Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 4, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

02:49:41

Ep. 262: Shiloh is COINTELPRO 2.0? The "Woke Right"? Trump's Ukraine, Iran Deal! Canada Stuff & MORE

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	On today's episode of Viva and Barnes Law for the People Sunday Night Law Extravaganza, Viva Frye will show you how to get an entire stream demonetized in exactly five seconds on YouTube.
	I'm just kidding.
	I'm absolutely not playing this video.
	I do believe even playing this video would be grounds for some form of punishment, cancellation, or YouTube demonetization, and therefore I shall with...
	Oh, hello everybody!
	Good evening.
	This is Viva Frye.
	Former Montreal litigator turned current Florida rumbler with the Sunday night Viva and Barnes law extravaganza.
	Ordinarily, for those of you who don't know, I start with something of an intro video, go on a particularly long rant, tirade, depending on what's happening in the news.
	I think I've exhausted my rage against the soon-to-be 51st state of Canada.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	I'm joking.
	I'm joking.
	You're going to be the 13th province of China.
	Oh my goodness!
	All right, Viva is going to get in trouble tonight.
	We're starting tonight's show with an interview because the news of the week has been this Shiloh Hendrix incident in a park where she allegedly referred to an alleged five-year-old kid who allegedly had autism as the N-word, and this video went viral.
	She started a Give, Send, Go campaign, and I think she's up to now $600,000.
	I had a good meme.
	I'm not good at memes, but the meme was...
	The final answer on who wants to be a millionaire, and it's Shiloh, and the options are, you know, you get the options.
	I'm sure someone already did it as well, probably better than I could have ever done it.
	But as I'm watching the news and trying to make sense of it and understand what's going on, I had some questions about the Give, Send, Go campaign, and I reached out to Jacob Wells, the CEO of Give, Send, Go, and asked me if he would come on tonight and give you, my audience, An exclusive breakdown, analysis, or explanation.
	Answer the questions that I have about this in as much as he can.
	And if he can't, to politely say, Viva, don't be so bloody nosy and ask such imposing questions.
	And he said yes.
	And he also said, ask whatever you want.
	And if I do not feel comfortable answering it, I will not answer it.
	And so with that said, people...
	Let me bring in Jacob Wells, the CEO of Give, Send, Go.
	I will not even mention the name of the competitor, GoFMe.
	But nobody should ever use GoFMe ever again.
	This is not a sponsored video, Jacob.
	Confirm that right now.
	I will promote your company for free.
	But no one should ever use GoFMe ever again because that's what they do.
	Jacob, sir, how goes the battle?
	Oh, man.
	It is a battle.
	And we're actually glad to be in it because you need solid, good people in the middle of the fight that are standing as best they can for the right thing to do.
	And that's what we're trying to do.
	You are the CEO, founder, the man behind the company of...
	There's a team, obviously, but you are the man behind the concept, the vision of Give, Send, Go.
	What is it, for those who may not know, because people reflexively go to GoF me, they don't even have the lexicon yet.
	Give, send, go should become the Google of the crowdfunding world-verse.
	What is it?
	So, Give, send, go is a social crowdfunding platform.
	And let me just correct part of that narrative.
	I am co-CEO.
	I started the company with actually a couple of siblings, two siblings.
	One had to leave early on.
	So it really began as a joint venture between myself and my sister, Heather.
	We're two of 12 children.
	She's number two on the list.
	I'm number five.
	So we co-CEO it and we are now in over 80 countries around the world.
	We're a social global crowdfunding platform for people around the world to donate to causes that they want to support.
	So that's who we are.
	I know you told me this when I had you on a while back.
	12 kids.
	You see, you and I are very similar.
	We're both the fifth kid.
	I just don't have seven additional siblings afterwards.
	It's a Christian-inspired crowdfunding site.
	Yeah, we recognize that there are needs that people have in this world.
	We know that money helps meet those material needs, but in difficult moments, people need more than just...
	Monetary donations.
	Those are great to help pay some of the costs.
	But people need hope.
	They need words of affirmation.
	They need some life spoken into them.
	And so what we said was, well, why don't we come along, build a platform that helps people raise money for all the causes that they need and have in life, but also share the hope that we have as believers.
	Because we believe that there's a God that loves us, that made humanity uniquely in his image and has purpose and design in that.
	And that actually is a great equalizer to society.
	It's why...
	The Western society has done so good for this world is because it was founded on those ideals.
	And so we wanted to bring that into this fundraising space.
	And that's where we've landed.
	That's our mission statement.
	Share the hope of Jesus through crowdfunding.
	And that's what we do.
	And I'm going to bring this one up because it's from our Locals community.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	ComfortedJules says, Jacob, I know you're getting a lot of heat, but thank you for being ideologically consistent.
	When I had you on, and because I know that it's a Christian website, you know, you have your option to donate.
	You also have an option to pray if you don't have money to donate, but you want to show support.
	And then we were discussing, you know, the raising money for something related to tangentially abortion.
	And then the question was, I asked you, like, would you say no to that?
	I remember your answer at the time, but if you don't mind, you know, to illustrate the principles by which you operate, what was your answer at the time?
	Yeah, we've really fallen on one area in particular where we've said, you know what, this is an area that we're not going to go with where even our competitor does allow, and that is in the protection of children.
	So we believe that even pre-born children are children, and so we're not going to allow you to fundraise for your abortion on Give, Send, Go, and we're not going to allow you to fundraise for the alteration of your child's gender, sex.
	On Give, Send, Go.
	Now, if you're an adult, you want to do that, go for it.
	That's your prerogative.
	But we're going to protect children on our platform because they don't have a voice yet to be able to protect themselves.
	Beyond that, we pretty much settle on the law as a boundary for what is and isn't allowed to happen on a fundraising site.
	Okay, and now you took some heat for Carmelo Anthony.
	A lot of heat.
	I don't know if you can explain the degree of the heat that you got for having allowed Carmelo raise funds on his platform.
	What was that like?
	I was actually in real shock because the heat was coming from the right where I sit somewhat myself.
	I'm a Christian.
	I have more nationalistic views than globalist views.
	I am conservative, meaning I believe in truth and that it exists and that we need to conserve it.
	And many of the people that have espoused those same things as far as wanting them when the right was under attack, like freedom of speech, etc., they quickly seem to undermine their own previous positions.
	And we found like we were now a pariah of both parties rather than just one.
	And we were kind of in the middle of this war.
	And it was very shocking because when your own side begins to say, hey, listen, we don't like this kid.
	He shouldn't be deserved the presumption of innocence like we clamored for for all the Kyle Rittenhouses and the Daniel Pennies.
	That to me is shocking.
	It's non-principled.
	And it actually plays into the race baiting narrative that I felt was just more so for clicks than anything else.
	It is some people.
	The retort is that because I've received this as well.
	How dare you compare?
	Carmelo Anthony's incident to Rittenhouse's incidents.
	And I was like, well, first of all, I don't think we're going to learn any of the exonerating facts that we knew from Rittenhouse, but who knows?
	And I'm saying that mildly cynically.
	My argument is that he could be guilty, and he should still be allowed to...
	Guilty, subsequently found out he should still be allowed to raise the funds for a defense to test that theory.
	Other people are saying, well, he's just making money off the campaign.
	And the response to that is...
	So long as it's not fraudulent misrepresentations.
	The question I have to you is, when the family comes out and says we're raising money for...
	I don't think they said for our defense, so I don't think they're in the grounds of potential fraudulent misrepresentations.
	When they want to start a crowdfunding website, how do you ensure that they're not going to misrepresent that for which they're raising funds?
	Yeah, no, it's a great question, but we've got to set the record straight from the get-go.
	The Anthony family did not create this campaign.
	Just like Kyle Rittenhouse, the campaign on Give, Send, Go back then wasn't created by Kyle Rittenhouse.
	It was created by just a supporter that wanted to jump in and do something good for Kyle.
	That was very similar to this case.
	We allow on Give, Send, Go for strangers to create campaigns to help someone in need.
	So you don't have to be connected to the family.
	You don't have to be anything like that.
	And so...
	I wanted to just make that clear that it wasn't the Anthony family that was going out pleading for money.
	It was somebody estranged to the family that was just trying to do something good.
	Eventually, the Anthony family did take it over.
	We helped facilitate that to happen.
	But the question of what can funds be used for?
	They can be used for...
	Their stated purpose.
	And from the very beginning of the campaign, there was some misconception.
	The campaign stated from the very beginning that it was going to be able to be used for a variety of different things.
	I know that the way that we talked a little bit about it was Legal Defense Fund because that's typically how these funds start when there's a violent crime, alleged violent crime situation.
	You kind of use the term Legal Defense Fund.
	But that wasn't...
	Fully how this campaign was set up at the beginning it said hey it could be used for the support of the family it could be used for legal defense and a few other things so that was Pretty clear to the supporters very early on.
	And we reiterated that.
	We actually sent an email out to the 13,000 people that had donated.
	Once the family kind of reiterated in the campaign more clearly what they were fundraising for, we sent out a mass email to everyone saying, hey, if you feel like you've been defrauded or something's changed, we'll gladly give you a refund.
	And I think out of the 13,000 people, 10 people requested a refund.
	Well, that's the thing.
	I think the donations to Carmelo Anthony were either...
	They were driven by certain racial elements or they might have been people trolling just so that you can look and say, you know, God bless you.
	One of the comments was, in my day, I would have had to have taken a seat back.
	God bless you, Carmelo.
	And I was like, okay, that's either a really sick satirical troll or someone who's seriously demented.
	But this is going to bring us into Shiloh because you have these competing race-driven campaigns.
	And Shiloh has now taken the lead.
	It's over $600,000.
	I was just looking over some of the top donations and I see a $10,000 anonymous donation.
	And then what's sent to have been, I was ranking them by top donations.
	So they came out that way.
	$2,000, $2,001, $2,002.
	It looks like an auction of dollars.
	And I'm sitting there thinking, if someone wanted to sow discord, this is how they would do it.
	You know, anonymous donations that are implausibly large.
	To drive this, you know, an ideological race war or, you know, potentially even worse.
	To your end, do you know if this is like some form of Act Blue type money laundering?
	Or are these like bonafide actual humans who are actually donating thousands and thousands of dollars?
	No, these are actual humans.
	You know, there's a huge difference between Act Blue and what they've done and they should be.
	I think a lot of fraud has happened over there.
	But the motivation there is to fund political outworkings.
	This money is going to an individual.
	It's going to a lady to support her however people are deeming that support to go.
	But all the donations, we know their IP addresses, their email addresses, where they're coming from, all of those variables around each donation.
	And there's nothing about This donation pattern that we haven't seen across every campaign, big campaigns like this, very, very similar.
	There's nothing that's outstanding.
	I did do a little breakdown of where donations were coming from.
	Carmelo's campaign, you saw over 98% were here domestic in the U.S., so it largely was a U.S. encapsulated thing, as you could imagine.
	And this one, slightly bigger footprint, about 86% here in the U.S., and then Canada and Great Britain are two other drivers behind it, but largely Western society, people that are just engaged.
	So no Russian dollars or no, you know, suspicious foreign countries, although whether or not they laundered.
	Okay.
	Yeah, no.
	The question I'd ask you also, then I asked if I could ask you because I don't want to put you on the spot, but your company has the option to donate to support Give, Send, Go with every contribution.
	Go F me.
	I think they take a percentage.
	And you, in our first interview, said, you know, you rely on that and it's been working quite well to allow people that option.
	If they like the company, they'll...
	Oftentimes give more than what the de facto surcharge would be on GoF me.
	On this campaign, are you allowed to disclose or discuss the amount of contributions directly to GiveSendGo for the service?
	Because I was thinking if this was inorganic...
	That the people who are just trying to either stoke, divide or whatever would not give those contributions to Give, Send, Go to facilitate your business.
	I don't know if you have an answer, if you can share that information.
	I will in generalities.
	So the amount has been pretty consistent with what's typically seen across the board.
	So nothing, it hasn't dipped down.
	People are still tipping Give, Send, Go, giving us that little bit extra.
	I think...
	One study that we did recently, and as the, you know, Gives and Go has, over the past several years, been pigeonholed, I'd say, on the right with the campaigns that the conservative causes.
	So we've gotten a good donation to Gives and Go percentage model around the more conservative element of society.
	Just recently with campaigns like the campaign for Luigi Mangione and now this Carmelo campaign, we're beginning to see a shift to more left-leaning causes as well.
	And we're beginning to compare, well, what's the difference?
	Who gives more conservative campaign owners or more leftist liberal campaign owners?
	And it does seem to be so far that people on the right, people in the more conservative vein of giving, More in donations to Give, Send, Go than campaigns on the left.
	So it just was an interesting stat that right-leaning slash conservative causes are a little bit more generous to Give, Send, Go than the ones on the other side of the aisle.
	So there's nothing that stands out as being inorganic about these fundraisers themselves because a lot of people were, not a lot, people were hypothesizing that this is inorganic, bot-driven, Potentially influenced social division that is being sowed by these two incidents raising so much money for these, you know, one is an atrocious crime, the other one's a bad word.
	So two wildly different things, but nothing stands out as being inorganic about these two candidates.
	Well, yeah, nothing, and that's not what's happening at all.
	What's happening is...
	A small, small...
	I mean, I do want to put some perspective on this.
	In America alone, we have 350 million people or so, and 15,000 people have donated to either one of these campaigns.
	Millions of people have visited these campaign pages.
	Millions.
	So we can track the analytics of who's coming to the site, how many views each of these pages is getting.
	Millions of people are viewing these pages.
	And 15 on Carmelo's, 15 or so thousand people on Carmelo's campaign.
	I see about 24,000 now on Shiloh's campaign.
	So it is a very, very small amount of people.
	And actually, many people in these two campaigns, I've noticed there is a threat of people donating multiple times intentionally because they're very passionate about it.
	Somebody else comes out and says something negative about the campaign and it reinvigorates them to go on and donate again because they want to, you know, use that dollar as a voice again.
	So I think this is just what Give, Send, Go is doing as a platform is exposing what exists in society.
	On a scale, like a small-scale element of the racial division and divide.
	And I think it is symptomatic of something much deeper.
	I could go into my philosophical thoughts on what that is, but I do think it's just exposing an undercurrent that's in society and now is coming visible.
	All right.
	That's good enough.
	I hope that quells some concerns out there about dark money.
	Fueling either of these on both ends.
	In which case it just does actually come down to this being a big middle finger response to Carmelo Anthony's raising over a half a million dollars and then apparently doing things other than ensuring a robust defense which rubbed people the wrong way given the nature of the accused act.
	There was a lot of misinformation around that too.
	Claims of buying Cadillacs and buying homes.
	It was all fake news.
	And so this is why we say you need to, now more than ever, you need to be afforded the best defense possible because there's so much misinformation that floats around.
	It's the best place for that.
	You know this as a lawyer.
	The best place for this is in a courtroom where there's an actual prosecuting and the defense attorney that can figure this stuff out rather than the court of public opinion.
	Jacob, well, you're on X. What's your handle on X?
	Jacob A. Wells on X. That's my primary spot.
	Yeah, I mean, going to continue to speak on these things as opportunity arises.
	There's actually a couple tips and rumble rants for Jacob.
	Oh, let me see this.
	Okay, we got Jacob.
	I know you're getting a load of heat, but thank you.
	That was from Comforted Jewels.
	Then we've got...
	Jacob, hold on, the first one was, what about, okay, hold on, so I got the one in there.
	DITW says, legal fund fine, but you can't profit from crime.
	If convicted, should the funds be forced returned?
	Otherwise, does this incentivize crime for money?
	Asks DITW.
	You know, there is a fine line there, and we've had to wrestle with it ourselves.
	I know some states have different laws around, I think, in Texas, which is where the Carmelo Anthony.
	Campaign is situated that there are laws in the books about profiting from crime.
	So we're wrestling through what that looks like from a terms of service place, whether there should be more caveats around funds when they are created.
	It does get tricky because it's not even like Carmelo himself is the recipient of the funds.
	It's his family.
	It's like how many layers removed?
	Does it have to be for someone to be able to receive funds that weren't necessarily the partakers of the violent incident?
	His family has, I would say, on some level, a legitimate need as a byproduct of a bad action of their child.
	Dad has lost, I think, not lost his job, but had to take time off of work because of the scenario.
	Legitimate threats to their safety.
	There are real tangible needs that are a byproduct of...
	Anyone as a parent could recognize if your child was engaged in something like this, the havoc that it would wreak on your family and the potential monetary element, that burden that would be there, and people can donate to appease some of that.
	The other question will be the last one because I've got to thank you for your time.
	Are you still trying to sue Give, Send, Go for donations raised for the Freedom Convoy?
	You guys are suing Give, Send, Go?
	No, we're being sued.
	Oh, sorry.
	GoFundMe.
	Oh, no.
	Sorry.
	I read the question wrong.
	I read it with GoFMe.
	Let me reread that question so I can make it.
	Are they still trying to sue GiveSendGo?
	Yeah, you guys are still on that $300 million lawsuit in Canada, right?
	We are.
	We've made some progress.
	We actually got a motion to change venue because we don't think Ottawa is a good place.
	To adjudicate this case where the convoy actually happened.
	So let's try to move this to Toronto or some other court because who knows how many people in the courthouse in Ottawa actually saw or partook on some level with the protest as it was unfolding.
	And that could taint the whole thing.
	So we need to move it out of there.
	And that's what we're trying to do.
	Amazing.
	Everybody's panicking.
	Barnes is coming, people.
	Chill out out there.
	Jacob, thank you very much.
	Give, send, go is the only...
	Crowdfunding, crowdsourcing that you should be using, period, full stop.
	Jacob, thank you.
	I'm going to continue following these two campaigns and the news, but thank you very much for coming on.
	Appreciate it.
	All right, I'll talk to you soon.
	All right.
	Bye-bye.
	All right, people.
	And don't worry, I saw SVA123 over in local says, Now Viva's got to cover the Canadian news.
	Don't worry.
	We're going to do that when Barnes gets in here.
	What I do have to do before Barnes gets in here, because Jacob Wells was not, Give, Send, Go was not the sponsor of tonight's show.
	The sponsor of tonight's show.
	Is something different?
	And the truth will shock you.
