidate.
Some people are saying, you know, Biden should have put Commander down after he bit secret servant agents 24 times.
And there's idiots out there who I don't think realize they probably did put him down.
As I would say would be understandable when a dog is that aggressive.
Ask yourself why the dog is that aggressive.
And I know this is a double-edged sword because it's not always the case.
But sometimes if you mistreat a dog, it'll behave badly.
Sometimes you'll just have a dog that behaves badly.
But yeah, Commander, unless someone can show me proof of life, the Democrats who are flipping out at Kristi Noem for euthanizing her dog don't seem to understand.
When they show the pictures of Joe Biden with his dogs, I think he euthanized Commander.
And unless I see proof of life, I'm going to continue to believe that.
Okay, what else we got here?
We got this.
Okay, we got Caitlin Collins within the same week.
Let me see.
I think we're almost good.
I'm going to make sure that we save some good stuff for our Locals After Party.
I'm going to save something super good for the Locals After Party.
You're all going to have to come and see it if you want.
What do we got here?
Oh!
Oh, God.
Okay, no.
We're going to end on this on Rumble.
And then we're going to go over to the Locals After Party and have some fun there because we've got good stuff.
This is like, this is what, ending the show.
But I should now, I'm supposed to say, take Alex Jones' advice.
You don't announce you're ending the show.
Everybody, come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Oh, yeah, hold on one second here.
Cadeno Drive or Cadeno DR says, obviously Joe Biden's German Shepherds were drug-sniffing dogs and they attacked people carrying drugs.
Okay, that's a joke.
Biden was jealous of commanders sniffing people.
If the dog is aggressive, that's your fault.
You are a failure at training your dog and I think you...
Okay, well, that's an interesting opinion.
David, she grew up a farmer.
Chrissy Noem is a hot killer.
How dare you shoot your aggressive dog but totally crush your unborn...
Okay, Viva, like your show.
Thank you, says Mayanna.
We're going to end on this fantastic clip here because occasionally I'm going to bed and I come across something.
It's like, holy crap, I remember something that I just saw.
We spent a little bit of time dissecting Joe Biden.
No, I'm sorry.
It's the other way around.
Howard Stern.
Not licking.
Kissing.
I don't say licking, but kissing up to.
Kissing Joe Biden's butt.
It was like that meme of the guy putting the boot in his mouth, lovingly caressing the boot while he licks it.
That was what Howard Stern did to Joe Biden.
The only clips I'm watching from that disgusting interview.
This one, I remembered.
We're lucky to have you in the Oval Office and serving as the father of the country because if you're a good father to your family, which you are, I know you'd be a good father to the country.
Stop.
By the way, look at the way Joe Biden has no idea where the hell he is and look what he's doing to the microphone.
You're a good father to your family, which you are, I know you'd be a good father to the country.
Stop.
Now, I got something sent to me via DM.
And it was Mamala.
It was Drew Barrymore looking utterly psychotic, talking to Kamala and saying, we need a Mamala.
But in our country, we need you to be mamala of the country.
She looks tortured.
What is that face?
So I'm sitting there like, what the hell is going on?
We got Joe Biden, daddy of the country, and Mamala of the country.
I'm going to play it one time through without talking.
We're lucky to have you in the Oval Office and serving as the father of the country because if you're a good father to your family, which you are, I know you'd be a good father to the country.
But in our country...
We need you to be Mamala of the country.
Yeah.
We're lucky to have you in the Oval Office.
There is a communist principle that a father or a parent's love for their child is irrational.
But the state's love for the child is rational, which is why the state...
Is more justified in controlling and rearing children than the irrational, loving parents.
The idea that there's a father of a nation.
I mean, I know it goes back and you're going to have the founding fathers and maybe there's a little hypocritical.
Yep.
The idea that they would say Joe Biden is our daddy and Kamala Harris is our mommy.
It's so effing disgusting.
And then to say, we need a Mamala Harris or Mamala Harris or whatever the hell, the mom of the country?
I don't mean to say that parents who adopt children are less parents than parents who deliver children.
I'm not.
I'm not saying that parents who adopt as a matter of unifying families are less parents.
I'm not.
