Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 18, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:26:15

Ep. 224: Disney Wrongful Death; Lorens Lies; UAW vs. Trump; EU vs. Musk! AND MORE! Viva & Barnes LAW

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey, everybody.
	I know that you can hear my voice.
	We are going to start with 13 seconds.
	Actually, it's only going to be 11 seconds that's going to make you want to vomit, and then two seconds that's going to make you laugh.
	A loaf of bread costs 50%.
	What the heck is happening with the internet?
	I shall refresh.
	I shall refresh.
	Let us try this one more time.
	Oh, what the sweet, merciful goodness.
	Oh, I say, what the deuce?
	Is this my internet or is this the incognito it's not working?
	Come on, we're starting with this clip, whether you like it or not, or otherwise we're going to have to start with Don Lemon.
	One way or another, we're vomiting before this show gets started.
	Hmm. Hmm.
	Very interesting.
	For anybody listening on podcast tomorrow morning.
	The video is doing a spinning wheel of not playing, for goodness sake.
	Let me just see if it's the incognito mode or if it's actually just my internet.
	Just go here.
	Let's try this one more time.
	Now, my internet's working.
	I'm getting a lot of spinning wheels of death here.
	What the heck is going on?
	People, let me just, let me actually, before we even get going, am I live?
	Like, does everybody see me?
	Is it solar flares?
	Always have it.
	Lee Chim just donated.
	Hold on one second.
	Underwhelming opening.
	I don't know if you can see me.
	Why would my computer?
	Lee Chim, for $100, I hope that you have just become the latest, most recent member of our supporter of our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community.
	Before I start cussing, thank you very much, Lee Chim.
	What the heck is going on here?
	I don't know if I'm live across platforms.
	We're going to see what's going on here.
	Oh my goodness, I had such a wonderful opening, but now I have to wait and see if it's actually going to be something that I can do.
	Does anybody see me?
	Does anybody see me?
	Okay, I see you, I see you.
	Dave, I'm live.
	Well, that's good.
	At least I'm not swearing as though I'm not.
	Why is nothing playing on my flipping computer?
	The mercy gods have denied the torture of the views, but nothing...
	I'm not able to refresh anything to play anything on my computer.
	I can't even see that we're live across all of the various platforms of the interwebs.
	Well, this kind of sucks.
	How the heck am I supposed to do a show?
	Maybe I can do something.
	I can bring up something that doesn't require showing video.
	Alright, well, forget it.
	When the internet...
	Let me see what's going on here.
	Locals is good, good.
	Thank you, Bill Brown.
	But what's wrong with my computer?
	I get...
	It doesn't matter.
	I got all the videos lined up.
	I wanted to start with that wonderful video from...
	It was actually from the Trump campaign.
	That was the punchline of the entire intro.
	Can't seem to do that.
	Maybe I can just bring up...
	All right, before we get started, everybody, good evening.
	It's Sunday night.
	It's Viva and Barnes Law for the People.
	Sunday night, law extravaganza.
	If you don't know who I am, the David Freiheit, former Montreal litigator turned current Florida rumbler, this is the Sunday show.
	It will be in its entirety on Viva Clips tomorrow.
	We start on YouTube, Twitter, rumbleandvivabarneslaw.locals.com, and then we end on...
	Commitube. And we end on Twitter, even though we like them.
	And we go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and rumble.
	And so when we cut it on YouTube, it's not the entire stream that appears on the Viva Fry channel.
	I put the rest on Viva Clips tomorrow.
	I wanted to start with a video of Kamala Harris talking about all the things that are going wrong under the Kamala Harris economy.
	Doesn't look like I'm going to be able to do that.
	Dude, I think my computer is just absolutely...
	I'm getting really, really irritated now.
	Okay, let me just try this here.
	Let me just try something new here.
	Did you all see the new propaganda?
	I know that you all saw it because you've seen the new Kamala Harris process.
	Thank you.
	Same thing right now.
	I'm going to say the serenity prayer before I get ready to put my fist through this computer.
	Okay, I'm going to force quit a couple of programs.
	Oh, yes.
	Okay, we can see the same thing.
	Now I can minimize here and bring it up.
	You've all seen the Kamala Harris commie propaganda.
	This dropped Friday.
	The same guy who did Obama's Hope and Obama's Change with the contrast colors did Kamala or did the Kamala propaganda.
	I'm not sure about the rest.
	And the original, by the way, just so you know, it said forward.
	I mean, Alex Jones said it.
	They use the same play over and over again.
	They even lack the originality to have an original propaganda campaign.
	They go with the Obama thing, and they go with forward.
	Hope, change, forward.
	And so I had to put this together.
	I mean, I'm looking at this and like, oh my goodness.
	There is no one meme that can capture the absolute inanity.
	Is that a word?
	The insanity of this.
	There's no one meme that you can do it with.
	Some people put a number of choice words on the bottom.
	So I put this together.
	Inflation. I love it.
	It's beautiful.
	Inflation, invasion, incompetence, corruption, censorship, war.
	Things that drive me a little crazy.
	It's not totally symmetrical there.
	It's not totally lined up there.
	But sometimes the imperfections make it perfect.
	And I shared that with the world.
	And I think the world liked it.
	We are living through an absolute.
	PSYOP. There's no other way to describe it.
	It's a PSYOP.
	And it's propaganda.
	We're watching, I don't even know what movie it is.
	I know that there was an election movie where they basically like, there should be an election movie, call it AI election, where there's actually no candidates.
	Oh, this would be an amazing, I don't know if it would be the punchline of the movie, like a fight club type thing.
	Like an AI generated candidate.
	We've seen how good it is.
	You know, can create AI video and make it look like a real human.
	Fake crowds, fake candidate.
	And at the end of the movie, you find out they just elected an AI overlord.
	And maybe the punchline is they have to live with it.
	Kamala Harris is as good as an AI fabricated entity.
	She's not a real person, except for her failures.
	And they are touting her.
	It's so grotesque.
	But they are literally, she's out there talking about...
	How bad things are now, basically, like how inflation is up, cost of food is up, all this stuff, as though it's not her administration that is the source of this problem.
	And they get the media to run with it and sugarcoat the propagandizing and brainwashing of an entire nation.
	Hold on, where's the other one here?
	is...
	Another one that I mean, I don't know if people realize this.
	She's Indian.
	She's black.
	And in this piece of propaganda, in order to appeal to everybody, and I actually would call this racism, to take someone who's Indian or to take someone who's black and to give them the most Caucasian features you can imagine right up to the blue eyes.
	And I don't care that it's a blue and white hue thing.
	She's Indian, she's black, but in the propaganda, she is whiter than Taylor Swift.
	That looks more like Taylor Swift than it looks like Kamala Harris.
	This is a psyop of an election campaign.
	And it looks like, unfortunately, that it might work on a great many people.
	People are like, I love the impression.
	I love the way she makes me feel.
	Hope, change, forward.
	Oh, look at the beautiful contract.
	The wonderful works.
	I feel like I'm part of an Andy Warhol exhibit.
	When in reality, she is the problem that she's promising to solve.
	All right.
	So much so, by the way, I wanted to start with this, but we'll see if we can do it.
	I'm going to smashy smashy if this doesn't come up.
	I'm not going to be able to play any video tonight.
	That sucks.
	This is just terrible.
	I'm going to have to Google if there's some sort of technical issue.
	All right, well, we'll get back.
	That's Don Lemon putting out a hilarious video.
	This is driving me nuts.
	Don Lemon put out a video where he goes to Atlanta with the gambling places.
	Is it Atlantic City or is it Atlanta?
	I don't know.
	It's one of the two.
	Don Lemon has now become the man on the street YouTuber.
	And he goes and asks people on the street.
	Who are you supporting between Kamala and Trump?
	And I swear to you, it didn't go the way he thought it was going to go.
	Maybe, I hope it's not my confirmation bias.
	The majority of the people were either pro-Trump or wanted Trump to win, but were fearful Kamala was going to win.
	And he interviews one guy, and I put a short vlog together earlier.
	Atlantic City, thank you.
	He interviewed one guy, and that's what I kind of wanted to start with, but then I opted for another video.
	And he asks a guy, Were you better off four years ago than you are now?
	And the guy said, yes, I was better off four years ago.
	I was making a lot more money four years ago.
	And Don Lemon actually has the balls to say to the guy, I know you feel that way, but the record shows the economy is better now than it was four years ago.
	And I'm sitting there watching this.
	Everybody has listened to or watched or read 1984.
	And the part of the book, 1984, when they talk about, I think it was the production of chocolate.
	And they're like, production of chocolate is up 15% this year over last year.
	And Winston, in the book, he's like, up over the last year, down?
	Who the hell knows the number?
	They might not even be making chocolate.
	They're just putting out the news and saying, well, chocolate's up, so you should feel good about yourselves.
	The Don Lemon lack of self-awareness, that he's actually looking at this guy and saying, I know you think you were worse off four years ago.
	I know you think you were making less money four years ago, but the record show.
	What record is better than a man's life, a man's lived experience?
	And like, I want to, I mean, just out of morbid curiosity, I want to talk to Don Lemon and understand how do you use hypothetical intellectual poll data to prove what someone has lived through as being wrong?
	And the amazing thing, however, is that you got...
	What record?
	What record says where we go when we go all 38?
	What record?
	Well, they've got, you know, the market crash of two weeks ago was not as bad as the market crash of Donald Trump.
	And, you know, inflation is down to 3% from 6%, whatever the hell it was at.
	So, and then Kamala Harris is campaigning off it.
	So much of a problem exists.
	It's so much worse now than it was four years ago.
	She's promising to go full commie and do...
	Price capping.
	To prevent gouging, food price gouging, as though that's the source of the inflation that on the record, according to Don Lemon, doesn't exist.
	It's an absolute wild perversion of reality.
	And I don't know if Don Lemon is almost being glib about it.
	Well, I know you think things are worse now than they were four years ago, but actually, don't trust your lying eyes.
	Trust the record.
	Oh. Lordy, lordy.
	So, that's it.
	Unfortunately, it doesn't look like I'm going to be able to play any videos.
	I might try to refresh when Barnes gets in here and do a reboot.
	But, by the way, but, I did get to do one thing and make sure that I did it before we got started.
	That is to say, you will notice it says this stream contains a paid promotion because I want to thank our sponsor of the evening to the extent that I kept it up here.
	I'm such a...
	What the hell have I...
	Hold on one second.
	I seem to have...
	Am I even going to be able to get that?
	People? You can't trust the government as far as you can throw them.
	They are a necessary evil that exists solely to, I like to say, create work for themselves.
	The government is the biggest make-work project on earth where they make work for themselves.
	Whenever they screw up, they invoke their own screw-ups to give themselves a raise.
	And the sponsor of tonight, The Wellness Company, people.
	You've seen them around.
	You see them on the channel because they are working hard.
	I'm not a good one.
	You see them on the channel because they are working hard.
	The next time something comes down and the next time something comes down, it might be sooner than later, people.
	They're talking about the bird flu, but they seem to have moved from the bird flu to monkeypox.
	I think they've moved on to monkeypox now.
	Something's coming.
	It's August.
	To September, October, November.
	Something is coming between now and the election.
	Is it going to be monkeypox?
	Is it going to be the avian flu?
	Who knows?
	Stay tuned, and you will surely find out.
	The fine folks at the wellness company have put together a contagion kit.
	It contains all of the necessary medications that you might need in the event of the next thing.
	An article out of Forbes is talking about a new vaccine for the avian flu.
	Whatever the hell they've got coming down.
	One thing is for certain, for those of us who have lived through it, When the last pandemic hit, there was a problem getting supplies.
	There was an interruption to our supply chain.
	We quickly found out that some of the countries that we are hostile with basically have control over some of the pharmaceuticals that we have access to.
	And for anybody who was sitting there panicking, am I going to be able to get a nebulizer?
	Am I going to be able to get the medications that I need to keep me safe?
	Some of us were panicking, like myself, and others weren't.
	Now, I was panicking because I was up in Canada where these kits are not available.
	But the wellness companies put together a kit that contains all of the products you need, the nebulizer, the hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin.
	It's an emergency kit that basically costs the price of a visit to the doctor.
	And if you go to twc.health, what is it?
	I'm going to screw up on the website here because I can't.
	twc.health forward slash vivo.
	You get your kit.
	The promo code is Viva.
	I think it's 30 bucks off your kit.
	It's got all the emergency life-saving stuff that you need in the event of the next thing, when there's a shutdown, when non-essential businesses are shut down, when China says, no, no, or India, because that's where a lot of our medications are made.
	None for you, America.
	Make sure that you have your own medical kit at home.
	Keep you safe.
	Keep your loved ones protected.
	The link is in the description.
	Thank you very much, guys.
	Now, let me see where Barnes is, because I don't know if Barnes is able to get in here.
	Every time I bring up a video, I freeze for about three to five seconds.
	Everybody, we're going to do something terrible.
	It's going to drive me crazy.
	Enjoy the chat for a second.
	I'm going to reboot.
	That is what my tech guy is telling me to do.
	I will be able to come back into this stream.
	I'm going to reboot and see what happens.
	So I'll see you guys in like two minutes.
	We'll see how long this takes.
	Everybody, Miss Goosey.
	Restart now.
	Restart. I'll be back.
	I'll be back.
	I promise.
	I'm going to keep talking until it reboots.
	I'm going to keep talking until it reboots.
	I'm going to keep talking until it reboots.
	talking until it reboots.
	All right, people.
	Let's see.
	It's going to be the test now.
	Are any of my tabs in incognito still open?
	We're going to take a chance and play a video here, peeps.
	Let's see if this works.
	I wanted to play the Don Lemon video.
	We're going to do it until Barnes enters the house.
	And just everybody saying, Viva, get a producer.
	No producer would be able to fix this problem.
	I don't know if there's...
	A storm or something.
	Let me see what it looks like.
	It looks like it's a little better now.
	Oh, I hear Barnes on the backdrop.
	See, even Barnes is blurry.
	It's not me.
	Robert, let me just see if I can play the video that I wanted to start this off with.
	Don Lemon.
	Here we go.
	Look at that.
	It looks like it's...
	We're here in Jersey.
	Atlantic City.
	What do you support?
	I'll plead the fifth.
	Trump for the win.
	Tell me why.
	Plead the fifth means Trump.
	I can't really call that right now, but...
	By the way, you want to talk about Don Lemon being a sneaky little bastard.
	Look how he tries to get this guy in trouble by suggesting that this guy is going for Trump because he's a misogynist.
	I feel like she's not good for president.
	She's good vice, but not for the actual lead role for the country.
	Does it have anything to do with being a woman?
	No. No, because I feel like women...
	Nah, you're not going to give me that.
	Your money's on Harris.
	Yeah. Who do you want?
	Trump. Why don't you like Harris?
	Oh, she don't have any experience.
	Oh, she's got experience.
	She's the vice president.
	She's a senator.
	She's vice president.
	That's not the point Dawn thinks it is.
	She has no experience.
	Well, I want Donald Trump.
	I just feel we need somebody that has a stronger background.