	But see, I'm trying to delay.
	I gotta get my fat fingers to move faster here.
	The Wellness Company is our sponsor for tonight's show, people.
	Now...
	Here's what's going on.
	Have you seen the latest fluoride headlines and the water supply?
	The future of oral care isn't fluoride, it's peptides.
	And the wellness company just launched the first ever peptide paste that regenerates gum tissues, strengthens enamel, and naturally whitens your teeth.
	It's called SMILE, all caps, a doctor-formulated breakthrough that works with your body's natural repair process.
	This advanced formula blends targeted peptides with blue spirulina, aloe vera, and...
	Powerful remineralizers to boost blood flow, stimulate collagen, and help rebuild lost gum tissue, all while gently whitening without sensitivity.
	No fluoride, no peroxide, no artificial dyes, just real clean ingredients that fight bad bacteria and support a healthier mouth from the inside out.
	Ready to upgrade your oral health?
	Experience it?
	Go to...
	TWC.health forward slash Viva.
	Use promo code Viva.
	You'll get 10% off plus free shipping.
	Take action today for a healthier tomorrow.
	Most people don't realize you naturally start losing gum.
	Like you naturally start having receding gum lines as you get older.
	I've noticed this and I'll do status update if anybody's interested in that later on.
	All right, peeps.
	Now you can start clamoring if Barnes doesn't get here in a couple of seconds.
	I'll text him and make sure.
	Let me make sure there were a couple of other comments in there.
	Crash105 over in vivabarneslaw.locals.com said, well, since the kid is under 18, the parents are no steps removed.
	They are responsible for the kids'actions on some level.
	This is where you take flack for trying to apply the standards equally.
	One of the criticisms that we had against the Crumbly's parents being sued for the acts of the kid is that the kid was tried as an adult.
	There's an argument that you try the kid as an adult means the kid as an adult is responsible for his own actions, as would be an adult.
	And so how do you then go after the parents for the same reason?
	The flip side to that is even if they had given a gun to a mentally unstable adult, they could have gone after the parents for criminal negligence.
	But again, we all...
	I think that Anthony Carmelo will be found guilty.
	You still cannot apply the principles of justice differently because you...
	Before due process has played out, have come to your own conclusions, which may or may not be totally, totally warranted.
	So there's that caveat.
	The profit-off crime is a damn good question.
	Are they still trying to sue...
	Oh, the gift center, we got that one too.
	Viva, is there any evidence that Carney, Musk, and Trump are former business partners?
	I saw the very same video that went viral a little while ago.
	A guy explaining how Carney...
	And Jared Kushner are in bed together.
	I haven't gone down that rabbit hole, not for any corrupt reasons.
	Just because I haven't done it yet.
	I would not mind having a discussion with the person who did that research.
	But I saw that video, I watched it, and I'm aware of the allegations.
	Let me just make sure that Barnes has got that.
	All right.
	Let me see what's going on in the chat here, because I saw some spicy chat that I wanted to bring up, but I didn't want to bring it up during Jacob being here.
	Business-wise, I love Jacob.
	He's a good man.
	He's a principled man.
	You take flack from both sides when you sit on the fence in the middle in a bad sense, but you also take flack from both sides when you stand on principled grounds.
	Carmelo is a minor.
	His parents share in some responsibility.
	What about the murdered child, his family, and all the ignorant going?
	Not sure what that last part means.
	Look, not to be cynical either.
	The parents are going to get sued civilly, undoubtedly, by the family.
	So if they have assets and they're not judgment-proof, they'll be more for the aggrieved of the crime of their child.
	Not criminally, because you don't get compensated civilly for a crime, but civilly.
	There will be more assets against which to execute.
	And I didn't think that the...
	Cadillac was totally fake news.
	I know that when I'm talking about it a couple weeks ago, there was a fact check or community notes on Twitter X saying they bought that car earlier, but then, you know, there were some questions about the fact check saying the car was purchased in 2023, not that they purchased the car in 2023, and there were temporary plates on it.
	And the news was, in fact, reporting that they were using this money to go, if not buy a new house, they were in talks to buy the house that they were renting, using it to live in a safer community.
	And what else do we have here?
	Before the discount, but 10% is next to nothing.
	The Wellness Company is high-priced for everything, but it's toothpaste.
	Okay, sorry to bring that up.
	You don't have to buy things.
	That's the wonderful thing about an open market.
	All righty, people.
	Until Barnes gets here, let me just check one thing here.
	I've sent Barnes the link, and I want it to bring up...
	One of the discussions for tonight.
	Do we do a little bit of an update?
	We're going to do the five or ten minutes of Canadian stuff until Barnes gets here.
	First of all, good news, by the way, in case you haven't known, we're going to talk about it tonight.
	George Simeon, the man in Romania who was filling in in the stead of Caelan Georgescu, who got his victory in the first round of the Romanian elections back in December, annulled by the so-called Constitutional Court, and then was subsequently disqualified from running again in the rerun of the election.
	Kaelin Georgescu, disqualified, annulled.
	A man named George Simeon was running not in his stead, but in his stead.
	And he came on and he did a wonderfully thorough interview with me a while back.
	He has won round one of the Romanian election.
	Last I checked, it was with something like 40% of the vote, which is very good, but not enough to win outright in the first round.
	So they're going to have the second round.
	On May 14, George Simeon won with 40%.
	He's now the hands-down favorite for that second round.
	The only question is going to be, are they going to do something very, very dirty a second time in order to disqualify the populist candidate a second time?
	We shall see.
	In Canada, the breaking news of the week, I talked about it on Friday, is that...
	Pierre Poiliev, the man who lost the election because he did not run a George Simeon-esque campaign, because he did not run a Kalin Georgescu-esque campaign, because he ran a similar campaign to what we saw in Australia, where they got their asses handed to them as well, he lost his own seat in his own riding in Carleton.
	I have looked into the allegations, the accusations that there was gerrymandering going on, that they expanded the Carleton riding, and it looks to be accurate information.
	The only defense is that Pierre Poilievre did not object to the redistricting back in 2023, but it looks like it absorbed a portion of a place called Canada, a district called Canada, which typically went liberal.
	And so they diluted down the conservative vote in what was hitherto the former riding of Carleton.
	He lost his own riding by thousands of thousands of votes.
	It was no anomaly.
	So it's only a question of whether or not it's corruption or...
	Redistricting having its effect.
	Or immigration.
	Who knows?
	He now has to run in a by-election in order to be elected so that he can continue to act as so-called leader of the so-called Conservative Party and the so-called opposition.
	And so somebody, I forget his name now, it's like Becker Kurek, gave up his riding in Manitoba in a place called Battlecrow?
	Battlecrow?
	It's Battlecrow.
	In a riding that went 80 plus percent conservative, and they've asked this newly elected MP, sorry, I don't remember his name offhand, to give up his riding, give up his seat so that they can hold a by-election in that riding and then plop Pierre Poiliev in there so that he can get elected and hopefully get re-elected and continue acting as the leader of the Conservative Party if you think that's what he should be doing.
	I have an opinion on it, which I shall not share right now.
	The drama is that the rumors on the internet is that the PPC might run a candidate in that writing.
	That the liberals might start pouring money and a candidate into that writing.
	And so what might, you know, ought to have been a surefire, the easiest of the writings in which to plop Pierre Poiliev so that he...
	Regains the seat and can continue acting as MP.
	It might get hairy, it might get dirty, and it might get very, very dramatic to the point where you might want to think about making a movie about this because it's going to be very, very interesting and I will be following it very, very closely.
	So that's the Canadian update right there.
	In the house, I see Barnes is in the backdrop.
	We're going to give him a second here.
	He might be rebooting his computer.
	King of Biltong!
	It says, looking for some healthy snacks to add to your diet?
	Try our Biltong, almost 50% protein, and it's packed with B12, creatine, iron, zinc, and much more.
	Go to BiltongUSA.com.
	Code Barnes for 10% off.
	Troublemaker Jonah says, Brookfield Asset Management is a Bronfman Corporation purchased 666 Fifth Avenue in 2018.
	Carney joined Brookfield in 2020.
	The Bronfman connection is more intriguing than Carney.
	That is the first time I've heard.
	Of the Bronfman connection.
	The Bronfman's, for those who don't know, is a very, very...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Prominent Montreal Jewish family.
	So let the conspiracies roll in, people.
	Cultivated Mind says, thank you, Viva, for taking on the hard stories.
	The shit I'm taking for my position, analysis, and suspicion and prediction on the Shiloh Hendricks fundraiser.
	Predictable?
	Irritating, disappointing, but thank you, Cultivated Mind.
	It will not be deterring.
	Robert, are you ready to come in, sir?
	Oh, there he is.
	I tower over you tonight, Robert.
	Everyone should know, Barnes is like six foot two, six foot one?
	No, you're muted.
	Barnes is...
	How about now?
	That's good.
	Sir, you are 6 '1", right?
	Yeah.
	6 '1", I'm 5 '5".
	I'm 5 '6".
	When I wear shoes and socks.
	How's the sound?
	That's good.
	I think it's good.
	Yeah, you're good enough.
	Check, check.
	Do I dare ask you if you're going to do a hush-hush on the Shiloh fundraiser?
	I guess a lot of questions might be answered right now.
	So that we can both get into trouble tonight, what's your take on the motivation behind the Shiloh fundraiser?
	Is it now like internet trolls or is this exposing the deep resentment of white America to what is disproportionately demographic overrepresentation in criminality in America?
	I don't know, to be honest.
	So my understanding, you know, your take is that there's something sus about the official narrative.
	Robert, all I'm saying is like, I will, people call me a polite Canadian because I'd say no one would ever use the N-word when approached by a black man in a park and say, say it, because I've seen enough videos of people getting clocked after they say it.
	But this is not, there are fighting words where I would expect someone to expect to get punched in the face.
	If you go up to somebody and say your wife is a dirty whatever, you're going to get punched in the face.
	It's not a question of cowardice.
	And so the fact that she...
	It looks sus to me, but that's it.
	Maybe I'm getting a little bit too cynical.
	Maybe I'm connecting conspiracy dots where they don't exist.
	There's always been money in racial grifting, and it's just taken on a new form with these fundraisers over public events.
	So you can't rule that out.
	There was a lot of heat that the Give, Send, Go founder took for allowing both sides to raise money.
	And I don't have any problem with that.
	And they were trying to delete various, you know, the racists always pop in on these kind of events.
	We'll discuss tonight woke right allegations and how those are being misapplied by a certain group to censor and shame people and smear people.
	But that doesn't mean that racists don't exist.
	And the racial grift is as old as...
	As there's been differences of race.
	So that's just the nature of the animal.
	You can't rule it out.
	You can't rule it out on the left.
	You can't rule it out on the right.
	That someone looks at an opportunity and says, oh, I'll make myself look like a sweet little victim and raise a bunch of money.
	Maybe they're legit.
	Maybe they're not.
	What I would say is it's kind of pitiful that more money can be raised off of what appears to be racial grifting on both sides.
	Then it can be raised for the Covington kids' cases.
	Then can be raised for Kyle Rittenhouse in certain instances.
	That can be raised for Amish farmers.
	I mean, that can be raised for people facing vaccine discrimination.
	It says something pitiful that, you know, the racial grift is the quickest way to cash.
	Always has been.
	People are wondering, you know, how does Candace Owens suddenly think Stalin is a Jew?
	Because it's one of the great, easiest grifts, clickbait grifts on the world.
	There's no bigger clickbait racial grifter than Candace Owens.
	She's competing with Nick Fuentes.
	What's extraordinary to me is people who attribute some ideological coherence and mass movement behind these people.
	People get confused with the ability to quickly raise money or the loudness of certain people on the internet with any volume of support.
	There is no big support for woke right or any of that nonsense.
	There never has been.
	Can you make money?
	Yeah.
	Can you clickbait in it?
	Yeah.
	Can you secure your lifetime income?
	You can be Candace Owens, get a lot of attention.
	You can get Nick Fuentes, build a hardcore financial base.
	Absolutely.
	But that doesn't mean they represent any broad swath of humanity.
	And the eagerness with which some people bite on the racial grift on both sides.
	On the left, you just say there's somehow a racial angle and boom, the money and the power pour in to support you.
	Sadly, that happens on certain parts.
	Portions of the right who take the race bait and grift, who re-filter a self-defense murder story through racial conflict, which often doesn't involve racial conflict.
	I mean, even that Texas case, it's not clear to me whether he's got a self-defense or not that race had anything to do with it.
	And yet everybody's screaming on both sides about race.
	Well, that was the issue.
	Race, I'm not convinced it had anything to do with the act itself.
	It certainly had to do with the fundraising afterwards, where the first thing they come out and said, Carmelo's getting different treatment because he's black.
	But I want to bring this one up just because I want to respond to this.
	And I'm not going to respond to every one of these comments.
	Conservatives hate it when white people stand up for themselves.
	What does that even mean?
	I mean, first of all, is there identity by the skin color we have?
	I mean, for people out there, remember, different groups have been used by this over time.
	You know, in the early 1800s, it wasn't white.
	It was Protestant versus Catholic, right?
	I mean, people tend to forget that they have been more often excluded when people engage in this kind of racial and religious grift than included.
	Keep that in mind when you think, oh, I'm now part of the majority.
	Maybe not.
	Yesterday you weren't, tomorrow you may not be.
	So this idea that skin color has any bearing on almost any of this is utter garbage.
	And my retort to that is, even if that's your purpose, stand up for your group, stand up for your tribe, and that's fine.
	How are you standing up for your tribe by calling an allegedly five-year-old, allegedly autistic kid the N-word?
	Some people are coming to me, Viva, that kid wasn't five years old.
	How do you know the kid was five?
	First of all, that's why I by and large said allegedly, but if that kid were not five and were not autistic, I think that Shiloh in the response would have said, that kid wasn't five.
	Someone floated an idea that maybe Omar is using the kid.
	You know, go into the wallet, steal it.
	If you get caught, you're just a kid.
	But if that kid was not five years old, I think the first response would have been, that kid's not five.
	That kid is 12 years old.
	And the bottom line, set all that aside.
	How is calling an allegedly five-year-old child or any child the N-word standing up for the white race?
	I mean, if that's what you think standing up for the white race is, you're going to be in for a world of stupid decisions.
	A tiny group of people.
	These people want to pretend that they matter.
	They don't.
	No, I mean, I'll give you an example.
	I did everything possible to drag these racist idiots out of the limelight back there in the Wesley Snipes case.
	Because the Ocala, Florida was the per capita capital of racial hatred.
	There are so few true racists in this country, we could get like three of them to say something.
	We're like, come on, come on.
	You're a little racist.
	Come on.
	Here you go.
	Come on.
	Couldn't do it.
	Couldn't get any of them.
	When Nick Twentes has a conference, he's lucky if he gets 50 people.
	I mean, it's a crock.
	I mean, look, are there people that are really loud that are racist?
	Yes.
	Are there people with a good amount of money?
	Are there people willing to give money just for race baiting?
	Yes.
	Will you clickbait yourself into easy big fame?
	No doubt.
	Does that mean there's a broad movement in the country or anywhere in the world?
	No, there isn't.
	So the woke left has an institute that matters because they have actual power.
	They're in positions of government bureaucracy.
	They're in positions of corporate management.
	They're in positions of highest ranking of academia.
	They're in the positions of deciding what gets shown on TV and movies or news and what doesn't.
	That's real power.
	The so-called woke right, the identitarian right, which is who that was supposed to initially be labeled to, described, are just a bunch of tiny loudmouth kids on the internet.
	That's all they are.
	I mean, I debated Nick Fuentes to point out to Alex Jones' audience how nuts the guy was.
	And all I had to do was get him to admit, That he preferred Hamas to have nuclear weapons to Israel.
	And most people were like, oh, hold on a second.
	I don't want to be affiliated and associated with that lunatic.
	So, I mean, there are honest and honorable ways to engage in dialogue and discussion and debate with these lunatics without either rewarding their grift or pretending their grift is a mass movement or mislabeling people, as James Lindsay is, as others now are, to repeat and replicate the William F. Buckley purge.
	Of the populist right.
	But that's just one of our topics tonight, amongst many.
	So, Barnes, I know one of them is the woke right discussion, which is in the fore.
	Another one is, oddly enough, the Iran deal, the Ukrainian deal.
	I don't want to screw up our list.
	Tell us what's on our list tonight.
	Yeah, if you want to find real neo-Nazis, go to Ukraine.
	It's who's being spent money and support on the Ukrainian neo-Nazis.
	Or go to Canada.
	Go to Canadian Parliament.
	That's where you'll find them.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Canada, it's the left that celebrates the Nazis, and even with a special session of Parliament.
	So we got James Lindsay.
	The woke right is a fraud.
	You know, whether Jordan Peterson is being misused to label people that he disagrees with, psychopaths.
	Alberta?
	Can Alberta secede?
	A lot of debates legally about that.
	I took a little bit of a deep dive into it, but Miva's the Canadian law expert, so we'll be asking him about that.
	Expert.
	Yes, indeed.
	Google, Apple, Meta, Big Tech is in big trouble.
	Multiple ruling.
	Apple may be facing criminal contempt prosecution.
	We've got Trump's possible deal on Iran and what's really the backstory of the fake woke right label.
	What's going on against Secretary Hegseth?
	What's going on in replacement of Michael Waltz?
	All might circle around Iran and Mideastern wars.
	Trump's attempt to get a Ukraine deal partially got a deal through on the minerals.
	I think that's being misconstrued by a wide range of people.
	The judicial branch this week was busy protecting illegals and radicals and stopping election reform.
	But there's at least some sunshine amongst the clouds as the D.C. Circuit and other circuits start to reverse.
	The very foundation upon which these decisions are being issued.
	And current cases pending before SCOTUS may directly impact these as well before SCOTUS even rules on some of these other Trump-related appeals.
	That includes class action disputes at SCOTUS, wrong house raids at SCOTUS, disability discrimination in schools at SCOTUS, nationwide injunctions at SCOTUS.
	We've got multiple updates on the vaccine front.
	The Brooke Jackson case, discrimination cases going to the appellate courts.
	The DOJ, EOC, now starting to get involved in prosecuting these claims.
	Very promising on that front.
	Then we have placebo testing being ordered for all vaccines by Secretary Kennedy.
