Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 26, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

02:29:25

Ep. 248: "Bitcoin Jesus" Begs Trump! Rekieta Gets Plea Deal! Pardons, Deportations, Bird Flu & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Destroyed millions of acres of the state, displaced countless amounts of family.
	Do you take responsibility for any of this?
	And is there anything more you think you could have done?
	Not really.
	I think these fires were very devastating.
	I think the full scope of what actually has happened, we're not there yet.
	Okay, these people's...
	Houses are just destroyed.
	People are suffering.
	People are sad.
	But we're Californians.
	We're going to push through.
	We're going to push through.
	And where we're going, the vision is 10 times bigger than anybody else can even imagine.
	Former President Trump has recently criticized your leadership, saying that you failed California.
	What's your response to him?
	And what does the future of California look like?
	To be honest with you, I try to block out, just block that rhetoric.
	Because the words that come out of his mouth, all the words out of his lips, they don't mean anything to me.
	He needs to use these more because the future of California...
	We can stop there.
	I don't want to steal all of the comedic genius of Vinny Oceana.
	Vinny Oceana, not Oceana.
	I'm stuck with 1984 in my head these days.
	You gotta go watch the full clip.
	Because Vinny's a comedic genius, and I'm happy to say that when we watch videos when I put my kid to bed at night, although we're not supposed to have the blue light, he enjoys the Vinny voiceovers and the Vinny shorts.
	Because Gavin Newsom, for those of you who don't know, literally is conducting an orchestra of music that makes no sense.
	I talk with my hands, people.
	I appreciate that.
	So some people can say confession through projection, accuse your adversaries of doing what you are doing.
	I like to think that my hand gestures are somehow correlated to what I'm talking about.
	Gavin Newsom, this thing, the thing that he does, this, we're gonna, we're gonna really just, we gotta beat, rebuild.
	He does stuff with his hands.
	It's an indication of a psychopath, is my humble opinion.
	Check out the link.
	It's a psychopath.
	Now, it was also a very easy way to segue into the other video that I wanted to start tonight's show off with, which was actually related to California.
	And the other psychopath in California.
	Someone said, I checked the audio before tonight's stream, thanks to Encryptus, who is designing wonderful AI software to summarize stuff.
	I know that the audio is working.
	Yeah, Gavin Newsom's a psychopath.
	But what I wanted to start with was, people make fun of Trump not understanding exactly what he's doing.
	And in the case of Aaron T. Rupar, who has been described by the Urban Dictionary as a, how did they call him?
	A worthless sack of shit who will lie through his teeth for partisan purposes.
	Yeah, Aaron T. Rupar pretends not to understand what Donald Trump is getting at when Donald Trump makes very, very legitimate, valid points as to how they're cutting the red tape to rebuild on the rubble, assuming they even let people rebuild on the rubble.
	Here is a clip.
	My goodness.
	Watching Donald Trump go full throttle now?
	Like, Donald Trump is remorseless.
	I'm not going to agree with everything he does, but he is remorseless, and it's a thing of beauty to see.
	There's no, let's be diplomatic because we have to worry about re-election.
	There's no, let's be diplomatic because I want to play politics.
	No, he's calling the idiots idiots and humiliating them on national television.
	I play you this, then we talk.
	The same, maybe a little bit longer, a little bit higher.
	They really shouldn't have to go through much of the process.
	So I want you to know that we are expediting that.
	We absolutely need your help.
	We need the federal help.
	You've got it, I told you.
	You will have no permit problem.
	There will be zero delay.
	And as far as I'm concerned, you already have the permits.
	And the resources.
	I am more worried, because I met at least eight groups of homeowners, and I'm much more worried about the fact that they said it's 18 months exactly.
	And they were devastated.
	They want to start now.
	They want to start removing things.
	They're not allowed to do it now.
	And you mentioned hazardous waste.
	Well, hazardous waste.
	What's hazardous waste?
	I mean, you're going to have to define that.
	We're going to go through a whole series of questions on determining what's hazardous.
	I just think you have to allow the people to go on their site and start the process tonight.
	And we will.
	Okay, good.
	You can count on us.
	What is hazardous waste?
	Oh my god, idiot Trump doesn't know what hazardous waste is.
	No, it depends on how you define it.
	They might refer to salt soil that has the residue from the ocean water that was used to put out the fires because, you know, they didn't set it up beforehand because you can't use salt water to put out forest fires because it's bad for the soil, as if the fire's not.
	They might qualify that as hazardous waste.
	Ash, rubble, rubber, hazardous waste.
	So, no, you don't get your land back.
	They say it right now.
	It's an amazing thing.
	The fires are still burning.
	It's two and a half weeks out.
	Palisades fire is still burning.
	And they're saying, hey, we're going to cut the red tape for rebuilding.
	But it depends on some definitions of words here and there.
	But he humiliated the woman, the mayor of the L.A. area.
	Hold on just one second.
	And it's a thing of beauty.
	Much in the same way, he has now basically humiliated the country of Colombia.
	It's an amazing thing.
	It's just an amazing thing where we're dealing with absolute idiots.
	Apparently, Colombia, we're going to talk about this when Barnes gets in, but Colombia is refusing to take back their illegal, criminal, illegal aliens because that's who's on the order for deportation back to their homeland.
	It's a thing of beauty.
	People don't understand it.
	First, I'm going to humiliate and shame that fraud of a horrible, horrible person, AOC.
	You understand, like, when they let their actual priorities out, they will criticize Trump for curing cancer because it would put doctors out of business.
	Trump was deporting, flying Colombian criminal illegal aliens back to Colombia.
	And Colombia said, well, that plane's not landing here.
	We're not taking back our own criminal illegal aliens.
	I mean, it's been very good for Colombia.
	Crime rate's down here.
	You take the nutcases, the criminals.
	They didn't take them back.
	Trump says, you take them back, or we're going to slap a tariff of 25% on all of your products.
	And in a week's time or whatever, it'll be 50%.
	And I'm sitting here arguing with Pekka Kolomieni, the Russian propagandist expert, who said, you guys are going to pay more for coffee.
	Mother effer, you know what?
	I'd rather pay a little bit more for coffee and have fewer illegal criminal aliens roaming the streets.
	And they're like, you know what's going to happen, right?
	When you don't know how to negotiate, you don't know how to negotiate from a position of weakness.
	And you can, when you're negotiating from a position of weakness, you can opt for the carrot or you can get the stick.
	And congratulations, Colombia was going to opt for the stick because they want to be righteous and they want to stick it to Trump.
	And they say, no, Trump, we'll fight back with our own tariffs on your product.
	Good, good, good.
	Go ahead.
	Holy hell.
	But then you get AOC.
	AOC, by the way, just to remind everybody, do we see replies or we don't see replies?
	AOC, in her infinite wisdom, She's assessed the entire situation.
	Forget the Lake and Riley's of America.
	Forget the cops of America.
	Forget the lady on the subway in New York doused in gasoline and set on fire.
	He was from Nicaragua.
	He wasn't from Colombia.
	To, quote, punish Colombia, Trump is about to make every American pay even more for coffee.
	If you've had one cup of coffee at Starbucks in the last week, you just wasted enough coffee for an entire week.
	Remember, we pay the tariffs, not Colombia.
	Oh, oh, is that how it works?
	Because you only have one source of coffee, you brain-dead, buck-tooth idiot.
	You only have one source of coffee.
	The only coffee available in America is from Colombia.
	Holy crap.
	There's some great Guatemalan coffee, by the way, just so you should know.
	AOC's got her priorities straight.
	Apparently she thinks that there's no other coffees available in America.
	And apparently she's also willing to risk the life and limb of American women so that she can get cheaper coffee.
	And I said the woman who says she feared being raped on January 6th is more worried about paying a little more for coffee than protecting American women from rape and murder by criminal illegal aliens.
	Remember, this is the idiot nutbag hallucinator who claimed that she thought she was going to get raped by the angry mob on January 6th.
	It's almost as stupid, outlandish, as when Marco Mendicino, the pathological liar of Canadian politics, said that women...
	We're getting threats of rape from the Ottawa trucker protest.
	AOC, none of the, what you call insurrectionists, what other people call patriots, who descended on Capitol, or the Capitol building on January 6th, 2021, were there for the purposes of sexually assaulting anybody.
	But it's the easiest thing for a perpetual victim to lie about.
	I thought I was going to get murdered and raped and even worse.
	It wasn't even on the Capitol building at the time.
	She worried about that when patriots came down to protest what they believed was a stolen election.
	But she doesn't want to pay a little bit more for coffee.
	Maybe. Maybe.
	In order to protect American women from the type of violence that we have seen perpetrated, carried out by illegal criminal aliens.
	Oh, and by the way, Columbia buckled already.
	It's an amazing thing how it works when you...
	I ask for confirmation just so that I don't make incorrect information.
	It's amazing what happens when you negotiate from a position of weakness and instead of opting for what could have been that delicious, salty, pepper-covered carrot, you went with the stick and now great.
	You get nothing out of it except for doing what you should have done from the beginning.
	Got two sources.
	Columbia's president reverses course following U.S. retaliation after it blocked...
	No shit, Sherlock.
	They're your citizens.
	Take them back.
	And you want to play stupid games?
	Congratulations, you'll win stupid prizes.
	You need American trade more than they need Colombian coffee.
	Because despite what...
	Oh, God, what's the Colombian coffee guy's name?
	Oh, what's the Colombian...
	My joke.
	I'm going to screw my joke up now because I needed the timing on this.
	Was it Juan Matalban?
	Who was the Colombian coffee guy from the commercials?
	In the 80s.
	I think it was not Ricardo Maltaban.
	That was from Miami Vice.
	The Colombian guy?
	Ah, Juan Valdez.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Apparently, AOC thinks, only Juan Valdez has the monopoly on the Colombian coffee.
	I love that chat.
	Everyone in the chat is aging themselves.
	Juan Valdez.
	And I remember his face.
	He had a nice thick mustache and he was drinking the coffee.
	It was beautiful.
	Anyhow, Fafo.
	Colombia, take back your citizens.
	And if they were such stellar citizens because you were sending your best, remember when Trump said they're not sending their best, they're sending rapists, murderers, criminals, emptying out their insane assholes.
	If they're such great taxpaying citizens, non-criminal citizens, take them back, Colombia.
	You should be more than happy to do it.
	It has been a week of winning.
	And it's like, I'm going to pay more for coffee.
	You stupid idiot, AOC.
	You stupid idiot, P.K. Koliominev.
	You think Colombia is going to shoot themselves in both feet, then their elbows, then their fingertips over something as obvious as taking back their own citizens?
	You think Jagmeet Singh out of Canada is going to get in a tariff war with America?
	This is what stupid people do.
	This is what idiots who don't know how to negotiate from a position of weakness do.
	They feign more power than they have.
	And what happens?
	They get spanked like the little children that they are.
	Ah. I feel better.
	But I've been feeling good all week because it's been one heck of an amazing week.
	I mean, how much better does it get?
	Enrique Tarrio.
	I have now gotten to meet him in person.
	Listen to him talk.
	Talked with him afterwards.
	Salt of the earth.
	Human being.
	Out of prison.
	Ross Ulbricht.
	I appreciate people have problems with Ross because they think he was, at the end of the day, dealing drugs.
	Out of prison.
	All of the Jan Sixers, out.
	There are a few cases that we're going to have to deal with.
	Jeremy Brown being one of them, who wasn't covered by the pardon, and it's going to be a question of putting that story on blast.
	I'm going to have CanCon, Brian Lupa, come back on.
	I wanted to do it yesterday, but the day just got away from me.
	There's a few holdout cases of...
	Other charges not directly related to January 6th that are keeping some of these January 6th patriots behind bars.
	We have to put that on blast.
	We will.
	But it's been a week of winning.
	And it's been a week of...
	This is what happens when you get someone who's smart, when you get someone who actually understands things more than you idiots think he understands things.
	People saying Trump are dumb, people who are saying Trump is dumb, are dumb.
	Or liars.
	Or a bit of both.
	You get someone in charge who knows what they're doing.
	They can turn a freaking country around in a week.
	And that's what we're witnessing right now.
	Are you frustrated?
	They stole two years of your life.
	I'm sorry?
	Well, okay, I love this.
	When I say, have I spoken to the president or anybody in the administration?
	Absolutely not.
	I don't know anybody in the administration.
	I take a job in the administration.
	I make a joke.
	It's a joke.
	I make a joke that I take the position of secretary retaliation.
	It's a joke.
	It's a joke.
	But there's an old expression.
	He says, it's a joke, the audio's a little bit better.
	I was live streaming that from the actual press conference.
	Secretary of Retaliation.
	It's a joke.
	What makes it funny is that there is an element of truth in it.
	Yeah. I don't know if retaliation is the word, retribution is the word.
	The joke is, it's what the Department of Justice is supposed to be.
	Doling out justice.
	And who better to dole out justice than the people who've been the victims of the injustice for the last four to however many years.
	And I'll say this, even if it gets me in trouble in Canada, people.
	Enrique Tarrio, I've been following him for a long time.
	Following him, not like social media-wise, but following his story.
	I know enough about the guy's history, the guy's upbringing.
	He's a salt-of-the-earth good person.
	When he gets up there and they say, what does the Proud Boys plan on doing?
	We plan on doing exactly what we've been doing.
	Social issues and trying to make the world a better place.
	And then he goes into how, you know, when he's being tried in D.C., Proud Boys protest outside, you know, drag story reading time.
	And some people on the jury are 2SLGBTQIA +, thinking that they're going to, you know, give Enrique Tarrios and the Proud Boys of the world a fair trial.
	All right.
	But before we even get too far into this, and speaking of the government, the scoundrels, and what are they up to next, people?
	That is...
	The question, people.
	The wellness company.
	Are the globalists gearing up for another pandemic after failing at the ballot box in November, just weeks before President Trump's inauguration?
	Gavin Newsom, the guy that we saw at the beginning, declared a bird flu state of emergency, granting himself sweeping powers reminiscent of COVID-19 policies.
	This comes after a severe case of H5N1 bird flu was reported in Louisiana.
	Critics like Nicholas Hulsher warned that pandemic fears may be weaponized yet again to challenge Trump's agenda yet again, including the nomination of RFK Jr. to HHS.
	Is it a health crisis or a power play?
	Last summer, Dr. Peter McCullough warned.
	The bird flu linking it...
	To the rapid spread of gain-of-function research, now a common practice in many labs globally.
	And we know this because they've decided to defund Peter Drazak.
	What the hell that guy's name is?
	Drazak. Dr. McCullough urges early prevention just in case, recommending a contingency emergency kit from the wellness company.
	His medical board approved solution with five critical life-saving medications, ivermectin, Tamiflu, a nebulizer, anti-hydroxychloroquine.
	Every household can now have access to those hard-to-get medications in the event of another so-called pandemic.
	Get yours by filling out a digital intake form today.
	Kits arrive in one to two weeks.
	Don't wait until the deep state puts their plans into action.
	Stay ready for the unexpected.
	Go to twc.healthfotes.
	Promo code Viva gets you $32 off and free shipping.
	It is unfortunately available only to U.S. residents.
	So people up in Canada, I don't know what you're going to do, but Americans, twc.health forward slash Viva.
	Promo code Viva gets you $32 off and free shipping.
	How do I close this thing here?
	Where am I here?
	I like Google like this.
	And that is it.
	Link is in the description, by the way.
	Let me get to some of the tip questions before we get too far into this and until Barnes gets here.
	MSC8503 over in our vivobarneslaw.locals.com community says, although pardoned by Biden, can individuals be questioned by Congress?
	Tipping this question makes sense, Michael.
	Oh, hipping this question makes sense, Michael.
	So we've talked about this.
	They can certainly be questioned.
	The only question is whether or not they would be able to invoke the Fifth, plead the Fifth, for fear of potential self-incrimination on potential state charges that might result.
	That's the caveat.
	But they can certainly be questioned, and there can certainly be committee hearings.
	They just can't go after them federally and try to lock them up in jail federally.
	Mr. Mike says, have you read, seen President Malay's Make the West Great Again speech from Davos?