	I don't think he's gotten one person that wants Kamali yet.
	The world in general.
	She's a prosecutor and an attorney general and a senator and vice president.
	You're in a gambling town.
	Who's your money on?
	I'm going to support the Democratic Party, but...
	I mean, Trump looks like he got it in the bag right now.
	Four years ago, it was a lot better.
	I made a lot more money than I do now.
	I know you feel that way, but that's not actually what the record shows.
	The economy is actually better under Biden.
	No, I'm serious.
	That's what the facts are.
	No, no, that's not because I watch CNN.
	Oh, no, he doesn't watch CNN ever since he got fired.
	Robert, okay, hold on.
	Let me swap us back here.
	It's very frustrating.
	Oh, look at our beautiful backdrops are matching your tie.
	Was this on purpose?
	No. Is it not recognizing your camera?
	No, it's still not recognizing the camera.
	I think it's a solar flare.
	I'm blaming it on a solar flare.
	Robert, now you've seen...
	Well, I don't know if you saw that entire intro from Don Lemon.
	Does it make you feel optimistic that everybody he seems to interview off the street...
	I don't know.
	Did he cut that so it would only be Trump supporters?
	It would seem like a counterintuitive cut.
	Does that make you feel good?
	I mean, I don't think it changes much of my analysis.
	But we'll be on with Richard Barris for another edition of What Are the Odds?
	tomorrow at 2 p.m. Eastern Time.
	He was just up there in New Jersey.
	That's People's Pundit Daily.
	And we'll be breaking down some more of the polling data, some more of the economic data, more about this issue of illegals and whether they're voting or not.
	And other related issues as well tomorrow on What Are The Odds?
	2 p.m.
	Eastern. People's Pundit on YouTube and Rumble.
	Apparently people were telling me quite vigorously to reboot the router on Rumble.
	Anyways, it's working out smooth now.
	Everybody share the link.
	Let everyone know that we are live.
	I'll go tweet it out again.
	Robert, after that not-so-smooth intro, what do we...
	Well, first of all, what's the book behind you?
	It says Fear and Loathing in...
	La Liga.
	It is the beginning of European football, or soccer as it's known in the United States, though that term itself actually originates from England, though the English deny it.
	But it starts around the world this past weekend and continues.
	We got a bunch of picks up at sportspicks.locals.com.
	But it's a fun little book, someone using the terminology from the inimitable Hunter S. Thompson.
	One of the great American writers who talked about...
	He first termed it when he went to the Kentucky Derby in his home state of Kentucky, and it became a patented phrase, you might say, though that might lead Kamala Harris to think she could steal it, according to recent statements that got published about her belief the government can take whatever they want.
	We'll get into some of those cases this week that had actual application of it.
	But yeah, it's a fun little book about the...
	Writing about the nature of the La Liga, which is the top sports division in Spain.
	Robert, I'll bring up two Rumble rants.
	I may have lost all of the other Super Chats, so I do apologize.
	Salty mentioned Rumble may not be renewing their contract.
	Any way you can advocate to keep him on Rumble?
	This has been very public.
	Chris Pevlosky, I recommend people follow their earnings reports and their public discussions on Wall Street.
	It's very apparent they're not renewing anybody.
	Come 2025.
	So, you know, their model was to put on a lot of independent content creators and platform them for two years or so, and then to go entirely to an advertising, sponsor, and subscriber-based funding model.
	So anybody that, I mean, could some people at Rumble have been a little bit more clear to that?
	I would have recommended it, but Pavlosky has been very public about that for more than a year on all the Wall Street earning calls, that there is no more Rumble money come 2025, except for that's why Rumble Studio, that's why more sponsors, that's why they're trying to create their own brands, that's why they're trying to...
	That's why they're trying to boost the premium subscribers.
	People can now, they don't want to deal with the ads or they simply want to support free speech.
	They can become premium subscribers on Rumble.
	And so that's going to be the economic model going forward for everybody out there.
	To the degree anybody out there in Rumble world doesn't know that, that's a content creator.
	They should be aware of that because...
	To be blunt, Pavlovsky's been saying it now for more than a year in his Wall Street earnings calls.
	And I don't think, to address the concern, Salty's not going to leave Rumble at all.
	I think the only thing that this might impact is the exclusivity to Rumble, where everybody ends their streams on YouTube.
	So they'll be on both platforms.
	I mean, in a way, it's still not a bad thing at all, even for Rumble, because it redirects the traffic from YouTube to Rumble, but you're just going to be reaching the YouTube audience.
	So it's not like anybody's going to abandon Rumble.
	And especially not with the tools that they've created for content creators, specifically Rack, and their advertising base.
	Yeah, that's where content creators should start getting accustomed to using Rumble Studio to create independent sources of monetization, encourage subscriptions for premium access.
	Someone like Salty could not do live on YouTube for very long.
	They clearly would ban him as quickly as they possibly could, like they're attempting with Crowder.
	So he's more dependent on that, but he's got a good lead-in period with Rumble, and I think he can do a pretty good job with monetizing that access going to go forward.
	My issue was never that YouTube would kick me off.
	It's not the type of content you and I have ever done or that I do.
	Some subject matter.
	They demonetize it.
	It's annoying, but big, big.
	Emphasis on stuff you never did.
	That was good emphasis.
	Well, maybe Barnes will get me kicked off of you, too.
	No. Well, no.
	Let me read this one.
	It says, keep up the good work, brother.
	Just curious if you had a chance to try the radiant energy capsules I sent you.
	We sent you.
	I know you love your energy drinks.
	I would love to know your opinion.
	Thank you, sir.
	I haven't.
	And don't be offended, but I will.
	Guaranteed promise.
	And that's not a hashtag, not a guarantee.
	That's a guarantee I will.
	Content creators should listen.
	I get a lot of people don't listen to investor calls, but if you're a content creator economically tied to Rumble, it's advisable that you listen to the investor calls.
	And it's understandable, but they've created a network where I don't think anybody who had a contract would need to worry about anything.
	We've built it up, and it's like, okay, fine.
	So maybe you go back to getting a little bit of the free gravy from YouTube, but nobody's abandoning Rumble at all, and some people will still be prioritizing it.
	In any event.
	And I'm going to show one of the Rumble Advertiser Center ads when we get a bigger crowd because we can monetize it to the max.
	More viewers, you get paid more cents per view and then you can run whatever ad you want in Rumble Advertiser Center.
	We'll get there in a bit.
	All right.
	I do apologize for anybody who put out a super chat or a rant that I missed when I had to reboot.
	No guarantees except for over at Locals, five bucks and more.
	We read it at the end or throughout.
	Robert, what's on the schedule for tonight or the menu?
	So we've got...
	Are illegals voting?
	And a lawsuit concerning the Biden administration attempting to weaponize the entire federal government to basically register everybody to vote.
	And a bunch of attorneys generals have brought suit over that case.
	We've got Elon Musk fighting both the EU and the UAW concerning a single interview with Donald Trump that I think went like three hours.
	We've got Pepsi being sued for lying about its so-called protein bars.
	We've got AI fake nudes, now the subject of litigation.
	We've got Fourth Amendment big, big case on geofence warrants.
	Another big, big case on whether they can keep your property after they seize it.
	We've got a Facebook versus Robert Kennedy.
	We've got when can they just seize your bank and when as a court can you weasel out of ruling on?
	Similarly, in that same capacity, Kamala Harris is talking about bringing back price controls.
	What is the constitutionality of price controls?
	It may surprise some people what the law is on that, according to the courts.
	TikTok ban now in court.
	We've got a pretty robust challenge.
	We've got the Supreme Court turning down Biden's Title IX reforms.
	And last but not least, maybe even first up on the deck, we've got Candace Owens going full Nick Fuentes.
	And as they said in the great movie, Tropic Thunder, never go full retard.
	My advice to Candace Owens, never go full Fuentes.
	And just to prove, people, there's nothing that we won't talk about here.
	Let me bring it up.
	But I don't know which one I want.
	We'll go with this one here.
	Robert, I don't know what's going on.
	I was trying to find the original source of this clip that's gone around.
	I believe this is one of them.
	Here. Many moons ago, before they decided to establish Israel as a country, I know you've read the short version in the classroom, and it was like, oh, the Holocaust happened, and then we realized that Israel needs to take...
	No, that's not how it went down.
	That's not how it went down.
	If anybody in the chat knows where this is from, I want to find the original and watch the entire thing.
	I don't know if this is from one of her streams, but let me know while we play this through here.
	Catholics and Christians were going missing on Passover, and then they would find bodies across Europe, and they were able to trace them back to Jews.
	Blood libel!
	There weren't Jews, okay?
	These were Frankists.
	And so just like Leo Frank killed Mary Fagan on Passover back in 1913 or 1914, I can't remember the exact date, he did it during Passover for a reason, this Frankist cult, which is masquerading behind Jews, still participates in this shit to this day, okay? Why would you want, as a small nation that is the size of New Jersey...
	Let's stop it there.
	Okay. All right.
	Apparently, her attachment to Kanye goes beyond music.
	If you were going to be a skeptic of Israel, for which there's many legitimate political and policy grounds to be critical of Israel, but you didn't want to play into critics saying you really just don't like the Jews.
	That when you're going around saying Christ is king, you just mean a pro-Christian statement.
	You don't mean what anti-Semites mean by that.
	She hasn't helped herself.
	She also did an interview with Tristan Tate in which she thinks Stalin's a Jew.
	They're all Jews.
	But they're not the Jews.
	You see, they're Jew-ish.
	They're a secret cabal, which really comes from...
	Kabbalah? Yeah, the Kabbalah, which is a tradition of Judaic mysticism that goes back centuries, that has alignments with Christian mysticism.
	No, that's not what it really is.
	It's part of the secret pedophile ring of demon baphomet worshippers, tied probably to maybe the Templars and the Masons.
	Not sure which, but we'll figure it out next week.
	And they're all working together.
	To do human sacrifice.
	And we'll take all the blood libels of the Jews and we'll just say it's Jewish and repeat it and say it's because I know my history.
	It's some of the dumbest, looniest garbage I've ever heard.
	I always thought Queen Candace was at least part grifter.
	Now she's just become a race grifter.
	And it's pitiful and embarrassing to watch.
	Let me play this one.
	Do you think it's normal, by the way, that basically...
	Every person who speaks about Israel has to basically say a statement that's like, you know, I don't want to get killed.
	Like, literally, people are like, Candace, beef up your security.
	That's not fucking normal!
	Excuse my language, but that is not normal.
	It's not normal that people have to think about their security.
	The way that you get comfortable with it is you're like, well, you know.
	They shot JFK in an open car, so...
	There's not, I mean, it's a sitting president.
	Now, I thought the they here, she meant the deep state, but I believe that she means Zionists, and whatever she means about that.
	And I'm not...
	The real strength is to her, really the cabal is to her part of a secret pedophile ring that goes back two centuries.
	There are new and sacrificing Christian children in the 13th century.
	But I don't want to write off anything too quickly.
	Is there any...
	You can write all this shit off.
	That's what it is.
	I mean, it's utter garbage.
	I've dealt with...
	This is...
	Nick Fuentes, at least, is a pure grip.
	Right? The guy doesn't have an honest bone in his body.
	And what he decided to do was become, he wanted to be Ben Shapiro.
	He figured out he couldn't be Ben Shapiro.
	So he decided to be the anti-Ben Shapiro.
	And that way to do that was to race grift.
	And there's always money in the Jew hate.
	There's money in grace grifting everywhere.
	Al Sharpton knows it.
	The Klan knows it.
	People on the left and the right or whatever side of race angle you got.
	There's been money to be made and fame to be had by race grifting and race baiting.
	On all sides, BLM is a race baiting organization.
	David Duke is a race baiting organization.
	You know, all of them are race baiters and race grifters of different kinds for different reasons.
	But for Kamala Harris to...
	Now you're in trouble, Robert.
	Here's an analogy you don't want if you're Candace Owens.
	For me to start thinking you as intellectually indistinguishable from Kamala Harris.
	But that's how much it is.
	This is such open race baiting and race grifting.
	And just disguising it as, oh, I'm not saying it's about the Jews.
	I'm saying it's about a Jewish group.
	And I'm going to borrow like eight different conspiracy theories, throw them into one that somebody with a first grade education could figure out as hogwash.
	Hold on.
	Just hear her out.
	Hear her out, Robert.
	Obviously, my spirit doesn't really matter.
	If they want me, they're going to get me.
	That's not a normal thought process to have.
	We don't have that about any other country in the world except for the one that, you know, took over ours.
	And that's the truth, okay?
	We are an occupied nation.
	And if it's going to take women...
	Okay, then I can stop here.
	So, Robin, here, let me...
	I just want to back it up and say two things.
	First of all, I've criticized Israel.
	I have absolutely no fears that Israel is going to retaliate against me.
	Now, the jokes about the Clintons, like you criticize Clinton, like every time I needle Hillary on Twitter, I do genuinely think if she ever were to retweet or reply to, then I'd get scared.
	Now, what she's describing might be true of the Democrat or of Clinton Arkanside.
	By no means Israel or Zionists in general.
	Okay, so set that aside.
	Is there any conspiracy?
	I know the dancing Israelis on the roofs of 9-11, and I don't write anything off anymore, but is there any conspiracy in which Mossad had a role to play in the assassination of JFK?
	No, none.
	It's completely false and ridiculous at multiple levels.
	The Kennedys, why Robert Kennedy still gets criticism of this camp today, the Kennedys were very pro-Israel.
	They're very openly pro-Israel.
	Remember, that was the purported excuse for the assassination of Robert Kennedy Sr. was his pro-Israel stance by Saran Saran.
	That was the sort of promotion.
	People don't know that Sirhan Sirhan was Palestinian.
	Yeah. Now, I don't think Saran Saran, I think he was a mind control experiment gone wrong in certain respects, but I don't think he killed Robert Kennedy Sr., nor does Robert Kennedy Jr. believe he killed him.
	So I've done a hush-hush on that assassination.
	Mark Robert has covered aspects of it as well.
	Of America's untold stories.
	I think Hunley's got a new conspiracy.
	Maybe he could cover this one.
	Boost his new conspiracy theory channel.
	Because he could debunk some of the kooky ones.
	But here's the problem.
	A lot of your first critics of Candace Owens are people that are either from the Daily Wire world or they're from the free press, Barry Weiss.
	And they don't believe in any conspiracy theories.
	So consequently, they're not a credible critic of Candace Owens.
	As someone who believes in plenty of conspiracy theories, because history and evidence often leads it to being the more persuasive argument for past events, I do an entire...
	I have, what, almost 80?
	A series of videos of hush-hush at vivabarneslaw.locals.com exploring these alternative narratives.
	But this one is so laughably absurd.
	I may do a hush-hush on it solely for the purpose of explaining its true origins.
	That there were certain elite power groups in Europe that were responsible and it wasn't the Jews.
	Who scapegoated the Jews for about 800 years, engaged in multiple forms of mini-holocaust.
	If you track certain DNA history, there's whole Jewish lines that just vanish in Europe before even the Holocaust.