	So that, amongst others, in this week's Law for the People.
	I was replying to someone who says, Barnes, he doesn't hide the fact, he doesn't, I don't know if you dislike Candace as a human, but you do not hide the fact that you think she's crazy.
	I have less of a problem with Candace.
	I think Candace Owens is a grifting, phony fraud who no one should take seriously because she's not a real intellectual.
	Her own politics have changed a half dozen times in just the last half dozen years, and the only thing in common is you can find Candace chasing the money and the clicks.
	If you think...
	You know, Stalin is a Jew.
	If you think Macron's wife is really a man, if you think that Robert Kennedy is being secretly blackmailed to support Israel, you might be dumb enough to be a Candace Owens true believer.
	Well, I won't say I'm dumb enough.
	She did put together a compelling argument for Macron's wife potentially being a man.
	But that being said, all right, let's carry on with the discussion of the woke right.
	James Lindsay, I know you got into a Twitter back and forth with him.
	Well, I'll tell you my impression afterwards, but I'll tell you now, actually.
	I happen to think people are just using the word woke left and woke right inaccurately to say any tactic that is adopted by the left that's used mutatis mutandis by the right therefore makes that element of the right woke right.
	As in, like, crowdfunding on an act, that doesn't make you the woke right, but that's what some people might think.
	You did a bourbon with Barnes, which I listened to and it's fantastic, where I think you might even be in agreement with an element of James Lindsay, which is the identitarian politics, the identitarian aspect of identity politics on the right, which I'm seeing right now and it's very irritating.
	The only question is, how prevalent is it where the left looks at a black person and says, oh, this is a minority that we must elevate.
	They look at a handicapped, a 2SLGBTQIA +, and say, oh, we must elevate this person based on their identity.
	And on the far right, You say, people look at someone and say, if I agree with him, I like him.
	The second I disagree with Eva, he's a Jew.
	He's a, I learned a new word, coin shaver today.
	And so I think that is what I would qualify as the woke right, is playing the identity politics aspect of it, but not woke right, as in anyone who's against, does not support Israel, is therefore woke right.
	Tell us what the back and forth was with James Lindsay and where it stands right now.
	Yeah, so Lindsay, amongst others, sort of innovated this phrase, woke right.
	So it comes from an intellectual background, part of the professional managerial class, who was critical of the woke left, helped coin the term, helped popularize the term, and expanded how the academy had become completely corrosively corrupted.
	Then that translated into a lot of esoteric theories about Marxism and about Gnosticism that somehow connected.
	You know, John the Baptist, Essens, are considered Gnostics.
	Somehow they're part of the Marxist secret movement across the world.
	Somehow it involves the Freemasons.
	In other words, Lindsay started to sound like the woke right.
	He's starting to criticize.
	He attacked me.
	He goes, Barnes is a Freemason.
	Which was my funniest, the greatest attack yet.
	But that gives it my, it's like, okay, who is the woke right really supposed to originally be labeled for?
	According to Jordan Peterson, James Lindsay, and these other people.
	It's a group of racial identitarians with quasi-fascistic authoritarian belief structure.
	This is a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny segment of the American political electorate.
	Now, because these people have no lives, they will disproportionately spend money on this, and they will disproportionately clickbait on this, and they will disproportionately be loud on the internet.
	People should not conflate that with any degree of meaningful influence and power.
	Kanye's public approval went down once he started aligning himself with true woke-right identitarian figures like Nick Fuentes.
	But even Fuentes is more of a race grifter.
	This guy's had five different ideological profiles in just a decade that he's been on the public scene.
	The people should not be...
	We're not conflating racial grifters with any kind of identitarian ideology because the race grifter doesn't care about ideas, doesn't care about ideology.
	They're an excuse, a pretext for their racism.
	That's it.
	People shouldn't conflate the two.
	So this is a tiny little segment of people that are very loud on the internet and love to go around yipping and yaying about anything and everything, so-called groipers that are fans of Fuentes, other racists, that's who they are.
	So nobody cares.
	V-Day and the rest, nobody cares.
	Nobody in the real world.
	The only person who has an ideological framework that can actually be identified as woke left or woke right is Richard Spencer.
	And this is a guy who, by the way, endorsed Biden and Harris for the presidency.
	These are people that are...
	To even say they're on the right is really kind of a loose labeling on the right.
	But whatever it is.
	In other words, they take the same identitarian politics of the woke left and they just apply it in a reverse fashion.
	That's it.
	Who cares?
	It's like David Duke's National Association for the Advancement of White People.
	All that garbage.
	But what Lindsay started doing, aside from connecting movements and ideologies that have nothing to do with one another, like Gnosticism and Marxism and a lot of things that are just, he's overlapping things in very oversimplified ways that don't match.
	He and some others, Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, It started to sound like they were reading from the same song page, singing from the same song page, and were suggesting that critics and dissidents on the right in general were somehow part of the woke right.
	All of a sudden, Lindsay starts loosening and liberalizing the definition to where it's more vague and more obscure.
	And this was very reminiscent of what William F. Buckley did in the 1950s, for those that don't know.
	I have great respect for Buckley's intellect.
	I watched all his debate shows on Frontline from the time I was knee-high to a grasshopper.
	I could even imitate his speaking tones and tenors and his eyebrows and all the rest.
	So I have great respect for him.
	However, he was a CIA spook and the National Review was founded by a CIA.
	I mean, there wasn't anybody who found it at the National Review at its founding that wasn't CIA connected.
	I mean, it's just unbelievable.
	And his goal, and he was given the opportunity of that platform.
	And to be this public conservative, I mean, ask yourself, why does William F. Buckley get a 20-year show on the public broadcasting station?
	There are some things that should have alerted people that maybe things weren't quite as they appeared.
	What he did is, how, if you're the growing deep state, the CIA, the NSA, all created after World War II, using World War II at the Pentagon, how do you promote this new American empire that these people wanted to build?
	The Dulles Brothers, people like General LeMay and others.
	Who saw the opportunity in the post-World War II era to run the world and to be an American empire.
	And they wanted nuclear weapons to do it.
	Well, their biggest hurdle wasn't the left.
	Because the left believes in globalism.
	Their biggest hurdle was the right.
	That America's conservative tradition has long been anti-war and anti-empire.
	To quote one of our founders, President Adams, we do not go abroad searching for monsters to destroy.
	So how does the new military industrial complex overcome conservative hostility?
	I mean, the kind of hostility that Eisenhower represented in his farewell address.
	Now, he didn't have the cojones to challenge him during his actual presidency, but at least he did expose them in his farewell address about this emerging administrative bureaucratic state that was going to corrupt science.
	I mean, he predicted that to a T when you look at what happened with COVID-19.
	In the military-industrial complex, both of them warned about this rising managerial class usurping power for its own sake.
	Well, William F. Buckley starts purging the populist, traditionalist, isolationist, protectionist wing of the Republican brand that has long been part of conservatism since the founding of our country.
	And what he did is he first starts off with identifying an actual group, racists, who are trying to infiltrate the John Burt Society and other conservative groups to defend the Deep South slavocracies, extension of power in the planner class after the Civil War with a segregation and racial oppression.
	That was a legitimate criticism, but it was only a tiny wing of that movement.
	Most of the John Birch founders were from the Northeast, the Midwest, many of them missionaries.
	Many of them have their orientation towards the Hillsdale College, which, by the way, was one of the first racially integrated colleges in America.
	So they come from a pro-abolition, anti-slavery, anti-racial discrimination perspective.
	So how do you take these people and rebrand them?
	I mean, the leading advocates for civil rights in America from 1850.
	To 1960 didn't come from the Democratic Party, which was the brand of racial oppression in the South.
	It came from the Republican brand and particularly the Midwestern Republican brand, the free soil, free labor ideological ancestry dating back to Abraham Lincoln.
	And so how does he do it?
	He brands them as part of this same group.
	He gains credibility first by saying, hey, I'm outing the racist.
	And then he says, everybody affiliated with John Birch Society is racist.
	Everybody affiliated.
	So all of a sudden, if you're against the United Nations, you're a racist.
	This was coming from who?
	William F. Buckley and the conservative establishment.
	And they did a really brilliant job of completely purging conservative intellectuals for 40 years of second-guessing deep state priorities around the world with this smear campaign.
	So when I saw it starting to be applied to Mike Cernovich, Jack Posobiec, Tucker Carlson, Senator Schmidt from Missouri.
	That's how utterly nuts James Lindsay is.
	He's suggesting Senator Schmidt from Missouri is woke right.
	Tucker Carlson is now woke right.
	Everybody he doesn't agree with is now woke right.
	He's retweeting Netanyahu's kid, talking about how he got to go to war with Rand.
	Anybody who thinks otherwise is woke right.
	That's when I realize, oh, this is William F. Buckley all over again.
	Then I read Lindsay's substantive piece, Defining the New Right, and guess who he cites as his example?
	William F. Buckley from the 1950s and early 1960s.
	He later exposes this in other categories because he admits that his goal is to protect the professional managerial class against populist challenges, of which he is a member.
	But when I see Jordan Peterson start suggesting everybody he disagrees with is a psychopath, and there was aspects of that.
	Now, he didn't fully go there, but I was like, hmm.
	And then at the same time, we got that fraud, war whore, Douglas Murray, who wrote a book dedicated to neoconservatives.
	All of a sudden, lecturing Rogan about this.
	And guess who's also attacking Rogan at the same time?
	James Lindsay.
	Suggesting somehow, is Joe Rogan now?
	Well, great.
	You learned a thing?
	Then you start, okay, this is just a smear and censor campaign.
	That's all this is.
	There is an identitarian right, but none of these people are part of it.
	Tucker Carlson is not part of the identitarian right.
	Matt Walsh is not part of the identitarian right.
	Mike Cernovich, Jack Posobiec, none of them are.
	They're just populists, challenging things like war in Iran.
	And you got Netanyahu's kid running around, or whatever relative he is, that Lindsay's busy retweeting, saying things like, if you don't support war with Iran, you support Iran having nuclear weapons.
	It's like, those are not two of the necessary parallels.
	And it's related to all of this, is related to Hegseth, related to what's happening with Mike Waltz, because it's an effort to get us to go to war with Iran and to continue the war with Ukraine.
	And if you think otherwise, you're part of the woke right, which is deeply ironic given that the main military force in the world that actually believes in racist ideology that's getting substantial support in the world is Ukraine.
	Is the Ukraine neo-Nazis on the ground?
	That's who James Lindsay's busy supporting the woke right and the rest, the actual woke right, which is a tiny little slur.
	But basically they...
	So prostituted the label.
	They so broadly expanded it that it no longer means anything.
	And what they've done is they've destroyed it by pretending.
	I mean, Lindsey's really convinced there's a neo-Nazi, a Nazi-like movement in America that's going to take over MAGA.
	I mean, you have to be batshit insane to really think that.
	Or you'd just be lying.
	I challenged him to a debate, and he said he was above us.
	That we were beneath him.
	To debate.
	That's because he can't hold up in a debate.
	He knows that I know it and everybody else knows it.
	Anybody that's been following him honestly to try to pursue whether this was a sincere intellectual endeavor or a smear and censor campaign have figured out over time it's a smear and censor campaign.
	I mean, he even said what triggered all this is when he basically implied you and others were also woke right because you guys were suggesting that Pierre should be responsible for his own incompetent and ineptitude election, which we saw replicated by the...
	Australian conservative losers as well this past weekend.
	Instead of Trump, surely you know Trump is at fault for the fact that Pierre is a wuss, that Pierre can't embrace populism, that Pierre ran away from populism, that Pierre is Pierre.
	I mean, he's been a career politician his whole life.
	So, no, no.
	If you were blaming Pierre, you were wrong.
	You had to blame Trump.
	And that's when I was like, okay, this is ridiculous.
	And once I realized it was part of a deliberate, intended smear and censor campaign, whether Lindsey realizes he's part of it or not, but there were too many people saying the same thing around the same time, coming from the same crowd.
	And it's conservative intellectuals who popularized themselves attacking the woke left, trying to use that leverage and platform to marginalize populist conservative opinion of the kind Trump has unleashed in America.
	That's what they're up to, as far as I can tell.
	Well, it's an interesting observation, because set aside with Lindsay, I did notice Peterson was doing the rounds.
	Fox, back on Rogan, and when you hear people talk repeatedly, you pick up on their, you know, the phrases they use, or the talking points that they use, and he was going with the 4-5% of the psychopaths, and you know, talking about how women coddle psychopaths, etc., but how there is this element of 4-5% psychopaths, and how the right now has to watch out for You know, being co-opted by the psychopaths.
	I believe it was...
	Yeah, you know who the psychopath we need to avoid is, Jordan Peterson?
	Benjamin Netanyahu.
	Because that lunatic wants us involved and has got us involved in more stupid wars than anybody.
	Now, if you want to read the reason why Israelis are skeptical of Iran, the best articulated, best sourced version of that is one of our board members, Elon Hookover, who...
	H-U-L-K...
	O-W-E-R.
	It has a big substack.
	So if you want to read that perspective, that's there.
	The concern of the populist right is not to choose Hamas over Israel or to say, hey, let's have Iran have nuclear weapons.
	That is not the argument.
	It's never been the argument on the populist right.
	Here, people like Joel Pollack and Breitbart and others have misunderstood.
	The argument is simple.
	At this point, our own intelligence shows that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon.
	And is not anywhere close to having a nuclear weapon.
	Consequently, going to war with Iran over something they don't have is not something that is in our best interest.
	A negotiated disposition makes more sense.
	Using Russia as an effective intermediary, which is what Trump has been doing.
	That enrages.
	Netanyahu loves war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war.
	Again, it's under Netanyahu.
	October 7th occurs.
	Doesn't Netanyahu deserve at least some of the blame for the horrendous security failures on October 7th?
	But here's my problem with Netanyahu.
	When have we heard we must go to war because otherwise that nation's right about to get a weapon of mass destruction before?
	Iraq, WMDs, a quarter of a million Iraqi civilians killed, and it was worth it, according to Madeline Albright, for the regime change.
	But Robert, this is where I start.
	You don't know which way the double fakie is being played.
	There are legitimate...
	Non-anti-Semitic Americans who say, stop funding Israel in as much as stop funding Ukraine, period.
	The fact that Israel is Israel doesn't mean I'm going to support the double standard of endlessly providing aid to foreign countries and getting involved in foreign wars.
	If you object to it with Ukraine, unless you have some special reason, which I know many people do, you should apply the same reasoning to Israel.
	What ends up happening on the internet is that you get these mass movements of, I believe they're either bought accounts or auto-replies, whatever, which say, no!
	We really do want to stop funding Israel so that it can be destroyed.
	And then you say, well, how can I defend my principal position when there are these people out there vocally saying, no, no, no, the real reason why we want to stop supporting Israel is so that it can be wiped off the map within 10 years.
	And then you're in a position where you say, I've got legitimate grievances about supporting foreign countries, foreign aid, but I've got these other people co-opting that position to demonize it so that I can no longer publicly espouse it.
	Yeah, and you just have to ignore those people.
	Are there bad faith actors on the issue of Israel?
	Absolutely.
	But what they're attempting to do is to purge dissident opinion by associating dissident opinion with anybody else who happens to share that policy preference.
	So the fact that the pro-Hamas side wants Iran not attacked doesn't mean you are thereby pro-Hamas by not wanting the U.S. engaged in an unnecessary war.
	And those are two different things.
	And that's what they're trying to blur.
	They're trying to recreate George W. Bush's, our side or their side, and there is no other side.
	How about we just don't want American wealth and American boys dying in a needless war over something that doesn't exist, like Iran's nuclear weapons at this point, according to the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who reviewed this precise material.
	And after this material was disclosed, after it was disclosed that Hegseth was not eager to get us embedded in another war in Iran.
	After it was disclosed that Mike Waltz was secretly meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu.
	And yet, by the way, who is it that doesn't want the Epstein documents fully publicly disclosed?
	Netanyahu.
	Probably because Netanyahu and Israel's Mossad has ties to Jeffrey Epstein and his black bag operation.
	Robert, that's an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory because people who have said that are a bunch of anti-Semites.
	On the internet, I've seen it.
	What's amazing is I get more hate from the Jew haters than almost anybody that's not Jewish.
	I'm Jew-ish.
	Something goy.
	I even forget what the phrase was.
	Shabbos?
	Shabbos, G-O-I-I.
	I'm one of the only people of all these people that has actually debated 20s to expose what this ideology really is to the world.
	So I don't have any empathy whatsoever.
	No, Robert, you're still an Israel shill.
	This is on Tommy here, by the way.
	Yeah, but Israeli shill.
	Unless you publicly vow that you support the destruction of the state of Israel, anything else you say is going to be pro-Israel.
	Of course, of course.
	Look, I respect Netanyahu's mind.
	I've watched his debates going all the way back to the 60s and 70s when he was here in the U.S. in the 70s a lot with William F. Buckley and others.
	I think he's a very brilliant mind to think he cares about protecting Israel.
	I think he tactically is an idiot when it comes to how to best do so.
	And why do I say so?
	Because he said removing Saddam Hussein in Iraq would make Israel safer.
	Did it?
	Oops!
	Nope.
	It made his arch enemy, Iran, stronger.
	Next, he said, taking out Gaddafi in Libya is going to be great for the peace of the world and Israel.
	Oops!
	Wrong again.
	Then he said, oh, taking out Assad's regime in Syria is going to lead to a more peaceful, democratic regime in Syria.
	It's busy trying to execute every religious group that's a dissonant that it can find at the moment.
	So he was wrong, wrong, wrong.
	Why should we have any trust, any confidence in Netanyahu saying, oh, guess what, everybody?
	The wolf is here.
	The wolf is finally here.
	I was wrong time one, wrong time two, wrong time three, but pretend I'm right when it comes to time four.
	No, thank you.
	And that's why Mike Waltz was shipped to the door because Netanyahu was secretly meeting with him to undermine President Trump's strategy.
	It is amazing that there has not only...
	And when I had on...
	Gadi Taub.
	And there's no shade on Gadi.
	I asked him these questions.
	How could October 7 have occurred under Netanyahu?
	Does there not have to be some political hell to pay?
	And he's like, he had no good answers for how it occurred to the extent that it did.
