All Episodes
April 14, 2025 - Viva & Barnes
02:21:48
Ep. 259: Shapiro Home FIREBOMBED! Pavlovski Goes NUCLEAR on Dorsey Over AI! Elections Canada & MORE
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
That's a woman, she said.
A.A. Degelas is disgusting.
Look at them smashing her.
Degelas. Three men on one woman and look at the way they're pushing her head into the stairs.
Look what the guy's doing with her left arm.
Are you mentally, are you insane?
Are you crazy?
Four men.
Oh, there's five men.
Six minutes.
Is that it false?
You're not ashamed to be doing this?
It's a woman.
It's an independent journalist.
What are you arresting her for?
Voix de fait.
Voix de fait means assault in French.
And I'm not going to make fun of their English reading her rights as they pummel her head and chest and neck into the sidewalk.
I'll get it.
That is one, two, three, four, five, seven men.
Seven armed men violently assaulting one single independent journalist woman.
That comes from Alex Salavoie.
I said I'd be putting this on as much blast as humanly possible, and I'm going to.
The woman that they were arresting, violently arresting, her handle on Twitter is Natasha Montreal, an independent journalist.
That was in front of the Basilica Notre Dame, or not far from the Basilica Notre Dame, the Notre Dame Cathedral in Montreal, where you had a, call it whatever you want, pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas, pro-Middle East, pro-whatever.
They had a protest, and the two independent female journalists who were there...
Alexa Lavoie and Natasha Montréal, documenting this, started getting aggressed, verbally assaulted, harassed, intimidated by the crowd.
The brave armed men of the, this is not Sûreté de Québec, this was Montreal police.
They do nothing, except they then violently assault and arrest Natasha.
And by the way, they press criminal charges against her.
Alexa Lavoie is going to be breaking this story.
I'm very much prone to be a back the blue reflexively.
They have a tough job.
Constant risk, every stop, every pulling someone over at a red light could lead to violent confrontation.
They have a very, very tough job.
They see stuff that most people will never see in their lives.
They see it on the daily.
That doesn't mean that I am...
Unabashedly, always pro-police.
There will be times where I will see stuff like this and I will say, I am not backing the police on this.
This is grotesque abuse.
And they're idiots.
They're stupid.
This was all on camera.
And by the way, not to hype up Alexa Lavoie's publication later today, but I'm gonna.
She sent me a single screen grab from what she caught on the 360 camera of the incident that led up to this.
Violent assault on an independent journalist woman.
I'm looking at this still, this screen grab, and I'm like, that's not how anybody touches a woman.
I'm not going to use hyperbolic language to describe the police, but these police out of Montreal are disgusting.
These six, seven are disgusting.
Disgusting, grotesque abuse of power.
And by the way, Montreal doesn't have a good reputation when it comes to its police force.
The most trigger-happy police force in Canada, from what I recall.
Grotesque abuse.
And people were like, well that, we only see from the moment when they grab a woman, unarmed, who's holding a camera, and throw her out like a ragdoll, and then smash her head and shoulder down onto the steps of the cathedral.
Well, we didn't see what led up to that.
Well, when I take a position publicly, I do my best to make sure that I have as much information as humanly possible, even if it's not yet public.
I knew what led up to that incident, and I know what the evidence will show led up to that incident, and it's grotesque what led up to that incident, and not on behalf of Natasha, who I happen to know personally.
Maybe Natasha, I could see her maybe yelling at a cop for not protecting her from a violent mob of...
Pro-Hamas, pro-Palestinian, whatever you want to call them, protesters.
I could see her maybe getting a little irritated.
I could see her getting a little vocal like Alexa Lavoie.
But I could not see her being violent as in the voix de fait.
V-O-I-E-S de F-A-I-T-S.
Voix de fait is assault in French.
Maybe it was assault like, hey, hey, cop, you want to do something?
And then the cop's like, oh, you just slapped me.
No. When you see what the cop put his hands on, the way the cop put his hands on Natasha, Before the confrontation, holy hell!
Not only do they need to drop these criminal charges against Natasha, they need to press some charges against the cop.
This should lead to a massive, massive settlement by the cops.
Pay it up to Natasha.
Holy hell.
When you see it, you'll know.
And you're going to see it later today, so watch the report coming from Alexa Lavoie.
But I put this out there on the interwebs, and I...
Facetiously, I don't know if that's the right word, sarcastically, ironically, tongue-in-cheek, maybe needling a very silent Pierre Pauliev.
And it's like, hey, Pierre, now might be a good time for the party of freedom of speech, for the party of constitutional charter rights, to say something.
Hey, Pierre, you were deadly silent when Tamara Leach and Chris Barber were maliciously prosecuted for mischief.
And then you have the longest mischief trial in the history of Canada that led to the most insanely idiotic conviction for mischief, for exercising charter rights of peaceful assembly, freedom of association.
Hey, the so-called Conservative Party, Charter of Rights.
Maybe you want to say something.
No, no, no.
Pierre doesn't want to say anything as relates to Chris Barber and Tam Arley.
You can't be.
You don't know how Canadian politics work.
You're American.
First of all, I won't swear.
But just understand that whenever I say fudging morons, I mean fucking idiots.
Hey, you fudging morons.
I lived in Canada up until I was 42 years old.
Hey, you fudging morons.
I ran for federal office in Canada.
But you didn't win any seats, so you really don't know how it works.
You gotta play to the middle in order to get elected.
Hey, you fudging morons.
The Conservatives didn't win in 2021 either.
So congratulations.
Keep doing it.
It's working wonders.
Oh, Viva, you don't understand.
We hate Trump up here in Canada.
If Pierre acts like Trump, he'll definitely lose the election.
All right, tell that to Aaron O'Toole.
So Pierre doesn't want to associate with the truckers, even though they're associating him with the truckers anyhow.
Oh, he did the photo ops.
He brought them donuts.
And then Pierre tries to distance himself after having tried to get close to the truckers back when he thought it was cool to do so.
Hey, Pierre, you might want to say, oh, no, no, I can't say anything about Tamara Leach.
Too polarizing.
Can't say anything about Chris Barber.
Too polarizing.
Maybe you want to say something when you have the Montreal police violently assaulting a woman, female, independent journalist who's out there documenting violent, harassing, so-called protests that have been spreading across Canada.
Maybe you want to say that, no, Viva, he can't do that.
He can't do that, Viva.
Don't you understand?
It's, um...
Let me bring this.
I'm not putting this guy on blast because I want to make fun of him.
I'm putting this guy on, not this guy on blast, the idea of what this guy said.
Because he's not the only one.
The amount of so-called conservatives I've heard this bullshit excuse from.
You fudging morons.
Yeah. Most likely because it's politically toxic, even if you agree or support the convoy.
Seriously, dude, this is politics.
Optics matter.
And in commie Eastern Canada, they're too pussy to have a backbone.
Hence why Pierre has to go to the center and avoid political toxic people events.
Use your brain and remove the bias.
And think what and how elections are won.
Everything you're pointing out they should do is only a win in Western Canada, not the East that determines the elections.
This is why the PPC will win nothing and go nowhere.
They have no willingness to play politics and do what is pathetically necessary to win federal election.
Support Alberta separation and fuck the Eastern Conference.
All right, bud.
I'm not making fun of this guy because he is expressing the sentiment that too many so-called conservatives are expressing.
You've got to play politics.
You've got to play the center.
It didn't work for Aaron O'Toole in 2021.
It didn't work in 2019.
It didn't work in 2015.
So congratulations, you're going to lose with no principles.
Maybe someone wants to see something a little different than the status quo, that carnage carny.
You're going to hear a lot of construction going on.
It vibes with my anger.
That might be why I'm so angry also.
So congratulations!
No principles.
No courage.
But you think you've got to play to the center to win.
You're going to play to the center and lose.
And at this point, the rationale is, I've got to become the enemy in order to defeat the enemy.
But I won't become as bad as the enemy.
I've just got to be more like the enemy to defeat the enemy.
Because people are two pussies to vote for...
True so-called conservatives.
I don't even think it's conservative anymore.
True constitutionalists.
Hey, dumb bums.
It is not analogous to compare the performance of the PPC, a political party that's existed for five years, that's been through two federal elections.
It's not analogous to the conservatives.
And if you think it is, that's because you're a fudging moron.
Oh, the PPC didn't win.
Yeah, they've been around for two election cycles.
So congratulations.
If you think they're equal, that's only in your mind.
The Conservatives have now lost three elections in a row, and they're virtually on their way to lose a fourth because they have no principles.
They don't want to stand up for what is right, even though they know it's right, because they think by not standing up for what's right, it's somehow going to get them in the good graces of the people who are bad.
Congratulations. In any event...
But the markets are stabilizing, so clearly what Pierre is doing must be working.
He's giving podcasts.
Good for him.
It shows a human side.
Good for him.
But I have to hear one more so-called conservative say, we can't stand up for what's right for the charter values that we purport to support because it'll be unpopular.
You deserve to lose.
And you'll lose as a loser.
At least Carney tells you who he is when he says it.
Oh. That's what's going on in Canada.
Look at this.
This is Justin Trudeau.
This is Mark Carney.
Distinguish yourself from them.
I know that the funny thing is there's a picture of Pierre Poilievre sort of dressed up like that.
No, no.
You've got to play to the base of those people.
No. Has it occurred to you that people are looking for courage, Pierre?
People are looking for someone to vocally stand up for their rights?
No, they're two pussies in Quebec and Ontario.
They always vote liberal anyhow.
Maybe. Just maybe they're looking for something different.
And by making yourself indistinguishable.
In morals, principles, and standards from the party that you're trying to defeat, why would anyone vote for you then in any case?
Playing politics.
Congratulations! You're playing politics by becoming the enemy that you want to defeat.
Okay, Barnes is in the house, but before we do that, you know, as the blood pressure rises, we've got to do the things that are actually good for your health.
I'm going to go to our sponsor for today's show, people.
Qualia. Now, hold on a second.
I've got my Qualia mind, which...
It's actually very good.
They're caffeinated pills, people.
So if you're taking these things, you might want to take, space them out throughout the day, but they work.
Now, incidentally, they have something called Qualia Senolytics, which I'm also taking, which I don't have the pack for because you do it once every two months and the pack is gone once you do it.
But as you get older, people, things start to hurt.
You start to feel a little bit cranky.
You wake up a little stiff.
Your knees hurt when you bend over.
And there's scientific reasons for which it happens.
And there's scientific methods to...
If not outright reverse, just put it on pause, stop the aging process, or make yourself feel better as you're doing it.
And that is where Qualia Senolytic comes in.
The first of its kind formula designed to help your body naturally eliminate senolysin cells.
If you don't know what senolysin cells are, they're called zombie cells.
And I ran this by my wife who, if you...
Don't know.
She's a neuroscientist, and I make sure that whenever I get involved with any company, I do my due diligence and make sure that they're good, and Qualiost analytics is good.
It's a science that is revolutionizing human aging.
A big culprit behind the so-called middle-aged feeling can be senescent cells, also known as zombie cells, that linger in your body after their useful function.
They waste your energy's resources like the leaves of a tree that stay on the tree.
Even though they've died, they still use energy, so you prune those leaves out and you make the tree...
Vibrant and flourish.
That is what Quality Ascent Analytics does.
The accumulation of zombie cells can lead to slower workout time, slower recovery, joint pain, etc., etc.
It's a groundbreaking, clinically tested supplement, Senolytics, with nine vegan plant-derived compounds that help your body naturally eliminate senolysis into these so-called zombie cells, helping you feel years younger in just months.
How it works?
You take for two days a month, helping your body naturally eliminate the zombie cells to age better at the cellular level.
You'll do it two days a month because that's all you need, and then you do it the next month.
And it comes in packs of 12. You take six, six, and then you're done for the month.
Qualia's breakthrough formula is vegan, non-GMO, and it is approved and endorsed by leading scientists.
Experience the science of feeling younger.
Go to qualialife.com forward slash Viva for up to 50% off your purchase.
Use code Viva for an additional 15%.
qualialife.com slash Viva.
Go now, get it, get some, and feel better.
I don't feel better.
I don't feel better with what I see going on in Canada.
And by the way, for all of you idiots up there who say, Viva, you fled Canada, you pussy.
First of all, when you're looking at someone drown, if I may just have one last rant before Barnes comes in, when you're looking at someone drown in the water, you don't necessarily have to let them pull you down in the water with you.
Sometimes you need to punch them in the face and take yourself to shore because you can't save a drowning person, especially one who doesn't know that they're drowning or who doesn't care that they're drowning.
So you call me a pussy for leaving.
Understand what the flip side is to that.
And it's, by the way, it's so-called conservatives saying this to me.
They might all be a bunch of bought accounts.
They might be liberals in disguise.
So I do factor that in.
Anybody who is saying, vive you pussy, you should have stayed in Canada.
You should have financed your own abuse.
You should have sat here, had the government that's abusing you steal 50% of your dollars so that we as so-called conservatives can tell you to compromise on your principles and vote for the lesser of the evils because we're too freaking cowardly.
Oh, forget leaving.
We're going to stay here, but we're the brave ones who are going to compromise on our principles and vote for the lesser of the evils, who won't stand up for freedom of speech and charter rates, and we have the balls to call you the coward?
Hey, at least I ran for federal office, shared my views with Canadians, and Canadians said, no, we prefer to vote liberal again.
Coward. You want me to stay in the water with you while you pull me down?
No thank you.
Barnes, you want to come on in?
How badly can you hear the noise in the background?
I can't hear it at all.
Okay. Oh, Robert, can you believe what's going on?
Like, if it were America, that assault on that reporter, I mean, cops would go to jail, and they would be writing million-dollar payouts.
I think someone in the chat said, Viva didn't flee Canada.
Canada fled Viva.
Canada took a big pat.
This is Canada, Viva.
Give me the foot to the chest.
So are you skeptical that the Conservatives can make a comeback for the polling?
Well, Pierre has been doing podcasts, and they're not bad podcasts.
He did one with the Knowledge podcast.
It's good.
My only qualm is that they are baby glove podcasts.
There's no pushback.
I thought that construction was coming on my end.
I think it is.
I can't hear it.
I'm going to mute myself when I'm not talking.
Sorry, guys.
I'll mute myself when I'm not talking, but I think he can make a comeback.
The podcasts are good, but he's got to have one where they sort of push back.
Cut foreign aid.
What have you been promoting for the last four years when it comes to Ukraine?
You wear a scarf and say, Slavia, we're going to stay with Ukraine until the end.
How do you reconcile that with your stance now?
But he's doing good.
