Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 30, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

02:32:01

Ep. 257: More ROGUE Judges! More Deportations! Candace v. RFK Jr.? Wisconsin Election & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	They have these terms.
	Woke. You know that if you woke up, that's somehow bad?
	Because they wanted everyone sleepwalking to the edge.
	And we were sleepwalking.
	But we're not sleepwalking.
	We're wide awake.
	So we're woke.
	Right? This is Canada,
	people. That's a Canadian MP.
	For those of you who don't know who Charlie Angus is.
	This is Charlie Angus.
	Charlie Joseph Angus.
	Born November 1962.
	Canadian author, journalist, broadcaster.
	What does he part?
	Oh yeah, NDP.
	Angus serves as the federal member of parliament for the riding of Timmons James Bay from 2004 to 2025.
	I think it ends in 2025, Angus.
	Let me tell you something.
	I got a lot of jokes, but Angus put the, nevermind, I'll save the jokes there.
	Until his retirement from politics, he was the NDP critic of ethics, federal economic development, economic development initiative in Northern Ontario, yada, yada, yada.
	Angus was the candidate for the leadership of the federal NDP in the 2017 election where he received 20% of the votes.
	Nearly. That's a man proclaiming that he's proudly Antifa and that he's proudly woke.
	And by the way, the tweet was coming courtesy of Kareem Assad.
	If you don't follow her, you should.
	She does amazing work.
	MP Charlie Angus identifies himself as proudly woke and Antifa.
	This is the absolute state of Canada, people.
	Antifa. Proud Boys are a designated terrorist organization in Canada.
	What act of domestic terrorism or violence have they ever committed in Canada?
	It's a big fat bagel.
	A big fat donut.
	A big fat goose egg.
	Nothing. Zilch.
	Nada. Proud Boys.
	Designated terrorist group.
	Antifa. If you listen to François Amalaga.
	I had him on the channel a couple of times.
	A vocal anti-Covid lockdown government measure activist, for lack of a better word.
	Had his tires slashed by Antifa.
	Harassed and assaulted by Antifa.
	Antifa is a force in Canada, in Montreal in particular, and this jackass buffoon NDP, wait until you hear what the NDP's projections are in the next election, is out there saying, proudly woke, proudly Antifa.
	First of all, I can tell you one thing.
	Charlie Angus ain't been kicking anybody's ass lately.
	But these are the Canadian politicians who are taking Canada down the dark, dark rabbit hole of communism, tyranny, statism, whatever you want to call it.
	Charlie Anus Angus, The big-ass Angus is proudly Antifa and proudly woke.
	They don't understand the difference between being awake and being woke.
	But this is the state of politics in Canada, and if you haven't seen the projections for the next election, people, I was worrying today or querying today how it could be that the Liberals are 50-some-odd percent on cali-she markets To be a majority government after the next election.
	First of all, if you haven't learned your lesson from nine bloody years of liberal rule, then you deserve another 10 years of tyranny, poverty, economic, social devastation.
	But I was wondering, how the hell could they have it at liberal majority in any realm of the universe?
	Full disclosure, I have bet Invested against the prospect of a majority Liberal government after the 2025 election.
	Because if there is a majority Liberal government, there will be far more dire consequences than the loss of that investment.
	Lord have mercy on the future of Canada if these scumbag SOB POS Liberals have a majority government after the next election.
	How could it be though?
	How could it possibly be?
	That after 10 years of liberal devastation they could get a majority?
	Look at the projected NDP seats.
	Two, I don't believe the polls as far as I can throw them.
	But what is clear is that, A, we called it for a little while now.
	NDP is done.
	Jagmeet Singh has taken that party and drove it into the sewer.
	Into a fecal-filled sewer.
	PPC projected to get zero seats.
	Green projected to get one seat.
	NDP to get two seats.
	How many seats, how many seats do the NDP have right now?
	And since 2017, they have 25 seats, give or take.
	It's the fourth largest party, House of Commons, with 25 seats.
	They're going to go from 25, allegedly, to virtually nil.
	And it seems that the Green, the NDP, And what's the other one there?
	The commie party here.
	What am I looking at?
	Well, yeah, that's it.
	The Green and the NDP.
	All of those seats are going to go to the Liberals.
	Set aside the fact that if Pierre Poirier doesn't win the next election, that Canada...
	I mean, look, he won't solve Canada's problems.
	He might not even be able to.
	At the very least, it might be a break on the devastation.
	Forget about him not even winning.
	If the Liberals come out with a majority government, Kiss Canada goodbye.
	It'll feel so good doing it, right?
	Because at least it's not Trump.
	It'll feel so good pissing away the future of your country.
	It'll be done for.
	And if you haven't learned your lesson after a decade of liberal tyranny, you haven't learned your lesson.
	You are incapable of learning your lesson.
	You might just be one of those gluttons for punishment.
	You know, I watched Little Shop of Horrors for the first time in a long time last night with the family.
	I totally forgot if I ever even recognized that Bill Murray's character in that movie is one who likes the pain that the dentist, Steve Martin, inflicts on him.
	And that pisses off the dentist because the dentist likes inflicting pain and punishment.
	And if his victim doesn't like it, he doesn't get the pleasure out of inflicting the pain when his victim gets the pleasure out of getting it.
	That might be the relationship between Canadians and the Liberal Party.
	You like the pain.
	Something virtuous in suffering.
	Something virtuous in having hungry children.
	It must mean you're doing something right somewhere if you're suffering every day.
	If Pierre Pollière blows this election, I'm not a conspiratorial type, but I do entertain the ideas.
	To have blown a 30-point lead with what is objectively the stupidest tact, with what is objectively the worst response to the political reality that Canada is facing with the Trump tariffs, to blow that lead, and if he goes ahead and blows this election, given what he's doing, I might be inclined to entertain the idea that Pierre Poilievre was in on it.
	That Pierre Poilievre is what they refer to when they use the term controlled opposition.
	I mean, in a literal sense.
	He's been a feckless opposition.
	I shouldn't say he, that's personalizing it.
	The so-called Conservative Party of Canada has been feckless opposition since the 2021 election.
	And it's conceivable, it's entirely conceivable that Pierre Poilievre is incapable of governing.
	That he makes a better feckless opposition leader than an actual bona fide leader.
	It's possible.
	He might be getting the heebie-jeebies, the jitters, the fear of success.
	My goodness, it's a lot easier to be able to say, I can't do anything but be opposition, so don't blame me for anything.
	It must be easier to have that position than to be in charge and actually be able to change the course of a country.
	He has blown the 30% lead, not just blown it, like he's blown it in a way that would make Madonna jealous.
	Look at the poli- This is PoliMarket.
	Pleb the truck driver.
	Truck driver Pleb.
	He's a great follow.
	Go follow him.
	I believe he's actually now sponsored by PoliMarket.
	Interesting. Hm.
	Kalshi. Wink wink.
	Nudge nudge.
	I'm joking.
	Not joking.
	Pierre Poilier is in free fall on Polymarket right now after a week of record-breaking crowd sizes at his rallies.
	Do you believe Pierre only has a 30% chance of becoming the next prime minister?
	I think his chances are much higher than that.
	Appears to be acting irrationally.
	Whether or not you think he's going to pull it out, despite his own best efforts at sabotaging not just the lead, the momentum that he had, this is devastating.
	I don't trust polls.
	I don't even trust the markets entirely because they are easily manipulated, either with fat fingers, big bets.
	You could sway the markets and you can sway the markets in a way that then allows for manipulation of public sentiment.
	But this is absolutely devastating.
	It's absolutely devastating because Pierre, in no uncertain terms, I'm just trying to see how many minutes we are and I can't see the time.
	Pierre is absolutely fucking it up.
	I mean, you couldn't fuck it up harder if you tried to.
	And I'm wondering if he's trying to.
	If he were trying to blow it and to make it look like he wasn't trying to blow it, what would he be doing differently?
	What was the movie, Color of Money?
	Tom Cruise, the pool movie?
	Or he's like, do you know how hard it is to miss a shot and make it look like you're trying to miss the shots?
	If people think you're trying to miss the shot, they'll judge you.
	They'll call you out.
	You got to make it look like you're trying to miss the shot in order for people to believe that you genuinely missed the shot that you were trying to make, even though you were trying to miss it.
	Everything he has been doing has been one flipping disaster after the next.
	And I put, look, you might even call me.
	Whatever you want to call me.
	Some people suggest I'm working secretly with the Libs because I am going very hard on Pierre Poirlier.
	So what would I be doing that for if it weren't to benefit the Libs?
	Others call me a PPC vote-splitting saboteur, which is sort of in line with the working for the Libs.
	Or, some people, I'm not saying this is true either, suggest that I might be a closet conservative, and that I actually want Pierre to live, live, to live, Pierre to win, and that the reason why I'm being so hard on him is so that he actually adopts The policy that will facilitate his victory.
	Set aside my intentions, I love the fact that people are getting more pissed off with me for pointing out how Pierre is absolutely fudging everything up than they are getting mad at Pierre for fudging everything up.
	Like, basic things, Pierre.
	Basic things.
	What was this one?
	What was the one?
	Chris Pavlovsky tweeted earlier today.
	No, not that one.
	Not that one.
	Here. Chris, earlier today, tweeted out, the PPC leader Maxime Bernier is on Rumble.
	I'm glad to see one official Canadian party leader using Rumble and reaching out to the millions of Canadians that use the platform.
	Hope to see some more.
	Do you know what that's called, Pierre Poilievre?
	Chris Pavlovsky is a very, very polite human being.
	I'm also very polite, but I've given up on the compliment sandwich.
	I'm also not the CEO of a multi-billion dollar publicly traded company, so I can be a little bit more direct.
	Do you know what that is, Pierre Poilier?
	That is Chris Pavlovsky, CEO of a multi-billion dollar social media publicly traded company, saying, what the fuck are you doing that you don't have a Rumble account?
	There are millions of Canadians using Rumble.
	Your base And you don't dignify your own base with an account on Rumble?
	Oh, what?
	People are accusing me of being too close to Trump.
	If I open up a Rumble account, people are going to accuse me.
	They're already accusing you of being Trump-esque, Poirier, no matter what you do.
	And what is your election strategy here?
	You're going to let the liberal-funded media browbeat you into taking bad political decisions so that they don't accuse you of what they're going to accuse you of anyhow?
	Congratulations, they screwed you twice.
	They screwed you because they're going to say that you are Trump adjacent no matter what you do.
	And they've been doing it for the last several months now.
	And they're screwing you a second time because you are letting them browbeat you into not even reaching the most loyal part of your base, which are millions of millions of Canadian users on Rumble.
	Congrats! I don't have to be that polite.
	I still think I was.
	Is Pierre Poiliev or the CPC underscore HQ using Rumble?
	Are they using Truth Social?
	Or is this yet another strategic decision to not reach potential voters?
	Hey, look, yeah, I really want to be Prime Minister.
	I'm just not going to go ahead and reach the biggest part of my base on Rumble because CTV News might say that I'm Trump-adjacent.
	I've never seen anybody throw an election like this.
	And we're getting...
	No, we're not yet April.
	I've never seen anybody throw an election like this and we are less than a month away.
	I don't know that that PF can turn things around.
	Maybe I don't want him to.
	Maybe I'm a closet liberal.
	Maybe I do want him to.
	Maybe I'm a closet conservative.
	Or maybe it doesn't matter what I want.
	What I'm saying is a thousand percent accurate.
	I've never seen anybody blow this the way Pierre blew it.
	Hold on a second.
	If you're Pierre Poliav, looking at these markets and understanding you need to do something course-correct immediately, retail investor.
	Oh, yeah, this is a 58% on Calshi of the market believes that it's gonna be a liberal majority.
	Oh, no.
	You see, you want them to have these results right now so that it lets the liberals think they've got an easy coast to victory so they don't show up to vote.
	Yeah, that's what it is.
	That's what it is.
	You want to be losing going into the fourth inning.
	Always a great winning strategy.
	Now, I put out a tweet earlier today.
	It was just some respectful decision.
	Hey, Pierre, you know what you should do?
	What you should do is you should have done this from the beginning.
	The Trump tariffs?
	It's not Trump's fault, and it's not Trump the problem.
	Those Trump tariffs are because of liberal policy.
	I put out a whole six-point guide for what Pierre can do if he wants to, you know, actually win an election.
	Now, what do I know?
	I'm a nobody.
	Well, nobody.
	I've been pretty accurate, though, on certain things recently.
	Hold on.
	I want to get to my six-point plan.
	No, that's not it right there.
	Where is it?
	Here we go.
	This one right here.
	Feel free to borrow, Pierre.
	It seems like you might have actually done it.
	When was this from?
	Yesterday? Here.
	If Pierre wants to seriously win, adopt the following strategies.
	Focus on immigration.
	What's amazing Is that Mark Carney is adopting the strategy that Pierre Poirier should be adopting.
	And that is to say, focus on everything that the Liberals have done that has been wrong for the last decade and change it.
	What's Mark Carney saying he's going to do now?
	Cut taxes on the middle class.
	A Liberal is saying they're going to cut the taxes that the Liberals have imposed.
	What's Carney saying right now?
	We're going to undo the capital gains tax that we proposed.
	Not just that we proposed, but that Carney was advising Trudeau to implement.
	Immigration. Focus on immigration.
	Focus on the tariffs.
	They're not unfair.
	They're the direct result of liberal policy, not Trump.
	Blame the liberals for them.
	It's too late for this one now.
	Crippling environmental policy.
	You know who's behind that?
	Carney. Carney corruption.
	Carney investing in offshore dirty polluting in the UAE, Venezuela, I forget where exactly, while imposing, implementing crippling environmental policy in Canada.
	Maybe highlight that.
	Next thing you know, Carney's going to come out and say, We're gonna free up oil production in Alberta.
	I would not be surprised if Carney says that.
	Of course, then they get into office and what do they do?
	Jack up the capital gains tax, implement middle-class taxes again, cripple the economy in Alberta again, and force a secession of Alberta out of Canada.
	Three passports, don't you...
	Have I heard Pierre Poilievre refer to Mark Carney as a globalist?
	Failed healthcare system.
	Why is it failed?
	Well, in no small part, because of rampant uncontrolled immigrant, open border immigration.
	Oh yeah, that small one.
	Go on podcasts.
	Go talk to the people who you want to get their support.
	I don't want to go on Patrick, but David, they're going to call me Trump adjacent mega.
	They're doing it anyhow.
	Embrace it, you coward.
	Oh, then what did he do today?
	Yeah, this is what he tweeted earlier this afternoon.
	I want to pretend that maybe the rational part of Pierre Poilievre's brain follows me or at least knows of what I'm suggesting and is taking it to heart.
	It's very, very...
	When you get criticism that you know is true, it's the most irritating kind of criticism because it makes you angry at the person saying it, even though the person that you should be angry at is yourself for having created a situation where that criticism is true.
	This is what he put out earlier today.
	The lost liberal decade doubled food bank visits to two million in a single month.
	Carney's liberals back the same liberal policies that drove up food prices.
	No! Carney's liberals don't back the same policies.
	Carney is the one who recommended those policies.
	He was an advisor to Justin Trudeau since 2020.
	It's not a new Carney.
	Don't frame it that way.
	Carney is liberal.
	Carney is Trudeau.
	The Liberal Party was Carney's party effectively for the last five years.
	Voting for the fourth Liberal term will bring more of the same.
	Sign here.
	Wow, this is passionate.
	Oh, I'm gonna give myself an aneurysm.
	What I am actually, I get these thing called aura migraines where I see this like blurry rainbow.
	And I'm seeing one right now.
	It makes it hard for me to read a little bit.
	Don't worry, it's not an aneurysm.
	I thought the first time I had one it was an aneurysm.
	And then I went right to the eye doctor and they said, oh, that's called an aura migraine.
	It doesn't actually hurt.
	It just looks like there's a rainbow of sludge on my eyes.
	They say it's stress-induced.
	I'm joking.
	They don't.
	Good afternoon.
	Good evening, everybody.
	It's the Sunday night show, Law Extravaganza.
	There's a bunch of super chats over on ComiTube that I screen grabbed before we got started.
	That is my rant.
	And that is my—whether or not I'm doing it because I hate Poirier or because I like Poirier, it makes no difference.
	Nobody who wants the Conservatives to win can possibly disagree with a damn thing I said.
	The only thing they can do is get mad at me for having said it.
	There, I said it.
	Deep breath, and we will thank the sponsors of tonight's show.
	Now, first things first, by the way, I don't know that everybody knows that you need to get the Rumble app.
	Download the Rumble app.
	Why? Because you need it.
	Because it's the way that you can make sure to get notified every single time someone goes live.
	It's a free app.
	Download the app.
	I mean, why would you not want to have the app?
	If you're looking for more freedom in your streaming, download the app today because the experience that you'll get will be like nothing you've ever had as far as the internet goes.
	It's available on Android and iOS.