	I saw parts of it, not all of it.
	There's also too much to keep up with.
	And then we got, I think we got a new member here.
	EBM444, I think, is in the house with a new member of our community.
	Over on Commitube, because I can't get to these via Rumble Studio, can Trump ever surpass the promise of a mighty pay presidency?
	Doubtful. I'm not sure what that means.
	We have a mighty pay in our community.
	And we got FriedPie says, Trump has no Fs to give.
	2.0 is the best Trump.
	It's amazing.
	If anybody didn't watch Trump on Rogan, his intelligence, his genuine appreciation of global politics might surprise you.
	But the reality is that Trump...
	It's not just that he's smart.
	You don't succeed in life.
	I don't care if people don't.
	He went bankrupt six times.
	You don't understand the amount of entrepreneurs that I represented as an attorney that went bankrupt at some point in their lives.
	You don't go bankrupt if you don't try.
	Let me rephrase this.
	The only way not to go bankrupt in business when you're an entrepreneur is to not try.
	You look up the amount of times the average successful entrepreneur has failed in the past, which means you get seed money.
	It doesn't work out.
	Company goes bust.
	All of them.
	You find me one successful entrepreneur that has not had a business failure in his life or her life, I'll call bullcrap.
	Or I'll call someone who actually stepped into it, inherited it.
	But Trump, in as much as he's had failed businesses, is a wildly successful businessman.
	You don't get that way if you're stupid.
	You don't succeed changing the New York landscape if you're stupid.
	And you sure as hell don't escape potential criminals.
	Criminal prosecution in New York if you're guilty.
	You don't if you're truly guilty.
	And the fact that the only thing they could ever, ever, ever get on him was that bogus hush money payment nonsense.
	Overvaluation of his assets to fraudulently get more beneficial terms on a loan from a bank.
	The fact that that's all they ever got on him means that he was dotting his I's and crossing his T's like a religious person.
	But he understands geopolitics.
	And people who think he's stupid, Simply don't understand what he's doing because they are, in fact, the ones who are stupid.
	What do we got here?
	The Engaged Few says, Hey guys, what are your thoughts on the story that says Javier Mele wants to put together an alliance with populous nations like the US, Italy, Hungary, etc.?
	It was sort of, I mean, it was sort of what I was suggesting Trump was trying to get at with his talk about, um, about...
	Bringing Canada in as a 51st state, they don't want that.
	A, Canadians don't want that, or at least a substantial portion of Canadians don't want that.
	And I've got to tell you, a lot of MAGA doesn't want that either, because if you amalgamate Canada, you amalgamate Ontario, you amalgamate Quebec, you amalgamate provinces that don't want anyone owning a firearm.
	You amalgamate more left-leaning provinces than the blue-leaning states of Michigan.
	What they want, what Trump is trying to get at is to secure routes through the Arctic for national security and also just to create something of a fraternity, a brotherhood of American nations.
	Some people are going to take that out of context.
	A brotherhood of American nations, of the Americas, not like the European Union, but something where they are stronger in an informal alliance.
	And that's how he's trying to get there.
	Let me see here.
	Hold on one second.
	Garvin over in VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com says, Dr. William Mackis in Alberta, can you get ivermectin and fenbendozol in Canada?
	I don't know the answer to that question.
	Andre Tuchulescu.
	It says, Dear Lord, I see the blessings you have bestowed upon America, and I humbly pray you would extend the same grace to Canada, says Andre.
	The Trump effect will be net positive for Canadians as well, if only because, A, it will force Canada to tighten up its borders and tighten up its immigration policies, which will have trickle-down effects on the population as a whole.
	It's going to reveal the jug-meat-sings of the world for the idiots that they are.
	And the next federal election comes around.
	You know, people will vote accordingly, hopefully.
	And in as much as, you know, my ideal choice is not Pierre Poilievre, he will certainly be, if not a step in the right direction, at least stopping the steps in the wrong direction.
	But speaking of, by the way, speaking of the next federal elections in Canada...
	Oh, Barnes!
	Sorry, I was wondering.
	I was in the backseat.
	I didn't see you pop in.
	Sir, how are you doing?
	Good, good.
	Good, good.
	Here in Tennessee.
	So I got a little bit hard out because I fly back tonight to Las Vegas because I got a little announcement on the case that I was going to be trying in Tennessee.
	And then we've got Elon making some news once again.
	We'll see whether his logic makes sense or not.
	We've got a very eventful...
	Week one for President Trump, we'll review some of the highlights.
	Probably the hottest legal debate in the first court dispute of the second Trump administration concerns birthright citizenship and what that means or doesn't mean.
	I probably have an opinion that some conservatives don't share, but it's because when I believe in originalism, it means I really believe in it, not I want to make it up when it's politically convenient to change the interpretation.
	But I will try to present as best as possible both sides of the birthright citizenship argument and where I think the Supreme Court will ultimately go and where some remedies and resolutions may yet be.
	We've got Roger Ver in the news, Bitcoin Jesus, as Elon was deciding that he was going to determine who does and doesn't get pardons.
	Not sure whether that was what people elected President Trump with support from Elon for.
	We've got the J6 cases, everything that happened this week on those.
	The pardons, both the Biden pardons and the Trump pardons.
	And not to brag, but we were right a lot against all those who are predicting otherwise.
	And then we've got the Greenland Panama Canal.
	Which is already heating up because Rubio is taking a trip to Panama and Trump was lecturing the Danish prime minister about, yes, he was serious.
	He wants that Greenland.
	We've got the cabinet.
	Big, big, big hearings this week.
	A lot of you have paid attention to this past week.
	They finally figured out some normie conservatives who were finally shocked to discover that Mitch McConnell has never been your ally.
	Even our buddy, mutual friend, Mike Davis.
	Who had worked with McConnell, was shocked at McConnell's decisions.
	I've been trying to tell Mike for years.
	This is who China Mitch is.
	Then we'll get to the big nominees this week, big hearings this week.
	Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard.
	The most reformed aspects of Trump's promised election.
	Can he deliver on getting them confirmed?
	The World Health Organization, the Paris Accords, the global tax deal.
	They're all dead in just a week, thanks to President Trump.
	And remembering, Martha, I was here yesterday.
	It was the funeral for my sister, Martha.
	And I'll make a few comments on that as well.
	Let's start with comments on your sister passing.
	The community knew you were in Tennessee for the funeral.
	This is your big sister.
	Yeah, well, I got four of them.
	I got three big sisters.
	One little sister.
	The little sister was my mom's surprise to my father.
	They decided that I would be the last one in the family, so I was supposed to be the baby, baby Bobby.
	But my mom had other plans.
	She wanted more kids.
	And so, you know, my dad's birthday, surprise, surprise!
	Another little one's coming along.
	So the, you know, by hook or by crook, my mom was going to get there.
	So I do have one little sister.
	But yes, three older sisters.
	The third one in line was Martha.
	So my oldest sister, Ellen, who works with me, with the firm, and with 1776 Law Center, where you can find all the good work we're doing on behalf of people like Amos Miller, people like the January 6th defendants, people like those fighting for financial freedom, political freedom, food freedom, medical freedom, people like Brooke Jackson, the great whistleblower against what Pfizer did.
	All of that, some of which will be in the debate this week as Robert Kennedy, as I was co-counsel with him on some cases that will likely be discussed this week and likely some senators will lie once again about what the nature of those cases will be.
	We'll get to that.
	But my sister Brenda was, to give you an idea of my sister Brenda, she went to law school.
	My brother and I went there to their graduation, the commencement, with my mom.
	And the rest of the family.
	And they kept giving, you know, they give out all the awards for the top students who win this award, this award, this award.
	My brother and I about midway three realized that we should just stay standing up because basically like 32 out of the 34 awards went to my sister.
	She was like number one, number one, number one.
	She hadn't even told anybody.
	And we were like, okay, we might as well just stand up.
	I mean, get up, get down, get up, get down.
	We'll have a free exercise section.
	Brenda's going to win them all.
	But she was someone who discovered the practice of law could be a real drag.
	So left the practice of law itself.
	My sister Martha was the sweetheart of the family.
	So she was a poet, a fantastic poet, by the way.
	Sort of a romanticist and idealist, always promoting, you know, the best things in life.
	And I owe much of my place to her.
	She is the one who, you know, when my father died, she went and worked double, triple shifts, quadruple shifts, just to make sure we got food on the table and a roof over our heads.
	So here she was at, you know, 16, 17, 18 years old, making sure the whole family survived.
	I mean, to give you an idea of how intense it was, I once went in to get her food order.
	You know, she had come off of like an 18-hour shift.
	I was like, oh, we're going to get some food.
	What would you like?
	And she counted off an order that sounded like it was for 17 people.
	And I was like, you really want all that food?
	And then I realized she was so exhausted, she was recounting one of the orders she had received at work earlier in the day.
	But that's who she was.
	The reason why I got a scholarship to Yale was because I got a scholarship before that to the Macaulay School.
	I was the only person in my knowledge in the history of the school, I only found out this later, to get a scholarship as an 11th grade student entrance.
	Generally, they only gave it to 7th grade or before.
	And it was entirely because my sister went and lobbied David Brock of the Brock Candy Company, who she'd met through Young Republican Politics, by the way.
	To make sure that her little brother Bobby got into school.
	And she lobbied him and lobbied him and lobbied him until he felt so guilty that he went and did it.
	And he ended up making sure I got in.
	And that's where my entire path was able to progress.
	Otherwise, I wouldn't have made it.
	She has a great poem where she talks about whispering angels.
	And the way I described it is she was always my whispering angel.
	So she was an extraordinary individual.
	She has a great son.
	Her husband passed away a few months ago.
	Her son's going to take the semester off.
	He wants to be one of those rocket engineers, send rockets to space.
	Zach, the sweetheart of a kid, looks like her.
	Always did with his smile.
	So we all got together.
	A lot of people that had benefited from her over the years.
	I didn't even know this.
	One of the places that she had worked as a counselor, after she left working for them, she was so endeared to everyone there that whenever they faced a problem, they would say, well, we just needed Martha the problem.
	So she became a verb that the best way to solve any problem, the best way to make people feel good, the best way to help people that are hurting was to Martha.
	So yeah, yeah.
	So she was great.
	It was a good funeral.
	Everybody got to get up and speak and see.
	It was a well-done presentation at a small local church here in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
	And yeah, so the extraordinary individual led an extraordinary life.
	And if, you know, I can achieve half of what she achieved with ordinary everyday people, then I'll have had a successful life.
	All right.
	Now, what do you want to segue in to start the show off, Robert?
	Speaking of, you know, justice and injustice, I mean, one of the great advocates for justice is going to be before the Senate this week.
	And there's two of them.
	And one is one I've had the privilege of working with, one I've had the privilege of working for.
	He's been both a client and co-counsel that is one of the nicest.
	He reminds me of my sister.
	One of the nicest, most extraordinary human beings I've ever had the opportunity to get to know.
	And he is going to be subject to one of the nastiest, most vicious and vile libel campaigns in the history of nominations in this country.
	Because these politicians get away with it because of a misapplication of the Westfall Act that says if you're a senator, if you're a congressman, you can libel anybody you want, according to the courts, who decided to construe it that way in favor of their pals.
	I wonder if they'd have the same opinion if they were the ones defamed.
	But is Robert Francis Kennedy Jr., who is up for nomination?
	Big hearings this week before the Senate, Wednesday and Thursday.
	Yes, so RFK is Wednesday at 10 o'clock.
	I'll be live-streaming that, I think.
	Definitely live-streaming that.
	And Tulsi Gabbard, it doesn't mention the time yet, but she's on Thursday.
	Robert, I have to actually start with Tulsi.
	I can understand how they're going to be vitriolically opposed to RFK Jr.
	What the hell is the deal with the vitriol towards Tulsi Gabbard?
	I mean, I appreciate some people are still under the misapprehension that she's a Russian asset or an Assad sympathizer.
	But as far as I can tell, she was a Democrat in good standing for a great many years.
	A veteran, smart, wonderful, eloquent, tempered in her thoughts, measured in her expression.
	How did she become such a public enemy number one, on par with RFK Jr.?
	Well, think about it.
	Here you have Pete Hegseth, who served multiple times overseas, nominated to be the Secretary of Defense.
	Every single Democrat votes against him.
	And senators like Mitch McConnell and Lisa Murkowski.
	Lisa Murkowski is a moron.
	Failed the bar so many times she quit taking it.
	Her father, her daddy, who was notoriously corrupt in Alaska, appointed her to the Senate.
	When Republicans tired of her nonsense, she helped engineer rank choice voting in Alaska so that she could continue to win, even though Republicans in the nomination process were rejecting her.
	So she's a fake Republican.
	She's a Democrat from Alaska.
	That's what she is.
	Everybody kind of knows that.
	She can't officially call herself a Democrat because then she would lose in Alaska.
	She can call herself a Republican and get Democratic votes, put her over the top.
	So that's not a surprise as to what a scumbag she is.
	What is a surprise to many ordinary Republicans, but not to all of us, is what a scumbag Mitch McConnell is.
	Mitch McConnell should say, Senator R-China.
	Not R-Kentucky, R-China.
	His wife is Chinese, and they've made hundreds of millions of dollars with the corruption of Senator McConnell, enabling her and her father's Chinese business.
	That's who Mitch McConnell has always been.
	Conservatives who listened to Fox News thought, oh, he was a conservative champion.
	No, he's not.
	He's always been a deep state war whore.
	That's who Mitch McConnell is.
	So what people are discovering, including ordinary normie Republicans and conservatives, is that their so-called Republican advocates don't care about the people of Kentucky who elected them to power or the people of any state who elected them to power.
	They care about the deep state lining their pockets, the deep state giving them those special parties they like to go to.
	You could call them Diddy-style parties, Epstein-style parties.
	They like the power and privilege that being in the Senate gives them, and they couldn't give a rat's rear end about ordinary Americans.
	And the big crime, the big shame that Tulsi Gabbard is, is that she does.
	Unlike Mitch McConnell, she actually served in the United States military.
	Unlike Lisa Murkowski, she actually served in the American military.
	Unlike almost every member of the United States Senate, she actually risked her life.
	For our liberty.
	And that is offensive to the corrupt whores, war whores of the Senate, who are busy lining their pockets and getting their beds taken care of, you might say, with the deep state crowd.
	So what it is, is she's served overseas with honor and respect.
	You won't find another soldier she served with that has anything negative to say about her.
	She is a testament and a credit to women in the military.
	Which some people, including Hankseth, originally had doubts whether that would work.
	Not if you're recruiting the Tulsi Gabbards of the world, because frankly, she's a natural-born badass.
	She goes to Congress from Hawaii.
	She is a loyal Democrat.
	She's put as the number third person in the Democratic National Committee.
	And in 2016, she's disturbed by Hillary Clinton's war proclivities.
	She's disturbed by what she discovers in Washington as a member of Congress.
	She backs Senator Bernie Sanders for the presidency, and rather than manipulate her position at the DNC to favor Bernie, she resigns from the DNC and complains about the DNC's manipulation on behalf of Hillary.
	She runs for president in 2020, got lots of votes and a lot of support from across the country in the Democratic nomination process, though the media hated her and excluded her at every level.
	She discovers that the Democratic Party is now the party of war.
	And because the Democratic Party is now the party of war, she leaves it, becomes an independent, and then joins the Republican Party.
	Because she sees President Trump as someone who wants less war rather than more war.
	And as someone who has seen the horrors of war, like Tulsi Gabbard, she wants less of it for America's soldiers and American people.
	Because of that, she speaks out against the deep state corruption and creating conflicts like the ones in Syria, like the ones in Iraq, like the ones in Libya, like the ones in Israel, like the ones in Gaza, like the ones in Ukraine.
	And that is her great crime.
	She has been appointed by President Trump to be the Director of National Intelligence.
	Because he realized that he is constantly and continuously being lied to by the U.S. intelligence and military apparatus.
	He wants someone with extensive background in the security apparatus, in the military, in the intelligence community, understanding how and why and where and when and what they're lying about to give him honest, accurate information.