I think he'll come back.
I don't know.
What do you think, watching from abroad?
Well, the members of sportspicks.locals.com, we gave out a political pick on yesterday's election, back in Ecuador, and we predicted that Naboa...
Who was a big underdog.
He was trading at 2-1, 1.5-1, somewhere in that range.
Not only he won, he won easily.
So if you remember, you got to cash those bets.
So still predicting that the conservatives will overperform the polls.
Don't know if they'll get anywhere back to where they once were.
I agree.
I mean, the problem with what I would call the right in the West.
Is that you've got two different rights.
You've got like the East European, Southern European, Latin American right, which is a much more populist bent.
And that's where you see success in Slovenia.
You see success in Hungary.
You see success in Russia.
You see success in large parts of Latin America, like whether it's Malay and Argentina or the great president of El Salvador.
He was the most popular leader in the entire world, second only over time to Putin.
And when conservatism adopts populism, then you see, like it has in large parts of Central and Southern Europe, in Eastern Europe, large parts of Latin America, it succeeds,
just like it did in the United States with Trump.
On the other hand, when you see Tory-style conservatism, Like you see in the United Kingdom, like Pierre keeps flirting with in Canada, that all you get is a weaker version of the other side.
And you're right that nobody wants that.
Nobody's interested in that.
That doesn't engage anybody.
And they underperform and they underachieve.
I mean, the Tories are on the verge of being wiped out in the UK.
Reform may just completely replace them by the next election.
The only reason Labour has power in...
In the UK is because everybody hates the Tories more than they hated the labor.
Labor itself is still underwater.
Two-thirds of the Brits don't like it.
So you might see the same thing in Canada where the liberals extend their power, even though people don't really like the liberals in power in Canada because the Tories are not an effective alternative.
And so I think now the other factor is, I mean, what was really driving the polls wasn't all this anti-Trump.
Nonsense that gets spun out.
There's some of that in Canada.
To be patriotic in Canada is to be just not American.
That's Canadian patriotism.
I mean, it's kind of a joke.
When Canada does a real revolution, let me know.
But the other side of that is that the NDP and the Black Quebecois, I can't pronounce it correctly, their members are voting liberal.
And that's really where the political polling shift has come from, is the NDP shrinking and losing it and just giving its votes over to the Liberals.
If that sustains itself, then the Liberals are probably going to get back into power, though I think the polls might be overstating the scope of that because there's still a vestigial discomfort with the Liberals after this long in power with all the where Canada is economically and culturally and geopolitically.
Well, that's another factor that is worth mentioning, is that the NDP has tanked.
I mean, they're going to have, by the projections, a fraction of the seats that they once had.
If any, Jagmeet Singh is going to be out, but they're not going conservative.
They are apparently going liberal, which is, I mean, the irony is that the NDP, they're just liberals by a little bit more extreme.
Look, I have my investments in there, and I still think Pierre is going to, at the very least, eke out a conservative minority.
But holy hell, he's not doing himself any favors.
He's coming off like an absolute political coward, and the excuse that he has to cater to the center is exactly what he warned against when he did the interview with Jordan Peterson.
How the hell people don't understand this makes me...
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Well, it's exactly...
I mean, it was the Mitt Romney, John McCain campaign strategy here in the United States.
A lot of these Senate candidates...
The Wisconsin Supreme Court race.
You know, I disagree with Steve Bannon.
He blames that on Elon.
Elon is the only reason why that race had the good turnout that it did.
The reason Democrats won was because normies in Wisconsin, independent voters, don't trust...
The establishment conservatives.
And that's all they put up when it comes to Supreme Court races in the Midwest.
It's one establishment conservative after the other.
And those are not liked.
I mean, it's amazing, like the Benji Shapiros of the world haven't got this through their head.
Bushite conservatism is rejected.
American people don't want it.
They never did want it.
Bush lied to get into power in the first place.
You know, Poppy piggybacked off of Reagan and W pretended to be something he wasn't.
So the institutional establishment conservatism has been rejected throughout the Western world, throughout the whole world.
And the only people who haven't got the message are the people who control the campaigns, control the donations, and control the candidates.
And that's why Republicans constantly underperform and underachieve and can't take advantage of huge opportunities, just like the Tories in the UK, just like the Conservatives in Canada.
And what you're seeing, it's amazing to me, their ineptitude, that they don't understand this.
It's screaming at them.
It's screaming at them in decades of data across multiple similar political jurisdictions, and they just can't get it through their heads.
I know, and I've got to remember to keep it on because there's some hammering going on.
Robert, people in the chat have had enough of the Canadian politics, especially the conservatives who want the conservatives to win.
And who don't like the fact that I'm not saying the quiet part out loud, that I'm right.
Period. I'm right.
Just running a crap campaign.
I mean, more people should have spoken out against the Wisconsin poor campaign.
Yeah. I mean, they managed to lose by double digits despite getting a huge turnout.
Musk did his job.
Get a huge turnout.
He got it.
And the problem was independent voters so disliked the establishment conservative that they voted for a dislikable liberal.
By huge margins.
By two-to-one margins.
Now, I know there's some definite irregularities in Dane County.
Milwaukee should be explored.
But that doesn't explain losing Norwegian Western Wisconsin.
That doesn't explain losing industrial Southeast Wisconsin.
That doesn't explain losing the Fox River Valley.
So, I mean, it's because institutional...
I mean, Richard Barris has been screaming this for years.
You know, he's been trying to tell the California Republican Party, you could become a significant competitor in California if you embrace your populist wing and abandon your institutional establishment wing.
You're not winning back the San Francisco moderate.
You're not, if such a voter ever really existed, you're not winning back West L.A. You're not winning back Coastal California.
You can win a lot more votes out of Mexican-American Central California.
An old hillbilly country.
You can tune up and turn up the vote there.
But instead, they nominate, or they go out and they nominate a token.
They'll nominate somebody because their surname is Spanish.
It's like, that's not how you win that vote.
Trump did better than all of them.
And the 2012 post-Republican autopsy said, we need to embrace illegal immigration because that will help us with Hispanic voters and embrace diversity because that will help us.
Trump said, you're completely wrong.
You need to have real values and advance populism.
Because guess what?
Mexican-American voters, Venezuelan-American voters, Colombian-American voters, Puerto Rican-American voters are very populist-oriented voters.
And who got the most Mexican-American voters and Hispanic voters of any Republican ever?
Donald John Trump.
Running on what?
An anti-immigration message.
An anti-DEI message.
And it's amazing that it's right there in front of him.
And they just can't see it.
How did Orban succeed in Hungary?
I don't know.
Bolsonaro in Brazil.
Georgescu in Romania.
Marine Le Pen in France.
And no, it wasn't anti-Semitism and racism and xenophobia.
Although, at this point in time, there are a lot of Canadians who want an end to open immigration.
The riots and protests in the streets that they're seeing are not comparable to the Ottawa trucker protests because no one was getting harassed and assaulted at the Ottawa trucker protests.
It's the result of rampant open borders and bringing in people who are not only not assimilating...
are fundamentally incompatible with Western society.
And to the question earlier, like, Viva, do I think an American-style politics would work in Canada?
That's the wrong question.
How about just standing up for what you believe in?
That would work in Canada.
Not being a little pussy that rides the fence and says, I've got to go more centre to get elected.
Horse crap.
It's never worked before.
And you're right, Robert.
It's going to be just like the Tories.
I didn't understand how the Tories were decimated in the UK.
I think we might be...
I hope I'm wrong.
There's two weeks left.
Time is running out, Pierre, to find your scrotum.
But it's about time to find it.
I'm not going to talk about the most egregious miscarriages of justice because it might be too extreme.
But then leave politics.
And I get like Sargon of a Cod, Carl Benjamin and others, you know, the suggesting that Trump could handle Canada differently in ways that could boost the conservative cause.
If you're Trump, you'd rather have Carney in control because you want to sink Canada.
You want to subordinate Canada if you're Trump.
You're tired of this northern neighbor allowing illegal immigrants across the border, fentanyl across the border, stealing jobs in auto manufacturing and agricultural economies with a range of tricks and tariffs and other policies, more aligned with Europe than you are with America,
defining parts of your patriotism as anti-American.
Okay, let's see how that works for you, Canada.
Maybe, you know, seeing about Alberta or others joining into the broader U.S. project, if that secessionist movement grows and expands.
But if you're Trump, you'd rather have an obvious WEF foil running Canada, because you can just completely ignore them and run over them.
It gives you the green light to do, like the smart strategy for Pierre.
And would be, if I'm elected, I can protect Canada in dealing with Trump.
The Carney will get run over, bulldozed by Trump.
And that's precisely what's going to happen.
Not joining in the, oh, I'm anti-Trump light.
I'm Carney light.
And in that interview with the Knowledge Project where he talks about China, he asks about China and like, not Carney, just totally minimizes the risk that China's posing and almost equates in terms of an adversarial foreign nation, China to America.
And look, he's screwed up everything as far as I'm concerned because the right thing to do would have been to embrace the tariffs and use it as the focal point to highlight China's interference in Canada.
Yeah, no doubt about it.
Tonight will be the last night you can get a discounted price on the 1776 Law Center Retreat, August 15th to August 17th in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
We have the body language panels coming.
Scott Rouse will be there.
Greg Hartley will be there.
Chase Hughes will be there.
These are some of the greatest interrogators, mind readers, body language interpreters in the world.
So they're going to be present.
My brother!
Gordon Barnes is coming down.
So we'll be discussing political philosophy, life in general.
Probably do either a cigar night with the Barnes brothers or a brunch with the Barnes brothers.
Alexis Anderson, young lawyer, works for 1776 Law Center.
She's going to be in attendance.
And the one, the only, the inimitable, the irreplaceable, Viva Frye, will be in attendance as well.
So if you want to get that 25% discount, make sure to look it up.
It's a pinned comment at VivaBarnesLaw.com.
.locals.com for the best value and the best retreat.
It'll be master classes on tax topics, freedom topics, FOIA topics, law topics, you name it.
How many tickets are available?
It'll depend on the level of interest and demand.
We can be flexible in that regard.
But the discount, 25% discount, only lasts until midnight tonight.
Check it out there at vivabarneslaw.locals.com if you want to attend.
We'll have Freedom of Information Act masterclasses, masterclasses on tax issues and freedom planning issues in general, as well as various forms of mind control with Chase Hughes, body language with Scott Rouse, how to interrogate with Greg Hartley.
What it's like to be a young lawyer with Lexus Anderson in the freedom space.
My brother on political philosophy is a philosophy professor up at the State University of New York at Brockport.
And a lot more.
We'll have a fundraising dinner, barbecue with Barnes, bourbon with Barnes, some cigar nights, all of it thrown in in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
So if you want to come down, this will be the inaugural event that y'all can participate in.
And I'm looking into where there are good charter fishing.
We're going to be fishing with Viva!
And others that might be attending that fishing thing.
My brother-in-law Michael is a big fisherman.
My brother Gordon is a big fisherman.
So it might be another little fun little escapade.
We'll be adding little fun side projects along the way.
Might have some whiskey tastings from Chattanooga Whiskey.
Might have some other things to do too.
So we'll be adding it as we go along.
It's a fundraiser to support 1776 Law Center.
Which is in the lead in support of the Brooke Jackson case exposing the COVID vaccines.
Lead in support of Kyle Rittenhouse in the Court of Public Opinion during his entire case.
Lead in support for all the Covington kids' cases that fought for those rights in the Court of Public Opinion and the courts of law.
A leader on financial freedom, political freedom, medical freedom.
All of those components.
Food freedom.
That is important as we go forward.
The 1776 Law Center.
You can just look up the site.
1776lawcenter.com if you want to see all the updates, all the legal information, public information, continuing to upgrade it.
And the sports picks, for those that are asking, is a reference to sportspicks.locals.com where we can put out picks on all kinds of things.
Politics, sporting events, cultural events, you name it.
I think, for example, we're probably going to be putting out a pick that the Fed...
Probably going to be cutting rates pretty soon, related to some of the Trump tariff policy and some of the global financial issues that are taking place in between various judges and courts issuing various crazy rulings as part of tonight's agenda.
Well, we're going to get into that in a second.
I'm just going to bring up a couple of rumble rants here.
Super Buff Shaft, whose name I always love saying, after all these years, you both still buy into elections.
You learned nothing from the 2021 Arizona audit you didn't watch.
Well, first of all, we did.
Nothing for Joven's Pulitzer's audit.
That I'm less familiar with what Joven said, but nothing of Michael Gableman's Wisconsin report on Rumble.
Well, super buff shaft.
I still do buy into elections because Trump did get elected because sufficient amounts of people were mobilized where it was too big to rib, rib, too big to rig.
I do not succumb to the defeatist position.
If elections don't matter, super buff shaft.
Congratulations. What's your theory?
What's your option?
It doesn't sound like it's going to be anything constructive.
For Chattanooga in August, are all the events going to be at one hotel?
I'm planning to fly in, so I won't have a car, and will you provide a list of good hotels?
Thank you.
Yeah, we'll provide all that Intel information.
It's very affordable, very accessible.
There's a lot.
Ted Nugent is sort of fundamentally a middle-class city.
So you have a lot of very affordable hotels, particularly in that time frame in August.
So we'll be providing all that information, providing transportation as necessary to get to events.
It's going to be amazing.
It's going to be awesome.
It's going to be a lot of fun, a lot of learning, a lot of education, a lot of networking, and you're supporting a great cause in 1776 Law Center.
So you get a crash course, you get a master class.
You get a fundraiser.
You get an opportunity to hang out with cool, fun people, do cool, fun things, and learn cool and fun things.
So it'll be a lot of fun.
Well, now, getting to the menu of the evening, Robert, you're going to talk about what happened on Friday in Seattle, which I don't want to project when we saw each other at the Hunley event on Saturday.
I thought you might have looked a little despaired in terms of the insanity of it.
You're a very jovial and optimistic person in general, but I think that is still...
Incident might be even a bit much.
We'll get into it.
We're going to get into Trump tariffs.
A whole hell of a lot of other stuff.
Oh, yeah.
We got a self-defense case that split Tim Pool from the conservative community.
You know, what applies, what doesn't apply, what's being misapplied, as the case may be.
We've got the continual SCOTUS battles, whether they can save the federal judiciary from themselves.
As they're busy ordering illegal invasions of foreign nations to bring back illegal immigrants illegally here in the first place, that battle keeps going on unabated, amongst all the other news in the law this past week.
Sorry, I just got to make sure I get myself off mute before I start talking.
If we can, well, no, let's start with the big one, the Trump tariffs.