	I mean, there were a little mini-holocaust over the years because you had these elites that when they screwed people over, needed a scapegoat, and the most convenient scapegoat was the one weird group in town that could read for themselves.
	And that was always a problem.
	She's borrowing from all of these ridiculous strains.
	Nick Fuentes became an expert in all the Jew baiting and blood libeling and race grifting and people treat him as a serious intellectual.
	He's not.
	He's a younger, dumber version of David Duke.
	That's who Nick Fuentes is.
	And now Candace Owens is now imitating her.
	Imitating him and replicating him.
	And she's suggesting this is serious thought, an intellectual thought.
	It's not.
	There's Stalin.
	Okay, Stalin originally recognized Israel because Israel convinced him that the socialists who dominated early Israel would dominate continuously.
	Israel said, you know what?
	Soviet Union's not going anywhere.
	We're going to side with the U.S. And he never forgave him.
	He had some kids who married people who were Jewish.
	He refused to go to the weddings because of it.
	He was very anti-Jewish.
	Like, well, I talked to my friends in Georgia, and they told me everybody knew Stalin was Jewish.
	This is some of the dumbest crap on the planet.
	And the problem is that you may have legitimate conspiracy theories that really have merit to them that you discredit by being associated with this garbage, with this vile garbage.
	It lets Israel off the hook.
	If you're a critic of Israel and you're engaging in this ridiculous Jew-hating, this ridiculous blood libeling, these preposterous propaganda pieces for your race-baiting, race-grifting, as Candace Owens is doing, then you've discredited yourself from credible public opinion about whether Israel is going too far in its war in Gaza.
	So she hurts the critics' cause.
	She sure doesn't help it.
	Well, it's wild.
	I mean, okay, I'm trying to think.
	The Zionist-occupied nation, I appreciate the argument that she's arguing that there might be over-representation of Jewish politicians in government.
	I can appreciate that.
	And so maybe she's been...
	Yeah, what does it entail?
	10%?
	Well, I mean, let's say 10%.
	So look in front of the CIA.
	They're very anti-Jewish.
	They're a bunch of wasps.
	They're also anti-Catholic for the most part.
	That's the tradition they come from.
	And that's where all this stuff is nonsense.
	You discredit yourself.
	You basically make anybody that's raising questions about Israel, anybody raising questions about AIPAC, look like they're as crazy or as race-baiting and grace-grifting as Queen Candace Owens is.
	I mean, they called her Queen Candace for a reason.
	It's her ego.
	It's so excessive.
	It's beyond all norms and boundaries.
	But this is absurd.
	This is laughably asinine and absurd.
	And I want nothing to do with her on a go-forward basis.
	This is a disgrace.
	And no one should take her seriously.
	She's a crackpot who's trying to damage people who have serious questions about whether it's Israel, whether it's the role of the Israeli lobby in the United States.
	If you want serious, sincere criticism, listen to Thomas Massick.
	Don't listen to Candace Owens, because she's discrediting it by her actions.
	You would think she's working for AIPAC the way she's doing this.
	I was surprised at some of these.
	Like, Stalin being Jewish.
	There's a rumor that he might have had sex with a Jewish woman or married a Jewish woman.
	I can understand how she might have made the mistake because a lot of the other communists were Jewish.
	Trotsky was half-Jewish.
	Marx was Jewish.
	Lenin, one of them was half-Jewish.
	I forget which.
	It's so funny about that.
	That version of the Jewish left hates Israel.
	Has always hated Israel.
	They've been anti-Israeli from day one for the most part.
	To this very day, the hardcore Jewish left is the most anti-Israeli group in the world.
	Can you imagine conflating those two to saying the modern-day pro-Israeli group is ideologically, intellectually, ancestrally identified with the communists of...
	The 1920s.
	It's completely false.
	I mean, not only that, Lenin was anti-nationalist.
	He was anti-nationalist.
	This is Putin's main criticism of Lenin.
	He's like Lenin didn't understand, he's like the communists, didn't understand the importance of nationhood and national identity.
	And in particular, as Putin considers it, the Russian identity.
	So these people are conflating and confusing things in ridiculous ways.
	They are there to effectively make a mockery.
	Of legitimate criticism.
	Of legitimate skepticism.
	Of legitimate conspiracy theories.
	They're an embarrassment.
	Candace Owens makes QAnon look sane.
	It's a problem.
	I'm trying to give her the benefit of the doubt.
	I'm trying to interpret what she's saying not as a defensive, I'm Jewish, therefore she must be wrong.
	I'm not offended.
	I do understand a lot of the arguments.
	But the Jews behind the assassination of JFK, I had just never heard.
	Stalin being Jewish.
	I thought also was just outright wrong when she came out and said that Macron's wife is actually a man and she would stake her reputation on it.
	And that, I think, turned out to be wildly wrong.
	Yes. But I don't know what's going on.
	It's just making crazier claim after crazier claim after crazier claim.
	And I don't know whether she's gone down the Kanye Cray path or this is some sort of half-baked...
	Race grift.
	I mean, there's always a place for the race grift.
	David Duke made money for 50 years doing it.
	So there is always money for the race grift.
	Or maybe Ben Shapiro antagonizes people so much that they hate cues afterwards.
	I don't know.
	Okay, it's funny.
	It's not funny.
	Robert, there was a chat.
	Oh, I want to bring this up here.
	Just now, before we head on over to Rumble, although maybe we do a couple more things here.
	My favorite lawyers, does the legal hitman judge in New York know that if he puts Trump in prison, it will backfire like every other time, or is it a massive prison riot to try to kill Trump on the table?
	I've made my prediction.
	I mean, I guess we could talk about this one now.
	It's legal.
	I said the judge is not going to be able to get past the Supreme Court immunity ruling.
	He's looking for a way out.
	He's not looking for a way to lock Trump up.
	He's going to blame it on the Supreme Court, say, I've got to strike the verdict or reverse the verdict and send it back after we do an evidentiary hearing.
	I would have sentenced him to a year now, but the Supreme Court tied my hands and I can't defy them.
	Blame those extremists and he sends it back.
	What do you think is the most likely thing to come out of...
	Whatever's going to happen in September.
	What is it?
	It's in three weeks?
	Yeah, so, I mean, actually, you can bet on it at Polymarket and some other betting markets across the world, what he's going to do.
	So I put up a bet there at sportspicks.locals.com so you can figure out exactly what I think the odds are.
	But I think the popular assumption being put out there that he is going to send Trump immediately to Rikers Island without bail, without suspending or staying the sentence.
	Without granting a mistrial, without granting a continuance in September, I think the odds of that are quite low.
	So that's the one part I definitely think the odds are not good.
	There's odds on whether or not the sentencing even goes forward.
	Yeah, I'm taking what's less likely, but on the other end, I think Merchant is looking for a way to get out of this and blame it on somebody else and not take the heat for it.
	And I think he's going to find it by blaming the Supreme Court and saying, I would have done it.
	My hands are tied.
	I think if people are playing the motivation game, the assumption is that he wants to punish and hurt Trump.
	That's one set of motivations.
	Another set of motivations is he wants to politically damage Trump.
	And if he believes that imprisoning Trump on Rikers Island right at the beginning of the election season so that Trump couldn't even do the debates is going to be net positive for the Democratic Party.
	Then you would think he's going to try to imprison him on Rikers Island.
	But even if the judge tried to do that, that goes to the appellate court.
	They can grant bail pending appeal.
	The Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in New York, they could decide bail pending appeal.
	The Supreme Court of the United States could intervene and decide bail pending appeal.
	So he, of course, could moot all of that criticism by finding some excuse not to immediately imprison Trump in the fall.
	And I think that's what's more in the Democratic Party's self-interest.
	And I think he knows that.
	And that's why I think that is a very low chance of occurring.
	All right.
	And now before we head over to Rumble, I'm going to show everybody how this beautiful rack works, Robert.
	The Rack Rumble Advertiser Center.
	It's an amazing thing.
	That would be a good marketing for the rack.
	Show me your rack.
	Highlight good racks.
	Well, I'm highlighting a big, beautiful rack right now.
	And check it out.
	You're going to see this here.
	Hold on as I do this.
	Okay, boom.
	I have an important message about President Trump for all the parents out there, so please listen.
	President Trump said he wants to take back America and teach our kids to love our country.
	That's why it's so important that we make sure our kids are learning the truth about President Trump, not the distorted lies they're hearing in the mainstream media.
	The good news is that Mike Huckabee's team put together the Kids Guide to President Trump, and right now you can get it for free with a fun illustration and easy-to-follow content.
	This important guide teaches kids all about President Trump's accomplishments during his first term, and it helps kids understand his goals for 2024.
	Mike Huckabee wants to send you this free guide so you can teach your kids the truth.
	But please hurry up, because supplies are limited to claim your free kids' guides to President Trump right now.
	Just visit KidsTrumpGuide.com.
	That's KidsTrumpGuide.com.
	I'm getting one.
	Actually, no joke, I'm getting one.
	That's a good idea, yeah.
	You know, you could have Ethan promote it, you know, a quiz after he reviews it.
	I mean, he's now a big fisherman.
	I mean, he's caught one of huge fish.
	He even got it from the gator before the gator can stack it.
	Oh, God.
	I had that video on the lineup, too.
	I was going to show everybody a beautiful tilapia out of the glades, and we ate it.
	It was not worth the cleaning job.
	I got like two ounces of flesh off a three-pound tilapia, and I've never seen intestines like that in a fish before.
	That was a huge fish.
	It was like within maybe, what, a second and a half before that gator would have snagged it?
	It was three feet moving at 20 kilometers an hour, whatever that gator was moving at.
	No, they make these stupid books.
	I saw one propaganda book for, what's his face?
	Obama. It is true.
	You're never going to know the truth about Trump unless you have people telling it.
	You record it in real time.
	I was talking to Trump's a monster.
	Can you tell me why?
	People don't even know.
	They'll never know.
	It's amazing to have people who are actually doing things like that.
	Huckabee, congratulations.
	That's amazing stuff.
	Huckabee does great stuff.
	People may not remember him.
	Former governor of Arkansas.
	His daughter is now governor of Arkansas.
	Comes from a Christian conservative tradition.
	He'll have the right sensitivity for what to come up with kids.
	As opposed to if you're going to the Democratic National Convention that starts in Chicago tomorrow, it kind of makes sense.
	They're giving out free abortions, so natural baby killers.
	But the other one is you can get clipped for free.
	It's like, go to the DNC.
	What's the first thing you should do as a man?
	Get your balls cut off.
	Robert, okay, we're going to end it on that.
	I just want to show everybody how it works with Rumble Advertiser Center as well.
	So right now, you've got the link up there, and so you can just click on it, and you go like this, and it'll bring you in.
	Well, you don't see the website because it has opened a new window, but if I show you here, this is what it brings you to.
	So go do it.
	Click on it, and show Rumble that rack works.
	We got the best racks at Rumble.
	The racks are going to blow your mind.
	Okay. We are going to end it now on Twitter and Rumble.
	No, Twitter and YouTube.
	And I'm just going to find the button.
	Everybody, the link is up there.
	Actually, before we go, hold on.
	Let me just give everyone in YouTube the link to Locals if you decide to come there.
	Now my dog has just come back in here.
	Check it out.
	Look at the leash.
	Yes. Oh, gosh.
	Okay. Oh, gosh.
	He just pulled off my thing.
	There's a Rumble, there's a tip in there, a Rumble rant that says, Rumble is great, says HairyToe1.
	Wait a second, can you get off the tip?
	Okay, sorry.
	So, I forgot what I was doing now, but we're ending it.
	So, the link to Locals, come on over to Locals, and let's go on over to Rumble, Viva Fry on Rumble, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, and thank Rumble for their wonderful rack.
	Okay, Robert.
	Okay, so, you read these things.
	Free abortions and free vasectomies.
	I still don't believe it's reality.
	But I don't know.
	I'm not going to check it out and I'm not getting the vasectomy if it means protected intermarital sex if you want to avoid a baby.
	Fine. No one's touching that part down there.
	I've had enough people touch that thing for my testicular torsion.
	How do you know that it's true?
	I want to repeat it, but I don't believe that they're actually offering...
	I don't know if it's true.
	It turned out the...
	Governor Walz there, that the drinking certain things story turned out to be untrue.
	The DUI story, though, very true.
	But he tells a lie every other day, whether it's about his military service, whether him coaching a state-winning football championship team, him faking, repeating the J.D. Vance story with Trump and them repeating it with the rest.
	So he tells enough lies.
	And we're going to get a litany of lies this week at the Democratic National Convention.
	We'll see if they're able to, you know, the latest story is maybe the reason why Kamala really likes Walls, who's been convicted of DUI, is because she likes to drink and think at the same time a lot.
	And maybe she has a bit of a drinking problem.
	We'll see if they're able to get all those issues solved and resolved for the convention.
	We talked about one of the key cases, how they were This is Obama's backyard in Chicago, how they were conspiring to get the police to be able to basically lock down and lock out a bunch of protesters, up to 100,000 protesters showing up in Chicago.
	And now, much like Philadelphia in 2016, they're building, they don't believe in border walls.
	Unless it's the Democratic National Convention trying to keep out their own protesters.
	And now they're building massive walls all around so that no protesters can get anywhere near the convention.
	They learned the lesson from 1968.
	One, if you want to avoid a contested convention, just do a convention by acclamation of someone who never, ever got a vote.
	You know, go Politburo.
	And that's what they did with Kamala Harris.
	And then secondly, if you want to avoid Grant Park, 1968.
	Then don't allow the protesters into Grant Park in 2024 and lock them away and lock them out and have quick, easy arrest policies by the Chicago police.
	So it'll be interesting to see, do they just do mass arrests?
	We'll be dealing with some of the mass arrests in a later case about the Fourth Amendment in D.C. where one of their tools was to take everybody's phone and keep it for years, even after the person had been released and not prosecuted.
	But presumably they'll be doing the same kind of policies there in Chicago just to make sure that there's no news headlines about the...
	It's a natural bridge from Candace Owens.
	People who believe a lot of the Candace Owens stuff will be there.
	The pro-Palestinian protesters, the anti-Israeli protesters are the main protest group.
	And there's going to be tons of them.
	And they got Ilhan Omar re-elected last week, one of the few squad members to survive.
	She survived her primary in Minneapolis with a huge turnout.
	But they're the ones that are going to be flooding into the zone there in Chicago, but expect them to be kept way out and mass arrests to occur with Obama's Chicago hosting the DNC.
	I want to bring this one up.
	We've got a new subscriber over at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Pretty skin.
	And there was one more.
	Legalize underscore freedom has joined and is now a support.
	Thank you guys very much.
	By the way, just so we can also clarify this, I'm not bringing Mother Jones up because I believe them, but I believe that when Fox News also reported on it, it's true.
	Abortion is coming to the DNC and the right is freaking out.
	I have a more nuanced position on this, and I know that not everybody would appreciate it, but even I find this to be repulsive and nauseous.
	Yeah, because this is the part of the pro-choice movement that even people who lean pro-choice are deeply uncomfortable with, that people like Robert Kennedy are deeply uncomfortable with.