	No good answers for how it went hours, 12 hours, even more in some villages of the massacre.
	Under Netanyahu, that it was either, at the very least, a criminally negligent intelligence failure.
	And then you're going to empower Netanyahu, who has been clamoring for war with Iran for as long as I can remember, which is a good 21 years now, going to follow that advice.
	The flip side argument, Robert, is people are going to say when they don't have nuclear weapons is precisely when you go in and strike.
	But I don't even understand what the strike would look like at this point.
	Well, exactly.
	And it's kind of apparent.
	Israel is probably engaged in a campaign of military sabotage with Iran as we speak.
	Because there have been...
	Power outages, port attacks, a range of things that are unlikely.
	Iran is not taking the bait to date.
	They're saying they're just accidents.
	The timing of it is highly sus.
	You have Mark Levin waging war on Tulsi Gabbard.
	You have much of the deep state waging a war on Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseth.
	Mark Levin's always been a fraud.
	People go, oh, what a great conservative legal mind.
	Name the single case he's ever done.
	Name one.
	How about the big fat zero?
	Because the guy's a fraud.
	The guy's a war whore since day one.
	And it's clearly extensive.
	And to be frank, you combine this with the laws they're trying to pass, with the targeted visa administration they're trying to do, and they're making their situation...
	I've been telling my friends on the pro-Israeli side of the aisle, you're screwing up terribly.
	You're blowing a perfect opportunity after October 7th to rally...
	The anti-Hamas side to your side.
	Just don't abuse it by doing things like overthrowing the Syrian government.
	Don't abuse it by doing things like trying to overthrow the Iranian government or getting the U.S. entangled in another Mideastern war.
	Don't do it by being so over the top in Gaza that you lose almost entire world global support.
	That's where the issue is.
	And now you're using U.S. power.
	You want kids kicked off of campus for writing editorials.
	If you want to go after the guy who shows up at a gun shop in New Hampshire and says he wants to kill Jews, okay, I get that, who was part of raising a domestic terror campaign on the University of Columbia campus, no problem.
	When you go after some kid who joined an editorial, you're starting to look like you want to control speech.
	When you're demanding that TikTok be banned because you don't like the anti-Israeli tone of a lot of the content on TikTok.
	All of a sudden, you're asking America to work for Israel rather than the other way around.
	And that, you're going to lose support.
	The more you try to get us involved in another stupid war, after so many failed stupid wars, after all your predictions proved false for decades now, in terms of Netanyahu, about how foreign engagement in these wars is somehow going to make Israel and America and the world safer.
	Wrong, wrong, wrong.
	Over and over and over.
	Over and over and over.
	That's what Trump is trying to avoid.
	So Trump says, look.
	I want Israel and Iran to be safe and peaceful places.
	But when it comes to Iran, I will not let them have a nuclear weapon.
	But his mechanism to do so is negotiation because that can easily attain and achieve it and is more likely to successfully attain and achieve it than getting us involved in another stupid war.
	And this is my point to all of those people out there.
	What next?
	What next?
	After you do the bombing, what happens?
	Do you achieve the outcome?
	Or do you actually undermine respect for you?
	So there are ways in which you can restrain Iran from having nuclear weapons.
	Trump is completely committed to that.
	What he's not committed to is stupid wars that will not produce any positive outcome or that are more likely to produce a negative outcome than a positive.
	Well, the flip side or at least steel man argument to that is going to be the argument that I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with it.
	It is the argument that.
	Arab nations will never accept Israel's right to exist.
	Arab nations will never respect Israel.
	Arab nations will never want peace with Israel.
	And so any form of compromise is only giving an inch towards allowing them to push that further perspective from an inch closer.
	The problem is their strategy always leads us towards the only solution.
	And we've already seen it isn't.
	It won't achieve the outcome.
	I mean, it was like going into Gaza and purge.
	Okay, what are you going to do?
	Are you changing any minds in the Palestinian world?
	Maybe against you.
	I mean, you're not changing any in your favor.
	You're not changing anybody in the Arab world.
	That after Gaza starts, all of a sudden, all the Solomon Accord Treaty partners are pulling back.
	They're not rushing in.
	Trump was trying to engineer using the royals to create a detente in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
	And it's Israel's policies that have more undermined this than Saudi Arabia or the other countries that joined the policies.
	And it's because Netanyahu sees every solution through the barrel of a gun.
	And he has now for 20 years.
	He didn't always.
	Go back to the late 90s, he actually trusted Palestinians.
	You could argue he's betrayed.
	But his constant elevation of, oh, here's my enemy, his PLO.
	Okay, I'll support Hamas.
	Won't that work out great?
	How'd that work out for you, everybody?
	And I don't see people like Joel Pollack and others explaining this.
	Explain why should we trust Israel under Netanyahu about whether some other country has weapons of mass destruction after Iraq, whether or not war will be a successful path to producing a safer world, when almost every war that Israel has engaged in since the 1980s has led to Israel being less safe, America being less safe, and the world being less safe.
	It's the efficacy of the effort.
	It's not the need of the effort if, in fact, Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but there's multiple mechanisms and methods to deal with it.
	What President Trump is trying to do is to create an enforceable intermediary.
	What is that?
	He wants Iran to turn over all its nuclear materials to Russia.
	And Russia will safehold it in case the U.S. breaches its promises or part of the deal.
	And by the way, this is another problem.
	Like, take Netanyahu, who loved going after Gaddafi.
	Why is it you think it's so hard to get Iran to agree to a deal?
	Same reason why it's so hard now to get North Korea to agree to a deal.
	Netanyahu says, hey, all we got to do is get Gaddafi to forsake his nuclear weapons program, and then everything will be fine.
	And Gaddafi will be completely safe.
	And this will show the world that we can honor a nuclear disarmament agreement.
	What happens?
	Gaddafi says, no nuclear weapons.
	I agree.
	I give it all up.
	What do we do?
	We then overthrow Gaddafi.
	We break our promise.
	Right afterwards.
	What did you do?
	We told the whole world you can't trust America.
	We told the whole world you can't trust Israel.
	We told the whole world you better go as fast and as hard as you can for nuclear weapons because the moment you ain't got them, we're coming in and whooping you.
	That was the worst possible message we could do for nuclear deterrence and disarmament ever.
	Putin has made this point repeatedly.
	He said you will never get North Korea now to give up nuclear weapons after Gaddafi.
	So this was a mistake.
	Again, another mistake of Netanyahu.
	All he does is bumble and stumble his way into mistake after mistake after mistake after mistake.
	I'm sorry, I'm not going to defer American security or interest to a guy who has proven to be incompetent when it comes to tactical decisions involving U.S. military power.
	Burns, it got over on Twitter.
	I just noticed that Extreme Truth and Liberty Brush Brash Consulting, Emily, TV producer.
	I said Barnes is so over the target with Netanyahu.
	Well, let's segue that into the- And I say this as someone who's a lot more pro-Israel.
	I'm very pro-Israel in general.
	Support the Israeli cause.
	Support the Israeli people.
	I will never side with the Nazi-loving Hamas over Israel.
	That does not mean we should violate our constitutional liberties in America on behalf of Israel.
	That does not mean we should cover up for Epstein on behalf of Israel.
	That does not mean we should get involved in more stupid wars on behalf of Israel.
	Two different things.
	And the pro-Israeli crowd better wake up to this or they're going to lose their last standing critical ally in American public opinion and they depend on America or Israel is done.
	So be careful.
	Be smart.
	Be thoughtful about what you're doing.
	Don't go out there and try to attack people as, oh, you're anti-Semitic or you're woke right if you don't want us to go to war with Iran.
	Don't be attacking people like Mike Cernovich, who's more pro-Israel than he is anybody else, than pro-Hamas or anything else.
	Same with Jack Posobiec.
	Same with Tucker Carlson.
	Just because you're mad that Tucker doesn't want us to go to war with Iran is no excuse to smart smearing and censoring him, because then you lose supporters like me, and then you're done for.
	What is the nature of the deal that Trump is trying to negotiate with Iran?
	Because what I love is that Newsweek was now railing against Trump, saying you can't even agree to sit down and talk with them without first setting up some...
	You know, I don't know, deal breakers.
	As if that's how you start a discussion, not even negotiation, but a discussion.
	They're angry that Trump is even opening the door to having discussions with Iran.
	Do we know any details of any prospective plan of what would be a potential agreement with Iran?
	You mentioned Iran giving its nuclear-capable uranium.
	To Russia, which I say is kind of a genius move because it's not like Russia needs any more nukes.
	And that is also empowering, entrusting, reestablishing relationship with Russia, which America might want to do because Russia might be more aligned ultimately with American and Western interests than, say, China.
	But set that aside, what are the terms of whatever we know a potential deal might entail?
	So basically, it's substantial evidentiary confirmation.
	That Iran does not have and will not seek nuclear weapons.
	And they claim that they are seeking nuclear power rather than nuclear weapons.
	I understand the skepticism of that, very understandable, very justifiable skepticism.
	That being said, the question becomes one of confirmation that they aren't pursuing it and don't have the methods and means available to them.
	So what Trump wants is A confirmable mechanism by which we can know that they are not developing nuclear weapons.
	And Russia is the critical intermediary, is the custodian of all relevant materials.
	And why Russia is an intermediary?
	It's because Iran doesn't trust the US or the West.
	They saw what happened with Gaddafi and Libya, and they believe if the world thinks we're developing nuclear weapons, that protects us rather than...
	It puts us in a position of risk.
	This is, unfortunately, the precedent we set by what we did with Gaddafi and Libya.
	One of the worst decisions, aside from what happened in Libya itself, just horrendous, horrendous policy decision of an arrogant, power-seeking group in the West.
	By the way, primarily Macron and France and other people connected to France were the principal culprits of Libya, but that's another story for another day.
	Aside from Benghazi and everything that happened related there, too.
	In exchange, the other thing he wants is he wants Iran to quit causing proxy wars all around the Middle East and the world, which Iran is the number one funder of, the number one funder of global terrorism.
	And number three, he wants Iran to quit supporting, in particular in that regard, the Houthis.
	Quit giving them missiles so that they can make the Suez Canal an utter nightmare.
	Now, as Steve Bannon has pointed out, we don't do a lot of trade for the Suez Canal.
	That's mostly Europe.
	My guess is that Trump is going to want some things to change in that capacity.
	He's going to want more control over the Suez Canal as part of this structured agreement as well.
	And wants more economic benefit to the US to flow from that, rather than just constantly being the foot soldier of everybody else's military adventurism.
	And what does Iran want?
	Iran's economy is in difficult shape because of the various strict oil and other sanctions we've imposed on them.
	And Iran doesn't want to be bombed, and Iran doesn't want a war with the United States.
	Nor at this point do they want one with Israel.
	So what Trump can do is, all right, we won't bomb you, we won't get involved in support, and we'll hold back Israel effectively, deter and discourage them from going in.
	And if you give us these other conditions, and we can loosen the sanctions.
	So that you can economically survive.
	So we can make sure your war risk is taken off the table.
	And if we don't keep our word, you can get everything back from Russia, who's your ally anyway with Putin.
	So that's what Trump is trying to do, is avoid a military confrontation that could escalate into global war, while at the same time minimizing Iran's capacity to ever develop nuclear weapons.
	I'm not crying.
	I'm not that moved by what you were saying.
	I got that little tickle in my throat and now my eyes started watering.
	And I guess it's an amazing thing because, you know, if the fear is that Russia is such an enemy that they can't be trusted, well, Russia can just give nukes to Iran if they wanted to in the first place.
	So it's a decent...
	I mean, we need Russia's co-op.
	That's another aspect of all these people that want us to be a permanent...
	By the way, that was the other thing that James Lindsay said.
	He suggested anybody that supported Putin was woke right.
	And that Putin is evil and terrible.
	I was like, okay, come on.
	I mean, all he's doing is repeating the views of the woke left.
	But the idea of Putin's woke right, it's like, Lord have mercy.
	Now, all of a sudden, it sounds like you think anybody who's Christian is woke right.
	My favorite thing was, so-and-so is a white Christian nationalist.
	I was like, do you mean like identitarian?
	Oh, no, no, they're just white.
	And they're Christian and they believe in nationalism.
	It's like, okay, see how you've completely devolved the meaning of that?
	But this is why we need Russia.
	The other thing Trump wants is he wants, this is the reason why you're highly unlikely to see Trump do anything that leads to a war with the rent.
	Trump wants to get costs down.
	Number one mandate he got in his re-election was cost of living.
	He's already achieved that in the first quarter of the year.
	The first quarter of the year, he got control over inflation for the first time since he was president.
	It was really an amazing achievement that the media has tried to suppress.
	Oh, look, there's a recession.
	It was a technical recession.
	What does that mean?
	By the fundamental economics, the private sector was not in a recession.
	They took all the imports, deducted it from the economy, and said, recession, even private sector growth.
	For the first time, we had better wage and income growth of native-born Americans and foreigners since Trump was president.
	But what's a critical...
	Component of that?
	Keep the cost of living down.
	What's the number one input cost?
	The cost of living.
	Cost of oil.
	Cost of gas.
	He's been using the Ukraine discussions as a proxy to try to get Russia and Saudi Arabia to agree to increase production to lower costs.
	So we need to keep oil prices under $60 to keep the economy from having another supply-shock-driven inflationary scare, which can happen.
	I don't think it's likely to happen, but can happen with tariffs on China.
	So Trump really needs to keep that under control.
	That is essential to his domestic policy and political popularity.
	Going to war with Iran could completely gut that.
	Continuing the war with Ukraine and hostility with Russia could completely gut that.
	And the other thing is, Russia's the biggest nuclear war power in the country, in the world.
	And as such, we need their cooperation more than anybody.
	If Russia wants somebody to have nuclear weapons, they could give it to them tomorrow.
	This is what the Bay of Pigs was all about all the way back when the Soviet Union did it.
	So the idea that we should be in conflict with Russia makes no sense geopolitically.
	It makes complete sense to realign with them, align them against China rather than in the pocket of China.
	They have their own historical antagonism and skepticism of China.
	But getting peace in the Middle East and keeping oil prices down and avoiding nuclear proliferation all comes down to our relationship with Russia more than anybody else.
	And that's where Trump is.
	The Ukraine and Iranian conflicts and the attempts at peace should be seen as an effort by Trump to realign us with Russia in a more reasonable, balanced manner to both keep the price of energy down and the risk of nuclear proliferation low.
	I just don't even understand how there's this much of a fundamental rift.
	I appreciate it goes back to the Cold War, but...
	You're talking about Russia as a Orthodox Christian nation.
	Allying with a communist country like China makes no sense compared to the origins of the foundation of America.
	But, Robert, before we even get into...
	And we forced them into a position where that was the only place they could get necessary economic support.
	And that was an incredibly incompetent decision.
	I mean, Joe Biden was just lighting the world on fire.
	You know, it turns out having a dementia candidate as president of the United States wasn't such a good idea.
	And when an idiot was his vice president, even doubly down of a double of the bad idea.
	But that's what the Ukraine deals are about.
	That's what the Iran deals is about.
	Trump is not going to escalate the conflicts in those places.
	He will do everything possible to avoid it, but expect the deep state to wage war on him.
	What annoys me is the pro-Israeli lobby in America, caucus or group in support, many of whom are good, conscientious people.
	To make it clear, I think Joe Pollack at Breitbart is a brilliant mind, good guy, etc.
	My point to all of them is everybody's starting to go way too far at supporting whatever Netanyahu's latest harebrained scheme is.
	Back down and back off, or you're going to critically lose support in the U.S. That's why we, I mean, this Israeli boycott bill, they're going to try to make it a crime to boycott somebody, and I think that's just a bad precedent to set, period.
	We need more federal laws to begin with.
	What's the next step?
	Are they going to then compel you to buy stuff from Israel?
	Not only can you not boycott them, you must buy There's interpretations of this boycott law that can be read that way.
	It's like, this is insanity.
	And it's like, look, I get the shock of October 7th, compounded by the horror of seeing people attack them at their own schools, in their own campuses, at their own residences, has upset and shocked a lot of Jewish people and pro-Israeli people who are one of the only groups in the world that have historical memories of multiple attempts to eliminate them from the planet Earth.
	So I get where it comes from.
	The emotional base it comes from.
	But they're mismanaging tactically the way in which they can make their country the most secure.
	And that's where the U.S. should not be.
	I have no problem with radicals and kooks being kicked out of the country because that's a condition of your visa access.
	Like the guy who was given free release by the Federal District Court of Vermont because he said he's no risk of flight and pretended that this was that New York student.
	There was a student that overtly and openly bragged about participating in illegal activities to effectively terrorize the U.S. electorate into supporting a different position on Israel.
	And secondly, according to published documented information, went to shops and stores and asked for guns in order to kill Jews.
	Now, I'll be honest, I'm still a little skeptical of the sourcing on the second part.
	I was like, this guy seems politically sophisticated.
	So how could he be so dumb to run around saying he wanted to kill Jews?
	I'm not buying that part.
	But just the NYU stuff that we've seen him on film for is enough to revoke his visa.
	However, broadening, expanding, going after everybody related to this is going too far.
	And then trying to pass laws to criminalize boycotting?
	Way, way too far.
	Well, the anti-BDS laws predate October 7 in any event.
	Oh yeah, but this is a new federal law that would make it a 20-year punishable crime to boycott Israel.
	It's like, well, we should not be in that business whatsoever.
	No, go the road of Canada, Bill C-63, and make it a potential life imprisonment for promoting genocide.
	I mean, it should be punished if it's a bona fide, you know, asking to kill people, but, you know...
	Be careful what laws you bring in because you don't like the speech.
	The Ukrainian deal, however.
	So the Ukrainian deal is that allegedly, apparently, America is going to get portions of the profits from Ukrainian mineral development exploitation in Ukraine.
	I don't know if there's any right of first refusal on the rare earth minerals that America might need in order to go green.
	My underlying concern is just doing any business with any corrupt company in Ukraine.
	If it were the Biden administration talking about doing this, I would be very suspicious as to which entities are going to be profiting from this, a la Halliburton or whatever.