The Trump tariffs hit, I don't know, something of a climax last week.
I feel like that meme of the wrestler guy, I don't know who it is, but he's getting more and more excited as he announces.
And then the last one is him having some massive eyes or glowing orgasm as to how excited he gets.
The culmination of the Trump tariffs reached an orgasmic pitch last week, for lack of a better analogy, where...
After all of the fighting, the back and forth, the threats, the mobilization, the retaliation from Canada, Mexico, and China, ironically enough, China and two countries in which China is heavily invested were the only two who actively retaliated.
The European Union was talking about retaliation.
I'm not sure if they actually did implement meaningful retaliation, but even then I would still say, great.
So China and the European Soviet Union actually retaliated.
None of the other countries did.
Trump comes in after all of that and says, 90-day pause on the tariffs.
And if you haven't retaliated, there will be no retaliation against you or there will be no punishment.
And if you have retaliated, we're going to treat you a little bit differently.
But 90-day pause on all the tariffs except for China and I think the countries that retaliated.
The move, I was getting calls from people who were initially anti-the tariff or anti-Trump and criticizing him for the tariff saying, holy hell, even I didn't anticipate this, although...
It's interesting.
I mean, you know, whatever.
There were a lot of people who were very critical of Trump in the beginning, who then came out and now and said, I see the error in my ways.
This was an amazing way to, on the one hand, isolate China from the rest of the international community, but also faced with China's recent announcement of suspending the export of critical minerals, also highlights the fact that the decoupling has to come sooner than later, whether or not you like it.
And if anybody's pissed off now that look what Trump's tariffs have caused China to...
Halt the import of critical elements.
You understand how the country is being held hostage by an adverse foreign interest, and you need to decouple anyhow.
Explain what actually happened, and without infusing it too much or loading the question, why it was such a flipping genius move by Trump.
Yeah, so what Trump wants to do is restructure the American economy away from globalism and back to traditional American economic structures.
America was built behind tariffs.
Tariffs utilized in order to protect and nurture the American manufacturing industry.
Also, America was built on opposing getting involved in foreign wars, and particularly Europe's incessant warfare.
Trump wants to return us to that.
What made America great, when Trump says make America great again, was...
A trade policy that protected American workers and American industry and made national security a priority of making sure we controlled access to essential resources and goods and staying out of foreign wars as much and as often as possible.
That is what we got away from over the last century.
Trump's trying to return us to it.
One of the ways to do so is implementing a tariff policy that is correspondent to the trade deficit various nations.
The fundamental economic assumption behind the tariff policy is that any country running a systemic trade deficit with us is symptomatic.
Not of honest economic competition on equal terms, but rather taking advantage of not protecting labor, not protecting environment, not protecting safety standards concerning the manufacture and distribution of products.
Things like China sends you some little shirt they made in one of their little slave factories and your daughter loves it and your daughter's wearing it, all of a sudden catches on fire.
Because China makes sub-quality products constantly.
They rip off American and global IP constantly.
And they don't properly disclose the dangers of their products.
All these countries only have a competitive edge with America because America alone in the world refuses to protect American labor, refuses to honor America's standards for safety or the environment, whether products or local environment or global environment.
Because America says, hey, if you honor these obligations, the price of your good will be more expensive inside the American market and globally.
China says we're not going to obey labor laws.
We're not going to obey environmental laws.
We're not going to obey customer safety laws.
In fact, we'll go further than that.
We will create easy capital and credit access for our domestic industries.
We will tariff foreign products and we will indirectly tariff foreign products by manipulating our currents.
So one of the reasons, for example, why Trump's 20% tariffs between 2018 and 2020 never led to any product price increase on Chinese goods in the United States.
Part of it is because the way tariffs actually work is those costs are rarely transimposed on the customer because price discovery generally puts a cap on what you can effectively charge a customer in the free market system already.
Or any market system.
But that's part of it.
The other part of it is because China constantly decreases the value of its currency, devalues its currency, so that Chinese goods are always cheaper in America than American goods are anywhere in the world.
And that's true of global markets.
What people don't understand is this isn't just about primarily China.
That's what Trump's tariff policy is primarily about.
There's always talk, oh, he walked it back.
That's not the case at all.
What Trump did is put out there.
Here's where it's going if the world doesn't fix this.
And he gave the world an opportunity.
Here's your choice.
Side with America, side with freedom, or side with China, and side with the commies who are cheap.
That's your choice, world.
And what happened is, literally the whole world, 160 countries, came begging to Trump, we want to be with you, not with China.
Please cut us a deal.
The element of currency manipulation, can you flesh that out?
I don't know how the mechanism works for the strategy.
Now, Peter Schiff can't understand this.
God bless him.
I mean, no wonder he lost his bank in Puerto Rico.
The basic economics just eludes Peter.
He's been predicting global depression for 20 years now.
Let me know, Peter, when that comes around.
But one of his fundamental misunderstandings was that the dollar getting cheaper...
And foreign currency getting more expensive was somehow bad for American trade.
It's literally just the opposite if Peter had an educational understanding of elemental economics.
And I say this as someone who likes Peter, likes his father, tried to help his father.
His father, like him, didn't take good advice.
God bless him.
So what happens is when you're trying to sell into other markets, if your currency is strong, Against theirs, then your product is more expensive in that market than their product, than your competitors' is.
That gives your competitor an edge simply because they've cheapened the value of their currency.
Because their product is priced in their currency, the net effect of if their currency is devalued compared to the currency of the market they're competing with, then they have a competitive edge.
Because let's say the Chinese won.
Let's say they devalue it by 10% compared to the U.S. dollar.
What does that mean?
It means they have a 10% cheaper product.
That's what it means in all foreign markets.
And so if you care about trade, as Trump does, you want the dollar to be cheaper.
You don't want a strong dollar.
You want a cheap dollar.
You don't want a dollar at $1.10 on the DXY.
You want 90 cents on the dollar on the DXY.
And you want the yuan to go up.
You want the euro to go up.
You want the Japanese yen to go up.
You want these other market currencies to go up in value.
Now, if you're part of the global economic world, you also want a cheaper dollar in many cases because most of them have debt denominated in dollars.
I mean, people are still confused that they think all the dollars in the world were created by the U.S. Treasury.
The U.S. government is no longer in control of the value of the dollar.
It hasn't been for a half century.
This is what's still misunderstood.
Even people who think it's a fiat system, it is, but not exactly how you think it is.
I recommend Jeffrey Snyder, Eurodollar University, Richard Werber, who was recently on with Patrick Bet-David, who really helped explain.
This micro-capital and other aspects in both the context of the princes of the yen, about Japan, its rise and fall economically, as well as Germany and the global economic system.
And others, you have Brent Johnson, the milkshake theory, who shares many of these same constructs.
And what it is, is the private banks around the world, outside the United States, are the ones creating dollars.
They're in control of dollars.
So if there's a dollar shortage...
Then what that is is a lack of credit and capital being made available in currency denominated as dollars.
But all it really is is digital transfers on the digital ledger.
But the bottom line is everybody issues this denominated in the dollar.
That means that the dollar's value globally impacts all these debtors.
There is about an estimated $100 trillion in globally dominated debt outside the United States.
If the dollar goes up in value, that makes it harder for those people to repay in their domestic currencies.
So the global financial system would benefit from a cheaper dollar in terms of economic activity.
Not so much the banks necessarily, but economic activity.
So this is what Trump wants.
Now, he also would like interest rates to come back down.
Both for reinvestment purposes, but also the rollover of corporate debt, which is coming up, the rollover of commercial real estate debt, and access to the housing market, which is frozen in the United States.
So Trump is trying to run a bifurcated policy of restoring America's economic independence and America's freedoms by returning to original American values of how we approach foreign affairs in matters of trade and in matters of war.
In order to get out of war and restore fair and equal trade terms.
So that if you're...
Right now, if you're an investor anywhere in the world and you have a choice to place a manufacturing plant, America tells you you're stupid to invest in America.
Because we're going to impose more restrictions, more rules, more regulations on you than if you go to China.
Because we care about product safety, we care about domestic environment, we care about labor standards.
On top of that...
If I may, and once upon a time...
People say, well, I'm not going to invest in China because the state, the corrupt commie state can seize my assets, freeze my bank accounts, whereas they've done this in Canada at least, so it's almost deterring any investment in Canada, so they're almost incentivized to stay in China and hedge those risks that might exist.
Yeah, correct.
And so we've created a distorted, disincentivized structure.
I think it was Info, I forget the exact name, but somebody put up a good chart.
Ever since we entered this trade era...
American manufacturing has radically declined.
American control of essential goods for national security purposes has radically declined.
The American wages of America's working class and net incomes has radically declined.
The quality of life measured by anything you measure it, happiness, satisfaction, life expectancy, family, continuity, etc.
All of it way down.
Indeed, today in the United States, more working class men die from overdoses and suicide than during the worst depths of the Great Depression.
So for America's working class, they've been in an economic recession now for two decades.
And they've been in a bad recession for the last several years, hidden by Biden administration lying about the statistics and about creating fake jobs with government payment to just sort of paper over everything.
In addition, our government debt is so high that interest is becoming an increasing expense, and you could substantially reduce the deficit if you can just get interest rates back down.
So Trump is trying to manage all these things at the same time.
A global reset that restores back to traditional American values on approach to the world.
And at the same time, manage this global financial system that has been dysfunctioning now for the better part of two decades.
That is really the Eurodollar system, not so much the U.S. dollar-controlled system as people popularly perceive.
And he's trying to manage these things at the same time while undoing all the damage done by Biden paper-overing everything with flooding the world with helicopter money and government jobs and bogus contracts and fake stats.
And so Trump is put into a very difficult position because he knows he needs a global reset, and we need to start that process earlier rather than later, though the process will take time to ultimately implement, and at the same time manage these short-term problems that are reflective of long-term institutional issues with our global financial system.
Now, what's amazing is some people are like, oh!
Trump failed because they're dumping the dollar and buying euros and buying Chinese yuan and buying Japanese yen.
That's what Trump wants.
That makes American goods cheaper globally.
That helps solve the problem of financial liquidity in the whole developing world that have all this dollar-denominated debt.
So that's perfect for Trump.
The idea that's bad isn't.
Now, them buying and dumping.
U.S. Treasuries.
Sometimes that's done because they need dollars.
Sometimes that's because they're wanting to shift into other currencies.
That aspect is a different aspect.
He would like that more managed because he would like interest rates to come back down.
But people are conflating everything that's happening right now.
They're saying, oh, it's tariffs.
Not really.
A lot of these things were there before the tariffs ever came in.
And so there's a separate issue that will get attributed to the tariffs if it's bad.
It will get ignored if it's good.
It won't be attributed to tariffs when it's good.
And you'll see a lot of fake news about this.
But the ordinary American, the working class American, understands exactly what Trump is doing.
That's why despite the media lies over the past week about the tariff policy, when they polled ordinary Americans, not only were more Americans in favor of Trump's tariff policy than opposed...
Working class Americans were disproportionately in favor of his policy, more so than opposed.
That's why you see governors like Whitmer suggesting that she's going to pursue a more sympathetic Trump tariff policy to give herself a leg up in the Democratic presidential contest in 2028.
And that's why she showed up at the White House.
And then Trump being Trump was like, hey, bring her in when I'm signing some stuff she doesn't want to be photographed with.
And so he brings her in and she being her.
Decides to try to cover her face.
Get out of the photos.
Because she's such an idiot.
But what it shows is politically, she understands tariffs are real popular in UAW country in Michigan.
Tariffs are real popular with steel workers in Pennsylvania.
Tariffs are real popular with coal miners in West Virginia.
Tariffs are real popular with shrimpers in South Florida.
Tariffs are popular with working class America.
And if you're an ordinary American, which would you rather pay?
Would you rather pay an income tax that you can't really avoid without just going broke?
Or would you rather pay a tariff that you can avoid by just buying America?
I mean, tariffs have knock-on benefits that were the fundamental predicate of our entire federal economic system until like the 1920s.
And so Trump's talking about let's replace the income tax on labor with tariffs on foreign goods because that has these other benefits to ordinary people.
And that's why his major tax reform proposals are going through.
No tax on tips.
No tax on overtime.
No tax on Social Security.
Long-term instituting the cuts he put in five years ago.
And he wants to do more.
He's talking about eliminate the income tax on everybody making less than $150,000 a year.
That's over 90% of Americans.
And people will go nuts over the stock market.
The reality is very few Americans owe very little stock.
Almost all the stock goes to the big corporations and the super-rich and the elite.
Ordinary people have not benefited much at all from the stock boost.
Just look at their income compared to gold, for example.
If you do not an inflation-adjusted standard, because they manipulate all that, but you weigh it by the value of gold instead, working-class wages have collapsed for 25 years.
The only time they went up was under Trump's first presidential term in the last quarter century.
Only time.
Whereas the top 1% is getting more hoarding.
As Huey Long said, it's like, good Lord, invite everybody to a picnic.
And a few folks named Rockefeller and named Baruch, and he went through a long list of them, came and they took 95% of the food of the vitlins off the table.
And he goes, I'm not asking them to give it all back, but when they have all the food, they can eat all the clothes they can wear and all the houses they can live in, I'm saying bring back a little bit.
For the rest of the people.
President Trump is trying to bring back a little bit for the rest of the American people that the American feast that should be the American economy.
Robert, I gotta bring it up because I don't think people know that this happened.
It's from the New York Times archived linked.
Whitmer shows how Democrats are playing with fire in cozying up to Trump.
The Michigan governor's awkward Oval Office appearance reflected how several Democratic state leaders are cultivating cordial but politically risky relations with the president.
This is a real picture.
She actually tried to cover her face.
Gretchen Whitmer stood glumly in the Oval Office hoping no one would take her picture.
She had not expected to be there.
She had not expected to be there standing in front of the cameras as President Trump signed executive orders punishing those who opposed his 2020 election lives.
Ms. Whitmer, a prominent Democrat.
As seen as a possible 28 presidential candidate had come to the White House to discuss funding for an Air National Guard base near Detroit, yada, yada, yada.
Then Trump's aide surprised her on Wednesday by ushering into the Oval Office, not for her scheduled one-on-one with the president, but for a politically loaded appearance before the press conference.
She found herself an unwilling participant in this unending reality show with photos of her rocketing around group chats as Democrat strategists who wondered what on earth she was doing.
She actually, like the buffoon that she is, tried to cover her face.
Oh my gosh.
It's hilarious.
You gotta give Trump credit.
He knew she was gonna do something lunatic like that.
