Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 6, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

02:28:45

Ep. 258: Taibbi Sues for Defamation! Trump Tariff Madness! Russell Brand, Greenpeace Verdict & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Do you support it?
	Do you support it?
	I think it is sensible.
	I wasn't involved in the decision, but I think it was the right decision.
	And yet your company has invested billions of dollars in oil companies in both Brazil and the UAE to buy pipelines.
	You've bought billions of dollars of pipelines as a company in the last five years.
	Do you support those investments?
	Mr. Polyev, there is a global energy system and one of the issues, I'm trying to explain a bit of how the economy works.
	Thank you so much.
	Well, it may help.
	One of the issues for this committee in thinking about a sustainable transition.
	Do you support it?
	Where is Canada's role in those as energy transitions from fossil fuels to renewables?
	And in different jurisdictions, into different geography, it matters.
	It matters.
	And this is a fundamental point.
	I'm sorry, this is a fundamental point.
	You're finally getting to a point that is relevant to this committee's inquiry.
	What you're saying is you oppose pipelines in Canada, but you support them in the UAE and in Brazil.
	That's what you've actually said.
	That's your double standard.
	It is not a double standard.
	It is a double standard.
	No, it's not.
	You make billions of dollars off foreign pipelines and you shut them down here at home, putting our people out of work.
	I know that I've played this clip before, and I know that I've tweeted it out, and I know that I have raged against the dying of the night, or the dying of the light, whatever the hell it is, on Twitter about this.
	We're witnessing what we call the celebration parallax in real time.
	It's not happening, but it's a good thing that it is.
	You need to understand, and I think that you do, but I need to hammer this home and I need to highlight this because we are now 22 days away from what I think is the most consequential election in Canadian history.
	And I cannot understand, cannot fathom How the markets have it where they have it.
	Pierre Poilievre went into this because of performances like this.
	The hands-down favorite to win the next national election in Canada.
	Hands down.
	Because for all my criticism against Pierre Poilievre, he is smart.
	He is charismatic.
	And he is, I will say this because I'll bet on it any day of the week.
	Better in debate, and he will crush Mark Carney in a debate.
	That's not to say that he should underestimate Mark Carney in all of his globalist wisdom.
	When Pierre performs, he's amazing.
	This goes back to that other amazing cross-examination he had with Justin Trudeau in the We Charity scandal.
	And he had that same, this is not a criticism, this is actually the compliment, that same unassuming, nerdy Way of phrasing things.
	Just very, very quiet.
	Mr. Trudeau, how much did your family get paid from the Wii charity?
	How much?
	Mr. Poliev, it will be my pleasure to give you all of the financial...
	How much?
	Mr. Carney, do you not think it's a double standard that you invest in Brazil and UAE dirty energy pipelines?
	Because... You advise Canada to cripple its resource industry to be clean despite the fact that it emits 1.25% of global emissions, even if you think that's the problem.
	You then simultaneously Invest in dirty countries for dirty energy because they don't abide by the same crippling policy you advise on to achieve net zero by 2030 or 2050 or whatever in Canada.
	Do you not think that's a bit hypocritical?
	Well, you see, there's jurisdictions in all of this.
	Some countries don't have the infrastructure to cripple themselves to provide clean energy.
	And so it would be unfair to expect Brazil to operate like Canada.
	So we'll cripple Canada because of my policy while I then, through Brooke, That's not good business.
	That's not everybody trying to make a buck.
	That is the filthiest level of corruption imaginable.
	You have a man advising Justin Trudeau and then investing on the other hand as a result of the advice he gives to Justin Trudeau to achieve a meaningless, impossible net zero by 2050.
	He's a globalist of the highest order, a corrupt SOB of the highest order, and I don't understand how it's even close.
	And this is not like a Hillary Clinton.
	You might be asking yourself, why is Pierre Paulien not up by 50 points?
	He's made some mistakes.
	But I will be forever dismayed if Canadians, as a nation, are sufficiently stupid to actually give a fourth...
	Election. A fourth mandate, albeit the last one or the last two were minority, to a liberal government.
	Carney, and this will come out during the debate because I have no doubt that Pierre Poilievre is going to smash that globalist SOB in the debate, especially in the French one, because above and beyond having some fine-crafted speaking points when he goes on a French media that's like, oh, fawning over Carney like he's some sort of Beatles lead singer.
	Can't remember his name now.
	What's his name?
	Ringo Starr.
	It's not Ringo Starr.
	Come on, who is it?
	John Lennon.
	Other than having some very pre-scripted, pre-rehearsed French statements to read, he's going to get his butt handed to him, I think, just as a result of what I think is his terrible quality French.
	But he's going to get smashed in the debate.
	And if he doesn't, okay.
	If Canada actually elects for a fourth time a Liberal government, I will have lost faith in...
	Not all of Canada and not all of Canadians.
	Just those that vote Liberal.
	Over and over and over and over again.
	Carney, I said the celebration parallax is an amazing thing.
	Oh, let me see here.
	Do you know the celebration parallax is, it's not happening, but it's a good thing that it is.
	So, somebody puts out a tweet.
	Who cares what these tweets are anymore?
	I'm sitting there fighting with...
	Fighting windmills.
	Here's the Canadians for the Liberal Party of Canada.
	Mark Carney has global connections.
	Pierre Poilievre has convoy clowns.
	The choice is easy.
	And we'll help you get started.
	We're going to build big things in this country.
	Naval ships to neighborhoods.
	To the new grids that power them.
	It'll be a great time for a career in the trades.
	And we'll help you get started.
	We'll cover the cost of your training.
	With your money.
	And make it easier to work wherever you want in Canada.
	You're going to be busy building this country.
	We're gonna, we're gonna, we're gonna.
	We've been in power since 2015.
	We're gonna, we're gonna.
	Give us a fourth term, you idiots.
	If you vote for them, you're an idiot.
	So this guy, the guy comes out and says, Mark Carney has global connections.
	Remember, everybody, it's the celebration parallax.
	Mark Carney is not a globalist, but it's a good thing that he is.
	You know, he doesn't go to Davos, but it's a good thing that he does.
	He doesn't go to Bilderberg meetings every year and meet with Burla, but it's great that he does because he'll bring vaccines into Canada at great rates.
	He's a banker.
	He knows how to negotiate.
	Oh, oh, oh.
	But Mark J. Carney has entered the election cycle.
	And they've entered what I'm going to call now, it's called tragedy pandering.
	You think it was an accident that Justin Trudeau...
	I think Justin Trudeau had a Rolodex of tragedies.
	What tragedy can I exploit today for political profit?
	Oh, the Humboldt bus crash that happened seven years ago.
	Arguably as a result of more failed liberal policy, but we don't need to get into that because I'm not sufficiently confident in my position on that.
	But I do know that many people raise that argument.
	Mark Carney comes out today.
	Seven years ago, the Humboldt Broncos bus crash cut 16 lives short, a tragedy that rocked our country.
	It did, by the way.
	Ask how it happened and why it happened and what they've done to make sure that it doesn't happen since.
	Don't ask.
	Give them a fourth term.
	Hockey has always brought Canadians together, but it's how we show up for one another in grief and in strength that defines who we are.
	Today, we remember the victims and pray for the families, teammates, and communities who've shown immense strength through their grief and recovery every day since.
	Forever. Hashtag humbled strong.
	This pisses me off more than...
	Oh, Viva, what's wrong with you?
	You get angry and frustrated at a heartfelt sympathy tribute.
	This is tragedy pandering.
	Mark J. Carney has had his account since 2010.
	15 years.
	This is the first time ever that he's tweeted about this.
	Someone actually, who seemingly has half a brain and would probably vote liberal, said, well, Viva.
	He hasn't always been a politician.
	Well, congratulations for proving the exact point.
	You get into politician mode, you get into pander to a stupid base mode, and then you've got to go take out your Rolodex.
	Look, Mark Carney's a real understanding human being.
	He cares when he's a politician.
	He doesn't when he's a globalist banker.
	I'm going to have to do a deep dive on that because from what I understand, there's a lot more to that bus crash than meets the eye that has not been remedied despite.
	But one thing that you can count on for sure, because there was another tragedy of the day.
	Tragedie du jour, as we say.
	And Mark Carney, he got a two-for-one today.
	My thoughts are with all those affected by this morning's shooting in Nepean that tragically took the life of one resident.
	As we wait for more details from the Ottawa police, I'd like to see those details.
	I offer my thanks to all the first responders for their quick action to protect the community.
	He's responding responsibly to yet another shooting.
	Nepean, by the way, is where he's running for re-election.
	In Ottawa.
	Nepean is like, it's a town in Ottawa.
	I know Nepean very well.
	Tragedy pandering.
	I won't even say, I won't even make the cynical remark that like, he must sit there and say, well, you know, this is like throw a brick through your window and it'll help with fundraising.
	He has a fatal shooting in his writing and he takes to Twitter to pander about it.
	Oh, by the way, just, you know, not for nothing.
	Look at this chart.
	This chart is absolutely shocking.
	This is number of homicides by shooting in Canada from 2005 to 2022.
	Do you know when the Liberals took office?
	No, not quite at the bottom.
	Not quite at the second to bottom.
	2015. Justin Trudeau took office.
	2016, it's up.
	2017, it's up.
	2018, it's down.
	2019, up.
	2020, up.
	2021, up.
	2022, up.
	It's an amazing thing.
	The tougher the gun laws get in Canada because of liberal policy, the worse gun crime gets.
	It's an amazing thing.
	It's almost like the criminals don't give a sweet bugger all.
	You have open borders and zero vetting for who you're letting into the country.
	But you get a shooting now that you get to pander.
	To your base to show what a nice liberal politician you are.
	It's going to be a theme.
	If you vote for the liberals, you are an idiot.
	Hands down, no brain, or you're just corrupt and in on it and you're afraid that you'll lose your job if you don't vote for the liberals.
	The media is going to vote for the liberals.
	Why? Because they promised to double their budget.
	Nearly double their budget.
	In an election.
	To the media that's reporting on the election, you promised to nearly double their budget while your adversary, the conservatives, had discussed.
	Cutting the funding to the CBC.
	And yet, somehow, not only is it not a 50-50 coin toss, according to the markets, which I do put more stock in than polls, I put zero stock in polls, Pierre has lost the betting lead, he's lost, I would say, some of the momentum, and as far as I'm concerned, He's lost some of my optimism that he was going to come in and do what he did that made him the household name that I said he was going to be back in 2020.
	I put out a video yesterday for my car.
	Go share it.
	Encrypt it or NeuroDivergent if you can put it in the chat.
	Go watch my video summarizing the election.
	The liberals have had three governments.
	Albeit minority, but it was a coalition, effectively.
	Not technically a coalition, so don't fact check me.
	It was a supply and confidence agreement with the NDP.
	They've been in power since 2015.
	Nothing's gotten better.
	Everything's gotten worse.
	And any idiot out there who's saying, well, we've got a new face.
	He's like a nice old man.
	He looks like my uncle.
	Mark Carney.
	Oh, I've never heard of him before.
	Oh no, he's just been advising Justin Trudeau since 2020.
	Taking Brookfield Assets Management, moving it to the States, because it's better for taxes.
	Investing in offshore accounts because it's better for taxes.
	Investing in dirty energy while crippling the Canadian natural resource industry because he makes money off of his own bloody advice to Justin Trudeau.
	If you vote for them, you are an idiot there.
	Serenity now.
	Good evening, everybody.
	How goes the battle?
	This is the Sunday night show, Viva and Barnes, Law for the People.
	I am Viva Frye, David Frye, former Montreal litigator turned current Florida rumbler, and we're going to have one hell of a show tonight because the deep state is in full force with a number of the people that they're going after, all for the same crap over and over again.
	We'll get to it.
	V6 Neon says, after having Carney wrecking the Bank of England and helping destroy the UK, I feel sorry for Canada.
	Short rope, long drop.
	What? Sorry, I did not mean to say that part of it.
	It's a metaphor and that's not funny.
	There's no violence because that's exactly what they want.
	The violence allows them to be the tyrants that they aspire to be.
	In the heart of every liberal is an aspiring tyrant.
	Bill Brown in our local community says, What's this?
	I hear Starmer is admitting globalism failed tomorrow at a press conference.
	Yeah, I heard the same thing.
	Oh, lordy.
	But, but, but.
	Hold on, actually.
	Let me make sure that I've done this because I don't want to get in trouble with Commitube.
	Did I put on this stream contains a paid promotion?
	I did!
	I did.
	I did.
	And it does, people.
	And we're going to thank the fine folks at The Wellness Company.
	I figured it's sort of a...
	Every time I play the video, there's no audio, so I'm just going to play it now and...
	There shall be audio?
	What are the main differences between ivermectin and fenbenzol?
	These are two anti-pathogens used to treat parasitic infections and other similar types of conditions.
	They are used quite often in the oncology world to treat cancer.
	They both have as anti-pathogenic abilities.
	People, the wellness company has a product that will address something you might not know exists.
	Could your health issues be caused by an invisible enemy fatigue, bloating, brain fog?
	What if parasites are the culprit?
	This is an interesting subject.
	Did you know that 60 million Americans Apparently have parasites.
	That is scary.
	They're everywhere in our food supply, water, and pets.
	Toxoplasmosis people.
	They call them crazy cat ladies for a reason.
	They secretly invade your body, wreaking havoc on your gut, energy levels, and even your brain.
	And the mainstream medical system doesn't want you to think about it because one product.
	Can change your life for the better.
	The Wellness Company has a solution for you.
	Ivermectin. Mabendazole.
	FDA approved parasite solutions now combined in one cleanse combo.
	Fill out a brief medical intake form online and you get a three month supply shipped to your door.
	Lots of parasite cleanses are all over social media but they are not all up to the gold level standard of the Wellness Company.
	Maha is officially here and the Wellness Company is making these hard to get medications digitally accessible so that you can make the best of your life.
	Head over to TWC.health forward slash Viva.
	The promo code VIVA gets you $60 off plus free shipping.
	Don't wait.
	Cleanse your body today and take back control.
	Thank you, The Wellness Company.
	The link is in the description, and they are doing great work there.
	Barnes, how serious do you consider Patrick Byrne to be?
	We're going to get to that one in a second.
	I'll save that for Barnes.
	VIVA, if Canada is anything like Seattle, they will keep voting liberal despite it only hurting themselves.
	They are NPCs, which means non-programmable characters.
	It is wild.
	And you understand the dynamic and why a lot of people in Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan are rightly pissed off.
	And I've only, say recently, I said like within the last four years, come to understand this.
	Ontario and Quebec dictate effectively the election outcomes for the rest of Canada.
	And so you have a liberal Quebec, a liberal Ontario, and then you have liberal Maritimes to the east dictating...
	You got your redistribution payments, equalization payments.
	You know, the resource-rich provinces, which are taxed up the wazoo, pay up to the feds.
	The feds, federal government, takes it and then divides that money among the resource-poor provinces.
	Quebec, Newfoundland, Maritimes.
	Even though they're not resource-poor, they just don't exploit their resources the way Alberta does.
	You cripple their economies, steal their money, redistribute it to these so-called poor provinces that are actually not poor, and then you wonder why the hell they want to get the hell out of the country.
	If the liberals win, and some of you might be thinking this was Trump's long play to endorse, put that in quotes because it wasn't an endorsement, Mark Carney, if the liberals get elected, you will see a push for Alberta to separate like you've never seen before, and you might actually see it succeed.
	But we're not yet done with that until Barnes gets here because I put some good stuff up on the back.
	What was this one?
	I just want to remind everybody about a boot.
	Mark Carney is a pure globalist.
	He was anti-Brexit.
	He's an anti-populist.