	So you think, how in the world is somebody with an extraordinary military history, history of public service, a public support for Trump's positions who just won the presidency, both the popular vote and the electoral vote, whose approval ratings are higher now than they have ever been?
	How is it in a Senate with 53 so-called Republican members that there is any risk that she not get confirmed?
	To simply provide accurate intelligence information to the President of the United States.
	It tells you how much they manipulate that intelligence information to this very day.
	They want to make sure there's nobody giving honest, accurate intel to the President.
	They want him saying really stupid stuff, like Russia stole our hypersonic missile.
	No, they didn't.
	That's been a pitiful excuse of the U.S. military apparatus.
	For the better part of a decade.
	Russia just whipped our ass in getting that missile.
	She will give him honest intel and information about that.
	They don't want him to have that.
	They want him to be as misled as he was an entire first term.
	They want him as lied to as possible.
	Susie Wiles, his chief of staff, would like Trump as lied to as possible, by the way.
	You're seeing these articles written about Susie Wiles doing a good job prohibiting people from talking to Trump.
	Why would anybody think a longtime Swamp member corporate lobbyist Susie Wiles is a good idea to decide who talks to and doesn't talk to President Trump?
	You're not going to hear this from anyone else on the right because they don't want to upset Susie Wiles.
	Susie Wiles is making clear, I got all the power.
	I got little Trump on my little doggy leash.
	And you better be nice to me and come through me and do what I want or you won't get anywhere.
	That's what that's all about.
	So Gabbard is an independent voice, a critical, essential independent voice in the national security apparatus.
	Ratcliffe is decent.
	He's nowhere near as proven at being independent.
	I mean, he frankly kept his mouth shut about some things he didn't have to in 2020.
	He should have talked about it.
	He didn't.
	I like him as a whole.
	A lot of people vouch for him.
	But do I have as much confidence in him as Tulsi Gabbard?
	Not even close.
	If Tulsi Gabbard is not confirmed, it will do severe damage to the president's terms of being able to actually reform anything.
	You'll get immigration reforms and some other stuff, but the deep state reform that needs to happen...
	Depends upon Tulsi Gabbard's confirmation.
	As far as what you predict, and not in terms of CalShare or anything, just in terms of how it's going to go down, is it going to be as purely partisan as with Pete Hegseth, or are there going to be some Democrats who might actually have a conscience?
	And I'm actually looking at Fetterman as one of the options.
	Do you foresee any Democrats actually voting for Tulsi Gabbard?
	You know, it's going to be pitiful and disgraceful.
	It'll be the sort of ultimate capstone of Bernie Sanders' failed career in terms of elevating left populism if he does not vote for Tulsi Gabbard.
	Tulsi Gabbard went to bat for him, was the most high-profile person who went to bat for him in 2016.
	And just because Bernie's one of those people that when they drop the soap, he eagerly bends over, doesn't mean everybody else has to be.
	And just so that everybody understands, what we're talking about, Bernie Sanders bent over and kissed the ring, licked the boot of Hillary Clinton after she literally stole the primaries from him in 2016.
	And then in 2020, after Joe Biden and Barack Obama stole those primaries from him by changing rules and a whole bunch of other things they did.
	I mean, by the convenience of that Iowa pollster, now being sued by President Trump for a fraudulent poll in 2024, who buried a poll that would have sunk Joe Biden in 2020 in Iowa.
	So if he's honest, if he has any degree of loyalty in his entire body, then he will absolutely vote for Tulsi Gabbard.
	If John Fetterman is serious about being independent, no real evidence of that yet.
	Just some rhetorical yipping.
	Otherwise, he just shows up in his gym shorts for the inauguration.
	Is he going to be serious or not serious?
	If he is, then he absolutely votes for Tulsi Gabbard.
	Anybody who claims to be a reformer of the intelligence community, Senator Wyden from Oregon, who doesn't vote for Tulsi Gabbard is a fraud, is a fake, phony, and fraud.
	You're going to find out who are the fakes, who are the phonies, who are the frauds, who are the war whores, who are secretly in the pocket of the swamp by how they vote on Tulsi Gabbard and Robert Kennedy.
	These two votes are going to be extraordinarily revelatory and revealing about the true nature of the parasitic, corrupt class that has come to control our American politics and our American capital.
	And so we will see.
	I think that the two most likely Democratic crossovers would be Sanders and Fetterman, but the other ones would be anybody that's expressed concern about the intelligence community in the past.
	It won't be the intelligence community's favorite little bitch, Senator Schiff.
	He'll be eagerly taking the lead against Tulsi Gabbard.
	But you have no better evidence than this morning on MSNBC, the notorious former communist by his own admission, head of the Central Intelligence Agency, coordinator and orchestrator of Russiagate, John Brennan, going around begging everybody, please, please, please don't let Tulsi Gabbard get in there.
	So you're going to see a nasty, Mitch McConnell's a war whore in a deep state.
	So watch for him to vote against Gabbard.
	The question is, how many Republicans does Trump lose?
	Trump needs to put, if Susie Wiles is legit and wants Trump to do best, then Tulsi Gabbard and RFK better get confirmed.
	Because I'll be blaming Susie Wiles if they don't.
	Because she's decided to coordinate and control their entire nomination process.
	Has decided who Trump talks to and who he doesn't talk to.
	So by golly, you better deliver, Susie, because what happened to Hegseth was a pitiful embarrassment and a failure on your part.
	That was that close to Hegseth not getting confirmed to the Secretary of Defense.
	J.D. Vance had to go down there and do it.
	So I think we're going to find out.
	But we're going to reveal what Gabbard's nomination reveals is just how corrupt Our Washington capital has become.
	It will reveal how much we are controlled by a parasitic class of deep state war whores who profit from war around the world and enrich themselves off war and they want to spy on us and spy on everybody else and get away with it.
	So that means Tulsi Gabbard, high profile supporter of Edward Snowden.
	High-profile supporter of Julian Assange.
	High-profile supporter of independent financial freedom for crypto, which is what Roger Ver is the leader on globally.
	So that's why the deep state hates her.
	We're going to see, do we have a constitutional democracy or not with the votes that come up with Gabbard?
	But you're right, by the way, look at Democrats.
	Mitch McConnell and almost every Republican voted for almost every single Biden nominee.
	And this shows what pitiful disgraces our senators are.
	Do you see Democrats crossing over?
	No. They know how to control, have party discipline to make sure things happen.
	Susie Wiles likes to brag to everybody about the discipline she's able to impose.
	Well, so far she's failed, at least by the Hexen folk.
	But you see the discipline the Democrats would be able to do.
	The only time Republicans are disciplined is when the deep state tells them to crawl.
	Then they crawl as quickly as they can.
	But that tells us who really has control and power in Washington.
	Did this election matter or not?
	Because if it mattered, a critical component to President Trump winning, a critical component to Republicans in the Senate and the House winning, was Tulsi Gabbard and Robert Kennedy's endorsement of Donald Trump.
	I'm just looking at the senators now.
	I realize that there's a lot of them I don't recognize, but in terms of who's going to vote along party lines...
	I don't know if you recognize them or prostitutes.
	Well, the thing is, even with Pete Hegseth, I could sort of understand the reluctance of some, given the allegations or the stories.
	You know, exaggerated misconstruction.
	When you're a longtime Republican, you're from an overwhelming Republican state like Kentucky that just voted for Trump and his nominees by over 20 points.
	And that's how lopsided the Kentucky vote was.
	And he voted for every Democratic nominee.
	He voted for men dressing up and pretending to be women for cabinet-level positions.
	He voted for that idiot Lloyd Austin.
	He voted for Mallorca.
	He voted for everybody.
	He gave Biden almost every vote Biden wanted.
	So he's got zero credibility to now say, oh, he disagrees with some controversies over Hexit, controversies that are big nothing burgers.
	If there was anything serious to them, the media would have proven them.
	They couldn't.
	So it just ended up being an innuendo campaign.
	It's just a disgrace.
	Republicans are waking up and looking at...
	Hold on a second.
	Why is it when Democratic presidents win, all their nominees get in, all their nominees get in quickly, and most Republicans vote for those nominees, but when we vote for Trump, we vote for reform, we vote for change, it's our own Republicans who are refusing to unite behind them.
	It's shocking.
	Now, there were some people asking online, you know, primary them, if you don't like their votes, but primaries are two years away.
	What can people do?
	Mr. Donald's not going to run for re-election.
	So, you know, that works where Murkowski doesn't care because it's Democrats who push her over the top.
	So that's part of the issue.
	Like Susan Collins, I don't mind Collins doing whatever she wants.
	Collins is an extraordinarily liberal Democratic state.
	So, you know, her voting different ways.
	It'd be like if I was a Democrat and Manchin voting different ways.
	So I don't have a problem with Collins because she is exactly who she said she is.
	And that's how she got in representing.
	And she's really representing her state.
	That's not the case with Murkowski, and that is absolutely not the case with Mitch McConnell.
	Mitch McConnell is the biggest—he is going to destroy what little legacy he had with conservatives by packing the courts with a lot of conservative jerks who weren't really that conservative.
	They were more corporate whores than anything else, as a lot of people discovered over time.
	Remember, his favorite justice, the justice he was sitting at dinner with recently, was Amy Coney Barrett.
	How conservative is she, really?
	Can you believe?
	He's a disgrace.
	He's going to destroy his legacy.
	His legacy is going to go like John McCain.
	Like, within certain conservative and populist circles, never liked John McCain.
	But there was your normie conservatives, like, oh, he fought for our country, he's a really good guy, da-da-da, that sort of thing, because they can't read a newspaper about Keating 5 or anything else.
	But when he said, when he affirmed Obamacare, after he got re-elected promising to destroy Obamacare...
	That ended his legacy with conservatives.
	They were like, oh, you know what?
	His critics were right.
	He was a fraud.
	He was a fake.
	He was a phony the whole time.
	That's how Mitch McConnell is going to go out.
	Mitch McConnell, if he votes against these future nominees of President Trump to challenge a deep state like Robert Kennedy and Tulsi Gabbard, he will go down as a traitor.
	He will go down as a liar.
	He will go down as a fraud.
	And an honest U.S. attorney's office would put him and his wife under criminal investigation for their illegal activities connected to China.
	I'm not even asking this as a joke.
	I just went to Grok and said, is Mitch McConnell dying?
	And they say, no, there's speculation, but there have been some serious issues about his health.
	How the hell?
	He's 81 years old.
	He's in worse shape than...
	He freezes up all the time.
	I mean, basically, he just says, deep state, tell me what to do, and that's all he can do.
	How can anyone get him out for physical reasons?
	Very difficult.
	This is the problem with how the 17th Amendment was sold as empowering people.
	It actually empowered the deep state and the corrupt lobbyists.
	Because it removed the power of ordinary people through their state legislatures to control or recall their senators.
	And that's why we're at where we're at now.
	We got some funny stuff in our local side here.
	Okay, so we're going to be live streaming it.
	I will be, maybe if you're free, you know, you actually are doing good work.
	We're going to get updates about.
	Speaking of which, yes, I'll give an early shout out.
	I can't go into full details.
	It's in the early stages.
	Also, credit to the defendant in this particular case, which may surprise people, given who the defendant is, that I'm saying so.
	I was scheduled for trial this week in Jackson, Tennessee, against Tyson Foods concerning their vaccine mandates.
	We have reached, at least preliminarily, a global settlement for all Tyson Foods cases.
	And I got to give credit to the general counsel at litigation counsel for Tyson in Arkansas because he took the lead at trying to get these matters remedied and resolved.
	But the ultimate credit entirely belongs to who I'm calling the Tennessee Four because they were the last four standing, the first four standing and the last four standing against Tyson Foods.
	You know, people like Jamie Spaulding and Samantha Reed and others.
	Those two have authorized me to.
	Give their names out.
	All the others haven't yet, so that's why.
	But I'm thinking about building a statute for the Tennessee Four, right across from the Tyson plant in Newburgh, Tennessee.
	So these are the four, and for people who don't remember, so this is back in the fall, late summer, fall, early fall of 2021.
	Back then, Viva and I and a few others were the only ones raising questions about the vaccine and the vaccine mandates.
	Almost everyone else wasn't.
	Even Harmeet Dillon and her lawyers at her firm were saying there's nothing you can do to fight these vaccine victims.
	Robert, I remember we were asking these questions, floating the legal theories.
	You had drafted the letter that was very, very useful to a great many of our local members, the exemption letter, and we were talking about legal theories, and you went and fleshed them out over the course of years.
	Exactly. But we started in early 2021.
	The broad-based assumption was twofold.
	One, that there was going to be no legal remedy and no legal relief for anybody who opposed, as an employee, the vaccine mandate.
	So the message that was coming out, even from conservative lawyers, was, hey, you either got to give up your job or take the vac.
	That was even from conservatives.
	They go back and look, they'll see it at the time.
	Well, there were four people at the Tennessee – Plants up in Dyersburg and that northwestern section of Tennessee who opposed the vaccine mandate.
	And what they were being faced with was everybody, everywhere they turned, telling them that their choice was their job or the vaccine.
	That simple.
	They refused to accept that.
	They refused to say that some of them had worked for 25-plus years for Tyson Foods.
	And some of the people that we had.
	Anywhere from five years to 20 years, 23 years, 25. We had them all across the board.
	People who had been loyal.
	Some of these people, imagine working 20-plus years at a place, never missing a single day of work.
	That's the degree of loyalty you show, never having any complaint written up against you in your entire employment file.
	Imagine doing that, and then one day they say, You're going to be the subject of our human experimentation, or you're going to lose your job and your way of life and everything else that you've worked for.
	And these are blue-collar people.
	They don't got fancy degrees.
	They don't got fancy credentials.
	They don't got a bunch of money in the bank.
	They ain't living in no mansion.
	They ain't driving no Lambo.
	These are ordinary, everyday people who are risking their entire livelihoods.
	These are people with families.
	These are people with kids to feed.
	These are people with roofs they've got to keep over their family's heads.
	And yet, they have the courage.
	The guts to say, what's wrong is wrong.
	And it's wrong for everybody.
	And they're like, if I don't stand up, what happens to the 20 other people who can't stand up for themselves?
	And these were ordinary, everyday, blue-collar Americans who said, no, what's wrong is wrong.
	You don't get to experiment on me or experiment on anyone else as a condition of employment.
	That ain't in the employment contract.
	I didn't sign up to be a guinea pig.
	I signed up.
	To do my job, and I've done it darn well, and I've been very loyal to you for 20-plus years in some cases.
	And so even when everybody told them, you're doomed, when everybody told them, you're out, they stood up.
	And because those four people stood up, that led, and we were able to file the suit, all of a sudden a bunch of lawyers across the country, a bunch of ordinary people across the country, a bunch of politicians across the country, started saying, hold on a second.
	Maybe we should reexamine this.
	Maybe this isn't such an open and shut case.
	And remember, at the time when Tyson Foods started this, the Biden administration was promising Tyson Foods, you're going to be made the stellar example of public health.
	You're going to be shown, see how you can use your employees to help make sure the world is a safer, healthier, better place.
	You're going to be an icon, Don Tyson.
	They're going to build a statue to you in Washington, D.C. and everywhere else.
	In between, you know, buying John Calipari to come to Arkansas and coach.
	And so that was what was happening.
	What happened three years later because the Tennessee Four took a stand?
	I like the Tennessee Four too because Johnny Cash once had the Tennessee Four with his band, a great Tennessean, a man who wrote a very nice letter to me towards the end of his past, towards the end of his life.
	Grew up with my dad singing his songs when I was a kid doing the newspaper route.
	But because they took a stand, all of a sudden other Tyson employees start saying, hold on a second.
	Maybe I don't have to be a guinea pig.
	Maybe I don't have to be subject to human experimentation.
	Maybe I don't have to go along with this new Biden administration policy of forcing that employment means I'm now subject to whatever medical experimentation you want to put on.
	Maybe Nuremberg is not so dead after all in terms of its consequence of informed consent being the basis of all forms of medicine in America and the world.
	As a matter of basic universal human decency that is etched into the legal code around the world, whether it's in the law or not, as the Nuremberg decision decided.