Oh my goodness.
But what she does realize is that even within the Democratic Party...
Which has long advanced these policies, abandoned them under Clinton.
So Clinton betrayed the Democratic Party labor portion of the party for a permanent alignment with Wall Street.
And that's why it was Clinton who took apart Glassman-Siegel, that allowed banks to get into all kinds of crazy businesses.
And ever since then, the economy has over-financialized.
That's what Kevin Phillips' book, Bad Money Behind Me, is all about.
Phillips was predicting this for decades.
If you want to read someone who explains, if you hear somebody say, whenever tariffs go in, it automatically increases the cost of the domestic good.
That's how it's always done.
Okay, I get economic theory.
Let's talk about economic reality.
In economic reality, we have 300 years of actual economic history concerning what happens when you impose tariffs.
And guess what?
It rarely leads to substantial price increases.
It almost always leads to competitive disadvantage with the country that's trying to cheat.
That's what it does.
That's why the U.S. economy boomed under tariffs.
The UK economy boomed under tariffs.
The post-World War II German and Japanese economies boomed under tariffs.
China, for the last quarter century, has boomed under tariffs.
This is an economic reality that all these critics can't explain.
And the degree of economic illiteracy amongst your liberal intelligentsia is almost as bad as their medical and constitutional illiteracy.
I was stunned by it.
Like, hey Barnes, where are we going to get our coffee?
Who are we going to get to clean the toilets, Barnes?
Sounds like Kelly Osbourne.
Oh, if we don't bring in the illegals, who's going to clean the kitchen?
It sounds like Ralph Nader.
It sounds like Jasmine Crockett.
Jasmine Crockett, we done picking cotton.
Now we need illegals to do that.
It's shocking.
But Robert, you know, people say the tariffs lead to higher prices, yada yada.
And I believe that, you know, I'm inclined now to more agree with you than the others.
And I've listened to both arguments.
What people are saying, however...
Is that, look what the tariffs have done now.
China, why am I, I got the New York Times twice in one day, but it's on archives, so don't worry.
China halts critical exports as trade war intensifies.
As a response to tariffs, China has said it's suspended exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets threatening to choke off supplies of components central to automakers, aerospace, yada, yada, yada.
What's amazing is we've been talking about this for a while, that being held hostage by China is a problem.
And how do you ever expect to wean yourself off it or appreciate the risk until it materializes, but not in a critical sense?
So Trump imposes these tariffs, gets into the tariff war, and now people say, look, look what China's doing.
That's the point, that China has the ability to do this.
You bring back production or mining for rare earth minerals domestically, or at least with countries that you can trust.
I don't know, what's the status of the deal that Trump was trying to work with Ukraine to get?
Rare earth minerals, a deal out of Ukraine as repayment for the war support fund.
Has there been any development on that?
Well, the thing there is the rare earths are not actually rare.
So this material is widely available in the United States, available throughout.
Russia, Ukraine, Greenland, other places.
By the way, Canada has a very, very, it had the potential for a very big lithium mine up in, I want to say, not Trois-Rivières, northern Quebec.
Namaskah lithium was a thing, but somehow found a way to screw itself.
But yes, there are these rare earth minerals everywhere, and especially in North America.
Sorry to cut you off.
Correct. Yeah, that's exactly right.
The issue is refining it.
And what happened is the world decided to let China have a monopoly on that.
Which was what Trump has been saying for a while is that's a bad policy.
One, you shouldn't need essential goods for national security, for your domestic economy, for production of basic goods on a foreign nation ever, least of all a foreign nation that is overtly hostile to you ideologically and otherwise.
And that's Trump's point.
And what China's doing is making Trump's point.
By jacking up the tariffs, they made Trump's point.
By withholding goods and products like this, it makes Trump's point.
By the fact that they're tweeting out Chairman Mao to the world, Chairman Mao responsible for more deaths than any leader in the history of the world.
And that's who China is quoting.
That's who China is citing.
I wonder if the new Atlas will do that analysis.
He's busy in la-la land pretending that China has this great, robust economy and it's independent, free society who just wants to defend and protect itself.
Hogwash! Hogwash!
Hogwash! The reality is that China has been cheating en masse using its own slave labor and its control over its own domestic population.
As well as every trick in the book.
Capital tricks.
Credit tricks.
Currency tricks.
You name it.
IP theft.
Intellectual property theft.
Person after person, they would sucker to come and invest in China.
And then you know what they do?
You come and you invest.
You've got this new creative product.
Then all of a sudden you discover about a month later, somebody down the street is making your product for half the price.
You're like, how did that happen?
China's like, good luck.
Can you go to Chinese courts?
No. Can you go to the WTO?
No. You can't go to anybody.
You can't get relief anywhere.
And that is why China gets away with it.
And China's used to getting away with it for the last quarter century.
They built their wealth off of stealing it.
That's how they did it.
And Trump is tired of losing national security advantages to China.
Tired of losing jobs to China.
Tired of losing wages to China.
Tired of seeing all of middle America hollowed out for China.
No more no moths.
The reality is China's in no economic position to do any of this.
A lot of people are in complete fantasy land about China.
And I get it.
All the media you get with China is either obsessively pro-China or obsessively anti-China.
And it makes it difficult to filter through.
Now, I follow a couple of guys who lived in China for a long time, have friends in China, family in China.
They do their own channels.
Epoch Times has a strong perspective on China, but it tends to be a well-informed perspective, even if you disagree with it.
The pro-China crowd is in complete fantasy land, complete denial.
People listening to Jeffrey Sachs.
Jeffrey Sachs was the one-man wrecking band for the Russian economy in the 1990s.
This guy thought shock therapy would work.
He thinks neoliberal economics is still a solution.
He comes from the George Soros school of economic thought.
So this is not a guy to put any trust or any confidence in.
The reality is China's not in a position to do any of this.
China's got a housing bubble.
China's got a command economy entirely built on mass exporting its way to wealth.
Trump isn't just using tariffs about access to the U.S. market.
Trump wants to change the global marketplace to make it such that the U.S. is back on equal terms economically and competing with China for products in Europe, for products in Latin America, for products in Central America, to help American goods and American manufacturers.
And at the same time, prohibit China from using other countries and jurisdictions to get around any tariff and trade restriction or use its currency to do so.
The great stuff by Mark Moss.
You can go look up his videos.
He has multiple videos, comes from the Bitcoin world.
He's pointing out the monetary policy that this is, in fact, oriented towards.
He is ahead of the curve.
So some people are ahead of the curve at understanding what's going on with the future Mar-a-Lago Accord.
That's going to look like the Plaza Accord.
It's going to look like Bretton Woods, but put America back on America's original footing.
This is going to take some time for him to negotiate and navigate his way through.
But a lot of the immediate reactions were over the top and incorrect, frankly.
That they're based on outdated, antiquated theories of economics that have been refuted and rebutted by reality for 300 plus years.
Trump is going forward.
Anybody pretending or deluding themselves otherwise is in denial.
Trump understands the necessity of this reforming and restructuring of the American and global economy if we are going to make America great again.
It's fantastic and phenomenal, and we're going to see exactly how it plays out.
But I think people are realizing Trump is not stupid.
And we'll see what the retaliation is against China, Canada, and Mexico.
And if Pierre, as I said last week, plays his cards right, he should look at the retaliation against Canada as a result of what Mark Carney did to say, maybe pull back, dial back on the anti-Trump tariff talk and say, yep, we've got a big problem.
We've got to fix it.
And had we done it the way we should have, we wouldn't have had these problems in the first place.
We'll see.
Robert, let me bring up some rumble rants real quick, lack, because I see Super Buff Shaft is back in the house.
We need deflation, says Tiffinol.
Deflation helps the poor and good businesses.
The higher the value of the dollar, the more powerful our middle class deflation saves us.
Ithaca 37. Cato says, do you think you could have Mark Smith, the guy who runs four boxes diner on
I don't think his name is Mark Smith, but I think this is a guy out of Canada, right?
He's a lawyer who specializes...
No, it's not.
He specializes in the Second Amendment.
I'm always open to everybody.
And by the way, I forgot I'm going to be on Jimmy Dore tonight at 6.30, so I'll send everybody the link for that.
Stay tuned.
King of Biltong says, 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.
37 Ithaca Cato says, only illegals can clean my filthy toilet bathroom and bedroom in Hollyweird.
I'm too important to not have economic slaves.
And Ithaca 37 Cato says, Jeffrey Sachs keeps denying.
He's to blame for the shock therapy in Russia.
Maybe a hush hush.
In fact, that's coming.
It'll also come on what he took credit for that he shouldn't have because it didn't turn out so good in Bolivia and Poland preceding Russia.
I mean, the Harvard Endowment, by the way, was directly involved with stealing Russian assets that Jeffrey Sachs was the graduate of and had tight ties to.
So there was multiple layers of that.
But a lot of these people, it's because people are in denial about China.
And I get it, in part, if you're in the skeptical of American institutional...
And there's every reason in the world to be so skeptical.
That has led them to just discard every criticism of China.
And they've done so mistakenly.
China's not shifting from a voluntary draft to a forced draft because they have popular buy-in from their own people.
They're not engaging in a lot of the things they're engaging in unless there is major domestic unrest in China.
And people forget, revolutions don't come about.
By giving people, promising people something they've never had.
A revolution's come about because somebody loses something that they have had.
And in China, they've grown accustomed to progress and prosperity for the last quarter century, for the working and middle classes of that country.
And they're relative.
I mean, their GDP is still way below, like, Mississippi and so forth per capita.
But relative to where they were, you know, when Mao was busy starving them to death for about 25 years and killing 70 million plus of them with his horrendous policies.
Can you imagine?
You're China and you're like, well, we'll tell the world, we'll go back to Mao's policies.
I was going to make the joke that, you know, if China has one benefit, that it doesn't mind killing off a massive portion of its population.
Well, that's a real message.
I mean, frankly, that's the subtextual message.
Not only that, they were actually spreading signs saying to eat bitterness.
You're going to, in the name of pride, you're going to work more and earn less.
The rebellion was so quick and so loud, even in hyper-controlled China, that the government had to put out a message to take all those message boards down.
So Xi's got all kinds of internal issues.
He's trying to purge parts of the military because they're rebelling against him.
If you follow China in enough detail...
You understand that a command and control economy trying to use tariffs and other protectionist policies to steal the world's wealth could only last as long as America stayed asleep in a slumber.
America no longer is.
Trump sure as heck ain't.
What does that mean for him?
It means they've got nowhere else to go.
They have not built up a domestic customer or consumer market.
They deliberately chose not to.
They imposed capital controls to constrict it.
And what they did instead was...
Tell people, hey, take all your money, put it in this housing Ponzi scheme, and you're going to be rich for forever because everybody knows Chinese real estate just goes up because that's all it had done for 40 years.
But that's because it started at such a low bottom set by Mao from mass murdering his own population with everything from the Cultural Revolution to the various five-point plans, five-year plans that end up just five years of killing 10% of your country over and over and over and over again,
which is what he did.
So I think that is in fact their message.
The problem Xi has is the Chinese public no longer accepts that message.
And that's where he is in trouble.
That's why he's getting rebellions within his own military that don't want to wage war on Taiwan or use military adventurism to escape his policy failures.
I mean, he was supposed to restore the economy post-2008 to a more balanced, diversified economy that did not depend on global trade and the construction and the housing boom in order to sustain Chinese wealth.
He failed.
He failed at both.
And now his only cover is to save face?
I mean, that's his priority?
To say we're bringing Mao back?
That's unpopular in China.
It's unpopular globally.
And it is highly unlikely to be successful.
The only concern is that we may be so successful at causing political change in China that Xi or hardline elements...
Decide that military adventurism is their political exit route out of their economic disaster they're creating.
They are in a huge—look at Japan, 1985.
What was Japan?
Japan was using same, similar protective trade policies, as well as good banking policies in terms of diversifying the banks for how they did their capital and industrial policies, to get a major edge with the U.S. Trump was complaining about this all the way back in the 1980s.
He was complaining about Germany, complaining about Japan, saying this is a disastrous policy.
It's going to hurt American security, hurt American workers.
He ended up, all of his predictions ended up dead on right.
All the so-called economic experts, the Peter Schiff's of the world, were wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
That's all they're good at.
Especially the neoliberal economics school.
And so the...
Trump realizes that.
So what do we do?
In 1985, we did the Plaza Accords.
What did that do?
It brought U.S. dollar down, made the Japanese yen go up.
Guess what happened within five years?
Japan's real estate bubble busted.
What has happened with Japan?
It has been stagnant for 40 years.
35 years now.
Stagnant for 35 years.
Just flat-lined economy.
Because they couldn't afford that change of tariff policy, directly or indirectly, which can often be...
Currency policy.
And they couldn't afford their real estate bubble.
What does China have?
Relies on their currency manipulation and a real estate bubble for their current economy.
They could end up, and they've got the same demographic problem that Japan had and has, because they followed the insanity of George Soros and Bill Gates on all these Malthusian...
Cultists, as George Gammon calls them, doing a one-child policy so they don't have a replacement labor force in China.
They actually have negative net population growth in China.
I mean, they've got disaster, disaster, disaster.
And it's not something they're well-equipped to get out of.
And right now all they're doing is talking big.
And Trump doesn't really want China to cut a deal.
Trump wants to decouple from China and restore America and restore America's idea of America, not the Chinese version of America.
Leave that to Canada.
They can be the Chinese 15th Republic.
Well, and when I had Sam Cooper on, and he's sincerely and legitimately worried about a kinetic war with China, which for the life of me, I don't see it happening.
You know, there's going to be no boats of Chinese soldiers trying to land on American soil.
I don't see intercontinental ballistic missiles being fired over a tariff war.
There will be some potential immediate short-term hardships to go through.
But, you know, it's interesting.
I do see this being as a formal decoupling.
And China's going to have to go worry about what happens when they no longer have American dollars buying their shitty products that nobody needs and the rare earth minerals that we can get from elsewhere.
So let the process begin.
And China still depends on the rest of the world for essential goods, including their food.
Not just their wealth.
They depend particularly on America for their food.
They're not in a position to win a trade war.
And they depend on America for their wine.
I didn't realize there's a massive market in China for bourbon.
They love American bourbon.
They love American whiskey.
They love a wine from Europe and America.
What they'll probably do is try to dump around the world.
To cut, undercut domestic industries in those countries like they always do.
But when they have excess capacity and overproduction, which is what they currently do.
The other thing is you couldn't do this lockdown economics that China loved and not face a consequence.
They've been trying to hide the consequences now for years in China.