	He's... A UEF Davos frequent, Bilderberg frequenting member, whatever you want to call that, he's given speeches at Davos alongside Bill Gates, he's attended meetings at Bilderberg along Albert Bourla, and he has been hand-selected to be the next Prime Minister of Canada.
	You know, they say that the better the devil you know than the devil you don't, and in this case, this guy's worse than Justin Trudeau because he has been who has been guiding Justin Trudeau, and he might be a little bit more politically savvy not to do the stupid stuff that Justin Trudeau did.
	But it's an anointment, it's a political replacement, and it's quite close to the nail in the coffin of Canada.
	Because if this guy actually wins the next election, my goodness, I don't know, it's done.
	Mark Carney is...
	That is Peter McIlvana, Hearts of Oak.
	Go check it out.
	I just gave everybody the link in Rumble, and I'll give it in...
	I'll give it in Locals as well, if you haven't already seen it.
	Viva, can you and Barnes...
	Do a fact check on FASAB 56 like you did for the Smith Moon.
	Oh, jeez, I was supposed to put the Smith Moon highlight out.
	Oh, God, I need to remember someone to remind that for me.
	I just wanted to share that clip.
	And if you could show some love to Peter McIlvain, he does great work.
	But no, this is what I wanted to remind everybody of.
	This is what you're dealing with in Canada.
	Paul Champ, not to put him on blast, but we're going to.
	Paul Champ is the attorney representing Zexi Lee.
	Who was the lead plaintiff in the proposed class action to sue the Ottawa Trucker Convoy and the donors and the organizers for $300 million.
	This is what's going on in Canada.
	Because it was such a terrible, terrible source of distress.
	You're going to get a kick out of the punchline here.
	This is Paul Champ.
	This makes me so angry.
	Throughout the, quote, freedom, end quote, convoy, protesters deliberately caused distress to Ottawa residents as part of their strategy and laughed about it.
	And then their lawyers make sexist, racist jokes about our client.
	Disgusting. What were those sexist, racist jokes?
	I'm pretty sure Zexi Lee literally has a TikTok account.
	Encryptus! Can you check that in real time?
	I remember at the time that Zexi Lee was either an aspiring or TikTok But I might be wrong, and if I'm wrong, I want to correct it right now.
	Press Progress, which is total, total Canadian propaganda, says, in the secret, secret group chat, secret, it's a group chat, Andrew Lawton and others repeatedly mocked Ottawa residents.
	A lawyer representing convoy organizers at the Emergencies Act inquiry shared a video calling a witness on, quote, alluring young, sexually viable TikTok hottie and claimed she was part of a PSYOP.
	Then this guy says this, and I, what does he say?
	Caused distress.
	Yeah, with hugs, smiles, and bouncy castles.
	Get bent, champ.
	I should have said get bent, not bet.
	Then, he writes back and says this.
	The public emergency The Order Emergency Commission, the federal court, and at least a dozen criminal trials have all concluded that the convoy obstructing the streets for three straight weeks caused significant disruption and distress to families, seniors, disabled, and workers.
	Get stuffed.
	And to which I said, are you sure that distress wasn't caused by your client and her gang throwing frozen eggs off of high-rise condos?
	As she testified to during the commission.
	That's her, by the way.
	That's Zexi Lee, the lead plaintiff.
	Can you describe what you mean by the egg-throwing?
	Well, you know, there were very large trucks parked everywhere.
	And in some of these instances, they were parked right next to some high-rise condo buildings.
	And as a result, some people may have gotten some cartons of eggs and had their little retaliation in frustration because really, what else could they do?
	Can you describe what you mean by the egg-throwing?
	Well, you know...
	There were very large trucks parked everywhere.
	We might have thrown frozen eggs off of high-rise apartments.
	You know, we had our little retaliation.
	I'm the little cutesy who's suing for $300 million after basically admitting to assault that can cause grievous bodily harm.
	But this is the Canada that you're living in, with the Paul Champs of the world in Ottawa.
	The Zexi Lees of the world, who I believe she works for the federal government, and Cryptus is telling me that he doesn't see a TikTok account of hers.
	I was fairly certain that I had that as a memory, but maybe it was either a false memory or a memory of what people were saying, but we're not substantiated.
	Let me see here.
	Snopes? No, we're not.
	I want to see if...
	You know Viva with the...
	Okay, come on.
	I want to see if anybody in the Rumble section remembers that.
	This is what we're up against in Canada.
	And every excuse in the world as to why Pierre Poilievre has not adopted a more of a, not even a Trumpian, but let's just say a more Georgescu, maybe a Maloney, maybe a...
	I'm a liberal.
	I'm just going to vote liberal for the fourth time.
	And I'm pissed off about it.
	Yes, I am.
	And thus ends the intro to today's show.
	Until Barnes gets here, let me just do one thing here.
	Bring up some of them chats.
	We've got...
	Rina for real has a beautiful picture of her dog, which you can't see, but it says, Viva, it's Louie's second birthday.
	Louie! Louie the Frenchie!
	We got PR Nerd donated.
	I think that means you might be part of the community now.
	Thank you very much, PR Nerd.
	We got Baldwin who says, please address with locals.
	Thank you.
	Please address with locals.
	What does that mean?
	Let me see what's going on here.
	A thousand people watching on Locus.
	This is amazing.
	I don't know what that means, but I'll see if Encryptus can't find out what that means as we do this.
	Viva? Oh, we got that.
	All right.
	Do we get started on some of the show?
	Where's Barnes?
	Does Barnes have the link?
	Let me make sure that Barnes has a link.
	You got the link?
	Question mark?
	Oh, we got what to talk about tonight.
	Oh, Commitube.
	Let me see if I missed any super chats over on Commitube, and I don't have it loaded, so I don't know if I'm going to be able to get to them.
	Okay, I can't find any.
	I can't find any super chats on Commitube.
	So until Barnes gets here, people...
	What do I want to bring up?
	Hold on one second.
	No, we've done it all.
	The tricks that they have through the books, by the way, if you've seen my vlog that I put out before today's show, Matt Taibbi is suing, what's her name?
	Her name is, it ends in Dove.
	Cam Lager Dove.
	He's suing a congresswoman from California for defamation because of the same old.
	Oh, I think I see what it is right now.
	Hold on one second.
	Let me bring this up here.
	Here we go.
	Viva and Barnes.
	This is from Mr. Mike, Mr. Mike.
	Was immigration judges reference to Guatemala the source of the error?
	Judge Andrew R. Arthur.
	I found an insider source that's not a media whore.
	Maybe we can figure out what the heck is the real deal with Abrego Garcia before David is deported.
	As an...
	As an aside, I would not have granted this protection application for various reasons.
	The first is credibility that showed that Abrego's father was a former police officer and yet despite the threats of extortion, forced recruitment...
	Force recruitment and rape they received from Barrio 18. The family never went to the authorities because the gang threatened to kill them all if they did.
	The family believed them because they were well aware of the rampant corruption of the police in El Salvador and they believed that if they reported it to the police, they would do nothing.
	The only way that statement is credible is if the father was himself corrupt when he was a cop, the father didn't respond to death threats from gang members when he was a cop, or three, he was the...
	Only clean and diligent cop in the whole country.
	Judge orders return of alien removed to El Salvador as administrative error.
	This is the Maryland father of three who the media was reporting was a father of three.
	The real media, alternative media, independent journalists were saying was actually an MS-13 gang member who also happened to have three kids.
	And a judge has ordered the...
	Reimportation of this guy back into Canada despite the fact that he's in El Salvador.
	On April 1, the New York Times reported a Maryland man who was in the United States legally was deported to El Salvador and imprisoned there because of an administrative error.
	The Maryland man in question is Kilmar Armand Abrego Garcia and those facts and that he is a native and
	El Salvador I'm certainly confused despite the fact that as a former immigration judge myself, I have a lot of experience in cases like this.
	More legal analysis.
	Yeah, we'll have to wait for Barnes on that one because I've been waiting to see how that pans out because on the one hand, you hear Father of Three.
	On the other hand, you hear MS-13.
	And then you hear that Pam Bondi dismissed an attorney for failing to do his or her job diligently.
	And then you hear that they somehow admitted it was an administrative mistake.
	Robert Barnes, sir, how goes the battle?
	How goes it?
	Very good, very good.
	Robert? Well, just before we even get into the menu of the night, are you familiar with the details of the Maryland father of three and or MS-13 gang member who was deported?
	A judge now ordered him to be brought back.
	And apparently there was some administrative error that was committed by the administration.
	Do you know what's going on?
	Yeah. So someone who's been ordered, who is illegally present in the country, who is plausibly alleged and found to be a member of MS-13, a threat.
	to the community and a threat to flee who had been ordered removed to the country at the last minute said that please don't remove me to my home country of El Salvador because other gangs will attack me there because of my perceived gang membership and because of some story about some little business his family owned that by the way they've produced no independent proof even existed And so they got a liberal judge,
	a liberal immigration official, to say he can be removed, but not to El Salvador.
	So the only issue is him being removed to El Salvador, not him being removed.
	He had no legal right to presence in the country.
	That is not in dispute.
	Now you have an insane federal judge who is ordering the United States government to invade El Salvador, kidnap an El Salvadoran citizen, and bring him back to the judge.
	That's how nuts this is.
	I mean, that's what it is.
	This individual is not in U.S. custody.
	He is not within the U.S. borders.
	He is in the custody of El Salvador.
	And yet a judge, and he's not a U.S. citizen, he's never had any legal right to be here, ever, and the judge is ordering the President of the United States to assure an illegal immigrant gang member is brought back to the United States even if it means invading a foreign country and kidnapping their citizens.
	That is how batshit insane our federal judicial branch has become.
	That's precisely what that lunatic judge ordered.
	It's an impeachable act, and an honest and honorable Congress, of which we are serious doubt whether we have one, would already be commencing impeachment proceedings against this rogue judge trying to overthrow an election, usurp presidential power, and do so on behalf in a way that would endanger the security of the country.
	I'm just, I mean, I'm double-checking things as you say them because you're correct.
	It's not in dispute that he was here illegally.
	He crossed, it says, seemingly sometime around...
	He'd been here for more than a decade.
	Yeah, 2011 when he was 60. He knocked out some U.S. citizen, has kids here, and that's supposed to somehow grant him permission?
	So you compound your criminal behavior with other problematic social behavior?
	I mean, come on.
	The only reason why he stayed off the radar screen, he came in under Obama.
	He popped up on the radar screen when he kept not showing up for court when he would be ticketed for various items.
	And so probably not showing up in court because he knows he's not legally here in the first place.
	So it's amazing because some of the arguments online are that when the judge did not grant, the judge denied his asylum claim, this was something back in 2019, granted him withholding of removal.
	But only to El Salvador.
	And yet somehow then people take that to mean that he was therefore here legally as of the time the judge said, I deny asylum.
	You can't be brought to El Salvador in particular.
	So he was objectively here illegally.
	The disputed element is whether or not he was an MS-13 gang member?
	No, no.
	The disputed element is only...
	Because that's never been reversed.
	His lawyers claim otherwise, but again, it's never been reversed and the only finding of fact ever made concerning it.
	The only dispute is whether he could be deported to El Salvador or a different country.
	And by the way, the basis by which he said he couldn't be deported to El Salvador no longer exists in El Salvador.
	That particular gang no longer is dominant in El Salvador, thanks to the El Salvadoran president locking them up.
	So he has no credible claim at all.
	And not only that...
	The President of the United States can reverse an immigration official anytime he wants.
	He's given constitutional authority to do so, to protect the security of the country, and he's given, Congress gave him authority to do so under a bunch of different laws.
	So this is utter, and by the way, the court has no jurisdiction in these cases.
	We'll get to it with a later case, but in these immigration cases where a removal order has been issued, they have no jurisdiction to be issuing habeas petitions in the way that they're doing.
	And the Congress specifically stripped them of it in this precise context.
	And they're just ignoring it.
	They're saying, well, I'm going to assume I have jurisdiction, order the president around, while I evaluate whether I have jurisdiction.
	This is a coup by the managerial professional class against the American people.
	Not just the elected president of the United States.
	Not just against the Constitution of our country.
	But against the American people.
	This is the judge.
	I mean, she kind of looks like Anne Hathaway-esque in a way, but appointed by Barack Obama.
	Totally shocked.
	Totally shocked that it's a lesbo-looking judge that's an Obama appointee.
	You know, Obama loved a bat both ways, too, so no surprise there.
	Okay, that's good.
	I mean, that's interesting.
	I had a few questions about that case.
	Robert! What do we have on the menu above and beyond that, which I'm not even sure was on the menu?
	What do we have on the menu for tonight?
	I know there's a couple of good ones where they go after the same effing playbook every single time with people that they don't like so that they can then two-step to companies that they don't like, but let's get to this.
	No doubt.
	The big news of the week were Trump tariffs, where I discovered the degree of economic illiteracy amongst the Twitterati of the left is beyond even my expectations.
	These are some of the dumbest...
	If you want to read some of the dumbest human beings on the planet, Read the various responses I got to a simple point that the reason why tariffs are preferable to taxes is that tariffs are avoidable and avoidable by buying American in the way President Trump is doing it.
	And thus, they are preferable for most people to an income tax that's much harder to avoid if you simply make money.
	And I got responses, well, where am I going to get my bananas, Barnes?
	Where am I going to get my bananas?
	I mean, these people are as dumb as bananas.
	I mean, my goodness.
	I was like, these people can't be that dumb, right?
	Some of these people are so-called economists.
	So we'll be talking about the constitutionality of Trump tariffs, the legality of Trump tariffs, and a little bit of the public policy behind Trump tariffs.
	The person who educated me the most on tariffs in general is the one and only The Inimitable.
	Kevin Phillips.
	I've got the book behind me tonight.
	It's his book, Boiling Point, from the mid-1990s.
	And part of which he goes into that book, he's talking about the failure of both parties at that time, the Bushite Republicans and the Clinton-led Democrats, and how NAFTA in particular was a betrayal.
	And unlike all of his critics, unlike all the apologists for this economic regime, Unlike, say, Peter Schiff, who's been pretty much wrong about 90% of things.
	God bless him.
	I like Peter.
	I liked his father, Erwin Schiff.
	But he's really wrong when it comes to tariff policy.
	He's been wrong on crypto.
	He's been wrong on a bunch of stuff, to be honest with him.
	But Kevin Phillips was much more right.
	What he predicted is exactly what came about, and he'd been predicting it since the 1970s.
	So we'll be talking about some of the policy components of that, as well as primarily the legality and constitutionality of Trump's actions.
	Then we have the big verdict against Greenpeace.
	Apparently, lefty organizations don't like it when the script is reversed.
	I've been warning liberals that if you use the legal system in favorable jurisdictions to go after your opponents, what happens when they return the favor?
	Well, the folks that did the Dakota Access Pipeline did return the favor, and now Greenpeace is on the verge of going bankrupt and no longer existing.
	Russell Brand.
	The Brits love their lawfare.
	The Daily Starmer came to America and told us, oh, well, I'm totally for free speech.
	Quit lying.
	And Brits, quit lying.
	You are putting people in jail and fining people for speech.
	The reasons we kicked your rear ends out of our country 300 years ago is as applicable now as ever.
	And does anybody really believe them going after 20-year-old allegations against Russell Brand has nothing to do with his politics?
	25-year-old accusations.
	There's no statute of limitations on sexual assault in England.
	We'll get there in a second.
	Sorry, carry on with the menu.
	Yeah, that was always a dangerous proposition.
	It's one New York and other states adopted just to go after Trump as well.
	Matt Taibbi of Racket News is bringing suit against a member of Congress.
	We'll talk about how the Covington kids cases versus the Trump cases will decide whether or not he's able to go forward with that suit.
	I see that some of his lawyers and other people are under the mistaken impression that the speech and debate clause is the main hindrance.
