All Episodes
Previous Next
March 23, 2025 - Viva & Barnes
02:08:44
Ep. 256: Canadian Election! Illegals to Venezuela! Biden Attorney Found DEAD & MORE! Viva & Barnes
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Mr. Prime Minister?
Mike Myers?
What are you doing here?
I just thought I'd come up and check on things.
You live in the States?
Yeah, but I'll always be Canadian.
But you live in the States?
Yeah, so?
Do you remember Mr. Dress Up?
The children's show on CBC?
What were the names of Mr. Dress Up's two puppet friends?
Casey and Finnegan?
Budda? Spud?
Howie? Meeker?
Capitals, Saskatchewan?
Regina? Tragically?
Pip? You're a defenseman, defending a two-on-one.
What do you do?
Take away the pass, obviously.
What are the two seasons in Toronto?
Winter and construction.
Wow. You really are Canadian.
Yeah. But let me ask you, Mr. Prime Minister, will there always be a Canada?
There will always be a Canada.
All right.
Elbows up.
Elbows up.
I don't even understand the never on the back, actually.
Hold on.
My goodness, everybody.
Mr. Prime Minister?
I'm taking credit for this, but I'm going to ask for the help of the internet.
This is what has to happen.
This just happened to me.
Here you go.
This is what has to happen.
Never carny, people.
Why does it say never?
Oh, never 51. Well, it should say never carny.
And if you back those things up to each other, you can make it go screen and screen and say never carny.
I don't know where to start with this one.
First of all, I'm going to leave it up in the backdrop just in case we want to come back to it.
I will only start by saying I'm obviously not home.
I may or may not have gotten too much sun on my forehead today.
We did not catch any fish, and I didn't think you need to put on suntan lotion if you're out before 10 o'clock.
So whether or not I'm a little too red, my big red shiny forehead, I also believe suntan lotion is not good for you.
So there's that.
Before we get started, I'm on the road, so you'll excuse the...
Set up behind me.
I found this at the Airbnb that we're saying.
It's a beautiful...
Trust in the Lord, all your heart, and learn not on your own understanding.
In all your ways, acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight.
Proverbs 3, 5, 6. And right next to it is a little neon peace finger sign, because my kid, you know, in all the stuff that we bring on a road trip, brought that.
Good evening.
Now we can get into it.
Have you noticed a couple of things about this stupid video?
I had to double check.
How many times did he say Prime Minister?
He had to say it not once, but twice.
Because Mark Carney is Prime Minister.
Mr. Prime Minister?
I was always wondering what happened to Eminem also.
He's looking good, I guess.
I mean, he's a little older.
It's very funny.
This is Marshall Mathers, Eminem, Mike Myers, and it fits.
I don't know what he's doing, if he's playing a role now.
Can we get over the fact that this is Mike Myers living in Trump's America, living in Hochul's commie New York, talking about how he's still so Canadian that he gets to say...
Canada shall never be the 51st state while he's living in the Big Apple state.
First thing I want to know, how much did Mike Myers get paid for that?
They must tell us how much Mike Myers got paid for that.
He's in New York, in America, talking about how America...
We'll never get Canada.
Canada will never be America.
That's how beautiful and patriotic he is.
And the idiots, the self-owns in this thing.
What are the two holidays in Toronto?
First of all, congratulations.
It's the two holidays in all of Canada.
It's the same joke in Montreal.
Winter and construction.
You know why?
Because you're such a regulated country in Canada that they can't work for...
Four weeks during the summer because it's the construction holiday, but you only have a six-month season of construction because of the weather.
So your idiotic government in Canada, over-regulation, commie governments that they are, cause these construction problems because they don't let you construct during the one month of the year where it's actually seasonable to do construction.
Over-regulate, corruption, the land of the orange cone.
But ha ha, laugh about it, Mike Myers, while you live in...
Make American dollars.
Live in America.
I mean, you're living in commie New York, so I guess it's not much better.
Maybe you don't even understand that there is another part of America.
If you haven't heard, Canada declared an election.
I'll give him credit.
I will give Mark Carney credit because I said if he calls an election immediately, I don't care if he has nefarious reasons for doing it.
You can't be a motivated reasoner.
Criticize one way or criticize the other.
Mark Carney, the anointed, unelected prime minister, has declared, or at least asked the—hold on, what's the word?
He asked the governor general to dissolve parliament because tomorrow, the 24th, was the day they were supposed to come back after having prorogued government while they had their leadership race.
He did it.
He apparently has requested the governor general to dissolve parliament and declare an election, and I think it's going to be on April 28th.
Some people will say he did it strategically because they were going to submit or file or pass a motion for non-confidence and they want to be able to control the dictates of the next election and better they do it on their own terms than look like they're having the rug pulled out from under them.
Okay. Carney is running in the district of Nepean.
He's running for the riding in Nepean, which is near Ottawa.
Or it might include Ottawa.
It's Nepean.
You guys in Canada know.
So they've declared the election.
And now we are heading into...
Basically, I don't know what a snap election means if this qualifies as a snap election.
Canada will hold its elections, and it will be done on April 28th, where the country is going to vote for a globalist, three-passport-carrying, WEF Davos-frequenting Bilderberg.
He's in the orbit of the Prince Andrew crowd, Mark Carney, who has spent the better part of a decade living in England, serving the interests of the European Union, while...
Opposing populism of the Brexit movement.
You get to vote for him, or you get to vote for the man who's even worse, if you can imagine it, Jagmeet, Scumbag, Singh, forget him.
Or you vote for Pierre Poilievre.
Pierre Poilievre, people.
Who is the leader of the, I call it, the so-called Conservative Party of Canada.
Or you vote for Maxime Bernier, and I'm not telling anybody who to vote for.
I never do, never have, even when I ran for office.
I had Maxime Bernier on.
We did a pre-recorded interview because I wasn't looking like I was going to try to cut in line of other people.
But I asked Maxime Bernier, leader of the PPC, the party for which I ran before I left the country, address the vote-splitting argument that everybody always raises to say, don't vote for the PPC, you're wasting your vote.
A vote for the PPC is a vote for the Liberals.
I understand the argument.
I disagree with it.
But you're going to have to make your own decisions in Canada.
I am thoroughly convinced that Canada, under a so-called conservative government of Pierre Poiliev, will be narrowly better than under Carney.
That's a little bit of an exaggeration.
It'll be much better than under a Carney administration because a Carney administration will sink the ship that was once Canada.
It will.
Within four years, there will be no country of Canada left.
You don't want to be a 51st state, Canada?
You're going to be a second state to China.
You're going to be a second state to the European Union, globalists, whatever the hell.
You're losing your independence if you haven't already lost it.
If you didn't know about the China thing, go watch my Sam Cooper interview.
So you have your choices, and it's going to be one hell of an election.
Because, look, we're going to get into it for a few minutes before Barnes gets in here, before I thank the sponsors of tonight's show.
The liberals think you're stupid, and I will say this unapologetically, and I don't care if I offend you, my liberal friends, and I mean my literal, liberal, literal friends up in Canada.
If you vote for the liberals, you are an idiot.
I'm not telling you to vote for the PPC.
I'm not telling you to vote conservative.
If you vote for the same people who have...
Wholesale destroy your country.
You might not be an idiot.
In fact, that would be mean of me.
To assume you're an idiot, you might just be a filthy globalist communist.
I know that I don't have any filthy globalist communist friends, even in Canada.
So the only thing could be that you are politically stupid if you vote for the liberals.
Why? Well, they treat you like you're an idiot.
And a lot of you liberals, idiots, buy it.
Period. They're running now.
Now that they've announced the election, right?
Got to start announcing policy.
I've called Carney Kamala 2.0 coming out of Canada.
And they're proving to be Kamala...
Well, I don't know.
Hold on.
Who did I call Kamala 2.0?
Yeah, I call everybody Kamala 2.0.
I've called Pierre Poiliev Kamala 2.0 because he's not doing podcasts, which is basically what many people think sunk Kamala Harris' campaign.
I've called Mark Carney Kamala 2.0 because he was unelected, anointed.
Plopped in there, and he's going to run a campaign which consists only of buying celebrities, much like Mike Myers, doing only friendly podcasts that he might even be paying those podcasters for, who the hell knows.
And the other way in which Mark Carney is Kamala Harris 2.0, you remember Kamala literally, or actually literally, stealing every policy decision that Trump was putting out.
No tax on tips?
Steal it.
Tighten up the border?
Steal it.
I forget the third one.
Damn it, I wish I had it off my encrypted.
What was the other policy decisions that Kamala Harris just outright ripped off of Trump?
Carney's doing the exact same thing right now to the Conservatives, ripping it off.
And for those politically illiterate, politically naive buffoons up in Canada, you're going to think this is good policy.
You might think it's good policy because it would be good policy if it didn't come from the very same party that had had a decade of the exact opposite policy.
This is the most amazing one.
That you could possibly imagine.
I should have gone backwards for this one.
This is Mark Carney in 2025 about the housing crisis saying so many Canadians are doing everything right.
They've worked hard, secured good jobs and saved for the future.
But often it's not enough to buy a home.
It shouldn't be this way.
So we're making it easier to buy your first home and removing the GST on homes up to $1 million.
Can you imagine, by the way, if you didn't know this, you had to pay GST.
On homes.
You have to pay government sales tax when you purchased a home.
Okay, but fine.
Set that aside.
They tax you till death.
And then they tax you in death.
And then they tax you after death.
And then they tax the people who are the beneficiaries of the fruits of your life.
They tax everybody.
Up the ass, down, out, whatever.
Fine. Decent policy.
You have a housing crisis in Canada.
Oh, is it the same housing crisis that Justin Trudeau ran on a bloody decade ago?
It is.
This is from September 2015.
Damn near a decade ago, nine and a half years ago, Justin Trudeau pledges new funding for affordable housing, tax breaks for developers.
A decade.
A decade and the problem is only worse.
But don't worry about it.
This time they'll really solve what they failed to solve in the 10 years of their rule and probably only made worse in the 10 years of their rule.
What was the other one that they're talking about?
They treat you like idiots, people.
They treat you like idiots, and if you vote for them, you are.
Mark Carney came out and said, my government is canceling the capital gains tax hike.
They're even calling it a capital gains tax hike.
His government, my government, this is Carney, the anointed Kamala Harris 2.0, who just replaced Justin Trudeau, says we're going to cancel the capital gains tax hike.
We're going to incentivize builders.
Who did I just hear say that 10 years ago?
Oh, that's right, the guy you just replaced.
We're going to incentivize builders, innovators, and entrepreneurs to grow their businesses right here in Canada and create more good-paying jobs.
It's time to build the strongest economy in the G7.
Canceling the capital gains tax.
You know who proposed the capital gains tax?
Don't let me tell you.
Let him tell you.
Starting June 25th, if someone makes up to $250,000 in capital gains, they're still going to pay taxes on only half of that.
But for anything they make over $250,000, they're going to pay a little more.
They'll pay taxes on two-thirds of that.
So the very richest people are going to profit a little less off their assets.
They're going to profit.
The government's going to profit off your assets.
You pay 50% tax on $250,000.
Pay taxes on only half of that.
But for anything they make over...
$250,000, they're going to pay a little more.
They'll pay taxes on two-thirds of that.
Stop. Understand this, Americans, and appreciate the hell under which innovative, successful Canadians live.
You pay 50% on your capital gains up to $250,000, and if you make more than that, two-thirds.
You make $100,000 more on $250,000, you're paying $66,000 in tax.
To the government.
So they can take your money and ship it off to Ukraine.
So they can take your money and support 2SLGBTQIA programs in frickin' I don't know where.
So the very richest people are going to profit a little less off their assets.
They're not going to make a little less.
They're going to profit a little less.
And we're going to take it.
And what are we going to do with it?
Shut up.
It's none of your business.
Only 0.13% of Canadians to be exact.
Stop. Do you understand the self-own here as well?
Here's Justin Trudeau celebrating the fact that there are only 0.13% of all Canadians that make that type of money off of capital gains.
That's not a sign of success, you dumb son of a bitch.
I'm sorry, this is a son of a bitch.
There's only 0.13% of all Canadians that make that type of money.
You know what there's going to be left after they impose this?
Oh wait, they're going to undo it now because...
Carney has decided to undo.
His government is going to undo a policy his government imposed, or talked about, proposed, put it.
These are people who have an average income of $1.4 million a year, and they're mostly in their 60s or older.
Starting June 25th...
They're old.
They're in their 60s.
They're older.
Tax immoral.
Mark Carney, in case you forgot, is going to cancel the capital gains tax.
His government...
Is going to cancel the capital gains government, his government, proposed and put forward in the first place.
If you vote for them, you are an idiot.
If you vote for the NDP, you're an idiot as well, because they are worse than the liberals.
They just haven't had a chance to be in power, to exercise their evilness.
Holy hell, people.
It's not done yet.
We're almost done yet.
Listen to this.
They're going to run like a Joe Biden, Kamala Harris-esque type soundbites.
Which is why Pierre Poilier, you might want to think about doing soundbites.
Why did you decide to run for office?
You're such a noble man, Mark Carney.
Tell me why.
Why did you run in Nepean?
You've lived in England for the last better part of 10 years.
You picked Nepean?
Why did you pick Nepean?
Is that where you're going to make your home?
Oh yeah, go make your home in Ottawa and hope that you get in as Prime Minister of Canada.