	Written by U.S. Supreme Court justices, by the way.
	And so they start taking a stand.
	Other employees start taking a stand.
	Other lawyers start saying, well, you know, Barnes is willing to gamble his entire financial future, which I did, on pursuing these cases.
	And, you know...
	Very few people have made a lot of money betting against Barnes over the years.
	So the utility to that reputation professionally is it encourages people to say, well, if he's taking a look at it, he's won more than he lost on some of these big gambles, maybe we should take another look at it.
	Maybe there's an opportunity here.
	And then credit to very conscientious lawyers like Warner Mendenhall and others that are like, hey, let's fight this.
	What's wrong is wrong.
	He's an old school labor lawyer, Democrat from Northern Ohio.
	He's like, what's wrong is wrong, and we're going to fight for what's right.
	And then you get people like Brooke Jackson, who's taking the stand and saying, I'm going to expose what's going on because I'm not going to let a mass murder of young kids with this human experimentation take place.
	And one leads to the next, leads to the next, leads to the next.
	And in the end, what do you get?
	They not only saved all kinds of people's jobs by taking a stand, after they took a stand against Tyson, I know from direct professional experience.
	That about 80% of the employers who are considering laying off people or firing people or removing people for the vaccine changed their mind.
	They decided they didn't want to be the subject of unique public attention.
	They didn't want to be the subject of a lot of litigation.
	They didn't want to go up against lawyers for the next decade fighting and having to write big checks to just defend those cases over this issue because it was breaking in an entirely different way than they had been promised.
	Politically, by the politicians.
	Even the politicians started re-examining it.
	Even you had judges who had just assumed all vaccines are like a gift from God.
	Somehow you take a drug, and drugs by themselves we know have side effects and all kinds of risks.
	That's why we ban a bunch of them.
	But if you put the word vaccine on them, they're magical.
	They're miraculous.
	They're gifts from God.
	In Canada, the judges were taking judicial notice of the safety and efficacy of the COVID jab.
	When it had not even been out for two years, they were saying, judicial notice, you don't even need to prove it in order to deny parents visitation rights, in order to justify blocking parents from attending hockey games.
	Judicial notice.
	Exactly. And the next level is going to be young kids.
	And because of the Tennessee Four, it led to, you can go back and look at it in lifetime.
	Go back and look at whether anybody, I can tell you the answer is no, because I lived it in live time.
	I have plenty of people telling me who are even sympathetic politically.
	Barnes, you're going to go broke on this.
	You're going to be a little street lawyer down there in East Tennessee, catch as catch can, hoping to pay off your debts when this is finished.
	I got all kinds.
	I got blowback politically.
	I got blowback from all kinds of people.
	And by the end of it?
	Because they took a stand, courage is infectious.
	Always remember that, everybody.
	And their courage was infectious.
	It was infectious like COVID was infectious and like the vaccine didn't work to prevent their infection.
	They were a vaccine against cowardice, is who the Tennessee Four were.
	And because of it, we filed suit.
	Tyson did some things early in the case that I didn't like.
	I was very vocal about the fact they didn't like, and I promised that I would be suing them, and then my ghost would come back and sue them some more, unless things went in a different direction.
	To the credit, Tyson ultimately recognized that this was not the decision they would repeat.
	The chief medical officer who instituted it all, bye-bye from Tyson.
	Some of the lawyers who promoted it, bye-bye from Tyson.
	None of this settlement happens, Robert.
	And Tyson doesn't change its tune unless Trump gets elected, period.
	Yeah, all of it.
	Unless there's a huge blowback across the country, unless they're getting blowback from surprising circles and sources, unless they see the political momentum that it creates for Robert Kennedy, unless they see how that Robert Kennedy political momentum even changes Trump's perspective on some of these issues, and then leads Trump's election, and then they see some of these cases go into verdict.
	A Chattanooga case, a San Francisco case, a Michigan case, an Indiana case, an Illinois case.
	And some of these juries are coming back with big verdicts.
	Let's say, okay, do you really want to gamble your entire corporate future on an idea of a halfwit that you fired two months ago in your medical office?
	And so the aggregate led to a very reasonable resolution.
	The nature of all these settlements is that any conversation concerning the substance of them is always confidential.
	So I can't go into any further details beyond that.
	It was the right step for Tyson to take.
	It was a very reasonable step.
	And every Tyson plaintiff that I have is in a position where they can put their lives back together.
	But it's thanks to the Tennessee Four.
	Without him, I'd be talking to the wind.
	Without them, a whole bunch of other employees don't get the courage to take action.
	Without them, that doesn't lead to other public officials recognizing and respecting that action.
	And then changing the court of public opinion.
	It was like when I talked early on with Brooke Jackson and was explaining what I thought was going to happen, and unfortunately I predicted everything that was going to happen in the case and what had happened, because she had been lied to all the way up to that point.
	And the natural response is, okay, why should I risk my entire financial future and my entire personal freedom?
	On pursuing a case that you're telling me the entire system is going to arraign to crush.
	And I said, never underestimate the court of public opinion.
	That you can use the courts of law to educate the court of public opinion, not just the jurors, not just the judges, not just opposing counsel.
	And if you do so, if you go public, I believe that it will help lead to...
	Real public education about the risks of this vaccine.
	It will lead to people not taking that vaccine or giving it to their children who shouldn't take it.
	And it will save lives.
	The Tennessee Four saved livelihoods of hundreds of thousands and millions of people.
	That I have no doubt.
	They also helped save lives, as Brooke Jackson did.
	If Brooke Jackson doesn't step forward, if the Tennessee Four don't step forward, if Robert Kennedy doesn't step forward, if those aggregative events don't come together to occur, then the normal expected vaccine uptake is 95% to 98% of everybody, including children.
	We already know the death and disability rate of the side effect already.
	We're not even talking about what's going to come for the next five to ten years, where there's going to be more deaths from that vaccine, more disabilities from that vaccine, that they saved lives.
	Because if you go back and look, before the Tennessee 4 sue, before Brooke Jackson goes public, and before Robert Kennedy decides to expose the scam here, that 95 to 98 percent of people were reporting in polls, including parents, that they were going to have their little children take it, six-month-olds take it.
	That was the government's objective.
	And instead, you have at least one in five Americans that have never taken it and a majority of young children who have never taken it.
	That saved lives.
	You know, they may not build a statute to you.
	You may not ever get a big check in the mail.
	You may have to go through a lot of crap to get there.
	But Brooke Jackson, the Tennessee Four, Robert Kennedy saved lives.
	A lot more than Bill Gates did.
	Bill Gates said, man, he's accusing me of killing children.
	Because that's what you are, Bill Gates, a murderer.
	If you think I'm wrong, sue me.
	I'll prove it in court.
	By contrast, look at what the Tennessee Four did.
	By contrast, look at what Brooke Jackson did.
	By contrast, look at what Robert Kennedy did.
	And that transitions us into Robert Kennedy's confirmation hearing this week.
	All right, now hold on, because we're going to do that over on Rumble.
	We're going to...
	Vote with our feet, vote with our eyeballs.
	While everyone matriculates on over to Rumble, let me pull up a few of the Rumble rants, and I'll read these and catch up.
	While everyone migrates, either go to Locals or Rumble.
	Shofar says Washington State, with this new proposed bill that makes the state the supreme in having people vaccinated and mask mandate that one.
	Shofar, Robert, have you seen what's happening in Washington State with the new bill?
	Okay, I'm not sure about that.
	I got a crazy case in Seattle in March.
	The state of Washington is as insane and almost as corrupt as the District of Corruption.
	Barnes got my Amos Miller fundraiser cookies.
	Polished them off in six hours.
	Delicious. Viva, you got any marathons coming up?
	I'll sign up for anything you have coming up.
	Could be fun.
	Joden80, there is something coming up in the month of February, so stay tuned for that.
	King of Biltong.
	AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com.
	There might be still a few walnut-frosted cookies left.
	That's part of a special fundraiser for 1776 Law Center.
	If you want to just give directly to 1776 Law Center, it supports food freedom, financial freedom, medical freedom, and political freedom.
	Without the support for 1776 Law Center, we would have been really hemmed in financially at what we could do.
	I would have been living in Viva's basement.
	So thanks to everybody out there who contributes and who helps.
	And you get the added bonus of special cookies he makes just for those contributing to 1776 Law Center.
	We've got King of Biltong says, increase your protein intake with great tasting meat snacks.
	Biltong is packed with B12, creatine, iron, zinc, and much, much more.
	Biltongusa.com.
	Code Viva for 10% off.
	Engaged few.
	Funny you should ask.
	Hold on a second.
	How was the first week of sales of Louis the Lobster?
	I just consulted with my wife.
	For those of you...
	What did I just do here?
	For those of you who don't know, I wrote a kid's book, and it's kind of...
	If I dare say, it's not terrible.
	By one of the...
	By a young...
	Member of our locals community.
	The daughter of one of our members, who's...
	I believe the...
	She did a good job.
	It's phenomenal.
	Abigail Martin.
	Phenomenal. Book sales, as of the speaking right now, 147.
	Not embarrassingly low and not shockingly too high.
	We're going to have a promotional one to support my sister Martha for a scholarship fund for her son who's in college.
	We're going to put together all of her poems, which are just really fantastic.
	And they've never been published before.
	And we're going to publish them.
	And all the net proceeds will go to Zach's scholarship fund.
	But yeah, I did.
	Louis Lobster book looked great.
	That's a good, fun little book for kids.
	Nice, sweet, engaging.
	Kind of like Viva.
	Sweet and entertaining.
	Yeah, much less swearing than my Twitter feed, but the world is what it is right now, people, and I can't help myself.
	Let me do these quickly because we're going to get over here.
	Viva, the first week.
	Sportfish, Robert, great analysis of the Tulsi vote.
	Condolences as well.
	Keep up the great work.
	Superbuff, Shaft, Barnes, can you look into Cooma versus Salem Media in Colorado?
	Many people, AON, Malkin, got sued over Joel Altman.
	I'm going to get Joel Altman on sooner than later.
	Strangely unproven case hit with fines for not presenting evidence plant.
	We'll take a look at that.
	Yeah, for sure.
	And I think I'm going to get Joel on at some point because we ran into each other on another platform.
	All right, so what I'm doing right now, let me just make sure that I haven't missed anything.
	I missed a couple of the super chats over on Commitube.
	I'll get to them later.
	Come on, read them over on Rumble.
	I'm going to end and not screw up and end the stream here.
	Rumble and locals only.
	Come on over and we're going to talk about RFK Jr., Ross Ulbricht, Roger Veer, the Trump pardons, a week of pure optimism and joy.
	Over on Rumble, Viva Friday.
	We made a lot of money betting on our predictions this past week, including who Uncle Joe decided to pardon.
	I think we were the only ones.
	We not only called it, we called it to the T of when it would occur.
	Oh, and I want to pat myself on the back a little bit because we had our discussions and I was like, if he's going to pardon one of them, he's going to pardon all of them.
	And he pardoned all...
	We'll get there.
	Ending, updating, come on over from Commitube.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com on Locals.
	Viva Friday on Rumble.
	Robert. Okay, let's go with the pardons.
	On his way out the door, Sunday night, we go to bed.
	No pardons yet.
	You called it to a T. He's got to give Jim Biden every last minute of criminality to make whatever money he's going to make before they make no more money for the rest of their lives through the Biden crime syndicate at the inauguration.
	I mean, I think he had it drafted before and they just released it.
	Pardons his brother, his aunt, his sister-in-law, I don't know, his entire Biden family.
	When you're pardoning a crime family, you really do need to pardon all of them.
	I mean, so, what do you make of it?
	We called it, we had said it for a long time.
	If you had placed any bets, my goodness, the...
	Preemptive pardon?
	The people that watch the show or follow this, because I got emails and texts and other things like this, there are people who made 20x rate of return on a single day because whether Jim Biden would be pardoned fell to 5% right before it was announced.
	$1,000, $20,000, more money.
	I was getting all these thanks and I was like, yeah, you know, I think somebody put it at sportspicks.locals.com where I put up various picks on sporting events and political events.
	Going to have recommended bets even on the Oscars this year coming because they're available at Couchy now.
	You can bet on the Oscars at Couchy.
	And I was debriefing my...
	Part commie.
	Niece and nephews.
	Because they like films and whatnot.
	And really good, very, very smart critics and whatnot.
	I was going through getting all their crib notes.
	Okay, this film's got this.
	That's good.
	I'll give you one little piece of advice to everybody out there.
	Ricky Gervais, once advised, when betting on Oscars in Hollywood, bet on the Jew.
	Don't bet against the Jew.
	Always bet on the Holocaust film.
	The Holocaust film's almost always over a G. I want to make a politically incorrect joke, Robert.
	You might have no choice but to bet on the G. Okay, bada bing, bada boom.
	Now I hear my dad.
	David, what are you doing?
	Yeah, the Oscars, there's politics involved which can actually, you know, it can maximize certain odds in terms of predictions.
	Well, we also nailed that he would be considering Fauci and Millie.
	And the big one.
	Liz Cheney and January 6th committee.
	We said, don't worry, before it's all said and done, well, the way somebody put it at SportsPix is, if crime is going to pay, can't we at least get a piece of it?
	I feel bad for everybody who sold off their Jim Biden, because when he pardoned, he made a slew of pardons, and Jim hadn't been mentioned, and I think everyone just panicked and said, oh, I'm going to cut my losses.
	There was a good opportunity to buy in at Jim.
	I just wish I had bought him $10,000.
	The January 6th committee.
	And he's pardoning Millie.
	He even pardoned Millie, by the way, under the military code so that you can't even prosecute him under the military code.
	Pardoned Anthony Fauci.
	There was no way he was leaving out the real criminals, his own family.
	It was just about when he was going to publish that.
	And again, you never know when the money's got...
	You've got to wait for the checks to clear.
	You know what I mean?
	You're waiting the last possible minute to get every last little crime in right before you can get pardoned.
	What I love is that you said...
	Oh, geez.
	It was Fauci.
	The pardon of Fauci.
	I forget.
	And the J6 committee.
	Though I admit, I thought he would do like Liz Cheney and Kinzinger.
	I didn't think he would do like low-level staff members.
	Oh, sorry.
	I know.
	I remember what you said now.
	That you were less gung-ho on pardoning the judiciary, which he didn't pardon, but he pardoned the medical tyrants.
	So he pardoned Fauci, pardoned Milley, but didn't pardon Judge Juan Marchand.
	Didn't pardon.
	Yeah, didn't pardon.
	Danny Willis.
	Jack Smith.
	And I mentioned that he was probably, he'd been making clear to everybody, he thought, he blames Garland, ironically.
	He's like, Garland, you prosecuted my family too quickly, and you pardoned, and you prosecuted Trump too blatantly.
	And so that's why he's like, I'm not giving any of you guys pardons.
	You guys didn't deliver.
	So he doesn't, so he was unhappy.
	And that's what you saw reflected in it, and who he pardoned and who he didn't.
	What was funny was watching Normie Democrats be shocked.
	All the people that said Trump couldn't pardon January 6th because that's an admission of guilt and da-da-da-da.
	Well, what does that mean for Anthony Fauci then, boys and girls?
	Why did it go back to 2014?
	Well, what's significant about 2014?
	April 2014 is when Hunter Biden signed on with Burisma.
	April 2014, people.
	And right at the same time, that's when Fauci and Millie are getting pardons.
	If you had any doubt whether Ukraine was a coordinated deep state conspiracy...
	Biden's pardons ended that doubt.
	If you had any doubt whether COVID was at least in part a global conspiracy against President Trump and our freedoms and liberties, those pardons also ended that doubt.
	Because what's significant about 2014 is the Biden's family's investment and involvement in Ukraine and the bio labs in Ukraine and the coup in Ukraine that facilitated those bio labs further development in which clearly both Milley And Fauci, we're complicit.
	Otherwise, you don't need that 2014 date of the pardons.
	Robert, I have to pull it up, just to make sure my DMs are not showing in this tweet here.
	Adam Schiff, he actually said this.