	You can take Rumble with you wherever you go, or you can just chill at home and watch Viva bust an aneurysm on a Sunday night.
	If you want to enjoy it on the big screen, no problem.
	You got Apple TV, Roku, Amazon Fire TV, LG TVs, Samsung TVs, giving you all the power of Rumble at your fingertips.
	Rumble is the platform that gives you the freedom.
	To watch what you want, when you want, from the content creators you want, without the narrative control censorship that you get on ComiTube.
	We're on ComiTube right now for the Sunday show as well.
	That's only so that we can more publicize, more effectively publicize Rumble and the Rumble app.
	Download the app today.
	Make sure you search and follow my channel.
	Anyone else you like, you will get immediate notifications when they go live.
	That is the advantage of the Rumble app.
	And speaking of aneurysms, medical stuff.
	Let me see, how do I do this?
	I got to go share this because I want to bring up the window on the back.
	We got the Wellness Company people.
	They do great stuff.
	And let me show you this B-roll while I tell you about their product.
	It's about time these woke institutions finally got something right.
	New bombshell research from the Yale scientists confirmed that post-vaccination syndrome, PVS, weakens immune function, causing chronic inflammation and declining T-cell activity, while spike protein levels increase over time.
	This means your immune system could be wearing down, making you more vulnerable to illness.
	No longer a conspiracy theory, it is now backed by hard science.
	Are you feeling the side effects of COVID or the shot?
	Long COVID syndrome is a condition that leaves people feeling brain fog, chronic fatigue, shortness of breath, lingering for months, in some cases, years.
	The wellness company makes it easier for you to tackle this with their new long COVID syndrome support.
	You get four doctor formulated nutraceuticals with five to eight plants and minerals In each bottle, designed to address the root causes, ultimate spike, detox, mind lift, elevated energy, and healthy heart.
	Dr. Peter McCullough, a top freedom-fighting cardiologist, recommends a durable recovery through holistic health.
	Explore targeted solutions like long COVID syndrome support.
	$23 off free shipping when you go to twc.health forward slash viva.
	Take action today for a healthier tomorrow.
	The links to our sponsors, they're in the description.
	I had to ask what brain fog was, because I feel like I always have brain fog, but apparently I don't have brain fog.
	Apparently, according to some, I just have ADD.
	But I don't believe that, because I've looked up the symptoms, and I am thoroughly convinced it's definitely more OCD than ADD.
	Let me bring up a few of these.
	Hey, Viva!
	Can you have me on your show on Friday?
	I know you're busy, but I want to help a fellow PPC...
	Oh, PPC, or an R.B. Ham.
	Let's do Friday.
	Okay, fine.
	Done. PPC supporter, Friday.
	I don't...
	Hey, by the way, I don't think Poliev could ever Come on my channel.
	I appreciate that I might be too toxic.
	But he had better better start doing some podcasts.
	He's gonna he's gonna pull a Kamala in the worst possible way at the worst possible time.
	Bender is great says want to flag like Viva and Barnes.
	Now's your chance.
	I made a small batch of I'll show this actually.
	It's right there.
	It's this one.
	Bender is great.
	Makes these flags.
	Let me see here.
	Go to re-nickswoodworking.
	This is a long link, man.
	You gotta do a shortened URL for this.
	re-nickswoodworking.myshopify.com. Use code LOCALS50 for $50 off.
	Barnes, how goes the battle, sir?
	Yeah, that's one of his right there, right?
	Behind me?
	Up ahead.
	Oh, look at this.
	You have to see.
	It is absolutely...
	No. It's absolutely beautiful.
	It's, um, it's solid.
	Oh! Oh, shit.
	Oh, shoot, boss.
	Everything's going down.
	Everything's going down.
	Okay, we're good.
	Sir, how are you doing, Robert?
	Everything, I'm really kind of, it would have been kind of funny if everything would have fallen down.
	Let me see what I got.
	No, that rumble thing is very heavy.
	If that falls, it could actually, it'll break the countertop.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Can you believe what's going on in the effing markets, Robert?
	I'm sorry.
	I feel, I think I counted.
	I think I said three hard Fs.
	Can you believe what's going on on the calcium market for the Canadian election?
	I haven't looked at it.
	I had some other focal points this past week.
	I mean, I assume it's just the Canadians being Canadians and Pierre being Pierre.
	If things don't turn around...
	I mean, it was a good opportunity.
	The Liberals are going to have a renewed power?
	I don't know what to say, Robert.
	It's like when Francois Legault won more seats after COVID.
	If Canadians don't understand that they have been tyrannized for the last 10 years, they might be sadomasochists.
	I think that's what the chat was saying.
	What's going on with you?
	What's new?
	What cigar do you have?
	I haven't asked you in a long time.
	Actually, it's named after a...
	Oh, one second.
	There you go.
	Named after a...
	Well, I had a box of them once, and I was at a bar, and I was like, guess who this cigar is named after?
	On the front of the cigar box was a picture of the guy with his name right on top of it.
	They couldn't guess it.
	You know, it's one of those things that you can't see what's right in front of you, you think something else is going on.
	Simón Bolívar.
	This is the famous Latin revolutionary who helped bring independence.
	So Latin America is an icon of people on both the left and the right to this day, and they have a cigar made from a certain island in the Caribbean, named after Simon Bolivar, quite good.
	You better pronounce that Simon Bolivar, because otherwise the alternate pronunciation might sound a little odd.
	Robert Mahuyo has subscribed to Viva Barnes Law.
	Do we have a bell?
	I need to get a bell.
	I'll bang the wood, the wood stick of new subscriptions.
	Welcome Mahuyo.
	You get tons of value at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com, including bourbons three, four times a week when I have the time, live Q&As that go an hour, two hours.
	Viva has exclusives that are just there at VivaBarnesLaw.com.
	After every live stream on The Daily Stream, we have our Locals After Party, good 30 minutes of Q&As and fun stuff.
	Exactly. Great community that gives great links, great conversations, great topics.
	You know, there's also Masterclass, Barnes Briefs, Barnes Law School sessions, Saturday movie nights, all kinds of fun at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	What do we have on the menu for tonight?
	Because we've got a bunch of amazing stuff.
	So we got like three different ties to Bobby Kennedy.
	First, what I got wrong this week in misreading a Twitter feed that Bobby Kennedy corrected me on and he was absolutely right about.
	The second, you got to meet Bobby Kennedy, even if only briefly, at the White House.
	And then third, Candace Owens in her latest Jew-hating campaign has decided to libel Bobby Kennedy As she goes, Candace Owens goes full grifter.
	I'm going to end up defending Candace only to a point.
	I don't think she defamed RFK as much as she did.
	I'm going to defend Rabbi Shmuley.
	We're going to get into it.
	I followed Candace right up until the Shmuley Israel controlling RFK part.
	Okay, we'll get there.
	We'll get there.
	Utter absurdity, and some Ian loser who I don't pay any attention to.
	Also repeating the libel and pretending he's doing it for honest reasons.
	Credit to Alex Jones for correcting a lot of the nonsense this weekend.
	Glenn Greenwald, speaking of people that are on their anti-Israel kick obsession, was saying that Donald Trump is creating hate speech codes that are going to get, you know, Hamas lovers kicked out of the country.
	And I was like, OK, I mean, I take Glenn very seriously.
	And so I was like, OK, maybe he's got a point here.
	And I start researching his link.
	There's no hate speech code at all.
	So we'll be talking about what Glenn Greenwald got wrong and in general, what the law is concerning resident aliens or in this case, simply student visas.
	What free speech rights do they have?
	Do they not have?
	Why deportation doesn't necessarily trigger due process protections?
	Then deporting leftists in general.
	Then we've got the SCOTUS.
	We've got SCOTUS on the Second Amendment, we've got SCOTUS on gun control, SCOTUS on crimes of violence, SCOTUS on when is misleading a crime versus false a crime, SCOTUS on government immunity, and SCOTUS on the EPA.
	And we've got judicial corruption ongoing as it gets further exposed and developed in the Trump versus the federal judiciary, which will continue to probably be the story of the year from a law and politics perspective.
	And last but not least, we got a real big election coming up this coming Tuesday, I believe.
	Oh yeah, in Wisconsin.
	In Wisconsin that will determine not only the majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but the future of the United States Congress, potentially.
	Let's start with the, we can't tease the Candace, and Barnes was referring to Ian Carroll.
	Full disclosure, I also like Ian Carroll.
	I think people get You'll tell me, I don't think it's anti-Semitic.
	I do think that people attribute to the government of Israel a lot more power, or maybe even the power that it does have.
	So I don't consider it to be anti-Semitic.
	Ian, I like, and whether or not I agree with every conclusion he's ever come to, the answer is no, but I like him.
	Candace, I don't know her personally, but this is the scandal of the week.
	And it's funny, I don't know where I was yesterday.
	I see Alex Jones putting out a nine minute video.
	It looked like he was rock climbing somewhere in Texas.
	The scandal of the week allegedly are rumors, which like my father always said, rumors are like cutting open the feathers in a pillow.
	Once they're out, you can never put them back in.
	Or as Emily Baker would say, it's like trying to put the shit back in the horse.
	You can't.
	So you spread rumors and the rumors have been spread regardless.
	There are some rumors that some journalists might have some dirt, some sex dirt.
	I forget the woman, Duffy, who was sexting with RFK Jr.
	A text message A fair that occurred last year, a little bit before, and that the theory is that there might be dirt on RFK Jr. that is forcing him to act politically in certain ways that he would not otherwise act.
	Some of the critique about RFK Jr. is that on the HHS website, or at least in his capacity as HHS Health and Human Services Director, you know, Secretary, He's talking about anti-semitism and how it's this scourge on the earth and, you know, people are like, well, what does this have to do with health and why are you doing this?
	And I appreciated everything Candace Owens had to say in terms of suspicion about there might be blackmail because there might very well be.
	I don't know how far back it would go.
	When you go, when you go on these, when you get involved in politics, you understand that these people spend all day together every day for extended periods of time away from family.
	And this is how I said it.
	It's the same thing at big law firms.
	People end up screwing each other.
	Either physically or politically, like screwing them by stabbing in the back or screwing them by sleeping with each other.
	And so that happens in politics.
	Whether or not there's any blackmail on RFK Jr., who knows?
	Candace Owen, the only conclusion I came to that I really thought was a stretch was in blaming it on Rabbi Shmuley, or suggesting that Rabbi Shmuley, who I consider to be borderline pervert, and I publicly criticize and attack him, and I don't even want to look like I'm defending him, that Shmuley, Somehow is the puppet master who has dirt on RFK Jr.
	I think Ian Carroll is a little more innocent, broad, ambiguous in the accusations that someone's got dirt on RFK Jr.
	That's why he's got to be full pro-Israel.
	Alex Jones came out and said, look, he's always been pro-Israel.
	It's nothing new.
	And whether or not there's dirt, who the hell knows, but you've got to pay attention to what they're doing and respect them for the attempts that they're making right now with what they have to change the system as they live in it.
	Robert, I hope that was a fair analysis summary.
	What is your take on what I think is basically drama for the sake of internet drama?
	Candace is a lying, libelous grifter who no one should ever listen to again.
	She's a Jew-hating grifter.
	That's all she is.
	She's out to grift and line her pockets.
	She married into the British, you know, her father-in-law is a lord.
	I mean, give me a break.
	Populous my ass.
	Candace Owens wanted to become a Hollywood star.
	That didn't work.
	So then she decided to become a lefty influencer who was going to rat out conservatives.
	That didn't work.
	So then she thought, oh, I'm black.
	I can be conservative.
	I better get a bunch of people to cheer for me.
	And all of a sudden, overnight, she had a conversion, like on Paul traveling to Damascus.
	And she became a conservative.
	Candace Owens puts the con in conservative.
	This is blatant libels because she's a Jew-hating, obsessed individual.
	Or because she knows it's the biggest grip.
	Does anybody really think Macron's wife is a man?
	No, that's garbage.
	That's her putting it out there because she knows she'll get a million plus clicks.
	She's a clickbait hoe.
	That's what she is.
	And when I say Queen Candace, that is how her own friends called her back in 2018 when I was at CPAC.
	That's the size of her ego.
	And she has a long history.
	of libeling people that she doesn't like or that she gets into disagreements with, including a wide range of ordinary everyday people.
	So she should be thanking her lucky stars that Bobby Kennedy has better things to do than to sue her.
	Because he would sue her and he would succeed.
	Because she is so nuts.
	This is someone who thinks Stalin was a Jew.
	That's how utterly insane Candace Owens is.
	She's incredulous.
	Ignore her.
	There's absolutely no basis to this.
	What they did is, Bobby Kennedy's pro-Israel.
	Guess what?
	Bobby Kennedy Sr. was pro-Israel.
	Remember, they blamed, originally, Sorhan Soran's motivation to assassinate him, I don't believe Sorhan Soran was the man, on the Bobby Kennedy Sr. being so pro-Israel.
	President John Kennedy, pro-Israel.
	You can disagree with them on why and whether they're pro-Israel and whether they should be pro-Israel, but they've always been.
	Bobby Kennedy Jr. simply maintaining a lifelong tradition that goes to his father and his uncle.
	Goes back over 60 plus years.
	So the attempt to say, oh, if somebody disagrees with me on Israel, it must be because they're getting secretly blackmailed, is utter garbage.
	I said from day one, if you want to grift on the Israel issue, you don't go pro-Israel.
	There's not a bunch of money lining up for you.
	If you become anti-Israel, there's a bunch of cliques lining up for you.
	A bunch of haters who will support you.
	A bunch of people obsessed over Israel beyond all proportion.
	That was part of Alex Jones's point.
	He was like, I think, you know, I don't agree with everything on the Israeli issue, but is that, should that be our number one issue in America?
	He's like, I don't think so.
	Bobby Kennedy is doing fantastic work in the area of food and vaccines at HHS.
	Finally got out that rogue actor at the CDC.
	I got something wrong earlier in the week.
	I thought they were nominating somebody bad to replace them at CDC.
	Turned out I was looking at the wrong tweets.
	Bobby Kennedy got that corrected.
	Turns out she's a good nominee.
	But the way in which...
	I mean, this is all Owens does now.
	She goes and finds, okay, what controversial nonsense grift can I put out there and get a million plus views?
	That's what's driving her.
	Does anybody sincerely think this is...
	Sincere ideology?
	I mean, maybe she's an honest Jew hater.
	That's possible.
	I mean, it's like all these people that tell me, like, take Glenn Greenwald.
	Greenwald has a legitimate disagreement with Israel.
	How do you know this?
	You don't see him going off on random attacks saying Stalin's a Jew.
	That there's a secret cadre of Jews that are running the world that are part of some weird sect from the 1800s.
	You know, you don't see him doing any of that.
	I disagree with him.
	Often on the Israeli topic.
	We'll get to it later.
	But he has a sincere ideological opposition to Israel.
	Ron Paul, Thomas Massey don't want us involved in Israeli politics.
	They have a sincere principled position.
	How do you know?
	You don't see them attacking Bobby Kennedy, pretending the Jews are secretly blackmailing everybody who supports Israel.
	You don't see them saying Stalin is a Jew.
	You don't see their secret Jewish groups running the world like Queen Kooky Candace is doing.
	So this is utter libel.
	It's utterly false.
	The story they're talking about was when Rob Bobby Kennedy Jr. exposed a journalist trying to sext him all the time and he complained about it.
	There is no affair.
	There's nothing there at all.
	There's no blackmail at all.
	It's utter garbage.
	Candace Owens is a lying libeler and I'll debate her anywhere, anyplace, anytime to expose her long history of libels and fraud and hustling, grifting behavior.
	But Candace Owens is beyond the pale of respectable opinion.
	No one should listen to her.
	No one should pay attention to her.
	She's a fake, phony, and fraud.
	That's all she's ever going to be.
	That's all she ever really was.
	Robert, I want to bring up a funny chat, if I can get it right.
	Here we go.
	It says, Viva, please exchange this money for shekels and give it to Barnes.
	Tell him Israel sends its thanks.
	This is why I'm mildly sympathetic, or at least not sympathetic, understanding to Where I say the blinders get on is like, all right, Israel is involved in global intelligence.
	Yes. And it's a small country, yes.
	And I would say, you know, Netanyahu coming to give speeches to American Congress, that should piss off people in as much as Zelensky coming to give speeches to Congress should piss people off as well.
	That I'm sensitive to.
	Where I think they lose the objectivity is, alright, Israel's involved in intelligence, MI6 is involved in intelligence, what's the French intelligence?
	I forget their, I forget what the French one's called.
	Australia, New Zealand, Canada, like countries are involved in intelligence.
	And Israel is a powerhouse of a country.
	Despite it being small, that might make people even more angry.
	But the idea that RFK Jr., for the life of, and I'm saying this non-judgmentally, for the life of debauchery that he must have had when he was doing the things that he was doing in his younger years, given what he's doing right now that I know, you know, in order to be in recovery for that long and go to AA meetings or whatever the meetings are daily, and to lead a clean life after having lived that It takes commitment and it takes dedication.