	He recently was talking about abortion.
	He's like, what's not needed is another Planned Parenthood clinic.
	It's because this feels like ritual human sacrifice.
	I mean, when it's something that's, hey, come and get free abortions, and it's something to celebrate at a celebratory, man, I couldn't get that word out, the event, like the convention is.
	So it's disturbing at the degree to which they find this something to welcome, something to want, something to be eager for.
	I mean, usually you give out, like, free donuts.
	Free baby killing?
	Vasectomies? Well, first of all, the vasectomy, they're like...
	Don't get your balls chopped off for free at the Democratic National Convention.
	They're spaying.
	It's like they're dogs.
	They're just spaying.
	I mean, do they have any balls by the guy that's going there?
	I mean, the thing of white guys for Harris doesn't have to be no balls allowed.
	Now, Robert, at the risk of lending credence to some of...
	Now, you've got me saying Kamala Owens, Candace Owens.
	For those who don't know, Planned Parenthood was a fundamentally racist organization that sought to limit the growth of the black population.
	Am I wrong?
	Well, Margaret Sanger, yeah, that's the allegation against Margaret Sanger.
	I met one of the highest ranking Planned Parenthood officials in the country back in 1993 when I was at Yale University.
	And I'll put it this way.
	He said it was a dinner discussion event and sitting next to him.
	And I was a young, what was I, freshman?
	I was a freshman.
	Freshman student there.
	This was spring of 93. And he explained, he goes, you know, he goes, Robert, have you looked at where the population is growing?
	And I was like, oh my goodness.
	I didn't know a lot.
	I mean, I came from a religious conservative background, but I still didn't know much about Planned Parenthood when I was a kid.
	And I realized just how racist this guy was.
	Just watch Melinda Gates on 60 Minutes, where 60 Minutes is walking through an African village saying, can you imagine these people having all these kids?
	It should tell you what these people are rooted in and the nature of who they are.
	And I get they want to make abortion a top issue, but abortion is a sellable issue on the Democratic side when it's sold as...
	Not something you celebrate.
	Not something you welcome.
	I mean, Bill Clinton was the master of this.
	He said it should be legal, but rare.
	Legal, but rare.
	Very legal for any of the women I knock up.
	But rare for everybody else.
	They actually turn it into...
	Whether or not it's human sacrifice, it's like an initiation, a rite of passage.
	You want to be one of the brain-dead, capital P, progressive lefty dentards, you gotta have an abortion.
	You ain't cool unless you have an abortion.
	It's not just normalizing, but it's like commercializing abortion in all its awful way.
	They are.
	That's why Kamala Harris tried to prosecute.
	The person who exposed Planned Parenthood eager to talk about selling body parts of children, babies that have been aborted.
	I mean, that's who they are.
	So it doesn't surprise me, but it shows a disconnect.
	It's like when you run around, you have Tim Walsh doing his weird from the office routine guy, like the way he's screaming and yelling and jumping up and down in these cheerleader ways.
	And I keep...
	I get my liberal friends telling me, oh, he's like a man's man.
	Like, no, he's not.
	He's the one you come home and he's dressed up in the wife's underwear and lingerie, right?
	And everybody's shocked, shocked.
	Wolves screams that.
	Wolves likes to do drag shows, you know, on the side in secret, right?
	That's the kind of guy Wolves, you can tell he gives off those vibes from 10 miles away.
	That's why he's shaking his hand with his own wife.
	At a celebratory event.
	In as much as such a radar exists, he gives me a perverted radar.
	A pervert tattooed on his forehead.
	No way you're letting your kids...
	You're not letting that guy babysit your kids.
	No way.
	You let Trump babysit your kids and they're going to come home as big...
	They're going to know how to master monopoly.
	You let this guy babysit your kids, they're going to be dressing in the wrong gender's clothes when they come home.
	Everything about this guy.
	But this is how the Democratic Party is right now.
	They're just really weird.
	It's a lot of confession through projection.
	You can buy the t-shirt at vivafry.com.
	Robert, before I ask you another question, I want to make sure I get all these because I'm having trouble keeping them.
	The plug-in for Rumble that the guy made so that you can store the chats is not working now, but you need to interview Gloria and Blake, Quebec lawyer in asylum in France, suing JT and its members.
	Just Thinking says even Democrats don't want liberals reproducing.
	Barnes, if we're going to have a Chicago 68 reboot, who can we get for the new and improved Buckley-Vidal analysis discussion?
	I really want to see someone...
	Get threatened to get punched in the face.
	I'll ask you about that in a second.
	Whether it's her turn to go to war or his duty to protect his citizens during a BLM riot, one part of the leftist platform has been proven.
	Walls don't work.
	You're not going down to Chicago, eh?
	Nah, nah.
	Well, I can't travel right now.
	They re-injured my feet, so I'm sort of...
	I can't travel for a couple of weeks, actually.
	But the...
	It probably saved your life because I don't think good things are going to happen in Chicago this week.
	It may just be one big bore.
	But we'll see.
	But one of the things they're trying to do is get as many illegals registered to vote and everybody else registered to vote using the federal government to do so all across the country.
	And that led to a lawsuit this week.
	So flesh that one out because also you've been talking about how during the Bourbons with Barnes's, Bourbon with Barnes, In vivabarneslaw.locals.com, you talk about it and you say the most effective way to cheat is not to get illegals to vote because it's easily traceable.
	And if it becomes disclosable, it's a no-brainer.
	What you want to do is ballot harvesting at old persons' homes where you can actually get people who haven't voted for a long period of time who might not even know that they didn't vote.
	So they live, they exist, they can be traced, but they'll never know.
	But now, what is going on?
	So they're trying to get illegals registered to vote where and why?
	Well, it's essentially just a mass voter registration effort in general.
	So the Biden administration has put out an executive order that is weaponizing every aspect of the federal government beyond what Congress has authorized to utilize their resources to register people to vote.
	It's asking the Justice Department to go through the Bureau of Prisons to get people who are imprisoned criminals to register to vote.
	On the grounds that maybe they have voting rights in the state that they're in when they might be about to get released or something else.
	That's how far it goes.
	At every level of government, they're supposed to make sure that any person they interact with registers to vote.
	So it's basically what they could rely on Facebook doing with Zuckerbucks in 2020, where he spent $400 million.
	Making sure there was mass voter registration and then mass mail-in participation.
	They're also encouraging mail-in participation with all of these groups.
	So it's using federal funds, taxpayer money, to presumably register as many Democrats as possible.
	The problem is the Constitution only gives that power to either the state legislature, in the case of the presidential election, And if it's local or state office, also only the state legislature under the 10th Amendment, or it gives some limited power to Congress to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections to Congress.
	Not elections to the presidency, but elections to Congress.
	The qualifications clause for electors is exclusively vested in the legislature of each state.
	No power given to Congress in that regard.
	Power in Congress is given to the time, place, and manner Only elections to Congress.
	And Congress has only exercised that power to have voter registration in a few limited settings.
	They have not given the power to the executive branch to go register everyone everywhere.
	Nor have they given the federal government money for that purpose.
	And you have the federal government demanding that state agencies that utilize federal funds for federal programs also engage in this A mass voter registration effort, which violates separate constitutional provisions about how the federal government can't rope the state into doing things unless there's been specific congressional authorization and constitutional license.
	So that's why a bunch of state attorneys generals got together, filed suit, and said this is patently unconstitutional.
	So it violates the Administrative Procedures Act because it's outside their authority to do.
	They also know all this is secret.
	How they're doing it is completely secret.
	It's what's led to the concern about illegals being part of the process.
	Because there's no notice and comment that's being provided as the Administrative Procedures Act requires.
	And they're at the same time running it through the White House.
	So they're saying it's not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
	So they're not disclosing how they're implementing these rules and regulations concerning mass voter registration and whether they're doing things like making sure they're not registering people who are illegal, who are not constitutionally qualified to vote in their state according to the rules of that state, which principally concerns citizenship but are not limited to that because there's different limitations on when felons can vote, when they get rights, when they don't get rights back.
	There's different rules on when you can register within that state, certain durational residency requirements as long as they fit certain constitutional constraints.
	There's requirements like you have to have a physical residence.
	You can't register in a parking lot or a post office box in some states.
	So they could be violating all these rules by trying to pad the rolls with as many Democratic votes as possible.
	And some of them even may be illegals.
	And that violates the Administrative Procedures Act because it doesn't have notice and comment, because it's outside constitutional authority, because it's outside congressional authorization, because it violates the separation of powers.
	It violates the Qualifications Clause that gives exclusive power to state legislature.
	It violates the Elections Clause, which gives exclusive power to Congress, not to the executive branch.
	And it's ultra-virus, which they've established as a separate ground you can sue and get injunctive relief independent.
	of the Administrative Procedures Act because it's something that they simply do not have either constitutional or congressional authority to do.
	You could say, what's interestingly enough, ultra-virus language is often very analogous to presidential immunity language, which means this would be the kind of thing that under current judicial precedent, President Biden could be criminally prosecuted for after he leaves office.
	Just FYI.
	If it's found that he engaged in multiple ultra-virus acts because it's so far outside his constitutional or congressional authority that he could not claim presidential approval to do what he did.
	So now, it's a great lawsuit.
	Should win.
	Hopefully shut all this nonsense down.
	In terms of the question of illegals voting, Tucker Carlson had somebody on that's from True the Vote that has, in other contexts, done good work that I think confuses the issue.
	So they're confusing the issue about when can you imprison someone for illegally voting versus when is somebody's vote legal?
	Those are two separate questions.
	What I kept trying to explain in the 2020 election is you didn't even have to prove fraud.
	And it was a mistake to take the bait of trying to prove fraud because that's an almost impossible standard in many contexts in election cases.
	Instead, it's simply where they're only constitutionally qualified votes.
	And that's whether the person was constitutionally qualified to vote, whether the method of the ballot was done in a constitutionally qualified manner, and whether the counting and canvassing of that ballot was constitutionally qualified.
	And what that means for a presidential election is in conformity with the rules established by the legislature of that state.
	That's it.
	It doesn't matter if the person knows.
	It doesn't matter if the person knows the way in which they voted was constitutionally qualified or not.
	It doesn't matter whether the person knows the way they're counting or canvassing the ballot is constitutionally qualified.
	It only matters whether they did it according to the rules or not.
	That objective standard is very important because it gets you out of these proving subjective, very difficult intent provisions.
	However, we do not want to put people in prison who did not know they were committing a crime.
	Who did not know their underlying conduct was in any way inappropriate.
	So, for example, if you are illegal, if you're not a citizen of the United States, you cannot vote in a federal election.
	The law is crystal clear on that.
	Not only that, in the states where you're registered to vote, you're required to check whether or not you're a citizen.
	Consequently, the only people who could illegally vote and not be individually imprisoned for it is people who truly, in good faith, Did not know that they were not a citizen.
	All right?
	That's it.
	People should not confuse that with that now magically becoming a legal vote.
	That's not a legal vote.
	And, like, I mean, to be honest, Tucker mishandled this.
	He's like, oh, there's really a loophole?
	No, there's not a loophole.
	There's no loophole in proving criminal intent.
	It's required by the Constitution of the United States of America.
	We don't want to eviscerate that.
	We don't need...
	To question that for purposes of determining whether the vote is illegal.
	The vote is illegal even if the person voting didn't know it was illegal.
	Period. End of story.
	So conflating these things, and people like True the Vote, who've been put under a lot of criticism for 2000 Meals, do not help themselves in their case by advancing a legal theory that's just wrong about its political impact and its legal ramifications.
	So no, illegals can't vote.
	Not at the state level, not at the federal level.
	Whether or not they do, there's multiple examples of people who are not citizens being on voter registration rolls due to some states allowing driver's authorizations for people who are not citizens and some automatic registration occurring.
	But as a whole, when they've gone through these numbers, the numbers are very, very small.
	And I'll discuss it with Richard Barris tomorrow as to how practical a problem that is.
	But there has been some bad legal information, unfortunately, put up.
	On Tucker's own show about the nature of this risk.
	It's a risk.
	It's not the risk that they were describing it as.
	The question I had, however, was the APA, you know, challenging the APA, the process through which they're doing this mass registration, is the damage not already done?
	And even if they get relief, it's going to be in, what, two weeks, a month at earliest.
	Is it not undoable what's already been done?
	Yeah, well, here's the other problem for the Democratic side of the aisle.
	They can undo that damage by going through and seeing whether or not, by when people registered and how they registered.
	So states have remedial mechanisms available to them.
	But they mostly want to stop this constantly occurring and being able to occur in the future.
	But it's clearly not, this is how you can know there's not a bunch of illegals on the voter rolls.
	If it's working, It's kind of odd, because here's how you would know that.
	The voter registration rolls would be increasing above population growth, number one.
	And number two, for a bunch of reasons, if you were doing an organized illegal voting registration effort, they would be registering as Democrats.
	And there's a lot of states where you have to, like Pennsylvania, you have to register by party, other states, etc.
	Democrats are getting crushed in voter registration.
	So if this worked, it wasn't enough.
	And it's not clear it had much impact at all.
	I think its real impact would have been over the next 60 days if they could have got a flood of late voter registration.
	And that's what this lawsuit is likely going to preclude.
	But you can monitor, everybody out there can monitor themselves because voter registration data, including by party, you could also do it by ethnicity, right?
	So you would see unusual, unexpected surges in Hispanic voter registration, given that most non-citizens of the United States are Hispanic.
	You're not seeing that either, right?
	But that's how you can track it yourselves to see if something weird is happening with voter registration.
	Is a particular county where there's a lot of illegals having a surge in voter registration that's beyond what you would expect compared to other counties in the state?
	There's multiple mechanisms.
	Now, the other problem is this is actually relatively easy to catch.
	Because of the real ID laws, which every state now has, the DMV in each state has to keep citizenship data.
	And consequently, you can cross-check that against voter registration rolls and find whether anybody's on it that's not supposed to be.
	And some states like Alabama and some others have done it and there's been a high profile, but the numbers are actually really, really small.
	You know, you're talking like a thousand people out of eight million.
	It's those kind of numbers.
	That's why when the Cato Institute and others did surveys, studies on this, they didn't come back with a lot of data to show that illegals voting was a high priority issue.
	And in my opinion, it is a bit of a red herring, because while everybody's running, when Mike Johnson cares about it, you can probably guess it's not the main way the election fraud will occur.
	Because it's not like Mike Johnson is a beacon of electoral integrity, our dear Speaker of the House, who's a complete deep state hack, as it's turned out to be.
	So the fact that he's focused on this means it's probably not the most credible way in which the attack's going to be done.
	It's going to be used as a pretext.
	To force everybody into biometric identification with real ID.
	That's the next step with real ID.
	They're going to force you to have biometric identification in your database.
	And so that it's easier to track and trace.
	Now, one key part of that was supposed to be that there was supposed to be a real loophole.
	And that loophole was supposed to be a loophole to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution that allowed them to use biometric ID tied to your smartphones.