Oh, you already are in Prime Minister.
We'll hope you dupe enough idiots to vote for you.
Let's be clear what my international experience is.
I understand how the world works.
I know people.
I know other world leaders.
I know other world leaders.
I know Prince Andrew.
I had a private party at his house after he was frolicking with Epstein after everyone knew about the sex scandal.
I know people.
I'm a globalist piece of rubbish.
People, and I understand, I know people who run some of the world's largest.
I know how financial institutions work.
I know how markets work.
And I know the good and bad of that.
I've experienced it.
I've had to, in some of my roles, discipline it, discipline the financial system, discipline with others the world's largest banks, the Wall Street banks in America after the crisis.
So I understand how the world works.
I'm trying to apply that to the benefit of Canada.
He's basically telling you he's a big globalist whore who knows all of the bigwigs of the global scale, and he wants to globalize Canada, sell it out to China, which he's doing, while making sweet, sweet coin on his own because, you know, he's not making his investment decisions based on the policies that he's been giving to Trudeau for the last five,
ten years.
Of course he's not.
I mean, of course he is with Brookfield Assets Management.
He's a globalist.
He's telling you to your face, trying to undo the damage.
His own government has done.
And if you had any lingering doubts, people, enjoy this doozy.
And you will understand why they had to make a crisis out of the Trump tariff war so they could pretend that the devastation under which Canada is living currently is the result of the consequences of this tariff war from Trump and not their decade of tyranny, brutalizing Canadians, taxing them to death, or taxing them out of the country.
Mark Carney, people.
We are in an economic crisis that's brought on.
Sorry, I'm going to answer the question.
Brought on by the tariffs that have been put on Canada, actual and perspective.
One of the challenges...
The economic crisis was brought on by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and you were his advisor.
I think you would find...
These people did not create that problem.
I certainly...
Hey, nobody in Canada created that problem.
Nobody in Canada created that problem.
The U.S. government has decided to put tariffs on all of its closest allies.
All of its closest allies.
Notice how he repeats things twice.
I wouldn't for a moment suggest that anyone in Canada is the cause of this.
We are in an economic crisis that's brought on.
By the way, notice it with Carney.
He says things twice.
He repeats it a second time to reassure you that his lie is somehow true.
The economic crisis in Canada is 10 bloody years in the making.
It has zero to do with Trump.
Zero. Oh, I said it twice.
You see, just repeat.
Zero. A third time.
And now you understand why they had to exacerbate that into a crisis, and Pierre Poilier unfortunately fell hook, line, and sinker for that, and may he figure out a way to change tact so that people can be mildly proud, or at the very least less ashamed, to vote for the so-called Conservative Party of Canada.
Good evening, people.
That's what's going on in Canada.
We're going to get back to it when Barnes gets in here to talk about the odds.
Because for everyone thinking, I've invested good money in what I think is going to be the outcome.
I think it's going to be a conservative majority government.
And for the 5-1 odds that you're getting now, it might be more.
I think it's 6-1 odds now.
I think Barnes would agree.
I don't know.
We'll see.
That it's a good investment.
I don't think it's 60-40 in favor of the Liberals.
So if all you want to do is buy against the Liberals now and wait for the markets to even out, you'll make 10%.
I'm holding on.
Because if it doesn't go the way that it needs to go, Canada's going to go the way of China.
And we're going to talk about it tonight because I had Sam Cooper on Friday.
And it's an eye-opening, mind-blowing interview that you have to see.
You'll understand why Trump has taken such a very, very thorough and serious interest in Canada.
Now, we shall thank the sponsors of tonight's show.
Make sure I do this because I've got to bring up a video in the backdrop here.
We're going to go here.
We're going to go here, and we've got the Wellness Company, and we are going to thank our sponsor for the night, the fine folk at the Wellness Company.
People, my fat fingers can do this.
Hospitals and schools are on high alert.
Health officials are pushing fear yet again.
Measles cases are surging, and talks of mandates are creeping back, but real protection doesn't come from the government orders.
It starts with you.
Here's what they don't tell you.
A strong immune system is the best defense.
Sunlight. Is the greatest disinfectant as well.
That's why the wellness company's elderberry gummies are packed with antioxidants.
Vitamin C. Couldn't talk about vitamin C or D during COVID.
Zinc to help keep you and your little ones healthy and resilient.
But if pneumonia or an ear infection occurs, being prepared is everything.
The kid's medical kit comes stocked with chewable amoxicillin and five other essential medications so you're not scrambling to take them.
To pharmacies and wherever, even assuming you can get the medications in an urgency.
For adults, Dr. Peter McCullough recommends the Wellness Company's Natural Immunity Blend to keep your immune system ready for battle.
If a more serious complication arises, the Medical Emergency Kit provides critical medications for early intervention.
Make long, expensive hospital ways.
A thing of the past and a last resort at the very least.
Don't get caught off guard.
All it takes is filling out a digital intake form and it will arrive at your front door within one to two weeks.
Get prepared now by heading to twc.health forward slash viva for 30 bucks off and free shipping.
Kits are available to U.S. residents only.
Link is in the description.
And then the second sponsor of the evening, one that is very, very important that I need to remind...
Go download the Rumble app if you don't mind.
Download the Rumble app.
You'll get notifications immediately.
We're going to run the Sunday show on both platforms for the duration because I want to remind everyone and push my daily live lineup exclusively on Rumble.
Daily now.
It's going to be 4 o'clock as of tomorrow.
daily shows all week long, four o'clock on the Rumble lineup.
And I want to make sure the world knows about that.
But download the app for you, get all of the notifications, immediately subscribe to your favorite content creators.
But Rumble Premium, people, is a way to support Rumble if you can.
We see what they're doing to Elon Musk.
We have always believed in the power.
In the freedom of empowering voices, no matter how unpopular they may be, because unpopular today is right tomorrow.
And we're taking that fight to the next level when major advertisers conspired to pull their dollars from Rumble, even brands like the Dunkin' Donuts, all-American company.
I don't say boycott, just spend your money where you should, 1775.
Dunkin' Donuts pulled their ad dollars and said that...
Rumble had too far of a right-wing culture that they didn't want to support.
We are not here to fit the mold.
We are here to defend freedom of expression and make sure that you're getting the best, most insightful content on Earth, uncensored.
To strengthen this mission, we're excited to offer Rumble Premium, a completely ad-free experience with exclusive benefits for viewers and creators.
You'll find exclusive content from creators like Russell Brand, Dr. Disrespect, Tim Cast, Mug Club with Crowder.
It's more than just a subscription.
It's a stand for free speech.
Your voice matters.
So join Rumble Premium today for a very limited time, people.
$20 off the annual plan because it's $10 a month.
And you use the code RUMBLELIVE.
So go to rumble.com forward slash premium rumble live to get the special discount.
Today, together, we can and will turn the tide.
We will make free speech cool again, and we will make free speech the beacon on the hill of corporations and enterprises.
Whether you join Rumble for free, Or join Rumble Premium.
Just keep watching and share away.
It helps keep content creators like me, Robert Barnes, Tim Cast, Crowder, alive, well, and speaking the truth.
There are a lot of tip thingy things.
By the way, if I do not get to your Super Chat, Rumble Rant, or whatever, we're going to have our Locals exclusive afterwards.
Do not be miffed.
If you're going to be miffed, don't give it.
But I just want to say User02 seems to be a new Locals member.
So, welcome.
To the community, Robert Barnster, you are looking dapper.
Oh wait, it's St. Paddy's Day.
Yeah, it's really green for money.
The subscribers over at sportspicks.locals.com where we had a bunch of March Madness picks.
Started out with a real rough Thursday.
Some folks that hadn't been around a while were starting to hit the panic button.
Our Good March Madness run in past years.
Maybe it ran out.
Maybe we didn't have the luck of the Irish with us, but turned that around very quickly and now back in the black, doing really, really well.
So congrats to all the sportspicks.locals.com subscribers out there that had both an entertaining and profitable weekend.
Well, I mean, look, the menu, we're going to talk about the Tate Brothers.
We're going to talk about Biden's attorney, whether or not it's thus far...
Seems to be not a nothing burger, but Pinochet Helicopter called it a nothing burger.
Thus far, we're not sure yet.
We're going to talk about Elon Musk boycotts and all this other stuff.
But Robert, I guess everyone's going to get some free picks for the night because we're going to talk about the Canadian elections and where you think it's going, where I think it's going.
They have been announced.
Now, when you deal with Canadians...
They have announced it.
They have announced it, so I already lost my...
Another winning bet at sportsfix.locals.com.
Was it before April 1st?
It was before April 1st.
Yes. Look, I'm a bit of a sucker for the long bet.
Like, it was 10-1 that they announced it after April 1st.
So it was almost a joke bet.
But I was thinking maybe what Carney would want to do, because I said he's going to want to cling to power for as long as he can, and I still think that's true.
I just think he thinks this is a more strategic way to do it.
The only other way, because he has to have a seat.
And so the only other way that they could have not called it for April 1st was if he ran in a by-election.
Nova Scotia had one, I think, on April 18th.
It's like, okay, 10 to 1. But no, they've called it.
As far as I can tell, it's formal.
And in fact, from the markets, it is.
I don't think the market exists anymore.
And so it's going to be April 28th.
When you're dealing with elections in a foreign country, I don't consider myself to be your inside source of information, and I know that I'm not.
I don't even think I understand it.
How do you go about...
Coming to your own assessments as to what you think is going to happen.
So it's knowing enough about the electorate and the individuals campaigning to make an informed judgment.
And it's following foreign politics and foreign governments on a regular basis.
We had some bets up on the Ecuadorian election, the Australian election, the German election, past the French elections and UK elections and Italian elections and so forth.
But you need to know enough about each country, its political history.
The nature of its current voter group, the current expectations of the electorate, given the current political administrations and campaigns.
So, you know, like they banned the guy from Romania, which is only going to be credit to Vice President Vance and President Trump, who are talking about removing visa-free access, which, by the way, may relate to certain Tate brothers,
from Romania.
Because Romania is...
Let me see if the glitch is on my end.
Oh, yeah.
It was glitchy.
I don't know if it's your internet or my internet.
I'll just double check with the chat.
Sorry. Yeah, no problem.
Definitely you, Viva.
Okay. Sweet.
The Romanian elections, they banned the leading presidential candidate.
After he won the first time, they annulled the election, the judicial branch.
It's amazing how Romania will talk...
We'll relate to three of our top topics tonight.
Tate Brothers, the integrity of international elections and prediction of them, as well as rogue judicial branches of government.
Because Romania's rogue judicial branch is the one that precluded and prohibited the leading candidate, people who Romania won from president from winning the first election.
After he won it, they canceled it.
And then the second time around, when he was leading, Then it was the bureaucracy, with the aid of the judicial branch, prohibits him from campaigning.
And so the net effect of that is that they keep trying to rig the election.
Now, it's led to Vice President Vance through the U.S. Embassy.
Vice President Vance specifically called out Romania when he went and did a speech in Europe and said, if Europe is not going to defend the values America holds dear, then America has no interest in defending Europe at America's expense, as it has now ever since World War II.
You could argue...
We've been doing it for more than a century because it was U.S. involvement in World War I that tipped the factor, U.S. involvement in World War II that tipped the factor on behalf of Western Europe.
And for a long time, we've been bailing them out rather than the other way around.
And so you back up to that.
And I think in Romania, I think the candidate most aligned with the banned candidate has the best chance.
Or has a better chance than the oddsmakers are trying to suggest.
And the U.S. is going to escalate.
They're talking now about prohibiting visa-free access from Romania because Romania is interfering in its elections in a way that we specifically said, we're not going to continue to treat you on a privileged status if you're not going to respect the values America and Americans hold dear.
And the whole Romania thing is a backdoor Ukrainian strategy that if they lose in Ukraine, which they already have, it's only about when does pen meet paper, NATO now wants to put a huge base in Romania as the big proximity to the Russian
border right across the Black Sea.
And for all those that were so harshly critical...
Of us being skeptical of the Romanian indictment of the Tate brothers, because they said this is not a politically reliable legal system, if you understand anything about Romania, can send their apologies courtesy of Eva Frey.
Because as we predicted, yes, this is a rogue judicial branch.
Yes, this is a rogue bureaucracy.
So you just can't have faith and confidence in anything they do.
That's just the reality of it.
And I found the timing peculiar, the incentives peculiar, a whole bunch of things.
Now we have DeSantis trying to jump on the anti-Tate train as well and all the rest.
But what this has confirmed, knowing and voiding the first election was one thing, to after being warned by the U.S. not to do it again, and then doing it again.
In an even more brazen fashion by not allowing him to run, the leading candidate for the presidential elections.
I mean, it's the most...
I mean, you have Britt Hume lecturing about how terrible Vladimir Putin is.
Well, unlike the Romanian elections, the Russian elections elected Vladimir Putin through that process.
Has Britt talked about the Romanian elections or Ukraine, where Zelensky is a de facto and legally a dictator?
He was not elected at this point in time.
His term has long expired.
He declared martial law so he can continue to stay in power.
I mean, that's dictatorship.
How many times has Vladimir Putin had to declare martial law to stay in power?
Never. Why?
Because he's incredibly popular.
Whitcoff, one of the envoys to the peace deal for President Trump, is getting all his political heat for pointing out the obvious, that there's usually two sides to a story, and demonizing Putin is not going to profit America.