	If he had dirt, I don't think it's coming from stuff that he's doing recently.
	As if that's what he would be totally afraid of compared to what he must have been doing 30 years ago.
	Utter nonsense!
	I mean, he himself said in his opening speech, he goes, if, you know, if skeletons in your closet could kill your campaign, you know, I have no chance.
	He didn't care about any of that.
	He knew that, I mean, they personally attacked him for decades.
	The idea that he, he is not sub-capable of being blackmailed.
	It's that simple.
	Aside from the fact that there's no credible allegation, credible claim whatsoever, the blackmail theory.
	I mean, it's just, hey Candace, some of us aren't crazy like you.
	Some of us aren't fraudulent grifters like you.
	You know, go join your British Lord.
	Oh, he's now a U.S. citizen.
	I guess he's a dual citizen.
	Doesn't she object to dual citizenship?
	Oh, only when it involves Israel.
	Now it involves your husband.
	So, I mean, this is nonsense.
	She's gotten crazier and crazier and crazier.
	And I've tried to defend her in the past.
	I'm done with it.
	When you're libeling Bobby Kennedy because you obsess over Israel or you want a grift, then that's it.
	Enough. I mean, enough is enough.
	She doesn't deserve any defense.
	She's lining her pockets by libeling people.
	That's what she's doing.
	And she's making the conservative cause look like a joke.
	When you go around and say, oh, Macron's wife is really a man, and oh, look at the secret discovery.
	Utter garbage.
	Utter garbage.
	You make the conservative cause look like you're ridiculing yourself.
	As Will Chamberlain said, people are going to think Candace Owens is a secret Mossad agent because she makes anti-Israeli politics look so nutty and kooky.
	So, I mean, it's just a joke.
	But she should really stop libeling people and think she can get away with it forever.
	Because no, you can't, Candace.
	Somebody sooner or later is going to take legal action, and you're going to pay the price for it.
	All that money you've been lining up, all those shekels you've been lining your pockets with, by being anti-Israel.
	And everybody should know, Barnes's line in the sand is when people go after Bobby, because Robert...
	It's not a mystery, and it's not unjustifiable.
	And as much as I know RFK Jr., I have never met him, but I know the way you speak highly of him, It's like someone is going after a close personal friend, who in your view, and in the view of everyone, the right, the good view, is a righteous human who wants to do good on this earth, and then you have people accusing him of being owned by Israel.
	As if that would be the concern.
	It's utterly insane.
	He has sincere, strongly held, pro-Israeli views that date back from the time he was knee-high to a grasshopper.
	Because it's the same one his dad had, same one his grandfather had.
	You can disagree with it, but make an intellectual argument.
	What is, is Candace doesn't want to be able to make an intellectual argument because she can't.
	Right? She can't.
	Like, this is why it's always anti-Israel.
	Not, okay, is there another side to this?
	Hmm. Yeah, I guess there is.
	Are they called Hamas?
	Why is it you don't want to talk about Hamas, Candace?
	Why is it?
	Why is that?
	Why is it you don't want to talk about the history of the Palestinian cause, Candace?
	Is it because you only want people focused on hating one group, not on which group you are de facto supporting?
	When you're hating on that other group.
	So rather than say, here's where and why I disagree.
	Like, this is Greenwald's position.
	He'll lay out where and why he disagrees with Bobby Kennedy.
	He doesn't join into the blackmail garbage and nonsense.
	Instead, he lays out.
	Now, I think he was mistaken about what he interpreted certain things as being.
	But at least, again, with Greenwald, you get a sincere ideological position.
	Or you get the libertarian, let's stay out of it position.
	You can be anti-Israel without being a libelous, grifting fraud like Candace Owen.
	Hold on, I just want to show everyone, that was Candace sees super-Jews everywhere, just in case someone did not understand the context.
	Juperman should...
	This is in our locals community?
	What the hell's going on here, people?
	I was listening to Glenn Greenwald today.
	He goes off the deep end all the time.
	When it comes to Israel, people lose their mind on both sides.
	They just lose their mind.
	Like, take the Duran.
	Duran tries to present the strategic analysis of the Israeli dispute.
	And all they do is get hate from both sides.
	Oh, you're anti-Israel.
	Oh, you're pro-Israel.
	All they're trying to do is give the same thing they do for every country, for every conflict, for every situation.
	Here's the diplomatic reality if you are strategically advising them as to what is in their best interest to do.
	Here's how they're likely to behave.
	Here's why this will likely fail or succeed.
	They're the best at it anywhere.
	I mean, Bobby Kennedy follows them.
	All kinds of people follow them.
	They put on a lot of people that are very anti-Israel, and they put on people that are pro-Israel.
	I mean, their goal is just to give you geopolitical strategic insight into the world and understand what's happening and what's likely to happen.
	With predictive accuracy.
	But it's so hard for someone like them to cover it because people on both sides are so intense.
	You're either a Hamas lover on one hand, or you're Israeli blackmailed on the other.
	And it's like, no, you can have a different position on these issues.
	But where Glenn, I think, went too far, Israel tends to be his tripwire.
	I respect a lot of the work Glenn Greenwald has done as a lawyer and as a journalist.
	Fantastic exposing the national security state.
	He has advocated for conservatives in the free speech space, so this is a consistent position he has.
	I disagree with his interpretation on what is taking place vis-a-vis various immigrants being targeted for deportation based on their political activities connected to Hamas.
	I think there's part of what he's saying has a point There's a point where this can go too far, and I share that concern he has.
	But don't overstep.
	Don't go out and say, President Trump just imposed a hate speech code on college campuses, and I take him seriously, and I go and research the document he's citing, and no such hate speech code exists anywhere in the document.
	It's like, okay, this is, I think as Grok put it, it was an exaggeration.
	That's putting it generously.
	Grok is nice about that.
	But that's where I think...
	There is no hate speech code going on.
	And when it comes to Israel, I have found, to be honest, Greenwald's journalism to be unreliable.
	Because this happened to me about six years ago.
	He made a statement about something that took place.
	I repeated it.
	Some people challenged me.
	I went to research it and realized he was just repeating Palestinian propaganda.
	Hamas is not a source you can ever cite as a reliable source, unfortunately.
	It's the nature of the reality.
	The news of the week, for those of you who don't know, this Turkish student at Tufts had her visa revoked and is set to be deported.
	A judge has obviously since halted the deportation.
	And Marco Rubio comes out in a press conference.
	I did a highlight on it last week where he says basically if you lie on your student visa and you say you're coming here to study and you actually come here to be an activist and disrupt the you know disrupt the campus we're gonna you're gonna cancel your visa and you're gonna be here illegally we're gonna deport you some people were saying she didn't do anything to actively disrupt she wrote an op-ed and as if I I have yet to get the actual facts on this one it was very hard to get the actual facts on Mahmood Khalil as well when we got the actual facts I said you know everything right up until that video You had an argument
	for but that video where he says we're going to continue disrupting until we get our demands met that you know that that it's tough to argue that you should be able to do that when you're here on the privilege of a student visa.
	I don't know what the facts are above and beyond this op-ed that this Turkish student is alleged to have written to steel man it for Glenn Greenwald.
	People are going to say look it's even worse than codifying hate speech and implementing it.
	There's no codification at all so nobody even knows what crosses the line and what doesn't and what it looks like we have here.
	Whether or not you think it's justified is a politically, not motivated, but a politically targeted campaign to pull the visas of people who are, they say pro-Hamas, the steel man is going to be pro-Palestinian.
	I think that line gets fudged a lot and to the detriment of the actual innocent Palestinian people.
	But people are going to say, look, we don't even know what we can and cannot say.
	It's just willy nilly.
	If you're anti-Israel, you get deported.
	And if you're pro-Israel, you can get away with murder.
	What do you say?
	Yeah, I think from a legal...
	So there's two things.
	One, Trump hasn't imposed any kind of hate speech code.
	What Trump has said is if you're a Hamas supporter, then you're going to be subject to deportation.
	And this goes back to the terrorist organization label that Hamas has received.
	And Congress, passing laws, saying that if you support any terrorist organization, you will be excluded from the country one way or the other.
	And if you're already here, you'll be kicked out and be deported.
	A key component, and so there is no hate speech code, the question then becomes does support for a designated terror organization, when that support only comes in the form of speech, is that protected conduct of someone who's on a student visa?
	And here there's a long litany of cases that suggest not.
	And they got some great names.
	So you got Feng Yiting, is one of the big ones.
	And Wong Wing is another one.
	I got so many jokes, but I'll get cancelled.
	Viva, you're not a child anymore.
	Wong Wing.
	Okay, I'm sorry.
	Obviously, it's going to be foreign names if we're talking about visas and having visas pulled.
	Because a lot of the law that got litigated in this context was the late 19th century.
	You can watch a great show that was developed by Bruce Lee.
	But it was developed posthumously, obviously after he passed away.
	I think it was on Cinemax or maybe Showtime, that was about San Francisco in the 1890s.
	Really got some good cool karate scenes.
	It has a good sympathetic portrait, I think, for the most part of the Chinese population in San Francisco at the time.
	But a lot of Chinese workers were brought in to work on the railroads under the laws of the time, under China law at the time.
	They could not become citizens of the United States.
	It was prohibited or precluded of them.
	And a bunch of laws were passed over dispute over Chinese labor being present in the United States.
	And so the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed by Congress.
	That should tell me, when people were saying, oh, you can't deport someone for this reason or that reason, we passed laws called the Chinese Exclusion Act.
	And it was affirmed as a constitution.
	So I'm going to give you some quotes from some of these cases, because I see people...
	Here's the core of it.
	The Supreme Court has ruled that being deported Does it deprive you of any constitutionally protected interest?
	That it's not considered a liberty interest to be deported.
	It's not because you have no liberty right to be here in the first place.
	You're here by permission until you become a citizen.
	As long as you're here by permission, then your rights are greatly...
	then deportation is not considered punishment.
	That's why people are like, hey, what about the Due Process Clause?
	Couldn't this limit this?
	In fact, what happened was a bunch of Chinese who were subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act Uh, who came into the U.S., thus were in U.S. custody, but they were blocked.
	Or were detained.
	Filed habeas petitions, saying we're wrongfully detained.
	The courts, uh, ruled, no, uh, not only are you not wrongfully detained, we have no right to determine your jurisdiction or your authority.
	That this is exclusively within the executive branch.
	That this is a political decision when it concerns immigration.
	And this is what the courts are ignoring right now.
	Particularly that rogue, Jodes Bozberg.
	So, like, here's the thing.
	Some quotes.
	This court held, in the case of Feng Yiting, that the right to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, absolutely, or upon any conditions, in war or in peace, is an inherent and inalienable right of every sovereign and independent nation.
	And it is the power of Congress to expel, like the power to exclude, aliens of any or any class of aliens from the country, may be exercised entirely through executive officers.
	Detention or temporary confinement as part of the means necessary to give effect to it are completely valid.
	The order of deportation is not punishment for a crime.
	It's not a banishment because you have no legal right to be present here in the first place.
	It is a privilege, not a right, to be present on a student visa in the United States.
	So they simply do not have the same First Amendment rights and protections as everyone else, nor would that ever be the case, nor is it, this is a point the Supreme Court has made repeatedly, nor is it the case around the world.
	The, I mean, the same, like, for example, if you're going to be Glenn Greenwald, Why not be a little bit more critical of Middle East immigration policy?
	Right? I mean, all these people that highlight and hype how somehow the U.S. should be the only country in the world that allows foreigners to come in under the guise of study and get to interfere with American politics right inside our own borders, when no other country in the world allows that, is kind of nuts.
	And especially doing it on behalf of an Arab and Muslim world where these people come from that deported every Jew they had in their country.
	I mean, there's clear contradictions here in how they're selectively choosing to apply some of these legal principles.
	Here's a quote from the Supreme Court.
	No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens whose habits or race or ideas may render them undesirable as citizens.
	Or to expel such if they have already found their way into our land, and unlawfully remain therein.
	So the adjudication of the constitutional privilege is that Congress gets to determine who comes in and who goes, and they give that power to the executive who gets to enforce it without judicial review.
	That's what the Supreme Court has said again, and again, and again, and again, and again.
	And the First Amendment rights are limited.
	When you are here on a student visa.
	Remember, one way the Supreme Court put it was this way, because like the other big case on this is Harry Ecevies.
	And so Harry Ecevies was a Greek gentleman who was a commie.
	And there are a bunch of commies that came here in the teens and the 20s.
	And we passed laws in the 30s and 40s to say, no commies.
	We're going to deport you if you're a commie.
	If you came in under the pretext that you were not a communist and it turns out you are, we're going to deport you.
	And what the Supreme Court said is that law was just fine.
	You could deport people for simply being part of the communist group.
	It's a similar logic to the terror organization.
	It was considered support of violent overthrow of government, was considered outside First Amendment protections.
	That's what the Supreme Court said in Harry Cedis.
	Now they would later modify that to imminent incitement of lawless action as to that provision.
	But this gives you some, but in the immigration context they've long emphasized there's far fewer rights because it's a privilege to be here.
	I mean there are some, Like in the Harry Bridges case that we talked about previously, there are some First Amendment speech protections, for sure.
	But as it applies to deportation, it's a different animal.
	Because what people are misreading about deportation is they think that that's a deprivation of property or liberty.
	It's not, according to the Supreme Court.
	They're like, you have no property interest, in citizenship you weren't granted, you have no property interest, in a visa you may have fraudulently obtained.
	And you have no liberty interest in it.
	It's not constitutionally recognized property or liberty interest subject to due process to begin with, because it's a privilege to even be here.
	Kicking a trespasser out of your land, out of your property, has never required a judge to approve it in advance.
	So that's the issues.
	Indeed, in fact, here's what else the Supreme Court said in Heriocetes.
	Nothing in the structure of our government Or the text of our Constitution would warrant judicial review by standards which would require us to equate our political judgment with that of Congress in the context of immigration.
	The policy towards aliens is so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of the government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.
	The government's power of deportation is not punishment, And it would be rash and irresponsible to reinterpret it as such.
	And then what Justice Frankfurter said in the Heracides case, immigration policy has long been a political policy, belonging to the political branches of government wholly outside the concerns and competence of the judicial branch.
	So this is why there's both very strong limits on the judicial review in these cases, and Your degree of speech is limited because it's like going over to somebody else's house.
	If you're in your own house, different animal.
	You go to somebody else's house and you violate the rules of you being there as a guest, you get kicked out.
	Immigration policy is very comparable.
	You don't have the same...
	The way the Supreme Court put it is this way.
	If you can't be drafted, then you don't have, and you can't constitutionally participate in our polity by voting, then there's limits on what rights you have to interfere in our local political elections.
	And if Congress says, national security says you can exclude them and gives the president the power to make that determination, what the Supreme Court has historically said, the same thing courts around the world have said, is that that is a decision for the elected branches of government, not the judicial branch of government.
	I'm reading the chat as you're talking, and people are saying, well, you can criticize America, but if you criticize Israel, then you get kicked out.
	I mean, what Marco Rubio was saying, And then there's other people saying, well, if you criticize the genocide, then you get kicked out.
	Then you get to stay.
	No library phrases.
	If you don't criticize the genocide, putting it in quotes, that's somehow okay.
	But if you criticize the genocide, then you get kicked out.
	These are hyperbolic.
	If you use the word genocide, you're already using a word that is not a hyperbolic, but a partisan word to begin with.
	If all war is genocide, that seems to be where they're going with this.
	Fine. To call it genocide in the sense of a Rwandan genocide, it's not that type of genocide.
	Even if you think it's that.
	It doesn't meet the legal definition of genocide.
	It doesn't meet the historic definition.
	It's an absurd reference.
	Everything's genocide.
	All the Russians were doing in Ukraine is genocide.
	Yeah, everything everywhere is genocide.
	Genocide is when you actually deliberately mass murder people.
	It's not when people are really...
	If the Israeli, if Israel is causing genocide of the Palestinian population, they're doing a really bad job of it.
	Because the Palestinian population has been expanding and increasing at a greater rate than the Israeli population.
	No, but I mean, look, I don't agree with the definition, but I figure in that UN document where they define genocide as displacing All or a portion of a population.
	Yeah, which is nonsense.
	If you call it genocide...
	They minimize the importance of actual genocide when they redefine everything as genocide.
	It's like redefining everything as racism, redefining everything as rape.
	You diminish the meaning of those words, of the people that have experienced those events, to just label, oh, you were displaced.
	Because that means literally every war is genocide.
	And I pointed this out rather astutely.
	If you go read the definition, suppression of language is considered to be a form of genocide.
	So Quebec is performing genocide on anglophones and displacing them in the absence of a war, which is what happened in Quebec.
	So set that aside.
	If you use the word genocide, you're already using the hyperbolic rhetoric.