	So that they could illegally track and trace and search any time they wanted and could even take it a step further that if they ever did a search incident to arrest, they could seize your phone and keep it forever for whatever tracking and tracing purposes they want.
	But both of those government powers were taken away this past week into big federal appellate court decisions.
	Out of D.C., no less, at least for one of them.
	One out of D.C., one out of the...
	Fifth Circuit, I believe.
	Before we get there, we've got another supporter, Rabid Texan.
	I mean, goodness, who would want to see a Texan Rabid?
	That must be like double Texan.
	I'm being facetious.
	Rabid Texan, welcome to the channel.
	And Robert, before we do get in there, because I did notice a big, beautiful biltong.
	I was just eating biltong.
	This is not an ad, people.
	Biltong, it's delicious.
	It's South African beef jerky.
	King of biltong is in the house.
	Good afternoon from Anton's.
	Free first shipment.
	For your Biltong using code Viva on BiltongUSA.com and AntonUSA.com, try your first Biltong.
	Shipping on us.
	Use Viva10 for 10% off all purchases.
	It's delicious stuff.
	The Wagyu Ghost.
	Am I frozen?
	What's going on here?
	Oh, because I see the thing over my face.
	The Wagyu Ghost is almost a little too spicy, but it's not.
	It's just almost too spicy.
	All right, so the DC court, Robert, that was...
	That was the mistake.
	Kept those BLM protesters.
	They let them know, but kept their phones.
	They arrest some BLM protesters, release them, what did they say, expeditiously, I believe.
	They didn't charge them with anything, because it's D.C. And kept their phones for over a year for no better reason.
	They had to petition for violation of Fourth Amendment rights.
	They said they suffered a bunch of damages.
	As far as I'm concerned, you don't need to suffer damages.
	They take your stuff and don't give it back to you.
	They had to get new phones, lost passwords, lost data, etc.
	They had no better reason for keeping the cell phones because they weren't charged.
	They weren't arrested.
	They weren't being used as evidence in any trial because they didn't have one.
	And the D.C. Court of Appeal basically said...
	In as much as the police or the authorities have the right to seize your stuff subsequent to an arrest, they've got to have a good reason to keep it, whether it's for evidence, whether it's for searching and whatever.
	And if they don't, the right to search and seize does not imply the right to detain indefinitely.
	And I'm just like...
	I think the court system is corrupt, especially out of D.C., so I'm trying to think of any corrupt reason for this decision or why they would render this decision where other districts have gone the other way.
	Is it just an example of a broken clock being right twice a day?
	No, I think it recognizes from different ideological impulses where the state was heading.
	And it's kind of surprising.
	That the D.C. Circuit did it, but it's not on the possessory interest part, because you had two different components.
	So the Fourth Amendment guarantees you your right to be secure in your home persons and effects.
	Secure, that's the right.
	And that includes two components.
	The right in your person, which includes the right of privacy, and the right in your property, hence the reference to house and effects.
	Including effects.
	Which, by the way, can include in certain instances.
	There's overlap in some cases.
	Certain kinds of documents might have privilege or privacy implicated, for example.
	So you might have both a possessory interest and a privacy interest.
	So when can the state violate that?
	And to best understand this constitutionally, you go back and read the greatest constitutional scholars who are not the Federalist writers, though the courts love to quote them.
	It's the anti-federalist writers.
	That's my family tradition going all the way back.
	Every single Barnes voted against the Constitution in Rhode Island until it had a Bill of Rights attached to it.
	We even wanted to print our own currency.
	Then they sent some army people in.
	We'll wait until next time and negotiate that.
	It's the right of trespass.
	If you have a cognizable claim at common law of trespass, Against an individual, which includes trespass to your body, trespass to your property, trespass to some other aspect that you have a possessory or privacy interest in, then you have a Fourth Amendment constitutional claim.
	But the government has been trying to go around this in three ways.
	They were trying to steal data from a cell location site.
	And their argument, basically they wanted to use all the smartphone surveillance and all the internet surveillance out there.
	Like, for example, there was somebody on our locals page that he took a photo of some old equipment in his garage.
	Didn't even talk about it or anything else.
	Next time he opens up a phone, he gets an ad for that exact thing.
	And he's like, I've never searched for that.
	I've never looked for that.
	It's like my phone knew I took a photo of it.
	And send it in to the advertisers.
	Well, what they want to do is they want to describe all of that as voluntary consent to give up third-party information.
	And that was the self-sight tower excuse that the Supreme Court struck down that we talked about a year ago.
	Now, the other way they've been doing it is what they call geofencing.
	And here's what their pretext is.
	The Supreme Court said the Fourth Amendment protects people, not property, or people, not places.
	That's the exact claim.
	It clearly does protect property.
	But not places.
	So that's been their excuse for certain kinds of weaseling around the Fourth Amendment, much of it done, frankly, by conservatives during the Rehnquist court era that wanted to gut 80% of the Constitution.
	That's why your true constitutionalists are going to like Douglas and Black a lot more than they're going to like Rehnquist and Berger.
	But it's been reinvigorated with Scalia and Thomas and Gorsuch coming up more from the...
	Populist or libertarian right side of the equation and reinvigorating the Fourth Amendment.
	Cases like Kilco, where what they were doing is, well, we're not searching your house.
	We just have these machines that can see everything that's happening in your house from outside your house.
	But we haven't searched it.
	No, I remember that one too.
	So they lost on the ability to do that infrared searching.
	Then they lost on the ability to steal it from cell phone information as...
	Third-party disclosure nonsense.
	And the Supreme Court said in that instance, you have a constitutional, a reasonable expectation of privacy that is recognized under the Fourth Amendment against intrusion by any form of certs that is unreasonable, as long as in your own movements.
	Your physical movements are protected.
	It recognized where the government was going and put a halt to it.
	This is the first follow-up.
	Because to give people an idea...
	The number one form of search in the United States in the last year were geofence searches.
	They were not searches of individual properties.
	Geofence searching means tracking location based on the pinging of your cell phone.
	And what it really is.
	But what are they actually searching?
	They're not searching a place.
	They're not going down to an address and looking at, say, somebody's camera that was filmed at a physical location.
	But they were analogizing it to that.
	Because there, there's no Fourth Amendment interest in that physical place, that location.
	What they do to actually accomplish this search is search all of our phones.
	That's what a geofence search really is.
	To play devil's advocate, however, and having seen 2,000 mules, the geofencing, are they buying the data that's already been collected or collecting it themselves?
	That's separate.
	So that's yet to be determined, the constitutionality of that aspect.
	But that isn't what they were doing.
	They would get a search warrant to Google, say, Google, go search every single person's phone in the world and search those phones to see if those phones show they were within this location, they ever pinged at this location within this time frame.
	But what's literally being searched is everybody's phone.
	It's not that location.
	And our many lazy judges on the federal bench have been apologizing for this for years.
	Because they're all statist at heart.
	Left, right doesn't matter.
	90% of the time.
	But finally, the Federal Court of Appeals, I believe it was the Fifth Circuit, stood up and said, this is nonsense.
	This is what's called a general search.
	Exactly what the Fourth Amendment was intended to prohibit.
	You clearly have both a privacy and possessory interest in this information.
	And this is your phone being searched.
	This is everybody's phone being searched.
	And then there's further follow-up searches on it.
	And this is not third-party disclosed information because nobody thinks that they're voluntarily giving this information to the government merely because they need to use a cell phone, which was the point of the Supreme Court's decision in striking down the cell phone location tower searches.
	And so they said, This is patently unconstitutional.
	What it means is, now they screwed over the criminal defendants in that case.
	Because they said, but it was in good faith.
	These poor police officers, they could know that violates the Fourth Amendment.
	This is one area where I think Trump is AWOL.
	Talking about, oh, we've got to give him so much more immunity.
	These poor officers.
	How he thinks that while he's thinking about his own cases is beyond me.
	He's been one of the principal victims of Fourth Amendment violations in the past two years, attorney client privilege violations in the last two years, Fifth Amendment violations in the last two years.
	And yet he wants to give those same people special immunity so they can never be sued.
	I don't remember if we talked about this last week or it was during Bourbon with Barnes.
	Do you think he's getting bad advice on that?
	And might that be remedied by the fact that two of the higher ranking bad advice people have been demoted?
	No, that comes from him being instinctively pro-cop.
	That goes way, way back.
	And he just carves out the people against him as just being those rare bad cops.
	That's why he talks about building a beautiful new building for the FBI.
	And that they can be really close with the DOJ.
	That bias he's always had.
	And it's not one I share.
	Rather apparent reason.
	And not saying all cops are bad for the cops that are in the audience.
	Just some of the ones I've dealt with.
	I just wouldn't reflexively trust them.
	And our Constitution said don't reflexively empower them.
	And so the...
	But does...
	The D.C. Court of Appeals combine that with what was happening in possessory interest cases.
	Because what they were doing was finding any excuse to do mass arrest at a scene.
	Particularly protest.
	And then they love to seize people's...
	Property, particularly their phones, and keep them and use them to do searches, use them to do all kinds of things.
	And this was a, you have a possessory interest that is continuous.
	Just like if they seize you as a person, they have to release you the moment they don't have probable cause you've committed a crime.
	In the same way, once they've seized your property, they have to release it.
	Once they no longer have probable cause that it's evidence of a crime, that it no longer serves an investigatory purpose, which defines the reasonableness of it under the Fourth Amendment.
	This is like, the way to think of it is like, think of it like trespass.
	Let's say somebody did an Airbnb at your house, and then just decided, like they'd love to do in California, because if you overstay your stay, you get to keep the property for a long period of time.
	It's one of the wackiest, weirdest rules on the book.
	It's supposed to protect tenants, but it ends up protecting bad faith actors who it protects.
	But imagine they overstay the Airbnb.
	Well, they had a legitimate legal basis to be there during the Airbnb stay.
	Once they're there after that, they no longer do.
	They are now trespassing.
	They may have had a legitimate investigatory purpose to initially seize a phone or computer or something else.
	Once that purpose was gone, they had to return it to you.
	But the courts were saying no.
	It was this huge carve-out.
	And they're saying if you ever had a right to seize it, you could keep it forever.
	Even if you no longer, even if the pretext for seizing it was long gone.
	Finally, the federal courts, I think it's because it's a bunch of lefties protesting that they care about it.
	But who cares why they care about it?
	It's good constitutional law that's being made.
	And so your privacy interest and your possessory interest took a major step forward, particularly in a smartphone, cell phone era.
	And an internet monitoring mass surveillance era, this was essential to restoring Fourth Amendment freedoms and liberties.
	And it's two of the biggest Fourth Amendment wins that have happened, other than the cell phone case and the Colco case, over the last 20 years.
	I'm bringing this up because, look, our community in locals is above average, and if we're looking for a corrupt reason for which the D.C. court would issue this ruling, the ulterior motive for the D.C. BLM phone case is likely that the leftist protesters use their phones for payments.
	They photograph themselves at protests, ballot drop boxes, etc., to show they did the job.
	That's not crazy!
	You never know fully why, but historically, the left...
	Judges that come from the left have been better on Fourth Amendment issues.
	The right has been getting better over the last 20 years in the legal academy.
	But it's not a surprise from the perspective that this is the...
	It's like one of the worst judges in D.C. gave one of the best decisions on Google on antitrust.
	Because there's a tradition within the legal academy on the left that's better on those issues than the legal academy on the right.
	And so I'm not surprised that we got that decision out of the D.C. Court of Appeals.
	RyanPD911 says, Through geofencing and tracking, they have tracked 90,000-plus devices, 65,000 people belonging to European and American Antifa members, rioters to Chicago.
	That is over four U.S. Army divisions possibly sacking Chicago.
	Let the games begin.
	We'll see.
	It could be, like Robert says, a big dud.
	I want to bring this one up, and I...
	Love the show, says Stefano GGGGG.
	Stefano. Viva, you haven't posted on Truth Social in three months.
	Barnes, where's your account?
	Let's support free speech.
	I posted today on Truth.
	I'm not good at...
	It's at Barnes Law on Truth.
	I'm not good and I do...
	And Twitter is Barnes underscore law because some schmuck took Barnes Law.
	Well, I'm sorry.
	The social users would love to see you guys supporting the podcast.
	You're right.
	And my reflex is to go where people fight, not where everybody agrees with each other.
	Not that they do on truth, but I like to fight with Don Lemon.
	Come on.
	I have weaknesses.
	Don Lemon!
	Robert, let me see if we can segue.
	Well, speaking of Don Lemon and his shitty journalism and crappy Elon interview, Elon, we've got to talk about this.
	You go from geo-tracking to European censorship at an international scale.
	This will bring us into the United Auto Workers afterwards, but Elon Musk does his interview with Donald Trump on Monday.
	Who's the guy?
	His name is Thierry Fleury.
	I think he's Belgian-French.
	I have to go look.
	Elon gets a letter from the head of the European Union saying, in light of your upcoming, you have a nice platform there, Elon.
	It would be a shame if something happened to it.
	And you'd better start censoring Trump in real time if he spreads disinformation.
	Words I never want to hear again.
	You know, like at the end of every year, they retire words.
	Retire disinformation and misinformation.
	I never want to hear them again.
	But he says, look, you better censor or, you know, deal with Trump in real time during your interview.
	To which Elon Musk, you know, tweeted Tropic Thunder, possibly, what's his name?
	Jerry Maguire.
	What's the actor's name?
	Tom Cruise's second best performance ever.
	His best performance was Magnolia.
	Whatever anybody says, Frank T.J. Mackey, best performance ever.
	He replies with a meme, take a step back and go F your own face to the European Union.
	And I thought there was some backlash against Thierry, but I don't think there was.
	You get England threatening to extradite Americans who post mean, offensive stuff to immigrants.
	Now you get the European Union asking the biggest platform to censor in real time, failing which they're going to unleash their regulatory machinery on Elon.
	I mean, what do you make of it?
	What is the actual threat to Elon Musk?
	And now we see what's going on in Brazil where they're actually talking about jailing ex-employees.
	What regulatory oversight powers does the EU have?
	How serious should Elon take that as a threat?
	Well, and this is where somebody like Trump should step up.
	To me, and credit Senator Mike Lee, he agrees with this now.
	And Mike Cernovich was also talking about this week.
	The EU is no...
	Europe is no longer our ally.
	Bailed him out of two world wars.
	Saved him from being controlled by the Germans not once but twice.
	Then they decide to voluntarily be controlled by whatever Germany thinks with the EU policy, as Peter Hitchens called it.
	The European Union is just German domination by other means.
	And now they have shown they do not care about a commitment to America's core values of free speech.
	So it's time to get out of NATO.
	It's time to reciprocate these attacks on American freedoms and liberties coming from the European nations.
	They've dragged us into two world wars, and we've rescued them twice.
	Twice is enough.
	You could argue we rescued them a third time in the Cold War.
	Enough's enough.
	Our founders were most concerned with being dragged into the incessant wars in Europe.
	And there's just no more excuse for us to continue to fund their defense.
	They are attacking our values and liberties.
	They are not our ally.
	And the best way to...
	Make them aware of that is to fully withdraw from NATO, to no longer fund it, no longer be a part of it.