It's also just factually false.
The most popular leader for the last quarter century around the world has been Vladimir Putin.
That's undisputed.
Posters who hate him in Russia have acknowledged this and admitted this repeatedly.
The basis of power of Vladimir Putin is not dictatorship.
It is democracy.
It is because he is so popular with the Russian people.
And he's legitimately popular with the Russian people.
Measure any objective metric.
Security. Pride.
Prosperity. You know, the decent housing, decent health care, decent way of life and standard of living.
Putin has been the best president in the world for the last quarter century in terms of how the quality of life has drastically improved for the ordinary, everyday Russian.
That's why he's popular.
I mean, we come up with so many extravagant claims about Putin.
It's almost all confession to projection.
As the release of the Kennedy JFK files...
It provided further proof.
There was one common theme in the disclosure of those files, and it was all the bad...
What was kept secret all this time?
It was all the bad acts of the CIA.
That's what was being declassified all this.
That's why Pompeo begged Trump at the end of his first term, please don't disclose this, because it rats out the CIA.
It puts the...
When you look at motive all over the place, what the declassified files show is the CIA head motive.
Kennedy wasn't.
In fact, what Robert Kennedy Jr. has been saying now for a while, and other even members of his family have tried to refute this, is now irrebuttably proven by the disclosed documents.
He said his uncle was planning to scrap the CIA and restructure everything.
That's in fact what the classified documents prove.
That the CIA was using it to be in the war business.
That's what the declassified documents prove.
You had people connected to the CIA who ratted them out right away.
And they kept that information secret, who mysteriously died six months later.
They kept that likely murdered, but they attributed it to other causes.
So you look at that, and then you look at Russian ambassadors and Cuban envoys, and what are they all saying?
They're all pointing to the CIA having done this.
That's why those documents were kept secret.
The scale to which the CIA was conspiring to create a war in Cuba.
And a war with the Soviet Union.
I mean, you had things like they were deliberately, things that Cuba had long claimed that people had ignored in the West because they said, oh, it's just Cuban propaganda, proven in the declassified documents.
Things like they went about poisoning a bunch of Cuban food that was going to go to the Soviet Union, knowing that it would mostly lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of ordinary everyday people in the Soviet Union, just to try to trigger a conflict between the Soviet Union and Cuba.
That's how nuts these people were.
I mean, remember they did Operation Northwoods.
That was a CIA project that got declassified some years ago, but proved that they were willing to stage false flags, including the deaths of Americans, in order to stage a war with Cuba.
And now it's Kennedy who stopped it.
Kennedy kept stopping it, stopping it.
Kennedy was the only one that said no to Operation Northwoods.
Everybody else in the chain of command said yes.
Kennedy was the one to stop the ship from poisoning a bunch of people in the Soviet Union.
Everyone else had said yes.
And we see this with document after document, disclosure after disclosure, that what happened.
And now we know why these records were classified all of a sudden.
I'm just laughing because there are still some, I will call you fools or Israel obsessed.
I won't call you anti-Semitic because it might not be religious based.
still some people fixated on Israel did it, even though they're relying on, on the one hand, what is apparently according to Mark Robert, a fake document, or on the other hand, documents that predate the assassination by close to 15 years,
There was one Israeli aspect to the declassified documents that you can see they're trying to keep secret.
And some people think they're trying to keep it secret to protect Israel.
There was no reason, because it was known Israel got nuclear weapon technology from the United States to get an edge on nuclear weapons.
It did so.
In a legally unauthorized manner.
But, I mean, JFK was a long support.
The whole Kennedy family has long supported Israel.
That goes way back.
He was pro-Israel when a lot of people were anti-Israel in the 40s and 50s.
And I ask Grobert this.
Grobert, who's been studying this since it happened, in detail says that the Israeli narrative never existed until recently.
And people who want to believe it, and feel free to believe it.
I mean, I believe all intelligence had some role in either the cover-up or knowledge, which would include MI6, Mossad, whatever.
But if you're going for means, motive, and opportunity, you look no further than LBJ and the CIA.
But people want to pretend it was...
High-ranking people in the CIA and the State Department were anti-Israel.
So there was some pro-Israel people in the CIA who were...
Like, the part they did declassify was the Angleton documents and how much he was creating an alignment with Mossad to promote his sort of international agenda.
But people were like, oh, this exposes Israel.
Like, not really.
Everybody knew.
That Israel got nuclear technology, got it from the U.S., and got it unauthorized.
So that doesn't only protect Israel as much.
They are protecting the CIA.
That Angleton ran his own shop and did whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, is further confirmation in the declassified documents.
Those documents are being classified not to protect Israel, but to protect the CIA.
And Angleton being rogue at multiple levels.
Angleton was kind of insane.
It was Angleton's idea to build up extortion, blackmail material on all the senators and congressmen that could have influence over CIA policy.
That was Angleton's idea when he executed well.
But yeah, the anti-Israeli people are just so obsessed with that issue.
They reveal themselves when they do on these kind of connections.
You can be for the Palestinian side.
I wouldn't agree with you, but that's fine.
There's an ideological intellectual commitment there.
Glenn Greenwald has that commitment.
Aaron Maté has that commitment.
Other people do.
I don't happen to agree with them, but you can tell it's a principled position that they're coming from.
By contrast, I quit listening to Candace Owens when she tells me Stalin is Jewish.
One of the biggest anti-Semites in the history of the world.
Well, I mean, look, I say always in fairness to Candace Owen, there are a lot of Marxist anti-Semitic people of Jewish origin.
I just say, like, there's a difference between being a Jew who espoused a position and doing it because they were Jewish.
There were a lot of people who wanted to find the smoking gun that Israel had the role to play in this because they were angry at JFK for trying to get AIPAC to register as foreign lobbyists or foreign agents.
I don't think that panned out.
And the only thing that makes someone look...
Being wrong doesn't make someone stupid.
Sticking to that wrong position and trying to find ways around it, even if it means relying on false documents, makes you stupid.
But backing it all the way up, because I just got to refresh my memory now.
Georgescu is still off the ballot.
They will run this election without him.
I put bets on anybody that's aligned with him.
So there are some candidates running.
That are smart.
I think Simeon is the guy's name, if I recall right.
The people that are aligned with him are the ones that I think may overperform expectations.
I can't believe the court upheld the decision, and they're running the second round without Georgescu.
Especially, they did so right after VP Vance said, don't do this.
So it was a slap in the face.
It was the EU slap in the face to America.
And that's why I'm glad to see the Trump administration say, well, we're going to look at Romania very differently now.
And it's long overdue.
It's much like the judicial coup that's being staged by the federal judiciary in the United States.
This was a judicial coup of the Romanian elections.
I mean, the EU is deeply anti-democratic.
They're a bureaucratic institution that favors elite power over public power.
And what it is, is the left has redefined democracy to mean them in power.
So all of a sudden, democracy now means overturning elections with the help of judges and bureaucrats.
That's now democracy.
But what else would you expect from a political party and ideology that considers the Romanian elections democracy and the Russian elections tyranny?
It's a crock.
It's a total joke.
I mean, this is why we're losing credibility on the global stage.
We say ridiculous and preposterous and lunatic things within the political establishment.
That's what the Democratic Party is sinking to depth.
It has never sunk to in its entire history in terms of very favorable rating, lower than ever, favorable rating, lower than ever, likability rating, lower than ever, bleeding registrations across the entire nation, even in places like California, etc.
By the way, I just want to bring this up.
No matter how we slice it, this is M. Sidley.
Yes, Stalin wasn't Jewish.
I'm not trying to defend that assertion.
There's a number of people who also sound Jewish.
Like Mike Cernovich that people put on the list, even though he's not Jewish.
And then they say, well, you don't have to be a Jew to be Jewish.
Also, Reid Hoffman, not a Jew, people.
So don't use that one in support of your pedophile misconceptions.
That's where they give up.
That's where they unmask themselves.
When all of a sudden Israel is the source of every conspiracy.
I mean, it's like people who rediscover the USS Liberty controversy every couple of years as if this was a new...
I am going to have someone from the USS Liberty because people think I don't want to have that discussion.
But, Robert, I will only steelman the misconception there is statistical over-representation of Jewish players in all things political.
And so from that, people come to the conclusions that I don't think you can...
You can say it's oversimplified reasoning.
You're just applying a rule too broadly.
You can't blame people for...
Noticing statistical over-representation in politics, in arts, in influence, in whatever.
And some people don't...
But the thing that kind of counterbalances that is during some of these key time periods, during the post-World War II to late 1960s, the political power structure in America was distinctly anti-Jewish.
In the State Department, they were all Arabist when it came to Israel, for the most part.
And the CIA was all WASP.
And this is the reason, like, people at the...
It was partially why the Kennedys were sympathetic with Israel.
The WASP elite that really had disparate control over our intelligence branches of government during and after World War II came up through the Ivy League during a time period when they deliberately discriminated against Jews.
It was openly popular to do in the 20s and 30s in the Ivy League to put quotas on Jews to make sure there weren't many Jews in the Ivy League.
There was a certain Jewish cultural edge in an age that depended on intellectual development.
Having a religious tradition that celebrated reading and writing gave Jewish people around the world an edge when the world shifted to a reading and writing, literate, driven world.
You didn't have to be literate to farm a field.
You do have to be literate.
And academically and intellectually developed in those arts in order to advance.
Same way, like, to give people an idea, Irish.
You know, look at the Irish.
The Irish have one of the most well-developed oral communication traditions of any culture in the world.
And consequently, what happens when they come to the U.S.?
You know, they open up bars, they open up places like that.
They become disproportionately successful in American politics.
In fact, there's been proportionate to their representation in the population.
Irish have overachieved politically more than Jews or any other group in America has.
And my view is it's because when you come from a tradition that's rich in an oral communication tradition, I think that gives you an edge, particularly in early American political trends.
But it was one of the big reasons for the other undercurrent with the Kennedy versus CIA was that the Kennedy brothers, you can read about their experiences going to those WASP elite schools in the 40s, 30s and 40s.
They're upstart Irish Catholics in a community in the Northeast run by WASPs, as Beacon Hill used to be.
And so there was a historical animosity between them and the WASP elites that you can take all the way back to them growing up.
And that was another cultural conflict between them.
And then it's the reason why Angleton had to do some of his aligning with Mossad off the CIA books, because everybody else at the CIA was anti-Israel.
I mean, some of the leading anti-Israeli groups created in the 50s and 60s in the United States were front groups by the CIA and the State Department.
People like Kermit Roosevelt, they all thought they were Lawrence of Arabia, and their ideal Middle East was the Iran under the Shah.
And to them, they saw Israel as a nuisance, that Israel was going to be a constant thorn in their ability to run the Middle East.
Run the Arab world.
They grew up on the book and the movie, Lawrence of Arabia.
That was just part of that subculture, that WASP elite subculture.
Very Anglo-American alliance.
So a lot of them were very tight with MI6 and the Brits, which is where the commies were.
The commies weren't a bunch of Jews at MI6.
The commies were good, upstanding British citizens.
That's who they were, from the WASP elite.
Those were the closet commies.
Many of the closet commies in the State Department were the same dynamic.
This is Anne Sidloy again, who says Jews are very active in all aspects of changing politics.
This was true of communists and capital fronts.
The only thing I say to the people who see the Jews everywhere, they called the impeachment the Jew coup, the first impeachment.
You had the Dershowitzes and you had the Millers and you had a bunch of other Jews fighting the Jew coup.
When it's on both sides, then everybody says, well, they're just sowing discord among society.
Other than Israel itself, there's nothing really distinct about a Jewish identity in terms of political involvement.
That's the other problem I've always had.
I would get that more if it involved even Christians or Islamists that are more maybe overtly political.
But as a general, it doesn't tell me much when you tell me somebody's Jewish.
It really doesn't.
Other than they come from a community that has experienced extraordinary levels of harassment for the better part of more than two centuries.
And they come from a cultural tradition that celebrated reading and writing religiously and consequently had a leg up.
When it involved intellectual competitions or an intellectual society.
But that's about it.
But even then, they're always still a minority.
Overrepresentation means you're one out of five rather than one out of 30. It's not actual.
Or 1.6 out of 100.
Okay, so Romania, it's going to happen without Caelan Georgescu.
That's mind-blowing.
But we'll see if the people rebel by voting for the candidate smart enough to align themselves with his move.
I remember that he was ganged.
I believe Simeon has.
Simeon has aligned himself.
I think it's Simeon.
He has aligned himself with that movement.
Yeah, it looks like George Simeon.
I can't.
So, I mean, you know Canada better than I do.
My instinct is I don't see a liberal...
I thought that the Trump tariffs would give them a window, an opening, but I can't see them coming back and winning.
That would be a real shock.
I mean, they were nowhere just two months ago.
They were nowhere two months ago.
Canada has been in a dire dump for the last 10 years, and it's been getting worse and worse and worse year over year.
It's the Liberal government that is scandal after scandal of Justin Trudeau, ethics violations, not just among him, everything, the Nazi in Parliament, the Speaker of the House who had an ethics violation.
It's a corrupt...
Ethics-breaching party.
And all of a sudden, they bring in this guy, Mark Carney, who speaks like a soft old man.
And he looks nice.
And they're going to forget about it.
I don't think it's going to happen.