	Pam Bondi last week on pardons for January 6th offenders said, quote, I will look at every case on a case-by-case basis.
	Donald Trump yesterday, full pardons.
	No review, no accountability, nothing.
	And I said, you literally got a presidential pardon yesterday, you incorrigible idiot.
	I didn't want to get into the too many...
	Pam Bond is also not attorney general yet, you dumbass.
	But this guy faults Trump for his blanket pardon because they didn't go case by case.
	But I think they went case by case.
	And after a certain trend, you notice, okay, done.
	We're done.
	Well, I think the good news is, you know, our side of the argument finally won out with Trump, which was there was a bunch of people saying, delay it, do individual review, let the cases go forward, only pardon convicts, only pardon people that are convicted.
	Let those other cases go forward and see what happens.
	Or only pardon people that had nonviolent charges.
	Only, you know, the etc.
	And instead he's like, uh-uh, this is crap.
	Everything about those cases is crap.
	And I'm pardoning or commuting everybody.
	And even then, he had to still send marshals and other people out to make sure they got out.
	Because these corrupt hacks in the District of Corruption...
	We're trying to lock him up.
	There's still several people that are still locked up that should be released in some hellhole in Kentucky for some reason.
	And so it showed that he absolutely made the right decision because they would have continued to torture these people otherwise.
	And what I do love is, here's where Trump has been good, and here's where maybe I'll even give a credit to Susie Wiles, that in terms of who they're staffing their second-level positions with, that's been really good.
	Now, I have reason to believe that to other people other than Susie Wiles and the Trump team, but I'll put that aside for the moment.
	The guy newly in charge of D.C. is acting chief.
	People put him as acting chief at FBI, acting chief at DOJ in different key positions.
	These are true...
	People who understand the presidential election, understand what the American people demanded, understand what the rule of law requires, understand what the Constitution compels.
	In consequence, they've been taking real proactive actions.
	So when a rogue D.C. judge, another foreigner, because that was Barack Obama's favorite judicial appointees.
	Not born in America?
	Woo-hoo!
	Come from commies overseas?
	Woo-hoo!
	That was his favorite nominee.
	That was check, check, you get nominated to a federal bench.
	And this is the judge who was even born in India.
	People talk about birthright citizenship.
	Can we at least have native birthright requirements for being on a federal bench?
	Just, you know, my own view.
	But this judge was going to order a whole bunch of people.
	You can't come into D.C. without my permission.
	I mean, this gives you an idea for the arrogance of these judges that think they're beyond the law, that think they're beyond the American people, beyond the elected president of the United States.
	And luckily, the U.S. attorney came in, the newly appointed smart one.
	Said, Judge, actually, you can't do that because the nature of both President Trump's commutations and pardons, whichever one we're given, takes away all your power to control them in the future.
	And credit to that.
	You don't see somebody have the cojones to stand up to a federal judge like that.
	So that was promising.
	We nailed it with who Trump would pardon.
	There were a bunch of people there.
	You said he pardoned Obrecht.
	Why hasn't he pardoned Obrecht yet?
	Where's the pardon?
	Maybe he lied to us again.
	Maybe he took us for a ride.
	And I was like, I guarantee you, by the end of the week, Ross Obrecht will be pardoned or have a sentence commuted.
	And that's exactly, and of course, 24 hours later, thankfully, Trump proved me correct and pardoned, rightly, Ross Obrecht.
	Briefly, just on that, I saw some Michael Knowles, God bless you, bro, but, Kate, why is it you get so much stuff wrong?
	I mean, he's like raw milk.
	He couldn't get that right.
	And then he's like, oh, I can't like this.
	Pardon, Ross Ulbricht.
	This is a bad indicator of law and order.
	Ross Ulbricht's case was crap from beginning to end.
	A buddy of mine, who's, by the way, a hardcore anti-Trumper, Joshua Draytel, we got into a long debate over it.
	He thought the Nazis were coming.
	Like, gosh, the Nazis are not coming.
	His whole case was bogus.
	This was a case where they blamed him for everything related to Silk Road.
	Well, first of all, if you're to blame for anything anybody uses your product for, then every phone company executive belongs in prison.
	Every internet executive belongs in prison.
	Everybody who handles the mail belongs in prison.
	FedEx belongs in prison.
	All kinds of tools and techniques are utilized.
	I went down the Ulbricht...
	Sounds really gross.
	Down the old rabbit hole last week, just to make sure I understood the situation and, you know, refreshed my memory.
	They accused him at some point of murder for hire, but never pressed any charges.
	See, what it is, they wanted the courts on their side, the grand jury on their side, the public on their side.
	And like, how do we take this completely novel theory?
	Because when you're looking for lawfare, look for certain common denominators.
	Look for a novel theory of law.
	In other words, this theory of criminal law has never been utilized before or rarely utilized before.
	Look for manipulation of venue in terms of where is the grand jury?
	Where is the jury?
	Where is the trial jury?
	Where is the judicial pool from?
	Which prosecutors are being brought in?
	Which law enforcement offices are being brought in?
	See if there's something unusual about the location of the case.
	Then look for how the case was prosecuted.
	Were there unusual issues of discovery, unusual issues of government malfeasance or misconduct in the development or presentation of evidence?
	And if you look for those things, then look for disparate and unusual punishments and sentences.
	That's what every single January 6th case had.
	Every single one had some sort of novel legal theory, selective prosecution involved.
	Every single one had government misconduct and malfeasance involved.
	Every single one had jury and grand jury and venue abuse with the judicial poll involved.
	The fact is also present in Ross Ulbricht's case.
	In Ulbricht's case, Robert, was the questionable procurement of evidence when the FBI stole his computer before he could close it and then accessed information that would have otherwise been encrypted after staging a fight in the library?
	The FBI was bragging about this case, and I was going to respond, and I was like, why don't you include in your bragging how your own agents and IRS agents stole money, used this case to steal from Ross Ulbricht.
	Steal from others.
	I'm talking stealing millions of dollars.
	You had massive fraud and criminality involved with the leading investigative officers.
	This was admitted by the government that later had to prosecute those officers.
	I was like, how in the world is Washington still in prison when the officers who led the case against them are also going to prison because of their criminality against Oprah?
	I remember it.
	I forgot I had tweeted out.
	On the Silk Road, a dark net site run by American cybercriminals.
	This was before the pardon.
	This is the FBI tweeting out political campaigning.
	And I said, Trump promised no pardon.
	Cash will look into what you guys did in the case.
	I'd be nervous as well.
	It's when the FBI is taking to social media to politic.
	Around an upcoming pardon, you know they did something unsavory, unbecoming.
	Absolutely. And then, of course, which jurisdiction prosecuted Ross Olbert?
	The Southern District of New York.
	I was going to guess.
	The Southern District of New York?
	Was that the grounds?
	They didn't arrest him in the Southern District of New York.
	So, grand jury abuse, trial jury abuse, judicial selection abuse, also all present in the Ross Olbert cases.
	Great pardon commutation there.
	I'm glad Trump got credit to Senator Hawley and Senator Paul, who raised attention to the pro-life protesters who had also been wrongfully prosecuted and ordered dismissals and pardons in those cases.
	That was great to see.
	The trans whistleblower case out of Texas.
	Credit again Senator Hawley and others, Senator Paul and others, who elevated that case to Trump's attention.
	And Trump pardoned them as well.
	Now, by the way, the fact that we're all included initially told me there's some weaknesses and limitations that need to be strengthened to Trump's pardon team.
	Right? Everybody, they all should have been pardoned right away.
	But how about...
	Political and tactical.
	But I had a honest impression Trump was truly unaware of the importance of those cases beyond January 6th.
	That was my...
	Yes, I didn't mean to cut you off there.
	That was my hypothesizing also, is that they make for good news cycles, good soundbites, good replenishment of vigor.
	And so I was wondering if maybe he's holding off on a...
	Roger Ver, I've got to ask you the question, just because I'm following the markets, and he just tanked overnight despite any news.
	So Elon Musk puts out a tweet, an X, I guess, whatever we call it now, saying that Roger Ver doesn't have U.S. citizenship.
	And so he doesn't deserve a pardon.
	That's why the betting markets nosedive.
	But Elon was asking.
	He was pushing for a pardon.
	He was the week before.
	So that's what shocked people.
	So now here's what it is.
	Of course, the key with Roger Ver, there's a motion to dismiss hearing pending in February.
	Just have an independent smart counsel review that.
	Have someone like Alan Dershowitz review it.
	Dershowitz would come to the conclusion that all the charges should be dismissed against Roger Ver because of the, what do we got?
	What are we looking for?
	We're looking for lawfare.
	What do you find when you're looking for lawfare?
	Novel interpretations or applications of criminal law.
	Manipulation of jury pools, government malfeasance, and misconduct.
	You're looking for that trilogy, the holy trilogy of corrupt lawfare.
	All present in the case of Roger Ver.
	They're taking a An unconstitutional exit tax, a novel interpretation of Bitcoin, combining the two of them to try to put Roger Ver in prison for 109 years over a tax dispute that they failed and refused to even go through the civil process with concerning Roger Ver.
	Go ahead.
	I won't play the whole thing.
	He put out a video earlier today.
	My name is Roger Ver.
	I was the first person in the entire world to start investing in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
	I was born an American, I am an American, and I will die as an American.
	And it's those American ideals that made me so excited about Bitcoin.
	Let me pause it.
	I don't need to play the whole thing.
	I'll share it with you.
	It's basically a public request to Trump.
	You don't need to be a citizen to get a pardon.
	I mean, if he ever wants to travel...
	So the story, Roger Baird was a long time, as he said, born in the U.S., identifies as an American, will always consider himself an American.
	But when he raised, when he exposed ATF corruption in Ruby Ridge and especially Waco during his young political aspirations when he was a very young man, they responded, the ATF, by criminally prosecuting him.
	For how he had sent fireworks through the mail.
	Fireworks through the mail landed Roger Ver in federal prison.
	That's when Roger realized, wow, we've got a very corrupt legal system in America.
	So he is loyal to the American citizenry.
	He's loyal to the American people.
	He's loyal to the American Constitution.
	He's not going to be loyal to a corrupt deep state trying to destroy America.
	He realizes what's going on, invest heavily in Bitcoin, becomes known as Bitcoin Jesus because he's such an advocate for financial freedom.
	How do we give power to you anywhere in the world where you don't have to depend on the permission of central banks, central governments, and central planners for your own livelihood, for your own freedom?
	Well, as Satoshi put out in his 2008 paper, Bitcoin provided that opportunity, that option, that possibility.
	Now, this is different than all the kids that are bad Bitcoin maximalists, who all they care about is its speculative value and lining their pockets.
	Roger Ver is called Bitcoin Jesus for a second reason.
	First reason is because of how much he advocated for it.
	The second reason, because he advocated for the most pure form of it.
	And that was financial freedom.
	Unlock financial freedom all around the world.
	Don't let them use currencies and banking systems to control and coerce our conduct anywhere in the world.
	So he realizes the US is not a safe and reliable place because of its corrupt political class, not because he had any disagreement with the American people, who he continued to advocate for in advance.
	Make it possible for Ross Ulbricht to have a legal defense or a defense in the court of public opinion.
	He has quietly done that in many cases.
	So he's been behind the scenes.
	He's put his money where his mouth is over and over and over again in supporting financial freedom and supporting American freedom and supporting our Constitution against our corrupt political class, including the prosecutors and the FBI and the Justice Department.
	Because then he realized, okay, this is all a bunch of...
	He realizes, okay, I see what they're trying to do to Bitcoin.
	They're trying to co-opt it, as he put it in his book, hijack Bitcoin so that it doesn't have its maximum financial freedom capacity and that the intelligence apparatus can use it for its own nefarious purposes.
	He realizes, OK, I got to speak out about this.
	I've been Bitcoin Jesus.
	That's how people think of me as.
	I can't abandon this cause.
	I can't abandon the people who care about this cause just because I'm now financially successful from my Bitcoin and other investments.
	But he realized if I do, I know what happened the last time I did this when I was just a 20-year-old kid.
	And I said, man, that ATF probably shouldn't be burning down buildings with Americans in it and burning little kids alive.
	Maybe that's not a good thing.
	Maybe that's not an appropriate role for ATF.
	And suddenly I'm in a federal prison for an extra year because they don't like how I mail fireworks.
	They're going to probably do something like that to me again.
	Because now he's going to go up against not just the political class, not just an agency like the ATF, but he's going to be going up the scale in those three-letter agencies.
	He's going to be talking about the DOJ.
	He's going to be talking about the FBI.
	And at the top, he's going to be talking about the CIA.
	So he's like, okay, if I expose what the intelligence apparatus is trying to do here, they're probably going to come for me in some capacity.
	Well, what would be their pretext?
	Well, one of their pretexts is if I have formal U.S. citizenship, they claim the authority to prosecute me for a whole bunch of things, that if I give up, if I forego the benefits of U.S. citizenship, they no longer have the legal right to do.
	So he goes through the process.
	Then he's told, oh, well, there's an exit tax, which, by the way, is patently unconstitutional.
	Because we're going to be getting into this in the birthright citizenship discussion we're going to have here in a bit.
	The U.S. is unique at saying that if you're a U.S. citizen, we get to take part of your property anywhere in the world or take away your freedom if you don't give it to us.
	Most governments around the world don't claim to be able to control people based on their citizenship, even if where they are or where they receive their money or resources is outside of the jurisdiction of the United States.
	But he's like, okay, there's supposed to be this exit tax I have to pay.
	And what is the exit tax?
	It pretends that all your assets magically become income overnight.
	Why is that unconstitutional?
	Because under the income tax amendment, Only allows for an unapportioned direct tax on American citizens if, where, and when what is being taxed is actually gain severed from the source of that gain.
	In other words, it cannot be property.
	It cannot be you owe a tax because you're a citizen of that country, what's called sometimes a head tax, a cap-per-capita tax.
	So the exit tax is patently unconstitutional, but they avoid litigating that.
	Historically, until now, until Rogers' case, because they know of this risk.
	He still pays the exit tax.
	He's like, I don't want to give them any excuses.
	I'm going to hire some of the best accountants and lawyers in the world, make sure that they get it right, give them every piece of information and intel they could ever possibly have, and I pay the tax.
	As, by the way, when his information would be publicly disclosed in a recent filing, motion to dismiss filing, he paid more tax.
	Not less, more.
	So he does that, goes on with his life, releases the book Hijacking Bitcoin, exposing U.S. intelligence apparatus, and trying to prevent Bitcoin from having this great financial freedom power for ordinary people around the world.
	Within a month, he gets indicted.
	And it's like, how?
	How is he getting indicted when he's not a U.S. citizen?
	How is he getting indicted?
	When he didn't make his money in the U.S. So we're now taxing non-U.S.
	citizens for money they made from foreign sources?
	Where did this power come from?
	Because we're now going to interpret the exit tax as enforceable through criminal proceedings?
	We're going to start enforcing tax law through criminal proceedings?
	Not through civil proceedings?
	This is dangerous at every level to American liberty.
	And Elon Musk should smack himself in the face both ways five different times for even suggesting that if you are no longer a citizen, this abuse is okay as long as you do it to somebody who gave up their citizenship.
	No, I just, as you're talking and I'm making sure that what I'm saying is factually correct, I replied to Elon Musk.
	Because it's so stupid.
	It's factually incorrect, in fact and in law.
	Had Kamala Harris won...
	Elon Musk could be the next Roger Revere.
	And also, it's a presidential pardon.
	It's not an Elon Musk pardon.
	It's a South African government that Democrats have and say, you know what?
	Maybe Elon did some things you folks in South Africa can prosecute.
	And by the way, you don't have to worry about Elon protesting because he says if he gave up his South African citizenship, it's free reign on Elon Musk.
	Elon better think twice about some of the statements he's making now on it.
	Maybe don't, you know, text and drive, Elon.
	It's a tough thing.
	You don't have to have an opinion on everything and make sure that you know what you're talking about.
	When we get into...
	And everybody else's freedom.
	This is about ending criminal lawfare.
	It's like one of the debates I got into about, what about the violent January 6th defense?