	What are your thoughts on what has not yet been inked, but the proposal of an agreement in Ukraine?
	on the one hand you know a portion of the profits of exploitation of minerals to pay off the investment of the war one thing any right or first refusal does it resolve any of America's need for rare earth minerals that might incidentally cut Canada out of the equation or reduce their negotiating Yeah, so I take it that this is a PR, internal PR campaign by Trump.
	That Trump is trying to set up a reason, a factual foundation that's approved in the court of public opinion for any future Ukraine ceasefire and peace deal.
	And remember, people should go back and watch his interview with Joe Rogan.
	Where at one point, Rogan's trying to say, how are you going to get the peace deal?
	And he makes clear he would never honestly disclose that to anybody ever, publicly.
	So that means anytime Trump is saying anything about foreign policy, put a caveat on it that he's using something for leverage.
	It's not likely to be his actual strategy or his actual approach or even his actual beliefs.
	It is most likely meant to get somebody to the negotiating table, get somebody to bargain in a certain way.
	And for that, like, this is the reason why Trump won't come out and say, oh, I'll never go to war in Iran, because he knows war with Iran is leverage to get Iran to give him what he wants.
	So the, but I think he would never go to war with Iran.
	So the, I think that, I mean, again, he bragged about the fact that he refused the effort for them to do it in his first term, which, by the way, they tried to indict him over, and it gives you how nuts the deep state is, was him disclosing that fact of how he got around their efforts to trick him into it.
	So I see this as Ukraine is just, hey, look, we're getting back something for all the money we spent.
	So when I exit, people can't be critical of me because, look, I was able to actually get us paid back in ways that Biden's dumb, foolish war never would have done.
	So I think it's a domestic political selling point.
	It's not essential to the peace conflict itself.
	It's essential to how he sells it to the domestic public audience.
	So he's got quick retorts when the inevitable criticism comes.
	That he lost Ukraine and gave up Ukraine and all the rest because the ultimate plan in motion is to allow eastern Ukraine to return to its Russian roots where it has long been and where most of its people align.
	Not to give up any other part of Ukraine, but how does he sell it domestically back here?
	It doesn't even matter if the deal even works.
	It's just something he says.
	He can say, look, I got Ukraine to agree to pay us back all the money we spent.
	And I got secured collateral in the form of their raw earth minerals that we can now produce and harvest successfully to get us free of China and Canada.
	So that's what I see it as.
	I don't see it as a sincere thought out, this has to be a precondition.
	I don't see it like some people say, oh, this means he's locking America into a long-term Ukrainian war.
	No, no, that's not it at all.
	He doesn't want to spend any more money on that war.
	He doesn't want that war to continue.
	He needs Russia to keep oil prices down.
	He needs Russia to keep nuclear proliferation, which have been, again, if you go back and listen to Trump interviews going back 40 years, some tech guys were talking about this.
	Why do they all got weird Indian names?
	God bless them.
	It's like, you know, whatever it is, I can't pronounce it.
	You know, God bless them.
	I'm getting all kinds of trouble saying it.
	But whoever it was, one of those guys, was like he was really impressed at how Trump was obsessively committed to Nuclear de-acceleration of nuclear weapons.
	This goes back to his uncle.
	His uncle was the one who was given Tesla's files in order to figure out whether Tesla was legit or not, because that's what a genius his uncle was, his uncle John Trump.
	Trump educated him from the time he was very little at how horrific and horrifying nuclear proliferation and war can be.
	Trump has talked about this very candidly in multiple contexts, but people haven't processed it because it doesn't...
	Trump's a peacenik at heart.
	The CIA concluded that in the mid-1980s when he was trying to negotiate a peace deal in Central America privately on behalf of the Reagan administration.
	They said, pull him out because he's secretly a peacenik.
	So they're right about that.
	He hates war fundamentally.
	Hates war.
	Sees it as always a failure implicitly, but doesn't want to look like he hates war to such a degree that it deleverages his position in these negotiations.
	That's where Trump is going, is to pull us out and to get us out.
	And to do so, this was a critical component for it.
	But it's not because he wants continuous conflict.
	It's not to fund an ongoing conflict.
	That is not the point and purpose of this deal.
	I'm going to read a bunch of chats here.
	I want to start with the ones that...
	Encryptus is sending me via DM on Twitter.
	Gypsy Muse over at Local says, Encryptus, are you able to correct Viva about the man filming Shiloh in the Child's Park?
	The man filming is a Somalian who has been convicted of child rape.
	As a child rapist, he should be.
	First of all, unless I'm mistaken, Gypsy, provide your receipts.
	He was not convicted of anything.
	In fact, they dropped the charges in the interest of justice, and it was forced penetration with a minor who was 16 years old who fled a foster home and then allegedly got...
	Assaulted by Omar and another guy, they dropped the charges.
	If you have a conviction, then you can bring it up, but I think you're wrong.
	And before I wrongly say, as a matter of fact, someone was convicted of pedophilia, I will make sure that they are...
	People should be super, super, super careful of this.
	The charges were dropped.
	The left is routinely and repeatedly suing people who make very...
	Be very careful about making very specific factual claims about people who are not even public figures.
	So remember that.
	The document that I found was the state of Minnesota dropping the charges, quote, in the interest of justice.
	So that's the fact.
	Unless I'm wrong, you provide your receipts.
	Viva, why didn't you ask the Give, Send, Go guy why he didn't stop comments for Carmelo and defended keeping them up, then shut them both off a day after Shiloh?
	It's very suspicious.
	I don't know if he controls the comments on it, so I'm not sure about that.
	He actually put out publicly that there was such a barrage of racial hatred.
	On the Carmelo stuff that they started to disable those.
	I hope he extends the same as to the Shiloh case.
	All he wants give, send, go to be is a place where people can raise money that need it and let the donor decide the permissibility of the fundraiser and the terms of the fundraiser rather than him.
	Gibson Go exists because GoFundMe decided to be political and ideological as to which fundraisers it would permit, starting by the banning of the Kyle Rittenhouse fundraisers.
	So he's been put in an impossible position because of the now that there's these racial grifters using Gibson Go, or at least potentially racial grifters.
	He's been thrown in the middle of these racially driven controversies and conflicts that he wants to limit of.
	And the best way is to limit both sides.
	But my question would be, for those people that are only...
	Are the people that are now saying it's outrageous the racial attacks that are happening to the Shiloh person, did they complain also about the racial attacks that shouldn't have been happening in the Carmelo case?
	You can disagree with the Carmelo case, but what about all the racial attacks happening?
	They're highlighting him for not taking down both when one happened after the other, and I think he will take down both ultimately once he sees both are a problem.
	But I see hypocrisy on both sides.
	Because the people complaining, saying, why don't you take it down when it's Shiloh?
	Many of those same people were not complaining at all when it was happening on Carmelo.
	And people are going to find every pretext, the racial grifters, to try to create racial conflict in this country.
	The best way to deal with them is ignore them and expose them for the lunatics they are and move on.
	Boz Bundelow says, I want to say I have PTSD from seeing Viva with purple hair from that light.
	That's how bad it is, folks.
	I guess we know that's...
	How you would look.
	Dude, I had pink hair at one point.
	Go to our locals community.
	It's up there.
	Sometimes I don't agree with Barnes on everything, which is naturally obvious, but I got to give him credit.
	He was 100% correct on Amy Coney Barrett.
	I remember that stream, too, like it was yesterday.
	Salty Vet Dad says, my mom lives in Rochester, Minnesota.
	It's strange to me that a white woman would yell that at a Somalian man in a park.
	Yeah, it's strange to me, too.
	And let me bring up...
	I mean, you've raised questions that are sufficient to...
	I mean, it's the new grift.
	It started after Michael Brown.
	So after Michael Brown, everybody competed, family members and friends included, as to who could grift off that kid's death, that guy's death.
	It's like, wow, this is disturbing.
	And then I realized this was going to be a new pattern.
	New pattern is you put out some really emotionally confrontational, conflictual story that triggers people's deepest primal reactions.
	And it happens more often on the racial grift on the left than the right.
	For people to know, this goes way, way back.
	We've always had this.
	It's just they found a new method and mechanism.
	But I agree with you.
	There are things about that story that don't quite add up.
	And when I see it raise a lot more money than the Covington kids raised, I'm like, okay, I'm a little bit curious what the motivation here really is.
	Let me bring up a bunch on our locals, on Rumble, and then we get to the locals' ones.
	The black man that filmed from Shiloh is from Somalia.
	His last name is Omar.
	Go figure, says Sportfish.
	Viva, have you ever listened to Dowell Cooper's actual podcasts?
	No.
	Yeah, and I've listened to him.
	I don't agree with him.
	My own view is this.
	Brilliant, brilliant podcast.
	Martyr Maid is a Twitter handle.
	He's on both Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan.
	It's what triggered a whole bunch of people's rage in the establishment right that had made their bones.
	Getting access to conservatives by attacking the woke left when many of them were war whores and long had been or affiliated and associated with them or believe the managerial class should run the rest of us.
	And they just think they should do it rather than the woke left.
	They think they should be the new elite in charge.
	They don't disagree with the premise of elite control.
	They disagree as to which elite should be in control.
	I disagree with the idea of elite and control to begin with.
	And that's the populist perspective and the difference of opinion in these matters.
	Cultivated Mind in our Locals community is now pulling the biltong trick.
	I love this.
	Doggy Dose infused with six of our mushroom extracts for optimal digestion, immune support, allergy control, joint support, calming, and much more.
	Cultivated-mind.com extracts for people also.
	My dogs love it, by the way.
	Winston is a picky eater.
	He was eating it.
	Thank you, Viva, says Cultivated Mind.
	Cultivated Mind says, oh, I forgot the coupon code VIVA for 10% off.
	Randy Edwards says, We had him on.
	He made a very compelling point.
	He actually convinced me that he's more right than Barnes on this particular issue, but that was a good discussion that we had.
	I'm doing my three-month supply buying spree.
	I got your toothpaste in Homie's Mushroom Complex.
	Anyone else have cool stuff to try, says Harry Toe.
	Okay, good.
	I got through those.
	Speaking of international politics, can Alberta secede?
	You're the legal...
	Of course, Douglas Murray, you've got to be an expert on these things.
	I've always wondered, how does having a master's in English make you an expert on Israel or Ukraine?
	Maybe Douglas Murray can explain it in his next book on how great neoconservatism is, that fraud.
	At least he's an English snob, so at least you get who he really is, right?
	I've never been to Alberta.
	Can the tribes just say, no, we declare Alberta must permanently be part of Canada?
	Have I ever been?
	I was joking when I've never been to Alberta.
	I've been to Calgary, and we drove from Calgary to Vancouver, and then I drove from Montreal to Winnipeg.
	In between Winnipeg and Calgary, never been.
	Have I ever been?
	You've never been, Viva?
	The question of whether or not they can secede...
	I talked about it briefly before the native question came in.
	The tribe saying, we've got treaties and you can't leave Canada.
	And provinces can secede.
	They have to formulate a clear question, then submit it to a referendum.
	In Alberta right now, you've got the Premier Danielle Smith simplifying the procedures for getting, what does she call them?
	Citizen originating referenda questions.
	So citizen, there was a word, citizen petitions.
	Yeah, citizen initiatives.
	The threshold is so high, we don't have any of them.
	Whereas you look to California, they get 10 to 15, I don't know, every election cycle.
	And so the threshold is supposed to be sufficient to ensure that it's a serious question, but not so high that you don't get any citizen petitions.
	So she wants to simplify the threshold or lower the threshold for citizen petition.
	I think it's to 10% where, like she says, if you can get 10% of the population that wants to raise a question, you've got to listen to it.
	Knowing full well that what she wants to do is get this secession question to the politicians' eyes by way of citizen petition and not by way of a premier bringing it forward because it'll look more organic and it will be more organic.
	So that's the framework.
	You can get a province to secede if they put together a question that is clear.
	Put it to a referendum, get the majority to vote, and then you've got to get the permission of the federation, of the king or the queen, who it is.
	What I have never heard, Robert, and you'll tell me if I'm wrong, Is getting the permission of natives who have reservations which are, they're under federal, not jurisdiction, they are basically under federal ownership, federal, what's the word I'm looking for?
	Not trusteeship, something along those lines.
	The feds don't touch them, they don't impose federal law on them, but they separate them and they reserve them for the natives, whichever natives have reservations and that's what the reservations are.
	You can't have ownership.
	Indigenous cannot own property on the reservations.
	It belongs to the band.
	Whole slew of corruption problems.
	Everybody knows you have the same problems in the States that we have in Canada.
	Same social problems.
	Everybody knows you got the same problems on the reservations in America, with the exception, I think, of the tribe in Arizona.
	The name is escaping me right now, where they actually, at least one of them, I think, does very well.
	You had that Sturgeon Lake...
	Cree Nation come out and say, you can't secede without our permission, so cease and desist from even discussing it with your secession threats.
	I've never heard of anything like that.
	I might imagine that there would be an argument that any government that takes over that land, if it indeed becomes a 51st state, would have to respect treaty rights, and that would be sort of like a contract that any acquiring nation would have to respect if ever there was a sale, secession, or transfer of ownership or control.
	But that would be the extent of what I would posit by way of theory.
	What do you happen to think of whether or not indigenous communities can unilaterally block not just secession, but any discussion of secession, Robert?
	Well, first I wanted to figure out whether certain premises I have is correct.
	My understanding is that unlike the United States, where the Civil War decided you can't secede, in Canada, both the Supreme Court and the Clarity Act have made clear that you can.
	Specifically.
	Specifically, you can.
	There's a procedure that you have to go through.
	Clear questions, submit to a referendum.
	Because the issue with the Quebec referendum in 95, 96, the question was so flipping unclear that people were like, this can't be how you do it.
	So they had the Clarity Act.
	They had a Supreme Court decision that came down and said, clear questions, submit to a referendum.
	That's step one.
	Then you've got to get it recognized by the Federation, which they would say, presumably, you know, we're not kings and queens.
	And at that point, like, some people were construing that to mean the Parliament had to agree.
	My understanding of the language is they have a duty of good faith negotiation to figure out how the exit is going to be accomplished, but not that they have veto power over the secession itself.
	Well, that we've never gotten to.
	So that is what the issue is going to be, is do they have to sort of negotiate a Brexit-like, we have no power to keep you in here.
	The only difference is that...
	The federation in Canada, I don't think it's not analogous to the European Union in that you didn't have sovereign countries joining a union which didn't usurp their national independence.
	In Canada, you join the federation, you become part of the country.
	So I don't know what the modalities are or would be on that, as if to say, we're not letting you out, period.
	I think they could very well say that, say, we are a federation, sorry you went this way, but we're just not recognizing it in the name of national harmony.
	But that would effectively give them veto power that would seem to contradict what the law is and what the case law is, as far as I can tell.
	In other words, their leverage is negotiating.
	And as long as they can show they're negotiating in good faith, they can possibly prevent the secession as long as they can prove they negotiated in good faith and couldn't get to a disposition.
	But I think if they came in with a position, I think like the current administration, the current administration is going to have a problem because there's too many public statements of those people.
	Saying they're not going to negotiate in good faith.
	And I think if that's the case, then I think they're going to be in trouble.
	Then there's the practical side.
	What if the U.S. just accepts it, accepts Alberta's secession, like we did Texas, and we go in and say, Canadian Mounties, good luck challenging our military power here.
	I don't think, practically speaking, Canada could enforce that if they did engage in bad faith and Alberta did want U.S. military support, even if it was as an independent country or as a 51st state.
	From a practical perspective is how it would play out.
	But as the last point, my understanding is those same laws do not give veto power to the Indian tribes.
	And so I get they're trying to claim that their treaties effectively give them that.
	But my understanding is treaties don't have quite the same.
	Like in the U.S., because of the Constitution, treaties are considered higher law of the land.
	So it limits the Congress's ability without actually reversing the treaty in certain instances.
	But my understanding in Canada is treaties are almost considered like equal legislation, not such superior legislation that the Clarity Act would be interpreted as overridden by the treaties between the federal government and the tribes.
	Well, I was only going to make the joke that given the amount of treaties that the Canadian government has basically desecrated over the history of the country, to try to invoke it as the be-all and end-all is like you've learned nothing from history.
	No, I would view it...
	I don't know if it's right.
	I saw the comment that said, have Keith Wilson from the lawyer that I've had on a number of times to hear his take on this.
	I would, because I'm not an expert on constitutional separation by any means.
	I would presumably think the argument would be that whoever takes over the territory of Alberta would have to respect the existing contracts that people within the country had.
	So you couldn't come in and then, I don't know, you couldn't come in and not respect native...
	Sovereignty on the reservations.
	But as for the rest of it, what treaty rights do the natives want to pretend to have on Calgary?
	It's not on treaty land.
	Unless they want to go back and say it's all treaty land.
	But Robert, hold on.
	I have to bring this up.
	Talking about the clear question.
	This was the question submitted to the Quebec people back in 95. Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?
	I mean, it's so convoluted.
	Should Alberta become the 51st?
	Should Alberta be the 51st state?
	We'll be clear.
	But no, I don't know what...
	I don't believe the treaties offer veto rights to the natives because they don't apply to the rest of the province above and beyond the lands of the natives.
	One of the people in chat pointed out that the other problem for the Carney administration, if Alberta votes to secede, is that any effort to interfere or sabotage it too much will be seen very negatively by the Quebec bloc.
	What do you think?
	I think if Alberta makes the move, Quebec will make the move.
	Quebec has been...
	They're looking for an excuse for 20 some odd years.
	They've been pushing their new Bill 96, which is a revamp of the Bill 101, the language laws, that cause an immediate problem among the Canadian population.
	Quebec has used the notwithstanding clause.
	I'm going to have to Google to make sure how many times.
	Quebec wants out.
	I mean, at least, sorry, the Bloc and a substantial portion of the province of Quebec, French Canadians, want out.
	They want out.
	They don't like Kearney even floating the idea of, I think a sufficient amount of people are actually just sufficiently angry with the Federation and the federal government.
	That they would go for it a third time.
	Third time's the charm, and Alberta looks like it might get it on the first if they do it.
	Any chance of those tribes that have influence in certain parts of northwestern Canada that Trump could separately do a whole negotiated deal with, and they become under U.S. protection rather than Canadian protection?
	I don't know about that.
	I think from my discussion with Sam Cooper, there's an argument as to whether or not they're already under Chinese control.