But then it's just a question of where you go with your bets.
It's not 60-40.
I don't think it's 50-50 that Poiliev is the next Prime Minister of Canada.
But then you get into things where I don't even...
I wouldn't bet on my own prediction.
I would have said it's a no-brainer that they get a majority government, but now I'm not so sure because people are just amazingly stupid.
And I'm saying that judgmentally.
So your bets all now are for the Conservatives, against the Liberals, especially since it's 60-40 last time I checked, maybe 59-41.
What other picks, if you're giving them away for free, do you have for Canada?
I haven't looked at it enough in depth yet.
But my instinct was that the Canadian populace that wanted to throw out the Liberals two months ago have a temporary resurgence with Pierre's mishandling of the trade war and the trade conflict and the 51st state conflict that Trump created within Canada,
triggering sort of Canadian pride in the Liberal Party.
But I have difficulty once they go to vote, them actually voting a Liberal Party in that they hated just two months ago.
It's unbelievable.
I'm looking at the conservative majority is at 16% now.
And we're looking at the numbers.
It's for them to get a majority.
Oh, by the way, they're up to 343 ridings now.
When I ran, it was 338.
So they've added six ridings in the last four years because of population growth, which has been 97.5% immigration.
So they need to get whatever a half of 343 is, unless I'm making a mistake, and the chat will certainly rip me a new one if I am.
I'm still sticking with it.
If it's a minority conservative government, it's going to be a debacle.
I mean, I don't see how it's not going to be effectively a liberal government, because they'll team up with the NDP, and they'll team up with the Bloc Québécois, the federal party that is dedicated to removing Quebec from the Federation.
Okay, so that's Canada.
That's my predictions.
They're not worth anything, people.
Part of me maybe is betting the way I want it to go subconsciously, although I'm not sure if I'm even going to vote this time around because I'm sitting out here in Florida looking at Mike Myers in New York tell Canadians that they should be proud to be Canadian when the very same reasons for which we both left.
I think I had much better reasons for leaving than Mike Myers.
We've discussed it.
Trump is still talking about it, and Canada is still fear-mongering on it.
Do you sincerely think Trump has any interest in any portion of Canada being a bona fide 51st state?
I don't see that, no.
I just don't see it as likely that that's ever going to happen.
I would say that is a thousand to one.
I think it's a negotiating leverage.
Mostly it was, I thought, a political statement.
Now, it's a little bit negotiating leverage involving trade issues and involving...
Shipping routes that Canada concerns that he wants more security over.
And sort of you could see it as a negotiating position.
You start way out here so that you can get here.
But also, knowing Trump, he must know it's an insult to Canadians to suggest, maybe you're good enough to be our 51st state.
Now, I think Trump considers it a great honor to be part of America.
But to Canadians, that is an extraordinary insult, and I can't imagine that Trump didn't fully know that, that his perspective was to create the conflict enough so that he can have justification for the trade policy he wants.
He sees that the way NAFTA ended up working was to shift jobs not only to Mexico, but also to Canada in the auto industry and other industries, and he wants those jobs back.
Looks like Sad Wings Raging gifted a bunch of memberships to our community.
Thank you very much, as usual, Sad Wings.
I know you're busy, and I don't presume everybody sees every interview, but I don't know if you knew who Sam Cooper was.
He's a Canadian journalist, and I had him on Friday, but he opened my eyes to the fact that I don't think it's a real proposal to be a 51st state, but I think he's genuinely and sincerely highlighting...
The national security threat that Canada has become as a result of Chinese infiltration in Canadian politics.
And Sam said something which, you know, you put all these dots together in one stream and your mind sort of gets blown.
America has intelligence about Chinese influence in Canada that they don't feel comfortable disclosing to the Canadian government because it would be basically revealing to their enemy the knowledge that they have of their nefarious activities.
How scared are you of an actual kinetic conflict involving China?
In the next, say, two to four years.
Zero chance.
Okay. Good.
Well, that'll quell my fears because Sam Cooper talking about the Panama Canal and the importance for cross-continent travel.
It's de facto or proxy owned by Chinese oligarchs or Chinese big money criminals who are heavily politically involved.
You get into Chinese infiltration and Canadian government and...
Then I start putting two and two together, which is Trump understands these are very serious national security issues for no better reason, brings up Canada as a 51st state, Greenland, better take it over for national security reasons, and the Panama Canal.
And I do wonder if he knows that we are closer to war than many of us appreciate.
I mean, there's different kinds of risk, but I think Trump is not going to get us involved in a war, period.
Okay, and it's interesting.
Someone's going to say, well, what happens?
The whole idea of attaining geographic regional independence means they can do whatever the F they want over in the China Sea so long as we have alternate shipping routes and we are shielded from conflict if we secure the North American hemisphere, which should include Greenland.
It makes sense.
All right, now we're not moving off of Romania just yet.
And reminder, everybody, Robert, I've started the new Rumble lineup.
I might be in...
I think it's like 99% in Washington, D.C. at the White House on Thursday.
I hope I was allowed to mention it because we're going to have access to members of the administration for some Q&As.
Shoot, I hope I was allowed to say that.
I'm going to shut my big mouth.
All that to say is...
The weekly schedule, daily Rumble lineup starts at 9 o'clock in the morning, goes to 9 or 10 at night, and you got Evita from Bongino starting, and then you get in Crowder, then you get in Tim Pool, then you get in the quartering, then you get in me.
I don't know who comes after me, but we're going to find out.
So daily reminder across all platforms, including Commitube, 4 o'clock live on Rumble exclusively.
Romania, the tape brothers.
Okay. I'm not jumping on the...
Politically motivated investigation.
They came to Florida.
They obviously ruffled a few feathers.
They spurred the attention of the DeSantis administration, who then says, we're going to look into these guys because there were allegations that if they were American citizens engaging in sexual activity with a 16-year-old, though that's the age of consent in...
I don't know if you saw that,
Robert, but he said, and I said, this is where I know the limitations of my own knowledge.
There's a law, I forget what it's called, the SAFE Act, which basically prohibits sex tourism.
It's like, okay, fine.
I get that.
I said...
He's wrong.
Okay. Well, not just wrong, and I want you to flesh this out, because the argument is they can't even go to the UK if they're over the age of 18. Let's just forget about...
Let's set aside the potential two-year difference, which has a difference in law.
Say they're 30. They go over to the UK to have sexual relations with a 16-year-old.
That is legal in the UK, moral, different than legal, but it would be illegal...
In America, in certain states, there are some states where the age of consent is, from what I understand, 16 or 17. And I said, how could you think that this could be a federal crime when it wouldn't even be a state crime within certain states?
Because it would mean that you couldn't travel from a state where the age of consent is 18 to where it's 16 to have relations.
Some people said, you're right, you can't do that either.
I don't know.
Do you have any knowledge of this?
Sex tourism, does it apply to age of consent among Western countries?
It's a totally wrong analysis.
There is no law that prohibits that or criminalizes that.
There would be all kinds of constitutional issues if they did.
So despite all of the efforts to liberalize human trafficking laws, they don't go that far.
And they never have.
So on that aspect, the Tate critics are wrong for the reasons you articulated.
I mean, there's all kinds of...
It would create conflicts between the states and the U.S. if that was the case.
It's not the case.
There's also always issues with extraterritorial jurisdiction.
I've never been a fan of these claims of extraterritorial jurisdiction by any state or federal government.
The idea that you have criminal jurisdiction authority over the entire world is insane.
Nor should we welcome that.
Do we want other countries to start criminalizing, let's say, political disagreement when their domestic laws don't protect free speech?
And so now they can request our extradition because of something we said that was posted in their country?
People should think about the insanity.
Hateful of the Tates.
And I get it.
They're controversial.
They're lightning rods, etc.
I get that a lot of people don't like the business that they were previously engaged in, in the webcam business.
I get that as well.
That doesn't mean you start butchering the law in order to get at people you dislike for other reasons.
And there's people who want to make up the law in ways...
And I've had a problem with this across the board.
And if people think it's unique to the Tates, it's not.
I raised the same complaint about the Julian Assange case.
This attempt to liberalize human trafficking to where it includes somebody's regret after the fact, things like that, that's what created the bogus date rape campus hysteria that even liberals would later complain about about a decade ago,
that the Biden administration tried to reignite, which was to allow college campus bureaucrats to weaponize the allegation of sexual assault.
To empower women at the expense of men disproportionately.
And doing so by making regret rape.
You know, it's like, whoa, no, no, no.
Rape is rape.
We don't, regret is not rape.
And it diminishes every rape victim to pretend the two are equivalent.
And the same is true in the human trafficking context.
I had this problem with the case of that cult leader guy that they prosecuted here in the U.S. that Scott Adams spoke out.
You know, raising the same questions.
I was like, human trafficking needs to be limited to human trafficking, right?
Whereby coercion, you move someone from one place to another place to engage in illegal activity.
Or to take advantage of them through coercion, through force, things of that nature.
It can't be, if human trafficking is, I thought he loved me and he turned out he didn't.
Whoa, we're in a whole different world.
All of a sudden, a third of the world could be indicted tomorrow for human trafficking.
It diminishes the real experience of true victims of human trafficking to equate regret with human trafficking.
And I've seen a lot of that.
To equate, we have the right to impose certain value judgments of our state on the entire world, which is what some people are trying to do.
So the SAFE Act doesn't purport what isn't correctly interpreted like those people were interpreting.
Just to answer that question, I'm not advertising the fact that Germany is 14. I didn't know that.
Canada at the age of consent was 14 up until 2006.
I'm highlighting it's inconceivable that it could federally criminalize what it would then have to criminalize domestically.
A 21-year-old in South Carolina seems to be 16. It made no sense.
I mean, through most of human history, age of consent was tied to biology.
And you had people getting married in their teens.
Yeah, well, people are going to say that's barbaric.
It should be developed.
They could say that, but I don't know.
Is it?
In other words, what we have done is we've said we're going to regress the development of people, right?
It was in the past.
You were a man at 12, right?
And we've decided as a culture over the last half century or so to say, no, no.
You're not a man until you're 18. You're not a woman until you're 18. And what happened is that cultural change led to a change in the laws.
But some civilizations, some societies, some governments, some countries, some states don't share the same sense of what that is.
So some have moved to 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, depending on where you are in the world or where you are over time.
It always strikes me as peculiar.
That, okay, when my great-grandfather got married at 15 or 14, I'm supposed to look back at that and consider it sexual abuse.
I'm like, does that seem really...
What it reflects is...
But is it a good thing that we have decided to extend childhood?
That's what we've decided to do.
Childhood used to be up until the age of biological maturation.
Now it's not, right?
Whether you're talking about the bar mitzvah or anything else, throughout almost all of human history, when you change biologically is when you were considered...
An adult member of that society or civilization.
Now that we have gone back and changed that, and I understand why.
I support it.
But I think we should be, like, when we're going to judge another country, for example, or we're going to judge another time period, I'm a little more hesitant to do that because, like...
Well, back then, culturally, we weren't extending childhood to 18 years of age.
Well, I think the obvious rebuttals are going to be, back then, people lived shorter, so there was more of a biological necessity.
It could be, but I don't think that's...
I mean, is it a coincidence that almost every civilization throughout all of human history assigned adulthood at the age of tying it to biology?
I don't think that's a coincidence.
Yeah, no, I would argue maybe it's because of my neuroscientist wife that they didn't know how fully undeveloped the brain of a 12-year-old or 13-year-old actually was.
Is that true now or is that true then?
That's what I'm always...
Like, it's clearly we've changed the development growth, right?
So the reason why I support age of consent at 18 now is because the development psychologically over multiple generations now...
Is that you're really not getting to adulthood, what we consider adulthood, to participate in society until you're 18. We consider this in criminal laws, in the juvenile context.
Now, I do have a little bit of an issue of treating, say, a 14-year-old who commits a heinous crime as an adult.
It's like, either they're an adult or they're not, right?
I have a little bit of a problem with that premise.
I understand why people want to do it, but that doesn't mean it's contradictory.
Many of the same conservatives that champion age of 18, age of consent, suddenly reverse.
What involves criminally prosecuting juveniles who they want to see punished.
All of a sudden, no, no, no, no.
That 13-year-old's really like an adult.
Look at the nature of their crime.
Well, hold on a second.
Are we going to say that 13-year-old is more like an adult when it comes to a statutory rape case?
Oh, no, no, no, no.
Can't do that.
It's like, well, we got to have some consistent legal principles here.
I get these are hot buttons.
You get near them, they get radioactive.
If you raise any questions about anything that we're doing here.
But in this context...
And they use that to shame and guilt anybody who challenges or questions the consistency of legal principles.
But I believe that we should have consistent legal principles.
Now, I don't think any juvenile should be treated as an adult for criminal purposes because I don't think any of them are.
I think we have a society today where they are not developed until the age of 18. Now, there might be some people that we look at individually and we think they're psychologically more like an adult.
For example, I mean, I attribute the fact that I sort of had to...
I grew up early due to my dad's death and working early.
But I don't know if I would go back and undo the working early part of it because it gave me a leg up.
But it's not true of most people.
Most people don't start working when they're 10 years old or 12 years old.
But when will you start judging other countries and say how barbaric they are that they have an age of consent at 15?
It's like, well, hold on a second.
That's been the case through most of human history and that's...