	What about this group of defense?
	What about, well, Ross Ulbricht?
	People use Silk Road to do these other things.
	Like, you're focusing on the wrong source of risk to your freedom.
	Ross Ulbricht is not a threat to your freedom.
	January 6th defendants are not a threat to your freedom.
	Roger Ver is not a threat to your freedom.
	In fact, many of them are critical, like Roger Ver, advocates for your freedom.
	The threat to your freedom is the deep state.
	The threat to your freedom are rogue prosecutors.
	The threat to your freedom are rogue judges.
	The threat to your freedom is lawfare like this.
	That's the threat to your freedom, and that's what they're missing.
	That's what so many people keep missing.
	And Roger Ver case checks every box of abuse of power, of criminal lawfare.
	That again, because I haven't even I just got to the beginning of the beer story.
	I'll flash forward a little bit.
	And so the government goes and steals his attorney-client records.
	They get them all.
	The Supreme Court turns a blind eye to it.
	So they get his records, and they go tell the U.S. courts, U.S. Green juries, and foreign courts, and foreign governments, That, wow, we discovered Roger's attorney-client communications.
	And the first question always should have been, how did you get those?
	But they skip past that, unfortunately, because people always love to get to the underlying dirt.
	Like, oh, I really care about attorney-client privilege.
	Oh, tell me what's in there.
	You know, it's that routine.
	And they said, what's in there?
	I said, Roger Veer didn't give key information to his attorneys and accountants and didn't obey their instructions.
	Complete lie!
	Perjury by the highest-ranking federal prosecutors in America.
	Elon, you should be concerned about this because you have also been the victim of this.
	So here you have U.S. prosecutors who tell the grand jury, tell the petite jury, tell the federal district court, and tell both the government authorities and the Spanish courts that Roger Ver didn't comply with his advice.
	Now, why does that matter?
	In America, it's called a reliance defense.
	If you give the information to your attorney or accountant or tax professional and act in accord with their advice, you cannot be criminally prosecuted in America.
	The U.S. prosecutors knew this.
	I know the tax division prosecutor involved in it.
	And that's why they lied.
	They said, oh, no, there's mail fraud here.
	He didn't take the advice of his attorneys or accountants.
	What? What happens when Roger Ver's defense counsel actually gets their hands on that discovery?
	What do they find?
	Oh, just the opposite.
	Roger Ver complied strictly with the advice of his attorneys and accountants.
	In fact, the only time he deviated is when he paid more tax than they recommended he pay.
	The dirty little secret is the advice Roger Ver didn't take was he paid more tax than was due.
	That's according to his own attorneys and accountants.
	So they just had been lying about this all the way through.
	We cannot have this kind of weaponized lawfare available because it is a danger to our right.
	Constitution first, Constitution forever.
	That has to be our mindset.
	But there's a second reason.
	This lawfare discourages whistleblowing all around the world.
	Here's where Elon really didn't think before he put out his post.
	If you took Elon's post strictly, He opposed a pardon for Julian Assange.
	He's okay with the—because Julian Assange is not a U.S. citizen either, Elon.
	So you're now okay with the prosecution and persecution of Julian Assange?
	Check your head.
	I get Susie Wiles is playing games with you, and you're dealing with lunatics who think a hello sign is a secret Nazi salute.
	I had that debate with some of my nieces and nephews and family members here this past weekend.
	In fact, I went a little nuts on them.
	I was like, how in the world do you think Elon's a secret Nazi?
	How does this happen?
	But Elon, that's the world you're inviting in, and you're saying it's okay for them to engage in lawfare just as long as the person is not a legal citizen?
	The reason he'd forego his citizenship was so he wouldn't be harassed like this and he could continue to advance the ideas and values of American people and the American Constitution for our benefit?
	So it makes no sense what Elon said.
	And I do hope, I mean, it's the, okay, don't grant a pardon, fine.
	Dismiss the case!
	This is a danger to all of us.
	It tells whistleblowers around the world, keep your mouth shut, or we can put you away.
	They're trying to put Roger Ver in prison for 109 years.
	Robert, not because I may have a small wager on the Roger Ver being pardoned.
	Even if they dismiss the charges, he still faces, in theory, the exposure.
	If he ever wants to come back to America, he needs a pardon for what they've accused him of.
	I mean, a pardon is the best way to make sure that Deep State can't harass him into eternity.
	So that's why I favor the pardon.
	At least dismiss the charges that are currently paying against him and fire everybody that was involved in those.
	Not one of those corrupt government actors should ever have a government job again.
	I mean, I'm confident that Trump ultimately would do the right thing.
	My concern is that the people that have access to him are not giving him the best insight in telling information, as has been constantly the case, which is why the Kennedy and Gabbard nominations are so important.
	Imagine people that have spent their lives dedicated to freedom and liberty in many respects and challenging corrupt power, like Tulsi Gabbard and Robert Kennedy have, If they're cabinet officials, they always have direct access to the President of the United States.
	And so that's the other reason they're desperate to keep them out.
	They want to control what information Trump sees.
	Because if Trump saw what this case was about, like, look at Ross Ulbert.
	It wasn't even on Trump's agenda.
	He goes to the Libertarian Party event.
	He sees Robert Kennedy talking about it.
	He talks to Angela McArdle, the Libertarian Party leader, about it.
	And he's like, and then he has, and then he looks at it and goes, oh yeah, this is a garbage case.
	And I have no doubt he would draw, President Trump would draw the exact same conclusion if he had an opportunity to see the truth about the Roger Ver.
	And this is where I was thinking from political positioning and if he wants to make ways and if he wants to couple it with policy.
	Who is bigger for Bitcoin between Ross Ulbricht and Roger Ver?
	Bitcoin Jesus is the biggest one in the crypto community by a long mile.
	So you're talking about a guy who's a global symbol.
	I mean, again, his name is literally Bitcoin Jesus, colloquially known as.
	He didn't give himself that name.
	Other people gave him that name.
	He wasn't even a big fan of the name.
	They just gave it to him because he was such a pure advocate for the true freedom potential of Bitcoin.
	So, I mean, as I've said to Trump's people for the last two months, there's nothing...
	I was like, Trump wasn't around to pardon Jesus.
	He can pardon Bitcoin Jesus.
	I was like, this is...
	Politically, this is a no-brainer.
	Putting aside the law that I really care about, putting aside the whistleblowing rights and concerns that I really care about, even if you don't care about any of those at all, from a pure political perspective, pardoning somebody named Bitcoin Jesus is called a big winner.
	I'm looking up.
	I'm asking Grok to see if Roger Ver is Jewish.
	Thus far, it's inconclusive.
	We don't know if that connection would exist nonetheless.
	Okay, it's phenomenal.
	I hope Elon sees it and understands it because you don't have to have a hot take on everything.
	And I consistently ask myself this, is my reflex one that is – it is.
	Am I trying to jump to something of a hot take too prematurely?
	And what I've been asking myself all week, Robert, it's not – I don't know if it's necessarily on our list – And I put out my analysis.
	Bongino clearly implied he wasn't too happy.
	Yeah, and that's...
	I think, though, it's more...
	I don't think it's that guy that Bongino has some doubts about.
	It's Trump realizing the whole agency needs reform.
	It's not just about who's at top.
	It's just not those in hierarchy.
	The whole agency needs reform.
	And I think it's not clear to Bongino whether he has had success convincing Trump the whole agency needs reform.
	Trump has a proclivity of attributing the bad decisions to individual bad actors rather than institutionalized corruption.
	Much of the national security apparatus is embedded with institutionalized corruption.
	That requires complete reform, or as Matt Gaetz himself said, complete annihilation.
	And I don't think Trump has fully appreciated that as yet.
	And that is my concern.
	Everybody says it's his life.
	There's no one who's going to make a more thoughtful decision about it than Trump.
	My issue is...
	He successfully killed him twice because he depended on them.
	Well, at least.
	And this is the problem.
	He might be a very loyal person who will throw his body on Trump to protect him, but not necessarily the best to make sure that Trump doesn't get the shot in the first place.
	And he was there, and he didn't make sure that the scene was handled the way it should have been.
	Now, I get it.
	He wasn't the head supervisor at that point.
	But, you know, I mean, so, I mean, I think that's where Bongino...
	I think Bongino recognized after the assassination...
	Oh, there's a serious institutional issue.
	It's like people have forgotten about the other nutbag there, the Ukrainian guy in Mar-a-Lago.
	Good, they saw the barrel and saved Trump for that, but the guy got there.
	He sat up there and set up a freaking kill shot space.
	And that's two months after the first boss run.
	So I don't know what role Sean Curran had in all of this, but if he's Trump's team and he let Trump take the stage...
	Or didn't stop him from taking the stage and didn't ensure communication?
	Basic things like, hey, do we have...
	I mean, if I was at any level on that team, I would want to make sure everything is going right.
	And there were red flags all over the place.
	And yet no Secret Service agent, to my knowledge, sounded the alarm.
	And so I think that's my concern, is that he underappreciates...
	This individual may be a great individual, but he underappreciates the institutional nature of the corruption.
	I mean, the fact that someone like Hegseth, popular media personality, actually served the country.
	Go back and look at a lot of our secretaries of defense.
	Many have never served at all.
	Hegseth has an exceptional record of service in our country.
	And he almost got blocked.
	You know, realize what you're up against.
	I think Trump sometimes sees it, sometimes a little idealistic about the scale of the corruption he faces, sadly.
	So that's it.
	I was just questioning, was I being unfair in my assessment?
	I don't think I was, and I don't think we could sit there in the weeks afterwards and say, this was a failure at every level, which means that some people shouldn't fail up.
	They might be good people, loyal, willing to take a bullet after the shit hits the fan, but his job is to make sure the shit doesn't hit the fan to begin with.
	Alright, what do we move on to?
	The up next, well...
	At least, thankfully, he pardoned everybody with J6, but my understanding is there's a few stragglers left.
	What do you know?
	Is it Jeremy Brown or Jonathan Brown?
	Jeremy Brown, who I'm going to have CanCon on this week to talk about, because that case I'm not sufficiently familiar with, given the importance of it, because he's still being held because his charges don't relate to January 6th.
	He blew the whistle, and then they got him.
	I forget exactly what charges they got him on, but not related to January 6th, so he hasn't been pardoned.
	There's three other...
	I don't remember their names offhand, who are facing, on the one hand, state charges out of Florida for a violation of probation, separate federal charges, who are still being held in the D.C. Gulag because they're not covered by the pardon.
	And then Chance Uptmore, who was on the channel, they might have some headway in terms of arguing that the fruits of the poisonous tree should not be considered or should be encompassed in the pardon.
	But there's a few who are still being held.
	That I know of based on incidental charges that were caught as a result of the Jan 6 raids.
	And the question is, how do you get them out as well?
	But Jeremy Brown is a very, very serious case that we've got to start putting some spotlights on.
	And there now needs to be the next stage of accountability.
	If these people that were involved in the D.C. jail that abused these inmates suffer no consequence, that's a problem.
	If the prosecutors involved in these rogue cases never face consequence, that's a problem.
	If the judges who greenlit these bad politically motivated cases never face consequence, that's a problem.
	We need to start seeing consequence to deter other bad actors from similarly engaging in such conduct in the future.
	Now, there's been very debate about the birthright citizenship, which is our big topic of the night.
	We can get to here in a second.
	Briefly, on the legal issues of some of the other international news.
	So, as I've been telling people who are correctly worried, But sometimes jump the gun on the World Health Organization treaty.
	It's like, you know, once Trump is in, we're going to get out.
	People are like, oh no, you know, he gave a lot of money to him last time.
	I'm like, trust me, Trump does realize that was a miscue.
	And guess what?
	We're out.
	World Health Organization in the United States, no longer a member, thanks to the President Donald and John Trump.
	Paris Accords and that bogus climate change nonsense.
	That tried to coerce the up in smoke, just like global warming and global cooling.
	There are labels before that they had to scrap when they were no longer working.
	Hence climate change.
	That way you can, if it's cooling, you say that's climate change.
	It's known in Florida, Robert, climate change.
	And then last but not least, but we didn't get a lot of attention this week.
	We had discussed the Biden administration trying to create a global tax deal.
	And this is another reason why he should pardon Roger Ver, because the global tax inspiration for what Biden is trying to do was part of the motivation for the Ver prosecution.
	The idea is everybody's got to pay a certain amount of tax, and all the country—basically, they were trying to create a global tax system, folks.
	Sooner or later, George Soros' boys would have been the ones enforcing it.
	And the power to tax is the power to destroy, as our Supreme Court has said.
	So credit to President Trump.
	One of the big treaties he pulled us out of was the global tax deal that was going to create all kinds of problems for individuals and businessmen around the world.
	And that was, again, an effort at a globalist power grab.
	So all of these were globalist power grabs.
	Credit to President Trump for getting us out of all of them.
	Now, some people think he's become a new imperial emperor with his talk of, I want Greenland, I want, maybe even wants Canada, wants the Panama Canal.
	The reason is economic involving China.
	The issue is that we're, to his credit, to my surprise, Secretary Rubio articulated J.D. Vance's theory before his Senate confirmation hearing, which is, I did make money that nobody would vote against Rubio because that shows you the true nature of the Senate.
	But basically, what Rubio articulated, he goes, is we are in a position right now in the United States where China can control our health.
	Control our medicine.
	Control our transportation.
	Control our energy.
	Control our economy.
	Because they have a monopoly on key components of the supply chain in each one of those areas.
	If we don't want to be subject to that form of blackmail, then we need to be economically independent of China.
	To facilitate that, we need to control certain aspects of global trade as it impacts the United States in particular.
	And so Trump's, if you look at what Greenland, parts of Canada, and the Panama Canal all have in common, critical global shipping routes.
	That's what I think President Trump's objective is.
	One thing to note, some people get all excited about whatever Trump says publicly.
	Listen to what Trump said to Joe Rogan.
	He said, when I'm negotiating, you'll never get my honest opinion.
	You'll get my negotiating position.
	You'll get my leverage position.
	So don't ask me.
	Because Rogan was like, tell me, how are you going to get the Ukraine war settled?
	And Trump was like, do you think I'm dumb enough to say this on a broadcast to the entire world?
	And that version of it, he put it more politely and diplomatically.
	But remember, he made fun of Trudeau.
	Because when Trudeau was down in Mar-a-Lago, he's like, hey, Justin, what's the one thing you really don't want me to put any tariffs on?
	Is there any one thing?
	What should I really be cognizant of?
	Trudeau said, please, not the cars.
	And then Trump was like...
	How could you be so stupid to actually give me a right answer to that?
	I had a place lawyer I used to work for, and he had half the time he would succeed with this question.
	His last question was often, what's the one question you were afraid I was going to ask?
	And half the time, people didn't even get away with it.
	So that's what I think Trump is up.
	I don't think Trump is trying to create, you know...
	Pox Americana and run the whole world and add some African countries to it.
	We're going to have a state in Africa and a state in Latin.
	That's not truly Trump.
	We're never going to include Canada as a state unless we deport them all.
	Too many commies up there.
	You know, the Viva could go through and say, good citizen, bad citizen, figure out which ones we ship off.
	Trudeau's definitely heading to China.
	It's like the question, you know, what's your greatest flaw?
	You're supposed to say, I'm a bit of a perfectionist.
	You're not supposed to say, I'm a bit of a kleptomaniac, or I'm really stupid, I really screw things up.
	No, the flaw...
	Okay, that's a joke.
	My biggest flaw is I'm always banging my boss's wife.
	I gotta stop doing that.
	Robert, but now, so people are afraid of the global conquest of Trump.
	Pulls out of the WHO, pulls out of the Paris Accords, but parades Larry Ellison on stage to tout the miracle of mRNA, robotic gene editing, AI generated vaccines, tailor-made for your cancers within 48 hours.
	Another one where I say, am I being a little unfair?
	Because I'm not against...
	Cancer research.
	In fact, yes, we've had family members die from cancer, family members survive cancer.
	Just in the wake of the failed mRNA shot, maybe it's like there's an old Yiddish expression, in the house of a hung man, you don't ask where you hang the fish.