They're not in a position to do so.
I mean, even, you know, the Duran, which is, you know, great.
I think they're mistaken on China.
China's in much deeper trouble than is being acknowledged and is being recognized.
And it's, I think, because people haven't taken a step back and looking at all the historical data and evidence we have to know, okay, how is this going to progress and proceed?
People like Phillips and others, people like Jean Le Carre, were warning in books later in the movies, like Russia House, but that was written before the collapse of the Soviet Union, was that, in fact, the Soviet Union was not in a sustainable position and would collapse.
And a lot of the Soviet apologists said, oh, no, no, that's not going to happen.
They're doing great.
Look at how they've continued to boom and so on and so forth.
And it turned out they were a little bit wrong, and Soviet Union collapsed.
You could have the same thing with the Chinese Communist Party.
It could truly collapse if it continues to try to take away the benefits from its working in middle class by saving face of the Communist Party rather than saving the lives of its own people.
And I think, frankly, given the history of the CCP and their endorsement of Mao, their current endorsement of Mao publicly and globally, From their foreign affairs office.
That tells you that they're trying to choose the former option.
And then what did that do for the leaders of the Soviet Union?
All it did is precipitate their demise.
I'm going to bring these up here.
If I buy a ticket and can't make it, says Ithaca 37 Cato, would the money go as a donation to 1776 or will it go to fund the event?
All net proceeds.
All net proceeds from all tickets for the 1776 Law Center inaugural event, including the discount.
Get discounted tickets.
Only available until midnight tonight.
We got super buff shaft.
These I missed because when I brought up the app that brings up the chats, it was right after these came up.
I like you both, but my theory was for you and Barnes to expose the coup found years ago by Jovan, CyberIndigenous, Dr. Shiva, and the GOP as a whole covered it up and did zero prosecutions.
They're talking about Jovan and the theory that he has...
His reporting has been up and down, in my view.
I don't find it reliable, personally.
It's nothing against him.
I'm just saying I don't find it reliable when I check it against my own evidentiary review.
So, the other thing was, his focus tended to be on the machines.
And the problem is, there were a bunch of votes that were stolen in counties where there were no voting machines.
It was always a red herring meant for people to chase for forever without focusing on where, in fact, you can steal an election.
You steal an election by having people who are not qualified to vote vote, by voting in a manner and a method that's not qualified, and by canvassing and counting votes that are not constitutionally qualified.
That's how you steal an election, and you don't need machines to do it.
Even though Tulsi Gabbard warned of the problem of machines this week at the Office of Director of National Intelligence, and how the people running the CISA were part of a corrupt coup operation against the president.
So that definitely is true.
But that can be true without it being the whole and complete explanation for everything.
I would note a lot of those people predicted that Trump would never win, that Trump wouldn't be declared the winner.
Those same people.
I said, Barnes, you don't know what you're talking about.
They rig every election.
And I was saying that's meant to doom you.
That's meant to get you to check out of the system.
That's meant to get you to quit and forfeit.
And that, in fact, I believe that Trump will win and will be declared the winner.
I was right.
They were wrong.
Robert, I'll bring something up in a second.
Oh, here, here.
There's two more.
Sorry. We are sending you both special Easter packages.
Keep an eye out.
They will ship today, says King of Biltong.
DO7JJ says, have you read letters from Massangia?
It explains China in a nutshell.
I haven't, but I now want to know what that is.
I've done a lot of deep dives on China in recent years to try to figure out some of this stuff because of the difficulty knowing which sources to trust, which ones are reliable, which ones are not, so on and so forth.
And thanks to everybody out there.
All the great birthday gifts that were awesome.
I mean, one birthday gift was not to judge in Seattle.
We'll get to that here in a second.
But I got, like, I got cigars.
I got books.
I got ties.
I got, oh, right.
Check this out.
Someone took the photo that they did of me and the Amish, and they made it into a painting.
That's fantastic.
Yeah, it's awesome, isn't it?
It's absolutely awesome.
I got, and then really cool personal gifts.
So, like, somebody's father.
Had written to Richard Nixon during the depths of Watergate and tried to encourage him.
Is this an ordinary American?
And Nixon personally responded to him and gave him a tie pin with a presidential tie pin.
And they gave that as a gift to me for my birthday, which is an amazing generosity of spirit.
So thank you.
And of course, got some great cigars, including someone who showed up at the sentencing, gave me a great cigar, you know, a rare cigar.
So that was awesome.
So many thanks to all the kind wishes, all the gifts, all the rest out there.
Other people, great way to give a gift.
People went to 1776lawcenter.com.
And it's sort of an honor.
My birthday gave some contributions to help K1776 Law Center stay afloat, fighting for financial freedom and political freedom and medical freedom and political freedom for so many people.
So many thanks to everybody out there for all the good birthday wishes.
The only person I can't thank for my birthday is that commie judge in Seattle.
We're going to get to that in a second.
Before we get there, I want to show you the picture.
I told you that Alexa Lavoie had this photograph of the moment before.
Natasha was violently assaulted, arrested, and hospitalized.
This is the cop putting his filthy, grubby hands on her hips as though this is somehow a way to manhandle a woman who is not your wife.
I mean, you don't touch anybody like this.
This is what he did to her before she said, take your hands off of me, and I believe used her hands to remove his hands from her hips.
Looks like he's getting ready to grope her boobs.
And then they proceed to arrest her for assault, violently assault her and hospitalize her.
So I'm going to give everybody the link to that tweet so you can go watch Alexa's reporting on this.
I just want to highlight that one.
Robert, do we...
Okay, let's do...
Somebody asked in the chat, if Alberta wanted to secede, what's the legal process in Canada for that?
They've got to go hold a referendum with a clear question that gets not a super majority, but a majority of the votes.
They then got to basically...
From what I recall, there's a whole test that was set out as a result of a lawsuit post-95 referendum.
They've got to ask a clear question, get the majority votes from the province, and then have basically the king or the queen, whatever, have the government recognize their bid to separate.
And so it sort of requires approval from the entity from which they want to separate as the ultimate irony in it.
There's a certain test that was set out after 95. I'll refresh my memory on it, but that's it in a nutshell.
It requires the permission of your hostage takers to decide whether or not they release the hostage after they've been abusing you, exploiting you, and stealing from you for however long they've been part of the Federation.
Do you think Alberta would vote for such a thing?
Oh, I think they'd vote for it now.
If Carney gets elected.
But the only problem is what Carney's going to do if he gets elected, he's going to temporarily placate.
Alberta. He'll maybe reassess the equalization payments.
He'll maybe allow them to build more stuff, exploit the tar cents.
And that'll last for however long it lasts before they lose the appetite to separate.
And then they'll go right back to dominating and exploiting Alberta.
You know how to plan to incorporate Alberta and other parts of Canada all the way through Alaska into the United States.
It would be Diagalon comes to...
Hold on.
Check it out, people.
Where's my Diagalon?
Oh, here it is.
Look at this.
It would be Diagalon connecting Alaska to Florida via the middle provinces of Canada.
You know whose original plan that was here in America?
In fact, it was on the verge of happening until the British royalty stepped in.
British royalty?
So let me think here.
I'm just going to take a while.
We'll think of the greatest or first Republican president in American history.
I was going to say that before the hint, anyhow, because I couldn't think of anybody else who would have proposed it.
Robert, I guess let's get into the Seattle one.
We're going to get into Carmelo Anthony.
Yeah, can we give Seattle to Canada?
Can we just cut it off?
We should just go down the coast, take all the West Coast, give it to somebody.
Just give it to anybody.
Just not us.
And we can take back the rest.
Well, the problem is you would end up, no matter how you divide it, you're going to break apart Canada or you're going to maintain the broken apart United States.
Yeah. Seattle should just join British Columbia anyhow.
Take Portland, Oregon, and take Washington State.
Not part of Washington State.
Eastern part of Washington is great.
Good people, honest people, hardworking people.
Seattle, Wokeville.
The center of Wilkville has got to go.
Well, Robert, if I may spoil the punchline for those who don't know, Ben Suf got sentenced to 11 years in jail, above and beyond what the prosecution was asking for.
I want to spoil the surprise a little bit.
And the judge was angry that the prosecutors actually were going for something of a reduced sentence, only asking for eight years.
You don't need to go into the thick of the weeds of the summary, but this is the dad who...
Because there are separate trials going on here.
You'll specify which...
Court was dealing with this.
This is not the, I want to say, Asian lady.
Well, it's all the same case.
But it's not the Asian judge.
Yeah, it was a different judge.
They took the same case, tried it in two different courts with two different judges, with two different juries, so they could get two bites at the apple and cumulative punishment.
Who was the judge in this case?
Judge Parisian.
This was the one we looked up last time.
Yep. That is one of the most hated judges anywhere in the world.
Considered one of the worst judges anywhere in the world.
And then you add woke on top of it and you get a sense of it.
Because to give people context, they accused him of stalking and harassment.
What was the stalking?
The stalking was serving legal documents on the mother of his son and her girlfriend in a range of cases because the mother was trying to take his son away from him, trying to take his house away from him,
and trying to take his car away from him.
And he was bringing legal actions to try to protect his rights.
He didn't initiate or instigate any of it.
He's just trying to defend himself and serving legal papers on them to get it.
So the evidence of stalking and harassment was serving legal papers, leaving voice messages that could be deleted and blocked anytime they want, sending political texts that could also be blocked or deleted anytime they want.
And otherwise, the real big evidence, the evidence focused on by the prosecution in closing argument, was he sent his son a pizza on his birthday.
That was literally the key evidence used to convict him.
Now we get to the sentencing.
Hold on, Robert.
What were the toppings?
I say it as a joke.
Oh, it was his favorite toppings.
Like, I think half pepperoni, half pineapple, something like that.
Oh, it was pineapple?
Lock the mother of her.
By the way, I'm joking.
I actually like pineapple on pizza as well.
But I don't eat pizza just because of that bread.
But, no, it wasn't like an act of intimidation.
It wasn't like he knew the kid was allergic.
Not at all.
His son has never complained about him, ever.
For responding to his son's text.
He was charged with 81 crimes every time he responded to a text from his son.
From his own son.
So that's how insane this case is.
How it all started was he opposed mask mandates.
Because he opposed mask mandates, they first prohibited him from shopping at local stores.
Then, after that, getting a trespass injunction against him, then they arrested him, and then they jailed him over his opposing mask mandates.
Then he opposed his son getting the COVID vaccine without his informed consent.
He didn't object to his son getting the COVID vaccine.
He said as long as his son had informed consent.
They agreed to give his son informed consent.
Then they lied.
They keep, they hide information from the son.
They hide information from him.
This is the basis for all of the legal actions he takes concerning his son afterwards.
All of which he uses legal process and legal courts to do, which is his First Amendment right to petition the courts for redress of grievance, like you can petition the entire government for redress of grievance.
Just to highlight this, wouldn't ignoring your kid be child abuse?
Shaking my effing head, says Bill Brown of our Locals community.
Correctly. This is a teenage son, desperately wants a connection with his father, who even responded.
He goes, I know they're going to try to use this against me, but am I supposed to pretend I don't love you?
That was his response.
And for this, the city of Seattle, King County Seattle, prosecuted him under charges of violation of a court order, a stalking, and harassment.
Now, these are all supposed to be misdemeanors.
They elevate it to a 10-year felony by including the court order violation component.
For that, you're supposed to be able to argue.
According to the law itself, according to the Constitution of both Washington and the United States, according to precedents established in the state of Washington by courts, your legal defense is if you believe the court order is illegal, if you believe there's some part of the process of the court order that was not legally done,
if you believe the court order is not constitutional, then if you believe your activities are constitutionally protected, then you cannot go to prison under Washington's own laws.
However, the judge instructed the jury they could not consider any of that.
The judge instructed me I could not reference the word Constitution in a King County courthouse to a jury in a case that was all about the Constitution.
So gutted his defense.
At every possible level.
Allowed evidence to come in that had nothing to do with the case.
That falsely smeared him.
Excluded any evidence that embarrassed the government from coming in.
Included evidence that violated his First Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment rights, Fifth Amendment rights, and Sixth Amendment rights.
So the trial was a sham.
Complete sham.
No joke.
I just don't understand how they had two separate trials for the same charges.
Because we watched the...
I forget her name.
I don't want to remember a name that would be wrong and then be accused of things.
But what was her name?
I'm going to go look it up in a second.
We watched that trial.
I think it was Judge Chin was the city.
Chin. Okay, that's what I thought.
We watched her read those text messages like it was the most shocking thing that anybody had ever said.
How does he end up with two separate trials over the same...
Here's the new way they've decided to game the system in Seattle.
So the reason he's being targeted is there are not many stalking charges even brought in the state of Washington.
It's not like a common event.
I think they had like 30 cases in all of 2023.
So why are they going after him when there's no allegation of violence at all?
No allegation of violent threats at all?
None of the traditional apparatus or aspects or modus operandi of any kind of domestic abuse or violence.
It's agreed by the mother, by the son, by the guardian of light, and by everybody that he has never harmed his son ever.
He didn't even spank his son, that his son wanted to be with him.
So these are beyond disputes.
So why are they targeting him?
They're targeting him, and this was admitted at the sentencing.
At the sentencing, one of the key so-called victims is a woke activist.
She gets money from the government related to this case, by the way.
She is a Soros-founded person who got money related to U.S. aid and others from the U.S. government during the Biden administration.
This case is purely political.
She even told the judge, judge punish him because he's white, because he's a man, and because of his beliefs.
And I told the judge, you know you can't do that, right?
You understand that, right?
Nope, that's just fine.
And the judge liked to emphasize how she was taken away as right to vote and taken away as right to self-defense.
She kept talking about it again and again and again.
She was so excited about it because this is what liberal authoritarianism looks like.
It's Soviet style.
That is what Seattle is worse than Soviet-style justice.
So the reason he is being prosecuted is selective prosecution because he's the wrong race, gender, and political beliefs in the city of Seattle, as admitted at the sentencing that occurred in the case.
That's why, because what they did is, but they wanted to abuse the process.
So the problem is all the legal process says he hasn't committed any crime at all.
All the law says, even if you get him convicted, he should serve no more than a year for all the charges combined.
On average, a typical defendant accused of what he was accused of, even if the, I mean, accused of worst, accused of the same crimes he was accused of, but they actually committed the crimes unlike him, got it, on average, they got zero prison time in Seattle.
So that's the norm.
So how do they get around that?
They take one case and they divide it.
And they do it because, unlike most jurisdictions, the state of Washington has two different legal systems in the state of Washington.
One at the city level, one at the county level.