That's society's evaluation of maturation, because we no longer tie it to biology.
We now tie it to emotional, like what you're pointing out, neurological development, emotional psychological development.
And I think we've effectively regressed emotional psychological development by extending childhood.
I think that's a net plus for society.
That is a fair debate, but we should recognize that.
As part of our society is going to be different than other societies because we've extended childhood past the age of biological maturation.
The other retort to that might be, yeah, historically it's been very young because historically, you know, societies have been defined by barbarism.
And it's only now that we're entering something of a less barbaric age of civilization, arguably.
But I think if we go back, I think my great-grandfather at 13 was like a modern-day 19-year-old.
Psychologically. There's no way to test that neurologically, but it's just because the society was structured very differently.
You're expected to hit adulthood at 12 or 13, and then you're expected to participate in society at that age.
And you're expected to have family obligations even at that age.
And some of it reflecting shorter lifespans, so to be able to maintain the species and so forth.
But also, I think if we go back...
I mean, like a lot of people are shocked at how young some of the Doge people are.
And then some people started pushing back and saying, look at our founding fathers.
They're in their 20s.
Many of them were in their 20s.
The founding father generation that had great influence.
So could anybody imagine that today?
It's pretty hard to imagine that today.
It's actually, I'm trying to think of a way that you could measure the decision-making of a 13-year-old in, say, the 1900s to the decision-making of a 13-year-old.
It would be a very interesting way to figure out what the test would be.
Yeah. At least from a cultural expectation perspective, they were expected to participate fully in society as adults, and they in fact did do so.
And the only question is, what impact did that have on their neurological and psychological development?
Now, this was, I mean, this was all sort of an analogy discussion about human trafficking and where you take a lot of, I'll just, anybody who says that you're close ties with Tate, you're an idiot.
Again, you're the same anti whatever idiot.
You're an idiot, period, if you say that.
So set that aside.
Where you do
I think less so me, because I'm not fence-sitting.
I'm just making the argument for the fact that the Tates might have said enough to, in fact...
Render them culpable, liable, guilty under the law as it's currently applied in Romania.
And someone astutely corrected me.
Yes, there's no lover boy law.
In Romania, what there is is a lover boy interpretation of human trafficking, where they say above and beyond it not being consensual, if it involves tactics of what they call manipulation, and this is where you get criticism, that there is legitimate, like, taking young kids, exploiting them, not physically beating them,
but manipulating them psychologically to then sell themselves into human trafficking.
Some people say it's not...
Not consensual because they've consented, but they've only consented because they've been manipulated into it.
And that is effectively what the Tates, that is their MO under the human trafficking laws as interpreted under Romanian law.
How do you retort to that, where people are going to say, no, Barnes, sex trafficking is not only taken where they're kidnapped in the middle of the night, it's when they get, you know, groomed, like in the UK, under the Pakistani, you know, rape gangs.
The, like, the Pakistani rape gang issues is, many of those cases, my understanding, were actual sexual assault.
That was a bad example, because in fact, they were using blackmail and extortion to get consent.
It wasn't actually, like, tricky.
And that's what human trafficking laws should be.
It should be severe crimes of their own accord that also serve the human trafficking purpose.
But, like, blackmail, extortion, threats of violence.
Those kind of things that we have clear criminal laws defining.
And actually, flesh that out because, again, people make these analogies and they don't think about the nuance.
In the UK rape gangs, it was not the case that they were tricked into falling in love.
They were tricked into giving pictures of nudity, sexually lewd, you know, whatever, that was then used as blackmail and extortion to keep them quiet and submitting.
So it's not like I loved him and he took advantage of me.
It was...
I loved them.
Maybe they took advantage of me, but they then used these images to say your parents and your family are going to disown you, and therefore you're going to be quiet and submit to this.
So a key distinction.
Yeah, massive difference.
So like your classic human trafficking of the coercion kind is somebody comes for one job, it turns out to be another job, they take away their passport so they can't leave, right?
Or actual physical threats of physical violence that tends to, if you know real human trafficking victims, that's the most common.
But the other is other crimes of their own accord, like blackmail, like extortion.
The key is we make sure that regret doesn't count as rape, doesn't count as sexual assault, doesn't count as blackmail, doesn't count as extortion.
The problem is when you start saying things like manipulation, that becomes very subjective and very loose.
And all of a sudden, anybody can claim being human trafficked.
To give you an idea of where the left is going with this, in the Benchoof case out of Seattle, the one where I was not allowed to talk about the Constitution in closing argument, in that case, he was charged with stalking and harassment, in which the allegations against him involved petitioning the government for redress of grievances, sending a pizza to his son on his birthday.
This was the insane levels that they went to define.
Why? Because they started liberalizing the definition of stalking and harassment to include anything that he just didn't like.
And one of the things was, one of the people claimed that he was guilty of human trafficking.
I was like, what's this about?
You find out it's a labor dispute involving three employees.
It's like, okay, we can't call every labor dispute human trafficking.
That diminishes the crime of human trafficking, diminishes the life experience of people who have been true victims of actual human trafficking.
I've seen no credible evidence that the Tate brothers were involved in human trafficking.
You can disagree with their politics.
You can disagree with their brash behavior.
You can disagree with some of their businesses.
You can disagree with the webcam business.
I might disagree with a lot of those businesses.
That being said, that is not criminal human trafficking.
Regret is not rape.
Thinking, oh, I'm going to fall in love with him.
He didn't fall in love with me.
He just wanted me to make money for him.
And now I want to call that human trafficking?
No. Maybe that's a civil suit of some sort, maybe.
Though we don't like alienation of affections claims because that involves us in personal disputes that would make the court systems be trapped by that from now into eternity.
So that's why we have these clear definitions.
What other crime did they commit for the purpose of having that person in that business?
Did they commit the crime of blackmail?
Did they commit the crime of extortion?
I'm yet to see credible evidence in that respect.
And whatever you think of the Tate Brothers...
If the Tate brothers thought they were guilty or had reason to believe they were guilty, they wouldn't be filing defamation and libel lawsuits against everyone who has made those accusations.
Well, before we even get there, and I said this, not as people are just stupid and can't understand a legal argument for a personal defense.
I asked the logical question, if the Tate brothers, under Romanian law and under the Romanian system, are as guilty as the system thinks they are and as people say they are.
Even for what they've been charged with, flight risks, which was used as the excuse to lock them up for several months in the beginning, would the Romanian government have given them permission to travel to America?
And I don't know the answer to this question.
I just strongly suspect that if the evidence against the Tates was so damning and it was so over the top that it warranted locking them up because they were a flight risk, would they ever have given them permission to leave Romania?
Period. Well, I don't know.
I don't think there would have been a legal basis to exclude them.
Because they're both U.S. citizens.
They're both born in the United States to American parents.
So I don't think the mere allegation or accusation by a foreign nation is sufficient to legally exclude them.
But, I mean, whatever the terms of release, the bond.
You can't travel.
The fact that the Romania bond became more liberalized should give you a clue.
That this is a very politically tainted case.
That they down deep, they don't believe.
I mean, here's the other problem I had with the case was timing.
That they got out of the webcam business from everything I've seen publicly years and years ago.
And when they were in the webcam business, nobody was making this accusation.
Then they both get political.
They get politically involved, politically engaged, politically active.
They start turning their platform, their very substantial public platform, they developed over the years in various businesses.
And then suddenly, all of a sudden the webcam business that's been disbanded and is gone and statements made eight years ago by one of the Tate brothers is suddenly the basis of a criminal case.
You should always be skeptical of these kind of cases given the very belated timing of the case, given that they appear to be connected to their political speech, not connected to their actual allegations.
And that it happens by a court system that just overturned its elections twice.
You know, so it's like, I mean, how do you not...
And I mean, I get DeSantis' anti-Tate brothers and the attorney general there decided to hop on.
Well, why can't...
I mean, tell me when DeSantis delivers on some of his big promises.
Remember the big promise about he was going to do something about the vaccine?
The grand jury, the Pfizer grand jury.
Not one indictment.
Not one.
Failed to even reach out to a bunch of people in the anti-vax space.
DeSantis is a poser, not a real deal.
And this was no better example of this.
I was like, you have real crimes in Florida by the likes of George Soros, by the likes of Bill Gates, by the likes of Anthony Fauci, and you're not investigating them.
You're deciding to investigate the Tate brothers over things that didn't arise in the state of Florida.
Had nothing to do with the state of Florida.
I mean, he just embarrassed himself.
I get DeSantis is so pro-Israel.
He'll suspend free speech rights to people that are Palestinians.
He'll make sure professors get fired that are pro-Palestinian.
I get it.
But this is just one more illustration where he's not the real deal.
Do I think he's a good governor?
Yes. Do I think he ever belongs in the presidency?
No. Never.
Zero. Zilch.
Zunka. No.
Examples like this.
I get he wants his wife.
He wants to be baby Wallace, have George Wallace.
Now he wants to put his wife in the state house, state capitol.
But this was just ludicrous.
It was people jumping on a bandwagon because it was politically convenient to jump on that bandwagon without any legally sound basis to do so, while serious criminals still go.
What did DeSantis do for a single January 6th defendant?
I'll help you out.
Nothing. Nada.
Zero. What did that lazy political attorney general do?
Nothing. Zero.
Zilch. Nada.
That's who DeSantis is.
All show, no go.
All hat, no cattle.
That's who DeSantis is.
I was going to think of something.
The ship has sailed for the presidency because it should be J.D. Vance in 2028 and should be uncontested.
But taking on the Tate brothers, you think that's the way you're going to get elected to the White House?
No, it just became so politically unavoidable, the noise that he had to respond to it.
And I don't fall to investigate.
So you have two people in your state.
There's no allegation that they've committed any crime in your state.
And you announce the Attorney General is going to do a criminal investigation of these two people because they're high-profile politically?
Well, while you fail to take any meaningful...
This is the same governor that sat on his hands and let the government raid President Trump's house and do nothing about it.
Even though it was illegal behavior, they engaged it.
The guy is all show, no go.
All hat, no cattle.
And taking on the Tate Brothers is just one more illustration to which he's a social media governor and a social media candidate, not a real one.
And it's just extraordinary.
And I get there's people out there that hate the Tate brothers obsessively, and they're going to go...
They should read through some of these defamation suits.
They should read through some of the court's orders on this.
I mean, some of these people...
Now, I'll tell you, if you're in the webcam business, you kind of have it coming.
Just FYI.
Who do you think you're going to be recruiting for your business?
Do you think you're recruiting mentally stable individuals?
Don't think so.
You think you're recruiting...
Morally upright individuals?
Don't think so.
Do you think you're recording people who probably would love to engage in blackmail and extortion if the opportunity presented itself?
Oh yeah.
And now they're clearly the victim of blackmailers and extortionists.
Look at what the court, these are courts that are hostile to the Tate brothers in the U.S. that are allowing defamation cases to go forward because of the degree of detail reported in some of these cases.
I mean, some of these so-called victims were clearly blackmail extortionists who are liars.
When you have judges saying, no, this case can go forward because it kind of looks that way from the evidence.
When you have texts like, hey, we'll keep pretending to love him and we'll shake him down for 200 grand.
And then they're turning around saying, oh, I thought he loved me.
Come on.
So I'm skeptical.
Doesn't mean it's not possible that the Tate brothers didn't do something wrong.
But I'm skeptical from what I've seen so far, based on the decision makers involved, the Romanian courts and the DeSantis administration and the UK legal system, due to the timing of some of those cases, and the political nature of all of them screams off the charts.
But the other thing is, you dig in at all to any of the accusers, and it looks like blackmailers and extortionists.
Now, some might say, hey, the Tate brothers, you had it coming.
You're in the webcam business.
You're going to get on the losing end of that as quickly as you get on the winning end of that.
So I get that, but that's a point to be made about the business.
It doesn't legitimate the allegations or accusations against them.
And put it this way, they clearly believe that when all the evidence is presented in an open court, that they will be proven innocent.
Because you don't file defamation cases unless you do.
Well, in fairness, by the way, I remember when I was wrong and I said Johnny Depp shouldn't, I wouldn't file the defamation case, not because of what I thought Johnny Depp would be able to obtain on Discovery, but because of what I presumed thought Amber Heard would obtain from Johnny Depp on Discovery because I was sort of operating on the basis that they're both in the wrong on this and Johnny's going to be...
Just more unhappy with what is revealed than he'll be happy with whatever he can get from Amber Heard.
I was wrong because I really had no idea the extent to which Amber Heard was abusing Johnny Depp.
This case, people are like, well, it gets to discovery.
I was like, first of all, it gets to discovery assuming the defendants don't make a motion to dismiss.
If they make a motion to dismiss, I guess we can conclude they don't want it to get to discovery.
Well, for the cases that have already been filed that have reached that stage, they've won more often than they've lost.
So there's some that they lost on immunity grounds.
Like suing various government officials that they said lied about them.
And the court said that they're government officials, so they're immune from their conduct while they're acting in their governmental capacity.
And there is a privilege, unless you're named Kurt Benchoof and you're in Seattle, there's normally a legal privilege, First Amendment privilege, that whistleblowing, even if you make false claims in the Whistleblowing Act...
It can't be criminalized.
And you're not suable over that in most instances if you're a government official.
But the judge said that the main case against one of the main accusers would go forward because there was substantial evidence that she fabricated the allegations in order to blackmail the Tate brothers.