	The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a vestige.
	It is a relic from the Cold War.
	It has no purpose other than to promote and propagate more war for the military-industrial complex.
	And this provides the perfect basis to do it.
	The EU is now officially, and England, are now officially anti-American.
	And their core liberties.
	As Alex Jones likes to say, the answer to Orwell's 1984 is America's 1776.
	And we need a second 1776 by discarding Europe from our obligation to defend.
	Europe can defend Europe for a while.
	Well, I'm inclined to agree with you, and I think there's no better reason to...
	They're fundamentally anti-American.
	Anti-American values.
	The only question is, Knowing strategically what China is trying to do in Europe and extend its sphere of influence all the way to the ports of Netherlands or wherever it is up there.
	I mean, what happens if basically America is shut off from Russia, Asia, and Europe?
	I like the isolationist attitude, but can it sustain itself on its own without these...
	They need us.
	We don't need them.
	At least Europe.
	That's true.
	I mean, to be honest, Russia doesn't need us.
	But we're dragged into conflicts with Russia over Europe all the time.
	If it wasn't had to do with Europe, we wouldn't be in conflicts with Russia.
	There's no reason for us to be adversarial with Russia.
	The Russian people share many of our same values.
	The Russian people aren't trying to conquer the world.
	Russian government isn't trying to conquer the world.
	It's just because Europe always gets into conflicts with Russia.
	And enough.
	You know, our founder said, we do not go abroad looking for monsters to destroy.
	That is what America was founded upon.
	And now it's quite clear that any excuse of, hey, these are our allies, is gone.
	These are Europe.
	Who's been a bigger threat to American values?
	Russia or Europe?
	Europe has been.
	Europe is proving it's the biggest adversary.
	So it's time that they learn to defend themselves.
	Reality? They wouldn't be causing all the conflicts with Russia if they didn't think America could back them up, because they don't have the means to back them up themselves.
	And so it would probably lead to a more peaceful, more prosperous world if we disengaged from all the European corrupting institutions.
	And Europe would be a more peaceful, prosperous place if its people disengaged from the European Union.
	I want to give credit.
	It's to the account EmilyTVProductions.
	Hold on.
	EmilyTVProducer. At EmilyTVProducer.
	In real time, just tag me in a tweet.
	That had what I thought I had heard, which is Brussels slaps down Thierry Breton over harmful content letter to Elon Musk.
	Internal market commissioner's warning to owner of social media site X was not approved.
	Brussels has accused its internal market commissioner of going rogue by sending...
	I question it, but at least they felt the pushback and then had to pretend he went rogue.
	Sending a letter to Elon threatening punishment if he posted on social media site...
	Thierry Breton, the French commissioner, had posted the warning on X. Tuesday, the European Commission denied Breton had approval from its president, Ursula von der Leyen, to send the letter.
	All right, well, it's good that they say that.
	I don't believe they didn't.
	I think that they saw some pushback and mockery on Internet.
	They've gone too far, but only real remedy will have consequence.
	The EU could only really exist as a meaningful global entity because of NATO.
	If they had to fund their own defense, 90% of this nonsense would end tomorrow.
	Because they don't have the wherewithal, the mechanism, and the means to fund their own defense.
	And the reason we originally did this was because we didn't want the Germans to start World War III.
	Because they just started World War I and World War II.
	So that was why at the time.
	That too, that has long gone.
	They can take care of themselves.
	And it's long overdue that they do so.
	Especially as a reminder that it's none of their business, our politics.
	They have no business intervening, interfering.
	In American politics like they tried to do this past week.
	Now, they're almost as embarrassing as the nitwits running the United Auto Workers Union who are a disgrace to the recognition of honest auto worker labor leaders.
	These people are bums.
	Oh, no, Robert.
	I mean, the thing is, Kate, I felt bad calling them the un-American wankers because I don't want to...
	I'm not poop.
	I got into a bit of a discussion during one of our Locals exclusives after streams with our Locals community.
	Not undermining that unions ever had a utility, had a place, and actually did good.
	There were some great UAW people that were old school.
	But, you know, I've interned for the AFL-CIO.
	But most of its leadership cadre is a bunch of professional managerial class people that have never worked a day in their lives.
	I mean, give me Jimmy Hoffa every day of the week.
	At least he cared about his workers.
	You can argue about where he got some aid, who he helped fund.
	That's a fair argument.
	Bobby Kennedy.
	Junior is not a big fan because of the threats made on his father and his family.
	That's understandable.
	But at least he actually cared about his own workers.
	These bums don't care about their own workers.
	They've been selling out their own workers for 20 years.
	MAW is a shadow of itself because of these losers.
	The thing is, they know that they cannot possibly be representing all of their workers by taking this position.
	They're not representing more than 10% of them.
	Listen to this.
	This is the actual statement.
	The UAW has filed federal labor charges against the disgraced billionaires Trump and Musk for their illegal attempts to threaten and intimidate workers, yada, yada, yada.
	After significant technical delays on X, formerly known as Twitter, Trump and Musk began rambling, disorganized.
	This is the UAW statement.
	I mean, you look at what you do, Trump told Musk.
	You walk in, you say, you want to quit?
	They go on strike.
	I won't mention the name of the company, but they go on strike and you say, that's okay, you're all gone.
	You're all gone.
	So every one of you is gone.
	Under federal law, workers cannot be fired for going on strike and threatening to do so is illegal under the National Labor Act.
	And then it goes on.
	Robert, I said, like, it's so editorialized, it's a joke.
	It's written by an idiot.
	It's written by someone with Trump derangement syndrome.
	Completely. And that's the people...
	I'll give you my experience.
	First... Union experience outside of clerking for the FLCI.
	I know a bunch of old school union guys.
	But in terms of being part of a union advisory crew, was the teaching assistants union at University of Wisconsin.
	And they were going through a big strike.
	And I joined as a, I wasn't a member of the union, but I was the legal representative kind of intern while I was a student at law school at University of Wisconsin.
	And I'll never forget, they're all these pink hair, blue hair types, and they're sitting around.
	I was like, these people are not representative, even if teaching assistance unions are a whole different cadre than real workers.
	But they're sitting there, and they were trying to negotiate a deal that would screw 90% of their members because it would benefit 10% of foreign students who went there who didn't even like the teaching assistance union.
	And I was like, and one of the leaders explained to me that your job was to advocate for what's right, not what your members think are right.
	And I was like, oh, wow.
	Basically, union leadership today looks like Mexican union leadership, which has always been corrupt.
	But it's basically commie.
	It's basically Soviet Union style, where you do everything in the name of the workers, like the Democratic Party does everything in the name of democracy.
	But what you spend all your time doing is screwing workers and denying democracy.
	It's extraordinary.
	And that's what the UAW's leadership cadre is made of.
	I mean, I just read it.
	They're talking about a statement that Trump made apparently of what Elon Musk did when workers went on an illegal strike.
	I don't know where and I don't know which company exactly.
	How in the name of sweet holy hell can anyone take the sincere position that that was a threat to potential future striking workers?
	Because of how crazy some of the members of Biden's administration's National Labor Relations Board is.
	And I think the time for the National Labor Relations Board is gone.
	We should scrap it.
	Give individuals the right to sue, have fee-shifting provisions so lawyers will take the cases if an employer is violating anybody's labor rights.
	And I'm almost 90% of the time on the employee side of these cases.
	So, you know, it's not like I'm a...
	You know, deferential to big employers.
	All my vaccine mandate cases are against employers, like Tyson Foods, like 3M.
	3MFers is what they're popularly known as.
	One of the worst companies in the world.
	They like to do fraud.
	They like to hurt their workers, just FYI.
	They like to invade their privacy.
	They like to do things like that.
	That's who they are.
	That's what they are.
	They're in Minnesota.
	Tim Walls, Minnesota.
	They fit in right with Tim Walls pretty well.
	But this is speech.
	What it is, is they're trying to get the NLRB.
	To basically regulate speech.
	It's like the CFTC that has gone too far in certain cases trying to prohibit political betting markets, for example.
	Unless you get permission for them.
	The war on crypto that has been unmitigated, unlimited.
	At some points and places, they're trying to say their power goes to simple speech.
	You say something, now they can ban it.
	Now they can prohibit it.
	Now they can punish it.
	Now they can prescribe it.
	As an employer relationship matter.
	As a secure transaction matter.
	This is what they'll always do.
	They find the thinnest reeds for the broadest power.
	And what they're doing is unconstitutional and really shows, let's just get rid of the National Labor Relations Board.
	Its purpose no longer is here.
	No longer present.
	Doesn't exist anymore.
	Is there any potential sanction for them for having filed such a civilist complaint?
	As long as they take legal action and publicize it, anything they say about the legal action is immune from suit.
	It's a flipping joke.
	Now, Robert, I'm going to show it again.
	I'm going to show Rack again here, people.
	Check this out.
	And this one's good.
	There's another thing.
	You want to know what's happened to people here.
	Because has anyone ever remembered what happened to Chuck Norris?
	You ever wonder what happened to him?
	I recently saw...
	I did see this video.
	The dude's 81 years old.
	I've seen this video.
	I was shocked.
	He's in his 80s, still kicking butt and working out and staying active.
	What's even more shocking is he's stronger, can work out longer, and even has plenty of energy left over for his grandkids.
	He did this by just making one simple change.
	He still feels like he's in his 50s.
	His wife started doing it, and she feels even better, although do not.
	Compliment the Norris' wife.
	She says she feels 10 years younger.
	Her body looks leaner and she has energy all day.
	Chuck made a special video that explains everything.
	Make sure you watch it by going to chuckdefense.com forward slash studio so they know from where you came or by clicking on the link below in this video.
	It will change the way you think about your health.
	Once again, Chuck Defense with an S-E.
	E-N-S-E.
	Chuckdefense.com forward slash studio.
	Click the link in the description below and watch the video.
	You won't believe how simple it is.
	Thank you very much, peeps.
	I mean, this is the author of all the great memes.
	Many great TV shows.
	Walker, Texas.
	Ranger. I mean, these are probably the two best live ads we've ever done.
	Trump Kids and Chuck Norris.
	That's who Rumble should be promoting.
	I'm not going to go try to pull up the Chuck Norris meme from Dodgeball where you get the Chuck Norris thumbs up.
	But no, and also just show everybody.
	Rack is big, beautiful rack at Rumble.
	Okay, so United Auto Workers, load of crap.
	Elon Musk, what does it segue into?
	I mean, we got a lot of the...
	That's a good question.
	We got different kinds of censorship issues with TikTok and Facebook.
	We got the Pepsi class action.
	We got the bank seizure.
	We got lazy courts.
	We got price controls.
	We got the Supreme Court on Title IX.
	And we got AI fake nudes.
	Fake nudes or fake news?
	Fake nudes.
	Well, hold on.
	Speaking of AI, it's not quite a fake nude.
	But it's pretty damn gross, Robert.
	This is what someone just posted and I had to share it.
	That's AI, people.
	That's the wonders and beauties of AI.
	We got some of the greatest meme makers.
	I mean, I get it.
	The question is, so what happens is they've created apps now where basically AI, you put somebody's image up there, and AI, with these celebrities or other people, can give you what they likely look like naked.
	And the question is, is that like invasion of privacy?
	Is it a use of a copyrightable or protectable image?
	Because you have a certain right in your own image.
	Does it fit various laws defining things like cyberstalking and revenge porn?
	It's like AI is raising all these questions in all these different contexts, and this is just the latest legal context that it has come up in.
	Now, on the flip side, you could see there's all kinds of fun memes out there, right?
	Like somebody made this whole fake, what if Trump and Kamala were married meme, you know, and did all this crap.
	Oh, gosh.
	That was an unsettling image.
	There's something about it.
	I was like, whoa.
	So you're like, where is the balance?
	And the law just doesn't know yet.
	These are the new latest legal claims.
	Clearly, I think all the protection we have built in, fair use, parity, I think those protections for copyright, and under First Amendment rules as well, should provide adequate protection so that the meme makers are protected, so that you won't be able to suddenly make it illegal to basically create funny memes of people.
	But is that where fake nudes comes in?
	Probably most of the time, not really.
	So it will be interesting to see how they apply this law to this completely novel structure of AI.
	Now, not because you brought it up and you said, hey, would you want to see me naked?
	I went and asked Grock.
	To draw Viva Fry nude.
	And it says, legal implications.
	Given Viva Fry's background as a lawyer, one might argue that any unauthorized depiction could lead to a copyright or privacy lawsuit.
	But let's be real.
	If he's okay with it, who am I to judge?
	Drawing someone like Viva Fry, who's known for his legal analysis and not his physique, you son of a bitch, presents an interesting challenge.
	Would you go for a classical nude?
	That's all I would...
	I mean, not to be the pervert.
	That's all I was interested in.
	Would AI assume that I'm well-endowed or not well-endowed?
	I'm going to go find an AI that'll do it.
	It's an amazing thing.
	Where would one begin with a takedown?
	You'd either go with a copyright, a likeness issue, or invasion of privacy.
	And then what do you need to do in order to take it down from any platform where it's posted?
	I think they'll borrow from the law of people that have made fakes in other contexts before AI.
	And most likely that this will be a context in which they probably analogize.
	In other cases, they're not applying traditional law to AI.
	So sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't.
	AI itself discards any claim of copyright.
	And in some instances, there's no effort to monetize it.
	So that part of AI copyright laws doesn't always apply.
	But I think it's going to be, I think...
	The AI nudes can be so realistic that people don't know the difference, and then it becomes, is it like a revenge porn issue or any other kind of invasion of privacy issue?
	Yeah, that's a good question.
	But, you know, this has always been an issue for people in the court of public opinion because there's all kinds of, like, fake porn AIs that are out there.
	People, I mean, way back, Sarah Palin considered a legal action because they created, like, a bunch of things around Sarah Palin at Disney.
	And it's always, okay, what's parody?
	What's artistic?
	To where it could be a First Amendment exception to the copyright issue in the context of a public figure?
	And what is it?
	And we've seen how memes can be misapplied when they're weaponized for legal purposes, like they were against Douglas Mackey when they decided to make it a crime to share a meme about voting on the wrong election day.
	In that case.
	So I'm more worried about First Amendment violations and free speech suppression than I am those people that are concerned about the nature of somebody spreading a fake image of them.
	I mean, there's all kinds of memes.
	They got me as Better Call Saul.
	They got me as all these people that are mad about, you know, whether it's the Nick Ricada case or the Nick Fuentes.
	Debate or any of those people that, you know, I got a long list of haters.
	And most of the time, it's pretty good.
	Well, it's not always good, but sometimes it's effective parody.
	I'm more concerned about limiting that person's right to parody than I am protecting people from being parody.
	So that's where I lean, but I'm not sure where the law is going to come down yet.
	All right.
	Fantastic. Let me pull up our list because I know that I had my email open before the incident with the computer.
	What was it going to...
	The AI fake news.
	There was one I wanted to get to before that.
	Oh, no, it was going to be talking about communism.
	Go to communism.
	The legality of price control.
	Yes. I know it's nuanced.