And so what they did is they take one case, prosecute it in the city, but then decide to split the case so they can prosecute half of the case in the city of Seattle and half of the case in the King County.
And what does this do?
Well, first of all, it gives them two shots at the jury.
Because if you don't win the first case, you can win the second.
It gets you two shots at the judges.
If you don't like one judge, you get another one.
And last but not least, They did it to game the sentencing guidelines in Washington.
Because the way the guidelines in Washington work is you're not supposed to go with what's called above guideline sets.
The guidelines recommended for him less than a year.
Recommended that he do no time at all.
So how do you create a system where you can claim the guidelines support a long sentence?
By prosecuting him twice for the same thing.
But you just do one sentence.
That's why they take every single text.
Rather than have one count, one count of violating a court order, one count of contempt, whatever you want to call it, or custodial interference, whatever, they do 81 different counts.
They take every little text and count it as a separate crime, which is not supposed to happen in Washington under its state law, under its sentencing guidelines, under its prosecutorial ethics, or under its constitutional construction or U.S. Constitution.
Then they used the conviction in the city case.
I was always wondering, why did they force the city case so fast?
I mean, he went to trial in like a month or two of his arrest.
He asked for a very brief continuance of the city trial so that I could appear in the case.
The judge refused.
Then the judge excluded him from the jury selection.
He didn't even get to participate in his own jury selection, in his own trial.
And then I realized why.
They got the conviction, and then the county...
They pretended the city case was a separate, unrelated, prior case.
So that it created a fake, oh, judge, he has the worst rap sheet in Washington.
He has 82 prior convictions.
They used the conviction from that idiot Judge Chin, who actually, we were watching it, I don't know if it was live, I highlighted it, told him to leave the courtroom while they were still in the process of, I believe it was sentencing.
And you went a little nuts where I thought you were actually going to get held in contempt.
So they used that prior 81 count conviction to enhance his sentence at the second trial.
The game did at every level.
They only get two shots at the jury, two shots at the judge.
They used the city case to create a fake sentencing standard in his county case.
And she used the city case to lock him up and put him in solitary confinement.
A week before his county case so he couldn't help prepare in his own county defense.
And this is a guy who was representing himself pro se until 1776 Law Center got involved and asked me to represent him on his behalf.
This is how nuts this is.
They've done things I have never seen in the history of the country.
I couldn't find another analogous case anywhere where this amount of gamesmanship had gone into trying to go after one guy.
And again, what did he do?
Sent pizza to his son on his birthday and answered his own son's text.
He objected to a vaccine mandate.
But so we go to the sentencing.
And let me give you the sentencing guidelines in Washington.
One, an honest interpretation of the guidelines meant he should do no time.
It is extremely rare to get an above guidelines sentence in the state of Washington, and it's often illegal to impose it.
To give you an idea of what the state of Washington does in its other sentences.
People convicted of custodial assault, in other words, interfering in the custodial relationship by physically assaulting their child or partner, get on average of 15 months since.
People convicted of domestic violence protection orders where they commit actual violence got an average of the ones that actually committed violence, unlike him, got 21 months on an average since.
So people convicted of commercial sexual exploitation of a minor.
Known as making CP get about a three-year sentence in the state of Washington.
People convicted of incest, incest, get a four-year sentence in Washington.
And this judge gave him the maximum possible allowed under law of 11 years.
gave him a sentence almost three times worse than what an incest convicted defendant gets in Washington, than every assaulter, robber, burglar, trespasser, or serious criminal gets in the state of Washington.
They treated him as if he was worse than the worst gangbanger in the history of the state.
And what did he do?
He was white.
He was male.
He had the wrong beliefs.
And in fact, the lead so-called victim witness against him, who blamed him for her being a prostitute, blamed him for her getting COVID, That's how insane these people are.
Said, judge, put him in prison because he's white, because he's male, because he has the wrong beliefs.
And the judge celebrated that.
The judge welcomed that.
You have an entire prosecutorial process in the city and county of Seattle.
This is what woke justice looks like, folks.
They will lock you up for life.
And then he ordered a re-education camp for him at the end of it.
Said he'll have certain kinds of therapy meant to treat his mental condition concerning his wayward beliefs.
The guardian litem in the case, in the underlying family case, said, Judge, take away his child because, quote, his beliefs are outside the Seattle mainstream on the COVID vaccine.
That is what woke justice looks like.
It uses your race against you.
It uses your gender against you.
It uses your sexual identity against you.
It uses your religious identity against you.
It uses your political beliefs against you.
And it will weaponize the entire legal system until it can take away every right you have.
Look at what they've done to Mr. Benchoof.
And by the way, what was Benchoof documenting?
The reason why they had to hide all the evidence of the prostitution of the mother and the mother's girlfriend?
It was not just to show the truth of what was happening in the case and why he was upset and concerned about protecting his son, aside from the COVID vaccine, was he didn't want his son going on their prostitution trips.
He didn't know what they were up to because he uncovered and discovered that they were connected to a prostitution and human trafficking ring that is global.
And not only that, that has ties to high-profile Seattle businessmen, high-profile Seattle politicians, including high-profile people, as I proffered to the court we would be able to show until she prohibited all such evidence at trial, concerning judges in Seattle,
concerning prosecutors in Seattle, concerning high-ranking decision-makers in Seattle.
So this is the other thing he just kind of stumbled into.
He didn't mean to expose it.
He just ended up exposing it.
And that's why they're making him such a target.
This is what woke justice looks like.
It's insanity on steroids.
It's things we've never seen before, never witnessed before, much like many of the crazy judges' orders trying to usurp the 2024 election and engage in a coup.
But Kurt Benjouf is in prison today because of his honest political beliefs, opposing COVID vaccine mandates on children without their informed consent, because he's white and because he's a man.
That's it.
That's what the court itself implicitly acknowledged at the sentencing hearing.
Robert, Encryptus, who's also helping with the production of the show these days, says, is Harmeet Dillon going to help with this true miscarriage of justice and the evil acts of this judge and justice system?
First of all, he's in jail now, pending appeal.
In fact, they've locked him away in solitary confinement.
He's let out one hour a day.
And there's been no justification for why he's in solitary confinement.
Just the way the King County Jail acts.
He can't get basic, things can't buy, people can't buy things for him without the jail trying to interfere with it.
They have multiple police officers there just to try to create an intimidating environment.
I mean, they are using all the tools of the state to utterly crush any political opposition, any belief structure.
What you're seeing around the world, what you're seeing to Trump, they're doing now on a regular basis to anybody who sticks their head up in compliance.
Even if you're Kurt Benchu.
You're just a blue-collar guy, a preacher inside your home.
That's all you do.
You're not trying to be a big guy or a big actor.
Now, credit to him.
He's managed to handle, despite all the torture they've put him under, he has refused to buckle.
He appreciates everybody's prayers and good wishes and support for him.
He sees it.
He quotes the old Buddhist text, that every obstacle is just a disguised opportunity.
And he gets a chance to give a statement.
And at the end of the statement, he understood better than I ever did the principle well eloquently stated in the book The Invisible Man, where the grandfather explains to his grandson what it's like to be black in America in the 1950s.
He says, son, curse them with your yes sirs.
And I've been always trying to figure that out my whole life.
I was trying to figure it out from the time I read it.
Well, Kurt Benchhoof's answer, seeing this whole system oppress him and lie about him, they have now taken away his right to sue, even go to court with legal redress of grievance without advanced permission of the court.
They've taken away his home that he spent years on, that he built up.
That was his entire net worth.
That was entire wealth.
They've stripped that away from him.
They've taken away his son, prohibiting him from even having any contact or communication with his son and threatening his son that his son will go to prison if he even tries.
And now they've taken away his liberty.
Most people crack.
Most people break.
What does he do when given an opportunity to give a statement?
He is thankful to all the people that supported 1776 Law Center and says he wants to extend their thanks to helping him, to defend him and the cause and the case that he represents as an opportunity to make important precedent that could protect everybody else's rights and remedies by singing me happy birthday.
That's how he handles it.
That's who Kurt Benchoof is.
So we're going to march forward.
We're going to win the appeal.
And that corrupt, ha, commie judge, Judge Parisian, belongs in prison if Harmeet Dillon's going to do her job.
But it's an open question whether she does.
No, I say they want him to snap or break or snap.
And they want him to, like, get in a tank, a homemade tank, and careen through town, cause devastation, and then get shot.
Or, you know, plant some explosives in it.
So it's on the Trump Justice Department to do its job.
It's got to end this lawfare.
Tina Peters shouldn't die in a Colorado prison.
Do your job.
Get her released.
Use a federal habeas petition to do so.
Remove her to another state because she has critical evidence against government conspiracy.
The prosecutor that prosecuted her is running to be the Attorney General of Colorado.
The state of Colorado, like the state of Washington, just passed a law that's going to be able to take away your children if you object to any of the ideological indoctrination they may get from the state of Colorado.
If you object to their genitals being cut off.
You can go to jail, ultimately, and lose your kid in Colorado, just like they're doing in the state of Washington to Kurt Benchu.
So if you care about the law and care about liberty, you have to care about this case.
But the other people that have to care about this case, they need to take action.
God bless Attorney General Bondi, but quit worrying about your Fox News TV schedule and start doing your job.
The Epstein file should have already been released.
Credit to Tulsi Gabbard that the King and Kennedy files are out.
Credit to President Trump that the JFK files are out.
More of them should already be out.
But why is Brooke Jackson still waiting for the Justice Department to take the correct action in her case pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal?
For those that don't know, Brooke Jackson is the whistleblower who blew the whistle on the COVID vaccine by Pfizer in September of 2020.
And the corrupt Justice Department, Bill Barr, Attorney General, hit it.
From President Trump so he couldn't know that Pfizer had lied and thieved and stolen their way into harming millions and billions of people around the world.
Her case, the whistleblower case, pending before the Fifth Circuit was only dismissed because the Biden administration said their official public policy was they cannot accept any lawsuit, any lawsuit concerning any vaccine because that creates vaccine hesitancy and thereby all such actions had to be dismissed even if every single word of her allegations was true about Pfizer's fraud.
That is not President Trump's...
That is not Secretary Robert Kennedy's policy.
Then why hasn't Bam Bondi taken action yet?
It's because she likely is still too worried about her Fox News makeup TV schedule.
Then she is doing her job.
Similar to Kash Patel, Dan Bongino.
I like both of them.
I respect both of them.
But they need to start accelerating action or people need to start seeing consequences.
Or Steve Bannon recently said they're going to lose the confidence and faith of the American people that they're going to end this lawfare.
That they're going to have consequences to this lawfare.
Consequences to the massive fraud on the American people that the Biden administration facilitated and enabled.
The massive fraud on the American people that Pfizer did in the fake COVID vaccine that was not...
Remember what they contractually promised President Trump was a safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19.
What Pfizer delivered was unsafe, ineffective, not a vaccine, didn't prevent transmission or infection of the COVID-19.
They lied to President Trump and said it was.
That means their deliverable was based on fraud.
They got billions of our taxpayer dollars.
They should be ordered to pay it all back and put in a fund to secure remedy and recovery for the injured.
That's what Brooke Jackson is seeking.
Yet the U.S. government is yet to reverse, formally announce the reversal of their policy that the President of the United States has announced, that Secretary Kennedy has announced, because Pam Bondi is checking, well, at 2.30 I'm going to be on with them, and at 3.30 I'm going to be on with them, rather than doing her job.
Get on it.
Same with Harvey Dillon.
You're now in.
Do your job.
You made a lot of promises.
Deliver. The Civil Rights Division is the most powerful division of the Justice Department to clean up this lawfare.
To get Tina Peters out.
To get people like Kurt Benshoof out.
To have consequence against the rogue judges.
The rogue prosecutor who put Tina Peters in prison is now running for attorney general in the state of Colorado.
She should be facing federal charges.
That's what she should be facing if Harmeet Dillon does her job.
And the big question is, will Harmeet Dillon do her job?
Is she all talk no walk?
Is she all cat hat no cattle?
Or is she the real deal?
I want to believe she's the real deal.
And she just got in, so I'm not going to be as hard on her as I am on Pam Bondi.
But by golly, it's time to deliver.
We need to see remedy.
We need to see consequences.
The country needs it.
The American people need it.
Our legal system needs it.
The future of America needs it.
Robert, you speak of it.
I'm almost hesitant to ask the question.
I don't know much about it, but we know and with certainty that Pfizer lied.
People died.
Trump has now the opportunity to look into the fraud that was perpetrated against his government and the people back in the day.
What do you make of him fast-tracking this mRNA jab for the, not the swine flu, the avian flu, the H151 or whatever the heck they're doing?
The news is they're fast-tracking cutting tape yet again for what will probably shape up to be just as much of a toxic jab as the last one.
Has he not learned anything and what do you make?
On that aspect, I trust Bobby Kennedy.
So Kennedy will allow them to pursue various ideas as long as they present adequate science supporting those ideas.
That's why he's already blocked and stopped the flu vaccine marketing campaign, already stopped and blocked an oral vaccine they were trying to force through that didn't meet the scientific standards.
He has said that there will be a new committee is being formed.
To focus entirely on vaccine injuries, the cause of those injuries, and remedy for them.
He has also said in September, in the fall, there will be full announcement and detail as to what is causing autism in the United States.
Bobby Kennedy might have a bit of a hunch as to what that result might show.
So he's going to go through the evidentiary protocols to get it done.
So I have confidence in Bobby Kennedy.
I have confidence in President Trump on that aspect.
So I think you're going to see a lot of smokescreens between now and then meant to destabilize confidence in Bobby Kennedy.
It's going to be coming from the big pharma industry.
It's going to be coming.
I mean, like, for example, in the defamation case that I have, after we went in the trial court, you know, the very, I can't get into the details of the terms, but let's say a reasonable resolution was available to the defendant.
And they instead decided to bring in new counsel.
That's all about being gung-ho and not doing anything.
It's like, hmm, I wonder who's really paying the bills behind the scenes.
Is it the insurance company on behalf of their defendant?
Or is it the insurance company on behalf of other people they have ties to?
Like Big Pharma.
So you're going to see a lot of smokescreens out there.
You can't trust the Candace Owens of the world.
They're not worth it.
Anything, really, in terms of reliability of information and interpretation.
Assume that any information you read, hear, or see that's negative about Robert Kennedy is false, because that's the best, safest assumption to go with.
They're going to continue to wage war on him because they know what's coming.
And credit to Tulsi Gabbard.
Tulsi Gabbard goes and says, we figured out that, in fact, all the concerns about voting machines are legitimate.