	The issue is, Whether you like it or not, it's like if you support communism, you might get the boot, but if you support democracy, you won't get the boot.
	The argument here is that you have people on the privilege of a visa who are supporting organizations that are designated terrorist organizations, or even if you don't go that far and you say, they're activists, they're supporting the Palestinian people, and equating the two are wrong.
	If they are, in the view of the administration, engaging in subversive behavior on the privilege of a visa, The terms of a visa, whether or not you might have lied when you applied for it on the student visa, you don't have full First Amendment rights on a visa precisely because it is a privilege that requires a certain behavior, which is limitative of what would otherwise be God-given constitutional rights of national-born citizens or naturalized citizens.
	And I think it reveals an underlying issue.
	Why are American universities spending so many resources educating foreigners?
	I mean, at some level that, you know, like people are complaining about the Department of Education.
	Well, a lot of that money is going to educate foreigners.
	Not going to educate Americans.
	Going to educate foreigners.
	I mean, you have some Ivy League schools that over half are foreigners.
	That's what I was...
	Why are we providing...
	We shouldn't provide any non-profit status to a university that's spending all of its money.
	Why should U.S. taxpayers subsidize the education of foreigners?
	Foreigners! Our job is to educate our citizens, not everybody else!
	I agree with that, Robert.
	Let me pull up some of the, so I don't fall too far behind here.
	We got gorgeous mayhem.
	Oh, I get it.
	Barnes, can you please debate Glenn on the deportation issue?
	I would, it would be a barn burner, pun intended.
	So many people are wrong on this.
	Set him straight, Barnes.
	Well, Glenn can, first of all, I get along with Glenn and I think we could, we could organize that.
	Glenn's a very smart guy.
	I just disagree.
	I think he always loses his mind when he comes to Israel.
	Well, it's, it's, it's, I think it's a little bit not overcompensation for the guilt that you must feel.
	You might feel that yes, He's a Jewish man.
	The irony is that, you know, he's of a certain persuasion there that he might not be tolerated by the other side that he seems to be openly defending.
	By anybody in the Hamas-Palestinian world, sadly.
	But Glenn might have the sentiment that he has to be overly critical because of those, his own origins.
	I think he's sincerely just anti-Israel.
	I mean, Glenn comes from a more traditional, the Jewish left was always anti-Israel.
	I mean, Lenin was anti-Israel.
	So the Jewish left never embraced it.
	Lenin was the Jew.
	It was not Stalin.
	Stalin started out pro-Israel because he thought he would be a key ally in the Middle East.
	And then Israel chose the U.S. over the Soviet Union.
	And from that point, starting off the idea of Zionist movement to re-establish Israel, Jewish left was never in favor of it.
	Always opposed it.
	All the way back.
	That got it more there was a temporary reprieve when the Soviet Union and Israel appeared to be on the same side.
	Then Israel chooses the US over USSR during the Cold War and the Jewish left never forgave him.
	And all of a sudden they embraced the Palestinian cause.
	The Soviet Union embraced the Palestinian cause.
	And the rest of the Arab Muslim world embraced the Palestinian cause.
	So I get it.
	I mean he comes from that ideological tradition.
	It's an honest belief.
	I just disagree with it.
	as opposed to Candace Owens, who's just a lying libelous grifter.
	King of Biltong says, Just released U.S.
	Wagyu Peri-Peri Biltong.
	Great Wagyu flavor with some mild heat, almost 50% protein packed with B12, creatine, iron, zinc, and much more.
	Go to BiltongUSA.com.
	Code Barnes.
	It's Barnes, not Bears.
	Barnes for 10% off.
	Karantoff says, French Intel is called DGSE.
	Yeah, but what does that stand for?
	I'll get that.
	Encryptus. What is DGSE, Sam?
	Le Département de Gouvernement Social et Environnemental.
	Whatever. They once kidnapped one of their own directors because they didn't like his reforms.
	Don't mess with DGSE.
	Don't go to France.
	Eric Boyum says, all of this is ridiculous to me.
	Just leave the Jews alone.
	In reading the Old Testament, it's obvious that the Jewish claim to that land predates I'm not reading that part right there.
	I absolutely believe Macaulay's wife is a man, lol.
	I'm amenable to the argument, Robert.
	That's from just over here.
	I think it's total and utter garbage.
	Well, it is.
	I mean, look, it's got her millions of views, right?
	Well, the other thing is, it's fake drama.
	Who cares?
	What if she was a he?
	Who cares?
	It's fake drama, meant to draw She's meant to clickbait audiences into giving her lots of money.
	That's all she's become, a pure grifter who's going to find some crazy conspiracy angle to push and propagate to promote herself and enrich herself.
	That's all she cares about.
	I would steelman retort that if it is indeed true, the real problem there is that it means that there's been an institutionalized media political cover-up of pedophilia in French government, which I think would be newsworthy.
	But agreed, it's the less relevant, less impactful part of the internet world.
	DB63 says, don't let the bad guys drive a wedge.
	United we stand, divided we fall, which is exactly where the bad guys want MAGA.
	Lucy the dog says, not all of Israel is Israel, but I support Genesis 12. I have to go look what that means.
	Viva, please extend the shekels.
	Okay, we got that.
	And you can't see these because they're under my face.
	Don't tell me that a Kennedy is a gash hound.
	Fetch my fainting couch.
	In other shocking news, the sun rose this morning and, uh, Edesiana says your link is wrong with two V's in the thing.
	I've corrected that.
	Again, there's two typos today that were not my fault, but I still corrected.
	The article there in the Daily Mail that referenced me and Dr. Drew at the event, call them Drew Pisky, which is a very insulting last name.
	I'll get to the I'll get to the Commitube rants in a bit.
	Oh, so hold on.
	Well, you were speaking of The deportations, and the blocking of the courts, and the corrupt nature of the courts, which I think is time to deal with Judge Boseberg.
	Now, I'm bringing this up.
	Apparently you take flack on the internet if you say Laura Loomer was white right because Laura Loomer was right.
	Because I noticed Megyn Kelly was taking flack for saying Laura Loomer was right.
	She had this two weeks ago.
	And if you go to that article, it says that Judge Boseberg, James Boseberg, the corrupt Now,
	I've said this before, and I'll say it again.
	Laura Loomer is her own worst enemy because I saw that she posted that two weeks ago.
	And because I have been what I consider to be burnt, or not burnt because I didn't repeat it, but the three stories I remember were the terrorist car explosion at the border, they were heading for the Macy's parade, there was no correction or apology for that.
	Joe Biden being on his deathbed, somehow people have been managed to trick them to think that what happened two weeks later was, you know, somehow the story that she reported on.
	She's made a few big mistakes which make me Skeptical of everything, even if it's true.
	And it's a problem because she does good work.
	But it gets cancelled.
	I discard her as a source because she likes drama, unnecessary drama.
	One. She's Candace Light.
	Or Candace White.
	Call it whatever you want.
	Some people might call her Candace.
	I think she goes harder than Candace.
	And at least in the incident with...
	It's similar.
	I can't trust her.
	I can't trust the things.
	But this part doesn't surprise me.
	What I have said is, if you scratch the surface of anybody in Washington, D.C., You're going to find conflicts of interest.
	And that the judges that deserve to be impeached for their rogue behavior, and contrary to what Justice Roberts said, contrary to what some have said, Justice Samuel Chase was impeached for his conduct as a judge.
	This idea that you can't impeach someone for their conduct as a judge is utter nonsense.
	Well, I'll just read this.
	It's the 30,000 foot overview.
	It's Judge Marchand 2.0, but it'll be the case more often than not with these corrupt judges.
	His daughter, the daughter of Boesburg, is employed for a not-profit that receives millions in government funding, opposes the Lake and Riley Act, and whose founder argued that it was rightly for Judge Boesburg to block the deportations.
	Catherine Boesburg, the daughter of the federal judge who halted the Trump administration a use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, conducts capacity-building work in...
	Public defender offices across the nation for the non-profit group Partners in Justice.
	Partners in Justice removed Bozberg's biography page from its website after her father was assigned to it.
	That's always...
	That's always...
	They know what's going on.
	This is a very tight cadre of people between the corrupt bureaucracy and the corrupt judiciary.
	And the corrupt bureaucracy covers for the corrupt judiciary, and the corrupt judiciary covers for the corrupt bureaucracy.
	That's what's going on.
	It is a coup.
	It is a coup of the professional managerial class seizing power from the American people.
	The Deep State did so in the national security context after World War II.
	And anybody who challenged them or contested them got assassinated or impeached or run out of office.
	You know, one of those three things happened one time or one way shape or form.
	But it isn't limited to the Deep State apparatus.
	It has been this entire parasitic Yeah, it was only...
	It was only $15,000, Robert.
	It's nothing that you peddly plebs cannot have on your own.
	I know, exactly.
	It's who they are.
	It's like the congressman lining their pockets with insider deals that they're not supposed to be doing, like Nancy Pelosi or like Chuck Schumer.
	I mean, all these people get...
	And there's this...
	What Trump is unraveling is the lawyer Judicial branch bureaucratic incestuous ties of corruption.
	This is why he's going after some high-profile law firms that are the critical protectors and guardians and conciliaries to this corrupt deep state bureaucratic control of our government away from the elected interest of the American people and the constitutional controls our government is supposed to be imposed upon it and constraints in their actions.
	And that's what's taking place.
	What I've told a bunch of people that were looking at impeachment is like, one, you got to look at impeachment because otherwise the judicial branch won't get the message.
	Second, you can look at the Samuel Chase precedent that establishes that simple judicial conduct for politically motivated purposes that violates their constitutional oath is bad behavior within the meaning of the Constitution.
	Not only can judges be impeached for their own behavior like anybody else can be impeached, presidents have been impeached for what they did as president.
	So on and so forth, but judges have a much higher standard.
	Judges have to be engaged in good behavior.
	They lose their right to tenure if they do anything that's quote bad behavior.
	Whereas if you're gonna impeach anybody else, you have to prove a high crime or misdemeanor.
	You don't in the case of judges.
	You just have to show bad behavior.
	We know what that is because of the Samuel Chase impeachment.
	Bad behavior is behavior on the bench.
	Well, but here's the problem.
	Boasberg's decision got upheld two to one by a DC Court of Appeal or the DC District Court.
	So how are you going to get bad behavior?
	Impeach them all.
	Impeach them all.
	I mean, in my view, these are judges.
	I mean, I read to you what the Supreme Court had previously said about immigration.
	And notice that these cases don't even talk about those cases.
	They're in direct violation of precedent.
	That's bad behavior.
	It's a direct violation of their constitutional oath.
	That's bad behavior.
	It's politically motivated.
	That's bad behavior.
	They wouldn't do this to, for example, I mean, people say, oh, this has never happened before.
	I'm hearing these legal experts say, we've never, we don't know how to, oh really?
	Jimmy Carter didn't mass deport every single Iranian student?
	I mean, have you completely missed all of history?
	The prior presidents, including Roosevelt, including Truman, were mass deporting communists?
	Did you miss all of that history?
	Legal experts?
	Somehow when Democrats do it, well, they don't notice it.
	Trump does it and it's unprecedented.
	It's unparalleled.
	What's unprecedented and unparalleled is the judicial intervention in the elected will of the American people expressed to the President of the United States.
	That's what's unparalleled and unprecedented.
	But in these individual district court judges, what I've told people is you can go beyond their bad behavior on the bench.
	They will have undisclosed conflicts of interest guaranteed.
	Either the wife or the kid or the cousin or the brother will be Biden family style corruption.
	We'll be getting rich off government contracts.
	They're like, I get from my liberal friends and family, they're like, oh, school lunches are getting cut.
	Oh, this is like, no, it isn't.
	The bureaucracy for forever has used as its excuse.
	You have to give us money and power if you want disabled kids to learn.
	If you want poor kids to be able to go to school, if you want an eight-year-old to be able to have a school lunch, if you want any refugee to ever get protection or asylum, if you want anything good to happen in the history of man, you have to give us, the bureaucrats, all the money and all the power.
	Now, we've seen how that works for the last half century, and guess what?
	We got screwed by it.
	They got rich, we got poor.
	They got more power, we got less.
	And that's what's really happening.
	And so that they're all conflicted.
	They're conflicted from a sort of a cultural perspective writ large, but they're conflicted because they have direct conflicts of interest.
	That the Judge Boasberg is making decisions that will enrich and empower his own family and his own close friends.
	That to me is itself an independent impeachable act and all you got to do is scratch the surface a little bit to find it.
	Last but not least, the Chief Judge Beryl Howell Should have been impeached a long time ago.
	I mean look at Bozberg.
	Bozberg denies constitutional protection to actual U.S. citizens In the January 6th cases, and now claims that terrorists and criminals from overseas who are illegally present in the United States have more constitutional protection than he allowed January 6th defendants.
	That's the kind of fraudster and scam artist and bad behavior Boasberg is behaving in, and it is enriching and empowering his own family, the decisions he is making.
	If that's not impeachable, what is?
	So there needs to be more impeachments.
	This is clear judicial...
	And then last but not least, Beryl Howell should have long ago been impeached for corrupt conduct, invading the attorney-client privilege, violating the constitutional rights of President Trump, being partisan and prejudiced in her motivation to handle January 6th cases and Trump cases.
	All grounds in and of themselves for her to be impeached.
	But how is it Bozberg keeps getting magically assigned every Trump case.
	So I don't know that you know this offhand.
	Encryptus, if you can find this out, how many district court judges are there?
	I mean, are there a dozen?
	I mean, in the District of Columbia, there's at least a dozen.
	Okay. So there's not a hundred.
	There's not, you know, a dozen, maybe a dozen.
	The odds of him getting all four Trump cases is something like that.
	Astronomically. Yeah, astronomically.
	Okay. And so it's clearly, it's being manipulated.
	I've long suspected this.
	But judges won't let you peek behind the curtains to discover what the...
	I think the federal judges have been rigging judicial assignments and rigging juries now for years.
	And I think they've been getting away with it.
	I mean, you get jury pulls that don't reflect the local community, that reflect whatever the judge wants to have happen.
	Somehow the jury magically reflects that.
	It's like, how did that happen exactly?
	You're telling me that was purely random?
	When it keeps happening over and over again, you start, mm-mm, this isn't random.
	Something's happening.
	They've done something to game the system.
	And they're so used to no scrutiny, so used to no supervision, because Chief Justice Roberts has done a horrendous job.
	He told the Congress, hey, don't regulate the courts.
	Don't get involved in that.
	We'll take care of it.
	Well, you failed.
	You failed there, Chief Justice.
	I mean, there's a guy who's, you scratch the surface, you'll find corruption.
	I mean, what exactly does his wife get paid to do?
	Who is it that's paying his wife and his wife connected law firms?
	Who is that with Justice Roberts?
	Why was it that people connected to his family, his wife, were pitching me just a decade ago that if certain money was made to hire her, cases would disappear?
	How is that?
	I mean, Chief Justice Roberts is all upset that the Republicans are talking about impeachment.
	Maybe he should be added to the impeachment list.
	So, it seems that there's 15 district...
	Oh, Encryptus, what's up?
	You got it?
	So, yeah, there are 15 Article 3 judges in DC, but there are a number of senior and magistrate judges that fluctuate over time.
	A senior judge is a retired judge, but is only part retired, so they still get assigned cases.
	The problem is, Robert, I'm looking at the names.
	Even if there's 15, the chances are going to be 1 in 3. I mean, it's going to be 100%.
	It's going to be a relatively anti-Trump judge.
	Oh, and guess what they found?
	What is it?
	Over a third of the judges in D.C. were not even born in America.
	They're foreigners.
	So you got Bosberg.
	Contreras, who was conflicted in Michael Flynn's case, didn't recuse himself.
	Chutkin, who's a commie of the highest order.
	Randall Moss.
	Amit Mehta, he had a decent decision.
	I think it was in the...
	Well, one, in social media, he was good.
	He was a joke in the January 6th cases.
	Yep. And you got Timothy Kelly, who I think also I remember him being...
	Yeah, he's the Trump appointee, but he's very inconsistent.
	Yep. And then, let me see here, Rice...
	Karl Nichols, another Trump appointee, but inconsistent.
	But how...
	Same with McFadden.
	But how is it...
	Bosberg. It's jackpot.
	It's weighted dice, Robert.
	It's weighted dice.
	The D.C. judges believe they can do whatever they want without consequence.
	I mean, so now one aspect is impeachment.
	Recognizing the Senate is extraordinarily unlikely to convict.
	But don't underestimate the impact of impeachment.
	There's a reason Justice Roberts is panicking over it.
	Okay, just the act of impeachment sends a critical message, a necessary message.
	Look no further than the historical precedent of the impact of the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase.
	That establishes what the precedent is in terms of Congress's interpretation and construction of the Good Behavior Clause, that if you're politically motivated in the decisions you make while a judge, that's impeachable.
	That is an undisputed established precedent by the Samuel Chase case.