	It is not.
	The main hindrance is the Westfall Act.
	The Supreme Court finally, finally steps in at least a little bit.
	To stop the insanity.
	And to my surprise, it's not because Roberts flips sides.
	It's because Barrett does.
	So credit to Justice Barrett.
	Though I think she thinks she's just doing a technocratic analysis.
	I don't think she...
	Understands the political ramifications entirely.
	But you see how nuts Roberts is that he was unwilling to step in when everybody else was.
	His Trump hatred has gone way overboard.
	People are detailing, like Revolver News, the scale of his corruptibility connected to that corrupt lawfare lead actor, Norm Eisen, who Roberts loves to spend time with in France, having his little café au lait to start his morning, an orange pressé.
	So we'll talk about that.
	SCOTUS also issued interesting decisions on RICO and the FDA, one of which I agree with, the other one I don't.
	Interestingly enough, I agree with Barrett on the RICO case.
	I don't agree with any of the justices on the FDA.
	I'm going to say Barrett is watching the show.
	Barrett is taking to heart your constructive criticism.
	You have made Barrett a better Supreme Court judge.
	Let's hope so.
	The new claim of a lot of illegals and other immigrants is that they have equal protection rights so that you can't discriminate against them because they're here illegally.
	That's the new liberal lawfare claim.
	That is so ass backwards.
	It's Machiavellian.
	You're treating me differently because I'm an illegal criminal.
	Yeah, exactly!
	Welcome to the logic of the liberal left, of the lawfare legal left.
	So we'll be discussing how that failed recently in a federal court case.
	When can you get discovery in arbitration as arbitration is becoming insane?
	All new creative ways, they're enforcing it on people.
	We need legislative relief in states and at the federal level.
	But when are you at least entitled to discovery to prove that you didn't agree to an arbitration agreement?
	IBM. I brought suit against IBM and Red Hat related to their diversity, equity, inclusion quota policy.
	Well, one of those cases against IBM reached federal district court decision this past week.
	And then last but not least, when things go AWOL, when your car gets impounded, what happens if it's impounded and...
	Somebody's still in the car.
	We'll talk about that, Kate.
	And I didn't do this in the intro, by the way, everybody.
	The Sunday night show we're going to keep on all platforms, all four, because it's the best form of publicity for the new Rumble lineup, which is exclusively live on Rumble every day.
	Four o'clock is my time slot.
	So that Daily Viva show on Rumble, exclusively on Rumble at four o'clock, four to five thirty, give or take.
	What else?
	Well, I'll plug some other stuff as we go along.
	Let's start on the tariffs.
	Oh, and by the way, there was a reason why I was mentioning that.
	Yeah, I was going to say, last but not least, we do have an announcement of the date, the August 15th, weekend of August 15th.
	In Chattanooga, Tennessee will be the first annual fundraiser and retreat for 1776 Law Center.
	Supported Kyle Rittenhouse, supported the Covington kids that we talked about, supports Amos Miller, supports Brooke Jackson against the FDA, supports Honest Independent Legal.
	Research and review in the cases of food freedom, medical freedom, financial freedom, and political freedom on the cutting edge of representing people who can't afford representation in either court of law, court of public opinion, or both, as the case may be.
	The annual fundraiser is supported by Ordinary Everyday People.
	We do one a year.
	This one will be done in middle August, but we're adding to it.
	Going to do a Barnes Law School portion, a whole separate, it'll be a two-day event rather than a one-day event.
	And the Barnes Law School portion will include a master class on the Freedom of Information Act and local state laws, how to get what the government knows about you, how to get what the government's trying to hide from the world.
	Second, freedom planning, how to do real meaningful estate planning in the modern world from rogue creditors and rogue states and rogue officials when you need to have full freedom available to you.
	End of masterclass on the Bill of Rights.
	An introduction to each of the Bill of Rights.
	We'll be doing a separate Bill of Rights masterclass as we go forward.
	Part of the Barnes Law School session.
	Going to do a barbecue with Barnes, a bourbon with Barnes.
	Might even be a little bit of a fishing with Viva that we get to throw in there.
	So it's going to be a lot of fun.
	Probably a cigar night addition to.
	So it's a whole bunch of things thrown into one on top of the dinner that you can get the tickets for if you just go to Viva Barnes Law.
	Amazing. And what I was going to say, as I forgot, is last week I had on George Gammon talking about the tariffs.
	I'm trying to coordinate.
	I think the timing should work out perfectly with Joseph LaVornia, who was already on the channel.
	We had a sidebar with Joseph, and he wants to talk about the tariffs.
	And I want to hear everybody's perspective on it, because I've got my own opinion, but I did sincerely appreciate what George Gammon had to say about it.
	It's no good or bad.
	It's trade-offs.
	And he explained his position on this.
	It's a good place to start.
	We'll start with the tariffs, Robert.
	The tariffs, which might be the black swan event in Canadian politics that might have, not overthrown, but thrown in the air the election as it was supposed to occur.
	Horse crap, because I still think what I think about how that could have been handled in Canada.
	Set that aside.
	Tariffs across the board.
	I don't think I need to show the table, but I will if we can find it.
	Every country on Earth, including an island that is uninhabited up in the North, and the joke is that he's applying a tariff on penguins.
	I really wanted to fact-check Adam Schiff.
	They all put out that stupid meme.
	He's putting tariffs on penguins.
	I'm not even joking.
	And when George explained it, I was like, yeah, it's an uninhabited island which could serve as the place for incorporation so they could then circumvent tariffs.
	So, yeah, I mean, be idiots about it, but Adam Schiff is.
	Tariffs across the board, across all countries, except...
	Russia. Now, I had to go fact check that one myself.
	Everyone's like, every country's on that list except for Russia.
	I was like, dude, A, Russia already has crippling sanctions.
	B, Russia already has tariffs on aluminum, aluminum derivatives, metals.
	They've already got tariffs.
	So the fact that they're not on the list is only because they've already been tariffed up the wazoo as retaliation for the war in Ukraine for the last couple of years.
	So idiots, don't repeat that same talking point.
	You'll be stupid.
	Robert, what is your take on it in terms of applying across the board tariffs, even on countries with which America has a trade surplus such as Austria?
	Yeah, so first we'll look at it from a constitutional perspective.
	So the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise revenue and lay taxes.
	A tariff is, from that constitutional perspective, can be considered a tax.
	It's not always crystal clear that it is to be a...
	Completely forthcoming.
	There's a lot of assumptions that it is.
	The reason why it might not be is who, it depends on who pays it.
	If you're entirely, for example, are sanctions taxes?
	I haven't heard any liberals making that argument, right?
	So what are sanctions?
	Sanctions are imposing a burden on foreign governments' ability to do economic activity in the United States.
	So on the first fundamental assumption that a tariff is a tax is in fact a legally questionable assumption.
	But even if we assume it to be so, The Congress has explicitly delegated the rate of tariffs decision, both who is tariffed and how much they're tariffed, to the President of the United States in a range of laws that date back to the 1920s.
	It is a well-established legal precedent.
	Indeed, the Supreme Court in 1928 adjudicated this precise question because somebody sued, a manufacturer sued, saying, hey, the President is imposing a tariff.
	On my inputted goods, this is a tax that Congress hasn't specifically authorized, hence it's unconstitutional.
	Supreme Court said you're wrong.
	Said even assuming a tariff is a tax, which they acknowledge is a legally disputed issue, even if it is, Congress delegated that task, the right and who pays it, to the president, and that is within their constitutional authority and makes sense because tariffs are unique.
	In impacting national security and foreign affairs, where the president has almost carte blanche under the Constitution of the United States.
	So legally and constitutionally, if you're seeing these articles saying this absolutely can't be legal, they're wrong.
	and their Supreme Court adjudication on the topic, just going back to 1928.
	And it's been undisputed and uninterrupted for presidents to unilaterally impose tariffs without congressional approval or...
	And you have an established political precedent where FDR Unilaterally imposed tariffs on nations.
	Truman, unilaterally imposed tariffs on nations.
	Eisenhower, unilaterally imposed tariffs on nations.
	John Kennedy, unilaterally imposed tariffs on nations.
	LBJ, unilaterally imposed tariffs on nations.
	Richard Nixon, unilaterally imposed tariffs on nations.
	Jimmy Carter, unilaterally imposed tariffs on nations.
	So did Ronald Reagan.
	A lot of the libertarian right kind of forgets Reagan's policy on that.
	He had multiple levels of policy, including waging foreign economic war against the entire Soviet Union and communist world, for which he spent a lot of resources and in which, guess what?
	Tariffs were a critical tool.
	Guess what else he used tariffs for?
	He used it to protect the steel and motorcycle industry in the United States and the automobile industry in the United States.
	People forget that part of Ronald Reagan.
	Even Poppy Bush imposed tariffs unilaterally.
	George W. even imposed tariffs unilaterally.
	Bill Clinton even imposed tariffs unilaterally.
	Barack Obama imposed tariffs unilaterally, and so did Joe Biden.
	So this, oh my goodness, this can't possibly be legal, are people who have complete historical amnesia and are as illiterate legally and constitutionally as they are economically.
	Now, speaking to the Policy side of the equation, I recommend a couple of reviews.
	Thank credit to Tucker Carlson, who both did an interview with Treasury Secretary Scott Passant, but also Robert Leitzinger, the U.S. Trade Representative.
	Both of these men are extraordinarily and exceptionally well-equipped to explain to you macroeconomic and tariff role in it.
	And his interviews with both of them are very enlightening.
	Especially to me, because I did not know both of them had the degree of sympathy and sensitivity and empathy for working class Americans that both of them demonstrated.
	One, in Leitzinger's case, because he grew up in Asheville, Ohio, a manufacturing town that got ripped apart by these bad trade policies.
	And Besant, because he was an upwardly mobile person who became downwardly mobile early in his life, so he saw economic stress to his family, and he grew up sympathetic to people who have to go through that.
	And both of the...
	Donald Trump cares about working class America, not Wall Street.
	It's amazing how Democratic messaging switched within a week.
	It went from Trump is promoting the oligarchs.
	Then all of a sudden, all the oligarchs get their rears whipped on Wall Street with Trump's tariff policy.
	And it's, oh, Trump's anti-Wall Street.
	Now that's bad for the Democratic Party?
	If you want other explanations, read the interview with Oren Kass that was done with that British populist character.
	What is the Lotus Eaters?
	What is that podcast of the Lotus?
	What is that Carl Benjamin one, Viva?
	What's the name of that again?
	I have to think.
	The podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
	The Lotus Eaters.
	There was a guy on there who did a great presentation.
	He explained that...
	The fake economy is the economy Trump is trying to take apart to restore the real economy when you make real things.
	So let's deal with a couple of myths that are out there.
	Myth number one.
	Automatically what will happen with tariffs is the importer will shift the price to increase the price on all domestic goods that are imported in.
	Now there's two components to that.
	If that in fact happens, It creates a market opportunity, a market advantage for American manufacturers and to restore American production and American industry and reshore our supply chain.
	I'm going to stop you periodically because I'm going to have questions that are punctual.
	That's the argument.
	The retort to that is going to be, but the infrastructure is not there and it's years away, so imposing a tariff now is just, in the short term, going to jack up the prices until that infrastructure can be brought back and created.
	That's the second problem.
	It generally, here we have a century of history of evidence.
	We have contemporary evidence from countries all around the world.
	We don't really have to guess what happens with a tariff.
	Because we can see, with our lived history, and our current contemporary history, these nations, for example, guess who has some of the highest tariffs in the world?
	China. Guess who has some of the lowest prices of goods in the world?
	China. But that can't happen!
	They're always going to pass it on!
	No, they're not.
	And to my libertarian friends, go back and redo your math.
	Your assumption is that the free market creates price discovery.
	What does that mean?
	It means you are already charging the maximum price you can get.
	Right? In other words, the idea that you can just, oh, I'll just add it to the price as an importer.
	Really? Why aren't you already doing that?
	If that's a price bearable in the market, you're already charging it.
	Here's when you do study all of American history involving tariffs, world history involving tariffs, current economies involved with tariffs.
	You will find that, as Besant pointed out in his interview with Tucker Carlson, That's a lie and a myth that anybody that spent five seconds studying economic history...
	Which I guess Peter Schiff can't do in between getting other things wrong about crypto and whatnot.
	You would already know this.
	And this is what the whole world knows.
	A lot of people woke up and they were shocked to discover the whole world uses tariffs.
	We're the only one who haven't been using it.
	We're the only unilateral disarmament.
	We're the guinea pig for the globalists.
	And Donald Trump has decided America's not going to be the guinea pig for globalists anymore.
	If you want a good breakdown on the geopolitical ramifications of terror, watch the Duran.
	The point Alex and Alexander made right off the top is this is the end of globalism.
	This is the end of the EU.
	They understood politically the geopolitical fallout better than anybody doing any analysis out there.
	This is Trump saying America will no longer be the guinea pig of globalists because everybody else is charging tariffs.
	And that's the other problem.
	So if it's the case that charging tariffs is disastrous for your economy and leads to massive price hikes, why hasn't it ever done so?
	Why is it America was far more profitable and grew much faster under really high tariffs than it did under low tariffs?
	Why is it also true for China?
	Why is it also true historically for the United Kingdom in the late 18th century and early 19th century?
	Why has it been true for literally every single country that's ever utilized it?
	Read Kevin Phillips.
	He started arguing this in the mid-1970s.
	Wrote a book called Staying on Top, America's Need for an Industrial Policy.
	Here's what he predicted.
	He said, if you study economic history, if you study economic reality, then what you know is that tariffs eat into profits.
	Tariffs are not shiftable to price.
	And they're not shiftable to price because price discovery in a free market already maximizes that cost.
	You can't just...
	Jack it up more, because what happens is you lose customers.
	You're no longer efficient.
	This is why 90% of the tariff, this is why all the countries are complaining.
	For example, if you're an exporter, and all you have to do is add to the price, but just shift the tariff like it's a sales tax, then you wouldn't have a complaint.
	Yet they're all going berserk.
	Why? As Secretary Besson made clear, it's because they are going to be paying that cost, and they know it.
	It's where my libertarian friends get a lot of stuff wrong.
	They get this wrong in other regulatory and minimum wage contexts and other contexts.
	The idea that an employer can just constantly shift cost onto a customer is belied by their own theory.
	And this is true of my friend George Gammon.
	George, go back and look.
	Price discovery means you're already at the top price.
	If I'm a business and I'm selling something, I'm going to sell it for as much as I can get for it.
	I'm not going to discount.
	I do all kinds of discounts in my legal career because I do it to help people.
	But if I was just charging my max rate, then I would charge my max rate.
	The tariff or tax change wouldn't change that at all because I'm already getting the maximum value I can possibly get for the cost of that good.
	That's why if you study economies around the entire world now or for the last 300 plus years where this has been any part of a policy, you will discover very little correlation.
	Between tariffs and prices.
	The impact is on the foreign nation and the foreign competitor.
	What it does is, here's the main way it helps American manufacturers.
	It makes it more difficult for foreigners to compete over time.
	That's what it does.
	Now, will it take time to re-onshore and get domestic manufacturing back up and going?
	Absolutely. Some of those projects will take, some projects can happen quickly, some will take years.
	But you need to institutionally incentivize that to occur anyway.
	Here's the second problem with all the critics.
	From all the Democratic critics, they're the biggest lying hypocrites on the planet.
	Bernie Sanders ran on this for 25 years.
	Barack Obama promised to do it, then just lied.
	Bill Clinton promised to fix it, then lied.
	Jimmy Carter promised to fix it and just failed to deliver.
	I got two questions, but the argument back then was that Tariffs would be a way to protect the American worker from foreign exploitation.
	And not only that, it's also like we have all these laws and rules.