	In the America where people are still...
	Because that's where Lawton Chow's at, they got it.
	Because there's an old Florida proverb.
	That's probably a stolen version of that Jewish proverb.
	Because Lawton Child, when he's running against Jeb Bush, he beat him in 1994.
	Tough year to win.
	Walken Lawton, as he used to be known, because he walked across the state of Florida when he ran for governor once in the 70s.
	He told Jeb Bush, son, you don't talk about a rope in a house where there's been a hanging.
	And now I get where that came from.
	It might have been an old Polish expression and then only the people that came over from...
	We're still reeling.
	A lot of people are still reeling from injury from the first successful mRNA shot.
	Maybe they don't want to be promised another one that's going to be equally successful, even if it's for such a laudable...
	A lot of people don't really like Larry Ellison to begin with.
	I don't know enough about him to call him a snake in the grass, but I can certainly accuse him of being a snake oil salesman.
	I mean, what's your take on that?
	Is it bad optics?
	Is it a move that Trump regretted?
	Trump, I wouldn't regret it because Trump was solely and wholly focused on the monetary perspective.
	He wanted to broadcast, look at all these people I'm getting, like the SoftBank people, other manufacturing plants relocating back to the United States.
	His whole goal with all these press conferences was, I'm getting money back in America.
	I'm getting the economy back in America going and rolling in a long-term way.
	So when Ellison's people came and said, we would like to do a promo of how we're going to invest $500 billion in America thanks to you, President Trump, of course he's going to let him do the press conference.
	Now, this is where people like Susie Wiles are a problem.
	Wiles still doesn't recognize that the vaccine is unpopular in their Trump base.
	Still doesn't realize, understands the mandate was, But doesn't think the vaccine was.
	And so she's one of, I mean, again, she's a lobbyist for Big Pharma most of her life.
	So the likelihood she even understands these issues from the perspective of anti-Big Pharma is very low.
	That's why I don't trust her organizing and orchestrating the Tulsi Gabbard and Robert Kennedy nominations.
	We'll see.
	Maybe she'll prove me wrong.
	I hope she does.
	But I think that's part of it because if somebody like that was still in the room...
	It was like when I went on Fox after Steve Bannon was going to get dismissed in 2017.
	And Trump was, by the way, watching.
	And my argument was, okay, Trump, you shouldn't get rid of Bannon, but if you do, make sure you get another Bannon.
	Otherwise, they're going to isolate you and you're not going to know what's going on in the country.
	You're not going to know what's going on with your own base because they're going to keep you so insulated you'll have no idea and you'll get misled like he did later on during COVID.
	And so that's my concern.
	There's not a Steve Bannon type in the room.
	To say promoting Ellis is a bad idea.
	This guy's totally unreliable.
	He's a lifelong Democrat.
	He's got deep, deep state ties all over the place.
	I would have thought Ellis was more worried about what got burned down in Malibu since he owned a lot of property in Malibu, but apparently he's not.
	See, what Ellis knows is if you're talking to Trump and making a pitch, then saying, hey, President Trump, with our investment, we're going to cure cancer and you're going to get the credit for it.
	Now, it concerns me that Trump still takes the bait on things like that because that's how they lied to him about the first mRNA vaccine.
	But I think it reveals a weakness around Trump that he still doesn't have people with a deep populist insight giving him at least populist feedback if he wants to go forward and do whatever he wants.
	But at least somebody saying, okay, here's the populist perspective.
	Susie Wiles gives you, here's the lobbyist perspective because that's what she's done her whole life.
	You need another perspective in that room.
	There's been too many lobbyist perspectives in control of Washington for too long.
	And that's what it represented to me.
	Now, personally, as Musk himself made clear, they don't have the money to do this project that they're even talking about.
	It was mostly just a grandiose effort for Larry Ellison to hog the limelight for a little while.
	There's no evidence that they...
	But there's right for concern of everybody out there because the MRNA companies...
	Want to use the COVID vaccine to push mRNA all through our bodies with every other vaccine known to man, and they're going to disguise it as a cancer cure, when what's the current mRNA vaccine causing as a side effect?
	Oh yeah, cancer.
	So it's a bad idea.
	Hopefully, I don't think there will be anything come of it anytime soon, so we don't have to be too hyped up about it.
	But it shows where there still needs to be room for growth with President Trump.
	And I'm looking to see if the Grok answer has been updated since I posted a tweet earlier.
	Have there been any successful mRNA vaccines?
	And the answer is yes, there have been successful.
	Particularly highlighted by the global response to COVID.
	And they cite the first two mRNA vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna.
	Grok needs some help.
	We gotta get some help there, Elon.
	Oh, I can't share it.
	I have to refresh to share.
	What was I going to say?
	What do we have left on the...
	Larry Ellison, you really love these mRNA vaccines?
	You take them first.
	You take about 20 of them, Larry.
	Well, no, Robert, that's considered a death threat.
	If it works out, baby, you're probably going to be dead, so I recommend a trust program.
	That qualifies as a death threat on Twitter, where people say, yeah, go jab yourself up, and they're like, oh, that's hate and wishing harm on people.
	It's the safest, most effective vaccine in America in world history.
	Holy crap.
	Robert, let me catch up on some rumble rants and some tipped questions on locals.
	Everybody out there, yes, our last topic is our biggest topic of the night, birthright citizenship.
	We'll be getting to it in just a second.
	Okay. Hold on.
	I got to refresh.
	I'm going to eat myself.
	Give me a second.
	I'm coming back.
	He has momentarily exited, and now we enter the building much like Elvis.
	Let's go.
	I don't know why.
	For no better reason, it just stops sharing screen.
	Concerning Kennedy papers, they weren't suppressed in the past because it exposed a single three-letter agency that exposes all of them, including with LBJ.
	That was from Amdrum12.
	I've come to the realization releasing that the Fed is the heart of the deep state thoughts.
	I think you might not get much pushback on that.
	Hans Onepack says, don't need to pardon Vare, just dismiss with prejudice.
	Nah, the exposure will always be there.
	DST2020. Chances the preemptive pardons will stick.
	Don't they have to admit guilt?
	No, they will.
	The precedent has been set there, Nixon, and there's no real legal question about it.
	Someone had asked, I think it's in local side, if Biden had pardoned himself, would he have to disclose it, or could he keep it secret until he faces any charges?
	You know, there's a range of transparency obligations, and so the question is whether it is covered within it.
	He could probably classify it under some excuse.
	Trump could actually declassify it.
	All right, we've got someone who's thanking you, Robert, for making them $4,000 out of $650 from eFits.
	Sportspicks.locals.com.
	What do you think of Barron told Biden during the inauguration?
	Not the rumor.
	The confirmation is that he was greeting Kamala behind Biden and not talking to Biden when that famous clip went viral.
	House Bill 1531 is the bill in Washington state.
	Let me screen grab it and I'll get it afterwards.
	I think we got the rest of these.
	Okay, let's just get a few.
	Oh, this is what I want to bring up on locals, Robert.
	Do you see this?
	I hope this is real because it reminds me of Desperado and that's flipping cool and flipping awesome.
	That does look real.
	Yeah, that looks real, and it looks real beautiful is what it looks like.
	Escape, let me get a couple of these tipped questions here.
	There's a $50 from Susie C, who says, RB feeling better makes me happy.
	Preach it, Robert Barnes.
	We got, what can we do to help Susie Wiles get removed, says Cardinal83.
	I mean, she has a lot of skills.
	It's just limiting the degree to which he's...
	Let Susan Wiles be the administrative manager.
	Have somebody else as the co...
	Chief of Staff, if you will, that always has direct access to President Trump that is on the populist side of the equation and understands his voter base.
	Well, I mean, that's what I guess people thought J.D. is or was going to be, but he's not in there.
	Tulsi Gabbard could be that.
	Robert Kennedy can be that.
	But they're more supplemental voices.
	You want someone whose full-time job is just to give Trump feedback on how his audience and the populist base is going to interpret certain things and actions.
	Cliff Norman says, Putin told Tucker Carlson the CIA runs the United States.
	Please reflect on this observation.
	Thank you.
	I think that's for all of us, and I think most of us here probably appreciate that.
	How can rogue prosecutors be removed and charged for removal of civil liberties?
	We've talked about this at length, EBM 444.
	Impeachment at the state level, if they have pardoned impeachment panels.
	Civil rights violations brought from the feds.
	Hopefully, Harmeet Dillon can get that initiative going.
	So we've talked about that a lot.
	Ithaca37Cato5Bucks says, two questions.
	What could we do to push for prosecution impeachment of the rogue J6 judges?
	And two, how can we push D.C. recession back into Maryland?
	That's got to be legislative.
	It's within the court of public opinion, and getting the conversation going is the first step.
	Then we got Jake.
	Kramer says, does sitting president have authority to revoke security clearances of sitting members of Congress like Senator Schiff?
	How about former Congress members like Liz Cheney?
	Thanks for entertaining and informative.
	That's all executive control, typically.
	There is some congressional legislation on the topic, but generally that's within the presidential's carte blanche.
	All right, I'm going to save the rest.
	No more special secret service protection.
	I didn't realize it costs $6 million a year per person, give or take.
	I didn't realize.
	That's insane.
	All the money these guys were getting.
	Same with Bolton.
	And there's some people whining about it.
	All the right people are whining about it, so that's a good sign.
	So yeah, to the...
	Birthright citizenship.
	Brief topics before the birthright citizenship, as people in the chat are reminding me.
	One, Nick Riccato.
	Some of us predicted that Nick Riccato wasn't going to prison for 20 plus years.
	Some of us predicted that the allegations against him concerning his kids were utterly false.
	Some of us predicted that if you raised certain constitutional defenses, you motivate the prosecutor to come up with a reasonable disposition.
	That's how these cases work.
	That's how they've always worked, through time immemorial.
	And those of us who said so were right.
	Robert, I got to actually tell you, but I'm not getting too much into the fight because this sort of borders on too personal in terms of the people here.
	But I go to Twitter and I post it and say, oh yeah, look at this.
	I'm sure they drop all of those charges of child endangerment if they sincerely believe it's occurred.
	And then everyone's like, well, of course they do because they wanted to get a conviction.
	And then people say, well, they dropped the charges, but he did it anyhow.
	So now it's not even that you don't get convicted.
	It's that they dropped the charges.
	They still presume the very guilt that they walked around proclaiming, like the judge, jury, and execution is based on their internet sleuthing.
	I'm not drawing any analogies here to the Tate brothers yet, because we'll see what happens in the actual courts.
	They're not your court of Twitter sleuths.
	Basically, look, they dropped everything except for some third-degree possession charge.
	For a first time offender, older, third level possession of any drug that's not allowed under the without the specific permission of the government.
	The all charges against his wife dismissed.
	All other charges against him.
	It's the kid's one.
	It's the kid's one.
	Why did they do the plea deal unless it was factually based?
	Why did they do the plea deal unless they faced legal risk on appeal?
	They don't do these plea deals unless they realize there's a factual basis for the plea deal and they realize they could have risk of losing with the court of appeals in the higher courts on the issue of the constitutionality of their conduct.
	Unless they went from, you're doing 20 years in prison, your wife's doing 20 years in prison, your friend is doing 5 years in prison.
	To him getting a deal that's likely going to lead to straight probation.
	So I'll be like, oh, Barney's going to help a drug dealer to give drugs to little children.
	You can just send your apologies courtesy of Eva Frye.
	Nick is a good guy.
	Whatever you think, I guess some people think you should never touch certain kinds of drugs.
	And if you do, you're a terrible, horrible human being.
	I don't happen to be one of those people.
	I just never have that.
	I'm a live and let live kind of person.
	Contrary to the conventional wisdom and the attacks on Robert Kennedy, Robert Kennedy's position was never to take away any vaccine from anybody.
	It's to require informed consent.
	It's to make sure that you have the information you need so that you can meaningfully consent to anything that goes into your child's body.
	That is all...
	Robert Kennedy has ever advocated for.
	He's never advocated for banning a bunch of things.
	Now, he says big corporate food should not be allowed to poison us deliberately.
	That seems like a reasonable proposition.
	And that big pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be paid to poison us.
	That seems like a pretty reasonable proposition.
	But in this case, whatever you think about that, the bottom line is it's a low-level offense that usually results in straight probation that never does any time in state prison.
	His wife doesn't have any conviction against him at all.
	Their family friend, all charges dismissed as well.
	No conviction either.
	If there was any evidence, by the way, concerning the kids, then the other children's services organization, who's more than happy to be uber eager, who the children's services people connected to Ricada's case, deliberately lied under penalty of perjury in his case to try to go after him.
	I told you from day one, the allegations concerning the kids made zero sense.
	One, you didn't have to be a super genius to know that Riccate is an obvious family-oriented kid.
	I mean, he drives his kids to literally every single event he goes to.
	Name the parents that go to every single event.
	If you have four or five kids, and they're being homeschooled, and that literally goes to every single event they possibly have.
	Part of the reason why he was dead exhausted.
	So the attack on him as a bad parent was not only in bad faith, but it was really nasty, and it was contrary to who he was.
	And if a government agency, with all the power they had, Had an iota of evidence he had ever done anything to endanger his children, I guarantee you he would have lost custody of them to this day, and those charges would still be in place.
	They folded because what the government did was more wrong than anything Nick Ricada did, and a lot of people who badmouth them owe an apology, in my view.
	They won't apologize.
	They still say the kid had cocaine.
	They're hoping to get their chicken nuggets in time for dinner, and they're lecturing everyone else about morality in between the times they scroll through porn.
	So sorry if I don't feel overly sympathetic to this group of losers.
	But that leads us to our big debate topic of tonight, where I may have, unfortunately, another contrarian and controversial position concerning birthright.
	So Trump signs an executive order ending birthright citizenship, which is the idea that a child born in America of illegal, non-entrant parents does not get granted American citizenship, which is going to face legal challenges.
	And a great many people are predicting that the executive order will get struck down as being unconstitutional because the Constitution provides that.
	I don't know, what is it, a natural-born citizen?
	Anyone born on American soil, whether it's of children of foreign invaders, although maybe there's an exception to that, children of slaves who were not recognized as citizens, are American citizens.
	I presume that's where you're going with your position on this, that Trump's executive order will get struck down as being unconstitutional?
	A federal court has already enjoined it.
	Now, whether it's right or wrong, we'll get to.
	So first, let me try to strongman the Trump argument.
	So the professor, if you want to read some good articles on this, read Professor John Eastman, who advocates for Trump's position.
	Stephen Miller does as well.
	A range of legal scholars have.
	So I don't want anybody coming out with the impression the media sometimes tries to relay that this is beyond controversy question or debate.
	It is absolutely not.
	The big question is the language subject to the jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
	So it says anybody born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a U.S. citizen.
	The question is, what does that second phrase mean?
	We all know what born in the U.S. means.
	What does subject to the jurisdiction mean?
	Now, Eastman and others would argue that subject to the jurisdiction is based on a Lockean concept of consent, which is that citizenship gives as much as it takes in its modern form.
	In other words, you get rights that come with citizenship, not just obligations.
	I'll get to later why that actually matters in terms of interpretation of these provisions.
	And that at the time the 14th Amendment was passed, the entire focus, historical focus, was on restoring, was overturning Dred Scott and restoring the right of slaves and their descendants to be citizens.
	And in particular, it was an argument that a national citizenship existed independent of and separate from state citizenship.
	What the Supreme Court decided in Dred Scott was that states couldn't give citizenship to ex-slaves or the descendants of slaves, and that it frankly gave us the Civil War, was the idiocy of the Supreme Court of the United States and their corruption because many of them were connected to the Southern Planner class, busy lining their own pockets.
	So from a historical perspective, looking at the Eastern perspective, subject to the jurisdiction, the language of that is subject to debate.
	So let's go back and look at historical context.
	If I may interject, I can imagine diplomats, but maybe that's different because if they're born in a, what's the word for a diplomat's office?
	An embassy.
	If someone's born in an embassy, they're not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, but are they even technically on American soil?
	That's a separate argument.