And the person running the...
Intelligence part of our government, CISA, concerning such information has been lying and was part of illegal activities in the 2020 presidential election.
Tulsi Gabbard, when they're wanting to wage, start a war with Iran.
What does Tulsi Gabbard come out and say?
They are nowhere near nuclear weapons capability.
She puts a lie to that neocon war whore crowd that was trying to provoke the president into another Middle Eastern war.
That President Trump has committed to staying out of.
So those people are doing their job.
It's, frankly, Bondi that's not delivering.
And I think she means well.
I think she intends well.
I don't think she's like Bill Barr.
I don't think she's a plant.
I don't think she hates Trump or anything like that.
She's been loyal for forever.
I think she's in and out over her skis and still cares more about PR than she does getting results.
Like, for example, is a nice transition into the case of the man accused of assassinating the United executive.
As it turns out...
She might have been wiser not bragging about what they might do in that case when maybe all the evidence might get thrown out.
I was going to segue into the Carmelo Anthony one, but that one will come next.
And by the way, everybody, we're going to have a premature hardout at 625, so we'll have to switch over to our Locals exclusive because I'm going to be on Jimmy Dore.
Not that I forgot, but I forgot, sort of, that I forgot.
We were supposed to have the show yesterday and whatever.
Okay, so Pan Bondi comes out and says, yeah, we should go full death penalty for Luigi Mangione.
A lot of us, not defending Luigi Mangione on the righteousness of what you believe he did, but rather on the innocent until proven guilty, it's very nice that they have videos of him checking into a hotel, although questions as to whether or not it's the same person, and then the individual shooting the United CEO.
We don't see a face.
I don't know that we have fingerprints.
What happens is he gets arrested at a McDonald's with an orgy of evidence in his backpack, a gun, allegedly the gun, a manifesto.
I don't know what else was in there.
Apparently he's just sitting there smiling, eating at McDonald's.
So the defense that he's innocent until proven guilty, not that he's righteously justified in having done what he did, is the right way to go about this.
You give the presumption to everybody whether you like them or hate them.
Pan Bondi comes out a little prematurely, says, yeah, throw the book at him, death penalty.
The latest developments are that they may have violated his rights when arresting him and obtaining this evidence, which might lead some to believe that he is in fact the patsy and that this might be planted evidence in the first place, that they have to go about doing it in an unlawful way because it didn't exist in the first place.
Just being a little conspiratorial out there, people.
Robert, what's the latest?
Yes, so some people love Luigi because they think he did do the murder.
That's the new logic of the left.
I got even family members and friends that believe that.
And it's like, I'm no fan of UnitedHealthcare.
I'm no fan of the insurance industry, but I'm not calling for celebrating public assassinations.
It's like, whoa, maybe that's a little excessive.
They don't even think of it as a little excessive.
These are like the people that are celebrating the vandalism and the arson and the assaults on Tesla.
And it's cases like the Ben Shoup case in Seattle that give you the idea of the mindset of these people.
Where you have a judge say, yeah, she said to put him in prison because he's white.
Put him in prison because he's a man.
Put him in prison because he has the wrong beliefs.
Isn't that what we do?
I mean, that's how nuts it is out there.
That's how nuts these aspects of belief and support of this case is.
However, there are people suggesting that the evidence against him has always been a little bit flimsy.
That some of the photo identification evidence doesn't necessarily match up in certain ways and suspicions that he might be a patsy for some other ulterior agenda.
In that capacity, you're right, the recent motion to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment for the fruit of the poisonous tree of an illegal search was filed by his defense team.
And quite frankly, it looks to me like there's no doubt they violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
So what happened is, so for example, one of the tricks they like to do, this is actually an issue in the Ben Shoof case.
The police love to put you under arrest while pretending you're not under arrest.
So if you, here's the Fourth Amendment standard.
If you are in custody, then the police, there's certain limits imposed on the police about how they interrogate and what evidence they develop.
But also...
They can't develop any evidence from that and use it against you if the arrest was illegal.
When is the arrest illegal?
It's when it was made without probable cause, unless it's a so-called Terry Stop.
Terry Stop is a reference to the U.S. Supreme Court case, where they said you can have a lower standard of reasonable suspicion just to stop a person to ask a few questions, but not for like a full-blown arrest.
Here, what they did is they came into the restaurant.
And he happened to be sitting in the back booth against a closed window.
So the only means of entry or exit of the restaurant was on the other side through the exit door.
These two police officers come in and they come over to him and they stand right over him, blocking him from access to the door.
Blocking him from getting up and leaving.
The constitutional standard is that if a reasonable person Would not feel free to ignore the police.
Would not feel free to leave.
Then that person is being held in custody and under arrest.
And any evidence developed thereafter can be suppressed if there wasn't probable cause for the arrest.
At the time they arrested him, all they had was a call from an unknown person at the store saying...
That this guy looked like the person of interest being listed.
Because remember, at the time, he had not been called a suspect.
He had been called a person of interest.
That's not probable cause of a crime.
So all the cops know is that somebody claims he looks like the guy that there's a person of interest request on.
That's it.
Not that he's a murderer.
Not that there's probable cause he's a murderer.
Not that there's an arrest warrant out for him for murder.
None of that.
So they go in.
And they stand right over him and start demanding things of him.
Not asking, demanding.
That's very important, too.
So they sit there and they say, take down your mask.
They say, give us your ID.
They say, give us your name.
Okay, these are commands with two armed police officers standing above you in an area where there's no way to get around them without pushing.
Yes, but if he knows his rights, he'll say, am I being detained?
Am I under arrest?
Do you have a warrant?
I don't need to give you my name.
Oh, no, it's better.
If you know your rights to let them violate those rights, if maybe you committed the crime, right?
Like, let's say you committed the crime, right?
If you didn't commit the crime, you're right.
The best way to say, can I refuse to leave?
Can I do this?
Can I do this?
Force them to out that, in fact, they can't compel you to do anything.
But if you're guilty, but you know your rights like Luigi might have known, then you might sit there and be like, this feels like an illegal arrest.
I won't ask those questions, so they can't weasel their way out.
Because then, let's say they back off, he walks out, but they're following him, and at some point, the gig is up anyway.
So instead, you're like, okay, but if I could get them to violate my rights right now, without them knowing I know they're violating my rights, but creating the evidentiary record for it later, then all this evidence right here, even if they might have independently discovered it down the road,
It's going to be very hard for them to prove that, and all of a sudden, they're going to be out of luck.
It almost makes you think that he was the one who called in to the police to ask him, hey, I think the guy looks suspicious.
Send me your local recent six-month trainee, which is who they sent out there, by the way.
And this kid was dumb enough to say in a press conference when, quote, we took down his mask.
Does that sound like a voluntary, volitional action in response to a non-coercive question?
Or does that sound like the cops physically took down his mask?
Which, by the way, would be assault if a random citizen did it.
So the net effect of it is that it looks to me like, constitutionally, Luigi's position is right.
And all the evidence gathered that day, which is 95% of the evidence that implicates him, should be suppressed.
Now, can you trust a court in...
Any court to actually honor the Constitution in a high-profile political case?
Probably not.
But we will see.
But it looks like, but like if you're Pam Bondi, before you jump on publicly celebrating somebody's guilt that you probably don't even fully know, you might at least want to know whether or not the officers committed constitutional violations that might make the whole case blow up in ways that are very embarrassing for her.
It's just...
I say problematic.
I can never use the word problematic anymore after having read Scott Adams' loser thing because he says it's a bad word, but they shouldn't do it.
Biden should not have chimed in on the Derek Chauvin case.
Pam Bondi shouldn't have chimed in on Luigi Mangione.
It reeks of, even if it's righteous, it reeks of impropriety and it will compromise what would otherwise be...
A potentially lawful prosecution, so there's no reason to do it.
It could be argued to be witness intimidation, jury intimidation.
If Pam Bondi says the guy's guilty, who knows what the jury members are going to have to think their obligations or their role is in this prosecution.
They're going to think it has to be to convict.
You really boosted the defense, because if you have the defense, you want a bunch of young liberal Democrats, of which there are plenty of already in New York.
And now you have an excuse that any supporters of the Trump administration may conclude that the defendant is guilty based on her public statements.
And it gives you another pretext to get rid of any conservatives.
And if you get young Zoomer liberals on there, they'll acquit the guy because they're for what he did, even if he didn't do it.
So that's the sort of underlying nature of it.
And I guess we could have one more topic to wrap up tonight so that Viva can make sure he makes it over to Jimmy Dore.
And that would be Trump.
Versus the judicial branch.
Now, do we want to do this on...
I realize, Robert, I could leave the stream going for Locals and you can continue Locals solo while I do Jimmy Dore, if you're good at that.
I think we can wrap up here in 15 minutes.
But then what about the Locals after party?
We'll do it next week.
Okay. Are you doing a Bourbon with Barnes tonight?
Not tonight, but tomorrow night.
Okay. So I'm going to screenshot everything.
But hold on.
If we're going to do that, I'll end at 6.20.
We want to cover one.
Other topic.
Before the Trump stuff, locals will make up for it.
Promise. We're having a show next Sunday despite it being Easter.
There's no like...
I don't want to respect...
Oh, that was one of my great card gifts.
Somebody who is Jewish said, Happy Passover.
By the way, sorry about Jesus.
Look, I like the joke.
I'm sensitive to the fact that some jokes are very...
There's some topics that are just too sensitive for jokes, and I'm sensitive to that.
Remember the Woody Allen rule, right?
Tragedy plus time equals comedy.
Yeah, but, you know, there might not be enough time in the cosmos for some tragedy to become funny.
And what I was going to say was, yes, as far as Easter is concerned, I don't want to do anything that's disrespectful, but we're going to have the show anyhow.
Apparently, it's morning mass and brunch, and not like a Passover dinner.
Yeah, for the Catholics, and for the Protestants.
You know, it's Easter Sunday, get all dressed up, and then you go out for a great dinner.
And then you can finish that great dinner with a live, law for the people, Viva Born.
So we're back to our regular schedule, Sunday, 6 o'clock.
Robert, let me bring up the video clip so that we can contextualize this, and we're going to bring it into a few things on the subject.
You got Tim Pool taking heat for this.
What is it?
Nothing matters but this.
He was at a school event at the wrong team's tent with a knife.
He clearly chose murder than to walk away cut and dry here.
Nope, wrong.
Imagine you are invited to a party at someone else's house.
I'm going to pause here because the analogy is not analogous.
Tim Pool tweeted out, I'm confused by the story.
Are we against self-defense now?
This is in the context of the Carmelo Anthony stabbing.
And for those of you who, I mean, we're going to get more facts as to what the context, the details were, if that will attenuate or exacerbate what happened.
The context, as far as we understand it, a track meet, where Carmelo.
I'm not getting into the racial component of this for now.
I'll get into it in a bit when we get to the Give, Send, Go fundraiser.
Carmelo apparently comes to the track meet with a knife for whatever the reason.
There's some sort of dispute under the tent where the victim, whose name escapes me right now, and I feel bad for that, I apologize, tells Carmelo for whatever the reason to leave the tent.
Maybe he's from the other school, and he's in the tent, and he shouldn't be there, or underneath, and the victim says, get out, this is for our school, whatever.
Carmelo says no, and then the victim puts his hands on his shoulder, and Carmelo says, touch me, and you're going to see what happens, and the guy touches him, puts his hand on his shoulder, from what we understand, and Carmelo takes out a knife, stabs him in the chest, and he dies.
Tim Pool, I appreciate what he's doing, because some people are going to say there might be some, who threw the first punch, is it, if someone punches you in the face, do you get to stab them to death?
Or even stab them in self-defense, and if they die, you know, legit self-defense.
I appreciate the theorizing, the pontificating.
Like the German woman who stabbed the man who was sexually assaulting her, and he ends up dying, everyone on Earth is going to say, yeah, you don't prosecute this woman.
That's an absolute violation of any form of justice on Earth.
You look at this case, where you're talking about a kid who brings a knife to a track meet for whatever the reason, and until proof to the contrary, there's no meaningful escalation that could possibly warrant such a use of lethal force.
And I appreciate Tim Pool not playing devil's advocate, but coming up with a metaphor that's not analogous to say, yeah, you go to someone's house, they threaten you, they're going to cut you up and eat you for dinner, you stab them to death, despite the fact that you were invited, it's in their house, it's lawful self-defense, fine.
I don't yet see any evidence in this case that there would be any argument for lawful self-defense because the self-defense has to be proportionate.
I mean, I guess maybe there's some jurisdictions where it doesn't have to be proportionate, but it is a matter of some...
There wasn't even evidence, as far as I know, of the victim throwing a punch, slapping, shoving, whatever.
Put his hand on his shoulder.
The guy thinks he gets to pull out a knife that he brought, stab him in the chest.
I'm inclined to say, based on that fact pattern, premeditated...
Well, not premeditated, but first-degree murder.
Throw the book at him.
Although if I'm Pan Bondi and the Attorney General, still, you know, don't say anything because the process has to play out.
And maybe there is attenuating circumstance where the guy put his hand on his shoulder and said, I'm going to strangle you to death right now if you don't leave and then instantaneous whatever.
The second element of controversy in this case is the amount of money that it raised on Give, Send, Go.
Not Give, Send, Go.
Give, Send, Go.
I'm sorry.
It is Give, Send, Go.
There is a Give, Send, Go campaign for this guy, and it raised $270,000.
And I'm familiar with Jacob Wells, the CEO, and the flack that the company was taking by some, in that some are saying, all of a sudden, why would you give this guy a Give, Send, Go fundraiser?
I don't think the bulk of the flack against Give, Send, Go was based on that.
I think what people are shocked and outraged about is that they see this as something of a litmus test of a black kid who stabbed a white kid, and that these...
These donations are like a middle finger to white America.
That's what I think the outrage really is.
Not so much that give, send, go is allowing this guy to raise finances for his defense.
Everybody should be entitled to do that.
They shouldn't be deplatformed.
And just because you think he's guilty doesn't mean that he might not have defenses.
All that to say, I'm not going to dump on Tim Pool either because I appreciate what he's doing.
I just think it's...
Ill-advised to come up with a disanalogous, if that's a word, metaphor that doesn't fit the facts as we currently know them.
Bottom line, Robert, what are your thoughts on this from what we know?
And whether or not Give, Send, Go is culpable for allowing him to raise the funds and whether or not it's a big, fat, racist middle finger to white America to say we're going to donate to this campaign, much like we're going to support Luigi because we are fundamentally anti-white and this is our chance to let it show.