I mean, again, where have all these Tate haters?
Where have they commented on that?
I've seen no commentary from that.
They're trying to present both sides.
No, they're not.
You become obsessively anti-Tate, and so you're willing to liberalize human trafficking laws that could put you in the crosshairs anytime they want because it just requires somebody to say that you have any business engagement or labor interaction.
Basically, you take any labor dispute or you empower blackmailers and extortionists or people to just say regret equals rape to all of a sudden be in a position that they are the equivalent to the Eight-year-olds that get kidnapped into human trafficking.
I mean, I'm sorry.
There's no comparison between those two.
And our criminal laws for human trafficking should focus on actual human trafficking victims, not blackmailers, extortionists, and people who want to claim that they regret being involved in that business.
At the risk of setting you off even more, Robert.
I put out a tweet.
I don't know if I can get to the original, but I said, you know, everybody's saying...
The Tates now, they're open for discovery as though you defame somebody, and then they sue you, and then you get to delve into every nook and cranny of their life to try to substantiate your allegations.
That was my basic argument.
Legal Bites, who I know...
She says, Viva, I'm sorry, you need to go back to the drawing board on this one.
Plaintiffs are the ones who have the burden to prove the statements are false.
They also need to prove the defendants made false statements with actual malice.
The actual malice we'll get to in a second.
I think they're going to find ample...
The defendants need to do is show that their statements are based on actual legal filings, investigations, etc.
But worst of all is your take on discovery.
The defendants are absolutely entitled to broad discovery, everything that has a likelihood of leading to admissible discovery, which is anything that tends to prove or disprove any claim or defense in the lawsuit.
So if the Tates have to prove that the statements are false, the defendants are entitled to evidence to show that it's actually substantially true.
And I posted the statements.
You can read them.
And I don't disagree with that.
That's further proof that the Tate brothers sincerely believe that when all the evidence is presented, they prevail.
The guilty defendants don't file defamation suits as a general rule.
Because for exactly that reason.
Because you're going to be subject to extensive discovery.
So it's very rare that somebody who thinks they're guilty wants massive discovery into their lives through the civil suit process.
And the Tate brothers are clearly fearless about what they think the evidence will show.
And at least from the first case that's reached the motion to dismiss stage, the Tate brothers have been proven right more often than wrong.
So far, the defense has not been able to show that their statements are substantially true.
In fact, the evidence so far that's presented is that people made statements about the Tate brothers that were part of a black male extortion scheme in which the Tate brothers were the victim, not the perpetrators.
And the other thing that's weird is...
You will not.
Tell me about all the people who were part of Jeffrey Epstein's operation who came out and vouched for Epstein.
Name all the women who stepped forward and said, oh no, he's a great guy, everything was kosher, everything was on the up and up.
There's been none.
Literally zero, zilch, zunka, nada.
By contrast, a bunch of women came out early on vouching for the Tate Brothers.
And saying these allegations were false, that they were gentlemen the way the business worked, so on and so forth.
I mean, the vast majority of women who are involved in that webcam business that they ran.
That is extremely rare, period.
So there's a lot of red flags here that because people dislike the Tate brothers personality-wise, dislike the Tate brothers politically.
Or they don't like the webcam business.
There are people who believe, for example, that everyone involved in the webcam business is human trafficking.
Everyone involved in the coin industry is human trafficking.
Everyone involved in stripping is human trafficking.
And I'm like, no, sorry, that's just not reality unless you liberalize human trafficking to include regret.
Last question on this.
We'll move off of the Tates.
What do you make of my argument where they say, on the one hand, if they say they are human traffickers, they are rapists, and then on the other hand, there's tweets saying they've only been accused of this.
Opinion and actual malice if they sincerely, truly believe what they say.
My argument is it doesn't matter if you sincerely, truly believe what you're saying if you haven't made proper verifications or even reconciled they're guilty versus they have only been charged.
Last question.
Yeah, so I think, I mean, a couple of components on that part.
So to the degree people are referencing what a court has reached, and the key there is they need to be careful.
Being underinvested, like the way the Romanian courts operate, a lot of European courts operate this way, courts around the world.
The announcement of an investigation is not the same as an indictment, exactly.
So there's been no independent probable cause finding.
There doesn't have to be for many legal systems around the world.
Like, so many people get confused because in places like France and Italy, the judges are involved in the investigative stage of the case, right?
In the U.S., that all goes through a grand jury, typically, or the prosecutor's office.
Well, both.
So I think when you can repeat a statement, even if false, Where there's been a court filing on that, it depends on whether the nature of the court filing, what it means, what it doesn't mean, and has there been an established probable cause finding?
And then second, as to how it impacts liability for libel.
And then second aspect of that depends on how you state it.
So for example, if you refer to court proceedings in the U.S. and all you do is quote what those court proceedings say, you have a certain form of privilege.
That makes you immune from a libel lawsuit.
By contrast, that isn't necessarily applied, though, to every foreign court proceeding, because they might have different rules, different procedures, different processes, etc.
So I would say as a whole, Tate Brothers will have very little success suing people for anything that was just repeating what was in a court filing, or even if they're just repeating that an investigation was undergoing.
But many of these people have gone far past that.
Far, far past that.
Well, it's almost verbatim.
And here's the problem.
Subjective opinion is one thing.
When you accuse someone of a crime, that is generally not considered subjective opinion.
The case went up to the Supreme Court of the United States, where somebody was accused somebody else of perjury.
And their defense was, well, it's just my opinion about their statement, that I thought their statement constituted perjury.
The Supreme Court said, no, you accuse them of a crime.
That requires proof of facts, the elements of that crime.
And consequently, that's a factual statement, not an opinion statement, and as such, you can be sued for it.
So it depends on what verbiage people used in reporting on the Tates as to whether they can be subject to libel lawsuits.
But the fact that the Tates are willing to open themselves up, because they're shooting in American courts.
European courts don't have the same discovery obligations.
American courts have the most invasive discovery in the world.
The fact they're opening themselves up to massive invasive discovery tells you the Tate brothers are incredibly confident that when all the facts are fully presented, that they would prevail in front of an impartial jury.
And at least so far, the evidence has been in their favor in the cases that have reached the pleading stage, dismissal stage so far.
Okay, we're going to read a bunch of chats and tip questions, and then we're going to get into frickin' Boesburg, Robert.
I don't know.
What problem here?
The Pleb Reporter has Pierre Rally live in Toronto.
It's so big.
They're doing two rallies.
Liberals are going to lose.
How do I close a window?
I can't even figure out how to close this.
Great. Stop sharing.
There were a couple of chats that I...
Okay, then I can close that.
Now I just want to open...
I'm going to read this because I can't open them fast enough and then we're going to get to the Rumble Ranch chats.
We got Kopi and Poppy says, Howdy, we're an independent band and we have an album coming out on April 1st.
Meta and X have been targeting us for censorship.
Is there anything you guys as lawyers can do to get this harassment to stop?
Kopi and Poppy, I don't know.
I'm not a practicing lawyer anymore.
Reach out via internet and to Barnes to see what can happen, but this is not a mandate and this does not constitute legal advice.
Kai C says, starting to get settled with the replace Bondi train.
Do you guys agree with that?
If so, who would you pick to replace her?
Should Trump appoint Matt Gaetz as interim?
No, it should be Barnes.
It should be Barnes who gets replaced to substitute for Bondi, period.
Florida Dad, who had two chats, Rumble Rants, it's worse in law schools now than five years ago.
They're trying to teach the disparity of power while consensual is rape.
Male boss, female employee, everything except male president, female intern.
And to that, it says, re-emotional psychological development.
Brandon Depp, a 17-year-old autistic, was adjudicated in an insult case as a non-disabled adult in Florida last year, Flagler County.
Yeah, there's no question that gets some abuse.
And hold on a second.
Let me just bring this back up here.
Rumble Studio.
And I'm going to share with Rumble, because there were a bunch over there.
I think I might have not...
Opened the app in time for a couple, but Viva, with a face and hair like yours, I think you may be in the webcam business.
Yeah, right.
That was from Itsy Bitsy Spider.
Hashtag funny, not funny.
Hey, Viva, Boseburg wasn't on...
So he stepped in to handle it.
Wonder if he knew it was coming.
We're going to get to this right now.
Shakes67 says, David, Robert, and fans, happy Easter Passover to you and the loved ones.
Things will get better from your mouth to God's ears.
KCKC, Barnes is 100,000% correct in his Tate brother assessment.
Both legally and categorically.
The conservatives arguing against the Tate brothers are the best example of the, quote, woke right.
Harry Sisson's Snapchat controversy.
Are we allowed to call him a human trafficker via the lover boy method?
Those women wouldn't have sent the nudes unless manipulated to do so.
I don't know enough about it to take a position.
Yes, the short answer is under this new liberalized definition of human trafficking.
That Harry Sisson could be indicted tomorrow.
The law is not intended to do this, but they're trying to liberalize it to get there.
And the fact that they're trying to liberalize it to go after people they dislike politically should be a warning sign to people, not a wagon to jump on.
I don't know enough about it.
I'm inclined to think anybody sending nudes is already suffering from very poor judgment to begin with.
Can we bring in...
Do we see the full Biltong here?
No, you don't say.
Okay, we got King of Biltong in the house.
I can't see it.
Especially to Harry Sisson.
You said news to Harry Sisson.
I'm sorry.
You're probably too dumb to...
They said the biggest news about that is that Harry Sisson's not gay, which is...
That was...
I dare say...
I don't judge.
I was surprised as well.
King of Biltong.
I can't get the full thing to show up here.
Looking for some healthy snacks to add to your diet?
Try Biltong.
Almost 50% protein packed with B12 creatine, iron, zinc, and much more.
Go to BiltongUSA.com.
Code Barnes for 10% off.
Kai C. Starting to get settled within the replacement...
Oh, I saw it.
Okay. Okay, I got all these.
Good. The question then was...
Robert, okay.
Have we not talked about...
We talked about Boesburg.
I think we went into depth about the corruption of Judge Boesburg.
I'm talking to smart people who are very sensitive people.
They want to be loving and due process to everybody.
When Trump sends these...
I don't know if they're Venezuelan gang members definitively confirmed, but he's sending them back.
Do we know what the due process is internally before they come to that administrative decision?
And then...
There was a story going around that one of the people sent to the El Salvador prison was a soccer player.
I don't know if they allege he was legal, but they say he shouldn't have been sent there whatsoever, yada yada.
People don't seem to realize you're relying on the affidavit filed by that individual and a lawyer that is, from what I understand, questionable at best, who will say whatever they have to say to get their client out of the El Salvadorian prison.
Do we know what the level of verification is?
Or, you know, the protocol before they get shipped out of the country on the basis of being illegal gang members.
It's done internally.
And generally speaking, in other words, if you have the right to be here because you snuck in in the first place, there's a problem with that theory and premise.
So the idea for due process is supposed to be people who are legally present here who are arguing against some form of deportation because they were legally present here to begin with.
The people who are not legally present here to be with, in my view, have very limited due process rights.
Otherwise, it creates this nightmare of, hey, just sneak into the country and you can stay here for 10 years.
It's like, I presume nobody's getting deported because they're legal and they just didn't have their passport with the visa stamp.
I've seen zero allegations that anybody was here was here legally, the other people that have been deported.
So they're just arguing, well, we were deported.
But we're not as bad as they say we are.
You're here illegally.
I mean, why do you think you have any right to be here illegally?
I saw one argument, Robert.
He said he claimed asylum, therefore he was here lawfully.
The Trump administration is not following the, you just declare, hey, I'm an asylum victim and that means you're automatically here legally.
No, you're not.
And that never should have been the case.
You can seek asylum, but you can seek it from outside the country.
Unless you have a particularly kind of compelling claim and that you escape.
But what happened was, this is another example of why we don't liberalize legal standards so that anybody can just redefine it anytime they want.
That's what void for vagueness doctrine prohibits, is laws that don't give fair notice of what the law actually is.
And here you have a version of that.
And what happened is the Biden administration just said, say the word amnesty and you come right in.
And that's not been the amnesty law.
domestically or internationally.
That's not been the standard.
That you automatically get right of access to the country and to stay as long as your amnesty case is being adjudicated.
95% of these amnesty cases were fake.
That they didn't have any credible amnesty provisions under the law.
And I say this as someone who's...
Been saddened by all this because it diminishes the claims of legitimate asylum.
So this is boom, boom, 42. And I don't know which way they mean this.
You either have asylum or you don't, meaning just claim it and then you're lawfully there.
If you claim asylum, you do it at a port of entry, unless some of you escaped Cuba on a raft.
Well, what's happening is the Biden administration was not requiring that.
And so that's why we got all this flood of people under bogus asylum claims, started by George Soros NGOs.
Who told him these are the magic words to use.
And you use these magic words and you'll get into the country.
And you'll get to stay for a long period of time.
And what was happening is he was then paroling them, not detaining them.
And so they just wouldn't show up at their hearings.
Because it was an excuse to break the law.
So the idea that we can't deport people that are illegally present, who the administration has found to be an imminent risk to the security of the country.
Is contra the entire history of immigration law in America and to international standards.
Boesburg is making it up.
What I said was going to happen has happened, which is that the federal judicial branch would try to wage war on Trump, and it was dependent on Chief Justice Roberts to prevent it.