	But no, I don't have a sufficient understanding about that.
	All that I'm still shocked about.
	It's how the natives, after 200 years of government abuse, experimentation, residential schools, treaty violations, they're still voting liberal, and that's only because the rest of Canada gets to suck at the teeth of Alberta, and Alberta has now said, enough is enough.
	And the other thing is, I'm stupid.
	You will not separate Canada in two if Alberta separates, because you can still go through...
	Contiguous land via the north.
	So it's not even logistically like you have the same geographic problem that you have if Quebec separates, where you then have landlocked New Brunswick, Nova Scotia.
	Newfoundland is already ocean-locked, but you don't have that geographic limitation.
	And I guess Quebec could always negotiate to allow the northern part of Quebec to stay part of Canada.
	I don't know.
	That's native land up there.
	They're going to say no.
	And on the other hand, that's resource-heavy area as well.
	So they wouldn't necessarily even want to give up the North.
	Diamond and oil up there.
	Do I understand, right?
	Almost all the natural wealth of Canada is in Alberta or in Quebec?
	There's an argument that a lot of it is off the coast of Newfoundland.
	Oh, gosh.
	Hold on a second.
	Hold on.
	It's about two hours in.
	There's an argument that there's a lot of natural resources off the coast of Newfoundland and in the Maritimes, and that they don't exploit it for so-called environmental reasons, resulting in Newfoundland being, I think, Newfoundland and Northwest Territories is like the most impoverished province-slash-territory in Canada.
	The Maritimes are notoriously impoverished.
	So they have their natural resources.
	They don't exploit them because they don't have to because they get to then say, we're the have-not province.
	So redistribute some of that Alberta federal tax money.
	But they have amazing resources, especially I know Newfoundland in particular to exploit and can do it cleaner than India and cleaner than China.
	Yeah, we'll see.
	But could be the end of Canada as we know it, depending on how it happens.
	I said it.
	We're going to see what Robert.
	We, you know, the market, we are no longer in the market for or at least the bet for liberal majority now seems to have maxed out.
	I'm taking a very, very long-shot position that it's not going to be a liberal minority.
	It's either going to be a liberal majority, a NDP coalition, or NDP help.
	Because I think they're at 169 or 170 seats.
	Seven NDP.
	The party's decimated.
	Decimated.
	So I don't even know what interest they have in even staying NDP.
	Two or three defect.
	You've got a liberal majority or you've got a liberal minority with a NDP coalition.
	And that is now like...
	It's that sense.
	But I'm going with one last hurrah of a potential looking smarter than I am because I predict that's going to happen even if it's a 97% unlikelihood right now.
	By the way, George Simeon is...
	Yeah, another winner.
	We split on...
	We had a Canadian election.
	Big winner.
	In terms of the liberals would not win an outright majority right out of the gate.
	Also, and then we told people to sell when it was in the 90s.
	It was already profitable because they would probably try some shenanigans like they're trying now.
	One on the Ecuadorian election, one on the election in Georgia, only lost on the Australian election because it turns out the conservatives there are even bigger sissies than the Canadian conservatives.
	And by the way, in both places, you had career politicians running as I'm the better bureaucrat.
	No, no, I'm the better bureaucrat.
	Those kind of conservative campaigns, they put the con in conservative.
	They both managed to lose their own seats.
	Pierre managed to lose his own seat.
	Dutton managed to lose his own seat.
	But, and then we had our big but, still profitable over all the election bets over the week.
	The Trumps made the right statements at his University of Alabama commencement speech, so that made a little money.
	And then we had a big winner for the second year in a row on the Kentucky Derby!
	Sovereignty over journalism.
	You couldn't have a better...
	Now, that's a little bit of a sign that Elon Musk might be writing the simulation that we're living in, that sovereignty beats journalism in a close race at the end of the Kentucky Derby.
	That book there is Ancient Gonzo Wisdom from Hunter Thompson because he was made famous as a native Kentuckian by writing about fear and loathing at the Kentucky Derby.
	Years ago, a great article with some really unique, crazy art pieces that give you a whole different depiction of the Kentucky Derby.
	But that was a nice winner over at sportspits.locals.com.
	We'll see if the future elections continue to prove profitable as we move forward.
	I'm telling you, they're going to do some chicanery with Canada, and I'm going to take a victory lap if and when it happens.
	Yeah.
	All right, so do we want to move on to the SCOTUS decisions?
	Yeah, we got SCOTUS at multiple levels.
	We got judicial branch.
	This week, the judicial branch.
	Tried to declare that all illegals have to get a warrant before you can arrest or seize them, according to one court.
	Another court said that you can't spend any money without our approval or authorization as it relates to foreign grants and foreign media and propaganda and censorship campaigns.
	That you need their approval in terms of personnel decisions.
	The one federal court basically took over the Border Patrol in the Central and Eastern District of California.
	You have to approve everything, not only with us, but with Plaintiff's Council.
	You now got to get approval from Plaintiff's Council before you can do your job.
	That's how utterly insane these judicial rulings are.
	Also, they freed the radical.
	They said, oh, there's no risk of flight or anything else, which is not a judicial determination to make in the immigration context.
	That's an executive branch decision.
	But they don't care.
	They're just breaching every standard of care, every legal limitation, jurisdictional restriction possible.
	They also said President Trump can't, on the federal government's election form, simply answer the question that is required by federal law that only citizens vote in federal elections in America.
	That he can't even ask that question on the federal voter registration form.
	Another judge said he has to allow the deep state law firms to maintain a shadow government and have secret access to secret files and classified information.
	Said he couldn't even overturn who has access to classified information.
	That's how insane the judges have been over the last week.
	Now he got a good ruling from the D.C. appellate court.
	And there are multiple decisions pending before the Supreme Court that can impact all of it.
	Let me ask you this.
	Adam Kinzinger gets on Katie Couric and says, I didn't know that you weren't allowed hiding someone if the feds were coming.
	That's really chilling.
	Is that to say if the cops come to my house and ask me if I'm harboring an illegal fugitive that I can't lie and say he's not there?
	When they come for, hypothetically, the illegal alien, In the Dugan case, the judge, do they have a procedural warrant or do they have an official warrant?
	At one point we distinguished between a show me the warrant versus a procedure of deportation.
	What do they have in terms of lawful, compelling, or producing the appearance of the illegal alien that Judge Dugan defied?
	Was it an actual warrant?
	No, it was an administrative warrant.
	The question of whether the Fourth Amendment, and like the Eastern District of California judge, was such a fraud.
	She stated that the Supreme Court almost 50 years ago made it clear that the Fourth Amendment applies to illegals in America.
	It's a completely false statement.
	She just lied about the law.
	Because in fact, that is an unresolved question.
	I'll give you the Supreme Court said in the 90s, said the Fourth Amendment does not apply.
	To non-resident aliens, unless they're inside the territory of the United States, and either we're here lawfully or have a substantial connection to the United States.
	They said, so the first question, look at the Fourth Amendment, is who are the people in the Fourth Amendment, right?
	So the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides for protection only to one group, the people, not persons.
	Notice the difference.
	There's different verbiage used in different parts of the Constitution.
	It says the people.
	So the question is, who are the people?
	By the way, the same liberal judges that are saying the Fourth Amendment applies to everybody also turns around and says the people in the Second Amendment is very limited.
	Hmm, that's funny.
	Same words, aren't it?
	The people?
	Now, what the Supreme Court said was, The people refers to the national community of people that have a sufficient connection lawfully to the country.
	Now, the decision was all over the place.
	There were like six concurring decisions.
	It's one of those deals.
	The original decision, 1975, that the district court cited in Eastern California, that decision was a completely split decision.
	All they ruled in that case was that before you pull over a citizen, you have to have reasonable suspicion.
	The fact that you have reasonable suspicion that the crime the citizen committed relates to illegal immigration does not remove the constitutional protection for that citizen.
	That's all they said.
	There were six like concurring opinions or six judges signed on to concurring opinions.
	So there was no even controlling decision in the case.
	That's the decision the district court and a bunch of district courts are falsely reciting by false advocacy from the ACLU and others.
	To argue that, oh, the Supreme Court's been clear that everybody has complete due process protection.
	Everybody has Fourth Amendment protection.
	Everybody has Fifth Amendment protection.
	Everybody has jury trial.
	Not true.
	So the next case, the Supreme Court, here's a quote.
	Aliens receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and develop substantial connections with this country lawfully.
	Lawfully being the keyword.
	And now that you mention it, Robert, because this example I always use is the Second Amendment is not afforded to illegal aliens or non-residents.
	And what's the words that they use?
	The people.
	A well-regulated militia.
	Same words in the Fourth Amendment.
	So the people in the Second Amendment should mean the same thing as the people in the Fourth Amendment.
	And the people in the Second Amendment has been limited to say non-resident aliens and illegals don't have Second Amendment rights.
	If they don't have Second Amendment rights, guess what?
	They don't have Fourth Amendment rights.
	It means they have no right to challenge anything.
	Now, there's multiple other issues with what the judges are doing.
	So constitutionally, the courts have previously allowed no warrant to be required to seize an illegal alien, to detain an illegal alien.
	The only decision they're citing is saying you can't detain a U.S. citizen.
	Merely because the crime might involve illegal aliens.
	The only other cases said illegal aliens have the same rights as anybody else when they're accused of a crime.
	But they've made clear that deportation is not criminal and is not punishment.
	So it doesn't apply to deportation.
	So then you have the second level of Supreme Court analysis, which has consistently held that the only due process that is due, the only process that is due because of the property and liberty interest is reduced for those who are illegally here.
	It's what Congress legislates and the executive branch affords.
	That's it.
	They said repeatedly there is, quote, no judicial role.
	And yet all these courts are jumping in.
	So now what did Congress require?
	Congress just requires reasonable suspicion, requires you don't have to have a warrant at all.
	You can arrest, period.
	Right there.
	If you have reasonable suspicion, you can stop and detain and physically arrest them.
	You need probable cause before you're going to arrest them without a warrant.
	If you're going to take them into custody, then you need probable cause just that they're here illegally.
	That's it.
	And you don't need a warrant for that beforehand.
	Let me stop you there.
	That's going to be the sticking point.
	What would be the probable cause that someone is here illegally?
	Some people are going to say, oh, anybody who's speaking Spanish is going to be a threat.
	I would imagine...
	Yeah, no, it's got to be other things.
	But here's the question.
	How is that supposed to get processed?
	So the other things Congress has said is that there's no role for the courts in this until the very end.
	So they've said all of this has to be adjudicated through the removal process.
	If you believe you have any Fourth Amendment rights or you believe there are any such rights violated or your due process rights are violated or anything else, or there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to arrest you, you have to go through the immigration process.
	Which is controlled by the executive branch.
	And only then can you ask it be reviewed.
	And by the way, not by a district court.
	You can only have it reviewed by the courts of appeals in the jurisdiction where your removal took place.
	So the first question I had when this judge was issuing this order saying you can't arrest anybody without an arrest warrant or probable cause.
	And you have to give me permission.
	I have to give you permission before you even do your duties.
	And you have to report to law enforcement everything you're doing.
	I mean, law enforcement has to report to the plaintiff's lawyers.
	Everything they're doing and getting their pre-approval for things, utterly insane, is that the district, I was like, the district court has no jurisdiction.
	This is made very clear by the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
	Federal court, Congress controls what juror powers any court other than the Supreme Court has.
	Supreme Court's given power by the Constitution.
	Every other court only has the power Congress affords them.
	So Congress made clear in the Immigration and Naturalization laws, courts have no role here.
	So I was like, how did she pretend to have no role here?
	Here's the myth they're doing.
	They're saying that they admit and acknowledge that if the case concerns removal of an illegal, they have no jurisdiction.
	So how do they have jurisdiction?
	They're saying this case doesn't concern removal, even though it was an arrest for the purposes of removal.
	It's like, okay, you're completely eviscerating all of the principles that the INA established.
	This is what liberal courts will do constantly, any courts will do constantly, is unless Congress makes clear, you don't have power to do this in such unalterable language that even they have to concede.
	They will find ways around rewriting and weaseling interpretation to somehow say, yes, we still have jurisdiction.
	This is why Senator Mike Lee, to his credit, based Mike Lee on the internet, has become a really good populist, liberty-oriented advocate from Utah, who the deep state tried to take out, by the way, in his last election.
	That was a sign he was legit, was who was coming after him.
	He's going to pass bills that make it clear there's no question whatsoever.
	That the federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever, federal district and appellate courts, only the Supreme Court, have no jurisdiction if the issue concerns illegal immigrants.
	If the person cannot claim that they are legally present in the country, then they cannot bring any claim to a federal.
	The federal district courts will be stripped of all jurisdiction.
	That's what they have to do, because these judges are completely ignoring the limited role in this.
	Because, like, you go back.
	She basically said that there can't be an arrest without a flight finding and that you have to confirm the flight finding with the plaintiff's lawyers and the court.
	It's like, what the hell are you doing taking over the president's job?
	They want to create 20 million administrative nightmares in order to be allowed to deport any of them.
	By the way, a liberal descending judge in another case said the reason why you should allow employees to circumvent the Merit Service Board and all the laws governing them.
	This liberal Democratic judge in D.C. who dissented said is because you can't expect these administrative bodies to handle a thousand claims, but the same courts are demanding even more strict procedural requirements for 20 million illegals.
	That tells you what a fraud many of these judges are.
	The other component with this is that the judge is...
	Abusing class certification principles.
	One of the rules of class certification is you can't presume the merits are correct in order to get the class certification.
	A legitimate class certification is all truck drivers who drive, who are between the ages of 18 and 23, who are subject to, say, age discrimination claims.
	But what it is, is that the class is the people who suffered the same injury from the same event of commonality.
	What you can't do is bury in it, oh, the class is all the people who've been discriminated against.
	Okay, now you're presuming the merits in your so-called class.
	That isn't how class certification is supposed to work.
	It's supposed to be common questions of law and common injuries that predominate in the case sufficient to make it more efficient to have a class.
	And here you had, it was like, who's the class?
	The three guys that got pulled over that are objecting to getting pulled over?
	It's like, okay, that's just three people.
	How do they represent a class of people that could possibly ever be subject to any kind of restriction by the Border Patrol in the future?
	It's like, that would be too big of a class.
	So what does the judge do?
	The judge says, the class is anybody whose rights are being violated, which is a direct violation of the judge's own jurisdiction on class actions.
	So they're abusing their power on nationwide injunctions, they're abusing their power on class actions, and they're abusing their power...
	In contexts that are given exclusively to the executive branch.
	Those are the most egregious forms of abuse of power by all these district court rogue rulings.
	And the utility is they're bringing up to the Supreme Court unresolved questions that long needed resolution.
	And the Supreme Court's going to restore Article III balance to the system by restoring Article II power to it.
	And respecting it and recognizing it officially in presidential decisions, in the context of immigration, in the context of policy, in the context of personnel, the context of funding, in the context of all of these classified information and who has access to it, all these rogue efforts to overturn an election and usurp constitutional powers of the elected president of the country.
	Or they will fail to, and then Congress will be put in a position where it has to pass reform.
	Current legislation's already passed the House.
	Drastically limiting the ability of federal courts to ever issue any nationwide injunction in the future.
	Senator Lee is now proposing stripping them of all jurisdiction in any matter that concerns immigration.
	The President and Congress are considering suspension of habeas corpus for the purposes of illegal immigration, which, by the way, we talked about two weeks ago.
	Other people picked up on it, asked Trump about it.
	Now Trump is considering discussing it, thanks to this community putting the word out there.
	So I think those are the kind of reforms that are going to happen.
	And already there are other cases before the Supreme Court concerning the substantive merits.
	One little tidbit.
	Why is the United Fruit Workers, United Food Workers, joining these cases?
	And I say this as someone who interned for the various farm and food and commercial workers back when I was a young student at Yale, at the AFL-CIO in D.C. Cesar Chavez was opposed to illegal immigration.
	Go back and read his statements about it.
	Why are they joining cases to promote illegal immigration that replaces their workers, their unionized workers, and the benefits of those unions in Central California?
	It shows you how these unions have been corrupted and co-opted by union leaders that are breaching their fiduciary duties and obligations to their own workers to promote an ideological agenda that is economically against their interests and culturally and politically exactly the opposite of the great founder, Mr. Chavez.
	Well, I mean, I think also Adam Kinzinger explained it very well to Katie Couric when he said, why were there so many Haitians in Springfield, Ohio?
	It's because they needed the manufacturing labor, which is a load of crap.
	They had cheap, foreign, unskilled labor of people who didn't speak the language of the land that they could exploit like modern day slaves.
	And they get to inflate.
	Democrats inflate states with more electoral votes and more congressional votes than they should have, more congressional representatives than they should have, because illegals are counted in the census, and Trump's effort to prohibit that was stopped by the rogue Supreme Court.
	Now, two other components.
	Prior decisions give some preview of where the courts are probably going to have to go on this, the Supreme Court.
	Justice Kennedy, in his concurring opinions, talked about, in immigration law, You need to make sure that your principle of constitutional application is not, quote, impracticable and anomalous.
	He was saying this in particular in the immigration enforcement context.
	As you know, it is completely impracticable to require that 20 million illegals receive the same degree of due process as if they legally entered the country and had legal rights to be here, because that would so gum up the system that you would be unable to effectively deport anybody.
	That's what the federal district court's really trying to do in California by imposing supervisory control over the day-to-day regulatory actions of an agency based on a bogus constitutional premise and an unlawful jurisdictional assertion and a rogue class certification, all of which violate and contravene the various laws at place.
	In addition, you have Justice White, who said, this is immigration, let's leave it to Congress and the White House.
	You're going to see a strong move there.
	Then you're going to have the—it was Scalia who led the way on the idea that the people under the Fourth Amendment did not include people who are illegally present here in the country.
	And so you're going to see conservatives start to go more that route because they see what a disaster this has been, what a political disaster and chaos they are producing.
	I've got the catchphrase.
	You cannot steal constitutional rights.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	I'm going to put it on a mug.
	There you go.
	That illegals have no due process rights with respect to their admission is something Supreme Court has consistently held.
	So the same logic applies when they came in illegally to begin with.
	Now, the other factor here is the exclusionary rule.