Yeah, unless it's fundraising for terrorism like Hamas, the Give, Send, Go is absolutely correct to host it.
And I agree with the founder of Give, Send, Go that you cannot call for them to take that fundraiser down without endangering the ability of Give, Send, Go to be a fundraising platform for the legal defense of people who may be falsely accused,
like Kyle Rittenhouse.
So anybody calling for them to take that down is an idiot.
To smack themselves in the face for being stupid.
The second aspect, in terms of self-defense, is I thought there was a rush to judgment kind of on both sides, a little bit of a rush in terms of what Tim Pool concluded, because some of the facts he suggested are contradicted by what the accusations are.
But in the same vein, we don't fully and wholly know what the truth is.
We've only heard the police version of events so far, based on a very preliminary investigation.
We have not heard the kids' set of events.
And I'll be honest, most of it sounds...
I'm not super believing, super confident that we know...
Oh, well, here's what I'm confident of.
We don't have the full story.
That I know.
The idea that he came to somebody else's track meet and he didn't know what that was and there was no backstory at all between anybody there and that he just goes nuts and stabs a guy.
I'm sorry, I'm not buying that story.
I'm guessing there's a lot more to this story.
Now, here's what the law says.
It varies by jurisdiction.
So the law of self-defense is not uniform.
I think there should be certain constitutional minimums under the Second Amendment and have long advocated that the law of self-defense has a constitutional minimum requirement.
The Supreme Court has said so indirectly, but not directly when given the opportunity to do so.
I keep affording them the opportunity to do so.
Maybe someday they will.
In cases I do.
To me, constitutionally, you have a right of self-defense.
That that's what the Second Amendment entitles you to.
And it entitles you to a particular means of self-defense, which is to bear arms.
But that the right they're trying to defend you for you constitutionally is that the state can never take away those rights, nor can anyone else, in my opinion.
So there's that aspect.
But I think the constitutionally minimum requirement should be that if you fear...
For your physical safety, and that fear is reasonable, you can use any force in proportion thereto to the threat.
Now, in Texas, that basically is Texas law.
Some states take that away.
Some states expand it.
But in Texas, you have to believe that you're at risk of serious bodily injury if you're going to use force you know can be lethal.
That's part one.
Part two...
So one is, did he know the force was lethal when he got out the night?
We don't know the full background of that, right?
We don't know exactly what happened, how it happened.
We're not, you know, we've got the government's version, but we don't really have his version yet of the events.
We don't have all the witnesses' testimony of the events.
We don't have what the forensic evidence may show concerning the events.
I mean, I did a hush-hush on whether OJ might actually be innocent.
Most people are absolutely convinced he's guilty.
Have actually never read the whole record in the case.
They don't even know what their theory of the evidence is and how kind of laughably absurd it is because they don't understand that.
So that's why I say, eh, hesitate to rush to judgment in a murder case like this involving a couple of teenagers who are, you know, we're getting just the government's version so far.
But let's just, so what he would need to show, either because there's some backstory, let me give you an example.
I represented Michael Strickland.
Michael Strickland was a press reporter in Portland, Oregon.
It was called laughing at liberals.
He kept exposing them and so forth.
They didn't like it, the crazy Antifa crowd.
So they physically beat the living daylights out of him.
After that, he got a gun.
He got his license.
He learned how to use himself with a gun.
And when they were coming at him one day, he pulled the gun and flashed it quickly and then put it away.
So a lot of the right was outraged that he was prosecuted.
So what that means is where I agree with Tim Pool is we need to consistently advance self-defense.
We need to say, well, we don't like that person.
We don't like why they did it.
So now let's take away their self-defense.
Let's now water down self-defense rules for them.
I'm not in favor of that.
So the question is, was there context?
For example, had this kid ever been assaulted by anybody in that group before?
Had they threatened him before?
I mean, I still believe, now maybe I'm wrong, but my hunch is there's a backstory that hasn't been told yet.
I'm not buying he just walked into the wrong tent and just decided to start assaulting people.
I'm just not quite buying that story yet.
There's reasons to be skeptical of it.
But this is what he would need to show self-defense.
He would need to show why he had the fear that he was about to suffer serious bodily injury.
Because if he had that fear, and that fear was reasonable, then using the knife absolutely is self-defense.
Like, some people were saying it's provocative.
Here's the other thing.
It depends on the jurisdiction.
In some jurisdictions, provocation...
So to say, did he provoke the other guy, the victim, by attending whatever...
If there's a dispute as to whether or not it's a private tent, did he provoke him and then use the knife as an excuse to stab him once he said, like, you know, piss off, whatever, and then the guy shoves him and then he stabs him?
Exactly. So the provocation is when you really instigate the incident.
To me, saying, touch me and see what happens, is not provocation.
It's, hey, I'm going to defend myself, so don't do it.
And you're at risk if you do.
It's an announcement.
So I don't see that as provocation at all.
I don't see that as gutting his law of self-defense at all, his right of self-defense at all.
And so to me, it's only whether or not...
Now, if in fact the person's use, if there's no backstory at all, and all that is happening is someone's trying to physically remove him from a place he is not lawfully right to be present, We call that, at least it's the only trespass laws we have in Canada at the federal level,
assault by trespass.
Exactly. In that instance, then, and if the use of force, there was nothing about, if there's no evidence that would make it reasonable for him to think he would suffer serious bodily injury from this individual, then he doesn't have a right of self-defense as a justification.
Which is what is legally called justification in response to the government's accusations.
Remember, in America, it is on the government to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is not the duty of the defendant to introduce that evidence.
It is not on the duty of the defendant to prove their self-defense.
It is the obligation of the government to exclude self-defense.
And people should be careful.
Here's the reality.
Here's where cops are often not on your side.
A lot of conservatives think back to blue.
The cops are with us.
Plenty of good cops out there.
I know them.
I got personal friends on police forces all over the country.
So I'm not smearing all cops like sometimes people accuse me of.
But as a general rule, cops have not been great at defending people's self-defense rights.
Cops have not been great on Second Amendment issues in general.
You're going to find lots of sheriffs all across the country that endorse Democrats routinely.
And you want to know why?
Because they believe in gun control.
They think only they.
This is the authoritarian wing of the police force.
They will lie also all the time.
And then there's clearly underlying racial dynamics here that may be at play.
I'll be frank.
I think some of the rush on some parts of the right to condemn the kid is because he's black.
Now, I understand some of it comes from, hey, they're worried that all the anti-white rhetoric...
Is leading kids to do dumb and crazy things like that kid in Wisconsin who killed his parents in order to try to assassinate Trump because they think that would make him a hero, right?
That's these crazy things.
So I get that concern, but be careful with that, right?
Whenever it's so politically easily aligned for you to distrust or dislike someone and in the process disparage the defense of self-defense, be careful because maybe that's the path that people with power want you to go down.
So I don't know if this kid has a self-defense right.
If it turns out the government's current accusations are true, then he doesn't have a self-defense right.
If it turns out there's a whole other part of that story yet to be told, he very well may have a self-defense right.
That will depend on trial.
And I dropped the link to the police report in our Locals community so you can read that at your leisure.
And I'm going to go read that and highlight what I think is the most relevant stuff.
Why are we bothered by kids bringing weapons to school?
I mean, I get people are opposed to it and they're saying it was illegal and so on and so forth.
As a general rule, I don't like taking away people's means of self-defense, whether it's a knife or a gun.
Well, I guess the argument is going to be, you know, if you're bringing a knife to school, you're showing...
I mean, depending on where it is.
But see, that tells me...
Either he's used to dealing with violence on a routine basis, which you may think, oh, that impugns him.
Maybe it explains why he knows how things can escalate quickly and he'd be on the losing end of it.
My hunch is, the hunch is on the right, that this was racially motivated as anti-white violence.
I'm skeptical of that, given all the very unique, distinct facts here.
I'm guessing there's a backstory we don't know.
And maybe that backstory still implicates him.
Maybe that's why we haven't heard it yet.
Maybe there's negative information about him in that backstory.
Or maybe the backstory gives him a defense.
But I would wait until we get the backstory to condemn the kid, and I definitely wouldn't rush to eviscerate the law of self-defense just because you don't like the person who may use it for his benefit.
Yeah, I'm trying to see if I can find what type of knife it is, because it might be a Swiss Army knife, in which case you're not bringing one of those four-fingered Rambo knives that you have the...
Illegal in Canada, by the way.
All right.
Excellent, Robert.
I say excellent.
Incidentally, to the comment that...
And last but not least, the battles with Trump and SCOTUS will continue unabated.
The Supreme Court told that...
Remember I said last week that that crazy court was ordering effectively the reasonable interpretation of the court's order?
Was that President Trump go and invade El Salvador, kidnap an El Salvadoran citizen from an El Salvadoran prison and bring him back because a federal judge demanded it?
The Supreme Court, as I predicted, did reverse that.
Now, what the court said is it may be that there may be some remedy.
There may be some due process issue implicated.
They said, if so, go back and clarify your order because your order is an insult to the Article II powers.
What does the district court do?
Because it's another one of these crazy commie courts.
They say court pretends that the Supreme Court just affirmed her decision.
It's like, that's not what it did.
And it's trying to hold...
President Trump in contempt for not going down and invading a foreign nation and kidnapping a foreign citizen to bring back to the United States just because a federal judge wants it to be so.
And the whack craziness of the courts continues, refuses to clarify her order, even though the Supreme Court ordered her to clarify her order.
The other courts are now demanding that President Trump keep illegals that were illegally present here by the Biden administration here into perpetuity.
I mean, they're just going crazier times crazier times crazier because these courts, like the Seattle court, that didn't realize issuing the worst possible sentence in the history of the state, a maximum sentence that's never been issued.
Based on someone's race, gender, and political beliefs is a bad idea and might get overturned.
No idea.
Because they live in their own tiny little bubbles of their own self-righteousness that they don't know what the rest of the world even thinks, least of all how badly this will backfire.
But watch the Supreme Court step in.
They're going to have to clarify and shut down all the rogue judicial branch or President Trump will do it for them.
We have an extra five minutes, so let's read some tipped questions over on Locals.
Zoe Grant says, thanks for all you do, Robert, and happy belated birthday.
Encryptus says, epic rant.
Barons, thank you.
Barons. JIC Chin is the judge, not Chin.
No, no, we were saying Chin, but I thought it was Chin.
I just didn't want to get accused of, you know.
Whatever. Jeffrey Sachs, I was trying to remember that quack's name.
He's the Harvard-educated economist whose bad advice crashed the Russian economy, triggering the reversion to authoritarianism, exclusion from NATO, and the Ukraine invasion.
Right, says Spam Ranger?
Yeah, basically, yeah.
Gray 101, will President Trump allow companies to mandate this second beautiful life?
No, not a chance.
But he didn't allow them to mandate it.
Watch this vaccine have a lot of different limits imposed on it.
Remember, Robert Kennedy's position is consistent.
He's not out to take things away from people.
Like that, like other people saying, ban it, ban it.
Bobby Kennedy should ban it.
That's not what he's doing.
He wants public agencies to ban certain things, like not having fluoride in your water that lowers the IQ, for example, that he's currently successfully getting in multiple places.
And he wants food companies to voluntarily change how their products work.
But his goal is to make sure you have informed consent.
He's not trying to take away your right.
If you want to harm your body, go at it.
But you have informed consent to do so.
So that will be the guiding light of the Trump administration while Bobby Kennedy is its Secretary of Health and Human Services.
And by the way, this was not an accusation that Trump had allowed the companies to do it the first time around.
I think this is a comparative between Biden.
So will Trump allow the companies to mandate this?
He never did it.
He never allowed them the first time.
It was Biden that did it.
And Lord knows his position should be that it was never intended to be mandated in the first place.
Is Trump going to counter the ongoing legal abuses forcing farmers to sell their land like Flammery in California?
Brooke Rollins also needs to focus less on the PR circuit and do her job.
She should have already announced the dismissal of all claims against Amos Miller and the protection of Amish and small farmers.
Should have already announced that the FDA had no legal authority to try to restrict raw milk sales anyway.
And publicly announced that.
So there's multiple places that she, the USDA, has a role to protect small farmers.
I think she wants to protect small farmers.
I think, like Pam Bondi, her heart is in the right place.
But we're not seeing the action that we need.
And we need more of it because small farmers are under continuous assault in this country.
Woodworker says, if Alberta were to decide to leave, we already got to that question.
I don't agree with getting rid of the West Coast.
It helps in national defense.
Also, resources.
You wouldn't get rid of it, but no.
Obviously, I'm being sardonic.
The more practical thing that I favor is deport them.
Let's deport them.
They're afraid U.S. citizens are going to get deported.
Well, let's send a few commie judges up to Canada.
They probably like it.
They're better anyway.
Shane Vizaz says, just finished my Jaclyn Hill's Orange Twist.
Gorgie. Yum.
It's delicious.
Alien Baby.
Back in the day, we put the rocket in the...
You probably don't want to read the whole thing.
And then we got...
Urban dog, please look into the Massachusetts kidnapping children across the state lines because parents...
Oh yeah, they're doing that in mass.
They did that in Canada.
They're trying to take away everything from you and assert exclusive monopoly on power in all these different spaces and places.
It's why the work 1776 Law Center does is so important.
You know, before I got involved, nobody was paying attention to what was happening to the Amish.
Very few people were paying attention to what was happening to small farmers.
Before 1776 Law Center got in.
1776 involvement is what allowed Kyle Rittenhouse to have a complete defense in the court of public opinion without him having to pay a penny, nickel, dime, or dollar for it.
It's what allowed the Covington kids' cases to get 90% of the most powerful institutions in the world, including powerful individuals, to...
Voluntarily retract and correct their defamatory lies and libels about.
So the 1776 Law Center only exists because ordinary, everyday people help make it exist and help support it.
And again, the 25% discount for the annual inaugural 1776 Law Center retreat in Chattanooga, Tennessee, available till midnight tonight.
Do it, people.
Before you leave, subscribe.
Make sure you subscribe.
Locals, I've screened...
Well, I think we got through all the tip questions anyhow, so we did that.
Locals will do the after-party on Sunday.
Bourbon with Barnes tomorrow night.
The Locals exclusive after-party with my stream tomorrow.
I've got a PPC member coming on who's going to...
We're going to have a good interview at 5 o'clock, talk the news.
I might...
Matt Taibbi might be on tomorrow at 4.15 to talk about his situation.
If it's not tomorrow, it should be this week.
So, good stuff.
Amazing stuff coming up.
Robert? Everybody, great show.
Enjoy the evening.
Export Selection