And he chose to go AWOL several weeks ago, and with Barrett, failed to put an end to it.
There were four votes to end all this nonsense.
He was the fifth vote that decided no.
And what happened instead was that every liberal Democratic judge saw that as the open season.
And so now they're overriding the military as to what soldiers can be part of the military, overriding how the U.S. government spends its money, overriding whether terrorists and criminals that are legally present can be physically removed from the country,
whether or not the...
I mean, the Babylon Bee's joke was that the federal court orders Trump to return astronauts to abandon Space Day, right?
That's how nuts it is.
I mean, this is one insane decision after another.
And to the credit of Musk and some members of Congress, they recognized what I've said for a long time.
You need to use impeachment as a tool.
You need to use your legislative plenary power over the lower courts below the Supreme Court as a tool.
The reason why I've been citing the historical precedent of the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase and the Judiciary Act of 1802 is at the beginning of our country, we had a bunch of rogue actors who were using the judicial branch to usurp elections and engage in weaponized lawfare.
And it included the Supreme Court of the United States.
So what Congress did is they impeached the Justice of the United States, Samuel Chase.
By the way, they impeached him for things.
That were solely done in his capacity as a judge.
So when you hear Chief Justice Roberts claim that you can never impeach a judge based on their actions as a judge, that's utter nonsense.
Roberts is just inventing a legal standard that doesn't exist.
It's why the judiciary never should have been able to usurp who determines what the law is as the final arbiter of it.
Because when it comes to themselves, that should be one area they have no such power.
And nor do they.
Because the power of interpreting...
The removal statute and the impeachment statute, as applies to federal judges, is solely in the hands of Congress.
But here there's clear precedent, dating to the first ever impeachment, I think of anybody, in American legal history, that from the founding of the country, the founding generation impeached Justice Samuel Chase solely and wholly for his conduct as a judge.
The idea that, here's the thing, there's things people do all the time that they believe was within their lawful rights.
That they go to prison for by judges.
So the judges imprison people for disagreeing with their opinion about the law in a whole bunch of contexts.
And so the idea that an opinion about the law is somehow magically immune because you've got black robes on is nonsense.
That the requirement of the Constitution is good behavior.
That has been interpreted by the best precedent that exists in the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase to mean you cannot weaponize your judicial office.
For political, personal, or partisan purposes.
That is precisely what these judges are doing.
And you have no better evidence of this than there have been more nationwide injunctions issued against President Trump than were issued against all other presidents in American history combined.
And they've done this in two months.
In two months, more federal judges have enjoined the president on a nationwide basis In the 200-plus year history of the country had done.
That's how insane this level of overreach is.
And it's an overreach that is violation of their duties, and it's being done for personal, partisan, and political purposes, precisely what the established precedent says is bad behavior that is grounds for impeachment and removal.
Robert, did you hear this news?
So I saw it in the chat, just pulled up Mike Davis' tweet.
It says, TRO's temporary restraining orders go to the emergency judge.
Last Saturday, that was Judge Contreras, whose name I remember.
I'm going to have to refresh my memory.
He was the FISA judge that presided over the Flynn case.
Okay. Then he later recused himself when his conflict became apparent.
He'd been hiding from everybody.
Contreras is also corrupt.
If there's an honest judge in that district, it'd be news to me.
So he says, how did Judge Boesberg get it?
Then I'm looking at the manner of assignment.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, a civil case requiring an emergency hearing, which is filed after normal business hours, shall not be assigned to a judge until the next business day.
So it seems, according to, apparently Judge Boesberg really, really wanted this case.
Go to John Doe.
I hadn't heard that.
What would you make of that, even if true?
Contreras was the first judge in Michael Flynn who accepted Michael Flynn's guilty plea when he shouldn't have because he was conflicted out of the case, which raised the legality of Michael Flynn's guilty plea in the first place.
So they find one more corrupt judge than Contreras?
What do you make of it, if it's true?
I've often been skeptical of how the federal courts both pick judges and juries to assign cases.
They claim...
It's by random assignment.
It quite clearly is not.
There's too many cases.
I mean, like the New York judge, Mershon, who kept getting a lot of Trump-related cases.
Like, I don't think so.
If I may stop you, Boesberg got the Kevin Clinesmith case, which was the falsifying FISA documents.
I did a video on that.
He sat on the FISA court that concerned Russiagate.
So what you have are partisan political judges.
And on the liberal democratic side especially, but there's a long judicial history of this.
It was anti-civil rights judges in the post-Civil War period in the South up until the 1960s that completely ignored the law and weaponized their offices to suppress the results of the Civil War in terms of independence and equal rights.
The anti-labor judges were infamous.
They used to pass injunctions to prohibit labor unions from organizing and striking.
On a regular basis, they were notoriously anti-labor.
And there's a long other history about the Supreme Court's infamous decisions and so forth.
But what you have is, but they're doing it at a scale and they're doing it to an office that they've never done before.
That's what's unique.
They're as political as ever, but they are so full of hubris that they believe they can overturn an election.
This is a judicial coup to overturn the presidential election and to overturn the constitutional governance that has the president running the executive branch.
That is what this is.
This is the sine qua non of bad behavior under the Samuel Chase precedent that every single one of these judges has engaged in.
They've been issuing injunctions that have no legal precedent and that are directly contrary to the Constitution, and it's universally coming from judges who hate Trump, many of whom, like Boesberg, are on public record talking about how much they hate Trump.
Boesberg's on record.
I mean, he was, you know, buddy, deeply Democratic ties, wife's a big abortion supporter, so on and so forth.
Someone who went out publicly and talked about how he wanted to lock up all the January 6th defendants and was disappointed that there weren't enough specific laws to lock them up forever.
That's how nuts this guy is.
And they're so corrupt.
And what you'll find, you know, some people are doing this, you just scratch a little, you'll find personal conflicts of interest.
You'll find these judges, through their family, through their friends, through their allies, are politically profiting from the decisions that they are making.
So there's a degree of corruption beyond the ideological corruption, beyond the anti-constitutional corruption, beyond the anti-American people election obstruction and corruption.
You have judges who are often personally profiting from their decisions, personally enriched by their decisions, either directly or indirectly.
And that's a serious problem.
Now, I've heard some people say, well, you're not likely to ever get a successful removal vote.
So scrap impeachment.
That is not good logic, politically.
Just the act of impeachment disciplines the federal judicial branch from historical precedent.
They did not succeed in removing Justice Samuel Chase.
They knew they were unlikely to succeed in removing Justice Samuel Chase.
Yet they impeached him.
What was the consequence?
Just going through that trial led Chase and all the other federal judges to back way off.
In fact, they wouldn't get that political against a particular candidate or individual.
Until Trump.
So you have to go back to the founding of the country to find any judicial analogy of the judicial branch's bad behavior.
But this is systematic bad behavior.
I mean, these are judges trying to usurp control of national security, usurp control of the Treasury.
I mean, again, the judicial branch is supposed to have no power of the executive branch and no power of the legislative branch, yet they're rewriting the laws that Congress wrote and overriding and overturning the president about matters of national security and even directing him what to do with the military,
directing him what to do on our own.
I mean, there was a judge who said you can no longer investigate any waste, fraud, or abuse in Social Security.
Right after, they found that there was up to 50, 60 million people.
That we're dead or phantom or ghost getting Social Security benefits.
I mean, somebody else was cashing those checks.
Right after that, what does a judge do?
He says, all Doge employees have to be removed immediately.
And anybody even affiliated with Doge has to be removed immediately.
And the head of the Social Security Administration said, hold on a second.
I can't do my job if I don't even know who I'm allowed to work with.
Because there's a judge trying to run the Social Security Administration, just like you have judges wanting to run the Pentagon, judges wanting to run immigration.
These are insane acts.
And what does Chief Justice Roberts do?
He whines about Congress considering impeachment by making up a fake legal precedent that doesn't exist, that isn't his right to determine.
The act of impeachment is not judicially reviewable at any level.
Chief Justice Roberts can preside over certain trials for rules of evidence purposes, but he has no ability to substantively determine what the legal standards are.
That's set by Congress, and Congress has established precedent on this.
And so hopefully the impeachment effort goes forward.
The question for Trump is going to become, I mean, I love the fact that they're making fun of it.
I love the fact that they're highlighting how insane it is.
Boesburg is the best one to take up to the Supreme Court because of how crazy it is.
This is a judge who literally ordered and believed his order actually required the President of the United States to bring illegal terrorists back to the United States and put them in our borders.
That's how nuts this guy is.
Actually demanding, you know, you have to import tariffs.
I'm waiting for them to issue an injunction saying, no, you can't do peace in Ukraine.
War must continue.
This is a judicial branch that is so arrogant.
And this is the liberal ideology in general.
That over the past quarter century, they developed a safe space culture so that they are absolutely, utterly clueless.
About a wide range of things that they are arrogant and cocky enough to think that they have the unique monopoly on truth is.
Like the measles vaccine is just latest illustration of that.
They claim that somebody died because they're unvaccinated from measles.
It turned out that's totally false, as Children's Health Defense documented.
And as the family detailed, medical malpractice killed that kid.
And rather than be honest about medical malpractice killing the kid, they lie.
They fabricate measles because they want to go attack.
They did it with the woman who allegedly died from Trump's abortion ban, which doesn't exist, and it was because of medical malpractice or her taking the abortion pill and then being neglected at the hospital and wanting to sue the hospital for malpractice.
Exactly. And so the Trump versus the judicial branch was always going to happen.
The big question was always, would Chief Justice Roberts save the judiciary from itself?
So far, he has failed.
Instead, in a flailing effort, He's whining to members of Congress, and you could see sort of the condescension and arrogance coming from Roberts, and that Roberts was like, only I am in a position to tell you what the impeachment standard is, because I'm Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
even though he has no legal role in that whatsoever.
And that he thought his criticism would be welcomed, and instead it was harshly rebuked.
What he doesn't grasp is, as Mike Davis and others have been highlighting, Mike Davis of the Article 3 Project is doing really good work to improve the second round of judicial nominations by President Trump.
My advice to him, be wary of Federalist Society members.
Not everybody in the Federalist Society is bad by any stretch, but just because they're in the Federalist Society doesn't mean you should welcome them either.
You need to look at a more broader background, and he's doing that to his credit.
But as they pointed out, it's up to Roberts to save the Supreme Court and the judicial branch from itself.
If not, the president will have no choice but to ignore the court orders.
These are lawless court orders.
His job is to make sure the laws are faithfully executed.
And if he cannot do what the American people elected him to do, then he's not performing his presidential duties.
And judges don't have any prerogative whatsoever to just decide they're going to overturn an election.
That's not their province.
And so at some point he'll have no choice.
But to start to ignore the orders.
And Congress will have no choice but to start to eviscerate lower court, federal court, power in America.
Or my concern would be or impeach him.
By the way, I'm going to try to tinker with the light again because it's getting a little dark here.
And for anyone asking, this was just mountain streams, carbonated water, sparkling water.
So I didn't put it in a cup before starting.
Are there any of these cases that are currently waiting to get to the Supreme Court?
Or is there a concern?
I remember a sort of recently put out a tweet.
It's like, the Supreme Court might not even hear these cases.
Well, it's up to the Supreme Court.
So they're going to be running it up the flagpole over and over again, the Supreme Court.
So the key was, as we mentioned several weeks ago, if Roberts needed to put it into it ASAP, and he was presented a good case to do so, and he chose not to.
And it said at the time, okay, now it's open.
Now the conflict is going to be out in the open.
And Roberts thinks he's protecting the judicial branch by being anti-Trump, when he's in fact risking the judicial branch's entire political future.
And he doesn't understand that.
He doesn't get that.
This is what happens when you're removed from the real world.
You don't have to dig deep to investigate Chief Justice Roberts.
See exactly what his wife has been up to.
See exactly whether his, whether his wife or others connected to his wife have received funds related to cases pending before the Supreme court of the United States.
All right.
The, uh,
I'm not saying so based on the fact that somebody pitched me about a decade ago that the way in which my client could get a great outcome was to pay Justice Roberts' wife.
How is that?
How is that even possible?
Now, again, I can't confirm these facts because I did not take them up, needless to say, on such an offer.
But it tells you something.
I got the same offer from Vice President Biden's office through his political allies, who told me that if my clients paid money to the Biden crime family, that the case would magically go away.
I convinced clients not to do so, but it turned out there was fire where that smoke was coming from.
Question the same thing about Roberts.
Any truth to Obama blackmailing Roberts over the adoption of his children from my own?
There's no need.
It's like all these conservatives go to great lengths to assume Roberts is being blackmailed.
This is who Roberts has always been.
This is who Barrett has always been.
They bought into the nonsense of conservatives pitching them that these were true, constitutionally conservative jurists.
And it's like, no, they're not.
There's some issues in which they will be good, but only some issues.
They're otherwise institutionalists who believe in the professional class running the rest of the world, who believe in the New York Times, who believe in these kind of institutions of power and influence.
So they were always going to reflexively defend them.
And conservatives were shocked that Roberts saved Obamacare.
Of course he was going to.
Roberts is a guy who looks for the approval of the opinion of the people at the Hamptons cocktail circuit in the summer.
That's who he has always been.
It doesn't require any blackmail at all.
It's who Roberts is.
It's who Barrett is.
It's the not blackmail, but buying favor or wanting to...
It's not...