	Now, What needs to happen after that, for the love of God, get rid of the District of Corruption.
	Get rid of this corrupt district.
	I mean, at least President Trump is now talking about it.
	Mike Davis is on board with it.
	Article 3 Project.
	Others are starting to get on board with it.
	We've been talking about it now for years.
	And now they're finally real.
	This is a joke of a jurisdiction.
	These people are so power-mad, they think they can do anything they want without consequence.
	And they have people like Roberts rushing to their defense when they're engaged in rogue behavior that is There have been more injunctions issued against President Trump in the first hundred days of his second term than there have been in all presidents not named Trump combined in American history in almost every single one of them issued by a judge who is either a Democrat or Bush supporter.
	In other words, anti-Trump.
	So this is the judicial branch That I've long said has usurped constitutional authority that does not belong in its power.
	And not only should we use impeachment...
	Next step, get rid of the District of Columbia.
	Get rid of the Southern District of New York.
	Start reconstructing judicial power.
	I think Senator Lee and other congressmen have the right idea of stripping them of jurisdiction in certain areas that they clearly will misuse and abuse.
	The elected branches of government have to run government, not the judicial branch, as to issues the Constitution commits to the elected branches of government.
	Not that I fact check even you, Barnes, but I do.
	As of the most recent information available, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has 15 active district court judges.
	Out of these, five are reported to have been born outside of the United States.
	One third.
	Holy hell.
	Yeah, I mean, exactly.
	I mean, and the other thing I think we should change No federal judges that are not U.S. citizens, that are not born U.S. citizens.
	If you're not born to U.S. citizens, because any other, it's just unreliable.
	I mean, imagine if I was over ruling in, say, Britain, right?
	I'm not a Brit, and I come over, become a British citizen, and suddenly I'm on the...
	Do the British citizens, do they really want an American determining their rights and their remedies?
	I don't think so.
	So I think it's natural any country doesn't want foreigners in control of enforcing its highest laws.
	And yet that's what we have with the District of Corruption.
	And it never should have existed in the first place.
	The jury pool is utterly contaminated beyond any hope of repair or remedy.
	Nobody that's on the wrong political side can get any degree of impartial jury trial.
	And then that means you can commit crimes and get away with it, like Antifa people did.
	Like that lawyer did, who committed all kinds of crimes in the Russiagate money laundering scheme, and he got to walk because the jury pool couldn't wait.
	Oh, you're anti-Trump.
	Yeah, we don't convict anti-Trump people here.
	We only convict pro-Trump people here.
	It's just an utter crock.
	And they need to go further with judicial reform.
	Start stripping them of budgets.
	Start stripping them of other remedies.
	And hey, Democrats said they wanted to add some justice to the Supreme Court.
	Maybe Trump should propose that.
	Say, hey, Democrats were for it.
	Let's put two more justices on there to help improve things, to help them handle some cases that they can't seem to handle with their low caseload these days, if we're going to go that route.
	But there needs to be institutional reform to put the judicial branch back in check, because they're doing everything possible to prohibit the elected head of the executive branch from enforcing the people's will as to the bureaucratic branch that has long been out of control.
	Well, Robert, I can tell you one thing.
	If you were on a court in Britain, you would probably vote against banning ninja swords.
	And you might even vote for rearming the population.
	Did you see this tweet?
	Oh, yeah.
	Billy Starmer, he's going to take away those ninja swords.
	That will make Britain safe.
	Don't worry about all the immigrants we're bringing in from dangerous countries or disproportionately young men between the ages of 20 and 35 who have publicly sworn opposition to our core values.
	Ignore all that.
	Ignore the grooming scandals that we covered up and hid by various immigrant groups and immigrant gangs in the UK.
	Pretend that it isn't because of mass immigration that you have a problem.
	No, no, no.
	It's the sword.
	It's the existence of a ninja sword.
	That's the problem.
	It isn't the people.
	If we can just get rid of the weapon, magically the problem will vanish.
	The ninjas.
	What the F is a ninja?
	They're also going to ban battery acid because eventually, you know, because it's the acid capital of the world.
	Robert, the Supreme Court has not...
	I know that Trump has petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the Alien Enemies Act.
	They haven't made an announcement on when or if they're going to take it up as of yet?
	No. And the courts have gotten crazier and crazier.
	I mean, so now you have to double check when you see a Babylon V headline.
	that says judges order uh president trump to return astronauts to space station that elon musk rescued or you know the uh uh the uh you know and so forth you have to double check that it's actual parody because i mean there's they're dictating the military who they can and can't put in the military they're dictating in terms of like trans and other people and so forth they're dictating and and hex it was like okay judge so and so why don't you come down and do the training Since apparently you think you can run the military better than the military,
	why don't you come and do the training here at Fort Bragg?
	Obviously he was like, this is absurd.
	Dictating all policy concerning immigration, dictating all policy concerning money to the bureaucracy and the corrupt bureaucracy, especially deep state, USAID and others.
	And they're doing, it's a judicial junta.
	It's a judicial coup.
	And that in aid of the bureaucratic coup that has long taken over our functioning government and the and the trying to prohibit and prevent the president elected president from executing the people's will in areas that have long established constitutional history that the president.
	When they use the phrase political branches, there's another way to call that the elected branches of government.
	It's respecting elections in these particular contexts about immigration policy, national security policy, budgetary policy, personnel policy.
	And they're trying to usurp all four, even military security policy, from being able to be enforced by the elected head of the executive branch without any, you know, why is it somebody that doesn't know what gender they are, why is it that they are somehow subject I don't know if you saw the response to Elon Musk.
	Somebody said, you know, pronouns is not a joking matter, Mr. Musk.
	And then somebody responded, knock knock, who's there?
	They, there, them.
	Who's there?
	Spell the word differently and the joke makes no sense.
	Robert, Let me bring up a bunch of the commie tube chats before I get too far behind here Congress needs to pass a law requiring that any federal judge that gets an injunction overturned that they be Reconfirmed by the Senate to get their job back.
	That's from Kevin Patrick.
	It's not a bad idea How do I how do I close the stupid?
	Where's the way to get rid of this thing?
	I can't get rid of it.
	Okay, let's stop sharing.
	Thank you for that I'm gonna let me let me bring up a few cuz I'm gonna fall too far behind and I'm gonna feel bad afterwards Okay, we got share this one I don't even know which one I'm looking at.
	Why is Trump's DOJ putting up with this?
	Trump should just ignore the judges and let them proceed to impeachment and fight in the Senate.
	Well, that's probably where...
	He's given the Supreme Court a chance to fix the problem.
	And I think that's a reasonable effort up until a certain point.
	Now, for example, he didn't return the dangerous people he flew to El Salvador.
	He wasn't going to do that.
	So there'll be certain limits that he'll draw.
	When something requires imminent action, he'll act anyway.
	But if it doesn't require imminent action, if it's something that it's okay to subject to some legal review for some brief time period, then he'll let it play out in the courts of law and in the courts of public opinion.
	But if the Supreme Court doesn't step in very quickly, by the end of this summer, then it's time, that's the message to Congress, To radically reform and restructure the judicial branch of government.
	Change its power, change its districts, change how cases are assigned, change the right to automatic...
	There should be, in a lot of state courts, you have an automatic right of substitution.
	You should have the same right in the federal courts.
	You should be able to at least exercise that one time.
	So if you keep gutting a Boasberg, you can sub him out immediately.
	Similar that the The right to venue.
	You should be able to write to transfer a case to venue to where your residence is.
	I think that there's good grounds for that across the board.
	It's permissive rather than mandatory currently.
	Definitely in the criminal context, that should be afforded.
	Then you wouldn't have had any of those cases in D.C. You would have had them held in the jurisdiction that those individual defendants were from.
	So, to limit venue abuse and judicial shopping.
	That's clearly occurring egregiously.
	But you've got to get rid of the district of corruption.
	You've got to discipline these judges, or at least attempt to.
	Impose new rules and laws governing these judges.
	Start restricting their budgets.
	Take away U.S. Marshals.
	Judges should not have any enforcement power whatsoever.
	They should be entirely dependent on the executive branch for enforcement.
	They should not be allowed to have their own law enforcement, just like Congress shouldn't be allowed to have its own Capitol Police law enforcement.
	The executive branch should control the power of the sword, the legislative branch the power of the purse, and the judicial branch only the power to resolve disputes, not the power to overrule the elected head of those branches on matters that the Constitution commits exclusively to those branches of government.
	That needs to be reinforced, and if it's not, we're going to keep getting this judicial coup, this judicial junta, that threatens the future of the Constitutional Republic.
	Let me bring this one up because it's a fun one.
	I joined late, but it sounds like you have a big beef with Angus Pashamoyer, always with the good one.
	We got a share screen here, go here, and there were a bunch together.
	Let me see if I can even find these.
	I don't know what the heck is going on, but I can't see these bloody things.
	Here we go.
	Question for Barnes.
	I just dropped all of them into your text for you, so you have every single super chat in your...
	No, but I want to try to bring them up in as much as possible.
	Question for Barnes.
	What are your thoughts on CounterPoints?
	Just listened to the Break the Rules debate with him and Styx, and it seems like he had a bad case of TDS.
	I didn't...
	I don't know.
	Styx and Hammer?
	We've had Styx and Hammer on before.
	No, no, I think it was...
	What are your thoughts on CounterPoints?
	Just listen to a break the rules debate with him.
	Oh, I didn't see that, so I don't know.
	Is CounterPoint's Kyle Kalinske?
	That doesn't matter.
	Jack White also says he had some very boomer takes when it came to education in the war in Ukraine, guerrilla strength equipment which we can't see, following Vladimir Zelensky's comments about Putin's death, and One of Putin's limousines exploded.
	Any connection?
	And who was inside?
	Well, Ukraine is refusing to abide by President Trump's instructions, refusing to abide by the ceasefire terms, refusing to abide by...
	I mean, it's a tin cup dictatorship run by a Hollywood actor on behalf of the deep state's money laundering and war profiteering machine, which is what the Kennedy file documents really revealed.
	The Kennedy document files revealed in great detail the scope and scale.
	It confirmed everything Robert Kennedy Jr. had said about his father and his uncle's opposition to the CIA.
	There's no doubts about that anymore.
	You know, Benji Shapiro might not want anybody talking about the Kennedy assassination.
	What kind of stupid thing is...
	But Benji, probably pay attention to your bottom line at Daily Wire.
	Before you go break, we'll worry about that a little bit more.
	Hey, was I right about Jeremy Boring or not?
	What? I said he was a terrible CEO by how he managed the Crowder situation, said he's gonna put Daily Wire in trouble, and he's gone, and the Daily Wire is on the brink of being gone.
	Oh, he's reassigned, Robert, to other tasks.
	He's, you know, nothing to see here.
	Let me bring these up here.
	We've got some in our, we're going to get to all of these in our locals community in the after party.
	Robert, what does it take for President Trump to go total Samuel Jackson and on the court and ignore unconstitutional orders from Victor Cardone?
	I think they meant Andrew Jackson, but that's funny that they maybe as a comedic joke, the Samuel Jackson reference, because the Andrew Jackson famously said the court has issued its ruling.
	Now let them enforce it.
	The Samuel Jackson being great actor.
	So the, but I think for Trump, if it requires imminent national security, he'll act accordingly.
	He'll ignore the courts.
	If it doesn't have imminence attached to it, he'll allow the legal process to go through its course over the next six months or so.
	But if they don't fix it, Supreme Court doesn't fix it within six months, then you're going to see a complete direct confrontation.
	He'll have no choice, because he's got to deliver what he needs to to the American people, and he can't allow judges to usurp or engage in a coup against the American people, or we don't have a constitutional republic anymore.
	Until is Empty says, Our man Barnes spitting facts and fire tonight.
	A blessing for your continued health.
	You are a national treasure.
	Chrissy says, Speaking of genocide, the uncontrolled mass immigration into Ireland at the hands of the Irish government.
	Part of me thinks that they are trying to genocide the Irish nation or replace it with one big melting pot.
	Thanks for the great show.
	There are 94 districts.
	Okay, we got that one Ant M. Thank you very much.
	Roostang Barnes doesn't rant about someone's reporting unless he has discovered they are unreliable.
	Candace Owens, Laura Loomer, Glenn Greenwald need to be considered with skepticism.
	Sounds reasonable to me.
	Thank you, Robert.
	We'll come back to these afterwards.
	But Greenwald, just on Israel.
	On everything else, I found him very reliable when you dig in and double-check and cross-check his work.
	Just when it comes to Israel, his strong opinion on the subject...
	And trusting Palestinian sources, anybody that's ever done that for any extent of time, you're going to get burned more often.
	I will not name any names, but when I caught people that I had hitherto, you know, until then trusted, retweeting actual, literal Hamas propaganda and then not apologizing for it, yeah, I'll remember their names and I'm never going to trust any, I'll have to double check everything I ever see from them again.
	And it's like, beyond, you know, Jew hatred, a lot of the, there's just not a lot of logic to the anti-Israeli side.
	I get the libertarian argument.
	The Paul Massey argument, hey, just stay out of this mess.
	And I get where the Jewish left is coming from in their opposition, and other parts of the left from their opposition to Israel ideologically.
	But it's like, you're in a binary world.
	It's either Hamas or Israel.
	Pick. And they don't want that pick, because they know that nobody rational, unless you're as nutty as Nick Fuentes, another racist grifter, To say, I want Hamas to have nuclear weapons.
	That's where that debate goes.
	And that's why they can't engage in honest debate or dialogue.
	Never side with anybody who sided with the Nazis.
	That's my general rule.
	And the Palestinian leaders eagerly embraced the Nazis.
	Celebrated the Nazis, begged to join the Nazis, did join the Nazis, helped propagate Nazi ideology.
	That's who the Palestinian cause is.
	And anybody who doesn't want to come to terms with that is in denial out of hatred of Israel, Uh, whatever it's based on, whether it's ideology or religious bigotry.
	Now, this wasn't on our menu of the evening, but I got a few DMs and some people said, Viva, don't go to bat for this guy in the pardon world because he's a fraud.
	Did you hear about Trump's latest pardon?
	It's inconsequential to me.
	His name was Trevor Milton.
	Um, he was a founder of, uh, Nicola.
	So if, okay, if you, if you don't, I wasn't sure.
	Is that the guy that was trying to create a competitor with Tesla to win?
	Yes, yes.
	Ah, okay.
	I mean, I mean, he was probably guilty on this.
	There might have been some business mismanagement.
	Apparently he don't, well, apparently the controversy is that he donated $1.6 million to Trump's re-election campaign in October.
	So people see this as political, uh, favor payback.
	Uh, the guy allegedly misrepresented the capacity of his electric vehicle by, um, allegedly But he was found guilty of securities fraud violation, whatever.
	They were rolling the car down a hill to make it look like the car worked and the car didn't work.
	All right, no more serious than that.
	I was just using that as a segue to remind the world again, I went to truth, that if you're gonna pardon folk like, what was his name?
	Trevor Milton?
	Roger Ver?
	Still, we haven't forgotten about Roger Ver to pardon Roger Ver, repatriate him as much as anybody can come back to the land that persecuted them, repatriate his know-how, his entrepreneurialism, and It would be great for the Bitcoin reserve and the faith in the cryptocurrency market that Trump is trying to establish.
	Yeah, and similar with Snowden and Assange and others that deserve the recognition from President Trump that he's truly embracing the crypto revolution and wants it to be an American revolution.
	And you can't do that if you're criminally prosecuting and trying to put a man in prison for 109 years who, remember everybody, he begged the IRS to tell him, this is a guy who's no longer a U.S. citizen.
	He left the U.S. Precisely because he'd been subject to repeated politically motivated prosecutions.
	So, I mean, this is a guy who spent a year in federal prison because the ATF decided he didn't buy fireworks.
	Fireworks, in the right way.
	Fireworks. Well, a year in federal prison over fireworks.
	That's how nuts the ATF was.
	And Nick said it was just a coincidence that he had been one of the biggest critics of the ATF in the libertarian political circuit related to Waco and Ruby Ridge.
	And so a clearly politically motivated prosecution decides he's going to leave the country because he knows he wants to keep advocating for the financial freedom capacity of Bitcoin against the interests of central planners, central banks, and central intelligence agencies.
	And he publishes a book called Hijack, talking about how these intelligence agencies, these central planners, central banks, central intelligence agencies are trying to co-opt Bitcoin or suppress it.
	Then the Biden administration, waging a full-scale wholesale war on Bitcoin, criminally indicts him on a novel theory of tax law about Bitcoin.
	Bitcoin is a computer algorithm.
	Effectively, a decade ago, IRS had no idea whether it was even a taxable event in any way, shape, or form.
	And now they're trying to Retroactively, redefine tax law to say it was suddenly clear at the time he exited the country, and define it in such a way, an exit tax that's itself unconstitutional, trying to enforce it through criminal prosecution.
	So, novel legal theories.
	Second, the government lied repeatedly.
	They always engage in bad conduct when involved in these cases.