Kamala Harris has no kids.
Kamala Harris has no kids of her own.
Now, she happens to have married that guy, Einhoff or Earnhoff.
She happens to have married him and, you know, have a formed family.
She came into that family when I think, doing my math, those kids were 13 and 18. So the woman that drew Barrymore, using the exact same terminology of Howard Stern, a mama of the country, is talking to a woman who's never had children of her own and, by and large, didn't even have to raise children through childhood.
What she would know about being a parent, I have no bloody idea.
Take daddy of the country, Joe Biden.
I know you're a good father because I know you'd be a good father of the country because you're a good father.
Has a daughter who claims that she showered, he showered with her, that she felt that she was molested, that she writes it in a diary and leaves it, abandons it, ostensibly, I would say, to get back at her father who she blames for that.
Has a son.
And I don't, again, I don't blame the, you know, always a misbehaving dog on the owner.
And I won't blame, you know, the tragedy of certain people's outcome necessarily states related to parenting.
Sometimes, however, you can potentially see patterns over time.
Joe Biden has got a daughter who says he showered with her, she felt molested, she was sexualized at a young age, has a son who turns out to be a crackhead womanizer at best.
And these are the two people that these idiot, washed-up hacks of has-been celebrities want to be my parents?
Oh, no thank you.
You can keep them.
You can keep them.
I don't want them.
And the fact that they're doing it in tandem, they're doing it in tandem, like just coincidentally.
So Howard Stern's audience, the father, the father of America.
Drew Barrymore's audience, Mamala Harris.
We're being told that we're a bunch of infants.
We're children who need to be...
Governed like children by our new parents, our de facto new parents.
All right.
Let's do it.
Head on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Let's see what we got in the chat here.
Tom Green came from a normal family he knows crazy.
Oh, someone said Tom Green.
Turned woke.
Tom Green with his interview with Howard Stern.
Tom Green admitted dodging a bullet with that weirdo.
I don't know who we're talking about here.
I saw Tom Green or heard him on Howard Stern and I was not impressed with his knowledge of stuff.
We got Zolzinitsyn laughingly called Stalin, dear father, says Hoppity Hooper.
Kamala and Biden should knock.
There's a rumor that Kamala is...
Okay, I'm not saying that.
I'm not reading that.
And she slept her way.
Oh, she slept her way to rise for power.
I know of the allegations against her.
Okay.
Chad Force says, evil people instinctively support other evil people.
Alright, let's go into Viva Barnes Law and go to the tip and see if we have anything in here.
Oh, Crash Bandit sent a $1 tip.
He says, did they have to go through a struggle session to parrot those things about the head sniffer and chief and commie law?
It's wild.
Okay, let's go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Oh, my goodness, guys!
Norm Pattis is coming on tomorrow.
I'm such an idiot.
Norm Pattis, Alex Jones'attorney, January 6th attorney, is coming on at, we said, 2 o'clock, but let me just confirm.
Bada bing, bada boom.
...
Norm Pattis is on at 2 o 'clock tomorrow.
Dr. Chris Martinson is on on the 8th at 11 o 'clock.
And we've got some good stuff coming.
So that is what...
Is going on.
Tom Green and Drew Barrymore deserved each other, both idiots.
Oh, that's how Tom Green came into the discussion.
So that was from Latchkey Monk.
And then we got Sir Dirty Dog says, Tom Green is an Ottawa-born moron.
Yeah, he didn't support the trucker protest.
The guy who, you know, doesn't matter.
Okay, done.
People, we're going to end on Rumble.
Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
And if you're not, I will see all of you tomorrow.
For the interview with Norm Pattinson.
It's going to be amazing.
We did something on Eric Hunley's Freeform Friday, or whatever the noon show is, and I like Norm, even if I'm going to disagree with him on some things, but he's good.
Two o 'clock tomorrow.
Ending the stream on Rumble, coming on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
All right, locals, let's see what we've got in the chat here.
Chris is good, too.
Yep.
Hi, Norm.
That's Mighty P. Sammy.
Well, shit, now I'll have to watch tomorrow, says Michigan Winter Days.
Oh, goody, Norm, says Annie of the Seas.
▲
Export Selection