There's blackmail, and then there's being bought out or being...
Yeah, and there's no need for that.
Roberts was never a constitutional conservative ever.
Barrett was never a constitutional conservative ever.
It was there in their legal history.
It was there in their personal history.
It was there in their professional history.
So they just...
You know, Roberts was by W, and then...
Barrett snuck in.
And I complained bitterly at the time about it.
So everything that she's done is completely predictable.
And people who go through these great fantasies, oh, it must be some sort of secret blackmail or story.
No, that is who these people are.
And the only question is, is Robert smart enough, tactically smart enough, to recognize the judicial branch trying to overturn a presidential election?
Trying to dictate immigration policy, trying to dictate national security policy, trying to dictate treasury policy, trying to hide and cover up the corruption in our government for their bureaucratic pals and deep state allies will backfire by red-pilling the American public on how dangerous the judicial branch has become.
You know, the problem is, you say that, and the last time, this is not a bad prediction, remember, the last time I remember you saying that, it was in respect of Judge Marchand as to just how crazy he wanted to go, and he went that crazy, and then some, just to make sure that he proved that he was that crazy.
Yeah, but he ultimately never put Trump in jail, like I predicted as well.
Now, by the way, speaking of predictions, let me just show you one thing, Robert.
It doesn't happen very often.
Can I get it here?
It might be a bump from the rally that we're witnessing right now, or it might be someone had fat fingers on Calci and doesn't know how it works.
But since the start of this episode, the conservative majority is up 10 points, probably the rally bump that's going on right now.
But I said it.
Well, it may be.
On political bets, I have...
It's not uncommon for opinions I give out to move the market.
There are only a few sports bettors in the world that have that effect.
Billy Walters, rightfully now free, thanks to a commutation that President Trump gave at the end of his first term.
And Bill Krakenberger, a great app he has called Crack Wins App.
He never promotes it.
He's one of the greatest sports gamblers in history.
Those guys move sports betting lines.
Move them massively.
The lines I only tend to move are political betting lines.
But there's enough big capital.
I mean, people at Polymarket.
And the people at Polymarket need to pick.
Trump has clearly created a Bitcoin reserve that meets the standards under that marketplace.
And there's some corrupt whales, big money players, who bet the other way on Polymarket, who are trying to corrupt the process.
And prevent Polymarket from properly counting that as a successful bet by those that placed it.
So people at Polymarket should quit listening to those bogus whales.
Trump has created the crypto reserve that he's already talked about.
It's already created.
It's already being funded.
But these corrupt actors try to manipulate those markets by manipulating the rules governing those markets.
Embarrassingly. They got polymarket to say the winner of the Venezuelan election wasn't the person who's currently the president of Venezuela.
You know, it's like, you could dislike the politics of it, but you should never get suckered into a situation where you rely on the New York Times as your barometer.
The White House should be the barometer.
I mean, Calci does a much better job of this.
They say the White House is the source or things like that.
They don't solely, wholly rely on media sources for these kind of confirmation of outcomes.
I want to bring something to everyone's attention because I just saw it over here.
Where did it say?
Here, this one right here.
Nearly 17,000 watching on Rumble and we only have 1.4 thousand likes.
The 22 haters, that's fine.
That's not as many as I thought we'd have.
On Commitube, there's only 3,000 people watching and the thumbs up are at a 1.1 thousand ratio.
So that is maybe because people are watching it on apps that don't have thumbs up.
On Rumble, but give it a thumbs up while you're here.
Also, by the way, get some merch.
VivaFry.com.
Get the Louis the Lobster at Louis the Lobster.
You can find it on Amazon.
And subscribe and make sure you have notifications turned on.
Hold on.
What the hell was I just about to say, Robert?
Oh, it's a very abrupt segue.
Biden's the lawyer there.
Her name was...
I don't remember what her name was now.
Amber... What's her name?
What's her name?
Oh, no, it's Jessica D. Aber.
A Biden attorney was under the Biden administration.
She resigned two months ago the day Trump either was elected or took office.
No, took office.
It's right before he took office.
43 years old, found dead at her home in Virginia.
I keep refreshing to see if there's anything to this other than suspicious death of someone who's politically connected.
She was sort of off the charts politically speaking.
Have you heard anything?
My 43-year-old woman dying two years ago, I would have immediately reflexively thought of the jab.
Now, with the level of unhinged insanity of people who think Trump is going to rein in death and destruction, my mind goes to something else, someone who is distraught enough to quit.
You know, the day before Trump takes office, others are hypothesizing potential corruption.
Maybe that would lead to the same consequence.
Any news, any knowledge above and beyond what is rumoring?
I mean, usually within six degrees of separation of the Bidens is different than the Clintons.
With the Clintons, within six degrees of separation, you have a disproportionate risk of death.
Within six degrees of separation of Biden, your only risk is getting caught up in the Biden crime family actions, typically.
So he doesn't have the same notorious Clinton-esque reputation to where it's a memeable joke.
You know, somebody dies and then they show a photo of Hillary Clinton.
You know, that sort of thing.
So instinctively, I would be...
But usually when that...
If it is a suspect death, it wouldn't be tied to the Bidens directly.
It's tied to somebody else.
In other words, they have awareness of something else.
Like, for example, I believe the Biden administration at the end, through his family and some of his key allies, were selling pardons.
We're trying to sell pardons to people.
Say, hey, for X amount, we'll get you a pardon.
That kind of quid pro quo corruption that partially got exposed in the fact that Biden wasn't even approving the pardons.
That it appeared, you know, the auto pen, whoever controlled the auto pen was controlling the pardons.
And because that could be at times Biden, could be at times not Biden, the net effect of it is to raise, that's where I would look for potential suspects.
I would look in that arena.
So yeah, all likelihood, coincidence, but you can't rule it out because of the end-of-term corruption of the Biden administration might have been real egregious and partially is now getting outed by the fact that he didn't control the pardons.
Somebody else did.
Chad has also reminded me, the jab is still around, so it could be another case of died suddenly if you're dealing with that administration.
Robert, what do we have left?
Those are the main topics.
I mean, the big one being Trump versus the judiciary, a little bit of the Tate brothers, the foreign elections, the Canadian election especially.
Those are the main ones that I had on the top of the agenda.
Let me do this.
I'm going to bring up, we're going to go over to Locals for our after party sooner than later.
Everyone, make sure you subscribe before you leave.
I'm going to just bring up a bunch of these to give our Locals community.
My computer is going to be bright and light the room up as well.
NurseJackie61 says, My daughter is graduating this May with a doctorate in...
She is nervous about the income-based repayment option being on hold.
Do you know what may be in the pipeline for Fed student loans?
Can we reach out to the Secretary Loeffler to give some input?
Thanks for all you guys do.
Robert, do you have any idea about that?
No, I mean, I think contrary to what some liberals were trying to say, Trump getting rid of the Department of Education is getting rid of a bureaucratic money machine for the Democratic patronage operation.
The Department of Education did not substantially improve the quality of education in America.
The other thing they did is the common allegation here from the Democratic Party defending the corruption and bureaucracy is that this money was going for some great cause, to save starving people, to save disabled kids in schools, so on and so forth.
That's all hogwash.
that this was money going to bureaucrats to enrich and empower themselves at the expense of the American people, for which there's no better evidence than the fact our educational quality has declined while the amount of money being spent to the Department of Education drastically rose.
What Trump is doing is shifting the key.
There are certain congressional programs that authorize the funding, and the funding will still happen just without the bureaucratic middleman grabbing all the cash or converting it into their ideological agenda or weaponizing it for their ideological agenda.
And so the Department of Health and Human Services...
We'll take over making sure autistic and disabled kids get the kind of quality education they need.
No better person than Robert Kennedy to manage that process.
And the Small Business Administration, which manages loans on a regular basis, will take on the responsibility of managing student loans.
So how that develops will be how the SBA chooses to enforce certain legal restrictions on those loans.
But the SBA is better equipped.
to manage those loans in the department of education was uh we got gidgy 62 says i posted the disgusting response i got from my so-called representative andre carson i wrote him asking him to rain in bozberg and other rogue judges he instruct he instead attacked president trump and elon he even boasted
about co-authoring the legislation to derail elon i live in a terrible i it's terrible to live in a blue district uh within a bright red straight life circumstances prevent us from moving do i want uh okay i hope this is
Thank you for contacting me.
Since the day of his new administration, Trump has signed dozens of executive orders that are already having significant negative effects on Hoosiers.
What is a Hoosier?
That's somebody from Indiana.
Many of these are going to attempt to overrun.
The role of Congress is to take action that will benefit the people, not take away benefits and services.
I'll read this afterwards.
My reading is not all that fast, but I just got the gist of it.
Let's just do a couple more things and then we're going to head on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the after party.
Pinochet's helicopter tour says it's not our job to protect people from the consequences of their political choices.
Chief Roberts, 2012.
Yeah, it's now time for him to deal with that.
Could Trump not get creative with old Cold War era anti-commie laws and the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA to fight back against these judges and other commie infiltrators?
I don't know what that is, Robert.
Yeah, I'm not in favor of some of those laws.
Are these judges trying to get Trump to ignore them so a third impeachment of Trump can be launched?
They don't go further.
They think this power belongs with them.
You have to understand their mindset.
Their mindset is to justify the means, and they think they should rule the world, that they're the philosopher kings who should rule the world, the judges and the bureaucrats.
When they say democracy, they mean them, not democracy.
They mean the opposite of democracy.
Duran was talking about this in the Romanian context, that the word democracy, they're both Greek, comes from Greece, and it means power of the people, not power of the politicians.
And yet that is how they usurped it.
But it's important to understand their arrogance.
They're not thinking this through.
If they were thinking this through, they wouldn't be this aggressive in areas that are a trap.
If I was a liberal democratic judge, I would know if I'm...
If I'm forcing trans in the military, if I'm changing who can and can't be a soldier, if I'm demanding foreign terrorists be imported back in, demanding corruption continue unabated, demand that the bureaucrats remain permanently in power against the elected will of the people,
I would recognize that those things are going to backfire on me politically and endanger the judicial branch.
They don't understand that.
They don't get that.
When I keep saying these modern elites...
They are like the elites of the let-them-eat-cake environment.
Marie Antoinette didn't say let-them-eat-cake as a dismissive thing.
She thought that would seriously solve the problem.
That's how nuts.
We have similarly intellectually inept, ideologically corrupt individuals in positions of power.
They are so clueless, they have no idea of the blowback that is coming to them.
Can Biden's pardons throw at the auto pen because of her said he was mentally unstable?
We'll talk about that over on Locals Donald 13. Sheryls, tell people to go to Article 3 Project to get Boesburg defunded or impeached.
I signed today.
Enhance OnePack says, we do need SCOTUS replacement for Thomas if he retires.
Barnes. And then Itsy Bitsy Spider, Vivo.
Okay, fine.
We got that.
Thank you.
We're going to go over to VivoBarnesLaw.locals.com right now.
Robert, what do you have on for this?
By the way, I was going to say something.
Yeah, Winston has never been to the beach before because where we live down south, they don't let dogs on the beach, and we're up in St. Augustine, the oldest town in America.
It's beautiful, but he's never seen the ocean before, and I think he has gotten a little sandy.
Robert, what do you have on this week?
Well, the March Madness continues.
I took off last week to get a little break.
I usually always take a break around March Madness.
First round of the tournament finishes up this evening.
Or the first weekend, I should say, of the tournament.
Second round, technically.
And then we've got Sweet 16 coming up this weekend, which I always enjoy.
But the Bourbons will return at vivabarnslock.locals.com.
We'll be doing those Monday, Tuesday.
Likely Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
There's a possible court thing on Wednesday I've got to double check on.
But otherwise, that's the current itinerary.
Okay, excellent.
And I will be live, everybody, four o'clock.
The four o'clock show is going to be covering the news, the law-based stuff of the day.
And I'm going to throw in random interviews, which we may or may not do live.
I've got April Hutchison, who is the female bodybuilder up in Canada, who was suspended for two years for complaining about the fact that a man came in and started breaking all of the records of the women in women's bodybuilding.
So we're just scheduling that interview, and I'm going to have a couple of other very interesting ones coming up.
So stay tuned for that.
VivaFry.com, people.
If anybody wants to get some sweet, sweet merch, I haven't updated in a while.
We probably should start looking into that.
Friends Don't Let Friends Don't Democrats.
Yeah, we're going to have to make some new models here.
And Louis the Lobster, if you want to get a children's book.
If you're not coming over to Locals, you know the schedule.
I will see you all tomorrow.
You'll see Robert Sutherland later.
Thank you all for being here.
If I missed any super
here actually on Commitube, Trump and Clinton are the Ukrainian heritage.
They've effectively brought little mustache man's WWII, World War II, to America.
We are now in World War III in North America, says R.C. Lamoureux, who I know is from Canada.
Good to see R.C. And there was one other one I almost missed.
Marge de Benedetto.
I only see the numbers four and one in a $20 super.
Thank you very much.
I don't know if that's a sporting thing, Robert, about March Madness.
All right.
We are going to end it everywhere, everybody.
This will be on podcast.
I'll be able to get it up tonight.
I'll be able to get it out.
I have internet here.
And it's not terrible, as you can see.
So going over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the after party.
Thank you all for coming.
Thank you all for being here.
You know the schedule.
See you soon, peeps.
▲
Export Selection