	They lied about, they stole his attorney-client records and they lied about what was in those records.
	They lied to grand juries.
	They lied to judges.
	They lied to foreign governments.
	They lied to foreign courts.
	Last but not least, they selectively prosecuted him.
	He is the only person being prosecuted under this novel legal theory, anybody, anywhere, when there's tons of other people who could have been so prosecuted.
	And it's clear his political behavior, criticizing these agencies, is why they're indicting him.
	If anybody should be pardoned, it's Roger Ver.
	And I'm also just looking like, you know, there are rumors that Trump is going to scrap income tax on Bitcoin, which is exactly what they're prosecuting.
	Roger on.
	His pro-crypto policy means he should pardon, or at least guarantee the dismissal of all charges against Veer.
	His policy on taxation, that he doesn't want to tax crypto worldwide, means he should pardon Roger Veer.
	The desire for Bitcoin to relocate, re-domicile a lot of its assets and investments in the United States, which Roger Veer has done, which is why he's being criminally prosecuted.
	It's, oh, look at this.
	He had some of this activity in the US.
	Now we're gonna prosecute him because he was investing in the US!
	Imagine how insane this is!
	So this is against every core key policy and its political lawfare on steroids!
	Novel legal theory of prosecution, selectivity in the prosecution, and government malfeasance and misconduct in the prosecution.
	You have the holy, the unholy trinity of political lawfare is manifest in the case against Roger Ver.
	And he's being, they're seeking his extradition based on lies and fraud told to the Spanish courts.
	And remember, this is a guy who literally begged, literally paid money to FOIA, the IRS, begging them to tell him how much money they thought he owed.
	It's like if I owe anything, please let me know and I will pay it.
	And they refuse to tell him how much he even owes.
	And he's getting criminally prosecuted because the government won't tell him how much money he owes?
	Come on.
	And Ed Snowden, you know, there's less of time sensitivity to it.
	If you want to reward whistleblowers and make them feel comfortable, that's what you have to do.
	Yes, protect whistleblowers against the deep state.
	Pardon Julian Assange.
	Pardon Edward Snowden.
	This is on the right path.
	There's clearly people in the pardon path That don't have the best priorities of the president aligned with them, and they need to improve on that.
	Now, there's a lot of areas the Justice Department needs to improve.
	Good transition to the gun rights case before the Supreme Court.
	The case has the name Bondi in it, and yet Bondi opposed the interpretation that the Biden DOJ was giving, and yet never told the Supreme Court this fact.
	She should have gone in and withdrawn.
	The government's petitioned for cert, but she didn't.
	This is the gun control act where they were trying to treat ghost guns in the same way that they treat actual firearms.
	So it was, in fact, Bondi, because she's the AG, right?
	That they put her name on it.
	Exactly. She was added to this.
	She was substituted in as the party.
	When that happened, somebody should have told her, DOJ, this is a case that the Trump administration, that Trump himself, supports the challengers, not the government, on.
	So why is the Trump Justice Department insisting that the ATF has this really broad power to interpret the Gun Control Act such that things that everybody admits are not a weapon Are now weapons.
	Justice Gorsuch concluded.
	He looked at the Congress tax and he said, no, really, things that aren't weapons are weapons.
	It was like, how is that possible?
	It was a 7-2 majority decision.
	Thomas and I forget who else was the dissident.
	Alito. The two justices who actually know something about guns.
	The rest of them don't, including Gorsuch.
	God bless them.
	Now, let me let me operate on that.
	So I hope everybody understands the fact pattern.
	They were challenging that the what's the law, the Gun Safety Act.
	Gun Control Act of 19...
	Gun Control Act.
	GCA. Applied to ghost guns.
	Kits that you can order online to assemble your own guns.
	Unmachined bases of the...
	I forget what it's called exactly.
	Yeah, certain frames and receivers and things that are unfinished.
	Yeah. And so they said 7 to 2, this falls under the ambit of the Gun Control Act and the authority of the ATF, and it's regulated as though they're actual firearms.
	If I'm playing 4D chess, trust the plan, Trump knows what he's doing.
	Bondi did not get involved because they wanted this decision to come down so they can now force Congress to enact the change legislatively.
	It sounds stupid even as I say it out loud.
	Exactly. In fact, instead, what she did is she put out a tweet saying they're going to reevaluate everything that's happening after the decision came down.
	What that told you is she didn't know.
	I said that I thought she was a well-intended individual who was in way over her skis, and she got completely sideswiped on the Epstein document disclosure, says that Trump had to step in in order that they get a bunch of people assigned to that, and now they have like a hundred agents going through everything to make sure there's a bunch of Epstein disclosure documents that are going to take place.
	But it was because she got sideswiped by the bureaucratic establishment that it even happened.
	She still has failed to correct the Brooke Jackson case.
	So Brooke Jackson is pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	This is the whistleblower exposing that Pfizer lied in order to get the vaccine approved, in order to get all those billions and billions of dollars.
	From the American people, from the American taxpayer, because that's who paid for these vaccines, so-called vaccines.
	And what they said was the deliverable that President Trump's contract required was a safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19.
	What they delivered, they knew, was unsafe, ineffective, not even a vaccine that didn't prevent either transmission or infection under the COVID-19.
	It was a therapeutic, not a vaccine.
	And the contract specifically says, not looking for a therapeutic, looking for an inoculant vaccine.
	And so, clearly violated the contract, no meaningful dispute behind that.
	And yet, the Biden Justice Department came in, intervened, told the court to dismiss the case because they said, we can't afford any second guessing of vaccines.
	It's like the excellent doctor that was on with Joe Rogan this week, who I think it's dissolving his illusions.
	Yeah, I was literally just listening to it as I was jogging.
	It's Suzanne Humphreys.
	Yeah, Suzanne Humphreys, Dissolving Illusions, great book.
	A doctor who did a deep dive, kind of like Kennedy.
	She didn't intend to do a deep dive on vaccines.
	She just saw something was AWOL with her kidney patients.
	And she does a deep dive and discovers 90% of what you're told about vaccines is false.
	It's a lie.
	It's been a lie since the mid-80s when they could get away with it because they realized how profitable it was.
	They had profit without risk guaranteed because of the laws passed in the 1980s giving them immunity.
	But as she went through, the degree to which there's been misleading and false information about all of this.
	And so that's an excellent broadcast.
	It's phenomenal.
	You really realize...
	The history that you thought you knew of the miracle of vaccines, assuming that she's accurate and right.
	And what I would love to hear is, I would love to hear someone- She would have been sued into oblivion if she wasn't.
	She's like Bobby Kennedy.
	Nobody sued Bobby Kennedy over the real Anthony Fauci.
	Nobody sued Bobby Kennedy over mercury and vaccines.
	Why? Because he double-checked, triple-checked, quadruple-checked, and quintuple-checked it.
	And she did the same in the dissolving illusions.
	And you can go through the real history, get the real documents, get the real story that has been suppressed.
	By the medical establishment and the big pharmaceutical industry for decades.
	But here you have a case, and I get it.
	From Gorsuch's perspective, he's just trying to interpret the law.
	So Gorsuch doesn't see it as a Second Amendment case.
	He's just looking at, did Congress intend to reach incomplete weapons as weapons?
	And what he concluded was, there's sometimes, because when you challenge something facially as opposed to as applied, a facial challenge means This law, as applied in every context, is unconstitutional.
	As applied to me, it's unconstitutional.
	This was a facial challenge.
	So from Gorsuch's perspective, is there any circumstance under which the agency could ever interpret, categorically, that an incomplete weapon is a weapon under the Gun Control Act of 1968?
	He interpreted that there are some provisions of the statutes and some history of it being interpreted in that way.
	And so he said because there could at least be some weapons kits.
	that constitute a weapon under the law.
	And some frames and receivers that could constitute a weapon under the law.
	They went out of their way to say AR-15 receivers could never be counted as a weapon under the law.
	They made that clear.
	But they said, because there could be some such circumstances, we cannot categorically say it's beyond the power of the ATF to determine.
	Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence highlighting the major problem with trying to criminally prosecute anybody in this context, and made a great statement that I'm going to be using in a bunch of cases.
	He used my definition of willfulness, which applies outside of the gun context.
	There's a bunch of laws where the word willfulness is used.
	And in my view, willfulness is supposed to mean you know the law itself makes your conduct illegal.
	As opposed to, like sometimes it says you knowingly did something.
	That usually only means you know the facts of your behavior, not the legal consequence of it.
	Willfulness, in my view, is always meant to elevate the level of intent so that you know the law prohibits you from doing what you're doing.
	That's exactly what Kavanaugh says in his concurrence, which is going to be very useful for criminal defense lawyers out there in general.
	And then Gorsuch and, I'm sorry, and then Thomas and Alito dissented.
	And I agree with Thomas's dissent, because he says, look, If Congress intended for things that are not a weapon, everybody agrees they're not a weapon, to be called a weapon, it needs to say so with clarity and without any controversy.
	They didn't, so it doesn't include it.
	And the agency doesn't have the power to grab that power to itself.
	The dispute with Gorsuch is literally...
	Gorsuch is just trying to interpret the law.
	And Gorsuch is really...
	The liberal judges, of course, go with Barrett.
	I mean Barrett, they go with Barrett in another context too, but the liberal judges wanted to go even further, because they're politically motivated.
	Gorsuch is not.
	Gorsuch is trying to interpret the law, and yes there are arguments within the statute That the statute meant to even include weapons kits and frames and receivers as guns.
	This was written by a very liberal Democratic Congress in 1968.
	They used the excuse of the deep state assassinating Robert Kennedy for gun control, which is...
	leave it to the deep state apparatus and Democrats to pull those kind of shenanigans.
	And this is why, by the way, Bobby Kennedy used to be a big gun control advocate, dating all the way back.
	And then he's changed his mind over the last five years.
	Why? He researched the data.
	And realize that all these gun violence being blamed on the gun, there's other more plausible explanations than taking away people's Second Amendment rights.
	I don't agree with, I agree with Thomas and Alito's dissent that if they're going to define, if they're going to include things that are not a weapon as a weapon, It has to be absolutely crystal clear, and then there's other constitutional grounds to challenge that law.
	I think the Gun Control Act of 1938 is unconstitutional.
	I think the National Firearms Act of 1934 is unconstitutional.
	So, I hope to see those challenges.
	But I can't, like, some people are really mad at Gorsuch.
	I was like, Gorsuch is just not coming at this from a partisan perspective.
	He's looking at, what does the law actually say?
	And there are plausible arguments that they actually were trying to reach it.
	My view, though, is Gorsuch should have held Congress to a higher standard.
	They should be crystal clear that incomplete weapons constitute weapons.
	You shouldn't find it by inference, by analogy, by reference, and so forth.
	So I agree with the dissents.
	But it's not as Second Amendment consequential as some people thought, because the decision Hedges all over the place.
	It says all we're saying is there might be some instances in which a weapons kit...
	We're not saying any specific one is.
	We're not saying all are.
	In fact, it may be the case that it's rare.
	We're just saying that...
	So there's enough hedges in there that people don't have to worry about it too much.
	But I put it on Bondi.
	Bondi doesn't agree with this decision.
	Doesn't agree with the government's position.
	Her name is on the caption!
	Get involved and tell the government, tell the court, you reversed the position of the government.
	This was another mistake, unfortunately, made by Attorney General Bondi.
	Let me take a pause here, Robert.
	There are 28, nearly 29,000 people watching on Rumble.
	They're only 1.3 thousand thumbs up.
	That's a terrible ratio.
	Go fix that.
	We are running these both on YouTube.
	If you love Keanu Soans, hit the like button.
	If you hate Keanu Soans, hit the like button.
	Nothing will change, of course, the fact that Keanu Soans is a lying, libelous grifter.
	We had gotten over the intro, Robert.
	The other thing I'm reminding everyone is we're live across all platforms tonight to remind everybody of the Rumble lineup.
	It's exclusively on Rumble and Locals, not on ComiTube throughout the week.
	Thank you, Kyne.
	So I've had someone bring a liquid death because my throat is a little dry.
	We are live every day at four o'clock on Rumble exclusively for the Rumble Weekly Livestream lineup.
	Not on ComiTube.
	They get the clips afterwards.
	What I wanted to show everybody, since we have a very large audience right now, you all know that I've written a children's book and you should all go out and buy one.
	I'll give everyone the Amazon link right here.
	Link, it's on Amazon, self-published because, I don't know, my wife did everything.
	I did nothing.
	Louis the Lobster returns to the sea.
	It's a great one.
	If you're inclined to get it, there's the link.
	So that was our self-fulfilling, self-promotion pause of the evening.
	Before we get into Wisconsin, Robert.
	Another Supreme Court case.
	Oh, sorry.
	Do the Supreme Court.
	Oh, yeah.
	We also have the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
	Yeah, we'll do the one after this, because you're right.
	We should do all the Supreme Courts.
	I lost track of them.
	I read them, but I'm going to need cigarettes.
	Oh, well, we have a good transition.
	To gun minimums, mandatory minimum sentences.
	When is a violent crime a violent crime?
	You're going to have to field this one.
	I know that the answer was they basically deemed any type of crime to be violent by definition, which would seem that you're going to go to jail for the minimum sentence regardless.
	What were the details of that case?
	So in order to take away Second Amendment rights and in order to lock people up longer, Congress imposed mandatory minimums and certain gun forfeiture laws on certain misdemeanor domestic violence convictions or felony crime of violence convictions.
	The issue has always been, what does crime of violence mean?
	To most people, crime of violence means the person engaged in physical violence towards a person.
	Not according to the Supreme Court.
	Nope, nope.
	Simply acting by omission is now a crime of violence.
	If it has bad consequences on someone.
	So, and they were giving some of the illustrations they were giving.
	If a parent fails to take timely action to protect a child, they've now committed a crime of violence and their second amendment rights can be taken away from them forever.
	And they can get mandatory minimums in federal prison.
	I mean, this is, I mean, it was insane.
	The mandatory minimum was five years, right, in this case?
	Yeah, in some cases five, some cases ten, some cases twenty, some cases twenty-five.
	Mandatory minimums were a bad idea in general, but they were particularly bad in this context, when you liberalize the definition of crime of violence so that it covers everything.
	If someone suffers physical harm that can be tied to anything you did or failed to do, it's now a crime of violence.
	It completely guts the limitations on crime and violence the court had previously imposed and that Congress had previously intended.
	And credit to Justice Gorsuch and Justice Jackson.
	This is something I predicted several years ago.
	And people were like, you've got to be nuts, Barnes.
	And I said, watch.
	In certain criminal case contexts, you will see the libertarian Gorsuch and the leftist Jackson align against the institutionalist of both the right and the left on the court.
	And that's what you're continuing to see.
	Credit to Justice Jackson for joining Justices Gorsuch's dissent.
	And Gorsuch just kept it simple.
	He was like, crime of violence means crime of violence, not a crime of non-violence.
	And he starts off with an example.
	He's like, let's say you have a lifeguard who decides not to rescue somebody.
	That's now a crime of violence?
	He goes, that's nuts.
	He goes, that's not what the law says.
	If they wanted to reach that, they could have said so.
	Now here, I wish he would apply that same logic in his gun case.
	God bless him.
	But he was right here.
	And it's because they're so eager to keep expanding and liberalizing the reach of criminal law, That they are now defining things that are counter and contra common sense, least of all congressional intent.
	And the constitutional requirement, especially as to crimes that you can go to prison for, the rule of lenity, you interpret the law in favor of the defendant, not the government.
	But that rarely happens, sadly, in our court systems.
	So it was an unfortunate decision.
	One that, unsurprising, this is where people like Thomas and Alito are unreliable.
	They're just so unsympathetic to criminal defendants.
	You often find them throwing out rights and remedies that they would readily and quickly acknowledge in other contexts, unfortunately.
	But I think Gorsuch and Jackson were right.
	I think the majority was wrong.
	But that ship has now sailed.
	Unless Congress goes in and clarifies, a crime of violence now means doing nothing violent at all.
	In Canada, we used to have, or I think we still do have, minimum sentences for certain firearm laws.
	And Supreme Court said, no, in some cases it's unconstitutional because, you know, you accidentally, inadvertently store ammunition in the gun, and you're going away for a minimum of two years, whatever it was at the time.
	So, you know, in some ways Canada's not all wrong, or at least the Canadian courts are not all wrong, but yeah, minimum sentences.
	I mean, did you read that, you may have already discussed it, that horrendous vaccine decision?
	Vaccine injury decision?
	Out of Canada?
	Oh yeah, I discussed it last week.
	It's Sean Hartman.
	It's Dan Hartman's kid, where they basically said the government has no duty of care.
	They can mandate a vaccine and they have no duty of care to make sure that it's not going to kill you.
	And too bad, so sad.
	Tough noogies.
	It's crazy.
	Yeah, it's the judicial branch covering for the corruption of other officials within government.