	The irony is that price control, when it's done by corporations, is illegal.
	Price fixing.
	When the government does it, it's for your own good.
	I love the political side of this.
	Even the Washington Post, who people are now saying, why is the Washington Post turning against Kamala Harris?
	Oh, because Jeff Bezos owns businesses involved in marketplaces or food.
	And so he's nervous about limits on price gouging.
	The conspiracy is wild on the left.
	They are the conspiracy theorists.
	But even the Washington Post puts out an opinion.
	It says, if they're calling you a communist...
	Maybe don't come in with price fixing or price capping on foods and other stuff, which has only ever led to supply issues and mass starvation.
	But what is the legality, Robert, in terms of the government doing it?
	I would imagine it's not illegal when the government does it by definition.
	So if price fixing among private corporations is illegal, well, when the government does it, they've got to have a compelling interest to do it.
	And I don't know what, like, what would they need to show in terms of its efficaciousness in order for it not just to be another means of the government nationalizing private corporations?
	The core problem, like Jeffrey Tucker kind of assumed that there had not been a lot of legal challenges to this.
	The law is actually really well developed, and unfortunately, almost all price controls are considered constitutionally permissible.
	Now, part of this goes back to the legal history of this.
	Which is, at the time of our founding, most of the states imposed price controls.
	So there isn't a good originalist argument that price controls were considered outside the control of the state.
	Because you're looking at claims of property, you're looking at claims of power, in the context of profits and price.
	And so historically, the American legal system has said...
	Price controls, as long as there's any reasonable basis, are fine.
	So that gives you an idea of where the scale is.
	Now, there was a period of time after the Civil War, up to the New Deal, where they tried to sort of hem that in for sometimes good, sometimes dubious political reasons.
	And so sometimes they were doing it on behalf of politically corrupt actors, like warehouses and railroads who were stealing en masse from farmers.
	Sometimes they were doing it on the behest of ordinary small businesses that the new regulatory state was trying to use licensure to effectively strip them of property.
	As we'll see later in the bank seizure case, the first step is license.
	The second step is to use the license as a pretext to just seize everything, as they got away with in a Utah bank case a couple of weeks ago.
	In terms of what happened in the court, the seizure happened about a year ago.
	People might have even heard about it, American West Bank, etc.
	And so for a while they said you can only do price controls if the business is attached to a public interest, if it's effectively a public business.
	And that really became public necessity, almost like commons legislation about parks and public lands.
	And so things like utilities.
	Things like railroads, things like warehouses for storage of food for railroads.
	A lot of these things they said you could regulate.
	Way back in the Civil War, a lot of Illinois farmers put in a constitutional provision that allowed them to govern warehouses next to railroads because the two of them were conspiring to screw over farmers and monopolize the market.
	And it was mostly an anti-monopoly move to control prices, not...
	Justified just on the public utility grounds, but that's the one the Supreme Court took when it went up to the Supreme Court.
	They said, if your business is in the public interest or is something that's a public necessity, then you could do price controls, but no further.
	And so at the state court level, a bunch of price controls got knocked down.
	I know about a lot of this because a lot of this is milk law.
	It's milk distribution law, all this stuff, because the defending Amos Miller.
	You go back and research the constitutionality of state action concerning milk producers and milk farmers and milk distributors, and a lot of it would involve milk pricing.
	And often it's large producers against small producers, or all the producers against consumers, or one set of producers in one state against consumer producers in another state, that that's the underlying politics, and the law comes out all over the place.
	Then comes along the New Deal, and Roosevelt says he's going to pack the court.
	And all of a sudden, they redefine two different things.
	They redefine interstate commerce to be, you can regulate things that are not in interstate commerce.
	There's a lot of people like, hold on a second, how did that just happen?
	That thus, a wheat farmer growing wheat for himself could be prohibited from growing wheat for himself.
	That's how nuts the law got and how they did it.
	Then you had World War I price controls.
	You had World War II price controls.
	Nixon himself did a bunch of price controls.
	My favorite thing they did during this time frame, when they were nervous in World War II, is they created a separate court system.
	Congress did.
	And they called it the Emergency Appeals Court.
	And all price control disputes had to go to the Emergency Appeals Court.
	And they handpicked all the judges for that Emergency Appeals Court.
	And shock, shock!
	99.9% of price control disputes that went before that court, those judges affirmed the government.
	So they've gone to great lengths to legally inoculate price controls in the past.
	But today, effectively, under the current legal precedent that exists, price controls are constitutional unless they're utterly arbitrary, completely capricious, without any reasonable basis, or without any legislative authority.
	So, for example, some of the earlier price control disputes that they took seriously in the last century have been when Congress didn't authorize it, or if they did, they didn't give enough limits on executive discretion to meaningfully exercise their legislative obligation and thus becomes an unconstitutional delegation of the legislative power from the legislative branch to the executive branch.
	But otherwise, it's all, like right now, if you went to most lawyers that study this issue, your chance of getting a price control struck down is less than 1%.
	It's not totally related, and it's not on our list, but I want to pick your brain about it in any event.
	Trump was taking some flack.
	Let me see if I can't bring this up quickly.
	Right here.
	For talking about tariffs, it's sort of related, but it's like price controls on other...
	How do I...
	What the heck is my problem here?
	I want to share this and just hear this.
	Because I think I don't have a problem with this, and I think Mark Cuban's an idiot.
	Here, this.
	A tariff.
	It's a tax on a foreign country.
	It's a tax on a country that's ripping us off and stealing our jobs.
	Let's stop it there.
	Mark Cuban says, any importers want to explain how they deal with tariffs on, say, food and agricultural products?
	Robert, am I crazy for thinking that tariffs are not necessarily a bad thing when we should be...
	Independent on certain specific issues, and if you start importing foods from China, maybe impose some tariffs on China, and though it might increase costs somewhat, at the very least, in a longer term, you'll achieve independence on security-type stuff issues?
	Yeah, I mean, Mark, you was playing games with, oh, really, this isn't a tax on an American business because the American business is bringing in products from a foreign country.
	There's no question that that business can then choose to pay that tax on that foreign country as a condition of access to the U.S. market, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a tax on the foreign country because the importer is going to have to shift that price to the foreign country as part of the price of what it will pay to bring it into the U.S. So, you know, Cuban's kind of playing a game there with things in ways that don't defeat Trump's point.
	The debate about tariffs, Didn't used to be a debate.
	For America's first 200 years or so, everybody recognized tariffs were a fairer basis of taxation, a more constitutional basis of taxation, and a completely sufficient mechanism of funding necessary government services.
	What does shifting the tariffs do?
	It potentially reduces government's ability to create revenue for itself.
	Maybe that's a good thing.
	If the government can't just spend, spend, spend, spend.
	Now you have a separate issue with deficit spending, but theoretically your limits on taxation limit power of the government because it limits the available resources for government.
	It's another reason why things like tariffs...
	Which have some degree of limit as to how much you can bring in and get from tariffs because you may just restrict and reduce the activity so much that there's not much tariff revenue.
	But then you get to that fourth basis, which is national security, which is it is in your own country's interest to control most manufacturing and industrial supply of essential goods.
	You don't want to be dependent on foreign goods.
	This has really been Venezuela's problem.
	Venezuela's problem hasn't been so much price controls.
	Venezuela's problem has been complete import dependence for essential goods because they've never developed their domestic economy, whether it's a leftist or a right-wing people running their government.
	I mean, both the left and the right have stereotyped and caricatured aspects of Venezuelan politics that don't quite fit.
	I think politically it's a smart rhetorical ploy to say, hey, you'll get shortages, you'll get breadlines, you'll look like Venezuela if you bring in price controls.
	It's just not quite historically and economically accurate.
	But when you look at tariffs, what they do is if you do have import substitution...
	Where you domestically produce rather than bringing in the product externally because of the price differential created by the tariff, then you create stronger domestic industries which can have a national security purpose.
	Much of our medical supplies now come from foreign countries.
	We have essential goods for the functioning of the American economy and the American way of life now controlled by foreign nations.
	That is insane.
	That's if partially tariffs help facilitate and promote that.
	And then last but not least, for some people, the quality of life is dependent on the quality of employment, the quality of work, and that is more important than the cheapness of goods.
	That it's not really an equal trade-off to go from $10 an hour, but paying twice as much for t-shirts, to being permanently unemployed, but now you get half off your t-shirt.
	That only benefits a certain privileged class that also doesn't care about national identity, doesn't care about national security, doesn't care about national sovereignty, and definitely doesn't care about working-class people in industrial communities.
	I'm going to bring this up, actually.
	What do you guys think about the war on the Amish over Arrive Scam or Arrive Can app that was recently exposed by Ezra Levant?
	That's Canada.
	Yeah, no, I'll get in touch with Ezra and have someone on to explain it, because I'm not up to speed with that.
	Oh, yeah, Trudeau's massively fining him, because they wouldn't download the app on the phones they don't have.
	Yeah, but I believe my brother was involved in a case like that, where the elderly person didn't have the app, and the son said, I'm not downloading the app onto my phone, and they got fined like $5,000.
	I don't know how that ended.
	They're fining the Amish, like, almost bankrupting kind of fees.
	Wow. All right, what next, Robert?
	Well, speaking of sort of...
	We had a bank seizure go up to the federal courts.
	And what happened is, essentially, because they give licenses to operate as a bank in Utah, they interpreted that as giving them the power to seize the bank.
	Just seize it.
	He pretends that they'll give them notice, that they'll give them a pre-seizure hearing, that they'll have to make certain specific factual findings in an adversarial adjudicatory process that is found by the judge before any such seizure could ever occur, and that after that there can be post-seizure remedies if there's abuse of state power.
	They seize the bank without doing any of it.
	So they file suit in state and federal court, ultimately goes to the federal court system.
	And the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, notoriously lazy Court of Appeals, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, they love waiver.
	One of the things I teach young law students and legal interns and young legal associates that work with me is one of the biggest mistakes you can make out there is to take the judge's bait to not bring up challenges, especially during a trial.
	Because you're put under massive pressure by the, don't make this so difficult, don't make this so taxing, don't make this so costly, don't litigate every little thing, don't argue every little objection.
	And then the Court of Appeals loves to bury in various subparts of its rules all these creative ways that they want to avoid the merits.
	If they know they're wrong on the merits, they'll try to find an excuse to claim you waived it.
	And so here you bring up big constitutional issues.
	Of both procedural due process and substantive due process.
	Because the courts have recognized there is a fundamental constitutional liberty interest in setting your own price.
	Which means if they apply it properly, a substantive due process analysis should require strict scrutiny.
	But the courts have abandoned it too often than not.
	So I get a license and now you can seize all my property?
	Not just take away my license, you can seize my property?
	And you can do so without any adequate notice, without any meaningful hearing.
	They went in ex parte, in secret, got a decision.
	Then they pretended that Rooker-Feldman doctrine applied, which the Supreme Court reversed in a case I was part of over a decade ago.
	And now you have federal judges putting it back in, where they're pretending, oh, you're really asking me to appellate review what a lower court did.
	No, we're saying the government doesn't have the right to do it in the first place.
	It's a complete, absurd, asinine interpretation of the law.
	The Supreme Court unanimously rejected it a decade ago, and the courts are back pretending the Supreme Court never did that.
	And so on those grounds, the Tenth Circuit, they always do this arrogantly and self-righteously, say, well, we would love to address these big constitutional issues, but we just can't because we're going to interpret everything you did as waiver.
	You didn't amend this in this section.
	You didn't put this footnote over here.
	They should just admit the Tenth Circuit.
	They're a bunch of lazy frauds.
	Because that's what most judges are.
	Lazy frauds.
	Like the 10th circus typically is.
	Rather than pretend, oh, we can't review it because the footnote 4 wasn't properly identified.
	Anybody who has not practiced law would not understand the...
	It's not the haughtiness.
	What's the word?
	Well, it means it's how you...
	Contemptuous arrogance.
	Condescending contemptuous arrogance expressed by these lazy judges.
	Incredibly lazy.
	Every single one of them.
	Lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy.
	And they're fraud.
	In the old days, for example, if you go to some deemster courts in certain common law jurisdictions of the UK, Belize, other places where I've been, the Cayman Islands, you will get better judges from there than you'll get in any court in the United States of America.
	Why? And go back and read the Supreme Court or court opinions from a century and a half ago.
	Go any state court, any other place.
	You have to read like 30 pages before you get to the decision.
	Why? Because there was a ministerial, non-discretionary obligation of the judge and the court to accurately report what both sides actually argued.
	But with so many fraudulent judges today who want to lie about what their record reflects without consequence.
	They abandoned that about a century ago.
	And so now you never get an honest rendition of the arguments.
	In fact, it's not there at all.
	They usually make up facts that don't even exist.
	They do things that if you were a litigant, you'd get sanctioned for.
	That's how frequently judges engage in fraudulent conduct.
	In my view, impeachable conduct.
	But especially the laziness.
	I mean, here you have major questions of constitutional consequence that is your duty and oath to adjudicate.
	And you run away from it.
	And then to cover up your own criminal conduct, you accuse the other side of not adequately raising it.
	It's fraudulent behavior by judges who can't perform their oath.
	They have dishonored the oath.
	They have disobeyed their oath, dishonored the oath, disgraced the rule of law by what they've done.
	There's no better educational experience in how the rule of law...
	Is so often dead in American courts than meeting and getting to know judges.
	I've often said, if somebody's a judge, that's number one grounds I would never hire them for a job.
	I would never let them babysit my kids.
	I would never trust them with any degree of power.
	Because more often than not, they're corrupt, dishonorable, dishonest, disgusting, disreputable people.
	And this court should be embarrassed by what it did.
	Serious constitutional questions didn't address a single one.
	And everything you said about judges, more often than not, they become arbitrators, which is the good segue.
	Oh, they're even worse.
	They're a bunch of bums.
	Mediators, mostly bums.
	Bums and bums and bums.
	A good segue into the Disney case.
	People say we need the licensed lawyers.
	I've seen what licensure gives us.
	Uh-uh.
	Give me unlicensed lawyers every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
	Well, in my experience, having done arbitration, a lot of these arbitrators are retired judges who still go by the term judge or your honor while they're arbitrating.
	It's unethical, by the way.
	Disney, Robert.
	Speaking of unethical companies with unprofessional arguments that judges will probably take seriously because so many of our so-called conservative legal academy has decided to eviscerate the entire constitutional right to access our judicial branch.
	By misusing and abusing arbitration power.
	During my R stream, it was during the locals portion of it afterwards.
	So luckily, I'll put my own mistake on blast.
	I had thought that a judge granted the motion to compel arbitration.
	And I'm trying to find the ruling.
	And all I could find was the motion.
	But the judge has yet to adjudicate on Disney's motion to compel arbitration.
	And for those who haven't seen my vlog on it, who haven't listened to your Bourbon with Barnes, it's a woman.
	With a severe allergy who goes to some Irish pub restaurant that's on a Disney site in some resort, it's sold as being an allergy-sensitive or an allergy-aware restaurant.
	So people with allergies go eat here because they're very sensitive to food allergies.