	To the left, it makes absolutely no sense to be arguing against tariffs.
	The left says an economy has to function with basic standards of human decency for safety, for labor, for the environment, etc.
	Okay, fine.
	There are clearly economic costs to that regulatory burden.
	So, for the employer, that doesn't necessarily translate into increased price of goods because, again, the prices are really set by the marketplace.
	You can only charge what you can get for it.
	You can't get that much for it.
	You just can't get it.
	Now, whether or not you can make a profit on that is where it's all impacted and whether you develop or not.
	But right now, the left has the most insane logic in the world that they're saying the only way a free market can operate is if certain minimal standards of safety are met for environment, labor, and the rest.
	Unless! You decide to go to a foreign country.
	Then you can ignore all the labor laws.
	Then you can violate all the safety laws you want and we'll reward you for it with free access to our market and customers.
	That makes no sense at all.
	Either you believe in these environmental and labor standards or you don't.
	Because if you do, they have to be universal.
	Like, oh, I've seen this nonsense.
	Americans don't want to work.
	That's garbage.
	Quit lying about the American worker.
	I don't care whether you're Vivek.
	Go back to India, Vivek, if you believe that kind of nonsense.
	We don't need you here.
	I don't need any of these people here that want to demean the American worker.
	We were the number one manufacturing country in the world for the better part of a century.
	We put manufacturing on the planet.
	That's who America is.
	So these bunch of crying commies can go to whatever foreign country they want to go to and quit demeaning and defaming the American worker.
	So those United Autos workers were there with President Trump because they understand the importance of this.
	Because here's what we've been telling American manufacturers.
	If you're dumb enough And this goes back exactly to the opening rant about Mark Carney, which is, yeah, we believe in the environment.
	Here, but not in the other countries where we then offshore our pollution.
	We don't want to look for lithium up in the region of Quebec with good labor standards, good technology to make it clean.
	We want to go get our lithium and rare earth minerals from China, South Africa, other African countries where it wreaks havoc on the environment, but at least it's not here.
	So we've outsourced the pollution and crippled ourselves economically in the meantime.
	But to go back to one thing earlier, it's been bothering me.
	You see, China imposes tariffs on imported products, which I understand.
	Some people are going to say that, well, they already have the infrastructure to make it cheap internally, in which case the question I'm asking is, if they already have the infrastructure, then why would they impose a tariff which would presuppose that another country could produce it for equally as cheap and then import it?
	And this goes back to my third point.
	The reason why I became a strong advocate of using tariffs is thanks to this man, Kevin Phillips.
	Started reading him when I was a kid.
	I read him because he was one of the best political prognosticators in the entire world.
	If you wanted any, people used to order his American political report, a weekly newsletter, because of how good it was at predicting.
	People didn't agree with him ideologically on anything.
	Just read him because he was so good at predicting.
	And to me, one way you can measure Scott Adams didn't quite understand the...
	The second level impact of my statements, because I was pointing out to Scott that his own methods of measuring the accuracy of an opinion was rebutting his own early opinions on COVID.
	That was, you know, oh, we should all be scared and hide in our basement kind of thing.
	But where I agree with Adams is that one of the ways you measure the quality of an analysis, that's why I love sports betting.
	That's sports picks.
	That's where we got that up and going.
	Got screwed on the...
	Totally unlucky in the Final Four, but hopefully we get lucky.
	Hopefully luck is a little bit more of a lady, like Frank Sinatra asked her to be this Monday night in the National Championship game.
	We'll see.
	But his accuracy was off the charts.
	From the 1970s, he said, look, here's what's going to happen.
	If you study the real economy, not the fake economy that economists study.
	By the way, if you go back and study economists in the late 19th century, they all agreed with tariffs.
	They suddenly changed when the people writing their checks changed.
	And here's what Phillips pointed out.
	A country uses protective tariffs and tariff policy in an intelligent way to build up their domestic industry.
	That creates excess capital in an investor class.
	The investor class then decides, you know, we could make a lot more money if we weren't making this here anymore.
	If we didn't have to share the benefits of this with our own people.
	And so they decide to look for markets to go elsewhere.
	But the key to that...
	is changing tariff policy so that that new country has high tariffs and your country now suddenly has low tariffs.
	And that what happens is that country then replaces you industrially.
	And Kevin Phillips said this is what the UK screwed up into it.
	The UK used protective tariffs to build up its economy.
	Then it radically reduced its tariffs because its British investor class wanted to invest in America because, like, hey, we can get it cheaper.
	And so they all invested in America.
	Guess what?
	Within a few decades, America replaced Great Britain as the great manufacturer of the world.
	What Phillips predicted beginning in the 70s.
	He said, Germany, Japan, and Asia, Europe and Asia are going to follow an industrial policy.
	And what they're going to do is they're going to repeat what happened to the UK and what happened to the US.
	And what happened for the US and now what happened to the US.
	And he said, well, what happened is Germany and Japan will gain a competitive edge because they will supplement and subsidize their domestic production.
	And because we're reducing tariffs while they're raising them, the net effect will be their industrial base will expand.
	Our industrial base will shrink.
	Their working class will prosper.
	Our working class will be impoverished and it will have knock on effects for national security when you don't make your own goods.
	And guess what?
	By the 1980s, that was clear for everybody to see.
	One of the readers of Kevin Phillips was a young real estate construction magnate in the city of New York named Donald John Trump.
	This is why Donald Trump started talking about this issue in the 1980s.
	See him on Oprah.
	See him on whatever his name was, the predecessor to Dr. Phil, the other guy.
	Other people.
	He went to the NAFTA and said, no, no, no, no, no.
	This is going to be a disaster.
	Then we made the monstrous mistake.
	Between NAFTA and WTO and then letting China into the WTO at most favored nation status, and Phillips said in books like Boiling Point, this is going to be a total disaster.
	America's manufacturing is going to be hollowed out.
	Our working class is going to be crushed.
	Our supply chains will no longer be secure for essential goods.
	We can be held hostage or blackmailed or extorted at any time by people who are our public adversaries in other nations.
	And those nations will prosper.
	Those nations will profit.
	Those nations will get rich.
	How has China had a radical improvement in its economy over the last quarter century?
	Guess what they used, by the way?
	High tariffs.
	How is that?
	I thought high tariffs destroyed the economy.
	High tariffs are going to be really bad.
	Not for anybody who's ever done them in the entire history of the world.
	And Phillips was right.
	And guess what?
	Bill Clinton, wrong.
	George W. Bush, wrong.
	All the economists, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
	They should be put up and hung for some of their insane propositions.
	They all said NAFTA was going to lead to a boom in American production.
	Wrong. They said inviting China in is going to lead to a boom of American prosperity.
	Wrong. They've been wrong on all.
	They said doing lower tariffs would help America compete with Germany and Japan.
	Wrong, wrong.
	All they've been is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
	As the great movie Back to School, Rodney Dangerfield, here's your definition of most economists.
	They're that professor who's getting up with his fans, who says we're going to make widgets and so forth.
	And Rodney Dangerfield, a real businessman like Donald Trump, said that doesn't make any sense in the real world.
	And the economics professor, he goes, well, we're here with the academy.
	We're not going to listen to that.
	You're rogue behavior.
	And so later the economics professor says, where should we put our factory?
	And Rodney Dangerfield said, Disneyland, because that's where all the other fantasies are, because that's what they live in.
	In the real world, anybody who actually is literate in economics, in economic history, understands Phillips was right, and all the corporatists, all the globalists have been wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
	Donald Trump is done with it, and so are the American people.
	Well, and Gammon, you know, Gammon presented a good, both sides of it.
	And he presented the argument, well, look, if you...
	And George is a great guy.
	I love George.
	Oh, yeah.
	He's more of a libertarian than I am on some of these topics.
	Well, no, and one of the arguments that he raised was, well, you know, if you pull this out of China and you bring it back to ethical, ethical labor environments, those kids that are working and making $2 a day, well, they'll go into child prostitution and whatever in these third world developing countries.
	And the chat was saying, well, A, Whether or not that's true, it's not our problem.
	It's not our problem to cripple ourselves financially to prevent the exploitation of children and adults in foreign countries.
	And explained by Leitzinger, explained by Besant, explained by Cass, explained by a range of others, explained historically by Kevin Phillips, the reason we went into a low-tariff environment after World War II was not to prosper economically.
	This was admitted by everybody at the time.
	Everybody in the policy decision-making role said America's going to suffer economically by making ourselves the global consumers to stabilize dollar access globally and to boost everybody else.
	Because the theory was this.
	If we make Germany and Japan prosperous, they won't go back to wanting to wage war on everybody.
	That was premise number one.
	That's why we gave them an industrial policy while we had none.
	We let them subsidize their businesses, support their businesses, shore up their businesses, have high domestic tariffs, and we did low tariffs ourselves.
	And only imposed cost on our businesses, not support for our businesses.
	Exactly the opposite.
	Like some people are confused by the model.
	Trump's model is based on the trade deficit principally, but not exclusively.
	What it is, is often it's not the direct terror, right?
	There may not be a specific 10% tax on the border.
	What there is instead is a value-added tax that's imposed domestically, another tax that's imposed, other regulations that are imposed, bogus safety standards.
	I mean, the French are masterful at this.
	They come up with 100 excuses why they can't import your product.
	It just happens to compete with them.
	Yeah, just a coincidence, right?
	I mean, everybody in the world does this.
	I mean, like, when you see people saying, well, who could handle tariffs?
	Like, the EU had...
	Well, then why is the EU imposing tariffs?
	Why is the EU imposing support and subsidies for its internal domestic manufacturers?
	As has been well explained, the European Union was just German domination by other means.
	Now, they're busy imploding because of their political insanity at the moment, but their own industrial economy, but that's a relatively new thing.
	Germany did the industrial policy.
	They profited.
	Japan did the industrial policy.
	They profited.
	America, a century ago, did the industrial policy.
	We profited.
	Britain did it a century before that.
	They profited.
	You could argue the Dutch did it two centuries before that.
	They profited.
	China did it to massive profits.
	When China was introduced in the most favored nation status into the WTO, The claim was that America would not lose its manufacturing edge, and there would just be competitive edges and distinctions.
	But as Leitzinger made clear, if nobody's rigging the rules, you shouldn't have systemic trade deficits.
	If you have systemic trade deficits, that is highly unlikely to be from economic competition.
	It is most likely to be from one side rigging the rules in their favor.
	But China went from being a non-player.
	In the world of global production.
	You see these idiots saying, America can't make these things.
	There was no evidence of China ever making these things.
	And in 20 years, they became the most dominant player in the world at making these things.
	And then you get to the two other last components.
	National security and that there are things that matter more than the price of things.
	So let's take the last one first.
	The Oren Kass, other Steve Bessant, Leitzinger, others have made this point.
	You cannot measure a public policy solely by the price of goods.
	Because tell me, ask anybody in the heart of the industrial Midwest that we now call the Rust Belt for a reason.
	Ask them, which would you rather have?
	A stable job?
	A stable family?
	A stable community?
	Stable support of kids, stable support of your neighbors, low crime, low addiction rates, high quality standard of life, accessible housing, accessible benefits to everyday life, or you can get a t-shirt for $2.25 instead of $10!
	Woohoo! Which do you think most American people would take?
	You cannot measure the whole, this is my problem with libertarians in general, you cannot reduce the world to price.
	It is not the only thing that matters in the real world.
	So a good policy takes into consideration the impact on crime, considers the impact on public health, considers life expectancy, on the quality of life.
	That a quality of life is not measured in whether I get this for $1.99 or $0.99.
	And then last, but far from least, the reason why people like Bessett came on board.
	By the way, you can get this opinion from Warren Buffett.
	Go back and read what he wrote in 2003.
	Warren Buffett himself made this exact point about how you cannot have these systemic trade deficits and survive as an economy or society or country.
	You won't see the institutional media talking about that.
	You won't see Benji Shapiro talking about that.
	You won't see a lot of people talking about that because they live in their own denial and La La Land world.
	In the same fake Disney-esque economics world of that economic professor from the movie Back to School.
	National security depends on Trump's tariff policy.
	What COVID exposed to the world and shocked some was that America does not have control over its own essential goods and services for its own military or providing for its own country.
	This includes essential goods for medicine, essential goods for technology, essential goods for military technology, essential goods in the food supply, you name it.
	What we discovered is because we had offshored our supply chain, China could, any time they wanted, blackmail us into doing anything they wanted.
	Extort us into doing anything they wanted.
	China understood what Kevin Phillips understood.
	If you're not making essential goods, you don't have an economy.
	And that's what Trump understands.
	And Trump realizes it is extremely dangerous to America's national security, to our safety, to be depending on foreign...
	...in foreign nations who are openly and overtly hostile to us, or at least ideologically exactly the opposite of us, to have them control our essential resources.
	That's how insane this last century of policy, half century of policy has been.
	So for social cohesion purposes, because public policy goes beyond the price of goods, that because for national security reasons and for good economic policy reasons, Trump is right, right, right, and right.
	And the Constitution and Congress explicitly and expressly gave him that authority.
	I had a question about the tariffs.
	Oh, my question was this.
	If everybody applies similar tariffs to reciprocal countries, it's going to be a stupid question because it depends on trade volumes.
	If everyone applies the same tariffs, is that not the same thing as nobody having any tariffs?
	And is the end goal of all of this to really have total free trade, no tariffs between any nations?
	This is what Trump understands that Zero Hedge understands, Stephen Miller understands, some people understand, but many in the media and many of his critics do not.
	America is the biggest market in the world.
	So that's what's different.
	So yeah, Vietnam could reciprocate.
	China can reciprocate.
	China can say, we're going to put 100% tariff on your goods.
	That's fine.
	China has not taught its public market to consume.
	Instead it says, save.
	Buy in housing.
	Buy in this way.
	Put your money back in here, back in China.
	That's why China has strict capital controls, for example.
	In other words, all the things people say tariffs should do have never happened to China.
	Why? Because China is already not allowing foreign goods in to compete with their domestic goods.
	So jacking up the tariffs make no difference because their goods can't get in at that price anyway.
	By contrast, China does depend on low tariffs in the U.S. And what happened is when Trump imposed relatively modest tariffs in his first term, China invaded him.
	You want to know why Vietnam's high on the agenda list?
	Because China diverts all of its manufacturing to Vietnam, Cambodia, with respect to solar panels, textiles, and whatever.
	That's exactly right.
	So it's the reason why Little Penguin Island is being hit.
	As George Gammon pointed out, you've got to make sure there's no loopholes that these nations can use to circumvent tariffs.
	China went aggressively into Mexico, aggressively into Canada.
	I mean, Canada, as you pointed out, if Carney wins the election, Canada just might as well call itself, they're not the 51st state of the United States, they're the 18th republic of China.
	That's what they will be.
	This is why Trump is concerned about aspects of China.
	This is why he's concerned about aspects of Greenland and the Panama Canal.
	Despite, you know, people can listen to Leisinger's end of his presentation with Tucker Carlson.
	He explains how China ain't our friend and that we have to be conscious of this.
	But that's what gives the U.S. the edge, right?
	Why did Colombia retreat within four hours of Trump threatening tariffs as a tool to simply get...
	And by the way, this is what illegal immigration is all about.
	As J.D. Vance pointed out to Joe Rogan, right?
	The labor we couldn't export through using low tariff policy, we imported with illegal immigration.
	Because you can't export your landscaping job.
	You can't export your service industry job.
	You can't export your construction industry job.
	So they imported the illegal immigrants to screw us even further.
	The American working class has been hammered again and again and again and again, punched in the face repeatedly, and said, oh, don't worry, you'll benefit from the cheaper prices at Walmart.
	Which has not been a net benefit for them on the P&L sheet.
	But the key is the U.S. holds all the cards because the U.S. is the biggest customer in the world.