	And I think the judicial branch has not stepped back and thought about this at all because they're so power mad and so interested in politically protecting their pals.
	What happens when the people of your country no longer believe in the Jewish order?
	That's my public cry for concern.
	They're trying to break people and to get people to do stupid things so that they can then say, we need to take away more rights because you guys don't even know how to behave yourselves.
	That's what Kennedy said.
	Any government that grabs power doesn't give it back.
	So he goes, never let them grab power in the first place.
	And that's why I disagree with these court cases that are letting the government grab power, whether it's the ATF case or the crime case.
	Now, they did make one good decision this week.
	Actually, they had two good decisions.
	And that was in another criminal context, they at least acknowledge that when Congress makes it a crime to make a false statement, that that can't reach true statements.
	No, misleading but not false.
	This was a guy who Had a loan taken over by the government after a bank went bust and apparently he had taken out a loan of $220,000, but maybe it got to $269,000 with interest and whatever.
	And then when they're asking him, like, how much was the loan?
	$220,000?
	He's like, I have no idea how they got to that number.
	And then they accused him of making a misleading but not false statement for the purposes of trying to lock him up.
	And the court came in and said, yes, misleading but not false does not qualify Yeah, I mean, it's absurd.
	It's basically trying to criminalize opinion disagreement.
	It's like the, I mean, speaking of getting the right number, Polymarket needs to really change or improve the way in which it processes its picks, its bets, its predictions.
	In its prediction market, there's corrupt actors taking over the decision-making aspect as to whether or not a prediction was successful or not.
	The most embarrassing one was when Polymarket pretended that the American-backed candidate won in Venezuela when he lost.
	Right? They're like, oh no, he won!
	Okay, the government says he didn't win.
	The legal system says he didn't win.
	He's not in power.
	Why are we pretending he won?
	Because the New York Times said so?
	I mean, it's embarrassing.
	And now they've compounded that in the context of President Trump setting aside a Bitcoin reserve.
	He has clearly done so.
	He's met the rules for establishing a Bitcoin reserve.
	And yet these people are pretending that that didn't happen.
	This week they also got caught in another case where they decided retroactively That something happened that didn't happen.
	And I mean, it's like repeatedly people are rigging the rules because of how they've decided how they need clear rules in their prediction markets.
	And then they need a better enforcement mechanism.
	Have some people like Cauchy is doing a much better job of this than Polly Market in the prediction market space.
	Polly Market's becoming almost a joke at how easy it is to rig them and corruptly administer them.
	They're creating a major problem that they need to fix.
	Well, so I read, Brian, when I first read this, I thought Brian Bayesian was taking a jab at you, but he says, BTC reserve polymarket no side is saying Robert Barnes hasn't seriously analyzed the market and executive order.
	Would he consider doing a more in-depth analysis and help combat grift?
	Whales are insulting Barnes into intellect.
	Well, they're just corrupt.
	I mean, they're going to say pot shots, but these are people that basically, people that have taken a side in poly market, have an influence on how the bet is then interpreted.
	That should never happen.
	That's a problem by itself.
	So they need to have clear rules and a better decision making process.
	They were trying to borrow on the Bitcoin democratization of decision making idea.
	And I get that, but now it's being misused and abused.
	So you think you're going into a prediction market and trying to predict whether an event is going to happen or not.
	Often that's not what you're betting on.
	You're trying to predict what the whales that influence the decision-making on the market, what they think is going to happen.
	And that's a problem.
	They never should have allowed that embarrassment of pretending the Venezuelan election was won by somebody who clearly lost it because the New York Times said so.
	But they keep compounding it.
	It's becoming a systemic and institutional flaw.
	I mean, I've been telling people, don't use polymarket.
	Start going to Cauchy.
	Go to other markets, not polymarket, until they fix this problem.
	Because it's a severe and serious...
	Clearly, President Trump has created a Bitcoin reserve by any definition of the word.
	It's like they kept changing the definition on Epstein Doc's release.
	It's like, you know, I disagreed even with Cauchy on this.
	It's like, But, you know, at least Cauchy had clear rules and better direction, and then they constantly fix when it's challenged.
	I had an investment on Eric Adams being pardoned and his charges were dismissed without prejudice.
	And I said, oh, doesn't that count as a pardon or a presidential reprieve?
	And they replied and said, no, technically it's not.
	Although the New York Times referred to it as a reprieve.
	It wasn't a presidential pardon reprieve.
	It was dismissal of the charges without prejudice, meaning they can come back.
	So tough.
	Eat it, Viva.
	They didn't say it like that, but it was a satisfactory explanation.
	Yeah, I'm still happy with my...
	They just need better protocol.
	Because the prediction markets are away.
	Robinhood is now putting up prediction markets.
	A whole bunch of other people talk about prediction markets and politics, sports, culture, events, you name it.
	It's going to become a very big marketplace.
	And Polymarket is crypto funded.
	So I was hopeful for Polymarket, but they got to fix this.
	Until they fix this.
	Look, and I've learned to take rock with a grain of salt.
	Yes, as of March 30. Rock is above that.
	Way better than chat GPT.
	Really good.
	He signed an executive order on March 6 establishing the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a separate U.S. digital asset stockpile.
	The Strategic Bitcoin Reserve is capitalized with Bitcoin already owned by the U.S. government, primarily from assets fortified through That's a market.
	I mean, by every definition, everybody who thought they were betting in that market should have got the yes.
	And they have it because a couple of corrupt whales are making a joke of the polymarket decision-making process.
	And polymarket's got to fix it.
	They've got to have clear definition of rules, and more consistent interpretation and application, and can't let these corrupt whales steal like they stole their outcome of the Venezuelan election.
	But simply making misleading but not false statements, at least the court has recognized that is not a crime.
	Supreme Court agreed, I think unanimously, That yes indeed, if you don't make a false, you can't go to prison for making a false statement if you didn't make a false statement.
	Thank God the Supreme Court at least got that right.
	But how did so many other courts get it wrong?
	How many, so many prosecutors get it wrong?
	Does that show you how bad abusive our criminal justice process has become?
	That some, that they were prosecuting people, putting people in prison for making true statements Under a crime alleging false statements because the courts were misinstructing juries to tell them all it has to be is misleading even if true.
	In direct contradiction to the exact plain language of the text.
	And even the liberal judges agreed on this.
	Everybody agreed on this.
	So it just shows how wayward our courts and prosecutors can become that this case even had to get to the Supreme Court.
	What else do we have on the Supreme Court?
	There's two left.
	What happens?
	I've always been curious about this.
	So a lot of people wonder about fraudulent transfer laws.
	So we get a chance to have a little sub discussion about that topic.
	But what happens if the fraudulent transfer went to the IRS?
	I've always been curious.
	Well, what would the courts then do?
	And to their credit, for the most part, the courts were saying you could even claw back payments to the IRS.
	So, you know, what's a fraudulent transfer?
	I owe somebody money.
	I know I owe that money.
	They know I owe that money.
	The legal claim has been established.
	But I don't want to pay them.
	I want to pay somebody else instead.
	So I give them money, not for value.
	You know, there's not an exchange.
	It's not that.
	I'm paying off a different debt rather than the...
	This is in bankruptcy.
	Yeah well or just any fraudulent transfer because like most fraudulent transfer laws are state laws but what can happen is those state law fraudulent transfer claims can be part of a clawback if you go to bankruptcy.
	So you go to bankruptcy court the bankruptcy trustee has the right to say you know what that money you paid to so-and-so way back I think that was a fraudulent transfer.
	I think you and what you need for fraudulent transfer is you need to have somebody has a valid legal claim against you that you know about or aware.
	Second that you make a transfer for no value In other words, it may be for a debt or some other reason, or you just want to get money into somebody else's hands.
	You're insolvent at the time you make the transfer, and it's without value.
	You exchanged it without any value being returned.
	But it comes up in the bankruptcy context, because under bankruptcy law, bankruptcy trustees are given the legal authority to pursue on behalf of the estate, really on behalf of the other creditors, but on behalf of the estate, to go back and claw back, as they say, prior payments on the grounds of fraudulent transfers.
	But what happens, like can happen in this case, the people stole the money from the business, allegedly, in order to fund the pay of their personal tax debts.
	And I was like, watch the courts come in and suddenly say that magically the IRS is exempt from this clawback provision.
	That though that's a creditor you can't claw back from.
	Now up until this point, courts had acknowledged the plain language of the law, allowed Congress, because it's specifically in the sovereign immunity context, they said that even if the So, it seemed pretty obvious.
	Every court had agreed.
	Gets up to the Supreme Court, magically they disagree.
	They're like, oh, you can't claw back from the Infernal Revenue Service.
	They're almighty.
	They said sovereign immunity protects them.
	And even though there's a specific law that says that sovereign immunity doesn't apply in this context, they managed to come to a conclusion that said sovereign immunity still applies.
	It was a...
	by every like hook and crook known to man.
	Oh, this was...
	they went through every intellectual shenanigan you possibly could for the sole and whole purpose of making sure the government never has to give back money.
	So it's okay to steal from your business as long as you're stealing it to give to the government.
	That's the message of the Supreme Court.
	I'm reading some of the chats here, which we're going to bring up in a second.
	What was the last Supreme Court decision?
	Ah, the EPA!
	What was fascinating to me about this, I don't even know how this slipped through almost, because you got California, I'm doing a legal analysis for a client, a local's board member, on whether there's some way to challenge all the insane environmental laws in California, or California.
	And what was fascinating is, This was the city of San Francisco suing the EPA.
	So you got this, it's saying the EPA doesn't have the power.
	Oh yeah, this is the water quality in terms of having an obligation for the end result of the output water quality.
	How did they even get away with it?
	I mean, it's so fast.
	It's like you have lefty cities that are suing everybody on pollution.
	And here you have the lefty city of San Francisco suing the EPA saying, you don't have that authority.
	And it's like, really?
	I was like, I mean, you would have thought, you thought this was a conservative town.
	They somehow got this case all at the Supreme Court because their hypocrisy knows no ends.
	We're for strong environmentalism unless it costs us too much money.
	And we're the city of San Francisco and this environmentalism is costing too much money.
	So we want to take away the EPA's power.
	The EPA was doing something called end result permitting.
	So you're allowed to discharge pollutants into the public waterways as long as you get a permit.
	If you comply with the permit you're supposed to be immune.
	But EPA was taking a step further saying if we measure The water, and the quality of the water isn't up to what we want it to be?
	We're going to take away your permit, even if you fully completely complied with the permit.
	So it's called end result permitting.
	And the question was dead whether they were ever given that authority by Congress.
	The city of San Francisco said no because they dumped crap into the...
	Yeah, they got a lot of crap there in San Francisco.
	I mean, you could actually buy an app so that you can know where the human feces and needles are.
	So you can avoid the human feces and needles as you maneuver through the city.
	I was talking to Dr. Drew about this.
	I think we talked about it on the Thursday show live from D.C. where it's like the amount of human waste that they in Skid Row that they literally flush out into the canals that goes right out into the ocean.
	Needles, piss, shit, diarrhea, vomit, everything.
	And it goes out into the human waste.
	Sorry. Go on, Robert.
	Yes. So that's dirty.
	But here the city didn't want to be held environmentally responsible for all the crap they're putting in the water.
	Which I just found so funny.
	Here they are suing like Exxon and other people saying it's all your fault and pollution and you should be shut down and run out of business.
	But the city of San Francisco, when it's mass polluting in local waterways, it's demanding it be allowed to do so without restriction or restraint.
	And the Supreme Court went along with it.
	Now, I agree with the Supreme Court.
	Again, it was another interpretation of law case.
	That's a lot.
	It was interpretation of the statute case.
	No constitutional ramifications.
	There were some political ramifications though.
	Because it was a 5-4 decision.
	And what was interesting is Barrett is getting worse and worse and worse.
	Barrett is now joining the liberals in EPA cases.
	That's like, the conservatives who put her on the bench knew that she comes from the Southern planter aristocracy, comes from sort of the Catholic intelligentsia.
	And as such, is seen as an institutional corporatist, who will be pro-government and pro-corporate, but more pro-corporation than she's pro-government.
	I said she would be unreliable on a whole bunch of core populist and constitutional liberty issues, which has proven true.
	But now that she's even joining the EPA on environmental cases, who the biggest impact is not cities like this case, but the biggest impact is on individual businesses, Uh, is a, is a bad warning sign for the, you know, she may go full-blown liberal, that she is on the path now to become a full-blown liberal.
	She's 53. She's on the bench based on the ages of the other ones for another three decades.
	She's on the bench.
	Completely. All right.
	And last, but not least on tonight, we got that big Wisconsin Supreme Court election coming up on Tuesday.
	Do we do that in, uh, over at Locals or do we do that now?
	Either way.
	We can do that here, and then just answer questions over at Locals.
	Well, before I forget, Sad Wings Raging has gifted, I think, 15 or more.
	Sad Wings, thank you.
	He's gifted memberships.
	25. Jesus.
	I forgot.
	I thought this was there.
	Holy crap.
	25. Yeah, 25% are like God talking to Moses.
	Sad Wings, thank you.
	And we're going to get to some of the chats afterwards.
	All right.
	Wisconsin. Wisconsin.
	We had Jeremy from The Quartering.
	Out thumping with Scott Pressler from Pennsylvania, who are trying to get...
	Sorry, I just thought of a comment that I saw on...
	I'm convinced that some of these so-called conservative right on the internet, where you see them starting fights among the right, For no better reason than going after Scott Pressler?
	That is discrediting in my view.
	I don't care if you approve of Scott's life or not.
	The man is doing the Lord's work for the right, and anybody going after him purportedly on the right is a jackass.
	I'm not naming names, but I'm thinking of them.
	So what is going on?
	It's a very, very big race for the court.
	Yeah, so it's the Wisconsin Supreme Court, election on the ballot.
	They hold these elections at kind of odd times.
	I think they originally designed these elections to be at odd times because they thought it would favor Republicans.
	Instead, it now favors Democrats.
	Because your highest propensity voter trends Democrat because they tend to be a more professional, managerial class, upper middle class voter.
	That's who always turns out.
	Your working class voter doesn't always turn out.
	And so now that the working class has shifted towards Trump and Republicans and populists more broadly, that creates a situation where in low turnout elections, Republicans are losing.
	So they're in trouble in Florida and a couple of congressional seats that shouldn't be close at all.
	They lost a state house and state senate seat in Pennsylvania that they shouldn't have lost at all.
	I mean, they lost a seat that I think voted for Trump by like 30 points.
	So, because of turnout.
	And so the, now Musk has put in a lot of money into the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
	So the background also, further, is the Wisconsin Supreme Court has seven members.
	Right now it's got three ideological liberals.
	Two, I'm sorry, yeah, two ideological conservatives.
	A third ideological, there's a fourth liberal that's retiring that they're going to replace the seat.
	And then one moderate.
	Frankly, he's a switch batter.
	He's kind of like Barack Obama.
	He's a switch hitter.
	And so I think that that's how that sort of, and so if Republicans lose this, there's going to be four liberals plus an institutionalist that likes to go with them.
	And basically the concern is all the election law rulings, redistricting rulings, other rulings, Wisconsin, the court could help fix We're good to
	go. That could be the decisive majority in 2026.
	So actually the future of Congress and the second half of President's second term is coming down to who votes on Tuesday or not.
	I'm looking for a market.
	Is there a market for this?
	Yeah, there is.
	There's markets on Cauchy.
	There's markets on Polly Market.
	There's markets elsewhere.
	The Democrats are heavy favorites because in these low turnout elections, Republicans have only won twice narrowly.
	Whereas Democrats have won by 10 points several times.
	So the thought process is you're seeing all these special election results tilt towards Democrats.
	That's why he's up.
	Yeah, as you see predicted.
	So Susan Crawford is the Democratic nominee.
	Nothing worse than liberal Democratic women on the bench.
	They've been the worst judges I've ever dealt with.
	How dare you, Robert!
	That's sexist!
	Is it worth putting money in on Schmidt?
	On Schimmel?
	Schimmel, sorry.
	I think at those odds there is, yes.
	So the other component of this, so that's what's politically behind the scenes.
	What they've actually campaigned on in the state of Wisconsin is Crawford has decided to campaign against Elon Musk.
	That Elon Musk has been spending money to support voter turnout and to support the Republican candidate in Wisconsin.
	So they've decided to portray Elon Musk Uh, as if he's George Soros or Bill Gates.
	Uh, that, you know, we don't get by.
	Here's the irony, like Susan Crawford, Democrats, we don't, we don't want outsiders buying a race.
	85% of Susan Crawford's donors come from outside the state of Wisconsin.
	That tells you how much it's, it's a national election.
	In the, because it's going to impact the U.S. House of Representatives, which in turn is going to impact the president's ability to have an effective second half of the second term.
	The, but within Wisconsin, if you're a Wisconsin voter, What you've seen is Crawford campaign on and then lie a lot about Schimmel.
	But other than that, she has basically promoted that she's running against Elon Musk.