	Disney warranted this on their website.
	The woman goes, peanut and milk allergy.
	She's dead within two hours.
	It seems that she had elevated response.
	It looks like she died from anaphylaxis.
	She had an EpiPen.
	It didn't work, obviously.
	And she died a couple hours later after the meal.
	Okay. The husband files a wrongful death suit against Disney and the restaurant.
	The restaurant, based on an agency agreement that they're a tenant of Disney, Disney warrants to their adequacy for allergies.
	And Disney makes a motion to compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings before the court.
	On the basis that, I mean, I thought it was a joke when I heard it, that the guy subscribed to Disney Plus, Whether or not it was a trial or a full...
	I don't know.
	It doesn't make a freaking difference.
	And he clicked, I agree, on the click wrap agreement, which undertook or bound him to submit every and any claim anywhere throughout the universe involving Disney, its agents, affiliates, yada, yada, and anyone who this guy was purporting to act and represent when he clicked, I agree, to binding arbitration.
	So they've made a motion to compel arbitration on the basis that this arbitration agreement for Disney Plus streaming services covers a wrongful death accusation and a motion to stay the proceedings on the basis that they might have conflicting or contradictory judgments if the lawsuit for wrongful death proceeds against the restaurant before the courts but Disney proceeds before arbitration if they succeed on their claim.
	No ruling yet but knowing how...
	Arbitrators adjudicate on their own jurisdiction, their own competence.
	What do you predict happens and what are your thoughts on this, although I know them already?
	Well, I remember our Red Hat case against IBM for discriminating on every grounds known to man.
	Guess what their excuse is?
	They're demanding arbitration.
	They're demanding there be no public proceeding, no public trial, no public evidence, no class action allowed.
	All because of an arbitration clause that's not even in the employment agreement.
	Because that's how the Federal Arbitration Act was passed in the 1940s.
	And the Federal Arbitration Act, by the way, it says this shall not apply to any form of employment interstate commerce.
	The courts managed to say, oh, that doesn't mean employment interstate commerce.
	Because that's how honest our originalist courts are.
	Right? Because it was mostly the originalists who can't read the Federal Arbitration Act.
	And the rest.
	The conservatives love it.
	And now neoliberals have come to love it.
	And judges love it because of how lazy they are.
	Judges hate having to actually earn their paycheck.
	And they'll expect things of lawyers that they would never expect of themselves.
	You have 15 days to file a response to this briefing.
	You better not complain or miss it by a day or I'll try to strike it.
	But you sit there and wait for six months for a judge to issue a single ruling.
	But you can imagine they love arbitration because it means they don't have to do their job.
	It means they don't have to earn their paycheck.
	And so what do they do?
	They say, arbitrator, arbitrator, arbitrator, arbitrator.
	Not only that, they get to play Pontius Pilate.
	They don't have to take any accountability or responsibility for something bad happening in that arbitration.
	And last but not least...
	They get to cover for their corporate pals.
	They get to be good little corporate whores like so many of them are.
	They should rename many of our courthouses brothels for big business and big government because that's what so many of them are.
	Like Kamala Harris.
	She says you've got to have all these pronouns to get a job there.
	You also have to be COVID vaccinated to work for Kamala Harris.
	But I was looking for her pronouns and then I remember, oh yeah, they're just...
	Oh, oh.
	But basically what these, and guess what a lot of these judges do, by the way, as you pointed out?
	What do they do when they retire?
	Oh, yes.
	They cash in with arbitration.
	And so it's their, they recognize when they're sending cases to arbitration, they're making sure their successors line their pockets by sending future cases to arbitration.
	And there's no major corporations that would ever do arbitration unless it favored them.
	You don't see employees saying, arbitrate, arbitrate.
	You don't see the ordinary consumer saying, arbitrate, arbitrate.
	It's all the institutions of corrupt power demanding such arbitration.
	Just like it's the government that always wants to force you into some agency administrative hearing that isn't a real trial first.
	Never the individual.
	Though it's done in the name of...
	Of helping accessibility and affordability, even though arbitration always costs more than court does for the ordinary person.
	So, I think we may see, this is one of the most egregious.
	Because, I mean, to say your streaming agreement allows Disney to kill your wife?
	I mean, come on!
	Well, no, Robert, I'll steal men.
	It doesn't allow them to kill your wife, but it just means that if they do, that you submit it to binding arbitration.
	The way I was thinking, like an analogy, which would express the insanity.
	If a Disney employee hit you with a car, or ran over your dog, or ran over your kid, and then you want to sue them, and they say, no, no, no, you signed on to Disney +, so any lawsuit you have against any Disney affiliate employee, executive, whatever, needs to be submitted to binding arbitration.
	I mean, it's that outlandishly preposterous.
	It should be seen that way.
	But judges have gone to such great lengths to force cases to arbitration that had no business being in arbitration that it would not surprise me at all to see this one go to arbitration.
	That's how nuts.
	And maybe you'll finally wake people up.
	We should go back and change...
	I think all the arbitration laws violate our right to a public open access to courts, rights to appeal, due process of law, and rights to trial by jury.
	They utterly eviscerate that.
	And I believe all these lazy, corrupt courts have been depriving us of our constitutional rights and liberties now in this particular area concerning arbitration for half a century.
	But it's clear we can't rely on the courts to actually uphold the Constitution in this regard.
	So we need to change the law at the state and federal level.
	No more Arbitration Act agreements whatsoever.
	No more deference to them.
	No more protection to them.
	No more extension to them.
	Big corporations and powerful people cannot take away our constitutional rights and liberties with adhesive contracts, which is what these are, that have not been fairly negotiated, that are indispensable and should be unalienable.
	That's our words from our Declaration of Rights.
	Unalienable. What does that mean?
	It means you can't sell them.
	It means you can't negotiate them away.
	That's what the right to jury, trial by jury, right to due process of law, and right to open access to court should mean.
	I had thought that there were attenuating limits on click-wrap agreements, but Disney arguing that you don't even have to have Reddit.
	That's exactly right.
	I mean, they've Greenlead everything.
	I mean, look at Red Hat.
	Red Hat, there was some little sales provision.
	Like, hey, we got a special sales program.
	Do you want to participate in this little special sale?
	Oh, okay, sure.
	Buried in it is an arbitration clause that they're saying now forces them to arbitration for everything and takes away your substantive rights and remedies, including your rights to class action remedy, your rights to public trial.
	So, I mean, your rights to meaning.
	Because, by the way, in arbitration, discovery is often eviscerated.
	The reason is so, in arbitration, it's private and secret.
	So you're back to Star Chamber Courts, number one.
	By the way, when the Supreme Court approved this, they said, don't worry, that will never happen, right?
	I mean, it was all garbage.
	And all the federal judges are just so corrupt on this issue of arbitration because they won't admit, I can't wait to line my pockets with arbitration.
	I'm already helping my buddy line my pockets with arbitration.
	They won't admit that for a second, even though that's what's driving all of them.
	I mean, it's really bad in complex branch divisions of civil courts.
	They create these separate business courts, and all the judges want to get there for three to four years, so they build up a reputation so they can go as being corporate whores, by the way, because they get picked for arbitration with these arbitration associations, who, again, get all of their money from these big corporations.
	So if you're an arbitrator, you're acting against your self-interest to rule in any way against the corporation.
	And you know it's favorable to the corporation because the corporation wouldn't be demanding it unless it was.
	So everybody knows it's a fraud.
	Everybody knows it's a fixed, corrupt system.
	But because the judges themselves are lining their pockets with it in the future, nobody does anything about it.
	And the legislators that are as equally solicitous of big corporate America, whether neoliberals or neoconservatives, have not taken meaningful legislative reform that has been overdue for the last quarter century.
	I want to just show one thing.
	I've done it.
	I've done it.
	I've gone ad-free on Rumble.
	Booyah. Apparently, it's very, very successful, and it's a way to support Rumble.
	Now, I'm ad-free.
	Doing any ads?
	Don't get any ads.
	And you support Rumble at the same time.
	You make it sustainable as an economic model.
	On a go-forward basis.
	There's been all kinds of attacks on Rumble, hack attacks on Rumble, DDoS attacks on Rumble, stock attacks on Rumble that were designed to preclude and prohibit and prevent Rumble from being an independent, successful alternative.
	Because remember, X and Twitter, it's only because Elon Musk is willing to lose money year after year that it's alive.
	Because the advertising boycott worked entirely there.
	They're trying to do the same thing to Rumble.
	And what can keep Rumble alive as an independent...
	Platform for free speech is ordinary people finding a way to support it through becoming a subscriber and for those that can't afford it.
	I mean, Trump's latest campaign donation ad was probably one of the best ever.
	He was like, I just want you to give 20 bucks.
	But unfortunately, thanks to Joe Biden, almost none of you have 20 bucks.
	So it's like it's a political ad and a donor thing at the same time.
	It's like brilliantly done by Trump.
	But speaking of corrupt actors...
	We have a Pepsi class action.
	We have Facebook getting away with censorship.
	We have TikTok defending itself against a dangerous law that's meant to do much worse than even what's suggested with TikTok.
	And we got the Supreme Court on Title IX.
	When do we move it over to the locals' exclusive afterparty?
	Well, pick one of those and the rest will save for the afterparty.
	Let's do TikTok.
	I think that's a bigger...
	Well, hold on.
	The TikTok?
	There was another...
	Let's do TikTok.
	TikTok filed suit claiming unconstitutionality.
	It's not a bill of attainder.
	There's a specific provision in the U.S. Constitution against bills of attainder.
	Bottom line, the TikTok ban, which on the one hand they're trying to say is not a TikTok ban, it's not targeting TikTok, but it's targeting TikTok on the basis that TikTok is a national security threat for mining data, all this other stuff.
	And so the TikTok ban, which we covered, and I...
	As much as I hate TikTok, I don't think I support it, and I don't think I've changed my view on this.
	I do think it's a Trojan horse to go after other platforms on the basis of ambiguous terminology.
	Forcing it to, either banning it or forcing it to divest, to sell to interests.
	I guess the good segue was that at one point Rumble, Pavlovsky tweeted out, we'll buy it.
	And TikTok says, well, we ain't selling it, and we couldn't even sell it.
	I don't think we would be allowed to under Chinese law.
	They filed suit.
	In what I think is a very compelling argument that this is quite clearly a law targeting a single entity, that there has been no rational basis or even strict scrutiny to impose the restriction, that they basically said, trust us, bro, and banning TikTok, and that's it.
	So you'll flesh it out as to what their likelihood of success is, what would happen with this law.
	Now everyone's going to say Viva's got a lisp if he's having a stroke in real time.
	I'm choking on my tongue, people.
	I think it's a damn good argument.
	And I'm trying to read the analysis of those who think it's not a good argument.
	And everybody's basically saying, well, we'll know if it's a good argument based on what evidence, what secret evidence the government has to justify this draconian measure to come down on TikTok in particular.
	What is your take, Robert?
	Yeah, I mean, I'm against the TikTok ban.
	It was against it when Trump talked about it, against it when Biden talked about it, against it when Congress passed it.
	First of all, it would be the biggest ban of a platform and a mechanism for speech that's ever been done in the history of the United States of America.
	That's never a good precedent to set.
	Second, its pretext was to give extraordinary powers to the president of the United States, whomever that can be at different times.
	Right now, Joe Biden could be a Kamala Harris, that if they think some particular platform is providing help to a foreign adversary, they can completely ban it.
	Truth social.
	They'll come after truth.
	Truth social.
	Rumble. X. Other ones.
	X. You name it.
	It would basically be an excuse to completely prohibit and ban speech anywhere they want that they don't like.
	And here they made specific...
	TikTok had a lot of anti-Israeli content on it.
	A bunch of members of Congress said that's grounds to ban it.
	Well, that's a content-based restriction.
	That's presumed unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
	And then, as you note...
	It's obvious there's equal protection issues because they target TikTok by law in the law itself.
	But it is a classic bill of attainder, which we don't get an opportunity to discuss very often.
	So what that is, is there used to be actual bills of attainder by the UK Parliament.
	And it's legislative punishment.
	It's we hereby say you can't occupy a certain profession.
	You can't occupy a certain job.
	You can't have a certain piece of property.
	Or we order you in prison.
	So it's a true, classic, traditional bill of attainder is legislative punishment of a specifically identified person or group.
	And that's what they do here.
	They say, we're going to go and bankrupt TikTok.
	You can disinvest, but they know they can't effectively disinvest.
	So it's taking all their property.
	I mean, it's a takings, which has its own issue under the Fifth Amendment, but it's a classic bill of attainder.
	Is it punished?
	It's not regulatory on neutral grounds.
	They specifically identify a particular party.
	They ask for them to suffer a substantial loss of property, and it's not done on a neutral grounds applicable to others because the others all have a degree of due process applied to them that TikTok is not.
	So it is a classic bill of attainder, and our Constitution prohibits those because we don't want to give the legislature that power.
	So I think it patently violates the First Amendment.
	Clearly, it's an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
	I think that TikTok law is going to be dead law, and thank God, because power we never want the federal government to have anyway.
	I'm not going to do another Rumble Advertiser Center, but just to say, for everybody out there who's a creator, Rumble has made it something special.
	It's amazing.
	I'm refreshing in seeing what campaigns I could run if we wanted to run another one.
	Let us go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	For the after party, but I did want to bring up this one.
	I just highlighted it.
	We got SCOTUS on Title IX.
	We got Pepsi trying to sell you Soylent Green and call it a protein bar.
	And Facebook against Robert Kennedy.
	What's the latest excuse from the judges for their censorship?
	And my wife and I went ad-free on Rumble last night.
	Happy to support the platform.
	Love it so far, says Amdrum.
	And I'm going to read all of the...
	We're going to read all of the five bucks and up.
	I'm going to refresh and hopefully I do not miss any.
	And if I miss any, please do not be angry with me.
	Everybody, head on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	If you don't, the entire stream will be on podcast format tomorrow.
	It will be on Viva Clips tomorrow.
	And I post it also to X tomorrow.
	Law for the People.
	Viva and Barnes, Law for the People, Podbean, and Podcast Stitch.
	We'll be live tomorrow at 2 p.m.
	Eastern. What are the odds?
	Richard Barris, People's Pundit Daily, YouTube, Rumble, Locals, and X used to be Twitter.
	Are you going to cover any of the compelling presentations from the Democratic National Convention next week?
	Hell yes!
	I mean, look, I'm committing to the schedule.
	My new schedule, everybody, 12.30 live every day.
	But I reserve the right to go live afterwards if something else comes up.
	So yes, for damn sure, because it's going to be amazing.
	But 12.30 every day for those who are watching.
	I've got Sam Sorbo coming on on Tuesday to talk about homeschooling.
	I think, I'm not trying to put pressure on him, but Darren Beattie is coming on at some point this week to talk Jan 6 pipe bombs.
	The latest one, the butler.
	So it's going to be a big week.
	I just don't know when Beat is coming out.
	So stay tuned.
	It's going to be amazing.
	And that is all.
	We're going to go over to supporters at Locals, people.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.

▲