	We consume far more than we produce, and that's a bad equation.
	We need to change that equation.
	But what does that mean?
	It means if you're Colombia, very little competition comes in from U.S. goods for your manufacturing.
	You depend on exports much more than imports.
	Same is true in China.
	Same is true in every...
	Look at a high-tariff country.
	And you will find they depend more on exports and imports as it relates to the United States.
	And this is why Trump is like, we got all the cards, and it's time we start using them to help American workers, not just Wall Street and the globalists.
	Let me read a couple of chats because there are some specifically on point and someone is venturing to wager you, Robert.
	5,000 real dollars, I believe.
	Let me start from the bottom because I know that there was one that came up earlier, but I'll go.
	Watch Taibbi and Walter Kern.
	Racket News every Monday to support them.
	Livestream 7 p.m. Central.
	I've reached out to Matt.
	I'd love to have him on to talk about the new story.
	We'll talk about that in a bit.
	After having Carney wrecking the Bank of England, helping destroy the UK, I feel sorry for Canada.
	Okay, I read that one already.
	Okay, I read that.
	I like how half of DC is celebrating a Russian guy.
	Mad Maxic.
	What are they talking about?
	Hey, Vivan Barnes, what do you make of people like Jeffrey Sachs losing his mind over the tariffs?
	He doesn't strike me as a globalist, globalist adjacent.
	Here, Jodan says, these tariffs will send us into a depression if they are permanent.
	We currently have in 500,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs.
	If everything is coming back to America, who the hell is going to do it?
	Remember, we did it for a century and a half.
	How did China do it?
	To those kind of comments out there, how does every other country do it?
	How did every other country do it throughout history?
	Before Britain became the manufacturing dominant country in the world, they weren't even a presence in the world.
	Before the U.S. became a manufacturing dominant country, we were not very present at all in the manufacturing economy.
	Before Germany or Japan did it, After World War II, they had not necessarily been dominant, and China had no such history of it.
	So this is belied by history.
	And so, yeah, I'll bet you I'll take your money.
	Hold on, hold on.
	We haven't got there yet.
	You're too dumb to keep it.
	If you're going to make dumb bets, I try to stay away from beating...
	Mom always said, don't beat up on the people who ride the special bus to school.
	But, you know, if you're too dumb to keep your money, I got to redistribute it for the sake of society.
	Joden says, the tariff table was a lie.
	We have egg on our face.
	The numbers they claim other countries are applying are wrong.
	They just calculated exports minus imports.
	Vietnam charges $7.5, not $92.
	So dumb.
	I'm going to fact check this a little.
	What that person is missing is why does that trade deficit exist?
	Why does that trade deficit exist if it's not they're rigging the rules in their favor?
	And there's all kinds of ways to rig the rules in your favor.
	You can have low labor standards, low environmental standards, low safety product standards.
	I mean, imagine, they're still harassing Amos Miller, the Amish farmer in Pennsylvania, who has some of the safest food in the world, while we import food from all kinds of places and we have no idea how safe it is.
	What you're advantaging people is you're saying, hey, violate labor standards, violate environmental standards, and we will economically reward you by access to the richest consumer market in the world.
	That makes zero sense if you care about labor environmental standards.
	Now, you could say you don't care about those standards, and then at least you're being honest.
	You're saying you like slave labor?
	Okay. But not to anyone else.
	The idea Americans can't produce this when we have an established history of being the greatest in the world at it?
	These people are ignorant of their own history.
	I don't think that the Vietnam tariff number is accurate, but I don't want to make a mistake, so I have to take more time to look into that.
	But I'll read the Biltong, which is made in America, beautiful, delicious beef.
	Try our Biltong, almost 50% protein, packed with B12, creatine, iron, zinc, and much more.
	Perfect snack addition to your weekly meal prep.
	Biltongusa.com.
	Code Barnes for 10% off.
	Randy Edwards says, Robert Gouveia Esquire review of SCOTUS reveals touches on 1964 to 2018 concurrence.
	Addressing exchange of monies as bright line demarcation crediting Amy Coney Barrett.
	Operation Consultant says, I am a business professor who teaches graduate and undergraduate course studies in supply chain management.
	I 100% support Trump's tariffs.
	I would be happy to discuss with you on your Rumble show.
	I screen grabbed.
	I'll let me look into that.
	Barnes, I will bet you $5,000 that we will have depression by the end of the year if these tariffs are in place.
	Put your money where your mouth is.
	I'll take all of it.
	You can't be a bum.
	You can't run off when I win that bet.
	Because most people know betting against Barnes is a good way to go broke.
	Viva Barnes, NAFTA caused my father to hit the food bank in 94-95.
	We got cereal with nothing on the box but nutrient facts.
	Thanks, Bill Clinton and the shills who passed it.
	I remember severely.
	They kicked a working class in the face.
	These are people who saved our country.
	These are people who built our country.
	And then when they got up, they kicked them in the face again.
	And then when they got up, they kicked them in the face again.
	They're done with it.
	I'm done with it.
	Trump is done with it.
	American people are done with it.
	Save your nonsense, ludicrous, bogus economic theories that have been disproven by reality again and again.
	Like this schmuck who's going to be writing checks to me for the rest of his natural born life.
	Done with it.
	What they did to the working class in this country is an outrage to anybody who gives a damn.
	That is not just tariffs.
	It's value added taxes and other taxes and subsidies.
	A subsidized to steal in a country is a tariff to the USA.
	People are stupid.
	Well, especially people like Canada has been tariffing the wazoo out of milk.
	I mean, the French have come up with everything.
	China's great at it.
	The French have everything.
	Well, that's not really a film, or this film is this, or that isn't that, and that's how your films can't compete with us in France, or whether it's beef or chicken or anything else.
	Well, we're going to choose this item or that part of it or this other thing.
	They are genius at excluding products.
	So there's a million ways to rig the rules.
	And Trump recognizes the fundamental premise that you're going to have to challenge if you're challenging Trump's reciprocal, the reciprocal aspect of Trump's tariff policy is you're going to have to establish that a systematic and systemic trade deficit can exist for years and years and years without either side doing anything to change.
	And much of the economic analysis, including from people like Robert Leitzinger, who's been studying this his entire life, say otherwise.
	I'm going to read some chats that I missed.
	I think they're from Commitube.
	Maureen Brown, welcome.
	I see I remember you.
	Familiar name.
	Viva, please get Susan Standfield on your show.
	Read the topic.
	She's awesome.
	A Canadian living in Britain after she left in 2001.
	Gorilla Strength Equipment says, Barnes, if you're still in Tennessee, how is the flooding?
	We are getting hammered here in Kentucky.
	Sad Wings Raging gifted another 10-user Rumble Premium.
	Thank you very much, Sad Wings.
	Flex Honcho says, I saw Thomas Sowell and Barnes' recent discussion on tariffs.
	Barnes' explanation was quite helpful.
	Is Sowell wrong here when he says long-term tariffs are harmful?
	There's just no evidence of that.
	I mean, again, give me the historical evidence.
	All these people talk in a whiteboard academic class.
	We have historical evidence.
	Why didn't it harm the United States?
	Why didn't it harm the UK?
	During the greatest growth periods for the United States happened with high tariffs.
	The greatest economic growth period for the UK happened with high tariffs.
	The greatest growth rate for Germany and Japan in the post-World War II era happened under high tariffs.
	The greatest growth rate for China happened under high tariffs.
	How is it the greatest growth rate of any country in the world for the last three centuries directly corresponds with high tariffs if high tariffs destroy your economy?
	And RealPolitik, 5 euros or 4 euros 99 pence.
	Economics not quite right by Robert.
	Imposition of tariffs shifts supply curve and thus alters profit maximization equilibrium price.
	Exactly. Correct.
	And not only that, that's another great point Leitzinger made.
	When you destroy manufacturing, you not only destroy the industrial base, and why does that matter?
	What we saw is with working class communities, when they have a job where they get to make real things, With real pride.
	Not these fake jobs.
	That's why I love the Lotus Eaters one.
	They get this fake economy and they show these little TikTok girls going, woohoo, we're like fashion PR people.
	We're sitting at the beach.
	In between our cafe au lait and our little chardonnay, we're doing little emails because that's the real economy.
	That's not a real economy.
	His point was a real economy is real men make real things.
	And what do you find with that?
	You find pride.
	And what happens when people feel good about their jobs, when they feel good about work, when it provides a stable income and secure benefits?
	They get married younger.
	They stay married longer.
	They support families longer.
	They support communities longer.
	They support neighborhoods.
	Let me give you an idea.
	In the Middle West of this country, what is now called the Rust Belt, used to be the heart of America, the heartland of America, so-called, we have a higher rate of men dying from overdoses than did during the peak.
	Of Russia's economic disaster of the late 1990s.
	More American men are dying from disease and disability in our country than in some of the worst economic downturns anywhere in the world.
	And Trump cares about those people.
	I get a lot of these fake libertarians don't care about them.
	Donald Trump does.
	The media doesn't care about them.
	He's been spitting on them for the last two decades.
	Oh, you're wrong.
	Go back to listen to Al Gore debate Ross Perot.
	Oh, Al Ross, you just want to profit from this yourself.
	An absurd allegation, by the way.
	Where Gore promised the whole country would profit from NAFTA.
	Instead, it only degraded the environment that he claimed he cared about.
	That was always a scam, just to get rich and to get another special massage.
	Because Al Gore loves those happy endings.
	But it wasn't a happy ending for the American people.
	And that's what's got to stop.
	That's what's got to end.
	All right.
	Let me get a few of the tip questions over.
	And there was a great meme, a special SOV.
	Thank you.
	It's the two Trump ladies in bed.
	And one of them is looking at her and saying, stop talking about Trump.
	And the other one says, I can't.
	Just get a couple of tip questions so I don't fall too far behind.
	Robert, when discussing lawfare against Trump and some recent rulings on immigration, et cetera, you have said that the Constitution gives, quote, broad powers to the executive branch of the president.
	In school, the president.
	In school, we have been taught that the U.S. government has three co-equal branches of government that provides checks and balances to the others.
	Can you please clarify how this fits with the executive branch having broad powers and if, in fact, the three branches are truly equal or not, and why?
	The balance of powers is not giving the same power equally to each of the branches.
	It's giving different powers to each of the branches.
	So the balance...
	Comes from the different powers that they have and the key, them not encroaching on the other's power.
	Otherwise, like right now, we're governed by the judicial branch of government.
	The judicial branch is determining monetary policy.
	The judicial branch is determining fiscal policy.
	The judicial branch is determining personnel policy.
	The judicial branch is determining immigration policy.
	The judicial branch is determining foreign policy.
	So the judicial branch, that's not balanced.
	That's imbalanced.
	So balance of powers is the judicial branch has certain powers to decide disputes and controversies between known parties where they're given such authority by Congress or the Constitution.
	The legislative branch gets the right to write the laws and the control of the purse.
	The executive branch gets to make sure that the purse is spent the way Congress authorized it and has the power of enforcement.
	You can't give the enforcement power to Congress or the power of the purse to the president or both of those to the judicial branch and have any balance of power.
	Balance of power does not mean the same power is balanced between the different branches of government.
	It means different powers are given to different branches of government.
	I want to bring this one up because fighting words are in the house.
	I shouldn't have had that.
	I had a cup of iced coffee because I didn't want to waste it.
	I shouldn't have had that.
	Holy crab apples.
	Let me bring this up here.
	Robert from Jodan.
	The bet might be on people.
	The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act caused the Great Depression.
	Completely false.
	Complete garbage.
	The market started collapsing before the act was even passed.
	Again, I'm all for taking bets from this guy.
	He's too dumb to keep his money.
	It's for the sake of society.
	You may be a great guy, by the way, but on this topic, you're too wrong.
	For the sake of society, I have to take away your money.
	I have no choice.
	Fantastic. Okay, Robert.
	Everybody, by the way, you're watching now.
	There's nearly 26,000 people watching on Rumble.
	Hit the thumbs up.
	It's not right that the ratio should be one to four viewers to thumbs up on CommieTube, but much less than that on Rumble, unless people are watching it on TVs.
	Let me see here.
	Hold on.
	You were on with Steven Crowder this week.
	That was a big week.
	You guys were having fun.
	I think the headline was...
	Canadian lawyer rips on Canada for 21 minutes straight.
	I feel bad.
	I feel bad, but people don't understand just how bad it can get in Canada.
	I've been pooping on Pierre Poiliev because he needs to rise to the occasion and he hasn't yet.
	He looks and talks a lot like something that Trump was accused of grabbing a lot.
	Well, speaking of grabbing things of that nature, Robert, let's start with Matt Taibbi.
	Who's suing...
	What's her face?
	Kamal... Kamalden Dove.
	It's one of those, like, three names, four names.
	Why can't people just have, like, regular names?
	Three names, four names.
	She's a congresswoman from California who, in a Senate hearing...
	I've got to actually pull up the video because it's so inexplicable what they can say in these congressional hearings.
	They're having a congressional hearing, an oversight committee hearing on online censorship.
	And this itch bay goes on about how they're trying to, what's the word?
	Elevate a serial sexual harasser in reference to Matt Taibbi.
	Now, in fairness to Matt Taibbi, I hear a lot of criticism against him.
	I had never heard that one.
	I didn't even know the origins of the accusation.
	So I go look into it.
	And it stems from some article or some publication from 2017, 2016, where they wrote something called In Exile or Exile.
	And it was a publication which was purportedly documenting independent journalists or journalists Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames were in Russia during the crazy 90s.
	And they were writing on it.
	I think it was called Exile was the publication they were writing.
	Taibbi later would leave, come back to the U.S. and cover a wide range of U.S. political topics.
	He did a really good job diving into everything that went into the global financial crisis.
	I didn't agree with him on Trump.
	I still don't agree with him on a lot of politics.
	But a very smart, thorough guy.
	Ames has his own reputation.
	Ames has become more anti-West altogether.
	So Ames writes a book about their old article, about their old times, which is a fictional book that when Taibbi wandered off the liberal reservation and started raising questions about Russiagate, started raising questions about the censorship industrial complex, started raising questions about COVID.
	All of a sudden, he became persona non grata in the liberal establishment.
	And so Maine, a bunch of media publications, libeled him.
	He sued them successfully.
	He got places like The Guardian to retract.
	Very tough place to get to retract.
	The Guardian used to be anti-establishment left.
	Now it's the neoliberal mouthpiece in the United Kingdom.
	And that's what it had become, covering up for the censorship industrial complex.
	And this congresswoman wanting to grandstand, because a lot of these days, your black members of Congress disproportionately do not represent the black community.
	They don't come from the preacher tradition.
	They don't come from the local business tradition.
	I've represented a lot of people involved in the civil rights community on behalf of the black political causes, African-American political causes going back 40 plus years.
	I mean, I had relatives involved in the Amistad case back in the 1850s.
	A great song, Family Tradition by Hank Jr.
	Why do you blow smoke?
	Why do you do what you do?
	Because it's a family tradition, brother.
	But so that was part of our family tradition.
	And what's happened is black congressmen increasingly come from the professional managerial class and the narcissistic Instagram class.
	And that's why they're not representative of the best of the black community.
	You're not getting the businessmen.
	You're not getting the ministers.
	You're not getting those people on average.
	Or if you get ministers, you get the lefty whack jobs, not the traditional Martin Luther King types, who is a very conservative man, if you understand his cultural belief structure.
	On a whole wide range of topics.
	She comes from that tradition and what they love to do is grandstand based on whatever their idiot nitwit kids have seen on social media.
	They saw this lie and libel about Matt Taibbi and decided, we'll just repeat it and we'll be big stars on the internet circuit.
	Listen to it.
	I didn't conclude the whole video.
	It's a two minute because it's her whole intro, but here's the relevant part.