	I think that's a sketchy idea to run on.
	For his side, he's highlighted that Judge Crawford released pedophiles early from prison and child sex abusers, gave them light sentences, and she still defended that.
	And she's a liberal Madison judge.
	He's a conservative Wisconsin suburban judge and the former Attorney General of the state.
	I think he has run a much better campaign than past Republican candidates for the Supreme Court of Wisconsin when they lost.
	I think she's run a much worse campaign.
	The question is, will the turnout again be so low that Democrats can steal another Supreme Court seat so that they can steal future congressional elections?
	That's unknown.
	I'd say the odds favor the Democrats, but not at the scale to which The odds claim in the markets.
	Sorry, the results are going to be known the night of.
	This is not something that's going to last for Tuesday.
	Hopefully. Remember last time Wisconsin had to take a little extra time in 2020 to get those ballots over from Milwaukee County.
	All right, well, I'll think about this.
	But I encourage everybody to be active, proactive.
	This race matters far more than you could possibly...
	credit to Scott Pressler, credit to the quartering, credit to the people out there organizing on the ground.
	They're doing mass texting campaigns.
	And there's already signs that Republican turnout is much better in the early voting numbers than they have been in any past recent judicial election.
	But this is where...
	AOC, Bernie Sanders are holding massive rallies that tens of thousands of people are attending.
	Yes, and the issue there is, in Wisconsin you have liberal Madison, old school Democratic machine Milwaukee, you've got the wow counties that have been trending Democratic because of the younger professional managerial class in general, and then you've got the whole rest of the state trending Republican.
	But the key is, does the whole rest of the state turn out or not?
	Does blue-collar Racine, blue-collar Kenosha, blue-collar Norwegian, western Wisconsin, the northern woods of lumberjack country, the parts of Fox River Valley, do they get out and vote or not?
	And it will be an early test to whether they can successfully, that Musk and Pressler and others can successfully organize, get out the vote efforts.
	Because I think the RNC and the National Party has done a subpar job.
	But at least in the past elections, Democrats were outspending them 3-1, 4-1, 10-1.
	Here, there's even amount of spending on both sides.
	In fact, Schimel's donors come from Wisconsin, Crawford's donors don't.
	That's the main difference.
	Now, I think in running these judicial elections, Republicans still do a poor job.
	It's good to highlight the soft on crime approach and Madison liberal approach, but they should have doubled down on that.
	I would have made sure the whole state knew she was a Madison liberal, Madison liberal, Madison liberal, Madison liberal.
	Because everybody in Wisconsin knows exactly what that means, and most people in Wisconsin don't want Madison liberals running their state.
	So the campaigning is still subpar.
	Better than the past, not as good as it needs to be, and the National Republican Party is still very weak at defending itself.
	It should have expended substantial effort on this seat, because this race is going to determine the future of the Congress, and they're up against it.
	I think the odds still overstate the Democrat, but The odds justifiably favor them because of what we've been seeing in these special election results.
	You said there is mail-in voting for this?
	There's early voting.
	Early voting, sorry, not mail-in.
	Oh, they may have some kind of mail-in voting, too.
	Alright, well...
	They haven't liberalized that standard.
	But at least in terms of who's turning out so far, it's not as imbalanced in favor of Democrats as the past elections have been.
	But it's a sign that the National Party is still not engaged enough.
	The key issue they're gonna have is without Trump on the ballot in a working-class party, they got turnout problems.
	They need to focus all of their effort and energy on it.
	This was a great opportunity for them to do so, and they only did so in a half-assed manner.
	That, you know, they still haven't been as consistently effective as they can be at the national level, the Republican brand.
	The big corporations are interested in this case, and that's been a weakness of Republican judicial nominees in these Midwestern states.
	Being associated with the anti-labor, pro-corporate side doesn't earn any support from the working class, independent voters who decide these elections.
	So that's another problem.
	It's been a problem, like in Pennsylvania, where Amos Miller is still being harassed by the Republican attorney general.
	When I saw RFK Jr., his handler was very, very Uncompromising that he had no time to answer even one question, but I got a selfie.
	I got a picture.
	I was going to ask him the question while we were taking the picture, but his handler looked like she might have gotten very mad at that.
	So I wanted to ask that question.
	I wanted to bring it to his attention.
	The Brooke Jackson, if he didn't already know about it, I'm sure he does.
	Instead, I was able to bring it to Harrison Field's attention and Caitlin Dorr.
	So hopefully they bring that up to Trump.
	And I got to send them...
	Yeah, and that's a good...
	You know, I got taken in.
	Uh, by the, uh, incorrect, uh, the tweets that I thought were the new CDC director.
	It's a freaking brain fart, Robert.
	You don't have to apologize any more than that.
	It's like, cause I say I'm sitting there.
	First of all, I thought your account might've gotten hacked.
	Cause I've never seen you put out like 12 tweets or 10 tweets, you know, back to back to back to back to back.
	I think like I'm looking, I was like, no, dude, it's the CDC account, but I don't know when the picture, when the avatar changed, but the bottom line, that was the other thing.
	The, the one that said at CDC director should have flagged that second.
	Second, I should have flagged that the photos didn't match.
	And then third, I should have had more trust in Trump and Kennedy that it was highly unlikely that they were pointing something at me.
	It was a brain fart.
	It happens to the best of us.
	It's embarrassing when it happens and then you wake up the next morning.
	It's a useful lesson to always double check sources, triple check sources, try to get accuracy and intel and information.
	But you know, Bobby Kennedy is doing a great job.
	The CDC person that had, you know, whined and complained out the door, after saying, you know, Bobby Kennedy wants, he doesn't want misinformation, he wants accurate information.
	One of the people who lied the most at the CDC is now sacked, thank God.
	And he's taking over similar actions in Hawaii, I mean, he got West Virginia to change the way SNAP does food, like some people are like, a bunch of conservatives got taken in by some influencer group that was offering him like a thousand dollars a tweet.
	And they started putting out...
	The thing is, these are poor influencer campaigns, because you can always tell because they use literally identical language.
	It's like, don't use...
	I mean, it's just like, see, I know it's a fraud, a fake.
	There's nothing wrong with getting paid to post so long as you disclose it.
	Yeah, if you want to promote stuff, no problem.
	No, but disclose it!
	Well, the other thing is, at least come up with your own verbiage?
	I mean, can't you come up with your own verbiage?
	People are very lazy.
	They get it, like, tweak one word here and there.
	I just brought up something I want to bring up a little more here.
	Get out and vote in Wisconsin.
	Everybody install the Early Vote Action App to text Republicans to vote in Wisconsin.
	Yeah, you can download that.
	The Early Vote Action App allows you to text Wisconsin voters.
	It's something that Pressler, Cortering, and others have worked on, so credit to them.
	Cortering used to be very politically inactive.
	He's entered political beast mode.
	It was amazing.
	It's great to see.
	He was getting some crap because he has to redo his whole coffee brand, coffee company because of the some nonsense that he was getting from suppliers and vendors.
	And so he went in the hole on that and, you know, building himself out of it by just starting a whole business from scratch.
	So credit to him.
	He's got those great gaming computers.
	I mean, that's what he started off as.
	So that he markets available part of the daily lineup on Rumble.
	But I think it's good that people are politically engaged on constitutionally consequential elections from a constituency in the cultural context.
	Commentary community that previously was politically agnostic.
	I think they're recognizing the same thing Rogan recognized.
	You can't be agnostic in today's day and age.
	If you don't take an interest in politics, politics will still take an interest in you.
	Brian Bayesian says, everybody install the...
	Sorry, I just got that one.
	Viva! You need a gym.
	AG main 5082.
	Don't worry, I'll get one after the show.
	Steve's Pax says, why not have Glenn on your show to discuss it?
	I'll text Glenn.
	Glenn and I, we all get along.
	I'm a great admirer and big fan of Glenn Greenwald, just disagree with him on this topic.
	Truly curious, are all Jews Semitic and of Hebraic genetics?
	What are the origins of the Hasids, Ashkenazis, etc.?
	Oh, if you want to, you can look up.
	They've done big, detailed genetic studies.
	Are there a genetic correlation?
	The Palestinians and Jews are very closely connected.
	Yeah, among the European Jews, there's been, you know, 5,000 years of relatively close At least within the genetic pool.
	You dig the genetic history and what you'll find is that there have been many holocausts for the last 2,000 years.
	That there's whole groups that just genetically vanish.
	And that was likely due to a mini holocaust that was done by corrupt European leaders going back centuries.
	So that's the reality of it.
	Let me bring this up.
	I'm going to give everybody the link for Locals.
	I'll just read a few more while we wind down.
	Before you go, everybody!
	Get a book, Louis the Lobster.
	If you want to get some merch...
	Did I not bring this up yet?
	Hold on a second.
	The merch is not...
	Look, we're gonna fix the merch game, but in the meantime, if you want to get some, the merch store, Viva Frye, that's my wife.
	That's me when I had shorter hair.
	You can get all the merch on earth.
	It's goodmerchvivafrye.com.
	We'll put some new stuff up there because it's been a little inactive for a little while.
	But someone asked over in locals, is there any update on the ostriches in Alberta?
	And I've messaged Let me see if I can read the update.
	the Canadian food inspection agency still denying the ability to test their own birds or to do any third party testing.
	Um, we have, um, They're in court tomorrow.
	So I'll do an update.
	I want to read through this and not say anything that's not allowed to be disclosed publicly yet.
	I'll do an update on my show tomorrow at 4 o'clock.
	Well, all number one seeds advanced to the final four for only like the second or third time.
	But I had a bet on Auburn, so that's good.
	Auburn won and covered the spread even.
	Political investment is investing.
	Game... No, I'm joking.
	I was gonna say that.
	SportsPicks.Locals.com.
	SportsPicks.Locals.
	It's where you put up all the political bets, cultural bets, sporting event bets, all that.
	I've had a very profitable March Madness.
	Some ups and downs along the way, but still in the black.
	Once again for another March Madness, which is great.
	And we'll have some picks up for the final four in the national title game this week.
	Considering the march towards fascism in Europe is going down from jailing their own citizens for memes to jailing their political opponents, why not also walk away from Ukraine deal censoring the obstinance that smurf dictator dressed like sprockets extra is putting out there?
	They clearly do not share our values anymore, so why ally with them at all and solve the problems?
	I'm hoping President Trump is just Bargaining in the court of public opinion to make it look like the deal he gets was because he was tough on Putin and not because he really wants to get further ensnared in the swamp that is Ukraine.
	We need to get out of there quicker rather than later.
	I would get out of Europe and stay uninvolved and solidify your North American...
	Let Europe defend Europe.
	No more American defending a corrupt oligarchic regime that hates free speech and American values.
	Bobby, this is for you Slim.
	This is from Slim Shagan.
	A bourbon from this week you gave your top three members of Congress who should be primaried.
	I agree with all three.
	One of them, Lindsey, blow me a war.
	Graham, the very next day President Trump went out and endorsed that war whore.
	Please help this make sense.
	It's likely in exchange for Graham being a yes vote on key nominees.
	Go, Houston's Cougars!
	Sorry about that, Mr. Barnes.
	There wouldn't have to be, there wouldn't have a Texas if not for Tennessee's San Antonio Bounds.
	That's exactly right!
	Yeah, unfortunately, Houston whooped up on Tennessee.
	The only game I got wrong this weekend was my Vols.
	I thought my Vols would be able to, well, actually, the only game I got wrong in the Elite Eight.
	I thought they would hang in there with Houston, and unfortunately, Houston smacked them around.
	We're gonna save the rest of, well, actually, I'll read one from Encryptus, just because, sidebar with Candace Owens.
	I think I probably have a chance of having Candace Owens on or being on with her, but I want everyone to know, I'm not defending Candace just because I wouldn't mind an interview with her.
	I know Robert has much more passionate feelings about Candace's motivations.
	I'm much more sympathetic to people who are irritated or View the disproportionate representation of Israel in American politics.
	I sort of more inclined to think she's more along the lines of the Massey level of objection, but that's just a difference of interpretation, not a difference of facts.
	You should just quit libeling people.
	You can just do Bobby Kennedy and Israel all you want.
	You don't get to libel them.
	You don't get to grift.
	And she's discrediting the populist cause, in my opinion.
	When you keep spreading conspiratorial nonsense that everybody knows is gibberish, then you're You're not helping the cause.
	If Candace Owens is attached to your cause, it's going to suffer, not benefit, in the court of public opinion, because of her rogue behavior.
	But particularly, libeling Robert Kennedy is inexcusable.
	It's lousy, lazy work by someone who's been corrupted by the clickbait.
	Well, especially where, like, even in her own presentation, we're gonna end on this, but even in her own presentation, like, I like what he's doing, he's doing good work, but, but it's, it's an, it's an, until there's definitive proof of some sort of very sinister blackmail.
	Well, it's things like, there's a Jewish person praying at Trump's inauguration and you get so mad you turn it off.
	I'm sorry, this is becoming inexcusable.
	This is becoming bigotry.
	It's not only liable, it's becoming bigotry.
	That's what I'm seeing.
	And when you think Stalin is a Jew, you're batshit insane and you should hang out with your pal Kanye some more.
	Now, everyone on Locals.
	Rumble, rumble, rumble.
	Make sure you're subscribed and you have notifications turned on.
	Go and do it.
	Someone says, why do you defend Jew haters, Viva Frye?
	Well, you see, first of all...
	That's because you're a self-hating Jew.
	Even if they were bona fide Jew haters, You don't make Jew lovers out of being, I don't know what, not listening to what people who hate you have to say.
	You don't get to not listen to the words of someone who hates you just because they hate you.
	I do believe in defending freedom of speech because I don't think by shutting down the Jew haters, I'll put it in quote, you'd do anything to deter or quell Jew hatred.
	That being said, I'm not convinced that she is a Jew hater.
	I think she is definitely obsessed with Israel and this compromises the conclusions to which she comes.
	First of all, I'll defend anybody who's not breaking the law and being treated unfairly.
	You want me to be harder on Jew haters because I'm Jewish?
	That's called bigotry.
	Okay, I'm joking.
	We're going to end this now.
	Before you leave on Rumble, make sure you subscribe.
	YouTube, CommyTube, do it as well.
	We are going over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com exclusively now.
	Robert, what's your schedule for the week for everybody before we leave?
	I should have Bourbons up throughout the week.
	There's a trial scheduled for me next week, but that might get continued.
	And then at the end of next week is my birthday.
	Oh, shit.
	I'm supposed to go to Vegas.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Eric Conley and Mark Grobaer, America's Untold Stories, are doing a get-together in Las Vegas, in which I will be in attendance.
	You can get that at America's Untold Stories.
	It's unstructured.locals.com.
	I think is where there's links to various tickets and what have you.
	Grobert does excellent work on the Kennedy assassination.
	He's really been an inside source.
	He is, for example, there was a story that circulated that Oswald was photographed outside near the limousine.
	Grobert is the person I go to on anything Kennedy assassination related because of how much work and research he's done for decades.
	He's amazing.
	Oh yeah, and he said that that story is unlikely to be true.
	So if you want updated information on the Kennedy assassination, what the Kennedy documents mean, there's no better source than America's Untold Stories of Mark Robert and Eric Conley.
	And then they're going to be forming the, but earlier in the day, I think they're getting together on Saturday the 12th if I recall right, On the 11th, I have to be in that wonderful Seattle courthouse that told me I couldn't talk about the Constitution, where they're going to try to lock up, as long as possible, a man for objecting to his son being subject to vaccine experimentation.
	And you'll see the same people insisting that terrorists, that people who support terrorist organizations on visas, have wonderful constitutional protection, have been completely silent on the Benshue case out of Seattle.
	If you want me to accept that you're sincere in your commitment to free speech, then you have to be sincere in your commitment to free speech.
	You can't be selectively partisan about whose speech you want to protect.
	They don't want to protect conservative speech.
	They want to protect commie speech.
	And it's either everything or nothing.
	And so we'll see how that, but yeah, I've got to deal with that.
	But that's not till the end of next week.
	So we'll see some legal work, but probably should have live bourbons with Barnes each night.
	at 9-ish eastern time at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where I answer as many questions as I possibly can.
	And it's a part of the benefit of being a member and subscriber at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And if you want updates on the various cases, whether it's the Amos Miller case, whether it's the vaccine cases, the Brooke Jackson case, you can go to 1776lawcenter.com.
	1776lawcenter.com.
	That's what we're doing.
	We're going to be doing a CLE training people on how to do FOIA and other things and a dinner party and a private personal bourbon with Barnes set up sometime this summer in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
	A date to be determined.
	But you can find out about all that as well at 1776lawcenter.com.
	And I'll be live.
	Four o'clock is my time.
	All week, every day, in the Rumble lineup.
	Go check it out.
	Now we are going to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the after party.
	If you're not coming, thank you for being here.
	If you are coming, see you there.
	And otherwise, see you tomorrow, people.

▲