	So this all goes back to just so lie, jurisdiction based on the soil.
	Versus jurisdiction based on sangrawl or something like that, based on the blood.
	So the Eastman argument is that the Lockean concept is the only thing that legitimates government is consent.
	And that the American Revolution was premised and predicated on that idea.
	That it's because I consent to government, the social contract theory, that government has any legitimate authority over me.
	Or that I have any obligation to it or it has any obligation to me.
	And the argument is that that, so that subject to the jurisdiction is a broad exclusion of anyone born in the United States who for any reason is not consenting to being part of the United States as a citizen or the U.S. is not consenting to their being, having any obligations to that individual.
	Now, as you point out, it's undisputed that certain people were excluded.
	One category was anybody who was excluded from jurisdiction based on their parents being diplomats.
	That's diplomatic immunity.
	The second category, more broadly, were anybody who was part of an Indian tribe who might be within territory the United States claimed but was primarily subject to Indian tribal jurisdiction.
	Tribes had various treaties with the United States that governed it, but the tribes did not consider the United States in control of their tribal territory.
	And so in recognition and respect of that, they excluded those—now, not all Indians, by the way, just those Indians were the ones excluded.
	That's, by the way, where the legal language Indians not taxed comes from.
	Indians not taxed is referring to a group of Indians outside of U.S. jurisdiction because— By recognition of the reality that they're not taxed.
	If an Indian was taxed and an Indian wasn't living on a tribal reservation or tribal territory, then they were subject to U.S. jurisdiction and could be U.S. citizens.
	So I've seen some misrepresentation that all Native Americans, that's not the case.
	But the theory that Eastman and others advocate is at a minimum, there was the anchor baby problem.
	We don't know whether they would have interpreted subject to the jurisdiction from an originalist perspective as excluding the sons and daughters of illegal aliens born on U.S. territory.
	They argue that subject to the jurisdiction language logically leads to a broader exclusion of anyone who doesn't fit the Lockean consensual model of citizenship under the social contract theory.
	of interpreting U.S.
	constitutional law.
	So that's the snap.
	It gets into much more detail.
	There's arguments about, I should add one third, It was undisputed historically that someone who came in as part of an invading army was also not a citizen of that country because they're not subject to the jurisdiction because the invading army is in control, not the country that previously existed.
	So those are the three, you know, foreign diplomats, Indians living on tribal reservations, not taxed, and people that are part of invading armies.
	Undisputed that their just-so-lie does not equal birthright citizenship.
	The question is, does it go further and say that, in fact, there has to be some form of consensual proof, like the naturalization process, or by blood, that you could be a U.S. citizen by blood, that one of your parents...
	You inherited it as a matter of ancestry, and that's another theory of power.
	There's reasons to be worried about going down the blood route, but I'll get to that in a second.
	You combine those theories, and there's many competent, capable legal scholars that support President Trump's announcement that he...
	He was not going to recognize citizenship to those who were born to illegals who had not yet been naturalized in the United States.
	And just to pause you there, because a lot of people have this, not to say misconception, but they have the idealized conception that this is like illegal immigrants who have been here for years, paying taxes, jobs, yada, yada, have families.
	There's an industry to this.
	Alex Jones was talking about it, and I've known about it as well.
	Chinese illegals, Chinese people come.
	People from China, the People's Republic of China come, when they're pregnant, specifically to have babies in American soil.
	A known confirmed element of this.
	There's people who market it as a business.
	They say, we can help you get you set up, we can get you here, so you can have your kid here, and then you have U.S. citizenship.
	And then the secondary problem that concerns a lot of people, on the right especially, is that the child, once their U.S. citizen is guaranteed a whole bunch of benefits, that in turn allows their parents to stay here illegally.
	And not only to stay here illegally, Get U.S. benefits.
	Get U.S. jobs.
	Get U.S. welfare benefits.
	Get health care.
	Get schooling.
	Get food stamps.
	That's their concern.
	So it's a legitimate concern.
	Understandable. Very respectful scholars on that side.
	Now let me give you the contrary argument.
	Historically, the theory of citizenship, the doctrine of citizenship, never came up, never thought of itself as empowering individuals.
	Most of our law, Anglo-Saxon law of the jurisdiction, It comes from wanting power over people.
	So it was governments, and because of that, the legal history of interpreting the words subject to the jurisdiction were very broad.
	They didn't see it.
	The courts weren't sitting there saying, golly gee, does this person really have rights he can enforce against us?
	Almost never.
	It was, do we have rights we can enforce against him?
	Can we take his property?
	Can we tax him?
	Can we draft him?
	Can we do all these things?
	So for that historical reason, the legal interpretation of subject to the jurisdiction was very broad.
	It was assumed you were subject to the jurisdiction unless you fit a narrow, exempt group.
	Like, okay, we acknowledge if you're here as part of a foreign emissary that you are not subject to the jurisdiction as part of diplomatic immunity, or the invading army, or you're actually part of another community that we have...
	Legal control over the borders of, but not within.
	Like Indians, not taxed their tribes.
	Members of tribes are not taxed.
	So, and I can tell you historically, the better argument is all on that side.
	There is very, I mean, Eastman does a fantastic job.
	Others do as good a job as you can.
	But I've dug into this issue in great depth.
	The overwhelming, because of that historical phenomenon I just talked about.
	All the law goes against us.
	The 1898 Supreme Court decision strongly implies that the sons and daughters of people who are not U.S. citizens, who are Chinese, were U.S. citizens because they were born on the soil.
	I mean, I get there's ways to interpret and try to extrapolate.
	It's just, if you understand the politics of the time, that very conservative, conservative in like a corporatist way, Supreme Court, that very establishment-oriented Supreme Court, was all for Chinese immigrants being here.
	Because it was lining their pockets in their investment in railroad companies, for example, because it was the so-called coolies, the Chinese immigrants working in those railroads that made those railroads as profitable as they were.
	So if you dig into the history, if you're a true originalist, which means you care about what people thought at the time that constitutional amendment was passed, which means the priority is not on the people who wrote it, but on the people who passed it, which means looking at the votes and the public opinion that supported it.
	Oh, by the way, it overwhelmingly suggests that subject to the jurisdiction is a very narrow exception, not a broad exception.
	To give you some examples, this came up.
	Gypsies, the infamous gypsies, present throughout the United States.
	This came up during the Senate debate.
	People are like, the gypsies are not citizens.
	Their kids are born here.
	And everybody saw the gypsies, controversially so, but they see them as this way.
	Saw them as moochers.
	Saw them as thieves and criminals and whatnot.
	It's just a very common colloquial assumption.
	It's where the expression you got gypped comes from.
	Someone screwed you out of something, sold you something crappy, it's because they got gypped because they were gypsies.
	It's an offensive term.
	Exactly, exactly.
	There's another offensive term that a friend of mine once said, and she's like, oh, I wonder if that's offensive.
	She's like, you know, whenever I try to do a negotiation deal, my dad taught me to try to do them down.
	And I was like, yes, that could be offensive.
	You should be careful.
	There's some people that will take pride in that phrase, but there's many people that will not.
	But yeah, so that's the history.
	I'm not greenlighting the history of this negative history of Gypsy saying it's accurate or anything like that.
	I think it's a much more complicated history.
	But it's just to give you an idea.
	That was the public perception at the time.
	They debated whether the Sun and already Chinese immigrants were here.
	They could not be U.S. citizens.
	By the way, they had loyalty to foreign powers.
	Like this one theory out there says, if you also have loyalty to a foreign power, you can't be U.S. citizens.
	That makes no sense.
	Because U.S. has recognized dual and triple citizens forever.
	So that's just never been the case.
	The historical argument is weak from, again, an originalist perspective.
	If you want to eliminate the originalist perspective, and you want to do a living constitutional perspective, then you have a much better argument.
	But then you're embracing the left's theory of law.
	And think long and hard about whether you really want to do that.
	Well, someone over on Rumble, also above average, says, can they draft you?
	Although I know you believe the draft is unconstitutional.
	But if they can draft you, you're subject to their jurisdiction.
	So the child born here can be drafted.
	Yes. And there's an argument about that, about how that works and how that process is.
	But yes, the theories of subject to the jurisdiction is that if you are subject to the king's jurisdiction, they can take your property, they can take your freedom, they can take your liberty, they can take everything.
	And that's how they see it.
	And that's why the law was written the way it was.
	Now, it is true that today you could make an argument there's been a seismic shift in the perception of citizenship, that citizenship is no longer about what you owe the state, but what the state owes you.
	And in a participatory democracy, it creates a whole different animal because now they can vote and control the government.
	It's one of the arguments I had with libertarians who were saying, hey, look, we shouldn't have any restriction on H-1B visas or anything like that.
	I was like, on immigration, because we should have a global labor supply because it's the most affordable, most accessible, best market, free market, etc.
	And, like, the problem is, what happens when the free market comes with a political tax?
	Like, all of a sudden, you have to give these people voting rights so they can control you in the future.
	You could recruit a bunch of—you could bring in a bunch of people who are socialists at heart.
	And all of a sudden, in the name of the free market, you bring in all these immigrants, and all the immigrants suddenly decide to create a socialist government.
	This actually happened in certain respects around the world over time.
	So I get there's good—Eastman is as good as anybody—good historical arguments.
	That from a living constitutional perspective, I think if you, this is where I get a kick out of the left.
	The left is all arguing.
	Original jurisdiction.
	They all of a sudden don't want living constitution.
	Oh no, Robert, all of a sudden the left loves sworn statements.
	Elizabeth Warren relying on sworn statements of perjury, but they don't like it when it's a various report of an adverse event from the jibby jab.
	Exactly. So my own view is that where the Supreme Court is likely to rule, because it's ruled this way in the past, because it reflects the broader history, you're going to get all the liberals against Trump.
	All you need is two.
	You need two of this corporate centrist.
	Two of the three corporatists, or a combination of that and the conservatives.
	I think you'll get a couple of conservatives who go with Trump, but I think that's going to be it.
	And there's no...
	...
	is likely to rule that subject to the jurisdiction includes those who are born to citizens whose parents were not citizens of the United States, unless those...
	Now, the one caveat component is Trump is exploring pursuing an alternative theory.
	That doesn't say birthright, that there's never birthright citizenship, but rather that those who are part of an invading army, the invaders of the Biden administration, that they're not entitled to it as an invading army analogy.
	And he actually cited that provision of the Constitution for curtailing invasions as part of his authority for this executive order.
	I think that's an interesting argument.
	I don't think it's one the courts are likely to accept at this point.
	The problem is this.
	The liberals who believe in a living constitution are never going to go along with Trump on birthright citizenship.
	The conservatives who believe in originalism know that originalism doesn't support Trump's position when you dig into it.
	There's arguments.
	I'm not saying there's no argument for it.
	I'm just saying the best arguments really don't.
	It's very hard to get there.
	My own view is a very simple solution.
	There is broad public support for limiting...
	Birthright citizenship to those whose parents have shown a commitment to be part of the United States at some level.
	Their resident visas, they have some legally recognized basis to be in the U.S. other than as a diplomatic entree or as a tribal member.
	I think that there's enough support to amend the Constitution to clarify that.
	Why do I support Article 5?
	Because I, the path to illegal immigrant reform, because I care about originalism in the Constitution.
	I refuse to abandon it just because I don't like the political and public policy consequences of the originalist interpretation.
	Well, Robert, the real good news for Trump is that we now know you can amend the Constitution by way of a tweet.
	So all Trump has to do is tweet out.
	It is now law of the land and thus is amended.
	Article, what was it?
	Article 14?
	Article 5 is the amendment to amend the Constitution.
	The 14th Amendment is the one that provides the citizenship.
	So there is a good historical argument that they didn't consider anything this scale.
	I think the best argument is a version of the invasion argument and the argument that philosophically we have shifted.
	Citizenship is no longer obligation like it was in medieval days where these terminologies originated.
	Where the words just so lie come from.
	Citizenship is power, not obligation.
	I mean, there's some obligation, but not as much.
	And so I think that that shift recognizes a shift in perspective.
	But the best way to respect that shift is to amend the Constitution through Article 5, not let judicial fiat amend the Constitution.
	Or they deem it to be an invasion.
	They deem illegals to be an invading force.
	And there's a circumstance where you could do that.
	I don't want that abused too much because there's risks to saying, okay, I'm just doing my invasion power and all of a sudden our civil liberties are stripped from us.
	But that's my view.
	I don't think Trump is going to win before the U.S. Supreme Court.
	I think Trump knows this.
	But I think it's smart politics.
	You lay out the executive order, let the courts enjoin it, show the public that the courts say the current Constitution doesn't allow this executive order, so we need to amend it.
	And make it a political issue in every campaign.
	I want to change Article 5 so the only people who are citizens of America, the only people who get to vote in America, are those who have taken the requisite steps to show their loyalty to America.
	And that the sons and daughters of illegals who haven't done anything to do so, other than being born, haven't done enough to show their loyalty to America, and that that should be the condition of citizenship given that it affords and provides as much as it takes away.
	That needs to be by Article 5, not by changing the Constitution by executive or judicial P.S.J.D.G.
	says, how much of Trump's push on birthright citizenship is aimed to push the amendment?
	We just got that.
	And this one here.
	Robert, before the 14th was accepted, it was argued by Howard that foreigners and aliens were excluded.
	CHR 127.
	There's two problems there.
	One, to be honest with you, that's a dishonest interpretation of that.
	The conservatives have made that argument multiple times.
	If you read the whole record, it doesn't support it.
	It just doesn't.
	And I get conservatives want to, don't like the consequence concurrently to the 14th Amendment.
	So they want to do a living constitution but don't want to admit they're doing that.
	So all of a sudden they want to say, you know whose opinion matters?
	Only one senator's.
	Not the rest of the senators.
	Not the rest of Congress.
	Not the state legislatures.
	Not the American public.
	Not the long legal history of how that doctrine was interpreted.
	No, no.
	This one senator, because he says a quote that I like.
	You're engaging in liberal legal jurisdiction.
	You're being very selective about which quotes you take.
	And you're using them conveniently when they contradict all the language.
	By the way, what does he say in that context?
	He's talking about a specific subset.
	And they're pretending that when he's saying, hey, look, don't worry, the sons and daughters of foreign emissaries don't get automatic citizenship under this.
	Then the nature of it is such that they're pretending, oh, no, what he really meant was to say all aliens, all foreigners were all excluded.
	Well, that's directly contradicted by the rest of the congressional record you're choosing to ignore because you don't like it.
	Don't become a liberal because you don't like the outcomes of an originalist conservative interpretation.
	Stick with the originalist conservative interpretation and instead follow the Constitution and the founders that said when something's not working, use Article 5 to fix it.
	Article 5 is the tool to fix it, not...
	Not newfound, not lying about the history, not being selective about the history, not being a living constitutionalist, because those three steps make you a liberal on the court, not a conservative, not a constitutionalist.
	What time is your flight?
	How much time do we have?
	Two minutes.
	Two minutes, okay.
	Let's go to the after party on Locals.
	I'll read the chats and answer them as much as I can.
	We're not going to cut it that short.
	Rumble? Robert, what do you have this week?
	So, heading back home.
	The might need to go to Philadelphia for a thing or two.
	But otherwise, the Bourbons will be back live throughout the week.
	So Bourbons with Barnes, you can tell me why I'm wrong.
	There have been great arguments made by a member of the local community.
	I think some arguments better than what Trump has made so far in the birthright citizenship.
	And again, to be absolutely clear, I would agree with amending the Constitution to remove that.
	Because I have a different interpretation of citizenship more broadly.
	I don't think governments should be able to grab and steal and everything they want all the time.
	So I'm sympathetic to it.
	I just refuse to not be an originalist because the originalist interpretation doesn't give me the public policy outcome I like.
	I refuse to become a lefty simply because the originalist interpretation gives me a lefty-liking result.
	All right.
	Get your butts on over, people.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	I'm going to keep Robert for as long as I can hang him in there, and then we're going to read some of these stuff here.
	Updating now.
	Rumble. See you tomorrow.
	Stay tuned.
	It's going to be a big week, so stay tuned.

▲