	Conspiracy theory about a part of the State Department that no longer exists to distract from the dumpster fire foreign policy this administration is pursuing and elevating a serial sexual harasser as their star witness in the process.
	Mr. Chair, I request unanimous consent to enter into the record two articles about the Republican witness Matt Taibbi.
	The first is a Chicago Reader article entitled, 20 years ago in Moscow, Matt Taibbi was a misogynist a-hole and possibly worse.
	And a Washington Post article titled, The Two Expat Bros Who Terrorized Women Correspondents in Moscow.
	She's so happy with herself.
	The only problem is...
	Look at the person behind her on the right who probably gave that to her.
	Who's one of these lefty college kids.
	I mean, I had to get into an argument with my own niece.
	Look at that.
	You can tell.
	She's the one that, oh yeah, see, I showed you.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	And so the punchline, the only problem with it is it was albeit poorly conceived satire.
	I want to say like gonzo journalism except fake and not...
	I mean, even Gonzo journalism was sort of what Hunter S. Thompson threw in a lot of stuff.
	Yeah, and that's what Matt Taibbi sort of became.
	He had that kind of style, that kind of panache.
	It was in that sort of vein, though he's more of a traditional investigative journalist like Glenn Greenwald, but he would occasionally borrow the rhetoric lingo, and he was at Rolling Stone for a while to kind of be the Hunter Thompson.
	protege. And then Rolling Stone went full commie.
	And so they kicked him out because, you know, he was, he was, he still believed in free speech.
	God for, you know, God bless.
	She's just walking, talking disgrace.
	She dresses like the Joker.
	Of somebody who knows some of the smartest, best, most talented people that belong in Congress from the African-American community and how they've been systemically excluded by the political class because they want showboats like this idiot.
	And she libeled him.
	Now, the big question is, when you file the suit in the Third Circuit, which law is going to now reign?
	Will it be when they screwed me in the Covington kids case?
	Arrestful act.
	I still love the fact that Trump called her Pocahontas in a State of the Union speech, the equivalent of State of the Union speech, in his March speech.
	I was like, that's beautiful.
	I love it.
	They said Trump is done with it.
	He doesn't care.
	That's what we need.
	We need that Trump.
	We don't need the Trump that's worrying about what the New York Times thinks.
	We need Trump doubling down and not worrying about nothing.
	But for those that don't remember, I represented a bunch of Covington kids' cases, sued a bunch of people, got a whole bunch of people to retract.
	Got a whole bunch of people to correct.
	We got 90% of what we wanted.
	And I went after a few others that refused to retract, refused to correct, refused to apologize.
	Two of them, one was Deborah Holland, then a congresswoman, then an interior secretary.
	And the other was, yeah, that's right.
	That makes sense.
	Her inspiration is the Joker for how she dresses.
	And she is a Joker.
	Just not as smart, quite obviously.
	But either it's Heath Ledger or Jack Nicholson's version or even Jared Leto's version.
	Whatever Jared Leto was up to.
	That's another story for another day.
	In the Covington kids case, we went forward.
	The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the West...
	And I had the same belief that Taibbi's lawyers currently had when I first entered that.
	So you have two forms of immunity for members of Congress for their speech.
	One is the speech and debate clause.
	The speech and debate clause was to protect members of Congress from a rogue president.
	That's what it was really designed for.
	But the goal was that any speech debate you engage in and your duties as a member of Congress, you are immune from any legal consequences for.
	But that is limited to your duties on the Hill.
	It doesn't apply to statements made outside of that context.
	So how did they get immunity in the Covington kids' cases when they had nothing to do with the hearing, nothing to do with the Hill, none of it?
	Well, first, they used their official congressional representative accounts to do it, rather than their personal accounts.
	Second, they then claimed it was part of their official duties because they were using those official accounts.
	Third, they claimed their official duty covers everything.
	Everything in the world.
	And so you might ask, where does this even come from?
	Well, it comes from the Westfall Act.
	What's the Westfall Act?
	It's overturning the Westfall decision.
	The Westfall decision said lower-level executive people didn't have the same immunity as some others because that wasn't clearly put into law.
	So Congress goes back in and makes it clear everybody's immune.
	Nowhere in the Westfall Act and nowhere in the debate did it ever say they were immunizing members of Congress from any kind of libel claim.
	But that's how their pals, the judges, who were appointed by who?
	Members of Congress.
	I mean, the president appoints them, but they don't get through unless Senate says yes.
	Went to protect him.
	First for Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts.
	Then for a corrupt congressman in D.C. Then for another one in the Fifth Circuit.
	Now there's decisions in almost every federal circuit that says you can't sue a member of Congress ever for libel.
	That, as I put it, the court's decision was getting elected to Congress is a license to lie.
	Is a license to libel.
	That, you know, you hate your neighbor?
	Just run for Congress.
	Get elected.
	Then you can libel him forever.
	And that's what they said.
	That's how nuts it was.
	My question was, okay, if that's the new doctrine, then who the Westfall Act was truly intended to protect, the executive branch, clearly President Trump is immune for things he said while president, right?
	The same federal court suddenly went, oh no, that was for our pals when we said the Westfall Act protects you.
	If you're a Democrat, it protects you.
	But if you're President Trump, all of a sudden we're going to say you speaking on a public matter raised in the public by the press.
	That concerns your public reputation and electability to office suddenly has nothing at all to do with your official duties.
	So the question for Matt Taibbi in the Third Circuit in the District Court of New Jersey that he's in front of is which law will they enforce?
	The law of the Westfall Act they interpreted for Trump where they said where they had a very limited definition of official duties?
	Or the one they did in the Covington kids cases and the Kennedy Operation Rescue case and the other cases?
	Where they expanded it to everything under the sun.
	And also, it is not irrelevant that she made the statements during a congressional hearing, or a subcommittee hearing, which might itself be protected under the speech debate.
	What's key is the ad that she also made the statements on her social media account.
	Also made the statements on her public web pages.
	The hurdle they're going to run into is the courts are probably going to say, oh, that was just a Trump exception.
	That rule.
	And they're suddenly going to re-expand the Westfall Act.
	And this is why my friend Congressman Massey, who I've continued to back even when he's under criticism and attack, a great bill that he was thinking about two years ago, I hope he reinstitutes, amend the Westfall Act.
	Amend it so that members of Congress no longer have immunity when they lie about the American people.
	Especially if it's outside the constitutional contours of the speech and debate clause.
	And that's all you got to do is pass a law that says members of Congress are only immune from suit for libel to the extent that the speech and debate clause immunizes them.
	That'd be very popular.
	Nobody's for congressmen having a license to libel.
	And I think the Taibbi case will reinforce that because what courts are likely to do is rediscover their new interpretation of the old interpretation of the Westfall Act, the pre-Trump interpretation of the Westfall Act, and say that Congress, that she's immune and he probably won't.
	Unfortunately, his suit probably won't get anywhere in the court of law.
	Yeah, and just so people understand, it's because she published it to X, to Blue Sky as well, and to her website, so it wasn't official congressional duties.
	Can they not censure her for having made a factually incorrect statement?
	Members of Congress, absolutely they can.
	Okay, and so they, at the very least, censure her for having lied like Adam Schiffer brings McShiff, because it's factually incorrect, it was dishonest.
	Factually incorrect, if not dishonest.
	Maybe she didn't know.
	Maybe she thought it was still a true story.
	It was a bogus story.
	Taibbi apologized for having done the satire, poorly designed, but it was fake and everybody understood it was fake and maybe she just didn't know.
	If any member of Congress belongs in prison, it's Adam Schiff.
	Oh God, I can't stand that guy.
	Alright, well, from one story of alleged sexual impropriety to another, when I was listening to Russell Brand's book, audiobook, Recovery, And he was detailing in meticulous detail, and I dare say not too much honesty, but you never know how people are going to use your honesty about your own life experience against you.
	And now Russell Brand is finding it out and how people can be weaponized.
	In the book Recovery, he went into detail, not of things that you would say, holy, holy shizzle, this guy just committed rape.
	You listen to him and you say, he engaged in behavior which you have no doubt.
	At the very, very least, would have left women, people that he's been with, feeling exploited, feeling not abused in a physical sense, but angered.
	He's been an addict his whole life, an addict in recovery for the last 20 some odd years, although I still think life is substituting an unhealthy addiction for a healthy one, and he's found religion, he's found guidance.
	Reading his book is like, okay, I have no doubt there are women who will hate him for the rest of their lives because he probably They feel like he exploited them, and he might very well have done that in his throes of addiction, whatever that was.
	He wrote that book, and at the time, you know, he was a hero for the left.
	Nobody made hay of that book, and now they're making hay of that book.
	And I guess they went and found several women from 20 to 25 years ago who allege that he raped, sexually assaulted, and they actually arrested and charged him in England.
	I don't know.
	He's got to get the hell out of there.
	But that's the factual pattern.
	I couldn't believe that I hadn't actually heard of any of this until someone mentioned it on Friday.
	And like, when did this happen?
	They said it was on Thursday.
	And then, you know, he posted a picture with Neil Oliver These are friends supporting who are true friends in a time of political weaponized persecution, innocent until proven guilty.
	And at some point, there's a statute of limitations for some crimes for a reason.
	Set all that aside.
	We'll see where it goes.
	Robert, what's your take on this?
	I have a feeling this is just part and parcel of British political forces, media forces, trying to use this as a one step to get to another certain entity for the purposes of besmirching, defaming, libeling, that being rumble.
	What's your take on all of it?
	There's no question Russell Brand is being persecuted and prosecuted solely because his political viewpoint changed.
	And he became a critic of the censorship industrial complex like Matt Taibbi did.
	He became a critic of Britain.
	He became a critic of the West.
	In the European sort of globalist agenda that so many EU leaders and current British Labour Party acolytes idealize and romanticize.
	And it was at that point that they suddenly radically shifted in their perspective on him.
	All of a sudden he went from being the lovable, maybe sometimes a little crazy, a little eclectic, a little flirtatious Russell Brand to being a persona non grata, the devil, and me too'd on steroids.
	I am deeply skeptical for that reason alone of the allegations and accusations.
	Everything about it smacks of politics.
	Now then you go to the second problem.
	So you're talking about you have Russell Brand who admitted he's basically a sex addict or was for a long time period.
	And all you come up with is a few allegations over 25 years?
	Just telling you that if you have somebody that actually is engaged in systemic bad behavior, you're going to have 50 accusers, not 5. And you're Russell Brand.
	And presumably more recently as well, because like pedophilia, it's not something you grow out of.
	It's something that you have an uncontrollable desire that occurs over time.
	You need real training and discipline to get.
	They're not going to be 20 years old.
	So that's problem number two.
	Problem number one, political motivation.
	Screams political motivation.
	Problem number two, too few accusers, given who he was and given the alleged course of conduct.
	Last but not least, the fact that these people, apparently none of them complained at the time.
	Makes me highly suspect of them.
	You go to Harvey Weinstein and some others.
	Many of these people did complain to people.
	It's not apparent to me than the Russell Brand cases.
	So these people that 20 years later remember something?
	I'm just skeptical of that.
	I think there was one who went to the hospital at the time, but I think it was for concern of an STD based on some text messages that were leaked earlier.
	And by the way, speaking of credible people who made the allegations at the time, Tara Reid, as recognized by Lisa Bloom, daughter of Gloria Allred, but they had to...
	And the Harvey Weinstein kicks.
	Harvey Weinstein, these other people, Jeffrey Epstein, others, there are contemporaneous complaints from a good number of people.
	And the number, like Bill Cosby, right?
	The number gets to be like 100 plus.
	It's like, okay, probably a pattern here.
	You go digging into Russell Brand.
	You want to persecute him.
	You want to smear him.
	You want to punish him for changing sides politically.
	And all you come up with is four or five?
	That's pretty pitiful.
	For those aggregate reasons, I'm deeply skeptical of the accusations.
	Same reason I was skeptical of the accusations against the Tate brothers.
	I didn't agree with running a webcam business.
	I wouldn't recommend it.
	I wouldn't promote it.
	I wouldn't engage in it.
	That doesn't mean they committed all these horrible supposed crimes.
	And there was political motivation in the prosecution, no doubt about it.
	Delay in time.
	...that people couldn't explain, and then a relative small number of accusers given the underlying facts that are being claimed.
	So all of those are present.
	I am deeply skeptical of the case against Russell Brand because of that.
	I think they're thinking exactly what you mentioned, that Brand is on record saying his behavior was real reckless, and they're thinking they can use that against him to paint a portrait and find anybody who's belatedly unhappy with him.
	But what's interesting is Brand's behavior suggested compulsivity.
	This is an important difference.
	Compulsive people are not harassers.
	Of that kind.
	People who need constant confirmation and affirmation through sexual activity tend to be charmers.
	Tend to want to charm people.
	That to them, the success of the encounter is the charming of them.
	Not coercing them.
	Not controlling them.
	Not hurting them.
	Not assaulting them.
	Those are people who Equate sex with power, and that's why pedophilia is a unique form of abuse.
	That's why sexual assault and rapist, you'll fit a unique pattern.
	Now, the only person I knew, well, there was a second one, but I won't mention that one because I might have had, unfortunately, had to represent him for like three months.
	But the first one on the list, the only other person I ever met who could be all of those things, could be charming one minute, sex addict the next, sociopath the next, psychopath the next.
	You didn't know what you were getting.
	You could get someone that would assault people and have affairs.
	That was Bill Clinton.
	But Bill Clinton is the exception.
	Most of the people engaged in rape assault are not charmers.
	They're not people that get confirmation and affirmation from sex.
	Instead, they get power from sex.
	And that's an important psychological distinction in understanding these things because it helps predict whether an allegation against someone is true or likely not true.
	Everybody says Russell Brand has been a charmer for day one.
	This is not a guy who gets a kick out of having power over anyone.
	That suggests the accusations against him are highly unlikely to be true.
	It is.
	Look, on my end, it's just that you are too honest in a self-discovery book where you want to own up and you want to show your evolution.
	Which, by the way, is another indicator, though, right?
	If you knew you had committed a bunch of sexual assaults, are you going to say anything at all about sex in your memoir?
	Probably not.
	And then the issue is, you know, the detail that he went into in his book, it just gives fodder for either recreated memories, or I'm sure there were, even at the time, women who felt exploited because they weren't the only ones.
	But that's not rape.
	That's not sexual assault.
	Now, it's where the commies want to go with these laws.
	They want to remake sex laws so that regret equals rape.
	It doesn't.
	Hey, I get it.
	But to be honest, let's be serious.
	If you're dating Russell Brand, a big And I was going to say one other thing.
	I don't understand how there's no statute of limitations.
	So it's like 25 years later, the whole issue with Brett Kavanaugh was 35. How the hell do you even defend against that?
	How do you find witnesses to prove your innocence, which is what he's going to have to do in the UK?
	It's why the statutes of limitation exist.
	It's why statutes of repose exist.
	That at some point, we cannot have adequate mechanisms of evidentiary determination when too much time has passed.
	Let me go.
	There was a...
	Encryptus is sending me some of the chats in...
	DM here.
	He says, Laughter.
	Five bucks says, You two are making me laugh so hard I'm in tears.
	The Joker.
	Thanks. That outfit is quite clearly...
	Going back to that.
	All right, Barnes, what do we have next?
	Another sign that she doesn't...
	The strongest aspects of African-American culture in this country, which has created some of the greatest music in our tradition, a bunch of other things.
	No fashion.
	No style.
	When you see an African-American person who doesn't know how to dress, you know they're not really from black political culture.
	Joe Biden would say you ain't black.
	What are we moving on to now?
	Speaking of verdicts that are supposedly politically motivated, it might not be in this case, Greenpeace might be about to go bankrupt.
	This is a big one where I'm not really on the fence about this.