	I would note they have said that even if the government violated the Fourth Amendment, that in an immigration context, because it's a civil proceeding, the exclusionary rule doesn't even apply, by the way.
	So again, these are rules meant to protect people lawfully here, people who have a lawful right to be here.
	The Supreme Court has never said that those who have no legal right to be here are entitled to the same due process as those that are legally here, are entitled to any protection under the Second Amendment or Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
	And that's where the egregious breaches are reoccurring.
	And these other Supreme Court cases will actually provide a vehicle for the court to start to clean up this nonsense, because if they don't, either congressional reform is incoming or presidential refusal is incoming.
	Amazing.
	One last component.
	Best way for if you're out there arguing with someone with Normie.
	Here's the kind of people they've said don't have Fourth Amendment rights.
	Prison escapees, parolees, trespassers on land.
	What is an illegal immigrant in the country?
	Basically, worse than a parolee, a lot like a prison escapee, and exactly the same as a trespasser.
	Why?
	Because it's not that they're not within the people.
	That's one way.
	But they say they don't have any Fourth Amendment legally recognizable privacy interests.
	Because you have no privacy interest in trespassing.
	You have no privacy interest in being an escapee.
	You have no private interest in being a place you have no business being in the first place.
	So that's the other way in which they don't have Fourth Amendment protection of the kind that these courts are trying to impose.
	Well, I mean, I guess the one nutbag decision to the opposite.
	The D.C. Circuit Court that overturned the lower courts...
	Stay of Trump defunding or defunding Voice of America.
	How many employees were there?
	The one thing I found shocking, I didn't know Voice of America still exists, and I didn't know that it had 10,000 employees.
	How many employees were working for it?
	Yeah, basically funding woke propaganda, lefty propaganda, deep state propaganda all around the world.
	And a lot of these are private media corporations whose entire budget comes from the...
	Voice of America, except it wasn't America whose voice they were voicing.
	So Trump comes in and says, we're defunding.
	And a lower court originally says, you can't defund.
	I'm staying your...
	I don't know if it was by way of executive order.
	I'm staying your decision to defund the voice of America.
	I order you to continue to employ them so that the employees can keep getting paid.
	And a D.C. circuit court...
	D.C. Circuit Court, with a dissenting opinion that I didn't get to read in full, says, no, even this is a bridge too far, and they overturned the stay of Trump, who basically gets to decide where the federal dollars get spent.
	But the reasoning was that, I mean, am I oversimplifying and saying that these are discretionary powers that the government had in the first place under whatever statute it was, and that we can't compel them to spend money where they have the discretionary authority to defund?
	Exactly.
	So two conservatives, two of the few conservatives on the D.C. Circuit got control over this panel.
	And they were the ones, they have a reputation as being more constitutional conservatives.
	And it was they who said, look, the federal district courts don't have jurisdiction here.
	Because what was happening is you had employees suing, saying, oh, no, the elected president can't fire us, even though we work for the elected president.
	It's like, what?
	We can demand immediate action to be reinstated immediately without going through the Federal Merit Board or all the other independent mechanisms that already exist to give employees every due process known to man.
	They get more due process than any employees in the world do.
	They're saying, oh, we can completely circumvent that because it's a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act by taking the APA and drastically expanding it to cover anything, anyplace, anywhere.
	And even grantees were suing.
	Again, we have a court of federal claims.
	Set up under the Tucker Act and other laws that specifically provide for a forum if the government breaches a contract with you.
	It is the only forum.
	It is the exclusive forum.
	So just as immigration is supposed to be under the executive branch, it's supposed to be the exclusive forum for adjudicating claims of someone who's not legally present here within the country.
	The Court of Federal Claims is supposed to be the sole place you go to when there's a contractual dispute with the U.S. government.
	And the Merit Service Board is the places you go to if you have an employee dispute.
	They were circumventing all of it.
	And ignoring it and pretending they had jurisdiction.
	And what this court did is it laid the groundwork not only to eviscerate this nonsense.
	Carrie Lake, by the way, was the name defendant in the case.
	Somehow, God bless the Polymarket and some others, they're still saying Carrie Lake wasn't appointed to any position.
	Well, how is she being sued in her official capacity then?
	Just a little question out there for some of the folks in the betting markets as to how they're counting some wins and losses and whatever.
	But putting that aside.
	Terry Lake ultimately won on this appeal because the Federal District Court has no jurisdiction over this.
	So, I mean, for people to know, the Federal District Court was saying it gets to control who gets hired and who gets fired within the executive branch, and it gets to control who gets the money and who doesn't.
	And it was basically demanding that deep state keep getting completely funded.
	Many of these Federal District Court judges have ties, family ties or associational ties, to the people receiving the money.
	So they have a direct conflict of interest in all this.
	But thankfully, you had got a couple of conservatives who laid out the roadmap for the Supreme Court, said, look, make a determination that you can't sue the president under these circumstances.
	The federal district court has no jurisdiction over an employee dispute.
	The federal district court has, unless it comes after they've gone through the whole proper Merit Service Board process, that the federal district courts have no jurisdiction over, I mean, there's some instances where there are people not covered by the Merit Protection Board, but these people were.
	So that was the proper protocol and process you had to go through.
	You had to exhaust administrative remedies to get there.
	This is true in multiple contexts, multiple cases.
	And that there's no right for federal district courts to issue any order concerning money because that is up to the court of claims.
	You know, just as you should make a habeas petition not be subject to class action, make a habeas petition have to be brought in the jurisdiction where the person is being held.
	The same way, take away nationwide injunction power, take away this abuse of class action power, take away the intervention in cases concerning employees.
	And there's all these cases like tariffs.
	There's, you know, various trade-oriented courts to adjudicate those matters.
	And yet federal district courts are entertaining lawsuits all across the country because they're going to decide what our trade policy is now.
	In their latest level of inanity and insanity.
	So what this DC Court of Appeals did is lay out the roadmap the Supreme Court can use to eviscerate this.
	And if the Supreme Court doesn't step to the plate, President Trump made clear this week, he said three prior presidents have had their own remedy that have been well-respected presidents.
	I know what he's talking about.
	He's talking about Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who told the courts to go, When they decided they could usurp presidential power and Article II authority.
	When they thought they could have a judicial coup over a presidential election.
	And this is the most egregious example of that, what's happened to President Trump in our history.
	When, because history rhymes, doesn't repeat, but when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, what was the context in which he suspended?
	Civil War.
	Okay.
	Now, he decided to extend the writ suspension to places where there was no battleground conflict in order to put some of his critics in prison.
	So did he abuse that power?
	In my opinion, he did.
	And I say this as someone, as a great admirer of President Lincoln, doesn't mean he is without his faults or frailties.
	But it did establish that when the courts go too far, in a manner that they're demanding something that people like Justice Kennedy described as impracticable.
	Or Justice White described as something that's not really within their province or prerogative to decide in the first instance.
	That these are inherently political questions dedicated to the political branches so the elected will of the American people can be represented and empowered through those institutions.
	That's when the court should be stepping out and stepping away, and instead they're getting more involved and more ingrained and antagonizing and outraging more and more Americans as they get red-pilled as to how partisan and corrupt our federal judicial branch has become.
	What is the mechanism through which you suspend habeas corpus?
	And Lincoln just suspended it, just declared it by executive order.
	So there's some arguments that it should go through Congress because it's located within Article 1. The precedent, though, by Abraham Lincoln, what established it as Article 2, the Supreme Court didn't dispute his power to suspend rid of habeas.
	They disputed whether or not where he had done so was consistent.
	With constitutional requirements.
	So that's the counterbalance to be brought.
	You can suspend it, but you suspend it under the constitutional conditions that exist, which include invasion and the like.
	Now that too, federal courts are usurping from...
	Their point in the invasion context for Lincoln was that it was undisputed that he had suspended the writ of habeas corpus in places where there was no invasion, right?
	Because he was suspending it in the North.
	Where there was no Confederate forces and there wouldn't be any Confederate forces.
	But it had to be uncontested.
	Now what's new is they're saying, we can override the president's determination on foreign policy.
	We can override the president's determination over whether there's been a predatory incursion or invasion.
	That has never been the role of the courts.
	The Constitution doesn't give them that role.
	They have usurped it.
	And previously, they admitted they don't have it.
	So these are rogue judges behaving in bad behavior.
	Not good behavior, that's for sure, which makes them subject to the impeachment clause.
	And hopefully they'll be more moving forward in that regard.
	And there will be if the Supreme Court doesn't step in and step up.
	But some of the cases they've already taken are a strong indication that they probably are going to put an end to this nonsense.
	It's more likely than not.
	I say 60% chance by the end of summer, Supreme Court fixes most of this.
	If they don't, Congress will either be under massive public pressure to pass legislative reforms.
	House has already passed some.
	Senate's already considering more.
	They'll be under a lot of pressure to impeach the most rogue and wayward judges.
	And they'll be putting President Trump in a position where, to protect the safety of the country, he has to ignore them.
	He doesn't want to go that route.
	He wants to afford them the opportunity to do their job and create a good precedent that we can use to protect American liberty on a go-forward basis.
	That would be the ideal outcome.
	is to get a Supreme Court precedent that is crystal clear that protects Article II powers and the American people's right to determine Article I and Article II powers through elections.
	This is about respecting the American people.
	That's what it is more than anything else.
	It's not about Trump, really.
	It's what happens when the courts don't agree with the electorate.
	It's up to the electorate in these issues of immigration and other contexts.
	The power of the purse, the power of enforcement, the power of the sword are not given to the courts for good cause.
	And they're trying to usurp it.
	They're trying to now direct budgets.
	They're now trying to direct law enforcement.
	They're trying to direct foreign policy.
	These are things they have no business in because they're utterly skillless in it.
	And so hopefully some of these other cases that are currently pending, as well as these future cases coming up on a rapid basis, will provide full and final resolution on these big constitutional questions.
	Jackson, what was the court order that Jackson refused to recognize?
	There were two different ones.
	One concerned the National Bank and the other one concerned Indian treaty rights in Georgia.
	And basically on both accounts, he said the courts issued its order.
	Now it can go and force it.
	And so he was making his point.
	Abraham Lincoln did it with the dispute over the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, amongst other ones.
	And then, of course, FDR said, I'm going to stack the court if you don't change your opinions.
	That's what dear FDR said.
	Well, I mean, Trump should say the same thing right now.
	They were talking about stacking the court before he became...
	That's how he said, look, three presidents.
	He's sending a message to Roberts.
	That's the sole audience here.
	He can get Kavanaugh on board and get the three conservatives on board.
	He just needs Roberts on board.
	He can lose Barrett and still get the majority.
	His message to Roberts is, look, that's why he's keeping it vague.
	He's keeping it very vague and very elastic, saying three prior presidents have done this.
	He's letting them guess which way it is.
	Trump loves to do this.
	He loves to have the audience guess which path he's pursuing.
	And he's just saying, hey, three prior presidents have done something to make sure the country stays safe, and I will do the same if it becomes necessary.
	But I hope the Supreme Court will take corrective and remedial action.
	It made clear to Roberts, I'm not going to go along with rogue orders.
	I'm not going to allow you to usurp elections.
	I'm not going to allow the judicial branch to invade the powers of the Article 1 or Article 2 of the legislative and executive branch as to political questions that involve something as fundamental as the security and safety of the country.
	Not going to happen.
	So either you can fix this or I'm going to fix it.
	And if I fix it, I'm going to fix it in a way you don't like.
	So I'm going to set a political precedent that may permanently damage the credibility, integrity, and power of courts in America on a go-forward basis, which they will deserve if they don't fix these issues quickly by the end of summer at the Supreme Court.
	Robert, it wasn't on our menu, but maybe just as a brief pause, and then I'm going to read a couple of rumble rants.
	Are you following the January 6th federal prosecutor who's pleading self-defense in his stabbing of the road rage incidents?
	Only a little bit.
	Yep.
	I had on Adam Johnson, lectern guy.
	He's following this case closely for very personal reasons because the Stabby McGee, who's the federal prosecutor who wanted to lock up Adam Johnson, lectern guy, for a long time imposed bail conditions that were absurd, is following this case because he obviously has a bit of a vendetta or a grudge against the man who tried to steal his freedom, attended the hearing.
	It's continued, for those who saw the show on Friday or Thursday, continued to Monday.
	So I'm going to keep following up with that.
	The Stabby McGee, Mr. Scruggs, who stabbed a passenger of a vehicle who was either having a medical emergency or was drunk, stabbed him into submission, is raising self-defense as the reason for which he went Stabby McGee.
	And it sounds like the judge is not having any of it.
	Interesting.
	I watched a little bit of Nick Ricada, Ricada Law's coverage of the Karen Reed trial, which is very big.
	But there's others that are also covering it.
	Nick, I got to figure out how he's got this.
	He's got this super tip system so that you can put in somebody's AI voice and they will read the chat.
	You heard about the drama with Uncivil Law, Kurt?
	Oh, yeah, that was so great.
	He started whining.
	Hey, Nick, you can put my voice up there.
	No problem.
	Put Beeman's voice up there.
	No problem.
	They've already got me in different AI versions saying all kinds of crazy stuff anyway.
	No problem.
	Have at it.
	Some of us are not copyright cowards.
	Like a certain patent lawyer down in Texas.
	Well, just so what it is, it's an app through which it reads a super tip question or whatever, a tip question in a voice that's AI generated.
	Oh, it's funny as the tickets.
	Because they got Richards down with his Wisconsin accent.
	You know, Mark Richards had no problem with his voice being used for all kinds of crazy statements.
	They have like crazy defendants.
	That have done crazy things, and they have them voicing it in crazy voices.
	So, you know, credit to...
	This is the first time I'd seen this.
	So, you know, we're on the cutting edge.
	But also in the Karen retrial, you know, you hear sometimes it's over-abused that somebody has resting bitch face.
	But man, one of the lead witnesses that was being cross-examined this week had the most perfect example of resting bitch face I've ever seen.
	It was like the faces...
	Have you ever seen somebody who's literally...
	Their face goes like this.
	They struggle to smile.
	I mean, their face is permanently down.
	I gotta see if I can find a picture.
	No, I was thinking, yeah, Katie Couric and Rosie O'Donnell is a good example of...
	Yeah, exactly.
	But her face is naturally that way.
	It's like, God made this person with a resting bitch face.
	No wonder she's still pissed off.
	No, I think you acquire it over time by having a bitchy face, both man and woman.
	Oh, yeah.
	I mean, everything about that case still screams that they are blaming her for the death that they were at least somewhat culpable for, the cops and their families.
	But it's been an interesting case.
	You can see some really effective cross-examination.
	You see what a corrupt judge is like.
	You see what a nitwit prosecutor is like.
	You see what lying witnesses are like.
	You get a little bit of everything on the Karen Reed trial.
	And the best place I recommend to watch it is Rikada Law on YouTube or Rumble.
	We still have vaccine cases.
	We still have...
	Big tech in big trouble.
	Cripe.
	Okay, I think I just out-swiped all of the flipping tip questions that were there.
	Robert, do we...
	I can see them here.
	On Rumble?
	No, because I had the app open on Rumble.
	Let me do one thing here.
	Let me just get a couple...
	I got you.
	Oh, I see the locals?
	I see mostly locals questions.
	Yeah, that's the thing.
	I had the app open on...
	Let me just get a couple of tip questions from locals.
	Juice11B says, isn't the objective of Trump's enemies to force him into ignoring these court orders?
	So they have another excuse to file another impeachment.
	Oh yeah, no doubt.
	And that's why Trump is giving the Supreme Court as much leeway as possible.
	But he can't let it be ceaseless or endless.
	Okay, excellent.
	And let me see here, let me get another one.
	Real quick, like.
	Kobe says if the Supreme Court doesn't recognize Article 2 powers, they will hogtie the next Dem administration too.
	Well, they would if they would.
	Yeah, they're just hypocritical and inconsistent and contradictory.
	Do either of you know what's up with Jeanette?
	Neshiwat's Surgeon General nomination.
	Personally, I wish DJT would nominate someone who else...
	We went over, Jeanette, I forget now, Neshiwat at the time.
	I mean, the U.S. Attorney nominee is fantastic.
	And that corrupt deep state hack Senator Tom Tillis out of North Carolina is trying to block it, which is ridiculous.
	We need our D.C. Attorney put in now.
	And he is very good.
	Now, there are people who are critical of one of the guys that was up for...
	I think number three at the Justice Department.
	And Laura Loomer came out with a bunch of criticism.
	I would discard what Laura Loomer is saying.
	Peter Navarro vouches for him.
	Steve Bannon vouches for him.
	Roger Stone vouches for him.
	You couldn't have more populist-oriented Trump supporters vouching for someone than those three.
	Whereas Laura Loomer is notorious for getting things wrong, making things up, getting things false.
	So I'm sorry, I'm never going to cite her as a source of anything reliable at all.
	So some of the criticism on that guy is misplaced.
	Just because his wife is some sort of lefty public defender that loves BLM, that's no reason to strike a guy who took personal and professional risk by defending Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, Trump supporters in multiple high-profile cases.
	To such a degree, he was threatened that he would not be appointed to the D.C. bench as a state court judge because of his position.
	And in fact, his nomination was pulled because he supported these people.
	So it's like, you know, you can't trust Lori Loomer.
	You just can't.
	So some of these people that are being criticized are ill-deserved criticism.
	That doesn't mean nobody up there deserves any criticism, because there's plenty of places and people who do.
	But let's be careful about which ones, lest we actually be helping the deep state rather than hurting.
	Is this the RBF, right?
	Yeah, see, look at that.
	That is her natural face, and it even looks worse normally.
	Like, the curves are normally down.
	You know what I mean?
	Oh, come on.
	Still the other picture.
	Well, hold on.
	I gotta make sure not to toggle into our DMs.
	Oh, the other picture's like this.
	Ah, yes.
	Okay, hold on one second.
	So, I've been watching this trial, too, and I decided I'm gonna call her Transkeletor.
	Look, she does look a little like...
	She looks fine.
	I mean, this is a screen grab.
	She looks...
	She looks a little emaciated.
	I like...
	Whatever.
	Yeah, I see it.
	Yeah, that's what a lot of people saw.
	But I honestly couldn't remember someone I'd seen in a trial who had permanent resting bitch face, as they call it.
	And she fits it personality-wise, it turns out, too.
	But that was a little interesting, too, but I was watching some of that.
	Now, I watch a lot of these kind of cases to...
	Pick up on, you know, how can you go at cross-examination?
	How can you do direct examination?
	How do you deal with hostile judges?
	How do you present in front of a jury?
	Karen Reed's lead defense counsel, Mr. Jackson, is one of the best in the business.
	So I watched it to, you know, okay, I was like, that's good.
	Well, that didn't work.
	Maybe I would do this if I was in that situation.
	So I like that.
	But in some of that very practical take and analysis Nick Ricada provides, probably as good as anybody.
	So the credit to Nick for getting back into business.
	It's been interesting and educational.
	You can just drop in now and then on it and see how it's going and the rest.
	Then he has the entertaining comedic side with these crazy super tips.
	He went off on Uncivil and it was encrypted.
	He's really relatively patient given that Uncivil has made it his grifting hobby over the last year to utterly bash Ricada repeatedly and ruthlessly.
	He had to know it was coming.
	But Nick has been mostly Now, some of the super tips he reads are, you know, aggressive, but he'll read super tips that attack him.
	So, you know, he's an equal opportunity offender in that regard.
	But speaking of equal opportunity offending, finally, finally, the Justice Department is taking some right steps in the vaccine context.
	We'll get there.
	There's one step forward, two steps back, because we'll talk about where they're not intervening that they should be.
	News on the Bobby Kennedy front.
	The three big cases pending before the Supreme Court this week.
	And Big Tech in Big Trouble, as predicted, by the way, by Viva Barnes!
	Absolutely.
	So what do we do here?
	Because we've got to go for the locals' after party.
	How many more do we do here now before we head out?
	I think we save the Big Tech in Big Trouble and the vaccine cases and the RFK update for locals.
	And here, we'll get into the cases pending before Supreme Court of the United States.
	I'm going to let you run with these because I was trying to do my best to catch up on them, but it's a lot, and I don't want to waste time.
	Yeah, we gave a lot of homework this week to the people.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Go to the Barnes Brief.
	Usually have links to all the cases, but it was more homework than normal because we had a dozen plus cases, some complicated, some legally complicated, et cetera, to go in with some of these hot political buttons that were on the law and politics nexus.
	This past week.
	So, Supreme Court, three big cases pending for them that they discussed in a oral argument for this week.
	And one is, this class action abuse that seems to be happening.
	Is there some remedy there?
	Second case, wrong house raids.
	Is the federal government immune when they raid the wrong house?
	Third, disability discrimination in schools.
	Do schools have special protection whereby they can discriminate against the disabled?
	Because there's also separate law meant to protect the educational needs of disabled kids.
	All three major questions with major public policy consequence before the Supreme Court because, for example, just like the nationwide injunction case pending before the Supreme Court, the class action case that we're about to discuss also would impact all these cases because all these cases are being brought as class actions.
	That's how they're making rulings that go way past the three plaintiffs that they have in the case.
	Those just three plaintiffs, Trump wouldn't care.
	It'd be okay, whatever.
	These are small cases of not interfering with most of our public policy that the people elected in 2024 to occur, especially as it relates to immigration and government waste, which Trump has had substantial success on already in his first term.
	And it's major reduced federal spending, get down the federal debt payments, reduced federal share of employment.
	And private sector employment gained, especially amongst Native-born Americans who made major gains, first major gains in wages and incomes and employment in five years since Trump was president in 2019.
	But these cases also impact that.
	So take the class action context.
	I loved class action in theory.
	If it's done right, class action says it's more efficient for one court in one case to answer questions that are common to a bunch of people.
	And that especially makes sense when you have low-level violations of lots and lots of people.
	So, for example, let's say Verizon has scammed me out of $100.
	I'm not going to sue over the $100, right?
	It's not in my interest to waste my time doing so.
	However, let's say that they screwed a million people $100.
	If you can bring it as a class, that's now a $100 million claim.
	So that's the legitimate tool of class actions.
	Unfortunately, it has once again been abused, particularly by the left, but not just the left, to gain political objectives that they're not entitled to get from Article 3 or to bring claims that aren't really claims.
	So the case that's up before them, the Ninth Circuit is basically certifying a class action, even if people don't have what they call standing.
	I'm not a fan of standing.
	I think it's a bogus doctrine.
	What is recognized in the class action context is you have to have an injury.
	And they're allowing class actions to progress, where the people within the class have suffered no injury.
	So this was a situation where lab testing companies were providing a kiosk to make it simpler and easier and quicker for some people to use.
	And so somebody sued on behalf of the blind.
	They said, oh, that's so cruel to the blind.
	Well, the blind were still using the direct front access, person-to-person access they always had.
	There was no burden on the blind at all.
	In fact, no blind person complained.
	No blind person was offended.
	Just these class action law firms found somebody they could sue because they could shake down the defendant to a four grand a pop as long as they could pretend everybody is part of a class, even the people that were not injured part of the class.
	So they're making a Supreme Court.
	Don't you have to require injury before you can certify a class?
	Who would this impact?
	Not so much these cases and these other sort of bogus class action cases that are meant to line the pockets of lawyers, not to improve public policy.
	But all of these immigration cases, all of these employment cases, all of the war on Trump could be completely unraveled by saying you cannot establish or certify a class unless you establish they have their commonality of injury and the commonality of legal issues predominate, number one.
	And number two, that they've actually suffered an injury in the first place.
	So hopefully they will fix that.
	And that will in turn help us restore Article 1 and Article 2 balance against the usurpers and coup plotters in Article 3. The second one is the wrong house raids.
	And the third one is the disability discrimination schools.
	I'll let you pick which one we take next.
	The wrong house raids, because we've talked about it and I'm predicting...
	I will make a prediction.
	Wrong house raids.
	So the wrong house raids have long been controversial.
	Federal courts have been going out of their way to make it impossible to sue for wrong house raids.
	And what is a wrong house raid?
	It means the cops come in and it's like Christmas vacation style.
	Take out the windows, take out the doors, stick guns in your kids' faces at four in the morning.
	And then they're like, oops, we got the wrong house.
	Right?
	The definition of no probable cause.
	To raid in the typically innocent families house.
	This is how people get shot, this is how people die, etc.
	And the standard hitherto was, you know, if they hadn't been grotesquely negligent in getting the wrong address, then you were barred from having remedy.
	If you were at the state level.
	At the state level, they basically made it so under 1983, they all had qualified immunity.
	This was so controversial that in the early 1970s, they did a famous raid in Illinois where they totally raided the wrong family's house, etc.
	So Congress passed a bill that said the Federal Tort Claims Act.
	It rewrote that law to make clear you can sue for a wrong house rate, even if the only thing that happened was pure just negligence.
	And yet despite that, federal courts have been saying, oh no, still can't sue.
	It's like, hold on a second.
	Congress specifically rewrote the law for this precise kind of claim.
	And yet the 11th Circus was saying, no, no, no, supremacy clause.
	It's like...
	How does the Constitution's requirement that federal law be the law of the land overwrite a federal law, which is what Federal Tort Claims Act is?
	Made no sense.
	Ludicrous claim by federal society members, by the way.
	They made this kind of garbage up at the 11th Circuit.
	And then the second thing they said is that even if there wasn't sovereign immunity that was applicable under that component, they said that it was just purely discretionary.
	And so what it is, is there was a provision within the Federal Tort Claims Act that said, if this was within your rights to make a policy determination, you couldn't reexamine that as a tort.
	That's all it meant.
	The courts are reinterpreting that to mean that if the cops are doing what cops do, then it's all immune.
	Even though the specific provision says law enforcement will not be immune from intentional torts in this context.
	And the point of the people challenging the law.
	Brought to the petition for cert, there's like, if it's an intentional tort, which is what we're alleging here, you can't have discretion because you don't have discretion to intentionally violate the law.
	And the point of the FTCA amendments was to reach this precise kind of claim.
	So this will be an interesting split because the liberals should be on the side of the civil rights plaintiffs, but you can't rely on them because they love the state more than they love civil rights.
	On the right...
	The right should be supporting constitutional liberties against state incursion.
	But here again, on the right, there's a tendency to favor law enforcement over individual rights.
	So that's the only reason why there's any potential debate before the courts as to what Congress intended, because everybody knows what Congress intended.
	It's right there in the legislative record.
	It's right there all over the place.
	Was it wrong house raids?
	You could sue over, even if it was just negligence.
	But quite clear, they're going to have to fix our civil rights laws unless Supreme Court does what's sensible.
	Because they can't even read what the plain language of the law is unless it's written in more plain language.
	All right.
	And then the last one that we're going to do, I just saw something that's horrifying.
	We're going to end the stream on that before we head over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	What's the last of the SCOTUS cases?
	Disability discrimination in schools.
	Go ahead.
	No, no, no.
	I was going to give it a brief summary, but go ahead.
	It'll be easier.
	Yeah, basically there's two different aspects to discrimination and disability in schools.
	There's one law, the IDEA law.
	That is focused solely on making sure special ed works.
	That's it, right?
	So it's making sure that the educational needs of people that are different than the norm, that for whatever reason they may have some form of disability, some limitation that others don't have, that those people get particularized access to educational intentions and objectives by the education rules that exist.
	Separately is the Americans with Disabilities Act.
	It applies whenever any public entity receives government funding of any kind, period.
	End of story.
	However, and what it requires is you can't discriminate against people because of their disability.
	That's different, and you must reasonably accommodate them.
	You don't have to accommodate them no matter what, but you must take reasonable accommodation steps.
	In that context, what they've been ruling is courts have been saying, you know what, we're going to say that the ADA is applied to schools, has to meet a much higher standard.
	Basically, you have to prove bad faith or malevolent intent.
	Not just a failure to reasonably accommodate if it concerns a school, even though nothing in the ADA law says any such thing.
	And their reasons for doing so is they're saying, well, look at this idea law that exists.
	It's for discrimination in schools, so we're going to superimpose its standards for Americans with Disabilities Act when that was never the intention.
	The goal is basically to help schools discriminate against the disabled, is what courts are doing, precisely what the law was meant to prohibit.
	The IDEA law isn't focused on helping the disabled.
	It's making sure the educational needs of the American public are met, even if a person is disabled.
	The ADA laws have an entirely different purpose.
	That law is to prohibit discrimination and make sure public entities with federal funding provide reasonable accommodation.
	A totally separate and independent analysis.
	And hopefully the courts will correct it.
	Once again, you never know, because sometimes the liberal judges are pro-civil rights, but sometimes they're more pro-state or pro-educational system than they are pro-civil rights.
	On the right, Sometimes they're more pro-civil rights than they are the educational system as a whole.
	The right hasn't been known for being deferential to the public school system, but they've also been known to be hostile to civil rights claims.
	So which political influence shapes where the law goes, sadly, is going to be the determinative factor, even though to me the law is clear that the ADA laws should not have been imposing this requirement that never existed in the law itself to begin with, and disabled kids should not have lesser rights than everybody else.
	In the public school context.
	Well, Robert, on the subject of resting bitch face, look at Viva's resting bitch face while we read.
	I managed to get them back up here.
	Mary8001 says, ask Barnes about Ed Martin's confirmation.
	All for it.
	Ed Martin is the guy appointed for the District of Columbia.
	He defended on the front lines of many cases in January 6th cases.
	And just like Stanley Woodward.
	And it's been proven to people like Brad Geier, former feds.
	He's my local counsel.
	We're co-counsel in the Amos Miller case, a bunch of Amish cases, a bunch of other civil rights cases.
	He vouches for him.
	Cleta Mitchell, one of the great election law reformers in the entire country.
	She vouches for him.
	The only person that's holding up his nomination at this point is Senator Tom Tillis, who is up for re-election in 2026, who if he continues to...
	Be an obstacle to the Trump administration is going to get a very serious primary challenge.
	Maybe from Laura Trump.
	Maybe from a little poster known as Richard Paris.
	Might even be running for the U.S. Senate.
	If he wants to avoid that, he should have Ed Martin go through because Ed Martin is critical.
	The D.C. office is as important as the Northern District of California and the Southern District of New York, maybe even more important for Trump's purposes, to be able to protect.
	The Trump priorities against the rogue deep state actors, which are centralized in the District of Corruption.
	Quad Kim says, is there a reason why Trump seems to have dropped interest in adding citizenship question to the census?
	It seems like that would be useful.
	I thought the courts already struck that down.
	He's all in favor of it.
	The Supreme Court said he can't do it.
	But so would they not have to go through Congress to make that happen?
	At a minimum.
	And even then, the Supreme Court will probably challenge it again.
	Wild.
	All right.
	Then we got the old threshold of $600,000 is still the goal for Alberta Prosperity Project, as per Jeff Rath's latest lawyer letter, and I had him on the channel as well.
	Some of these, they're doubling twice.
	I hope people are not getting charged twice here.
	I'm doing my three-month supply.
	Okay, I got this here.
	All right, now we're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We're going to raid Salty Cracker.
	Just so that you can go in there and make some noise on behalf of the Viva Barnes Sunday Night Law Extravaganza community.
	Robert, what do you have coming up this week for everybody who's watching?
	Yeah, and for those people who will have big tech in big trouble over at the locals after party.
	Apple getting spanked for monopoly and circumventing decisions, but we'll get there.
	And Apple CEO Tim Cook might be going to prison.
	The chief financial officer might be going to prison.
	That's the kind of news we'll discuss over at the after party, plus update on all the vaccine cases, plus an update on Robert Kennedy's libel case pending in the main courts.
	And we'll answer all questions that have a $5 tip or more, 50 coins or more in the locals terminology.
	We'll answer all of them in the after party at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And if you enjoy the hush-hushes, I have two new hush-hushes that are up.
	One on Building 7 for the World Trade Center.
	Another one on pilots, perps, or patsies that are up at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Everyone, get a book, Louie the Lobster Returns to the Sea, illustrated by a daughter of a member of our community.
	And just to scare...
	Go for it.
	And this week, all week long, Bourbons with Barnes at 9-ish Eastern Time, Mondays through Thursday at vobarnslaw.locals.com.
	And for all the political bets, sports bets, all the rest, like the winning Kentucky Derby bet for sovereignty to beat journalism proves God is on our side.
	There's no question about it now.
	I mean, think about horse racing.
	I mean, it's like, well, what a sport.
	You basically get a sport where you get these little midgets.
	And these midgets get to hop on these big animals.
	And they get to beat the animals until the animals run really fast.
	And we all get to sit around, smoke cigars, drink mint juleps, and bet on them.
	I was like, what a sport.
	And sovereignty beats journalists.
	Love it even more.
	For all the horse lovers out there, a horse threw me off when I was a kid, so I'm against horses.
	I'm told the horses love it.
	They love the attention and they love succeeding.
	They sure seem like it.
	To scare everybody out of here, Robert.
	Over to Salty, if you're not coming here.
	I want to play this.
	Does everybody know who this is offhand?
	I can't play the entire thing.
	Man, that's a lot of bad plastic surgery.
	Even if you like Cate Blanchett in the new movie Black Bag, which is a Soderbergh movie, which is a romantic story disguised as a spy thriller, so it bores the heck out of a lot of people, but I like Soderbergh.
	But too much plastic surgery, man.
	This is getting rough.
	Carl Benjamin, Sargon of a Cot, had a similar commentary.
	It's like, man, this does not look good.
	You can tell the plastic surgery, like, 10 miles away.
	It's like, whoa.
	Robert, that's Dylan Mulvaney.
	That's a man?
	That's a crocked out Dumb Day example.
	Oh, we gotta cut this off.
	This is torture.
	That's torture.
	I think we should be sued now for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	That's what Dylan Mulvaney thinks women are.
	They just go and they...
	Oh my goodness.
	I feel sick.
	Come over to VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com or go raid Salty Cracker and if I missed any super chats on commentary...
	Yeah, raid Salty Cracker.
	You know, Viva Barnes.
	Just put that in the chat.
	Salty's great.
	We've interviewed him here.
	One of the true great Americans.
	Another person being falsely accused of being woke, right?
	Salty's anything but woke, right?
	He's old school, populist.
	From the greatest political tradition in American history that informed our founders and informed the, you know, it's the greatest advocate of is one Alexander Emmerich Jones, who exposed 9-11 at the time, unlike many of his fellow conservative commentators.
	All right, I'm updating the stream, people.
	I'm blocked from reading.
	I cannot read Salty Cracker.
	Hold on.
	Give me two seconds.
	I'll do it here.
	So let's go to rumble.
	It's forward slash raid.
	He's in members only.
	Is he in members only mode?
	It could be.
	No, no.
	I can see it.
	Let me see if I can do it.
	And then we're going to do this here.
	So I go like this, like this.
	The command is forward slash raid.
	And then this.
	Oh, target channel.
	Target channel camp.
	So hold on a second.
	I go like this.
	I'm an idiot.
	No, no.
	Literally, I got the same error.
	It could be.
	What about that frog?
	He might have gone rumble only.
	Let's see here.
	Let's do it.
	Give me one second.
	I've sent too many messages.
	Okay, so scrap it.
	We'll have to go somewhere else.
	How about who else is live right now?
	We're just going to pick Nerd Rodic.
	No, Nerd Rodic is over.
	Oh, you know what?
	Cool Frog is live.
	Audience seems to like him.
	Okay, fine.
	Go, go.
	Let's do Bullfrog.
	He's known as Coolfrog, right?
	Yep.
	And he's often in our community and joins us quite regularly.
	Ah, cool.
	We just gave everyone...
	Go look up Coolfrog.
	Go watch him in Cryptos.
	Let me know when it's done and I will update on our side here.
	Takes about 45 seconds.
	Already triggered.
	All right.
	Let's see here.
	I'm doing my...
	No, I gotta...
	Ask Barnes about Ed's confirmation.
	Did I miss any Commitube comments?
	I think it's going to be too late if I did.
	Dylan Mulvaney.
	Well, at least, Robert, at least you can tell good surgery, wouldn't you?
	Oh, Sad Wings Raging gifted five users.
	Thank you very much.
	And Raider 208 gifted five Rumble Premium as well.
	Sad Wings, Raider, thank you very much.
	Those things, the notifications don't come up on Rumble with that, or on Rumble Studio.
	All right, we can do it?
	Good to go.

▲