	This is part and parcel of their I'm amenable to saving the whales and all.
	I'm a naturalist or I'm a nature lover in my DNA.
	Greenpeace engages in some very questionable means of eco-terrorism for their ideological purposes.
	They just got slapped with a $650 million libel defamation.
	I don't know if tortious interference was in there.
	Trespass, nuisance, tortious interference, violence, you name it.
	And then the question is this.
	To what degree do they get to, through dishonest means, interfere with a business activity of a company for the purposes of their ideological drive to put them out of business?
	And basically, in this particular case, you'll flesh out the details.
	I now have to refresh my memory as I'm talking.
	They engaged in all of this.
	What was the company again?
	It was, I want to say...
	Something oil.
	What was the underlying business?
	It's the people who run the Dakota pipeline.
	The Dakota, that's right.
	And lying about them, lying about their potentially criminal activities, all lies.
	And they got slapped with a $650 million judgment, which I don't know how it doesn't put out Greenpeace.
	But... I can also hear the bells going off in my head.
	This is a little excessive.
	This is punitive.
	These are quantums which we wouldn't tolerate for Alex Jones, but probably because there was no evidence of the actual quantum of damages.
	Whereas in this case, I think it was much easier to make that actual evidence of damages sustained.
	What is your take on it?
	Liberals are getting what they asked for.
	They said, please use the legal system to have big verdicts for politically controversial causes in jurisdictions that don't like the defendant.
	And they loved it when they were doing it to Donald Trump.
	They loved it when they were doing it to Alex Jones.
	Now it gets done to them.
	If you don't like it, quit doing it yourself.
	That'd be the first step.
	Do I think that some of that occurred here?
	Absolutely. Because you had a North Dakota judge and a North Dakota jury presiding over a case concerning a pipeline.
	That empowered and employed and enriched a lot of people in North Dakota and that don't care about Greenpeace.
	And so I'm sympathetic to them on that point.
	Only to a point, though, because they and their leftist allies were nowhere to be found when the same thing was being done to Alex Jones, but on steroids.
	Now, to your point, they actually have real economic harm because the pipeline was delayed for years, which cost them the amount of money they now seek.
	So they have an actual economic basis for claiming more than half a billion in damages in ways that they had no such claim against Alex Jones.
	So that's the big difference.
	The second difference is they were actually given discovery in a trial and motion practice, none of which Alex Jones was allowed.
	So big, big, big difference there.
	The biggest problem they have in trying to claim that this case is about speech and petitioning activity, they're saying the whole suit is a strategic litigation against public participation, so-called slap suits.
	Problem with that is that's not what the suit alleges, nor what the jury found.
	What the jury found is that they engaged in actual crimes, that they taught people to engage in those crimes, that they committed those crimes, and they participated in those crimes, and conspired to commit those crimes, and then took credit for the crimes.
	So, what were those crimes?
	Trespass, property vandalism, threats to physical harm, actual physical harm to people, various forms of nuisance that was not based on speech or petitioning activity.
	Go through and read the suit, and it's insane the stuff they did.
	Now, the other thing they did is they kept lying, and lying has never been protected under the Constitution.
	They said they were deliberately destroying Indian burial grounds.
	Completely false.
	They said they were completely destroying other aspects of tribal sovereignty.
	Most of those allegations, completely false.
	And they knew they were completely false because before the pipeline could ever get approved, It got approved, by the way, by Democratic administrations initially, that those regulatory officials agreed that what they were doing would not harm the environment, not harm the local land, not harm tribal sovereignty.
	Now, later, the Sioux tribe was worried that it would leak into their water supply, which is a separate concern.
	Greenpeace is trying to deal with this.
	They're suing the company in European courts, hoping the European courts will weaponize the legal system for them so that they can set aside all these verdicts somehow.
	By setting them aside from being enforced in Europe.
	So the European Lawfare just continues on steroids to an insane degree to where it appears European courts are now going to use the fact that American courts and juries have found judgments against people as reasons to set aside those judgments and instead issue judgments against the people getting relief and remedy in American courts.
	That's how crazy the European courts are going to get.
	So I am a little, partially sympathetic with Greenpeace, but only partially.
	I don't like cases being tried in jurisdictions.
	I don't like that, no matter what.
	Nor do I want people tried in jurisdictions that just will excuse anything a defendant does for political reasons.
	I want impartial juries.
	Why? Because that's what the Constitution of the United States requires, and it's the original intention all the way back to the Magna Carta as to the peerage requirement that was imposed then, but not in our Constitution, for the jury requirement.
	Impartiality is what we want.
	Honest jurists of facts is what we want.
	And I'm not confident you can get that in North Dakota.
	However, they're mostly in trouble because they broke the law, not because of their speech.
	Yep, I say it's when their goal is through violence, intimidation, and whatever means necessary to put out of business the companies that they don't agree with.
	I mean, that is exactly what they're asking for, and they faff out, and they're finding out.
	I remember a co-founder of Greenpeace left it because he said they'd become a leftist organization that no longer cared about true environmental concerns.
	Absolutely. They engage in eco-terrorism, period.
	Even if it's bad for the environment.
	They do it because the ends justify the means.
	And they're very selective.
	Because, you know, it's funny.
	They just can't seem to get to those smoke-producing coal plants in China somehow.
	It never even shows up on the Greenpeace-like webpage.
	Well, Robert, they're going to get arrested if they do that.
	They can only do their eco-terrorism in countries that are going to be sympathetic in jurisdictions that are going to be liberal-esque.
	Everybody's fine with the commies doing pollution.
	They just don't want the capitalists to do pollution.
	Myth T says, those two women look like trolls from the labyrinth.
	Jack Flack says, Smoot Hawley benefited our trading partners and hurt us because they were net importers and we were net exporter.
	We are now the net importer.
	And the Bronx declare impeach summer for judges after reconciliation passes.
	Yeah, impeachment summer.
	I like that.
	That's a good phrase.
	Oh, I get it.
	Okay. And then we got, just remember LLMAI.
	Large language model AI works on the writings it knows.
	Thomas Jefferson was a prolific writer.
	Grok can respond as him with 80 to 90% accuracy on government questions.
	That's awesome.
	That's very cool.
	I wonder, you know what, we should ask it like, what would Viva Frye say in response to this?
	What would Robert Barnes say in response to this?
	I'd be curious to see how accurate that is.
	I'll do that when you're answering the next one.
	What is the analysis of me and Greenwald's dispute about the hate speech code?
	They agreed that Greenwald was exaggerating.
	There was no actual hate speech code.
	But they said I was being a little too harsh on him because he had a general point about the direction of the law.
	And I was like, that's fair.
	So I thought Grok, so far I've been very pleased with Grok.
	It's about 80-90% accurate.
	About 10% of the time it's off when it's got the wrong sources, but that's all.
	By the way, best to make clear, stock market decline really doesn't have a lot to do with the tariffs.
	It has a little to do with the tariffs.
	And that Wall Street was getting rich, shipping labor at going to the lowest common denominator in labor costs.
	And the globalists got rich through Wall Street.
	And as Besant pointed out, half of America doesn't own a penny, nickel, dime or dollar of stock.
	He goes, you know, it's the top 10% that own almost all of it.
	And he's like, that's why Trump no longer cares about the stock market.
	By the way, if you want other points of people that are well-respected in a wide range of economics world...
	Read and watch Jim Rickards on this.
	Jim Rickards understands tariff policy well as well.
	And he's one of the most well-respected economic minds in the world.
	So is Scott Besich, by the way.
	In case people don't know who that guy is, Secretary of Treasury, somebody, a man who's recognized as a genius in the hedge fund investment economic world, in the real economic world.
	And he says this is the best way to get there.
	By the way, look what happens soon afterwards.
	The media wanted to talk about the stock market, which ordinary Americans don't really care about.
	What the media was not talking about was decline of interest rates, which is good for a whole bunch of things.
	Housing economy, repayment of our debt, saving of billions of dollars.
	Second, they didn't talk about the decline in the oil price of oil.
	What's the most important input cost to real inflation that impacts real Americans?
	Oil costs.
	And oil is going down.
	I've just got to show this.
	This is who we're dealing with with Mark Carney as I look at this.
	Mark Carney, Mark J. I got to make sure it's right there.
	He puts out a picture.
	I just think of him as globalist Satanist Mark Carney.
	I like your description.
	He's got a little devil head.
	He's on his freaking liberal private jet to which I say, is that a green energy jet?
	There it is.
	There's liberal.
	I'm BC bound, bitches.
	We're liberal.
	We love the environment.
	We have a private jet.
	I'm going to go hard on Mark Carney until April 28th.
	And if you idiot liberals vote for him, you're idiots.
	Robert, what do we have next on the menu?
	Oh, we got SCOTUS.
	We've got arbitration, IBM, DEI, non-citizenship rights, the FDA, a case actually called Dixie X concerning Rico.
	And when you get impounded and you're in the car that got impounded.
	Okay, we got a bit more time here on all platforms.
	Let's start with one.
	I don't know what the name of the case is, but it's the one with IBM.
	I think, well, yeah, we'll do SCOTUS.
	Yeah, we can race through some of the shorter ones, and SCOTUS is the more time one.
	Yeah, well, the one that you sent me, and I had to Google through it to make sure your name wasn't in it because it sounded a lot like Red Hat.
	This was an employee who alleges that he was fired, not for the reasons they gave him, which he argued were pretextual, but as a result of their DEI policies, which basically penalized being white.
	It was IBM, right?
	It was IBM in this case?
	Oh, yes, yes.
	So IBM bought Red Hat.
	And so while my client worked for Red Hat, effectively worked for IBM, so both sued.
	And this is part of those cases.
	Another case, he went public, blew the whistle.
	And that led to a bunch of other cases being filed where people...
	So credit to him for taking lead on this, for willing to go public about it, and for willing to be a source.
	He and some others were the key source.
	Well... Well, I'll put it this way.
	James O'Keefe published information from whistleblowers.
	I'll leave it at that.
	And all that to say, this guy was alleging that he was terminated as a result of racist DEI.
	Yeah, wrong race, wrong gender.
	You're a white man?
	Screw you.
	And IBM made a motion to dismiss, and basically the outcome of this decision was dismissing the motion to dismissing, taken at face value, given the most, what is it called, the most favorable interpretation, plausibility of the allegations, it's conceivable that this guy was actually fired as a result of racist policies for DEI and not because of the protectional reasons that you gave him, so they dismissed the motion to dismiss and it can proceed, I guess what, to discovery, to trial, I don't know what stage of the proceedings it's at, but it's a good indication for where you're going with Red Hat, individuals who were fired for the same reason.
	Black and white, though, I think it's quite clear.
	It's a big ruling.
	It should have been axiomatic, but the fact that it was ever in doubt shows you the disturbing nature of our federal judicial branch.
	They were arguing, because you're part of the majority group, now you're not really gender-wise, but they pretend that is, so that because you're white and because you're a man, you have to prove you have a higher evidentiary standard, according to IBM, in order to be able to sue under the Civil Rights Act of 1981 than anybody else does.
	That was the core of their real claim.
	Their claim was, oh, you're part of the majority groups.
	You're part of the powerful.
	This is where the left is, by the way.
	The left would completely say that only minority groups, only the powerless, have the right to sue for discrimination.
	They don't believe in the rule of law.
	They don't believe in neutral racial principles.
	They don't believe in that at all.
	And so these corporate lawyers making that exact argument.
	And the judge is like, that isn't the law, nor has it ever been the law.
	America is equal under the law.
	We are color blind.
	That's the point of it.
	It is racist to promote race.
	And what, as was pointed out in the lawsuit, IBM went about, under the Biden administration, encouraged and incentivized by the Biden administration, set up not only a diversity policy, they set up a structured bonus policy directly correspondent to quotas.
	They said however much you increased non-white male participation in the business, you would get bonuses for.
	So naturally, everybody who was going to get bonuses for that started screwing over every white guy that worked for them.
	Even though in the tech industry, tends to be an industry with disproportionately men, and often more white men than other ethnic groups.
	Though it depends on the subgroup.
	From India and some other places, you also get over-representation.
	But that is based on who chooses to pursue those professions, not based on institutionalized discrimination, as is the lie of the left.
	And thankfully, the court made the right ruling.
	Yes, you have the same rights to sue for discrimination as anybody else, and DEI policy was always illegal.
	Big ruling in that direction.
	Alright, which one do you want to move on to before we get to the SCOTUS decisions?
	Sure, we can briefly get through two more.
	The arbitration one and the non-citizenship right one.
	Related to that, my case against Red Hat is currently pending before federal court where Red Hat is trying to argue that it has to go to secret...
	Arbitration in North Carolina, where nobody can know what's happening, where you don't have a right to a trial by jury, where you don't have a right to trial by a judge, an elected or appointed judge, where you don't have a right to appeal at all to anybody, anywhere, anyplace, anytime.
	And to me, I have been complaining about arbitration for a long time.
	And sadly, corporate Republicans have been the biggest advocates for taking away the Americans' constitutional rights to trial by jury.
	And to public trials by elected and appointed judges, not trial by secretive administrative bureaus, not trials by secretive arbitration proceedings.
	And this case went up to the higher courts.
	And the issue was, do you have a right to discovery on whether or not you ever signed an arbitration agreement?
	This is how insane the arbitration is.
	For example, in my case, my client never signed an arbitration agreement.
	His original employment contract had no reference to an arbitration agreement.
	So how is it Red Hat and IBM are claiming it has to go to arbitration?
	Because later on, they put in some generic bonus policy that talked about arbitration.
	But we're not litigating the bonus policy.
	So it should have nothing to do with it.
	And yet we're here.
	Well, this case is even worse.
	This is a case that went up to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that presides over Pennsylvania, New Jersey, some other places.
	And what happened is CVS created a manual, a training manual, that they only briefly shared with their employees and then cut off their access to.
	And in this training manual, it said everybody's all disputes go to arbitration.
	So it's not part of their employment contract, not part of a separate agreement, no adequate notice, no counseled representation, no even signature.
	And they're trying to say those cases have to go to arbitration.
	And ask yourself, do corporations love arbitration because they think they're going to get anybody that would ever be biased against them?
	Or do you think they love arbitration because they know they're all in their pocket?
	It's funny.
	I've been involved in law, or at least was involved for long enough that it was the earlier days of arbitration where it was a godsend.
	It would get you out of the court system.
	It would be faster.
	It would be confidential.
	And you live through the absolute corruption and weaponization of arbitration to Absolutely screw the little person who makes it prohibitively costly to proceed to arbitration in jurisdictions that are unfavorable, usually imposed by contracts of adhesion.
	And I don't know, how do you get back to the ideal state of what arbitration was?
	I mean, the whole thing is it's got to be negotiated between equals who can...
	Arbitration should be limited to big corporations having disputes with each other.
	Right? Those people that have very sophisticated parties on both sides, both of whom use the arbitration system as often as anybody else, both of whom the arbitrator has no institutional incentive to be biased in favor of.
	So that's who it should be limited to.
	That's who it was originally designed for.
	It should not be for ordinary, everyday people whose rights are violated either by the government or a corporation.
	That's who it should not apply to because it strips them of their constitutional rights and remedies and it creates biased discriminatory forms that effectively negate the law and nullify their rights under the Constitution.
	That's what needs to change.
	And for it, we need legislative reform at the federal level and the state level.
	That everybody should have a guaranteed right to trial by jury and no arbitration clause can take that away from them ever.
	That you can voluntarily enter arbitration if you want to.
	At the time the dispute arises, but not before.
	And not otherwise.
	I have found arbitrators to be a nightmare.
	They're institutionally biased and bigoted in favor of the corporate clientele and corporate lawyers that are on the other side.
	It's very simple.
	If you're an arbitrator, how do you keep getting paid?
	How do you keep getting picked as an arbitrator for cases?
	You rule in favor of the people that are going to be repeat actors.
	Who are those going to be?
	Big corporations and their lawyers.
	If you go in and consistently rule against big corporations, you'll get treated the way the NFL treats arbitrators who give players big benefits.
	You suddenly stop getting cases.
	You suddenly stop getting money.
	You're literally economically aligned to bias justice against the ordinary worker and the ordinary person.
	And that's why we should never have been in favor of it.
	I'm glad this federal court recognized that when somebody is saying, I didn't sign an arbitration agreement, They're at least entitled to discovery of whether or not they ever signed it before they're forced into the arbitration contract.
	So that was the good side of this case.
	But it highlights how deeply problematic arbitration has become.
	Yeah, and then now that I think of it, the case that I had was between two co-equal corporations or at least negotiating powers and there were reasons for confidentiality that everybody wanted to maintain.
	You weren't worried about the arbitrator being biased for one side or the other.
	When we did it, we picked three arbitrators.
	I forget if it was 1-1 and agree on the third, but it was not...
	Although, no, there were issues in terms of potential.
	Well, that was a different case.
	But yeah, it is on an individual basis.
	Well, you discover that once you get into arbitration.
	I've yet to meet an arbitrator I have any respect for.
	They're all a bunch of corrupt bums.
	It was expensive.
	I mean, that's what I can tell you.
	And they loved it.
	All of a sudden, it goes from taxpayer-funded court access to you having to pay it out of pocket, and many ordinary people can't afford it.
	So they get hammered.
	So it's even worse.
	It makes justice very expensive to access, as well as discriminatory along the way.
	Now, speaking of the people trying to pretend they have rights that they don't.
	Which is happening in all the different illegal immigration contexts.
	My favorite was an attempt of an illegal immigrant who was ordered to prison.
	And what federal law says is if you commit an additional crime beyond the crime of illegally entering the country.
	That's what I love when they kept saying the El Salvadoran guy had no criminal history.
	He committed a crime by his own admission by being here in the first place.
	That's called a crime.
	Crime, crime, crime, crime.
	Which the left tries to pretend doesn't exist.
	But these are criminals who commit additional crimes here.
	And what it says is if you commit an additional crime, you have to serve, and you're subject to a removal order, you have to serve your entire time.
	You don't get any good time credits to get out early.
	You have to serve your time before we deport you.
	And the lefties brought suit saying, oh, that's so discriminatory.
	It violates equal protection because you're discriminating against us because we're criminals.
	That's so wrong because that's the way they think.
	And luckily the federal court said no.
	Citizenship distinctions have been constitutionally predicated forever and it doesn't make you a suspect class that deserves special protection because you're not a citizen.
	That's exactly who is given less constitutional protection by intention.
	So good that latest nutty lefty legal theory got rejected by even the liberal-leaning federal courts.
	Robert, I realize I haven't done this in a long time.
	Shameless plug, people.
	Louie the Lobster Returns to the Sea, written by David Fryhade and illustrated by Abigail Martin, the daughter of one of the members of our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community.
	I give everyone the Amazon affiliate link.
	Go get the book self-published and leave a positive review.
	It's a great kid's book.
	No one has ever regretted buying a kid's book.
	Let me put the link back in here for everybody.
	Link. All right.
	Now, Robert, before we go further, because actually that was one of the things.
	It's about that book.
	Wonderful illustrations by the daughter of one of our board members because at vivabarneslaw.locals.com everybody is above average.
	It was amazing.
	Well, the trolls.
	They're above average.
	This is true.
	They're still above average.
	Even when they're annoying, they're above average.
	We got more.
	Here we got Andre Tukulescu, who's from Canada.
	You guys should do a mock trial on Rumble and have the audience be the jury also.
	I call dibs on Canada as 23rd Chinese province instead of 51st state.
	It's on my ex.
	That's funny, Andre.
	Beautiful dog, by the way.
	He's got a beautiful shepherd.
	What was I going to say about that?
	A trial would be great, like a debate type thing.
	Does Rumble have a poll function yet in the chat?
	I don't know.
	That's a good question.
	Hold on.
	The stream is not over?
	Have I done something?
	There is not, unfortunately.
	Hold on, but I didn't just end the stream, did I?
	You're good.
	Okay, we're still there.
	Well, I just lost all of the chats.
	Oh, no, I can get it back.
	Those two women look like trolls from the labyrinth.
	I got that.
	All right.
	Let's do a few more.
	Supreme Court cases, one involving Trump that has great promise for the future and a surprising majority author.
	Or, well, not the official author.
	A dubious, unanimous decision on the Food and Drug Administration concerning e-cigarettes that has broader implications that's annoying.
	And then, when you can sue for Rico, the Dixie X case.
	Let's do the Trump one here and the two remaining Supreme Court ones over on vivabarneslaw.locals.com and we'll go over all the tip questions and have our after party there.
	Give time, everyone, to go sign up if you want to become a member.
	This is supporters only.
	It's the way we thank our community.
	If you're interested in going to the 1776 Law Center Retreat with the Barnes Law School and all the rest, you can see the pinned tweet.
	Also, you can go to the Master Classes session.
	There's all kinds of other ones.
	But it includes a hush-hush content playlist over 80 hush-hush alternative narratives.
	And by popular demand, I got the one up about is or was Orenthal James Simpson actually innocent?
	Go watch the hush-hush.
	Hold on.
	I don't know why Rumble just kicks me out for no reason.
	We've got to get that Ewan Dershowitz to have...
	He can't...
	Talk about it.
	Well, he can't talk about it in detail at all because he was the counsel.
	He was the lawyer.
	Okay, fine.
	But the body language panel people say they're interested.
	In fact, we might have some special guests at the August retreat that might be from the body language folks.
	We'll be knowing that.
	And some other ones that might be surprises.
	But we'll see what happens.
	But vivaBarnesLaw.locals.com Where everybody's above average, and you get extraordinary value for the content.
	Go there.
	We'll be there for the after-party, answering questions, talking about cases exclusively.
	You get live Q&As throughout the week with Viva's after-parties after the show, with my bourbons at night, bourbon with Barnes, usually 9 p.m. Eastern.
	We do movie night.
	We do Barnes briefs.
	We do a whole bunch of other stuff, too, there.
	You really get good value at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And by the way, I didn't realize, everybody doesn't know who the voice is.
	That is Encryptus.
	He is AgentGuru underscore IO on Twitter.
	In fact, we might have some special AI and other presentations at the 1776 Law Center Retreat by Mr. Encryptus, who lives in the great city of Chattanooga, Tennessee.
	So it'll be all kinds of value for that.
	It'll be a lot of fun.
	And here's the link to Agent Guru.
	Go give him a follow on Twitter because he's absolutely value-added.
	Amazing guy.
	Helping me with the show.
	We call him, you know, the Viva Fry Jamie to the Joe Rogan.
	And so periodically he comes in with the fact check, sends me a bunch of stuff in the backdrop so that makes me look smarter.
	All right.
	SCOTUS, Trump, what the heck is going on?
	So it came down late Friday.
	So I didn't even get to make it.
	It didn't make it in to the Barnes brief because it came down late.
	So on Friday, another crazy court issued another crazy ruling, this time deciding that the judicial branch should control the purse.
	So remember that the general principles are the legislative branch decides what the laws are and controls the power of the purse.
	The executive branch executes and enforces what the laws are and has the power of the sword.
	The judicial branch is supposed to have neither.
	It just gets to resolve disputes.
	The judicial branch, however, has decided to usurp the president's role, as we talked about at the top of the show, ordering President Trump to go and invade El Salvador, kidnap an El Salvadoran citizen from their El Salvadoran prison, where they've been lawfully locked up, and bring him to the United States because a federal judge says so.
	That's how insane our federal courts have become.
	Well, the Massachusetts court said, you have to spend whatever money we tell you to spend.
	And the three liberal justices wrote dissent, Saying this is natural for a court.
	This is how ideological they become.
	They become so ideological that they are helpless and hopeless on the left to care at all about the Constitution.
	They just don't care.
	That's why there have to be impeachments.
	There have to be funding cuts.
	There have to be jurisdictional divestments.
	There have to be a bunch of institutional reforms because our judicial branch has got it out of control.
	But his latest version, they said, no, President Trump, you're going to pay money to these Democratic governors because I said so.
	I don't care what the Constitution says.
	I'm now taking over the power of the purse.
	I'm ordering the Treasury to write the checks.
	Finally, that broke the back of the Supreme Court, and the four honest justices on the court on this issue, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, got that weasel Amy Coney Barrett to finally change sides.
	And I think it's because Barrett, if you follow her, she's developing a tradition that when she's doing a statutory analysis, It tends to be like a law school.
	She's one of those people who really loves studying in law school, probably.
	You know, second year and like breaking it down.
	And when she went to class, didn't understand why the kid who never went to class got a better grade than she did because she'd worked so hard and was so astute.
	Yeah, you know what I'm talking about.
	I called it law by numbers, people.
	Right? Law is really supposed to be policy-driven, principle-driven, idea-driven.
	That's why if you're an intuitive personality, you should be able to...
	Skip class and still do well, for example.
	It's not necessarily practical about the reality of the practice of law.
	It's another matter.
	But Barrett switched sides.
	Barrett joined the four.
	And I think it's because she just looked at it and she said, hold on a second.
	Constitution's pretty clear.
	Courts don't have the power of the purse.
	And the Administrative Procedures Act is pretty clear that you can't order money damages.
	So what in the world is a court doing directing money around?
	That the court clearly has no jurisdiction over those cases.
	Which, by the way, is true of almost every immigration case out there, as people like Julie Kelly, others on social media, and others in the legal world have been identifying.
	They don't have jurisdiction over these cases.
	Congress is specifically taken away from them.
	So the Supreme Court finally realized...
	Okay, this is starting to look really bad.
	We're starting to usurp everything that's in the president's power.
	The American people are talking about impeaching a bunch of us.
	They're talking about taking away our budgets, taking away our power.
	Maybe we should actually read the law the way it's written and give back the power of the president.
	And they said there's no base.
	And they also, these TRO games courts were playing.
	They were issuing preliminary injunctions.
	But they're pretending, oh, I'll call this a temporary restraining order that requires you to do something immediately, which is the same thing as a preliminary injunction.
	But I won't call it that because then it's not appealable.
	Credit to the Supreme Court saying, it's obvious it's a preliminary injunction.
	Quit playing games by calling it a TRO.
	We're going to be giving appellate jurisdiction.
	They jumped right in and stated on the same day it was issued.
	So it tells you that this public noise About concern about rogue judges is starting to get to the Supreme Court.
	And even Amy Coney Barrett, in her Southern aristocratic small bubble she lives in amongst the Catholic intelligentsia, is even apparently getting the message.
	The only one that isn't is that corrupt hack Chief Justice John Roberts, who loved to go around with his buddy Norm Eisen throughout Europe and brainstorm ways.
	I mean, he would meet with Eisen extensively.
	While he was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Eisen had cases before the Supreme Court.
	Ask yourself how that isn't a little problematic.
	I guarantee you, if I had a dozen cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, and I went on a little 18-wheeler, a little RV trip with Clarence Thomas, even if we were just exploring America like he loves to do, by golly, they'd have thrown me in a hoose cow by now.
	Maybe that's where Norm Eisen and even John Roberts might belong.
	I think we need to start escalating against old Chief Justice Roberts so he fully gets the message because I don't think he's got it yet.
	Robert, before we head over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, we are going to end with a clip.
	It's funny, I've been following Rachel Gilmore ever since the fact checker lost her fact check position and got a new one.
	I'm following to see what she says.
	She seems to be the best spokesperson for Pierre Poilievre, even better than Pierre himself.
	I'm going to end with a video there as we transition in.
	Cherian on Rumble says, "You are rocking on Rumble.
	Congratulations." And Andre Tucholescu says, "Correction, in-person mock trial, like in suits, get another possibly funny personality to be the judge.
	If you want a sneak peek at modern liberal lawfare, like the case that I'm going to have with the sentencing on my birthday this Friday up in Seattle, Washington, King County Superior Court, the bench hoof.
	case before the judge Parisian, where I'm sure she'll just, you know, make up all kinds of rules and throw the book at him no matter what.
	It's someone that, you know, the, that if he'd actually raped and murdered somebody, he'd already be.
	That's how nuts it is.
	Mostly you're fighting for the appeal there.
	But I always tell people if you want an inside viewpoint of what liberal lawfare looks like in these jurisdictions, I highly recommend the legal scene.
	From the movie Idiocracy.
	And that will give you a good example of what the judges kind of look like.
	And I almost forgot something that NeuroDivergent, the moderator on Rumble, asked me before we end if we could raid a channel of his friend.
	I don't know the guy, but if NeuroDivergent says he's a good person, which he did, I'm going to...
	Oh, Steven Crowder would be a good judge.
	Yeah, I agree.
	Somebody mentioned that in the chat.
	Because, man, his brain is fast.
	Watching the two of you go at it, someone was joking, good lord, imagine Barnes on meth.
	Well, imagine Viva and Crowder on meth on double speed.
	2x speed on the YouTube.
	I usually like to speed it up.
	Can't do that with Viva or Crowder.
	Then I can't even understand what the heck just happened.
	Because you guys already talk fast and think fast.
	And are able to think on your feet very, very quickly.
	Well, thank you very much, Robert.
	Now, we're going to go raid someone.
	NeuroDivergent, the moderator, said, go raid my friend.
	He's a good guy.
	He's got a small channel.
	Go raid him.
	When we end, if you're not coming to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, go raid the channel.
	I don't know him, but I trust NeuroDivergent, and we've done it.
	But I want to play with...
	I want to end this show with a clip, which I think is going to make many people like Pierre Bollièvre even more.
	Rachel Gilmore says, catching up on a few things, did you know that Pierre, speaking in French, called UNWRA terrorists and said he'd stop giving any funding to them?
	And a lot of people in the chat are saying, we're already voting for him, Rachel!
	Thank you very much.
	As we wind down this show and take it over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, enjoy this clip, go raid the channel, let them know where you came from, and enjoy the content.
	And if not, I will see you tomorrow at 4 o'clock.
	Let's just play this.
	50 seconds.
	Who are you talking about when you talk about terrorists?
	UNRWA. In Gaza, the Liberal government continues to finance UNRWA.
	And the liberal government continues to finance them.
	They found members of Hamas within the group.
	They contributed to the attacks on the 7th of October.
	Oh, they were already deported.
	Sorry? The media is clearly trying to cut them off.
	This is like the hardest thing in Canada is penetrating the state-funded media.
	But that's Pierre Poiliev saying they're going to defund the UNRA.
	They're terrorists.
	And it's like, oh, well, we already got rid of those people.
	They were already fired, the ones who helped on October 7th.
	Get bent.
	You never get money for the rest of your life.
	Okay. Let's go.
	We're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and I do it like this.
	Okay, everybody?
	Godspeed. Robert, where are you at this week?
	We'll have live bourbons throughout the week.
	Then you have to be up in Seattle on Friday for that court appearance.
	Then on Saturday night, America's Untold Stories is here in Las Vegas with a meetup.
	That's Eric Hundley and Mark Grobert.
	They're doing a special event and we're going to be their special guest.
	While still in Vegas.
	I think you're able to make it out.
	Even the little fella's coming, right?
	I know.
	Logistically, it's going to be difficult, but it's going to be...
	Touch wood.
	This Saturday, it's going to be amazing.
	Absolutely. Biba's going to do live gator wrestling at the Vegas competition.
	All right.
	I'll be live tomorrow at 4 o'clock and standard stuff, people.
	Stay tuned.
	Godspeed. God bless.
	Locals, here we come.
	Updating stream.

▲